rec.autos.simulators

by **Macc** » Mon, 24 Jul 2000 04:00:00

who gives a shit if its the ***y same or not. Why is it sooo
important to have a completly new menu system?? GOOD, i dont want to
learn a new menu system. Why change something that works perfect.
The GP2 menu was exactly the same as the F1GP menu as well, just
about.
Whats the big deal on menus??
___________________
Macca
"I'd kill myself for you...Id kill you for myself"
Pantera - This Love

by **m.seer** » Mon, 24 Jul 2000 04:00:00

It's the lack of certain things within the menu system that is the problem.
Things like tyre temperature measurements on the inner, centre and outer
portions of the tyre, camber adjustment and proper diff adjustment, not just
low, med and high.

MS

GOOD, i dont want to
A decent menu should not take more than 5 minutes to get to know

The actual menu, if like GP2 was fine but is it really worth paying 30.00
for 3d graphics, wet races and a few cosmetic changes? I know my answer to
this one.

by **bog** » Mon, 24 Jul 2000 04:00:00

I wouldn't read too much into the opinions of " people who ought
to know " I know it sounds bizarre but to be an expert on
analogies eg. photography , hi-fi music reproduction , autos
simulators etc you actually need as much experience with the
analogy as the real thing , otherwise you are too easily
impressed. This is research FACT I'm afraid. For example -
modern computer generated effects in movies , they are
embarrassingly unrealistic at the moment and will look
hopelessly dated in a few years - show a computer generated
explosion to a special effects expert and they will be able to
criticise , show the same effect to an explosives expert with no
special effects knowledge and they will be " that's amazing ,
exactly like the real thing !"
Similarly musicians were amazed by CD sound when it came out -
"it's perfect !" , of course the hi-fi manufacturers knew it was
anything but perfect , whether or not they'd played a guitar in
their lives.
Same with GP car drivers.

It's not that they are trying to please - they really do think
it's realistic - for a computer game. It should be patently
obvious to all here that no simulator is anything like the real
thing in a number of important areas - G-forces for one , what's
really at issue is they get right what can be done - tyre grip ,
momentum and directional physics etc. I haven't played GP3 and I
hope it's anywhere near GPL for physics modelling - but I'll
settle for it being a good game.

Regards , Bogster

-----------------------------------------------------------

Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com

by **Greg Cisk** » Mon, 24 Jul 2000 04:00:00

Because DUH... He may throw in other shit recycled from his
previous releases too. Like when you overload the processor
ocupancy to over 100%, you will drive slower in real time but
your laptimes will be far quicker. Basicly a cheat...

Or you might have shit graphics or only sound from your car
or a host of other things.

People thought F1 2000 was rushed??? I really have to wonder
how much work actually went into GP3. It seems like they just
worked on rain effects and ported GP2 to W98.

--

rec.autos.simulators

Gp3 read this and feel ashamed

Gp3 read this and feel ashamed

Gp3 read this and feel ashamed

Gp3 read this and feel ashamed

Gp3 read this and feel ashamed