rec.autos.simulators

by **Jason Moy** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:34:34

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:47:48 -0500, "David G Fisher"

>All I know is that the best thing a person can do if they want to be good
>with the Papy TA cars is to spend time driving the F1 cars in F1C. F1C's
>physics are excellent, and give me more feedback than the Papy cars.

I dunno if I'd agree with 'more feedback' (keep in mind i don't use
FF) but I think too many people sell the F1 cars short. Arnao and
friends did a ***ing brilliant job creating a convincing F1 model,
and it doesn't feel any different to me than a papy F1 sim would,
tracks aside. The only thing I don't like about the physics for the
F1 cars is the lack of tunable traction control in the garage and
***pit (which was rumored to be part of a patch that was scrapped).

Jason

by **Mitch_** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:34:53

LOL

Hardly though :-)

I want the "best" possible SIM regardless of who makes it. "Sim fanboy"

Papy's NR2003 just has that "been there done that feel" to me. What more
can I say? I'd much rather be talking about brake wear and such with NR2004
but we got F*^&ed. I for one won't be running NR2003 this time next year so
Im always on the lookout for something better. Im not bashing Papy (except
not paying for the rights) but there stuff is just old and full of holes. I
dont wear blinders.

Mitch

> *cough* EA FANBOY *cough*

by **Joachim Trens** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:44:05

> BTW - can you reveal what mod had this braking feature?

It never got published... <g>

Achim

by **Mitch_** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:46:55

You can spew all the propaganda you like Dan.

Oh yea, totally revised. Are you that gullible?

Back to reality now.

The NR2003 engine is nothing more than a tweaked N4 game engine. The N3
engine (origianl alpha) was origianlly going to use the GPL physics but at
some point the suits decided GPL was too difficult so they released N3
(based on N1 engine) and then dumbed down the GPL physics into N4 which
eventually became NR2003.

Yea it's a new game engine alright....

Ignorance is bliss eh?

Mitch

by **Joachim Trens** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:56:09

> As Achim pointed out (in open forum, I hope)

It was _not_ open forum <g>. But anyway. I meanwhile think that a little
excess heat at the RF is probably not even unrealistic due to the torque
and momentum engendered by the engine, just the amount of excess heat as
compared to the LF is probably exaggerated in N2k3. But who cares, it's
a minor nuisance, just one of these things.

You know I've always been an extreme advocate of extreme realism, and I
still am much for realism, but I've also learnt that realism in some
aspects matters more than in others for the simming/racing experience,
and when we think someone is 'realistic', that does not at all mean that
is really is, or that it is among the important aspects of realism,
important in the sense that you're getting a realistic racing
experience. The tire heat issue is one of the less important IMO.

Achim

by **Joachim Trens** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:08:12

> ...and then dumbed down the GPL physics into N4 which
> eventually became NR2003.

> Yea it's a new game engine alright....

> Ignorance is bliss eh?

> Mitch

I don't think I'd call the N2003 physics dumbed down as compared to GPL.
They are really the next higher level, rather, with a much better tire
model, for example.

I don't think Kaemmer would ever dumb anything down voluntarily. His
commitment to realism is 100%.

Achim

by **Mitch_** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:24:47

Kaeammer is right up there next to god in my book :-) I bow with trembling
knees just mentioning his name ;) It's too bad he couldnt make ALL the
decisions for us instead of those retards in suits.

I was being somewhat generic in my assesment. Yea NR2003 has been tweaked a
bunch since N4/GPL, no denying that. NR2003 can't hide the legacy of the N4
game engine either which is my main concern.

Mitch

by **Dan** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:45:13

You lost all the pissy credibility you had when you called
NR2003 engine a dumbed down GPL engine.
And whats wrong with it being a tweaked N4 or GPL engine when those engines
were and are benchmarks of computer simulations?
Unlike the rest of the simulation programmers papyrus dont need to bring out
"revolutionary" new physics engines every release because they crossed that
bridge way back in 98 and when you get so high there is only a little more
you can go each time.
EA have been making rubbish for years now so its expected they make big
steps.= even though they are still a class below.

