GP2 frame rates

I recently upgraded to an K6 200 and a FIC 2007 motherboard. I was wonder what frame rate should I expect from GP2. I currently get estimated 16 fps in SVGA mode and 12.8 fps with everything on. :-( Is this to be expected? Since adding 32mb sdram I was able to overclock to 225 and not much change in frame rate. I have Screamin 3d rendition card to run ICR2 3d. I know that GP2 is not 3d accelerated game and I doubt it has anything to do with the Screamin' 3D card. Thanx, -- Nathan Brophy http://post.smu.edu/~nbrophy "Consciousness is the annoying time between naps" unknown

Try re-installing the game. After I upgraded my system GP2 slowed down so I re-installed it and that fixed it up just fine. -- Andrew Perkins ____ ICQ: 4274592 /__[]_[]__/ _ _ | |[]-----------------[]| | | |[]-----------------[]| | | |[]-----------------[]| | | |_____________________| | | | Production Manager | | | | DFL | | | |http://pages.infinit.| | | | net/nwo/ | | |_|_____________________|_|

Im not sure if this is right or not but I think that estimated frame rate is set to the machines configuration when you install the game. I seem to remember during installation a screen containing all the computers information cpu and such, the estimated frame rate might be based on that and thus will not change unless you reinstall. Todd. t>...

Quoted text (15 lines)

>I recently upgraded to an K6 200 and a FIC 2007 motherboard. I was >wonder what frame rate should I expect from GP2. I currently get >estimated 16 fps in SVGA mode and 12.8 fps with everything on. :-( Is >this to be expected? Since adding 32mb sdram I was able to overclock to >225 and not much change in frame rate. I have Screamin 3d rendition >card to run ICR2 3d. I know that GP2 is not 3d accelerated game and I >doubt it has anything to do with the Screamin' 3D card. >Thanx, >-- >Nathan Brophy >http://post.smu.edu/~nbrophy >"Consciousness is the annoying time between naps" unknown

They fact is that the frame-rate estimate does NOT really reflect the performance of the game, nor does the CPU occupance indication!!! I have a frame rate estimate of 23, but I choose only 18 to get a smoother performance. Still at some chicanes the game slows down, and accurate driving is almost impossible. I have a IBM 200+.

I recently upgrade to a PII-300 from a p5-166 and I would say my framerates doubled or nearly doubled. The frame rate estimator maybe a little fouled with non standard chips (and I think mine counts since it was not available) as the estimator says 21.6 fps with everything on but I can go to Monaco and it runs very smooth.I would say I am getting around 25fps there which means 30 or more on most other tracks.

Quoted text (15 lines)

>I recently upgraded to an K6 200 and a FIC 2007 motherboard. I was >wonder what frame rate should I expect from GP2. I currently get >estimated 16 fps in SVGA mode and 12.8 fps with everything on. :-( Is >this to be expected? Since adding 32mb sdram I was able to overclock to >225 and not much change in frame rate. I have Screamin 3d rendition >card to run ICR2 3d. I know that GP2 is not 3d accelerated game and I >doubt it has anything to do with the Screamin' 3D card. >Thanx, >-- >Nathan Brophy >http://post.smu.edu/~nbrophy >"Consciousness is the annoying time between naps" unknown

Sounds about right. My IBM 200+ will run very happily in SVGA at 16 fps (everything but sky)- so you only occaisonally get over 100% occupancy, except of course at Monaco.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> I recently upgraded to an K6 200 and a FIC 2007 motherboard. I was > wonder what frame rate should I expect from GP2. I currently get > estimated 16 fps in SVGA mode and 12.8 fps with everything on. :-( Is > this to be expected? Since adding 32mb sdram I was able to overclock to > 225 and not much change in frame rate. I have Screamin 3d rendition > card to run ICR2 3d. I know that GP2 is not 3d accelerated game and I > doubt it has anything to do with the Screamin' 3D card. > Thanx, > -- > Nathan Brophy > http://post.smu.edu/~nbrophy > "Consciousness is the annoying time between naps" unknown

Well I have a K6-200 on an ABIT motherboard and the estimate tells me to expect 25.6 and this is with everything turned on. The games itself runs VERY smoothly. Boy am I glad I didn't buy an Intel............ JohnGP (guess what remove .no.spam)

Sorry to say, but this sounds like pure bullshit....(unless you run VGA, that is) JoH Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>Well I have a K6-200 on an ABIT motherboard and the estimate tells me >>to expect 25.6 and this is with everything turned on. The games itself >>runs VERY smoothly. Boy am I glad I didn't buy an Intel............ >Sorry to say, but this sounds like pure bullshit....(unless you run VGA, that >is) >JoH

