rec.autos.simulators

by Jo » Thu, 15 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>I agree. Funny how people need to threaten to write a bad review of GPL
>because of this situation.

It's funny you know. People [especially people in sim groups] are
always complaining about ignorant reviewers, about reviewers who don't
even check their facts before spouting off in an editorial or review.

So here I am telling everyone what my problems with the software are,
what my deadline is, basically making every effort to both get my
facts right and to get the sim running as well as it possibly can. And
getting flamed for it. Go figure.

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

by Jo » Thu, 15 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>> I allways have hated Grand Prix 2 because of the real time problems.
>> And now GPL has the same problems for many people.

>The difference however is that the developer knows of it and is working to
>find out why it is doing this and how to fix it. :)

And a very big difference that is. If it was anyone but Papy, I'd be
much more pessimistic and upset about the problems.

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

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Thanks :o)

> Hear, Hear!

> Well spoken, fellow racing sim lover!

> Finally someone with a clear mind and a clear voice!!!

> ---Asgeir---

> > Regarding GPL and "The Patch", has anyone said to themselves, "Whoa
there!
> > Just what the hell am I ***ing about?!!" when they've become
pissed-off
> > about the patch not working properly on their system?

> > Put it into context.........

> > Here in Oz the game cost (about) AUS $70 when released last October. It
has
> > been the most problem-free racing sim ever released.
> > Since October, there have been more enhancements produced for GPL than
you
> > can poke a stick at.......tweaks, sounds, graphics.....you name it,
somebody
> > has done it, including the addition of a very professionally-produced
Brands
> > Hatch. Additional cost so far? NOTHING!

> > The patch, designed primarily to tweak a few minor *** problems,
update
> > for FF and on-line ***, is released in July. Additional cost?
NOTHING!

> > Summary.............for over 9 months we have received more enjoyment
than
> > you would ever have believed possible from a $70-00 package.

> > I really, really wish that all other aspects of my life provided such
value
> > for money.

by **Ben** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

That's a --------BIT-------harsh - but - ENTIRELY -------fair.

LOL

Ben

> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:13:41 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell"

> >Regarding GPL and "The Patch", has anyone said to themselves, "Whoa
there!
> >Just what the hell am I ***ing about?!!" when they've become pissed-off
> >about the patch not working properly on their system?

> >Put it into context.........

> >Here in Oz the game cost (about) AUS $70 when released last October. It
has
> >been the most problem-free racing sim ever released.
> >Since October, there have been more enhancements produced for GPL than
you
> >can poke a stick at.......tweaks, sounds, graphics.....you name it,
somebody
> >has done it, including the addition of a very professionally-produced
Brands
> >Hatch. Additional cost so far? NOTHING!

> >The patch, designed primarily to tweak a few minor *** problems,
update
> >for FF and on-line ***, is released in July. Additional cost?
NOTHING!

> >Summary.............for over 9 months we have received more enjoyment
than
> >you would ever have believed possible from a $70-00 package.

> >I really, really wish that all other aspects of my life provided such
value
> >for money.

> Well said, Bruce, and entirely correct.

> Everyone who is having problems with the patch can whine all they
> want, but you all look ridiculous. (I'm speaking of the whiners, not
> people who simply state the problems they are having and work towards
> resolving them. You know------who you-----------are.)

> You didn't DESERVE the patch when you plunked down your payola, Papy
> didn't OWE you the patch, and yet you got a patch.

> Get over it. If you don't like it, go play whatever incredible game
> it is that sets the ridiculous standard that you expect GPL to compare
> to. Better yet, if you think GPL sucks so bad, go code a racing
> simulation--from any era--that blows it away.

> Sorry to sound like a Papy fanatic, but if you are coming here to
> whine about being owed this or that, you're way off base. When you
> carried GPL out of the store, you had a sim worth the money you paid,
> and you all know it--or you should have returned it.

> Bottom line is that Papy have produced the best racing sims since I've
> been using a computer, and GPL continues that tradition, by leaving
> *everything* else way back in the dust.

> Everyone have a nice day.

> Brett

by **Jan Verschuere** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Simracers are a hard to please bunch Joe. ;-)

Jan.
------

><snip>
>It's funny you know. People [especially people in sim groups] are
>always complaining about ignorant reviewers, about reviewers who don't
>even check their facts before spouting off in an editorial or review.

