rec.autos.simulators

Thanks John, great work !

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 08:22:02 GMT, "Ali Ismet Ozkan"

Looking promising :))

Andre

Doug

While we're at it, allow me to make your job easier by pointing out
yet another example of my shameless butt-kissing antics, further
illustrating my overall lack of knowledge and discernment, and further
proving that that that sim racing fans are just wasting their time
when they read my butt-kissing musings:

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

sure you already knew that.  I post mine in long form, but you are
apparently gifted with a greater brevity.  Aside from that -- and my
obvious butt-kissing tendencies -- we seem to be a lot alike.

I will be scheduling my lobotomy tomorrow.  

Thankfully, that probably won't impact the quality of my reviews . . .

Hmm . . . now that I've been exposed as the butt-kisser that I am, I
might as well s***the preview of Rally Trophy that I'm working on.  

So much for my bid to become the next Randy Magruder of racing sim
reviews.

:-/

-- JB

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 20:29:37 +0100, "Douglas Ellison"

Good review. Just a few things though that make me wonder if it can truly
replace F1RC as the best F1 sim.

"Grand Prix Legends is only other simulation I know of where it's possible
to "dance on the edge" while sustaining a four-wheel drift in the same
manner you can with F1 2001."

"Dancing on the edge" are the exact words I used to describe my experience
with the cars in F1RC in a post of mine months ago. The ability to push the
car to the very edge, recover it if I go too far (not always of course,
which is realistic), and complete controlled slides is what made F1RC my
favorite. Many other people have said their experience is the same. Why you
weren't able to do this (according to your previous posts) in F1RC is a bit
of a mystery to me. I can only guess it has to do with your
controller/controller setup, or car setups.

Doesn't sound like the graphics are better than in F1RC, but maybe close.

Things like driving out of the pits, variable weather, and false starts are
already in F1RC.

I know, based on real life/F1RC side by side track comparisons, that the
F1RC tracks are almost perfect. If the F12001 tracks aren't just as
accurate, then that would be disappointing.

Guess I'll find out in a few weeks. Looking forward to it.

David G Fisher

Hey - you voiced your opinion on it - I voiced mine.

Clearly something very touchey here.

Doug

Touchy?

You bet, chuckles.  

-- JB

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:52:06 +0100, "Douglas Ellison"

Did you advertise this "What makes a sim?"-feature when you'd just wrote
it? -Must have missed that. Nice article, as was the preview.

Thanks,

Jan.
=---
"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

As for the "What makes a sim?" article, I believe it was mentioned
here when it was originally posted -- and I know it was mentioned on
the front page of the High Gear site for a while.  Still, something
like that is easy to overlook, so I'm glad you got a chance to catch
it -- and I'm glad you enjoyed it, as well!

;-)

-- JB

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 01:13:28 +0200, "Jan Verschueren"

David G Fisher

-Thanks for the 1,342 word essay about your fantasy as a formula one
driver - surely suitable for a high school essay - not an impartial review
of a forth coming title.

-Screenshots as GIF's.  Why not JPG's

- "PC-based titles that featured intricate physics modeling and advanced 3D
accelerated graphics - titles like F1 2000, Grand Prix 3, and F1 Racing
Championship. "  - I wouldnt consider any of these to model physics
intricately - and of those 2 - one certainly did not feature advanced 3D
Graphics.

- "A higher frequency physics engine allows you to do more sophisticated
calculations" - Incorrect - it merely gives you the platform to run those
calculations more frequently.

- "*** F1 fans will be delighted that details like this ( launch
control ) have indeed been included" - I can not think of a single ***
F1 fan who welcomed Launch controll into the world of F1 - let alone into
game titles simulating it.

- "sustaining a four-wheel drift in the same manner you can with F1 2001.
" - A worrying feature - as this is a very rare sight in modern Formula One.
If you can 4 wheel drift in F1 2001 like you can in GPL (as you suggest)
then there is clearly something fundamentally wrong with the variables they
have placed into their physics engine.

- "Dynamic weather is also included, allowing you to choose from random,
season 2001" - the title is to be released before the last race of the
season - how do they intend to predict the weather?

- "and my personal best there would have put me ahead of Schumacher's pole
speed for the 2000 race" - in which title?

- "I am struggling to turn in lap times below the 1:29 mark" - Rather
worrying this.  Michael Schumachers pole time was more than 10 seconds
faster than this - a 1:18.201.  You time leaves you some 6 seconds adrift of
the 107% rule.  Clearly some fundamental innacuracies in either the track or
the physics if you find it hard to get even within a mile of the right sort
of lap times - let alone the right ball park.

-"I found myself thinking how much I enjoyed the smells after a good rain --
then I found myself inhaling deeply in order to take in the clean, cool
smells around me " - That's just plain ODD.

- "Some track layouts seem similar to their F1CS2K counterparts" - this is
appauling news as there were fundamental and chronic errors in the modelling
of nearly all the tracks for F1CS2K - which lead me to believe that not a
single developer or tester of the title could ever have visited or watched
an in car lap of these tracks.

- "When it comes to sounds, I'm pretty much tone deaf, so I'm no authority
on audio quality. " - Thanks for then giving us nigh on 400 words on your
opinions of the sound then.

- "I have every faith in ISI/EA, though" - on what basis - their appauling
F12000 title - or perhaps the part bug fix that was later released as a full
title?

-"The Driving School mode now includes more tests at more tracks, and the
tests I have tried seem more like real F1 driver's tests. " - WHAT ARE you
going on about. No F1 driver has to pass some artificial tests in the real
world - so quite what the tests are supposed to be more like - god onlu
knows.

Now granted - you only had a Beta to play with - and you mention features
that are missing / not implemented etc - but that only goes to show how
desperate EA are to have this title promoted as early as possible by handing
out immature code.  Similarly - with the release date a little over 2 weeks
away - it's worrying to hear you mention all of the following as being
missing - or have elements missing from your beta copy.

- Force Feedback  (good god - thats rather worrying - clearly there can be
little or no time to test this feature once it's introduced before going to
press - a rushed job - like F12000 was)

- the AI is only fully-implemented for Magny-Cours and Catalunya. - So only
14 more tracks to write the AI for.  One a day - including comprehensive
full race distance testing.  That'll be top quality stuff then.

- missing tracks and incomplete AI in my test version, - There are still
TRACKS to complete. Fantastic time line they've kept to - clearly the last -
and most important phase of development - will have to be rushed - this much
is obvious.

Your article makes not one single criticism of any element of the title. So
are we to believe it to be perfect?  Surely you have some criticism to make?
The fact that you wax lyrical about this all encompassingly perfect title
using what is evidently immature and VERY much Beta code to me is not the
sort of article one should expect for an impartial preview.

Doug

or maybe he's just not a very good driver.  *ducks* :)

--
Gunnar
    #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
        gnus don't kill people.  gnus-summary-lower-score kills people.

Who ever said columnist are impartial?  You are thinking of
journalist.  Reviewers are not supposed to be impartial.

RB