rec.autos.simulators

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

Todd D

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by Todd D » Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:00:00


>Imagine getting a copy of GPL with only the regular manual.  <shudder>

It would be like buying a Microsoft product....
Marc J. Nelso

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by Marc J. Nelso » Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:00:00

LOL!



> >Imagine getting a copy of GPL with only the regular manual.  <shudder>

> It would be like buying a Microsoft product....

--
Marc J. Nelson
Sim Racing Online - http://www.simracing.com/

* Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *

John Walla

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by John Walla » Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:00:00

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:04:07 +0000, Paul Jones


>Get off your f***** high horse for one second and see that in the world
>out there are lots of different people with different views and that
>everyone of them is just as valid as yours.

You know of course that the above is total nonsense. Yes everyone has
their right to their opinion, but that's as far as it goes. Not all of
them can be valid.

Cheers!
John

John Walla

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by John Walla » Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:00:00



He may receive it in the same way (although "average" is just that -
not the same as anyone but an average of the population), but it
doesn't mean he will be able to write well about it, convey his/her
impressions well or equate it reasonably with other products or genre.
How often have we read and book and thought how closely it touched us
or mirrored our own feelings or emotions - however closely it was, we
couldn't have written that book.

Professionalism isn't in the way the message is received it's in the
way it is conveyed to others. *** sites owe that level of
professionalism to those whose products they review.

What a horrible thought. What I want is well thought out professional
reviewing. If the product is "NFS3" it should be reviewed by a fan of
that genre, who can equate it to the Test Drive series, Viper Racing
etc. If the product is a flight sim it should be written by someone
who knows flight sims - not a total propeller head but someone who can
not only convey how it is to fans of that genre but describe how it
reaches out to newcomers and how accesible it is.

That requires quite talented reviewers and also people who are
prepared to spend some time with the product, something which
reviewing site should be required to do anyway. Avault's review was
sloppy, badly targetted and inconsistent.

Cheers!
John

John Walla

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by John Walla » Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:00:00



Jay, I'm arguing the point because I expect better from Avault. I'm
unlikely to argue the point on your review above because quite frankly
it is infinitely more wordy and eloquent than I ever expected from
you.

The day I lose a battle of wits with you will be the day the final
nail goes in and I'm pushing up the daisies. Even then it would be a
contest between equals...

Love and kisses,
John

John Walla

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by John Walla » Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:00:00



Agreed. They have a responsibility to those whose whose labour of love
they are judge and jury on, to the owner of the site whose future
level of custom they are influencing, and finally to themselves
(although maybe it's utopian to think that people should still care
about the quality of work they turn in).

Cheers!
John

John Walla

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by John Walla » Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:00:00

On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 1:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),


>John Wallace said he wouldn't put himself forward to review flight sims
>because they don't interest him at all. But that doesn't necessarily mean
>he wouldn't do a good job of reviewing them if he *had* to do so. It's as
>much to do with attitude and approach as personal experience.

It's more that because I find flight sims tedious I am unlikely to
pick up on the aspects of a particular flight sim that will enthrall
the enthusiasts (zzz...). For example if the flaps are usually only
(zzzz....) adjustable in increments of 5, perhaps it is a major bonus
that they (zzzzz....) move in increments of 1. Maybe there are AWACS
options which are (zzzzzz...) better than any before, or a better
range of (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......I knew I'd never be able to manage
it!).

The thing is that I would miss as many things from a flight sim review
as the Avault review missed about GPL. The first sim to properly model
a differential, to model centrifugal forces of moving parts within
engine and hubs, to model tyre marks, wheelspin and smoke as a
function of changing grip and airflow. There are myriad things which
would be totally lost on me in a flight sim, and that is why I could
never review one - even if I could write beautifully about it I simply
don't know enough about them to describe what is new and compare with
other products.

If I were running the review site I'd make damn sure the guy writing
the review did though....

Cheers!
John

Andrew MacPhers

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by Andrew MacPhers » Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:00:00

I realise that John, but you'll see the light eventually ;-)

The direction I was heading in was that the specific details aren't what
"sells" sims to people. Exactly what's being modelled under the bonnet
isn't the issue, anyone who's ever been in a car driven closer to the
limits than the police would approve of can appreciate there's something
seriously impressive going on in GPL. Saying it's hard to drive isn't the
same at all.

Agreed, but then they're lost on most of the people who buy them too :-)

I'll stick with my original statement, that...

Experience *certainly* helps, but it's not enough on its own, and a
thorough approach can make up for a fair amount lot of ignorance and/or
apathy.

Andrew McP... who should be working out how to get under 1:33 at
Zandvoort, not wasting time here :-)

Andrew MacPhers

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by Andrew MacPhers » Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:00:00

I've been unable to get any satisfaction from a driving sim since the GPL
demo came out in, what was it, April? Certainly a lot more than a month! I
think that was the whole point of the demo, to identify the target
audience in advance and let them get up to speed with the driving model.

