F12002 - Something is bugging me...

I wish I could tell you what it is, but I can't put my finger on it. All I can say is something just doesn't feel right with the physics model in this game to me. It just doesn't feel 'right'. It feels like the car is actually 1 inch off the ground, and the center of rotation is somewhere between the center and front of the car. It has an almost "RatBag" feel to it. You know, like the world is moving around under the car, instead of the car moving around on the track. Or, like you are driving around on Ice, except that it isn't slippery like Ice. I also don't see/feel much in the way of suspension/car movement. Maybe that's why it feels this way. Whatever it is, it bugs the hell out of me. -Larry

F1 2002 compared to N2002? http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=nr_39.42826%24xj6 .2558560%40twister.southeast.rr.com&rnum=19&prev=/&frame=on N2002 vs F1-2002 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=aiipcl%2414nd5o%2 41%40ID-111741.news.dfncis.de&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Df12002%2Bn2002%2Bcar l%26hl%3Dsv%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26filter%3D0 I do not play it at all any longer... /Carl "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FiVi9.6626$[email hidden]... > I wish I could tell you what it is, but I can't put my finger on it. AllI > can say is something just doesn't feel right with the physics model inthis

Quoted text (21 lines)

> game to me. > > It just doesn't feel 'right'. > > It feels like the car is actually 1 inch off the ground, and the center of > rotation is somewhere between the center and front of the car. > > It has an almost "RatBag" feel to it. You know, like the world is moving > around under the car, instead of the car moving around on the track. > > Or, like you are driving around on Ice, except that it isn't slippery like > Ice. > > I also don't see/feel much in the way of suspension/car movement. Maybe > that's why it feels this way. > > Whatever it is, it bugs the hell out of me. > > -Larry > >

I have the same feeling. Like driving on ice. A little movement of the joystick and away in the dust! I want my RS2 back, but it doesnt work on Windows XP: Peter "Larry" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:FiVi9.6626$[email hidden]... > I wish I could tell you what it is, but I can't put my finger on it. AllI > can say is something just doesn't feel right with the physics model inthis

Quoted text (10 lines)

> game to me. > > It just doesn't feel 'right'. > > It feels like the car is actually 1 inch off the ground, and the center of > rotation is somewhere between the center and front of the car. > > Or, like you are driving around on Ice, except that it isn't slippery like > Ice. >

Joystick? "Peter Vogel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:amhpgq$5f0$00$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I have the same feeling. Like driving on ice. A little movement of the > joystick and away in the dust! > I want my RS2 back, but it doesnt work on Windows XP: > Peter > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:FiVi9.6626$[email hidden]... > > I wish I could tell you what it is, but I can't put my finger on it.

All

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I > > can say is something just doesn't feel right with the physics model in > this > > game to me. > > > > It just doesn't feel 'right'. > > > > It feels like the car is actually 1 inch off the ground, and the center

of > > rotation is somewhere between the center and front of the car. > > > > Or, like you are driving around on Ice, except that it isn't slipperylike > > Ice. > > > > >

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FiVi9.6626$[email hidden]... > I wish I could tell you what it is, but I can't put my finger on it. AllI > can say is something just doesn't feel right with the physics model inthis

Quoted text (20 lines)

> game to me. > > It just doesn't feel 'right'. > > It feels like the car is actually 1 inch off the ground, and the center of > rotation is somewhere between the center and front of the car. > > It has an almost "RatBag" feel to it. You know, like the world is moving > around under the car, instead of the car moving around on the track. > > Or, like you are driving around on Ice, except that it isn't slippery like > Ice. > > I also don't see/feel much in the way of suspension/car movement. Maybe > that's why it feels this way. > > Whatever it is, it bugs the hell out of me. > > -Larry >

First of all, I can't remember the last time I actually saw an F1 chassis move vertically on it's suspension. The ammount of travel is miniscule. 2ndly: Sorting your controllers is vital. Haqsau & Fat n Slo came up with some guidelines for F1 2k1 that I think still apply to 2k2. Briefely, steering axis at 50%. Reduce the speed sensitivity slider to zero and, depending on the circuit, cut the steering lock setting in the setups to near half.(i.e. if the default steering lock is 20 degrees, try 12.) 3rdly. Logitech FF devices need the FF slider set to the left, (the negative side, less than zero) If you want a strong FF then move the slider toward -100. 4thly. Try someuser created setups, like those from The Notorious. I've found some of his setups to be fairly stable and others a little loose. One of the web sites has a collection of his setups F1 Relay I think... the setups are prefaced by his initials TN. 5thly: I will agree with you somewhat... Especially about the handling feeling of a center point...but ONLY, curiously enough, when in a spin or skidding. It feels fairly natural as the spin begins(trust me I've done plenty of them in just about every sim made, I'm an expert) But once you've lost it, the point of contact seems to be just behind the front wheels, like the air-jack stands came down. dave henrie

"Larry" Sorry I forgot two important additions. 6thly. Enable the full rate physics by editing your driver.plr file 7thly: FrameRate FrameRate FrameRate. Get your average fps up there..and I do mean UP there. 40's are jerky and not good. 80's are smooth, and according to David Powell, the 150 range is sweet. dave henrie

