rec.autos.simulators

by **Ashley McConnel** » Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:29:50

It's no GPL

....there :)

I said it.....

Ash :)

|
| > 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.
|
| 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

by **Jens H. Kruus** » Sun, 14 Oct 2001 03:15:30

I'll second that. When Andr is good he is very droll. Very dry, very British.
:-)

> 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 **Jens H. Kruus** » Sun, 14 Oct 2001 03:17:47

What's with the cardboard sticking out from the car in all directions?
Especielly in the front and rear? Did they forget to use duct tape? Won't that
ruin the clean airflow?

> 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

> > 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

by **redTe** » Sun, 14 Oct 2001 04:13:24

augmentation ? Like in Deus-Ex ?

by **Rafe McAulif** » Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:49:28

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:04:18 +0100, Rob Swindells

>TROLL-O-METER

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

>Must try harder.

LOL - Good one :D

Rafe Mc

by **Andre Warrin** » Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:57:10

>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 :)
>--
>Olav K. Malmin
>remove .spam when replying

Because.. ssttt.. because this one actually comes close to being a
GPL..

Andre

by **John Bod** » Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:39:08

Frankly, Dave, the fact that the physics engine is running at 200hz,
combined with with what I have seen regarding the physics parameters
in the various F1 2001 files, provides me with a fair level of
certainty that there is some fairly sophisticated physics going on
with F1 2001. My own experience behind the wheel in F1 2001 backs
this up, using the acknowledged physics benchmark, GPL, as my
reference.

F1RC, on the other hand, the physics in F1RC seems about as
sophisticated as F1WGP, based on my own experience with both of those
games.

:-/

-- JB

> 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 **Dave Henri** » Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:15:11

I would agree based on the other comments on this board. BUt, I'm still
just being picky...your reply was something like ...
"it's better because it runs at 200hz" I remember when GPL came out and
the programmers made a big deal about using a much higher hz rate than
before. But they never told us what the higher clock rate did. Your
mini-review gave me more info on the subject than what I had previously
learned.
But...
since the original questioner didn't seem to understand what the
improvements in F12001 were, your answer was too short...you should have
said ..
'it's better than f12000 or F1rc because of the 200mhz physics engine,
which enables the programmers to.....(fill in the many blanks)'
:)
dave henrie

can't comment on either of those...remember I only got F1cs because of the
Pepsi deal...hehehe
btw..EA has a new thing on my milk carton called ***cash...I have a $10
coupon...is F12001 one of the available titles???
dh

> :-/

> -- JB

> > 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

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