How necessary is a dashboard in a cockpit view ??

I have noticed over the years that many games ( SCGT's initial version, GT1 - 3 , i.e.) have been dismissed as arcade by some people in part due to missing dashboards. I too would prefer a dashboard in all racing sims, or even arcade racers for that matter. However, for me at least, it is not a key issue as to whether I judge a racer to be a good simulation. If the Physics model makes the car "feel" arcade or "look" arcade on replays, then no amount of faithfulness in dashboards, graphics quality, damage modeling, great A.I., multiplayer support, or anything else will make the game into a sim, IMHO. During my ride home from work, I was thinking about the significance of various sensory inputs and visual cues involved in actually driving a real car. My impression is that the dashboard and general interior of my car within my field of view, was a fairly minor source of visual stimulation. I would guess that 90% of the time my eyes are focused 50 yards down the road, and my dashboard does not really impede me from looking at the road a few feet in front of me, because I almost never focus clearly on either the road that close in or even my dashboard, except for with my peripheral vision. While I think that having a dashbaoard adds something to the immersion factor of a game, it certainly is fairly low on my list of make or break features in a racing sim. For me at least, 95 % of what makes a sim is believable "feeling" and "looking" PHYSICS modeling. The remaining 5% in order of importance are, realistic graphics that immerse me into realistic racing venues and a realworld environment, intelligent A.I. that gives me humanlike opponents to race against, realistic damage modeling, and everything else after that.

>"Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> wrote > While I think that having a dashbaoard adds > something to the immersion factor of a game, it certainly is fairly low on > my list of make or break features in a racing sim. For me at least, 95 %of > what makes a sim is believable "feeling" and "looking" PHYSICS modeling. Having a believable "feeling" is completely dependant on the quality of the cockpit view. There are several steps towards perfectness I would say : 1) No cockpit view at all (many pure arcade titles) 2) Hood cam or full screen view from where a driver would seat in the car (GT3) 3) 2d or poorly modeled 3d cockpit (SCGT) 4) 3d cockpit that incorporates some driver motion (RC2k or GP3) 4) fully 3d cockpit with great sensory feedback and driver motion (N4) Of course, you do not look at the cockpit most of the time since it's a more subtle feeling that is still absolutely important to the immersion. The sensory inputs you gain from a realistic cockpit view is really important. I include both the 3d cockpit and the driver motion. The driver motion is much, much more essential to the immersion! The cockpit technically shouldn't move much, it's your view that moves depending on what the chassis does to your body (suspension, engine torque, etc..) and what the G-forces does to your body (frontal and lateral). -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

"Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> My impression is that the dashboard and general interior of my car within my > field of view, was a fairly minor > source of visual stimulation. I would guess that 90% of the time my eyes are > focused 50 yards down the road, and my dashboard does not really impede me > from looking at the road a few feet in front of me, because I almost never > focus clearly on either the road that close in or even my dashboard, except > for with my peripheral vision. While I think that having a dashbaoard adds > something to the immersion factor of a game, it certainly is fairly low on > my list of make or break features in a racing sim. For me at least, 95 % of > what makes a sim is believable "feeling" and "looking" PHYSICS modeling. The > remaining 5% in order of importance are, realistic graphics that immerse me > into realistic racing venues and a realworld environment, intelligent A.I. > that gives me humanlike opponents to race against, realistic damage > modeling, and everything else after that.

Very nicely observed and good article. The problem I have with games lacking dashboard view are the alternative viewpoints. It's often bumpercam, hoodcam, roofcam og kitecam which i feel none gives me the right immersion. I don't want to stick my head to the bumper, sit on the roof or fly behind the car. The bumperview is also a bit wrong since noone can see the bumper while in the racecar. I think GPL did this in av very good way to introduce the widesceen format. If this view had been avaliable in N4 most of the dashboard could be hidden, and the windscreen would get a larger percentage of the view. So a option in say N4 where you could introduce the black stripes and cut some of the cockpit would be very nice. -- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

