Did it come across as worked up? Sorry 'bout that. It was meant to come
across as utterly bewildered.
Glad you're not worked up :-)
Regards,
Mark
Did it come across as worked up? Sorry 'bout that. It was meant to come
across as utterly bewildered.
Glad you're not worked up :-)
Regards,
Mark
I love it when people COMPLETELY REWRITE HISTORY.
David G Fisher
> > > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same with the
Nascar
> > > sims. But I also don't think they're not without major flaws, and if
> > > Company X made them, they'd be hammered left and right I bet.
> > Really? That's wierd. Why?
> It happened in the case of F1 2002. The *** Papy fanboys thought it
> was mediocre until Doug Arnao did wonders with the underlying physics
engine
> in GTR 2002. I find nothing that drives better than GTR 2002. I'm sure
> there are many who still claim "it's no GPL". While it's fair to say that
> ISI didn't maximize their engine with F1 2002, it was still far better
than
> it was given credit by some GPL fanatics. The "true" expert (Arnao) knew
> the quality of the sim all along. Classic double standard.
> --
> Joe M.
David G Fisher
Larry
> >Yeah, with the standard fast setup I've been losing the ass-end about 3
out
> >of every 5 laps there so far :)
> Pretty nice for a setup with NO REAR BAR. =)
> Jason
Larry
You guys are no fun, avoiding conflict like that.<g>
Jan.
=---
I'm well aware of the much deserved multiplayer criticism of ISI Scott. My
post is about the few GPL snobs that played F1 2002 and didn't give it the
credit it deserved from a physics, handling and racing stand point. I
suspect some of the early F1 2002 critics were flat out wrong in their
analysis of the physics engine "flaws".
--
Joe M.
we seem to agree in that the physics handle the bumps more or less ok. Since
neither of us knows whether the bumps are that high at Silver or not, and
since we've already exchanged our opinions, I guess this is where we need to
rest our cases :-)
Achim
Achim
...
...
Strange.... I read this very same newsgroup and I don't remember any of
that. "F1 2k2, nice drive, nice graphics, same old interface/controller
setup niggles, shame about the tracks and the multiplayer" is the summation
I came away with. You've got to know whose opinion to trust and whose to
disregard on this forum, I agree, but that's fairly easy to work out if you
hang around for a while.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: GPL snobbism is imagined by
people who can't understand how others can be as fond of a simulation as
they are of GPL and just invent a reason to make sense of it.
Jan.
=---
> > > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same with the Nascar
> > > sims. But I also don't think they're not without major flaws, and if
> > > Company X made them, they'd be hammered left and right I bet.
> > Really? That's wierd. Why?
> It happened in the case of F1 2002. The *** Papy fanboys thought it
> was mediocre
> "Joe M." wrote...
> > <snip>
> > I'm well aware of the much deserved multiplayer criticism
> > of ISI Scott. My post is about the few GPL snobs that
> > played F1 2002 and didn't give it the credit it deserved
> > from a physics, handling and racing stand point. I suspect
> > some of the early F1 2002 critics were flat out wrong in
> > their analysis of the physics engine "flaws".
> Strange.... I read this very same newsgroup and I don't remember any of
> that. "F1 2k2, nice drive, nice graphics, same old interface/controller
> setup niggles, shame about the tracks and the multiplayer" is the summation
> I came away with. You've got to know whose opinion to trust and whose to
> disregard on this forum, I agree, but that's fairly easy to work out if you
> hang around for a while.
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: GPL snobbism is imagined by
> people who can't understand how others can be as fond of a simulation as
> they are of GPL and just invent a reason to make sense of it.
> Jan.
> =---
> > > > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same with the
> Nascar
> > > > sims. But I also don't think they're not without major flaws, and if
> > > > Company X made them, they'd be hammered left and right I bet.
> > > Really? That's wierd. Why?
> > It happened in the case of F1 2002. The *** Papy fanboys thought it
> > was mediocre until Doug Arnao did wonders with the underlying physics
> engine
> > in GTR 2002. I find nothing that drives better than GTR 2002. I'm sure
> > there are many who still claim "it's no GPL". While it's fair to say that
> > ISI didn't maximize their engine with F1 2002, it was still far better
> than
> > it was given credit by some GPL fanatics. The "true" expert (Arnao) knew
> > the quality of the sim all along. Classic double standard.
> > --
> > Joe M.
> Exactly.
> David G Fisher
> It's just imo Jan. I think it's correct, you think it's not. No big
> deal. I'm certainly not trying to change anyone's viewpoint, and it sure as
> hell ain't worth arguing about.
Gerry
What really bugs me is when people sum up my thoughts better in their second
language than my first!
Agree 100%
Cheers
Tony