rec.autos.simulators

by **Eldre** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:50:49

writes:

Wait - are you using the term "sheeple" to describe people who may just
*happen* to like a game that a few are very vocal about? If so, I don't
consider that fair.
Besides, you may TRY a game because a majority like it. But if YOU don't like
it, you certainly won't keep PLAYING it...

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.racesimcentral.net/~epickett
GPLRank:+6.21
N2002 Rank:+18.91

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Mar** » Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:12:13

> 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!

In my Renault 5 Turbo, 100mph felt *fast*
In a Vectra, 100mph felt gentle
In a novice kart, 30 mph feels fast as feck
In car WC footage looks sedate
Wall-cam WC footage looks faaaaast!

FWIW, I can't remember any sim giving overly bad speed sensations. I
guess I'm lucky that way...

As for NT2003? I'll try it whenever a demo becomes available...

Mark
Reading, UK

A fan of Papyrus products, not because the company name is spelled
P-A-P-Y-R-U-S but because I actually *enjoy* using their products -
hey, go figure!

by **Isotrip** » Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:49:06

I don't think it is a matter of people forgetting about papyrus' Nascar
games everytime a new title comes out. But rather by the time the new title
comes out all the Papy bashing has become old hat for each current version
of said papy title.

I think this Newsgroup has been just as harsh on Papy as it has on every
other developer of software in this Genre. It is true that it is "feast or
famine" But at least we know exactly what we want and how to voice our
displeasure when we are told one thing and then sold another. This goes for
both Papyrus and EA as well as every other title we have all purchased.

I personally dont see a reason to post re-hashes of what the flaws are in
NR2K2 as we all collectively are aware of them.

- Isotrip?

by **Jason Moy** » Fri, 25 Oct 2002 06:20:42

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:15:52 -0400, "ymenard"

>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?

It's a problem because the default***pit camera has a distorted FOV.
If I'm correctly interpreting the data in default.cfg, then the
default camera has a wider FOV at the***pit and narrower further
away (or vice versa). I changed it to 76/76 and got rid of all the
positional modifiers and I could finally drive the cars with some
accuracy.

I don't find the sense of speed to be overwhelming in NT2k3.
Unfortunately you can't really do much with the FOV anyway because of
the crappy***pit model which has huge gaps on either side if you
widen it beyond 70/70. I've tried it at 76/76 and found I enjoyed
driving more but the 4 inch gap on either side of the***pit
destroyed any sense of "being there".

Jason

by **Haqsa** » Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:40:25

> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:15:52 -0400, "ymenard"

> >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?

> It's a problem because the default***pit camera has a distorted FOV.
> If I'm correctly interpreting the data in default.cfg, then the
> default camera has a wider FOV at the***pit and narrower further
> away (or vice versa). I changed it to 76/76 and got rid of all the
> positional modifiers and I could finally drive the cars with some
> accuracy.

Haven't had time to play with this, but from a programming standpoint I
don't believe that it is possible to blend two different FOV's like you
suggest. Admittedly I don't know what the second number is for, but it
seems unlikely that it has anything to do with distance. Have you tried
comparing screenshots with only the second number changed to see what is
different?

If it's setup the same as F1 2002, you should be able to get rid of the
gaps by moving the eye point forward a little. It's the third number in
the Position Offset variable, the units are meters, and I think positive
is rearward.

by **Eldre** » Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:15:07

>No...

>> >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..

You can't stay close in the draft at the higher speed tracks...?

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.racesimcentral.net/~epickett
GPLRank:+6.21
N2002 Rank:+18.91

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Eldre** » Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:51:43

>> <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!

But he mentioned GP4 also...<g>

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank:+6.21
N2002 Rank:+18.91

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Gerry Aitke** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 01:10:20

> >> <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!

> But he mentioned GP4 also...<g>

Yeah, but the slow motion effect inherent with GP4/3/2/1 goes without
saying.

Gerry

by **Bill Bollinge** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 01:28:41

> People have slammed Papy games, too - are THEY elitist?

Yes (And they shouldn't do that either), but in general, Papy games are what
the majority on this newsgroup view as "Reality". While that is good for
Papy, it doesn't mean it is true. People slamming a product without
actually trying, are IMHO ignorant. No clue and base their opinions on what
they read on some website. So I agree, it is wrong for people to slam Papy
games without trying/knowing what they are talking about.

Again, I go back to the fact that Papy has done a good job in making their
product the industry standard or "reality". If another game doesn't feel
similar in style, those Perma-Papy-Fans start waving their hands, jumping
arround screaming about how "unrealistic" the physics are or how the tracks
are not as acurrate blah blah blah. I can remember the flames HEAT took
when it was first released for the "Pull to the left". Perma-Papy-Fans were
in an uproar as to how HEAT could have released such a piece of junk without
even testing an OBVIOUS flaw as to a "Pull to the left". Today, because
Papy incorporated the same sensation, consider it normal or "reality".

I do agree with the idea they are better because of the time they spend.
What is interesting is the comment of: "They can simply work with the frame
of the game. In other words, they don't know what WOULDN'T work in real
life, so they try everything".

What I will say to this statement is that in fact, if this statement is
TRUE, then the PHYSICS within N2002 must be FALSE. Because kids who use
tweaks that WOULDN'T work in real life, but are able to go faster and drive
better, then the TRUTH of the PHYSICS must be FALSE. Is N2002's physics
false?

I agree totally with the above logic. However, what is not discussed in
this newsgroup is how to setup N2002 cars. How those kids today are making
those unrealistic setups. Why? Is it because it would ruin the image of
the glorious GPL and N2002 physics engine? Is it because it would bring
again the FACT these are GAMES not true simulations? I say yes, therefore,
when people start slamming on a game they never played for the lack of
"Physics Accuracy" blah blah... Let's just get to the truth. They don't
"like" the game because it doesn't play exactly like Papy games. What I
don't understand is why they don't tell that truth rather than ranting on
how it sucks.

by **Jan Verschuere** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 02:13:04

Never argue with Mark Jeangerard. He'll take your mind places you don't want
it to go.

Jan. ;-))
=---

by **Gerry Aitke** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 02:28:26

> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:15:52 -0400, "ymenard"

> >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?

> It's a problem because the default***pit camera has a distorted FOV.
> If I'm correctly interpreting the data in default.cfg, then the
> default camera has a wider FOV at the***pit and narrower further
> away (or vice versa). I changed it to 76/76 and got rid of all the
> positional modifiers and I could finally drive the cars with some
> accuracy.

> I don't find the sense of speed to be overwhelming in NT2k3.
> Unfortunately you can't really do much with the FOV anyway because of
> the crappy***pit model which has huge gaps on either side if you
> widen it beyond 70/70. I've tried it at 76/76 and found I enjoyed
> driving more but the 4 inch gap on either side of the***pit
> destroyed any sense of "being there".

Duck tape it. ;)

Gerry

by **Gerry Aitke** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 02:39:38

> "EldredP" wrote...
> > <snip>
> > Wait - are you using the term "sheeple" to describe people
> > who may just *happen* to like a game that a few are very
> > vocal about? If so, I don't consider that fair.
> > Besides, you may TRY a game because a majority like it.
> > But if YOU don't like it, you certainly won't keep PLAYING
> > it...

> Never argue with Mark Jeangerard. He'll take your mind places you don't want
> it to go.

Like to his own dimension where Newton's laws don't exist. He's good for
a laugh tho', just search ras for his cpr posts. I'm really looking
forward to his definitive list of what's 'wrong' with LFS. I'll have to
wear a corset when I read it or my sides might split like they nearly
did when I read his ideas on the use of virtual***pits and POV in GPL.
:-/

***y aliens, crossing into our dimension and slagging of GPL physics!

Gerry

by **Gerry Aitke** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 02:48:57

> I agree totally with the above logic. However, what is not discussed in
> this newsgroup is how to setup N2002 cars. How those kids today are making
> those unrealistic setups. Why? Is it because it would ruin the image of
> the glorious GPL and N2002 physics engine? Is it because it would bring
> again the FACT these are GAMES not true simulations? I say yes, therefore,
> when people start slamming on a game they never played for the lack of
> "Physics Accuracy" blah blah... Let's just get to the truth. They don't
> "like" the game because it doesn't play exactly like Papy games. What I
> don't understand is why they don't tell that truth rather than ranting on
> how it sucks.

You assume far too much. I'm going to assume you cannot drive gpl with
any speed or consistency, this makes you feel like you have a small
***, hence the chip on your shoulder over papy physics?

Yours sneeringly

GDA

by **David G Fishe** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 04:43:51

> > I agree totally with the above logic. However, what is not discussed in
> > this newsgroup is how to setup N2002 cars. How those kids today are
making
> > those unrealistic setups. Why? Is it because it would ruin the image
of
> > the glorious GPL and N2002 physics engine? Is it because it would bring
> > again the FACT these are GAMES not true simulations? I say yes,
therefore,
> > when people start slamming on a game they never played for the lack of
> > "Physics Accuracy" blah blah... Let's just get to the truth. They
don't
> > "like" the game because it doesn't play exactly like Papy games. What I
> > don't understand is why they don't tell that truth rather than ranting
on
> > how it sucks.

> You assume far too much. I'm going to assume you cannot drive gpl with
> any speed or consistency, this makes you feel like you have a small
>***, hence the chip on your shoulder over papy physics?

> Yours sneeringly

> GDA

I assume you can't drive anything well unless you have four years of
practice.

David G Fisher

P.S. GPL tire model stinks.

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!!!