Jan.
=---
Jan.
=---
Personally from observing the behaviour of the car with different diff
values I don't think 45/85 is at all historicaly accurate when used in GPL.
85/30 isn't either though.
If only the diff values were not hardcoded, because I would like to try
approx 70/60 with 3 clutches ..... I think that with this setting the cars
would behave most like they did in 1967.
Be warned about having blind faith in papys numbers .... just because it
says 45/85 or 20psi or whatever, doesn't mean that it will act the same as
45/85 or 20psi in real life
Marc Mercer
Personally from observing the behaviour of the car with different diff
values I don't think 45/85 is at all historicaly accurate when used in GPL.
85/30 isn't either though.
If only the diff values were not hardcoded, because I would like to try
approx 70/60 with 3 clutches ..... I think that with this setting the cars
would behave most like they did in 1967.
Be warned about having blind faith in papys numbers .... just because it
says 45/85 or 20psi or whatever, doesn't mean that it will act the same as
45/85 or 20psi in real life
Marc Mercer
Aside from that however, driving with a 45/85 in GPL looks and behaves a
lot like what I've seen of 67 footage, and vintage races within the last
year.
Your mileage may vary
TJSB
> 45/85 I believe would be historically accurate if papy had got all the
> friction values etc for the diff spot on.
> Personally from observing the behaviour of the car with different diff
> values I don't think 45/85 is at all historicaly accurate when used in GPL.
> 85/30 isn't either though.
> If only the diff values were not hardcoded, because I would like to try
> approx 70/60 with 3 clutches ..... I think that with this setting the cars
> would behave most like they did in 1967.
> Be warned about having blind faith in papys numbers .... just because it
> says 45/85 or 20psi or whatever, doesn't mean that it will act the same as
> 45/85 or 20psi in real life
> Marc Mercer
Interesting thought, but I don't see the logic. Because they lessened
the grip, physics became more easier to handle?
Agree!
Andre
You guys are saying it USED to be possible to run the RL times without
overdriving (i.e. with a more or less "in-line" car)?
Right.... Papy, listen up, I've had it up to here with driving balls out to
get anywhere near your <censored> AI, tell me how to change that value back
to the way it was before you made this gameplay compromise.
Jan.
=---
Marc
"But the biggest weakness of sim racing is the inability of a computer
to simulate the feel of a car. And in most
race cars, tire slip angles are too small to provide any visual cue that
something's amiss until long after the seat
of the pants has identified the problem. This leaves game developers the
option of either simulating too much
cornering stability (the Grand Prix II paradigm) or too much instability
(the GPL model)." - Automobile sept. '99
This is all I was referring to. It is a fact of life that there is
currently no way of producing a sim that will give all the feedback of a
real car, and so developers have to make decisions in the early
development of a masterpiece like GPL in order to make it more of a
challenge.
It's common to hear people say that "GPL is the most realistic sim
ever", when perhaps it might be more accurate to say that it has the
most detailed physics engine yet produced.
If you're more concerned about setting record laps, than you might as
well not spend time worrying about whether your setup is realistic or
not since there are plenty of ways to go fast in a simulation, even one
as detailed and complex as GPL.
TJSB
> Hold up!!
> You guys are saying it USED to be possible to run the RL times without
> overdriving (i.e. with a more or less "in-line" car)?
> Right.... Papy, listen up, I've had it up to here with driving balls out to
> get anywhere near your <censored> AI, tell me how to change that value back
> to the way it was before you made this gameplay compromise.
> Jan.
> =---
> > > >Actually, I don't think the innaccuracy is in the modelling of the
> diff.
> > > >but rather the fact that Papy decided to reduce grip as an artificial
> > > >means of making the sim more difficult since PCs at the time were
> unable
> > > >to handle all the physics involved with a more realistic physical model
> > > >and environment.
> > > Interesting thought, but I don't see the logic. Because they lessened
> > > the grip, physics became more easier to handle?
> > Yes, easier for the PC harder for the driver. The point being that since
> > the physical model had to be dumbed down for the PC but still a
> > challenge to the driver.
Check, I agree the medium demands certain compensations from the simulation.
No bones with that.
