GP3 Impressions

Hi I played GP3 yesterday at ECTS with a wheel and pedals in the Hasbro stand, i didnt actually do the***pit thing they had going thou Impressions... at the moment its very GP2ish. The only difference i could see was the***pit design had changed, you can now see the top of the nose like you can on inboard videos (like the ferrari.. you can see the white writing on top of the higher nose section)... and the engine has changed,, it looks cool. They only had software mode availible, and to me it looks like they have taken GP2 and are working with that.. because the stuff like external cams etc looked the same. The engine looked better than gp2 thou even in software mode, so thats promising.. i guess i was expecting a whole new game in a way engine wise, but at the moment its very gp2, the sound effects, the external cams, the cars still look "gp2'ish". The hasbro guy said they are working with software mode before doing 3d stuff so i guess the 3d part of the game will be the main thing, the engine itself looked cool thou, its very "bare bones" and i hope they change alot of things. The menu interface has all changed looks like they did that first.

All, I'm sensing a few of the posts I've seen so far that some of you are feeling a little dissapointed that you didn't see GP3 in a 3D mode? well I admit I'm keen to see the first screenshots of GP3 too but please remember its much easier to find developers capable of doing 3D work as this is a better known area, physics however is a much harder aspect so if you wanted the focus of GP3 to be on anything it would be on the physics model. I think Geoff must be being very brave (and clever!) providing a software rendering mode espeically as so many of the competitors have gone the 3D route. However their are many many GP2 players still on non accelerated machines all of which will probably buy GP3 within the first 2-3 months, with sales of GP2 being 1.5 million plus you can images that even if only 1 in 3 people do not have a 3D card this could lead to sales of 500,000 copies at least to non 3D accelerated customers, this would be a wothy figure for nearly any game giving Hasbro a cool 1.25 Million pounds uwards depending on sale price....and this is only to non accelerated customers... not to mention that other 2/3's who will also buy copies? I sometimes think that 3D cards have taken the optimisations out of development. Geoff's original code for GP2 is incredibly optimised in terms of track structure, reusing 3D points. at every possible opportunity in order to keep the number of calcuatons down to a minimum. The thing with Geoffs games is that when they are released they are at full wellie on the latest machines but within 2 years they are running like bats out of hell on the latest spec machines. I'd rather have a game that improved over time than one that was limited to the speed at the time of conception, based on short term view of getting 90% of the profit within the first 6 months. Given that hasbro suggested that a 3D accelerated mode will be forthcoming lets hope this is built ontop of an incredibly optimised game engine, meaning that you don't need a Voodoo 4 to get your frame rate above 10 fps. Waiting with even greater anticipation now! Dr Paul Hoad [link lost in import]

Indeed a physics engine is harder but a physics engine with no hardware acceleration isn't going to sell. I think Geoff isn't being clever but I'll agree with brave. The specs for Gp3 are going to be much higher than GP2 as you can expect from the 2 or 3 years lapsed since each was developed. Most people these days have some kind of D3D/OpenGL compatible hardware AND will almost definitely have something like that if they are able to run a new game. This cuts down on your "software mode will sell line" IMO. The industry "wisdom" is that the majority of people who are playing *today's* games have 3D hardware and as such software is becoming redundant. Looking at coding an engine, making graphical effects work in software is more of an effort than making it work in hardware as more time must be spent optimising code and in order to make the thing run well features must be cut. Look at Half-Life in software and hardware and see the difference in them. It's not just resolution but Valve had to cut things from it in order to make it move at a decent pace. Personally I'd prefer to have them work on software *last* so that they have a working engine that they don't need to spend as long optimising before they work on speed tuning the rest of the game. Do you want to wait 2 years for a game to become usable? I don't and I suspect 99% of the people here don't either. Yes, games programmers have become a little more lazy in getting their code the most optimised but with the length of development, getting the last 5% from the engine is usally not cost effective any more. However, I fail to see how you can call programmers lazy because of their unoptimised code then laud Geoff for making software that takes 2 years to work as intended. Perhaps he's guilty of putting too much into games but he needs to make things run on today's hardware, not next years (assuming it's released today ;P ) Nobody wants to see a shitty piece of software but I fail to see how making a good software renderer does anything for the hardware. If Geoff's people are doing anything other than writing renderers for the engine in order to provide support for software, D3D, OpenGL etc I would be extremely surprised. Thus, the quality of the underlying engine is very little to do with whether the software renderer is completed first or last. However in terms of marketing it's better to have the cash-cow renderers (i.e. 3D) completed first so that any flaws can be found and fixed. Can you imagine how well it will sell if it ships with the best software renderer in the world but the worst 3d? Would it sell? No. Would we see a sequel? No. So to cut my meandering ramblings short, I am hoping that a lot of effort isn't being sunk into something that isn't going to be as used (software mode) as hardware support and the whole product suffer as a consequence. A good pedigree doesn't guarantee a good new product (see John Romero for details). Fearing that we're going to get GP2.5 M

Your point is very valid and I agree with you totally on some points however my opinion remains that their are still a large number of GP2 users with non accelerated cards or sub Pentium 266 machines, (based on my exposure to large number of GP2 users, via the GP2 Track Editor) I for one am one of those who still has a Pentium 200 MMX, and even though I have a reasonably well paid job cannot justify upgrading to a new 500 MHZ machine, yet. I am lucky enough to have brought myself a Voodoo2 but still know that amougst those in the GP2 community am probably in the minority (I kid you not!) I still get email from people who are using GP2 in VGA mode! I understand all the arguments from *** companies about 3D cards and I also think they are an essential part of running the latest games, but I really do like it when games companies challenge this though. I still think the speed and quality of QuakeII could be mapped to modern games even if that means having to turn off some features (which GP1 & GP2 where always excellent at anyway!) Lefts face it even with modern games like QuakeIII most people even with a Voodoo2 are really going to need to turn off features or special effects to get the frame rate up. If games companies contiune to produce games that require the very latest 3D card incarnation (lefts face it Voodoo 1 users are really forced to upgrade their 3D card now!) then surely they are playing to a very small and limited audience. How many GPL users fell by the wayside becuase of FrameRate problems causing lack of feedback. So its not that I disagree with you its just I think that speed optimisations within games via clever software programming (and not necessarily just the graphics renderer!) can substantially improve the performance of games, as a professional developer myself I am often surprised by what parts of a programme can lead to the greatest improvement in speed. Just my 2p worth Paul

