rec.autos.simulators

by **J. Todd Wass** » Sun, 12 Aug 2001 06:39:04

Thanks :-) Yes, your idea works beautifully as a matter of fact. Silicon
Motor Speedway (or whatever it's called now under the new ownership) uses
exactly this three screen system. From inside the car, everything appears life
sized and to the correct scale. Come to think of it, Sega's F-355 does this
too, although the screens are a bit smaller. Still, I agree, three screens at
different angles is the way to go.
Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **J. Todd Wass** » Sun, 12 Aug 2001 06:40:44

Thanks, and yeah, 170 is a wierd angle to use! You're using 50 degrees?
You'll be amazed how much easier the cars in Racer will be to drive once you
switch to 90 or so. It's a huge difference, the car doesn't seem to swing
around as much and easier to catch in slides. Plus, the sensation of speed
improves a lot.
Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

by **Thom j** » Sun, 12 Aug 2001 10:18:00

Just think Todd if you could race in one of these old theaters with a
100ft+ wide screen curved right past you... Now your really getting
close to reality this way...haha hmmm? Gee I wonder if what wheel
to use? :)

| Thanks :-) Yes, your idea works beautifully as a matter of fact.
Silicon
| Motor Speedway (or whatever it's called now under the new ownership) uses
| exactly this three screen system. From inside the car, everything appears
life
| sized and to the correct scale. Come to think of it, Sega's F-355 does
this
| too, although the screens are a bit smaller. Still, I agree, three
screens at
| different angles is the way to go.
| Todd Wasson
| ---
| Performance Simulations
| Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
| Software
| http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 7/18/2001

by **Gerry Aitke** » Sun, 12 Aug 2001 17:50:01

> >Forgive me for saying this, but maybe you're just not that good a
> >driver? I remember when I first started racing GPL, I was minded to
> >believe that my version had less grip and the clock ran faster than
> >everybody else's. Of course it wasn't that at all, it was just a
> >combination of poor driving technique and a bad input device.

> >My girlfriend often drives GPL, she crashes and spins her way around the
> >Oring in about 2:00-ish but never complains that it's anything but her
> >lack of skill that's
> >to blame.

> Some people are just better at processing the limited feedback that a computer
> sim gives you. That doesn't necessarily meen they're a better *driver*. I
> have a lot more control over a real car that I'm sitting in than I do in a
> virtual one...

I agree, not necessarily. But it can be the case.

Gerry

by **J. Todd Wass** » Mon, 13 Aug 2001 05:08:10

lol. That would be fun to try, although I think that might be just a bit TOO
big :-) An Omni theatre would probably be superb for a combat flight simulator
though. I saw a classified ad for a 100 inch projection screen TV a couple of
years ago that was being sold for a measly $500... Ahhh..... That would have
been perfect :-)
Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

by **Thom j** » Mon, 13 Aug 2001 06:11:19

Ok, Ok, we'll setup a theater for both, Flight & Race sims! :)
1/2 day Racing 1/2 day Flight.. All lovers sit in the balcony :)~

| lol. That would be fun to try, although I think that might be just a
bit TOO
| big :-) An Omni theatre would probably be superb for a combat flight
simulator
| though. I saw a classified ad for a 100 inch projection screen TV a
couple of
| years ago that was being sold for a measly $500... Ahhh..... That would
have
| been perfect :-)
| Todd Wasson
| ---
| Performance Simulations
| Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
| Software
| http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 7/18/2001

by **Dave Pollatse** » Tue, 14 Aug 2001 03:59:34

Tee hee... I actually wondered the same thing, since I never never saw the
thing first-hand. I suppose one could put a pane of flat glass above the
"woofer", and use a fully-closed cabinet to keep sound leaking out the back,
maybe fill the thing with accoustic tiling or something for good measure.

> Just to clear up one little point that's completely unimportant to the
> (really cool) gist of the post:

> If this thing flexes at a rate higher than 40 times a second it's
officially
> not a subwoofer as the "sub" stands for subsonic which, in most cases,
> starts at about 40hz and goes down from there. "Woofer", however, is a
> fairly flexible term. :-)

> How do they keep it from making noise?

> --

> "Racing! - Science for the action minded."

> mark

> > I think you may be blending two senses of focusing here...
> > depth of field is caused by the lens in your eye or camera adjusting for
> one
> > distance, and objects nearer or farther away being blurry depending on
> > aperture (F-stop). So a conventional computer 3d display is like a
> pinhole
> > camera--effectively zero aperture size and infinite depth of field--all
> > objects are in perfect focus (although mipmapping and filtering can give
> > some depth-of-field like effects within the surface of a textured
object)
> > The other effect of depth is the two images being out of place
> horizontally
> > (a la beer goggles) due to parallax between the two eyes (stereoscopic).
> 3D
> > glasses of various sorts can give the stereoscopic depth effect, but not
> the
> > focusing effect. The 3D glasses I've tried are problematic because the
> > binocular depth information from your eyes is in conflict with the focus
> > information. However, I think if the screen is "too far away" rather
than
> > "too close", the effect is better, such as at an Omnimax with 3D
glasses.