And achim im glad you enjoy the ISI physics model but to me it still feels
archaic,and the fact that the physics can be "adjusted" by any jo blow until
they "feel right" just has no credibility with me.
Mitch im betting the papy sims are too realistic for you hence your shit at
them so your talking up the toy game that you can actually do laps in.
Dont take it out on papyrus dude,take it out on your parents:)

> LOL

> Hardly though :-)

> I want the "best" possible SIM regardless of who makes it. "Sim fanboy"

> Papy's NR2003 just has that "been there done that feel" to me. What more
> can I say? I'd much rather be talking about brake wear and such with
NR2004
> but we got F*^&ed. I for one won't be running NR2003 this time next year
so
> Im always on the lookout for something better. Im not bashing Papy
(except
> not paying for the rights) but there stuff is just old and full of holes.
I
> dont wear blinders.

> Mitch

> > *cough* EA FANBOY *cough*

by JP » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:53:59

> > >I just find it hard to accept that this could be the "best" were going
to
> > >get. Papy has shortcomings that I just cna't accept any longer and EA
sims
> > >(although they have failings also) are a step in the right direction,
> > >especially the Physics. The Papy tracks are nearly perfectly flat.
The
> > >bumps that are there feel as though they were just stuck onto this
perfectly
> > >flat track, the grahics and physics seem dated and most importanly it
can be
> > >exploited way to easily.

> *cough* EA FANBOY *cough*

*cough* Papy Blinder Brigade Member *cough*

by **Mitch_** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:09:26

N4 did use a variation of GPL's game engine. Perhaps "dumbed down" was a
poor choice of words but IMO it was ;)

There is nothing wrong with NR2003 per se, it's getting long in the tooth
and I want something better.. IMO the N4 game engine is too limited and
full of holes. They have made it better every version for sure and I
cant/wont deny that. My problem is the weaknesses are glaring and arent
going to be fixed anytime soon so we need an alternative. At this point
Papy ISNT the alternative. Am I the only one that see's this or do you all
know something I dont?

Somewhere along the lines you said it was a entirely new game. I was just
setting the record straght :)

Im not sure I get your meaning "can be adjusted by anyone'? How is this any
diff than Papy's Nx series .ini's?

Ive qualified my point quite a few times and after spending quite a bit of
time with F1C/mods I feel it's a better game engine from which to work for
the future. Ive spent 100's of thousands of hours in Papy sims so I have a
good foundation from which to judge. How many hours did you spend with
F1c/mods? Less than one I'd bet ;)

I like the PWF TA mod just fine. Problem is other than some eye candy it's
still NR2003 and all of it's legacy baggage.

Mitch

by **Tony Rickar** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 05:04:44

On a serious note, not being a fan of FF, are there non FF users who have
found a decent controller setting for F1C et al. I find it lifeless compared
with Papy sims. Not through lack of trying. Either there is a magic setting
for my Thrustmaster Formula/Nascar Pro and car setup or it just doesn't suit
my brain!

I also have a Momo but gave up on FF some while ago.

Cheers
Tony

by **Steve Smit** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 05:52:36

I haven't had the patience to test tire wear. If it is infested with the
same bug as the RF temps, then presumably the RF wear would be higher as
well. If it isn't, then tire wear would certainly be the preferred way to
set up the car for longer races.

Could I talk you into sending me a few of yer roadie setups?

> I have not had a problem with assymetrical handling. De-wedge takes
weight
> off the RF and LR, making it looser on left turns and tighter on right
> turns. Decambering the RF fixes the left turns, moving the weight
rearward
> fixes the right turns. Taken together those three things bring the RF
temp
> down without assymetrical handling problems. IIRC the PWF Expert setup
for
> Kyalami uses this technique, so you can try that if you want to see how it
> works.

