rec.autos.simulators

by **David Mast** » Tue, 04 May 1999 04:00:00

>Hello Fellow R.A.S Readers;
>I have read as many posts as I can on this subject. I've read
>many great "subjective" opinions. Also using the definition in
>the Oxford Dictionary? Hmmm? Not sure here?

Okay, it went a little overboard :-)
Sort of my point. Lets face it, this is us just mental ***.

Depends on the store. Most just throw all the car games in together, ditto
for flight sims (err, games). The really bad stores just line everything up
alphabetically :-(

Don't know what you are asking.

One reason why it wouldn't work. I for one don't need, nor want, any panel to
do so. I can read the previews and reviews and decide. And almost every game
now has a playable demo which answers most questions. True, sometimes it is
misleading. SCGT was verging on failure with the sim crowd until the realism
patch came out. And that was even after some "trusted" RAS "experts" had
waxed enthusiastically about it. These "trusted" experts, probably the ones
that would be advocated as panel-members, were then attacked as being biased
and bought-out. Frankly, I wanted more data. And the realism patch addressed
this quite well.

By its nature, I think it had to go that way. If one is going to suggest some
panel to grant a game the hallowed classification of "sim", then we better
find out if we can agree (and I would strongly argue we can't) on what a sim
is and isn't.

by **David G Fishe** » Tue, 04 May 1999 04:00:00

I should of said "CD player".

David G Fisher

> > There's nothing too realistic, regardless of which CD is in our
> > hard drive,
> Huh?

> daxe

by **John Walla** » Tue, 04 May 1999 04:00:00

So if you have 100 things which can be modelled what if, say, 50 of
them were done in a given product, is it a sim? How about 60? 40
perhaps? Seems a bit of a grey area. Black and white are easy, there
are lots of shades of grey inbetween. It's only if someone says "60%
must be included" that it's back and white, but ah, then we come to
_which_ 60% are the important ones..still grey.

You mentioned for example that online play is the single critical
definition of a sim these days, where I totally disagree - NFS3 has
online play, so do a million other products but that doesn't make them
sims. It's a factor that's important in a good sim product, but it's
not what makes it what it is.

That was pretty dodgy reviewing without a doubt.

Cheers!
John

by **John Walla** » Tue, 04 May 1999 04:00:00

On Sun, 02 May 1999 22:22:08 +0100, Paul Jones

>Ah, linguistics! The problem with dictionary definitions is that they describe the
>"use" of a word. They are descriptive and not proscriptive. They can only be
>precise if the common use is precise - i.e. the word "nine***" has a very precise
>meaning upon which every dictionary and almost every English speaker will agree.

Not me :-) I bet the would forget Paul Hardcastle in the dictionary -
N-n-n-n-n-nine***!

Cheers!
John

by **Jerry** » Tue, 04 May 1999 04:00:00

Poor sales usually gets the message across.

I bow to the Papyrus gurus!
Jerry

by **David Mast** » Tue, 04 May 1999 04:00:00

>You mentioned for example that online play is the single critical
>definition of a sim these days, where I totally disagree

I skipped some posts...did he really say that? If so, this shows how off the
track we are in agreeing. I'm with you. It might be something that one may
find necessary for their true enjoyment, and/or a requirement for purchase,
but it has little to nothing to do with what I would call a sim. Take on-line
play out of GPL and it is no longer a sim? When you play it offline, it isn't
a sim? Maybe I'm taking him out of context.

by **^Frett** » Tue, 04 May 1999 04:00:00

I know my #2 was "kinda" garbled {it was hard to put in words
and make it short} but you did undertand & your reply {for me}
answered my question.. Thanx... Thom_j. aka ^Fretts...

> > # 2 Are any-all sims-arcades made by the afor mentioned
> > companies; Made-designed as arcade-sim games & what
> > seems to determine {or deciding factors} in making these
> > categories arcade verses sim? (yikes tough to verbalize!}
> > Revised; Thom_j. aka ^Fretts..

> Hmm ok (I think I understood).

> I guess it's just a development thing. Some developers want to produce an
> arcade racer. There is multiple of reasons. It's a nice market, where you
> can produce on both PC and consoles. Since the mass market will easily get
> tired of a software and jump to another, you need to make him happy and
> quickly.

