stupid licensing ruins everything

A few thoughts- Is it just me or wouldn't it make sense to use the GPL engine in a series of classic racing series. First off, the vaporware Trans-Am Racing '68-72 could be replaced with Trans-Am Legends. Then, of course, we'd get Can-Am Legends, featuring that series at it's heights in the early 1970's. Next, a Group C or IMSA Legends for the 1980's. And Lastly, how about a somebaody make a decent game featuring LeMans. There are other great Era's of racing, like..

"IF" WSC pans out, this will be covered in that release. dave henrie "John Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dMS07.2941$[email hidden]... > A few thoughts- > > Is it just me or wouldn't it make sense to use the GPL engine in a seriesof > classic racing series. First off, the vaporware Trans-Am Racing '68-72 > could be replaced with Trans-Am Legends. Then, of course, we'd get Can-Am > Legends, featuring that series at it's heights in the early 1970's. Next,a > Group C or IMSA Legends for the 1980's. And Lastly, how about a somebaody > make a decent game featuring LeMans. > > There are other great Era's of racing, like.. > >

"John Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dMS07.2941$[email hidden]... > A few thoughts- > > Is it just me or wouldn't it make sense to use the GPL engine in a seriesof > classic racing series. First off, the vaporware Trans-Am Racing '68-72 > could be replaced with Trans-Am Legends. Then, of course, we'd get Can-Am > Legends, featuring that series at it's heights in the early 1970's. Next,a > Group C or IMSA Legends for the 1980's. And Lastly, how about a somebaody > make a decent game featuring LeMans. > > There are other great Era's of racing, like.. LIKE MODERN RACING IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK!!! Christ - I'm fairly sure if it wasnt for GPL then R.A.S wouldnt be so obsessed with historic racing. I only play GPL because it's the best sim there is - not because I particularly like or know anything about 1967 Formula One. Perhaps - we could use the GPL engine to make a modern CART, or F1 sim? That's what half of R.A.S. are screaming out for. The other half is screaming for 1970-this and 1980-that. If I was a developer looking at RAS I'd say "Forget it - they dont even know what they want themselves - no point wasting the money developing stuff for them" World Sports Car - HOPEFULLY - will solve all this by being flexible enough to encompass all the needs of the group - but I for one will be glad of the chance to drive something that was made during my lifetime - and not 10 years before I was born, or 20 years before I understood what motor racing was all about. Doug

In article <vrV07.3023$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > World Sports Car - HOPEFULLY - will solve all this by being flexible enough > to encompass all the needs of the group - but I for one will be glad of the > chance to drive something that was made during my lifetime - and not 10 > years before I was born, or 20 years before I understood what motor racing > was all about. Why? I'm too young to remember motor racing before the 80's but having seen the films and raced GPL it is absolutely clear that it was better before then. The tracks were more exciting and challenging and the cars took more driving. Older series lend themselves more to computer simulation as well. Modern F1 and Sports Prototypes have virtually no roll under cornering or pitch under acceleration or braking. The sticky tires and massive downforce mean that breakaway is super-sudden and seeing as the sim driver only gets feedback from visuals and sound, will occur without warning. - Michael

If GPL didn't come up people wouldn't be obsessed with historic racing sims, period. BUT GPL has made a lot of us younger people (I'm 14, started watching F1 around 1992 with my dad, rallying since I was born) realize how great the historic races were, with tracks like the Nurburgring, gobs of power, lots of slighting, barely any grip, and steering wheels that look like real steering wheels :) Then Legends of Motorsport on SV just reinfornced that. Of course, I wouldn't mind any sim made with a GPL engine, especially a rally sim ;) Thanks, Alex Douglas Ellison <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vrV07.3023$[email hidden]... > > "John Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:dMS07.2941$[email hidden]... > > A few thoughts- > > > > Is it just me or wouldn't it make sense to use the GPL engine in aseries > of > > classic racing series. First off, the vaporware Trans-Am Racing '68-72 > > could be replaced with Trans-Am Legends. Then, of course, we'd getCan-Am > > Legends, featuring that series at it's heights in the early 1970's.Next, > a > > Group C or IMSA Legends for the 1980's. And Lastly, how about asomebaody

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > make a decent game featuring LeMans. > > > > There are other great Era's of racing, like.. > > LIKE MODERN RACING > > IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK!!! > > Christ - I'm fairly sure if it wasnt for GPL then R.A.S wouldnt be so > obsessed with historic racing. I only play GPL because it's the best sim > there is - not because I particularly like or know anything about 1967 > Formula One. > > Perhaps - we could use the GPL engine to make a modern CART, or F1 sim? > That's what half of R.A.S. are screaming out for. The other half is > screaming for 1970-this and 1980-that. > > If I was a developer looking at RAS I'd say "Forget it - they dont even

know > what they want themselves - no point wasting the money developing stufffor > them" > > World Sports Car - HOPEFULLY - will solve all this by being flexibleenough > to encompass all the needs of the group - but I for one will be glad ofthe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> chance to drive something that was made during my lifetime - and not 10 > years before I was born, or 20 years before I understood what motor racing > was all about. > > Doug > > >

Which is why we need a racing simulation that features normal cars on interesting road circuits, i.e. a Gran Tourismo type thing on the PC. Normal cars have soft suspensions and weight, which makes them difficult and fun to race. Hopefully WSC will allow us to create our own cars. "MP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Older series lend themselves more to computer simulation as well. Modern > F1 and Sports Prototypes have virtually no roll under cornering or pitch > under acceleration or braking. The sticky tires and massive downforce > mean that breakaway is super-sudden and seeing as the sim driver only > gets feedback from visuals and sound, will occur without warning.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 05:18:01 GMT, "John Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Is it just me or wouldn't it make sense to use the GPL engine in a series of >classic racing series. First off, the vaporware Trans-Am Racing '68-72 >could be replaced with Trans-Am Legends. Then, of course, we'd get Can-Am >Legends, featuring that series at it's heights in the early 1970's. Next, a >Group C or IMSA Legends for the 1980's. And Lastly, how about a somebaody >make a decent game featuring LeMans. > >There are other great Era's of racing, like..

It's "just you"... in a sense. GPL is enormously popular here, and for good reason. In the "big picture" GPL tanked, and so did NASCAR Legends. I shouldn't even bring up Spirit of Speed:1937, because it deserved to tank for reasons unrelated to the era it chose to recreate. Outside of this small core of GPL fanatics, there doesn't seem to be any demand for historic racing sims. I think the only successful implementation of it I've seen is Porsche Unleashed... Put the new stuff in there, and have the classic racing to sweeten the pot. This doesn't work that great for a hard core sim because we demand real tracks and they change every few years. Everyone has an era they would love to see recreated. For me, it'd be the 80's Group B rally scene, which spawned some of the wildest and most powerful cars ever created, like the Porsche 959 and Ferrari F40. Unfortunately, the "Killer B's" were gone before much of the technology created for them was used in rally. Tim

>"Tim O" <[email hidden]> wrote > Outside of this small core of GPL fanatics, there doesn't seem to be > any demand for historic racing sims. Of course not! Geeze why do people think that commercial success is directly related to grabbing on the mass populi gamers? There ain't much demand for modern F-22 flight sims outside the people who want one. Same can be said for RTS, RPG, Space sims, etc... -- -- 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...

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

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Everyone has an era they would love to see recreated. For me, it'd be > the 80's Group B rally scene, which spawned some of the wildest and > most powerful cars ever created, like the Porsche 959 and Ferrari F40. > Unfortunately, the "Killer B's" were gone before much of the > technology created for them was used in rally. > > Tim >

The Colin Mcrae games offer Metro 6r4, RS200, Audi S4 Sport Quattro, 205 T16 in the mix there. Not "hardcore sims" by any means, but certainly on a par with NFS:porsche. I've seen plenty of Group B action in my time, thanks to their overwhelming popularity and success in Rallycross. (a decent rallycross sim, that'd be nice, Santa) Privateers still run 6R4s in national rallying, maybe not to the original spec, I'm not sure. cheers John

On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:34:05 -0400, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Of course not! Geeze why do people think that commercial success is >directly related to grabbing on the mass populi gamers? There ain't much >demand for modern F-22 flight sims outside the people who want one. Same >can be said for RTS, RPG, Space sims, etc... Huh? Commercial success IS related to grabbing the mass populous of gamers. Why do you think there are 5 Need For Speeds and one GPL? Electronic Arts' Janes Military Simulations division was disbanded for the very reason you're using to make your point. The market for modern flight sims is larger than the market for historic driving sims, but the market still couldn't bear multiple companies like Janes and NovaLogic competing for the same sim dollars. RTS games have been popular for 5 years, and RPG's are huge. Have you heard of Ultima Online or Everquest? They're selling the game for 30 bucks and making 10 bucks a month from tens of thousands of players. Picture GPL trying to do that. Tim

>"Tim O" <[email hidden]> wrote > Huh? Commercial success IS related to grabbing the mass populous of > gamers. Why do you think there are 5 Need For Speeds and one GPL? WHOOOSH! Yeah, and Britney Spears is so much better then everything else on the musical planet. > RTS games have been popular for 5 years wow 5 years <sarcasm> > and RPG's are huge. And they are exactly created for a specific group of people, like flight sims, racing sims, adventure games, etc.. So what if they sell less? The person shouted that GPL is a failure. No, it's not. It's a success within it's own market. Simple as that. That's like stating that APHEX TWIN is a failure because they don't sell as much as Until the gaming industry stops thinking that way about the global market and the absolute need for mass popularity within each and every game, it will suffer and fail. -- -- 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...

> Why? I'm too young to remember motor racing before the 80's but having > seen the films and raced GPL it is absolutely clear that it was better > before then. The tracks were more exciting and challenging and the cars > took more driving. > The flexibility supposedly built into WSC means you can have older rolly-polly cars or fire-breathing super-sprung vehicles. you can do new or old and with a track editor, youcan have chicanes or not... dave henrie

The key word here being "eventually" "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:60b17.304727$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > Why? I'm too young to remember motor racing before the 80's but having > > seen the films and raced GPL it is absolutely clear that it was better > > before then. The tracks were more exciting and challenging and the cars > > took more driving. > > > The flexibility supposedly built into WSC means you can have older > rolly-polly cars or fire-breathing super-sprung vehicles. you can do new

or > old and with a track editor, youcan have chicanes or not... > dave henrie > >

While I'm sure it will take some time for new tracks etc to sprout...remember this: WSC will have an open architechture,(if they stick to their plans) and we won't have to wait two years for users to decipher the track and vehicle coding. plus those who are trackmaking for F1cs and SCGT are already versed in most of what WSC will require. I believe folks like Sean Staples will be able to produce tracks with a minimum of learning time...however this won't reduce the time needed to craft the tracks and I suspect this will still be a lengthly procedure. So while this is a great time for GPL with all the various tracks being crafted, I don't think we will have to wait anywhere near as long for WSC to enjoy the fruits of many talented private users. Keep in mind this is based only on what was common knowledge on the net. Any part or feature of WSC is very likely to be open to change before the title ships. lets keep those fingers crossed. dave henrie "Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:P5b17.15178$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> The key word here being "eventually" > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:60b17.304727$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > Why? I'm too young to remember motor racing before the 80's but having > > > seen the films and raced GPL it is absolutely clear that it was better > > > before then. The tracks were more exciting and challenging and the

cars > > > took more driving. > > > > > The flexibility supposedly built into WSC means you can have older > > rolly-polly cars or fire-breathing super-sprung vehicles. you can donew

Quoted text (7 lines)

> or > > old and with a track editor, youcan have chicanes or not... > > dave henrie > > > > > >

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:7oa17.25269$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> So what if they sell less? The person shouted that GPL is a failure. > No, it's not. It's a success within it's own market. Simple as that. > That's like stating that APHEX TWIN is a failure because they don't > sell as much as > > Until the gaming industry stops thinking that way about the global > market and the absolute need for mass popularity within each and every > game, it will suffer and fail.

You overlook the cost of developing these games. No one is talking about global number one sales, but rather profitability. Most PC Games do simply not make money ever. The PC Games industry is like the movie industry: The hits finance the turkeys. Z. -- Please remove my_pants when replying by email.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 23:39:44 -0400, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>"Tim O" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Huh? Commercial success IS related to grabbing the mass populous of >> gamers. Why do you think there are 5 Need For Speeds and one GPL? > >WHOOOSH! > >Yeah, and Britney Spears is so much better then everything else on the >musical planet.

Talk about WHOOSH! We were talking about commercial success. Can you not seperate commercial success (quantity) over quality? Nobody was saying GPL was bad, just that it's sales were. >So what if they sell less? The person shouted that GPL is a failure. No, >it's not. It's a success within it's own market. Simple as that. That's >like stating that APHEX TWIN is a failure because they don't sell as much as Want me to wait a minute while you complete that sentence? GPL is a commercial failure. Just because it's popular in this little micro-community doesn't change reality. I'd be more willing to bet there will be a NASCAR Racing 10 than a Grand Prix Legends 2. >Until the gaming industry stops thinking that way about the global market >and the absolute need for mass popularity within each and every game, it >will suffer and fail. Yea, everyone gets into business to lose money. Unbelievable. Tim

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim O <[email hidden]> writes: >>Yeah, and Britney Spears is so much better then everything else on the >>musical planet. > >Talk about WHOOSH! We were talking about commercial success. >Can you not seperate commercial success (quantity) over quality? >Nobody was saying GPL was bad, just that it's sales were. I've often joked that I should write a rap album, sell a lot of copies, and then use that money to make GOOD music... :-) Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"Tim O" <[email hidden]> wrote > Want me to wait a minute while you complete that sentence? > GPL is a commercial failure Only closed-minded people would think that way. > Just because it's popular in this little > micro-community doesn't change reality. No, it IS the reality. It sold within it's own market. It did not sell to Mr. Quake. Big whoop, it goes back again to the closed-minded vision in the gaming industry that titles need world-wide appeal or they are crap. > >Until the gaming industry stops thinking that way about the global market > >and the absolute need for mass popularity within each and every game, it > >will suffer and fail. > > Yea, everyone gets into business to lose money. > Unbelievable. False. Selling to it's own market <> loosing money. -- -- 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...

Only closed-minded people would think that way. No, it IS the reality. It sold within it's own market. It did not sell to Mr. Quake. Big whoop, it goes back again to the closed-minded vision in the *** industry that titles need world-wide appeal or they are crap. False. Selling to it's own market <> loosing money. -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <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...

Yea but she sure is YummmmmmY!! :o)~ "ymenard" wrote: | WHOOOSH! | Yeah, and Britney Spears is so much better then everything else on the | musical planet. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001

> Yeah, and Britney Spears is so much better then everything else on the > musical planet. > Turn the sound down...record the video..play whenever the wife is around to annoy her..hehehe dave henrie bah bop bop baaaaa

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:37:53 -0400, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >No, it IS the reality. It sold within it's own market. It did not sell to >Mr. Quake. Big whoop, it goes back again to the closed-minded vision in the >gaming industry that titles need world-wide appeal or they are crap. Jesus H. Chrysler! It DIDN'T sell within it's own market! NASCAR sold in it's market, Grand Prix sold in it's market, Colin McRae Rally sold in it's market. Hey, and how about that? It's the SAME market as GPL. Are you just goofing with me? Every example you've cited further disproves you point. I give up.

"Tim O" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:37:53 -0400, "ymenard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >No, it IS the reality. It sold within it's own market. It did not sellto > >Mr. Quake. Big whoop, it goes back again to the closed-minded vision inthe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >gaming industry that titles need world-wide appeal or they are crap. > > Jesus H. Chrysler! It DIDN'T sell within it's own market! > NASCAR sold in it's market, Grand Prix sold in it's market, Colin > McRae Rally sold in it's market. > Hey, and how about that? It's the SAME market as GPL. > > Are you just goofing with me? Every example you've cited further > disproves you point. I give up. >

I'd agree with you, for what it's worth. What did GPL sell- something like 40,000 copies world wide? Or is that an over estimation? GPL is an artistic triumph, but it was a commercial disaster. I doubt papy could afford the time out of their schedule to make more gpl patches (which is great) if they didn't have the Nascar series to pull the money in. GPL is now on budget re-release, so who knows what that could mean for the near future. More t1 action at monza for sure :o) cheers John

>"Tim O" <[email hidden]> wrote > Jesus H. Chrysler! It DIDN'T sell within it's own market! Uhhhh, yes it did. Everybody who wanted a very serious racing simulation and had interest in historical racing bought it. >Grand Prix sold in it's market Grand Prix what? > It's the SAME market as GPL. Sorry, the market for CMR is not the same as for GPL > Are you just goofing with me? Every example you've cited further > disproves you point. I give up. Looks like you don't have much other choice, muahahahaha <machiavellian laugh> -- -- 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...

On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 18:10:46 -0400, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >>"Tim O" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Jesus H. Chrysler! It DIDN'T sell within it's own market! > >Uhhhh, yes it did. Everybody who wanted a very serious racing simulation >and had interest in historical racing bought it. Yea, and everyone that wanted an Edsel bought one too, that didn't make it a success. I actually disagree with your whole assessment. I think people that enjoyed Papy's racing sims bought it, and for the people it hooked, it *created* interest in the era. I knew of some of the drivers before playing GPL, but I didn't know all of the tracks or the drivers accomplishments like I do now. I really didn't care about the era, since I'm too young to remember it (and I'm not really that young). This was GPL's core failing. Most software buyers couldn't identify with it. >>Grand Prix sold in it's market > >Grand Prix what? Uh, Grand Prix, Grand Prix 2 and Grand Prix 3. I surmised you'd heard of Geoff Crammond, unless you're playing Barbie Wardrobe Designer between rounds of GPL. >> It's the SAME market as GPL. > >Sorry, the market for CMR is not the same as for GPL OK, so now it's not enough to like car racing games, and you're going to pin GPL down into a further micro-market. Do you suppose the typical GPL buyer owns other software? I'm dying to know what else you suppose a GPL buyer would purchase. I swore I was going to let this go, but I find your bizarre train of thought pretty compelling. I own GPL, along with both Colin McRae titles, and a mix of other games/sims ranging from realistic like Viper Racing, to more for plain fun like Motocross Madness 1 and 2 and NFS: Porsche Unleashed. I'll confess that I'll play a game that isn't ultra-realistic for hours if it's fun and semi-realistic. I love Porsche Unleashed, but don't really care for any of the other NFS titles.

Let's all forget about the GPL engine shall we? I've never heard a worse idea. I mean, since we're pretending to race cars, shouldn't we use software that actually acts like a car? Let's just let that thing die. Just because you are used to it does not mean it's good. Almost everything about the interface in Papy games is wrong. Real instincts do not pay off. The games *particulars* must be learned by rote. C'mon... that's no way to race. The physics engine *might* be good, but we'd need a whole new GUI to find out. I say, if they've done such a poor job to begin with, maybe they should design spigots or something. Sims are certainly not their game. Simulations necessarily include the human element. Check MTBR or STCC2 or GP3 if you don't know what I'm talking about. There is actual separation between the front and rear of the car. You can tell which wheel is locking. Heck, you can even tell when the brakes are on. I know, you say you can *feel* the brakes perfectly in GPL. I argue that you have merely learned what it is doing through practice and are making educated guesses as opposed to entering a situation and reacting to it in real time. I know we love Nascar and GP but that does not make the N series and GPL good sims. The fact that they were the best things we had a few years ago does not make them good sims either. They are what they are and it's time to be thankful(?) for what we had and let the next thing come along. Why don't we use the CPR engine. A few well thought out tweaks and it would destroy anything available. Heck, it already does. Where GPL falls flat: Sense of speed Sense of attitude of car Sense of acceleration Sense of placement Sense of available grip Sense of front as separate from rear and vice/verse Perspective of approaching road That pretty much covers everything. At that point, who cares whether the physics underneath are accurate or not. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "John Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dMS07.2941$[email hidden]... > A few thoughts- > > Is it just me or wouldn't it make sense to use the GPL engine in a series of > classic racing series. First off, the vaporware Trans-Am Racing '68-72 > could be replaced with Trans-Am Legends. Then, of course, we'd get Can-Am > Legends, featuring that series at it's heights in the early 1970's. Next, a > Group C or IMSA Legends for the 1980's. And Lastly, how about a somebaody > make a decent game featuring LeMans. > > There are other great Era's of racing, like.. > > >

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> In article <vrV07.3023$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > Older series lend themselves more to computer simulation as well. Modern > F1 and Sports Prototypes have virtually no roll under cornering or pitch > under acceleration or braking. The sticky tires and massive downforce > mean that breakaway is super-sudden and seeing as the sim driver only > gets feedback from visuals and sound, will occur without warning. > > - Michael

I don't think that is necessarily correct. I think it's how the cues are implemented. For instance, I feel that GP3 has 3 times the depth of traction characteristics that GPL has. The tires seem more alive and I get much more read or anticipation, even with the stiffest setups the game will allow. With CPR, on the other hand, it simply feels realistic. There is no translation, for me, from RL to Sim. It just flows and all my instincts are applicable. But, CPR feels very simplistic comparatively. Not as deep as GP3, or GPL for that matter. But a much finer driving sim on all accounts. I believe it has to do with perspective and audio cues. What else could it be? :-) The sense of grip is far, far superior and the sense of relative speed is perfect. But, no. I think anything can be simulated. I would help immeasurably to have rec.autos.simulators beta testing. And that is the truth. I think the number one problem with games may be that a group of people will become like minded after a while. In house testing become moot. The vocabulary becomes stale. If I was in there saying, "I can't tell when the inside front tire locks because I can't see or feel the crown that it's dropped over, I think the cockpit is too dynamic." and they were really intent on listening to me and all the others, they would see the problem. As it is, they are clouded by a lack of diversity in their perspective. Everyday at work I see otherwise brilliant artists cling to something beneath their potential because of pride, or over focusing, or a feeling of futility... there's a million reasons. One guy can walk into the room and say, "What's that clanking thing?" and break the restraints and put a project on a whole new road. And save it. R.A.S. testers. That's the future of sims. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

>mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote > Let's all forget about the GPL engine shall we? I've never heard a worse > idea. What a worst idea Nascar Racing is, eh? > I mean, since we're pretending to race cars, shouldn't we use software > that actually acts like a car? Yep and the new Papy game engine prooved it in N4. > Almost everything about the interface in Papy games is wrong. Compared to what? I'm sorry but the gUI structure in their NASCAR series is very, VERY good, better then the vast majority of titles on the market. It's clean, sharp and doesn't have 3d flashy animation to loose the customer. > Why don't we use the CPR engine. A few well thought out tweaks and itwould > destroy anything available. Heck, it already does. The TRI game engine???? Funny. I guess the WSC brothers really don't know shite when telling that the new Papy game engine is currently the best created. > Where GPL falls flat: > Sense of speed IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically. > Sense of attitude of car Wuh? > Sense of acceleration Wuh? > Sense of placement Wuh? > Sense of available grip Wuh? > Sense of front as separate from rear and vice/verse Ok perhaps that makes sense. > Perspective of approaching road Wuh? You just need to adjust the FOV. Oh wait, they have done it realistically, like they really see in real-life inside those cars. I think something is wrong here : your sense of reality. -- -- 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...

"mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> skrev i meddelandet news:UKha7.114$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Where GPL falls flat: > Sense of speed > Sense of attitude of car > Sense of acceleration > Sense of placement > Sense of available grip > Sense of front as separate from rear and vice/verse > Perspective of approaching road > > That pretty much covers everything. At that point, who cares whether the > physics underneath are accurate or not. > > -- > > "Racing! - Science for the action minded." > > mark >

The sum of this: no sense! \�l GPLrank+11,82 "Prognosis Negative"

mark jeangerard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UKha7.114$[email hidden]... <begin trollfood> > Let's all forget about the GPL engine shall we? I've never heard aworse > idea. I mean, since we're pretending to race cars, shouldn't we usesoftware > that actually acts like a car? Let's just let that thing die. Justbecause It doesn't act like a car? Opposite lock, oversteer, understeer, both, 'taking a set'... it does all these for me. Given that I have a good idea how a Salisbury diff works (took one to bits once), I can feel just what it's doing in GPL (for example). > interface in Papy games is wrong. Real instincts do not pay off. Thegames > *particulars* must be learned by rote. C'mon... that's no way torace. The Hmm... you mean a type of car must be learned by rote, maybe? Drive a road car then jump into (say) an LMP-675 and tell me if your instincts work straight away. > don't know what I'm talking about. There is actual separationbetween the > front and rear of the car. You can tell which wheel is locking.Heck, you <inspects model race car> The front and rear seem to be connected by a device called a 'chassis'. I suspect they had these on real '67 F1 cars, too. > Where GPL falls flat: > Sense of speedYou didn't find the straight at the 'Ring scary the first time you blasted down it, between the hedges? > Sense of attitude of carSideways, much of the time... > Sense of accelerationThe back end's wriggling. That's usually a clue <g> > Sense of placementOkay, I don't have as good a feel for where the wheels are as I do in a real vehicle. > Sense of available gripSee earlier comment regarding LMPs. > Sense of front as separate from rear and vice/verseSee earlier comment. > Perspective of approaching roadYup, the distance isn't as clear as it could be (though more computrons and I could turn up the resolution). Sorry, but I just don't follow much of that post. Jonny <end trollfood>

In article <K7ja7.55478$[email hidden]>, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: >> Almost everything about the interface in Papy games is wrong. > >Compared to what? I'm sorry but the gUI structure in their NASCAR series is >very, VERY good, better then the vast majority of titles on the market. >It's clean, sharp and doesn't have 3d flashy animation to loose the >customer. I think he means the interface of controlling the car itself. Different than the 'menu' interface... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <UKha7.114$[email hidden]>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>spigots or something. Sims are certainly not their game. Simulations >necessarily include the human element. Check MTBR or STCC2 or GP3 if you >don't know what I'm talking about. There is actual separation between the >front and rear of the car. You can tell which wheel is locking. Heck, you >can even tell when the brakes are on. I know, you say you can *feel* the >brakes perfectly in GPL. I argue that you have merely learned what it is >doing through practice and are making educated guesses as opposed to >entering a situation and reacting to it in real time. I know we love Nascar >and GP but that does not make the N series and GPL good sims. The fact that >they were the best things we had a few years ago does not make them good >sims either. They are what they are and it's time to be thankful(?) for what >we had and let the next thing come along. > >Why don't we use the CPR engine. A few well thought out tweaks and it would >destroy anything available. Heck, it already does. > >Where GPL falls flat: >Sense of speed >Sense of attitude of car >Sense of acceleration >Sense of placement >Sense of available grip >Sense of front as separate from rear and vice/verse >Perspective of approaching road

GP3 is better with these points? I'll have to try it again. I couldn't get that much feel of the car before. It would step out without warning, I'd either brake way early or way late, etc. While it COULD have been caused by controller issues, I didn't have those problems with any other game I was running at the time... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

ymenard <[email hidden]> schreef > > Perspective of approaching road > > Wuh? You just need to adjust the FOV. How? > Oh wait, they have done it realistically, like they really see inreal-life inside those cars. No they haven't. GPL's FOV is too wide, as a lap at any of the real tracks would tell you. If only it were adjustable... Bye, Leo

"mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote... <snip> > interface in Papy games is wrong. Real instincts do not pay off. The games <snip snip> > I argue that you have merely learned what it is > doing through practice and are making educated guesses as opposed to > entering a situation and reacting to it in real time. Erm, I can't really help much on the "real instincts" thing having never driven a 60's race car. Have you? Jim

"EldredP" wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> <snip> > GP3 is better with these points? I'll have to try it > again. I couldn't get that much feel of the car before. > It would step out without warning, I'd either brake way > early or way late, etc. While it COULD have been caused > by controller issues, I didn't have those problems with > any other game I was running at the time...

