rec.autos.simulators

by **Jan Verschuere** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 06:05:09

Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive in the
real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them.

That doesn't, for me, detract from the fact the model was amazing for it's
day. Technical superior to anything at it's release and the best at
translating the car's actions to the (sim)driver. GPL is also still the best
internet multiplayer open wheel sim, IMO.

If there is to be a next step in 3rd party development for GPL, I think it
has to be revisiting the model and the simulated parameters for the
cars/tyres.

Jan.
=---

by **John Pancoas** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 06:14:09

Yep, agreed. Should we just say it now......................CART Sim !
<G>

-John

by **Mats Lofkvis** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:42:24

[snip]

The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho.
Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier
than the real thing.

You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing
(in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision
high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to
small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low
rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke
compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that
you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have
a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer
in it, everything just gets worse.

I doubt GPL is a perfect simulation, or even close to it, but
the major reason people find it hard is due to the limitations
in the hardware used and not in the simulation itself. With good
hardware and when you get used to the inherent limitations GPL
is dead easy. It is easy to drive it consistently at decent lap
times and it probably is to easy to drive fast lap times.

_
Mats Lofkvist

by **John Pancoas** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:43:40

Sorry, see above<G> Even with pc limitations, stock GPL is a bit much to
believe as accurate. If pc limitations make THAT much of a glaring
difference as in GPL,(I don't believe they do), it needed to be done
differently.
IMO, the FD hack is much closer to 1967 reality, at least in terms of
grip.

-John

> [snip]
> > Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive in
the
> > real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them.

> The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho.
> Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier
> than the real thing.

> You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing
> (in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision
> high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to
> small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low
> rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke
> compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that
> you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have
> a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer
> in it, everything just gets worse.

> I doubt GPL is a perfect simulation, or even close to it, but
> the major reason people find it hard is due to the limitations
> in the hardware used and not in the simulation itself. With good
> hardware and when you get used to the inherent limitations GPL
> is dead easy. It is easy to drive it consistently at decent lap
> times and it probably is to easy to drive fast lap times.

> _
> Mats Lofkvist

by **Andre Warring** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:53:30

On what data or anything at all is your statement based?

Andre

by **Steve Blankenshi** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:27:57

How 'bout we just badger the ***out of the Papy guys to patch good old GPL *just one more time* - this time with N2002's tire
model code. That should do nicely. (who needs wings anyway; they just ruin racing ;-) )

SB

> Sorry, see above<G> Even with pc limitations, stock GPL is a bit much to
> believe as accurate. If pc limitations make THAT much of a glaring
> difference as in GPL,(I don't believe they do), it needed to be done
> differently.
> IMO, the FD hack is much closer to 1967 reality, at least in terms of
> grip.

> -John

> > [snip]
> > > Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive in
> the
> > > real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them.

> > The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho.
> > Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier
> > than the real thing.

> > You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing
> > (in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision
> > high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to
> > small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low
> > rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke
> > compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that
> > you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have
> > a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer
> > in it, everything just gets worse.

> > I doubt GPL is a perfect simulation, or even close to it, but
> > the major reason people find it hard is due to the limitations
> > in the hardware used and not in the simulation itself. With good
> > hardware and when you get used to the inherent limitations GPL
> > is dead easy. It is easy to drive it consistently at decent lap
> > times and it probably is to easy to drive fast lap times.

> > _
> > Mats Lofkvist

by **Andreas Nystro** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:46:00

If you mean the statement about it being rushed, there
was someone who scanned an old advertisment for GPL
over at legendscentral forum, and it clearly stated things like "8 player
over lan" :D and tire-wear, and wheatersimulation. As we know, its not
limited to 8players, nor does it have tirewear, and nor does it have
wheater.

> >Er, I think you will find the final product was very rushed and left out
> >many vital features which it was supposed to have.

> >It basically matches most peoles impressions of what it must feel like to
> >drvie one of these caers but it' not based on any data or anything at
all.

> On what data or anything at all is your statement based?

> Andre

by **John Pancoas** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:09:29

No, I like GPL as is, thank you :)

-John

GPL *just one more time* - this time with N2002's tire

> model code. That should do nicely. (who needs wings anyway; they just
ruin racing ;-) )

> SB

> > Sorry, see above<G> Even with pc limitations, stock GPL is a bit much
to
> > believe as accurate. If pc limitations make THAT much of a glaring
> > difference as in GPL,(I don't believe they do), it needed to be done
> > differently.
> > IMO, the FD hack is much closer to 1967 reality, at least in terms of
> > grip.

> > -John

> > > [snip]
> > > > Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to
drive in
> > the
> > > > real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race
them.

> > > The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho.
> > > Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier
> > > than the real thing.

> > > You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing
> > > (in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision
> > > high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to
> > > small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low
> > > rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke
> > > compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that
> > > you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have
> > > a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer
> > > in it, everything just gets worse.