Quoted text (108 lines)

> >All, > >I'm sensing a few of the posts I've seen so far that some of you are > >feeling a little dissapointed that you didn't see GP3 in a 3D mode? well > >I admit I'm keen to see the first screenshots of GP3 too but please > >remember its much easier to find developers capable of doing 3D work as > >this is a better known area, physics however is a much harder aspect so > >if you wanted the focus of GP3 to be on anything it would be on the > >physics model. > Indeed a physics engine is harder but a physics engine with no hardware > acceleration isn't going to sell. > >I think Geoff must be being very brave (and clever!) providing a > >software rendering > >mode espeically as so many of the competitors have gone the 3D route. > >However > >their are many many GP2 players still on non accelerated machines all of > >which will > >probably buy GP3 within the first 2-3 months, with sales of GP2 being > >1.5 million plus > >you can images that even if only 1 in 3 people do not have a 3D card > >this could lead to > >sales of 500,000 copies at least to non 3D accelerated customers, this > >would be a wothy > >figure for nearly any game giving Hasbro a cool 1.25 Million pounds > >uwards depending > >on sale price....and this is only to non accelerated customers... not to > >mention that other > >2/3's who will also buy copies? > I think Geoff isn't being clever but I'll agree with brave. The specs for > Gp3 are going to be much higher than GP2 as you can expect from the 2 or > 3 years lapsed since each was developed. Most people these days have some > kind of D3D/OpenGL compatible hardware AND will almost definitely have > something like that if they are able to run a new game. This cuts down on > your "software mode will sell line" IMO. The industry "wisdom" is that > the majority of people who are playing *today's* games have 3D hardware > and as such software is becoming redundant. > Looking at coding an engine, making graphical effects work in software is > more of an effort than making it work in hardware as more time must be > spent optimising code and in order to make the thing run well features > must be cut. Look at Half-Life in software and hardware and see the > difference in them. It's not just resolution but Valve had to cut things > from it in order to make it move at a decent pace. Personally I'd prefer > to have them work on software *last* so that they have a working engine > that they don't need to spend as long optimising before they work on > speed tuning the rest of the game. > >I sometimes think that 3D cards have taken the optimisations out of > >development. Geoff's > >original code for GP2 is incredibly optimised in terms of track > >structure, reusing 3D points. > >at every possible opportunity in order to keep the number of calcuatons > >down to a minimum. > >The thing with Geoffs games is that when they are released they are at > >full wellie on the latest > >machines but within 2 years they are running like bats out of hell on > >the latest spec machines. > Do you want to wait 2 years for a game to become usable? I don't and I > suspect 99% of the people here don't either. Yes, games programmers have > become a little more lazy in getting their code the most optimised but > with the length of development, getting the last 5% from the engine is > usally not cost effective any more. However, I fail to see how you can > call programmers lazy because of their unoptimised code then laud Geoff > for making software that takes 2 years to work as intended. Perhaps he's > guilty of putting too much into games but he needs to make things run on > today's hardware, not next years (assuming it's released today ;P ) > >I'd rather have a game that improved over time than one that was limited > >to the speed at the > >time of conception, based on short term view of getting 90% of the > >profit within the first > >6 months. > >Given that hasbro suggested that a 3D accelerated mode will be > >forthcoming lets hope this is > >built ontop of an incredibly optimised game engine, meaning that you > >don't need a Voodoo 4 > >to get your frame rate above 10 fps. > Nobody wants to see a shitty piece of software but I fail to see how > making a good software renderer does anything for the hardware. If > Geoff's people are doing anything other than writing renderers for the > engine in order to provide support for software, D3D, OpenGL etc I would > be extremely surprised. Thus, the quality of the underlying engine is > very little to do with whether the software renderer is completed first > or last. However in terms of marketing it's better to have the cash-cow > renderers (i.e. 3D) completed first so that any flaws can be found and > fixed. Can you imagine how well it will sell if it ships with the best > software renderer in the world but the worst 3d? Would it sell? No. Would > we see a sequel? No. > So to cut my meandering ramblings short, I am hoping that a lot of effort > isn't being sunk into something that isn't going to be as used (software > mode) as hardware support and the whole product suffer as a consequence. > A good pedigree doesn't guarantee a good new product (see John Romero for > details). > >Waiting with even greater anticipation now! > Fearing that we're going to get GP2.5 > >Dr Paul Hoad > M

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Your point is very valid and I agree with you totally on some points >however my opinion remains that their are still a large number of GP2 users >with non accelerated >cards or sub Pentium 266 machines, >(based on my exposure to large number of GP2 users, via the GP2 Track >Editor)

Well, undoubtedly they (and you :-)) exist, but let's face it, they (and hopefully not you :-)) are a dying breed. And by the time this title sees the light of day??? C'mon, a V2 is now $50 (at least here in the US). A year+ from now you may be able to pick one out of the garbage bin. To come up with a game that "features" 2D support at that time will have negligible impact on sales (stated w/o proof). In the world of PC-***, it makes little sense to me to devote many resources to supporting 4-5 year old technology. I'd much, much, MUCH (stated enough??) rather see him allocate resources dumping that HORRID non-real-time PO based system for a real-time / variable framerate engine. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to buy it if that is still used (unless it is clear that my PO will always be <100%).

