rec.autos.simulators

by **John Pancoas** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:50:18

> > 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
> ==============================

Agreed about the drafting model, but not being able to advance in the
middle in an actual race isn't completely true. Earnhardt was a master at
it, and did it virtually every race.

John

- Show quoted text -

by **John Pancoas** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:52:32

Yep. Some of the points you mention, don't bother me, but the model is
no good. Then again, who cares about a damage model, when the slightest
contact sends a car into orbit anyway <g>

See ya at Kharkov comrade <g>

> It is a huge problem in online racing. That along with the damage model,
> just about makes this game arcadish. You can be .3 faster than someone
and
> not pull away at tracks like Michigan, Texas, C***te, Kansas, Chicago..
> The list goes on. It artificially keeps the cars in one snake. It causes
> more yellows and then you combine that with the limited damage model, it
> just causes more wrecks than there should be. All in the name of "Keeping
> people more competitive with the best online drivers".

> > > 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://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
> > Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **John Pancoas** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:53:57

Yep, so true.

John

by **Haqsa** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:38:15

WRONG. You and certain other people in this group have a really warped
understanding of the terms subjectivity and objectivity. Objectivity
concerns factual information and facts are measurable, everything else
is a subjective opinion. Just because you are absolutely certain about
something and can find people that agree with you does not make that
thing a fact. It is a belief, or an opinion, until you can measure it.
Statements like "Papy is more real" or "ISI is more real" are subjective
opinions, you cannot prove them. And as far as the below mentioned
mathematical proof, perception is subjective, you cannot mathematically
prove anything about it. If you are referring to the proof that I
recall (a link would be helpful) the person didn't even understand the
correct definition of FOV and therefore his whole argument was flawed.
Come on, Frank. Perception of speed? How the hell can you measure
that?

by **Robert Platt** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:02:40

Oh lets not forget how far off the speeds are in every Nascar Racing game
especially Papyrus's. For example when I stopped racing in N4 we were racing
at Lowes at 182-183 mph laptimes , this is race speeds not hot laps or qual
laps mind you. When is the last time you seen a Wc car race at these speeds
in a race, they are in the mid 170's for god's sake. Here's another example
the speeds were 92-94 mph at Marty , hmm I remeber seing the guys racing at
86-88 mph this past weekend. If the Wc boys ran the setups I and others use
to use they would crash in by lap 10. Besides their Ai this has been
papyrus's biggest problem , that being the speeds are anywhere from 5 - 10
mph higher than what is really run depending on the track you go to. Also
lets don't gforget about the lack of more than 1 groove at most tracks in
papyrus's Nascar sims and don't even get me started on the total joke of
restrictor plate racing they have always had. Don't take this as a bash on
papyrus or a praise for Nt2003 , it's just flaws and facts that people tend
to forget about Paryru's Nascar games everytime a new one comes out from a
different company.

Peace

Robert GT86 Platts

> Yep, so true.

> John

> > Now I remember why i quit racing and left the racing sim community and
to
> > think I was thinking of coming back. Jesus it's has to be a love hate
> thing
> > with racing sims and sim racers, that I will never understand. Why can't
a
> > game be enjoyed for what it is instead of being bashed for what it
isn't.
> By
> > the way N2002 isn't a Sim by any means people, they only Sim papyrus
ever
> > made was GPL and all they did with N4 and N2002 is put Stock car skins
on
> > top of it, the driving physics in N4/N2002 are completly way off basis,
> but
> > so is NT2003. N4/N2002 is way to unforgiving for a stock car the cars
> drive
> > like a 60's F1 car (hmm wonder why that is) and they are way to
forgiving
> in
> > NT2003. Now with that said I enjoyed my time playing Papyrus racing
gamea
> > (sims if you must) but got tired of $50 patches very year. I am
enjoying
> my
> > limited time with Nt2003 for what it is which will be short since I just
> > find sim racing boring these days. Anyway just enojoy the games for what
> > they are instead of bashing it and th epeople who play them for what it
> > isn't.

> > On a side Note I never thought I would see the day when Bill Bollinger
> would
> > come to the dark side (anyone who remembers my days with BHMS and Julian
> > Data will know what I'm speaking about) and be critical of Papyrus.
<VBG>
> > Give them hell Bill

> > Now time to go back into my hole

> > God Bless the US and all that have toendure the totures of terrorism

> > Robert GT86 Platts

by **Scott B. Huste** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 05:29:09

He's an "Alien". <G>

--
Scott B. Husted
PA-Scott
ICQ# 4395450
http://www.Husted.cc

> Why do you insist that someone's opinion on a game is only valid if he's
fast
> enough to meet *your* standards? Do you really need to say that to pump
up
> your own self-worth? That's elitist, man... :-(

> Eldred
> --

by **Scott B. Huste** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 05:30:28

With the number of players you can run online in NT2003.... it will seem
like an F1 race on ovals. ;)

--
Scott B. Husted
PA-Scott
ICQ# 4395450
http://www.Husted.cc

by **ymenar** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 07:53:18

> WRONG.

Again, I'm right. Saying that Papyrus in GPL or NR2002 doesn't have an
accurate sense of speed is ABSOLUTELY false. There was discussions about
this in the past, and even a website was created that had shown mathematical
proof of the realistic sense of speed in GPL. Every one of those "whoa look
at the speed you feel" games on the market have it incorrectly.

On something simple as a POV, how the lens is distorsed and how the horizon
acts, yes. It's pure mathematical and physical calculations.

Again, just show us that it's wrong.

--
-- 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...

by **Damien Smit** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:49:41

<sigh> ymenard gets it wrong yet again. Most of the "whoa look at the speed
you feel" posts were generated when F1 2001 was released. Why? Well,
mainly it has to do with frame rate and FOV (field of view) F1 200X has
also been proven to have a correctly scaled speed. The road texture also
has an enormous impact. The stark, plain textures used in GPL, N2002, GP4
etc don't appear to be moving as quickly as in F1 200X because a
fast-moving, plain texture doesn't appear to be moving at all. After
playing F1 200X at 60+fps, GPL at 36fps feels like a snail. So, yes, sense
of speed *is* subjective.

(Please nobody replay saying that you only need 30fps for smooth motion
<rolls eyes>)

by **mark jeangerar** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:52:40

> > This newsgroup is severely dysfunctional

> BWAHAHAHA.

> "Oh my god a newsgroup that's not perfect". Well ***ing _duh_ welcome to
> the Usenet Mark. Either you leave or you play the game.

So you back me up in that statement? Good. I knew I wasn't alone. BTW There
are some very helpful and honest newsgroups on Usenet. Guess I'm used to a
higher standard.

I never disputed any of these claims. I haven't checked them either as they
do not interest me. Nor are they related to what I was trying to say.

From time to time I try to take the time to state what I think is wrong or
right with certain titles. The discussion in this strand of this thread was
not what title is real, it was whether or not this group is "feast or
famine", at least as an overall trait. So, I summarized to help make my
point. Surely you understand that technique. Or shall I go through a
detailed background description of every sentence in my post? I will be
happy to write what I think as far as comparisons of different titles goes,
at some point. Right now I have neither the time nor energy to withstand the
abuse.

True. OK, I guess what I am complaining about is that it can seem that flaws
in popular titles are forgivable and any flaws by less popular manufacturers
are not. At the same time, I ask you to review what you have written in the
paragraph above... and try to remember it.

I don't think math is a good tool to use when measuring my perception of
speed. I remember the link to which you refer. I recall that it calculated
the accuracy with which GPL reported speed, or, if it covered so many feet
in so many seconds at such and such a rate of speed. I would expect no less
than exact accuracy from anything I would call a simulation. The fact that I
had a habit of braking, turning, and throttling too early in GPL (until the
timing patch, anyway) is my sole source of measurement of my perception of
speed in GPL. Sure there were theories backing up my suspicions, but the
only way I had of proving what I thought was going on was by monitoring my
habits in all sims. My official answer to your question is, "I'm being
subjective now." Which, is what I was trying to get at the whole time. Sorry
if I was unclear.

Thanks for the chat Frank. I always enjoy your company. Be sure to stop me
the next time we pass. "-)

--

"Nothing gets closer!" - Crammond

mark

by **Haqsa** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:21:14

Link please?

No it isn't, because you are assuming that you know where the driver's
sensation of speed is coming from. For me the sensation of speed comes
from how fast detail is moving past my eyes. You can see this clearly
by running games at radically different mip levels. At extremely low
texture detail your sensation of speed disappears almost completely.