When racing next to other cars I need the interior of the car to help judge how close to other cars I am. -- Kevin Anderson [email hidden] "Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:94c57.489$[email hidden]... > I have noticed over the years that many games ( SCGT's initial version, > GT1 - 3 , i.e.) have been dismissed as arcade by some people in part due to > missing dashboards. I too would prefer a dashboard in all racing sims, or > even arcade racers for that matter. However, for me at least, it is not a > key issue as to whether I judge a racer to be a good simulation. If the > Physics model makes the car "feel" arcade or "look" arcade on replays, then > no amount of faithfulness in dashboards, graphics quality, damage modeling, > great A.I., multiplayer support, or anything else will make the game into a > sim, IMHO. During my ride home from work, I was thinking about the > significance of various sensory inputs and visual cues involved in actually > driving a real car. > My impression is that the dashboard and general interior of my car within my > field of view, was a fairly minor > source of visual stimulation. I would guess that 90% of the time my eyes are > focused 50 yards down the road, and my dashboard does not really impede me > from looking at the road a few feet in front of me, because I almost never > focus clearly on either the road that close in or even my dashboard, except > for with my peripheral vision. While I think that having a dashbaoard adds > something to the immersion factor of a game, it certainly is fairly low on > my list of make or break features in a racing sim. For me at least, 95 % of > what makes a sim is believable "feeling" and "looking" PHYSICS modeling. The > remaining 5% in order of importance are, realistic graphics that immerse me > into realistic racing venues and a realworld environment, intelligent A.I. > that gives me humanlike opponents to race against, realistic damage > modeling, and everything else after that. > >

If you can see them closer than your interior, then you know they're too close ;). -Gregor Kevin Anderson wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > When racing next to other cars I need the interior of the car to help judge > how close to other cars I am. > > -- > Kevin Anderson > [email hidden] >

"Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:94c57.489$[email hidden]... > I have noticed over the years that many games ( SCGT's initial version, > GT1 - 3 , i.e.) have been dismissed as arcade by some people in part dueto > missing dashboards. I too would prefer a dashboard in all racing sims, or > even arcade racers for that matter. However, for me at least, it is not a > key issue as to whether I judge a racer to be a good simulation. If the > Physics model makes the car "feel" arcade or "look" arcade on replays,then > no amount of faithfulness in dashboards, graphics quality, damagemodeling, > great A.I., multiplayer support, or anything else will make the game intoa > sim, IMHO. During my ride home from work, I was thinking about the > significance of various sensory inputs and visual cues involved inactually > driving a real car. > My impression is that the dashboard and general interior of my car withinmy > field of view, was a fairly minor > source of visual stimulation. I would guess that 90% of the time my eyesare > focused 50 yards down the road, and my dashboard does not really impede me > from looking at the road a few feet in front of me, because I almost never > focus clearly on either the road that close in or even my dashboard,except > for with my peripheral vision. While I think that having a dashbaoard adds > something to the immersion factor of a game, it certainly is fairly low on > my list of make or break features in a racing sim. For me at least, 95 %of > what makes a sim is believable "feeling" and "looking" PHYSICS modeling.The > remaining 5% in order of importance are, realistic graphics that immerseme > into realistic racing venues and a realworld environment, intelligent A.I. > that gives me humanlike opponents to race against, realistic damage > modeling, and everything else after that. > > My general feeling is that a moving dashboard is necessary for a believable feeling. By moving dashboard I mean that the interior of the car is not a static image, but moves depending on forces. Many simulators have that now, and I tend to play those that do. GPL is a good example of a moving cockpit. As are all papyrus simulations (N4, Viper Racing ..). The actual screen area used for the dashboard might be very small. I like the F355 Challenge version and feel that N4 uses to much "real estate" on the screen. I would like to se an in-car view like that in F355 in Racer. On physical feedback there are quite a few products available. The easiest is a bass shaker like Aura mounted to the seat. I hope someone will create sounds that are meant for these shakers. Very often the feeling is there on low rpm's but vanishes in normal racing. Various speaker seats give the same result. Anyone have hints on sounds or games well suited for bass shakers? There is a product called Tactile Feedback System (www.vrf.com) which from what I see is like a massage pillow controlled by audio by some filtering mechanism. It was reviewed as pretty good. The first version is not available anymore, but a new version is soon to be released. At least they promised me so. The previous version was $180. Of the more special products there was an electomagnetic head device that was meant to stimulate your balance nerves, but the product was never released for public use, it is only available for medical labs. Moving cockpits are the best way of giving you physical feedback. There are a few available, but they are fairly expensive. From the easiest moving seat ( http://www.rocknride.net/ ). Anyone tried this? To different levels of moving platforms. http://www.dreamalitytechnologies.com/vrseat.htm http://www.inmotionsimulators.com/index.php There are also some home made or do it yourself versions, but mainly for flying simulators. The SimCraft http://simcraft.com/ looks like the best I have seen. I will be happy for all input on inexpensive moving platforms. Hopefully simulator software (WSC, Racer ...) will output information for moving platforms in the future (IntelliMove?). If only someone could produce an inexpensive moving platform, simulations will be very realistic for all of us in the future. Ivar

