So what has happend to Racing Legneds

So.. as my post asks.. what has happend to this racing game !! It look so promising... Doesn't anybody have a clue... even if some one lives next to these guys.. go tap on there door and ask them some question.... Or do I have to find out for myself... Or is it like the people behind the gizmoid..? Emma

"Emma Ward" <senninha1@ sad.btinternet.com> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> So.. as my post asks.. what has happend to this racing game !! > > It look so promising... > > Doesn't anybody have a clue... even if some one lives next to these > guys.. go tap on there door and ask them some question.... > > Or do I have to find out for myself... > > Or is it like the people behind the gizmoid..? > > Emma > > > >

The story behind Racing Legends is about as murky as any real legend. There are reputable guys, like Gregor Veeble who was a regular poster here whenever physics subjects popped up, who have been working with the West brothers, who swear it is still a viable project. But there are sooooo many here who's hopes have been repeatedly dashed that even if the Box was on a store shelf, I don't think they would beleive it was actually for sale. Suffice it to say, if we are going to ever really appreciate Racing Legends, then most likely it will be with one of those new 10,000 US Dollar Monster/Mega systems with 4 SLI video cards and the physics accelerator. (Dell is advertising just such a system)

Dave Henrie wrote: > But there are sooooo many here who's hopes have been repeatedly dashed > that even if the Box was on a store shelf, I don't think they would > beleive it was actually for sale. For me it just ranks as another IT project that has taken significantly longer then expected. Governments are notoriously bad at estimating IT project duration - the UK National firearms register still hasn't gone live 9 years after it was proposed having been recommended after the Dunblane tragedy in 1996, and was passed into law in the 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act. The project has seen multiple go live dates pushed back. That is a project under with significant public interest and resource which even hardcore sim racers may concede is of greater priority than Racing Legends. For fellow sim racing enthusiasts to have been over optimistic in estimating delivery of what they believe will be a ground breaking sim is hardly a cause for the drama that has enfolded IMHO Cheers Tony

>"Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote > For me it just ranks as another IT project that has taken significantly > longer then expected. Exactly, a R&D venture that went beyond their business plans. Happens everyday, everywhere. Meanwhile they had to, you know, pay their bills. One of the brothers worked on that RC sim, etc... Eventually I doubt we'll ever see the results, but it was a nice idea. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 12:07:31 -0500, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote: > The story behind Racing Legends is about as murky as any real legend. >There are reputable guys, like Gregor Veeble who was a regular poster here >whenever physics subjects popped up, Yea, I remember Gregor. But why has he disappeared ever since he signed on with the West brothers? His NDA prohibits him from posting here maybe?

Maybe he's just busy and knows he'd be hammered with RL questions/potshots if he popped his head up. Kendt

[email hidden] (Tony Rickard) wrote: > For me it just ranks as another IT project that has taken > significantly longer then expected. My big fear for RL was always that the guys would spend a lot of time and money on a highly detailed & complex sim engine, only to find it didn't feel significantly better or different from the competition. There's a limit to how much of a realistic experience you can get sat at a desk, and it may be we're already as close as we're ever going to get in every respect apart from graphically. I hope I'm wrong though, it's nice to have something to look forward to... though not necessarily RL. Andrew McP

[email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) wrote in

Quoted text (12 lines)

> My big fear for RL was always that the guys would spend a lot of time > and money on a highly detailed & complex sim engine, only to find it > didn't feel significantly better or different from the competition. > There's a limit to how much of a realistic experience you can get sat at > a desk, and it may be we're already as close as we're ever going to get > in every respect apart from graphically. > > I hope I'm wrong though, it's nice to have something to look forward > to... though not necessarily RL. > > Andrew McP >

I feel the two areas that will change our perceptions the most will be new physics engines that take advantage of the physics accelerator boards and hopefully someday that Force Feedback patent will lapse and other methods of FF can be explored. dave henrie

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> > > I feel the two areas that will change our perceptions the most will be > new physics engines that take advantage of the physics accelerator boards > and hopefully someday that Force Feedback patent will lapse and other > methods of FF can be explored. > > dave henrie >

Force feedback patent? Whats that all about? dan

"Dan Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote in

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> > Force feedback patent? > Whats that all about? > dan > > >

I cannot recall the details. I think a company named iMotion had one of the original FF modules. They somehow got an overly broad patent that prevents any further improvements or changes to FF since, according to them, any changes would impinge on their patent. It's screwy. Maybe someone else can fill in the details. dh

Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Dan Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote in > > >> > > Force feedback patent? > > Whats that all about? > > dan > > I cannot recall the details. I think a company named iMotion had one of > the original FF modules. They somehow got an overly broad patent that > prevents any further improvements or changes to FF since, according to > them, any changes would impinge on their patent. It's screwy. > Maybe someone else can fill in the details.

Hey, Microsoft has patented the double click! If there's anyone left who doesn't hink the present patent system is totally corrupt, please raise a hand! /Andreas -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Luckily, hand raising is prior art (I think Adam did it) Andreas Davour wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> writes: > > >>"Dan Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote in >> >> >>>Force feedback patent? >>>Whats that all about? >>> dan >> >> I cannot recall the details. I think a company named iMotion had one of >>the original FF modules. They somehow got an overly broad patent that >>prevents any further improvements or changes to FF since, according to >>them, any changes would impinge on their patent. It's screwy. >>Maybe someone else can fill in the details. > > > Hey, Microsoft has patented the double click! If there's anyone left who > doesn't hink the present patent system is totally corrupt, please raise > a hand! > > /Andreas >

> So.. as my post asks.. what has happend to this racing game !! I believe the correct term is 'Feature creep'

Matthew Jessick <[email hidden]> writes: > Luckily, hand raising is prior art (I think Adam did it) LOL! :D /andreas -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

There's definitely prior-art on that one. Apple. Xerox. Etc... Hell, Microsoft wouldn't even validate the existance of the mouse until Apple started kicking their asses, then as usuall they finally reacted and "Made it their own". -Larry "Andreas Davour" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Hey, Microsoft has patented the double click! If there's anyone left who > doesn't hink the present patent system is totally corrupt, please raise > a hand! > > /Andreas > > -- > A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Is it april 1st already? ;)

ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote >> For me it just ranks as another IT project that has taken significantly >> longer then expected. > > > Exactly, a R&D venture that went beyond their business plans. Happens > everyday, everywhere. Meanwhile they had to, you know, pay their bills. > One of the brothers worked on that RC sim, etc... Eventually I doubt we'll > ever see the results, but it was a nice idea.

Good thing they got all those donations.