Nascar3 preview from daytona

I saw an earlier post mentioning a site with info on the demo people got to try out at the Daytona weekend. Anyone remember where it's at? Vintook

No one got to "try it out" the Papy guys were driving it, and had a large screen TV setup for passers by to watch.........there are some highlights at Papy.com. I was there, and it was WAY better than the AVI that they put out. T_K

As good as GPL? Where can I find the avi you mentioned?

I didn't even see the actual demo down in Daytona (I stayed here in Kentucky for the race) but I can tell you that NASCAR3 is supposed to blow GPL out of the water! The .avi movie is available at www.papy.com Dan Belcher Team Racing Unlimited

>>As good as GPL? >>Where can I find the avi you mentioned? >I didn't even see the actual demo down in Daytona (I stayed here in Kentucky >for the race) but I can tell you that NASCAR3 is supposed to blow GPL out of >the water! The .avi movie is available at www.papy.com >Dan Belcher >Team Racing Unlimited I've looked at the screen shots there and yes, Nascar 3 does look VERY good, but does it look at good as GPL? IMHO, no - at least not by looking at the screen shots. But for as Nascar game, I can't wait! Adam

>>As good as GPL? >>Where can I find the avi you mentioned? >I didn't even see the actual demo down in Daytona (I stayed here in Kentucky >for the race) but I can tell you that NASCAR3 is supposed to blow GPL out of >the water! The .avi movie is available at www.papy.com >Dan Belcher >Team Racing Unlimited They're not going to make the same mistake as they did in GPL and limit the frame rates, are they? Adam

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:05:20 -0000, > >They're not going to make the same mistake as they did in GPL and limit the > >frame rates, are they? > Why is that a 'mistake'? It seems smooth enough, to me, and I > am a frame-rate fanatic.

It's kind of a waste, don't you think, when we have the hardware to run the game at 45fps+, but we're stuck at only 37. Some people, can get 37fps all the time, which means if there wasn't a limiter, it'd be even higher and look even better.

Actually its not. I *believe* that they limited the framerate to save CPU cycles for the physics and AI. Its long and complex, but a 3D card does NOT take the entire graphics subsystem load off the CPU. It handles many things for the CPU, but the CPU is still in control of the entire process. By limiting the framerate, you can limit the amount of work the processor is doing for graphics and therefore have left over cycles that can be devoted to things such as physics, sound, etc.

Besides, the difference between 24 to 30 fps and anything above is probably inperceivable (if I spelled that right). If I'm not mistaken, motion pictures use 24 fps, while broadcast TV uses 30. These represent the limits the human eye has in distinquishing individual frames. 2 cents Robert

Quoted text (12 lines)

>On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:50:20 -0600, >>> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:05:20 -0000, >>> >They're not going to make the same mistake as they did in GPL and limit

the >>> >frame rates, are they? >>> Why is that a 'mistake'? It seems smooth enough, to me, and I >>> am a frame-rate fanatic. >>It's kind of a waste, don't you think, when we have the hardware to run the game >>at 45fps+, but we're stuck at only 37. Some people, can get 37fps all the time, >>which means if there wasn't a limiter, it'd be even higher and look even better. >.. and maybe when we all have Pentium V - 1500's it would be unplayably fast. >-- >// rrevved posts from mindspring dot com

10-14fps gives the illusion of motion for a series of frames, and is the range usually used by cartoons (about 12fps). This turns into the perception of smooth motion somewhere in the mid 20's, near the 24fps used by modern movies. Television is a different story all together, with an NTSC display standard of 59.94 interlaced fields per second and a horizontal scan rate of 15,750 lines/second. However the human eye is able to visually detect flicker usually up into the 75-80fps range, and this upper limit is not coincidentally pretty close to the typical minimum recommended 75Hz refresh rate for your monitor. It has also been shown through research (one such study at the Eye Research Institute in Boston a few years back) that 1/200 of a second (200fps) is the threshold for physiological response to visual stimulus. Eric rnews.net...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:50:20 -0600, > >> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:05:20 -0000,

snip > >It's kind of a waste, don't you think, when we have the hardware to run the game > >at 45fps+, but we're stuck at only 37. Some people, can get 37fps all the time, > >which means if there wasn't a limiter, it'd be even higher and look even better. > .. and maybe when we all have Pentium V - 1500's it would be unplayably fast. Well, only if they connect the realtime to the fps which is not done, except in really old games or GP2... ;^) 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!

