F1 2002 - first impressions after about 10 hours of gameplay

+++ Accurate rules +++ Excellent driveablity + AI behaviour (fellow competitors make mistakes and they seem to avoid you when you make a mistake) + Customizable rules/options + Online racing - No career mode - No in-built editor (of course someone implements it) - Slighty uninspiring weather effects - Needs heavy machinery (I have 1.2ghz athlon, 256mb, gf2 with most of the graphical options: high/1024/768 Easy 9.5/10 Excellent. .mikko

In article <VmiN8.80$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> +++ Accurate rules > +++ Excellent driveablity > + AI behaviour (fellow competitors make mistakes and they seem to avoid you > when you make a mistake) > + Customizable rules/options > + Online racing > > - No career mode > - No in-built editor (of course someone implements it) > - Slighty uninspiring weather effects > - Needs heavy machinery (I have 1.2ghz athlon, 256mb, gf2 with most of the > graphical options: high/1024/768 > > Easy 9.5/10

I've got F1 2001 and didn't like it as the tracks seemed too narrow, the gradients felt wrong and there seemed to be too few polygons in the actual track bed giving a strange bumpy effect. Do you know if they've fixed those problems? - Michael

Sounds great, but... did they fix the infamous split pedals deadzone from F1 2001 and the demo ? I would hate to do the DXTweak dance again. Xavier.

I never had this problem, but yes they have fixed it. Its in the plr-file and looks like this for each axis: Axis [00, 00] Center="0.50000" // 0.0=min, 0.5=center, 1.0=max (use to correct centering or split-axis issues) "Xavier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae4eoq$5ga$[email hidden]... > Sounds great, but... did they fix the infamous split pedals deadzone fromF1 > 2001 and the demo ? I would hate to do the DXTweak dance again. > > Xavier. > >

I agree that the wheatereffects when in rain doesnt look good, but i love the gfx-effect when dry goes into overcast, and then into fog / rain :) Online racing is great if the host got a good connection, otherwise i give it a minus. Btw, what kind of builtin-editor do you want??. "Mikko �mm�l�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VmiN8.80$[email hidden]... > +++ Accurate rules > +++ Excellent driveablity > + AI behaviour (fellow competitors make mistakes and they seem to avoidyou

Quoted text (9 lines)

> when you make a mistake) > + Customizable rules/options > + Online racing > > - No career mode > - No in-built editor (of course someone implements it) > - Slighty uninspiring weather effects > - Needs heavy machinery (I have 1.2ghz athlon, 256mb, gf2 with most of the > graphical options: high/1024/768

Yes it is a good game, definately waiting for GP4 to directly compare. I have just added the full physics hack to the PLR file so waiting to see what sort of difference it makes.. Graphics are great, the only thing that spoils it for me is the weather, no rain as such just spray off the wheels. Would be nice to be able to truly hang it out like in GP2, maybe someone knows a patch??? I am a fan of the 88-92 vintage formula 1. Peregrine -- System: Asus P4S533 P4 1.6a @ 2.560Ghz Kingmax DDR333 256Mb @ 200Mhz Gainward 128Mb Ti4200 Golden Sample 340/580Mhz SBLive! 2 x 20GB Seagate Barracudda III's Creative DVXR2 Aopen 24x CD Writer Windows XP build 2600 3DMark2001 Default Score 12597 "Mikko �mm�l�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VmiN8.80$[email hidden]... > +++ Accurate rules > +++ Excellent driveablity > + AI behaviour (fellow competitors make mistakes and they seem to avoid you > when you make a mistake) > + Customizable rules/options > + Online racing > > - No career mode > - No in-built editor (of course someone implements it) > - Slighty uninspiring weather effects > - Needs heavy machinery (I have 1.2ghz athlon, 256mb, gf2 with most of the > graphical options: high/1024/768 > > Easy 9.5/10 > > Excellent. > > .mikko > > > > >

> I've got F1 2001 and didn't like it as the tracks seemed too narrow, the > gradients felt wrong and there seemed to be too few polygons in the > actual track bed giving a strange bumpy effect. Do you know if they've > fixed those problems? They havnt touched them. Doug

"Andreas Nystr�m" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gdjN8.11536$[email hidden]... > Btw, what kind of builtin-editor do you want??. Creating new teams, creating seasons, fixing with teams' reliability and capabilities... These kind of editors always arrive within some weeks after release but it would be nice if they were included... .mikko

"MP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I've got F1 2001 and didn't like it as the tracks seemed too narrow, the > gradients felt wrong and there seemed to be too few polygons in the > actual track bed giving a strange bumpy effect. Do you know if they've > fixed those problems? > > - Michael The bumps are a plus and not a minus. If you want glassy smooth tracks then get F1RC.

