rec.autos.simulators

by **Richard Walk** » Fri, 16 Aug 1996 04:00:00

On Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:25:58 -0400, Dan Lambright

>I just picked up GP2 last night. So far, I would rate GP2 better if you
>are looking for an arcade game and ICR2 far better if you are looking
>for a simulation. GP2 doesn't give a real driving feal when in traffic.
>ICR2 makes you think you are part of a real race.

Personal tastes are bound to differ, but I find exactly the opposite.

In ICR2 I was never able to get a setup that allowed close racing with
the AI cars. I'm not talking overall speeds as you always can adjust
the AI strength but I was always much faster than them on the
straights but slower on the corners or vice versa. No matter what I
tried in the setups I couldn't get to the point where I was lapping
wheel to wheel with the AI.

With GP2, the AI seems to act much more like it's another person
driving the cars. The only failing in this way is that they rarely
crash :(

Richard

by Jo » Sat, 17 Aug 1996 04:00:00

<...>

You gotta make 'em crash;>

Ahem... a... actually, what I mean to say is I see plenty of crashes,
and encounter yellow cautions and see guys tangled in the grass...

The best is when someone's engine lets go in front of you. That is
thrilling! (since it is only a sim!) Big rooster tail mess.

by **Richard Walk** » Sat, 17 Aug 1996 04:00:00

>Ahem... a... actually, what I mean to say is I see plenty of crashes,
>and encounter yellow cautions and see guys tangled in the grass...

>The best is when someone's engine lets go in front of you. That is
>thrilling! (since it is only a sim!) Big rooster tail mess.

I see my fair share of "Bergers" as well. Great graphics <g>

I also often see a puff of smoke from the AI putting a wheel on the
dirt or from locking one, but about the only time they actually leave
the track is when they are trying to avoid me whilst recovering from
one of my spins :(

Richard

by **duncan r mcle** » Sat, 17 Aug 1996 04:00:00

><...>
>>With GP2, the AI seems to act much more like it's another person
>>driving the cars.

Under water maybe. This is on a Tomcat II, p166, 32mram, svga.
Graphics adjusted to est 25.3 fps, set to 22 something. Time slow down
'feature' kills GP2 for me. Great arcade game...when you're not
serious....

by **duncan r mcle** » Sat, 17 Aug 1996 04:00:00

>>writes:

>>>> I have been racing Indycar 1 and 2 for a few years now, and I
love
>>>> them both. If I bought GP2 would it just be more of the same with
a
>>>> very slight variation..ie engine sound,***pit graphics, etc...
or is
>>>> it a vast improvement in gameplay over all previous simms???

>>>I just picked up GP2 last night. So far, I would rate GP2 better if
you
>>>are looking for an arcade game and ICR2 far better if you are
looking
>>>for a simulation. GP2 doesn't give a real driving feal when in
traffic.
>>>ICR2 makes you think you are part of a real race.

>>> Just my opinion, I'm sure!

>>Not just yours partner...ONE BIG DITTO...

>Dissenting opinion here. The AI in GP2 seems better to me, once you
>get used to it.. GP2 guys seem to really pay attention to what you are
>trying to do, really search out your weakness in a turn. And this
>"arcade" thing I keep hearing- I dissagree totally. With all helps off
>(notably steering, opposite-lock, and throttle), GP2 seems very
>realistic (at least to what we see in a real race), and is a real
>challenge to drive. GP2 cars are much "crisper" than the mushy ICR2
>model. ICR2 simulates the sound terribly, GP2 does a fantastic job. I
>didn't realize how important that is to a good sim until GP2. Being
>able to hear engine load and every nuance of what your throttle and
>wheels are doing makes driving so much more subtle, in my view. In
>ICR2, I could hardly tell when I was spining *** or locking up.
>BTW, when driving, you can only hear you own car... people complain
>about that, but I'm not sure you can hear as well other cars as what
>ICR2 presents in a real live race. Bottom line seems to be that
>Crammond went for getting one car simulated properly at the expense of
>being able to model any others.

>Each to his own. I'm an indycar fan more than F1, but I have to admit
>that I think GP2 is a better sim.

By arcade, I'm refering to the weird molasses/time slow down 'feature'.
The control over your car IS SLOWED DOWN when in heavy traffic, and so
are your opponents. I sit and wait until PO gives me the 'all clear'
before I regain 'some' modicum of control vs input...this sucks...this
is NOT a sim. Also, no real feeling of speed. Play GP2 awhile, then
boot up ICR2. cheers...duncan.

by **'John' Joao Sil** » Sun, 18 Aug 1996 04:00:00

>><...>
>>>With GP2, the AI seems to act much more like it's another person
>>>driving the cars.

>Under water maybe. This is on a Tomcat II, p166, 32mram, svga.
>Graphics adjusted to est 25.3 fps, set to 22 something. Time slow down
>'feature' kills GP2 for me. Great arcade game...when you're not
>serious....

I have a similar system as you. Try Turning off sky, track, and all
mirror textures except smoke. Then set your FPS to 18.

I race Monza all the time with an Occupancy of about 70% most of the
time. Only when I spin and have that Smoke-Haze does the occupancy go
much over 100%.

For some reason in GP2 when you set your FPS to about 2 lower than the
estimate, it actually speeds up compared to setting them higher.
I set it even lower than 2 for better results.

Don't ask me WHY it works, but it DOES.

Hope that helps.

Cheers.

--John
--
-------------------
John (Joao) Silva
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jsilva
Seattle, Washington USA.

by **Greg Cis** » Mon, 19 Aug 1996 04:00:00

>>Ahem... a... actually, what I mean to say is I see plenty of crashes,
>>and encounter yellow cautions and see guys tangled in the grass...

>>The best is when someone's engine lets go in front of you. That is
>>thrilling! (since it is only a sim!) Big rooster tail mess.

Right. Does this kind of thing ever happen in ICR (1 or 2)? The computer cars
in ICR never seem to crash or break down.

by Jo » Tue, 20 Aug 1996 04:00:00

<...>

Ya, I know what you are talking about. They deal with things
diferently; my take on it is that ICR2 throws frames out when the
going gets tough, whereas GP2 still computes every frame, but that
each takes more time in a comlex situation like a start or a wreck.. I
don't see how that hurts the "sim" value though, since almost
everybody but me with my ancient 486 can get the frame rate low enough
(14, in my case) to not slow down much in the thick stuff. After all,
if a hard-core driving sim is what is wanted, then VGA with no details
should be enough.

Let's face it, a REAL F1 or Indycar sim probably should have a Silicon
Graphics Onyx or something powering it to even barely get it right..
In two more years, maybe the average PC will be that powerful. We all
knew GP2 was going to push the limits on our hardware.

by **Mike Wonha** » Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:00:00

> Gp2 is brilliant you bolloxWell that was a short, succint and informative

answer, excellent stuff.

Unfortunately, however, not very polite.

Mike

rec.autos.simulators

racing sims suggestions

racing sims suggestions

racing sims suggestions

racing sims suggestions

racing sims suggestions

racing sims suggestions

racing sims suggestions

racing sims suggestions

racing sims suggestions

racing sims suggestions