So funny...

I just read this in an article summarizing sims for the year. So funny, but potentially true :) "rFactor also came along, proving that a real physics engine for fake cars can be just as immersive. It threatens to become the SFP1 of the racing simulation genre, boasting open architecture and full support for modding. This guarantees that we're sure to be in the middle of a NASCAR Busch Series race only to be overtaken by an Avocado Green Mercury Grand Marquis station wagon."

It's the reason Ive pretty much given up on rF. Just too many series and tracks to bother. No one will ever be happy no matter what classes or tracks are chosen for a series. Open series with multiple classes doesnt work with anything less than 10 racers on a 2-3 mile track either. May as well be racing alone. My hope for online simracing now lies with GTL's N.American release ;) Mitch "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dtxuf.82802$oG.67471@dukeread02...

Quoted text (13 lines)

>I just read this in an article summarizing sims for the year. > > So funny, but potentially true :) > > "rFactor also came along, proving that a real physics engine for fake cars > can be just as immersive. It threatens to become the SFP1 of the racing > simulation genre, boasting open architecture and full support for modding. > This guarantees that we're sure to be in the middle of a NASCAR Busch > Series race only to be overtaken by an Avocado Green Mercury Grand Marquis > station wagon." > > >

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:2zzuf.9875$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> It's the reason Ive pretty much given up on rF. Just too many series > and tracks to bother. No one will ever be happy no matter what classes > or tracks are chosen for a series. Open series with multiple classes > doesnt work with anything less than 10 racers on a 2-3 mile track > either. May as well be racing alone. > > My hope for online simracing now lies with GTL's N.American release ;) > > Mitch >

You will not be dissapointed with GTL, its bloody brilliant. best sound in a sim ever, great gfx and track detail.dont be put off with the career mode coz you cherish each car you win and will really enjoy the differences between the cars and classes. feels good thrashing a vete in a little elan. Tango ps. online seems very smooth and alot better than previous ISI attempts

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

Quoted text (20 lines)

> "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:2zzuf.9875$[email hidden]: > >> It's the reason Ive pretty much given up on rF. Just too many series >> and tracks to bother. No one will ever be happy no matter what classes >> or tracks are chosen for a series. Open series with multiple classes >> doesnt work with anything less than 10 racers on a 2-3 mile track >> either. May as well be racing alone. >> >> My hope for online simracing now lies with GTL's N.American release ;) >> >> Mitch >> > You will not be dissapointed with GTL, its bloody brilliant. best sound > in a sim ever, great gfx and track detail.dont be put off with the > career mode coz you cherish each car you win and will really enjoy the > differences between the cars and classes. feels good thrashing a vete in > a little elan. > Tango > ps. online seems very smooth and alot better than previous ISI attempts

I didn't understand a word you wrote. It's like you were under water, trying to talk through a breathing tube. I have GTL and it's a great game. Online is smooth: only wish there was the possibility of having add-on tracks, to increase longevity. Alanb

Alan Bernardo enlightened us with: > "Tango" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... snip Mitch's comments out.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> You will not be dissapointed with GTL, its bloody brilliant. best >> sound in a sim ever, great gfx and track detail.dont be put off with >> the career mode coz you cherish each car you win and will really >> enjoy the differences between the cars and classes. feels good >> thrashing a vete in a little elan. >> Tango >> ps. online seems very smooth and alot better than previous ISI >> attempts > I didn't understand a word you wrote. It's like you were under water, > trying to talk through a breathing tube.

Jebus Alan, is this your auto reply to posts here at RAS? (I didnt understand). How can you not understand? you need it on tape/read to you? <G> BTW he said what you said, with more details and not wordy. > > I have GTL and it's a great game. Online is smooth: only wish there > was the possibility of having add-on tracks, to increase longevity.Snipped. is there no hope for tracks being made by the mod community? (admitting lack of knowledge here). Take care, Sting32 <plowboy>

>"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote > It's the reason Ive pretty much given up on rF. Just too many series and > tracks to bother. too many tracks, rF??? I think you're mislead! ;) The failure of rF is from the developpers and the produces who have failed to have good distribution in stores and especially a stable online environment where mismatchs wouldn't happen (think the Counter-Strike type platform where clients would have their game modified as they log-on if they aren't using the same files). TXT files ain't big. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Yes, there are a lot of tracks. But most are butt ugly, glass smooth, uncambered conversions. A couple aren't too bad, like Brands Hatch, but all have ended up my recycle bin. They've trashed up rFactor, IMO, as well as diluting the servers. Not that the convertors don't have the right to hammer them out, lol. I'm getting a little antsy as well. There have been two full carset add-ons: the F3s and the PCCs. The later have been savaged by the purists on RSC over the front-rear weight 'oversight' by GMSF. Lo^ is due with the 3rd version of the F3s, as well as, rumor has it, a scratch track or two. Give it three more months.

