http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
(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
[email hidden]
Would you pay $50 to beta-test Racing Legends?
Roger Squires pointed to a West forum poll on paying around $50 for the Racing Legends beta. Most said no, arguing testers should not pay and that it looked like funding development from fans, while a few were willing as a gamble on an independent project. The debate also covered whether a small team could deliver such an ambitious sim and compared it to military simulators.
Automated summary.
>
> Are you willing to invest money (and not a small amount of money either) to
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now!
>Do they have a NO button that say's..."Do you think I'm made of money, sunshine ?"
Or a YES button that say's...."Of course, and here's my bank account details. Please take
what you need."
"redTed" wrote...
> > <snip>
> Do they have a NO button that say's..."Do you think I'm made
> of money, sunshine ?" Or a YES button that say's...."Of course,
> and here's my bank account details. Please take what you need."
No, true to form they're humourless about it.
Jan.<g>
=---
You guys are kidding, right? $50 is under anyone's curiosity threshold,
surely?
Notice also that guest cannot vote.
"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]...
>http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
>
> (The poll is at that link)
>
> It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going to bea
> simple 'plunk down your $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connectionbetween
> 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 inthe
> next few months) and that while Beta Testers will be required to pay afee,
> 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
Quoted text (7 lines)
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now! > > rms > [email hidden] > > >Quoted text (13 lines)
> > > <snip> > > Do they have a NO button that say's..."Do you think I'm made > > of money, sunshine ?" Or a YES button that say's...."Of course, > > and here's my bank account details. Please take what you need." > > No, true to form they're humourless about it. > > Jan.<g> > =--- > > You guys are kidding, right? $50 is under anyone's curiosity threshold, > surely? >
"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:agsihf$o9jof$[email hidden]...
> >
> > You guys are kidding, right? $50 is under anyone's curiosity threshold,
> > surely?
> >
> Sure. For a full game with addons to come later. Not for beta testingsomething that you
> will have to finish paying for when the full game(1 car+1 track) . Iwould, at the very
> least, think that anybody who does beta testing for any game shouldn'thave to pay for the
> end product.
I was always given a copy of the racing game after beta testing it.
David G Fisher
you couldn't pay me $50. to help out these clowns
Roger Squires <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]...
>http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
>
> (The poll is at that link)
>
> It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going to bea
> simple 'plunk down your $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connectionbetween
> you and EA ends there' traditional sort of a game. The West's have set
> extremely high goals for this sim, and by all appearances they will be
> almost exclusively dependent on the Internet sim-racing community to buy,
> support, spread-by-word-of-mouth, and develop addons for it.
>
> Their website states that a beta-testing stage will start soon (like inthe
> next few months) and that while Beta Testers will be required to pay afee,
> this fee *will* count towards purchase of the game. I regard this as an
> investment situation that carries a certain amount of risk, with the hope
> that the game (and its continuing enhancements and addons) is worthwhile.It
> is not clear (to me at least) that the Wests can really deliver on these
> promises, but RL also seems (to me at least) to be the last, best hope for
> an open, extensible racing sim that we have for the forseeable future, and
> that if we want it to materialize we have to make this risky investment.
>
> Are you willing to invest money (and not a small amount of money either)to
Quoted text (7 lines)
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now! > > rms > [email hidden] > > >
"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:agsmsf$ollpp$[email hidden]...
> I for one won't vote because I'm tired of signing up to the umpteenth
> bulletin board just to be able to post twice per year (or in that case,
> vote).
>
> I don't think that this 'beta-test' model is really geared towardsdiligent
> testing. I think they're aiming to get early revenue, and also reportsfrom
> a wide variety of system configs. Real beta testing is time-consuming and
> requires a different approach from just using the sim. I don't thinksomeone
And they'll get immediate capital, basically the development will be funded
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.
I sure hope the West brothers take whatever feedback they do get from these
testers seriously, and are not just using them as a means to an end,
Don Burnette
Quoted text (8 lines)
> who's paid money for a program, even if it's beta, will consistently make > that sort of effort. > > But, they'll get a good cross-section of systems and a good measure of > coincidentally found issues, so for them it's certainly a good plan. > > Achim >On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>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 excited 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
If it was a realistic beta price of say �10 sterling which is roughly $15 US
then I'd think about it, but too pay for a untested game and software house
then no chance
--
[Gus] ex [TM]Gus ex NfSc_Gus
ADSL @ 288/576 Self Install
I don't need to spend $50 to test drive a new car, why should I pay for a
game demo? If the Westies are so short on funds, maybe they should try
panhandling.
