rec.autos.simulators

by **David Gar** » Sun, 02 Mar 1997 04:00:00

> No babble David, it's a finished game. One or two things never
> happened which were rumoured originally, but so what? I never grew up
> to play centre forward for Liverpool. Most of they hype was created on
> this newsgroup. Everyone moans about MPS never appearing on r.a.s.,
> and then everyone complains about how MPS promised the earth. Exactly
> WHEN was this and how was it achieved!

Well first of all I take the reply of someone that dare not post their
e-mail or
"real" name with a grain of salt and really dont take your reply very
seriously.
If you disguise yourself it just shows a shallow mirror of uncertaintly
about
what someone might think of your opinion. I give full information of who
I am and
how to contact me for discussion or helpful information. Theres a
prominent argument
that this game is unfinished and from posting here and reading these
articles in this newsgroup
for some time it is obvious that the vote weigh on the "unfinished"
side.
Its hard to understand your point and you incompetently portray what you
are trying to get cross.
MPS never promised the earth(cliche') but they did sell us something
they marketed and advertised wich truly
was shipped otherwise.

Another cliche' or some kinda "quote" from shakespeare that ands to the
"shallowness" of your point of debate.
I argue "the best yet" by stating facts not babbling poetry. Get the
point across or please dont reply to my post. Its a waste of my time and
anyone one reads these articles. We can be doing more important things
like
letting the software industry know what we want in our racing sims and
what we WILL buy.

My main argument is the incompetent engine which MP has developed for
platform
that GP2 runs on. Yes the 3D physics, curbing, graphics, AI and locking
brakes are new features
to the industry but the incompetence of the design engine and the way it
runs is unacceptable by
me and alot of other people who love to simulate racing on a "virtual"
platform. not to mention all of the other things that were advertised
and not shipped with the "so-called" final product.
For example: If you've ever studied the replays and watched a F1 race
and then compared it to real time
using GP2 graphics engine you will noticed the the faster the computer,
the faster the car will travel
around the track in "real" time. GP2 does not reflect is "real" cousin
in this area of time and point of
time. If the computer is slower it takes longer to get around the track.
If you run it in VGA on anything
over a Pent100 it runs much faster than its realworld counter parts.
Because of this designing in GP2's
engine it is very debatable as to weather it is a true "sim" or not
regaurdless of weather or not the
cars hops the curbs. Yes the 3D graphics are "tasty" but for people who
want to experience the
visuals and "virtual" feel of a real F1 car, this is where GP2 lacks in
a "so-called" sim. the definition
of "simulation" means that the sim is supposed to act on the same
propertise as its realworld counterpart
and with GP2 it just simply does not do that.

"To be real or NOT to be real" that is the question and
very easy to answer which is exactly what I have done and where you have
failed my friend!

Nothing really said on your part but pointless drivel
and enuff said on my part!

And thats the way it is! Deal with it!

(of course,as always) -David Gary-

by **Peter Gag** » Sun, 02 Mar 1997 04:00:00

>>Has GP2 sold more copies in the U.S. than NASCAR/2 from
>>Papyrus?

I wasn't talking about the U.S. Only the UK. Its obvious that an F1 sim
is not going to sell well in the U.S, they like their own "world series?"
type events too much, usually where they are the only entrants.

>>I'll grant you Formula One is a far
>>superior sim

Yeah, I already know that.

>>the issue is popularity, and lets face it, any F1 sim
>>is always going to do better in the UK than an
>>American series game.

My point exactly, so why are you arguing?

>>I mention passing for positions and you try to imply
>>that I'm saying there are is not "action, thrills, spills,
>>etc".

I don't try to imply anything, I either said it, or I didn't, and in this
instance your wrong, I said no such thing, or can't you read?

>>You don't like ovals and that's your preference

Correct.

>>Most F1 races are parades decided by
>.pit stop strategy and retirements

Considering you are someone who said " I watch every Formula One race,
buddy." you don't seem to SEE much in F1 racing do you?

>>They are very different kinds of races and cars,
>>and can be enjoyed for what they offer without being
>>the end-all-and-be-all-to-motorsports, and I wish
>>some of the zealots out there could open their minds
>>enough to appreciate that.

This is true, and can also be applied to Motor racing games/sims.
So what are you arguing about? IMHO GP2 is the best motor racing sim out
there, In your opinion it is not, so we shall have to agree to differ.
you are not going to change my mind, and I am not going to change yours.

>>Uh, gee, perhaps because its a worldwide sport?!

Exactly, glad you agree.

>>Duh..... CART's got a couple of non-North American
>>races (Australia,Brazil), but that hardly appeals to
>>Europeans, or Japanese.

Karting does appeal to me, and many others from the UK, and is shown
quite regularly on cable/sat tv, as well as nascar, indy cars, etc. (Who
is presuming to know what I do & what I watch now?)

