GC has said over and over he will be re-using much of his previous
code. He has spent a great deal of time and effort with his work and he
isn't inclined to just trash that and start over.
So...I'm supposing...he chose to re-use his steering code(or atleast a
large portion of it) and since that was written long before FF was
available, it just wouldn't be possible to include it without a major
re-write.
(now I get really confusing)
Think of the difference between N3's FF and GPL's. Granted GPL didn't
have FF to start with, but when they DID include it...it was fantastic.
Now many GPL drivers have found the FF in N3 to be lacking. Possibly
because it just wasn't possible to write decent FF into the creaky N2
engine that N3 was based on. So I'm guessing the GP2 core of GP3
prevents decent FF. Would I be wrong to assume that?
dave henrie
> I don't think it's a justification for not buying the game, but I agree it's
> a really big disapointment. It's also hard to fathom.
GP3 should be able to do the same thing, to the same great effect.
Unless they don't have a true 3D physics engine, which would not bode
well for the quality of the sim.
Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment
Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment
Chris
--
Citylab Durban
www.citylab.com
Tel:(+27 31) 309 2944
Faxl:(+27 31) 309 2933
If I were Geoff Crammond, I'd get these two games out of the way, build a
bigger developement team at Symergy and then start with a clean piece of
paper for GP5.
Simon.
--
Ian Parker
==
> >There we go again....
> >Some people want a carphysics simulator, but some want a _racing_
simulator.
> >It's just a DIFFERENT product. OK?
> I disagree. There's only so far you can go without real physics (the
> lack of FF is just one example). If they aren't going to bring it up
> to the current sim level, why not just do a 3d-card port of GP2?
> Joe McGinn
> _____________________
> Radical Entertainment