Excellent article. The author definitely knows what he's talking about.
Coincidentally, he makes many of the same points I've been making for years.
:-o
David G Fisher
Excellent article. The author definitely knows what he's talking about.
Coincidentally, he makes many of the same points I've been making for years.
:-o
David G Fisher
The guy seems to really "Hold Back" on what he really wants to say. Half of
the article is him covering his ass for saying GPL isn't as realistic as
people think. Seems like he really doesn't want to offend anyone, and I
really can't blame him. Just from reading this forum, criticism of GPL is
worse taken than... uhm.. something that people don't take to well. :)
Also, I want to know WHY GTR2002 isn't realistic. He says there's things
that are way beyond physics, but he never says what exactly..
It'd make a real interesting read if it was no-holds-barred, with more
technical explanations.
The whole thing about hot-lapping being more about exploiting small things
in the game TOTALLY makes sense. I've seen a few replays and done a few
multiplayer games with people doing things that make no sense, yet going way
faster than me. My example is in LFS, people approaching a corner will slam
on the brakes and downshift into 2nd from 5th right away sending the poor
little GTR engine to like 16,000 RPM. I'm guessing it helps to brake
faster..
Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com
Yes it is a very good article. But one thing to keep in mind is his criteria
for evaluation and not take it as a general enthusiasts view of a sim. As an
enthusiast, he gives very high ratings to both GPL and GTR2002. But as an
instructor, he values reduced "unrealistic" features over additional
"realistic" features. So he rates the more simplistic Heat engine higher
because it doesn't introduce as many "unrealistic" effects as the more
complex engines do. I'm not sure how many Sim Enthusiasts take the same
approach.
db
> >Yes it is a very good article. But one thing to keep in mind is his
criteria
> >for evaluation and not take it as a general enthusiasts view of a sim. As
an
> >enthusiast, he gives very high ratings to both GPL and GTR2002. But as an
> >instructor, he values reduced "unrealistic" features over additional
> >"realistic" features. So he rates the more simplistic Heat engine higher
> >because it doesn't introduce as many "unrealistic" effects as the more
> >complex engines do. I'm not sure how many Sim Enthusiasts take the same
> >approach.
> >db
> How do you know HEAT is more simplistic?
db
Ralf is faster than Juan???
hehehe
> > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 03:50:55 GMT, "Dave Boyle"
> > >Yes it is a very good article. But one thing to keep in mind is his
> criteria
> > >for evaluation and not take it as a general enthusiasts view of a sim.
As
> an
> > >enthusiast, he gives very high ratings to both GPL and GTR2002. But as
an
> > >instructor, he values reduced "unrealistic" features over additional
> > >"realistic" features. So he rates the more simplistic Heat engine
higher
> > >because it doesn't introduce as many "unrealistic" effects as the more
> > >complex engines do. I'm not sure how many Sim Enthusiasts take the same
> > >approach.
> > >db
> > How do you know HEAT is more simplistic?
> I don't. I was just going by what he said.
I'd love to see what the guys at MGI could do with a no-compromises encore
designed for today's PC's. Let's hope they get the chance one of these
days.
SB
>Excellent article. The author definitely knows what he's talking about.
>Coincidentally, he makes many of the same points I've been making for years.
Oh yeah, you're good with Google, go dig up my post about how Nascar
Heat was better than GPL. Yeah, I really said that when it came out,
sue me. =)
Jason
Jason
Jump in the 360 and do a lap at Silverstone. From Priory until just
before the start/finish line (i.e. the slow bits near the end of the
lap) the car's rear end will bounce up and down like the early ground
effect-based F1 cars. It's kinda funny to experience it from the
***pit cam.
I do think that Doug did an absolutely killer job on the physics and I
am eagerly anticipating his work with the historic F1 and GTP/Type C
cars. <--- covering my ass here
Jason
>Excellent article. The author definitely knows what he's talking about.
>Coincidentally, he makes many of the same points I've been making for years.
>:-o
*miffed there's no Dirt to Daytona for xbox*
Jason
Indeed, the very same.
Jan.
=---
Wow - that must be because you're some sort of genius!
I can't get to BHMotorsports from here, but from comments it sounds
like a post that was made to the GTR2002 forum at Simmods a few days
ago. I thought it was frustratingly long winded and devoid of any
real substance. Time and time again he talks about physics model
flaws and mentions that you can do unreal things in the sims, yet
doesn't expand on what those flaws are and what it is that you can do
that allows the "aliens" to run so fast. Well excuse me if I'm
underwhelmed - these are consumer priced *games* that run on consumer
grade hardware. WTF do people expect? Anyone who thinks they're
gonna get a totally accurate experience is as delusional as DGF is
egotistical.
Here's the short version of that "VERY Interesting Article".
No racing sim is totally realistic.
They all have flaws.
Some have more flaws than others.
None are close enough to reality to be used as a teaching aid because
they have flaws.
Aliens can expoit flaws to go fast.
GPL isn't realistic because of the limited tyre model (*gasp* I'd
*never* heard that before)
Err, did I miss anything?
I don't doubt that the best of sims can give a reasonable
approximation or real life racing within the limits of affordable
hardware and marketable playability - that's all I ask for.
Regards,
Mark