Wow Eric!! Is there *anything* you *dont* know?? :-) I must say you never stop impressing me. Keep it up! -- All the best, Edwin Solheim **remove spamguard in address to reply** Drop by "The Paddock - a legendary site....." for some cool GPL stuff! http://home.c2i.net/thepaddock

Ok, seeing this and the following posts, I stand corrected! :) Also, you made me think about the rate at which the computer samples your inputs (such as the steering wheel). The faster the sample rate, the more closely the computer's simulating synchronizes with the real world where you sit with the steering wheel in your hands and reaction time to move it. Proves that I should think about things before I respond to a posting.... :) Robert

Clap Clap Clap Clap ;) This is the shortest death to this particular recurring sub-thread I have ever seen! (There I go and jinx it ;) - Matt

>On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:05:20 -0000, >>They're not going to make the same mistake as they did in GPL and limit the

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>frame rates, are they? >Why is that a 'mistake'? It seems smooth enough, to me, and I >am a frame-rate fanatic. >-- >// rrevved posts from mindspring dot com

Think about how much better GPL would be if you were able to get higher frame rates! For example, look at Viper Racing. The frame rates on my system (and mine is ancient) are MUCH higher (almost twice as much) as they are in GPL. 37fps these days really isn't very much at all... Adam

The human eye can only see 30fps so what difference does it make?

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:05:20 -0000, > > >They're not going to make the same mistake as they did in GPL and limit the > > >frame rates, are they? > > Why is that a 'mistake'? It seems smooth enough, to me, and I > > am a frame-rate fanatic. > It's kind of a waste, don't you think, when we have the hardware to run the game > at 45fps+, but we're stuck at only 37. Some people, can get 37fps all the time, > which means if there wasn't a limiter, it'd be even higher and look even better.

Not always. i do computer work for a local optometrist. I have this visual problem where if a screen is at less than 85 hz I get serious head aches. He told me my problem was that I have sensitive speed problems. He said some people can actually see discrepancies in fast moving objects better than others. I asked him about FPS in a sim and he said some people can see differences between 90 fps and 100 fps... To see if you are "Speed Tolerant" do this little test.. Get a ceiling fan and turn it own to full speed. Without tracking the blades, see if you can actually see the individual blades moving without trying. I can and sometimes it is annoying as hell. Or, look to the right or left of your monitor.. Without looking directly at the screen see if you can see a flicker. If I put my monitor on 60 hz I get a serious migraine in about 5 minutes flat. -- -Gunslinger-

So Gunny... one question then: are you the kind of guy who can see and dodge speeding bullets?? :-) Anyway, what seems like a liability monitor-wise, could be cool in real life... you notice you're able to see things that others can't? And please don't tell me you can see the individual wingbeats of a hummingbird... if you can, then we'd have to send you to a government lab for testing! :-) --Dave

Quoted text (21 lines)

> >The human eye can only see 30fps > >so what difference does it make? > Not always. i do computer work for a local optometrist. > I have this visual problem where if a screen is at less than 85 hz I > get serious head aches. He told me my problem was that I have > sensitive speed problems. He said some people can actually see > discrepancies in fast moving objects better than others. I asked him > about FPS in a sim and he said some people can see differences between > 90 fps and 100 fps... > To see if you are "Speed Tolerant" do this little test.. Get a ceiling > fan and turn it own to full speed. Without tracking the blades, see if > you can actually see the individual blades moving without trying. I > can and sometimes it is annoying as hell. > Or, look to the right or left of your monitor.. Without looking > directly at the screen see if you can see a flicker. > If I put my monitor on 60 hz I get a serious migraine in about 5 > minutes flat. > -- > -Gunslinger-

-- Dave Schwabe The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site http://users.wi.net/~schwabe

It's an individual thing. Some folks can't see the difference between 20 and 30 fps, some can see the difference between 80 and 85. Not everyone is the same. Trips

Quoted text (22 lines)

> The human eye can only see 30fps > so what difference does it make? > > > On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:05:20 -0000, > > > >They're not going to make the same mistake as they did in GPL and limit the > > > >frame rates, are they? > > > Why is that a 'mistake'? It seems smooth enough, to me, and I > > > am a frame-rate fanatic. > > It's kind of a waste, don't you think, when we have the hardware to run the game > > at 45fps+, but we're stuck at only 37. Some people, can get 37fps all the time, > > which means if there wasn't a limiter, it'd be even higher and look even better.

Yup, this is true... I work as an animator for a living, and trust me, you get VERY good at being able to tell frame rates, and even counting frames. (I swear I can tell you the frame rate up to about 60fps just by looking at it) >It's an individual thing. Some folks can't see the difference between 20 and 30 fps,

Quoted text (9 lines)

>some can see the difference between 80 and 85. Not everyone is the same. >Trips >> The human eye can only see 30fps >> so what difference does it make?

