rec.autos.simulators

by **Alison Hi** » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

>> Anyone can drive GPL's Basic Trainer. Nobody, even top professional
>> real time race drivers, can drive GPL's Grand Prix cars out of the box.

>I think that's one of the problems for the mass market - everybody likes
>to think of themselves as a superhuman when they play computer games.
>Luke Skywalker defeating the Deathstar is just one example - in racing
>games they want to be able to race with the best.

>So you can't call them Trainers - people won't try them. I think the only
>way to do it is to have difficulty settings that use neutral terms so
>people will not feel bad selecting them.

Agreed. I wish we'd been able to come up with better names. The terms
Advanced Trainer and Basic Trainer are descriptive but unappealing, and
probably contribute to many peoples' unwillingness to try them.

This is unfortunate, because many people find the Trainers to be great
fun. I don't find the Basic Trainers to be terribly exciting, but there
are many people running them and several series organized for them. The
participants love these cars and some won't even bother to drive the
more powerful cars.

Personally, I love the Advanced Trainers.

I've hosted many Advanced Trainer races on VROC. Sometimes someone who
joins says something like, "Yuk! Why am I stuck in the F2 car?".

After the race, I frequently see comments like, "Wow, I never tried the
F2 car before! These are great!"

The Trainers are particularly great for online racing because the lower
straightline and cornering speeds result in less warping. Also, people
tend to make fewer mistakes, which leads to closer racing and battles
which can last for much of the race.

And because you're not coping with monstrous horsepower all the time,
things like subtleties of line, accuracy of car placement, smoothness,
and precision assume greater importance. These are the things which
make race driving fun, and for most people, it's much easier to enjoy
them in the Trainers.

Alison

Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Mark Seer** » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

Never heard of Phil Hill then?

Mark

by **Joel Willstei** » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

Alison,

I certainly agree with Michael about the quality and importance of your
post. In reality what we should do is email or write to Randy Cassidy so
that he can prepare a full proposal,and have copies of our emails and snail
mail as proof.

Joel Willstein

by **Jerry Moreloc** » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

As a youngster here in the U.S. in the '60's my hero was Graham Hill. (And
how odd do you think that made me? <g>) I was one happy kid when he won the
Indy 500. Unfortunately, the only type of motorsports info that was easy
for me to come by in those days was about drag racing and "Big Daddy" this,
and "Big Daddy" that. NASCAR was strictly a regional thing at that time,
but nationwide it seemed that the only thing on most people's minds
concerning racing was the quarter mile.

Jerry Morelock

> Dave...I said "as a group"........meaning as a nation. By this I was
trying
> to say that if only you people embraced the same motor-sport tastes as the
> majority of those enthusiasts world-wide then we would have
> open-wheeler/sports car heaven in sim-land!

> > > Which _really_ makes one wish that you Yanks were (as a group) a bit
> more
> > > selective in your motor-racing pleasures!

> > Sure we can be selective. Comming up are the SCCA Runnoff's at Mid
> > Ohio. 700 cars, about a million classes. Just imagine about 40 or 50
> > Neons in a gaggle flocking around the famed Mid Ohio.
> > Or Pike's Peak Hillclimb. 10 minutes of racing to heaven.
> > Or One Lap Around America.(learn the fine art of Cooking 4 course meals
> > on your engine block and exhaust headers)
> > dave henrie

> -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News
==----------
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
> ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers

==-----

by **Ruud van Ga** » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

...
>>> In reality, as we all know, that conclusion is nonsense. GPL is "too
>>> hard" because it was gutted of the essential lower layers of its planned
>>> *** structure in order to meet deadlines.

>>Interesting post. Could you tell us a little more about the planned ***
>>structure that was scrapped ? I know that there was promised a career mode
>>in the early promotions long before the release, but what more ?

>I believe that originally, the plan was to allow the user to race
>against the AI in both the Basic Trainers and the Advanced Trainers.

For other features, check out these old screenshots:

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

They even include weather sliders! :(
And lots of other extras we didn't get. Too bad.

Ruud van Gaal
MarketGraph / MachTech: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Art: http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by Jo » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

>I feel that the omission of thse features had a very significant impact
>on GPL's sales.

There's no doubt about it. For every GPL review that happened to be
written by a *** racer there were five other reviews saying "it's
too hard".

And you know what? Those reviews were absolutely correct - for their
target audience, casual gamers who are not necessarily *** sim
fans. The lack of accessibility features for this [majority] audience
is critical. I can't understand why there was even a debate about
including an AI slider. It's a no-brainer.

Although I don't think even that goes far enough. The game should have
an arcade mode. I know that's blasphemy around here but it really
should. All it would have to do is increase grip (say, doubling it for
example). Probably take them twenty minutes to program it. Fast,
powerful racers, with the 3D physics and accidents, good online
racing, and a mode that the majority of gamers can actually use - I
think it would have been very successful.

Joe McGinn
==========================================
Staff Writer for the Sports *** Network
http://www.racesimcentral.net/***.com/
==========================================

by Jo » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

That's one strategy that would unquestionably be successful. The whole
auto sim genre is just waiting for someone to be as smart of ID
Software. Whoever does it first will be laughing all the way to the
bank (all the while saying, "I can't believe no one else has done
this, it's so OBVIOUS...").

The other thing that would have really helped GPL (as discussed
previously in this thread) is some kind of accessibility features for
the non-*** gamer.

Joe McGinn
==========================================
Staff Writer for the Sports *** Network
http://www.racesimcentral.net/***.com/
==========================================

by **Worker Workin** » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

<snip>

> Although I don't think even that goes far enough. The game should have
> an arcade mode. I know that's blasphemy around here but it really
> should. All it would have to do is increase grip (say, doubling it for
> example). Probably take them twenty minutes to program it. Fast,
> powerful racers, with the 3D physics and accidents, good online
> racing, and a mode that the majority of gamers can actually use - I
> think it would have been very successful.

