rec.autos.simulators

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

David Ciemn

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by David Ciemn » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 02:45:12

"I really felt like having sex with my cousin "

hehe...maybe this is the type of customer Thunder was trying to attract.
This explains why we don't get it.

How hard can it be to see what Papy has done and go from there.

Still pissed about my $40. I threw away.

DC




> <snip>

> Ok, I was tired when I posted this so here's some details on what is
> good and bad about the sim.

> 1. Graphics

> If you like F1 2002, you might like these.  The default LOD bias
> causes the cars to deres literally 5 feet in front of you.  As Ed
> Solheim pointed out in another thread, the rear view mirror makes it
> look like cars are literally on top of you.  The graphics feature the
> same flicker as the ISI F1 games, regardless of the FSAA level you
> use.  The textures remind me of SCGT, i.e. cartoony, dark, and
> oversaturated.  The car models aren't bad, but the cars seem much
> longer than a real WC stock car.

> The damage modelling is seriously humorous.  Hitting something on the
> side, like the wall, will cause the side to dent in a'la Nascar 2002
> but also puts a big gray hole in the car.  Best I can tell there's no
> damage to the hood or roof.  I've backed  the car into the wall at
> over 100mph and the bumper dented a bit, I was disappointed after
> being used to the way N2002 smushes your bumper all the way to the
> axle.  The nose damage looks wrong, after taking a few hits at the
> front the car starts looking like a shart, as you have this middle bit
> that sticks out with big dents on either side that, in real life,
> would be impossible because of the chassis and engine block being
> there.

> N2002 wins this category hands down, especially in terms of texture
> realism and graphical clarity.  It also runs 30 frames per second
> faster on my machine with full detail at 1280x1024x16 than NT2003
> does.  NT2003 does get bonus points for attempting to include some
> classic cars, but who wants to drive Cale Yarborough's early 80's #28
> car with "Cale" written on it instead of Hardee's.

> The wheel/hands are ugly and can't be removed in-game.  However you
> can comment out the lines that define these in the vehicle.gen file
> and everything looks much much better...except that the default
>***pit camera feels like you have your face pressed against the
> windshield, but YMMV.

> 2. Sound

> Most of the menu music is horrible, the single saving grace being
> Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" which I wish would just loop.

> The commentators at the beginning of the race sound like they were
> recorded in my bathroom.  Actually, I've done recordings in my
> bathroom and they were of higher quality.  For some curious reason,
> they've left out the driver introductions, so when the game does the
> standard F12k2 scroll through the field, you're left with an awkward
> silence.  Thankfully, this is preferable to hearing more of the
> announcing.

> Driving, the engine sound is far inferior to N2002.  The tire sounds
> are far inferior to N2002.  For the engines it seriously sounds like
> they sampled a chainsaw and ran it through some cheap plate reverb,
> it's that bad.

> 3. Layout/Presentation

> The menus are horrible.  Thankfully on the track selection screen
> there are drop down boxes you can access to select the track, but most
> things are laid out completely illogically and/or a pain to find.
> Selecting a driver (you have to use one of the real cars, there's no
> paintshop included or option to simply drive as yourself) requires
> going through a list with all of the drivers, which is a time
> consuming process.

> The rest is pretty much straight from F1 2002, with different icons
> and maybe slightly different on-screen placement.

> The race weekend is annoying.  There is no option to use a short pace
> lap, even with auto pace lap turned on, so at a place like the Glen be
> prepared to spend 5-10 minutes on a pace lap before putting in even a
> short race.  Speaking of auto pace lap, if auto pace lap and/or auto
> pitting are enabled, the game gives no warning that it's going to
> return control to you.  Just suddenly the spotter yells "GO GO GO" and
> you're sitting there scrambling for your wheel.

> The fighter jets screaming overhead at every single track are cheesy.
> On the other hand, I really felt like having sex with my cousin at
> that point, so it could be what they're going for.

> Replays are done F1 2002 style, so nothing to comment there.  If
> you've played an ISI game, you know what it's like.

> 4. Track Modelling

> Apparently Pocono is 4 or 5 lanes wide, doesn't require any braking,
> and is paved in concrete.  Apparently the esses and the outer loop at
> the Glen are banked about as much as Bristol, at least with the little
> bit of banking Bristol has in this game.  Seriously appalling.  The
> off-track details are of course just as bad, but you can't really
> expect much when the actual track surfaces are so far off.

> Speaking of track modelling, unless there is a change in banking at
> the apron, you can drive it without a penalty.  Just ran some really
> quick laps at Tally without venturing above the yellow line.