That's exactly what I have, a Pentium MMX at 200 MHz. I'm considering buying a Voodoo2 card, could you tell me in which racing sims you use it and what you get in terms of frame rate, playability, etc? Thanks! --

What is a PO based engine vs. a real-time variable framerate engine? Be long winded if you like, I'm always ready to learn something new. -- Joe Marques > >Your point is very valid and I agree with you totally on some points > >however my opinion remains that their are still a large number of GP2 users > >with non accelerated > >cards or sub Pentium 266 machines, > >(based on my exposure to large number of GP2 users, via the GP2 Track > >Editor) > Well, undoubtedly they (and you :-)) exist, but let's face it, they (and > hopefully not you :-)) are a dying breed. And by the time this title sees the > light of day??? > >I for one am one of those who still has a Pentium 200 MMX, and even though I > >have > >a reasonably well paid job cannot justify upgrading to a new 500 MHZ > >machine, yet. > >I am lucky enough to have brought myself a Voodoo2 but still know that > >amougst those > >in the GP2 community am probably in the minority (I kid you not!) > C'mon, a V2 is now $50 (at least here in the US). A year+ from now you may be > able to pick one out of the garbage bin. To come up with a game that > "features" 2D support at that time will have negligible impact on sales > (stated w/o proof). In the world of PC-***, it makes little sense to me to > devote many resources to supporting 4-5 year old technology. > I'd much, much, MUCH (stated enough??) rather see him allocate resources > dumping that HORRID non-real-time PO based system for a real-time / variable > framerate engine. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to buy it if that is still > used (unless it is clear that my PO will always be <100%).

GP2 is "different" from most sims: it always gives you the framerate that you want. Of course this isn't as good as it sounds..... It's only good as long as your processor is fast enough to generate your desired frames in realtime. If you ask for too much, GP2 will not respond by skipping certain frames, but by slowing down gametime. What happens is that 1 second in the game will correspond with more than 1 second in reality. So you get your 25fps in *game*time, but it will slow down in reality! GP2 had VGA/SVGA mode choice and very fine control over framerate and detail/texture settings to make it playable in realtime on most machines. JoH ======================================== Jo Helsen EDP Operations BF Belgium ========================================

Agree 100%. Just look of the big fiasco that GPL was (number of units sold). My son has a very powerfull machine with V2 and loves MGPRS2 but, I am mainly a notebook user. Has someone ever seen a descent 3D video on notebooks? I have never seen. But, I have a PII-233 and GP2 is great in it. We do a lot of LAN races (with Gp2LAP) and it is fantastic. Graphics are important but, I would trade great graphics for: a) Scalability (run well in different hardware platforms) b) Physics (in my opinion, this is the most important part in any racing simulator) c) LAN (at least 8 simultaneous users) with IPX and TCP/IP d) Editor (car, graphics and track). Just look at what a 94 game can do (in with other game can you really do a 99 Championship except for GP2?) e) Seasons (like Nascar from Papyrus where we can have a very large number of tracks and different seasons represented in the game). Brian Paul Hoad <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7r052q$k5m$[email hidden]... > Your point is very valid and I agree with you totally on some points > however my opinion remains that their are still a large number of GP2 users > with non accelerated > cards or sub Pentium 266 machines, > (based on my exposure to large number of GP2 users, via the GP2 Track > Editor) > I for one am one of those who still has a Pentium 200 MMX, and even though I

Quoted text (12 lines)

> have > a reasonably well paid job cannot justify upgrading to a new 500 MHZ > machine, yet. > I am lucky enough to have brought myself a Voodoo2 but still know that > amougst those > in the GP2 community am probably in the minority (I kid you not!) > I still get email from people who are using GP2 in VGA mode! > I understand all the arguments from gaming companies about 3D cards and I > also think > they are an essential part of running the latest games, but I really do

like

Quoted text (8 lines)

> it when games > companies challenge this though. I still think the speed and quality of > QuakeII could be mapped > to modern games even if that means having to turn off some features (which > GP1 & GP2 where > always excellent at anyway!) Lefts face it even with modern games like > QuakeIII most people > even with a Voodoo2 are really going to need to turn off features or

special > effects to get the > frame rate up. If games companies contiune to produce games that require the > very latest > 3D card incarnation (lefts face it Voodoo 1 users are really forced to > upgrade their 3D card now!) > then surely they are playing to a very small and limited audience. How many

Quoted text (26 lines)

> GPL users fell by > the wayside becuase of FrameRate problems causing lack of feedback. > So its not that I disagree with you its just I think that speed > optimisations within games > via clever software programming (and not necessarily just the graphics > renderer!) > can substantially improve the performance of games, as a professional > developer myself > I am often surprised by what parts of a programme can lead to the greatest > improvement in > speed. > Just my 2p worth > Paul > Meiji <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Paul Hoad <[email hidden]> wrote in > > <7qvvim$[email hidden]>: > > >All, > > >I'm sensing a few of the posts I've seen so far that some of you are > > >feeling a little dissapointed that you didn't see GP3 in a 3D mode?