I think dashboards and other details that you "pick up" in your peripheral vision are the details that make the "illusion" complete. Papy's "virtual-cockpit" is a great example here... those head movements add's so much the the physics imho. Just compare some AI's from incar with your own replay and you'll see what a big difference it is. I for one have grown real fond if this concept and sometines wonder how I'll react to other sims in the future.. (Rally Trophy seems to be the one thats going to give me an answer on that) As to the importance of a *dashboard*.. - I'm not sure.... I know I'll never have much to spare for games without an in-car view. No incar view = no buy - it's that simple! A race sim without a in-car view is like a flight-sim with no cockpit-view. Dunno about others, but I do think my "ranking" of looking/judging a game today goes something like this: 1. Online racing capabilities: I rank this most important because I really think the physics these days are getting so good in most new titles so Online play get to be the decider 2. Physics 3. Sound 4. "Gameplay" Good or special "gameplay" get make up for lots of things :-) 5. Type of racing/series/class/tracks/cars etc. 6. Graphics 7. "Tweakability" / 3rd. party add-on support.. 8. Min. system requirements. .... Dead-last no matter what: AI. (I never race them - and basicly think their a thing of the past!) ed_

Olly Greenfield wrote: > > I have noticed over the years that many games ( SCGT's initial version, > GT1 - 3 , i.e.) have been dismissed as arcade by some people in part due to > missing dashboards. A dashboard is part of the environment that you are in. To me, having no dash would be like having opponents out there on the track that you cannot see. Not very entertaining and won't get my money. -- Fester

I'd have to agree with you. I don't even consider games without an 'in car view' and 'multiplayer support'. I also never race the AI. "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:luf57.1087$[email hidden]... > I think dashboards and other details that you "pick up" in your peripheral > vision are the details that make the "illusion" complete. Papy's > "virtual-cockpit" is a great example here... those head movements add'sso > much the the physics imho. > Just compare some AI's from incar with your own replay and you'll see whata > big difference it is. I for one have grown real fond if this concept and > sometines wonder how I'll react to other sims in the future.. (RallyTrophy > seems to be the one thats going to give me an answer on that) > > As to the importance of a *dashboard*.. - I'm not sure.... I know I'll > never have much to spare for games without an in-car view. No incar view=

Quoted text (8 lines)

> no buy - it's that simple! A race sim without a in-car view is like a > flight-sim with no cockpit-view. > > Dunno about others, but I do think my "ranking" of looking/judging a game > today goes something like this: > > 1. Online racing capabilities: > I rank this most important because I really think the physics these days

are > getting so good in most new titles so Online play get to be the decider > 2. Physics > 3. Sound > 4. "Gameplay" Good or special "gameplay" get make up for lots of things:-) > 5. Type of racing/series/class/tracks/cars etc. > 6. Graphics > 7. "Tweakability" / 3rd. party add-on support.. > 8. Min. system requirements. > .... > Dead-last no matter what: AI. (I never race them - and basicly thinktheir

Quoted text (7 lines)

