rec.autos.simulators

by **ymenar** » Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:13:13

"Stand up, sit up, shut up." - one of my old theological teacher

This is a newsgroup about racing simulators. Either you post here wanting
the best out of the intention of this NG (being going towards a perfect
simulation), or you don't. We have seen post like yours DOZENS of times in
the history of this NG, and they don't change anything. If you aren't happy
about what the opinions of the others are, then it's YOUR job to take
action. If you don't, well then just go *** yourself instead of reading
the newsgroup as you are self-hurting yourself.

to this NG

Because we don't care. We do whatever we want here.

I love your human compassion for a piece of 0's and 1's. It's useless time
wasted.

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

by **ymenar** » Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:14:38

> I return to my earlier thought about all this. It's pretty simple.

Yes we know with you all is pretty simple, nothing is complex.

Tehehe.

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

by **ymenar** » Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:20:58

<ouch>

Exactly. Why care? We'll hop the wagon when it reaches superior level to
the premium sim on the market. Why race anything then the superior one?
Why waste our time with inferior product?

<ouch x3>. That NOBODY here can even refute. It's an impossibility, to
have Mr. Smuck kiddie gamer saying that Papyrus hasn't done the best sim
ever with NR2002.

Don't forget the track editor, the infield road courses on the ovals and
other fantasy road tracks he promised.

LOL

by **Eldre** » Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:47:22

>Ok. I give up.. You never said you had played it . But you did say you
>had no intention of buying it. That implies that you are listening to
>the usual suspects in RAS, and not letting yourself be very objective.

Ok, if people who's opinions you usually agree with don't like it, then it's
probably a big gamble. There is no demo yet(right?), and EB has discontinued
their returns policy. So that means if you DON'T like it, you've just wasted
your money - with no recourse. Objectivity has nothing to do with it. It's
simple fiscal responsibility.

Of course, if I had money to burn I'd probably buy every game that came
out...<g>

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank:+6.21
N2002 Rank:+18.91

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

by **Gerry Aitke** » Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:35:54

> I return to my earlier thought about all this. It's pretty simple.

> If it's not GPL or Nascar 2003 or developed by Papyrus, it's no good. It's
> the way things have been going on around here for years.

Who thinks like that? Name names.

Gerry

by **Bruce Mill** » Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:17:30

"I like Coke better than Pepsi" (therefore) "Pepsi sucks" (therefore)
"I must tell anyone who will listen that 'Pepsi sucks' so that they
will know just how much I hate it" (and) "I must remind them every
day, so that they don't forget" (so) "I am going to keep drinking
Pepsi so that I don't forget how much I hate the taste of it" (then)
"I will not forget to remind everyone how much it 'sucks'" (but) "no
matter how much I hate Pepsi, I am not going to complain to Mr. Pepsi
maker" (because) "I don't believe he will fix Pepsi and make it taste
yummier" (so) "I will just get really, really mad and throw my toys at
anyone who suggests that explicative filled complaints to the RAS NG
might not help fix the problem" (btw) "can I have another Pepsi,
please?"

by **Gerry Aitke** » Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:09:32

> "I like Coke better than Pepsi" (therefore) "Pepsi sucks" (therefore)
> "I must tell anyone who will listen that 'Pepsi sucks' so that they
> will know just how much I hate it" (and) "I must remind them every
> day, so that they don't forget" (so) "I am going to keep drinking
> Pepsi so that I don't forget how much I hate the taste of it" (then)
> "I will not forget to remind everyone how much it 'sucks'" (but) "no
> matter how much I hate Pepsi, I am not going to complain to Mr. Pepsi
> maker" (because) "I don't believe he will fix Pepsi and make it taste
> yummier" (so) "I will just get really, really mad and throw my toys at
> anyone who suggests that explicative filled complaints to the RAS NG
> might not help fix the problem" (btw) "can I have another Pepsi,
> please?"

Who thinks like that here? Name names please.

by **Christopher E. Johnso** » Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:27:57

There are two problems with your arguments. The first problem is your
assertion that it is our duty to assist EA in fixing Thunder. It is
not. The second problem is that you ignore the many problems in
Thunder. The game is inferior to the NASCAR Racing series in many ways
that have been well documented here. To ignore these problems means
that you're either a blind EA fanboy or have different racing simulation
standards than what I would call "serious" racing simulation fans have.

I don't post much here, but the ridiculous assertions by Alan B. are
really laughable if you've followed this group for even a minute. There
are certain standards - like correctly modeling tracks, good driver AI,
etc. at work. There are other non-Papyrus games that have been
supported in this group over the years, so even that ridiculous
assertion is wrong. Finally, notice the word "simulators" in the name
of this group. If you want arcade-like or non-realistic driving fun
(there are plenty games like that out there), then post somewhere else
or follow one of the many groups where that is the subject. Here, it is
all about how well games model real life racing. Thunder does a poorer
job than the NASCAR Racing series does as a simulation. That's the long
and short of it.

Chris

by **Tony Rickar** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:00:13

> > "I like Coke better than Pepsi" (therefore) "Pepsi sucks" (therefore)
> > "I must tell anyone who will listen that 'Pepsi sucks' so that they
<snip>

> Who thinks like that here? Name names please.

