rec.autos.simulators

: Indycar has beaten F1GP squarely? I doubt that... Look at wet races in
: F1GP. The grey sky, reduced visibility, water sprays from cars ahead...
: Indycar wet races? Practically a joke...

Seems to me you're confusing good graphics with `realism' in terms of feel.
F1GP does have much better graphics, but there is no doubt that IC has a much
more sophisticated physical model. It might not look great, but tackling
Laguna-Seca in the wet is the ultimate challenge. I have both games, I'm
much more of a F1 fan than IC (though I do enjoy IC), but IC appeals
because it is much harder - it's a simulation whereas I think F1GP is a game.

Can't wait for IC2 (and F1GP2)      

Cheers

Alan
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr Alan D. Pengelly, Software Engineering Laboratory
B81 161 27, BT Laboratories, Martlesham Heath,
Ipswich IP5 7RE.                        
tel : +44 1473 646652

The views/opinions expressed here are my own and do not
in any way reflect the views/opinions of my employer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So,         ********* OFF !!*******
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

: Throwing cars around that don't even weigh a ton isn't the toughest
: challenge, getting a 3400 lb car around Sears Point is.

Driving a truck around an oval that when it skids, gives you half a minute
to correct the skid before you hit the wall is not half as difficult as
threading your way around Monaco or through Eau Rouge in the wet.

The two games cannot be compared, F1GP captures more of the atmosphere
of being in a race weekend than Indycar or Nascar. The Papyrus games
don't simulate kerbs, or proper gears, or the revs *rising* when the
back wheels lose grip.

And as for driving in the wet, F1GP has no equal.

Still, I have all three and I enjoy them all for what they are. Nascar
and Indycar are better simulators of vehicle dynamics, but they don't
quite involve you the way F1GP does.

                                                   DR J

--
______________________________________________________________________________

me90drj : "It's an old code sir, but it checks out. I was about to clear him."
is94drj : "....5....4....3...Wait! What's that red light?...."
______________________________________________________________________________
  ------======= <URL:http://http1.brunel.ac.uk:8080/~is94drj/> =======------

F1GP feels like a game and Indycar feels like an indycar.

Thanks in advance.

Yours,

Tommi Pajari

DJ>The two games cannot be compared, F1GP captures more of the atmosphere
  >of being in a race weekend than Indycar or Nascar. The Papyrus games
  >don't simulate kerbs, or proper gears, or the revs *rising* when the
  >back wheels lose grip.

DJ>And as for driving in the wet, F1GP has no equal.

DJ>Still, I have all three and I enjoy them all for what they are. Nascar
  >and Indycar are better simulators of vehicle dynamics, but they don't
  >quite involve you the way F1GP does.

Really?  Now, I've never played F1GP, but from the looks of it, F1GP doesn't
let players adjust the setups of the cars.  F1GP seems to stress winning,
whereas IndyCar and NASCAR stress getting the setups perfect to attain
maximum speed along with winning races.

Which atmosphere are you seeking?  That of a spectator or that of a driver?
A driver must work with his team to perfect those setups; IndyCar and NASCAR
are truely simulations, F1GP seems no more than an arcade game based
on Formula 1 racing.  Not to say its not good at it; its just not a
simulator.

---
 * TLX v4.10 * Crashed? I wasn't even driving.
---
 * OLX 2.2 TD *

Actually, I think the F1GP approach is more appropriate.  Most drivers don't
worry about the details when setting up a car.  Sure, there are exceptions.
Some Indy drivers might be able to tell their mechanics that they want a
certain amount of stagger, and some F1 drivers, like Prost, might know exactly
what they want from the suspension settings.  Generally, however, the drivers
come in after a few laps of practice and either say "too much oversteer" or
"too much understeer", and maybe comment on the power delivery seeming a bit
soft in the lower gears.  With F1GP, you can adjust the wings and gear, choose
from four tyre compounds (5 with wets) and adjust the brake bias.  Refuelling
wasn't allowed in 1991, so it isn't included.  I think this is perfect, as it
gives me the control I want over my particular car setup (I like a "loose"
car) but I can spend most of my time driving, just like the real drivers.
I could never really notice the difference between shock settings and
stagger in Indycar, as I was never consistent enough on the ovals to decide
where the time differences were, so I ended up only changing wings, gears and
fuel load.  Now, if F1GP had on-the-fly brake bias adjustment, and changing
weather in the races, I'd be really happy.  Of course, then I'd probably
spin off at Imola like Andretti did when I reached for the brake bias key.

