rec.autos.simulators

That would explain your sig and prior behavior, I guess. BTW, I, for
one, would be fascinated to hear more about your extensive racing
experience on two of the tracks currently used in F1. I assume Montreal
is one, but what is the other? What vehicle(s)? I'm sure many of us here
are absolutely agog -- an experienced piloto AND a super genius, that's
quite a rare and precious combination. Tell us more!

BB

An experienced piloto, a super genius, and a programmer, too! I've noted
before how you so glibly compare this game engine with that game engine
-- could you explain to us less-gifted mortals some of the algorithms
that make one game engine superior/inferior/just plain different from
another? After all, you've included yourself in the "us" of "most of us
don't say stuff just to impress, but to inform." Inform us, Frank...

BTW, exactly who comprises this "we" that you're always talking about so
familiarly? You know, like in the statement "we quite knew that the SCGT
game engine, even if above-average, just couldn't match up the one in
GPL." Again, please shed some informative light on how an ace programmer
like yourself (and the others of "we") goes about the scientific method
you so humbly describe as "we quite knew" -- what worlds of scientific
wonder must lie in those three simple words..."we quite knew"!

Again, I'm agog.

Please don't hide your light under a bushel -- brilliance is nothing to
be ashamed of or modest about...tell us all!

BB

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:33:01 +0100, Andre Warringa

WHAT!!?!  What'dya mean not realistic?  Who said that?  Where are
they?  Maybe, just maybe GPL ISN'T the most realistic simulation that
has been or ever will be produced.  How d'ya like them apples?  Can
anyone with any authority on the subject really tell me if GPL is
truly a realistic portrayal of late 60's F1 cars so far as the driving
model is concerned.  I always hear, "damn straight it's realistic.
The physics model has been programmed such that even a pebble stuck in
the tread will wildly alter the handling of the car.  With that level
of detail, it MUST be realistic."  That's basically what I keep
hearing, but has anyone with an extensive racing background been able
to support this claim.  And by extensive background, I don't mean
"Eagle Woman" or some guy who drove his Datsun in IMSA twenty five
years ago.  I know that the physics model is supposed to accurately
model dozens of variables which affect car handling, but in the end,
is it really the sum of it's parts?  I honestly would like to know.
For months and months I've read hundreds of posts proclaiming GPL as
"the sim which has just made every other present and future sim
complete and utter arcade like garbage."  Not in those exact words of
course, but that's the general attitude I get from many how shall I
say, 'enthusiastic,' GPL fans.

 If someone, Michael Schumacher for example, ever tried out GPL and
proclaimed that it didn't feel very realistic, I think it would
forever shatter the lives of all the GPL groupies.  To them it would
be a revelation on par with aliens landing on Earth and the
realization that we are not the only sentient life in the
universe......

No no you misunderstood me :).  Many of the Ubisoft employees always refered
to Ubisoft's game engine as the "POD game engine", quite like per example
the "Unreal game engine", as it's the first title that used it.

In the thread you replied I was rating development game engine on my opinion
of the potential they have, and forgetting about MGI's Viper Game engine,
which should be below GPL but at the level of RC2000 and others.  Their name
has no relation with a title that would have the same name, as it represent
a global opinion of the potential of the developper.  We could call the old
Papyrus game engine the "Icr1 game engine" if we wanted!

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

I suggest you go look at a Deja.com message not more than 2days ago, to see
what tracks I went saw racing and/or F1.  I've drove Monaco as it's a public
road, and of course Montreal, and lapped a good portion of the Magny-Cours
circuit when I visited some people there last year.  I know Montreal by
heart, and only one track has a good accuracy and it's a user-created track
by a GP2 fanatic.  I told well enough that I've raced Touring Cars for
2season before an accident that left me unable to race anymore.  Please,
your anti-ymenard crusade is quite funny, and started for no reason not even
a month ago.  You must feel very good about this.  Always wondered the
sociological fun of actually choosing an human being and putting him down.

It's just a fact that we have not seen even 1 post mentionning of the good
accuracy of F1 2000's track, yet we more have dozens of them agreeing it's
one of the main flaw of the software.

