rec.autos.simulators

They are also not interchangeable, but there is a distinct shift
between one and the other. Military flight trainers are sims, Firefox
was a game, in between lies everything else, but you can define it as
being closer to one or the other depending upon the intent of the
designer or the quality of the finished article. Is Chicago closer to
New York or Los Angeles?

Perfect fidelity is possible only from the situation you are
simulating. What it implies is striving toward perfect fidelity.

Of _course_ it has to be of something that exists - how can you
possibly try to "recreate" something that doesn't exist in the first
place?

Agreed.

Buyer beware, every time. If anyone still swallows hype and
advertising hyperbole I don't see much for them to complain about.

Cheers!
John

There's almost always something amazing in each game and the
developers/publishers deserve our thanks. Also, I think sim racing is an
incredible bargain compared to most hobbies. $40.00 for God knows how many
hours of enjoyment?

Right now, I place all the quality car sims at about the 7 position on a
scale of 1-10. There's differences among them, but not enough for me to go
overboard with praise or criticism. "10" being a sim which a real race car
driver could use daily to practice with in the same way pilots and
astronauts do with their flight sims. I think it will be a long time yet
before we have that type of sim in our home for a number of obvious reasons.

I do think that there may be a sim coming out soon which will make the move
to the 8 spot though. :-)

David G Fisher

BTW, my old dictionary lists the definition of a simulate as:
"to create or effect the appearance of: feign".
Doesn't help much, does it?

That is more germane to the point.  However, I think the crux of the original
posters remark, and my reply, is that there *isn't* a clearly accepted
definition even in this genre.  Though like the supreme court justices remark
on ***ography, I think we all can tell it when we see it (though our eyes are
all different).

100 % agreement.  Thus my "shades of grey" comments.

First, "recreate" isn't the definition of simulation.

Second, No!  For example, at work I am modeling a reactor that does not exist.
This is in an attempt to shorten the design period, to gain insight into the
issues, and to estimate how it will interact with the rest of the system.  
Some of this system exists, some is also being simulated. I'm simulating a
plausible system based on known physical and chemical laws and data.  If you
want to differentiate this as a model, and not as a simulation, feel free.  
That's a subtelty that I think is not worthy of debate.  

Closer to home, if I take a simulation of a Corvette, but add a 20 psi blower
onto it (or choose some other reasonable mod that hasn't been applied to a
Corvette), is it now not a simulation?

Or are no "space sims" sims?  Well, in truth, most of them are so far away
from real physics that one can legitimately argue that they are not.  But is
MS Space sim not a sim if it includes something other than the Space Shuttle?

Devil's advocating aside, do you really believe elsewise?

Thanks.

The shared secret is that we LOVE to criticise.  I'm sure there are many of
us, at least at various times, who analyze, nit pick, and post more than we
play the damned things!  And that's our perogative of course.

I nit pick as much as most any.  But once in a while, I step back and think
"they did all this and charge only $40!!!".  Amazing stuff (well, sometimes
:-)

Also, we all have different $ values.  I see some who say "that's worth $20,
not $40".  Or "I wouldn't pay $40 and get only 10, 20 hours of entertainment.  
Sure, $ values take on a relative nature.  We won't pay $80 since we are used
to $30.  But we (well some) will pay $100 for a good meal out which lasts for
2 hrs. Or more for some running shoes.  Relative values.

Perhaps it is best that we continue to ***, whine, and complain.  It may
keep the developers on their toes and the prices down to boot.  But we
should also give them their due (I mean thanks :-)).  Let's not scare them
away!

Only ultra real games like GPL would get a gold, and games like SCGT that
have good physics but have some downfalls like no tire wear would get a
bronze, players could go to a web site for a brief description of why this
got the award it did.

Another thing would be careful to not put so much bearing on graphics and
user interface career mode options, just how well the game simulates the
racing events, allthough it wouldn't be good to suppoert a game ridden with
bugs.

this is all very debatable, but needs set parameters to which to grade from.

And why would company accept to do so ?  It would never happen.

Companies like EA sport who like to push their marketing to the limits of
fair-play would never accept to do so. We all know Papyrus titles or even
titles made by Geoff Crammond are serious simulators, with the limitations
of their era's and game engines.  But why would a company that wants to go
as high as their level would accept to be "labeled" with a sticker on the
box that says that the physics are not perfectly modeled.

No standard, won't happen unfortunately (never said it was bad, but it will
never happen).

Just think that the organization is rec.autos.simulators. Read posts. Make
up your mind.  Buy in an intelligent way.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- May the Downforce be with you...

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

why wouldn't a game company want this on their box?

I would be _very_ surprised if most dictionaries were not broadly
similar.

There is no "one" definition, but we're all capable of telling at
which end of the scale things fall. NFS3 is unashamedly arcade, GPL is
completely simulation - it's when things are in between that there is
somewhat of a grey area, but it's not that tough to place. The key
point being that there _is_ a difference between that which is a
simulation and that which is a "game" (arcade). To say there isn't,
and that NFS3 and GPL address the same audience is like selling a
Boeing 747 for catapult shots of the USS Eisenhower.

It's a essential part of what simulations are about.

