rec.autos.simulators

Translate that to an F1 car, who could drive an F1 sim that was TOTALLY
realistc.??

This is what we want., but I feel will never get.. Why??  Because the mass
market can't use it.

Software developers are in the business of making money.. that is IT...
So, they won't go making sims for a VERY neche (is that how you spell it?)
market that won't sell, and won't make money.

Grand Prix Legends I feel is the last TRUE sim we may ever see from mass
software houses.   It was a financial failure and won't be repeated again.

BUT.. it may be possible to produce true sims by sim enthusiasts.  I feel
this is the ONLY way we will ever see another GPL.

Just my 2 cents, but I think it makes a lot of sense  :-)

James Pickard,
Melbourne,
AUSTRALIA

What's wrong with a game that has a slider somewhere that goes from 0% arcade
realism to 100% GPL realism?  This is why GPL failed at the boxoffice, no
options to turn things down.  People just get frustrated and give up.

As you go down on the slider, you get more grip with the tires.  You get a
magical force that helps prevent the car from spinning.  Centrifugal force is
turned down.  Stuff like that.  

You might want to hide it in an ini file.  Because alot of people are just
going to set it to 100% as soon as they see it.  And then get frustrated and
give up.

GPL is ahead of it's time, but we will see more quality sims like this, and
even better.  Better graphics, modelling of different road conditions, weather,
time of day ( light conditions ).  GPL is the best we've seen but there is
still a long way to go.  

glen

"James Pickard"  wrote

again.

GPL is a very realistic simulator of the 1967 F1 season. It was a
financial failure for the same reason; not because it is so realistic,
but because in sports, 1967 is ancient history. If EA tried to sell
Madden Football 1967 or World Cup Soccer 1967 they would be financial
failures also, even with all of EA's mass marketing dollars.

Plus, the 1967 season was probably the most difficult season ever, in
terms of the cars as well as the competition. A realistic simulator
doesn't necesarily mean it must be extremely difficult, but a 1967 F1
sim is going to be much more difficult to master than a 2000 NASCAR
sim assuming the physics are equal in realism.

I believe Dirt Track Racing has a realistic physics engine, but
Saturday night dirt track racing at the local track is easier to
master than the F1 circuit. The most realistic rally sim that could
possibly be made is going to be far easier to drive than GPL, even a
modern F1 sim would be easier to drive than GPL. But F1 roadcourse
racing is the most demanding driving in the world; so no matter how
well it's done it still isn't going to be attractive to everyone.

The best selling "sim" series of all time is NASCAR 1,2,3. The thing
that most people (maybe even Papyrus) don't realize is that it sells
mostly because of one track, Talladega. I know about 12 people locally
who own one or more of the NASCAR products, and all but 3 of them have
never even tried to race any of the other tracks. No matter how
realistic the physics engine is, Talladega is going to be easy to
drive. Give us GPL level physics, throw in an "arcade" mode that can
be driven with a keyboard, and Papyrus has another top seller, and the
rest of us have a hyper realistic sim based on a modern form of
racing.

I disagree whole-heartedly.

There IS a mass market for realistic driving sims (F1 and otherwise), it's
just that the doe-heads in marketing (ALL OF THEM in the F1 arena) seem to
think that putting a full page adverti***t in a magazine that caters to
the 14-20 yr old "flavour of the month" market will suffice in selling a
game. This just isn't the case with simulations. They (the marketing
doe-heads), seem content to ignore the very market that is growing at the
largest rate, is MORE cash ready to purchased the equipment/game, is an
instant "loyal client" upon satisfaction, and has the longest "shelf-life"
participants..... the market OLDER than 20 yrs old.

Don't blame anyone else but the marketing guys that have screwed it up for
the game company, the avid end-users, and the programmers that WANT to make
the games. I don't blame the "suits" for not wanting to make another
"realistic" Sim based on the "box-office" failures of the past (GPL being
perhaps the biggest).

The "suits" are going to look at the numbers from GPL, and think that the
market doesn't want a realistic sim... but the numbers are tainted because
the marketing idiots didn't know their target market and squandered the
money on useless advertising that had no impact on the QuakeIII fanatics.

They should take a page out of the Flight Sims Marketers on how it's done
properly, and successfully...

My 2 cents that I hand out in frustration....

Cheers,

Shumi
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

The obvious solution, to me, is to program a good physics engine like
GPL and include accessibility OPTIONS. Arcade drivers absolutely love
driving games that "feel" realistic (i.e., feel like the real
street-cars they drive) and features like GPL's 3d accidents. With a
high-grip arcade mode and a bit of marketing GPL could have easily
sold half a million copies.

