AutoSimSport Issue 9 out now!

AutoSimSport September is Out. 60+ Page MOD Autumn Specialganza! Download from www.autosimsport.com Exclusive! New screenies - Cars and ALL tracks plus tech details on GT Legends! A1GP Mod for rFactor! Legendary Artist Gustavo and GPLEA Profile GP4 - The 2nd time round The Cadillac Ranch for SCGT rFActor WINNERS announced! Win 2 COPIES of CRC!!!! PLUS NEWS, Stats, Race-Results, Nekkid Girls and much-much more!

Shrapnel wrote: > AutoSimSport September is Out. > 60+ Page MOD Autumn Specialganza! Interesting read as ever, though after the previous edition's "rFactor is perfect" review (rather than a more realistic rFactor shows potential to be great, which I believe even ISI themselves would concur) I am somewhat wary of rave reviews. The GP4 stuff looked really good, but has anyone else sampled these updates and can it really turn GP4 into a worthy contender against the current crop of sims? One would imagine the PC specs have now caught up and teh slowdown will be a thing of the past but have the physics really been overhauled to *that* degree? As ever ASS can't resist a stab at another sim racing organisation and this time it is RSC and its public warning system. Regardless of views I really don't think it has a place in a general sim racing fanzine and detracts from the overall quality and significant work that goes into it. Plus the promises of nekkid girls would appear to be an outright lie... Outraged :) Tony

Tony Rickard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Nt_Xe.112311$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Shrapnel wrote: > > AutoSimSport September is Out. > > 60+ Page MOD Autumn Specialganza! > > Interesting read as ever, though after the previous edition's "rFactor > is perfect" review (rather than a more realistic rFactor shows potential > to be great, which I believe even ISI themselves would concur) I am > somewhat wary of rave reviews. > > The GP4 stuff looked really good, but has anyone else sampled these > updates and can it really turn GP4 into a worthy contender against the > current crop of sims? One would imagine the PC specs have now caught up > and teh slowdown will be a thing of the past but have the physics really > been overhauled to *that* degree? > > As ever ASS can't resist a stab at another sim racing organisation and > this time it is RSC and its public warning system. Regardless of views I > really don't think it has a place in a general sim racing fanzine and > detracts from the overall quality and significant work that goes into it. > > Plus the promises of nekkid girls would appear to be an outright lie...

Page 25 > > Outraged :) > Tony

PJL wrote: >>Plus the promises of nekkid girls would appear to be an outright lie... > Page 25 Golly! Amongst all those gorgeous GPLEA models my brain must have just said "it's not GPL" and moved on :) Cheers Tony

I've got no great wish to drag this all up but I must mention that the review made great pains to say that rFactor was NOT perfect and also pointed out that it gained it's score based on it's "potential to be great". Perhaps you should read it again... I dunno? "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Nt_Xe.112311$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Shrapnel wrote: > > AutoSimSport September is Out. > > 60+ Page MOD Autumn Specialganza! > > Interesting read as ever, though after the previous edition's "rFactor > is perfect" review (rather than a more realistic rFactor shows potential > to be great, which I believe even ISI themselves would concur) I am > somewhat wary of rave reviews. >

Shrapnel wrote: > I've got no great wish to drag this all up but I must mention that the > review made great pains to say that rFactor was NOT perfect and also pointed > out that it gained it's score based on it's "potential to be great". > > Perhaps you should read it again... I dunno? I guess my two issues would be the review of the AI and the closing thoughts "everything the sim racer wants is catered for". Now I am having a blast with rfactor online and I agree with the reviewers regarding the feel. I am impressed with rFactor but would concede as a package it is currently a bit light and the rest will come. My view was the reviewers were so enthusiastic about the feel they let the other aspects of how the game is packaged up and the discrepencies in AI pale into insignificance or were so keen to put rfactor on a pedestal with its modding capability at a time when ASS were in dispute with another organisation and its approach to modding. I may just be getting too cynical in my old age :) Of course it may be none of the above and I may be wrong - I was once in 1976 you know, so it *is* possible :) It is not a big deal and like I said a lot of hard work has gone into this magazine. Just some feedback to consider. Cheers Tony

Yup, and it is considered. :) The other issue of course was that the review was of a Release Candidate where not only was the AI quite different to the release version but also stating big problems was a difficult thing to do as we could not be sure those problems would exist in the final version. I am largely of the opinion that we should not do this again. Addditionally, it may be worth me pointing out that AutoSimSport were never "in dispute with another organisation" and though you may have got that impression, it was not the case. :o) Jon. "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jY0Ye.112417$[email hidden]... > Shrapnel wrote: > > I've got no great wish to drag this all up but I must mention that the > > review made great pains to say that rFactor was NOT perfect and alsopointed

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > out that it gained it's score based on it's "potential to be great". > > > > Perhaps you should read it again... I dunno? > > I guess my two issues would be the review of the AI and the closing > thoughts "everything the sim racer wants is catered for". > > Now I am having a blast with rfactor online and I agree with the > reviewers regarding the feel. I am impressed with rFactor but would > concede as a package it is currently a bit light and the rest will come. > > My view was the reviewers were so enthusiastic about the feel they let > the other aspects of how the game is packaged up and the discrepencies > in AI pale into insignificance or were so keen to put rfactor on a > pedestal with its modding capability at a time when ASS were in dispute > with another organisation and its approach to modding. I may just be > getting too cynical in my old age :) > > Of course it may be none of the above and I may be wrong - I was once in > 1976 you know, so it *is* possible :) > > It is not a big deal and like I said a lot of hard work has gone into > this magazine. Just some feedback to consider. > > Cheers > Tony

Shrapnel wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Yup, and it is considered. :) > > The other issue of course was that the review was of a Release Candidate > where not only was the AI quite different to the release version but also > stating big problems was a difficult thing to do as we could not be sure > those problems would exist in the final version. I am largely of the > opinion that we should not do this again.

