rec.autos.simulators

I've noticed a few posts with concerns that Grand Prix 3 won't live up
to expectations because it uses the GP2 engine and doesn't have a new
one all for itself.

What I was wondering was whether or not it needs to have a new engine,
as long as the one its using does the job well? Some of you certainly
seemed to think so, whilst others thought that it was fine to stick
with what works.

Somebody also said that they wouldn't't be spending 30 for new
weather effects and nice graphics, but is that all we get when a sim
uses the same engine more than once?

Let me remind you that Gran Turismo 2 uses the same physics engine as
the original Gran Turismo, but is far superior than its predecessor.
Whilst you could claim that all they've given us is new cars, tracks
and a higher frame rate, the fact is that that is more than enough for
the follow-up to GT. It doesn't need much more than that to sell and
sell well.

I'm also perfectly aware that sometimes using the same engine can be a
mistake and doesn't make many improvements. Take Nascar 3 for example.
Little has changed since N1 and N2.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a great fan of the GP2 engine. Whilst
it has lead the race table for many years (right up to Grand Prix
Legends), I've raced it a lot and have never found it to feel quite
good enough. I've read that Jeoff has made a lot of changes to the GP2
engine for use with GP3, but I too am wondering if it's going to be as
good as we all expect. Judging by Jeoff's previous titles and
reputation, I'm sure it will, but I would be interested to hear
whether or not YOU think you need a new physics engine with each title
for it to be any good, or would you be happy with some minor tweaks to
the physics, but superior graphics, options, tracks, cars, weather
effects, sounds, etc?

Neo

This is taken straight from www.f1-grandprix3.com (official site)

"Completely rebuilt simulation system featuring new Physics"

So it's GP2 with new physics and new graphics, sounds like 30 worth to me.

David C

On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:08:41 -0000, "David Cane"

That's odd. In the PC Gamer (UK) interview with Jeoff Crammond I think
I remember something about the same physics engine being used. Or was
it in an on-line interview I read it?

Clearly I'm not alone in thinking about GP3 would be using the GP2
engine, which you'll see if you find some of the negative GP3
postings, but if it does turn out that GP3 uses its own engine, it'll
be a blast.

But I wonder if by 'new physics' they mean an entirely new physics
engine? Remember that Papy still claim that N3 has new physics over
N2, which it does, but not by very much. It could be the same sort of
thing here.

Neo

It's an entirely new physics engine, but you're right, there are negative
posts about GP3.
They tend to be about other things such as the lack of internet support (big
deal), the fact that all cars use the same carshape and will all handle the
same, and all share identical***pit layouts.

        It's easy to see that you have never driven in an online race with 15+
other humans!  Or at the very least, you have raced online but only once
or twice.  If you have raced online you would see why it *is* a big
deal!  Racing against the AI is child's play after racing online, no
ifs, ands, or buts about it!

Geeze, are you living in the year 1995 ???????

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.WeRace.net
-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Hey, here in UK we have no access to ASDL or Cable modem connections.

So for me with just our pathetic little phone-line internet connections,
online racing is crap.
That's why for me Internet support isn't important at the moment.

So I suppose you could say I am living in 1995 as far as the crappy internet
connection is concerned.

David C

There is no more overblown topic on this newsgroup than that of the "physics
engine".  It's just code. Then when you realize that most of the cars in the
sims we play have never been driven by anyone here, what you get when the
physics engine topic is debated is a lot of opinions, but almost no facts to
back them up.

It's supposed to have an all new engine and unless someone here has absolute
proof that it isn't, then this is just another case of r.a.s. negativity.
Even if he did redo the code from GP2, it's still "new".

No. That's just a person being negative.

