Hello,
After reading about the debate over GPL being a sim or arcade type
program, and after trying out the program myself, here's my thoughts.
Why can't a simulation be considered a simulation, despite it's tendency
to produce arcade like results? Why does it have to model operator
behaviour, as well as car and track physics?
First, a simulation is just that, a simulation. After playing GPL, what
struck me is the car apparently handles like a race car... if you drove
it by remote control! Unless you got many $$$ to blow on a real
simulator, there's no physical cues from the G's you'll feel going around
a curve. No feeling of danger from killing yourself by wrapping your car
around a tree of fate or some other car. No vibration. No feeling of
"being there".
Second, so what's stopping you from driving in "twitch" mode, and
practicing that turn over and over and over again, until you get that lap
time down to optimum? Actually, if the simulation is accurate in both
modeling and visual cues, you're real driving skill would actually be
enhanced. At least this works for airplane simulators in heavy use
today. As for GPL? It's just a game, a very good game. I wouldn't use
it as training for real driving. Not because it doesn't model the car
and track accurately, but because you would need mucho bucks to
accurately give you the visual (BIG screen) and physical cues to make you
feel like your there.
Therefore, I just don't see the "simulation vs arcade" debate. I feel
you can have both! What should be debated is if the modeling is accurate
enough, and the graphics have enough accurate eye candy (ooops! I mean
visual cues), and then get back to playing GPL and F1rs!
Thanks for listening,
John