SuperSonic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> belini, it's impossible to find words to describe
> your gp4 convertions.
>
> But you know, most of the players are still with
> GP3 because of system requirements.
>
> Once you told me that your tracks eat CPU because
> of the small track sectors, not because of the
> hundreds of cmds.
>
> I know that lots of these sectors are very the
> same on angle and track height.
>
> So, is it really impossible to build the tracks
> with larger sectors? I understand that it will
> take away the visual effect of the constant
> changes in width, but it's something we could live
> with.
>
> Actually your amazing tracks are useful just for a
> few people... It would be so great if more people
> could play it.
>
> Also, Sakhir and Shangai are not as heavy as the
> GP4 convertions... So maybe there's something you
> can do for your fans
I wish the PO was less too, but I don't think it's the small sectors but rather
the banking/width commands in conjunction with the view commands that
cause a lot of the problems. I've been working hard with view commands to
try and lower the PO, but a lot of the time it's the view commands that
cause/fix graphical glitches, it can be a nightmare to sort.
sakhir/shanghai are actually not that much better on my cpu (2.6 amd),
the 29.42 drivers give a massive improvement under xp, disabling realistic
weather also helps a lot, as would a faster cpu
the reason I started these conversions was because I loved the gp4 tracks
but quickly got bored (I've been doing this since f1gp), the only reason I
would go back from gp4 was if I could race the same tracks. the small
sectors and the banking/width commands that the gp4 tracks contain are
most of the reason why the gp4 tracks are so special, so it sort of defeats
the whole objective to simplify them.
[www.belini.fsnet.co.uk]