rec.autos.simulators

by **Harjan Bran** » Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Todays race shows once again what rain can bring to a F1 race. It's clear
that the vision on the screenshots is a bit too good, but still.

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was
"too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for a lot
of people.
Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in
response to this.

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

by **Harjan Bran** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

There have been some complaints from the beta testers annd producers about
this as well in GP3. The Arrows drivers tested the game in sayed it was
accurate and that the grip level in wet weather was just a bit too high
even.
With all the usual help options available I don't think it will be a problem
to just keep it the way it is. I sure hope it.

> Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was
> "too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for a
lot
> of people.
> Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in
> response to this.

> --
> Regards,
> Bruce Kennewell,
> Canberra, Australia.
> ---------------------------

> > Todays race shows once again what rain can bring to a F1 race. It's
clear
> > that the vision on the screenshots is a bit too good, but still.

by **Jo Hels** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:09:12 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell"

>Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was
>"too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for a lot
>of people.
>Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in
>response to this.

Only natural. NOBODY would drive 2 hours with zero visibility behind
another car "just for fun". Give the real guys the choice and they
won't do it I'm sure!

JoH

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

I think I'd rather trade a little bit of reality for the same amount of
enjoyment when it comes to grip levels. GP1 was really difficult in that
area and I dreaded the moment when the random generator produced a wet race!

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

> There have been some complaints from the beta testers annd producers about
> this as well in GP3. The Arrows drivers tested the game in sayed it was
> accurate and that the grip level in wet weather was just a bit too high
> even.
> With all the usual help options available I don't think it will be a
problem
> to just keep it the way it is. I sure hope it.

> > Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was
> > "too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for a
> lot
> > of people.
> > Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in
> > response to this.

> > --
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Kennewell,
> > Canberra, Australia.
> > ---------------------------

> > > Todays race shows once again what rain can bring to a F1 race. It's
> clear
> > > that the vision on the screenshots is a bit too good, but still.

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Dead right, Jo! :-)

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:09:12 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell"

> >Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was
> >"too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for a
lot
> >of people.
> >Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in
> >response to this.

> Only natural. NOBODY would drive 2 hours with zero visibility behind
> another car "just for fun". Give the real guys the choice and they
> won't do it I'm sure!

> JoH

by **Jo Hels** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:38 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell"

>Dead right, Jo! :-)

Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-)

Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue
applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to
those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the
aspects that THEY detest as well.

So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually
POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out
in 10 races out of 16.

Hail Crammond! ;-)

JoH

by **Stephen Ferguso** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:38 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell"

> >Dead right, Jo! :-)

> Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-)

> Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue
> applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to
> those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the
> aspects that THEY detest as well.

> So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually
> POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out
> in 10 races out of 16.

Tell Jos you can't overtake in the wet!

Stephen

by **Tim Vanhe** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Tell that to the people from Holland.
Don't you ever get this mixed up again! ;-p

by **Jo Hels** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:09:29 +0200, "Stephen Ferguson"

>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:38 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell"

>> >Dead right, Jo! :-)

>> Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-)

>> Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue
>> applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to
>> those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the
>> aspects that THEY detest as well.

>> So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually
>> POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out
>> in 10 races out of 16.

>Tell Jos you can't overtake in the wet!

I wasn't specifically referring to rain conditions on this one.
Actually, the rain seemed to "reanimate" overtaking in Montreal!
Longer brake distances and "guts" coming into the picture?

BEFORE the rain started, there was little hope to see an overtaking
move. Remember: if you see, say, 10 overtaking moves in one race, it
could be only 4-5 different cars involved. This means that a typical
car can drive 5 races without actually winning or losing positions on
the track. Translate this accurately to a game, and you fall
asleep.(at least *I* would) :-)

We have practice mode to drive without overtaking.

JoH

by **Jo Hels** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

We could tell his girlfriend, though (wife?). The one who learned him
to drive those cars <G>

JoH

by **ymenar** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Well duh!

What to those testers expect when racing on a wet surface with a Formula 1 ?
They should had made GP3 open-testing ;)

--
-- 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.

by **ymenar** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Well that's just your opinion Bruce. Some people consider the virtual
reality of racing simulation a form itself of racing, distinct and unique.
We are racing and racing is meant to be FUN!.

--
-- 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.

by **Harjan Bran** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

I don't really agree with you Bruce, why not make it ultra realistic for
those who have fun from that difficulty. And use the aid functions to make
it more fun for you and the others that share yor opinion.

> If what you state is indeed Geoff's philosophy then I'm all for it. After
> all, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that we are doing nothing more than
> playing a game and games are meant to be FUN!

> --
> Regards,
> Bruce Kennewell,
> Canberra, Australia.
> ---------------------------

> > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:38 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell"

> > >Dead right, Jo! :-)

> > Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-)

> > Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue
> > applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to
> > those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the
> > aspects that THEY detest as well.

> > So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually
> > POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out
> > in 10 races out of 16.

> > Hail Crammond! ;-)

> > JoH

by **A Thoma** » Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:00:00

I read somewhere a few days ago that a few f1 drivers have been used in beta
testing the wet weather conditions and they commented that the cars "felt
right". The reviewer himself found the car pretty difficult in the slippery
conditions .

Before we start complaining let's remember that we all love GPL because it
offers us realism and challenge above all other sims to date so we should
expect a wet GP3 drive to be difficult .

On another point Verstappen certainly deserved the "man of the match" award
yesterday

Andrew

> Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was
> "too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for a
lot
> of people.
> Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in
> response to this.

> --
> Regards,
> Bruce Kennewell,
> Canberra, Australia.
> ---------------------------

> > Todays race shows once again what rain can bring to a F1 race. It's
clear
> > that the vision on the screenshots is a bit too good, but still.

rec.autos.simulators

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on

GP3 roll on