I loved F12001 except for no career mode. Is F12002 a worthy upgrade? Or
should I wait for F1RC2?
Is F1 2002 worth buying?
Asked whether F1 2002 was worth buying, many praised its handling and AI, some calling it as good as GPL, while others said it was little more than an update to F1 2001. A long debate followed over whether inaccurate tracks disqualify a sim, with track conversions from GPL mentioned. The thread later argued about frame rates and physics rates.
Automated summary.
Yes!
IT has the best "feel" of any F1 game to date, the handling is very good
indeed and the cars slides about in a very satisfying fashion. Basically
it's a hoot to driver dare I say it as good as GPL (shock horror, the old
die hards will flame me for that but it's true!)
The AI is the best yet in any racing game, the other cars actually try to
avoid hitting you! The most annoying thing that I hate the most in racing
games is poor AI punting you off so you end up re-starting over and over
again just to get a good race. So far I been able race tooth and nail with
the AI and not get punted off by them, the only accidents I've had have been
my own stupid fault which is how it should be (perhaps some would say this
is not an accurate simulation of Rubens Barricello!). One of the nicest
things is a throw back to old indycar racing where you can set the
comparative speed of the AI to match your own pace which I think is great
because everyone can set it so they can race at their own pace (we're not
all Greger Hutus!) head to head with the AI.
In fact it's just plain fun which is exactly what you want out of a racing
game.
The circuits and cars are lovely to look at and very detailed but I'm not
sure they are exactly accurate, but who cares if the wings on the Jordan are
not he same as in real life and some of the cambers are not the same. I
haven't been round any of the circuits in real life so I can't compare them
and I don't really care as long as they are fun to drive. However Monaco is
far to narrow to be fun (surly it's not his bad in reality)
The replay feature is not as good as GPL (who's is!) but it does record full
hot laps OK. I've not used the telemetry so far but it looks pretty damm
cool and very comprehensive and you can connect directly to the web to
compare times which is a really nice feature.
The FF is the about best yet in any racing game and you can really feel
what's going on with the car and the rumble strips etc give nice effects.
The weather again is the best yet implemented in any racing game and they
way it changes from wet to dry is just superb as you seek out drying lines
or you see how long you can stay out on slick on a slightly damp track. you
can even have one part of the circuit wet with the others still dry! The
cars also handles very well in the wet and it's still very driveable.
I haven't tried it multiplayer yet so I won't comment on much on that aside
from the fact a lot of people so far have complained that it's crap using a
modem. They should have read the box as it states that modem play is only
good for two players. You just can't really expect a game with this high
level of detail and physics to work over a crappy old 56k connection,
Broadband or LAN is the only way to go folks.
It's not perfect, we'll always find something to moan about but it is the
best F1 game we've had so far. It's got some really nice touches and it
looks great and it even runs faster that F12001 which is odd but
commendable. But the thing for me is the way it drives which is what it's
all about and this game not only feels right but is just so much fun to
drive as so far in only a few days I've had some of the best races I've ever
had a pc against AI.
Now if only someone would make Monaco a little wider?
Some Call Me Tim (having a hoot)
"Moe Lefaive" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:2vuN8.6647$[email hidden]...
> I loved F12001 except for no career mode. Is F12002 a worthy upgrade? Or
> should I wait for F1RC2?
>
You can think of it in two ways
F12k2 is - A skin set, two track updates and a physics patch for F12k1
OR
Probably the best F1 sim there is - despite it's shortcomings in
multiplayer, replays and track accuracy.
Doug
Wow I've seen alot of complaint's about Track inaccuracy and replay's IMHO
who gives a rip how many of you know's the tracks that well, that OMG that
threw me off, s**t if it was just like the real track I woulda made it, and
replay's who cares I got the game to race some cars now the online racing
issue I can see the need to complain about, a friend of mine said years ago
that, that's something EA programers just haven't quit figured out how to
perfect!!! Just my 2 cents
"Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ae62mr$46mgq$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (19 lines)
> > "Moe Lefaive" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2vuN8.6647$[email hidden]... > > I loved F12001 except for no career mode. Is F12002 a worthy upgrade? Or > > should I wait for F1RC2? > > > > You can think of it in two ways > > F12k2 is - A skin set, two track updates and a physics patch for F12k1 > > OR > > Probably the best F1 sim there is - despite it's shortcomings in > multiplayer, replays and track accuracy. > > Doug > >>"Hans Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Wow I've seen alot of complaint's about Track inaccuracy and replay's IMHO
> who gives a rip how many of you know's the tracks that well,
It's a fundamental issue of what is a "racing simulation" and what is not,
Hans.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"Hans Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ItyN8.221505$[email hidden]...
> Wow I've seen alot of complaint's about Track inaccuracy and replay's IMHO
> who gives a rip how many of you know's the tracks that well, that OMG that
> threw me off, s**t if it was just like the real track I woulda made it,and
> replay's who cares I got the game to race some cars now the online racing
> issue I can see the need to complain about, a friend of mine said yearsago
> that, that's something EA programers just haven't quit figured out how to
> perfect!!! Just my 2 cents
> "Douglas Ellison"
This kinda goes back to the car painters. A few years ago, Papyrus
shipped a Nascar title without any Manufacturer licensing. It may not
sound like much but try asking your typical Nascar fan to root for Brand A,
B, or C.
Was it a problem? No...because car painters quickly painted up the
proper noses and logos and all was well.
same thing with tracks in F1 2002. Folks have complained about little
inaccuracies and major gaffs....does it bother me? Nope...why?
Cuz the net will save us. There already is an update that includes the
shortened hairpin at Montreal. Australia has been updated. Sure we
probably shouldn't have to go out and find the fixes ourselves... But I am
assumming they only have a certain ammount of $$ to spend on any one
feature. If they start galavanting around the globe then other parts of the
program will have developmental dollars taken away.
Fortunately, if the car isn't painted right, or if the track is off
kilter...these can be fixed.... So my advice to the Track perfectionists is
to fire up your search engines and fix the tracks yourself.
My advice to ISI...stop all track modeling, just leave'em alone and take
all your track budget and move it over to the Multiplayer ledger.
dave henrie
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:ae62mr$46mgq$[email hidden]...
> >
> > "Moe Lefaive" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:2vuN8.6647$[email hidden]...
> > > I loved F12001 except for no career mode. Is F12002 a worthy upgrade?Or
Quoted text (17 lines)
> > > should I wait for F1RC2? > > > > > > > You can think of it in two ways > > > > F12k2 is - A skin set, two track updates and a physics patch for F12k1 > > > > OR > > > > Probably the best F1 sim there is - despite it's shortcomings in > > multiplayer, replays and track accuracy. > > > > Doug > > > > > >Where can I find these updates ??
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:QizN8.164777$cQ3.4897@sccrnsc01...
>
> "Hans Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:ItyN8.221505$[email hidden]...
> > Wow I've seen alot of complaint's about Track inaccuracy and replay'sIMHO
> > who gives a rip how many of you know's the tracks that well, that OMGthat
> > threw me off, s**t if it was just like the real track I woulda made it,
> and
> > replay's who cares I got the game to race some cars now the onlineracing
> > issue I can see the need to complain about, a friend of mine said years
> ago
> > that, that's something EA programers just haven't quit figured out howto
> > perfect!!! Just my 2 cents
> > "Douglas Ellison"
>
> This kinda goes back to the car painters. A few years ago, Papyrus
> shipped a Nascar title without any Manufacturer licensing. It may not
> sound like much but try asking your typical Nascar fan to root for BrandA,
am
> assumming they only have a certain ammount of $$ to spend on any one
> feature. If they start galavanting around the globe then other parts ofthe
> program will have developmental dollars taken away.
> Fortunately, if the car isn't painted right, or if the track is off
> kilter...these can be fixed.... So my advice to the Track perfectionistsis
upgrade?
Quoted text (8 lines)
> B, or C. > Was it a problem? No...because car painters quickly painted up the > proper noses and logos and all was well. > same thing with tracks in F1 2002. Folks have complained about little > inaccuracies and major gaffs....does it bother me? Nope...why? > Cuz the net will save us. There already is an update that includes the > shortened hairpin at Montreal. Australia has been updated. Sure we > probably shouldn't have to go out and find the fixes ourselves... But IQuoted text (11 lines)
> to fire up your search engines and fix the tracks yourself. > My advice to ISI...stop all track modeling, just leave'em alone and take > all your track budget and move it over to the Multiplayer ledger. > dave henrie > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:ae62mr$46mgq$[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Moe Lefaive" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:2vuN8.6647$[email hidden]... > > > > I loved F12001 except for no career mode. Is F12002 a worthyQuoted text (20 lines)
> Or > > > > should I wait for F1RC2? > > > > > > > > > > You can think of it in two ways > > > > > > F12k2 is - A skin set, two track updates and a physics patch for F12k1 > > > > > > OR > > > > > > Probably the best F1 sim there is - despite it's shortcomings in > > > multiplayer, replays and track accuracy. > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > >>"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Was it a problem? No...because car painters quickly painted up the
> proper noses and logos and all was well.
> same thing with tracks in F1 2002. Folks have complained about little
> inaccuracies and major gaffs....does it bother me? Nope...why?
> Cuz the net will save us.
Sorry, but it's a much more bigger task to completely create an accurate
track to simply put a logo on the hood of a car. Just look at the GPL
community, even their work in GPL is not perfect. It gives us great numbers
of tracks at high quality, but they are still not perfect. It took years
and multiple versions of tracks until somebody created realistic tracks for
GP2. The task of achieving it is almost impossible for the simple.
