rec.autos.simulators

Gerry

view distance - ~3/4
track detail - max
alpha blending - low
fog - enable
reflections - standard
effect detail - low
player detail  - high
opponent detail - very low

I know my frame rate was taking a beating with the sun glare initially, but
the above settings essentially eliminated that.

For me the cars handle in a manor that at least conveys a sense of real
world physics; the light high hp cars are twitchy, while the heavier cars
are a bit doggie and slow, all cars seem to get quite erratic when driven
at their limit (at least my limit perception of their limit). So far my
favorite is the Lancia Fulvia - just about the right amount of speed and
handling. I'm not a big fan of the Alfa Romeo Giulia GTA at the moment, I
find it difficult to keep it on the track. You are right about understeer,
I've found more than once that I'm heading straight when I should be
turning. However, having said that I'll also admit that it seems to have
allot to do with the way a drive the car - the front wheel drive cars seems
to oversteer if I***up and brake harder/later than I should, but than
again I would imagine this is the way it should be.

While the following statement might garner some hisses from the hard core
crowd I have to admit it. For me, most sims RT included, are best driven
from a pov outside, above & behind the car, the visual cues you get from
the way the car bounces and fish tails about and your "heightened" sense of
situational awareness, go a long way in conveying a sense of driving that
the in car view significantly diminishes (note: GPL is so far the only sim
that "feels" good either way). For me, the additional visual cues create a
kind of "perceived" force feedback.

Ken

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:20:31 +0900, "ss"

Ken

I will try playing with the graphics settings some more, thanks for
detailing the options that work on your system.

I tend to agree with you.  I often drive GPL from the external POV because
the increased visual cues, though different in kind from the cues one would
get in real-world driving, seem to better approximate the quality of
situational awareness I would have if I were really there.  In RT, however,
the external view seems to mute the movement of the car body.  The***pit
view is convincing in the way it conveys all of the car's little bounces and
bumps, but in the chase camera view, it seems that nothing but the wheels
are responding realisitcally to the track, so for me, the 'feeback' is less
satisfying than it is from the***pit.

At any rate, the post suggesting that I mess with the input.ini files did
help.  After tweaking the controller settings, the cars are much more
consistent and respond more reliably to inputs.  But I still don't ENJOY the
way they feel like I did when I first tried GPL or Rally Masters, for
instance.   I'm going to keep toying with it for a few days.

Itazura

Good luck, I tried the input.ini tweak and noticed a slight difference - I
guess it all boils down to the controller you are using.

I'd like to give FF a try, but the last FF wheel I had (Logitech), did not
cut it and actually became a bit annoying due to it's "notchy" feel.

I dl the Rally Masters demo and thought it was great, I'll have to see if I
can locate it somewhere, now that I'm in the rallying mood <g>.

Ken

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:36:15 +0900, "ss"

Suppose you really enjoyed RT and thought it was the best thing to come
along since the joystick, would you be cruising the malls/web-stores looking
for another possible game right now?  No.   It's not in the *** companies
best interests to make something that truely satisfies you (at least not for
< $50), because you won't be a potential shopper next month if you're happy
with last months purchases.

It may be controversial but subscription based pay-per-play games could be
the answer.  Just like a magazine it's in the vendors interest to keep you
interested and keep making the product "better".

But you would be out shopping for a different company's products.  I think
it's silly to suggest that it is not in a developer's best interests to
produce quality products.  Sure, you could argue that built-in obsolescence
is effective as a marketing strategy, or you might argue that it isn't worth
the time and money required to make a truly good product when most buyers
don't seem to notice the difference, but to suggest that making outright
inferior products is good business doesn't make sense to me.  If I enjoy a
company's games and think they are well and fully developed, I will buy
their subsequent releases, plain and simple.  And I will buy them even if I
am still enjoying the company's previous releases.  If I am disappointed
with a developer's efforts, I will not buy subsequent releases, however
frequently they appear on the shelves.  Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that is
a common sentiment, but I doubt it.

Itazura

At least initially, but when they're all under 3-4 majour umbrella
publishers that won't last for long.   I swore I wouldn't buy any Microprose
products because Grand Prix Manager was suchg a piece of s**t, but I
eventually broke down and bought GP2 because it apparrently wasn't.  I don't
imagine the coders from either shop ever met before the box was given a
Microprose cover.

That's just it, it's fairly easy to make "OK" code but it's exponentially
harder to make truely great code, and when you do you're not only increasing
the time/cost of this version, you're eliminating (or at least delaying) the
need for a sequel and the sales it could generate, as well as hurting the
sales for your related products.   Bad is one thing (it hurts sales) but
mediocre is easier.

Gerry

Gerry

"But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was
nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into
a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

Jason

;)

Stephen