Also, I think I may have figured out the GP2-like gfx of that version/ the
software mode.
Just think GPL in software mode.
The GPL software rendering method is a "software emulation" (important
words just there) of the Hardware 3D, and therefore it is extremely slow and
fairly ugly too. The same can probably be said for most 3D games which offer
a software mode. Now, all go away and play GP2 for a while on your modern
PII/ K6 equipped PC.
It runs quite smoothly doesn't it, a lot smoother than GPL in software mode.
So, if you were Mr Crammond, and you wanted to provide a software mode for
GP3 wouldn't it make sense to just use a slightly enhanced version of the
GP2 software engine. It would run sufficiently on most of our machines. Of
course he could just provide a software emulation (there it is again) that
looks like a blocky and poorly animated version of the 3D engine, but that
wouldn't really make ppl without 3D hardware very happy, would it?
My point?
Don't jump to conclusions just from those screenshots on
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Those first 3 screenshots/ photographs from ECTS look significantly better
than the official screenshots. In fact, have just compared them, I think
that the version shown at ECTS is probably a lot newer than the version
shown on the official site. Why? Well, looking at 2 of the official shots,
the wing mirrors are in excactly the same position on both shots. One of
those shots is in the chicane TURNING, but the other is on the straight. Yet
the shots from ECTS show a 3D rendered***pit because in the shot of the
car entering the hairpin the mirrors have moved, ala 3D***pit style.
The real problem with GP3 at the moment is Microprose/ Hasbro's awful
marketing. They've failed to imform prospective buyers of the important
details of GP3 and seem only to want to keep us in the dark. That said, GP3
better be worth the wait, or Microprose could find themselves in the
position they were in not too long ago, going down the pan!
Just my opinions,
D Cane