GPL's excessive Processor demands

Excuse me for not updating my PC just to run GPL but I have been wondering why Papyrus' wonderful programmers could not have added a slider to control the complexity of the physics engine. It seems from reading this ng and the interviews with David Kaemmer that: * it updates the car you are driving 288 times a second (I find that hard to believe) * the flow of air through the engine is modelled (why?) * the AI cars also have a complex physics engine (not quite as complex as the driver's car, I hope) * etc., etc., etc. All of this meaning a major load on the processor in addition to processing the 3D graphics. Simply reducing the update rate might allow me to get 20fps, while simplifying the AI physics and removing some of the more esoteric modelling might even get me to 36fps. I realise it is heresy to suggest anything less than 100% realism (though I don't know what that means when I am sitting in a swivel chair at a desk, driving the "car" using a potentiometer) but it just might have improved the sales. Next week: How having the option to make the cars easier to drive would have led to better reviews (followed by my excommunication from r.a.s) Tony Whitley Cyrix 200MX/Voodoo2 (which runs Viper/TOCA/CMR/F1RS2 quite happily, thank you)

GPL was written for the crowd who WANT these things in a simulation and are prepared to run it on a decent computer in order to get good performance. BTW - with Pentium3 on the way, your computer really isn't going to be up to much software being released in the next 12 months. Stick to the games that run well on your PC I guess - GPL isn't about good reviews or simplified physics, it's about accurate simulation. Cutting the meat of the sim out because your PC is too slow would cut the heart out of the game and make it another arcade game. Just my 0.02 Jason [snip comments on reducing realism]

[snip] The more stuff you model this way the less you have to do with scripted routines, which makes for a very consistent and believable sim. I don't truly know if GPL models the cooling dynamically, but if it does, don't you think that's better than some kind of script that says "if driver runs at X RPM for X time, the car will overheat"? I really don't know if turning down the rate at which the sim is updated would be a viable option. The computer controlled cars behave very well, and cutting something like that might cause them to behave crazily. Kind of like the stuff I read about CART:Precision Racing. :-) I don't see how anyone could fault you for this. As long as it is a toggle, nobody should have an objection to it. I think the fact that you can't adjust the computer cars speed without screwing with a file was a major mistake on Papyrus' part. Making the car easy to drive would hurt the spirit of the game in my opinion, but a slider from 10%-100% driver skill (for computer cars) would have gone a long way toward making the sim more accessible without dumbing down the physics model. I had an older Cyrix 200/Voodoo1, and while I liked it at the time, I found it to have pretty spotty performance at some games, and be good with others. Odd stuff, too. For example: Mechwarrior2:Mercenaries ran faster on the Cyrix than my P166, but Interstate 76 (which uses the same engine in modified form) ran at about 9 FPS on the Cyrix and 25 on the P166. Basically, I think they're a great Windows processor, but not the choice for a game processor. I do think we might see some shouting when NASCAR3 comes out if Papyrus can't speed up the GPL engine. Running GPL with an 8-10 car field is fine, but less than a 20 car field will suck for a NASCAR sim (IMO, of course). The fact that we'll have 10 times more computer neophyte's buying NASCAR3 than GPL, then coming here to squawk about it, should make RAS an interesting place, I'm sure. :-) -- http://www.users.fast.net/~fusion1 (dirt bikes, rat bikes, rental car abuse...)

I saw this word and would like to know - if anyone could tell me? Rob

Sorry, Rob, but I find this a little chilling. You own a computer, but don't own a dictionary. With respect ... go buy one and don't embarrass yourself in front of thousands. You'll find "heresy" under the "H" section. I'm bummed. Kurt

Quote from George Carlin - "You don't like it? Don't eat it....." -/- Walk Walker >Excuse me for not updating my PC just to run GPL but I have been wondering >why Papyrus' wonderful programmers could not have added a slider to control >the complexity of the physics engine. It seems from reading this ng and the >interviews with David Kaemmer that: >* it updates the car you are driving 288 times a second (I find that hard to

