rec.autos.simulators

by **Richard Manni** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>>I have to admit it *seems* that way - the mechanics of tyre / road
>>interaction are very poorly understood compared to the relatively
>>straightforward physics of a modern jet fighter, but I wouldn't want to
>>get into a flame war over it ;-)

>>I wonder if any of the flight sims accurately model a stalled aircraft?
>>The maths involved with that seems simply horrendous. If any software
>>house has managed to do that by the physics then I take my hat off to
>>them!

>You misunderstood me too. I meant workload on the user. A fligh-sim
>requires a lot more brain input than a racing sim.

Eh..... I wouldn't bet on that. True, a civilian flight sim has more controls
and instruments to handle, but 95% of the time, things aren't happening that
fast--and the other 5%, you're usually not doing much with radios and such (I
don't tend to be fiddling with such things after the middle marker). A closer
comparison would be a good combat simulator, where things DO tend to be
happening rather quickly. But look at what, in my experience, is the most
useful play mode of a combat sim--the padlock view in Falcon 3.0. Even with all
the patches, it doesn't have much instrumentation... I'd say that going three-
wide into the corner at Martinsville (a recipe for disaster) requires just as
much brain input as dogfighting F3's MiG-19 from Hell...

RM
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~rmanning/vulpineracing.html

by Jo » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>You problem is your video card then. If you reboot into DOS
>the thing will fly on a P5-166. At least it does in Illinois :-)

No, I run it only in native DOS. It IS a good graphics engine, faster
than any other unaccelerated game I've played. But it's just no where
near as fast as 3dfx accelerated games.

Joe

by **Nosfera** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:32:44 -0600, "Greg Cisko"

>Oh in that case is should be so obvious that the flightsims require *MUCH*
>more user input (weapons/radar) that it is not even worth further comment
>on my part. Sorry for butting in :-)

No problem The *** racers won't admit to it anyway. Ignorance is
bliss.
--
Nos

http://www.racesimcentral.net/~nosfer/index.html

by **Nosfera** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:30:20 -0600, "Greg Cisko"

>Actually I have 20-15 eyesight or something like that. It is supposedly
>better than 20/20 (no glasses to contacts). And I'm affraid to say N2
>flew on my P5-166. If has not gotten worse since i went to a
>P5-200MMX. What can I say? I know what I am looking at. And I
>know a crappy framerate when I see it. I don't for N2.

You're right, it doesn't have a crappy frame rate. But, turning the
textures off on objects makes it scream.
--
Nos

http://www.cris.com/~nosfer/index.html

by **Nosfera** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:48:30 -0600, "Greg Cisko"

>WHAT!!!! Have you read anything I said about iF22 in the flightsim NG?
>I would not even try to load that smoldering piece of dung on my machine.
>If papadoc could not get it going right, that was all the info I really
>needed
>(if you remember).

Oops! I thought it was you who recently emailed me and said iF22 runs
smoothly with no pauses on your machine. It couldn't have been you
because he was running on a 75mhz bus and your using 66mhz. You must
have thought, "what the hell is he talking about?" Sorry my mistake.

It doesn't run poorly on my machine, I just like it faster than you. I
run in dos and my svga bench is 74. Hey, my P200 classic is faster
than your P200 mmx. :-)
--
Nos

http://www.cris.com/~nosfer/index.html

by **papa..** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Ah but the point Im making isnt that not participating will DECREASE
the revenue...but by building up this group into something more than a
boys club...(not derogatory) they will MAKE money by being more in
touch with the user base...they will make money by developing rapport
with the guys who make a difference...and forging connections between
what up to now are faceless developers/programmers and team members
and a part of the buying public. Of course this is just a small cross
section but its still a cross section and indeed a bigger crosssection
than they are likey to see coming thru their offices.

Of course before that happens they have to increase traffic here a
bunch....by...
1. Providing links from their Web sites to this group.
2. Always having someone from the company responding in a kind firm
way to all posts....unless borderline crazy.
3. Posting information regarding upcoming patchs...here first....
4. Encouraging Beta Testers to post their HONEST opinions...

This will take an large commitment of patience given the average post
here but after awhile it might make this into a place of value. Indeed
it seems worth a try....

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Infamous
Pink Flamingo Pilot...

by **papa..** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Did someone mention Flanker...????? Someone mention
stalls...spins...weather...winds..crosswinds...BVR..System Failures
..SAMS...nah its not hard...hehehehe.....its EASY.

Its ok Greg Im not getting ready to go on a Rant..really Im
not...<VBG>

PAPA DOC
Pink Flamingo Pilot.....<VBG>

>>Interesting comment and one that I suspect is untrue or at the very
>>least misleading in terms of todays mass market entertainment products.
>>I would say it was untrue also in terms of the physics involved, but
>>that's not a conversation that will have any relevance to computer
>>simulations of real world physics for perhaps hundreds of years.

>What a crock of nothingness. Why don't you go give SU-27 Flanker a
>spin and then come back when you know what the hell you're talking
>about. Until then your input is worthless.
>--
>Nos

>http://www.cris.com/~nosfer/index.html

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Infamous
Pink Flamingo Pilot...

by **John Walla** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:09:21 +0100, Ronald Stoehr

> if you don't like what someone posts
>> then don't read it. Duh........how simple can it be.

But if I can't read it, how am I going to know if I....

Never mind.

Cheers!
John

by **Mikes Design** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Hehe thats pretty dang funny;-) Like calling someone on the phone getting
the wrong number and saying....well why did you answer then 8-0 I like your
sense of humor John! Cya, Mike

by **Greg Cisk** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>You're right, it doesn't have a crappy frame rate. But, turning the
>textures off on objects makes it scream.

I wouldn't know as my textures (and clouds) are all ON.

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

by **Greg Cisk** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Be my guest. I'm not the idiot I once was. I'm a different idiot
now :-) Besides, we're F1 racing buddies now!

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

by **John Walla** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:26:26 -0600, "Greg Cisko"

>Is that all they did? Jeezz. I thought they optomized it or something :-)
>Anyway, I just know it runs just fin on my P5-200MMX and do not
>really think a 3dfx patch would really add much in the way of framerate.

Agreed. However sometimes perception is more important than reality,
and if the market perceives that the product will be better with the
addition of 3dFX support then it can be beneficial to implement it. It
will in any case be good practical experience for future titles I
guess.

Cheers!
John

by **John Walla** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Agreed that N2 was a step forward in framerate, but I'm sure the
decision to reduce the amount of track visible through the windshield
had rather more to do with improving framerate than aesthetic
accuracy.

Cheers!
John

by **Greg Cisk** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>It's far more amazing what you can do when you can afford to optimize
>the texture mapper for a Pentium at the expense of 486-performance
>rather than the other way around... (Because Pentiums are way more
>common *** machines than 486s, which was decidedly not true when N1
>came out...)

Ah ha! This is the reason I remember N2 was much faster than N1. It
was optomized for the pentium! Thanks Jim.

--
Header intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

by **Greg Cisk** » Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:32:44 -0600, "Greg Cisko"

>>Oh in that case is should be so obvious that the flightsims require *MUCH*
>>more user input (weapons/radar) that it is not even worth further comment
>>on my part. Sorry for butting in :-)

>No problem The *** racers won't admit to it anyway. Ignorance is
>bliss.

Ignorance is certainly bliss when it comes to true track renderings
it would seem. In fact I think I have proved that much :-)

--
Header intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

>--
>Nos

>http://www.racesimcentral.net/~nosfer/index.html

rec.autos.simulators

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??

Nascar 2 3DFx patch. How hard can it be??