Should EA apologize?

"NSR looks stunningly gorgeous right out of the box so I have no idea
what you are taking about."

Perhaps you are used to a monochrome monitor at a 640x480 screen rez,
or another ridiculously poor image display, but I expected a vast jump
in visual quality over NT and NR2003. What I got was the same ISI type
of graphics I have seen since F12000.

I run on an 18" LCD at 1280x1024x32, with a P4 3.0ghz, 1024 RAM, Radeon
9800 Pro. I max out the detail levels on every screen from within the
game and still get average display quality when compared to the same
spot on the track from NR2003. Shimmering fences, jaggies galore (No AA
allowed per the readme), and car models that are so unlike any NNC car
that I ever seen up close. Even when I sacrifice some FPS by using AA
(wtf is that anyway? It's 2005 and devs are making games that DON'T use
modern GPU enhancements?) the image quality improves somewhat. I have
to go to 6x AA to get the image that I want, but can't race with the 17
fps that I now get at DAytona. Gee, what an option. Thanks EA!

BTW, Paris Hilton, Brooke Burke, Anna Kournikova are all stunningly
beautiful. NSR run as is, right out of the box looks like my big toe.

"Darus" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "NSR looks stunningly gorgeous right out of the box so I have no idea
> what you are taking about."
>
> Perhaps you are used to a monochrome monitor at a 640x480 screen rez,
> or another ridiculously poor image display, but I expected a vast jump
> in visual quality over NT and NR2003. What I got was the same ISI type
> of graphics I have seen since F12000.
>
> I run on an 18" LCD at 1280x1024x32, with a P4 3.0ghz, 1024 RAM, Radeon
> 9800 Pro. I max out the detail levels on every screen from within the
> game and still get average display quality when compared to the same
> spot on the track from NR2003. Shimmering fences, jaggies galore (No AA
> allowed per the readme), and car models that are so unlike any NNC car
> that I ever seen up close. Even when I sacrifice some FPS by using AA
> (wtf is that anyway? It's 2005 and devs are making games that DON'T use
> modern GPU enhancements?) the image quality improves somewhat. I have
> to go to 6x AA to get the image that I want, but can't race with the 17
> fps that I now get at DAytona. Gee, what an option. Thanks EA!
>
> BTW, Paris Hilton, Brooke Burke, Anna Kournikova are all stunningly
> beautiful. NSR run as is, right out of the box looks like my big toe.

????

I have a slower system than yours P4 3.0 512ram Radeon 9700Pro and a 19"
LCD. I run NSR at 1280x1024x32 with 2xAA and it looks fantastic. N2003 looks
flat and sparse in comparison. There is no comparison. It just looks old
now.

Yes, if you turn off AA, there are too many jaggies in NSR, but if I turn
off AA in N2003, N2003 looks awful.

My frame rates are excellent with 2xAA in NSR. Frame rates are still good
with higher AA, but I get sudden stutters for a few seconds for some reason,
so I can't use higher AA. Are there any racing games that look good without
AA? Any games at all?


--
David G Fisher

"David G Fisher" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have a slower system than yours P4 3.0 512ram Radeon 9700Pro and a 19"
> LCD. I run NSR at 1280x1024x32 with 2xAA and it looks fantastic. N2003
looks
> flat and sparse in comparison. There is no comparison. It just looks old
> now.
>
> Yes, if you turn off AA, there are too many jaggies in NSR, but if I turn
> off AA in N2003, N2003 looks awful.
>
> My frame rates are excellent with 2xAA in NSR. Frame rates are still good
> with higher AA, but I get sudden stutters for a few seconds for some
reason,
> so I can't use higher AA. Are there any racing games that look good
without
> AA? Any games at all?
> --
> David G Fisher

I run both NR2003 and NSR at similar settings (16bit though) and think
NR2003 looks better; just more natural. But in any case, aside from the odd
NSR car shapes I think it's safe to say they're close enough graphically
that it's a matter of personal preference. Kind of the old F12K vs. GP4
argument. No end to that one... ;-)

It is interesting to see mention of the notorious ISI graphic stutter
popping up. GTR seems plagued by it, but I hadn't seen it in NSR yet.

As for your finishing question, probably not any track-based ones, but RBR
looks fine without AA. Very few straight edges out in the wild!

SB

"Steve Blankenship" > wrote in message
...
> "David G Fisher" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I have a slower system than yours P4 3.0 512ram Radeon 9700Pro and a 19"
> > LCD. I run NSR at 1280x1024x32 with 2xAA and it looks fantastic. N2003
> looks
> > flat and sparse in comparison. There is no comparison. It just looks old
> > now.
> >
> > Yes, if you turn off AA, there are too many jaggies in NSR, but if I
turn
> > off AA in N2003, N2003 looks awful.
> >
> > My frame rates are excellent with 2xAA in NSR. Frame rates are still
good
> > with higher AA, but I get sudden stutters for a few seconds for some
> reason,
> > so I can't use higher AA. Are there any racing games that look good
> without
> > AA? Any games at all?
> > --
> > David G Fisher
>
> I run both NR2003 and NSR at similar settings (16bit though) and think
> NR2003 looks better; just more natural. But in any case, aside from the
odd
> NSR car shapes I think it's safe to say they're close enough graphically
> that it's a matter of personal preference. Kind of the old F12K vs. GP4
> argument. No end to that one... ;-)
>
> It is interesting to see mention of the notorious ISI graphic stutter
> popping up. GTR seems plagued by it, but I hadn't seen it in NSR yet.