--
Stephen Ferguson

May you tell me which is the brake bias key? I had never noticed such a
key in F1GP, is it a device like those in DTM Class 1 and Class 2 cars
like BTCC and JTCC where you can adjust the brake balance inside the car?

Mark Yeung

--
Stephen Ferguson

Even though the driver in real F1 usually isn't directly involved with setting
up their car they must have someone to do that part and if it isn't done by the
engineers the driver would have to do it himself.
In ICR I don't have an engineer so I have to do it myself.
In the future when on-line racing is the norm and competitions
are held with prizes you could hire one.

Since you can't ask some realtive to set up the car you have to do it
yourself. But in F1GP there's no need for some relative since the car setup
process is lacklustre and outright crappy. If you like that sort of thing
so be it but don't say that the driver shouldn't setup their car at all.

Having spend a great deal of time setting up your car and find that it
works is such a treat that I wouldn't trade it for anything.
You don't know what you miss.

-- Terje Wold Johansen   "I am your inferior superior."  Speaking --

-- Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway       myself! --

|>


|> >  
|> > >
|> > >Really?  Now, I've never played F1GP, but from the looks of it, F1GP doesn't
|> > >let players adjust the setups of the cars.  F1GP seems to stress winning,
|> > >whereas IndyCar and NASCAR stress getting the setups perfect to attain
|> > >maximum speed along with winning races.
|> > >
|> > >Which atmosphere are you seeking?  That of a spectator or that of a driver?
|> > >A driver must work with his team to perfect those setups; IndyCar and NASCAR
|> > >are truely simulations, F1GP seems no more than an arcade game based
|> > >on Formula 1 racing.  Not to say its not good at it; its just not a
|> > >simulator.
|> > >
|> >  
|> > Actually, I think the F1GP approach is more appropriate.  Most drivers don't
|> > worry about the details when setting up a car.  Sure, there are exceptions.
|> > Some Indy drivers might be able to tell their mechanics that they want a
|> > certain amount of stagger, and some F1 drivers, like Prost, might know exactly
|> > what they want from the suspension settings.  Generally, however, the drivers
|> > come in after a few laps of practice and either say "too much oversteer" or
|>
|> This argument is just too stupid.
|> It's a simulator and it should simulate every vital part, including setting
|> up the car. If you could set up your car properly in F1GP you would very likely
|> beat every current record in the F1GP HOF. This you could do because every
|> other setting that you can't alter in F1GP is very likely not optimum.
|> Don't you want complete control of the car to go as fast as possible?
|>
|> Even though the driver in real F1 usually isn't directly involved with setting
|> up their car they must have someone to do that part and if it isn't done by the
|> engineers the driver would have to do it himself.
|> In ICR I don't have an engineer so I have to do it myself.
|> In the future when on-line racing is the norm and competitions
|> are held with prizes you could hire one.
|>
|> Since you can't ask some realtive to set up the car you have to do it
|> yourself. But in F1GP there's no need for some relative since the car setup
|> process is lacklustre and outright crappy. If you like that sort of thing
|> so be it but don't say that the driver shouldn't setup their car at all.
|>
|> Having spend a great deal of time setting up your car and find that it
|> works is such a treat that I wouldn't trade it for anything.
|> You don't know what you miss.