"Mitch_A" wrote... > <snip> > My hope for online simracing now lies with GTL's N.American release ;) I'm sure you'll like it. Jan. =---

"PlowBoy" wrote... > <snip> > is there no hope for tracks being made by the mod community? > (admitting lack of knowledge here). I think it's definately possible to have add-on tracks, if they don't exist already, but I don't know if they could be used online. Add-on cars exist already, but those don't work online. Jan. =---

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tango" > <snip> > feels good thrashing a vete in a little elan. Not being able to smash that puny little car with the American muscle(*) is annoying, true, but it walking all over the E-Type too really gets my goat. Jan. =--- (*) Except for a GT40, but that's really like using a bazooka to kill a bug

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> I didn't understand a word you wrote. It's like you were under water, >> trying to talk through a breathing tube. > > Jebus Alan, is this your auto reply to posts here at RAS? (I didnt > understand). > > How can you not understand? you need it on tape/read to you? <G> > BTW he said what you said, with more details and not wordy. > >>

I don't know: the last time I checked "coz" was not a word. The reason I found the post so hard to understand was because it seemed like it was written in some coded language, that's all. More details-- seemed to me to be a lot of generalities. And sorry for the wordiness. I guess that if you prefer "coz" over some other existing word, then there's nothing I can do for you. Alanb

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1zCuf.30278$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote >> It's the reason Ive pretty much given up on rF. Just too many series and >> tracks to bother. > > > too many tracks, rF??? I think you're mislead! ;) > > > The failure of rF is from the developpers and the produces who have failed > to have good distribution in stores and especially a stable online > environment where mismatchs wouldn't happen (think the Counter-Strike type > platform where clients would have their game modified as they log-on if > they aren't using the same files). TXT files ain't big.

What failure? I know you want it to fail since that was your prediction, but just wanting it to fail doesn't make it happen. :-o How many sales have they had so far? They have a new demo coming out soon, and I suspect they still have a huge number of potential sales awaiting them. -- David G Fisher

>The later have been savaged by the purists on RSC over the front-rear >weight >'oversight' by GMSF. You don't have to be a purist to be disappointed by a porsche having more weight in the front than the back and them changing the garage menu to cover it up. The trouble with rfactor is amateurs trying to be professionals and then getting upset when their work is criticised. I'm tired of it already.

You got stuck on the "tracks" part frank but missed the big picture. My point was directed towards "too much choice" and it's adverse effects on the actual races. If I wanted to race alone I would. I don;t ;) Mitch "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1zCuf.30278$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> >"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote >> It's the reason Ive pretty much given up on rF. Just too many series and >> tracks to bother. > > > too many tracks, rF??? I think you're mislead! ;) > > > The failure of rF is from the developpers and the produces who have failed > to have good distribution in stores and especially a stable online > environment where mismatchs wouldn't happen (think the Counter-Strike type > platform where clients would have their game modified as they log-on if > they aren't using the same files). TXT files ain't big. > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > >

Hi Jan, long time no see, I hope all is well for ya! Yea I think I'm going to like it as well. The demo was outstanding in it's own right so I'd assume its only gotten better. Mitch "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in > > I'm sure you'll like it. > > Jan. > =--- > >

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

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Yes, there are a lot of tracks. But most are butt ugly, glass smooth, > uncambered conversions. A couple aren't too bad, like Brands Hatch, but > all have ended up my recycle bin. They've trashed up rFactor, IMO, as > well as diluting the servers. Not that the convertors don't have the > right to hammer them out, lol. > > I'm getting a little antsy as well. There have been two full carset > add-ons: the F3s and the PCCs. The later have been savaged by the > purists on RSC over the front-rear weight 'oversight' by GMSF. Lo^ is > due with the 3rd version of the F3s, as well as, rumor has it, a > scratch track or two. Give it three more months. >

Have you tried the Trois Rivi�res track? It was scratch built and it is the only version in existence for any racing sim. The author has started work on Mont Tremblant (which is an amazing track).

"Bob Loblaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4jHuf.58418$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Yes, there are a lot of tracks. But most are butt ugly, glass smooth, >> uncambered conversions. A couple aren't too bad, like Brands Hatch, but >> all have ended up my recycle bin. They've trashed up rFactor, IMO, as >> well as diluting the servers. Not that the convertors don't have the >> right to hammer them out, lol. >> >> I'm getting a little antsy as well. There have been two full carset >> add-ons: the F3s and the PCCs. The later have been savaged by the >> purists on RSC over the front-rear weight 'oversight' by GMSF. Lo^ is >> due with the 3rd version of the F3s, as well as, rumor has it, a >> scratch track or two. Give it three more months. >> > Have you tried the Trois Rivi�res track? It was scratch built and it is > the only version in existence for any racing sim. The author has started > work on Mont Tremblant (which is an amazing track).

Trois-Rivieres, Lime Rock, Brands Hatch, Brazil, and Birmingham are all high quality tracks. -- David G Fisher

"Bob Loblaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:4jHuf.58418$[email hidden]: > Have you tried the Trois Rivi�res track? It was scratch built and it > is the only version in existence for any racing sim. The author has > started work on Mont Tremblant (which is an amazing track). :) Troi is available for Nascar Heat, N2k3, probably GPL and I wouldn't be suprised if more versions are out there. Mont Tremblant has been done, but with some big restrictions, I'd too would love to see a high quality Mt Tremblant track.... dave (the bearer of bad news)henrie

Trois-Rivieres is a fabulous track that does justice to the gmotor 2 engine. Disagree about Brands and Brazil, which have been critcized for accuracy by those in the know. Graphically, they're a cut above the other converts though not, IMO, on the same shelf as Birminham or TR. The following scracth tacks, based on real circuits are due soon: Autobahn Country Club, San Jose Street Course, Mid-Ohio and either Pau or Macau. ISI has acquired the rights to the Hungarian Euroring track. Gilles Benoit is working on Mt Trembant and Scott Juliano is doing Detroit Belle Isle.