> If you're played a Papy NASCAR sim, or even watched a race or two on
> TV, be prepared for a shock the first time you take the car on the
> track.  Throw everything you know about the line of the tracks out the
> window, you won't need 'em here.

> 5. Physics

> First, I'm using super-high frequency physics, which can be changed in
> the PLR file.  The standard are similar, as in F1 2002, while the
> flaws in the engine tend to be exaggerated somewhat.

> Just like F1 2002, a car that should be on the edge of traction at
> high speeds is glued to the track.  If you do use your brakes here,
> which I recommend since there's no engine braking to speak of, don't
> worry about applying them until you're near the apex.  Turn 1 at
> Pocono can be taken flat out until you near the apex, same with the
> turns at Bristol, Dover, and Martinsville.

> Apparently the reason drivers spin at Bristol is because of the cracks
> in the concrete.  I never noticed that before.  It must be tough
> flooring it there when the car wants to spin because the rear wheels
> are 6 inches off the ground every time your drive over a seal.

> As in F1 2002, make sure you keep the framerate above 60.  The
> polygon-based physics are touchy as always, and if those poor attempts
> at high-frequency bump modelling send you 6 inches off the ground at
> 60 fps, they'll have you sailing into the grass at 20 fps.

> GPL and N2002 win hands down at capturing the feel of a car on the
> threshold of friction (so does Dirt Track Racing 2, of all the
> surprises).  To some it may feel like a hovercar, I suppose, but I'd
> also guess that a car that is on the edge of control is going to feel
> more like a bug skittering on the surface of the water than a tank
> glued firmly in place until a rumble strip causes the rear end to snap
> around.  I'm probably wrong tho.  As in F1 2002, the sensation of
> weight transfer is minimal.  While this may be acceptable in a
> ground-hugging stiff-as-carbon F1 car, it feels completely out of
> place in the hulking behemoths in this game.  There is very little
> indication of what the car is doing in terms of weight transfer, which
> imho makes the sim harder to drive than N2002, at least when putting
> the car on the edge.  Thankfully, harder in this case doesn't mean
> more realistic.

> Controller configuration is as bad as F1 2002.  An amusing note is
> that the speed sensitivity slider doesn't go below 10% in the menus,
> but it does register as 0% if you check your PLR file.

> Jason

Jason Moy

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by Jason Moy » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 03:07:09



You are right.  I spent $40 on a game because I had nothing else to
use it on, even though I knew in advance that it would be horrible.  I
am so hung up on Papyrus that I buy every single notable racing sim
that comes out, even though none of them have come close to the
realism of GPL or N4/2002.  Yes, my blindless led me into purchasing
Nascar 2002 even though it was just a patch for Nascar 4 and didn't
include completely new features or a much more realistic and detailed
tire/suspension model.  My Papyrus fanaticism has led me to actually
continuing to tweak and play with Nascar Thunder 2003 today even
though it's obvious that I'd be better off reinstalling Nascar Heat
again.

*rolls eyes*

Jason

Haqsa

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by Haqsa » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 07:25:33

Papy's AI sucks, period.  It seems that most of their customers don't
notice it, because they never play single player.  I have no doubt that
Papy's multiplayer is excellent, but even NFS has better AI than they
do.


Bill, really.

We all know how you feel about Papyrus, but that is no reason to say EA
has a better sim.
If you think about it, Papy Did make several enhancements over the
years, even though that slowed as Sierra stepped in.
Still, it remains to be seen if EA will do the same, thereby changing
their own habits.

--
Tim White
www.intracmotorsports.com



  The AI are much better than N2002's follow the leader and *** by
number
  Pace Car :)

Haqsa

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by Haqsa » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 07:31:12

You didn't by any chance have all the aids on did you?  If it's anything
like the F1 games, they all default to on.




> <snip>

> Ok, I was tired when I posted this so here's some details on what is
> good and bad about the sim.

> 1. Graphics

> If you like F1 2002, you might like these.  The default LOD bias
> causes the cars to deres literally 5 feet in front of you.  As Ed
> Solheim pointed out in another thread, the rear view mirror makes it
> look like cars are literally on top of you.  The graphics feature the
> same flicker as the ISI F1 games, regardless of the FSAA level you
> use.  The textures remind me of SCGT, i.e. cartoony, dark, and
> oversaturated.  The car models aren't bad, but the cars seem much
> longer than a real WC stock car.

