NR2003 Suggestions - Eric Busch please pass on!

1) Save race! Save Race! Save Race! I'm no Superman, but I DO have a life, but if I want to run a 50% race sometimes things in life happen such that it cannot be finished in one sitting. 2) Allow more than 42 cars to qualify for a race, then set the field based on the 42 (plus human player) fastest times Now that entry lists aren't restricted to 43 entries anymore (more or less), have qualifying attempts to reflect the 43 best times for that race. 3) Daytona Qualifying format! 'Nuff said! 4) Create more fantasy tracks to include with final release Coca-Cola was nice, but I want something more along the lines of the Ford Test Track and Bull Run for N2. That's all my ranting for now :-)

On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:41:31 GMT, "DJSpeedy" <[email hidden]> wrote: >2) Allow more than 42 cars to qualify for a race, then set the field based >on the 42 (plus human player) fastest times Doubt that will happen, since you must have a pit stall for each car, unless they devise a way for 2 AI drivers to split the practice time in one pit stall. The method that have incorporated is a pretty good trade off though. Tim Wortman North American Simulation Series www.nasscar.com

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

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:41:31 GMT, "DJSpeedy" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > Why fantasy? Nascar should move away from 1.5 mile ("ooh it's unique > cuz the banking is 1deg less in the turns") tracks and race Mid Ohio, > Elkardt Lake, Laguna Seca, etc. The brake pedal isn't only used to > pit. So let's include these in a "fantasy" track pack. :> >

Why do you think these tracks would even WANT to be in a NASCAR sim since they host no NASCAR events, and then why do you believe NASCAR would allow these real life tracks that they do not run to be included?

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Stop chasing after driver licensing. All users care about are the > tracks. I don't care if the game doesn't ship with a red car #8 with > "Dale" written on the hood. What's that? Focus your time and $$ on > making the GAME better, not licensing drivers and sponsors that the > Internet community is more than able to cover. What driver has > "Rusty" on its hood? Oooh, beer - the great evil of society. > > My ranting for the year is done. <g>

I'm sure more than half of the people who buy the sim don't even know that all of the user websites and paintjobs are out there so Papy is spends a lot of time and effort into getting these cars, and then there is the point of NASCAR again, do you really believe that NASCAR is going to let someone put out a game and not have liscensed drivers? BTW, the beer thing is not Papy that is because of a California state law. Scott

1) More road courses - Riverside would be good. 2) The ability to see opponents' animated pitcrews. Also have the option to set levels of detail ALL - we see everything - pit wagons, pitboard guys, tire changers, nascar officiials, the whole ball of wax Medium - pit wagons and signboard guys only NONE - just our own pit crew (like it is now) -- ========================================================= Redneck Techno-Biker & "programming deity" http://www.paddedwall.org/john DeMONS/1 for Nascar Racing 3 & Nascar Legends http://www.paddedwall.org/demons DeMONS/2 for Nascar Racing 4 (in development) http://www.paddedwall.org/demons2 Barbarian Diecast Collector (460+ cars and counting) http://www.paddedwall.org/diecast If you want to send me email, go to the first URL shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame. =========================================================

VFy wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Fix the AI so that it no longer uses the same model that exists in N1. > That was what - 7 years ago? To paraphrase LOTR, one lp file to rule > them all doesn't cut it. One lp file for each driver please. "This > would kill the cpu." Sure it will, today. Who cares? Look how great > GPL remains 4 years later and no computer could do it justice when it > was released. Or allow the user to select whether the "we drive as > one" model of today is used or the N5 model of tomorrow is used. >

I would like to see several things as regards the AI: 1) A toggle in the track.ini file: Draft = .9 ;0=never draft, for short courses, 1=always draft, for plate races I'm tired of the AI wandering all over creation at the plate tracks. To be fair they are much better now (2002) than they used to be (N4 after all the patches, there they would often sideswipe you). I am always looking back in my mirror and saying "get in line you nimrods, and we can pull away from everyone else!" 2) Pass on the outside in turns/lapped cars get your butts out of the way! These two often make for a fatal combination. They will yield if they are banged up and going much slower than the lead lap cars, but more typically the lead pack will come up on a lapped car and pile up behind it, sometimes leading to wrecks... Amazing that they STILL do this, 7 years later... 3) Use those automessages to communicate to the AI. You can use them in online races sure, but why can't you code the AI to hear them too, or even say them themselves? How many times have you wrecked someone going into the pits because you didn't know he was going in? You could then tell the pinheads behind you to draft with you, among other things... 4) Have them use the exact same physics model that you do. John DiFool

