you guys seen this? http://www.nuvolari3000.com/index11.html
second item from the top. I thought it was pretty funny. :)
--
Gunnar
#31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2
silence is FOO!
F1 2002 versus GP4 graphics comparison
Side-by-side screenshots of F1 2002 and GP4 started a debate over graphics. Some preferred F1 2002's sharper look, while ymenard and others preferred Crammond's more natural color palette. Many agreed GP4 still suffered from a slow-motion feel tied to processor occupancy and scaling, and there was discussion of its old assembly-language core.
Automated summary.
I don't read Italian and the translate button didn't work.
But, heck, I'm giving GP4 another run through. Maybe once I get the wheel
working and responding correctly, I can check the game out a bit more. What
most concerned me-- not really knowing squat about the physics of Formula
One-- was the feeling I got while racing GP4. I'm going 180mph and it feels
like I'm driving in a community zone. I think I'll take the game through
the ringer once more and more so. Surely there can't be a thing wrong with
having two decent modern F1 Sims floating around. My guess is that right
now F1 2002 is all there is: I'm hoping that changes once a re-look at GP4.
I'm none too hopeful, though.
Alanb
"Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > you guys seen this? http://www.nuvolari3000.com/index11.html > > second item from the top. I thought it was pretty funny. :) > > > -- > Gunnar > #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 > silence is FOO!"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> writes:
> I don't read Italian and the translate button didn't work.
well, neither do I, but did you look at the screenies? the ones under
"13 giugno 17.28 Gp4- F12002 : screenshot comparativi"?
--
Gunnar
#31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2
gitaren er en sjingke
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:CRrO8.34521$nZ3.6969@rwcrnsc53...
I think he is referring to the screenshot comparison. Graphically, anyway, F1 2002 does
look streets ahead of the bland GP4.
Quoted text (12 lines)
> I don't read Italian and the translate button didn't work. > > But, heck, I'm giving GP4 another run through. Maybe once I get the wheel > working and responding correctly, I can check the game out a bit more. What > most concerned me-- not really knowing squat about the physics of Formula > One-- was the feeling I got while racing GP4. I'm going 180mph and it feels > like I'm driving in a community zone. I think I'll take the game through > the ringer once more and more so. Surely there can't be a thing wrong with > having two decent modern F1 Sims floating around. My guess is that right > now F1 2002 is all there is: I'm hoping that changes once a re-look at GP4. > I'm none too hopeful, though. >"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:CRrO8.34521$nZ3.6969@rwcrnsc53...
> One-- was the feeling I got while racing GP4. I'm going 180mph and itfeels
> like I'm driving in a community zone.
GP4 still has the famous S L O W M O T I O N issue. You're going 180mph
and it seems like you're going 55 :/
- David Cook
>"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Graphically, anyway, F1 2002 does
> look streets ahead of the bland GP4.
Uh? I completely disagree with you :) I also don't understand how you can
qualify of "bland", the graphics in GP4, while "bland" would better describe
the over-washed and incredibly badly positioned graphics and objects of F1
2002.
To give him *some* credit, Geoff Crammond has always put out crisp graphics.
They were perhaps on the edge of being almost heavily pixelated and flat,
but it has a colour palette that is very close to reality.
Anyway, none of them pass the test in my eyes.
--
-- 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...
Ditto - I much prefer GC's color palette to the cartoonish look of his
competitors. Now if he could just farm the *good* bits out to Papy... ;-)
SB
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:VBtO8.7600$[email hidden]...
describe
> the over-washed and incredibly badly positioned graphics and objects of F1
> 2002.
>
> To give him *some* credit, Geoff Crammond has always put out crispgraphics.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> >"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Graphically, anyway, F1 2002 does > > look streets ahead of the bland GP4. > > > Uh? I completely disagree with you :) I also don't understand how you can > qualify of "bland", the graphics in GP4, while "bland" would betterQuoted text (16 lines)
> They were perhaps on the edge of being almost heavily pixelated and flat, > but it has a colour palette that is very close to reality. > > > Anyway, none of them pass the test in my eyes. > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:VBtO8.7600$[email hidden]...
describe
> the over-washed and incredibly badly positioned graphics and objects of F1
> 2002.
