rec.autos.simulators

by **ymenar** » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:00:18

> Well, I put a setup in the game from Lowe's in N2k2 and it had the same
> feel.

Perhaps the same car feel, but since the track layout is considerably wrong
(like I wrote, Nascar Racing 2 back in 1996 featured a more accurate
rendition of C***te Motor Speedway) it's impossible to have anykind of
serious relation between what real-life drivers do there and what you do on
the screen. In NR2002, you sure can. Of course except the little drafting
misaccuracies, who are still 10x times less important than the major failure
in the accuracy of the track. I mean, that stretch before T1 is laughable!

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **Damien Smit** » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:49:14

WTF? I am a graphics *** and I think that you've got something
wrong with your setup if you think that...If you want to see flickering,
check out the passing scenary in the (UN-VSYNC-ABLE) N2002.

Pure nonsense. Admittedly the default car textures in F1 2002 are a bit
lame but the RH and Bobi addons are the graphics benchmark for
all racing simulations. (Not to mention the FIA GT V3 mod
which looks much better than N2002)

The physics in NT 2003 are certainly questionable but Doug Arnao
has achieved, with the FIAGTV3 mod, the best sensation of weight
transfer currently available. The Live For Speed demo is up there too.
Nascar 2002 feels pretty similar to those two to me. Unfortunately,
the cars tend to feel like they're floating around in N2002. The other
two sims do a much better job of connecting the car to the road. If,
as you insist, force feedback plays no part in Nascar, then maybe
Papy should stick to Nascar since they obviously have no clue how
to implement FF properly.

Absolutely. Papy are the undisputed kings of online multiplayer and
menu/replay implementations. The most frustrating thing is that when
it comes to recreating the feeling of driving a car, others do it better.

by **Marc Collin** » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:21:02

Thanks for saying exactly what I was about to say. I agree 100% (which is
exceedingly rare).

Marc

> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:43:36 GMT, "Alan Bernardo"

> >Sir, it's not "feast or famine" with this group. What you have is a
bunch
> >of tight-belted GPLers who think that if it's not GPL (or Papyrus made)
then
> >the thing's garbage.

> I stopped listening to people who say the above, since it's not in any
> way grounded in fact.

> I've bought every single notable racing simulation (and some that
> weren't so notable) since the 1980's. I've given them all a fair
> chance, spent several hours on each, even the Grand Prix series up to
> and including 4, and the truth of the matter is that nothing simulates
> a car to the same degree of precision like a Papyrus sim.

> That said, there are several good racing simulations out there. Rally
> Trophy was good, Mobil 1 Rally and its predecessors were good, F1 2001
> and 2002 were good, Nascar Heat was good, the Dirt Track Racing series
> is very good, Sportscar GT was good, etc.

> However, the difference between any of these sims and a Papyrus
> simulation is huge. No company has dedicated as much time and care in
> perfecting the art of simulating motorsport as Papyrus has, and it
> shows in their product. That's not a subjective statement, it's pure
> and simple fact. They create simulations with uncompromising realism,
> which can not be said about any other company.

> Their closest competitor in the early years was Geoff Crammond. Indy
> 500, NASCAR Racing, and Indycar Racing 1 and 2 were miles ahead of the
> nearest competitor until Grand Prix 2 came out. That was the last
> time that anyone has even come close to being on the same playing
> field, nevertheless competing head to head.

> NASCAR Thunder, which you haven't played, is a joke. There is one
> feature in the entire game that I find noteworthy, and that involves
> the paint schemes on the cars (you can have multiple paint schemes for
> the same car and select from them in the menu). The track models are
> horrible. The graphics have inherited the awful aliasing/flickering
> and oversaturated textures from F1 200x. The cars do not exhibit any
> noticeable engine braking or for that matter anything resembling a
> realistic torque curve. The weight transfer model is as nonexistent
> as it is in F1 2002. Rather than feeling like a car with weight that
> transfers as you accelerate, brake, corner, etc if feels like you're
> in a piece of plywood that is skipping along the surface of a pond.
> It's horrible. F1 2002's saving grace is that it's quite possible a
> real modern ultra-stiff Formula One car handles like that. Is it an
> inherent problem with ISI's physics code? I suppose GT 2002 will show
> if that's the case - if Doug Arnao cannot create a realistic
> representation of a real car using that engine, I doubt anyone can.
> Beyond the actual gameplay, the menus are horrible, the replay system
> is barely functional, and the lack of any sort of in-game opponent or
> skin manager is mindnumbing. I don't think I have to be a Papyrus
> looney to make statements that are immediately apparent to nearly
> everyone who has played the game.

> Jason

by **Jason Moy** » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:45:35

On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:02:10 -0400, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr."

>Well, I put a setup in the game from Lowe's in N2k2 and it had the same
>feel. I had to adjust the car since it was a little more loose than in N2k2
>but it had basically the same feel. Now that I have adjusted the car a
>little bit, the lap times are comparable and the car feels very similar.

That's a very good idea, Phillip. I'll try that and give it another
go round.

As far as it being the best NASCAR sim from EA, I agree
wholeheartedly. I think POS might be too strong to describe it, it's
definitely not as bad as say Nascar Road Racing or that swamp buggy
racing that someone did a few years ago (can't remember the name, it
was horrible). I'm certainly dissapointed, tho. I am also
dumbfounded that they didn't include the career mode from the console
- even if I hated everything about the driving, that would make it
worth keeping around.

Jason

by **Jason Moy** » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:47:16

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:00:18 -0400, "ymenard"

>Of course except the little drafting
>misaccuracies

Is this referring to N2002? If so, what's wrong with the drafting
model?

Jason

by **John DiFoo** » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:08:07

> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:00:18 -0400, "ymenard"

> >Of course except the little drafting
> >misaccuracies

> Is this referring to N2002? If so, what's wrong with the drafting
> model?

> Jason

From my perspective, the draft cone is too wide, leading to
the 'wind tunnel' effect if you are the middle car in between
two draft trains-you get shot forward at ungodly (relative) speeds.
In a real Nascar race note that cars in such a predicament tend
to get shuffled to the BACK, not sucked along towards the
front.
There is also a 'turbulence barrier' if a group of cars is two
seconds ahead of you and your pack. Trying to break through
this barrier is almost impossible, if the guys ahead don't keep
jockeying for position and everyone's cars are about even
performance-wise.

John DiFool

--
==============================
Emerald haunt in overdrive
==============================

by **Gerry Aitke** » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:37:16

> Sir, it's not "feast or famine" with this group. What you have is a bunch
> of tight-belted GPLers who think that if it's not GPL (or Papyrus made) then
> the thing's garbage.

> I quit listening to these guys long ago. Their myopic vision makes
> everything they say invalid and downright absurd.

> Granted, NT2003 may not be that good (I couldn't say, I haven't tried it
> yet.) But it's not as bad as some would lead you to believe.

It's not GPL.

Yours sneeringly

GDA

by **David Ciemn** » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 04:29:52

hehe..

by **David Ciemn** » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 04:30:25

you have to be kidding..

total POS..

> You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with the
> sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad at
> all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti
> Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. Is it better than
N2k?
> No. Is it almost as good? I think it has come a long way and has some more
> to go. But it is definitely not a POS. At least you can run a race against
> the AI and not get taken out under yellow by the AI or the renegade pace
> car. Is it the best sim ever? No. Is it a decent to good sim that is not
> perfect and could be made better? Yes. Is it a POS? Absolutely not.

> > 1st. Open the Box.
> > 2nd. Re-insert the CD
> > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........

by **Phillip Malphrus, Jr** » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 04:55:11

in a word, "NO".

> you have to be kidding..

> total POS..

> > You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with

the

by **Larr** » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 06:01:40

I have to agree.

It can't help but be a let-down on a simulation stand point, especially when
compared to NR2002.

But... It's a game for the masses, not a sim. In that regard, it's probably
decent.

I'm still working with it, trying to decide what I do and do not like. I'll
post my views once I have a handle on them.

This much I will say. It does a good job of giving the illusion of speed.

I am not sure, however, if I find the tracks more realistic or less
realistic than NR2002. NR2002 seems to represent tracks in their pristine,
pre-race condition. NT2003 tracks look like they are post-race trashy.

NT2003 is, overall, much darker than NR2002 as well.

-Larry

> You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with the
> sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad at
> all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti
> Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. Is it better than
N2k?
> No. Is it almost as good? I think it has come a long way and has some more
> to go. But it is definitely not a POS. At least you can run a race against
> the AI and not get taken out under yellow by the AI or the renegade pace
> car. Is it the best sim ever? No. Is it a decent to good sim that is not
> perfect and could be made better? Yes. Is it a POS? Absolutely not.

> > 1st. Open the Box.
> > 2nd. Re-insert the CD
> > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........

by **Larr** » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 06:05:23

You've got to be kidding...

Loose?

Out of the box it heads for the wall with such a horrific push you have to
brake at every corner. Hard. That's not even close to the way it's
supposed to be.

-Larry

> Well, I put a setup in the game from Lowe's in N2k2 and it had the same
> feel. I had to adjust the car since it was a little more loose than in
N2k2
> but it had basically the same feel. Now that I have adjusted the car a
> little bit, the lap times are comparable and the car feels very similar.
If
> anything, the car seems like it has a tighter ride to it and you arent on
> ice like it seems you are in N2k2. While I agree that the game is not as
> good as N2k2, I seriously disagree that the game is a pos. It has many
flaws
> with the tracks' design and it does not feel quite as realistic. But, if
you
> load the graphics patches and do the tweaks available at
> www.hcmotorsports.com , the game is fun and challenging to play and is
> definitely the best sim that EA has ever released for the NASCAR crowd ...

> > However, the difference between any of these sims and a Papyrus
> > simulation is huge. No company has dedicated as much time and care in
> > perfecting the art of simulating motorsport as Papyrus has, and it
> > shows in their product. That's not a subjective statement, it's pure
> > and simple fact. They create simulations with uncompromising realism,
> > which can not be said about any other company.

> I agree completely with what you are saying about Papyrus.

by **Larr** » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 06:07:49

I've noticed the mip-flopping in NT2003 is quite extensive. Get behind a
car and then back off. There's a definite point where the graphics swap
something because you can clearly see it, and it happens at exactly the same
point every time.

-Larry

by **Haqsa** » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 06:43:38

Argh. What about the track editor they once promised, did they include
that? How about the 9 road courses they advertised?

by **ymenar** » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 07:18:12

> From my perspective, the draft cone is too wide, leading to
> the 'wind tunnel' effect if you are the middle car in between
> two draft trains-you get shot forward at ungodly (relative) speeds.
> In a real Nascar race note that cars in such a predicament tend
> to get shuffled to the BACK, not sucked along towards the
> front.
> There is also a 'turbulence barrier' if a group of cars is two
> seconds ahead of you and your pack. Trying to break through
> this barrier is almost impossible, if the guys ahead don't keep
> jockeying for position and everyone's cars are about even
> performance-wise.

That summarises it pretty well indeed John. I couldn't have said it better.
It's still not a major problem compared to anything that NT2002 has in it's
faults

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

rec.autos.simulators

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

I fixed THUNDER2003!!!