rec.autos.simulators

by JP » Sat, 24 Apr 2004 04:02:52

> > one of the things that caused a lack of interest in
> > gpl for me. Racing wasn't racing; all you had to do was stay on the
track,
> > and you were assured of a good finish, since most everyone else was
> > overdriving.

> Well, sounds like real racing to me then.

> What do you think would happen if we'd ACTUALLY all got into formula cars?

> Besides, that's racing. To finish first you must first finish.

> And in GPL type of cars, that's just plain difficult. Even the real aces
> didn't actually always drive flawless races.

> Regards, Rudy
> --------------------
> GPLRank: -22

Um.....not quite sure what a reference to us actually getting into the
cars is for, but whatever. We're talking a GAME here, not real cars.
And sure, it's difficult. All the more reason to drive within your
limits, which isn't what takes place the majority of the time in a gpl race.

by **David Butter** » Sat, 24 Apr 2004 08:24:29

<snip>

I agree - it's a ludicrous reason on the face of it. Call it
"67fixed" or something, and there we are. Sure, it would rely on
people's honesty to submit their times to the right section... but
that's exactly what happens with player.ini times anyway.

I could understand if the people in question wanted to do mods like
this (very interesting-sounding) '65 one *instead* of fixing '67. But
if, as I infer from your wording, that fix *has* been done, then it
seems silly to withhold it just for the hotlap time reason. Surely
there must be something more than that?

--
Above address *is* valid - but snip spamtrap to get me to *read*!

Support the world's oldest motorsport venue!
http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html

by **Kevin Clar** » Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:10:40

>> Yes, it could. The '67 exe has been fixed. But it won't be
>> released.
>>The ones in the know reason for this, is because they don't want
>>to invalidate the current hotlap records.

>> Lousy excuse imo

> <snip>

> I agree - it's a ludicrous reason on the face of it. Call it
> "67fixed" or something, and there we are. Sure, it would rely on
> people's honesty to submit their times to the right section... but
> that's exactly what happens with player.ini times anyway.

> I could understand if the people in question wanted to do mods like
> this (very interesting-sounding) '65 one *instead* of fixing '67. But
> if, as I infer from your wording, that fix *has* been done, then it
> seems silly to withhold it just for the hotlap time reason. Surely
> there must be something more than that?

I think it's partly to do with respecting papyrus. To turn up and 'fix'
something they worked *** is a bit of an insult so it would make
more sense to just create an early 68 mod. You can all use the same gfx
as '67 (just swap the folder names about). Then people can drive
whichever they like.

by **Mitch_** » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:46:52

Are you serious? DMCA maybe, but youre putting a serious spin if you think
it's about respect...

by JP » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 02:47:06

> >> Yes, it could. The '67 exe has been fixed. But it won't be
> >> released.
> >>The ones in the know reason for this, is because they don't want
> >>to invalidate the current hotlap records.

> >> Lousy excuse imo

> > <snip>

> > I agree - it's a ludicrous reason on the face of it. Call it
> > "67fixed" or something, and there we are. Sure, it would rely on
> > people's honesty to submit their times to the right section... but
> > that's exactly what happens with player.ini times anyway.

> > I could understand if the people in question wanted to do mods like
> > this (very interesting-sounding) '65 one *instead* of fixing '67. But
> > if, as I infer from your wording, that fix *has* been done, then it
> > seems silly to withhold it just for the hotlap time reason. Surely
> > there must be something more than that?

> I think it's partly to do with respecting papyrus. To turn up and 'fix'
> something they worked *** is a bit of an insult so it would make
> more sense to just create an early 68 mod. You can all use the same gfx
> as '67 (just swap the folder names about). Then people can drive
> whichever they like.

Well, since Papy themselves acknowledge the flaws, don't know why this
would be. Plus, the exe is already hacked anyway.

- Show quoted text -

by **Jason Moy** » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 02:53:51

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:10:40 +0000, Kevin Clark

>I think it's partly to do with respecting papyrus. To turn up and 'fix'
>something they worked *** is a bit of an insult so it would make
>more sense to just create an early 68 mod. You can all use the same gfx
>as '67 (just swap the folder names about). Then people can drive
>whichever they like.

