rec.autos.simulators

by **Uncle Feste** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

> I just expect that I can play a 2 years old game on a P2-400 with TNT
> and have an acceptable frame rate. Is that too much?

> > Yes, many but not all, are very rude and intolerant. Not only to other
> > posters but especially to the people who create the sims which comprise
> > their hobby.

I'm not being rude or intolerant, I can't let you know if I don't tell
you. But, did you read the box before you purchased this sim? When it
was released, it wouldn't work with anything but a Voodoo or a Rendition
card. Period. Thanks to the guys at Papy, a beta of OGL was released
for the "other people". And now the D3D patch. But back to the
original question posed. Did you *read* the requirements before you
bought? If not, why? And if you did, do you make it a habit to
complain to the manufacturers when their software doesn't run on
unsupported equipment? Curious minds want to know...

--
Chuck Kandler
GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15
GPL F3 Handicap of +438.42 as of 6/21
K&S Racing
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Registered Linux User #180746
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **MichaelJ** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

I'm looking forward to GP3 and will almost certainly buy it.

However, even if it's better I won't give up on GPL, simply because it
models the cars and tracks from a period of racing which was far more
compelling and exciting than the current high-downforce, zero-suspension,
mega-braked, go-kart track formula.

- Michael

by **hanse..** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Now you see, MY theory hold's true. Having a wife and/or kids makes
people truly rude...no intolerant...yes that's it, intolerant. No I'm
back to rude here. Wait, I don't have a wife and kids. Never mind.

C. Hansen
Trying really really hard to play well with others.
GPL Rank -- rank pretty much captures it.

by **hanse..** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

I'm not surprised at GPLs popularity on this newsgroup. Because of its
difficulty and complexity there is alot to talk about. Go to some
literary discussion (salon.com--actually don't go there) some time and
you'll find difficult and complex novels that hardly anybody reads
like Infinite Jest generate tons more discussion than fun and widely
read Grisham and Clancy best sellers . And GPL is very difficult and
complex. I discovered it recently and am completely ***ed to it
like no other racing game because it is fun, challenging, and captures
a certain feel that i generally don't get with racing games. I have no
idea whether it has "realistic" physics but it does appear to have
physics. As far as people who like other games getting flamed: sheesh
deal with it. Just ignore the zealots. We all know that they are, in
the end, short bus riding blithering idiots with tiny ***es, smaller
minds, and strange *** ***es i'd rather not get into this early
in the morning.

C. Hansen

(go Holland!!!)

>does anyone here consider GP2 a "true sim?" I hope not it's a good sim, but
>not true to life, however I don't consider GPL a true sim either, until it's
>exact it's not a true sim.

>as for GPL being far superior to GP2 in the physics department... I sure
>hope so GP2 is pretty old, and came out a sim generation before GPL with
>games like Nascar 2's engine.

>I'm wondering if we're taking this guys tone a little to harsh? I think he
>was saying, yeah I think GPL is a lot better than GP2, but it still has it's
>flaws.

>> > "Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura" wrote
>> > > I think it sums it up when only last week when I read the words.....
>"I
>> > > don't think GP2 was a sim".

>> > You're kidding right? Did someone actually write that? Seriously?

>> In the "Anyone aware of this Bug in GPL" thread. Here's a snipping.

>> "Gp2 models this properly and it looks like they modelled it the other way
>> around in GPL, I am not saying that GP2 is better because of this, I know
>> GPL is far superior and don't consider GP2 a true sim but it models this
>> issue better than GPL."

>> Sorry to pick out the author here, I'm ot picking on you or anything, It
>> just to prove a point.

>> Its a bit contradictory but it say it.

by **Remco Moe** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

>% Not true. Comments like this are what makes the GPL crowd an annoyance when
>% discussing sims at r.a.s. F12000 has a physics model as complex as GPL's.
>% Viper has a very complex physics model. So does RC2000. So does NFS:PU.
>% Forget opinions. Check the code and you will see.

>While f12k may have a complex physics model, I didn't feel that it was
>as complex as what I feel in GPL. That's the difference. Also how well
>that complex physics model is modeled. Just because it's complex and
>has alot of variables doesn't mean that it is modeled correctly or in as
>fine as detail as GPL does it.

Actually, as Gregor Veble once pointed out, the physics in F1-2000 are
at least on par with GPL. Also the AI must abide to the same laws of
physics as the player. What ISI did wrong, IMO, is that they didn't
model an F1 car. The distribution of weight is off, and the suspension
is way too soft. And then they added ABS in certain cases....all this
to "improve" the gameplay.

You might fix some of these problems by editing various files, but if
I want a tool to create the ultimate sim I'll use MSVC++ 6.0...

Ah, and I see David still is claiming a full physics model in
RC2000...sigh

Remco

by **Ian** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

If GP3 is good it can share my HD with GPL, ain't no way I'm removing that
gem <G>

--
Ian P
<email address invalid due to spam

by **hanse..** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

GPL must be ***because I can't run WR pace after half the last
month's practice.

Indigo

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:47:22 +0100, Graeme Nash

>>I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of flames from
>>the "experts".

>Hmm, a little sensitive to criticism aren't we? I read through that
>thread where you (rudely and intolerantly) called the patch "crap", and
>I saw *one* post which could be considered a flame.

>You should try saying "GPL must be ***because I can't run WR pace
>after half an hour's practice" and then see what you get :-)

>--
>Cheers!
>Graeme Nash

by **hanse..** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

I hope not. I'm just learning GPL and modern F1 leaves me a bit cold.
I guess I could always go back to Championship Manager 3 and Quake 3
Arena.

C. Hansen

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:22:56 +0100, Graeme Nash

>>I
>>already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3.

>Err... I don't think that's the case at all. Everyone here is looking
>forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does,
>great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books.
>If it doesn't, many will carry on with GPL - because it would therefore
>still be the best sim around.

>--
>Cheers!
>Graeme Nash

by **hanse..** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

bingo

>> Everyone here is looking
>> forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does,
>> great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books.

>I'm looking forward to GP3 and will almost certainly buy it.

>However, even if it's better I won't give up on GPL, simply because it
>models the cars and tracks from a period of racing which was far more
>compelling and exciting than the current high-downforce, zero-suspension,
>mega-braked, go-kart track formula.

>- Michael

by **Vintoo** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Wouldn't this mean that a person could alter the code of a game in a very
insignificant way and redistribute the game on the internet as WAREZ for no
profit? If so then that would make WAREZ legal! I would think cracking the
game would qualify as altering the code.

Vintook

> > > have you really opened up all the code to these games? that is illegal
by
> > > the way and not easily done.

> > Just as a factual issue you are incorrect about the illegality.

> > The reason people like Noonan and the GPLEA can "get away" with what
they do
> > is that they havn't done anything illegal, or even immoral.

> > The reason you feel it is illegal is that software companies have done
> > everything in their power to foster that impression. Just as the "FBI
> > warning" and scrambling of DVD's are there to foster the impression that
> > it's illegal to make copies of them. It isn't. Both the courts, and
congress
> > by actual law, affirm your right to copy videos and computer programs.

> > They also affirm your right to look at the code, if you can only figure
out
> > how.

> > Even the the DMCA, the most retrictive, consumer unfriendly, piece of
> > copyright legisation every passed still affirms your right, as an end
user,
> > to look at and even modify, commercially released code.

> Correct. The only time you cross the line is if you should attempt to
> modify & redistribute their code *for profit*. Sometimes the companies
> will send their legal hounds on you for redistributing their code at no
> profit, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on. However, one has
> to balance that fact against the legal fees they would have to shell out
> in order to get off the hook.

> --
> Chuck Kandler
> GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15
> GPL F3 Handicap of +438.42 as of 6/21
> K&S Racing
> http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195

> Registered Linux User #180746
> http://counter.li.org

by **Jan Verschuere** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

F1 2000 should have had better framerates and better AI, but has also had to
rely on patching to fix some issues. When the alfa demo of GPL came out I
doubt even the V2 was widespread and I'm sure there were no TNT or GeForce
based cards, at all. One might argue GPL should have supported D3D and
OpenGL out of the box, but again nothing indicated these API's would
dominate the game market 18 months down the line.

I'm sure Grant did what he did because he loves GPL and is pleased we're
still enjoying it after 18 months

Their labour of love spawned a bastard child. ;-))

We've had this discussion before, David, technical vs. immersion merit,
etc... I challenged you then, I challenge you now. Show me. IMO, there's no
way RC2000, NFS:PU and F12k have the same or higher simulation rate and/or
equal or greater vehicle component detail. But again I'm ready to entertain
anything that might support your argument.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the criteria by which you judge sims and I
respect that. I just base a lot of my judgement on the technical
complexity/realism aspect of the simulation be cause(and this may well be
entirely subjective) I'm looking for the most "believable", "precise" and
"responsive" virtual driving experience.

Hmm, yes, I'll give you that. MGPRS2 is very good in that respect too (maybe
SODA as well). There's just something very pleasing about having "real"
units instead of percentages in the setup screen.

GPL runs a lot smoother if you "only" have 8 AI too. Again, I disagree. See
above also.

People here have strong opinions and word those in a strong manner. I think
that's perfectly acceptable. Those who shy away from debate will shy away
from other "difficult" things in life. This is the big league,
rec.autos.simulators, not rec.let's.all.be.friends.

I'm not going to re-iterate my position on GP3 other than to say, judging
from the information I have today, I'm very disappointed Geoff didn't
attempt to move the bar for racing sims again.

Jan.
=---

by **Gradee** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Well no sim is a "true" sim if you over analyse them but yes why would
anyone say GP2 was not a good sim? It as, it as the best of its time and
according to some still the best modern day sim around.

Maybe the quote as a little out of context but my basic point is this:
GPL is NOT *far* superior to GP2.
GP2 *IS* a sim.

Theres more to life than GPL.

And as I must repeat over and over, difficulty is not realism!

by **Jan Verschuere** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Back up that statement David. I'm not willing to take your word for it.

Jan.
=---

by **Jochen Heisterman** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

> > I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of the GPL patches.
> > They work only with some of the drivers and the game tends to be
unstable
> > with lots of drivers that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning
> > of those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL community.

> Well, there are a couple of things to keep in mind here. This patch is
> an *unsupported* BETA release. You do know what that entails, correct?

Great an unsupported beta patch for a game that is nearly two years old.
It does not support D3D officially - besides Redguard this is the only
game I know which has 3D graphics but no 3D support.

Those are the facts why Papy sucks on the market.

Again, the game is great, but that beta patch is an example for
poor customer support.

Jochen

by **Jochen Heisterman** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Very good point indeed. I used to have my Amiga from 1988 - 1994 and was
satisfied. In 1994 I switched over to a PC, because it was THE ***
platform
and working platform, too.

In newsgroup I tried to discuss that switch, but there was no real
discussion, no
argumentation.

Concerning GP3, if someone will post "GP3 has a good driving model"
than immedialtely some wiseass will answer "try GPL and be quiet".

Jochen

rec.autos.simulators

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?