Of course 'tho, we all are running some form of Windows 9x - XP, right [ROTFL]?
Of course 'tho, we all are running some form of Windows 9x - XP, right [ROTFL]?
Don Burnette
> 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
> > (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
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...
It seems that the enourmous cost of high end simulators are because
it's not a packaged product, it something that's built once.
> >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 :-)
>> 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..
...
>Actually, the 0,5 million dollar full scale car simulator here at work
>has a physics model that's not even on par with NFS:PU. And it got a
>big shiny oven called SGI onyx just to do the graphics.
Don't take support on those though; it will cost you a multitude of
what the machine has cost (on Ebay that is).
Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Just think of GP3/GP4. I don't think it ever went through an
optimizing process apart from setting compiler flags. (if at
all, EVER heard of 3d anyone?).
This is where C&T have a chance (and probably have had the
chance in the years before) to shine. It's their baby, and I
guess they're going to take care of it well.
Cheers,
Uwe
--
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
I am prepared to shell out $50 or so for the beta test, just to
fund the Wests. I think they deserve it, and I've wasted more
money on other things that now sit on my shelf (nearly wrote
"shit on my self" there, what a typo that would have been for
google groups, eh? ;-)
Cheers,
Uwe
--
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
> maybe by not rushing it to the stores? ;-) Development teams
> are under so much deadline pressure these days there is hardly
> time to optimize things. Fix bugs, recompile, see if it still
> works, fix more bugs, rinse, repeat.
> Just think of GP3/GP4. I don't think it ever went through an
> optimizing process apart from setting compiler flags. (if at
> all, EVER heard of 3d anyone?).
> This is where C&T have a chance (and probably have had the
> chance in the years before) to shine. It's their baby, and I
> guess they're going to take care of it well.
> Cheers,
> Uwe
> --
> Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
> Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
> PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
> > by the fan base. If this one fails to see light of day like WSC did,
there
> > is going to be quite a bit of flaming and angry posts, especially from
the
> > folks that payed for being a supposedly tester.
> As I wrote to a racing friend, you'll have to decide when the
> "hill of things you've thrown away is bigger than the ones you
> use" (to quote Del Amitri's great song "Another Letter Home").
> I am prepared to shell out $50 or so for the beta test, just to
> fund the Wests. I think they deserve it, and I've wasted more
> money on other things that now sit on my shelf (nearly wrote
> "shit on my self" there, what a typo that would have been for
> google groups, eh? ;-)
> Cheers,
> Uwe
David
But isn't a papy-quality sim with the extendability of F1-2002 exactly what
we want?
Every time I start an F1-200X Mod, I quite soon shut it down and start up
Nascar 2002 instead ;-)
/Carl
> > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:55:18 GMT, Don Burnette
> > > by the fan base. If this one fails to see light of day like WSC did,
> there
> > > is going to be quite a bit of flaming and angry posts, especially from
> the
> > > folks that payed for being a supposedly tester.
> > As I wrote to a racing friend, you'll have to decide when the
> > "hill of things you've thrown away is bigger than the ones you
> > use" (to quote Del Amitri's great song "Another Letter Home").
> > I am prepared to shell out $50 or so for the beta test, just to
> > fund the Wests. I think they deserve it, and I've wasted more
> > money on other things that now sit on my shelf (nearly wrote
> > "shit on my self" there, what a typo that would have been for
> > google groups, eh? ;-)
> > Cheers,
> > Uwe
> This is my feeling as well (looks on shelf and sees the boxes for the five
> (!5!) video cards I've gone through in the last year and a half). $50 for
> seeing if the "little guys" can still make something unique in a world of
> cookie cutter programming and mass market pandering is worth the risk as
far
> as I'm concerned.
> David
Don Burnette
Ooohh..what kind of *** are you experimenting with? To have such thoughts
even enter your head.
DC
> >You guys are kidding, right? $50 is under anyone's curiosity threshold,
> >surely?
> I think the problem with the price is that people don't realize
> exactly how ambitious this project is.
> If this project is pulled off (and that's a big if, I'll admit) the
> difference between Racing Legends and GPL or N2k2 or F12k2 will be
> like the difference betweena military-grade flight simulator and
> Falcon 4.0. One of them is a simulator meant to be literally
> interchangeable with real-world experience, one of them is a computer
> game with simulation elements.
