First GP4 screenshots draw scepticism
Jimmy De Plecker posted the first screenshots of Grand Prix 4, which most regulars dismissed as looking like GP3 with a bit more 3D, given GP3's disappointing reception. Some asked for cockpit shots to judge it, and the thread turned back to the FIA's role in limiting multiplayer in F1 sims and why so few developers offer good full-field online racing.
Automated summary.
"Jimmy De Plecker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4gag8$vv6$[email hidden]...
> http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_1.gif
> http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_2.gif
> http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_3.gif
> http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_4.gif
>
> let the comments begin ....
Hold on a moment while I find my magnifying glass.
:-)
We've reasonably clear ones here:
www.simbin.com
Cheers
Ian
"nobody special" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:J5Oa8.63215$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (12 lines)
> > "Jimmy De Plecker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a4gag8$vv6$[email hidden]... > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_1.gif > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_2.gif > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_3.gif > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_4.gif > > > > let the comments begin .... > > Hold on a moment while I find my magnifying glass. >In article <a4gag8$vv6$[email hidden]>, "Jimmy De Plecker" <[email hidden]> wrote:
they're not exatcly 'in action' though. but i doubt we'd EVER see cockpit
shots. for some reason game developers never show then. all videos are of
replays or the intro, never in game shots, which is understandable i guess
Quoted text (7 lines)
>http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_1.gif >http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_2.gif >http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_3.gif >http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_4.gif > >let the comments begin ... >JimmySomething went wrong here....
for the big ones klik ...
http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/index.html#29527
and then the thumbs...
sorry
"Jimmy De Plecker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4gag8$vv6$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_1.gif > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_2.gif > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_3.gif > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_4.gif > > let the comments begin ... > Jimmy > > > >> let the comments begin ...
We've all got our knives out - who's going to take the first stab?
"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4gcsi$2e0b$[email hidden]...
> > let the comments begin ...
>
> We've all got our knives out - who's going to take the first stab?
I'll have a go
Load of bollocks
Complete Bollocks
That looks like GP3 with a bit of 3D code.
Doug
LOL
:-)
"Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4gd0o$2c6m$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (20 lines)
> > "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a4gcsi$2e0b$[email hidden]... > > > let the comments begin ... > > > > We've all got our knives out - who's going to take the first stab? > > I'll have a go > > Load of bollocks > > Complete Bollocks > > That looks like GP3 with a bit of 3D code. > > > Doug > > >
"Ian Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hKOa8.64851$[email hidden]...
> LOL
> :-)
And..and.
Anyone who says "Wow, it looks fantastic" is either pissed, senile, or
insane
Doug
Hmmm tough call...
I'll take being pissed any day.
Hmmm, hang on though, better add insane too coz I'll be buying the dammed
thang on the day of its release.
Geez....maybe I'm losing my marbles as well...so add insane to the long list
of my faults - the biggest being I'm A GP/Crammond series fan from way back
when (Revs)
idav.
"Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4gdr9$2oct$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > "Ian Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:hKOa8.64851$[email hidden]... > > LOL > > :-) > > And..and. > > Anyone who says "Wow, it looks fantastic" is either pissed, senile, or > insane > > Doug > > >Wow, it looks fantastic
"Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4gdr9$2oct$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > "Ian Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:hKOa8.64851$[email hidden]... > > LOL > > :-) > > And..and. > > Anyone who says "Wow, it looks fantastic" is either pissed, senile, or > insane > > Doug > > >You Look Maahvelous
"Izzy Foreal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (22 lines)
> Wow, it looks fantastic > > > "Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a4gdr9$2oct$[email hidden]... > > > > "Ian Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:hKOa8.64851$[email hidden]... > > > LOL > > > :-) > > > > And..and. > > > > Anyone who says "Wow, it looks fantastic" is either pissed, senile, or > > insane > > > > Doug > > > > > > > >
"idav" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4hadi$udm$[email hidden]...
list
> of my faults - the biggest being I'm A GP/Crammond series fan from wayback
> when (Revs)
I was as big a fan of GP1 and GP2 as anyone else - but GP3 was appauling -
and GP4 is showing the same early signs of being little different
Doug
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Hmmm tough call... > > I'll take being pissed any day. > > Hmmm, hang on though, better add insane too coz I'll be buying the dammed > thang on the day of its release. > > Geez....maybe I'm losing my marbles as well...so add insane to the longIs it just me, or do those GP4 screens look like F12001 but not as good
quality?? Granted, I'd rather see pictures of the TRACK instead of the car
models..
Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com
"Jimmy De Plecker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4gc42$10r8$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (24 lines)
> Something went wrong here.... > > for the big ones klik ... > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/index.html#29527 > and then the thumbs... > > sorry > > > "Jimmy De Plecker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a4gag8$vv6$[email hidden]... > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_1.gif > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_2.gif > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_3.gif > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_4.gif > > > > let the comments begin ... > > Jimmy > > > > > > > > > >Bigger pics would have been nice ;) Where's my magnifying glass?