Same here Eldred, and I've been running GP3 regularly (against Mark in off-line competition, in fact). I can tell you he's sincere in his appreciation and has tried his best to make me "see" things his way Re: GP3 and vise versa. Jan. =---

Frank, if anything I can tell you Mark is not bullshitting, trolling or or whatever. Somehow GPL fails to communicate to him the information he needs to take the car to the very edge. With GUI he means the cockpit view, the menu structure of the game is of zero importance to him (I think). I'm desperately trying to understand his point of view, as, to me, GP3 is about as communicative as an autistic rock (no disrespect to people suffering from autism). No... that's too harsh... it's not communicative enough for me to take the car as far as I want to take it. Mark's suggestions have helped a lot, but I still find the amount of effort I have to put in disproportionate to the enjoyment I derive from driving the cars. Amazingly enough, there are games which we perceive (nearly) equally... STTC2, SBk2001 and MTBR are examples. Which is all very interestin and might have implications for what is right and wrong in a sim, but does not help either of us for the particular sims we desire to master and enjoy. Jan. =--- "ymenard" wrote... > <baffled response snipped>

>"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote > Frank, if anything I can tell you Mark is not bullshitting, trolling or or > whatever. Somehow GPL fails to communicate to him the information he needs > to take the car to the very edge. I know I remember in the past he told us that. I really feel sorry for what's he's missing. I can understand some of his point, but not literraly like he writes. There's a grey zone here. You can't come here and shout that and think it will get passed through easily! :) And no DGF don't come here and shout that I'm just somebody who has a forced-straight view. I'm not part of a "GPL cult", whatever that term even means. > With GUI he means the cockpit view, the menu structure of the game is of > zero importance to him (I think). Well GUI = Graphical User Interface. It's the bad term he used ;-) > I'm desperately trying to understand his point of view, as, to me, GP3 is > about as communicative as an autistic rock (no disrespect to people > suffering from autism). No... that's too harsh... it's not communicative > enough for me to take the car as far as I want to take it. Mark's > suggestions have helped a lot, but I still find the amount of effort Ihave > to put in disproportionate to the enjoyment I derive from driving thecars. I can see his point, it's quite clear. I for one feel that GP2 has an incredible feel that has yet to be achieved for modern F1 sims (even Gp3). The main problem for me in GP3 is the poor virtual cockpit in the head movements compared to the G's. It's so stiff... > Amazingly enough, there are games which we perceive (nearly) equally... > STTC2, SBk2001 and MTBR are examples. Which is all very interestin andmight > have implications for what is right and wrong in a sim, but does not help > either of us for the particular sims we desire to master and enjoy. True. -- -- 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...

Is this the CPR in which I turned UP the hill at Laguna Seca and found it appearing JUST as flat as the 4 or 5 turns which proceded it? CPR had imho the WORST graphic placement around. Even tho it was a whole generation newer than ICR2, it still couldn't display a simple thing as a HILL. So whatever tweeks are availble...I think I would be rather cautious about proclaiming cpr to be a programming masterpiece. dave henrie "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UKha7.114$[email hidden]... > Let's all forget about the GPL engine shall we? I've never heard a worse > idea. I mean, since we're pretending to race cars, shouldn't we usesoftware > that actually acts like a car? Let's just let that thing die. Just because > you are used to it does not mean it's good. Almost everything about the > interface in Papy games is wrong. Real instincts do not pay off. The games > *particulars* must be learned by rote. C'mon... that's no way to race. The > physics engine *might* be good, but we'd need a whole new GUI to find out.I > say, if they've done such a poor job to begin with, maybe they shoulddesign

Quoted text (8 lines)

> spigots or something. Sims are certainly not their game. Simulations > necessarily include the human element. Check MTBR or STCC2 or GP3 if you > don't know what I'm talking about. There is actual separation between the > front and rear of the car. You can tell which wheel is locking. Heck, you > can even tell when the brakes are on. I know, you say you can *feel* the > brakes perfectly in GPL. I argue that you have merely learned what it is > doing through practice and are making educated guesses as opposed to > entering a situation and reacting to it in real time. I know we love

Nascar > and GP but that does not make the N series and GPL good sims. The factthat > they were the best things we had a few years ago does not make them good > sims either. They are what they are and it's time to be thankful(?) forwhat > we had and let the next thing come along. > > Why don't we use the CPR engine. A few well thought out tweaks and itwould

Quoted text (24 lines)

> destroy anything available. Heck, it already does. > > Where GPL falls flat: > Sense of speed > Sense of attitude of car > Sense of acceleration > Sense of placement > Sense of available grip > Sense of front as separate from rear and vice/verse > Perspective of approaching road > > That pretty much covers everything. At that point, who cares whether the > physics underneath are accurate or not. > > -- > > "Racing! - Science for the action minded." > > mark > "John Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:dMS07.2941$[email hidden]... > > A few thoughts- > > > > Is it just me or wouldn't it make sense to use the GPL engine in a

series > of > > classic racing series. First off, the vaporware Trans-Am Racing '68-72 > > could be replaced with Trans-Am Legends. Then, of course, we'd getCan-Am > > Legends, featuring that series at it's heights in the early 1970's.Next, > a > > Group C or IMSA Legends for the 1980's. And Lastly, how about asomebaody

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > make a decent game featuring LeMans. > > > > There are other great Era's of racing, like.. > > > > > > > > >

LOL I usually don't reply to stuff like this. Thanks for the laugh. "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UKha7.114$[email hidden]... > Let's all forget about the GPL engine shall we? I've never heard a worse > idea. I mean, since we're pretending to race cars, shouldn't we usesoftware > that actually acts like a car? Let's just let that thing die. Just because > you are used to it does not mean it's good. Almost everything about the > interface in Papy games is wrong. Real instincts do not pay off. The games > *particulars* must be learned by rote. C'mon... that's no way to race. The > physics engine *might* be good, but we'd need a whole new GUI to find out.I > say, if they've done such a poor job to begin with, maybe they shoulddesign

Quoted text (8 lines)

> spigots or something. Sims are certainly not their game. Simulations > necessarily include the human element. Check MTBR or STCC2 or GP3 if you > don't know what I'm talking about. There is actual separation between the > front and rear of the car. You can tell which wheel is locking. Heck, you > can even tell when the brakes are on. I know, you say you can *feel* the > brakes perfectly in GPL. I argue that you have merely learned what it is > doing through practice and are making educated guesses as opposed to > entering a situation and reacting to it in real time. I know we love

Nascar > and GP but that does not make the N series and GPL good sims. The factthat > they were the best things we had a few years ago does not make them good > sims either. They are what they are and it's time to be thankful(?) forwhat > we had and let the next thing come along. > > Why don't we use the CPR engine. A few well thought out tweaks and itwould

Quoted text (24 lines)

> destroy anything available. Heck, it already does. > > Where GPL falls flat: > Sense of speed > Sense of attitude of car > Sense of acceleration > Sense of placement > Sense of available grip > Sense of front as separate from rear and vice/verse > Perspective of approaching road > > That pretty much covers everything. At that point, who cares whether the > physics underneath are accurate or not. > > -- > > "Racing! - Science for the action minded." > > mark > "John Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:dMS07.2941$[email hidden]... > > A few thoughts- > > > > Is it just me or wouldn't it make sense to use the GPL engine in a

series > of > > classic racing series. First off, the vaporware Trans-Am Racing '68-72 > > could be replaced with Trans-Am Legends. Then, of course, we'd getCan-Am > > Legends, featuring that series at it's heights in the early 1970's.Next, > a > > Group C or IMSA Legends for the 1980's. And Lastly, how about asomebaody

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > make a decent game featuring LeMans. > > > > There are other great Era's of racing, like.. > > > > > > > > >

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: > > Where GPL falls flat: > > Sense of speed > > IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically. I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed mathematically. he does have a point, 36fps just isn't enough. > > Perspective of approaching road > > Wuh? You just need to adjust the FOV. Oh wait, they have done it > realistically, like they really see in real-life inside those cars. really? they have 180 degree FOV? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 gnus don't kill people. gnus-summary-lower-score kills people.

Hey, Jeez...i still find that to be a bit scary. =) -- In memory of DE, - Will - M1MS - http://mach1.simhq.com "Jonny Hodgson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:QTja7.2134$[email hidden]... > > Where GPL falls flat: > > Sense of speed > You didn't find the straight at the 'Ring scary the first time you > blasted down it, between the hedges? >

I do and so do you... we concentrate on a small part of that area at any one time, but a little self examination will show we do indeed nearly have a 180 degree field of vision. Experiment: I assume you're wearing a T-shirt or a short sleeved shirt in the current weather (if not roll up your sleeves). Sit at your desk, cross your amrs and lean on the desk. Look dead ahead, observe that your sleeves are visible in the bottom corners of your field of vision. Now, continuing to look ahead, stretch your arms out to the side. Alternately wiggle your hands and notice that, though you're looking and concentrating dead ahead you are still visually aware of the motion. Ergo +/- 180 degree FOV in both directions. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "Gunnar Horrigmo" wrote: > ><snip> > really? they have 180 degree FOV?

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > Ergo +/- 180 degree FOV in both directions. Hey Jan, you're either a fish or a lizard :-) 180 degrees or +/- 90 :-) Bad-Boy ( it's about 170 degrees IIRC )

On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:54:44 GMT, "Bad-Boy" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >... >> Ergo +/- 180 degree FOV in both directions. > >Hey Jan, you're either a fish or a lizard :-) > >180 degrees or +/- 90 > >:-) > >Bad-Boy >( it's about 170 degrees IIRC )

With some 5 degrees of sharp vision. Very little. Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

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

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >Hey Jan, you're either a fish or a lizard :-) > > > >180 degrees or +/- 90 > > > >:-) > > > >Bad-Boy > >( it's about 170 degrees IIRC ) > > With some 5 degrees of sharp vision. Very little.

And now put a race helmet on... (though that may not be totally relevant for GPL, come to think of it...) Jonny

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Gunnar Horrigmo" wrote: > > ><snip> > > really? they have 180 degree FOV? > > I do and so do you... we concentrate on a small part of that area at any one > time, but a little self examination will show we do indeed nearly have a 180 > degree field of vision.

yeah, I know, but does GPL? someone claimed GPL had "correct FOV". > Ergo +/- 180 degree FOV in both directions. 180 degrees in both directions would be kinda cool. :) anyway; as always I was trying to make a point, and as always I had a problem with getting to it. my point is that representing a "correct" FOV in a game, on a computer screen is at least a practical impossibility. a _correct_ FOV would be the angle between the edges of your monitor and your eyes, but that wouldn't be very useful if you, like me, sit a few feet from the screen. if you sit very close, you could approach 180, but that wouldn't be very comfortable, and you run into el grande resolution problems as even something like 2000x1500 is quite blocky when covering your whole FOV. I think this is a problem. if you compare racing/driving games, you'll find that the sense of speed at, say, 100 mph can be very different. still, there's no reason to suspect that they aren't all mathematically correct, as that part is trivial. I think "that special magic touch" is involved in getting the percieved speed right, and I haven't really figured it out, but I suspect the FOV mapping from game-world to real world has something to do with it. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 FJ�SE!

and of course, if you really want to then set up three machines with a centre and left/right monitor with the peripheral PCs showing different cockpit views. All FOV issues resolved :-) Friend and I have been requested (!) to set this up for his son's next big party LAN game. We now wish we'd kept quiet. But it'll be cool to try it. Bad-Boy

"Bad-Boy" <[email hidden]> writes: > and of course, if you really want to then set up three machines with a > centre and left/right monitor with the peripheral PCs showing different > cockpit views. > > All FOV issues resolved :-) Actually, 3 monitors will give a very vertically limited picture. Check out the pictures from our simulator here at work: http://www.samf.ntnu.no/kjoresim/pics.htm But it's no GPL. :D -- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

"+/-" as in "about". Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "Bad-Boy" wrote...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> <snip> > Hey Jan, you're either a fish or a lizard :-) > > 180 degrees or +/- 90 > > :-) > > Bad-Boy > ( it's about 170 degrees IIRC ) > > >

> I think this is a problem. if you compare racing/driving games, > you'll find that the sense of speed at, say, 100 mph can be very > different. I've been driving a Ford Mondeo 2.0 and a Vauxhall Nova 1.2 these last few months. At 70 mph the Mondeo is effortlessly easy whereas the Nova is screaming and feels far less safe. The sense of speed is very very different. So it's not a problem if different games give you a different sense of speed - it's like that in real life as well. Jim S

"Gunnar Horrigmo" wrote... > <snip> > yeah, I know, but does GPL? someone claimed GPL had > "correct FOV". Pretty much I think. > 180 degrees in both directions would be kinda cool. :) 180 in both the horizontal and vertical plane... I take it you misread that on purpose for comic effect? <g>

Quoted text (12 lines)

> anyway; as always I was trying to make a point, and as > always I had a problem with getting to it. > > my point is that representing a "correct" FOV in a game, > on a computer screen is at least a practical impossibility. > a _correct_ FOV would be the angle between the edges of your > monitor and your eyes, but that wouldn't be very useful if you, > like me, sit a few feet from the screen. if you sit very > close, you could approach 180, but that wouldn't be very > comfortable, and you run into el grande resolution problems as > even something like 2000x1500 is quite blocky when covering > your whole FOV.

Point taken... I think the GPL approach is to "simulate" a field of vision within the confined space of the monitor, the monitor itself being in the "attention" zone of the player's FOV and him/her making the "leap" to perceive it as a complete FOV in virtual reality. Works quite well as far as I'm concerned.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I think this is a problem. if you compare racing/driving > games, you'll find that the sense of speed at, say, 100 mph > can be very different. still, there's no reason to suspect > that they aren't all mathematically correct, as that part is > trivial. I think "that special magic touch" is involved in > getting the percieved speed right, and I haven't really > figured it out, but I suspect the FOV mapping from game- > world to real world has something to do with it.

When you are detached sufficiently to realise you're not actually moving while playing the game, it has failed to immerse you and whatever magic is employed to give a realistic sense of speed is wasted. As long as it's consistent with the game reality I don't see why sense of speed should be enhanced. Jan. =---

"Bad-Boy" <[email hidden]> writes: > and of course, if you really want to then set up three machines with a > centre and left/right monitor with the peripheral PCs showing different > cockpit views. > > All FOV issues resolved :-) yes! DOOM did that. > Friend and I have been requested (!) to set this up for his son's next big > party LAN game. > We now wish we'd kept quiet. > But it'll be cool to try it. what game? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 to err is human -- to forgive is bovine.

mark jeangerard wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Let's all forget about the GPL engine shall we? I've never heard a worse > idea. I mean, since we're pretending to race cars, shouldn't we use software > that actually acts like a car? Let's just let that thing die. Just because > you are used to it does not mean it's good. Almost everything about the > interface in Papy games is wrong. Real instincts do not pay off. The games > *particulars* must be learned by rote.

It takes me about half an hour to get up to speed on a new track with GPL. That's about the same time it takes me to get to grips with a new circuit when I'm kart racing. > Where GPL falls flat: > Sense of speed It gives me a great sense of speed. I think the post box view helps with this, the sense of speed comes from the fast moving scenery to the edge of the FOV. Maybe you should try driving faster?;) > Sense of attitude of car Pitch and roll you mean? Seems fine to me. > Sense of acceleration Again, I'm getting all the feedback I need. And after racing a geared kart for ten years (0 to 60 in 4.5seconds) I can safely say the the acceleration of any racing car or bike or kart is very soon got used to and ignored by the brain, unlike lateral g which no game can emulate at this time. > Sense of placement I can put the car right where I want to, unless I'm out of shape. > Sense of available grip With the help of my FF wheel I feel I get a great sense of the above. > Sense of front as separate from rear and vice/verse Again, when I drive the Eagle it feels like I'm towing a caravan compered to the Lotus. > Perspective of approaching road Looks fine to me. > That pretty much covers everything. At that point, who cares whether the > physics underneath are accurate or not. All the points you raise are more to do with sim racing using a flat 2d image for sensory input, just goes with the territory IMO. Regards Gerry

"Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Bad-Boy" <[email hidden]> writes:... > > Friend and I have been requested (!) to set this up for his son's nextbig > > party LAN game. > > We now wish we'd kept quiet. > > But it'll be cool to try it. > > what game? They want to do CounterStrike and Tribes. The dad's want GPL, SCGT ( with all the 300Mb add-ons ) and MB Truck Racing . It's a local thing we get usually get 10 friends, plus PCs. Great fun for the kids and - when we throw them off - for the dad's too :-) Biggest problem is finding enough strong tables and convincing the spouse that you won't scratch them !! BB

"Bad-Boy" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "Bad-Boy" <[email hidden]> writes: > ... > > > Friend and I have been requested (!) to set this up for his son's next > big > > > party LAN game. > > > We now wish we'd kept quiet. > > > But it'll be cool to try it. > > > > what game? > > They want to do CounterStrike and Tribes. > > The dad's want GPL, SCGT ( with all the 300Mb add-ons ) and MB Truck Racing > .

can these do multiple monitors? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 silence is FOO!

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > Where GPL falls flat: > > > Sense of speed > > > > IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically. > > I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed > mathematically.

http://www.simracingmag.com/articles/contributers/01q1/niels2.shtml -- -- 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...

Don't get me wrong, I think everyone who answered this rant has valid points. (Except Frank. I don't know what he has.) Believe it or not, I experience GPL almost exactly like you guys do. I can compare my experience to every answer I read. I understand the difference in car classes and have driven more types of cars than I can remember. I also understand the restrictions of the medium through which we are trying to achieve this. I'm not entirely stupid. I considered going through and explaining my list, point by point, but that's not important. What is important is that there are other games that do those things better. As well as other functions, such as the grip model in GP3 and CPR. What I'm trying to say is that GPL is not the end all and be all of the PC racing experience. Actually, it is. :-) BUT if you add what's good in all games, including GPL, and none of what's bad, or even 90% good, into a big imaginary game called "RFR" then the features of GPL that it would use are pretty far down the list and include elements that are not experienced on the track. The driving portion of RFR would have no GPL in it. (Please note that when I say drive model, gui, or simulation, they are all elements of the same thing in my head.) I respect everyone's need to defend GPL. But my point is it's time to step back and look at it objectively. We have enough perspective with some of the newer titles (And one older one in particular.) to see the flaws in GPL. I submit that anyone who is natural at GPL is so through rote. On some level there is an unnecessary translation going on during game play. How do I know it's unnecessary? Because of the existence of other games and from driving in the static cockpit in GPL. Still very subjective, I know, but I also know that while I find GP3 quite realistic and my intentions flow effortlessly into (virtual) reality, that it misses on some level and it is only the fact that I *get* the game that allows me to drive it in that manner. Others are not so easily fooled. I can list a majority of the problems with GP3s drive model but, once again, it's not germane. I think we should wait a little before exerting all the energy needed to make a killer CanAm sim. (Like I'll have anything to add...) I really want to see some add-ons that feature all the great racing series. But I would be saddened deeply if it were using the GPL engine. A good sim has weight and consequence. A good sim rockets you sideways over bumps and let's you lock a wheel without flying off the track. A good sim will let you bring it back from the great beyond. A good sim will have some depth of character, a fair bit of detail in the smaller workings of the moment. A good sim will let you express yourself on the crowns. GPL aint it, but I see *it* just on the horizon. The new sims indicate it's coming. = = = = = Just so I don't go away without saying something bad about GPL: 1. When I say sense of speed I mean, can I tell the difference between 95 and 96 mph? Very important to my accuracy. I'm not referring to being able to tell if the car is moving or not. C'mon..... 2. The road layout is done very well in GPL. But if you can't tell how off the perspective is from this page then I don't know what to say. Yes I've taken the camera lens into consideration. It's not that. Not FOV. GPL simply does not follow naturally. The view does not indicate what the road is going to do or where you and I fit into the equation. http://www.hyperstim.com/home_units/news/nurburgreport99/nurb99comparision.h tml -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > > > Where GPL falls flat: > > > > Sense of speed > > > > > > IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically. > > > > I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed > > mathematically. > > http://www.simracingmag.com/articles/contributers/01q1/niels2.shtml

hm. # I define 'sense of speed' here as the amount of degrees you have to # turn your head everytime the pole gets a step closer to the car. I don't think he's right. what he describes here, as far as I can see, is speed itself. I think the _percieved_ speed is a lot trickier. for one thing, your percieved speed changes if you modify only the FOV. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 "Det er nok ingen ovn, men fartsm�leren v�r."

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > > > Where GPL falls flat: > > > > Sense of speed > > > > > > IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically. > > > > I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed > > mathematically. > > http://www.simracingmag.com/articles/contributers/01q1/niels2.shtml

hm. it can't be that simple, can it? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 gnus don't kill people. gnus-summary-lower-score kills people.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail the topic. I'd love to see a good karting sim. Something about the lack of suspension really separates the men from the boys. The physics model would have to be dead on. So would the interface. And a 'real cars on real roads' kinda thing would be cool too. Sure, I've driven a lowered and souped up 930 on Big Basin Way in Saratoga, CA but you haven't. I know you'd like to. I wouldn't mind trying an F50 on the same road. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "John Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dMS07.2941$[email hidden]... > A few thoughts- > > Is it just me or wouldn't it make sense to use the GPL engine in a series of > classic racing series. First off, the vaporware Trans-Am Racing '68-72 > could be replaced with Trans-Am Legends. Then, of course, we'd get Can-Am > Legends, featuring that series at it's heights in the early 1970's. Next, a > Group C or IMSA Legends for the 1980's. And Lastly, how about a somebaody > make a decent game featuring LeMans. > > There are other great Era's of racing, like.. > > >

Yes. Thanks Jan. Had I thought to say that, I would have. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Frank, if anything I can tell you Mark is not bullshitting, trolling or or > whatever. Somehow GPL fails to communicate to him the information he needs > to take the car to the very edge. > > With GUI he means the cockpit view, the menu structure of the game is of > zero importance to him (I think). > > I'm desperately trying to understand his point of view, as, to me, GP3 is > about as communicative as an autistic rock (no disrespect to people > suffering from autism). No... that's too harsh... it's not communicative > enough for me to take the car as far as I want to take it. Mark's > suggestions have helped a lot, but I still find the amount of effort I have > to put in disproportionate to the enjoyment I derive from driving the cars. > > Amazingly enough, there are games which we perceive (nearly) equally... > STTC2, SBk2001 and MTBR are examples. Which is all very interestin and might > have implications for what is right and wrong in a sim, but does not help > either of us for the particular sims we desire to master and enjoy. > > Jan. > =--- > "ymenard" wrote... > > <baffled response snipped> > >

LOL! How fun would it be to have a LAN with three monitors? Seriously. Now I know what you mean Frank. I am stunned by GPLs clock. It is so realistic. But I should have said sense of relative speed. How quickly am I accelerating? How quickly am I decelerating? How quickly is the car rotating and in what direction? GPL is muted by the dynamic cockpit and perspective flaws. I would swear I'm sliding at times when I have complete grip. Other times I think I'm on a rail when I'm drifting off the track. Not very good sense of speed or grip or weight and consequence. Bad detail. Sure hope I don't grab Tom Cruise by accident..... -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zJBa7.34202$[email hidden]... > > "Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > > > Where GPL falls flat: > > > > Sense of speed > > > > > > IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically. > > > > I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed > > mathematically. > > > > http://www.simracingmag.com/articles/contributers/01q1/niels2.shtml > > > > > > -- > -- 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... > > >

I think you have a valid point there. Different people probably perceive what they see (and hear) on a computer monitor (and speakers) differently. It could be that the people who like GPL will pick up on certain aspects of the sim which they perceive as being correct, while others, such as Mark, pick up on the aspects which are incorrect in the sim (yes there are a number of things in GPL which just don't *seem* quite right to me). Personally, I find Papyrus racing sims are easy to translate what I see on the screen into what I think the car is doing and how hard I'm pushing it. I can also find a decent level of feedback in most other sims (but the Papy series suit me better). GP3 I find a touch hard to feel the limit, F1RC I can do quite easily but it does catch me out occasionally if I haven't used it for a while. With GPL and N4, I can normally jump straight into a race after a few weeks (even a few months with GPL) of not playing and come pretty close to my previous driving standards. With the other sims, I have to learn them again before I can regain my previous level. -- Ian P <email invalid due to spammers> "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Frank, if anything I can tell you Mark is not bullshitting, trolling or or > whatever. Somehow GPL fails to communicate to him the information he needs > to take the car to the very edge. > > With GUI he means the cockpit view, the menu structure of the game is of > zero importance to him (I think). > > I'm desperately trying to understand his point of view, as, to me, GP3 is > about as communicative as an autistic rock (no disrespect to people > suffering from autism). No... that's too harsh... it's not communicative > enough for me to take the car as far as I want to take it. Mark's > suggestions have helped a lot, but I still find the amount of effort I have > to put in disproportionate to the enjoyment I derive from driving the cars. > > Amazingly enough, there are games which we perceive (nearly) equally... > STTC2, SBk2001 and MTBR are examples. Which is all very interestin and might > have implications for what is right and wrong in a sim, but does not help > either of us for the particular sims we desire to master and enjoy. > > Jan. > =--- > "ymenard" wrote... > > <baffled response snipped> > >

"mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote > LOL! How fun would it be to have a LAN with three monitors? <drool> ;-) > Seriously. Now I know what you mean Frank. I am stunned by GPLs clock. Itis > so realistic. But I should have said sense of relative speed. How quicklyam > I accelerating? How quickly am I decelerating? How quickly is the car > rotating and in what direction? GPL is muted by the dynamic cockpit and > perspective flaws. I would swear I'm sliding at times when I have complete > grip. Other times I think I'm on a rail when I'm drifting off the track.Not > very good sense of speed or grip or weight and consequence. Bad detail. Well, I feel the same in real-life racing if I took every physical sense out of it. It's quite difficult to judge your relative speed because you simply do not have this information when you are racing. You shouldn't, imho :) Racing fast will tame the speed sensation, you will become accustomed to such things. I see your point, per example... Take the LeMans track for GPL. When you start the braking zone after the crest on the long straight, you will find difficult to judge the correct minimal momentum you need to turn right. Often you will underestimate your speed, but I feel that it's really what makes racing a such great thing. After all the years of simming I've learned to comprehend each and every visual titbit that I can possibility reach for. I personally think that I mastered Icr2, as each and every visual cue is correctly identified by myself, and I react correctly to each. Going back to GPL, it's much more difficult because of the nature itself of the racing series it simulates. Same as why modern F1 simulations are so difficult to model correctly. -- -- 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...