> a thing of the past!) > > ed_ > > > >

A friend of mine mounted four 5w shakers to the bottom of his chair. He ran the output from his computer through a frequency splitter and into a seperate amplifier, and from there to the shakers. I found the effect to be pretty immersive in N4 and GPL, and didn't really notice any fading at higher RPMs. I think the sounds in N4 are pretty decent as is, and IIRC, he was using a soundpack for GPL. Cant be sure, I drank plenty of beer that weekend... I too am interested in motion platforms for driving sims. Have you seen the National Automotice Driving Simulator (NADS) site? Sorry, I no longer have the URL. Gerald Moore "Ivar Sandstad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<lee57.1069> The easiest is a bass shaker like Aura mounted to the seat. > I hope someone will create sounds that are meant for these shakers. > Very often the feeling is there on low rpm's but vanishes in normal > racing. Various speaker seats give the same result. > Anyone have hints on sounds or games well suited for bass shakers?

Granted your views about dashes are widespread. But then to lump other things like damage modeling as insignificant is off base. Without damage modeling, you have no NEED to learn racing lines, no NEED to develop technique. You must simply floor the gas and look for something, preferably an AI vehicle, to bounce off of to complete a turn. I watched my son do this last night with gt3. He got tired of my watching his replays...cuz I would say things like..."you missed the apex there, turned in too late, you wouldn't have had to play bumper cars if you hadn't left the entry so late....blah blah blah..." And back to dashes..looking out of your car is not a good indication of the perspective most racing drivers have. They sit much lower in their vehicles and cannot even see the hood(bonnet) in most cases. So the dash occupies a much greater portion of their view. Also, you are correct about the sensory input, a good racing driver is looking to the next turn, not the current one...most photos of drivers show them focusing far ahead or twisting their heads to view the next apex as opposed to the one they currently are negotiating.(sp?). And I will admit that the 2000 version of the Audi R8, the Le Mans winner ...had no proper dash at all...but still had the driver sitting behind a raised section of cockpit . But to sum up. A cockpit view is not needed...but it should be. kids are growing up with skills learned on nintendo or playstation and often have no idea about what constitutes a really clean corning technique. However, I chose long ago..as a matter of principle and of pride...to ALWAYS race in the car. There is nothing of logic that dictates my stance, but of feeling. IF I want to race a 'car' simulator, I want to be IN THE CAR. Even if I could gain an advantage, as some people claim, by hangliding behind the car, I'd prefer to give up the time to increase the immersion. My choice, but I also challenge all users to plant their butts in the car...claustrophobic? Limited viewing? Lack of situational awareness? maybe so, but for me doing what is more right feeling is more important. dave henrie "Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:94c57.489$[email hidden]... > I have noticed over the years that many games ( SCGT's initial version, > GT1 - 3 , i.e.) have been dismissed as arcade by some people in part dueto > missing dashboards. I too would prefer a dashboard in all racing sims, or > even arcade racers for that matter. However, for me at least, it is not a > key issue as to whether I judge a racer to be a good simulation. If the > Physics model makes the car "feel" arcade or "look" arcade on replays,then > no amount of faithfulness in dashboards, graphics quality, damagemodeling, > great A.I., multiplayer support, or anything else will make the game intoa > sim, IMHO. During my ride home from work, I was thinking about the > significance of various sensory inputs and visual cues involved inactually > driving a real car. > My impression is that the dashboard and general interior of my car withinmy > field of view, was a fairly minor > source of visual stimulation. I would guess that 90% of the time my eyesare > focused 50 yards down the road, and my dashboard does not really impede me > from looking at the road a few feet in front of me, because I almost never > focus clearly on either the road that close in or even my dashboard,except > for with my peripheral vision. While I think that having a dashbaoard adds > something to the immersion factor of a game, it certainly is fairly low on > my list of make or break features in a racing sim. For me at least, 95 %of > what makes a sim is believable "feeling" and "looking" PHYSICS modeling.The > remaining 5% in order of importance are, realistic graphics that immerseme > into realistic racing venues and a realworld environment, intelligent A.I. > that gives me humanlike opponents to race against, realistic damage > modeling, and everything else after that. > >