Jimmy De Plecker wrote:
--
Philippe "Philster" Sergerie
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_1.gif > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_2.gif > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_3.gif > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_4.gif > > let the comments begin ... > Jimmy>"Jimmy De Plecker" <[email hidden]> wrote
> let the comments begin ...
Well, there is much bigger screenshots available elsewhere.
Anyway, it's obvious Geoff has not created a full new game engine, because
it's obviously "Crammondish" in a way the textures are, and how the lighting
affects the polygons (a greyish hue). It's really easy to see, it was easy
to see in Gp3 also.
Of course, that's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either. The
core assembler game engine is still present probably, and until it is there,
the sim won't be worth anything. I mean it's 2002, WHEN WILL GEOFF START
SKIPPING FRAMES instead of time bending and other stupid tricks a decade
old?????.
</rant>
:)
--
-- 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...
Ya, almost as good as F1 2001. Almost.
"
Too small to tell anything.
Don Burnette
"Jimmy De Plecker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4gag8$vv6$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_1.gif > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_2.gif > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_3.gif > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_4.gif > > let the comments begin ... > Jimmy > > > >yes, it's too bad [most of us auto-simmers?] don't get all hot and bothered
over non-cockpit views. I know I certainly don't.
"Obake" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:3c6bb096$0$18474$[email hidden]...
> In article <a4gag8$vv6$[email hidden]>, "Jimmy De Plecker"<[email hidden]> wrote:
of
> replays or the intro, never in game shots, which is understandable i guess
Quoted text (10 lines)
> >http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_1.gif > >http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_2.gif > >http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_3.gif > >http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_4.gif > > > >let the comments begin ... > >Jimmy > > they're not exatcly 'in action' though. but i doubt we'd EVER see cockpit > shots. for some reason game developers never show then. all videos areyes, it's too bad [most of us auto-simmers?] don't get all hot and bothered
over non-cockpit views. I know I certainly don't.
of
> replays or the intro, never in game shots, which is understandable i guess
Quoted text (10 lines)
> >[link lost in import] > >[link lost in import] > >[link lost in import] > >http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_4.gif > >let the comments begin ... > >Jimmy > they're not exatcly 'in action' though. but i doubt we'd EVER see***pit > shots. for some reason game developers never show then. all videos are
"Ian Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ibOa8.33267$[email hidden]...
> :-)
> We've reasonably clear ones here:
> www.simbin.com
>
> Cheers
thanks!
"doubleu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:5UZa8.41354$[email hidden]...
> yes, it's too bad [most of us auto-simmers?] don't get all hot andbothered
> over non-cockpit views. I know I certainly don't. Speak for yourself....when a NEW title, one that hasn't been seen
before(i.e. NOT a GP 3 or 4 but say Rally Trophy), The very first screen
shot I want to see is a cockpit view. Why? Glad I asked....:)
1) Outside replay views often are 'glitzier' than actual ingame
shots...Watch those TV commercials for console sports games...do you see
actual gameplay when they display Madden 2002? Do we see ingame action from
the latest NBA title, or hockey? NOPE...we see replays which often run at a
higher resolution than actual gameplay. Thus, outside views MAY be used to
mislead the buying public.
2) Games that don't have cockpit views in early screenshots often are
titles that have, in the past, been heavily weighted toward arcade values,
so I am leary of companies that DON'T show incar views.
3) If there are no in-car cockpit views, this may indicate they
programmers have not attempted to really simulate the vehicle in question.
By that I mean feedback from a cockpit often means the whole car is modeled,
not just a visible nose that will magically dip down everytime I press the
brake pedal. I look for cockpit shots to verify that the programmers are
TRYING to implement code that will help with the immersion factor rather
than ellicit ooohhhs and aaaahhhhs over the pretty sunsets.
4) I'm not buying a racing simulation that simulates Kite Flying above
and behind the car. If I buy a racing title, it's to at least at SOME
level, to experience what racing a real life car is like...I haven't, at
least in 40+ years, found a car that is controled while floating behind
it....
There is no technical defense for this last reason, it is based purely on my
subjective knowledge of what I perceive to be 'right' and 'wrong' I'm sure
there are some titles that have very good driving
experiences/physics/simulation that don't have a cockpit view....but they
don't have my $$ either.
dave henrie
Speak for myself? Aren't you agreeing with me? My point was, non-cockpit
views do nothing for me, and I'm assuming, most of you others.