Well I think it's probably more than what they are describing in GTR
actually. The frame rates drop from maybe 60 to 20 ( or 40 to 10) for a few
seconds and then back up to 60. :-)
--
David G Fisher

"Steve Blankenship" > wrote in message
...
> "David G Fisher" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I have a slower system than yours P4 3.0 512ram Radeon 9700Pro and a 19"
> > LCD. I run NSR at 1280x1024x32 with 2xAA and it looks fantastic. N2003
> looks
> > flat and sparse in comparison. There is no comparison. It just looks old
> > now.
> >
> > Yes, if you turn off AA, there are too many jaggies in NSR, but if I
turn
> > off AA in N2003, N2003 looks awful.
> >
> > My frame rates are excellent with 2xAA in NSR. Frame rates are still
good
> > with higher AA, but I get sudden stutters for a few seconds for some
> reason,
> > so I can't use higher AA. Are there any racing games that look good
> without
> > AA? Any games at all?
> > --
> > David G Fisher
>
> I run both NR2003 and NSR at similar settings (16bit though) and think
> NR2003 looks better; just more natural. But in any case, aside from the
odd
> NSR car shapes I think it's safe to say they're close enough graphically
> that it's a matter of personal preference. Kind of the old F12K vs. GP4
> argument. No end to that one... ;-)
>
> It is interesting to see mention of the notorious ISI graphic stutter
> popping up. GTR seems plagued by it, but I hadn't seen it in NSR yet.
>
> As for your finishing question, probably not any track-based ones, but RBR
> looks fine without AA. Very few straight edges out in the wild!
>
> SB

Well I think it's probably more than what they are describing in GTR
actually. The frame rates drop from maybe 60 to 20 ( or 40 to 10) for a few
seconds and then back up to 60. :-)
--
David G Fisher

Darus wrote:
> "NSR looks stunningly gorgeous right out of the box so I have no idea
> what you are taking about."
>
> Perhaps you are used to a monochrome monitor at a 640x480 screen rez,
> or another ridiculously poor image display, but I expected a vast jump
> in visual quality over NT and NR2003. What I got was the same ISI type
> of graphics I have seen since F12000.
>
> I run on an 18" LCD at 1280x1024x32, with a P4 3.0ghz, 1024 RAM, Radeon
> 9800 Pro. I max out the detail levels on every screen from within the
> game and still get average display quality when compared to the same
> spot on the track from NR2003. Shimmering fences, jaggies galore (No AA
> allowed per the readme), and car models that are so unlike any NNC car
> that I ever seen up close. Even when I sacrifice some FPS by using AA
> (wtf is that anyway? It's 2005 and devs are making games that DON'T use
> modern GPU enhancements?) the image quality improves somewhat. I have
> to go to 6x AA to get the image that I want, but can't race with the 17
> fps that I now get at DAytona. Gee, what an option. Thanks EA!
>
> BTW, Paris Hilton, Brooke Burke, Anna Kournikova are all stunningly
> beautiful. NSR run as is, right out of the box looks like my big toe.
>
I thought that about the demo. But version 1.0 looks very good to me.

JT

"David G Fisher" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Blankenship" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I run both NR2003 and NSR at similar settings (16bit though) and think
>> NR2003 looks better; just more natural. But in any case, aside from the
> odd
>> NSR car shapes I think it's safe to say they're close enough graphically
>> that it's a matter of personal preference. Kind of the old F12K vs. GP4
>> argument. No end to that one... ;-)
>>
>> It is interesting to see mention of the notorious ISI graphic stutter
>> popping up. GTR seems plagued by it, but I hadn't seen it in NSR yet.
>>
>> As for your finishing question, probably not any track-based ones, but
>> RBR
>> looks fine without AA. Very few straight edges out in the wild!
>>
>> SB
>
> Well I think it's probably more than what they are describing in GTR
> actually. The frame rates drop from maybe 60 to 20 ( or 40 to 10) for a
> few
> seconds and then back up to 60. :-)
> --
> David G Fisher
>
>
>

I get the stuttering in NSR, but I've never had a problem in F1C or any of
the GTR demos.

After raising my graphics settings in NSR, I started seeing the same problem
as you with the frame rates dropping from 60s to 20s or 30s for a couple of
seconds and then back up to 60s.

Bill