David G Fisher <dav...@home.com> had to reply to me after I wrote that eh:
> > You still think RC2k is better than GPL from a hardcore POV ?
> Since I was a beta tester with information that no one else here had, I
was
> simply trying to share. Some appreciated it, and let me know. I guess I
> could of followed the lead of most developers who've become fed up with
> r.a.s and not bother with this newsgroup at all due to the predictable
> responses. It does still have moments of useful information which is why I
> occasionally read it.
David, we all know why they aren't active and somehow don't mind you know...
Most of us actually don't give an arse I would say if they are active or
not. It's up to them, not to us to decide. Ras is something unique and
nobody will change the micro-society that it has formed. But be sure that
any company that ships a "hyped" racing sim without any feedback from r.a.s.
(the most hardcore place on the net for racing simulators) is shooting
themselves in the feet. Best example would be SOS1937.
Your information was helpfull, but I consider as helpfull somebody reviewing
it badly also you know. Good or bad, it's information, guess it's up to the
people to balance between both.
> And yes I do think RC is a more complete sim than GPL from a hard core
POV.
Good, I look forward to your reasons. Personally (please note that I have
seen the full title in action but have raced it a couple of minutes, so Im
neutral in the situation yet but I have my opinion on the overall looking of
it) I feel that it's a good sim, some failures and some very interesting
things. But overall GPL is superior in it's game engine and multiplayer
capabilities, which are today imho the two most essential pieces to satisfy
the hardcore simracing market.
> Unfortunately the views of some here as to how a rally car should handle
are
> just plain wrong. For instance, a big complaint is that the F2 cars do not
> "powerslide" through corners. The fact is that in real life they don't
> either.
How do the cars react differently in the sim from a FWD to a RWD to a 4WD?
Technical information would even be better. It just feels like it turns
within the center of the car.
> "Whilst you may not be able to powerslide all of the cars in Rally
> championship, this does not mean that the physics are unrealistic, in
> 'real-life' you cannot power slide an F2 car, or any other front wheel
drive
> car. Colin McRae was a sim for beginners, and so all the cars skidded
around
> sideways because thats what novices expect, in real life this is not the
> case.
There is a point here with CMR. It's much worse in the physics, very
laughable for anybody who's even feeled the sensations of a rally car.
> Lasty year I competed in the mobil 1 Ford Ka junior rally championship,
the
> cars in 'rally championship' the game respond in the same way, so do
yourslf
> a favour and buy this masterpiece of programming. And stop playing those
> unrealistic arcade racers like CM rally."
I intend to buy it when I see the multiplayer capabilities of it. But note
that CART drivers noted the same comments for C:PR, and also for Nascar
Revolution. So it's always with a grain of salt until I see a majority of
people agreeing.
> I'm not going to sit here all day and teach people how rally cars handle.
> It's up to them to learn for themselves.
Race as fast as you can until you hit a tree. When you hit it, you've been
too fast ;)
Still, I wrote numbers of times this year that a Rally title should have
realistic damage and from the reports I have it doesn't. Why so ? They
hyped it as the most advanced racing simulator ever, yet I can plow with the
most realistic damage a tree at 90mph and simply continue my rallye to the
next repair stage with a simple broken windshield. For me it spoils the
whole fun of Rally racing. It means that you can simply misjudge a corner
and continue your Rally.
In real-life, misjudging a corner means the end of your weekend. It should
be like this, no?
<snip little>
> You've been complaining about a damage model you haven't seen yet, and
> comparing the physics to GPL. Someone posted here earlier today that they
> have a replay of themselves losing a wheel at Curve Grand in GPL, then
> finishing their lap on three wheels and reaching 160 mph. How realistic is
> that? How about the ability to ride the rail all the way around the turns
at
> Monza in GPL, and the ability to accelerate while doing so? And the wild
> driving hotlaps by the fastest GPL drivers.................never mind.
> That's an old debate.
We are comparing Rally racing to road track racing. How wide are Rally
stages normally ? About a car lenght and a half ? It's normal that the
damage modeling is much more important, since you are so close to it and it
happen more often that you have "close calls" I would say. Have you ever
seen Gilles Villeneuve race on 3 wheels ? Schumacher at Spa in his
telemetry went over 200kmh after he plowed into Coulthard's rear. So it is
very possible since it goes along with the physics of a car on 3wheels with
it's front wheel set not in the middle of the axis.