>
WOW. You actually think that the GP4 screenshots look better than the F1
2002 shots? Damn, I guess that beauty must really be in the eye of the
beholder because I think that the F1 2002 shots are light years ahead of
GP4. It's like F1 2002 is an actual current sim and looking at the GP4 shots
makes me think the game is from 4 years ago or more.
--
---------------------
Rob Berryhill
Quoted text (7 lines)
> >"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Graphically, anyway, F1 2002 does > > look streets ahead of the bland GP4. > > > Uh? I completely disagree with you :) I also don't understand how you can > qualify of "bland", the graphics in GP4, while "bland" would better"ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes:
I agree that F1 2002 isn't exactly a real beauty. but it does look
like one next to GP4.
--
Gunnar
#31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2
to err is human -- to forgive is bovine.
Quoted text (15 lines)
> >"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Graphically, anyway, F1 2002 does > > look streets ahead of the bland GP4. > > > Uh? I completely disagree with you :) I also don't understand how you can > qualify of "bland", the graphics in GP4, while "bland" would better describe > the over-washed and incredibly badly positioned graphics and objects of F1 > 2002. > > To give him *some* credit, Geoff Crammond has always put out crisp graphics. > They were perhaps on the edge of being almost heavily pixelated and flat, > but it has a colour palette that is very close to reality. > > Anyway, none of them pass the test in my eyes.Quoted text (13 lines)
> > Uh? I completely disagree with you :) I also don't understand how you can > qualify of "bland", the graphics in GP4, while "bland" would better describe > the over-washed and incredibly badly positioned graphics and objects of F1 > 2002. > > To give him *some* credit, Geoff Crammond has always put out crisp graphics. > They were perhaps on the edge of being almost heavily pixelated and flat, > but it has a colour palette that is very close to reality. > > > Anyway, none of them pass the test in my eyes. >On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:54:05 -0400, "ymenard"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>To give him *some* credit, Geoff Crammond has always put out crisp graphics.
Must be some other Crammond than the one who'd games I've seen.
how does f1rc compares with these 2
just on graphic alone ?
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
news:VBtO8.7600$[email hidden]...
> >"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > Graphically, anyway, F1 2002 does
> > look streets ahead of the bland GP4.
>
>
> Uh? I completely disagree with you :) I also don'tunderstand how you can
> qualify of "bland", the graphics in GP4, while"bland" would better describe
> the over-washed and incredibly badly positionedgraphics and objects of F1
> 2002.
>
> To give him *some* credit, Geoff Crammond has alwaysput out crisp graphics.
> They were perhaps on the edge of being almost heavilypixelated and flat,
> but it has a colour palette that is very close toreality.
Shimago-Dominguez
> Corporation - helping America into the New World...
>
>
>
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > > Anyway, none of them pass the test in my eyes. > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the"rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:54:18 -0400, "David L. Cook" <[email hidden]>wrote:
Monaco *was* indeed sweet in GP4 (I already deleted it) but have you tried
it in F1-2002? Not bad either! Going through the tunnel and hearing the
difference in sound as well as the change in lighting is amazing...
The slow motion issue I mentioned has been around since the beginning of
Crammond's GP series I think. It's not just my opinion - it really does go
real slow on screen while you are supposedly going very fast. Funky stuff.
- David Cook
Quoted text (12 lines)
> > >GP4 still has the famous S L O W M O T I O N issue. You're going 180mph > >and it seems like you're going 55 :/ > > I guess if speed was all that mattered, we could just > play Wipeout and not worry about these stupid slow sims.. > > :) > > Have you tried GP4 at Monaco, David? > > You should.David L. Cook <[email hidden]> wrote:
: The slow motion issue I mentioned has been around since the beginning of
: Crammond's GP series I think. It's not just my opinion - it really does go
: real slow on screen while you are supposedly going very fast. Funky stuff.
Yes, the slow motion is indeed a problem with GP4. No matter what
resolution or detail level, it's there.
But as everyone can see, the GP4 team has really focused on the
IMPORTANT stuff, like the visor graphics. Those water droplets
hitting the visor when driving in the rain, and when you speed
up they start moving around... really neat :)
Ah well, the physics are probably pretty accurate and it has
dynamic weather, driving line, slipstreaming (*), etc. Just hope
they patch up the speed of the graphics.
