rec.autos.simulators

Ken (the all-knowing, champion of Formula 1 racing simulators) Barrow

-DG-

That is the biggest load of bullshit I've heard in decades.  Firstly, GP2
is way too easy, and as a matter of fact, I have not even looked at in 6
months now.  I have been running  GP2 on a 166 pentium, and guess what, I
still have to turn most of the graphics off, and heaven forbid that there
is a cluster of cars in a bend, then you will really know what slowdown is
all about.  F1 by psygnosis will be 3d accelerated, and since you are
obviously such a potential budding armchair Alain Prost you should
probably not buy it, because it is just not realistic enough for an
enthusiast of your calibre.  

All of your concerns with F1 can easily be overlooked when comparing the
astronomical shortcomings of GP2.  I mean I've watched formula one for
years now, and I have yet to see them slow down when there are many cars
on the track.  
If you have ever been to Spa-Francorchamps or Silverstone, you will also
be  aware that rain is a big factor in F1 racing.  So how can GP2 be a
real "sim" when it does not mimic rain in the game..  

This is just my opinion, and I think you should hold off judgement on F1
until it is released, in the interest of fairness.

It is not your fault that you believe you have the elixir of life in GP2,
when it was sold to you by a bunch of snake oil salesman.

A good part of the thrill is high speed sweeping high-G turns in an F1
car.   Unfortunately, most of those are gone because the tracks are so
screwed up.  Note Brazil, for example.  Look at how you have to crawl
through the turns in 1st (or 2nd at most) gear.  Compare that to the
way the real cars go around them.  Its not the car physics that are
wrong, its the bogus track design.

Randy

Yes, but you can do that in both games.  Knowing that at the end of
such and such straight there is a certain kind of corner is all well
and good, but if the straight leading up to it is the wrong speed and
the car can't corner it at the same speed as the F1 car, something is
lost.

Yes, he did.  I read every single shred of text written about JV's
experiences, and it became increasingly clear that Jacques didn't want
too much read into what he did.  He made distinct reference in one of
his interviews to the fact that the purpose of the game was to simply
"find out what's coming up next".   For this, GP2, is just fine.  If
you've never driven Spa before (which he hadn't), GP2 will readily
answer the question "what's coming up next".  But then again, so will
Formula One/PSX, and the latter will do it far better.

You have the right to your opinion, but having spent ample time in
both games, and having discussed with Bizarre Creations the issue of
track accuracy specifically as compared to GP2, I'm convinced that
Bizarre got it right track-wise.  Their tracks are up to date per 1995
(unlike 1994's tracks in GP2, most notably the differences in tracks
like Imola), and they exhibit a stunning degree of accuracy in ways
that Crammond didn't or couldn't do, such as the track banking coming
onto the front straight in Brazil, as well as the altitude changes on
that track, the bump coming down from *** square in Monte Carlo,
the banking and elevation changes in the chicanes in Hockenheim...its
all done extraordinarily accurately, because of the fact that Bizarre
used the surveyors charts and hours and hours of video footage to get
the job done right.  I've gone to the trouble of racing a track on one
on my TV, writing down split times and speeds, and then coming down
and comparing the same track on GP2, and while the GP2 cars are more
accurate from an acceleration and top-speed standpoint, F1 models the
way the actual track is driven far better, because the tracks are
simply more accurate, not the scrunched up, flattened things we get in
GP2.  Don't get me wrong -- I love both of these games, but I'm not so
arrogant as to look down my nose at F1, just because its a Playstation
game.

Randy

Greg

Thanks for the reply.

Oh I thought you were referring to POWER F1...  I was about ready to
re-install
the demo (which I thought sucked).

GP2 is too easy? Well, why don't you download an editor and make the AI
cars faster?
If GP2 is too slow on your computer, then it's your computer that's at
fault, get a more powerful one; you'll need one soon anyway with the
amount of next generation games!
What's more, if we wanted to play arcade games we'd go to an arcade.

Yeah, and I wonder how many F1 cars feel like they do in Psygnosis' F1.
Not that it's a bad game, but it's sure unrealistic, far more so than
GP2.
As for rain, big deal... no-one knows how to drive fast in the rain
anyway, and everyone would be bored of it after a couple of weeks.

Well, I have played F1 on the PSX, and I don't think it's half as much
fun as GP2. It's like comparing Wolfenstein to Quake!

I know what I like, and GP2 I like!
Sorry Mr. Bear, but I don't agree with you.

Regards,
--
Dave Bowers

What a joke, sorry but you asked for the heat with this babble!
Yeah, get something faster than one of the fastest computers out there
to run this
"insult" of a SIM. Telling someone they need to upgrade from a 166 to a
200 to get this
"pig" of a SIM to run fast enough is a not an excuse to defend this FAR
from complete sim!
In other words, "shut the *** up"!

I'd rather play an arcade game than watching "slow motion" on my Pent
200mmx!
Which is what GP2 calculates on the fastest pent avalable! We're looking
for
realism not replays of SUPER-SLOW-MOTION!

Why dont you actually watch a F1 race sometime and see that rain plays a
part in about 25% of all
F1 races on average in a season.

Comparing Dogshit to GP2 if fair enough, I would rather play Pole
position at the local "outdated"
arcade than try to figure out why GP2 wont run on the fastest
hardware(this is my "Humble opinion)!

I know what quality is and I know when a software company promises
something and not half of the hipe is reality, then I dont agree with
you Mr. Bowers!

(as usual) -David Gary-

-- =

Ren=E9 van Lobberegt, The Netherlands.
http://www1.tip.nl/users/t752096/index.html

Phil Abel

--
"Don't look back - they may be gaining on you !!"
**************************************************

http://www.magna.com.au/~mohair/

..... If you have ever been to Spa-Francorchamps or Silverstone, you will
also
be  aware that rain is a big factor in F1 racing.  So how can GP2 be a
real "sim" when it does not mimic rain in the game..  <<

GP1 had rain in it and I dare say that just about nobody used it.
Certainly the GP1 racing league it which I participated didn't.  And it had
top drivers that'd blow the socks of a whirlwind.

Frankly I wouldn't like to see a simple implementation of rain in GP2.
That is - raining all the time from beginning to end.

For rain to be really desirable it needs to be very well simulated.
Something that no one has ever done.

IMO, a worthwhile rain weekend would have to include...

- varying amounts of rain and sunshine over the race weekend
- varying amounts of rain and sunshine during the race period
- a dry line effect during sunshine breaks
- a weather forecaster to help with your strategy

..... and not essential but desirable ...

- a less-traction effect on the ***ised dry-weather racing line

All of the above is necessary IMHO to produce a worthwhile rainy day race
weekend experience.  Simply having a race run in downpour from beginning to
end is a waste of time, and is still somewhat unrealistic.  The most
interesting and challenging thing about a rain affected weekend is the
strategy.  The actually racing can be ***ly awful.

Phillip McNelley

http://www.racesimcentral.net/~philmak/

I would be very surprised when/if a patch comes out...  ;)

Marc