> That ambition is why people are so e***d about this project. I, for
> one, am tired of driving half-assed computer games. The pinnacle of
> auto simulation is currently held by Papyrus and ISI. Neither of them
> has produced a game with a sophisticated aerodynamic model. Neither
> of them has produced a game with an accurate damage model. Neither of
> them has evolved their tire model beyond 3 independent contact
> patches. Neither of them has produced an accurate weather model.
> I'm willing to pay $500 for an auto sim with 10 tracks, passable AI,
> multiplayer capabilities (even if only LAN), and 1 class of car if
> it's actually 100% accurate to the tiniest detail of physical
> modelling. Even without any chance or hope of further support or
> expansion.
> $500 is peanuts compared to what it would cost were I to actually
> invest the time and money into building a race car.
> Jason
DW
> Ooohh..what kind of *** are you experimenting with? To have such
thoughts
> even enter your head.
> DC
> > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren"
> > >You guys are kidding, right? $50 is under anyone's curiosity threshold,
> > >surely?
> > I think the problem with the price is that people don't realize
> > exactly how ambitious this project is.
> > If this project is pulled off (and that's a big if, I'll admit) the
> > difference between Racing Legends and GPL or N2k2 or F12k2 will be
> > like the difference betweena military-grade flight simulator and
> > Falcon 4.0. One of them is a simulator meant to be literally
> > interchangeable with real-world experience, one of them is a computer
> > game with simulation elements.
> > That ambition is why people are so e***d about this project. I, for
> > one, am tired of driving half-assed computer games. The pinnacle of
> > auto simulation is currently held by Papyrus and ISI. Neither of them
> > has produced a game with a sophisticated aerodynamic model. Neither
> > of them has produced a game with an accurate damage model. Neither of
> > them has evolved their tire model beyond 3 independent contact
> > patches. Neither of them has produced an accurate weather model.
> > I'm willing to pay $500 for an auto sim with 10 tracks, passable AI,
> > multiplayer capabilities (even if only LAN), and 1 class of car if
> > it's actually 100% accurate to the tiniest detail of physical
> > modelling. Even without any chance or hope of further support or
> > expansion.
> > $500 is peanuts compared to what it would cost were I to actually
> > invest the time and money into building a race car.
> > Jason
Elrikk
> DW
> > "I'm willing to pay $500 for an auto sim with 10 tracks, passable AI,
> > multiplayer capabilities (even if only LAN), and 1 class of car if
> > it's actually 100% accurate to the tiniest detail of physical
> > modelling. Even without any chance or hope of further support or
> > expansion."
> > Ooohh..what kind of *** are you experimenting with? To have such
> thoughts
> > even enter your head.
> > DC
> > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren"
> > > >You guys are kidding, right? $50 is under anyone's curiosity
threshold,
> > > >surely?
> > > I think the problem with the price is that people don't realize
> > > exactly how ambitious this project is.
> > > If this project is pulled off (and that's a big if, I'll admit) the
> > > difference between Racing Legends and GPL or N2k2 or F12k2 will be
> > > like the difference betweena military-grade flight simulator and
> > > Falcon 4.0. One of them is a simulator meant to be literally
> > > interchangeable with real-world experience, one of them is a computer
> > > game with simulation elements.
> > > That ambition is why people are so e***d about this project. I, for
> > > one, am tired of driving half-assed computer games. The pinnacle of
> > > auto simulation is currently held by Papyrus and ISI. Neither of them
> > > has produced a game with a sophisticated aerodynamic model. Neither
> > > of them has produced a game with an accurate damage model. Neither of
> > > them has evolved their tire model beyond 3 independent contact
> > > patches. Neither of them has produced an accurate weather model.
> > > I'm willing to pay $500 for an auto sim with 10 tracks, passable AI,
> > > multiplayer capabilities (even if only LAN), and 1 class of car if
> > > it's actually 100% accurate to the tiniest detail of physical
> > > modelling. Even without any chance or hope of further support or
> > > expansion.
> > > $500 is peanuts compared to what it would cost were I to actually
> > > invest the time and money into building a race car.
> > > Jason