GP4 Video

http://gamenation.com.au/news/?action=view&id=114 Looks good! I might buy it!!! Gerry

http://gamenation.com.au/news/?action=view&id=114 Looks good! I might buy it!!! Gerry

with no internet multiplay? "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > http://gamenation.com.au/news/?action=view&id=114 > > Looks good! I might buy it!!! > > Gerry

Wou 'might' buy it? I WILL buy it! It looks darn impressive to me, but still seems to have that Crammond feel, which I like very much. Masa "rik zeppelin" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:KE8j8.75931$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> with no internet multiplay? > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > http://gamenation.com.au/news/?action=view&id=114 > > > > Looks good! I might buy it!!! > > > > Gerry > >

rik zeppelin wrote: > with no internet multiplay? of course that is the big problem with it, but therefore we can still get back to gpl ;) still looking forward to it ! maybe rene smit patches it for internet play, all is possible :)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> http://gamenation.com.au/news/?action=view&id=114 >> >> Looks good! I might buy it!!! >> >> Gerry

rik zeppelin wrote: > > with no internet multiplay? Yeah, nice hotlapping toy to get me in the mood for watching a GP. :) Gerry

I'm sold on F12001 "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > rik zeppelin wrote: > > > > with no internet multiplay? > > Yeah, nice hotlapping toy to get me in the mood for watching a GP. :) > > Gerry

> Wou 'might' buy it? I WILL buy it! Wou = You (of course)

rik zeppelin wrote: > I'm sold on F12001 I didn't bother buying it.. Gerry

rik zeppelin wrote: > I'm sold on F12001 I didn't bother buying it.. Gerry

you ought to try it, it made gp3 look like an antique. and i was a gp3 fan. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > rik zeppelin wrote: > > > I'm sold on F12001 > > I didn't bother buying it.. > > Gerry

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:55:22 +0100, Stefan Roth <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>rik zeppelin wrote: > >> with no internet multiplay? > >of course that is the big problem with it, but therefore we can still get >back to gpl ;) >still looking forward to it ! >maybe rene smit patches it for internet play, all is possible :) >

Well, given the fact that Internet connections in this country are *awful*, the most I can hope for is playing over a LAN - *if* I can find anybody else around here willing to play... -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( http://www.GeoCities.com/Hollywood/2645 remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

rik zeppelin wrote: > > you ought to try it, it made gp3 look like an antique. > and i was a gp3 fan. I have tried it, I just didn't buy it. Gerry

"Thirdly, getting the in-game lighting and reflections to behave near to as it does in real life is a difficult but rewarding process. Under the close watchful eye of Geoff, we have spent an age getting the in-game lighting to do just that." If they've got the reflections thing done properly, then driving in the wet should be sensational. :) Rafe Mc On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:57:57 +0000, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote: >http://gamenation.com.au/news/?action=view&id=114 > >Looks good! I might buy it!!! > >Gerry

* Bump mapped perturbance (heat haze) from engine heat This feature sounds pretty damn cool as well :) Rafe Mc

> with no internet multiplay? Yep...I'd rather LAN play any day. Lot cheaper too...(requires like-minded friends of course)

> > you ought to try it, it made gp3 look like an antique. > > and i was a gp3 fan. > > I have tried it, I just didn't buy it. I was a big GP3 fan and hated F12001 when I first played it. The patch came along though, and gradually I got into it and now I can't get enough of it. I still miss some of the cool features from GP3 though like realistic weather, proper tyre wear, good AI etc.