Just to help you, look at a thread called "second opinion about F1 2000...".
About the knowledge some people on this newsgroup have of the track
accuracy.  I do suspect many people have lapped Silverstone, Spa, Monaco,
Montreal, France, the AI-Ring, The Nurburgring, the Touring car portion of
Hockenheim, and finally Imola.  They all offer racing clubs.

--
-- 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.

Why bother racing at 200 mph if you can play with lightspeed tools?
And you get lots of spectacular crashes for free  :-)

Are we getting off-topic here? :-)

You can do that with GP2 as well.

There goes the last reason to buy F12000 <G>

JoH

You've *raced* at Ile Notre-Dame? Come on Francois, roller-blading
doesn't count. :)

Except the cars do crazy things on the banking.

Stephen

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:40:17 +0100, Gregor Veble

I'd disagree with that (at least as far as a racecar being easier than
a road car).

A road car is set up at the factory so as not to kill too many of it's
drivers - it's purpose is to safely transport from A to B. A racecar's
purpose is to get from A to B as fast as possible, irrespective of
staying on the road. The driver's job is to dial back any instability
to the point where it is manageable for him, and that will always be
far, far closer to the limit than a road car setup for the lowest
common denominator.

Any car is "easy to drive" when far from the limit, but a racecar
generally gives you far less warning of when you approach the limit,
and things go pear-shaped more quickly when you reach it.

Cheers!
John

Actually, I can remember Rubens Barichelo when he put up an amazing
qualifying result in Brazil last year.  You could clearly see him
drifting out of the corners. The drift was not as pronounced as in GPL
due to the much stiffer tires that are common these days, but those were
some creamy drifts nevertheless, and it showed in the time he put up.

But most amazement I had recently was watching McCoy going for the win
in the South African GP 500 this Sunday. The man was constantly
powersliding out of corners! I did not think that was really an option
on recing bikes, I guess I was wrong.

The whole world is a sum of its interacing parts. Yet, interacting parts
can have qualities (as vaguely defined as this is) that individual parts
don't. But, if you simulate individual parts and their interactions
correctly, the overall result will also be correct. That's the idea that
is behind the whole of science, that's what got Armstrong and the gang
on the Moon.

So, the (simulated) parts are tyres and chassis and links and springs
and such, going around their Newtonian business, while the whole is a
car that is able to drift around corners in virtual Monza. It is still
purely a sum of its elements, but gets an additional quality of being
exhillarating to drive.

I hope you see my point.

-Gregor

Drifting is a major part of the Australian / American approach to going fast
on a motorbike. I don't see why these highly powered GP machines (relative
to their weight) cannot be successfully drifted. Very punishing on the
***, for sure, but with 2 to go I don't think that's much of an issue.
Nothing is much of an issue if you're going balls out for a win.

Congrats Gary!!

Jan.
=---

I can only compare driving rental karts to my (t)rusty Renault Clio.
What the normal road cars have is usualy the characteristic of not being
able to goof it up easily (the 'sneeze factor'), so they usually just
plow if you overcook it. But when at the limit with these cars, the
level of communication and control is far less than for a racecar.

It is so easy to correct powerslides or other tail-out antics in a kart,
you have a really good gut feeling for this when you are driving them.
But I've spun my Clio twice in completely dry conditions (on a very
special corner that I know of here that has enough run off area - two
empty lanes on the other side of the road), simply because the level of
communication is not very good, and the steering wheel response too
slugish. The first time I spun was a 'wow, what happened here' thing,
and the second one I provoked it, so I anticipated it, then tried to
correct it with the accelerator down and opposite lock, but then I spun
in the other direction, which was really scary, so I do not do that
anymore :).

The road cars may be more stable, but the instability of racecars is
usually more than compensated for by the large vocabulary of the car
about what it has to say, and the direct controls.

The drift on these bikes is amazing simply for the fact that a drift of
a modern racecar - the large cornering stiffness of the modern tyres and
an unforgiving sliding charcteristic. You really need to be in perfect
control of these machines to induce a long slide.

McCoy's achivement was one of the best motorsport achivement I've seen
in years. Congrats, Gary, from me, too!