rec.autos.simulators

by **David G Fishe** » Sat, 01 May 2004 10:45:27

> > Yes, I have also tried it by using Malc's core.ini located in this
> thread,
> > but it still stays in 640 x 480.

> The D3D or OpenGL patches will run without the core.ini stuff, it just
> won't look as pretty.

> Apart from this odd resolution problem does gpl run okay?

> When you start gpl if it detects a corrupted player.ini (or an odd
> setting it doesn't understand) it will default back to 640x480. There
> are plenty of things that can cause this (read-only files, corrupted ini
> following a previous crash etc) but from your original post I gather
> that when you start gpl & go into the options screen, it is already set
> to D3D7 and 1024x768.

> If that's the case there are only really two things that could cause the
> problem, but I would have thought either would create problems elsewhere
> too.

> If your rendd3d7.dll file is corrupt or missing gpl should just crash,
> but try grabbing another version & putting that in instead. There's a
> thread on RSC where Guru made up a whole load of dlls to support
> different resolutions, and the OpenGL ones were based on the 'fixed'
> rasteriser. There were two releases of the D3D rasteriser, and getting a
> new one would ensure you have the latest one (both were released years
> ago though).

> The other potential cause is your graphics card setup as I suggested
> before. If your monitor/gf3 doesn't offer 1024x768 for some odd reason,
> gpl will default back to 640x480. Try a few other resolutions to see if
> you can get one of them to work.

> What 'fix' do you use for the refresh rate? I use rivatuner which
> automatically runs my monitor at the highest possible refresh rate for
> that resolution, much like Win9x did. Could you be trying to run gpl at
> too high a refresh rate?

> There have been a couple of nVidia driver releases that don't like gpl,
> including a recent one that ***ed up the mirrors in OpenGL. Try a
> different graphics driver to see if it helps, but tbh I doubt this is
> the problem.

> Have you tried the OpenGL rasteriser instead btw?

> Malc.

I just tried the OpenGPL rasterizer and it works now. Thank you very much.
What do you now think the trouble is with the D3D rasterizer? I cant find
the "new D3D rasterizer" that I've seen mentioned on forums. Every link I've
checked is dead. The one I have is version 1.0.0.1 from 3 years ago.

David G Fisher

by **Ruud Dingeman** » Sat, 01 May 2004 10:51:45

> At least it doesn't have gpl's wooden tire model.

Dude, in case of a '67 F1 car, the tyres basically WERE just about wooden.

(After trying NR2003 I don't find the tyre difference during short races
THAT noticeable, btw... If I drive GPL like a nut, it's gonna heat its
tyres and become difficult to drive just as well.

The biggest difference *I* noticed is that the cars modeled are just so
different:

F1 67's are nimble, light, twitchy rockets, NASCAR thingies are hugely
powered (700+ bhp?) whales on wheels, somewhat easier to drive to some
extent but once their rear ends go, they're usually rather impossible to
catch, and you'll spin no matter what. Kinda like the BRM in GPL, just
more pronounced.)

Regards, Rudy
--------------------
GPLRank: -22

by JP » Sat, 01 May 2004 11:15:24

> > At least it doesn't have gpl's wooden tire model.

> Dude, in case of a '67 F1 car, the tyres basically WERE just about wooden.

> (After trying NR2003 I don't find the tyre difference during short races
> THAT noticeable, btw... If I drive GPL like a nut, it's gonna heat its
> tyres and become difficult to drive just as well.

> The biggest difference *I* noticed is that the cars modeled are just so
> different:

> F1 67's are nimble, light, twitchy rockets, NASCAR thingies are hugely
> powered (700+ bhp?) whales on wheels, somewhat easier to drive to some
> extent but once their rear ends go, they're usually rather impossible to
> catch, and you'll spin no matter what. Kinda like the BRM in GPL, just
> more pronounced.)