> The damage modelling is seriously humorous.  Hitting something on the
> side, like the wall, will cause the side to dent in a'la Nascar 2002
> but also puts a big gray hole in the car.  Best I can tell there's no
> damage to the hood or roof.  I've backed  the car into the wall at
> over 100mph and the bumper dented a bit, I was disappointed after
> being used to the way N2002 smushes your bumper all the way to the
> axle.  The nose damage looks wrong, after taking a few hits at the
> front the car starts looking like a shart, as you have this middle bit
> that sticks out with big dents on either side that, in real life,
> would be impossible because of the chassis and engine block being
> there.

> N2002 wins this category hands down, especially in terms of texture
> realism and graphical clarity.  It also runs 30 frames per second
> faster on my machine with full detail at 1280x1024x16 than NT2003
> does.  NT2003 does get bonus points for attempting to include some
> classic cars, but who wants to drive Cale Yarborough's early 80's #28
> car with "Cale" written on it instead of Hardee's.

> The wheel/hands are ugly and can't be removed in-game.  However you
> can comment out the lines that define these in the vehicle.gen file
> and everything looks much much better...except that the default
>***pit camera feels like you have your face pressed against the
> windshield, but YMMV.

> 2. Sound

> Most of the menu music is horrible, the single saving grace being
> Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" which I wish would just loop.

> The commentators at the beginning of the race sound like they were
> recorded in my bathroom.  Actually, I've done recordings in my
> bathroom and they were of higher quality.  For some curious reason,
> they've left out the driver introductions, so when the game does the
> standard F12k2 scroll through the field, you're left with an awkward
> silence.  Thankfully, this is preferable to hearing more of the
> announcing.

> Driving, the engine sound is far inferior to N2002.  The tire sounds
> are far inferior to N2002.  For the engines it seriously sounds like
> they sampled a chainsaw and ran it through some cheap plate reverb,
> it's that bad.

> 3. Layout/Presentation

> The menus are horrible.  Thankfully on the track selection screen
> there are drop down boxes you can access to select the track, but most
> things are laid out completely illogically and/or a pain to find.
> Selecting a driver (you have to use one of the real cars, there's no
> paintshop included or option to simply drive as yourself) requires
> going through a list with all of the drivers, which is a time
> consuming process.

> The rest is pretty much straight from F1 2002, with different icons
> and maybe slightly different on-screen placement.

> The race weekend is annoying.  There is no option to use a short pace
> lap, even with auto pace lap turned on, so at a place like the Glen be
> prepared to spend 5-10 minutes on a pace lap before putting in even a
> short race.  Speaking of auto pace lap, if auto pace lap and/or auto
> pitting are enabled, the game gives no warning that it's going to
> return control to you.  Just suddenly the spotter yells "GO GO GO" and
> you're sitting there scrambling for your wheel.

> The fighter jets screaming overhead at every single track are cheesy.
> On the other hand, I really felt like having sex with my cousin at
> that point, so it could be what they're going for.

> Replays are done F1 2002 style, so nothing to comment there.  If
> you've played an ISI game, you know what it's like.

> 4. Track Modelling

> Apparently Pocono is 4 or 5 lanes wide, doesn't require any braking,
> and is paved in concrete.  Apparently the esses and the outer loop at
> the Glen are banked about as much as Bristol, at least with the little
> bit of banking Bristol has in this game.  Seriously appalling.  The
> off-track details are of course just as bad, but you can't really
> expect much when the actual track surfaces are so far off.

> Speaking of track modelling, unless there is a change in banking at
> the apron, you can drive it without a penalty.  Just ran some really
> quick laps at Tally without venturing above the yellow line.

> If you're played a Papy NASCAR sim, or even watched a race or two on
> TV, be prepared for a shock the first time you take the car on the
> track.  Throw everything you know about the line of the tracks out the
> window, you won't need 'em here.

> 5. Physics

> First, I'm using super-high frequency physics, which can be changed in
> the PLR file.  The standard are similar, as in F1 2002, while the
> flaws in the engine tend to be exaggerated somewhat.

> Just like F1 2002, a car that should be on the edge of traction at
> high speeds is glued to the track.  If you do use your brakes here,
> which I recommend since there's no engine braking to speak of, don't
> worry about applying them until you're near the apex.  Turn 1 at
> Pocono can be taken flat out until you near the apex, same with the
> turns at Bristol, Dover, and Martinsville.

> Apparently the reason drivers spin at Bristol is because of the cracks
> in the concrete.  I never noticed that before.  It must be tough
> flooring it there when the car wants to spin because the rear wheels
> are 6 inches off the ground every time your drive over a seal.

