rec.autos.simulators

by **j..** » Sat, 09 Mar 2002 08:43:34

Hell no.

I'd suggest two reasons.

Within the context of consoles, it's about the most sim-like thing
available. I'm not sure these days about the costs of creating a
console game, but when you look at the demographics of the target
market, how many of those would have a wheel etc to drive a sim, how
many would buy a sim, I'd guess you'd seriously struggle to make
money.

Second reason - it is, kinda. It is a "sim" in the sense that it,
allegedly, simulates the car correctly (i.e. modelling correctly the
forces acting upon the car and the way the car responds to those).
Where it differs from what this group would call a sim is that those
forces do not equal what would be found in real life.

I hope it's more sim-like than the arcade then. I thought that was
well dodgy :-)

John

by ss » Sat, 09 Mar 2002 11:31:43

Don't have a PS2 and haven't had a chance to try GT3...but if I did, all
that would interest me would be whether or not I enjoyed the experience.
Who cares what other people 'call' it. I like GPL because I think it's a
lot of fun. I liked Monster Truck Madness 1 for the same reason :-)

itazura

Monster Truck Madness 1 rank: hmmm

> I have some console friends who always refer to GT3 as a "sim". They know
> I'm a sim racer and they like to think that I think it is, but I really
> don't. It has no in-car view, it has no damage modeling, and quite
honestly,
> when you get the faster cars, the physics do not at all seem realistic.
> These are just some of the things I think are quite needed to be called a
> "sim".

> After playing Grand Prix Legends, Nascar 4, Viper Racing and the like,
when
> I play GT3 with my friends I can't help but think "arcade".

> So my questions are...

> 1. Do you think GT3 is a "sim". If so, why? If not, then tell me why on
> earth would console racers refer to it as such?

> I should say, the only racer that I've ever thought of as a "sim" or
> "sim-like" was Ferrari F355 Challenge on the Dreamcast.

> --
> Chad Sparks

> ICQ: 7239307

by **Tony Borro** » Sat, 09 Mar 2002 11:53:49

> Organization: BT Openworld

> Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:43:34 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: Is Gran-Turismo 3 on PS2 a "sim" ???

> Within the context of consoles, it's about the most sim-like thing
> available.

OK then, I have another question:

Is the PS2 version of EA's F1 2001 a sim, or sim-like thing?

TB

by **Chris H** » Sat, 09 Mar 2002 14:04:14

You're right, it is bumper view. My mistake. However, that's better than
the toy car view. At first, tire wear doesn't enter the picture, but it is
a good idea to immediately change oil when you get a new car because that
boosts the horsepower.

And yes, lack of damage modeling was a real disappointment in GT3. Hope
certainly was there that it would be included this time around. Between GT2
and GT3, I believe the physics must have really changed. The old tricks
like rear end higher than front and full downforce don't hold true in GT3.

I still think it is fairly good for PS2. Now, if it were for PC, I doubt
I'd buy it.
--
Chris H.

by **Todd Walke** » Sat, 09 Mar 2002 14:11:18

This alone should answer the "is it a sim" question.

--
__________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
__________________________

by **Damien Smit** » Sat, 09 Mar 2002 17:25:17

Because it was nowhere near as good as Forsaken which was released a year
earlier. The first Descent was an absolute classsic though.

--
Damien Smith

ICQ: 77028579
F1 2001 rank: +21.468

by **Eldre** » Sat, 09 Mar 2002 22:31:45

>I believe when he said "in-car" he meant in-car with a dash, steering wheel,
>etc. GT3's in-car view is really just a bumper view. As far as whether or
>not it's a sim, I consider it more of a sim-like arcade racer. The two big
>problems I have with it are:

>1)All of the cars have anti-lock brakes that cannot be disabled

Maybe the cars being simulated all HAVE anti-lock brakes? Why would you want
to turn that off if they do?

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Sinj** » Sat, 09 Mar 2002 22:47:18

>says...

>> > Yup, a good old classic that Descent... too bad Descent3 didn't do well
>> > financially... I have no idea why it didn't...

>> Just more of the same? I bought 1 and 2 and was pretty much done with the
>> whole concept by the time 3 came out.

