CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

As an x owner of CPR, I am just amazed at the questionable performance are getting even with the new patch. I heard someone say from a previous post, after installing the patch my framerates improved from the lower *** to the mid to high ***s! WOW thats an improvement? Getting *** framerates with acceleration is just BS. On my P233/32megs/Monster3d system the game ran OK for an accelerated game but did NOT compare to the framerates in Motoracer, which was D3D also. I don't know, maybe its just me, but a product coming from Micr$oft with the strides that we've made today in accelration technology, I just sit back and look at CPR and say................ Nah! Back to F1RS Tony Gaylord - Portland, OR Member: The 3DFX Brotherhood

Hi Tony, Im sorry but I have to say thats not been my experience. If you like I have some full screen shots with the fps counter showing 50+ fps I can E-mail to you they are in BMP format and are 900Kbs each I can zip them and they will probably be about 600Kbs. As far as Microsoft goes well it always amazes me how many diss them while typing these notes or playing other games on what a MAC I bet your using W95 right? Hehe I am not trying to argue as Ive said I like both F1rs and CPR but to those who cry they cant be getting good fps now I say I will E-mail these Hypersnaps to anyone who wants or needs to see to believe. Now remember I said the D3D gets 50+ but has slight flashing well I am starting to see a connection with the flash and when I brake or up shift my GP1 wheel I will be checking. In the mean time I am getting 30-32fps in software mode and it looks great. Aloha, Mike

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Hi Tony, Im sorry but I have to say thats not been my experience. If you >like I have some full screen shots with the fps counter showing 50+ fps I >can E-mail to you they are in BMP format and are 900Kbs each I can zip them >and they will probably be about 600Kbs. ... >Hehe I am not trying to argue as Ive said I like both F1rs and CPR >but to those who cry they cant be getting good fps now I say I will E-mail >these Hypersnaps to anyone who wants or needs to see to believe. Now >remember I said the D3D gets 50+ but has slight flashing well I am starting >to see a connection with the flash and when I brake or up shift my GP1 >wheel I will be checking. In the mean time I am getting 30-32fps in >software mode and it looks great. Aloha, Mike

You must have AT L:EAST a P2 300 with a 3dfx if you're getting 50 fps hardware/30 fps software. I haven't seen a single other person who's gotten 30 fps even with hardware acceleration. About 20 fps seems more like the norm on a normal (i..e, P200 w/3dfx) range system. What a bizarre argument. Because Microsoft makes operating systems that many of us use, their other non-OS products are not supposed to be criticized for their shortcomings? Joe

Well, it is not even appropriate to compare framerate with one racing sim to another one like MS CART. First, framerates are determined by the quality of the sim as well as the amount of textures. MS CART has some very graphic textures. I would never get tired in looking at them. Sure, anyone can disable texture mapping, Z-buffer, perspective, and so forth in their 3Dfx. You would definitely get a higher framerate. But the game would not be enjoyable. -- Victor Chan

>You must have AT L:EAST a P2 300 with a 3dfx if you're getting 50 fps >hardware/30 fps software. I haven't seen a single other person who's >gotten 30 fps even with hardware acceleration. About 20 fps seems more >like the norm on a normal (i..e, P200 w/3dfx) range system. I consistently get 40 frames with my 200 MMX and my Viper 330 when I am testing (alone) and using the HUD only. It drops to 32 - 35 when I turn on the dash. With a full field, I get 25 - 35 depending on track and how close i am to other cars. -Paul

but did NOT compare to the framerates in Motoracer, which was D3D also. >> And CPR just TOTALLY blew chunks when compared to my little polygon program which spins around a little triangle, which was D3D also. I think you see where I'm going with this. I agree with you to a point, but also consider that Moto Racer is not CPR. The two are so different in scope and physics that its really not fair to use Moto Racer to judge CPR. Using F1RS or Road to Indy sim as a comparison is a little more fair, given the similar problems that the games have to solve. Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

Quoted text (7 lines)

