"Grand Prix Legends"? It should be "Nurburgring Legends" :o)

I wasn't going to buy this game ...ever. The thought of driving sloppy old bangers in a sim just didn't get my juices going at all. But after christmas, I found myself with a bit of spare cash and when I was browsing PC World I saw GPL, thought it over, thought of the Nurburgring's twisty 14 mile layout and was sold... but only just. I had actually gone in there looking for Paint Shop Pro... they didn't have it :( Anyway, after a good few hours of playing, mostly at the Nurburgring, a few laps of Monaco and not even one complete tour of Silverstone I have to say.... "Shit! This is good!" I have no passion for the cars, the drivers or the tracks... except for the Nurburgring. The drivers were rich basterds, probably a bit like the guys I went to school with, the cars, I mean their looks & names ignight no inspiration for me and the tracks are a bit bland (so far). Having said that, I do enjoy _driving_ the cars, they are extreamly tricky, and I have only auto-shifting to support my attempts to keep the machine under control... and the Nurburgring is just fantastic, it's crazy! You only need to get one corner right and it's enough to make you want to practice more and more for a few hours, until the next slide, correction, opposite lock, locking wheel... something else, that just looks so great, feels soo great that you want to stick with it for a good few more hours! :o) Yes, I'm well and truly ***ed :'-( Rob

>I have no passion for the cars, the drivers or the >tracks I got GPL for Xmas. I had driven the demo and read a lot about it here in the group. I tend not to like sims that are too difficult. I never got into ICR2 because it was just too twitchy and I don't like the cars. I appreciate the notion that they are difficult to master and doing so gives you great satisfaction, etc, I just don't have the time to do it. My other impression was very much like this guys impression. I don't like F1 or CART or IndyCar racing much, though I will happily watch nearly any motorsport. NASCAR is my favorite, and I have been going to oval track races since I was 5 in 1965. I understand the legendary status of Jim Clark and Graham Hill and all that, but the whole Grand Prix concept leaves me pretty cold. I am enjoying GPL tremendously. I doubt I will ever be very good at it, heck, I'd like to at least have the next-to-last car in visual range when the checker falls...What is most exciting to me, however, it the notion that the amazing physics modelling of GPL will work its way into sims set in series I appreciate more. This makes me drool in anticipation of N3! I would also like to be able to drive something like Can-Am or Trans-Am cars on the tracks in GPL with the performance and aura of those cars. THAT would be exciting. Does anyone have any idea if the Pits folks or anyone else is going to try and do a patches for GPL like the cottage industry that popped up around N2? In the meantime...back to the 'Ring ~daxe "Religion is remedial spirituality" ---== http://www.newsfeeds.com - Largest Usenet Server In The World! ==--- ---== http://www.newsfeeds.com - Largest Usenet Server In The World! ==---

oh yes, it's so good to read your opinion on gpl. i play race car since it exist on computer and the first , real the first real simulator i've played is gpl. you try at the right time. if you tried this with monaco racing or f1racing and even gp2, you won't be ***ed like you are now. and you're not alone, many friends and my uncle become *** after playing gpl. now, they spend their money to buy computer and good steering wheel ... welcome regards rod

Get the Coventry setups from Alison Hine's site and, in a reasonable time, you'll be mid pack. bob

> I wasn't going to buy this game ...ever. The thought of driving sloppy old > bangers in a sim just didn't get my juices going at all. But after christmas, I > found myself with a bit of spare cash and when I was browsing PC World I saw > GPL, thought it over, thought of the Nurburgring's twisty 14 mile layout and > was sold... but only just. I had actually gone in there looking for Paint Shop > Pro... they didn't have it :( So? Another box sold. You know nothing about that time period of racing do you? You could have at least read the strat. guide. Don't bash the people or the circuits until you know a little bit about them...I'm curious though, what name would ignight inspiration though? Only ones I can think of outside of this era: Fangio, Villeneuve, Sheckter, Lauda, Mansell, Prost, Senna, Schumacher. While in 67 there's: Brabham, Clark, Hill, Hulme, Ickx(up and coming), Surtees, Stewart. Auto-shifting decreases your control, you can't control revs which means you can't control the rear end...which is not good for a beginner. Auto simply sucks, for novice or expert. 1 more box...1 more satisfied customer (what's that 99.9% now?). :-) -- Jon Van Ginneken "I wrestled with an alligator, tussled with a whale, handcuffed lightning, threw thunder in jail...I'm a bad dude." - Muhammad Ali