>"mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote > Just so I don't go away without saying something bad about GPL: > > 1. When I say sense of speed I mean, can I tell the difference between 95 > and 96 mph? Very important to my accuracy. I'm not referring to being able > to tell if the car is moving or not. C'mon..... The thing is... is there any other sims that gives you such precise information? GPL is still the one who does it the best. I doubt in a real-life racing car without a speedometer you could tell the difference between 95 and 96. I know I can't. > 2. The road layout is done very well in GPL. But if you can't tell how off > the perspective is from this page then I don't know what to say. Yes I've > taken the camera lens into consideration. It's not that. Not FOV. GPLsimply > does not follow naturally. The view does not indicate what the road isgoing > to do or where you and I fit into the equation. >http://www.hyperstim.com/home_units/news/nurburgreport99/nurb99comparision.h > tml I have difficulties understanding your point. For me, those screenshot prove even more how realistic your view is when racing GPL, considering that you are so low inside those Formula Ones compared to a real-life car. It's quite normal that vertical lines (those who define what you see ahead up the track) are more difficult to see when you are sitting as low as in GPL. -- -- 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...

mark jeangerard wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I respect everyone's need to defend GPL. But my point is it's time to step > back and look at it objectively. We have enough perspective with some of the > newer titles (And one older one in particular.) to see the flaws in GPL. I > submit that anyone who is natural at GPL is so through rote. On some level > there is an unnecessary translation going on during game play. How do I know > it's unnecessary? Because of the existence of other games and from driving > in the static cockpit in GPL.

What do you mean by 'unnecessary translation'? > A good sim has weight and > consequence. A good sim rockets you sideways over bumps and let's you lock a > wheel without flying off the track. A good sim will let you bring it back > from the great beyond. A good sim will have some depth of character, a fair > bit of detail in the smaller workings of the moment. A good sim will let you > express yourself on the crowns. GPL aint it... And you really don't feel any of that in GPL? And you really feel GP3 is, when adding the sum of it's parts, better than GPL in these respects? > Just so I don't go away without saying something bad about GPL: > > 1. When I say sense of speed I mean, can I tell the difference between 95 > and 96 mph? Very important to my accuracy. I'm not referring to being able > to tell if the car is moving or not. C'mon..... I'm amazed! So you can't feel the difference between 95 and 96mph in GPL and you really think that's important? Or am I too stupid to understand what your trying to convey?

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 2. The road layout is done very well in GPL. But if you can't tell how off > the perspective is from this page then I don't know what to say. Yes I've > taken the camera lens into consideration. It's not that. Not FOV. GPL simply > does not follow naturally. The view does not indicate what the road is going > to do or where you and I fit into the equation. > http://www.hyperstim.com/home_units/news/nurburgreport99/nurb99comparision.h > tml

I think you need to see an optician. I don't want to be rude, but I have to ask; are you trolling? Though all your criticism and calls to 'step back and look at it objectively' do you ever consider that you might be nit picking in the extreme? Are you sure GPL didn't give your ego a bashing and now you HAVE to knock it down to make yourself feel better? Hence your new hobby of picking holes in GPL while playing GP3. I mean...c'mon GP3! What a pile of crap.

Ian P you have described PC sim or any 2D monitor [& it is 2D not 3D!] game, photograph, Avi, etc. "Spot-On!" below! It is all "personal subjective perception!" no more, no less. "Ian P"wrote: | I think you have a valid point there. | Different people probably perceive what they see (and hear) on a computer | monitor (and speakers) differently.<snipped for space> --- 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

Fran�ois, you and everyone on here have very valid direct points but the fact is, there is no such thing as 'real-life' pc simulation. Graphically you are seeing a HxW 'flat' screen that fools the "eye-brain" into thinking it is 3D but it never will be until you have "depth!" All HxW graphic images are 2D & the 3D illusion comes from 'basic' graphics! Color, Perspective, Light & View. Every game, sim or any graphic image on a flat suface is 2D. Until we have the 'all senses' simulator in our homes we can only mentally in'vision & try to feel the rest.. :) Cheers -Thom_j. "ymenard" wrote: | Well, I feel the same in real-life racing if I took every physical senseout | of it. It's quite difficult to judge your relative speed because yousimply

Quoted text (7 lines)

| do not have this information when you are racing. You shouldn't, imho :) | Racing fast will tame the speed sensation, you will become accustomed to | such things. I see your point, per example... | | Take the LeMans track for GPL. When you start the braking zone after the | crest on the long straight, you will find difficult to judge the correct | minimal momentum you need to turn right. Often you will underestimate

your

Quoted text (21 lines)

| speed, but I feel that it's really what makes racing a such great thing. | After all the years of simming I've learned to comprehend each and every | visual titbit that I can possibility reach for. I personally think that I | mastered Icr2, as each and every visual cue is correctly identified by | myself, and I react correctly to each. Going back to GPL, it's much more | difficult because of the nature itself of the racing series it simulates. | Same as why modern F1 simulations are so difficult to model correctly. | | | | | | -- | -- 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... | | |

--- 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 <sADa7.66800$[email hidden]>, "Thom j." <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Ian P you have described PC sim or any 2D monitor [& it is >2D not 3D!] game, photograph, Avi, etc. "Spot-On!" below! >It is all "personal subjective perception!" no more, no less. > >"Ian P"wrote: >| I think you have a valid point there. >| Different people probably perceive what they see (and hear) on a computer >| monitor (and speakers) differently. ><snipped for space>

Like I've said before - I'm *obviously* not picking up the same cues as the faster drivers can. They can tell when they're at the limit, and put the car there at will. I realize I'm over the limit when I'm sliding backwards towards the fence... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Eldred I can not speak for Ian P but aint I just a plethora of useless knowledge!! :)..... -Me "EldredP" wrote: | Like I've said before - I'm *obviously* not picking up the same cues asthe | faster drivers can. They can tell when they're at the limit, and put thecar | there at will. I realize I'm over the limit when I'm sliding backwardstowards | the fence... | | Eldred "Thom j." writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

| | >Ian P you have described PC sim or any 2D monitor [& it is | >2D not 3D!] game, photograph, Avi, etc. "Spot-On!" below! | >It is all "personal subjective perception!" no more, no less. | > | >"Ian P"wrote: | >| I think you have a valid point there. | >| Different people probably perceive what they see (and hear) on a

computer | >| monitor (and speakers) differently. | ><snipped for space> --- 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 <6XBa7.7942$[email hidden]>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> writes: >Just so I don't go away without saying something bad about GPL: > >1. When I say sense of speed I mean, can I tell the difference between 95 >and 96 mph? Very important to my accuracy. I'm not referring to being able >to tell if the car is moving or not. C'mon..... >I agree that the sense of speed isn't that good in GPL. I don't think the difference between 95 and 96 mph is that critical, though. My problem is in the slower turns. I can't tell the difference between 30, say, and 45 mph. That's the critical part to me. If a turn needs to be taken at 30, but I can't tell I'm still going 40+, that's trouble. I'd find it hard to believe that you could tell between 95 and 96 in a REAL car. Not saying that you can't, only that I'd find it hard to believe...

Quoted text (7 lines)

>2. The road layout is done very well in GPL. But if you can't tell how off >the perspective is from this page then I don't know what to say. Yes I've >taken the camera lens into consideration. It's not that. Not FOV. GPL simply >does not follow naturally. The view does not indicate what the road is going >to do or where you and I fit into the equation. >http://www.hyperstim.com/home_units/news/nurburgreport99/nurb99comparision.h >tml

Ok, I'll have to admit that I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The car you took the pictures in is probably a lot higher than a 67 Lotus. Is that what you're trying to show? I can see that accounting for the differences in the pictures, but beyond that, I'm not sure of your point. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ok, I'll have to admit that I don't understand what you're trying to sayhere. > The car you took the pictures in is probably a lot higher than a 67 Lotus.Is > that what you're trying to show? I can see that accounting for thedifferences > in the pictures, but beyond that, I'm not sure of your point. > > Eldred The main thing I noticed with the photos and screenshots is that in the real footage, the turns look closer than in the game screens, where they look like they've been "stretched away" by comparison. Depth of field is different? Something like that. Given the different elevation heights of the "camera" in each, I'd have expected the reverse to be true. cheers John

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: > > http://www.simracingmag.com/articles/contributers/01q1/niels2.shtml The only problem with that page is that it's missing the most important factor in achieving sence of speed: a high frame rate. Even with a 180 degree field of view, you can't have a completely realistic sence of speed unless the frame rate is high enough. The problem is that you get aliasing if the frame rate isn't high enough, and as soon as that happens the scenery isn't appearing to be moving at all anymore, it just looks like a blur. (See attached driving simulator below :-) The demands for a high frame rate actually increases with a larger field of view (since the scenery is moving more per frame on the screen the further out to the side you look), so in GPL where the 36 frames per second is far from enough to keep the scenery from aliasing even with the default (~90 degree) field of view, a larger field of view is only going to help the sence of speed at very low speeds. _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden] Driving-By-a-Fence-0.314 using the One-Line-Ascii-tm image generator, each new line represents a new frame. left view at 100 frames per second:

Quoted text (16 lines)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

20 frames per second: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10 frames per second: | | | | | | | | | | | |

I'm just a plethora of uselessness. No knowledge here ! ;) -- Ian P <email invalid due to spammers> "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:j8Ha7.67176$[email hidden]... > Eldred I can not speak for Ian P but aint I just a plethora of > useless knowledge!! :)..... -Me > > "EldredP" wrote: > | Like I've said before - I'm *obviously* not picking up the same cues as > the > | faster drivers can. They can tell when they're at the limit, and put the > car > | there at will. I realize I'm over the limit when I'm sliding backwards > towards > | the fence... > | > | Eldred > > "Thom j." writes: > | > | >Ian P you have described PC sim or any 2D monitor [& it is > | >2D not 3D!] game, photograph, Avi, etc. "Spot-On!" below! > | >It is all "personal subjective perception!" no more, no less. > | > > | >"Ian P"wrote: > | >| I think you have a valid point there. > | >| Different people probably perceive what they see (and hear) on a > computer > | >| monitor (and speakers) differently. > | ><snipped for space> > > > > --- > 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 > >

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:yICa7.34249$[email hidden]... > Well, I feel the same in real-life racing if I took every physical senseout > of it. It's quite difficult to judge your relative speed because yousimply > do not have this information when you are racing. You shouldn't, imho :) That is my point exactly. There are more dimensions to real racing. If, for instance, you rotate faster under braking at turn in because you've misjudged your speed and braking pressure, there is all this extra information to help you cope. In sim racing there is not. Somehow, all the tools necessary to control the vehicle at the limit of traction must be made available to the user. OR... the simulation must take into account the weakness of the WUI (whole user interface) and adjust for it in any way necessary. Be that scaling back the physics or tweaking the 'drive model' (WUI) or some other measure. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > GP3 is better with these points? I'll have to try it again. I couldn'tget > that much feel of the car before. It would step out without warning, I'd > either brake way early or way late, etc. While it COULD have been causedby > controller issues, I didn't have those problems with any other game I was > running at the time... > > Eldred No, I should probably not have included GP3 in the list of games that I think include the user in the process. I think GP3 is equal in all points, but better at only a few and weak in entirely different ways. What I have done to make GP3 work for me: Make sure to use the patch and, while it may seem tedious, try to understand what every single function does in the Advanced Controller menu and spend the time to match them all perfectly to your driving style. I think the Cockpit View Angle in the Advanced Graphics menu makes a huge difference too. I noticed that at one extreme I would brake too early and at the other, too late. I took a while to dial that in (more tedium) and have been very happy with the results. I can feel when my road car is starting to reach the limit first by it's tilt. Then the tires start howling, then it snakes a little. At that point I know to pay careful attention to the tires which are very much muted by the suspension but I can still anticipate a slide. In my kart, on the other hand, it doesn't tilt a whole lot. :-) I don't hear the tires at all, well, sometimes. But usually not when it's important. It really doesn't snake but it starts to float. Then it gets real dynamic, like the slightest provocation and it exaggerates the response. At that point, I know I'm at the limit and I try to balance there. But I try to let it go too. Two very different experiences with the kart being much harder to gauge and drive at the limit. But the kart is infinitely easier to drive. If that makes any sense. The reason I tell you these thing is because I'd hate to be responsible for you wasting a week on GP3 and hating it. But I think it's worth another shot. And no Rouen! -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:AUCa7.34264$[email hidden]... > >"mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote > > 1. When I say sense of speed I mean, can I tell the difference between95 > > and 96 mph? Very important to my accuracy. I'm not referring to beingable > > to tell if the car is moving or not. C'mon..... > > The thing is... is there any other sims that gives you such precise > information? Yes. Many of them. > GPL is still the one who does it the best. I doubt in a real-life racing > car without a speedometer you could tell the difference between 95 and 96. > I know I can't. Then you must be driving all papy sims and not paying attention in RL. :-) > I have difficulties understanding your point. For me, those screenshot > prove even more how realistic your view is when racing GPL, consideringthat > you are so low inside those Formula Ones compared to a real-life car.It's > quite normal that vertical lines (those who define what you see ahead upthe > track) are more difficult to see when you are sitting as low as in GPL. I have difficulties making my point because I have difficulties understanding it too. However, I think JM may have nailed it. Depth of field or something very much like it. Whatever it is, it keeps drawing my focus out of the future, where it should be, and back into the foreground. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I agree that the sense of speed isn't that good in GPL. I don't think the > difference between 95 and 96 mph is that critical, though. My problem isin > the slower turns. I can't tell the difference between 30, say, and 45mph. > That's the critical part to me. If a turn needs to be taken at 30, but Ican't > tell I'm still going 40+, that's trouble. I'd find it hard to believethat you > could tell between 95 and 96 in a REAL car. Not saying that you can't,only > that I'd find it hard to believe... If you were to drop me on a road at 95, allow me to register it, then pick me up, watch a music video, then drop me back on the road at 96... no. I wouldn't be able to tell. Maybe. But if I am driving along at 95 and either lift to 94 or accelerate to 96. Absolutely. And I'm talking about the speed itself. Not the acceleration between. I'm sure you can do it, and everyone else here. You probably haven't tried. "-) If you take what we go through in a braking zone say: Lift off the throttle - start to apply the brakes - apply full braking pressure until the right amount of speed is off - lift brake - turn in - apply neutral throttle - continue releasing brakes until turned. The whole way checking road conditions and balance, making minute corrections and planning strategy in the space of 1200 milliseconds. The human brain can both handle a lot, and has really bitchen resolution. Guys like Berger can do it at the limit, within a couple of miles and hours and centimeters every time. That's what makes 'em experts. I want that in my sims. It is critical because, as we go through the motions as described above, we become acutely aware of the slightest details, like the speed we are going. Like the Gs. All the info we get allows us to be unbelievably accurate. It's important if we want to drive at the limit. 2 mph could be the difference between getting the most from the tires or slipping over the curb at exit. I don't just think sims can give that info. I know they can. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > What do you mean by 'unnecessary translation'? I can not tell the difference between a single front wheel locking under braking and a rear wheel or wheels locking under braking in GPL. So, when ever I get in trouble, it takes me a few ms to decipher what is going on and what to do about it. An unnecessary translation. One requires a lift and less steering angle and the other requires throttle input and possibly major correction. 50% of the time I am wrong and as a result I drive slower than I would be able to given the proper feedback. Even if I do get good at the translation, understand it and adjust correctly, I waste valuable time making it. MTBR is a good example of a game that reads well. Even though the physics are not altogether there, it does telegraph it's intentions quite well. This adds to the sims ability to allow the driver to drive with anticipation and reaction. Before today, I thought all GPL drivers lacked the transparency in WUI (or connection to the physics engine) to drive with true anticipation and reaction. > And you really don't feel any of that in GPL? And you really feel GP3 > is, when adding the sum of it's parts, better than GPL in these > respects? No. I don't feel it in any sims, save one. I do feel things in GPL though. Some of it is right, some is wrong. (More translation factor.) It wasn't until I experimented with the static cockpit that I found out my right front tire comes off the ground at entry to the hairpin at Mexico. Back in the dynamic cockpit and I can't tell it's lifting even though I know it is. That goes beyond translation and indicates blindness. I don't understand what you mean by "when adding the sum of it's parts" but I feel a lot more of the ground in GP3, as I should with the modern suspension and tires, and the grip modeling really makes my day, but I do not feel the things I explained. Those are ideals, what I find invigorating about driving quickly. CPR offers more of these sensations, more accurately than anything else I've tried. And I live 4 miles from an EB. I have demoed N4, F12000 and F1RC full games in my house. The rest I didn't bring back. CPR transmits fine detail in the car attitude and acceleration department. So much so, I honestly believe that what it portrays is a suitable substitute for G forces. The weight and consequence in CPR is way above everything else I've tried. (It must be set up correctly to override the inherent distractions of the WUI.) > I'm amazed! So you can't feel the difference between 95 and 96mph in GPL > and you really think that's important? Or am I too stupid to understand > what your trying to convey? Very, very important. Although, 1 mph might be a bit fine for sims. But 3.... If the limit of my line and setup allow for a turn in speed of 82 mph at the first Lesmo and I go 79, no big deal. If I go 85 I'm gonna be steaming until next Sunday. Unfortunately, a lot of Sundays (league races) are tarnished by circumstances that I was not fully aware I was entering. In GPL, 75% of my mishaps are undefinable by me at the time that they happen. In GP3 2%. > I think you need to see an optician. I don't want to be rude, but I have > to ask; are you trolling? In almost all of my non Kaemmer titles I can apex the turn every time I get in without mistake. In GPL it's a crapshoot whether I'm on the racing line or not. That's no way to race and the reason I have a hard time has been stated by me. Perspective being one of the majors. If you think I'm trolling because I'm frustrated that I cant aim a car at an object and not hit it, then.... > Though all your criticism and calls to 'step back and look at it > objectively' do you ever consider that you might be nit picking in the > extreme? Yes. I believe I am nit picking in the extreme. But that's how good things get made. By understanding how they work and exploiting what's good and rejecting what's wrong. McLaren made Mika's car one part at time. And each o f those parts are a work of art and very effective. > Are you sure GPL didn't give your ego a bashing and now you HAVE to > knock it down to make yourself feel better? Hence your new hobby of > picking holes in GPL while playing GP3. No. I'm not sure. You bring up a good point. Briefly: Been off the F1 for over a year and a half while racing in F2 and F3 leagues. Just picked F1 up again the other day. Learned some very cool things on VROC to make them more stable, alleviating problems I had before. Have had major hardware improvements in that time too. Got to within a few tenths of my old times very quickly and went looking for more. Heard about these newfangled non 85/30 setups people are running now and have to admit, the low power side ramp angles are kicking my ass. However, I just throw an 85/45 in when I want a solid race and that helps my self esteem. For the record, I drive GPL much more than I do GP3. I have to to be anywhere near the pace. I find it mostly masochistic. I think Crammond is just as stupid as Kaemmer. When GPL came out I was stunned and appalled that they had the audacity to believe their controller setup was so perfect that it would work for all of our systems with a simple linearity slider. Would not have been too bad had GP2 not existed. But it did and the oversight was pure egotism. Crammond is guilty of the same charge as well as others. How could you be one of those guys and not play everything that's available? How could you make a game that misses on such obvious levels? But how many stupid mistakes a maker makes has little to do with whether or not we choose to drive or delete a driving sim. How it acts on the track is our only real consideration. Well that and internet ability. I wonder how well GPL would still be doing if it had the online ability of GP3. Well, pat yourself on the back. You wore me out. But I really think we got something here. Something of value. Anyway, I watched a Huttu lap this morning. His experience would seem to be transparent. He was driving with apparently perfect anticipation and I have to wonder if the whole thing might not boil down to ocular disposition. > I mean...c'mon GP3! What a pile of crap. Oh... I see... you were trolling this whole time. Ha ha ha. I fell for it.... What's next? WSC looks like Sega Rally?

"mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%84b7.42039$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:AUCa7.34264$[email hidden]... > > I have difficulties understanding your point. For me, those screenshot > > prove even more how realistic your view is when racing GPL, considering > that > > you are so low inside those Formula Ones compared to a real-life car. > It's > > quite normal that vertical lines (those who define what you see ahead up > the > > track) are more difficult to see when you are sitting as low as in GPL. > > I have difficulties making my point because I have difficulties > understanding it too. However, I think JM may have nailed it. Depth of

field > or something very much like it. Whatever it is, it keeps drawing my focus > out of the future, where it should be, and back into the foreground. What resolution do you play? Moving from 800*600 to 1280*1084 made a big difference for me. May not so much judging speed but surely in judging distance. The other major improvement was force feedback. Bart

mark jeangerard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:494b7.42041$[email hidden]... > Some of it is right, some is wrong. (More translation factor.) Itwasn't > until I experimented with the static cockpit that I found out myright front > tire comes off the ground at entry to the hairpin at Mexico. Back inthe > dynamic cockpit and I can't tell it's lifting even though I know itis. That How do you set up a static cockpit? And which do you ultimately prefer / which gives you the best laptimes? > In almost all of my non Kaemmer titles I can apex the turn everytime I get > in without mistake. In GPL it's a crapshoot whether I'm on theracing line > or not. That's no way to race and the reason I have a hard time hasbeen > stated by me. Perspective being one of the majors. If you think I'mtrolling > because I'm frustrated that I cant aim a car at an object and nothit it, > then.... Hmm, do wonder whether that _particular_ point isn't a factor of the class of cars - I'd expect pretty much anything modern to feel more precise than those skinny-tyred 1967 monsters. Still, haven't raced much else recently (lack of money / time / decent DirectInput drivers)... Jonny

mark jeangerard wrote: A very full, intelligent and honest post :). On the wheel locking thing, I have no such trouble. Do you have smoke turned on? And what's this 'static cockpit' thing you talk about?

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Very, very important. Although, 1 mph might be a bit fine for sims. But > 3.... If the limit of my line and setup allow for a turn in speed of 82 mph > at the first Lesmo and I go 79, no big deal. If I go 85 I'm gonna be > steaming until next Sunday. Unfortunately, a lot of Sundays (league races) > are tarnished by circumstances that I was not fully aware I was entering. In > GPL, 75% of my mishaps are undefinable by me at the time that they happen. > In GP3 2%.

All I can say is have a braking routine in my head which just happens for me in GPL like it does in my Kart. If I get the routine wrong I fluff the turn, in RL and in GPL. I do have to adjust the routine from time to time depending on circumstances, getting a tow, getting to the braking zone faster or slower. What can I say, I'm as aware of the speed in GPL as I am in RL...honest :). Judging by what you say I take it you analyse your replays a fair bit then? I don't do that, I just hang it out through the turn and get the tires to complain :). > > I mean...c'mon GP3! What a pile of crap. > > Oh... I see... you were trolling this whole time. Ha ha ha. Hehe, naughty me. But GP3 does feel flat and dull to me, just my opinion of course. > I fell for it.... What's next? WSC looks like Sega Rally? Well lets hope not. I'm nursing a hangover ATM, so I might come back to you on a few other points later, when my head stops throbbing <g>. Gerry

Jonny Hodgson wrote: > > Hmm, do wonder whether that _particular_ point isn't a factor of the > class of cars - I'd expect pretty much anything modern to feel more > precise than those skinny-tyred 1967 monsters. I agree with that, Jonny. Gerry

In article <3b6ceb86$1$2982$[email hidden]>, "Bart Westra" <[email hidden]> writes: >What resolution do you play? Moving from 800*600 to 1280*1084 made a big >difference for me. May not so much judging speed but surely in judging >distance. The other major improvement was force feedback. > 1280*1084?!? What size monitor do you have? The highest I can run smoothly is 1024*768, but I only have a 17" monitor. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> writes: >Judging by what you say I take it you analyse your replays a fair bit >then? I don't do that, I just hang it out through the turn and get the >tires to complain :). > I analyze my replays a lot, too. The problem is, I'm just going through the motions. I don't seem to be able to glean the same info that Mark can. I can see that I'm slower than whoever I'm comparing to. But exactly WHY that is often remains a mystery to me. I've only compared replays in GPL, so I don't know how my experience in GP3 or F1CS2K would be different, or more productive. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <494b7.42041$[email hidden]>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> I'm amazed! So you can't feel the difference between 95 and 96mph in GPL >> and you really think that's important? Or am I too stupid to understand >> what your trying to convey? > >Very, very important. Although, 1 mph might be a bit fine for sims. But >3.... If the limit of my line and setup allow for a turn in speed of 82 mph >at the first Lesmo and I go 79, no big deal. If I go 85 I'm gonna be >steaming until next Sunday. Unfortunately, a lot of Sundays (league races) >are tarnished by circumstances that I was not fully aware I was entering. In >GPL, 75% of my mishaps are undefinable by me at the time that they happen. >In GP3 2%. >

Does that mean that you only get out of shape 2% of the time, or that at least you know WHY more in GP3? I know I'm not asking that question correctly, but I hope you understand what I'm *trying* to ask...

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> I think you need to see an optician. I don't want to be rude, but I have >> to ask; are you trolling? > >In almost all of my non Kaemmer titles I can apex the turn every time I get >in without mistake. In GPL it's a crapshoot whether I'm on the racing line >or not. That's no way to race and the reason I have a hard time has been >stated by me. Perspective being one of the majors. If you think I'm trolling >because I'm frustrated that I cant aim a car at an object and not hit it, >then....

I've had the same feeling in race games. Being unable to put the car exactly where I want it to go. But, I see it as a problem with ALL games, not just GPL. I certainly don't have that problem in my road car, and I didn't have that problem at Skip Barber. While a lot of it may be due to perspective, some may also be due to controller issues... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <_84b7.42038$[email hidden]>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>No, I should probably not have included GP3 in the list of games that I >think include the user in the process. I think GP3 is equal in all points, >but better at only a few and weak in entirely different ways. > >What I have done to make GP3 work for me: Make sure to use the patch and, >while it may seem tedious, try to understand what every single function does >in the Advanced Controller menu and spend the time to match them all >perfectly to your driving style. I think the Cockpit View Angle in the >Advanced Graphics menu makes a huge difference too. I noticed that at one >extreme I would brake too early and at the other, too late. I took a while >to dial that in (more tedium) and have been very happy with the results.