Wait..... now that I re-read what I typed, I'm more confused. Forget I said
anything. :-)
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:tt0b8.63720$Pz4.320205@rwcrnsc53...
from
> the latest NBA title, or hockey? NOPE...we see replays which often run ata
> higher resolution than actual gameplay. Thus, outside views MAY be usedto
modeled,
my
> subjective knowledge of what I perceive to be 'right' and 'wrong' I'msure
> there are some titles that have very good driving
> experiences/physics/simulation that don't have a cockpit view....but they
> don't have my $$ either.
> dave henrie
>
>
Quoted text (12 lines)
> > "doubleu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5UZa8.41354$[email hidden]... > > yes, it's too bad [most of us auto-simmers?] don't get all hot and > bothered > > over non-cockpit views. I know I certainly don't. > Speak for yourself....when a NEW title, one that hasn't been seen > before(i.e. NOT a GP 3 or 4 but say Rally Trophy), The very first screen > shot I want to see is a cockpit view. Why? Glad I asked....:) > 1) Outside replay views often are 'glitzier' than actual ingame > shots...Watch those TV commercials for console sports games...do you see > actual gameplay when they display Madden 2002? Do we see ingame actionQuoted text (7 lines)
> mislead the buying public. > 2) Games that don't have cockpit views in early screenshots often are > titles that have, in the past, been heavily weighted toward arcade values, > so I am leary of companies that DON'T show incar views. > 3) If there are no in-car cockpit views, this may indicate they > programmers have not attempted to really simulate the vehicle in question. > By that I mean feedback from a cockpit often means the whole car isQuoted text (10 lines)
> not just a visible nose that will magically dip down everytime I press the > brake pedal. I look for cockpit shots to verify that the programmers are > TRYING to implement code that will help with the immersion factor rather > than ellicit ooohhhs and aaaahhhhs over the pretty sunsets. > 4) I'm not buying a racing simulation that simulates Kite Flying above > and behind the car. If I buy a racing title, it's to at least at SOME > level, to experience what racing a real life car is like...I haven't, at > least in 40+ years, found a car that is controled while floating behind > it.... > There is no technical defense for this last reason, it is based purely on
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:JOXa8.27283$[email hidden]...
> >"Jimmy De Plecker" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > let the comments begin ...
>
> ........
>
> The core assembler game engine is still present probably, and until it isthere,
> the sim won't be worth anything. I mean it's 2002, WHEN WILL GEOFF START
> SKIPPING FRAMES instead of time bending and other stupid tricks a decade
> old?????.
How on earth can you tell this from an early screen shot? Don't you ever get
tired of repeating your mantra?
Bart Westra
Douglas Ellison wrote:
> I was as big a fan of GP1 and GP2 as anyone else - but GP3 was appauling -
> and GP4 is showing the same early signs of being little different
>
> Doug
GP 1 was great (though come to think of it, it never worked with a
joystick! But for it's time this was easy to forgive). GP 2 was my first
experience of being teased by "what could have been". It was way to
ahead of the then current cpu's.
Then my experience with GP 3. Hmmmm. Didn't work out of the box
with V2. Are they kidding????? So I get fix and the first thing I see is
the same idiotic fixed frame rate caper. Are they kidding?????? And then
I remind myself that even if I get this pile of crap going that I wont
be racing it on the net! Are they kidding???????? Have they heard about
GPL or even Nascar 3?????? Or how about even Nascar 2 ?????
And now this poor thing is in the 12 month fudge update cycle!
GOODBYE! Crammond is just another past enthusiast turned cash in
merchant.
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:09:37 +1100, Byron Forbes
<[email hidden]> wrote:
> GP 1 was great (though come to think of it, it never worked with a
>joystick! Yes it did.. both the Amiga and PC versions supported joysticks.
>But for it's time this was easy to forgive). GP 2 was my first
>experience of being teased by "what could have been". It was way to
>ahead of the then current cpu's.
Yup.. Pc's who could run GP2 with a full field without the ridiculous
slow-motion effect weren't even invented back then.. That would take
another 2 years.
> Then my experience with GP 3. Hmmmm. Didn't work out of the box
>with V2. Are they kidding????? Err.. the v2 was allready prehistoric when GP3 was released :)
Same as F1 2001 not supporting v3 cards. We want our games to be
better, so we need to buy better hardware too.
>o I get fix and the first thing I see is
>the same idiotic fixed frame rate caper. Are they kidding?????? Crammond has a wicked sense of humour eh?
>And then
>I remind myself that even if I get this pile of crap going that I wont
>be racing it on the net! Are they kidding???????? Have they heard about
>GPL or even Nascar 3?????? Or how about even Nascar 2 ?????Some people believe the FIA forbids a good working multiplayer.
Some people believe in Santa too.
> And now this poor thing is in the 12 month fudge update cycle!
>GOODBYE! Crammond is just another past enthusiast turned cash in
>merchant.GP3 2000 was very good actually.. untill another
could-have-been-excellent sim came along, F1 2001.
Sigh.
