rec.autos.simulators

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

ymenar

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by ymenar » Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:00:00

After a couple of hours, I now have very, very mixed feelings about it.
There is so much potential, yet Im starting to see flaws everywhere.

My main gripe is track accuracy.  Even if those screenshots showed us the
tracks like no one has ever done before, Im sorry but they are dreadful.  I
have been to numerous Grand Prix : Montreal, Monaco, France and Brazil.
I've seen Silverstone but not in a F1 event.  I went to Indianapolis just
last year.  And heck I've been watching F1 for so many years, so I think I
know the track accuracy.  The game engine can't really model correctly the
real life tracks.

First of all, the C:PR ugly track texture is now back?  The asphalt and
tarmac texture is not brown neither black in F1.  FIA regulations make it
impossible for safety reasons.  Monaco is ugly, it's very wrong in terms of
track accuracy.  Buildings pop-out where there isn't in real life.  Rocks
pop-out where there is actually buildings in real-life.  Walls appear from
nowhere.  The Armco is wrong mostly everywhere, and bumps are severely
over-done.  Oh the bumps are overdone at every track, Spa is the ***y
funniest.  Looks like a Motocross track near the start/finish line.  They
all look wrong to me.  Sure there is some corners that are very impressive,
like Les Combes/Malmedy at Spa or La Rascasse at Monaco.  But overall
everything else is really bad.  I mean WORSE than Ubisoft's game engine.  At
least they had the corner radius, track width, and overall track accuracy
good, if you take some little errors and not being able to do
banking/camber.  But how can you make people believe at Monza that the hill
before Curva Del Vialone is that high.  Im sorry but it's not, by the half
of the height.  Im omitting so much stuff here, btw.  Montreal has serious
problems with track width and corner length, to the point that I was
laughing the first time I lapped the circuit.  Spa also.

Im not sure of the reason for that.  SCGT had a nice track accuracy.  I
think there is a reason here, and it's the***pit view.  First of all, you
don't see that high in the***pit.  You don't see 2/3 of the wheels.
Anybody who has sit in a F1***pit (it's very possible) knows that.  There
is something else wrong, and it's the fish-eye camera.  Everything is
crunched on the sides, like taking a widescreen movie and cropping it for
Pan&scan.  Everything is too thin and too high, which gives the impression
that there is not enough space.  Yet, the kurbs are way too wide for FIA
standards.  So you have the sensation per example on the Monza frontstretch
that there is no place for more than 2cars wide, when we all know in
real-life you can go 4-wide.

The car is also not rewarding at all.  You can clearly see the roots from
SCGT on how them F1 reacts to their environment.  Go at Monaco and you'll
sense it.  Heck I can go around Loews without braking at all, just letting
the car go down at 40mph.  I speculate that they had to increase the grip in
general compared to reality so that the physics would looks "correct".  I
can powerslide into the corners without a problem, trailbraking way after
the point of no return of a real Formula 1.  You almost can't trail-brake in
a modern F1.  You have to drive with the traditional technique.
Brake/downshift, turn.  Not turn, brake/downshift.  The car is just too easy
to drive.  I can constantly fastlap the car without any sense of being at
the edge.  If anybody remembers "Virtua Racing", well it's the same attitude
towards driving.  Enough challenging without any helps to make a rookie spin
or make you do a mistake from time to time, yet too easy to hotlap and have
incredible radius cornering speed.  In fact do this next thing to look at
how the physics aren't quite right.  Go in the sand/grass and get in a spin.
Put your wheel straight, and plow the gas.  Infinite canned spins.

I won't go into other details much.  The sound isn't really good but that
was to expect.  I like the car modeling and how visually it reacts to it's
environment.  Much better than any other modern F1 sim.  The virtual***pit
is well made, if only you had the correct view of a F1 driver.  Damage is
very well made and is actually well represented from the severity of the
contact you make.  I really like the pit-crew telling me that I've just
crashed Schumacher.  Hehe 8)

Heck I know Im whining, but Im the customer here.  Im giving the ISO release
another day and I'll see if I cancel or not my online command.  Because at
the moment, I am :(

This is not a pro-GPL bash at F1 2000.  We all know it's not close at all.
I was at least expecting something near.  I would consider Gp2 higher if it
simply had 3d-acceleration in terms of sensation of actually driving a
Formula .

Well, I was expecting that from a developer that didn't even fixed the
friggin head size!

--
-- 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.

