rec.autos.simulators

- No career mode
- No in-built editor (of course someone implements it)
- Slighty uninspiring weather effects
- Needs heavy machinery (I have 1.2ghz athlon, 256mb, gf2 with most of the
graphical options: high/1024/768

Easy 9.5/10

Excellent.

.mikko

I've got F1 2001 and didn't like it as the tracks seemed too narrow, the
gradients felt wrong and there seemed to be too few polygons in the
actual track bed giving a strange bumpy effect. Do you know if they've
fixed those problems?

- Michael

Xavier.

Axis [00, 00] Center="0.50000" // 0.0=min, 0.5=center, 1.0=max (use to
correct centering or split-axis issues)

I agree that the wheatereffects when in rain doesnt look good, but i love
the gfx-effect
when dry goes into overcast, and then into fog / rain :)

Online racing is great if the host got a good connection, otherwise i give
it a minus.

Btw, what kind of builtin-editor do you want??.

Peregrine
--
System:
Asus P4S533


Gainward 128Mb Ti4200 Golden Sample 340/580Mhz
SBLive!
2 x 20GB Seagate Barracudda III's
Creative DVXR2
Aopen 24x CD Writer
Windows XP build 2600
3DMark2001 Default Score 12597

They havnt touched them.

Doug

Creating new teams, creating seasons, fixing with teams' reliability and
capabilities...

These kind of editors always arrive within some weeks after release but it
would be nice if they were included...

.mikko

The bumps are a plus and not a minus. If you want glassy smooth tracks then
get F1RC.

-Gregor

The problem with the tracks bumps was mostly that the physics engine didnt
run fast enough. 200Hz isnt enough for bumps.
at 300kmh you are going 84metres per second!. Now sample this 200 times, and
you will input data from the track per 42cm.
As we know in real life.. there can be big elevation changes in reallife
over 42cm on the road. If it just changes 10cm, the physics engine will
probably think we have hit something that is 10cm high, since the last time
the physics engine was feed with data, the ground was 10cm lower.
With 400Hz engine enabled, we get data putinto it at 21cm per track at
300kmh.

To get a good physicsengine, we would need atleast to have a physicsengine
that is so fast that we can sample the road for each cm, and then we are up
into the 10kHz(!) region (for a car that goes 300km/h)

Im sure its easy to cheat with this.. any sim-programmer here who can talk a
bit more about it?
One way todo it is as suggested, making the road flat, and add fake bumps.
But if we should do really accurate tracks (hm.. scaning the road with
lasers to pickup all the bumps etc in the tarmac?) we cant use fake bumps.

The bumps in F1 2002 are anyway much less then in F1 2001. Suzuka for
example was much rougher before.
But them bumps seems to be where they are in real life too and thats good. I
usually spin at T3? at Hungaroring, cause its so bumpy. The same happened to
the real drivers last year cause it was so bumpy there :)

--

Ian P
<email invalid due to spam>

Very interesting. So we have to wait a few years before we can have the
computing power to run "real" sim's. :)
Do you know how fast the physics engine in GPL is?
I guess it's a way to measure the quality of a sim. It should have been
printed on the box.

Jone.

I thought it was 288Hz?

--
Cheers,

Robin ................... `o^=o-

now playing: Nick Warren Essential Mix 3/10/99

http://www.oppositelock.freeserve.co.uk - Nrburgring/GPL