I don't think SEEING the dashboard is an issue, but the position of the camera should be where the driver sits. If the camera is on the nose of the car, that means that you have the WHOLE car behind you and the camera view is kinda at the pivot point so it is tough to tell if the car is sliding or spinning or what not. When the view is in the center of the car, the car rotates around you and I feel you have a good idea of where all parts of the car are. Being behind the car allows you to see every part of the car, but you are driving in 3rd person now...you look at the outside of the car and see what it is doing, then react, instead of sensing what it is doing from "inside" the car. So to go back to your post, I don't think a dashboard view is necessary, but at least it should have a roof cam of some sort that puts the driver in the middle of the car. JB Olly Greenfield <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:94c57.489$[email hidden]... > I have noticed over the years that many games ( SCGT's initial version, > GT1 - 3 , i.e.) have been dismissed as arcade by some people in part dueto > missing dashboards. I too would prefer a dashboard in all racing sims, or > even arcade racers for that matter. However, for me at least, it is not a > key issue as to whether I judge a racer to be a good simulation. If the > Physics model makes the car "feel" arcade or "look" arcade on replays,then > no amount of faithfulness in dashboards, graphics quality, damagemodeling, > great A.I., multiplayer support, or anything else will make the game intoa > sim, IMHO. During my ride home from work, I was thinking about the > significance of various sensory inputs and visual cues involved inactually > driving a real car. > My impression is that the dashboard and general interior of my car withinmy > field of view, was a fairly minor > source of visual stimulation. I would guess that 90% of the time my eyesare > focused 50 yards down the road, and my dashboard does not really impede me > from looking at the road a few feet in front of me, because I almost never > focus clearly on either the road that close in or even my dashboard,except > for with my peripheral vision. While I think that having a dashbaoard adds > something to the immersion factor of a game, it certainly is fairly low on > my list of make or break features in a racing sim. For me at least, 95 %of > what makes a sim is believable "feeling" and "looking" PHYSICS modeling.The > remaining 5% in order of importance are, realistic graphics that immerseme > into realistic racing venues and a realworld environment, intelligent A.I. > that gives me humanlike opponents to race against, realistic damage > modeling, and everything else after that. > >

In article <94c57.489$[email hidden]>, Olly Greenfield <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (30 lines)

>I have noticed over the years that many games ( SCGT's initial version, >GT1 - 3 , i.e.) have been dismissed as arcade by some people in part due to >missing dashboards. I too would prefer a dashboard in all racing sims, or >even arcade racers for that matter. However, for me at least, it is not a >key issue as to whether I judge a racer to be a good simulation. If the >Physics model makes the car "feel" arcade or "look" arcade on replays, then >no amount of faithfulness in dashboards, graphics quality, damage >modeling, >great A.I., multiplayer support, or anything else will make the game into a >sim, IMHO. During my ride home from work, I was thinking about the >significance of various sensory inputs and visual cues involved in actually >driving a real car. >My impression is that the dashboard and general interior of my car within my >field of view, was a fairly minor >source of visual stimulation. I would guess that 90% of the time my eyes are >focused 50 yards down the road, and my dashboard does not really impede >me >from looking at the road a few feet in front of me, because I almost never >focus clearly on either the road that close in or even my dashboard, except >for with my peripheral vision. While I think that having a dashbaoard adds >something to the immersion factor of a game, it certainly is fairly low on >my list of make or break features in a racing sim. For me at least, 95 % of >what makes a sim is believable "feeling" and "looking" PHYSICS modeling. >The >remaining 5% in order of importance are, realistic graphics that immerse me >into realistic racing venues and a realworld environment, intelligent A.I. >that gives me humanlike opponents to race against, realistic damage >modeling, and everything else after that. > >

My feeling on this is that, if the game places you in the position of the driver, then you need to know how big the vehicle is around you - and quickly. If you haven't got the visual help to tell you where the boundaries of the vehicle are then how do you decide where to place it in order to clip apexes, avoid other vehicles and objects etc. Obviously, once you become more proficient and confident at the sim. then your focus can move away from the vehicle's size limits and onto other things. However, even if your attention is predominantly on the road ahead, you still use that dashboard and car structure around you in order to place the car exactly where you want it. -- Peter Ives Remove ALL_STRESS before replying If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