Quoted text (11 lines)

>believe) >* the flow of air through the engine is modelled (why?) >* the AI cars also have a complex physics engine (not quite as complex as >the driver's car, I hope) >* etc., etc., etc. >All of this meaning a major load on the processor in addition to processing >the 3D graphics. Simply reducing the update rate might allow me to get >20fps, while simplifying the AI physics and removing some of the more >esoteric modelling might even get me to 36fps. I realise it is heresy to >suggest anything less than 100% realism (though I don't know what that

means

Quoted text (10 lines)

>when I am sitting in a swivel chair at a desk, driving the "car" using a >potentiometer) but it just might have improved the sales. >Next week: >How having the option to make the cars easier to drive would have led to >better reviews (followed by my excommunication from r.a.s) >Tony Whitley >Cyrix 200MX/Voodoo2 (which runs Viper/TOCA/CMR/F1RS2 quite happily, thank >you)

>Excuse me for not updating my PC just to run GPL but I have been wondering >why Papyrus' wonderful programmers could not have added a slider to control >the complexity of the physics engine. I think I recall reading in an online review somewhere that GPL was unique as an offering from Papyrus in that it is able to run with all of its options turned on/up on hardware available at its release. In other words, it was designed LESS in anticipation of future hardware than any of their other releases. On the other hand, look at the N2/ICR2 family of games. How old is this engine by now? 4 years? By doing little more than adding native support for 3Dfx, an API that wasn't terribly popular when they came out, they have extended to useful life of at least N2 right up through the beginning of 1999. I don't think anyone is going to argue with the success of N2, and that has in part to do with it having staying power on hardware that has grown in capabilities by leaps and bounds. At this time in 1994 I had a 486DX2/66 with 1 MEG of on-board VL bus graphics, 24 MEG of RAM, an SB16 ASP, a 2X CD-ROM and a cruddy joystick. ICR2 was fun then, ran pretty darn good on that hardware (considering), and N2 ran even better with a few tweaks from Papyrus for the framerate and so forth. While both of these games are looking a little dated (Though 3Dfx N1999E looks great) they are still enjoyable and playable on my P2/450 with 2 graphics card totalling 20 MEG, 256 MEG of RAM, SB Live! Value, a 32X CD-ROM and a MSFF wheel. Something tells me that if they went out of their way to accomodate people running 386sx25s when ICR2 came out, the physics modelling would be so poor by comparison these days that no-one would be buying N1999. Designing games to run best on very high end machines at the time of the games release simply ensures that the game will continue to be enjoyable farther into the future. People in this NG are running GPL sucessfully on well-sorted P200s and enjoying it, and people are running it on much faster hardware, too, and enjoying it just even more. Your P200MMX is dated. That is the reality of the computer hardware treadmill. I get a new computer (or at least MB/CPU) every 18 months so I can always have something capable of running the latest. I don't HAVE to, I do it by choice. IF I don't do that, pretty soon there will be a whole slew of games that won't run for sh*t on my computer. Believe it or not, it isn't the routine upgraders like the members of this group that drive the software guys to write bigger and better games, it is John and Jane Q. Public and their snotty-nosed kids who just got a new family computer and want some 'kewl' games. It is the fact that they bought the biggest and fastest computer to run their games even though they can barely find the START button, that compels the software companies to meet the escalating hardware capabilities. The hardware bar is raised by mainstream PC buyers/users and the game companies are simply responding. Whatever, ~daxe "religion is remedial spirituality" -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! -----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Sorry, Rob, but I find this a little chilling. You own a computer, but don't >own a dictionary. With respect ... go buy one and don't embarrass yourself in >front of thousands. You'll find "heresy" under the "H" section. >I'm bummed. >Kurt

http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm (and i wonder if he was about to order from amazon....)