> If they've got the reflections thing done properly, then driving in > the wet should be sensational. :) Yeah, I think that the car lighting looks very artificial in F12001 compared to GP3 which looks more natural (albeit blocky)

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a6nacr$fvkne$[email hidden]... > > with no internet multiplay? > > Yep...I'd rather LAN play any day. Lot cheaper too...(requireslike-minded > friends of course) > > With my notebook and portable controller, this has always been my preference. My friend and I had rock-steady LAN games in GP3 (of course I agree that the LAN experience with GP3 was dismal with more people hooked on). Stephen

and a network....... "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a6nacr$fvkne$[email hidden]... > > with no internet multiplay? > > Yep...I'd rather LAN play any day. Lot cheaper too...(requireslike-minded > friends of course) > >

At the very least, a 15 buck crossover cable. Next up the line is a simple 40 buck hub and some cheap network cards. Stephen "rik zeppelin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%bJj8.715$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> and a network....... > > "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a6nacr$fvkne$[email hidden]... > > > with no internet multiplay? > > > > Yep...I'd rather LAN play any day. Lot cheaper too...(requires > like-minded > > friends of course) > > > > > >

Damien Smith wrote: > > > with no internet multiplay? > > Yep...I'd rather LAN play any day. Lot cheaper too...(requires like-minded > friends of course) 'Powerful argument' isn't your forte, is it?

"Stephen F." wrote: > > At the very least, a 15 buck crossover cable. I was using serial cable TEN years ago! This is the TWENTY FIRST century you know!

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:42:40 +0000, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > >"Stephen F." wrote: >> >> At the very least, a 15 buck crossover cable. > >I was using serial cable TEN years ago! This is the TWENTY FIRST century >you know!

You can build a crossover *network* cable, you know. I certainly have done so. I don't think it cost me more than $5 to build, $15 seems a little high... -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( http://www.GeoCities.com/Hollywood/2645 remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > "Stephen F." wrote: > > > > At the very least, a 15 buck crossover cable. > > I was using serial cable TEN years ago! This is the TWENTY FIRST century > you know!

True. Eight years ago I was also running GP1 on a 486 with a serial cable. We got about 15fps, and we had a hell of a lot of fun. As you said, this is the 21st century. I'm aware of that, since it says so in the bottom corner of my screen. That means I can now have a portable computer with a 1GHz PIII processor and a somewhat decent GeForce2 chip which will run mind-blowing sims like GPL, F1-2001 and (perhaps) GP4 with unbelievable levels of visual detail, and at rock solid framerates. I can then pack this 5 lb wonder, together with a nice analog handheld controller which gives me enough control to match my best "wheel" laptimes, into a backpack, go to a friend's place, and plug into his machine with a data pipe which pumps 100Mbit/second, as opposed to the morse-code serial cables of old. No warping at all. Even GPL, the king of online, makes me a bit dizzy over dial-up with its jittery cars. Yeah, they're not warping all over the place, but they're jiggling like they're fueled up with Jolt cola. And I can shout at my friend. I can watch his facial expressions when he blows it entering the Parabolica. I don't have to send simple, terse chat messages. Dial-up is great, but a LAN race is always better. Stephen

"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:42:40 +0000, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]>wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > > > >"Stephen F." wrote: > >> > >> At the very least, a 15 buck crossover cable. > > > >I was using serial cable TEN years ago! This is the TWENTY FIRST century > >you know! > > You can build a crossover *network* cable, you know. I certainly have done > so. I don't think it cost me more than $5 to build, $15 seems a little

high... > Even better. I should add that prices here in Switzerland are a bit higher. My "bucks" are actually Swiss francs, so about 10 USD. The cheapest I have managed to build a network cable here was about 10SFR for materials. Stephen

> Or from the comfort of your own home, just fire up GPL, VROC and ..play against faceless nobodies..

"Stephen F." wrote: > > At the very least, a 15 buck crossover cable. Next up the line is a simple > 40 buck hub and some cheap network cards. > Yeah, all you need to do is get 20 people and computers all in the same place at the same time. No worries at all. Or from the comfort of your own home, just fire up GPL, VROC and .............

Gerry Aitken wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Damien Smith wrote: > > > > > with no internet multiplay? > > > > Yep...I'd rather LAN play any day. Lot cheaper too...(requires like-minded > > friends of course) > > 'Powerful argument' isn't your forte, is it?