> You must have AT L:EAST a P2 300 with a 3dfx if you're getting 50 fps > hardware/30 fps software. I haven't seen a single other person who's > gotten 30 fps even with hardware acceleration. About 20 fps seems more > like the norm on a normal (i..e, P200 w/3dfx) range system. > >As far > >as Microsoft goes well it always amazes me how many diss them while

typing

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >these notes or playing other games on what a MAC I bet your using W95 > >right? > What a bizarre argument. Because Microsoft makes operating systems > that many of us use, their other non-OS products are not supposed to > be criticized for their shortcomings? > Joe > Umm, Well actually its a Dell 233MMX PII AGP- I am running a STB

Velocity128AGP vid card which I believe in games written for D3D it is faster than a 3dfx card. As far as the fps goes I think I am not the only one getting these speeds now with the patch. Stay tuned as I am sure more will be reporting shortly. The MS thing I shouldnt have brought up but I just get tired of hearing Microsoft blah blah blah.Your right companies should be responsible for thier products and I think Terminal Reality is doing a hell of a good job with this first patch. This is thier 1st patch and its quite excellent lets give them a chance to give what we have all been asking for ;-) Aloha, Mike

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:29:53 -0800, "Paul Sanders"

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>You must have AT L:EAST a P2 300 with a 3dfx if you're getting 50 fps >>hardware/30 fps software. I haven't seen a single other person who's >>gotten 30 fps even with hardware acceleration. About 20 fps seems more >>like the norm on a normal (i..e, P200 w/3dfx) range system. >I consistently get 40 frames with my 200 MMX and my Viper 330 when I am >testing (alone) and using the HUD only. It drops to 32 - 35 when I turn on >the dash. With a full field, I get 25 - 35 depending on track and how close >i am to other cars. >-Paul

Why don't you tell us how much graphics your showing and how much detail you have on in the distance. If all your options are on your FPS count is pure fiction. I've got a PII 266 with Righteous/ Mystique and my FPS is about 32 fps outside the***pit practicing and 28-30 inside. This is with all graphics options on and a settting of about 20 for distance graphics. I'm sure it won't be long until someone with a 386 says they get 70 fps--lots of exaggeration going on out there. Dan P. _______________ Remove 99 in my address to reply

> Umm, Well actually its a Dell 233MMX PII AGP- I am running a STB >Velocity128AGP vid card which I believe in games written for D3D it is >faster than a 3dfx card. As far as the fps goes I think I am not the only >one getting these speeds now with the patch. Stay tuned as I am sure more >will be reporting shortly. There is NO WAY you are getting 50 FPS in CPR on that hardware, unless you have turned off all graphics options including tectures. Simply not happening. Joe

OK this is the last time I hope I have to say this: I am running Auto full screen-dashboard-tire effects=none-mirrors cars only- Image Best- Object brightness 75%- clipping 18%- window 100% OK? Now let me also repeat this: In D3D mode there is a flashing which Im not sure but I think its caused or connected to my GP1 as it occurs during braking and up-shifts. So....... I run the sim in software acceleration and get with those same options 30+ fps OK? What the heck is the problem here? You think maybe I get some kind of prize for this? Man I never imagined posting my fps would cause so much heat!! I said before I WILL send you a screen shot if you like OK? You would think this being a racing sim news group people would be more inclined to say " hey wow maybe I can also get these fps" Instead of BULLSHIT!! You know a lot of variables go into running a program things which are beyond the control of even the makers of whatever software. How do they know we even have our systems set up to run at optimal? How well versed are you in setting up yours? This is the last time I am responding to this nonsense if you want a BMP with the screen shot showing 50+ say so ok if not dont in so few words say I am not telling the truth cause like I said I get no prize for posting my fps findings! Mike

% Hi Tony, Im sorry but I have to say thats not been my experience. If you % like I have some full screen shots with the fps counter showing 50+ fps I % can E-mail to you they are in BMP format and are 900Kbs each I can zip them % and they will probably be about 600Kbs. As far % as Microsoft goes well it always amazes me how many diss them while typing % these notes or playing other games on what a MAC I bet your using W95 % right? Hehe I am not trying to argue as Ive said I like both F1rs and CPR % but to those who cry they cant be getting good fps now I say I will E-mail % these Hypersnaps to anyone who wants or needs to see to believe. Now % remember I said the D3D gets 50+ but has slight flashing well I am starting % to see a connection with the flash and when I brake or up shift my GP1 % wheel I will be checking. In the mean time I am getting 30-32fps in % software mode and it looks great. Aloha, Mike I am not arguing with anyone who quotes high frame rates. However, I am extremely interested in the Highest and the Lowest numbers. I think it is also important to explain how one has the sim tuned when getting these numbers (what's turned on or off, how may cars -- solo? 12 cars? full field?). Over the years I have found that when frame rates drop below 20, the sim becomes "uncontrollable". 18 fps is the bare mimimum I've ever been able to enjoy a sim (GP1/2, N1/2, or ICR1/2). 25 fps and I am satisfied. 28-30 fps and I am happy. I do need a***pit to make me happy. It would therefore be extremely helpful to not only include the hardware when reporting frame rates, but also the settings and the number of cars, plus the high, low and average fps. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