Andre
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:09:37 +1100, Byron Forbes
> GP 1 was great (though come to think of it, it never worked with a
>joystick!
Yes it did.. both the Amiga and PC versions supported joysticks.
Yup.. Pc's who could run GP2 with a full field without the ridiculous
slow-motion effect weren't even invented back then.. That would take
another 2 years.
Err.. the v2 was allready prehistoric when GP3 was released :)
Same as F1 2001 not supporting v3 cards. We want our games to be
better, so we need to buy better hardware too.
Crammond has a wicked sense of humour eh?
Some people believe the FIA forbids a good working multiplayer.
Some people believe in Santa too.
GP3 2000 was very good actually.. untill another
could-have-been-excellent sim came along, F1 2001.
Sigh.
Andre
>"Bart Westra" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > The core assembler game engine is still present probably, and until itis> there,
> > the sim won't be worth anything. I mean it's 2002, WHEN WILL GEOFFSTART
> > SKIPPING FRAMES instead of time bending and other stupid tricks a decade
> > old?????.
>
> How on earth can you tell this from an early screen shot?
We were able to tell that for GP3 also. It's obvious. Just wait and see...
--
-- 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...
"Jimmy De Plecker" <[email hidden]> writes:
> http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_1.gif
> http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_2.gif
> http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_3.gif
> http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_4.gif
>
> let the comments begin ...
should I get a smaller monitor?
--
Gunnar
#31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2
gnus don't kill people. gnus-summary-lower-score kills people.
"Andre Warringa" wrote...
> Err.. the v2 was allready prehistoric when GP3 was
> released :)
> Same as F1 2001 not supporting v3 cards. We want
> our games to be better, so we need to buy better
> hardware too.
As a V2 owner for the GP3 release and a V3 owner when F12k hit the shops, I
don't see the logic nor the humour in that first statement.
I don't agree with the second statement either. As N2002 and Rally Trophy
clearly show it's possible to code games which still look nice and move
adequately on "older" cards, provided there's a decent size processor
pushing the show (PIII655 o'ced to 866 here, which is not all that hot
either). 800x600x16 would probably hurt on a 19" monitor, granted, which is
part of the reason I'm sticking with my trusty old 14".
At the moment, every game I feel an urge to give more than a cursory glance
to runs good enough for me and I can't even see a "must upgrade" game on the
horizon yet. If I was really into FPS', Medal of Honour would have prompted
me to go out and get some new gear, but, seeing as I'm not, when the demo
gets all in knots and shows horrible texture corruption, I just shrug and
uninstall.
That said, it would be nice to sample some of that stuff. I do have a TNT2
Ultra around here somewhere, but I've so far held back from putting it in my
PC as I was told I might run into trouble as my case only has a 230W power
supply. Also, how do you rate my chances of getting GPL to run adequately on
this card?
Jan.
=---
"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.
"Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
No, you play it on your mobile phone.
(follow the thread, there's a link to some normal size screenshots)
Ice D
Quoted text (10 lines)
> "Jimmy De Plecker" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_1.gif > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_2.gif > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_3.gif > > http://www.spelletjesgarnaal.be/news/images/20020214/gp4_4.gif > > > > let the comments begin ... > > should I get a smaller monitor?On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:37:42 +0100, "Jan Verschueren"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Lighten up a bit Jan.. new games have better physics and more eyecandy
so they simply require more horsepower. Sooner or later there comes a
time when a new game does not run well on your system anymore.
You are very correct that some games are programmed in a very
inefficient way (RT is a bad example - try a race against the AI cars
at Finland, fps disaster making it unplayable, but in single player it
runs perfect), but for example to get N2002 running with a full field
you need quite some horsepower too.
An extremely good programmed sim is IL2.. I run it with everything at
maximum detail, in 1024 res, on my p3 500 gf2 and it looks so damn
gorgeous..
I love all the 16bit addons for GPL, but my v3 simply couldn't handle
it because of its limited texture memory. So.. time to move on to a
better card. I bought the GF2 GTS when the GF3 was released, so it was
quite cheap. I will buy a GF3 when the new GF4 cards have been
released and the GF3 drops in price.
>At the moment, every game I feel an urge to give more than a cursory glance
>to runs good enough for me and I can't even see a "must upgrade" game on the
>horizon yet. If I was really into FPS', Medal of Honour would have prompted
>me to go out and get some new gear, but, seeing as I'm not, when the demo
>gets all in knots and shows horrible texture corruption, I just shrug and
>uninstall.
Shame.. MoH is really a very good fps.. too short and a shitty ending
though, but multiplayer is very good.
>That said, it would be nice to sample some of that stuff. I do have a TNT2
>Ultra around here somewhere, but I've so far held back from putting it in my
>PC as I was told I might run into trouble as my case only has a 230W power
>supply. Also, how do you rate my chances of getting GPL to run adequately on
>this card?