OK it's bullshit, I was making it up. My life is so sad I have nothing better to do than post on here to pinheads like you who don't believe a word I say. Do I care if you think it's bullshit, well no I don't. The fact is I have every graphic option ticked and yes on SVGA and the estimate says 25.6 fps. I repeat the action is very smooth. JohnGP (guess what remove .no.spam)

Quoted text (14 lines)

>John, >The important question is: what values do you get for processor >occupancy min-max? Especially at monaco. >> The fact is I have every graphic option ticked and yes on SVGA and the >> estimate says 25.6 fps. I repeat the action is very smooth. >-- > Cheers, > Richard. >Richard UNDERSCORE Beckett AT ecid DOT cig DOT mot DOT com

I would have thought the important question was; how does the game play........ Why the need for the great frame rate debate everytime. However all I can measure is processor usage which is 100% I am using the NO-CD utility if that makes any difference to the frame rate, I doubt that it does. JohnGP (guess what remove .no.spam)

Quoted text (12 lines)

> OK it's bullshit, I was making it up. My life is so sad I have nothing > better to do than post on here to pinheads like you who don't believe > a word I say. Do I care if you think it's bullshit, well no I don't. > The fact is I have every graphic option ticked and yes on SVGA and the > estimate says 25.6 fps. I repeat the action is very smooth. > JohnGP > (guess what remove .no.spam)

But what is your CPU occupancy at most tracks. What about Monaco?? Thanks. Mike \\ ----- Web Advertising - http://ads.pcsa.net.au ----- // \\ ------ Homepage - http://www.lt.pcsa.net.au ------ // \\ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= //

> I would have thought the important question was; how does the game > play........ Why the need for the great frame rate debate everytime. > However all I can measure is processor usage which is 100% You are truley kidding. Did you say K60 2000mhz? And the question is not FR but actual game speed. If the cpu occupancy goes above 100% then you are playing slow motion GP2. And forget about what the estimate says. BTW, what FR are you using? 8?

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> I would have thought the important question was; how does the game >> play........ Why the need for the great frame rate debate everytime. >> However all I can measure is processor usage which is 100% > You are truley kidding. Did you say K60 2000mhz? And the question is >not FR but actual game speed. If the cpu occupancy goes above 100% then >you are playing slow motion GP2. And forget about what the estimate >says. BTW, what FR are you using? 8?

Exactly game speed and not frame rate. Am I satisfied with the way the game looks and works? Yes I am. I'll say it just one more time; the game runs VERY quickly and is VERY smooth. I don't care if anyone doesn't think it should, I'm the one sitting here looking at it. Nathan originally said: All I came back with and said in my first posting was: Surely the point is that if we have the same cpu the estimate should be somewhere near the same, even if it's not a true representation of the actual frame rate. Suggesting that maybe there is something he can do to improve things. By the way I also get between 30 - 47 fps in Microsoft Flight Simulator 98, with everything turned on, using it's FR counter. And even Longbow2, who some with PII 300's have moaned about can be played with everything maxed out without too many problems. JohnGP (guess what remove .no.spam)

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Surely the point is that if we have the same cpu the estimate should > be somewhere near the same, even if it's not a true representation of > the actual frame rate. Suggesting that maybe there is something he can > do to improve things. > By the way I also get between 30 - 47 fps in Microsoft Flight > Simulator 98, with everything turned on, using it's FR counter. And > even Longbow2, who some with PII 300's have moaned about can be played > with everything maxed out without too many problems. > JohnGP > (guess what remove .no.spam)

My point is that if you take notice of the estimates or use the auto graphics stuff then you will be playing slow motion GP2. If I used the estimates my cpu would almost always be running over the 100% occupancy mark. To do this with a "sim" like GP2 is just a total joke. Microprose lied to us when they designed this estimate stuff to try and trick some of us into believing GP2 was running fine when it simply is not running well at all. I suppose some of us have gotten used to playing ICR2 at 30 + fps and running a proper sim at anything lower is just no good anymore. You just don't get the same control/smoothness/realism any other way. I have a P233MMX and a STB Lightspeed 128 Graphics card and from my point of view GP2 is still a long way away from being "fully" utilised. It's great for hotlaps at 25fps and minimal graphics though :) It's a real shame about GP2 come to think of it. As computers become fast enough to run it well, along comes F1RS and it's goodbye forever GP2. RIP. Maybe GP3 will make up for it.

This seems to differ from person to person. Personally, I'm very satisfied with 21fps. Then again, I HAVE to be since it's the maximum I can get without leaving SVGA. When I turn it down to 18fps, I start to see the difference. 16fps seems absolutely awful. Apparently, the longer you play with higher framerates, the more difficult it becomes to be satisfied with lower counts again. I remember having a lot of fun with F1GP on my Amiga, and that must have been something like 12fps! If I would still be able to enjoy such a low framerate, I could play GP2 SVGA full detail!! But we're spoiled... :-) That's why I don't believe John... I have a p166 classic, overclocked to 200Mhz(3*66Mhz busspeed) on an average motherboard with a "decent" videocard. If I want to run GP2 in SVGA, with 21fps and without PO getting over 100%, then I can only turn on track texture and maybe a few fences, nothing in the mirrors! When John says that he can turn *everything* on, also in the mirrors, and still get 25fps without PO getting over 100%, and all this on a K6 200, then he's JOKING. It's like saying that your brother measures 10 feet. It's IMPOSSIBLE. No matter how hard you try to convince us, John... I would like to hear some more details about your system, though! JoH Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

It has to be bullshit. I'm running my bus speed at 83MHz, SDRAM memory, Intel 166MMX processor. This means my setup is faster than a normal 225 Pentium. (compare the Norton Utilities benchmark: ordinary Pentium 166, 64MB EDO gives 37, my setup gives 64). With everything on except sky I can run at about 21fps (occupancy a little below 100). That's smooth with no slowdowns. My opinion is you don't know what you're talking about. Tuffe Wahlstrom

Quoted text (12 lines)

> OK it's bullshit, I was making it up. My life is so sad I have nothing > better to do than post on here to pinheads like you who don't believe > a word I say. Do I care if you think it's bullshit, well no I don't. > The fact is I have every graphic option ticked and yes on SVGA and the > estimate says 25.6 fps. I repeat the action is very smooth. > JohnGP > (guess what remove .no.spam)

On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:33:46 +0200, Torbjorn Wahlstrom

Quoted text (10 lines)

>It has to be bullshit. I'm running my bus speed at 83MHz, SDRAM memory, >Intel 166MMX processor. This means my setup is faster than a normal 225 >Pentium. >(compare the Norton Utilities benchmark: ordinary Pentium 166, 64MB EDO >gives 37, my setup gives 64). >With everything on except sky I can run at about 21fps (occupancy a >little below 100). That's smooth with no slowdowns. My opinion is you >don't know what you're talking about. >Tuffe Wahlstrom

Just a couple of points: Do I give a damn about your opinion, no, because it doesn't seem to be worth much. Using Norton Utilities benchmark, well I think enough said there........ Using this so called 'benchmark' my old Pentium 120Mhz with 32Mb EDO RAM gave a figure of 34. Just out of interest I've run it using my present system (K6-200) and got a figure of 78.6. It's running at a bus speed of 68.4Mhz so it's nearer to a K6-206. Perhaps your 166 setup isn't quite as fast as you like to think. How can I possibly compete with someone who's brain is so fast he can actually tell me he's getting 21fps. I wonder are you actually able to count them or is it perhaps just a wild guess? Finally I have never put a figure on how fast the game is running. ALL I said was that it's own estimate says >25.6 fps. I know this is not true, but that's what it says. ALL I have said about speed is that I am satisfied with the speed it is running on my system. However using you own figures, benchmark 64, frame rate 21fps. So according to Norton my machine is 22 percent faster and so should give me a frame rate of 25.6!!!!! Spooky or what.................... But I don't care, I'll say it for the last time for the hard of thinking. I am satisfied with whatever the frame rate is, the game runs very well on my system. END OF STORY. JohnGP (guess what remove .no.spam)

I think you are getting confused with VGA. When I look at VGA it says 25.6 and it can run below 100%. When I use SVGA with everything I get an estimate of 21.3. In Monaco with no other cars I get occupancies of between 80% and 160% at this level. This makes it unplayable in my book. My system is a Pentium2-300 with Millenium2 4meg board, 64 megs SDRAM, and UW SCSI subsystem. I think we are up against a software ceiling at this point because this is one sim that didnt improve much with my upgrade. Longbow2 went from near slideshow to silky smooth and CPR jumped to nearly 30fps (from 11-14). Either the engine running GP2 is maxed out well below P2 levels or we are going to have to wait for the Merced to see this albatross fly.

