rec.autos.simulators

>[snip]

>>  _The success of Grand Prix Legends_ seems to have sparked an
>>explosion of 'classic' car racing games, but Sprit of Racing will push
>>the years back further than all others. Whether this will work remains
>>to be seen. The cars of the era were not particularly quick, nor easy
>>to control. Of Broadsword attempt a strict simulation they could end
>>up producing a game that deters more games than it attracts.

>From the mouths of Papyrus themselves at
>http://www.operationsports.com/reviewvault/articlesfull.asp?featureid=26

>[begin quote]

>Q. Dan - Why not use the Grand Prix Legends engine for NASCAR? Racing
>2000?
>A. Papyrus has always been the leader in developing products with the
>highest degree of racing simulation realism available, and we intend
>to maintain that leadership. Last years release of Grand Prix Legends
>is widely regarded as the most stunningly accurate and rigorous
>vehicle simulation ever created in a consumer package. However, given
>the limited commercial success of Grand Prix Legends, its clear that
>we would be doing a disservice to our core NASCAR? Racing fans if we
>released NASCAR? Racing 3 with the same degree of difficulty and steep
>learning curve. The average customer shouldnt be expected to have
>real world racecar driving skills to enjoy the game. In addition, a
>NASCAR? simulation based on the same engine at GPL would have even
>steeper system requirements. Add to that a higher graphics load and a
>system that will run the game smoothly is out of reach to the vast
>majority of our customers.

>[end quote]

>Get that "limited commercial success" part?
>I think your source is mistaken.

>--

>        http://www.users.fast.net/~fusion1
>    (dirt bikes, rat bikes, rental car abuse...)

>% Well, Michael, all I can say is thank *GOD* it was delivered before
>% completion because, as my driving enjoyment is almost ***ic, I shudder to
>% think what the completed version would have done to me!!!  :o)

>I whole-heartedly agree.  I think that is why the big ballyhoo about
>N2000/NL not using the sophistication we have tasted with GPL.  But,
>remember there were things that were meant for GPL that never made it.
>I am sure there would have been pit stops had there been time to fine
>tune it.  Weather I am sure was in the original conceptions for GPL.  I
>am also sure that the physics model had to be scaled back because their
>just wasn't enough CPU horsepower to fully implement the "artist's"
>desire.

>Even in it's incomplete state, GPL is a work of ART!!!!!!  And like the
>old saw about, I don't know what art is, but I know what I like....
>goes...  The same can be said about racing simulations (the old GP2 vs
>ICRII see-saw battles).  Some see GPL as a masterpiece and others see it
>as a overkill piece of artistic self-endulgence.

>--
>**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
>     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>% Well, Michael, all I can say is thank *GOD* it was delivered before
>% completion because, as my driving enjoyment is almost ***ic, I shudder
to
>% think what the completed version would have done to me!!!  :o)

>I whole-heartedly agree.  I think that is why the big ballyhoo about
>N2000/NL not using the sophistication we have tasted with GPL.  But,
>remember there were things that were meant for GPL that never made it.
>I am sure there would have been pit stops had there been time to fine
>tune it.  Weather I am sure was in the original conceptions for GPL.  I
>am also sure that the physics model had to be scaled back because their
>just wasn't enough CPU horsepower to fully implement the "artist's"
>desire.

>Even in it's incomplete state, GPL is a work of ART!!!!!!  And like the
>old saw about, I don't know what art is, but I know what I like....
>goes...  The same can be said about racing simulations (the old GP2 vs
>ICRII see-saw battles).  Some see GPL as a masterpiece and others see it
>as a overkill piece of artistic self-endulgence.

>--
>**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
>     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>Nope, we don't "have" to accept it.  We contribute to the design of a
>product where it counts the most, with our pocketbook.

>% And what's this "demanding" got to do with it?  We can demand until we
are
>% blue in the face and it won't matter one iota if the developer/publisher
>% wishes to cater for the mass market...........which just happens to *NOT*
>% subscribe to this newsgroup!

>True, but again we voice or demands (and they are heard) via our
>pocketbooks.  As the "driving" game/sim market gets more crowded and
>glutted with schlock, the winners will be the ones that find a "niche"
>that will reward them.  In the past Papyrus has found that niche by
>providing some of the most acurate simulations available at the time
>they are released.  And the succeeded, because we helped with the design
>by demanding such degrees of realism with our pocketbooks.

>--
>**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
>     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>>They were certainly "home computer" state-of-the-art when the sim was in
>>development and when the demo (Watkins Glen) was first made available.

>>And not everybody plays this game on-line, either.

>They certainly were not bruce. All you needed was a mid spec PII and a
plain
>old Voodoo graphics card for a decent frame rate. I even had it working
fine
>on a P166 with 32mb and a Voodoo Graphics!.

>Even he full release just needs a mid-spec PII and a Voodoo2 or the like.

>Software mode is bad, though, and the 3D hardware supported in laughable-
i'm
>not really counting the poor opengl patch released.

>But at the end of the day, next to FPS, or heavy Flight Sim, the hardware
>requirements are not that over the top.

>Z.

>Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

> Unfortunately, Michael, time has shown that the denizens of
> rec.autos.simulators do not represent the majority of the mass-market.  In
> fact, we are but a rather small fraction of the buying public.

> We may be able to advise and submit wish lists and give qualified feedback
> but when it comes to boycotting the purchase of anything, we carry very
> little weight.

> Unfortunately, pure 100% realism is part of what kept the sim from meeting
> sales expectations, and has had the suits at Sierra wanting to kill the
> whole project of using the GPL engine in other software.  It is clear that
> the majority of users playing driving simulations are more interested in
> "games" rather than "sims."

> If we, the more *** sim fans, are unable or unwilling to accept that
> there should be OPTIONAL concessions to make our sims more driveable for
> beginners, and those that simply want the thrill of racing, it will not be
> long before we find ourselves without any sims to race.  We will also have
> to accept that these sims should install with all of those options
> defaulting to ON - making it up to us to take the effort to turn them off.
> The backlash to demanding ONLY realism will be scores of "Nascar
> Revolution"s, endless unimproved "Nascar Racing Series," and "Need for
> Speed," type games.  There is a place for such games, but we must realize
> that if the options making real sims more accessible are not implemented -
> and keep responding with "you've bought yourself the wrong simulator"
> instead of pushing for such options, "games" is all we will be left with.

> For GPL, papyrus listened to the *** simmers, perhaps too much, and the
> game IS virtually inaccessible to many racing enthusiasts.  I don't see any
> changes on the horizon to salvage this title in terms of market saturation.
> While a wonderful sim, GPL should also serve as an example to all of us of
> how too much of a good thing, without options making it accessible to the
> average racer, hurts our desires for more realism in the long run...

> Michael

> > If you're not interested in pure, 100%, realism, which GPL comes
> > pretty close to offering, you've clearly bought yourself the wrong
> > simulator. Stick with N2 instead.
> > Griffin, the Slayer

> >For GPL, papyrus listened to the *** simmers, perhaps too much, and the
> >game IS virtually inaccessible to many racing enthusiasts.  I don't see any
> >changes on the horizon to salvage this title in terms of market saturation.
> >While a wonderful sim, GPL should also serve as an example to all of us of
> >how too much of a good thing, without options making it accessible to the
> >average racer, hurts our desires for more realism in the long run...

> Too true. Unfortunately, some here will not get it no matter how hard
> you try. They will continue to demand from the developers to create
> the most sophisticated simulation for them (and only them) while they
> have absolutely no clue how to finance such a project...

> --Tel