rec.autos.simulators

I was a big GP3 fan and hated F12001 when I first played it.  The patch came
along though, and gradually I got into it and now I can't get enough of it.
I still miss some of the cool features from GP3 though like realistic
weather, proper tyre wear, good AI etc.

Yeah, I think that the car lighting looks very artificial in F12001 compared
to GP3 which looks more natural (albeit blocky)

With my notebook and portable controller, this has always been my
preference.  My friend and I had rock-steady LAN games in GP3 (of course I
agree that the LAN experience with GP3 was dismal with more people hooked
on).

Stephen

Stephen

--
__________   ____---____       Marco Antonio  Checa  Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----'      Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
       _H__/_/                      http://machf.tripod.com
      '-_____|(     http://www.GeoCities.com/Hollywood/2645

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

As you said, this is the 21st century.  I'm aware of that, since it says so
in the bottom corner of my screen.  That means I can now have a portable
computer with a 1GHz PIII processor and a somewhat decent GeForce2 chip
which will run mind-blowing sims like GPL, F1-2001 and (perhaps) GP4 with
unbelievable levels of visual detail, and at rock solid framerates.  I can
then pack this 5 lb wonder, together with a nice analog handheld controller
which gives me enough control to match my best "wheel" laptimes, into a
backpack, go to a friend's place, and plug into his machine with a data pipe
which pumps 100Mbit/second, as opposed to the morse-code serial cables of
old.  No warping at all.  Even GPL, the king of online, makes me a bit dizzy
over dial-up with its jittery cars.  Yeah, they're not warping all over the
place, but they're jiggling like they're fueled up with Jolt cola.  And I
can shout at my friend.  I can watch his *** expressions when he blows it
entering the Parabolica.  I don't have to send simple, terse chat messages.

Dial-up is great, but a LAN race is always better.

Stephen

Stephen

     Or from the comfort of your own home, just fire up GPL, VROC and
.............

..play against faceless nobodies..

Over the years, numerous threads have been devoted here to the sim vs
arcade debate. What is a sim and what is an arcade racer? Obviously
these discussions exist because everybody has different expectations
and priorities. However, the general attitude here seems that the
absolute realism of the physics makes or breaks a sim. That is: for
more than half of the frequent posters here, a sim will be spoiled
when a car doesn't react like it would in reality. A sim that,
as a matter of speaking, *only* has correct physics to offer seems to
be regarded higher than one that fails in this respect, but has
everything else (see later). Along the same lines, a wheel and pedals
are considered *absolutely* required to fully get the experience
right.

I've always had the feeling that this "hardcore" approach misses the
point somewhere. The thinking has gone too much in one direction.
Because it seems soobvious and because nobody really challenged it
:-)  So that's why I did some hard thinking to rationalize this rather
"undefined" feeling that I always had. When I started, I didn't know
where it would end. Turns out like some philosophical voyage of
discovery of simulation, hehe :-)  It's just MY view,
which I do not consider better or worse than other views. All that I
want is that the hardcore guys give it an honest read. And of course
discuss it... throw it all out if the logic fails!!    :-)

Ok, here goes...

I'd like to start with a simple question: WHY do racing simulators
exist at all?

Well, millions of people would like to experience racing.
Unfortunately, for several reasons, only a few hundred worldwide are
able to *actually* experience it. Therefore, a racingsim offers
ordinary people the best possible illusion of racing. And to achieve
this, it uses the virtual reality capacities of a computer.

Right. If this would be my ultimate answer, then I could just as well
stop here because with this definition, the what I call "hardcore
approach" would be unchallengable <G>

HOWEVER, we have peeled only the first layer of the onion :-)  The key
here is that, to get to the essence, we also have to answer the
question why realworld racing ITSELF (thinking about F1 in particular)
exists. Why people want to be a racecar driver and why those who
already are, find it enjoyable?

I've put together a list of reasons here (would be interested to hear
whether anyone can add things?). They are in no particular order, and
most are interconnected in some way.

1) glamour; the 'happy few', exotic places and flashy cars
2) getting respect, BEING someone; because of 1)
3) competition; measuring yourself against others
4) the challenge,getting the best out of yourself; a battle with your
own capacities
5) *physical* sensations: G-forces, arms hurt, bumps...; these give
you an adrenalin rush because you are well aware that you're "taming"
a powerful beast
6) *sound* and *smell* of racecars; (HOW it sounds and smells is
secondary to the fact that these particular sounds and smells are
associated with racing)
7) *visual* sensations; the impression of moving very very fast
8) the danger involved; another source of adrenalin
(9) commercials, pit girls,groupies, your own Jet and champagne or
Guinness<G>

Apart from the smell and the danger, pretty much everything in this
list can be simulated to some degree. The physical sensations are
difficult, the online community gives respect and, together with AI,
competition. Licenses give you an idea of taking part in the real
glamour.

