-Larry
-Larry
I'm not sure. It's been a while since I did any hosting.
-Larry
> > Dave,
> > I've come to the conclusion that having Random Damage disabled does NOT
> > apply to online races. We've seen way too much wackiness to think that
it
> > actually is.
> > -Larry
> There isn't a way to disable random damage. That's the problem. You can
turn
> the damage down to moderate or off, but that's not the same as having
random
> damage off.
> David G Fisher
>We've all been bit by the "rear bumper is connected to the #7 cylinder
>exhaust valve" feature though :)
Jason
-Larry
> >Not taking this miserable past winter season into account, usually my car
> >gets broken _for_ me on the normal season tracks :)
> >We've all been bit by the "rear bumper is connected to the #7 cylinder
> >exhaust valve" feature though :)
> Are you sure it's the engine taking damage and not the fuel
> system/driveline?
> Jason
Jason
Not a hard decision as to which to choose imo.
> I am not Anti-EA. I don't blame them for Nascar's stupidity in giving
them
> the license after Papy did such a damned fine job for the last, what, 8
> years? I have NO doubt it was all about Money and Papy actually had very
> little say in what transpired.
> For now, NR2003 is the most realistic _simulator_ there is going, and by a
> far, far margin has the best online MultiPlayer experience. It's not
> without it's faults, but right now it is simply the best overall
experience.
> Nascar Thunder (including 2004) has not progressed enough for me to
consider
> it a valid replacement for NR2003.
> I don't dislike it because it's EA, or because it's not Papy, I dislike it
> because it simply is not good enough to replace NR2003 yet. It really is
> that simple.
> For one, the online limitations simply must be overcome.
> I also do not care for the physics model. Much like F1C, it still feels
to
> me like the car does not steer, or turn. It rotates on an imaginary 'pin'
> that feels like it's located about 2 feet in front of the driver. I have
no
> idea why I have that feeling, but I do. It does not feel natural to me.
> I won't even get into the game's menu screens. It's just a ***y mess
all
> around.
> And the controller code is far, FAR more complicated than it should be.
It
> takes far too much work to get the best feel possible, and even when you
do,
> it still feels to me like a slot car, but not a slot car (it's kind of
hard
> for me to explain) :)
> If a day ever arrives where Nascar Thunder 200x is truly better than
NR2003,
> then I'll be switching to it right along with everyone else.
> Not until then...
> -Larry
> > I shouldn't have said it that way about EA because I used to play some
of
> > their games...NBA Live and Madden NFL. Now I am only interesting in
> > simulators. And when it comes to simulators, it is a different story.
> EA's
> > game ''Nascar Thunder'' is not a simulator it is a game. Papyrus NR2003
> is
> > a simulator. I find it hard to believe that you think Nascar Thunder
2004
> > is remotely close to NR2003 in simulating the effects that changes have
on
> > the racecar, because it simply isn't and any sim racer would tell you
the
> > same thing. If EA released a simulator that would allow me to make
proper
> > changes to the car I would play it and not care who made it, but I don't
> see
> > EA Sports releasing anything more than an arcade style game targeted at
> > children. And yes that is where the money is and I don't blame EA for
> > making money and I do think Papy (etc) could have done more to promote
> their
> > product. So what this boils down to is that the sim community will not
> have
> > an updated version of Nascar Racing by Papyrus, however, Papyrus was
smart
> > enough to allow mod to be installed and used with their product. This
> > effort will allow us to use updated cars, physics, and will also allow
> third
> > party developers to make changes to the game over time. Nice move Papy!
> > Shock
> > > So youre going to short change yourself a great sim because of a
flawed
> > > idealogy? That's real smart... Where I live money talks and BS
walks,
> so
> > > how about blaming Papy/Sierra/Vivendi/whoever else for not investing
the
> > > hard earned money I paid for every single product they EVER released
and
> > > pony up to Nascar as they should have. What the hell has EA to do
with
> > > that?
> > > I'd imagine there are quite a few guys that will run NR2003 for years
> just
> > > like GPLrs still race regularly with much enjoyment. If we never had
> > > another Nascar sim I'd be right there with ya'll but I want something
> > better
> > > than NR2003 and I dont give a flyin f*&k who makes it. Thunder04 is
> > getting
> > > close and I hope 05 surpasses that.
> > > Mitch
the
> > > damage model were a top priority in Papyrus for
> > > > NR2004, but thanks to Nascar signing the deal with the devil (EA) we
> > will
> > > > not have the pleasure of using the new sim.
> > > > Shock
I disagree with that assesment. Yes it is a pain that stuff is
'hidden' from the average user. But consider this. EA pays ISI to produce
a mass-market product. If they can IMPROVE on that with some under-the-
table hacks then great. This isn't like the built-in cheats that every
console game must have these days.
