rec.autos.simulators

Basically, Crammond says that he likes to design his games with
his own direction - he doesn't like to copy what others have
done before so he's only had a brief look at the competition
( e.g. IndyCar ).

Screenshots so far are from the completed Suzuka circuit in
Japan. Cars displayed all have correct liverage for the 1994
G.P. season. In addition, the cars are each shaped slightly
differently ( e.g. raised nose on a Ferrari, droop nose on
the Williams ). Textured sand-traps are visible at certain
corners around the track which will be a welcome addition in
the realism department. Also, the drivers turn their heads in
the direction the car is turning into a corner in a much more
realistic fashion than F1GP. Each car will have its own
individual***pit layout.

Crammond claims that PC hardware has just about kept pace with
his algorithm developments - expect around 20 fps on a "top-of-
the-range" Pentium ( whatever speed that is? ). Graphic detail
can be turned off to achieve a good frame-rate on lower spec
machines. The majority of the processor time goes on the texture
mapping with a smaller fraction on the lightsourcing and shine
and a smaller again amount on the 'simulator'. Despite this,
Crammond insists that the simulator ( physics, AI etc.. ) has
been greatly enhanced for F1GP2 with drivers that block and get
upset. Variable weather has also been included in the race. In
the sound department, we are promised realistic 'doppler-effect'
sonics.

The game is due to be released in September '95 ( read December
for a realistic release date!! ) on one CD. It should support
head-head play with network play a possibility. MicroProse
originally indended to release with SVGA intros and VGA in-game
graphics but they have decided to upgrade the in-game textures
for optional SVGA play, presumably in reaction to other new SVGA
games on the market ( NASCAR and the forthcoming IndyCar2 ).

Fraser

If it were a true simulation, the cars would not just run forever
without breaking down.  The only way to DNF is to hit something!

It does not sound like this concept has been introduced into WC2
either.

Any commnets?

Nathan  

If it were true, I would probably be dead from all the *** wrecks I had. I see your
point, but i would rather race the car then watch if from the pits. I rather watch a tape of
an actual F1 race on TV as opposed to sitting in the pits due to a mechanical.

: If it were a true simulation, the cars would not just run forever
: without breaking down.  The only way to DNF is to hit something!

: It does not sound like this concept has been introduced into WC2
: either.

: Any commnets?

No thanks for me!  My favorite would be an IROC style race, my driving
skills count rather than my willingness to spend time tweaking car
settings.  I would still like to have a feature like adjusting the
computer cars in case my driving was not adequate.  

If I were to be stuck with too much realism, I'd take the 1994 Ford
Bennetton.  That car could always win except for breakdowns and
crashes, it was even the best car on the track when stuck in 5th gear!
(or was it second place for Schumacher in that race?)
--
Brian R. Mayer                                           Regulatory Systems

      "Consensus is the negation of leadership." -Margaret Thatcher

Having this type of feature in a racing simulations opens up so many
other thinks.  You could actually plan team tatics and plot a race
strategy.  If I know that I am following a car with questionable
reliability, I do not need to risk an accident by immediately trying to
pass him.

How many races did Lauda, Stewart and Prost win by paitently waiting
for their opponents to crash or break down?  In 1975, J.P. Jarier had
pole in Argentina only to have his car break on the warm-up lap!

As it stands now WC is nothing more that a glorified video game and
totally un-realistic.  The support rep. at MicroProse was just to dense
to grasp the comcept that a "simulation" is just like the real thing,
and WC is no where near real F1 racing.

WookMan

Ultimatly, all a software writer has to do is have a menu with all the options
available.
For example, many people agree that F1GP's long success was the fact that it
was very easy to drive straight away, unlike Indycar which took me a few months
to master.

If they can cram a game with as much realism as possible but have the option
to turn things off, surely the game will appeal to a wider rage of game players
from those who like arcade style games to serious racing sime drivers.

Jed

|> : I have had several long and frustrating conversations with a Microprose
|> : rep. on AOL about the lack of car reliability in WC 1.  I truly like
|> : the game but without any chance of having a car DNF due to mechanical
|> : ills, I look at it as just a game rather than a simulation.
|>
|> : If it were a true simulation, the cars would not just run forever
|> : without breaking down.  The only way to DNF is to hit something!
|>
|> : It does not sound like this concept has been introduced into WC2
|> : either.
|>
|> : Any commnets?
|>
|> No thanks for me!  My favorite would be an IROC style race, my driving
|> skills count rather than my willingness to spend time tweaking car
|> settings.  I would still like to have a feature like adjusting the
|> computer cars in case my driving was not adequate.  
|>
|> If I were to be stuck with too much realism, I'd take the 1994 Ford
|> Bennetton.  That car could always win except for breakdowns and
|> crashes, it was even the best car on the track when stuck in 5th gear!
|> (or was it second place for Schumacher in that race?)

A *LITTLE* realism would be great. For example, if I set the gear ratio too
slow and over-rev the engine, then the engine will over-heat and even catch
fire (or loses reliability). This simple thing is missing from WC1. Another
example, if I shift gears at the wrong time then I would damage the gearbox or
whatever bad might happen...

