rec.autos.simulators

by **Edward** » Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:33:22

<snip>
You got that right, 100 GBP turns into $240 CAD, plus 15% tax, plus
shipping. That quickly turns into almost $300 CAD.... If that's the way it
goes, I won't be getting RL. I think the Wests need to rethink the
distribution/price model.

--
Edward
Commissioner
Middle-Aged Racers Association (MARA)

by **Steve Smit** » Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:55:58

<<File not found>>

A harbinger?

> > > I went to the Goodwood photos thread and found out where some of the
> > missing
> > > RASCAR drivers were today. :-)

> > > David G Fisher

> > Now where is that thread? TIA

> In the "Goodwood Photos" thread is this link
> http://forum.racesimcentral.com/showthread...0281#post310281 with the
> photos.

> David G Fisher

by **Jan Verschuere** » Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:25:33

While a fairly dim view, you do have a point. Like I said, a non-mass
produced solution will come at a price. I have accepted this fact and have
been campaigning for established developers to go down that route for a long
time.

This is not a problem as such from my point of view, but this "funding
development as we go along" approach relies on enough people buying into the
concept and exercising the patience for you to finish the "add-ons". For me
to be comfortable with this scenario I would have to see much more of a WRL
community than there is now develop (i.e. less negativity) before buying
into this concept. I suspect a lot of others feel the same way so there's a
bit of a catch 22 developing here, unless the Wests can come up with some
kind of guarantee which would not be invalidated by their business failing.

Otherwise I'd feel more comfortable being asked to venture x-amount of
capital on the developement of a fairly complete game, for a possible return
on my investment. Same thing basically, but a lot more straightforward.

True, 5000 copies at 100 quid each equals half a million pounds. Nice
development fund, provided they're not over their ears in debt already. That
said, I wouldn't mind them doing well of the game if it lives up to their
expectations.

I will buy into the beta testing and see what it's really like. After all,
one car / one track doesn't prove a hell of a lot. If it works on the
simulation front and they manage to convince me they can do the multiplayer
and other stuff I will risk buying the game. Depending on what level of
disclosure is allowed to the beta testers I will report my findings. If the
Wests deserve praise and support, they will get it. If they deserve a
pasting, likewise.

Like I've said before, let's let them have a fair crack at it and pass
judgement on the quality of the product.

Jan.
=---

by **Don Burnett** » Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:34:06

I saw that and wondered the same thing myself, why on earth would they be
testing with a V5 especially? Maybe they figure that by the time it is out
Nvidia will be utilizing the Voodoo technology? I guess testing with the P3
733 is not that big a deal, but I would sure think they ought to be testing
with at least a processor in the 1 gig+ family.
If this thing comes out when has been mentioned, the cards that are players
will be Nvidia, Matrix, and ATI. I sure hope they at least do some testing
with these, or perhaps they are relying on \ the pay to play beta testing
program to do this for them.

Don Burnette

> "This has not been decided as it depends very much on predicted sales,
which
> in turn depend on the response from the community. The more of us who buy
> into the concept the cheaper it will be."
> Building software based on such a lax/speculative pricing structure is an
> accident waiting to happen IMHO.

> "They test on a P3 733 with V5"
> Why?? Could they not find an older slower PC and video card to use? Why
> not optimize the game for newer cards with better features for rendering
and
> shading?

> "I didn't push this biggie. Very few products are done on time and they
are
> not stupid, so we are not going to get an answer to this yet IMO. "
> Only products with a poor design spec and project plan fail to meet
> deadlines. Not having a target date in place leads to issues of code
bloat
> and feature creep that can keep a product shipping for months.

http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=1821d147ca5556fad744bbd...

- Show quoted text -

by **Schoone** » Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:44:59

Pay beta programs rarely work. You end up getting a bunch of hard core
supporters that will not be as critical as a mass market beta or a dedicated
unbiased testing group.