> As in F1 2002, make sure you keep the framerate above 60.  The
> polygon-based physics are touchy as always, and if those poor attempts
> at high-frequency bump modelling send you 6 inches off the ground at
> 60 fps, they'll have you sailing into the grass at 20 fps.

> GPL and N2002 win hands down at capturing the feel of a car on the
> threshold of friction (so does Dirt Track Racing 2, of all the
> surprises).  To some it may feel like a hovercar, I suppose, but I'd
> also guess that a car that is on the edge of control is going to feel
> more like a bug skittering on the surface of the water than a tank
> glued firmly in place until a rumble strip causes the rear end to snap
> around.  I'm probably wrong tho.  As in F1 2002, the sensation of
> weight transfer is minimal.  While this may be acceptable in a
> ground-hugging stiff-as-carbon F1 car, it feels completely out of
> place in the hulking behemoths in this game.  There is very little
> indication of what the car is doing in terms of weight transfer, which
> imho makes the sim harder to drive than N2002, at least when putting
> the car on the edge.  Thankfully, harder in this case doesn't mean
> more realistic.

> Controller configuration is as bad as F1 2002.  An amusing note is
> that the speed sensitivity slider doesn't go below 10% in the menus,
> but it does register as 0% if you check your PLR file.

> Jason

Jon

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by Jon » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 07:39:55

.

Lol.....like these two things are identical. I watched the race on TV and damned if
I'm not shocked taking the car on the track....................................

Real racing is that. A game is a game period only and for enjoyment. Call it
a sim to feel better about playing games on the computer if you wish, but it
is a game, not real racing by any stretch of the imagination Unless you work
as a professional race car driver for a Winston Cup team and have many years experience
doing so, well then my friend your blowing smoke outta your ass. If someone likes the
game good if not thats fine too. Its all about what one enjoys. My .opinion, and in my
world its the only opinion that counts. Adios !

Carl Ribbegaard

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by Carl Ribbegaard » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 07:49:20

Papy AI is sufficient to get you up to speed before a league race ;-)

/Carl


> Papy's AI sucks, period.  It seems that most of their customers don't
> notice it, because they never play single player.  I have no doubt that
> Papy's multiplayer is excellent, but even NFS has better AI than they
> do.



> Bill, really.

> We all know how you feel about Papyrus, but that is no reason to say EA
> has a better sim.
> If you think about it, Papy Did make several enhancements over the
> years, even though that slowed as Sierra stepped in.
> Still, it remains to be seen if EA will do the same, thereby changing
> their own habits.

> --
> Tim White
> www.intracmotorsports.com



>   The AI are much better than N2002's follow the leader and *** by
> number
>   Pace Car :)

Don Burnett

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by Don Burnett » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 08:11:50

Well, I thank him as well, but in the other direction, based on what he mentioned along with what some others have mentioned, I will definitely pass on this one. I wasn't impressed with the screen shots, wasn't impressed with Heat, and now know I would not be impressed with this game.

Thanks for the detailed report Jason,

Don Burnette

jrdrags wrote:
> Jason,
> Thank you for helping with me decide whether to buy NT2003. You are
> obviously one of those who are so stuck on Papy and their $50.00
> patches that you wouldn't give anything a far chance. That was
> obvious from earlier posts before the game was released. So, I will
> leave N4 on my harddrive for my little boy to play with, while I will
> move on and try something different. Actually having more fun right
> now with the Lemans mod for F1 2002. And, like Heat, I will support
> anyone that goes head to head with Papy and their $50.00 patches.
> Thanks for the rant
> "Jason Moyer" <jmo...@chemlab.org> wrote in message
> news:3daee3e2.43217433@news.stargate.net...
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 02:55:19 GMT, jmo...@chemlab.org (Jason Moyer)
>> wrote:

>> <snip>

>> Ok, I was tired when I posted this so here's some details on what is
>> good and bad about the sim.

>> 1. Graphics

>> If you like F1 2002, you might like these.  The default LOD bias
>> causes the cars to deres literally 5 feet in front of you.  As Ed
>> Solheim pointed out in another thread, the rear view mirror makes it
>> look like cars are literally on top of you.  The graphics feature the
>> same flicker as the ISI F1 games, regardless of the FSAA level you
>> use.  The textures remind me of SCGT, i.e. cartoony, dark, and
>> oversaturated.  The car models aren't bad, but the cars seem much
>> longer than a real WC stock car.