"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]...
>http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
>
> (The poll is at that link)
>
> It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going to bea
> simple 'plunk down your $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connectionbetween
> 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 inthe
> next few months) and that while Beta Testers will be required to pay afee,
> 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
Quoted text (7 lines)
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now! > > rms > [email hidden] > > >Based on a post about them testing on a P3-700 and a Voodoo5 card I don't
thin kit will be earth shattering. N2002 pushes even the newest PC so one
optimized for older hardware isn't gong to be outdoing them IMHO.
Modelling a realistic damage model, AI, weather, and so on is going to take
a major programming effort and a powerful PC to run it.
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (34 lines)
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >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 excited 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. > > $500 is peanuts compared to what it would cost were I to actually > invest the time and money into building a race car. > > JasonThus the reason a paid beta program is a risky proposition.
It sounds as if they are short on staff and capital and hoping that the sim
community helps them make up for the short comings.
Not a terrible plan but for such a large project I think is a bit much.
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:WylY8.140184$[email hidden]...
and
> > requires a different approach from just using the sim. I don't think
> someone
> > who's paid money for a program, even if it's beta, will consistentlymake
funded
> 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.
> I sure hope the West brothers take whatever feedback they do get fromthese
> testers seriously, and are not just using them as a means to an end,
>
> Don Burnette
>
>
>
Quoted text (12 lines)
> > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:agsmsf$ollpp$[email hidden]... > > I for one won't vote because I'm tired of signing up to the umpteenth > > bulletin board just to be able to post twice per year (or in that case, > > vote). > > > > I don't think that this 'beta-test' model is really geared towards > diligent > > testing. I think they're aiming to get early revenue, and also reports > from > > a wide variety of system configs. Real beta testing is time-consumingQuoted text (9 lines)
> > that sort of effort. > > > > But, they'll get a good cross-section of systems and a good measure of > > coincidentally found issues, so for them it's certainly a good plan. > > > > Achim > > > > And they'll get immediate capital, basically the development will beWhat worries me is not asking to pay for a beta it's more a fact that it
looks like they are funding the development based on that. If the beta
program isn't a success then perhaps development won't be funded enough.
Software development is no easy task, especially with a small team and
budget on a high profile project.
"Diogenes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1amY8.131423$[email hidden]...
http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> > 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
> >
> > (The poll is at that link)
> >
> > It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going tobe
> 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 tobuy,
hope
> > that the game (and its continuing enhancements and addons) isworthwhile.
> 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 hopefor
> > an open, extensible racing sim that we have for the forseeable future,and
Quoted text (8 lines)
> I don't need to spend $50 to test drive a new car, why should I pay for a > game demo? If the Westies are so short on funds, maybe they should try > panhandling. > > "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]... > > >Quoted text (8 lines)
> > 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 theQuoted text (13 lines)
> > 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 > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > >I'll pay $100.00, just to see that is not vapor ware..
"Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a8mY8.37422$[email hidden]...
> Based on a post about them testing on a P3-700 and a Voodoo5 card I don't
> thin kit will be earth shattering. N2002 pushes even the newest PC so one
> optimized for older hardware isn't gong to be outdoing them IMHO.
> Modelling a realistic damage model, AI, weather, and so on is going totake
Quoted text (40 lines)
> a major programming effort and a powerful PC to run it. > > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >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 excited 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. > > > > $500 is peanuts compared to what it would cost were I to actually > > invest the time and money into building a race car. > > > > Jason > > No.
John
"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]...
>http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
>
> (The poll is at that link)
>
> It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going to bea
> simple 'plunk down your $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connectionbetween
> 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 inthe
> next few months) and that while Beta Testers will be required to pay afee,
> 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
Quoted text (7 lines)
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now! > > rms > [email hidden] > > >I for one won't vote because I'm tired of signing up to the umpteenth
bulletin board just to be able to post twice per year (or in that case,
vote).
I don't think that this 'beta-test' model is really geared towards diligent
testing. I think they're aiming to get early revenue, and also reports from
a wide variety of system configs. Real beta testing is time-consuming and
requires a different approach from just using the sim. I don't think someone
who's paid money for a program, even if it's beta, will consistently make
that sort of effort.
