rec.autos.simulators

> It seems that this post has stirred up much contention about the word
> "Simulator". Dictionaries and there *present* meanings can and do change
> over time, just as new words appear and old ones disappear. In any case,
> the point is to find a way to keep companies honest. I think a list of
> things simulated and to what degree need to be displayed by those who
> claim things like "state of the art" or "most realistic physics modeling
> to date", etc, as SCGT does.
>     If we could get a basic list for this, based on what has been done
> to date by all racing games (trivia aside of course) and have companies
> display this list somehow (eg a leaflet in the box and also distributed
> to all outlets for display say).

>   eg 3d physics model Yes/no/partial (GPL/ICR2/GP2)
>      tyre temps            "
>      brake locking         "
>      weather               "
>      independant susp      "
>      etc,etc,etc           "

>    Obviously, as companies get deeper and deeper into the various
> aspects of motorsports simulations, this list grows. Not only would it
> be obvious which was a serious sim and which was not, we would also be
> able to see what sims did what and choose the one that most fits our
> tastes. Best example I can think of here is that if you really like the
> idea of weather, F1RS is good. If weather is no big deal to you but you
> want a full on physics engine then GPL is the way to go. Force feedback
> and it's probably Viper.
>     So by what I'll boldly claim to be the general consensus in here
> with use of the words "arcade" and "sim", a sim would have a lot of
> "Yes"s and "Partial"s down the list, whereas the arcaders would have
> noticeably less "Yes"s in particular.
>     It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get a
> ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved
> checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If not,
> their loss! :) Something like a sticker that says "Carries the R.A.S.
> checklist of simulated components". :) There is no need for us to check
> a companies claims - companies would police themselves. If a company
> cheated it would be a blatant case of false advertising. The committee
> would only need to supply/approve the list. Which would simply be to
> weed out things like seagulls in the distance for example. It would be
> up to companies to submit things for inclusion of course, then up to the
> committee to approve them.

>    Comments?

> > So who decides what's a "simulation"? I've seen it talked about in
> > here since I've been a regular (approx 18 months). So who decides? Well,
> > no one it seems. How could they? It annoys me to see the likes of Papy
> > and Crammond giving a free ride to other companies who come along and
> > use the word "simulation" to sell there products. Obviously I am saying
> > this upon the release of SCGT. I have only seen the demo, but hey, it's
> > their "demo" and it simply gives me the impression of them not
> > particularly being committed to making this game as "sim" (diehards
> > version of "sim") as possible. However, there have been far worse cases
> > of this than SCGT also. It might get better with patches and updates but
> > when something is released like this I lose interest fast. Fool me
> > once.................
> >      Anyway, what we have here is a very grey area of what is a sim and
> > does a company have a right to use this word in there description of
> > what they're trying to sell us. I think the only way to keep companies
> > honest is to legally force them to reveal exactly what aspects of
> > reality are recreated in their software and to what degree. So any
> > racing game that is sold with the word "Simulation" must then declare a
> > breakdown of exactly what is being simulated and also give some
> > indication as to what depth also. The "legitimate" sim companies have
> > specific areas to compete against each other in and those looking for a
> > piggy back on them start to slip off fast. Gotta be a good thing.
> > Obviously the industry would be doing it's own policing ie checking that
> > a companies claims were legitimate. Biggest problem of course is
> > classification and who does the classifying. Hmmmmmm...........

> So who decides what's a "simulation"? I've seen it talked about in
> here since I've been a regular (approx 18 months). So who decides? Well,
> no one it seems. How could they? It annoys me to see the likes of Papy
> and Crammond giving a free ride to other companies who come along and
> use the word "simulation" to sell there products. Obviously I am saying
> this upon the release of SCGT. I have only seen the demo, but hey, it's
> their "demo" and it simply gives me the impression of them not
> particularly being committed to making this game as "sim" (diehards
> version of "sim") as possible. However, there have been far worse cases
> of this than SCGT also. It might get better with patches and updates but
> when something is released like this I lose interest fast. Fool me
> once.................
>      Anyway, what we have here is a very grey area of what is a sim and
> does a company have a right to use this word in there description of
> what they're trying to sell us. I think the only way to keep companies
> honest is to legally force them to reveal exactly what aspects of
> reality are recreated in their software and to what degree. So any
> racing game that is sold with the word "Simulation" must then declare a
> breakdown of exactly what is being simulated and also give some
> indication as to what depth also. The "legitimate" sim companies have
> specific areas to compete against each other in and those looking for a
> piggy back on them start to slip off fast. Gotta be a good thing.
> Obviously the industry would be doing it's own policing ie checking that
> a companies claims were legitimate. Biggest problem of course is
> classification and who does the classifying. Hmmmmmm...........