Tim Vanhe

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by Tim Vanhe » Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:00:00

For my first impression I must somewhat agree with this.
I'm not giving up on it yet but at the moment I think it's has a lot of
flaws. I didn't have high hopes for it but after all the good critics I
downloaded it anyway. I hate the very overdone fisheye view wich gives the
impression of very high objects and small track. And tracks aren't correct.
Extreme elevations, wrong buildings... Take for example monaco: The section
between *** and the tunnel is totally wrong. Too short straights, the
bump at the beginning of the *** straight is placed at the end and it's
so high you can't look over it from***pit view! I won't mention the tiny
heads because we all know about it. I can't stand the arsehole shouting in
my ear that I can do better than that when I'm in the gravel. It's worse
enough when i'm already in there <g> . Maybe it's because of my system
(Celeron550, TNT2 32MB,Aureal Vortex A3d, 128MB RAM) but sound isn't always
synchronised. When I turn the resolution down to 640/480 for fluid gameplay
screen starts to flicker.
I WANT GP3!!!!!!!
(I did have a laugh when I took Schumacher for a spin at silverstone without
brakes, it brought back some good memories :-)



Andrew

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by Andrew » Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:00:00

First off, I don't think any of us have a right to complain until we pick up
a store bought version.  That being said, I do agree with much of what you
have written.  When I first booted up the game I had a lot of fun, but the
more I get into it there is more I don't like.

-My main problem is with visibility from the***pit.  It is very difficult
to pick up braking points and track layout.  This was true in GPL until you
learned the track.  I know the Melbourne track quite well, and still have a
*** of time driving it.

-Car physics are very forgiving.  I don't necessarily count this against the
game, because they need to make it accessible.  On the other hand, isn't
that what the driving aids are for?

-Start a race, drop out and simply watch a few cars from the "TV" cameras.
Most of the drivers are behaving odd.  Cars are weaving, sliding, and
exhibiting none of the smoothness of F1 drivers.

-There is only 1 car model.  Everyone has 7 gears, same shift points, power
curve, etc...

-I haven't been able to blow apart an engine.

-You can't check tire temperatures after a practice session or during the
race.  The HUD on the wheel gives a bit of info, but pull into the pits and
nada.

-There is a remarkable amount of detail with all trackside detail turned on,
but who can use it?  This game is a resource hog.

-Sound.  Each car is the same (naturally) and it's not an awe inspiring
whine.

-Commentary.  Start a race that is 10% of a full race.  Why are drivers on a
3 pit strategy?  Is that the only line that was recorded?  Why are they
pitting after 2 laps?

-Track design:  Indianapolis.  I have never watched a race, never intend to
until F1 arrives, but the track looks awfully narrow.  I'm able to spot that
merely from watching ESPN  Malaysia:  Again, the Track is entirely too
narrow.  This is one wide track which is very apparent from TV.

There are other things that dampen my enthusiasm for this game as well, but
it's hard to pinpoint them.  On the 24th I may end up deleting this game
without a follow up purchase.

-Andrew

Trygve Jense

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by Trygve Jense » Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:00:00

    Question:What is WSC?World Stockcar Championship?I guess not;)

    Could those of you who uses accronyms please state the whole title just once
if it isn't too ***y obvious:)


> I think ymeynard is being way too harsh.

> I have been mucking around with it for a while now and when I first saw it,
> I thought ..  Hmm.. yeah..  well..  maybe  (I wasn't convinced)

> But after several hours of practise and setup tweaking I can say that this
> has a lot of potential and is really quite good.

> Ok, it is no GPL killer..  (wait for WSC),  but it is well worth a look if
> your open minded and serious about sim racing.

> It is a little easy and I think GP3 will be better, but don't just write off
> F1 2000 just yet....

> I guess you could call it a fun / realistic F1 sim  (not game).   With full
> realism settings, it is quite a challenge  (can anyone beat my 1:40.xxx at
> Malaysia? :-)

> I will be buying both F1 2000 AND GP3  (aswell as WSC  :-)

> Keep an open mind...  and don't write it off purely because it isn't a
> realistic simulation as GPL....

> James Pickard
> Melbourne



> > After a couple of hours, I now have very, very mixed feelings about it.
> > There is so much potential, yet Im starting to see flaws everywhere.

