NR2003 Demo--effect of DX9 on graphics performance?

OK...Setting up the new demo exactly side-by side with NR2002 yields less than half the frame rate. So I figure I'll crank up all the graphics options and see how low I can get it to go...basically the same. No significant hit at all from going with modest settings vs. full. i) I can't see any significant difference between either version and 2002 anyway, so where is the 60% fps drop coming from? ii) I chose not to upgrade to DX9 because of reports it affects F12002/GTR2002 badly...and until NR2003 is proven to me, NOTHING interferes with GTR2002. I think the lack of difference between cranked and moderate graphics may be because under DX8.1 I am not getting or seeing the new fancy stuff, which only appears under DX9...??? But I would like to know if anyone else has chosen not to do DX9, had pathetic unplayable frame rates where in 2002 they were fine or even quite good and then upgraded to DX9 and it improved 2003. And, if you use F12002/GTR2002 tell us whether DX9 broke that title. After taking quite a while to shut off ALL the annoying aids and get into the Advanced controls to get my linear steering and shut off that damned speed sensitive steering, I can say the FFB is better in this version, but still inferior to GPL and GTR2002. Are there supposed to be any bumps at Michigan (haven't tried Tally yet), because I sure don't feel any? Graphics: so far any work that was done is irrelevant and unwanted if it cuts the fps by 60%. I would rather have the 2002 graphics and the other sim.-oriented improvements. Sound: marginal improvement from 2002. Looks like we have lost Waltrip but gained Kaemmer for the Driving Lessons. So far...a bit underwhelming. I will buy it of course, but seems like about the same notch in improvement as between 2001 and 2002. I was expecting more. And if the fps suck even when you turn the options down so it looks WORSE than 2002, I will also be very disappointed. Unless someone can prove to me that it is the underlying physics calculations (a la GPL) that are dragging down my system (and therefore I will happy to wait until I get a 3.5 GHz CPU to really enjoy this), it isn't going to be a whole lot of fun driving alone on the tracks (which is all I can do at a playable frame rate). For those who must know: P4 2.0 512 MB Rambus 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video SB Audigy sound new MOMO wheel Hopefully we'll get some replies on the DX9 from those who don't care about GTR2002...I know I am not the only one who would like to know the effect. Thanks, Marc -- **************************************************************************** Marc Collins [email hidden] Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? ****************************************************************************

Marc, DX9 works just fine with GTR2002 and F1-2002 for me. That said, I still get significantly lower FPS in this NR2003 demo than in NR2002, and we have quite similar spec systems. (XP1800/Ti4400/Audigy/98SE) SB "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HU3X9.50531$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> OK...Setting up the new demo exactly side-by side with NR2002 yields less > than half the frame rate. So I figure I'll crank up all the graphics > options and see how low I can get it to go...basically the same. No > significant hit at all from going with modest settings vs. full. > > i) I can't see any significant difference between either version and 2002 > anyway, so where is the 60% fps drop coming from? > > ii) I chose not to upgrade to DX9 because of reports it affects > F12002/GTR2002 badly...and until NR2003 is proven to me, NOTHING

interferes > with GTR2002. > > I think the lack of difference between cranked and moderate graphics maybe

Quoted text (21 lines)

> because under DX8.1 I am not getting or seeing the new fancy stuff, which > only appears under DX9...??? > > But I would like to know if anyone else has chosen not to do DX9, had > pathetic unplayable frame rates where in 2002 they were fine or even quite > good and then upgraded to DX9 and it improved 2003. And, if you use > F12002/GTR2002 tell us whether DX9 broke that title. > > After taking quite a while to shut off ALL the annoying aids and get into > the Advanced controls to get my linear steering and shut off that damned > speed sensitive steering, I can say the FFB is better in this version, but > still inferior to GPL and GTR2002. Are there supposed to be any bumps at > Michigan (haven't tried Tally yet), because I sure don't feel any? > > Graphics: so far any work that was done is irrelevant and unwanted if it > cuts the fps by 60%. I would rather have the 2002 graphics and the other > sim.-oriented improvements. > > Sound: marginal improvement from 2002. > > Looks like we have lost Waltrip but gained Kaemmer for the Driving

Lessons. > > So far...a bit underwhelming. I will buy it of course, but seems likeabout > the same notch in improvement as between 2001 and 2002. I was expecting > more. And if the fps suck even when you turn the options down so it looks > WORSE than 2002, I will also be very disappointed. Unless someone canprove

Quoted text (15 lines)

> to me that it is the underlying physics calculations (a la GPL) that are > dragging down my system (and therefore I will happy to wait until I get a > 3.5 GHz CPU to really enjoy this), it isn't going to be a whole lot of fun > driving alone on the tracks (which is all I can do at a playable frame > rate). > > For those who must know: > > P4 2.0 > 512 MB Rambus > 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video > SB Audigy sound > new MOMO wheel > > Hopefully we'll get some replies on the DX9 from those who don't care

about

Quoted text (9 lines)

> GTR2002...I know I am not the only one who would like to know the effect. > > Thanks, > > Marc > > > -- >

**************************************************************************** > Marc Collins > [email hidden] > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > to take effect. Reboot now? >**************************************************************************** > >

Interesting. Did you already have 9 installed before the demo? If you try to keep the eye-candy on par, sitting in the pit lane at Michigan Test Session, how much lower (%) is 2003 for you. It is literally 60% lower on my system. Marc "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Marc, DX9 works just fine with GTR2002 and F1-2002 for me. That said, I > still get significantly lower FPS in this NR2003 demo than in NR2002, andwe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> have quite similar spec systems. (XP1800/Ti4400/Audigy/98SE) > > SB > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:HU3X9.50531$[email hidden]... > > OK...Setting up the new demo exactly side-by side with NR2002 yields

less > > than half the frame rate. So I figure I'll crank up all the graphics > > options and see how low I can get it to go...basically the same. No > > significant hit at all from going with modest settings vs. full. > > > > i) I can't see any significant difference between either version and2002

