Brian Oster
Brian Oster
I have run Bristol in N4 and N2002 and have come no where near 15.0 like JG
did (I can run in the 15's, just not a 15 flat). Could it be that temp and
cloud cover and wind aren't enough weather factors? Might we need humidity
to equalize us with the Cup guys? I know cooler, denser air makes you go
faster (makes more HP anyway) and the NR series seems to run whatever temp,
cloud cover/no cloud and wind/no wind with no humidity. That and we have 1)
A common template (decals only seprate the makes) and 2) Common engines,
same horespower. It may be that the differences in teams' engine HP output
weigh into the real outcomes on track whereas all NR2002 racers get the same
aero and same engine HP as everyone else and it is just an 'average' derived
from NASCAR PR on their cars' HP output. I bet the top teams in NASCAR are
above average in the HP department, I know the Fords make more than Chebbies
(am a Chevy fan), seems the Blue Ovals have had a distinct HP advantage for
some time, is the reason that the SB2 came about a few years ago and the SB3
(GEN-III) is already on its way to the teams if not already in use.
SB
PS - OT here but I did notice in the Gamespot F12002 interview that they're putting such gizmos in that one. Smaller radiators,
adjustable rev limits, engine heat modeling, etc. So now "qualifying setup" takes on a whole new level...
That said, I've found the AI at Bristol in every Papy game since N1 is
way too easy, in qualifying and race sessions. It's one of the few
tracks where I can utterly dominate at 100% AI strength without even
modifying the default setup (Pocono and Las Vegas being 2 others).
Jason
Jason
they're putting such gizmos in that one. Smaller radiators,
setup" takes on a whole new level...
MGPRS2 had it. Maybe F1RS, don't remember for sure.
It would be nice now that Papyrus finally got the tire model set if they
would not STILL make all the cars exactly the same in their NASCAR series.
Accelerated tire wear and fuel usage would also be nice since they can't
seem to figure out how to put in a save game feature. With not having to
model wet weather like the F1 sims, you'd think they'd have the time to do
these things. AI seems to still be a problem area too from what I read here.
:-)
David G Fisher
There's so much bs, politicing, etc. in real arguments, who knows what's
true or not. Personally, I don't have a problem with a sim keeping them the
same; at the very least, in real life, they're very close anyway. Hell, the
Dodge is based on a Taurus template in real life(which is based on a car
that doesn't exist<G>).
-John
"John Pancoast" Hell, the
The upcomming new Pontiac Grand Prix is already being called a Fodgeiac
since Nascar gave them the Taurus Templates to model their car with. Some
say the Dodge Intrepid is a Taurus but I think that...
<Xfiles mode on>
Ford, knowing that Dodge was getting ready to come back to Nascar,
probably and rightly figured Nascar would Kiss Dodge behind to make up for
the dreadful treatment in the 70's, and give concessions to the new car. So
Ford, under the cover of a fake tire problem withSUV's sent industrial spies
to STEAL the blueprints for the 2nd generation Intrepid. then they quickly
remade the Taurus(remember how quickly the oval rear window disappeared?)
into what would become the new Intrepid. Pontiac seeing what Ford had done,
but being too late to steal Dodge's car decided the next best thing would be
to steal the car that had already stolen from the car. Dodge, since they
knew they would be getting preferential treatment from Nascar, stayed Mum.
Chevrolet is still waiting for Dale Earnhardt to make a full recovery before
it begins another car redesign.
<Xfiles mode off>
dave henrie
LOL! and I agree, common templates are fine for our simming AND Ferd and
Dodge race against the 2 door GM's in 'sedans'. Go figure...that's why I say
let the Tundra into the CTS, if they can basterdize WC to suit companies
that don't make the proper car type to race, let a truck run that is offered
publicly with a 32valve DOHC engine in it! :)
-John
> > Well, part of the problem with trying to make the differences in the
> > models of stock car sims, is that no one _really_ knows if there is one
in
> > actual racing, and if so, to what degree, etc.
> > There's so much bs, politicing, etc. in real arguments, who knows
what's
> > true or not. Personally, I don't have a problem with a sim keeping them
> the
> > same; at the very least, in real life, they're very close anyway. Hell,
> the
> > Dodge is based on a Taurus template in real life(which is based on a car
> > that doesn't exist<G>).
> > -John
> LOL! and I agree, common templates are fine for our simming AND Ferd and
> Dodge race against the 2 door GM's in 'sedans'. Go figure...that's why I
say
> let the Tundra into the CTS, if they can basterdize WC to suit companies
> that don't make the proper car type to race, let a truck run that is
offered
> publicly with a 32valve DOHC engine in it! :)
David G Fisher
> I prefer shithead. Andre can be the***head.
> David G Fisher
> > shutup***head
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
"Animation isn't the illusion of life; it is life"
--Chuck Jones (1912-2002)--
> > I prefer shithead. Andre can be the***head.
> > David G Fisher
> > > shutup***head
> I agree David,***head doesn't really suit you
David G Fisher
No surprise there.....he usually gets called that in EVERY thread :-)