GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics

First off, I own EVERY piece of software that I use and I will be buying GPL the minute it hits the shelves...but I caved and "acquired" the 0.2.0.0 warez version. All of these comments may apply only to this earlier version, blah, blah, blah, but I doubt it. Just wanted to comment, besides what an awesome product GPL is, that I am not getting the hardware results that Alison Hine has described. My Canopus Pure 3D seems to be able to chew through the graphics with ease...the framerate hardly varies with almost all options on down through shutting everything off (which makes things look remarkably like ICR2!!). Forget software rendering, by the way, for those few who thought it might actually work. Single digit framerates on my Millennium II. The # of AI on the track, however, kills the framerates at an alarming rate. I have a K6-233, with 64MB SDRAM. Even with the minimal 5 car field, the framerate only reaches "adequate" (mid 20's) when there are no other cars in the vicinity. Try to actually race and you are quickly approaching single digits. The more cars you add slightly reduces the framerate overall, but means that the framerate will dive to undriveable levels more frequently as there is simply more opportunity to be near other cars on the track. Some have suggested that optimization was done between this version and the final. I am sure it was, but it would take a complete re-coding to address this issue in my minimally informed opinion. But we'll see. I am concerned for two reasons: 1) If you actually need a P2-350 (with 100MHz bus) to race the way we all want to (and the way the game is designed and advertised), then we should all know that before we buy. Every other driving game requires a threshold level of processing and graphics power before you hit the "sweet spot," so GPL will be no different. We just need to know what it is. I will buy the game anyway (even if the final is identical to the warez version), for the pure pleasure of driving alone on the tracks, bettering my own times. However, this will put GPL in the same category as CART:PR--fantastic for single car driving and useless for racing. CART:PR is useless for racing because of its utterly incompetent AI, but GPL's super-intelligent AI may take so much processing power that the result is the same--undriveable. Of course, some day, the average computer will be able to run GPL and it will be a classic. CART:PR will always be stuck with loser status. (As a side note, though, people who have upgraded [Alison Hine, in particular] should try CART;PR again in single car mode: you might be surprised how well it works when there is enough processor to hit its sweet spot) 2) At least with some 3dfx cards, the graphics are largely a non-issue. So lets not waste huge amounts of time and energy on which graphics options to turn on and off and focus on what really affects the frame rates--if there is anything beyond the simple (reminds me of GP2) get a more powerful processor. Just my 2 cents worth. Buy GPL...like you should buy all your other software. Let us hope that the final version has been seriously tweaked for frame rates...or that a patch can be released to do the same. Otherwise, it will be a shame that so few will enjoy the real benefit of all the physics and accuracy. Finally, congratulations to the crew on a job phenomenally well done. GPL is the new standard in driving sims. Marc. -- **************************************************************************** Marc Collins "Change is inevitable...except from a vending machine." ****************************************************************************

This makes the game totally un-useable!! I bet(or hope) they won't sell a game which isn't possible to run on 80% of the buyers equipment!! But there is another important issue we all overlook: the warez version is probably much older then we might think! Imho the number tells us that the man/women that uploaded the warez version has probably gotten a old beta version. i.e. Papyrus must have been working with a faster version of the game. I simply can NOT believe that a 0.2 version is 90% complete, so if they use logical numbers they have saved the "under the hood" work for last !!?? Who'll buy a racing game with which you can't race ???? Bart

Marc, Having been involved with GPL for quite a while now, I have the following comments: 1. My platform throughout the development period was a P1/225MMX with a Orchid Righteous 3D. 2. You have a multitude of graphic detail that you may turn on or off to reach a satisfactory fps vs detail compromise. 3. The player physics model, the AI logic, and its associated physics models are all far more sophisticated than in any other currently available racing games (and perhaps racing games for some time to come). The result of this is you don't get something for nothing - each car you add to the field will demand AI and graphical system overheads. Finally, I have no comments about the 0.2.0.0 version. Mike.

I don't want this to turn into a panic thread...it is just the warez version!!!!! But...the version I have is about 99% complete...I have no idea how old it really is, but the date on the main executable says 13-8-98. The game will be quite usable...just not for precision racing. I am actually amazed at how well the car handles at only 10-12 fps...but it will not do for the kind of accuracy-seeking obsessives that many of us are.... I don't think arcade racer types will buy GPL anyway. Let's just hope that the final is vastly faster and then everyone will be happy and thrilled...because otherwise the sim. is more than we could ask for. Marc.

Quoted text (18 lines)

>This makes the game totally un-useable!! >I bet(or hope) they won't sell a game which isn't possible to run on 80% >of the buyers equipment!! >But there is another important issue we all overlook: >the warez version is probably much older then we might think! >Imho the number tells us that the man/women that uploaded the warez >version has probably gotten a old beta version. >i.e. Papyrus must have been working with a faster version of the game. >I simply can NOT believe that a 0.2 version is 90% complete, so if they >use logical numbers they have saved the "under the hood" work for last >!!?? >Who'll buy a racing game with which you can't race ???? >Bart

Possible, isnt the right word ! Sure it possible ! Run it whit 21 Ai and all details on a high end PC, sure it possible, is it 100% fast ? no it sint, 36 frama rate can and will drop to about 20-25, but it is a LOT of fun anyway ! haha, it wasn`t a week old when it came out.... hehe, they working on this game for a looooong time ! You think they will rewrite the whole engine or what ? Take a loot at it ! It looks very finished ! wowowow, STOP ! You can race GPL and it is a LOT of fun, but who coud race GP2 whit high res on a avarage PC when it came out ??? GPL i much better faster ) then GP2 ever was ! GPL is a kick ass sim, and a lot of us allready fallen love whit it, but i am sure a lot of ppl will change PC or upgrade, but buying a Celeron 300A isnt that big money, and it wourth it ! T

And?? I am not sure what your point is. I already said that the graphic details, at least on my set-up, are not an issue. The frame rates vary very little by playing with the graphics and sound. I can afford 1-2 fps to have almost all the graphics options turned on...and that's about the extent of the frame rate hit. It is the AI that causes a severe problem (on my set-up with the warez build). I agree the physics are vastly more sophisticated. That's the whole reason many of us have been eagarly anticipating GPL for so long. However, if the physics are so sophisticated that it requires a P2-350 to process the calculations or the other choice is to race with only 5 other cars and have even that too taxing, then the benefit will not be enjoyed by too many fans...at least for now. Of course, GP2 runs very well on my computer now...but I wanted to use it back when I purchased it..... I don't mind a frame rate hit for each car on the field...but you would have to start with about 100 fps to run a full field and still be able to enjoy a frame rate high enough to enjoy the superior physics. GPL at 8 fps drives like Need for Speed II.... Once again, we will see what the final version is like. I am dearly hoping that it is a vast improvement over the 0.2.0.0...I just don't know how realistic it is to expect that. Apparently you could shed some light on the subject but did not in your reply. Could you please? None needed.

If by that you mean the real stream of betas was/is faster, then thank goodness! If GPL has the ability to process a full or near full field of cars on a high end Pentium (1) (with good graphics card), that combined with the great graphics and other superlative design features will make GPL the most impressive driving sim. ever to be released in my opinion. Moving the design and realism bar up several notches AND making it playable on an average machine instead of a super-computer would be the accomplishment of the decade as far as I am concerned!! Marc.

Quoted text (18 lines)

>The warez version is a different build to that used by the core >testers....particularly to that which Alison obtained her statistics >from. >This "beta" was never supplied to the core testers. >> Just wanted to comment, besides what an awesome product GPL is, that I am >> not getting the hardware results that Alison Hine has described. >-- >Regards, >Bruce. >---------- >The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- >http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

Quoted text (7 lines)

> The # of AI on the track, however, kills the framerates at an alarming rate. > I have a K6-233, with 64MB SDRAM. Even with the minimal 5 car field, the > framerate only reaches "adequate" (mid 20's) when there are no other cars in > the vicinity. Try to actually race and you are quickly approaching single > digits. The more cars you add slightly reduces the framerate overall, but > means that the framerate will dive to undriveable levels more frequently as > there is simply more opportunity to be near other cars on the track.