Quoted text (27 lines)

>>John, >>The important question is: what values do you get for processor >>occupancy min-max? Especially at monaco. >>> The fact is I have every graphic option ticked and yes on SVGA and the >>> estimate says 25.6 fps. I repeat the action is very smooth. >>-- >> Cheers, >> Richard. >>Richard UNDERSCORE Beckett AT ecid DOT cig DOT mot DOT com >I would have thought the important question was; how does the game >play........ Why the need for the great frame rate debate everytime. >However all I can measure is processor usage which is 100% >I am using the NO-CD utility if that makes any difference to the frame >rate, I doubt that it does. >JohnGP >(guess what remove .no.spam)

Oh dear, now I'm being told I don't know the difference between VGA and SVGA. Well I guess if the box next to SVGA is ticked then it's running in that mode. VGA tends to be rather blocky and horrible, and even at my advanced years if I sit close enough to the screen I can just about make that out................ If anyone would like to pop around sometime and have a look at the settings, what the estimate actually says and how the game plays then I'd be very pleased to see you. There are 2 things I'd like the answer to: 1. Why should I lie? 2. How are any of you able to give, what you think are accurate frame rates when the game doesn't have it's own counter? Is there a shareware frame counter that I've never heard of or are you just making it up, having a stab in the dark, or just plain guessing? JohnGP (guess what remove .no.spam)

Hi John, I think the whole confusion over this thread is that people think you're saying that you're getting 25fps with all detail when you can't on your system. (They haven't been very nice about saying this though...) Your misunderstanding is that you can set the fps to whatever you want, but the game won't necesserily run at that speed. What you need to do is while racing, press "o" (for Occupancy) to see how the game is performing. If it is over 100 percent, then you aren't getting the fps you thought you were. The game actually slows down a second so that you get that many frames in its "new definition of a second". For example, if you had 200 percent processor occupancy, you are really only getting 17.5 fps and the game has slowed down by half so that you are getting 25 fp "it's s" (if you see what I mean). A one minute lap time would actually take 2 mins real time on your watch at a constant 200 percent. The game is less accurate at >100 percent occupancy because it's not real time and your inputs are not being read quickly enough by the game. Try it and see what you get. (Hope I haven't misunderstood you too...BTW). Cheers, Gwyn.

I havent seen anybody give any info except the frame estimate that the graphics option page provides and processor occupancy. I think everybody s finding it a little hard to believe that a K6-200 can outperform a P2-300. I seriously doubt that that processor can outperform a p2-233. Dont take it to personally. I think some others corroborating your findings would change opinions but one person claiming a seemingly impossible figure is bound to raise some eyebrows. All benchmarks that I have seen of that processor leave a lot to be desired so that makes me skeptical. That doesnt necessarily carry over to the game but I think the numbers will be similar. Either way if you enjoy the game and are happy with your system then that is what counts.

Quoted text (29 lines)

>>I think you are getting confused with VGA. When I look at VGA it says >>25.6 and it can run below 100%. >Oh dear, now I'm being told I don't know the difference between VGA >and SVGA. >Well I guess if the box next to SVGA is ticked then it's running in >that mode. VGA tends to be rather blocky and horrible, and even at my >advanced years if I sit close enough to the screen I can just about >make that out................ >If anyone would like to pop around sometime and have a look at the >settings, what the estimate actually says and how the game plays then >I'd be very pleased to see you. >There are 2 things I'd like the answer to: >1. Why should I lie? >2. How are any of you able to give, what you think are accurate frame >rates when the game doesn't have it's own counter? Is there a >shareware frame counter that I've never heard of or are you just >making it up, having a stab in the dark, or just plain guessing? >JohnGP >(guess what remove .no.spam)

>Finally I have never put a figure on how fast the game is running. ALL >I said was that it's own estimate says >25.6 fps. I know this is not >true, but that's what it says. ALL I have said about speed is that I >am satisfied with the speed it is running on my system. True, you have only ever said that the "estimate" is >25.6 fps. So what frame rate *do* you actually have it set at? The estimated frame rate is meaningless and has little relation to what can actually be run with a PO less than 100%. BTW, as for wondering how people know what frame rate they are getting, it's simple. Provided the processor occupancy never gets above 100% you will get exactly the fps set in the graphics screen (NB: this is NOT, repeat NOT, the estimate). Please bring this thread to a conclusion by stating exactly what settings you have in your graphics option dialog and what PO you get when sitting at the back of the grid at Monaco. Cheers, Richard

Oh it must be Christmas, at last a couple of people who can read........ Exactly I have never claimed to be getting any particular frame rate, all along I have just said I'm happy with what I'm getting. The GP2 estimate does say >25.6 but of course I'm not getting that and I would never claim to, because I have no way of knowing, because I don't claim to be able to count frame rates. Perhaps the high estimate figure is a funny between GP2 and the K6, I have no way of knowing. I have just tried the 'o' key and found I'm averaging around 120 - 130 percent. At least I've learnt something, I didn't know about this key! I'm not going to get dragged into a debate about one cpu against another, and I'm not a great fan of benchmarks. In fact the only semi useful brenchmark program I have is Wintune97. Having compared my setup with the Pentium 200MMX in it's database I'm quite happy. Happy Christmas. JohnGP (guess what remove .no.spam)