"sloppy old bangers" - you really are asking for a roasting aren't you? - bit young for that era are you? or just felt like a bit of a christmas flame? welcome to real driving - none of your "stuck to the ground, corner like slot cars" here :-)

All cars slide off the track at some speed. So you like yours to do it at 70mph while some like it to happen at 150mph. I don't know of a sim that corners like slot cars. Not everyone wants to drive cars that were designed before they knew how to make them go around corners properly. Define real driving. Teetering around in a 200 mph car that would kill you at the slightest error. Real driving? More like real dumb. Woo hoo I got around the track without killing myself. Mmmmm satisfying! Dean

I direct readers to Jeff Vincent's sig, a quote of Jim Clark, that seems to apply here... "But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark I swear I heard Surtees say almost the same thing in an interview on SpeedVision, but I can't prove it. Brett

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>welcome to real driving - none of your "stuck to the ground, corner like >>slot cars" here :-) >All cars slide off the track at some speed. So you like yours to do it at >70mph while some like it to happen at 150mph. I don't know of a sim that >corners like slot cars. Not everyone wants to drive cars that were designed >before they knew how to make them go around corners properly. >Define real driving. Teetering around in a 200 mph car that would kill you >at the slightest error. Real driving? More like real dumb. Woo hoo I got >around the track without killing myself. Mmmmm satisfying! >Dean

>I direct readers to Jeff Vincent's sig, a quote of Jim Clark, that >seems to apply here... >"But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was >nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into >a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark I wouldn't disagree at all but most people think it won't be them and as we can't ask the dead if they thought it was worth it we'll never know. I always think Sterling's a bit off it saying racing should be more dangerous from the comfort of current race day hospitality which he luckily survived to enjoy. I for one don't want to see another driver killed for my entertainment (I know it's a little more common for Americans with Nascar and CART). I much preferred to see JV get out of his car waving at Spa this year than carried to a funeral home and am relieved that Senna is still the last F1 fatality. Dean

Ok, I see quite a number of tangents we could wander off with here, but I'm going to try to stay in the framework of the group's topic as best I can. First, I don't know anyone who wants to see a driver killed in racing for "entertainment." We are talking about sims here, right? The attitude of my previous post is based on the logic of why people like sims -- that is, the benefit of sims over real life experience -- which is, of course, the reset button. Or more precisely, SHIFT+R. :) The quote of Clark applies perfectly here, and it was my original point. Because of a sim like GPL, there is no limit to driving, there is nothing to be frightened of, and thus any fool (read-you and me- -well, at least me) can buy GPL and race without fear of death. This idea, which I failed to convey clearly, was in response to your previous post, where you stated, I assume sarcastically, "Woo hoo I got around the track without killing myself." My point is, there *is* no danger in a sim, therefore, Clark's quote seems to apply quite logically, in a weird and silly way. I know that when Clark was quoted, he wasn't talking about Grand Prix Legends. Sorry, didn't mean to strike a nerve. I just like to drive cars that were designed before they knew how to make them go around corners properly! ;) Regards, Brett

Quoted text (19 lines)

>>I direct readers to Jeff Vincent's sig, a quote of Jim Clark, that >>seems to apply here... >>"But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was >>nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into >>a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark >I wouldn't disagree at all but most people think it won't be them and as we >can't ask the dead if they thought it was worth it we'll never know. I >always think Sterling's a bit off it saying racing should be more dangerous >from the comfort of current race day hospitality which he luckily survived >to enjoy. >I for one don't want to see another driver killed for my entertainment (I >know it's a little more common for Americans with Nascar and CART). I much >preferred to see JV get out of his car waving at Spa this year than carried >to a funeral home and am relieved that Senna is still the last F1 fatality. >Dean