You drive with a Joystick? No wonder it feels like driving on ice, it is hard enough with a wheel. :-) I think it feels pretty good......Its not perfect....but IMHO it feels a lot better than GP4. Just a thought......when I first drove it, I thought it was very ordinary....then I read about how you can double the sampling rate. That made the feel Totally different. Have you tried that? Darf "Peter Vogel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:amhpgq$5f0$00$[email hidden]... > I have the same feeling. Like driving on ice. A little movement of the > joystick and away in the dust! > I want my RS2 back, but it doesnt work on Windows XP: > Peter

On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 07:35:01 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I wish I could tell you what it is, but I can't put my finger on it. All I >can say is something just doesn't feel right with the physics model in this >game to me. > >It just doesn't feel 'right'. Ah, an ISI n00b. =) The key to getting f1 2002 to feel "right" is the wheel setup. You have a microsoft wheel no? Try these settings, it's what I've been using and I'm pretty picky: Speed Sensitivity - 0% Lock all the Axes and set them to 25% Lock all the Deadzones and set them to 0% From there I'd adjust the axis sensitivity up and down until the wheel movement matches the movement of your wheel. With a ms sidewinder 25% for all axes seems just about perfect, but YMMV. You definitely want deadzones and speed sensivity disabled unless you're using a joystick. Jason

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cp_i9.350647$[email hidden]... <SNIP> > 2ndly: Sorting your controllers is vital. Haqsau & Fat n Slo came > up with some guidelines for F1 2k1 that I think still apply to 2k2. > Briefely, steering axis at 50%. Reduce the speed sensitivity slider tozero > and, depending on the circuit, cut the steering lock setting in the setups > to near half.(i.e. if the default steering lock is 20 degrees, try 12.) <SNIP> Dave, I tried these settings today with my Momo and F12k2 and it transformed the handling. Thanks for posting it. -- don ------------------------------------- BAPOM Alternative Program Covers for GPL http://www.trilon.com/bapom/

"Larry" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I wish I could tell you what it is, but I can't put my finger on it. All I > can say is something just doesn't feel right with the physics model in this > game to me. > > It just doesn't feel 'right'. > > It feels like the car is actually 1 inch off the ground, and the center of > rotation is somewhere between the center and front of the car. > > It has an almost "RatBag" feel to it. You know, like the world is moving > around under the car, instead of the car moving around on the track. > > Or, like you are driving around on Ice, except that it isn't slippery like > Ice.

I agree, if you're talking about low-speed handling. I mean, it's all well and fine that rear wings are important, but you'd think an F1 car should be able to take the final curve at Monza at 80Km/t even without one. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 FJ�SE!

Maybe my LWFF is unique, but I have the FF slider to the RIGHT, and the FF is just fine. Putting it to the left reverses the forces. In other words the wheel wants to turn and doesn't want to center, when the slider is to the left (negative values). Just wanted to point out that it may be that your suggestion regarding the FF slider only applies to the Momo, and not other Logitech wheels. Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (48 lines)

> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:FiVi9.6626$[email hidden]... > > I wish I could tell you what it is, but I can't put my finger on it. All > I > > can say is something just doesn't feel right with the physics model in > this > > game to me. > > > > It just doesn't feel 'right'. > > > > It feels like the car is actually 1 inch off the ground, and the center of > > rotation is somewhere between the center and front of the car. > > > > It has an almost "RatBag" feel to it. You know, like the world is moving > > around under the car, instead of the car moving around on the track. > > > > Or, like you are driving around on Ice, except that it isn't slippery like > > Ice. > > > > I also don't see/feel much in the way of suspension/car movement. Maybe > > that's why it feels this way. > > > > Whatever it is, it bugs the hell out of me. > > > > -Larry > > > First of all, I can't remember the last time I actually saw an F1 > chassis move vertically on it's suspension. The ammount of travel is > miniscule. > 2ndly: Sorting your controllers is vital. Haqsau & Fat n Slo came > up with some guidelines for F1 2k1 that I think still apply to 2k2. > Briefely, steering axis at 50%. Reduce the speed sensitivity slider to zero > and, depending on the circuit, cut the steering lock setting in the setups > to near half.(i.e. if the default steering lock is 20 degrees, try 12.) > 3rdly. Logitech FF devices need the FF slider set to the left, (the > negative side, less than zero) If you want a strong FF then move the slider > toward -100. > 4thly. Try someuser created setups, like those from The Notorious. > I've found some of his setups to be fairly stable and others a little loose. > One of the web sites has a collection of his setups F1 Relay I think... > the setups are prefaced by his initials TN. > 5thly: I will agree with you somewhat... Especially about the > handling feeling of a center point...but ONLY, curiously enough, when in a > spin or skidding. It feels fairly natural as the spin begins(trust me I've > done plenty of them in just about every sim made, I'm an expert) But once > you've lost it, the point of contact seems to be just behind the front > wheels, like the air-jack stands came down. > dave henrie

Maybe my LWFF is unique, but I have the FF slider to the RIGHT, and the FF is just fine. Putting it to the left reverses the forces. In other words the wheel wants to turn and doesn't want to center, when the slider is to the left (negative values). Just wanted to point out that it may be that your suggestion regarding the FF slider only applies to the Momo, and not other Logitech wheels.