I had said this in a previous post on another thread: * Is Alt-F to be believed? I have a P2-300 with 4 meg V2200 and 3Dfx Voodoo. Framerates are *identical* with either card. FPS runs 33-36, never in the 20's, even with full field of AI. The only time I've seen the FPS take a serious hit was when there was a traffic jam in the pits at the start of a practice session and it was in the mid ***s for about 30 seconds. When running with full AI, the lowest I've seen is about 25fps for very short periods of time (so I correct what I said in the previous post). Not sure what the biggest difference in our machines is that could cause such a large difference in performance, but I'm pretty happy with what I see so far... -- Neil Yeatman Ajax, Ontario, CANADA

I need to ask this question. If GPL's physics model is so great that it saps the CPU so much, how the hell can the developers of sims which came out a year ago be so harshly criticized for their physics models? If they had done a physics model as advanced as GPL's, nobody would have been able to play the games. A year ago the fastest CPU was a P200. GPL is apparently unplayable on a P200. Dave DmndDave

The difference is that you have a P2-300 and I have a K6-233... The raw processing power and according to A. Hine, the L2 cache, makes all the difference. We'll see if that changes in the final release...it won't change the fact that a P2-300 will be better, but the K6-233 may be able to handle more than it can now. Max. fps I have seen is mid 20's and drops to single digits with lots of other cars around. I believe the indicator on my screen...the jerkiness proves it to be accurate!! Marc. >> The # of AI on the track, however, kills the framerates at an alarming rate. >> I have a K6-233, with 64MB SDRAM. Even with the minimal 5 car field, the >> framerate only reaches "adequate" (mid 20's) when there are no other cars in >> the vicinity. Try to actually race and you are quickly approaching single >> digits. The more cars you add slightly reduces the framerate overall, but >> means that the framerate will dive to undriveable levels more frequently as

Quoted text (21 lines)

>> there is simply more opportunity to be near other cars on the track. >I had said this in a previous post on another thread: >* Is Alt-F to be believed? I have a P2-300 with 4 meg V2200 and > 3Dfx Voodoo. Framerates are *identical* with either card. FPS > runs 33-36, never in the 20's, even with full field of AI. >The only time I've seen the FPS take a serious hit was when there was >a traffic jam in the pits at the start of a practice session and it >was in the mid ***s for about 30 seconds. When running with full AI, >the lowest I've seen is about 25fps for very short periods of time (so >I correct what I said in the previous post). >Not sure what the biggest difference in our machines is that could >cause such a large difference in performance, but I'm pretty happy >with what I see so far... >-- >Neil Yeatman >Ajax, Ontario, CANADA

The warez version is a different build to that used by the core testers....particularly to that which Alison obtained her statistics from. This "beta" was never supplied to the core testers. > Just wanted to comment, besides what an awesome product GPL is, that I am > not getting the hardware results that Alison Hine has described. -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

Hi Tilus, I've now got a p133, voodooI card, 32 mb In training gpl runs at 18 fps, and detail options don't make it slower or faster. In a Race I get 5 fps with 19 opp. or just 1 (multi pl. - only against cpu) But when I watch the race in the big replay screen, everything runs great! And certainly not a 'slideshow'at the start of 19 cars! BUT I will get a AMD K6 300 within the next 2 weeks! I expect from papyrus (when I really buy it - ofcourse) that I CAN race with 19 opponents. The whole game is about racing, and not training. (graphics is only 2nd choice) Otherwise it will be like a Ferrari without fuel OR a Morris Minor with fuel! :-) Bart [...snip...]

Hey Mike, Somehow the fps are not (much) affected by the detail you turn on/off! Isn't this a bug?? Bart > 2. You have a multitude of graphic detail that you may turn on or off to > reach a satisfactory fps vs detail compromise.

Hi Bruce! Isn't it strange that (allmost) nobody thought that a 0.2.0.0 version is a 99% finished product ? :-) In 0.2.0.1 they've moved 1 marshall in 0.3.0.6 they've added some leeves to a tree :-) etc, I guess a 0.2.0.0 is an old beta or a joke by papyrus to fool all warez downloaders :-) Bart

Quoted text (18 lines)

> The warez version is a different build to that used by the core > testers....particularly to that which Alison obtained her statistics > from. > This "beta" was never supplied to the core testers. > > Just wanted to comment, besides what an awesome product GPL is, that I am > > not getting the hardware results that Alison Hine has described. > -- > Regards, > Bruce. > ---------- > The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- > http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

Don't worry, like many of the racing sims released in the last few years, I'm sure there will be a small but vehement "anti-GPL" group that will lambaste the sim for anything and everything. In addition, the trolls will probably return with the "GPL is an arcade game not a sim because I suck at it" thread that was really big when the first demo was released. Another popular thread will be along the lines: "GPL sukz 'cause with a full field of cars and all graphics turned on it runs crappy on my Cyrix 166 in software rendering mode" or something like that. As far as racing sims requiring a high-end PC when they are newly released, there is certainly nothing new about that. I personally have just upgraded to a system that will allow me to play F1RS at a really good frame-rate with all of the details on, and look how long that has been out. In the last few years of racing sims, I have yet to see the argument "we just didn't put a good physics model in because we knew it would be slow on today's computers". Patrick Gilmore

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:55:04 -0400, "Marc Collins" >Just wanted to comment, besides what an awesome product GPL is, that I am >not getting the hardware results that Alison Hine has described. Well, advice on how to configure and what you are/are not doing can wait until people are using legitimate software. Quite apart from the oft mentioned morality aspect, without knowing exactly what that pre-release was and how it differed from any other version I've tried it's impossible to comment. I would however like to point out that I can race all 19 AI, in 640x480, with textures etc at 36fps on my Celeron 300, and could do so also on a P225MMX Pentium. Last night I had a fair attempt at a full Grand Prix at the Ring (crashed out after 5 laps) with all AI and the frame-rate was perfect all through, only a small drop to 20fps or so at the start. I'd hate to see people worried by warez version horror stories. Cheers! John

hehe, you must be jokeing here.....

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:24:28 -0400, "Marc Collins" >>1. My platform throughout the development period was a P1/225MMX with a >>Orchid Righteous 3D. >And?? I am not sure what your point is. That a P225MMX is not exactly computing Utopia, and certainly far less of a system than the one the original poster (you?) was using. It shows that good frame-rates are easily achievable if you are using a version which is suited to that (a release one for example). There is no comment that can be made on the 0.2.0.0 version, you'd be as well calling Sierra support. I simply want to point out that the horror stories of frame-rate are not a problem. With the warez version you don't know what you're playing with and what additional overheads are in there. I could happily race 19AI on my P225MMX/Voodoo1 and can do so in 800x600 on my Celeron 300 with V2200. The figures Alison posted are more representative. Cheers! John

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 21:46:58 -0400, "David G Fisher" >I need to ask this question. If GPL's physics model is so great that it saps >the CPU so much, how the hell can the developers of sims which came out a >year ago be so harshly criticized for their physics models? Remember GPL has been in development for four years. It's not hardware dependent, more dependent upon having the vision, talent and determination to set out on the road to such a detailed architecture and physics and see it through to the end. Four years ago Intel had a vague idea what would be around at that time and less idea of the cost, none of us had any idea and sure as heck Papy didn't know. Probably GPL and Prost Grand Prix kicked off around the same time, it's just what's been done within it that differs. Cheers! John

Bruce Kenwell said The warez version is a different build to that used by the core testers....particularly to that which Alison obtained her statistics from. This "beta" was never supplied to the core testers. So can you tell me WHERE that warez version comes from ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bart > >I guess a 0.2.0.0 is an old beta or a joke by papyrus to fool all warez > >downloaders :-) > hehe, you must be jokeing here.....

