F12001 and F12002?

I already have EA's F12001 and wondered whether there was any point in buying F12002, apart from the updated stats? The only things I disliked about F12001 were a) stuttering when the pitcrew chimed in, b) poor replays (even when on maximum visual replay quality), c) sometimes shimmering graphics, and lastly d) graphics that were so 'colourful' that they begun to look a little 'cartoony' ( EA's 'Superbike 2001' had far more realistic 'photo' like visuals). These criticisms might sound a lot, but ultimately I still enjoyed the game. Its only now that having bought GP4 and being a little disappointed with it , I am not sure whether to take it back and perhaps buy F12002 instead? Any guidance appreciated. PJ

Buy F12002. Significantly better than F12001, and without all the bugs. Here's some screenshots I just put up yesterday taken with a GF2 and at only 800 x 600. They don't look cartoony at all. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ David G Fisher "Paul Jager" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3d17076a$0$27330$[email hidden]... > I already have EA's F12001 and wondered whether there was any point in > buying F12002, apart from the updated stats? > > The only things I disliked about F12001 were a) stuttering when thepitcrew > chimed in, b) poor replays (even when on maximum visual replay quality),c) > sometimes shimmering graphics, and lastly d) graphics that were so > 'colourful' that they begun to look a little 'cartoony' ( EA's 'Superbike > 2001' had far more realistic 'photo' like visuals). > > These criticisms might sound a lot, but ultimately I still enjoyed thegame. > Its only now that having bought GP4 and being a little disappointed withit

Quoted text (12 lines)

> , I am not sure whether to take it back and perhaps buy F12002 instead? > > Any guidance appreciated. > > > > > PJ > > > >

"David G Fisher" wrote: > Buy F12002. Significantly better than F12001, and without all thebugs. > Here's some screenshots I just put up yesterday taken with a GF2 andat only > 800 x 600. They don't look cartoony at all. > http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ Some of the screenshots of TV cams in F1-2001 looked fabulous as well, but the in cockpit ones just don't seem to match. Personally I find it looks a bit washed out and the cars (especially in the mirrors) look cartoony and seem to dart around in an odd fashion. I guess it is all down to personal preference. Of interest (maybe) GP4 responds well to FSAA, a minor hit, which kills F1-2002 dead. GP4 at 1024 with Quincux FSAA looks far better on my GF3 than F1-2002 at 1600 w/o FSAA. IMHO of course. As for darting AI, I just got overtaken on the grass on the outside of T4 at Hungary in F12002 (now I was over the kerb). Must be those grooved tyres... In terms of the original post, yes F1-2002 over a cheap F1-2001. Tony

F1 2002 still suffers from the same horrific replays the cars even floats at some sections shimmering persist good god EA SBK2001 is soooooooo good why cant they use the same graphic engine ??? "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tdLR8.373913$%[email hidden] om... > Buy F12002. Significantly better than F12001, andwithout all the bugs. > Here's some screenshots I just put up yesterday takenwith a GF2 and at only

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 800 x 600. They don't look cartoony at all. > http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ > > David G Fisher > > "Paul Jager" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3d17076a$0$27330$[email hidden]... > > I already have EA's F12001 and wondered whether

there was any point in > > buying F12002, apart from the updated stats? > > > > The only things I disliked about F12001 were a)stuttering when the > pitcrew > > chimed in, b) poor replays (even when on maximumvisual replay quality), > c) > > sometimes shimmering graphics, and lastly d)graphics that were so > > 'colourful' that they begun to look a little'cartoony' ( EA's 'Superbike > > 2001' had far more realistic 'photo' like visuals). > > > > These criticisms might sound a lot, but ultimatelyI still enjoyed the > game. > > Its only now that having bought GP4 and being alittle disappointed with > it > > , I am not sure whether to take it back and perhapsbuy F12002 instead?

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > > Any guidance appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > PJ > > > > > > > > > >

"John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> F1 2002 still suffers from the same horrific replays > the cars even floats at some sections > shimmering persist > > good god > EA SBK2001 is soooooooo good > why cant they use the same graphic engine ??? > >

Just about everyone liked the SBK 2001 graphics...however, there is no SBK 2002, and the guys that programmed that graphic engine are not the company that is making F1 2002. While both programming teams are or were contracted to EA, their work is separate.(I don't know the SBK teams current state, if they are still a company even, I just know they are NOT doing another bike sim for EA.) BTW....many folks praised SBK 2001's graphics, but it's physics? It's multiplayer? It's sounds? Those were all found lacking. dave henrie

Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4mNR8.6865$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "David G Fisher" wrote: > > > Buy F12002. Significantly better than F12001, and without all the > bugs. > > Here's some screenshots I just put up yesterday taken with a GF2 and > at only > > 800 x 600. They don't look cartoony at all. > > http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ > > Some of the screenshots of TV cams in F1-2001 looked fabulous as well, > but the in cockpit ones just don't seem to match. Personally I find it > looks a bit washed out and the cars (especially in the mirrors) look > cartoony and seem to dart around in an odd fashion.

I added some cockpit screenshots in case someone wants to take a look. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ > I guess it is all down to personal preference. Of interest (maybe) GP4 > responds well to FSAA, a minor hit, which kills F1-2002 dead. GP4 at > 1024 with Quincux FSAA looks far better on my GF3 than F1-2002 at 1600 > w/o FSAA. IMHO of course. Wish I knew why FSAA drops the F12002 fps so much. F12002 doesn't need FSAA nearly as much as N2002 though. David G Fisher

> Wish I knew why FSAA drops the F12002 fps so much. F12002 doesn't needFSAA > nearly as much as N2002 though. Well, F1 2002 is very demanding of fill rate on a graphics card. Possibly the most demanding game available in that department. GP4 (like it's predecessor) is mainly CPU bound. I'd even go so far as to say that F1 2002 doesn't look anything special unless it's on a GF3 Ti500+. Then the frame rate really gets pumping..

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:af9jd0$cm3sb$1@ID-. >I'd even go so far as to say that F1 2002 > doesn't look anything special unless it's on a GF3 Ti500+. Then the frame > rate really gets pumping.. > Are you talking about fps or quality? With my GF2Ti and P4 1.6m my frame rates are excellent with everything maxed. As for quality, you don't think these screen shots look nice even though they are taken with a GF2Ti at 800 x 600? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ I thought I'd need a GF3/4 before the game was released, but now I think it can wait a bit. David G Fisher

> Are you talking about fps or quality? With my GF2Ti and P4 1.6m my frame > rates are excellent with everything maxed. As for quality, you don't think > these screen shots look nice even though they are taken with a GF2Ti at800 > x 600? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ I thought I'd need a GF3/4 > before the game was released, but now I think it can wait a bit. Well, I guess a GF2 Ti with it's DDR memory isn't too shabby for fill rate. On my Ti4600, I can run at 1280x960x32 max detail at the same frame rate as 640x480x16. If I go one step higher to 1600x1200, the frame rate takes a big hit from around 80fps to about 50fps. F1 2002 in 1280x960x32 at 60fps vsynced = sim heaven (for now.)

yeah but the graphic code could be transfered and the physics code kept intact even all else fail, just look at the game SBK 2001 and see how their counterpart did it, they can still come out with equivalent approach they really don't need to reinvent the wheel "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xPQR8.168444$[email hidden]. .. >is no > SBK 2002, and the guys that programmed that graphicengine are not the > company that is making F1 2002. While bothprogramming teams are or were > contracted to EA, their work is separate.(I don'tknow the SBK teams current > state, if they are still a company even, I just knowthey are NOT doing > another bike sim for EA.) BTW....many folks praisedSBK 2001's graphics, > but it's physics? It's multiplayer? It's sounds?Those were all found > lacking. > dave henrie > >

"John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> yeah but the graphic code could be transfered > and the physics code kept intact > > even all else fail, just look at the game SBK 2001 > and see how their counterpart did it, they > can still come out with equivalent approach > > they really don't need to reinvent the wheel >

Lets just look at another example. Suppose that both Michael Crichton and Tom Clancey are published by Random House. During the editing process can Random House lift some of Clancey's technical prose to clarify the Crichton text? Can Random House have Clancy ghost write some passages? Without being a lawyer, I think the answer is no. Unless Clancey and Crichton got together and crafted a contract with Random House so that both could get credit and payment for the writting process, then there is no way Random can just step in and substitute text, even if it's better, or clearer, or clamored for by the reading public. Since I think we can safe assume EA has individual contracts with ISI and the SBK programmers, It would take a host of lawyers to pave the way for the use of the SBK code. Then it would probably take at least a year just to figure out how to integrate the SBK graphics. Will EA cough up the cash to let ISI figure out somebody else's graphic engine? Suddenly a $39 program is costing $69 or more and is two years late.... dave henrie

In article <xPQR8.168444$[email hidden]>, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Just about everyone liked the SBK 2001 graphics...however, there is no >SBK 2002, and the guys that programmed that graphic engine are not the >company that is making F1 2002. While both programming teams are or were >contracted to EA, their work is separate.(I don't know the SBK teams current >state, if they are still a company even, I just know they are NOT doing >another bike sim for EA.) BTW....many folks praised SBK 2001's graphics, >but it's physics? It's multiplayer? It's sounds? Those were all found >lacking.

The thing *I* hated was trying to control a motorcycle with a wheel. I could never get the right feel for it. Using a joystick gave me 2 choices: using the forward/back for gas/brake, or using the buttons(on/off) as gas/brake. Neither one was satisfactory... :( Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.