But he *IS* the author of "Inside Lotus Script" -- that's gotta count for *something*, right? ;) Bart Brown

I'm am getting 35-40 fps with all graphics at max. Full clipping, dash, everything. This was before and after patch. Not using PII or AGP. Running a AsusTX97-E motherboard,64meg SDRAM, Pure3d, 233mmx. The only reason I am getting this result is by overclocking the 233mmx at 3.5x83 "290.5". The fps is without AI cars. With full grid ahead it drops to about 25fps. I also have a Total3d 128v for 2d and some d3d games. It does get on average between 5 and 10 fps higher then the Pure3d. But in CPR it is useless because of the flashing graphics. In 2d it runs around 25fps but is ugly as heck. I also can get 50fps by killing the dash, reducing clipping, and selecting cars only in mirrors, but how can people compare systems,fps, video cards, etc when everyone uses different settings. I say turn everything on to slow graphics then after running several laps at different tracks try and get an average framerate to talk about. Oh ya change your sound options to stereo for a nice frame slowdown. Even on my system I run in mono sound. Could this be the reason for some peoples poor results? If you read this far thanks and here is MHO on the beta patch. Null zone slidder nice. Framerate increase not noticeable. Graphical apperance seems the same. Still get flashing with the Total3d 128v even though all other d3d games I have tried worked great? AI does seem better, but still act scared going into corners. With skill adjusted to pro and 999,999 in .ini file I still lapped entire field in short 10 or 12 lap race at Michigan. Oh yea that was my first try 8). Overall I thank CPS's team for working on patch and pray this is just the start of shaping this game into a real simulation. How about a way to race yourself with a "ghosting" option similar to F1RS. That would add alot to offline racers. Mike Mellendorf

Quoted text (25 lines)

>> There is NO WAY you are getting 50 FPS in CPR on that hardware, >> unless you have turned off all graphics options including tectures. >> Simply not happening. >> Joe > OK this is the last time I hope I have to say this: I am running Auto full >screen-dashboard-tire effects=none-mirrors cars only- Image Best- Object >brightness 75%- clipping 18%- window 100% OK? > Now let me also repeat this: In D3D mode there is a flashing which Im not >sure but I think its caused or connected to my GP1 as it occurs during >braking and up-shifts. So....... I run the sim in software acceleration and >get with those same options 30+ fps OK? >What the heck is the problem here? You think maybe I get some kind of prize >for this? Man I never imagined posting my fps would cause so much heat!! I >said before I WILL send you a screen shot if you like OK? You would think >this being a racing sim news group people would be more inclined to say " >hey wow maybe I can also get these fps" Instead of BULLSHIT!! You know a >lot of variables go into running a program things which are beyond the >control of even the makers of whatever software. How do they know we even >have our systems set up to run at optimal? How well versed are you in >setting up yours? This is the last time I am responding to this nonsense if >you want a BMP with the screen shot showing 50+ say so ok if not dont in so >few words say I am not telling the truth cause like I said I get no prize >for posting my fps findings! Mike

Mike, There is absolutely NO way that it is dark at night! ;) Bart

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:31:43 -0500, "Victor Chan" >Well, it is not even appropriate to compare framerate with one racing sim to >another one like MS CART. First, framerates are determined by the quality >of the sim as well as the amount of textures. IMO you have this totally back to front. Since a racing _simulation_ requires smooth and consistent visual cues to be fed to the driver, the framerate is of paramount importance. For that reason it is the framerate which should define the number of testures and features, not the other way around. First of all your game engine must be capable of delivering the requisite 25fps+, and only then do you start looking at how many features and textures you can burden it with. If, like MS-CPR, 25fps can only be achieved when the games looks like something out of "The Sentinel" then you need to consider a new approach. Cheers! John

