GPL physics question.

Ok, I've read that Formula 1 1967 had tires that lasted 2-3 races, so I guess this mean they should have been really really hard (thats a lot of laps in 3races + practice) Then i do some laps and save the replay and load it into GPL replay-analyzer, and take a look at the traction-circle, and tell it to show 1.0 1.5 2.0g circles, and what do you see? Well, the car pulls around 1.8g in some corners, and 1.5-2g in braking, and only about 0.5g in acceleration. If this GPL Replay-analyzer is accurate in traction, then there is something wrong in the physics. Tires that last for 3races shouldnt be able to get a car pulling 1.8g's. Its a shame that GPL was probably rushed since it should have had tire-wear and then we shouldnt probably see these crazy figures? But my biggest guess is that i read something wrong? :D anyone else noticed this?

Quoted text (25 lines)

> >Ok, I've read that Formula 1 1967 had tires that lasted 2-3 races, so I >guess this mean >they should have been really really hard (thats a lot of laps in 3races + >practice) > >Then i do some laps and save the replay and load it into GPL >replay-analyzer, and take >a look at the traction-circle, and tell it to show 1.0 1.5 2.0g circles, and >what do you see? >Well, the car pulls around 1.8g in some corners, and 1.5-2g in braking, and >only about 0.5g >in acceleration. > >If this GPL Replay-analyzer is accurate in traction, then there is something >wrong in the physics. >Tires that last for 3races shouldnt be able to get a car pulling 1.8g's. >Its a shame that GPL was probably rushed since it should have had tire-wear >and then we shouldnt >probably see these crazy figures? > >But my biggest guess is that i read something wrong? :D anyone else noticed >this? > >

The tires were NOT that hard; that's a common misconception. ----------------------------------------- Dan Belcher Webmaster, http://www.gplworld.racesim.net/simcrash

"Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:SEio8.35056$[email hidden]... > Ok, I've read that Formula 1 1967 had tires that lasted 2-3 races AFAIK the '67 tyres lasted one race, in the early sixties (1.5 l formula) they lasted several weekends. Bye, Leo

Not necessarily unreasonable. First I don't think any of the cars can pull more than 1.5G on flat ground, higher numbers come from taking advantage of the crowned surface at many of the tracks. Secondly, the tires are very lightly loaded for their size, due to the light weight of the GP cars, so they will be operating at near their maximum possible friction coefficient. And thirdly with such low centers of gravity there is not as much loss of friction coefficient due to lateral weight transfer, so again you are using the tire much more efficiently than a larger car would. While I admit I have some issues with GPL physics myself, the bottom line is that people are getting fairly realistic lap times, and that would not be possible if the tire traction was way off. "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SEio8.35056$[email hidden]... > Ok, I've read that Formula 1 1967 had tires that lasted 2-3 races, soI > guess this mean > they should have been really really hard (thats a lot of laps in3races + > practice) > > Then i do some laps and save the replay and load it into GPL > replay-analyzer, and take > a look at the traction-circle, and tell it to show 1.0 1.5 2.0gcircles, and > what do you see? > Well, the car pulls around 1.8g in some corners, and 1.5-2g inbraking, and > only about 0.5g > in acceleration. > > If this GPL Replay-analyzer is accurate in traction, then there issomething > wrong in the physics. > Tires that last for 3races shouldnt be able to get a car pulling1.8g's. > Its a shame that GPL was probably rushed since it should have hadtire-wear > and then we shouldnt > probably see these crazy figures? > > But my biggest guess is that i read something wrong? :D anyone elsenoticed > this? > > >

"Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SEio8.35056$[email hidden]... snip > Its a shame that GPL was probably rushed since it should have hadtire-wear Heheheheh complaining about a four year old game being rushed. The fact that we are still playing it surely suggests that it was not rushed. By now it really doesnt matter how close to a racing car simulation it is. GPL has become a sport in its own right. Todd.

Well, first of all, thanks for the answers. I saw some footage from Monza 1962 and those tires looked terrible after the race, so i think we can say that the "lasted for 3 races" rumour isnt true at all. Second, about it being rushed, well i thought so, since the commercial about GPL said it would include tirewear, and wheater, but the final product didnt. Like F1 2001 was rushed, no "marshalls" until the 2nd patch, or FF. / Andreas - waiting for LeMans legends 1967 ;) "T.Galvin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:SEio8.35056$[email hidden]... > snip > > Its a shame that GPL was probably rushed since it should have had > tire-wear > > Heheheheh complaining about a four year old game being rushed. The fact > that we are still playing it surely suggests that it was not rushed. > By now it really doesnt matter how close to a racing car simulation it is. > GPL has become a sport in its own right. > > Todd. > > >

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:22:08 GMT, "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Second, about it being rushed, well i thought so, since the commercial about >GPL said it would include tirewear, and wheater, but the final product >didnt. They worked for what, three years on GPL? Not everything they planned to include made it into GPL, but don't ya dare compare GPL to the state in which F1 2001 was delivered.. Andre

"Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4hBo8.28096$[email hidden]... > > > Well, first of all, thanks for the answers. > I saw some footage from Monza 1962 and those tires looked terrible afterthe > race, so i think we can say that the "lasted for 3 races" rumour isnt true > at all. I've read interviews with Lotus employees which also contradicted this old gem. They lasted the whole race, maybe even the whole weekend, but not several races. > Second, about it being rushed, well i thought so, since the commercialabout > GPL said it would include tirewear, and wheater, but the final product > didnt.