 > I wouldn't consider myself to be a great fan of the GP2 engine. Whilst

Well, GP2's***pit didn't jiggle around like GPL's, so that's probably why
it doesn't feel quite right to you and others. :-)

David G Fisher

I can't imagine anyone could enjoy online racing as much as me, and I was
one of the minority a few years ago who was saying that online sim racing
could become huge. Turns out I was wrong. GP3 won't be hurt a bit in it's
sales by not having TCP/IP capability. Online arcade racing is fairly big on
the internet (check MTM2), but online sim racing really has gone nowhere so
far. No one bought GPL, and the people who did and race online are basically
the same names over the past year and a half. Just a relative handful. Some
of them I was racing 2 years ago with CPR, (then found some of them racing
MTM2). With 6 billion people on the planet, I really shouldn't be
recognizing too many names.

Online racing of the more arcade titles is pretty big, and the racing games
from MS have done a great job of bringing people to the Zone and making
online racing a major feature of their titles. The Papyrus Nascar series had
a pretty large following, but many of those racers were of the more arcade
mentality, just like MGPRS2. Whatever the numbers were, people who race
online are still only a tiny fraction of sim buyers.

David G Fisher

What do you mean by "friction" in this case?  Engine braking due to
compression?  I do recall that at least F1RS if you costed in a lower gear,
you would decelerate more quickly.  Don't recall if GP2 did this.

Camber it is.  Do modern (not WG!) racetracks have much camber?

I think that's the true point here.  We all know that per example the old
Papyrus game engine is the best example of "FAR" physic modeling.  The feel
is quite realistic, except of course when we push them to the edges.  Which
is the basic of any model.  It's made to go the further on each side, but it
match perfectly real-life, there will be always extremes.  Like the
Codemaster Engine.  FAR, but when you push a car to it's limit it shows it's
flaws, like per example Toca.  Or GP2.

I know GP3 will be extremely fun to drive.  I will pay for it anytime, but
it has to have at least Internet Racing if not Online community tools.  They
are missing the boat if they don't.  I already know that offline gamers will
be very pleased with Gp3.  I doubt it can fail.  But I won't buy GP3 only to
do hotlapping and pass some stupid AI cars!!!   See Everquest? AC? Online
RPG's ? Quake 3 ? Unreal Tournament ? <insert the multitude of software who
today push Internet *** to the mainstream market>

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Don't do it folks, it's not worth it!  This guy's a bit of a zealot: his
mind is well-sealed . . .
;)

--DK

GP2 feels pretty primitive to us GPL junkies, and that might be where a lot
of the demands for improvement are coming from.

The most obvious thing that was missing was the complete lack of engine
friction.  So the car handled the same in 1st gear as it did in 6th.  Also,
the tracks were all completely flat across their width.  There were no
camber (I think that's the right word) changes at all.  If they could fix
these two things, I'd be pretty happy with it.

I understand you'll be able to completely flip the car in GP3, so they are
catching up to GPL in at least one respect.  :)

-A

I have to agree 100% with this. Very,very few  would have the real life
experience to make an accurate judgement on the physics involved,most would
have to rely on what they think/feel the physics should be.
GP3 will be its own game it doesnt have to earn its worth through
comparison. If its physics engine is not as "accurate" as some other games
it will be more "accurate" than others-where does it end? You'll either
enjoy it or not,new physics engine or re-done GP2 physics engine.WithGeoff
Crammond making it you can rest assured it wont be crap.You might not like
GP3; but it wont be any Ultima Ascension schemozzle.

Yeah, it is just code.....but it isn't the code we discuss, but the
result of the code....

There is a difference between modelling car behaviour and modelling
the laws of physics. Things like gravity, inertia, mass, tire contact
path, etc. are returning every time. Well, it should be, until now
there aren't much games who model a tire contact path. RC2000 for
example.....

So, to get back on topic, don't confuse Physics and car behaviour. It
is possible with a FAR (Feel About Right)  physics model to get the
behaviour of a car somewhat right, (understeer for a frontwheel driven
car for example), while the implementation of the law of physics
aren't on an high level...

Remco