rec.autos.simulators

Dear M. Carver, Papyrus, & NROS developers,

Somebody had posted a question about Indy for N2. I offered some help
for this guy and I got a rather terse reply post from Michael Carver.
I don't understand where this guy's head is, however he does bring up
some interesting questions.  I have taken the time to address each
one. The orgininal post is at the bottom of this message.

M. Carver - "What is it you want Papyrus/Sierra to do?"

I want them to start delivering products on time and offering patches
and upgrades before the computer savvy customers have to develop our
own (i.e. mirrors that work, AI for individual tracks, game setup
utilities that work, ect...). I would also like to see them cut press
releases (re: last year's Interaction article on the NROS) with all
the hype about features that are nonexistent (spectator functions,
ect..) a year before a watered down version of the service they're
writing about is delivered. After all the hype and no delivery last
year, it's a wonder that serious sim drivers take anything
Sierra/Papyrus says seriously. To be honest with you, the ones I know
don't believe anything they read from these people until they see it.
Empty promises and vaporware = loss credibility

M. Carver - "You weren't happy with the Grand National Track Pack?"

I didn't even buy the damn thing, so what the hell are you talking
about? But since you brought it up, the sales are lagging on the BGN
pack because it's the answer to a question that only a few had asked.
I would be happy if they made improvements on NASCAR 2 such as double
file restarts, Black Flags on jump starters, a faster tow truck to get
wrecked cars off the track, an easier way to update paint schemes, and
tires that sound like tires, not a BGN add-on. If there was demand for
this, they would be back ordered on it.

M. Carver - "You wish to have Papyrus lose a HUGE court settlement
against Tony George and go out of business?"

I never said anything that would lead you to ask that! Your question
is so intellectually void it isn't worthy of a response. Go back and
read the post again, I said that the Tony George camp was probably
asking too much for licensing rights. That is why we don't have the
Brickyard. I am aware that Papyrus would love to have Indy & Daytona,
but they don't. The track converters were out on the web. I wasn't
aware Papyrus even had those at one time. Sheesh!

M. Carver - "And let's see, what about NROS?  I guess that was an
improvement by the game's users and not the manufacturer"?

Ouch...put a Band-Aid on that exposed nerve. Let's address the NROS
issue for a minute. NROS is over one year late, it is a watered down
version of what had originally been promised (read the INTERACTION
article from last year on the NROS), and technically the NROS (the
series to be sanctioned by NASCAR) doesn't even exist yet! If it does,
please let all of us know where we can sign up and qualify for the
first race. What we have is a place on TEN to use NASCAR2 for pick up
races called the "NROS". Whooptie doo! Anyone could have gone to have
a pick up race on Hawaii over a year ago. What has improved is  the
cost of on-line racing and now I can finally use the game I bought
last year when the real NROS was supposed to be launched. If I ever
told my customers I had a product and they bought it, only to realize
they couldn't use it the way I said they could for over a year, I'd go
out of business. Sierra-Papyrus should be ashamed and embarrassed.

M. Carver - "I'd rather look at the glass as half full, while you
apparently look at the glass and say, "Damn, who drank my other half!"
;-) "  

Not true, I'm very optimistic about the future of NASCAR2 and the
NROS. I think it is outstanding that one can race on the internet with
a highly unstable game such as NASCAR2 (many people are having
problems getting this game to work, fortunately I don't fall into this
group). TEN is far more affordable than Hawaii was (phone
bills). It is the arrogance on your posted reply that is so
unbelievable. Next time think twice before you flame someone,
especially when it comes to a dedicated customer who has been buying
and using these products for over 5 years.

