rec.autos.simulators

by **Steve Blankenshi** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:52:23

YMMV, of course, but to my mind NR 2002 does just about everything better
than F1 2002. Better overall game design, menus, tracks, AI, sounds, aural
and visual car feedback (just look at how much focus they put into modeling
changes in tire sounds based on grip, for instance, and look at how the
density of the skid marks follows suit - very nice.) The replay system IS
important to me, and multiplayer is, well, IT. Add being less demanding on
a cpu/graphics card and less buggy, not to mention the controller issues and
it's no contest; just a far deeper and more complete product. Not to
(re)start any fires, but even good old GPL is better in most of these
respects as well, and the latest 3rd-party 16bit car/track graphics are
simply gorgeous. Its 4-yr-old tire model's a bit lacking relative to the
state of the art, yes; but we all know that.

Not to say I haven't enjoyed F1 2002; the sense of speed is superb and the
physics modeling is easily the best for modern F1's yet. With the high
physics rate enabled, there are some really nice nuances in high speed
cornering grip. Congrats to ISI for sure, and bonus points for mod-ability
and especially for being in touch with this community, but I'd say they've
still got some catching up to do. Here's wishing them luck in the chase...

Cheers,

SB

PS - really looking forward to the upcoming Papy track conversions and to
getting out at the RING in a spankin' new F1. Hey, I don't need no stinkin'
gravel trap... ;-)

by **Dave Henri** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:12:34

"MadDAWG"
yup!
dh

by **ymenar** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:22:12

> Let me initially say that i'm not disagreeing with you Scott. Would you
> mind providing me with some examples of poorly done corners and sections?
> Not that I know any better, but I'm just curious.

Pick any track!

Don't even get me started on Montral, per example.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **double** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:27:48

that bad eh?

> > Let me initially say that i'm not disagreeing with you Scott. Would you
> > mind providing me with some examples of poorly done corners and
sections?
> > Not that I know any better, but I'm just curious.

> Pick any track!

> Don't even get me started on Montral, per example.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
> Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **Eldre** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:00:23

Wow, I'd never heard(or don't remember) that... That's pretty slick...<g>

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...

Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Eldre** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:00:23

writes:

That's ok, we'll TAKE it!
Yayy, WINGS! :-)

Eldred
p.s. I actually got to hold the Stanley Cup yesterday...whew!
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...

Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Eldre** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:00:23

>Yes I know their is other markets, but it simply comes down to economics. If
>they thought they could make money at it they would. Since they don't
>....well I'm sure you can figure it out. Keep in mind titles like GPL were
>financial flops. I would dare to say that the GPL community is hurting its
>chances of getting a GPL2. With all the new stuff that keeps rolling out why
>would most people upgrade?

I assume you're talking about mods, tracks, etc. for GPL, right? So if we
*ignored* GPL, they'd make another one? I think that all the enhancements
provided by the community shows that people still enjoy the sim. That should
have more of an effect than if everyone just dropped GPL. Now, there aren't
*enough* fans of it to make a GPL2 viable, but that's a totally different
issue.

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...

Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Ian** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:54:55

>A good real life example would be Jeff Gordon's championship a few
>years ago (1995 I think?) when he needed to finish anywhere but last
>in the final race to win. Hendrick entered a 4th team car and had it
>retire when the race started so that Gordon couldn't lose. Is that
>cheating?

>Jason

Simplisticly speaking, why the heck would it be considered cheating?
Theoretically, if a particular owner could somehow cobble together 42
cars and hire 42 drivers and manage to qualify all of them, how could
you stop him?

Realistically speaking, it's a bit more complicated than that. NASCAR
DOES have a rule restricting the number of entries that a particular
owner may enter in a race (I think it's 2, but it could be 3 now, I'm
not sure). Multi-car teams like Roush and Hendrick that want to
enter, say, 5 cars in a race simple put a different owner's name on
the entry blank and they are completely legal. Now, you may say that
this is "cheating" or circumventing the spirit of the rule, but
consider the issue of owner points. This is a REAL big deal as far as
the end-of-season money payouts and provisionals are concerned, so
even though in reality Jack Roush Racing owns the car, if it's entered
under someone else's name, Roush doesn't get the points. So, to go
back to the theoretical example, if I owned 42 cars and wanted to
enter them all, I just find 40 buddies and enter 40 cars in their
names. But I only get the points for the two cars that are entered in
my name. Clear as mud?

