rec.autos.simulators

by **dma..** » Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00:00

WOW!!! Check this out

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **David L. Co** » Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Very Cool. I guess Bobby Labonte won't have his picure in NR4 now ;)

--David Cook

> WOW!!! Check this out

> http://www.dailyradar.com/news/game_news_2775.html

by **JTW620** » Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00:00

lol. That's really cool !
Todd

by **Don Hancock (** » Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00:00

>WOW!!! Check this out

Hmmm.... I would think it more accurate to just send a survey crew to
the tracks with artists and photographers.... Surprising they'll be able to
get accurate enough physics with a top-down start. If they had the
blueprints, why bother with the satellite at all? Just seems fishy to me
they'd be so accurate but STILL they use all the other "cross-checks." Not
to say double-checking isn't a GOOD idea when it comes to track accuracy.
I'm crossing my fingers on it and plan to jump on the demo ASAP.

Gunner

by **Pete** » Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Don, the reason they didn't do what you suggest was they hadn't
obtained legal rights to do so. But they needed to get the correct
dimensions in order to start work on the game. When I visited
Papyrus they had a board posted with all the drivers, car manufacturers,
sponsors, advertisers and tracks. As they received permission they were
checked off. Some took a very long time to negotiate and weren't received
right up until the game went gold. For them to have waited until they had
gotten the rights, the game would have taken months longer to do.
In fact with Papyrus they had tracks done that weren't in the official
release of the game. They got to play them in house(as did a few select
friends) but we didn't get to see them officially.

Pete

> >WOW!!! Check this out

> Hmmm.... I would think it more accurate to just send a survey crew to
> the tracks with artists and photographers.... Surprising they'll be able
to
> get accurate enough physics with a top-down start. If they had the
> blueprints, why bother with the satellite at all? Just seems fishy to me
> they'd be so accurate but STILL they use all the other "cross-checks."
Not
> to say double-checking isn't a GOOD idea when it comes to track accuracy.
> I'm crossing my fingers on it and plan to jump on the demo ASAP.

> Gunner

by **jbo..** » Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Sure, send a survey crew -- and Hasbro would have to market it as a
$150 title (as if prices aren't high enough already). Good idea, but
most developers can't afford that kind of outlay, and most publishers
won't put up the money to make it happen. Most tracks wouldn't allow a
survey crew in the first place, either.

Also, I thought the article said they got the satellite pics first,
then later they were able to obtain the blueprints. Lucky they were
able to get the blueprints at all -- the track gods must have been
feeling benevolent (ever tried to work with some of these track
owners?).

And, before we sprain something jumping to the conclusion that "Heat"
will be rife with inaccuracies, does anybody have any idea how much
data Papy was able to obtain for their various NASCAR titles, or for
GPL? My guess is that MGI has been AT LEAST as thorough as Papy.

-- JB

> >WOW!!! Check this out

> Hmmm.... I would think it more accurate to just send a survey
crew to
> the tracks with artists and photographers.... Surprising they'll be
able to
> get accurate enough physics with a top-down start. If they had the
> blueprints, why bother with the satellite at all? Just seems fishy
to me
> they'd be so accurate but STILL they use all the other "cross-
checks." Not
> to say double-checking isn't a GOOD idea when it comes to track
accuracy.
> I'm crossing my fingers on it and plan to jump on the demo ASAP.

> Gunner

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

by **Pete** » Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:00:00

John, from what I saw with GPL they must have been able to get
their hands of a fair bit of data. We were looking at pictures and
artists renderings as we walked and snooped about.
With Nascar they do send a team out to take pictures and
measurements.
By the way we had to sit on the GPL news for a long time
as it was 2 years before the game was released and it had
been a year under development at that point. I wonder how
long the games are under development these days in comparison.
Some of the last releases from Papy, Nascar 99 and N3 only
took several months do!

Pete

> Sure, send a survey crew -- and Hasbro would have to market it as a
> $150 title (as if prices aren't high enough already). Good idea, but
> most developers can't afford that kind of outlay, and most publishers
> won't put up the money to make it happen. Most tracks wouldn't allow a
> survey crew in the first place, either.

> Also, I thought the article said they got the satellite pics first,
> then later they were able to obtain the blueprints. Lucky they were
> able to get the blueprints at all -- the track gods must have been
> feeling benevolent (ever tried to work with some of these track
> owners?).

> And, before we sprain something jumping to the conclusion that "Heat"
> will be rife with inaccuracies, does anybody have any idea how much
> data Papy was able to obtain for their various NASCAR titles, or for
> GPL? My guess is that MGI has been AT LEAST as thorough as Papy.

