rec.autos.simulators

by **Paulo Lea** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 05:39:33

F1RC is better in all aspects... no doubt

by **John Bod** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 05:57:06

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:39:33 +0100, "Paulo Leao"

>F1RC is better in all aspects... no doubt

Yeah, especially the physics category. I mean, how could F1 2001 ever
hope to measure up with only a 200 Hz physics engine. After all,
F1RC's physics engine runs at . . . uh, gee, what does it run at?

:-\

-- JB

by **Rob Swindell** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 06:04:18

TROLL-O-METER

1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10
^you are here.

Must try harder.

> F1RC is better in all aspects... no doubt

by **Andre Warring** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 06:10:17

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:39:33 +0100, "Paulo Leao"

>F1RC is better in all aspects... no doubt

Well, that settles the F1RC vs F1 2001 discussion then.

Andre

by **Jeff** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 06:10:46

here we go....

now you've done it....

:-)

by **Jeff** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 06:12:38

well, he does have a point! your tires don't get brown when you drive in a
gravel trap!

(not that i make a habit of driving through them or anything)

by **Jan Verschuere** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:17:45

Care to provide some argumentation?

Jan.
=---
"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

by **Thomas M?rlun** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:13:07

because.

;o)

by **Jan Verschuere** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:49:34

heh... good one.

Jan.
=---
"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

by **David G Fishe** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:05:47

Maybe he's read so many of those silly "it's no GPL" comments that he thinks
a one liner is all that's needed for r.a.s.

David G Fisher

by **Dave Henri** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:41:52

Hey John....
I don't want to be a spoil sport...but...
Just because a program has a 200hz physics engine, doesn't mean
it is necessarily better. I mean 200hz of ***still won't beat 50hz of
something good. Now saying the 200hz f1 2k+1 engine allows fizzics that
overwhelm those of... say.... F1rc is a qualitive statement and if you can
present facts to back it up, then that kind of statement will better support
your argument.
If that fails you can always fall back to the tried and true...
"my Dad can whup your Dad!"

dave henrie

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:39:33 +0100, "Paulo Leao"

> >F1RC is better in all aspects... no doubt

> Yeah, especially the physics category. I mean, how could F1 2001 ever
> hope to measure up with only a 200 Hz physics engine. After all,
> F1RC's physics engine runs at . . . uh, gee, what does it run at?

> :-\

> -- JB

by **Simon Brow** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:17:37

ROFL :)

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:39:33 +0100, "Paulo Leao"

> >F1RC is better in all aspects... no doubt

> Well, that settles the F1RC vs F1 2001 discussion then.

> Andre

by **Alan Bernard** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:20:35

Great argument.

Alanb

by **Iain Mackenzi** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:29:59

oh well, that settles that one then!

by **Olav K. Malm** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:23:41

Come to think about it, there hasn't been many "it's no GPL" posts
about F1 2001 ?

But for once, you are probably right :)

> David G Fisher

> > Care to provide some argumentation?

> > Jan.
> > =---
> > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

> > "Paulo Leao" wrote...
> > > F1RC is better in all aspects... no doubt

--
Olav K. Malmin
remove .spam when replying

rec.autos.simulators

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC

F1 2001 can′t touch F1RC