rec.autos.simulators

I don't know how you are measure 80%.  If you are
talking lap times, a lot of guys can run at more
than 95% indefinitely without crashing.

Now, here is my main point.  Whatever 'whoopses'
you pulled in GPL, if done in real life, would
land you in a similar spot alonside the track.

I think the difficulty comes from lack of feedback,
and not so much from the deficiencies of the sim.

I'm absolutely sure you are right that in real
a car would have a bit more 'give'.  It's
probably pretty insignificant, though, and
probably not enough to make a difference between
saving it in real life and losing it in GPL.
The crudeness of our hardware would likely make
that extra space in the envelope impossible to
sense.

That's irrelevant to the reality or unreality of
the simulation.

I don't land in bushes every five minutes.  But,
if I do something bone-headed that in real life
would land me in a bush, then that's where I should
be in the sim.  The key is not in how often I crash,
but in whether or not the sim responds properly to
my inputs.

There is a strong case for the opposite point. I
know that half the sh** I pull in GPL would get
me killed in real life, but I can do it
consistently in the sim :)

Fine points.  A developer may even use them to
justify limits on how real they want a sim to
be.  Still, they are irrelevant to reality.

Are you using FF?  I find it to especially aid
driving in moderate speed situations.  Even with
FF, our feedback, and our inputs have got to be
horribly crude compared to real life.

What I would like to see is a plot of G-forces
on the driver from a good lap in GPL, compared
to the same type of plot from a professional
driver on the real track.

I'd be surprised if the sim lap weren't very
jerky and uneven compared to the real lap.  The
difference would be caused by the lack of feedback
we have.

Me too :)  I don't _expect_ sims to be hard,
just...  uncompromising.

--
Pat Dotson
IMPACT Motorsports
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

I get the impression you're a little less satisfied with GPL than I am, but
on the whole I think you're right.

Mario Andretti once remarked that the Lotus 49 was suprisingly easy to drive
(his first F1 drive).  And someone in this newsgroup who had the opportunity
to drive one also said it was easy, so there is some evidence to back you
up.

-A

  Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the idea that modern cars are
more difficult to drive (I believe they probably are), I'd like to make
the counter case that GP3 should be easier to drive than GPL.

  1) Realism.  In real life, a moderately talented GP driver with
limited laps can do a whole bunch of laps at 80% push with no danger
of going off.  In GPL, only great drivers can do that after months of
practice.  I still have whoopses driving slowly after months of
dedicated practice and there are plenty out tehre worse than me.  GPL
is clearly harder (for whatever reason) than real life.

  2) Accuracy of simulation.  I believe that the reason GPL is so hard
is a faiing of its (otherwise brilliant) physics engine.  EVerything in
GPL is (as far as I can see) very rigidly modelled with no "give" - a
real life car gives at the extremes and I believe these items of "give"
- the deformation of an overstressed tyre, the bouncing of a car over
high-frequency bumps as it begins to spin, the spring in an overstressed
chassis are the missing elements from GPL which make it so easy to lose
it.  I believe firmly that in real life, these elements can "save" a
driver rather than see him/her skipping like a stone over water in a
spinning car.

  3) Pragmatism.  90% of people want a sim that they can drive round and
not look a berk after 1 or 2 days.  Most people will stop playing
something after the first week if they can't get on with it.  I don't
recommend GPL to most of my friends because I know that most of them
would hate it.  Only the ones with a love for racing would stay with it
anyway.  If we don't want to promulgate the idea that
accuracy=commercial death then we should cling to the idea that a
realistic car doesn't hurtle itself into the bushes every 5 minutes.

  4) Easy to drive != easy to win.  A lot of people say "GPL should be
hard - it was hard to win a race in those days".  Sure - and it would be
even harder to win a race in GPL if fewer drivers spun off into the
kitty litter on the first lap.  In fact I'm damn sure that racing would
be harder and winning would be harder if even the average drivers could
stay on and in-line.