Rob, once again you're letting your ignorance show. It's good to see you enjoy GPL, *now that you've actually tried it*, but to go on slagging people and things you know nothing about... Take Denis Hulme, the '67 champion. His father had a trucking firm in New Zealand. At six***, Denny's first driving experience was driving one of his father's six ton trucks on 150 mile trips delivering five cubic yards of sand in the evenings after school or weekends. In the Hulme trucking business, the driver was also the mechanic, so when a gearbox blew out, Denny learned how to fix that to get home. Denny started racing in 1957 (at 19), and labored in relative obscurity in NZ sports car and formula racing for a few years. In 1960 he won the NZ GP Association's Driver to Europe award and went to Europe to drive (with George Lawton, who was killed racing a few months later). He worked his way through the ranks, working as a mechanic at Jack Brabham motors in 1962 to pay the rent. In '63 he drove Formula Junior for Brabham and almost won the British Championship. His first F1 drives (part-time) were in 1965, and he stepped into a full-time position in 1966. In 1967, he scored his first win at Monaco (he also won at the Nurburgring), won the World Championship, and finished fourth at the Indy 500 (winning Rookie of the Year honors). (BTW, this is heavily summarized from the Nov '67 issue of "Sports Car Graphic" magazine, I can send you an OCR if you're interested.) So as you *may* be able to see, these "rich bastards" that you have no interest in or passion for do have some accomplishments (both in racing and life) that merit at least your respect, if not admiration. On the other hand, if you ever make anything of yourself in racing, perhaps we can look forward to the day in the distant future (while we old farts are racing our wheelchairs) when some young snot comes along and tells you what a boring rich bastard you are... :) Now you've got *some* idea of what we've been ranting about for the last three months. :) PS- Brett, you have indeed understood the Clark quote (or at least the interpretation that I felt made it of interest here). "But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

Dean, "Not everyone wants to drive cars that were designed before they knew how to make them go around corners properly" that's what makes it great for me - its then up to the driver, not the designer, to make them go round corners properly :-) JMHO !! cheers -Lindsay

Good point but why don't you remove the tyres and drive on the rims. That would be a challenge. Dean

> The drivers were rich basterds, probably > a bit like the guys I went to school with, the cars, I mean their looks & names > ignight no inspiration for me Firstly, it's "ignite". Secondly, you haven't the faintest idea about the backgrounds of those whom you are rubbishing, have you? Most of the drivers were definitely NOT "rich bastards". One or two were fortunate enough to have been blessed with circumstances that allowed them to enjoy a sport that was certainly more accessible back then (as a driver) than now. Guy Ligier and Jo Bonnier were not poverty stricken, by any means. However, the bulk of the drivers had to get to the positions they held in 1966/67 the hard way. As an example, those from the Antipodes (Bruce McLaren, Denny Hulme, Chris Amon and Jack Brabham) certainly served their apprenticeships in lesser formulae and were down to their last couple of pence many times before good fortune shone on them. Chris Irwin, J.P. Beltoise, Jo Siffert, Mike Parkes, Scarfiotti....they weren't given gift certificates from their families that gave them carte blanche to the F1 racing community! Check your facts before making irresponsible statements that could cause offense. -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- HMRC Web site address is:- http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/brucek/hmrc/index.htm ----------

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>that's what makes it great for me - its then up to the driver, not the >>designer, to make them go round corners properly :-) >>JMHO !! >Good point but why don't you remove the tyres and drive on the rims. That >would be a challenge. >Dean

Conversely, why drive a winding circuit at all? That's rather dangerous. Why not race a perfectly straight line, from one point to another, on a paved course, that is wide enough to drive 20 cars a***? That would be much safer. Cheers, Brett

You could call it Enduro Drag Racing. Dean

Yeah, those humble Scottish sheep farmers were earning millions back then :-) I agree here. Once you start setting competitive laptimes it's amazing to run with the AI at places like Flugplatz and Tiergarten. Anyone beaten 8m15.2 in the Ferrari? You have only been looking at the maps, right? Cheers! -- Graeme Nash http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk ICQ# 11257824

I'm very impressed! My best is 8m21 in the Lotus - more laps needed... there are some bits where I know I can just get through flat out and I'm backing off. - Michael

> Anyone beaten 8m15.2 in the Ferrari? Watcha Graeme.... I saw on the net a few days ago a time of 8:06 for the Ring (I think it was Dave Mansell's "Skunk Racing" website?) 8-) *Peter* #:-)

Hi, That's gotta be for the Lotus, right? I've never even attempted the Ring in a Lotus. I've sort of quit driving it in favour of the Ferrari. Although one day I might hop in it to try and beat Wolfie Woeger's 8m02 lap :-) Cheers! -- Graeme Nash http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk ICQ# 11257824

Hey, Graeme... What kind of times are you putting up in the Ferrari at The Glen? Any Ferrari setups to offer? Thanks!