>>Oh bother....it couldn't just be that Nigel Mansell
>>was (is?) a superlative driver who would succeed
>>in any situation, now could it? Oh no...we couldn't
>>have THAT be the reason.

Erm.....NO, I don't think that was the reason? Nigel was/is a very good
driver, (anyone who wins a world championship at anything must be pretty
good), But he is not one of the all time greats of F1 racing, by any
means, eg:- Fangio (5 times world champ), Prost (4 times world champ),
Senna (3 times), J Stewart (3 times), Brabham (3 times), etc. Compared to
Nigels one F1 world champ.
My point was, that a good F1 driver, can go straight into an indy car and
win the world championship in his rookie year, without even finishing in
every race, and that quite a few F1 drivers have switched to Indy cars
and done very well, The same is not true for the opposite, (with the
exception of J Villeneuve).

>>One might argue in reverse why Jacques Villeneuve
>>a CART/oval graduate and winner of the Indy 500
>>came so close to winning the championship in his first year
>>of F1,

You could offer that argument, but he DIDN'T win the Championship, did
he? BIG DIFFERENCE in winning & NEARLY winning!!!!

>>One wouldn't know it by the snobbishness of your posts.

Your not doing so bad yourself.

>>No, it simulates F1 racing better. As a stock car
>>simulator, GP2 is a huge failure. As an IndyCar
>>simulator, GP2 is a failure. It simulates what its
>>meant to simulate and does a great job of it.

No, IMHO it simulates MOTOR RACING better.
Your argument falls apart, as an F1 simulator indycar racing is a
failure, as an F1 simulator nascar racing is a failure, but they are NOT
F1 sims. And GP2 is NOT a nascar or indycar sim, GET IT?
But overall, generally, it simulates Driving a car, ANY car, more
realistically, it feels better, it handles better.

>>But its got its faults....such as the poor replay system,

The replay system is fine in my book, you can replay the last 30 seconds
or so, or a whole lap, and view it from inside the car, or any other car,
around 6 or 7 on car views, two external views, and a tv camera view,
what more do you need? If you want more than that, perhaps you should be
in a TV/Film editing newsgroup instead of motor racing sims?

>>no tire temperatures, no in-cockpit car handling
>>adjustments, no tire pressures,

With the plethora of feature in GP2 that are available to be changed,
edited, do we really need these ones? Yes it has a few things missing in
this area, But, so does every other sim. And IMHO GP2 has more options
for fine tuning the car set-ups than any of the other sims. Although
there is no actual tyre temp gauge, the tyres do "go off" during racing,
and thus SIMULATE ACCURATELY the dynamics and physics of the car.

>>unusable mirrors etc

Whats wrong with the mirrors? I am able to use them quite adequately,
they show when a car is approaching, how close he is, and what side he is
on, what more could you want?

>>I have to ask you what a "real" reason would be?

I'm still waiting for one from you?
What I mean is this.....People moan, whinge, and whine about whats
missing from GP2, Fine, they are intitled to their opinions. But they
fail to point out the omissions in similar games/sims.
I freely admit that GP2 has poor frame rates in svga, ( but the game is
still very playable, and has some of the best vga graphics ever.)
I freely admit that some feature were left out, eg:- weather options,
tyre choice, network & multi-player options, etc. (but despite this the
game is still great)
No driving game/sim is perfect, and there never will be a perfect one,
someone, somewhere, will always want more.

>>Some of us really like it while not viewing it through
>>rose colored "see no evil" glasses like you.

Despite what I have just written? and have written in past posts?

>>You don't own ICR2 (particularly the Rendition enhanced one)
>>or NASCAR 2? If not you're badly out of date

I don't own them because, despite liking the first editions, I didn't
like them that much to get the newer versions. I am not going to buy
games/sims that I don't like or want, (Yes I did actually drive newer
versions of both games, A friend has them both, So I have tried then
out). and still decided NOT to buy them, as is my discretion. I do not
buy things just to be "up to date".

>>As far as not coming close to the actual driving
>>physics of GP2....may I ask how long you've been
>>driving the actual cars so that you can tell us all
>>you're qualified to assess the "actual driving physics"
>>of GP2 vs its competitors? Teams and years would
>>be fine.

For a start, I don't have to justify myself to anyone, let alone you. If
you don't agree with what I'm saying, Fine, I don't give a Sh*t, my
original post wasn't to you, so I'm not bothered if it hurts your
feelings.

How long have I been driving the actual cars? I'm not sure what you mean
by this?

Do you mean how long I have been a "real" driver, (Never driven a real
racing car, except for karts a few times for fun, but been driving normal
cars for 15 years, and never had an accident!)

Or do you mean how long have I been driving Racing games/sims on
computers? (I have owned a computer from about 14 years ago, a zx
spectrum 48k with a rubber keyboard was my first, I have owned various
machines in between, and now own two pc's, and have a laptop at work.)