Speaking of missing the points.... You missed it completley. maybe papy should make a sim, just for you we'll call it... VFy Racing 2003 Season -- Mycol G. Main [email hidden] [email hidden] ICQ#: 147824877 RAW ACID - pure as God intended it. Stript, strip tu, n (A. Sax. Strypt. D. Stripptenze ya) Lords with layers skinned to unveil its core in new light; oft demanded Album of a Lords Classic; raw, beautiful, ACID Explosion; party evolution. "VFy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yay, a Papy employee responds, but ignores perfectly good points and > moans about legalese and the big boogy man that is Nascar. > > I don't care what Nascar will and will not let you do, the point of > the post was to suggest what would make for a great N5. If you're > going to spend time creating fantasy tracks for future releases, make > a road course or something that resembles one of the circuits that you > think Nascar will have a fit over. Brake pedal comment still applies. > > And if you want to ignore the Internet community and continue to chase > down every driver/sponsor for your games, fine. Seems better to me to > direct limited resources at the game itself and let the Internet > community pick up the slack. > > So, what about the other points Scott? Ignored? Considered? Or > should I be aware that Nascar would never approve of these either? > > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 09:09:39 GMT, "Scott Sanford" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >"VFy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:41:31 GMT, "DJSpeedy" <[email hidden]> > >> wrote: > > > >> Why fantasy? Nascar should move away from 1.5 mile ("ooh it's unique > >> cuz the banking is 1deg less in the turns") tracks and race Mid Ohio, > >> Elkardt Lake, Laguna Seca, etc. The brake pedal isn't only used to > >> pit. So let's include these in a "fantasy" track pack. :> > >> > >Why do you think these tracks would even WANT to be in a NASCAR sim since > >they host no NASCAR events, and then why do you believe NASCAR would allow > >these real life tracks that they do not run to be included? > > > >> Stop chasing after driver licensing. All users care about are the > >> tracks. I don't care if the game doesn't ship with a red car #8 with > >> "Dale" written on the hood. What's that? Focus your time and $$ on > >> making the GAME better, not licensing drivers and sponsors that the > >> Internet community is more than able to cover. What driver has > >> "Rusty" on its hood? Oooh, beer - the great evil of society. > >> > >> My ranting for the year is done. <g> > > > >I'm sure more than half of the people who buy the sim don't even know that > >all of the user websites and paintjobs are out there so Papy is spends a lot > >of time and effort into getting these cars, and then there is the point of > >NASCAR again, do you really believe that NASCAR is going to let someone put > >out a game and not have liscensed drivers? BTW, the beer thing is not Papy > >that is because of a California state law. > > > >Scott > > > > >

Stock cars are not designed to run on road courses, yet they do run on 2 for obviously having something "different" throughout the season. I love running F12002 on the road courses, but personally for me watching Nascar run on a roadcourse I find very boring. Don Burnette "VFy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (34 lines)

> Yay, a Papy employee responds, but ignores perfectly good points and > moans about legalese and the big boogy man that is Nascar. > > I don't care what Nascar will and will not let you do, the point of > the post was to suggest what would make for a great N5. If you're > going to spend time creating fantasy tracks for future releases, make > a road course or something that resembles one of the circuits that you > think Nascar will have a fit over. Brake pedal comment still applies. > > And if you want to ignore the Internet community and continue to chase > down every driver/sponsor for your games, fine. Seems better to me to > direct limited resources at the game itself and let the Internet > community pick up the slack. > > So, what about the other points Scott? Ignored? Considered? Or > should I be aware that Nascar would never approve of these either? > > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 09:09:39 GMT, "Scott Sanford" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >"VFy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:41:31 GMT, "DJSpeedy" <[email hidden]> > >> wrote: > > > >> Why fantasy? Nascar should move away from 1.5 mile ("ooh it's unique > >> cuz the banking is 1deg less in the turns") tracks and race Mid Ohio, > >> Elkardt Lake, Laguna Seca, etc. The brake pedal isn't only used to > >> pit. So let's include these in a "fantasy" track pack. :> > >> > >Why do you think these tracks would even WANT to be in a NASCAR sim since > >they host no NASCAR events, and then why do you believe NASCAR would

allow

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >these real life tracks that they do not run to be included? > > > >> Stop chasing after driver licensing. All users care about are the > >> tracks. I don't care if the game doesn't ship with a red car #8 with > >> "Dale" written on the hood. What's that? Focus your time and $$ on > >> making the GAME better, not licensing drivers and sponsors that the > >> Internet community is more than able to cover. What driver has > >> "Rusty" on its hood? Oooh, beer - the great evil of society. > >> > >> My ranting for the year is done. <g> > > > >I'm sure more than half of the people who buy the sim don't even know

that > >all of the user websites and paintjobs are out there so Papy is spends alot > >of time and effort into getting these cars, and then there is the pointof > >NASCAR again, do you really believe that NASCAR is going to let someoneput > >out a game and not have liscensed drivers? BTW, the beer thing is notPapy > >that is because of a California state law. > > > >Scott > > > > >

