I really love GPL and I consider NFS-PU to be great fun, though it does
have it's problems. For instance:
--Running *** the brakes into a banked curve can flip the car.
Totally bogus.
--I run 100% front and 0% rear downforce, plus full negative front
wheel toe and a fully rear brake bias just to get the car to steer.
--Throttle steering is totally different than GPL. Line adjustments
are trailing-throttle adjustments made during corner entry, rather than
a combination of that plus feathering-throttle adjustments during the
corner exit as in GPL.
--Chopping the throttle mid-corner will result in wild oversteer (which
I would fully expect) with most Porsche models (the original '78 turbo
is EXTREMELY challenging to go fast in), but full-on trail braking deep
into the corner (even with full rear brake bias) just results in
understeer. It's only that on-off throttle transition that really can
be tricky.
--The car tends to feel as if it has been adjusted to be neutral to
pushy under all conditions except trailing-throttle (I'll accept that
this could be a trait of the rear-engined Porsche. I've never driven
one in real life).
--The AI need work. They display (in my opinion) typical arcade
logic. They're agressive to downright obnixious when trying to pass
you and will bump you out of thier way, they're MUCH slower entering a
corner than you, and you can ALWAYS catch them with a top speed run
even if your car is a notch below theirs in power. This last trait,
though, could be a function of my 0% rear downforce increasing my top
speed. Maybe the AI uses 75% rear downforce.
Now that I've griped a bit, I find NFS-PU to be very entertaining. The
driving model is worlds ahead of the model used in NFS-High Stakes,
though I'd put it a notch below Viper Racing, and I truly enjoy the
tracks that are included. Zone Industrielle is a blast! Also, doing a
single person race with all AI using your car results in better AI
competitiveness. The graphics are superb and the engine sounds are
truly a cut above. I was very pleasantly surprised by the overall
quality of the game. NFS-High Stakes really disappointed me. BTW,
I've still got the original NFS on my hard drive....
-Chris-
Previous 1984 GPz 750
Previous 1989 ZX-10
Previous 1992 ZX-7
Previous 1998 ZX-9
Current 2000 CBR929RR
Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Before you buy.
> I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap.
> Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than the previous
> versions?
> For comparison, I think that GPL is the most realistic game I played so far.
--
Anssi
I think NFSPU is in the same league as Viper Racing and GPL -- NFSPU
does an excellent job of modeling high-performance, rear-engine, sports
cars, just like Viper Racing does an excellent job of modeling a front-
engine, rear-drive, V-10-equipped sports car, and the same way that GPL
does an excellent job of modeling a mid-engine, open-wheel,
lightweight, purpose-built 1967-vintage GP race car.
To me, the cars in NFSPU respond as convincingly as a GP car in GPL.
I've done 4-wheel drifts in roadgoing cars before, and the responses in
NFSPU seem realistic to me. I don't recommend it as the fast way
around a track, necesarily, but it does speak well for the physics
engine. I've heard some talk about some aspects of NFSPU being
"canned" effects (like wrecks, for example), but I would dispute this
-- nothing seems canned to me, and I've wrecked plenty. <G>
The cars in NFSPU respond very much like a real car would -- more than
can be said for any previous NFS game, and many other would-be "sims."
GPL definitely gets these kinds of physics modeling details right, and
I think NFSPU has also done a good job in its own right.
The older eras in Evolution Mode reminds me a lot of what a "Porsche
Legends" game would be like (more in- line with "Grand Prix Legends,"
if you will), while the more modern models have something of a "Porsche
GT" feel (more along the lines of "Sports Car GT," which I never really
warmed up to). This is especially true of the modern-era racing models
-- the modern roadgoing (non-race) models seem to have a better "feel"
to me.
If you like GPL, then you'll most likely love the 550 Spyder in NFSPU
-- it's a powerful, sweet-handling ride, and I am still learning to
master it (and loving every minute of it!). I haven't had this much
fun learning to control a virtual vehicle since GPL, Viper Racing, or
DTR. In fact, the vehicle dynamics of the 550 Spyder remind me more of
a 1967 GP car than a Viper or a Late-Model -- you can't toss a Viper or
a LM into a 4-wheel drift, hang the tail out, and steer with the
throttle like you can with the 550 Spyder in NFSPU;only GPL offers this
level of thrills and vehicle dynamics. This is probably because NFSPU
and GPL are both modeling vehicles with low-adhesion bias-ply tires, as
opposed to sticky, modern ***, but, again and again, I find myself
thinking of GPL while behind the wheel of the 550 Spyder.