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > anyway, so where is the 60% fps drop coming from? > > > > ii) I chose not to upgrade to DX9 because of reports it affects > > F12002/GTR2002 badly...and until NR2003 is proven to me, NOTHING > interferes > > with GTR2002. > > > > I think the lack of difference between cranked and moderate graphics may > be > > because under DX8.1 I am not getting or seeing the new fancy stuff,

which > > only appears under DX9...??? > > > > But I would like to know if anyone else has chosen not to do DX9, had > > pathetic unplayable frame rates where in 2002 they were fine or evenquite > > good and then upgraded to DX9 and it improved 2003. And, if you use > > F12002/GTR2002 tell us whether DX9 broke that title. > > > > After taking quite a while to shut off ALL the annoying aids and getinto > > the Advanced controls to get my linear steering and shut off that damned > > speed sensitive steering, I can say the FFB is better in this version,but > > still inferior to GPL and GTR2002. Are there supposed to be any bumpsat > > Michigan (haven't tried Tally yet), because I sure don't feel any? > > > > Graphics: so far any work that was done is irrelevant and unwanted if it > > cuts the fps by 60%. I would rather have the 2002 graphics and theother

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > sim.-oriented improvements. > > > > Sound: marginal improvement from 2002. > > > > Looks like we have lost Waltrip but gained Kaemmer for the Driving > Lessons. > > > > So far...a bit underwhelming. I will buy it of course, but seems like > about > > the same notch in improvement as between 2001 and 2002. I was expecting > > more. And if the fps suck even when you turn the options down so it

looks > > WORSE than 2002, I will also be very disappointed. Unless someone can > prove > > to me that it is the underlying physics calculations (a la GPL) that are > > dragging down my system (and therefore I will happy to wait until I geta > > 3.5 GHz CPU to really enjoy this), it isn't going to be a whole lot offun

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > driving alone on the tracks (which is all I can do at a playable frame > > rate). > > > > For those who must know: > > > > P4 2.0 > > 512 MB Rambus > > 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video > > SB Audigy sound > > new MOMO wheel > > > > Hopefully we'll get some replies on the DX9 from those who don't care > about > > GTR2002...I know I am not the only one who would like to know the

effect.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > Thanks, > > > > Marc > > > > > > -- > > >

****************************************************************************

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Marc Collins > > [email hidden] > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > > to take effect. Reboot now? > > >

**************************************************************************** > > > > > >

Hi Marc, I'm using an XP2100+, 512MB DDR@266, ATI9700Pro, SBLive. I ran NR2002 in DX mode, 800x600x32 with average settings getting 71 fps in the pit during practice and 44 behind 16 drawn cpu cars while in pit road starting a race from the back. When using OpenGL I get the 60% frame loss you mention. Setting NR2003(beta) to medium settings and DX8.1, I actually got *faster* fps than with NR2002. 75 fps in pit during practice. 55 fps while in the pit road starting a race from the back. Of course setting everything to max dropped me to 16fps from the back in the pit but it looked nice :) Oh, with GTR2002, I didn't have any negative effects from DX9 that I didn't already have. Jason. Marc Collins wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> OK...Setting up the new demo exactly side-by side with NR2002 yields less > than half the frame rate. So I figure I'll crank up all the graphics > options and see how low I can get it to go...basically the same. No > significant hit at all from going with modest settings vs. full. > > > For those who must know: > > P4 2.0 > 512 MB Rambus > 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video > SB Audigy sound > new MOMO wheel > > Hopefully we'll get some replies on the DX9 from those who don't care about > GTR2002...I know I am not the only one who would like to know the effect. > > Thanks, > > Marc >

-- Jason Monds theCLAPPER in Kali http://www.proracingclub.com - Pro Racing Club! (GPL) http://www.scprc.com - Stock Car Pro Racing Club (NR2002) (Remove 'no extra spork' when replying)

I have a similar system to yours, using dx9 with all graphic options turned up except for shadows and specular highlights, at 1024x768 resolution...and it plays fine. The framerate stays between 40 and 60 at all times. Even at the beginning of the race it is at 40fps. My system: AthlonXP 2000+ 512mb DDR 64mb GeForce4 Ti4200 "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HU3X9.50531$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> OK...Setting up the new demo exactly side-by side with NR2002 yields less > than half the frame rate. So I figure I'll crank up all the graphics > options and see how low I can get it to go...basically the same. No > significant hit at all from going with modest settings vs. full. > > i) I can't see any significant difference between either version and 2002 > anyway, so where is the 60% fps drop coming from? > > ii) I chose not to upgrade to DX9 because of reports it affects > F12002/GTR2002 badly...and until NR2003 is proven to me, NOTHING

interferes > with GTR2002. > > I think the lack of difference between cranked and moderate graphics maybe

Quoted text (21 lines)