> > I believe there is a technique where you have a reflective "subwoofer"
> that
> > flexes at a pretty high rate, with an image projected onto it from a
> device
> > capable of insanely high refresh rates (such as vector plotters)...
> > basically the woofer acts like a variable convex mirror, so the image
can
> be
> > layered in depth. This gets you both 3D effects with no glasses
involved.
> > The problem is to render 60 FPS with 100 depth layers requires 6000
frames
> > per second! I think most demos of this have spinning wire-frame cubes
and
> > such, but one could conceive of some *** new way of doing this with
> > full-motion 3D graphics, such as a graphics card that could render
> triangles
> > to multiple depth planes simulaneously, etc, etc. (Caveat: my knowledge
> of
> > this device is extremely sketchy)

> > However, I think games still have quite a ways to go to achieve even 2D
> > photorealism...

> > > >> Yes, the blurring is something I hadn't considered. That'd
> > definately
> > > >smooth
> > > >> things out, good point. What do you mean by depth of field? Is
this
> > > >something
> > > >> to do with the camera's focus and how objects closer or further
from
> > the
> > > >focal
> > > >> point appear slightly blurred? If so, yes, that's another good
point
> I
> > > >hadn't
> > > >> considered.

> > > >Yes. 3D games render everything in focus, which is uncommon for
> > > >all the other mediums based on photography. What would have been
great
> > > >in a fps for instance is that everything with another distance than
> > > >where you point the crosshair is out of focus. A bit more difficult
> > > >with racing sims though, since the computer can not know where you
are
> > > >looking. But it is a bit weird that you can look at the horizon and
> > > >tachometer at the same time where both is in perfect focus.

> > > I get it now. Never thought of that. I bet that page flipping with
> 3-D
> > > shutter glasses on a full size (proper FOV) screen would take care of
> that
> > > automatically since you're effectively looking into, rather than at,
the
> > scene
> > > and focusing the same as you would in real life. On a small screen,
> it'd
> > *sort
> > > of* work, but not quite as well. Agree/disagree?
> > > Todd Wasson
> > > ---
> > > Performance Simulations
> > > Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
> > > Software
> > > http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **J. Todd Wass** » Tue, 14 Aug 2001 04:09:31

lol. How about a drive-in theatre for the race sims? You could hook up your
own car to the 'puter :-) Shouldn't be too expensive!
Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

by **Thom j** » Tue, 14 Aug 2001 06:11:04

Yeeeaaa` Yeeeaaa' Dats Dah` Ticket!! Yeeeaaa` :)

| lol. How about a drive-in theatre for the race sims? You could hook up
your
| own car to the 'puter :-) Shouldn't be too expensive!
| Todd Wasson
| ---
| Performance Simulations
| Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
| Software
| http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

| >Ok, Ok, we'll setup a theater for both, Flight & Race sims! :)
| >1/2 day Racing 1/2 day Flight.. All lovers sit in the balcony :)~

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 7/18/2001

by **mark jeangerar** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 03:35:41

>Watkins Glen Lotus 01:05.53 Ferrari 01:05.65 -0.120
>Silverstone Lotus 01:28.27 Ferrari 01:29.18 -0.910
>Monaco Lotus 01:26.95 Ferrari 01:28.36 -1.410
>Zandvoor Ferrari 01:25.95 Ferrari 01:26.75 -0.800
>Monza Lotus 01:28.50 Ferrari 01:29.17 -0.670
>Rouen Lotus 01:57.26 Ferrari 01:58.47 -1.210
>Mexico Lotus 01:48.09 Ferrari 01:48.38 -0.290
>Spa-Franc Lotus 03:18.57 Ferrari 03:20.16 -1.590
>Kyalami Lotus 01:20.86 Ferrari 01:21.24 -0.380
>Mosport Lotus 01:22.25 Ferrari 01:23.33 -1.080
>Nrburgring Lotus 08:32.64 Ferrari 08:20.66 +11.98

Before you get carried away making too many comparisons, I haven't driven an
F1 in over a year and a half. When I do get in one now, I always break my
PB. Regardless, I doubt I'll ever go under -20.00 and that makes us both
'not so quick' at GPL. Of course I always check into my driving style first,
and I'll be the first to say there is a long way to go. But that has nothing
to do with whether GPL is one of the better feedback games or not. Think
about it....
--

"Racing! - Science for the action minded."

mark

by **mark jeangerar** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 03:40:24

Nothing is ever simple, is it? If GP3 had the same online ability GPL has,
GPL would have been in the trash long ago. Hell, if NFSPU has the same
following VROC has, GPL would be in the trash.