But, they'll get a good cross-section of systems and a good measure of
coincidentally found issues, so for them it's certainly a good plan.
Achim
What I find funny is how so many people want to pay up to $50 or more for
this beta but when the N2002 replay analyzer was mentioned as being pay for
shareware people nearly lost it saying it was against the concept of this
community ;)
"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]...
>http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
>
> (The poll is at that link)
>
> It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going to bea
> simple 'plunk down your $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connectionbetween
> 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 inthe
> next few months) and that while Beta Testers will be required to pay afee,
> 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
Quoted text (7 lines)
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now! > > rms > [email hidden] > > >>"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote
> (The poll is at that link)
My answer would be : definitively no.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
Definately NO and anyone that would pay must be rather short sighted. It
appears the team are short of money and desperately trying to raise
money...desperate being the right word. I've been part of many a game BETA
and still under NDA for 4 and would never have paid money to be on any of
them. By taking part in a BETA you are helping the company a great deal by
them having their software tested on a variety of system specs by
enthusiastic players, if anything you should be paid by THEM.
"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]...
>http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
>
> (The poll is at that link)
>
> It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going to bea
> simple 'plunk down your $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connectionbetween
> 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 inthe
> next few months) and that while Beta Testers will be required to pay afee,
> 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
Quoted text (7 lines)
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now! > > rms > [email hidden] > > >Wow, you are really optimistic about a product from an unproven development
team, testing on low end equipment and unable to even produce some type of
demo or movie of their current work. Why, pray tell, do you actually believe
that this sim will be of such higher quality than anything else available?
They really don't even say as much on their site.
--
---------------------
Rob Berryhill
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >You guys are kidding, right? $50 is under anyone's curiosity threshold,
> >surely?
>
> I think the problem with the price is that people don't realize
> exactly how ambitious this project is.
>
> If this project is pulled off (and that's a big if, I'll admit) the
> difference between Racing Legends and GPL or N2k2 or F12k2 will be
> like the difference betweena military-grade flight simulator and
> Falcon 4.0. One of them is a simulator meant to be literally
> interchangeable with real-world experience, one of them is a computer
> game with simulation elements.
Guests cannot post or take part in most forums in case you haven't noticed. All you have to do is
register to use the forum.....
--
Biz
"Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the....." - Ash
Schooner <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:uYjY8.37400$[email hidden]...
> Notice also that guest cannot vote.
>
> "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]...
> >
> http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> > 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
> >
> > (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
> > [email hidden]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
You know what I'd rather have than anything you mention below? Better
hardware. Specifically, affordable VR glasses that give a fantastic, wide
image. That would be the single best thing to happen to sims IMO. A seat
that shakes my butt around would be nice too.
David G Fisher
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (34 lines)
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >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 excited 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. > > JasonIf I remember correctly, the beta for Need For Speed: Motor City required
you to pay $5 US in order to have a copy...
--
Philippe "Philster" Sergerie
"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]...
>
http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
>
> (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 $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connection
between
> you and EA ends there' traditional sort of a game. The West's have set
> extremely high goals for this sim, and by all appearances they will be
> almost exclusively dependent on the Internet sim-racing community to buy,
> support, spread-by-word-of-mouth, and develop addons for it.
>
> Their website states that a beta-testing stage will start soon (like in
the
> next few months) and that while Beta Testers will be required to pay a
fee,
> this fee *will* count towards purchase of the game. I regard this as an
> investment situation that carries a certain amount of risk, with the hope
> that the game (and its continuing enhancements and addons) is worthwhile.
It
> is not clear (to me at least) that the Wests can really deliver on these
> promises, but RL also seems (to me at least) to be the last, best hope for
> an open, extensible racing sim that we have for the forseeable future, and
> that if we want it to materialize we have to make this risky investment.
>
> Are you willing to invest money (and not a small amount of money either)
to
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now!
>
> rms
> [email hidden]
>
>
>
No and let me also say no, and no and furthermore no.
"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]...
>http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
>
> (The poll is at that link)
>
> It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going to bea
> simple 'plunk down your $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connectionbetween
> you and EA ends there' traditional sort of a game. The West's have set
> extremely high goals for this sim, and by all appearances they will be
> almost exclusively dependent on the Internet sim-racing community to buy,
> support, spread-by-word-of-mouth, and develop addons for it.
