rec.autos.simulators

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

Mark Seer

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by Mark Seer » Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:00:00

And of course you tested all these cars doing 180 mph through the Masta Kink
<G>

Hmm. Hardly a comparison. I'd expect to see a car weighing in at several
times the weight of a single seater to have beefier suspension. I Somehow
doubt that the body roll thing at comparable racing speeds. As far as tyre
grip goes maybe a ton or more dead weight pressing on the contact patches
had something to do with grip, if your grip theory holds water.

See above. Horses for courses.

I'm sure it's not perfect. It's the closest we've had to date though.

Have you tried taking the shifting help off? <G>. Have you ever tried
shifting through a period GP gearbox? Come to that, have you seen and heard
many 67 cars in action from trackside?  Drivers on occasion would complain
that their hands felt like a plate of meat after races, especially after
clutches broke.

See above

No offence mate but comparing the best racing sim on the market with Doom
<ROTFLOL>

MS

j..

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by j.. » Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:00:00

LMAO
I just had to reply to this one!
I can just see the old '67 Galaxy cranking off laps at Monaco. LOL
Comparing your passenger cars to F1 cars is just too much!
I really like the "better tire grip" quote. I don't think your Impala
had quite the Horsepower to weight ratio that the F1 car has.
This is like saying my Toyota Tercel is a "superior" vehicle to a World
of Outlaws sprint car because It doesn't flex as much when I stomp on
the gas, and by gosh I have so much more traction, i've never smoked the
tires on the ol' Toyota!
Yup the name 2_Slow fits alright. LOL





> > Let's see you back up your arguments with some factual evidence
rather
> than
> > pumping out opinionated garbage.

> > MS

>    I owned two '67 passenger cars. A '67 Impala and a '67 Ford Galaxy.
I
> also owned a '65 Buick Skylark GS. All three of these cars had less
body
> roll, stiffer suspensions, and better tire grip, than that displayed
by
> the physics engine in GPL.

>    Either:

>    A) American made passenger cars of that era were vastly superior to
> Gran Prix cars, which I highly doubt.

>    B) The physics in GPL is inaccurate.

>    Also, my three in the tree, shifted much smoother than those granny
> shifting transmissions depicted in GPL. I've always admired F1 drivers
> for the way they go through the gears. It's just, rev, rev, rev. GPL
> seems to be rev, pause, ka-lunk, rev. Not very realistic imo.

>    It may be very fun to race this sim, though it seems best suited
for
> hardware three years old or so, about the same era as Doom.

>    2_Slow

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kirk Lan

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by Kirk Lan » Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Well, they have monstrous wings, diffusers, etc etc.  A CART car can
(theoretically of course :) stick upside down at 'just' 100mph.

The suspensions are so incredibly stiff because with the wings they
effectively weigh a huge amount more at speed than they do sitting still.
With a soft suspension, adding a couple thousand pounds would slam the car
down instantly.

Well, GPL cars don't have wings.  No aero help whatsoever.

You have to get them warm and they are hideously hard!!  Like in the '4
Wheel Drift' book included, a set could last 3 races, whereas now teams use
3 sets per race...

Watch an old pre-aero (67 and older) F1 race on Speedvision.  They ARE that
soft and they DO roll that much.  GPL is the antithesis of being 'hosed'.

No, they're anything but deep-sixed.  N3 uses N2 physics only because it was
a quicker and cheaper game to make, and, at the time, a computer capable of
running GPL perioud was hard to come by and expensive.  N4 does use GPL
physics, which is OK since processors have gotten much faster (back when N3
came out a really fast one was what, 450?  Top of the line is 1000
now...however, much of that speed will be necessary so as to be able to race
with over double the amount of cars that GPL has.) and cheaper.  Hopefully
they'll code good D3d support into it this time...

Of course, I might feel differently, had Papy

Well, yes, the demo blows :)

--
Kirk Lane


ICQ: 28171652
BRT #187

"Yeah you won't find me
I'm going MIA
Tonight I'm leaving
Going MIA
Getting lost in you again
Is better than being known"
                     -Foo Fighters, "MIA"

Ian

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by Ian » Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Were you using a supported graphics card ? The graphics were absolutely fine
on mine (Voodoo 1 at the time)
Were you using Win 95 (if using the original demo) ? Win 98 had some
problems with the first demo.
What's granny shifting, did you use auto ?

