> We know that the engine is pretty much is a polynome
A polynomial is a mathematical expression consisting of a sum of terms, each
term including a variable or variables raised to a power and multiplied by a
coefficient. The simplest polynomials have one variable. A one-variable
(univariate) polynomial of degree n has the following form:
See - piece of cake!
The implied assumption I find GPL too hard is false as well.
In some ways it is (one doesn't have to suffer the cornering loads, for
example), in some ways it isn't. My point about the cars and the physics
implementation in GPL is that on the one hand they are too forgiving and
vague, while on the other quite prone to unpredictable reactions to upsets.
I have limited real life racing experience, but I'm pretty sure any racing
driver would park the "GPL car" after one lap and walk away.
As simulated racing cars go, however, GPL's implementation was the best of
it's day and still is quite formidable today.
Not easy, no... it shouldn't be, but intuitive. While miles better than any
other sim at it's release it does take far too long for the experienced
simmer to get somewhat up to speed in GPL. It shouldn't take more than a few
familiarization laps to get within sight of one's potential. It might take
ages to actually get there.
I've had fairly little time in NR2002, for example, but I already find I can
pretty much pre-empt the car in most situations. While I still find it hard
to judge how much braking is required to hold an inside line in GPL, it
comes quasi natural in NR2002. I judged where to brake, modulation and
transition into the corner adequately the first time I went for an inside
move into T1 at the Glen just now (the simulated Terry Labonte had no
answer, anyway ;-))
It doesn't have to be exactly the same feeling, as long as it's consistent
with the attitude of the car and with one's perception of what is possible
in reality. The brain will translate automatically.
I ascertain NR2002 does a better job on current hardware (as it should,
being nearly 3.5 years more recent).
It's too easy to take advantage of quirks in the model and the fact nothing
"wears" but fuel, true. It's far easier to be consistent in other sims,
however. I used to attribute that to less simulation sofistication in those
games, which is partly the case, but I've come to realise there's more to
it. Trust me on this, I've been simming for 9 years and have been forced to
re-evaluate my position a number of times over this period. I don't say this
lightly.
Don't get me wrong though... having said all this, I still love GPL to bits.
It's just have had certain misgivings, neigh nitpicks, since practically day
1.
Jan.
=---
But one cannot expect what JPM and JV say to carry over to every point
or detail. If you could go over the details with any of them I'm sure
we would unearth some very peculiar artifacts. Actually I think it
would be pretty interesting if one could do that with an experienced
driver. Like if they think powersliding through Vialone(a.k.a. Ascari
today) or Gresil(righthander at Rouen) is realistic. Which you must do
since tightening the diff makes the car oversteer in flat-out turns in
GPL. Just to prove my point, JPM also swears by GP2! But no one would
ever try to convince somebody else that GP2 is an actual realistic F1
sim by any standards. It gave a decent impression of driving an F1,
and it was certainly the ->most<- realistic sim at the time(well,
maybe not counting ICR2). But like everyone know you dont even have to
peel a single thing off of it for it to show some blatant errors. I
think to a lesser degree the same applies to GPL.
>> We know that the engine is pretty much is a polynome
>A what?
Who knows what he'd say now? Well, there is that Williams F1 game... ;-)
SB
> But one cannot expect what JPM and JV say to carry over to every point
> or detail. If you could go over the details with any of them I'm sure
> we would unearth some very peculiar artifacts. Actually I think it
> would be pretty interesting if one could do that with an experienced
> driver. Like if they think powersliding through Vialone(a.k.a. Ascari
> today) or Gresil(righthander at Rouen) is realistic. Which you must do
> since tightening the diff makes the car oversteer in flat-out turns in
> GPL. Just to prove my point, JPM also swears by GP2! But no one would
> ever try to convince somebody else that GP2 is an actual realistic F1
> sim by any standards. It gave a decent impression of driving an F1,
> and it was certainly the ->most<- realistic sim at the time(well,
> maybe not counting ICR2). But like everyone know you dont even have to
> peel a single thing off of it for it to show some blatant errors. I
> think to a lesser degree the same applies to GPL.
;-)
SB
<snip>
<snip>
OK, so polynome = piece of cake.
Got it, thanks.
(curiously, the online merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary
did not recognize the word).
I think he meant "the rpm vs torque curve is pretty much polynomial", i.e.
of the form
torque = a + bx + cx^2 +dx^3......
where a,b,c,d... are constants and x is rpm.
> Got it, thanks.
> (curiously, the online merriam-Webster Collegiate
> Dictionary did not recognize the word).
Jan./who, from other posters, got the impression the engines were done via
look-up tables...
> > 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.
> > 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.
> 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.
> > (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)
> 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.
I am just a driver...
Sadly for my wife she doesn't see the likeness with Tom :-)
Tony
> The implied assumption I find GPL too hard is false as well.
The main point of my longish rant was that with high end hardware,
GPL _is_ as easy as one can expect imho. Maybe the major problem with
GPL is that it behaves so different (and is so much harder) with
suboptimal hardware (e.g. the best money could buy in 1998 :-).
_
Mats Lofkvist
To me that is lot of the charm with GPL, as the third party community has added
and added to it to scale with the hardware. With all the addon bits it looks as
good as any other IMHO.
As for the easy or hard bit it meets my expectations pretty reasonably. I can
run around consistently at high 1:05s at the Glen for instance and the replays
look about right, I am not at the extreme angles discussed elsewhere.
Of course I am probably 2 secs off the really quick guys. It depends what you
compare with - the quick GPL drivers or the footage and lap times of F1 drivers
in 67. If I take the latter then it feels right. If I try to catch up the
quicker guys then yep GPL is too hard!
It has been discussed many times before, but if the real drivers could have slid
through fast bends like some GPLers without fear of the consequences then they
would have gone quicker.
Learning sim racing tends to be the opposite of real racing. Start fast and
learn where you have to slow down. Of course in GPL's case the slowing down
takes that bit longer than modern F1 sims, which tends to make it frustrating at
first.
Tony