rec.autos.simulators

Well - hows this

out of 3 leading F1 titles - not one has got it right - they all lack in one
department or the other.

If you want realism - you have to like 1967, or 2 tonnes of pig iron.

It's a f**king joke isnt it?

Doug

MadDAWG

A LOT more people watch F1 than Nascar - so one can presume that despite 1
average and 2 ***offerings of F1 titles already - a properly done one
would sell well

Doug

Compared to a NASCAR title no I don't. The amount of Americans into F1 is
very small. I think a CART sim would do better, and we all know the chances
of that happening. I know I wouldn't buy it because F1 doesn't do any thing
for me. At least a CART title I would buy to support them even if I didn't
play it much. I don't like the lack of god titles any better than anyone
else, but software is a business just like any other and they are here to
make money. If they weren't we wouldn't have to deal with this shitty Secure
Rom crap.

MadDAWG

Seriously, the tracks in F1 2002 completely suck and it's not entirely
the fault of ISI's poor design.  I can't wait until some of the
original tracks from GPL are ported over.  Until then I'm basically
running Monaco over and over.  In Nascar 2002 at least there are 3-4
tracks I can enjoy  (the roadies, Pocono, and Darlington).

It is sad that NASCAR races on more real road courses than F1 does
nowadays.

Jason

    John DiFool

-Larry

It's been more than a few months Doug... that was before Rally Trophy.

I will admit modern F1 afficionados have had a tough time of it. However the
EA F1 series shows signs of incremental improvement, so there's light at the
end of the tunnel.

If you don't want to run the best sims on a matter of principle, then you
only have yourself to blame. I didn't know the first thing about the classic
F1 era before GPL. It was before my time, I had never seen an F1 car that
didn't have wings on it and I had no real desire to find about them. What
drew me to GPL was the advanced simulation technology. Since then I own
books about the era, about vehicle dynamics, about driving technique,
subscribe to Motorsport, hold the drivers of the time in very high regard
indeed and regularly get myself sunburnt watching some no-name enthousiasts
driving these vintage cars at classic races.

I was blessed with an interest in NASCAR to start with, so I'm very happy
Papyrus has continued that line of development to a point where their most
advanced technology is applied to the series.

Jan.
=---

Even the announcing crew at this weekends F1 race on Speed were betting back
and forth, down to the very last lap, whether Schumaker's team mate would
pull over and let him by, even afer leading every single lap of the race.

If he had, it would have been the last F1 race I would have ever watched.

I kind of like watching F1, and just started to recently.  However, the
politics are mind boggling!

-Larry

Gerry

I'd love to see Papyrus make a modern F1 sim because, no matter how good GPL and the
Nascar series' are, the dynamics of an F1 car are so different to the "2 tonnes of pig
iron" that they have managed to accurately represent so far, it would be very surprising
if they did something as good as F1 2002 straight away.

(edit)
And as for the poor track modelling in F1 2002, how accurate are the Nascar 2002 tracks ?
Or those portrayed in GPL ?
Nascar tracks may bear a semblance to their real life counterparts, but that wouldn't be
hard with ovals. As for GPL tracks, well who's to say they are remotely similar ? I think
you're being unfair on F1 2002.

<snip>
<snip>

There are other markets, you know. OKay, so the US is much bigger, but
Europe as a whole must be close, and the Japanese follow F1 too.

Never heard of it - is it some kind of copy-protection thing?

--
Cricket: England 2 Sri Lanka 0
Athletics: Gt Britain & NI European Cup winners
Keep those flags up!
The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

Well, some are obvious just via comparison.  Spa vs. Old Spa.
Nurburgring vs. the Nordschleife.  Monza vs pre-chicane Monza.
A1-Ring vs the Osterreich Ring.  Silverstone vs Old Silverstone.
Those IMHO are pretty obvious without getting into details.  They took
a bunch of tracks and removed all of the challenging corners for
safety reasons (oh my God, someone may be risking their life by
driving a car at 200mph!) by either shortening the courses, adding
chicanes, or destroying the tracks and creating a new one that fits
modern spec.

Monaco is the only original track that still has most of its original
layout, and to be fair Suzuka is still a really nice course (not sure
why I ommitted it in my post).  Malaysia isn't a bad track, altho by
1960-1990 standards it's pretty tame.  Most of the newer and
redesigned F1 courses consist of slow corners connected by short or
medium length straights, hence the constant referral to them as "point
and squirt".  You hammer the throttle, reach top speed, brake, take a
slow turn, hammer the throttle, etc and repeat this until you fall
asleep.  Most ovals and go-kart tracks are more
interesting/challenging.   By comparison, the classic tracks, like
Spa, the Ring, Osterreichring, Brands Hatch, the old Silverstone, etc
had lots of high speed and compound turns.  There is no modern
equivalents to the Curva Grande or Vialone at Monza, turns that you
reached nearly flat out and took very very fast if not flat out.  Most
tracks don't even have a decent set of esses nowadays, like the old
Glen or even NASCAR's Watkins Glen or Sears Point.

I think that Mosley overreacted to the deaths at Imola in 94 to the
point of turning F1's circuits into utter crap.  The 80's, after
Villeneuve's freak accident, were an incredibly safe period in GP
history, and there were still a lot of good tracks to race on.  Sure,
it's understandable that the old haybale chicane at Monaco, or the
Masta kink at Spa were too dangerous.  Maybe a chicane or two at
Hockenheim and Monza aren't a bad idea, just to keep the cars from
running full-out for an entire lap.

The 80's  had a bunch of circuits that are no longer deemed suitable
for F1 racing (for one reason or another), in addition to a much
better incarnation of Hockenheim.  Brands Hatch and Donington were
great short circuits.  Mexico was always a real challenging track.
Bernie's mishandling of the Long Beach GP is possibly the #1 reason F1
no longer has a real following in the US.

I'd love to see F1 cars go back to places like Paul Ricard, Watkins
Glen, Long Beach, Argentina, Mexico, the old Hockenheim layout, a
longer version of Spa, etc.  I'd love to see modifications made to the
Nordschleife so that a 4 or 5 mile section could be cordoned off,
fitted with Armco and runoff areas, and linked via a connecting route
(so that it formed a circuit) iin order to allow at least part of the
old circuit to be used, instead of that parking-lot style track they
ran this past weekend.  I'd like to see a return to Adelaide.  A
rotating British GP between Brands and Donnington.  They could keep
Monaco, Suzuka, and Malaysia on the calendar.  Bring back Mosport.
That would be a good variety of tracks that would have perfectly
acceptable safety standards if properly modified.

I'm not saying we should make modern drivers deal with Masta or
Flugplatz, but it's ridiculous the way FIA attempts to remove all
reasonable risk from the sport and takes the defining characteristics
of most of the tracks along with it.  I still can't believe they tried
a chicane at Eau Rouge...

Jason

Jason