rec.autos.simulators

I am not a particulally good sim racer, I am ok, but certainly not one
of the best by any means. If you enjoy TOCA thats fine by me, I also
enjoy TOCA, However, IMHO it is *not* a sim, mainly because it does not
accurately model damage or have any set-up options of any kind.

This may not be the opinion of others? The guy I was responding to was
basically saying he wasn't good enough at the sim, so could they not
release an *easier* version which would appeal to more people?

IMHO, sims are by there very nature more complicated and more time
consuming than *arcade* type racing games. I have nothing against
arcade type racing games, and indeed own many myself. but if you buy a
sim (especially if you have owned other sims) why then start
complaining that its too hard?

I agree, absolutely, TOCA is a great game, thats why I also own it, and
drive it often. I'm not so sure it leaves F1RS for dead graphically?
(certainly GP2 yes) but hey, you are entitled to your opinion.

8-)

*Peter*    8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

8-)

*Peter*    8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

PETE

QBM

PETE:

R:

Pete you said it again in the first two sentences. I guess you don't really
mean it but your saying you want a sim to be harder in comparison to the
real thing.

R:

There is nothing easy about a typical arcade game (garbage btw). Most of
them are impossible because they race on ice skates and bouncing off walss
in many are unavoidable. This makes them garbage. I agree arcade games are
terrible I'm talking about the third catergory Realistic driving games, not
your typical arcade or your typical sim. I want a realistic handling one.

Toca has all of this as does N2 arcade and can be jumped right into.  Setups
will take a lttle time to tweak them a tad better. Toca is lacking user
defined setups as each car is setup differently.

No I have never seen that. I'm only gonna be two 2 weeks old the week after
next.

Have you ever seen them go around corners at fabulous speed becuase of mega
grip caused by unheard of downforce? I don't get this feeling in F1rS at all
of having good traction. Have you seen F1 cars pivot back and forth
laterally down straights becasue they are handling beasts? The spins you are
talking about are becuase of over acceleration, these are not the types of
handling probems I'm discussing. Take F1RS and try pivoting down the
straights harshly they can't handle it not even close.

Nope don't mean that. I bet it takes you two hours to watch 60 minutes. :)

Check.

Check.

Check.

This could be. Honestly could you link me to a real good example of a setup
that is real sticky. I want to see what your definition is and at the same
time might find a new appreciation.

I can understand this.

Jeff Gordaon has through the years. But how about the locals. They just went
from home to race conditions, quite a lot of them not even knowing for sure
they could do it. Granted they aren't great at first and do get better each
race. But when they first start out your typical racer doesn't look absurd
like one does getting to know his lastest greatest sim. They look
respectible. I've seen pro's race multiplayer Nascar and have races that
look hurrendous compared to just average drivers at a local speedway. I
still say something is missing here.

How did they become great drivers? If sims are truethful to be real then
they had to spend 100 hours on a track somewhere right?

Agree with options. Make them easy to figure out.

QBM

Nope. Listen to what you says makes a sim. Damage and setups and not said
here but understood over various post, "A difficult handling model to make
it challangeing so we can come back forever".

I say the most important first ingrediant by far, second to noe, the big
kahuna, the word, the one, the king of reasons,  "THE HANDLING MODEL". If
the handling model isn't very close to the real thing it doesn't matter how
much setup options you have, it doesn't matter about if a fly on the
windshield can cause damage these things are secondary. If you can't get a
true feeling for a car that is realistic the other stuff is meaningless to a
person that wants to drive a realistic game. Now having your two secondary
reasons adds to depth and challange. But just making a car hard to drive and
simmers assuing that's correct becasue the real pro's have to be doing
something that is so unbelievably hard that it's nearly impossible for
mortal commoners like us to really drive well is stretching it a lot. Just
because somebody can make a good solid handling model that at least can be
driven by average people doesn't mean an average person is gonna be the top
dog.

And another point here. Even though I hate arcade racers simmers talk about
arcade racers only like pretty graphics. But then I read all this stuff
about how beautiful F1RS is by simmers. Toca isn't a big looker but to me
that is very secondary to the handling the game dishes out as well as the
limited damage and setups the game has.

QBM

I'm gonna make a big point HERE!!!!!!!!

Ok Pete your what I consider the typical sim driver with the typical views.

Now you state, I Quote; "cars appear to handle great based on the real
thing?"

Pleae everybody read the quote again.

How many feel this is true?

I do for one. Pete two and Paul most likely for three.

What is this  so important here?

If this is true then I do know the feeling of how a vehicle should handle (I
figured I did but stay with me)...

F1RS and Nascar 2 sim I can say the cars handle like shit compared to the
toca cars. Now in reality I feel Toca cars cannot out handle F1 cars but can
outhandle Nascars, but Nascars are setup for a different style of racing. In
their own right will handle extremely well for what they do.

So HOW's come these games have nowhere near the handling and forgivness of
Toca, if Toca is accurate? My answer is becuse they are not accurate, they
are way to touchy plain and simple.

If Toca is close to right then these other ex.'s a far from right.

I can't think of another topic that can be more on topic. Than defining what
a realistic sim really is.