Quoted text (46 lines)

> > I wish I could tell you what it is, but I can't put my finger on it. All > I > > can say is something just doesn't feel right with the physics model in > this > > game to me. > > It just doesn't feel 'right'. > > It feels like the car is actually 1 inch off the ground, and the center of > > rotation is somewhere between the center and front of the car. > > It has an almost "RatBag" feel to it. You know, like the world is moving > > around under the car, instead of the car moving around on the track. > > Or, like you are driving around on Ice, except that it isn't slippery like > > Ice. > > I also don't see/feel much in the way of suspension/car movement. Maybe > > that's why it feels this way. > > Whatever it is, it bugs the hell out of me. > > -Larry > First of all, I can't remember the last time I actually saw an F1 > chassis move vertically on it's suspension. The ammount of travel is > miniscule. > 2ndly: Sorting your controllers is vital. Haqsau & Fat n Slo came > up with some guidelines for F1 2k1 that I think still apply to 2k2. > Briefely, steering axis at 50%. Reduce the speed sensitivity slider to zero > and, depending on the circuit, cut the steering lock setting in the setups > to near half.(i.e. if the default steering lock is 20 degrees, try 12.) > 3rdly. Logitech FF devices need the FF slider set to the left, (the > negative side, less than zero) If you want a strong FF then move the slider > toward -100. > 4thly. Try someuser created setups, like those from The Notorious. > I've found some of his setups to be fairly stable and others a little loose. > One of the web sites has a collection of his setups F1 Relay I think... > the setups are prefaced by his initials TN. > 5thly: I will agree with you somewhat... Especially about the > handling feeling of a center point...but ONLY, curiously enough, when in a > spin or skidding. It feels fairly natural as the spin begins(trust me I've > done plenty of them in just about every sim made, I'm an expert) But once > you've lost it, the point of contact seems to be just behind the front > wheels, like the air-jack stands came down. > dave henrie

"BRH @attbi.com>" <"bertrh<no-spam> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Maybe my LWFF is unique, but I have the FF slider to the RIGHT, and the FFis > just fine. Putting it to the left reverses the forces. In other wordsthe > wheel wants to turn and doesn't want to center, when the slider is to theleft > (negative values). > > Just wanted to point out that it may be that your suggestion regarding theFF > slider only applies to the Momo, and not other Logitech wheels. > Thanks for the clarification. The MOMO will steer for you if you have the slider to the right..dang unsettling to have the car attempt to navigate a turn and you are NOT turning the wheel. dh

> Speed Sensitivity - 0% Yes, a must. > Lock all the Axes and set them to 25% 25% might be OK for the brake, but I prefer 50% (or full linear) for throttle. > Lock all the Deadzones and set them to 0% Yep > From there I'd adjust the axis sensitivity up and down until the wheel > movement matches the movement of your wheel. With a ms sidewinder 25% > for all axes seems just about perfect, but YMMV. You definitely want Yeah, this game is pretty sensitive for a joystick - my friend says it's unplayable with a joystick with 0% speed sensitivity.

The LWFFGP also requires FF set to the left. Odd isn't it. I still think it ought to be possible for the program to determine the correct polarity by looking at the steering axis selections. After all, no other program requires you to figure this out. "BRH @attbi.com>" <"bertrh<no-spam> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Maybe my LWFF is unique, but I have the FF slider to the RIGHT, andthe FF is > just fine. Putting it to the left reverses the forces. In otherwords the > wheel wants to turn and doesn't want to center, when the slider is tothe left > (negative values). > > Just wanted to point out that it may be that your suggestion regardingthe FF > slider only applies to the Momo, and not other Logitech wheels. > >

I'll try that. Thanks! -Larry "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 07:35:01 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I wish I could tell you what it is, but I can't put my finger on it. AllI > >can say is something just doesn't feel right with the physics model inthis

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >game to me. > > > >It just doesn't feel 'right'. > > Ah, an ISI n00b. =) The key to getting f1 2002 to feel "right" is the > wheel setup. > > You have a microsoft wheel no? Try these settings, it's what I've > been using and I'm pretty picky: > > Speed Sensitivity - 0% > Lock all the Axes and set them to 25% > Lock all the Deadzones and set them to 0% > > From there I'd adjust the axis sensitivity up and down until the wheel > movement matches the movement of your wheel. With a ms sidewinder 25% > for all axes seems just about perfect, but YMMV. You definitely want > deadzones and speed sensivity disabled unless you're using a joystick. > > Jason

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:40:26 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >25% might be OK for the brake, but I prefer 50% (or full linear) for >throttle. Hm, I didn't realize 50% was treated as full linear. I'm going to try that out... Jason

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:40:26 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >25% might be OK for the brake, but I prefer 50% (or full linear) for >throttle. Ok, I just set the axes to 50% (which does a better job of synching the onscreen wheel to my ms wheel) and lowered my steerling lock by about a third and wow. First lap out at the A-1 ring I lost it in the last turn, losing about a full second going into the first turn, and ended up with a few hundredths of my personal best by knocking a full second off the rest of the way. Great car control, throttle/brake feel much better. I always assumed 25% was better because of the huge wheel lock in the default setups, but messing around a bit 50% feels much better, I can go faster with less effort. Very nice. Jason

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<Qu_i9.387461$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Larry" > Sorry I forgot two important additions. > 6thly. Enable the full rate physics by editing your driver.plr file > 7thly: FrameRate FrameRate FrameRate. Get your average fps up > there..and I do mean UP there. 40's are jerky and not good. 80's are > smooth, and according to David Powell, the 150 range is sweet. > dave henrie

That can't be right, surely? As far as I understand it, you shouldn't be able to tell (visually at least) a difference between any frame rates 'above' 30fps. So whether it's 30, 40, 80 or 150 it should all be smooth. Anything under 30 is where you start to notice the slowdown. How the hell any of you are getting anything near 40fps is beyond me, cos' my system's a hell of a PC but it struggles just to make the high 20's!

