rec.autos.simulators

by **Erik Frechett** » Mon, 20 Mar 2000 04:00:00

I've not played F1-2000, but probably will sooner or later. I've been
reading everyone's comments and one thing is consistent, there is still
quite a bit of room for improvement. Now I ask you, knowing what people
want, knowing the present benchmark and what you need to truly compete with
it, why would you work on a project knowing that your presentation will fall
short? They invest all this time and work, only to come up second or third
or fourth best. What is the point? Granted, this is a modern F1-sim, to
they'll cover their costs and eke out a profit if the simulation can even be
considered decent, but when are we going to see the next real blockbuster?
GPL was a bust, are we still paying the price for that?
If I'm a developer and I see the realism put forth with GPL and I see the
level of hardware people have access to these days, I try and code up a sim
that at LEAST equals GPL's physics engine. Hell, the graphics engine in
Legends wouldn't be hard to beat at all! Instead we get compromises.
GP3 will probably be fantastic in terms of physical simulation, but no
internet capability kills this sim in my eyes. I've not heard all the
details on WSC, but it sounds like that might be *** simmers last hope
for a successor to GPL this year. Don't forget that the demo of GPL will be
two years old in a couple of months, the sim itself released in the Fall of
'98. It's remarkable that no one has even come close since then....not even
Papy. ::(

--

Erik Frechette
The Pits Grand Prix Legends
www.theuspits.com/owheel/gpl/gpl.html
The Pits Rally Championship
www.theuspits.com/fbody/rallychamp/rallychamp.html

by **Morgan VW** » Mon, 20 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Because most publishers don't want time and money wasted on true sims that only
appeal to tiny niche market. They want developers to give them arcade games
with a poorly implemented "sim" option to give the arcade fans a bit more of a
challenge. It all comes down to money. True sims don't sell as well as arcade
games.

--
-----------------------------------
Morgan Vincent Wooten

http://www.racesimcentral.net/~morganv/
-----------------------------------

by **Dave Henri** » Mon, 20 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Hey Erik,
How many users are here in RAS? about 20 regulars and maybe a few
hundred casual readers. Ok so they spend two years coding a sim for us
and sell less than 500 copies. The programmers "may" have the right
idea, but it is the Publishers that more and more determine what is or
isn't in a sim.
for example:
ISI to EA. We'd like to go to Europe and record all the different
engines so we can have each team with a unique sound.
EA to ISI. How long will this delay the release? How many people
will be needed? How much equipment will we have to lease? How much
will this impact the project's budget? What features are you willing to
drop to get these different sounds?

FWIW, these days the engines just don't sound that much different.
Back just a few years ago, when Ferrari was still using V-12's, the
Honda's and Renaults were V-10's and the Ford's were V-8's, then you had
a wealth of different sounding engines. But today, they all rev about
the same, with about the same powerbands, with about the same
reliability, Granted an improvement or two each year sets one or two
packages above the rest, but the "noise" is getting very similar.
dave henrie

> I've not played F1-2000, but probably will sooner or later. I've been
> reading everyone's comments and one thing is consistent, there is still
> quite a bit of room for improvement. Now I ask you, knowing what people
> want, knowing the present benchmark and what you need to truly compete with
> it, why would you work on a project knowing that your presentation will fall
> short?

by **Race15** » Mon, 20 Mar 2000 04:00:00

What aggravates me the most is they cheat us on the only senses we can use! Of
the five senses, Sight, Sound, Touch, Smell, Taste, we as computer users only
have Sight, Sound and if you have force feedback, Touch.
We can't smell or taste the unburned fuel, burning *** or barbeques smoking
in the infield.
So what should the programmers give us? Explosive engine sounds! Tires that
sound like they are ripping up the tarmac. Metallick clacking gearshifts.
Catastrophic, crunching crash sounds. Magnificent eye candy. Razor sharp
video. High frame rates. Detailed dashboards and visual correctness.
I hear the engine sounds in F12000 sucks. Then as far as I'm concerned, the
sim sucks. They have cheated us. I hated turning on Nascar Legends the first
time. The sounds back then were animalistic! These were kitty kat sounds.
I remember the first time I fired up the Ferrari in GPL! Absolutley ***ic.
Get it right guys. Sight. Sound. Touch. We need the best of those. That's
all we have to use.

