rec.autos.simulators

by **Byron Forbe** » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00

> There aren't any games by Papy that are as ambitious as CPR is, either. But
> what they do, they do well.

I agree that CPR was ambitious. But that does not excuse the release
of a shithouse product. A software house with pride would have worked on
it till it was all it was meant to be. And of course I will now be
flooded with all the bullshit about business practicallity - and why
shouldn't I be considering MS's limited resources :) 6 months ago I
never understood why so many people were anti MS. It didn't take me long
to find out :(((((((

by **Randy Magrud** » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>> There aren't any games by Papy that are as ambitious as CPR is, either. But
>> what they do, they do well.

> I agree that CPR was ambitious. But that does not excuse the release
>of a shithouse product.

We might disagree to a certain extent on the latter part, but I do
agree with you that ambition does not excuse failure.

I think you can take the whole "MS" angle too far.

Randy

Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

by **Randy Magrud** » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>Hi Randy,

>>There aren't any games by Papy that are as ambitious as CPR is, either.

>I would have to disagree with this statement, as Papy's N1 far exceeds
>the ambitions of MS/TRI's CPR.

I really should have been more specific in my statement. I'm
referring more to how little of a leap N2 was over N1, ICR2 over N1,
etc. Even N1 borrows VERY heavily from ICR1. I think the big leaps
the company made were the original Indianapolis 500, and ICR1. Since
then, most of their stuff has been incremental in nature. Look at the
setup options, for instance. And in all of the jumps in graphics, did
Papyrus ever jump to a 3D model where the cars could actually leave
the road? Or how about realistic curbs? Again, everything since ICR1
has been evolutionary, not revolutionary. I'm not dissing those
products at all, so please don't misinterpret, but we really haven't
seen a 'from scratch' effort with the kind of leap that was made in,
say, Grand Prix 2 or CPR.

Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

by **Randy Magrud** » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>are u drunk? How could you possibly say this? Thing about what was out
>at the time and then think about Indy 500 The Simulation. A book could
>be writen about what was revolutionary about that one.

I really should have been more specific in my statement. I'm
referring more to how little of a leap N2 was over N1, ICR2 over N1,
etc. Even N1 borrows VERY heavily from ICR1. I think the big leaps
the company made were the original Indianapolis 500, and ICR1. Since
then, most of their stuff has been incremental in nature. Look at the
setup options, for instance. And in all of the jumps in graphics, did
Papyrus ever jump to a 3D model where the cars could actually leave
the road? Or how about realistic curbs? Again, everything since ICR1
has been evolutionary, not revolutionary. I'm not dissing those
products at all, so please don't misinterpret, but we really haven't
seen a 'from scratch' effort with the kind of leap that was made in,
say, Grand Prix 2 or CPR.

Randy

Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

by **Brian Bus** » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00

says...

Well, I guess if you have a winning formula then improving it is a good idea.
CPR is a first product, on a trail that has been well and truly blazed by
Papyrus. Compare N2 to Indy 500 and see the progress they've made. I was
happy with the improvements on each of those titles (n1 to icr2 would have been
the smallest, but I prefer icr2), especially the svga graphics that work and
the networking that also works. I thnk Geoff Crammond may have started the
whole ball rolling with Revs, but he still hasn't got the networking at all.

CPR is a modern day product, with the support of 3d cards that were unheard of
two years ago when icr2 came out.

--
remove 'bye' from address to reply

by **Michael E. Carve** » Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:00:00

% <snip> I'm not dissing those
% products at all, so please don't misinterpret, but we really haven't
% seen a 'from scratch' effort with the kind of leap that was made in,
% say, Grand Prix 2 or CPR.

Neither of these products are "from scratch". GP2 borrowed heavily from
World Circuit/Grand Prix and I would say that CPR borrowed quite alot from
Monster Truck Madness.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **Randy Magrud** » Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Borrowed heavily?! I don't recall texture mapping, tons o' telemetry
and several setup screens for tuning the car right down to fast bump
dampers. Not to mention the graphics engine overhaul, completely new
sounds, etc. And saying CPR borrowed from MTM is a rather gross
exaggeration.

Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

by **Ronald Stoeh** » Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:00:00

> >Neither of these products are "from scratch". GP2 borrowed heavily from
> >World Circuit/Grand Prix and I would say that CPR borrowed quite alot from
> >Monster Truck Madness.

> Borrowed heavily?! I don't recall texture mapping, tons o' telemetry
> and several setup screens for tuning the car right down to fast bump
> dampers. Not to mention the graphics engine overhaul, completely new
> sounds, etc. And saying CPR borrowed from MTM is a rather gross
> exaggeration.

I'm sure they showed you the source tree... ;^)

l8er
ronny

--
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

by **John Walla** » Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>Borrowed heavily?! I don't recall texture mapping, tons o' telemetry
>and several setup screens for tuning the car right down to fast bump
>dampers. Not to mention the graphics engine overhaul, completely new
>sounds, etc

These are all the things that are bolted onto the game engine, not the
engine itself. It's _very_ apparent that GP2 was a descendant of F1GP
rather than being an entirely new product. "Borrowed heavily" is
entirely appropriate. A look either at the basics such as track design
or more in depth such as the modelling of progressive tyre wear
relative to grip will confirm this.

Not in the slightest. Same menu structures, same frame-rate and
pausing issues, developed and released by the same company and for the
same company, same connectivity to the Zone, same editing of tracks
which themselves are stored in almost the same format - there appears
to be a pattern emerging here. Put it like this - if TRI went out and
re-invented the wheel for CPR having already done so with MTM then I
would be extremely surprised. Even if they did not borrow heavily from
MTM, they most certainly had experience with producing a racing title
before starting CPR. It is therefore misguided to say that CPR is a
"V1.0" when they had a chance to practice at least the simple things
like frame-rate, AI, control configuration etc in MTM. The same things
which were so wrong in CPR.

Cheers!
John

by **Michael E. Carve** » Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:00:00

% >Neither of these products are "from scratch". GP2 borrowed heavily from
% >World Circuit/Grand Prix and I would say that CPR borrowed quite alot from
% >Monster Truck Madness.
%
% Borrowed heavily?! I don't recall texture mapping, tons o' telemetry
% and several setup screens for tuning the car right down to fast bump
% dampers. Not to mention the graphics engine overhaul, completely new
% sounds, etc. And saying CPR borrowed from MTM is a rather gross
% exaggeration.

Not to argue, but saying that it is from "scratch" sounds rather
exaggerating also. ;-) This would mean they had NO experience in
modeling the physics of a 4-wheel vehicle in a sim. Besides, I am sure
they had many resources from the flight sim side of Microsoft's products
also. But, the latter is pure speculation.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **Randy Magrud** » Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:00:00

John,

I think we're talking on two different wavelengths. What I'm trying
to talk about is the content of the products more so than the actual
source code under the physics engine. MTM and CPR are apples and
oranges in very many ways, even if the graphics engine and some of the
interface stuff is re-used code. The same is true for GP2 vs GP1.

Randy

Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

by **John Walla** » Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:00:00

>I think we're talking on two different wavelengths. What I'm trying
>to talk about is the content of the products more so than the actual
>source code under the physics engine. MTM and CPR are apples and
>oranges in very many ways, even if the graphics engine and some of the
>interface stuff is re-used code. The same is true for GP2 vs GP1.

Well, the phrase used was "borrowed heavily", so you can't blame
people for picking you up on it since CPR obviously does borrow
heavily from MTM.

I couldn't possibly comment on what was borrowed as regards the
driving physics, and nor could anyone else outside of MS or TRI I
suspect. I do know that I played MTM a heck of a lot more than I have
played CPR, so the balance has been lost somewhere along the road from
arcade racer to "sim".

Cheers!
John

by **Byron Forbe** » Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:00:00

> >Neither of these products are "from scratch". GP2 borrowed heavily from
> >World Circuit/Grand Prix and I would say that CPR borrowed quite alot from
> >Monster Truck Madness.

> Borrowed heavily?! I don't recall texture mapping, tons o' telemetry
> and several setup screens for tuning the car right down to fast bump
> dampers. Not to mention the graphics engine overhaul, completely new
> sounds, etc. And saying CPR borrowed from MTM is a rather gross
> exaggeration.

I must jump in here and say that you yourself exaggerated by saying
that CPR was as big a leap in CART sims as GP2 was in F1 sims. Unless of
course that you meant CPR was leaping backwards, hehehehehehehe. I get
into ICR2 with ease but shudder at the prospect of the inadaquacies of
CPR. I consider CPR to be a broken toy. The only thing that seems to
save it is if you are in the U.S. and can use it on the Zone - so long
as you have that IE4 piece of ***installed!

by **Randy Magrud** » Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:00:00

> I must jump in here and say that you yourself exaggerated by saying
>that CPR was as big a leap in CART sims as GP2 was in F1 sims.

I don't think so. ICR2 had NO telemetry, about half as many garage
adjustments, most of which were more coarse, a two dimensional physics
model, inability to properly save races, etc. GP2 really got the ball
rolling on a major series sim having telemetry and mimicking almost
every setup option imaginable. It also added full 3 dimensional
physics where cars can go airborne, leap curbs, etc. CPR makes a
similar leap over ICR2.

I'm not going to defend CPR on the basis of its bugs or incomplete
features. Microsoft clearly rushed this puppy out long before it was
done. Funny how fed up we all got with the GP2 delays, but ultimately
when it finally did ship, it was a pretty complete product that lived
up to most of its expectations. CPR was just as ambitious, but rather
than miss the Christmas window, it just got shipped. But we're really
arguing apples and oranges. I'm talking about the feature set and
physics model, you're talking about the state of completion (or
rather, incompletion) of the execution of those features.

Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

by **Byron Forbe** » Sun, 18 Jan 1998 04:00:00

> arguing apples and oranges. I'm talking about the feature set and
> physics model, you're talking about the state of completion (or
> rather, incompletion) of the execution of those features.

Thanks, this saved me some typing. :) To elaborate, I am talking
about the overall product. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's no good
having a sim with mere potential. Come to think of it, the finished?
version of CPR is like a demo that shows a very hazy peek into the
future.

rec.autos.simulators

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?