And I have been driving racing games/sims for all of that time, so I
consider myself to be a fairly good real driver, and a fairly good
"virtual" driver. I do not consider myself to be World Class in either
example.

>>In other words..."don't bother me with the facts -
>>- they would just clutter up my preconceived notions"

Yes, they are other words, but NOT words that I used, you seem to be
putting words in my mouth now, don't you?

>>And your comments about F1GP1 being better than
>>all the others, and brazenly including the newer
>>versions of ICR2 and NASCAR 2 even though you
>>admit you don't have them, is pretty wild, even for you.

Just because I don't own them, doesn't mean I don't know how good a
product they are.
Not considering the fact that, despite deciding not to buy them, I have
used them to evaluate if they are worth buying, and IMHO they were not.

>>As long as you keep spewing up arguments
>>based upon your GP2 religion rather than some
>>manner of open-mindedness and objectivity,
>>I'll keep shooting them down

You can try, But you had better improve your aim?

Bye bye, speak to you again soon, maybe?

d:~)

Peter #:?) Please note my real e-mail address below,
delete the asterix to mail me *pjgt...@cix.co.uk*

by **Randy Magrud** » Sun, 02 Mar 1997 04:00:00

pjgt...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Peter Gagg") wrote:
>>>I mention passing for positions and you try to imply
>>>that I'm saying there are is not "action, thrills, spills,
>>>etc".
>I don't try to imply anything, I either said it, or I didn't, and in this
>instance your wrong, I said no such thing, or can't you read?

Apparently you can read...comprehension, however, is another matter.
Once again, I brought up passing for position, and you argued back
osmething about action, thrills, spills etc. You had an indefensible
position so instead you staked new ground. Anyone reading the thread
sees what you did....so come down off your high horse.

>Considering you are someone who said " I watch every Formula One race,
>buddy." you don't seem to SEE much in F1 racing do you?

Unfortunately I can only see what the TV cameras show. Perhaps you
can tell me how many passes for position one would actually see if
they could see the whole track.

>This is true, and can also be applied to Motor racing games/sims.
>So what are you arguing about? IMHO GP2 is the best motor racing sim out
>there, In your opinion it is not, so we shall have to agree to differ.

I never said it was not. Again, perhaps it is YOU who need to learn
to read, as your imagination is running away with you. I simply
stated that its strengths were the weaknesses of other sims, and its
weaknesses were the strengths of other sims. ICR2, for example, has
the superior replay system, in-car adjustments and tire temperatures,
for example. GP2 excels in advanced setup options, NASCAR 2 has the
spotter. Both ICR2 and NASCAR 2 come in 3D accelerated flavors. GP2
doesn't. We can go back and forth forever. I just think there's so
many differences between the various sims that which one is BEST is in
the mind of the beholder, based merely upon which factors are most
important. Each sim is missing some critical stuff, IMO.

>My point was, that a good F1 driver, can go straight into an indy car and
>win the world championship in his rookie year, without even finishing in
>every race, and that quite a few F1 drivers have switched to Indy cars
>and done very well, The same is not true for the opposite, (with the
>exception of J Villeneuve).

That's true, but you're missing a very critical difference between the
series, one that ex-F1 drivers who are now in CART talk about a lot:
In Formula One, there are only a few teams in the field that have any
realistic shot at winning. Whereas in CART many more teams and
drivers can get into victory lane because the cars are far more close
to one another in performance. I'm convinced that Alex Zanardi would
be a contender for the F1 championship if he were in a Williams or
Bennetton, but he wasn't so he wasn't, and that's life. The simple
odds are that most cross over drivers are going to have more success
going to a CART team because there is a larger number of CART teams
that are contenders for victory than there are in F1.

>You could offer that argument, but he DIDN'T win the Championship, did
>he? BIG DIFFERENCE in winning & NEARLY winning!!!!

Oh please...and Zanardi didn't beat out Jimmy Vasser in CART last
year, now did he?

>Your not doing so bad yourself.

heh yeah right. I'm not looking down on F1. I'm just saying its
different. The simple act of disputing some of the absurd and extreme
comments you make makes it appear to you that I'm on the other
extreme, when in fact I'm not. You're just too polarized to notice
that.

>No, IMHO it simulates MOTOR RACING better.

Motor Racing comes in all shapes and sizes, and no sim can say it
simulates motor racing the best. Nice try.

>Your argument falls apart, as an F1 simulator indycar racing is a
>failure, as an F1 simulator nascar racing is a failure, but they are NOT
>F1 sims. And GP2 is NOT a nascar or indycar sim, GET IT?
>But overall, generally, it simulates Driving a car, ANY car, more
>realistically, it feels better, it handles better.

Not really. The rear-end automated spin problem really puts a damper
on that.

>The replay system is fine in my book, you can replay the last 30 seconds
>or so, or a whole lap, and view it from inside the car, or any other car,
>around 6 or 7 on car views, two external views, and a tv camera view,
>what more do you need?

How about an entire race?