"Phoenix Knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<Qu_i9.387461$[email hidden]>... > > "Larry" > > Sorry I forgot two important additions. > > 6thly. Enable the full rate physics by editing your driver.plrfile

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > 7thly: FrameRate FrameRate FrameRate. Get your average fps up > > there..and I do mean UP there. 40's are jerky and not good. 80's are > > smooth, and according to David Powell, the 150 range is sweet. > > dave henrie > > That can't be right, surely? As far as I understand it, you shouldn't > be able to tell (visually at least) a difference between any frame > rates 'above' 30fps. So whether it's 30, 40, 80 or 150 it should all > be smooth.

In the past I would agree with you about how over 30 SHOULD be smooth. Although there are plenty here who claim to be able to see the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps. I just noticed a stuttering, and others have had the same symptom, that for me went away after I got the fps UP. I don't know the cause the stutter but it's banished from my system for now at least. > > Anything under 30 is where you start to notice the slowdown. > > How the hell any of you are getting anything near 40fps is beyond me, > cos' my system's a hell of a PC but it struggles just to make the high > 20's! With F1 2k2 for me it came from lower screen rez and turning down the graphic details. Just what is your "hell" of a pc? :) cpu and video card? Maybe we can goose it some. dave henrie

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cp_i9.350647$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > First of all, I can't remember the last time I actually saw an F1 > chassis move vertically on it's suspension. The ammount of travel is > miniscule. > 2ndly: Sorting your controllers is vital. Haqsau & Fat n Slo came > up with some guidelines for F1 2k1 that I think still apply to 2k2. > Briefely, steering axis at 50%. Reduce the speed sensitivity slider to

zero > and, depending on the circuit, cut the steering lock setting in the setups > to near half.(i.e. if the default steering lock is 20 degrees, try 12.) Thanks for these tips. These helped a lot to increase the feeling and general manuerability... .mikko -- /* reality is an illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol */

> In the past I would agree with you about how over 30 SHOULD be smooth. > Although there are plenty here who claim to be able to see the difference > between 30 fps and 60 fps. I just noticed a stuttering, and others havehad > the same symptom, that for me went away after I got the fps UP. I don't > know the cause the stutter but it's banished from my system for now at > least. 30fps is adequate to give an illusion of motion, though mainly on films where motion kind of blurs from one frame to the next due to shutter speed. However, PCs are so precise with the drawing of each frame, you don't really get an illusion of smooth motion until approximately 45-50fps. 60fps is the mark that many game makers aim for - particularly for game consoles where the TV redraws the screen 60 times per second. If they can maintain a rate at or above 60, they can lock (or sync) the frame rate to the TV's redraw (refresh) rate of 60/s and give the smoothest motion possible.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:01:34 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >60fps is the >mark that many game makers aim for - particularly for game consoles where >the TV redraws the screen 60 times per second. Doesn't an analog TV only redraw half the frame on each refresh? I was always under the assumption that the actual framerate was more like 27-30 because of interlacing. Jason

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >60fps is the > >mark that many game makers aim for - particularly for game consoles where > >the TV redraws the screen 60 times per second. > > Doesn't an analog TV only redraw half the frame on each refresh? I > was always under the assumption that the actual framerate was more > like 27-30 because of interlacing.

No, not really. You're still seeing 60 fields or "half-frames" per second. Though, if a game generates 30fps, it will simply display the even lines of each frame for the first field then the odd lines of that same frame for the second field. Games that run at 60fps show the even lines of one frame then the odd lines of the next frame so you effectively get to see 60 different frames in a second, even if you are only seeing half of the frame at a time.

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<yylj9.34585$gA4.4146@sccrnsc02>... > In the past I would agree with you about how over 30 SHOULD be smooth. > Although there are plenty here who claim to be able to see the difference > between 30 fps and 60 fps. I just noticed a stuttering, and others have had > the same symptom, that for me went away after I got the fps UP. I don't > know the cause the stutter but it's banished from my system for now at > least. If you notice a stutter it would indicate that the frame rate has dropped 'below' 30fps. If it's smooth sailing on a clear track with little to push your system, you're probably running at over 30fps, but if you're noticing a slow-down when lots of things are happening on screen, that would be your frame rate dropping... As far as I know.