However, I agree that too much realism is no good. I don't want to be forced
to drop out for oil pressure or electrical problems etc. And it is a good idea
to have the option to adjust the realism levels. BTW, the level of realism of
the good old INDY 500 is just about right...

What I expect from WC2/F1GP2:
- Tire blow if worn out excessively
- Engine blow if over-revved
- Non-race-ending damage other than just front and rear wing (e.g. tire blow)
- More mechanical break-down by AI cars
- you add more

BTW, Michael Schumacher did finish 2nd in the 1994 Spanish GP in Barcelona. His
car was stuck in 5th gear half-way through the race and was able to continue.
He even made a pit stop and was able to launch the car from a stand still using
5th gear. I went back to my computer to try this out after I watched that race
and I found that my time wasn't terribly bad. I was only 2 to 3 seconds slower
than that with a fully functional gearbox. Perhaps it depends a lot on the
circuit itself. I doubt I would do it similarly on Monaco, though.

Happy waiting for F1GP2...

--

Computer Systems Engineering       | FIAT -- Fix It Again Today
Carleton University, Ottawa        | What does BNR stand for?
Bell-Northern Research Ltd. (BNR)  | "Brain Not Required."

Yes!
I think F1GP2 should be both a real racing simulator.  (i.e. Car breakdowns)
and a game (i.e. Can't die if I try).

If it's not going to have proper car malfunctions, then I won't be happy.
It won't ever be a REAL racing simulator if the car runs reliable the whole
race.  
How many times has a driver been in with a real chance only for their car to
expire?  I know I've been there!

I think ESSENTAIL introductions to the next game/simulator are..

1).     Ability to Change Qualifing Fuel Loads / Race Fuel Loads
2).     Brake Balance Adjust while driving
3).     Engine failures / Misfires (Due to miss use or following other cars
too much)
4).     I think intelligent opposition are a must.  i.e. push in different
parts of a race / driving defensibly / Aggressive
5).     Data Logging facilities built into the simulator. With recommendations
for improvements
6).     Tracks that dry out after rain / variable weather
7).     Gearbox problems (Gears missing / Sticking)
8).     Gravel Traps
9).     Damage from Kerbs (i.e. Slight setting changes)
10).    Two Seperate Qualifing Sessions !! (Different Conditions)
11).    Loss of downforce on corners when following other cars
12).    Proper grass
13).    Greater undulation
14).    Bumps
15).    Oil on visor from following cars closely
16).    A dedicated Steering Wheel and Pedal Set.

Things which should be missed out.

1).     Race Refuelling (Oh..hang on a minute!)
2).     A GAME which is just basically just a graphical improvment on the
first

** ANY ONE GOT ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? **

Can I mail Microprose direct?

Regards
<Mark 'A Racing Driver' Gibbons>

|> I think ESSENTAIL introductions to the next game/simulator are..
|>
|> 1).       Ability to Change Qualifing Fuel Loads / Race Fuel Loads
|> 2).       Brake Balance Adjust while driving
|> 3).       Engine failures / Misfires (Due to miss use or following other cars
|> too much)
|> 4).       I think intelligent opposition are a must.  i.e. push in different
|> parts of a race / driving defensibly / Aggressive
|> 5).       Data Logging facilities built into the simulator. With recommendations
|> for improvements
|> 6).       Tracks that dry out after rain / variable weather
|> 7).       Gearbox problems (Gears missing / Sticking)
|> 8).       Gravel Traps
|> 9).       Damage from Kerbs (i.e. Slight setting changes)
|> 10).      Two Seperate Qualifing Sessions !! (Different Conditions)
|> 11).      Loss of downforce on corners when following other cars
|> 12).      Proper grass
|> 13).      Greater undulation
|> 14).      Bumps
|> 15).      Oil on visor from following cars closely
|> 16).      A dedicated Steering Wheel and Pedal Set.
|>
|>
|> Things which should be missed out.
|>
|> 1).       Race Refuelling (Oh..hang on a minute!)
|> 2).       A GAME which is just basically just a graphical improvment on the
|> first
|>
|>
|> ** ANY ONE GOT ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? **

I agree. I'll add some more:
17). Different pit-stop times for different teams, some teams have efficient
     pit-stops (e.g. McLaren, Bennetton), and some have lousy pit-stops (e.g.
     Ferrari, Williams)
18). Better replay facility
19). Better sound
20). Option to not replace tires on a wing(s) damage (WC1 was dumb!)

--
                       Isaac Wong
Protel Compiler Group       | Department of Systems and Computer Engineering
Bell-Northern Research Ltd. | Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

You'll have to wait until F1GP2 (WC2 in your case) then. It looks *superb*.
Anyway, the backgrnd looks fuzzy, but maybe because they were driving fast when
making screenshots :)

Regards

---------------------------------------
  This message was brought to you by

---------------------------------------

Some of the circuits are way too narrow compared to the real ciruits out
there. I hope the F1GP2 would improve this a bit...

Eric

-- Gizmo
http://www.mal.com/~dgymer/
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Peter T
Naples, FL