rec.autos.simulators

by **Schoone** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:46:09

I'm not assuming anything. I was just saying it was reused and not all new
like was claimed, which it is not. The fact they can drop old files into a
"all new engine" makes me think it is not so "all new". Heck they could
have at least cleaned up the files. Looks like they never did anything
other than saying "ya just grab this file and use that as is"

Again I couldn't care less who makes the sim, Papy, EA, or my dog.

Its funny how you can point out an issue like this and all of a sudden the
replies are "but but but Papy did it too!" Does that make EA marketing it
as all new ok?

Too many people jumping on both bandwagons for my liking. State the truth
and pick the best sim available.

> Or like N2003 was to N4. Isn't physics math based anyways? If it
> accurate, why change it? Or are we ASSUMING it isn't accurate? Or are we
> ASSUMING it isn't accurate because EA made it and Papy didn't? Or are we
> ASSUMING it isn't accurate because EA made it 2 years ago and most simmers
> purchased N2003 vs. Thunder 03? Bottom line is if it is right, it is
> right.

> Bill Bollinger
> www.gsxn.com

>>> I agree there is no value in reinventing the heel, but I think the point
>> is
>>> this was made out to be "all new" not "partly new with some old code
>>> that
>> we
>>> had kicking around mixed in". They seem to be pushing it being all new
>>> as
>>> they know many had issues with previous titles.

>> Kind of, no, actually, exactly, like when N3 was released :)

by **Plowbo** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:46:38

So Bill,

You think it is "right" then? sheit, I is just wondering...

Bill Bollinger enlightened us with:

> Or like N2003 was to N4. Isn't physics math based anyways? If it
> accurate, why change it? Or are we ASSUMING it isn't accurate? Or
> are we ASSUMING it isn't accurate because EA made it and Papy didn't?
> Or are we ASSUMING it isn't accurate because EA made it 2 years ago
> and most simmers purchased N2003 vs. Thunder 03? Bottom line is if
> it is right, it is right.
> Bill Bollinger
> www.gsxn.com

>>> I agree there is no value in reinventing the heel, but I think the
>>> point is this was made out to be "all new" not "partly new with
>>> some old code that we had kicking around mixed in". They seem to
>>> be pushing it being all new as
>>> they know many had issues with previous titles.

>> Kind of, no, actually, exactly, like when N3 was released :)

by **Plowbo** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 07:02:00

Steve,

The older 2 versions (std and Pro that you can buy in one "pack") the bikes
react faster, alas I bought the one that the demo is online (construction)
it is just as slow at home & work as at the website, you just get full
screen, LOL...

I was a former TY-80 owner got the 1st one sold in Colorado in 74, LOL. We
quit competing in 83 or there abouts... BUT, I have recenlty gone back to
competing after 20 years off, I even had a 75 250 model here for friends &
an 80 for sonny. The last bike I had back in the 80's was 79 Sherpa-t.
Now 2 weeks ago I bought me a GasGas 300 Pro. they are awesome.
http://www.gasgas.com/Gas-Gas-Media/2005-bikes/TXT300x700w.gif

I dont mean to change the thread Steve, but have you thought about getting
back in? dang it is soo much fun again... I am sooo glad we did. Goto our
club, check through their links, eventually you will find some dudes near
you that are going at it... :^)

Wichita KS Club is here
http://www.gasgas.com/Gas-Gas-Media/2005-bikes/TXT300x700w.gif

I cant help it, I like the sport so much I try and spread the word, ya know.
well enough of me being one of those "spokes men"... LOL

Steve Blankenship enlightened us with:

>> I was online with this again, for a few minutes, I swear to gosh
>> almighty... but 1st, why is it that about the only track anyone ever
>> sets up, is Dega-tona... Jeebus, especially now that just about
>> eveyone agree's that this is x10 easier to drive, it seems? Well,
>> at least the lobbies in NR03 are less conjested with typists...
>> heheheh.

>> What is the deal with allowing "modified .exe" files on the servers?
>> Nah I dont care, supposedly it is "just the no CD patch" but Im
>> sorry after the last few years of people cheating, It made me go
>> back to here http://www.miniclip.com/trialscy/trialscy_game.htm

>> and then back to Richard Burns Rally to get my game & Sim-Fix. LOL!

> Great link! As a former TY250 owner, I can attest that the ones he
> says are really hard - really ARE!

> Think I may have injured myself... ;-)

> SB

by **Plowbo** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 07:15:53

I should point out this link... (oops) about the 300... the bike has more
spec's here but notice... WEIGHT: 146lb's
http://www.gasgas.com/Pages/2005's/Trials-models-main.html
you got to scroll down. I think My bultaco weighed in a a svelt 225? (no
idea) back when.
Last thing, go here, watch the "training Video" clips (yeah some are
advanced)
http://www.trialstrainingcenter.com/html/how_to_ride.html

Plowboy enlightened us with:
snipped this from earlier goof.

by **ymenar** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:21:46

>> I agree there is no value in reinventing the heel, but I think the point
>> is
>> this was made out to be "all new" not "partly new with some old code that
>> we
>> had kicking around mixed in". They seem to be pushing it being all new
>> as
>> they know many had issues with previous titles.

> Kind of, no, actually, exactly, like when N3 was released :)

Papyrus never, ever said that the released N3 was all new. Please stop with
your history revisionism.

It's pathetic that you're comparing something that was made 6 years ago.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **Steve Blankenshi** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:14:04

Hey, nice ride. 146lbs! That's amazing; they've come a looong way. I was
a motocrosser myself, but enjoyed plonking around on the side for a change
of pace. Great for learning balance too, when you don't have fast-spinning
wheels and a ton of momentum to lean on. Amazing how easy it is to***up
going that slow! You think you can ride until you try trials...

Funny link about the TTC - I live in Chattanooga, so they're only about an
hour away. See a fair number of trials bikes around here. As for returning
to the fold, afraid I got into to the non-motorized version of 2-wheeling
when I got out of motocross, and race bicycles these days. Season's about
to get going again in a few weeks actually. Been a total slacker this
winter though, so it's going to be an ugly spring! Oh well, at least my
ride is lighter than yours; shade under 16lbs... ;-)

SB

by **Bill Bollinge** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:27:57

Wrongo Frankie :) They did in fact say it was new. The "new part" was the
front and rear sway bar stuff.

Bill Bollinger
www.gsxn.com

>>> I agree there is no value in reinventing the heel, but I think the point
>>> is
>>> this was made out to be "all new" not "partly new with some old code
>>> that we
>>> had kicking around mixed in". They seem to be pushing it being all new
>>> as
>>> they know many had issues with previous titles.

>> Kind of, no, actually, exactly, like when N3 was released :)

> Papyrus never, ever said that the released N3 was all new. Please stop
> with your history revisionism.

> It's pathetic that you're comparing something that was made 6 years ago.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
> Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **Bill Bollinge** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:27:13

No I do not, but the one thing I REALLY like is the multiplayer bumping
code. That has given me more hope than anything. I also like that the cars
that are THE fastest are balanced, not on one extreme (Loose). That by
itself makes it a lot more realistic for me. Other stuff SUCKS. Dedicated
Server is bad... Lots is bad, but I hope they support it (via patches that
advance the title).

Bill Bollinger
www.gsxn.com

> So Bill,

> You think it is "right" then? sheit, I is just wondering...

> Bill Bollinger enlightened us with:
>> Or like N2003 was to N4. Isn't physics math based anyways? If it
>> accurate, why change it? Or are we ASSUMING it isn't accurate? Or
>> are we ASSUMING it isn't accurate because EA made it and Papy didn't?
>> Or are we ASSUMING it isn't accurate because EA made it 2 years ago
>> and most simmers purchased N2003 vs. Thunder 03? Bottom line is if
>> it is right, it is right.
>> Bill Bollinger
>> www.gsxn.com

>>>> I agree there is no value in reinventing the heel, but I think the
>>>> point is this was made out to be "all new" not "partly new with
>>>> some old code that we had kicking around mixed in". They seem to
>>>> be pushing it being all new as
>>>> they know many had issues with previous titles.

>>> Kind of, no, actually, exactly, like when N3 was released :)

by **Sting3** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:54:04

That I could agree with, although I cant say I have experienced it. I
haven't been in on any bumping, I ran over one poor soul who lost it before
I got to him, and then the other turd took me out (you been around enough to
know a takeout via pit diving )

Last I was in for a few practice laps though last night, it seemed kinda
warpy... course only ran bumper to spoiler with a couple guys though, so I
cant say it was everyone, nor the server.

I am betting you have a circle of guys your talking to, are they actually
going to patch this up or is it just "*talk*" and pony shows?

by **Steve Blankenshi** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:08:31

Good to be able to rub doors without catastrophe, for sure. But the current
bumping code's a bit too lenient for my taste. As I noted in an earlier
post, I've seen it getting exploited to excess already. Someone can't get
by you, they can just cream you and go on their merry way. I got a run on a
guy the other night, and he just wheeled it hard right into me as I went by
on his outside. Slammed me into the wall, but he just cruised on unharmed
(and unpenalized). Went into spectator mode and he did it again to someone
else. That shouldn't be a viable option online.

SB

by **Bill Bollinge** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:23:50

Yah, it needs to be turned down a little. Which should be easier than what
we have in N2003. Right now, I will take more bumping than flying
spaceships. Both are not perfect, but my vote towards more bumping ability
(if there are only two choices).