>If you want more than that, perhaps you should be
>in a TV/Film editing newsgroup instead of motor racing sims?

Oooh I'm so petrified by your insults..boy you put me in my place.
NOT. Part of the fun of dicing with the AI cars is watching it all
afterwards and seeing what you did right and wrong throughout the
course of a race...its completely obvious that you'll just sugarcoat
any of GP2's cons and play up its pros...Its completely obvious you
haven't a shred of objectivity in evaluating the various sims.

>With the plethora of feature in GP2 that are available to be changed,
>edited, do we really need these ones?

You contend that GP2 sims motor sports the best, and how wonderfully
realistic the car handling is to the real thing, and yet the same
facilities the drivers have to alter their car's behavior on the
track, are unavailable to you in GP2. But it comes back to the same
thing -- if GP2 doesn't have it, you contend that we don't need it.
(the same logic behind: "if you don't stock it, knock it").

>Although there is no actual tyre temp gauge, the tyres do "go off" during racing,
>and thus SIMULATE ACCURATELY the dynamics and physics of the car.

One of the biggest values to the tire temp monitoring in IndyCar and
NASCAR is that you can see which tires are getting stressed more
through certain turns, and the way GP2's modelling is done, its often
hard to tell which tire is working the hardest just from the squeal.
Of course you know by context that its the rear or the fronts, but its
hard to see just where you are. Real F1 teams would be measuring the
tire temps as a routine part of the telemetry so they could get the
tires to the optimum temperature and thus achieve optimum grip and
tire life. This entire aspect of motor racing is completely absent in
GP2. But that doesn't bother you because if your God Crammond didn't
implement it, we must not need it.

>Whats wrong with the mirrors? I am able to use them quite adequately,
>they show when a car is approaching, how close he is, and what side he is
>on, what more could you want?

Well, since I can't turn my head at all and I have no peripheral
vision when using a sim, asking for Papyrus style mirrors would have
been nice. The mirrors are realistic, but unfortunately, with a
computer monitor you're missing the situational awareness you would
have if you were a real driver.

>What I mean is this.....People moan, whinge, and whine about whats
>missing from GP2, Fine, they are intitled to their opinions. But they
>fail to point out the omissions in similar games/sims.

I never have. If it would make you feel better if I would spend some
time trashing the other sims, I would, okay? Then you could perhaps
see that my opinion is a lot more balanced than you think.

>I freely admit that some feature were left out, eg:- weather options,
>tyre choice, network & multi-player options, etc. (but despite this the
>game is still great)

I won't argue with that. This game is great. But that doesn't mean I
have to endorse it as categorically the hands down best ever. Its
still missing some stuff that its competitors have and which I value.

>I don't own them because, despite liking the first editions, I didn't
>like them that much to get the newer versions. I am not going to buy
>games/sims that I don't like or want, (Yes I did actually drive newer
>versions of both games, A friend has them both, So I have tried then
>out). and still decided NOT to buy them, as is my discretion. I do not
>buy things just to be "up to date".

Well, if you're going to criticize something, make sure you aren't
standing on quicksand when you do it. You don't have to buy anything
you don't want to buy, but if you haven't put in the time, don't claim
to be an expert on the strengths and deficiencies of the sim.

>For a start, I don't have to justify myself to anyone, let alone you.

You don't have to justify yourself. You don't even have to make
sense. You don't have to even be here if you don't want to. But if
you are going to state something here, better not get too upset if it
gets challenged.

>If you don't agree with what I'm saying, Fine, I don't give a Sh*t, my
>original post wasn't to you, so I'm not bothered if it hurts your
>feelings.

You've got a long way to go before you can hurt my feelings.

>Do you mean how long I have been a "real" driver, (Never driven a real
>racing car, except for karts a few times for fun, but been driving normal
>cars for 15 years, and never had an accident!)

Your insurance company must be so proud.

Randy

by **David Gar** » Sun, 02 Mar 1997 04:00:00

> >>Please list these "so-called" achievements!

> > (2) picture-perfect F1 tracks.

This wouldnt be considered an achievment. Achievments are aspects that
stand out among the competition.
"so-called" picture perfect graphics have been "achieved" many times
over.

Nothing that really stands out among other sims. Ive been cut off buy
GP2's AI just as I have
with ICR2 and N2's AI and with no sound from GP2's AI I really wouldnt
add this to your "achievement" list.

I would rather have framerate over a graphic full***pit. Driving while
watching "video"
speed seems to be more realistic than sitting in a overwhelming***pit
watching a slide-show!
Besides there really is no "achievement" in taking a picture of the
inside of a F1 dashboard and then "pasting"
it into a sim. Believe me I know how easy it is, I make my livelyhood in
graphics.

You call "Patch-friendly game design" an achievement! What the hell is
"patch friendly"?!!
What a load of crap! Give me a break!!

