rec.autos.simulators

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

Frank Koeni

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by Frank Koeni » Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00

Are we to continue to respect Papyrus and Sierra when it is obvious that by
abandoning the GPL engine in this way, they have given up on advancing the
state of the art in sim racing.  Even if they had put out a sim that was the
equal of GPL in terms of physics, graphics, etc., it would have been the
best ever implementation of REALISM in the Nascar world.

It was stated in an interview on AGN a few months back that the GPL engine
was written to be transferrable to any type of motor sim. When I heard that
I had hopes that there would be a bunch of racing titles by others that
perhaps would be based on the GPL engine. It could have been like the
Doom/Quake engine which was licensed to many other software firms and there
were a bunch of other implementations of the same first person shooter
technology.

But now that the authors of the engine themselves have been unable to make
it work for Nascar and are giving up, the hopes that EA or others with the
official licenses for their type of racing will use the excellent physics of
the GPL engine are gone. If the authors of the engine can't make it work,
nobody else is going to take a risk on the GPL licensing fees AND additional
R&D dollars to pick up where Papy left off and make it work. They'll just
take the easy way out and make an arcadish game.

By giving in to what appears to be pressure from Sierra, Papyrus has done
the greatest dis-service to the sim racing community. They have created the
perception that advancing the state of the art is commercially unfeasable.
Forevermore, GPL with its lackluster sales will be percieved by game
producers as a testament to what happens when you try to push the state of
the art in realism.

The last hope we who seek realism most of all have is Geoff Crammond and
GP3. At least he had the foresight years ago to retain the rights to GP2 so
that he and only he would make the decision as to when to release the game.
Do you think Geoff would have allowed Microprose or anyone else to have
forced him to release the game instead of spending six additional months on
perfecting crashes and spins? The game may not have had everything in it
that he would have liked, but at least he never compromised on something as
fundamental as the physics engine! So what if the hardware to run it at it's
full potential wasn't even on the drawing boards at the time of it's
release. It was VERY playable at its first release and it still was capable
of growing in graphic detail as the hardware grew more powerful. I hope that
GP3 will be a tremendous commercial sucess and that Geoff's business model
of retaining full control and being the sole judge of when a game is worthy
of release and what will go in it will be validated. If having to deal with
slipped dates is the tradeoff for this kind of dedication to quality
simulations, then I say its far better than what Papy/Sierra has done.

Respect Papyrus? After what they have done to the future of racing sims with
this abandonment of the GPL Engine in the face of its greatest opportunity
to show the world that the state of the art realism in GPL can be
commercially sucessful, I can only say thanks for nothing.

john moor

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by john moor » Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00

You need to seperate Papyrus from Sierra. Papy cannot be held liable for the
decisions of disconnected suits. I would love to hear the real deal from someone
at papy!
Is this decision a technical issue of not being able to use the GPL engine?
Will N2000 be as cutting edge as GPL?
If the answer to these is yes then we have nothing to worry about. On the other
hand if (imo) if they do not let the cat out of the bag soon they could be
considered to be hiding something, scary.
JM

> Are we to continue to respect Papyrus and Sierra when it is obvious that by
> abandoning the GPL engine in this way, they have given up on advancing the
> state of the art in sim racing.  Even if they had put out a sim that was the
> equal of GPL in terms of physics, graphics, etc., it would have been the
> best ever implementation of REALISM in the Nascar world.

> It was stated in an interview on AGN a few months back that the GPL engine
> was written to be transferrable to any type of motor sim. When I heard that
> I had hopes that there would be a bunch of racing titles by others that
> perhaps would be based on the GPL engine. It could have been like the
> Doom/Quake engine which was licensed to many other software firms and there
> were a bunch of other implementations of the same first person shooter
> technology.

> But now that the authors of the engine themselves have been unable to make
> it work for Nascar and are giving up, the hopes that EA or others with the
> official licenses for their type of racing will use the excellent physics of
> the GPL engine are gone. If the authors of the engine can't make it work,
> nobody else is going to take a risk on the GPL licensing fees AND additional
> R&D dollars to pick up where Papy left off and make it work. They'll just
> take the easy way out and make an arcadish game.

> By giving in to what appears to be pressure from Sierra, Papyrus has done
> the greatest dis-service to the sim racing community. They have created the
> perception that advancing the state of the art is commercially unfeasable.
> Forevermore, GPL with its lackluster sales will be percieved by game
> producers as a testament to what happens when you try to push the state of
> the art in realism.

