rec.autos.simulators

   Some one else is compiling a bug list for ICR II.  

   Here is my wish list for ICR III.

   Things I would like to see on tape:
      Race position, lap times, and perhaps times between points along
      the track (I don't remember what this is called, ESPN has a name
      for it).  I would also like to see tire temps.  

      The ability to play with the camera angles and zoom, at least for
      the TV shots.  

   Network server program:
      Several months ago someone at Papyrus posted about an upcoming
      multi player racing service.  I don't believe this was Rick.  
      This would allow many people to race against each other.  And,
      presumably, many different races to be going on at once.  

      While I'm sure this would be fun, and I'm sure you would have
      reasonable rates, I would rather pay a few extra bucks to have a
      server in my home where my friends could come over, or phone in,
      and race among ourselves.  

      The idea is any number could play, Network or serial.  

      I use other Unixes myself, perhaps this could be a Linux
      application.  It powers my Internet Service Provider. Something to
      keep costs down.  It would not be unreasonable to expect an NT
      server, running personal NT, if that's what you have been
      developing.  

      Make it a true 32 bit app.  Give me an excuse for getting a P6.  
      Make it exploit multi processors, off load tasks from the client
      machines.  

   Curbs:
      Any sim has to make compromises.  You have made good decisions as
      to what to model, and what to not model.  I've heard it described
      as "2 1/2 D".  But with the current and near-future computer
      horsepower, perhaps you can think about curbs, optional.  Just
      shaking the car vertically, with a reasonable effect on the
      handling, would be fine with me.  

   No engine blow up mode:  
      Some people who are just learning this game can't seem to keep from
      blowing up their engine.  This would save some grief.  Extra,
      "magic" traction would help the real wimps, but enough about me.  

   Different identities for different players:
      This hasn't been a problem for my friends and I, so it might not
      be a problem at all.  This is for those who wish to compete in
      seasons.  I could be wrong here, but it seems that there is only
      one identifiable person.  If I have several people taking turns
      at the wheel, is there a way for each to keep their own season on
      the machine?  Forgive me if this is a waste of bandwidth, I've
      never tried a season.  

      For servers, keep the driver's record on the servers to allow any
      player to be at any client machine.  

   Better sound:
      The sound isn't bad now.  I would prefer the raspier sound I heard
      on TV while the in-car camera, and mike, were running.  You could
      take some time to mike the sample car better.  And do more lab
      work on the samples if you feel there are elements of the sound that
      aren't right.  

   Selected Formula 3 series:
      I think I'd pick French for the first release, with all of the
      "other" Formula 3 events, Monaco, Donington Park, Zandvoort, and
      Macau.  I don't know much about most of these tracks, but I know
      a lot about a few of them.  

      I believe the Formula 1 license is unavailable.  

                                                        Thanks
                                                        Larry

Dave

200% in agreeance. Please provide IPX LAN support so we can compete
where we either won't have access to the WAN? (viz antipodes) or don't
wish to join in the WAN racing, preferring the improved play, control
and co-ordination of a LAN vs WAN.  Make it an optional module and we
have a choice of user pays.

The current spate of "exclusive online agreements" a la Spectrum
HoloBytes Falcon 4.0, Back to Bagdhad without LAN and modem support
and obvious marketing decision not to include LAN support in Papyrus's
(Sierra's) Indycar II are arrogantly contemptuous of the customer.

When they can be instituted into the sim fluidly ...yes please.

A selectable rev limiter would be superb.

More realistic sound as heard from the***pit.
Regards,

                 ---Cogito Ergo Sum---               *

* Fidonet:       3:640/377                            *
    Keiron Rado, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia     *  

In my opinion, if the folks at Papyrus had decided to "not be so arrogantly
contemptuous" (in your opinion) they would have had to release a product
which was so incomplete that most of the rest of us wouldn't have considered
it a product, or they would have delayed it until 1997.

        Pick any two:

                - full featured
                - fully debugged
                - delivered in 1995.

There's a limit to what humans can do in a given amount of time.  I think the
folks at Papyrus did an incredible job in the last twelve months just getting
where they did.

Anyone who thinks that Papyrus could have added many more features, or that
they ignored their customer has clearly never developed and supported a
software product.  I have, and I respect their judgement.

Anyone who feels that this is "arrogantly contemptuous of the customer"
is, in fact, arrogantly presumptuous.

The nature of your requests for features seem reasonable, though.

--

Brian Wong                              Systems Engineering Group (Servers)

Hi Brian 8 ^)

The same place/s *you* can if you care to *actually research* the
issue/s.

Their own W3 sites where the news is clearly posted, and from e-mail
to the relevant individuals, who as I'm sure even you can understand,
deserve the confidentiality of their private e-mail responses
respected.

But then you'd have to pay attention to detail Brian, and not just
read the headlines or swallow their slick "we're doing it in the best
interest of the customer" euphemisms.

Now who's being incorrectly and arrogantly presumptious? Are you sure
you aren't in marketing Mr. WONG? <g>

What in earth has playing Indycar II got to do with a comment on their
decision not to include LAN support?!! You have a serious flaw in your
logic circuit there Brian! <g>

They're gonna'love ya!...but again, what has this to do with the
topic??? They don't seem to have "their hands *FULL*" sufficiently to
be too busy to include future WAN support ..do they?