  5) Better racing.  How many times do you see a clean start in GPL
outside league racing.  I don't think I've ever seen a clean grid get
away without some mishap.  Imagine how much more enjoyable racing would
be if there was a game with the same depth of feel but all the drivers
were likely to stay nearly together for the first few laps.  GPL almost
never has the feel of "the pack" in non-league racing because you never
get enough drivers good enough to drive close and fast because it's so
hard to drive.

  6) Easier to drive does not mean less feel.  I believe that a driving
game would feel more and not less like a sim if it were easier to keep
the car lined up with the road at moderate speeds.

  Just a few points to (hopefully) make people think.  I get the idea
from some people that their ideal "sim" would dump you in the bushes
every third corner and whack you in the face with a plank while it was
doing it.  Realism is not the same as *** and difficult to drive
is not the same as accurate.

  Well, that's what I think anyway.

--
Richard G. Clegg       Only the mind is waving
    Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
      Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
    www:  http://www.racesimcentral.net/

from what ive read, alot of that is modelled, but in real life you get alot
more sensory input to help you make decisions.......all ive got is an old 14
inch monitor with a tiny view of non textured min detailed non force
feedbacked driving, and its still cool because ive learnt to read all i need
from that view and the sounds......and now i feel like the car has bags of
grip.....its all about getting used to what your doing.....

pez

pez

  I'm not trying to be harsh on GPL - I've played it more than any
other game I have.  But I am trying to be harsh on the "accurate =
difficult" school of thought that GPL has given rise to.

:>
:>   1) Realism.  In real life, a moderately talented GP driver with
:> limited laps can do a whole bunch of laps at 80% push with no danger
:> of going off.  

: In real life, a driver has gone through a lot more
: preparation than a sim racer.  This would include
: things like walking the track.  Also, in real life,
: you have a lot better sense of direction and
: distance than you can ever have in a sim.  This
: alone would make it easier to stay on the track.
: After years of sim racing, while on the track I
: still couldn't tell you if I'm going north, south
: east or west.

  Sure - but the north-south-east-west thing isn't really
relevant is it?  Surely one major point is that as someone
else has pointed out here "I've done far more laps of
Monza than Jimmy Clark ever did" - I don't think "ill
preparedness" applies to most GPL racers.

:> I still have whoopses driving slowly after months of
:> dedicated practice and there are plenty out tehre worse than me.  GPL
:> is clearly harder (for whatever reason) than real life.

: Now, here is my main point.  Whatever 'whoopses'
: you pulled in GPL, if done in real life, would
: land you in a similar spot alonside the track.

: I think the difficulty comes from lack of feedback,
: and not so much from the deficiencies of the sim.

  To me, if the simulation is harder than real life that is a deficiency
in the sim.  I don't believe that the deficiencies come from lack of
feedback...  sure, some of it might be traced by that...

: I'm absolutely sure you are right that in real
: a car would have a bit more 'give'.  It's
: probably pretty insignificant, though, and
: probably not enough to make a difference between
: saving it in real life and losing it in GPL.
: The crudeness of our hardware would likely make
: that extra space in the envelope impossible to
: sense.

  If there were a damping effect which would cause a car to
loose speed rather than spin (I outlined some possible mechanisms) then
that would make driving a lot easier since when you went over the
limit you wouldn't loose it totally...  I think this is more in tune
with real life where drivers have more "catchable" problems than spins.
In GPL a lot of drivers seem to be either on the money or in the bushes
- in real life drivers are on the money, slightly off line, lots off
line, have a moment or spin...  I think this is a failing in the GPL
model that means spins/wash-outs aren't progressive.

:>   3) Pragmatism.  90% of people want a sim that they can drive round and
:> not look a berk after 1 or 2 days.  Most people will stop playing

: That's irrelevant to the reality or unreality of
: the simulation.

  Certainly - but it is wholly relevant to how many quality sims are
published.

:> If we don't want to promulgate the idea that
:> accuracy=commercial death then we should cling to the idea that a
:> realistic car doesn't hurtle itself into the bushes every 5 minutes.

: I don't land in bushes every five minutes.  But,
: if I do something bone-headed that in real life
: would land me in a bush, then that's where I should
: be in the sim.  The key is not in how often I crash,
: but in whether or not the sim responds properly to
: my inputs.