> In the past I would agree with you about how over 30 SHOULD be smooth. > Although there are plenty here who claim to be able to see the difference > between 30 fps and 60 fps. I just noticed a stuttering, and others havehad > the same symptom, that for me went away after I got the fps UP. I don't > know the cause the stutter but it's banished from my system for now at > least. > >As we have discussed in other posts, the 'stutter' that is talked about in F1 2002 is not - in my opinion - a fps issue. It is a very definite miss a frame every second or so which seems to affect some people but not all. It is also not fps dependent as I have always had good rates (see below). I have suffered from this, and a reboot always cures it for me - until the next time! > > How the hell any of you are getting anything near 40fps is beyond me, > > cos' my system's a hell of a PC but it struggles just to make the high > > 20's! > With F1 2k2 for me it came from lower screen rez and turning down the > graphic details. Just what is your "hell" of a pc? :) cpu and videocard? > Maybe we can goose it some. > dave henrie >I don't understand why some people seem to have low frame rates. I have a Athlon 2100XP with GF3 Ti500 and get 50-60 fps around Monza in a full race @1152 res and all details switched on. Even on my other PC with a 1400 Athlon and GF2 MX I get 40-45 @ 1152. Hmmm... Iain -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

> I don't understand why some people seem to have low frame rates. I have a > Athlon 2100XP with GF3 Ti500 and get 50-60 fps around Monza in a full race > @1152 res and all details switched on. Even on my other PC with a 1400 > Athlon and GF2 MX I get 40-45 @ 1152. > Hmmm... > Iain I get 30-40 @ 1024x768x32 (A1 Ring) with a AMD XP1800 and a GF3. There is alot more to performance than CPU and video card. The motherboard chipset has alot to do with it as well as ram quailty and speed. For example I have an AMD chipset based motherboard. Its not as fast as a VIA based board, but then again it doesn't crash like one either. :) MadDAWG

I agree, obviously there are other factors, but the CPU and graphics card are usually the main ones. Some people are experiencing very low frame rates on well specced systems so there must be something else going on here. Iain > I get 30-40 @ 1024x768x32 (A1 Ring) with a AMD XP1800 and a GF3. There is > alot more to performance than CPU and video card. The motherboard chipset > has alot to do with it as well as ram quailty and speed. For example Ihave > an AMD chipset based motherboard. Its not as fast as a VIA based board,but > then again it doesn't crash like one either. :) > > MadDAWG > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I agree, obviously there are other factors, but the CPU and graphics card > are usually the main ones. Some people are experiencing very low framerates > on well specced systems so there must be something else going on here. > Iain There is so many "little" things that can effect performance Here is just a few things that popped in my head. Motherboard chipset and drivers, Add-on Graphics, Higher poly count models, Sound card overhead, RAM quality/speed, Video Card driver version, Operating system. While you'll never get a 1 ghz CPU and GF3 card to run as fast as a 1.5 ghz CPU with a GF4 I have seen the opposite. Another thing that really gets me is how many people will say they have the settings "maxed" to only find out later they had the world detail at 50%. I'm not saying you are, but check out some of the FPS threads at the official NR2002 board. MadDAWG

Well, those MSFFW settings indeed help the over all feel of the steering, but the feel of this game is still funky. As someone else said, it's REALLY funky once you are in a slide. -Larry "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:E6ej9.13083$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I'll try that. Thanks! > > -Larry > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 07:35:01 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >I wish I could tell you what it is, but I can't put my finger on it.

All

Quoted text (25 lines)

> I > > >can say is something just doesn't feel right with the physics model in > this > > >game to me. > > > > > >It just doesn't feel 'right'. > > > > Ah, an ISI n00b. =) The key to getting f1 2002 to feel "right" is the > > wheel setup. > > > > You have a microsoft wheel no? Try these settings, it's what I've > > been using and I'm pretty picky: > > > > Speed Sensitivity - 0% > > Lock all the Axes and set them to 25% > > Lock all the Deadzones and set them to 0% > > > > From there I'd adjust the axis sensitivity up and down until the wheel > > movement matches the movement of your wheel. With a ms sidewinder 25% > > for all axes seems just about perfect, but YMMV. You definitely want > > deadzones and speed sensivity disabled unless you're using a joystick. > > > > Jason > >

It's not that kind of stutter... It's a quick, very momentary pause about 1/10th of a second in length. Like it's going to the hard drive for something. -Larry "Phoenix Knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<yylj9.34585$gA4.4146@sccrnsc02>... > > In the past I would agree with you about how over 30 SHOULD be smooth. > > Although there are plenty here who claim to be able to see thedifference > > between 30 fps and 60 fps. I just noticed a stuttering, and others havehad

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > the same symptom, that for me went away after I got the fps UP. I don't > > know the cause the stutter but it's banished from my system for now at > > least. > > If you notice a stutter it would indicate that the frame rate has > dropped 'below' 30fps. If it's smooth sailing on a clear track with > little to push your system, you're probably running at over 30fps, but > if you're noticing a slow-down when lots of things are happening on > screen, that would be your frame rate dropping... > > As far as I know.