Soap box mode broken - over Michael's head. ;- )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original post:

<snip>
% When N1 was vogue there were alot of web sites that offered
% add on tracks you could download free. Indy was one of them but you
% had to have Indy Car (it was a track converter download). I am
certain
% that N2 will have the similar upgrades offered. It's a shame that
% improvements on N1 & N2 have all been made by the game's users and
not
% the manufacturer. That doesn't say much for Sierra or Papyrus, or
does
% it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Soapbox Mode = ON>

Or maybe it does.  What is it you want Papyrus/Sierra to do?  You
weren't happy with the Grand National Track Pack?  You wish to have
Papyrus lose a HUGE court settlement against Tony George and go out of
business?  They would love to have the Brickyard (and Daytona too),
but
they don't have the rights to them.  I highly doubt that Papyrus would
be on solid legal grounds to market a convertor for tracks they no
longer
have rights to.  Instead they have reworked the tracks they had rights
to for NASCAR2 and gave us BGN tracks (and a couple of fantasy
tracks).
The latter being available for free via a download from their website.
And let's see, what about NROS?  I guess that was an improvement by
the
"game's users and not the manufacturer"?

On the other hand, Papyrus has made their sim programs rather "open"
and
allow easy access to updating cars, drivers skills (many sims don't
allow or provide for this).  

I'd rather look at the glass as half full, while you apprently look at
the glass and say, "Damn, who drank my other half!" ;-)

<Soapbox Mode = OFF>

Well said Bill. Some people call that marketing but I don't.

Yes it seems that Papy it tail is ahead of its head. And Micheal
Carver is one that like to kiss the tail hoping Papy will think he is
special.

Athough Mr. Carver, Eric Bush and others have offered, and helped an  aweful
lot of people here, including myself, I must agree with Bill on this entire
matter.
I'm not out to flame anyone here.  I do however feel that if a company states
it's product will do  such and such then it should in fact do that.  I as Bill
and many many of you, have been a loyal customer since the early days of
Papyrus.  I have literally spent thousands of dollars to play thier sims.
I don't have a bass boat, so this is my hobby.  It would be  extreamly nice to
install a sim and have it do what it has been advertised to do then.  If not
state so in the adverti***ts, i.e. "Will be" or" will do"  XXXX in the
future".
I do enjoy the sims and spend an awful lot of time in the seat.  I am by no
means as good as some of you out there, but I have fun.  The "enjoyment factor"
is not the issue here.  I do believe that N1 and N2 could have been better out
of the box.  Everything has room for improvement.  But rather than playing
catch up to what it was supposed to do in the first place-- wouldn't it be
novel if every so often Papy came out with an update to further enhance thier
program. Wow!  What a concept.  
I will however continue to go along with the rest of you-- salivating over the
"soon to be released-- patch for the patch" concept.  After all-- I'm
hooked...and they know it.
R. Faust
aka Xducer

Agreeing with someone's point is "whining and sniveling"?  These
questions brought up by M.Carver strike a chord with most N2 owners
Supporting another'sperspective isn't whining or sniveling. If
somebody supports Andre's, Michael's, or my point of view it just
means they agree.

Andre, to quote your own words, "shred the person that DID try to
venture out into some uncharted waters or stated support for the
whiner-decreed "DAMNED" (the vocal minority).  Your doing exactly
what you just said readers of RAS shouldn't do.  LOL    :-)

Nothing outside of the truth about N2 & NROS  was stated in the
original posting.

First of all, the criticism on N2 is constructive. Your tone implies
that any criticism you read in the RAS doesn't contribute to making
the products or services mentioned better. Customer feedback is
critical in business. If the company rep thinks customer feedback
is "drivel", he's made a serious vocational error. When the comany
"get's tired of reading such drivel",  they've made a poor business
decision. In either case, considering the low profit margins of ***

software, I highly doubt they discount what is posted on the RAS.

That will never happen unless another company picks up the product.

Hear, Hear, Andre!!!!!
I couldn't have said it better myself!

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:59:09 GMT Bill Jennings <w...@mindspring.com> wrote:

% Dear M. Carver, Papyrus, & NROS developers,

% Somebody had posted a question about Indy for N2. I offered some help
% for this guy and I got a rather terse reply post from Michael Carver.
% I don't understand where this guy's head is, however he does bring up
% some interesting questions.  I have taken the time to address each
% one. The orgininal post is at the bottom of this message.

Well, the last thing I meant to do was start a flame war.  My intent in
responding is not to add fuel to the fire either.  But, I guess you took
my response as an attack on you (or your opinions), for that I apologize.