  Certainly - and I am questionning whether something which "responds
properly to inputs" is likely to be nigh on undrivable for the first few
months you try it.  I don't believe so.

: There is a strong case for the opposite point. I
: know that half the sh** I pull in GPL would get
: me killed in real life, but I can do it
: consistently in the sim :)

  (Grin) There is a case for this point.

:>   4) Easy to drive != easy to win.  A lot of people say "GPL should be
:>   5) Better racing.  How many times do you see a clean start in GPL

: Fine points.  A developer may even use them to
: justify limits on how real they want a sim to
: be.  Still, they are irrelevant to reality.

  Sure - agreed except for the last bit about "limits on how real..."
I believe that in a realistic sim all but a field of absolute novices
could make clean starts and race in a pack.  Remember that this was the
case in '67 - some of the guys racing in GPs were not experienced
drivers.  

:>   6) Easier to drive does not mean less feel.  I believe that a driving
:> game would feel more and not less like a sim if it were easier to keep
:> the car lined up with the road at moderate speeds.

: Are you using FF?  I find it to especially aid
: driving in moderate speed situations.  Even with
: FF, our feedback, and our inputs have got to be
: horribly crude compared to real life.

  I love the FF in GPL - tho I wish it were easier to set up right.

: What I would like to see is a plot of G-forces
: on the driver from a good lap in GPL, compared
: to the same type of plot from a professional
: driver on the real track.

: I'd be surprised if the sim lap weren't very
: jerky and uneven compared to the real lap.  The
: difference would be caused by the lack of feedback
: we have.

  Hmm....  It's an open question how important the feedback we're
missing is (presumably you're talking about inner ear and feelings of
momentum).  I'm not sure they're enough to explain the huge difference
between behaviour of drivers in GPL and in real-life.

--
Richard G. Clegg       Only the mind is waving
    Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
      Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
    www:  http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

In my opinion, a good driving sim should capture the essence, the overall
feel of the real thing. It is after all, modelling, and all modelling takes
certain liberties to create a realistic impression. I'm going to try to make
a comparison here. I used to do a lot of railroad modelling in HO scale. So
let's say my 'world' is a 9' x 12' table. I want to model crushed stone by
the tracks. To be accurate, the stone size would be about the size of grit
on a piece of 600 grit sandpaper. The problem is that it looks absolutely
smooth at scale and not like stone at all. So I increase the size about 300%
and it looks great. Remember, a man is only about 3/4" tall in my world, and
the palm of his hand only 1/32", so if he picked up one crushed stone in my
model, it would entirely fill his palm. Not very realistic, but a good
compromise for the total visual effect. Now, I want a  logging shay in the
corner of the table up on a mountain. A long way off, but only 10' away in
my world. If I use HO scale, it doen't look far off at all, but, if I use an
N scale shay (half the size of HO) it looks like its quite a distance away.
This is terribly inaccurate and unrealistic in the real world, but visually
quite realisitic and pleasing in my 9' x 12' modelled world. So the question
here would be, should I stick with real world accuracy and scale, or use my
tricks to capture an overall feeling of realism which is perceived to be
more realistic than true scale? Which gives you the best overall feel of the
real thing?

That example is visual modelling, but not so different from physics
modelling. A 1/4 pound slotcar or a 2 pound RC car can't possibly handle
like  a real car. At this scale and weight, gravity effects are totally
different than with 2000 pound cars. Physics are absolute, so you have to
take modelling liberties when you try to change it. In sim driving we're
deprived of using some of our senses that real driving offers, so we have to
compensate for this in the modelled physics to give an overall impression
that seems realistic.

So what do I expect of a sim? Well,  I don't want a sim to be so accurate
that a guy (ummm...better make that 2 guys) from Papy comes to my house and
beats me senseless everytime I crash in GPL so I can model the pain. Some
things I do want is for the modelled car to have the proper 'feeling' of
grip at realistic speeds and G forces, and for it to lose grip, gracefully.
I want fairly consistant AI drivers. I don't want them to brake 200' before
a corner if I'm behind them, and yet crash into me from behind when I brake
100' before that same corner (SCGT). I want to capture the essence that I'm
driving a real car, but tempered by the limitations of visual reality and
usable senses. And if possible, I want to always be able to improve.

