I'll listen to Alen Jones before you lot anyday. So f1rs must be the most
accurate, cos Allen said so.
Another time, it depends on the level of accuracy some people want in racing
simulators. It's just normal that some people want more compared to others.
I want that friggin kurb to be at the same place then in real life. I want
the last turn at Imola to be accurate darn it! How can they possibily NOT
model it accurately? They have the tools (which you will see below are much
bigger than you may think). If they can't, it's because there is a fault in
the game engine, or on purpose they have chosen to not push the limits of
track accuracy.
Hmmm... this has been done for years. I bet any of us could easily
anticipate their action based on the track layout back in the days of F1GP.
LOL! You clearly have no knowledge of how the game developers get their
information on the tracks?
Idiots like me admit that THEY DO infact go to tracks and take
pictures/videos, measure about everything you can see. Looks like the idiot
learned you something today. Nice try to flame somebody eh... If you have
a FIA license, then be sure that they get exclusive data and track
information by the track owners, including very detailled maps of each
track. Be sure that they send somebody to the majority of tracks to get
intensive information on them. That's what Papyrus do. That's what at
Ubisoft they got for F1RS. Of course we know how the modelling appeared on
the final product, but like I said above the reason is that the game engine
couldn't simply model correctly many factors. But in F1 2000 it can. And
in the next Papyrus game engine it can also. And in WSC. And in Motorsim's
game engine (look at the incredible track accuracy in AMA SBK). And in SBK
2000 (EA should had used track data from that title and give it to ISI).
And in <insert any current game engine>. Is it hard to understand?
--
-- 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.
As far as I and others are concerned F12K does a great job when tweaked
properly.
> >Would you race a simulator where it claims accuracy yet has per example
> >Monaco with a first corner turning left?
> >Im exagerating, but
> No shit....but I will say this. The tracks are no where
> near as bad as you and others seem to think they are. I ran
> a 50 percent race at Silverstone Saturday and got to know
> the track in F1 2000 fairly well. Then this morning, I
> watched the taped and very delayed broadcast of the race.
> For some reason, I knew exactly where the drivers were on
> the track...I was anticipating their actions (except
> Barrichello's hydraulic fluid induced spin) prior to their
> doing them and that was a first for me. I will admit I am
> not the diehard fan of Formula 1 a lot of folks on this list
> are (I went to my first F1 race in Monaco in 1978 and went
> to several other races that year and one in 79), but I have
> watched the races on tely when I could. And now that I have
> F12K I wish I had it for the first three races. Tracks may
> not be perfect, but even an idiot like you would have to
> admit that it wouldn't be cost effective to go to each and
> every track and make each and every measurement. From the
> information they were provided, the makers of the sim did a
> good job. Now shut up and drive...okay? Or wait for the
> 1998 version of Grand Prix 3.
> L. Sobkoviak, who needs to learn how to break a lot better
>Not true. I have driven Silverstone on several occasions and it is
>accurate.
It's beginning to be a hype to dislike F1 2000.
But I like this game very much.
I've downloaded the 37 mb GP3-mpeg of Monaco.
After watching it several times, I played the same circuit with
F1 2000.
And I don't see any big differences, even the sounds seems to be very
equal.
And doesn't just everybody hate the sounds of F1 2000?
I don't understand why.
F1 2000 has a good gameplay, I'm afraid GP3 is coming close to GPL.
GPL is also for me a perfect sim , but almost no fun to play.
Much to difficult to have fun with it.
What is the fun of needing month's of practising on one circuit to set
proper times?
Ben
>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.
Ben
>>Would you race a simulator where it claims accuracy yet has per example
>>Monaco with a first corner turning left?
>Then this morning, I watched the taped and very delayed broadcast of the race.
>For some reason, I knew exactly where the drivers were on
>the track...
Ben
Well, I'm not sure what F1 you're watching on TV, but to me F12K is the most
accurate F1 sim, in terms of track accuracy.
Another time... even if it's the best at the moment, it doesn't mean it's
well modeled!!!!
And FYI, some user created tracks for GP2 was amazing.
And another time, it always depends on your level of accuracy. Some people
will find the basic layout enough to satisfy themselves, while for others
it's much more in-depth. Nothing wrong with both sides, unless you have a
person like Iain who wants to discuss about it here. Then it's normal to
have meticulous people about the track accuracy to argue with him. Why is
it hard to understand? And what's wrong with that?
--
-- 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.
Tracks, like physics, graphics or sound, are never 100% right in
whatever game you'll take. It never will. Francois _might_ be right,
but people who are happy with it are the winners...
Remco
>What's wrong is that it is not opposite opinions we are arguing about, it's
>about who is right. There are a lot of things in life that are a matter of
>opinion, e.g. music, politics, etc. etc. In these cases, there is no right
>and wrong, there are only opinions which each individual legitimately
>holds - all a question of taste.
>In the case of something like track accuracy, there is a right and a wrong,
>and that is what we disagree on.
>Iain
>PS Please don't take a few words out of context here as usual.
So you think that the tracks are 100% accurate and one cannot argue about
it? I would have no problem with you stating that you are satisfied with
the track layout in F12K, but if you insist on the fact that there is only
right and wrong then it's you who is on the wrong side. From the few times
I've watched the CART TV coverage I could've assumed that the Laguna Seca
representation in SCGT was accurate. All the people in this group who know
this track better than me say it's completely and utterly wrong. From
personal experience I know that Hockenheim track in SCGT is a bad joke. F12K
simply continues that infamous ISI tradition of <very> poor track modelling.
Everybody who has real life experience at a certain track has more or less
confirmed that (except you). That is even more disappointing because they
have a game engine that should be able to do much better. And that is
exactly why I'm not satisfied with this level of track accuracy because I
know it can be done better. Much better.
For me, the tracks are a major part of F1. Each of these corners is
designed to provide a certain unique challenge for the driver. If a sim
doesn't reflect this challenge, there is a major part of the F1 fascination
missing. If there is no challenge in getting Eau Rouge right then I get no
satisfaction out of driving at Spa. If I can't drive the castrol bend at the
Nurburgring similar to like I would do it in real life because the corner
radius and curb placement is totally wrong then the whole point of having a
F1 simulation is questioned. Why not use fantasy tracks from the start? This
might be splitting hairs, but it should be allowed to be critical in a group
that carries the name "rec.autos.simulators". Leave the praises to the
EA-sponsored *** mags.
The fact that there is nothing better at the moment, doesn't make F12K a
good sim.
P.S. I urge everyone who thinks that F12K is the best modern F1 sim to
install GP2 on a powerful machine, turn off all driving aids (including the
steering and opposite lock help in the control setup screen), download the
excellent user-created tracks from the net and have a GP weekend against
"Ace" opponents. Then ask yourself: "Is F1-2000 really better?". I don't
think so.
P.S. II : FYI: For everyone in Europe (ONLY Europe, i'm afraid) who likes
F1-2000 there is an interesting competition run by Mobil-1 Motorsport. You
can win tickets to GP weekends and more while competing in a championship
that consists of 10% GP length races. Take a look at
http://www.racesimcentral.net/'re interested.
Exactly what agenda is that?
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
You have got to be joking.
Silverstone in F1 2000 is accurate. Duh. Certainly accurate enough
to race on a computer and watch the race to see how accurate every
thing in the game is. Frankly I doubt that any track layout in F1 2000
regardless of what it is will satisfy you people.
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
> 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.
No bashing huh??? It seems to me that you do not have a good
definition of the silverstone track layout or a good definition of
bashing.
Besides, what the hell do you care about the tracks in F1 2000
anyway? It isn't GPL (never you mind if GPL's tracks are accurate
or not) so it must suck right?
At this point you have said your piece, so your continual pounding
is bashing. Don't you have a pet dog or something to spend your
time on?
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
Exactly right. In fact I am sure he is right. However the extent which
he dismisses the game because of some small inaccuracies (which
cannot be spotted by most F1 fans anyway) is simply ridiculous.
F1 2000 is fun. Way fun. The tracks are great. Maybe not perfect
if I were to survey every track. But they are not like Road & Tracks
Grand Prix (remember that game?). I feel the tracks are way more
accurate than F1RS because if the elevation changes. I also judge
the accuracy of the track with actually simulator driving. Meaning that
if I have to be in the same gear as the real guys in the same corners
that is more than enough for me. Oh and some other idiot was
complaining that a curb was in the wrong place... Get real.
If people bother to read the F1 2000 stuff on www.easports.com
they will see that EA took great pains to get the tracks accurate.
The tracks are *FAR* better than the detractors claim and certainly
not enough of a problem to dismiss a great F1 game. IMHO the
best modern F1 game to date. Now if someone wants to dismiss
F1 2000 because of crappy framerates, especially at the starts.
Or complain about no SAVE-GAME capability in between
GrandPrix sessions... Well I would certainly not argue about that.
But this track accuracy stuff is getting a little silly.
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
