rec.autos.simulators

by **GTX_SlotCa** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 04:00:55

Have you ever noticed how many versions of Hockenheim, Monza, etc. there
are? Each game developer seems to have his own idea of what tracks really
look and feel like.
I wonder if it would be possible for the track owners (or some other
governing body) to give a 'seal of approval'. Strict guidelines could be
given for track accuracy and if a developer passes them he could be allowed
to advertise the seal on the game box, or however he sees fit.
Sometimes it's the little things on a track that***me off and I can't
always tell by watching real race footage which is the most accurate. For
example, (one of the many, many, things I didn't like about GP4) I'm racing
Suzuka in GP4 trying to use the same lines I use in F1 2002. Going down the
straight just before the corner that brings you under the bridge, and I run
out of curbing (on the left) just before I make the hard right, and end up
driving in the grass. The difference between GP4 and F1 2002 is only a few
feet, but one of them is wrong (GP4?) and it's almost impossible to tell by
watching a real race. If there was a 'seal of approval' for each track, you
could tell before buying a game whether or not the developer did his
homework.

--
Slot

Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com

by **Txl** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 04:17:07

F1RC !!!

--
The first ever pinball ezboard !!
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Doug Elliso** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 05:18:12

Generally speaking ( pun kind of intended ) - if it's a toss up between
F12002 and ANYTHING - then F12002's the one with the track errors

I seriously dont think a single person from the ISI track modelling team has
EVER watched a british gp in their life

Doug

by **Andrew William** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 07:42:03

Has everyone seen the Real F1 vs F1 2002 comparison videos over at
relaygames (site down at the moment) They show that F1 2002 isn't perfect,
but it's darn close at *some* tracks.

by **Doug Elliso** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 07:52:36

But some tracks are not even FUNNY

Doug

by **Dave Henri** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 08:16:34

Seal of Approval stuff would have to be regulated by some group. This
means money. This means if EA WANTS the seal on their box, all they have
to do is cough up enough cash.
I agree track accuracy is a problem. But I think it really comes down to
budgets. What part of the budget do you cut to send teams all over the
world? WHat part of the budget suffers so that 2 feet of curbing is placed
properly?
Imagine my confusion, when driving the updated Nurburgring for SCGT, when
a relatively flat section from the GPL track is actually a downhill run!!
:)
I remember folks griping about the original F1 2000 because the
parabolica at monza was in the game a linked group of short straights,
rather than a continuous turn. The guys had a point, but I suspect the line
they drove was still the same whether the track borders were curved or short
straight segments.
Once again that is a budge issue, but this time not dollars and cents.
But polygon budgets. The more detail in the track, the higher the hardware
limit becomes. You could produce a perfectly crafted track, and it 'could'
be a real performance killer.
Folks have also claimed F1Rc and it's decendants were near perfect. I
have only driven the demo but from that experience and from what others have
claimed, the Ubi tracks are near perfectly smooth. More like a photocopy of
an oil painting, you get the looks perfectly, but the texture and richness
is lost.(damn...I'm sounding dang near sophisticated)
dave henrie

by **Andrew William** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:10:27

Very true. Hungary and Silverstone are downright sad.

by **Jason Moy** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:53:47

F1 2002's tracks are among the worst ever modelled in a computer game.
If you've ever played the version of Talladega that came with Nascar
1, I'd say that their track models are about that accurate. I.E. they
sort of resemble the real tracks.

The GP4 tracks, FWIW, are pretty spot on. Really, while I hate GP4
(mostly because of the controller config, actually) I think it could
be argued that it's a better sim in many ways than F1 2002.

Jason

by **Jason Moy** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:58:02

Since the Nurburgring was converted from GPL using GPLex (or am I
mistaken here?) and models the modern one rather than the one from
1967, that sort of thing should be common everywhere. In 1970 (if I
remember the year correctly) the Ring was highly renovated and large
sections of the track were significantly changed. I can't imagine a
relatively flat bit being changed into a downhill bit, but safety
standards rarely made sense back then.

A properly modelled post-1970 Ring should feel incredibly tame
compared to the one in GPL. Most of the large elevation chanes were
removed, particularly the jumps.

Jason

by **Ferrari_Cors** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:09:12

Theres a guy called SLN that fixes the tracks...so its all good

by **Andrew William** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:11:26

For sure, but not in the areas that really matter.

