rec.autos.simulators

F1 2002 vs GP4

Gunnar Horrigm

F1 2002 vs GP4

by Gunnar Horrigm » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 04:34:59

you guys seen this?  http://www.racesimcentral.net/

second item from the top.  I thought it was pretty funny.  :)

--
Gunnar
    #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
                                silence is FOO!

Alan Bernard

F1 2002 vs GP4

by Alan Bernard » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 04:54:10

I don't read Italian and the translate button didn't work.

But, heck, I'm giving GP4 another run through.  Maybe once I get the wheel
working and responding correctly, I can check the game out a bit more.  What
most concerned me-- not really knowing squat about the physics of Formula
One-- was the feeling I got while racing GP4.  I'm going 180mph and it feels
like I'm driving in a community zone.  I think I'll take the game through
the ringer once more and more so.  Surely there can't be a thing wrong with
having two decent modern F1 Sims floating around.  My guess is that right
now F1 2002 is all there is: I'm hoping that changes once a re-look at GP4.
I'm none too hopeful, though.

Alanb


Gunnar Horrigm

F1 2002 vs GP4

by Gunnar Horrigm » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 05:05:22


> I don't read Italian and the translate button didn't work.

well, neither do I, but did you look at the screenies?  the ones under
"13 giugno 17.28 Gp4- F12002 : screenshot comparativi"?

--
Gunnar
    #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
                             gitaren er en sjingke

redTe

F1 2002 vs GP4

by redTe » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 05:07:44


I think he is referring to the screenshot comparison. Graphically, anyway, F1 2002 does
look streets ahead of the bland GP4.

David L. Coo

F1 2002 vs GP4

by David L. Coo » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 05:54:18


GP4 still has the famous S L O W  M O T I O N issue.  You're going 180mph
and it seems like you're going 55 :/

- David Cook

ymenar

F1 2002 vs GP4

by ymenar » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 06:54:05


> Graphically, anyway, F1 2002 does
> look streets ahead of the bland GP4.

Uh?  I completely disagree with you :) I also don't understand how you can
qualify of "bland", the graphics in GP4, while "bland" would better describe
the over-washed and incredibly badly positioned graphics and objects of F1
2002.

To give him *some* credit, Geoff Crammond has always put out crisp graphics.
They were perhaps on the edge of being almost heavily pixelated and flat,
but it has a colour palette that is very close to reality.

Anyway, none of them pass the test in my eyes.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Steve Blankenshi

F1 2002 vs GP4

by Steve Blankenshi » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 07:29:56

Ditto - I much prefer GC's color palette to the cartoonish look of his
competitors.  Now if he could just farm the *good* bits out to Papy... ;-)

SB



> > Graphically, anyway, F1 2002 does
> > look streets ahead of the bland GP4.

> Uh?  I completely disagree with you :) I also don't understand how you can
> qualify of "bland", the graphics in GP4, while "bland" would better
describe
> the over-washed and incredibly badly positioned graphics and objects of F1
> 2002.

> To give him *some* credit, Geoff Crammond has always put out crisp
graphics.
> They were perhaps on the edge of being almost heavily pixelated and flat,
> but it has a colour palette that is very close to reality.

> Anyway, none of them pass the test in my eyes.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
> Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Rob

F1 2002 vs GP4

by Rob » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 07:34:22



> > Graphically, anyway, F1 2002 does
> > look streets ahead of the bland GP4.

> Uh?  I completely disagree with you :) I also don't understand how you can
> qualify of "bland", the graphics in GP4, while "bland" would better
describe
> the over-washed and incredibly badly positioned graphics and objects of F1
> 2002.

WOW. You actually think that the GP4 screenshots look better than the F1
2002 shots? Damn, I guess that beauty must really be in the eye of the
beholder because I think that the F1 2002 shots are light years ahead of
GP4. It's like F1 2002 is an actual current sim and looking at the GP4 shots
makes me think the game is from 4 years ago or more.