I think that GPL is popular because it has quite accurate physics modelling,
but mostly because it is hard and you don't get bored with it.

Slot

Again, AMEN!  I drive a real car every day, I've driven high-
performance machines both on and off the track, and I've spent
COUNTLESS hours behind the wheel at my computer playing with driving
sims, and the inherent twitchiness in GPL always makes me wonder just
how accurately it's responding to my inputs.  Yes, there are some seat-
of-the-pants inputs missing in a simulation that we would normally
experience in a real vehicle, but just as the programmers must account
for the fact that we're manipulating potentiometers in order to
simulate steering input (which is what we're doing, even if we DO have
wheels clamped to our desks), they must also make allowances for the
shortcomings of the simple audio/visual interface.  With GPL, Papy
erred on the side of difficult for difficulty's sake, I believe, and
while it may well be one of THE best driving simulators every, it could
have been a LOT better, IMO, even within the existing technological
bounds of current computers, controllers, and graphic cards.

Somewhere in between NFS and GPL there's a VERY happy medium that has
yet to be reached.  Viper Racing is just a tad too twitchy (a la GPL),
and SCGT as it comes out of the box is a bit too much like a different
version of NFS.  DTR does a fine job of simulating oval racing on a
slick wet-or-dry dirt track, but in the absence of asphalt tracks to
test on, it's hard to judge how it would stack up to the
NFS/SCGT/Viper/GPL offerings without comparing apples to oranges.

Somebody will ultimately get it right, though -- and the latest
contender appears to be the WSC folks.  I hope they're listening to all
this . . .

-- JB

P.S.  You've now attained hero status in my eyes for being brave enough
to open this can of worms, Richard! <G>

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

Did I hear you right? Modern cars are more difficult to drive than the F1
cars from the late 60's.

Anybody mind if I check under the bed and in the wardrobe for Mr. Beadle?

No, it simply means that when we drive GPL, we push ourselves much harder
than the real drivers of the era would ever have dared. Afterall, GPL only
simulates real life events, but they were actually driving real life itself.
If they spun off less, it was probably because they dared not push
themselves beyond the limit of their control. Most good F1 drivers today
however will rely heavily on the feedback and support from their car which
allows them to make exciting manoeuvres. It's not always because they're
better drivers.

I disagree with this too. I've had some very memorable 'tight-pack' moments
on-line at Watkins Glen where cars have been moving from one position to
another half a dozen times a minute. All cars finished within 4 seconds of
each other at the very end, besides one kamikaze driver who decided that
suicide would be a better option, once his engine began to give way, then
finishing the race last.

Can't argue with you there.

Best regards,

The Phoenix

It consisted of a 1/4 scale car equipped with a
video camera pointing out the front window.  The
car was remote controlled by a driver using the
same type of hardare we use with PC sims - A video
monitor showing the in-car camera view mounted
above a wheel/pedals setup.

Just imagine that instead of a 1/4 scale model car,
you had a full-size real F1 car set up with a
camera and remote control.  Do you really think
you could control the car with remote control by
watching a video monitor?  There is no way.  It
would be more difficult than GPL, with more to
lose on the first crash.  You could never learn to
drive it quickly, because the car wouldn't survive.

This is exactly what we are doing with GPL, or any
other sim that uncompromisingly simulates driving
a race car.

Fortunately, we have the luxury with a sim to
continually flirt with the limits of control of
the car, until it is etched into our minds.  GPL
is not hard for me because I know how to sense
the limits of the car based on the limited feed-
back the sim gives me.  Someone who hasn't become
sensitized to that feedback cannot possibly drive
the car well.

So, I think that an uncompromising sim will take
the same effort to drive well as it would take to
remotely control a real F1 car by looking at a
monitor.  To make it more 'driveable' by the
novice will require, at the very least, a fly-by-
wire approach to filtering inputs of the driver.
At worst, it will require driving aids, or a
dumbing-down of the physics model.