>
> Their website states that a beta-testing stage will start soon (like inthe
> next few months) and that while Beta Testers will be required to pay afee,
> this fee *will* count towards purchase of the game. I regard this as an
> investment situation that carries a certain amount of risk, with the hope
> that the game (and its continuing enhancements and addons) is worthwhile.It
> is not clear (to me at least) that the Wests can really deliver on these
> promises, but RL also seems (to me at least) to be the last, best hope for
> an open, extensible racing sim that we have for the forseeable future, and
> that if we want it to materialize we have to make this risky investment.
>
> Are you willing to invest money (and not a small amount of money either)to
Quoted text (7 lines)
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now! > > rms > [email hidden] > > >I wouldn't question the West brother's integrity. I think that is flawless
beyond doubt. But in how far the market will accept their business model and
pricing, that's another question.
The 'immediate capital' was what I was trying to say with 'early revenue'.
Achim
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:WylY8.140184$[email hidden]...
...
> 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.
> I sure hope the West brothers take whatever feedback they do get fromthese
> testers seriously, and are not just using them as a means to an end,
>
> Don Burnette
>
>
>
[email hidden] (jason moyer) writes:
And what kind of hardware does these military-grade flight simulaters
use?
--
-asbjxrn
Quoted text (15 lines)
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >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.Honestly? Because I've had a similar experience with media
publishers, albeit music and not software publishers. A publisher of
any sort of entertainment media is more likely to release something
that is incredibly awful than something visionary and groundbreaking.
Sure, you and I both know that "the ultimate sim" (an open-ended GPL
2, for instance) would outsell the 2 dozen 3-D Ultra games Sierra
publishes each year, but try telling that to the stuffed shirts in the
executive bathhouse. It's the same thing with books and music.
Stupid White Men by Michael Moore is outselling the 40 Danielle Steele
books that you see polluting the shelves at Wal-Mart, yet the
publisher fought and fought with him for editing that he wouldn't do.
Musicially, sales are entirely based on MTV and radio play, so
essentially you could shit onto a piece of paper and record yourself
rubbing it on the wall and sell 4 million copies with a slick video
and tons of radio play.
It would not surprise me at all if the sole reason WSC was canned by
Empire was because the West's refused to compromise their ideals. It
strikes me as odd that Empire wouldn't be interested in a hardcore
racing simulation, but who knows. There haven't exactly been any new
Rowan sims released lately either.
That said, it would not surprise me at all if the sole reason WSC was
canned by Empire was because West's had 10% of the product finished
after 2-3 years of development.
I'll consider myself optimistic if Racing Legends is exactly what I
posted below. Until then, I'm not repartitioning my harddrive or
anything to make room for it here. =)
Jason
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:14:25 GMT, "Rob" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Quoted text (31 lines)
>Wow, you are really optimistic about a product from an unproven development >team, testing on low end equipment and unable to even produce some type of >demo or movie of their current work. Why, pray tell, do you actually believe >that this sim will be of such higher quality than anything else available? >They really don't even say as much on their site. > >-- >--------------------- >Rob Berryhill > > >"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >You guys are kidding, right? $50 is under anyone's curiosity threshold, >> >surely? >> >> I think the problem with the price is that people don't realize >> exactly how ambitious this project is. >> >> If this project is pulled off (and that's a big if, I'll admit) the >> difference between Racing Legends and GPL or N2k2 or F12k2 will be >> like the difference betweena military-grade flight simulator and >> Falcon 4.0. One of them is a simulator meant to be literally >> interchangeable with real-world experience, one of them is a computer >> game with simulation elements. > > >
"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]...
>http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
>
> (The poll is at that link)
>
> It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going to bea
> simple 'plunk down your $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connectionbetween
> 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.
Yes, the same goals they set for the last sim.
>
> Their website states that a beta-testing stage will start soon (like inthe
> next few months) and that while Beta Testers will be required to pay afee,
> 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.
I know there are a few instances where the user has to pay to beta software
(XP comes to mind, but I can think of no other example), but the typical way
of doing things is that the beta software is free (with a sign up) and so is
the final product. Why these guys have to always do things differently is
beyond me. This could be the biggest scam anyone has seen in a long while.
> It is not clear (to me at least) that the Wests can really deliver onthese
> 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.
Not only is it not clear to me, I'll believe it when I see it. I mean they
could develop this one-car-one-track deal, rank in a few bucks for beta
testing, and then skip town.
> Are you willing to invest money (and not a small amount of money either)to
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now!
>No and no.