Ok, where are you guys getting the frame rate from? I must have missed something in the manual. -Larry "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > I don't understand why some people seem to have low frame rates. I havea > > Athlon 2100XP with GF3 Ti500 and get 50-60 fps around Monza in a fullrace

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > @1152 res and all details switched on. Even on my other PC with a 1400 > > Athlon and GF2 MX I get 40-45 @ 1152. > > Hmmm... > > Iain > > > I get 30-40 @ 1024x768x32 (A1 Ring) with a AMD XP1800 and a GF3. There is > alot more to performance than CPU and video card. The motherboard chipset > has alot to do with it as well as ram quailty and speed. For example I

have > an AMD chipset based motherboard. Its not as fast as a VIA based board,but > then again it doesn't crash like one either. :) > > MadDAWG > >

Hit CTRL+F to get framerate info in the top right-hand corner of the screen. Aibhne "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ku3k9.23195$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Ok, where are you guys getting the frame rate from? > > I must have missed something in the manual. > > -Larry > > "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > I don't understand why some people seem to have low frame rates. I

have > a > > > Athlon 2100XP with GF3 Ti500 and get 50-60 fps around Monza in a full > race > > > @1152 res and all details switched on. Even on my other PC with a1400 > > > Athlon and GF2 MX I get 40-45 @ 1152. > > > Hmmm... > > > Iain > > > > > > I get 30-40 @ 1024x768x32 (A1 Ring) with a AMD XP1800 and a GF3. Thereis > > alot more to performance than CPU and video card. The motherboardchipset

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > has alot to do with it as well as ram quailty and speed. For example I > have > > an AMD chipset based motherboard. Its not as fast as a VIA based board, > but > > then again it doesn't crash like one either. :) > > > > MadDAWG > > > > > >

Did you change the chassis setup at all? The default "grip" settings are crap. Change to the other default, the one with just the name of the track, and start tweaking from there. Or download some setups from the links given in other messages. With a good setup it is not only very linear and controllable in a slide, it is downright fun. "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Rq3k9.23191$[email hidden]... > Well, those MSFFW settings indeed help the over all feel of thesteering, > but the feel of this game is still funky. > > As someone else said, it's REALLY funky once you are in a slide. > > -Larry >

> There is so many "little" things that can effect performance Here isjust > a few things that popped in my head. Motherboard chipset and drivers,Add-on > Graphics, Higher poly count models, Sound card overhead, RAMquality/speed, > Video Card driver version, Operating system. While you'll never get a 1ghz > CPU and GF3 card to run as fast as a 1.5 ghz CPU with a GF4 I have seenthe > opposite. Another thing that really gets me is how many people will saythey > have the settings "maxed" to only find out later they had the world detail > at 50%. I'm not saying you are, but check out some of the FPS threads atthe > official NR2002 board. > In NR2002 I do have world detail at max, but this is F1 2002 we're talking about here! Iain -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Freakin duh :) Thanks :) -Larry "Aibhne � hAimhirg�n" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:OR5k9.199742$Jo.72900@rwcrnsc53... > Hit CTRL+F to get framerate info in the top right-hand corner of thescreen.

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > Aibhne > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Ku3k9.23195$[email hidden]... > > Ok, where are you guys getting the frame rate from? > > > > I must have missed something in the manual. > > > > -Larry > > > > "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > I don't understand why some people seem to have low frame rates. I > have > > a > > > > Athlon 2100XP with GF3 Ti500 and get 50-60 fps around Monza in a

full

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > race > > > > @1152 res and all details switched on. Even on my other PC with a > 1400 > > > > Athlon and GF2 MX I get 40-45 @ 1152. > > > > Hmmm... > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > I get 30-40 @ 1024x768x32 (A1 Ring) with a AMD XP1800 and a GF3. There > is > > > alot more to performance than CPU and video card. The motherboard > chipset > > > has alot to do with it as well as ram quailty and speed. For example I > > have > > > an AMD chipset based motherboard. Its not as fast as a VIA based

board,

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > but > > > then again it doesn't crash like one either. :) > > > > > > MadDAWG > > > > > > > > > > > >

Compare your fps with your monitor refresh-rate. if #1 > #2 then up your details or what-so-ever to lower #1. No more stutter since then. JensSchumi On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:58:29 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>It's not that kind of stutter... > >It's a quick, very momentary pause about 1/10th of a second in length. Like >it's going to the hard drive for something. > >-Larry >

--------------------------------------------- LWFF Ball Bearing conversion at: http://jensschumi.bravepages.com/ GPLRank: -14.82 Monsters of GPL: sub 95

LOL, second that one Same observation I made when using a ECS K5sa (or something like that) in replacement for my K7A266, which was sent to the shop for repair. The ECS was by far slower, but dead-stable. I must admit that I also got the VIA-problems solved lateron and I'm now happy with my board. JensSchumi

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I get 30-40 @ 1024x768x32 (A1 Ring) with a AMD XP1800 and a GF3. There is >alot more to performance than CPU and video card. The motherboard chipset >has alot to do with it as well as ram quailty and speed. For example I have >an AMD chipset based motherboard. Its not as fast as a VIA based board, but >then again it doesn't crash like one either. :) > >MadDAWG >

--------------------------------------------- LWFF Ball Bearing conversion at: http://jensschumi.bravepages.com/ GPLRank: -14.82 Monsters of GPL: sub 95

Um, my refresh rate is set to 120 :) -Larry "JS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Compare your fps with your monitor refresh-rate. > if #1 > #2 then up your details or what-so-ever to lower #1. > No more stutter since then. > > JensSchumi > > > On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:58:29 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >It's not that kind of stutter... > > > >It's a quick, very momentary pause about 1/10th of a second in length.

