rec.autos.simulators

by **Kasparo** » Mon, 03 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Well I have been playing this demo for a few days like everyone else and I
really love the sim. I like the driving model and the sounds are good IMO.
However, the frame rate really sucks with my 3dfx card. 12-15 FPS is all I
get with the***pit turned on. This is simply unacceptable to have smooth
control over the game. When I turn off the***pit, I immediately get 10 to
13 more FPS. The thing that concerns me is that the game is running slow
with only 3 other cards on the track with you. What is gonna happen when we
start playing the full version with an entire filed of cards. I am afraid
that the frame rate is going to plummet at the start if races or when you
are within a big pack of cars. I was simply expecting more performance out
of this game then what I have seen so far. This game is so close to
greatness it is frightening. But if this is a limit because of D3D then I
have had it with Microsoft and their bullshit of trying to control
everything.

Microsoft has seem to have forgotten that people like to have a choice.
Maybe we would like to be able to use a glide version or a rendition version
instead of D3D version. Moreover, I heard that MS was trying to make I.E.
the only web browser to be used with Win98. Again this is such bullshit. I
want to be able to choose which browser I use. IE4 is a bugged up piece of
***on my system. I can't even look at my book marks because the menu
always gets garbled up. I still use Netscape 4.0 I guess this is what
happens when you get so huge that the only thing left to do is to eliminate
everyone else in the market by either buying them out or banning their
software from your operating system. Anyway, sorry for the ***ing....I
hope that CPR gets a little more tweaked up in the FPS department but I
seriously doubt is will be before it is released. I hope that they
eventually make a 3dfx native version but then again this is MS and I will
not hold my breath on that one. I wonder how this game runs on a RIVA 128.
Maybe I should replace my old rendition card with that one.

Kas

PS: I am not sure which card CPR is using in my system...I have a Monster
3D and a Screaming 3D.

System Specs:

p5 200
64 MB 60ns EDO
SuperMicro P5 STE 512 cache
Monster 3D
Sierra Screaming 3D
MonsterSound 3d
AWE 32 non PnP
Glide 2.43, D3D 2.13....al the latest drivers etc....

by **Kasparo** » Tue, 04 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Have you ever played a racing sim that gave you a solid 30FPS while
playing....most likely not that is why you have accepted this week
performance. CPR should have a solid 25-30 FPS with the***pit on!!! with
a 3dfx accelerator card....but no I am afraid that one of the most important
items of making a sim feel great is left out again...FPS is just as
important as the physical model because without a good FPS, you will never
get the feeling of speed and control needed to take advantage of a great
driving model.

Perhaps the Voodoo 2 cards or better yet 2 in synch will get this game
running smooth on my P5 200.

Kas

by Jo » Wed, 05 Nov 1997 04:00:00

>>Hmph. Sounds like the same features I have to turn off to get 20-25fps
>>in Nascar 2 *unaccelerated*. Not impressive AT ALL.
>Joe, that may be so, but c'mon now.... This thing looks
>better with the settings I mentioned than N2 with
>the settings you mentioned.. doncha think?

No, not really - Nascar2 has better cars, better tracks, better
textures.

Joe

by **John Walla** » Thu, 06 Nov 1997 04:00:00

>Joe, that may be so, but c'mon now.... This thing looks
>better with the settings I mentioned than N2 with
>the settings you mentioned.. doncha think?

Looks aren't too important if your frame-rate has taken a dive down to
a level where you're ploughing into a wall.

In your opinion, I have to say that I have extreme reservations. We
already know that many things about the engine are extremely
unrealistic or just plain wrong, so how can you then believe that the
engine is fundmentally sound? At least ICR2 and N" cars behave like
real cars, no wierd wheelspin effects in neutral, or sliding uphill,
or snapping back into line when the rear breaks loose, or yadda yadda
yadda.

Impossible to tell from the demo IMO, the downforce settings were way
off which meant that it was impossible to judge high speed
grip/cornering. It also felt pretty "bouncy" over kerbs, which with
2mm of suspension movement is not something I would expect! Still, I
must say it did look promising, much more so than MS-CART.

Given that every racecar handles differently that is a pretty sweeping
generalisation! I would say that IMO ICR2 is too "slidy" and too
smooth a transition as grip falls away, but the underlying responses
of the car are bang on, at least consistent with anything I've driven.
Sure, it has problems, issues like being unable to break traction and
wheelspin in first and such like, but they were mentioned as
limitations of the engine.

Personally I'd rate Carmageddon's physics model as better than
MS-CART, with GP2, N2, ICR2 & SODA all way ahead also. As for driving
at "~25fps", on what system? With all graphics on a P-225MMX and o/c
Righteous 3D runs out of steam at 18-20fps. The same system delivers a
constant maximum of 30fps in ICR2 Rendition, never once dropping below
that. Not exactly a step forward?

It's nice to know that people like MS-CART, and it is worthy of
support if they are committed to developing the theme and releasing
improved sims down the road, but IMO we're well short of the
backslapping stage so far....