>> The damage modelling is seriously humorous.  Hitting something on the
>> side, like the wall, will cause the side to dent in a'la Nascar 2002
>> but also puts a big gray hole in the car.  Best I can tell there's no
>> damage to the hood or roof.  I've backed  the car into the wall at
>> over 100mph and the bumper dented a bit, I was disappointed after
>> being used to the way N2002 smushes your bumper all the way to the
>> axle.  The nose damage looks wrong, after taking a few hits at the
>> front the car starts looking like a shart, as you have this middle
>> bit that sticks out with big dents on either side that, in real life,
>> would be impossible because of the chassis and engine block being
>> there.

>> N2002 wins this category hands down, especially in terms of texture
>> realism and graphical clarity.  It also runs 30 frames per second
>> faster on my machine with full detail at 1280x1024x16 than NT2003
>> does.  NT2003 does get bonus points for attempting to include some
>> classic cars, but who wants to drive Cale Yarborough's early 80's #28
>> car with "Cale" written on it instead of Hardee's.

>> The wheel/hands are ugly and can't be removed in-game.  However you
>> can comment out the lines that define these in the vehicle.gen file
>> and everything looks much much better...except that the default
>> cockpit camera feels like you have your face pressed against the
>> windshield, but YMMV.

>> 2. Sound

>> Most of the menu music is horrible, the single saving grace being
>> Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" which I wish would just loop.

>> The commentators at the beginning of the race sound like they were
>> recorded in my bathroom.  Actually, I've done recordings in my
>> bathroom and they were of higher quality.  For some curious reason,
>> they've left out the driver introductions, so when the game does the
>> standard F12k2 scroll through the field, you're left with an awkward
>> silence.  Thankfully, this is preferable to hearing more of the
>> announcing.

>> Driving, the engine sound is far inferior to N2002.  The tire sounds
>> are far inferior to N2002.  For the engines it seriously sounds like
>> they sampled a chainsaw and ran it through some cheap plate reverb,
>> it's that bad.

>> 3. Layout/Presentation

>> The menus are horrible.  Thankfully on the track selection screen
>> there are drop down boxes you can access to select the track, but
>> most things are laid out completely illogically and/or a pain to
>> find. Selecting a driver (you have to use one of the real cars,
>> there's no paintshop included or option to simply drive as yourself)
>> requires going through a list with all of the drivers, which is a
>> time consuming process.

>> The rest is pretty much straight from F1 2002, with different icons
>> and maybe slightly different on-screen placement.

>> The race weekend is annoying.  There is no option to use a short pace
>> lap, even with auto pace lap turned on, so at a place like the Glen
>> be prepared to spend 5-10 minutes on a pace lap before putting in
>> even a short race.  Speaking of auto pace lap, if auto pace lap
>> and/or auto pitting are enabled, the game gives no warning that it's
>> going to return control to you.  Just suddenly the spotter yells "GO
>> GO GO" and you're sitting there scrambling for your wheel.

>> The fighter jets screaming overhead at every single track are cheesy.
>> On the other hand, I really felt like having sex with my cousin at
>> that point, so it could be what they're going for.

>> Replays are done F1 2002 style, so nothing to comment there.  If
>> you've played an ISI game, you know what it's like.

>> 4. Track Modelling

>> Apparently Pocono is 4 or 5 lanes wide, doesn't require any braking,
>> and is paved in concrete.  Apparently the esses and the outer loop at
>> the Glen are banked about as much as Bristol, at least with the
>> little bit of banking Bristol has in this game.  Seriously
>> appalling.  The off-track details are of course just as bad, but you
>> can't really expect much when the actual track surfaces are so far
>> off.

>> Speaking of track modelling, unless there is a change in banking at
>> the apron, you can drive it without a penalty.  Just ran some really
>> quick laps at Tally without venturing above the yellow line.

>> If you're played a Papy NASCAR sim, or even watched a race or two on
>> TV, be prepared for a shock the first time you take the car on the
>> track.  Throw everything you know about the line of the tracks out
>> the window, you won't need 'em here.

>> 5. Physics

>> First, I'm using super-high frequency physics, which can be changed
>> in the PLR file.  The standard are similar, as in F1 2002, while the
>> flaws in the engine tend to be exaggerated somewhat.

>> Just like F1 2002, a car that should be on the edge of traction at
>> high speeds is glued to the track.  If you do use your brakes here,
>> which I recommend since there's no engine braking to speak of, don't
>> worry about applying them until you're near the apex.  Turn 1 at
>> Pocono can be taken flat out until you near the apex, same with the
>> turns at Bristol, Dover, and Martinsville.

