rec.autos.simulators

by **Dave Henri** » Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:16:41

http://www.racesimcentral.net/
follow the link to the 'search for a new cart sim'
dave henrie

by **Eldre** » Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:20:16

>> >-no Internet multiplay: "The FIA doesn't know Internet ***, they
>> >don't know what happens to the virtual F1 circus if data is being
>> >transmitted during the race, therefor they don't allow it at all."

>> What?!? WTF does a computer SIM have to do with an actual F1 race???

>> Eldred
> Two possible explanations. 1: they are worried that a good online sim
>will
>draw viewers away from the Sunday televised race. 2: In the proper hands,
>an Prost could kick a Ferrari's behind during an online race...perhaps the
>manufactuers don't want to see the pecking order upset.
>dave henrie

Man, that's WEAK on the organization's part. Letting people race online would
probably bring more fans. These fans might watch the actual race to see how
the real guys do it... As for the different cars, the same thing could happen
in a real race. Is Ferrari going to pull out of F1 if they get beaten by a
'lesser' car? I'd love to see their rationalization of that...<g>

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.racesimcentral.net/~epickett
GPL F1 hcp. +28.80...F2 +151.26...F3 hcp. +373.73

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Uwe Schuerka** » Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:57:01

>Hi David, well I can assure you that F1RS and MGPRS2 were a total flop in that
>area... guess it's not the same group of devellopers.

>Eric

[100 lines snipped]

please make sure to quote only relevant parts of the article
youre following up on. Thank you.

Cheers,

Uwe

--
Uwe Schuerkamp http://www.schuerkamp.de/
GnuPG Fingerprint: 2093 20B8 B861 9358 A356 B01A E145 9249 5D27 33EA
PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

by **madd..** » Sat, 13 Jan 2001 08:54:08

Childish? You would argue that F12KCS or GP3 are top shelf sims??? I
consider them shite and did not spend a dime of my money on either of
them. One is essentially six years old while the other is ISI's next
best try at a real physics engine. Neither has surpassed GPL in terms
of polish and overall performance and NEITHER SUPPORTS VIABLE INTERNET
PLAY!!! This is 2001, the internet is a pretty big thing. GPL worked
rather nicely over the wires while these titles are totally incapable
or damn close to it. In my opinion, modern F1 sims are totally
deficient.

If you cannot play online against other people, what the hell is the
point??

> >Shut up, people have different opinions. I agree with him, I would
much
> >rather drive those cars then boring and bland modern Formula One's.

> If you didn't notice, I did not reply to his opinion about modern F1
> and the respective sims, which I partially share, but to the childish
> part of his post.

> Jan

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

by **Eldre** » Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:55:51

>Childish? You would argue that F12KCS or GP3 are top shelf sims??? I
>consider them shite and did not spend a dime of my money on either of
>them. One is essentially six years old while the other is ISI's next
>best try at a real physics engine. Neither has surpassed GPL in terms
>of polish and overall performance and NEITHER SUPPORTS VIABLE INTERNET
>PLAY!!! This is 2001, the internet is a pretty big thing. GPL worked
>rather nicely over the wires while these titles are totally incapable
>or damn close to it. In my opinion, modern F1 sims are totally
>deficient.

>If you cannot play online against other people, what the hell is the
>point??

Well, some of us DO play more against the AI than against other carbon-units...
Reasons? Poor connections, frustration at T1 pileups, frustration at always
being the slowest driver on the track...pick one. I'm sure there are others,
too...

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL F1 hcp. +28.80...F2 +151.26...F3 hcp. +373.73

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Jason** » Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:17:57

Bingo... we have a winner.

It's all about bucks fellas.

MGPRS2 (RS2) did not include the FIA liscense to enable multiplayer ability.
Not because the FIA wouldn't grant it... but because Ubi didn't want to fork
out the cash, and particularly the amount required for Net play (this from
my sources in Ubi at the time)

However... general consensus amongst the "majority buyers" is that they are
more likely to buy a game with official liscensing, hence another dollar
decision.

They are a business, and need to sell the games to pay for the
development/marketing.

Its a balancing act. Will multiplay REALLY recoup the extra funds needed in
swaying a buying decision that is required for the "upped liscensing fee"?
Or, is the official liscense enough to sway the buying decision on its own
(as per the general consensus). Or is dropping the liscensing altogether to
achieve multiplay worth even a thought (knowing the general consensus).

Now... we also get into some grey areas regarding the liscensing, which may
bode well for those who want F1RC online. Ubi could hide behind the "we need
TCP/IP support to be playable over a LAN" and hence support TCP/IP (thus
enabling online play). However... they could NOT make it playable (with any
intent) on say a matchmaking service like Game Service. That is blatant
attempt to make it playable online, and hence a breach of contract (which
probably holds penalties for such, not to mention blowing the opportunity to
get official liscensing in teh future).

Having said all of this,

Ubi may have paid the extra bucks needed for it to be played online (which I
witnessed in person to the contrary the day Ubi Montreal found about about
Internet play restriction from Ubi France), Although... ya never know until
its released, maybe things have changed since then.

But I DO know it is a dollar issue... not a "FIA cornering the market
***".

