> Peter, I was tired and overreacting!
"In My Humble Opinion"
Nope, not so, never, is not......
Want a bet...... 8-)
*Peter* 8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
"In My Humble Opinion"
Nope, not so, never, is not......
Want a bet...... 8-)
*Peter* 8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
8-)
*Peter* 8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
IMHO GP2 and most other sims *do* have a reasonably accurate damage
model. It may well be possible in certain circumstances to suffer no
damage in a heavy collision as you state, but they are not deliberately
designed in that fashion.
IMHO, a simulation should allow the driver to alter the cars set-up.
There is no need to use them if you don't want to? But they should be
available, as is the case in real life. *EVERY* racing car driver has
an imput into the cars set-up, some have more input than others, but
they *all* have some imput at one point or another.
Different drivers prefer different set-ups, so how can the cars be
set-up for optimum performance for *every* different driver?
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you are trying to say, the cars
have a default set-up that shouldn't need to be altered. But that does
not simulate the real thing, all the drivers do not use the same
default set-up? Half the fun of sims is tweaking those set-ups (in my
case, and I'm sure in many others too).
Like I said before, if you don't want to mess with the set-ups then you
don't have to, but if it ain't got em to start with, it ain't a sim
(IMHO)
8-)
Yes, from a purely racing point of view, the car dynamics should be
accurate, and in TOCA they are, but to accurately recreate a real
driving experience you must include damage & set-ups surely, As you
would have in a real driving experience (certainly in a real *racing*
driving experience anyway?)
I don't really think I'm qualified to make a definitive statement about
what is, or is not a sim? I'm only a sim fan, not a programmer,
designer, producer, or any other kind of sim expert, I'm just giving my
*opinion* here, That doesn't mean its the majority view, or the correct
view, but it is *my* view.
All computer based simulation are compromises cos they cannot
*physically* accurately simulate the real thing. We are only looking at
a small screen, there is no sensation of speed, no peripheral vision,
etc, etc. You are always limited to the computer graphics, sounds &
controls avialable at the time the product is produced.
However, to define my opinion of a sim, I would say a sim *ideally*
needs to meet as near as possible the following criteria: (not
necessarily in this order?)
1) To accurately model car dynamics. eg:- the car should behave in a
way expected for the type of racing car that is simulated, so a rally
car should have different attributes to an F1 car, etc.
2) To accurately model real world physical dynamics. eg:- the racing
environment should behave in a way expected for that type of
environment, so if a car hits a solid object it should not drive
through it, but bounce off it, and low gravity options are not
simulating the real thing? and you should be able to drive the cars
anywhere that is open to it, even off the road/circuit.
3) To accurately model sounds. eg:- the car and environment should
sound like the real thing.
4) To accurately model graphics. eg:- the car and environment should
look like the real thing, I therefore think outerspace tracks, or
underworld tunnel tracks, or futuristic looking cars are not simulating
the real thing?
5) To accurately model racing views. eg:- a simulator *must* have an
in-car or***pit view, as all real drivers have this view, as well as
the other optional external views.
6) To accurately model real world weather. eg:- real races do not
always take place during the day in bright sunny conditions?
7) To accurately model car set-ups. eg:- all real drivers have the
option to change the characteristics of the car via set-ups, therefore
car set-ups *must* be included in a sim.
8) To accurately model physical damage to the cars (and other
objects?). eg:- damage to the cars should reflect the object that was
hit, and the speed the car was travelling at impact, and the resulting
damage should reflect in the cars performance.
I'm sure people will be quick to add many more attributes that a good
sim should have? But this is my basic list. If you look at the list
there is probably no sim available at the moment that adequately meets
my criteria, although some come close?
For example, GPL, IMHO, does not meet the "accurately model real world
physical dynamics", because when you hit a hay bale, the car treats it
as a solid object, but in real life the car would drive through it?
(although its pretty good in most other areas - Yes I know there are no
set-ups, but its only a demo!)
In GP2, there is no weather options? TOCA has no damage or set-up
options? (same as Motoracer?) RAC rally does not allow "off road"
driving, so fails the "accurately model real world physical dynamics"
criteria?
F1RS comes pretty close? and Nascar2 is pretty good too?
The list is endless, we could go on forever.....
Or, if I don't agree, I *can* still contribute to the discussion? its
called free speech.