I guess I'll re-load it, and see. I usually don't mess with the advanced controller stuff, because I'm not really sure what the settings do. Same thing with the race setups. Since I don't understand the settings, the only thing I can do is make things WORSE... :( I ran F1CS2K for a bit yesterday. I think it bogged down my system graphically(Athlon1.3G, no less). The display didn't seem smooth at all, and as a result, I had difficulty controlling the car. Running at 85% AI, I was only able to finish 2nd to Schumacher at Hockenheim. And I consider that one of the easier tracks on the F1 circuit. We'll see. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> In article <3b6ceb86$1$2982$[email hidden]>, "Bart Westra" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >What resolution do you play? Moving from 800*600 to 1280*1084 made a big > >difference for me. May not so much judging speed but surely in judging > >distance. The other major improvement was force feedback. > > > > 1280*1084?!? What size monitor do you have? The highest I can run

smoothly is > 1024*768, but I only have a 17" monitor. > > Eldred Damn I'm getting old ;-) It's only 1280x1024 hehe. My monitor is a 17 inch Nec MultiSync P750, video card is Geforce 2 GTS, CPU is Athlon 800. The screen refresh is at 85Hz. The image looks superb, only the chat messages get very small at this res. I know there is a detour for that, but then I cannot read my best laps cause the font gets to big in that screen..... Bart

Quoted text (10 lines)

>"ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: > >> > Where GPL falls flat: >> > Sense of speed >> >> IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically. > >I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed >mathematically. he does have a point, 36fps just isn't enough. >

This always confuses me. Isn't video at the movies only 24 fps? Television is 30? Yet there is no perceptible stutter there. I haven't driven a car via remote control through a camera mounted in the cockpit, but it seems that it would be tough to drive, yet a frame rate of 24-30 wouldn't really be the reason, would it? Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

>>Bad-Boy >>( it's about 170 degrees IIRC ) > >With some 5 degrees of sharp vision. Very little. What's IIRC? I've tried 170-179 degree FOV in my stuff, and it looks ridiculous. The front window is zoomed way into the middle of the screen, the road is barely visible ahead of the car. Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I think this is a problem. if you compare racing/driving games, >you'll find that the sense of speed at, say, 100 mph can be very >different. still, there's no reason to suspect that they aren't all >mathematically correct, as that part is trivial. I think "that >special magic touch" is involved in getting the percieved speed right, >and I haven't really figured it out, but I suspect the FOV mapping >from game-world to real world has something to do with it. >

FOV is exactly what causes this, IMO! As FOV is increased in a game/sim, things look like they're moving a whole lot faster, but the road looks more skinny, which can make things tougher after a certain point. I think it's a good idea to allow adjustable FOV, but the problem is you need a virtual cockpit to keep things really looking right. (Not a big deal if virtual cockpits were planned from the beginning) Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

>Just so I don't go away without saying something bad about GPL: > >1. When I say sense of speed I mean, can I tell the difference between 95 >and 96 mph? Very important to my accuracy. I'm not referring to being able >to tell if the car is moving or not. C'mon..... I can't tell the difference between 95 and 96 in my real car :-) I do see your point here, although I think the lack of depth perception is probably the factor causes this. Only fixable with 3-D glasses at this point, as far as I know.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >2. The road layout is done very well in GPL. But if you can't tell how off >the perspective is from this page then I don't know what to say. Yes I've >taken the camera lens into consideration. It's not that. Not FOV. GPL simply >does not follow naturally. The view does not indicate what the road is going >to do or where you and I fit into the equation. >http://www.hyperstim.com/home_units/news/nurburgreport99/nurb99comparision.h >tml >

Cool pictures :-) This is precisely caused by FOV. If you haven't seen the effects of this, email me and I'll send you screenshots from my sim with whatever FOV you want from a given point on a track. Until then, would you agree that the GPL screenshots make things appear a little further away than they do in the real pictures? The crest of the hill in one pic looks further away, etc.. The road looks more narrow somehow in the distance. This would definately make it not follow naturally as compared to a video, as you've correctly said. If the GPL screens were to appear exactly like the pictures (minus terrain changes, sign placements and all that stuff), the FOV could be reduced and it'd match up perfectly if someone took the time. However, reducing the FOV would further reduce any sensation of speed we currently have. You'd appear to be moving more slowly around the track. Also, if the camera in the car itself had a different FOV, you'd see a rather different set of pictures to compare to. Seriously, email me and I might be able to show you what I mean. A 500 foot stretch of road looks totally different depending on the FOV, and the sense of speed chages drastically as well. Want to see what a 160-179 FOV would look like in a sim?? Probably great with 3 screens, but It just doesn't work on a monitor set a couple feet from you. Measure the angle between your eyes and the edges of the monitor. It's probably 10 degrees or so, completely not something you'd want to see used for FOV in a sim. Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Quoted text (17 lines)

>> What do you mean by 'unnecessary translation'? > >I can not tell the difference between a single front wheel locking under >braking and a rear wheel or wheels locking under braking in GPL. So, when >ever I get in trouble, it takes me a few ms to decipher what is going on and >what to do about it. An unnecessary translation. One requires a lift and >less steering angle and the other requires throttle input and possibly major >correction. 50% of the time I am wrong and as a result I drive slower than I >would be able to given the proper feedback. Even if I do get good at the >translation, understand it and adjust correctly, I waste valuable time >making it. MTBR is a good example of a game that reads well. Even though the >physics are not altogether there, it does telegraph it's intentions quite >well. This adds to the sims ability to allow the driver to drive with >anticipation and reaction. Before today, I thought all GPL drivers lacked >the transparency in WUI (or connection to the physics engine) to drive with >true anticipation and reaction. >

I am probably the only one here that will agree with you on this one :-) This is caused IMO by the data the tire model in GPL uses. Peak force slip ratio is around 20+%, rather than maybe 10% or so. The slip angle curve is pretty far out of wack too, although the peak forces generated are probably about right (hence cornering speeds are probably right, but you'll be "sliding" at a larger slip angle than you probably would in the real cars. I'm not sure, but it's quite possible that other sims have this data more accurately estimated. In other words, the GPL cars drive like their tires are extremely soft. This will cause exactly the kind of difficult feedback and "unnecessary translation" you've been talking about. I've tried it in my sim too. Setting the peak force slip ratios and angles to high levels (like GPL) causes unpredictablility just as you've described. Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Quoted text (20 lines)

>> Older series lend themselves more to computer simulation as well. Modern >> F1 and Sports Prototypes have virtually no roll under cornering or pitch >> under acceleration or braking. The sticky tires and massive downforce >> mean that breakaway is super-sudden and seeing as the sim driver only >> gets feedback from visuals and sound, will occur without warning. >> >> - Michael > >I don't think that is necessarily correct. I think it's how the cues are >implemented. For instance, I feel that GP3 has 3 times the depth of traction >characteristics that GPL has. The tires seem more alive and I get much more >read or anticipation, even with the stiffest setups the game will allow. >With CPR, on the other hand, it simply feels realistic. There is no >translation, for me, from RL to Sim. It just flows and all my instincts are >applicable. But, CPR feels very simplistic comparatively. Not as deep as >GP3, or GPL for that matter. But a much finer driving sim on all accounts. I >believe it has to do with perspective and audio cues. What else could it be? >:-) The sense of grip is far, far superior and the sense of relative speed >is perfect. >

I can't say why the sense of relative speed is prefect because I haven't played CPR or GP3 (I'd bet it's FOV choice). However, the tires probably feel more alive and easier to anticipate because GPL's lateral and longitudinal force curves appear IMO to be exaggerated along the slip angle and slip ratio axes.. That means the tires act like they're too soft and squishy, basically. Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

go play pole position then. who's wrong... the world? or you? "THE WORLD!"

[email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) writes: > >"ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: > >I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed > >mathematically. he does have a point, 36fps just isn't enough. > > This always confuses me. Isn't video at the movies only 24 fps? > Television is 30? Yet there is no perceptible stutter there. The frame rate needed to avoid obvious stutter (*) in a film with motion blur is very different from the frame rate needed to give a realistic sence of motion in a computer simulation (without motion blur, but note that although adding motion blur would hide the stutter it won't necessarily improve the sence of speed much.) > I haven't driven a car via remote control through a camera mounted > in the cockpit, but it seems that it would be tough to drive, yet > a frame rate of 24-30 wouldn't really be the reason, would it? It wouldn't be the main reason of course, but it won't help either. Ignoring the obvious lack of g-forces etc, with a video camera the low resultion will be a much bigger problem than the framerate, especially since the need for high frame rate increases with resolution (and hence decreases with low resolution.) _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden] (*) Actually it is often easy to see stutter when watching a movie. It seems to be most evident in slow pans filmed in bright light (motion blur hides stutter, maybe bright light scenes are filmed with shorter exposure times, thus reducing the motion blur?)

Mats Lofkvist <[email hidden]> writes: > > (*) Actually it is often easy to see stutter when watching a > movie. It seems to be most evident in slow pans filmed > in bright light (motion blur hides stutter, maybe bright > light scenes are filmed with shorter exposure times, thus > reducing the motion blur?) Very nice observation. :) It's the shutter speed that makes motion blur, but anyone familiar with a camera knows that the 1/24 second speed needed for a perfect motion blur is still a too long exposure time. Then again, maybe cinematic film needs longer exposure that the familiar 35 mm single picture camera ? The V5 got hardware motion blur, sadly, no game uses it, and none will :( Do the GeForce3 have this capability ? -- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

[email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >"ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > >> > Where GPL falls flat: > >> > Sense of speed > >> > >> IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically. > > > >I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed > >mathematically. he does have a point, 36fps just isn't enough. > > > > This always confuses me. Isn't video at the movies only 24 fps? Television > is 30? Yet there is no perceptible stutter there.

TV and movies will give you lots of speed blurring and antialiasing, which probably helps. they also have depth of field -- something that haven't seen much use in computer games yet. anyway; stuttering in computer games is often caused by double frames. if you have: a) an animation running at a constant, solid 30 fps b) an animation running at 100 fps, but the computer can only barely render fast enough, so you see two identical frames ones a second (because the computer can't keep up) then animation a will look smother. > I haven't driven a car via > remote control through a camera mounted in the cockpit, but it seems that it > would be tough to drive, yet a frame rate of 24-30 wouldn't really be the > reason, would it? hardly, but you can't compare real-life footage and rendered images like this. or you can compare them, of course, but they're quite different. :) -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 myk, trygg og god.

[email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) writes: > It's the shutter speed that makes motion blur, but anyone familiar > with a camera knows that the 1/24 second speed needed for a perfect > motion blur is still a too long exposure time. sure, but who says the exposure time has to be 1/framerate? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 to err is human -- to forgive is bovine.

"J. Todd Wasson" wrote: > >I haven't driven a car via > remote control through a camera mounted in the cockpit, but it seems that it > would be tough to drive, yet a frame rate of 24-30 wouldn't really be the > reason, would it? You have to remember that in GPL your controller inputs are framerate dependant, whereas in your example they are not. Big difference there alone. ;-) -- Fester

On 06 Aug 2001 05:28:08 GMT, [email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>>Bad-Boy >>>( it's about 170 degrees IIRC ) >> >>With some 5 degrees of sharp vision. Very little. > > What's IIRC? I've tried 170-179 degree FOV in my stuff, and it looks >ridiculous. The front window is zoomed way into the middle of the screen, the >road is barely visible ahead of the car.

IIRC=if I recall correctly. :) Problem is that EYES have 170 degrees of vision, but the monitor in front of you is only ... degrees wide in that view. So there's problem; in a real car you can see more (if not wearing a helmet ;-) ). 170 degrees in your sim looks ridiculous since it's in a 20-30 degree view when sitting behind your computer. Although I must add FOV sometime since it has a great effect I think on sensation of speed and is dependent on the person and the distance that he/she's sitting at. Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 15:53:00 GMT, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>"Bad-Boy" <[email hidden]> writes: > >> and of course, if you really want to then set up three machines with a >> centre and left/right monitor with the peripheral PCs showing different >> cockpit views. >> >> All FOV issues resolved :-) > >yes! DOOM did that.

Didn't Doom use 90 degrees for easy X=Y functions? Yikes! ;) I'm starting to feel like Kyle. Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

[email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) writes:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:08:47 -0400, "ymenard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >"Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> "ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: > >> > >> > > Where GPL falls flat: > >> > > Sense of speed > >> > > >> > IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically. > >> > >> I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed > >> mathematically. > > Sure you can, and if not every sim has it right then it was done > intentionally. It's the simplest thing to do to get meters/second > right.

yes, I know. I'm arguing that this is detatched from the _percieved_ speed. I just don't have any very good arguments. :) -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 DE RECTIS NON TOLERANDUM EST

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:08:47 -0400, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >"Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> "ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: >> >> > > Where GPL falls flat: >> > > Sense of speed >> > >> > IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically. >> >> I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed >> mathematically.

Sure you can, and if not every sim has it right then it was done intentionally. It's the simplest thing to do to get meters/second right. Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 11:44:28 GMT, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

>[email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) writes: >> On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:08:47 -0400, "ymenard" >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >"Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> >news:[email hidden]... >> >> "ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes: >> >> >> >> > > Where GPL falls flat: >> >> > > Sense of speed >> >> > >> >> > IT'S A REALISTIC SENSE OF SPEED, it was proven mathematically. >> >> >> >> I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed >> >> mathematically. >> >> Sure you can, and if not every sim has it right then it was done >> intentionally. It's the simplest thing to do to get meters/second >> right. > >yes, I know. I'm arguing that this is detatched from the _percieved_ >speed. I just don't have any very good arguments. :)

Ah ok. Also what I notice in real life is that moving around with objects close by makes for more speed impression. I mean, driving 50mph in a city is felt as faster than driving it on a wide highway. (in real life) Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> [email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) writes: > > > It's the shutter speed that makes motion blur, but anyone familiar > > with a camera knows that the 1/24 second speed needed for a perfect > > motion blur is still a too long exposure time. > > sure, but who says the exposure time has to be 1/framerate?

Nobody :-) But it's quite obvious that the exposure time can't be longer than 1/framerate leaving us with the possible range from zero to 1/framerate. _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden]

Hi Mark, Maybe I can add something to this discussion and help alleviate some of your frustration. My own background is very different to yours, as I have been the proud owner of a budget copy of GPL for all of two weeks. I have sunk a fair bit of time into other "pseudo-sims" such as GT1/2 on the PSX and Ferrari 355 Challenge on the Dreamcast, but until recently didn't have a PC for gaming. Now I do, so I'm taking the plunge into the (IMO) much more interesting world of PC-based sims. I also take my own road car (Subaru Impreza) to various circuits around the UK several times a year for a bit of free lapping, so I do have some RL track experience to compare the sims with, albeit not much in terms of hours. Obviously with a car like that I have a few years of experience at fast road driving, although the ragged edge is generally out of bounds for the sake of safety. To give some idea of my pace - or lack of - in GPL, I was relatively pleased to pull in a 1:33.4 at Monza last night. I also had my first crack at the 'Ring, but I won't say the time as it's just too embarrassing! Ok, moving on to a few general points and observations: PERCEPTION OF SPEED I can remember the first time I saw in-car video shot by another Subaru owner at a track day, and I was absolutely stunned at how *slow* it looked. I could see the rev counter winding around to over 7000 in 1st and 2nd gear as he came out of the pit lane, but the acceleration looked more suited to a trip down the high street for the shopping. And this was in a Japanese import car with 280hp, weighing less than 1300kg. The same applied to cornering speeds. It was a real eye-opener to realise how the impression of speed in driving games was being massaged. SLIP ANGLES Todd, regarding your comments on peak lateral force and slip angle, do you think it's overdone even taking into account that the 67 cars were running crossply tyres? I would definitely expect much higher slip angles with these, and looking at the replays the car attitudes seem to match my memories of film footage of GP cars from that era. (The repeats! I'm not that old ;o) What do you think? TRACK MODELLING Looking at those comparison shots, it struck me how a tiny difference in track modelling can make a huge difference to the nature of a corner. Move a kerb by less than a foot and you can radically alter out the whole cornering line, and crests, dips and cambers can have an even more profound impact on the way you approach a corner. Compare the GPL version of Fox Hole with RL. In GPL the crest around the turn-in point seems more pronounced, as does the gradient change between the approach and exit. The RL corner also looks sharper to my eye. At Adenau, GPL has the approach drop into the corner much more than it does in reality. These things will make a difference to entry speed and the attitude and balance of the car through the corner and on exit. FEEDBACK Mark, your comment about "occular disposition" is very interesting as I believe it points to the heart of the issue with feedback. I feel lucky as a sim racer, as I find very little need for physical feedback even when driving a real car. I get most of my info from the changes in cornering attitude, especially in pitch. These are pretty much the only things I look for when trying to judge what I can get away with either on braking or when feeding the power back in on exit. I have done a fair bit of messing around with the spring and bar rates on my real car, and at one particular stage the car was pretty wayward. I didn't need to have a scare in order to work this out, even well within limits it was obvious from the way that the car would go high at the rear as the overly stiff rear springs transferred all the load onto the outside rear wheel. When it comes to issues such as single wheel lockups at the front or rear, I can read what's going on from the yaw behaviour. For example, if the rear has locked (rear brake bias too hot?) and you've got even a fraction of steering lock dialed in, the tendency of the rear to "buck" is detectable from the body movement alone. This isn't translation, it feels very direct and natural to me. Even though I am way down the learning curve compared to some around here, I can still lock a wheel without flying off the track, and I can bring it back from the great beyond at least 50% of the time in a broad variety of situations. Most imporantly, the other 50% of the time I know what I did wrong -- I'm not driving blind. Another other thing I depend on strongly is the longer term feedback that comes from learning what you can get away with, and what is likely to stuff you in the barriers. I believe that it is possible to build your own mental physics model, and develop a visualisation of load transfer effects in various situations. Decisions such as whether to trail brake on entry to a particular bend become much easier if you can get a good feel for the interplay between pitching weight transfer due to braking and the lateral grip limits (and weight transfer) at your chosen cornering speed. As my Monza time shows, I'm no expert, but for me GPL is an absolute revelation, and I do not see myself spending time with any other sim/racing title in the near future. It was clear from my first few minutes experience that I was dealing with car behaviour that is very close to RL, as percieved through the particular set of cues that I pay attention to when I drive. But that's the clincher, and if you focus on different aspects then that could easily explain why GPL doesn't provide the deeply satisfying experience for you that it does for me. Different people pay attention to different cues. For example to some people the idea of doing without a FF controller would be unthinkable, but I don't give a tinker's about that as long as I can judge the load transfer effects from the car's attitude. OTHER THINGS Having been so glowing about GPL, I should at least say that I fully sympathize with your comment about the "crapshoot" of staying on the racing line. It certainly is hard, but I also agree with Jonny that it may have more to do with the large drift angles (realistic or not) and the sheer time that is spent sideways, rather than the physics model per se. Also agree on the matter of controller setups, I guess I just lucked up because linear works well for me. The other game I purchased in the last fortnight was F1RC, which some people around here seem to hold in high regard. Well, I could *almost* get into it, but it seems very arcadey after GPL. Ok, the vastly different cars make a direct comparison futile, but I just get a "canned" feel about certain aspects of the handling. And don't even mention the spins, which just made me reach for the EXIT button -- even GT does better than that! Finally, can I also ask what this static cockpit thing is all about, and also what are CPR and MTBR? Best regards, -= mike =- "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<494b7.42041$[email hidden]>... <much interesting stuff>

Mats Lofkvist <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> writes: > > [email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) writes: > > > > > It's the shutter speed that makes motion blur, but anyone familiar > > > with a camera knows that the 1/24 second speed needed for a perfect > > > motion blur is still a too long exposure time. > > > > sure, but who says the exposure time has to be 1/framerate? > > Nobody :-)

good :) > But it's quite obvious that the exposure time can't be longer > than 1/framerate leaving us with the possible range from zero > to 1/framerate. hmmmmmnoooo. it's not that obvious. you can have several rolls of film seeing through the same lens. doesn't immideately make much sense, though. :) -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 "Det er nok ingen ovn, men fartsm�leren v�r."

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

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > Jonny Hodgson wrote: > > > > > Hmm, do wonder whether that _particular_ point isn't a factor of the > > class of cars - I'd expect pretty much anything modern to feel more > > precise than those skinny-tyred 1967 monsters. > > I agree with that, Jonny. > > Gerry

The tyres are certainly not skinny, and I'd take the 1967 GP cars precision over a Ford Mondeo's any day. I'm guessing you were comparing racing machines past and present, but people don't have an automatic problem driving sloppy modern saloon cars and getting them to go where they want. cheers John

This is 'spot-on' Olav! I didn't know you knew this much about photography aka video filming?? I learn something everyday. See I knew there was a reason for me to wake up each day! :) "Olav K. Malmin" wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

| Very nice observation. :) | | It's the shutter speed that makes motion blur, but anyone familiar | with a camera knows that the 1/24 second speed needed for a perfect | motion blur is still a too long exposure time. Then again, maybe | cinematic film needs longer exposure that the familiar 35 mm single | picture camera ? | | The V5 got hardware motion blur, sadly, no game uses it, and none will | :( Do the GeForce3 have this capability ? | | -- | Olav K. Malmin

Mats Lofkvist <[email hidden]> writes: | > | > (*) Actually it is often easy to see stutter when watching a | > movie. It seems to be most evident in slow pans filmed | > in bright light (motion blur hides stutter, maybe bright | > light scenes are filmed with shorter exposure times, thus | > reducing the motion blur?) --- 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

JM wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Jonny Hodgson wrote: > > > > > > > > Hmm, do wonder whether that _particular_ point isn't a factor of the > > > class of cars - I'd expect pretty much anything modern to feel more > > > precise than those skinny-tyred 1967 monsters. > > > > I agree with that, Jonny. > > > > Gerry > > The tyres are certainly not skinny, and I'd take the 1967 GP cars precision > over a Ford Mondeo's any day. > I'm guessing you were comparing racing machines past and present, but people > don't have an automatic problem driving sloppy modern saloon cars and > getting them to go where they want. >

I'd like to explore your logic a little more, but I fear I'd be wasting my time ;) Gerry

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'd like to explore your logic a little more, but I fear I'd be wasting > my time ;) > > Gerry yeah, up yours too charly. John

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> >I'm sorry, but I don't think you can prove a sense of speed >> >mathematically. he does have a point, 36fps just isn't enough. >> >> This always confuses me. Isn't video at the movies only 24 fps? >> Television is 30? Yet there is no perceptible stutter there. > >The frame rate needed to avoid obvious stutter (*) in a film with >motion blur is very different from the frame rate needed to give >a realistic sence of motion in a computer simulation (without >motion blur, but note that although adding motion blur would hide >the stutter it won't necessarily improve the sence of speed much.) >

Ah yes, very good point. Hadn't thought of that.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> I haven't driven a car via remote control through a camera mounted >> in the cockpit, but it seems that it would be tough to drive, yet >> a frame rate of 24-30 wouldn't really be the reason, would it? > >It wouldn't be the main reason of course, but it won't help either. >Ignoring the obvious lack of g-forces etc, with a video camera >the low resultion will be a much bigger problem than the framerate, >especially since the need for high frame rate increases with >resolution (and hence decreases with low resolution.) >

Good point there too. Higher resolution requires higher frame rates. Frame rate is very important, but it still seems to me that after a certain point, it can't be used as an excuse for not beating Gregor Huttu anymore :-) I got a 1:30.xx lap at Monza after two or three hours running the lowest graphics settings on a Pentium 60, at only 2-3 fps (default Lotus setup with low fuel). Granted, it ended up taking about 3 minutes real time, so it was slow motion by 2x, but still.... At 12 or 13 fps I'd bet I could do better than that. It just seems odd to me that once someone's got 30+ fps they feel a need for even more. To me, it seems that regardless of resolution, you pretty much see and react to everything there is to see and react to once you're around 25-30 fps. When I'm looking at my braking zone, it doesn't move much in the screen, when I switch and look at the apex, it doesn't move too much either. At higher rates, when looking at the edges, it does look smoother above 30 fps, but it just doesn't seem to me that that would make much difference in driving if you're looking where you should be looking. That's just me though, we're all different I guess :-) Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>I haven't driven a car via >> remote control through a camera mounted in the cockpit, but it seems that >it >> would be tough to drive, yet a frame rate of 24-30 wouldn't really be the >> reason, would it? > > >You have to remember that in GPL your controller inputs are framerate >dependant, whereas in your example they are not. Big difference there >alone. ;-) >

There was a discussion on this awhile back, but I don't recall the outcome of it. I don't think the controller input is tied to framerate. I ran GPL the first time on a Pentium 60 at 2-3 fps. Surely the 1:30.xx times I turned (only a couple times ;-)) would be impossible if only 2 or 3 controller inputs were being read each second. It really didn't feel that this is what was happening. I was anticipating what the car was doing and making several adjustments each frame, and it seemed to respond right, it just took 1/3 or 2/3's of a second to see the results. I could be wrong though of course, but it really seemed this was the case. Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> This always confuses me. Isn't video at the movies only 24 fps? >Television >> is 30? Yet there is no perceptible stutter there. > >TV and movies will give you lots of speed blurring and antialiasing, >which probably helps. they also have depth of field -- something that >haven't seen much use in computer games yet.

Yes, the blurring is something I hadn't considered. That'd definately smooth things out, good point. What do you mean by depth of field? Is this something to do with the camera's focus and how objects closer or further from the focal point appear slightly blurred? If so, yes, that's another good point I hadn't considered.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>anyway; stuttering in computer games is often caused by double >frames. if you have: > >a) an animation running at a constant, solid 30 fps >b) an animation running at 100 fps, but the computer can only barely > render fast enough, so you see two identical frames ones a second > (because the computer can't keep up) > >then animation a will look smother.

Yeah, I've seen this on the DX SDK demos. You can play with the frame rate and I was surprised to see that things do look smoother above 30fps. Well heck, maybe I've been talking out of my behind all along here :-)

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> I haven't driven a car via >> remote control through a camera mounted in the cockpit, but it seems that >it >> would be tough to drive, yet a frame rate of 24-30 wouldn't really be the >> reason, would it? > >hardly, but you can't compare real-life footage and rendered images >like this. or you can compare them, of course, but they're quite >different. :)

You know a lot more about photography than I do. Why can't they be compared this way? Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

[email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Cool pictures :-) This is precisely caused by FOV. If you haven't seen the > effects of this, email me and I'll send you screenshots from my sim with > whatever FOV you want from a given point on a track. Until then, would you > agree that the GPL screenshots make things appear a little further away than > they do in the real pictures? The crest of the hill in one pic looks further > away, etc.. The road looks more narrow somehow in the distance. This would > definately make it not follow naturally as compared to a video, as you've > correctly said.

