rec.autos.simulators

by **Eldre** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 07:47:34

>spigots or something. Sims are certainly not their game. Simulations
>necessarily include the human element. Check MTBR or STCC2 or GP3 if you
>don't know what I'm talking about. There is actual separation between the
>front and rear of the car. You can tell which wheel is locking. Heck, you
>can even tell when the brakes are on. I know, you say you can *feel* the
>brakes perfectly in GPL. I argue that you have merely learned what it is
>doing through practice and are making educated guesses as opposed to
>entering a situation and reacting to it in real time. I know we love Nascar
>and GP but that does not make the N series and GPL good sims. The fact that
>they were the best things we had a few years ago does not make them good
>sims either. They are what they are and it's time to be thankful(?) for what
>we had and let the next thing come along.

>Why don't we use the CPR engine. A few well thought out tweaks and it would
>destroy anything available. Heck, it already does.

>Where GPL falls flat:
>Sense of speed
>Sense of attitude of car
>Sense of acceleration
>Sense of placement
>Sense of available grip
>Sense of front as separate from rear and vice/verse
>Perspective of approaching road

GP3 is better with these points? I'll have to try it again. I couldn't get
that much feel of the car before. It would step out without warning, I'd
either brake way early or way late, etc. While it COULD have been caused by
controller issues, I didn't have those problems with any other game I was
running at the time...

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.racesimcentral.net/~epickett
F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59...

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

by **Leo Landma** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 08:07:26

How?

real-life inside those cars.

No they haven't. GPL's FOV is too wide, as a lap at any of the real tracks
would tell you. If only it were adjustable...

Bye,
Leo

by **Jim Seamu** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 09:20:29

<snip>

Erm, I can't really help much on the "real instincts" thing having never
driven a 60's race car. Have you?

Jim

by **Jan Verschuere** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 10:02:04

Same here Eldred, and I've been running GP3 regularly (against Mark in
off-line competition, in fact).

I can tell you he's sincere in his appreciation and has tried his best to
make me "see" things his way Re: GP3 and vise versa.

Jan.
=---

by **Jan Verschuere** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 10:10:48

Frank, if anything I can tell you Mark is not bullshitting, trolling or or
whatever. Somehow GPL fails to communicate to him the information he needs
to take the car to the very edge.

With GUI he means the***pit view, the menu structure of the game is of
zero importance to him (I think).

I'm desperately trying to understand his point of view, as, to me, GP3 is
about as communicative as an autistic rock (no disrespect to people
suffering from autism). No... that's too harsh... it's not communicative
enough for me to take the car as far as I want to take it. Mark's
suggestions have helped a lot, but I still find the amount of effort I have
to put in disproportionate to the enjoyment I derive from driving the cars.

Amazingly enough, there are games which we perceive (nearly) equally...
STTC2, SBk2001 and MTBR are examples. Which is all very interestin and might
have implications for what is right and wrong in a sim, but does not help
either of us for the particular sims we desire to master and enjoy.

Jan.
=---

by **ymenar** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 11:08:11

> Frank, if anything I can tell you Mark is not bullshitting, trolling or or
> whatever. Somehow GPL fails to communicate to him the information he needs
> to take the car to the very edge.

I know I remember in the past he told us that. I really feel sorry for
what's he's missing. I can understand some of his point, but not literraly
like he writes. There's a grey zone here. You can't come here and shout
that and think it will get passed through easily! :)

And no DGF don't come here and shout that I'm just somebody who has a
forced-straight view. I'm not part of a "GPL cult", whatever that term even
means.

Well GUI = Graphical User Interface. It's the bad term he used ;-)

cars.

I can see his point, it's quite clear. I for one feel that GP2 has an
incredible feel that has yet to be achieved for modern F1 sims (even Gp3).
The main problem for me in GP3 is the poor virtual***pit in the head
movements compared to the G's. It's so stiff...

