rec.autos.simulators

Pete, the track is a public road 364 days per year.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.racesimcentral.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.

Which is why I won't waste time doing it.  I know it's totally wrong, but I
have chosen to not waste time upon the beleivers who were manipulated into
thinking the modeling is very good.

No, as I have never been to this track.

--
-- 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.
.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Manipulated?

I'm comparing a lap that I do in F1-2000 to a fast lap of Schumi
downloaded from an independent site. I don't work for EA and I can only
make the assumption that the person who runs this site does not modify
the fast laps to match that of F1-2000! As yet, (at least to my
knowledge) an EA rep hasn't visited my home with tools of torture to
convince me that the modelling of Canada feels real. I used independent
judgement of around 300 laps of the circuit in F1-2000 and a video
capture of a flying lap of Schumi. Hence, I haven't been manipulated.

His braking points, turning points, gear change points are almost
identical to mine. I've even crashed into the barrier on the last chicane
exactly the same way Schumi did! Show 1 second of film of his lap and I
could tell you exactly where on the circuit he is based solely from doing
laps within F1-2000.

To me, that is an acceptable modelling of this track. To the majority of
people after watching his fast lap and doing laps of their own I would
assume it would be acceptable modelling, to the most ***about us,
there's probably a rumble strip that isn't even on the racing line that's
been heniously left out and has completely ruined the whole racing
experience on this track.

Cheers,
Rod.

I just know I'll never have a point against you people, that's all.  Even if
I know I have the truth about the Montreal track.  You just go "hey I have
compared a low frame and low resolution MPG with the actual game and it's
incredibly realistic".  I just go "well I was there, I raced on the track, I
walked the track, I roller-bladed on the track, I went on the track with my
bicycle, I know each and every inch of the track, and it's far from
realistic".  But you'll go "show me proof!" while I go "It's a waste of
time, I just know it's incredibly poor".  Some people then would flame me
for having no proof, yet they don't have much on their side.

At the end, the whole discussion has some truth behind, and the truth is
that with all the tools the FIA gives them, they should had modeled the
track perfectly, which is not.  I'm still wondering where is the little
downhill bump after turn 3, or the positive banking going into the hairpin
(about 3degrees of banking), or the little bump on the inside of the kink
before the Senna chicane, or the track width of the last stretch, or the
distance between the track and the armco at some places, or the <insert
thousand of other things that I know are badly modeled>.  Trusting my words
aren't enough I guess?

--
-- 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.

    Pete

--

Here is what I said:

How did my line go from *acceptable modelling* to incredibly
realistic!??!? I did not even elude that it's incredibly realistic. In
fact, I'd suspect that any impartial reader would likely translate that
as saying that it's *not* incredibly realistic, but portrays the feel of
the track very well. Before watching the footage, I used the same gears,
same braking points, same turn in points, rode the rumble strips at the
same points and even crashed the same way Schumi did on the video
footage. I was shocked after I d/l'ed the footage. Based on that, most
would conclude that it models the track *very well*.

I guess the game is targeted at people who *do not* rollerblade around F1
tracks.

I've never said such a thing! You said something along the lines of 'Do
you want me to start Rod?' I said, 'Sure, go ahead. List them all'. You
volunteered the information, then shut up. Did I then bother to follow up
and ask you for the information? Nope. Would I have waited a few more
days and then asked? Nope.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Firstly, I doubt you can confirm any
information that the FIA provided to ISI. We don't know limits like
budget and time contraints, gameplay balance or pandering to the
overwhelming minority who would not notice a 3 degree camber. There do
seem to be glaring omissions on a few corners on very few tracks, bummer.
Hardly enough to base a personal vendetta over when someone puts F1-2000
in the header of a message. Or proclaim that the game is 'pure shit'.

Which to most would be largely insignificant.