I wonder, shouldnt the distance you sit from the monitor affect how realistic a certain FOV feels? I tend to sit pretty close when I race, I just can't sit back and drive. My theory is as follows (Bring out your fixed width fonts): Realistic: \ / [ ] \ / \ / Eye-> O "Strange": \ / [ ] \ / \ / V Eye-> O This would make a 180 degree FOV rather unusable if you're not extremely nearsigthed. a 90 degree would require a distance of about 18 cm (I sit about 25 cm. from the screen when I race.) etc. -- -asbjxrn

Quoted text (26 lines)

>I wonder, shouldnt the distance you sit from the monitor affect how >realistic a certain FOV feels? I tend to sit pretty close when I race, >I just can't sit back and drive. My theory is as follows (Bring out >your fixed width fonts): > >Realistic: \ / > [ ] > \ / > \ / > Eye-> O > > >"Strange": \ / > [ ] > \ / > \ / > V > > > Eye-> O > >This would make a 180 degree FOV rather unusable if you're not extremely >nearsigthed. a 90 degree would require a distance of about 18 cm (I sit >about 25 cm. from the screen when I race.) etc. >-- > -asbjxrn

Your theory hits the nail exactly on the head :-) There are really two FOV's. The monitor itself acts like a little projection screen, with perhaps a 90 degree field of view of its own. I use OpenGL for 3-D graphics (not very well yet, I must say), and the FOV is set by one little line of code. If you set it to 90 degrees, an object in our 3-D world that's 200 meters straight into the screen and 200 meters to the left will appear along the left side of the screen, because the angle between it and our "camera" is 45 degrees. However, if your monitor is just a tiny thing off in the distance, that object surely won't look like it's at a 45 degree angle to your real head. But as you bring the monitor closer and closer to your face (or increase its size), the left or right edge gets closer to being truly at a 45 degree angle to your real eyes and your sense of speed and life-sized animation/immersion improves. This is the second FOV, the one you showed above, the angle between your eyeballs and the edges of the screen. When the two FOV's are identical, you should see everything in actual size, as true-to-life as you can get on a 2-D screen. That's the key to really good immersion and true sense of speed (minus 3-D glasses). However, it's tough to do as you pointed out. For a 90 degree FOV on someone's monitor to look truly correct, they could measure their screen width, then put their face at 1/2 that distance to the screen. For me, that'd be about 6 inches/ 15 cm away (you must have a bigger monitor). Way too close for comfort. The other option is to have a really big monitor further away. Personally, even though the resolution may not be good, I'd LOVE to try this with a giant screen television set :-) I bet the sense of speed would suddenly become awesome with absolutely no changes to the sim itself. The fact that people have a 180 degree field of view is sort of irrevelant to car sim racing, imo, unless you insisted on having a monitor that completely covered your entire field of view so you couldn't see your furniture/girlfriends on either side :-) If your monitor's/sim's "programmed" FOV is the same as your true FOV measured from your eyes to the edges of the screen (as you showed in your illustration), it'd look just like you're peering through a window into our 3-D world, everything's life sized and looks like it's moving at you at exactly the right speed. The question then is (for me anyway), how big a window do you need to see through, and how close are you willing to sit to the screen? Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Quoted text (9 lines)

>SLIP ANGLES > >Todd, regarding your comments on peak lateral force and slip angle, do >you think it's overdone even taking into account that the 67 cars were >running crossply tyres? I would definitely expect much higher slip >angles with these, and looking at the replays the car attitudes seem >to match my memories of film footage of GP cars from that era. (The >repeats! I'm not that old ;o) What do you think? >

The only thing that I've actually been able to roughly measure is the slip ratios (percent slip) at the tires when the throttle is applied. These were around 20+% in GPL when traction control is on (default when using the keyboard). The tires seem to not do a whole lot at lower slip ratios IMO. I'm not a tire engineer though, so....maybe old crossply tires were really this flexible/balloon-like. I'm looking at some data for one particular Nascar tire now, and it shows peak force coming in at about 8% slip ratio, although the force really doesn't start to drop much until around 20%, but by the time you hit this, the tire will probably go up in smoke. This is for a modern tire, however, and as you pointed out, it's probably a lot stiffer than the '67 tires were. My impression is still to answer "yes" to your question, but I'd rather see more video first before really trying to argue the point. Especially since I've never heard of crossply tyres before :-) When looking at the GPL intro video, they just don't seem quite as sloppy as the sim's tires do, but to be fair, you've seen more video than I have, and I don't have any test data to back any of this up, so I'd be inclined to take your word for it. My friend's father raced F-1 around this time frame (had an accident in '71 I think that ended his career, hit the pit wall, splitting his car down the middle and shattering his leg, ouch!)). Unfortunately, he passed away about 9-10 years ago. Otherwise, we could just ask him :-) In fact, come to think of it, I'm working on a sim project for radio controlled cars (supposed to be as accurate as possible) The head engineer told me the little buggers peak at roughly 20 degrees slip angle, and I would never guess that from looking at the tires themselves, as they're rather wide and very low profile. This is probably roughly the same peak that the GPL tires use. My point earlier was really that sloppy/unresponsive/unpredictable tire behavior can really be traced to the shape of the slip ratio/slip angle vs. force curves, something that most sim drivers don't seem to be aware of. GPL's are certainly looser than anything else out there, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not close to right. If the RC car tires do it maybe those big '67 crossplys did too. Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

>> What's IIRC? I've tried 170-179 degree FOV in my stuff, and it looks >>ridiculous. The front window is zoomed way into the middle of the screen, >the >>road is barely visible ahead of the car. > >IIRC=if I recall correctly. :) Ah yes, of course... Thought it was some new fangled sim doo-dad I missed :-) lol

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Problem is that EYES have 170 degrees of vision, but the monitor in >front of you is only ... degrees wide in that view. So there's >problem; in a real car you can see more (if not wearing a helmet ;-) >). >170 degrees in your sim looks ridiculous since it's in a 20-30 degree >view when sitting behind your computer. >Although I must add FOV sometime since it has a great effect I think >on sensation of speed and is dependent on the person and the distance >that he/she's sitting at. >

Agreed. 120 degrees looks like you're going fast as the devil, but the road gets pretty skinny. Hmmm... Is there an FOV for girlfriends?? ;-) Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) writes:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> When the two FOV's are identical, you should see everything in actual >size, >as true-to-life as you can get on a 2-D screen. That's the key to really >good >immersion and true sense of speed (minus 3-D glasses). However, it's tough >to >do as you pointed out. For a 90 degree FOV on someone's monitor to look >truly >correct, they could measure their screen width, then put their face at 1/2 >that >distance to the screen. For me, that'd be about 6 inches/ 15 cm away (you >must >have a bigger monitor). Way too close for comfort. The other option is to >have a really big monitor further away. Personally, even though the >resolution >may not be good, I'd LOVE to try this with a giant screen television set :-) >I >bet the sense of speed would suddenly become awesome with absolutely no >changes >to the sim itself.

Maybe that's why the people who have the larger monitors are usually better at the driving games? I always thought it was *resolution*, but never even considered FOV. I ran on a 15" monitor for the longest time, and only recently(about a year or so?) borrowed a 17" from work. I can't afford a 19" or 21" yet... :( Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Maybe that's why the people who have the larger monitors are usually better >at >the driving games? I always thought it was *resolution*, but never even >considered FOV. I ran on a 15" monitor for the longest time, and only >recently(about a year or so?) borrowed a 17" from work. I can't afford a 19" >or 21" yet... :( >

Probably right. I really hadn't given any of this much thought until this thread started, but yes, a bigger monitor should make going fast easier than going to higher res would. Heck, I know where the corner is already at 640x480, even if it's a little fuzzy, I just don't hit it where I want all the time because it's hard to guage what the car is doing on that little screen. I suppose the bigger you go, the easier it would be to eyeball your speed/attitude changes, since you're now a little closer to seeing things "out the window" as they would look in reality. Should be much easier to drive. Did you notice a difference when going to the 17" monitor? Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

[email hidden] (EldredP) writes: > Maybe that's why the people who have the larger monitors are usually > better at the driving games? I always thought it was *resolution*, > but never even considered FOV. I ran on a 15" monitor for the > longest time, and only recently(about a year or so?) borrowed a 17" > from work. I can't afford a 19" or 21" yet... :( Only one thing to do then, get closer to the monitor. :-) I just can't sit in a relaxed manner when I drive. I automatically sit up and huddles over the steering wheel to get close to the monitor. Sometimes during long races (Btw, when's the next Online GP :-) I try to relax and sit back, but after half a lap I give up and get close to my monitor again. -- -asbjxrn

"Thom j." <[email hidden]> writes: > This is 'spot-on' Olav! I didn't know you knew this much > about photography aka video filming?? I learn something > everyday. See I knew there was a reason for me to wake > up each day! :) Actually, I'm not that familiar with video filming, but I've taken up photography as a hobby.

Quoted text (31 lines)

> "Olav K. Malmin" wrote: > | Very nice observation. :) > | > | It's the shutter speed that makes motion blur, but anyone familiar > | with a camera knows that the 1/24 second speed needed for a perfect > | motion blur is still a too long exposure time. Then again, maybe > | cinematic film needs longer exposure that the familiar 35 mm single > | picture camera ? > | > | The V5 got hardware motion blur, sadly, no game uses it, and none will > | :( Do the GeForce3 have this capability ? > | > | -- > | Olav K. Malmin > > Mats Lofkvist <[email hidden]> writes: > | > > | > (*) Actually it is often easy to see stutter when watching a > | > movie. It seems to be most evident in slow pans filmed > | > in bright light (motion blur hides stutter, maybe bright > | > light scenes are filmed with shorter exposure times, thus > | > reducing the motion blur?) > > > > --- > 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 > >

-- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

[email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >> This always confuses me. Isn't video at the movies only 24 fps? > >Television > >> is 30? Yet there is no perceptible stutter there. > > > >TV and movies will give you lots of speed blurring and antialiasing, > >which probably helps. they also have depth of field -- something that > >haven't seen much use in computer games yet. > > Yes, the blurring is something I hadn't considered. That'd definately smooth > things out, good point. What do you mean by depth of field? Is this something > to do with the camera's focus and how objects closer or further from the focal > point appear slightly blurred? If so, yes, that's another good point I hadn't > considered.

Yes. 3D games render everything in focus, which is uncommon for all the other mediums based on photography. What would have been great in a fps for instance is that everything with another distance than where you point the crosshair is out of focus. A bit more difficult with racing sims though, since the computer can not know where you are looking. But it is a bit weird that you can look at the horizon and tachometer at the same time where both is in perfect focus.

Quoted text (34 lines)

> > >anyway; stuttering in computer games is often caused by double > >frames. if you have: > > > >a) an animation running at a constant, solid 30 fps > >b) an animation running at 100 fps, but the computer can only barely > > render fast enough, so you see two identical frames ones a second > > (because the computer can't keep up) > > > >then animation a will look smother. > > Yeah, I've seen this on the DX SDK demos. You can play with the frame rate > and I was surprised to see that things do look smoother above 30fps. Well > heck, maybe I've been talking out of my behind all along here :-) > > >> I haven't driven a car via > >> remote control through a camera mounted in the cockpit, but it seems that > >it > >> would be tough to drive, yet a frame rate of 24-30 wouldn't really be the > >> reason, would it? > > > >hardly, but you can't compare real-life footage and rendered images > >like this. or you can compare them, of course, but they're quite > >different. :) > > You know a lot more about photography than I do. Why can't they be compared > this way? > > Todd Wasson > --- > Performance Simulations > Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction > Software > http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

-- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

[email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... <snip>

Quoted text (22 lines)

> The only thing that I've actually been able to roughly measure is the slip > ratios (percent slip) at the tires when the throttle is applied. These were > around 20+% in GPL when traction control is on (default when using the > keyboard). The tires seem to not do a whole lot at lower slip ratios IMO. I'm > not a tire engineer though, so....maybe old crossply tires were really this > flexible/balloon-like. I'm looking at some data for one particular Nascar tire > now, and it shows peak force coming in at about 8% slip ratio, although the > force really doesn't start to drop much until around 20%, but by the time you > hit this, the tire will probably go up in smoke. This is for a modern tire, > however, and as you pointed out, it's probably a lot stiffer than the '67 tires > were. My impression is still to answer "yes" to your question, but I'd rather > see more video first before really trying to argue the point. Especially since > I've never heard of crossply tyres before :-) > > When looking at the GPL intro video, they just don't seem quite as sloppy as > the sim's tires do, but to be fair, you've seen more video than I have, and I > don't have any test data to back any of this up, so I'd be inclined to take > your word for it. My friend's father raced F-1 around this time frame (had an > accident in '71 I think that ended his career, hit the pit wall, splitting his > car down the middle and shattering his leg, ouch!)). Unfortunately, he passed > away about 9-10 years ago. Otherwise, we could just ask him :-) >

<snip> Hi Todd, I'm not claiming to be any kind of expert, the amount of video I've seen of "the era" is pretty small and it was a while ago (mainly various snippets from programmes giving a nod to the glorious history of races/tracks/marques). However, I would say that if a Nascar tyre generates peak force at 8deg slip, then it's entirely likely that a 1967 crossply tyre would be getting near the 20deg mark. FWIW, my understanding of the difference between crossply and modern radial construction is that radials use steel reinforcements that run straight across the treaded area directly from one bead to the other. Crossplies have the reinforcements running diagonally across the tread. Radials have greater stiffness so you get more side force for less slip angle, but on the downside the breakaway is less progressive. Going to very low profiles and super-stiff sidewall constructions - as in modern racing tyres - makes this even more true. Re. your (and other peoples') comments about monitor size, if you look at big industrial sims they tend to use massive projection screens to give the FOV *and* allow a bit of distance so your eyes don't have to stay in close focus. Unfortunately I already tried to suggest to my other half that an InFocus projector and a racing seat would look great in our living room, but she just wan't having it! TTFN -= mike =-

Hi Todd, don't worry, here's another one who believes the same. I also believe that GP3 has it all set a bit too stiff by default ;). Seriously, the peak value is maybe not so out of whack in GPL, but the approach towards it probably is. It seems that the cornering stiffness, which affects control and precision is very low, and probably the tyre reaches the peak slip very linearly. I'd probably expect the cornering stiffness to not be this low, meaning that it rises faster at small slip angles, but that the rising would then slow down until reaching the rather large peak slip angle, which just might be modelled well. But I don't really know, I'm just guessing here. -Gregor "J. Todd Wasson" wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > I am probably the only one here that will agree with you on this one :-) > This is caused IMO by the data the tire model in GPL uses. Peak force slip > ratio is around 20+%, rather than maybe 10% or so. The slip angle curve is > pretty far out of wack too, although the peak forces generated are probably > about right (hence cornering speeds are probably right, but you'll be "sliding" > at a larger slip angle than you probably would in the real cars. I'm not sure, > but it's quite possible that other sims have this data more accurately > estimated. In other words, the GPL cars drive like their tires are extremely > soft. This will cause exactly the kind of difficult feedback and "unnecessary > translation" you've been talking about. I've tried it in my sim too. Setting > the peak force slip ratios and angles to high levels (like GPL) causes > unpredictablility just as you've described. > > Todd Wasson > --- > Performance Simulations > Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction > Software > http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

I would imagine tht the RC cars have rather stiff tyres, but when they are close to the peak value for grip, they tend to stay there over large slip angles, which is probably why they're so much fun. The same can be said for karts, which also show a lot of drift, yet their tyres are relatively stiff close to driving straight. It's probably the ratio between the value of peak_force/optimal_slip_angle and the cornering stiffness at slip angles close to 0 that just might be too high in GPL, while the peak force and optimal slip angle might just be correct. -Gregor "J. Todd Wasson" wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > In fact, come to think of it, I'm working on a sim project for radio > controlled cars (supposed to be as accurate as possible) The head engineer > told me the little buggers peak at roughly 20 degrees slip angle, and I would > never guess that from looking at the tires themselves, as they're rather wide > and very low profile. This is probably roughly the same peak that the GPL > tires use. > > My point earlier was really that sloppy/unresponsive/unpredictable tire > behavior can really be traced to the shape of the slip ratio/slip angle vs. > force curves, something that most sim drivers don't seem to be aware of. GPL's > are certainly looser than anything else out there, but that doesn't necessarily > mean it's not close to right. If the RC car tires do it maybe those big '67 > crossplys did too. > > Todd Wasson > --- > Performance Simulations > Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction > Software > http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

[email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >> This always confuses me. Isn't video at the movies only 24 fps? > >Television > >> is 30? Yet there is no perceptible stutter there. > > > >TV and movies will give you lots of speed blurring and antialiasing, > >which probably helps. they also have depth of field -- something that > >haven't seen much use in computer games yet. > > Yes, the blurring is something I hadn't considered. That'd definately smooth > things out, good point. What do you mean by depth of field? Is this something > to do with the camera's focus and how objects closer or further from the focal > point appear slightly blurred?

that's the one.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >> I haven't driven a car via > >> remote control through a camera mounted in the cockpit, but it seems that > >it > >> would be tough to drive, yet a frame rate of 24-30 wouldn't really be the > >> reason, would it? > > > >hardly, but you can't compare real-life footage and rendered images > >like this. or you can compare them, of course, but they're quite > >different. :) > > You know a lot more about photography than I do. Why can't they be compared > this way?

I don't think I'll be able to explain that properly, really, but it's all "the little things" like blurring, antialiasing, constant framerates, colors, the full monty. the biggest problem with todays computer graphics, imho, is that they're _too_ good. too crisp. we need to find a way to introduce flaws and irregularities. the new vertex- and pixel-shaders look like a step towards this end, but I haven't gotten around to understanding them yet. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 silence is FOO!

[email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) writes: > Yes. 3D games render everything in focus, which is uncommon for > all the other mediums based on photography. What would have been great > in a fps for instance is that everything with another distance than > where you point the crosshair is out of focus. A bit more difficult > with racing sims though, interestingly, GT3 does this, but only for replays. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 "Det er nok ingen ovn, men fartsm�leren v�r."

Well then your doing well..:) Of course there many aspects that can change the entire scenario 'i.e. - aperture, pov, fov, fp, film speed, panning and much more but it would take too long in a NG to go into all this.. Especially being such an OT in RAS. :) Cheers -Thom_j. "Olav K. Malmin" wrote:

Quoted text (47 lines)

| | Actually, I'm not that familiar with video filming, but I've taken up | photography as a hobby. | | "Thom j." <[email hidden]> writes: | | > This is 'spot-on' Olav! I didn't know you knew this much | > about photography aka video filming?? I learn something | > everyday. See I knew there was a reason for me to wake | > up each day! :) | > "Olav K. Malmin" wrote: | > | Very nice observation. :) | > | | > | It's the shutter speed that makes motion blur, but anyone familiar | > | with a camera knows that the 1/24 second speed needed for a perfect | > | motion blur is still a too long exposure time. Then again, maybe | > | cinematic film needs longer exposure that the familiar 35 mm single | > | picture camera ? | > | | > | The V5 got hardware motion blur, sadly, no game uses it, and none will | > | :( Do the GeForce3 have this capability ? | > | | > | -- | > | Olav K. Malmin | > | > Mats Lofkvist <[email hidden]> writes: | > | > | > | > (*) Actually it is often easy to see stutter when watching a | > | > movie. It seems to be most evident in slow pans filmed | > | > in bright light (motion blur hides stutter, maybe bright | > | > light scenes are filmed with shorter exposure times, thus | > | > reducing the motion blur?) | > | > | > | > --- | > 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 | > | > | | -- | Olav K. Malmin | remove .spam when replying

--- 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

I'm glad you explained this Olav as when it comes to graphics photpragphy [of any format] and computer veiwing I tend too jabber onto boredom for others.. :) "Olav K. Malmin" wrote: <snipped>

Quoted text (8 lines)

| Yes. 3D games render everything in focus, which is uncommon for | all the other mediums based on photography. What would have been great | in a fps for instance is that everything with another distance than | where you point the crosshair is out of focus. A bit more difficult | with racing sims though, since the computer can not know where you are | looking. But it is a bit weird that you can look at the horizon and | tachometer at the same time where both is in perfect focus. | Olav K. Malmin

<snipped> --- 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 <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Mike Nunan) writes: >Re. your (and other peoples') comments about monitor size, if you look >at big industrial sims they tend to use massive projection screens to >give the FOV *and* allow a bit of distance so your eyes don't have to >stay in close focus. Unfortunately I already tried to suggest to my >other half that an InFocus projector and a racing seat would look >great in our living room, but she just wan't having it! I've had issues with GP3 where my eyes kind of lose focus in a sharp turn. I noticed it at Hockenheim in the chicanes, and Australia in the 90deg turns. The only GPL track I've had this happen is at Monaco, in the hairpin turns. Something about the scenery swinging around so quickly screws me up... If I had access to a larger monitor, then I could see if that helps. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad) writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Only one thing to do then, get closer to the monitor. :-) >I just can't sit in a relaxed manner when I drive. I automatically >sit up and huddles over the steering wheel to get close to the >monitor. Sometimes during long races (Btw, when's the next Online GP :-) >I try to relax and sit back, but after half a lap I give up and get >close to my monitor again. >-- > -asbjxrn

Next online GP...hmm... I was just thinking about that the other day. The only original tracks we haven't run yet are Rouen, Monaco, and Spa. Spa would be *my* first choice, followed by Rouen and Monaco. I'll have to think about it. I'll also entertain suggestions for tracks to run... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Probably right. I really hadn't given any of this much thought until this >thread started, but yes, a bigger monitor should make going fast easier than >going to higher res would. Heck, I know where the corner is already at >640x480, even if it's a little fuzzy, I just don't hit it where I want all >the >time because it's hard to guage what the car is doing on that little screen. >I >suppose the bigger you go, the easier it would be to eyeball your >speed/attitude changes, since you're now a little closer to seeing things >"out >the window" as they would look in reality. Should be much easier to drive. >Did you notice a difference when going to the 17" monitor?

Actually, yes I did. Like I said, I figured it was because I could run at 1024x768, as opposed to the 640x480 I was running before. I gotta find a larger monitor...<g> Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) writes: >My friend's father raced F-1 around this time frame (had an >accident in '71 I think that ended his career, hit the pit wall, splitting >his >car down the middle and shattering his leg, ouch!)). What track? Just curious... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

mark jeangerard wrote: > > Let's all forget about the GPL engine shall we? You have already received a ton of thoughtful, contradictory responses to this post, but here's one that agrees with you about the frustrations of driving GPL and its relationship to real-world driving. I base this on a long-ago experience. In the 1965 or '66, I had the opportunity to drive a Lotus 18 Formula Junior around a road course (the now-gone course outside Abbottsford, British Columbia) for a couple laps. I wasn't fast at all, but I was able to drive it around with some measure of speed without spinning off. If I try to drive what seems to be the same pace in an F3 car, I'll spin off and lock-up brakes and wander all over for a number of laps. The experience of driving a real F3-type car was completely different than driving in GPL. The driving cues one receives in GPL are not those one receives in real racing (lateral g-forces, feedback through the steering wheel, sounds, and so forth), and so to be fast in GPL requires hours of practice to know how much brake to use, how much accelerator to use, how much steering to use. In GPL these come from rote practice, whereas in a real car they come much more from the feel of the car. I don't know how a sim could provide that feedback, but I do believe that there is almost no similarity between driving in GPL or other sims and driving in a real race car.

Hello John, I have the same feelings but many just go on&on about physics etc.. in all *Computer* sims where there really isnt *any* at all. Jeez they are all **PC games** Not "real life!"..get a grip guyz my 1/100 cent worth..flame'on if you need'em... -Thom_j. "John Zumsteg" wrote: <snipped> but I do believe that there is almost no | similarity between driving in GPL or other sims and driving in a real | race car. --- 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

"Thom j." <[email hidden]> writes: > Hello John, > I have the same feelings but many just go on&on about physics > etc.. in all *Computer* sims where there really isnt *any* at all. > Jeez they are all **PC games** Not "real life!"..get a grip guyz > my 1/100 cent worth..flame'on if you need'em... -Thom_j. Not flaming, but I really can't see the reason why not trying :) My motto is: GPL is easy, every time you slide off the road you probably know why a long time before it happens. I just don't like racing games where what the car will be doing is completely unpredictable. But the g-forces missing is a real issue, and I don't think it will ever be recreated no matter how many hydraulic systems you use. But for what you can do inside the computer, I don't see the point in not trying...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "John Zumsteg" wrote: > <snipped> > but I do believe that there is almost no > | similarity between driving in GPL or other sims and driving in a real > | race car. > > > --- > 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 > >

-- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

Sorry Olav, I didnt mean to give the impression that we should *Not* try. Hell, I love computer sims and games. If it were not for computers, online racing, the net' & many other aspects of computing I would have probably gone Crazy by now as I am stuck here in my bed many days 24-hrs around the clock & its right here by me :) PCing is & has been a major part of my life since 1990. My point & only point was: all the chit-chat about the existing sims physics, graphics is just fine but until we 'all! have a true 100% all body-mind senses virtual-reality' sim in our homes it is all conjecture but everyone please try!! Especially the many creative programmers out there! I just luv any PC racing and alot of the PC gaming! :) Sorry bout my poor explaination before! -Thom_j. "Olav K. Malmin" wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

| | Not flaming, but I really can't see the reason why not trying :) | | My motto is: GPL is easy, every time you slide off the road | you probably know why a long time before it happens. | | I just don't like racing games where what the car will be doing is | completely unpredictable. | | But the g-forces missing is a real issue, and I don't think it will | ever be recreated no matter how many hydraulic systems you use. | | But for what you can do inside the computer, I don't see the point in | not trying... | -- | Olav K. Malmin | | "Thom j." writes: | | > Hello John, | > I have the same feelings but many just go on&on about physics | > etc.. in all *Computer* sims where there really isnt *any* at all. | > Jeez they are all **PC games** Not "real life!"..get a grip guyz | > my 1/100 cent worth..flame'on if you need'em... -Thom_j. | > "John Zumsteg" wrote: | > <snipped> | > but I do believe that there is almost no | > | similarity between driving in GPL or other sims and driving in a real | > | race car.