So a pII-300 or AMD k6 300 will differ a lot !? That sounds more like a bug in stead of a feature!! Bart

Quoted text (24 lines)

> but > >> means that the framerate will dive to undriveable levels more frequently > as > >> there is simply more opportunity to be near other cars on the track. > >I had said this in a previous post on another thread: > >* Is Alt-F to be believed? I have a P2-300 with 4 meg V2200 and > > 3Dfx Voodoo. Framerates are *identical* with either card. FPS > > runs 33-36, never in the 20's, even with full field of AI. > >The only time I've seen the FPS take a serious hit was when there was > >a traffic jam in the pits at the start of a practice session and it > >was in the mid ***s for about 30 seconds. When running with full AI, > >the lowest I've seen is about 25fps for very short periods of time (so > >I correct what I said in the previous post). > >Not sure what the biggest difference in our machines is that could > >cause such a large difference in performance, but I'm pretty happy > >with what I see so far... > >-- > >Neil Yeatman > >Ajax, Ontario, CANADA

>I don't want to scaremonger, I'm basing this opinion on the general trend from >this newsgroup, but it would seem AMD chips may be at a disadvantage. Possibly, but remember that Alison used an AMD chip all through testing, in fact until very recently, and I believe her results were based upon that. Cheers! John

Everyone has their own likes/dislikes. Some prefer maximum framerate at the expense of detail: others prefer graphical quality at the expense of smooth refresh. A third group spends time arriving at their blend of both. And there are those who whinge and moan and forever twiddle with the vast range of settings but are never satisfied and probably never will be because the term "compromise" is not in their vocabulary. I fall into the "compromise" category and I find this very easy to do with GPL for one reason: the graphics settings can be adjusted "on the fly". Hit pause, go into the correct menu screen, make the adjustment and back to the race....all in a few seconds. No need to back out through several menus and then restart the race....it's a simple and flexible procedure that Papyrus have supplied. Why is this so good? Simple: you have chosen a maximum field for Monaco. You have chosen an 800 x 600 resolution and you want maximum graphical detail. However, for the start and perhaps the first couple of laps, when there are quite a few cars on screen at the same time, you can very quickly (a) drop the res to 640 x 480 and/or (b)uncheck some of the boxes in the graphics choices. This speeds up the framerate for that important first lap and, when things settle down and (perhaps!) a few cars drop out, you can up the resolution and the graphical details again. Very simple, very, very effective and surely a great way of attempting to satisfy everybodys needs. > If by that you mean the real stream of betas was/is faster, then thank > goodness! If GPL has the ability to process a full or near full field of -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

And? > I need to ask this question. If GPL's physics model is so great that it saps > the CPU so much, how the hell can the developers of sims which came out a > year ago be so harshly criticized for their physics models? If they had done > a physics model as advanced as GPL's, nobody would have been able to play > the games. A year ago the fastest CPU was a P200. GPL is apparently > unplayable on a P200. -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

Do you mean a bug in the software or in the hardware? I don't believe it's possible for game devellopers to program for every possible processor. So it's definatly not a software bug. And I also don't think it's a hardware bug. It's just a different approach in processor design. I do think however, that processor manufacturers should give more details about the stronger and weaker point in their processor. In that way you can compare the processors and then decide which one you'll buy. Just the way you do with a car. One has more space, but is more expensive, the other has less space, but is cheaper. If you don't need the extra space you can save the extra money, but at least you won't be surpriced if you get stuck with you knees. Forgive me if this is bad comparison, but you know what I mean... I hope. :-) // Johan > So a pII-300 or AMD k6 300 will differ a lot !? > That sounds more like a bug in stead of a feature!! > Bart

No. > So can you tell me WHERE that warez version comes from > ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > Bart -- Regards, Bruce.

Me neither.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> No. > > So can you tell me WHERE that warez version comes from > > ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > > Bart > -- > Regards, > Bruce.

Fantastic! Thanks for clarifying that. Marc.

Quoted text (13 lines)

>On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 18:24:28 -0400, "Marc Collins" >>>1. My platform throughout the development period was a P1/225MMX with a >>>Orchid Righteous 3D. >>And?? I am not sure what your point is. >That a P225MMX is not exactly computing Utopia, and certainly far less >of a system than the one the original poster (you?) was using. It >shows that good frame-rates are easily achievable if you are using a >version which is suited to that (a release one for example). >>Once again, we will see what the final version is like. I am dearly

hoping >>that it is a vast improvement over the 0.2.0.0...I just don't know how >>realistic it is to expect that. Apparently you could shed some light on the

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>subject but did not in your reply. Could you please? >There is no comment that can be made on the 0.2.0.0 version, you'd be >as well calling Sierra support. I simply want to point out that the >horror stories of frame-rate are not a problem. With the warez version >you don't know what you're playing with and what additional overheads >are in there. I could happily race 19AI on my P225MMX/Voodoo1 and can >do so in 800x600 on my Celeron 300 with V2200. The figures Alison >posted are more representative. >Cheers! >John

Except that the whole point of my thread was that graphics options amount to twiddle. The only way to achieve any frame rate results is to lower the # of cars in the field (and to avoid driving anywhere near them on the track :) ). That can't be done (nor would we expect or want to) on the fly. Marc.

Quoted text (40 lines)

>Everyone has their own likes/dislikes. Some prefer maximum framerate at >the expense of detail: others prefer graphical quality at the expense of >smooth refresh. A third group spends time arriving at their blend of >both. >And there are those who whinge and moan and forever twiddle with the >vast range of settings but are never satisfied and probably never will >be because the term "compromise" is not in their vocabulary. >I fall into the "compromise" category and I find this very easy to do >with GPL for one reason: the graphics settings can be adjusted "on the >fly". Hit pause, go into the correct menu screen, make the adjustment >and back to the race....all in a few seconds. No need to back out >through several menus and then restart the race....it's a simple and >flexible procedure that Papyrus have supplied. >Why is this so good? Simple: you have chosen a maximum field for >Monaco. You have chosen an 800 x 600 resolution and you want maximum >graphical detail. However, for the start and perhaps the first couple >of laps, when there are quite a few cars on screen at the same time, you >can very quickly (a) drop the res to 640 x 480 and/or (b)uncheck some of >the boxes in the graphics choices. This speeds up the framerate for >that important first lap and, when things settle down and (perhaps!) a >few cars drop out, you can up the resolution and the graphical details >again. >Very simple, very, very effective and surely a great way of attempting >to satisfy everybodys needs. >> If by that you mean the real stream of betas was/is faster, then thank >> goodness! If GPL has the ability to process a full or near full field of >-- >Regards, >Bruce. >---------- >The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- >http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

It is a K6-233...and there better be a big difference between that and a P2-300 for Intel's sake. Marc.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>So a pII-300 or AMD k6 300 will differ a lot !? >That sounds more like a bug in stead of a feature!! >Bart >> but >> >> means that the framerate will dive to undriveable levels more

frequently

Quoted text (22 lines)

>> as >> >> there is simply more opportunity to be near other cars on the track. >> >I had said this in a previous post on another thread: >> >* Is Alt-F to be believed? I have a P2-300 with 4 meg V2200 and >> > 3Dfx Voodoo. Framerates are *identical* with either card. FPS >> > runs 33-36, never in the 20's, even with full field of AI. >> >The only time I've seen the FPS take a serious hit was when there was >> >a traffic jam in the pits at the start of a practice session and it >> >was in the mid ***s for about 30 seconds. When running with full AI, >> >the lowest I've seen is about 25fps for very short periods of time (so >> >I correct what I said in the previous post). >> >Not sure what the biggest difference in our machines is that could >> >cause such a large difference in performance, but I'm pretty happy >> >with what I see so far... >> >-- >> >Neil Yeatman >> >Ajax, Ontario, CANADA

Thanks again for the clarification. And I really did not want to start a thread crying about the "features" or performance of a warez version. My only interest is that the final version will perform as you claim and that if it didn't, that those of you with access to more legitimate versions than me please tell us what processor really is required to run a full field. You have done that! Thanks again. Marc.