Cheers,

Schumi

> Could there be two licences involved?

> $ for FIA licence

> $$ for FIA licence with multiplayer

> Michael

> > > Dave,

> > > So then F12KCS has no multiplayer capability? Help me out here.

> > I thought it did and was going to try it soon.

> > I think the so called FIA ban on multiplay is bogus (non existent).

> > --

by **Jason** » Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:56:57

The FIA own the rights to Formula One. This means legally they own the likes
of: names/logos (trademarks), and ALL likenesses/representations thereof in
reference to anything to do with Formula One that might easily be misleading
as official or liscensed.

Meaning:

If it sounds like F1, looks like F1, it "legally" IS F1, and all
trademarks/patents blanket it across the board, unless liscense is granted
by F1 (ie. the FIA) to the using party.

Cheers,

Schumi

> Jan,

> Lemme see if I got this straight: the FIA (the international governing
body
> of motor sports) doesn't allow Internet ***? Presumably you mean the
FIA
> doesn't allow Internet *** involving FIA-licensed properties. By whose
> authority? Online auto racing involves no mechanical cars, no
FIA-licensed
> drivers (I guess Montoya & Villeneuve might have to choose), no physical
> tracks, no gasoline, no oil, no ***, no carbon fiber, no Jabroc, etc.
> IOW, online auto racing isn't real auto racing, thus the FIA has no
> authority to regulate it. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here....

> --Steve Smith

> > Just read the german preview at www.gamesmania.de, two things really
> > caught my eye ... Statements from the developers (free translation):

> > -physics and dynamics: "We don't want another uncontrollable Grand
> > Prix Legends, our cars are rather easy to drive anyway, but difficult
> > to master - especially if you're fighting for position with the clever
> > AI cars."

> > -no Internet multiplay: "The FIA doesn't know Internet ***, they
> > don't know what happens to the virtual F1 circus if data is being
> > transmitted during the race, therefor they don't allow it at all."

> > On the other hand it's using plain TCP/IP, so a 3rd party tool could
> > in theory enable 'net racing. But then, GP3 is using TCP as well but
> > is just too damn slow ...

> > Jan

by **Olav K. Malm** » Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:53:55

Will that mean FIA owns the right to champcars since most people can't
tell the difference ? :)

--
Olav K. Malmin
remove .spam when replying

by **Jan Loebzie** » Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:41:42

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:17:57 -0800, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray"

>It's all about bucks fellas.

Most likely, but why do they come up with the lame "FIA doesn't know
about Internet ***" instead of just saying "it's too expensive for
us"?

Pretty much the same, IMO. :-)

Jan

by **Jan Loebzie** » Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:44:57

>Childish? You would argue that F12KCS or GP3 are top shelf sims???

You just don't get it, eh?
Please check which part of your original message I quoted in my reply.

Jan

by **David G Fishe** » Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:03:06

ISI's physics engine is superb. They are both top shelf sims.
I love racing online, but only a fraction of the people who buy a sim or
even an arcade game ever race online.

David G Fisher

> Childish? You would argue that F12KCS or GP3 are top shelf sims??? I
> consider them shite and did not spend a dime of my money on either of
> them. One is essentially six years old while the other is ISI's next
> best try at a real physics engine. Neither has surpassed GPL in terms
> of polish and overall performance and NEITHER SUPPORTS VIABLE INTERNET
> PLAY!!! This is 2001, the internet is a pretty big thing. GPL worked
> rather nicely over the wires while these titles are totally incapable
> or damn close to it. In my opinion, modern F1 sims are totally
> deficient.

> If you cannot play online against other people, what the hell is the
> point??

> > >Shut up, people have different opinions. I agree with him, I would
> much
> > >rather drive those cars then boring and bland modern Formula One's.

> > If you didn't notice, I did not reply to his opinion about modern F1
> > and the respective sims, which I partially share, but to the childish
> > part of his post.

> > Jan

> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/

by **madd..** » Sun, 14 Jan 2001 08:34:33

In the end it is all a matter of opinion and you are as welcome to
yours as I am to mine. I'm not sure I would consider either GP3 or
F1CS2K advancements over previous titles and that is the problem.
Progression, it is something we should demand and the only thing I am
really interested in. NASCAR4 is probably going to be absolutely
fantastic for internet play...the demo is at least the equal to GPL
with 15 cars or less. WSC is the next step as I see it. Script run
AI, think Quake, fully editable physics, tracks, etc. It sounds to be
a simmer's dream come true! I consider these to be top shelf sims. I
feel as if I am flying in GP3 and F1CS2K just does not impress. The
car just does not seem as flickable to me as Schumacher's or Hakkinen's
cars look to be in real life. I can't drive as hard as I would like
because the car just can't seem to take it.

> ISI's physics engine is superb. They are both top shelf sims.
> I love racing online, but only a fraction of the people who buy a sim
or
> even an arcade game ever race online.