The main difference between a GP car in GPL and the 550 Spyder in NFSPU
seems to be that the 550 Spyder feels somewhat more "tame," which is
EXACTLY what I would expect a 550 Spyder to feel like in comparison to
a 1967-vintage GP car.
FYI, in addition to NFSPU (which has been consuming almost all of my
simulated wheel time), my personal favorites include GPL, Viper Racing,
DTR, and ICR2. I was into SCGT for a while, but the physics modeling
just didn't feel right to me. I find NFS3 and NFS4 to be somewhat
amusing as an occasional diversion, but the physics modeling pretty
much leaves me cold in both instances.
I find the tracks in NFSPU to be enjoyable in the same way that I like
just "driving" the "Nurenbwatchamacallit" track in GPL (it's WAY too
long for me to "race," but I do enjoy a "fast Sunday drive" there from
time to time). I think you'll find the tracks in NFSPU sufficiently
enjoyable -- especially in a 550 Spyder.
Hope this helps. Grab the demo and see for yourself, but keep in mind
that there's a LOT that the demo can't show you (Evolution Mode,
Factory Driver Mode, the 550 Spyder, the "Moby***," etc.).
-- JB
Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Before you buy.
I think NFSPU does a great job in the graphics department, delivering
good frame rates at higher resolutions, but I think the physics model
suffers more than we realize when the graphics are set at "eye-candy"
levels, so humor me and try the following as an experiment -- I've done
this with good results, but I'd like a second (informed) opinion:
1) Set your in-game graphics resoultion to 640 x 480.
2) Reduce the various graphics settings to a tolerable level. I use
"MED" for the car detail level, "LOW" sky detail, "MAX" (or whatever
the level above "HIGH" is called) for the draw distance, "LOW" or "MED"
lighting, and "MED" for world detail level, for example, and I'm
running an AMD K6-2 400 with 64 MB of RAM and a 16 MB Creative Labs
Voodoo Banshee card.
3) Grab a 550 Spyder and see if it feels any different with the reduced
graphics and improved framerate.
I've got something of a mid-range computer system, so adjust your
settings as you see fit, but the point is to reduce the graphics load
to see how the physics modeling feels with a much-improved framerate.
I did this out of curiousity and to help improve online play (I always
race online with lower graphics settings), but after trying it, I
almost always use a lower resolution because I think it really
"unleashes" the physics engine.
If you get a chance to give this a try, let me know -- for me, I found
that the physics engine really surprised me when I stripped away a bit
of the eye-candy. The affect on in-game throttle response and steering
inputs really surprised me, so LMK what you think if you try it.
-- JB
> > I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap.
> > Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than
> > the previous versions?
> I really love GPL and I consider NFS-PU to be great fun, though it
does
> have it's problems. For instance:
> --Running *** the brakes into a banked curve can flip the car.
> Totally bogus.
> --I run 100% front and 0% rear downforce, plus full negative front
> wheel toe and a fully rear brake bias just to get the car to steer.
> --Throttle steering is totally different than GPL. Line adjustments
> are trailing-throttle adjustments made during corner entry, rather
than
> a combination of that plus feathering-throttle adjustments during the
> corner exit as in GPL.
> --Chopping the throttle mid-corner will result in wild oversteer
(which
> I would fully expect) with most Porsche models (the original '78 turbo
> is EXTREMELY challenging to go fast in), but full-on trail braking
deep
> into the corner (even with full rear brake bias) just results in
> understeer. It's only that on-off throttle transition that really can
> be tricky.
> --The car tends to feel as if it has been adjusted to be neutral to
> pushy under all conditions except trailing-throttle (I'll accept that
> this could be a trait of the rear-engined Porsche. I've never driven
> one in real life).
> --The AI need work. They display (in my opinion) typical arcade
> logic. They're agressive to downright obnixious when trying to pass
> you and will bump you out of thier way, they're MUCH slower entering a
> corner than you, and you can ALWAYS catch them with a top speed run
> even if your car is a notch below theirs in power. This last trait,
> though, could be a function of my 0% rear downforce increasing my top
> speed. Maybe the AI uses 75% rear downforce.