> because under DX8.1 I am not getting or seeing the new fancy stuff, which > only appears under DX9...??? > > But I would like to know if anyone else has chosen not to do DX9, had > pathetic unplayable frame rates where in 2002 they were fine or even quite > good and then upgraded to DX9 and it improved 2003. And, if you use > F12002/GTR2002 tell us whether DX9 broke that title. > > After taking quite a while to shut off ALL the annoying aids and get into > the Advanced controls to get my linear steering and shut off that damned > speed sensitive steering, I can say the FFB is better in this version, but > still inferior to GPL and GTR2002. Are there supposed to be any bumps at > Michigan (haven't tried Tally yet), because I sure don't feel any? > > Graphics: so far any work that was done is irrelevant and unwanted if it > cuts the fps by 60%. I would rather have the 2002 graphics and the other > sim.-oriented improvements. > > Sound: marginal improvement from 2002. > > Looks like we have lost Waltrip but gained Kaemmer for the Driving

Lessons. > > So far...a bit underwhelming. I will buy it of course, but seems likeabout > the same notch in improvement as between 2001 and 2002. I was expecting > more. And if the fps suck even when you turn the options down so it looks > WORSE than 2002, I will also be very disappointed. Unless someone canprove

Quoted text (15 lines)

> to me that it is the underlying physics calculations (a la GPL) that are > dragging down my system (and therefore I will happy to wait until I get a > 3.5 GHz CPU to really enjoy this), it isn't going to be a whole lot of fun > driving alone on the tracks (which is all I can do at a playable frame > rate). > > For those who must know: > > P4 2.0 > 512 MB Rambus > 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video > SB Audigy sound > new MOMO wheel > > Hopefully we'll get some replies on the DX9 from those who don't care

about

Quoted text (9 lines)

> GTR2002...I know I am not the only one who would like to know the effect. > > Thanks, > > Marc > > > -- >

**************************************************************************** > Marc Collins > [email hidden] > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > to take effect. Reboot now? >**************************************************************************** > > >

The biggest fps hits are shadows on or in the car. Shadow from car on ground, and from structure on ground isnt too bad. The next largest is probably track specular highlights. Then reflections. Now if you want to talk Open GL specific, normally if you see a huge difference between DX, and OGL its because you have filtering set to "Extreme" which is anisotropic filtering, and if thats the case, more than likely when you did your graphics config it set your anisotropic level to 8 in your rendogl.ini file. 2 is more than sufficent. just change it to 2. Hope this helps some of you. TK

Not 60% lower, for sure; somewhere around 10-15 FPS lower in OGL with the same RivaTuner settings as I was using with NR2002 (and enough of the new eye candy turned off to try to match NR2002's look). I already had DX9 installed. (& 41.09 drivers) I tried reducing the AA to Quincunx and the Aniso to 2X (from the 4X on both that I used before w/NR2002) and that helped a lot. NR2003 still looks good at that. Raceable FPS with a small field, but with 43 cars, I don't think so. Turning AA and Aniso off gets the FPS well past 100 in testing, but I can't bear to look at it like that anymore. Spoiled! Just checked - with Quincunx AA and 2X Aniso, sitting in the pits at Michigan in a test session, I get 90 FPS in NR2002 and 77 in NR2003. That's with everything maxed in '02. In '03, I have: shadows on cars off, solar and specular lighting off, details all on max (note: mirror on med in both & no steering wheel, 73FOV in '03), & normal texture filtering. In a race, sitting at the back of an 11-car grid, I get 43FPS in '03 and 54FPS in '02. It should be useable on PC's like ours, especially online without the AI load, but a new vid card wouldn't hurt. Jeez...darned 4400's still got that new smell. SB "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MF4X9.3560$[email hidden]... > Interesting. Did you already have 9 installed before the demo? If youtry

Quoted text (10 lines)

> to keep the eye-candy on par, sitting in the pit lane at Michigan Test > Session, how much lower (%) is 2003 for you. It is literally 60% lower on > my system. > > Marc > > "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Marc, DX9 works just fine with GTR2002 and F1-2002 for me. That said, I > > still get significantly lower FPS in this NR2003 demo than in NR2002,

and

Quoted text (23 lines)

> we > > have quite similar spec systems. (XP1800/Ti4400/Audigy/98SE) > > > > SB > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:HU3X9.50531$[email hidden]... > > > OK...Setting up the new demo exactly side-by side with NR2002 yields > less > > > than half the frame rate. So I figure I'll crank up all the graphics > > > options and see how low I can get it to go...basically the same. No > > > significant hit at all from going with modest settings vs. full. > > > > > > i) I can't see any significant difference between either version and > 2002 > > > anyway, so where is the 60% fps drop coming from? > > > > > > ii) I chose not to upgrade to DX9 because of reports it affects > > > F12002/GTR2002 badly...and until NR2003 is proven to me, NOTHING > > interferes > > > with GTR2002. > > > > > > I think the lack of difference between cranked and moderate graphics

may

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > be > > > because under DX8.1 I am not getting or seeing the new fancy stuff, > which > > > only appears under DX9...??? > > > > > > But I would like to know if anyone else has chosen not to do DX9, had > > > pathetic unplayable frame rates where in 2002 they were fine or even > quite > > > good and then upgraded to DX9 and it improved 2003. And, if you use > > > F12002/GTR2002 tell us whether DX9 broke that title. > > > > > > After taking quite a while to shut off ALL the annoying aids and get > into > > > the Advanced controls to get my linear steering and shut off that

damned

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > speed sensitive steering, I can say the FFB is better in this version, > but > > > still inferior to GPL and GTR2002. Are there supposed to be any bumps > at > > > Michigan (haven't tried Tally yet), because I sure don't feel any? > > > > > > Graphics: so far any work that was done is irrelevant and unwanted if

it

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > cuts the fps by 60%. I would rather have the 2002 graphics and the > other > > > sim.-oriented improvements. > > > > > > Sound: marginal improvement from 2002. > > > > > > Looks like we have lost Waltrip but gained Kaemmer for the Driving > > Lessons. > > > > > > So far...a bit underwhelming. I will buy it of course, but seems like > > about > > > the same notch in improvement as between 2001 and 2002. I was

expecting > > > more. And if the fps suck even when you turn the options down so it > looks > > > WORSE than 2002, I will also be very disappointed. Unless someone can > > prove > > > to me that it is the underlying physics calculations (a la GPL) thatare > > > dragging down my system (and therefore I will happy to wait until Iget

