>"David Masten" <mas...@frontiernet.net> wrote
Btw this is a little pointless as a debate. We both have nice points, and
agree with many of yours. I like GT2, but I wanted more than what I have.
There is some nice settings you change change, in the setups menu and the
acceleration/decelleration settings. Heck I'll be playing it for months
without having tried all the cars to their full potential 8)
> Okay, trying to reel this one in and not just have it be the usual
> "well, I'm going to change the subject until I'm right" or "I'll just
> keep misquoting and misunderstanding"...
You are right.
> Also, please remember that I too am a fan of sims, perhaps not as avid
> as you. But we're members of the same community. Though that usually
> means we come to blows here :-)
I am a fan of serious sims and also arcade-based games. Pod Racer is
excellent. Screamers 2 was a blast a couple of years ago. Every software
is blended somewhere in the middle between GPL and hmm.. Ford Racing. I
feel GT2 is in the middle. probably near stuff like Toca or maybe Rally
Masters. But it's in a good way. Some titles are just bad, and they are
normal on the serious side because of that. Some titles are good, and they
are normal on the serious side because of that. Eh I like the last
2sentences I just wrote.
> >Yes and your point is ? Shows that every titles aren't perfect.
> Never said that. You said no bug is minor. I gave examples that were
> minor IMO, and I think most would agree (you didn't disagree).
Your right 8)
> Just online. Most every was positive. Including Randy's, who I think
> is the best driving sim reviewer online (at least that I know of).
Yes I agree he is the best. You have a point, I forgot about his review.
GT2 is a quality title, just many people were letdown by some factors. I
think the real sequel is awaiting the PSX2.
> I agree with the above. Some did say, rightly, that it was essentially
> more of the same. Given that the hp one plays it on hasn't changed, is
> it suprising that this is the case? It's a matter of how one
> weights this. Again, the issue I was debating with you was you calling
> it buggy and crappy. More of GT1 with a lot more interesting cars is
> not a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Well, essentially the GT series for me is hotlapping or playing against
another human. The limited AI creates that, and it's not necessary a bad
thing. Like in GPL, I spent most of my time alone on the track even when
there's AI on the track.
> Which is true ("some"). Now whether you do, I can't say.
I would qualify my racing background as being very helpfull in deciding on
how the cars should feel. Of course I have never drove a Mercedes CLK, but
I know how the normal road cars should act, even in racing configuration.
FWD, RWD or 4WD. I think any freaks like us are able too ;-)
> Again, I ask you to provide examples. Mind you, I am NOT saying that it
> DOES perform like a racecar. Nor can you show in any of my posts where
> I claim it does have an excellent physics model, as I did not say that
> (to be honest, I don't think I'm expert enough to). You said it
> doesn't. The onus is on you to give the examples. Or don't. But
> tehn don't expect much buy-in.
Well I think we reached a concensus further into the message. I say that
it's sligthy unrealistic, but enough for me to say to myself "Well I know
this ain't really how the cars act, but it won't keep me from having fun".
I said myself the same even for Nascar Racing 3, but the only one at the
moment I won't say this is GPL. And that's a fact Jack! (inside joke to
Conan O'Brien fans).
> No, I'm (in vain) generalising how it would be nice if one discussed
> using concrete examples and logic. Not just getting ones dander up
> because someone said a console title makes ones PC obsolete (and note I
> replied to the original poster with favorable comments on GT2 but that I
> continue to play GPL, et al).
I agree with that. I think as a community we have developped a sense of
opinion more than just "it suks" and "it rulz". Since we are mostly
speaking to our own community, the usage of technical terms is for me not
always necessary. Sure we talk about suspension geometry in GPL but in
normal discussion here we won't. There's no need for me to say that Ford
Racing sucks because they are not able to "correctly model the tyre patch
surface under circumstances within it's environment". Any fool can see how
it's badly created. Many titles on the market use badly canned effects.
You know like me that even GPL is canned, if we push the limits here.
Someday we might have a real game engine that does Real-Time 3d architecture
within it's own environment, but those days are far away I say... Ok maybe
half a decade ;)
> Therein lies the problem. If one never changes ones opinion, one is
> either right all the time, or just obstinate and refusing to learn.
> >Like I won't change yours.
> Hey, you still might :-)
Ok.. hmm <Force Mind trick> ;-)
> >Most if not all the racing games on the market have settings like weight
> >transfer, rotational inertia and such...
> Really? Flywheel inertia? I suppose some do, but I don't know which.
Good Q. I suspect that the processor power is well enough today to model
such things in simulations. If the WSC tells us they will do it and it's
pretty much easy, I suspect most of the quality game engines, ISI's, MGI's,
Papy's new one and so have such model effect. I know Ubisoft's one has very
limited effects in terms of weight movements. For them, static is the rule
in F1, which I disagree with. Even if the suspension in F1 has a gap
between both edges of not even a centimeter (according to the tech stuff I
have read), it has a very flowing weight possibility that should affect the
car much more. Which is why I feel that RC2k has a too stiff chassis model
also. Darn Im babbling and searching my terms here btw.
> I'll give you one more example of something I read today here.
> I won't quote a name, but he's respected here. His quote:
> "I've driven F1 2000 (visited ISI) and it rocks! I couldn't complete one
> single clean lap at Monaco without brushing this or breaking that."
> Now, I'm sure he might have good reasons to think the physics is good.
> But the above quote essentially says "it was hard, therefore it has good
> physics". I don't know how many times over the years I've seen this,
> especially in the flightsim ng. This my friend, is not a convincing
> argument (though I'll probably still get the sim :-)).
Actually you bring a very interesting point. I know who said that, and It
also made my mind tickle a little bit :) . I personally feel that the more
realistic the physics should be, that the learning curve is exponentially
harder. Racing is not an easy task. It is not something that anybody can
perform well. It's not like being able to ride a bike. I quite understand
the logic behind his comments. For him, since it's harder, there is a
bigger chance for the racing physics to be realistic, or at least.. give a
sensation of realism. I do not expect to sit in a F1 car and have an easy
ride. Or even a Formula Ford, or a simple Kart if I want to perform at the
maximum capabilities that a Kart can give you.
<snip good points>
> I suspect they exaggerate the weight transfer, both longtiudinally and
> laterally. Also, they do allow the "simulation tires" option if one
> wants tires that are more like a real car. In essence, they are
> admiting that in normal sim mode, that it has been relaxed. Thanks for
> the examples.
Yes those street tyres really bring it to a higher level of realism. Btw
maybe I'll try to look on the Dodge Vipers and compare them to the MGI model
of it. I would expect some subtle differences. I have found the MGI model
to be a little too light, but very realistic to it's real-life driving
capabilities.
I also feel some cars have a tendency to overspin a little, as with some
little problems in the Z-axis part of the simulation. Riding kurbs seem to
have a very little effect on the suspension. I would expect when riding on
them that the suspension gives me a low-frequency effect on them, but I
don't get that. Finally, I would expect a better collision model, but it's
not what Im researching for in GT2. But of course, I could be wrong.
--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