> Now that I've griped a bit, I find NFS-PU to be very entertaining.
The
> driving model is worlds ahead of the model used in NFS-High Stakes,
> though I'd put it a notch below Viper Racing, and I truly enjoy the
> tracks that are included. Zone Industrielle is a blast! Also, doing
a
> single person race with all AI using your car results in better AI
> competitiveness. The graphics are superb and the engine sounds are
> truly a cut above. I was very pleasantly surprised by the overall
> quality of the game. NFS-High Stakes really disappointed me. BTW,
> I've still got the original NFS on my hard drive....
> -Chris-
> Previous 1984 GPz 750
> Previous 1989 ZX-10
> Previous 1992 ZX-7
> Previous 1998 ZX-9
> Current 2000 CBR929RR
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Before you buy.
Yes, it's completely redone, much more realistic.
NFS PU is the "GPL of arcade games". In other words, it's designed as
a fun, arcade game. It has a very realistic - but *accessible* -
physics model.
That's one of the best ways I've heard it put yet, Joe -- well-said.
Still, I have problems calling NFSPU an "arcade" game; I've found
several other "sims" to be much less engrossing, enjoyable, and
convincing than NFSPU. I think that NFSPU is probably realistic enough
that it could possibly be used to teach a non-driver some basic,
rudimentary driving skills. That spells "sim" to me.
Also, as far as the driving experience goes, I relate a sim experience
to a good movie -- if I can totally suspend disbelief to the point that
I can be convinced that the on-screen action actually IS real (or could
be, anyway), and if nothing in the plot "kicks me out" of the
experience, then it's just plain good. So it goes with a sim -- if I
flinching when I hit something, leaning into a turn (as mentioned in
another thread), shakeing my***at traffic, or looking to the side to
see the car I just passed when I know darned good and well that the
only action to see is on the monitor in front of me, THEN I feel like
I've become immersed in a SIM experience, not a simple game. NFSPU
does this for me, much to my delight.
For me, "arcade" implies "game," and I think NFSPU is much more than
that -- like maybe the "GPL of sports cars," perhaps. It's definitely
the closest thing we've seen to date, aside from Viper Racing, anyway.
But, since it ain't GPL, since it doesn't have the GPL physics engine,
and since Papy didn't even pat it on the butt, much less bless it with
Holy Water, I guess I'll just be happy for the acknowledgement that
"NFS PU is the GPL of arcade games."
;-)
-- JB
> >Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than the
previous
> >versions?
> Yes, it's completely redone, much more realistic.
> >For comparison, I think that GPL is the most realistic game I played
so far.
> NFS PU is the "GPL of arcade games". In other words, it's designed as
> a fun, arcade game. It has a very realistic - but *accessible* -
> physics model.
> I think NFSPU does a great job in the graphics department, delivering
> good frame rates at higher resolutions, but I think the physics model
> suffers more than we realize when the graphics are set at "eye-candy"
> levels, so humor me and try the following as an experiment -- I've
done
> this with good results, but I'd like a second (informed) opinion:
> 1) Set your in-game graphics resoultion to 640 x 480.
> 2) Reduce the various graphics settings to a tolerable level. I use
> "MED" for the car detail level, "LOW" sky detail, "MAX" (or whatever
> the level above "HIGH" is called) for the draw distance, "LOW"
or "MED"
> lighting, and "MED" for world detail level, for example, and I'm
> running an AMD K6-2 400 with 64 MB of RAM and a 16 MB Creative Labs
> Voodoo Banshee card.
> 3) Grab a 550 Spyder and see if it feels any different with the
reduced
> graphics and improved framerate.
> I've got something of a mid-range computer system, so adjust your
> settings as you see fit, but the point is to reduce the graphics load
> to see how the physics modeling feels with a much-improved framerate.
> I did this out of curiousity and to help improve online play (I always
> race online with lower graphics settings), but after trying it, I
> almost always use a lower resolution because I think it really
> "unleashes" the physics engine.
> If you get a chance to give this a try, let me know -- for me, I found
> that the physics engine really surprised me when I stripped away a bit
> of the eye-candy. The affect on in-game throttle response and
steering
> inputs really surprised me, so LMK what you think if you try it.