>So here I am telling everyone what my problems with the software are,
>what my deadline is, basically making every effort to both get my
>facts right and to get the sim running as well as it possibly can. And
>getting flamed for it. Go figure.

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

by **Jan Verschuere** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I second that... well said Bruce.

Jan.
------

>Regarding GPL and "The Patch", has anyone said to themselves, "Whoa there!
>Just what the hell am I ***ing about?!!" <snip>

by **John Bod** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:53:23 -0500, "Chris Schletter"

>> I allways have hated Grand Prix 2 because of the real time problems.
>> And now GPL has the same problems for many people.

>The difference however is that the developer knows of it and is working to
>find out why it is doing this and how to fix it. :)

And when they fix it I'll be handing out more kudos! <G>

;-)

-- JB

by **John Bod** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>>> I allways have hated Grand Prix 2 because of the real time problems.
>>> And now GPL has the same problems for many people.

>>The difference however is that the developer knows of it and is working to
>>find out why it is doing this and how to fix it. :)

>And a very big difference that is. If it was anyone but Papy, I'd be
>much more pessimistic and upset about the problems.

Agreed -- they didn't have to do the patch, but they did. They don't
have to find a fix for the problems in the patch, but I'm sure they
will!

-- JB

by **Meij** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Are you saying that consumers should be grateful for patches that get
their product working as it was really intended? By this argument if you
have a car with a design/construction flaw in the suspension that is
dangerous you should be grateful to the car company for fixing it?

Following your "put it into context" it seems that Papyrus who made the
game have only made the patch. The rest has been provided by 3rd parties
for no cost to ourselves. Be grateful to them but not the company,
they're making a business decision.

Witness the FPS scene and *** 2. No support for it because it didn't
sell and there's no need to keep the customers happy as it's the end of
that particular franchise. Papyrus want to keep selling games and by
keeping the public happy they ensure that the people who buy their games
feel good about them.

Okay so whatever you paid for it may be a bargain if you've played it a
lot however I see no reason to expect anything other than working
software and if the patch doesn't fix something or makes things worse
then people are right to complain.

Personally I don't mind... GPL was fine for me as it was (no online play
for me) and I won't be patching it. I will still be buying Papyrus
software and I'll still be amazed at their work.

M

p.s.
Incidentally Bruce... are you saying that your significant's
unconditional love other isn't value for money? :P

by **Meij** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Rearrange the words to get:

p.s.
Incidentally Bruce... are you saying that your significant others
unconditional love isn't value for money? :P

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

(snip)
By this argument if you have a car with a design/construction flaw in the
suspension that is dangerous you should be grateful to the car company for
fixing it?
(unsnip)

Shocking analogy! I see no connection between a $70 computer GAME (that
I've used happily for 9 months) and a deadly suspension flaw in my car!!!
LOL!!!!

(snip)
The rest has been provided by 3rd parties for no cost to ourselves. Be
grateful to them but not the company, they're making a business decision.
(unsnip)

Grateful? Sure I'm grateful but the enhancements wouldn't have been created
if (a) GPL never saw the light of day and (b) it was a pathetic excuse for a
sim. I am, therefore, more grateful to Papyrus as it (GPL) is still a
delight straight from the box.

(snip)
Personally I don't mind... GPL was fine for me as it was (no online play for
me) and I won't be patching it. I will still be buying Papyrus software and
I'll still be amazed at their work.
(unsnip)

Well what the hell are you going on about, then??

> Are you saying that consumers should be grateful for patches that get
> their product working as it was really intended? By this argument if you
> have a car with a design/construction flaw in the suspension that is
> dangerous you should be grateful to the car company for fixing it?

> Following your "put it into context" it seems that Papyrus who made the
> game have only made the patch. The rest has been provided by 3rd parties
> for no cost to ourselves. Be grateful to them but not the company,
> they're making a business decision.

> Witness the FPS scene and *** 2. No support for it because it didn't
> sell and there's no need to keep the customers happy as it's the end of
> that particular franchise. Papyrus want to keep selling games and by
> keeping the public happy they ensure that the people who buy their games
> feel good about them.

