People argue that bowling and golf aren't "real" sports, too -- and they
also say that race drivers aren't "real" athletes, either. So what's your
point?
I doubt that they'll ever be able to simulate bowling, golf, or tennis so
well that people will ever care to spectate -- those sports are all about
physical prowess.
Racing, on the other hand, is all about man and machine working together to
endure the conditions, find the right line, stay out of trouble, and win the
race. All of THAT can be simulated -- it doesn't matter all that much if
the "machine" is a Ferrari or a Compaq, it's STILL a melding of man AND
machine; the only difference is real-world environment versus simulated
environment, and those lines are blurring more and more every day.
I've seen plenty of sim replays from various sims that were every bit as
exciting to watch as a real-life race, so while YOU might not be able to
swallow the concept of watching a virtual race, I DEFINTELY could, and would
spectate.
Put a few of the world's best GPL drivers together and give us the ability
to spectate in real-time while they raced against each other online, and you
can bet there would be a TON of people out there who would want to watch --
both those who DID get to see the 1967 GP season, as well as those of us who
missed it the first time around. It would definitely be more interesting
than the last Holyfield fight (and I REALLY like Holyfield). <G>
-- JB
>>> This is a BIG BIG step forward.
>>I couldn't agree more. If online racing is ever going to be a real
>>sport, there has to be spectators.
>Quite simply it'll never be a real sport. There are resonable arguments
over
>why game like quake etc, which simulatre *** activity which in reality
>woudl lead to death can make the transitions to sport, but quite how
tennis,
>cricket, baseball, football and motor racing can make this jump is well...
>silly.
>They'll all be games until they can simulate G forces on your neck& body.
>Z.
>Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.