rec.autos.simulators

> >3) No, its not really a sim since there are things it doesn't model such as
> >tire temps, doesn't have telemetry, etc.  However, its a pretty good racing
> >game (not to say arcade racer either).
> >4) The use of "simulation" on a game is generally the result of the
> >marketing department of the publisher, witness EA Sports and Nascar
> >Revolution.  In none of the marketing ***or stuff that came with the game
> >can I find one mention of the word "simulation", the closest that I've found
> >to say this is the quote "Sports Car GT is the most riveting and ***ing
> >racing game ever made, featuring state of the graphics, and the most
> >realistic physics model ever created for a racing sim. " from the ISI sight.
> >Its a fairly riveting and ***ing racing game, at least for awhile...but
> >no its no GPL and no its not the most realistic physics model ever,
> >especially since at the very least tire temps aren't modeled.  But even
> >though I still get away with things I don't think I should be able to, its
> >detailed enough to give you the sense of driving a race car and not a large
> >polygonal block.

> SCGT is a simulation.  Most racing games are, including the ones we
> all think suck!  The word simulation has become a religious holy grail
> which is bestowed only on a cherished few, but by strict definition,
> it's wrong.  As I state very often in my columns and reviews, by the
> right definition of the word almost every racing game would qualify as
> a simulation.   It is more correct to put an adjective in front of the
> word "simulation".  e.g.

> SCGT is relaxed-physics simulation
> GPL is an excellent simulation
> Newman-Haas Racing is a very inaccurate simulation
> ICR2 was a reasonably accurate simulation but didn't simulate
> everything (such as brake lockups)
> GP2 was well-done simulation that no one could run fast enough

> i.e. you simply cannot defend saying something is NOT a simulation
> based upon the fact that this or that aspect of some other simulation
> is or isn't there.  That's why these turn into religious wars.  Rather
> than leave "simulation" some kind of religious term, let's just admit
> that each development team tries to simulate reality, and some do it
> very well, some do it terribly, and some fall somewhere in the middle.

> SCGT is a very nice simulation, but it is not as accurate of a
> simulation of GT cars as GPL is of 1967 Grand Prix cars.

> Randy
> Randy Magruder
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>>3) No, its not really a sim since there are things it doesn't model such as
>>tire temps, doesn't have telemetry, etc.  However, its a pretty good racing
>>game (not to say arcade racer either).
>>4) The use of "simulation" on a game is generally the result of the
>>marketing department of the publisher, witness EA Sports and Nascar
>>Revolution.  In none of the marketing ***or stuff that came with the game
>>can I find one mention of the word "simulation", the closest that I've found
>>to say this is the quote "Sports Car GT is the most riveting and ***ing
>>racing game ever made, featuring state of the graphics, and the most
>>realistic physics model ever created for a racing sim. " from the ISI sight.
>>Its a fairly riveting and ***ing racing game, at least for awhile...but
>>no its no GPL and no its not the most realistic physics model ever,
>>especially since at the very least tire temps aren't modeled.  But even
>>though I still get away with things I don't think I should be able to, its
>>detailed enough to give you the sense of driving a race car and not a large
>>polygonal block.

>SCGT is a simulation.  Most racing games are, including the ones we
>all think suck!  The word simulation has become a religious holy grail
>which is bestowed only on a cherished few, but by strict definition,
>it's wrong.  As I state very often in my columns and reviews, by the
>right definition of the word almost every racing game would qualify as
>a simulation.   It is more correct to put an adjective in front of the
>word "simulation".  e.g.

>SCGT is relaxed-physics simulation
>GPL is an excellent simulation
>Newman-Haas Racing is a very inaccurate simulation
>ICR2 was a reasonably accurate simulation but didn't simulate
>everything (such as brake lockups)
>GP2 was well-done simulation that no one could run fast enough

>i.e. you simply cannot defend saying something is NOT a simulation
>based upon the fact that this or that aspect of some other simulation
>is or isn't there.  That's why these turn into religious wars.  Rather
>than leave "simulation" some kind of religious term, let's just admit
>that each development team tries to simulate reality, and some do it
>very well, some do it terribly, and some fall somewhere in the middle.

>SCGT is a very nice simulation, but it is not as accurate of a
>simulation of GT cars as GPL is of 1967 Grand Prix cars.

>Well, this is where it gets ugly.  I made a bold statement and in
>reality I'm not the right person to say that the 67 cars were
>perfectly modelled.  We tend to give Papyrus the benefit of a doubt
>because know how heavily they invested in their physics engine and
>what kind of detail is in it.  As far as Viper is concerned, when I
>reviewed the game I gave it high marks for physics and I think it
>deserved them, but I was concerned somewhat about their company's LACK
>of data from Dodge as well as any kind of company audit to ensure the
>accuracy of the performance envelope of the Viper.  

> I'd love to see the Papys of
> > the world get legislation passed for the use of this word.

> I hope nobody, ever, at any time gets legislation passed on the use of words.

> ~daxe

>   -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
>     http://www.racesimcentral.net/;     The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
> ---------== Over 72,000 Groups, Plus    Dedicated  Binaries Servers ==--------

> I assume you have only played the demo of ICR2.  You DID disable the driver
> aids didn't you!?!  This might explain why you hardly needed to brake.  And
> if you are comparing the sim to GPL then it should be no surprise that a
> sim of cars of the 60's has larger stopping distances than that of cars of
> the 90's!

> Anyway, the demo was limited to a single setup - the default 'Easy' setting
> which makes the car very forgiving.  However, as avid ICR2 gamers will tell
> you, once you start using the faster setups (and even faster setups of your
> own) you soon realise that the car is no longer quite so tolerant.

> Also, the demo had opponent strength fixed at 80%, and an ARCADE damage
> model, amongst other things.

> Yes, GPL is more realistic than ICR2, but it would be unfair to say that
> ICR2 plays like an arcade game (unless that's how you have configured it).

> > even ICR2 is virtually considered arcade! The demo could be
> > driven in a way that defies credability. Almost no braking was
> > required and full throttle application in low speed corners was
> > extremely friendly.