Nascar Racing 3 is a great example of what the RC2k damage modeling should
be.
> The graphic quality in RC puts GPL to shame, and the frame rate doesn't
> hover around 12. And no, for the millionth time, it is not just the
physics
> model which is to blame for the crappy frame rate, but the graphics
engine.
Hmmm, GPL is as slow as RC. Look at the minimum specs for RC2k. Beefy PC
it needs like GPL no? And the reason are... possibily the graphic engine no?
GPL has a game engine running at 288hertz. Could they tell us about RC?
> Try switching to chase view and watch the frame rate jump. Physics are the
> same in either view. RC also supports all cards instead of just 3dfx. I'm
> sure a few hundred thousand people will appreciate this. I know I would
like
> back all the hours I wasted trying to get GPL to run with a frame rate
that
> was at least semi-smooth.
GPL supports all cards. It has a beta OpenGL support. And from a hardcore
POV it makes no difference, since a hardcore simracer will buy the hardware
for the software he uses. I still say you have a problem with your PC and
GPL. I can run GPL at 800x600 with everything on (and half mirrors) at
36fps with 19AI with a V3 3000 and a Pentium3.
> Sound is better in RC. More complete and all sounds were taken from the
> actual cars and the environment.
More complete ? How so ? Because they have Turbo, it makes it a better sound
because there is more than just the engine noise ? Does RC have wind noise ?
> More cars and 430 miles of accurate tracks. Papyrus only had to model
> (sparsely), the 12 or so GPL tracks.
Hmm... depending on your approach it can be true, but you wanted Papyrus to
create rally tracks for GPL? Would you say that a perfect Nascar sim (like
Nascar8) would be inferior to RC because it has about 30miles of track
(20ovals X about 1.2-3miles each)?
GPL simulates the full 1967 Formula 1 championship with all the tracks
RC simulates the full Bristish F2 Rally with all the stages.
It's a tie here. Still I figure why they tell us it's a fully accurate
rendering of the Rally stages yet they hype also saying they added special
tricks and challenges like logs, houses, trees, etc..
> The damage model in RC is as long as your arm, and more complete than in
> GPL. Very good sim drivers are having a hard time even completing a stage,
> let alone matching the AI, because of it. Good luck winning the
> championship.
But you can plow a tree at 90mph, stop dead-on, pull it in reverse and
continue your rally with (still) damage. And for me, whatever the game
engine would be years ahead of GPL, makes it ridiculous since the principles
of Rally racing is to keep the darn car in the road and whatever attempt to
go above that road means "end_of_rally" or "not_competitive_at_all_anymore".
> You have to manage your damage VERY carefully in RC, GPL doesn't even
> include pitting. You even have a flat tire in RC occasionally. That never
> happened in '67 F1 racing?
Your speculating here. I have no idea of a puncted tyre back in 1967. I
would speculate it probably could happen but it would be much harder due to
the nature and tickness of the tyres back then.
> Lat time I checked, Mother Nature was resposible for you, me, and
everything
> else, but for some reason it doesn't exist in GPL. Every second of every
day
> is the same. RC has the best weather and time of day affects ever seen in
a
> car sim. Nothing comes close.
Are they random or set to a specific stage all the time ?
> FF included from the first day of release, not 9 months after.
The point is irrelevant. Technology evolves. If GPL would per example
support virtual reality 3d head movement in the cockpit now (a year after
it's release), yet RC would put a patch for it 2years after it's release,
there would be no difference between both since at the end they both support
it, which makes it a tie for me.
How is the file architecture btw ? Is it really as open as GPL and Papyrus
simulators ? Can you easily tweak _any_ file to create anything ? Create
full conversions of tracks, cars, physics?
> The ability for people to scale the challenge to match their abilities.
Which from a hardcore POV is irrelevant.
> Much better replay in RC.
How so ? Do you have a full XYZ camera tweaking like in GPL (because you
have, it's in the nature of Papyrus open-file architecture). They both have
two TV settings, plus about half a dozen other angles. Both are spectacular
also.
> I could go on, but it's easy for me to say that RC is a far more
> comprehensive and complete sim than GPL. And more realistic. At least a
> person looks like they are actually driving a car when sitting in front of
> their computer with RC. My grandmother puts more physical effort into
sewing
> than I do
...
read more »
