Just Fired up GPL again

After a year's hiatus, I gritted my teeth and reinstalled GPL with all the add-ons, patches, tweaks, and carsets.I tried it out in 2001 and was suitably impressed although I never got that good. I got down to 300 something on GPL Rank; never could put together a decent lap at Nurburgring. Fooled around with N4, then N2002.Acutally joined Flashpoint for a while. They were great, if you like NASCAR, but I missed the anachronistic sex-appeal of the 1967 F1 circus despite the fact that the twisty circuits tended to bring on nausea.. Before I had a PII 800. Now I have a muscular system; 1800, GF4, 512 ram, etc. My God! Quelle difference! Racing GPL at 1600x1200 blew me away. The clarity! Even the physics seem improved. I think I 'll skip the league race tonite and do some laps at Adelaide. At the risk of adding my buckets to the GPL nostalgia flood I have to say: my God, you take GPL, and add the enhancements from N4 ad N2002, Jesus what a game we'd have! The refined physics, weather modelling, deep, comprehensive multiplayer (sorry, but VROC doesn't compare; among other factors, the ranking system ensures that runners don't drop out of races). Sigh.....

"Peter Oxford" > At the risk of adding my buckets to the GPL nostalgia flood I have to say: > my God, you take GPL, and add the enhancements from N4 ad N2002, Jesuswhat > a game we'd have! The refined physics, weather modelling, deep, > comprehensive multiplayer (sorry, but VROC doesn't compare; among other > factors, the ranking system ensures that runners don't drop out of races). > Sigh..... > I was almost gonna ask...what weather modeling? But my head was not hearing what my eyes were reading....Papyrus had excellant weather modeling...watching the smoke slowly drift away on the breeze is worth the price of the sim....but... I am still waiting for Papyrus to start adding things other titles have had for years...like DYNAMIC weather. Just as we are begging other publishers to equal Papyrus' multiplay, we need to bug the Boys from near-Boston to get cracking on real rain delays...(imagine that lap or two before officals throw the yellow for rain...can you hang on???) dave henrie

> > I was almost gonna ask...what weather modeling? But my head was not > hearing what my eyes were reading....Papyrus had excellant weather > modeling...watching the smoke slowly drift away on the breeze is worth the > price of the sim....but... A little unfair to Papyrus, Dave. In the N4,2002 series you have temperature, wind and cloud cover. And they all have subtle impact. Remember, NASCAR doesn't race in the rain except at the road courses (I think....). One online advantage that the NASCAR series have over GPL is that in the former demands a high level of proficiency on the part of each participant so as not to spoil the race for all. It's a harder sim. In N2K2 you merely have to be decent and you won't ruin the party.

"Peter Oxford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9_vQ8.273409$cQ3.13428@sccrnsc01... > > > > > I was almost gonna ask...what weather modeling? But my head was not > > hearing what my eyes were reading....Papyrus had excellant weather > > modeling...watching the smoke slowly drift away on the breeze is worththe

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > price of the sim....but... > > A little unfair to Papyrus, Dave. In the N4,2002 series you have > temperature, wind and cloud cover. And they all have subtle impact. > Remember, NASCAR doesn't race in the rain except at the road courses (I > think....). > > One online advantage that the NASCAR series have over GPL is that in the > former demands a high level of proficiency on the part of each participant > so as not to spoil the race for all. It's a harder sim. In N2K2 you merely > have to be decent and you won't ruin the party.

You need to be proficient in either title IMO. John >

"Peter Oxford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9_vQ8.273409$cQ3.13428@sccrnsc01... > > > > > I was almost gonna ask...what weather modeling? But my head was not > > hearing what my eyes were reading....Papyrus had excellant weather > > modeling...watching the smoke slowly drift away on the breeze is worththe > > price of the sim....but... > > A little unfair to Papyrus, Dave. In the N4,2002 series you have > temperature, wind and cloud cover. And they all have subtle impact. > Remember, NASCAR doesn't race in the rain except at the road courses (I > think....). agreed but they don't always throw the yellow flag the moment a drop trickles down...there are plenty of races where one or two cars have 'a moment' before race officials realize the rain is on the track. That would certainly bring some nasty language from a leader that got caught by the first drops I think.... :) > > One online advantage that the NASCAR series have over GPL is that in the > former demands a high level of proficiency on the part of each participant > so as not to spoil the race for all. It's a harder sim. In N2K2 you merely > have to be decent and you won't ruin the party. > I think you got it backwards...GPL strings out so fast the hotshoes never see the average drivers. With the shorter laps in Nascar, anything but a sprint race brings the whole pack down on a slowpoke...(don't ask me how I know these things!) dave henrie

