rec.autos.simulators

It's a question of how you define "Accurate" . I'd say it needs much more
than a taste of the general track layout. I'd expect correct curb placement,
track width and track length and bumps - along with realistic "best lines",
cornering speeds and laptimes from a really "accurately" modelled track.
There only sim ATM that features tracks that can satisfy most of these
demands, is Milestone's SBK2000. I guess you'll also try to tell this group
in 4 weeks that you watched the Nurburgring practice on TV and that the
track is "accurate". It isn't. Neither is Imola, Interlagos or Silverstone.

GP3 will be based on the 98 Season, so they had plenty of Material to work
with to make it accurate and exciting.

One example where the Silverstone model is totally wrong is coming onto the
hangar straight. In reality driver let their cars run to the outside in
F12000 you can exit the corner on the left side with ease.

F12000 just is a very dissapointing game, it's ashame I would have loved to
see EA offering some competition to Geoff.
Let's just hope Image will indeed be taken from the development of F12001
and that they buy the GPL engine and modify it into a modern F1 sim. I don't
think EA would ever do that, after all it needs be a game.

Sorry but no.  Silverstone is VERY wrong, and from the replies you have had
it seems to be an agreement.  And it's no "anti-F12000" bashing here.  It's
the truth.  Corner radius in the first portion of the circuit is totally
wrong (ex : the fast esses at Maggots are almost of the same radius two by
two, but in F12k it's clearly not like that).  The kurbs are totally out of
place, and the Bridge section doesn't have the correct elevation.  In fact
there's almost no elevation at all compared to real life.  There is still
some good object placement (in fact, F1 2k has an incredible ammount of
polygons at any moment!).

UH? Ask anybody they will tell you that the Australia circuit was NOT really
accurate.  Some portions are good, but the last portion is clearly
inaccurate.  In fact I never heard anybody on r.a.s. say the track was
accurate, but actually the opposite, with a couple of messages putting down
the track in F1 2000.

If they only had shined the product instead of releasing it that fast...

--
-- 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.

I'll wait until someone who drives around these tracks for a living
expresses an opinion before I make any conclusions.

What diference does it make to the playability of the game anyway!

Would you race a simulator where it claims accuracy yet has per example
Monaco with a first corner turning left?

Im exagerating, but everybody has it's own opinion on how far the accuracy
level should be in a simulator.  I want extreme accuracy as those people
HAVE the tools to make them accurate.  But the fact that F1 2000 was pushed
fast into a release might be the reason for poor track modeling.

--
-- 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.

Ever so slightly!

Pretty soon we'll be arguing about whether the bunch of daisies to the left
of the approach to Copse is modelled accurately or not!

The words splitting and hairs come to mind.

Iain

Hey, everybody has their own set of "how realistic they want the track
accuracy".

Yours seems to be pretty low, while for others it's much higher.  Deal with
it, but don't come up in this newsgroup (populated with *** simracers
who promote realism in racing simulators)  posting that the track are
accurate and expect people who want a high level of track accuracy to simply
say "yes Master I agree with thou my lord".

--
-- 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.

Give me an example. They seemed in the right place to me when I studied the
in car shots today.

I checked this very carefully today.  Going to Hangar Strait in F12K is the
same as in the GP.  Of course, you can exit on the left as you can in a GP,
but neither would give you the correct racing line, so in both cases one
should exit wide on the right.

Iain

You seem to have a very selective memory.  There were many praises of the
accuracy on Albert Park with some debate about small aspects of the last
portion.
There were also many posts praising the accuracy of Interlagos and Imola.
Iain

No you seem to have replied to my message.  Tell me what's wrong with what I
wrote below? Nothing.

Some people want more accuracy than others.  Nothing wrong in this.  Your
level seems low in this newsgroup, for others it's in the middle and finally
some want track level accuracy to the maximum.  I am one of them, since I
personally think that with the tools they have, they should easily model the
tracks in an accurate way.  That includes the correct track width, corner
radius, elevation, run-off, camber, banking, etc...

But please, don't expect to post in this NG and tell that tracks are
accurate.  There will always be people (like in this thead, which had
everybody put down the accuracy of Silverstone in F1 2000) that will
challenge the track accuracy.

So another time, read the below text and tell me what's wrong in it? It's
simply stating the facts.

<snip rubbish attempt to put me down>

--
-- 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.

Pure invention by yourself.  From a DEJA research, I have yet to find any
praise about the accuracy of the Australian GP in F1 2000.

Your hidden agenda is very obvious.  Please state posts that praise the
track accuracy of Albert Park.  Nice try.

Meanwhile, please read just an example of what people have to say about the
track :

---------------------------------------------
By Todd Dry :

The next odd thing I noticed was the track.  It has a track that is shaped
much like the Albert Park circuit, but when I'm driving it I don't get the
feeling that Albert Park is where I am.  Call it the immersion factor or
whatever, but for me anyway it just doesn't capture, I guess, the spirit of
the event.  Yes, the car feels like a car and the track feels like a track
but it doesn't feel like the Australian Grand Prix.  I got comfortable with
the car and decided to do some quick races so I put myself at the back of
the field (where a Minardi is supposed to be) and proceeded to race.
Visions of CPR again.
---------------------------------------------
By Harjan Brand :

As for the track accuracy, it's horrible.
---------------------------------------------

I don't care about the title, but please if you come here and shout that the
tracks are correctly modeled (FYI you are not the only person who have been
to F1 circuits), expect people to argument with you.

--
-- 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.

L. Sobkoviak, who needs to learn how to break a lot better