Cool - you just set your monitor refresh rate to 30hz and keep on dreamin'.... Cheers! John

I need to save this off so I can copy and paste it :-) Depending on the phosphor persistence, 30 fps is where high-90-something percent of people *stops seeing flicker*. That's very different than "30 fps is all the eye can detect." And that's with an interlaced display. With non-interlaced displays, the high-90% cutoff is 72 fps. That's supported by studies in Switzerland and 72 fps VESA displays were widely advertised in the early 1990s. With film, 24 fps is where most people stop seeing flicker. The human eye/brain can detect faster frame rates. Some film makers have run tests as high as 70 fps. Audiences reported that the faster frame rates looked much more realistic. At the highest frame rates, the incidence of motion sickness while watching roller coaster material skyrocketed. This is caused by the eye being fooled into thinking it's seeing real motion while the inner ear is reporting that the person is sitting still. That discrepancy causes vertigo in many people. In addition to the eye, a faster frame rate affects a sims response to controls. The higher frame rate allows more precise control. I've seen reports of some limited tests using Quake and the test subjects were able to discern the faster frame rate 100% of the time. You may be able to test this yourself. Recently, I worked on a flight sim. In the debug build frame rates of 30 fps were common with one plane on the screen. In the release build we saw 70+ fps. The 30 fps looked pretty good, but 70 fps was noticeably smoother. If you can find a sim where you can crank up the detail and change the frame rate you should be able to see this for yourself.

ROFLMAO! Try Pong.. I get about 500 FPS -- -Gunslinger-

Douglas Trumble, of SFX fame (2001, Close Encounters. . .) Started a Motion Picture company called SHOWSCAN many years ago. It is now used in motion simulator rides (go to Las Vegas for vacation) and runs 60fps. It was supposed to be used in the Major motion picture, Brainstorm, but wasn't. You only need 16-18 fps for persistance of vision to kick in, but when you give the eyes/brain MORE images it makes a much more immersive effect. Go on one of those rides and you will see the effect it has on your vision.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>The human eye can only see 30fps >>so what difference does it make? >Cool - you just set your monitor refresh rate to 30hz and keep on >dreamin'.... >Cheers! >John

Yeah, I pulled out Indy 500 - The simulation the other day and fired it up on the ole P11 450 and could easily see the difference between 273 and 274 frames/sec. No worries at all! I'm not personally going to bother getting another sim until they can guarantee 300 fps minimum!

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Yup, this is true... I work as an animator for a living, and trust me, you > get VERY good at being able to tell frame rates, and even counting frames. > (I swear I can tell you the frame rate up to about 60fps just by looking at > it) > >It's an individual thing. Some folks can't see the difference between 20 > and 30 fps, > >some can see the difference between 80 and 85. Not everyone is the same. > >Trips > >> The human eye can only see 30fps > >> so what difference does it make?

Quoted text (22 lines)

>The human eye can only see 30fps >so what difference does it make? >> > On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:05:20 -0000, >> > >They're not going to make the same mistake as they did in GPL and limit the >> > >frame rates, are they? >> > Why is that a 'mistake'? It seems smooth enough, to me, and I >> > am a frame-rate fanatic. >> It's kind of a waste, don't you think, when we have the hardware to run the game >> at 45fps+, but we're stuck at only 37. Some people, can get 37fps all the time, >> which means if there wasn't a limiter, it'd be even higher and look even better.

There is a big difference! The eye can only FOCUS at 30fps, but that doesn't mean we can't SEE things moving faster than 30fps. Anything about that helps to give the illusion of 'speed'.

Quoted text (26 lines)

>Yeah, I pulled out Indy 500 - The simulation the other day and fired >it up on the ole P11 450 and could easily see the difference between 273 >and 274 frames/sec. No worries at all! I'm not personally going to >bother getting another sim until they can guarantee 300 fps minimum! >> Yup, this is true... I work as an animator for a living, and trust me, you >> get VERY good at being able to tell frame rates, and even counting frames. >> (I swear I can tell you the frame rate up to about 60fps just by looking at >> it) >> >It's an individual thing. Some folks can't see the difference between 20 >> and 30 fps, >> >some can see the difference between 80 and 85. Not everyone is the same. >> >Trips >> >> The human eye can only see 30fps >> >> so what difference does it make?

The good old Pentium II 450? I guess you think my Pentium 166 with 32MB of RAM in ancient, right? And you'd be correct! ;-)

Quoted text (26 lines)

>> The human eye can only see 30fps >> so what difference does it make? >Used to think the same way. >Try playing Quake 2 on your system... probably an average of 30-40fps on >low end systems. Install Quake 1 on the same system, and move around at >the 75 fps it runs at on an equal system. >If you cannot sense the difference in fluidity of action, then you're >blind. >Also, when it comes to multiplayer, 30fps is _NOT_ a constant. The more >processing time devoted to other things like AI, competitors, more to draw >on the screen, etc., detracts from your 30fps average. You end up getting >more like 10-15. I get constant 37fps ratings in GPL... until I have 5 >other cars on the grid in front of me. And I am running 1024x768 >(Voodoo2's SLI). >30fps is also a method based on 'suspension of disbelief' related to movie >film type media. >This comes nowhere close to the detail and output rate that is demanded by >todays computer graphics systems. >-j.c.h.

What is your processing power?

Kinda like my consistent 60 fps on CPR. Talk about a really good sensation of speed! DAMN! I feel like I'm flying from in-car! Dan Belcher Team Racing Unlimited

CPR is another good example of why frame rates play such an important part in a racing game.