rec.autos.simulators

by **Pete** » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:33:48

Papy did nothing to fix many of the grey areas either. After dealing
with both
companies on beta problems I would say it was a wash on who was better or
worse
in regards to flaws and grey areas. Neither was great.

Yes, people will always exploit and look for the holes to get an
advantage. It's
human nature.

Never said Julian was a "god". But he was the first to bring it up in
here when
everyone was pointing fingers at who was cheating. He got pillared for
admitting to
using grey areas and you were one of the worst at name calling. In fact
Frank some
people here still deny that there was any cheating going on at all.
No everyone didn't know it. And if they suspected it they didn't have a
clue on how
it was being done. In fact very few would have had the guts to admit that it
did exist.
Papy's official line was that it didn't but privately was another story.

I will be pleasantly surprised if EA brings out a quality sim. I know
that if the ex-papy
crew brings out a product that's online only and pay as you play I won't be
paying for it.
I was hoping First Racing was starting with a clean slate and would
learn from past
experiences but from what I'm hearing through the grape vine is "same old,
same old".
But we'll just have to wait and see.

By the way I'll say hi to Julian for you. LOL He'll love the "god"
comment.

by **ymenar** » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:10:22

> Papy did nothing to fix many of the grey areas either.

They did fix many things, but other things, well cmon you know how
development companies work, and they wouldn't spend X ammount of cash,
especially a fragile one like Papyrus with a low # of employees and cash
flow, to repair something that affects a small % of all customers. Anyway,
in that aspect EA is worse as they simply don't care at all, powerful they
are, and just milk the cow.

Exactly. So why am I labeled a fanboy when I am just severly doubting
anything by EA. WTF is the world going to when people are pro-EA instead of
the small factory of Papyrus that have gave us an incredible quality of
product over the last decade? I mean ***ing Electronic Arts, with their
slavery fascist intentions? If they barely touch NR2003 in terms of the
overall aspect of the sim (considering that NR2003 is already outdated in
many aspects, we have to consider the different timeline), you know how
sturdy it is, possible customisation, overall quality of it's game engine,
etc... I'll be surprised.

Sure it had flaws and exploits. So does any game, even the 90% rated ones.
And developpers of the 90%+ games, they can't fix them all either. Still,
don't say they didn't cared, 'cause you are comparing and putting them lower
than the KINGS of "don't care", which is Electronic Arts.

I call it 'racing' ;-D

"Same old same old" = established quality at it's basis

Never had anything against him you know.

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

by JP » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:25:44

> >> What makes you think it would be better with that EA thingy? Has EA
even
> >> proven anything about such things?

> > Fanboy Alert !

> No, just an sceptical feeling, especially considering the entire history
of
> EA Nascar "simulations". They have proven only one thing, it's that their
> entire Nascar racing line has been arcade games with little attemps to
> simulate anything. Of course this time, the chances are better then ever
> that history will not repeat itself, but anyway what makes you think that
> such attemps to push the limit of software won't happen in EA? Nothing.

> <yawn> Anyway you have no knowledge of this NG history

Actually, it's exactly your history that produced my post. <yawn>

by JP » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:45:03

> > Papy did nothing to fix many of the grey areas either.

> They did fix many things, but other things, well cmon you know how
> development companies work, and they wouldn't spend X ammount of cash,
> especially a fragile one like Papyrus with a low # of employees and cash
> flow, to repair something that affects a small % of all customers. Anyway,
> in that aspect EA is worse as they simply don't care at all, powerful they
> are, and just milk the cow.

Kind of like how in N3, the fastest way around some tracks was on the
apron. Never fixed. And so on. And nooo, Papy was never deceitful/didn't
care, did they ? LOL. "Wow, has this GPL patch changed the physics ?
Papy: NO..........um, well, yes, maybe.

Will N3 have the GPL engine ? Papy: YES........um, sorry, no.

Or how about the myriad Papy Nascar releases with no or marginal
improvements, simply to make some $ ? Nothing wrong with that, but funny
how EA gets slammed for doing it.

And so on.

I doubt if anyone is really pro-EA. It's more a matter of not using
rose-colored glasses with Papy and/or being willing to take the blinders
off.

by **Bill Bollinge** » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:55:34

The physics in the Thunder series has been very good, BUT they lacked in
Multiplayer and Track details. Everything else was very good if not better
than NR2003. Of course I will get pounded for saying this, but those that
would say it, have never beaten me on the track with NR2003 either :)

Bill Bollinger
www.gsxn.com

>>> What makes you think it would be better with that EA thingy? Has EA
>>> even
>>> proven anything about such things?

>> Fanboy Alert !

> No, just an sceptical feeling, especially considering the entire history
> of EA Nascar "simulations". They have proven only one thing, it's that
> their entire Nascar racing line has been arcade games with little attemps
> to simulate anything. Of course this time, the chances are better then
> ever that history will not repeat itself, but anyway what makes you think
> that such attemps to push the limit of software won't happen in EA?
> Nothing.

> <yawn> Anyway you have no knowledge of this NG history

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

by **Bill Bollinge** » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:01:29

> Papy did nothing to fix many of the grey areas either. After dealing
> with both
> companies on beta problems I would say it was a wash on who was better or
> worse
> in regards to flaws and grey areas. Neither was great.

Totally agree with Pete on this.

Yes, it is in every game. But like in golf, whose golf game do you respect
the most? The guy who cheats every time he plays or the guy who counts
every stroke like he is supposed to according to the rules? I respect those
that play by the rules and have less respect for those that cheat.

TOTALLY agree with Pete on this. I for one didn't know of MANY of the grey
areas until N3. Heck even then, was learning stuff until we moved to N4.
The bottom line is that certain people KNEW of the grey areas (Those that
were "in the know" at Papy) and the majority did not.