by **anton** » Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:00:00

A totaly agree with you. And i also hate it when people are saying that they are
going to be the GP3 beater (you know who i mean) That's what i call cheating. Thank
god i have enough experience with EA and their big mouth.
I will never buy a sim blindly anymore except GP3 and maybe GPL-2.
Don't spread the rumor yet :o)

by **David Butte** » Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:00:00

<snip>

Regrettably true. For example: GPL, SCGT, F1RS, Monaco GPRS2. Every one
was heavily discounted in the UK inside a few months. GP2 seems to have
been the only one to stay full price for a good while.

--
David.
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really."
(Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Erik, every so often a classic comes along. Not often, but once in a blue
moon. Examples are everywhere: in aeronautics it's the Supermarine Spitfire
or the North American P-51 Mustang. In art it's the Mona Lisa, or
Michaelangelo's statue of David. In motor vehicles it's the Bugatti type
35B, the Mercedes SSK, the Jaguar E-type. In racing cars it's the Maserati
250F, the Lotus 49.
We all know what a "classic" is....it's something that simply stands out
from the crowd because of its excellent, beauty, innovation and, in most
cases, it represents a milestone in it's particular genre. Most classics are
the results of the dreams and desires of individuals and most (if not all)
can be considered works of art in one way or another.

So it is with Grand Prix Legends.

GPL is, quite simply, a classic in the Sim-Racing category. It was conceived
out of passion, not out of a need to "conform to a plan", and it was crafted
to the desires of an individual, not a committee. It met all the criteria
for the successful birth of a classic.

We will not see this type of creation very often.

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

by **Dave Henri** » Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> I will never buy a sim blindly anymore except GP3 and maybe GPL-2.
> Don't spread the rumor yet :o)

That would be the version of GPL that has Winston Cup cars and trucks
right? :)
dave henrie

by **Andre Warring** » Sat, 25 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Beautiful words Bruce...

Andre

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:59:27 +1100, "Bruce Kennewell"

>Erik, every so often a classic comes along. Not often, but once in a blue
>moon. Examples are everywhere: in aeronautics it's the Supermarine Spitfire
>or the North American P-51 Mustang. In art it's the Mona Lisa, or
>Michaelangelo's statue of David. In motor vehicles it's the Bugatti type
>35B, the Mercedes SSK, the Jaguar E-type. In racing cars it's the Maserati
>250F, the Lotus 49.
>We all know what a "classic" is....it's something that simply stands out
>from the crowd because of its excellent, beauty, innovation and, in most
>cases, it represents a milestone in it's particular genre. Most classics are
>the results of the dreams and desires of individuals and most (if not all)
>can be considered works of art in one way or another.

>So it is with Grand Prix Legends.

>GPL is, quite simply, a classic in the Sim-Racing category. It was conceived
>out of passion, not out of a need to "conform to a plan", and it was crafted
>to the desires of an individual, not a committee. It met all the criteria
>for the successful birth of a classic.

>We will not see this type of creation very often.

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sat, 25 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Thank you, Andre.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

> Beautiful words Bruce...

> Andre

> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:59:27 +1100, "Bruce Kennewell"

> >Erik, every so often a classic comes along. Not often, but once in a
blue
> >moon. Examples are everywhere: in aeronautics it's the Supermarine
Spitfire
> >or the North American P-51 Mustang. In art it's the Mona Lisa, or
> >Michaelangelo's statue of David. In motor vehicles it's the Bugatti type
> >35B, the Mercedes SSK, the Jaguar E-type. In racing cars it's the
Maserati
> >250F, the Lotus 49.
> >We all know what a "classic" is....it's something that simply stands out
> >from the crowd because of its excellent, beauty, innovation and, in most
> >cases, it represents a milestone in it's particular genre. Most classics
are
> >the results of the dreams and desires of individuals and most (if not
all)
> >can be considered works of art in one way or another.