This is absolutely drivel, and incorrect both in reality and fact.

Please undertake remedial reading classes before you attempt to
respond to any more of my posts.

Congratulations. You've done a nice job of distorting what I said in
the full paragraph out of all context, and tried to make it appear a
full ***ed attack on Papyrus. Not so.(see above for those not
wishing to read the original full article)

It is clear for anyone reasonably conversant with the English language
and an IQ greater than their shoe size, that I was referring to
corporate marketing in general, and gave several specific examples
thereof, Papyrus being 1 of 3 companies mentioned thereoff.

I can only assume your powers of deduction and perspective are similar
in quality to your attention to detail and logic. 'Blind Freddy' could
see why there is no LAN in Indycar II, or BTB...or dare I say it
Falcon 4.0?

Further, why don't you actually get your facts together rather than
posting this illogical and biased trash. Speak to Mr. "X", and he'll
tell you that IPX LAN for 6-8 wouldn't have been very difficult to
implement in ICR II and was pulled by marketing, and was not a
technical hindrance at all.

Or in plain simple English, you're wrong ...Mr. WONG. <smile>

OK I may be wrong about Falcon 4.0 LAN, and I *sincerely* hope I
am...for all of us....but experience of human nature says that I'll
offer *you* odds on that Falcon 4.0 *won't* include LAN support
because of their exclusive online agreement with TEN. Now put your
money where your mouth errr...keyboard <g> is!

Now you tell me 'Oh self proclaimed Master of Indycar II', who would
be *PREDOMINENTLY* responsible for such a decision, tech or
marketing??? I mean, if tech are clever enough to implement WAN, well
I'll leave that to you powers of deduction...on second thought, maybe
I'd better not! <smile>

                - IPX LAN support       yes

But you've left out LAN...'cause you're not interested in it? Afraid
of a bit of *thinking* multiplayer competition are we? I added it for
you and it becomes my second choice of 4.

Co-ordinating 6 people on a network for any degree of serious
simulation is a mastery in itself, and that's with real time comms.
You'd probably appreciate that if you'd flown Falcon to any degree on
a LAN.

As for the organised arcade chaos of 32 people, with limited voice
comms ability (if at all), of varying skill levels at remote locations
on a WAN...<bfg> ..with crash damage on...well I guess it'd probably
be the sort of game *you'd* enjoy. <cs>

Did I say otherwise?

Your attempted innuendo is despicible, and I hope is not fully
indicative of your character in general.

In fact I have publicly thanked Rick on several occasions and praised
aspects of the work of Papyrus. You conveniently missed this detail
though I notice. Hmmmm... Do you also drive Indycar II with your
myopia left turned on?

Guilty your Honour....of thinking...a crime you will undoubtedly never
be indicted for.

And yes they could've added a feature, LAN support...You're inferring
that putting WAN suppport into the Indycar II product was
easier....??? You must enjoy that game called "Climbing the Greasy
Pole". <g> Do your research though, Papyrus is probably firing, not
hiring, ...well non-tech staff anyway, and your forte is obviously
marketing. <g>

I'll have to take your words with the levity they deserve here I'm
afraid. <ROTFL>

Almost without exclusion, every one of the points made in your
response were ill researched, presumtuous with no basis in fact,
emotive, and seeking public aplause by innuendo and distortion.

As for arrogance...your own ill founded presumptions give it new
meaning. I shall have to forward it to the Oxford Press for
re-definition. <g>

Now let's get back to Indycar II, points both good and bad. It ain't
perfect like you ...you know. <g>

Regards,

                 ---Cogito Ergo Sum---               *

* Fidonet:       3:640/377                            *
    Keiron Rado, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia     *  

ancient koan might be all...   "a live bird in the air is worth many
dead birds in the cage"   (or something...)

A TRACK EDITOR!

I know, 'somebody' is always posting that it would take too much time,
and the tools are not easy to use. But HEY! I spent 500+ hours
with ICR 1, and I hope I'm getting my PhD in computer science soon...

I'm ready to spend 100+ hours to design my own track, and I guess
there are several others out, too...

   Herbert

If you're getting a PhD is CS, then write you own track editor!

Mike

Of course, I have already considered this.
But decoding the strange data format is a bit too timeconsuming :-(

   Herbert

HP>A TRACK EDITOR!

HP>I know, 'somebody' is always posting that it would take too much time,
  >and the tools are not easy to use. But HEY! I spent 500+ hours
  >with ICR 1, and I hope I'm getting my PhD in computer science soon...

HP>I'm ready to spend 100+ hours to design my own track, and I guess
  >there are several others out, too...

Hehehe...you think a 100 hours will build you a good track?  A good level
for DOOM takes that much.

---
 * TLX v4.10 * "If you've got a better idea, I'm all ears"
---
 * OLX 2.2 TD *

Please no track editors.  The real drivers cant edit thier tracks
Brian

B.C.   Canada

 * JABBER v1.1 * "You Pathetic Decendant of Monkeys!"--WC]I[
--
| Fidonet:  Dave Henrie 1:346/25

| Fido -> Internet/Usenet via Net 346 Services

soon...

If you getting your "PhD" soon as you keep telling us, write your own
damn track editor.

Mike