8-)
*Peter* 8-) (also UK)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
> 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.
And I am comparing that to the fact that generally driving a real
*racing* car is harder than driving a real *normal* car.
I am *NOT* saying I want sims to be harder than driving a *real* racing
car. I hope that makes it clearer?
Wow! we agree on something, lets stop there before we agree on
something else?
8-)
*Peter* 8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
fx: many posts with long lists will now follow.....
8-)
*Peter* 8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
TOCA and F1RS are the only sims I'm playing at the moment. They're both
great but I wouldn't say F1RS is harder to drive than TOCA. It's easier to
spin a Touring Car (because it's got a higher centre of gravity and does
cling to the track) but is more forgiving if you leave the racing line.
That's about right.
> > >I said I think most people (on RAS) would prefer a sim to be harder
> > >rather than easier. By that I mean in comparison to the real thing,
> > eg:-
> > >F1 racing, and most other types of racing are supposed to be very
> > hard
> > >(to get consistently fast times), And I want the sim to reflect
> that.
> > 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.
> Sorry, I'm obviously not making my point clearly? I mean I want sims to
> be a long term challenge compared to the comparitively easier arcade
> type games, which generally offer only short term enjoyment (for me
> anyway?)
> And I am comparing that to the fact that generally driving a real
> *racing* car is harder than driving a real *normal* car.
> I am *NOT* saying I want sims to be harder than driving a *real* racing
> car. I hope that makes it clearer?
> > Agree with options.
> Wow! we agree on something, lets stop there before we agree on
> something else?
> 8-)
> *Peter* 8-)
> (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
Peter,
Okay, you're right that both real Tourings Cars and real F1 cars are
constantly having setups altered both during the race and during the racing
season. In both formulas, teams are constantly coming up with innovations
that put them ahead of where they were in the last race. That's why the TC
independants seem to do relatively well at the beginning of the year and
then fall off so much during it - they have last year's car and are not
privy to the works cars' innovations. (btw: TOCA ought to have independants
in).
No current simulator can match this, and none ever will be able to. Here's
why. The engines, for a start, are constantly being improved. The chasses
are put through wind tunnels and computer simulations to reduce drag. New
devices like turbo-charging, ABS etc are invented and introduced (and then
most of them banned) during the season. How can a simulation take this into
account? The only way I can see is to have new program models and physics
engines released every week. And even then that's not something the gamer
can influence. Which ends up rather like leaving it to the team mechanics
and works. Unless of course you could feed back to the programming team -
but remember programmers hate users :-)
So the set up model is limited to the most basic factors, take some wing
off here, change tyre compound (oh dear, they want grooves in the tyres
now) etc.
So lets face it, this is not reality. This is sim world. You can't simulate
everything - you have to choose. You like setups, I find them a boring
distraction (except tyres and just maybe wings, but gear ratios? - give me
a break!!). Under the hood is a program, mucking with setups is like trying
to work out the underlying code. Why don't you just ask UbiSoft to give you
the source code and save yourself the effort. I WANT TO RACE. I want the
feel of excitment as you plunge down the hill at Paddock and the
excileration when you know you took the corner well and can flatten her out
into the straight faster than the time before when you ended in the gravel.
Does Schmacher or Rydell ever touch a spanner? - I doubt it! :-) BUT I
WANT IT TO FEEL REAL. That's why I don't like GP2 as much as F1RS or TOCA -
it just doesn't feel as real. (btw: My brother in law has driven a BMW
round Thruxton and reckons TOCA is spot on.)
By the by, we both agree that a sim should model damage. The sims should
not only have it but it should look good too. TOCA's damage looks good but
it doesn't affect performance - they've got to fix that. F1RS affects
performance but you can't see it. On the other hand I just drove my F1RS
Ferrari flat out into the bridge at Silverstone and only burst my front
right tyre. Maybe the damage model's not so hot. In reality I'd be lucky to
be alive and my car would be a complete write off. Remember most damage in
F1 and BTCC is the end of the race! When the drivers limp into the pits for
other than fuel or tyre wear you seldom see them again.
If TOCA ain't a sim, F1RS ain't either and GP2 doesn't come close. Can't
speak for GPL - looks great but my demo hangs up before I can get a feel.
(btw: GP2 has the worst user-interface I have ever encountered and I have
used a lot of programs.)