>> Apparently the reason drivers spin at Bristol is because of the
>> cracks in the concrete.  I never noticed that before.  It must be
>> tough flooring it there when the car wants to spin because the rear
>> wheels are 6 inches off the ground every time your drive over a seal.

>> As in F1 2002, make sure you keep the framerate above 60.  The
>> polygon-based physics are touchy as always, and if those poor
>> attempts at high-frequency bump modelling send you 6 inches off the
>> ground at 60 fps, they'll have you sailing into the grass at 20 fps.

>> GPL and N2002 win hands down at capturing the feel of a car on the
>> threshold of friction (so does Dirt Track Racing 2, of all the
>> surprises).  To some it may feel like a hovercar, I suppose, but I'd
>> also guess that a car that is on the edge of control is going to feel
>> more like a bug skittering on the surface of the water than a tank
>> glued firmly in place until a rumble strip causes the rear end to
>> snap around.  I'm probably wrong tho.  As in F1 2002, the sensation
>> of weight transfer is minimal.  While this may be acceptable in a
>> ground-hugging stiff-as-carbon F1 car, it feels completely out of
>> place in the hulking behemoths in this game.  There is very little
>> indication of what the car is doing in terms of weight transfer,
>> which imho makes the sim harder to drive than N2002, at least when
>> putting the car on the edge.  Thankfully, harder in this case
>> doesn't mean more realistic.

>> Controller configuration is as bad as F1 2002.  An amusing note is
>> that the speed sensitivity slider doesn't go below 10% in the menus,
>> but it does register as 0% if you check your PLR file.

>> Jason

Philste

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by Philste » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 08:20:44

Actually, his review is really spot on. Too bad I can't return the game.

--
Philippe "Philster" Sergerie

"jrdrags" <jrdr...@adelphia.net> wrote in message

news:TBCr9.34633$m92.6645630@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Jason,
> Thank you for helping with me decide whether to buy NT2003. You are
> obviously one of those who are so stuck on Papy and their $50.00 patches
> that you wouldn't give anything a far chance. That was obvious from
earlier
> posts before the game was released. So, I will leave N4 on my harddrive
for
> my little boy to play with, while I will move on and try something
> different. Actually having more fun right now with the Lemans mod for F1
> 2002. And, like Heat, I will support anyone that goes head to head with
Papy
> and their $50.00 patches.
> Thanks for the rant
> "Jason Moyer" <jmo...@chemlab.org> wrote in message
> news:3daee3e2.43217433@news.stargate.net...
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 02:55:19 GMT, jmo...@chemlab.org (Jason Moyer)
> > wrote:

> > <snip>

> > Ok, I was tired when I posted this so here's some details on what is
> > good and bad about the sim.

> > 1. Graphics

> > If you like F1 2002, you might like these.  The default LOD bias
> > causes the cars to deres literally 5 feet in front of you.  As Ed
> > Solheim pointed out in another thread, the rear view mirror makes it
> > look like cars are literally on top of you.  The graphics feature the
> > same flicker as the ISI F1 games, regardless of the FSAA level you
> > use.  The textures remind me of SCGT, i.e. cartoony, dark, and
> > oversaturated.  The car models aren't bad, but the cars seem much
> > longer than a real WC stock car.

> > The damage modelling is seriously humorous.  Hitting something on the
> > side, like the wall, will cause the side to dent in a'la Nascar 2002
> > but also puts a big gray hole in the car.  Best I can tell there's no
> > damage to the hood or roof.  I've backed  the car into the wall at
> > over 100mph and the bumper dented a bit, I was disappointed after
> > being used to the way N2002 smushes your bumper all the way to the
> > axle.  The nose damage looks wrong, after taking a few hits at the
> > front the car starts looking like a shart, as you have this middle bit
> > that sticks out with big dents on either side that, in real life,
> > would be impossible because of the chassis and engine block being
> > there.

> > N2002 wins this category hands down, especially in terms of texture
> > realism and graphical clarity.  It also runs 30 frames per second
> > faster on my machine with full detail at 1280x1024x16 than NT2003
> > does.  NT2003 does get bonus points for attempting to include some
> > classic cars, but who wants to drive Cale Yarborough's early 80's #28
> > car with "Cale" written on it instead of Hardee's.

> > The wheel/hands are ugly and can't be removed in-game.  However you
> > can comment out the lines that define these in the vehicle.gen file
> > and everything looks much much better...except that the default
> > cockpit camera feels like you have your face pressed against the
> > windshield, but YMMV.