Cheers!
John

by **Trevor C Thoma** » Sat, 08 Nov 1997 04:00:00

> John, I think the feature set in CART is incredibly rich, and the guys
> at MS/TRI are doing their damndest to convince us all that they are
> not going to go away. <snip>

Randy, I must say that I agree with you 100%, I find the CART PR demo to
be a lot of fun :) just as it is and am eagerly awaiting the release of
the full sim I also dont see all the problems with framerate and several
other things mentioned here.

I would say that TR/MS have a very good first effort and with the proper
support, it will become even better than ICR2. Obviously with the
representation it has here in RAS, the publishers are committed to
making it the best it can be and I for one applaud them for it :).

Trev

by **Randy Magrud** » Sat, 08 Nov 1997 04:00:00

>In your opinion, I have to say that I have extreme reservations. We
>already know that many things about the engine are extremely
>unrealistic or just plain wrong, so how can you then believe that the
>engine is fundmentally sound? At least ICR2 and N" cars behave like
>real cars, no wierd wheelspin effects in neutral,

Yeah, because there's no wheelspin at all! :)

But then there are the 'uncatchable' spins in ICR2

John, I think the feature set in CART is incredibly rich, and the guys
at MS/TRI are doing their damndest to convince us all that they are
not going to go away. Remember that the original World Circuit,
NASCAR and ICR 1 all had a lot of problems which were remedied in
their sequels. What it comes down to is that this is a 1.0 product
with an incredibly rich feature set. I don't know if you have the
gold complete version of the demo, but I have the complete version and
I can tell you that the Pi analysis stuff goes a giant step beyond
GP2. It doesn't graph as many things as GP2 does, but the integrated
replay, and the fact that inline and lateral G's are modelled is very
good. Along with that, many more garage options and an intelligence
Race Engineer option are all advances in sims. Rather than demeaning
the effort by calling this a "game" and saying it doesn't rate as a
true "simulation" is an extreme position and I don't think its a
particularly defensible one, even if there ARE problems in the physics
model. Those can be corrected if they are in fact there and the
developer is committed towards going the route of more realism.

I also think there is an incredibly large number of people out there
who forget that just a few months back all they could do was cry and
moan about the fact that Papyrus had left ICR2 for dead and gone the
way of NASCAR. Now someone with the money and wherewithall to produce
a great simulation steps up and grabs the franchise, and suddenly the
developers are taken to the woodshed. I'm very happy that there is a
committed team working towards making CART Precision Racing as good as
possible, and they have a money-rich giant supplying them the
resources they need to get the job done. I also am happy that the
developers ARE here in the newsgroups absorbing the flames and
listening to constructive criticism. Can anyone tell me that
Microprose ever stepped to the plate after GP2 came out and got as
involved with "the masses" as Microsoft is? GP2 is one helluva sim
and I can't wait to get my P300 so I can see it in all its glory, but
lets face it we got hung out to dry by Microprose. I can't modem race
on it because my friends' and my modem are all on COM3 which doesn't
work in GP2, it has NO 3D support in the way of a patch ever coming,
we never got our promised network play or variable weather, a third
party had to come out with updated tracks, and so on. As good as GP2
is, its no longer current with Formula One, and MPS is not renewing
their FIA license. Its become (and I'm saddened to say it) bargain
bin software, a shameful end for such a great product. And its
sitting right next to IndyCar in that bargain bin at $9.95 a crack.
Now we have Papyrus devoting a lot of resources to NASCAR 2, a great
product, and we have GP2 fending off challenges from Psygnosis, Eidos,
Ubi Soft, Visiware etc, and now we have a new CART sim with an
incredibly rich feature set. Why should we complain? We've got it
good! Lets just get the feedback in and give them a chance to address
complaints.

Randy

by **John Walla** » Mon, 10 Nov 1997 04:00:00

>Yeah, because there's no wheelspin at all! :)

Try booting the car in first gear out of the Corkscrew then come back
and tell me that the rear wheels can't break traction.

In my experience of ICR2, if a spin is uncatchable then it is because
we have made it so. In fact I would say that in my opinion ICR2 is
_too_ forgiving, with excessive grip at high slip angles.

If the developers chooses to compromise the product by tailoring it
more for on-line racing then who are we to say that it is demeaned?
I'm certainly not slagging off CPR, it's a helluva fun product. That
said, I'm also not going to call a spade an "earth moving implement",
and CPR undoubtedly has a lot of flaws.

How any product attempting to be classed as a racing simulator could
be released with AI that bad is simply beyond me. There are many
things to admire about CPR, and equally many things to hate, hence my
mixed emotions over it. I agree that V2 could be something great, but
I'm not going to sing the praises of V1 because of that.

I could just as easily put forward the argument that someone with the
money took the license, and therefore we are less likely to get CART
sims from someone with a proven track record and who was here before
it was seen as a target market, but that wouldn't be fair. Just as
it's not fair to point the finger at Papyrus.

