rec.autos.simulators

by **Gregor Vebl** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

> > A rigid body is correcly described in Newtonian mechanics in the
> > following way: the sum of all forces on the body creates an acceleration
> > of its *center* of mass, and the sum of all torques these forces produce
> > and other possible additional torques results in the change of the
> > angular momentum and hence the angular velocity with respect to the
> > *center* of mass of the car. Note the use of the words *center*.

> Ok ok ok you want to play with Semantics. Whatever.

You take a paragraph about basic facts of physics and you say I am
playing with Semantics, with a capital S? It seems futile for me to
discuss this matter any further with you, as we are talking in rather
different terms, and the precision needed to express oneself
scientifically is not something you keep in high esteem, it seems.

I feel the need to discuss your attitude, though:

Francois, you do have to realize that up to now I had some respect
towards you and your posts, even though I did not agree with them from
time to time. Was there anything in my previous post that could upset or
hurt you so much as to adopt a self protecting, seemingly superior
patronizing position? You should know by now that the posts sometimes
reflect what you want to see and not what is actually written. I ask you
to reread the original post and tell me what you find so offensive that
you had to revert to such infantile measures.

I only hope that you did this out of boredom and wanted to start a small
flame war. I am sorry, but I don't really have time for that.

-Gregor

by **Gregor Vebl** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Ah, that explains it perfectly! :)

-Gregor

> Well that's the problem them, you're thinking of the gradient when it was
> Loews, they changed it when they changed the name to Grand Hotel <G>

> --
> Ian P
> <E-mail address invalid due to spam>

> > > Yep same here. I didn't notice any problems with Monaco either. I
> > > guess people are just complaining about track inaccuracy just to
> > > give themselves the impression that they are elitist or something :-)

> > > --

> > Greg,

> > didn't you notice that in Monaco at the Loews corner the track drops at
> > about 10 degrees on the inside line while it should do so at about 8
> > degrees? I mean, how can you enjoy a sim with such innacuracies?

> > -Gregor

by **dirk diggle** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

F12000 is complete rubbish comparedto OF1 racing, OF1 gives you a much
better driving experience with over steer and understeer etc.

Graphics and tracks are utter ***on F12000. Don't waste your money!

by **Andre Warrin** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:13:12 +0100, "dirk diggler"

>F12000 is complete rubbish comparedto OF1 racing, OF1 gives you a much
>better driving experience with over steer and understeer etc.

>Graphics and tracks are utter ***on F12000. Don't waste your money!

This 'review' is utter ***too!

Andre

by **Ian** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

I disagree. If someone doesn't like a particular sim / game for whatever
reason be it track inaccuracies or any other reason, it is their decision.
It's pointless saying that they should make the most of what's currently
available, if they don't like the sim then they simply won't enjoy the
experience.

I personally like F1 2000 other's don't, they may like sim x while I
absolutely hate it, that is fair enough. They can use their sim of choice
and hopefully get a lot of enjoyment with it, I'll stick to what I like and
do the same :) but I wouldn't say "sim x is total ***don't bother with it,
get sim y because I think its the best that is currently available in it's
genre"
I think it's called freedom of choice or something ;)

I do however like to hear people's opinions on new sims as it helps me make
a choice on what to get next, after a while you get to know who likes
similar games to yourself :)
--
Ian P
<E-mail address invalid due to spam>

by No » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:13:12 +0100, "dirk diggler"

And I bet you tell the babes you have a 16inch*** too.
--
Nos

by **Keith Arche** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Dirk, I think yoy should stick to making ***o movies, and leave the serious
F1 game criticism alone.

OF1 is absolute shite - and was only installed on my system for a month
before I threw it away!

F1 2000 works well for me - and is IMHO just as good an experience as was
GP2 in the good old 486DX66 days.

Don't forget, when GP2 came out - I could not get any more than 12fps in the
game with full detail - which made it less playable and enjoyable - you
needed to turn off some detail to get the best out of it.

Sounds familar, yes? - Wait for hardware platforms to catch up with F1
2000 - and I suspect also with GP3 - from what I've seen and heard so far -
it's going to want some pretty hefty hardware to run it too!

All the best,

Keith

> F12000 is complete rubbish comparedto OF1 racing, OF1 gives you a much
> better driving experience with over steer and understeer etc.

> Graphics and tracks are utter ***on F12000. Don't waste your money!

> > >F1 2000 totally ***ed up this track section. In fact the whole Spa
track
> is
> > >awful: track is too wide or too narrow, and worst of all are all the
> wrong
> > >track elevations. And this goes for many of the other tracks too. F1
2000
> > >has done an awful job, and that's a fact. Those who claim they saw a
few
> > >in-car mpg's and decide the tracks are accurate are talking bullshit.
> > >Even Monza doesn't give the feel the track really has.

> > Er, uh, hmmm....
> > Well, look at the bright side. Nobody has posted any hotlaps for Spa.
> > The top talent seems to have completely ignored it. Therefore,
> > the top rank for Spa is wide open!

by **Iain Mackenzi** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

It lasted a month! Wow, that's dedication to duty for you. I would have
thought that an hour was too long!
Iain

by **Iain Mackenzi** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Don't know what your talking about here.
I didn't even mention F12K! I said that rather than wait for the perfect
sim that may not happen, one should get some enjoyment from racing the best
available - WHATEVER ANYONE THINKS THAT IS.
So it's probably best if you read the posts thoroughly before spouting
forth.
Iain

> I disagree. If someone doesn't like a particular sim / game for whatever
> reason be it track inaccuracies or any other reason, it is their decision.
> It's pointless saying that they should make the most of what's currently
> available, if they don't like the sim then they simply won't enjoy the
> experience.