> -- JB
> > > I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap.
> > > Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than
> > > the previous versions?
> > I really love GPL and I consider NFS-PU to be great fun, though it
> does
> > have it's problems. For instance:
> > --Running *** the brakes into a banked curve can flip the car.
> > Totally bogus.
> > --I run 100% front and 0% rear downforce, plus full negative front
> > wheel toe and a fully rear brake bias just to get the car to steer.
> > --Throttle steering is totally different than GPL. Line adjustments
> > are trailing-throttle adjustments made during corner entry, rather
> than
> > a combination of that plus feathering-throttle adjustments during
the
> > corner exit as in GPL.
> > --Chopping the throttle mid-corner will result in wild oversteer
> (which
> > I would fully expect) with most Porsche models (the original '78
turbo
> > is EXTREMELY challenging to go fast in), but full-on trail braking
> deep
> > into the corner (even with full rear brake bias) just results in
> > understeer. It's only that on-off throttle transition that really
can
> > be tricky.
> > --The car tends to feel as if it has been adjusted to be neutral to
> > pushy under all conditions except trailing-throttle (I'll accept
that
> > this could be a trait of the rear-engined Porsche. I've never
driven
> > one in real life).
> > --The AI need work. They display (in my opinion) typical arcade
> > logic. They're agressive to downright obnixious when trying to pass
> > you and will bump you out of thier way, they're MUCH slower
entering a
> > corner than you, and you can ALWAYS catch them with a top speed run
> > even if your car is a notch below theirs in power. This last trait,
> > though, could be a function of my 0% rear downforce increasing my
top
> > speed. Maybe the AI uses 75% rear downforce.
> > Now that I've griped a bit, I find NFS-PU to be very entertaining.
> The
> > driving model is worlds ahead of the model used in NFS-High Stakes,
> > though I'd put it a notch below Viper Racing, and I truly enjoy the
> > tracks that are included. Zone Industrielle is a blast! Also,
doing
> a
> > single person race with all AI using your car results in better AI
> > competitiveness. The graphics are superb and the engine sounds are
> > truly a cut above. I was very pleasantly surprised by the overall
> > quality of the game. NFS-High Stakes really disappointed me. BTW,
> > I've still got the original NFS on my hard drive....
> > -Chris-
> > Previous 1984 GPz 750
> > Previous 1989 ZX-10
> > Previous 1992 ZX-7
> > Previous 1998 ZX-9
> > Current 2000 CBR929RR
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > Before you buy.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Before you buy.
Previous 1984 GPz 750
Long, long, long ago: 1989 ZX-10
Only a little long ago: 1992 ZX-7
Darn near yesterday: 1998 ZX-9
Waiting not so patiently: 2000 CBR929RR
Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Before you buy.
Now, keep in mind that I'm speaking from the perspective of somebody
who's spent the last 1-1/2 years driving GPL almost exclusively. I may
be criticising an inherent trait of a rear-engined car. In all
liklihood, the physics engine is quite good. It may be the tire
modeling that fails to live up to my expectations. The tire model is
what ultimately gives the virtual driver most of his virtual feel.
I'll finish up by saying again that I am truly enjoying NFS-PU. I
think that it treads the line between GPL like realism and every-man
type ease and appeal quite well, even if biased a bit towards the
latter more than I would prefer.
I'll let you know if reducing the graphics gives me any different feel.
-Chris-
Previous 1984 GPz 750
Long, long, long ago: 1989 ZX-10
Only a little long ago: 1992 ZX-7
Darn near yesterday: 1998 ZX-9
Waiting not so patiently: 2000 CBR929RR
> I think NFSPU does a great job in the graphics department, delivering
> good frame rates at higher resolutions, but I think the physics model
> suffers more than we realize when the graphics are set at "eye-candy"
> levels, so humor me and try the following as an experiment -- I've
done
> this with good results, but I'd like a second (informed) opinion:
> 1) Set your in-game graphics resoultion to 640 x 480.
> 2) Reduce the various graphics settings to a tolerable level. I use
> "MED" for the car detail level, "LOW" sky detail, "MAX" (or whatever
> the level above "HIGH" is called) for the draw distance, "LOW"
or "MED"
> lighting, and "MED" for world detail level, for example, and I'm
> running an AMD K6-2 400 with 64 MB of RAM and a 16 MB Creative Labs
> Voodoo Banshee card.