> -- JB

by **Tim Vanhe** » Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Celebrity Chest Match? Cool game... :-p

by **jbo..** » Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:00:00

WOW! I've always been impressed with Papy's thoroughness, but that's
even more impressive! Apparently they have an impressive development
budget (or have in the past) if they've been able to send people to do
on-site pictures and such. This level of thoroughness explains the
long lead time on a lot of titles.

Still, what MGI is doing on Heat is no less thorough in its own way --
on-site visits are great, but unless you take surveyors and do an on-
site survey of each track, I doubt you could do much better for general
dimensions, turn radii, etc., than with blueprints and satellite
photos.

Kudos to Papy, though -- I didn't meant to imply that they weren't
thorough, I just wanted to point out that all developers suffer from
similar problems in obtaining data.

> John, from what I saw with GPL they must have been able to get
> their hands of a fair bit of data. We were looking at pictures and
> artists renderings as we walked and snooped about.
> With Nascar they do send a team out to take pictures and
> measurements.
> By the way we had to sit on the GPL news for a long time
> as it was 2 years before the game was released and it had
> been a year under development at that point. I wonder how
> long the games are under development these days in comparison.
> Some of the last releases from Papy, Nascar 99 and N3 only
> took several months do!

> Pete

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

by **Pete** » Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:00:00

John, GPL was started pre-Sierra and that may account for the
throughness! When I visited it was shortly after the takeover and
things were already changing for the worse. The exodus of employees
had begun and IMHO I don't think they will ever repeat the greatness
of Indy Car, Nascar 1 and GPL. The budget constraints imposed by
the suits at Sierra has played a major role in their lackluster advances
since GPL. As it was told to me they can't afford the big budget required
in order to hang onto the existing talent they had and/or bringing in those
who had the credentials to make giant strides. Thats not so say things
can't change in the future but as soon as they have schooled a newbie
into what is required chances are they will move on. They seem to be
fixated with hiring foreign talent and paying them a fraction of what
they would have to pay North American talent in house.
I have great hope from what will be accomplished by the former
Papy employees that did such a terrific job in the past, now that they don't
have the same budgetary and creative restraints placed on them.
Perhaps, Papy will prove me wrong with their work on N4 and I hope
they do!

Pete

> WOW! I've always been impressed with Papy's thoroughness, but that's
> even more impressive! Apparently they have an impressive development
> budget (or have in the past) if they've been able to send people to do
> on-site pictures and such. This level of thoroughness explains the
> long lead time on a lot of titles.

> Still, what MGI is doing on Heat is no less thorough in its own way --
> on-site visits are great, but unless you take surveyors and do an on-
> site survey of each track, I doubt you could do much better for general
> dimensions, turn radii, etc., than with blueprints and satellite
> photos.

> Kudos to Papy, though -- I didn't meant to imply that they weren't
> thorough, I just wanted to point out that all developers suffer from
> similar problems in obtaining data.

by **Ed Mart** » Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:00:00

You got it, Pete. We started on NASCAR Heat early last year and we
didn't have time to waste while all the licensing for all the tracks
was done. For the most part, the tracks aren't willing to give out
technical data until an agreement is signed - I really can't blame
them. So, we had to look elsewhere for the data.

The funny thing is, the detail available through satellite data tends
to be more accurate than what the tracks themselves can offer. A lot
of these facilities are older & they've gone through a lot of
modifcations through the years. Trying to go through multiple years
worth of plans is a pretty difficult endeavor.

So, that (satellites) gave us the top down dimensions, then it was off
to create it in 3D. There are lots of places to get that data as
well. The tougher part is to nail down the transitions - straights to
corners, apron, etc.. That's where Bobby Labonte was able to help out
a lot.

And yes, we sure did go out & check out the tracks in person. I wish
I had had the foresight to buy some Kodak stock based on all the
photos we've taken!

In the end, though, no matter how much we look at a track in person,
photgraph it or sort through Soviet spy satellite data, there's no
better way to make a track realistic than to work with someone like
Bobby Labonte who has quite literally driven thousands of laps and
thousands of miles on these tracks. I think you'll like the result!

> Don, the reason they didn't do what you suggest was they hadn't
>obtained legal rights to do so. But they needed to get the correct
>dimensions in order to start work on the game. When I visited
>Papyrus they had a board posted with all the drivers, car manufacturers,
>sponsors, advertisers and tracks. As they received permission they were
>checked off. Some took a very long time to negotiate and weren't received
>right up until the game went gold. For them to have waited until they had
>gotten the rights, the game would have taken months longer to do.
> In fact with Papyrus they had tracks done that weren't in the official
>release of the game. They got to play them in house(as did a few select
>friends) but we didn't get to see them officially.

