Are you so sure that it is on the bumper? It looks more like a
view from the drivers seat, but without dash and fenders visible.
Now admittedly that's a big but (one 't'), however that isn't the
same as the "bumper" view the detractors insist on using. Perhaps
to belittle it more than warranted?
> > "Joe62" wrote...
> >>> <snip>
> >> Oh please. This is such a useless tired old cliche of an
> >> argument.
> >> When driving a real car you don't even really see the
> >>***pit; your brain filters out all that extraneous info
> >> to focus on the important data coming through the
> >> windshield.
> > Yes, obviously, I do not look at the dash parts in a sim other than to
> > read the instruments either, but the point, with reference to creating
> > a "driving a car" instead of a "remote controlling a car" experience,
> > is that my viewpoint is not moved away from the actual driving
> > position, be it to in front of the front axle or several feet behind
> > and above the car as in GT4.
> > To reverse your argument, it's hard for me to grasp anyone "not
> > seeing" this after 16 years of racing simulation.
> > Jan.
> > =---
> Agreed. Cockpit is the natural view. We are simulating DRIVING. We
> drive from a seat INSIDE the car, not perched on the front bumper and
> certainly not floating cosmicly above and behind like some quasi-god.
> If I wanted a non***pit viewing angle, then Generally with it's top
> down view is just as 'real' as any nose-picking view.
> I'm not saying GT4 isn't a good piece of code, but it's lack of
> several sim features really penalizes it when comparing products. Can
> you race against cars that can take and cause damage? Does your
> performance suffer if that happens? Does the AI speed up or slow down
> depending upon your progress?
> I noticed in one of the promo adds, they had A BMW LMR V12 Le Mans car
> racing against a C60 Courage. Kudos for them, even tho I'm betting 98%
> of GT4's target audience doesn't have the slightest clue about the kind
> of racing those cars participated in.
> As a simmer who races online, I want my competitors to face the same
> restrictions of view that I do. Nobody can say a kite flyer on an oval
> doesn't have an advantage, he can see the distance to the wall, he can
> see how close the other cars are to his side, those are advantages that
> are not possible in real racing and thus should dissuade a true 'Simmer.'
> The fact that two generations have grown up thumb-driving behind cars
> from console products will only add to this divergence.
> Use GT4 all you want, enjoy it's diversity, marvel at it's near
> lifelike graphics, "thrill" to competing against a half dozen other cars,
> but don't even begin to think that it compares to titles with 40 or 50+
> car fields with damage physics and AI that attempt to mimic racecraft and
> and incar views.
> As Jan stated, you can be an R/C operator, or you can be a simulated
> pilot driving your car, not operating it from a distance.
> So float behind your car all you want, I'm sure you'll be emminently
> qualified when a true Hang Gliding sim finally is released. But don't
> expect folks like me to ACCEPT your lame justification that*** your
> ***on the bumper is "JUST LIKE THE REAL THING!" Your brain may be able
> to filter out this non-sequiter, mine can't.
> dave henrie
Are you kidding? -of course it's a bumper cam. While it may not be at bumper
height for the Sauber (C9 or C11, I guess?), if you compare it's
significantly lower than the dash view in the Strietzel M3 clip. From the
way the viewpoint reacts as the car clips the kerbs it's also fairly obvious
to me it's in front of the front axle and situated smack in the middle of
the car, whereas the Sauber prototypes are right hand drive.
It's "front of the hood" view at best.
Don't get me wrong: not having a***pit view, in itself, does not detract
from a game, IMO, unless it claims to be a simulation.
Jan.
=---
That's why I've never played a sports game. NFL, NBA, NHL, Soccer,
there are alot of sports that call them selves simulatrions, but unless
they're all done from a 1st person perspective, then they're simply
kiddie games. The Sims? How can that be called a simulator? It
doesn't simulate 99% of what it means to be a human.
People, it's called a S-I-M-U-L-A-T-I-O-N. Simply because something
doesn't simulate every nuance of an activity doesn't mean it's not a
simulation. GT4 is every bit a simulation as Grand Prix Legends,
Nascar 2003, GTR, GTP, and any other product you want to throw out.
simulation P Pronunciation Key (smy-lshn)
n.
The act or process of simulating.
- An imitation; a sham.
- Assumption of a false appearance.
- Imitation or representation, as of a potential situation or in
experimental testing.
- Representation of the operation or features of one process or system
through the use of another: computer simulation of an in-flight
emergency.
> <general definition snipped>
In the context of this group and driving/racing simulations, however, I tend
to use a rather more strict definition of the term, as do most posters I
think.
As any further elaboration has been proven pointless in the past, I'd like
to leave it at that. We've strayed far enough from the original point(*) as
it is.
Jan.
=---
(*): which was that the omission of a***pit view in GT4 puts off a lot of
simmers who otherwise enjoy less elaborate sims, not "GT4 is ***because it
doesn't have a***pit view", BTW.
Check the charter for this NG. And google, for the numerous threads we've
had here in it's existence. The GT series isn't what we would call anywere
near the simulation level that some PC software offer, in terms of realism
of racing. Ain't anything that I call *racing* in GT4. BANG into the
wall/other driver/great let's face the next corner now while the AI
artificially is faster behind us and slower in front of us...
--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
That's not very realistic either...
-jde
And for the past 6-7 years, we've had good feedback thru the wheel rim.
Finally, of the 5 senses, the visual almost always trumps the rest (unless
yer a dog), so I can live with that.
Simulation means, no these games aren't exactly like driving a real car,
they're as much like driving a real car as a bunch of car-crazy programmers
and high-end h/w engineers can make it.
It's good enuf for me. In fact, I'm lovin' it!
> > We are simulating DRIVING.
> Yet you're still relegated to translating visual inputs into what your
> ***should be telling you. ;-)
> That's not very realistic either...
> -jde
Plus, Dave and I have been poking each other's buttons for years. ;-)
-jde
> No.
> Check the charter for this NG. And google, for the numerous threads
we've
> had here in it's existence. The GT series isn't what we would call
anywere
> near the simulation level that some PC software offer, in terms of
realism
> of racing. Ain't anything that I call *racing* in GT4. BANG into
the
> wall/other driver/great let's face the next corner now while the AI
> artificially is faster behind us and slower in front of us...
rec.autos.simulators.... hmmmm, let me think about that. GT models
automobiles, simulates them and it mainly used for recreation. Seems
to me it fits right into the charter.
>rec.autos.simulators.... hmmmm, let me think about that. GT models
>automobiles, simulates them and it mainly used for recreation. Seems
>to me it fits right into the charter.
yup, In fact I almost got him to admit that Ton...I mean Satan's CHild
really is a bad guy. lol!!!
dave henrie
> > It's good enuf for me. In fact, I'm lovin' it!
> Me too, but I see the strength in the simulation is in capturing the
> mental aspects of racing and racecraft (esp. online) more than the
> actual driving experience.
> Plus, Dave and I have been poking each other's buttons for years. ;-)
> -jde