I don't have the TNT2 Ultra so I can't really help you, but why don't
you simply try it? You can allways go back to your other card (which
card are you using now btw?)
Cheers,
Andre
>Jan.
>=---
>"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.
>
Quoted text (9 lines)
>"Andre Warringa" wrote... >> Err.. the v2 was allready prehistoric when GP3 was >> released :) >> Same as F1 2001 not supporting v3 cards. We want >> our games to be better, so we need to buy better >> hardware too. > >As a V2 owner for the GP3 release and a V3 owner when F12k hit the shops, I >don't see the logic nor the humour in that first statement.
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
So you think Schumi and Ian Bell are full of shit?
David G Fisher
Quoted text (8 lines)
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:09:37 +1100, Byron Forbes > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >And then > >I remind myself that even if I get this pile of crap going that I wont > >be racing it on the net! Are they kidding???????? Have they heard about > >GPL or even Nascar 3?????? Or how about even Nascar 2 ????? > Some people believe the FIA forbids a good working multiplayer. > Some people believe in Santa too."David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:pCeb8.48838$[email hidden]...
Not full of shit, but not full of proof either.
I DO believe there is some constraint somewhere preventing full IP
multiplayer in modern F1 games, but I'd love to see an explanation. "A
friend of a friend heard that Bernie said so" is not proof.
If they were allowed to, they'd do it (it's not rocket science). But WHY
aren't they allowed? Show me the contract.
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:09:37 +1100, Byron Forbes > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >And then > > >I remind myself that even if I get this pile of crap going that I wont > > >be racing it on the net! Are they kidding???????? Have they heard about > > >GPL or even Nascar 3?????? Or how about even Nascar 2 ????? > > Some people believe the FIA forbids a good working multiplayer. > > Some people believe in Santa too. > > So you think Schumi and Ian Bell are full of shit? > > David G FisherOn Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:56:53 GMT, "David G Fisher"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Some people believe the FIA forbids a good working multiplayer.
>> Some people believe in Santa too.
>
>So you think Schumi and Ian Bell are full of shit?
>
>David G Fisher
I can imagine FIA forbidding multiplayer in an F1 sim.
I cannot imagine FIA allowing multiplayer in an F1 sim as long as it
is crap as hell.
Andre
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:07:55 GMT, "Rob Adams"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>If they were allowed to, they'd do it (it's not rocket science).
I think it must be very difficult to make a good multiplayer Rob.
Can you name me any other racing sim with a good (full field)
multiplayer besides Papy sims?
I read in different reviews that even in multiplayer-only Motor City
the multiplayer is crap :-/
Andre
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Nascar Heat, Viper, and SCGT are supposed to be good also (I haven't tried
them). But in general on-line racing shouldn't require any different code
than other on-line games like first person shooters and role-playing games.
The bandwidth and latency requirements might be stricter (no idea), but not
by orders of magnitude.
I'm not privy to any inside details, but GPL as first produced was NOT
intended as an on-line game. They provided LAN and modem support but did not
develop multiplayer specifically for the Internet. Only when everybody
started playing on the Net did they patch it to improve that feature.
To me that implies that the majority of the development time was spent on
the physics model, the graphics, and track modeling, etc. I'm not
downplaying their achievement, but I'm sticking by my "rocket science"
statement. If Papy could develop such a good on-line component without it
being their #1 priority, so can the other developers. And those developers
can steal ideas from the existing games. They haven't done this for a
reason. Many have claimed it was because the FIA forbids it, but other
reasons exist too: maybe their market analysis told them it wasn't
profitable. Maybe their deadlines were too tight and multiplayer got
scrapped. There are lots of reasons, but it's interesting that NO F1 games
have decent multiplayer.
Ruud, and others, what's your take on this? Is the multiplayer stuff that
hard?
Quoted text (13 lines)
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:07:55 GMT, "Rob Adams" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >If they were allowed to, they'd do it (it's not rocket science). > > I think it must be very difficult to make a good multiplayer Rob. > Can you name me any other racing sim with a good (full field) > multiplayer besides Papy sims? > > I read in different reviews that even in multiplayer-only Motor City > the multiplayer is crap :-/ > > AndreOn Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:45:07 GMT, "Rob Adams"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Nascar Heat, Viper, and SCGT are supposed to be good also (I haven't tried
>them). But in general on-line racing shouldn't require any different code
>than other on-line games like first person shooters and role-playing games.
>The bandwidth and latency requirements might be stricter (no idea), but not
>by orders of magnitude.
I never tried those online either, but Viper is made by some ex-papy
employees, that explains a lot :) and I just asked on VROC if the SCGT
multiplayer was any good and everybody started laughing.
>I'm not privy to any inside details, but GPL as first produced was NOT
>intended as an on-line game. They provided LAN and modem support but did not
>develop multiplayer specifically for the Internet. Only when everybody
>started playing on the Net did they patch it to improve that feature.
