rec.autos.simulators

by **Marc Collin** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 03:17:51

There is so much surprisingly good about F1 2001, but in my limited
experience with the game in full sim mode (no aids whatsoever), there are a
couple of glaring inconsistencies.

Even with the relaxed physics model that is obviously in place, the
deceleration under throttle lift off is so strong as to almost render the
brakes unnecessary!! Is there a way to adjust that?

And deja vu from SCGT, the grass seems to have an enormous amount of
grip....

One other query: what is the brown/tan surface material at Monza? In spots
the asphalt looks dark grey and looks like asphalt and looks like the
asphalt I see on TV every year at Monza. Then, in the game, there is this
bizarre pixellated rough looking tan coloured surface that not only I have
not seen at Monza, but doesn't look like any road or track surface I could
even imagine...?? Are my graphics misadjusted somehow?

Marc.

--
****************************************************************************
Marc Collins

Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
****************************************************************************

by **RegularRace** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:09:29

Try stopping with your engine only at the 100meter mark or later and tell me
if you don't need brakes.

****************************************************************************

> Marc Collins

> Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> to take effect. Reboot now?

****************************************************************************

- Show quoted text -

by **Greg Cis** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:06:11

> There is so much surprisingly good about F1 2001, but in my limited
> experience with the game in full sim mode (no aids whatsoever), there are a
> couple of glaring inconsistencies.

> Even with the relaxed physics model that is obviously in place, the

Relaxed? Are you sure? What proof do you have?

Then something is still not setup right for you. There is no way
that letting off of the throttle acts as a brake.

--

by **Red Bul** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:42:56

I have to agree somewhat about this "Trailing Throttle Braking"
But all games do this to a certain extent. I cherished GP3 for some time,
and after reviewing it again I noticed it has some of this as well, though
not quite as much.
It is true if you wait till the 100M mark at most tracks you will need to
brake hard to make the corner, but if you chop the throttle on corner entry,
(with a slight amount of steering angle) the car should not spin like it
does in the game. Also you will notice in the Esses at Suzuka that you don't
need to brake at all to go quickly through them, and entering Turn One at
same track no braking is required !!!

No I have not driven a REAL F1 car, but I don't think that this is entirely
accurate.

Still love the game though, it's the best yet, by far...
rb

> > There is so much surprisingly good about F1 2001, but in my limited
> > experience with the game in full sim mode (no aids whatsoever), there
are a
> > couple of glaring inconsistencies.

> > Even with the relaxed physics model that is obviously in place, the

> Relaxed? Are you sure? What proof do you have?

> > deceleration under throttle lift off is so strong as to almost render
the
> > brakes unnecessary!! Is there a way to adjust that?

> Then something is still not setup right for you. There is no way
> that letting off of the throttle acts as a brake.

> --

by **Pat Dotso** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:50:50

Have you guys tried driving with (what I think would
be) more realistic wing angles? A lot of these
default setups have 50 degree wing angles. That's
like an air brake on a airplane. The lease amount
of angle I've seen on the default setups is 38 deg.
Does the same braking effect happen with a 10 degree
wing angle?
--
Pat Dotson

> I have to agree somewhat about this "Trailing Throttle Braking"
> But all games do this to a certain extent. I cherished GP3 for some time,
> and after reviewing it again I noticed it has some of this as well, though
> not quite as much.
> It is true if you wait till the 100M mark at most tracks you will need to
> brake hard to make the corner, but if you chop the throttle on corner entry,
> (with a slight amount of steering angle) the car should not spin like it
> does in the game. Also you will notice in the Esses at Suzuka that you don't
> need to brake at all to go quickly through them, and entering Turn One at
> same track no braking is required !!!

> No I have not driven a REAL F1 car, but I don't think that this is entirely
> accurate.

> Still love the game though, it's the best yet, by far...
> rb

> > > There is so much surprisingly good about F1 2001, but in my limited
> > > experience with the game in full sim mode (no aids whatsoever), there
> are a
> > > couple of glaring inconsistencies.