Like

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >it's going to the hard drive for something. > > > >-Larry > > > > --------------------------------------------- > LWFF Ball Bearing conversion at: > http://jensschumi.bravepages.com/ > > GPLRank: -14.82 > Monsters of GPL: sub 95

Killing absolutely everything in the background except systray, explorer, and the Logitech profiler solved all my stuttering problems. And cured my lisp! ;o) The odd thing is it doesn't seem to matter which background apps I kill, I have to kill them all, and this despite having 512 meg of RAM. And btw on my system lately the stuttering has infested every driving game I have. Doesn't matter who makes it, whether it's opengl or d3d, 3d audio or not. So I seem to have no choice but to kill everything every time I want to play a driving game, then reboot afterwards if I want to do anything else with the PC. Speaking of which, I have heard reference to a program you can get that will kill all your unnecessary background apps for you in one swell foop. This sounds a whole lot better than hitting ctrl-alt-del about 90 times (some of my apps refuse to die easily). Anybody know where this program can be found? "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:j2_k9.34510$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Um, my refresh rate is set to 120 :) > > -Larry > > "JS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Compare your fps with your monitor refresh-rate. > > if #1 > #2 then up your details or what-so-ever to lower #1. > > No more stutter since then. > > > > JensSchumi > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:58:29 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >It's not that kind of stutter... > > > > > >It's a quick, very momentary pause about 1/10th of a second in

length.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Like > > >it's going to the hard drive for something. > > > > > >-Larry > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > LWFF Ball Bearing conversion at: > > http://jensschumi.bravepages.com/ > > > > GPLRank: -14.82 > > Monsters of GPL: sub 95 > >

Enditall2 will kill the non-needed apps and leave others protected. You will most likely be suprised that ctrl-alt-delete does NOT show all the background programs running. Google should point you to a dload for Enditall2. dave henrie "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:an33fu$ar30u$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (55 lines)

> Killing absolutely everything in the background except systray, > explorer, and the Logitech profiler solved all my stuttering problems. > And cured my lisp! ;o) > > The odd thing is it doesn't seem to matter which background apps I kill, > I have to kill them all, and this despite having 512 meg of RAM. And > btw on my system lately the stuttering has infested every driving game I > have. Doesn't matter who makes it, whether it's opengl or d3d, 3d audio > or not. So I seem to have no choice but to kill everything every time I > want to play a driving game, then reboot afterwards if I want to do > anything else with the PC. > > Speaking of which, I have heard reference to a program you can get that > will kill all your unnecessary background apps for you in one swell > foop. This sounds a whole lot better than hitting ctrl-alt-del about 90 > times (some of my apps refuse to die easily). Anybody know where this > program can be found? > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:j2_k9.34510$[email hidden]... > > Um, my refresh rate is set to 120 :) > > > > -Larry > > > > "JS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Compare your fps with your monitor refresh-rate. > > > if #1 > #2 then up your details or what-so-ever to lower #1. > > > No more stutter since then. > > > > > > JensSchumi > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:58:29 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >It's not that kind of stutter... > > > > > > > >It's a quick, very momentary pause about 1/10th of a second in > length. > > Like > > > >it's going to the hard drive for something. > > > > > > > >-Larry > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > LWFF Ball Bearing conversion at: > > > http://jensschumi.bravepages.com/ > > > > > > GPLRank: -14.82 > > > Monsters of GPL: sub 95 > > > > >

Just for fun, I can mention that you doesn't have to have Explorer running either :-) /Carl "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:an33fu$ar30u$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (55 lines)

> Killing absolutely everything in the background except systray, > explorer, and the Logitech profiler solved all my stuttering problems. > And cured my lisp! ;o) > > The odd thing is it doesn't seem to matter which background apps I kill, > I have to kill them all, and this despite having 512 meg of RAM. And > btw on my system lately the stuttering has infested every driving game I > have. Doesn't matter who makes it, whether it's opengl or d3d, 3d audio > or not. So I seem to have no choice but to kill everything every time I > want to play a driving game, then reboot afterwards if I want to do > anything else with the PC. > > Speaking of which, I have heard reference to a program you can get that > will kill all your unnecessary background apps for you in one swell > foop. This sounds a whole lot better than hitting ctrl-alt-del about 90 > times (some of my apps refuse to die easily). Anybody know where this > program can be found? > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:j2_k9.34510$[email hidden]... > > Um, my refresh rate is set to 120 :) > > > > -Larry > > > > "JS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Compare your fps with your monitor refresh-rate. > > > if #1 > #2 then up your details or what-so-ever to lower #1. > > > No more stutter since then. > > > > > > JensSchumi > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:58:29 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >It's not that kind of stutter... > > > > > > > >It's a quick, very momentary pause about 1/10th of a second in > length. > > Like > > > >it's going to the hard drive for something. > > > > > > > >-Larry > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > LWFF Ball Bearing conversion at: > > > http://jensschumi.bravepages.com/ > > > > > > GPLRank: -14.82 > > > Monsters of GPL: sub 95 > > > > >

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:20:52 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: ... >Speaking of which, I have heard reference to a program you can get that >will kill all your unnecessary background apps for you in one swell >foop. What is this with background apps and killing them. On a normal OS, an idle background app takes little to none (terminals take none) CPU time, and when idle for long, they can be swapped out, so they do no harm memorywise either, esp. on 512Mb systems. Now ofcourse Windows is something else, but on any Unix, there are dozens of background processes but they just take up a bit of virtual memory, not CPU. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