Still, why the F* should developpers sit on their lazy arse while
developping an F1 simulator. A simulation of the real Formula One season.
Sorry, but that includes accurate tracks. Or accurate sounds. Or accurate
AI. Or accurate physics. It's *ALL* important. It's not our job to do
that. If we do, it's by pleasure. We've created NEW tracks for GPL,
because track creators did that by pleasure. It's a pain that *we* have to
do the original ones 'cause ISI is bloody lazy and doesn't want to spend
money on the (essential) problem.
> There already is an update that includes the
> shortened hairpin at Montreal.
Sorry but there is much more problems with the track then simply cutting
30meters off each portion of the hairpin at Montr�al. There's at least 100+
problems with it, badly accurate object positioning, track camber,
elevation, width, proportions, etc...
> But I am assumming they only have a certain ammount of $$ to spend on anyone
> feature. If they start galavanting around the globe then other parts ofthe
> program will have developmental dollars taken away.
If you don't have the money to do a realistic F1 sim, then you won't have my
money. Just don't do it, it's pointless.
> My advice to ISI...stop all track modeling, just leave'em alone and take
> all your track budget and move it over to the Multiplayer ledger.
Multiplayer is useless until the tracks are as accurate as what Papyrus or
Ubisoft does.
--
-- 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...
> Sorry but there is much more problems with the track then simply cutting
> 30meters off each portion of the hairpin at Montr�al. There's at least100+
> problems with it, badly accurate object positioning, track camber,
> elevation, width, proportions, etc...
> Ok, take the bull by the horns...yes building tracks is tough, or
"I" would do it...:) But if you and others began a website listing the
errors, track by track, two things may happen...
A) a net guy will take note of the errors and correct them.
B) ISI has already shown they listen to Users...(for example bringing in
the privately made telemetry, and adding some features the Mod builders
wanted) They may take note of the extensive research and either make
corrections or hire your team...
We can sit here and complain or we can choose to be responsible for our
own (I almost said pleasure) entertainment, we have the skilled people out
there now who could at least address some of these issues..
dave henrie
"Hans Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:amzN8.131752$[email hidden]...
> Where can I find these updates ??
for starters
www.drivingitalia.com
dh
I looked but I do not speak Italian did find this link though:
http://www.emacf1.com/index.html, now the question is don't everybody online
need to have these updates installed as well so if I'm going to play online
would I be better of leaving it alone since the game is only a few days old
since the release date??
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:vLzN8.164941$cQ3.4748@sccrnsc01...
Quoted text (12 lines)
> > "Hans Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:amzN8.131752$[email hidden]... > > Where can I find these updates ?? > > for starters > www.drivingitalia.com > > dh > > >We can convert the GPL-tracks to F1 2001 now :)
No more bad chicanes :)
/ Andreas - who is sitting with GPL's Kyalami in Zmodeler.
"Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ae62mr$46mgq$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (19 lines)
> > "Moe Lefaive" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2vuN8.6647$[email hidden]... > > I loved F12001 except for no career mode. Is F12002 a worthy upgrade? Or > > should I wait for F1RC2? > > > > You can think of it in two ways > > F12k2 is - A skin set, two track updates and a physics patch for F12k1 > > OR > > Probably the best F1 sim there is - despite it's shortcomings in > multiplayer, replays and track accuracy. > > Doug > >Well put Dave. I for one am very happy for what we have right now, and ISI
has shown that they're more than willing to work with the mod makers. Just
look at what Ian and all the other fine folks over at SimBin have done with
F1 2001 as proof in point. Are the tracks modeled by ISI perfect? Hardly.
Are they fun to drive. Hell yes!!! Over the past 5-6 years we have been
fortunate enough to see racing sims improve in quality ten fold. They're not
perfect yet, and probably never will be, but I for one am happy with how
things are progressing. Just my 2 cents worth...
--
See ya in the pits,
Dean
I have a terrible memory. In fact my memory's so bad I can't remember how
long it's been since I've forgotten anything.
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:IDzN8.164914$cQ3.4892@sccrnsc01...
>
> > Sorry but there is much more problems with the track then simply cutting
> > 30meters off each portion of the hairpin at Montr�al. There's at least
> 100+
> > problems with it, badly accurate object positioning, track camber,
> > elevation, width, proportions, etc...
> >
> Ok, take the bull by the horns...yes building tracks is tough,
or
> "I" would do it...:) But if you and others began a website listing the
> errors, track by track, two things may happen...
> A) a net guy will take note of the errors and correct them.
> B) ISI has already shown they listen to Users...(for example bringing
in
> the privately made telemetry, and adding some features the Mod builders
> wanted) They may take note of the extensive research and either make
> corrections or hire your team...
> We can sit here and complain or we can choose to be responsible for our
> own (I almost said pleasure) entertainment, we have the skilled people out
> there now who could at least address some of these issues..
> dave henrie
>
>
>
"Andreas Nystr�m" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:_eFN8.42916$[email hidden]...
> We can convert the GPL-tracks to F1 2001 now :)
> No more bad chicanes :)
>
> / Andreas - who is sitting with GPL's Kyalami in Zmodeler. THat is great news Andreas....my Viper HATES chicanes... :)
dave henrie
If 100% accuracy is required to be a racing sim, there has never been a
racing sim made to date, nor will there ever be.
Todd
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:L6zN8.7637$[email hidden]...
> >"Hans Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > Wow I've seen alot of complaint's about Track inaccuracy and replay'sIMHO
Quoted text (20 lines)
> > who gives a rip how many of you know's the tracks that well, > > > It's a fundamental issue of what is a "racing simulation" and what is not, > Hans. > > > > > > > -- > -- 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... > > > >
"Andreas Nystr�m" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:_eFN8.42916$[email hidden]...
> We can convert the GPL-tracks to F1 2001 now :)
> No more bad chicanes :)
>
> / Andreas - who is sitting with GPL's Kyalami in Zmodeler.
>
Does this mean we can have the full Nurburgring converted to a modern F1
sim? How fun would that be :-)
Some Call Me Tim
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:36:21 +0100, <[email hidden]> wrote:
You'll need GPLex v1.3 for that at least; v1.2 has already been tried
and halfway stops separating by texture (then it all becomes just
asphalt).
v1.3 is available at the forum but HIGHLY untested. :)
And yes, there's a screenshot there of the full Ring (track/grass, no
trackside objects) in ZModeler.
Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Quoted text (11 lines)
> >"Andreas Nystr�m" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:_eFN8.42916$[email hidden]... >> We can convert the GPL-tracks to F1 2001 now :) >> No more bad chicanes :) >> >> / Andreas - who is sitting with GPL's Kyalami in Zmodeler. >> > >Does this mean we can have the full Nurburgring converted to a modern F1 >sim? How fun would that be :-)It will probably be in Racer before actually.. since i dont have any clue on
how to make a track for F1 2001 / 2002.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > "Andreas Nystr�m" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:_eFN8.42916$[email hidden]... > > We can convert the GPL-tracks to F1 2001 now :) > > No more bad chicanes :) > > > > / Andreas - who is sitting with GPL's Kyalami in Zmodeler. > > > > Does this mean we can have the full Nurburgring converted to a modern F1 > sim? How fun would that be :-) > > Some Call Me Tim > >>"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Ok, take the bull by the horns...yes building tracks is tough,or
> "I" would do it...:) But if you and others began a website listing the
> errors, track by track, two things may happen...
> A) a net guy will take note of the errors and correct them.
But why can't ISI fix those errors, I mean it's bloody obvious and easy to
do. They could easily buy the rights to the track that somebody created on
the net. Or at least take the criticism (if they don't want to buy
something from <derogative attitude> the fans that buy their game) and fix
the major errors. It's like having a physic model that is only modeled
after a 3-wheeled car.
> We can sit here and complain or we can choose to be responsible for our
> own (I almost said pleasure) entertainment, we have the skilled people out
> there now who could at least address some of these issues..
Anyway I won't buy F12002 because of that. :(
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ueON8.11162$[email hidden]...
on
our
> > own (I almost said pleasure) entertainment, we have the skilled peopleout
I'm not intending to get the sim anyway(no online worthwhile), but I'm
with Frank on this one. I PAY people to make the game for
me.......shouldn't have to buy a half-assed attempt at sim X, only to wait
for CUSTOMERS to fix things.
I don't accept that in any other product, why should I with pc software ?
John
>
>
>
Quoted text (9 lines)
> >"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Ok, take the bull by the horns...yes building tracks is tough, > or > > "I" would do it...:) But if you and others began a website listing the > > errors, track by track, two things may happen... > > A) a net guy will take note of the errors and correct them. > > But why can't ISI fix those errors, I mean it's bloody obvious and easy to > do. They could easily buy the rights to the track that somebody createdQuoted text (8 lines)
> the net. Or at least take the criticism (if they don't want to buy > something from <derogative attitude> the fans that buy their game) and fix > the major errors. It's like having a physic model that is only modeled > after a 3-wheeled car. > > > > > We can sit here and complain or we can choose to be responsible forQuoted text (11 lines)
> > there now who could at least address some of these issues.. > > Anyway I won't buy F12002 because of that. :( > > > > -- > -- 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...On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:06:56 -0400, "Moe Lefaive"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
> I loved F12001 except for no career mode. Is F12002 a worthy upgrade?
Heeeaall yeah!!
I only just recently discovered just how good it is when I did a 35
lap race against the AI at Indy road course. The good thing isn't
particularily the AI, but the driving model. I jacked that
physics-rate up and sweet mother is it good! With a little tinkering
with the setup you can actually get a slight oversteer! Doesn't sound
like much but in F1-2001 I'd be damned if I ever got oversteer. The
kind of oversteer where you balance the throttle and feel your way
with the steeringwheel, if you know what I mean... And it's just so
much slide as to make it believable(from what's on TV). IMHO.