>Descent 2 was my first experience with a VR helmet. I damn near threw up
>;-)

Hey - I bought a pair of those $200 I-Glasses too - just for that game. Nothing
better than LOOKING at your target - pressing FIRE - and having it blow up.
Or steering your ship just by LOOKING in the direction you wanted to go. The
only problem is my neck would start to hurt after a couple hours and when I took
the glasses off the real world seems "weird" and I had trouble walking for
10-20min.

--------------------
Sinjin
www.SinjinSolves.com
Your Guide to Success

by **Denni** » Sun, 10 Mar 2002 13:22:20

OK, you're gonna hear from the PC fanboy-snobs that NO console sim could
ever be as good as ANY PC sim, but I'll tell you what - I've played F1 2001
on both the PC and PS2, and I actually prefer the PS2 version. First of all,
it's a lot cooler playing on a 27" screen versus my 17" monitor. Also, I've
got the PS2 wired through our home theater AV receiver with REAL (not pseudo
like most PC's) speakers and subwoofer.

Game play is similar, but I will give it to the PC since it's upgradeable
and the PS2 is what is was/is/will always be.

> > Organization: BT Openworld

> > Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
> > Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:43:34 +0000 (UTC)
> > Subject: Re: Is Gran-Turismo 3 on PS2 a "sim" ???

> > Within the context of consoles, it's about the most sim-like thing
> > available.

> OK then, I have another question:

> Is the PS2 version of EA's F1 2001 a sim, or sim-like thing?

> TB

by **Damien Smit** » Sun, 10 Mar 2002 16:24:03

I would say that 'Vanishing Point' and 'F355 Challenge' on Dreamcast are the
closest to sim' handling. The good news is that both of them are being
sequalised on X-Box. Great games, but I think I'll stick to F1200X for my
current sim' fix.

by **Olly Greenfiel** » Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:17:21

GT3 is a monumentally great game. Flawed yet magnificent in its virtues.
Graphics are far more realistic than any I have ever seen on a PC racer, and
I have played pretty much all of them. Stick figure graphics displayed at
1600 X 1200 are still stick figures. Outstanding graphics displayed even at
TV resolutions are superior nonetheless. Thats not to say that MBTR or F1
2001 are stick figure graphics by any means, but you could fool the average
person into thinking that they were watching a real race with GT3 a bit
longer than with any PC racer I have ever seen. As far as car physics go,
the feel of the cars is all that matters to me with respect to whether I
call it a sim or not. I loved SCGT as a sim even back when there was no
dashboard included prepatch, simply because it had a realistic simulation
feel. It was hardly as realistic as GPL or Viper racing, but it was not
Mario Kart or Need For Speed like either. It's all a broad spectrum from
Pure Arcade 30 foot high jumping car physics to GPL sim physics, obviously.
The fact that we are even still debating whether GT3 is a sim lends credence
to the argument that it is at least in the middle of the spectrum. I find it
to be one of the 5 best racers ever created. It is very much a sim with
respect to car physics, and the current state of the art with respect to
overall graphical realism, and very arcadish with respect to almost
everything else, especially opponent A.I. But, its a great game for all but
those who prefer PC ***. So mark me down for a SIM vote.

> Don't have a PS2 and haven't had a chance to try GT3...but if I did, all
> that would interest me would be whether or not I enjoyed the experience.
> Who cares what other people 'call' it. I like GPL because I think it's a
> lot of fun. I liked Monster Truck Madness 1 for the same reason :-)

> itazura

> Monster Truck Madness 1 rank: hmmm

> > I have some console friends who always refer to GT3 as a "sim". They
know
> > I'm a sim racer and they like to think that I think it is, but I really
> > don't. It has no in-car view, it has no damage modeling, and quite
> honestly,
> > when you get the faster cars, the physics do not at all seem realistic.
> > These are just some of the things I think are quite needed to be called
a
> > "sim".

> > After playing Grand Prix Legends, Nascar 4, Viper Racing and the like,
> when
> > I play GT3 with my friends I can't help but think "arcade".

> > So my questions are...

> > 1. Do you think GT3 is a "sim". If so, why? If not, then tell me why on
> > earth would console racers refer to it as such?

> > I should say, the only racer that I've ever thought of as a "sim" or
> > "sim-like" was Ferrari F355 Challenge on the Dreamcast.

> > --
> > Chad Sparks

> > ICQ: 7239307

by **Joe6** » Mon, 11 Mar 2002 02:49:17

>1. Do you think GT3 is a "sim". If so, why? If not, then tell me why on
>earth would console racers refer to it as such?