Which job? I'd bet substantial amounts of money that your agenda and
the agenda of that money-rich giant are poles apart, so what you are
hoping for is that the paths to those individual goals run parallel.
The compromises of MS-CART suggest otherwise so far, but then they're
working to remedy that so we'll see.

I see this argument all the time, and I constantly fail to see the
logic of it. We gobbled up the titbits of info, we read the reviews,
scanned the box and finally bought the game. Where's the shock? Hell,
my P225 with 3dFX can only run MS-CART at an acceptable frame-rate
with _everything_ turned off, and I STILL don't get 30fps - I recall
GP2 giving me better performance that that without a 3dFX.

Yep, and NASCAR1, Doom, and many other classics of their time. GP3
will come along in time and blow MS-CART into the weeds, as will Grand
Prix Legends, such is progress. I hardly see it as shameful though, it
exceeded the potential of it's time, and that must be a good thing
surely? It introduced the built-in data logger, the first sim to model
bump and rebound dampers (something I thought I'd never see in a sim),
state of the art AI, a host of things we have come to expect as
standard. It raised the bar.

One man's feedback is another man's complaint. We state the opinions,
let MS/TRI make the call on what is complaint and what is feedback.

Cheers!
John

by **Randy Magrud** » Mon, 10 Nov 1997 04:00:00

j...@runrun.demon.co.uk (John Wallace) wrote:
>Try booting the car in first gear out of the Corkscrew then come back
>and tell me that the rear wheels can't break traction.

John, I didn't say the rear end couldn't break loose -- I said there's
no wheelspin. There IS a difference. If you were anyone else, I'd
assume ignorance, but you know exactly what I'm talking about, so why
twist it into something else? Wheelspin just isn't there in ICR2.
That's why you have to do 3 point turns to turn around unless you're
lucky enough to be off the track when you do it. Its also why you
can't get out of your pit stall without hitting other cars if your
steering lock is set too low (contrast with NASCAR). Saying that
wheelspin isn't modelled is NOT the same thing as saying you can't
have oversteer, and you know it.

>In my experience of ICR2, if a spin is uncatchable then it is because
>we have made it so. In fact I would say that in my opinion ICR2 is
>_too_ forgiving, with excessive grip at high slip angles.

Most people I know who parcipated with me in ICR leagues agree that
there is a certain ridiculous aspect to the way the cars spin in ICR2.

>If the developers chooses to compromise the product by tailoring it
>more for on-line racing then who are we to say that it is demeaned?
>I'm certainly not slagging off CPR, it's a helluva fun product. That
>said, I'm also not going to call a spade an "earth moving implement",
>and CPR undoubtedly has a lot of flaws.

When you say that something is not a simulation and doesn't deserve
that 'badge' and you say its just a game, then you DO demean the work
of all the people who wrote it to be a simulation, so you better darn
well be sure of your facts, or at least be able to quantify what a
product has do to get the "John Wallace official 'simulator'
designation" badge. And be careful when you do it, lest you apply
arbitrary and subjective judgements and skimp on the shortcomings of
CPR's predecessors.

>How any product attempting to be classed as a racing simulator could
>be released with AI that bad is simply beyond me.

You know, its hilarious that you should trot this argument out. Its
like saying that an F16 game can't be considered a simulator unless
your opponents have great AI! The AI is an important aspect of the
competitive game, but if you are talking about an "Indy Car Simulator"
(which is what CART blatantly declares itself to be on the box cover),
then technically no AI is even required. Heck you could even get rid
of the competition completely and still call it a simulator. If I put
you in Mark Blundell's real car at Homestead and let you loose with it
(as ESPN did for their correspondent James Allen), would you come back
and say "hey that was fun, but its not the real thing because there
isn't anyone out there to race against, so I just can NOT take this
thing seriously"). Nope. Don't misundestand, the AI is a critical
feature and I have strong feelings about its shortcomings in this
game. However, to say that for that reason this thing cannot be
called a simulation? That's ridiculous. Its a simulation every time
I go out on a testing session and do lap after lap, analyzing Pi
Research data and tuning the car's setup. Don't tell me its not.

>There are many things to admire about CPR, and equally many things to hate, hence my
>mixed emotions over it. I agree that V2 could be something great, but I'm not going to sing the praises of V1 because of that.

Yes, there are flaws in CPR, most of which have been argued at length
here. I'm not so starry eyed I can't see the problems. I've got a
nice long list of them which grows by the day and will affect my
review. But at the end of the day when I take a step back and survey
the whole product, I see something really on the edge of being
something great with some more work. It makes the missing or
problematic areas annoying, to be sure, but you can see where this
thing is headed, and along with the efforts the CART team has made to
be here and accept even the most inflammatory feedback should cause
cheers, not jeers.

>I could just as easily put forward the argument that someone with the
>money took the license, and therefore we are less likely to get CART
>sims from someone with a proven track record and who was here before
>it was seen as a target market, but that wouldn't be fair. Just as
>it's not fair to point the finger at Papyrus.