I've run a best 1m05.49 on default setup, and that was in a race :-) My best training lap is 1m05.67. That's the only one I have a lap replay of. I'm currently putting a few together. I'm not sure when they'll be released but it shouldn't be too long.... Although I'm quite a "front- end" driver so my setups for all cars aren't quite as user friendly as, say, Alison's. Cheers! -- Graeme Nash http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk ICQ# 11257824

Wow...great time and the default setup! I too have found the default Ferrari setup pretty drivable, but I'm about 2 secs. behind you at Watkins Glen. Meaning you like an oversteering setup? In any case, I'd love to know when you get your Ferrari setup(s) done. One final question: How long have you been driving GPL? Can you recall what kind of times you were putting up once you got initially familar with The Glen, for example? I'm trying to get some idea of how long it takes to get really fast. I've been driving for about 45 days and have dropped about 10 secs. at The Glen. Thanks for all your insight!

Not necessarily oversteering, although I do like quite positive turn-in which means the back end does occasionally try to overtake the front. I usually manage to keep it under control though :-) I'll post here when they're done! I've been driving GPL since September, with the demo. However it wasn't until mid-October that I got a 3D card - prior to then I was restricted to minimum graphics at what was about 25fps. I got the GPL full version on October the 10th I think. With the demo my best ever Watkins Glen lap was 1m06.11s, in the Lotus. When I got the full version I fairly quickly got into the 1m05's with the same car, and then the 1m04's came from studying the laps of people like Wolfgang Woeger and George Sandman. I've only been driving the Ferrari for the last month or so. I took me until last week to go under 1m06 with it and on the very next lap I recorded the time which still stands as my training mode best. Just keep at it and the times will come! Cheers! -- Graeme Nash http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk ICQ# 11257824

>8:17 in the Ferrari. Also, 8:19 with one spin which would have put the >lap very close to your 8:15. I still have yet to make more than one >lap at a time without some sort of brain fade. >-Chris Cavin- I still have yet to make more than one lap at a time - PERIOD. :) Eldred __ Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea... remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

What would people consider to be the minimum frame rate for *fast* laps? I'm currently getting about 22fps, I'm upgrading soon - can I expect the higher frame rate to have an effect on my lap times? Or is there little or no advantage to be had once the game appears to be running smoothly? Thanks -- Mike Buckley

% >I've been driving GPL since September, with the demo. However it wasn't % >until mid-October that I got a 3D card - prior to then I was restricted % >to minimum graphics at what was about 25fps. I got the GPL full version % >on October the 10th I think. % What would people consider to be the minimum frame rate for *fast* laps? % I'm currently getting about 22fps, I'm upgrading soon - can I expect the % higher frame rate to have an effect on my lap times? Or is there little % or no advantage to be had once the game appears to be running smoothly? While one can compensate for slower frame rates, IMO this is a handicap. What I find more important than a fast frame rate, is a "steady" frame rate. However, if the frame rate runs below 36 fps in GPL, there is a high tendency for the frame rate to flucuate. When the frame rate is below the optimum, the screen updates the car and track in a jerky manner, dropping frames. This usually causes the player to over-comensate or even not visualize the car's behavior. Thus lowering lap times. So in short, the closer one can run at GPL's optimum frame rate (36 fps), the better one should be able to control the car. And since GPL requires precise car control, a higher frame rate should equal better lap times. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Definitely. I can feel a difference between 32fps and 36fps!