--
Pat Dotson
IMPACT Motorsports
http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

Ok, Well he did but he even said it was very difficult to drive, he was
drifting in very low gears and speed. He might not be experienced in 1967 F1
racing but he can sure handle speed and control a car but he appered to have
difficulty with this one!

--
GraDee -------------------------------------------------------------
Karting "3.65"
www.esatclear.ie/~karting
-------------------------------------------------------------
"The dozens and dozens........."

Since everyone wants to use their inability
to stay on the track as a measure of GPL's
defects, let me recount my experience...

Within 24 hours of the release of the original
demo, I was doing 1:07's at Watkins Glen, and
doing them consistently.  That was with the
horrible default setup and never having driven
the sim before.

When the Monza track demo came out, I
purposefully tested my ability to adapt my
GPL driving skill to a new track.  After
installing the new track, I pulled out out of
the pits and gradually worked up to speed.
With no crashes, and no spins, I did a
1:29 in less than 20 laps.  Again, this
was with the same crappy default setup.

The point is that with the right attitude,
and a little bit of patience, GPL is not
that hard.  If it takes someone months to
get consistent it's because either a) their
controls aren't set up properly, or b) they
aren't able to learn from mistakes and use
that knowledge to adapt.

I've been to the same tracks, and driven the
same karts and cars.  They like to be driven the
same way that GPL likes to be driven.

BTW, come out to Stefan Johansson's on
Saturday evening.  I've got the place
rented out starting at 7 pm.

Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, but there is
no reason for it to take months to drive GPL
consistently.  The beautiful thing about GPL,
though, is that after months, there is still
a lot to learn about driving it.  I'm still
learning after more than a year and a half.

We may indeed be doomed to live in a world of
SCGT.

What I hope they deliver is a sim with the
complexity of GPL, and the driving aids of
GP2.  Then, I think everyone can be happy.

--
Pat Dotson
IMPACT Motorsports
http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

Isn't that what driving any racecar is about?
Being able to understand what the car expects is
the key to success.  As weather and track
conditions change, you either adapt, or fall
behind.

Since everyone wants to use their inability
to stay on the track as a measure of GPL's
defects, let me recount my experience...

Within 24 hours of the release of the original
demo, I was doing 1:07's at Watkins Glen, and
doing them consistently.  That was with the
horrible default setup and never having driven
the sim before.

When the Monza track demo came out, I
purposefully tested my ability to adapt my
GPL driving skill to a new track.  After
installing the new track, I pulled out out of
the pits and gradually worked up to speed.
With no crashes, and no spins, I did a
1:29 in less than 20 laps.  Again, this
was with the same crappy default setup.

The point is that with the right attitude,
and a little bit of patience, GPL is not
that hard.  If it takes someone months to
get consistent it's because either a) their
controls aren't set up properly, or b) they
aren't able to learn from mistakes and use
that knowledge to adapt.

I've been to the same tracks, and driven the
same karts and cars.  They like to be driven the
same way that GPL likes to be driven.

BTW, come out to Stefan Johansson's on
Saturday evening.  I've got the place
rented out starting at 7 pm.

Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, but there is
no reason for it to take months to drive GPL
consistently.  The beautiful thing about GPL,
though, is that after months, there is still
a lot to learn about driving it.  I'm still
learning after more than a year and a half.

We may indeed be doomed to live in a world of
SCGT.

What I hope they deliver is a sim with the
complexity of GPL, and the driving aids of
GP2.  Then, I think everyone can be happy.

--
Pat Dotson
IMPACT Motorsports
http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

As it happens, I expect GP3 will turn out to be easier to drive, AND less
realistic than GPL, but that's besides the point.

-A

Sorry, but for me the whole thrill of GPL is that you *can* tread the fine
line between traction and Meet Mr. Wall. Racing at the edge of performance
should always be this difficult, it's just that the edge moves around
(different envelope/whatever) depending upon vehicle type.

Andrew McP