What bugs me the most about rFactor is all the friggen' text file editing. As soon as the developer (or someone else) builds a REAL interface for this game I'll be more interested. I just don't have the time to be a mad-scientist tinkerer with a racing sim. -Larry "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2zzuf.9875$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> It's the reason Ive pretty much given up on rF. Just too many series and > tracks to bother. No one will ever be happy no matter what classes or > tracks are chosen for a series. Open series with multiple classes doesnt > work with anything less than 10 racers on a 2-3 mile track either. May as > well be racing alone. > > My hope for online simracing now lies with GTL's N.American release ;) > > Mitch > > > "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:dtxuf.82802$oG.67471@dukeread02... >>I just read this in an article summarizing sims for the year. >> >> So funny, but potentially true :) >> >> "rFactor also came along, proving that a real physics engine for fake >> cars can be just as immersive. It threatens to become the SFP1 of the >> racing simulation genre, boasting open architecture and full support for >> modding. This guarantees that we're sure to be in the middle of a NASCAR >> Busch Series race only to be overtaken by an Avocado Green Mercury Grand >> Marquis station wagon." >> >> >> > >

"Izzy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:43bb290a$[email hidden]... > > The trouble with rfactor is amateurs trying to be professionals < >Yup; and that's an inherent problem with any open-architechture, moddable sim that has a strong underlying physics engine. The more complex the vehicles & environments, the less the chance that hobbyist modders are going to get it right without some significant help and guidance from knowledgeable sources. As for the PCC mod, if you take a good look at the HDV file, it's more than obvious that the modder had no real idea what realistic value ranges should be for things like wt. distribution, drag, lift/drag ratios, etc., nor an appreciation for what improper values mean within the confines of ISI's virtual physical world. It's argued that the mod is sound based on the fact that it was tweaked through many iterations by beta testers and produces good, fun racing (and indeed it does), but other than appearance, those cars have nothing whatsoever to do with Porsches. The fact that it works as well as it does is kind of amazing in light of the underlying car parameters. There will no doubt be mods that more well-researched and accurate. Their non-appearance to date speaks to that I think. But the majority of mods are likely to be far less "accurate" than they could be. ISI perhaps needed a dedicated mod support resource or online knowledge base for modders since their work is an integral part of the appeal of rFactor. This sort of thing is why I was pleased to read in the nKPro dev diary that Kunos plans to have a "virtual tire store" that modders can choose tire type and sizes from, without having or being able to just tweak text files to conjure up their own. He fully gets the importance of nailing the critical bits. SB

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I didn't understand a word you wrote. It's like you were under water, > trying to talk through a breathing tube. > > I have GTL and it's a great game. Online is smooth: only wish there > was the possibility of having add-on tracks, to increase longevity. > > > Alanb > > >

ok i`ll help you out Alanb, "its bloody brilliant" thats just British slang meaning `very good` "gfx" well thats techie shorthand for `graphics` "coz" is just shorthand for `because` and finally "vete" was a typo(typing mistake) should have typed "vette" or "corvette" to be more precise. yours sincerley, Tango

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > What failure? What is a success for you? > I know you want it to fail since that was your prediction, but just > wanting it to fail doesn't make it happen. :-o I want quality and quantity, in both cars, tracks and multiplayer people online. rF has none of that. > How many sales have they had so far? They have a new demo coming out soon, > and I suspect they still have a huge number of potential sales awaiting > them. Anyway there's absolutely NO releases in the next 6 months. Zero, nothing. Not a frickin developper is releasing a sim until the end of 2006. That shows how healthy simracing on the PC is... -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

> Anyway there's absolutely NO releases in the next 6 months. Zero, > nothing. Not a frickin developper is releasing a sim until the end of > 2006. That shows how healthy simracing on the PC is... >Evolution GT: March 2006. Netkar Pro: Q1 2006

"uncle" There, I said it. I give up. Everyone in here has gone from half way fun, to friggin english 101 teacher's aid. Sniveling and driveling over the tiniest bullshit, typo's or slang. Im sick of the "top poster" and the bullshit about "we dont type like that around here, BULLSHIT" You want perfect prose, read a damn snob_ass_now_dead_author written book. jeez. I could care less, because less is more. Alan Bernardo enlightened us with:

Quoted text (21 lines)

>>> I didn't understand a word you wrote. It's like you were under >>> water, trying to talk through a breathing tube. >> >> Jebus Alan, is this your auto reply to posts here at RAS? (I didnt >> understand). >> >> How can you not understand? you need it on tape/read to you? <G> >> BTW he said what you said, with more details and not wordy. >> >>> > > I don't know: the last time I checked "coz" was not a word. The > reason I found the post so hard to understand was because it seemed > like it was written in some coded language, that's all. > > More details-- seemed to me to be a lot of generalities. > > And sorry for the wordiness. I guess that if you prefer "coz" over > some other existing word, then there's nothing I can do for you. > > Alanb