Quoted text (28 lines)

> a > > > 3.5 GHz CPU to really enjoy this), it isn't going to be a whole lot of > fun > > > driving alone on the tracks (which is all I can do at a playable frame > > > rate). > > > > > > For those who must know: > > > > > > P4 2.0 > > > 512 MB Rambus > > > 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video > > > SB Audigy sound > > > new MOMO wheel > > > > > > Hopefully we'll get some replies on the DX9 from those who don't care > > about > > > GTR2002...I know I am not the only one who would like to know the > effect. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > >

****************************************************************************

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > Marc Collins > > > [email hidden] > > > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > > > to take effect. Reboot now? > > > > > >

**************************************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > >

What resolution? TK "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Not 60% lower, for sure; somewhere around 10-15 FPS lower in OGL with the > same RivaTuner settings as I was using with NR2002 (and enough of the new > eye candy turned off to try to match NR2002's look). I already had DX9 > installed. (& 41.09 drivers) > > I tried reducing the AA to Quincunx and the Aniso to 2X (from the 4X onboth > that I used before w/NR2002) and that helped a lot. NR2003 still looksgood > at that. Raceable FPS with a small field, but with 43 cars, I don't think > so. Turning AA and Aniso off gets the FPS well past 100 in testing, but I > can't bear to look at it like that anymore. Spoiled! > > Just checked - with Quincunx AA and 2X Aniso, sitting in the pits at > Michigan in a test session, I get 90 FPS in NR2002 and 77 in NR2003.That's > with everything maxed in '02. In '03, I have: shadows on cars off, solar > and specular lighting off, details all on max (note: mirror on med in both& > no steering wheel, 73FOV in '03), & normal texture filtering. In a race, > sitting at the back of an 11-car grid, I get 43FPS in '03 and 54FPS in'02. > > It should be useable on PC's like ours, especially online without the AI > load, but a new vid card wouldn't hurt. Jeez...darned 4400's still gotthat

Quoted text (10 lines)

> new smell. > > SB > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:MF4X9.3560$[email hidden]... > > Interesting. Did you already have 9 installed before the demo? If you > try > > to keep the eye-candy on par, sitting in the pit lane at Michigan Test > > Session, how much lower (%) is 2003 for you. It is literally 60% lower

on > > my system. > > > > Marc > > > > "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote inmessage > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Marc, DX9 works just fine with GTR2002 and F1-2002 for me. That said,I

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > still get significantly lower FPS in this NR2003 demo than in NR2002, > and > > we > > > have quite similar spec systems. (XP1800/Ti4400/Audigy/98SE) > > > > > > SB > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:HU3X9.50531$[email hidden]... > > > > OK...Setting up the new demo exactly side-by side with NR2002 yields > > less > > > > than half the frame rate. So I figure I'll crank up all the

graphics

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > > > options and see how low I can get it to go...basically the same. No > > > > significant hit at all from going with modest settings vs. full. > > > > > > > > i) I can't see any significant difference between either version and > > 2002 > > > > anyway, so where is the 60% fps drop coming from? > > > > > > > > ii) I chose not to upgrade to DX9 because of reports it affects > > > > F12002/GTR2002 badly...and until NR2003 is proven to me, NOTHING > > > interferes > > > > with GTR2002. > > > > > > > > I think the lack of difference between cranked and moderate graphics > may > > > be > > > > because under DX8.1 I am not getting or seeing the new fancy stuff, > > which > > > > only appears under DX9...??? > > > > > > > > But I would like to know if anyone else has chosen not to do DX9,

had

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > pathetic unplayable frame rates where in 2002 they were fine or even > > quite > > > > good and then upgraded to DX9 and it improved 2003. And, if you use > > > > F12002/GTR2002 tell us whether DX9 broke that title. > > > > > > > > After taking quite a while to shut off ALL the annoying aids and get > > into > > > > the Advanced controls to get my linear steering and shut off that > damned > > > > speed sensitive steering, I can say the FFB is better in this

version, > > but > > > > still inferior to GPL and GTR2002. Are there supposed to be anybumps > > at > > > > Michigan (haven't tried Tally yet), because I sure don't feel any? > > > > > > > > Graphics: so far any work that was done is irrelevant and unwantedif

Quoted text (11 lines)

> it > > > > cuts the fps by 60%. I would rather have the 2002 graphics and the > > other > > > > sim.-oriented improvements. > > > > > > > > Sound: marginal improvement from 2002. > > > > > > > > Looks like we have lost Waltrip but gained Kaemmer for the Driving > > > Lessons. > > > > > > > > So far...a bit underwhelming. I will buy it of course, but seems

like > > > about > > > > the same notch in improvement as between 2001 and 2002. I was > expecting > > > > more. And if the fps suck even when you turn the options down so it > > looks > > > > WORSE than 2002, I will also be very disappointed. Unless someonecan

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > prove > > > > to me that it is the underlying physics calculations (a la GPL) that > are > > > > dragging down my system (and therefore I will happy to wait until I > get > > a > > > > 3.5 GHz CPU to really enjoy this), it isn't going to be a whole lot

of > > fun > > > > driving alone on the tracks (which is all I can do at a playableframe

