rec.autos.simulators

> >Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers?

> >> We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games
> >> here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or
> >> learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way
> >> too small.

> With an annual turnover of more than Fifty Thousand Million dollars
> ($50,000,000,000) I think Sony could probably afford an F1 car or two
> if they so wished...

> Cheers!
> John

>>Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers?

>>> We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games
>>> here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or
>>> learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way
>>> too small.

>With an annual turnover of more than Fifty Thousand Million dollars
>($50,000,000,000) I think Sony could probably afford an F1 car or two
>if they so wished...

>Cheers!
>John

> yes but the telemetry tell them the wing settings, tyre setting, camber setting
> etc. They can see what adjusting gizmo b will do to measurement x. They know for
> instance the maximum and minimum camber adjustment and the telemetry reading from
> the variations in this adjustment. This is the information they need. It would be
> nice to know the wheelbase or track width but really, since they aren't adjustable
> in F1 cars, who really cares.

> > >Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers?

> > >> We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games
> > >> here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or
> > >> learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way
> > >> too small.

> > With an annual turnover of more than Fifty Thousand Million dollars
> > ($50,000,000,000) I think Sony could probably afford an F1 car or two
> > if they so wished...

> > Cheers!
> > John

> > yes but the telemetry tell them the wing settings, tyre setting, camber setting
> > etc. They can see what adjusting gizmo b will do to measurement x. They know for
> > instance the maximum and minimum camber adjustment and the telemetry reading from
> > the variations in this adjustment. This is the information they need. It would be
> > nice to know the wheelbase or track width but really, since they aren't adjustable
> > in F1 cars, who really cares.

> Nice discussion we're having here, Mark! :-)

> But, IMO, wouldn't this also mean that you would require;

> 1) Telemetry readouts from all the cars, with a readout of each possible
> combo of settings
> 2) Telemetry readouts from all the tracks, in variying track
> temperatures

> i.e a combo of both 1&2, wouldn't it be easier to have the chassis
> implemented in
> the physcics model, and let it respond to different tracks, weather,
> settings?
> Not to mention cheaper?

> > It is all just mathematics up to a point. If they could find a proper AI formula to
> > measure a Shuey vs a Coultard or a Doohan vs a Biaggi it would be fantastic!
> > Perhaps the first measurement they should take is the size of their balls! I don't
> > think Coultard's got any after his performance in the last race.

> Now that is THE challenge! Frankly, I haven't raced against AI much
> since N2, I find online racing
> far more enjoyable, but computing AI is interesting...simulating brain
> fade, or the possibility
> of a driver crashing his car, and keep going to take his rival out
> (schumacher) or even thump soebody after
> crossing the line (Gordon) :-)

> Maybe they removed the wrong lumps in that operation DC had a few years
> ago :-)

> Matt

> --

> Matthew Knutsen

> "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons
> http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

> >Yeah, and if it cost them $100,000,000 in research to produce an F1 game that
> >makes a profit of  $20,000,000 they will be happy?

> The question was that companies like Sony et al couldn't afford it, to
> which I pointed out that they could. Whether they would be happy would
> be another matter.

> I also think you overestimate how much an F1 car costs - probably
> closer to $1m if you omit development costs etc. They could have
> picked up a complete Simtek car for less than that after the 94
> season, and I'm sure they could buy last season's Tyrrell quite
> reasonably. Since their license is usually at least one and usually
> two years out of date that would seem reasonable.

> It would all be a waste of time though, since real world physics do
> not necessarily transalte into a convincing simulation, and even if it
> did I know there are many cheaper ways of making us believe it to be
> real.

> Cheers!
> John

> > Yeah, and if it cost them $100,000,000 in research to produce an F1 game that
> > makes a profit of  $20,000,000 they will be happy?

> > > >Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers?

> > > >> We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games
> > > >> here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or
> > > >> learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way
> > > >> too small.

> > > With an annual turnover of more than Fifty Thousand Million dollars
> > > ($50,000,000,000) I think Sony could probably afford an F1 car or two
> > > if they so wished...

> > > Cheers!
> > > John