"Bob Loblaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0iavf.15861$[email hidden]... >> Anyway there's absolutely NO releases in the next 6 months. Zero, >> nothing. Not a frickin developper is releasing a sim until the end of >> 2006. That shows how healthy simracing on the PC is... >> > Evolution GT: March 2006. I'm talking about racing sims, not GT clones for the console ported to the PC as an afterthought. > Netkar Pro: Q1 2006 Won't be fond on shelves, but hey independant gaming is never bad per so ;) Look people, there are no simracing titles that will appear on shelves of stores in the future until the end of 2006 if they ever are. The only possible one, is one that doesn't even have a publisher (the iRacing one). We aren't even sure they will publish it in stores. Oh and probably the usual ISI-base game engine sims to milk the cow. Hey they took the motto from Papy, but instead of each 18 months they now are able to license their game engine and make it each year. At least Papy make the effort to try to fix basic problems in the game engine. Oh wait will ISI someday finally fix the fucking multi bug when somebody login? We ain't in 1995 anymore, internet multiplayer is done in THOUSAND of games and none suffer from this kind of lag anymore. So you have 100 games on the shelves, NONE of them will be racing sims. Some arcade games, some ported semi-sim games from the consoles to the PC, older sims. But I forgot the community is healthy <roll eyes> -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

BTW Alan, My post if I could kill it would been, as I notice it looks like I singled you out, and it wasn't as funny as I thought it was when I was typing it. Live long and brake early... PlowBoy enlightened us with:

Quoted text (33 lines)

> "uncle" > There, I said it. > > I give up. Everyone in here has gone from half way fun, to friggin > english 101 teacher's aid. Sniveling and driveling over the tiniest > bullshit, typo's or slang. Im sick of the "top poster" and the > bullshit about "we dont type like that around here, BULLSHIT" > > You want perfect prose, read a damn snob_ass_now_dead_author written > book. jeez. I could care less, because less is more. > > Alan Bernardo enlightened us with: >>>> I didn't understand a word you wrote. It's like you were under >>>> water, trying to talk through a breathing tube. >>> >>> Jebus Alan, is this your auto reply to posts here at RAS? (I didnt >>> understand). >>> >>> How can you not understand? you need it on tape/read to you? <G> >>> BTW he said what you said, with more details and not wordy. >>> >>>> >> >> I don't know: the last time I checked "coz" was not a word. The >> reason I found the post so hard to understand was because it seemed >> like it was written in some coded language, that's all. >> >> More details-- seemed to me to be a lot of generalities. >> >> And sorry for the wordiness. I guess that if you prefer "coz" over >> some other existing word, then there's nothing I can do for you. >> >> Alanb

ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> (...) Oh and probably the > usual ISI-base game engine sims to milk the cow. Hey they took the motto > from Papy, but instead of each 18 months they now are able to license their > game engine and make it each year. At least Papy make the effort to try to > fix basic problems in the game engine. Oh wait will ISI someday finally fix > the fucking multi bug when somebody login? We ain't in 1995 anymore, > internet multiplayer is done in THOUSAND of games and none suffer from this > kind of lag anymore.

Well I for one could live with an additional "ISI-base game engine sim" if it is as good as GTL. Granted, I tried very hard to like the various iterations of ISI's engine in the F1 series and GTR and it consistently ended in disappointement. Also I cannot play rFactor for more than 5 minutes without getting motion sickness (and that is without TIR !) either because of the graphics (textures ?) or the physics, I don't know... ...BUT while I prepared myself when I bought GTL for being disappointed one last time and hating ISI, SimBin and the lot with a passion ever after, I must say that I finally do enjoy one of their sims. There is no such thing as a perfect sim, but: - GTL's graphics are great on my not-so-spiffy PC (P4 2.8, ATI 9800) - the cars are fun to drive and feel "realistic" to me (within the limits of a PC sim); - the tracks are interesting with these cars (while even a fast chicane is an annoyance when driving an F1, it can be a lot of fun in an Elan); - dare I say I like the career mode after all? (blasphemy, I know!); - the AI behaviour is credible (a bit too fast for me in qual, but OK in race); - in my limited experience online (a couple of mini or alfa races), I found the game to be very playable; - for the first time on an ISI based sim, I didn't have to edit the .plr file to get acceptable performance or controller settings; - for once we euroweenies get it before the yanks ;) - altough the series depicted is not F1 1967 - it ain't no GPL... - this sim also has an "atmosphere" (for lack of a better word). My 0.02 �, regards, Mr. Sylvestre

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kR7vf.35168$[email hidden]... > >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote >> What failure? > > > What is a success for you? You didn't answere the question, but I'lll answer yours. A success would be a sim with the best combination of physics, grapics, and multiplay produced yet. Don't know if they've succeeded financially. Probably never will. >> I know you want it to fail since that was your prediction, but just >> wanting it to fail doesn't make it happen. :-o > > I want quality and quantity, in both cars, tracks and multiplayer people > online. rF has none of that. GPL didn't have quantity, but you liked that. N2003 had one car and the same tracks the two previous versions did, and you liked that. rFactor is higher quality. As for people online, I have no idea how many are racing and either do you. How many people race in leagues and private servers right now? Thousands download these new tracks, so I'd guess plenty are racing somewhere. All rFactor needs is a finished, high quality NASCAR mod (either from the Pits or Bollinger) and then all of those N2003 drivers will be racing it online. rFactor and it's concept is still in it's infancy. WAY to soon to even begin to think it may have failed.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> How many sales have they had so far? They have a new demo coming out >> soon, and I suspect they still have a huge number of potential sales >> awaiting them. > > > Anyway there's absolutely NO releases in the next 6 months. Zero, > nothing. Not a frickin developper is releasing a sim until the end of > 2006. That shows how healthy simracing on the PC is...