Quoted text (21 lines)

>>Finally I have never put a figure on how fast the game is running. ALL >>I said was that it's own estimate says >25.6 fps. I know this is not >>true, but that's what it says. ALL I have said about speed is that I >>am satisfied with the speed it is running on my system. >True, you have only ever said that the "estimate" is >25.6 fps. So what >frame rate *do* you actually have it set at? The estimated frame rate is >meaningless and has little relation to what can actually be run with a PO >less than 100%. >BTW, as for wondering how people know what frame rate they are getting, >it's simple. Provided the processor occupancy never gets above 100% you >will get exactly the fps set in the graphics screen (NB: this is NOT, >repeat NOT, the estimate). >Please bring this thread to a conclusion by stating exactly what settings >you have in your graphics option dialog and what PO you get when sitting >at the back of the grid at Monaco. >Cheers, >Richard

So fine now I know where the magic frame rate figure comes from, thank you. Now I have to decide whether to actually tell you what figures I have, because looking back through this posting some are going to start saying I'm lying again. However, if I set it to 19.6, with everything on, using SVGA at Monaco I get an around 100%, every now and then going to a max of 107% So now I'll sit back and wait for the first posting telling me this is bullshit. I am rather confused though about this estimated fugure. This whole thing was started by Nathan, who is using the same cpu as me but gets an 'estimate' of 16fps. Why should mine be so much higher, at 25.6? How does GP2 arrive at this estimated figure? JohnGP (guess what remove .no.spam)

> BTW, as for wondering how people know what frame rate they are getting, > it's simple. Provided the processor occupancy never gets above 100% you > will get exactly the fps set in the graphics screen (NB: this is NOT, > repeat NOT, the estimate). Untrue. You will always get X fps no matter what the PO is. The game itself goes to slow motion unlike ICR2 which will decrease fps automatically to keep PO below 100%. A much better idea in ICR2 I dare say.

Quoted text (27 lines)

> Oh it must be Christmas, at last a couple of people who can > read........ > Exactly I have never claimed to be getting any particular frame rate, > all along I have just said I'm happy with what I'm getting. > The GP2 estimate does say >25.6 but of course I'm not getting that and > I would never claim to, because I have no way of knowing, because I > don't claim to be able to count frame rates. Perhaps the high > estimate figure is a funny between GP2 and the K6, I have no way of > knowing. > I have just tried the 'o' key and found I'm averaging around 120 - 130 > percent. At least I've learnt something, I didn't know about this key! > I'm not going to get dragged into a debate about one cpu against > another, and I'm not a great fan of benchmarks. In fact the only semi > useful brenchmark program I have is Wintune97. Having compared my > setup with the Pentium 200MMX in it's database I'm quite happy. > Happy Christmas. > JohnGP > (guess what remove .no.spam)

Just to clarify once again, whatever frame rate you set the game to will be the FR you get mo matter what. The sim just goes to slow motion when the CPU Occupancy goes over 100. The correct way to set the sim up is so that the CPU Occ never goes over 100% ie you never drive in slow motion mode. As far as you geting the >25fps estimate, maybe the game has a problem giving an estimate with the K6 since there were not many in use when GP2 was released. I just checked on my iP233MMX and it gave me an estimate of 17.0 fps with everything on. This would mean that maybe I could use 12 (hopefully) without exceeding the 100% cpu Occ. The estimates are a lie designed to hide the shortcomings of GP2 graphically.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> BTW, as for wondering how people know what frame rate they are getting, >> it's simple. Provided the processor occupancy never gets above 100% you >> will get exactly the fps set in the graphics screen (NB: this is NOT, >> repeat NOT, the estimate). > Untrue. You will always get X fps no matter what the PO is. The game >itself goes to slow motion unlike ICR2 which will decrease fps >automatically to keep PO below 100%. A much better idea in ICR2 I dare >say.

Untrue yourself <g> You don't "get X fps no matter what the PO is", you get X frames per simulated second which is a very different matter. If set to 25fps and with a PO of 200% then it may be 25 frames per game second, but it is 12.5 frames per real life second. You only get the stated actual fps if PO os kept below 100% (and for the pedantic, even then it doesn't run in quite real time :( ) Cheers, Richard

Quoted text (15 lines)

> t> > >I recently upgraded to an K6 200 and a FIC 2007 motherboard. I wa > s > >wonder what frame rate should I expect from GP2. I currently get > >estimated 16 fps in SVGA mode and 12.8 fps with everything on. :-( > Is > >this to be expected? Since adding 32mb sdram I was able to overclo > ck to > >225 and not much change in frame rate. I have Screamin 3d renditi > on > >card to run ICR2 3d. I know that GP2 is not 3d accelerated game an > d I > >doubt it has anything to do with the Screamin' 3D card.