Quoted text (23 lines)

>On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:55:04 -0400, "Marc Collins" >>Just wanted to comment, besides what an awesome product GPL is, that I am >>not getting the hardware results that Alison Hine has described. >Well, advice on how to configure and what you are/are not doing can >wait until people are using legitimate software. Quite apart from the >oft mentioned morality aspect, without knowing exactly what that >pre-release was and how it differed from any other version I've tried >it's impossible to comment. >I would however like to point out that I can race all 19 AI, in >640x480, with textures etc at 36fps on my Celeron 300, and could do so >also on a P225MMX Pentium. Last night I had a fair attempt at a full >Grand Prix at the Ring (crashed out after 5 laps) with all AI and the >frame-rate was perfect all through, only a small drop to 20fps or so >at the start. >I'd hate to see people worried by warez version horror stories. >Cheers! >John

That shows that on your system its the CPU (pipelined floating point calculations are not the strong point of non-Intel chips) and not the video card that is the bottleneck. - Eric

Me either... My guess is that either the "open" beta testers (I think there are about 100 of them) received this version, and one of them leaked it, someone at Papyrus leaked it, or a *** magazine was sent a preview copy and someone from their offices leaked it. But I can safely say that it WAS NOT one of the Core beta-testers (there's 8 of them).. they DID NOT receive this copy.. they received an 8/22 version (the warez was 8/13). doktorB http://webhome.idirect.com/~drbryan/gpl For the GPL track files, FAQs (I've got them!), installation help, release date updates, PC GAMER preview pics, and more! This week's Poll-of-the-Week: Did you, or didn't you download the WAREZ GPL? ----

Quoted text (12 lines)

>Me neither. >> No. >> > So can you tell me WHERE that warez version comes from >> > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:06:20 +1000, Bruce Kennewell >Everyone has their own likes/dislikes. Some prefer maximum framerate at >the expense of detail: others prefer graphical quality at the expense of >smooth refresh. A third group spends time arriving at their blend of >both. I think that if GPL was released and ran perfectly on current systems it would be a bit of a shame, since it compromises what we can expect in a few months when today's leading edge hardware is commonplace. It would be the work of moments to reduce GPL's maximum resolution down to 640x480 and simply match what GP2, F1RS and CPR offer, and in that case GPL would run comparably despite the physics and AI. That the 800, 960 and 1024 modes are still there means that GPL can continue to look better and better as we upgrade. I currently run GPL only ever in 640x480 (I'm a frame-rate ***ist), but I do watch replays in 1024x768 and I know some of the other testers with top end P2 systems race at 1024x68, and I know that I'm looking forward to doing that too at some point. It looks incredible at that high res, and I'm glad that this is an option to us. Sometimes when watching a replay at the Nurburgring it looks almost lifelike, with the incredibly crisp graphics at 1024x768, the light-sourcing and shading on the cars, the road snaking through the Eifel mountains and the cacophany of engines howling by. I'm probably not entitled to an unbiased opinion given my association with GPL, but sometimes it's hard to stop myself getting poetic :-) Cheers! John

> That shows that on your system its the CPU (pipelined floating point > calculations are not the strong point of non-Intel chips) and not the > video card that is the bottleneck. Does GPL support AMD's 3d-Now (or DX6)? -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

>Hey Mike, >Somehow the fps are not (much) affected by the detail you turn on/off! >Isn't this a bug?? I really have no idea. All bets are off with that version. Mike.

Marc, John's already commented to your message and there's nothing that I disagree with, other than to emphasise the point to _everybody_ here, please do not go basing any performance, AI or physics opinions on the pre-release build that is being passed around. I don't believe I've actually seen the build that is up on the net, but by all accounts there are some significant differences between that and the build that followed it (and no sorry, I'm not permitted to describe the changes so please don't ask!!). Mike.

Hi Marc, >the great graphics and other superlative design features will make GPL the >most impressive driving sim. ever to be released in my opinion. Moving the It _is_ the most impressive driving sim that any of the testers have experienced, and as I said in another message, I've been involved with GPL for a good fair while now and I STILL feel as enthusiastic about it as I did when I first heard about it. I'm not going to tell you that it's a perfect flawless game because such a beast doesn't and will never exist, but it's the closest thing yet to hacking round a real race track. As a general comment to folks, if you're willing to put the time and effort into it in order to learn how to setup and drive the cars, you'll love it. Having said that, you've probably played the demo a fair bit and if you can drive that, you'll be ok - although driving closely amongst the traffic requires never ending practise!! :-) Mike.

I don't know why people are so interested in the origins of the warez beta. Unfortunately, many games manage to make their way onto a warez site during the beta stage. I'm actually surprised it took as long as it did before GPL showed up. When we beta tested MTM2, a beta made it's way to the web and spread like wildfire. It only takes one person to make it available and no one will ever figure out who that was. Dave DmndDave -----Original Message----- Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators Date: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 11:42 AM Subject: Re: GPL Framerate Hit Caused by AI, not graphics >Me either... >My guess is that either the "open" beta testers (I think there are about 100 >of them) received this version, and one of them leaked it, someone at >Papyrus leaked it, or a *** magazine was sent a preview copy and someone >from their offices leaked it. >But I can safely say that it WAS NOT one of the Core beta-testers (there's 8 >of them).. they DID NOT receive this copy.. they received an 8/22 version >(the warez was 8/13). >doktorB >http://webhome.idirect.com/~drbryan/gpl >For the GPL track files, FAQs (I've got them!), installation help, release

>>I don't want to scaremonger, I'm basing this opinion on the general trend from >>this newsgroup, but it would seem AMD chips may be at a disadvantage. >Possibly, but remember that Alison used an AMD chip all through >testing, in fact until very recently, and I believe her results were >based upon that. And please recall that a while ago Intel supposedly tried to put game publishers under pressure to make excessive use of floating point in their games in order to shed a bad light on intel's competition (remember the days when AMD just whaled in pure int performance compared to intel chips?). I don't see what advantage usage of floating point would bring: with 32 bits to an int you can achive sufficient accuracy even with integers. Any professional programmer caring to comment? Regards, Uwe -- Spam-proof e-mail: Uwe Schuerkamp <hoover at telemedia . de> http://www.telemedia.de/~hoover ////// Phone: +49-5241-80-10-66 Best of Scottish Folk: http://home.pages.de/~nsg >>> Blue Ribbon Campaign: Support Free Speech on the Internet <<<

Quoted text (11 lines)

>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:05:06 +0200, >>So a pII-300 or AMD k6 300 will differ a lot !? >>That sounds more like a bug in stead of a feature!! >>Bart >Why do you feel that the AMD should perform as well as the >Pentium, with the floating point calculations in GP2?