The low-speed push, gone. The high-speed glue, gone(mostly, I guess).
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but the tracks are still bad,
but I guess it's a matter of not letting it bother you. However, I
think I will tend to avoid the really, really bad ones(as accuracy
goes), Silverstone, N�rburgring, Hockenheim et.c.
If you will, you can of course say that this is what F1-2001 should've
been. But if it's a matter of which is best, F1-2002 takes home grand
prize, no contest.
>Or
>should I wait for F1RC2?
ROTFL!! ;-)
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
I still remember a very short clip of Jackie Stewart blasting down the
first valley after Flugplatz and then over the bridge and up that sharp
incline....How he kept the front end pointed in the proper direction is
beyond me...looked like a rallye video...
dave henrie
Quoted text (13 lines)
> > "Andreas Nystr�m" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:_eFN8.42916$[email hidden]... > > We can convert the GPL-tracks to F1 2001 now :) > > No more bad chicanes :) > > > > / Andreas - who is sitting with GPL's Kyalami in Zmodeler. > > > > Does this mean we can have the full Nurburgring converted to a modern F1 > sim? How fun would that be :-) > > Some Call Me Tim"DTP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<CrFN8.1741$[email hidden]>...
> Well put Dave. I for one am very happy for what we have right now, and ISI
> has shown that they're more than willing to work with the mod makers. Just
> look at what Ian and all the other fine folks over at SimBin have done with
> F1 2001 as proof in point. Are the tracks modeled by ISI perfect? Hardly.
> Are they fun to drive. Hell yes!!!
Francois isn't arguing that they aren't fun. He's arguing that they
aren't realistic.
A proper simulation attempts to recreate an experience in as much
accurate detail as possible. Rally Masters is fun, but it's no sim.
Rally Trophy is fun, and even convincing, but it's no sim. F1 2001,
once you get around the horrible controller configuration, can be
great fun, but it's no sim.
There are problems in Papyrus tracks too, but they've demonstrated
year in and year out that they're trying to make them as accurate as
possible - from the moment they fixed the awful Talladega in Nascar 1
to redoing the layout every year for Sears Point, they've shown that
they're interested in making the simulation as realistic as possible.
There has been no evolution whatsoever in this department when it
comes to ISI games. Every sim they've done, every single one, has the
same ridiculous flaws in track modelling. It's one thing to say 'oh,
this track isn't quite so bumpy here' or 'the camber isn't quite right
here', i.e. things that people who have driven the track or have
access to GPS information would notice, but it's another when casual
fans of the sport can play the game and go 'wtf were they thinking'.
If you can sit down to watch a race at the Villeneuve circuit then go
and race it in F1 2001 and immediately recognize that the layout is
wrong, that is ridiculous. I wonder sometimes if ISI's track aren't
built by phone. Someone calls them from the circuit and says "ok, the
track is about this long here, then a turn of about this radius, looks
a little bumpy, there's a bit of armco, you got all that" and the
track designer just builds a track based on that vague description.
As far as realism in other areas, I'm still waiting for a single
article by an F1 driver or engineer saying that the brakes don't lock
up above 80km/h. I'd also like to see something showing why the cars
in F12k1 are still receiving incredible amounts of downforce when
sideways or backwards.
Jason
Well-said Tim. There are a few that will NEVER be happy and that is
fine. EA has produced an excellent sim. that will undoubtedly sell
well.
GPL was fine for its day - we now have a new king.
bmw
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (60 lines)
> Yes! > > IT has the best "feel" of any F1 game to date, the handling is very good > indeed and the cars slides about in a very satisfying fashion. Basically > it's a hoot to driver dare I say it as good as GPL (shock horror, the old > die hards will flame me for that but it's true!) > > The AI is the best yet in any racing game, the other cars actually try to > avoid hitting you! The most annoying thing that I hate the most in racing > games is poor AI punting you off so you end up re-starting over and over > again just to get a good race. So far I been able race tooth and nail with > the AI and not get punted off by them, the only accidents I've had have been > my own stupid fault which is how it should be (perhaps some would say this > is not an accurate simulation of Rubens Barricello!). One of the nicest > things is a throw back to old indycar racing where you can set the > comparative speed of the AI to match your own pace which I think is great > because everyone can set it so they can race at their own pace (we're not > all Greger Hutus!) head to head with the AI. > In fact it's just plain fun which is exactly what you want out of a racing > game. > > The circuits and cars are lovely to look at and very detailed but I'm not > sure they are exactly accurate, but who cares if the wings on the Jordan are > not he same as in real life and some of the cambers are not the same. I > haven't been round any of the circuits in real life so I can't compare them > and I don't really care as long as they are fun to drive. However Monaco is > far to narrow to be fun (surly it's not his bad in reality) > > The replay feature is not as good as GPL (who's is!) but it does record full > hot laps OK. I've not used the telemetry so far but it looks pretty damm > cool and very comprehensive and you can connect directly to the web to > compare times which is a really nice feature. > > The FF is the about best yet in any racing game and you can really feel > what's going on with the car and the rumble strips etc give nice effects. > > The weather again is the best yet implemented in any racing game and they > way it changes from wet to dry is just superb as you seek out drying lines > or you see how long you can stay out on slick on a slightly damp track. you > can even have one part of the circuit wet with the others still dry! The > cars also handles very well in the wet and it's still very driveable. > > I haven't tried it multiplayer yet so I won't comment on much on that aside > from the fact a lot of people so far have complained that it's crap using a > modem. They should have read the box as it states that modem play is only > good for two players. You just can't really expect a game with this high > level of detail and physics to work over a crappy old 56k connection, > Broadband or LAN is the only way to go folks. > > It's not perfect, we'll always find something to moan about but it is the > best F1 game we've had so far. It's got some really nice touches and it > looks great and it even runs faster that F12001 which is odd but > commendable. But the thing for me is the way it drives which is what it's > all about and this game not only feels right but is just so much fun to > drive as so far in only a few days I've had some of the best races I've ever > had a pc against AI. > > Now if only someone would make Monaco a little wider? > > Some Call Me Tim (having a hoot)>"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Francois isn't arguing that they aren't fun. He's arguing that they
> aren't realistic.
Yeah. Most of the racing games on the market features fantasy tracks. They
can be fun and enjoyable. Like you wrote, Rally Masters is fun indeed.
When talking about Rally sims, almost all of them are on fantasy tracks.
Only Rally Championship has some sort of realism in their tracks. I liked
GP2 and it's unrealistic tracks, but we're in 2002 now.
We're talking about F1 here. Where the track is an absolute. Every inch of
it is analysed, the line is perfected to the inch by the teams and drivers.
ISI makes that impossible to recreate. We cannot compare ourselves
seriously (except for the "they turn left and it's a left turn in our sim
also"). It's almost that far fetched.
We've made great leaps since the days of Grand Prix Unlimited (the early
90's title that featured a crude track editor). Developers have to continue
towards track realism. Someday, I truly think that track modeling will
become a standard where developers will be able to share the common
specifications of the track dimensions. Such discussion will become useless
:-D
> There are problems in Papyrus tracks too, but they've demonstrated
> year in and year out that they're trying to make them as accurate as
> possible - from the moment they fixed the awful Talladega in Nascar 1
> to redoing the layout every year for Sears Point, they've shown that
> they're interested in making the simulation as realistic as possible.
Yeah, the people clearly asked Papyrus for more realistic tracks. I think
only in N3 did we see tracks that were enough well modeled that we could say
they are almost exactly the same as in real-life (with the exceptions of
Sears Point). But indeed like you wrote, they adjusted their line of fire
and with each title (N1, N2, NR99, N3, N4, NR2002) the tracks have become
better and better. Substantial leaps.
--
-- 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...
> I haven't tried it multiplayer yet so I won't comment on much on thataside
> from the fact a lot of people so far have complained that it's crap usinga
> modem. They should have read the box as it states that modem play is only
> good for two players. You just can't really expect a game with this high
> level of detail and physics to work over a crappy old 56k connection,
> Broadband or LAN is the only way to go folks.
Of course.....that very much depends on whether you are in a part of the UK
that can get anything better than a "string and two cans"<G>
I'm outside of any major towns....although not in the wilds of the
countryside.....about 5 miles from Worcester.....I've got ISDN which is the
best on offer....no one with cable will venture to our village (hell...the
gas companies haven't thought it worthwhile to pipe gas here!!!).
Nothing I see anywhere says that BT is moving to provide DSL in the near
future...so I'm stuck really...satellite is the only option...and that's too
expensive...especially as it wouldn't IMHO be anywhere close to good enough
for online gaming.
As to not expecting with the graphics etc to hope a 56k modem or isdn would
cope....I have f12k and it's nice...but the latest cars/tracks graphics of
GP Legends are equal IMHO and I have no probs running in large online fields
of cars.
Just sloppy programming of the online in f12k imho...although maybe papy are
the only ones (or randy and his guys specifically) that can seem to provide
anywhere near a good online option for simracers.
cheers
Smiffy
agreed, N2002 is the best is currently available by a mile, as was N4, shame
its simulates such a dull sport...without the ovals it would be undisputed
king,
Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)
> On 12 Jun 2002 18:54:26 -0700, [email hidden] (BW) wrote: > > >GPL was fine for its day - we now have a new king. > > > >bmw > > Agree, N2002 is a better sim in every way compared to GPL. > > AndreOn 12 Jun 2002 18:54:26 -0700, [email hidden] (BW) wrote:
>GPL was fine for its day - we now have a new king.