I have a K6 200 (clocked to 225) with 32Mb sd ram, and gp2 screems along nicely. Check out any of the good gp2 websites for comaprisons of gp2 performance on different machines. With your set-up you should get *max* frame rates (25 fps) in svga with *all* details on, but you will suffer greater than 100% cpu occupancy on some tracks, especially Monaco. Turn off the sky, and some mirror details and you will get near perfect results on every track? If you are not getting this, then you do not have your pc set-up right? or you have a problem with your pc? 8?) * Peter * 8-) Please remove asterix from address to email.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> BTW, as for wondering how people know what frame rate they are getting, >> it's simple. Provided the processor occupancy never gets above 100% you >> will get exactly the fps set in the graphics screen (NB: this is NOT, >> repeat NOT, the estimate). > Untrue. You will always get X fps no matter what the PO is. The game >itself goes to slow motion unlike ICR2 which will decrease fps >automatically to keep PO below 100%. A much better idea in ICR2 I dare >say.

Not true. For instance 25 fps means 25 frames EACH SECOND and sometimes that's not possible on a slow computer. However GP2 does generate the 25 pictures (frames) and shows them as fast as possible - but it will use MORE than a second, and therefore you will experience slowmotion. If it uses for example 2 seconds to show the 25 frames then the actual frame rate is: 25 frames/2 sec = 12.5 FPS. (and the PO will be around 2*100%=200%) If PO is below 100% then you are getting exactly the selected FPS - the CPU has enough time to generate and display the selected amount of frames within a second. You are right about ICR2 - it uses a model where a "game second" is equal to a "real world second". When the framerate drops, the car travels a greater distance between the two frames which avoids slowmotion. -- Aegis

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >> BTW, as for wondering how people know what frame rate they are getting, > >> it's simple. Provided the processor occupancy never gets above 100% you > >> will get exactly the fps set in the graphics screen (NB: this is NOT, > >> repeat NOT, the estimate). > > Untrue. You will always get X fps no matter what the PO is. The game > >itself goes to slow motion unlike ICR2 which will decrease fps > >automatically to keep PO below 100%. A much better idea in ICR2 I dare > >say. > Untrue yourself <g> You don't "get X fps no matter what the PO is", you > get X frames per simulated second which is a very different matter. If > set to 25fps and with a PO of 200% then it may be 25 frames per game > second, but it is 12.5 frames per real life second. > You only get the stated actual fps if PO os kept below 100% (and for the > pedantic, even then it doesn't run in quite real time :( ) > Cheers, > Richard

Good point. Please don't make me think that much again :) (I could argue that GP2 puts us in a different time frame but that would be silly).

That seemed to be the problem: you might be a GP2 nut, but not nearly as nuts as most of US are.. ;-) Actually, this sounds much more plausible. You could still be lying, but it's not as obvious any more :-) I advise you to keep this setting, because once you tasted higher framerates (with lower detail), it's difficult to go back and be satisfied with 19.6fps. It's crap, that's all....And they needed a way to make it look that GP2 was playable on a DX2/66. JoH Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>(I could argue that GP2 puts us in a different time frame but that would be >silly). Probably not that far off the truth though ;-) Cheers, Richard

.... untrue.../true.../wrong..../opposite... etc... etc... .... Let me stop this useless discussion by telling that ALL of you are right: it just depends whether you are talking in "real"time or in "GP2"time. Time is relative, as Einstein said before I could come up with it... :-) JoH Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>The estimates are a lie designed to hide the shortcomings of GP2 >graphically. All these discussions about Gp2 tell me one thing: the 3D engine of GP2 sucks! (or could it be that all the physics modelling eat up so much of the CPU power?...) Rui

> <cut> >Let me stop this useless discussion by telling that ALL of you are right: it >just depends whether you are talking in "real"time or in "GP2"time. >Time is relative, as Einstein said before I could come up with it... :-) So there we have it - Sir Newton's laws of physics was just not good enough for mr Crammond! Noo, no - he had to implement som Einstein theory in GP2 - time decreases when speed increases. Holy cow, have I often travelled near lightspeed in that sim ..... :-))) -- Aegis

On the contrary - I think GP2 may well have the best graphics engine around. Remember - it is using no hardware acceleration from additional graphics cards like more recent games. I used to get a good frame rate with some of the detail turned off on a P133, but that is not the case of any recent game on my P200. Seems to me that most programmers these days don't fine tune the performance of their graphics code much because the 3D cards ultimately do the work for them. Two years ago when Crammond was writing GP2, he didn't have that luxury and his straight code to do all that calculation in real time does indeed use up a lot of CPU, but is faster than any other game I can think of without 3D acceleration built in (except maybe the original ICR2). I began to think I couldn't run games any more on a P200, but since I've got my 3dfx card, I've apparantly doubled the speed of my system. Just try running any recent games in non-accelerated mode and I think you'll find the graphics are much less acceptable than in GP2. Cheers, Gwyn.