Would be damn hard to translate into your average 15" PC monitor. 3
degrees on a display would be a matter of a few pixels! The mpg footage
expanded to full screen does not show an obvious camber (now that you
told me, I'm in two minds whether I can see a *very* slight camber).
Stands to reason that it would look the same out of a full screen mpg as
it would on a sim using the same viewing technology. I suspect the only
way to translate the look of the hairpin would be to over-exaggerate it,
but then you don't know if it's actually modelled from a physics
perspective.

Again, reasonably insignificant.

There are 2 bumps where I was bottoming out on due to my setup between
the start finish line and the first left hander, that in the footage,
Schumi's carcam did seem to show (but not as obviously). Could I see
them? No, but the physics engine told me they were there. Are they really
there? No idea! Canvas a few thousand F1 fans who haven't rollerbladed on
the track, would they know they were there? I'd wager the majority would
say no. Possibly it's a limitation of the graphics engine?

If this is indeed correct, then I would agree, poor ommission. But I
guess it depends on how much it's out by.

Shouldn't be hitting the armco anyways ;)

Going on your track record of over-exaggerating everything, no - not
really. Are you in a better position to judge the track? Most certainly!  
I just hope that GP3 does it right for you, cos I don't want to go
through this same shit all over again. (copy already reserved, and will
probably one of the first in the world to be able to legally purchase a
copy over the counter) ;)

Cheers,
Rod.

How do you know? Have you polled a group of people? Any serious data you can
give us? If not, then you are like me, I have to trust your words like you
have to trust mine.  You compare your lap to a low-quality MPG and some TV
footage, while I compare the track to all the experience I have there.  Like
some people who live near Spa can say about the track, or the people who
live near Monaco.

I think we both are now searching for 2 different points.  Yes the track
might be "average" for the casual gamer who simply want to do some laps
around a circuit and not care much about the track camber exiting the Senna
curve (one thing that is not modeled correctly per example).  But some of us
DO care, especially on a newsgroup devoted to racing simulations, thus
recreating real-life situation via virtual reality.

I know the information they gave to other company who did a F1 simulation (I
think everybody knows that company).  I can assume the situation easily.
The game was pushed by EA so they could have it on the shelves when the F1
season started as we all know.  I also speculated about the game engine and
it's potential, and speculated on how good the 3d modelers are at ISI.

I never said it was pure shit.  In fact I retracted many statements and I
can see how some people appreciate the title.  I don't like the feeling of
the game engine and it's physics modeling, but I can see how it can please
simracers.  I just wish it was more "brake/downshift/turn/accelerate" like
modern F1 cars behave compared to the software who makes us
"brake/turn&brake/turn&accelerate/accelerate".  Anybody who was at the
hairpin in Montreal or the Senna curve this weekend during the first 2 days
(excluding the race since it rained) knew that they don't accelerate but
keep low-revs into the apex, and still keep low-revs until they reach a
point where the front-wheels won't induce any sideway slip, then accelerate.
It's not like that in F1 2000.

It's very important!  It gives the whole flow to the corner and the next two
(heading into the curving stretch).  How can you say a corner is less
important than others? The downhill + banking creates an incredible
sensation of acceleration when you are exiting the apex.

The old Papyrus game engine modeled oval banking very well on the stretches
(most of them have small banking on the stretches).  The new one is even
better, per example the camber at Watkins Glen is very small in degrees yet
you can easily feel it.  And be sure than when you are racing the track in
Montreal, you do feel the banking, especially when you want to do a correct
approach to your braking zone.

It's there in real-life, I know what you are talking about.  It just shows
that your MPG footage gives your false information, since it's reall there
;)

It's from my calculations about 15% too wide, it's incredibly narrow,
especially on the first part before it straighten up.

