rec.autos.simulators

by **Kai Fulle** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

How do we know Gregor Veble has all the knowledge necessary to say that
F12K's physics are accurate? what are his credentials? Just wondering...

and once again, they could have every good physics model, but if that Sauber
drives like a VW Bug, then that's all that really matters...

(wait that sauber does drive like a VW Bug.)

> >% 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 **Kai Fulle** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

GPL does take more CPU to do the physics. and the more that is taken from
your processor, the lower the frame rate. The tires bouncing on uneven
pavement doesn't just happen, because that's the way it happens... the CPU
has to figure it in real time, taking away from the CPU's ability to perform
its graphics ability.

> > If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an incompatible card in
> the
> > first place.

> The Riva TNT was and still is THE standard 3D graphic card!!

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

> > Calling a labour of love "crap" will get you that.

> A 3D game with an unsupported beta patch is a shame, nothing to get
> proud about.

> > Yeah well, unsupported sort of implies "don't come crying if it doesn't
> work
> > on your machine".

> Sure, but I don't like those companies who are incompatible to standard
> hardware.

> > > - The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking
> > > games like NFS Porsche.

> > NFS:PU has a lot less to calculate behind the scenes, a lot less often.
To
> > quote Keammer:"it's about how many CPU cycles you're willing to spend on
> > eye-candy".

> Forget it. The pace of GPL is totally dependent on resolution and
textures,
> not
> on the driving model.

> > 1) Please don't associate religion with intolerance, although the two
> might
> > go together with some (loud) minorities, this is not the case for the
vast
> > majority of people who actively subscribe to a religion.

> Okay, you got a point! I DO associate religion with intolerance, but this
> is overgeneralized.
> Jochen

by **Kai Fulle** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

The best post I've read on this for a while.

It's ok for GP3 not to be as tough and realistic as GPL. But if it's not,
it's ok for people to call it for what it is. A Lite sim. It doesn't always
have to be a competition over which sim is more realistic for everyone, but
it's ok for those want that, to make those comparisons.

> mangled uncounted electrons thus:

> >> 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.

> I *shall* certainly buy it. I want to see the weather...

> >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.

> <grin> As one who has no interest *at all* in racing on-line, and
> who is married with a partner who has no interest in racing sims,
> and who therefore has only a very limited time to indulge, GPL is
> too damned hard. I don't have the *time* to indulge in the
> learning curve, much though I'd like to. The sim looks terrific
> now I have the patch to properly support my TNT2 graphics card
> (bought long before I bought GPL - I've only owned the sim for
> about 3 months, bought as a cheapie in the local discount store)
> but it's not much fun if the car won't stay on the track...

> GP2 OTOH I enjoy immensely - I can tinker with the setup enough
> to make a difference, score points just often enough to keep my
> interest - and stay on the track unless I do something *really*
> stupid...

> I don't decry GPL for those who enjoy the precision and the
> enjoyment of conquering one of the most... taxing... driving sims
> out there. But it's not my cup of tea...

> Martin D. Pay
> Just my 2 penn'orth...

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

There are tons of games without d3d support. quake3, soldier of
forture, mdk2.

I'm not sure I understand your point about almost 2 years old. The
older it is, the more likely it is to NOT have d3d support. Papy made
what I consider a nice game with GPL but nobody bought it. Given that,
it is surprising there are any patches whatsoever.

The beta patch is an example of poor customer support? One could
argure the lack of d3d support is poor customer support but that would
be pretty attenuated since papy never promised d3d support.

Papy sucks on the market (sic)? Nascar is keeping them in business.
you mean GPL "sucks on the market?" True

This is not to say software developers should be held to a higher
standard. However I think people should temper high expectations with
a bit of reallism.

Chris H.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:18:01 +0200, "Jochen Heistermann"

>> > 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 **David G Fishe** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Facts are tough to deal with.

BTW, remember all those posts of yours which insisted 1:16 was the WR for
Spain in F12000, and how you matched it so quickly?

It's down to 1:13 now.

You were wrong about that, just like you have no idea how a rally car
handles.

David G Fisher

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

> But is does Remco, just check out the code yourself!

> Andre

> >Remco

by **David G Fishe** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

If only F12000 had a squishy suspension.

David G Fisher

> 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.

> There I am rude and intolerent <G>

> --
> **************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
> Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **David G Fishe** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

GPL should have had better framerates.

D3D patch should have come out one year ago.

I'm sure most developers do what they do because they love their work.

Why don't you show me they don't?

So do I. Physics models in car simulations can really only go so far.
There's no secret as to what needs to be modeled. Once they reach that
point, one model could be used for all auto sims.

David G Fisher

by **David G Fishe** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

The framerate is capped in GPL.
How do you know how to determine the same level of eye candy?

The graphics engines have nothing to do with the framerate? That's news to
me.
I've asked this question before but never received an answer.

Why does the frmarate shoot up so much in GPL when using the chase view?
Physics are the same in either view.

Simple Answer: It's because of the graphics engine. GPL doesn't have a very
good one compared to some others IMO.

David G Fisher

by **David G Fishe** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

> > David G Fisher wrote...
> Why don't you show me they don't?

I can't believe I wrote that.

David G Fisher

by **Eric Busc** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Mainly because it doesn't have to draw a mirror.

--
Eric

by **Eric Busc** » Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:00:00

It's a fact of life that rendering two different scenes and drawing one
into the mirror texture for simultaneous display is expensive in any
graphics engine. Even Quake3 takes a significant (near 50% in some
cases) framerate hit when portals or mirrors are in view.

--
Eric

by **Jochen Heisterman** » Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Okay, when GPl came out I played on a P200 with a Voodoo1 card. After
upgrading
to my P2 400 I was disappointed because there was no D3D patch for GPL.

I guess that brought down the market chances of GPL.

But okay, your arguments are valid. When GPL gone gold the TNT was just
announced.

Jochen

by **Jan Verschuere** » Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Finally, thank you!

I'm pretty sure Grant saw the lack of Direct3D support as a threat to GPL's
longlevity and therefore did what lay in his power to rectify that.

Jan./Why do I suddenly feel so old? <sigh>
=---

by **Ian** » Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:00:00

The chase view doesn't have to calculate a 3d moving***pit.
It doesn't shoot up at all on a PC that runs 36fps in***pit view.

--
Ian P
<email address invalid due to spam

by **Ian** » Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:00:00

GPL runs just fine at 36fps, why would it need any more ?
--
Ian P
<email address invalid due to spam

> > David G Fisher wrote...
> > > > "Jan Verschueren" wrote...
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an
> > > > incompatible card in the first place.

> > > GPL should of been compatible with more cards.

> > 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.

> GPL should have had better framerates.

> David G Fisher

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?