D. Gwyn Jones I did a similar upgrade: P100 > P200 (non MMX; just changed the CPU for a bargain!). The frame rates improved a lot, but it is still impossible to play GP2 in SVGA without removing some of the trackside objects. BTW, when I say "impossible", I mean I stick with 25.6 fps with no concessions whatsoever. I give a lot more importance to the speed and the feeling of the driving than to the graphics, but on the other hand, I'm not particularly fond of driving in a desert!!! So, I tend to use mostly the VGA mode, boosting up as many graphics as I can. Spoiled people...remember the miracles and the wonders that the games programmers used to do with the ZX Spectrum and it's fantastic 3.5 MHz 8 bit processor and it's gigantic 41 Kb for code placing??? Right! Now you said it all! ICR runs silky smooooooth on SVGA with everything on on my P200 (it almost did so on my former P100)! Now, why the heck can't the same happen in GP2??? The only explanation is the sophisticated physics modelling...because the landscape and all the trackside stuff look pretty nice in ICR2. Motoracer runs nicely fast... my graphics card is still an old one: a S3 868 (Genoa Phantom 64), but anyway it's an arcade game: almost no physical laws to simulate... Cheers, Rui

That's a pretty weak argument though Gwyn. Taking the above example, I could say that F1RS was designed to run with a 3D accelerator and gives a good frame-rate. GP2 was designed to run without a 3D accelerator and cannot. That's nothing to do with the 3D accelerator, since it was never intended that GP2 rely on one. Software companies need to make the best use of the platorm they are designing for, and I would argue that a program like F1RS achieves a much better result than GP2. Cheers! John

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >Just try running any recent games in non-accelerated > >mode and I think you'll find the graphics are much less acceptable > >than in GP2. > That's a pretty weak argument though Gwyn. Taking the above example, I > could say that F1RS was designed to run with a 3D accelerator and > gives a good frame-rate. GP2 was designed to run without a 3D > accelerator and cannot. > That's nothing to do with the 3D accelerator, since it was never > intended that GP2 rely on one. Software companies need to make the > best use of the platorm they are designing for, and I would argue that > a program like F1RS achieves a much better result than GP2.

You're right, John - when I reread my post, it didn't sound very well put. All I was trying to say was to disagree with the statement that the GP2 graphics engine sucks. It's actually very well written. While I agree with you that it didn't work too well with the hardware available at the time of its release, there is no taking away from the quality of Geoff's code that has to do absolutely everything in-line. Sure, it is only with today's processors that you can actually run it at the intended frame rate, but I doubt it could be easily beaten by any other coder without hardware acceleration. I guess my point was that Geoff had a pretty tough task, but comparing his engine to today's games is apples and oranges. Before getting a 3d card, I could play GP2 at decent frame rate but not the newer games (even if they said I could, they were too slow). Of course now I have a 3dfx card my eyes have been opened and I will find it very hard to go back to GP2 after F1RS. Cheers, and Happy New Year (I'm off to party!) -- Gwyn.

> Spoiled people...remember the miracles and the wonders that the game > s > programmers used to do with the ZX Spectrum and it's fantastic 3.5 M > Hz 8 > bit processor and it's gigantic 41 Kb for code placing??? I thought only *32kb* was used by the code? Which makes it even more remarkable!!!! 8?) * Peter * 8-) Please remove asterix from address to email.

I think if you actually compare the amount of textures you will see that (non-3D) ICR2 and GP2 have pretty similar performing graphics engines. Papy made a wise decision with ICR2 to create the atmosphere of the tracks rather than to try and put textures everywhere. Compare for instance the amount of tree textures used at Elkhart Lake to, say, GP2's Monza. CHeers, Richard

In my opinion the driving model is the most important part of a racing sim. Of course I also want it to look as good as possible, but that does come second place. As some mentioned in some other postings, the accurate calculations for the driving model of GP2 take up quite a share of time, leaving less for the graphics calculations compared to other games. I think the driving model of GP2 still is far from beaten, maybe even the one of GP1. Geoff understood was he was creating, a !simulator!. When trying out ICR2 (no-3D version at the time), it looked incredible compared to GP1, but I didn't have any doubts about preferring GP1 above ICR2. And that was only because of the driving model. -- Ren van Lobberegt, The Netherlands. Personal Web Site : http://www.toptown.com/INNERCIRCLE/1846/ Webmaster of AMCA Web Site : http://home.pi.net/~amcarcnl/