TTT
(*) At least according to reviews of different versions of
F1 2002, the PC version has no slipstreaming effect, where
as the X-box version does ? :-0
It's obvious that GP4 doesn't use a properly scaled 3D world. It seems to
use one of the famous Crammond fudge factors for scaling. What a joke.
--
Damien Smith
[email hidden]
ICQ: 77028579
> I guess if speed was all that mattered, we could just
> play Wipeout and not worry about these stupid slow sims..
>
>
Do a lap in GP1,2,3 or 4 and get our stop watch out. Because of Geoff stupid
"processor occupancy" way of programing unles you have a really really quick
system lap which the timing in the game say you did 1 min will actually take
over a minute to do, ir if our speedo say 200 you're not actually doing 200
more like 150 which is why it looks so slow. This all depends of how quick
your system is but it alos causes big problems multiplayer if you have 1
slow pc joining the game as it only runs as fast as the slowest pc.
How Geoff can get away with using the same crap engine since 1990 beggers
belief.
Some Call Me Tim
> I'm very familiar with how it works, particularly in GP2 and GP3.
> I was a beta tester on GP2, by the way.
So you can take some of the blame? ; )
> I haven't noticed any of the slowdown crap on GP4, but this
> weekend, I'll crank up the graphics (thus the PO) to hellish levels,
> get out my stopwatch and see if it does the time warp trick ..
From what I understand, if you're PO is at 200%, it's takes twice as long to
do a lap in realtime. Is that correct? It's really a form of cheating -
you can use that high PO to give yourself more time to take corners
properly.
Toooo bad, but it does :(
Also the 3d world is a bit over scaled, or he uses bad field of wiev (i
guess u can change that in one of the .ini files)
> I haven't noticed any of the slowdown crap on GP4, but this
> weekend, I'll crank up the graphics (thus the PO) to hellish levels,
> get out my stopwatch and see if it does the time warp trick ..
>
>
>
"Kiss Attila ( digitrade kft. )" wrote...
> Toooo bad, but it does :(
> Also the 3d world is a bit over scaled, or he uses bad field of wiev (i
> guess u can change that in one of the .ini files)
You should be able to change that in the game...
Jan.
=---
"Kiss Attila ( digitrade kft. )" wrote...
You should be able to change that in the game...
Jan.
=---
"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<aedtrk$66933$[email hidden]>...
> Where are the track textures ? Or the car textures, for that matter ?
> http://members.home.nl/lighteye/f1test_2.jpg F1 2002 pic is the one on the right ! ;-)
Why no pictures of the real track? A comparison like that is useless
without seeing what the real track looks like.
I mean the track textures for both could be way off...
Jason
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<VBtO8.7600$[email hidden]>...
> Uh? I completely disagree with you :) I also don't understand how you can
> qualify of "bland", the graphics in GP4, while "bland" would better describe
> the over-washed and incredibly badly positioned graphics and objects of F1
> 2002.
Hm, haven't picked up 2002 yet but I don't find the 2001 graphics to
be over-washed at all. What sort of video card are you using? Maybe
textures are de-rezing because of vid RAM?
> To give him *some* credit, Geoff Crammond has always put out crisp graphics.
> They were perhaps on the edge of being almost heavily pixelated and flat,
> but it has a colour palette that is very close to reality.
I agree. ISI could learn a few things about color saturation. F1
2001 reminds me of NASCAR Heat before the initial patch when you could
desaturate the textures. Some things are very pretty, and some things
are very blah, but overall the colors are just wrong.
This is just one of the many areas where I seriously wish ISI would
pick up a copy of a recent Papyrus game to see how things could be
done. In addition to the control calibration/linearity setup.
Jason
>"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Where are the track textures ? Or the car textures, for that matter ?
> http://members.home.nl/lighteye/f1test_2.jpg F1 2002 pic is the one onthe right ! ;-)
Sorry but those F1 2002 track textures are laughable. I've yet to see any
real track with such pattern on it.
--
-- 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...