Jesse Black wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > I don't think SEEING the dashboard is an issue, but the position of the > camera should be where the driver sits. If the camera is on the nose of the > car, that means that you have the WHOLE car behind you and the camera view > is kinda at the pivot point so it is tough to tell if the car is sliding or > spinning or what not. When the view is in the center of the car, the car > rotates around you and I feel you have a good idea of where all parts of the > car are. Being behind the car allows you to see every part of the car, but > you are driving in 3rd person now...you look at the outside of the car and > see what it is doing, then react, instead of sensing what it is doing from > "inside" the car. So to go back to your post, I don't think a dashboard > view is necessary, but at least it should have a roof cam of some sort that > puts the driver in the middle of the car.

This is my opinion too. I would describe it as the inside view gives you more reference points so you can react quicker to attitude and attitude rates. In an external view, you might end up waiting longer before noticing the car starting to slide before starting to catch it. This is an issue particularly important for cars modeled with modern radial racing tires where the peak of the force curve is at lower slip angles than in the past so that the critical angle for exceeding the rear tires capability is in the range of 7 to 10 degrees. I feel this small angle is easier to see inside than outside. There is also an issue of the cockpit view aiding the driver in detecting this slip angle rather than hiding it. For example, if the cockpit dash is relatively featureless, "straight ahead" may be hard to find so that detecting how far the car is slipping could be harder to determine accurately and quickly. -- Matthew V. Jessick Motorsims [email hidden] http://www.moto1.net Vehicle Dynamics Engineer (972)910-8866 Ext.125, Fax: (972)910-8216

I tend to prefer a 'hood cam' type of view - something close to the driver's viewpoint, but no dashboard. Part of this is habit. When I had a slower system, not rendering the cockpit often made the difference between playable frame rates and a slide show. But even now I like that view because of the sense of speed. If all you see of the track is the middle & distant parts, it looks slow. Even though you're always looking out that far to pick up the line properly, in your peripheral vision the closest parts of the track are whizzing by. I feel I can more accurately judge my speed that way. The cockpit view in GPL is great since the wide-screen effect gives you those fast-moving sections on either side. I play N4 with the roof cam - too high, but I prefer it to the cockpit. I especially noticed the difference in 'sense of speed' in NFS:PU. Since one started in the relatively slow 356's, in the cockpit view it felt like I could walk faster. Switching to the external view (I guess it was a bumper cam type view) dramatically increased the sense of speed. ...Klinn "Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:94c57.489$[email hidden]... > I have noticed over the years that many games ( SCGT's initial version, > GT1 - 3 , i.e.) have been dismissed as arcade by some people in part dueto > missing dashboards. I too would prefer a dashboard in all racing sims, or > even arcade racers for that matter. However, for me at least, it is not a > key issue as to whether I judge a racer to be a good simulation. If the- - -<snip>- - -

>A dashboard is part of the environment that you are in. To me, having >no dash would be like having opponents out there on the track that you >cannot see. Not very entertaining and won't get my money. Kinda like that hidden pixel about 50 yards down the back straight at Myrtle Beach in N3. Or was I the only one that ever hit that damn thing? Dave Casey Casey#9 (NASCAR Racing 4) www.teamcasey.net www.lvkc.com www.buycoolcrap.com

>"Dave Casey" <[email hidden]> wrote > Kinda like that hidden pixel about 50 yards down the back straight atMyrtle > Beach in N3. Or was I the only one that ever hit that damn thing? Hmm I think that was fixed in one of the patch. But the most famous is the outside wall at Phoenix for Nascar Racing 2. It's a legend, a myth. So many NROS things happened because of it ;-) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

"Klinn" <[email hidden]> writes: > I tend to prefer a 'hood cam' type of view - something close to the driver's > viewpoint, but no dashboard. me too. for a different reason, though. I find that in-car views get too restrictive. in a real car you can move your head to peek around the windshield posts -- in sims I frequently find them blocking my view through the corners. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 silence is FOO!

