I wrote a technical document about GPL

It think it's interesting. You can download my document at http://www.gpl-m.racesim.net The PDF file is 61 KB (10 pages) Pag.1 to 9 are the important thing of my work, but I think that if Papyrus add a bit of technical documentation in their products, they can change their logo from "Papyrus Racing Games" to "Papyrus Racing Sims". GianLuca

On 10 Aug 2001 05:07:49 -0700, [email hidden] (Gian Luca) wrote: >It think it's interesting. >You can download my document at > >http://www.gpl-m.racesim.net > >The PDF file is 61 KB (10 pages) Looks interesting, I'll give it a read. May help port some F1 cars to my sim. :) Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

Hi, a very interesting study. I haven't thoroughly read it yet, but it does seem like a very consistent peice of work. I did read your closing statement. Indeed, it would be interesting if developers put the specifications of their physics engine into the documentation. On the other hand, let's not loose focus of the fact that these are indeed games, and as such more an art form than science; the science is here only to create the illusion. And there's no better way to shatter that illusion and immersion than to tell people in advance where the simulation may not be quite adequate. -Gregor Gian Luca wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > It think it's interesting. > You can download my document at > > http://www.gpl-m.racesim.net > > The PDF file is 61 KB (10 pages) > > Pag.1 to 9 are the important thing of my work, > but I think that if Papyrus add a bit of technical > documentation in their products, they can change their logo > from "Papyrus Racing Games" to "Papyrus Racing Sims". > > GianLuca

I agree Gregor. It's like knowing how the magician does his tricks. Not much fun watching after you know....eh? "Gregor Veble" wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

| Hi, | | a very interesting study. I haven't thoroughly read it yet, but it does | seem like a very consistent peice of work. | | I did read your closing statement. Indeed, it would be interesting if | developers put the specifications of their physics engine into the | documentation. On the other hand, let's not loose focus of the fact that | these are indeed games, and as such more an art form than science; the | science is here only to create the illusion. And there's no better way | to shatter that illusion and immersion than to tell people in advance | where the simulation may not be quite adequate. | | -Gregor

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 7/18/2001

In article <RzWc7.90692$[email hidden]>, Thom j. <[email hidden]> writes >I agree Gregor. It's like knowing how the magician does >his tricks. Not much fun watching after you know....eh? > I've always been in favour of sim writers giving us a bit more info on how everything interelates and I think it's a shame that they don't feel inclined to offer more in this area. I'm a crap setup expert and generally rely heavily on setups from others with a little bit of tweaking from myself, but wouldn't it be nice to know which area of the overall physics engine certain changes are likely to make. As a for instance, stiffening suspension I would imagine in real life affects various other parts of the car with respect to handling and tyre wear. However, let's say that a particular new sim. on the market hasn't bothered to incorporate tyre wear as being affected by suspension stiffness. All those with any kind of real-world knowledge won't be aware of this fact, but will probably try to take it into consideration when setting up the car for longer races in the 'hope' that it is, and will have to go out and then test/retest until they can try and figure out for themselves or wait for someone else to do the figuring out in order to prove whether it is one way or the other. All it's doing is just wasting a hell of a lot of time for people because no-one is actually allowed to know. Wouldn't it be better if we were a little more informed from the outset so that this time wasn't wasted on irrelevances and so those areas of real importance could be focused upon. I personally don't thing this is taking the mystique away from the driving model and making setting up the car etc that much easier - despite everything I've read about the GPL physics model I still struggle to come up with anything vaguely better than the defaults - it's just giving us a more informed starting position.