>
>bmw
Agree, N2002 is a better sim in every way compared to GPL.
Andre
Quoted text (13 lines)
> > > > Does this mean we can have the full Nurburgring converted to a modern F1 > > sim? How fun would that be :-) > > > > Some Call Me Tim > > I still remember a very short clip of Jackie Stewart blasting down the > first valley after Flugplatz and then over the bridge and up that sharp > incline....How he kept the front end pointed in the proper direction is > beyond me...looked like a rallye video... > dave henrie > >
BW wrote:
>
> Well-said Tim. There are a few that will NEVER be happy and that is
> fine. EA has produced an excellent sim. that will undoubtedly sell
> well.
>
> GPL was fine for its day - we now have a new king.
Don't be silly! Two reasons why F1002 ain't king:
1. Crap replays.
2. Piss poor online play.
Has your brain been replaced with a rabbit dropping?
"Gerry Aitken" wrote
>
> Don't be silly! Two reasons why F1002 ain't king:
>
> 1. Crap replays.
Not particularly good, but I have seen worse ;)
>
> 2. Piss poor online play.
I had a few online races last night and the online play was rock solid.
Admittedly I'm on ISDN (64k so I joined as a 56k modem user) and from
reports here analogue play is crap.
>
> Has your brain been replaced with a rabbit dropping?
A rabbit dropping would be too large to occupy the space taken by *my* brain
;) That may explain why I'm easily pleased <G>
--
Ian P
<email invalid due to spam>
You had 64kb ISDN?, aha.. yes you didnt warp anything.
maybe it has todo with ISDN sends at 64kb and recieves at the same, where
56k sends with 33.6k ?
"Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aeavdd$vvd$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (17 lines)
> > > > "Gerry Aitken" wrote > > > > Don't be silly! Two reasons why F1002 ain't king: > > > > 1. Crap replays. > > Not particularly good, but I have seen worse ;) > > > > > 2. Piss poor online play. > > I had a few online races last night and the online play was rock solid. > Admittedly I'm on ISDN (64k so I joined as a 56k modem user) and from > reports here analogue play is crap.Don't be silly! Two reasons why GPL/N2002 ain't kings:
1. Suspect physics engines.
2. Suspect 3D engines.
'Nuff said
--
Damien Smith
[email hidden]
ICQ: 77028579
David Powell wrote:
>
> agreed, N2002 is the best is currently available by a mile
Agree
> as was N4
Disagree, can't put my finger on it as I didn't spend much time with N4,
but the "feel" was wrong somehow, N2002 is way better than N4 ever was
> shame its simulates such a dull sport...without the ovals it would be undisputed king
AussieV8's anyone ?
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, F1 2002
stinks. Gerry - you are showing your age!
My car does over 150mph. Does that mean it is a better car than
yours? If I cut your car down, does that make mine better? Of course
not.
Nothing is perfect. EA has produced an excellent sim. REGARDLESS of
the virtues of any other sim. before it (GPL, N2002, etc).
I don't need to cut something down just because I may have a
preference for something else.
Get a life...
Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (15 lines)
> BW wrote: > > > > Well-said Tim. There are a few that will NEVER be happy and that is > > fine. EA has produced an excellent sim. that will undoubtedly sell > > well. > > > > GPL was fine for its day - we now have a new king. > > Don't be silly! Two reasons why F1002 ain't king: > > 1. Crap replays. > > 2. Piss poor online play. > > Has your brain been replaced with a rabbit dropping?
Damien Smith wrote:
>
> Don't be silly! Two reasons why GPL/N2002 ain't kings:
>
> 1. Suspect physics engines.
>
> 2. Suspect 3D engines.
The only thing that's 'suspect' is you knowing a proper racing sim when
you see one.
So come on then, elaborate on these two point of your? Oh dear, I've
just invited you to talk more shit.
Apologies to everyone else.
and...
A sneer in your general direction!
BW wrote:
I own a copy of F12002, and I'll have my say, thank YOU very much!
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, F1 2002 > stinks. Gerry - you are showing your age! > > My car does over 150mph. Does that mean it is a better car than > yours? If I cut your car down, does that make mine better? Of course > not. > > Nothing is perfect. EA has produced an excellent sim. REGARDLESS of > the virtues of any other sim. before it (GPL, N2002, etc). > > I don't need to cut something down just because I may have a > preference for something else. > > Get a life...>"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Don't be silly! Two reasons why GPL/N2002 ain't kings:
>
> 1. Suspect physics engines.
> 2. Suspect 3D engines.
Hmmm, we're not talking about GP4 here Damien ;)
--
-- 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...
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:14:27 +1000, "Damien Smith"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
This is a troll right? Or are you serious?
Andre
Quoted text (7 lines)
>Don't be silly! Two reasons why GPL/N2002 ain't kings: > > 1. Suspect physics engines. > > 2. Suspect 3D engines. > >'Nuff saidWell, I for one thinks that N2002's physics have a lot to be desired. The
draft model is all screwed up. The damage model is a joke. Just to name 2
things.
Bill / Amish on Team Brickyard
www.iracingfx.com
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (14 lines)
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:14:27 +1000, "Damien Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Don't be silly! Two reasons why GPL/N2002 ain't kings: > > > > 1. Suspect physics engines. > > > > 2. Suspect 3D engines. > > > >'Nuff said > > This is a troll right? Or are you serious? > > Andre Yep.
John
"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Well, I for one thinks that N2002's physics have a lot to be desired. The
> draft model is all screwed up. The damage model is a joke. Just to name2
Quoted text (24 lines)
> things. > > Bill / Amish on Team Brickyard > www.iracingfx.com > > > "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:14:27 +1000, "Damien Smith" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Don't be silly! Two reasons why GPL/N2002 ain't kings: > > > > > > 1. Suspect physics engines. > > > > > > 2. Suspect 3D engines. > > > > > >'Nuff said > > > > This is a troll right? Or are you serious? > > > > Andre > >"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<aebn21$5qhks$[email hidden]>...
Two reasons why I don't usually read Damien Smith's RAS posts:
1. Suspect fanatical enthusiasm for F1 200x, demonstrated by the
globules of saliva splattering all over his monitor whenever the game
is discussed.
2. Suspect unbridled criticism of any Papyrus product, demonstrated by
trolling and vague statements with no explanation or thoughtful
discourse accompanying them.
If there's one thing I hate more than Papy-Nazis it's Anti-Papites.
Jason
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Don't be silly! Two reasons why GPL/N2002 ain't kings: > > 1. Suspect physics engines. > > 2. Suspect 3D engines. > > 'Nuff said
jason moyer wrote:
As long as I get my AussieV8 sim I don't care either way
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
Quoted text (21 lines)
> > "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<aebn21$5qhks$[email hidden]>... > > Don't be silly! Two reasons why GPL/N2002 ain't kings: > > > > 1. Suspect physics engines. > > > > 2. Suspect 3D engines. > > > > 'Nuff said > > Two reasons why I don't usually read Damien Smith's RAS posts: > > 1. Suspect fanatical enthusiasm for F1 200x, demonstrated by the > globules of saliva splattering all over his monitor whenever the game > is discussed. > > 2. Suspect unbridled criticism of any Papyrus product, demonstrated by > trolling and vague statements with no explanation or thoughtful > discourse accompanying them. > > If there's one thing I hate more than Papy-Nazis it's Anti-Papites.>"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Well, I for one thinks that N2002's physics have a lot to be desired. The
> draft model is all screwed up. The damage model is a joke. Just to name2
> things.
But Bill, compared to other titles, it's still the most advanced, even in
the draft and damage model. That's what we're talking about here, a
comparison of different titles, not singled out.
--
-- 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:BOKO8.13963$[email hidden]...
> >"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > Well, I for one thinks that N2002's physics have a lot to be desired.The
> > draft model is all screwed up. The damage model is a joke. Just toname
Therein lies the root of the problem; there's not enough other titles for
competition.
John
Quoted text (8 lines)
> 2 > > things. > > > But Bill, compared to other titles, it's still the most advanced, even in > the draft and damage model. That's what we're talking about here, a > comparison of different titles, not singled out. >> Two reasons why I don't usually read Damien Smith's RAS posts:
>
> 1. Suspect fanatical enthusiasm for F1 200x, demonstrated by the
> globules of saliva splattering all over his monitor whenever the game
> is discussed.
OK, here's something for you :-
- The AI in F12002 is rubbish. Even GP2 is better.
- The multiplayer isn't a patch on GPL or NASCAR 2002
This means that F12002 is useless unless you're into hotlapping or LAN
gaming.
> 2. Suspect unbridled criticism of any Papyrus product, demonstrated by
> trolling and vague statements with no explanation or thoughtful
> discourse accompanying them.
GPL is one of my favourite sims. It's still the best all-round sim
available. However.....
GPL = 36fps - That's bad enough, but I also get the impression of incorrect
3D scaling a la GP3 (also happens in the NASCAR series) People often
comment that F1200X has a good sensation of speed. It's not really - it's
just a correct sensation due to the correct 3D scaling. The future of sims
is locked at at least 60fps to allow real-world motion visual feedback. ISI
are already there. A good physics engine demands a proper 3D graphics
physics engine to allow full visual feedback.
I could also mention the exaggerated braking in GPL when throttle is applied
but that's just nitpicking.... ; )
> If there's one thing I hate more than Papy-Nazis it's Anti-Papites.
Ah well, not as bad as an old dog who doesn't 'get' new tricks... : P
FWIW, credit where it's due is my motto...
Damien Smith wrote:
> GPL is one of my favourite sims. It's still the best all-round sim
> available. However.....