If you will note in my original response (see bottom).  My reply was not
to your having offered anyone any help, but to the comment, "It's a shame
that improvements on N1 & N2 have all been made by the game's users and
not the manufacturer."  I felt that I could respond since I consider
myself to be one of the many who have added improvements to N1 & N2.
While I haven't coded any miracle track convertors, my cars, driver
skill numbers, and AI enhancements have (IMHO) improved ICR1, N1, ICR2,
and N2.  Remember that you said "have all been made", which implies,
well no, actually states, that Papyrus has made none.  That is the point
I disagree about, I happen to think that they have made improvements.
But, that's my opinion. . .

% M. Carver - "What is it you want Papyrus/Sierra to do?"

% I want them to start delivering products on time and offering patches
% and upgrades before the computer savvy customers have to develop our
% own (i.e. mirrors that work, AI for individual tracks, game setup
% utilities that work, ect...). I would also like to see them cut press
% releases (re: last year's Interaction article on the NROS) with all
% the hype about features that are nonexistent (spectator functions,
% ect..) a year before a watered down version of the service they're
% writing about is delivered. After all the hype and no delivery last
% year, it's a wonder that serious sim drivers take anything
% Sierra/Papyrus says seriously. To be honest with you, the ones I know
% don't believe anything they read from these people until they see it.
% Empty promises and vaporware = loss credibility

1)  Delivering a product on time, well I think they did.  But, I know
you and others will disagree with this.  But, to me you are implying
that Papyrus/Sierra have deliberately delayed "delivering" their
products.  How can they deliver something that isn't done?  (Actually to
be truthful all of their products of late have had "bugs" and "holes" in
them, but they were "finished" products").   Have they been guilty of
pre-release date hype?  Yes, however, the only "product" that has really
missed its projected target date is NROS.  But, then they couldn't
deliver until it was done.

2) Offering patches.....  I think Papyrus has a fair to good record for
releasing patches.  They don't always fix everything.  But, they have
released numerous patches for all of their products.  The "windows
upgrade" patch for ICR2 was more than just a patch, it was a full
upgrade.  And those who have been around r.a.s. long enough, know
very well that I was not kissing Papyrus/Sierra's butt about their
reneging on their offer of a free upgrade patch.  If anything I was the
MAJOR butt-kicker about that issue.  (How many patches did Microprose &
Crammond give us for GP2?)

Funny thing about the mirrors, I don't remember them not working.  They
may not have worked they way they did in N1, but they allowed us the
opportunity to have a choice on how we wanted the mirrors to work.  So
those that liked the old N1 style could still have it.  It was Jim
Sokoloff (employed by Papyrus at the time), that provided us with the
proper methods of selecting the mirrors of our choice.

I will grant you the "pre-hype" over NROS.  But, I would like to believe
(until someone can prove otherwise), that they fully intended to deliver
on their hype.  However, they ran into a programming hurdle they did not
forsee (yes, it's their fault for not having seen it), porting their DOS
program to work on the internet with a unix OS.  One failure to deliver
out of 6.  But, instead of bailing out totally, they did work out the
problems and it is being delivered.  Hopefully they will be able to add
the other features as the product matures.

% M. Carver - "You weren't happy with the Grand National Track Pack?"

% I didn't even buy the damn thing, so what the hell are you talking
% about? But since you brought it up, the sales are lagging on the BGN
% pack because it's the answer to a question that only a few had asked.
% I would be happy if they made improvements on NASCAR 2 such as double
% file restarts, Black Flags on jump starters, a faster tow truck to get
% wrecked cars off the track, an easier way to update paint schemes, and
% tires that sound like tires, not a BGN add-on. If there was demand for
% this, they would be back ordered on it.

My comment about the track pack for N2, was that you were implying they
had no record of providing improvements to their products.  As a matter
of fact your original post was aimed at the "lack" of one track in
particular.  My point is that when they are able to get the rights for
tracks they provide them.  Your wishes for N2, we have been informed are
things they are looking at in N3.  And yes, those things will be nice to
have, but we were never told that N2 would have them.  We bought a
finished product (with a few bugs).  N2 was never sold as an
"open-ended" software product.

