>What happened to "precise" and "all"? Now we have "most" and "broadly
>similar"
I will use "precise" and "all" if you like, but if the Oxford
dictionary chooses to say "create" and the Chambers says "model"
you're out with the semantics card again.
See above...
You said that there is no black and white - if you have shades of grey
inbetween then by definition you have black and white as the defining
points at either end.
I mentioned it as one being black, the other white - that was my
point.
Ah, my point....
So then by extension of that logic black and white, in any form, do
not exist presumably?
Show them Lankhor's F1 "simulation" when it's released, they'll change
their minds.... :-)
No, and there is the key point. Actually (way back in the mists of
time!) I think someone mentioned buying a game that sucked, and the
discussion w
I could argue that "recreate", as the intransitive verb form of
recreation, is an integral part of all sims since we play them to
relax and have fun - that would of course be an approximately equal
amount of semantical nonsense as your assertion that simulations do
not try to recreate the experience of driving a race-car. Let's not
hide behind dictionary definitions which are obviously not written
with auto-sims as their primary target.
Not in the sense of an auto-simulation. One mirrors life, the other
prcedes it by model what may be made later - the precepts and demands
are different.
You could make a "simulation" in the *** sense of the word, and in
the computer modelling sense of the word, but it would not be in the
same manner as an auto-simulation. How would you know if the flight
model was correct? Of course you wouldn't - in GPL people comment on
the fact that suspension angles are off, colours are slightly
different, engine notes not quite bang-on - that is simulating as
recreating a real world experience, and that is when it is important
to get it right. If a Ferrari 550 didn't exist I could cobble together
NFS3 and tell you it's a perfect simulation of a car that Ferrari
never made - do you see the difference? Maybe the difference is only
important for me, but I see the two as being fundamentally different
in approach.
Not me - truckloads of fun but far from realistic (especially UK and
US versions unfortunately).
It is, I suppose, a form of sim - but what would be the point?
Products like GP2, F1RS etc put a lot of time and effort into creating
a car model because we _know_ (broadly speaking) how a car will react
in a number of given situations - there are so many variables of
setup, conditions, control combinations etc that if you cobble
something together the car is bound to behave pretty strangely at
various points and people will notice. In a "space-sim" no-one could
ever argue the toss about whether it really could pull a turn that
tight or if your proton-quark drive would stall if you forgot to
double declutch into second. I doubt the same level of simulation
would be appropriate.
Likewise, although I've never imagined them to be called sims! The
Space Shuttle one, that could probably claim to be a sim, but then the
whole point of the Space Shuttle is that _nothing_ out of the ordinary
should happen which doesn't sound much fun to me. I'd want at least a
forward firing machine gun and perhaps a few small rocks to throw out
the window on the way down...
I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole - litigation looms in the future
methinks.
Cheers!
John