Whoa! Steady there! If your had any valid point there GP2 on intel would/should run *much* better than on AMD chips. Sadly / gladly this is not the case: GP2 runs like ***and turns into a slide show with smoke and load of cars displayed on nearly any computer ever produced in the pc architecture line. Uwe -- Spam-proof e-mail: Uwe Schuerkamp <hoover at telemedia . de> http://www.telemedia.de/~hoover ////// Phone: +49-5241-80-10-66 Best of Scottish Folk: http://home.pages.de/~nsg >>> Blue Ribbon Campaign: Support Free Speech on the Internet <<<

Bruce Kennewell wrote <excellent post snipped> Ah.. great post Bruce... No need to uncheck the boxes... Just hit the "Page Up/Page Down" for higher/lower resolution on the fly ! ;-D - Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Good race at the Brickyard! - Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. - Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) - Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ on the NROS - "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."--

Well, I think you haven't followed the discussion :-) People are dissapointent by the performance, and they wonder how old that beta really is...... Anyway, the REAL beta testers used a totally different (read: BETTER) version. We only hope it'll run on our systems! cheers, Bart > I don't know why people are so interested in the origins of the warez beta. > Unfortunately, many games manage to make their way onto a warez site during > the beta stage. I'm actually surprised it took as long as it did be

Exactly Eric...my original point. But what I wanted to know was whether the legitimate version of GPL was going to require a P2-350 to run a full field of cars or whether a high end Pentium 1 (like my K6-233) class chip would do it. I had heard reports both ways, but for me the crucial point was what processing power was needed to achieve the frame rate sweet spot (I would think mid 20's or higher) AND allow a full and "proper" race--which is why we are going to buy GPL. I am happy to turn down graphics to get realistic gameplay--it just happens that on my system I did not need to do that. Could you comment on which CPU's will allow for a full field of cars at mid 20's frame rates, in the final version, assuming a top-flight graphics card? After being burned so many times, people would like to know what the actual requirements are as opposed to the minimum requirements...which usually mean graphics that don't resemble anything on the outside of the box or on the Web site and in the case of driving controls, accuracy like Test Drive 4 instead of the sophisticated physics model of GPL and 5 cars in the field in stead of 20. I know that every system varies, blah, blah, but it is obvious that even the lamented warez version has very well optimized graphics...allowing a lot of detail and special effects for a relatively tiny frame hit. How far have you geniuses (and I say that completely seriously after seeing the warez version in action) been able to optimize the AI processor requirements? Thanks in advance for any information, Marc.

Quoted text (16 lines)

>That shows that on your system its the CPU (pipelined floating point >calculations are not the strong point of non-Intel chips) and not the >video card that is the bottleneck. >- Eric >>Except that the whole point of my thread was that graphics options >amount to >>twiddle. The only way to achieve any frame rate results is to lower >the # >>of cars in the field (and to avoid driving anywhere near them on the >track >>:) ). That can't be done (nor would we expect or want to) on the fly.

> I fall into the "compromise" category and I find this very easy to do > with GPL for one reason: the graphics settings can be adjusted "on the > fly". Hit pause, go into the correct menu screen, make the adjustment > and back to the race....all in a few seconds. No need to back out > through several menus and then restart the race....it's a simple and > flexible procedure that Papyrus have supplied. Our definitions of "on the fly" are different. ICR2 did this on the fly, without having to pause, using F-keys to toggle graphics settings. It was one of the first things I went looking for in GPL and there's no sign of it. Maybe it's enabled in a later build. As it stands, my framerate doesn't need a lot of fiddling...but they have all these unused F-keys! If they're not going to use them, maybe they could give us a way to map them...for multiplayer text messages or something... :) -- Neil Yeatman Ajax, Ontario, CANADA

....and the whole point of my comment, Marc, was that level of graphics DOES make a difference, particularly the resolution. However, I cannot comment from personal experience with regard to this beta version as, although I have seen it, I have not "driven" it. > Except that the whole point of my thread was that graphics options amount to -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

Marc Collins wrote As I would almost at 100% guess.... Taking out the debugging code of the beta builds.... - Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Good race at the Brickyard! - Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. - Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) - Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ on the NROS - "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."--

Merci, Francois! I shall remember that tip. > Ah.. great post Bruce... > No need to uncheck the boxes... Just hit the "Page Up/Page Down" for > higher/lower resolution on the fly ! -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

That's unfortunate then, if AI optimization has been achieved but graphics un- or de- (sic) optimization has also been "included." Marc.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>....and the whole point of my comment, Marc, was that level of graphics >DOES make a difference, particularly the resolution. >However, I cannot comment from personal experience with regard to this >beta version as, although I have seen it, I have not "driven" it. >> Except that the whole point of my thread was that graphics options amount

to >-- >Regards, >Bruce. >---------- >The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- >http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Sometimes when watching a replay at the Nurburgring it looks almost >lifelike, with the incredibly crisp graphics at 1024x768, the >light-sourcing and shading on the cars, the road snaking through the >Eifel mountains and the cacophany of engines howling by. I'm probably >not entitled to an unbiased opinion given my association with GPL, but >sometimes it's hard to stop myself getting poetic :-) >Cheers! >John

John: Your description of watching replays on the Nurburgring raised the hair on my neck, (there isn't any on my head) as it brought back memories of watching the Silver Arrow driven by Fangio scream thru the forest there, with an ungodly howl from that engine with the desmodromic valves. And Farina's win the year before. I fotoed Farina's car at Adenau Bridge, and that photo framed is on the wall in front of me now. I did some laps there while "fighting the Cold War" in the fifties, and revisited in '92. The concrete is all gone, replaced by armco. But that ribbon of pavement winding thru the mountains will ever be a source of fastination for me, and I can't wait to flog the course when the game goes gold. Altho high resolutions make my system crash back to Windows. It's a P200 with Voodoo2 and I can only dream of 1024x768! Cheers! Sam

>Your description of watching replays on the Nurburgring raised the >hair on my neck, (there isn't any on my head) as it brought back >memories of watching the Silver Arrow driven by Fangio scream thru the >forest there, Wow, great. ;-) I "only" saw and heard a W196 Monoposto and the Stirling Moss 300SLR in Hockenheim recently, but it certainly was a kind of time-machine experience, especially with the drivers (Jochen Mass) wearing old-style clothes and helmets. Limits for revs and speed of course at the show runs. :-/ Amazingly, according to an old british magazine someone put on the net ("Thanks!", if you read this), Mercedes has shown the Mille Miglia winning 300SLR with Moss and Jenkinson at the 167 British GP at Silverstone. I thought those cars were gathering dust in the museum till the 80s. http://wwwhere.is.it/ ? ;-) ;-) I know the track in its present state, but the pre-1970 version must have been very narrow and bumpy, eg. at Wippermann? Hmmm, AFAIK most of the track used to be concrete in the early days, but only Karussell and Schwalbenschwanz now have concrete parts. Of course, double or triple armcos on both sides of the track were added in 1970, but IMHO not as replacements for concrete walls - at the track side there used to be only grass, bushes and trees. Or am I wrong? -- _____ /_______\ .\\ a t t h e a d I XT /~~~~ I 500\_____ 1977' Yamaha XT.Rex 500 Enduro \____/\__I_I http://matthead.home.pages.de/

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Your description of watching replays on the Nurburgring raised the >hair on my neck, (there isn't any on my head) as it brought back >memories of watching the Silver Arrow driven by Fangio scream thru the >forest there, with an ungodly howl from that engine with the >desmodromic valves. And Farina's win the year before. I fotoed >Farina's car at Adenau Bridge, and that photo framed is on the wall in >front of me now.

Hey, whoa, you're making ME jealous now. :-) I do have to say that the Nurburgring is a totally awesome piece of work, and I would buy GPL and be delighted even if the Nordschleife was the only track you could race on. I've done god knows how many laps now and my sphincter STILL tightens everytime I approach Anteniusbuche - that is one goddam scary corner. Airborne and sideways at 170mph on a snaking country road is as mental as it gets. Cheers! John

>I do have to say that the Nurburgring is a totally awesome piece of >work, and I would buy GPL and be delighted even if the Nordschleife >was the only track you could race on. Seconded. BTW: "Only" in GPL - or on the real thing? Bike or car? -- _____ /_______\ .\\ a t t h e a d I XT /~~~~ I 500\_____ 1977' Yamaha XT.Rex 500 Enduro \____/\__I_I http://matthead.home.pages.de/

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>I do have to say that the Nurburgring is a totally awesome piece of >>work, and I would buy GPL and be delighted even if the Nordschleife >>was the only track you could race on. >Seconded. >> I've done god knows how many >>laps now and my sphincter STILL tightens everytime I approach >>Anteniusbuche - that is one goddam scary corner. Airborne and sideways >>at 170mph on a snaking country road is as mental as it gets. >BTW: "Only" in GPL - or on the real thing? Bike or car?

