rec.autos.simulators

--
David. (GPLRank handicap: +19.68)
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really."
(Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

There were approximately 15 pro rally drivers who had input into RC2000.
When I beta tested RC2000, I chatted with a number real life drivers and
what I didn't know about rally cars, I soon learned. They had a lot of
input, and made sure that MF modeled the cars correctly. A number of the MF
team also had rally experience.

A number of the other beta testers were successful rally drivers. They also
assured me the cars were modeled correctly. I've read the comments of, and
talked to, enough real life rally drivers to be confident that MF got it
right. I've even driven a rally car myself. Overall, it's a deep and
excellent sim, setting new standards in some areas.

The silly criticisms here started back when an apla demo was released ( and
later a beta) and no matter how many times they were told it was an alpha
(there was enormous anticipation of RC, and MF simply wanted to be nice by
giving people a taste of what was to come), people here at r.a.s. ignored
that enormously important fact, and blasted the physics. Says it all right
there.

The criticisms of RC that I've read here at r.a.s. since it was released
have been mostly silly comments like, "the back end won't slide", and "
there should be more pitch and roll".
FWD rally cars don't slide very easily at all, but can be made to if the
correct technique is used. That technique works perfectly in RC2000. They
exhibit almost no pitch and roll ecause they're beefed up with extremely
stiff suspensions. Even my girlfriend's Honda doesn't pitch and roll. Why
would a rally car? That's where the "cardboard box" comments come from, I
guess. Watch any in car camera view on television, and it looks exactly like
what you see in the***pit of a RC2000 car.

RC is one of the three best sims with regard to ff. You can't have great ff
without an excellent physics model.

To be honest, I have given up on expecting serious discussion about car
physics here at r.a.s. There's only a few people who really seem to know
what they are talking about.

I've read too many posts which said the physics in F12000 aren't in the same
class as GPL. Nonsense.

I've read too many posts claiming that GP2 had canned spins. Nope.

I've read far a million posts saying that a sim's physics "suck".

I've read (ugh) too many comments about the GPL physics model, and then I
find out Jackie Stewart says the real cars had far more grip than they do in
GPL. What does he know anyway?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and no one ever admits they might be
wrong on this topic. I'm going to continue to listen to the experts, and
then formulate my opinions. If I end up in the minority with those
opinions.....then great.

David G Fisher

    Just a few things, from my uninformed viewpoint:

    It does not seem to matter much (or as much as it should) how fast you
are travelling; if you hit the side of a steep wall or medium-sized rock at
just the right angle/position you will flip on to your roof. Makes sense at
high speeds, but at a (literally) *snail's pace*? LOL! Inertia would have
something to say about that.

Strike one.

    Again, hit something at the side of the road, but this time only at
speed. Sometimes, the car will ***ly (almost *instantaneously*) roll to
a 45 degree angle (so that the car is travelling momentarily on two wheels,
either the right-side wheels, or left-side), and almost immediately it will
lurch ***ly back again to four wheels, and you continue as if nothing
happened. Whether it's translation or rotation, all things decelerate or
accelerate when acted upon by a force - nothing terrestrial is *that*
instantaneous. Again, as if there was no such thing as inertia.

Strike two.

   Travel very quickly down a straight and hit a hay bail or a fence post
head on, or a log on the ground with your right front tire. Come to a
complete dead stop instantaneously. An almost humourous inability to handle
collisions properly. Yet again, no regards to inertia and Newtons 1st law.

Strike three.

You're out. Not the game, because it had many redeeming features, and not
all of its physics are bad. In fact, I would describe its physics as
incomplete, most parts done well, but a few significant (and fundamental)
parts (e.g. inertia) not so well or at all. But *you're* out, David, for
claiming this game to have physics rivalling that of GPL, which I can see is
patently wrong even after having played GPL for only a couple of days. It's
simply not in the same league. I look forward to Ubisoft's rally sim.
Meanwhile, I'll enjoy GPL.

Bendito;

--
Colin Harris
ColinHarris in N3/NL & VROC
Remove "your knickers" to reply

Not me either to a point, I think I have some idea, but my old man
does have full knowledge, being a former rally driver. He says it is
totally unrealistic. Face it.

I mean, everyone who have eyes, ears and a driver's licence MUST see
that it is totally off the wall. Try braking to a complete stop at 15
metres from 160kph, on gravel no less. bla bla no inertia bla bla no
slides et.c et.c et.c

Magnetic fields messed the physics up, horribly. Get over it.

/Magnus