New renders etc...
I don't think we will see anything actually 'move' until end 2005, I fear...
New renders etc...
I don't think we will see anything actually 'move' until end 2005, I fear...
Still, the pix are very pretty and you've got to admire the
vision and potential even if the reality's several nibbles short of a full
byte of code so far.
Andrew McP
> > New renders etc...
Andrew McP
> > > New renders etc...
> If all those engine parts are actually gonna be functional then i think
its
> worth the wait :)
> > > New renders etc...
> If all those engine parts are actually gonna be functional then i think
its
> worth the wait :)
KK
> > New renders etc...
> I must admit while I remain enthusiastic (in a "it'll give me something to
> look forward to when I'm retired" kind of way) about RL, I find their
> update puzzling. Is anyone really interested in an interactive garage and
> the process of getting the car to the track at this stage? Just gimme a
> car on a track guys! It's not as if we'll have a garage of cars to choose
> from for at least a decade at this rate.
> Still, the pix are very pretty and you've got to admire the
> vision and potential even if the reality's several nibbles short of a full
> byte of code so far.
> Andrew McP
I think it also interesting for people to be able
to learn how these cars were put together and how
they worked. I also believe that it adds to the
realism of the sim knowing that you driving more
than just a 3 dimensional shape with pretty
textures and might prompt drivers to take more
care of the machines.
Can we vote on that?
I'm with you Andrew. I really admire the vision and
dedication these folks have. Isn't it time for a beta?
We'd pay for it, and they wouldn't need to sell their
house.
I'm going to be disappointed if the distributor
doesn't have the correct dwell, or if the gap in the
spark plugs isn't correct.
I'm starting to wonder if my 600 MHz P3, with Voodoo
5500, is going to be able to get 30 FPS at 1600x1200x32
with all the graphics options maxed.
I'd like to know the frame rates on today's top of the
line systems, like a 4 processor 2.8GHz Xeon unit.
West brothers and associates, don't let us get you
down. We're just having a little fun. You are already
a legend at SCI. Good luck.
Larry
Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com
--
Tim White
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003
> I am puzzled too! Some interesting ideas to incorporate in further releases
> once we are hooked on the physics etc. but the time taken to create a fully
> working visual engine seems an unusual priority. I thought shift-r was
> enough of a chore after wrecking an engine! If I have to spend nights
> mending the darn thing my family are going to despair...
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
That's if there's even anything capable of moving it at that time. I
imagine we'll be using 4.5 - 5 GHz PCs at that time. I don't think a
machine of that speed could even fully do F1C justice.
Trust me, a friend of mine's older brother deals in 2nd hand luxury cars. He
had a Lambo Countach on the lot at one stage and I can tell from experience
having helped it's an f'ing pain in the behind. If he drove it over a bad
road, that would mess it up and it would start chunking. Then if he happened
to stall it, it wouldn't start again. Oh the fun times he had with that car.
The early Countachs are definately for parade purposes only. Unless you got
nothing better to do than take half the engine apart each time you drive it.
Jan.
=---
By far the best car parked in a garage simulator I have ever seen!
Cheers,
Rod.