It really annoys me that people start doing that and you can always predict who it'll be (not that he wants it anymore)...
It really annoys me that people start doing that and you can always predict who it'll be (not that he wants it anymore)...
They aren't different, it's just that the newer drivers are on the US site a LOT earlier than they are on the UK site - as such they might be the same performance for each version, but the US gets the newer version first.
the ones up there right now came out in the UK on 11/5
US on 11/6
What versions are they though?
Good luck finding the 169.04's on nVidia's English Site...
Good luck finding the 169.04's on nVidia's English Site...
I got a gigabyte GA-P35C-DS3R mobo.
I got it at 60hertz.
I get 99 fps single player solid.
Minimum of 70 fps with full grid + objects
I got it at 60hertz.
I get 99 fps single player solid.
Minimum of 70 fps with full grid + objects
because you've got Frame rate limiter on....
he gets 99 frames per second at 60 hz with vsync on? i don't think so.
LFS by default has the FPS limiter set to 100 FPS - LFS will keep it under 100, and if vsync is anything to go by, will probably just keep it at between 99.9 and 99.7 FPS.
That's not what he said.
see if he would have just put it in huge red letters i would have read it right the first time
For once since he joined LFS, Harjun says something that may, just may be the correct answer...... and you all jump on him, LOL.
See harjun, remember the boy who cried wolf? You just answered correctly, and because of the last 1700 posts of yours, no one caught that you were right
See harjun, remember the boy who cried wolf? You just answered correctly, and because of the last 1700 posts of yours, no one caught that you were right
ok im aiming for a momo for christmas saved up 60 bucks also ill try to upgrade my ram i have 512 ill just add 256 and get 768 right??
why not just get another 512 and end up with a gig instead? ram isn't terribly expensive.
Don't buy less RAM than you'll want to upgrade to in the end, 768mb still isn't a lot and more memory will make improvements pretty much everywhere I'd say get at least a 512mb stick or 1gb when you can afford to rather than buy now replace later.
Rainspecialist, what model HP Pavilion do you have? "HP Pavilion" doesn't tell us anything, all HP consumer PCs are "Pavilion". I have a Compaq (currently same as HP) and 2 old HPs sitting here at my desk. The HP I use to race on was model 564W. It had the same specs you have.
If this is what you have, you simply need a dedicated separate graphics card. The graphics you have is onboard Intel Extreme, garbage (I assume, thinking you have the same HP model I had). Problem is, older HP machines off the shelf don't have an AGP slot. Your's probably only has the old pci slot, which mine did as well. There's not much you can do about it.
If you have the old PCI slot, they do sell cards still that you can get, but they are still going to be quite garbage compared to what you can put in a newer computer. Anything is better than Intel Extreme Graphics onboard stuff, but unfortunately, it's not a great "bang for your buck". They are a bit ridiculous in price for what they are, very very old.
Examples:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ ... ;bop=And&Order=RATING
And, for that old HP machine of mine that I mentioned, I had this particular card that I bought 2 years ago, at the same price even....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ ... aspx?Item=N82E16814103167
I'm not saying that is the best of the bunch from the first link, it's just the one that I picked because I didn't know anything about graphics cards at the time. But, compared to my Intel onboard GFX, it helped out quite a bit, but as I said, it's still very old technology. But it would probably do you better than more RAM I am thinking.
A waste of money upgrading anything, really, when talking about an HP machine off the shelf that old. You simply need a new everything. You have my sympathy though because I was sitting exactly where you are a year ago.
PS, along with your specs you mention, mine was the same except I did have the 1 GIG ram that everyone is telling you about. I was still stuck at very low framerates in LFS. FYI, I raced in "wheels view" to get my 30-40 FPS back then. After getting that card in my link, all it really did for me was net me the same framerate, but let me drive in the "cockpit view", which was all I really was looking for. It still looked like crap and still netted me undriveable framerate at the start of a race until about halfway through the first lap when the field spread out.
One other thing, by installing a dedicated gfx card, no matter what it is, you will be freeing up a bit of that RAM you already have because the onboard gfx will no longer be sharing. I'm guessing your's currently is 64 mb shared with video, that's what mine was.
