On the flip side.....
I would like to see a list of those folks who have already sent in their
cash.
See if I can recognise any of the avid supporters of this scheme are on it.
Cya
Nigel
On the flip side.....
I would like to see a list of those folks who have already sent in their
cash.
See if I can recognise any of the avid supporters of this scheme are on it.
Cya
Nigel
The projection systems used may be slightly better than
whats standard with a new pc though, not to mention
the motion systems :-) (*)
But if RL really is designed for high end use, multiple
large screen displays driven by a pc each shouldn't be a
problem, so the limitation will be in what you can afford,
not in the software.
_
Mats Lofkvist
(*) Motion systems doesn't seem to be used as much for
military aircraft like fighters as for the large
commercial stuff though. The motion systems just
aren't fast enough for small agile aircraft, and
even if they were fast enough there will never be
a motion platform that can produce enough G's to
fully simulate a fighter (**). Most of these
limitations applies to racing sims also, so it isn't
obvious that even the pros will use motion platforms
for racing sims. (Maybe a platform doing rotations
only could be useful.)
(**) The only aircraft simulator I have heard of that
could simulate sustained G's really is a real
aircraft set up to simulate another type of aircraft,
so I don't think this solution will apply to any
racing sim with less than the Ferrari F1 budget :-)
This is probably the easiest way of reducing the number of interested
testers, while helping pay the living expenses on the side.
Personally, I will vote "no", although if the amount were reduced to about
$5 I would probably be tempted (even though I feel it's supporting exactly
the kinds of things that are wrong with the software industry at the
moment).
Ryan
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Another thing that crossed my mind-- The programming required for the detail
they talk about would have to be buggy as all get-out at first. I am not an
expert by any means, but if bigger companies can release a less complex game
that is full of bugs, I don't see how two guys alone will fare better.
I do want to see it released, but I would definitely have to sit back awhile
and see what everybody else thought about it. If they get wrl out and
working right with most computers this year, I will be impressed.
That is what somebody should work on. A compact full motion simulator with a
vr helmet (maybe the outside could look like a racing helmet) with a wide
true-3d image that would change with head movement, would be completely
compatible with my favorite sims, and would cost no more than $1000.
"Tom Osbon" wrote in
So is that a *maybe* no, or a *definitely not* no ?
:)
Scuse me?...
Drop by the F16 simulator in the Netherlands and you'l find a seperate
room with a supercomputer to do the math and SGI stuff doing the gfx,
all in all worth a few million dineros..
This whole "RL will be compare to GPL as a military simulator compares
to Falcon 4" is a load of bull...
The number crunching power needed to make a sim like everyone desires,
as in surpassing N2002 by a looooong way, is far from being on the
normal consumers desktop...
Papy is on the edge of things currently possible, sure...a bit better
might be possible..but not the giant leap some people seem to be
expecting...
>The projection systems used may be slightly better than
>whats standard with a new pc though, not to mention
>the motion systems :-) (*)
>But if RL really is designed for high end use, multiple
>large screen displays driven by a pc each shouldn't be a
>problem, so the limitation will be in what you can afford,
>not in the software.
> _
>Mats Lofkvist
>(*) Motion systems doesn't seem to be used as much for
> military aircraft like fighters as for the large
> commercial stuff though. The motion systems just
> aren't fast enough for small agile aircraft, and
> even if they were fast enough there will never be
> a motion platform that can produce enough G's to
> fully simulate a fighter (**). Most of these
> limitations applies to racing sims also, so it isn't
> obvious that even the pros will use motion platforms
> for racing sims. (Maybe a platform doing rotations
> only could be useful.)
>(**) The only aircraft simulator I have heard of that
> could simulate sustained G's really is a real
> aircraft set up to simulate another type of aircraft,
> so I don't think this solution will apply to any
> racing sim with less than the Ferrari F1 budget :-)
Jason
>Scuse me?...
>Drop by the F16 simulator in the Netherlands and you'l find a seperate
>room with a supercomputer to do the math and SGI stuff doing the gfx,
>all in all worth a few million dineros..
>This whole "RL will be compare to GPL as a military simulator compares
>to Falcon 4" is a load of bull...
>The number crunching power needed to make a sim like everyone desires,
>as in surpassing N2002 by a looooong way, is far from being on the
>normal consumers desktop...
>Papy is on the edge of things currently possible, sure...a bit better
>might be possible..but not the giant leap some people seem to be
>expecting...
>>With years of development time and then many years of use,
>>I'd say most of them use less cpu and graphics hardware than
>>whats available in a new high end pc.
>>The projection systems used may be slightly better than
>>whats standard with a new pc though, not to mention
>>the motion systems :-) (*)
>>But if RL really is designed for high end use, multiple
>>large screen displays driven by a pc each shouldn't be a
>>problem, so the limitation will be in what you can afford,
>>not in the software.
>> _
>>Mats Lofkvist
>>(*) Motion systems doesn't seem to be used as much for
>> military aircraft like fighters as for the large
>> commercial stuff though. The motion systems just
>> aren't fast enough for small agile aircraft, and
>> even if they were fast enough there will never be
>> a motion platform that can produce enough G's to
>> fully simulate a fighter (**). Most of these
>> limitations applies to racing sims also, so it isn't
>> obvious that even the pros will use motion platforms
>> for racing sims. (Maybe a platform doing rotations
>> only could be useful.)
>>(**) The only aircraft simulator I have heard of that
>> could simulate sustained G's really is a real
>> aircraft set up to simulate another type of aircraft,
>> so I don't think this solution will apply to any
>> racing sim with less than the Ferrari F1 budget :-)
The same people?
I'd buy N2002RA if I trusted the 3rd party payment system they're using.
But I don't. So I won't. *shrug*.
cheers
John
For the cost of pressing and shipping the CD. (Which isn't that bad
international freight to England :o) ) Shame the game was/is bobbins
though.
cheers
John
Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
My .sig file is in the shop for repairs...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
I suppose, I could always use the extra $50 and ... wait a second,
they want ME to pay THEM to test their software? BWAHAHAHAHA!
Image having to go through all of RC2000 with each build? One car and one
track is an afternoon's playtime in comparision.
This is more of a bug search, and a way to raise cash.
David G Fisher
http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095...
> (The poll is at that link)
> It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going to be
a
> simple 'plunk down your $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connection
between
> you and EA ends there' traditional sort of a game. The West's have set
> extremely high goals for this sim, and by all appearances they will be
> almost exclusively dependent on the Internet sim-racing community to buy,
> support, spread-by-word-of-mouth, and develop addons for it.
> Their website states that a beta-testing stage will start soon (like in
the
> next few months) and that while Beta Testers will be required to pay a
fee,
> this fee *will* count towards purchase of the game. I regard this as an
> investment situation that carries a certain amount of risk, with the hope
> that the game (and its continuing enhancements and addons) is worthwhile.
It
> is not clear (to me at least) that the Wests can really deliver on these
> promises, but RL also seems (to me at least) to be the last, best hope for
> an open, extensible racing sim that we have for the forseeable future, and
> that if we want it to materialize we have to make this risky investment.
> Are you willing to invest money (and not a small amount of money either)
to
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now!
> rms
It sure looks fun !!
--
Ho hum.......
Jez
(Remove NOtSPAM to reply)