rec.autos.simulators

The reason is, when I play F1-2000, I never get the feeling I'm

it might be the sound, or the behaviour of the AI, I don't know. It
just doesn't do it for me.

Anyway, that's  just MY opinion. The reason I posted was that you said
it's the best modern F1 sim. It might be for some, and not for others.
I do think you don't help people with a statement like that...

Remco

I must agree, it is a shame that GPL did not sell well. I've played it
for many hours and managed to defeat the usual time barriers that most
complain of, but unfortunately I didn't find it fun. The lack of help
options alienated it to the majority of the market, but up until F1-2000,
I'd still jump in it every now and then and marvel at what Papy actually
achieved.

Fair enough, I hope GP3 models tracks to your satisfaction cos you look
wanting. ;) I don't have any quantative numbers, but I'd guess that the
majority of potential purchasers don't share your passion for track
accuracy.

I guess we won't know what ISI had to go on when modelling the tracks. I
don't think they purposely made a half-assed effort in modelling the
tracks. Could have been a time to release constraint, could have only had
mpgs of the tracks in order to model them, who knows. I doubt it was due
to them just not caring. I suspect they wouldn't have released the
unofficial patch if they just didn't care.

I skipped the game based on the outcry in here about poorly modelled
'insert track/car/size of head here'. However, I read a number of glowing
reviews with 1.6 applied and I couldn't resist. I'm glad I got it because
I was hungry for an F1 sim aand going back to F1RS 1 and 2 didn't satisfy
me.

Cheers,
Rod.

In pushing limits, comprimises have to be made. Hey, it's a shame that
the tracks aren't modelled to perfection, but there's only several
handfulls of people that would be able to tell. As much as games are
about pushing the envelope, it's also about cost vs benefit. For
instance, spending $20,000 and an extra month or two to perfectly model
modern F1 tracks to please those handful that have their panties in a
bunch would hardly be a good business decision.

At least the title would actually make it to market though ;)

If GPL was Papy's flagship title, then Papy would be in financial
trouble. It had all the realism you'd want, but Joe Schmo didn't buy it.
Down to the last inch realism won't sell you any more titles than close
enough to real for the average game buyer. I'd be interested to know how
F12000 sold against GPL within the first 2 months.

Cheers,
Rod.

We'll also start to alienate developers who don't see the financial
investment of bringing out a simulator to market because it costs too
much to develop.

Same thing is happening to flight-sims right now, ironically, the sim
that nearly everyone holds in such high regard right now is a chopper sim
that makes *alot* of reality comprimises.

Virtual motorsports will be doomed when it can't be sold to a large
section of the mass market. Just because a sim doesn't meet your reality
requirements, doesn't mean the ass is going to fall out of the racing sim
market.

Cheers,
Rod.

About track accuracy: To those of us, who have not actually driven on
those tracks, it is enough that what we see in the games/sims is
accurate enough compared to what we see in TV...

Arto

I don't think it's necessarily about track accuracy on the whole, it's
just that apparently it's quite obvious in F12K that there are some
flaws.
You say you're happy with partially-accurate tracks: Would you settle
for cars that handled "kinda" like F1 cars, or cars which "sorta" looked
like F1 cars? Driver names "a bit" like the real ones?

It's just that if it claims to be a sim, then all aspects should be
modelled as accurately as possible.

--
Cheers!
Graeme Nash

IMHO!

All simulators have flaws. ;)

I don't know how F1 cars actually handle, yet F12000 is convincing enough
for me to believe that F! cars handle in a similar fashion. Would I play
something that was obviously incorrect? Depends on whether it was fun or
not.

You could also call the drivers or tracks whatever the hell you want,
doesn't affect my enjoyment while I am in the***pit. We all know that
it'll be patched by fans to modify those kinds of minor details anyway ;)

Perhaps it's modelled as accurately as possible whilst taking into
consideration, time, financial and gameplay constraints? ISI's goal
whilst trying to develop a mass marketed realistic simulator is to
actually make a profit.

Cheers,
Rod.