well

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > >I admit I'm keen to see the first screenshots of GP3 too but please > > >remember its much easier to find developers capable of doing 3D work as > > >this is a better known area, physics however is a much harder aspect so > > >if you wanted the focus of GP3 to be on anything it would be on the > > >physics model. > > Indeed a physics engine is harder but a physics engine with no hardware > > acceleration isn't going to sell. > > >I think Geoff must be being very brave (and clever!) providing a > > >software rendering > > >mode espeically as so many of the competitors have gone the 3D route. > > >However > > >their are many many GP2 players still on non accelerated machines all

of

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > >which will > > >probably buy GP3 within the first 2-3 months, with sales of GP2 being > > >1.5 million plus > > >you can images that even if only 1 in 3 people do not have a 3D card > > >this could lead to > > >sales of 500,000 copies at least to non 3D accelerated customers, this > > >would be a wothy > > >figure for nearly any game giving Hasbro a cool 1.25 Million pounds > > >uwards depending > > >on sale price....and this is only to non accelerated customers... not

to > > >mention that other > > >2/3's who will also buy copies? > > I think Geoff isn't being clever but I'll agree with brave. The specs for > > Gp3 are going to be much higher than GP2 as you can expect from the 2 or > > 3 years lapsed since each was developed. Most people these days have some > > kind of D3D/OpenGL compatible hardware AND will almost definitely have > > something like that if they are able to run a new game. This cuts down on > > your "software mode will sell line" IMO. The industry "wisdom" is that > > the majority of people who are playing *today's* games have 3D hardware > > and as such software is becoming redundant. > > Looking at coding an engine, making graphical effects work in software is

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > more of an effort than making it work in hardware as more time must be > > spent optimising code and in order to make the thing run well features > > must be cut. Look at Half-Life in software and hardware and see the > > difference in them. It's not just resolution but Valve had to cut things > > from it in order to make it move at a decent pace. Personally I'd prefer > > to have them work on software *last* so that they have a working engine > > that they don't need to spend as long optimising before they work on > > speed tuning the rest of the game. > > >I sometimes think that 3D cards have taken the optimisations out of > > >development. Geoff's > > >original code for GP2 is incredibly optimised in terms of track > > >structure, reusing 3D points. > > >at every possible opportunity in order to keep the number of calcuatons > > >down to a minimum. > > >The thing with Geoffs games is that when they are released they are at > > >full wellie on the latest > > >machines but within 2 years they are running like bats out of hell on > > >the latest spec machines. > > Do you want to wait 2 years for a game to become usable? I don't and I > > suspect 99% of the people here don't either. Yes, games programmers have > > become a little more lazy in getting their code the most optimised but > > with the length of development, getting the last 5% from the engine is > > usally not cost effective any more. However, I fail to see how you can > > call programmers lazy because of their unoptimised code then laud Geoff > > for making software that takes 2 years to work as intended. Perhaps he's > > guilty of putting too much into games but he needs to make things run on > > today's hardware, not next years (assuming it's released today ;P ) > > >I'd rather have a game that improved over time than one that was

limited

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > >to the speed at the > > >time of conception, based on short term view of getting 90% of the > > >profit within the first > > >6 months. > > >Given that hasbro suggested that a 3D accelerated mode will be > > >forthcoming lets hope this is > > >built ontop of an incredibly optimised game engine, meaning that you > > >don't need a Voodoo 4 > > >to get your frame rate above 10 fps. > > Nobody wants to see a shitty piece of software but I fail to see how > > making a good software renderer does anything for the hardware. If > > Geoff's people are doing anything other than writing renderers for the > > engine in order to provide support for software, D3D, OpenGL etc I would > > be extremely surprised. Thus, the quality of the underlying engine is > > very little to do with whether the software renderer is completed first > > or last. However in terms of marketing it's better to have the cash-cow > > renderers (i.e. 3D) completed first so that any flaws can be found and > > fixed. Can you imagine how well it will sell if it ships with the best > > software renderer in the world but the worst 3d? Would it sell? No.

Would > > we see a sequel? No. > > So to cut my meandering ramblings short, I am hoping that a lot of effort > > isn't being sunk into something that isn't going to be as used (software > > mode) as hardware support and the whole product suffer as a consequence. > > A good pedigree doesn't guarantee a good new product (see John Romero for

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > details). > > >Waiting with even greater anticipation now! > > Fearing that we're going to get GP2.5 > > >Dr Paul Hoad > > M

Agree 100%. Just look of the big fiasco that GPL was (number of units sold). My son has a very powerfull machine with V2 and loves MGPRS2 but, I am mainly a notebook user. Has someone ever seen a descent 3D video on notebooks? I have never seen. But, I have a PII-233 and GP2 is great in it. We do a lot of LAN races (with Gp2LAP) and it is fantastic. Graphics are important but, I would trade great graphics for: a) Scalability (run well in different hardware platforms) b) Physics (in my opinion, this is the most important part in any racing simulator) c) Weather (it rain in real life). Have settings to say if a driver is good or not under rain. Do someone remebers Vitorio Brambila? Mid 70's, orange March, very slow on normal conditions but umbelivable fast on rain. d) LAN (at least 8 simultaneous users) with IPX and TCP/IP e) Editor (car, graphics and track). Just look at what a 94 game can do (in with other game can you really do a 99 Championship except for GP2?) f) Seasons (like Nascar from Papyrus where we can have a very large number of tracks and different seasons represented in the game). Brian Paul Hoad <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7r052q$k5m$[email hidden]... > Your point is very valid and I agree with you totally on some points > however my opinion remains that their are still a large number of GP2 users > with non accelerated > cards or sub Pentium 266 machines, > (based on my exposure to large number of GP2 users, via the GP2 Track > Editor) > I for one am one of those who still has a Pentium 200 MMX, and even though I

Quoted text (12 lines)

> have > a reasonably well paid job cannot justify upgrading to a new 500 MHZ > machine, yet. > I am lucky enough to have brought myself a Voodoo2 but still know that > amougst those > in the GP2 community am probably in the minority (I kid you not!) > I still get email from people who are using GP2 in VGA mode! > I understand all the arguments from gaming companies about 3D cards and I > also think > they are an essential part of running the latest games, but I really do

like

Quoted text (8 lines)