>the other way around. First of all your game engine must be capable of >delivering the requisite 25fps+, and only then do you start looking at >how many features and textures you can burden it with. To each his own, but I think this is total BS. I bet if products didn't have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output. Some people here have even claimed they can tell the difference between 27 and 30fps. I don't buy it. My P100 with a Monster 3Dfx runs N2 at around 20fps, and MTM at around 18fps. Both give a smooth sensation of driving from inside the***pit. Only when the rate drops below 15fps do individual frames begin jumping out, and only under 12fps is when I can begin recognizing almost each individual frame. Either 95% of you guys have absolutely amazing eyesight, or seeing Quake running at 45fps+ has made you believe that other games are actually pushing as much polygons and have as detailed simulation/AI/game logic as these sims. Neither is true. Rich

>To each his own, but I think this is total BS. I bet if products didn't >have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think >they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output. Nonsense. The difference between 15-18 fps and 30 fps is like night and day. Personally, I find anything less than 25 fps intolerable, unplayable. At 30+ fps things become very comfortable. I'm looking forward to Voodoo2 which should make 30+fps the norm. Joe

I never stated there was no difference between 15 and 30fps -- I directly stated anyone saying they could tell the difference between 27fps and 30fps either has incredible eyesight or is stretching the truth. The crux of my post which you disagree with is that no game under 25fps is intolerable. That is what I call nonsense -- just what DID you play back in the days of the 486? Rich

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>To each his own, but I think this is total BS. I bet if products didn't >>have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think >>they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output. >Nonsense. The difference between 15-18 fps and 30 fps is like night >and day. Personally, I find anything less than 25 fps intolerable, >unplayable. At 30+ fps things become very comfortable. I'm looking >forward to Voodoo2 which should make 30+fps the norm. >Joe

> I never stated there was no difference between 15 and 30fps -- I directly > stated anyone saying they could tell the difference between 27fps and 30fps > either has incredible eyesight or is stretching the truth. The crux of my > post which you disagree with is that no game under 25fps is intolerable. > That is what I call nonsense -- just what DID you play back in the days of > the 486? Any thing that would run on a 386. :-)

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Rich > >>To each his own, but I think this is total BS. I bet if products didn't > >>have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think > >>they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output. > >Nonsense. The difference between 15-18 fps and 30 fps is like night > >and day. Personally, I find anything less than 25 fps intolerable, > >unplayable. At 30+ fps things become very comfortable. I'm looking > >forward to Voodoo2 which should make 30+fps the norm. > >Joe

-- Thank You Marc Johnson Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside a dog, it is too dark to read -Mark Twain

Cmon Michael, why do you need a***pit. Just imagine your Superman, hehehehehehehehehehe. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's ............ Besides, if your fast you don't need those mirrors. In fact Art Axlerad reckons it's a good excuse (hud mode) when you take someone out on the Zone, though I doubt he need worry much :)

On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 09:50:19 -0600, "Richard Harvey" >To each his own, but I think this is total BS. I bet if products didn't >have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think >they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output. Some people here have even >claimed they can tell the difference between 27 and 30fps. I don't buy it. Someday hopefully "BS" will cease to be the language of choice for disagreement, carrying with it all the connotations of disparaging the other person's opinion rather than merely disagreeing. Until the, grin and bear it.... I must say that I never expected anyone to wheel out the old simracing equivalent of "the earth is flat" argument. It's a well known fact that frame-rate makes a huge difference to the smoothness and precision of your driving - the faster the frame-rate, the more feedback you are getting from the screen and the more opportunity you have to make control input to the sim. Now whether or not you are able to take advantage of the above, it remains a fact. What is true is that a faster frame-rate gives you more latitude for feedback and control input - the question is, can you take advantage of it? Apparently not, but others most assuredly can. Cheers! John

[bandwidth conserving snip] John, I'd like to say that IMHO a consistent frame rate of 21fps is more preferable than an average of 25fps with a high of 30 and a low of 15 I think thats why F1GP was so good, even when in traffic the frame rate was about the same. I expect that GP2 with a P2-300 would give similiar results. Of course the higher the consistent rate the better. (for the reasons you stated above) Regards, David

