Learn how to change the subject line correctly by removing the last "(was...)" part, noob.
> something like this:
> >Yes, relatively--not SOLEY, however.
> Please don't use non-standard spelling.
Learn how to change the subject line correctly by removing the last "(was...)" part, noob.
> >Yes, relatively--not SOLEY, however.
> Please don't use non-standard spelling.
Learning to think relatively will help you understand how just about every game is a sim and that there are DEGREES (hence the relativity) of simulation.
> A 'simulation' would actually model the equations of motion which can
> be used to calculate the gravitational force on an object. Usually,
> -9.81m/(s^2) will suffice as an approximation of gravitational
> acceleration at the Earth's surface, and when that value of
> acceleration is applied to an object, it falls in a realistic manner.
> Technically, a true 'simulation' would calculate the equation G = (m1
> * m2)/(r^2) for two masses, at a distance r from each other. This is a
> more complete 'simulation' of the effects of gravity, and works in
> cases where the first one does not (ie not at the surface of planet
> Earth, or where another large mass is concerned). Usually for a game,
> this is not necessary, as it approximates to -9.81m/(s^2) anyway.
> So, in conclusion, just because something moves downwards through the
> air, or moves forwards when you push a button marked 'accelerator',
> doesn't mean it is a 'simulation'. Even the best racing 'sims' we play
> today, 'simulate' an extremely small amount of what is actually
> happening, for example, most racing 'sims' model a car engine as two
> torque curves, one at 100% throttle, and one at 0%. They then linearly
> interpolate between these two values at a given RPM to get a resultant
> torque. Is that simulating an engine? In absolutely no way whatsoever,
> but it approximates the output you would get in real life. Does
> Pacejka 'simulate' how tyres work? No, it is a mathematical function
> which generates a graph, and this graph loosely fits over someone's
> experimental data from a real tyre.
> You are thinking that the most basic game is a 'simulation' in the
> most basic sense, while something like NR2002 is a full 'simulator'.
> Well, NR2002 is a 'simulation' in the most basic sense, and we have
> yet to see where more computing power and more understanding of the
> nature of physics will lead us in decades to come.
> > > > > > > > > > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That
> > > counts
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > > simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more
> action-oriented
> > > than
> > > > > > > > > > most sims, it's still a driving simulation series, despite
> > > what
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > "die-hard sim fans" may say.
> > > > > > > > > Oh not YOU again, Mr. Literal, Mr. Clinton, that depends
> on
> > > what
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > meaning of "is" is...
> > > > > > > > > Ok, so the cars don't fly, or go straight through solid
> > > objects.
> > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > are some physics at work. But when people say a "sim" they
> mean
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > pretty close to Real Life(tm). I'd like to see you drive
> half
> > > the
> > > > > speed of
> > > > > > > > > NFS6 and stay on the road. I'd like to see you collide with
> a
> > > tree
> > > > > at 150
> > > > > > > > > MPH and drive away. Please, won't you try it??
> > > > > > > > > The presence of some physics doesn't mean a game is a sim.
> Is
> > > > > Super
> > > > > > > > > Mario Brothers a sim because it has gravity?
> > > > > > > > Yes, it is--relatively. Learn to think relatively and you'll
> > > > > understand
> > > > > > > how just about EVERY game is a sim and how the NFS series is a
> > > driving
> > > > > sim.
> > > > > > > Attempt to think, nitwit.
> > > > > > > While your'e at it; could you please elaborate the true meaning
> of
> > > > > "arcade"
> > > > > > > as well?
> > > > > > I think "arcade" is even more obtuse and vague but to me it
> basically
> > > > > applies to fairly simple (read "mindless") games with LOTS of action
> and
> > > > > very little thought needed to play (which is why "arcade" games make
> up
> > > most
> > > > > console games since they're mainly directed towards kids). "Arcade"
> > > mostly
> > > > > includes elements from platform, sim, and puzzle genres but, of
> course,
> > > > > aren't limited to them only.
> > > > > Is NFS6 an arcade title by your definition?
> > > > The NFS series can be categorized as an arcade driving sim.
