Driving Speed v1.12 tech demo

Andreas Davour wrote:

> What! Tell me this will be looked into. Single digit fps with 12 cars!?
> Now, what resolution was that? I gather someone have picked a very
> inefficient algorithm somewhere. It's like what I usually do...

It's my system, no doubt. I'm running a P3 1 GHz, 384MB of RAM and a
GeForce4 MX 440 video card. I get the same results in Racer under the
conditions, and similar results in LFS.

That is mainly the reason I brought up the graphic setting complaint.
But, day in and day out, as long as I continue to get 25-70 fps in
NR2003 ...I'm a happy guy.


-Will

William Bradshaw > writes:

> Andreas Davour wrote:
>
> > What! Tell me this will be looked into. Single digit fps with 12 cars!?
> > Now, what resolution was that? I gather someone have picked a very
> > inefficient algorithm somewhere. It's like what I usually do...
>
> It's my system, no doubt. I'm running a P3 1 GHz, 384MB of RAM and a
> GeForce4 MX 440 video card. I get the same results in Racer under the
> conditions, and similar results in LFS.
>
> That is mainly the reason I brought up the graphic setting
> complaint. But, day in and day out, as long as I continue to get 25-70
> fps in NR2003 ...I'm a happy guy.



Well, I still find it a bit alarming. If 1GHz is not enough for a racing
sim I always wonder if something is not done wrong.

/Andreas

--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Andreas Davour wrote:

> Well, I still find it a bit alarming. If 1GHz is not enough for a racing
> sim I always wonder if something is not done wrong.

My guess is that the system is being taxed due to the three titles
actually simulating physics for all of the other cars. Whereas in
NR2003, it's faked.


-Will

William Bradshaw > wrote in news:1142973019.469688
@news001.transaeris.com:

> Andreas Davour wrote:
>
>> Well, I still find it a bit alarming. If 1GHz is not enough for a racing
>> sim I always wonder if something is not done wrong.
>
> My guess is that the system is being taxed due to the three titles
> actually simulating physics for all of the other cars. Whereas in
> NR2003, it's faked.
>
>
> -Will
>

Isi sims don't fully replicate the human car's physics, but they do
allow for almost unlimited separate types of cars. Whereas, the Papyrus
engine, although capable of multiple car types, was limited, most likely
for performance reasons to at best 3 or at least 1 AI model.
Papyrus sims, to date, do not have dynamic weather, depict rainfall, or
other imersive cpu intensive features.
iRacing so far is 'showing' 3 types of racing, If I recall, they all are
either single car type or, if multiple types, very similar in performance.
It will be interesting to see how many features iRacing piles on to their
core GPL-based code.
dave henrie

> Well, I still find it a bit alarming. If 1GHz is not enough for a racing
> sim I always wonder if something is not done wrong.

Its true I haven't optimized the collision detection or the physics at all
yet, so the code is putting a huge load on the CPU.
There are still many optimizations I can make in many areas of the game and
plan to get around to it when time permits.

As for now it requires a mid to top end machine, reducing the number of cars
in a race also helps.

Cheers


"Andreas Davour" > wrote in message
...
> William Bradshaw > writes:
>
> > Andreas Davour wrote:
> >
> > > What! Tell me this will be looked into. Single digit fps with 12
cars!?
> > > Now, what resolution was that? I gather someone have picked a very
> > > inefficient algorithm somewhere. It's like what I usually do...
> >
> > It's my system, no doubt. I'm running a P3 1 GHz, 384MB of RAM and a
> > GeForce4 MX 440 video card. I get the same results in Racer under the
> > conditions, and similar results in LFS.
> >
> > That is mainly the reason I brought up the graphic setting
> > complaint. But, day in and day out, as long as I continue to get 25-70
> > fps in NR2003 ...I'm a happy guy.
>
>
>
> Well, I still find it a bit alarming. If 1GHz is not enough for a racing
> sim I always wonder if something is not done wrong.
>
> /Andreas
>
> --
> A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

"Derek" > writes:

> > Well, I still find it a bit alarming. If 1GHz is not enough for a racing
> > sim I always wonder if something is not done wrong.
>
> Its true I haven't optimized the collision detection or the physics at all
> yet, so the code is putting a huge load on the CPU.
> There are still many optimizations I can make in many areas of the game and
> plan to get around to it when time permits.

I almost guessed so. While many new sims simulate a lot of stuff, I
sometimes wonder if they don't suffer a bit from the rush that seems to
afflict so many other computer games today. Many titles today aren't
ready to play when released!

I guess a home brew have all the time in the world. So much better!

/Andreas

--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

William Bradshaw > writes:

> Andreas Davour wrote:
>
> > Well, I still find it a bit alarming. If 1GHz is not enough for a racing
> > sim I always wonder if something is not done wrong.
>
> My guess is that the system is being taxed due to the three titles
> actually simulating physics for all of the other cars. Whereas in
> NR2003, it's faked.

It is? Didn't know that.

/andreas

--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?