>
> GPL = 36fps - That's bad enough, but I also get the impression of incorrect
> 3D scaling a la GP3
An example from GLP please? What do I look for to see this 'effect' you
describe?
> (also happens in the NASCAR series)
Example from 2002 too please?
> People often
> comment that F1200X has a good sensation of speed. It's not really - it's
> just a correct sensation due to the correct 3D scaling. The future of sims
> is locked at at least 60fps to allow real-world motion visual feedback. ISI
> are already there. A good physics engine demands a proper 3D graphics
> physics engine to allow full visual feedback.
Can you thoroughly explain what you mean? That is a '3D graphics physics
engine'?
> I could also mention the exaggerated braking in GPL when throttle is applied
I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean the brakes work
better if you keep your 'foot in' under braking?
I don't dispute that you say is true, with regard to any of the above
(I've not noticed it though) but your statements are somewhat vague and
woolly. I'm here to be convinced if adequate description and example can
be provided.
TIA
Gerry
"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<aei6vi$7493u$[email hidden]>...
> - The AI in F12002 is rubbish. Even GP2 is better.
Really? Is it worse than F12001? I didn't mind the AI in F12k1 that
much after the first patch, except for a few turns at a few tracks (of
course, the important ones, like T1 almost anywhere). I ran a few
races at Monaco in 2k1 yesterday and there were something amusing
about seeing cars doing barrel rolls in T1.
Hm. I have to disagree with you, altho I'm not going to flat out say
you're wrong. I find the sensation of speed in Papy sims to be what I
would expect if I were driving a car at 150-200mph with blinders on.
If you alter the POV in GPL you can get the same sensation of speed as
in F12k1, but I also find it impossible to drive from that
perspective. Whether the increased sense of speed in F12k1 is due to
a different POV, as you say "correct 3d scaling", or an exaggeration
in 3D scaling, I don't know. I'm just speculating here.
I actually did a test one day because I was thinking about this and
wanted to prove it to myself, so I drove down the local highway at 3
in the morning doing around 70-80 with a pair of glasses setup so I
had no peripheral vision. And I'll be damned, what would normally
feel like a decent pace (in a Plymouth Renault, mind you) suddenly
seemed like riding a turtle. If you look straight ahead, in the
direction of travel of a car, and completely ignore what's in your
peripheral vision, it seems like you're not moving. The floaty
feeling of skipping along tarmac in a soft suspension car at that
speed reminds me very much of the Papyrus stock car model as well,
altho obviously I can't make a perfect comparison without having
driven a stiff-chassis stock car on a real track at high speed.
> I could also mention the exaggerated braking in GPL when throttle is applied
> but that's just nitpicking.... ; )
Hm. The only thing I've never really liked in GPL is that you don't
need to do anything with the clutch when you're braking. I don't race
professionally so I'm not going to speculate on whether the
throttle/braking problems, but what you're saying makes sense based on
my basic understanding of car physics. I would expect braking with
the throttle open to be more difficult. I'm going to have to play
around with that a bit because honestly while I use my left foot to
brake I don't have very good technique at all when it comes to using
both pedals effectively. I don't doubt what you're saying here at
all, tho.
Jason
Quoted text (10 lines)
> GPL is one of my favourite sims. It's still the best all-round sim > available. However..... > > GPL = 36fps - That's bad enough, but I also get the impression of incorrect > 3D scaling a la GP3 (also happens in the NASCAR series) People often > comment that F1200X has a good sensation of speed. It's not really - it's > just a correct sensation due to the correct 3D scaling. The future of sims > is locked at at least 60fps to allow real-world motion visual feedback. ISI > are already there. A good physics engine demands a proper 3D graphics > physics engine to allow full visual feedback.On 16 Jun 2002 11:51:42 -0700, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:
I haven't raced against the AI that much, but I think they brake WAY
too soon, and they are too fast in other corners. Overall I can make
them drive the same laptimes as I do, but their tempo on the track is
totally different than mine, making it very hard to really race them.
One of the two points where GP3/GP3.1 is better than F1 2002 (the
other point is the weather)
Andre
Quoted text (9 lines)
>"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<aei6vi$7493u$[email hidden]>... > >> - The AI in F12002 is rubbish. Even GP2 is better. > >Really? Is it worse than F12001? I didn't mind the AI in F12k1 that >much after the first patch, except for a few turns at a few tracks (of >course, the important ones, like T1 almost anywhere). I ran a few >races at Monaco in 2k1 yesterday and there were something amusing >about seeing cars doing barrel rolls in T1.
> - The AI in F12002 is rubbish. Even GP2 is better.
The AI in F12002 isnt rubbish. Give it a chance. Play Grand Turismo 3,
there's some bad AI (non existant)
Hell at least the cars in f12002 brake on a yellow and drive around you. :)
And get this, they even pass you without driving through you.
I'm so used to GT3 :) But i'm enjoying f12002 quite a bit. And unless theres
any other F1 racing sims out there that are better... F12002 is the best
there is that i've played so far. Its not as if theres a whole lot of new
racing sims these days. (GT4 is ok but buggy and slow paced)
I refuse to keep playing GPL. No rear wing, i dont about the cars. Papyrus
is a great developer but the game is ancient. OH yeah....
NASCAR SUCKS. Not the game, the entire form of racing. IRL with it. I cant
stand ovals... and even more, i cant stand Nascar cars. Although N2002
looks so dam cool :)
So what do we do? i say play f12002.
The replays are wierd, but what can you do. The driving part of it is good
enough to make it enjoyable. Its not perfect, but from what i've played its
the best f1 sim out there right now.
-adam
Have you tried turning the AI sliders up to 100%? They seem to run much
more realistically when you do that.
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> On 16 Jun 2002 11:51:42 -0700, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote: > > I haven't raced against the AI that much, but I think they brake WAY > too soon, and they are too fast in other corners. Overall I can make > them drive the same laptimes as I do, but their tempo on the track is > totally different than mine, making it very hard to really race them. > > One of the two points where GP3/GP3.1 is better than F1 2002 (the > other point is the weather) > > AndreOn Sun, 16 Jun 2002 18:49:54 -0400, "jackie_chan_fan"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>I refuse to keep playing GPL. No rear wing, i dont about the cars. Papyrus
>is a great developer but the game is ancient. OH yeah....
Chess is an ancient game too.
Andre
On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 19:37:30 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Have you tried turning the AI sliders up to 100%? They seem to run much
>more realistically when you do that.
I have the AI slider at 100%. I messed around with that Agressive
slider, tried 100%, but the AI wreck themselves way too much then.
I set it back to the default 50%.
Andre
> >I refuse to keep playing GPL. No rear wing, i dont about the cars.Papyrus
> >is a great developer but the game is ancient. OH yeah....
>
> Chess is an ancient game too.
Yeah but the tire model sucks
I've been playing around with the FOV and I think Jason is right - GPL and
N2002 do appear to be correctly scaled, it's simply a combination of low
detail track textures, stuttery frame rates and wide FOVs that gives the
wrong impression of speed...
> Can you thoroughly explain what you mean? That is a '3D graphics physics
> engine'?
Oops - that was a typo - that should read '3D graphics engine'
> > I could also mention the exaggerated braking in GPL when throttle isapplied
>
> I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean the brakes work
> better if you keep your 'foot in' under braking?
Yep
> I don't dispute that you say is true, with regard to any of the above
> (I've not noticed it though) but your statements are somewhat vague and
> woolly. I'm here to be convinced if adequate description and example can
> be provided.
Nice to know you've got an open mind...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> >> - The AI in F12002 is rubbish. Even GP2 is better. > >Really? Is it worse than F12001? I didn't mind the AI in F12k1 that > >much after the first patch, except for a few turns at a few tracks (of > >course, the important ones, like T1 almost anywhere). I ran a few > >races at Monaco in 2k1 yesterday and there were something amusing > >about seeing cars doing barrel rolls in T1. > > I haven't raced against the AI that much, but I think they brake WAY > too soon, and they are too fast in other corners. Overall I can make > them drive the same laptimes as I do, but their tempo on the track is > totally different than mine, making it very hard to really race them.> >Have you tried turning the AI sliders up to 100%? They seem to run much
> >more realistically when you do that.
>
> I have the AI slider at 100%. I messed around with that Agressive
> slider, tried 100%, but the AI wreck themselves way too much then.
> I set it back to the default 50%.
It's also pretty bad the way that they fishtale all over the place at
Monaco, bumping into the walls constantly..looks ridiculous.
> >I refuse to keep playing GPL. No rear wing, i dont about the cars.Papyrus
> >is a great developer but the game is ancient. OH yeah....
I was talking to a guy in another forum who said he loves smashing the front
and rear wings off in F1 2002 as soon as he leaves the pits and then doing
laps GPL-style. : )
I guess it must depend on the track then. I think the only tracks at
which I have raced the AI are Spa, Imola, and the A-1 Ring. Maybe
Suzuka too, don't remember for sure. Anyway they seemed fine at those
tracks. D'oh, now that I think about it I am thinking of F1 2001. I
haven't raced the AI yet in F1 2002. Do you find the AI to be different
from F1 2001?
"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aelk0b$80rpd$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > > > I have the AI slider at 100%. I messed around with that Agressive > > slider, tried 100%, but the AI wreck themselves way too much then. > > I set it back to the default 50%. > > It's also pretty bad the way that they fishtale all over the place at > Monaco, bumping into the walls constantly..looks ridiculous. > >On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:22:39 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't notice individual
images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion). No, TV doesn't
use 50 or 60 frames per second - that's 50 or 60,*fields* per second they use,
since the image is interlaced, it's divided into an odd and an even field
(the odd and even-numbered lines of the image) because of design, it's easier
to draw half the image and later the other half from top to bottom each time
than having to draw the whole image from top to bottom in a single sweep.