I have heard the same thing unfortunately. They have some good guys
involved. Havn't always agreed with everyone, but I think guys like Nim,
have a good understanding. The only problem is that he doesn't do the
coding and it is almost like the inmates controlling the asylum.

Give him a good FU from Amish :)

Bill Bollinger
www.gsxn.com

by **Bill Bollinge** » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:05:33

Like he said before.... PapyFanboy. Which kind of amazes me Frankie. Never
thought you were. But, I for one can say that NR2003 is not that great.
UNFORTUNATELY, you are right, I am HOPING EA comes out with something good,
because they have disappointed me before. However, just because NR2003 is
better than the lame attempts we have had before from other companies, does
not make it an excellent attempt or therefore "quality".

Bill Bollinger
www.gsxn.com

by **ymenar** » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:56:06

> Kind of like how in N3, the fastest way around some tracks was on the
> apron. Never fixed.

Yes, it was. Nice try ommiting that EA's Nascar games had 100x times more
problems.

They never really had the funds for it by Sierra/Vivendi/Cendant/whatever.

Compared to what EA does, they were excellent

EA gets slammed for their slavery fascist ideology of ***. Get with the
news, fellow.

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

by **ymenar** » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:00:11

> Actually, it's exactly your history that produced my post. <yawn>

That's just false, or (again) you'll know that I've bashed them more than
the opposite. I just can understand how a small company like them, who
lasted more than a decade against tough competition, has given us quality
products throughout the years. And that everybody else had not, except a
few sparsely.

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

by JP » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:34:39

> > Actually, it's exactly your history that produced my post. <yawn>

> That's just false, or (again) you'll know that I've bashed them more than
> the opposite. I just can understand how a small company like them, who
> lasted more than a decade against tough competition, has given us quality
> products throughout the years. And that everybody else had not, except a
> few sparsely.

<shrug> If you say so, but we'll disagree on that.

Tough competition ? Who ? No one even really tried, including EA, which
is part of the root of the "if it's Papy, it must be realistic, etc."
mindset. Of course, Jr. has said some not so complimentary things about 03,
but I've noticed that doesn't seem to matter to some (head in sand comes to
mind)
And Papy quit being a small company once they hooked up with Sierra. But
it's a quaint myth to hold onto.

p.s. guess who was one of Papy's first publishers ? Hint; two letters in
the name, first one is E.....

by JP » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:40:35

> > Kind of like how in N3, the fastest way around some tracks was on the
> > apron. Never fixed.

> Yes, it was. Nice try ommiting that EA's Nascar games had 100x times more

problems.

100x ? Interesting how that figure came up. And how was it fixed in N3 ?
None of the patches did. Of course, N3 being the umptienth game in the
series, one wonders how such an obvious flaw existed in the first place....

But then why did they trumpet it loud and clear ? It's not just Sierra,
etc. fault.

<laughter> Riiiiight. Let's see, we had N1, N2, GNEP, N1999(with no
multi either), Nascar 50 anniversary, N3....all one the same engine, with
very little physics difference. Wow, only took, what, eight years for a
change.

Lol, whew, a stargazer, in addition to being a fanboy. Not bad. Just
keep repeating, "Serenity Now !", and listen to some Kumbaya tapes.

by **ymenar** » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:10:40

> The physics in the Thunder series has been very good, BUT they lacked in
> Multiplayer and Track details. Everything else was very good if not
> better than NR2003. Of course I will get pounded for saying this, but
> those that would say it, have never beaten me on the track with NR2003
> either :)

Well I beat you, and I think that there's other stuff better in NR2003 :)

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

by **ymenar** » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:13:48

> Tough competition ? Who ? No one even really tried, including EA,

How is competing against the #1 *** company in the world, with an almost
fascist culture of developing games, a small thing? We're talking about a
small development company with Papyrus. They were never even a medium shop.
Papy lasted about 10 years between 1994 with N1 and NR2003 until EA finally
was able, with their cashflow to stop having competition.

Heck Jr. said to me N2 on the NROS was semi-accurate, so there.

Well they published stuff before Indianapolis 500 ;-D

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

by **ymenar** » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:15:35

>> Compared to what EA does, they were excellent

> <laughter> Riiiiight. Let's see, we had N1, N2, GNEP, N1999(with no
> multi either), Nascar 50 anniversary, N3....all one the same engine, with
> very little physics difference. Wow, only took, what, eight years for a
> change.

Aren't you forgetting the annual EA Nascar game also? Never has Papyrus
made a "crap" sim. They were still always of quality if you never owned
one. Now EA, geeze they released Nascar Revolution, Nascar Road Racing
(worse racing game ever) and tons of annual arcade crapfest while shouting
they were sims. At least you knew with Papyrus they were sims.

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

by **ymenar** » Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:17:50

>> "Same old same old" = established quality at it's basis

> Like he said before.... PapyFanboy. Which kind of amazes me Frankie.
> Never thought you were. But, I for one can say that NR2003 is not that
> great.

Sure man it's outdatted nowadays. It was perhaps even outdated back then,
but it's a solid, damn good simulation. Wish is better than *anything* EA
has ever released for a Nascar sim to this day. Why can't I be sceptikal?
I'm all for a better sim then NR2003 anyway, but it'll be a very, very rough
road and all that EA has gave us in the past was a failure considering their
cashflow and power.

All in all, if you consider NR2003 to be "not that great", how did you deal
with N2? How can you deal with anything related to simracing as NR2003 is
pretty much near the top of everything done to date.

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

rec.autos.simulators

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups

NR2003 Loose web setups