Not every game player is an engineer, period. F1GP's approach is more
appropriate. F1GP took the abstract idea of setting up the car, instead of
using angle in degrees to adjust the wings, it uses simple integers. Instead
of using fractions in gear ratios, it uses simple integers. This is what
exactly F1GP is a drivers' game. Most drivers don't know whether their front
wing is set at 30.56 degrees or 27.13 degrees, all they know is they need
"more" wing to achieve more downforce, or "less" wing to increase straight
line speed. Then the engineers will take care of the rest. So, IMHO, F1GP's
approach is more user friendly. In Indycar's approach, although it "looks"
more like the real thing, however the end result is the same as F1GP's.

Furthermore, since F1 and Indycar are different racing series, therefore
I consider some car setup details won't be necessary in F1. For example,
F1 don't run on ovals. Most of the time the same compound of tires will be
put on all 4 wheels. Whereas in Indycar, it is essential to have different
compounds of tires in different wheels when running on ovals. F1 circuits
consist of a variety of left and right turns, while oval circuits in Indycar
consist of only left turns. So the extra details of setting up an Indy race
car is thus necessary. For F1GP, most of the extra details found on Indycar
will not affect the speed of F1 cars too much, it is easier to mess those up
than further optimizing them for most average players. IMHO, those extra
details are redundant. F1GP has already got a fairly complete set of car
setup details, and it is the best simulation and the most user friendly
program I've ever played.

--
Isaac Wong      (613) 763-6127 | Protel Compiler Group (Helpline ESN 395-4009)


http://chat.carleton.ca/~iwong | Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Why don't you just play with the wings, gear ratios and brake bias in ICR II
and use the default setups?

I'll bet if F1GP would let me setup the car more completely like ICR lets me
I would squeeze so much out of it that I would beat every record in F1GP HOF.
In fact, anyone who is an able driver and know how to setup an open-wheeler
would be able to do the same. Don`t you want to get the maximum out of 130R,
Spoon Curve, Bus Stop, Eau Rouge, all the fast corners at Silverstone,
the tight curves at Monaco, etc.?

In F1GP the setup section is restricted, like it or not, but it doesn't
reflect real F1 at all where having a car that can be fast at every track
requires a car that is flexible and responds well to setup changes,
just like the FW17 Williams but not like the PC23 from Penske.

The clue is that 'setupability' equals superior lap times!

FYI I love F1 and Indycar.

How wrong can you be...

User friendliness doesn't equal realism, rather quite the opposite.
So 'best simulation' is not the proper phrase for F1GP.

Btw I have played F1GP *a lot* myself and I totally agree that it is
plenty of fun, it was the game that introduced me to racing in the
first place when it came out on the Amiga, but even though I appreciate
it I can't deny that it is a game, it has always been, but in 1990 or so
it seemed pretty realistic to me. But ICR, NASCAR and now ICR II have
changed that completely. Also my fanatic interest in open-wheel racing
has opened my eyes for how such racing is conducted and how the cars
work.

Here's a web page all aspiring racing ***s must take a look
at:

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

But everyone can't enjoy setting up the car, but those very people
must not knock every true simulation by saying that their game is
far superior as a simulation just because they happen to loath
everything that goes into detail.

A couple of things that are superior in F1GP, still after all these years,
is the atmosphere it creates during a race weekend(I love real time qual,
practice and warm-up sessions) and all the post-race stats it offers.
But this doesn't mean it simulates the driving model very well.

-- Terje Wold Johansen   "I am your inferior superior."  Speaking --

-- Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway       myself! --

I want complete driving control.  I'll let the well-paid mechanics worry
about turning the wrenches.

Here's what I miss: endless hours spent trying to get the "perfect" set-up.
I know some people enjoy this aspect, but I've got a PhD deadline***
over my head, and I just want to get into the game and get racing for a little
bit of stress relief from time to time.  I was merely stating my opinion that
F1GP captures the atmosphere of the F1 circuit.  I think that the drivers
offer their opinions of overall car dynamics and the mechanics make the
appropriate changes.

And apparently other people agree with my "just too stupid" argument:

--
Stephen Ferguson