Of course we do. That is why we go to the GPL church every Sunday and pray that
a sim better than GPL never sees the light of day and its developers are struck
down by a mystery illness that renders them unable to enter another line of
code. Any products that do hit the streets should be denounced as evil in RAS by
the disciples so that the casual observer will realise not to purchase it. In
extreme cases pressure should be bought on individuals to take the product back
to the demon retailers.

Where we have it on good authority that the devil is hatching plans to gain
innocent RASers through the Doug Ellison alias we should join forces and
denounce the Wests as conspirators.

The sheer thought of a great new racing sim bring us out in a sweat, and we have
to get a fix of GPL to overcome such a ridiculous thought.

No, we will *never* even try another - what a crazy thought.

Seriously, (the above wasn't for those wondering) how many don't want the next
release from whoever to be a cutting edge sim, taking the genre a significant
step forward, and not just another fun game for a few weeks?

There will always be an optimistic view that a new release may be that step
forward - a misguided belief that the latest will be the best. Sure some posters
will go too far - yet we can usually form an opinion from the combined posts on
the group.

I find posts on products that people have played more constructive than the
myriad of posts about products in development, for which I believe there is a
stronger case for calling foul.

Cheers

Tony

by **Doug Elliso** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 01:26:02

Tut tut - jumping to conclusions AGAIN ( although you did actually read what
I'd posted for once - so well done there)

The reason I will not be buying it is simply that after a few months of N2k2
I've had my fill of tank driving. I only put up with N2k2 as it has the
best physics and net code there is. The tyre model is unsurpased and one can
use it to learn about tyre management etc. I entered a fantastic league with
it - won the league - and thats enough nascar for me.

If being objective is wasting 25 on a product I dont actually want - then
I'd rather not thanks.

Doug

by **Gerry Aitke** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 01:48:46

> says...

> > > "I like Coke better than Pepsi" (therefore) "Pepsi sucks" (therefore)
> > > "I must tell anyone who will listen that 'Pepsi sucks' so that they
> > > will know just how much I hate it" (and) "I must remind them every
> > > day, so that they don't forget" (so) "I am going to keep drinking
> > > Pepsi so that I don't forget how much I hate the taste of it" (then)
> > > "I will not forget to remind everyone how much it 'sucks'" (but) "no
> > > matter how much I hate Pepsi, I am not going to complain to Mr. Pepsi
> > > maker" (because) "I don't believe he will fix Pepsi and make it taste
> > > yummier" (so) "I will just get really, really mad and throw my toys at
> > > anyone who suggests that explicative filled complaints to the RAS NG
> > > might not help fix the problem" (btw) "can I have another Pepsi,
> > > please?"

> > Who thinks like that here? Name names please.

> How long have you been visiting RAS ? Come on.
> Bruce Millar has a pretty valid point, and he puts it across with a
> little bit of humour that doesn't go amiss here now and again.
> I don't agree with Mr.Ymenard that the sole purpose of this NG is to
> bring about the perfect driving simulator. Nobody here is going to
> change anything, unless, of course, they decide to make one themselves
> and they are blessed with a whole shit load of coding skills that they
> have kept silent about. It's here for all the games that, arguably, come
> under the title, driving simulators. We all know where the real line is
> drawn as regards certain games and whether or not they can be included,
> but HT 2003 is a close enough approximation of a driving sim to be
> discussed and debated on this here NG. It's not the "POS" that someone
> described it as. It's not perfect either. It's just another fun driving
> sim that's entitled to its fair share of RAS time share.

No ones says it shouldn't de discussed, but the twit that started this
thread has deemed it upon himself to decide what we are allowed to say
about it.

by **Doug Elliso** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 02:11:59

You suggested that I wont buy NT'03 because of whats said in RAS.

I suggest otherwise.

Did I miss something/

DOug

by **Bill Bollinge** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 02:16:22

> I don't post much here, but the ridiculous assertions by Alan B. are
> really laughable if you've followed this group for even a minute. There
> are certain standards - like correctly modeling tracks, good driver AI,
> etc. at work. There are other non-Papyrus games that have been
> supported in this group over the years, so even that ridiculous
> assertion is wrong. Finally, notice the word "simulators" in the name
> of this group. If you want arcade-like or non-realistic driving fun
> (there are plenty games like that out there), then post somewhere else
> or follow one of the many groups where that is the subject. Here, it is
> all about how well games model real life racing. Thunder does a poorer
> job than the NASCAR Racing series does as a simulation. That's the long
> and short of it.

YAWN.....

by **ymenar** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 03:19:13

> I don't agree with Mr.Ymenard that the sole purpose of this NG is to
> bring about the perfect driving simulator.

Oh oh ;)

Well okay, let me rephrase that. The purpose of this NG is to bring about
the perfect driving simulator. Did you see that, it's the same then what
you wrote above. Because the nature of the Usenet is to discuss and have a
communication between different people. So there it's kinda hard to make a
simulation on the Usenet. It's not a programing tool, you know <G> :)

But then again, is it worth it?

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

by **Uncle Feste** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 06:02:00

> HT 2003 is a close enough approximation of a driving sim to be
> discussed and debated on this here NG.

Problem is, debate is impossible when dissension is squashed. Which the
original poster would like to see happen. Positive posts only. Some
debate...

--

Fester

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free. -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm

rec.autos.simulators

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"

Attention Thunder "critics"