rec.autos.simulators

I've posted an extensively revised review of CART Precision Racing on my
site at:

  http://www.racesimcentral.net/~alison/sims/

This new version presents a much more balanced view of CPR, I feel. It
describes many of CPR's strong points, and describes how I got around
three of the four most serious problems that I had with it.  I believe
one of these problems may be the cause of some other r.a.s. readers'
disappointing frame rate, and another may be the cause of what seems to
be ineffective paint-ahead controls on some machines.

Also in this review are discussions of CPR's sophisticated vehicle
dynamics engine, its excellent user interface, and its superb network
*** implementation, as well as notes on some of the issues addressed
in the upcoming patch, some suggestions on how the TRI/Microsoft team
might improve the sim further in future patches, and pointers to some
excellent Web sites with setups, carsets, a setup guide, and advice.

I find myself enjoying the sim quite a lot now.  During a test session
in which I was further refining my Long Beach setup, when I hit upon a
setup that suited my driving style well and was able to really start
pushing the car, I actually found my heart pounding and my palms
sweating, just like in CART's adverti***ts on TV!  The sensation of
speed is awesome; other sims seem rather tame by comparison.

I still have issues with CPR, but am feeling much more positive about it
now, and hopeful that it will mature into a really excellent racing sim.
TRI and Microsoft have shown themselves willing to listen to criticism,
and the upcoming patch targets many of the most widespread complaints.  

                               ****

I would like to apologize publicly o the people at Terminal Reality Inc
and Microsoft for the incendiary tone of the initial version of my
review of CPR. I'm afraid that in my frustration at trying so hard and
not being able to get the game to work, I lost sight of the fact that
there are a lot of very dedicated human beings who worked hard to create
CART Precision Racing, who care about it very much, and are working hard
to make it better. The harshness of my initial review certainly did
nothing to make their job easier. I'm sorry!

Thanks to the many readers in this newsgroup who responded to my review,
including those who offered constructive criticism as well as those who
responded with positive feedback.  This is a great forum, with a lot of
knowledge and expertise, and I'm really grateful for it.  The comments
and suggestions here - even some of the negative ones - encouraged me to
keep looking for solutions to the problems I experienced, and allowed me
to see more clearly the potential of CPR.

Alison

Trev

Good or bad, she's entitled to her opinion - there's nothing to
apologize for.

Cheers!

Marc

Oh, my god! Why are you apologizing?? Your review was excellent and to
the
point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things
about
a sim in a review (of course it's common to do so). If the bad things
are
so many, as in this case, you HAVE to say so if your review should have
any
purpose. So, if you said something that's not true, apologize but
otherwise
I can't see what made you... (well, I can think of a few ;^)

l8er
ronny

--
          |\      _,,,---,,_        I want to die like my Grandfather,
   ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_              in his sleep.
        |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'     Not like the people in his car,
       '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)            screaming their heads off!

Other than the technical difficulties you experienced I thought  your
original review was more accurate and more balanced. There was nothing in
your second review (unless I missed it) regarding the lousy AI, which in my
opinion almost ruins the game. You certainly are entitled to change your
opinion though and otherwise have done a very thorough job. I'm glad Dean
didn't see my review at  http://www.racesimcentral.net/
group long before he did!<bg>

                                                                        Ken
The Game Pad
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

People like you just don't get it do you.  Let Alison (and her words) speak
for herself.

Why do I get the feeling, some people would like to turn this ng into
a save haven for the CART team. I never uttered nonsense like "CART
sucks",
but I have BIG problems with the demo. In comparison F1RS by UbiSoft (V
1.0)
works perfectly. So, what's your problem?

l8er
ronny

--
          |\      _,,,---,,_        I want to die like my Grandfather,
   ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_              in his sleep.
        |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'     Not like the people in his car,
       '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)            screaming their heads off!

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 12:42:10 -0500, "Marc Collins"

Perhaps you could post an exhaustive list of your other opinions so
that we know what else is beyond question...?

Cheers!
John

point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things about a sim
in a review (of course it's common to do so) >>

What are YOU talking about?!  What is a review intended to do, in your opinion?
 I think most people would agree that the purpose of a review is to inform
readers about all that's good and bad in a sim so they can make an informed
purchase.  A review which only covers the gripes is not a very informative
review, particularly if there are positives that aren't being mentioned.  It
serves no real purpose.  Any game out there right now could receive a review
which only harps on the negatives and avoids the positives.  Even games that
are really great and well-respected could be made to look like turkeys if
reviewers only griped about flaws.  If the reviewer is truly serving the
reader, the review will try to portray the game as accurately as possible.  If
that means the game is more negative than positive, so be it.  If it means the
game is more positive than negative, so be it.  The point is, the reviewer
should be trying very hard to be as informative as possible, or why bother
writing a review?

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

left this group long before he did!<bg>>>

I think this is history revision (even with humor) Dean didn't leave because of
Allison's post.  He left because the "worm has turned" post was the final straw
and that was not Alison's.

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

Actually I'm not doing history revision;  I think it's a matter of opinion as to
why he left. I felt it was because of her review( and yes, the follow-ups to said
review) , which I thought was very well done except for the technical difficulties
part, but I suppose only Dean really knows why he left. My point was simply that my
review which had already been out for a couple weeks was also very critical (fair,
but critical) and I was trying to lighten things up about at the same time.
                                                               Ken
the Game Pad
http://gamepad.org/

as to why he left. I felt it was because of her review( and yes, the follow-ups
to said review) >>

Two different things.  He responded to her review. He left when someone posted
something about "the worm has turned" and accused Microsoft of not listening or
caring.  

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

Ok, so perhaps the review was the coffin,  and " the worm has turned" quote was the
nail. It doesn't really matter. He's gone (either way) and the real reason as to
why he left may be completely different than what we believe. Like I said, only
Dean knows for sure. My point was that I liked the original review (overall) more
than the second one because I felt the first one was more balanced, except for the
system/software incompatibility issues. Some will disagree and say the second was
more balanced. Just my 2 cents.
                                                                  Ken
The Game Pad
http://gamepad.org/