Add me to the list of blasphemers. I would have purchased this game if
they had had an introductory ARCADE mode. I just couldn't devote the
time to bring down my speeds to be any kind of competition to the AI
cars.

I have definitely chosen specific games to devote my *** time to
(and, in retrospect perhaps GPL should have been one of them) but
normally sit with a game an hour or so on an infrequent basis. I would
have liked it if I could have fallen in love with this game at first,
and then upped the difficulty into the range that it currently starts
at...

by **Joel Willstei** » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

Tracey,

There is already a winged set out. The major problem is that the
physics are exactly the same,no one has figured out how to change the code.
And that's a good thing.

Joel Willstein

by **Joel Willstei** » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

Tracey,

You've hit the nail right on the head. I really don't think that The
"boys" at Sierra blamed GPLs poor sales on the fact that it was too hard,as
that could have been rectified with a sequel using the F3s. Rather the
subject matter was not contempory enough for the average sim buyer.
Afterall,this is Nascar country.

As for a new Cart sim using the gpl physics engine,I'm willing to bet
that's the direction Papyrus/Sierra is heading. Why? How many of you
remember a post more than a year ago stating that Sierra had purchased the
rights to produce a Cart sim through the year 2000. Do you really think that
they would have spent the money,then just shelved the project only to keep
anyone else from do it? Rather,they set their priorities based on consumer
sales trends : anything to do with Nascar will be a winner. Well we had
Nas99,Nas3 is out,Nascar Legends is just about ready to go gold. Nascar3
doesn't have the trucks,so you know that will be an expansion pack within
3-6 months. Nascar4 will most likely be released the 4th quarter of 2000,as
the average home computer should be able to run it by then and take
advantage of the big holiday season. So what's left for the Papyrus team:
Cart2,that's what.

They certainly aren't going to go head to head with GP3. Nor are they
interested in sprint car racing,as we've asked for a sprint car sim for
years and it has always fell on deaf ears.

Joel Willstein

by **Remco Moe** » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

>Although I don't think even that goes far enough. The game should have
>an arcade mode. I know that's blasphemy around here but it really
>should. All it would have to do is increase grip (say, doubling it for
>example). Probably take them twenty minutes to program it. Fast,
>powerful racers, with the 3D physics and accidents, good online
>racing, and a mode that the majority of gamers can actually use - I
>think it would have been very successful.

I disagree here. When you've made an arcade mode, of course, the
target audience _might_ be bigger as it was now with the ***
approach. However, the competition would have been much bigger
aswell. Don't forget, adding an arcade mode does have a major impact
on development time, thus investment. I am not sure the increase of
sale would have been enough to warrant this investment.

Don't underestimate the resources needed to create an arcade mode. It
isn't a matter of increasing the grip, or something like that. You
still have the same problems, like braking in time, knowing the
track, etc. For an arcade mode you should have an autobrake mode,
like in GP2, for example. Even then, you've to add more whistles and
bells to attract the arcade market. By then, GPL wouldn't have been
GPL anymore.

Personaly I think the lack of sale is caused by the era presented, and
the timid advertisment by Sierra. AFAIK there wasn't much
adverti***t here in Holland, and I am sure there would be many more
interested in GPL if they knew it existed.

Remco

by Jo » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

>However, the competition would have been much bigger
>aswell.

Most arcade racer fans buy every half-decent racer that comes out.
Maybe even more so than sim fans, since the replayability or arcade
titles is usually shorter.

It would take no more than half an hour to add an arcade mode that
simply doubled the grip of your tires. Maybe a day to add the checkbox
to the user interface.

I disagree. Look at Nascar 2/3 - it is basically built as a sim, with
an arcade mode that really does nothing but increase grip. And it's
extremely effective and popular. Arcade racers like games that FEEL
realistic, they just don't want to spend a lot of time on a learning
curve.

I don't think so. Perhaps Spirit of Speed will be a good test to see
which one of us is right. That's an even more unknown era. I bet it
will be a more accessible game, and I bet it will do ten times the
sales of GPL.

Don't get me wrong. I LIKE GPL. That's why I wish it had been
successful. I think that could have been achieved by adding some
simple accessibility features (I mean, there was a DEBATE over whether
to include an AI-strength slider? Come on!). They didn't so it, most
people find the game too hard, and sales-wise it was a failure no
matter how much you or I like it. That can't help our chances of
seeing a GPL 2.

Joe McGinn
==========================================
Staff Writer for the Sports *** Network
http://www.racesimcentral.net/***.com/
==========================================

by **Remco Moe** » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

>>However, the competition would have been much bigger
>>aswell.

>Most arcade racer fans buy every half-decent racer that comes out.
>Maybe even more so than sim fans, since the replayability or arcade
>titles is usually shorter.

Agreed, but would they choose a 1967 title?

Hmm, you sound like my boss. <g> But imagine double grip in GPL, do
you think it will feel right?

Yeah, but I don't think double grip will reduce the learning curve. It
is more that the NASCAR tracks are a bit easier to learn...

Maybe, but I am sure Microsoft will advertise a lot more then Sierra,
so in the end we still know nothing. :-(

Hey, I am with you, we both want the same! But why does GP2 sell 1.5
million copys, where GPL does (estimated) 40000? Is it only the
drivers assistance, or is it because GP2 was about modern F1? Maybe
someone knows the sale figures of Ubisoft's F1RS and MGPRS2?
That could be interesting....

Remco

by **Joel Willstei** » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00

Bruce,

I really don't think that having 3 different classes would have
increased sales or interest one bit.

Joel Willstein

rec.autos.simulators

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?

GPL2?