> > > I doubt GPL is a perfect simulation, or even close to it, but
> > > the major reason people find it hard is due to the limitations
> > > in the hardware used and not in the simulation itself. With good
> > > hardware and when you get used to the inherent limitations GPL
> > > is dead easy. It is easy to drive it consistently at decent lap
> > > times and it probably is to easy to drive fast lap times.

> > > _
> > > Mats Lofkvist

by **Andre Warrin** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:50:07

I was refering to this statement:
'It basically matches most peoles impressions of what it must feel
like to drvie one of these caers but it' not based on any data or
anything at all.'

I don't say GPL is 100% accurate, to be honest I don't even care that
much, but a statement like this without any actual proof is worthless.

And calling GPL a rushed product because some things were not included
in the final version is plain silly. Papy spent a couple of years
working on GPL, and welcome to reality, no publisher wants to wait 10
years before a game is released.

Andre

by **Andreas Nystro** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:03:00

Well, if they had a couple of years todo it, and they didnt, then i dont
know what to say :)
Atleast we could have get it in a patch, dont you think?.

"Andre Warringa" >

by **na_bike** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:07:17

>[snip]
>> Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive in the
>> real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them.

>The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho.
>Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier
>than the real thing.

>You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing
>(in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision
>high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to
>small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low
>rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke
>compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that
>you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have
>a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer
>in it, everything just gets worse.

Don't you think it's better to reserve your judgement until we
actually *have* a [very]realistic sim to compare with? Or at least a
decent tyre-model? If more realistic means even more harder we can
just quit this altogether and go back to Need for Speed, IMHO. Because
I don't think I have neural capacity to cope with a more "realistic"
GPL.

Funny thing this in every GPL debate, that everyone has this premise
that GPL _is realistic_ just like so. It's almost an axiom to some, it
doesn't even have to be justified. All arguments about it is based on
_disproving_ the physics of GPL. How about turning turning the tables
on the matter? All the _proof_ that the GPL physics is correct is
practically nonexistant. Even when there is something to deal with,
like Clark inboard footage from 1963 there's ump*** explanations left
and right on why he didn't slide round at 15degrees slipangle and why
just GPL is how it "really" was.

Let's see what Papy had to work with, really. Did they have a
contemporary car to study? Did they have actual engine data to work
with? Did they have contemporary tyre-data(slip-characteristics, even
friction data et.c) to work with? No? Then HOW they could have gotten
it right is what I would like to know. MY guess is that most is just
pure guesswork or pulled from what books one can find.

Let's compare it to what we _do_ know. We know that the engine is
pretty much is a polynome, prehaps what's making the Cosworth way off
in characteristics. The tyres have a peculiar longitudinal slip factor
at all times, which btw is still there in N2002. That slip probably
wreaks havoc with the differential when both wheels slip constantly.
Maybe that's why the differentials behave ass-backwards also?

Or maybe we're just OVERANALYZING and giving to much credit to a GAME?
:-?

by **Remco Moe** » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:32:24

I dare you to name a few driving games (beside N4 and N2002) with a
better PHYSICS model as GPL.

I fully disagree, beside N4 & N2002, GPL has the most sophisticated
physics model of todays racing games. There is no flaw, only parts
which aren't modelled.

What _might_ be wrong, is the data they used for the cars in GPL.
(Since I never drove a '67 F1 car, I can't comment on this)

(I must add that the tyre model in GPL is a bit suspect. It might be
the data they used for the tyres, or the tyremodel is too basic, I
don't know)

Remco

by **The Carvalho Famil** » Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:30:44

My $.02, I hear reports that some professional drivers (including Juan Motoya and
J. Villenueve) use GPL and claim it's the most realistic they've seen. It's
obviously got something going for it, or there wouldn't be so many of us wasting
our time talking about it instead of racing! ;-)

Jim

> >[snip]
> >> Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive in the
> >> real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them.

> >The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho.
> >Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier
> >than the real thing.

> >You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing
> >(in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision
> >high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to
> >small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low
> >rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke
> >compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that
> >you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have
> >a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer
> >in it, everything just gets worse.

> Don't you think it's better to reserve your judgement until we
> actually *have* a [very]realistic sim to compare with? Or at least a
> decent tyre-model? If more realistic means even more harder we can
> just quit this altogether and go back to Need for Speed, IMHO. Because
> I don't think I have neural capacity to cope with a more "realistic"
> GPL.

> Funny thing this in every GPL debate, that everyone has this premise
> that GPL _is realistic_ just like so. It's almost an axiom to some, it
> doesn't even have to be justified. All arguments about it is based on
> _disproving_ the physics of GPL. How about turning turning the tables
> on the matter? All the _proof_ that the GPL physics is correct is
> practically nonexistant. Even when there is something to deal with,
> like Clark inboard footage from 1963 there's ump*** explanations left
> and right on why he didn't slide round at 15degrees slipangle and why
> just GPL is how it "really" was.