> Pete

>> >WOW!!! Check this out

>> Hmmm.... I would think it more accurate to just send a survey crew to
>> the tracks with artists and photographers.... Surprising they'll be able
>to
>> get accurate enough physics with a top-down start. If they had the
>> blueprints, why bother with the satellite at all? Just seems fishy to me
>> they'd be so accurate but STILL they use all the other "cross-checks."
>Not
>> to say double-checking isn't a GOOD idea when it comes to track accuracy.
>> I'm crossing my fingers on it and plan to jump on the demo ASAP.

>> Gunner

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ed Martin
Executive Producer
Hasbro Interactive

by **Mark Moone** » Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Ed:
What can you divulge about the physics engine? Your name seems kind of
familiar from hawaian days.

Thanks,
Mark E. Mooney

> You got it, Pete. We started on NASCAR Heat early last year and we
> didn't have time to waste while all the licensing for all the tracks
> was done. For the most part, the tracks aren't willing to give out
> technical data until an agreement is signed - I really can't blame
> them. So, we had to look elsewhere for the data.

> The funny thing is, the detail available through satellite data tends
> to be more accurate than what the tracks themselves can offer. A lot
> of these facilities are older & they've gone through a lot of
> modifcations through the years. Trying to go through multiple years
> worth of plans is a pretty difficult endeavor.

> So, that (satellites) gave us the top down dimensions, then it was off
> to create it in 3D. There are lots of places to get that data as
> well. The tougher part is to nail down the transitions - straights to
> corners, apron, etc.. That's where Bobby Labonte was able to help out
> a lot.

> And yes, we sure did go out & check out the tracks in person. I wish
> I had had the foresight to buy some Kodak stock based on all the
> photos we've taken!

> In the end, though, no matter how much we look at a track in person,
> photgraph it or sort through Soviet spy satellite data, there's no
> better way to make a track realistic than to work with someone like
> Bobby Labonte who has quite literally driven thousands of laps and
> thousands of miles on these tracks. I think you'll like the result!

> > Don, the reason they didn't do what you suggest was they hadn't
> >obtained legal rights to do so. But they needed to get the correct
> >dimensions in order to start work on the game. When I visited
> >Papyrus they had a board posted with all the drivers, car manufacturers,
> >sponsors, advertisers and tracks. As they received permission they were
> >checked off. Some took a very long time to negotiate and weren't received
> >right up until the game went gold. For them to have waited until they had
> >gotten the rights, the game would have taken months longer to do.
> > In fact with Papyrus they had tracks done that weren't in the official
> >release of the game. They got to play them in house(as did a few select
> >friends) but we didn't get to see them officially.

> > Pete

> >> >WOW!!! Check this out

> >> Hmmm.... I would think it more accurate to just send a survey crew to
> >> the tracks with artists and photographers.... Surprising they'll be able
> >to
> >> get accurate enough physics with a top-down start. If they had the
> >> blueprints, why bother with the satellite at all? Just seems fishy to me
> >> they'd be so accurate but STILL they use all the other "cross-checks."
> >Not
> >> to say double-checking isn't a GOOD idea when it comes to track accuracy.
> >> I'm crossing my fingers on it and plan to jump on the demo ASAP.

> >> Gunner

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Ed Martin
> Executive Producer
> Hasbro Interactive

by **David L. Co** » Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:00:00

> What can you divulge about the physics engine?

Looks to me like it's going to be a lot like Viper Racing...

--David Cook

by **Andre Warrin** » Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:00:00

I'm not too much into Nascar racing (never even heard of Bobby
Labonte), but this sounds very promising...

Andre

<snip>

by **Pete** » Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Ed, sorry I never got to meet you when I took the tour but
you guys were busy at the time. But I know from talking with
some of your former co-workers how commited you were to
getting things done and I am looking forward to the end product
from you new digs!
I am very glad to hear of the work between Bobby and yourself!
The biggest complaint I have heard from real drivers is the lack of
communication between the sim company and themselves once they
have their name on the product they are endorsing. In the beta testing
groups I have been involved in it has always been a challenge to get
the company to listen to us the beta testers on what should or shouldn't
be in a game from numerous points of view. Sometimes the politics in
dealing with management is more challenging than the sim itself! :-)
One thing I have never seen before mentioned in all the "debating"
that goes on here when they talk about how realistic the tracks in any
game looks, is the difference between how a track looks live compared
to an incar video shot! After shooting some in car action with a video
camera riding shotgun and comparing it to what I saw with my eyes I was
somewhat shocked at the difference because of the eyes depth perception
ability I would assume.

Pete

rec.autos.simulators

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT

HEAT