Stephen F. <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4hBo8.28096$[email hidden]... >> Well, first of all, thanks for the answers. >> I saw some footage from Monza 1962 and those tires looked terrible after > the >> race, so i think we can say that the "lasted for 3 races" rumour isnt true >> at all. > I've read interviews with Lotus employees which also contradicted this old > gem. They lasted the whole race, maybe even the whole weekend, but not > several races.

This is also more or less what the late John Cooper said in that interview on one of the GPL websites. -- J. Sakari Salonen / [email hidden]

"T.Galvin" <[email hidden]> writes: [snip] > By now it really doesnt matter how close to a racing car simulation it is. > GPL has become a sport in its own right. Imho, GPL would never had become a sport in its own right if not for the fact that it is reasonably close to a racing car simulation :-) I probably would drop GPL really fast if something clearly better showed up. But I like the old style open wheels racing (partly becuase the fact that everything happens slower compared to e.g. modern f1 which makes it much more suitable for a pc simulation), so I'm quite sure f1-2007 however good it is still won't replace GPL for me. _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden]

"Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > [snip]But I like the old style open wheels racing (partly > becuase the fact that everything happens slower compared to e.g. > modern f1 which makes it much more suitable for a pc simulation), Totally agree with this - I think the (relatively) low power and lack of downforce make for much better pc racing. IMO a Barber Dodge / Formula Ford sim would be the ideal online race category.

"Jim Seamus" <[email hidden]> > Totally agree with this - I think the (relatively) low power and lack of > downforce make for much better pc racing. IMO a Barber Dodge / FormulaFord > sim would be the ideal online race category. > There is a F1 2000 mod in the works for Nascar Heat. That would pretty much meet the low power high grip formula. dave henrie

Andreas Nystrom <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SEio8.35056$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Ok, I've read that Formula 1 1967 had tires that lasted 2-3 races, so I > guess this mean > they should have been really really hard (thats a lot of laps in 3races + > practice) > > Then i do some laps and save the replay and load it into GPL > replay-analyzer, and take > a look at the traction-circle, and tell it to show 1.0 1.5 2.0g circles,

and > what do you see? > Well, the car pulls around 1.8g in some corners, and 1.5-2g in braking,and > only about 0.5g > in acceleration. > > If this GPL Replay-analyzer is accurate in traction, then there issomething > wrong in the physics. > Tires that last for 3races shouldnt be able to get a car pulling 1.8g's. > Its a shame that GPL was probably rushed since it should have hadtire-wear > and then we shouldnt > probably see these crazy figures? > > But my biggest guess is that i read something wrong? :D anyone elsenoticed > this? The truth of the matter is that GPL is prbably one of the most flawed and unrealistic physics model of an actual car you can get without going the "Johnny Herbert GP" route. Its an impression of what a car with lots of power and little grip could be like. The physics model reality in that it *could* model the physics of a 1967 GP car fairly accuratly using the same engine but it doesn't. The cars are total fantasy. The only reason people feel it to be realistic is because it is hard as opposed to arcades which are easy. This is one thing I've alays wondered about GPL. It models the movement of a high-ish power, low grip car well but it doesn't model a 1967 F1 car, not by a long shot.

T.Galvin <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:SEio8.35056$[email hidden]... > snip > > Its a shame that GPL was probably rushed since it should have had > tire-wear > > Heheheheh complaining about a four year old game being rushed. The fact > that we are still playing it surely suggests that it was not rushed. > By now it really doesnt matter how close to a racing car simulation it is. > GPL has become a sport in its own right. > > Todd.

Er, I think you will find the final product was very rushed and left out many vital features which it was supposed to have. It basically matches most peoles impressions of what it must feel like to drvie one of these caers but it' not based on any data or anything at all.

While maybe not from the same approach as you, I agree. Like N4, I've always thought the grip, etc. of the stock F1 physics in GPL was a bit over the top. Whether they were pros, and were not, pc limitations aside, etc. I have a very hard time believing the actual cars were that hard to drive. Yes, I'm aware of the deaths, etc. that occured, but it seems most of those were caused by mechanical problems that led to a wreck. All IMO of course, so save the flames everyone........I'm not preaching heresy, just an opinion<G> -John "Rowdy *Rodney* Piper" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:X_Ko8.1967$[email hidden]... > > Andreas Nystrom <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:SEio8.35056$[email hidden]... > > Ok, I've read that Formula 1 1967 had tires that lasted 2-3 races, so I > > guess this mean > > they should have been really really hard (thats a lot of laps in 3races+

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > practice) > > > > Then i do some laps and save the replay and load it into GPL > > replay-analyzer, and take > > a look at the traction-circle, and tell it to show 1.0 1.5 2.0g circles, > and > > what do you see? > > Well, the car pulls around 1.8g in some corners, and 1.5-2g in braking, > and > > only about 0.5g > > in acceleration. > > > > If this GPL Replay-analyzer is accurate in traction, then there is > something > > wrong in the physics. > > Tires that last for 3races shouldnt be able to get a car pulling 1.8g's. > > Its a shame that GPL was probably rushed since it should have had > tire-wear > > and then we shouldnt > > probably see these crazy figures? > > > > But my biggest guess is that i read something wrong? :D anyone else > noticed > > this? > > The truth of the matter is that GPL is prbably one of the most flawed and > unrealistic physics model of an actual car you can get without going the > "Johnny Herbert GP" route. > Its an impression of what a car with lots of power and little grip could

be > like. > The physics model reality in that it *could* model the physics of a 1967GP

Quoted text (7 lines)