This is a personal opinion of your imagination of being a "real Formula
1 driver. The more I read, the more I believe you dont know the meaning
of "achievement".

Im satisfied with the latest sim out, Nascar2 and I really rather race
open cocpit cars on road courses.
The statement above pretty much lets me know what you will settle for
anything and Im sure you would
settle for no AC when buying a new car in the state of Florida!

Man, you really kiss some serious ass!

Is this Geoff Crammond in disguise?!! A.K.A is the only way he would
ever enter this newsgroup. That outa
tell you something about what people think about his "so-called"
achievements!

Another dime in the bucket from 'ole -David Gary-

by **David Gar** » Mon, 03 Mar 1997 04:00:00

> My point was, that a good F1 driver, can go straight into an indy car and
> win the world championship in his rookie year, without even finishing in
> every race, and that quite a few F1 drivers have switched to Indy cars
> and done very well, The same is not true for the opposite, (with the
> exception of J Villeneuve).

Sorry but I have to ***in here (well im not really that sorry).
Your "point" leads one to believe that you are claiming that
driving a Formula 1 car is harder than driving a Indycar and that
F1 drivers can just hop into an indycar and start winning championships.
When in fact the truth of the matter is that Villeneuve is the only 1
outa
maybe 2 or 3 drivers that actually switched from Indycars to F1 cars in
the first place
and has done extremely well, whereas about 35 to 40% of the guys driving
Indy cars right now came from F1 so as for the "exception" of,
Villeneuve is one of the
very few if not one outa 2 that has actually steped outa CART and went
to F1.

Theres not really a "BIG" difference between 1st and 2nd! Maybe a split
second or two!

-DG-

by **Michael E. Carve** » Mon, 03 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Well now, we have a "new" contender for a topic not to be discussed at a
dinner party. Auto Simulators seems to be knocking "religion" out of
it's long held position along with Politics.

Though I am beginning to find it difficult to discern the subtle nuances
between "auto simulator" discussions bearing on "religion" versus the
size and performance of a certain male anatomical appendage.

To each his own. Again I am reminded of the story of the Emporer's New
Clothes. . .

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

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

by **papa..** » Tue, 04 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Ok then let me respond seeing how I have seen every F1 race since 1989
except for that one Monoco race that wasnt televised....and not
counting the 2 F1 races I saw in person. I love F1 races....but you
dont watch them because of the passing...because if you do you will be
disappointed....passing is a very rare thing between the top cars and
of late passing is accomplished by waiting until the guy ahead stops
in the pits...Now before you get your panties in an uproar, yes there
have been some terrific passes...but that proves the point, passing is
so rare in F1 that anytime 1of the top 3 passes the guy ahead it
immediatly goes into legend...Mansels pass of Berger on the outside in
Mexico, JV's pass of MS, its a rare thing indeed that they dont
collide into each other...contrast this with Indy where the cars are
so evenly matched that the duels are legendary. Back and forth where
lead changes may happen several times in a lap...

Dont get me wrong I prefer F1 but saying that there is as much passing
in F1 as Indy is clearly fantasy. I prefer to respect both sports
because I know in my heart that I would shit myself if I had to be
driving in the Rain at SPA or diving into the corner 3 a*** at
INDY.

Indy may be catching up here...but no matter they are both tests of
skill, courage and concentration.

Are you talking about the fact that he broke his back at Phoenix...?
Yes Nigel did great his rookie year in the best team with the best
car...didnt do so well the next year though did he....

Pierre Legrand

>Peter #:?) Please note my real e-mail address below,

by **SimRaci** » Tue, 04 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Weren't they clothes wonderfully tailored? Lovely use of colors, etc...
;)

Best Regards,

Marc

Marc J. Nelson
Sim Racing News - USA
http://members.aol.com/simracing

by **John Stuar** » Tue, 04 Mar 1997 04:00:00

>> > (2) picture-perfect F1 tracks.

>This wouldnt be considered an achievment. Achievments are aspects that
>stand out among the competition.
>"so-called" picture perfect graphics have been "achieved" many times
>over.

And if it has no competition? By comparison your North American sims required a tiny
amount of effort to chart tracks (OK so there are a couple of `international' Indy
tracks). Point is, GP2 stands out because *someone* (a Mr Norman Surplus I believe)
trekked the planet to chart these tracks in real-life detail, with the right bits 'n
pieces in the right places, even the right advertising boards. It an achievement
because it was done and then sold to you for next to nothing. Sometimes when
something has no competition it says more about it being an achievement than if it
has got competition.

Someone else described the GP2 tracks as being `scrunched up'. This really has me
baffled. If you tune the graphics options to run GP2 so that it won't slow down due
to processor overload, then play an in-cockpit video replay from a real GP at that
track, you'll see how close the braking, turning & gear-change points are to
reality. You can even sure-fire overtake at known overtaking points on GP
tracks, and then you'll probably get re-taken if you braked too late.