--- 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

"Thom j." <[email hidden]> writes: > Hello John, > I have the same feelings but many just go on&on about physics > etc.. in all *Computer* sims where there really isnt *any* at all. > Jeez they are all **PC games** Not "real life!"..get a grip guyz > my 1/100 cent worth..flame'on if you need'em... -Thom_j. doesn't have to be real life. simracing is an art. I'd argue it's almost as much of an art as racing in RL. it's not the same art, but that doesn't really matter. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy"

strangely enough, I'm betting such a system is under DEEVELOPMENT....and I'm betting the PORN industry is footing the bills....;) dave henrie "Thom j." < (snippage)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> My point & only point was: all the chit-chat about the existing > sims physics, graphics is just fine but until we 'all! have a true > 100% all body-mind senses virtual-reality' sim in our homes it > is all conjecture but everyone please try!! Especially the many > creative programmers out there! I just luv any PC racing and > alot of the PC gaming! :) > Sorry bout my poor explaination before! -Thom_j. >

Quoted text (16 lines)

>Hi Todd, > >don't worry, here's another one who believes the same. I also believe >that GP3 has it all set a bit too stiff by default ;). > >Seriously, the peak value is maybe not so out of whack in GPL, but the >approach towards it probably is. It seems that the cornering stiffness, >which affects control and precision is very low, and probably the tyre >reaches the peak slip very linearly. I'd probably expect the cornering >stiffness to not be this low, meaning that it rises faster at small slip >angles, but that the rising would then slow down until reaching the >rather large peak slip angle, which just might be modelled well. But I >don't really know, I'm just guessing here. > >-Gregor >

Thanks for the support :-) This is exactly what I've been thinking too. The peak grip is probably fine, but the shape and slip angle/ratio *at the peak* may be off. Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

>>My friend's father raced F-1 around this time frame (had an >>accident in '71 I think that ended his career, hit the pit wall, splitting >>his >>car down the middle and shattering his leg, ouch!)). > >What track? Just curious... Not sure, but if I recall correctly it was somewhere in the US. Next time I see him I'll ask. Joseph Kasper was his name. Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Quoted text (18 lines)

>> Yes, the blurring is something I hadn't considered. That'd definately >smooth >> things out, good point. What do you mean by depth of field? Is this >something >> to do with the camera's focus and how objects closer or further from the >focal >> point appear slightly blurred? If so, yes, that's another good point I >hadn't >> considered. > >Yes. 3D games render everything in focus, which is uncommon for >all the other mediums based on photography. What would have been great >in a fps for instance is that everything with another distance than >where you point the crosshair is out of focus. A bit more difficult >with racing sims though, since the computer can not know where you are >looking. But it is a bit weird that you can look at the horizon and >tachometer at the same time where both is in perfect focus. >

I get it now. Never thought of that. I bet that page flipping with 3-D shutter glasses on a full size (proper FOV) screen would take care of that automatically since you're effectively looking into, rather than at, the scene and focusing the same as you would in real life. On a small screen, it'd *sort of* work, but not quite as well. Agree/disagree? Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Quoted text (19 lines)

>> >> I haven't driven a car via >> >> remote control through a camera mounted in the cockpit, but it seems >that >> >it >> >> would be tough to drive, yet a frame rate of 24-30 wouldn't really be >the >> >> reason, would it? >> > >> >hardly, but you can't compare real-life footage and rendered images >> >like this. or you can compare them, of course, but they're quite >> >different. :) >> >> You know a lot more about photography than I do. Why can't they be >compared >> this way? > >I don't think I'll be able to explain that properly, really, but it's >all "the little things" like blurring, antialiasing, constant >framerates, colors, the full monty.

Ok, I think that explains it enough right there. Now I'm getting it :-) >the biggest problem with todays computer graphics, imho, is that >they're _too_ good. too crisp. we need to find a way to introduce >flaws and irregularities. the new vertex- and pixel-shaders look like >a step towards this end, but I haven't gotten around to understanding >them yet. > Me neither. Someone mentioned awhile back a sort of blurring effect that occurs on some LCD laptop displays seemed to automatically make this happen to a degree. Perhaps a special monitor would take care of it. Heck, that'd be a big $$ upgrade though. A seperate monitor just for racing? Wait a minute, I forgot where I am, of course people would do it :-) I don't get all the new technology yet either. I'm just a rookie in OpenGL 3-D graphics right now, no lighting or anything cool yet, although there've been some interesting looking attempts! Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

I think you may be blending two senses of focusing here... depth of field is caused by the lens in your eye or camera adjusting for one distance, and objects nearer or farther away being blurry depending on aperture (F-stop). So a conventional computer 3d display is like a pinhole camera--effectively zero aperture size and infinite depth of field--all objects are in perfect focus (although mipmapping and filtering can give some depth-of-field like effects within the surface of a textured object) The other effect of depth is the two images being out of place horizontally (a la beer goggles) due to parallax between the two eyes (stereoscopic). 3D glasses of various sorts can give the stereoscopic depth effect, but not the focusing effect. The 3D glasses I've tried are problematic because the binocular depth information from your eyes is in conflict with the focus information. However, I think if the screen is "too far away" rather than "too close", the effect is better, such as at an Omnimax with 3D glasses. I believe there is a technique where you have a reflective "subwoofer" that flexes at a pretty high rate, with an image projected onto it from a device capable of insanely high refresh rates (such as vector plotters)... basically the woofer acts like a variable convex mirror, so the image can be layered in depth. This gets you both 3D effects with no glasses involved. The problem is to render 60 FPS with 100 depth layers requires 6000 frames per second! I think most demos of this have spinning wire-frame cubes and such, but one could conceive of some exotic new way of doing this with full-motion 3D graphics, such as a graphics card that could render triangles to multiple depth planes simulaneously, etc, etc. (Caveat: my knowledge of this device is extremely sketchy) However, I think games still have quite a ways to go to achieve even 2D photorealism... "J. Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >> Yes, the blurring is something I hadn't considered. That'ddefinately > >smooth > >> things out, good point. What do you mean by depth of field? Is this > >something > >> to do with the camera's focus and how objects closer or further fromthe

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >focal > >> point appear slightly blurred? If so, yes, that's another good point I > >hadn't > >> considered. > > > >Yes. 3D games render everything in focus, which is uncommon for > >all the other mediums based on photography. What would have been great > >in a fps for instance is that everything with another distance than > >where you point the crosshair is out of focus. A bit more difficult > >with racing sims though, since the computer can not know where you are > >looking. But it is a bit weird that you can look at the horizon and > >tachometer at the same time where both is in perfect focus. > > > > I get it now. Never thought of that. I bet that page flipping with 3-D > shutter glasses on a full size (proper FOV) screen would take care of that > automatically since you're effectively looking into, rather than at, the

scene > and focusing the same as you would in real life. On a small screen, it'd*sort

Quoted text (7 lines)

> of* work, but not quite as well. Agree/disagree? > Todd Wasson > --- > Performance Simulations > Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction > Software > http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Quoted text (16 lines)

>I think you may be blending two senses of focusing here... >depth of field is caused by the lens in your eye or camera adjusting for one >distance, and objects nearer or farther away being blurry depending on >aperture (F-stop). So a conventional computer 3d display is like a pinhole >camera--effectively zero aperture size and infinite depth of field--all >objects are in perfect focus (although mipmapping and filtering can give >some depth-of-field like effects within the surface of a textured object) >The other effect of depth is the two images being out of place horizontally >(a la beer goggles) due to parallax between the two eyes (stereoscopic). 3D >glasses of various sorts can give the stereoscopic depth effect, but not the >focusing effect. The 3D glasses I've tried are problematic because the >binocular depth information from your eyes is in conflict with the focus >information. However, I think if the screen is "too far away" rather than >"too close", the effect is better, such as at an Omnimax with 3D glasses. > >

There's not a way to get both depth and focus right with shutters?

Quoted text (12 lines)

>I believe there is a technique where you have a reflective "subwoofer" that >flexes at a pretty high rate, with an image projected onto it from a device >capable of insanely high refresh rates (such as vector plotters)... >basically the woofer acts like a variable convex mirror, so the image can be >layered in depth. This gets you both 3D effects with no glasses involved. >The problem is to render 60 FPS with 100 depth layers requires 6000 frames >per second! I think most demos of this have spinning wire-frame cubes and >such, but one could conceive of some exotic new way of doing this with >full-motion 3D graphics, such as a graphics card that could render triangles >to multiple depth planes simulaneously, etc, etc. (Caveat: my knowledge of >this device is extremely sketchy) >

I've heard vague things about this type of "no glasses" 3-D system and have no idea how that would work. It would be fantastic to see though. >However, I think games still have quite a ways to go to achieve even 2D >photorealism... > Big time. Did you hear about the real-time ray tracing that was done at 15fps? That would have been something to see. I heard it took something like 15-60+ parallel processors to accomplish (maybe more, don't remember.) Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Hi Todd, I just got those glasses a couple of weeks ago, and here is what I found (on a small monitor). The focusing length itself is, at least on distances of around 1m and farther not the real measure of depth. The eye (or at least, my eye :) ) and the brain rather quickly adapt to focusing on the screen distance but at the same time on a stereoscopic virtual image that is farther away. The focus is in my experience really not quite as important as the paralax for discerning object. Alos, do the following experiment. Write something on the top of a piece of paper, hold it at a stretched arm's length, close one eye, but then look at some object just above the top of the paper that is far away (assuming that you are holding the paper in such a direction ;) ). If it's bright enough (which means that your iris isn't open too wide), you'd probably still be able to read the text even though you're focusing at effectively infinity. Now, open both eyes and do the same, and you'll have a much harder time discerning things on the paper, as the paralax would ruin it all. That's basically the reason why shutter glasses give a rather good impression of depth even though yopur eyes are focusing on only the distance of the screen. The brighter the screen and the surroundings, the better it would work. -Gregor "J. Todd Wasson" wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > I get it now. Never thought of that. I bet that page flipping with 3-D > shutter glasses on a full size (proper FOV) screen would take care of that > automatically since you're effectively looking into, rather than at, the scene > and focusing the same as you would in real life. On a small screen, it'd *sort > of* work, but not quite as well. Agree/disagree? > Todd Wasson >

John Zumsteg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The driving cues one receives in GPL are not those one receives inreal > racing (lateral g-forces, feedback through the steering wheel,sounds, > and so forth), and so to be fast in GPL requires hours of practiceto > know how much brake to use, how much accelerator to use, how much > steering to use. In GPL these come from rote practice, whereas in areal > car they come much more from the feel of the car. I don't know how asim > could provide that feedback, but I do believe that there is almostno > similarity between driving in GPL or other sims and driving in areal > race car. Hmm... I believe that the general relationships between control input and vehicle response are the same throughout, although admittedly sitting in a vehicle does give you extra clues to speed up the learning curve. I've been driving sims the longest, followed by R/C race cars, and 'real' vehicles the least but I'm convinced that I learnt much that was relevant to 'full size' car control, long before I was 17. Driving anything is good experience - *something* will transfer to other vehicles and environments. (It also frequently amazes me how we R/Cers will talk about "feeling" what our cars are doing - and mean it - based purely on visual cues, perhaps with just a tiny amount of sound.) Jonny

JM <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SNAb7.14559$[email hidden]... > > > Hmm, do wonder whether that _particular_ point isn't a factor ofthe > > > class of cars - I'd expect pretty much anything modern to feelmore > > > precise than those skinny-tyred 1967 monsters. > > > > I agree with that, Jonny. > > The tyres are certainly not skinny, and I'd take the 1967 GP carsprecision > over a Ford Mondeo's any day. > I'm guessing you were comparing racing machines past and present,but people > don't have an automatic problem driving sloppy modern saloon carsand > getting them to go where they want. <nod>, but they're not hurling them across apexes on the limit of traction most of the time either. I haven't driven a real race car, but I'd expect them to match GPL and my R/C race cars in feeling way too sharp in the linear region, and only really coming alive as you approach the limit. And the tyres *are* skinny in comparison to the power-to-weight ratio, though this is partly just the lack of downforce (what else has 800 hp/ton with no aero assistance? A very silly Skyline, perhaps? Ooh <thought> - a Westfield Megabusa or similar. Now, is that a suitable base for comparison?) Jonny

Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I would imagine tht the RC cars have rather stiff tyres, but whenthey > are close to the peak value for grip, they tend to stay there overlarge > slip angles, which is probably why they're so much fun. The same canbe Are you talking about dirt, grass, tarmac/rubber or tarmac/foam? :-) (Foams *definitely* have a very slow fall-off beyond peak, at least without additives - and yes, they're great fun!) Jonny

On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 13:29:47 GMT, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote: >the biggest problem with todays computer graphics, imho, is that >they're _too_ good. too crisp. we need to find a way to introduce >flaws and irregularities. the new vertex- and pixel-shaders look like >a step towards this end, but I haven't gotten around to understanding >them yet. Time to reinsert the PC into the television again. ;-) Seriously, I do lots of work for TV and the fact that PAL (or NTSC) is so 'crappy' does mean it smooths things out nicely, and things can look much better. But that's just AA. Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 01:35:16 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > strangely enough, I'm betting such a system is under DEEVELOPMENT....and >I'm betting the PORN industry is footing the bills....;) Lol, yes, the first Feel-O-Rama full suit device and chair is probably created with a sensual CD behind it. Hopefully its drivers will be compatible with GPL as well. ;-) Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

Sounds fine Gunnar but it still is *not* real life & not even close! As far as I know it wont be reality in anyome's home for a really long time [art or no art] either unless you have an extra $1/2mill to just toss down! So argue on pardner...<g> Btw: I love all the arts :) "Gunnar Horrigmo" wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

| doesn't have to be real life. simracing is an art. I'd argue it's | almost as much of an art as racing in RL. it's not the same art, but | that doesn't really matter. | -- | Gunnar | "Thom j." writes: | > Hello John, | > I have the same feelings but many just go on&on about physics | > etc.. in all *Computer* sims where there really isnt *any* at all. | > Jeez they are all **PC games** Not "real life!"..get a grip guyz | > my 1/100 cent worth..flame'on if you need'em... -Thom_j.

--- 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

I wonder what the effect of a fresnel lens would be when used in conjunction with the shutter-type 3D glasses. From what I understand, a fresnel lens increases the focal distance of objects viewed through it? I tried a fresnel lens once, it made my 17" monitor look like a 25". Anybody tried the Wicked3d red-blue 3D glasses with N4 or GPL? Gerald Moore Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (36 lines)

> Hi Todd, > > I just got those glasses a couple of weeks ago, and here is what I found > (on a small monitor). The focusing length itself is, at least on > distances of around 1m and farther not the real measure of depth. The > eye (or at least, my eye :) ) and the brain rather quickly adapt to > focusing on the screen distance but at the same time on a stereoscopic > virtual image that is farther away. The focus is in my experience really > not quite as important as the paralax for discerning object. > > Alos, do the following experiment. Write something on the top of a piece > of paper, hold it at a stretched arm's length, close one eye, but then > look at some object just above the top of the paper that is far away > (assuming that you are holding the paper in such a direction ;) ). If > it's bright enough (which means that your iris isn't open too wide), > you'd probably still be able to read the text even though you're > focusing at effectively infinity. Now, open both eyes and do the same, > and you'll have a much harder time discerning things on the paper, as > the paralax would ruin it all. > > That's basically the reason why shutter glasses give a rather good > impression of depth even though yopur eyes are focusing on only the > distance of the screen. The brighter the screen and the surroundings, > the better it would work. > > -Gregor > > "J. Todd Wasson" wrote: > > > > I get it now. Never thought of that. I bet that page flipping with 3-D > > shutter glasses on a full size (proper FOV) screen would take care of that > > automatically since you're effectively looking into, rather than at, the scene > > and focusing the same as you would in real life. On a small screen, it'd *sort > > of* work, but not quite as well. Agree/disagree? > > Todd Wasson > >

On 8 Aug 2001 08:59:45 -0700, [email hidden] (Gerald Moore) wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I wonder what the effect of a fresnel lens would be when used in >conjunction with the shutter-type 3D glasses. From what I understand, >a fresnel lens increases the focal distance of objects viewed through >it? > >I tried a fresnel lens once, it made my 17" monitor look like a 25". > >Anybody tried the Wicked3d red-blue 3D glasses with N4 or GPL?

Are there any free REAL glasses that come with all these gadgets? Seems to me the eye/brain is being fooled a lot; I can feel a headache coming up. ;-) Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

You wish your "development" dreams on a unit like this would be done by the porn industry!! Just go get a Bud Bundy blow'up doll Dave, It'll surfice for now!! hahaha "Dave Henrie" wrote: | strangely enough, I'm betting such a system is underDEEVELOPMENT....and

Quoted text (15 lines)

| I'm betting the PORN industry is footing the bills....;) | dave henrie | "Thom j." < | (snippage) | > My point & only point was: all the chit-chat about the existing | > sims physics, graphics is just fine but until we 'all! have a true | > 100% all body-mind senses virtual-reality' sim in our homes it | > is all conjecture but everyone please try!! Especially the many | > creative programmers out there! I just luv any PC racing and | > alot of the PC gaming! :) | > Sorry bout my poor explaination before! -Thom_j. | > | | |

--- 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

Great info Dave & I feel that "games have quite away to go to achieve even 2D photorealism"..too What I would really like to see [or shall I say "feel"] is the realistic body senses while in any race car or bike!! 'i.e Speed, body G-force, & everything the senses can feel while racing!! Any folks out in development-land who'd like to tackle this one? :) "Dave Pollatsek" wrote: | I think you may be blending two senses of focusing here... | depth of field is caused by the lens in your eye or camera adjusting forone | distance, and objects nearer or farther away being blurry depending on | aperture (F-stop). So a conventional computer 3d display is like apinhole | camera--effectively zero aperture size and infinite depth of field--all | objects are in perfect focus (although mipmapping and filtering can give | some depth-of-field like effects within the surface of a textured object) | The other effect of depth is the two images being out of placehorizontally | (a la beer goggles) due to parallax between the two eyes (stereoscopic).3D | glasses of various sorts can give the stereoscopic depth effect, but notthe | focusing effect. The 3D glasses I've tried are problematic because the | binocular depth information from your eyes is in conflict with the focus | information. However, I think if the screen is "too far away" rather than | "too close", the effect is better, such as at an Omnimax with 3D glasses. | | I believe there is a technique where you have a reflective "subwoofer"that | flexes at a pretty high rate, with an image projected onto it from adevice | capable of insanely high refresh rates (such as vector plotters)... | basically the woofer acts like a variable convex mirror, so the image canbe | layered in depth. This gets you both 3D effects with no glasses involved. | The problem is to render 60 FPS with 100 depth layers requires 6000 frames | per second! I think most demos of this have spinning wire-frame cubes and | such, but one could conceive of some exotic new way of doing this with | full-motion 3D graphics, such as a graphics card that could rendertriangles | to multiple depth planes simulaneously, etc, etc. (Caveat: my knowledgeof | this device is extremely sketchy) | | However, I think games still have quite a ways to go to achieve even 2D | photorealism... --- 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

ermmm ,what happens when Bud Bundy blows up? dave henrie (ps...who pioneered voice over the net?) {Who pushed for improvements in streaming video?} [who first got Ecomerce working?] <the same folks that will someday bring a full-featured force feedback suit to consumers everywhere> dh "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iEic7.84654$[email hidden]... > You wish your "development" dreams on a unit like this > would be done by the porn industry!! Just go get a Bud > Bundy blow'up doll Dave, It'll surfice for now!! hahaha >

Just to clear up one little point that's completely unimportant to the (really cool) gist of the post: If this thing flexes at a rate higher than 40 times a second it's officially not a subwoofer as the "sub" stands for subsonic which, in most cases, starts at about 40hz and goes down from there. "Woofer", however, is a fairly flexible term. :-) How do they keep it from making noise? -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "Dave Pollatsek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3b70b533$0$319$[email hidden]... > I think you may be blending two senses of focusing here... > depth of field is caused by the lens in your eye or camera adjusting for one > distance, and objects nearer or farther away being blurry depending on > aperture (F-stop). So a conventional computer 3d display is like a pinhole > camera--effectively zero aperture size and infinite depth of field--all > objects are in perfect focus (although mipmapping and filtering can give > some depth-of-field like effects within the surface of a textured object) > The other effect of depth is the two images being out of place horizontally > (a la beer goggles) due to parallax between the two eyes (stereoscopic). 3D > glasses of various sorts can give the stereoscopic depth effect, but not the > focusing effect. The 3D glasses I've tried are problematic because the > binocular depth information from your eyes is in conflict with the focus > information. However, I think if the screen is "too far away" rather than > "too close", the effect is better, such as at an Omnimax with 3D glasses. > > I believe there is a technique where you have a reflective "subwoofer" that > flexes at a pretty high rate, with an image projected onto it from a device > capable of insanely high refresh rates (such as vector plotters)... > basically the woofer acts like a variable convex mirror, so the image can be > layered in depth. This gets you both 3D effects with no glasses involved. > The problem is to render 60 FPS with 100 depth layers requires 6000 frames > per second! I think most demos of this have spinning wire-frame cubes and > such, but one could conceive of some exotic new way of doing this with > full-motion 3D graphics, such as a graphics card that could render triangles > to multiple depth planes simulaneously, etc, etc. (Caveat: my knowledge of > this device is extremely sketchy) > > However, I think games still have quite a ways to go to achieve even 2D > photorealism... > > "J. Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > >> Yes, the blurring is something I hadn't considered. That'd > definately > > >smooth > > >> things out, good point. What do you mean by depth of field? Is this > > >something > > >> to do with the camera's focus and how objects closer or further from > the > > >focal > > >> point appear slightly blurred? If so, yes, that's another good point I > > >hadn't > > >> considered. > > > > > >Yes. 3D games render everything in focus, which is uncommon for > > >all the other mediums based on photography. What would have been great > > >in a fps for instance is that everything with another distance than > > >where you point the crosshair is out of focus. A bit more difficult > > >with racing sims though, since the computer can not know where you are > > >looking. But it is a bit weird that you can look at the horizon and > > >tachometer at the same time where both is in perfect focus. > > > > > > > I get it now. Never thought of that. I bet that page flipping with 3-D > > shutter glasses on a full size (proper FOV) screen would take care of that > > automatically since you're effectively looking into, rather than at, the > scene > > and focusing the same as you would in real life. On a small screen, it'd > *sort > > of* work, but not quite as well. Agree/disagree? > > Todd Wasson > > --- > > Performance Simulations > > Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction > > Software > > http://PerformanceSimulations.Com > >

"Jonny Hodgson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%t7b7.5921$[email hidden]... > How do you set up a static cockpit? And which do you ultimately > prefer / which gives you the best laptimes? I ultimately prefer the static for the feel it gives but I am faster without it. In the static I can run all day and recover from my mistakes in a more natural way. But, I believe that is because I am more sensitive to wheel spin and locking and rotation that I drive more mellow. I am less willing to take it over the edge because I am aware that it's over the edge. Also, in the cockpit I have made, while there is much greater sense of speed, position on track, lateral acceleration, braking pressure, attitude, track surface, pitch, crown, and suspension movement in the front. The rear of the car is not readily apparent. There are problems with it that could be sorted out maybe, but considering no mirrors, pit board, or lefty/righty I've given up on it completely and never drive it. But I did learn something about GPLs "drive model" in the process. On your first outing, take it to Monaco. http://home.att.net/~m.jeangerard/GPVLF2/stuff/ferrari.cam Get this file and drop it in your cars\cars67\ferrari folder. (Make sure to back up you ferrari.cam if you already have one.) Then go to your player\playersname folder and open player.ini. Scroll down until you are in the [ Personal Information ] section. There you will find the line: drivingView = 1 ; driving view Change the 1 to a 9 and away you go. This is now your F10 view and when you get in the car it will already be activated. When you press F10 it puts you back in default driving view and rewrites the player.ini to drivingView = 1. So don't F10 until you are done with the static cockpit. Notice the hole in the "floor". I don't know why that is there, nor do I care. But I do think it lends to the sense of speed. I noticed that when I move the driver down, there is more sense of speed. It's also harder to look properly up the track and this could lead to slower times as well. I also noticed that a more forward view gives a greater sense of front grip, and a more rearward view gives a greater sense of rear something. (not sure what, but the thing started handling like a Vette.) So, there you have it. Give it a try. It's pretty useless but hey, It's just another Monza race on VROC. (Kyalami?) Might as well do something different for a change. :-) > Hmm, do wonder whether that _particular_ point isn't a factor of the > class of cars - I'd expect pretty much anything modern to feel more > precise than those skinny-tyred 1967 monsters. Still, haven't raced > much else recently (lack of money / time / decent DirectInput > drivers)... I always try to take that into account when I think about these things, but, lack of data, you know? mark PS Would I have gotten reamed if I'd attached that 1kb file to this post?

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On the wheel locking thing, I have no such trouble. Do you have smoke > turned on? > > And what's this 'static cockpit' thing you talk about? I've got smoke turned on, but have to see any come from my tires. Maybe I need to drive harder. Check my reply to Jonny Hodgson for detailed info in the static cockpit. > Judging by what you say I take it you analyse your replays a fair bit > then? I don't do that, I just hang it out through the turn and get the > tires to complain :). I never watch replays. Well, rarely. There are 3 reasons I watch replays: 1. I want to see who's fault it was. 2. I want to see who the race list dropped. 3. It was posted on the VegeServer. (The name Bruce#33 in the header being a primary motivator.) > Hehe, naughty me. But GP3 does feel flat and dull to me, just my opinion > of course. A lot of people get that. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <494b7.42041$[email hidden] > Does that mean that you only get out of shape 2% of the time, or that atleast > you know WHY more in GP3? I know I'm not asking that question correctly,but I > hope you understand what I'm *trying* to ask... Absolutely. I'm not sure I phrased that right. But in GPL, mistakes commonly turn into situations that cost me time. In GP3, I can get through them with little or no time loss and then make up anything I did lose somewhere else. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

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

Quoted text (8 lines)

> SLIP ANGLES > > Todd, regarding your comments on peak lateral force and slip angle, do > you think it's overdone even taking into account that the 67 cars were > running crossply tyres? I would definitely expect much higher slip > angles with these, and looking at the replays the car attitudes seem > to match my memories of film footage of GP cars from that era. (The > repeats! I'm not that old ;o) What do you think?

There's incar footage of Graham Hill lapping at Monaco that is stuck in my head that indicates the opposite to me. I'm not well versed in slip angles, but the way he drove, while possible in GPL, is certainly the slow way around.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> FEEDBACK > > When it comes to issues such as single wheel lockups at the front or > rear, I can read what's going on from the yaw behaviour. For example, > if the rear has locked (rear brake bias too hot?) and you've got even > a fraction of steering lock dialed in, the tendency of the rear to > "buck" is detectable from the body movement alone. This isn't > translation, it feels very direct and natural to me. Even though I am > way down the learning curve compared to some around here, I can still > lock a wheel without flying off the track, and I can bring it back > from the great beyond at least 50% of the time in a broad variety of > situations. Most imporantly, the other 50% of the time I know what I > did wrong -- I'm not driving blind.

This is exactly what has me bugged. Why you... instead of me? "-)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Another other thing I depend on strongly is the longer term feedback > that comes from learning what you can get away with, and what is > likely to stuff you in the barriers. I believe that it is possible to > build your own mental physics model, and develop a visualisation of > load transfer effects in various situations. Decisions such as whether > to trail brake on entry to a particular bend become much easier if you > can get a good feel for the interplay between pitching weight transfer > due to braking and the lateral grip limits (and weight transfer) at > your chosen cornering speed.