> I saw that and wondered the same thing myself, why on earth would they be
> testing with a V5 especially? Maybe they figure that by the time it is out
> Nvidia will be utilizing the Voodoo technology? I guess testing with the
P3
> 733 is not that big a deal, but I would sure think they ought to be
testing
> with at least a processor in the 1 gig+ family.
> If this thing comes out when has been mentioned, the cards that are
players
> will be Nvidia, Matrix, and ATI. I sure hope they at least do some testing
> with these, or perhaps they are relying on \ the pay to play beta testing
> program to do this for them.

> Don Burnette

> > "This has not been decided as it depends very much on predicted sales,
> which
> > in turn depend on the response from the community. The more of us who
buy
> > into the concept the cheaper it will be."
> > Building software based on such a lax/speculative pricing structure is
an
> > accident waiting to happen IMHO.

> > "They test on a P3 733 with V5"
> > Why?? Could they not find an older slower PC and video card to use?
Why
> > not optimize the game for newer cards with better features for rendering
> and
> > shading?

> > "I didn't push this biggie. Very few products are done on time and they
> are
> > not stupid, so we are not going to get an answer to this yet IMO. "
> > Only products with a poor design spec and project plan fail to meet
> > deadlines. Not having a target date in place leads to issues of code
> bloat
> > and feature creep that can keep a product shipping for months.

http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=1821d147ca5556fad744bbd...

- Show quoted text -

by **Michael Barlo** » Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:59:27

I think you are right but on the other hand... If the extra's are going
to be expensive, Why would I want to purchase all of them or even a few?
Provided the price for the core does end up being $150, I'll buy that even
if it means selling a few odds and ends for the quick cash needed. If the
extra's are $50-$75 or less each, I'd buy as many as I could and continue
to purchase them as needed, and even when not needed;-)

--
DAMN IT! Someone set up a LAN event
in or near the Fingerlakes region of NY

by **Uncle Feste** » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 01:23:35

> I think you are right but on the other hand... If the extra's are going
> to be expensive, Why would I want to purchase all of them or even a few?
> Provided the price for the core does end up being $150, I'll buy that even
> if it means selling a few odds and ends for the quick cash needed. If the
> extra's are $50-$75 or less each, I'd buy as many as I could and continue
> to purchase them as needed, and even when not needed;-)

And what will the differing mixes of accessory packs do to the
multiplayer aspect? They may end up not so "optional" after all in that
sense.

--

Fester

by **Dave Henri** » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 02:14:27

> > I think you are right but on the other hand... If the extra's are
going
> > to be expensive, Why would I want to purchase all of them or even a few?
> > Provided the price for the core does end up being $150, I'll buy that
even
> > if it means selling a few odds and ends for the quick cash needed. If
the
> > extra's are $50-$75 or less each, I'd buy as many as I could and
continue
> > to purchase them as needed, and even when not needed;-)

> And what will the differing mixes of accessory packs do to the
> multiplayer aspect? They may end up not so "optional" after all in that
> sense.

> --

> Fester

That is where leagues will come into play. I'm sure some leagues will
support all add-ons and demand their users do likewise. Others will choose
a more narrow set of features. It would be confusing tho for open pickup
races if certain expansion paks upgrade performance or increase the
difficulty. (do I smell an online handicapping system??)
dave henrie

by **Paul Harringto** » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 02:58:31

I get the impression you've made up your mind on this before reading the
answers - see below :

----- Original Message -----

Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Read this everyone!

> "This has not been decided as it depends very much on predicted sales,
which
> in turn depend on the response from the community. The more of us who buy
> into the concept the cheaper it will be."
> Building software based on such a lax/speculative pricing structure is an
> accident waiting to happen IMHO.

I didn't say what the pricing structure was - just that if more of us buy
into the concept now then they will set a lower price as they can expect
larger sales.

> "They test on a P3 733 with V5"
> Why?? Could they not find an older slower PC and video card to use? Why
> not optimize the game for newer cards with better features for rendering
and
> shading?

Which do you want? Either you want the thing to run on lower spec hardware
or you want it to optimised for the best cars. Its hardly likely to do both
now is it? That spec seems a pretty good compromise in that it represents a
lower speed system without sacrificing basic funcitionality because a low
end system wouldn't provide it.