>"Tauno Taipaleenmaki" <[email hidden]> wrote
> But as everyone can see, the GP4 team has really focused on the
> IMPORTANT stuff, like the visor graphics.
Yeah that's so important I'm sure it was at the top of his list.
> Ah well, the physics are probably pretty accurate
No.
> Just hope they patch up the speed of the graphics.
But then again, he would need to completely restart from nothing. A
complete, new, simulation without any line of code from his (15 years old)
core engine in assembler.
--
-- 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...
>"rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote
> I was a beta tester on GP2, by the way.
Can we blame you now for all the (1001) problems in GP4 instead of Geoff ;-)
--
-- 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...
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote
> I agree. ISI could learn a few things about color saturation. F1
> 2001 reminds me of NASCAR Heat before the initial patch when you could
> desaturate the textures. Some things are very pretty, and some things
> are very blah, but overall the colors are just wrong.
Well yeah that's why I wrote that they are *bland*. The palette is plain
wrong. It is pleasant to the eye of a FPS quaker more than to the eye of
somebody who wants to see a realistic image. That's why I say that Geoff's
GP4 looks more like a real-life representation of what our eye see, compared
to the overwashed and *bland* ISI's graphic engine.
> This is just one of the many areas where I seriously wish ISI would
> pick up a copy of a recent Papyrus game to see how things could be
> done. In addition to the control calibration/linearity setup.
;-/
--
-- 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...
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Could be. It's turn 1 at Melbourne, which is only a 5
minute drive from where I live. In my opinion,
neither of those two is correct, but the GP4 version
would be spot on if it was just a bit darker.
The F1 2002 pic looks like its black gravel!
In any case, it wont be long before editors will be made
for GP4, and people will be making new tracks with different
graphics and textures, and this debate will be irrelevent
for any of us here on the net.
Quoted text (12 lines)
> >"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<aedtrk$66933$1@ID-768 >66.news.dfncis.de>... > >> Where are the track textures ? Or the car textures, for that matter ? >> http://members.home.nl/lighteye/f1test_2.jpg F1 2002 pic is the one on the r >ight ! ;-) > >Why no pictures of the real track? A comparison like that is useless >without seeing what the real track looks like. > >I mean the track textures for both could be way off...On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 00:52:48 GMT, [email hidden]
(GD) wrote:
[snip]
>neither of those two is correct, but the GP4 version
>would be spot on if it was just a bit darker.
There's something not quite right with that GP4 screenshot. The
Williams "blue" is not dark enough. Hopefully its a matter of a small
tweak to get it just right.
The other thing...I'm sure it looks nice but I think that the
reflections from the car body work is perhaps a bit too strong. I
guess I'll have to get the game to truly find out.
>In any case, it wont be long before editors will be made
>for GP4, and people will be making new tracks with different
>graphics and textures, and this debate will be irrelevent
>for any of us here on the net.
And god bless SDI for his GPxPatch tool that's been so useful to
those who play GP3. I really hope that he brings out a GP4 version.
And a big thanks to Ralph Hummerich, Matti Laitinen, Marc Aarts, and
scores of other people who make editors, tracks, menus, carsets, etc
for GP3. Fingers crossed for support for GP4.
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
E-mail : ksmatharu # ieee . org [without the spaces and where #=@]
Website: http://www.matharu.demon.co.uk/
"You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
> Could be. It's turn 1 at Melbourne, which is only a 5
> minute drive from where I live. In my opinion,
> neither of those two is correct, but the GP4 version
> would be spot on if it was just a bit darker.
> The F1 2002 pic looks like its black gravel!
Erm...the surface at Melbourne is all 'hotmix' bitumen which *is* almost
black until it gets a shiny build-up of rubber on it - then the light starts
reflecting off it and it looks lighter. I would say that GP4 is way too
light and F12002 is slightly too dark.
> Well yeah that's why I wrote that they are *bland*. The palette is plain
> wrong. It is pleasant to the eye of a FPS quaker more than to the eye of
> somebody who wants to see a realistic image. That's why I say thatGeoff's
> GP4 looks more like a real-life representation of what our eye see,compared
> to the overwashed and *bland* ISI's graphic engine.