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<LGvQ8.24166$EP.2012@sccrnsc03>... > I am still waiting for Papyrus to start adding things other titles have > had for years...like DYNAMIC weather. Just as we are begging other > publishers to equal Papyrus' multiplay, we need to bug the Boys from > near-Boston to get cracking on real rain delays...(imagine that lap or two > before officals throw the yellow for rain...can you hang on???) > dave henrie That sound you just heard was all of the people who are always complaining about not having a save game feature rolling their eyes in unison. =) Seriously, that would be awesome, but I'm already imagining some huge outlash from people who have problems with simulating long races, as it is. I'd also put in a vote for accident-caused and weather-caused red flags (wow, that would almost be a nice "cheat" for those 40 car AI pileups). One of the few things missing gameplay-wise. Actually, before dynamic weather, I'd like to see things like oil, water and debris causing irregularities to the track surface. And provisionals/all-star race in season play. And a proper career mode. Of course, I have a feeling some of these things may be in Nascar Thunder 2003, based on the previews I've read, which poses an interesting thought. If Thunder 2003 has a proper career mode, a plethora of single player options (I read it would ship with something like 150 cars, including Busch and historical? wooooooo), more detailed/realistic handling (possible since they're using the newest ISI engine), solid multiplayer, and a lot of little details that we've been begging Papy for, will the Sierra Nascar 200x series go the way of the Carrier Pigeon, Dodo and Crammond F1 series? Not sounding any death bells or anything (I expect Thunder 2003 to be a good first effort but not particularly amazing) but there could be an interesting battle for Nascar sim supremacy the next few years. Jason

A save game feature would be nice. I was halfway through a full race (gpl) but I just had to get some sleep. would have been nice (unrealistic though) to continue tonight at that point. DC jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<LGvQ8.24166$EP.2012@sccrnsc03>... > > > I am still waiting for Papyrus to start adding things other titleshave > > had for years...like DYNAMIC weather. Just as we are begging other > > publishers to equal Papyrus' multiplay, we need to bug the Boys from > > near-Boston to get cracking on real rain delays...(imagine that lap ortwo

Quoted text (30 lines)

> > before officals throw the yellow for rain...can you hang on???) > > dave henrie > > That sound you just heard was all of the people who are always > complaining about not having a save game feature rolling their eyes in > unison. =) > > Seriously, that would be awesome, but I'm already imagining some huge > outlash from people who have problems with simulating long races, as > it is. I'd also put in a vote for accident-caused and weather-caused > red flags (wow, that would almost be a nice "cheat" for those 40 car > AI pileups). One of the few things missing gameplay-wise. Actually, > before dynamic weather, I'd like to see things like oil, water and > debris causing irregularities to the track surface. And > provisionals/all-star race in season play. And a proper career mode. > > Of course, I have a feeling some of these things may be in Nascar > Thunder 2003, based on the previews I've read, which poses an > interesting thought. If Thunder 2003 has a proper career mode, a > plethora of single player options (I read it would ship with something > like 150 cars, including Busch and historical? wooooooo), more > detailed/realistic handling (possible since they're using the newest > ISI engine), solid multiplayer, and a lot of little details that we've > been begging Papy for, will the Sierra Nascar 200x series go the way > of the Carrier Pigeon, Dodo and Crammond F1 series? Not sounding any > death bells or anything (I expect Thunder 2003 to be a good first > effort but not particularly amazing) but there could be an interesting > battle for Nascar sim supremacy the next few years. > > Jason

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<LGvQ8.24166$EP.2012@sccrnsc03>... > > > I am still waiting for Papyrus to start adding things other titleshave > > had for years...like DYNAMIC weather. Just as we are begging other > > publishers to equal Papyrus' multiplay, we need to bug the Boys from > > near-Boston to get cracking on real rain delays...(imagine that lap ortwo

Quoted text (30 lines)