Considering Kaemmer himself has said GPL is so crude he can't play it
anymore, I don't see what the big deal is.

Jason

by ZZ » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:11:32

Could it be, because they'd like to avoid to fiasco that happened when that
infernal engine switcher was dropped on the community?

I'd still like to shoot those guys.

--
Richard "ZZ" Busch

Member:
Screamers Racing League
OAO
MARA TransAm
GPL Rank + 17.410
MoGPL Rank + 318.294
N2003 Rank -12.4850
----------------
Remember racecar is racecar spelled backward
-----------------

by **Malc** » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 06:18:54

I guess you don't realise that it's the same people making the 65 mod,
and the ones that could potentially make a modified 67 season ;-)

Still want to shoot them?

Malc.

by **Jason Moy** » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 06:26:11

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:24:31 +0000, Kevin Clark

>It's looking more likely that it'll be later in the 50's as the '55
>season wasn't terribly exciting. I've already driven early physics from
>'55 and '37 and it's quite exciting. The cars feel heavier and drift
>alot too. Certainly interesting future projects from the mod team.

How are they planning on implementing tire wear and pitstops in the
50's cars?

Jason

by **David Butter** » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 07:51:42

*sigh* I do think it's a shame when people feel like that. I still play
Revs, you know!

--
Above address *is* valid - but snip spamtrap to get me to *read*!

Support the world's oldest motorsport venue!
http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html

by **Ped Xin** » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:06:39

I think you know the answer already. They aren't because they can't.

--
Ped Xing

by ZZ » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:11:03

In short, Yes

--
Richard "ZZ" Busch

Member:
Screamers Racing League
OAO
MARA TransAm
GPL Rank + 17.410
MoGPL Rank + 318.294
N2003 Rank -12.4850
----------------
Remember racecar is racecar spelled backward
-----------------

by **alex** » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:23:06

<snip>

> >And can it be released as a
> > new GPL? New and improved GPL'67,

> Well, yes and no, kind of. The mod team have long ago decided not to
> mess with GPL '67 itself, but there ARE serious plans to by and large
> compensate for this for doing the "Early 68" mod.

> In other words, to take the 67 cars which were used in the early 68
> races (before wings popped up) and then tweak their physics to a higher
> level. This will basically get you what you'd like, just in another
> context.

> The same improved/tweaked model will probably (!) be used for a '66
> Mod' as well, and the biggest goal for the longer term I guess will be
> the 55 Mod - yep, the Fangio era. This should take far less time since
> the main mod things for GPL have now been just about figured out.

I wonder why any mod has to simulate one or another historic season. If the
engineers in 196x had 900bhp engine passing regulations they
would surely put it into the car :)) Why can't we have just have more
power? I'd settle for original 1967 cars with 900 bhp engines :))
Those straights at Monza and Spa are just plain annoying. The car has
already reached its top speed day before yesterday and you're still sitting
there as an idiot waiting when you finally arrive to the next corner.
Almost like driving on the highway :(

Alex.

by **Peter Ive** » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:31:44

<snip>

Perhaps you need to just lengthen the gearing a bit. :)

--
Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington)
Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email
If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :)
GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -25.01

by **Malc** » Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:33:06

Is 'free' not good enough value for money for you or something? How can
you feel wronged by something offered free that you don't have to use?

If someone doesn't want to make a modified 67 season & no one else knows
how to, tough luck. I regularly race on vroc & have done for years, only
once have I ever come across a Bronda, and the driver was ***anyway.

I could understand people's concerns about GEM+ prior to it's being
released, but 2-3 years on it has made sod all difference to the pick-up
races (ie we are not awash with Brondas) and it has helped create
different formulae to appeal to less *** drivers.

Perhaps you would be good enough to give the long answer to my question,
unless it's "Yes, because I'm a gun-toting nut" in which case give it a
miss imo.

Malc.

rec.autos.simulators

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date

GPL '65 release date