GTR 2002 Got me

Ok the GTR2002 mod got me, so I'm going out at lunch to get F12002. So what do I need to know about getting it setup correctly. I have a MOMO wheel, AMD XP 1800, GF3 with Omega Drivers base on the 29.42s. Is there any "hardcore" modes that need to be enabled or DX tweaking for the controller? Also is there any patches? Last but not least what is the main site for F12002? I'm guessing Simbin, but not sure. I'm talking about an official site, since I want to know the real deals. :) TIA MadDAWG

> Ok the GTR2002 mod got me, so I'm going out at lunch to get F12002. Sowhat > do I need to know about getting it setup correctly. I have a MOMO wheel,AMD > XP 1800, GF3 with Omega Drivers base on the 29.42s. Is there any"hardcore" > modes that need to be enabled or DX tweaking for the controller? Also is > there any patches? Last but not least what is the main site for F12002?I'm > guessing Simbin, but not sure. I'm talking about an official site, since I > want to know the real deals. :) I recommend getting the following from http://f12k2.relaygames.com .... Full car models, skins and lightmapping update by Ralph Hummerich & Bobi (about 20MB IIRC) 2D rims update (the 3D rims are a bit dodgy IMO) (about 5MB IIRC) Full AI update. (about 2MB IIRC) Note: None of these are official - there are no official updates... That'll transform the game into a real stunner. On your system, I would recommend running in 1024x768 32bit (or 16-bit with AA) vsync disabled (or enabled at 60Hz if you're just hotlapping or testing) Oh, and there's now a brilliant tutorial on setting up an F1 car which you might like to grab at some stage, too. Regards Damien

Thanks for the tips. Wow F12002 must be a hog. MadDAWG

> Thanks for the tips. > > Wow F12002 must be a hog. Yeah, though that's with maximum detail. If you want to increase the resolution you'll have to drop the detail back a little or you'll compromise the frame rate (one of the game's best assets)

Man they are about as bad as Papy on the system requirments. Can't even imagine what it would be like to play this on a 400 mhz. CPU with a TNT video card. MadDAWG

Just another data point here; I DL'ed the RH add-on and deleted it. Hit the FPS more than the additional prettiness was worth to me (on an XP1800/Ti4400). As for settings, here's my driving aids section from the f12002/save/player/yourname.plr file. It has most everything off but has TC on low, autoclutch since I don't have a clutch pedal, and the highest physics rate which is a "must" - sort of the hardcore mode you mention. The high gear forums are a good source of info for other tweaks, like cockpit view editing, moving pov, etc. SB [ DRIVING AIDS ] Steering Help="0" Steering Help Functionality="1" // 0 = new help, 1 = new help + grip, 2 = original F1 2001, 3 = original + grip Throttle Control="1" Brake Help="0" Antilock Brakes="0" Spin Recovery="0" Invulnerability="0" Autopit="0" Opposite Lock="0" Stability Control="0" No AI Control="0" // AI never has control over car (except autopit) Pitcrew Push="1" // When out of fuel in pitlane, allows pitcrew to push car (use throttle and gear selection to direct) Auto Clutch="1" Shift Mode="0" Auto Reverse="0" Speed Sensitive Steering="0.60000" Half Rate="0" // 0 = super-high physics rate, 1 = normal Telemetry Rate="10" Telemetry In Race="1" Telemetry EXE="telemetry\f12002_telemetry.exe" Telemetry File="telemetry\telemetry.spt" "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Man they are about as bad as Papy on the system requirments. Can't even > imagine what it would be like to play this on a 400 mhz. CPU with a TNT > video card. > > MadDAWG > >

oh crap I have been only using 1/2 the physics. Man I hope they have alot of spare cars! MadDAWG

oh ***I have been only using 1/2 the physics. Man I hope they have alot of spare cars! MadDAWG

"Steve Blankenship" > Pitcrew Push="1" // When out of fuel in pitlane, allows pitcrew to pushcar > (use throttle and gear selection to direct) Has anyone figured out what this does? I 'think' it was to addres those drivers who coasted into the pits and couldn't restart after refueling, but I haven't seen anyone actually comment on it or it's usefullness. ANYONE?? dave henrie

Nope - never had the good sense to run out of gas ON pit lane. Usually out in the boondocks, so it's a long walk back for me. Never a scooter around when you need one... ;-) SB "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8rui9.3487$gA4.560@sccrnsc02...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Steve Blankenship" > > > Pitcrew Push="1" // When out of fuel in pitlane, allows pitcrew to push > car > > (use throttle and gear selection to direct) > > Has anyone figured out what this does? I 'think' it was to addres

those > drivers who coasted into the pits and couldn't restart after refueling,but > I haven't seen anyone actually comment on it or it's usefullness. > ANYONE?? > > dave henrie > >

> Just another data point here; I DL'ed the RH add-on and deleted it. Hitthe > FPS more than the additional prettiness was worth to me (on an > XP1800/Ti4400). WTF? I lost about 2fps installing this addon and the difference in visual quality is very significant (though the rim addon really adds the icing on the cake) (XP 2000+ & Ti4600)