Concerning that web site, if you are referring to the site I am thinking
of, he was basing his calculations on the angular rate of objects moving
off the edge of the screen. But guess what, the edge of the screen is
not the edge of your vision! Or if it is, then I want to borrow your
monitor. ;o) I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the screen
area should in any way match my real life FOV, and I fundamentally
disagree with the idea that perception of speed has anything to do with
the angular rate at which objects move across my viewing frustum. For
me it is tied to the linear speed at which detail moves towards me.

I can't, nor can you prove me wrong, any more than you can look out of
my eyes and see what I am seeing. You are trying to say that there is
some science to perception, and I disagree with you. I have even given
you an example above of how I perceive things differently than the
author of that web page (assuming we are talking about the same one).
There is perhaps a science to how the sense organs receive stimuli, and
to how they relay those signals to the brain. But that is where the
science stops. After that it is all psychology, which is about as
subjective as you can possibly get.

by **ymenar** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:15:52

> <sigh> ymenard gets it wrong yet again. Most of the "whoa look at the
speed
> you feel" posts were generated when F1 2001 was released.

Hmmm, wasn't it for another sim? Considering every data of the FOV of F1
2001 can be modified, why would it had been a problem? I think the threads
about that started because somebody was willing to view outside of the 4:3
box we have our vision.

I have never said ISI's sims have incorrect FOV. But I disagree that the
capped 36fps affects a correct "sense of speed", but that's pretty much to
be debated also. Like somebody told me, the debates goes towards the law of
diminishing returns.

The textures are more realistic in those sims then F1 200x (and especially
NT2003). It's more of a philosophical issue here. Should some things be
unrealistic so that in other aspects they become realistic? ;)

smooth motion =! sense of speed.

--
-- 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...

by **ymenar** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:20:07

> Link please?

Sorry, I have failed to remember the URL. I had it backed up, but I lost my
thousands of bookmarks earlier this year. Therefore, I admit my failure to
continue argumenting :) :(

(yes people, mark your calendars LOL)

Of course. 4:3 dimensions limit our vision, but since every sim is on the
same standpoint, it can be compared. Now with those 3:1-supported video
cards, it can be much different. After viewing NR2002 raced on 3 screens, I
have to say that the angular rate is perfect. Perhaps it could be put up
front of let's say a feet or two, but not much more.

Interesting concept that I knew would come in this thread. It can be
debated for sure.

--
-- 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...

by **ymenar** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:25:27

> So you back me up in that statement? Good. I knew I wasn't alone.

Actually yes I back you up here Mark. I was just saying that you say the
obvious here often in this thread. We all know and act that way because we
understand what the Usenet really is 8)

I know from my experience (my list of frequented NG's weekly is in the
hundreds) that this is one. Of course it's surely not sci.space.station but
it's neither alt.fan.karl-malden.nose ;)

Hmmm <confused> ;-/

Well the point is, you say that you find "several" titles to be more
realistic as anything Papyrus ever produced (which would include NR2003). I
would like to know what those "several" titles are. Please don't say GP4.

Well if you read my words here you'll see that I'm cynical of every title
ever. Even Papy products aren't up to my standards. I *** and whine
about everything, because I understand that all sims are flawed. It's
somehow our job in the community to make sure those failures in the sims are
known.

.
True

Eh ;)

--
-- 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 **Gerry Aitke** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:51:12

> > Again, I'm right. Saying that Papyrus in GPL or NR2002 doesn't have an
> > accurate sense of speed is ABSOLUTELY false. There was discussions about
> > this in the past, and even a website was created that had shown
> mathematical
> > proof of the realistic sense of speed in GPL. Every one of those "whoa
> look
> > at the speed you feel" games on the market have it incorrectly.

> <sigh> ymenard gets it wrong yet again. Most of the "whoa look at the speed
> you feel" posts were generated when F1 2001 was released. Why? Well,
> mainly it has to do with frame rate and FOV (field of view) F1 200X has
> also been proven to have a correctly scaled speed. The road texture also
> has an enormous impact. The stark, plain textures used in GPL, N2002, GP4
> etc don't appear to be moving as quickly as in F1 200X because a
> fast-moving, plain texture doesn't appear to be moving at all. After
> playing F1 200X at 60+fps, GPL at 36fps feels like a snail. So, yes, sense
> of speed *is* subjective.

Modern F1 car accelerate faster and go faster than stocks and 67 F1
cars. Maybe that's what give you a better feeling of speed, you are
actually going faster!

Gerry

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!!!