rec.autos.simulators

by **pjgt..** » Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Hmmm, have to disagree with you here. GPL on-line is awesome.

Racing these beasts wheel to wheel with anything from a few other
drivers up to 19 other drivers is fantastic, especially if its part of
an on-line racing league.

I accept that casual racing via Win VROC can sometimes be a pain, if the
other casual racers are disconnecting, or otherwise spoiling your fun,
or you cannot get a decent ping or connection, but this can hardly be
blaimed on GPL!

GPL on-line racing works, and it works well.

8-)

*Peter* - http://www.racesimcentral.net/~peterpc/home.html

by **Imar de Vrie** » Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> The lack of FF support is a major pile of BS. Like the lack of
> accelerated support on GP2 (or a patch to do so) once again it's
> behind the times. Does anybody even sell racing games w/out some FF
> support anymore?

Accelarated games were virtually non-existent in 1996, and making 'a patch' is
not as easy as it sounds. Making GP3 was higher on the priority-list than
adapting GP2 (read the interview with Crammond on
www.grandprixgames.com/grandprix3/english/ )

FF support is a major issue, I agree, but so far I have only driven two games
that have implemented FF in such a way that it does not distract from racing,
namely GPL and RC. I would find it very irritating if FF would not enhance
gameplay and be just another 'hip' feature.

No excuse though for not trying to implement it, of course. We'll see in the
final product.
--

by **Olav K. Malm** » Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:00:00

As I tried to point out in an earlier post in this thread (got no follow up
so nobody read it, or everyone agreed:) is that good FF can easily be
implemented as long as all the forces on the front tires are modelled. When
GPL was released FF was omitted because Papy didn't belive the technology was
good enough. But during Mr. Cassidy's wonderful job with the 1.1 patch he was
able to put the best FF ever in GPL with little effort (pure speculation)
because the forces to send to the wheel was already there in the model.

Of course, if the only FF in a sim is some rumbling on the kerbs and the
grass, it is better without.

I agree 100% on that. I just hope that Mr. Crammond stay clear of any
not-good-enough-technology argument similar to his snobby and hopeless
internet-play argument. Papy proved on both topics that the technology is
here already.

--
Olav K. Malmin
remove spam when replying

by **Imar de Vrie** » Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> Ehmmm... it's not by Papyrus.

> Personally, I think it's more testament of a simple disposition to assume
> that "if it's by such_and_such, it'll be ok."

> Wake up man.

May be, may be not. If you like movies directed by Scorsese or Stone, you'll
probably eagerly waiting for their next project to come to a cinema near you
too. That does not mean their next movies are as briljant or fun as their last
ones, of course, but you can expect some typical elements to be present, or to
believe that they made their next movie with the same passion as in previous
ones.
Even if Stone was going to leave out action-sequences for instance, it would
probably be interesting to watch his movie, and it would not make much sense
to bash it before you had a chance to see it in the cinema. If you don't like
Stone movies, then you'll have the easy option of not going to the cinema at
all, but that does not mean his movie is going to be ***beforehand.

Geoff left out TCP/IP play. That's a shame. I never raced online, but probably
will in the near future. So far I have had much pleasure in hotlapping and
racing AI. I am sure there's a very good reason it was left out (probably
money, probably a not-so-Internet-ready game-engine), and I'm sure we'll see
FF in GP3, maybe GP4.

Greetz.
--

by **Dino** » Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> snip

> > FF support is a major issue, I agree, but so far I have only driven two
games
> > that have implemented FF in such a way that it does not distract from
racing,
> > namely GPL and RC. I would find it very irritating if FF would not
enhance
> > gameplay and be just another 'hip' feature.

> So you didn't try Viper Racing?? It's FF effects are close to GPL's, and
> you
> should be able to get VR quite cheap. You really should...

> BTW, no FF support in GP3 really is a surprise. I was so sure it would
> be
> in the sim, that I didn't check for it in the previews!

Yep, FF as well as TCP/IP support should be a no brainer in ANY current sim
IMO.
I get a kick reading all the posts attempting to justify their exclusion in
GP3.....my favorite is the one that suggests GC might wait until GP4 to
implement FF and/or TCP/IP... which could be his gameplan but my guess is
that when 4 is released <2002-3?>those features will be antiquated to say
the least.

Dino

by **Ronald Stoeh** » Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:00:00

snip

> FF support is a major issue, I agree, but so far I have only driven two games
> that have implemented FF in such a way that it does not distract from racing,
> namely GPL and RC. I would find it very irritating if FF would not enhance
> gameplay and be just another 'hip' feature.

So you didn't try Viper Racing?? It's FF effects are close to GPL's, and
you
should be able to get VR quite cheap. You really should...

