rec.autos.simulators

> >>   Where do you see this?  I have owned NASCAR 2 since it first came out.
> >> Never saw this...about the only REAL problem I ever saw was the Atlanta pit
> >> thing, where the AI's would "fake" pit, turning toward pit road on the last
> >> yellow lap, then turn back out to  the track.
> >>   After I installed the first patch, I never saw any green lines at C***te,
> >> nor did I have the T2 problem with jerking to the right.

> >This happens all the time in modem racing (AI cars crashing in the pits
> >and in a big wreck). Also cars that don't catch up to the pack under
> >yellow.
> Thank you Kel.  I'm glad somebody else sees this besides me.  If you
> I see this problem 75% of the races
> I run modem wise and before you even start the modem config theory
> dont try it. My modem partner and I both have the same (very reliable
> & universal) modems. We get a .10 latency and everything else works
> just fine.

> This is a cop out ! When you buy a product, regardless of it's price $5 or
> $50000 you expect the best for your money not somthing that is flawed.

><snip>
><By this reasoning, a smart man such as yourself should easily be able
>to see how a $50 game shouldn't be held to same standards as a $50,000
>vertical integration application, or even a $500 office package.>

>I understand your argument, but software prices are hardly analogous to
>hard goods prices -- they reflect what the market will bear, not what it
>cost to produce, package, and distribute them. If, for example, several
>major corporations decreed that every office had to standardize on
>ICRII, and that their suppliers had to do likewise, how long would it
>be, do you think, before ICRII cost $500?

>If I go out and buy Adobe Photoshop, it costs me around $600, and every
>time I upgrade to a new version, it costs another $150. Do you seriously
>contend that Photoshop, the basic coding of which has been around for --
>what, 8-10 years? -- actually costs TWELVE times as much to produce,
>package, and distribute than ICRII. I don't think so...

>Or are you contending that only one-twelfth the care, testing, and
>customer concern went into producing ICRII, or N2, or whatever game
>you'd like to name, than went into Photoshop? Now THAT particular
>argument I WILL buy, but that's hardly a good reflection on Sierra, is
>it? It just reinforces the argument that Sierra's policy is "it doesn't
>matter if it's ready or not, it's almost Christmas buying season and we
>GOTTA ship it!"

>Do you not agree that this is a valid conclusion?

>Bart Brown

>  hmm..no. windows 95 was buggy when it came out. People still buy it

>>> This is a cop out ! When you buy a product, regardless of it's price $5
or
>>> $50000 you expect the best for your money not somthing that is flawed.

>>I can read this two ways (one of which is completely wrong-headed, and
>>the other is my point exactly.)

>>The first (wrong-headed) way:
>>Regardless of the price I pay, I expect the VERY best item available.
>>With this, you'd be disappointed when your new Hyundai doesn't perform
>>like a Porsche Twin-Turbo. (After all, it doesn't matter whether you
>>spend $5, $50, $9000, or $125000 on a car, you expect the BEST for your
>>money and not something which is flawed.) You'd similarly be
>>disappointed when the used car you just bought didn't come with a brand
>>new engine, new tires, new exhaust, etc. Or when the existing house you
>>just bought didn't come with all new appliances and a new roof.

>>If this is your reasoning, your viewpoint is hopelessly at odds with
>>reality, and in your world, I am a blathering fool. Fine.

>>The second way:
>>You recognize that while your new Hyundai doesn't perform like a
>>Porsche, you think it was the best FOR YOUR MONEY and was the
>>appropriate car for you, given what you were willing/able to spend. Or
>>that a used car, warts and all, fit your financial reality a bit better
>>than a new car.

>>By this reasoning, a smart man such as yourself should easily be able to
>>see how a $50 game shouldn't be held to same standards as a $50,000
>>vertical integration application, or even a $500 office package.

>>---Jim Sokoloff

>Hundai also doesn't advertise that they're selling Porsche's either
>you'll never convince me that we dont have a legitimate gripe.
>Nascar2 isn't what they advertised.

>>  hmm..no. windows 95 was buggy when it came out. People still buy it

>Great argument. What choice do they have? This, I'm afraid, is apples
>and oranges -- operating systems are not analogous to application
>software in this context.

>BB

> hmm great argument. Why don't you say that NASCAR should take out Bristol
> and Dover because they don't use asphault as their main racing surface. A
> track is a track. A software is a software.  AI is an AI ......

>>Microsoft said Windows 95 is the best operating system now. But do u
really
>>think so?

>HAH!! OS/2 WARP 4.0, NT 4.0 (with ALL the service Paks) Windows 95 SR2
>(OEM).. UNIX

>Julian "Mr. Turtle" Data
>IVGA Member 0004
>The N2 "SkunksWorks" is in progress
>Verite/3DFX owner