<<I do think we might see some shouting when NASCAR3 comes out if Papyrus can't speed up the GPL engine. Running GPL with an 8-10 car field is fine, but less than a 20 car field will suck for a NASCAR sim (IMO, of course). The fact that we'll have 10 times more computer neophyte's buying NASCAR3 than GPL, then coming here to squawk about it, should make RAS an interesting place, I'm sure. :-)>>>> Keep in mind that in NASCAR3 they wont have to model the suspension movements that you see on the GPL AI cars, or the suspension movements that you see from inside the GPL***pit. let alone haviing to model tires to look realisticly, and act the same way. I think that N3 will be much easier on CPU demands comparitively speaking. N3 you'll only have to look at a body flexing with weight transfer, and maybe see a bit of the tire where it meets the road, or see it spinning from the side view. keeping these things in mind, I believe we have a good thing on the horizon to look forward to, and by then most hardware will run it adequatly<forgive the spelling <G>>. T_K

GPL does indeed model dynamic cooling, my Eagle setup for Spa runs very high 5th gear RPM's as my Eagle peaks at 201mph into the Masta kink and Stavelot, where I can see the engine temperature get dangerously hot, I am forced to shortshift the rest of the lap on the way up from Stavelo all the way until after Eau Rouge to reduce the engine temperature, so that the engine has cooled and is ready to peak out at high RPM's into the long downhill straights again on the next lap. You can visibly see the effects of running extended high RPM's on the engine heat, and I've found that my Eagle's engine will blow at Spa on PRO damage settings if I do not keep an eye on the temp and manage it as I describe above. *This* is probably very close to what real drivers have to do to manage engine performance -vs- engine wear... Tony, it's detailed realism touches like this that make me a Racing Simulation nut, I love GPL for things like this, when I want more dumbed down physics and realism I load up one of my favorite arcade racers like the NFS series or Screamer series, which I also love for racing when I'm in a less serious mood, but when I don't feel like worrying whether I am redlining the RPM's on my Ferrari Testarossa, or why the AI magically knows which side of the road I am trying to pass on and automatically moves to block. While I agree that a difficulty slider might have been a good option for novices in GPL and I think it is an important feature for Nascar3, I *don't* think that every sim necessarily needs to cater to the lowest common denominator out there both in skills or level of computing power, maybe I'm biased by also being a flight-sim fan, but there are plenty of great arcade racing games out there that not every serious racing sim has to be muddied up to also please everyone. If features can be added that are toggleable on and off then yes by all means I am for them, but fudging the physics and realism numbers just to try and please everyone leads to mediocre sims/arcade-racer products like Cart Precision Racing which neither satisfy the diehard auto sim enthusiast nor the arcade sim racer... IMHO (not a flame) And periodic computer upgrades are just a reality of being a simulation enthusiast, Falcon3.0 urged my upgrade from a 386 to a 486, ICR2 GP2 and NFS were partly responsible for my upgrade from a 486/66 to a P166 a few years ago, and now GPL and Falcon4.0 encouraged my upgrade to a Celeron P2/300a system a few months back, that is just a price of getting closer and closer to *real* simulations, more computing power needed to calculate all the extra variables, I'm just glad at the amount of computing power that you can buy nowadays for much less money than just one or two years ago. My latest system cost around one third the price of my two previous system upgrades, and I've done system upgrades usually every 2-3 years or so. With the right hardware GPL is amazing, and IMHO GPL does justify a hardware upgrade. Yes that is the fanatic part of being an auto sim fan. Seeyas on the track. --John (Joao) Silva

Quoted text (8 lines)

>[snip] >>* the flow of air through the engine is modelled (why?) >>* the AI cars also have a complex physics engine (not quite as complex as >>the driver's car, I hope) >* etc., etc., etc. >I don't truly know if GPL models the cooling dynamically, but if it >does, don't you think that's better than some kind of script that says >"if driver runs at X RPM for X time, the car will overheat"?

SNIP!