And they did a good job.. a shame there was no server support build in
gpl, thankfully very soon some people made that, but bottom line is
that if the game has crappy multiplayer support, no single user addon
can be really usefull then.
Or does Relay support full-field multiplayer races in F1 2001 now?
>profitable. Maybe their deadlines were too tight and multiplayer got
>scrapped. There are lots of reasons, but it's interesting that NO F1 games
>have decent multiplayer.
I am convinced the deadline reason is the correct one. I think
multiplayer needs a LOT of time and even more a LOT of testing before
it's really good. And since most people buy racing games even if it
has no multiplayer, I can see the reason why developers don't put too
much time in it. F1 2001 was allready released in beta-stage, no way
they had time to spend on multiplayer.
The FIA explanation is such a nice excuse.
Andre
>Ruud, and others, what's your take on this? Is the multiplayer stuff that
>hard?
"Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Djfb8.4391$7n.10528@shaw-ty1...
games.
> The bandwidth and latency requirements might be stricter (no idea), butnot
> by orders of magnitude.
>
> I'm not privy to any inside details, but GPL as first produced was NOT
> intended as an on-line game. They provided LAN and modem support but didnot
Ubi could just hire some of the coders from one of their games here
http://www.ubi.com/US/GamingZone/ and have them do the multiplay for F1RC2.
Right? Money talks. There's obviously restrictions by the FIA. If it's true
that it costs 10 million for a non-exclusive F1 license and another 5
million for a non-exclusive multiplay license, then it's hardly surprising
we don't see full field multiplay in F1 sims. Papy does it in their sims
because the costs have to be so much lower for the licensing.
David G Fisher
Quoted text (19 lines)
> "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:07:55 GMT, "Rob Adams" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >If they were allowed to, they'd do it (it's not rocket science). > > > > I think it must be very difficult to make a good multiplayer Rob. > > Can you name me any other racing sim with a good (full field) > > multiplayer besides Papy sims? > > > > I read in different reviews that even in multiplayer-only Motor City > > the multiplayer is crap :-/ > > > > Andre > > Nascar Heat, Viper, and SCGT are supposed to be good also (I haven't tried > them). But in general on-line racing shouldn't require any different code > than other on-line games like first person shooters and role-playingQuoted text (17 lines)
> develop multiplayer specifically for the Internet. Only when everybody > started playing on the Net did they patch it to improve that feature. > > To me that implies that the majority of the development time was spent on > the physics model, the graphics, and track modeling, etc. I'm not > downplaying their achievement, but I'm sticking by my "rocket science" > statement. If Papy could develop such a good on-line component without it > being their #1 priority, so can the other developers. And those developers > can steal ideas from the existing games. They haven't done this for a > reason. Many have claimed it was because the FIA forbids it, but other > reasons exist too: maybe their market analysis told them it wasn't > profitable. Maybe their deadlines were too tight and multiplayer got > scrapped. There are lots of reasons, but it's interesting that NO F1 games > have decent multiplayer. > > Ruud, and others, what's your take on this? Is the multiplayer stuff that > hard?On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:16:12 GMT, "David G Fisher"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Ok but why is the multiplayer in F1 2001 so crappy and unstable then?
Why not a 6-player maximum multiplayer that works good and stable?
Andre
Quoted text (9 lines)
>Ubi could just hire some of the coders from one of their games here >http://www.ubi.com/US/GamingZone/ and have them do the multiplay for F1RC2. >Right? Money talks. There's obviously restrictions by the FIA. If it's true >that it costs 10 million for a non-exclusive F1 license and another 5 >million for a non-exclusive multiplay license, then it's hardly surprising >we don't see full field multiplay in F1 sims. Papy does it in their sims >because the costs have to be so much lower for the licensing. > >David G Fisher
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Well I haven't found it to be crappy and unstable. Up to six works decently.
Maybe what it is now is all that ISI thought they could get away with under
their agreement with the FIA.
David G Fisher
Quoted text (8 lines)
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:16:12 GMT, "David G Fisher" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> > Ok but why is the multiplayer in F1 2001 so crappy and unstable then? > Why not a 6-player maximum multiplayer that works good and stable? > > AndreIn article <LMeb8.4386$7n.10721@shaw-ty1>, "Rob Adams"
<[email hidden]> writes:
>If they were allowed to, they'd do it (it's not rocket science). But WHY
>aren't they allowed? Show me the contract.
I'd like to see MP in the games, and I'm curious about the restrictions too.
But, they really don't have to show us a DAMN thing, and we can't make them.
It sucks, but I think it's realistic.
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.
David G Fisher wrote:
One thing's for sure. Whatever the reason is it's idiotic!
