rec.autos.simulators

% My take on this is not that Dean had a problem with the criticisms of
% the product - I believe the fact that a patch is coming out that
% addresses most of those criticisms (a patch that is the result, by his
% own statement, of criticisms levied here) is the data that proves he
% wanted to hear what people thought of the product and took it
% seriously enough to act on that data. What more can you want than the
% designers hearing the complaints and acting quickly to take action
% based on those complaints? (yeah, they should have got it right in the
% first place, but most software these days doesn't - including Indy II,
% NASCAR, Falcon 3, etc.)

% What I hear Dean saying is that after getting the data, the valid
% criticisms, not much more was being added outside of personal attacks
% and flaming.  So why hang around if the ratio of data/***was getting
% so low?

Here's my take, and it is only my opinion.  The patch sure got completed
in a short amount of time.  This implies either that they were working
on the patch before CPR went gold, or that they were easy things to fix
and should have been fixed in the original release.  Sure we may have
added a few items to the patch, but the whole of the patch was probably
in the works before the game went gold.  If they weren't working on the
patch before the release, then they must have had some really lame beta
testers for these things to have been missed.  And if they only started
on the patch after the release and feedback from r.a.s., they are some
great programmers and really should have taken care of these things
before the release (I mean 2 weeks holding back the release date of CPR
would mean no real big loss of Christmas sales).  The things they are
fixing are things that were all present in ICR2 and NASCAR.  Now don't
get me wrong, the latter had their problems (as did Falcon 3), but none
of these games had major problems with the AI, or had frame rates that
could be increased by 25+% in just 2 weeks of programming.  Also it
would seem that either Papyrus and Spectrum Holobyte had rather inept
programmers working on the patch, or they were working on real bugs and
needed some time to track them down.  We maybe talking about fruit, but
let's be careful about comparing bananas and pineapples and tomatoes.

I don't have the list handy, but most of the items being addressed with
the CPR patch are enhancements or optimizations and not bug fixes.  The
problems in ICR2, NASCAR and Falcon3 were mostly bug fixes.  I applaud
the CPR team for their quick response to the concerns addressed by
r.a.s. and other sim fans.  But, that still doesn't excuse the fact that
the game was definately released before it was finished.  Maybe I'm just
being naive.  I am used to having to deal with a product that has
"bugs", but not ones that didn't quite make it through beta.  Part of the
alpha and beta process isn't just to catch bugs, but to address issues
like the AI, yellow flags, some means of evaluating setup (e.g., tire
temps), control (if they had been monitoring r.a.s. during CPR's
development, they would have seen this as a major problem with other
products released -- and where are those products now?), gamma control,
frame rate, etc.

With that said, I hope the CPR team continues to "fix" their product and
continue to listen to our concerns.  I certainly hope we don't have to
wait for CPR2 to get working yellow flags.  That is a major ingredient
to CART racing.  When we simulate racing a series, we expect to be able
to incorporate what we see when we watch a race.  This includes yellow
flags and pit stratagies based on yellows.  Races are won or lost based
on these kinds of decisions.  Last year there were number of races that
were made or broken due to these kinds of decisions.  For a program that
is attempting to push the envelope, like CPR is, to leave out key
ingredients....  Well it baffles me.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

   Yeah!  Everything he said...

(OK, sorry, I'm really testing my newsserver which is having trouble
posting to RAS at the moment.  I still mean that though. :)

Before you send me UCE, I know what you're thinking...  Did he complain
to five or six postmasters last month?  Now, you must ask yourself one
question: "Do I feel lucky?"  Well, do you, punk?

--
Dave Otterness

That's easy to say when you don't need to live with the consequences.
Funny how F1RS isn't being released in the US until after Christmas
and CPR isn't being released over here until after Christmas - could
it be they got the drop on each other in their respective markets?

Everyone wants to be out in time for Christmas, and no-one wants to
force the public to make a buying decision by going up against a
similar product, especially when that product is based upon a series
more popular in the target country. Unreal was pushed back most likely
thanks to Quake2, since who in their right mind who take Quake2 on
head-to-head in the stores. Far better to wait a couple of months and
release then, when people may be easing up on Quake2 and hungry for a
new challenge.

So too with CPR. Okay, by far the best is to get the game perfect and
release before Christmas, but given the prospect of*** off and
releasing after Christmas (and leaving the market for F1RS or RTI) or
going with an unfinished product, MS/TRI did the only thing that makes
financial sense. Whether we now buy it or not is up to us, and that
will to some extent influence what happens in future.

Cheers!
John

John's post pointed out a strategic theory, while yours is closer to
the *** type (no flame intended).  :)

Cheers!

Marc

On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 20:25:52 -0600, David Otterness

It's speculation, nothing more and nothing less, but with an absence
of hard facts there's generally no other avenue open to us. There's
hardly likely to be a statement saying "Unreal is being pulled because
we think it would lose out to Quake2" is there? :)  However, if
Unreal's delivery date is consistently going to be pre-Christmas, and
is pushed back at the same time Quake2's early Dec is announced, it
looks worthy of a bit of speculation to me!

