Hi,
I realize N2002 just came out, but I have only seen a couple "initial
impressions" posts here and I still can't make up my mind if I should
by it. Not a whole lot of info in the posts.
For instance, is it just an add-on for N4? Is it a less sim than N4?
Thanks,
-pw
I too am curious about this new release...
I have N4, and don't really race it all that often (compared to Rally and F1
sims), I also don't race online... So would N2002 be a waste of money for
me? What's different, improved about N2002?
I've also heard that it requires more resources than N4 to run, is this
true? I've got a PIII 933 w/384RAM and a 64 meg GeForce 2 GTS so my hardware
isn't all that "cutting edge" any longer, I can run N4 with 50 fps, with all
graphics on at 1024x768, would I be taking a major framerate hit If I moved
up to N2002?
Thanks in advance!
Jay J
"pw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4q0hk$4ln$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> Hi, > > I realize N2002 just came out, but I have only seen a couple "initial > impressions" posts here and I still can't make up my mind if I should > by it. Not a whole lot of info in the posts. > > For instance, is it just an add-on for N4? Is it a less sim than N4? > > Thanks, > > -pwJay J wrote:
>
> I've also heard that it requires more resources than N4 to run, is this
> true? I've got a PIII 933 w/384RAM and a 64 meg GeForce 2 GTS so my hardware
> isn't all that "cutting edge" any longer, I can run N4 with 50 fps, with all
> graphics on at 1024x768, would I be taking a major framerate hit If I moved
> up to N2002?
You'll be fine. You've got a little more machine than I do & I get
40-45 fps online with a good amount of graphics on. PIII850@910/384
PC133 SDRAM/32 meg GeForce2 GTS.
--
Fester
"Is it that we need a nobrainer Linux desktop OS for people with no
brains or should people do a little more reading and smarten up?"
from alt.linux.mandrake NG
No, it's no add-on. It is a step further down the same sim line. The physics
seem better adapted (maybe finally up to stock car specs in lieu of the
'GPL'-like specs in N4 in regard to chassis weight and tire dynamics).
Other changes included better graphics (to me, with a plain old GF3),
slightly better AI improvement, though I hardly ever run with AI. The replay
theater/editing deal is a neat addition, though it would simply be
over-the-top, best in class if we could output to some sort of standard
(AVI, WMF, MPG) a feature that is sadly still missing. The sound rocks. It
is 'ok' in-car as when wearing helmets, I doubt you could actually hear that
much engine or wind, but in replays from say TV1, TV2 or spectator views,
the sound is much like being at a WC event live, very realistic. The
'nearby' engine sound (say from roof cam or chase) is ok, but the loop is
questionably produced and has too much 'chorusing' for my taste. It sounds
like an obvious loop IOW.
Also, the paint shop has been updated, the car textures are twice as big.
This is causing some problems in OpenGL as the texture compression has not
been implemented into that API as of yet. Eric Bush has said that it is
coming in an upcoming patch.
Is it less of a sim? No way. It isn't really more of a sim either. It has
the most current rules that could be squeezed in by the release date, and
most of the track updates that have occured (like SP) not to mention the
'real' versions of Chicagoland and Kansas. Finally we can quit calling these
Vegas take-offs 'Kansas', hehe, as I recall everyone that plugged those said
they were 'real' close to being like Kansas. After getting the sim, and
seeing the track in person (thanks to an off season trip to KC), I can say I
told ya so! Kansas is nothing like Vegas. Chicago and Kansas may both be
'another' 1.5 oval, but neither fall into the D-oval category of Atlanta,
Lowe's or Texas. The only real twins in this arena are Texas and Charlotte.
Atlanta is in a class of it's own, as is LV, Chicago and Kansas.
I only run this sim online really (about 95% of the time) and that hasn't
changed. Same basic principal to get online and the netcode seems no worse
than N4's to me. I have experienced some warp on the Papy servers in 2002,
but there were a TON of newbies online so I have to attribute some of that
to 1) Folks with 56k trying online for the first time and 2) 2002 being the
first racing sim some have and are simply underpowered in the computer
department. A slow computer can add to a person's warp factor since netcode
processing is as important as graphics and physics. I personally raced no
less than 10 guys that said this was their first racing sim and that they
were racing with keyboards at the time, so watch your step around those guys
:) They couldn't understand HOW I was going so fast at Coca Cola and not
hitting the walls. My answer ended up being a simple one, I use a wheel.
OOOOOOH, you need a wheel? hehe. It ain't got to be a TSW2 like mine, but
jeez, get a wheel...
pw <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a4q0hk$4ln$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> Hi, > > I realize N2002 just came out, but I have only seen a couple "initial > impressions" posts here and I still can't make up my mind if I should > by it. Not a whole lot of info in the posts. > > For instance, is it just an add-on for N4? Is it a less sim than N4? > > Thanks, > > -pwWell I think NR2002 is more of an improvement for the offline players than
the online players. The AI does seem much improved as is the damage model.