There is no other way to learn a car or a course. But come race day, when I'm trying to run down Asgier or hold Jan at bay, I want to be able to stretch those limits a little. Get in a little hot or jump the cornerm put a wheel off while trying to make the track *that* much wider. In GPL I am at a loss for the ability to go faster than I already am without terminal mistakes. > OTHER THINGS > Finally, can I also ask what this static cockpit thing is all about, > and also what are CPR and MTBR? Don't even worry about CPR. It's old and something will come along that equals it and I'll be sure to point it out. MTBR is Mercedes Benz Truck Racing. I've only ever driven the demo but just that was 18 times as good as the F1RC full release. Swedish Touring Car Championship 2 is also a good buy. Both MTBR and STCC2 are probably best labeled as arcade titles, but as far as physics and drive model goes, they are blurring the lines between arcade and sim. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

"Mike Nunan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > [email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) wrote in messagenews:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> FWIW, my understanding of the difference between crossply and modern > radial construction is that radials use steel reinforcements that run > straight across the treaded area directly from one bead to the other. > Crossplies have the reinforcements running diagonally across the > tread. Radials have greater stiffness so you get more side force for > less slip angle, but on the downside the breakaway is less > progressive. Going to very low profiles and super-stiff sidewall > constructions - as in modern racing tyres - makes this even more true.

Just for the record. Radial plys do go radially from bead to bead but the steel doesn't. It would break. In the standard passenger car tire there are usually two plys of a synthetic material like rayon that make up the case and sidewalls. The steel belts are typically bias plys (cross ply) and are confined to the tread area. There is a lot more flex in a radial tire so the steel helps the tread stay where it needs to be but mostly helps with puncture resistance. The added tread plys can be anything from rayon to kevlar. Bias ply tires are a lot stiffer than radials. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

"J. Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Your theory hits the nail exactly on the head :-) There are really two > FOV's. The monitor itself acts like a little projection screen, withperhaps a > 90 degree field of view of its own. I use OpenGL for 3-D graphics (notvery > well yet, I must say), and the FOV is set by one little line of code. Ifyou > set it to 90 degrees, an object in our 3-D world that's 200 metersstraight > into the screen and 200 meters to the left will appear along the left sideof > the screen, because the angle between it and our "camera" is 45 degrees. > > However, if your monitor is just a tiny thing off in the distance, that > object surely won't look like it's at a 45 degree angle to your real head.But > as you bring the monitor closer and closer to your face (or increase itssize), > the left or right edge gets closer to being truly at a 45 degree angle toyour > real eyes and your sense of speed and life-sized animation/immersionimproves. > This is the second FOV, the one you showed above, the angle between your > eyeballs and the edges of the screen. It just occurred to me that the center of my 17 inch monitor is 35 inches from the bridge of my nose. Maybe sim makers should add a little adjustment for that in their games. I can't get any closer and as Asbjorn says, he doesn't want to get any further. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

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

Quoted text (23 lines)

> You have already received a ton of thoughtful, contradictory responses > to this post, but here's one that agrees with you about the frustrations > of driving GPL and its relationship to real-world driving. I base this > on a long-ago experience. > > In the 1965 or '66, I had the opportunity to drive a Lotus 18 Formula > Junior around a road course (the now-gone course outside Abbottsford, > British Columbia) for a couple laps. I wasn't fast at all, but I was > able to drive it around with some measure of speed without spinning off. > If I try to drive what seems to be the same pace in an F3 car, I'll spin > off and lock-up brakes and wander all over for a number of laps. The > experience of driving a real F3-type car was completely different than > driving in GPL. > > The driving cues one receives in GPL are not those one receives in real > racing (lateral g-forces, feedback through the steering wheel, sounds, > and so forth), and so to be fast in GPL requires hours of practice to > know how much brake to use, how much accelerator to use, how much > steering to use. In GPL these come from rote practice, whereas in a real > car they come much more from the feel of the car. I don't know how a sim > could provide that feedback, but I do believe that there is almost no > similarity between driving in GPL or other sims and driving in a real > race car.

Yeah, I've never driven a vintage open wheeler. Or a new one for that matter. But my stance has always been: My 1965 Mustang was easier to apex than the GPL cars. I can't imagine the 67 F1 was worse than the worst handling car I've ever driven. Radials or not. That Mustang was a real piece of pucky. But I could (usually) get it by a bit of guardrail without contact. I have a question I've been thinking about concerning the tires. I was 6 in 1967. I grew up in a tire family. I remember the tires when I was six. They were almost chalky to the touch when they were brand new. But stiff as a board. A couple of hot laps later and the tread felt almost exactly like the case on my computer monitor here. Certainly more like the monitor than any modern tire. What do you remember about the grip? -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

mark jeangerard wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > When it comes to issues such as single wheel lockups at the front or > > rear, I can read what's going on from the yaw behaviour. For example, > > if the rear has locked (rear brake bias too hot?) and you've got even > > a fraction of steering lock dialed in, the tendency of the rear to > > "buck" is detectable from the body movement alone. This isn't > > translation, it feels very direct and natural to me. Even though I am > > way down the learning curve compared to some around here, I can still > > lock a wheel without flying off the track, and I can bring it back > > from the great beyond at least 50% of the time in a broad variety of > > situations. Most imporantly, the other 50% of the time I know what I > > did wrong -- I'm not driving blind. > > This is exactly what has me bugged. Why you... instead of me? "-)

Forgive me for saying this, but maybe you're just not that good a driver? I remember when I first started racing GPL, I was minded to believe that my version had less grip and the clock ran faster than everybody else's. Of course it wasn't that at all, it was just a combination of poor driving technique and a bad input device. My girlfriend often drives GPL, she crashes and spins her way around the Oring in about 2:00-ish but never complains that it's anything but her lack of skill that's to blame. Gerry

Depends on whether you'd call yourself a good driver... GPLRank Gerry Aitken -5.35 Mark Jeangerard -8.87 Jan./ GPLRank: +10.07 and considering myself "fair" ;-)) =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "Gerry Aitken" wrote...

Quoted text (15 lines)

><snip> > Forgive me for saying this, but maybe you're just not > that good a driver? I remember when I first started > racing GPL, I was minded to believe that my version > had less grip and the clock ran faster than everybody > else's. Of course it wasn't that at all, it was just a > combination of poor driving technique and a bad input > device. > > My girlfriend often drives GPL, she crashes and spins > her way around the Oring in about 2:00-ish but never > complains that it's anything but her lack of skill > that's to blame. > > Gerry

Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Depends on whether you'd call yourself a good driver... > > GPLRank > Gerry Aitken -5.35 > Mark Jeangerard -8.87 > > Jan./ GPLRank: +10.07 and considering myself "fair" ;-))

I consider myself average... Track My Chassis My time Other chassis Other time difference Watkins Glen Lotus 01:05.53 Ferrari 01:05.65 -0.120 Silverstone Lotus 01:28.27 Ferrari 01:29.18 -0.910 Monaco Lotus 01:26.95 Ferrari 01:28.36 -1.410 Zandvoor Ferrari 01:25.95 Ferrari 01:26.75 -0.800 Monza Lotus 01:28.50 Ferrari 01:29.17 -0.670 Rouen Lotus 01:57.26 Ferrari 01:58.47 -1.210 Mexico Lotus 01:48.09 Ferrari 01:48.38 -0.290 Spa-Franc Lotus 03:18.57 Ferrari 03:20.16 -1.590 Kyalami Lotus 01:20.86 Ferrari 01:21.24 -0.380 Mosport Lotus 01:22.25 Ferrari 01:23.33 -1.080 Nürburgring Lotus 08:32.64 Ferrari 08:20.66 +11.98 ...I'm poor at the Ring though ;). I'm glad I did a little bit of hot lapping at Zandy in the Ferrari ;), I think I may take the Red beast to the Ring for a little too ;). Gerry

In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Forgive me for saying this, but maybe you're just not that good a >driver? I remember when I first started racing GPL, I was minded to >believe that my version had less grip and the clock ran faster than >everybody else's. Of course it wasn't that at all, it was just a >combination of poor driving technique and a bad input device. > >My girlfriend often drives GPL, she crashes and spins her way around the >Oring in about 2:00-ish but never complains that it's anything but her >lack of skill that's >to blame.

Some people are just better at processing the limited feedback that a computer sim gives you. That doesn't necessarily meen they're a better *driver*. I have a lot more control over a real car that I'm sitting in than I do in a virtual one... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

>It just occurred to me that the center of my 17 inch monitor is 35 inches >from the bridge of my nose. Maybe sim makers should add a little adjustment >for that in their games. I can't get any closer and as Asbjorn says, he >doesn't want to get any further. > Mark, I've put up something that illustrates exactly what changing fields of view in a racing sim does. The last picture is a field of view that matches your 17 inch monitor and 35 inch viewing distance. That is, this field of view would make your FOV and the 3-D world/camera match exactly, giving the best possible sense of speed. http://performancesimulations.com/scnshots.htm I agree that it's a good idea to allow users to adjust the FOV to their liking. Before, in the DOS days, it was rather tricky since if you used a 90 degree (or other convenient) FOV you could take some mathematical shortcuts and make things run faster, and might have had to do too much extra work to allow adjustability. Nowadays, it's easy to do (at least with OpenGL it is, I'd imagine DX isn't too much more difficult to adjust.) Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I have a question I've been thinking about concerning the tires. I was 6 in >1967. I grew up in a tire family. I remember the tires when I was six. They >were almost chalky to the touch when they were brand new. But stiff as a >board. A couple of hot laps later and the tread felt almost exactly like the >case on my computer monitor here. Certainly more like the monitor than any >modern tire. What do you remember about the grip? >

Do you mean they were really hard? Harder than today's racing tires? Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

In fact, after reading this very informative article, http://www.simracingmag.com/articles/various/01q3/tyre_5.shtml I am even more convinced that this is so. The sidewalls in a bias ply tyre (which is what mainly affects the behaviour at low slip angles) are probably even harder than in a comparable radial tyre, which means that the cornering stiffnesses of both the radial and the bias ply tyre could be comparable. The radial tyre, on the other hand, since its sidewalls may be soft but the contact patch is very rigid, will probably have linear chracteristics in a far longer range of slip angles (should the deformation of sidewalls remain at least somewhat linear), and would also let go much more suddenly for the same reason. Could anyone with more knowledge shed some more light on the subject (Doug, are you around :) ) ? -Gregor Gregor Veble wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > Hi Todd, > > don't worry, here's another one who believes the same. I also believe > that GP3 has it all set a bit too stiff by default ;). > > Seriously, the peak value is maybe not so out of whack in GPL, but the > approach towards it probably is. It seems that the cornering stiffness, > which affects control and precision is very low, and probably the tyre > reaches the peak slip very linearly. I'd probably expect the cornering > stiffness to not be this low, meaning that it rises faster at small slip > angles, but that the rising would then slow down until reaching the > rather large peak slip angle, which just might be modelled well. But I > don't really know, I'm just guessing here. > > -Gregor >

Hi Mark, Re. "why you instead of me", well maybe it'll be me too once I'm actually getting some pace down! It's easy to be theoretical but the fact remains I'm still several seconds behind even "average" people on the circuits I've tried so far. But even if I do find that I'm still able to read enough feedback when I'm going quicker, what does that mean for you? I suppose you could try and adapt your perception of the various cues so that you pick up on the messages that GPL is providing. But I think it's fair enough to simply choose a different sim that suits you better. There should be at least one more available in the next few months with any luck (Chris? Tony??) Thanks for the info regarding MBTR etc (but I'm still interested to know what CPR stands for, even if it isn't worth buying) and also the correction on tyre construction. Best regards, -= mike =- "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<PGrc7.3$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (60 lines)

> "Mike Nunan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > SLIP ANGLES > > > > Todd, regarding your comments on peak lateral force and slip angle, do > > you think it's overdone even taking into account that the 67 cars were > > running crossply tyres? I would definitely expect much higher slip > > angles with these, and looking at the replays the car attitudes seem > > to match my memories of film footage of GP cars from that era. (The > > repeats! I'm not that old ;o) What do you think? > > There's incar footage of Graham Hill lapping at Monaco that is stuck in my > head that indicates the opposite to me. I'm not well versed in slip angles, > but the way he drove, while possible in GPL, is certainly the slow way > around. > > > FEEDBACK > > > > When it comes to issues such as single wheel lockups at the front or > > rear, I can read what's going on from the yaw behaviour. For example, > > if the rear has locked (rear brake bias too hot?) and you've got even > > a fraction of steering lock dialed in, the tendency of the rear to > > "buck" is detectable from the body movement alone. This isn't > > translation, it feels very direct and natural to me. Even though I am > > way down the learning curve compared to some around here, I can still > > lock a wheel without flying off the track, and I can bring it back > > from the great beyond at least 50% of the time in a broad variety of > > situations. Most imporantly, the other 50% of the time I know what I > > did wrong -- I'm not driving blind. > > This is exactly what has me bugged. Why you... instead of me? "-) > > > Another other thing I depend on strongly is the longer term feedback > > that comes from learning what you can get away with, and what is > > likely to stuff you in the barriers. I believe that it is possible to > > build your own mental physics model, and develop a visualisation of > > load transfer effects in various situations. Decisions such as whether > > to trail brake on entry to a particular bend become much easier if you > > can get a good feel for the interplay between pitching weight transfer > > due to braking and the lateral grip limits (and weight transfer) at > > your chosen cornering speed. > > There is no other way to learn a car or a course. But come race day, when > I'm trying to run down Asgier or hold Jan at bay, I want to be able to > stretch those limits a little. Get in a little hot or jump the cornerm put a > wheel off while trying to make the track *that* much wider. In GPL I am at a > loss for the ability to go faster than I already am without terminal > mistakes. > > > OTHER THINGS > > Finally, can I also ask what this static cockpit thing is all about, > > and also what are CPR and MTBR? > > Don't even worry about CPR. It's old and something will come along that > equals it and I'll be sure to point it out. MTBR is Mercedes Benz Truck > Racing. I've only ever driven the demo but just that was 18 times as good as > the F1RC full release. Swedish Touring Car Championship 2 is also a good > buy. Both MTBR and STCC2 are probably best labeled as arcade titles, but as > far as physics and drive model goes, they are blurring the lines between > arcade and sim.

Mike Nunan wrote: > Thanks for the info regarding MBTR etc (but I'm still interested to > know what CPR stands for, even if it isn't worth buying.. CART Precision Racing by M$, and Mark's right, it's jobs <g>. Gerry

Mike Nunan wrote: > Thanks for the info regarding MBTR etc (but I'm still interested to > know what CPR stands for, even if it isn't worth buying) Cart Precision Racing. It both sucks & blows at the same time. -- Fester

Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Mike Nunan wrote: >> Thanks for the info regarding MBTR etc (but I'm still interested to >> know what CPR stands for, even if it isn't worth buying) > > > Cart Precision Racing. It both sucks & blows at the same time.

Quite. The "engineer" help with car setup was bloddy brilliant. Why more sims don't have this feature is a mystery. Z. -- Please remove my_pants when replying by email.

On 09 Aug 2001 23:01:42 GMT, [email hidden] (J. Todd Wasson) wrote: > http://performancesimulations.com/scnshots.htm Ah, finally some screenshots! Nice. Weird 170-shot. ;-) Geez, I use 50 degrees for car cameras. Must add an FOV setting immediately I guess! Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

So tell us what you really think Uncle Fester.. :) "Uncle Fester" wrote: | Cart Precision Racing. It both sucks & blows at the same time. | -- | Fester --- 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

These photos are perfect examples why we are still some time away from a true PC sim. I go back to the days when "Cinemax" first came out with 3 projectors sending 3 seperate images on a wide screen. The center was directed staight' toward the screen.. Then projectors 2 & 3 were crossed right to left and visa-versa on the other. It appears this would be one of the ways a full 3D 180degree view would work and the screen was curved past your POV... This of course is only my 1/10th cent worth..:) Nice job tho' on the photos!! An Impressed..:) -Thom_j. "Ruud van Gaal" wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

| Ah, finally some screenshots! Nice. Weird 170-shot. ;-) | Geez, I use 50 degrees for car cameras. Must add an FOV setting | immediately I guess! | | | Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 | Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ | Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

(J. Todd Wasson) wrote: | > http://performancesimulations.com/scnshots.htm | --- 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

Quoted text (10 lines)

>These photos are perfect examples why we are still some time away from >a true PC sim. I go back to the days when "Cinemax" first came out with >3 projectors sending 3 seperate images on a wide screen. The center was >directed staight' toward the screen.. Then projectors 2 & 3 were crossed >right to left and visa-versa on the other. >It appears this would be one of the ways a full 3D 180degree view would >work and the screen was curved past your POV... This of course is only >my 1/10th cent worth..:) Nice job tho' on the photos!! >An Impressed..:) -Thom_j. >

Thanks :-) Yes, your idea works beautifully as a matter of fact. Silicon Motor Speedway (or whatever it's called now under the new ownership) uses exactly this three screen system. From inside the car, everything appears life sized and to the correct scale. Come to think of it, Sega's F-355 does this too, although the screens are a bit smaller. Still, I agree, three screens at different angles is the way to go. Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

>Ah, finally some screenshots! Nice. Weird 170-shot. ;-) >Geez, I use 50 degrees for car cameras. Must add an FOV setting >immediately I guess! > Thanks, and yeah, 170 is a wierd angle to use! You're using 50 degrees? You'll be amazed how much easier the cars in Racer will be to drive once you switch to 90 or so. It's a huge difference, the car doesn't seem to swing around as much and easier to catch in slides. Plus, the sensation of speed improves a lot. Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Just think Todd if you could race in one of these old theaters with a 100ft+ wide screen curved right past you... Now your really getting close to reality this way...haha hmmm? Gee I wonder if what wheel to use? :) "J. Todd Wasson" wrote: | Thanks :-) Yes, your idea works beautifully as a matter of fact.Silicon | Motor Speedway (or whatever it's called now under the new ownership) uses | exactly this three screen system. From inside the car, everything appearslife | sized and to the correct scale. Come to think of it, Sega's F-355 doesthis | too, although the screens are a bit smaller. Still, I agree, threescreens at

Quoted text (7 lines)

| different angles is the way to go. | Todd Wasson | --- | Performance Simulations | Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction | Software | http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

--- 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

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Forgive me for saying this, but maybe you're just not that good a > >driver? I remember when I first started racing GPL, I was minded to > >believe that my version had less grip and the clock ran faster than > >everybody else's. Of course it wasn't that at all, it was just a > >combination of poor driving technique and a bad input device. > > > >My girlfriend often drives GPL, she crashes and spins her way around the > >Oring in about 2:00-ish but never complains that it's anything but her > >lack of skill that's > >to blame. > > Some people are just better at processing the limited feedback that a computer > sim gives you. That doesn't necessarily meen they're a better *driver*. I > have a lot more control over a real car that I'm sitting in than I do in a > virtual one...

I agree, not necessarily. But it can be the case. Gerry

>Just think Todd if you could race in one of these old theaters with a >100ft+ wide screen curved right past you... Now your really getting >close to reality this way...haha hmmm? Gee I wonder if what wheel >to use? :) > lol. That would be fun to try, although I think that might be just a bit TOO big :-) An Omni theatre would probably be superb for a combat flight simulator though. I saw a classified ad for a 100 inch projection screen TV a couple of years ago that was being sold for a measly $500... Ahhh..... That would have been perfect :-) Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Ok, Ok, we'll setup a theater for both, Flight & Race sims! :) 1/2 day Racing 1/2 day Flight.. All lovers sit in the balcony :)~ "J. Todd Wasson" wrote: | lol. That would be fun to try, although I think that might be just abit TOO | big :-) An Omni theatre would probably be superb for a combat flightsimulator | though. I saw a classified ad for a 100 inch projection screen TV acouple of | years ago that was being sold for a measly $500... Ahhh..... That wouldhave

Quoted text (7 lines)

| been perfect :-) | Todd Wasson | --- | Performance Simulations | Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction | Software | http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

--- 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

Tee hee... I actually wondered the same thing, since I never never saw the thing first-hand. I suppose one could put a pane of flat glass above the "woofer", and use a fully-closed cabinet to keep sound leaking out the back, maybe fill the thing with accoustic tiling or something for good measure. "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:y%qc7.24137$[email hidden]... > Just to clear up one little point that's completely unimportant to the > (really cool) gist of the post: > > If this thing flexes at a rate higher than 40 times a second it'sofficially

Quoted text (22 lines)

> not a subwoofer as the "sub" stands for subsonic which, in most cases, > starts at about 40hz and goes down from there. "Woofer", however, is a > fairly flexible term. :-) > > How do they keep it from making noise? > > -- > > "Racing! - Science for the action minded." > > mark > "Dave Pollatsek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3b70b533$0$319$[email hidden]... > > I think you may be blending two senses of focusing here... > > depth of field is caused by the lens in your eye or camera adjusting for > one > > distance, and objects nearer or farther away being blurry depending on > > aperture (F-stop). So a conventional computer 3d display is like a > pinhole > > camera--effectively zero aperture size and infinite depth of field--all > > objects are in perfect focus (although mipmapping and filtering can give > > some depth-of-field like effects within the surface of a textured

object)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > The other effect of depth is the two images being out of place > horizontally > > (a la beer goggles) due to parallax between the two eyes (stereoscopic). > 3D > > glasses of various sorts can give the stereoscopic depth effect, but not > the > > focusing effect. The 3D glasses I've tried are problematic because the > > binocular depth information from your eyes is in conflict with the focus > > information. However, I think if the screen is "too far away" rather

than > > "too close", the effect is better, such as at an Omnimax with 3Dglasses.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > I believe there is a technique where you have a reflective "subwoofer" > that > > flexes at a pretty high rate, with an image projected onto it from a > device > > capable of insanely high refresh rates (such as vector plotters)... > > basically the woofer acts like a variable convex mirror, so the image

can > be > > layered in depth. This gets you both 3D effects with no glassesinvolved. > > The problem is to render 60 FPS with 100 depth layers requires 6000frames > > per second! I think most demos of this have spinning wire-frame cubesand

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > such, but one could conceive of some exotic new way of doing this with > > full-motion 3D graphics, such as a graphics card that could render > triangles > > to multiple depth planes simulaneously, etc, etc. (Caveat: my knowledge > of > > this device is extremely sketchy) > > > > However, I think games still have quite a ways to go to achieve even 2D > > photorealism... > > > > "J. Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > >> Yes, the blurring is something I hadn't considered. That'd > > definately > > > >smooth > > > >> things out, good point. What do you mean by depth of field? Is

this > > > >something > > > >> to do with the camera's focus and how objects closer or furtherfrom > > the > > > >focal > > > >> point appear slightly blurred? If so, yes, that's another goodpoint > I > > > >hadn't > > > >> considered. > > > > > > > >Yes. 3D games render everything in focus, which is uncommon for > > > >all the other mediums based on photography. What would have beengreat > > > >in a fps for instance is that everything with another distance than > > > >where you point the crosshair is out of focus. A bit more difficult > > > >with racing sims though, since the computer can not know where youare

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > >looking. But it is a bit weird that you can look at the horizon and > > > >tachometer at the same time where both is in perfect focus. > > > > > > > > > > I get it now. Never thought of that. I bet that page flipping with > 3-D > > > shutter glasses on a full size (proper FOV) screen would take care of > that > > > automatically since you're effectively looking into, rather than at,

the

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > scene > > > and focusing the same as you would in real life. On a small screen, > it'd > > *sort > > > of* work, but not quite as well. Agree/disagree? > > > Todd Wasson > > > --- > > > Performance Simulations > > > Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction > > > Software > > > http://PerformanceSimulations.Com > > > > > > >

>Ok, Ok, we'll setup a theater for both, Flight & Race sims! :) >1/2 day Racing 1/2 day Flight.. All lovers sit in the balcony :)~ > > lol. How about a drive-in theatre for the race sims? You could hook up your own car to the 'puter :-) Shouldn't be too expensive! Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Yeeeaaa` Yeeeaaa' Dats Dah` Ticket!! Yeeeaaa` :) "J. Todd Wasson" wrote: | lol. How about a drive-in theatre for the race sims? You could hook upyour

Quoted text (7 lines)

| own car to the 'puter :-) Shouldn't be too expensive! | Todd Wasson | --- | Performance Simulations | Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction | Software | http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Me wrote: | >Ok, Ok, we'll setup a theater for both, Flight & Race sims! :) | >1/2 day Racing 1/2 day Flight.. All lovers sit in the balcony :)~ --- 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

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

Quoted text (17 lines)

>Watkins Glen Lotus 01:05.53 Ferrari 01:05.65 -0.120 >Silverstone Lotus 01:28.27 Ferrari 01:29.18 -0.910 >Monaco Lotus 01:26.95 Ferrari 01:28.36 -1.410 >Zandvoor Ferrari 01:25.95 Ferrari 01:26.75 -0.800 >Monza Lotus 01:28.50 Ferrari 01:29.17 -0.670 >Rouen Lotus 01:57.26 Ferrari 01:58.47 -1.210 >Mexico Lotus 01:48.09 Ferrari 01:48.38 -0.290 >Spa-Franc Lotus 03:18.57 Ferrari 03:20.16 -1.590 >Kyalami Lotus 01:20.86 Ferrari 01:21.24 -0.380 >Mosport Lotus 01:22.25 Ferrari 01:23.33 -1.080 >N�rburgring Lotus 08:32.64 Ferrari 08:20.66 +11.98 >...I'm poor at the Ring though ;). I'm glad I did a little bit of hot >lapping at Zandy in the Ferrari ;), I think I may take the Red beast to >the Ring for a little too ;). >Gerry

Before you get carried away making too many comparisons, I haven't driven an F1 in over a year and a half. When I do get in one now, I always break my PB. Regardless, I doubt I'll ever go under -20.00 and that makes us both 'not so quick' at GPL. Of course I always check into my driving style first, and I'll be the first to say there is a long way to go. But that has nothing to do with whether GPL is one of the better feedback games or not. Think about it.... -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

"Mike Nunan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > But I think it's fair enough to simply choose a different > sim that suits you better. There should be at least one more available > in the next few months with any luck (Chris? Tony??) Nothing is ever simple, is it? If GP3 had the same online ability GPL has, GPL would have been in the trash long ago. Hell, if NFSPU has the same following VROC has, GPL would be in the trash. If PU were the game to play online, the races would be much, much closer. Not because GPL takes a lot of talent to drive, but becuase PU relates to a larger audience. (Chris? Tony??) -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

I never said it was jobs. Matter of fact, it's my favorite driving sim, hands down. The reason I didn't suggest it to Mike is because of the graphics. Out of the box CPR is more than jobs. I was afraid that after all the things Mike would have to go through to get the thing to run right, once he spotted the graphics (which are not bad at all, and have an adjustable FOV, just way out of date.) he'd switch right off. Considering that the MTBR and STCC2 drive models eat GPL alive, and that they are pretty much plug and play, they will do as examples. CPR is the finest driving sim on my hard drives. The feedback is dead on. I'm not a professional race driver, but I get my track time and I drive at the absolute limit daily. I live near the mountains and have business in them. Sometimes there's dirt, sometimes there's asphalt, sometimes there's rain and snow. Most days I just feel like driving quickly. I've driven enough different classes of four wheel vehicles to know when it's a problem in the presentation of a computer game, and when it's simply a different tractive experience. I don't have a problem with GPL's reality. Like every game out there, it has it's own reality. I have a problem with GPL's ability to relate to it's own reality. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Mike Nunan wrote: > > > Thanks for the info regarding MBTR etc (but I'm still interested to > > know what CPR stands for, even if it isn't worth buying.. > > CART Precision Racing by M$, and Mark's right, it's jobs <g>. > > Gerry

Hmmm, that is interesting. I would like to know what you think here: You know the tightest turn at Mosport, the one that looks like a double, but never ends up being one? Out of probably more than 1000 laps there I can honestly say I've apexed the second one correctly, only twice. It does not matter where I look or how fast I am going, I am always late or early. Sometimes I drive back and forth through it. Going up is much easier. Now, in real life, that would be one of the easiest corners to get right ever time. There is so little speed there and crown, where the turn drops off into the following straight, will allow you to line the car up visually, and perfectly every time. Any ideas on why that happens? In GP3 I get the same loss of focus in slow turns that every one else does. Framerate? I noticed that in GP3 I have a tendency to look off the screen when approaching tight corners. That doesn't bug me so much. I just wait for the thing to come back in view. I thought that in GPL I was always looking more foreword. I video taped myself driving both games at Monaco. I kept my gaze at 1 to 2 points ahead at all times. GP3 - I had thought that my eyes followed the road. Instead I found out that I turn my head quite a bit and my eyes stay straight forward in my head. My hands follow my sighting points quite naturally and the driving posture (which is dynamic in this explanation) is good. I noticed that I don't tilt my head unless I want the car to turn more. GPL - First thing I noticed was that my eyes are much higher. Like I'm looking at the top of the monitor. Next, there is a lot more head movement. While I'm looking straight forward while setting up corners, my head is weaving around. I presume, to combat the dynamic cockpit. I'm beginning to understand why I'm so off balance in GPL. Obviously the steering wheel is much more active, but there seems to be an unnatural progression from the eyes to the hands. I haven't been able to figure out what the problem is there, yet. I feel much more comfortable turning my head to look trough a corner than I do looking straight forward. It seems more natural to me. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "J. Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >It just occurred to me that the center of my 17 inch monitor is 35 inches > >from the bridge of my nose. Maybe sim makers should add a little adjustment > >for that in their games. I can't get any closer and as Asbjorn says, he > >doesn't want to get any further. > > > > Mark, I've put up something that illustrates exactly what changing fields of > view in a racing sim does. The last picture is a field of view that matches > your 17 inch monitor and 35 inch viewing distance. That is, this field of view > would make your FOV and the 3-D world/camera match exactly, giving the best > possible sense of speed. > > http://performancesimulations.com/scnshots.htm > > I agree that it's a good idea to allow users to adjust the FOV to their > liking. Before, in the DOS days, it was rather tricky since if you used a 90 > degree (or other convenient) FOV you could take some mathematical shortcuts and > make things run faster, and might have had to do too much extra work to allow > adjustability. Nowadays, it's easy to do (at least with OpenGL it is, I'd > imagine DX isn't too much more difficult to adjust.) > > Todd Wasson > --- > Performance Simulations > Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction > Software > http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Quoted text (14 lines)

>Hmmm, that is interesting. I would like to know what you think here: > >You know the tightest turn at Mosport, the one that looks like a double, but >never ends up being one? Out of probably more than 1000 laps there I can >honestly say I've apexed the second one correctly, only twice. It does not >matter where I look or how fast I am going, I am always late or early. >Sometimes I drive back and forth through it. Going up is much easier. Now, >in real life, that would be one of the easiest corners to get right ever >time. There is so little speed there and crown, where the turn drops off >into the following straight, will allow you to line the car up visually, and >perfectly every time. Any ideas on why that happens? > >In GP3 I get the same loss of focus in slow turns that every one else does. >Framerate?

