rec.autos.simulators

by **Paul Jone** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

Graphics look nice. Wonder what the final thing will be like.
Cheers,
Paul

> Here is a site for OF1;
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Enjoy

> > <snipe>

> > >- or maybe its just that F1 itself needs a bit of a warm up.

> > >Yes, Yes, I know GPL is great, but thats the one innovation in a pretty
> > >grotty industry. It appears that its GP2 or GPL - I doubt any other
> > industry
> > >could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years.

> > >Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being devalued
> > >in the games industry as far as can tell.

> > Have you tried F1RS or MGPRS2? You did not mention those in your post.
> > MGPRS2 is quite good (not as good as GPL, of course).
> > Eidos Official Formula 1 was developed by another company, I believe
> > Lankhor. Not much is known about it, and it's odd that it doesn't have a web
> > site. Very strange actually, for a game coming out in about 2 weeks.

by **Christian Girou** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

Hello Kai, I have GP2, F1RS & GPL and i like them all. Because i still use a
"lowly" 233 Mmx i can't really race GPL online (15 fps with 8 cars), but
F1RS rocks on here. As for multiplayer i was able to race some with a buddy
by using "Heat.net".

As for the comparaison between F1RS & GP2, well i prefer F1RS. For real
sense of going fast GPL is the best IMO. But that wouldn't mean that F1RS
isn't good, i think it's a personnal thing....

I don't really understand people who are bashing F1RS....

Regards,

Enforcer.

Kai Fuller a crit dans le message ...

by **Mark C Dod** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

Some games get released using unlicenced elements. The GP500 motorcycle game
released everywhere but Australia last year was a good example. They tried to
cover there bums by renaming the riders and tracks and changing a few corners but
they still used the copyrighted GP500 name. I don't thing the FIA hands out
licences to more than one distributor.

> I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit,
> well, rubbish)

> It seems that I buy GP2 or GPL - hmm, what variety.

> Having had a look around, I'm beginning to think that this particular
> *** area suffers from two annoying faults:

> 1- The marketing is awful - there is a real lack of reliable information.

> For example,
> The "official" FIA tag appears to move about as often as a new PC video board
> is released (i.e. every two weeks). I recently heard that Electronic Arts had
> won FIA
> approval, but Eidos seem to be using the 1998 data for a game its about to
> release.
> Does it change every year? What is going on? I notice Eidos seem to have
> absolutely
> nothin on there web site about this despite sim racing news stating its due
> for
> release next week.

> Wouldn't it be
> better assess one developer and allow them theFIA licence for several years,
> building
> up some kind of brand ownership that would allow the buying public to have
> some continuity? This would allow the developers to actually develop better
> understanding and contacts within the sport as well as allowing the game
> buyer
> a support path and some continuity to upgrade. I know GP 2 does this - but
> the simulator developers are missing an opportunity to develop simulators in
> the
> long term - they all appear to want to be the best for one week, make a
> killing
> and get out. This maybe why the FIA licence moves about so frequently.

> This means that you cannot ensure that the FIA licence comes
> with a Quality simulation (Formula 1 97 for example). Which is terrible.
> Surely the FIA should represent a quality product to reflect the standard of
> the series? Maybe Bernie Ecclestone just takes the cash.

> Driver endor***ts seem to follow
> a similar trend. (With the possible exception of Jacques Villeneuve's
> unoffical
> endor***t of GP2.) I hear the Johnny Herbert game is a bit of a no-no.

> 2. The second fault is a total lack of originallity. They all seem to be
> "race around these 16 tracks, win the championship, goodbye".
> They only seem to differ in the graphics and sound support
> and extent to which you can customise the car. Excuse me,
> but, how about a bit of additional interest? For example, Toca 2
> allows your to enter support races, Colin McRae has a Rally school.
> At the very least, it might be interesting if the Grand Prix simulators
> actually allowed you to drive into the pits yourself or see movement
> in the crowd - maybe show other views of the track on the trackside
> monitors whilst you pass them. Do any of the more recent f1 simulators
> ask you to line up behind a safety car during a race? Run the formation
> lap? Perform testing off season? Work on introducing new features
> to the car? Damage your car if you run over debris from a shunt?
> Please tell me - the marketing blurb doesn't.