> > 2. Sound

> > Most of the menu music is horrible, the single saving grace being
> > Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" which I wish would just loop.

> > The commentators at the beginning of the race sound like they were
> > recorded in my bathroom.  Actually, I've done recordings in my
> > bathroom and they were of higher quality.  For some curious reason,
> > they've left out the driver introductions, so when the game does the
> > standard F12k2 scroll through the field, you're left with an awkward
> > silence.  Thankfully, this is preferable to hearing more of the
> > announcing.

> > Driving, the engine sound is far inferior to N2002.  The tire sounds
> > are far inferior to N2002.  For the engines it seriously sounds like
> > they sampled a chainsaw and ran it through some cheap plate reverb,
> > it's that bad.

> > 3. Layout/Presentation

> > The menus are horrible.  Thankfully on the track selection screen
> > there are drop down boxes you can access to select the track, but most
> > things are laid out completely illogically and/or a pain to find.
> > Selecting a driver (you have to use one of the real cars, there's no
> > paintshop included or option to simply drive as yourself) requires
> > going through a list with all of the drivers, which is a time
> > consuming process.

> > The rest is pretty much straight from F1 2002, with different icons
> > and maybe slightly different on-screen placement.

> > The race weekend is annoying.  There is no option to use a short pace
> > lap, even with auto pace lap turned on, so at a place like the Glen be
> > prepared to spend 5-10 minutes on a pace lap before putting in even a
> > short race.  Speaking of auto pace lap, if auto pace lap and/or auto
> > pitting are enabled, the game gives no warning that it's going to
> > return control to you.  Just suddenly the spotter yells "GO GO GO" and
> > you're sitting there scrambling for your wheel.

> > The fighter jets screaming overhead at every single track are cheesy.
> > On the other hand, I really felt like having sex with my cousin at
> > that point, so it could be what they're going for.

> > Replays are done F1 2002 style, so nothing to comment there.  If
> > you've played an ISI game, you know what it's like.

> > 4. Track Modelling

> > Apparently Pocono is 4 or 5 lanes wide, doesn't require any braking,
> > and is paved in concrete.  Apparently the esses and the outer loop at
> > the Glen are banked about as much as Bristol, at least with the little
> > bit of banking Bristol has in this game.  Seriously appalling.  The
> > off-track details are of course just as bad, but you can't really
> > expect much when the actual track surfaces are so far off.

> > Speaking of track modelling, unless there is a change in banking at
> > the apron, you can drive it without a penalty.  Just ran some really
> > quick laps at Tally without venturing above the yellow line.

> > If you're played a Papy NASCAR sim, or even watched a race or two on
> > TV, be prepared for a shock the first time you take the car on the
> > track.  Throw everything you know about the line of the tracks out the
> > window, you won't need 'em here.

> > 5. Physics

> > First, I'm using super-high frequency physics, which can be changed in
> > the PLR file.  The standard are similar, as in F1 2002, while the
> > flaws in the engine tend to be exaggerated somewhat.

> > Just like F1 2002, a car that should be on the edge of traction at
> > high speeds is glued to the track.  If you do use your brakes here,
> > which I recommend since there's no engine braking to speak of, don't
> > worry about applying them until you're near the apex.  Turn 1 at
> > Pocono can be taken flat out until you near the apex, same with the
> > turns at Bristol, Dover, and Martinsville.

> > Apparently the reason drivers spin at Bristol is because of the cracks
> > in the concrete.  I never noticed that before.  It must be tough
> > flooring it there when the car wants to spin because the rear wheels
> > are 6 inches off the ground every time your drive over a seal.

> > As in F1 2002, make sure you keep the framerate above 60.  The
> > polygon-based physics are touchy as always, and if those poor attempts
> > at high-frequency bump modelling send you 6 inches off the ground at
> > 60 fps, they'll have you sailing into the grass at 20 fps.

> > GPL and N2002 win hands down at capturing the feel of a car on the
> > threshold of friction (so does Dirt Track Racing 2, of all the
> > surprises).  To some it may feel like a hovercar, I suppose, but I'd
> > also guess that a car that is on the edge of control is going to feel
> > more like a bug skittering on the surface of the water than a tank
> > glued firmly in place until a rumble strip causes the rear end to snap
> > around.  I'm probably wrong tho.  As in F1 2002, the sensation of
> > weight transfer is minimal.  While this may be acceptable in a
> > ground-hugging stiff-as-carbon F1 car, it feels completely out of
> > place in the hulking behemoths in this game.  There is very little
> > indication of what the car is doing in terms of weight transfer, which
> > imho makes the sim harder to drive than N2002, at least when putting
> > the car on the edge.  Thankfully, harder in this case doesn't mean
> > more realistic.

