I'm also a bit disappointed with the gradients at Silverstone. Since
when was the run down to bridge corner ever so slightly uphill? :-/
Kev
I'm also a bit disappointed with the gradients at Silverstone. Since
when was the run down to bridge corner ever so slightly uphill? :-/
Kev
And Stow corner have 15deg's of camber, and Priory corner be over the brow
of a hill, the tracks are full of errors that make you wonder if they've
actually visited the tracks. Surely any developer worth it's weight in horse
shit would compare their track with an in car lap from the TV? Or is that
too much like hard work?
Pity really - because it's actually quite good.
Doug
Yes - not good at all. Monza has dark gray asphalt.
I'm a bit disappointed with the F1 2001 tracks in general, especially
compared to GPL tracks.
The gradients and cambers are not only wrong in some places, but seem to
be very crudely represented, almost as though there aren't enough
polygons allocated to the track beds.
- Michael
Andre
> >Out of interest, how do you check the accuracy of the GPL tracks?
> >Iain
> Just like the modern tracks, photos and films.
> And papy had blueprints of 10 of the 11 tracks.
> (The Ring was the missing one).
> Andre
A lot of them you can still go there and drive the original roads,
although they are usually wider and junctions are altered.
e.g. Nurburgring, Spa, Rouen
Papyrus made extensive visits to get the tracks right. But the main
thing I mentioned in my previous post was that they seem to have a
better feel for what makes the experience of driving the race track.
Scenery to the sides of the track is important for atmosphere, but the
most important things to get right are:
- track map, corner radii etc.
- gradients
- camber ( banking or crowning )
- kerbs (curbs for you in the US!)
- armco/track barrier
In my view, F1 2001 falls well short of the quality threshold in many of
these areas.
- MichaelJP
Andre
Andre
Compared to GPL? Come on guy's. F1 2001 was made for the mass market. There
is no comparison. When you compare F1 2001 to the "other" modern F1 sims,
it's about as good as it gets.
There's no excuse for not meeting quality standards. Mass market
products have a much bigger production budget than niche products like
GPL, so if anything they should be higher standard.
If you want an example, look at the amazing quality of the graphics,
track models and textures in Gran Turismo 3, you don't get much more
mass market than that!
- Michael
> > Compared to GPL? Come on guy's. F1 2001 was made for the mass market.
There
> > is no comparison. When you compare F1 2001 to the "other" modern F1
sims,
> > it's about as good as it gets.
> There's no excuse for not meeting quality standards. Mass market
> products have a much bigger production budget than niche products like
> GPL, so if anything they should be higher standard.
> If you want an example, look at the amazing quality of the graphics,
> track models and textures in Gran Turismo 3, you don't get much more
> mass market than that!
> - Michael
:-)
Stephen
Well lets see....wasn't GT 3 originally called GT 2000? Didn't it get
delayed, delayed, delayed? Quality costs time. Btw...how much does GT3
cost compared to F12k+1?
dave henrie
> > If you want an example, look at the amazing quality of the graphics,
> > track models and textures in Gran Turismo 3, you don't get much more
> > mass market than that!
> > - Michael
> Well lets see....wasn't GT 3 originally called GT 2000? Didn't it get
> delayed, delayed, delayed? Quality costs time. Btw...how much does GT3
> cost compared to F12k+1?
Doug