rec.autos.simulators

   You  point out a very interesting thing.  That is -----------

   If this "sim" is supposed to be so realistic and based on
"real-world" and all that , then why is it that someone who REALLY IS
lapping at a rate that would have put them on the front row of the
grid in 1967 suddenly be faced with the likes of a AI JIM CLARK who
qualifies SEVEN SECONDS quicker than Denis Hulme did in that year?

   That aspect doesn't sound so "real-world" to me.

    I think --------- and most reasonable people would agree, that the
introduction of a patch that allows the OWNER of the sim to MANUALLY
adjust the AI to his / her position of expertise would make more sense
than trying to explain why seven seconds is OK in this REAL-WORLD
based sim.

   My opinion ---------- for what it is worth.

   Doug

I read with some irony that Papyrus is advertising in this newsgroup
for professional game testers where one of the required attributes is
that candidates need a sense of what's fun in a racing sim. Let me
suggest that those who such-like tested GPL have rather failed in
several areas if they think that the lack of choices and lack of
general configureability if fun. It is not fun to have a program ram
down your gullet what some far away programmer with a different
personality, ability, outlook, objective, etc etc, dictates to you how
you're going to enjoy a program. Its rather arrogant for anyone to
even assume that they could, or should. Maximum configureability is
always a good thing, and never a bad thing. GPL is actually a
retrograde step as far as configureability is concerned, as previous
Papyrus sims have been much better , AND MORE FUN, is this respect.

GPL is a great game in spite of these ***y automatic, no-choice,
non-configureable, like-it-or-lump-it areas. If it was more
configureable by the user ( ie the person who actually wants to have
fun with it - sheez ) it'd be super-great. The sad part is that the
programmers who make these bad decisions might actually believe the
success of the product is partly due to these awful inclusions and may
think they should be included in later sims.

Please, Papyrus, MicroProse, Sierra, EA, whoever,- If someone at your
next meeting suggests this kind of thing then someone else quickly
punch them in the nose. Please consider - That just because you can
make something automatic doesn't mean you should. Remember that FUN is
a large part of the bottom line here. FUN and FRUSTRATION are usually
diametrical opposites. Lack of user configureability leads more to
frustration than fun.

Absolutely. An excellent case in point.

Phillip McNelley

You raise some interesting, and I think some valid, points.  In the past, I've
beta tested for a few games and companies.  I think it is a matter of
individual philosophy: some designers believe in configurability, some like to
listen to what you want in a game, others have very strong views on what is
right and will not budge.  Afterall, they are designers, artists of a sort,
and it is their creation.  Some will thus be very strong-willed about it and I
don't think that this is per se "wrong".  Though I too side with you on the
belief that the game should be flexible and let the user enjoy it in their own
way.

That is, I'm all for cheats, easy modes, options etc.  I know there are a lot
of purists here, and in the flightsim ng I used to frequent, who might argue
either: (a) but that isn't real and this sim is attempting to be real or (b)
then go play another game that is more suited to you.  I'd say these
(admittedly strawman) replies fit under your "arrogant" definition. Why not
have the "real" with the "fun" as optional for those who want it, or want to
switch between the two?  I certainly don't want to pass on the best simulation
made just because it lacks in some areas.  But damn, it could have been a lot
better with those concessions to the more casual gamer (or for us ***
types who want options).

Another argument against may be the resources gambit.  But how much
programming effort would have been required to let one keep damage off in a
race against expert opponents, for example?

Having said that, in some ways I'm glad when there aren't these "cheats", or
at least they aren't readily accessible, as they do detract from *my* sense of
accomplishment.  Hey, but it's my weakness if I give in to the cheat, right?

The point about this being a retrograde step for Papyrus, I share.  In fact,
when I first got Papyrus' "Indianapolis 500 the Simulation" I noted how
horribly limited it was in gameplay (10 lap, 25 lap, full race, yellows
mandated), though excellent in simulation. ICR and ICR2 were so much better
here!  Yes, GPL similarity to the Indy500 philosophy jumped out at me.  Why???

So, what (probably) simple things would I like to see in GPL along these
lines?

*Any length race.  I see no reason for the fixed limits here.  Can't be any
AI concern, could it?  Without tire or pitting choices, what difference does
it make if you select a 32 lap race vs full AI strategy-wise?

*Damage choice independent of opponent strength or race length.

*Variable opponent strength as in ICR and ICR2.  (I know I can kludge this
from the ini files, though it takes a lot of experimentation).

Please don't misunderstand me, I think your points are kinda valid.  I
personaly wonder why Papyrus did implement the Trainer/Advanced
Trainer race code, except the ability to alter ONE variable in the
interface to unlock it.

Remco

--

spamgard(tm): To email me, put "geek" in your Subject line.

Remco

Likewise with the track editors,***pit editors, etc., for Gp2. When
you consider Gp2 not in its original form but with all the flexibility
provided by the addons it must now be one of the most configureable
racing sims of all time. For all this I've never heard anyone express
anything but appreciation for this, sometimes extreme appreciation. In
fact every time some kind of new thing comes out that adds some extra
configureability its haled as a wonderful thing.

The strange thing is the Papyrus had already done the hard yards in
the basic sim. The extra flexibility many here have expressed a desire
for are like little treats and are really just finishing touches. Were
they up against a deadline or something and couldn't spare an extra
couple of weeks to put the t***s on?

Unless Papyrus release a 'GPL Toolbox' then we're at the mercy of the
hackers. Not that I mind as the hackers do some outstanding work.

Bye

Phillip McNelley

Its a shame. They are certainly misguided in this area IMO. Hopefully
the talented hackers are analysing the code even as we speak. I see
that Paul Hoad has already started on a track editor.

I can't help but agree here. Having finished the sim how hard could it
be to include some choices? I have to feel its more a case of their (
misguided ) philosophy rather than a technical prohibition.

I don't consider it a cheat if I want to race the training cars. Or if
I want to race a GP car but on a shortened race with perhaps less than
realistic damage engaged. Who am I cheating? I'm not pretending to
achieve anything else than what I am, and am not trying to prove
anything to anybody. I can live happily with the fact that I'm very
unlikely to be one of the superfast guys ( a non-politically correct
term used in the generic sense which in no way is meant to exclude the
possibility of there being superfast gals ) in GPL or any other racing
sim. I tend to be moderately fastish on my good days, 2 or 3 secs off
the superfast-guys' pace and I have no problem with this. ( On my bad
days just forget it ). I'm 41 years old, wear glasses to see the
screen in focus and have eyes that go a bit fuzzy around the edges
after racing for more than about an hour or so. I don't expect to be
as fast as 18 years old with perfect vision that stays crystal clear
for hours. ( Wait til they get to my age. After 20 years of  computer
screens their eyes may go a bit wonky too). But I can still have great
fun at my level - if the program will let me. Why does Papyrus think
that the way to go is to be so exclusive?

Why indeed. If GPL had the flexibility of NC2 for example it's be much
more user friendly IMHO.

Yes. These are the kind of things misguidedly left out.

Cheers

Phillip McNelley