Andrew McP

Marc J. Nelso

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by Marc J. Nelso » Thu, 29 Oct 1998 04:00:00

ROF!...owwwwwwwch!


> The day I lose a battle of wits with you will be the day the final
> nail goes in and I'm pushing up the daisies. Even then it would be a
> contest between equals...

--
Marc J. Nelson
SimRacing Online - http://www.simracing.com/

* Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *

Paul Jone

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by Paul Jone » Fri, 30 Oct 1998 04:00:00


> Yes everyone has
> their right to their opinion, but that's as far as it goes. Not all of
> them can be valid.

> Cheers!
> John

Deep philosophical point that, John. I could argue pretty coherently that
any opinion is valid. But this is hardly the forum for that. Anyway, I
regret sending that post - I was riled by the views aired, the "lets get
this guy sacked" theme struck me as rather vindictive. Losing your job or
even an income stream is a deal worse than criticising a good program. But I
guess many of the posts I was reacting to were posted in a similar mindset
to the one I was in when I posted mine. That I chose Johan's and Francios'
posts to explode at was mere chance. There were a lot worse.
Paul
Paul Jone

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by Paul Jone » Fri, 30 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Terrible confession here. An old girlfriend of mine was working on a magazine
that wanted to do a piece on tiling. She knew nothing about it which was only
slightly less than I did, so I wrote a "how to tile" article (which she turned
into good English). I wonder how many ghastly messes around shower units I
have contributed to. It would be a nice world if only people (like Randy
Magruder)  who knew about things commented on them but I guess it doesn't work
like that. But there's worse still, when the mags get advertising that starts
to dictate not only what they write about but how favourable the reviews are.
I guess Avault can forget about any revenue coming their way from Sierra.
Paul

> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 1:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),

> >John Wallace said he wouldn't put himself forward to review flight sims
> >because they don't interest him at all. But that doesn't necessarily mean
> >he wouldn't do a good job of reviewing them if he *had* to do so. It's as
> >much to do with attitude and approach as personal experience.

> It's more that because I find flight sims tedious I am unlikely to
> pick up on the aspects of a particular flight sim that will enthrall
> the enthusiasts (zzz...). For example if the flaps are usually only
> (zzzz....) adjustable in increments of 5, perhaps it is a major bonus
> that they (zzzzz....) move in increments of 1. Maybe there are AWACS
> options which are (zzzzzz...) better than any before, or a better
> range of (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......I knew I'd never be able to manage
> it!).

> The thing is that I would miss as many things from a flight sim review
> as the Avault review missed about GPL. The first sim to properly model
> a differential, to model centrifugal forces of moving parts within
> engine and hubs, to model tyre marks, wheelspin and smoke as a
> function of changing grip and airflow. There are myriad things which
> would be totally lost on me in a flight sim, and that is why I could
> never review one - even if I could write beautifully about it I simply
> don't know enough about them to describe what is new and compare with
> other products.

> If I were running the review site I'd make damn sure the guy writing
> the review did though....

> Cheers!
> John

John Walla

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by John Walla » Fri, 30 Oct 1998 04:00:00

On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),


>> It's more that because I find flight sims tedious
>I realise that John, but you'll see the light eventually ;-)

Not unless lens flare makes it into N3 I won't....

I know, but they're appreciated by the afficianados and would be
totally missed by me <looks left> Oh, a wing, neat :-)

I'll go along with that.

You could try using the GP car <hoping that's really not with the GP
car....> :-)

Cheers!
John

Andrew MacPhers

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by Andrew MacPhers » Sat, 31 Oct 1998 04:00:00

*** :-)

Managed to *nearly* get under 1:30, but that was only because I was lapped
by the leader and made a nuisance of myself trying to hang onto his coat
tails. Scared the shyte out of me racing with the leaders for a few laps!

Andrew McP

John Walla

Here's my letter to the AVAULT: Re: Craig Miller's GPL review

by John Walla » Tue, 03 Nov 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:14:42 +0000, Paul Jones


>Deep philosophical point that, John. I could argue pretty coherently that
>any opinion is valid.

Hmmmm. You may of course hold any belief you like, but telling me the
glass of white wine in my hand is a small off-duty Czechoslovakian
traffic warden, while maybe "valid", is also wrong. :-)

Worse even than losing sales to a company unnecessarily, reducing
revenue and endangering the jobs of others? When you go to an
interview you never say "I'll do an okay job" - you tell them you're a
total star and capable of doing a great job. I think the company have
a right to expect that, and IMO it wasn't demonstrated in that review.

OTOH I agree with your comments about sacking - it's way too extreme
and anyway, the review may have been written with the guidelines laid
down by Avault and the guy did his job perfectly.

In that case someone else needs sacked ;-)

Cheers!
John


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.