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Ubi could just hire some of the coders from one of their games here > http://www.ubi.com/US/GamingZone/ and have them do the multiplay for F1RC2. > Right? Money talks. There's obviously restrictions by the FIA. If it's true > that it costs 10 million for a non-exclusive F1 license and another 5 > million for a non-exclusive multiplay license, then it's hardly surprising > we don't see full field multiplay in F1 sims. Papy does it in their sims > because the costs have to be so much lower for the licensing. > > David G FisherAndre Warringa wrote:
Are you kidding? I'll bet there were more V2 cards in computers when
GP3 was released than anything else. For about 12 months after it's
release the V2 was THE card to have. Anything else was a joke! D3D was a
joke even. Even when the first TNT came on the scene, about half of all
games had native 3dfx coding. Some had nothing else! This only started
to change at about the time GP3 was released!
Whether a V2 was good enough to run gp3 optimally is irrelevant
anyway. They would probably have been better off from a sales point of
view if the game never supported AMD cpu"s!
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:09:37 +1100, Byron Forbes > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Then my experience with GP 3. Hmmmm. Didn't work out of the box > >with V2. Are they kidding????? > Err.. the v2 was allready prehistoric when GP3 was released :) > Same as F1 2001 not supporting v3 cards. We want our games to be > better, so we need to buy better hardware too. >On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:18:11 +1100, Byron Forbes
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Huh? GP3 was released in late July 2000. The same month I bought a
GF1DDR on discount for $140, because the GF2 had been out for three
months or so, the GF1DDR since oct '99.
The V2 was released almost 30 months earlier, in feb 1998. The V2
*really* started sagging by the turn of the millenium, even by
simplaying standards, nevermind anything else(like Q3, released late
'99).
Funny how I'm feeling like quoting ancient history when it was just a
mere year and a half ago... :)
> Whether a V2 was good enough to run gp3 optimally is irrelevant
>anyway. They would probably have been better off from a sales point of
>view if the game never supported AMD cpu"s!
??
Quoted text (13 lines)
>> > Then my experience with GP 3. Hmmmm. Didn't work out of the box >> >with V2. Are they kidding????? >> Err.. the v2 was allready prehistoric when GP3 was released :) >> Same as F1 2001 not supporting v3 cards. We want our games to be >> better, so we need to buy better hardware too. >> > > Are you kidding? I'll bet there were more V2 cards in computers when >GP3 was released than anything else. For about 12 months after it's >release the V2 was THE card to have. Anything else was a joke! D3D was a >joke even. Even when the first TNT came on the scene, about half of all >games had native 3dfx coding. Some had nothing else! This only started >to change at about the time GP3 was released!On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:18:11 +1100, Byron Forbes
<[email hidden]> wrote:
> Are you kidding? I'll bet there were more V2 cards in computers when<snip>
I'm not kidding.. when GP3 was released I allready had a V3, and I
bought a V3 card because it had dropped so much in price, because GF
cards were allready on the market and V3 cards were getting 'old'
('old' is very relative in the computer industry :)
I allways buy my hardware when something new is on the market and the
prices of the 'old' hardware start to drop.
Going to buy a GF3 soon :)
Andre
In article <[email hidden]>,
Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> writes:
>>If they were allowed to, they'd do it (it's not rocket science).
>
>I think it must be very difficult to make a good multiplayer Rob.
>Can you name me any other racing sim with a good (full field)
>multiplayer besides Papy sims?
Maybe Bernie isn't as dumb as we thought. Could be he reads RAS and he's
denying multiplayer until Papyrus asks him for it.
Don McCorkle
He's saying that he wants to see cockpit pictures so that he knows if it is
a "real sim" or just an arcade game.
-Stuart Becktell
"doubleu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:%y0b8.389966$[email hidden]...
> Speak for myself? Aren't you agreeing with me? My point was, non-cockpit
> views do nothing for me, and I'm assuming, most of you others.
>
> Wait..... now that I re-read what I typed, I'm more confused. Forget Isaid
screen
> > shot I want to see is a cockpit view. Why? Glad I asked....:)
> > 1) Outside replay views often are 'glitzier' than actual ingame
> > shots...Watch those TV commercials for console sports games...do you see
> > actual gameplay when they display Madden 2002? Do we see ingame action
> from
> > the latest NBA title, or hockey? NOPE...we see replays which often runat
> a
> > higher resolution than actual gameplay. Thus, outside views MAY be used
> to
> > mislead the buying public.
> > 2) Games that don't have cockpit views in early screenshots often are
> > titles that have, in the past, been heavily weighted toward arcadevalues,
> > so I am leary of companies that DON'T show incar views.
> > 3) If there are no in-car cockpit views, this may indicate they
> > programmers have not attempted to really simulate the vehicle inquestion.