> > Controller configuration is as bad as F1 2002.  An amusing note is
> > that the speed sensitivity slider doesn't go below 10% in the menus,
> > but it does register as 0% if you check your PLR file.

> > Jason

JTBur

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by JTBur » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:18:26

LOL


> Papy AI is sufficient to get you up to speed before a league race ;-)

> /Carl



> > Papy's AI sucks, period.  It seems that most of their customers don't
> > notice it, because they never play single player.  I have no doubt that
> > Papy's multiplayer is excellent, but even NFS has better AI than they
> > do.



> > Bill, really.

> > We all know how you feel about Papyrus, but that is no reason to say EA
> > has a better sim.
> > If you think about it, Papy Did make several enhancements over the
> > years, even though that slowed as Sierra stepped in.
> > Still, it remains to be seen if EA will do the same, thereby changing
> > their own habits.

> > --
> > Tim White
> > www.intracmotorsports.com



> >   The AI are much better than N2002's follow the leader and *** by
> > number
> >   Pace Car :)

Damien Smit

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by Damien Smit » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:47:21

I know you're joking, but Papy have never, in any of their sims, captured
the feeling of a car gripping the road.  For me, it's the achilles heel of
all their games.  If only they could sort this out, then we wouldn't even
give ISI's (often dodgy) sims a second look.

Dave Henri

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by Dave Henri » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:24:31


  Bill, really.

  We all know how you feel about Papyrus, but that is no reason to say EA has a better sim.
  If you think about it, Papy Did make several enhancements over the years, even though that slowed as Sierra stepped in.
  Still, it remains to be seen if EA will do the same, thereby changing their own habits.

  --
  Tim White
  www.intracmotorsports.com

      If we look at the recent history of ISI and EA we can glean some of the future.  F1 2k was a quick and dirty knock-off of SCGT.  It brought most of it's problems forwards.  F1 2k cs was a minor improvement,  but the 2nd full release f1 2k1 saw a near quantum leap forward.  and 2k2 built on that.  So I would suspect, that now the next title will have a full year of development, it should be a big step up.
      Having said that, ISI has to date NOT addressed the huge bandwidth needed for multiplayer that has been their worst failing all the way back to SCGT & the overly bumpiness and general in-accurate tracks.
      Will Nt get better, I would think so..but will they EVER figure out the multiplayer problems??
    dave henrie

ymenar

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by ymenar » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:30:25


> *** by number Pace Car :)

Heheh good one Bill ;)

I've said time and again how the solution is to make the pacecar in a way
that it could pass through cars while not being transparent in graphics.
Would cure the problem.

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

ymenar

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by ymenar » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:34:57


> Thank you for helping with me decide whether to buy NT2003. You are
> obviously one of those who are so stuck on Papy and their $50.00 patches
> that you wouldn't give anything a far chance.

Why would we give an inferior product a chance?

--
-- 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...

ymenar

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by ymenar » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:37:59


> Real racing is that. A game is a game period only and for enjoyment. Call
it
> a sim to feel better about playing games on the computer if you wish, but
it
> is a game, not real racing by any stretch of the imagination

Then again, ask the same thing to Dale Jr. and many Winston Cup drivers that
practice on NR2003 daily to keep up in shape, as it's 95% like real-life
racing.  They will all tell you that it's racing.  Or else, why would Dale
Jr. waste his time racing multiplayer in VRW if it wasn't racing?

NT2003 is perhaps 50% like reality. The glass is half-empty for me, while
half-full for some.

--
-- 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...

M. Mai

NASCAR Thunder 2003 Mini-Review

by M. Mai » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 15:27:03

Oh give me a ***ing break... how much is EA sucking you off?!?!?!

--
M. Main

Vice President, RacersEdge Motorsports Inc.
Challenges are inevitable, Defeat is optional...   www.Racers-Edge.net
#69 2002 LoA/CoA Chevy Monte Carlo Sim-racecar
www.LordsOfAcid.com / www.ChildrenOfAcid.com


  Yes, because it actually feels like a car, not like some hover craft :)



  >


  > > Anyone know what tracks Pocono and Watkins Glen are supposed to be?
  > > Jason
  >
  >   It ain't no GPL !
  >
  >


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.