I agree with you Ruud, but the results speak for themselves. Killing all the background stuff really does make a difference in Win9x. Don't know why, wish it didn't, but it does. I think it has to do with the inefficient way Win9x handles virtual memory. It picks the wrong time and the wrong reasons to swap things in and out of memory, and due to its poor method of multitasking any disk access slows down everything on the computer. I am hoping that when I go to XP this will not be a problem. <fingers crossed, knock on wood, etc.> "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > What is this with background apps and killing them. On a normal OS, an > idle background app takes little to none (terminals take none) CPU > time, and when idle for long, they can be swapped out, so they do no > harm memorywise either, esp. on 512Mb systems. > > Now ofcourse Windows is something else, but on any Unix, there are > dozens of background processes but they just take up a bit of virtual > memory, not CPU. > > > Ruud van Gaal > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

For anyone else interested, I found the program that Dave is referring to at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,697,00.asp The article describing how to use it starts at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1935,00.asp "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:oD9l9.618109$UU1.108484@sccrnsc03... > Enditall2 will kill the non-needed apps and leave others protected.You > will most likely be suprised that ctrl-alt-delete does NOT show allthe > background programs running. > Google should point you to a dload for Enditall2. > > dave henrie

On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:03:42 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I agree with you Ruud, but the results speak for themselves. Killing >all the background stuff really does make a difference in Win9x. Don't >know why, wish it didn't, but it does. In *nix, multitasking means multiple processes running simultaneously, with different priorities given to each. In windows, multitasking means multiple processes running simultaneously with the same priority given to each unless the app (Winamp for instance) specifically allows you to change its resource usage. If you have secureCRT, internet exploder, and f1 2002 running at the same time, Windows will continue pumping resources to each app regardless of which one is active. O a *nix machine, if an app isn't active, it's not eating resources. Windows, XP/2000/NT/OS2 included, is also really bad at recovering resources that are no longer in use. This is why closing applications before playing a game isn't as good as not having them running in the first place. The OS/2 kernel used in NT/2k/XP is much better at resource management, whereas in 95/98 it was necessary to reboot before doing anything resource-intensive, but there are still the occasional issues with memory leakage and processes that don't die and continue to eat CPU/mem. Jason

Thanks. That explains why it doesn't really matter which ones I kill, but rather it's the total number of background tasks that is the problem. Also means I can probably keep one or two useful ones running (Logitech profiler, nVidia tweaker) as long as I get rid of everything else. "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > In *nix, multitasking means multiple processes running simultaneously, > with different priorities given to each. > > In windows, multitasking means multiple processes running > simultaneously with the same priority given to each unless the app > (Winamp for instance) specifically allows you to change its resource > usage. If you have secureCRT, internet exploder, and f1 2002 running > at the same time, Windows will continue pumping resources to each app > regardless of which one is active. O a *nix machine, if an app isn't > active, it's not eating resources. > > Windows, XP/2000/NT/OS2 included, is also really bad at recovering > resources that are no longer in use. This is why closing applications > before playing a game isn't as good as not having them running in the > first place. The OS/2 kernel used in NT/2k/XP is much better at > resource management, whereas in 95/98 it was necessary to reboot > before doing anything resource-intensive, but there are still the > occasional issues with memory leakage and processes that don't die and > continue to eat CPU/mem. > > Jason

"Haqsau" Also means I can probably keep one or two useful ones running > (Logitech profiler, nVidia tweaker) as long as I get rid of everything > else. > yes, I keep several running like the wheel software and some windows stuff. But even so, the os has a tendancy to be unstable AFTER a long racing session so usually I will reboot. Which isn't a big deal for me...I always shut down when not using the system....electric bills are killing me :) dave henrie

On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:24:30 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:03:42 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>I agree with you Ruud, but the results speak for themselves. Killing >>all the background stuff really does make a difference in Win9x. Don't >>know why, wish it didn't, but it does. > >In windows, multitasking means multiple processes running >simultaneously with the same priority given to each unless the app >(Winamp for instance) specifically allows you to change its resource >usage. If you have secureCRT, internet exploder, and f1 2002 running >at the same time, Windows will continue pumping resources to each app >regardless of which one is active. O a *nix machine, if an app isn't >active, it's not eating resources.

So you're saying processes still get scheduled? I thought a WaitObject() function that was CPU-friendly existed back in Win95. Perhaps it wasn't really functional though. ;-) (WaitObject() polling the object, lol) It's not that hard writing an OS that is CPU friendly. Pick up any Minix book from about 20 years back and you have the complete source and explanation on process states: wait, run and ehm, dead probably. ;-) (I do have unkillable dead processes on Unix once a year perhaps). >Windows, XP/2000/NT/OS2 included, is also really bad at recovering >resources that are no longer in use. It seems ok here on my 2000 machine, although I must admit that sometimes after a couple of weeks of uptime things start feeling bad. Just the virtual memory system not cleaning itself up. Esp. after having run memory-intensive apps (mostly games); somehow releasing virtual memory doesn't seem to be one of MS' strong points. *cough* understatement. Although I must say for example the Mac now with OS X suddenly begins to care about CPU time; lots of the code just uses 'while(MouseStillDown())wait;' type of things. Obviously shameful! :) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/