> Okay so whatever you paid for it may be a bargain if you've played it a
> lot however I see no reason to expect anything other than working
> software and if the patch doesn't fix something or makes things worse
> then people are right to complain.

> Personally I don't mind... GPL was fine for me as it was (no online play
> for me) and I won't be patching it. I will still be buying Papyrus
> software and I'll still be amazed at their work.

> M

> p.s.
> Incidentally Bruce... are you saying that your significant's
> unconditional love other isn't value for money? :P

> >Regarding GPL and "The Patch", has anyone said to themselves, "Whoa
> >there! Just what the hell am I ***ing about?!!" when they've become
> >pissed-off about the patch not working properly on their system?

> >Put it into context.........

> >Here in Oz the game cost (about) AUS $70 when released last October. It
> >has been the most problem-free racing sim ever released.
> >Since October, there have been more enhancements produced for GPL than
> >you can poke a stick at.......tweaks, sounds, graphics.....you name it,
> >somebody has done it, including the addition of a very professionally
> >-produced Brands Hatch. Additional cost so far? NOTHING!

> >The patch, designed primarily to tweak a few minor *** problems,
> >update for FF and on-line ***, is released in July. Additional cost?
> > NOTHING!

> >Summary.............for over 9 months we have received more enjoyment
> >than you would ever have believed possible from a $70-00 package.

> >I really, really wish that all other aspects of my life provided such
> >value for money.

by **Steve Ferguso** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

: Are you saying that consumers should be grateful for patches that get
: their product working as it was really intended? By this argument if you
: have a car with a design/construction flaw in the suspension that is
: dangerous you should be grateful to the car company for fixing it?

Tenuous argument. I would compare it more to redesigning the instrument
panel to improve ergonomics, or increasing engine output 5hp for the next
model year. the previous car wasn't perfect, it could be better, but it
wasn't dangerous.

S.

by **David G Fishe** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I like repeating myself.

I keep reading these posts about how everyone should be
kind/grateful/loving/ to Papyrus for their work and no one should dare
complain for a second. That's fine actually (no doubt at all that they will
fix the patch), but only if you and everyone else who believes this acts the
same polite way towards other companies when they attempt a sim of their
own.

I see the same people (surprise) demanding respect for Papyrus's efforts who
recently shredded EA for their Nascar sim, and a number of other companies
efforts over the past two years. Last time I checked those companies were
made up of actual human beings who were doing their best too, but I guess I
could be wrong.

I hope you guys will continue with the ridiciulous cheerleading and double
talk. It's all very amusing. Has been for many, many, months.

David G Fisher

by **Tony Rickar** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

The difference is that GPL is so much closer to being what we want, that
perhaps there is caution not to overly criticise for fear of pissing the
developers off to not give us our panacea but go off to do something else.

Its almost child like - you know when you really want someone to do
something for you and you are ever so careful not to upset them.

So if another developer produces a poor product yes they will be slammed -
Papyrus produced a very good product - now we want them to make it better -
hence the different approach.

Having said that the 1.1 patch is very disappointing considering the delays
apparently for testing and bug fixing. I don't believe Papyrus should be
beyond criticism - my expectations were raised way too high that 1.1 would
solve the on-line issues. Admittedly no other developer has come up with a
better on-line solution, just that I feel let down that on-line racing is
still decidedly flaky for me.

So please please Papyrus - if I am really nice will you fix it for me - I
didn't really mean it - honest!

Tony

by **Jan Verschuere** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

You seem to have a point there, but....

Every aspiring competitor goes into a hyperbole about physics realism, AI
intelligence and such like in early press releases for the game. But when
the thing finally gets released it, at best, turns out to be a half way
effort. The best of this genre mange to entertain (eg. TOCA2), others
frustrate both types of players (sim and arcade, eg. NasRev). They've just
not come up with the goods.... more talented programmers or less big bucks
oriented publishers are required.

The designation Racing Simulation has to be earned. It means the game must
conform to the level of realism we, the simracing community, have come to
expect (and GPL has put the bar very, very high indeed) and must present a
decent level of challenge to said community. Otherwise you're talking
halfway or "general public" at best.

Jan.
------

rec.autos.simulators

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?

Let's put this into context, shall we?