What would that have done for sim racers? First there would be a
larger community, because SOME of those arcade racers would advance to
the more sophisticated areas of the game. And, of course, there would
be a MUCH bigger chance of other GPL-type-engine games being released.
Look at what Sierra does with the successful Nascar engine - how would
all you *** simmers feel like seeing a couple GPL
expansion-packs/conversions a year?

Joe McGinn
_________________________
GA-Sports Writer
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Joe McGinn
_________________________
GA-Sports Writer
http://www.ga-sports.com/

I disagree completely, but we will soon know which of us is right. EA
is in fact working on a 50s/60s version of Need for Speed. I'm betting
it will be a big success. Any takers?

Joe McGinn
_________________________
GA-Sports Writer
http://www.ga-sports.com/

I certainly hope you're wrong about the game companies staying away from
producing sims like GPL. When I bought this game (10 months ago for
CAN$35), I was literally floored by the quality of this sim. I'm still
amazed that no one - and I have bought N2, NL, and Sports Car GT - has
even come close to GPL. N2. NL, and SCGT collect dust on my shelf: They
feel like pong games compared to GPL. Ancient history. As Glen wrote in
his post: "GPL is the best we've seen...".

Yeah, it's hard. Yeah, it takes 3 hours to complete a full GP race. And
yeah, I'll never, ever win without AI tweaks. But the competion and
"realism" of the sim is so good, I feel like I'm there. Arcade has it's
place, but after a while, it gets boring as hell.

Yeah, the 14-year-olds want instant gratification so they're always gonna
buy RC Racer or some such muck. I think there is a market for sims like
GPL - and it's really gonna be a company that wants to push the boundry
that'll produce it.

What about Trans Am Racing '68-'72? Isn't that game a "real sim" that's
gonna be hard to play? But EA is apparently going ahead with it anyway
(albeit 9 months late).

Peter Blackmore
CANADA

(snip)
GP2 had this sort of scalabilty and it was a success though I'm sure there
were other factors involved too. I do think if there were to be a grip patch
in a sim there should be a corresponding reduction in engine output. This
would give players a positive reason to drive the more slippery cars. GPL
goes part of the way to implementing this in the Basic trainer and Advanced
trainer with the reduced power but it seems they also reduced the available
grip. I think a gutless but grippy F3 car would have made a better trainer.
Higher (or even F1 equal) grip with less power would also make setup abilty
less of a factor which i think would be a positive at a learner level so as
not to overwhelm the new player who is challenged enough just getting 'round
the track.

David

(snip)
Those sim enthusiasts would also have to be pretty good programmers too. The
only way I can see this working is something along the lines of the historic
flight sims such as Air Warrior, Warbirds, Fighter Ace plus the new ones
coming out. That business model allows for a continually upgraded product
 though some are slower than others) in return for a monthly or hourly based
usage fee. That way the sim is constantly generating revenue to pay for its
ongoing evolution. Of course the flight sims generally don't have to worry
too much about licensing issues like the car sims do. Also there is probably
a lot of resistance to the idea of pay-for-play but I think thats the way
we'll get a better GPL (GPL2 maybe?)

David

That's a completely different thing. People have seen and driven (some
still drive) these classic sports cars. If anything going with older
cars will add value to the product since most of us will never get the
chance to drive them, but we think it would be cool to pretend in a
game.

Just like historic flight sims generally do well, it is because you
could have and in many cases still can fly the old planes. But in a
racing sim the public doesn't buy it because they are curious about
the cars (we can't go out and buy them), they purchase racing sims
because of interest in the sport. The sport is what we see on TV, and
the history channel doesn't count.

Just my two ten pieces worth. :-)

Absolutely! Can you think of a system which can run GPL with all the
details and cars switched on without even the slightest drop in frame
rate? I can't. Not unless you have 4000 or more to spend on a new
1000MHz PC's!

Definitely! GPL could be GREATLY improved on.

Perhaps sim developers would do well by asking US what we think should
be included in their sims?

Ken,
- Remove 'nospamallowed' from my email address to reply.
- ICQ #53954494

I disagree, and my confidence remains in Papyrus because of one single man:
Dave Kaemmer - the guy's an absolute genius and the man's possessed when it
comes to the physics..... I bet his next sim will need an exorcist before
you can use it. :-)

Mike.

I, for one, would immediately set the AI to 100% and put all the realism
options to "real"--therefore giving me exactly what I already have.  But I
also have always realised that I (and most of the rest of us here on r.a.s.)
don't fit the profile of the average game purchaser out there.  We (and
Papy) need their purchases to fuel more research and development -- god
knows our contribution won't result in another GPL anytime soon.

Marc.

Where did you hear that?
JM