BTW, no FF support in GP3 really is a surprise. I was so sure it would
be
in the sim, that I didn't check for it in the previews!

--
l8er
ronny

Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

by **Tadej Krev** » Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Hi,

went to bhmotorsports.com and I can't find that video clip. Could one please
post the whole URL to the clip ?

P.S. : please send me an email also.

Thanks,
Tadej

> > Excuse me, I've got to vent a little....

> Looks like we think the same Jan (on many other points also on various
> different subject). I consider myself a *** racing simulation fan. I
> personally do not mind having the same game engine in GP3, as I found it had
> great potential and good versalitity. I also found the graphics pretty
> good, actually. If you go to http://www.racesimcentral.net/'ll see a new
> video for the software with some great TV-camera shot. The car model is
> incredible, I will now say. Graphics is not important to me really, except
> that they need to be accurate for a racing simulation. GPL achieved that
> for me. Graphics actually benefited from the game engine, with a great
> virtual***pit (which GP3 will have and Im happy), great pallette and great
> versatility in the 3d structure of the tracks. I do hope GP3 will have
> complex track accuracy, it has to. I know that GP2 can have a complex track
> accuracy from some of the user-created tracks I've seen.

> But it's normal some of us whine. No sorry, we aren't whining, we are just
> very dissapointed. Some features after 4years will not be fixed nor simply
> advanced. Geoff Crammond has been I would say a synonym of "technology
> pusher" in all the products he has released.

> If this was the real case, then for GP3 we would have Force Feedback. We
> would have Internet racing at least. For me internet racing isn't simply
> the average. Look at Papyrus, they give us "Community online tools" as I
> would name them. Geoff will not even give us TCP/IP racing!!!!

> > Hopefully the "Crammond believers" will come crashing down off cloud nine
> > when the game ships so we can form a united front to put some pressure on
> > GP4.

> I have my doubts on that. They will all buy Gp3 whatever the case. It
> looks like a good quality title in terms of physics and gameplay. But every
> other essential isn't really pushed like a Geoff Crammond software should be
> pushed. Or like a Kaemmer software is. Microprose/Hasbro are known to have
> a poor service. Probably 1 patch, but nothing more. They just want our
> money, you know...

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- May the Downforce be with you...
> -- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
> how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

by **Joel Willstei** » Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Same here. I simply wouldn't consider purchasing a sim that isn't state
of the art, doesn't have online racing, nor Force Feed back.

Joel Willstein

by **Joel Willstei** » Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> > GP3 should have been the game to blow GPL out of the water, just like
it's
> > demo sunk GP2 nearly 2 years ago. GP3 doesn't appear to even challenge
GPL
> > (except for the weather, maybe), which means Crammond has failed, IMO. I
> bet
> > Cassidy, Keammer and Co are reading all this with a very smug grin on
> their
> > face and so they should!! -As long as they don't start resting on their
> > laurels too and get right back to work on GPL2. ;-)

> It's already blown GPL out of the water.

> David G Fisher

David,

And just what do you base your opinion on?
Online play
Force Feedback
ground breaking technical advancements
or just that it's GP3

Joel Willstein

by **Joel Willstei** » Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> > If this was the real case, then for GP3 we would have Force Feedback.
We
> > would have Internet racing at least. For me internet racing isn't
simply
> > the average. Look at Papyrus, they give us "Community online tools" as
I
> > would name them. Geoff will not even give us TCP/IP racing!!!!

> GPL was a royal pain in the a** online, so even with no internet play at
> all, Crammond has no reason to feel inferior to Papyrus in that
department.
> If GP3 would would have similiar online performance to GPL, then I'm glad
> they left it out. I dont want to waste more hours of my life trying to
pound
> a square peg into a round hole.

> MS and Ratbag know how to do it right.

> David G Fisher

Would be isn't the same as did it. You're assuming. And when you
assume, you make a ASS out of U and ME.

Joel Willstein

by **M Gilmor** » Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:00:00

[snip]

Okay two questions here.

Even though GP3 won't have TCP/IP, it will have IPX for LAN play.
So wouldn't it be possible if one uses Kali (which I think allows IPX
play over the net) to play GP3 on-line?

Also I know the January dated alpha version doesn't have FF.
But has it been definitely ascertained that the final version of GP3
won't have FF?

--------
remove aluminium to mail

rec.autos.simulators

GP3 pessimism?

GP3 pessimism?

GP3 pessimism?

GP3 pessimism?

GP3 pessimism?

GP3 pessimism?

GP3 pessimism?

GP3 pessimism?

GP3 pessimism?

GP3 pessimism?

GP3 pessimism?

GP3 pessimism?