actually I read off the High Gear web-site that the physics in the RC2000
demo are merely place holder.Which is a shame, because I'm not going to buy
if I don't which parts of the placeholder physics are still there.
as for all this about physics modeling. I'd like to reiterate and add to my
thoughts on the subject.
There are 3 major thing that make a sim realistic. (to me)
1. The underlying physics code needs to be as dead on as possible. There are
a few aerodynamics things we don't really know, so close as currently
possible.
2. The vehicles being modeled need to be implemented with as much detail as
possible. I think one reason NFS:PU was so good, was because the
unprecedented access to the cars helped this area make up for most of then
shortcoming in area 1. This is actually a problem with modern F1 games, as
it is hard to get access to some important information on all of the cars.
3. All the information needs to be presented to the senses as best possible.
This includes a perfected***pit view, as many dynamic audio ques as
possible, including engine, tires and a spotter. (if applicable) Finally
proper force feedback is the best new hop for bringing us total car control.
> > I just don't agree that you can just look at some code, and say, well
this
> > is realistic when it comes to simulating a specific automobile.
> If you could really look at the code you could tell immediately whether
> something is wrong or not. Yet we do not have access to the code. But we
> do have access to data files that use that code in F1 2000. These give a
> very strong clue as to what is modelled, and the car responds exactly as
> it should to changes in these files.
> > It's pretty obvious that while DGF say RC2k has physics as complex GPL.
that
> > there are so many things that are not correct about the modeling that
throws
> > it all off. There a few things in GPL that are IMPLEMENTED wrong that
most
> > anyone can notice. NFS:PU apparently has physics as deep as GPL, but
when I
> > go b;asting though the course with my tires off the shoulder half the
time,
> > it just isn't realistic anymore. When I can wreck like I do in that game
and
> > keep going without a hitch, it's just not realistic.
> As I said already in this thread, here I have to disagree with DGF. I
> tried the RC2000 demo, and the car there does not respond as a rigid
> body with mass and inertia should. Perhaps the release is different, but
> form what I've heard it probably isn't.
> As for GPL, not only is the physics engine superb, but I've also tried
> hard to see what is implemented wrong. I still am not sure I can say
> with certainty that any aspect of the car behaviour is off. The only
> thing that comes to mind is that perhaps the camber changes due to
> castor and kingpin angles on the front wheels are *perhaps* not
> implemented, but I am not sure about that.
> As for NFS:PU. The physics model is a vast improvement over the previous
> ones, at least according to the demo I played. But there are some major
> flaws that are not present in GPL and F1 2000. I have no ideas why this
> comes about, but some physics aspects are clearly not very realistic in
> NFS:PU. When your car gets really sideways, apply the throttle, and you
> will straighten it out, for example. I think it is the tyre model, the
> modelling of the chassis inertia properties seems rather good.
> -Gregor