Bill Bollinger
www.gsxn.com

>> No I do not, but the one thing I REALLY like is the multiplayer bumping
>> code. That has given me more hope than anything. I also like that the
> cars
>> that are THE fastest are balanced, not on one extreme (Loose). That by
>> itself makes it a lot more realistic for me. Other stuff SUCKS.
> Dedicated
>> Server is bad... Lots is bad, but I hope they support it (via patches
>> that
>> advance the title).

>> Bill Bollinger
>> www.gsxn.com

> Good to be able to rub doors without catastrophe, for sure. But the
> current
> bumping code's a bit too lenient for my taste. As I noted in an earlier
> post, I've seen it getting exploited to excess already. Someone can't get
> by you, they can just cream you and go on their merry way. I got a run on
> a
> guy the other night, and he just wheeled it hard right into me as I went
> by
> on his outside. Slammed me into the wall, but he just cruised on unharmed
> (and unpenalized). Went into spectator mode and he did it again to
> someone
> else. That shouldn't be a viable option online.

> SB

by **Bill Bollinge** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:26:58

My GUESS is that we are 50/50 if some of the issues get fixes. Example:
Today I heard through the grapevine that "someone" said that EA said that
the dedicated server running at 100% CPU was only "graphical" and that in
fact it isn't running at 100%. That is FALSE. The people I know I am
almost positive forwarding the info witch what is wrong or needs to be
addressed, the million dollard question is "Are they listening and going to
fix it"?

Bill Bollinger
www.gsxn.com

>> No I do not, but the one thing I REALLY like is the multiplayer bumping
>> code. That has given me more hope than anything. I also like that the
>> cars that are THE fastest are balanced, not on one extreme (Loose). That
>> by itself makes it a lot more realistic for me. Other stuff SUCKS.
>> Dedicated Server is bad... Lots is bad, but I hope they support it (via
>> patches that advance the title).

> That I could agree with, although I cant say I have experienced it. I
> haven't been in on any bumping, I ran over one poor soul who lost it
> before I got to him, and then the other turd took me out (you been around
> enough to know a takeout via pit diving )

> Last I was in for a few practice laps though last night, it seemed kinda
> warpy... course only ran bumper to spoiler with a couple guys though, so
> I cant say it was everyone, nor the server.

> I am betting you have a circle of guys your talking to, are they actually
> going to patch this up or is it just "*talk*" and pony shows?

by JP » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:38:51

> >> I agree there is no value in reinventing the heel, but I think the
point
> >> is
> >> this was made out to be "all new" not "partly new with some old code
that
> >> we
> >> had kicking around mixed in". They seem to be pushing it being all new
> >> as
> >> they know many had issues with previous titles.

> > Kind of, no, actually, exactly, like when N3 was released :)

> Papyrus never, ever said that the released N3 was all new. Please stop
with
> your history revisionism.

> It's pathetic that you're comparing something that was made 6 years ago.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
> Corporation - helping America into the New World...

It's pathetic that you have a selective memory. GPL
physics.......N3........do some research.

- Show quoted text -

by JP » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:40:35

> >> I agree there is no value in reinventing the heel, but I think the
point
> >> is
> >> this was made out to be "all new" not "partly new with some old code
that
> >> we
> >> had kicking around mixed in". They seem to be pushing it being all new
> >> as
> >> they know many had issues with previous titles.

> > Kind of, no, actually, exactly, like when N3 was released :)

> Papyrus never, ever said that the released N3 was all new. Please stop
with
> your history revisionism.

> It's pathetic that you're comparing something that was made 6 years ago.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
> Corporation - helping America into the New World.

p.s. so, if Papy did the exact same thing x years ago, that EA is being
accused of doing now.......somehow the difference in time frame makes Papy's
actions ok, eh ?

yeah, that's fanboy logic for sure.

- Show quoted text -

by **Mitch_** » Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:52:54

>> >> I agree there is no value in reinventing the heel, but I think the
> point
>> >> is
>> >> this was made out to be "all new" not "partly new with some old code
> that
>> >> we
>> >> had kicking around mixed in". They seem to be pushing it being all
>> >> new as
>> >> they know many had issues with previous titles.

>> > Kind of, no, actually, exactly, like when N3 was released :)

>> Papyrus never, ever said that the released N3 was all new. Please stop
> with
>> your history revisionism.

>> It's pathetic that you're comparing something that was made 6 years ago.

>> --
>> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
>> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
>> Corporation - helping America into the New World...

> It's pathetic that you have a selective memory. GPL
> physics.......N3........do some research.

Im not exactly sure whos arguing what but just to be sure we all remember
there was a supposed alpha of N3 that had the GPL physics engine but the
retail version ended up closer to NR1.3 than NR3.0 ;) The early N4 demo
was about the best of the bunch if ya ask me.

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

rec.autos.simulators

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?

Is there something to this?