BTW, in earlier post I said "the concrete is gone..," There weren't any walls, the old concete was just the bridge abutments, which were very solid : ) and VERY close to the racing line! They are all, of course, armco now. The old pavement was all black except for Carussel and Schwalbenscwanz, same as now. The hedges and embankments are bad enough. I was there when Onofre Marimon was killed. In those days, a momentary error often got one killed. But the scariest thing I have done lately, other than face the German and Russian Champions in the Worlds Masters Games, in fencing just ended in August, was to run the Isle of Man 37 mile mountain course in the wind, rain, and fog on a fast motorcycle, 750 BMW, in 1992. John has probably been there. A stone wall next to the road is the norm! Also buildings and other hard things. Did several laps and then duct-taped my knees together to steady them! Sam

>>I don't want to scaremonger, I'm basing this opinion on the general trend from >>this newsgroup, but it would seem AMD chips may be at a disadvantage. >Possibly, but remember that Alison used an AMD chip all through >testing, in fact until very recently, and I believe her results were >based upon that. That's right, John. Until a few weeks ago, I ran an AMD K6/200, overclocked to 75x3=225. This runs the all-important L2 cache at 75 mhz instead of 66 mhz, which more than offsets the AMD's inferior floating point unit, at least in GPL. Note that this machine has 512 k of L2 cache - a *critical* requirement with GPL. Only Celerons seem to be able to run GPL well without L2 cache. There seems to be a lot of concern about the hardware necessary to run GPL, particularly when there are AI cars involved. I found the K6 machine, with an 8 mb Hercules Thriller, to be quite adequate for solo training at 640x480 with most detail turned on, except that I kept the mirrors and lighting effects turned off. Under these conditions, with no AI cars, I got 36 fps fairly consistently. By turning off some of the forward-view textures, I could run about 5 to 8 AI cars and still get 36 fps most of the time. More than 8 AI cars, and I'd have to turn off so many textures and so much detail that I'd find it hard to keep track of my position on the track. Incidentally, performance with the Thriller was markedly better than with a Diamond Monster 3D Voodoo 1 card. I've also run GPL on a variety of other machines, including a p-166, several P-233's (one with motherboard overclocked to 82 mhz, others at standard 66 mhz), a K6-200 with 256k L2 cache and with no L2 cache, and P2's from 266 to 400 mhz. My conclusion is that GPL can run perfectly well on a Pentium at 166 mhz or above, or an AMD K6/200 or above, provided that the machine has at least 256k L2 cache (unless it's a Celeron) and a Rendition card or a Voodoo card (preferably an 8 mb Rendition 2200 card). On Pentium Classics, AMD K6-based machines, and 66 mhz FSB P2's, you will need to choose a balance of graphics detail, quantity of AI cars, and frame rate which works for you on your particular computer. On these machines, you simply can't have it all. However, on a P2-350 or better, with an 8mb Herc Thriller or a pair of SLI'd Voodoo 2's, you can have it all: 36 fps 800x600 with 19 AI cars and all detail. At 400 mhz, 1024x768 at 36 fps with 19 AI cars and all detail is possible. After using the K6 for the entire beta phase, I got spoiled by running on some P2's, and recently built my own. What a luxury! It's fantastic to have all that detail, full mirrors, lighting effects, etc., and all 19 AI cars, at 800x600. But it's not essential to enjoy GPL. So there may be some cries of dismay - "Darn it, how come I can't run this state of the art racing sim on my perfectly good 8 mb 486/66??!!" - but the fact is, in the US, you can build or buy a machine today that will run GPL beautifully with *everything* turned on for under $1200. When has *that* ever happened before in PC racing sim history? To my knowledge, Papyrus has never before released a racing sim which, at the time of its release, could be run with all detail and max frame rate on hardware generally available at the time. It took *years* before hardware was available to run GP2 properly, and elsewhere in this thread, someone pointed out that MS-CPR also needed more CPU power than was widely available at the time it was released. Personally, I'm delighted at the incredible level of detail and realism that Papyrus has been able to wring out of computers we can buy today, and I'm very grateful that the computer industry has made such powerful computers available for so little money. There are more details about GPL and hardware in my GPL Hardware FAQ at: http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/sims/gpl.htm Alison Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. http://www.nh,ultranet.com/~alison

Not! GPL is quite playable on a P200. You need to sacrifice graphic detail and/or AI opponents to get good frame rate, but it is quite playable. See related postings from John Wallace and myself in this thread. Alison Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. http://www.nh,ultranet.com/~alison

>Sometimes when watching a replay at the Nurburgring it looks almost >lifelike, with the incredibly crisp graphics at 1024x768, the >light-sourcing and shading on the cars, the road snaking through the >Eifel mountains and the cacophany of engines howling by. I'm probably >not entitled to an unbiased opinion given my association with GPL, but >sometimes it's hard to stop myself getting poetic :-) I feel the same way, John! GPL is simply fabulous. The way I look at the cost of the hardware to run GPL is something like this: Where else could I, for roughly US$1200, get to drive, not one, but any one of seven different incredible Grand Prix cars, on any one of eleven of the most fantastic race courses ever built? And not just for a few laps on one special day, but any time I want, for as long as I want. And race against people all over the world, while never leaving my home. What a deal! $1200 for seven Grand Prix cars, unlimited access rights to eleven Grand Prix circuits, and all the superb racing I could ever want! Frank Williams, go home. Sayonara, Jim Russell. Bernie Ecclestone, eat your heart out. Alison Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. [link lost in import: /,ultranet.com/~alison]

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:25:43 +0100, "Mike Laskey"

Quoted text (14 lines)

>>the great graphics and other superlative design features will make GPL the >>most impressive driving sim. ever to be released in my opinion. Moving the >It _is_ the most impressive driving sim that any of the testers have >experienced, and as I said in another message, I've been involved with GPL >for a good fair while now and I STILL feel as enthusiastic about it as I did >when I first heard about it. I'm not going to tell you that it's a perfect >flawless game because such a beast doesn't and will never exist, but it's >the closest thing yet to hacking round a real race track. As a general >comment to folks, if you're willing to put the time and effort into it in >order to learn how to setup and drive the cars, you'll love it. Having said >that, you've probably played the demo a fair bit and if you can drive that, >you'll be ok - although driving closely amongst the traffic requires never >ending practise!! :-)

Very true! It's so easy to get overly optimistic and make a dive for a hole that isn't there. I totally agree with what Mike says here. GPL is far and away the most realistic racing experience I've ever encountered outside of a real race course. And, like real racing, you've got to put in the time to learn the skills in order to really be quick, but when you do, it's immensely rewarding. Alison

Me too! Amen, brother! Insanity - but glorious, gut-wrenching, pulse-pounding screaming maniacal fun when you get it right! In my report of the Nurburgring Papy Cup, there is a screen shot of Scott Sanford flinging his Ferrari through Antoniusbuche. The car's longitudinal axis is offset from its direction of travel by at least 5 degrees. The speed indicator on the replay reads 175 mph. If you look carefully, you can see air under all four wheels. Alison Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. http://www.nh,ultranet.com/~alison

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>I do have to say that the Nurburgring is a totally awesome piece of >>work, and I would buy GPL and be delighted even if the Nordschleife >>was the only track you could race on. >Seconded. >> I've done god knows how many >>laps now and my sphincter STILL tightens everytime I approach >>Anteniusbuche - that is one goddam scary corner. Airborne and sideways >>at 170mph on a snaking country road is as mental as it gets. >BTW: "Only" in GPL - or on the real thing? Bike or car?