Sure, the thing slows down & doesn't take advantage of 3d Rendition technology,
sorry, but these things were not around at the time the game was conceptualised.
Turn off those grahics details and in 6 months when we've all got PPros we can turn
them back on again and re-experience GP2.

This area is all subjective, all I want to say is that I get a BIG kick out of
watching how realistically ccars avoid each other, how they recover using opposite
lock, how they merge with the pack after an `off', how skillfully they line you up
for an overtaking bid, the subtle balance of aggression and caution. This is great
programming.

You misunderstood me: `inside view car setups' refers to the `inside view' MPS took
to designing the *setups*, not the `in-cockpit' graphic. The standard in-cockpit
graphic is crappy in my opinion, and has been greatly improved apon by the hacks.

OK, how about if they had just bundled everything into one big .exe and let us
fiddle through its entrails. I believe (sure, I don't know it as a fact) that MPS
saw how the hacks had reacted to GP1 and deliberately accomodated them in GP2's
design. It takes effort to plan a program so that its structure is transparent. Its
all too easy to just write a monster and let the masses wrestle with it.

..>This is a personal opinion of your imagination of being a "real Formula

My personal opinions and imaginations must be widely shared. GP2 is the second
biggest PC game of all time. Me and the other millions who bought it must know
something about "achievement".

One thing I would not settle for is NASCAR or Indycar or any other `car' from some
localised formula. I'm a F1 fan and I settle for GP2 because it gives me simulated
GP experience: the ultimate racing formula, not just any race-car experience where I
can bang wheels with the next guy and see how high I can flip him. I didn't want
this to become a F1/North American local formulae debate but in the end that's what
it comes down to. Appreciate please that a lot of F1 fans are getting a lot of joy
out of GP2, we're not suckers, we're not naive - we just know what e***ment is
when we taste it.

Not unless Geoff Crammond has moved to South Africa to make these posts. Geoff
wouldn't waste energy defending his work to the great unwashed. And I'm just doing
this in my lunch hour.

-john stuart
cape town
sa------------------------------------------------
"I don't advise & I don't criticise
I just know what I like with my own eyes" ML Gore: `Clean'

by **Fernando Ass** » Tue, 04 Mar 1997 04:00:00

This is long but with MANY POINTS OF INTEREST about the TRUE:

>OK - how about (1) roll & pitch variation.

It's very nice that we can have, not only roll & picth, but many more.
And also those graphics to check performance. However, check it out
more closely. See, for example, IF and HOW things change accordingly,
regarding bumby surfaces and setups for bumby and non-bumby surfaces.
And see how things go when you decide to do exactly the opposite you
should...

Unnecessary and intentionally tricky, many times. In other words, they
behave many times rationally doing what no driver would risk in F1.
You don't need to be an expert to notice that. I think this point is
very important.

There are overall improvements over GP1, but still there's a waste of
processing for unreal behavior. For example: why back markers
frequently break hard when they're ahead and sense you're approaching,
even in high speed turns? Why they also almost stop in so many turns?
Right after they can be having an extra power coming from the stars
and not from a normal engine of a normal Formula 1 car being in last
positions in a race. Why? For what?

I'm not only referring now to all those cars also stopping in the
first turns in the start of the races. The back markers are the more
malicious and who more close the doors. The leaders, who should really
be more involved, are the ones not as much fighting for their
positions. The real thing, though, is pretty other. If is to expend
processing to achieve such behavior, you better refuse it, then.

The above makes the game more difficult, it's ok. But why not make it
more difficult in the correct points, bringing it closer to reality.

GP2 improved with AI avoiding a crash, but even in GP1 there isn't so
much jerk decisions of cars back marking ahead of you. Am I lying or
being tendencious here?

Not only the amount of programming: Handred people is said to have
worked on it for long time. You can see in the game presentation that
it has had even someone as a "tester".

The amount of programming itself relates to great "quantity", not
great "difficulty", as you may know. And it demands efforts from
many people working on it, for a relatively long period of time.

So, it's beyond any understanding why there are still so many bugs
left. Had they been forced to release the game unfinished for some
reason?

GP2 is a great game bundling together great absurds. That's what must
be posted, helping to keep people eyes open. And also to help all
sims to be improved IN ALL its parts in the future.

In Formula 1 -- not only the drivers -- but anybody involved is never
satisfied with anything. They're always hunting for more. Your framed
philosophy above is also true in life, but it doesn't prove we should
accept things wrong, neither that we don't deserve an upgrade from
Microprose fixing many problems, or a game regarding homogeneity in
the future.

I haven't seen much people complaining against GP2's level of
difficulty. As much as have not yet read of people who got to win the
season in the Ace level, though there's a lot of the -- otherwise
esier -- very fast hot laps being achieved all over.

BTW, in order to get closer to reality it should be more difficult in
some points and easier in some other points: The AI cars should be as
easily broken as yours at Ace level, for example. Broken cars would
not be so fast fixed in the pit. Monza should not be as easy in the
Ace level.