You guys can do all the work and take all the risks-- when I see it is when
I'll believe it.
Alanb
[email hidden] (Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad) writes:
> And what kind of hardware does these military-grade flight simulaters
> use?
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
[email hidden]
(*) 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 :-)
Does anyone else think that this is really an attempt to limit the number of
beta testers, since there is such a large amount of interest in this sim? I
think that 2 developers is probably just way too few to realistically deal
(oops split inf.) with a large amount of testing feedback, whines, setup
problems, etc.
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
$5 I would probably be tempted (even though I feel it's supporting exactly
the kinds of things that are wrong with the software industry at the
moment).
Ryan
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
The hardware thing I have wondered about. Just don't see how they can get
all the stuff they talk about working at a playable fps on today's
computers.
Another thing that crossed my mind-- The programming required for the detail
they talk about would have to be buggy as all get-out at first. I am not an
expert by any means, but if bigger companies can release a less complex game
that is full of bugs, I don't see how two guys alone will fare better.
I do want to see it released, but I would definitely have to sit back awhile
and see what everybody else thought about it. If they get wrl out and
working right with most computers this year, I will be impressed.
"Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a8mY8.37422$[email hidden]...
> Based on a post about them testing on a P3-700 and a Voodoo5 card I don't
> thin kit will be earth shattering. N2002 pushes even the newest PC so one
> optimized for older hardware isn't gong to be outdoing them IMHO.
> Modelling a realistic damage model, AI, weather, and so on is going totake
> a major programming effort and a powerful PC to run it.
>
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:_RnY8.199665$[email hidden]...
> You know what I'd rather have than anything you mention below? Better
> hardware. Specifically, affordable VR glasses that give a fantastic, wide
> image. That would be the single best thing to happen to sims IMO. A seat
> that shakes my butt around would be nice too.
>
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
> No and let me also say no, and no and furthermore no.
So is that a *maybe* no, or a *definitely not* no ?
:)
"Tom Osbon" wrote in
So is that a *maybe* no, or a *definitely not* no ?
:)
Uhmmm....
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...
Quoted text (36 lines)
>[email hidden] (Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad) writes: >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 >[email hidden] > > >(*) 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 :-)Sowwy...quoted the wrong person...it was actually "Mats Lofkvist" who
i was responding to and not " -asbjxrn"
Which SGI machines were they using?
Jason
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:24:03 +0200, willem <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (53 lines)
>Uhmmm.... > >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... > > >>[email hidden] (Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad) writes: >>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 >>[email hidden] >> >> >>(*) 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 :-) >"Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:7OmY8.37439$[email hidden]:
> What I find funny is how so many people want to pay up to $50 or more
> for this beta but when the N2002 replay analyzer was mentioned as
> being pay for shareware people nearly lost it saying it was against
> the concept of this community ;)
The same people?
I'd buy N2002RA if I trusted the 3rd party payment system they're using.
But I don't. So I won't. *shrug*.
cheers
John
"Philster" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:z6oY8.13090$[email hidden]:
> If I remember correctly, the beta for Need For Speed: Motor City
> required you to pay $5 US in order to have a copy...
>
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
In article <[email hidden]>, "Ryan Mitchley"
<[email hidden]> writes:
>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).
>
I vote "no" also...
Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
My .sig file is in the shop for repairs...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:30:37 GMT, "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Are you willing to invest money (and not a small amount of money either) to
>be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now!
I suppose, I could always use the extra $50 and ... wait a second,
they want ME to pay THEM to test their software? BWAHAHAHAHA!
I MAY pay the $50, but this is in NO WAY a true beta test. One track and one
car? Don't think so. :-)
Image having to go through all of RC2000 with each build? One car and one
track is an afternoon's playtime in comparision.
This is more of a bug search, and a way to raise cash.
David G Fisher
"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]...
>http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
>
> (The poll is at that link)
>
> It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going to bea
> simple 'plunk down your $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connectionbetween
> 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 inthe
> next few months) and that while Beta Testers will be required to pay afee,
> 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
Quoted text (7 lines)
> be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now! > > rms > [email hidden] > > >David G Fisher wrote:
> You know what I'd rather have than anything you mention below? Better
> hardware. Specifically, affordable VR glasses that give a fantastic,
> wide image. That would be the single best thing to happen to sims
> IMO. A seat that shakes my butt around would be nice too.
a seat that shakes yer butt eh.....scroll down this page a bit:
http://www.edimensional.com/products.html
It sure looks fun !!