You have no idea of what you are talking about.  ISI had the technical data
much more in-depth than you may think.  Having participated far in the
development of other F1 titles, I can tell you you can have easy access to
incredibly detailed track data.  Having a FIA license give you an incredible
ammount of tools to model tracks.  Other companies like Papyrus send people
onto those tracks to get detailed information about tracks.  The crew who
worked on SBK 2000 did that.  So why couldn't ISI do it also, when a title
by the same producer (EA) did it?  Laziness, not caring about a portion of
their customers, <insert reason here>.

Of course some minor flaws have to be accepted, but limits are limits.  Just
take a peek at Monza, Monaco, Montreal, Spa, etc.. They have -major- flaws
that other titles don't have.  Gp2 was modeled with extremely limited tools
and had better tracks.  Some arcade-based titles, who are obviously targeted
to arcade-type gamers who care less about tracks, have better accuracy at
Monza.  Why is this thread popping up each month or so.  Go to deja.com and
research about the poor track accuracy.

Well it's not, so?  GPL was marketed for a specific portion of the market.
Why do we have to tell this to everybody who doesn't have a clue?  It on
purpose did not have any kind of versatile help system because that's how it
was designed for.  Legends-type racing simulations sell poorly also to the
mass market.

But GPL wasn't made for Joe Schmo.

Apples and oranges. It's like asking to see the car sales between the Ford
Focus and a Ferrari Modena.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.WeRace.net
-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

You've just got to love messages that start like this.

I wasn't questioning whether they had the data, but the time and money
to model the track to your personal specifications. Both you nor I will
know the answer to that one.

Participated in devlopment? Did it include funding it?

You've just said they've got access to incredible detailed track data, why are
you damning ISI for not going out to the track? If the amount of data
they had was accurate, why would it be neccessary to go out to the track?

Not caring about a portion of their customers? You can't please everyone,
and EA Sports products are typically marketed to the mainstream.

Do you know what goals of the development team were? If not, how can you
claim they were either lazy or did not care?

I've never been involved in the development of an F1 sim, but I suspect
that modelling a track to ~90% accuracy would take a fraction of the time
and development costs of modelling the track to 100% accuracy.

It's not me that has a problem with the tracks (?) I've also never stated that
they were 100% accurate! If you want such a thread to die, you should
stop laying the boot into this sim at every opportunity you get, then it
will die.

You're quite the obnoxious schmuck, aren't you? It demonstrates my point. Model
something to the nth degree and you risk alienating the majority of
potential customers. Something I'm sure ISI and EA *didn't* want to do.

Doesn't really help a developer in a competitive market, does it?

Exactly my point!

We've got a group of GPL fanatics salivating at the thought of GPL2, if GPL
was made more accessible to the average schmoo via help functions, it
would have been received better by reviewers, most likely have sold more
copies and GPL2 could have been closer to reality!

They're both motor racing simulations that run on my PC, hence *my
interest* in knowing the comparable sales. You're not going to start
telling me what I'm allowed to be interested in now, are you?

Cheers,
Rod.

Thats exactly my point. I just got F1 99 by Psychnosis. An arcade game with
awfull GP1-type car physics. But still: some tracks are better than those in
F1 2000. Just WHY are most of the F1 2000 tracks SOOOO bad?
I just don't get it.

For those who don't care about track accuracy, go to the newsgroup:
rec.auto.games
This one is called : rec.auto.SIMULATORS!
So thats what we should be talking about: SIMULATION.

Coming from you it can only be the truth, so yes I guess I must
be a superior human being.

If nothing else you are entertaining. Please keep posting.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

BTW, Francois, I'm beginning to think that you have a financial interest in
deja.com!

I was glad to see from another post that you actually got round to buying
F12K. Have you installed the patch, or do you just run it to get your ***
pressure up when you go round Eau Rouge.  I just have this vision of you
measuring the lengths of the kerbing and the grandstands, writing to RAS
about how F12K is 3 feet short on the main hot dog stand at Suzuka!
Still, I hope you're getting some enjoyment out of it!
Iain

It's simulating an F1 car, the accuracy of the tracks is inconsequential.
It's still a simulator.

But you've taken it to the extreme. I don't think anyone in this thread
said they didn't care about track accuracy, but that the accuracy of the
tracks was acceptable to everyone but a handfull of people.

You obviously don't like F12000, that's fine. But some of us here do.

Cheers,
Rod.