rec.autos.simulators

>Yep, been using it since the day it came out!  Big improvement, but my
>comments still apply.
>Iain

>> "the cars just feel really heavy now since F1RC was released"????

>> Have you tried the All Chassis Patch to gain the advanced physics in
>> F1CS2K?

>> ????

>> - JB

>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:11:26 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie"

>> >F1CS is not particularly under rated here actually.  It was the best
>modern
>> >F1 sim, but the cars just feel really heavy now since F1RC was released.
>> >What addons are you talking about in terms of eyecandy rivalling F1RC?
>None
>> >that I've tried come anywhere near.
>> >Iain

>> >> That's bull, Arto -- F1CS2000 is right up there with N4 and GPL
>> >> physics-wise (this is especially true once you apply the All Chassis
>> >> Patch to gain the advanced physics).  This is a VERY under-rated sim,
>> >> IMO.  Too many people couldn't get decent performance out of F1 2000,
>> >> and I don't they they've given F1CS2000 a fair shake (you included,
>> >> perhaps?).

>> >> With some of the current graphics add-ons, F1CS2K rivals F1RC in terms
>> >> of eye-candy.

>> >> This may not be the definitive modern F1 sim, but its successor -- F1
>> >> 2001 -- will be, without a doubt.  F1 2001 could well exceed GPL, N4,
>> >> and WSC.

>> >> Just my $0.02 (hey, you asked!).

>> >> -- JB

>> >> >Well, after having been taken part to a N4 practice on-line series of
>> >> >four about 50% races, and after some years of GPL offline experience,
>> >> >I must confess that to me all those three "good" modern F1 "sims" -
>> >> >F1CS2000, GP3 and F1RC really are not so very good! They all do have
>> >> >their good points, but I think they really are not simulators in the
>> >> >sense of GPL and N4 are! What do you think?

>> >> >Arto

>> >> >PS Sierra/Papy, please make us a _good_ modern F1 sim with on line
>> >> >   capabilities like N4 has!

>Maybe Papy will make some of you a woman.

>David G Fisher

>> > Well, after having been taken part to a N4 practice on-line series of
>> > four about 50% races, and after some years of GPL offline experience,
>> > I must confess that to me all those three "good" modern F1 "sims" -
>> > F1CS2000, GP3 and F1RC really are not so very good! They all do have
>> > their good points, but I think they really are not simulators in the
>> > sense of GPL and N4 are! What do you think?

>> > Arto

>> > PS Sierra/Papy, please make us a _good_ modern F1 sim with on line
>> >    capabilities like N4 has!

>> If Papy makes it, I will buy it.

>> --

>> Fester

> Pre-release hype is my take on those comments. But, if they can
> deliver then yippee! F1CS2K is still my favourite F1 sim, and yes, I
> do have F1RC and GP3.

>Yeah, there's hype in there, for sure; particularly Joe Campana's comments
>(see: CPU req's).  I mean; can you trust someone who thinks Magny Cours is
>the best F1 circuit?  I don't think so... ;-)  Still, the bits about the
>new-generation physics engine sounds tasty.

>SB

>> Pre-release hype is my take on those comments. But, if they can
>> deliver then yippee! F1CS2K is still my favourite F1 sim, and yes, I
>> do have F1RC and GP3.

>  my ONLY reservation about the gamespot info is the comment about the
>improved graphics speed.  I have been using a PC for *** since the days
>of Wing Commander 1.  And I can think of many many many sequels that
>promised increased graphic speed.  The quotes always mention finding new
>ways to improve the speed,  or finding a hitch in the original code, With
>the exception of ID hiring a Microsoft 3d/DirectX guy,  I can't think of any
>delveloper actually hiring a graphic expert to acheive these results.(  And
>I am fully aware many of today's game coders are far advanced in such
>areas )
>  It's just:  When someone talks of improvements in *** speed....I'll
>beleive it when I see it.
>dave henrie


>> Just to add to the fight, er, discussion; the following about F12001 from
>> Gamespot UK....

> With F1CS2K, ISI improved on the basic F1 2000 graphics engine, so why
> should we assume that they can't do even better with a fresh approach
> in F1 2001?

> -- JB

> >  my ONLY reservation about the gamespot info is the comment about the
> >improved graphics speed.  I have been using a PC for *** since the
days
> >of Wing Commander 1.  And I can think of many many many sequels that
> >promised increased graphic speed.  The quotes always mention finding new
> >ways to improve the speed,  or finding a hitch in the original code, With
> >the exception of ID hiring a Microsoft 3d/DirectX guy,  I can't think of
any
> >delveloper actually hiring a graphic expert to acheive these results.(
And
> >I am fully aware many of today's game coders are far advanced in such
> >areas )
> >  It's just:  When someone talks of improvements in *** speed....I'll
> >beleive it when I see it.
> >dave henrie


> >> Just to add to the fight, er, discussion; the following about F12001
from
> >> Gamespot UK....

>   But many users here in RAS reported no increase in framerate which was
one
> of the PRE release hypes of CS.  I won't hold my breath
> dave henrie


> > With F1CS2K, ISI improved on the basic F1 2000 graphics engine, so why
> > should we assume that they can't do even better with a fresh approach
> > in F1 2001?

> > -- JB

> > >  my ONLY reservation about the gamespot info is the comment about the
> > >improved graphics speed.  I have been using a PC for *** since the
> days
> > >of Wing Commander 1.  And I can think of many many many sequels that
> > >promised increased graphic speed.  The quotes always mention finding
new
> > >ways to improve the speed,  or finding a hitch in the original code,
With
> > >the exception of ID hiring a Microsoft 3d/DirectX guy,  I can't think
of
> any
> > >delveloper actually hiring a graphic expert to acheive these results.(
> And
> > >I am fully aware many of today's game coders are far advanced in such
> > >areas )
> > >  It's just:  When someone talks of improvements in ***
speed....I'll
> > >beleive it when I see it.
> > >dave henrie


> > >> Just to add to the fight, er, discussion; the following about F12001
> from
> > >> Gamespot UK....

>As far as I recall Dave, it was people (like me) who had no real problem
>with F12K that reported no increase with F1CS, but those who did struggle
>with F12K seemed to benefit a lot with F1CS.
>Iain

>>   But many users here in RAS reported no increase in framerate which was
>one
>> of the PRE release hypes of CS.  I won't hold my breath
>> dave henrie


>> > With F1CS2K, ISI improved on the basic F1 2000 graphics engine, so why
>> > should we assume that they can't do even better with a fresh approach
>> > in F1 2001?

>> > -- JB

>> > >  my ONLY reservation about the gamespot info is the comment about the
>> > >improved graphics speed.  I have been using a PC for *** since the
>> days
>> > >of Wing Commander 1.  And I can think of many many many sequels that
>> > >promised increased graphic speed.  The quotes always mention finding
>new
>> > >ways to improve the speed,  or finding a hitch in the original code,
>With
>> > >the exception of ID hiring a Microsoft 3d/DirectX guy,  I can't think
>of
>> any
>> > >delveloper actually hiring a graphic expert to acheive these results.(
>> And
>> > >I am fully aware many of today's game coders are far advanced in such
>> > >areas )
>> > >  It's just:  When someone talks of improvements in ***
>speed....I'll
>> > >beleive it when I see it.
>> > >dave henrie


>> > >> Just to add to the fight, er, discussion; the following about F12001
>> from
>> > >> Gamespot UK....

>   I have to ask...
>     did you have that site bookmarked or did you search for it???   :)
> dave henrie


> > Well, you asked for it:

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