Consoles are taking over. No surprise there. -- David G Fisher

> Also I cannot play rFactor for more than 5 minutes without getting motion > sickness (and that is without TIR !) either because of the graphics > (textures ?) or the physics, I don't know... riiiight....try a narrower FOV. :-\

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > You didn't answere the question, but I'lll answer yours. A success would > be a sim with the best combination of physics, grapics, and multiplay > produced yet. Don't know if they've succeeded financially. Probably never > will. Well I anwered with an answer. We all know that rF is a success as a sim, but not as something that brings new simracers, brings back older ones or heck new developpers to at least create new sims or at least be tempted to. It's more the opposite, it shows that even with a new distribution method, boxed or not, PC simracing games don't sell anymore. > As for people online, I have no idea how many are racing and either do > you. There is a normal average proportionality between pickups and leagues in all sims that is about the same. rF leagues are few over the net, it's obvious. There's still more NR2003 active league drivers than in rF. > rFactor and it's concept is still in it's infancy. WAY to soon to even > begin to think it may have failed. I don't know. It lost its needed momentum at start. People buy games when they are released, rarely 6 months after or a year later. I have never seen a successfull game do that sales wise (except MMORPG). Just check out the RSC forums, you'll see that the number of posts in the rF forum is rapidely decreasing. >> Anyway there's absolutely NO releases in the next 6 months. Zero, >> nothing. Not a frickin developper is releasing a sim until the end of >> 2006. That shows how healthy simracing on the PC is... > > Consoles are taking over. No surprise there. I don't see a problem myself in the future to have quality sims on the consoles, now that they support broadband, they offer PC-type I/O, HD resolutions, hard drives, etc... I just don't know if there is a market for that, I mean a bigger market for racing _sims_ on the console versus the PC. People would still prefer a semi-serious one over it, or a just plain good arcade game in the style of Burnout. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 09:45:17 -0500, Bob Loblaw wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> Anyway there's absolutely NO releases in the next 6 months. Zero, >> nothing. Not a frickin developper is releasing a sim until the end of >> 2006. That shows how healthy simracing on the PC is... >> > Evolution GT: March 2006. > Netkar Pro: Q1 2006 > >

Also, we have to seriously ask ourselves how many new sims we really want? Do we want 3-4 new titles, all fighting for our attention or do we want just a couple high-quality releases that the community can focus on? Personally, I am torn at the moment between rF (my favourite by far because of the excellent online play), GTL (nice for a change every once in a while, online is ok on decent servers), GPL (my league still runs this), GTR (the Average Drivers Club is excellent ;) and the occasional RBR session. I own LFS too, but currently I simply haven't got the time in order to dive in deeper. So what's coming? Blimey!Games should be fun, whatever Ian puts out, FIRST might be worth a look despite all the bickering, and of course whatever gets attached on to rF. NetKar? Will be interesting, too I guess! Racer... actually I don't see a lack of new titles or titles in development here at all. I'd say 2005 has been a great year for simracing from the software side of things. All the best, uwe -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:03:49 +0100, Mr. Sylvestre wrote: > > - GTL's graphics are great on my not-so-spiffy PC (P4 2.8, ATI 9800) Out of curiousity, what's your fps during night races against the AI? I had around 20 fps at the Anderstorp offline cup event on DX7 at 1024 x 768 which is not enough to be really driveable, and that was on a 9800 Pro. Cheers, uwe -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

No. POOR Sim-Racing titles don't sell any more. We're smarter now. I guarantee you that if a top-notch NASCAR SIM were released (sadly, NSR wasn't it regardless of the developers hype) and was marketed properly (Dale Jr, Gordon, etc... all hyping it, advertising during NASCAR Races, etc...) it would sell like Hotcakes. Bear in mind, I said Top-Notch. By that I mean something that exceeds the capabilities of NR2003 (and I'm not saying NR2003 is bad. It's great. Something new just has to be better as a natural course of things). Say, NR2006 as it would have probably come from Papyrus, if it still existed. Then again, there are things coming that just might change all this :) -Larry "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Nsnvf.41298$[email hidden]... > Well I anwered with an answer. We all know that rF is a success as a sim, > but not as something that brings new simracers, brings back older ones or > heck new developpers to at least create new sims or at least be tempted > to. It's more the opposite, it shows that even with a new distribution > method, boxed or not, PC simracing games don't sell anymore.