> car fairly accuratly using the same engine but it doesn't. > The cars are total fantasy. > > The only reason people feel it to be realistic is because it is hard as > opposed to arcades which are easy. This is one thing I've alays wondered > about GPL. > It models the movement of a high-ish power, low grip car well but it

doesn't > model a 1967 F1 car, not by a long shot. > >

"John Pancoast" wrote... > While maybe not from the same approach as you, I agree. > Like N4, I've always thought the grip, etc. of the stock > F1 physics in GPL was a bit over the top. > > <snip> Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive in the real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them. That doesn't, for me, detract from the fact the model was amazing for it's day. Technical superior to anything at it's release and the best at translating the car's actions to the (sim)driver. GPL is also still the best internet multiplayer open wheel sim, IMO. If there is to be a next step in 3rd party development for GPL, I think it has to be revisiting the model and the simulated parameters for the cars/tyres. Jan. =---

Yep, agreed. Should we just say it now......................CART Sim ! <G> -John "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > " > > Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive inthe > real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them. > > That doesn't, for me, detract from the fact the model was amazing for it's > day. Technical superior to anything at it's release and the best at > translating the car's actions to the (sim)driver. GPL is also still thebest

Quoted text (11 lines)

> internet multiplayer open wheel sim, IMO. > > If there is to be a next step in 3rd party development for GPL, I think it > has to be revisiting the model and the simulated parameters for the > cars/tyres. > > Jan. > =--- > > >

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes: [snip] > Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive in the > real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them. The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho. Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier than the real thing. You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing (in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer in it, everything just gets worse. I doubt GPL is a perfect simulation, or even close to it, but the major reason people find it hard is due to the limitations in the hardware used and not in the simulation itself. With good hardware and when you get used to the inherent limitations GPL is dead easy. It is easy to drive it consistently at decent lap times and it probably is to easy to drive fast lap times. _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden]

Sorry, see above<G> Even with pc limitations, stock GPL is a bit much to believe as accurate. If pc limitations make THAT much of a glaring difference as in GPL,(I don't believe they do), it needed to be done differently. IMO, the FD hack is much closer to 1967 reality, at least in terms of grip. -John "Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes: > [snip] > > Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive inthe

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them. > > The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho. > Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier > than the real thing. > > You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing > (in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision > high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to > small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low > rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke > compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that > you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have > a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer > in it, everything just gets worse. > > I doubt GPL is a perfect simulation, or even close to it, but > the major reason people find it hard is due to the limitations > in the hardware used and not in the simulation itself. With good > hardware and when you get used to the inherent limitations GPL > is dead easy. It is easy to drive it consistently at decent lap > times and it probably is to easy to drive fast lap times. > > _ > Mats Lofkvist > [email hidden]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:28:04 GMT, "Rowdy *Rodney* Piper" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Er, I think you will find the final product was very rushed and left out >many vital features which it was supposed to have. > >It basically matches most peoles impressions of what it must feel like to >drvie one of these caers but it' not based on any data or anything at all. On what data or anything at all is your statement based? Andre

How 'bout we just badger the crap out of the Papy guys to patch good old GPL *just one more time* - this time with N2002's tire model code. That should do nicely. (who needs wings anyway; they just ruin racing ;-) ) SB "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (45 lines)

> Sorry, see above<G> Even with pc limitations, stock GPL is a bit much to > believe as accurate. If pc limitations make THAT much of a glaring > difference as in GPL,(I don't believe they do), it needed to be done > differently. > IMO, the FD hack is much closer to 1967 reality, at least in terms of > grip. > > -John > > > "Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes: > > [snip] > > > Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive in > the > > > real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them. > > > > The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho. > > Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier > > than the real thing. > > > > You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing > > (in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision > > high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to > > small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low > > rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke > > compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that > > you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have > > a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer > > in it, everything just gets worse. > > > > I doubt GPL is a perfect simulation, or even close to it, but > > the major reason people find it hard is due to the limitations > > in the hardware used and not in the simulation itself. With good > > hardware and when you get used to the inherent limitations GPL > > is dead easy. It is easy to drive it consistently at decent lap > > times and it probably is to easy to drive fast lap times. > > > > _ > > Mats Lofkvist > > [email hidden] > > >

If you mean the statement about it being rushed, there was someone who scanned an old advertisment for GPL over at legendscentral forum, and it clearly stated things like "8 player over lan" :D and tire-wear, and wheatersimulation. As we know, its not limited to 8players, nor does it have tirewear, and nor does it have wheater. "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:28:04 GMT, "Rowdy *Rodney* Piper" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Er, I think you will find the final product was very rushed and left out > >many vital features which it was supposed to have. > > > >It basically matches most peoles impressions of what it must feel like to > >drvie one of these caers but it' not based on any data or anything at

all. > > On what data or anything at all is your statement based? > > Andre >

No, I like GPL as is, thank you :) -John "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xqPo8.137435$[email hidden]... > How 'bout we just badger the crap out of the Papy guys to patch good oldGPL *just one more time* - this time with N2002's tire > model code. That should do nicely. (who needs wings anyway; they justruin racing ;-) ) > > SB > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]... > > Sorry, see above<G> Even with pc limitations, stock GPL is a bit muchto

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > believe as accurate. If pc limitations make THAT much of a glaring > > difference as in GPL,(I don't believe they do), it needed to be done > > differently. > > IMO, the FD hack is much closer to 1967 reality, at least in terms of > > grip. > > > > -John > > > > > > "Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > [snip] > > > > Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to

drive in > > the > > > > real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go racethem.