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >I've been driving GPL since September, with the demo. However it wasn't > >until mid-October that I got a 3D card - prior to then I was restricted > >to minimum graphics at what was about 25fps. I got the GPL full version > >on October the 10th I think. > What would people consider to be the minimum frame rate for *fast* laps? > I'm currently getting about 22fps, I'm upgrading soon - can I expect the > higher frame rate to have an effect on my lap times? Or is there little > or no advantage to be had once the game appears to be running smoothly?

You'll definitely notice a difference... Once your system can maintain 30+fps all the time, your consistency will go up dramatically. Trips

now now ... no need to be silly!! :-)

Think about GP2, and how smooth it is at 25.4 fps. The problem with GPL is exactly that the frame rate fluctuates wildly if you are under 36 fps. I think they should have a slider for selecting a max frame rate lower than 36 fps. Having a frame rate pegged at 30 fps would be much better than fluctuating from 30 to 36. Heck 24 fps used to seem fast in ICR2. I hope N2K will allow some lower max frame rate. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

% > % > While one can compensate for slower frame rates, IMO this is a handicap. % > What I find more important than a fast frame rate, is a "steady" frame % > rate. However, if the frame rate runs below 36 fps in GPL, there is a % > high tendency for the frame rate to flucuate. When the frame rate is % > below the optimum, the screen updates the car and track in a jerky % Think about GP2, and how smooth it is at 25.4 fps. The problem with % GPL is exactly that the frame rate fluctuates wildly if you are % under 36 fps. I think they should have a slider for selecting a % max frame rate lower than 36 fps. Having a frame rate pegged at % 30 fps would be much better than fluctuating from 30 to 36. Heck % 24 fps used to seem fast in ICR2. I hope N2K will allow some lower % max frame rate. While the frame rate may be smooth and constant in GP2, GP2 expanded and collapsed time to achieve this. This also had an affect on how one controlled the car. Papy may want to consider going back it's tried and proven method of automatically reducting detail levels to achieve a fairly constant frame rate. However, this process also robs CPU cycles and this may be why it wasn't included in GPL (which is alreay CPU extensive). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The only problem with GP2 is that it slows down the entire game to compensate for lower frame rates. This is much more annoying to me than a slight change in the frame rate. 30fps is very playable, even if it has dropped from 36. Ryan Kocher The Leader of the Free World

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > While one can compensate for slower frame rates, IMO this is a handicap. > > What I find more important than a fast frame rate, is a "steady" frame > > rate. However, if the frame rate runs below 36 fps in GPL, there is a > > high tendency for the frame rate to flucuate. When the frame rate is > > below the optimum, the screen updates the car and track in a jerky > Think about GP2, and how smooth it is at 25.4 fps. The problem with > GPL is exactly that the frame rate fluctuates wildly if you are > under 36 fps. I think they should have a slider for selecting a > max frame rate lower than 36 fps. Having a frame rate pegged at > 30 fps would be much better than fluctuating from 30 to 36. Heck > 24 fps used to seem fast in ICR2. I hope N2K will allow some lower > max frame rate. > -- > Pat Dotson > IMPACT Motorsports > http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

Quoted text (11 lines)

>% Think about GP2, and how smooth it is at 25.4 fps. The problem with >% GPL is exactly that the frame rate fluctuates wildly if you are >% under 36 fps. I think they should have a slider for selecting a >% max frame rate lower than 36 fps. Having a frame rate pegged at >% 30 fps would be much better than fluctuating from 30 to 36. Heck >% 24 fps used to seem fast in ICR2. I hope N2K will allow some lower >% max frame rate. >While the frame rate may be smooth and constant in GP2, GP2 expanded and >collapsed time to achieve this. This also had an affect on how one >controlled the car.

