rec.autos.simulators

>IMO, a patched 67 with more grip(or different grip), would jsut be a mess.
>I've also noticed that *most* of the people complaining are not aliens as
>well, in fact most arent even close.  In fact, the only rational responses
>seem to be from people with reasonable negative ranks..

>>"No Spam" wrote...

>>>I just love the racing in the new GPL65 mod . I hope
>>>that the tech guys will see fit to uipdate the tire
>>>models in gpl.exe so that we can enjoy the sim even
>>>more?  After racing nose to tail with many guys in
>>>the 65's, I don't want to go back to the 67s.

>>>thanks.

>>I agree, they should update the '67 season as well. Papyrus is history

> (on

>>top of that, Dave Keammer as much as admitted the tyre model in GPL is

> bunk)

>>and GPLRank is just a number; I'm willing to start over if that means

> I can

>>have "'65 style" feel for the car and near 400bhp. <g>

> There are 66 & 69 mods coming out fairly soon, either or both should
> fulfil the basic criteria of "like '65 but faster".

> I'd like to see an updated '67 mod but hopefully one of the above will
> do the job.

> Malc.

> > But that would***off the joystick-using alien with a low-ride
modified
> > setup that did his record lap 4 years ago!  <G>

> That's not the problem. The problem is that all hotlaps were set from a
> common base, namely original GPL 67. To have parity/equality (aka fair
> comparison) everyone should then install this mod and start all over
> again, which isn't gonna happen for all kinds of reasons; and having
> some drivers on Rank using the mod and some without, wouldn't work either.
> Better to start a separate 'early-68' or 'Fixed 67' type Rank.

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

> > My only issue is that it was stated that the current 67 tire model
> > really IS a mess and it could be made more "accurate" ala the 65
> > model.

> Apparently it can't, or at least not in the way that the '65 mod was
> done.

> The problem with the original '67 gpl cars is apparently to do with low
> speed slip angle. Basically as I understand it the grip is there, but it
> feels like it's sliding on ice because the tyres slide quite a bit
> before losing grip. This is okay at high speed but at low speed the
> amount of sliding should be much less and in gpl it's the same at all
> speeds. I'm no expert, this is just my understanding of the 'problem'.

> In the '65 cars the amount of sliding (slip angle) has been 'optimised'
> (reduced presumably) so it feels right at low speed, and in a '65 car
> you don't have enough power at the top end to notice that this is now
> less than optimum.

> So in effect the tyre model with the '65 cars is a better compromise
> that with the original physics, but only as a result of having a less
> powerful car.

> With the '67 cars apparently this 'fix' would only move the problem from
> low speed to high speed (ie most of the time) and this is the reason why
> a '67 mod isn't coming as quickly as '66 (less powerful) or imo more
> importantly '69, where high speed behaviour can be masked as 'downforce'
> although in reality I believe it will just be a small increase in grip
> and more drag.

> Like I said though, I'm no expert, I just drive the cars & know what I
> like ;-)

> Malc.

> > > My only issue is that it was stated that the current 67 tire model
> > > really IS a mess and it could be made more "accurate" ala the 65
> > > model.

> > Apparently it can't, or at least not in the way that the '65 mod was
> > done.

> > The problem with the original '67 gpl cars is apparently to do with
low
> > speed slip angle. Basically as I understand it the grip is there,
but it
> > feels like it's sliding on ice because the tyres slide quite a bit
> > before losing grip. This is okay at high speed but at low speed the
> > amount of sliding should be much less and in gpl it's the same at
all
> > speeds. I'm no expert, this is just my understanding of the
'problem'.

> > In the '65 cars the amount of sliding (slip angle) has been
'optimised'
> > (reduced presumably) so it feels right at low speed, and in a '65
car
> > you don't have enough power at the top end to notice that this is
now
> > less than optimum.

> > So in effect the tyre model with the '65 cars is a better compromise
> > that with the original physics, but only as a result of having a
less
> > powerful car.

> > With the '67 cars apparently this 'fix' would only move the problem
from
> > low speed to high speed (ie most of the time) and this is the reason
why
> > a '67 mod isn't coming as quickly as '66 (less powerful) or imo more
> > importantly '69, where high speed behaviour can be masked as
'downforce'
> > although in reality I believe it will just be a small increase in
grip
> > and more drag.

> > Like I said though, I'm no expert, I just drive the cars & know what
I
> > like ;-)

> > Malc.

> This subject has been discussed a few times on RSC, why don't you take a
> look for yourself? If I understood the (complex) problem correctly, then
> yes, it's correct.

> There's also the small matter of the wishes of the modders themselves.
> If they don't want to do it, it won't happen no matter how many people
> ask for it.

> Malc.

> > > Is this true?  Can someone involved with the '65 mod comment on
this?
> > If
> > > so, I take back my incredulous requests to hurry up and release a
> > modified
> > > '67 .exe (which I have been led to believe already exists).

> > This subject has been discussed a few times on RSC, why don't you
take a
> > look for yourself? If I understood the (complex) problem correctly,
then
> > yes, it's correct.

> > There's also the small matter of the wishes of the modders
themselves.
> > If they don't want to do it, it won't happen no matter how many
people
> > ask for it.

> > Malc.

>   Hmmm.......I  remember reading on rsc that the 67 exe HAS already
been
> fixed, changed, whatever you want to call it.  Iirc, one of the 65
modders
> said he had tried it.

>   The above sounds more to me like looking for excuses, more than
legitimate
> reasons, especially since its already been done.

> > > > Is this true?  Can someone involved with the '65 mod comment on
> this?
> > > If
> > > > so, I take back my incredulous requests to hurry up and release a
> > > modified
> > > > '67 .exe (which I have been led to believe already exists).

> > > This subject has been discussed a few times on RSC, why don't you
> take a
> > > look for yourself? If I understood the (complex) problem correctly,
> then
> > > yes, it's correct.

> > > There's also the small matter of the wishes of the modders
> themselves.
> > > If they don't want to do it, it won't happen no matter how many
> people
> > > ask for it.

> > > Malc.

> >   Hmmm.......I  remember reading on rsc that the 67 exe HAS already
> been
> > fixed, changed, whatever you want to call it.  Iirc, one of the 65
> modders
> > said he had tried it.

> >   The above sounds more to me like looking for excuses, more than
> legitimate
> > reasons, especially since its already been done.

> Yes, the person that said it had been done was apparently wrong about it
> being 'fixed', although a modified '67 exe has apparently been created,
> along with several other 'test' exe's that are not planned for release
> any time soon such as a Caterham7 mod (physics only, no carset) to test
> front-engined physics.

> 'Modified' and 'fixed' are not the same thing I guess. I'd settle for
> 'modified', but I guess the modders don't feel the same way.

> Malc.