rec.autos.simulators

   Unfortunately yes, no matter how ridiculous. I just like to leave as little room for
them as possible.

   Defending something as outrageously flawed as CPR is akin to belting your head against
a brick wall. My advise - quit it!

   F1RS was fairly quickly patched to operate the way it was designed. You are comparing
design issues to issues concerning a game that is simply unfinished. I'm not a fan of
F1RS, but it is miles ahead of CPR as far as a finished, balanced product goes.

   That's exactly why I put forward my view! If I knew nothing of CPR and David was
praising it, I would certainly like to be informed that he has been a mysterious fanatical
supporter of the game and to see that others are sick of his misleading posts. This is
just the type of info that help people "make up their own mind".

Hehe, the Nurburgring oughta give you a learning challenge.  What is it,
14.x miles, 174 turns.  Yikes!

Yes it is an incredible track, I got to drive it at E3 :)
Also dont rule out the old Spa at 30 some turns and 8.x miles. Its much
faster then Nurburgring. Lap times at Spa around mid 3's min compared to mid
8's at Nurburgring.

Arthur
s t e a l t h
r a c i n g
http://www.***sys.com/stealthracing.html

Oddly enough, that's my job.

--

mark
"You *will* hit what you look at. In that case, try looking at the apex
instead of the gravel at your turn in point."

F1RS - http://www.nmia.com/~chaser/car/results.htm
Remove us here and there to mail me.

John,

I have to disagree with you on a couple major points.

First of all.. if I am paying good money (or bad for that matter) for
something that claims to be a true simulation, then it better damn well be
a simulation.  There is a distinct and appreciable difference between a
simulation and an arcade game.  Too often, you buy a product that
advertises itself to be a simulation, but in reality it is an arcade game.
Simulation and game are two completely different things.  Ask NASA... they
dont "game" lunar landings and the like, they "simulate" them.

I agree with you that we all "take for granted" the hundreds of different
aspects of "reality" that must be represented in a simulation.. but others
have managed to do it well enough, claim their products to be simulations
and do not blatantly lie when doing so.  If it can be done, it can be
repeated (and hopefully improved).

CPR DOES suck in my opinion.  It misses on both of the marks I have
mentioned above and these are just the MAJOR misses.

In summary, while CPR may be pretty, it sure aint no sim.

CR

I may in fact be entirely incapable of debating intelligently. I don't know
what the rules are so I couldn't say either way. But, I'm willing to have a
go regardless. After reading you're comments on CPR, I mistakenly concluded
that you had given it one day and made up your mind. I believed this because
some of the comments you've made are *exactly* contrary to my experience
with CPR. Now giving something one day is what a lot of us do, and that's
fine. But I lumped you in with a large group of people that tried CPR for a
limited amount of time, didn't have the desire to look for better results,
and jump at every chance to flame it. I was merely trying to say that it
takes a little more grunt to get this one going. I obviously didn't do a
very good job of that. So let me try again.

I'm thinking that the CPR physics are frame rate dependent. Much like any
other sim we've encountered. Only after that is sorted out can one find out
some of the other problems. Setups are a small factor but most important is
the interface. The way they have the controller hooked up is the single
biggest flaw in the game. (The AI is no worse than ICR AI. Yes that is very
bad but we know how to deal with that already.) I would bet that keyboard
and joystick users will never be able to appreciate CPR. Now I have spent
enough time, and been fortunate to find the controller setup (among other
things)  that brings me fully into the simulation. Being there I'd have to
say CPR is the second best driving sim on my machine. Off-line gameplay is
atrocious, but online is fantastic. (To me. I have never tried anything else
but have done some real authentic racing on line with CPR. I do know what
real authentic racing is, in many forms, and this was it. ...and no, the
physics model has absolutely nothing to do with the craft of racing.)

