rec.autos.simulators

It's taken from an early build so you don't really see much in-game,
but what's there is stunning.  The terrain is breathtaking.

Jason

It doesn't look much different to CMR3.
--

Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

BTW - any word on the project to get all the RC2000 stages into Rally
Trophy?  Last I had seen was a screenshot and that's it.

Kendt

There's nothing really wrong with the graphics in CMR3&4 - it's the physics
which are frighteningly bad in those games.

Looks pretty damn good and the footage is from several months ago.
They haven't shown us the***pit view, weather (which is fully
dynamic, changing each time you run the same stage, and includes
details like potholes filling with water, etc), spectators (there's no
"reset car" button in the sim, you either hope spectators are nearby
to help recover the car or retire with a helicopter/toetruck rescue -
also spectators display unpredictable behavior and can wander onto the
course at intersections and so forth), the garage (which is by far the
most detailed ever in a rally sim, and includes differential tuning
among other things), the rally school, the career management portion,
etc.  What they have shown us in screens and this video from an early
alpha build is already more impressive than any rally sim I can think
of, altho I suppose that says more about how awful rally games have
been to this point.

Jason

<Lots of neat stuff SNIPPED!>

sound's like you got "a leg inside the door" Jason.. ;o)
Anyway, this all sounds very good and dandy....  as long as they include a
realistig incar-view to drive from (i.e the from the driving seat) - they
got my money. Fail to include it and my interest is gone - instantly.  I
drive from the***pit and nowhere else.

--
ed_

From that and what the developers have said, they seem to have perhaps
grasped what gives a true sim its appeal.  That rather than just making a
game hard, the limitations imposed by a realistic physics model and
environment really do enhance the game experience.  After all, if you accept
the basic premise that doing the real thing is FUN, then it makes sense to
ask what makes it that way and try to recreate those same elements.  Warthog
sound like they understand that.  Bugbear never really bought into that line
of thought in developing RT, and that's why it fizzled as quickly as it did.

Without potential trouble and inconvenience waiting for you at every turn
and bump, you lose all the drama that comes with trying to go fast.  And a
physics model, in particular a TIRE model that gives you enough feedback to
let you know when you're approaching the edge is a vital element in that
mix.  That's what lets you, as MS likes to say, "listen" to the tires and
adjust your inputs accordingly.  Trying to dance on the edge of the traction
circle in a rich, dynamic feedback loop between driver and tires is the
essence of fast driving, either real or sim.  The better job Warthog do of
creating that feedback loop, the more engaging and immersive the experience
will be.

Hope they get it right.  Papy are the only ones who have gotten close to
date.

SB

Jason

Hope they get it right.  Papy are the only ones who have gotten close to

You need to fire up F1C or some of its mods Steve.  ISI is getting pretty
dang close if not already surpassing NR2003 in the physics dept.

Mitch

As always with these things, I hope to be proven wrong, but that never
happened in the past with car sims :-( Well, apart from Mario Kart)

Cheers!

Remco

Of course a lot of that is in the overall game engine; graphics, gui,
multiplayer, replay, etc., and not the physics.  And while I do appreciate
and applaud the big improvements in physics modeling (& mod-ability) that
ISI's made over the years, they're still missing something in the driver
feedback department.  Their sims all feel kind of sterile to me, as none
give as good a sense of what's happening with the individual tires as the
Papy sims.  Even GPL, with it's admittedly flawed tire model, does a very
nice job of letting you know where the edge of grip is, when you're getting
close to it, etc.  Pretty goofy-acting tires, to be sure, but at least you
always know what they're up to and can drive accordingly.  You can just
pretend they brought a bad batch for race weekend, curse the tire company
and get on with it!  And NR2003 is much improved of course.  Even with a lot
more sprung weight, you can still feel the tires "talking".

Hard to pin down exactly what's lacking, but it's a function of both how you
perceive the car moving around you in***pit view and how the sim
communicates to the driver what the state of the tires' relationship to the
ground is.  Just look at all the tiresounds values in the app.ini file for
NR2003, and then watch the subtleties in the skidmarks of a replay as the
tires' grip on the pavement varies during a brake lock, slide or spin.
Papy's put a LOT of effort into letting you know what's going on at the
contact patches, and that's where it all happens, after all.

YMMV, of course!   ;-)

SB

I guess what we need is a new sim occasionally just so the guys that have
the "advantages" nailed down have to start over once in a while :)

Any Nascar Thunder 04 drivers care to comment if ISI improved on the sounds?

Mitch

Hard to pin down exactly what's lacking, but it's a function of both how you

<shrug>  Despite its flaws, I can 'feel' absolutely everything in NT2004.
The suspension feels so alive and behaves almost exactly like a real car.
In NR2003 the car feels vague by comparison and it's like any real-life
driving experience is worthless.  I'm sure people who've cut their teeth on
Papy sims can walk into it and feel perfectly comfortable but for someone
like me who's never played any Papy or ISI games previously, NT2004
reproduced the 'feel' of driving a car far more accurately despite some
fairly obvious mistakes in the car's parameters.  ymmv

dave henrie