LOL!

"Stephen F." wrote:

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Stephen F." wrote: > > > > > > At the very least, a 15 buck crossover cable. > > > > I was using serial cable TEN years ago! This is the TWENTY FIRST century > > you know! > > True. Eight years ago I was also running GP1 on a 486 with a serial cable. > We got about 15fps, and we had a hell of a lot of fun. > > As you said, this is the 21st century. I'm aware of that, since it says so > in the bottom corner of my screen. That means I can now have a portable > computer with a 1GHz PIII processor and a somewhat decent GeForce2 chip > which will run mind-blowing sims like GPL, F1-2001 and (perhaps) GP4 with > unbelievable levels of visual detail, and at rock solid framerates. I can > then pack this 5 lb wonder, together with a nice analog handheld controller > which gives me enough control to match my best "wheel" laptimes, into a > backpack, go to a friend's place, and plug into his machine with a data pipe > which pumps 100Mbit/second, as opposed to the morse-code serial cables of > old. No warping at all. Even GPL, the king of online, makes me a bit dizzy > over dial-up with its jittery cars. Yeah, they're not warping all over the > place, but they're jiggling like they're fueled up with Jolt cola. And I > can shout at my friend. I can watch his facial expressions when he blows it > entering the Parabolica. I don't have to send simple, terse chat messages. > > Dial-up is great, but a LAN race is always better. > > Stephen

Look, if you don't mind using a joystick, then why bother with a sim at all. Go get an Xbox and tell your friends to as well. Leave that backpack at home!