> 3) Grab a 550 Spyder and see if it feels any different with the
reduced
> graphics and improved framerate.
> I've got something of a mid-range computer system, so adjust your
> settings as you see fit, but the point is to reduce the graphics load
> to see how the physics modeling feels with a much-improved framerate.
> I did this out of curiousity and to help improve online play (I always
> race online with lower graphics settings), but after trying it, I
> almost always use a lower resolution because I think it really
> "unleashes" the physics engine.
> If you get a chance to give this a try, let me know -- for me, I found
> that the physics engine really surprised me when I stripped away a bit
> of the eye-candy. The affect on in-game throttle response and
steering
> inputs really surprised me, so LMK what you think if you try it.
> -- JB
> > > I tried NFS High Stakes before - physics was total crap.
> > > Anyone has an opinion on NFS PU? Is it any more realistic than
> > > the previous versions?
> > I really love GPL and I consider NFS-PU to be great fun, though it
> does
> > have it's problems. For instance:
> > --Running *** the brakes into a banked curve can flip the car.
> > Totally bogus.
> > --I run 100% front and 0% rear downforce, plus full negative front
> > wheel toe and a fully rear brake bias just to get the car to steer.
> > --Throttle steering is totally different than GPL. Line adjustments
> > are trailing-throttle adjustments made during corner entry, rather
> than
> > a combination of that plus feathering-throttle adjustments during
the
> > corner exit as in GPL.
> > --Chopping the throttle mid-corner will result in wild oversteer
> (which
> > I would fully expect) with most Porsche models (the original '78
turbo
> > is EXTREMELY challenging to go fast in), but full-on trail braking
> deep
> > into the corner (even with full rear brake bias) just results in
> > understeer. It's only that on-off throttle transition that really
can
> > be tricky.
> > --The car tends to feel as if it has been adjusted to be neutral to
> > pushy under all conditions except trailing-throttle (I'll accept
that
> > this could be a trait of the rear-engined Porsche. I've never
driven
> > one in real life).
> > --The AI need work. They display (in my opinion) typical arcade
> > logic. They're agressive to downright obnixious when trying to pass
> > you and will bump you out of thier way, they're MUCH slower
entering a
> > corner than you, and you can ALWAYS catch them with a top speed run
> > even if your car is a notch below theirs in power. This last trait,
> > though, could be a function of my 0% rear downforce increasing my
top
> > speed. Maybe the AI uses 75% rear downforce.
> > Now that I've griped a bit, I find NFS-PU to be very entertaining.
> The
> > driving model is worlds ahead of the model used in NFS-High Stakes,
> > though I'd put it a notch below Viper Racing, and I truly enjoy the
> > tracks that are included. Zone Industrielle is a blast! Also,
doing
> a
> > single person race with all AI using your car results in better AI
> > competitiveness. The graphics are superb and the engine sounds are
> > truly a cut above. I was very pleasantly surprised by the overall
> > quality of the game. NFS-High Stakes really disappointed me. BTW,
> > I've still got the original NFS on my hard drive....
> > -Chris-
> > Previous 1984 GPz 750
> > Previous 1989 ZX-10
> > Previous 1992 ZX-7
> > Previous 1998 ZX-9
> > Current 2000 CBR929RR
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > Before you buy.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Before you buy.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Before you buy.
The physics are less realistic than Viper (which has good physics but
BOOORING gameplay) and nowhere near GPL, however, it's the most fun game
I've driven in years. I can't get enough of it. The evolution mode is like
Gran Turismo where you earn $ buy upgrades and new cars. I'm working
towards a 2000 turbo, moby*** racer and GT1 racer. The factory driver
mode is mission oriented and very ***ive yet not frustrating. You have
to complete either a difficult driving maneuver, deliver a car unscathed, or
win a challenging race. Multiplayer was solid for a friend and I via cable
modems. Overall it's one of the best driving games I've played. Unlike GPL
(the best ever made) it doesn't feel like work. For me it's a welcomed
break from *** driving. It's thrilling, fast and fun.
--
Joe Marques
GPL, by comparison, is a great simulation, but for most people a very
poor video game.
Hey, I'm sure EA doesn't care either way, they'll be happy with half a
million or more sales. ;-)
Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment
