rec.autos.simulators

by **Atti** » Tue, 06 Jun 2000 04:00:00

The "great" GP3 against EA's decent F12000, graphics-wise:

http://www.racesimcentral.net/
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

I must say I'm really disappointed... The colours in F12000 are much
more vivid, and have much better contrast. Does GP3 really use 3D
hardware or is this just another "early" software shot?

Also, GP3 seems to lack fences. Now, which F1 track doesn't have
fences, for God's sake!!!

F12000 has a drivingline. Where's the GP3 drivingline?

The trees are supposed to look photo-realistic, but they jump too much
out of the entire image for my taste. Ruines the effect.

The heads don't seem to move like they do in F12000 either. Now this
really is something that would add to the realistic looks. (wasn't it
in GP2?)

Then I'm not even talking about how all the carshapes are identical...
Not seen a Ferrari or McLaren though, so there may still be hope.

http://www.racesimcentral.net/
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Microprose didn't bother much about the***pit informaton either.
Still the same limited info, compared to F12K. Is it that difficult to
add essential information? At least with F12K you always know exactly
where you are relative to the opposition. MPS still went for a
bitmapped***pit as well.

A nice little touch is the flags carried by the public in F12K. GP3
fans are much flatter. Hell, they look like muesli or something! :-)

Let's hope the physics engine, AI and online play will be something
special, or Microprose will quickly fall behind... They still have GP4
up their sleeve, but it probably will have to compete against F12002,
so...

Attila

by **Coli** » Tue, 06 Jun 2000 04:00:00

????
The graphics in GP3 are absolutely fantastic. They are almost
photo-realistic!!!
F1 2000 is an excellent game IMHO but it needs a LOT of work in the graphics
department!!!

by **Scott Boha** » Tue, 06 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Are you being sarcastic? I can't really tell, but you seem quite serious
to me. Maybe you got the two screenshots muddled up by mistake?

OTOH, I am worried (by the looks of that screenshot) that they have spent
too much time on graphics and not enough on physics. I would much rather
have a lesser graphically correct game with amazing physics than one with
photo realistic graphics and arcade gameplay.

Also, I hope it will run smoothly on my P2-400, or else this copy of GP3
I'm going to buy will become very expensive.

Scott

by **Simon Brow** » Tue, 06 Jun 2000 04:00:00

You've got to be kidding. I played F1 2000 for about 3 hours before
un-installing it. I've never seen such messy grahpics and sloppy engine.
Just look at the game from the replay views and ask yourself - "does this
look anything like F1?". Track layouts wrong (utterly unforgiveable),
colour schemes all wrong, stupid AI drivers that spin out on the formation
lap (!!!) and hit each other and you all the time.
Another example of EA forcing the developer to release way before they were
finished. And as for those two screenshots, the GP3 shot wins by a mile.
Can't you see how artificial F1 2000 looks? Those cars on that shot look
terrible, just look at that Ferrari, it looks nothing like the real sport.
All those criticisms of GP3 are totally peripheral to what make a good sim.
The most important thing is the physics model, and Geoff Crammond's track
record is proven here. Also you need a good 3d engine, again GC is a top 3d
programmer, which compares very favourably with the awfully slow engine in
F1 2000.

by **Mike Blackmor** » Tue, 06 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Could you please let me know where you bought GP3 from so you could
make this in depth comparison.

Regards Mike

>The "great" GP3 against EA's decent F12000, graphics-wise:

>http://www.racesimcentral.net/
>http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>I must say I'm really disappointed... The colours in F12000 are much
>more vivid, and have much better contrast. Does GP3 really use 3D
>hardware or is this just another "early" software shot?

>Also, GP3 seems to lack fences. Now, which F1 track doesn't have
>fences, for God's sake!!!

>F12000 has a drivingline. Where's the GP3 drivingline?

>The trees are supposed to look photo-realistic, but they jump too much
>out of the entire image for my taste. Ruines the effect.

>The heads don't seem to move like they do in F12000 either. Now this
>really is something that would add to the realistic looks. (wasn't it
>in GP2?)