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:03:58 -0000 "Tony Whitley" >Next week: >How having the option to make the cars easier to drive would have led to >better reviews (followed by my excommunication from r.a.s) I downloaded a utility that I found on one of the standard GPL websites that lets you downgrade the opposition (actually you can do it manually - tweaking driver.ini but its much easier with the program). It doesn't take long to control the car well enough to at least get round the track - and you can pull back the opposition to be as bad as you are :-) Alan http://www.chandler.u-net.com

XCR650 wrote Actually even if it's not shown on the screen it has to be modeled. The same goes for your rear suspension. Even if you don't "see" it it's modeled of course.. the same will happen with N3. That's why with AI in GPL it almost exponentially takes your CPU. Because it has to model it even if you don't see it "somehow" (I won't go in the prediction code and so...). The visual effects you see on the screen are just the answer to the mathematical calculations of the game engine. I don't see any difference between modeling a stock-car than a 67 F1 "in general". They are both a race car with real life physics.. they act with the same laws of gravity and forces. They have 4wheels that have weight shifting depending on the actions of the car. The only differences are in the various differences in chassis, aerodynamics, tyre grip, shock/spring settings, etc.. -= Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -= NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -= SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -= Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -= May the Downforce be with you... "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."

> screwing with a file was a major mistake on Papyrus' part. > Making the car easy to drive would hurt the spirit of the game in my > opinion, but a slider from 10%-100% driver skill (for computer cars) > would have gone a long way toward making the sim more accessible > without dumbing down the physics model. I agree. Yes, there is a feeling of accomplishment when you finally do beat car #19 (out of 20 cars), but it's also fun to actually win a race every now and then. I used the file that someone created that actually lets you modify the strengths of the opponents and it truly does make the sim much better, in my opinion. I could see why Papyrus left it out, but as a marketing stand point they shouldn't have.

GPL is a simulator you know. Why cut out all the good stuff just for some people who think their PC has eternal lives? Buy a PII 300 and put in some extra 96 Mb and you will be ***ed to realism in a few hours (minutes, seconds) It think GPL could be even more realistic than it allready is (no offence btw. I love it even more than Falcon 4.0) Natan -- Natan Tazelaar Founder & Editor-in-Chief Motorcar Journal Free Dutch Carmagazine www.motorcar-journal.com >Excuse me for not updating my PC just to run GPL but I have been wondering >why Papyrus' wonderful programmers could not have added a slider to control >the complexity of the physics engine. It seems from reading this ng and the >interviews with David Kaemmer that: >* it updates the car you are driving 288 times a second (I find that hard to >believe) >* the flow of air through the engine is modelled (why?) >* the AI cars also have a complex physics engine (not quite as complex as >the driver's car, I hope) >* etc., etc., etc. >All of this meaning a major load on the processor in addition to processing >the 3D graphics. Simply reducing the update rate might allow me to get >20fps, while simplifying the AI physics and removing some of the more >esoteric modelling might even get me to 36fps. I realise it is heresy to >suggest anything less than 100% realism (though I don't know what that means >when I am sitting in a swivel chair at a desk, driving the "car" using a >potentiometer) but it just might have improved the sales. >Next week: >How having the option to make the cars easier to drive would have led to >better reviews (followed by my excommunication from r.a.s) >Tony Whitley >Cyrix 200MX/Voodoo2 (which runs Viper/TOCA/CMR/F1RS2 quite happily, thank >you)

Quoted text (17 lines)

> GPL was written for the crowd who WANT these things > in a simulation and are prepared to run it on a decent > computer in order to get good performance. > BTW - with Pentium3 on the way, your computer really > isn't going to be up to much software being released > in the next 12 months. > Stick to the games that run well on your PC I guess - GPL > isn't about good reviews or simplified physics, it's about > accurate simulation. Cutting the meat of the sim out because > your PC is too slow would cut the heart out of the game > and make it another arcade game. > Just my 0.02 > Jason

You took the words right out of my mouth Jason.... 100% correct! Dave Hawnt (UK)

> I saw this word and would like to know - if anyone could tell me? > Rob It means..... if you 'bad mouth' GPL!!!! Dave Hawnt (UK)

