rec.autos.simulators

> >By GUI or is it necessary to edit a file?

> Both.

> Still, gives TSP a target... :-)

> But after Can-Am please <g>

> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 07:30:49 +1000, Bruce Kennewell

> >By GUI or is it necessary to edit a file?

> Both.

> Cheers!
> John

>Still, gives TSP a target... :-)

>Cheers!
>John

> Todd Dry wrote
> >If there were Monza banking then it wouldn't be a 1967 F1 sim would it?

> If it was a 1967 F1 sim you wouldn't race at Rouen...

> *plonk* ;-)

> - Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Good race at the Brickyard!
> - Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
> - Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking)
> - Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ on the NROS
> - "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."--

> Hi Mike,

> FWIW, I'm not the one who wrote the snippet you responded to, although
> I aggree with what was said.  I also feel that if it came down to the
> two you indicate, save-game vs. realistic physics, that I would opt for
> Papyrus to concentrate on the latter (Bruce!<g>).

> However, the save-game need not place each driver in their respective
> places as before, rather simply a save-race via "red-flag"...all cars
> back to the line!

> Cheers!

> Marc

> > Hi Marc,

> > The save game feature isn't implemented mostly due to the incredible amount
> > of dynamic data constantly on the move at 300 times per second.  I'm not if
> > it was originally planned or not (doubtful since it proved difficult with
> > the much simpler N2).  Restoring each cars positional data is easy -
> > restoring precisely their AI short term and longer term "goals", suspension
> > positions, trajectories in 3d space, is a nightmare you can only dream
> > about.  FWIW, I don't remember anybody on the test team lobbying strongly
> > for a save game feature.  I guess we could have done, but instead chose to
> > hammer home to Papyrus just how important the internet aspect of *** is.
> > We probably wouldn't have either if it weren't due to the test team and the
> > dedication/overtime of a couple of the engineers.  At least we have internet
> > play.  If you would have been willing to wait until April, perhaps a save
> > game feature would have been incorporated.  Personally, I don't think it's
> > all that important.  I'd just like to add that when the new CART sim is
> > developed, if I'm on the test team for that (unknown due to personal
> > reasons), I won't be lobbying for a save game feature for that either.  I'll
> > be concentrating on the physics and AI again, since these are the areas of a
> > sim that are most important to me.  Each to his own, I guess.

> --
> Marc J. Nelson
> The Sim Project - http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Extinct Track Archive - http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> * Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *

> Not only that, but you'll have people like me, and all the rest of us
> ***s, who will buy BOTH. And of course, the point you made with the
> general audience just buying one because it looks cool. However though, I
> am a little forced to agree with Francois (Oh my God, I agree with someone?
> And Francois of all people. *g* Just kidding.) about the stock car fan
> philosphy  where you'll have people out there who say, "Well, this is
> NASCAR and I'm gonna buy it, the other one just sucks.", when really
> though, they are missing out on a really good preview of the technology
> that will be used in NASCAR 3. But oh well, Papyrus always seems to do
> alright in the end. And fortunately, there are people in this world who are
> fans of stock cars and open wheels both.
> --
> Travis Kallner
> mknight98 on TEN
> GO MATT KENSETH #17 & THE BURTON BROTHERS #22 & #99!!!