% M. Carver - "You wish to have Papyrus lose a HUGE court settlement
% against Tony George and go out of business?"

% I never said anything that would lead you to ask that! Your question
% is so intellectually void it isn't worthy of a response. Go back and
% read the post again, I said that the Tony George camp was probably
% asking too much for licensing rights. That is why we don't have the
% Brickyard. I am aware that Papyrus would love to have Indy & Daytona,
% but they don't. The track converters were out on the web. I wasn't
% aware Papyrus even had those at one time. Sheesh!

I'm sorry, I mis-read your post.  I was assuming you were implying that
Papyrus/Sierra should have written and provided us with the software to
"violate" their non-license agreement with Tony George.  If they had
done so, they would surely have landed in court.  For the record,
Papyrus has gone out of their way to be supportive of the sim racing
community on the subject of 3rd party convertor programs.  They have
publicly stated that they have no objection to them as long as no
original code was being re-distributed.

% M. Carver - "And let's see, what about NROS?  I guess that was an
% improvement by the game's users and not the manufacturer"?

% Ouch...put a Band-Aid on that exposed nerve. Let's address the NROS
% issue for a minute. NROS is over one year late, it is a watered down
% version of what had originally been promised (read the INTERACTION
% article from last year on the NROS), and technically the NROS (the
% series to be sanctioned by NASCAR) doesn't even exist yet! If it does,
% please let all of us know where we can sign up and qualify for the
% first race. What we have is a place on TEN to use NASCAR2 for pick up
% races called the "NROS". Whooptie doo! Anyone could have gone to have
% a pick up race on Hawaii over a year ago. What has improved is  the
% cost of on-line racing and now I can finally use the game I bought
% last year when the real NROS was supposed to be launched. If I ever
% told my customers I had a product and they bought it, only to realize
% they couldn't use it the way I said they could for over a year, I'd go
% out of business. Sierra-Papyrus should be ashamed and embarrassed.

So this is your REAL sore point with Papyrus?  I understand and agree
with your frustration.  I guess, I just feel a little bit differently
than you do about this.  Having NROS is not a "right" we have.  It is
not anything that anybody has to offer us.  Again I am looking at the
glass as being half full.  At least Papyrus stayed with the project
(pouring more money into developement, testing, and coding) and finally
was able to deliver a product.  They could have bailed on the project
all together.  Just think about all the vapor hardware & software that
never sees they light of day....  Again, I am not supporting their
having hyped the product and not being able to deliver on their
"announced" timetable.

%  
% M. Carver - "I'd rather look at the glass as half full, while you
% apparently look at the glass and say, "Damn, who drank my other half!"
% ;-) "  

% Not true, I'm very optimistic about the future of NASCAR2 and the
% NROS. I think it is outstanding that one can race on the internet with
% a highly unstable game such as NASCAR2 (many people are having
% problems getting this game to work, fortunately I don't fall into this
% group). TEN is far more affordable than Hawaii was (phone
% bills). It is the arrogance on your posted reply that is so
% unbelievable. Next time think twice before you flame someone,
% especially when it comes to a dedicated customer who has been buying
% and using these products for over 5 years.

Again, I am sorry if you felt I was "flaming" you.  I guess I
misunderstood your original post, me culpa.  I am also a dedicated
customer of their's going all the way back to their original product,
Indianapolis 500 the Simulation.  I am sorry if my post seemed arrogant,
as I in no way feel superior over you or anyone else.  When I get on my
"virtual soapbox" it is to set the record straight and not to
attack anyone.  Which is exactly why my post had the "soapbox mode"
switches. ;-)

% Soap box mode broken - over Michael's head. ;- )

% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% ...

read more »

Thanks for the reply, good job.  :- )

Bill

A FEW have written:

< SNIP... Deflamatory things about Michael Carver,etc... >

Okay, I've been reading/posting on the RAS for a couple of years now,
and I've learned there are several types that frequent it. I see the
"whiners/snivelers" that moan and gripe about everything and almost
everyone... and offer NOTHING tangible to help a sim or a simmer.  Then
there are the "ME TOO's" that jump on some negative band wagon that the
"whiners/snivelers" have started rolling.  And once a "flamefest" gets
started, it becomes like sharks on a feeding frenzy... shred the person
that DID try to venture out into some uncharted waters or stated support
for the whiner-decreed "DAMNED" (the vocal minority). Then there's the
"lurkers" that don't have much to say, for fear of the above.  Lastly,
there are those that actually try to help, either a situation in a sim,
or a hapless simmer that's having problems.

Okay, so someone read M.Carver's interpretation of Papy's situation, and
didn't agree. Fine, don't agree.  It's certainly one's right and I
respect that, I even like to read opinions that aren't mine, different
perspective, different insight, etc. But why in the name of decency must
it become a name calling thing???  I've seen this over and over on the
RAS.  Instead of simply stating one's difference, it's as if many feel
COMPELLED to insert derogatory remarks about the person/product in
question.  On this RAS, good people with good intentions get
insulted/belittled/etc, and in general have people act like ASSES toward
them.  

And do these whiners/snivelers add two whit's worth of genuine help to
the situation? Of course not! That would mean vulernability!  Which
would mean that THEIR attempts/support would become fodder for the
feeding frenzy syndrome.  This speaks so well of this hobby, doesn't it?
Think it through: A "newbie" finds the RAS, lurks here hoping for a
question to be answered, but after reading all the whiners/snivelers and
flamefests going on... decides he doesn't want any part of that, and he
goes his way, doesn't get his auto sim problem corrected, loses interest
in a sim he can't figure out... and goes and buys some action sim
instead.  Or, a new product/company is released, and instead of being
offered qualified, INTELLIGENT, constructive criticism, it becomes one
long thread(s) of THAT SUCKS! IT'S CRAP!!! etc, etc.  The company rep
gets tired of getting insulted, the company gets tired of reading such
drivel, and they rightfully conclude: "There is no intelligent life on
this RAS".  And they leave for good.  In both cases: We all LOST.  

Look, there's nothing wrong with dissagreement, but why the insulting
ways to do so?  If you have a problem with life, there are places to get
help... but please don't splash your inner angers out here in public
forums for any and all.

And as for why no continued ICR2, or GP2, etc. It's simple guys: It's a
dollar and cents (and also "sense") thing. A company simply cannot
continue to support a several year old sim with continued free add-on's.
It doesn't matter what one's "reasons" are for being disgruntled, that's
the fact. Believe it or not... a company DOES have to make a profit, or
they'll be no new sims for you to belittle to start with!  

To Michael, Eric, Dave Sparks, Brain, and a host of others out there
that work their tails off to provide us simmers with something better, I
owe a tremendous THANKS for all the help and add-ons you have so
laboriously provided to me (us) FREE OF CHARGE... simply because of your
love for the sims. My cars look better, my AI's run better, my programs
are smoother, etc, etc, because guys like you are willing to climb up
the ladder rungs... knowing full well that there will be
"whiners/snivelers" "me-too's" that will take pot shots at your butt!  I
don't know if any other simmers out there will stand up and say what's
right... but I will.  For the past two years I've tried to be positive
with my posts, help as many as I could, and overlook the insulting
posts, but it's getting to a point that it's time for those of us that
don't appreciate all the insults and name-calling that goes on around
here to step up and call like it is and ask that we all grow up.  This
place could be so helpful if we'd all just mature some.

Again, to such as Michael, Eric, Brian, Dave, Etc: Thanks, I'll stand
with 'ya.

Andre Ming
O.F. Racing

P.S. Maybe a NEW newsgroup is in order? How about: rec.ranting.roasts?
:-)

Not at all, it was a very fair reflection of the situation. The
attitude could have been a little better though. Disagreeing with
someone doesn't mean you need to have a go at them personally. Just
having a go at their opinion will do fine :)

There's only so long you can read "this sucks". How to deliver
information to the company is very important in making sure your
message is heard and listened to. I have been in charge of my
company's customer service dept. for a few years now, and while you
may like to think that all customer's are equal, believe me they are
not. You are just one voice in the wilderness, so if you want your
message to be heard by the people who can make a difference then the
delivery is as critical as the message. Saying "I bought this shit-ass
game and it doesn't have goddam ______ support like some guy told me
via e-mail" isn't going to get you much more than a form letter.

Okay, now yer talking. I'll see you and Andre over there shortly? I'll
ask Michael along and last guy standing gets to return to r.a.s.

Cheers!
John ;-)

PS - It's a bring a bottle party, no fighting involved. This is man's
stuff! Bottle of Springbank fur me, and nae watter....

Michael Carver is definitely positive about the Papyrus simulations - and
that attitude has made him work to make improvements.   This is a good
thing for you, for me and for all sim racers.  Personally, I like that the
"users" can make improvements.   No two people like things the same.  In
fact, Michael and I disagree on what makes a good AI for Talladega - one
favoring side by side and the other drafting.  This also is good - because
it gives other users choice.  Papyrus will never make a sim in which we
will love the entire implementation.  I hope they continue to make one that
allows customization.  In fact, I hope they provide more hooks to allow the
"users" to do more.

I do agree that Papyrus has misrepresented some releases.  However, they
have also gotten some right on.  They missed some features in N2 and they
slipped NROS - TRUE.  BGN was on time.  N2 does have some flaws - but it
really can't be described as unstable.

In conclusion - we all want more features, options etc. in sim racing.  I
personally have gotten so frustrated with the "yellow flag" pit strategy of
the AI cars that I offered to fix it for free (I am a very competent Intel
assembly and C/C++ programmer).  However,  I still enjoy N2 and agree with
Michael's half full attitude.  I really don't think he was flaming on this
deal - but I do understand your frustration.  You wouldn't be frustrated if
you weren't into the sim racing products that Papy produces.

/TomH

There are two entirely separate issues here, so we need to be careful
not to confuse the two. Basically the question is, is the sim
playable, and delivering everything that was promised on the box? If
not, we are entirely justified in asking for a patch, as happened with
ICR2.

If however the sim is perfectly playable, while some minor patches
need to be done, I would question the need for updates to enhance the
product. Reworking something which is finished to add a new feature
will always take longer than implementing that same feature into a new
product, and I personally would rather see the maximum effort going
toward creating better products in future rather than making small
incremental advances in what we have at the moment. This is mutually
beneficial - we get better, more advanced sims in future, and MS/TRI,
MPS, Papy, whoever, get more bang for the buck in development costs.

This is of course wholly dependent on a concept known in my company by
the catchy name of "DIRTFT" - Do It Right The First Time. If a sim is
so dog slow that it needs 3dFX, that has to be added. If the AI is
impossible to race against, that needs to be fixed. It's always
possible to improve on a sim, that much is clear, but taking that
approach then nothing would ever get released, you'd be locked into a
permanent and ever extending development cycle. There comes a point
when you need to look at a product and decide that it meets everything
you set out to do, but at the same time you need to be sure that the
paying public will agree with you :)

Anything beyond that is, IMO, a bonus.

Cheers!
John

Perfectly fair comment, although one solution to that is that no
delivery estimate is given at all - something we equally dislike :)  I
am personally very hard-line on this. If an estimate is given then it
should be adhered to, or at least in the same ballpark. I'd rather
hear ID's "It'll be released when it's finished" than something a
company is not confident to meet. Perhaps that explains why people
don't give delivery estinates as much any more? Look at the recent
complaints about SODA, and that was only a passing comment in response
to our many requests.

Cheers!
John

% PS - It's a bring a bottle party, no fighting involved. This is man's
% stuff! Bottle of Springbank fur me, and nae watter....

Well, being here in the States, I'll bring Laphroaig and no ice/water
pls.  If you don't mind, I'd like a swig of the Springbank (have never
tried it).  But I'm hoping it's the 1963 or 1964 vintage! ;-)

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=