> it when games > companies challenge this though. I still think the speed and quality of > QuakeII could be mapped > to modern games even if that means having to turn off some features (which > GP1 & GP2 where > always excellent at anyway!) Lefts face it even with modern games like > QuakeIII most people > even with a Voodoo2 are really going to need to turn off features or

special > effects to get the > frame rate up. If games companies contiune to produce games that require the > very latest > 3D card incarnation (lefts face it Voodoo 1 users are really forced to > upgrade their 3D card now!) > then surely they are playing to a very small and limited audience. How many

Quoted text (26 lines)

> GPL users fell by > the wayside becuase of FrameRate problems causing lack of feedback. > So its not that I disagree with you its just I think that speed > optimisations within games > via clever software programming (and not necessarily just the graphics > renderer!) > can substantially improve the performance of games, as a professional > developer myself > I am often surprised by what parts of a programme can lead to the greatest > improvement in > speed. > Just my 2p worth > Paul > Meiji <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Paul Hoad <[email hidden]> wrote in > > <7qvvim$[email hidden]>: > > >All, > > >I'm sensing a few of the posts I've seen so far that some of you are > > >feeling a little dissapointed that you didn't see GP3 in a 3D mode?

well

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > >I admit I'm keen to see the first screenshots of GP3 too but please > > >remember its much easier to find developers capable of doing 3D work as > > >this is a better known area, physics however is a much harder aspect so > > >if you wanted the focus of GP3 to be on anything it would be on the > > >physics model. > > Indeed a physics engine is harder but a physics engine with no hardware > > acceleration isn't going to sell. > > >I think Geoff must be being very brave (and clever!) providing a > > >software rendering > > >mode espeically as so many of the competitors have gone the 3D route. > > >However > > >their are many many GP2 players still on non accelerated machines all

of

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > >which will > > >probably buy GP3 within the first 2-3 months, with sales of GP2 being > > >1.5 million plus > > >you can images that even if only 1 in 3 people do not have a 3D card > > >this could lead to > > >sales of 500,000 copies at least to non 3D accelerated customers, this > > >would be a wothy > > >figure for nearly any game giving Hasbro a cool 1.25 Million pounds > > >uwards depending > > >on sale price....and this is only to non accelerated customers... not

to > > >mention that other > > >2/3's who will also buy copies? > > I think Geoff isn't being clever but I'll agree with brave. The specs for > > Gp3 are going to be much higher than GP2 as you can expect from the 2 or > > 3 years lapsed since each was developed. Most people these days have some > > kind of D3D/OpenGL compatible hardware AND will almost definitely have > > something like that if they are able to run a new game. This cuts down on > > your "software mode will sell line" IMO. The industry "wisdom" is that > > the majority of people who are playing *today's* games have 3D hardware > > and as such software is becoming redundant. > > Looking at coding an engine, making graphical effects work in software is

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > more of an effort than making it work in hardware as more time must be > > spent optimising code and in order to make the thing run well features > > must be cut. Look at Half-Life in software and hardware and see the > > difference in them. It's not just resolution but Valve had to cut things > > from it in order to make it move at a decent pace. Personally I'd prefer > > to have them work on software *last* so that they have a working engine > > that they don't need to spend as long optimising before they work on > > speed tuning the rest of the game. > > >I sometimes think that 3D cards have taken the optimisations out of > > >development. Geoff's > > >original code for GP2 is incredibly optimised in terms of track > > >structure, reusing 3D points. > > >at every possible opportunity in order to keep the number of calcuatons > > >down to a minimum. > > >The thing with Geoffs games is that when they are released they are at > > >full wellie on the latest > > >machines but within 2 years they are running like bats out of hell on > > >the latest spec machines. > > Do you want to wait 2 years for a game to become usable? I don't and I > > suspect 99% of the people here don't either. Yes, games programmers have > > become a little more lazy in getting their code the most optimised but > > with the length of development, getting the last 5% from the engine is > > usally not cost effective any more. However, I fail to see how you can > > call programmers lazy because of their unoptimised code then laud Geoff > > for making software that takes 2 years to work as intended. Perhaps he's > > guilty of putting too much into games but he needs to make things run on > > today's hardware, not next years (assuming it's released today ;P ) > > >I'd rather have a game that improved over time than one that was

limited

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > >to the speed at the > > >time of conception, based on short term view of getting 90% of the > > >profit within the first > > >6 months. > > >Given that hasbro suggested that a 3D accelerated mode will be > > >forthcoming lets hope this is > > >built ontop of an incredibly optimised game engine, meaning that you > > >don't need a Voodoo 4 > > >to get your frame rate above 10 fps. > > Nobody wants to see a shitty piece of software but I fail to see how > > making a good software renderer does anything for the hardware. If > > Geoff's people are doing anything other than writing renderers for the > > engine in order to provide support for software, D3D, OpenGL etc I would > > be extremely surprised. Thus, the quality of the underlying engine is > > very little to do with whether the software renderer is completed first > > or last. However in terms of marketing it's better to have the cash-cow > > renderers (i.e. 3D) completed first so that any flaws can be found and > > fixed. Can you imagine how well it will sell if it ships with the best > > software renderer in the world but the worst 3d? Would it sell? No.

Would > > we see a sequel? No. > > So to cut my meandering ramblings short, I am hoping that a lot of effort > > isn't being sunk into something that isn't going to be as used (software > > mode) as hardware support and the whole product suffer as a consequence. > > A good pedigree doesn't guarantee a good new product (see John Romero for

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > details). > > >Waiting with even greater anticipation now! > > Fearing that we're going to get GP2.5 > > >Dr Paul Hoad > > M

>Agree 100%. Just look of the big fiasco that GPL was (number of units sold). Do you really think GPL was a "flop" because of processor req't?? For that matter, was it really that poor a seller? How many did it sell? What is typical for a non-NASCAR racing *sim* - not a Need For Speed arcade title? Back to the hp issue. There are plenty of big sellers that have high CPU req'ts. Each Wing Commander might serve as the best example. I'd have to think that GPL was a limited sales success due to: (1) the quickly disseminated reputation for being very, very difficult and (2) the limited interest out in the world for a sim of a 60's race, before most of the target audience was born (or at least aware of the sport). Please don't use historic flight sims as a counter-example. TV, movies, and history books are full of exploits of WWII planes. There's an existing interest there, even in younger generations. There is virtually zero info/publicity/interest/whatever, save a small dedicated group, for 30 year old auto racing (BTW, I do have GPL).