Certain features like super high rate physics or the curb hack can slow
down the sim. I'm sure companies like ISI and Papyrus have to meet
framerate budgets. Either by pixel counts or code complexity, the sim HAS
to run on Joe-Bob's HP box. The fact they have made these items available
to us UBER-gamers should be looked on as a good thing.
If you are too put off by having to tweek your system, I'm sure the Xbox
or PS2 is a fine piece of hardware and should be fairly tweek-free.
dave henrie
-Larry
> >It explicitly would say "Valve".
> That is incredibly lame.
> Jason
-Larry
> Not a hard decision as to which to choose imo.
> > I am not Anti-EA. I don't blame them for Nascar's stupidity in giving
> them
> > the license after Papy did such a damned fine job for the last, what, 8
> > years? I have NO doubt it was all about Money and Papy actually had
very
> > little say in what transpired.
> > For now, NR2003 is the most realistic _simulator_ there is going, and by
a
> > far, far margin has the best online MultiPlayer experience. It's not
> > without it's faults, but right now it is simply the best overall
> experience.
> > Nascar Thunder (including 2004) has not progressed enough for me to
> consider
> > it a valid replacement for NR2003.
> > I don't dislike it because it's EA, or because it's not Papy, I dislike
it
> > because it simply is not good enough to replace NR2003 yet. It really
is
> > that simple.
> > For one, the online limitations simply must be overcome.
> > I also do not care for the physics model. Much like F1C, it still feels
> to
> > me like the car does not steer, or turn. It rotates on an imaginary
'pin'
> > that feels like it's located about 2 feet in front of the driver. I
have
> no
> > idea why I have that feeling, but I do. It does not feel natural to me.
> > I won't even get into the game's menu screens. It's just a ***y mess
> all
> > around.
> > And the controller code is far, FAR more complicated than it should be.
> It
> > takes far too much work to get the best feel possible, and even when you
> do,
> > it still feels to me like a slot car, but not a slot car (it's kind of
> hard
> > for me to explain) :)
> > If a day ever arrives where Nascar Thunder 200x is truly better than
> NR2003,
> > then I'll be switching to it right along with everyone else.
> > Not until then...
> > -Larry
> > > I shouldn't have said it that way about EA because I used to play some
> of
> > > their games...NBA Live and Madden NFL. Now I am only interesting in
> > > simulators. And when it comes to simulators, it is a different story.
> > EA's
> > > game ''Nascar Thunder'' is not a simulator it is a game. Papyrus
NR2003
> > is
> > > a simulator. I find it hard to believe that you think Nascar Thunder
> 2004
> > > is remotely close to NR2003 in simulating the effects that changes
have
> on
> > > the racecar, because it simply isn't and any sim racer would tell you
> the
> > > same thing. If EA released a simulator that would allow me to make
> proper
> > > changes to the car I would play it and not care who made it, but I
don't
> > see
> > > EA Sports releasing anything more than an arcade style game targeted
at
> > > children. And yes that is where the money is and I don't blame EA for
> > > making money and I do think Papy (etc) could have done more to promote
> > their
> > > product. So what this boils down to is that the sim community will
not
> > have
> > > an updated version of Nascar Racing by Papyrus, however, Papyrus was
> smart
> > > enough to allow mod to be installed and used with their product. This
> > > effort will allow us to use updated cars, physics, and will also allow
> > third
> > > party developers to make changes to the game over time. Nice move
Papy!
> > > Shock
> > > > So youre going to short change yourself a great sim because of a
> flawed
> > > > idealogy? That's real smart... Where I live money talks and BS
> walks,
> > so
> > > > how about blaming Papy/Sierra/Vivendi/whoever else for not investing
> the
> > > > hard earned money I paid for every single product they EVER released
> and
> > > > pony up to Nascar as they should have. What the hell has EA to do
> with
> > > > that?
> > > > I'd imagine there are quite a few guys that will run NR2003 for
years
> > just
> > > > like GPLrs still race regularly with much enjoyment. If we never
had
> > > > another Nascar sim I'd be right there with ya'll but I want
something
> > > better
> > > > than NR2003 and I dont give a flyin f*&k who makes it. Thunder04 is
> > > getting
> > > > close and I hope 05 surpasses that.
> > > > Mitch
> the
> > > > damage model were a top priority in Papyrus for
> > > > > NR2004, but thanks to Nascar signing the deal with the devil (EA)
we
> > > will
> > > > > not have the pleasure of using the new sim.
> > > > > Shock
-Larry
Jason
Rich Beckett already has. I forgot where I dloaded this, but look for a
utility called F1C File Editor. Puts an GUI on just about every available
option.
dh
-Larry
> > I'm suprised someone hasn't written a 'tweak' tool that does this in
> > an interface instead of manually editing the files. The program could
> > have a guide, help system, bounds checking (interestingly an IN-thing
> > these days LOL!), etc...
> > -Larry
> Rich Beckett already has. I forgot where I dloaded this, but look for
a
> utility called F1C File Editor. Puts an GUI on just about every available
> option.
> dh