<<<<<<Actually even if it's not shown on the screen it has to be modeled. The same goes for your rear suspension. Even if you don't "see" it it's modeled of course.. the same will happen with N3. That's why with AI in GPL it almost exponentially takes your CPU. Because it has to model it even if you don't see it "somehow" (I won't go in the prediction code and so...). The visual effects you see on the screen are just the answer to the mathematical calculations of the game engine. I don't see any difference between modeling a stock-car than a 67 F1 "in general". They are both a race car with real life physics.. they act with the same laws of gravity and forces. They have 4wheels that have weight shifting depending on the actions of the car. The only differences are in the various differences in chassis, aerodynamics, tyre grip, shock/spring settings, etc.>>>. Thanks for clearing this up for me. I'm not a programmer, and dont have a clue. I guess the old saying is true, ya learn somethin new every day <G> T_K

snip > The hardware bar is raised by mainstream PC buyers/users and the game > companies are simply responding. No way, only gamers need a P2-450 with 12MB graphics cards, the usual desktop user would be very well happy with a P233MMX. But in many cases daddy buys the big one because junior wants to play his games on the system, too... l8er ronny -- Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

>I don't see any difference between modeling a stock-car than a 67 F1 "in >general". They are both a race car with real life physics.. they act with >the same laws of gravity and forces. They have 4wheels that have weight >shifting depending on the actions of the car. The only differences are in >the various differences in chassis, aerodynamics, tyre grip, shock/spring >settings, etc.. Excuse my ignorance (I really don't know for sure), but I think NASCARs have rigid rear axles, don't they? This should make physics calculations much easier, at least for the rear end. No camber, toe in, independent movement of the rear wheels. Do those cars have differentials? I seem to remember that you had to add stagger in N1, which would suggest they do not. Another point that would cause less headaches, I think (no ramp angles or clutches to calculate). The graphics of N3/2000 should be a bit less demanding than those of GPL (only the moving***pit has to be drawn, but there aren't any visible wheels and suspension parts - unless you lost your hood and fenders :) But since the limiting factor in modern 3D sims is CPU horsepower rather than video speed, this won't make a lot of a difference - provided N3/2000 supports D3D, which I sincerely hope for Papy's sake. -- Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

Right, I'll see everyone's 0.02 and raise you 0.05: I realise that my PC is out of date, any PC is as soon as you've bought it and mine's a year old now. And I realise that I'd be missing out to some extent if I did have a dumbed-down version of GPL. But although I want to "drive" the same car as Jim Clark I have to admit to not being a complete sim fanatic (despite running them all since Revs on my BBC Micro). I'm just not prepared to update my PC to run a game, no matter how good it is, and I know a number of people of the same opinion who have not bought GPL simply because it will not run on their otherwise adequate PCs. This means that Papyrus are cutting themselves off from potential sales. I'm quite prepared to admit to not being able to keep up with the AI - even using "AI Tweak" to slow them right down. This may be because I am a lousy sim driver (although I had no trouble with GP and GP2) or it may be my PC/wheel/gamecard/monitor. Suppose I shell out for an upgrade and then find that it's me that's not good enough? I guess I could advertise on r.a.s :-) Thanks for everyone's replies. I don't think I found anything there that I really disagreed with - I just don't agree with the same force that many of you obviously feel. Tony Whitley (Benchmark: Watkins Glen 1"07 in practice. With all graphics off)

Quite apart from that, there are a lot more stock cars on the track than there are F1 cars.... Cheers! John