> > My main gripe is track accuracy.  Even if those screenshots showed us the
> > tracks like no one has ever done before, Im sorry but they are dreadful.
> I
> > have been to numerous Grand Prix : Montreal, Monaco, France and Brazil.
> > I've seen Silverstone but not in a F1 event.  I went to Indianapolis just
> > last year.  And heck I've been watching F1 for so many years, so I think I
> > know the track accuracy.  The game engine can't really model correctly the
> > real life tracks.

> > First of all, the C:PR ugly track texture is now back?  The asphalt and
> > tarmac texture is not brown neither black in F1.  FIA regulations make it
> > impossible for safety reasons.  Monaco is ugly, it's very wrong in terms
> of
> > track accuracy.  Buildings pop-out where there isn't in real life.  Rocks
> > pop-out where there is actually buildings in real-life.  Walls appear from

> > nowhere.  The Armco is wrong mostly everywhere, and bumps are severely
> > over-done.  Oh the bumps are overdone at every track, Spa is the ***y
> > funniest.  Looks like a Motocross track near the start/finish line.  They
> > all look wrong to me.  Sure there is some corners that are very
> impressive,
> > like Les Combes/Malmedy at Spa or La Rascasse at Monaco.  But overall
> > everything else is really bad.  I mean WORSE than Ubisoft's game engine.
> At
> > least they had the corner radius, track width, and overall track accuracy
> > good, if you take some little errors and not being able to do
> > banking/camber.  But how can you make people believe at Monza that the
> hill
> > before Curva Del Vialone is that high.  Im sorry but it's not, by the half
> > of the height.  Im omitting so much stuff here, btw.  Montreal has serious
> > problems with track width and corner length, to the point that I was
> > laughing the first time I lapped the circuit.  Spa also.

> > Im not sure of the reason for that.  SCGT had a nice track accuracy.  I
> > think there is a reason here, and it's the***pit view.  First of all,
> you
> > don't see that high in the***pit.  You don't see 2/3 of the wheels.
> > Anybody who has sit in a F1***pit (it's very possible) knows that.
> There
> > is something else wrong, and it's the fish-eye camera.  Everything is
> > crunched on the sides, like taking a widescreen movie and cropping it for
> > Pan&scan.  Everything is too thin and too high, which gives the impression
> > that there is not enough space.  Yet, the kurbs are way too wide for FIA
> > standards.  So you have the sensation per example on the Monza
> frontstretch
> > that there is no place for more than 2cars wide, when we all know in
> > real-life you can go 4-wide.

> > The car is also not rewarding at all.  You can clearly see the roots from
> > SCGT on how them F1 reacts to their environment.  Go at Monaco and you'll
> > sense it.  Heck I can go around Loews without braking at all, just letting
> > the car go down at 40mph.  I speculate that they had to increase the grip
> in
> > general compared to reality so that the physics would looks "correct".  I
> > can powerslide into the corners without a problem, trailbraking way after
> > the point of no return of a real Formula 1.  You almost can't trail-brake
> in
> > a modern F1.  You have to drive with the traditional technique.
> > Brake/downshift, turn.  Not turn, brake/downshift.  The car is just too
> easy
> > to drive.  I can constantly fastlap the car without any sense of being at
> > the edge.  If anybody remembers "Virtua Racing", well it's the same
> attitude
> > towards driving.  Enough challenging without any helps to make a rookie
> spin
> > or make you do a mistake from time to time, yet too easy to hotlap and
> have
> > incredible radius cornering speed.  In fact do this next thing to look at
> > how the physics aren't quite right.  Go in the sand/grass and get in a
> spin.
> > Put your wheel straight, and plow the gas.  Infinite canned spins.

> > I won't go into other details much.  The sound isn't really good but that
> > was to expect.  I like the car modeling and how visually it reacts to it's
> > environment.  Much better than any other modern F1 sim.  The virtual
>***pit
> > is well made, if only you had the correct view of a F1 driver.  Damage is
> > very well made and is actually well represented from the severity of the
> > contact you make.  I really like the pit-crew telling me that I've just
> > crashed Schumacher.  Hehe 8)

> > Heck I know Im whining, but Im the customer here.  Im giving the ISO
> release
> > another day and I'll see if I cancel or not my online command.  Because at
> > the moment, I am :(

> > This is not a pro-GPL bash at F1 2000.  We all know it's not close at all.
> > I was at least expecting something near.  I would consider Gp2 higher if
> it
> > simply had 3d-acceleration in terms of sensation of actually driving a
> > Formula .