The sudden move and grip of AI cars overtaking you at some corners
should no longer be so magic and robbery. Nor be so easy get out of
the sand. Replays should not put you off the race after you -- on the
contrary -- have just overtaken a car; nor should put you back
to the race with your car uninjured, if you have just finished to get
it all broken in a hard crash.

As much as it should be not so difficult as when you're leading a race
and "mister bug" switch positions between you -- the leader -- and
the next behind. He's now being 8 seconds ahead of you, who finds it
unbelievable, once there hadn't been any other car overtaking you, at
all.

All said is not only happening to me. And that's to mention only a
FEW (read more about these in other postings in this newsgroup)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of those never criticizing GP2, or anything else -- and I'm not
saying it just to fellow John -- are to be reminded that life is not
so blue with little beautiful pink balls. Criticizing helps
improvements. The more concious the consumer the more the
manufacturers will have to improve their product.

And I swear to you:

The less critic the consumer the more will many entrepeneurs abuse for
a fanatic profit. If this was not true there would be no hunger nor
poverty in the world, regardless of the political system. So, let's
complain. Sometimes we do better assuming a not so sympathetic, a mad
face, but otherwise contributing to make good things still better.

When an airplane falls broken over the ground, something went surely
wrong, though it is a very well done piece of engineering. For the
happy people aircrafts will never fall because they're so beatiful and
brilliantly projected.

Same thing as to say that Mircroprose gives you support; that there
is no intentional trick-philosophy waste, bringing absurds and moments
of irreal results; that there is no typical beta version bugs left,
etc -- just because the game is one of better in the market.

I criticize myself too for have writen postings with an agressive
style, more than I should. I'm not really angry at anyone, though.

And it seems to me that this is one of my last articles mentioning GP2
problems. Just because I have already given my contribution.

Finally, a friend of mine in this newsgroup asked me very properly
why I like GP2, then. He is very sure about it. I still like very
much the game. That's also why I complain about its problems.

Take care everybody.

PS: I'll be off for 3 or 5 days, being able to making replies only
when I come back.

Fernando Assis

by **Fernando Ass** » Tue, 04 Mar 1997 04:00:00

>Hi Fernando,
>> It's amazing the quantity of people in this world treating questions
>> just framed by his personal emotional mind. We will soon get at the
>> point that 2+2=5 just because those felows feel so. And there will be
>> no way to discuss things with the rational mind, the only capable of
>> analizing things correctly.
>I think there are many reasons for liking a game - be it the environment,
>the subject, the company, or perhaps the producer/programmer.<g>
>The reason we play these games will then come down to a basic fact:
>that we play it because there's *something about it we like*. Crammond
>has met his goal in creating a game that people enjoy - not everyone
>mind you - but I believe he's *hit closer to the mark* than other games
>before it.
>As much as I enjoy GP2, N2, or ICR2 doesn't mean that they're immune
>from the recycle-bin...Each of them takes their turn getting wipe-deleted
>from the drive to make room for whatever I'm having with at the moment.
>;)
>...and only a few short years ago we were playing on Ataris and Amigas.
>> Example:

>> Question: Why do you like GP2?

>> Answer: Because I love Geof Crammond. !!!

>> That's the future of the arguments about GP2.

>> That sucks. I'm glad that I'll make a trip and give myself a brake of
>> that shit.

>> Fernando Assis
>Question: Why do YOU like GP2? ;)
>Best Regards,
>Marc
>Marc J. Nelson
>Sim Racing News - USA
>http://members.aol.com/simracing

Hi, Marc

You made a very good question.

It's time to me to also criticize myself for using an agressive style
of writing in my complaints here, in this newsgroup. I think I'm
already fixing this because all of our fellows are not deserving to
read harsh postings from me, although I'm honest in what I say, and
the matter of my complaints are based on reason and real facts.

Now answering you, It's also time to me to say that I do like GP2 and
that I wouldn't like to live without it. It has a lot of well done
work on it. However, I'm not invalidating now all that I have
complained about the game, as just said above.. I think it helps if
we bring in a health complaint pointing out all the bad side of the
game.

Finally, I'm posting a new and very long article under this even
tittle here. I think it is one of my last about GP2 problems.

Regardless of being mine and/or so long, I sincerely think it's a
rich, health and true complain, and so should be read for all our
fellows.

I'll be off for several days, so I will make any reply only when come
back.

Best regards.

Fernando Assis

by **David Gar** » Tue, 04 Mar 1997 04:00:00

> : Sorry, I should have said IN MY OPINION GP2 IS THE BEST SIM OUT THERE.

> : Something which can give an indication of a games/sims popularity is its
> : sales, GP2 has sold more in the UK than ANY OTHER driving game/sim,
> : (according to the pc press), I think that gives it a strong case for
> : being more popular?

More popular than what?
Where do you get your information? Hypothesis?