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:01:47 +1000, Byron Forbes <[email hidden]> wrote: > Look, if you don't mind using a joystick, then why bother with a sim >at all. Go get an Xbox and tell your friends to as well. Leave that >backpack at home! Le Professeur once again detects the need for clear thinking and is happy to provide his assistance with Food For Thought! Over the years, numerous threads have been devoted here to the sim vs arcade debate. What is a sim and what is an arcade racer? Obviously these discussions exist because everybody has different expectations and priorities. However, the general attitude here seems that the absolute realism of the physics makes or breaks a sim. That is: for more than half of the frequent posters here, a sim will be spoiled when a car doesn't react like it would in reality. A sim that, as a matter of speaking, *only* has correct physics to offer seems to be regarded higher than one that fails in this respect, but has everything else (see later). Along the same lines, a wheel and pedals are considered *absolutely* required to fully get the experience right. I've always had the feeling that this "hardcore" approach misses the point somewhere. The thinking has gone too much in one direction. Because it seems soobvious and because nobody really challenged it :-) So that's why I did some hard thinking to rationalize this rather "undefined" feeling that I always had. When I started, I didn't know where it would end. Turns out like some philosophical voyage of discovery of simulation, hehe :-) It's just MY view, which I do not consider better or worse than other views. All that I want is that the hardcore guys give it an honest read. And of course discuss it... throw it all out if the logic fails!! :-) Ok, here goes... I'd like to start with a simple question: WHY do racing simulators exist at all? Well, millions of people would like to experience racing. Unfortunately, for several reasons, only a few hundred worldwide are able to *actually* experience it. Therefore, a racingsim offers ordinary people the best possible illusion of racing. And to achieve this, it uses the virtual reality capacities of a computer. Right. If this would be my ultimate answer, then I could just as well stop here because with this definition, the what I call "hardcore approach" would be unchallengable <G> HOWEVER, we have peeled only the first layer of the onion :-) The key here is that, to get to the essence, we also have to answer the question why realworld racing ITSELF (thinking about F1 in particular) exists. Why people want to be a racecar driver and why those who already are, find it enjoyable? I've put together a list of reasons here (would be interested to hear whether anyone can add things?). They are in no particular order, and most are interconnected in some way. 1) glamour; the 'happy few', exotic places and flashy cars 2) getting respect, BEING someone; because of 1) 3) competition; measuring yourself against others 4) the challenge,getting the best out of yourself; a battle with your own capacities 5) *physical* sensations: G-forces, arms hurt, bumps...; these give you an adrenalin rush because you are well aware that you're "taming" a powerful beast 6) *sound* and *smell* of racecars; (HOW it sounds and smells is secondary to the fact that these particular sounds and smells are associated with racing) 7) *visual* sensations; the impression of moving very very fast 8) the danger involved; another source of adrenalin (9) commercials, pit girls,groupies, your own Jet and champagne or Guinness<G> Apart from the smell and the danger, pretty much everything in this list can be simulated to some degree. The physical sensations are difficult, the online community gives respect and, together with AI, competition. Licenses give you an idea of taking part in the real glamour. Item (4), the challenge, can be broken down further. The challenge consists of constantly pushing yourself to improve the following skills. The constant battle to improve these skills *IS* racing: 1) "feeling" the car with that part of your body under your back <G> 2) "listening" to the car, in order to preserve it to get it over the finishline 3) understanding how to tweak car parameters to make the car faster/better 4) braveness; not being afraid of taking risks 5) accuracy; how precise is your control over the car 6) reaction-speed; responding fast to the inputs of your senses 7) concentration; staying focused over longer periods 8) physical condition and stamina; to maintain concentration during the course of a race 9) regularity; the ability to do it over and over again (laps/races) 10) tactics; making the right decisions even in the heat of the action 11) mental strength; controlling nerves and recovering from bad luck You also need a rich dad and social "connections" or the ability to sell yourself <G> Apart from 4), every challenge in this second list is, or can be, simulated to some degree. Simulating "feeling" the car is difficult once again. Complex car tweaking is already available. Simulation of tactics and "listening" to the car will undoubtedly get better and better over time. **How well everything in this list is implemented, is what really sets a sim apart from an arcade game!** I think we pretty much all agree that a simulator which offers all of this, could be called the PERFECT simulator, not? Now comes the "mental leap": there is a subtle difference between simulating autoracing, and simulating the enumerated aspects that make autoracing exciting and enjoyable! Some aspects of real autoracing as we know it now, may not be essential at all. That is: they are what they are, but if they would be different, they would not make the racing less enjoyable and less of a challenge. The reasons that they "are what they are" could be historical or practical or even just random. As a result, they aren't mentioned in the lists above! Some examples: - turning a steeringwheel and pushing pedals: In the real world, they are _practical_: the easiest and most efficient way to change direction or to produce a mechanical pressure to slow down the vehicle. But they are also _historical_ in a way. In the past there was no other way to control a car, but now or in the future it could be possible (and IS even reality sometimes!!) to use joysticks, paddles and buttons to achieve the same or better accuracy! In the real world, they have the added advantage of feedback: a whole pallette of forces is transferred through wheel and pedals to the pilot. - real-world physics: It has been shown that real-world physics seem to be finetuned to make our Universe possible. If physical constants would be just a little bit different, the Universe would pretty much fall apart :-) (on purpose of anthropic reasoning?) However, if we ignore this, we could come up with some pretty interesting and complex alternative physics. Physics that are JUST as challenging to handle as the physics that we know. Springs and dampers acting totally different... Air-resistance increasing when you brake instead of decreasing... Lateral forces the faster you go in a straight line.... Current top pilots would STILL be top pilots under those circumstances (if they were born in that world..) Because the really important skill is to handle "a" complex environment. - "trivial" things that are pretty much random: the whole points system, technical regulations, car-liveries, the F1 circus as a whole... We could change ALL of these things, and still end up with a great and fantastically challenging sim. The only reason why a PERFECT simulation of these particular aspects adds to the essence of a racingsim, is the _association_ with real world racing. For example the "trivial" aspects mentioned above make it easy to identify with the "real" thing, so by getting them right the sim tries to offer you a little of the "glamour". The physics will never be TOO obviously unreal, because that would also immediately kill the whole identification. And we like to hold a wheel because the real drivers do so too, and because that's what we see on TV all the time... Take special hardware: do a wheel and pedals, as symbols for a more perfect true-to-life simulation, significantly improve any of the enumerated "essentials"? Force feedback gives some physical sensations, but nothing like the real thing. They provide better accuracy, but with keyboard control that is carefully tuned, you can also get a very challenging and complex experience.(remember that "accuracy" was just one of the 11 required skills, BTW)A quality sim can obviously not get away with _totally_ neglecting all of these non-essential aspects. The more a player knows about real racing, the more sensitive he will be for these aspects that mainly improve the identification with the real thing. As an example, for people who regularly drive real cars to the limit, it might be harder to ignore the imperfections in the physics model. (But why do they need a sim anyway? ;-) ) They will notice when the car reacts funny. They will notice when a change in setup does not have the real-world effect. Those who do NOT regularly drive real cars to the limit, will NOT be distracted by this, and can nevertheless enjoy a slightly different model that is just as complex. Kids or people who only occasionally watch races and are totally unaware of what being a racepilot really takes, will even be satisfied with an arcade game that offers barely more than the visual experience. They will not feel the same excitement as a real racer though! To put the whole idea in a nutshell: Imperfections in the physics model, and keyboard or joystick control do NOT devaluate the sim-experience as profoundly as is commonly proclaimed. When a physics model is not TOO obviously unreal, and challenging enough, and when the control method is well executed and challenging, then a simulator can give you EXACTLY the same excitement as a real racer. It does not deserve to be slammed. Or: perfect physics alone can sometimes be insufficient to beat a sim with flawed physics but better in other aspects. ============= The point of view that I defended in the previous post, is that *Physics* and absolute copying of reality (like using wheel and pedals) are not necessarilly the unchallengable "Holy Grails" of sim racing. I tried to justify this view by investigating the motivations behind real world racing itself. The underlyingidea for this approach was to illustrate that the details behind the physics of a racecar and environment are not an essential part of the racing experience. That is: in an imaginary world with totally different, but equally complex, physical laws, and a totally differently responding car, racing would be just as exciting and current topdrivers would STILL be topdrivers. It is the *complexity* of the car behaviour and overall physics that fuels a lot of the aspects that make racing exciting. The *faithfulness* to real-world car behaviour and overall physics mainly matter because they improve the *identification* with the real world. Therefore, after a certain point, the importance of the simulation of exact physics becomes inferior to the importance of mimicing other aspects of racing that are totally independant from "correct" physics. Another consequence is, that keyboard or joystick control do certainly not devaluate the experience as profoundly as is mostly assumed. One of the points that I would like to comment in more detail is the axiom that a "simulation" MUST strive to offer an absolutely perfect recreation of EVERY ASPECT of the real thing. Someone responded: "If it models something else or takes liberties, it's called a game. That's what this topic is all about." First remark: there are no sims that do not take liberties, and there will never BE sims that do not take liberties. On the most fundamental level, because our so called "laws of physics" are no better than approximations themselves. Newtonian physics give you no more than some basic rules to construct yourself an approximation of reality. Do something unusually fast or look at something on the atomic scale and Newton sinks like the Titanic :-) It was surpassed by Einstein's Relativity and later Quantummechanics. And they show their shortcomings too and will eventually be surpassed by something else. God knows whether THAT will "be" reality or just a construction that nicely approximates reality. And on top of that(don't quote me because I'm not a sim programmer) I think that a transition from concept to computerised simulation also requires numerical tricks that are a way to be able to actually "calculate" the physics? Of course this goes a little over the top, it's hardly relevant anymore for the topic.. But it does illustrate that a clear and fixed border between "simulation" and "taking liberties" is an illusion. Certainly when you consider the limited amount of available CPU cycles... Our categorizing is totally arbitrary. GPL physics are NOT realistic. GPL doesn't simulate the movement of every single component in the engine. It doesn't simulate the flow of gas molecules around the carbody. It doesn't simulate the stress within the materials. It doesn't accurately simulate the inflation of the tire due to the heating up. Realtime simulation, to a certain degree of realism, of each of these individual aspects would require a supercomputer in itself!!! "But," some will react, "it doesn't NEED to because these aspects are not relevant and huge simplifications and approximations in these areas don't hurt the experience." Well, I wholeheartedly agree with them :-) The issue is then reduced to a discussion of how far we allow the simplifications to go. Where we allow them and where not. A good definition is that simplifications are acceptable, as long as the concessions concern aspects that are of minor importance to what the sim tries to achieve. What seperates "hardcore" from "sensible" <G> and from "arcade" is the interpretation of WHAT precisely the sim should try to achieve. The best way that I've seen this explained is that a perfect simulation of car physics only guarantees that you have a "car physics simulator". But