"VFy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted text (8 lines)

> And if you want to ignore the Internet community and continue to chase > down every driver/sponsor for your games, fine. Seems better to me to > direct limited resources at the game itself and let the Internet > community pick up the slack. > > So, what about the other points Scott? Ignored? Considered? Or > should I be aware that Nascar would never approve of these either? >

Seems that was done in N99 which from my point of view was not as sucessful as N2 or N3 that bookended it. dave henrie

VFy wrote: > > Yay, a Papy employee responds, but ignores perfectly good points and > moans about legalese and the big boogy man that is Nascar. > > I don't care what Nascar will and will not let you do, the point of > the post was to suggest what would make for a great N5. <SNIP indecipherable rambling> YFy... calm down & step away from the keyboard. Set? Good. Now think long & hard on this one... Without NASCAR's licensing. do you think "N5" would even get *released*? Nevermind getting licenses from these racing facilities to include them in the first place. Reread Scott's post & maybe you'll catch what he's saying. -- 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

wow that would be cool, but lets see 43 cars 8 polygonal pitcrew characters per car,, ok 4*43=172, so not including the cars or NASCAR officials you'll have 172 polygonal characters on pitroad at one time.. correct me if I"m wrong... What machine could run that ? "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> 1) More road courses - Riverside would be good. > > 2) The ability to see opponents' animated pitcrews. Also have the > option to set levels of detail > > ALL - we see everything - pit wagons, pitboard guys, tire changers, > nascar officiials, the whole ball of wax > > Medium - pit wagons and signboard guys only > > NONE - just our own pit crew (like it is now) > > > > -- > ========================================================= > Redneck Techno-Biker & "programming deity" > http://www.paddedwall.org/john > > DeMONS/1 for Nascar Racing 3 & Nascar Legends > http://www.paddedwall.org/demons > > DeMONS/2 for Nascar Racing 4 (in development) > http://www.paddedwall.org/demons2 > > Barbarian Diecast Collector (460+ cars and counting) > http://www.paddedwall.org/diecast > > If you want to send me email, go to the first URL shown > above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame. > =========================================================

The hardcore simracer doesn't support the the company making a racing sim. The money is in getting the fresh kiddies to want it. That requires a "name" on the hood, which requires purchasing rights. Let's face it without the young enticed consumer buying the product, new sims will not be made. Unless by a not-for-profit company. Too bad Bill isn't a big racin fan I guess. Jeff "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> VFy wrote: > > > > Yay, a Papy employee responds, but ignores perfectly good points and > > moans about legalese and the big boogy man that is Nascar. > > > > I don't care what Nascar will and will not let you do, the point of > > the post was to suggest what would make for a great N5. > > <SNIP indecipherable rambling> > > YFy... calm down & step away from the keyboard. Set? Good. Now think > long & hard on this one... Without NASCAR's licensing. do you think > "N5" would even get *released*? Nevermind getting licenses from these > racing facilities to include them in the first place. Reread Scott's > post & maybe you'll catch what he's saying. > > -- > > 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

"VFy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yay, a Papy employee responds, but ignores perfectly good points and > moans about legalese and the big boogy man that is Nascar. Make that ex-Papy employee, so all comments are my own and in should no way be considered as a "official" response from Papy or Sierra. Now on to the comments from my side.<G> > > I don't care what Nascar will and will not let you do, the point of > the post was to suggest what would make for a great N5. If you're > going to spend time creating fantasy tracks for future releases, make > a road course or something that resembles one of the circuits that you > think Nascar will have a fit over. Brake pedal comment still applies. The simple fact of the matter remains that more people would rather have a unique oval than a road course, not necessarily the people who are in this newsgroup which if everyone here buys N2k2 they will still make up less than 10% of all the people who buy the game. > > And if you want to ignore the Internet community and continue to chase > down every driver/sponsor for your games, fine. Seems better to me to > direct limited resources at the game itself and let the Internet > community pick up the slack. What about my point about the people who buy the game and have no idea that this newsgroup even exists or any of the websites devoted to sim racing, are sim makers just going to ignore 90% of the customers because the other 10% can get everything off of the internet? > > So, what about the other points Scott? Ignored? Considered? Or > should I be aware that Nascar would never approve of these either? I chose to comment on these two points because those are some of the most frequent complaints you see in here and thought I would give some of the reasoning behind why things are done as they are. Scott