Back to the physics thing - I have to strongly disagree with your position
on the way the car reacts. I don't have any idea how realistic the settings
are in the garage but I do know when I have a car setup to the point that it
drives with anticipation. I also don't know how realistic the car handling
is when compared to a real Indy car but I do know that real world responses
can be given in answer to virtual world situations and real world effects
are realized in this manner. Thus I have anticipation. Not unlike that which
we find in any of the top sims. The difference being that I find CPR
simulates driving a four wheel vehicle on paved roads better than any other
game I have. The sense of speed is stunning. Perfectly represented. (Given
the state of today's racing sims.)

Your post is discouraging to someone who may have thought, "I wonder if I
should go blow 10 bucks and get that thing in the disposal bin at EB?" I
spent 45 bucks on N2 and was completely disappointed. I have better games
for my Nintendo console. By a long shot too. But the fun I've had driving
CPR is worth 10 bucks and a lot more. Now I'll be the first guy to say what
I don't like about a game. Sometimes that critique will be constructive and
sometimes it won't, but I think you've got CPR all wrong (most people don't
have CPR working right) because it isn't aligned with your system. It may be
that it won't work for you. My point is only that the game can rip,
regardless of how badly it was designed, and I like it better than most of
the games I have.

Now the way I presented my response to you was of no help to anyone and I
thank you for pointing that out. I will, in the future, try to figure out
how to represent the point I'm making or just not post.

If you send me one of your setups I'll send you one of mine.
--

mark
"You *will* hit what you look at. In that case, try looking at the apex
instead of the gravel at your turn in point."

F1RS - http://www.nmia.com/~chaser/car/results.htm
Remove us here and there to mail me.

There. You've just answered your own question.

Now back to r.a.s. business:

Got a good setup for Detroit?

--

mark
"You *will* hit what you look at. In that case, try looking at the apex
instead of the gravel at your turn in point."

F1RS - http://www.nmia.com/~chaser/car/results.htm
Remove us here and there to mail me.

Hi Neil. I have to disagree and say that I believe you have not gotten CPR
to work for you. I also have some racing experience and agree with you on
the "basic physics however are unchanged and the skill is balancing the
package as near to the edge of its envelope as possible for as long as
possible." principle. This being said, I think CPR is the most realistic
full game I have on my PC. The reason I am defending it in this post as well
as others is because I think it's getting some really unfair physical model
critique tossed in with more than fair general program comments because of
it's inability to interface easily.
--

mark
"You *will* hit what you look at. In that case, try looking at the apex
instead of the gravel at your turn in point."

F1RS - http://www.nmia.com/~chaser/car/results.htm
Remove us here and there to mail me.

In that case I challenge you to define a simulation for me, in fact do
so by example.

- GP2? 7 seconds to repair anything, I don't think that simulates real
life.

- F1RS? Sounds like wasps.

- N2? Mmm, don't you love that whacky wheelspin?

In short, a simulation simulates only what the developers included, it
doesn't extend to all aspects of real life. GPL may well be by far the
closest yet, but if your definition of "simulation" is something
whereby you can experience the same weather conditions then it is not
a simulation as far as you are concerned.

Nothing is unequivocally "arcade" just as nothing is a "sim" - it is a
matter of opinion. CPR may not model what you care for in a sim, but
it obviously works for others.

So what was that Space Launch game that came out a while ago? You and
I would call it a sim - NASA would call it a game. Where's the clear
and appreciable difference - in our minds.

They do of course (lie that is), it's just not so obvious. We don't
know what lies beneath the skin of GP2, it just "feels" right. How
exactly it feels right could be a number of clever fudges or it could
be accurate calculation of forces upon the car - who knows? You can
define a sim by the goal or by the result - if CPR employed accurate
real life physics but finally didn't "feel" right, would it be a sim?
How about if GP2 cobbled the whole thing together without modelling
the car realistically but hit the driving feel spot on? Which of these
is the more accurate "sim"? One feels right, the other simulates.