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > rate). > > > > > > > > For those who must know: > > > > > > > > P4 2.0 > > > > 512 MB Rambus > > > > 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video > > > > SB Audigy sound > > > > new MOMO wheel > > > > > > > > Hopefully we'll get some replies on the DX9 from those who don't

care

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > about > > > > GTR2002...I know I am not the only one who would like to know the > > effect. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > >

****************************************************************************

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > Marc Collins > > > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > > > > to take effect. Reboot now? > > > > > > > > > >

****************************************************************************

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

For the first time I find Dx to be faster than OpenGL in a Papy sim (Dx9 here) and also to look better. I actually think the main fps killers are the three 'On Cars' shadow settings and 'Track Lighting and Shading' - I've disabled these four settings as they visually don't make much of a difference, but cause a severe fps hit. All other settings I've enabled and to highest quality. All the other settings which can be disabled without drastically changing the image quality didn't cause much of an fps hit for me, including Reflections etc. I'm getting between 35 and 48 fps (these two being the min/max numbers appearing briefly once or twice, usually it's somewhere in-between these two extremes) at 1280x960x32, with 2xFSAA and 4xAniso enabled and the graphics options of the Nvidia drivers optimised for quality. There is btw a 'fog' setting in the player.ini, I've enabled it without seeing an fps hit - but also without seeing much of an effect yet. As for the FF, it's IMHO more detailed than before. I have created a symetric setup to be able to judge this fairly, because when you're using someone elses setup you can't really tell in the first hours what the car should feel like and whether the FF transports the car's reactions well. I, for one, think the FF has improved. I don't know whether the physics have been improved or not, but the car feels more like what I'd expect such a Nascar to drive like. I like it how the steering feels now, this is definitely different from before. I am under the impression that the snappiness of the car is more within realistic boundaries now, and I seem to feel the car and the track more directly. A few little exaggerations have also been removed (like the rev drop when putting a wheel underneath the line). The car's engine power and revvability feels perfectly right, exactly like what I'd expect from such a car, more so than it did in N2002 for example. The laptimes are indeed pretty low, maybe this demo has a tad too much horsepower? Perhaps to make it more fun for the reviewers? This wouldn't look like the Papyrus I know at all, but the laptimes are indeed pretty low as compared to N2002. Since I'm not a Nascar fan, could anyone comment on what the real life laptimes are like? My one sad point is the in-car engine sound, and also sometimes the external sound from the other cars. It still doesn't give me the belly feeling I think it should give me, going by what Nascars sound like on TV. Another issue is, when you disable the menu click-plonk-boing sounds <g> (thanks Papy for letting us disable it) you still get Garage sounds when tweaking the setup. I find that unnecessary as well, since they're pretty repetitive. And where are those 'hey who took my allen wrench' and 'oh shut up and look in your own pocket' and 'hurry up guys it's time, we're behind schedule already' and all the other sentences you'd definitely hear in a garage at a racetrack? _That_ would have been something to listen to while tweaking the setup :-) One thing I miss are the Credits - I'd really like to know who's been working on this one. Has anyone found those Credits screens? Anyway, it appears to be a high price for an improved N2002, but after having played with the demo for an hour, I've found so much detail 'under the hood' that I think the price is justified. It's not the graphics that I'll be paying for, it's a lot of detail and expertise that has gone into the core features of a racing sim. Achim

The credits can be seen when exiting the game. -- www.sascar.com "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0jbf0$q0dnr$[email hidden]... > For the first time I find Dx to be faster than OpenGL in a Papy sim (Dx9 > here) and also to look better. > > I actually think the main fps killers are the three 'On Cars' shadow > settings and 'Track Lighting and Shading' - I've disabled these four > settings as they visually don't make much of a difference, but cause a > severe fps hit. All other settings I've enabled and to highest quality. > > All the other settings which can be disabled without drastically changing > the image quality didn't cause much of an fps hit for me, including > Reflections etc. > > I'm getting between 35 and 48 fps (these two being the min/max numbers > appearing briefly once or twice, usually it's somewhere in-between these two > extremes) at 1280x960x32, with 2xFSAA and 4xAniso enabled and the graphics > options of the Nvidia drivers optimised for quality. There is btw a 'fog' > setting in the player.ini, I've enabled it without seeing an fps hit - but > also without seeing much of an effect yet. > > As for the FF, it's IMHO more detailed than before. I have created a > symetric setup to be able to judge this fairly, because when you're using > someone elses setup you can't really tell in the first hours what the car > should feel like and whether the FF transports the car's reactions well. I, > for one, think the FF has improved. > > I don't know whether the physics have been improved or not, but the car > feels more like what I'd expect such a Nascar to drive like. I like it how > the steering feels now, this is definitely different from before. I am under > the impression that the snappiness of the car is more within realistic > boundaries now, and I seem to feel the car and the track more directly. A > few little exaggerations have also been removed (like the rev drop when > putting a wheel underneath the line). The car's engine power and revvability > feels perfectly right, exactly like what I'd expect from such a car, more so > than it did in N2002 for example. > > The laptimes are indeed pretty low, maybe this demo has a tad too much > horsepower? Perhaps to make it more fun for the reviewers? This wouldn't > look like the Papyrus I know at all, but the laptimes are indeed pretty low > as compared to N2002. > > Since I'm not a Nascar fan, could anyone comment on what the real life > laptimes are like? > > My one sad point is the in-car engine sound, and also sometimes the external > sound from the other cars. It still doesn't give me the belly feeling I > think it should give me, going by what Nascars sound like on TV. Another > issue is, when you disable the menu click-plonk-boing sounds <g> (thanks > Papy for letting us disable it) you still get Garage sounds when tweaking > the setup. I find that unnecessary as well, since they're pretty repetitive. > And where are those 'hey who took my allen wrench' and 'oh shut up and look > in your own pocket' and 'hurry up guys it's time, we're behind schedule > already' and all the other sentences you'd definitely hear in a garage at a > racetrack? _That_ would have been something to listen to while tweaking the > setup :-) > > One thing I miss are the Credits - I'd really like to know who's been > working on this one. Has anyone found those Credits screens? > > Anyway, it appears to be a high price for an improved N2002, but after > having played with the demo for an hour, I've found so much detail 'under > the hood' that I think the price is justified. It's not the graphics that > I'll be paying for, it's a lot of detail and expertise that has gone into > the core features of a racing sim. > > Achim > >