> > > > Get a
> > > > decent
> > > > newsreader
> > > > that doesn't chop
> > > > up quoted text.
> > > 1. Let me break the news to you that in RAS, there is a distinction
> between
> > > Arcade and Sim.
> > > They are the opposite of each other.
> > > Arcade != Sim
> > Not absolutely; parts of both can be in the same game, amazingly (for you,
> apparently). Attempt to learn to think relatively, twit.
> In the context of this group, I'm afraid you are wrong.
Of course you didn't. <pats your wittle ignoramus head and chuckles>
Yet another thing you're wrong about. Why else do you think I crossposted to both newsgroups in the first place? Hello...McFly! <bonk>
More than you know.
Ah, yes, spoken like a true noob. <thwap> Attempt to evolve, twit.
<shrug> You're the lamer who brought it up. You're filtered; I tire of dealing with your ineptness, idiot.
--
Ian P
<email invalid due to spam>
--
Morgan.
----
* We have been the dreamers, we have been the sufferers, now we are the
builders. We enter this campaign at this general election, not merely to get
rid of the Tory majority. We want the complete political extinction of the
Tory Party. :- Aneurin Bevan
Webpage: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
--
Ian P
<email invalid due to spam>
> > I wish both of you would learn to snip the irrelevant ***
> By irrelevant I take it that you mean *EVERYTHING* that Eep posts. :-)
> --
> Morgan.
> ----
> * We have been the dreamers, we have been the sufferers, now we are the
> builders. We enter this campaign at this general election, not merely to
get
> rid of the Tory majority. We want the complete political extinction of the
> Tory Party. :- Aneurin Bevan
> Webpage: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Ithankyou.
> > > Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a sim. The NFS series IS a sim (among other things: arcade/action driving sim).
> > The words "arcade" and "sim" are mutually exclusive.
> Only to close-/narrow-minded types like you.
> > From the sounds of the reviews, NFS6 is a step back from even Need
> > for Speed IV in terms of simulation. "Invisible walls"? I don't
> > remember any of those in Need for Speed IV. No in-car view? To me
> > that makes it an arcade game.
> Well, you're wrong--sorry. Games CAN have simulation AND arcade elements, you know. Learn to think relatively and perhaps you'll get a clue.
***ing cunt.
--
smr
I think it's pretty pathetic when you single out a simple acronym (FF,
which everyone else understood), and claimed it "non-standard". I'm
still waiting for you to show me the "acronym standard" that I can
safely use.
Learn how to reply below the text you're replying to, noob. I've
pointed it out to you before, so there's no excuse for your
non-standard replying method now is there, noob.
Without a doubt your skills as a subject changer are superior to
mine... after all, that's about all you seem to do here, noob.
BTW, what was that followup-to address changing all about, noob?
Trying to be clever, noob?
--
- Igor -
> >Pretty pathetic when you single out a simple spelling mistake... <chuckle>
> I think it's pretty pathetic when you single out a simple acronym (FF,
> which everyone else understood), and claimed it "non-standard". I'm
> still waiting for you to show me the "acronym standard" that I can
> safely use.
Top-post replying is perfectly acceptable when not inter-quoted text replying. <shrug> Get over it, putz***.
Simply trying to avert useless responses (like you'll no doubt do again). No worry for me though; you're now filtered.
Funny that you were the only one who saw a problem in it in the first
place. I still think that FF is quite "standard" enough in these two
groups, especially when used in such context. Besides, defining the
acronyms in the beginning won't make them standard.
Thank you for the information... I must admit that I haven't read the
netiquette in years... it probably encourages namecalling these days
too.
Well, filtering me will most likely save both you and me from writing
lots of useless responses. If not that, it will atleast save you from
trying to figure out non-standard acronyms.
--
- Igor -
>Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a
>sim. The NFS series IS a sim (among other things: arcade/action driving sim).
>> > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a
>>> simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most sims,
>>> it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim fans"
>> > may say.
>> I am NOT a die-hard sim fan but I think it is fair to say that in a
>> lot of ways Hot Pursuit 2...at least for the PC... is COMPLETE CRAP!