I'm not saying that is the case, but without knowing what's under the
hood it's a bit early to start with "not a sim", "arcade" etc.

One less for you to buy - others have bought and enjoyed. I wasn't
among them, but I'm glad some people got some pleasure from TRI's
efforts.

Cheers!
John

Hi Mark,

We'll have to agree to differ ;-). I still race CPR online a lot and can lap
very quickly. I am very familiar with setups, not only in CPR but in F1RS
and GP2. I think I can say I have it working about as well as it is capable.

John Wallace mentions in this thread that you need to define what it is you
require for an app t obe acceptable as a SIM. For some that may be circuit
accuracy, for others graphics or interface or sound etc. For me, by far the
most important aspect is the driving model. Categorically, the low speed and
high speed characteristics of the game are terminally flawed. If you have
raced, you must feel the difference, e.g. the low speed push is laughable
and impossible to tune out. Have you tried trail-braking. I found this one
of the keys to successful real-life racing. It's a joke on CPR.

I accept that the interface is great - net play fantastic - sound and sense
of speed good but it does not model the physics of a race car sufficiently
accurately for me to consider it anything other than an online toy. At that
it excels.

The solution of course would  be for the game to be developed and refined.
Now I wonder what the odds on that are ;-)

Regards

--

 ICQ:7797673      http://www.charlt.demon.co.uk
--

[snip]

The drive model is the most important thing for me also. Now I'm not sure
I've experienced the low speed push. When I am not pushing in tight corners
I am going the same speed as the CC's. Even at Pau. So that is not pushing
hard enough to take away enjoyment for me. I explain it away as a lack of
down force. :-)

Trailbraking is not a problem for me. I have noticed that the calibration
routine leaves about 1/8 of an inch total of pedal before lock. I deal with
this in three ways. #1. In the *.gar file there is a line that says:
brakeProportioning 0.600000 This is the brake bias. The lowest the game goes
is 0.500000. Which is too far forward. You can manually edit it rearward
using notepad. I typically set mine to: brakeProportioning 0.350000. (only
do this after you are done with your setup as a save from the game changes
it back to 0.500000.) #2. Use less motion. (not trying to be a smart ass
here.) #3. If I really want to go all out I can remove a penny from under my
pedal during calibration and then put it back afterwards. I tried this
successfully before I found out about the *.gar file editing technique which
works quite well.

Triglide.dll - That changed the whole game for me. I have a Voodoo card and
the "never less than 28 fps" really makes the game enjoyable.

The Patch - Really does help.

Choosing the right controller option - I use a "race car controller" to
drive my sims with, so naturally I choose "joystick" instead in CPR. It is
impossible to anticipate with "race car controller" chosen. (Just another
bug to add to the list.)

Two of these things are pretty much unforgivable but I burned 50 bucks and
was determined to get it to work. The frame rate deal usually comes stock
with good sims. So I'm not worried about that. I'm using a P233 old kind.
With the PII 330 and 400 and stuff I'll bet a few people will still be able
to enjoy CPR.

If you've already tried these things then hardware is even more critical
than I thought and CPR is worse still.

--

mark
"You *will* hit what you look at. In that case, try looking at the apex
instead of the gravel at your turn in point."

F1RS - http://www.nmia.com/~chaser/car/results.htm
Remove us here and there to mail me.

Me too, actually, I dont understand why John cant see what Bruce is really doing
:o).

/Christer

So it's a kind of working disorder (now really winging it, hoping it's the
correct expression, I'm swedish you know) then :o)?

/Christer

--
http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online
racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone
has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o))

Ohh, I just love these posts :o))). I also see I found this thread way too late
:o(.

/Christer

--
http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online
racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone
has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o))

Neil, he wont reply to your post cause you really mess up the way he sees the
world :o).

/Christer, been driving FFords, but what do I know :o)

PS. Really dont like I didn't found this thread earlier :o). DS.

--
http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online
racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone
has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o))