rec.autos.simulators

Whenever I start up a "sim" and am immediately greeted with a super-
glitzy user interface, the warning bells start to go off. All these 3D-
look controls with twirling, animated actions and ker-chunck, ker-chunk
sounds may be de rigeur on an arcade console, but they tell me
something about how the development budget was spent. All too often,
when I finally get into the "sim" part of the game, I realize where
they must have spent the most -- and it wasn't on the simulation part
of the product!

GPL is a good example of what I expect to see in a hard-core
simulation. Simple, minimalist 2D setup screens; no fancy animated
intros; to-the-point options and settings. Even the scenery and special
effects are minimal -- who has time to look at the scenery and shadows
when you're trying to drive a hot lap?? And when you get into the
simulation itself, you realize where they spent their budget: on the
math, physics, and efficient software implementation. When you think
about what this game is doing -- in real-time -- it is very, very
impressive.

OTOH, the emphasis in what I've seen so far from companies like EA
Sports sends my expectations in a different direction. I have not
played SBK2000 for very long yet, but so far it seems like they spent a
lot more time on the UI and graphic glitz than on the simulation. I
hope that F1 2000 does not also follow this trend (but I suspect it
will).

BTW, this is not to say that a game can't be produced that has all of
the special effects AND is a great simulation. It's just that this
would require a correspondingly larger budget.

  Doug Gordon

Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Before you buy.

: GPL is a good example of what I expect to see in a hard-core
: simulation. Simple, minimalist 2D setup screens; no fancy animated
: intros; to-the-point options and settings. Even the scenery and special
: effects are minimal -- who has time to look at the scenery and shadows
: when you're trying to drive a hot lap??

  Anyone who wants a braking point more accurate than "some time
after the green blob but before the white square".  One of the things
that frustrates me about the GPL graphics are that they are relatively
primative for a driving game and therefore it's hard to pick brake
points due to the lack of trackside markers.  Even GP2 was better since
it had some markers actually by corners.  So, yes, I'd pay more money
for GPL with better scenery because its featurelessness makes it more
difficult than it needs to be.

--
Richard G. Clegg       Only the mind is waving
    Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
      Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
     UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/

Well I do not think during the 60s many tracks had braking markers.  Some
did and they are in the game.  I am not a Papy lover, but I do think they
did get this reasonably right in the game.

Dave

I've struggled with F1-2000 and then went back to GPL and oh man what a
revelation that is! The gfx in f1-2000 may be better but i'll predict that
this GAME simply isn't the big fish it promised to be. The graphic detail in
GPL is just good, not too much not too few either. I think the problem of
finding your braking point is not because of the graphics but because you're
not familiar enough with the track.
The original poster on this thread is right about his opinions: The emphasis
in f1-2k is on action/graphic detail not on accuracy/modelling, I'm sorry
but I think all our hopes have to be focussed on  GP3 and WSC if you're
looking for a sim that is!

J.

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Own Grand Prix Legends?  Goto  http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc

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