This argument makes zero sense...so I hope you wouldn't "easily" put
it forward, or I'd be very disappointed in what passes for your logic.
If you want to know why Papyrus is no longer actively developing Indy
Car/CART, why don't you send an e-mail and ask them. I cannot and
will not speak for them, because I don't feel like I have the right to
do that in public.

>Which job? I'd bet substantial amounts of money that your agenda and
>the agenda of that money-rich giant are poles apart, so what you are
>hoping for is that the paths to those individual goals run parallel.
>The compromises of MS-CART suggest otherwise so far, but then they're
>working to remedy that so we'll see.

The two are completely compatible. Microsoft and TRI want to make a
truckload of money, and I want a good CART simulator. They can make
money off of me (and many other people) by selling me a good CART
simulator. Kinda neat how that works, isn't it? And as far as that
last bit, it sounds like you're judging them before even giving them a
chance. Were you this nasty to ICR 1.0 or World Circuit? Do you
prefer the attitude and support (ha!) we got from Microprose with GP2
to what we're getting from Microsoft?

>I see this argument all the time, and I constantly fail to see the
>logic of it. We gobbled up the titbits of info, we read the reviews,
>scanned the box and finally bought the game. Where's the shock? Hell,
>my P225 with 3dFX can only run MS-CART at an acceptable frame-rate
>with _everything_ turned off, and I STILL don't get 30fps - I recall
>GP2 giving me better performance that that without a 3dFX.

I see now I need to get you a prescription for memory pills. John,
from the time that GP2 came out, you had state of the art hardware.
While I and others were putting up plea after plea for 3D hardware
support, you were claiming that it was no big deal and that it ran
just great on your P200 (which at the time was NOT the standard gaming
platform). Its been quite some time now since GP2 came out and now
hardware is cheap enough now to run it well, but that was NOT the case
when it first came out. To try to compare an aging GP2 and its
performance TODAY to a brand new sim is ridiculous. I might argue
that there's a John Wallace-type out there with a P2 300 and the
fastest 3D bard on the planet who could scoff at your complaints about
CPR's performance on your lowly 225 and say how its your own fault
because you just don't own fast enough hardware -- just as you more or
less did to me when I was complaining about GP2 performance on my P133
to you. (how sweet it is, 6 months later, to turn around the same
things you were throwing my way and volley them back into your court
now that the shoe is on the other foot).

>GP3 will come along in time and blow MS-CART into the weeds,

You have hard information on that? Last I heard, Microprose was
bailing out of the F1 market as fast as it could and Geoff still
hasn't come out of his cave since he shipped his GP2 code.

>as will Grand Prix Legends, such is progress.

Hey I hope GPL is as good as it looks, but its not going to "blow
MS-CART into the weeds" because they two games simulate different
sports and different eras. My favorite racing series is CART, with F1
a second and NASCAR a distant third. Any solid CART sim is always
going to have a place on my computer. GPL will only compliment
MS-CART, not "blow it into the weeds".

>bump and rebound dampers (something I thought I'd never see in a sim),
>state of the art AI, a host of things we have come to expect as
>standard. It raised the bar.

while omitting important things like tire temperatures, in-cockpit
adjustments to fuel mixture, sway bars, brake bias, and camber etc.
And how did it raise the bar on replay? 20 second limited replays?
One-lap per saved replay file? GP2 was as much a step back from
Papyrus sims as it was a step forward. I love GP2 dearly, but its not
the be all end all some of the Gp2 extremists paint it as being.

>One man's feedback is another man's complaint. We state the opinions,
>let MS/TRI make the call on what is complaint and what is feedback.

Obviously they'll be judged more by what they produce than what they
promise. Nonetheless, I find the attitude of the MS/TRI people here
to be VERY encouraging. They seem to understand what crowd they are
dealing with, and that bodes well for us.

Randy

by **John Walla** » Mon, 10 Nov 1997 04:00:00

On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 07:56:09 GMT, rmagr...@concentric.net (Randy

Magruder) wrote:

Hi Randy,

First of all I should say that you shouldn't take my comments so much
to heart. You appear to have taken them as an argument against your
opinions rather than regarding CPR, and that is not the case at all.
We both have the same outlook on the future, it's only our
interpretation of the present that differs :)

>John, I didn't say the rear end couldn't break loose -- I said there's
>no wheelspin. There IS a difference.

Would you care to explain it to me? In both cases you apply power in
excess of the capability of your tyres to grip the road - the wheels
spin and lose grip , hence wheelspin. The only difference I can see is
that in ICR2 it doesn't happen from rest. Since we spend the vast
majority of time in an Indycar when it's moving, I would say that
MS-CART's "no wheelspin at low speeds" is a _far_ worse problem than
ICR2's "no wheelspin from rest".

>Most people I know who parcipated with me in ICR leagues agree that
>there is a certain ridiculous aspect to the way the cars spin in ICR2.

Okay, but that tells me nothing. HOW is it ridiculous, what is wrong
with it? It spins the same way as any racer I've driven, the only
problem being that it is too user-friendly in the way that the grip
falls off.