VFy wrote: > > So when a Papy employee replies with "aren't you aware of the great > evil that is Nascar?" licensing bugaboo while ignoring everything else > in my post, I'm left wondering why Sandford would bother replying at > all. Hey Scott, what about the GAME, man? Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see those tracks as much as you. But I also realize those tracks likely wouldn't allow their presence in a NASCAR title, nor would NASCAR allow their name be used in conjunction with it. He replied to try & get such a point across to us. :-) Here's hoping it happens one day though! <g> -- 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

A) By the time we see such a feature, a capable machine should be available. B) If set to "Medium", there would only be 50 (43 pit board guys, and the remainder of your own pit crew). C) They should also remove the pit road speed limit for the Coke track. In article <[email hidden]>, <(Rich#8)> says...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> wow that would be cool, but lets see 43 cars 8 polygonal pitcrew characters > per car,, ok 4*43=172, so not including the cars or NASCAR officials > you'll have 172 polygonal characters on pitroad at one time.. correct me if > I"m wrong... > > > What machine could run that ? > > > "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 1) More road courses - Riverside would be good. > > > > 2) The ability to see opponents' animated pitcrews. Also have the > > option to set levels of detail > > > > ALL - we see everything - pit wagons, pitboard guys, tire changers, > > nascar officiials, the whole ball of wax > > > > Medium - pit wagons and signboard guys only > > > > NONE - just our own pit crew (like it is now)

-- ========================================================= Redneck Techno-Biker & "programming deity" http://www.paddedwall.org/john DeMONS/1 for Nascar Racing 3 & Nascar Legends http://www.paddedwall.org/demons DeMONS/2 for Nascar Racing 4 (in development) http://www.paddedwall.org/demons2 Barbarian Diecast Collector (460+ cars and counting) http://www.paddedwall.org/diecast If you want to send me email, go to the first URL shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame. =========================================================

>"VFy" <[email hidden]> wrote > And if you want to ignore the Internet community and continue to chase > down every driver/sponsor for your games, fine. Seems better to me to > direct limited resources at the game itself and let the Internet > community pick up the slack. Oh boy, the ever-present "hardcore community vs the mainstream market" debate :) Sometimes I could go like you and post 100-lines about that, sometimes I'm just cynical and don't care much. I'm cynical at the moment, eh! It's perfectly normal that you have this attitude. Anybody who is a simracer will always push the sim to be developed towards him. It make sense, it's the same thing in flight sims, the same thing in rpg's, space sims, the same thing even in FPS (there are some less mainstream FPS's lets not forget). It's the quest towards simracing nirvana or utopia!!!! :-D -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

>"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote > 3) Use those automessages to communicate to the AI. I know many people have been asking for a simple "hand gesture" inside the stockcar like you have in GPL. It's a simple feature that would really be great, but they have not implemented it in either N3, N4, NR2002, etc... We're still awaiting it, to coordinate either AI towards you, or you towards another AI, or more importantly, you towards another human during a multiplayer race. It's an easy feature to model, I'm 100% sure about that. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Licensing is just an excuse. If Papyrus cared about us and really wanted to do these things, they would. Only a fool would believe the licensing excuse. I want to see proof that they are limited in what they cand do. I want to see the actual contracts. David G Fisher (who doesn't get the joke?) "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> VFy wrote: > > > > Yay, a Papy employee responds, but ignores perfectly good points and > > moans about legalese and the big boogy man that is Nascar. > > > > I don't care what Nascar will and will not let you do, the point of > > the post was to suggest what would make for a great N5. > > <SNIP indecipherable rambling> > > YFy... calm down & step away from the keyboard. Set? Good. Now think > long & hard on this one... Without NASCAR's licensing. do you think > "N5" would even get *released*? Nevermind getting licenses from these > racing facilities to include them in the first place. Reread Scott's > post & maybe you'll catch what he's saying. > > -- > > 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

David G Fisher wrote: > > Licensing is just an excuse. If Papyrus cared about us and really wanted to > do these things, they would. Only a fool would believe the licensing excuse. > I want to see proof that they are limited in what they cand do. I want to > see the actual contracts. I agree to the extent that it could be done like MGPRS2 was done. But it's certainly plausible that official licensing could be withheld for "offensive" items. Much like multiplayer capabilities & Bernie. :-) -- 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

"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > Licensing is just an excuse. If Papyrus cared about us and really wantedto > > do these things, they would. Only a fool would believe the licensingexcuse. > > I want to see proof that they are limited in what they cand do. I wantto

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > see the actual contracts. > > > I agree to the extent that it could be done like MGPRS2 was done. But > it's certainly plausible that official licensing could be withheld for > "offensive" items. Much like multiplayer capabilities & Bernie. :-) >