GP4 has got it's problems, but the controller config is the least of its
flaws. It's unusual, as is F1 2002's but they both work fine once you've
sussed them. I prefer GPL's method of axis calibration, but on the whole, I
find GP4 and F1 2002 to be more configurable.

by **GTX_SlotCa** » Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:20:37

Before tracks are built (or rebuilt) in the US, they must go through
planning board approval. That means detailed, engineered prints with
elevations are submitted to local code enforcement offices. Except for Hong
Kong until a couple years ago, red tape in the Asia, Japan and Europe is
even worse than it is in the US, so I assume they have them, also.
The prints are public record and available to anyone, but it would be a
nice gesture if track owners would give them out to game developers and
offer to review the completed game's tracks as a matter of good will to
their fans (probably more likely to happen with Nascar than F1). Then they
could just allow them to use a logo or seal of approval stamp to show the
track is accurate within certain standards. Or, they could just not allow
the track name to be used if the game's version wasn't up to certain
standards. Location and lengths of curbs could be covered with pictures. I'm
not so concerned with tree locations that can change each year unless
they're in the middle of the track :-) I don't believe it would cost too
much to send someone out to 20 or so tracks and use a roll of film on each
one. I know a few good amature photographers/race fans locally that would
probably do it if their travel expenses were covered. For that matter, the
track owners could probably provide plenty of pictures. How about this- Use
in-car footage (already available for most F1 and Nascar tracks) showing the
speed or time, get the measurments from that and couple it with the
submitted elevation data. I don't see a big expense here IF a little
ingenuity is used. By using a governing body, I just meant that the track
owners could make the stuff available to Nascar (for example) so the
developers wouldn't have to go to each track. Either way works. I don't
think it would overburden the track owners. It's not like there are 100
developers writing a new Nascar or F1 game every year.
I guess what I'm saying is that it appeared to be a big task at first, but
after thinking about it for a while, it didn't seem like such a big deal. As
it is, they're all fantasy tracks that look a lot like something else.
Good physics seems to be subjective, at least in this ng. In some sims is
pretty good now, but it may be a long time (if ever) before it can be
perfect on a PC. Accurate tracks could be done now. At least if would be a
step forward for sim fans.

--
Slot

Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com

by **Magnus Svensso** » Sun, 17 Nov 2002 04:04:14

>> Imagine my confusion, when driving the updated Nurburgring for SCGT, when
>>a relatively flat section from the GPL track is actually a downhill run!!

>Since the Nurburgring was converted from GPL using GPLex (or am I
>mistaken here?) and models the modern one rather than the one from
>1967, that sort of thing should be common everywhere. In 1970 (if I
>remember the year correctly) the Ring was highly renovated and large
>sections of the track were significantly changed. I can't imagine a
>relatively flat bit being changed into a downhill bit, but safety
>standards rarely made sense back then.

>A properly modelled post-1970 Ring should feel incredibly tame
>compared to the one in GPL. Most of the large elevation chanes were
>removed, particularly the jumps.

Well, they didn't reshape the entire Eifel mountains, that's for sure!
They planed off some of the sharper transients(jumps) and added the
armco and a couple of metres of grass outside the kerbing and that's
mostly it. Even still the F1's caught air at several places up until
1976. Something much other than that would have been entirely
impossible. Unless you've been there you can't really appreciate the
vastness of the place. It's HUGE and all natural. It is just not
possible to alter any significant elevation changes without MAJOR
landscaping.

GPL's version of the ring is actually probably based on the modern
configuration with the jumps added and kerbs removed. It seems to fit
as the wooden handrail fence seems to correlate to the present armco
and the grass on the side of the road. Pre-'70 fences, sh***y and
trees stood right next to the road all around the circuit.

by **CMS** » Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:16:58

IMHO this simply is not true.
I can only speak about the tracks I've experienced myself, and I must
admit that particularly Spa is _really_ spot on.
Even the older parts of Nrburgring and Hockenheim are quite good (NOT
the season 2002 parts though, but: F1 2002 hit the shelves before
those recent changes were even finished at the RL locations. Seems ISI
had to deal with some blueprints).
So don't intimate that *all* tracks are bad.
Maybe *some* have shortcomings.

Chris

by **Magnus Svensso** » Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:27:04

On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:16:58 +0100, CMS

>>...
>>F1 2002's tracks are among the worst ever modelled in a computer game.
>>...

>IMHO this simply is not true.
>I can only speak about the tracks I've experienced myself, and I must
>admit that particularly Spa is _really_ spot on.
>Even the older parts of Nrburgring and Hockenheim are quite good

HARDLY Nrburgring! The track is _literally_ HALF as wide it should
be. Some of the roadcamber is seriously messed up to.