>When you say that something is not a simulation and doesn't deserve
>that 'badge' and you say its just a game, then you DO demean the work
>of all the people who wrote it to be a simulation, so you better darn
>well be sure of your facts, or at least be able to quantify what a
>product has do to get the "John Wallace official 'simulator'
>designation" badge.

Hang on Randy, the developers themselves have been on here saying
quite candidly that you are steered away from AI cars to avoid crashes
- it is things like that which compromise it being a simulator along
with the _horrible_ AI, nothing to do with any badge you ascribe to
me. As far as the driving goes, I still maintain that it is way too
easy to drive (probably for reasons of making on-line play easily
accesible) but it is most certainly fun and as realistic as it could
be given the above dictum. The develpers have done an amazing job IMO,
but I don't believe that their remit with V1.0 was to make the most
ultra-realistic simulator possible.

>And be careful when you do it, lest you apply
>arbitrary and subjective judgements and skimp on the shortcomings of
>CPR's predecessors.

Actually I would say that fawning praise is more likely to compromise
CART's descendants than any constructive criticism that could be
offered. That's not a slight at yourself, everything I've seen from
you has been both reasoned and reasonable IMO, but a lot of the posts
do come under the FP category without actually stopping and looking
beyond the fun factor.

>You know, its hilarious that you should trot this argument out. Its
>like saying that an F16 game can't be considered a simulator unless
>your opponents have great AI! The AI is an important aspect of the
>competitive game, but if you are talking about an "Indy Car Simulator"
>(which is what CART blatantly declares itself to be on the box cover),
>then technically no AI is even required.

Randy - what is being sold is a CART simulator. CART is not a vehicle,
it is a competitive racing series. You can't simulate "CART" with one
car, you need to have a full field of AI which, since they are racing
at the same level as you, should be capable of racing you. Are you
trying to tell me that MS-CART is being touted as a simulation of
driving only the car?! Read the box.

>If I put
>you in Mark Blundell's real car at Homestead and let you loose with it
>(as ESPN did for their correspondent James Allen), would you come back
>and say "hey that was fun, but its not the real thing because there
>isn't anyone out there to race against, so I just can NOT take this
>thing seriously"). Nope.

You're thinking of the MS-CART test driver simulator, and if that's
what this was sold as then at least I would know what I was getting.
As soon as you use words like "race" or include features like "season"
then pardon me for expecting to get some usable AI. The game itself is
called CART Precision RACING for heaven's sake. Randy, arguments like
this really do detract from anything else you are saying, you're
attempting to defend the indefensible.

>Its a simulation every time
>I go out on a testing session and do lap after lap, analyzing Pi
>Research data and tuning the car's setup. Don't tell me its not.

Sheesh, let me get my anorak on and I'll sit and pore over Pi data.
Most racing drivers hate testing, finding it boring and wanting to
race. If that is MS-CART's raison d'etre then it should be marketed as
"CART car development and physics analysis program. It's not of
course, it's called "CART Precision _RACING_", and that's what I at
least expect to do without having to spend a fortune connecting to the
Zone. Hang on. Could that perhaps be the purpose of CPR....?! We could
be onto something here.

>Yes, there are flaws in CPR, most of which have been argued at length
>here. I'm not so starry eyed I can't see the problems. I've got a
>nice long list of them which grows by the day and will affect my
>review. But at the end of the day when I take a step back and survey
>the whole product, I see something really on the edge of being
>something great with some more work. It makes the missing or
>problematic areas annoying, to be sure, but you can see where this
>thing is headed, and along with the efforts the CART team has made to
>be here and accept even the most inflammatory feedback should cause
>cheers, not jeers.

Yes we can see where this _could_ be going, but that makes absolutely
no difference to THIS release, the V1.0 of CPR. The number of times I
have been involved in beta programs and told "Oh that's fixed for the
finished product" - was it heck. Or visited a developer and heard all
the amazing things they'd like to do, things which generally get
compromised by time, money or mission statement. It's surely nice to
have another racing-sim developer on the block and they've come out
with a great first product, but I don't see why those good points
should act like rose-tinted glasses to the flaws. If V1.1 or even V2.0
turn out to be stunning I'll be as happy as larry, but it doesn't
affect my opinion of what's currently on the table.

>This argument makes zero sense...so I hope you wouldn't "easily" put
>it forward, or I'd be very disappointed in what passes for your logic.

Please just respond to what I said if you are going to answer, the
attempt at patronising makes what you say come across a lot weaker
than it should.

>If you want to know why Papyrus is no longer actively developing Indy
>Car/CART, why don't you send an e-mail and ask them. I cannot and
>will not speak for them, because I don't feel like I have the right to
>do that in public.

I already know why there is a hiatus and think it's a shame. It's not
the end of Papyrus involvement in US open-wheel sports (whatever they
will be called!), so maybe MS/TRI and Papyrus will spur each other on
to ever greater heights? We can only hope!

>The two are completely compatible. Microsoft and TRI want to make a
>truckload of money, and I want a good CART simulator.

So where is the compatability? Or are you happy with an empty track, a
car detuned for on-line racing and a Pi analysis box?