Quoted text (30 lines)

> > > > > > The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho. > > > Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier > > > than the real thing. > > > > > > You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing > > > (in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision > > > high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to > > > small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low > > > rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke > > > compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that > > > you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have > > > a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer > > > in it, everything just gets worse. > > > > > > I doubt GPL is a perfect simulation, or even close to it, but > > > the major reason people find it hard is due to the limitations > > > in the hardware used and not in the simulation itself. With good > > > hardware and when you get used to the inherent limitations GPL > > > is dead easy. It is easy to drive it consistently at decent lap > > > times and it probably is to easy to drive fast lap times. > > > > > > _ > > > Mats Lofkvist > > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > >

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:46:00 GMT, "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>If you mean the statement about it being rushed, there >was someone who scanned an old advertisment for GPL >over at legendscentral forum, and it clearly stated things like "8 player >over lan" :D and tire-wear, and wheatersimulation. As we know, its not >limited to 8players, nor does it have tirewear, and nor does it have >wheater. >

I was refering to this statement: 'It basically matches most peoles impressions of what it must feel like to drvie one of these caers but it' not based on any data or anything at all.' I don't say GPL is 100% accurate, to be honest I don't even care that much, but a statement like this without any actual proof is worthless. And calling GPL a rushed product because some things were not included in the final version is plain silly. Papy spent a couple of years working on GPL, and welcome to reality, no publisher wants to wait 10 years before a game is released. Andre

Well, if they had a couple of years todo it, and they didnt, then i dont know what to say :) Atleast we could have get it in a patch, dont you think?. "Andre Warringa" >

Quoted text (7 lines)

> And calling GPL a rushed product because some things were not included > in the final version is plain silly. Papy spent a couple of years > working on GPL, and welcome to reality, no publisher wants to wait 10 > years before a game is released. > > Andre >

On 29 Mar 2002 00:42:24 +0100, Mats Lofkvist <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes: >[snip] >> Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive in the >> real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them. > >The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho. >Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier >than the real thing. > >You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing >(in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision >high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to >small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low >rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke >compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that >you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have >a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer >in it, everything just gets worse.

Don't you think it's better to reserve your judgement until we actually *have* a [very]realistic sim to compare with? Or at least a decent tyre-model? If more realistic means even more harder we can just quit this altogether and go back to Need for Speed, IMHO. Because I don't think I have neural capacity to cope with a more "realistic" GPL. Funny thing this in every GPL debate, that everyone has this premise that GPL _is realistic_ just like so. It's almost an axiom to some, it doesn't even have to be justified. All arguments about it is based on _disproving_ the physics of GPL. How about turning turning the tables on the matter? All the _proof_ that the GPL physics is correct is practically nonexistant. Even when there is something to deal with, like Clark inboard footage from 1963 there's umpteen explanations left and right on why he didn't slide round at 15degrees slipangle and why just GPL is how it "really" was. Let's see what Papy had to work with, really. Did they have a contemporary car to study? Did they have actual engine data to work with? Did they have contemporary tyre-data(slip-characteristics, even friction data et.c) to work with? No? Then HOW they could have gotten it right is what I would like to know. MY guess is that most is just pure guesswork or pulled from what books one can find. Let's compare it to what we _do_ know. We know that the engine is pretty much is a polynome, prehaps what's making the Cosworth way off in characteristics. The tyres have a peculiar longitudinal slip factor at all times, which btw is still there in N2002. That slip probably wreaks havoc with the differential when both wheels slip constantly. Maybe that's why the differentials behave ass-backwards also? Or maybe we're just OVERANALYZING and giving to much credit to a GAME? :-?

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:25:27 GMT, "Rowdy *Rodney* Piper" <[email hidden]> wrote: >The truth of the matter is that GPL is prbably one of the most flawed and >unrealistic physics model of an actual car you can get without going the >"Johnny Herbert GP" route. I dare you to name a few driving games (beside N4 and N2002) with a better PHYSICS model as GPL. >Its an impression of what a car with lots of power and little grip could be >like. >The physics model reality in that it *could* model the physics of a 1967 GP >car fairly accuratly using the same engine but it doesn't. >The cars are total fantasy. I fully disagree, beside N4 & N2002, GPL has the most sophisticated physics model of todays racing games. There is no flaw, only parts which aren't modelled. What _might_ be wrong, is the data they used for the cars in GPL. (Since I never drove a '67 F1 car, I can't comment on this) (I must add that the tyre model in GPL is a bit suspect. It might be the data they used for the tyres, or the tyremodel is too basic, I don't know) Remco

My $.02, I hear reports that some professional drivers (including Juan Motoya and J. Villenueve) use GPL and claim it's the most realistic they've seen. It's obviously got something going for it, or there wouldn't be so many of us wasting our time talking about it instead of racing! ;-) Jim na_biker wrote:

Quoted text (54 lines)

> On 29 Mar 2002 00:42:24 +0100, Mats Lofkvist <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes: > >[snip] > >> Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive in the > >> real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go race them. > > > >The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho. > >Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier > >than the real thing. > > > >You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing > >(in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision > >high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to > >small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low > >rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke > >compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that > >you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have > >a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer > >in it, everything just gets worse. > > Don't you think it's better to reserve your judgement until we > actually *have* a [very]realistic sim to compare with? Or at least a > decent tyre-model? If more realistic means even more harder we can > just quit this altogether and go back to Need for Speed, IMHO. Because > I don't think I have neural capacity to cope with a more "realistic" > GPL. > > Funny thing this in every GPL debate, that everyone has this premise > that GPL _is realistic_ just like so. It's almost an axiom to some, it > doesn't even have to be justified. All arguments about it is based on > _disproving_ the physics of GPL. How about turning turning the tables > on the matter? All the _proof_ that the GPL physics is correct is > practically nonexistant. Even when there is something to deal with, > like Clark inboard footage from 1963 there's umpteen explanations left > and right on why he didn't slide round at 15degrees slipangle and why > just GPL is how it "really" was. > > Let's see what Papy had to work with, really. Did they have a > contemporary car to study? Did they have actual engine data to work > with? Did they have contemporary tyre-data(slip-characteristics, even > friction data et.c) to work with? No? Then HOW they could have gotten > it right is what I would like to know. MY guess is that most is just > pure guesswork or pulled from what books one can find. > > Let's compare it to what we _do_ know. We know that the engine is > pretty much is a polynome, prehaps what's making the Cosworth way off > in characteristics. The tyres have a peculiar longitudinal slip factor > at all times, which btw is still there in N2002. That slip probably > wreaks havoc with the differential when both wheels slip constantly. > Maybe that's why the differentials behave ass-backwards also? > > Or maybe we're just OVERANALYZING and giving to much credit to a GAME? > :-?

"Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:25:27 GMT, "Rowdy *Rodney* Piper" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > I dare you to name a few driving games (beside N4 and N2002) with a > better PHYSICS model as GPL. F1 2001. No, I'm not kidding. It's true some of the track modelling is questionable, and like all sims there are people claiming that the grip or the aero or something is wrong, but I think the underlying physics code is as solid and comprehensive as you will find anywhere. > I fully disagree, beside N4 & N2002, GPL has the most sophisticated > physics model of todays racing games. There is no flaw, only parts > which aren't modelled. Sophisticated? I don't think so. While I can't prove this, I suspect very strongly that GPL uses the "simplified suspension model" with virtual links, roll centers, equivalent wheel rates, etc. I think that is why we see "wheel rates" rather than spring rates in the setup screen. I think this is why the cars feel so wallowy and imprecise compared to other sims. I also think doing a full kinematic suspension model at 288 hz on the average P200 that was around when GPL was released would have been impossible. More modern sims have taken advantage of more modern hardware and are doing more thorough and comprehensive physics modelling. F1 2001 for example appears to have a full kinematics model of the suspension. GPL was excellent for the time it was released, but that was three years ago. Computing power has more than quadrupled since then. > (I must add that the tyre model in GPL is a bit suspect. It might be > the data they used for the tyres, or the tyremodel is too basic, I > don't know) Agreed. It seems to be counterproductive in GPL to run more than about 1 degree of negative camber. I don't think that's realistic, but I could be wrong. 2 to 3 degrees of negative camber is common with modern race cars on radial tires, and my understanding is that radials are less responsive to camber change than bias ply tires.

Agreed, it's still the king of sims IMO.............but anytime someone believes a public figure's comments about a game isn't related to being paid for it..............well, I have a bridge to sell you <G> Don't think it's the case here, but 99.9% of the time, it is. -John "The Carvalho Family" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > My $.02, I hear reports that some professional drivers (including JuanMotoya and > J. Villenueve) use GPL and claim it's the most realistic they've seen.It's > obviously got something going for it, or there wouldn't be so many of uswasting

Quoted text (11 lines)

> our time talking about it instead of racing! ;-) > > Jim > > na_biker wrote: > > > On 29 Mar 2002 00:42:24 +0100, Mats Lofkvist <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes: > > >[snip] > > >> Have to agree as well. The cars couldn't have been like that to drive

in the > > >> real world or they wouldn't have found anyone prepared to go racethem.

Quoted text (49 lines)

> > > > > >The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally wrong imho. > > >Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably easier > > >than the real thing. > > > > > >You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing > > >(in physics) to be 'easy'. After all you are using a low precision > > >high latency controller using only visual inputs on a way to > > >small low resolution screen that is updated at a ridicously low > > >rate. Maybe you have force feedback that at its best is a joke > > >compared to the real thing also. And this is all assuming that > > >you are using the best hardware available for now, if you have > > >a slow computer or a wheel with a noisy $0.03 potentiometer > > >in it, everything just gets worse. > > > > Don't you think it's better to reserve your judgement until we > > actually *have* a [very]realistic sim to compare with? Or at least a > > decent tyre-model? If more realistic means even more harder we can > > just quit this altogether and go back to Need for Speed, IMHO. Because > > I don't think I have neural capacity to cope with a more "realistic" > > GPL. > > > > Funny thing this in every GPL debate, that everyone has this premise > > that GPL _is realistic_ just like so. It's almost an axiom to some, it > > doesn't even have to be justified. All arguments about it is based on > > _disproving_ the physics of GPL. How about turning turning the tables > > on the matter? All the _proof_ that the GPL physics is correct is > > practically nonexistant. Even when there is something to deal with, > > like Clark inboard footage from 1963 there's umpteen explanations left > > and right on why he didn't slide round at 15degrees slipangle and why > > just GPL is how it "really" was. > > > > Let's see what Papy had to work with, really. Did they have a > > contemporary car to study? Did they have actual engine data to work > > with? Did they have contemporary tyre-data(slip-characteristics, even > > friction data et.c) to work with? No? Then HOW they could have gotten > > it right is what I would like to know. MY guess is that most is just > > pure guesswork or pulled from what books one can find. > > > > Let's compare it to what we _do_ know. We know that the engine is > > pretty much is a polynome, prehaps what's making the Cosworth way off > > in characteristics. The tyres have a peculiar longitudinal slip factor > > at all times, which btw is still there in N2002. That slip probably > > wreaks havoc with the differential when both wheels slip constantly. > > Maybe that's why the differentials behave ass-backwards also? > > > > Or maybe we're just OVERANALYZING and giving to much credit to a GAME? > > :-? >

na_biker <[email hidden]> wrote: > We know that the engine is pretty much is a polynome A what?