QBM

I've never driven a touring car and I've never driven an F1 either and neither I
guess have most of the contributors to this news group. Basically they both cost
a fortune and no team is going to let anyone who hasn't excelled at the junior
and lower formulas have a go at either.
Real touring cars are nothing like their road equivalents, and we all know why.
A Lotus Esprit road car would s*** all over a Renault Laguna road car, but would
be lapped several times over by the Nescaf Blend 37/Williams/Renault version.
At least touring cars look like there road equivalents, the Williams F1 is
nothing like a road car beyond having 4 wheels and an internal combustion
engine, and couldn't get anywhere near being licensed for road use. So what do
we know? What do the drivers say about TOCA or F1RS? (How much are they paid to
say it?. See  http://www.codemasters.com/ for the answer but here are 2
excerpts:
Frank Biela: " I like the game a lot, it's extremely realistic. The circuits are
like the originals and the reactions of the car are extremely similar to the
real thing - when the car spins it looks like a real race car." (note the 2 uses
of "extremely" here)
Anthony Reid: " This is the most accurate driving game that I've played. The
game has good detail, the graphics are excellent, the grandstands, track
furniture, and elevation of the track are excellent. The game is tremendous
fun." (note the use of "most accurate" here.)
What do the drivers say about F1RS - I don't know, do you? I'd love to know.
I gather that touring cars drive much more like road cars. And I also gather
that F1s are b***** impossible to drive, so perhaps F1RS has erred on the side
of easiness, because I can drive them (though not well) and I'm a clutz.
My point in all these rambles is that both are probably good simulations and
TOCA is not an arcade game, nope, no-way, uh-huh - it's a simulation. Perhaps
it's just that real touring cars are easier to drive than F1s, though it's hard
to drive either well.
PJ

Peter, I was tired and overreacting!
What is IMHO?
TOCA is a sim.
It doesn't simulate car damage but that doesn't mean its not a simulation.
In your book this is a crucial deficiency. I'd prefer car damage but I
still say it's a sim.
It doesn't simulate car setups, personally I'm glad of that - you hate it -
well?
This is a 17" computer screen - if you want reality, forget it - you'd need
VR and one of those things that move on hydralic slits (now that would that
be fun!).
What is important is that what it does show is an attempt at an excerpt of
reality. TOCA does this, there's nothing in TOCA that you can say, "No
that's all wrong!". You can point to issues they've missed but what's there
is good, in fact I think it's the best.
The BTCC drivers think TOCA is "extremely realistic" - see the Codemasters
site.

What I meant by "audio-visual" was the feel of the game. You feel you're
going fast. I get this from F1RS but not as much (and yeah GP2 is a
non-starter in this department). In F1RS, when you slow to take a sharp
bend the car feels nearly stationary, in TOCA it doesn't, in fact there's a
scary feeling like you get when you have a near miss in a road car. This is
the white knuckle bit and TOCA have simulated it ever so well. I'm thinking
now, "How is this achieved?". Maybe it's something to do with the relative
size of the car to the track. It seems big in TOCA, maybe this makes you
feel closer to the road. I dunno I'm guessing. What do you think?

Reality is a hard thing to model, you've got to think about more than what
you can directly see and enumerate. Ask a painter. Photo-realism doesn't
always capture feel. Impressionist painters tried to get the feel of an
event by dispensing with irrelevant details and concentrating on the light,
the mood. TOCA seems to do a similar trick, and I don't know why it works,
but you really do feel you're going fast - they have simulated speed better
than any other game. F1RS goes for the photo reality and that's okay (in
fact very nice). GP2 is graphically ancient - a good attempt for it's day
but it's old now (I'll be flamed to hell for that). GPL looks the goods but
I've only got the demo and haven't managed to keep the program up for more
than a minute.

TOCA is an impressionist masterpiece to F1RS's old master. Sega rally and
the arcade brigade are cartoons - jokes - like Tom and Jerry. How can
anyone compare TOCA with these?

PJ

Isn't that what is important in a simulation ? The essence of a sim
is to recreate as accurately as possible a real driving experience.
TOCA does that very well.

Define a simulator then. I know this discussion has come up before, and
I don't recall seeing a clear cut answer then. Maybe because there
isn't a definite answer. If anyone can come up with criteria then do so.
The so-called sims that I've played have compromises. Does this make
them any less a sim?

I think the games discussed so far are right on topic. If you don't
agree, then you don't have to contribute to the discussion.

--
Andrew Fielden.
UK.

--
Andrew Fielden.
UK.

Sounds familiar...

Maybe there is no such thing as a driving simulator (until now - GPL) and
this group shouldn't have existed at all :)

--
Andrew Fielden.
UK.

It is a true simulation of driving a Touring Car, but damage simulation is
a crucial aspect of a race simulation. For an accurate race experience would
you accept that damage needs to be modelled accurately?

Then again GP2 doesn't model damage accurately, but it's still called a sim.

--
Andrew Fielden.
UK.

It may not be a sim by the sim purists but the demo is a helluva
lota fun !

I only have the demo but it appears it doesn't all the garage adjustments
that
N2/GP2 have ?

Tim

You could probably drive an F1 car around Monaco, and after quite a
few laps could turn laps that were not embarrasing, but if you think
you could remotely approach what Senna and Schumacher do around there
then you are _massively_ deluding yourself.

There have been plenty examples of talented amateur racers driving F1
cars as part of a magazine article, and in one such article one of
these amateur racers was eventually 10 seconds slower than Shinji
Nakano around Barcelona. That is TEN SECONDS slower, and slower than
Shinji Nakano.

What the Pros are doing is not impossible, but is comparable to what
the "pro's" are doing in GP2 - if you can install GP2 and run a 1:19
around Jerez within the first hour then I prostrate myself at your
feet in awe.

Cheers!
John

PJ

up before, and

Lets define simulation then - here is Websters dictionary definition:
"1. imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.
2. the act or process of pretending; feigning.
3. an assumption or imitation of a particular appearance or form; counterfeit;
sham.
4. Psychiatry. a conscious attempt to feign some mental or physical disorder
to escape punishment or to gain a desired objective.
5. the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through
the use of another system, esp. a computer program designed for the purpose."
I think definition 5 is the one we should be looking at. But it doesn't really
help does it?

PJ