is that really what we're looking for? The key is that racepilots are more than just "car physics experts". Patrick Head is a "car physics expert" (or at least a few years ago he WAS, by the looks of it :-) ), but do we really think about HIM when we enjoy a racingsim? Would Patrick Head become World Champion? Where one puts the borderline might seem arbitrary, but I see it as more than that. The hardcore approach has an inherent problem: it never ends! When exactly are those physics sufficiently detailed to be satisfied? In a sense, the hardcore approach is obliged to NEVER be totally satisfied. Since, by definition, a simulation of the physics can never be perfect, a "satisfied hardcore simmer" would imply that the accuracy of the physics WASN'T his ONLY priority after all. What other priorities are there? And what other priorities are *sensible*? What aspect is important enough to compromise physics for it? I think "simulating what a racingdriver experiences" is a good candidate :-) I UNDERSTAND that those with real-world carsetup experience and car-handling-on-the-limit experience WILL be annoyed by some of the things that I would call "details". If I would be in that position, I would probably be annoyed also! But they suffer a DISadvantage rather than an advantage. Since they have gone "one bridge too far" in their realworld experience, they are blinded by a hunt for perfect physics that is DOOMED anyway. And in the process they risk to miss the real point of a racingsim... There's another, more implicit, argument in the quest for perfect physics reproduction. A hardcore simmer reasons that, no matter what, more perfect physics and equipment automatically also get you closer to the thrills of the racing experience. Or in other words: the more accurate the "car physics simulator", the more accurate also the "car racing simulator". From that point of view, the hardcore choice of where to put the borderline ("as far as you can") seems more "pure", less arbitrary. Instead of "artificially" recreating the driving experience, you get to it the way it is supposed to happen. Instead of a "surrogate", you get the original. Instead of a synthetic diamond, you get a natural one. That way, you can no longer blame them that they "miss the point". On the contrary: with THEIR hardcore approach, they naturally get what the less hardcore approach tries to reach via unrealistic illusion. Well, there are two counter arguments here that I can think off. First of all: is reality the best there is? Maybe sometimes, reality is such that it does no longer fullfill the expectations of those who started racing. Important aspects that made them love racing, get mutilated in such a way that it makes their experience less enjoyable. Are we really obliged to get THOSE aspects into a sim, too? This sounds silly, but consider the following examples: - the most obvious one: accidents! We certainly don't want to get hurt via a simulator. Real pilots don't have the choice. If they WOULD have the choice, they would certainly "disable" the "injuries" option. I'm still wondering what would happen if the most hardcore of hardcore simdrivers are actually ABLE to enable "injuries" in GPL218 :-) - too much technology: a ctive suspension, advanced throttle control, computerized everything... why not satellite navigation <G>? The driver can become a passenger in his own vehicle. The best are no longer the best, and I'm sure many lost a lot of racing experience. Must we stubbornly implement this type of evolution, no matter how far it goes, into a sim and dig the grave of our own enjoyment? - reality too complex: there are situations where reality turns out to be just that little bit *too* difficult to handle. Struggling to get a car set up right is one thing, but if there is *no* progress whatshowever it becomes more of a torture than anything else. My fellow countryman and multiple 500cc motocross champion Joel Smets saw an entire season destroyed because his bike was so totally unreliable that he was barely able to finish a single race (while constantly running in first position...). If a sim would be incredibly accurate, to such degree that you get totally lost at some point, how fun would it be? Would it still *make sense* to use the sim at all? There has to be *some* system in there, and it should not be hidden in such a way that only ingenious physicists are able to uncover and handle it. When it becomes sheer agony, there's no point anymore in using the sim. So in a sense, racing similators HAVE to be dumbed down to some degree if they don't want to have a market that consists of Patrick Head, Harvey Postletwaite, Adrian Newey, Ross Brown, John Barnard and Gordon Murray :-) Second remark: if we transfer a certain aspect as accurately as possible to a computersim, does this automatically guarantee that it retains its essence? I think it does not necessarilly, and that it should also be carefully considered whether the increased accuracy for that particular aspect is worth the cost. Sometimes we have to introduce artificial aspects into the sim to compensate for the absence of "unsimulatable" aspects. It's nice to have an absolutely perfect tiregrip model in your sim. But because we can (currently, some would say) not simulate the feeling of the car under our butt, we have to include artificial clues to substitute it. Or over-emphasize aspects that would provide only minor feedback in reality. In a nutshell: because of inherent physical limitations, a bare, pixel-perfect transition from reality to a sim will likely disrupt the experience in some way. It will require you to introduce artificial "compensators". Or sometimes you can opt to simplify the transition in such a way that you don't *need* the artificial compensators. Which approach results in the best suspension of disbelief??? Highly debatable.... But the simplification at least allows you to invest CPU in OTHER aspects! Therefore, along the same lines, a sim developer is obliged to evaluate the limited computer power at his disposal and make the most efficient choices. It could be great to accurately calculate the airflow over the spoilers in realtime, but does the surplus value justify the CPU-cost? If he thinks a little longer, he could realise that a considerable improvement in graphics would increase the suspension of disbelief much more, against the same CPU-cost. So.... I think it's NOT obvious that choosing for an increase in the accuracy of physics always improves the authenticity of the driving experience. After some point, it makes no sense to invest even more in the physics, and the remaining resources should be invested in OTHER aspects (graphics, sound, AI, atmosphere). It's enough that A) the implemented physics are complex enough to offer a sufficiently engrossing challenge. B) they are "true" enough as to not completely destroy the identification with the real world and real racing, C) they have a certain degree of consistency. Le Professeur "For every problem, there's at least one solution that is simple, convenient and plain wrong." H.L.Mencken

"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Look, if you don't mind using a joystick, then why bother with a sim > at all. Go get an Xbox and tell your friends to as well. Leave that > backpack at home! I use both. A wheel at home, and a stick on the road. The sim experience is the same with both for me (having a well-developed imagination helps), and I certainly wouldn't have told Wolfgang Woeger a few years back that his choice of a joystick meant that he didn't have a full understanding of sim racing. I can see I've waded into it here, so I'm just going to summarize my points for clarity. I simply wanted to say that LAN racing is not so impractical, and a lot of fun. I perhaps overenthusiastically stated my sense of wonder about the notebook, but it really is just that. I still can't believe what Dell managed to pack into a 5lb box. Anyway: 1. *If* you can set it up, a LAN game beats online for the quality of connection and racing. I never said it was easy, but with the notebook it's not a problem, and since I anyway visit my friends and see them face-to-face, this is a nice change and allows me to combine pleasure (visit) with pleasure (simming). I can also get out of my chair, walk over and give my friend a good Nelson Piquet girly-kick if he pulls an Salazar on me... 2. The hardware required to set up a network is cheap and a network is a no-brainer to set up, something I didn't realize at first. A lot of people have two computers at home, and with a crossover cable you're in business for some really fun LAN racing. But you're right. For 20 people, VROC is great. Papyrus has rock-steady multiplayer code and I applaud that. In a perfect world, all sims would work as well, but in the end, even a sim without internet multiplay is worth buying for me. A great driving model and good track accuracy makes it an enjoyable hot-lapper as Gerry said. Good AI means I can still have fun on the road, or a quick race at odd hours on my own terms. Stephen

"Richard S Beckett" < I'll have to practice a lot, to get the feel of driving a kart with a fixed rear axle, and no gears. When I buy a new sim, then I need to practice, to get used to the feel of that particular sim. What's the difference? R. then don't mess with the standard Kart, go for the Shifter carts, and ...with your Buttinski mere inches from the asphalt, I think 80mph (or higher with the Shifters,) would seem dang fast. dave henrie

Byron Forbes wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Gerry Aitken wrote: > > > > Damien Smith wrote: > > > > > > > with no internet multiplay? > > > > > > Yep...I'd rather LAN play any day. Lot cheaper too...(requires like-minded > > > friends of course) > > > > 'Powerful argument' isn't your forte, is it? > > LOL!

Hehe, was a little harsh there, sorry Damien. But lets be honest how often are you going to get twenty or more people together for a LAN session? Three times a year, maybe four? It's impractical. With the internet you can do it every night. I raced in a league for two and a half years with just a 28.8k connection. I also did some LAN events over the same period. But when I look at the replays from over the years, how much better are the LAN ones? Answer: not much better, just fewer! Gerry

Damien Smith wrote: > > > Or from the comfort of your own home, just fire up GPL, VROC and > > ..play against faceless nobodies.. You're just being f****** stupid now. At least the rest of us can see how wrong you are.

"Stephen F." wrote:

Quoted text (41 lines)

> > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Look, if you don't mind using a joystick, then why bother with a sim > > at all. Go get an Xbox and tell your friends to as well. Leave that > > backpack at home! > > I use both. A wheel at home, and a stick on the road. The sim experience > is the same with both for me (having a well-developed imagination helps), > and I certainly wouldn't have told Wolfgang Woeger a few years back that his > choice of a joystick meant that he didn't have a full understanding of sim > racing. > > I can see I've waded into it here, so I'm just going to summarize my points > for clarity. I simply wanted to say that LAN racing is not so impractical, > and a lot of fun. I perhaps overenthusiastically stated my sense of wonder > about the notebook, but it really is just that. I still can't believe what > Dell managed to pack into a 5lb box. Anyway: > > 1. *If* you can set it up, a LAN game beats online for the quality of > connection and racing. I never said it was easy, but with the notebook it's > not a problem, and since I anyway visit my friends and see them > face-to-face, this is a nice change and allows me to combine pleasure > (visit) with pleasure (simming). I can also get out of my chair, walk over > and give my friend a good Nelson Piquet girly-kick if he pulls an Salazar on > me... > > 2. The hardware required to set up a network is cheap and a network is a > no-brainer to set up, something I didn't realize at first. A lot of people > have two computers at home, and with a crossover cable you're in business > for some really fun LAN racing. > > But you're right. For 20 people, VROC is great. Papyrus has rock-steady > multiplayer code and I applaud that. In a perfect world, all sims would > work as well, but in the end, even a sim without internet multiplay is worth > buying for me. A great driving model and good track accuracy makes it an > enjoyable hot-lapper as Gerry said. Good AI means I can still have fun on > the road, or a quick race at odd hours on my own terms. > > Stephen

Yes, I raced against Wolfgang in the first leagues to pop up when GPL was first released. Great simmer, even if he was a sticky and an F10er :)) And I've been thru all the joystick/F10 view debates too. I just don't like it when things get to the point that people start making excuses for the lack of online support for GP sims to the point of almost saying it's better that way.