> I don't know, the whole thing seems to lack innovation to me - of
> course I would not wish to buy an "arcade" f1 game - but the
> developers of F1 games have the imagination of a cold wet haddock
> - or maybe its just that F1 itself needs a bit of a warm up.

> Yes, Yes, I know GPL is great, but thats the one innovation in a pretty
> grotty industry. It appears that its GP2 or GPL - I doubt any other industry
> could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years.

> Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being devalued
> in the games industry as far as can tell.

by **Greg Cisk** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

>I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit,
>well, rubbish)

>It seems that I buy GP2 or GPL - hmm, what variety.

Try UBI F1.

by **Greg Cisk** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

>What are you smoking?! MGPRS2 and F1RS are not even half as realistic as
GP2
>is! At least in GP2 you get a sense of how hard you can push your car
before
>it begins to get loose or to push. In F1RS and the demo for MGPRS2 that
I've
>played, the physics just feel so canned!

IMHO F1RS is way better than GP2. Also the push effects you are referring
to are very evident is you tried F1RS with a good FF wheel.

GP2 haha.

--

Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

by **Jean-Francois Lepag** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

> > MGPRS2 is the updated version of F1RS. It has better physics,

> But that doesn't mean that the physics are good.

Comparing to which other *modern* F1 sim? do you qualify good physics by easy
to drive cars that stick to the road like hell? :+)

Whew! hehehe...I didn't know the FIA was in charge of the graphics in F1 racing
sims!

Ok...good point here! :+)

So what? It doesn't make it a good sim because it lost a track that even the
FIA abandonned? Is the FIA not good anymore for taking off a few tracks? hehehe

Who said they were the best ever made? Again, what modern F1 sim is better?
Don't give me the GPL thing like too many does...they are 2 different eras. We
don't mix WWII a/c with F-16 and F-22! :+)

So, instead of bashing as long as you want any sim from Ubisoft, get some facts
and knowledgable arguements, not just short answers like tis one rules and this
one sucks. :+)

Cheers!

--
Jean-Francois Lepage
Web designer & 3D Artist/Animator

ICQ#5404541
__________________________________________
The Web's World
http://www.supernet.ca/~stealth/index.html
Includes:
-Inspire 3D & LightWave Resources
-The AirSpace
-The Unofficial Fly! Web Site

by **Chris Schlette** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

Worse than SCGT's.

They look like cartoons. The tracks are inaccurate. So therefore they are
bad graphics.

Only when Ubisoft produces a good game.

by **Chris Schlette** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

Does it matter? GP2s physics are better so that doesn't say much for
Ubisoft's effort. If they wanted to make an arcady racer...they succeeded.

Just becuase there isn't a better modern F1 sim does not make the game a
good game.

What facts is he missing? Graphics are cartoony, tracks aren't right, the
physics are not all that fabalous, the sound absolutely are horrid, network
play? yeah, right.

It may be the best modern F1 game currently on the market, but that doesn't
make it the best or even any good.

by **Jean-Francois Lepag** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

> > > But that doesn't mean that the physics are good.

> > Comparing to which other *modern* F1 sim? do you qualify good physics by
> easy
> > to drive cars that stick to the road like hell? :+)

> Does it matter? GP2s physics are better so that doesn't say much for
> Ubisoft's effort. If they wanted to make an arcady racer...they succeeded.

At least this "Arcade Racer" has real time weather, black and blue flags and
Force Feedback! :+)

Hehe...a guy asked for a goo modern F1 Racing Sim, which one is better on the
market??? Read all the sentences! :+)

Graphics may be cartoony to you but at least they aren't 2D bitmaps! Get real
dude! GP2 is over! It was the best darn F1 Sim of it's time, but time has gone
by...let's hope for GP3 at E3. Now that one may be the best ever, *IF* it ever
comes out! :+)

Cheers!