Wasn't a huge hit to be true, but it dropped my FPS past the breakpoint I was comfortable with given my preferred settings (12X10 w/QAA & 4XAniso). As always, YMMV. SB "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:amf7ou$5dj1p$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Just another data point here; I DL'ed the RH add-on and deleted it. Hit > the > > FPS more than the additional prettiness was worth to me (on an > > XP1800/Ti4400). > > WTF? I lost about 2fps installing this addon and the difference in visual > quality is very significant (though the rim addon really adds the icing on > the cake) (XP 2000+ & Ti4600) > >

Any ideas as to whats more important with F12002 as far as CPU or video card? I have an XP1800 and a GF3 o/c to about a Ti500. I'm not sure about buying a new video card, but the $120 bucks for an XP2100 wouldn't be too bad. Granted its only 200 mhz more, but can never have to much. :) MadDAWG

Hard to say for me, as I've only tried it on one machine. That said, running against the AI drops the FPS by half or more, while upping the resolution has a smaller effect (probably due to the 128mb in the 4400). I could drop AA and AF, run 16X12 and get better FPS, but I can't stand to look at it like that. If you can get by without all the graphic bells and whistles, the CPU's probably a good bet for racing the AI. SB One more caveat - the add on tracks and mods are *usually* not as well optimized graphically, so that may be something to consider in the mix. More confusion... :-) "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Any ideas as to whats more important with F12002 as far as CPU or video > card? I have an XP1800 and a GF3 o/c to about a Ti500. I'm not sure about > buying a new video card, but the $120 bucks for an XP2100 wouldn't be too > bad. Granted its only 200 mhz more, but can never have to much. :) > > MadDAWG > >

I'm thinking CPU as well myself. From some UT2003 Benchmarking I did it appears more of a CPU limit than a graphics card. MadDAWG

But like, would you EXPECT to be able to play the newest games on a 400MHZ CPU with a TNT video card?? The more game developers can stop worrying about cheapskates with 5 year old systems, the more they can worry about optimizing graphics for people with newer systems. Mike http://mikebeauchamp.com "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Man they are about as bad as Papy on the system requirments. Can't even > imagine what it would be like to play this on a 400 mhz. CPU with a TNT > video card. > > MadDAWG > >

"MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm thinking CPU as well myself. From some UT2003 Benchmarking I did it > appears more of a CPU limit than a graphics card. > > MadDAWG > I too have a gf3 overclocked and an XP1800+. I feel with my average motherboard and generic memory that this system is a little underpowered to run F1 2k2 at high resolutions. If I had gone the tech-head path instead of least common demoninator, I might have squeezed more performance out of my system. But driving with lots of eye candy, the frame rate is in the 40's, but it is a very jerky 40. I would have guessed 20's if this was say Nascar 3. Really made simming difficult. I turned down the detail and lowered the screen rez and got practice Frame rates in the 80's. This was a much better experience. With FIA GT V3(f1 2k1) I can even approach fps of 125 but that didn't seem too very much different than 80fps. Similarly, N2k2 feels much the same driving at 60fps as does 105fps. I'm thinking each sim has a sweet spot that once you pass that, the whole package just works better. All I can say is, I am getting what would have been considered PHENOMINAL frame-rates a few years ago...and they just aren't enough! :) Especially with f1 2k2, I think I'm below the ideal performance line, but I'm not sure how much system improvement I would have to make to nudge over the line. Certainly my mb can't handle the newer chips, and my local bought DDR memory benchmarks like plain ol sdram. My gut says get however much cpu your wallet and system can handle, then whatever else you can do for video would be gravy. dave henrie

I'm running it on an 1800+ with a GeForce 4 Ti4400 at 1600X1200X16 with everything cranked up full. As best I can tell, it's fine except a slight stutter at times. I want to upgrade to a 2600+ _if_ the come off the vaporware list and _if_ ABIT updates the KG7 to support it. -Larry "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4WPi9.485073$me6.57037@sccrnsc01...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I'm thinking CPU as well myself. From some UT2003 Benchmarking I did it > > appears more of a CPU limit than a graphics card. > > > > MadDAWG > > > I too have a gf3 overclocked and an XP1800+. I feel with my average > motherboard and generic memory that this system is a little underpowered

to > run F1 2k2 at high resolutions. > If I had gone the tech-head path instead of least common demoninator, I > might have squeezed more performance out of my system. But driving with > lots of eye candy, the frame rate is in the 40's, but it is a very jerky40. > I would have guessed 20's if this was say Nascar 3. Really made simming > difficult. I turned down the detail and lowered the screen rez and got > practice Frame rates in the 80's. This was a much better experience. > With FIA GT V3(f1 2k1) I can even approach fps of 125 but that didn't seem > too very much different than 80fps. > Similarly, N2k2 feels much the same driving at 60fps as does 105fps.I'm > thinking each sim has a sweet spot that once you pass that, the whole > package just works better. All I can say is, I am getting what would have > been considered PHENOMINAL frame-rates a few years ago...and they just > aren't enough! :) Especially with f1 2k2, I think I'm below the ideal > performance line, but I'm not sure how much system improvement I wouldhave

