rec.autos.simulators

I'm referring to the literal meaning of the phrase, Chris.
"I could care less" implies that there is still room to care even less than
one does at the time the statement is made.
"I couldn't care less" says that speaker is completely uninterested and
doesn't have an ounce of concern left.

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

% The problem today is not the physics models, but the hardware which we use.
% As others have said, you can have a perfect physics model in a sim, but
% since so much feedback is missing, the overall experience can be less
% realisitc than a sim which gets the "feel" right by fudging the physics
% code. I may be wrong, but I believe Crammond feels the same way.

If I recall correctly, one of the reasons GP2 took so long was that
Crammond was struggling to find the perfect "fudges" for feel that his
physics engine didn't translate.  This does not imply anything, it was
simply his "artistic" approach to programming.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Bruce, I understand your point. What I am referring to
is this line from your original post:

<snip>

That's the part that I think you have wrong. Just imagine to declare
that you couldn't care less would require the speaker to run various
tests of the caring capacity of his soul to be literally correct.
I contend again that in my experience the person saying this wants
to convey the thought that he doesn't want to expend that effort,
doesn't have even a smidgen of interest in the question before him
and is very close in fact to punching me in the nose! I think this
may be a good example of how words can be misunderstood by people
who *almost* speak the same language. ;)
p.s. It is an honor to have this dialog with the Bard of the Antipodes!
and have the opportunity to ask you if you have tried
to recreate the sound of the 1967, 1968 Indy turbine cars by
substituting the *wind* sound for the engine sound? I have found
it works great and sounds very authentic on replays.
arcman

How about you filter my posts?

David G Fisher

No Andre. Here's what you really said.

"you hated it that people mostly talk about GPL here, and that RC2000 is
hardly discussed, but did you ever wonder why that is?"

I pointed out the fact that I don't even talk about RC at the forum at HG
which blows away all the others there in number of postings. That should be
enough evidence for any sane person to see that I'm not obsessed with MY sim
as you are with yours. Look at the number of postings for the various sims
there  http://forums.simracingnews.com/ , and tell me why I should care if
GPL is talked about a lot here at r.a.s. The HG forums make it very clear
what sim is most popular/talked about. If talking about RC was so deeply
important to me, I would be a significant contributor to those 22,000 posts.
Instead, I've posted once in the last 5 months. I don't really car how much
it's talked about here, there, or anywhere. I know you want people to think
that I am as obsessed with RC as you are with GPL, and therefor my opinions
are biased, but my non-participation in RC talk proves you wrong. How many
GPL posts do you have now?

"but did you ever wonder why that is?"

Just so there's no confusion. R.a.s. has become the main GPL forum. Mostly
the same people (like yourself) posting over and over again for the past two
years. Is there another popular GPL forum on the net?

I don't remember the famous questions from Remco like you do. I do have a
very good idea as to how a rally car handles in the BRC. I know that if you
use the same techniques as the real drivers do, the car responds correctly.
I know MF had about 20 people (pros and amateurs) with real rally experience
provide input on the physics. And no, they weren't all used in the
advertising either. AFAIK, only one small quote from one driver appears on
the box. The ff is excellent, which would not be possible if the physics
model was as bad as you claim. I gave my views on the RC physics model long
ago, so don't try to imply that I've ducked the hard questions. I've simply
moved on. Remember, not everyone sticks with the same sim, every day, for
two years.

Yes, Andre, you've composed teery-eyed poems of love to the GPL physics
model, and claimed it's amazing realism over and over again. Nothing else
comes close according to you.

I feel like I'm guiding a cartoon GPL car on a cartoon track. I want a lot
more from an auto sim in the physics department before I'll ever send
flowers and candy on Valentine's day to it's programmer.

David G Fisher

You mean you've got more than one?

--DK

Yes...I understand what you are saying, Chris.  I think it's just an
indication of the sometimes subtle differences between two (or more)
nationalities using the same language.....as subtle as the one-letter
difference between 'aluminum' and 'aluminium', in fact!

No, I have not tried the "Whispering Sam' effect yet in GPL........I am
enjoying the raucous blast of the V12 too much!!

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

<SNIP>

Andre

LOL . . .perfect.

--DK

If only DGF did that once in a while....

I take back what I said last week about GPL fanatics being "cute" in the way
they always back eachother up.

Now I think it's adorable.

David G Fisher

I'm assuming that "Adorable" is one step better than "cute", right? I read
your post, and I thought it was 5KB too much, and Andre's response was bang
on. I do not really care for the slanging matches you have with others on
this NG, and it often seems to me that you do everything you can to rubbish
GPL, and belittle those who hold it in high regard. You don't like it. Fine.
Some of us do, and this is an appropriate forum to discuss it on.

<<snipped>>

Stop the Press!  Another micro-adjustment to Davy G's Smugness Ratio.

--DK