> > Well, I was expecting that from a developer that didn't even fixed the
> > friggin head size!

> > --
> > -- 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.

Andre Warring

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by Andre Warring » Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Ymenard, try the final version, I noticed that a lot of track files
have changed too.

Andre



<snip>

Rick Baumhaue

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by Rick Baumhaue » Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:00:00

They may have changed a lot of the track files for the final, but I have the
Myth release, and the tracks are really bad.  It's like the model can't do
long, gradual inclines, so you get these ridiculous "stairsteps" instead.
As already mentioned, Spa and Monaco are topographically just wrong.

Have to agree about the "fisheye" lense, as well - funny, we all seem rather
spoiled by the letterboxing in GPL that drew such derision on release.
Amazingly prescient decision by Papyrus on that one, in hindsight.

I'll probably wait for GP3, unless something dramatic happens with F1 2000
after release.

Rick

Tim Vanhe

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by Tim Vanhe » Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:00:00

WSC = Woohoo, Supersim's Coming!
(no really, World Sports Cars)

I name it once so I hope you know what we are talking about (I don't want
you to miss out on this one!). Do not expect us to use it all of the time
because we are to lazy to speak out the whole title all of the time.



c

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by c » Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:00:00

with full  realism its still not that hard..  I thought at first it would be
cool, but soon proved to be waaay to easy.  close, but not quite.

and man, it takes a fast computer..

scooter

> I think ymeynard is being way too harsh.

> I have been mucking around with it for a while now and when I first saw
it,
> I thought ..  Hmm.. yeah..  well..  maybe  (I wasn't convinced)

> But after several hours of practise and setup tweaking I can say that this
> has a lot of potential and is really quite good.

> Ok, it is no GPL killer..  (wait for WSC),  but it is well worth a look if
> your open minded and serious about sim racing.

> It is a little easy and I think GP3 will be better, but don't just write
off
> F1 2000 just yet....

> I guess you could call it a fun / realistic F1 sim  (not game).   With
full
> realism settings, it is quite a challenge  (can anyone beat my 1:40.xxx at
> Malaysia? :-)

> I will be buying both F1 2000 AND GP3  (aswell as WSC  :-)

> Keep an open mind...  and don't write it off purely because it isn't a
> realistic simulation as GPL....

> James Pickard
> Melbourne



> > After a couple of hours, I now have very, very mixed feelings about it.
> > There is so much potential, yet Im starting to see flaws everywhere.

> > My main gripe is track accuracy.  Even if those screenshots showed us
the
> > tracks like no one has ever done before, Im sorry but they are dreadful.
> I
> > have been to numerous Grand Prix : Montreal, Monaco, France and Brazil.
> > I've seen Silverstone but not in a F1 event.  I went to Indianapolis
just
> > last year.  And heck I've been watching F1 for so many years, so I think
I
> > know the track accuracy.  The game engine can't really model correctly
the
> > real life tracks.

> > First of all, the C:PR ugly track texture is now back?  The asphalt and
> > tarmac texture is not brown neither black in F1.  FIA regulations make
it
> > impossible for safety reasons.  Monaco is ugly, it's very wrong in terms
> of
> > track accuracy.  Buildings pop-out where there isn't in real life.
Rocks
> > pop-out where there is actually buildings in real-life.  Walls appear
from

> > nowhere.  The Armco is wrong mostly everywhere, and bumps are severely
> > over-done.  Oh the bumps are overdone at every track, Spa is the ***y
> > funniest.  Looks like a Motocross track near the start/finish line.
They
> > all look wrong to me.  Sure there is some corners that are very
> impressive,
> > like Les Combes/Malmedy at Spa or La Rascasse at Monaco.  But overall
> > everything else is really bad.  I mean WORSE than Ubisoft's game engine.
> At
> > least they had the corner radius, track width, and overall track
accuracy
> > good, if you take some little errors and not being able to do
> > banking/camber.  But how can you make people believe at Monza that the
> hill
> > before Curva Del Vialone is that high.  Im sorry but it's not, by the
half
> > of the height.  Im omitting so much stuff here, btw.  Montreal has
serious
> > problems with track width and corner length, to the point that I was
> > laughing the first time I lapped the circuit.  Spa also.