(Don't make me go into the technical details here, it'd be too much of an OT)
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(
remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying
Quoted text (8 lines)
>GPL = 36fps - That's bad enough, but I also get the impression of incorrect >3D scaling a la GP3 (also happens in the NASCAR series) People often >comment that F1200X has a good sensation of speed. It's not really - it's >just a correct sensation due to the correct 3D scaling. The future of sims >is locked at at least 60fps to allow real-world motion visual feedback. ISI >are already there. A good physics engine demands a proper 3D graphics >physics engine to allow full visual feedback. >
"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:22:39 +1000, "Damien Smith"<[email hidden]>
> >
> What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't noticeindividual
> images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion).
Uh, I can sure as hell tell the difference between 24/36fps, and 80 fps.
80fps looks much better.
David G Fisher
Damien Smith wrote:
>
> I've been playing around with the FOV and I think Jason is right - GPL and
> N2002 do appear to be correctly scaled, it's simply a combination of low
> detail track textures, stuttery frame rates and wide FOVs that gives the
> wrong impression of speed...
Sounds like your pc isn't setup right. Wide FOV give a better impression
of speed as far as i'm concerned. Can you explain why you think the
inverse is true?
Gerry
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:39:18 -0500, machf <[email hidden]>
wrote:
[sigh]
Quoted text (19 lines)
>On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:22:39 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>GPL = 36fps - That's bad enough, but I also get the impression of incorrect >>3D scaling a la GP3 (also happens in the NASCAR series) People often >>comment that F1200X has a good sensation of speed. It's not really - it's >>just a correct sensation due to the correct 3D scaling. The future of sims >>is locked at at least 60fps to allow real-world motion visual feedback. ISI >>are already there. A good physics engine demands a proper 3D graphics >>physics engine to allow full visual feedback. >> >What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't notice individual >images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion). No, TV doesn't >use 50 or 60 frames per second - that's 50 or 60,*fields* per second they use, >since the image is interlaced, it's divided into an odd and an even field >(the odd and even-numbered lines of the image) because of design, it's easier >to draw half the image and later the other half from top to bottom each time >than having to draw the whole image from top to bottom in a single sweep. >(Don't make me go into the technical details here, it'd be too much of an OT)
na_biker wrote:
LOLOL
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
Quoted text (25 lines)
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:39:18 -0500, machf <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:22:39 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> > >wrote: > > > >>GPL = 36fps - That's bad enough, but I also get the impression of incorrect > >>3D scaling a la GP3 (also happens in the NASCAR series) People often > >>comment that F1200X has a good sensation of speed. It's not really - it's > >>just a correct sensation due to the correct 3D scaling. The future of sims > >>is locked at at least 60fps to allow real-world motion visual feedback. ISI > >>are already there. A good physics engine demands a proper 3D graphics > >>physics engine to allow full visual feedback. > >> > >What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't notice individual > >images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion). No, TV doesn't > >use 50 or 60 frames per second - that's 50 or 60,*fields* per second they use, > >since the image is interlaced, it's divided into an odd and an even field > >(the odd and even-numbered lines of the image) because of design, it's easier > >to draw half the image and later the other half from top to bottom each time > >than having to draw the whole image from top to bottom in a single sweep. > >(Don't make me go into the technical details here, it'd be too much of an OT) > > [sigh]> What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't noticeindividual
> images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion).
Ha! I'm sure the movie studios would love you to believe that!
> No, TV doesn't
> use 50 or 60 frames per second - that's 50 or 60,*fields* per second theyuse,
> since the image is interlaced, it's divided into an odd and an even field
Correct, but even 50 fields per second gives a much more fluent motion than
25 frames per second. You'll notice that on game consoles, some games run
at 25(or 30) fps and others run at 50 (or 60) fps and look dramatically
better IMO.
> (the odd and even-numbered lines of the image) because of design, it'seasier
> to draw half the image and later the other half from top to bottom eachtime
> than having to draw the whole image from top to bottom in a single sweep.
> (Don't make me go into the technical details here, it'd be too much of anOT)
I would recommend that you learn the technical details yourself first. ; )
> Sounds like your pc isn't setup right.
Your PC runs GPL and N2002 v-synced, liquid-smooth at 60fps?
> Wide FOV give a better impression
> of speed as far as i'm concerned. Can you explain why you think the
> inverse is true?
Yeah, I think you may be right on this one, when using the same FOV and
cockpit position, the scenary in GPL and F12002 move past at about the same
speed. I can only suggest that it's purely the frame-rate thing that makes
F12002's motion seem so much better. It's a bizarre setting, FOV - you
start playing around with it and after a while nothing seems right. : )
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:27:56 +1000, "Damien Smith"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
That's because no FOV *is* right. It's all a compromise between sense
of speed and more severe distortion of the picture.
Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Quoted text (13 lines)
>> Sounds like your pc isn't setup right. > >Your PC runs GPL and N2002 v-synced, liquid-smooth at 60fps? > >> Wide FOV give a better impression >> of speed as far as i'm concerned. Can you explain why you think the >> inverse is true? > >Yeah, I think you may be right on this one, when using the same FOV and >cockpit position, the scenary in GPL and F12002 move past at about the same >speed. I can only suggest that it's purely the frame-rate thing that makes >F12002's motion seem so much better. It's a bizarre setting, FOV - you >start playing around with it and after a while nothing seems right. : )people only use 10% gas on brake to allow use of sub 52% bias brakes...just
exploiting the fact GPL is old and doesnt model brake fade....
Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
incorrect
it's
> > just a correct sensation due to the correct 3D scaling. The future ofsims
> > is locked at at least 60fps to allow real-world motion visual feedback.ISI
applied
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > > Damien Smith wrote: > > > GPL is one of my favourite sims. It's still the best all-round sim > > available. However..... > > > > GPL = 36fps - That's bad enough, but I also get the impression ofQuoted text (11 lines)
> > 3D scaling a la GP3 > > An example from GLP please? What do I look for to see this 'effect' you > describe? > > > (also happens in the NASCAR series) > > Example from 2002 too please? > > > People often > > comment that F1200X has a good sensation of speed. It's not really -Quoted text (7 lines)
> > are already there. A good physics engine demands a proper 3D graphics > > physics engine to allow full visual feedback. > > Can you thoroughly explain what you mean? That is a '3D graphics physics > engine'? > > > I could also mention the exaggerated braking in GPL when throttle isQuoted text (12 lines)
> > I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean the brakes work > better if you keep your 'foot in' under braking? > > I don't dispute that you say is true, with regard to any of the above > (I've not noticed it though) but your statements are somewhat vague and > woolly. I'm here to be convinced if adequate description and example can > be provided. > > TIA > > GerryActually stopping distances are longer with gas used, but times are faster
as using both pedals you can trailbake more effectively right to the
apex...try that without using gas on 50% BB youll rotate of the track
everytime...
Damien Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aeljod$82t0d$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (26 lines)
> I've been playing around with the FOV and I think Jason is right - GPL and > N2002 do appear to be correctly scaled, it's simply a combination of low > detail track textures, stuttery frame rates and wide FOVs that gives the > wrong impression of speed... > > > Can you thoroughly explain what you mean? That is a '3D graphics physics > > engine'? > > Oops - that was a typo - that should read '3D graphics engine' > > > > I could also mention the exaggerated braking in GPL when throttle is > applied > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean the brakes work > > better if you keep your 'foot in' under braking? > > Yep > > > I don't dispute that you say is true, with regard to any of the above > > (I've not noticed it though) but your statements are somewhat vague and > > woolly. I'm here to be convinced if adequate description and example can > > be provided. > > Nice to know you've got an open mind... > >
David Powell wrote:
>
> people only use 10% gas on brake to allow use of sub 52% bias brakes...just
> exploiting the fact GPL is old and doesnt model brake fade....
Not me, Dave, too busy heel & toeing. <G>
Gerry
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:39:18 -0500, machf <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't notice individual
>images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion).
Must ... resist ... urge ... to correct ... oldest ... usenet ....
myth ...
Whew, barely made it out of this thread without my blood pressure
rising!
"Joe62" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:39:18 -0500, machf <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
> >What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't noticeindividual
You mean you passed on commenting how English folks score one goal in 4
years and they are happy/ecstatic about it??? Your self control IS
amazing! :>
dave henrie
Quoted text (7 lines)
> >images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion). > > Must ... resist ... urge ... to correct ... oldest ... usenet .... > myth ... > > Whew, barely made it out of this thread without my blood pressure > rising!Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> Sounds like your pc isn't setup right. Wide FOV give a better impression
> of speed as far as i'm concerned. Can you explain why you think the
> inverse is true?
I agree with you, too. The reason Papy sims seem slow is the lack of
of peripheral vision because of the narrow FOV.
I tend to prefer Papy's FOV, but really IMHO the ultimate setup for
those who need the 'sense of speed' feeling would be 3 monitors.
Didn't someone manage to get GPL running with 3 monitors and a wide
FOV? I remember seeing a post or article about it a little while
ago... I would think the sense of speed would be impressive (and
probably distracting from the task at hand, really).
Jason
jason moyer wrote:
I've tried the three monitor setup you're talking about. It wasn't the
better impression of speed it gave, more, the MUCH better situation
awareness it afforded, that really impressed me.