Thanks for the info Rodney. I probably have to re-enable the intro checkbox to see them. Thanks again! Achim "Rodney Arndt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HhbX9.87575$[email hidden]... > The credits can be seen when exiting the game.

And you're in them so you should know!! Marc "Rodney Arndt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HhbX9.87575$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> The credits can be seen when exiting the game. > > -- > www.sascar.com > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b0jbf0$q0dnr$[email hidden]... > > For the first time I find Dx to be faster than OpenGL in a Papy sim (Dx9 > > here) and also to look better. > > > > I actually think the main fps killers are the three 'On Cars' shadow > > settings and 'Track Lighting and Shading' - I've disabled these four > > settings as they visually don't make much of a difference, but cause a > > severe fps hit. All other settings I've enabled and to highest quality. > > > > All the other settings which can be disabled without drastically

changing

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > the image quality didn't cause much of an fps hit for me, including > > Reflections etc. > > > > I'm getting between 35 and 48 fps (these two being the min/max numbers > > appearing briefly once or twice, usually it's somewhere in-between these > two > > extremes) at 1280x960x32, with 2xFSAA and 4xAniso enabled and the

graphics > > options of the Nvidia drivers optimised for quality. There is btw a'fog' > > setting in the player.ini, I've enabled it without seeing an fps hit -but > > also without seeing much of an effect yet. > > > > As for the FF, it's IMHO more detailed than before. I have created a > > symetric setup to be able to judge this fairly, because when you'reusing > > someone elses setup you can't really tell in the first hours what thecar > > should feel like and whether the FF transports the car's reactions well. > I, > > for one, think the FF has improved. > > > > I don't know whether the physics have been improved or not, but the car > > feels more like what I'd expect such a Nascar to drive like. I like ithow > > the steering feels now, this is definitely different from before. I am > under > > the impression that the snappiness of the car is more within realistic > > boundaries now, and I seem to feel the car and the track more directly.A > > few little exaggerations have also been removed (like the rev drop when > > putting a wheel underneath the line). The car's engine power and > revvability > > feels perfectly right, exactly like what I'd expect from such a car,more

Quoted text (18 lines)

> so > > than it did in N2002 for example. > > > > The laptimes are indeed pretty low, maybe this demo has a tad too much > > horsepower? Perhaps to make it more fun for the reviewers? This wouldn't > > look like the Papyrus I know at all, but the laptimes are indeed pretty > low > > as compared to N2002. > > > > Since I'm not a Nascar fan, could anyone comment on what the real life > > laptimes are like? > > > > My one sad point is the in-car engine sound, and also sometimes the > external > > sound from the other cars. It still doesn't give me the belly feeling I > > think it should give me, going by what Nascars sound like on TV. Another > > issue is, when you disable the menu click-plonk-boing sounds <g> (thanks > > Papy for letting us disable it) you still get Garage sounds when

tweaking > > the setup. I find that unnecessary as well, since they're pretty > repetitive. > > And where are those 'hey who took my allen wrench' and 'oh shut up and > look > > in your own pocket' and 'hurry up guys it's time, we're behind schedule > > already' and all the other sentences you'd definitely hear in a garageat

Quoted text (10 lines)

> a > > racetrack? _That_ would have been something to listen to while tweaking > the > > setup :-) > > > > One thing I miss are the Credits - I'd really like to know who's been > > working on this one. Has anyone found those Credits screens? > > > > Anyway, it appears to be a high price for an improved N2002, but after > > having played with the demo for an hour, I've found so much detail

'under > > the hood' that I think the price is justified. It's not the graphicsthat > > I'll be paying for, it's a lot of detail and expertise that has goneinto

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > the core features of a racing sim. > > > > Achim > > > > > >

Agree generally with what you have said. Someone else suggested shadows as well for the fps hit and I realise now that I had some of them on...which wouldn't be a fair comparison to NR2002. I'll re-try it with them off and see what the results are... May be that we can't use shadows for a year or so... Not the end of the world for me if the rest of the stuff is improved. Did you feel any "bumps" on the tracks (like you can in F12002/GTR2002 so easily)? That's the one and only item I was really looking forward to. Marc "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0jbf0$q0dnr$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> For the first time I find Dx to be faster than OpenGL in a Papy sim (Dx9 > here) and also to look better. > > I actually think the main fps killers are the three 'On Cars' shadow > settings and 'Track Lighting and Shading' - I've disabled these four > settings as they visually don't make much of a difference, but cause a > severe fps hit. All other settings I've enabled and to highest quality. > > All the other settings which can be disabled without drastically changing > the image quality didn't cause much of an fps hit for me, including > Reflections etc. > > I'm getting between 35 and 48 fps (these two being the min/max numbers > appearing briefly once or twice, usually it's somewhere in-between these

two

Quoted text (9 lines)

> extremes) at 1280x960x32, with 2xFSAA and 4xAniso enabled and the graphics > options of the Nvidia drivers optimised for quality. There is btw a 'fog' > setting in the player.ini, I've enabled it without seeing an fps hit - but > also without seeing much of an effect yet. > > As for the FF, it's IMHO more detailed than before. I have created a > symetric setup to be able to judge this fairly, because when you're using > someone elses setup you can't really tell in the first hours what the car > should feel like and whether the FF transports the car's reactions well.