--
Jean-Francois Lepage
Web designer & 3D Artist/Animator

ICQ#5404541
__________________________________________
The Web's World
http://www.supernet.ca/~stealth/index.html
Includes:
-Inspire 3D & LightWave Resources
-The AirSpace
-The Unofficial Fly! Web Site

by **Simon Goodwi** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

The problem with the whole industry as far as I'm concerned is it's subservience
to the graphic bell/whistle mentality of the hoi poloi as well as the
manufacturers. The vast majority of players out there judge games almost soley
on their visual quality - i.e. your average schmuck is more concerned about how
the trees look or whether the lens-flare is right. This attitude only hurts the
possibilty of truly realistic sims appearing on the market.

Personally I would be perfectly happy if GP3 came out with NO graphical changes
whatsoever.. as long as the extra computer power available was used to: improve
the physics; improve the AI (changes in team-work over a season, for example);
more random and varied breakdowns/accidents (on the grid, in the pits, etc.);
variable weather; grease/debris on track; tear-offs/pit communications; proper
flags (i.e. black/blue!)... In other words.. anything which will actually
increase the realism of the so-called simulation.

Until programmer's start to concentrate in these areas instead of just making
their games prettier we're not gonna get any better simulations (in the purist's
sense of the word).

Simon Goodwin

> I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit,
> well, rubbish)

> [snip]
> could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years.

> Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being devalued
> in the games industry as far as can tell.

by **Chris Schlette** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

I disagree to some extent. In our computer sims we have very little tactile
feedback available so the better the graphics and the better the sound can
reproduce what would actually be seen and heard will help us feel the cars.
However, its time to get rid of the stupid stuff like lens-flare...however,
it would be very nice to see a well done rain racing scenario happen (even
with track drying! and puddles! ;). However, I think another area you
neglected to mention is the network code...this needs to be something that
is really worked on. A lot of developers just seem to slap something in at
the last second and call it "networking". Other than that I agree with you.

> The problem with the whole industry as far as I'm concerned is it's
subservience
> to the graphic bell/whistle mentality of the hoi poloi as well as the
> manufacturers. The vast majority of players out there judge games almost
soley
> on their visual quality - i.e. your average schmuck is more concerned
about how
> the trees look or whether the lens-flare is right. This attitude only
hurts the
> possibilty of truly realistic sims appearing on the market.

> Personally I would be perfectly happy if GP3 came out with NO graphical
changes
> whatsoever.. as long as the extra computer power available was used to:
improve
> the physics; improve the AI (changes in team-work over a season, for
example);
> more random and varied breakdowns/accidents (on the grid, in the pits,
etc.);
> variable weather; grease/debris on track; tear-offs/pit communications;
proper
> flags (i.e. black/blue!)... In other words.. anything which will actually
> increase the realism of the so-called simulation.

> Until programmer's start to concentrate in these areas instead of just
making
> their games prettier we're not gonna get any better simulations (in the
purist's
> sense of the word).

> Simon Goodwin

> > I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit,
> > well, rubbish)

> > [snip]

> > could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years.

> > Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being
devalued
> > in the games industry as far as can tell.

by **Steve Ferguso** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

: Personally I would be perfectly happy if GP3 came out with NO graphical changes
: whatsoever.. as long as the extra computer power available was used to: improve
: the physics; improve the AI (changes in team-work over a season, for example);
: more random and varied breakdowns/accidents (on the grid, in the pits, etc.);
: variable weather; grease/debris on track; tear-offs/pit communications; proper
: flags (i.e. black/blue!)... In other words.. anything which will actually
: increase the realism of the so-called simulation.

Except GP2 still chokes even a fast PII with full details and sky at
Monaco. I would definitely like to see graphical changes, but minor ones.
Some more trackside objects would be nice, but not essential. For
example, there is a lot missing from the infield of Brazil. I would like
to see the graphics go to a 16bit palette at least. The cars look good,
but they have always been a little funky with their polygon bodies/bitmap
wheels. I think changes are needed to make it contemporary, but certainly
you are right that there should be some compromises. Most of the graphics
enhancements are "free" with a 3D card, so why not do it?

