rec.autos.simulators

by **Meij** » Wed, 08 Sep 1999 04:00:00

What do the screenshots show? Psygnosis make great looking games but they
play like shit... in addition, does OF1R ring any bells?

M

-gui.server.***.net>:

>Go look at the screenshots above...the graphics look absolutley stunning
>and Geoff has always been the man to deliver realistic sims

>Revvin

>> GP3 60% complete and they are still planning to just bunch 3D-support
>> on top? The game engine is based on GP2 code because Crammond "Hates
>> to waste good code"? Hasbro stated that the game WILL be released on
>> schedule?

>> Be afraid, be very afraid...

by **Meij** » Wed, 08 Sep 1999 04:00:00

The logical progression that is if GP2 was based on F1GP and GP3 is based
on GP2 code, the new title can trade code back to F1GP. That is worrying
;)

M

by **Hena Hakkane** » Wed, 08 Sep 1999 04:00:00

>> Go look at the screenshots above...the graphics look absolutley stunning
and
>> Geoff has always been the man to deliver realistic sims

>Doesn't mean that it will run properly on any machine, support 3D cards or
>have the slowmo-feature and cars-on-rails-features removed. GP2 was a nice
>sim, but it doesn't mean one can just overlook all it's shortcomings. And
>frankly, by the things I've heard, he didn't bother to fix much.

Right on! I really don't understand people getting this e***d over a
couple of SW rendered screenshots. Sure, GP2 _was_ a good sim at its time
(well, still is :)), but if GP3 doesn't deliver close to GPL physics,
constant +30 fps HW accelerated frame rate, I can't be bothered. I fear the
processor occupancy thingy (slo-mo) will still be there ...

I guess GPL has spoiled me :)

Hena

by **Richard Walke** » Wed, 08 Sep 1999 04:00:00

It is. Are there any sims that you would consider buying since they are all
inevitably based on previous, flawed products?

Cheers,
Richard

by **Greg Cisk** » Wed, 08 Sep 1999 04:00:00

>Right on! I really don't understand people getting this e***d over a
>couple of SW rendered screenshots. Sure, GP2 _was_ a good sim at its time
>(well, still is :)), but if GP3 doesn't deliver close to GPL physics,
>constant +30 fps HW accelerated frame rate, I can't be bothered. I fear the
>processor occupancy thingy (slo-mo) will still be there ...

>I guess GPL has spoiled me :)

In addition, GP3 better have kick ass Force Feedback effects. If
it is missing FF or hardware 3D acceleration, then there is virtually
no chance at all that I would get the game. Of course the physics
better be pretty good too (goes with FF IMHO).

--

Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

by **Jon Van Ginneke** » Wed, 08 Sep 1999 04:00:00

> > GPL started with Rendition/Software and 3Dfx was included later on...GPL
was
> > started before Glide was even available.

> [...]

> > NR3 basically started with ICR1 (no 3d cards) but supports D3D, 3Dfx,
and
> > software. How'd they manage that impossible task?
> > How did Papy make NR3 in just a couple months from NR99 when NR99 didn't
> > support D3D?

> Neither example works in the case of GP3. Transporting software-code to
> hardware-code isn't that easy if you haven't planned for it. And if the
> code is based on GP2, Crammons certainly hasn't designed it for 3D cards.

> And if N3 is based on ICR1, I'm not buying it!-)

You think Crammond never planned on 3D card support?!?!?!?!?!?!

________________________________________________
Jon Van Ginneken

"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up
with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules, and
***ic pleasure in witnessing ***: in other words it is
war minus the shooting."

--George
Orwell

by **Michael** » Wed, 08 Sep 1999 04:00:00

says...

> > GP3 60% complete and they are still planning to just bunch 3D-support
> > on top? The game engine is based on GP2 code because Crammond "Hates
> > to waste good code"? Hasbro stated that the game WILL be released on
> > schedule?

> > Be afraid, be very afraid...

> I was VERY dissapointed on seeing GP3 at ECTS. I took some screenshot
> but it's not worth posting them.

I'm afraid you're right about the graphics engine, it looked really old.
The textures looked like unprocessed scanned in photos.

Geoff should have licensed the GP500 bike racing game engine shown on the
same stand, that looks really nice.

*However* I can't speak for the physics - I didn't try it myself. People
who did said it was using the "arcade" mode so nothing could be learnt.

