rec.autos.simulators

> Marc.

> > Ok, no flames for this, it is my honest opinion. :)

> > I've got to say GP3 really improves after a bit of play-time.  About an
> hour
> > after downloading it I was hugely dissapointed.  The graphics were
messy,
> > the Ferarri and McLaren looked poor, the crowds looked ugly, the trees
> > looked messy and some of the graphics were blocky close up.  Also I
could
> > see GP2 everywhere, in every menu and every screen.
> > After another hour, I began to think it wasn't that bad.  More or less
> like
> > GP2 with 3d acceleration and a face lift.
> > I've now played it about five hours and to my amazement, I now think
it's
> > wonderful.  Seriously, anyone who's already given up on it should give
it
> > another try and not form an opinion until you've given it some serious
> seat
> > time (think of all the people who's opinion of GPL was permanently
tainted
> > by not giving it a fair chance).
> > I've just finished a mammoth full length race at Silverstone, starting
in
> > the dry and then it rained half way through.  It was tremendous fun,
> > although pretty difficult with no driving aids.  Absolutely couldn't do
> > anything in the wet on the slicks, it was a real battle just to make it
> back
> > to the pitlane.  Also the weather transitions are excellent.
> > I can't really explain why, but after you get used to the game, all the
> > problems seem to just dissapear, most probably because it's so much fun.
> > The dodgy graphics are still dodgy, but you're so busy playing the game
it
> > just doesn't matter.  For me GP3 has the most important thing in
> abundance -
> > gamplay, and I recommend it to everyone.

> > Simon.

>>And although not looking spectacularly good (except in
>>wet weather) it certainly looks better than F1 2000.

>Not going by all the sreenshots I've seen it isn't.
>You just need a fast cpu and a V5 running 4XFSAA and F12000 looks
>great, but you must turn off a few options. From the looks of GP3 it
>doesn't even look 3D accelerated.

>>"3D accelerated look" is NOT necessarilly everyones taste.

>Yea right, some people just have bad taste.

>>Indeed. Question is: WHO has the bad taste?   :-)

>>JoH

>In all honesty I think GP3 looks pretty good, it just doesn't look
>like it is filtering all of the textures. Without 3D acceleration you
>get no filtering to smooth textures so anyone who thinks non-3D
>accelerated looks better than 3D accelerated needs to clean their
>glasses more often. :-)

> >thus spoke:

> >>Indeed. Question is: WHO has the bad taste?   :-)

> >>JoH

> >In all honesty I think GP3 looks pretty good, it just doesn't look
> >like it is filtering all of the textures. Without 3D acceleration you
> >get no filtering to smooth textures so anyone who thinks non-3D
> >accelerated looks better than 3D accelerated needs to clean their
> >glasses more often. :-)

> It's an argument. :-)

> But this "pixellation" is very relative. First of all it only becomes
> really apparent when you get close upto a wall for example. Now how
> often does that happen? Secondly, -while racing- you do not have
> either time or intention to evaluate every pixel. You focus on the
> track ahead, and everything else moves to "peripheral vision". The
> importance of the details lowers, and the tint, brightness etc.
> becomes more important. IMHO GP3 looks especially stronger in that
> department.

> JoH