> The last hope we who seek realism most of all have is Geoff Crammond and
> GP3. At least he had the foresight years ago to retain the rights to GP2 so
> that he and only he would make the decision as to when to release the game.
> Do you think Geoff would have allowed Microprose or anyone else to have
> forced him to release the game instead of spending six additional months on
> perfecting crashes and spins? The game may not have had everything in it
> that he would have liked, but at least he never compromised on something as
> fundamental as the physics engine! So what if the hardware to run it at it's
> full potential wasn't even on the drawing boards at the time of it's
> release. It was VERY playable at its first release and it still was capable
> of growing in graphic detail as the hardware grew more powerful. I hope that
> GP3 will be a tremendous commercial sucess and that Geoff's business model
> of retaining full control and being the sole judge of when a game is worthy
> of release and what will go in it will be validated. If having to deal with
> slipped dates is the tradeoff for this kind of dedication to quality
> simulations, then I say its far better than what Papy/Sierra has done.

> Respect Papyrus? After what they have done to the future of racing sims with
> this abandonment of the GPL Engine in the face of its greatest opportunity
> to show the world that the state of the art realism in GPL can be
> commercially sucessful, I can only say thanks for nothing.

David G Fishe

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by David G Fishe » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00


Not the last at all. Don't be surprised if Rally Championship is the best
sim to date, and sets new, very high, standards in many areas.

David G Fisher

Te

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by Te » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00



You want to hear the real deal? It doesn't take a genious to figure
out that you can only produce anything as long as there's constant
flow of cash - to pay you, your co-workers, invest in
software/hardware etc.
To produce a title like GPL is certainly a honorable deed but alone it
also will never generate enough to keep the business running, much
less make any profit this way. Mind you, they are professionals who
wants to make those things for a living and not only to please a
handful of *** fans...
Therefore, as long as they don't have something ready that will really
sell, no matter how simple it is, we won't see any game using the GPL
engine and/or historical cars again...

--Tel

ymenar

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by ymenar » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00


But it's vaporware David. Cmon.  The only thing we saw was a video that
didn't showed anything "incredible".  No physic presentation, anything...

It's as vaporware as N3.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- May the Downforce be with you...

"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."

dolle_d..

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by dolle_d.. » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00



So after screwing the realism in Red Baron II Sierra are now going to
***the racing sims as well........ that is indeed sad news.

Dolle Dolf

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

Chris Schlette

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by Chris Schlette » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00

Read Mr. Nelson's editorial updates to his E3 reports.  Appears that N3
based off the GPL engine is still live and well...perhaps that bodes well
for CART2/3/2000/whatever. :)


Schlom

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by Schlom » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00

The only thing were all (including me to this point) are forgetting is that
NASCAR fans will buy ANYTHING with the NASCAR logo on it.  My experiance is
they dont really care what it is or who makes it or even (if its a game) how
hard it is to play.  Ive actually heard alot of complaints from the non
simracing community (ie die hard NASCAR fans) that NasRev was totally un
realistic (though i can see why) and that they preferred the tougher but more
realistic N2/N99.  I dont know if it will still hold true but if they dont know
how hard GPL is then they might not know how hard N3 with the same physics
would be.  They will jst run out and buy it cause it says NASCAR on it.

Of course im kind of just speculating here.  Nobody except Papy knows wht N3
will be like for sure.  But i suppose this applys no matter what happens.
Nascar fans buy Nascar stuff...

Just had to get that out of my system.

Chris

Ian Greenwo

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by Ian Greenwo » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00


There again, Sierra/Papy have sunk a HUGE sum of money in the
development of the GPL engine these last few years.  I am sure that
they (the suits) will want to see a further return from it, apart from
GPL. The sales of GPL have in general been disappointing in the UK as
far as i can gauge.

I hope that the marginal revenue accruing from  sales of a 'proper'
Nascar sim will outweigh the marginal costs of tweaking/developing the
GPL engine for it (and that Sierra can see this and act accordingly).
It is not clear though if N3 will supersede or compete with N2000. If
it supersedes, surely the game engine can be dumbed down for a mass
market whilst retaining an 'ultimate challenge' mode.

Additionally, the 'realistic sim ' segment of the overall market for a
Nascar simulator although small, is undoubtedly  important (not to
mention vocal), and carries with it a lot of  prestige for any
publisher that leads it (as Papy currently does).

I waited for GPL for a long time, and was not disappointed with the
result. It was and is the biggest advancement in  race sims since
GP1/World Circuit was in it's day all those years ago.  

It has set the new standard, and I would be very loath to spend my
hard-earned on anything that does not now approach those standards
(and certainly not on an N2 hangover as N2000 seems to be)

Just my thoughts

Ian

Erik Frechett

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by Erik Frechett » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00

Amen brother!  Give the arcaders their run-and-gun, never-brake e***ment
and let us simmers have at barely keeping the car on the road.  I love GPL
and will keep racing long after N2000 is on the store shelves.  It's a shame
sim-racers do not appear to be as dedicated to realism as flight-sim jocks.