>And as far as that
>last bit, it sounds like you're judging them before even giving them a
>chance. Were you this nasty to ICR 1.0 or World Circuit? Do you
>prefer the attitude and support (ha!) we got from Microprose with GP2
>to what we're getting from Microsoft?

I'm judging no-one, just stating how I see things rather than looking
toward V1.1 or V2.0 and imagining how I'd like them to be. As for F1GP
and ICR1, the goalposts have moved somewhat since then. Both of those
_clearly_ set new standards when they were released, as did ICR2 and
GP2. That is something MS-CART cannot claim, and one of the reasons
why I am mildly disappointed in certain aspects of it. I'm afraid I
fail to see the problem with GP2's support that everyone is talking
about - we KNEW what we were getting as a program, nothing was
fundamentally wrong with it or needing patched, the problem seems to
boil down to there being no 3D or network support. Read the box, read
a review. I knew it wasn't in there before I bought it, so perhaps
that's why I was quite happy.

>I see now I need to get you a prescription for memory pills. John,
>from the time that GP2 came out, you had state of the art hardware.

So why don't I see the same request for MS-CART? My P225MMX with 3dFX
gets a very unstable 12-15 fps with all aye-candy on - that's
comparable to a 486-66 running GP2. Quantum drop?

>that there's a John Wallace-type out there with a P2 300 and the
>fastest 3D bard on the planet who could scoff at your complaints about
>CPR's performance on your lowly 225 and say how its your own fault
>because you just don't own fast enough hardware -- just as you more or
>less did to me when I was complaining about GP2 performance on my P133
>to you. (how sweet it is, 6 months later, to turn around the same
>things you were throwing my way and volley them back into your court
>now that the shoe is on the other foot).

Yike, a revenge killing. GP2 was undoubtedly demanding on hardware,
and you wanted 3D support. In MS-CART you _have_ 3D support (albeit
only D3D) and it STILL falls well short of what should be expected.
GLQuake runs in excess of 50fps, ICR2 way over 30fps, and over 50fps
in turbo mode. What the heck is MS-CART doing with all that power,
that's my only question. Okay, it's slow. Today I turn off all the
eye-candy, run at 30fps around a track that looks frankly awful, and
I'm happy enough, knowing that faster hardware will allow me to run it
perfectly in a year or so if I'm still interested. That's the gist of
what I ...

read more »

by **Randy Magrud** » Tue, 11 Nov 1997 04:00:00

j...@runrun.demon.co.uk (John Wallace) wrote:
>Would you care to explain it to me? In both cases you apply power in
>excess of the capability of your tyres to grip the road - the wheels
>spin and lose grip , hence wheelspin. The only difference I can see is
>that in ICR2 it doesn't happen from rest. Since we spend the vast
>majority of time in an Indycar when it's moving, I would say that
>MS-CART's "no wheelspin at low speeds" is a _far_ worse problem than
>ICR2's "no wheelspin from rest".

Okay, lets see. There's this thing called a co-efficient of friction
between the rubber and the road, and when the force spinning the wheel
exceeds the friction keeping it stuck to the road, it spins. It
doesn't matter whether the car is moving or sitting still. In the
case of breaking loose in a turn, such as snapping the wheel too hard
on a car without sufficient downforce in the rear, you're causing it
not by wheelspin but by lateral weight transfer. The lateral weight
transfer exceeds the friction force keeping the tire moving on the
road, and the tire breaks free. Wheelspin looseness is induced mainly
by the foreward acceleration of the car exceeding the grip on the rear
end. Breaking loose in a fast turn is mainly due to rapid LATERAL
weight transfer, not excessive acceleration. In slower corners,
wheelspin AND rear weight transfer COMBINE to make going loose more
easy if you give it too much gas while exiting a tight corner or you
fail to release the car on track out (the Skip Barber "O.S." racing
line). IndyCar II models loss of rear adhesion based mainly on its
calculation of weight transfer, not wheelspin. Sometimes it seems
that the two are one and the same, but they aren't. It is simply that
when you feed too much throttle coming out of a tight turn, ICR2
simulates the rapid weight transfer to that wheel and breaks it loose.
Its NOT induced by wheelspin. Agreed?

>Hang on Randy, the developers themselves have been on here saying
>quite candidly that you are steered away from AI cars to avoid crashes
>- it is things like that which compromise it being a simulator along
>with the _horrible_ AI, nothing to do with any badge you ascribe to
>me.

Really? I didn't see an admission. I have seen this effect myself
and agree with you that its there and needs to be addressed, but I saw
the MS guy basically make some comment about how disastrous contact
was between open wheel cars, and not come right out and admit that
they put in a collision avoidance system. In any event, this part of
the simulation breaks down, but it doesn't make the game any less a
simulator when I'm hotlapping on an empty track.

>As far as the driving goes, I still maintain that it is way too
>easy to drive (probably for reasons of making on-line play easily
>accesible) but it is most certainly fun and as realistic as it could
>be given the above dictum.

