rec.autos.simulators

 One thing is for certain

What sound!? You cant hear the other cars in GP2, In ICR2, even via
modem, I can  hear my buddy
changing his gears!       -DG

Hi

Firstly, let me say that I like both simulations immensly, so this is not
an attempt to deride one against the other. What interests me is the
underlying physical models of both simulators and how well these models
reflect real car behaviour. I've done quite a few virtual miles on both sims
now and a pattern is beginning to emerge. GP2 first. The total package is
excellent. The inclusion of telemetry analysis was a brilliant move, along
with an indepth range of parameters (but where is tyre temperature?). The
presentation is sharp and well thought out. The accuracy of the model though
I question. By definition, it is just a model and it will be a while before
we get anything that realistic on a PC, but I think the GP2 model is weak
in a crucial area - and that is braking. The braking simulation is very simplistic,
no matter where you put the brake bias, and no matter how much you destabalise
the car, when you brake the car will if anything regain stability, and certainly
not fish-tail or loose front-end grip. I know F1 cars handle corners far more easily
than IndyCars, so the cars behaviour throuh corners is perhaps realistic. Likewise
the spring settings in an F1 car are perhaps stiffer so the lack of pitch movement
under braking and acceleration again reflects the real car. But the ease in which
the car handles under braking in a number of configurations I'm sure isn't.

IC2 is less well packaged (well is simpler I guess) and doesn't have telemetry analysis
:-(. The graphics are good, but probably not as good as GP2. However, it is far
harder to drive the cars in IC2. Braking in particular is much more like what I'd
expect, i.e. critical - you can easily loose the car if you brake in the wrong
configuration. As you would expect, Indycars don't corner so well, and this is
reflected in the simulation. The car is also pitch sensitive. The overall impression
is that you are driving a car which has to be `driven'. It's a bit like comparin
an F-16 with a Phantom F4 (or something). The FBW of the F16 will make the plane
easier to fly, even though the performance in turns is greater. There's no FBW
on an F4 so the plane is harder to fly, though I suspect, as with F1 cars
and Indycars, that the envelope of the F4 (aka Indycar) is `softer' than the
F16 (aka F1). So we would expect the F1 car to be more `critical', whereas
you'll get some degree of warning from an Indycar. The two sims seem to capture
this - though without any feedback in the controls it's difficult to judge.

So on the whole, I think both simulations are very good, but I think the
IC2 model is a better simulation of Indycars than Gp2 is of F1 cars, and
I think the main area of difference is braking.

But I love them both, my current problem is which to focus on first so I can
get a championship season underway!

Alan

PS

I got a mate in the other night to try them both
back-to-back. He agreed that IC2 was much harder to drive.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The views/opinions expressed here are my own and do not
in any way reflect the views/opinions of my employer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I find this a little odd. In my experience, the brake position is very
critical. Set it forward from the default position & you can't stop
quickly enough. The front wheels will lock _very_ easily in such a
configuration.

Set it back & stopping becomes much quicker with less chance of locking
the front wheels, but the rear end will whip round if the wheel is moved
even the slightest amount.

I find that a change in brake bias of just .5% makes a _big_ difference
to the way the car handles!

What control system are you using and what have you got the low
sensitivity zone set to for the brake? I'm using a GP500 which has
excellent pedal control with the brake's low sensitivity set to 10%. Are
you using any of the driving aids?

In GP2, there's too little pitch movement. In ICR2, there's too much!

<snip>

After non-stop GP2 for several weeks, I switched back to ICR2 for a while
and I became amazed at how much _easier_ it was on the road courses -
still couldn't master the ovals though :(. Once the car got to the limit,
there was enough warning that something was going to go that I could
pretty easily correct it.

ICR2 also seems to require much more of a "*** the brakes / off the
brakes" technique whilst GP2 requires that the brakes are modulated to
get maximum braking force / grip without locking the wheels.

I agree with the first bit but disagree with the second <g>. Braking _is_
different between F1 & Indycars. F1 cars are much lighter and have higher
performance brakes, so they stop much quicker, but it is also much easier
to lock wheels. Both sims seem to model their respective braking aspect
very well.

I wonder if a lot of our differing experiences comes down to driving
styles. Much of my time in GP2 has been hotlapping so I've become very
used to constantly driving right at the limit and exploiting every
feature the setup options offer. With ICR2 I tended to concentrate more
on races and with more easy going setups.

And Nascar 2 is only just around the corner..... If only all our problems
were like this <g>

Cheers,
Richard

Alan,

Your comments on the two games are very accurate, and I
find myself agreeing on almost every point.

The comparison of Indy to a Phantom, and F1 to a Falcon
is the best damn comparison I have heard yet, and not
only reflects handling (F1/F16 Wins), but is also
accurate in regard to
   weight, power, and top speed.  (and size :)
   ^^^^^^  ^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^        ^^^^
   INDY/F4 INDY/F4    INDY/F4        INDY/F4
   Heavier  MORE       FASTER         BIGGER

I must say, however, that the wheel locking model on GP2
strikes me as reasonably accurate, and I think it is
related to the braking power and weight of an F1 car
to an indycar.  F1 cars do have shorter braking distances
and I believe would be more stable under brakes as
braking is an integral part of every F1 track, unlike
Indy which is important on only some of the tracks.  By
this I mean HARD BRAKING from high speed to low 1st and
2nd gear speed, not braking in traffic on an oval.  F1
cars have less mass to stop and tend to be easier to
fling around.  Jacque Vill. said that he enjoyed driving
F1 because of it's lightness and responsiveness, and
most of all - braking power and corner speed compared
to IndyCar.