I, > for one, think the FF has improved. > > I don't know whether the physics have been improved or not, but the car > feels more like what I'd expect such a Nascar to drive like. I like it how > the steering feels now, this is definitely different from before. I amunder > the impression that the snappiness of the car is more within realistic > boundaries now, and I seem to feel the car and the track more directly. A > few little exaggerations have also been removed (like the rev drop when > putting a wheel underneath the line). The car's engine power andrevvability > feels perfectly right, exactly like what I'd expect from such a car, moreso > than it did in N2002 for example. > > The laptimes are indeed pretty low, maybe this demo has a tad too much > horsepower? Perhaps to make it more fun for the reviewers? This wouldn't > look like the Papyrus I know at all, but the laptimes are indeed prettylow > as compared to N2002. > > Since I'm not a Nascar fan, could anyone comment on what the real life > laptimes are like? > > My one sad point is the in-car engine sound, and also sometimes theexternal > sound from the other cars. It still doesn't give me the belly feeling I > think it should give me, going by what Nascars sound like on TV. Another > issue is, when you disable the menu click-plonk-boing sounds <g> (thanks > Papy for letting us disable it) you still get Garage sounds when tweaking > the setup. I find that unnecessary as well, since they're prettyrepetitive. > And where are those 'hey who took my allen wrench' and 'oh shut up andlook > in your own pocket' and 'hurry up guys it's time, we're behind schedule > already' and all the other sentences you'd definitely hear in a garage ata > racetrack? _That_ would have been something to listen to while tweakingthe

Quoted text (14 lines)

> setup :-) > > One thing I miss are the Credits - I'd really like to know who's been > working on this one. Has anyone found those Credits screens? > > Anyway, it appears to be a high price for an improved N2002, but after > having played with the demo for an hour, I've found so much detail 'under > the hood' that I think the price is justified. It's not the graphics that > I'll be paying for, it's a lot of detail and expertise that has gone into > the core features of a racing sim. > > Achim > >

12X9, 16 bit color in both. "Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:nC6X9.4146$[email hidden]... > What resolution? > > TK

What is "12x9"? Is it possible to get 16 bit resolution in the "12" and something else in the "9"? I was expecting something like 1024x768x16 for an answer (the last number being the bit color). By 12x9 do you mean 1200x900? Never saw that kind of resolution before. I'm just curious. Alanb "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 12X9, 16 bit color in both. > > "Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:nC6X9.4146$[email hidden]... > > What resolution? > > > > TK > > >

Turning off shadows returns me to 2002 fps levels. Now about those bumps in the road...? Marc "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bzcX9.5736$[email hidden]... > Agree generally with what you have said. > > Someone else suggested shadows as well for the fps hit and I realise now > that I had some of them on...which wouldn't be a fair comparison toNR2002. > I'll re-try it with them off and see what the results are... May be thatwe

Quoted text (19 lines)

> can't use shadows for a year or so... Not the end of the world for me if > the rest of the stuff is improved. > > Did you feel any "bumps" on the tracks (like you can in F12002/GTR2002 so > easily)? That's the one and only item I was really looking forward to. > > Marc > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b0jbf0$q0dnr$[email hidden]... > > For the first time I find Dx to be faster than OpenGL in a Papy sim (Dx9 > > here) and also to look better. > > > > I actually think the main fps killers are the three 'On Cars' shadow > > settings and 'Track Lighting and Shading' - I've disabled these four > > settings as they visually don't make much of a difference, but cause a > > severe fps hit. All other settings I've enabled and to highest quality. > > > > All the other settings which can be disabled without drastically

changing

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > the image quality didn't cause much of an fps hit for me, including > > Reflections etc. > > > > I'm getting between 35 and 48 fps (these two being the min/max numbers > > appearing briefly once or twice, usually it's somewhere in-between these > two > > extremes) at 1280x960x32, with 2xFSAA and 4xAniso enabled and the

graphics > > options of the Nvidia drivers optimised for quality. There is btw a'fog' > > setting in the player.ini, I've enabled it without seeing an fps hit -but > > also without seeing much of an effect yet. > > > > As for the FF, it's IMHO more detailed than before. I have created a > > symetric setup to be able to judge this fairly, because when you'reusing > > someone elses setup you can't really tell in the first hours what thecar > > should feel like and whether the FF transports the car's reactions well. > I, > > for one, think the FF has improved. > > > > I don't know whether the physics have been improved or not, but the car > > feels more like what I'd expect such a Nascar to drive like. I like ithow > > the steering feels now, this is definitely different from before. I am > under > > the impression that the snappiness of the car is more within realistic > > boundaries now, and I seem to feel the car and the track more directly.A > > few little exaggerations have also been removed (like the rev drop when > > putting a wheel underneath the line). The car's engine power and > revvability > > feels perfectly right, exactly like what I'd expect from such a car,more

Quoted text (18 lines)