> > Im not sure of the reason for that.  SCGT had a nice track accuracy.  I
> > think there is a reason here, and it's the***pit view.  First of all,
> you
> > don't see that high in the***pit.  You don't see 2/3 of the wheels.
> > Anybody who has sit in a F1***pit (it's very possible) knows that.
> There
> > is something else wrong, and it's the fish-eye camera.  Everything is
> > crunched on the sides, like taking a widescreen movie and cropping it
for
> > Pan&scan.  Everything is too thin and too high, which gives the
impression
> > that there is not enough space.  Yet, the kurbs are way too wide for FIA
> > standards.  So you have the sensation per example on the Monza
> frontstretch
> > that there is no place for more than 2cars wide, when we all know in
> > real-life you can go 4-wide.

> > The car is also not rewarding at all.  You can clearly see the roots
from
> > SCGT on how them F1 reacts to their environment.  Go at Monaco and
you'll
> > sense it.  Heck I can go around Loews without braking at all, just
letting
> > the car go down at 40mph.  I speculate that they had to increase the
grip
> in
> > general compared to reality so that the physics would looks "correct".
I
> > can powerslide into the corners without a problem, trailbraking way
after
> > the point of no return of a real Formula 1.  You almost can't
trail-brake
> in
> > a modern F1.  You have to drive with the traditional technique.
> > Brake/downshift, turn.  Not turn, brake/downshift.  The car is just too
> easy
> > to drive.  I can constantly fastlap the car without any sense of being
at
> > the edge.  If anybody remembers "Virtua Racing", well it's the same
> attitude
> > towards driving.  Enough challenging without any helps to make a rookie
> spin
> > or make you do a mistake from time to time, yet too easy to hotlap and
> have
> > incredible radius cornering speed.  In fact do this next thing to look
at
> > how the physics aren't quite right.  Go in the sand/grass and get in a
> spin.
> > Put your wheel straight, and plow the gas.  Infinite canned spins.

> > I won't go into other details much.  The sound isn't really good but
that
> > was to expect.  I like the car modeling and how visually it reacts to
it's
> > environment.  Much better than any other modern F1 sim.  The virtual
>***pit
> > is well made, if only you had the correct view of a F1 driver.  Damage
is
> > very well made and is actually well represented from the severity of the
> > contact you make.  I really like the pit-crew telling me that I've just
> > crashed Schumacher.  Hehe 8)

> > Heck I know Im whining, but Im the customer here.  Im giving the ISO
> release
> > another day and I'll see if I cancel or not my online command.  Because
at
> > the moment, I am :(

> > This is not a pro-GPL bash at F1 2000.  We all know it's not close at
all.
> > I was at least expecting something near.  I would consider Gp2 higher if
> it
> > simply had 3d-acceleration in terms of sensation of actually driving a
> > Formula .

> > Well, I was expecting that from a developer that didn't even fixed the
> > friggin head size!

> > --
> > -- 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.

ymenar

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by ymenar » Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:00:00


I was racing the final ISO version.

--
-- 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.

Stif

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by Stif » Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Mr. Anti PIRATE downloaded a warez game? I'm ashamed of you ymenard.


Stif

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by Stif » Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Hypocritical ***................



> > Ymenard, try the final version, I noticed that a lot of track files
> > have changed too.

> I was racing the final ISO version.

> --
> -- 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.

Andre Warring

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by Andre Warring » Mon, 20 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Today I drove all the tracks, and agree with you that some tracks are
really not accurately modeled.

Andre




>> Ymenard, try the final version, I noticed that a lot of track files
>> have changed too.

>I was racing the final ISO version.

Bruce Kennewel

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by Bruce Kennewel » Mon, 20 Mar 2000 04:00:00

(snip)
(unsnip)

Why not, James? (Write it off, that is).
It is all subjective anyway and, as has been stated previously many times,
what appeals to one won't necessarily appeal to another.

On a purely personal basis, any new sim with less than GPL-physics *IS*
second-rate.

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------


Ronald Stoeh

second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

by Ronald Stoeh » Sat, 25 Mar 2000 04:00:00


> (snip)
> > Keep an open mind...  and don't write it off purely because it isn't a
> > realistic simulation as GPL....
> (unsnip)

> Why not, James? (Write it off, that is).
> It is all subjective anyway and, as has been stated previously many times,
> what appeals to one won't necessarily appeal to another.

> On a purely personal basis, any new sim with less than GPL-physics *IS*
> second-rate.

But can still be a lot of fun. Otherwise I see grim times coming up for
your racing hobby...

l8er
ronny

--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid.  Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.


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.