So, in the example mentioned above, sure it was a car "owned" by Rick
Hendrick, but it was actually entered in the name of his dad, Papa Joe
Hendrick. Absolutely nothing illegal about that, completely within the
rules. What the heck, if you've got an extra car sitting around the
shop, why not enter it just to make sure that all your bases are
covered. If they hadn't and Gordon had blown an engine on the pace
lap and finished dead last and lost the championship, they would've
looked pretty stupid. This isn't the first time it's happened, BTW.
Richard Childress entered an extra car for Neil Bonnett at Atlanta in
the early 90s to guarantee Earnhardt's championship in exactly the
same way. Now, at that time Childress was only a one-car team, so
Childress didn't even have to enter it under someone else's name,
there was absolutely nothing to stop him entering a second car under
his own name.

by **elrik** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:59:41

> writes:

> >Actually to get a bit off topic the Stanley cup Champion in never
> >referred to as hockey's world champion.

> That's ok, we'll TAKE it!
> Yayy, WINGS! :-)

> Eldred
> p.s. I actually got to hold the Stanley Cup yesterday...whew!
> --

It's been a while, but as a life long Montrealer I have had my tired old
mitts on it many, many times. I used to think it was just an award you were
entitled to if you played for "Les Habs". ;o)

Elrikk

by **John Pancoas** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:25:51

(jason
> moyer) writes:

> >A good real life example would be Jeff Gordon's championship a few
> >years ago (1995 I think?) when he needed to finish anywhere but last
> >in the final race to win. Hendrick entered a 4th team car and had it
> >retire when the race started so that Gordon couldn't lose. Is that
> >cheating?

> Wow, I'd never heard(or don't remember) that... That's pretty slick...<g>

> Eldred
> --
> It's an old trick used for years. Earnhardt did it too, or something

similiar, in the early nineties with Bonnett driving for RCR IIRC.

John

by **MadDAW** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:28:38

Correct

It is a double edged sword. Yes the mods show interest, but at the same time
they keep people from needing to upgrade. I'm all for mods and addons for
any game title, but they can keep people happy with what they have, and
decrease the desire to upgrade. But since their isn't gonna be another GPL
keep them coming guys. :). With all this GPL talk I'm feeling a reinstall
coming on.

MadDAWG

by **Eldre** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:27:13

>There is no one to "blame". The simple fact is a company makes what sells.
>NASCAR sells and is their key market. WE as simmers are in the minority. IMO
>if it wasn't for the NASCAR titles Papy wouldn't even be in business
>anymore. So be glad that you actually have those 2 ton pigs. If it wasn't
>for those two ton pigs we'd be all be taking about what moves we could pull
>off and how many bonus points we get for them on some X box game.

But if you don't *like* those 2-ton pigs, you're screwed... I think that's the
point he was trying to make.

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...

Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Douglas Elliso** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:00:35

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:01:58 +0100, "Douglas Ellison"

> >For formula one - you can usually only find the total number of people
who
> >watch an F1 race thru the year - which was 54 billion for 2001. (

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/english/motorsport/formula_one/newsid_...
0
> >/1842217.stm )

> I've always wondered what other planets watch Bernie's F1
> circus?... (ie: we've only got 6+ billion potential viewers on this
> one) :)

> And even if you say that's over 18 different races, do you really
> believe that *one half of the world's population* watches *every* F1
> race (54b / 18 = 3b)? Does one half of the world's population even
> have access to TV on a regular basis?

I think it's the total number of times a person sees F1 in a year.

i.e. if someone sees the race, qualifying, and 5 news storys for each race
in a season - thats 126 viewings - thus 54 b = 428 million viewers - which I
dont think is unreasonable

Doug

by **Douglas Elliso** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:02:30

I dunno which Doug you mean - but this Doug will slag off the track
accuracy, the replays, the net code and the clunky menus. As a Sim -it's
good - but it needs tarting up

Doug

by **Douglas Elliso** » Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:04:14

> posted:

> >that bad eh?

> Take his comments with a grain of salt. He's harped on the
> innacuracies of the EA /ISI tracks series since day one. It's not a
> perfect sim but it's the best we got.

So the best of a bad bunch isnt open to criticism?

Doug

rec.autos.simulators

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?

All a bit tragic?