> >    It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get a
> >ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved
> >checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If not,
> >their loss! :)

> Too much work for both parties with too little gain, IMO anyway. I
> can't see companies wanting to spend the time with us calling up and
> saying are you _sure_ you're modelling tire slip correctly, because
> when I go like "that" at corner X the car should do "that" but it goes
> like "this".

>> >    It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get a
>> >ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved
>> >checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If not,
>> >their loss! :)

>> Too much work for both parties with too little gain, IMO anyway. I
>> can't see companies wanting to spend the time with us calling up and
>> saying are you _sure_ you're modelling tire slip correctly, because
>> when I go like "that" at corner X the car should do "that" but it goes
>> like "this".

>   That would not be a RAS committee's responsibility. Our
>responsibility would be to provide and endorse a checklist of the many
>components of racing simulators.

> > >    It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get
a
> > >ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved
> > >checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If
not,
> > >their loss!

> I can't imagine r.a.s. being used as an endor***t for anything.

> David G Fisher

> > > >    It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get
> a
> > > >ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved
> > > >checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If
> not,
> > > >their loss!

>I can't imagine r.a.s. being used as an endor***t for anything.

> I can't imagine r.a.s. being used as an endor***t for anything.

> David G Fisher

> >> >    It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get a
> >> >ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved
> >> >checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If not,
> >> >their loss! :)

> >> Too much work for both parties with too little gain, IMO anyway. I
> >> can't see companies wanting to spend the time with us calling up and
> >> saying are you _sure_ you're modelling tire slip correctly, because
> >> when I go like "that" at corner X the car should do "that" but it goes
> >> like "this".

> >   That would not be a RAS committee's responsibility. Our
> >responsibility would be to provide and endorse a checklist of the many
> >components of racing simulators.

> ...and to judge whether a sim meets those, therefore you're going to
> have to satisfy yourself that what is claimed is true.

> >As I said further along, companies would police themselves.

> Ooooooh boy, now there's a refreshing view of the world of business
> and marketing! Apart from that, if companies are going to police
> themselves why bother even having the list? Companies can make up a
> "RAS seal of approval" themselves and whack it on the box.

> >   Well, I'll take a bit of a stab in the dark here and say that a
> >breakdown of components would probably reveal these things. It would be
> >up to each company to submit "components for review" so as to highlight
> >the superiority of their modeling for example.

> So the companies are submitting things? For what, if they are going to
> police themselves? I know for sure that a breakdown of components
> wouldn't reveal this things, just as companies would be unlikely to
> say what they were modelling and how.

> >    Since you raise the issue of brakes or more generally, braking,
> >consider this. Under braking we have things like rotational momentum of
> >wheels/tyres, mass of car, lessening air resistance, tyre grip, weight
> >transfer, etc, etc. Point being, how well the braking of the car is is
> >determined by many more components than just caliper/disk force for
> >example.

> How well the braking of the car is done is mathematically calculated
> by all of these things - if the simulation has all of these things it
> might _still_ be an awful simulation. Look at XCAR, setup options and
> modelling to bejeezus and it still was mighty dodgy to drive. It still
> comes down to not only whether these things are modelled, but how
> faithfully they interact with each other and how will they are
> implemented to produce as faithful a simulation of the real beast as
> possible.

> >   Not if there responsibility was to simply vote on what components
> >were worthy and which weren't. Much of the time it would be a no brainer
> >I'd say. And when it's note, the vote decides.

> Is it necessary to model cooling airflow over a tyre in order to
> accurately model braking? I don't think we would know. We know what
> would make a "perfect" simulation, but that will not happen anytime in
> the next few years. The critical thing is to know what is critical in
> order to faithfully represent, and anyone who knows that may want to
> pop a resume off to Papyrus.

> >     The only thing that might be an issue is would Papyrus, for
> >example, wish to disclose to their competition exactly why their sims
> >feel right and the others don't :) I suppose with the apparent lead Papy
> >has at the moment that they could reveal enough to let everyone know
> >who's the boss but not enough to know why they are :))

> That would be an issue for sure! :-)

> Cheers!
> John