As in flight sims, I believe there are a number of elements that must be present. One, like the above, might be paramount, but it better not fall too far behind in the others. I'd list them as... a) driving(flight) model b) framerate c) graphics d) AI (not important if driving/flying solo) For flight sims, another element is systems/weapons modeling. The only way something similar comes into play in racing sims is the modeling of the car mods (which I'd say is part of the driving model). I don't buy this as a reason for its slower SVGA performance. Just look at how fast it is in VGA. If the *physics* took a large percentage of the SVGA processor load, VGA would be slower than it is. I don't really understand the veneration of Crammond we see here. Yes, I loved GP1, and played to forever (which, one might argue, is the true test of a game?). When GP2 came out, I ran out to buy it. But moreso than with GP1, perhaps due to the slower framerate, I find myself chagrined by the choice of a fixed framerate system. Why the heck would any designer (ease of programming aside?) choose this? To get a fast framerate, you get extreme slowdowns in crowded scenes. To get accurate timing (I argue critical for driving), you have to choose a low framerate, or knock the graphics down to the lowest common denominator. Worst of both worlds. ICR2's system is far superior, IMHO. If I had a PII-233 or above, maybe I wouldn't be as down on GP2... (before suggesting VGA, I'll just point out that it, like many SVGA games' VGA, is just too darn ugly. Far worse than a VGA-only game's would have been).

<snip> I don't think that's true... VGA looked OK to me as long as I didn't have the possibility to run any kind of SVGA (as long as I owned my DX2/66, in other words :-) ) VGA mode only looks bad after you got used to SVGA, that's all... JoH Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Why thank you :-) Ouch! I might have said that too. But I loaded up GP1 as a comparison and preferred it to GP2's VGA! Also, look at the VGA in ICR2 compared to ICR1. The dash in ICR2 is much blockier and hard to read. I've noted the same thing in quite a few VGA/SVGA games. They just don't spend as much time making the VGA graphics attractive as they did in the past.

>Why thank you :-) Don't get too e***d! That's just standard stuff...I can't be bothered to change that each time I reply to a nitwit!! ;-D JoH Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Im not sure if this is right or not but I think that estimated frame rate > is set to the machines configuration when you install the game. I seem to > remember during installation a screen containing all the computers > information cpu and such, the estimated frame rate might be based on that > and thus will not change unless you reinstall. > Todd. > t>... > >I recently upgraded to an K6 200 and a FIC 2007 motherboard. I was > >wonder what frame rate should I expect from GP2. I currently get > >estimated 16 fps in SVGA mode and 12.8 fps with everything on. :-( Is > >this to be expected? Since adding 32mb sdram I was able to overclock to > >225 and not much change in frame rate. I have Screamin 3d rendition > >card to run ICR2 3d. I know that GP2 is not 3d accelerated game and I > >doubt it has anything to do with the Screamin' 3D card. > >Thanx, > >-- > >Nathan Brophy > >http://post.smu.edu/~nbrophy > >"Consciousness is the annoying time between naps" unknown

I just bought the Screaming 3D video card to speed up the GPII frame rate on my Pentium 133, but it did actually slow it down, although it boosted my video ram to 4 Mb (instead of 2) :-(. Indycar II runs well though, but the game is nothing to compare with GPII (to my taste anyway). Any idea why? Did I miss something installing it, or did I choose the wrong card? Any help appreciated Thank you Guy Vincent

First of all (if you didn't know): GP2 doesn't support any 3D accel since there was no real 3Dcard-"standard" at the time! Then some tips to get good performance: The game is 1.5 years old. At the time, NO machine was capable of running it full-detail, SVGA 25fps with a processor occupancy under 100% all the time. At THIS moment, you'll need AT LEAST a PII 300 to get that performance always and everywhere (not speaking about external views and moments when you get smoke in your view... That will take a PII-600 or something....) You should always set the framerate about 2fps lower than the "recommended" to get fluid action. Running in DOS makes another slight improvement (I "feel" the difference as 1-2 fps compared with running from Win95). You could also replace the***pit graphic by one of the many available on the Net. Some have a bigger "display", leaving a smaller area of the screen to be updated. This can also make you gain some fps. (as smaller mirrors would do?) AND you could overclock your processor (although I don't think a p133 is the best processor to do this :-) ) As you can see, lots of possibilities to get better performance! But don't let frustration for missing 2-3fps spoil the game for you. It's excellent stuff anyway! JoH Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=