Quoted text (8 lines)

> to make to nudge over the line. Certainly my mb can't handle the newer > chips, and my local bought DDR memory benchmarks like plain ol sdram. My > gut says get however much cpu your wallet and system can handle, then > whatever else you can do for video would be gravy. > > dave henrie > >

> Hard to say for me, as I've only tried it on one machine. That said, > running against the AI drops the FPS by half or more, while upping the > resolution has a smaller effect (probably due to the 128mb in the 4400).I > could drop AA and AF, run 16X12 and get better FPS, but I can't stand to > look at it like that. If you can get by without all the graphic bells and > whistles, the CPU's probably a good bet for racing the AI. Yeah, CPU is very important for AI races. That doesn't mean you can skimp on the video card with this game though...unlike GP4 where you can get away with a pretty old GeForce without penalty. It's strange, sompe people would rather run with AA and AF at 30fps than without at 60fps. I believe resolution and frame rate are far more important for gameplay than AA. At the end of the day, AA simply blurs the image slightly to remove sharp edges and make it a bit easier on the eye. Higher reolutions actually help you by making corners become visible earlier and high frame rates help you react to the car in the fraction of a second that you so often need to in an F1 car. AA is a nice finishing touch but I believe it should never be used if it compromises speed or detail.

> I'm thinking CPU as well myself. From some UT2003 Benchmarking I did it > appears more of a CPU limit than a graphics card. Really depends on the game... Unreal Tournament used to run perfectly on a TNT2 as long as you had a fast CPU. Quake III relied more on the graphics card.. UT2003 is insane - it's almost unplayable with 256MB or less RAM!

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:q9Vi9.6607$[email hidden]... > I'm running it on an 1800+ with a GeForce 4 Ti4400 at 1600X1200X16 with > everything cranked up full. > > As best I can tell, it's fine except a slight stutter at times. I was getting the stutter too, until I lowered my graphic expectations and reduced the screen res & car/track details til my fps where up near the 80's. Stutter is now gone. I'm not sure where the sweet spot is, but once you get above a certain # of fps, the stutter 'should' go away. dave henrie

CPU = speed Graphics card = detail That's an old rule that still applies, even with T&L and shaders and so forth. I got huge increases in FPS in every game, including Quake 3, every time I have upgraded my CPU. Quake 3 appeared to be more dependent on graphics card only because most people (that I knew) refused to turn down the detail level in order to get some speed back. I knew a guy who tried to play it on a P233 with a Voodoo Rush. He was getting about 20 fps but insisted it was okay and refused to turn down the details. If you aren't willing to sacrifice detail, then yes you need a fast graphics card. But once you turn down the detail levels the speed, even with newer games, is primarily a function of CPU. As a comparison I was able to get 100 fps out of Quake 3 on a P2-266 with a TnT, just by turning down the detail level. Then when I went to a Celeron 500 the max went up to around 120 IIRC. Or to put it a different way, what you need depends on your gaming preferences. If you absolutely have to run at high detail levels, then a good graphics card is the only way to get decent speed. If your only interest is in speed and hence playability, then the CPU is the most important thing. "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:amhqid$5viu4$[email hidden]... > > I'm thinking CPU as well myself. From some UT2003 Benchmarking I didit > > appears more of a CPU limit than a graphics card. > > Really depends on the game... > > Unreal Tournament used to run perfectly on a TNT2 as long as you had afast > CPU. Quake III relied more on the graphics card.. > > UT2003 is insane - it's almost unplayable with 256MB or less RAM! > >

> Or to put it a different way, what you need depends on your gaming > preferences. If you absolutely have to run at high detail levels, then > a good graphics card is the only way to get decent speed. If your only > interest is in speed and hence playability, then the CPU is the most > important thing. Damn I need both! lol MadDAWG

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4WPi9.485073$me6.57037@sccrnsc01... > I too have a gf3 overclocked and an XP1800+. I feel with my average > motherboard and generic memory that this system is a little underpoweredto > run F1 2k2 at high resolutions. So what settings are you running in F12k2? I just checked ASUS and with a BIOS upgrade I should be able to handle at least a XP2100. So after that I guess I'm "stuck" with video card upgrades. I don't want to switch motherboards because this one has been so damn stable unlike a VIA powered board. CPU now video card after X mas when they always seem to drop in price. MadDAWG

> But like, would you EXPECT to be able to play the newest games on a 400MHZ > CPU with a TNT video card?? > > The more game developers can stop worrying about cheapskates with 5 yearold > systems, the more they can worry about optimizing graphics for people with > newer systems. > > Mike NO I wouldn't. Hell there is not to many games I'd even attempt with less than a 1 gig CPU. MadDAWG