Again I have to agree, but in making it "more challenging" they have heavily
compromised the "playable history" factor, IMO. Fact of the matter is, to
run mid pack in the simulation I am taking insane risks viewed from the
perspective of the 1967 grand prix driver. At the Glen for example I enter
The Loop in a big stonking braking drift whereas Clark and Co only reverted
to such measures if they overcooked their entry. Even seen the "9 Days in
Summer"-video?? While slight 4 wheel drift is evident in the corners, the
only "GPL-type" sliding in evidence is a polite twitch from the rear as
power is applied.
Papy went to far in adjusting the gameplay, IMO, and, if there's a
relatively simple way of changing (hex editing or somesuch) the value in
question I'd like to know how to do it, so I can have a seperate GPL install
for off-line use and can finally have a season which contains less than 70%
of DNF's through overdriving.
It's got the best handling of any sim out there, though I always had the
feeling the cars didn't quite "stick" enough (grip doesn't really "snap"
back the way it's supposed to IMO either).
I hate hotlapping with a vengance and "tolerate" the people who indulge in
it. It's a sad fact of life any simulation will have loopholes which can be
exploited. Luckily, with the recently released GRE, we can remove the
stopgap solution of 1" bump ***s so it's possible to run the car at it's
natural rideheight (as per Richard Nunnini's pages) again on most of the
tracks.
Jan.
=---
>Unless of course a checksum on the GPL exe was instituted.
Jan.
=---
So you'd have better grip, but you'd still be stuck with an environment
that doesn't emulate the real thing...so what's the point?
As D. Kaemmer mentioned some time ago, the physical model that exists in
GPL could be made even more detailed as PCs become more powerful, but
sadly, since GPL was (in corporate terms) a financial failure, we're
likely never to see such a development. Unless we all unite in some
fashion and make our purchasing power as a niche group stand for
something, then we're stuck with what the corporations will "allow" the
developers to make.
TJSB
> I'm not suggesting they tell everybody Don... ;-))
> Jan.
> =---
> Don Scurlock wrote...
> > <snip> I agree with everything you say, except: If it were to become
> > common knowledge how to modify the traction it would be the beginning
> > of the end for the world wide gpl competition that we now have. The
> > playing field would no longer be level.
> > <snip>
> > --
> > Don Scurlock
> > Vancouver,B.C.
I would most definitely be willing to contribute with some money
towards a new development for GPL. Maybe we could all come up with
some kind of petition. Or perhaps they could charge the price of a
full game for the updates. But obviously we'd have to produce a
proposal from which Sierra would be seen to benefit rather than
ourselves, which in contrast is not what we looking for here.
I just think its ludicrous to let this piece of software just fade
away after all the obvious amount of work put into it, Its hard not to
think of the possibilities for this engine, including my favorite
possibility of course, a modern F1 sim, or even better a '80s F1 sim.
The way I see it, there is still a bit more money to made out of GPL
from a company's point o view, but if they're not interested than why
not release the code? Like they do with Quake. The online community
would take car of the life of GPL until, if ever, a superior product
came along for sure. It was said at the begriming of this post that
people doubt that a superior engine might not be produced by anyone
even in 3 or 4 years time, why not let other companies improve GPL in
the mean time?
> I would most definitely be willing to contribute with some money
> towards a new development for GPL. Maybe we could all come up with
> some kind of petition. Or perhaps they could charge the price of a
> full game for the updates. But obviously we'd have to produce a
> proposal from which Sierra would be seen to benefit rather than
> ourselves, which in contrast is not what we looking for here.
> I just think its ludicrous to let this piece of software just fade
> away after all the obvious amount of work put into it, Its hard not to
> think of the possibilities for this engine, including my favorite
> possibility of course, a modern F1 sim, or even better a '80s F1 sim.
> The way I see it, there is still a bit more money to made out of GPL
> from a company's point o view, but if they're not interested than why
> not release the code? Like they do with Quake. The online community
> would take car of the life of GPL until, if ever, a superior product
> came along for sure. It was said at the begriming of this post that
> people doubt that a superior engine might not be produced by anyone
> even in 3 or 4 years time, why not let other companies improve GPL in
> the mean time?