> >So it is with Grand Prix Legends.

> >GPL is, quite simply, a classic in the Sim-Racing category. It was
conceived
> >out of passion, not out of a need to "conform to a plan", and it was
crafted
> >to the desires of an individual, not a committee. It met all the
criteria
> >for the successful birth of a classic.

> >We will not see this type of creation very often.

by **Garry Lewi** » Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:00:00

I'd be surprised if we saw anything like it at all considering how badly it
sold.Don't get me wrong,I bought it,play it and like it although I would
rather it had been a modern F1 sim.Unfortunately it sold rather poorly and I
picked mine up a few weeks after release for half price.Because of this I
find it difficult to anticipate any company now commiting to a pure ***
sim,a title has to make money/sell units.So every time a sim is released
you'll always get the naysayers comments that it's not as realistic as GPL
the trouble is in the majority of cases it's by design and not accident.

> Erik, every so often a classic comes along. Not often, but once in a blue
> moon. Examples are everywhere: in aeronautics it's the Supermarine
Spitfire
> or the North American P-51 Mustang. In art it's the Mona Lisa, or
> Michaelangelo's statue of David. In motor vehicles it's the Bugatti type
> 35B, the Mercedes SSK, the Jaguar E-type. In racing cars it's the
Maserati
> 250F, the Lotus 49.
> We all know what a "classic" is....it's something that simply stands out
> from the crowd because of its excellent, beauty, innovation and, in most
> cases, it represents a milestone in it's particular genre. Most classics
are
> the results of the dreams and desires of individuals and most (if not all)
> can be considered works of art in one way or another.

> So it is with Grand Prix Legends.

> GPL is, quite simply, a classic in the Sim-Racing category. It was
conceived
> out of passion, not out of a need to "conform to a plan", and it was
crafted
> to the desires of an individual, not a committee. It met all the criteria
> for the successful birth of a classic.

> We will not see this type of creation very often.

> --
> Regards,
> Bruce Kennewell,
> Canberra, Australia.
> ---------------------------

> > I've not played F1-2000, but probably will sooner or later. I've
been
> > reading everyone's comments and one thing is consistent, there is still
> > quite a bit of room for improvement. Now I ask you, knowing what people
> > want, knowing the present benchmark and what you need to truly compete
> with
> > it, why would you work on a project knowing that your presentation will
> fall
> > short? They invest all this time and work, only to come up second or
> third
> > or fourth best. What is the point? Granted, this is a modern F1-sim,
to
> > they'll cover their costs and eke out a profit if the simulation can
even
> be
> > considered decent, but when are we going to see the next real
blockbuster?
> > GPL was a bust, are we still paying the price for that?
> > If I'm a developer and I see the realism put forth with GPL and I see
> the
> > level of hardware people have access to these days, I try and code up a
> sim
> > that at LEAST equals GPL's physics engine. Hell, the graphics engine in
> > Legends wouldn't be hard to beat at all! Instead we get compromises.
> > GP3 will probably be fantastic in terms of physical simulation, but
no
> > internet capability kills this sim in my eyes. I've not heard all the
> > details on WSC, but it sounds like that might be *** simmers last
> hope
> > for a successor to GPL this year. Don't forget that the demo of GPL
will
> be
> > two years old in a couple of months, the sim itself released in the Fall
> of
> > '98. It's remarkable that no one has even come close since then....not
> even
> > Papy. ::(

> > --

> > Erik Frechette
> > The Pits Grand Prix Legends
> > www.theuspits.com/owheel/gpl/gpl.html
> > The Pits Rally Championship
> > www.theuspits.com/fbody/rallychamp/rallychamp.html

rec.autos.simulators

Developers missing the point...

Developers missing the point...

Developers missing the point...

Developers missing the point...

Developers missing the point...

Developers missing the point...

Developers missing the point...

Developers missing the point...

Developers missing the point...

Developers missing the point...

Developers missing the point...

Developers missing the point...