True.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **Dave Henri** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 13:25:14

Is this the CPR in which I turned UP the hill at Laguna Seca and found it
appearing JUST as flat as the 4 or 5 turns which proceded it? CPR had imho
the WORST graphic placement around. Even tho it was a whole generation
newer than ICR2, it still couldn't display a simple thing as a HILL. So
whatever tweeks are availble...I think I would be rather cautious about
proclaiming cpr to be a programming masterpiece.
dave henrie

> Let's all forget about the GPL engine shall we? I've never heard a worse
> idea. I mean, since we're pretending to race cars, shouldn't we use
software
> that actually acts like a car? Let's just let that thing die. Just because
> you are used to it does not mean it's good. Almost everything about the
> interface in Papy games is wrong. Real instincts do not pay off. The games
> *particulars* must be learned by rote. C'mon... that's no way to race. The
> physics engine *might* be good, but we'd need a whole new GUI to find out.
I
> say, if they've done such a poor job to begin with, maybe they should
design
> spigots or something. Sims are certainly not their game. Simulations
> necessarily include the human element. Check MTBR or STCC2 or GP3 if you
> don't know what I'm talking about. There is actual separation between the
> front and rear of the car. You can tell which wheel is locking. Heck, you
> can even tell when the brakes are on. I know, you say you can *feel* the
> brakes perfectly in GPL. I argue that you have merely learned what it is
> doing through practice and are making educated guesses as opposed to
> entering a situation and reacting to it in real time. I know we love
Nascar
> and GP but that does not make the N series and GPL good sims. The fact
that
> they were the best things we had a few years ago does not make them good
> sims either. They are what they are and it's time to be thankful(?) for
what
> we had and let the next thing come along.

> Why don't we use the CPR engine. A few well thought out tweaks and it
would
> destroy anything available. Heck, it already does.

> Where GPL falls flat:
> Sense of speed
> Sense of attitude of car
> Sense of acceleration
> Sense of placement
> Sense of available grip
> Sense of front as separate from rear and vice/verse
> Perspective of approaching road

> That pretty much covers everything. At that point, who cares whether the
> physics underneath are accurate or not.

> --

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

> mark

> > A few thoughts-

> > Is it just me or wouldn't it make sense to use the GPL engine in a
series
> of
> > classic racing series. First off, the vaporware Trans-Am Racing '68-72
> > could be replaced with Trans-Am Legends. Then, of course, we'd get
Can-Am
> > Legends, featuring that series at it's heights in the early 1970's.
Next,
> a
> > Group C or IMSA Legends for the 1980's. And Lastly, how about a
somebaody
> > make a decent game featuring LeMans.

> > There are other great Era's of racing, like..

by **Kirk Hous** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 17:08:26

LOL I usually don't reply to stuff like this. Thanks for the laugh.

> Let's all forget about the GPL engine shall we? I've never heard a worse
> idea. I mean, since we're pretending to race cars, shouldn't we use
software
> that actually acts like a car? Let's just let that thing die. Just because
> you are used to it does not mean it's good. Almost everything about the
> interface in Papy games is wrong. Real instincts do not pay off. The games
> *particulars* must be learned by rote. C'mon... that's no way to race. The
> physics engine *might* be good, but we'd need a whole new GUI to find out.
I
> say, if they've done such a poor job to begin with, maybe they should
design
> spigots or something. Sims are certainly not their game. Simulations
> necessarily include the human element. Check MTBR or STCC2 or GP3 if you
> don't know what I'm talking about. There is actual separation between the
> front and rear of the car. You can tell which wheel is locking. Heck, you
> can even tell when the brakes are on. I know, you say you can *feel* the
> brakes perfectly in GPL. I argue that you have merely learned what it is
> doing through practice and are making educated guesses as opposed to
> entering a situation and reacting to it in real time. I know we love
Nascar
> and GP but that does not make the N series and GPL good sims. The fact
that
> they were the best things we had a few years ago does not make them good
> sims either. They are what they are and it's time to be thankful(?) for
what
> we had and let the next thing come along.

> Why don't we use the CPR engine. A few well thought out tweaks and it
would
> destroy anything available. Heck, it already does.