> "I didn't push this biggie. Very few products are done on time and they
are
> not stupid, so we are not going to get an answer to this yet IMO. "
> Only products with a poor design spec and project plan fail to meet
> deadlines. Not having a target date in place leads to issues of code
bloat
> and feature creep that can keep a product shipping for months.

Did I say there was no target date? You keep refering to what they tell us
as if thats all they know, but of course thats not the case. Your comments
sound like you are involved in software - do you really tell all your
customers exactly when your products will be ready?

Paul

http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=1821d147ca5556fad744bbd...
> > 33&act=ST&f=1&t=224&st=0&#entry3085

> > This should answer a few of your questions.

> > Thanks,
> > Alex

by JM » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 04:13:32

Look at it this way, you only need a "Type 49 '67 Locust" and a track
called "Munzo" and with internet multiplayer bundled, most of VROC can move
across to WRL overnight ;o)

Just kidding. 100 is at the limit of what I'd pay, but then I'm looking
at boxes for:

F1RC
F1-2001
Rally Trophy

All of which are uninstalled and never got used even a fraction as much as
GPL and N4/N2002, so in perspective, 100 isn't huge, but I'd certainly
rather it was 70-80.

cheers
John

by **Joachim Trens** » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:25:28

You'll want a car that's competitive and matches your driving style and
personal preferences. Maybe even the selection of tracks you wish to race
on. If this is to be a realistic model, as a team owner you'll need to have
a way of test driving a car before buying it.

I btw wasn't even thinking of F1 cars, but of prototypes, Touring cars,
Sports cars etc., where the choice maybe isn't always as clear as in the
Lotus' case.

Achim

> > The one-car approach is ok, all you need for a racing series is one
> > car. So you buy one car per year, no prob with that. However, it would
> > be nice to be able to test drive the cars before making a buying
> > decision, because then you'll be stuck with that car for an entire
> > racing season and beforehand you have no idea whether you like it or
> > not. If this is to be a professional simulation, then test driving the
> > cars before buying them is a must.

> Look at it this way, you only need a "Type 49 '67 Locust" and a track
> called "Munzo" and with internet multiplayer bundled, most of VROC can
move
> across to WRL overnight ;o)

> Just kidding. 100 is at the limit of what I'd pay, but then I'm looking
> at boxes for:

> F1RC
> F1-2001
> Rally Trophy

> All of which are uninstalled and never got used even a fraction as much as
> GPL and N4/N2002, so in perspective, 100 isn't huge, but I'd certainly
> rather it was 70-80.

> cheers
> John

by **ymenar** » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:36:59

> The demo is free. For me to poop on! I kid, I kid.

Hehe it's the "I kid, I kid" that differentiates the real *** Triumph
fan from the bandwagon jumper ;-)

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

by **ymenar** » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:39:44

> The one-car approach is ok, all you need for a racing series is one car.
So
> you buy one car per year, no prob with that.

You really think people are going to only want 4 cars after 4 year of racing
the same sim on the same singl) track ????

All those countdown car pictures.. all lies...

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **Eldre** » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:46:08

writes:

Planned obsolescence? That would SUCK...

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
My .sig file is in the shop for repairs...

Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Eldre** » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:46:08

>> "They test on a P3 733 with V5"
>> Why?? Could they not find an older slower PC and video card to use? Why
>> not optimize the game for newer cards with better features for rendering
>and
>> shading?

>Which do you want? Either you want the thing to run on lower spec hardware
>or you want it to optimised for the best cars. Its hardly likely to do both
>now is it? That spec seems a pretty good compromise in that it represents a
>lower speed system without sacrificing basic funcitionality because a low
>end system wouldn't provide it.

I've noticed that the people with newer systems complain that something doesn't
use all the features of their new Whiz-Bang 4000 CPU/video combo. They tend to
taunt people with older, not as powerful systems to upgrade(under the guise of
'progress') - finances be damned. The people with older systems tend to wonder
why ANYONE wants their system to be able to calculate the individual trajectory
for every raindrop in T1 at Mosport...

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
My .sig file is in the shop for repairs...

Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.