Yep, it definately could be done that way but how many of the casual gamers do you think are going to buy "Stock car racing" when they can get NASCAR for their PS2 or Xbox and how willing do you think NASCAR would be to do future liscensing work with Papy if they did that? Scott

On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:41:31 GMT, "DJSpeedy" <[email hidden]> wrote: >1) Save race! Save Race! Save Race! > >I'm no Superman, but I DO have a life, but if I want to run a 50% race >sometimes things in life happen such that it cannot be finished in one >sitting. Not gonna happen so we might as well drop it. I have gotten used to it though. Any way, even when I pause the game for long period of time, I find it is hard to sit back down and pick up where I left off since the tires are worn. > >2) Allow more than 42 cars to qualify for a race, then set the field based >on the 42 (plus human player) fastest times > >Now that entry lists aren't restricted to 43 entries anymore (more or less), >have qualifying attempts to reflect the 43 best times for that race. I would love that also. Maybe even give each opponent a couple of provisionals to use during a championship season. > >3) Daytona Qualifying format! > >'Nuff said! That would be cool too, but would probably require a major change to the game engine. > >4) Create more fantasy tracks to include with final release > >Coca-Cola was nice, but I want something more along the lines of the Ford >Test Track and Bull Run for N2. Coca-Cola is enough. There is a fine line between releasing a hardcore race sim and releasing an arcade game. I want the race sim. Brian Oster

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 01:03:59 GMT, John Simmons <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>A) By the time we see such a feature, a capable machine should be >available. > >B) If set to "Medium", there would only be 50 (43 pit board guys, and >the remainder of your own pit crew). > >C) They should also remove the pit road speed limit for the Coke track.

You could probably do this yourself in the ini file. Brian Oster

"Scott Sanford" (snip) > Yep, it definately could be done that way but how many of the casualgamers > do you think are going to buy "Stock car racing" when they can get NASCAR > for their PS2 or Xbox and how willing do you think NASCAR would be to do > future liscensing work with Papy if they did that? > > Scott Yup, you put the "Brand X Oval Racing" box next to Nascar Thunder, or Nascar Heat or just Nascar boxes at Wal Mart or any other major retailor, and Brand X will sit there like it was glued to the shelves. As I stated previously, NR1999 had the least amount of licensing in the box and probably also had a markedly lower sales volume. Also they TIME costs are being ignored by most of the posters above. Papyrus apparently was committed or ordered to deliver a product at the start of the Nascar season. Even if they had the finances to make major feature additions, did they have the time? Finally, remember who they are working for....The design studio of Tribes II (Dynamix) has been in the Sierra family for about the same amount of time as Papyrus, yet when Tribes II was shipped, even with major issues unresolved, the whole company was fired. In an enviroment such as that, do you bankroll future technologies with no certain future funding? I'm not apologizing for Papyrus, just exposing you to what could be roadblocks to further development. dave henrie

"Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 01:03:59 GMT, John Simmons <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >C) They should also remove the pit road speed limit for the Coke track. > > You could probably do this yourself in the ini file.If you set speed_limit_MPH to 0 you will have no speed limit on pit road. Scott

About a save-race option: I can understand why they didn't put it in N4 or N2002. Aside from the added programming to have the feature, there are ways to use the saverace file and cheat in offline races, if you were so inclined. (Don't know what they are...and don't care to) Maybe there could be some kind of an enabler in the .ini file that the player could turn on and off with a "0" or a "1". And there could be a tell-tale in the generated standings file at the end of the race. That way the race administrators could tell if the saverace feature was enabled or not. I know I love to run 100% races, but it's hard for an old phart to sit that long. ;-) I know...I know...just 'pause' it every once in a while. And I do. But it still would be a neat feature to have. Just my .04 cents worth. ~J

Scott Sanford wrote: > > Yep, it definately could be done that way but how many of the casual gamers > do you think are going to buy "Stock car racing" when they can get NASCAR > for their PS2 or Xbox and how willing do you think NASCAR would be to do > future liscensing work with Papy if they did that? I agree. Hence my earlier reply to VFy. There wouldn't be a title to sell. -- 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

"Scott Sanford" wrote > > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > > > Licensing is just an excuse. If Papyrus cared about us andreally wanted > to > > > do these things, they would. Only a fool would believe thelicensing > excuse. > > > I want to see proof that they are limited in what they canddo. I want > to > > > see the actual contracts. > > > > > > I agree to the extent that it could be done like MGPRS2 wasdone. But > > it's certainly plausible that official licensing could bewithheld for > > "offensive" items. Much like multiplayer capabilities & Bernie.:-) > > > Yep, it definately could be done that way but how many of thecasual gamers > do you think are going to buy "Stock car racing" when they can getNASCAR > for their PS2 or Xbox and how willing do you think NASCAR would beto do > future liscensing work with Papy if they did that? > > Scott Which is pretty similar to DGFs response to a similar thread... "A lot of the PC F1 games are also made for the consoles. A fictitious F1 racer for the console probably won't sell, and there's no way to edit them. David G Fisher" Tony