>I never stated there was no difference between 15 and 30fps -- I directly >stated anyone saying they could tell the difference between 27fps and 30fps >either has incredible eyesight or is stretching the truth. The crux of my >post which you disagree with is that no game under 25fps is intolerable. >That is what I call nonsense -- just what DID you play back in the days of >the 486? Around then I was probably playing 3DO games, at about 25 fps. In the days of the 386 it would have probably been an Amiga. Not until P100+ Pentiums did PCs become an attractive/usable *** platform to me. Joe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >To each his own, but I think this is total BS. I bet if products didn't > >have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think > >they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output. > Nonsense. The difference between 15-18 fps and 30 fps is like night > and day. Personally, I find anything less than 25 fps intolerable, > unplayable. At 30+ fps things become very comfortable. I'm looking > forward to Voodoo2 which should make 30+fps the norm. > Joe

Most TVs display frames at around 25 fps. The human eye cannot detect framerates above much higher than this. This is why I cannot understand why so many of you *need* 30+fps to play a racing sim properly. I play GP2 at 19.2 fps, and while its not perfect, it is definitely not unplayable. -Jono Hill

Agreed. although since this thread originated from CPR where I _still_ have pauses and stutters due to texture loading this is a bit of a sore point. I guess that 64Mb of RAM just isn't enough :) Cheers! John

Oh bollocks, not _this_ old chestnut again. We've been through this 50 million times, and it's been re-hashed over and over again what the human eye can and cannot detect. I would suggest you do a dejanews search and gen up on the most up-to-date info. As far as simracing goes you get faster lap times when driving with 30fps than when driving with 19fps - I'll leave you to argue about why, the mere fact itself means I always strive for the fastest frame-rate I can get. Cheers! John

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>Most TVs display frames at around 25 fps. The human eye cannot detect >>framerates above much higher than this. This is why I cannot understand >Oh bollocks, not _this_ old chestnut again. >We've been through this 50 million times, and it's been re-hashed over >and over again what the human eye can and cannot detect. I would >suggest you do a dejanews search and gen up on the most up-to-date >info.

Just to settle it once and for all (as if THAT would ever happen! =) ), all of you who doubt that the eye can see greater than 25-30 fps, go to E*** (www.e***.com) and search for the following: human eye refresh rate. Reading through the first few hits should be enough to convince you that the human eye is capable of sensing individual frames up to at least 60 - 70 hz. "Standard" video frame rates vary from 24 - 30 fps, while movies display at 48 fps. Typical computer monitors display at between 60 and 100 hz (fps). At any speed above 70, the refresh should be imperceptible. Tell ya what, if your monitor is capable of displaying multiple refresh rates, try this. First, set it to a refresh rate of at least 66 hz, preferably 70 or above. Use it for a little while. Now change the refresh rate to 60. Again, use it for a little while. Notice how your eyes start to get tired and irritated? That's because of the extra flicker that they're trying to compensate for. In fact, the VESA (Video Electronics Standards Assn.) recommends a refresh rate of at least 75 to prevent eye strain. Now, why does the frame rate affect game play? Because each frame represents a discrete unit of time. Therefore, if you're running at a lower frame rate, each frame represents a bigger chunk of time. Because you are now reacting to events that are further apart, you cannot get the same precision as if your frame rate was higher. You'd be surprised what a difference missing your turning or braking point by a few hundredths of a second will do to your lap times! Also, increased frame rates will affect your perception of the game. At 30+ fps, you're getting almost twice as many frames per second as if you were running at 15-20 fps. That means that your eye will blend the animation together much more smoothly. Finally, at a faster refresh rate, your eyes and brain won't have to strain as hard to make a coherent animation. This reduces the stress on you and your body, making the game more enjoyable.