Gerry
Quoted text (16 lines)
> > Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > Sounds like your pc isn't setup right. Wide FOV give a better impression > > of speed as far as i'm concerned. Can you explain why you think the > > inverse is true? > > I agree with you, too. The reason Papy sims seem slow is the lack of > of peripheral vision because of the narrow FOV. > > I tend to prefer Papy's FOV, but really IMHO the ultimate setup for > those who need the 'sense of speed' feeling would be 3 monitors. > Didn't someone manage to get GPL running with 3 monitors and a wide > FOV? I remember seeing a post or article about it a little while > ago... I would think the sense of speed would be impressive (and > probably distracting from the task at hand, really).On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:21:08 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Well, I asked a perfectly rational question and so far this has been
the only decent answer to it... (everyone else, please read again what
I wrote, and do it more carefully this time)
So I started a mental exercise by myself. What do you get with a higher
framerate? Well, you're feeding your retinas more images than it can discern,
so in effect what you're seeing is blurred. Hmmm... Now about the computers:
they render highly detailed images. Why would you want to perceive them blurred?
But of course, IRL, when you're driving at high speeds, you *do* see everything
(that is moving at a very different speed than yours, of course) around you
blurred. Bingo. But wouldn't it be easier to just blur the image drawn on the
screen? A quick Google search turned out that apparently they haven't found
a way to do right that, so the only way they can actually "fool" the eye
is by reproducing the process that actually takes place, that is, feeding
the retinas the highest possible amount of images the monitor scan frequency
(and the video rendering algorithms) allow to reproduce the motion blur.
So, it turns out that the illusion of high speed is otherwise missing...
but frankly, that's an aspect of real driving I'd rather see as in GPL.
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(
remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying
Quoted text (16 lines)
> >"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:22:39 +1000, "Damien Smith" ><[email hidden]> >> > >> What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't notice >individual >> images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion). > >Uh, I can sure as hell tell the difference between 24/36fps, and 80 fps. > >80fps looks much better. > >David G Fisher >You sound horribly confused. 24fps is the bare minimum to give a reasonable
illusion of real-life motion. That's why the movie studios chose it. They
wanted to use the bare minimum amount of film for cost reasons. They argue
that because film cameras have a natural motion blur due to long (ish)
exposure times, there is no point using a higher frame rate anyway. The
others in this thread are correct - it's one of the oldest myths on usenet.
I'm sure you've probably even seen documentaries which claim that the human
eye can't detect more than ~25fps. Even if that is true, I know my eyes
don't lie - games look dramatically smoother and racing sims have far more
precise control when running in excess of 50fps. And if computers *can* one
day reproduce a motion effect when running at 25fps then I'll sit up and
take notice, but until that day, I'll be demanding 50+ fps from my racing
sims.
--
Damien Smith
[email hidden]
ICQ: 77028579
F1 2001 rank: -11.512
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 23:16:43 -0500, machf <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:21:08 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]>
>wrote:...
Problem with blurring is what to blur. If you're looking at a tree
passing by, in real life it wouldn't blur. As you look ahead, the tree
becomes blurred again.
But true, blurring can do a lot, but H/W hasn't caught up with that.
Accumulation buffers can help, but it still takes a couple of renders.
Or blend everything with previously rendered frames (also not that
fast).
There was a nice Broderbund program some 8 years ago, which had a
little character moving. That was blurred and it really looked good
though. :)
Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Quoted text (13 lines)
>>Uh, I can sure as hell tell the difference between 24/36fps, and 80 fps. >> >>80fps looks much better. >> >>David G Fisher >> >Well, I asked a perfectly rational question and so far this has been >the only decent answer to it... (everyone else, please read again what >I wrote, and do it more carefully this time) >So I started a mental exercise by myself. What do you get with a higher >framerate? Well, you're feeding your retinas more images than it can discern, >so in effect what you're seeing is blurred. Hmmm... Now about the computers: >they render highly detailed images. Why would you want to perceive them blurred?
"Ruud van Gaal"
>
> There was a nice Broderbund program some 8 years ago, which had a
> little character moving. That was blurred and it really looked good
> though. :)
>
> Ruud van Gaal
Was that the Karate game? IF I recall, that was all hand drawn sprites
so the blurring was faked, i.e. it wasn't made by the game but individual
sprites were painted that looked blurred. Karatekia or something like
that...boy the mind is mush these days...
dave henrie
I think it's easy to confuse things here.
IMO, once above 25ish FPS, your eyes won't notice the difference.
The thing with driving games, though, is that the frame rate seems tied to
the physics rate.
Thus, a higher frame rate means faster physics, which in turn means a more
realistic sim, which acts more like real life.
What we need is a sim where the physics run at one consistent rate, and the
frame rate can be chosen and is independant from the physics rate.
Then we'd see what really makes the difference.
I think that it's the physics rate that makes all the difference, but as
it's tied to the frame rate, then you have to get as many frames as
possible.
R.
PARHELIA !
-Larry
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (16 lines)
> > > Sounds like your pc isn't setup right. Wide FOV give a better impression > > of speed as far as i'm concerned. Can you explain why you think the > > inverse is true? > > I agree with you, too. The reason Papy sims seem slow is the lack of > of peripheral vision because of the narrow FOV. > > I tend to prefer Papy's FOV, but really IMHO the ultimate setup for > those who need the 'sense of speed' feeling would be 3 monitors. > Didn't someone manage to get GPL running with 3 monitors and a wide > FOV? I remember seeing a post or article about it a little while > ago... I would think the sense of speed would be impressive (and > probably distracting from the task at hand, really). > > JasonDamien is correct.
The higher the frame rate, the more overall responsive the game is,
especially if in large fields of cars.
Control Lag is FAR less of a problem when the fps is way up there.
-Larry
"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aes84q$9gk4u$[email hidden]...
> You sound horribly confused. 24fps is the bare minimum to give areasonable
> illusion of real-life motion. That's why the movie studios chose it.They
> wanted to use the bare minimum amount of film for cost reasons. Theyargue
> that because film cameras have a natural motion blur due to long (ish)
> exposure times, there is no point using a higher frame rate anyway. The
> others in this thread are correct - it's one of the oldest myths onusenet.
> I'm sure you've probably even seen documentaries which claim that thehuman
> eye can't detect more than ~25fps. Even if that is true, I know my eyes
> don't lie - games look dramatically smoother and racing sims have far more
> precise control when running in excess of 50fps. And if computers *can*one
Quoted text (12 lines)
> day reproduce a motion effect when running at 25fps then I'll sit up and > take notice, but until that day, I'll be demanding 50+ fps from my racing > sims. > > -- > Damien Smith > [email hidden] > ICQ: 77028579 > F1 2001 rank: -11.512 > > >On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 23:16:43 -0500, machf <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Well, I asked a perfectly rational question and so far this has been
>the only decent answer to it...
You didn't ask a rational question. You stated an incorrect fact (that
people can't see > 24 fps) that is one of the oldest and most tiresome
errors on Usenet. It has been stated and corrected so many times and
in such detail that people have grown tired of repeating themselves.
>Well, you're feeding your retinas more images than it can discern,
>so in effect what you're seeing is blurred.
Since you;'ve re-stated your error, perhaps you'll brake down people's
patience enough that they will direct you to the correct information.
Such as these pages, where you can begin your education on this
subject:
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://www.cdmag.com/Home/home.html?article=/articles/030/159/hardw_column.html
http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p3.htm
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:31:28 +0100, "Richard S Beckett"
<richardDOTbeckettATmotorolaDOTcom@spamkiller> wrote:
>IMO, once above 25ish FPS, your eyes won't notice the difference.
Argh! Can't we set up some sort of Internet commision, to require the
programmers of Usenet servers to detect and prevent the endless
endless ENDLESS repetition of this error?
Joe62 wrote:
I nominate Tom Pabst and Douglas Ellison to oversee the whole thing
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:31:28 +0100, "Richard S Beckett" > <richardDOTbeckettATmotorolaDOTcom@spamkiller> wrote: > > >IMO, once above 25ish FPS, your eyes won't notice the difference. > > Argh! Can't we set up some sort of Internet commision, to require the > programmers of Usenet servers to detect and prevent the endless > endless ENDLESS repetition of this error?On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:18:15 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
I don't think so. There was this little guy with a boat or something.
All I can remember was the incredibly overexaggerated blur effects
which still made it look cool. :)
Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Quoted text (13 lines)
> >"Ruud van Gaal" >> >> There was a nice Broderbund program some 8 years ago, which had a >> little character moving. That was blurred and it really looked good >> though. :) >> >> Ruud van Gaal > > Was that the Karate game? IF I recall, that was all hand drawn sprites >so the blurring was faked, i.e. it wasn't made by the game but individual >sprites were painted that looked blurred. Karatekia or something like >that...boy the mind is mush these days...On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:31:28 +0100, "Richard S Beckett"
<richardDOTbeckettATmotorolaDOTcom@spamkiller> wrote:
>I think it's easy to confuse things here.
>
>IMO, once above 25ish FPS, your eyes won't notice the difference.
Anything lower than your monitor's refresh rate is visible.
>The thing with driving games, though, is that the frame rate seems tied to
>the physics rate.
Except for GP4, I'd say that isn't true anymore. F12k surely not, my
Racer not as well, and Papy's stuff neither.
GP3 was tried with high-end FF controllers once, but failed because
(seemingly) of the incredibly low physics update rate.
I'd expect GP4 to do the same actually, since unfortunately Geoff's
base code doesn't seem to have advanced one bit over the last versions
(what's that crap with 'Processor Occupancy'? the CPU is ALWAYS busy
and should be).
>Thus, a higher frame rate means faster physics, which in turn means a more
>realistic sim, which acts more like real life.
F12K does things at ~400Hz (IIRC) at advanced level physics, GPL does
288Hz, Racer can go upto 1000Hz.