Yeah, I thought F12001 looked too vivid when I first saw it but after seeing
F12002 on a fast machine with all of the lighting effects it definitely
looks quite natural. I think that Ralph Hummerich's 2002 carsets might
overdo the lighting just a tad - anyone else think that?
> >> I guess if speed was all that mattered, we could just
> >> play Wipeout and not worry about these stupid slow sims..
With all due respect, that was a pathetic analagy...
> Also, as you know, F1-2001/2 have a much better 'sense of speed' overall
> than GP4.
I'm stunned that Geoff didn't create a properly proportioned 3D world
*again*! I nearly fell over once I started reading that GP4 has the same
old snail pace cars...I was under the impression that they had created an
all-new engine for the game....??
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:pDKO8.13951$[email hidden]...
> Sorry but those F1 2002 track textures are laughable. I've yet to see any
> real track with such pattern on it.
I agree about F1 2002. The graphics are far too garish and bright. The grass
is so green it hurts my eyes.Whenever I start a race in F1 2002, I feel like
I'm in The Teletubbies Grand Prix.
I've spent many a day at Silverstone, and it would never really look like
that without the assistance of LSD.
Johnny.
>"John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote
> how does f1rc compares with these 2
> just on graphic alone ?
Hmm, good question. I still think that the colour palette used by Geoff is
the best of the three. That's about the only thing I like about his sims.
Really some screenshots, while looking far away, could almost be misled as a
real picture. The way the lighting is speculated and the shadows hit the
screen is very similar to simple light hitting a camera lenses.
Anyway, going back to F1RC, I say it relies a little too much on heavy
contrasts, but not as much as F1-2001. It's about the same as F1-2002.
As for the graphics itself, it all again goes back to how realistic are the
tracks. It's the basis of the "graphics". F1RC wins by a large and fair
margin, in both the accuracy of the graphics and the number of it. F1-2002
and GP4 perhaps match the number of objects on any track, but they are
either false or badly positioned. F1RC has them all, and all correctly.
Now if F1RC could only drive like F1-2002... ;(
--
-- 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...
In article <aei1jt$71727$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
So today on my way to work I drove over to turn 1 and took
a closer look. Since I'm currently on an afternoon job
I was there about lunchtime and you're pretty much looking
into the sun at that time of day. During the race, the
sun would be somewhat more to your left so there is a bit
of light reflection off the road... but the point
is that I stand by my original statement. The GP4 pic
would be correct if it was darker, and the F1 2002 pic
is completely silly in its severe overemphasis of the
texture.
P.S. The scratch that the rear of Ralf's car made as it
came down (after going for a flight over Rubens) is very
distinct, and about a metre long.
Quoted text (11 lines)
> >> Could be. It's turn 1 at Melbourne, which is only a 5 >> minute drive from where I live. In my opinion, >> neither of those two is correct, but the GP4 version >> would be spot on if it was just a bit darker. >> The F1 2002 pic looks like its black gravel! > >Erm...the surface at Melbourne is all 'hotmix' bitumen which *is* almost >black until it gets a shiny build-up of rubber on it - then the light starts >reflecting off it and it looks lighter. I would say that GP4 is way too >light and F12002 is slightly too dark.On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 23:01:59 +1000, "Damien Smith"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>I'm stunned that Geoff didn't create a properly proportioned 3D world
>*again*! I nearly fell over once I started reading that GP4 has the same
>old snail pace cars...I was under the impression that they had created an
>all-new engine for the game....??
In another thread someone suggested that GP4 is still programmed in
assembly language. If true it would explain both why the game
maintains so much legacy code and why it performs so poorly. (This
isn't 1995 - a modern C optimizer can do wonders.)
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:51:51 +0200, "Kiss Attila \( digitrade kft.
\)" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Toooo bad, but it does :(
Really unbelievable. Memo to Geoff - it is now the 21st century!!!!!
"Joe62" <[email hidden]> wrote
> In another thread someone suggested that GP4 is still programmed in
> assembly language. If true it would explain both why the game
> maintains so much legacy code and why it performs so poorly. (This
> isn't 1995 - a modern C optimizer can do wonders.)
No kidding. I reinstalled GP3 and ran a subjective graphical comparison.