> Thus you need to create easier challenges, to as I said make him happy so he
> will continue with thus the same software. It's also easier to do in a
> sense that you can go around the physics laws and create a handling that is
> easier. But at the same time, the arcade racing market is full of titles,
> so it's difficult to create a title that will be over the others. One that
> goes into my mind is Powerslide.

> --
> -- 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."

no_spam.n2rif1.vcf
< 1K Download

by **Byron Forbe** » Wed, 05 May 1999 04:00:00

Well one thing's for sure, we're certainly getting off the track :)

> >You mentioned for example that online play is the single critical
> >definition of a sim these days, where I totally disagree

> I skipped some posts...did he really say that? If so, this shows how off the
> track we are in agreeing. I'm with you. It might be something that one may
> find necessary for their true enjoyment, and/or a requirement for purchase,
> but it has little to nothing to do with what I would call a sim. Take on-line
> play out of GPL and it is no longer a sim? When you play it offline, it isn't
> a sim? Maybe I'm taking him out of context.

by **Byron Forbe** » Wed, 05 May 1999 04:00:00

> > Well, there are definantly black and whites. Something is either
> >modeled or it isn't for starters. And then we can talk to what degree.
> >Seems pretty black and white to me.

> So if you have 100 things which can be modelled what if, say, 50 of
> them were done in a given product, is it a sim? How about 60? 40
> perhaps? Seems a bit of a grey area. Black and white are easy, there
> are lots of shades of grey inbetween. It's only if someone says "60%
> must be included" that it's back and white, but ah, then we come to
> _which_ 60% are the important ones..still grey.

If there was a list of things with a sim then it would certainly be
black and white as to what it was all about. You guys were talking about
the word "sim" in general whereas I went off on a bit of a tangent of my
own talking of specific things. Probably my mistake.

Wooooooo up there Johnny! :) "Single critical definition" I did not
say. I said "key component". And let me go on a bit about this too.
Why spend oodles of time creating something like "the most
intelligent and advanced computer opponents in history" when you can
simply have that from online play (arguably VBG). Even from an Aussie
perspective of relatively warpy online play, I have no interest in
offline racing whatsoever. I suppose I should add though that I have
done a hell of a lot of offline racing Vs CCs which explains some of
this I suppose. But the present situation with SCGT in this reguard
makes it a definate NO BUY IMO.
Also, I get the impression that SCGT has been sold giving the
impression that TCP and IPX are in there which is misleading. If that
doesn't mean a minimum of 10 people at once (and I think this is a very
generous amount I have chosen here) then I call that false advertising.

by **John Walla** » Wed, 05 May 1999 04:00:00

It wouldn't, that's the point I was making. Unless a sim has _none_ of
the requirements to qualify or all of them then it is still open to
subjective interpretation.

Before you do, I should say it may well be a critical component of a
good product but it is certainly not a defining criteria for what is a
sim or not. By that token GP2, ICR2, NASCAR Racing etc are _not_ sims,
yet NFS3 is. Again, that was the point I was making.

How often do you get a race on VROC where you can comfortably race a
minimum of 10 people at once from Oz?

Cheers!
John

by **Mark C Dod** » Wed, 05 May 1999 04:00:00

I get so many flames lately I am getting a bit crispy around the edges.....

> >The following is my humble opinion. Please, no flames.....

> No flames. I'll even refrain from making this a semantic debate :-)

> >To classify as a sim an auto game needs four things....

> First, you are real tough, anyone ever thell you that? :-)

> >1 to 3 are mostly covered by what most people in this forum consider sims.
> >GPL, GP2, Superbikes and Viper racing.

> >Number 4 is yet to be really tackled by anybody

> So, none are sims then?

> I'd be less restrictive. I won't say what is or isn't a sim, but I will say
> what I look for in a flight or auto sim:

> Realistic physics
> Realistic AI
> Good graphics
> Good framerate

> I'd like:
> Lots of cars, each with individual handling,***pit, graphics like that of
> the real one.
> Real tracks, well modeled

> The career or upgrade as you earn are interesting and make a nice ***
> environment, but not req'd for me.