In article <8b4c8.52845$[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> writes: >Licensing is just an excuse. If Papyrus cared about us and really wanted to >do these things, they would. Only a fool would believe the licensing excuse. >I want to see proof that they are limited in what they cand do. I want to >see the actual contracts. > >David G Fisher (who doesn't get the joke?) Hehe... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Gee David I leave this NG for a month or so and you are all wound up again... Now I want you to just relax & take your Prozac as prescribed :) from -----> me "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8b4c8.52845$[email hidden]... | Licensing is just an excuse. If Papyrus cared about us and really wantedto | do these things, they would. Only a fool would believe the licensingexcuse.

Quoted text (32 lines)

| I want to see proof that they are limited in what they cand do. I want to | see the actual contracts. | | David G Fisher (who doesn't get the joke?) | | "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message | news:[email hidden]... | > VFy wrote: | > > | > > Yay, a Papy employee responds, but ignores perfectly good points and | > > moans about legalese and the big boogy man that is Nascar. | > > | > > I don't care what Nascar will and will not let you do, the point of | > > the post was to suggest what would make for a great N5. | > | > <SNIP indecipherable rambling> | > | > YFy... calm down & step away from the keyboard. Set? Good. Now think | > long & hard on this one... Without NASCAR's licensing. do you think | > "N5" would even get *released*? Nevermind getting licenses from these | > racing facilities to include them in the first place. Reread Scott's | > post & maybe you'll catch what he's saying. | > | > -- | > | > 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 | |

"Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bixc8.54315$[email hidden]... > Gee David I leave this NG for a month or so and you are all > wound up again... Now I want you to just relax & take your > Prozac as prescribed :) from -----> me You've been too busy making a fortune on Ebay. :-) David G Fisher

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8b4c8.52845$[email hidden]... > | Licensing is just an excuse. If Papyrus cared about us and really wanted > to > | do these things, they would. Only a fool would believe the licensing > excuse. > | I want to see proof that they are limited in what they cand do. I want

to

Quoted text (17 lines)

> | see the actual contracts. > | > | David G Fisher (who doesn't get the joke?) > | > | "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > | news:[email hidden]... > | > VFy wrote: > | > > > | > > Yay, a Papy employee responds, but ignores perfectly good points and > | > > moans about legalese and the big boogy man that is Nascar. > | > > > | > > I don't care what Nascar will and will not let you do, the point of > | > > the post was to suggest what would make for a great N5. > | > > | > <SNIP indecipherable rambling> > | > > | > YFy... calm down & step away from the keyboard. Set? Good. Now

think

Quoted text (16 lines)

> | > long & hard on this one... Without NASCAR's licensing. do you think > | > "N5" would even get *released*? Nevermind getting licenses from these > | > racing facilities to include them in the first place. Reread Scott's > | > post & maybe you'll catch what he's saying. > | > > | > -- > | > > | > 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 > | > | > >

In article <nrKb8.20202$[email hidden]>, "Scott Sanford" <[email hidden]> writes: >and then there is the point of >NASCAR again, do you really believe that NASCAR is going to let someone put >out a game and not have liscensed drivers? Um, what could they DO about it? If you don't use "Nascar", there's no beef. Someone could put out a game called "Stock Car Racing", don't use any trademarks, and simply not pay the licensing fee to NASCAR. What could NASCAR do, and on what grounds? Certainly not copyright infringement... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <oCWb8.97797$[email hidden]>, "Jeff Eiland" <[email hidden]> writes: >The hardcore simracer doesn't support the the company making a racing sim. >The money is in getting the fresh kiddies to want it. That requires a "name" >on the hood, which requires purchasing rights. Let's face it without the >young enticed consumer buying the product, new sims will not be made. Unless >by a not-for-profit company. Too bad Bill isn't a big racin fan I guess. Somebody send him a copy of GPL/N2002! Or a videotape of a great race...! He might BECOME a big racing fan...<g> Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Nope nothing in the world NASCAR could do about it, of course if the developer was lucky the game would sell 50,000 units. I think I made this point already in this regard, why would the "casual" gamer (which still makes up most of sims sales) buy "Stock Car Racing" which includes few if any real world tracks, remember ISC is owned by the France family and I bet the new media contracts could be used the keep the other tracks out as well, or buy one of the NASCAR titles for the PSX or Xbox? Scott "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <nrKb8.20202$[email hidden]>, "Scott Sanford" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >and then there is the point of > >NASCAR again, do you really believe that NASCAR is going to let someoneput > >out a game and not have liscensed drivers? > > Um, what could they DO about it? If you don't use "Nascar", there's nobeef. > Someone could put out a game called "Stock Car Racing", don't use any > trademarks, and simply not pay the licensing fee to NASCAR. What couldNASCAR

Quoted text (9 lines)

> do, and on what grounds? Certainly not copyright infringement... > > Eldred > -- > Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank - under construction... > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

>"Scott Sanford" <[email hidden]> wrote > Nope nothing in the world NASCAR could do about it, of course if the > developer was lucky the game would sell 50,000 units. MGPRS2 sold more units then F1RS, even without a FIA license, without any driver, or teams or sponsors. It basically had track per track license (the global "Monaco" license). I'm sure the same could be done for tracks. Anyway, the guy who buys the title only because it has "Nascar" slapped on it wouldn't care or more he wouldn't know if it had Chicago correctly modeled or not, or if has Homestead replaced by any other track. It wouldn't be a problem to model fantasy tracks. Oh wait, isn't that what Papyrus just did with the Coca-Cola Speedway? For sure, the casual gamers are raving about that track, imho :) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:K_wf8.80121$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >"Scott Sanford" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Nope nothing in the world NASCAR could do about it, of course if the > > developer was lucky the game would sell 50,000 units. > > > MGPRS2 sold more units then F1RS, even without a FIA license, without any > driver, or teams or sponsors. It basically had track per track license

(the > global "Monaco" license). I'm sure the same could be done for tracks. >I have no idea what what these titles did, so I will not comment on those, but liscensing those tracks and WC tracks is a completely different situations. As I stated earlier ISC is owned by the France family so why would they give a track liscense when they don't have a NASCAR liscense. > Anyway, the guy who buys the title only because it has "Nascar" slapped on > it wouldn't care or more he wouldn't know if it had Chicago correctly > modeled or not, or if has Homestead replaced by any other track. It > wouldn't be a problem to model fantasy tracks. Okay, believe what you want but you try to sell a game to someone as a stock car sim with no real tracks and see what happens. > > > > Oh wait, isn't that what Papyrus just did with the Coca-Cola Speedway?For > sure, the casual gamers are raving about that track, imho :) >I never said people would not like, or appreciate fantasy tracks, my point was that with nothing but fantasy tracks people won't buy it. Scott

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >

Scott, How about some of those BGN and CTS tracks. While I can appreciate having all the WC tracks and the Fantasy tracks that Papy has done, I am a short track fan and those shorter tracks are sorely missed. Mike "Scott Sanford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c9yf8.39322$%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:K_wf8.80121$[email hidden]... > > >"Scott Sanford" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > Nope nothing in the world NASCAR could do about it, of course if the > > > developer was lucky the game would sell 50,000 units. > > > > > > MGPRS2 sold more units then F1RS, even without a FIA license, without

any

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > driver, or teams or sponsors. It basically had track per track license > (the > > global "Monaco" license). I'm sure the same could be done for tracks. > > > I have no idea what what these titles did, so I will not comment on those, > but liscensing those tracks and WC tracks is a completely different > situations. As I stated earlier ISC is owned by the France family so why > would they give a track liscense when they don't have a NASCAR liscense. > > > Anyway, the guy who buys the title only because it has "Nascar" slapped

on > > it wouldn't care or more he wouldn't know if it had Chicago correctly > > modeled or not, or if has Homestead replaced by any other track. It > > wouldn't be a problem to model fantasy tracks. > > Okay, believe what you want but you try to sell a game to someone as astock

Quoted text (27 lines)

> car sim with no real tracks and see what happens. > > > > > > > > > Oh wait, isn't that what Papyrus just did with the Coca-Cola Speedway? > For > > sure, the casual gamers are raving about that track, imho :) > > > I never said people would not like, or appreciate fantasy tracks, my point > was that with nothing but fantasy tracks people won't buy it. > > Scott > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > > > >

I second what Mike is saying here. Not a truck fan myself, but man it would be nice if we could get the first Busch Grand National sim in several years, not to mention the possibility of giving these cars unique engine and handling characteristics, which hasn't been done before. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaase Scott? Who do we need to lobby at Sierra? =) Jason "Mike Payton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<fWzf8.19072$mG.70741@rwcrnsc54>...