--
Ho hum.......
Jez
(Remove NOtSPAM to reply)
Ain't no way in hell that I would pay *anyone* to test their product.
Of course 'tho, we all are running some form of Windows 9x - XP, right [ROTFL]?
No, I will not
I'm not that brave as to fork out that amount for a possiblity.
Good on the West's for their ideas. But it is only really an idea at the
moment.
They "may" have all the right stuff in the hearts to produce a realistic sim
but its sounds like they don't have the resources to pull it off.
And I don't belive this type of marketing will provided enough resources.
Not after the WSC no show, no say anymore as if it never existed at all.
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
It's called " funding the development", an investment if you will - seeings
how I wouldn't see any real return on my investment, think I will pass. Beta
testing is hard work, you have to be devoted and put in some serious time in
order to provide some valuable feedback. I really don't think I want to pay
someone for that opportunity.
I wonder why they can't find a publisher for it to fund the development?
Seems like if it is going to be all that is claimed, someone would pick it
up.
Don Burnette
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:FTFY8.160777$[email hidden]...
> I MAY pay the $50, but this is in NO WAY a true beta test. One track andone
http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?s=7bde3180e288faa8b4ff095e6955e4
> > 96&act=ST&f=1&t=255
> >
> > (The poll is at that link)
> >
> > It looks like this game ( http://www.west-racing.com ) is not going tobe
> a
> > simple 'plunk down your $30 for NFS6 at the store and all connection
> between
> > you and EA ends there' traditional sort of a game. The West's have set
> > extremely high goals for this sim, and by all appearances they will be
> > almost exclusively dependent on the Internet sim-racing community tobuy,
hope
> > that the game (and its continuing enhancements and addons) isworthwhile.
> It
> > is not clear (to me at least) that the Wests can really deliver on these
> > promises, but RL also seems (to me at least) to be the last, best hopefor
> > an open, extensible racing sim that we have for the forseeable future,and
Quoted text (14 lines)
> car? Don't think so. :-) > > Image having to go through all of RC2000 with each build? One car and one > track is an afternoon's playtime in comparision. > > This is more of a bug search, and a way to raise cash. > > David G Fisher > > > "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]... > > >Quoted text (8 lines)
> > 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 theQuoted text (13 lines)
> > 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 > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > >On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 03:27:10 GMT, "Don Burnette"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
You'd think someone would be interested in publishing GPL 72 as
well...
Jason
Quoted text (8 lines)
>It's called " funding the development", an investment if you will - seeings >how I wouldn't see any real return on my investment, think I will pass. Beta >testing is hard work, you have to be devoted and put in some serious time in >order to provide some valuable feedback. I really don't think I want to pay >someone for that opportunity. >I wonder why they can't find a publisher for it to fund the development? >Seems like if it is going to be all that is claimed, someone would pick it >up.willem <[email hidden]> writes:
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.
It seems that the enourmous cost of high end simulators are because
it's not a packaged product, it something that's built once.
--
Olav Malmin
remove .spam when replying
Quoted text (14 lines)
> Uhmmm.... > > 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...Quoted text (38 lines)
> > >[email hidden] (Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad) writes: > >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 > >[email hidden] > > > > > >(*) 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 :-) >On 16 Jul 2002 09:50:24 +0200, Olav Malmin
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>willem <[email hidden]> writes:
>
>> 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.
Consumer PC's/Gfx cards do tend to catch up pretty fast. An SGI Onyx
(1) is really no match for a Geforce4, although with high-bandwidth
data, sure, a SGI is faster.
But for pure rendering power, you really need the latest SGI stuff. An
old Onyx will go for a couple of thousand $'s on Ebay. :(
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/
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:07:40 -0400, jon <[email hidden]> wrote:
> The hardware thing I have wondered about. Just don't see how they can get
> all the stuff they talk about working at a playable fps on today's
> computers.
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
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:55:18 GMT, Don Burnette <[email hidden]> wrote:
> 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
--
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
There is a flipside to that as well. With them being so close to the
product there is no one pushing them to make completion dates. New features
continually slip in which adds to the development and testing time and
making the system more complex.
"Feature creep" is the cause of many a missed deadline in the software
industry.
If they manage their time and resources well and stick to a plan it will
probably go fine but if they are coding by the seat of their pants then it
could be a long time coming.
"Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:07:40 -0400, jon <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > The hardware thing I have wondered about. Just don't see how they canget
Quoted text (24 lines)
> > all the stuff they talk about working at a playable fps on today's > > computers. > > 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"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> blabbed in
news:hrjY8.7306$[email hidden]:
> Are you willing to invest money (and not a small amount of money
> either) to be a Beta Tester for Racing Legends? Vote now!
Maybe. :-)
"Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:55:18 GMT, Don Burnette<[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > 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 fromthe
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
Quoted text (16 lines)
> > 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 $50 or so for the beta test, just to > fund the Wests. I think they deserve it, and I've wasted more > money on other things that now sit on my shelf (nearly wrote > "shit on my self" there, what a typo that would have been for > google groups, eh? ;-) > > Cheers, > > Uwe >> Papy is on the edge of things currently possible, sure...a bit better
> might be possible..but not the giant leap some people seem to be
> expecting...
But isn't a papy-quality sim with the extendability of F1-2002 exactly what
we want?
Every time I start an F1-200X Mod, I quite soon shut it down and start up
Nascar 2002 instead ;-)
/Carl
"David Erb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Bb_Y8.90021$[email hidden]...
far
> as I'm concerned.
>
> David
I remember a group of some unknown guys, that had a concept, put it
together, and distributed it "freely" amongst the gaming community, to get
it out there. That title's shareware version got immensely popular, and when
these guys released a full version I believe it made them quite a bit of
money, not to mention very popular. Of course, I am talking about "Doom".
There are several ways to skin a cat, it will be interesting to see if
paying for beta testing, to help fund partially the development of the game,
will actually work.
If it were me, I believe I would take an approach more like the former
rather than the latter. If you don't have the resources, build a workeable
shareware version, with just enough meat to it to capture an audience. Once
word starts spreading, it will spread throughout the internet and folks will
be clamoring for the full product. Once there are a lot of folks making
noise about wanting the product, finding financial backing either through
the private sector or the general public should not prove too difficult.
Just , of course, mho. And again, no, I would not pay anyone for the
priviledge of putting my time in for beta testing. Beta testing is much more
than "playing a game", it is hard work and takes a lot of dedication. I am
afraid what you'll get is several folks that are willing to pay to see what
all the hype is about, just not sure how valuable they will become as true
beta testers.
Don Burnette
Quoted text (30 lines)
> > "Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:55:18 GMT, Don Burnette > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > 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"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 drugs are you experimenting with? To have such thoughts
even enter your head.
DC
jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (34 lines)
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >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 excited 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. > > JasonIf your willing to spend $500 for such a game, perhaps you'd be interested
in some lovely oceanfront property in Kansas?
DW
"David Ciemny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:JtpZ8.5943$[email hidden]...
thoughts
Quoted text (8 lines)
> "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 drugs are you experimenting with? To have suchQuoted text (46 lines)
> even enter your head. > > DC > > > > > > jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >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 excited 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. > > > > $500 is peanuts compared to what it would cost were I to actually > > invest the time and money into building a race car. > > > > Jason > >How well does it handle in tight corners vs smoother high speed curves?
Elrikk
"Remo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:p8FZ8.13787$[email hidden]...
threshold,
Quoted text (30 lines)
> If your willing to spend $500 for such a game, perhaps you'd be interested > in some lovely oceanfront property in Kansas? > > DW > > "David Ciemny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:JtpZ8.5943$[email hidden]... > > "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 drugs are you experimenting with? To have such > thoughts > > even enter your head. > > > > DC > > > > > > > > > > > > jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:02:33 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >You guys are kidding, right? $50 is under anyone's curiosityQuoted text (34 lines)
> > > >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 excited 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 > > > > > >Will a demo be available of the beta test version of RL??? :o) I
never pay $$$ before trying out a demo first!
Having said that, I am amazed at the excitement/number of posts
generated by the announcement of RL... Especially after the failed
history (and it's a looong history!) of WSC. I'm not saying RL will
be "vaporware" (although at this time, it most certainly is), and I'm
not saying the West Brothers are cons trying to take are $$$ and run.
I sincerely believe the Wests are true race-sim enthusiasts, with
every intention of producing a ground-breaking, 1st-rate, quality
racing simulation... I just believe they are in over their heads.
In this day and age, I don't believe it's likely that a software
development team of 2 is going to be able to quickly raise capital,
design, develop, market, and sell a product that is equal or superior
to the other available race-sim products on the PC. You might argue,
"what's the rush?... They don't have to do any/all of that quickly."