I must disagree here. Those bumps occur at points where the curvature of the track is large and polys aren't sufficiently good to represent them. In order to do bumps properly you first need to smooth out the tracks, and then add bumps at places where they should actually appear. The position of bumps shouldn't be determined by the shortcomings of the representation. -Gregor On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Toad wrote: > > The bumps are a plus and not a minus. If you want glassy smooth tracks then > get F1RC. > > >

There are bumps in real tracks too. It just takes a burnout on the track todo a new bump, thats why its not allowed. (Wonder if the motogp guys have to pay some fine after each finish? =) The problem with the tracks bumps was mostly that the physics engine didnt run fast enough. 200Hz isnt enough for bumps. at 300kmh you are going 84metres per second!. Now sample this 200 times, and you will input data from the track per 42cm. As we know in real life.. there can be big elevation changes in reallife over 42cm on the road. If it just changes 10cm, the physics engine will probably think we have hit something that is 10cm high, since the last time the physics engine was feed with data, the ground was 10cm lower. With 400Hz engine enabled, we get data putinto it at 21cm per track at 300kmh. To get a good physicsengine, we would need atleast to have a physicsengine that is so fast that we can sample the road for each cm, and then we are up into the 10kHz(!) region (for a car that goes 300km/h) Im sure its easy to cheat with this.. any sim-programmer here who can talk a bit more about it? One way todo it is as suggested, making the road flat, and add fake bumps. But if we should do really accurate tracks (hm.. scaning the road with lasers to pickup all the bumps etc in the tarmac?) we cant use fake bumps. The bumps in F1 2002 are anyway much less then in F1 2001. Suzuka for example was much rougher before. But them bumps seems to be where they are in real life too and thats good. I usually spin at T3? at Hungaroring, cause its so bumpy. The same happened to the real drivers last year cause it was so bumpy there :)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Easy 9.5/10 > > I've got F1 2001 and didn't like it as the tracks seemed too narrow, the > gradients felt wrong and there seemed to be too few polygons in the > actual track bed giving a strange bumpy effect. Do you know if they've > fixed those problems? > > - Michael

It worked fine for me without changing anything in the ini file. -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> "Andreas Nystr�m" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jbjN8.11534$[email hidden]... > I never had this problem, but yes they have fixed it. > Its in the plr-file and looks like this for each axis: > > > Axis [00, 00] Center="0.50000" // 0.0=min, 0.5=center, 1.0=max (use to > correct centering or split-axis issues) > > "Xavier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ae4eoq$5ga$[email hidden]... > > Sounds great, but... did they fix the infamous split pedals deadzone from > F1 > > 2001 and the demo ? I would hate to do the DXTweak dance again. > > > > Xavier. > > > > > >

"Andreas Nystr�m" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YSkN8.42738$[email hidden]... > With 400Hz engine enabled, we get data putinto it at 21cm per track at > 300kmh. > > To get a good physicsengine, we would need atleast to have a physicsengine > that is so fast that we can sample the road for each cm, and then we areup > into the 10kHz(!) region (for a car that goes 300km/h) Very interesting. So we have to wait a few years before we can have the computing power to run "real" sim's. :) Do you know how fast the physics engine in GPL is? I guess it's a way to measure the quality of a sim. It should have been printed on the box. Jone.

GPL is 200Hz from my knowledge. "Jone Tytlandsvik" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae58fd$43v6i$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "Andreas Nystr�m" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YSkN8.42738$[email hidden]... > > With 400Hz engine enabled, we get data putinto it at 21cm per track at > > 300kmh. > > > > To get a good physicsengine, we would need atleast to have a

physicsengine

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > that is so fast that we can sample the road for each cm, and then we are > up > > into the 10kHz(!) region (for a car that goes 300km/h) > > Very interesting. So we have to wait a few years before we can have the > computing power to run "real" sim's. :) > Do you know how fast the physics engine in GPL is? > I guess it's a way to measure the quality of a sim. It should have been > printed on the box. > > Jone. > >

> GPL is 200Hz from my knowledge. I thought it was 288Hz? -- Cheers, Robin ................... `o^=o- now playing: Nick Warren Essential Mix 3/10/99 http://www.oppositelock.freeserve.co.uk - N�rburgring/GPL

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:50:58 +0100, "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It worked fine for me without changing anything in the ini file. I did have the same old problem, fixed it again with the dxtweak trick. Andre

There's another way to fix it. See my "F12002 Throttle Dead Zone Fix" thread from the 6th. David G Fisher "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:50:58 +0100, "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >It worked fine for me without changing anything in the ini file. > > I did have the same old problem, fixed it again with the dxtweak > trick. > > Andre

>"Mikko �mm�l�" <[email hidden]> wrote > Easy 9.5/10 - - - - Incredible bad tracks. - - No community multiplayer options, basic multiplayer Easy 6/10. Not more. -- -- 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...

>"Toad" <[email hidden]> wrote > If you want glassy smooth tracks then get F1RC. At least they are realistic. -- -- 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...