> > > Even with the relaxed physics model that is obviously in place, the

> > Relaxed? Are you sure? What proof do you have?

> > > deceleration under throttle lift off is so strong as to almost render
> the
> > > brakes unnecessary!! Is there a way to adjust that?

> > Then something is still not setup right for you. There is no way
> > that letting off of the throttle acts as a brake.

> > --

by **Sean Higgin** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:57:00

I don't know if it was all in my head, but when I went from 42 rear wing to
30 rear wing at Brazil, it seemed I had to brake a bit earlier.

--

Sean Higgins

Redline Racing League
www.rrlnrs.com
Redline BGN Division
http://home.sprintmail.com/~higgy/RRL/
My new ride
http://home.sprintmail.com/~higgy/

> Have you guys tried driving with (what I think would
> be) more realistic wing angles? A lot of these
> default setups have 50 degree wing angles. That's
> like an air brake on a airplane. The lease amount
> of angle I've seen on the default setups is 38 deg.
> Does the same braking effect happen with a 10 degree
> wing angle?
> --
> Pat Dotson

> > I have to agree somewhat about this "Trailing Throttle Braking"
> > But all games do this to a certain extent. I cherished GP3 for some
time,
> > and after reviewing it again I noticed it has some of this as well,
though
> > not quite as much.
> > It is true if you wait till the 100M mark at most tracks you will need
to
> > brake hard to make the corner, but if you chop the throttle on corner
entry,
> > (with a slight amount of steering angle) the car should not spin like it
> > does in the game. Also you will notice in the Esses at Suzuka that you
don't
> > need to brake at all to go quickly through them, and entering Turn One
at
> > same track no braking is required !!!

> > No I have not driven a REAL F1 car, but I don't think that this is
entirely
> > accurate.

> > Still love the game though, it's the best yet, by far...
> > rb

> > > > There is so much surprisingly good about F1 2001, but in my limited
> > > > experience with the game in full sim mode (no aids whatsoever),
there
> > are a
> > > > couple of glaring inconsistencies.

> > > > Even with the relaxed physics model that is obviously in place, the

> > > Relaxed? Are you sure? What proof do you have?

> > > > deceleration under throttle lift off is so strong as to almost
render
> > the
> > > > brakes unnecessary!! Is there a way to adjust that?

> > > Then something is still not setup right for you. There is no way
> > > that letting off of the throttle acts as a brake.

> > > --

by **Richard Walke** » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:45:30

Martin Brundle (ex-driver and ITV commentator) confirmed this to be the case
at the 2001 Japanese GP. The drivers do *not* brake through that section -
that's how much the cars have developed over the last few years! :-o

He said he'd been looking at some telemetry data.

Hmm... dunno about that. It sounds rather dubious! :-)

--
Richard.

"A taste of honey... tasting much sweeter than wine."

by **na_bike** » Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:10:15

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:45:30 GMT, Richard Walker

>> and entering Turn One at same track no braking is required !!!

>Hmm... dunno about that. It sounds rather dubious! :-)

I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from comparing how the cars
behave on the track to the RL events. Because in any case wether the
cars are accurate or not, the tracks aren't.

Even if Suzuka is the best rendered track of the ones in the game,
it's still pretty half-assed, IMHO, albeit somewhat fun. And seeing
how bad some of the other tracks are you can't be sure how accurate
the corner radii and such is.

by **David Kar** » Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:13:52

I wish I could remember where I read this, but I do remember reading that
simply letting off the throttle in an F1 car at speed generates well over a
G of "braking." Wings, bodies optimized more for downforce than coef. of
drag, big old tires sticking out in the airstream . . . it does make some
sense.

--David

****************************************************************************

> Marc Collins

> Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> to take effect. Reboot now?

****************************************************************************

- Show quoted text -

by **Jonny Hodgso** » Thu, 29 Nov 2001 03:52:37

> I wish I could remember where I read this, but I do remember reading that
> simply letting off the throttle in an F1 car at speed generates well over a
> G of "braking." Wings, bodies optimized more for downforce than coef. of
> drag, big old tires sticking out in the airstream . . . it does make some
> sense.

