rec.autos.simulators

diffrence in psysics 1.1.0.3 and 1.2.0.0 ????

kcaldwel

diffrence in psysics 1.1.0.3 and 1.2.0.0 ????

by kcaldwel » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

I haven't noticed any difference in car physics or frame rates between
1.1 and 1.2 (US version from The Pits). My frame rate is still 36.9, and
my set-ups all seem to handle the same as with 1.1, on-line and off.

We have found that someone running the German 1.2 cannot join a race
hosted with the US 1.2 - Incompatible Server message. Maybe there is
some difference between the two.

1.2 seems awesome on-line, even with relatively poor connections, with 4
or 5 racers. Solid cars, very little warping. We did have a strange race
with 13 drivers, but I'm hoping it was something else.

Celeron 300A at 450MHz
Voodoo 3 3000
128M RAM
Sound Blaster Live! Value

Kevin Caldwell
Calgary, Canada


> I notice the choppy frame rate when racing (or trying to race!) the AI cars
> with 1.2, just like you, it is very difficult to drive.  In training 1.2 is
> generally better, but racing seems worse!  Hmmmm........


> > I agree, something definitely feels different, feels like I can push
> > the car harder and still keep it on the track,

Chri

diffrence in psysics 1.1.0.3 and 1.2.0.0 ????

by Chri » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00



> : It is true that in modern F1, the lower the car the more
> : downforce is produced.  This is not, however, true for
> : the GPL era cars.

> Yes it is.  Not sure how significant the effect is
> (presumably not very) but it's still quite definitely true.

OK.  I'll agree that there is some kind of interaction between
the underside of the car and the road surface that varies with
ride height no matter what the shape of the car.  However, this
interaction wasn't designed into or planned for with the F1
cars of 1967.  They simply weren't designed to produce downforce
by the channeling and funneling of air underneath the cars.
The ground effect wasn't fully understood (maybe not even thought
of yet?) during the 1967 F1 season.

My point being that the designers of 1967 F1 cars probably didn't
design for downforce.  Or at least they designed their cars so as
not to take off like an aeroplane at 150 mph. :)  Sure, the
fundamental aerodynamic knowledge was there and understood in 1967,
but it hadn't been applied to motor racing in the form of designed
in downforce just yet.  I'd be willing to bet all they designed
their F1 cars for, aerodynamically, was to be very not-lumpy.

Not being employed by Papy, I can't tell you what they designed in
and what they didn't design into the GPL model with respect to
aerodynamics.  Accurately designed, real-time simulation of aero
flow over the cars, however, would take an ENORMOUS chunck of the
CPU's power.  Obviously drag is modeled.  Anyone who has driven
the GPL Brabham at Monza or Spa and drafted up to 199 mph behind a
Lotus or Eagle can attest to that.  Further than that though...?
Probably not anything.  Since the cars weren't intended in 1967 to
be anything other than aerodynamically neutral, why waste the CPU
power modeling the aero flow?

OTH, I do remember reading back when we all thought N3 would use
the GPL physics model that Papy had added aero flow simulations into
the model.  Part of what I read said that the NASCAR model had
real enough simulated flow that the car would take off like the old
non-roof-flap cars if you spun it backwards at a high enough speed.
I'm sure it adds a whole lot to the CPU load, though.  I'm hoping
that the model gets used for N4 when the P-4-1000 is available. :)

-Chris-

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Peter Prochazk

diffrence in psysics 1.1.0.3 and 1.2.0.0 ????

by Peter Prochazk » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

Maybe you're right and for some reason another setup (default?) is used
under certain circumstances. I remember, that I've answered to your post,
that I can't notice any difference with 1.2. In the meanwhile I went back to
1.1, but reading this thread I tried out 1.2 once again (cracked US version
from the Fastlane). I'm absolutely sure, that there is NO difference in car
handling between 1.1 and 1.2 on my system. I drove the Glen in 1.1 with the
Lotus and immediately after that in 1.2 with the same setup. Same feel, same
laptimes. And I noticed a difference between 1.0 and 1.1, even though I'd
played GPL for only about 2 weeks at that time. So I think there must be a
setup problem with all the guys, who swear, that there is a difference.
Strange, that I don't have it...

Peter
Vienna, Austria




> > They feel more stable allright...theyre like driving a snowplow. I had
> > really good setups in 1.0 for the Eagle which i modified slightly for
> > 1.1.0.3 and i was still fast. Now my setup plows so bad in corners i
> > cant drive it. Ive gone back to 1.0 for now but still using the 2.5
> > inch ride height. Anyone else notice the tremendous understeer?

> I sure did but at the time no one else seemed to suffer from the same
> problem. This is what I wrote on 29th of September after trying out the
> German 1.2.0.0 patch:

> <OLD STUFF>
> After one lap at the Ring I didn't know what to think. The car seemed to
> understeer like a pig with my usual setup which normally provides a
> manageable oversteer, making the car delightfully lively around the
> twisty circuit.

> I've been away from GPL for a few weeks, so first thing that came into my
> mind was: "Jesus, now I've really lost the touch." But as it felt more
> like an Exxon tanker than a '67 GP car, I had to try the 1.1.0.3 to be
> sure - and wham, the Ferrari was back to its normal self.
> </OLD STUFF>

> But a little bit later the problem just disappeared and instead of the
> horrible understeer my setups began to feel exactly the same as in
> 1.1.0.3. This happened just when I was about to give the 1.2.0.0 one
> final go and fiddle around with setups as I had begun to suspect that
> SOMEHOW, DESPITE of the CORRECT SETUP NAME and NUMBERS in the car setup
> screen I was actually using a different setup (I've experimented with
> several different ones and still have those around in my setups folder).

> Just for the hell of it, try saving your usual setup with some other name
> and then use that. Try out different setups, and see how they feel. I
> haven't got a clue of what could cause this anomaly but it must be real
> since several people have already experienced it. Pure X-files material.

> ---
> Antti Markus Peteri

>        15 miles. your dim light shines from so far away

>                                  - Soul Asylum, Promises Broken

Peter Prochazk

diffrence in psysics 1.1.0.3 and 1.2.0.0 ????

by Peter Prochazk » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00


<snip>

Same with me about physics, no difference. But I get about 2 fps less than
in 1.1, when I don't reach 36 (race start), and it gets a little choppier,
but that's better than slo-mo, IMO

Peter
Vienna, Austria

Peter Prochazk

diffrence in psysics 1.1.0.3 and 1.2.0.0 ????

by Peter Prochazk » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00


I haven't noticed any differences, using a LWFF. Maybe there's a setup
problem, read Antti Markus Peteri's post and my answer.

I get about 2 fps less than in 1.1, when I don't get 36 at a race start
(PIII 450, V3 3000) and it is a bit choppier. I guess, that in order to keep
real time, frames must be repeated, when you can't get 36 fps. This
repeating of frames causes the 'choppiness'. Maybe the bug in 1.1 was, that
the repeating of frames wasn't done, so you got a smoother picture, but also
slo-mo. Did you ever compare to 1.0? I haven't done that yet, maybe
tomorrow...

Peter
Vienna, Austria


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.