> > We know that the engine is pretty much is a polynome > > A what? A polynomial is a mathematical expression consisting of a sum of terms, each term including a variable or variables raised to a power and multiplied by a coefficient. The simplest polynomials have one variable. A one-variable (univariate) polynomial of degree n has the following form: See - piece of cake!

"Mats Lofkvist" wrote... > <snip> > The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally > wrong imho. The implied assumption I find GPL too hard is false as well. > Given the limitations of a pc simulation, GPL is probably > easier than the real thing. In some ways it is (one doesn't have to suffer the cornering loads, for example), in some ways it isn't. My point about the cars and the physics implementation in GPL is that on the one hand they are too forgiving and vague, while on the other quite prone to unpredictable reactions to upsets. I have limited real life racing experience, but I'm pretty sure any racing driver would park the "GPL car" after one lap and walk away. As simulated racing cars go, however, GPL's implementation was the best of it's day and still is quite formidable today. > You just can't expect a pc simulation close to the real thing > (in physics) to be 'easy'. Not easy, no... it shouldn't be, but intuitive. While miles better than any other sim at it's release it does take far too long for the experienced simmer to get somewhat up to speed in GPL. It shouldn't take more than a few familiarization laps to get within sight of one's potential. It might take ages to actually get there. I've had fairly little time in NR2002, for example, but I already find I can pretty much pre-empt the car in most situations. While I still find it hard to judge how much braking is required to hold an inside line in GPL, it comes quasi natural in NR2002. I judged where to brake, modulation and transition into the corner adequately the first time I went for an inside move into T1 at the Glen just now (the simulated Terry Labonte had no answer, anyway ;-)) > After all you are using a low precision high latency controller > using only visual inputs on a way to small low resolution screen > that is updated at a ridicously low rate. Maybe you have force > feedback that at its best is a joke compared to the real thing > also. It doesn't have to be exactly the same feeling, as long as it's consistent with the attitude of the car and with one's perception of what is possible in reality. The brain will translate automatically. > And this is all assuming that you are using the best hardware > available for now, if you have a slow computer or a wheel with > a noisy $0.03 potentiometer in it, everything just gets worse. I ascertain NR2002 does a better job on current hardware (as it should, being nearly 3.5 years more recent).

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I doubt GPL is a perfect simulation, or even close to it, but > the major reason people find it hard is due to the limitations > in the hardware used and not in the simulation itself. With > good hardware and when you get used to the inherent > limitations GPL is dead easy. It is easy to drive it > consistently at decent lap times and it probably is to easy > to drive fast lap times.

It's too easy to take advantage of quirks in the model and the fact nothing "wears" but fuel, true. It's far easier to be consistent in other sims, however. I used to attribute that to less simulation sofistication in those games, which is partly the case, but I've come to realise there's more to it. Trust me on this, I've been simming for 9 years and have been forced to re-evaluate my position a number of times over this period. I don't say this lightly. Don't get me wrong though... having said all this, I still love GPL to bits. It's just have had certain misgivings, neigh nitpicks, since practically day 1. Jan. =---

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:30:44 -0800, The Carvalho Family <[email hidden]> wrote: >My $.02, I hear reports that some professional drivers (including Juan Motoya and >J. Villenueve) use GPL and claim it's the most realistic they've seen. It's >obviously got something going for it, or there wouldn't be so many of us wasting >our time talking about it instead of racing! ;-) Well, ->most<- realistic is by definition a relative term. GPL certainly was groundbreaking in terms of using Euler equations and inverse kinematics at high frequency. That gives it a pretty darn realistic impression of weightshifts and inertia which of course is a big deal whilst racing. And since at the time GPL was the only sim that did that it was _the_ most realistic sim and a huge leap forward. But one cannot expect what JPM and JV say to carry over to every point or detail. If you could go over the details with any of them I'm sure we would unearth some very peculiar artifacts. Actually I think it would be pretty interesting if one could do that with an experienced driver. Like if they think powersliding through Vialone(a.k.a. Ascari today) or Gresil(righthander at Rouen) is realistic. Which you must do since tightening the diff makes the car oversteer in flat-out turns in GPL. Just to prove my point, JPM also swears by GP2! But no one would ever try to convince somebody else that GP2 is an actual realistic F1 sim by any standards. It gave a decent impression of driving an F1, and it was certainly the ->most<- realistic sim at the time(well, maybe not counting ICR2). But like everyone know you dont even have to peel a single thing off of it for it to show some blatant errors. I think to a lesser degree the same applies to GPL.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:47:19 GMT, [email hidden] (440825) wrote: >na_biker <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> We know that the engine is pretty much is a polynome > >A what? A simple mathematical equation.

Don't know about JV, but IIRC, the JPM quote came before the current crop of F1 sims (GP3, F1RC & F1-2001) was released. So he really didn't have a lot to choose from at the time, did he? I remember an interview with his dad, who said he used GP2 to learn the tracks for F3000, as well as for determining gear ratios. Really praised GP2's track modeling. Who knows what he'd say now? Well, there is that Williams F1 game... ;-) SB "na_biker" <[email hidden]> wrote...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Well, ->most<- realistic is by definition a relative term. GPL > certainly was groundbreaking in terms of using Euler equations and > inverse kinematics at high frequency. That gives it a pretty darn > realistic impression of weightshifts and inertia which of course is a > big deal whilst racing. And since at the time GPL was the only sim > that did that it was _the_ most realistic sim and a huge leap forward. > > But one cannot expect what JPM and JV say to carry over to every point > or detail. If you could go over the details with any of them I'm sure > we would unearth some very peculiar artifacts. Actually I think it > would be pretty interesting if one could do that with an experienced > driver. Like if they think powersliding through Vialone(a.k.a. Ascari > today) or Gresil(righthander at Rouen) is realistic. Which you must do > since tightening the diff makes the car oversteer in flat-out turns in > GPL. Just to prove my point, JPM also swears by GP2! But no one would > ever try to convince somebody else that GP2 is an actual realistic F1 > sim by any standards. It gave a decent impression of driving an F1, > and it was certainly the ->most<- realistic sim at the time(well, > maybe not counting ICR2). But like everyone know you dont even have to > peel a single thing off of it for it to show some blatant errors. I > think to a lesser degree the same applies to GPL. > >