> Regarding the "5 deg. hotter" point, as I said in my previous post I don't
> worry if the RF is a little bit high as long as the wear is equalized, so
> perhaps I have arrived at that point by trial and error.

> > As Achim pointed out (in open forum, I hope), you *can* get the RF temp
> > down, but then the car becomes squirrelly. Monza is the best example:
it
> is
> > virtually devoid of left turns, so if you jack everything around to make
> the
> > RF temp lower, the setup is out of whack. Apparently the RF is
*supposed*
> > to run ca. 5 deg. hotter than the LF, so that's what you should aim for.

> > Wedge can be used to equalize temps/weights, but then the handling
becomes
> > wildly asymmetrical, loose as a goose on RH turns, say, and plowing like
a
> > Farmall on LH turns.

> > > The front tire bug is pretty easy to fix in most cases. Doesn't even
> seem
> > > to happen at all tracks, for example I didn't really see it at
> > Silverstone,
> > > but OTOH it was quite *** at LeMans Sarthe and at Monza. But in
most
> > > cases a little bit of de-wedge, a little bit of rear weight bias, and
> > > slightly less camber on the RF than on the LF will fix it and still
> gives
> > > reasonable handling. For example I usually end up with about 49.4%
> front
> > > weight, 49.4% wedge, and 0.10 deg less camber on the RF. Equal front
> > weight
> > > and wedge will keep the left side weights equal and just shift weight
> from
> > > RF to RR, which seems to be what it needs. Then you de-camber the RF
to
> > > keep it from getting too loose, plus that also usually lowers the RF
> temp
> > a
> > > tad more. That won't necessarily get the temperatures exactly equal
but
> > it
> > > equalizes the wear and still gives good handling. Once I have the
wear
> > > equalized I don't mess with it any further.

> > > > I can think of one thing, and that is the tire temp "bug" imbalance
> > > > between LF and RF (a consequence of the NASCAR oval
> > > > physics)-that doesn't bother me much tho.

> > > > John DiFool

by **Steve Smit** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 06:00:48

Jeez, Achim, I screwed up again. You share these gems with me in confidence
and I go blabbing them all over the Internet. Next time I slip up, I guess
I should quote "a usually reliable source."

> > As Achim pointed out (in open forum, I hope)

> It was _not_ open forum <g>. But anyway. I meanwhile think that a little
> excess heat at the RF is probably not even unrealistic due to the torque
> and momentum engendered by the engine, just the amount of excess heat as
> compared to the LF is probably exaggerated in N2k3. But who cares, it's
> a minor nuisance, just one of these things.

> You know I've always been an extreme advocate of extreme realism, and I
> still am much for realism, but I've also learnt that realism in some
> aspects matters more than in others for the simming/racing experience,
> and when we think someone is 'realistic', that does not at all mean that
> is really is, or that it is among the important aspects of realism,
> important in the sense that you're getting a realistic racing
> experience. The tire heat issue is one of the less important IMO.

> Achim

by **Joachim Trens** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 06:31:37

> Jeez, Achim, I screwed up again. You share these gems with me in confidence
> and I go blabbing them all over the Internet. Next time I slip up, I guess
> I should quote "a usually reliable source."

No problem at all, as long as you don't remember _how_ the heat problem
can be cured :) ;)

And keep them coming - even if sometimes a tidbit should slip out, what
does it matter. I enjoy discussing these issues with you, and I have
learnt so much from you every time you let me take a look at your wealth
of knowledge - seriously.

We get around to talking about these issues far too seldom! :)

Achim

by **T. Wortma** » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:23:09

>Kaeammer is right up there next to god in my book :-) I bow with trembling
>knees just mentioning his name ;) It's too bad he couldnt make ALL the
>decisions for us instead of those retards in suits.

Wait....I found something I agree with this guy on.

rec.autos.simulators

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod

Trans-Am Mod