Just simulates the bumps. I think Jasper helped them determine the size and locations of the bumps through their telemetry.
Wag
Anyone happen to notice how all the banks in Talledega make the car bounce
slightly?
I've never noticed this before in any previous versions of Papy Nascar
releases.
I found it to be strangely reminiscent of EA's NT2003 which has those up 'n
down bouncy corners.
I think Papy liked what EA did with their corner effects.
Jason
I just ran a few laps at dega in the Nascar Thunder 04 demo and I'm gonna
pick up the game the next time I see it. It's really making NR2003
look/feel old. The track (dega anyway) looks exceptional compared to
NR2003. I havent spent but a few laps so maybe Im still missing something
major but my first impression is "Why the hell arent more people talking
about this title?" It feel pretty dam good to me and looks better than
anything Ive ever seen to date.
Duron 700 users need not even try though :-)
Mitch
> >Anyone happen to notice how all the banks in Talledega make the car
bounce
> >slightly?
> >I've never noticed this before in any previous versions of Papy Nascar
> >releases.
> >I found it to be strangely reminiscent of EA's NT2003 which has those up
'n
> >down bouncy corners.
> >I think Papy liked what EA did with their corner effects.
> If Papy were to model EA's bump effects, the car would be getting
> completely airborne multiple times a lap.
> Jason
As far as Papy tracks being too smooth goes, I don't see that being
the case in N2003 at all. Soften the shocks to 1/1 in N2003 and the
car will have incredible mechanical grip but will have unbearable
weight jacking effects kick in as you hit bumps and crest hills (of
course, cresting hills is another matter in itself, as you're likely
to flip the car over). Set the shocks to 9/9 and the car skips over
bumps to the point where you you'll get a headache from all the
***pit movement (and start to feel sorry for all the ground-effect F1
drivers who had to deal with constant pounding of their spine).
The final statement on realism to me when it comes to N2003 vs NT2004,
is what do the real drivers race. There are several Cup drivers who
are avid N2003 fans - and aren't being paid so say so. When someone
is on the cover of a game and continues to openly promote and play a
sim that he's not profiting from, that should get some gears grinding.
When an entire series is exlusively licensed by a company, and all of
the sim-racing drivers continue to openly prefer another company's
product, that should drive the point home further.
I'm looking forward to GTR, since it will be the first ISI-engined
product to feature tracks based on real models with real input from
real drivers. I guarantee you that they will drive completely
differently than the ones ISI built, and that's only referring to the
high-amplitude bumps (as opposed to high-frequency, which no one
besides Papy ever bothered modelling), without taking into account the
poor layouts, incorrect elevations, uncambered surfaces, and complete
lack of atmosphere.
Jason
As far as the "flying through the sky" effect goes, I haven't seen it
since I stopped using a modem. Which makes sense, since it's caused
by lag - the physics engine sees two cars move towards each other and
if lag causes them to overlap they're forced away from each other
without the energy absorption happening as there is when two surfaces
collide. It sees two cars separate at one tick, then sees that
they're overlapping in the next and says "wow that must have been a
solid impact". It sucks but I'm not sure of how they'd fix it without
increasing the packet size being used.
Jason
Is that a shot at me Mitch? Huh? Huh? C'mon man let's go!! :-P
Haha, yeah I tried the Demo some time ago and well, lets just say I could
count seconds faster than frames. LOL
Sean
> I like F1C a lot, and as I've said elsewhere the Simbin addon tracks
> (as well as some others) are great. NT2004 is a whole nother matter.