Quoted text (64 lines)

> Scott, > > How about some of those BGN and CTS tracks. While I can appreciate having > all the WC tracks and the Fantasy tracks that Papy has done, I am a short > track fan and those shorter tracks are sorely missed. > > Mike > > "Scott Sanford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:c9yf8.39322$%[email hidden]... > > > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:K_wf8.80121$[email hidden]... > > > >"Scott Sanford" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > > Nope nothing in the world NASCAR could do about it, of course if the > > > > developer was lucky the game would sell 50,000 units. > > > > > > > > > MGPRS2 sold more units then F1RS, even without a FIA license, without > any > > > driver, or teams or sponsors. It basically had track per track license > (the > > > global "Monaco" license). I'm sure the same could be done for tracks. > > > > > I have no idea what what these titles did, so I will not comment on those, > > but liscensing those tracks and WC tracks is a completely different > > situations. As I stated earlier ISC is owned by the France family so why > > would they give a track liscense when they don't have a NASCAR liscense. > > > > > Anyway, the guy who buys the title only because it has "Nascar" slapped > on > > > it wouldn't care or more he wouldn't know if it had Chicago correctly > > > modeled or not, or if has Homestead replaced by any other track. It > > > wouldn't be a problem to model fantasy tracks. > > > > Okay, believe what you want but you try to sell a game to someone as a > stock > > car sim with no real tracks and see what happens. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh wait, isn't that what Papyrus just did with the Coca-Cola Speedway? > For > > > sure, the casual gamers are raving about that track, imho :) > > > > > I never said people would not like, or appreciate fantasy tracks, my point > > was that with nothing but fantasy tracks people won't buy it. > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > > -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ > > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > > > > > > > > >

>"Scott Sanford" <[email hidden]> wrote > I have no idea what what these titles did, so I will not comment on those, > but liscensing those tracks and WC tracks is a completely different > situations. As I stated earlier ISC is owned by the France family so why > would they give a track liscense when they don't have a NASCAR liscense. True, I guess the closest to buying full track license like MGPRS2 is buying individual track ownerships to each track owners (some of them being multiple track owners). The MGPRS2 thing is quite a loophole, getting the rights from Monaco TV. It's similar to getting FOCA licenses in other racing sims. My general point was still that it is very much possible to have a successful racing simulation without the need of a "brand" name like NASCAR or an official FIA license. It's about similar in terms of marketing approach. Of course it's a risk, but without risk where's the challenge? -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Nascar Heat has a full TC conversion mod of the CTS trucks. With the latest Busch rules, the physics between the two are much closer than back when papyrus pumped out that old Busch carset for NR 19999. Supposing a track editor is ever finally made, you could setup a Busch series fairly easily. dave henrie "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I second what Mike is saying here. > > Not a truck fan myself, but man it would be nice if we could get the > first Busch Grand National sim in several years, not to mention the > possibility of giving these cars unique engine and handling > characteristics, which hasn't been done before. > > Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaase Scott? Who do we need to lobby at > Sierra? =) > > Jason > > > "Mike Payton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<fWzf8.19072$mG.70741@rwcrnsc54>... > > Scott, > > > > How about some of those BGN and CTS tracks. While I can appreciatehaving > > all the WC tracks and the Fantasy tracks that Papy has done, I am ashort

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > track fan and those shorter tracks are sorely missed. > > > > Mike > > > > "Scott Sanford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:c9yf8.39322$%[email hidden]... > > > > > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:K_wf8.80121$[email hidden]... > > > > >"Scott Sanford" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > > > Nope nothing in the world NASCAR could do about it, of course if

the > > > > > developer was lucky the game would sell 50,000 units. > > > > > > > > > > > > MGPRS2 sold more units then F1RS, even without a FIA license,without > > any > > > > driver, or teams or sponsors. It basically had track per tracklicense > > (the > > > > global "Monaco" license). I'm sure the same could be done fortracks. > > > > > > > I have no idea what what these titles did, so I will not comment onthose, > > > but liscensing those tracks and WC tracks is a completely different > > > situations. As I stated earlier ISC is owned by the France family sowhy > > > would they give a track liscense when they don't have a NASCARliscense. > > > > > > > Anyway, the guy who buys the title only because it has "Nascar"slapped > > on > > > > it wouldn't care or more he wouldn't know if it had Chicagocorrectly

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > modeled or not, or if has Homestead replaced by any other track. It > > > > wouldn't be a problem to model fantasy tracks. > > > > > > Okay, believe what you want but you try to sell a game to someone as a > > stock > > > car sim with no real tracks and see what happens. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh wait, isn't that what Papyrus just did with the Coca-Cola

Speedway? > > For > > > > sure, the casual gamers are raving about that track, imho :) > > > > > > > I never said people would not like, or appreciate fantasy tracks, mypoint

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > was that with nothing but fantasy tracks people won't buy it. > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > > > -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ > > > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > > > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >