rec.autos.simulators

by **Daru** » Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:02:16

Admittedly, this IS a demo, so I can't expect to see all the
options/refinements, but this is the type of stuff that turns OFF sim
racers. Why does every EA racing title (and I have F12000,2001,F1C and
NT2004, plus this demo) require the substantial editing of various
.plr, .ini and other files to make the product correct? (Halfrates,
tire sampling etc) Why do I need to manually edit a file with a text
editor, when we all know that GUI capability will be forthcoming by the
editing crowd? (Example: the extra display screen and setup options for
F1C).It seems like EA knows that modders will do the work they don't
and they skimp on these details. Is there not a SINGLE person from the
dev team that every goes to a sim racing board and reads posts? If you
see all the work that modders do, then why not include the ideas in you
new product?

by **Schoone** » Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:14:41

Agreed. Especially odd since they claim to have simmers involved with the
testing and development.

I don't understand why EA would put out a demo with known issues that would
cause such bad feedback. They know the sim crowd is hard to please, they
know they have a track record of putting out poor sim titles, they know
people are going to jump on them good or bad, they know everyone is going to
compare this to NR2003, but yet they put out a demo that some claim is based
on old code, needs tweaks, missing key features, etc.

The point of a demo is to show people what the real thing is like so they
buy it. As is they seem to be turning more people off than building a
market. They really needed to come out with something to blow our socks
off, not something that is half finished that might be ok with some flaws
that loos like it might be on par with NR2003. 3 years ahead of NR2003 and
it looks to be equal.

As for the extra 2 weeks of work being put into it, well after 18+ months of
development I hate to think they are making key changes this late in the
game. EA also has a very poor track record for patches. Their idea of a
patch is usually fixing it in the next release. The also have a good track
record for releasing buggy items. Madden for example has had a number of
key problems the last few years that made it to release that were spotted
within days by players.

Just my thoughts on this so far. Here is hoping they pull this off.

by **BCla** » Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:33:21

Now doesn't this seems kinda dumb to release a demo that will not even be
the same as the final product? Why should I and so many others spend even a
minute to get the feel for the game when in fact that the demo doesn't even
represent the final product? Bad move on EA's part if you ask me. If the
demo would have been the same as the final game itself then I would be
looking forward to purchasing it. Now it's the waiting game here to see what
others have to say about the final release. Been burned before from EA on
one of their Nascar titles and refuse to get burned again.

by **Bill Bollinge** » Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:01:57

That was done with N4 as well :) None of the setups for N4 demo worked for
release game. Most people forget that, or choose not to remember because it
was Papy and this is EA.

Bill Bollinger
www.gsxn.com

by JP » Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:33:46

Hehe, yep.

> That was done with N4 as well :) None of the setups for N4 demo worked
for
> release game. Most people forget that, or choose not to remember because
it
> was Papy and this is EA.

> Bill Bollinger
> www.gsxn.com

> >> Bob Stanley has stated that the demo is quite a few builds behind what
he
> >> has been working on. So much so that his current setups will not even
> >> work
> >> in the demo.

> > Now doesn't this seems kinda dumb to release a demo that will not even
be
> > the same as the final product? Why should I and so many others spend
even
> > a minute to get the feel for the game when in fact that the demo doesn't
> > even represent the final product? Bad move on EA's part if you ask me.
If
> > the demo would have been the same as the final game itself then I would
be
> > looking forward to purchasing it. Now it's the waiting game here to see
> > what others have to say about the final release. Been burned before from
> > EA on one of their Nascar titles and refuse to get burned again.

by **Mitch_** » Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:43:58

> That was done with N4 as well :) None of the setups for N4 demo worked
> for
> release game. Most people forget that, or choose not to remember because
> it was Papy and this is EA.

> Bill Bollinger
> www.gsxn.com

>>> Bob Stanley has stated that the demo is quite a few builds behind what
>>> he
>>> has been working on. So much so that his current setups will not even
>>> work
>>> in the demo.

>> Now doesn't this seems kinda dumb to release a demo that will not even be
>> the same as the final product? Why should I and so many others spend even
>> a minute to get the feel for the game when in fact that the demo doesn't
>> even represent the final product? Bad move on EA's part if you ask me. If
>> the demo would have been the same as the final game itself then I would
>> be looking forward to purchasing it. Now it's the waiting game here to
>> see what others have to say about the final release. Been burned before
>> from EA on one of their Nascar titles and refuse to get burned again.

The base physics may have changed a bit to make the original N4 demo setups
not work but the overall game was basically unchanged. I fear this is
going to be the case for NSR and they dont have a very good track record
and this isnt much of an effort. Ominous at best.

Funny, I used a dega setup I used on Hawaii with N4 and modified what, tape,
and one other thing but I cant remember, anyway I was still a force using
that old N1 setup with N4 so things must not have changed that
drastically :)

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro.

by **Larr** » Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:54:39

I remember it. It just wasn't this bad :)

See later posting for more info.

-Larry

> That was done with N4 as well :) None of the setups for N4 demo worked
> for release game. Most people forget that, or choose not to remember
> because it was Papy and this is EA.

> Bill Bollinger
> www.gsxn.com

>>> Bob Stanley has stated that the demo is quite a few builds behind what
>>> he
>>> has been working on. So much so that his current setups will not even
>>> work
>>> in the demo.

>> Now doesn't this seems kinda dumb to release a demo that will not even be
>> the same as the final product? Why should I and so many others spend even
>> a minute to get the feel for the game when in fact that the demo doesn't
>> even represent the final product? Bad move on EA's part if you ask me. If
>> the demo would have been the same as the final game itself then I would
>> be looking forward to purchasing it. Now it's the waiting game here to
>> see what others have to say about the final release. Been burned before
>> from EA on one of their Nascar titles and refuse to get burned again.

by **Daru** » Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:08:43

On the other hand, I was behind a car on the track and it looked as
wide as a Ford Focus. The perspective seems off in a lot of areas.
Reminds me of the GIANT pickup truck we saw some of the screenies from
Indy, it was so disproportionate in size...

by **Pete** » Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:14:50

Papy also did it with Hawaii. Those of us doing the closed beta spent
months
doing setups before it went open beta. They never told us they were going
to change the physics at the very last minute. It was for the worse. The
original
physics were better than the final product. I guess because we had figured
out
all the tricks they didn't want us having that big a jump on everyone else.

rec.autos.simulators

NSR - Some info and some tweaks

NSR - Some info and some tweaks

NSR - Some info and some tweaks

NSR - Some info and some tweaks

NSR - Some info and some tweaks

NSR - Some info and some tweaks

NSR - Some info and some tweaks

NSR - Some info and some tweaks

NSR - Some info and some tweaks

NSR - Some info and some tweaks