rec.autos.simulators

>Mark



>> : Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the 1930s
>did
>> : not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!!

>> : I recommend to you the dual-pack video covering the Mercedes "Silver
>Arrows"
>> : (never referred to by that name by the factory, or the motoring press
of
>the
>> : day, I might add) for some fascinating footage of the F1 cars of that
>era.

>>   Sorry - didn't mean to imply that they would not - just that the 30s
>> cars I've seen race are typically heavier and less powerful than the 60s
>> equivalents.  They're also noticeably slower.  Should have _less_
>> wheelspin surely - even on those ultra skinny tyres.

>> --
>> Richard G. Clegg     Only the mind is waving
>> Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York.

>> www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

> : I recommend to you the dual-pack video covering the Mercedes "Silver
Arrows"
> : (never referred to by that name by the factory, or the motoring press of
the
> : day, I might add) for some fascinating footage of the F1 cars of that
era.

>   Sorry - didn't mean to imply that they would not - just that the 30s
> cars I've seen race are typically heavier and less powerful than the 60s
> equivalents.  They're also noticeably slower.  Should have _less_
> wheelspin surely - even on those ultra skinny tyres.

> --
> Richard G. Clegg     Only the mind is waving
> Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York.

> www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

> >Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the 1930s
did
> >not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!!

> Some not-so-dry numbers to back this up:

> Auto Union V 16 1934 model: 4.4l, 295hp at 4500 rpm
>         type B  1935 model: 5.0l, 375hp at 4800 rpm
>         type C  1936/37:    6.0l, 520hp at 5000 rpm

> Our GPL cars have less power at double rpms. Just imagine the torque.
> :)

> And the cars weren't slow either: Carraciola set the world record in
> 1938 with a 5.4l Mercedes with 600hp: 423.7 km/h (that's over 260
> mph). And we thought GPL cars were scary... :)

> --
> Wolfgang Preiss   \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

cancellation

>>: 3/ Screen update rate: Even a steady 36 Hz frame rate is noticeably
>>:    worse than real life. There is a reason real flight simulators
>>:    use 60 Hz or more. With a less than a 1GHz pc, you probably
>>:    have variations in frame rate also which doesn't make it easier.

>>  This I don't believe - TV is around about 30Hz and nobody complains
>>that their TV looks jerky.  When a framerate of 30 fps looks jerky it's
>>inevitably because that 30 fps was an average and at some point it
>>dropped way below that.

>DON'T DO IT! Richard, for your own good, do not - I repeat DO NOT -
>start the "30 fps is all the eye can distinguish" discussion again. I
>know you're not saying this, but it's dangerously close. :)

>Really, this is a topic that leads to regular RAS flamefests every six
>months or so. And the side that claims that framerates above 30 fps
>are overkill always loses.

><Obi Wan> "This is not a discussion you want to have." </Obi Wan>

>--
>Wolfgang Preiss   \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

cancellation

> : I recommend to you the dual-pack video covering the Mercedes "Silver
Arrows"
> : (never referred to by that name by the factory, or the motoring press of
the
> : day, I might add) for some fascinating footage of the F1 cars of that
era.

>   Sorry - didn't mean to imply that they would not - just that the 30s
> cars I've seen race are typically heavier and less powerful than the 60s
> equivalents.  They're also noticeably slower.  Should have _less_
> wheelspin surely - even on those ultra skinny tyres.

> --
> Richard G. Clegg     Only the mind is waving
> Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York.

> www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

>Mark

>>>: 3/ Screen update rate: Even a steady 36 Hz frame rate is noticeably
>>>:    worse than real life. There is a reason real flight simulators
>>>:    use 60 Hz or more. With a less than a 1GHz pc, you probably
>>>:    have variations in frame rate also which doesn't make it easier.

>>>  This I don't believe - TV is around about 30Hz and nobody complains
>>>that their TV looks jerky.  When a framerate of 30 fps looks jerky it's
>>>inevitably because that 30 fps was an average and at some point it
>>>dropped way below that.

>>DON'T DO IT! Richard, for your own good, do not - I repeat DO NOT -
>>start the "30 fps is all the eye can distinguish" discussion again. I
>>know you're not saying this, but it's dangerously close. :)

>>Really, this is a topic that leads to regular RAS flamefests every six
>>months or so. And the side that claims that framerates above 30 fps
>>are overkill always loses.

>><Obi Wan> "This is not a discussion you want to have." </Obi Wan>

>>--
>>Wolfgang Preiss   \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

>cancellation

>warned.

> Mark



> > : Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the
1930s
> did
> > : not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!!

> > : I recommend to you the dual-pack video covering the Mercedes "Silver
> Arrows"
> > : (never referred to by that name by the factory, or the motoring press
of
> the
> > : day, I might add) for some fascinating footage of the F1 cars of that
> era.

> >   Sorry - didn't mean to imply that they would not - just that the 30s
> > cars I've seen race are typically heavier and less powerful than the 60s
> > equivalents.  They're also noticeably slower.  Should have _less_
> > wheelspin surely - even on those ultra skinny tyres.

> > --
> > Richard G. Clegg     Only the mind is waving
> > Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York.

> > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

>>Actually, video and cinema frame rate is precisely 24 frames a sec, not
>>"around 30"

>Nobody said cinema.
>Cinema = 24 fps
>Video NTSC = 29.97 fps (~30)
>Video PAL  = 25 fps

>Where video does things in fields to complicate things. Thus Video
>frame rates are actually doubled, but flicker a bit depending on the
>phosphor used in the monitor.
>Cinema is great, but is sure is jerky when you see some panning!
>Ah well, we've seen these discussions before.
>Around 120Hz the discussion ends for all people I guess. Although
>probably many will still prefer 130Hz over 120Hz ;-)

>But he's very right about the jerkyness coming into play when the
>frequency is *not stable*. It's more irritating to see a 30Hz picture
>move every now & then to 25Hz than to look at a stable 15Hz picture.
>Just watch cartoons...

>Ruud

>>Ross
>>Wolfgang Preiss a crit dans le message

>>>>: 3/ Screen update rate: Even a steady 36 Hz frame rate is noticeably
>>>>:    worse than real life. There is a reason real flight simulators
>>>>:    use 60 Hz or more. With a less than a 1GHz pc, you probably
>>>>:    have variations in frame rate also which doesn't make it easier.

>>>>  This I don't believe - TV is around about 30Hz and nobody complains
>>>>that their TV looks jerky.  When a framerate of 30 fps looks jerky it's
>>>>inevitably because that 30 fps was an average and at some point it
>>>>dropped way below that.

>>>DON'T DO IT! Richard, for your own good, do not - I repeat DO NOT -
>>>start the "30 fps is all the eye can distinguish" discussion again. I
>>>know you're not saying this, but it's dangerously close. :)

>>>Really, this is a topic that leads to regular RAS flamefests every six
>>>months or so. And the side that claims that framerates above 30 fps
>>>are overkill always loses.

>>><Obi Wan> "This is not a discussion you want to have." </Obi Wan>

>>>--
>>>Wolfgang Preiss   \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

>>cancellation

>>warned.

>Ruud van Gaal
>MarketGraph / MachTech: http://www.marketgraph.nl
>Art: http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery