rec.autos.simulators

>-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

>>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

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

>RB

>Anyway - thanks for the peek, JB - one of the few pleasant reads I've had today, and I look forward to the release.  Obviously the
>final will tell the tale, and if it doesn't make the cut, back to EB it will go, as did F12K, F1CS, and GP3.  No harm, no foul,
>better luck next time.  What's odd for me about the EA series is that I really enjoyed SCGT, but had no use for either of ISI's F1
>derivatives.  Hope this one alters that.  Couldn't tell enough about F1RC from the demo to bother importing it.  Plus the earlier
>UBI F1 jobs were shite for this guy.  Not for everyone obviously, but for me.  Good to hear the four tires "talk" to you in F12001 -
>communication of what's happening at the contact patches when you're on the limit is to me what sets GPL apart from the rest in it's
>driving experience.  And that feel transcends era or vehicle.

>But what I really wanna know is - how's it compare to the latest version of the Heat champcar in being edgy?  That sucker will bite
>you in the arse in a second and all you can think is "I knew I was a bit hot" as you go spiraling into the weeds.  Monster speed,
>brakes, and grip with zippo for reaction time, but you "always" know why you lost it.  Not perfect yet, but doing 45's around
>Aardvark Park is pretty damn intense.  Fun to watch the stiff chassis barely carry the locked inside front through the fall-away T3
>as you short shift and ease into the throttle.  Straighten the wheel as the corner eases and "chirp", a whiff of smoke and the
>tire's spinning again.  Lovely.

>Try this as an altenative to my original responses:

>Bite me, fan-boy.

>-- JB

>P.S.  Kiss my opinion.

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 01:30:40 +0100, "Douglas Ellison"
><mail...@douglasellison.co.uk> wrote:

>>OK - want me to be genuinely critical of your article...

>>-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.

>>- "hardcore F1 fans will be delighted that details like this ( launch
>>control ) have indeed been included" - I can not think of a single hardcore
>>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

>Thanks John, great work !

>> There is enough disagreement and difficulty in the world.  Racing
>> simulations are games, intended first and foremost to be entertainment
>> vehicles.  I am sorry most of all for letting something that should be
>> entertaining become something that is anything but.

>> :-(

>> I am also sorry that there is not an appropriate emoticon to convey
>> shame for one's actions -- I would most certainly use it here and now.

>> Peace be with you, Doug.

>> -- JB

>I think we were both suffering from excessive agression bottled up about
>recent events.

>In hindsight- quite a good preview actually - was in interface as bloated
>and clunky as 2K and CS2K?

>Thoughts with those involved

>Doug

> >> There is enough disagreement and difficulty in the world.  Racing
> >> simulations are games, intended first and foremost to be entertainment
> >> vehicles.  I am sorry most of all for letting something that should be
> >> entertaining become something that is anything but.

> >> :-(

> >> I am also sorry that there is not an appropriate emoticon to convey
> >> shame for one's actions -- I would most certainly use it here and now.

> >> Peace be with you, Doug.

> >> -- JB

> >I think we were both suffering from excessive agression bottled up about
> >recent events.

> >In hindsight- quite a good preview actually - was in interface as bloated
> >and clunky as 2K and CS2K?

> >Thoughts with those involved

> >Doug

> Thanks for being so understanding, Doug, and, again, my apologies.

> I did neglect to address the game interface -- an oversight on my
> part, unfortunately.  The overall "look and feel" of the menu system
> is similar to previous offerings from ISI, so it might be safe to say
> that it's suffering from some of the same issues as 2K and CS2K, with
> some slight improvements.  IMO, though, I can find SOME shortcomings
> with EVERYONE's menu system, be it Papy, MGI, Ubisoft, Microprose, or
> ISI, so I just usually learn how to wade through the dodgy parts in
> order to get to the racing part.  Overall, all the different
> variations of menu systems "work," but some are less intuitive than
> others.  I've been playing F1CS2K for so long the menus in F1 2001
> seemed nicely intuitive, but if you're not a long-time fan of ISI
> sims, then you're probably going to feel differently about the design.

> Aside from the menus, one good point I failed to address:  There are
> more setup options than in 2K and CS2K, indicating a more
> sophisticated physics engine underneath.  The car physics files are
> also MUCH more detailed than they were in 2K and CS2K, further
> indicating more sophisticated physics modeling.

> A bad point to go with the new setup options:  Setups from 2K and CS2K
> will NOT work with F1 2001 . . . yet another reason why I've been so
> slow, I think (all my good setups from the previous ISI titles are
> useless in F1 2001, so I've been forced to start from scratch, and I'm
> no crew chief).

> I also failed to mention the new "Instant Replay" feature, which lets
> you access an instant replay function during a race using a
> "Ctrl-Alt-R" keystroke -- you set the amount of instant replay time in
> the main menu, then during a race, you can instantly call up an
> instant replay on the fly; after the replay, you're returned to the
>***pit and can continue from there.  Nice touch, IMO -- preferrably
> something to be used while sitting in a sand trap after an "off,"
> though.

> ;-)

> My gut feeling as a physics phreak (and a GPL fan) is that in lieu of
> a modern F1 sim from Papy, F1 2001 may be the best modern F1 sim yet.

> The graphics engine is also very, VERY good in terms of frame rate,
> and this is one area where 2K and CS2K were very weak, so that's a
> VERY good thing.

> Hope this helps fill in some of the blanks to some degree.  Sorry I
> didn't address all this stuff originally.

> Take care!

> -- JB

> 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"

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

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

> >> >Thanks John, great work !

> >> "The level of intensity that I experienced during the qualifying
> >> session above was demanding in a way that is seldom seen in a PC-based
> >> simulation. Based on what I've seen so far, F1 2001 may be perhaps the
> >> most realistic, intricate, and immersive racing game ever."

> >> Looking promising :))

> >IMHO it looks like someone kissing ***because they got an early Beta

> >Doug