> > before officals throw the yellow for rain...can you hang on???) > > dave henrie > > That sound you just heard was all of the people who are always > complaining about not having a save game feature rolling their eyes in > unison. =) > > Seriously, that would be awesome, but I'm already imagining some huge > outlash from people who have problems with simulating long races, as > it is. I'd also put in a vote for accident-caused and weather-caused > red flags (wow, that would almost be a nice "cheat" for those 40 car > AI pileups). One of the few things missing gameplay-wise. Actually, > before dynamic weather, I'd like to see things like oil, water and > debris causing irregularities to the track surface. And > provisionals/all-star race in season play. And a proper career mode. > > Of course, I have a feeling some of these things may be in Nascar > Thunder 2003, based on the previews I've read, which poses an > interesting thought. If Thunder 2003 has a proper career mode, a > plethora of single player options (I read it would ship with something > like 150 cars, including Busch and historical? wooooooo), more > detailed/realistic handling (possible since they're using the newest > ISI engine), solid multiplayer, and a lot of little details that we've > been begging Papy for, will the Sierra Nascar 200x series go the way > of the Carrier Pigeon, Dodo and Crammond F1 series? Not sounding any > death bells or anything (I expect Thunder 2003 to be a good first > effort but not particularly amazing) but there could be an interesting > battle for Nascar sim supremacy the next few years. > > Jason

I hope Thunder does this things; competition is a good thing. But I place the odds at that happening about on par with WSC's release<G> John

(snips) . If Thunder 2003 has a proper career mode, a

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > plethora of single player options (I read it would ship with something > > like 150 cars, including Busch and historical? wooooooo), more > > detailed/realistic handling (possible since they're using the newest > > ISI engine), solid multiplayer, and a lot of little details that we've > > been begging Papy for, will the Sierra Nascar 200x series go the way > > of the Carrier Pigeon, Dodo and Crammond F1 series? Not sounding any > > death bells or anything (I expect Thunder 2003 to be a good first > > effort but not particularly amazing) but there could be an interesting > > battle for Nascar sim supremacy the next few years. > >

Career mode never appealed to me, still it seems a constant feature in console titles especially other sports like the Football and basketball and baseball titles. However, I still haven't seen the blurb about ISI coding the next Thunder, last I saw Tiburion studios was still the programing house. If ISI is the builder, or if they just license the F1 2002 engine, that is a good thing in MOST respects...ISI has shown no ability in 4 years with 5 different titles that they can code multiplayer anywhere near the level Papyrus has acheived. ISI has shown a propensity for track inaccuracies, and odd replays that limit the value of that feature. ISI still limits racers to two controller inputs...so guys with shifters and clutches and separate pedal units cannot use all their toys...(excuse me...tools) However, on the plus side...ISI has added features that users have asked for, have shown a willingness to work with 3rd party groups, have shown they can vastly improve a product. So perhaps there is hope... dave henrie > > Jason > > I hope Thunder does this things; competition is a good thing. But Iplace > the odds at that happening about on par with WSC's release<G> > > John > >

In article <fdCQ8.6$[email hidden]>, "David Ciemny" <[email hidden]> writes: >A save game feature would be nice. I was halfway through a full race (gpl) >but I just had to get some sleep. would have been nice (unrealistic though) >to continue tonight at that point. Since you don't mention needing your computer for other things, could you have paused the game? 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.

In article <BhvQ8.114359$[email hidden]>, "Peter Oxford" <[email hidden]> writes: >(sorry, but VROC doesn't compare; among other >factors, the ranking system ensures that runners don't drop out of races). No it doesn't. People STILL drop out. I'm glad they do, otherwise I'd never improve my rating/ranking... 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.

I guess I could have but not for 24-36 hours. DC EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <fdCQ8.6$[email hidden]>, "David Ciemny" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >A save game feature would be nice. I was halfway through a full race(gpl) > >but I just had to get some sleep. would have been nice (unrealisticthough) > >to continue tonight at that point. > > Since you don't mention needing your computer for other things, could youhave > paused the game? > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beatsyou > with experience... > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"David Ciemny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<fdCQ8.6$[email hidden]>... > A save game feature would be nice. I was halfway through a full race (gpl) > but I just had to get some sleep. would have been nice (unrealistic though) > to continue tonight at that point. I don't mean this to be offensive, but I've never been able to understand why a save game feature would be a good thing when you can run shorter races. In GPL this is a bit of a pain, since in order to have 100% AI difficulty and full damage at shorter race lengths you need to modify some settings in .ini files, but for the most part I dunno...the entire point of being able to run a race at 100% length, to me, is to be able to experience running a 100% race. Which means "running out of butt" as it were. A save game feature would be nice in the sense of allowing you to periodically save a race in order to avoid losing your progress due to a crash. So I can understand it from that perspective, but I still don't quite get the need to run longer races than one has time for in one sitting. It seems odd to demand the utmost in realism in every regard except for the "stiff leg, sweaty hands" aspects. Jason

