> Physics? Ah tracks have physics now? Good to know ;)
*other* natural forces: traction circles, surface adhesion, gravity,
inertia, lift, downforce, centripetal force, centers of gravity, roll
centers, bump steer, slip angles...
> Physics? Ah tracks have physics now? Good to know ;)
> > Of course, using "paired photons" could be handy for team races in GPL,
> > in that you and your team-mate could co-operate easily without
> > affecting the other cars at all. And if anyone tried to interfere (ie
> > crash into you) you would suddenly not be there anymore.
> > No, I don't know anything about quantum mechanics (as is probably all
> > too obvious), but as far as I understand it, no-one really does anyway,
> > and it's all completely impossible in any case unless lots of extra
> > dimensions exist curled up on one another (or something).
> Good one, David ;-D
> I someday will start if I have time something called "Noteless quotes &
> Shameless flames", a weekly collection of memorable message by r.a.s.
> citizens that people would enjoy re-read, mostly for humoristic reasons.
> Anybody dislike the idea? It's been adopted on many newsgroups towards the
> Usenet, and is a step forward to bring the community a little closer.
> --
> -- 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.
Can you say "troll"? I thought you could...
Regards,
Brett C. Cammack
That's Racing! Motorsports
Pompano Beach, FL
How bout this one ymenard, "some people think it's hard to be smug"
I'll let you finish the rest "super genius". I'll be watching to see what
you come up with..........
Al Stiff
> See Barton ^^^. Some people simply take things a little too seriously in
> life. Why don't we share a pint someday? It's just a signature file
Stiff,
> it's made especially so you can have a sarcastic and ironic end to your
> message. Always liked Ronald's. And it's a ***y funny one when you
think
> about it, especially related to the Americans who correct my "ising" of
the
> word. Some great fun on n3.discussion :)
> --
> -- 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.
Jan.
=---
> > Physics? Ah tracks have physics now? Good to know ;)
> Not like the ones you take when you're constipated, Frankie... those
> *other* natural forces: traction circles, surface adhesion, gravity,
> inertia, lift, downforce, centripetal force, centers of gravity, roll
> centers, bump steer, slip angles...
Why would I change a quote? Especially a Calvin & Hobbes quote? :)
That would be like taking "Eureka!" and saying "Aukare!". Doesn't make any
sense, but Im not surprised to see that eh 8)
--
-- 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.
I better stop talking nonsense about string theory and lightspeed
particles before I say stupid things <G>
There are actually *smart* people over here, hehe
JoH
....
<Piston>
I think we have to nuance here.. "Sims cannot..."? If someone really
wants to put all effort into it, and if there would be a PROFITABLE
MARKET for such (verrry expensive) gear, then I think it would be
perfectly possible to develope a sim with all these properties. But it
could be more expensive than the real thing :-)
Just think about realworld aircraft simulators: they are absolutely
spot-on, and the visuals could be made even better if that would make
them more efficient.
But there are the economics: the simulators as they are now are good
enough to do what they should do. So why waste money on even better
visuals?
Back to the racecar sim: the market consists of HOME users who would
like to have such a sim just for their ENTERTAINMENT. Now, for me THAT
is the biggest reason why we haven't seen the racecar equivalent of
real aircraft sims.
JoH
NO. They can't. No one here has ever driven a '67 F1 car. Not once in two
years have I read a post from someone who has.
No.
That's all you'll get.
I asked the same questions long ago. Still don't know the answer.
Boring, isn't it?
What they would say is that MS doesn't know as much as they do about how a
sim should feel. I know, it makes no sense at all, but that's exactly what
they've said in the past.
What NEVER gets mentioned on r.a.s. is that in the two years since GPL was
released, it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a mountain of articles and quotes from
current and former F1 drivers who rave about GPL. Actually, I've never read
ANYTHING at all. You would think that it would be EASY to find these
articles and quotes. Where is the article where Jackie Stewart raves on and
on....................and on............... about how incredibly accurate
GPL is? His glory years as a race car driver have been recreated. He should
looooooove it.
Nothing.
They don't exist. That's why I find the GPL fan club so ridiculous.
Move on guys.
David G Fisher
"move on guys"
Hah, good one ymenard! You had me going there for a bit.
LOL!
--DK
On the subject of stupidity, you might want to run your post through a
grammar and spelling checker...
--
Cheers!
Graeme Nash
> <message - watch thread>
> ....now this is a thread I'm not going to miss, if my news provider
> screws up now I'm going over there personally with the biggest blow
> torch (flame thrower substitute :-) I can find, this ought to be a good
> one.....
> Beers and cheers
> (uncle) Goy
> "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/
> "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
> * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way *
> "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com
Andre
>> 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.
>NO. They can't. No one here has ever driven a '67 F1 car. Not once in two
>years have I read a post from someone who has.
>>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.
>No.
>>And by extensive background, I don't mean
>> "Eagle Woman" or some guy who drove his Datsun in IMSA twenty five
>> years ago.
>That's all you'll get.
>> 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.
>I asked the same questions long ago. Still don't know the answer.
>> 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.
>Boring, isn't it?
>> 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......
>What they would say is that MS doesn't know as much as they do about how a
>sim should feel. I know, it makes no sense at all, but that's exactly what
>they've said in the past.
>What NEVER gets mentioned on r.a.s. is that in the two years since GPL was
>released, it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a mountain of articles and quotes from
>current and former F1 drivers who rave about GPL. Actually, I've never read
>ANYTHING at all. You would think that it would be EASY to find these
>articles and quotes. Where is the article where Jackie Stewart raves on and
>on....................and on............... about how incredibly accurate
>GPL is? His glory years as a race car driver have been recreated. He should
>looooooove it.
>Nothing.
>They don't exist. That's why I find the GPL fan club so ridiculous.
>Move on guys.
>David G Fisher