IMO GP3 looks pretty much as good, and runs a LOT faster than GP4. I
can't for the life of me see where the extra graphical sparkle is that makes
GP4 demand so much more of the computer.
--
Frode
>"Joe62" <[email hidden]> wrote
> In another thread someone suggested that GP4 is still programmed in
> assembly language. If true it would explain both why the game
> maintains so much legacy code and why it performs so poorly. (This
> isn't 1995 - a modern C optimizer can do wonders.)
The core is in assembly (Geoff admitted it) but since GP3 there has been C
code patching over it.
--
-- 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...
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > In another thread someone suggested that GP4 is still programmed in
> > assembly language. If true it would explain both why the game
> > maintains so much legacy code and why it performs so poorly. (This
> > isn't 1995 - a modern C optimizer can do wonders.)
> The core is in assembly (Geoff admitted it) but since GP3 there has been C
> code patching over it.
I just reread the PCG preview (UK issue 108), and I quote: "A sparkly,
completely new 3D engine for starters.".
It also states they started working on GP4 technology before GP3 was even
done. I take that to mean they started pretty much from scratch and worked
in parallel. If that's a correct interpretation I'll either call them
incompetent or liars I think. Whatever GP4 is it sure doesn't seem state of
the art to me. Not by a long long long shot.
And from the interview with Geoff himself: "The graphics engine has been
significantly refined". Yeah it's got some new fancy stuff like decent(?)
reflections etc. It really doesn't make my day though. GP4's graphics aren't
what I'd call "significantly" improved on GP3's, and yet they demand tons
more of your hardware.
--
Frode
"> (*) At least according to reviews of different versions of
> F1 2002, the PC version has no slipstreaming effect, where
> as the X-box version does ? :-0
There is no Xbox version, only PS2 and soon to be gamecube.
Interesting, I could've sworn I saw an Xbox F1 2002 the other day... even
found this just now http://www.xbox.com/au/f12002/default.htm
Dave
"jlohman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:szyP8.5720$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > "> (*) At least according to reviews of different versions of > > F1 2002, the PC version has no slipstreaming effect, where > > as the X-box version does ? :-0 > > There is no Xbox version, only PS2 and soon to be gamecube. > >On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 04:21:44 GMT, "jlohman" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
I have the demo downstairs for F12002 on my Xbox and the retail
version is in every game store in town...
[email hidden]
Quoted text (7 lines)
> >"> (*) At least according to reviews of different versions of >> F1 2002, the PC version has no slipstreaming effect, where >> as the X-box version does ? :-0 > >There is no Xbox version, only PS2 and soon to be gamecube. >On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 04:21:44 GMT, "jlohman" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>"> (*) At least according to reviews of different versions of
>> F1 2002, the PC version has no slipstreaming effect, where
>> as the X-box version does ? :-0
>
>There is no Xbox version, only PS2 and soon to be gamecube.
The Xbox version does exist. I've played it. And it's total pants.
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
E-mail : ksmatharu # ieee . org [without the spaces and where #=@]
Website: http://www.matharu.demon.co.uk/
"You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
>"Frode" <[email hidden]> wrote
> I just reread the PCG preview (UK issue 108), and I quote: "A sparkly,
> completely new 3D engine for starters.".
Yeah but that's somehow not "true". Yes, he redid the graphical engine for
the 3d rendering, but that is absolutely all. It's still a weird 2d world
badly scaled and full of idiosynchonis. ;-/
> If that's a correct interpretation I'll either call them
> incompetent or liars I think.
We can settle for both ;-)
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:X_OP8.3382$[email hidden]...
> Yeah but that's somehow not "true". Yes, he redid the graphical enginefor
> the 3d rendering, but that is absolutely all. It's still a weird 2d world
> badly scaled and full of idiosynchonis. ;-/
GP4's 3D and the GPS-based track modelling, and the topographical data is
actually very good. Taking Silverstone for example, I spend a lot of time at
the real Silverstone (too much :) ), and GP4's representation of Silverstone
and its' associated track furniture is pretty accurate, certainly the best
I've seen so far. It's certainly not badly scaled. The only aspect I'm
worried about are the caravans on the outside of club corner, (as I don't
remember seeing them there), maybe they're meant to be the burger vans.
Johnny.