Hehe, "NADS", what a good choice of name :0) Almost as funny as the shirts worn by Cambridge University Netball Team... > I too am interested in motion platforms for driving sims. Have you > seen the National Automotice Driving Simulator (NADS) site? Sorry, I > no longer have the URL.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:49:09 GMT, "Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I have noticed over the years that many games ( SCGT's initial version, >GT1 - 3 , i.e.) have been dismissed as arcade by some people in part due to >missing dashboards. I too would prefer a dashboard in all racing sims, or >even arcade racers for that matter. However, for me at least, it is not a >key issue as to whether I judge a racer to be a good simulation. I agree. In fact I don't even want a dashboard view anymore, even though I used to be a stickler for it. I think Nascar 4's truly horrendous dashboard has turned me off them! The only time I want one know is in open-wheeled sims.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:33:57 -0400, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Having a believable "feeling" is completely dependant on the quality of the >cockpit view. Obviously spoken by someone who hasn't played GT3. It's million-plus sales are almost completely based on it's realistic driving feeling. >4) fully 3d cockpit with great sensory feedback and driver motion (N4) N4 is the game that's turned me off cockpit view, it's so overdone. I mean, I'd like to look at the ROAD too please, and not through some tiny icon-sized hole in the cockpit.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Obviously spoken by someone who hasn't played GT3. It's million-plus > sales are almost completely based on it's realistic driving feeling. > > > I think it has more to do with the arcade nature of the game and the fact that the cars and courses look pretty good. Realistic driving sims don't necessarily mean great sales, even if GT3 was a realistic sim (ask Sierra about GPL for more info <g>). It's OK to like GT3, but let's not get carried away... By the way, have you ever been in a stock car before? I don't think you'd be so critical of N4's cockpit if you had. Chris

>"Joe62" <[email hidden]> wrote > >Having a believable "feeling" is completely dependant on the quality ofthe > >cockpit view. > > Obviously spoken by someone who hasn't played GT3. It's million-plus > sales are almost completely based on it's realistic driving feeling. LMAO! GT3 has a realistic driving feeling? Wow I did not know the best way to apex a corner is to throw the car into a slide, take another car has a bump and throttle back after... I think the whole point went over your head. > >4) fully 3d cockpit with great sensory feedback and driver motion (N4) > > N4 is the game that's turned me off cockpit view, it's so overdone. I > mean, I'd like to look at the ROAD too please, and not through some > tiny icon-sized hole in the cockpit. It's not overdone, it's realistic. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

"Christopher E. Johnson> By the way, have you ever been in a stock car before? I don't think > you'd be so critical of N4's cockpit if you had. > > Chris Sounds to me like an F10 driver who got into an online race where the server forced the cockpit view...:) dave henrie

If you can, find some footage of the big Daytona Wreck where Tony Stewart Flipped. While he is airborne, the incar camera shows just how limited the Winston Cup view is...the N4 dimensions seem pretty close...I would assume, they just wouldn't make up a smaller window...with all the access they have to real cars, I'm sure the window area etc is pretty close to what winston cup cars actually have. As proof, think back to the race where Jeff Gordon banged a tire in the pits..it was 20 feet in front of his car, yet he couldn't see it...(was that Daytona also?) dave henrie "Joe62" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:33:57 -0400, "ymenard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Having a believable "feeling" is completely dependant on the quality ofthe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >cockpit view. > > Obviously spoken by someone who hasn't played GT3. It's million-plus > sales are almost completely based on it's realistic driving feeling. > > >4) fully 3d cockpit with great sensory feedback and driver motion (N4) > > N4 is the game that's turned me off cockpit view, it's so overdone. I > mean, I'd like to look at the ROAD too please, and not through some > tiny icon-sized hole in the cockpit.