> I personally like F1 2000 other's don't, they may like sim x while I
> absolutely hate it, that is fair enough. They can use their sim of choice
> and hopefully get a lot of enjoyment with it, I'll stick to what I like
and
> do the same :) but I wouldn't say "sim x is total ***don't bother with
it,
> get sim y because I think its the best that is currently available in it's
> genre"
> I think it's called freedom of choice or something ;)

> I do however like to hear people's opinions on new sims as it helps me
make
> a choice on what to get next, after a while you get to know who likes
> similar games to yourself :)
> --
> Ian P
> <E-mail address invalid due to spam>

> > > Errrr it was not universal..... CPR had its staunch supporters just as
> > > f12k does.
> > For various reasons, CPR was ultimately unplayable. The same cannot be
> said
> > about F12K.

> > > Me, I would rather have a fine steak with all the t***s and maybe
> even
> > a
> > > fine single-malt scotch for after dinner drinks.

> > As I've said before Michael, you're going to be waiting a long time (if
> > ever) for the perfect simulation, so you might as well get some
enjoyment
> > out of the best of what is out there - whatever you think that is - at
the
> > moment.

> > Iain

by **Ian** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

If you can't spot under and over steer in F1 2000 then you will prefer OF1R
as it is arcade and the physics model exaggerates those effects. Real f1
cars don't slide very much until they reach their limits then it's usually
all or nothing. Even F1 2000 shows too much oversteer or understter compared
to a real F1 car.
As for the graphics you must be running on a slow PC and / or older graphics
card because it looks damn pretty on my PC :)
No comment on the tracks, that's been dealt with already ;)

--
Ian P
<E-mail address invalid due to spam>

by **Greg Cisk** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

I checked the demo for one lap or two :-)

--

by **Greg Cisk** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Wow...

Who in the hell are you anyway???

--

by **Ian** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Sorry, I misinterpreted your meaning, written text can do that some times.
Just with it being an F1 2000 thread and it also being mentioned in the
message you replied to I put 2 and 2 together came up with 3 ;)
BTW I wasn't having a go at you just giving my opinion, and I'm not deaf yet
:)

--
Ian P
<E-mail address invalid due to spam>

by **ymenar** » Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:00:00

I fully understand what you were trying to say Gregor. It was semantics,
but I was on purpose saying those words because they are recognised.
Everybody knew what I was talking about, since we use those words for years
on r.a.s. to describe the effect. The cars turn like if we put a pole stick
dead-center of the car and make it pivot instead of having the front wheels
act as the "natural gardians" of turning.

Remember that I wasn't referring to F1 2000 about this effect, but mostly to
argue against poor track modeling, and the importance of it in racing
simulation ;)

It was a joke, most of all ;)

--
-- 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.

by **Gregor Vebl** » Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Hi Francois,

> > You take a paragraph about basic facts of physics and you say I am
> > playing with Semantics, with a capital S? It seems futile for me to
> > discuss this matter any further with you, as we are talking in rather
> > different terms, and the precision needed to express oneself
> > scientifically is not something you keep in high esteem, it seems.

> I fully understand what you were trying to say Gregor. It was semantics,
> but I was on purpose saying those words because they are recognised.
> Everybody knew what I was talking about, since we use those words for years
> on r.a.s. to describe the effect. The cars turn like if we put a pole stick
> dead-center of the car and make it pivot instead of having the front wheels
> act as the "natural gardians" of turning.

I still claim that I wanted to point out what a real physics description
of the system should be like. A prolonged usage of certain terms doesn't
make the idea behind them any more valid. As I said, I remeber how CPR
physics model was described in these same terms and I do believe that
this is where the terminlogy came from. Now I can only assume that these
same terms have either kept their meaning, or their meaning was so much
altered without any real agreement on them in the community so that they
now only provide a vague idea of what they are about, which in effect
renders them useless for any precise discussions.

One may perhaps say that it is about semantics. The problem is, you make
it sound that discussions of semantics are taking the topic away from
the main issue. You must be aware, though, that semantics is of high
importance when trying to discuss precise engineering or scientific
terms, otherwise you are talking past each other. Either you stick to
established scientific or engineering terms and expressions, and agree
on any new ones that are necessary to be introduced, or you cannot
discuss such matters to any reasonable degree. It's really very common
in any scientific discussion to stop and discuss the terms and their
meaning untill everyone agrees on them, and only then can the discussion
of a subject continue.

And we do agree that we are talking simulators and hence science and
engineering here, right?

I know that it was not about F1 2000, but it's a matter I wanted to
discuss for quite some time as I find the discussion of whether a car
turns with the center or the front wheels pointless since not one of
these rather vague terms describes what is really happening. The
transitional behaviour of a car is really all a combination of the car
actually turning around its center of mass due to the torques provided
by the front wheels.

OK, probably I overreacted, but you did as well, don't you agree ;) ?
You can call it a professional deformation, but I sometimes strive to be
rather precise when discussing such matters. It's the diversity amongst
us that makes the discussions interesting, though.

-Gregor

rec.autos.simulators

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!

F1 2000: It was now or never!