I don't see where you get that its too easy to drive. Its easier than
ICR2 in some ways, and harder in others. I would EXPECT that the cars
would be grippier than in ICR2 mainly because of advances in the tire
wars and chassis improvements. The records have come down each year,
in spite of CART mandating lower downforce and less boost. Were it
not for 'grippier' cars because of the tire wars, along with better
horsepower and chassis handling, those times would NOT be going down
each year.

>The develpers have done an amazing job IMO,
>but I don't believe that their remit with V1.0 was to make the most
>ultra-realistic simulator possible.

I beg to differ. I think they went for ultra realism as far as the
simple act of driving the car is concerned. If they failed to be
ultra-realistic it was in terms of the actual competitive racing model
(no yellows that I've seen, the collision avoidance system, choppy
frame rate with other cars on the track, the way AI cars make NO move
to avoid you in many cases).

>Actually I would say that fawning praise is more likely to compromise
>CART's descendants than any constructive criticism that could be
>offered. That's not a slight at yourself, everything I've seen from
>you has been both reasoned and reasonable IMO, but a lot of the posts
>do come under the FP category without actually stopping and looking
>beyond the fun factor.

Yeah, but I think CART has gotten more flack than praise. And I think
the degree to which we should be going after them ought to be to some
degree tempered by their responsiveness to our criticisms. They've
been pretty good about helping out here and taking our suggestions
seriously. As long as they continue to do that, I see no reason to
beat them to a pulp :) I don't want to give away my review at
Digital Sports, (www.digitalsports.com), but I'll be done with it in a
few days and you can read my ultimate conclusion for yourself. I'll be
interested in hearing your feedback on it.

>Randy - what is being sold is a CART simulator. CART is not a vehicle,

Well, if you go by what's on the box it says: "Indy Car simulator".
I agree 100% with you that this game isn't complete until the AI
issues are resolved and yellows are fully implemented. But I have a
really good feeling they will do just that. So I'd say this game is
great for hotlapping right now, but not so great for competitive play.

>Randy, arguments like this really do detract from anything else you are saying, you're
>attempting to defend the indefensible.

No, I'm trying to make a very important and long neglected point:
that demeaning a game by saying it doesn't deserve to be called a
"simulator" is unfair if your criteria has anything to do with AI.
What we're really doing is making two different conclusions based upon
our world views. In my view the rating as a competitive racing
simulator is hurt dramatically by AI flaws, missing yellows, etc, but
in terms of modelling the handling, setup and overall feel of an Indy
Car, the work they've done DOES warrant the simulator warning.
Perhaps we can agree that they've written an Indy Car "simulator" and
a CART "game".

>Sheesh, let me get my anorak on and I'll sit and pore over Pi data.
>Most racing drivers hate testing, finding it boring and wanting to
>race.

Were it not for that testing, those drivers would NOT be competitive.
The series has gotten VERY competitive. Those that don't test --
don't win. Its that simple. I remember something author Carroll
Smith wrote in "Drive to Win" about Jeff Braun, a race engineer and
driver. His dad wouldn't let him race go-karts in a league until he
could prove to his dad that he could beat the track record. So the
kid had to spend hour after hour getting better and better and better.
Finally, he was able to beat the record on a consistent basis, and he
went out and immediately started winning races. He could have
competed before, but he wouldn't have had that rush of winning early
on. Having the sim there for hotlapping doesn't mean you have to
become a Pi expert...few drivers are data acquisition experts, and
that's where the MS Race Engineer comes in and is one of the reasons I
like it. You know what you have to do, you enable the cones, line
aids, or what have you and you practice, tell the engineer how the car
feels and keep doing that til your times are competitive and you're
ready to race. As fun as racing is, I don't find any joy in being
lapped 4 times by AI cars my first time out.

>Yes we can see where this _could_ be going, but that makes absolutely
>no difference to THIS release, the V1.0 of CPR.

Agreed. I just don't feel that saying that this is not a simulation
is a valid comment, and this is the basis upon which all our arguments
rest, isn't it? I believe it to be a good heading towards great Indy
Car simulation, but not yet a competitive racing simulation. So lets
agree on terms, and we'll probably end up agreeing on conclusion :)

>with a great first product, but I don't see why those good points
>should act like rose-tinted glasses to the flaws.

Perhaps its to some degree to balance the degree of anti-MS rhetoric
shown here. Heck, I'm a software engineer at Borland. I have no
reason to stand up for a Microsoft product -- most of the time I don't
(Visual J++ sucks, nyah nyah nyah <GGGG>), but I like what they are
doing with this sim, even if I agree with you that its really not
ready for primetime until they address performance and AI problems.

>I already know why there is a hiatus and think it's a shame. It's not
>the end of Papyrus involvement in US open-wheel sports (whatever they
>will be called!), so maybe MS/TRI and Papyrus will spur each other on
>to ever greater heights? We can only hope!