Tiff Needell in Top Gear Magazine, when he got to
drive a contemporary F1 car, said something like:

"Letting off the throttle is like hitting the brakes
in a road car; hitting the brakes is like having an
accident."

:-O !!

Jonny

by **Pat Dotso** » Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:27:33

So it's realistic then? :) I checked it out with
the wings set to 18 degrees, and it takes a lot
more effort to get the car to slow down.
--
Pat Dotson

> > I wish I could remember where I read this, but I do remember reading that
> > simply letting off the throttle in an F1 car at speed generates well over a
> > G of "braking." Wings, bodies optimized more for downforce than coef. of
> > drag, big old tires sticking out in the airstream . . . it does make some
> > sense.

> Tiff Needell in Top Gear Magazine, when he got to
> drive a contemporary F1 car, said something like:

> "Letting off the throttle is like hitting the brakes
> in a road car; hitting the brakes is like having an
> accident."

> :-O !!

> Jonny

by **Haqsa** » Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:22:52

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:45:30 GMT, Richard Walker

> >> and entering Turn One at same track no braking is required !!!

> >Hmm... dunno about that. It sounds rather dubious! :-)

> I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from comparing how the cars
> behave on the track to the RL events. Because in any case wether the
> cars are accurate or not, the tracks aren't.

I disagree. I'm certainly not an expert on how F1 tracks should look,
but I think most people who have complained are allowing themselves to
be fooled by things like textures, lighting, and perspective. Turning
up texture and lighting detail helps a little, but the biggest
difference is in the FOV. The default FOV of 77 degrees is too wide to
display anything in the correct perspective. Admittedly you need it
that wide to be able to see into the corners, but if you want to see
what the tracks "really" look like, i.e. in correct perspective, try an
FOV of 60 or maybe even 50. This will give you a narrow camera angle
that is difficult to drive with, but I think you will see that the
difference in how the tracks look is amazing. Distances look correct,
the road tapers into the distance properly, the cars look better, Monaco
looks wide enough for more than one car, and Eau Rouge looks properly
scary again. The FOV setting is in the default.cfg file in the F1
2001\Save folder. Open it in a text editor, find these lines:

LocalCam=COCKPIT
{
Fov=(77.000000, 62.500000)

And change the third line to read

Fov=(60.000000, 62.500000)

I think the second number is for the mirror FOV, not sure, but you only
need to change the first number. BTW, even though it's harder to see
the apex of a corner with such a narrow FOV, I actually found that I
could judge braking distances and approach speeds better with this
setting.

I think you can be quite confident of how accurate the tracks are.
Somewhere (High Gear?) I read an interview with one of the game's
producers, and he said that they worked directly with the staff at all
of the tracks, and used all available data on the track layout,
including survey data and even CAD files. I see no reason to believe
that the tracks are not accurate. Again I think the appearance problem
is due to lighting, textures, and perspective.

Regards,
Hal

by **Red Bul** » Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:16:14

I believe the tracks are quite accurate, I have been around many of them
(unfortunately not in an F-1 car) and they look right. Spa, Suzuka, Monaco,
very, very correct. IMHO.
I just thought the off throttle braking was a bit aggressive that's all.
rb

> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:45:30 GMT, Richard Walker

> > >> and entering Turn One at same track no braking is required !!!

> > >Hmm... dunno about that. It sounds rather dubious! :-)

> > I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from comparing how the cars
> > behave on the track to the RL events. Because in any case wether the
> > cars are accurate or not, the tracks aren't.