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:03:58 -0000, "Tony Whitley" >Excuse me for not updating my PC just to run GPL but I have been wondering >why Papyrus' wonderful programmers could not have added a slider to control >the complexity of the physics engine. Because it would be _massively_ complicated to do so. Making a physics engine of the complexity for a sim is a huge undertaking, two obviously more so, and a variable one would almost undoubtedly cost far more than you could ever hope to recover. Why so hard to believe? Pentiums are running at 504,000,000hz, so asking a game to run at 288hz is well within the realms of possibility. All it needs is someone to decide that they want their sim to run at that level of detail and code it to be so. Cooling effects, realism. Ideally the physics engine of the AI should be identical to that of the player, hardware constraints aside. Both of the above would a) Cost a lot of money to implement that would need to be passed onto the consumer or written off by the developers, b) undermine the purpose of GPL, and c) be a total waste of time, money and a really good product when you can achieve the same thing for the cost of a K6-2 ($100 or so?). It probably would have done, and I'm sure that releasing a Quake clone would probably have achieved the same thing. There are enough products around which attend to the sector of the market that truly wants the attributes you described above, and while I would like to have something which caters to all I far prefer to have a master of one genre than the "Jack of all trades" approach that tries and, almost invariably, fails in producing something worthwhile. Cheers! John

Sorry I could not tell who wrote this originally. -snip- I can see that if you turn all of the driving aids off that the cars are hard to drive. But we just had family over last night and my mother in law likes the driving games on hers sons playstation. She is about 45. She had a slight gleam in her eye when she saw my MS wheel. So I fired up GPL for her and reset the game to have all the driving aids on and toned down the steering response a bit. In no time flat she was braking before the turns & accelertating out (and not spinning out) & loving flooring it down the straights. When she was done she talked about it for about 20 minutes. "Ohh that was just great fun, thank you". Draw your own conclusions here ;) -snip-

Quoted text (8 lines)

>snip >> The hardware bar is raised by mainstream PC buyers/users and the game >> companies are simply responding. >No way, only gamers need a P2-450 with 12MB graphics cards, the usual >desktop user would be very well happy with a P233MMX. But in many cases >daddy buys the big one because junior wants to play his games on the >system, too...

While I agree with you about an added-on extra graphics card, you are wrong about Daddy buying a P2/450 just for junior's games. By saying the hardware bar is raised by the mainstream buyer, I don't mean that they NEED it, I mean that they are the ones buying the faster computers in numbers sufficient to justify the processor speed increases. Though in this microcosm it may seem like the world is full of rabid gamers, it isn't. The *** gamer segment is very small compared to the number of homes and businesses that own and operate computers for more ordinary things. If NOBODY but people who play GPL and Falcon 4 bought the newest, fastest processors, the chipmakers would feel like they hit a brick wall in sales and would figure the hunger for speed had stopped dead in it's tracks. Conversely, if the same gamers did NOT buy the latest chip, it would barely register on the sales charts. When the chipmakers see the faster processors moving (via plentiful mainstream sales), they make even faster processors. We gamers benefit because the game companies see sufficient sales of faster processors to think that there are enough machines out there to run their newest release if they gear it higher. Am I making sense? The game companies are in the business to make money selling their products. If a product manager said "Let's write a game that people will have to buy a new computer to run", they wouldn't be a product manager very long. The game software arena is competitive enough without essentially making a game cost 1000$ more than the price on the box. I work out of a hospital which employs LOTS of people and I travel all day to HMOs that also employ lots of people. For the most part I am regarded as the person to ask when buying a first computer or upgrading to a new one. Far and away, the questions I get regard which computer to buy so as not to be obsolete "6 months down the line". First I try to establish what the person needs the computer for, which is usually either "I don't know" or "to keep track of my bills and get online". I always tell those people that they don't need the newest and fastest computer to do that stuff, and they almost always say they don't care, they want something as a hedge against obsolescence, and end up buying a P350~P450. They rarely say they want the computer so their kid can play video games. Parents usually spring for the 150$ for a PSX or N64 if their kids ae whining about wanting video games rather than buying their kids a 2500$ computer. I also do a little consulting/tutoring on the side, and a plumbing business with a standalone P60 (remember those?) just wanted a new computer to run Windows98 (won't install on <66 Mhz). The only thing they do with it is email and run QuickBooks Pro. I told them they could save some serious $ with a P233MMX and re-use their old 72 pin SIMMS, etc. and they didn't care. They wanted a P2/450. That machine will never even have solitaire played on it. In the last month, I tried on 3 separate occasions to talk hospital employees (and my mother in law) interested in new computers into getting P2/333s, and one got a P2/350, the other 3 got P2/450s. Not a one of these people is ever going to play any kind of simulator on their computer other than maybe a golf simulator. So, back to the original point. A p200MMX is not completely outdated for more mundane tasks like getting online and word processing and bill tracking. There are lots of sims out that will run fine on that machine, too. Simply, if you want the latest and greatest sim, you need the latest and greatest hardware. That's the way it should be and it isn't going to change anytime soon. OK, everyone can yell at me now. :) ~daxe "religion is remedial spirituality" -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! -----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------