> While the track accuracy in general is suspect, they have done a
> better job on the ovals this time around. There are still places like
> Bristol where the car literally skips off the track mid corner with
> alarming regularity. The thing that makes it even more annoying is
> that the bumps are about what I'd expect with stiff springs and
> shocks, but feel just as over exaggerated when you run soft springs
> and shocks. It's weird that you can build setups that kerb ride all
> day with no problems (something that actually would cause a stiffly
> sprung car - i.e. F1 - to get airborne) and still have parts of the
> pavement itself, right in the racing line, that cause 2 or 4 wheels to
> li
> As far as Papy tracks being too smooth goes, I don't see that being
> the case in N2003 at all. Soften the shocks to 1/1 in N2003 and the
> car will have incredible mechanical grip but will have unbearable
> weight jacking effects kick in as you hit bumps and crest hills (of
> course, cresting hills is another matter in itself, as you're likely
> to flip the car over). Set the shocks to 9/9 and the car skips over
> bumps to the point where you you'll get a headache from all the
>***pit movement (and start to feel sorry for all the ground-effect F1
> drivers who had to deal with constant pounding of their spine).
Youre not being fair. Im stuck running N2003 everyweek because thats the
game that gets the play. Not much fun running with th AI or alone :)
Other factors include PC power. ISI seems require more than the ancient
Papy code for optimal play. Another huge factor is online stability. No
question the title goes to Papy.
What high freq bumps has Papy modeled again?
I agree about the track modeling. Its not great but not terrible.
I guess whats frustrating is knowing we dont have much in the works to
replace NR2003 and after all these years I like the bi-annual Nx upg. Dont
get me wrong I like Nr2003 its just getting long in the tooth is all and
there are better racin sims available imo..
Too me NR2003 feel like re-used N4 code (which it is) slightly modified to
feel a bit different but still "the same". Now when we get something more
realistic we get the "Papy fanboys" screaming "it doesnt feel like NR2003 so
its bad" attitude. When in reality theyve just been conditioned to accept
papy physics as the basis of reality instead REAL LIFE.
I cant say very much about Thunder as Ive only turned a few laps at dega ao
I cant say too much about it but in NT04 you REALLY feel like you are in
control of the throttle instead of the Nr2003 canned throttle response. If
you mash the gas (from a standstill) even at restrictor plate tracks you
will smoke the tires. In NR2003 its feels almost exactly the way N4 felt
when you stomp on the gas and your car slowly lurches instead of lighting up
the tires as it would in REAL LIFE. Yea yea I know I can get the rev's up
and smoke em but this isnt realistic.
I want the ultimate reality and NR2003 sure isnt the holy grail of sims for
me. It was a very small step forward imo.
Mitch
> > With the Papy online code of "look at a car wrong at five mph and it is
> >airborne like a moonshot", maybe it's already there.
> At least you can race more than 10 people at a time in a Papy sim
> without half the field flying through the sky. =)
> As far as the "flying through the sky" effect goes, I haven't seen it
> since I stopped using a modem. Which makes sense, since it's caused
> by lag - the physics engine sees two cars move towards each other and
> if lag causes them to overlap they're forced away from each other
> without the energy absorption happening as there is when two surfaces
> collide. It sees two cars separate at one tick, then sees that
> they're overlapping in the next and says "wow that must have been a
> solid impact". It sucks but I'm not sure of how they'd fix it without
> increasing the packet size being used.
> Jason
<snip>
When in reality theyve just been conditioned to accept papy physics as the
basis of reality instead REAL LIFE.
<snip>
Bingo. Nail/head.
><snip>
> When in reality theyve just been conditioned to accept papy physics as the
>basis of reality instead REAL LIFE.
><snip>
>> Mitch
>Bingo. Nail/head.
I have a feeling they have some sort of first hand experience.
Jason
Mitch
people like the DEI drivers have been conditioned to
> ><snip>
> > When in reality theyve just been conditioned to accept papy physics as
the
> >basis of reality instead REAL LIFE.
> ><snip>
> >> Mitch
> >Bingo. Nail/head.
> So you guys think people like the DEI drivers have been conditioned to
> think that way?
> I have a feeling they have some sort of first hand experience.
> Jason
But bottom line is that Papy hasn't had competition yet. No one has
really tried. Now they will imo.