>"Standard" video frame rates vary from 24 - 30 fps, while movies display at 48 >fps Just to clarify, this is total garbage. NTSC video (US TV) is 29.97 fps (drop frame) and movies are 24 fps. Not sure what PAL is, ne1? Bill -------- "NASCAR is the Professional Wrestling of Motorsport." -Me-

>Most TVs display frames at around 25 fps. The human eye cannot detect >framerates above much higher than this. Bzzzt, WRONG, thanks for playing! The average human can EASILY detect frame-rates up to 60+ fps. Many people can go much higher. Joe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Tell ya what, if your monitor is capable of displaying multiple > refresh rates, try this. First, set it to a refresh rate of at > least 66 hz, preferably 70 or above. Use it for a little while. > Now change the refresh rate to 60. Again, use it for a little > while. Notice how your eyes start to get tired and irritated? > That's because of the extra flicker that they're trying to > compensate for.

I agree in principle with what you are saying, but the problem with 60Hz in particular is that it has a tendency to strobe with flourescent lighting which has a heavy 60Hz frequency component. I personally think the majority of 60Hz related eyestrain is from this strobing rather than an inherent human eye limit. (IOW, 50Hz would probably be less straining than 60 in the presence of flour. lights.) ---Jim

>>Most TVs display frames at around 25 fps. The human eye cannot detect >>framerates above much higher than this. >Bzzzt, WRONG, thanks for playing! The average human can EASILY detect >frame-rates up to 60+ fps. Many people can go much higher. Joe, get a grip. What Jono Hill said was true -- the average human eyes cannot see higher than 30fps. Above average eyes can detect changes between 30 and 35fps, but above that, frame rate increases cannot be detected by ANY two-eyed human. Oddly enough, if a person only uses one eye (not by closing the other eye, but habitually -- either only having one working eye or having one disabled by the brain due to a fusion problem) -- that one eye can usually detect differences better than two eyes can. For instance, on average, two eyes cannot see a difference between 25 and 28fps, but the person with one eye probably could. Just another way the human body makes up for it's disabilities.

>Now, why does the frame rate affect game play? Because each frame represents >a discrete unit of time. Therefore, if you're running at a lower frame rate, >each frame represents a bigger chunk of time. Because you are now reacting to >events that are further apart, you cannot get the same precision as if your >frame rate was higher. You'd be surprised what a difference missing your >turning or braking point by a few hundredths of a second will do to your lap >times! I did a quick calculation, assuming that you're traveling 120 mph. At 30 fps, you get a new frame every 5.87 feet traveled. At 15 fps, you get a new frame every 11.73 feet traveled. So yes, it is definitely more difficult to turn exactly where you want to at a lower frame rate. -- Kevin (Remove the "x-" prefix from my address in order to reply via email)

Here is my experience on frame rate: I have a slow computer. I tried Australia for ICR2 in hi rez. My lap times with most graphic options on sucked. I tried and tried and could not get down near the fast lap guys. Then(while still in hi rez) I turned off every option available. It looked like ***and finding braking points was almost impossible, but very shortly I started dropping 5 to 6 seconds a lap til by the time I finished an hour of practice laps, my best time was over 20 seconds below my best with full graphics and low frame rate. CAR Control was the biggest diff. The cpu could pay attention to my imputs instead of stopping and starting while it was attempting to draw all my graphic demand. btw even with the 20 improvement, I was still off the Fast lappers by 4 or 5 secs...later dave henrie

>Joe, get a grip. What Jono Hill said was true -- the average human eyes >cannot see higher than 30fps. Nope, that is utterly and 100% false (thus proving Joe's 1st Law of Usenet: "Whatever the truth is, someone will authoritatively state that the exact opposite of it is true."). This is just completely wrong, and contrary to all scientific data and knowledge. Almost every human can detect to 60fps, some can go as high as 120 fps. Joe

% >the other way around. First of all your game engine must be capable of % >delivering the requisite 25fps+, and only then do you start looking at % >how many features and textures you can burden it with. % To each his own, but I think this is total BS. I bet if products didn't % have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think % they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output. Some people here have even % claimed they can tell the difference between 27 and 30fps. I don't buy it. % My P100 with a Monster 3Dfx runs N2 at around 20fps, and MTM at around % 18fps. Both give a smooth sensation of driving from inside the***pit. % Only when the rate drops below 15fps do individual frames begin jumping out, % and only under 12fps is when I can begin recognizing almost each individual % frame. % Either 95% of you guys have absolutely amazing eyesight, or seeing Quake % running at 45fps+ has made you believe that other games are actually pushing % as much polygons and have as detailed simulation/AI/game logic as these % sims. Neither is true. 95% of us are not really talking about the "visual" frame rate per se. It's the lag between perceiving where one is on the virtual track (includes turns, corners, other cars, etc.) and our reaction via our controllers and then again the lag with the screen being refreshed with low frame rates. Yeah, just looking at the scenery flash by, it's hard to tell the difference between 18 and 25 fps. But the difference in being able to react and see the results is like noon and twilight (i.e., not quite night and day, but....). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