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<IIFQ8.268695$352.24817@sccrnsc02>... > However, I still haven't seen the blurb about ISI coding > the next Thunder, last I saw Tiburion studios was still the programing > house. Tiburion is developing it using the "lastest ISI engine". Whether that means F1 2001 or F1 2002 I don't know (I'm not even sure, really what changed between those 2 releases engine-wise anyway...did they do anything besides altering the variables in the car physics files?). Either way, there could be interesting engine and brake tuning options included, if done well. I've come around a bit on ISI's F1 series, since my primary interest is the experience of driving a car moreso than the actual racing, but I do wish the replay/controller/multiplayer aspects were brought up to the competition's standards. Since Papyrus is the only competition, I would hope they would take a look at GPL/N4/N2002 and appropriate a few ideas. Oh yeah - career mode is very appealing to me. I love games with deep career simulations. I'm not talking about console sports games or anything here - I'm thinking along the lines of Out of the Park 4 or the Championship Manager series. I'd find single player to be much more fun if there were a proper career mode included. The challenge of building a race team, etc, which I believe is slated to be part of Thunder 2003. There is a smattering of information here, altho the writer of the article doesn't really help build a positive impression of the game: http://pc.ign.com/articles/362/362606p1.html Jason

I haven't really looked at the F1 2002 files in any great depth yet, but they do appear to have changed the tire model completely (I think this was at the request of the mod authors) and of course there is the higher rate physics option. Those might not sound like major changes, but it totally changes the feel, IMO. But the most promising thing about this is that most of the problems that people have noted with the feel of F1 2KX are due to the character of modern F1 - high spring and bar rates, low weight, tight turns that apparently are difficult to mesh smoothly. None of those things will be a problem in a NASCAR sim, the ISI engine will almost be overkill for that application. The only big question at this point is of course multiplayer. I can't see a NASCAR sim succeeding without it. "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Tiburion is developing it using the "lastest ISI engine". Whether > that means F1 2001 or F1 2002 I don't know (I'm not even sure, really > what changed between those 2 releases engine-wise anyway...did they do > anything besides altering the variables in the car physics files?). > Either way, there could be interesting engine and brake tuning options > included, if done well.

Changing the physics rate just changes the speed at which the calculations are being made, not the accuracy of the calculations, right? That is a significant addition to the vehicle dynamics modelling if they're using that extra speed to increase the detail of the tire/suspension/aero modelling, but if they didn't change much else it just means that whatever inaccurate calculations were made in F1 2001 (whatever those may be, I'm speculating here) would just be made twice as fast, no? Redone tire model sounds good, tho. I'm still waiting for my UC checks here which were due last week and I'm dying to pick up F1 2002. Finally found steering configuration settings that gave me Papyrus-style input response in F12k1 and now I'd like to mess with the latest version. First ISI game I should be able to enjoy out of the box. =) Oh yeah, Nacar Thunder 2003 is on my "to buy" list whenever it comes out, since multiplayer is not a big deal to me and the extra single player modes may be interesting. The only thing that concerns me really is the weak collision dynamics in F12k1 (dunno about 2k2). The way cars flip through the air and go airborne at times when lightly brushing barriers and whatnot is just odd. I would cry if I lost the backend at say Dover, hit the wall, and suddenly my car started flipping around like a fish out of water. The other thing that concerns me is the AI. I can't find the URL now, but there was a screenshot that showed the AI racing *3 wide* through the esses at Watkins Glen. I don't just mean one battle for position, I'm talking 10 rows of cars going through the esses 3 wide. WTF? Jason "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<af25hk$aqkeo$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> I haven't really looked at the F1 2002 files in any great depth yet, but > they do appear to have changed the tire model completely (I think this > was at the request of the mod authors) and of course there is the higher > rate physics option. Those might not sound like major changes, but it > totally changes the feel, IMO. But the most promising thing about this > is that most of the problems that people have noted with the feel of F1 > 2KX are due to the character of modern F1 - high spring and bar rates, > low weight, tight turns that apparently are difficult to mesh smoothly. > None of those things will be a problem in a NASCAR sim, the ISI engine > will almost be overkill for that application. The only big question at > this point is of course multiplayer. I can't see a NASCAR sim > succeeding without it. > > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > Tiburion is developing it using the "lastest ISI engine". Whether > > that means F1 2001 or F1 2002 I don't know (I'm not even sure, really > > what changed between those 2 releases engine-wise anyway...did they do > > anything besides altering the variables in the car physics files?). > > Either way, there could be interesting engine and brake tuning options > > included, if done well.