I haven't heard of any major problems with anyones system and the first GPL
demo except for not running in Win 98 or poor framerate with low spec
systems.

--
Ian Parker


==



> > Oh and BTW, where were the bugs in the GPL demo ? It worked flawlesly
> for
> > me.

>    Nod. Whenever I escaped from a race back to the menus, my machine
> would lock up tight on me. Only way to get out of it was power off and
> back on. I grew weary of watching scandisc run on a 40 gb hard drive. I
> deep sixed the bug infested ***.
>    I won't even get into the graphic anomalies or the granny shifting in
> the demo.

>    2_Slow

ymenar

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by ymenar » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00

I can't resist replying to this troll... oh well 8)


Just think a little about what you just wrote.  Just think of the obvious
flaw of comparing a normal road car and a formula one racecar.  Whatever the
situation, your point doesn't stand, as the laptimes in GPL equal mostly the
ones that the 1967 F1 season had.

C)  You just forgot to think.

Hello??? Another time.. please think of the crude and harsh gearbox that
those F1 had back in 1967.  Just use your brain...

Hmm... I suggest you watch footage of vintage Formula 1 racing.  Why do you
ASSume such things? Shifting in that era _was_  rev, pause, ka-lunk, rev.
Very realistic imo.

You obviously don't use much your brain.  Doom wasn't released 3 years ago.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.WeRace.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.

Jeff Salzman

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by Jeff Salzman » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00

OK, maybe this guy's not trolling...

Bias-ply tires on a car that weighed, what, 4000+ pounds..compared to
a car that had maybe 2500-3000 pounds less weight, easily 2X the power
(musclecar or not, you didn't drive a ZL1 Chevy) and yet you complain
about an F1 car having worse grip. Downforce is the same as weigfht,
so far as grip's concerned. The power-to-grip ratio of an F1 car,
compared to your stiffly sprung, ultra-grippy WRC-prepped '67 Impala,
is significantly higher. Therein lies the challenge of driving F1. Try
driving a 600HP pickup truck in the rain and then make a post about
lousy grip.

Try shifting 700+HP through a gearbox designed for minimal weight,
with a six-foot linkage, not some column-shift boat anchor designed to
last five years instead of five weeks.

Modern F1 cars use a completely different transmission, I've read the
current Ferrari box shifts in something like 30
milliseconds...certainly quicker than I can do!

Given your keen assessment of what constitutes a racing sim, I've no
doubt you'll be perfectly happy with the accurate physics of N3 or F1
2000.

Matthew B.Knutse

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by Matthew B.Knutse » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00

From what I've read, a modern F1 box can do N-1-2-3-4-5-6-5-4-3-2-1-n-R-n in
something like 0.7 seconds :-)

Ahh, the FG series boxes of the past. They are just lovely! Having driven
race cars with them; there's only a few glitches in GPL:

1) Try getting those boxes into 1st when standing still!
(GrrrIIIIIIINNNNNDDDD, GRIIIIIIIINNNNNDDDD, (pump clutch & gas) GriiiiNNNND
CLUNCK!! *stalled it*)

2) Oh, the glory of heel & toe downshifting, doing the blipping on yer own!
A nice cammy race engine like the DFV or a Hart 24R....sweet!

3) The diff, which would pull black marks on the inside tire if doing a
sharp turn at 2mph....

4) Wandering off a bit: But I'd love to see the engines idle at 2200 RPM,
and be a real dog to get going!
Come to think of it, 1st gear is nearly impossible to select while at speed,
it was effectively just a gear for starting.

Love the 67 Impala story BTW :-) Anybody see "Bullit"? See the Charger
there, which was one of the rawest US cars in those days? (although the
Shelby Mustang makes it a bit wussy)? LOL, it almost scrapes its door
handles on the ground when cornering hard! Would have been outrun by a 1071
Cooper S kinda easily, at least in the San Fransisco city centre :-D

Matt
(woohooo!)

2_Slo

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by 2_Slo » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00

   What about the brakes. Any race car driver ever born, upon returning
to the pits after a few laps in a GPL physics car, would have sought out
his mechanic, beat him severely about the head and shoulders, and told
him, "FIX THE ***Y BRAKES!".

   Sorry, but the physics in GPL all seem to be highly exxagerated to
me. Perhaps this is why a handful of people enjoy it so much.