If PU were the game to play online, the races would be much, much closer.
Not because GPL takes a lot of talent to drive, but becuase PU relates to a
larger audience.

(Chris? Tony??)

--

"Racing! - Science for the action minded."

mark

by **mark jeangerar** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 03:54:34

I never said it was jobs. Matter of fact, it's my favorite driving sim,
hands down. The reason I didn't suggest it to Mike is because of the
graphics. Out of the box CPR is more than jobs. I was afraid that after all
the things Mike would have to go through to get the thing to run right, once
he spotted the graphics (which are not bad at all, and have an adjustable
FOV, just way out of date.) he'd switch right off. Considering that the MTBR
and STCC2 drive models eat GPL alive, and that they are pretty much plug and
play, they will do as examples.

CPR is the finest driving sim on my hard drives. The feedback is dead on.
I'm not a professional race driver, but I get my track time and I drive at
the absolute limit daily. I live near the mountains and have business in
them. Sometimes there's dirt, sometimes there's asphalt, sometimes there's
rain and snow. Most days I just feel like driving quickly. I've driven
enough different classes of four wheel vehicles to know when it's a problem
in the presentation of a computer game, and when it's simply a different
tractive experience.

I don't have a problem with GPL's reality. Like every game out there, it has
it's own reality. I have a problem with GPL's ability to relate to it's own
reality.

--

"Racing! - Science for the action minded."

mark

--

"Racing! - Science for the action minded."

mark

> > Thanks for the info regarding MBTR etc (but I'm still interested to
> > know what CPR stands for, even if it isn't worth buying..

> CART Precision Racing by M$, and Mark's right, it's jobs <g>.

> Gerry

by **mark jeangerar** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 04:37:05

Hmmm, that is interesting. I would like to know what you think here:

You know the tightest turn at Mosport, the one that looks like a double, but
never ends up being one? Out of probably more than 1000 laps there I can
honestly say I've apexed the second one correctly, only twice. It does not
matter where I look or how fast I am going, I am always late or early.
Sometimes I drive back and forth through it. Going up is much easier. Now,
in real life, that would be one of the easiest corners to get right ever
time. There is so little speed there and crown, where the turn drops off
into the following straight, will allow you to line the car up visually, and
perfectly every time. Any ideas on why that happens?

In GP3 I get the same loss of focus in slow turns that every one else does.
Framerate?

I noticed that in GP3 I have a tendency to look off the screen when
approaching tight corners. That doesn't bug me so much. I just wait for the
thing to come back in view. I thought that in GPL I was always looking more
foreword. I video taped myself driving both games at Monaco. I kept my gaze
at 1 to 2 points ahead at all times.

GP3 - I had thought that my eyes followed the road. Instead I found out that
I turn my head quite a bit and my eyes stay straight forward in my head. My
hands follow my sighting points quite naturally and the driving posture
(which is dynamic in this explanation) is good. I noticed that I don't tilt
my head unless I want the car to turn more.

GPL - First thing I noticed was that my eyes are much higher. Like I'm
looking at the top of the monitor. Next, there is a lot more head movement.
While I'm looking straight forward while setting up corners, my head is
weaving around. I presume, to combat the dynamic***pit. I'm beginning to
understand why I'm so off balance in GPL. Obviously the steering wheel is
much more active, but there seems to be an unnatural progression from the
eyes to the hands. I haven't been able to figure out what the problem is
there, yet.

I feel much more comfortable turning my head to look trough a corner than I
do looking straight forward. It seems more natural to me.

--

"Racing! - Science for the action minded."

mark

by **J. Todd Wass** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 07:47:41

Not sure which turn you're talking about, but I think this is probably
because it's just plain old tough to tell how fast you're going when you're not
going fast. Know what I mean? I don't think my troubles come from framerate
so much. It's just tough to tell how fast you're going at low speed. You can
probably see a difference of 20 mph pretty easily, but if the max speed for the
turn is 40 and you're 20 mph too fast, that's a huge blunder. If the max was
180 and you were going 200, you're still much closer to the right speed.

Anyway, that's my thinking.

Wow, you are definately ***! Kewl :-) I don't try to turn my head, but
probably do.

In a real car (on the street, only done a little rent-a-cart racing) I turn
my head when looking at the apex or whatever part, but on the screen, sometimes
I find myself staring dead center at the screen because it's just so small in
comparison. I don't get the urge to turn my head at all, although I do look at
the right spots usually.

Sounds like you need a big, big monitor :-)

Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **J. Todd Wass** » Sat, 18 Aug 2001 07:49:57

Sorry, I have trouble keeping up. What's CPR again?
Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

rec.autos.simulators

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything

stupid licensing ruins everything