> I disagree. I'm certainly not an expert on how F1 tracks should look,
> but I think most people who have complained are allowing themselves to
> be fooled by things like textures, lighting, and perspective. Turning
> up texture and lighting detail helps a little, but the biggest
> difference is in the FOV. The default FOV of 77 degrees is too wide to
> display anything in the correct perspective. Admittedly you need it
> that wide to be able to see into the corners, but if you want to see
> what the tracks "really" look like, i.e. in correct perspective, try an
> FOV of 60 or maybe even 50. This will give you a narrow camera angle
> that is difficult to drive with, but I think you will see that the
> difference in how the tracks look is amazing. Distances look correct,
> the road tapers into the distance properly, the cars look better, Monaco
> looks wide enough for more than one car, and Eau Rouge looks properly
> scary again. The FOV setting is in the default.cfg file in the F1
> 2001\Save folder. Open it in a text editor, find these lines:

> LocalCam=COCKPIT
> {
> Fov=(77.000000, 62.500000)

> And change the third line to read

> Fov=(60.000000, 62.500000)

> I think the second number is for the mirror FOV, not sure, but you only
> need to change the first number. BTW, even though it's harder to see
> the apex of a corner with such a narrow FOV, I actually found that I
> could judge braking distances and approach speeds better with this
> setting.

> > Even if Suzuka is the best rendered track of the ones in the game,
> > it's still pretty half-assed, IMHO, albeit somewhat fun. And seeing
> > how bad some of the other tracks are you can't be sure how accurate
> > the corner radii and such is.

> I think you can be quite confident of how accurate the tracks are.
> Somewhere (High Gear?) I read an interview with one of the game's
> producers, and he said that they worked directly with the staff at all
> of the tracks, and used all available data on the track layout,
> including survey data and even CAD files. I see no reason to believe
> that the tracks are not accurate. Again I think the appearance problem
> is due to lighting, textures, and perspective.

> Regards,
> Hal

by **na_bike** » Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:53:01

I will respectfully disagree and be 'rather' sceptic regarding that
information. In fact, I wonder if 1) they're lying/not being totally
honest or 2) did something horribly wrong with that data.

I actually have compared every track to RL-videos and some things are
so blatantly obvious that they can't have done the same comparisons I
did. Some things are so headscratching that your only thought is
"w-w-WTF were they thinking?! Did they just make stuff up as they go
along?".

The FOV can distort things only so much. I have played around with it
in GPL too and the only thing is that elevation changes get more
realistic and the curves gets [percievably]longer.

It does *not* explain why Bridge at Silverstone is uphill(!!!) almost
over a crest and not in a compression as in real life, nor why at the
same track Stowe has some extreme amount of camber.

Another example is Nrburgring: Extreme camber again especially at the
flat-out section uphill after the Dunlop-hairpin. It's cambered about
10deg(ok, a _lot_ then), when on video you plainly see that it
actually is _off_-camber. Start-finish straight has some sort of
serious elevation change before Castrol-S, when IRL the whole straight
is a smooth downhill.

Hungaroring is wrong beyond belief, I won't even get into that one.

And the thing is that if it is so impossible to recreate tracks
accurately because of "lighting, texture and perspective" we have had
other F1 sims and one in particular has *all* the tracks _SPOT ON_,
namely F1RC. It even has small subtle things right as the slight
camber at Lesmo 2 that creates a small depression at the apex, and
details as road markings. It's simply amazing to watch clips of RL
footage and compare to F1RC.

The only thing it doesn't have is bumps, which is cool in F1-2001, but
somehow I just feel like they threw them in at random. I can't really
verify it either OTOH, but going from the suspension travel and how
the porsche behaves on them they're somewhat exaggarated, I think. On
RL video you hardly see the suspension move at all. With the porsche
you almost catch air approaching Spoon curve at Suzuka.

by **Haqsa** » Sat, 01 Dec 2001 08:14:53

> Hungaroring is wrong beyond belief, I won't even get into that one.

Actually please do. That seems to be the track people complain about
the most, and yet I have not heard anybody say what is specifically
wrong with it, all I hear is general comments like "the designer must
have been on ***," which frankly tells me nothing. I went to the
Hungaroring web site (http://www.racesimcentral.net/) and looked through some
books I have and I could not find any really good track pictures, all I
could find was close-ups of cars and drivers. So I can't figure out
what people are complaining about. Please educate me.

rec.autos.simulators

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?

F1 2001 - do we really need the brakes?