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Nsnvf.41298$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote >> You didn't answere the question, but I'lll answer yours. A success would >> be a sim with the best combination of physics, grapics, and multiplay >> produced yet. Don't know if they've succeeded financially. Probably never >> will. > > > Well I anwered with an answer. We all know that rF is a success as a sim, > but not as something that brings new simracers, brings back older ones or > heck new developpers to at least create new sims or at least be tempted > to. It's more the opposite, it shows that even with a new distribution > method, boxed or not, PC simracing games don't sell anymore.

I have no idea how many copies they've sold. >> As for people online, I have no idea how many are racing and either do >> you. > > There is a normal average proportionality between pickups and leagues in > all sims that is about the same. rF leagues are few over the net, it's > obvious. There's still more NR2003 active league drivers than in rF. I notice a lot of leagues advertising for drivers. I mentioned in my other post that as soon as a high quality NASCAR mod is completed (by either Pits or Bollinger), then those N2003 NASCAR leagues will jump right over to rFactor. I doubt most of those NASCAR drivers have rFactor yet.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> rFactor and it's concept is still in it's infancy. WAY to soon to even >> begin to think it may have failed. > > I don't know. It lost its needed momentum at start. People buy games > when they are released, rarely 6 months after or a year later. I have > never seen a successfull game do that sales wise (except MMORPG). Just > check out the RSC forums, you'll see that the number of posts in the rF > forum is rapidely decreasing.

rFactor is differnet though in that it is re-released so to speak when a new series is offered by modders. The big two (NASCAR and F1) are still to come.

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>> Anyway there's absolutely NO releases in the next 6 months. Zero, >>> nothing. Not a frickin developper is releasing a sim until the end of >>> 2006. That shows how healthy simracing on the PC is... >> >> Consoles are taking over. No surprise there. > > > I don't see a problem myself in the future to have quality sims on the > consoles, now that they support broadband, they offer PC-type I/O, HD > resolutions, hard drives, etc... I just don't know if there is a market > for that, I mean a bigger market for racing _sims_ on the console versus > the PC. People would still prefer a semi-serious one over it, or a just > plain good arcade game in the style of Burnout.

It doesn't bother me at all if consoles take over. Sick of tweaking the damn computer. :-) Hard to believe that sim racing will ever die though. There are so many people world wide who are die-hard auto racing fans. You'd think there has to be a huge market for serious simulators. Strange. -- David G Fisher

"Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_Mvvf.103089$oG.78373@dukeread02...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> No. POOR Sim-Racing titles don't sell any more. We're smarter now. > > I guarantee you that if a top-notch NASCAR SIM were released (sadly, NSR > wasn't it regardless of the developers hype) and was marketed properly > (Dale Jr, Gordon, etc... all hyping it, advertising during NASCAR Races, > etc...) it would sell like Hotcakes. > > Bear in mind, I said Top-Notch. By that I mean something that exceeds the > capabilities of NR2003 (and I'm not saying NR2003 is bad. It's great. > Something new just has to be better as a natural course of things). > > Say, NR2006 as it would have probably come from Papyrus, if it still > existed.

I have zero doubt that at least one of the two NASCAR mods for rFactor being worked on now will be what you described. > Then again, there are things coming that just might change all this :) > > -Larry Unless it has this http://racingmag.gamesurf.tiscali.de/f12002/images/screenshots/180_13.jpg , I won't be happy. :-) I think it will need to have NASCAR as well, for the same reasons rFactor needs a NASCAR sim. Customers. -- David G Fisher

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (35 lines)

> > "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:_Mvvf.103089$oG.78373@dukeread02... >> No. POOR Sim-Racing titles don't sell any more. We're smarter now. >> >> I guarantee you that if a top-notch NASCAR SIM were released (sadly, NSR >> wasn't it regardless of the developers hype) and was marketed properly >> (Dale Jr, Gordon, etc... all hyping it, advertising during NASCAR Races, >> etc...) it would sell like Hotcakes. >> >> Bear in mind, I said Top-Notch. By that I mean something that exceeds >> the capabilities of NR2003 (and I'm not saying NR2003 is bad. It's >> great. Something new just has to be better as a natural course of >> things). >> >> Say, NR2006 as it would have probably come from Papyrus, if it still >> existed. > > I have zero doubt that at least one of the two NASCAR mods for rFactor > being worked on now will be what you described. > >> Then again, there are things coming that just might change all this :) >> >> -Larry > > Unless it has this > http://racingmag.gamesurf.tiscali.de/f12002/images/screenshots/180_13.jpg > , I won't be happy. :-) > > I think it will need to have NASCAR as well, for the same reasons rFactor > needs a NASCAR sim. Customers. > > > -- > David G Fisher

That's only a fairly early WIP btw. -- David G Fisher

Uwe Sch�rkamp wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:03:49 +0100, Mr. Sylvestre wrote: > >>- GTL's graphics are great on my not-so-spiffy PC (P4 2.8, ATI 9800) > > Out of curiousity, what's your fps during night races against the AI? I > had around 20 fps at the Anderstorp offline cup event on DX7 at 1024 x > 768 which is not enough to be really driveable, and that was on a 9800 > Pro.