>Then I'm not even talking about how all the carshapes are identical...
>Not seen a Ferrari or McLaren though, so there may still be hope.

>http://www.racesimcentral.net/
>http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>Microprose didn't bother much about the***pit informaton either.
>Still the same limited info, compared to F12K. Is it that difficult to
>add essential information? At least with F12K you always know exactly
>where you are relative to the opposition. MPS still went for a
>bitmapped***pit as well.

>A nice little touch is the flags carried by the public in F12K. GP3
>fans are much flatter. Hell, they look like muesli or something! :-)

>Let's hope the physics engine, AI and online play will be something
>special, or Microprose will quickly fall behind... They still have GP4
>up their sleeve, but it probably will have to compete against F12002,
>so...

>Attila

by **Brian V. Balgobin** » Tue, 06 Jun 2000 04:00:00

3d

Top 3d programmer? Can you name 3d games he made???

by **Jo Helse** » Tue, 06 Jun 2000 04:00:00

>> You've got to be kidding. I played F1 2000 for about 3 hours before
>> un-installing it. I've never seen such messy grahpics and sloppy engine.
>> Just look at the game from the replay views and ask yourself - "does this
>> look anything like F1?". Track layouts wrong (utterly unforgiveable),
>> colour schemes all wrong, stupid AI drivers that spin out on the formation
>> lap (!!!) and hit each other and you all the time.
>> Another example of EA forcing the developer to release way before they
>were
>> finished. And as for those two screenshots, the GP3 shot wins by a mile.
>> Can't you see how artificial F1 2000 looks? Those cars on that shot look
>> terrible, just look at that Ferrari, it looks nothing like the real sport.
>> All those criticisms of GP3 are totally peripheral to what make a good
>sim.
>> The most important thing is the physics model, and Geoff Crammond's track
>> record is proven here. Also you need a good 3d engine, again GC is a top
>3d

>Top 3d programmer? Can you name 3d games he made???

F1GP
The Sentinel
Stunt Car Racer
GP2
GP3

That's 5.

JoH

------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 --------
--------------------------------------------------------------

by **pjgt..** » Tue, 06 Jun 2000 04:00:00

GC is a master of 3D, have you never heard of:

Stunt Car Racer

F1GP

Sentinel

F1GP2

All these programs use 3D. They do not use 3D hardware acceleration (3D
graphics cards) because it was not around when they were produced.

But of course, GP3 will change all that....

8-)

*Peter* - http://www.cix.co.uk/~peterpc/home.html

by **Dave Henri** » Tue, 06 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Why don't we wait til gp3 is out before we begin comparing the
two sims. Otherwise I'll have to bring CART3 into the mix and let
everyone be the...OOPS my BS meter just went off...sorry..no CART3!
Just wait til gp3 is out before getting too into the small stuff
comparisons.
dave henrie

> The "great" GP3 against EA's decent F12000, graphics-wise:

> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> I must say I'm really disappointed... The colours in F12000 are much
> more vivid, and have much better contrast. Does GP3 really use 3D
> hardware or is this just another "early" software shot?

> Also, GP3 seems to lack fences. Now, which F1 track doesn't have
> fences, for God's sake!!!

> F12000 has a drivingline. Where's the GP3 drivingline?

> The trees are supposed to look photo-realistic, but they jump too much
> out of the entire image for my taste. Ruines the effect.

> The heads don't seem to move like they do in F12000 either. Now this
> really is something that would add to the realistic looks. (wasn't it
> in GP2?)

> Then I'm not even talking about how all the carshapes are identical...
> Not seen a Ferrari or McLaren though, so there may still be hope.

> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> Microprose didn't bother much about the***pit informaton either.
> Still the same limited info, compared to F12K. Is it that difficult to
> add essential information? At least with F12K you always know exactly
> where you are relative to the opposition. MPS still went for a
> bitmapped***pit as well.

> A nice little touch is the flags carried by the public in F12K. GP3
> fans are much flatter. Hell, they look like muesli or something! :-)

> Let's hope the physics engine, AI and online play will be something
> special, or Microprose will quickly fall behind... They still have GP4
> up their sleeve, but it probably will have to compete against F12002,
> so...