Stephen

by **ramso** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

We need improved graphics [ who wants to drive GP2 anymore ]
It shouldn't be done at the expense of the physics, but a realistic driving
environment is important [ lens flares are ***though, I'm yet to see
any while walking, running or driving around :-] ]

>The problem with the whole industry as far as I'm concerned is it's
subservience
>to the graphic bell/whistle mentality of the hoi poloi as well as the
>manufacturers. The vast majority of players out there judge games almost
soley
>on their visual quality - i.e. your average schmuck is more concerned about
how
>the trees look or whether the lens-flare is right. This attitude only hurts
the
>possibilty of truly realistic sims appearing on the market.

>Personally I would be perfectly happy if GP3 came out with NO graphical
changes
>whatsoever.. as long as the extra computer power available was used to:
improve
>the physics; improve the AI (changes in team-work over a season, for
example);
>more random and varied breakdowns/accidents (on the grid, in the pits,
etc.);
>variable weather; grease/debris on track; tear-offs/pit communications;
proper
>flags (i.e. black/blue!)... In other words.. anything which will actually
>increase the realism of the so-called simulation.

>Until programmer's start to concentrate in these areas instead of just
making
>their games prettier we're not gonna get any better simulations (in the
purist's
>sense of the word).

>Simon Goodwin

>> I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit,
>> well, rubbish)

>> [snip]

>> could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years.

>> Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being
devalued
>> in the games industry as far as can tell.

by Te » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

On Thu, 06 May 1999 13:05:01 -0400, Simon Goodwin

>Personally I would be perfectly happy if GP3 came out with NO graphical changes
>whatsoever.. as long as the extra computer power available was used to: improve
>the physics; improve the AI (changes in team-work over a season, for example);
>more random and varied breakdowns/accidents (on the grid, in the pits, etc.);
>variable weather; grease/debris on track; tear-offs/pit communications; proper
>flags (i.e. black/blue!)... In other words.. anything which will actually
>increase the realism of the so-called simulation.

I absolutely disagree. Superb graphics are an essential feature of any
true simulation and absolutely vital for the visual *realism*. This
ranges from such simple things as debris on the track to the
flagwaving track steward and much more importantly the driving view &
range. And btw, it's actually one of the reasons why GP2 was an
immediate success, back in 95/96 it simply blew everything away with
it's top-notch graphics.
PS: I don't know what kind of system you have but I cannot really find
much 'extra computer power' when playing GP2 ...

--Tel

by **ymenar** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

Load Gp2. Take every Fxx option off. Look at how great the physics are for
modeling the Formula 1's of that year. Ubisoft's game engine is not the
best, (but still not the worst). There is several canned effect, but at
least they fixed some problems in MGPRS2. Still it doesn't mean it's good,
but they are at least going the correct way.

Until they change their game engine completly (which they won't for their
new title I think), I will continue to warn people that even if it's
currently the overall best modern F1 sim (GP2 fails only for the
non-accelerated graphics), it's far from being and excellent sim ;)

No he only said "updated graphics". For me that means they updated their
graphics. Thus changed their visual representation of what is on the
screen. That means the accuracy of the buildings, track objects, accuracy of
sponsors, quality of the graphics of both moving and non-moving objects.
They lost their FIA license, that is not "updating" their graphics. And
adding resolutions doesn't "update" graphics also. There is some nice
additions, still, with the shadow effects on trackside objects, and some
remodeling of some tracks (still not perfect).

hehehe

Im just saying that you lost a track and gained 2, never said if it was
good or bad :-)

Im excluding GPL, as everybody know they are in a class apart. But look at
the Ubisoft old mode and compare to GPL :) . Im just trying to warn people
that even if MGPRS2 is the best modern F1 sim on the market, it's not
nessecary perfect.

Naw if you want you can look at dejanews.com for "rec.autos.simulators
ymenard Ubisoft". You will see that I can write for hours about simracing
titles, with correct and sometimes incorrect arguments, especially towards
Ubisoft. If they do a correct sequel, with accurate tracks, accurate game
engine, accurate sound, physics, AI, network play, well I will now stop and
praise Ubisoft for the good title that it will be. But not until. And they
should think about doing it fast, since Gp3 is near.

Im not bashing you here also, remember ;-P

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- 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."

rec.autos.simulators

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

F1 Simulators - What a Joke.