--
---------------------
Rob Berryhill

Gunnar Horrigm

F1 2002 vs GP4

by Gunnar Horrigm » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 08:04:11



> > Graphically, anyway, F1 2002 does
> > look streets ahead of the bland GP4.

> Uh?  I completely disagree with you :) I also don't understand how you can
> qualify of "bland", the graphics in GP4, while "bland" would better describe
> the over-washed and incredibly badly positioned graphics and objects of F1
> 2002.

> To give him *some* credit, Geoff Crammond has always put out crisp graphics.
> They were perhaps on the edge of being almost heavily pixelated and flat,
> but it has a colour palette that is very close to reality.

> Anyway, none of them pass the test in my eyes.

I agree that F1 2002 isn't exactly a real beauty.  but it does look
like one next to GP4.

--
Gunnar
    #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
                    to err is human -- to forgive is bovine.

redTe

F1 2002 vs GP4

by redTe » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 08:22:37

Where are the track textures ? Or the car textures, for that matter ?
http://members.home.nl/lighteye/f1test_2.jpg   F1 2002 pic is the one on the right !  ;-)

Joe6

F1 2002 vs GP4

by Joe6 » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 08:59:24

On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:54:05 -0400, "ymenard"


>To give him *some* credit, Geoff Crammond has always put out crisp graphics.

Must be some other Crammond than the one who'd games I've seen.
David L. Coo

F1 2002 vs GP4

by David L. Coo » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 14:20:56




> >GP4 still has the famous S L O W  M O T I O N issue.  You're going 180mph
> >and it seems like you're going 55 :/

> I guess if speed was all that mattered, we could just
> play Wipeout and not worry about these stupid slow sims..

> :)

> Have you tried GP4 at Monaco, David?

> You should.

Monaco *was* indeed sweet in GP4 (I already deleted it) but have you tried
it in F1-2002?  Not bad either!  Going through the tunnel and hearing the
difference in sound as well as the change in lighting is amazing...

The slow motion issue I mentioned has been around since the beginning of
Crammond's GP series I think.  It's not just my opinion - it really does go
real slow on screen while you are supposedly going very fast.  Funky stuff.

- David Cook

Tauno Taipaleenmak

F1 2002 vs GP4

by Tauno Taipaleenmak » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 15:31:50


: The slow motion issue I mentioned has been around since the beginning of
: Crammond's GP series I think.  It's not just my opinion - it really does go
: real slow on screen while you are supposedly going very fast.  Funky stuff.

        Yes, the slow motion is indeed a problem with GP4. No matter what
        resolution or detail level, it's there.

        But as everyone can see, the GP4 team has really focused on the
        IMPORTANT stuff, like the visor graphics. Those water droplets
        hitting the visor when driving in the rain, and when you speed
        up they start moving around... really neat :)

        Ah well, the physics are probably pretty accurate and it has
        dynamic weather, driving line, slipstreaming (*), etc. Just hope
        they patch up the speed of the graphics.

                TTT

        (*) At least according to reviews of different versions of
            F1 2002, the PC version has no slipstreaming effect, where
            as the X-box version does ? :-0

Damien Smit

F1 2002 vs GP4

by Damien Smit » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:13:11

It's obvious that GP4 doesn't use a properly scaled 3D world.  It seems to
use one of the famous Crammond fudge factors for scaling.  What a joke.

--
Damien Smith

ICQ: 77028579

<somecallme..

F1 2002 vs GP4

by <somecallme.. » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 18:18:10

Do a lap in GP1,2,3 or 4 and get our stop watch out. Because of Geoff stupid
"processor occupancy" way of programing unles you have a really really quick
system lap which the timing in the game say you did 1 min will actually take
over a minute to do, ir if our speedo say 200 you're not actually doing 200
more like 150 which is why it looks so slow. This all depends of how quick
your system is but it alos causes big problems multiplayer if you have 1
slow pc joining the game as it only runs as fast as the slowest pc.

How Geoff can get away with using the same ***engine since 1990 beggers
belief.

Some Call Me Tim


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.