Thanks!
(another one who made it through the post <G>)
Oh, I'm not so sure that our points of view are so far apart...
This margin of tolerance exists indeed, and as I pointed out it can be
significantly different from person to person.
Those who have some experience driving real cars on the limit could be
considered unlucky here! Because their margin of tolerance is so small that it
sometimes keeps them from appreciating how nicely a sim simulates all the OTHER,
more significant, aspects of racing.
Personally, I totally enjoy the GP2 physics. I find it a model that is
sufficiently challenging and the only things that really bother me a bit are
canned spins and the absence of total tumble. And why? Because they are both
also visual aspects. Through watching hundreds of hours of F1 coverage, we know
that it's not how it should be. But do these omissions seriously impact the
racing experience? No, they just impact our identification with the real thing.
If spinning or tumbling would ususally happen once a lap, the omission would
have a higher impact though :-)
I'm sure they will strive for even more accurate physics. And they have my
blessing, because physics that are even CLOSER to reality will (usually) not
make the sim _worse_. :-)
But... From my writings by now, you will have learned that the "Grand Prix"
series by Geoff Crammond is my idea of the right approach. I really seem to be
on the same wavelength as he is...
I'll try to give an example like it could happen in reality. Let's say that
Crammond has the opportunity to create an absolutely perfect tire-model (perfect
temp/pressure/grip etc. model). Then during playtesting he discovers that he
does not seem to be able to create an appropriate feedback that adequately
informs the player (ALL of them, keyb/joy/wheel!)of what the tires are doing. I
bet he would rather "dumb down" the tiremodel than stubbornly holding to King
Realism. Because if he would hold on to it, he would sacrifice a chunk of Racing
Experience for an aspect that doesn't matter much anyway. See? Or if he would
have the choice between an absolutely perfect tire model and full tumble, he
would choose full tumble.
Another example is the fact that GC still assigns great importance to keyboard
control. The real self declared "purists" would drop it immediately. But not
Crammond, because he looks right through the inessentials. What matters is not
that you're holding a wheel, but that your control method gives you a sufficient
amount of control and is challenging. Challenging where it MATTERS. The digital
nature of keyboard means that, from a practical point of view, you have to
compensate. The trick is not to over-compensate. Because then you're missing the
point and could just as well leave keyboard out. I'm still amazed at how
brilliantly GC solved this problem. How it feels absolutely SPOT ON. Don't
believe that the "ideal line" helps save your ass. :-) Yes, it makes
controlling the car easy, almost automatic, at moderate speeds. But so is
driving a real car at moderate speeds, isn't it? When you drive on the limit
(and that's what F1 drivers do all the time), you WILL leave the track if you
turn in 0.25s late, or if you go 10kmph too fast or if you choose a slightly
imperfect line. Or you save the car but get punished by loosing 0.5s. You also
immediately sense the loss of rythm through nearby corners. I don't know, but
all this sounds pretty close to the real racing experience?
I'll stop now because it could get out of hand again <G>
Le Prof
"There are no failed experiments, only more data." --Thomas Edison