> I could get more specific, but it's late.

by **John Bod** » Wed, 05 May 1999 04:00:00

Could be worse -- you could be a diehard IRL fan, too . . . <G>

-- JB

>> >The following is my humble opinion. Please, no flames.....

>> No flames. I'll even refrain from making this a semantic debate :-)

>> >To classify as a sim an auto game needs four things....

>> First, you are real tough, anyone ever thell you that? :-)

>> >1 to 3 are mostly covered by what most people in this forum consider sims.
>> >GPL, GP2, Superbikes and Viper racing.

>> >Number 4 is yet to be really tackled by anybody

>> So, none are sims then?

>> I'd be less restrictive. I won't say what is or isn't a sim, but I will say
>> what I look for in a flight or auto sim:

>> Realistic physics
>> Realistic AI
>> Good graphics
>> Good framerate

>> I'd like:
>> Lots of cars, each with individual handling,***pit, graphics like that of
>> the real one.
>> Real tracks, well modeled

>> The career or upgrade as you earn are interesting and make a nice ***
>> environment, but not req'd for me.

>> I could get more specific, but it's late.

by **^Frett** » Wed, 05 May 1999 04:00:00

Now! Now! John I spent many hours with my ICR1&2 plus I've been
to many IRL races.. Yes I know good for me..<VBG>
Thom_j. aka ^Fretts

> >I get so many flames lately I am getting a bit crispy around the edges.....

> Could be worse -- you could be a diehard IRL fan, too . . . <G>

> -- JB

> >> >The following is my humble opinion. Please, no flames.....

> >> No flames. I'll even refrain from making this a semantic debate :-)

> >> >To classify as a sim an auto game needs four things....

> >> First, you are real tough, anyone ever thell you that? :-)

> >> >1 to 3 are mostly covered by what most people in this forum consider sims.
> >> >GPL, GP2, Superbikes and Viper racing.

> >> >Number 4 is yet to be really tackled by anybody

> >> So, none are sims then?

> >> I'd be less restrictive. I won't say what is or isn't a sim, but I will say
> >> what I look for in a flight or auto sim:

> >> Realistic physics
> >> Realistic AI
> >> Good graphics
> >> Good framerate

> >> I'd like:
> >> Lots of cars, each with individual handling,***pit, graphics like that of
> >> the real one.
> >> Real tracks, well modeled

> >> The career or upgrade as you earn are interesting and make a nice ***
> >> environment, but not req'd for me.

> >> I could get more specific, but it's late.

no_spam.n2rif1.vcf
< 1K Download

by **Kai Fulle** » Sat, 08 May 1999 04:00:00

First of all TCP\IP is supported, not internet play. TCP\IP is not a
networking code exclusive to internet, it is very commonly used in LAN's.

While it may be poorly implemented, it does work. Do you expect them to say
on their box "***NEW*** IPX and TCP\IP, race you friends, but you may get
warping!" They have the right to advertise what is in their product without
qualifying everything, in the end we either need a government body spending
our money to rate the qualities of a game and paste it on the box, or
consumers can be careful and do research.... you make the call.

by **Byron Forbe** » Sun, 09 May 1999 04:00:00

> >> You mentioned for example that online play is the single critical
> >> definition of a sim these days, where I totally disagree - NFS3 has
> >> online play, so do a million other products but that doesn't make them
> >> sims. It's a factor that's important in a good sim product, but it's
> >> not what makes it what it is.

> > Wooooooo up there Johnny! :) "Single critical definition" I did not
> >say. I said "key component". And let me go on a bit about this too.

> Before you do, I should say it may well be a critical component of a
> good product but it is certainly not a defining criteria for what is a
> sim or not. By that token GP2, ICR2, NASCAR Racing etc are _not_ sims,
> yet NFS3 is. Again, that was the point I was making.

Yes, but this is dependant on time frame. As I said in another post,
when a sim is a sim has a lot to do with things. As time passes, the bar
is raised.

Many times. It is totally dependant upon the hosts ability to handle
more than 10 cars.

rec.autos.simulators

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????