Not if they're too smooth ! ;) -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:M7tN8.1519$[email hidden]... > >"Toad" <[email hidden]> wrote > > If you want glassy smooth tracks then get F1RC. > > At least they are realistic. > > > > > -- > -- 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... > > >

Like N2002 and GPL? :-) David G Fisher "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae5sev$d1s$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> Not if they're too smooth ! ;) > > -- > > Ian P > <email invalid due to spam> > > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:M7tN8.1519$[email hidden]... > > >"Toad" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > If you want glassy smooth tracks then get F1RC. > > > > At least they are realistic. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- 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... > > > > > > > >

"Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I must disagree here. Those bumps occur at points where the curvature of > the track is large and polys aren't sufficiently good to represent them. > In order to do bumps properly you first need to smooth out the tracks, and > then add bumps at places where they should actually appear. The position > of bumps shouldn't be determined by the shortcomings of the > representation. > > -Gregor

If they did that then it would probably run at 5fps. At least it's got bumps!

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:M7tN8.1519$[email hidden]... > At least they are realistic. What's realistic about tracks with no bumps?

Yes GPL runs at 288 Hz. That's exactly 8 physics frames per graphics frame, if you're running at a steady 36 graphics frames per second. I *think* that F1 2002 runs at 200 Hz by default, or 400 Hz with the "super high physics rate" switch enabled. Racer runs at 500 Hz as default but you can increase that to 1 kHz, or reduce it if you like. :0) "Robin Lord" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BFpN8.8166$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > GPL is 200Hz from my knowledge. > > I thought it was 288Hz? > > -- > Cheers, > > Robin ................... `o^=o- > > now playing: Nick Warren Essential Mix 3/10/99 > > http://www.oppositelock.freeserve.co.uk - N�rburgring/GPL > >

>"Toad" <[email hidden]> wrote > What's realistic about tracks with no bumps? No, it's realistic. Our PC aren't able to model such high frequency bumps, therefore the tracks should not have them. -- -- 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...

Haven't heard from Infogrames in a about a week. Hmmm, wonder if GP4 is going to be delayed. Wayne "Peregrine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yes it is a good game, definately waiting for GP4 to directly compare. > I have just added the full physics hack to the PLR file so waiting to see > what sort of difference it makes.. > Graphics are great, the only thing that spoils it for me is the weather,no

Quoted text (34 lines)

> rain as such just spray off the wheels. > Would be nice to be able to truly hang it out like in GP2, maybe someone > knows a patch??? I am a fan of the 88-92 vintage formula 1. > > Peregrine > -- > System: > Asus P4S533 > P4 1.6a @ 2.560Ghz > Kingmax DDR333 256Mb @ 200Mhz > Gainward 128Mb Ti4200 Golden Sample 340/580Mhz > SBLive! > 2 x 20GB Seagate Barracudda III's > Creative DVXR2 > Aopen 24x CD Writer > Windows XP build 2600 > 3DMark2001 Default Score 12597 > > > > "Mikko �mm�l�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:VmiN8.80$[email hidden]... > > +++ Accurate rules > > +++ Excellent driveablity > > + AI behaviour (fellow competitors make mistakes and they seem to avoid > you > > when you make a mistake) > > + Customizable rules/options > > + Online racing > > > > - No career mode > > - No in-built editor (of course someone implements it) > > - Slighty uninspiring weather effects > > - Needs heavy machinery (I have 1.2ghz athlon, 256mb, gf2 with most of

the

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > graphical options: high/1024/768 > > > > Easy 9.5/10 > > > > Excellent. > > > > .mikko > > > > > > > > > > > >

David G Fisher wrote: > > Like N2002 and GPL? :-) Some of the 3rd party gpl tracks have bumps.

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:14:14 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >There's another way to fix it. See my "F12002 Throttle Dead Zone Fix" thread >from the 6th. > >David G Fisher Cheers, missed that one. Saves a lot of hassle. Andre

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C7zN8.7640$[email hidden]... > No, it's realistic. Our PC aren't able to model such high frequencybumps, > therefore the tracks should not have them. I'll take some bumps as opposed to no bumps. I have both F12001 and F1RC and to me F12001 feels more like I'm in a car because the road has bumps, even if they are a bit overdone. F1RC just feels like I am driving a hovercraft and not a car.

> + AI behaviour (fellow competitors make mistakes and they seem to avoidyou Yes, but the AI at some tracks is horrinble (as in F1 2001). Just try Monaco and you will see what I mean. They crash into the barriers constantly... Also no in race save function. This is too bad, since I don't have time to do a 100% race which is the most fun for me. I also hate how you exit the race by just pressing the escape key. There should be a confirmation of some sort. Overall, not much has changed since last year.

Thanks to all of you for the feedback. Special thanks to Dave/Andreas for the elegant way to solve the problem. Xavier.

> >Yes, but the AI at some tracks is horrinble (as in F1 2001). Just try Monaco >and you will see what I mean. They crash into the barriers constantly... Hmm, seems it's that way in real life too... ;) ----------------------------------------- Dan Belcher Webmaster, http://www.gplworld.racesim.net/simcrash

In article <[email hidden] mb.si>, [email hidden] says... > I must disagree here. Those bumps occur at points where the curvature of > the track is large and polys aren't sufficiently good to represent them. > In order to do bumps properly you first need to smooth out the tracks, and > then add bumps at places where they should actually appear. The position > of bumps shouldn't be determined by the shortcomings of the > representation. That's exactly the problem I was referring to - looks like I'll give this one a miss. - Michael