PJ
> > Ok GP2 is considered to be a sim, but I don't believe that the
> > damage is accurately modelled. It's possible to have heavy contact
> > with other cars and get away with no damage at all. Is this
> > realistic? So does this mean that GP2 is not a sim by your
> > definition ?
> I've *NEVER* come across this feature? whenver I have a *heavy* crash
> (often) the car is always damaged. If you have experienced the opposite
> then that is a flaw or bug in the sim. It was certainly not *designed*
> to do that?
> IMHO GP2 and most other sims *do* have a reasonably accurate damage
> model. It may well be possible in certain circumstances to suffer no
> damage in a heavy collision as you state, but they are not deliberately
> designed in that fashion.
> > As for setup options, the cars in TOCA are already setup for optimum
> > race performance. What do you need to change?
> IMHO, a simulation should allow the driver to alter the cars set-up.
> There is no need to use them if you don't want to? But they should be
> available, as is the case in real life. *EVERY* racing car driver has
> an imput into the cars set-up, some have more input than others, but
> they *all* have some imput at one point or another.
> Different drivers prefer different set-ups, so how can the cars be
> set-up for optimum performance for *every* different driver?
> Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you are trying to say, the cars
> have a default set-up that shouldn't need to be altered. But that does
> not simulate the real thing, all the drivers do not use the same
> default set-up? Half the fun of sims is tweaking those set-ups (in my
> case, and I'm sure in many others too).
> Like I said before, if you don't want to mess with the set-ups then you
> don't have to, but if it ain't got em to start with, it ain't a sim
> (IMHO)
> 8-)
> > > From a purely racing point of view, it is a damn fine physical
> > > simulation of Touring Car racing, the car dynamics are great, and
> > > the
> > > cars appear to handle great based on the real thing?
> > 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.
> Yes, from a purely racing point of view, the car dynamics should be
> accurate, and in TOCA they are, but to accurately recreate a real
> driving experience you must include damage & set-ups surely, As you
> would have in a real driving experience (certainly in a real *racing*
> driving experience anyway?)
> > 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 don't really think I'm qualified to make a definitive statement about
> what is, or is not a sim? I'm only a sim fan, not a programmer,
> designer, producer, or any other kind of sim expert, I'm just giving my
> *opinion* here, That doesn't mean its the majority view, or the correct
> view, but it is *my* view.
> All computer based simulation are compromises cos they cannot
> *physically* accurately simulate the real thing. We are only looking at
> a small screen, there is no sensation of speed, no peripheral vision,
> etc, etc. You are always limited to the computer graphics, sounds &
> controls avialable at the time the product is produced.
> However, to define my opinion of a sim, I would say a sim *ideally*
> needs to meet as near as possible the following criteria: (not
> necessarily in this order?)
> 1) To accurately model car dynamics. eg:- the car should behave in a
> way expected for the type of racing car that is simulated, so a rally
> car should have different attributes to an F1 car, etc.
> 2) To accurately model real world physical dynamics. eg:- the racing
> environment should behave in a way expected for that type of
> environment, so if a car hits a solid object it should not drive
> through it, but bounce off it, and low gravity options are not
> simulating the real thing? and you should be able to drive the cars
> anywhere that is open to it, even off the road/circuit.
> 3) To accurately model sounds. eg:- the car and environment should
> sound like the real thing.
> 4) To accurately model graphics. eg:- the car and environment should
> look like the real thing, I therefore think outerspace tracks, or
> underworld tunnel tracks, or futuristic looking cars are not simulating
> the real thing?
> 5) To accurately model racing views. eg:- a simulator *must* have an
> in-car or cockpit view, as all real drivers have this view, as well as
> the other optional external views.
> 6) To accurately model real world weather. eg:- real races do not
> always take place during the day in bright sunny conditions?
> 7) To accurately model car set-ups. eg:- all real drivers have the
> option to change the characteristics of the car via set-ups, therefore
> car set-ups *must* be included in a sim.
> 8) To accurately model physical damage to the cars (and other
> objects?). eg:- damage to the cars should reflect the object that was
> hit, and the speed the car was travelling at impact, and the resulting
> damage should reflect in the cars performance.
> I'm sure people will be quick to add many more attributes that a good
> sim should have? But this is my basic list. If you look at the list
> there is probably no sim available at the moment that adequately meets
> my criteria, although some come close?