As Jo wrote. But I'd put framerate in quotes. In the case of the sim-engine in GP2 (and GP1/World Circuit), it is frames per game time. I consider that totally useless when game time does not match real time. Basically, the game can run in slow motion when Processor Occupancy (PO) goes above 100%. As he said. First, the VGA I considered to be horrid. Some might like it, but it was awefully pixelated. And this isn't just comparing it to SVGA, but to older VGA titles. This has happened in quite a few of the VGA/SVGA hybrid titles. Basically it seems like the developers didn't bother to do as complete a job optimizing the anti-aliasing of the VGA, instead splitting resources between VGA and SVGA. Lots of titles of that time look pretty poor (to me) in VGA compared to older titles. As to configuring GP2, the problem is (well, *was* since most machines are now fast enough) that you have to *guess* at the framerate you can achieve, then set it to that value. Or, if you want a certain higher framerate, turn off some of the detail. Now, when practicing, you can get higher framerate when few cars are on the track. In a race, it slows appreciably. And on a given track, the PO may vary by a factor of two just depending on location. So, if you are conservative, or just can't stand slowdowns, you set the detail (or framerate) to the lowest common denominator to keep the PO reasonable. Then you suffer that mediocre detail, or lower framerate, for the entire track/session. I much prefer a sim that might drop to that lower framerate for that small section of the track, then picks up to the better framerate (or detail) for the remainder. To pour salt on the wounds, it also turns out that if the PO is very low, that gametime was slightly (~5%) *faster* than realtime! Someone else posted that this isn't true, but that the lap time was incorrect. Either way, we're talking an, IMHO, horrid design choice.

Yes, I really think one of the main reasons it was a "flop" was of because processor. I also do have it (GPL), and it is great (not on my machine, but on my son's machine it is OK). If you do not have enough power, even if you pratice a lot, you will never be able to race in it. Why do you think Papyrus is going to release Nascar 3 (hope it is as good as N2, BGN and N99, as I have all) NOT using the GPL engine? The GPL engine is just too heavy for most of todays computers. If the money in developing was yours, what do you prefer: a) Great game with almost perfect graphics, but probably far away from most computers => low sales b) Great game with good graphics, OK in the majority of todays computers => better sales If it was mine, I would run for b) as we are all in the business of making money. If they do not make GOOD money, there will not be a GP4, GP5, ... Brian ps: I was not born at that time also, but a good racing sim is a good fun to drive nomatter with year it came from. > >Agree 100%. Just look of the big fiasco that GPL was (number of units sold).

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Do you really think GPL was a "flop" because of processor req't?? For that > matter, was it really that poor a seller? How many did it sell? What is > typical for a non-NASCAR racing *sim* - not a Need For Speed arcade title? > Back to the hp issue. There are plenty of big sellers that have high CPU > req'ts. Each Wing Commander might serve as the best example. > I'd have to think that GPL was a limited sales success due to: (1) the

quickly > disseminated reputation for being very, very difficult and (2) the limited > interest out in the world for a sim of a 60's race, before most of the target > audience was born (or at least aware of the sport). Please don't use historic > flight sims as a counter-example. TV, movies, and history books are full of > exploits of WWII planes. There's an existing interest there, even in younger > generations. There is virtually zero info/publicity/interest/whatever, save a > small dedicated group, for 30 year old auto racing (BTW, I do have GPL).

So how do you explain Gp2 here ? It was a PC Hog for all our 486's we had back in the days. You can have constant 30+fps with a P166 MMX with a 4meg Voodoo1 card racing GPL with 19 AI. You will have to lower the resolution, take all the graphics almost, and the detail bar completely to the left, but it is possible. It's as possible as people running GP2 with our 486 in VGA with about all the graphics off. -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- 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."

>Yes, I really think one of the main reasons it was a "flop" was of because >processor. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I cited games (Wing Commanders) which were CPU-hogs, many upgraded computers for them, and were best sellers. I'm confused here. I bought it when I had a 200MMX and Voodoo1. This was already a sub-standard computer compared to the average reader of the csipg or ras reader (doesn't mean there aren't some that are lower). When I raced alone, which is what I think one has to do to practice as you say, I had 30+ FPS. Framerate was not limiting, I think, in my learning curve. Maybe with 43 cars with top-notch AI. And the 43-car field seems to be more sacred than a full field to GPL players is. Me, I'm skeptical as to the above reason being the main one for Papy not using the GPL-engine. c) A game that used 3D graphics accelerators which are in the vast majority of game players machines, and concentrating the rest of the resources on making the gameplay as good as possible, not on supporting non-3D P100's to P200's which the minority of gamers are still holding onto. I'd recognize that eye-candy does indeed sell to the *majority* of gamers. Sure, the RAS community will buy the one with the best racing. But even here, I still see plenty of posts here lauding or panning graphics. I was born, but wasn't aware of F1 till late in the Jackie Stewart era. I went into GPL skeptical. I'm more interested in modern F1 and CART. I agree that for a dedicated group, the racing is the thing. But for big, big sales, I think the market shows that you have to appeal to a wide audience. This is getting off track. I'm glad that Papy took the chance on GPL and wish them success. But I think it is pure speculation to say it "failed" (if it did) based on CPU-req'ts when there are plenty of other sales successes that require fast CPU's and 3d cards.

