rec.autos.simulators

F1 2000 has a better physics model than GP3, which
translates into a more believable driving experience.

The tracks are a lot better, both in looks and in
accuracy (I've never seen a real track that has
zero degrees banking over it's entire length).

The force feedback is better.

There is no >100% occupancy time warp in F1 2000.

But, GP3 has a ton of other non-physics related
features that make it a lot better in some other
ways.

The casual sim racer will most likely prefer
GP3.  If you've grown accustomed to the rewards
of driving some of the better physics models
(Viper, GPL, F1 2000), however, then driving
GP3 is a let down.  I can't stand to drive
Nascar 3 for the same reason.

If you aren't concerned about the intricacies
of car handling, as long as it goes in the
direction you point it, GP3 is the winner
over F1 2000 easily.

With competent AI, smoother frame rates,
telemetry, and dynamic weather, F1 2000
would leave GP3 in the dust.

I think ISI will release a sim with all
those features a long time before Crammond
will release a sim with a modern physics
model.

--
PD

The F1 2000 tracks feature layout errors, and all the track-side objects are
slightly the wrong colour.
Take a look at the thread above entitled "Comparison Screen shots, GP3 with
FSAA, without FSAA and F1 2000" which features comparison screenshots of GP3
and F1 2000.  On graphics alone, GP3 looks more like real F1 to me.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:53:45 -0500, Pat Dotson

Your wacky tabacy ways have confused you, GP2 has a better physics
engine than F12000. GP3 has a superior physics engine to GP2. Time
warp is of no consequence, seeing as GP3s file system and structure
are the same, one only need wait a couple of weeks before the GP2
hotlapper program is updated.

% F1 2000 has a better physics model than GP3, which
% translates into a more believable driving experience.

% The tracks are a lot better, both in looks and in
% accuracy (I've never seen a real track that has
% zero degrees banking over it's entire length).

I coulda swore that in interviews with the developers of GP3 they said
they finally included road camber and banking....  You mean to tell me
they still have flat tracks?

% There is no >100% occupancy time warp in F1 2000.

No but you still have to disable/cripple most of the graphics features
to get decent frame rates with f12k...  So I would say it's a tie here.

% But, GP3 has a ton of other non-physics related
% features that make it a lot better in some other
% ways.

% The casual sim racer will most likely prefer
% GP3.  If you've grown accustomed to the rewards
% of driving some of the better physics models
% (Viper, GPL, F1 2000), however, then driving
% GP3 is a let down.  I can't stand to drive
% Nascar 3 for the same reason.

Same here...... N3 was to me what GP3 sounds.... a prettied up version
of the #2 release of the products...  Though N3 did add almost decent
Internet play (and it sounds like GP3 didn't even get that far a year
later in being released).

% If you aren't concerned about the intricacies
% of car handling, as long as it goes in the
% direction you point it, GP3 is the winner
% over F1 2000 easily.

% With competent AI, smoother frame rates,
% telemetry, and dynamic weather, F1 2000
% would leave GP3 in the dust.

And incompetent AI, crappy graphics/frame rates are some of the reasons I
left f12k in the dust.....

% I think ISI will release a sim with all
% those features a long time before Crammond
% will release a sim with a modern physics
% model.

If we can believe Hasbro's plans for GPx, that will certainly be the
case.  Round 4 will be a season update and perhaps some tightening up of
the graphics, FF.... but it sounds like online play is going to be highly
crippled by the core code of GPx. :(

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

And GP3 features ZERO track banking!  Which is closer to
reality?  F1 2000 by a long shot.

OK, you've convinced me.  How could someone
possibly release a sim where the "the track-
side objects are slightly the wrong colour".
You're right, GP3 is better (sarcasm).

Screen shots of GP3 look great, especially
with the rain effects.  But when it's dry,
GP3 looks almost exactly like GP2, and
F1 2000 looks a lot better.

--
PD

You, sir, are the anonymous stoner.

Please enlighten us as to the advantages of the
GP3 physics.  I still see a car that pivots on
its center point, and a seeming lack of modeling
of four individual tire contact patches.  The
GP3 cars really feel as if they are "floating"
in comparison to F1 2000, which feels a lot more
connected to the ground.  F1 2000 is a more
complete vehicle simulation, and that shows
through in the driving experience.

It can still have a time warp, which is of
GREAT consequence.  Whether or not you can
check for time warp after the fact, in a
replay, is irrelevant.

Hi Michael,

I've driven at Silverstone, Austria, and Melbourne,
and have yet to see a banked surface.  Austria is
especially sterile in GP3, after driving the
inspiring version of the A1-ring in F1 2000.

On my Athlon 800, with version 1.09 of F1 2000,
frame rate is NOT an issue.  It's incredibly
smooth,  compared to running on the Celeron
450 I had until last week.

Yes, and it didn't take Papyrus four years to
release N3.

I can't blame you there, but those things will
be much easier for ISI to address, than it will
be for Crammond to come up with a modern physics
model.  Will we have to wait another four years?

So, four years may be about right.

--
PD

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:31:55 -0500, Pat Dotson

I find this SO strange. I have read multiple reviews by people who say
there *is* banking in several places.

Are there two versions going around maybe??

JoH

GP3 has track banking, which makes me doubt whether you've played it.
I used the word "slighty" so as not to be offensive.  I've been watching F1
for a heck of a long time, and F1 2000 just doesn't look like F1.  The
colour of the track surface is way too dark, everywhere.  The tarck-side
objects look drab and dull.  All this means the bright shiny cars look out
of place.
The mip-mapping is way overdone, so everything tends to look blurry at a
distance.  The cars look damn silly on the replays once they pass a certain
distance away with their hectagon wheels.  And the drivers helmets are too
small :).
The AI is rather dreadful, the frame rates are poor, the engine notes are
way too high, and the force-feedback is practically none-existant.  And no
wet weather...
Also track layout errors are completely unforgiveable and totally avoidable.
And just to show I'm only expressing my honest opinion, I think F1 2000
physics are excellent. :)

As I said before you can stop right here on that point ;-)

--