If this is what you have, you simply need a dedicated separate graphics card. The graphics you have is onboard Intel Extreme, garbage (I assume, thinking you have the same HP model I had). Problem is, older HP machines off the shelf don't have an AGP slot. Your's probably only has the old pci slot, which mine did as well. There's not much you can do about it.
If you have the old PCI slot, they do sell cards still that you can get, but they are still going to be quite garbage compared to what you can put in a newer computer. Anything is better than Intel Extreme Graphics onboard stuff, but unfortunately, it's not a great "bang for your buck". They are a bit ridiculous in price for what they are, very very old.
Examples:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ ... ;bop=And&Order=RATING
And, for that old HP machine of mine that I mentioned, I had this particular card that I bought 2 years ago, at the same price even....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ ... aspx?Item=N82E16814103167
I'm not saying that is the best of the bunch from the first link, it's just the one that I picked because I didn't know anything about graphics cards at the time. But, compared to my Intel onboard GFX, it helped out quite a bit, but as I said, it's still very old technology. But it would probably do you better than more RAM I am thinking.
A waste of money upgrading anything, really, when talking about an HP machine off the shelf that old. You simply need a new everything. You have my sympathy though because I was sitting exactly where you are a year ago.
PS, along with your specs you mention, mine was the same except I did have the 1 GIG ram that everyone is telling you about. I was still stuck at very low framerates in LFS. FYI, I raced in "wheels view" to get my 30-40 FPS back then. After getting that card in my link, all it really did for me was net me the same framerate, but let me drive in the "cockpit view", which was all I really was looking for. It still looked like crap and still netted me undriveable framerate at the start of a race until about halfway through the first lap when the field spread out.
One other thing, by installing a dedicated gfx card, no matter what it is, you will be freeing up a bit of that RAM you already have because the onboard gfx will no longer be sharing. I'm guessing your's currently is 64 mb shared with video, that's what mine was.
Am i stupid and weird if i say: ''i got 250 fps full grid''?
~bose
~bose
It just has no relevance to the discussion.
i wouldnt do that if i were you, the time i did that...phew, just don't do it, no youre not wierd, because loads of people get that much fps too...
My definition of driveable is different than yours. I am not willing to live with stuttering, skipping cars and stop-go motion. It is too easy to miss turn in points, braking points, and where other cars around you are.
Yes, you can play the game with less than 40fps. Will you be as competitive as somebody with the same skills who is getting 60fps? No you won't.
I saw a big improvement in my lap times after I got a better video card. My frame rate was more consistent and everything was much more smooth. It leads to smoother driving. And no, I didn't have better resolution set and I wasn't using more eye candy, I just got more frames. (this is only true up until a point. Anything much past 60fps isn't doing you much, if any, good)
Movies run at 24fps. But, they are shot on film and if you freeze frame you will see motion blur. You won't see that with computer graphics. That is why you need a higher frame rate for computer graphics to make things look smooth.
I can visually tell the difference between 40fps and 60fps. It is quite noticeable. If you can't see that, don't blame it on me.
i can too...a monitor is normally 60Hz, which is actually 60fps...so you can't really visibly display 100fps unless you have some really good monitor
I have a 4 year old monitor that does 120hz...
~Bryan~
~Bryan~
My video card died last night 
Yes, same here. I use to be of the same opinion as those who claim you can play at the lower frame rates. Then I bought a new computer and was amazed at how much smoother, easier to drive, and better laptimes it was when hitting 35 or better. Then I upgraded the "new" PC with a gfx card (was onboard) and the difference of the decent framerate of old and cranking up AA/AF and resolution with the new card was incredible.
Frame rate in the 20's is definitely not good and those who say it is, just are not fortunate enough to know the difference since they can't see the better FPS.
^I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. When I'm playing LFS at school I get roughly the same laptimes at home, but at school I can run 1280x1024 at a decent 40-50frames (depending on amount of cars) Sure the experience is more ENJOYABLE, but I wouldn't say it made me any faster...
~Bryan~
~Bryan~
More fps will give you a more natural and immediate response, and therefore will probably help you to drive better. The beautiful thing about LFS over other sims I've tried, is how delicate and subtle the driving can be. With crappy fps, you'll miss all that.
Fps!!??
(80 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG