rec.autos.simulators

F12000 has a high demand on the CPU just like GPL did, yet GPL fans
criticize F12000 for doing so.

Ridiculous.

They will do the same for GP3.

David G Fisher

Tell that to Jan.

You have to be following this thread to know why I brought that question up.
It's because of this exchange between Jan and Jochen:
------------------------------------
Jochen:
 Forget it. The pace of GPL is totally dependent on
 resolution and textures, not on the driving model.

Jan:
Eh? -Then why, prey tell, does GPL produce less fps than NFS:PU at the same
"eye candy-level"?
Same processor, same clockspeed, same 3D cards, same API... does my
processor do "nothing" for a while each frame in GPL perhaps? -Surely,
you're not going to tell me GPL is the visually more intricate game of the
two?

GPL runs slower than NFS:PU because it calculates more parameters more times
per second, end of story.
-----------------------------------

As you pointed out, GPL slows down quite a bit because the graphics engine
has trouble with the mirrors. That's a graphics engine issue. Jan thinks
that GPL runs the way it does only because of the incredible physics
calculations it has to do, and other sims don't.

For some reaosn, GPL fans can't conceive that a company like (for example)
Ratbag may be able to develope a graphics engine that runs significantly
smoother than a graphics engine from another company.

David G Fisher

David G Fisher

You don't give facts. You only shout 'check the code' without giving
us examples.

First, I drove a 1:14 lap after 2-3 hours of practice. Secondly, I
clearly said that is was not the WR, and that surely it would be
beaten sooner or later, but at that moment it was the fastest lap I
could find on the internet. It didn't felt good that it took so little
practice to be so fast.
The world record now is 1:13.552, barely more than half a second
faster (by Huttu ofcourse, congrats Greger :)

Come on, I explained this to you, you didn't get it, I explained it
again to you very clearly, and now I have to start explaining all over
again? You really are getting boring now...

1:13.552

David: Get a life. Please.

Andre

If only you would shut up for a moment.

Andre

Andre

Andre

DGF

DGF

<snip>

<snip>

You should be in everyones killfilter. You are going into mine now.

Jon

--
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

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL hcp. +70.45

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Sure. Go right ahead. Just remember, I'm not talking about software licenses
here. I could license you software under any terms that are otherwise legal.
For instance I could license you my software for free, but with the
provision that you mow my lawn on Saturdays for a year.

If I license you my software for free, but with the provision that you give
me your first born child the privisions of that license are inherently
illegal, and therefore not binding, even if I signed a legal contract to
those terms.

What I've discussed here is the LAW. The law says you may not distribute any
code that is not yours, under any circumstances, for profit or not. If you
do you will be fined a minimun of $250 per count.

If you modify commercial code and distribute ONLY your modification,
including NONE of the original code, as does Dave Noonan, that's ok. That
code is YOURS, you own the copyright.

An interesting side note here. The DMCA says that you cannot distribute a
utility to look at encrypted code. That has already been tested in several
courts, and the courts have upheld it.

Sure you could.  And if I accept your terms in this example, I'd be
bound to it.

Agreed.  No-brainer there. <g>  Duress is another factor that can void
legal agreements.

Under a law that is not yet fully tested and on shaky ground.

Agreed.

Again, the DMCA isn't in stone yet.  There are several challenges to it
in the works, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it go down.  For
now, I dismiss this one.

--
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

Which is why I can trailbrake and powerslide exiting most of the slow
corners in F12k, something that any Formula 1 fan/driver knows impossible to
do with those beasts, unless you are one true master like Schumacher.
Especially more with the grooved tyres <g>

F1 drivers back in 67 could throw the rear at incredible angle (and that's a
fact), but for the sake of their life they did not.  But in those modern
F1's with extremely stiff suspensions, no.  How can they be on par when we
can do such flagrant errors?  Is this your opinion Remco or just words from
somebody else? ;)

Ah, so true.  But how can you say it's on par with GPL when it has such
errors?  I also don't feel those 800hp behind me in F12k.  I WANT the car to
scream it's rage when I plow the gas.  I want it! Like I could in GP2, like
in real life!  That's why I hope Geoff keep the correct feeling of a F1 even
if it means altering reality.

It's a very touchy issue.  Should we alter the physics to create a correct
feeling?  We all know as veterans that racing sims do give you feelings with
touch, view and sound.  Even if it had correct physics, the ISI game engine
doesn't give you a good sensation I would say compared to the others.

Hehe ;)

Oh and I still have no clue why people think this NG is GPL-biased.  They
never name names, they just point at the group and say we are.  Well who are
those people? Name names! ;)

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.WeRace.net
-- 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.