> David G Fisher

> > Childish? You would argue that F12KCS or GP3 are top shelf
sims??? I
> > consider them shite and did not spend a dime of my money on either
of
> > them. One is essentially six years old while the other is ISI's
next
> > best try at a real physics engine. Neither has surpassed GPL in
terms
> > of polish and overall performance and NEITHER SUPPORTS VIABLE
INTERNET
> > PLAY!!! This is 2001, the internet is a pretty big thing. GPL
worked
> > rather nicely over the wires while these titles are totally
incapable
> > or damn close to it. In my opinion, modern F1 sims are totally
> > deficient.

> > If you cannot play online against other people, what the hell is the
> > point??

> > > On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:31:12 GMT, "ymenard"

- Show quoted text -

> > > >Shut up, people have different opinions. I agree with him, I
would
> > much
> > > >rather drive those cars then boring and bland modern Formula
One's.

> > > If you didn't notice, I did not reply to his opinion about modern
F1
> > > and the respective sims, which I partially share, but to the
childish
> > > part of his post.

> > > Jan

> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

by **madd..** » Sun, 14 Jan 2001 08:52:52

Ahhh...you do not like my referring to Scummy as Scumsucker? Well,
that my friend is just too bad. ::) I have a direct link to Germany
through my grandfather and beyond, but I will be damned if I ever cheer
for a man so devoid of character. $50M/year for six years and one
title to show for it. Offensive tactics and an utterly pompous aura do
not a favorite of mine make. Sure he wins, but he is no Alain Prost or
Gilles Villeneuve or Mario Andretti or...the list could go on forever.
Michael Schumacher is the reason Stirling Moss contends that racing
should not be so sanitary a sport, i.e. safe...because the money will
attract all types. I idolize Ayrton Senna for his sheer speed and
will, but I recognize that he crossed the line more than once during
his career. In a perfect world, blocking would still be a coward's
tactic and drivers like Jimmy Clark would not die in meaningless F2
races while drivers like Schulicker live to a ripe old age. I wish
Jackie Stewart were not such a philosophical and low-key gentleman, so
that he would speak out against what has become of modern racing
drivers. We have made too much of these men.

> >Childish? You would argue that F12KCS or GP3 are top shelf sims???

> You just don't get it, eh?
> Please check which part of your original message I quoted in my reply.

> Jan

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

by **David Kar** » Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:07:08

So . . . you like him then, eh?

DK
(purposefully posting entire replied-to post)

> Ahhh...you do not like my referring to Scummy as Scumsucker? Well,
> that my friend is just too bad. ::) I have a direct link to Germany
> through my grandfather and beyond, but I will be damned if I ever cheer
> for a man so devoid of character. $50M/year for six years and one
> title to show for it. Offensive tactics and an utterly pompous aura do
> not a favorite of mine make. Sure he wins, but he is no Alain Prost or
> Gilles Villeneuve or Mario Andretti or...the list could go on forever.
> Michael Schumacher is the reason Stirling Moss contends that racing
> should not be so sanitary a sport, i.e. safe...because the money will
> attract all types. I idolize Ayrton Senna for his sheer speed and
> will, but I recognize that he crossed the line more than once during
> his career. In a perfect world, blocking would still be a coward's
> tactic and drivers like Jimmy Clark would not die in meaningless F2
> races while drivers like Schulicker live to a ripe old age. I wish
> Jackie Stewart were not such a philosophical and low-key gentleman, so
> that he would speak out against what has become of modern racing
> drivers. We have made too much of these men.

/

by **Jason** » Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:04:42

That is where trademarks and "intent" and "damages" specifically come into
play.

Meaning:

You have a "leagally speaking" "famous" brandname that is close in
proximity, but does not claim to be the other. Or even more simplified:

the fact that the car shapes look alike has no bearing on the issue, since
CART is not "attempting to proclaim it is F1", nor does F1 hold the rights
to the "shape of the cars" since that is "too generic to differentiate, thus
transcending intent or rights thereof".

Even more simply speaking:

You cannot patent/trademark/hold-rights-to say: My Name... it is simply too
generic to be deemed "unique".

It is a fine line, and often the reason why patent/trademark lawyers are
always full of work, and the decision is left in the hands of the judge in
teh appropriate jurisdiction.

I think the more pointiant issue regarding all theis leagal mumbo-jumbo is
how Bernie as a recognized monopoly (broadcastingly speaking) can conduct
business in the US which is a technically "monopoly free country by law".

Perhaps something to think about.

BTW... I have been deep in a trademark lawsuit (specifically internet) for
two years, and finally settled. I am the unfortunate expert on the topic.

Cheers,

Schumi

> > The FIA own the rights to Formula One. This means legally they own the
likes
> > of: names/logos (trademarks), and ALL likenesses/representations thereof
in
> > reference to anything to do with Formula One that might easily be
misleading
> > as official or liscensed.

> > Meaning:

> > If it sounds like F1, looks like F1, it "legally" IS F1, and all
> > trademarks/patents blanket it across the board, unless liscense is
granted
> > by F1 (ie. the FIA) to the using party.

> Will that mean FIA owns the right to champcars since most people can't
> tell the difference ? :)

> --
> Olav K. Malmin
> remove .spam when replying

rec.autos.simulators

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...

UbiSoft's new F1 sim - things that make you go hmmm ...