Oh by far the most laps in GPL! A friend drove me two laps in his 911 turbo a couple of years ago though, and it was stunning. He wouldn't let me drive though, which didn't make me happy at the time. Mind you, looking back I'd have to say that if I were him I'm sure I wouldn't have let a racing nutter drive my 911 turbo around an insanely complicated track which he'd never been on before... GPL really gives you a good experience of the Ring though, having extremely complex sections where precision is rewarded. Sections like Monaco where bravery will gain you big time (or you lose it big time...), power sections, the lot. One of the corners just past Hohe-Acht is a favourite of mine - as you descend sharply toward the right hander the road goes dramatically off-camber in mid-turn. To get a good turn-in and run along the following straight you need to have the weight of the car moving into the turn at the right moment to counteract the change in camber, while at the same time not turning in too early. These technical parts buried among jumps, flat out sections and the corners that favour the brave and the committed mingle together to make the Ring an enormously rewarding drive. I would also say that IMO it's not _too_ difficult to learn, and five or six laps gives the general layout. To know all the corners and to drive it well though is a different proposition, quite apart from the normal sim-racing difficulty of trying to string together a "perfect" mistake free lap. I look forward to seeing who is going to be the sim-world "Ringmeister"..... Cheers! John

>>BTW: "Only" in GPL - or on the real thing? Bike or car? >Oh by far the most laps in GPL! A friend drove me two laps in his 911 >turbo a couple of years ago though, and it was stunning. I enjoyed a lap last year as one of 3 passenger of the Ring-Taxi, a BMW M5 driven by the 2-time 24hours-race winner Sabine Reck. She "raced" against two 911 from Bergwerk all the way to the Doettinger Hoehe straight. The Carrera accelerated past the heavy limo after Bergwerk, but she managed to keep the Turbo behind all the way while *** on to the rear of the Carrera, which fired big flames out of the exhaust, especially when braking for Pflanzgarten. Big fun! The descent IMHO would be Eschbach, with a left hander, followed by a tighter right-hander into Bruennchen. The wrong camber is a challenge especially for bikers, and the people watching there make some drivers go over their limit. Some go too quick through the left-hander, and arrive at the right, inner side of the right-hand turn, where they have to brake hard. Within a few minutes, I saw a biker falling of there, and a car scratching along the armco on the *inside* after getting surprise oversteer under braking. Others manage to get round the corner, but then run over the curbs into the grass on the straight. Nowadays, there is a big open space on the left side of Bruennchen, just near the street. In GPL, the track is probably in the middle of the forest as it used to be. -- _____ /_______\ .\\ a t t h e a d I XT /~~~~ I 500\_____ 1977' Yamaha XT.Rex 500 Enduro \____/\__I_I http://matthead.home.pages.de/

>Very true! It's so easy to get overly optimistic and make a dive for a >hole that isn't there. I was enjoying a good race at Kyalami last night, putting in some real fast laps in my endeavour to make up some positions after a poor qualifying effort. I had a Ferrari behind, clearly much faster, all over my gearbox and I'd been shadowing old Brucey for about 3 laps... then as I watched him outbrake himself slightly I got a run and made a move to take him on the outside of the next bend. Well I'll be damned because he gave no ground, and in my attempts to intimidate him into backing off, I left my braking just a half-metre too late and despite literally throwing the car sideways to try to make the bend, I just dropped the left front on the grass - no coming back from there - and McLaren carried on, most likely with a grin of satisfaction as he watched me in his mirrors slide off sideways through the dust into the retaining wall. Damn! :-) Mike.

That's the section - the right hander between Eschbach and Brunnchen. Open space? WHAT open space...? :-) Cheers! John

Why "Antoniusbuche", I believed it to be "Anteniusbuche"? At least that's what's on my old circuit guide. Anyone know? Cheers! John

>>In my report of the Nurburgring Papy Cup, there is a screen shot of >>Scott Sanford flinging his Ferrari through Antoniusbuche. >Why "Antoniusbuche", I believed it to be "Anteniusbuche"? At least >that's what's on my old circuit guide. Anyone know? "Antoniusbuche" is correct, I believe. "(Der heilige) Antonius" is the german version of "(St.) Anthony" (the unfashionable first name derived from it is "Anton".) "Buche" is some kind of tree. I never heard of anything called "Antenius" in German. Must have been a typo in your circuit guide. -- Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

That's my experience precisely. I'm running an AMD k6 233 and Pure3d. I get exactly the same framerates whether running with all graphic options turned off in 640x480 or everything turned on (including in rear-view mirrors) in 800x600. No difference. Only the number of opponents and whether I'm currently sliding down the track on my rollbar make any difference :) I will be very interested to hear if the actual game is better. If I can only get 15-20 fps with 0-2 opponents onscreen, I'll just have to wait until about next February when I get a better computer to buy the game. As far as the graphics go, I think Sierra did a great job, making wise compromises where possible. At first I thought the graphics were lousy because the trackside objects looked bad up close. As my ability to stay on the track for more than a second or two increased, I realized that the trackside objects look ok so long as you are flying by them rather than ramming them. Overall, I don't this is the best looking game ever released, and perhaps the sensation of speed could be greater, but it's still really good and of course I'm holding out my hopes for the actual game rather than judging it by what Sierra never meant for us to see. rob. >Except that the whole point of my thread was that graphics options amount to >twiddle. The only way to achieve any frame rate results is to lower the # >of cars in the field (and to avoid driving anywhere near them on the track >:) ). That can't be done (nor would we expect or want to) on the fly. <snip> >Marc.

>someone said: >> And please recall that a while ago Intel supposedly tried to put game >> publishers under pressure to make excessive use of floating point in I find that hard to believe. How would Intel "pressure" a software house? About all I can think they might have done is point out that their FPU was fast enough to handle the task better than traditional integer methods. >things more complex With Intel CPU's it's actually quicker to use floating >point than fixed point calculations, so the decision being faced is whether >to code in the simpler way and a way that will work fine with Intel CPU's, >but will or incur a slight performance problem with AMD et al. Or.. Use the Perhaps AMD could be coaxed to deliver a 3DNow! patch like for Quake II. Who knows what they could wring out of the engine with those instructions. Also, if you own a K6-2, keep your fingers crossed that the next V2 drivers deliver better performance. Clark

>>In my report of the Nurburgring Papy Cup, there is a screen shot of >>Scott Sanford flinging his Ferrari through Antoniusbuche. Compared to the track as it is now, the GPL version of Antoniusbuche is too extreme. I don't believe it was changed in 1970 apart form the wider track, and jumping is nowadays IMHO impossible even at 200mph. Bikers have to be brave there, though, if they want to take it flat out. "O" is right. The name derives from a big "Buche" tree that old legends linked to St. Antonius. It was cut in the 1930s when the street left oft the track was build - farmers feared that the old tree might topple over any day. -- _____ /_______\ .\\ a t t h e a d I XT /~~~~ I 500\_____ 1977' Yamaha XT.Rex 500 Enduro \____/\__I_I http://matthead.home.pages.de/

>>The descent IMHO would be Eschbach, with a left hander, followed by a >>tighter right-hander into Bruennchen. >That's the section - the right hander between Eschbach and Brunnchen. In GPL, the "Brnnchen" sign is placed at the wrong place: approx. 1/2 mile too "soon", somewhere in Wippermann. Actually, in GPL there are some trees and crowds scattered there. See http://home.sol.no/~espenm3/pictures_t08_Brnnchen-2.html Nowadays, an open field, as big as two football fields or so, is on the left side of the track at the "Brnnchen" straight. A popular place for fans, because it's directly near the main street, and offers a lot of space to park (unlike Pflanzgarten). Used as a camp ground during the 24hours race, but camping is "verboten" on other times. Last year, I parked a campmobil there over night, and the first thing I saw the next morning were race cars coming down Eschbach, warming up for the VLN race. ;-) -- _____ /_______\ .\\ a t t h e a d I XT /~~~~ I 500\_____ 1977' Yamaha XT.Rex 500 Enduro \____/\__I_I http://matthead.home.pages.de/