> Attila

by **Dave Henri** » Tue, 06 Jun 2000 04:00:00

I think we are getting into a grey area there. He has made games
that appear to have a 3d look but then so did DOOM, and we all should
know how really flat that game was. GP3 will be the
first product that uses 3d acceleration and so I think we can truthfully
say he is an unknown quantity right now concerning 3d issues.
dave henrie

> >> You've got to be kidding. I played F1 2000 for about 3 hours before
> >> un-installing it. I've never seen such messy grahpics and sloppy engine.
> >> Just look at the game from the replay views and ask yourself - "does this
> >> look anything like F1?". Track layouts wrong (utterly unforgiveable),
> >> colour schemes all wrong, stupid AI drivers that spin out on the formation
> >> lap (!!!) and hit each other and you all the time.
> >> Another example of EA forcing the developer to release way before they
> >were
> >> finished. And as for those two screenshots, the GP3 shot wins by a mile.
> >> Can't you see how artificial F1 2000 looks? Those cars on that shot look
> >> terrible, just look at that Ferrari, it looks nothing like the real sport.
> >> All those criticisms of GP3 are totally peripheral to what make a good
> >sim.
> >> The most important thing is the physics model, and Geoff Crammond's track
> >> record is proven here. Also you need a good 3d engine, again GC is a top
> >3d

> >Top 3d programmer? Can you name 3d games he made???

> F1GP
> The Sentinel
> Stunt Car Racer
> GP2
> GP3

> That's 5.

> JoH

> ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 --------
> --------------------------------------------------------------

by **Brian V. Balgobin** » Wed, 07 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Well he is comparing the 3d engine of F1 2000 with GP3...that off F1 2000 is
3d hardware accelerated. But according to his message he says GC already has
proven on that area...and i say no..he hasn't proven that yet cause GP3 will
be his first.

- Show quoted text -

by **Simon Brow** » Wed, 07 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Revs, Revs+, Sentinel (one of the greatest concepts for a game ever, and
superbly executed, in full 3d on the C64!), Stunt Car Racer, F1GP (first
serious F1 sim ever), GP2 (first racing game to feature full texture mapping
and still considered the top F1 game even today by some people) . All
classic games without a shadow of a doubt, every one scored over 90%.

by **Simon Brow** » Wed, 07 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Doom wasn't a proper 3d game at all, but F1GP, GP2, Revs, Revs+, The
Sentinel and Stunt Car Racer all were. Revs, Revs+, F1GP, and GP2 all used
some sprites (like for the wheels in GP2) but the vast majority of what you
saw in the game was true 3d. Even F1RS used sprites. The difference with a
game like Doom is that Doom didn't have a "proper" 3d engine at all, so not
even the corridors were generated in 3d.
And Stunt Car Racer and The Sentinel were 100% all in 3d. Geoff Crammond
was writing true 3d games when John Carmack was still working out
raycasting.
Theres a common misconception that because GP2 had only just recently been
able to run 25fps in 640*480 that it's a slow engine, which is just rubbish.
The same people who say such things should try running Quake in 640*480 in
software mode and see how slow it is, and Quake has nothing like the draw
distance of GP2 and no physics to run.

by **Simon Brow** » Wed, 07 Jun 2000 04:00:00

That's not what I said at all. Geoff Crammond is a proven creator of
excellent 3d engines. Every game he has written has had a 3d engine. It's
still called a 3d engine whether it supports 3d accelerator cards or not.
Even The Sentinel on the C64 had a full 3d engine. I never commented on
Geoff's ability to get the maximum speed out of a 3d accelerator cards.
Also the code overlap between a software and hardware engine is about 95%.

by **Stephen Ferguso** » Wed, 07 Jun 2000 04:00:00

ICR2 and Nascar 1 had extensive texture mapping before GP2. Granted, GP2
looked nicer, but it still used bitmap wheels (whereas the Papy sims used
textured polys) so neither was perfect.

Stephen

rec.autos.simulators

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000

GP3 against F12000