> so > > than it did in N2002 for example. > > > > The laptimes are indeed pretty low, maybe this demo has a tad too much > > horsepower? Perhaps to make it more fun for the reviewers? This wouldn't > > look like the Papyrus I know at all, but the laptimes are indeed pretty > low > > as compared to N2002. > > > > Since I'm not a Nascar fan, could anyone comment on what the real life > > laptimes are like? > > > > My one sad point is the in-car engine sound, and also sometimes the > external > > sound from the other cars. It still doesn't give me the belly feeling I > > think it should give me, going by what Nascars sound like on TV. Another > > issue is, when you disable the menu click-plonk-boing sounds <g> (thanks > > Papy for letting us disable it) you still get Garage sounds when

tweaking > > the setup. I find that unnecessary as well, since they're pretty > repetitive. > > And where are those 'hey who took my allen wrench' and 'oh shut up and > look > > in your own pocket' and 'hurry up guys it's time, we're behind schedule > > already' and all the other sentences you'd definitely hear in a garageat

Quoted text (10 lines)

> a > > racetrack? _That_ would have been something to listen to while tweaking > the > > setup :-) > > > > One thing I miss are the Credits - I'd really like to know who's been > > working on this one. Has anyone found those Credits screens? > > > > Anyway, it appears to be a high price for an improved N2002, but after > > having played with the demo for an hour, I've found so much detail

'under > > the hood' that I think the price is justified. It's not the graphicsthat > > I'll be paying for, it's a lot of detail and expertise that has goneinto

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > the core features of a racing sim. > > > > Achim > > > > > >

1280X960, the only resolution I'm aware of that begins with 12 and 9. Assumed it would be obvious... ;-) "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DedX9.78716$1q3.11811@sccrnsc01...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> What is "12x9"? Is it possible to get 16 bit resolution in the "12" and > something else in the "9"? > > I was expecting something like 1024x768x16 for an answer (the last number > being the bit color). > > By 12x9 do you mean 1200x900? Never saw that kind of resolution before. > > I'm just curious. > > Alanb > > "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 12X9, 16 bit color in both. > > > > "Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:nC6X9.4146$[email hidden]... > > > What resolution? > > > > > > TK > > > > > > > >

Steve, Got it. Wasn't sure what you meant. Sorry for the confusion, Alanb "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> 1280X960, the only resolution I'm aware of that begins with 12 and 9. > Assumed it would be obvious... ;-) > > "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:DedX9.78716$1q3.11811@sccrnsc01... > > What is "12x9"? Is it possible to get 16 bit resolution in the "12" and > > something else in the "9"? > > > > I was expecting something like 1024x768x16 for an answer (the last

number

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > being the bit color). > > > > By 12x9 do you mean 1200x900? Never saw that kind of resolution before. > > > > I'm just curious. > > > > Alanb > > > > "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in

message

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > news:[email hidden]... > > > 12X9, 16 bit color in both. > > > > > > "Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:nC6X9.4146$[email hidden]... > > > > What resolution? > > > > > > > > TK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

At Michigan they're really humble, you'd need to crank the FF up a lot to notice anything, but at Dega they're quite noticeable. I had to crank my FF up quite a bit from N2k2 though, it's more refined in N2k3. Also, when exiting from T2 and T4, there IMHO never was such a realistic feeling of how the front end becomes light as the compression of the suspension changes and the weight gets transferred as a consquence of the camber change in the road - an absolute kick IMHO. I just wish Papy would at least this time have included a road track into the demo so guys like myself can really judge the physics on terrain they know and understand. With ovals my experience is limited, and I probably don't fully understand and savour everything I'm experiencing, or even overlook details in the car's behaviour. Achim "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WqdX9.4238$[email hidden]... > Now about those bumps in the road...?

You mean with the wheel still turned to the right even in middle of the left hand banked turn you find it hard to get a feel for the car? Welcome to oval racing... CART sim or Touring car sim or GT car sim PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Marc "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0jsgp$prkb6$[email hidden]... > At Michigan they're really humble, you'd need to crank the FF up a lot to > notice anything, but at Dega they're quite noticeable. I had to crank myFF

Quoted text (22 lines)

> up quite a bit from N2k2 though, it's more refined in N2k3. > > Also, when exiting from T2 and T4, there IMHO never was such a realistic > feeling of how the front end becomes light as the compression of the > suspension changes and the weight gets transferred as a consquence of the > camber change in the road - an absolute kick IMHO. > > I just wish Papy would at least this time have included a road track into > the demo so guys like myself can really judge the physics on terrain they > know and understand. With ovals my experience is limited, and I probably > don't fully understand and savour everything I'm experiencing, or even > overlook details in the car's behaviour. > > Achim > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:WqdX9.4238$[email hidden]... > > Now about those bumps in the road...? > > >

<g> Achim "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pplX9.50901$[email hidden]... > You mean with the wheel still turned to the right even in middle of theleft

Quoted text (9 lines)

> hand banked turn you find it hard to get a feel for the car? Welcome to > oval racing... CART sim or Touring car sim or GT car sim > PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Marc > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b0jsgp$prkb6$[email hidden]... > > At Michigan they're really humble, you'd need to crank the FF up a lot

to

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > notice anything, but at Dega they're quite noticeable. I had to crank my > FF > > up quite a bit from N2k2 though, it's more refined in N2k3. > > > > Also, when exiting from T2 and T4, there IMHO never was such a realistic > > feeling of how the front end becomes light as the compression of the > > suspension changes and the weight gets transferred as a consquence of

the > > camber change in the road - an absolute kick IMHO. > > > > I just wish Papy would at least this time have included a road trackinto > > the demo so guys like myself can really judge the physics on terrainthey > > know and understand. With ovals my experience is limited, and I probably > > don't fully understand and savour everything I'm experiencing, or even > > overlook details in the car's behaviour.