You don't have to be concerned, and I'll explain why: The combination of a CPU-hungry 3dfx card and a CPU hungry racing sim is a baaaaad combination, in particular when you have a slowish P133. The 3dfx cards are simply not the best around for the slow processors! The 3dfx cards put a heay workload on your CPU. When the AI cars are simulated as well, things just seems to stop. Put in a rendition card and you'll see things will change... Could be interesting to see some statistic performance material on how much time GPL spends in the different sections: How much time spent in the graphics dept, how much time is spent in the physics dept, the i/o etc... I am one hundred % sure that Papy has done this analysis, because it is imperative in real time apps... Anyway, these figures would certainly reveal some info on the invention of this game, but it would also give valuable info on where your systems sucks, or where dollars are best spent... On hardware requirements, I think I might be able to sum things up: 1) The slow processors (I'd say up to around P200) positively need Rendition cards in order to play at any decency (I think the Stealth II and Thriller might work even with your P133...) 2) The faster processors (PII) can use Voodoo I and II, and Rendition with great success, doesn't matter which graphics card! 3) The slow non-Intel CPUs might be even slower than slower Intel CPUs because they lack fast floating point operations, if they're supported at all! If this is the price for the most advanced physics around, I am more than willing to pay it! The constraint of running on old computers would retard the games development, you cannot possibly mean that Papy should make games playable on yesterdays computers... ---Asgeir--- > <snipped> > I am concerned for two reasons:

You truly have no idea of what you are talking about... The 3dfx Voodoo 1 is a perfect candidate for P120 to 233...(these are the processors that the cards are designed for NOT PII's-Vice Versa for VII). The Voodoo1 will naturally scale performance according to CPU speed. It can do this because the CPU is the limiting factor not the 3dfx chip. I doubt you would see this increase in performance with the Rendition chip. The 3dfx cards are a graphics accelerator they take the load off your CPU. The only thing the CPU needs to do is pass the geometry information to the 3d card. This is the same for the Rendition chipset, it is however widely acknowledged that 3dfx Voodoo1 was the best performing of the first generation of 3d video accelerators. >You don't have to be concerned, and I'll explain why: >The combination of a CPU-hungry 3dfx card and a CPU hungry racing sim is a >baaaaad combination, in particular when you have a slowish P133. The 3dfx cards >are simply not the best around for the slow processors! The 3dfx cards put a >heay workload on your CPU. When the AI cars are simulated as well, things just >seems to stop. Put in a rendition card and you'll see things will change... >On hardware requirements, I think I might be able to sum things up: >1) The slow processors (I'd say up to around P200) positively need Rendition >cards in order to play at any decency (I think the Stealth II and Thriller might >work even with your P133...) >2) The faster processors (PII) can use Voodoo I and II, and Rendition with

> <snipped own stuff> > No, No, NO. 3dfx cards and Rendition cards are hardware accelarators, they > remove the onerous job of rendering from the CPU. Therefore no hardware > graphics accelerator is harder on a CPU than any other. Nope, that's wrong. The graphics boards have lots of differences when it comes to how hard they are on the CPU. It is widely known that Rendition works best with the slower processors and that 3dfx works best with faster cpus. No, that simply is wrong! GPL is NOT optimized for Rendition, it comes with graphic engines for Rendition AND 3dfx! To say that ALL graphic boards REMOVE all graphic load from the CPU is totally bullocks. The thing is that the 3dfx is harder on the cpu, that's all! This has to do with how the Glide and RRedline are implemented through buffers etc. I don't understand you 3dfx users, you think that your boards are the best in ALL contexts. This time it isn't, because: 1) GPL has for once been written in the native language of Rendition, if you can call any API native, and thus takes advantage of the RRedline API (not many games use RRedline, unfortunately) 2) GPL is so *** the CPU that the graphics API becomes crucial. 3) The 3dfx and Voodoo II is harder on the cpu than Rendition... I have to point to Allisons site, explaining how this works in practice... She simply says that the Thriller (Rendition) works best all the way up to PII300 (I don't remember the exact numbers). That is because the Rendition cards are doing well in this context (and that is lucky for us Rendition owners ;-), but not others... ---Asgeir--- PS: I don't want to get involved in another "3dfx or Rendition - who's best"-argument

% No, No, NO. 3dfx cards and Rendition cards are hardware accelarators, they % remove the onerous job of rendering from the CPU. Therefore no hardware % graphics accelerator is harder on a CPU than any other. The only difference % is that a faster accelerator will render each frame more quickly and % therefore be ready for the next one that much quicker. Having said that, in % the case of GPL I understand that it has been optimized to work with % rendition cards, therefore there is a performance hit when using a 3dfx card. % This means that with lower specc'd machines, you will see better framerates % from a Rendtion card. Indeed with all but the highest end machines (~333 PII % and up) the rendition is better. Actually I think the Rendition cards have a leg up over the Voodoo cards because of the way they use DMA to handle the transfers. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> No, that simply is wrong! GPL is NOT optimized for Rendition, it comes with graphic > engines for Rendition AND 3dfx! actually, the design of the graphics engine IS kind of optimised towards the Rendition card... since it does depth sorting of all the polygons via CPU. 3DFX doesn't really need that since it could use Z-Buffer and thus go faster. But on the other hand it does allow 3dfx users to run their cards a whole resolution higher than in most other 3dfx games.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> <snipped my own old stuff> > > I have to point to Allisons site, explaining how this works in practice... She > > simply says that the Thriller (Rendition) works best all the way up to PII300 > (I Since you mention Alison's site you will probably notice that she says the > way GPL is programmed takes advantage of the Rendition method of texture > addressing, in my book that is optimised to use Rendition and not 3dfx.

Papyrus selected one method of texture addressing (like the mirrors for instance), and implemented this on two systems, one works great, and the other works ok... On lower specs puters that is! I'm not sure if this can be called opimizing or not. What came first, the rendering method or the API? Same thing with eggs and hens... Or top-down programming vs. down-up progr... Voodoo II is a marvellous product, with a very specific customer target, namely the top-end users... It is not the best product in all contexts, as you rightfully agree with. The wierd thing is that the 3dfx users seem to have a religious relation to their graphic cards with all the ***that brings along... Fanatism etc... ---Asgeir--- PS: I will try to run GPL on my P 250, and Stealth II, and if that should proove bad, I simply have to upgrade... GPL, must be enjoyed, no matter cost!!!

snip > Voodoo II is a marvellous product, with a very specific customer target, namely the > top-end users... It is not the best product in all contexts, as you rightfully agree > with. The wierd thing is that the 3dfx users seem to have a religious relation to > their graphic cards with all the ***that brings along... Fanatism etc... You obviously never listened to some of the nVidia fans... l8er ronny -- Toys'R'Us '99: "So, would you like a hand gun with that action figure, kiddo?" |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

>Voodoo II is a marvellous product, with a very specific customer target, namely the >top-end users... It is not the best product in all contexts, as you rightfully agree You keep arguing this, but that doesn't make it correct. Go look at some comparative 3D card benchmarks. (There's a big 3D card comparison on www.tomshardware.com, for example, which uses several different benchmarks with several different CPUs with several different cards.) Voodoo and Voodoo 2 cards do very well on lower-end systems in most games, and scale less with CPU than most other 3D cards in most games. Papyrus games are an unusual case, as they were originally written for Rendition's strengths (like unified video memory) and weaknesses (like no Z-buffer) and then ported to 3Dfx. You just can't make general statements about 3D card CPU scalability from one engine's results. The statement you make about the Voodoo 2 is much more applicable to, say, the TNT. Crazy fast on high-end systems; not a very good choice on low-end systems. (And unusable in GPL, sigh. I hope Papyrus sees the light and makes an OpenGL or Direct3D version of their engine.) -- spamgard(tm): To email me, put "geek" in your Subject line.