--

Erik Frechette
The Pits Performance Team
www.theuspits.com/owheel/gpl/gpl.html

gordo..

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by gordo.. » Wed, 19 May 1999 04:00:00



You're right that it is a matter of economics. In fact, I wonder what
financial incentive there is for them to really work hard and release
the alleged "V1.1 patch". After all, GPL was pretty much bug-free for
the main features that it was supposed to support. Internet racing was
a last-minute add-on. I suspect that the large majority of people who
have bought GPL never race multiplayer and have never heard of VROC or
the RAS community. Where is Sierra's incentive? After all, nobody makes
any money off of VROC and other player-hosted Internet racing. Unless a
patch fixes a serious problem or adds features that will sell more
games, why should they do it?

On the other hand, someone might see a big market for multiplayer
racing that must be hosted by centralized servers that you have to pay
hourly rates to access. There are already some efforts along these
lines (the American Motorcyclist Assoc. is funding a company that's
developing a subscription-style motorcycle racing game), and we can
probably expect more. Will the sequel to GPL be a multiplayer game that
someone can make money from?

  -- Doug Gordon

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

ymenar

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by ymenar » Wed, 19 May 1999 04:00:00


Hey if it's realistic, well good for them and good for us.  Im in need for a
serious and realistic Rally racing simulator.  I would pay a hundred bucks
for such a thing.  I also doubt that Rally 99 will dissapoint, even if it's
near the quality of CMR (I liked CMR for the pure fun of racing the stages,
even if unrealistically (sp?)).

No demo, movie not showing any physics, and PR stuff.  It all looks great,
but I want to see how it performs before I spend my money.  Because it's my
own money I worked for... I want to be informed.  And I want a solid
multiplayer online racing, yes 1 after the other, with a delay of 30seconds
;)  I want also to hit a tree _hard_ going at 45mph, and end my weekend.

Well I agree with that, but it's still was a great step from the other rally
titles on the market.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- May the Downforce be with you...

"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."

Alison Hi

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by Alison Hi » Wed, 19 May 1999 04:00:00

On Tue, 18 May 1999 00:45:57 GMT, "Michael E. Carver"


>Until of late we have been a rather small "***" consumer (race
>simheads).  Now with the flood of "car" games and sims on the market, I
>think our ranks will swell.  I don't think the flight sim junkies (err
>excuse me "jockies"), just grew up overnight.  

I hope the racing sim ranks do swell!

And just think about what it would take to run a GPL-based NASCAR sim
properly.  It takes a 350 mhz machine or better and a state of the art
video card to run GPL well with all graphics on and a full field of 20
cars.

What would it take to run a full NASCAR field of 43 cars?  A 700 mhz
machine?  How many of us have a Pentium IX/700 lying around?

Maybe Papy and Sierra are doing the smart thing by pushing the GPL-based
NASCAR sim back awhile.

Alison



Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Philste

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by Philste » Wed, 19 May 1999 04:00:00


> On Tue, 18 May 1999 00:45:57 GMT, "Michael E. Carver"

> >Until of late we have been a rather small "***" consumer (race
> >simheads).  Now with the flood of "car" games and sims on the market, I
> >think our ranks will swell.  I don't think the flight sim junkies (err
> >excuse me "jockies"), just grew up overnight.

> I hope the racing sim ranks do swell!

> >One other thing to consider.... the better the simulation the large the
> >hardware demand.  Until you get the critter hooked on the softer stuff,
> >they won't be ready to spring for the hardware they need to feed their
> >*** jones.

> And just think about what it would take to run a GPL-based NASCAR sim
> properly.  It takes a 350 mhz machine or better and a state of the art
> video card to run GPL well with all graphics on and a full field of 20
> cars.

> What would it take to run a full NASCAR field of 43 cars?  A 700 mhz
> machine?  How many of us have a Pentium IX/700 lying around?

> Maybe Papy and Sierra are doing the smart thing by pushing the GPL-based
> NASCAR sim back awhile.

> Alison

Well said, Alison... We may be getting a better Nascar game in a year or
two. After all, they will have more time to work on it.

Philster

John Courtn

Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

by John Courtn » Wed, 19 May 1999 04:00:00

I feel better about the whole thing after reading the Operation Sports
article on Monday.  The way I look at it now, we'll hopefully be getting
a fairly good NASCAR sim in the fall (that will hopefully run well on our
current systems) and if things go keep going "on track" we'll have a
great NASCAR sim in a couple of years.  I wouldn't mind getting a good
CART sim too, CART has a great strategic element that I like, pit
strategy is extremely important just about every race.

Later,
John


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.