> For example, GPL, IMHO, does not meet the "accurately model real world
> physical dynamics", because when you hit a hay bale, the car treats it
> as a solid object, but in real life the car would drive through it?
> (although its pretty good in most other areas - Yes I know there are no
> set-ups, but its only a demo!)
> In GP2, there is no weather options? TOCA has no damage or set-up
> options? (same as Motoracer?) RAC rally does not allow "off road"
> driving, so fails the "accurately model real world physical dynamics"
> criteria?
> F1RS comes pretty close? and Nascar2 is pretty good too?
> The list is endless, we could go on forever.....
> > 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.
> Or, if I don't agree, I *can* still contribute to the discussion? its
> called free speech.
> 8-)
> *Peter* 8-) (also UK)
> (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
Yeah, Peter, these are good definitions of what a sim could and perhaps
should model. The definition is not only what they simulate it's also how
well they do it. Perhaps you could give marks on how well each sim achieves
these aims. You should also give weight to how important each is. By
multiplying the weight with the score you get a rating - call it the
Gagg-Jones index. :-) This way you can numerically evaluate the quality of
the sim - if it does get a certain score say 1500 you can say it's not a
worthy sim. If it falls below say 1000 you can say it's arcade. I've added
two other criteria below. I've had a go and this is only my preliminary
opinion, to see if the idea will run.
RRC = RAC Rally Championship
SR = Sega Rally
Peter's % score
Importance Importance x score
Criterion F1RS GP2 TOCA RRC SR
F1RS GP2 TOCA RRC SR
1) 50 50 60 40 5
10 500 500 600 400 50
2) 50 30 50 35 5
6 300 180 300 210 30
3) 70 80 80 60 20
3 210 240 240 180 60
4) 50 30 40 50 10
3 150 90 120 150 30
5) 100 100 100 100 0
2 200 200 200 200 0
6) 100 0 100 100 0
2 200 0 200 200 0
7) 50 60 0 20 0
1 50 60 0 20 0
8) 40 50 10 40 0
2 80 100 20 80 0
9) 80 80 70 n/a n/a
3 240 240 210 - -
10) 50 30 60 60 1
3 150 90 180 180 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gagg-Jones :-) 2080 1700 2070 1720 173 9) The AI of the other cars (where appropriate) should be of good quality. Does GP2 have a weather model? NB. About point 8) the car should also look like it's damaged as well as PJ
10) The sim should provide an imersive "feeling" of speed and danger. This
is a combination of graphics quality and relative perspectives of extra-car
objects. You should feel like your racing and forget your operating a
computer.
act like it. Driving around with your front wheel missing doesn't count.
Point 2) should include the surface you're driving on - does it show the
bumps on the road the way they are in reality.
> > Ok GP2 is considered to be a sim, but I don't believe that the
> > damage is accurately modelled. It's possible to have heavy contact
> > with other cars and get away with no damage at all. Is this
> > realistic? So does this mean that GP2 is not a sim by your
> > definition ?
> I've *NEVER* come across this feature? whenver I have a *heavy* crash
> (often) the car is always damaged. If you have experienced the opposite
> then that is a flaw or bug in the sim. It was certainly not *designed*
> to do that?
So if we apply your previous statement about relevant posts in this ng
only pertaining to SIMULATORS, then there would be no posts at all.
BTW I agree with all your criteria, except maybe setup options are not
so important to me. Personal choice.
Fair enough, but you seemed to be indicating that certain games could not
be discussed because they didn't fit into your idea of a simulator. If
we precluded all the "semi-sims" then we'd have a pretty boring ng here.
Well maybe the odd flame war livens it up a bit :)
--
Andrew Fielden.
UK.
**snipped** (lots of far too technical stuff, designed to show that
arcade games are as good as sims?)
8-)
Agreed....
Agreed....
Good point....
Also agreed....
Sorted, we now have *THE* definitive criteria for what makes a sim
(maybe?)
8-)
*Peter* 8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
8-)
The original posts in this thread were from someone who was not happy
with his sim, and seemed to me to be saying that he would prefer it if
the program had more arcade type attributes?
The thread has contunued from there, and now threatens to take over the
whole world (NOT).
8-)
*Peter* 8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
8-)
*Peter* 8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
All I can say is that generally when I crash, it results in damage of
some sort, but I do not deliberately try to crash?
*Peter* 8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)
I doubt this will included in any game...
Remco