I think Pat's argument was more along the line that GP2 looks great with constant 25 fps, and doesn't need 36 fps to look good. If I understood this correctly, I agree. Crammonds logic "if the game is set to 25 frames per second, one second in-game time will be as long as it takes to draw 25 frames - even if this takes three real seconds" is flawed. But once in-game time and real time are synchronized properly, the sim looks good with 25 fps and is very playable. Actually, GP2 and GPL are very similar in one point, even though the one takes the "slomo" approach and the other the "leave out frames" approach: both GPL and GP2 are playable only if you have set the sim in a way that your processor isn't fully occupied all the time. In GP2, one would adjust details to get considerably less than 100% "processor occupancy" in average. In GPL, IMO, you have to make sure that the framerate is almost always at 36 fps. Otherwise, the sim will not be enjoyable. Once the program is fluctuating between 25 and 36 fps, my timing will be as much messed up as when GP2 went into slow motion on my old P90. I think (but I'm not sure) that a "rev limiter" which allowed to preselect the max. framerate would help this a lot. I agree. I used this feature mainly to find out what fps my system is capable of, and then set features to "on" or "off", rather than "auto". Grandstands emptying and filling up in fractions of seconds is a bit distracting, too. -- Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

> % Think about GP2, and how smooth it is at 25.4 fps. The problem with > % GPL is exactly that the frame rate fluctuates wildly if you are > While the frame rate may be smooth and constant in GP2, GP2 expanded and > collapsed time to achieve this. Of course it does, but that's irrelevant to my point :) Regardless of time warp, the frame rate seems totally smooth. I think that's due to the fact that FR is _pegged_ at 25.4, and doesn't change at all. In effect, Papy does the same thing as long as frame rate stays above 36 - it stays constant. Thankfully, they didn't use the ludicrous time expansion of GP2 if FR drops below 36. What is needed is other settings for that constant upper limit of frame rate currently fixed at 36. Options for 20, 24, 26, and 30 fps would allow slower computers to still maintain a constant max frame rate. I think my proposal is better than changing the detail level becuase is doesn't rob cpu cycles. Without having tested this theory, the idea of acheiving a lower constant frame rate seems like the best compromise for lower powered computers. -- ------------------------------------------------------ IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html ------------------------------------------------------

> The only problem with GP2 is that it slows down the entire game to compensate > for lower frame rates. This is much more annoying to me than a slight change > in the frame rate. Yes, it sucks big time. I've been as critical of this scheme as anyone. The perception of smoothness in GP2 is hard to beat, though. My argument is that if you have a computer that can't maintain a constant 36 fps, it may be more preferable for the user to have the option of changing the max frame rate from 36 to 30, rather than having the frame rate vary between 30 and 36. In fact, based on my perception of GP2 at 25.4, I wouldn't be surprised if GPL at 25.4 fps would be better than GPL fluctuating between 30 and 36. What I am getting at is that the human eye may be very sensitive to fluctuating frame rates - and that a lower constant frame rate may be better than a higher fluctuating frame rate. Is anyone aware of any study into this topic? -- ------------------------------------------------------ IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html ------------------------------------------------------

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >While the frame rate may be smooth and constant in GP2, GP2 expanded and > >collapsed time to achieve this. This also had an affect on how one > >controlled the car. > I think Pat's argument was more along the line that GP2 looks great > with constant 25 fps, and doesn't need 36 fps to look good. If I > understood this correctly, I agree.

Yes yes yes. Thanks for getting it. Yep, it's very noticeable when GPL isn't maxed out at 36 fps. That's exactly what I meant. I think an adjustable "rev limiter", as you call it, should help a lot. Not only from a visual standpoint, but also for racing online, where you need to be able to maintain the max frame rate for a good connection. -- ------------------------------------------------------ IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html ------------------------------------------------------

Quoted text (12 lines)

> for the user to have the option of changing the max > frame rate from 36 to 30, rather than having the frame > rate vary between 30 and 36. > In fact, based on my perception of GP2 at 25.4, I wouldn't > be surprised if GPL at 25.4 fps would be better than GPL > fluctuating between 30 and 36. > What I am getting at is that the human eye may be very > sensitive to fluctuating frame rates - and that a lower > constant frame rate may be better than a higher fluctuating > frame rate. Is anyone aware of any study into this topic?

Lots of work on this general topic in the commercial/military aircraft simulator world. Another place to look might be the National Advanced Driver Simulator (NADS, I kid you not) -- a big project (USD ~40M, our tax money at work) funded by the US Government, located in Iowa. They have generated a lot of proposals and papers, but seem to be having trouble getting online... I don't have any references handy, sorry. Maybe someone with some time could do a net search? -- Doug Milliken Research Associates Inc.