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Changing the physics rate just changes the speed at which the > calculations are being made, not the accuracy of the calculations, > right? That is a significant addition to the vehicle dynamics > modelling if they're using that extra speed to increase the detail of > the tire/suspension/aero modelling, but if they didn't change much > else it just means that whatever inaccurate calculations were made in > F1 2001 (whatever those may be, I'm speculating here) would just be > made twice as fast, no?

The problem is that in order to accurately reproduce the motion of the car the rate of the physics calculations has to be much higher than any of the natural frequencies in the suspension. The stiffer the suspension or the lighter the car, the higher the frequencies get. F1 is the worst case I know of in this respect (unless someone were to try and do a truly realistic representation of a go-kart that includes chassis stiffness). If you can't get the rate high enough, the car will tend to oscillate at some harmonic of the physics rate. So a lot of the bounciness that was in F1 2k1 was due to the physics rate not being high enough. The higher rate physics in F1 2k2 seems to have cured this. The other important thing that higher rate physics gives you is that you are literally improving the precision with which you read the track. At 300 kph a 200 hz physics engine only samples the track and does physics approx. every 42 cm. At 400 hz you are calculating the physics every 21 cm. Between that and the new tire model, the feel of the cars at the limit has improved tremendously. In F1 2001 I could occasionally rescue a spin but I couldn't really hold a car sideways (not that you would want to, but it's a good test). In F1 2002 I can hold the car sideways and I can feel my way through a turn with the pedals much like in GPL.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Redone tire model sounds good, tho. I'm still waiting for my UC > checks here which were due last week and I'm dying to pick up F1 2002. > Finally found steering configuration settings that gave me > Papyrus-style input response in F12k1 and now I'd like to mess with > the latest version. First ISI game I should be able to enjoy out of > the box. =) > > Oh yeah, Nacar Thunder 2003 is on my "to buy" list whenever it comes > out, since multiplayer is not a big deal to me and the extra single > player modes may be interesting.

Same here actually, but I think we are in the minority around here. > The only thing that concerns me > really is the weak collision dynamics in F12k1 (dunno about 2k2). The > way cars flip through the air and go airborne at times when lightly > brushing barriers and whatnot is just odd. I would cry if I lost the > backend at say Dover, hit the wall, and suddenly my car started > flipping around like a fish out of water. I have heard that collisions are better in F1 2k2, but haven't really tested it yet. In any case I would guess that Tiburon would have to do their own collision model due to the differences in the cars. For example they need to be able to show crumpled sheet metal, which is something I don't remember seeing in F1 2kx.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> The other thing that concerns me is the AI. I can't find the URL now, > but there was a screenshot that showed the AI racing *3 wide* through > the esses at Watkins Glen. I don't just mean one battle for position, > I'm talking 10 rows of cars going through the esses 3 wide. WTF? > > Jason >

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (jason moyer) writes: >A save game feature would be nice in the sense of allowing you to >periodically save a race in order to avoid losing your progress due to >a crash. Oddly enough, most people DON'T want a save game feature for this reason. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Stolen vehicle! - Det,MI 1999 Blk Pontiac Grand Am SE, Lic# 947SLS, VIN:1G2NE12EXXM815898 carjacked from Grnfld/W. Chicago 6/30/02.Contact Officer Penn at 313-596-2850.Thanks Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <pNOQ8.1828$[email hidden]>, "David Ciemny" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>I guess I could have but not for 24-36 hours. > >DC >EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> In article <fdCQ8.6$[email hidden]>, "David Ciemny" >> <[email hidden]> writes: >> >> >A save game feature would be nice. I was halfway through a full race >(gpl) >> >but I just had to get some sleep. would have been nice (unrealistic >though) >> >to continue tonight at that point. >> >> Since you don't mention needing your computer for other things, could you >have >> paused the game?

I've been known to do that before. I've taken as long as a week to finish a full race before. 'Course, I live alone, so no one else was clamoring for the computer...<g> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Stolen vehicle! - Det,MI 1999 Blk Pontiac Grand Am SE, Lic# 947SLS, VIN:1G2NE12EXXM815898 carjacked from Grnfld/W. Chicago 6/30/02.Contact Officer Penn at 313-596-2850.Thanks Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.