I am impressed by the speed/traction relationship in
GP2 where as the car slows down, you need to reduce
brake force or the car starts to lock up.  This is
well implemented, and in a close up view of the back of
the car during a replay, you can actually see the suspension
lifting as the car slows and the wings provide less downforce.

I must admit, ICR2 is probably more like a real racecar
in terms of difficulty to drive, Geoff Crammond admitted
that a primary consideration in developing GP2 was a
compromise between realism and playability.  In some
ways, I think the difficulty in ICR2 is too high for
a PC game.  Not everyone has a steering wheel and pedals
with which to increase control and make the realism
more playable.  After getting a wheel though, ICR2 became
10 times the game it was with a joystick.

I like both games, and will avoid direct critisism of
either, since there are enough idiots on this NG these
days who do nothing but whinge and never say anything
intelligent, moderate, complimentary, thought provoking
or beneficial to those of us who want to get the most
from our racing sims.

Jet.

  Here's something else I noticed about GP2 that doesn't seem quite
accurate.  I know that F1 engines have a very narrow band of usable rpm's.
Here's the problem.  If I'm in a long, fast, constant radius corner (say
3rd or 4th gear), it doesn't seem to matter to much what gear I'm in.
Here's an example.  Let's say I'm going through a corner in 3rd gear at a
constant speed with 2 rpm lights lit up.  From the point where I accelerate
out of this corner until I reach the breaking point for the next corner, I
have just reached maximum rpm's in 5th gear.  But I can somehow duplicate
this if I was taking the constant radius corner in 4th gear with none of
the rpm lights lit up.  I still reach maximum rpm's in 5th gear at the next
corner.  This doesn't seem possible with the small (if you consider ~500
lbs small) amount of torque that F1 motors generate and the small range
(approx 2000-2500 rpms) that they are generated in.  Has anybody else
noticed this?

PI

Mark
_________________________________

"..every lap I think `Oh bollocks!
This is dreadful..`" Damon Hill
__________________________________

Adios, D. Gary

At this year's last race at Suzuka, Damon Hill and Gerhard Berger nearly
collided at the Casio Chicane early in the race.  Before the chicane, Damon
had looked in his mirror, and decided Berger wasn't close enough to challenge.
Berger tried to outbrake him for the corner, got partially alongside, but
Damon took his normal line, not expecting a challenge, and he was lucky
Berger went up on the curb to avoid a collision.  Damon said as he was in
the chicane, he was surprised to hear another car's engine.  This was his
only clue that he had almost been involved in a collision.  He also said
that it was the first time since his motorcycle racing days that he had
heard a competitor's engine in a race!

He also drove Formula Fords, Formula Three, and Formula 3000 cars before
F1.  So if he's not exaggerating, I'd say GP2 is pretty accurate.

As far as Indycars, go, I don't know.  You never hear the other cars when
you are viewing the incar cameras on TV.  Since I heard Damon's comment,
I set other cars heard in ICR2 as low as it will go, 1.  I wish I could
set it to 0.

Does anybody know of any comments by Indycar drivers on whether or not they
ever hear other engines?
--

"Feel Lucky, Scubaboy?" - Discovery Channel, Shark Week, 1995

<snip>

<snip>
I agree entirely.  I was racing round Silverstone and had pulled out a
huge lead, so much so that I was still in first after the first of my
stops (or so I thought).  Turning into Maggots I was very suprised to
find my wheels interlocked with Hill`s.  It turns out the pit wall had
blocked him from my mirrors and as I pulled onto the circuit he had
moved into the blind spot.  This accident could have been avoided had
I been able to hear his engine.  Once again, it all boils down to the
compromise between realism and playability.  At that point I wished
they had gone for playability ;-)

Mark
_________________________________

"..every lap I think `Oh bollocks!
This is dreadful..`" Damon Hill
__________________________________

Any car is easy to drive when you're not on the limit. GP2 is no
different, and that's one of the things I find so realistic about it.
Any of us could drive an F1 car, but when you start going <1:20 around
Jerez, THAT'S when you find that the car isn't quite as easy to drive as
you thought.

No disrespect to you or your mate, but what laptimes where you turning?

Cheers!
John

                     _________________________________
         __    _____|                                 |_____    __
________|  |__|    :|           John Wallace          |     |__|  |________

  \    :|  |::|    :|        Team WW Racing TSW       |     |::|  |     /
    >  :|  |::|    :|_________________________________|     |::|  |   <
  /    :|__|::|____/       * Sim Racing News *         \____|::|__|     \
/______:/  \::/ http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \::/  \._____\
               http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~harmon/simnews

Realism too.  Damon Hill has mentioned on a few occasions that
the sound of the other engines is audible.  He has even stated that
when behind another F1 car, the noise is deafening in comparison
to his own engine.

Jet