There are things that could be better, but IMO its way better than N4. So
far I'm having more fun with NR2002 than I ever did with N4. N4 always
seemed to find away to frustrate me more than make me happy. So far in my
season every problem I have had has been of my own doing. I can see myself
getting back into my old mode of running a season race every night and the
occasional online pick race as well. As to if its less sim or not I would
say no. It is easier to drive than N4 but does that make it less correct? I
think not. IMO the closer to being correct the easier they become to drive.
The new tire model is very cool. I was running on the outside at the Rock
and got out a little to high and out of the groove. Guess what the car got
way lose and I slapped the wall, just as if I got into the marbles. N4
setups will load into NR2002, but they need some tweaking to run the same
lap times. So I would say go get it while its on sale this week and I think
you'll be happy as long as you like NASCAR racing in general. I know I'm at
work now wishing I was at home running NR2002, and I never thought that way
about N4 it was more of "well I don't have anything better to do" type
feeling with N4.
MadDAWG
Thanks! I will pick it up tomorrow.
-pw
Quoted text (62 lines)
>No, it's no add-on. It is a step further down the same sim line. The physics >seem better adapted (maybe finally up to stock car specs in lieu of the >'GPL'-like specs in N4 in regard to chassis weight and tire dynamics). > >Other changes included better graphics (to me, with a plain old GF3), >slightly better AI improvement, though I hardly ever run with AI. The replay >theater/editing deal is a neat addition, though it would simply be >over-the-top, best in class if we could output to some sort of standard >(AVI, WMF, MPG) a feature that is sadly still missing. The sound rocks. It >is 'ok' in-car as when wearing helmets, I doubt you could actually hear that >much engine or wind, but in replays from say TV1, TV2 or spectator views, >the sound is much like being at a WC event live, very realistic. The >'nearby' engine sound (say from roof cam or chase) is ok, but the loop is >questionably produced and has too much 'chorusing' for my taste. It sounds >like an obvious loop IOW. > >Also, the paint shop has been updated, the car textures are twice as big. >This is causing some problems in OpenGL as the texture compression has not >been implemented into that API as of yet. Eric Bush has said that it is >coming in an upcoming patch. > >Is it less of a sim? No way. It isn't really more of a sim either. It has >the most current rules that could be squeezed in by the release date, and >most of the track updates that have occured (like SP) not to mention the >'real' versions of Chicagoland and Kansas. Finally we can quit calling these >Vegas take-offs 'Kansas', hehe, as I recall everyone that plugged those said >they were 'real' close to being like Kansas. After getting the sim, and >seeing the track in person (thanks to an off season trip to KC), I can say I >told ya so! Kansas is nothing like Vegas. Chicago and Kansas may both be >'another' 1.5 oval, but neither fall into the D-oval category of Atlanta, >Lowe's or Texas. The only real twins in this arena are Texas and Charlotte. >Atlanta is in a class of it's own, as is LV, Chicago and Kansas. > >I only run this sim online really (about 95% of the time) and that hasn't >changed. Same basic principal to get online and the netcode seems no worse >than N4's to me. I have experienced some warp on the Papy servers in 2002, >but there were a TON of newbies online so I have to attribute some of that >to 1) Folks with 56k trying online for the first time and 2) 2002 being the >first racing sim some have and are simply underpowered in the computer >department. A slow computer can add to a person's warp factor since netcode >processing is as important as graphics and physics. I personally raced no >less than 10 guys that said this was their first racing sim and that they >were racing with keyboards at the time, so watch your step around those guys >:) They couldn't understand HOW I was going so fast at Coca Cola and not >hitting the walls. My answer ended up being a simple one, I use a wheel. >OOOOOOH, you need a wheel? hehe. It ain't got to be a TSW2 like mine, but >jeez, get a wheel... > > >pw <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a4q0hk$4ln$[email hidden]... >> Hi, >> >> I realize N2002 just came out, but I have only seen a couple "initial >> impressions" posts here and I still can't make up my mind if I should >> by it. Not a whole lot of info in the posts. >> >> For instance, is it just an add-on for N4? Is it a less sim than N4? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -pw >"MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<3c714e9b$[email hidden]>...
> IMO the closer to being correct the easier they become to drive.
Doesn't that Make Days of Thunder for the NES the ultimate racing sim? =)
Jason
pw <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a4s6q2$cb8$[email hidden]...
> Thanks! I will pick it up tomorrow.
>
> -pw
>
>
I don't think you will be disappointed with it at all. There are some
naysayers about everything, including this sim. But I am a 'glass is half
full' kind of guy so I will take what I can get whereas a small group out
here wants it absolutely perfect everytime. It ain't perfect, but it costs
me about as much as a round of golf at a nice course and lasts a lot longer
than 4 hours and a six pack...