> Let's see what Papy had to work with, really. Did they have a
> contemporary car to study? Did they have actual engine data to work
> with? Did they have contemporary tyre-data(slip-characteristics, even
> friction data et.c) to work with? No? Then HOW they could have gotten
> it right is what I would like to know. MY guess is that most is just
> pure guesswork or pulled from what books one can find.

> Let's compare it to what we _do_ know. We know that the engine is
> pretty much is a polynome, prehaps what's making the Cosworth way off
> in characteristics. The tyres have a peculiar longitudinal slip factor
> at all times, which btw is still there in N2002. That slip probably
> wreaks havoc with the differential when both wheels slip constantly.
> Maybe that's why the differentials behave ass-backwards also?

> Or maybe we're just OVERANALYZING and giving to much credit to a GAME?
> :-?

by **Haqsa** » Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:14:44

> I dare you to name a few driving games (beside N4 and N2002) with a
> better PHYSICS model as GPL.

F1 2001. No, I'm not kidding. It's true some of the track modelling is
questionable, and like all sims there are people claiming that the grip
or the aero or something is wrong, but I think the underlying physics
code is as solid and comprehensive as you will find anywhere.

Sophisticated? I don't think so. While I can't prove this, I suspect
very strongly that GPL uses the "simplified suspension model" with
virtual links, roll centers, equivalent wheel rates, etc. I think that
is why we see "wheel rates" rather than spring rates in the setup
screen. I think this is why the cars feel so wallowy and imprecise
compared to other sims. I also think doing a full kinematic suspension
model at 288 hz on the average P200 that was around when GPL was
released would have been impossible. More modern sims have taken
advantage of more modern hardware and are doing more thorough and
comprehensive physics modelling. F1 2001 for example appears to have a
full kinematics model of the suspension. GPL was excellent for the time
it was released, but that was three years ago. Computing power has more
than quadrupled since then.

Agreed. It seems to be counterproductive in GPL to run more than about
1 degree of negative camber. I don't think that's realistic, but I
could be wrong. 2 to 3 degrees of negative camber is common with modern
race cars on radial tires, and my understanding is that radials are less
responsive to camber change than bias ply tires.

by **John Pancoas** » Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:44:42

Agreed, it's still the king of sims IMO.............but anytime someone
believes a public figure's comments about a game isn't related to being paid
for it..............well, I have a bridge to sell you <G>

Don't think it's the case here, but 99.9% of the time, it is.

-John

> My $.02, I hear reports that some professional drivers (including Juan
Motoya and
> J. Villenueve) use GPL and claim it's the most realistic they've seen.
It's
> obviously got something going for it, or there wouldn't be so many of us
wasting
> our time talking about it instead of racing! ;-)

> Jim

> > >[snip]
> > >> Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive
in the
> > >> real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race
them.

> > >The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho.
> > >Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier
> > >than the real thing.

> > >You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing
> > >(in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision
> > >high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to
> > >small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low
> > >rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke
> > >compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that
> > >you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have
> > >a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer
> > >in it, everything just gets worse.

> > Don't you think it's better to reserve your judgement until we
> > actually *have* a [very]realistic sim to compare with? Or at least a
> > decent tyre-model? If more realistic means even more harder we can
> > just quit this altogether and go back to Need for Speed, IMHO. Because
> > I don't think I have neural capacity to cope with a more "realistic"
> > GPL.

> > Funny thing this in every GPL debate, that everyone has this premise
> > that GPL _is realistic_ just like so. It's almost an axiom to some, it
> > doesn't even have to be justified. All arguments about it is based on
> > _disproving_ the physics of GPL. How about turning turning the tables
> > on the matter? All the _proof_ that the GPL physics is correct is
> > practically nonexistant. Even when there is something to deal with,
> > like Clark inboard footage from 1963 there's ump*** explanations left
> > and right on why he didn't slide round at 15degrees slipangle and why
> > just GPL is how it "really" was.

> > Let's see what Papy had to work with, really. Did they have a
> > contemporary car to study? Did they have actual engine data to work
> > with? Did they have contemporary tyre-data(slip-characteristics, even
> > friction data et.c) to work with? No? Then HOW they could have gotten
> > it right is what I would like to know. MY guess is that most is just
> > pure guesswork or pulled from what books one can find.

> > Let's compare it to what we _do_ know. We know that the engine is
> > pretty much is a polynome, prehaps what's making the Cosworth way off
> > in characteristics. The tyres have a peculiar longitudinal slip factor
> > at all times, which btw is still there in N2002. That slip probably
> > wreaks havoc with the differential when both wheels slip constantly.
> > Maybe that's why the differentials behave ass-backwards also?

> > Or maybe we're just OVERANALYZING and giving to much credit to a GAME?
> > :-?

rec.autos.simulators

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.

GPL physics question.