True ;-P

And going on your track records of saying that X thing isn't important while
Y is in a racing simulator? Everything to my eyes is important, and the
technology should push them the most possible.  I did not expect accuracy
5years back, but now with the tools they have, I do, especially in racing
simulations.  We aren't talking about arcade games here, but racing
simulations!  Something that simulates real-racing, in every aspect of it,
including the track modeling, the car shapes (ex: gp3), sound, overall
feeling, color palette (ex: F12k), etc... I'm mad when it's not correctly
done, but I accept it, unless somebody in this NG devoted to virtual reality
racing simulation and the accuracy of them says it's good, even for the
masses.

I'm anxious to see GP3's track accuracy, but don't expect me to post
anything about it unless the subject is brought often in the NG.  I think we
all saw the incredible ammount of people since F1 2000 is released
complaining about the tracks.  It goes back to C:PR the last time we had
such discussions about the tracks, since most of the software reach a level
of accuracy acceptable for the mass.  I do think that even for the mass F1
2000 is a laugh.

This is a good thread when taken seriously, it shows we have a long way to
go and some incredible dilemnas to have by both the customer who wants
realism (you know, the "***" racing simulation fan") and also by the
*** companies who have to deal with all the business situation.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.racesimcentral.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.

What's your point? Have you even been to the track and understood how the
public road is there?

Mmm, you would be surprised how similar it is.  Cmon John, I'm most of the
time at short distance from the track, so I know what I'm talking about.
Nobody goes on those roads since they lead to nothing at the expectiono of
10% to the ***, and there is many forms of racing during the early hours
of the night.  It's mostly the same, same everything at the expection of the
fences, grandstands and such other things.  That I get the information since
Im there all 3 days since years, and also there during the construction
period.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.racesimcentral.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.

Approximately 20 fellow sim racers that I know personally or from work
feel the same way, they couldn't tell the difference. In fact, some were
downright impressed, so several went out and bought the title. That's why
I put 'assume'. (Benny Hill jokes aside)

Yes, I understand that. I do care to a point, but the nature of software
development these days does not lead to spending too long getting the
modelling of tracks, cars, etc. I want as realistic a track as possible
as well, but will settle for a comprimise, knowing that without it, the
title may never made it to the shelf. (I don't see you round the flight-
sim group, so you're spared the pain of title after title being axed
recently).

But you don't know the level of info ISI recieved. I don't think anyone
would argue that EA put a firm release date based on the start of the F1
season. I'd wager that it would take an equal amount of time to model a
track to 80% accuracy as it would to model the last 20% Considering the
'unofficial' aftermarket support that ISI has shown this title, they're
to be commended and as far as I'm concerned, don't deserve to be called
lazy, uncommitted or incompetent.

My apologies, same thread, different author.

I do agree that trailbraking does seem excessive. But it doesn't detract
from my enjoyment anyway. I've done some very minor racing in a 1970 XWGT
a few years ago, and you certainly want to do the majority of your
braking (with what's left of your brakes) in a straight line. ;) But I
don't think the software forces you to brake and accelerate while
turning? I almost always spin when I accelerate too hard in a low gear
out of a corner if I'm not careful.

I feel it's unimportant in a sim of today as I don't think the sensation
you describe above would translate well to a video monitor. I suspect
when the developers that be can create a device that portrays 'seat of
the pants' racing (I remember reading about a device that can send
signals to the brain to simulate external forces on the body), then the
feel that you describe would be an important inclusion in the sim I was
using.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see every rock in its place, every
blade of grass modelled to exact spec and every rumble strip modelled
exactly as its real life counterpart, but simming is about comprimise.
I'm willing to forgo a number of realism comprimises for a piece of
software that I paid $Aus 69.95 for.

I'll apply those same comprimises when I'm whizzing around the track in
GP3, just as I'll apply the same comprimises as I'm jumping into my WSC
car. Bottom line, these are mass produced games that try to appeal to as
many potential buyers as possible. F1-2000's release date was undoubtedly
pushed by EA. GP3, to a point considering we've heard the 'it'll be in
GP4 released at Christmas'. WSC seems to be the GPL of modern sports
cars, coded out of art and passion, rather than commercial gain.

Cheers,
Rod.

% > Agreed. They still do some horrible things.

% So does the AI in GPL.

Gee, the f12k gang get real pissed when people compare the failings of
f12k based on their impressions of GPL.  I sure hope you are being
sarcastic. <G>

I don't necessarily weigh the merits of a sim against another sim.  I
take a look at the package as a whole and judge from that.  My views of
f12k are based on evaluating it as a whole package and not by comparing
it to any other sim.  Same goes for GPL.

I will however compare the whole package based on what I know is
possible in other products (not just sims).  

When all of this was said and done, f12k came out too short in too many
areas to be of interest to me.  The fact that I am not drooling to have
a "current season" F1 sim may have some factor in this opinion.
Basically I am looking and drooling for the best overall packaged auto
racing sim I can get my hands on.  Todate that happens to be another
package other than f12k.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I could have said that a couple of years back, but the game engines today
are enough sophisiticated (especially when given the correct information
when you are an officially licensed FIA title) so that the accuracy is
pushed the best possible.  I don't feel that they did the best possible with
it.  But as you'll agree the title was rushed out to the market, and it's a
shame.

I lurk in most of the csibg.*  and I feel sorry for you guys there ;(  Well
we had the same thing in the start of 1999 here also (1999 was a poor year
for racing sims).  I can see the similitude between both group, but there is
some incredible difference in the market.  There is less serious racing sims
than there is serious flight sims.  I felt the shelves were oversaturated in
the flight sim community, even if there is a bigger market.  How many WW2
flight sims we need? ;)

There will always be developers who will choose to create serious titles,
even with all those dumbed-down gamers with short attention span.  The MTV
Generation, you know...

Normally officially-licensed FIA titles have access to an incredible ammount
of data, including accurate track maps and blueprints.  Most of the game
developers (even the ones with small budget like Motorsims I think per
example) have send people to the tracks.  It doesn't cost that much
actually, since I remember one company that engaged people who lived near
the track so they would (and only do that) go at the tracks and shoot
video/take pictures.  You don't need to send somebody all around the world
for that I say ;)

I mean let's say you are the 3d modeler and you have to decide the track
width at a corner.  If you choose X width (while the real is Y) than it
would take the same time if you had the correct data to apply it with the Y
width.  It doesn't take much more time, as you will study real information
instead of bad information.

That's one of the reason I was letdown by F12k.  Let's take per example GP2.
It's not the best physics model, but Geoff tweaked the game in it's own way
so it could model the real sensation of having all the power of a F1.  With
all aids off, you really need to brake, turn then accelerate, like real F1
are today.  It's very hard like in real life to powerslide exiting the
corners.  While in F1 2k, I'm accelerating even before the apex sometimes,
which in real-life would send me off the track in a second.  I would expect
in other titles to have an important trailbrake effect, but not in a modern
F1.

No but you are faster in F12k when trailbraking and reaccelerating while
still turning.  You are not faster in real-life when you do that, since you
will spin.  Even Schumacher can't reach the level that we do in F1 2000, and
he is the best person to push his braking zone the closest to the apex and
reaccelerate the fastest after the apex.  We aren't better driver than him,
no? ;-)

I was never talking about the racing feeling in virtual reality.  It's a
totally different subject and not related to the corner.  It is as important
as any other corner on the track, especially since the corner has a great
sensation when modeled correctly.

You race GPL?  Let me tell you that the game engine gives you an incredible
sensation.  Go at the Nurburgring, and floor the gas into Hocheichen.  If
you don't remember the corner, it's just at the start of the lap, after the
Hatzenbach corners and before the jump at Flugplatz.  Or the left/right
going downhill at the end of your lap at Kyalami.

<snip good points>

--
-- 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.

some factor in this opinion.
It's not a question of being the 'current season' F1 sim, it's a matter of
being the (currently) best MODERN F1 sim.

Iain