% > I do need a***pit to make me happy. It would therefore be extremely % > helpful to not only include the hardware when reporting frame rates, but % > also the settings and the number of cars, plus the high, low and average % > fps. % > % Cmon Michael, why do you need a***pit. Just imagine your Superman, % hehehehehehehehehehe. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's ............ % Besides, if your fast you don't need those mirrors. In fact Art Axlerad % reckons it's a good excuse (hud mode) when you take someone out on the % Zone, though I doubt he need worry much :) Thanks! Now I understand. I recall some of those great stop/action animation movies awhile back where you see people floating in space as they "drive" around a race track with their butts just a few inches off the ground. Now, that you suggest it, I think I will imagine I am Wonder Woman in her invisible Reynard! If you get too far ahead of me I will lasso you in with my magic lasso.... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I don't know about anyone else but I can tell the difference of framerates 10, 15, 30 and 60 (approximatelly). "Scud Racer" in the arcades runs at 60fps and it looks smoother than anything I've got at home (ie ICR2 which does 30fps all the time in Rendition mode), then when I run GP2 which runs at about 15-20 frames that doesn't look anywhere as smooth, actually quiete jerky, then when I run CPR with far viewing distance and all the detail I get about 8fps and that is like turning pages in a comic book. Either way it "does" make a difference; I need framerate for the feel of realism and withot it I don't get it... also I don't need a counter to know when the fps is high and when it is low. It's amazing but you can see the difference when standard ICR2 was running at 23fps and then dropped down to 15 at the start... I noticed the jekriness. Just my point of view on this topic, David Mocnay

Quoted text (21 lines)

>[bandwidth conserving snip] >>I must say that I never expected anyone to wheel out the old simracing >>equivalent of "the earth is flat" argument. It's a well known fact >>that frame-rate makes a huge difference to the smoothness and >>precision of your driving - the faster the frame-rate, the more >>feedback you are getting from the screen and the more opportunity you >>have to make control input to the sim. >John, I'd like to say that IMHO a consistent frame rate of 21fps is more >preferable than an average of 25fps with a high of 30 and a low of 15 >I think thats why F1GP was so good, even when in traffic the frame rate was >about the same. I expect that GP2 with a P2-300 would give similiar results. >Of course the higher the consistent rate the better. (for the reasons you > stated >above) >Regards, >David

>Joe, get a grip. What Jono Hill said was true -- the average human eyes >cannot see higher than 30fps. Above average eyes can detect changes between >30 and 35fps, but above that, frame rate increases cannot be detected by ANY >two-eyed human. Are we supposed to accept your opinion as gospel on this or were you planning to provide some evidence to support this? Cheers! John

Yep those pauses aren't real good and are nearly as bad as sneezing.. But 64mb ought to be enough for anyone :) maybe the 12mb voodoo 2 cards to fix it. Regards, David

>>"Standard" video frame rates vary from 24 - 30 fps, while movies display at 48 >>fps >Just to clarify, this is total garbage. NTSC video (US TV) is 29.97 fps (drop >frame) and movies are 24 fps. Not sure what PAL is, ne1? I used to write software used in video production... PAL is 25 My comment regarding movies running at 48 fps referred to the theater.

: > : > Nonsense. The difference between 15-18 fps and 30 fps is like night : > and day. Personally, I find anything less than 25 fps intolerable, : > unplayable. At 30+ fps things become very comfortable. I'm looking : > forward to Voodoo2 which should make 30+fps the norm. : Most TVs display frames at around 25 fps. The human eye cannot detect : framerates above much higher than this. This is why I cannot understand : why so many of you *need* 30+fps to play a racing sim properly. I play : GP2 at 19.2 fps, and while its not perfect, it is definitely not : unplayable. : -Jono Hill *sigh* here we go again. Yes you *can* detect framrates higher than that. You can use Quake as an example (although many others as well). Quake running at 25-30fps is smooth.. get it running 50-60fps and you can easily see a difference over the 30 frames.