On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 09:14:31 -0400, Eric Legault

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>I for one am one of those who still has a Pentium 200 MMX, and even >>though I have >>a reasonably well paid job cannot justify upgrading to a new 500 MHZ >>machine, yet. >>I am lucky enough to have brought myself a Voodoo2 but still know that >>amougst those >>in the GP2 community am probably in the minority (I kid you not!) >That's exactly what I have, a Pentium MMX at 200 MHz. I'm considering >buying a Voodoo2 card, could you tell me in which racing sims you use it >and what you get in terms of frame rate, playability, etc?

My previous PC was even slower than yours - Pentium MMX 166MHz, 32MB RAM. After adding a 12MB Voodoo 2 (cost me 220 at the time!), I was able to get around 28fps in GPL with just some of the details turned off, even in the higher resolutions. Without the Voodoo 2 I was only able to reach 3, maybe 4 frames per second. On a system like that, that's a HUGE increase in speed! The V2 is very good, even for low-end systems. For games like GPL, Rendition cards would be faster. Dave Bowman

Sounds very promising! With a lot of details, I get about 5 frames per seconds right now with the Pentium MMX 200. Could someone explain what a Rendition card is? I know about the 3Dfx family but that's about it... I'd also like to know which racing sims would be happy with a Rendition card. What about TOCA2, or maybe the Ubisoft F1 sims? I certainly won't play all those games but I'd like to understand more about those 3D cards to make the best possible buy for the amount I'm willing to pay. Thanks, -- NP: ?nglag?rd - "Hybris"

1) GPL wasn't a big fiasco. 2) GPL didn't sell well because of its a) physics engine b) high end requirements 3) Rather, it sold well because of its choice of racing time/genre. Slap NASCAR branding and at least in the US it would have sold quite a lot. Granted, it would have been tempered by items in 2 and 3, but nonetheless. However, back to the real question. No, there isn't much 3D hardware for notebooks. Generally notebooks are bad for *** due to limited resources [older ones], and because the LCD screens dont have the best refresh rates. However, ATI has been making ATi Rage Fury OEM boards for notebooks. WHY!?!? If you are going to race in F1 or CART, you don't try and run in a IndyLights or F3000 car. Why try and run the latest software on ancient hardware [and with computers, that can be as little as a year to two year old hardware]. I'd like to see every new game run on everyone one's machines, but that puts a bit of a hamper on the developers. And does take time to really optimize the heck out of a game for those lower end models. Aye, but this goes hand and hand with graphics and sound. Graphics, sound and now forcefeedback are aboslutely the ONLY way we can tell what the car is doing. Really good physics that require instant reactions would be unhumanly hard if your graphics were not good enough to relay the information. Now, this doesn't include over the top eye-candy. LAN!?!? Come on, a very low percentage of computers race on a LAN so there is aboslutely no sense providing IPX protocol since its only useful on a LAN, where as a LAN will run prefectly fine using only TCP/IP and it obviously is the protocol of the internet for multiplayer there. In other words, if TCP/IP works for the internet really well, then it will work really well with a LAN. Ok, just to make a point here. Lots of developers use large high end 3d modelers, etc to model their tracks and cars and then convert them into proprietary formats through plugins in the software. Not sure how pratical it is to create, for the developers, full tools to do it. But perhaps it'd be nice if they'd release the plug-ins, etc because many racers are also graphics and 3D artists.

Absolutely David. Absolutely. Graphics are as important as physics. Can you imagine trying to drive GPL with N2 [hardware accelerated physics] at 640x480? I cant now that I have it at 1024x768. The tiny movements I can detect with the higher resolution makes it easier to control the cars.

I'm eager to see the physics, 3D is in the 2nd place. Reality and playability is what counts, better AI etc. I don't care if it won't have state-of-the-art graphics. -- ************************ ICQ#: 19515465

have You can play it in lower resolution or something. When gp2 showed up, I played it in low res with half of possible textures included, and I didn't give a dam because *it was so good*. Everybody who loves a real sim will play it with joy and won't complain that "it can't be played in 1024x768 with all textures on and blabla...". IMHO. We'll have to wait and see. I won't mind gp2.5 if the physics and AI are gp3.0 quality, and graphics are gp2.5 quality. -- ************************ ICQ#: 19515465

Diamond Multimedia have assembled a nice quality and speed videocard Diamond Stealth 220 using Rendition Verite 2100. Maybe someone will mind but I guess it's the best of Rendition. Very enjoyable in Nascar 2, it looks even greater then on Voodoo 2 (nice colored fog etc....).But most of the latest sims require more than Rendition can do. And also it's highly processor-dependent when Voodoo 2 lets you have more framerates with Pentium MMX processors That's all, folks. Warren Reicho.

: My son has a very powerfull machine with V2 and loves MGPRS2 but, I am : mainly a notebook user. Has someone ever seen a descent 3D video on : notebooks? I have never seen. But, I have a PII-233 and GP2 is great in it. Some ship right now with a second generation ATI Mobility P, but it's basically a stock Rage chipset with AGP. It's nothing special, but runs some D3D games reasonably well. In the autumn Savage will roll out the Savage/Mx, which is based on the Savage 4. It features texture compression and bump mapping, up to 16Mb on board memory, and a very good OpenGL implementation. Quake timedemos score it just a bit below current desktop boards. That might not sound like much for a new product, but if you understand the space, power and heat constraints in a notebook, then you begin to see how amazing this is, if it lives up to the early hype. stephen

I think 95% of the people here disagree with you...many of us turn down our grafx detail to pull 36fps. I could run 1024 and get about 30fps, but when I you can keep a machine pegged at 36fps in a race I will drive laps much more consistent. It looks worse for about 2 minutes and then it seems normal...next time you race you can't tell the difference. I'll take GPL physics and 640x480 resolution over MGP with a higher resolution any day...but I guess that's just me. ________________________________________________ Jon Van Ginneken "Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules, and ***ic pleasure in witnessing ***: in other words it is war minus the shooting." --George Orwell