Quoted text (24 lines)

>"Gregor Veble" wrote: >| Hi, >| >| a very interesting study. I haven't thoroughly read it yet, but it does >| seem like a very consistent peice of work. >| >| I did read your closing statement. Indeed, it would be interesting if >| developers put the specifications of their physics engine into the >| documentation. On the other hand, let's not loose focus of the fact that >| these are indeed games, and as such more an art form than science; the >| science is here only to create the illusion. And there's no better way >| to shatter that illusion and immersion than to tell people in advance >| where the simulation may not be quite adequate. >| >| -Gregor > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 7/18/2001 > >

-- Peter Ives Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

Bring up "setups" Peter I am *no* expert at all. I just like seeing the default and maybe a hotshoe's setup. Then making it work the best for me. This is what works for me usually but your lightyears ahead of me in GPLRank so dont go by me.. :) "Peter Ives" wrote:

Quoted text (36 lines)

| I've always been in favour of sim writers giving us a bit more info on | how everything interelates and I think it's a shame that they don't feel | inclined to offer more in this area. | | I'm a crap setup expert and generally rely heavily on setups from others | with a little bit of tweaking from myself, but wouldn't it be nice to | know which area of the overall physics engine certain changes are likely | to make. | | As a for instance, stiffening suspension I would imagine in real life | affects various other parts of the car with respect to handling and tyre | wear. However, let's say that a particular new sim. on the market | hasn't bothered to incorporate tyre wear as being affected by suspension | stiffness. All those with any kind of real-world knowledge won't be | aware of this fact, but will probably try to take it into consideration | when setting up the car for longer races in the 'hope' that it is, and | will have to go out and then test/retest until they can try and figure | out for themselves or wait for someone else to do the figuring out in | order to prove whether it is one way or the other. All it's doing is | just wasting a hell of a lot of time for people because no-one is | actually allowed to know. | | Wouldn't it be better if we were a little more informed from the outset | so that this time wasn't wasted on irrelevances and so those areas of | real importance could be focused upon. I personally don't thing this is | taking the mystique away from the driving model and making setting up | the car etc that much easier - despite everything I've read about the | GPL physics model I still struggle to come up with anything vaguely | better than the defaults - it's just giving us a more informed starting | position. | | -- | Peter Ives | Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email | If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me | GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 7/18/2001

On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 03:58:06 +0100, Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote: >I've always been in favour of sim writers giving us a bit more info on >how everything interelates and I think it's a shame that they don't feel >inclined to offer more in this area. Still, it is a target for other sim creators. For example, I know roll centers are static in GPL. So that makes me think that if I just use roll centers and don't make them dynamic it can be good enough. Because GPL did the research already. I can just focus on the things that GPL does NOT have. Like caster return; I put in caster return, and can say 'in some areas surpasses GPL physics'. It's the commercial way; if you give out the what's in and what's out, it's easier for other people to mimic it, since you KNOW that it should be able to work. That's a major thing, and the other thing would be that you don't want to confess having all these little details not in your sim. Generally people will want THOSE, while often (esp. for GPL) the effects are secondary and most people won't feel them anyway. So why tell people, it's only psychologically bad. I'm talking mainstream here ofcourse. Most hardcore simmers buy a faster CPU just because that allows them more constraint forces per car. ;-) >I'm a crap setup expert and generally rely heavily on setups from others >with a little bit of tweaking from myself, but wouldn't it be nice to >know which area of the overall physics engine certain changes are likely >to make. Fortunately there are some good explanations on GPL setting up now. Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

In article <[email hidden]>, Ruud van Gaal <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (12 lines)

>On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 03:58:06 +0100, Peter Ives ><[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>I'm a crap setup expert and generally rely heavily on setups from others >>with a little bit of tweaking from myself, but wouldn't it be nice to >>know which area of the overall physics engine certain changes are likely >>to make. > >Fortunately there are some good explanations on GPL setting up now. > >