It may be better, but I think it would still be noticably bad. In the UK we have a 50Hz electricity supply & 60Hz monitor refresh rates still have very noticable flickering. And there again, 100Hz refresh rates are rock steady, even though there would appear to be ample opportunity for strobing with the light source. Cheers, Richard

Hi folks, Think we might be able to change the name of this thread? Perhaps something like FPS? I dont know who originated this BS in CAPS but I do remember it was a response to something I wrote about CPR and why I like it. It would be good of us to remember all the young readers we have here and not have to use this kind of titles. Sorry if this sounds preachy didn't mean it to be. Aloha, Mike

You know what's happening in the audio industry? Since human being cannot detect sound frequencies higher than 20KHz, the audio CD was developed to record at a sampling rate of 44.1KHz, thus having the ability to reproduce sound frequencies as high as 22.05KHz. Now, it's being changed. Although human beings may not be able to detect frequencies higher than 20KHz, we can feel it. So, a new sampling rate of even 192KHz is being suggested. The same goes for the frame rate. We may not be able to really see the difference between 25~30fps and 50~60fps. But we can feel the difference somehow.

Quoted text (21 lines)

> >the other way around. First of all your game engine must be capable of > >delivering the requisite 25fps+, and only then do you start looking at > >how many features and textures you can burden it with. > To each his own, but I think this is total BS. I bet if products didn't > have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think > they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output. Some people here have even > claimed they can tell the difference between 27 and 30fps. I don't buy it. > My P100 with a Monster 3Dfx runs N2 at around 20fps, and MTM at around > 18fps. Both give a smooth sensation of driving from inside the***pit. > Only when the rate drops below 15fps do individual frames begin jumping out, > and only under 12fps is when I can begin recognizing almost each individual > frame. > Either 95% of you guys have absolutely amazing eyesight, or seeing Quake > running at 45fps+ has made you believe that other games are actually pushing > as much polygons and have as detailed simulation/AI/game logic as these > sims. Neither is true. > Rich

When you get a real computer and get used to 30 fps you will know what we mean. I used to think I was going well when I had GP1 running at a whopping 12 fps. Quite a joke when I look back on it. When you get 30 fps the experience is far greater and laptimes will fall! The difference to ones ability to be precise with the car is amazing!

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > >To each his own, but I think this is total BS. I bet if products didn't > > >have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think > > >they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output. > > Nonsense. The difference between 15-18 fps and 30 fps is like night > > and day. Personally, I find anything less than 25 fps intolerable, > > unplayable. At 30+ fps things become very comfortable. I'm looking > > forward to Voodoo2 which should make 30+fps the norm. > > Joe > Most TVs display frames at around 25 fps. The human eye cannot detect > framerates above much higher than this. This is why I cannot understand > why so many of you *need* 30+fps to play a racing sim properly. I play > GP2 at 19.2 fps, and while its not perfect, it is definitely not > unplayable. > -Jono Hill

Reguardless of what the eyes can see, the joystick/wheel knows the difference. I would say that the amount of difference in control between 15fps and 30 fps is also double!

snip > When you get a real computer and get used to 30 fps you will know > what we mean. I used to think I was going well when I had GP1 running at > a whopping 12 fps. Quite a joke when I look back on it. When you get 30 > fps the experience is far greater and laptimes will fall! The difference > to ones ability to be precise with the car is amazing! I will never forget how my laptimes dropped when I switched to the Rendition version of ICR2 (several seconds at some tracks!) l8er ronny -- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

Quoted text (11 lines)

> snip > > When you get a real computer and get used to 30 fps you will know > > what we mean. I used to think I was going well when I had GP1 running at > > a whopping 12 fps. Quite a joke when I look back on it. When you get 30 > > fps the experience is far greater and laptimes will fall! The difference > > to ones ability to be precise with the car is amazing! > I will never forget how my laptimes dropped when I switched to the > Rendition > version of ICR2 (several seconds at some tracks!)

Gooday Ronny. With the Rendition ICR2 is it purely the fps boost that you attribute your improved laptimes to or the increased quality of the graphics as well?