No, you are not alone. I do the same thing. I play GPL and MGPRS2 on 640x480 with the highest framerate possible. I played them under higher resoutions for a long time but, i discovered that 640x480 makes my laps more consistent than amazing graphics but lower framerates. Of course, we can "upgrade" our computers to PIII-600 with V3, but, who has the money to buy a new computer every six or so months? I certainly don't. Brian

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > c) A game that used 3D graphics accelerators which are in the vast > > majority of > > > game players machines, and concentrating the rest of the resources on > > making > > > the gameplay as good as possible, not on supporting non-3D P100's to > > P200's > > > which the minority of gamers are still holding onto. I'd recognize

that > > > eye-candy does indeed sell to the *majority* of gamers. Sure, the RAS > > > community will buy the one with the best racing. But even here, I still > > see > > > plenty of posts here lauding or panning graphics. > > Absolutely David. Absolutely. Graphics are as important as physics. Can > > you imagine trying to drive GPL with N2 [hardware accelerated physics] at > > 640x480? I cant now that I have it at 1024x768. The tiny movements I > can > > detect with the higher resolution makes it easier to control the cars. > I think 95% of the people here disagree with you...many of us turn down our > grafx detail to pull 36fps. I could run 1024 and get about 30fps, but when

Quoted text (18 lines)

> I you can keep a machine pegged at 36fps in a race I will drive laps much > more consistent. It looks worse for about 2 minutes and then it seems > normal...next time you race you can't tell the difference. > I'll take GPL physics and 640x480 resolution over MGP with a higher > resolution any day...but I guess that's just me. > ________________________________________________ > Jon Van Ginneken > "Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up > with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules, and > ***ic pleasure in witnessing ***: in other words it is > war minus the shooting." > --Geor

ge > Orwell

On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 20:20:18 -0400, Eric Legault >Could someone explain what a Rendition card is? I know about the 3Dfx >family but that's about it... They're similar to other 3D cards, only older, cheaper, and aren't supported by even a fraction of the games which support D3D and Glide. If you have all of the Papyrus sims it might be worth picking up a Rendition card. They're dead cheap these days, and in GPL, for example, can help make the graphics even sharper than a 3Dfx card. Nope. ICR2 (Rendition version only), N2, N99, N3, GPL all support Rendition. Dave Bowman

Well, I left it unsaid but I guess it needed to be said. Of course you have to run the graphics details, etc so that it matches your computer for the best performance. In GPL's case, 36fps are absolutely necessary for good game play. If you can't get except for 640x480 then you do what you have to do. I run at 1024x768 and get 36fps, but thats my machine. Of course I think you missed my point, which is that graphics goes hand in hand with physics. Better the physics are, the better the rest of the subsystems that give the gamer feedback [input, visual, sound are what we have right now] need to be. And btw, I tried the demo of MGP and laughed and deleted it pretty darn quickly. > I think 95% of the people here disagree with you...many of us turn down our > grafx detail to pull 36fps. I could run 1024 and get about 30fps, but when

Quoted text (18 lines)

> I you can keep a machine pegged at 36fps in a race I will drive laps much > more consistent. It looks worse for about 2 minutes and then it seems > normal...next time you race you can't tell the difference. > I'll take GPL physics and 640x480 resolution over MGP with a higher > resolution any day...but I guess that's just me. > ________________________________________________ > Jon Van Ginneken > "Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up > with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules, and > ***ic pleasure in witnessing ***: in other words it is > war minus the shooting." > --Geor

ge > Orwell

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> Do you want to wait 2 years for a game to become usable? I don't and I >> suspect 99% of the people here don't either. Yes, games programmers >have >You can play it in lower resolution or something. When gp2 showed up, I >played it in low res with half of possible textures included, and I >didn't give a dam because *it was so good*. Everybody who loves a real >sim will play it with joy and won't complain that "it can't be played in >1024x768 with all textures on and blabla...". IMHO.

Go back and re-read the thread. I was commenting on Paul Hoads comment, this wasn't making a statement. M

The reason being presumably that since GP2 runs well on their current hardware there is no reason to upgrade - it doesn't then follow that if GP3 requires an upgrade it would be out of reach. Frankly GP2 doesn't run all that well on a 200Mhz Pentium, and to think that GP3 should aim for a similar level is, IMO, aiming far too low. With 3D accelerators going for a song and powerful Celerons available for 50 and less upgrades are far from expensive. Last time Geoff messed up to some extent by making GP2 way too demanding of systems at that time, I hope now he doesn't go too far the other way. We already have plenty of sims that drive really well, and for GP3 to interest me at all it must have 3D acceleration and must look good. No matter how spiffing the driving model why would I want to slog round in 320x200 256 colour VGA? I agree that clever coding can improve things, but with 3d accelerators offering smooth framerates at 1024x768 in 32-bit colour there is no optimisation in the world that will beat faster silicon and benefitting from the hardware in the marketplace. Cheers! John

heck I get a kick out of playing the GPL demo on my amd 166 at 4fps! -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Zack Sandberg ICQ# 22150723 Home Page: www.geocities.com/motorcity/track/9049 "Go'n Fast with Class" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Do you want to wait 2 years for a game to become usable? I don't and I > >> suspect 99% of the people here don't either. Yes, games programmers > >have > >You can play it in lower resolution or something. When gp2 showed up, I > >played it in low res with half of possible textures included, and I > >didn't give a dam because *it was so good*. Everybody who loves a real > >sim will play it with joy and won't complain that "it can't be played in > >1024x768 with all textures on and blabla...". IMHO. > Go back and re-read the thread. I was commenting on Paul Hoads comment, > this wasn't making a statement. > M