At work I'm on a P5/75, but at home my P2/333 does all the fun stuff :) At least I have a 20" monitor at work that makes up for the slow computer. Jason.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> snip > > The hardware bar is raised by mainstream PC buyers/users and the game > > companies are simply responding. > No way, only gamers need a P2-450 with 12MB graphics cards, the usual > desktop user would be very well happy with a P233MMX. But in many cases > daddy buys the big one because junior wants to play his games on the > system, too... > l8er > ronny > -- > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > to take effect. Reboot now? > |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, > ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. > |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

-- -------- Jason Monds "My other car is a Ferrari" http://members.home.net/gpl.mondsj/gpl - For my combined gas/brake setups (Please remove 'no extra spork' when replying)

> Excuse my ignorance (I really don't know for sure), but I think > NASCARs have rigid rear axles, don't they? Yup. But, they've got camber, and the suspension can move to point the tires slightly left or right of centerline depending on load. They, of course, don't move independently. Yes, they generally run "Detroit lockers" on short tracks and some run open diffs, some lockers on longer tracks. A Detroit locker is a locked diff under power and unlocks (becoming an open diff) when back-driven. ---Jim

Tony Whitley wrote Yes of course I do understand your point. This isn't the first time that it happened, still. Let's remember that Grand Prix 2 by Mr. Crammond STILL can't run any situation under 100%. Im sure there's a case using the side-car view with heavy smoke with 15cars in front of you + all the graphics that NO current PC can have a Processor occupancy under 36fps. And GP2 is not new ;) . Same goes for Nascar1. Any of you had fun with nascar.exe -h ??? Heheh the fun of hearing Ned Jarrett at normal speed in the intro but those cars going at 1fps at Marty ? LOL :) It was always a fact that the current racing simulator companies push the software so that the hardware will not really be fully compatible at the release date for it. The same goes for Air sims as well. Im not saying it's bad or not. There is some companies who decide to make it MORE apparent (Papyrus with GPL) and others, less (I would say MonacoGP). But be 100% sure they know it. Papyrus knows that they are not reaching the casual PC gamer or the arcade-style racer. They understand that 100%. Who here said it's bad ? The same goes for any "hard-core" type games on the market. FPS, RPG's, Adventure, Sport, racing, Airsims, etc... I often compare a game to a piece of art. Especially to a movie. Sure there is many differences, but there is also many similarities. While Nascar 2 is what we call a "blockbuster", Grand Prix Legends is more of a "director's test movie" as I would call. There is many of them. They are movies were the only point of doing it is to let the director (who is normally under contract for a number of movies) have a complete control on the aspect of it. He can do whatever he wants. I feel this was the case with GPL. Many action movie makers will do such movies (especially in Asia) to test new technologies, techniques, etc.. -= Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -= NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -= SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -= Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -= May the Downforce be with you... "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."

> * it updates the car you are driving 288 times a second (I find that hard to > believe) Just modeling the suspension (that usually oscillates at 1 to 2 times per second in a normal street car) you want to have the simulation run at 10 to 100 times faster than that to be numerically stable. Race cars are often stiffer than stereet cars. So we are already up to 200 to 300 times a second range. If you include tire modes around 10 cycles per second, you are already courting trouble even at 300 cycles per second... - Matt