I'm a big fan of Geoff's previous games so I really hope he pulls it
together in time for the release. I'm not hopeful though.

- Michael

by Jo » Wed, 08 Sep 1999 04:00:00

>In addition, GP3 better have kick ass Force Feedback effects. If
>it is missing FF or hardware 3D acceleration, then there is virtually
>no chance at all that I would get the game. Of course the physics
>better be pretty good too (goes with FF IMHO).

Ditto, well said.

Joe McGinn
==========================================
Staff Writer for the Sports *** Network
http://www.racesimcentral.net/***.com/
==========================================

by **Uwe Schuerka** » Wed, 08 Sep 1999 04:00:00

>(well, still is :)), but if GP3 doesn't deliver close to GPL physics,
>constant +30 fps HW accelerated frame rate, I can't be bothered. I fear the
>processor occupancy thingy (slo-mo) will still be there ...

Same here. For me, the knockout issue will be: "Is there a
Linux version?" If not, no money from me. GPL was the last
Windows only title I shelled out money on.

Regards,

Uwe

--
Uwe Schuerkamp http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany (52.0N/8h30mE)
Ever wondered what's wrong with the world? http://bnetwork.com/
PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

by **mark jeangerar** » Wed, 08 Sep 1999 04:00:00

I guess it's how you look at it. I'm really exited about the game and know
nothing about programming. But my latest recordings have things in common
with my first ones in the early sixties. Such as voice coil and diaphragm
transducers. (Common microphones and speakers.) The materials are better but
the design still kicks ass. So that's how I interpret Crammond "good code"
statement. Is that a fair example? I hope so. I want GP3 to rip. :-)

--
Mark Jeangerard
www.soundchaserweb.com
New Mexico USA

> The logical progression that is if GP2 was based on F1GP and GP3 is based
> on GP2 code, the new title can trade code back to F1GP. That is worrying
> ;)

> M

> >OK, my memory is very bad. I have a habit of trying to get a "feel" for
> >the big picture in my life experiences, to the exclusion of detail.
> >Thus, my memory is very bad. So hopefully someone will clarify what I
> >think I remember reading when I say, "Didn't Crammond base GP2 on his
> >World Circuit code?"

> >Seemed to work out then.

by **dav..** » Thu, 09 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Being based on the same code, is NOT the same as being the same code.

Geoff, got an awful lot of things right in F1GP, and got even more right
in GP2.

Don't you think he knows where the flaws were, and has changed and
upgraded those sections.

All I know that Revs, Stunt Car Racer, F1GP and GP2 have pushed the sim
envelope forward. Why start to doubt his ability to continue the good
work ?

Dave.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

by **Meij** » Thu, 09 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Well I guess you're not playing GP3 then.

M

by **Meij** » Thu, 09 Sep 1999 04:00:00

I dunno... GP3 gets shown for the first time and people get all defensive.
Did you see the ;) at the end of the post or are you blind?

I *want* GP3 to be as good as GP2 and F1GP were for their time but I am
really not seeing or reading anything as groundbreaking as the ancestors of
GP3 managed in their day.

M

by **Zonk** » Thu, 09 Sep 1999 04:00:00

>> Actually I am pleased to hear this....looks like they started with the
>> physics, not with the graphics engine. We all know that the graphic
>> cards are evolving very fast ATM, so it does make sense to do that
>> part of the game as last, so you can optimize to the latest graphic
>> card specs...

>The problem is, you can't just take an old graphics engine and add
>support for whatever graphics card you like. Implementing a complex
>3D-interface requires that you design the engine to support 3D-cards from
>day one. This is one thing GPL did right.

LOL!

3D card support is one thing that GPL should *not* be proud of.

Z.

Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

by **dav..** » Thu, 09 Sep 1999 04:00:00

defensive.
Dunno about people getting defensive, we seem to be in the minority,
most people are getting on the offensive.

Yeah, I missed it. But a little harsh don't you think ?

I wouldn't have put GP2 or F1GP as groundbreaking, they did pretty much
what everyone else was attempting to do, but did it better, MUCH better
IMHO.
Without anymore information than someone doing 3 laps of Monaco on an
"arcade" setting, it's very difficult to state how good it's going to
be.
All I was trying to say is that Geoff has a proven track record, so
maybe, just maybe he knows a little bit more than some people are
prepared to give him credit for.
Dave.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

rec.autos.simulators

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?

GP3 turning out to be a dog?