What you are simulating is something which could exist and may well
exist - it's taking known data and parameters and modelling how they
will react together - you are working within the realms of the known.
What I believe you can't simulate is, say, an X-Wing. How do you model
a quark-level proton drive and how it will perform in various
situations? That cannot be "simulated".

Cheers!
John

Now hold on there just a minute - are you contending that Sims like GPL don't
count as PC games?

I disagree. If General Hootenany decides tomorrow that he believes the airforce
needs an X-wing, what's he gonna do? He's gonna hire some lowest-bidding
contractor to do it. What are they gonna do? They're going to make a computer
"simulation" of how the thing will work.

I think what's needed here is a specification of simulation between "imitative"
simulations (simulating that which is known) and "speculative" simulations
(simulating that which is not known) Following this model, Nascar '99 is an
imitative simulation of Nascar racing, while (shudder) Jeff Gordon's XS racing
is a speculative simulation of Nascar racing.

simulation to keep me interested, but still ton's O fun.

buzard

buzard

First,
WARNING: self-absorbed net debating/drivel ahead.  Read at your own risk.

Next, lets put in some of the past postings that you decided not to include
and see how your responses hold up...

[from previous posts in this thread]
[me]

I'll concede this one! ...
..That is, if there was a precise and all-encompassing definition, my
statement is erroneous.  However, you aren't going to find any definition in
the dictionary that will help you discern whether GP2 is a sim and TOCA2 is
not.  That is why I called it irrelevant, ie not germane to the subject of
interest.

What happened to "precise" and "all"?  Now we have "most" and "broadly
similar".  That would certainly lend credence to them being irrelevant to the
discussion (and aside for debating purposes, I suspect you accept that).  And
are you tacitly conceding that there is no "precise" definition?

Further, since neither of us are going to check 10,20, 200 dictionaries, I'll
just counter with:
 "I would be _very_ suprised if most dictionaries _were_ broadly similar".  
Without backing this up with data, both yours and mine are throw-away lines.

Please show me where I imply otherwise.  I mentioned similar in my first post
and even agreed with you when you brought it up a second time.  Now you raise
this "strawman" yet again?  This point has never been in doubt.  For the
record...
[me]
[and again]
[you]

If you say my "no black and white" means I don't agree with your GPL/NFS3
statement, you might have an argument.  However, I'd counter with your "in
between lies everything else" to be contradictory with your GPL/NFS3
example as they are by definition two of those "elses", thus in between.

To make it clearer,  I'll state for the record:
GPL is IMO the highest fidelity auto sim game around.

I haven't played NFS3 as it didn't interest me.  While I know it is geared to
the arcade audience, I don't know how many "simulation" elements it has.  I
have talked to pretty reasonable car guys who had positive things to say about
the driving model of NFS3 or earlier NFS titles.  Now, you might find that
unbelievable or ignorant, but to them, it would be a sim.  I might call it an
arcade game, you do, but again, not everyone does.  One must conclude it isn't
clearly black or white to some.

Now, again, who said "there isn't"?  Certainly not me. How does this argue for
a clear definition of sim.  Saying that black and white exist doesn't get us
to the task of discerning from the many shades of grey.

Show me the dictionary definition that states this.  Mine doesn't.

Let's go back to the postings that preceded this...
[me]

Is it "recreating"?  No, it isn't.
And since you are not arguing against my reactor model being a simulation, are
you agreeing now that:
(1) A sim *can* model something the does NOT exist?
(2) As I am not recreating, recreating is thus not an "essential"?

Nowhere did you previously imply that simulation includes "could exist", you
said "something that exists".  So, you would agree with me that one could make
a sim of the aborted Stealth Attack plane?  Many in the fs group would
disagree.  Again, we can't even decide that point, nevermind SCGT vs TOCA2.  
Or Gran Turismo (many claim it is the most realistic).

This gets more difficult.  I'm not sure where I come down on this.  Obviously,
X-Wing (nor Wing Commander) does not simulate a physical universe as we know
it.  It is a "recreation"  (your essential!) of the Star Wars "universe", a
pretty good one.  Is that a sim?  One can postulate different physical laws
and then model/simulate their interaction.  Is that a sim?  I don't know.

Perhaps the best *** mag, CGW, has a "space sim" category.  So they
consider WC, XW, DF, etc to be "sims".  Sounds like you don't.  I probably
agree with you, but I'm not going to get histrionic if someone does call them
a sim (though I suspect we might want to get into a debate on it :-)).  I'll
play it if I like it.

Back to the original thread, the concept of defining a sim and forcing the
game developers to fully disclose and comply, or of setting up some agreed
upon (us, agree on *anything*!?!) body to preside over the definition of a sim
is a pipe dream.  Actually, I'd call it a nightmare.

And to you...

The point really is that it would be meaningless.  A game company that didn't
earn the 'Sim Racers of America' gold seal would just invent their own group of
'experts', call it "Sim gamers of America" and put a nearly identical gold
sticker on their own box.

The only people who would know about (or care about) the sticker and the people
who recommended it would be Sim racing fans who would likely already know about
the game.   AS far as Jane and John Q Public, the 'sim racers of america' and
the 'sim gamers of america' are just as good as each other, presuming they
notice or even read the sticker.

~daxe

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