The reason F1 gets a "worldwide" audience is because the other half of
the world
(America) gets any and almost every sport televised because of their
telecommunications
technology. Other countries dont get alot of "American based motor
racing for the simple fact
that they dont have the selection in their television selections as
Americans do. Besides
There is no motor sport in the world that has more "passing" than
Indycar or Nascar.
F1 cars position is usually determined on their pit strategy. Even
though I'm a huge fan
of F1 there really is not that much passing happening, but the
e***ment in whatching those
***s slice through the turns at high speeds is very entertaining.
(IMHO)

You must have driven on both ovals and road circuits or do you mean you
would rather
"watch" road course racing instead of oval racing?

Are you discussing the different driving characteristics of oval vs.
road circuit,
F1 vs. other type of motor racing or maybe (it sounds like to me) your
such a big F1
fan that you argue the "e***ment" of F1 compared to other types of
motor racing
because your actually trying to uphold the integrity of GP2 as a quality
sim?!
In other words: You like playing GP2 so much your criticizing motor
racing when it implies
oval racing in its venue. Which makes your debate shallow in its
meaning.

-DG-

by **Randy Magrud** » Tue, 04 Mar 1997 04:00:00

>And if it has no competition? By comparison your North American sims required a tiny
>amount of effort to chart tracks (OK so there are a couple of `international' Indy
>tracks). Point is, GP2 stands out because *someone* (a Mr Norman Surplus I believe)
>trekked the planet to chart these tracks in real-life detail, with the right bits 'n
>pieces in the right places, even the right advertising boards. It an achievement
>because it was done and then sold to you for next to nothing. Sometimes when
>something has no competition it says more about it being an achievement than if it
>has got competition.

Great. He worked hard. But unlike Psygnosis, apparently he didn't
have the rather expensive but brutally accurate official surveyors
charts, and it shows. Where are all those shell signs on the verges
anyway? Look at Canada coming onto the main straight you have the
green painted concrete run off. Is it there in GP2? No. I could go
on and on with examples....but the bottom line is that the best
reproduction of the F1 tracks I've seen was done by Psygnosis,
whatever you think of the rest of their sim.

Sorry, but its true. I noticed that the F1 tracks seemed stretched
out in Psygnosis' F1 and that you could take turns at higher speeds.
I corresponded with Psygnosis and challenged them, and they also had
no explanation as to why Crammonds tracks were so different. They
paid a LOT of money to F1 to get the official surveyors charts and
used a LOT of video footage to come up with the most detailed and
accurate tracks available. And again, where is the banking going up
hill towards the front straight in Brazil? Where is the bump coming
down from the *** in Monte Carlo? Where's the Shell logo on the
grass coming into the bus-stop chicane at Spa? Yes, you can say these
are all minor nuisances, but if you want to argue that GP2 is faithful
to the real thing beyond all competition, you better be prepared to
deal with that level of detail.

Randy

by **John Walla** » Tue, 04 Mar 1997 04:00:00

On Sat, 01 Mar 1997 12:09:20 -0500, David Gary

>Well first of all I take the reply of someone that dare not post their
>e-mail or "real" name with a grain of salt and really dont take your reply very
>seriously. If you disguise yourself it just shows a shallow mirror of uncertaintly
>about what someone might think of your opinion. I give full information of who
>I am

That may be the way you choose to interpret the ommission of a name,
but that does conveniently avoid having to give credence to what was
said. Accident or design? If you select the option in your newsreader
to view headers you will see it came from "runrun.demon.co.uk" -
that's me. Simply I was using Agent which is not my normal newsreader,
and it wasn't configured properly.

That may be your understanding but it's not mine. A simple
understanding of human nature will tell you that those that have
gripes (be they large or small) will be posting, and those that are
happy will be playing. Does tend to skew the resulrs somewhat eh? In
any case, it seems far from a majority even on the group.

Incompetently? Oooooooh! :)

Another mind-numbingly unecessary personal attack that most definitely
detracts from any valid point you may be trying to put across. Anyone
can "rubbish" someone's attitude and writing style, but concentrating
on the argument itself does tend to make people listen to you.

Which is precisely what I have been doing in sim-racing for the last
couple of years. There is no poetry in what I said, and nor did
Shakespeare write poetry. Another quote you may like is that "people
are never quite so stupid as when they're trying to be smart".

What you said was that it offers nothing new.

Actually "real, to be or not to be" would be the correct expression,
and in so quoting you create an analogy of your argument. You believe
yourself to be correct, but in so doing you close your ears to what
everyone else is saying and thus deprive yourself and everyone else of
meaningful discussion with you. Too bad, because you do have some
valid points. Just that the way you make them precludes any
possibility of further discussion - why hang around and be insulted,
however valid the discussion.

Hmmmm, as I was saying above.

Perhaps in your world, not in the real one.

Cheers!
John

rec.autos.simulators

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?

Geoff Crammond...?