By a reasonable definition it is. Which doesn't mean you'll get a
"yes" out of a group of *** simmers. ;-)

To "ordinary" gamers the arcade vs. simulation distinction is much
simpler, and in many ways more meaningful. GT3 portrays a reasonably
realistic driving experience, and as such rewards realistic driving
techniques. A game like Ridge Racer or Crazy Taxi, on the other hand,
is pure arcade - theres no attempt to make people drive the vehicles
like real cars.

I guess what I mean by "reasonable definition" is "useful". This is a
definition that a typical person can use to decide whether or not they
are likely to enjoy a particular driving game. By any such useful
definition, GT3 is a sim.

Which is not to say that *** simmers can't have their own
definition and debates about what it means to them. But this does
explain why any *** definition will find no use or application
outside this group, which answers your original question above.

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

by **Nic** » Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:11:34

It is not a full on sim, but it is quite realistic. If you consider
the number of cars and modifications being put through the same
physics engine and being noticably different in handling then it is
really quite good. I would say it is overall the most fun racing game
available on any platform.

In terms of realism (which is not something all games should be judged
by), I think GPL is obviously better, but GP3 is worse. It is a lot
less 'on rails' than GP3, and if GP3 used the GT3 engine I think it
would be a better, more realistic product. Don't forget that I am a
GPL racer (and a racer in real life), and I own GT3, GPL GP3 and a
whole bunch of other racing games.

You can hold a Viper sideways around Laguna Seca or Monaco, you can
race F1 cars, Vanquish's, WRC Cars, or simply road-going 206's, Mini's
and suchlike.

Personally, I would love to see a version of GPL on the PS2, because
the hardware can handle it, the graphics could be updated, the
gameplay would be smoother, the analogue accelerate and brake buttons
in GT3 are (surprisingly) much more accurate for me than pedals (and
you can still plug in a USB steering wheel to play), and the PS2 is
fully online (with broadband coming soon).

It ain't gonna happen tho, but even if GT3 doesn't model the
temperature of the air inside the car doesn't mean it is any less fun
to drive than GPL.

by **Olly Greenfiel** » Fri, 15 Mar 2002 03:45:02

About a year ago I remember someone posting a message saying that " The PS2
could never run a full version of GPL because it was not powerful enough to
do the physics calculations, and it uses a CONSOLE cpu that can only do
arcade games". I guess the XBOX uses a dumbed down CONSOLE version of the
Pentium 3 that can only render arcade games too. I guess it will always be
so.

by **Dav** » Fri, 15 Mar 2002 05:55:01

Never bought those statements about the CPU-intensive computations of this or
that sim. Doesn't every sim (GPL, the highest-tech flight sims) run pretty
darned fast at low res? And only bog down at the higer resolutions? Doesn't
that indicate that it is the graphics that is eating the lion's share of the
processor time? Further, GPL came out when we were using computers a lot
slower than today. No, I think the PS2 and XBOX likely can do the physics
calculations without breaking a sweat.

Now, maybe the PS2 can't do the incredible GT3 *graphics* it does with much
more than 6 vehicles depicted. How many do the NASCAR games show at one time?
And how do the graphics compare? From my memory, they don't hold a candle to
GT3, but may be competitive with the PC's?

As to whether GT3 is a "sim". Hmmm.
The driving model may be good enough. But I think it is dumbed down quite a
bit. Perhaps it is just the ABS, traction control, stability control (the
latter two can be reduced or disabled). For those who are keen on setups,
perhaps they can comment on the fidelity of the many setup options in GT3
(from bound and rebound through various LSD, brake controller settings...). I
do imagine that they've made the cars more accesible to drive. Strikes me as
least as good as NFS-PU, and quite likely better.
The AI, OTOH, is horrid.
The lack of crash physics, plus the catchup and hold-your-line-at-all costs
AI, encourages a very bumper-car style of driving.
Bumper cam? I too wish for a true***pit view. But I think the "bumper cam"
is a bit of a misnomer. To me, it is more a***pit view without dash or
bodywork visible, ie more like a flight sims "HUD" view. Sure this is often
ascribed to arcade titles. But if it was in GPL, it wouldn't turn it into an
arcade game.

Sim or not, it is a vastly entertaining title that this sim-player enjoys.