rec.autos.simulators

by **Milo Johnso** » Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:14:14

Am thinking about buying one or the other and do not play online.
Does one have better AI than the other? and is the career mode in 2004 any
fun and any other things to make one better than the other?
Thanks MILO

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:11:56

Milo,
I prefer Thunder for solo play; the AI just seems to make the racing a bit
more "involved".
Career mode is also interesting.
Love the graphics.

Bruce.

by **ymenar** » Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:27:41

> Am thinking about buying one or the other and do not play online.
> Does one have better AI than the other? and is the career mode in 2004 any
> fun and any other things to make one better than the other?

While NT might have an advantage for the gamers who don't have as much time
or don't want to spend too much devotion with it, I would say that NR2003 is
a superior simulation in every other field compared to NT. The AI is a
little below the one of NT, but everything else makes up for it. EA is a
couple of years behind Papyrus in 90% of their comparative elements.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **Damien Smit** » Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:20:25

How is the track accuracy in Thunder ? (I've only played it briefly) At
least it doesn't have the 'driving on glass' feel inherent to Papy's Nascar
sims. The netcode is still something from the dark ages though from what I
saw.

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:36:01

I can't answer that as I have never been to any of the tracks but, if using
the Papyrus layouts as a yardstick, I'd say that Thunder's are ***y good.

Bruce.

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:42:36

Not if one is only playing off-line; the AI behaviour is of over-riding
importance to people like myself.
In fact, track accuracy and physics take a back seat.
You can't have decent racing without ***y good AI.

In the area of graphics and sound, the EA product owes absolutely nothing to
it's competitor.
And as far as I'm concerned, the tracks are just as good as Papyrus'.

For off-line racing, I now fire up Thunder (and GPL and NASCAR Legends and
NASCAR 3).
N2003 has been removed from my HDD.

Bruce.

.... I would say that NR2003 is a superior simulation in every other field
compared to NT. .......

by **spamtra** » Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:42:47

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 02:27:41 -0400, "ymenard"

>While NT might have an advantage for the gamers who don't have as much time
>or don't want to spend too much devotion with it, I would say that NR2003 is
>a superior simulation in every other field compared to NT. The AI is a
>little below the one of NT, but everything else makes up for it. EA is a
>couple of years behind Papyrus in 90% of their comparative elements.

I wish EA would bring out a demo for NT2004, it would help answer a
lot of these questions.
--

Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

by **Larr** » Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:39:16

Driving on Glass ?

Well, if you mean "on the edge" then welcome to Stock Car Racing :)

Larry

by **Mike Grand** » Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:32:04

They aren't that expensive, try them both. I would think that Thunder is
probably more suited for the casual gamer, but NR2003 is a better
simulation.

by **Damien Smit** » Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:13:06

Don't jump to conclusions. There's nothing casual about Thunder 2004. The
physics, graphics and AI are probably better than NR2003. It's the
finishing touches and general polish where NR2003 is superior.

by **senojm2** » Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:29:30

I agree, even as papy nut from their very start, after spending a great deal
of time with NT2004, once you get past the hang up of it not being a papy
sim, it is very good. As Mike said, the graphics,Physics and AI are as good
if not better than 2003, my biggest grip is the lack of AI cars in
Multiplayer, but the multiplay with other real
drivers it good. There may a bit too much wheel spin when starting off, but

Tally in the Richard Petty School, I'm not an expert but just from a visual
and feel of the car I have to give the nudge to NT2004. So, don't get hung
up on it not being from Papy, which I still play every day toofor the
multiplayer,
but for single player NT2003 is the way to go. Spend some time with it. One
big hint, if you have a Momo wheel and try it, set it to -100 in the
feedback, took me forever to get it to feel right and this was the key.

by **ymenar** » Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:01:47

> Don't jump to conclusions. There's nothing casual about Thunder 2004.
The
> physics, graphics and AI are probably better than NR2003.

Real life Winston Cup drivers, unless they are doing this for contractual
reasons, will all disagree with that statement.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **jason moy** » Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:06:53

Hm. I'd say it's pretty casual when the AI is a good 2 seconds slower
at most tracks than a reasonably competent human.

I also find it weird that at some tracks, setting up the car to turn
more makes it actually turn less, to the point where I have to steer
the wheel left on the straight to keep it out of the wall.

BTW, to anwer your above question, the tracks are slightly better
except for the roadcourses, which are about the same as last time.

Jason

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:13:44

And of course you'd know that for a fact, being an "insider", wouldn't you,
Frank? :)

Bruce.

by **ymenar** » Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:24:33

> And of course you'd know that for a fact, being an "insider", wouldn't
you,
> Frank?

Uhhhhhh Bruce, what I stated is a fact. Go ask TJ Majors and Dale Jr. if
they really race Thunder. You are somehow naive. Many people are directly
or indirectly involved with the whole thing Bruce. Go ask the Winston Cup,
BGN, Truck, or all the rest of the Nascar divisions (there are so many of
them), and you'll see that they sometimes use Papyrus sims for their
drivers, to maintain them in shape mentally. Not Thunder or any EA
crap-o-matic. There's a reason for that.

"Real life Winston Cup drivers, unless they are doing this for contractual
reasons, will all disagree with that statement

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

rec.autos.simulators

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004

Papy 2003 vs Thunder 2004