   2_Slow

2_Slo

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by 2_Slo » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00


   But wasn't the initial post in this thread, by a diehard GPL fan, in
and of itself, a troll? ;)

   2_Slow

Skeet

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by Skeet » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00

  The brakes are good enough to lock up the tires but the grip the
hard ass *** tires without downforce is awful.    

On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:57:50 -0500, "2_Slow"


>   What about the brakes. Any race car driver ever born, upon returning
>to the pits after a few laps in a GPL physics car, would have sought out
>his mechanic, beat him severely about the head and shoulders, and told
>him, "FIX THE ***Y BRAKES!".

>   Sorry, but the physics in GPL all seem to be highly exxagerated to
>me. Perhaps this is why a handful of people enjoy it so much.

>   2_Slow

Andre Warrin

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by Andre Warrin » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00

On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:39:04 -0500, "2_Slow"

<snip>

Best suited for hardware 3 years old... First, the demo came out in
April 98, only 2 years ago, and the hardware back then certainly
wasn't enough for GPL, no way you could get 36 fps all the time. Even
now with my PIII Voodoo 3 I don't get 36 fps at the start of Monaco!

Imho your knowledge of car physics is quite low, but your hardware
knowledge can also be improved a lot...

Andre

2_Slo

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by 2_Slo » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00

   Someone in this thread, I don't remember who, asked , what was granny
shifting. It is a term, not often used today, but was popular in my
***age days, in the mid to late sixties, among hot rodders and racers
of that time.

   Granny is a shortened venacular term for grandmother.

   Granny shifting meant:

   A) Someone driving a manual transmissioned car, who was not adept at
working the gearbox.

   B) Shifting your gearbox in a lazy or slovenly manner. I.E. You're
shifting like your grandmother would.

   2_Slow

Coli

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by Coli » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00

I suggest you rent the movie "Grand Prix" starring James Garner.
This movie was shot in 1966 and shows the F1 cars of the time.
There are many in-car shots and some of the shots are from real GP's.
This should give you a better frame of reference to compare to GPL.
Then please post back with your updated opinions on GPL physics <g>

Cheers,
...Colin

Mark Seer

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by Mark Seer » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00

 Further to my previous post, I dug out some old video footage of Jim Clark
lapping round Brands Hatch in a Galaxy. It was quite amusing watching him
take Druids with the car nearly cornering on it's door handles <G>

MS


> LMAO
> I just had to reply to this one!
> I can just see the old '67 Galaxy cranking off laps at Monaco. LOL
> Comparing your passenger cars to F1 cars is just too much!
> I really like the "better tire grip" quote. I don't think your Impala
> had quite the Horsepower to weight ratio that the F1 car has.
> This is like saying my Toyota Tercel is a "superior" vehicle to a World
> of Outlaws sprint car because It doesn't flex as much when I stomp on
> the gas, and by gosh I have so much more traction, i've never smoked the
> tires on the ol' Toyota!
> Yup the name 2_Slow fits alright. LOL





> > > Let's see you back up your arguments with some factual evidence
> rather
> > than
> > > pumping out opinionated garbage.

> > > MS

> >    I owned two '67 passenger cars. A '67 Impala and a '67 Ford Galaxy.
> I
> > also owned a '65 Buick Skylark GS. All three of these cars had less
> body
> > roll, stiffer suspensions, and better tire grip, than that displayed
> by
> > the physics engine in GPL.

> >    Either:

> >    A) American made passenger cars of that era were vastly superior to
> > Gran Prix cars, which I highly doubt.

> >    B) The physics in GPL is inaccurate.

> >    Also, my three in the tree, shifted much smoother than those granny
> > shifting transmissions depicted in GPL. I've always admired F1 drivers
> > for the way they go through the gears. It's just, rev, rev, rev. GPL
> > seems to be rev, pause, ka-lunk, rev. Not very realistic imo.

> >    It may be very fun to race this sim, though it seems best suited
> for
> > hardware three years old or so, about the same era as Doom.

> >    2_Slow

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Mark Seer

Nascar 3 physics versus GPL

by Mark Seer » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Stick some modern F1 carbon brakes on a 67 car and the difference would be
negligible. Brakes are only as good as the ability of a tyre to handle the
forces or grip!!

Not being *** here buddy but I'd seriously advise you to do a bit more
research before making so many rash statements.

MS



rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.