Yup. We can only hope. However, it seems that the NASCAR is making
the money for Papyrus right now, and it only makes sense for them to
do whatever makes the most profitable return, even if Papyrus started
out as a bunch of open-wheel fans, as they did....must be gut
wrenching to come to the conclusion that you have to spend your
efforts on a stock car game when you really prefer open-wheelers!
:-)

>So where is the compatability? Or are you happy with an empty track, a
>car detuned for on-line racing and a Pi analysis box?

If MS said, "hey we feel this is a multi-player racing game and we're
not interested in going for ulta-realistic AI", I'd say "okay, nice
hotlapping game...but not for serious use by the ICR2/Gp2/NASCAR2
community" and that would be the end of it. But its not. I think
that we're right to criticise the AI, and they've been right so far in
agreeing to look at the problems we're raising. If they do so, I'll
be a happy guy, and so will you.

>the goalposts have moved somewhat since then.

Absolutely, which is why it amazed me you would trot out superior GP2
performance on your P225, a computer that didn't exist when GP2 was
released!

>_clearly_ set new standards when they were released, as did ICR2 and
>GP2. That is something MS-CART cannot claim,

I disagree with you. I think the Pi analysis
...

read more »

by **CART Te** » Tue, 11 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Sounds like a bug if your *rear* tire collision cause a steering twitch -
we'll add it to the list ; )

>Hi Dean:)

>> One misconception (among many!) that is growing on this newsgroup
regarding
>> CPR I must just clear up - you are NEVER "steered away from AI cars to
avoid
>> crashes" - the only time your steering may be affected is when your front
>> wheel(s) collide with another car - then your steering direction may be
>> changed as a result of the collision.

>> With driving aids off, the sim does not interfere with your control of
the
>> car in any way.

>I have had my front steering affected in this manner when computer cars
>bump my rear tyres. and i watch it about 20 times in replay to make
>sure!
>it screws up most of my race starts, when the ai cars pull in behind my
>rear so close that they nearly hit me, i get thrown off the track when
>the
>game ***ly jolts my steering off to one side, when they haven't even
>yet reached the point that they hit my rear tyres.
>Eric Straub told me that the game often is looking 1 frame ahead so we
>probably don't quite see collisions, as such, which strikes me as a
>little
>bit of a strange way to do it:) but it still doesn't explain why my
>front tyres were getting jolted like that from having a stupid ai car
>nearly touching my rear tyres.

>suffice to say that I don't race the AI at all any more:)

>hotlapping is excellent though, if you look past all the minor little
>niggles.
>i just got my sound drivers working right, some documentation for my
>awe64
>said that you should turn off full-duplex in directx games, but that
>just
>screws up my performance. turning it back on gave me another 3-4fps and
>that gives me a much better feel of the car. the more framerate i get,
>the
>better the game feels. now i just need to try it when my Pure3D arrives
>in the mail tomorrow morning:)

by **Michael Youn** » Tue, 11 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Hi. Does CPR model the car's turbulent wake, and loss of aero downforce for
the car drafting behind? That might begin to explain some of what I think
Randy is saying. I, for one, know that car to car contact is easily
possible.

Michael.

=======

>As Dean said, there's no avoidance code. When you're driving with driving
>aids turned off then whatever happens is as a result of control inputs you
>create. It must be psychological <g>...

by **CART Te** » Tue, 11 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Hey Guys,

One misconception (among many!) that is growing on this newsgroup regarding
CPR I must just clear up - you are NEVER "steered away from AI cars to avoid
crashes" - the only time your steering may be affected is when your front
wheel(s) collide with another car - then your steering direction may be
changed as a result of the collision.

With driving aids off, the sim does not interfere with your control of the
car in any way.

by **Randy BO** » Tue, 11 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Dean,

CPR I must just clear up - you are NEVER "steered away from AI cars to avoid
crashes" - the only time your steering may be affected is when your front
wheel(s) collide with another car - then your steering direction may be
changed as a result of the collision.>>

Is it possible then that the collision detection is buggy? The reason I ask is
that I find that when I come up behind an AI car, I start going off the road.
Its either psychological or real. I've never experienced it in any other sim,
so I have a hard time believing that its psychological, or that it is for
anyone else. Are you doing anything to the physics model when cars get close?
Drafting? Loss of downforce? Anything? I'd like to get to the bottom of
this one if at all possible.

You'll also note that I corrected John on this point. He seemed to think you
guys had ADMITTED putting some kind of repulsor code in, whereas I just
remember that the answer you guys gave didn't answer the question, but merely
commented how catastrophic wheel-to-wheel contact is in Indy Cars (though its
by no means fatal -- check out Andretti driving at Laguna Seca last year with
a badly bent suspension arm -- finished 9th in spite of it all).

Randy
Randy Magruder
Staff Writer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com/

by **John Brown** » Tue, 11 Nov 1997 04:00:00

As Dean said, there's no avoidance code. When you're driving with driving
aids turned off then whatever happens is as a result of control inputs you
create. It must be psychological <g>...

--
Cheers,

John Browne
CART Team

rec.autos.simulators

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned

CPR GREAT!! Framerate sucks!..I'm concerned