>> For one, if it is a sim, then it is a sim of a boat on asphalt. The
>> steering lags (it also lacks...of course), is far from precise and the
>> handling of the cars is a real joke!
>> The graphics are not as much of an improvement as one would expect
>> after over two years since NFS:PU was released.
>> Force feedback is also pretty crap. There is virtually no road grip.
>> Even when set to 100% the wheel is just floating left and right...
>> The main issue I have with it is this. NFS5 was a good game. Why
>> couldn't they just take that and make modifications to it. I mean, WHY
>> could they not release something that was better? Should NFS6 not be
>> an improvement over NFS5?
>> As far as I am concerned....the developers of the game should have
>> spent their time fishing...or sleeping...or whatever...Just don't code
>> any more games....PLEASE!
>> Final verdict on the game: Certainly not worth the time it takes to
>> pick it up from the shop - even if it was free. Back to NFS5...
>There is no gravity in Tetris; the blocks don't fall at a constant speed but in
>"steps". However, Hot Pursuit 2 DOES simulate gravity (among other physics) so
>it IS a sim. Duh.
>Learning to think relatively will help you understand how just about every game
>is a sim and that there are DEGREES (hence the relativity) of simulation.
>> I think you are confused about the word 'simulation'. A game like
>> tetris, where the blocks fall down the screen, is not in any way a
>> simulation, but it does have some idea of gravity. The blocks fall at
>> a constant speed, so there is no resultant force acting on the block,
>> so either there is no gravitational force acting on the block, or the
>> block has reached terminal velocity, where the air resistance stops it
>> from accelerating towards the ground. We can discount this second
>> theory because if you had a block which was straight (ie four squares
>> in a row), it would slow down when you rotated it from vertical to
>> horizontal, as there would be more air resistance. So tetris does not
>> model air resistance. Therefore, it does not 'simulate' gravity. It
>> does however have a 'notion' of gravity, as the blocks move down the
>> screen (pixel by pixel), instead of up or diagonally or some other
>> direction. That is obvious, but I spelled it out for you.
>> A 'simulation' would actually model the equations of motion which can
>> be used to calculate the gravitational force on an object. Usually,
>> -9.81m/(s^2) will suffice as an approximation of gravitational
>> acceleration at the Earth's surface, and when that value of
>> acceleration is applied to an object, it falls in a realistic manner.
>> Technically, a true 'simulation' would calculate the equation G = (m1
>> * m2)/(r^2) for two masses, at a distance r from each other. This is a
>> more complete 'simulation' of the effects of gravity, and works in
>> cases where the first one does not (ie not at the surface of planet
>> Earth, or where another large mass is concerned). Usually for a game,
>> this is not necessary, as it approximates to -9.81m/(s^2) anyway.
>> So, in conclusion, just because something moves downwards through the
>> air, or moves forwards when you push a button marked 'accelerator',
>> doesn't mean it is a 'simulation'. Even the best racing 'sims' we play
>> today, 'simulate' an extremely small amount of what is actually
>> happening, for example, most racing 'sims' model a car engine as two
>> torque curves, one at 100% throttle, and one at 0%. They then linearly
>> interpolate between these two values at a given RPM to get a resultant
>> torque. Is that simulating an engine? In absolutely no way whatsoever,
>> but it approximates the output you would get in real life. Does
>> Pacejka 'simulate' how tyres work? No, it is a mathematical function
>> which generates a graph, and this graph loosely fits over someone's
>> experimental data from a real tyre.
>> You are thinking that the most basic game is a 'simulation' in the
>> most basic sense, while something like NR2002 is a full 'simulator'.
>> Well, NR2002 is a 'simulation' in the most basic sense, and we have
>> yet to see where more computing power and more understanding of the
>> nature of physics will lead us in decades to come.
> >Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a
> >sim. The NFS series IS a sim (among other things: arcade/action driving sim).
> >> > Of COURSE it's a sim--it has vehicular physics, yes? That counts as a
> >>> simulation. Duh. While the NFS series is more action-oriented than most sims,
> >>> it's still a driving simulation series, despite what some "die-hard sim fans"
> >> > may say.