Uwe, you are right to point this out! Indeed fps in night races leave somewhat to be desired. I just tried a couple of quick races at night at Anderstop. DX version is left to auto so I guess that is DX9 (sure looks like it in day races, maybe the game downgrades it at night, hard to tell), res is 1024x768 with 4xFSAA (managed by GTL setup, not ATI panel). With 20 AI opponents, fps drop to 22-24 at the back of the grid, then go up to about 27-32 after that, which is barely playable (note: IMHO, anything above 35 fps is definitely playable in GTL's case). Starting in pole or reducing the AI to 10 opponents improves things significantly but the difference between day and night is still there, alas. My ATI 9800 is also a Pro, and my NorthWood P4 rests on a solid i875 chipset-based motherboard with 800 MHz FSB so even if it is obsolete by today's standards, it is still a very good, well balanced, P4 2.8GHz-based system. So, to be fair, I should have written - GTL's graphics are great *in day races* on my not-so-spiffy PC. Regards, Mr. Sylvestre PS. Damn, just when I had convinced myself I didn't need new hardware yet...

Yes, they really screwed the pooch with their mod. It's a shame because its got great visual flair and good, enveloping sound, authentic or not, lol. You want to love it. Their defensive, exclamation point studded reaction (is this a german keyboard quirk?) to the criticisms is the most disconcerting; they come across like very young dudes although at least one of them is 40. Fonsecker did- very grudgingly- agree, towards the end of a seven page thread, to revisiting the physics base in an update. They definitely will profit from outside input- if they're open enough to accept it. Another problem with the damn thing: they muted the damage component to the point of non-existence.

Steve Simpson wrote: >>Also I cannot play rFactor for more than 5 minutes without getting motion >>sickness (and that is without TIR !) either because of the graphics >>(textures ?) or the physics, I don't know... > > riiiight....try a narrower FOV. :-\ > Thanks for the advice, but that is the very first thing I did! Ever since someone found out a way to reduce the FOV in good the old GPL days, I can't drive well in a sim with a FOV larger than about 90 degrees, partly because I easily get motion sickness in *some* video games, and partly because the perspective at larger FOV's makes me misjudge turn apexes. I should also mention that I get similar motion sickness in the Rhez and the formula cars, so I do not think it is speed related either. Although rFactor is the only racing sim which is problematic to me, I got the same symptoms on the original Half-life FPS/adventure game, but not on Doom for instance. I loved Rowan's Mig Alley, but it did it to me also, albeit to a lesser extent. Out of curiosity, I just had another go at rFactor and also digged out a couple HL and MA screenshots and I wonder if it could be texture-related or more exactly a colour palette thing. BTW, I am *not* subject to motion sickness in real life (car, motorbike, sailplane, boat). I am drifting off-topic here, but I wonder if others have had similar experiences or if I should send out Igor to fetch me a replacement brain as my current one might be somewhat defective ;) Regards, Mr. S.

"Mr. Sylvestre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:43bee677$0$3810$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (34 lines)

> Steve Simpson wrote: >>>Also I cannot play rFactor for more than 5 minutes without getting motion >>>sickness (and that is without TIR !) either because of the graphics >>>(textures ?) or the physics, I don't know... >> >> riiiight....try a narrower FOV. :-\ >> > > Thanks for the advice, but that is the very first thing I did! > > Ever since someone found out a way to reduce the FOV in good the old GPL > days, I can't drive well in a sim with a FOV larger than about 90 degrees, > partly because I easily get motion sickness in *some* video games, and > partly because the perspective at larger FOV's makes me misjudge turn > apexes. > > I should also mention that I get similar motion sickness in the Rhez and > the formula cars, so I do not think it is speed related either. > > Although rFactor is the only racing sim which is problematic to me, I got > the same symptoms on the original Half-life FPS/adventure game, but not on > Doom for instance. I loved Rowan's Mig Alley, but it did it to me also, > albeit to a lesser extent. Out of curiosity, I just had another go at > rFactor and also digged out a couple HL and MA screenshots and I wonder if > it could be texture-related or more exactly a colour palette thing. BTW, I > am *not* subject to motion sickness in real life (car, motorbike, > sailplane, boat). > > I am drifting off-topic here, but I wonder if others have had similar > experiences or if I should send out Igor to fetch me a replacement brain > as my current one might be somewhat defective ;) > > Regards, > Mr. S.

I easily get motion sickness with FPS (don't like them much anyway), and in auto sims if the frame rate was too low. No problems at all with rFactor. -- David G Fisher

"Mr. Sylvestre" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:43bedce4$0 $32196$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> So, to be fair, I should have written > > - GTL's graphics are great *in day races* on my not-so-spiffy PC. > > Regards, > Mr. Sylvestre >

I go back to the good old days when setting anything to auto meant your poor DX100 would grind to a crawl. Always CHOOSE a setting...graphic, or otherwise. If you go auto...your computer may decide one setting, then think HEY! I can do more, then realize...ugghhhtoo much and then repeat the cycle. I'd suggest getting comfy with dx8 and not have to pray the cpu decides to over-ride your decision. dave henrie

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (45 lines)

