rec.autos.simulators

This is it, exactly!!  You have hit the nail on the head with your
post.  This is why so many keep harping on the "realism" of ICR.
Yes, it's very realistic, but it does nothing for the gameplay - in
fact, it makes it UNplayable - not true of WC/F1GP.

IMHO, for a _race_ simulator, you have to give the user a decent
chance at performing as well as the AI.  This is the kind of thing
seen in flight sims often - they do so much physics
modeling/programming, they fail to see how it interacts with the
player.  The "feel" of the program isn't right, because the designer
neglected that the user only has a 14" screen and headphones to
provide feedback.  Anyone using a flight sim or driving sim who
expects the real thing to be the same is in for a surprise.  There is
so much more going on.  BUT, within these parameters, it is possible
for realistic, fun, and playable simulations.   WC does this well,
ICR doesn't.  But tell this to ICR diehards, and we hear how arcadish
WC is and how realistic ICR is.

K. Beard

Later...
Anand.

Later,
Beau

Intersting post.

I see your point, but surely you don't mean "completely pointless"?
Should they pay no attention to realism?  I'm sure a lot of replies will
disagree and say "make it as real as you can".  But I agree that some
concessions should be made for the user's hardware/environment
limitations.  The tough question is "where?".  How about best of both
worlds, make it as real as possible with options to simplify it for
those seeking gameplay?

I happen to think most simulations botch the realism anyway.  No need to
go into where Air Warrior, Falcon3, F14 fail (afterall this is a car
group :-).  

Question for you car experts, are you *sure* the driving model in ICR is
up to all the hype?  I just ask this being a natural skeptic, and seeing
how people still say similar for Falcon3's crappy flight modeling.

I'd be interested if you'd expand on this.  What physical feedback aside
from audio and visual are you referring to?  I can guess some, but would
like to get your untainted view.

With practice, you can do quite well at ICR.  True, it is frustrating at
first.  I especially had difficulty with understeer into corners.  But
witha lot of laps, and complete attention, I think I'm turning better
laps than I would ever do in a real car, with full sensory feedback (and
this way, I live to write about it :-)).

Don't forget audio feedback.  I consider this an important part of the
cues in ICR.

I'll have to try traction-off sometime.  I love (loved?) WC/F1GP.  Just
went back to it after a while.  The "riding on rails" does seem to
detract now.  But I agree it offers a fine realism/playability
compromise.

I don't mind spending some time getting acquainted.  Perhaps an
easy/realistic option would be well-advised.  But again, with time, the
car becomes quite controllable.

I agree in part.  The main problem with flight sims is, of course, not
being able to feel the G's.  So for one, I want a G-meter in the plane,
whether it was realistic for the period or not.  The other main concerns
relate to visibility and situational awareness.  One can see about 180
degrees in reality.  All flight sims limit your monitor view to around
90 and sometimes much less.  Any you have to hit key after key to get
up, L, R, down views.  Many "padlock" versions are trying to address SA.
These are usually some kind of consession to the recognition of the
limitations of the medium.

Again, I'd be interested in your estimation of the problems, and ways to
adress, the medium limitations in driving sims.  And what makes you
think that ICR's driving model is ultra-accurate.  (not saying it
isn't)

Hope I didn't disappoint!

Dave

I thought I'd chuck in my two cents again about ICR's 'realism' vs
F1GP. Well guys, it seems that most simulation programmers get totally
carried away with simulating a real-world environment by mucking around
with precise inertial calculations and the like, but this approach is
completely pointless since the only feedback a simulation driver has is
visual (and to a very limited extent audio), the lack of physical feedback
cannot be overlooked. The physical feedback of driving is probably worth a
good 70% of the driving experience (particularly when driving near the limit)
Simulation programmers seem to ignore this very important fact, and create
very 'accurate' driving models, which tend to be very difficult to drive, if
not nearly impossible at time (ICR is a prime example of this) To create a
simulation that will give lasting enjoyment and impetus to continue to
practice and get better, there MUST be significant compromises made in the
dynamics of the driving model to address the fact that the driver is solely
depending on their eyes to drive the car. My opinion is that F1GP addresed
this concern prefectly, with a driving model that is easy to learn, yet quite
accurate and can be improved (remove traction help) by the users choice. ICR by comparison so so touchy and unforgiving (particularly with low-speed spin-outs)
a user can get easily frustrated because you cannot anticipate a spin/slide as
in the real-world, and you end up losing the car in the heat of the moment and
this frustration really can kill an otherwise OK program. The bottom line is
that no amount of fancy dynamics-modeling can cover the fact that a computer
driver needs a consitent, PREDICTABLE driving model if the program is to be
really enjoyed, The programmers of ICR obviously got carried away with the
fabulous 'look' and 'accurate' driving model of their program, but really ended
up with a pretty sad package as a whole. Where F1GP compromises 'look' and
'accuracy' to create a package which is truly a phenomenal accomplishment when
viewd as a whole.

Also, all of the above applies just as well to flight simulators, in general.

Hope to hear some discussion about this subject.

Cheers!

Brian U.

Beau

I love driving ICR - I only drive road courses (I get bored with the
oval circuits although they do require a different set of skills). I
find the most important thing for good times and safe circuits is to
LEARN THE CIRUIT. I agree we don't have enough feedback but ICR
provides much more feedback than F1GP - the car attitude changes, the
wheels bounce around etc.

The ICR model is predictable - if you stray off the racing line from a
corner the car gets VERY slippery - if you apply too much throttle you
spin the back wheels and break loose. When the tyres go off you really
notice it, also qualifying tyres are great - for about 2 or three
laps (on non oval circuits). You have to drive the car like a
real car with enormous amounts of power - feed the throttle in the
lower gears - don't slam the throttle to max.

As far as losing the car a lot - have you noticed how often race
drivers (particularly in practice) tend to lose the car a lot at
corners - into the wall etc? It seems that driving these cars is
difficult - I think ICR accurately reflects this. You have to be
willing to practice a lot to enjoy ICR. This debate is like comparing
Falcon 3 to games like TFX etc. Falcon 3 is more realistic but has a
large learning curve.

The trick with ICR is to treat it like a real race car - when
practicing wait for the tyres to warm up, LEARN THE CIRCUIT (did I say
this before :-), be gentle with the throttle in low gears, etc etc.

I don't think so - ICR is much more fun - you get a lot of feedback from the
attitude of the car and how the wheels are bouncing around etc. I do
not play F1GP at all now. I wait to use a friends DX2/66 and play ICR.

BUT you MUST play this game on a high-end machine to get this feeling.
DX33's are useless (I don't think I can overemphasise this) - it is
not smooth enough and you don't get the
visual feedback you require (as you rightly pointed out that is the
only feedback there is - APART FROM the sound of the tyres just
starting to break loose).

Bill (I wish I had a DX2/66!)