> > By that I mean feedback from a cockpit often means the whole car is
> modeled,
> > not just a visible nose that will magically dip down everytime I pressthe
> > brake pedal. I look for cockpit shots to verify that the programmersare
> > TRYING to implement code that will help with the immersion factorrather
> > than ellicit ooohhhs and aaaahhhhs over the pretty sunsets.
> > 4) I'm not buying a racing simulation that simulates Kite Flyingabove
> > and behind the car. If I buy a racing title, it's to at least at SOME
> > level, to experience what racing a real life car is like...I haven't, at
> > least in 40+ years, found a car that is controled while floating behind
> > it....
> > There is no technical defense for this last reason, it is based purelyon
> my
> > subjective knowledge of what I perceive to be 'right' and 'wrong' I'm
> sure
> > there are some titles that have very good driving
> > experiences/physics/simulation that don't have a cockpit view....butthey
> > don't have my $$ either.
> > dave henrie
> >
> >
>
>
Quoted text (12 lines)
> anything. :-) > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tt0b8.63720$Pz4.320205@rwcrnsc53... > > > > "doubleu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:5UZa8.41354$[email hidden]... > > > yes, it's too bad [most of us auto-simmers?] don't get all hot and > > bothered > > > over non-cockpit views. I know I certainly don't. > > Speak for yourself....when a NEW title, one that hasn't been seen > > before(i.e. NOT a GP 3 or 4 but say Rally Trophy), The very firstHi Rob,
> If they were allowed to, they'd do it (it's not rocket science)
My strictly personal opinion is that - yes, it is most likely quite a bit of
rocket science indeed, and there probably currently simply are not that many
sim programmers out there yet who have the know-how to make pseudo
'peer-to-peer' type of low bandwidth multiplayer online work really well.
That, and perhaps that some companies don't consider online a big market -
the plain figures don't make it look to interesting apparently, although
they're constantly growing. That may be the reason why those who don't have
the know-how haven't tried too hard to obtain it.
Achim
And I realized he was on MY side...oops...still, no cockpit, no sale...
:0
dave henrie
"Stuart Becktell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:6Itb8.93766$[email hidden]...
> He's saying that he wants to see cockpit pictures so that he knows if itis
> a "real sim" or just an arcade game.
> -Stuart Becktell
> "doubleu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:%y0b8.389966$[email hidden]...
> > Speak for myself? Aren't you agreeing with me? My point was,non-cockpit
> > views do nothing for me, and I'm assuming, most of you others.
> >
> > Wait..... now that I re-read what I typed, I'm more confused. Forget I
> said
> > anything. :-)
>
And I realized he was on MY side...oops...still, no***pit, no sale...
:0
dave henrie
> He's saying that he wants to see***pit pictures so that he knows if it is
> a "real sim" or just an arcade game.
> -Stuart Becktell
> > Speak for myself? Aren't you agreeing with me? My point was, non-cockpit
> > views do nothing for me, and I'm assuming, most of you others.
> > Wait..... now that I re-read what I typed, I'm more confused. Forget I
> said
> > anything. :-)
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
I don't know why you think it's so hard. Papyrus has only now gotten their
tire model right (at least that's what people seem to be saying with N2002).
They still haven't been able to put in a save race feature. They got the
multiplayer right a long time ago so it obviously isn't the hardest thing
for them to do. Why would it be the hardest thing for other developers?
Five years ago, I could race eight player races all night either hosting or
joining races hosted by a 33.6 modem with people from all over the world.
Why wouldn't they be able to move up to 15 or even 22 by now unless
something was preventing them?
David G Fisher
Quoted text (14 lines)
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:45:07 GMT, "Rob Adams" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > I am convinced the deadline reason is the correct one. I think > multiplayer needs a LOT of time and even more a LOT of testing before > it's really good. And since most people buy racing games even if it > has no multiplayer, I can see the reason why developers don't put too > much time in it. F1 2001 was allready released in beta-stage, no way > they had time to spend on multiplayer. > The FIA explanation is such a nice excuse. > > Andre > > >Ruud, and others, what's your take on this? Is the multiplayer stuff that > >hard?
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:QmHb8.51524$[email hidden]...
that
> > >hard?
>
> I don't know why you think it's so hard. Papyrus has only now gotten their
> tire model right (at least that's what people seem to be saying withN2002).
> They still haven't been able to put in a save race feature. They got the
> multiplayer right a long time ago so it obviously isn't the hardest thing
> for them to do. Why would it be the hardest thing for other developers?
>
> Five years ago, I could race eight player races all night either hostingor
> joining races hosted by a 33.6 modem with people from all over the world.
> Why wouldn't they be able to move up to 15 or even 22 by now unless
> something was preventing them?
>
> David G Fisher
I forgot that their damage model and AI have received a lot of criticism
too. Not saying they're considered bad, but just pointing out that Papyrus
has struggled with or not included some features while their multiplayer has
been excellent for a long time.
David G Fisher