> Regards, Rudy
> --------------------
> GPLRank: -22

The fallacy about 67 tires continues, eh ? John Cooper shot that full of
holes.
A short race, you won't notice the difference in the tires, or much of
anything for that matter. One thing that should be very obvious though, is
the lack of the front end wallowing that papy sims were known for until 03,
including gpl. Thats the main difference handling-wise. In a longer races,
tire wear also becomes an issue, and its much more pronounced than just a
heated gpl tire. Wear doesn't go away on its own, like gpl tire heat can.

by **oppol** » Sat, 01 May 2004 07:16:07

if you like only cars without downforces, GPL actually is your best
choice, besides the 65MOD is coming...and later the 55MOD...I hope:-)
cheers

by **Byron Forbe** » Sun, 02 May 2004 04:07:35

> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:43:40 GMT, John DiFool

> > >I have been getting back into GPL tho, and it has so many
> > >good tracks (e.g. those classic long German circuits like
> > >Solitude and Schottenring) that it puts what I've seen from
> > >NR track makers to shame. But nobody seems intent on
> > >converting any of them to NR... <sigh>

> > From what I've gathered, most of the attempted conversions from GPL to
> > N2003 have been met with "I don't want NAS***driving on my track"
> > type responses from the track authors. It's definitely possible to
> > convert 3rd-party GPL tracks, the problem is getting permission.

> <snip>

> > Jason

> Like to say I'm surprised by that attitude, but I'm not. Typical; so
> called "enlightened ones" are more close minded than those they make fun
of.

If this is true then the fools haven't tried the TA mod.

by **Byron Forbe** » Sun, 02 May 2004 04:59:12

My experience is almost exactly opposite. I find the GPL tracks absurdly
easy in the TA mod. Part of this is the grip values in the track.ini which,
imo, should be about .90-.95 instead of 1.05. And, of course, the TA cars
have big slicks, big power and big downforce and close to 40 years of
technological advancement engineered into them, so it's hard to say for sure
about the realism.

Spa - Master Kink ------> Minor Kink. Says it all really.

Rouen - 2 right handers leading onto back straight - flat out! ? Last
corner - flat out! ?

They are still a buzz to drive but the awe inspired at them in GPL is
not rivalled. Once again though it's the cars/technology. Literally a case
of horses for courses. Modern race cars don't need super long straights to
generate high speeds. As much as I hate to say it, I can understand the
recent hacking of Hockenheim after the TA/GPL track experience. And the
effect would be about 3 fold in an F1 car.

DLed Road2 (Rattlesnake Point) today. Not a real track but a real good
track. Oldring, Gotzenberg, **Bathurst**. The ICR2 tracks are a must as
well - Laguna Seca, Elkhart Lake, Mid Ohio and the dreaded concrete jungles.

by **Mitch_** » Sun, 02 May 2004 06:13:28

Ive ran the TA mods many many times and all I can say is neither (PTA or
TPTCC) simulates what I'd expect a sports car should handle like. Instead
of a tightly sprung nimble car we get the wallowing feel of cup cars with 6
gears. I'm not diss'in either of em just stating my feelings. My personal
fav at the moment is Prototype C mod for F1C. It's far from perfect but at
least it feels as I'd expect a Sports Car should.

I still think all these TA modders shoulda tried to simulate early 70's era
TA instead of modern TA. I'd say the Papy TA physics more closely resemble
70's era muscle cars than modern TA cars. Not that my 2cents matter hehe.

Mitch

If this is true then the fools haven't tried the TA mod.

by **John DiFoo** » Sun, 02 May 2004 08:22:49

On Sat, 1 May 2004 05:59:12 +1000, "Byron Forbes"

>> I love the TA physics model (any inconsistencies w/ current
>> sports car series don't bother me, and the "feel" is vastly
>> superior to anything else), but most of the tracks I've DLed
>> blow, frankly. I pretty much drive just Spa and the Ring,
>> anymore, because most everything else resembles
>> current F1 tracks (i.e. flat as pancakes and no imagination,
>> just stereotypical L/R turns where all you have to do to get
>> a good lap time is optimize your braking points-zzzz). I do
>> like some, like Lime Rock and Leipzig, tho, and a few
>> idiosyncratic faves like Supercell.