Yep, 3 years down the road. I can see what you're saying though about how it could help other developers get a bead on what is and isn't necessary to make a sim believable, though it's one thing to know what's you can get away with and another to code it well. Also, like you say, the last thing developers want to give away is any indication that their sim. is lacking in any particular area(s). Shame really. Mind you when it comes to what you do/don't need to make things feel right, I would have thought that every extra tweak or added physics feature, no matter how apparently insignificant, should at some point have some bearing on the way the car behaves, otherwise why put it in. It may only manifest itself under certain 'extreme' circumstance in the model, who knows? But, even then, I'm all for it, as long as it's done well. These days I would have expected most, so called, real simulations do have quite sophisticated driving models now, to such an extent that there is less need to hide the details because they are just so complex as to be extremely, if not impossible to replicate just from setup help in the gaming manual, and even some general guidelines as to how it all fits together would really help save a lot of faffing about and experimentation, when all we really want to do is drive as fast as possible with what they've given us without wasting hour upon hour on setup blind avenues. I know it's unlikely to change but I need help, man!!! :) Perhaps Ruud, as your own 'little' project starts to blossom even more, which undoubtedly it will, and it allows setup changes, err, if it doesn't already (haven't had a chance to d/l later version, but I will, promise), that you'll include a guide to how it all fits together. -- Peter Ives Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 01:23:05 +0100, Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Shame really. Mind you when it comes to what you do/don't need to make >things feel right, I would have thought that every extra tweak or added >physics feature, no matter how apparently insignificant, should at some >point have some bearing on the way the car behaves, otherwise why put it >in. It may only manifest itself under certain 'extreme' circumstance in >the model, who knows? But, even then, I'm all for it, as long as it's >done well.

The problem is that it's sometimes hard to tell the effect things have, since the system becomes very complex at a point. In fact, as was recently discussed, adding more and more physical effects with even more approximate parameters can actually make the model LESS accurate. It's all a simulation, that's why. And it costs CPU time; last night I saw 2 cars on my track, both using the same physics, and it was becoming quite slow, or at least to the point where I can't reasonably do 19 AI cars and a player car doing the same physics without getting low framerates.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>These days I would have expected most, so called, real simulations do >have quite sophisticated driving models now, to such an extent that >there is less need to hide the details because they are just so complex >as to be extremely, if not impossible to replicate just from setup help >in the gaming manual, and even some general guidelines as to how it all >fits together would really help save a lot of faffing about and >experimentation,

Well, I'm not too sure about that. If GPL had given some ins and outs on how it combined the setup parameters, I might have loaned a few methods. ;-) It's the idea that counts, any good programmer can fit it in reasonably well given the design. >I know it's unlikely to change but I need help, man!!! :) Perhaps >Ruud, as your own 'little' project starts to blossom even more, which >undoubtedly it will, and it allows setup changes, err, if it doesn't >already (haven't had a chance to d/l later version, but I will, >promise), that you'll include a guide to how it all fits together. Setting up is still done manually modifying the car.ini files. Problem is what should be allowed to set up. Perhaps a basic set of tweaks to start with. Haven't really given it too much thought yet. Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

> promise), that you'll include a guide to how it all fits together. Have a skim through http://go.to/rccarhandling for a really thorough explanation, and http://www.geocities.com/jp_hodgson/setupguide.html for a quick summary. HTH, Jonny

In article <Czde7.12739$[email hidden]>, Jonny Hodgson <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >> promise), that you'll include a guide to how it all fits together. > >Have a skim through > >http://go.to/rccarhandling for a really thorough explanation, and > >http://www.geocities.com/jp_hodgson/setupguide.html for a quick >summary. >

Cheers for the info JH. I've added them to my favorites for future reference. However, my request was more for Ruud and how his own sim will all fit together as opposed to real world physics which, although very useful, may actually not have any 'real' affect in his own sim... so far. :) -- Peter Ives Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:12:15 +0100, Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote: >Cheers for the info JH. I've added them to my favorites for future >reference. However, my request was more for Ruud and how his own sim >will all fit together as opposed to real world physics which, although >very useful, may actually not have any 'real' affect in his own sim... >so far. :) Hehe, too many factors not in there to type out. ;-) Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/