>What we need is a sim where the physics run at one consistent rate, and the
>frame rate can be chosen and is independant from the physics rate.
>
>Then we'd see what really makes the difference.
Still, even then there are things that can bugger the thing. Very
stiff spring like F1 uses are even a problem sometimes at 1000Hz.
Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
"Richard S Beckett" <richardDOTbeckettATmotorolaDOTcom@spamkiller> wrote in message news:<aesp02$[email hidden]>...
Um - only if you're talking about GPx ;)! IIRC, just about every
modern sim uses a constant-rate physics engine, and can adjust the
framerate independently of the physical simulation rate (Papy sims up
through GPL were framerate-capped, but would still run
asynchronously). Now if you include the sim-driver as part of the
system, then the rate of input from sim to driver (framerate) becomes
an important factor in how the whole system behaves.
This argument goes around and around and around all the time. Because
people point to research that says humans can't distinguish movement
beyond 30fps or thereabouts, then clearly no game needs a framerate
beyond this. Experience screams in the face of this - almost anyone
can see the difference between 30fps and say, 80fps. Heck, on GP3 I
noticed a huge improvement going from 25fps to 31fps through the
framerate hack.
IMHO, the problem seems to be that people are treating computer games
like a movie. In a movie, each frame is exposed over time, so
high-speed movement results in a blurring effect that more or less
matches real experience (blurring of fast-moving objects in our FOV).
In a computer game, without additional effects, each object will be
displayed as a static object for the length of a frame, resulting in a
perceptible "jerk" when then next frame is drawn.
All conjecture, of course, and maybe tangential to the whole thread -
I'm only replying to the one post - cause I've already decided to get
F1-2002 ;)...
Kendt
Quoted text (20 lines)
> I think it's easy to confuse things here. > > IMO, once above 25ish FPS, your eyes won't notice the difference. > > The thing with driving games, though, is that the frame rate seems tied to > the physics rate. > > Thus, a higher frame rate means faster physics, which in turn means a more > realistic sim, which acts more like real life. > > What we need is a sim where the physics run at one consistent rate, and the > frame rate can be chosen and is independant from the physics rate. > > Then we'd see what really makes the difference. > > I think that it's the physics rate that makes all the difference, but as > it's tied to the frame rate, then you have to get as many frames as > possible. > > R."Richard S Beckett" <richardDOTbeckettATmotorolaDOTcom@spamkiller> wrote in message news:<aesp02$[email hidden]>...
Um - only if you're talking about GPx ;)! IIRC, just about every
modern sim uses a constant-rate physics engine, and can adjust the
framerate independently of the physical simulation rate (Papy sims up
through GPL were framerate-capped, but would still run
asynchronously). Now if you include the sim-driver as part of the
system, then the rate of input from sim to driver (framerate) becomes
an important factor in how the whole system behaves.
This argument goes around and around and around all the time. Because
people point to research that says humans can't distinguish movement
beyond 30fps or thereabouts, then clearly no game needs a framerate
beyond this. Experience screams in the face of this - almost anyone
can see the difference between 30fps and say, 80fps. Heck, on GP3 I
noticed a huge improvement going from 25fps to 31fps through the
framerate hack.
IMHO, the problem seems to be that people are treating computer games
like a movie. In a movie, each frame is exposed over time, so
high-speed movement results in a blurring effect that more or less
matches real experience (blurring of fast-moving objects in our FOV).
In a computer game, without additional effects, each object will be
displayed as a static object for the length of a frame, resulting in a
perceptible "jerk" when then next frame is drawn.
All conjecture, of course, and maybe tangential to the whole thread -
I'm only replying to the one post - cause I've already decided to get
F1-2002 ;)...
Kendt
Quoted text (20 lines)
> I think it's easy to confuse things here. > > IMO, once above 25ish FPS, your eyes won't notice the difference. > > The thing with driving games, though, is that the frame rate seems tied to > the physics rate. > > Thus, a higher frame rate means faster physics, which in turn means a more > realistic sim, which acts more like real life. > > What we need is a sim where the physics run at one consistent rate, and the > frame rate can be chosen and is independant from the physics rate. > > Then we'd see what really makes the difference. > > I think that it's the physics rate that makes all the difference, but as > it's tied to the frame rate, then you have to get as many frames as > possible. > > R.On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:05:19 GMT, Joe62 <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Read again. I did *not* say that.
Perhaps you should read them yourself. I had already read two of those pages
and the only thing they do is confirm my impression.
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(
remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying
Quoted text (8 lines)
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 23:16:43 -0500, machf <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>Well, I asked a perfectly rational question and so far this has been >>the only decent answer to it... > >You didn't ask a rational question. You stated an incorrect fact (that >people can't see > 24 fps)Quoted text (15 lines)
> that is one of the oldest and most tiresome >errors on Usenet. It has been stated and corrected so many times and >in such detail that people have grown tired of repeating themselves. > >>Well, you're feeding your retinas more images than it can discern, >>so in effect what you're seeing is blurred. > >Since you;'ve re-stated your error, perhaps you'll brake down people's >patience enough that they will direct you to the correct information. >Such as these pages, where you can begin your education on this >subject: > >http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html >http://www.cdmag.com/Home/home.html?article=/articles/030/159/hardw_column.html >http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p3.htm"Richard S Beckett" <richardDOTbeckettATmotorolaDOTcom@spamkiller> wrote in message news:<aesp02$[email hidden]>...
Um - only if you're talking about GPx ;)! IIRC, just about every
modern sim uses a constant-rate physics engine, and can adjust the
framerate independently of the physical simulation rate (Papy sims up
through GPL were framerate-capped, but would still run
asynchronously). Now if you include the sim-driver as part of the
system, then the rate of input from sim to driver (framerate) becomes
an important factor in how the whole system behaves.
This argument goes around and around and around all the time. Because
people point to research that says humans can't distinguish movement
beyond 30fps or thereabouts, then clearly no game needs a framerate
beyond this. Experience screams in the face of this - almost anyone
can see the difference between 30fps and say, 80fps. Heck, on GP3 I
noticed a huge improvement going from 25fps to 31fps through the
framerate hack.
IMHO, the problem seems to be that people are treating computer games
like a movie. In a movie, each frame is exposed over time, so
high-speed movement results in a blurring effect that more or less
matches real experience (blurring of fast-moving objects in our FOV).
In a computer game, without additional effects, each object will be
displayed as a static object for the length of a frame, resulting in a
perceptible "jerk" when then next frame is drawn.
All conjecture, of course, and maybe tangential to the whole thread -
I'm only replying to the one post - cause I've already decided to get
F1-2002 ;)...
Kendt
Quoted text (20 lines)
> I think it's easy to confuse things here. > > IMO, once above 25ish FPS, your eyes won't notice the difference. > > The thing with driving games, though, is that the frame rate seems tied to > the physics rate. > > Thus, a higher frame rate means faster physics, which in turn means a more > realistic sim, which acts more like real life. > > What we need is a sim where the physics run at one consistent rate, and the > frame rate can be chosen and is independant from the physics rate. > > Then we'd see what really makes the difference. > > I think that it's the physics rate that makes all the difference, but as > it's tied to the frame rate, then you have to get as many frames as > possible. > > R.On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:24:46 +0200, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>I nominate Tom Pabst and Douglas Ellison to oversee the whole thing
It's agreed then. We'll get "the one who cannot be mentioned" (you
know, that space-sim guy) to do the programming.
On 20 Jun 2002 14:42:26 -0700, [email hidden] (Kendt Eklund) wrote:
Hmmm... info sampling from the controllers should be independent from
everything else (only dependent on the computer itself, I guess,
meaning the processor rate, bus speed and port capabilities), so in
theory that shouldn't be too problematic...
Yes, that's the conclusion at which I arrived and which I've seen confirmed.
When I first asked the question it wasn't evident, I suppose because IRL I
don't go around racing at more than 150KPH, so I don't miss motion blur
that much in a sim... I go more for higher resolution and # of colors.
>All conjecture, of course, and maybe tangential to the whole thread -
>I'm only replying to the one post - cause I've already decided to get
>F1-2002 ;)...
>
>Kendt
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(
remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying
Quoted text (8 lines)
>Um - only if you're talking about GPx ;)! IIRC, just about every >modern sim uses a constant-rate physics engine, and can adjust the >framerate independently of the physical simulation rate (Papy sims up >through GPL were framerate-capped, but would still run >asynchronously). Now if you include the sim-driver as part of the >system, then the rate of input from sim to driver (framerate) becomes >an important factor in how the whole system behaves. >Quoted text (16 lines)
>This argument goes around and around and around all the time. Because >people point to research that says humans can't distinguish movement >beyond 30fps or thereabouts, then clearly no game needs a framerate >beyond this. Experience screams in the face of this - almost anyone >can see the difference between 30fps and say, 80fps. Heck, on GP3 I >noticed a huge improvement going from 25fps to 31fps through the >framerate hack. > >IMHO, the problem seems to be that people are treating computer games >like a movie. In a movie, each frame is exposed over time, so >high-speed movement results in a blurring effect that more or less >matches real experience (blurring of fast-moving objects in our FOV). >In a computer game, without additional effects, each object will be >displayed as a static object for the length of a frame, resulting in a >perceptible "jerk" when then next frame is drawn. >In article <aej7dl$73f3q$[email hidden]>, "Haqsau"
<[email hidden]> writes:
>Have you tried turning the AI sliders up to 100%? They seem to run much
>more realistically when you do that.
Probably impossible for the average driver to keep up with. I guess you and
Andre could, though...
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.