> My experience is almost exactly opposite. I find the GPL tracks absurdly
>easy in the TA mod. Part of this is the grip values in the track.ini which,
>imo, should be about .90-.95 instead of 1.05. And, of course, the TA cars
>have big slicks, big power and big downforce and close to 40 years of
>technological advancement engineered into them, so it's hard to say for sure
>about the realism.

> Spa - Master Kink ------> Minor Kink. Says it all really.

> Rouen - 2 right handers leading onto back straight - flat out! ? Last
>corner - flat out! ?

> They are still a buzz to drive but the awe inspired at them in GPL is
>not rivalled. Once again though it's the cars/technology. Literally a case
>of horses for courses. Modern race cars don't need super long straights to
>generate high speeds. As much as I hate to say it, I can understand the
>recent hacking of Hockenheim after the TA/GPL track experience. And the
>effect would be about 3 fold in an F1 car.

To each his own. In exchange for a de-fanged Kink, you get tightrope-
ish corners at Eau Rouge, Malmedy, La Carriere, and Blanchimont
(and Stavelot is a blast too), where you are carrying so much speed
into these things that one small error on braking or entry will cost
you dearly. They are rather more dangerous in TA than in GPL,
IMHO. It's hard to find 150+ MPH corners on any of the user-made
addons (and yes I know that in real modern tracks they are extinct
too-Curva Grande for instance-but that's a different issue), but I
just find them exhilarating.

And the Ring kicks-simple as that. Flugplatz to Aremberg-awesome.
Fuchsrohre? Stellar. Few "modernish" tracks can match the camber
changes there (may be a Sandbox issue-or people don't know how
to put them in properly). Only quibble is the Karrussels-a bit too
narrow for a TA/sports car, and I'm always popping out of them...

I agree about the grip levels-seems it became a "tradition" to set
them to 1.05 or above sometime last summer. They have enough
inherent grip that they really don't need any help. :-)

John DiFool

by **Steve Smit** » Sun, 02 May 2004 09:52:57

There are some excellent add-on trax for GPL beyond those you've mentioned:

Castle Comb (as good as any airbase-perimeter track, ever)
Imola (still one of my fav tracks - I wish Noonan would make a N2003 ver)
Laguna 95 (the best-ever Laguna, IMO)
The O'ring (another Noonan triumph of rhythm and flow)

I generally don't like fantasy trax, but Diamante is an exception.

And Lou Magyar has Bridgehampton almost finished - as fiendishly difficult a
track in GPL as it was in real life. Hopefully, a N2003 ver will soon
follow. Like Riverside, Bridgehampton seemed a lot less daunting in big ol'
stock cars than in flimsy little "sporty" cars (as Shelby called 'em).

> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:43:40 GMT, John DiFool

> >I have been getting back into GPL tho, and it has so many
> >good tracks (e.g. those classic long German circuits like
> >Solitude and Schottenring) that it puts what I've seen from
> >NR track makers to shame. But nobody seems intent on
> >converting any of them to NR... <sigh>

> From what I've gathered, most of the attempted conversions from GPL to
> N2003 have been met with "I don't want NAS***driving on my track"
> type responses from the track authors. It's definitely possible to
> convert 3rd-party GPL tracks, the problem is getting permission.

> I would definitely love to have Solitude, Schottenring, and the Andre
> Streu tracks in N2003. The version of Leipzig that is out isn't bad,
> but it's not as good as Andre's.

> Jason

rec.autos.simulators

GPL revisited

GPL revisited

GPL revisited

GPL revisited

GPL revisited

GPL revisited

GPL revisited

GPL revisited

GPL revisited

GPL revisited