> >> I am NOT a die-hard sim fan but I think it is fair to say that in a
> >> lot of ways Hot Pursuit 2...at least for the PC... is COMPLETE CRAP!
> >> For one, if it is a sim, then it is a sim of a boat on asphalt. The
> >> steering lags (it also lacks...of course), is far from precise and the
> >> handling of the cars is a real joke!
> >> The graphics are not as much of an improvement as one would expect
> >> after over two years since NFS:PU was released.
> >> Force feedback is also pretty crap. There is virtually no road grip.
> >> Even when set to 100% the wheel is just floating left and right...
> >> The main issue I have with it is this. NFS5 was a good game. Why
> >> couldn't they just take that and make modifications to it. I mean, WHY
> >> could they not release something that was better? Should NFS6 not be
> >> an improvement over NFS5?
> >> As far as I am concerned....the developers of the game should have
> >> spent their time fishing...or sleeping...or whatever...Just don't code
> >> any more games....PLEASE!
> >> Final verdict on the game: Certainly not worth the time it takes to
> >> pick it up from the shop - even if it was free. Back to NFS5...
> >There is no gravity in Tetris; the blocks don't fall at a constant speed but in
> >"steps". However, Hot Pursuit 2 DOES simulate gravity (among other physics) so
> >it IS a sim. Duh.
> >Learning to think relatively will help you understand how just about every game
> >is a sim and that there are DEGREES (hence the relativity) of simulation.
> >> I think you are confused about the word 'simulation'. A game like
> >> tetris, where the blocks fall down the screen, is not in any way a
> >> simulation, but it does have some idea of gravity. The blocks fall at
> >> a constant speed, so there is no resultant force acting on the block,
> >> so either there is no gravitational force acting on the block, or the
> >> block has reached terminal velocity, where the air resistance stops it
> >> from accelerating towards the ground. We can discount this second
> >> theory because if you had a block which was straight (ie four squares
> >> in a row), it would slow down when you rotated it from vertical to
> >> horizontal, as there would be more air resistance. So tetris does not
> >> model air resistance. Therefore, it does not 'simulate' gravity. It
> >> does however have a 'notion' of gravity, as the blocks move down the
> >> screen (pixel by pixel), instead of up or diagonally or some other
> >> direction. That is obvious, but I spelled it out for you.
> >> A 'simulation' would actually model the equations of motion which can
> >> be used to calculate the gravitational force on an object. Usually,
> >> -9.81m/(s^2) will suffice as an approximation of gravitational
> >> acceleration at the Earth's surface, and when that value of
> >> acceleration is applied to an object, it falls in a realistic manner.
> >> Technically, a true 'simulation' would calculate the equation G = (m1
> >> * m2)/(r^2) for two masses, at a distance r from each other. This is a
> >> more complete 'simulation' of the effects of gravity, and works in
> >> cases where the first one does not (ie not at the surface of planet
> >> Earth, or where another large mass is concerned). Usually for a game,
> >> this is not necessary, as it approximates to -9.81m/(s^2) anyway.
> >> So, in conclusion, just because something moves downwards through the
> >> air, or moves forwards when you push a button marked 'accelerator',
> >> doesn't mean it is a 'simulation'. Even the best racing 'sims' we play
> >> today, 'simulate' an extremely small amount of what is actually
> >> happening, for example, most racing 'sims' model a car engine as two
> >> torque curves, one at 100% throttle, and one at 0%. They then linearly
> >> interpolate between these two values at a given RPM to get a resultant
> >> torque. Is that simulating an engine? In absolutely no way whatsoever,
> >> but it approximates the output you would get in real life. Does
> >> Pacejka 'simulate' how tyres work? No, it is a mathematical function
> >> which generates a graph, and this graph loosely fits over someone's
> >> experimental data from a real tyre.
> >> You are thinking that the most basic game is a 'simulation' in the
> >> most basic sense, while something like NR2002 is a full 'simulator'.
> >> Well, NR2002 is a 'simulation' in the most basic sense, and we have
> >> yet to see where more computing power and more understanding of the
> >> nature of physics will lead us in decades to come.