> > "Mr. Sylvestre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:43bee677$0$3810$[email hidden]... >> Steve Simpson wrote: >>>>Also I cannot play rFactor for more than 5 minutes without getting >>>>motion sickness (and that is without TIR !) either because of the >>>>graphics (textures ?) or the physics, I don't know... >>> >>> riiiight....try a narrower FOV. :-\ >>> >> >> Thanks for the advice, but that is the very first thing I did! >> >> Ever since someone found out a way to reduce the FOV in good the old GPL >> days, I can't drive well in a sim with a FOV larger than about 90 >> degrees, partly because I easily get motion sickness in *some* video >> games, and partly because the perspective at larger FOV's makes me >> misjudge turn apexes. >> >> I should also mention that I get similar motion sickness in the Rhez and >> the formula cars, so I do not think it is speed related either. >> >> Although rFactor is the only racing sim which is problematic to me, I got >> the same symptoms on the original Half-life FPS/adventure game, but not >> on Doom for instance. I loved Rowan's Mig Alley, but it did it to me >> also, albeit to a lesser extent. Out of curiosity, I just had another go >> at rFactor and also digged out a couple HL and MA screenshots and I >> wonder if it could be texture-related or more exactly a colour palette >> thing. BTW, I am *not* subject to motion sickness in real life (car, >> motorbike, sailplane, boat). >> >> I am drifting off-topic here, but I wonder if others have had similar >> experiences or if I should send out Igor to fetch me a replacement brain >> as my current one might be somewhat defective ;) >> >> Regards, >> Mr. S. > > I easily get motion sickness with FPS (don't like them much anyway), and > in auto sims if the frame rate was too low. No problems at all with > rFactor. > > > -- > David G Fisher

I'm also very susceptible to motion sickness; if there's anything going on on screen that doesn't match what my brain expects, I get it instantly. Not much good at amusement parks either... ;-) That said, I never had an issue with the default values in Papy sims, and generally don't have any issues with ISI ones like rFactor (when they don't st..st..stutter). I did reduce the head physics-bobbing effect from default, dropped the cockpit vibration multplier a bit, and use only a small amount of pov rotation with steering. I keep just enough motion to free up the POV from the car so that it feels organic, but not enough to cause me to feel like I'm getting tossed around. So that might be an avenue to explore for anyone having motion sickness trouble with rFactor, as having a lot of extra "head" motion will definitely turn some of us green. SB

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > I easily get motion sickness with FPS (don't like them much anyway), and > in auto sims if the frame rate was too low. No problems at all with > rFactor. For the first time in my life I had motion sickness in a game, a couple of months ago I was playing Half-life2... those stages where you drive the buggy, I couldn't last 5 minutes before I wanted to throw up. ASDW controlled the buggy while you would turn the head view with the mouse (so you can fire). For me that was waaaaaaayyy too much, my eardrum felt on mars or something and I would get sick. Took me a couple of months do pass that level, about 2-3 minutes at a time each day. So simracing developpers : Don't give us freelook with the mouse, NEVER ;) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

[email hidden] (ymenard) wrote: > For the first time in my life I had motion sickness > in a game, a couple of months ago I was playing > Half-life2 HL2 seems to be particularly bad for some reason; I could only play for ten minutes or so before starting to feel very nauseous. By messing about with screen size and refresh rates I eventually reduced the problem, but it never went away. Andrew McP

My god, a bunch of women couldnt explain themselves better or feel so good telling everyone what a pussy they are ;) Ya'll need a testosterone injection already... Mitch "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> [email hidden] (ymenard) wrote: > >> For the first time in my life I had motion sickness >> in a game, a couple of months ago I was playing >> Half-life2 > > HL2 seems to be particularly bad for some reason; I could > only play for ten minutes or so before starting to feel > very nauseous. By messing about with screen size and > refresh rates I eventually reduced the problem, but it > never went away. > > Andrew McP >

In article <gBTvf.10992$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > My god, a bunch of women couldnt explain themselves better or feel so good > telling everyone what a pussy they are ;) > > Ya'll need a testosterone injection already... > Are you in possession of a mullet? ;) MRSisson -- LOAD "GPL",8 SEARCHING FOR GPL LOADING READY. RUN

> Are you in possession of a mullet? ;) Hmmm, it's more like men who get sick playing video games must be in posession of a handbag...

[email hidden] (Steve Simpson) wrote: > Hmmm, it's more like men who get sick playing > video games must be in posession of a handbag... You might be right. I've been premenstrual for about 43 years, so I could do with a handbag to carry all the paracetamol around in. Andrew McP

On 6 Jan 2006 13:47:35 -0800, [email hidden] wrote: > Yes, they really screwed the pooch with their mod. It's a shame because > its got great visual flair and good, enveloping sound, authentic or > not, lol. You want to love it. Their defensive, exclamation point > studded reaction (is this a german keyboard quirk?) to the criticisms Definitely not, but man, what a bunch of morons pester RSC these days. Seems like some of them have lost all contact to reality, having solved all the world's problems, they now appear hell bent on persuading everyone that the Porsche Mod is the next coming. Or whatever. I really like the Porsche mod, weight bias flaws or not, but some of the reactions from the group and their hangers-on really leave a sour taste in my mouth. Granted, the correct way would have been to send the patch to GSMF first, but hey, some of that was way over the top IMHO. Had a good laugh reading the entire thread, though, but I felt a bit dizzy afterwards from all that head-shaking. Cheers, uwe -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61