But the simple truth is, yes they do. Computer technology changes so
quickly that a sim developed just a year or 2 ago often looks/feels
outdated today. We are expecting great things from RL. We expect it
to have an open architecture, state-of-the-art graphics, the most
realistic driving model, realistic FF support, the ability to run on
today's "average" sim machine while expanding with tomorrow's more
powerful systems, GPL quality multiplayer support, etc... If we
weren't expecting all that (and more) there would not be such
anticipation and excitement for this product. And if you think The
West Brothers are capable of delivering all that... Well, let's just
say we agree to disagree. :o)
I've heard the argument that X-Plane was designed, created and
marketed by one person, so the same model can work with RL. While I
agree that the business model for X-Plane might be successful, I would
argue that the product has been far from
groundbreaking/state-of-the-art. The fact is X-Plane does one thing
quite well (allows people to design and test out various aircraft
designs easily), yet is behind the curve in other areas (graphics,
ATC, realistic panels, terrain and world environment, user interface,
etc...). If X-Plane were announced today, I don't think there would
be much of a buzz on the MS Flightsim newsgroups, because it just
isn't a ground breaking, state-of-the-art sim by today's standards.
The author of X-Plane has had to focus on specific areas at which to
be "best-in-class" because he doesn't have the resources to compete
with Microsoft in all areas. Unfortunately, this is the same problem
the West Brothers are going to face. With their limited resources (in
man hours and $$$), they will have to make sacrifices in the product.
They may concentrate on having the best open-architecture in the
race-sim market, or the best physics model, or the best eye-candy, or
the best MP support, or the best packaging or... The product will
most definitely suffer in the other areas.
I hope I'm wrong. The racing-sim community can use another quality
sim! I still play GPL to get my driving-sim fix, as I don't think
anything that has come out since does as many things well (MP, FF,
graphics, driving model, performance on mid-range PC). But I'm not
holding my breath that RL will be the sim to replace GPL. Heck, I'm
not holding my breath that RL will ever get to the beta test stage!
Again, I'm not flaming anyone... I really hope I'm wrong.
-Patrick
>
> 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
> [email hidden]
In article <z6oY8.13090$[email hidden]>, "Philster"
<[email hidden]> writes:
>If I remember correctly, the beta for Need For Speed: Motor City required
>you to pay $5 US in order to have a copy...
I didn't get that, EITHER...
Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
My .sig file is in the shop for repairs...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
In article <dVjY8.5730$[email hidden]>, "Jan Verschueren"
<[email hidden]> writes:
>You guys are kidding, right? $50 is under anyone's curiosity threshold,
>surely?
Not me, not at the moment. You of all people should know that.
And no, I'm not lobbying...<g>
Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
My .sig file is in the shop for repairs...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
"EldredP" wrote...
> <snip>
> Not me, not at the moment. You of all people should
> know that. And no, I'm not lobbying...<g>
On the other hand, betatesting may require server time/bandwith. <g>
Jan.
=---
[email hidden] (EldredP) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
You only had to pay $5 for the CD to be shipped to you (I have one as a
souvenier) I am 90% sure that the beta was available to testers as a free
download, before they changed to CD only in the last few weeks of testing.
Game was bobbins anyway.
cheers
John
Quoted text (9 lines)
> In article <z6oY8.13090$[email hidden]>, "Philster" > <[email hidden]> writes: > >>If I remember correctly, the beta for Need For Speed: Motor City required >>you to pay $5 US in order to have a copy... > > I didn't get that, EITHER... > > EldredIn article <[email hidden]>, JM <[email hidden]>
writes:
>You only had to pay $5 for the CD to be shipped to you (I have one as a
>souvenier) I am 90% sure that the beta was available to testers as a free
>download, before they changed to CD only in the last few weeks of testing.
Oh well - I didn't even have enough interest in it to know THAT...<g>
Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
My .sig file is in the shop for repairs...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
In article <zA1_8.17924$[email hidden]>, "Jan Verschueren"
<[email hidden]> writes:
>"EldredP" wrote...
>> <snip>
>> Not me, not at the moment. You of all people should
>> know that. And no, I'm not lobbying...<g>
>
>On the other hand, betatesting may require server time/bandwith. <g>
Hmmm...<rubs chin>...I hadn't thought of that... :-)
Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
My .sig file is in the shop for repairs...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