LOL@DaveH "Dave Henrie" wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

| Sounds to me like an F10 driver who got into an online race where the | server forced the cockpit view...:) | dave henrie | | "Christopher E. Johnson> By the way, have you ever been in a stock car | before? I don't think | > you'd be so critical of N4's cockpit if you had. | > | > Chris

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.264 / Virus Database: 136 - Release Date: 7/2/2001

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:21:38 -0400, Christopher E. Johnson <[email hidden]> wrote: >I think it has more to do with the arcade nature of the game ... Wrong, since it's not an arcade driving game. >...and the fact that the cars and courses look pretty good. Nope. Lot's of games have this. Ridge Racer for example, but it doesn't sell nearly as well as GT3. >Realistic driving sims don't necessarily mean great sales... That's true ... what GT3 has done is combined realisic driving with a great, addictive gameplay model (i.e., the car upgrading system). >By the way, have you ever been in a stock car before? I don't think >you'd be so critical of N4's cockpit if you had. No I haven't, and yes I would. N4 runs on a computer, not a road. They have to make allowances for the limitations of the hardware. In a real car you have peripheral vision and other tools for knowing what's going on around you. It is an error to fail to make allowances for the limited sensory input you have on a computer simulation.

I can't stand bumper-cam. If it has no cockpit, it has no place on my computer. But that's just me :) -Larry "Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:94c57.489$[email hidden]... > I have noticed over the years that many games ( SCGT's initial version, > GT1 - 3 , i.e.) have been dismissed as arcade by some people in part dueto > missing dashboards. I too would prefer a dashboard in all racing sims, or > even arcade racers for that matter. However, for me at least, it is not a > key issue as to whether I judge a racer to be a good simulation. If the > Physics model makes the car "feel" arcade or "look" arcade on replays,then > no amount of faithfulness in dashboards, graphics quality, damagemodeling, > great A.I., multiplayer support, or anything else will make the game intoa > sim, IMHO. During my ride home from work, I was thinking about the > significance of various sensory inputs and visual cues involved inactually > driving a real car. > My impression is that the dashboard and general interior of my car withinmy > field of view, was a fairly minor > source of visual stimulation. I would guess that 90% of the time my eyesare > focused 50 yards down the road, and my dashboard does not really impede me > from looking at the road a few feet in front of me, because I almost never > focus clearly on either the road that close in or even my dashboard,except > for with my peripheral vision. While I think that having a dashbaoard adds > something to the immersion factor of a game, it certainly is fairly low on > my list of make or break features in a racing sim. For me at least, 95 %of > what makes a sim is believable "feeling" and "looking" PHYSICS modeling.The > remaining 5% in order of importance are, realistic graphics that immerseme > into realistic racing venues and a realworld environment, intelligent A.I. > that gives me humanlike opponents to race against, realistic damage > modeling, and everything else after that. > >

In article <SLc57.16805$[email hidden]>, ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

> >"Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> wrote > > While I think that having a dashbaoard adds > > something to the immersion factor of a game, it certainly is fairly low on > > my list of make or break features in a racing sim. For me at least, 95 % > of > > what makes a sim is believable "feeling" and "looking" PHYSICS modeling. > > > Having a believable "feeling" is completely dependant on the quality of the > cockpit view. There are several steps towards perfectness I would say : > > > 1) No cockpit view at all (many pure arcade titles) > 2) Hood cam or full screen view from where a driver would seat in the car > (GT3) > 3) 2d or poorly modeled 3d cockpit (SCGT) > 4) 3d cockpit that incorporates some driver motion (RC2k or GP3) > 4) fully 3d cockpit with great sensory feedback and driver motion (N4) > > > Of course, you do not look at the cockpit most of the time since it's a more > subtle feeling that is still absolutely important to the immersion. The > sensory inputs you gain from a realistic cockpit view is really important. > I include both the 3d cockpit and the driver motion. The driver motion is > much, much more essential to the immersion! The cockpit technically > shouldn't move much, it's your view that moves depending on what the chassis > does to your body (suspension, engine torque, etc..) and what the G-forces > does to your body (frontal and lateral). >

I think I am not as happy with the 3D cockpit as it has been done so far as I thought I would be. The 2D dash with just the dials made more sense than the big wheel taking up so much of the screen. I want what I would be seeing if I was in a car, and I don't think I would be looking at the center of my steering wheel. Especially when you have a wheel yourself at home already. Top of the dash, some hood for color, and the mirror is perfect for me. No car at all is really wierd to me, I want to know I am in a car and it is the car of the particular series I am in. No cockpit = no atmosphere. Outside the car view makes me feel like I am driving a remote control racer or something.