Fair comment. > Addditionally, it may be worth me pointing out that AutoSimSport were never > "in dispute with another organisation" and though you may have got that > impression, it was not the case. Ok, how about "had previously voiced disagreement with a certain organisation's approach to modding"? :) Cheers Tony

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:41:36 -0400, PJL wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Tony Rickard <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> Plus the promises of nekkid girls would appear to be an outright lie... > > > Page 25 > > >> >> Outraged :) >> Tony > >

Page 3 would have been more fitting, methinks ;) uwe -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Ah, I am seeing to what you refer now. :) Well, the disagreement to a "certain organisation's" approach to modding was in an editorial piece so was solely the opinion of our editor and NOT the opinion of the whole AutoSimSport staff. It certainly was not my opinion, or Bob's. While I can see that giving rFactor a good review score based on an assumed dislike of a "certain organisation's" approach to the community could be alluded to by readers, I can assure you that this could not be further from the truth. Of course, I dare say I will end up going through this mill again when the "certain organisation" release a product and it possibly ends up getting a high score in an AutoSimSport review, but from my personal perspective I have no brand preference at all, and political movements in the simracing community do not influence my opinion of a product whether it be from ISI or a "certain organisation". :) Jon. "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:M58Ye.112463$[email hidden]... > Shrapnel wrote: > > Yup, and it is considered. :) > > > > The other issue of course was that the review was of a Release Candidate > > where not only was the AI quite different to the release version butalso

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > stating big problems was a difficult thing to do as we could not be sure > > those problems would exist in the final version. I am largely of the > > opinion that we should not do this again. > > Fair comment. > > > Addditionally, it may be worth me pointing out that AutoSimSport were

never

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "in dispute with another organisation" and though you may have got that > > impression, it was not the case. > > Ok, how about "had previously voiced disagreement with a certain > organisation's approach to modding"? :) > > Cheers > Tony

Tony Rickard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pI_Xe.112329$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> PJL wrote: > > >>Plus the promises of nekkid girls would appear to be an outright lie... > > > Page 25 > > Golly! Amongst all those gorgeous GPLEA models my brain must have just > said "it's not GPL" and moved on :)

It's not like I was LOOKING for the nekkid girls....... =;^)) > Cheers > Tony

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

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > Tony Rickard <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Nt_Xe.112311$[email hidden]... >> Shrapnel wrote: >> > AutoSimSport September is Out. >> > 60+ Page MOD Autumn Specialganza! >> >> Interesting read as ever, though after the previous edition's "rFactor >> is perfect" review (rather than a more realistic rFactor shows potential >> to be great, which I believe even ISI themselves would concur) I am >> somewhat wary of rave reviews. >> >> The GP4 stuff looked really good, but has anyone else sampled these >> updates and can it really turn GP4 into a worthy contender against the >> current crop of sims? One would imagine the PC specs have now caught up >> and teh slowdown will be a thing of the past but have the physics really >> been overhauled to *that* degree? >> >> As ever ASS can't resist a stab at another sim racing organisation and >> this time it is RSC and its public warning system. Regardless of views I >> really don't think it has a place in a general sim racing fanzine and >> detracts from the overall quality and significant work that goes into it. >> >> Plus the promises of nekkid girls would appear to be an outright lie... > > > Page 25 >

Wonder why they chose a corpse ready for the autopsy (auto pussy?)- kinky stuff!

"Byron Forbes"wrote... > <snip> Wonder why they chose a corpse ready for the autopsy > (auto pussy?)- kinky stuff! As art models go, that one is actually quite good looking. Jan. =---

"Byron Forbes"wrote... As art models go, that one is actually quite good looking. Jan. =---

Tony Rickard wrote: > The GP4 stuff looked really good, but has anyone else sampled these > updates and can it really turn GP4 into a worthy contender against the > current crop of sims? One would imagine the PC specs have now caught up > and teh slowdown will be a thing of the past but have the physics really > been overhauled to *that* degree? I was going to try it out. Downloaded the 2004 patch, plus extra detail patch, plus patch 1, plus patch 2. Found GP4, installed it. Went to install the patch. Need GPxPatch and CSM. Trundle off to find them. Download them. Install them. Load up the 2004 patch in CSM, spends ages then says I have the wrong version of CSM. Gave up-after all, it *is* GP4... Seriously though, if anybody can come up with all the downloads and versions needed to install this and run it, I'd give it another go, if only for the dry line emerging on a damp track. I miss that!