Item (4), the challenge, can be broken down further. The challenge
consists of constantly pushing yourself to improve the following
skills. The constant battle to improve these skills *IS* racing:

1) "feeling" the car with that part of your body under your back <G>
2) "listening" to the car, in order to preserve it to get it over the
finishline
3) understanding how to tweak car parameters to make the car
faster/better
4) braveness; not being afraid of taking risks
5) accuracy; how precise is your control over the car
6) reaction-speed; responding fast to the inputs of your senses
7) concentration; staying focused over longer periods
8) physical condition and stamina; to maintain concentration during
the course of a race
9) regularity; the ability to do it over and over again (laps/races)
10) tactics; making the right decisions even in the heat of the action
11) mental strength; controlling nerves and recovering from bad luck

You also need a rich dad and social "connections" or the ability to
sell yourself <G>

Apart from 4), every challenge in this second list is, or can be,
simulated to some degree. Simulating "feeling" the car is difficult
once again. Complex car tweaking is already available. Simulation of
tactics and "listening" to the car will undoubtedly get better and
better over time.

**How well everything in this list is implemented, is what really sets
a sim apart from an arcade game!**

I think we pretty much all agree that a simulator which offers all of
this, could be called the PERFECT simulator, not?

Now comes the "mental leap": there is a subtle difference between
simulating autoracing, and simulating the enumerated aspects that make
autoracing exciting and enjoyable!

Some aspects of real autoracing as we know it now, may not be
essential at all. That is: they are what they are, but if they would
be different, they would not make the racing less enjoyable and less
of a challenge. The reasons that they "are what they are" could be
historical or practical or even just random. As a result, they aren't
mentioned in the lists above!

Some examples:

- turning a steeringwheel and pushing pedals:

In the real world, they are _practical_: the easiest and most
efficient way to change direction or to produce a mechanical pressure
to slow down the vehicle. But they are also _historical_ in a way. In
the past there was no other way to control a car, but now or in the
future it could be possible (and IS even reality sometimes!!) to use
joysticks, paddles and buttons to achieve the same or better accuracy!
In the real world, they have the added advantage of feedback: a whole
pallette of forces is transferred through wheel and pedals to the
pilot.

- real-world physics:

It has been shown that real-world physics seem to be finetuned to make
our Universe possible. If physical constants would be just a little
bit different, the Universe would pretty much fall apart  :-)  (on
purpose of anthropic reasoning?) However, if we ignore this, we
could come up with some pretty interesting and complex alternative
physics. Physics that are JUST as challenging to handle as the physics
that we know. Springs and dampers acting totally different...
Air-resistance increasing when you brake instead of decreasing...
Lateral forces the faster you go in a straight line.... Current top
pilots would STILL be top pilots under those circumstances (if they
were born in that world..) Because the really important skill is to
handle "a" complex environment.

- "trivial" things that are pretty much random: the whole points
system, technical regulations, car-liveries, the F1 circus as a
whole...

We could change ALL of these things, and still end up with a great and
fantastically challenging sim. The only reason why a PERFECT
simulation of these particular aspects adds to the essence of a
racingsim, is the _association_ with real world racing. For example
the "trivial" aspects mentioned above make it easy to identify with
the "real" thing, so by getting them right the sim tries to offer you
a little of the "glamour". The physics will never be TOO obviously
unreal, because that would also immediately kill the whole
identification. And we like to hold a wheel because the real drivers
do so too, and because that's what we see on TV all the time...

Take special hardware: do a wheel and pedals, as symbols for a more
perfect true-to-life simulation, significantly improve any of the
enumerated "essentials"? Force feedback gives some physical
sensations, but nothing like the real thing. They provide better
accuracy, but with keyboard control that is carefully tuned, you can
also get a very challenging and complex experience.(remember that
"accuracy" was just one of the 11 required skills, BTW)A quality sim
can obviously not get away with _totally_ neglecting all of these
non-essential aspects. The more a player knows about real racing, the
more sensitive he will be for these aspects that mainly improve the
identification with the real thing. As an example, for people who
regularly drive real cars to the limit, it might be harder to ignore
the imperfections in the physics model. (But why do they need a sim
anyway?  ;-)  ) They will notice when the car reacts funny. They will
notice when a change in setup does not have the real-world effect.
Those who do NOT regularly drive real cars to the limit, will NOT be
distracted by this, and can nevertheless enjoy a slightly different
model that is just as complex. Kids or people who only occasionally
watch races and are totally unaware of what being a racepilot really
takes, will even be satisfied with an arcade game that offers barely
more than the visual experience. They will not feel the same
excitement as a real racer though!

To put the whole idea in a nutshell: Imperfections in the physics
model, and keyboard or joystick control do NOT devaluate the
sim-experience as profoundly as is commonly proclaimed. When a physics
model is not TOO obviously unreal, and challenging enough, and when
the control method is well executed and challenging, then a simulator
can give you EXACTLY the same ...

read more »