So too with CPR and F1RS - of course I have no hard facts to support
it, if I did it would be neither theory or speculation! It does seem a
tad strange to me that they each chooses only to attack the U.S.
market or the European market at Christmas, when the games were
finished early enough to attack both. There's not too many ways you
can explain that.

Pardon me for the "*** theories", but I basically do this sort
of thing for a living, and it sort of runs on into the way I look at
the world :)

Cheers!
John

<snip>
% So too with CPR and F1RS - of course I have no hard facts to support
% it, if I did it would be neither theory or speculation! It does seem a
% tad strange to me that they each chooses only to attack the U.S.
% market or the European market at Christmas, when the games were
% finished early enough to attack both. There's not too many ways you
% can explain that.

% Pardon me for the "*** theories", but I basically do this sort
% of thing for a living, and it sort of runs on into the way I look at
% the world :)

Let me see if I understand this "theory".  MS and UbiSoft made a pact to
not get in each other's way during the Christmas season?  Ms says, "Hey
Ubi, we won't rain on your parade in Europe, if you give us North
America and Australia."  And Ubi says, "Hey that sounds like a fair
offer, who wants to go up against MS at Christmas time".  Any other
theory doesn't seem to hold water (but I'm still looking for one that
will carry scotch <G>).  Too bad UbiSoft "made the pact", as it appears
they have the better product and more than likely would have done well
in the States.  

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

No, your interpretation really would be a *** theory! :)

I suggest no collusion between the two companies, merely that having
seen CPR was launched in the US already, and being based on a racing
formula that was more popular in the U.S. than F1 is, perhaps Ubisoft
decided it was better to hang fire and wait till people had cooled a
little on CPR before releasing a new product with which race fans
could slake their thirst. Vice versa with MS regarding the markets
outwith the US.

I have my doubts about the above, but I'm at a loss as to why else
Ubisoft would release F1 in November over here and not roll it out to
the US market in time for Christmas. Likewise MS had "a version" of
CPR available in US shops in advance of their original schedule, but
elected not to do so in Europe or elsewhere. Mind you, having seen the
fuss caused by the first release of CPR, if the above scenatio were
the case then I imagine Ubisoft were ruing their decision not to go
head-to-head with CPR in US stores in the run up to Christmas. MS may
well have been the loser there.

Cheers!
John

Under the heading of "Damned if they do, damned if they don't", Michael Carver
writes.

a short amount of time.  This implies either that they were working on the
patch before CPR went gold, or that they were easy things to fix and should
have been fixed in the original release. >>

Geez man..Everyone wants them to rush out a patch to fix this stuff, and when
they do, only here on the newsgroups will you find them being ripped for doing
it TOO fast.

Randy

Randy Magruder
Staff Writer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com/

% Under the heading of "Damned if they do, damned if they don't", Michael Carver
% writes.

% >> Here's my take, and it is only my opinion.  The patch sure got completed in
% a short amount of time.  This implies either that they were working on the
% patch before CPR went gold, or that they were easy things to fix and should
% have been fixed in the original release. >>

% Geez man..Everyone wants them to rush out a patch to fix this stuff, and when
% they do, only here on the newsgroups will you find them being ripped for doing
% it TOO fast.

I dont' wish to start another "Holy War", but I do find it extremely odd
that they were able to fix things so quickly and easily.  They are not
being ripped.  This was an observation.  I'm still looking at the glass
and I just can't figure out rather it was half-empty or half-full.
As I see it, the observation still stands.  The TRI guys are excellent
programmers one way or the other.  I am just trying to figure out
whether my glass is going to get fuller or emptier. <G>

My we are touchy, when someone can't make a reasoned observation or
question something, without being accused of bashing and ripping apart a
program an it's programmers.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

that they were able to fix things so quickly and easily.  >>

I work in the commercial software biz myself, and I'm not surprised at all.  If
TR and MS were doing things the way these things are generally done, some bugs
or problems (assuming they were reported as such) might have been marked as
easy to fix, but they were lower priority than much worse problems (such as
crash bugs).  As such someone in bug triage might have marked them as "defer"
and off the plate they go.  Another factor is that some of these things might
fall under the category of suggestions (auto-control in the pits, null zone
steering adjustments) and been deferred as such.  I'm not excusing it, but I
can see many ways that these could have been deferred or marked "as designed"
by people who were trying to isolate and fix frightening crash bugs and felt
that these other bugs would be easily addressed in a patch if we screamed
(which we did...undoubtedly louder than they expected!)

programmers one way or the other.  I am just trying to figure out whether my
glass is going to get fuller or emptier. <G><<

If they are fixing the product and are patching it at no charge to the users,
and doing so over the Christmas holidays when they'd all rather be looking at
anything BUT CPR code, I'd say the glass is a little better than half full :)
I realize that people here will say "darn tootin...they SHOULD be there fixing
this" and that's a legitimate view from a consumer perspective, but it sure
doesn't change life much for an engineer who was rather hoping to be at home
with his family at Christmas and is told by management to stick around and some
list of problems!

something, without being accused of bashing and ripping apart a program an it's
programmers.>>

Well, its just an observation that the guys at MS/TR can't seem to do anything
that people universally think is "right".

Randy
Randy Magruder
Staff Writer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com/