> Where GPL falls flat:
> Sense of speed
> Sense of attitude of car
> Sense of acceleration
> Sense of placement
> Sense of available grip
> Sense of front as separate from rear and vice/verse
> Perspective of approaching road

> That pretty much covers everything. At that point, who cares whether the
> physics underneath are accurate or not.

> --

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

> mark

> > A few thoughts-

> > Is it just me or wouldn't it make sense to use the GPL engine in a
series
> of
> > classic racing series. First off, the vaporware Trans-Am Racing '68-72
> > could be replaced with Trans-Am Legends. Then, of course, we'd get
Can-Am
> > Legends, featuring that series at it's heights in the early 1970's.
Next,
> a
> > Group C or IMSA Legends for the 1980's. And Lastly, how about a
somebaody
> > make a decent game featuring LeMans.

> > There are other great Era's of racing, like..

by **Gunnar Horrigm** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 20:16:15

> > Where GPL falls flat:
> > Sense of speed

> IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed
mathematically. he does have a point, 36fps just isn't enough.

really? they have 180 degree FOV?

--
Gunnar
#31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
gnus don't kill people. gnus-summary-lower-score kills people.

by **Will** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 20:24:31

Hey,

Jeez...i still find that to be a bit scary. =)
--
In memory of DE,
- Will
- M1MS
- http://mach1.simhq.com

by **Jan Verschuere** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 20:37:48

I do and so do you... we concentrate on a small part of that area at any one
time, but a little self examination will show we do indeed nearly have a 180
degree field of vision.

Experiment: I assume you're wearing a T-shirt or a short sleeved shirt in
the current weather (if not roll up your sleeves). Sit at your desk, cross
your amrs and lean on the desk. Look dead ahead, observe that your sleeves
are visible in the bottom corners of your field of vision.
Now, continuing to look ahead, stretch your arms out to the side.
Alternately wiggle your hands and notice that, though you're looking and
concentrating dead ahead you are still visually aware of the motion.

Ergo +/- 180 degree FOV in both directions.

Jan.
=---
"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

> ><snip>
> really? they have 180 degree FOV?

by **Bad-Bo** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 20:54:44

...

Hey Jan, you're either a fish or a lizard :-)

180 degrees or +/- 90

:-)

Bad-Boy
( it's about 170 degrees IIRC )

by **Ruud van Ga** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 21:42:38

>...
>> Ergo +/- 180 degree FOV in both directions.

>Hey Jan, you're either a fish or a lizard :-)

>180 degrees or +/- 90

>:-)

>Bad-Boy
>( it's about 170 degrees IIRC )

With some 5 degrees of sharp vision. Very little.

Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25
Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

by **Jonny Hodgso** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 21:44:05

And now put a race helmet on... (though that may not be totally
relevant for GPL, come to think of it...)

Jonny

by **Gunnar Horrigm** » Sat, 04 Aug 2001 21:58:14

> > ><snip>
> > really? they have 180 degree FOV?

> I do and so do you... we concentrate on a small part of that area at any one
> time, but a little self examination will show we do indeed nearly have a 180
> degree field of vision.

yeah, I know, but does GPL? someone claimed GPL had "correct FOV".

180 degrees in both directions would be kinda cool. :)

anyway; as always I was trying to make a point, and as always I had a
problem with getting to it.

my point is that representing a "correct" FOV in a game, on a computer
screen is at least a practical impossibility. a _correct_ FOV would
be the angle between the edges of your monitor and your eyes, but that
wouldn't be very useful if you, like me, sit a few feet from the
screen. if you sit very close, you could approach 180, but that
wouldn't be very comfortable, and you run into el grande resolution
problems as even something like 2000x1500 is quite blocky when
covering your whole FOV.

I think this is a problem. if you compare racing/driving games,
you'll find that the sense of speed at, say, 100 mph can be very
different. still, there's no reason to suspect that they aren't all
mathematically correct, as that part is trivial. I think "that
special magic touch" is involved in getting the percieved speed right,
and I haven't really figured it out, but I suspect the FOV mapping
from game-world to real world has something to do with it.

--
Gunnar
#31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
FJ?SE!

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