My first impression was that it did feel like a real car, but I had the strongest urge to immediately return to the pits and punch my engineer for sending me out in such a deathtrap. "Are you trying to KILL me, or what? FIX this damned thing!" ;-) SB "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote... <snip> > I have limited real life racing experience, but I'm pretty sure any racing > driver would park the "GPL car" after one lap and walk away.<snip>

>> We know that the engine is pretty much is a polynome >> >> A what? > See - piece of cake! < OK, so polynome = piece of cake. Got it, thanks. (curiously, the online merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary did not recognize the word).

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >> We know that the engine is pretty much is a polynome > >> > (curiously, the online merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary > did not recognize the word). I think he meant "the rpm vs torque curve is pretty much polynomial", i.e. of the form torque = a + bx + cx^2 +dx^3...... where a,b,c,d... are constants and x is rpm.

<[email hidden]> wrote...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> <snip> > OK, so polynome = piece of cake. > > Got it, thanks. > > > (curiously, the online merriam-Webster Collegiate > Dictionary did not recognize the word).

That's because the actual term and spelling is polynomial. Jan./who, from other posters, got the impression the engines were done via look-up tables...

Radial tires have less camber stiffness than bias-ply tires, which is a behavior in the linear (low-slip) range which is similar to toe-in. Radial tires do, however, develop *peak* lateral friction at fairly high camber angles (nonlinear range). -Dave P. "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a82ap2$p83h6$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (43 lines)

> "Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:25:27 GMT, "Rowdy *Rodney* Piper" <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > > I dare you to name a few driving games (beside N4 and N2002) with a > > better PHYSICS model as GPL. > > F1 2001. No, I'm not kidding. It's true some of the track modelling is > questionable, and like all sims there are people claiming that the grip > or the aero or something is wrong, but I think the underlying physics > code is as solid and comprehensive as you will find anywhere. > > > I fully disagree, beside N4 & N2002, GPL has the most sophisticated > > physics model of todays racing games. There is no flaw, only parts > > which aren't modelled. > > Sophisticated? I don't think so. While I can't prove this, I suspect > very strongly that GPL uses the "simplified suspension model" with > virtual links, roll centers, equivalent wheel rates, etc. I think that > is why we see "wheel rates" rather than spring rates in the setup > screen. I think this is why the cars feel so wallowy and imprecise > compared to other sims. I also think doing a full kinematic suspension > model at 288 hz on the average P200 that was around when GPL was > released would have been impossible. More modern sims have taken > advantage of more modern hardware and are doing more thorough and > comprehensive physics modelling. F1 2001 for example appears to have a > full kinematics model of the suspension. GPL was excellent for the time > it was released, but that was three years ago. Computing power has more > than quadrupled since then. > > > (I must add that the tyre model in GPL is a bit suspect. It might be > > the data they used for the tyres, or the tyremodel is too basic, I > > don't know) > > Agreed. It seems to be counterproductive in GPL to run more than about > 1 degree of negative camber. I don't think that's realistic, but I > could be wrong. 2 to 3 degrees of negative camber is common with modern > race cars on radial tires, and my understanding is that radials are less > responsive to camber change than bias ply tires. > > >

"Dave Pollatsek" wrote: > Radial tires have less camber stiffness than bias-ply tires, which is a > behavior in the linear (low-slip) range which is similar to toe-in. Radial > tires do, however, develop *peak* lateral friction at fairly high camber > angles (nonlinear range). Blimey, Days of Thunder is on in the UK in a minute. I am beginning to relate more & more with Cole Trickle than with some of the posts on this group these days. I am just a driver... Sadly for my wife she doesn't see the likeness with Tom :-) Tony

Ah (light goes on above my head). So at a small camber angle, like -1 degree or so, I will get more camber thrust from a bias ply tire, but as I increase camber angle the bias ply tire will reach its limit and taper off before the radial does, and the radial eventually exhibits more peak camber thrust at its optimum angle? Makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification, Dave. "Dave Pollatsek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ca78149$0$79562$[email hidden]... > Radial tires have less camber stiffness than bias-ply tires, which isa > behavior in the linear (low-slip) range which is similar to toe-in.Radial > tires do, however, develop *peak* lateral friction at fairly highcamber > angles (nonlinear range). > -Dave P. >

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Mats Lofkvist" wrote... > > <snip> > > The implied assumption that GPL is to hard is totally > > wrong imho. > > The implied assumption I find GPL too hard is false as well. >

Ok, I assumed wrong there. The main point of my longish rant was that with high end hardware, GPL _is_ as easy as one can expect imho. Maybe the major problem with GPL is that it behaves so different (and is so much harder) with suboptimal hardware (e.g. the best money could buy in 1998 :-). _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden]

"Mats Lofkvist" wrote: > The main point of my longish rant was that with high end hardware, > GPL _is_ as easy as one can expect imho. Maybe the major problem with > GPL is that it behaves so different (and is so much harder) with > suboptimal hardware (e.g. the best money could buy in 1998 :-). I always thought GPL scaled very nicely, form its early days in 98 with 640x480 and a rendition card to today's faster processors and graphics cards. Ok so getting 36 fps looked pretty awful compared to today's PCs but it was quite playable. To me that is lot of the charm with GPL, as the third party community has added and added to it to scale with the hardware. With all the addon bits it looks as good as any other IMHO. As for the easy or hard bit it meets my expectations pretty reasonably. I can run around consistently at high 1:05s at the Glen for instance and the replays look about right, I am not at the extreme angles discussed elsewhere. Of course I am probably 2 secs off the really quick guys. It depends what you compare with - the quick GPL drivers or the footage and lap times of F1 drivers in 67. If I take the latter then it feels right. If I try to catch up the quicker guys then yep GPL is too hard! It has been discussed many times before, but if the real drivers could have slid through fast bends like some GPLers without fear of the consequences then they would have gone quicker. Learning sim racing tends to be the opposite of real racing. Start fast and learn where you have to slow down. Of course in GPL's case the slowing down takes that bit longer than modern F1 sims, which tends to make it frustrating at first. Tony

"Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> writes: > I always thought GPL scaled very nicely, form its early days in 98 with > 640x480 and a rendition card to today's faster processors and graphics > cards. Ok so getting 36 fps looked pretty awful compared to today's PCs > but it was quite playable. Yes, it was playable, but it is amazing how much my consistency and speed improved at almost every single hardware upgrade I have done. So even though GPL is fun on lesser hardware, it also is a huge handicap imho. Especially when racing online. _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:14:44 -0500, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (30 lines)

>"Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:25:27 GMT, "Rowdy *Rodney* Piper" <[email hidden]> >> wrote: >> >> I dare you to name a few driving games (beside N4 and N2002) with a >> better PHYSICS model as GPL. > >F1 2001. No, I'm not kidding. It's true some of the track modelling is >questionable, and like all sims there are people claiming that the grip >or the aero or something is wrong, but I think the underlying physics >code is as solid and comprehensive as you will find anywhere. > >> I fully disagree, beside N4 & N2002, GPL has the most sophisticated >> physics model of todays racing games. There is no flaw, only parts >> which aren't modelled. > >Sophisticated? I don't think so. While I can't prove this, I suspect >very strongly that GPL uses the "simplified suspension model" with >virtual links, roll centers, equivalent wheel rates, etc. I think that >is why we see "wheel rates" rather than spring rates in the setup >screen. I think this is why the cars feel so wallowy and imprecise >compared to other sims. I also think doing a full kinematic suspension >model at 288 hz on the average P200 that was around when GPL was >released would have been impossible. More modern sims have taken >advantage of more modern hardware and are doing more thorough and >comprehensive physics modelling. F1 2001 for example appears to have a >full kinematics model of the suspension. GPL was excellent for the time >it was released, but that was three years ago. Computing power has more >than quadrupled since then.

I meant sophisticated in relation with other sims. This because the poster I replied to let it sound as if GPL has the worst physicsmodel of all racingsims ever released. (I must add that I'm aware of the fact that he mixed the physicsmodel and the values you put in a physicsmodel up, and yes, some data in GPL might be off) About F2001, I seems to have a decent physicsmodel, but somehow it doesn't feel right to me. Of course, it could be the controller setup, which plain sucks IMO. Also, since you can't see the suspension working when you view the replay, it's kinda hard to judge things. Remco

"Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:14:44 -0500, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > I meant sophisticated in relation with other sims. This because the > poster I replied to let it sound as if GPL has the worst physicsmodel > of all racingsims ever released. (I must add that I'm aware of the > fact that he mixed the physicsmodel and the values you put in a > physicsmodel up, and yes, some data in GPL might be off)

Well no, I certainly wouldn't call it the worst. I guess I need to be more clear. I enjoy GPL, even though (or perhaps because) it is currently beyond my ability. But I think people should be aware that GPL is about feel rather than realism. It has the most visceral feel of any sim I have played, but I do think we have enough comments on record from real racers who have tried it (including one which is quoted in the Alison Hine interview) to say that it is not the most realistic sim around. Fun - yes. Deep and involving - yes. Convincing and immersive feel - yes. Realistic - no, at least not to the degree that most people seem to think. But it is unrealistic in the opposite sense from an arcade game - arcade games are arbitrarily simpler, GPL seems arbitrarily more difficult. Some people like that, but it shouldn't be mistaken for realism. > About F2001, I seems to have a decent physicsmodel, but somehow it > doesn't feel right to me. Of course, it could be the controller setup, > which plain sucks IMO. Also, since you can't see the suspension > working when you view the replay, it's kinda hard to judge things. Hmm. I think a lot of people would agree with you on that, but I'm not sure I do. The only other modern F1 sims I have played are GP3 and F1CS2K, and I definitely feel like both the physics accuracy (in terms of comparing to real world telemetry) and the feel are better in F1 2001 than in those two. But I certainly agree that the controller setup sucks and really needs to be fixed for F1 2002.

On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 11:31:56 -0500, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >than in those two. But I certainly agree that the controller setup >sucks and really needs to be fixed for F1 2002. Nah.. after 5 months of frustrating experimenting I allready got my controller working in F1 2001! Andre

LOL! Exactly. ;o) "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 11:31:56 -0500, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > >than in those two. But I certainly agree that the controller setup > >sucks and really needs to be fixed for F1 2002. > > Nah.. after 5 months of frustrating experimenting I allready got my > controller working in F1 2001! > > Andre >