Not sure which turn you're talking about, but I think this is probably because it's just plain old tough to tell how fast you're going when you're not going fast. Know what I mean? I don't think my troubles come from framerate so much. It's just tough to tell how fast you're going at low speed. You can probably see a difference of 20 mph pretty easily, but if the max speed for the turn is 40 and you're 20 mph too fast, that's a huge blunder. If the max was 180 and you were going 200, you're still much closer to the right speed. Anyway, that's my thinking. >I noticed that in GP3 I have a tendency to look off the screen when >approaching tight corners. That doesn't bug me so much. I just wait for the >thing to come back in view. I thought that in GPL I was always looking more >foreword. I video taped myself driving both games at Monaco. I kept my gaze >at 1 to 2 points ahead at all times. Wow, you are definately hardcore! Kewl :-) I don't try to turn my head, but probably do.

Quoted text (13 lines)

>GPL - First thing I noticed was that my eyes are much higher. Like I'm >looking at the top of the monitor. Next, there is a lot more head movement. >While I'm looking straight forward while setting up corners, my head is >weaving around. I presume, to combat the dynamic cockpit. I'm beginning to >understand why I'm so off balance in GPL. Obviously the steering wheel is >much more active, but there seems to be an unnatural progression from the >eyes to the hands. I haven't been able to figure out what the problem is >there, yet. > >I feel much more comfortable turning my head to look trough a corner than I >do looking straight forward. It seems more natural to me. > >

In a real car (on the street, only done a little rent-a-cart racing) I turn my head when looking at the apex or whatever part, but on the screen, sometimes I find myself staring dead center at the screen because it's just so small in comparison. I don't get the urge to turn my head at all, although I do look at the right spots usually. Sounds like you need a big, big monitor :-) Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Sorry, I have trouble keeping up. What's CPR again? Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

Thats when you have a heart attack, isnt it? :) "J. Todd Wasson" wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

| Sorry, I have trouble keeping up. What's CPR again? | Todd Wasson | --- | Performance Simulations | Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction | Software | http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

--- 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 <enVe7.49824$[email hidden]>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> writes: >In GP3 I get the same loss of focus in slow turns that every one else does. >Framerate? I thought I was the only one this happened to...<g> Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

>Thats when you have a heart attack, isnt it? :) > >"J. Todd Wasson" wrote: >| Sorry, I have trouble keeping up. What's CPR again? lol! I believe so! Somebody's writing heart attack simulations?? Wonder what the frame rate is.. Field of view's gotta be pretty small.... Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

I was at Mosport for the Trans-Am race and sat in Moss Corner. You would be surprised how many people bobble that corner everytime. I only saw a few drivers consistently hit the proper apex out of Moss Corner and onto the straight. The 2 cars hitting the marks consistently also finished 1 and 2. most people would turn to late and go off the road or they would be late getting on the gas to tighen the line. Lots of cars were getting mad loose in the middle between moss corner too and many of them took to the beach. The camber in that corner is really wacky plus it has a blind apex. I'll be at the ALMS race there this weekend and will probably be sitting in Moss corner again. "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:enVe7.49824$[email hidden]... > Hmmm, that is interesting. I would like to know what you think here: > > You know the tightest turn at Mosport, the one that looks like a double,but

Quoted text (7 lines)

> never ends up being one? Out of probably more than 1000 laps there I can > honestly say I've apexed the second one correctly, only twice. It does not > matter where I look or how fast I am going, I am always late or early. > Sometimes I drive back and forth through it. Going up is much easier. Now, > in real life, that would be one of the easiest corners to get right ever > time. There is so little speed there and crown, where the turn drops off > into the following straight, will allow you to line the car up visually,

and > perfectly every time. Any ideas on why that happens? > > In GP3 I get the same loss of focus in slow turns that every one elsedoes. > Framerate? > > I noticed that in GP3 I have a tendency to look off the screen when > approaching tight corners. That doesn't bug me so much. I just wait forthe > thing to come back in view. I thought that in GPL I was always lookingmore > foreword. I video taped myself driving both games at Monaco. I kept mygaze > at 1 to 2 points ahead at all times. > > GP3 - I had thought that my eyes followed the road. Instead I found outthat > I turn my head quite a bit and my eyes stay straight forward in my head.My > hands follow my sighting points quite naturally and the driving posture > (which is dynamic in this explanation) is good. I noticed that I don'ttilt > my head unless I want the car to turn more. > > GPL - First thing I noticed was that my eyes are much higher. Like I'm > looking at the top of the monitor. Next, there is a lot more headmovement.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> While I'm looking straight forward while setting up corners, my head is > weaving around. I presume, to combat the dynamic cockpit. I'm beginning to > understand why I'm so off balance in GPL. Obviously the steering wheel is > much more active, but there seems to be an unnatural progression from the > eyes to the hands. I haven't been able to figure out what the problem is > there, yet. > > I feel much more comfortable turning my head to look trough a corner than

I

Quoted text (23 lines)

> do looking straight forward. It seems more natural to me. > > -- > > "Racing! - Science for the action minded." > > mark > > "J. Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > >It just occurred to me that the center of my 17 inch monitor is 35 > inches > > >from the bridge of my nose. Maybe sim makers should add a little > adjustment > > >for that in their games. I can't get any closer and as Asbjorn says, he > > >doesn't want to get any further. > > > > > > > Mark, I've put up something that illustrates exactly what changing > fields of > > view in a racing sim does. The last picture is a field of view that > matches > > your 17 inch monitor and 35 inch viewing distance. That is, this field

of

Quoted text (8 lines)

> view > > would make your FOV and the 3-D world/camera match exactly, giving the > best > > possible sense of speed. > > > > http://performancesimulations.com/scnshots.htm > > > > I agree that it's a good idea to allow users to adjust the FOV to

their > > liking. Before, in the DOS days, it was rather tricky since if you useda > 90 > > degree (or other convenient) FOV you could take some mathematical > shortcuts and > > make things run faster, and might have had to do too much extra work to > allow > > adjustability. Nowadays, it's easy to do (at least with OpenGL it is,I'd

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > imagine DX isn't too much more difficult to adjust.) > > > > Todd Wasson > > --- > > Performance Simulations > > Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction > > Software > > http://PerformanceSimulations.Com > > >

Remember I had little six year old hands and muscles, but yes. Hard like the plastic on your keyboard. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "J. Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >I have a question I've been thinking about concerning the tires. I was 6 in > >1967. I grew up in a tire family. I remember the tires when I was six. They > >were almost chalky to the touch when they were brand new. But stiff as a > >board. A couple of hot laps later and the tread felt almost exactly like the > >case on my computer monitor here. Certainly more like the monitor than any > >modern tire. What do you remember about the grip? > > > > Do you mean they were really hard? Harder than today's racing tires? > Todd Wasson > --- > Performance Simulations > Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction > Software > http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

"Alan Orton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_N8f7.30932$[email hidden]... > I was at Mosport for the Trans-Am race and sat in Moss Corner. You wouldbe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> surprised how many people bobble that corner everytime. I only saw a few > drivers consistently hit the proper apex out of Moss Corner and onto the > straight. The 2 cars hitting the marks consistently also finished 1 and 2. > most people would turn to late and go off the road or they would be late > getting on the gas to tighen the line. Lots of cars were getting mad loose > in the middle between moss corner too and many of them took to the beach. > The camber in that corner is really wacky plus it has a blind apex. > I'll be at the ALMS race there this weekend and will probably be sitting

in > Moss corner again. Suddenly, I feel much, much, much, much, much... etc. (You get the idea.) better. That pretty much sums up my experience at the same corner. Now I wonder if all the corners that are hard to gauge in GPL are also in RL. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

"J. Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In a real car (on the street, only done a little rent-a-cart racing) Iturn > my head when looking at the apex or whatever part, but on the screen,sometimes > I find myself staring dead center at the screen because it's just so smallin > comparison. I don't get the urge to turn my head at all, although I dolook at > the right spots usually. Well, that's my point really. It seems as if GPL has intended to put the road in the center of the monitor at all times. That may be what I'm referring to when I think the perspective is off in GPL. The road doesn't seem to go anywhere, it simply unfolds in front of me. The result of it doing that is probably that I set up, have the road readjust itself under me, readjust my line... etc. See, I don't just set the wheel and let fly with my momentum, I have to monitor what the interface is doing and adapt throughout the phases of the turn. As if the road is driving me. Considering that GPL seems to force my gaze into the foreground, like before the next point, I think this squishing of the midfield may be more real than imagined. Then we get to the nearfield and it all expands to quickly, leading to mistakes in intended line. More translation errors. So, getting this activity on to a single screen.... We are going to need user initiated head panning and headset monitors. Or wrap arounds. Something... -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

In article <enVe7.49824$[email hidden]>, mark jeangerard <[email hidden]> writes <snip>

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >GPL - First thing I noticed was that my eyes are much higher. Like I'm >looking at the top of the monitor. Next, there is a lot more head movement. >While I'm looking straight forward while setting up corners, my head is >weaving around. I presume, to combat the dynamic cockpit. I'm beginning to >understand why I'm so off balance in GPL. Obviously the steering wheel is >much more active, but there seems to be an unnatural progression from the >eyes to the hands. I haven't been able to figure out what the problem is >there, yet.

When you say the steering wheel is much more active, do you mean the onscreen arms/wheel, because I found that one big distraction and turned it off very early in GPL which then allowed me to focus my eyes more upon the important parts of the screen.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >I feel much more comfortable turning my head to look trough a corner than I >do looking straight forward. It seems more natural to me. > >-- > >"Racing! - Science for the action minded." > >mark

-- 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

mark jeangerard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:qtdf7.57949$[email hidden]... > Well, that's my point really. It seems as if GPL has intended to putthe > road in the center of the monitor at all times. That may be what I'm > referring to when I think the perspective is off in GPL. The roaddoesn't > seem to go anywhere, it simply unfolds in front of me. The result ofit Well, if the road's in the middle of your screen you clearly aren't driving sideways enough! ;-) Jonny

Ymenard, I think that GPL has it's shortcomings in a few substantial aspects of what is a part of racing, and to be frank, those failing to see it may have a problem with their reality checking, just as Mark has trouble adjusting to the "reality" of GPL. What is really disturbing to me is the fact the these shortcomings are in fact just details that could be easily fixed, if only the beta team did their job (what on earth were they doing, I ask myself).... GPL's shortcomings as I see them are: 1) No feedback from the game to the driver on slipangle/grip curves of each wheel. This could have been fixed by using two or tree samples and mixed them togehter with different weights after where the tyre in question is placed on the slipangle/grip curve. This includes using different samples for the front AND rear tires, so that it is possible to hear the traction/slipping of each tyre separated. 2) The periphery vision cannot be used in GPL as in real life. In real life, you place the car on the track with accuracy with your periphery vision. This has to do with the FOV of GPL, and this could be very easily fixed, if the Beta team addressed it. 3) The slipangle/curve is too flat, enabling us to get just as much grip from the "far" side of the slip angle/grip curve as on the "right" side. This is unrealistic, and would cause us all to crash spectacularly and die if we were placed in the real car doing the same thing. With the correct sound feedback system, we would be able to spend most of the time at the peak of the curve, not miles above, or below for that matter. 4) GPL doesn't even have a rudimentary simulation of break pad or break disc wear. If they did, we would never have seen the ugly driving styles of those pushing both pedals at the same time. All these things would make the sim complete, and if the Papy team got to know this, they would have been able to put it in. But the Beta team were possibly too concerned about the honour of taking part of such illustrious company instead of addressing the few and very simple adjustments needed to make GPL a simulator for another 5 years. ---Asgeir---

Eldred, maybe you got it wrong: Maybe they DON'T pick up cues. Maybe that is why they go fast. Maybe they just ignore the kind of things that make you lift, thus going faster.... I mean, in GPL you have no idea if a tyre is gripping or slipping, as they used only one sound sample for both (this is totally outrageous, and how the beta team could avoid seing, or more correctly, hearing this is beyond my comprehension) so what cues are there to go fast??? One example: When I turn my ForceFeedback wheel in a medium speed turn, I feel resistance. Because a rolling tyre wants to go straight forward. When you approach the optimum grip, the resistance decreases. When the resistance decreases, you know that you are "going over the top", and loosing grip. But I realized that if I keep turning the wheel, albeit light and weird, I still get more grip, and not only a little, there were huge amounts of it... Not realistic at all. A normal race car driver would back off when the wheel goes light, but this is in fact counter productive in GPL.... ---Asgeir--- EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Like I've said before - I'm *obviously* not picking up the same cues as the > faster drivers can. They can tell when they're at the limit, and put the car > there at will. I realize I'm over the limit when I'm sliding backwards towards > the fence... > >

Sorry Asgeir, But I got to stand up for the GPL beta team here... it's all good and well to pick GPL apart after 3 years of intensive use, but let's not forget GPL was a bombshell when it first came onto the scene. I remember being completely blown away by the immediacity of the car's response and the feedback this game gave me. I imagine it was a bit of an eye opener for the betatesters as well. GPL presented such a leap that arguing this point, if it ever came up would have seemed decidedly petty back then. Though the excessive sliding was clear more or less from the beginning, I think everyone was way too busy enjoying the good aspects of this sim to really, really care. Don't forget that it is GPL that caused us to become more sofisticated simracers and made us think about all these aspects, not the other way 'round. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "Asgeir Nesoen" wrote... > Ymenard, I think that GPL has it's shortcomings in > a few substantial aspects of what is a part of racing, > <snip>

Asbj�rn, I have a solution to your problem. Put a Fresnell lense between your eyes and the monitor. This way you will get almost 180 degrees, and you won't need to be very near sighted either, because the fresnell lense will make your eyes focus as though the object was far away. Just try it, it works. Amazing. With such a lense, you will suddenly see how easy it is to place your car on the track with your periphery vision, and the image will open up , allowing you to perceive all kinds of things. I didn't smoke any herbs, I am not kidding you. ---Asgeir---

We all carry the dream that we are really fast in a sim, and would be really fast in a real race car as well. Just human nature. And the the intriguing thing of racing sims. Surely. AND, I don't believe that there is nothing to learn from a racing sim in relation to real world driving. I have been in situations on the road where I got out of very difficult situations by reacting just as I did in GPL. "Ordinary" drivers would crash, but I got away. This is very subjective, I know, but I still have a distinct feeling that GPL has taught me many things about driving a car fast. It is only a feeling, though, I have no evidence of this to be the case whatsoever. ---Asgeir--- "Thom j." wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Hello John, > I have the same feelings but many just go on&on about physics > etc.. in all *Computer* sims where there really isnt *any* at all. > Jeez they are all **PC games** Not "real life!"..get a grip guyz > my 1/100 cent worth..flame'on if you need'em... -Thom_j. > > "John Zumsteg" wrote: > <snipped> > but I do believe that there is almost no > | similarity between driving in GPL or other sims and driving in a real > | race car. > > --- > 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 Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:36:59 +0200, Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>One example: When I turn my ForceFeedback wheel in a medium speed turn, I feel >resistance. Because a rolling tyre wants to go straight forward. When you approach >the optimum grip, the resistance decreases. When the resistance decreases, you know >that you are "going over the top", and loosing grip. But I realized that if I keep >turning the wheel, albeit light and weird, I still get more grip, and not only a >little, there were huge amounts of it... Not realistic at all. A normal race car >driver would back off when the wheel goes light, but this is in fact counter >productive in GPL....

May be a problem in their aligning moment calculations. I noticed in my sim that when I tweak some Pacejka curve constants to test, you can get the steering wheel to get light but still have plenty of grip (obtained visually). If the formula of aligning moment doesn't match up with that of lateral force, you indeed have a problem. Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:49:11 +0200, Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>AND, I don't believe that there is nothing to learn from a racing sim in >relation to real world driving. I have been in situations on the road where >I got out of very difficult situations by reacting just as I did in GPL. >"Ordinary" drivers would crash, but I got away. This is very subjective, I >know, but I still have a distinct feeling that GPL has taught me many >things about driving a car fast. It is only a feeling, though, I have no >evidence of this to be the case whatsoever.

Lots of us have this feeling, and I think it indeed to be true. Some reflexes and knowledge about steering and car response is useful in real life when practiced behind a computer. They don't make flight simulators for pilots for nothing... (although there you have to worry less about real force feedback) 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]>, Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>Asbj�rn, I have a solution to your problem. Put a Fresnell lense between your >eyes >and the monitor. This way you will get almost 180 degrees, and you won't need >to be >very near sighted either, because the fresnell lense will make your eyes >focus as >though the object was far away. Just try it, it works. Amazing. > >With such a lense, you will suddenly see how easy it is to place your car on >the >track with your periphery vision, and the image will open up , allowing you >to >perceive all kinds of things. > >I didn't smoke any herbs, I am not kidding you.

Fresnell lens? And where would one obtain such a lens? Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > 2) The periphery vision cannot be used in GPL as in real life. In real life, you > place the car on the track with accuracy with your periphery vision. This has to > do with the FOV of GPL, and this could be very easily fixed, if the Beta team > addressed it. How would you have done it? Gerry

Asgeir Nesoen wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Asbjørn, I have a solution to your problem. Put a Fresnell lense between your eyes > and the monitor. This way you will get almost 180 degrees, and you won't need to be > very near sighted either, because the fresnell lense will make your eyes focus as > though the object was far away. Just try it, it works. Amazing. > > With such a lense, you will suddenly see how easy it is to place your car on the > track with your periphery vision, and the image will open up , allowing you to > perceive all kinds of things. > > I didn't smoke any herbs, I am not kidding you.

I can confirm this as a fact. I use a fresnell in front of my 22" monitor and the effect is as you describe. It always makes me laugh when someone with a plain 17" monitor starts slagging off the FOV in GPL, forgetting all about their own poor and inadequate equipment ... Chuckle... Gerry

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >I can confirm this as a fact. I use a fresnell in front of my 22" >monitor and the effect is as you describe. It always makes me laugh when >someone with a plain 17" monitor starts slagging off the FOV in GPL, >Chuckle... > >Gerry So a fresnel lense magically removes the blinkers the GPL FoV forces on you preventing you from seeing the car alongside you? Sounds like a better bargain than 3 LAN'd PCs and monitors- where do I get one of these miracle devices? cheers John

Quoted text (15 lines)

>>AND, I don't believe that there is nothing to learn from a racing sim in >>relation to real world driving. I have been in situations on the road where >>I got out of very difficult situations by reacting just as I did in GPL. >>"Ordinary" drivers would crash, but I got away. This is very subjective, I >>know, but I still have a distinct feeling that GPL has taught me many >>things about driving a car fast. It is only a feeling, though, I have no >>evidence of this to be the case whatsoever. > >Lots of us have this feeling, and I think it indeed to be true. Some >reflexes and knowledge about steering and car response is useful in >real life when practiced behind a computer. >They don't make flight simulators for pilots for nothing... (although >there you have to worry less about real force feedback) > >

I agree with this too. I learned to drive a stickshift by playing Hard Drivin' (Doug Milliken, author of Race Car Vehicle Dynamics, who frequents this group did work on this) as well as control a car over the edge, sliding, etc.. Just a couple days ago, a friend of mine let me drive us home in his Porsche 944 (a few mods, rather quick compared to anything I've driven). We left the parking lot ramp and waited at a red light for a second. Then, it was a left turn through the intersection, first gear to over 5000 rpm, then BANG! Into second gear hard. Went a little sideways but kept it under control just fine. I don't think the minivan next to us appreciated it, but I credit video games for the ability not to biff entirely in such a situation. Also took an exit ramp rather fast. It was great using the throttle to dial in just the right amount of understeer with at least a couple tires making a lot of noise :-) Todd Wasson --- Performance Simulations Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction Software http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

JM wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > >I can confirm this as a fact. I use a fresnell in front of my 22" > >monitor and the effect is as you describe. It always makes me laugh when > >someone with a plain 17" monitor starts slagging off the FOV in GPL, > >Chuckle... > > > >Gerry > > So a fresnel lense magically removes the blinkers the GPL FoV forces on you > preventing you from seeing the car alongside you?

I press a little button on my wheel for that. The 22" monitor and lens merely IMPROVES the immersion, that's all. When I look at the image on my second PC's 17" monitor, that's when the better quality of the 22" & lens really comes home to me. What size monitor do you have? > Sounds like a better bargain than 3 LAN'd PCs and monitors- Yes, i've tried that setup too, it's nicer. > where do I get one of these miracle devices? Type 'fresnel lens' into a search engine, try http://www.yahoo.com

In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> writes: >I can confirm this as a fact. I use a fresnell in front of my 22" >monitor and the effect is as you describe. It always makes me laugh when >someone with a plain 17" monitor starts slagging off the FOV in GPL, >forgetting all about their own poor and inadequate equipment ... >Chuckle... > Nah, us po' folks with 17" monitors haven't forgotten about our poor equipment. We just can't do anything about it at the moment... :( Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Jan, one of the *first* things I thought about GPL was: Oh, the sound doesn't give me much feedback because it sounds the same no matter what happens to the car..... One of the *first* things. So, one thing is being taken by awe, another is to pinpoint significant weaknesses of a sim. A beta team should not be blown away by the new fancy sim, they should get down to work, and find flaws, weak points. But when that is said, I fully understand their "weakness" for GPL. I was weak myself. In fact, I have been since... :-) Kind of intriguing then, knowing that if the source code was available, we would be able to fix most of this in a month or two here, on this newsgroup. I'd love to rewrite the sound parts. :-) ---Asgeir---

Make it adjustable, to accomodate for the wide range of screens out there, and distance from eye to screen. It is a very easily done transformation, and if we had say 10 different settings, everyone would be happy. And GPL would give us the right perspective no matter if we had a video cannon or a 15 incher. ---Asgeir--- Gerry Aitken wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > > > 2) The periphery vision cannot be used in GPL as in real life. In real life, you > > place the car on the track with accuracy with your periphery vision. This has to > > do with the FOV of GPL, and this could be very easily fixed, if the Beta team > > addressed it. > > How would you have done it? > > Gerry

It may be a FF calculation error, or, as you say, a bad aligning moment euqation, but I also think that the grip/slipangle is too flat. And if that curve is too flat, the feeling of a "light" or "resistive" wheel is lulled, and heavily so. It would be like that in real life. Imagine what the steering wheel of a rally car is like... It is light, light, and light again. Because the slipanglecurve is so flat. No difference between sliding and gripping. I suspect the phenomenon I am describing to be more than just a miscalculated FF, unfortunately. It is also noteworthy to see that every possible equation calculating the different forces, are dependant on the tyre grip/slip.... I guess this is why the West brothers pay so much attention to the grip model of a rolling and sliding tyre... Makes sense. ---Asgeir--- Ruud van Gaal wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:36:59 +0200, Asgeir Nesoen > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >One example: When I turn my ForceFeedback wheel in a medium speed turn, I feel > >resistance. Because a rolling tyre wants to go straight forward. When you approach > >the optimum grip, the resistance decreases. When the resistance decreases, you know > >that you are "going over the top", and loosing grip. But I realized that if I keep > >turning the wheel, albeit light and weird, I still get more grip, and not only a > >little, there were huge amounts of it... Not realistic at all. A normal race car > >driver would back off when the wheel goes light, but this is in fact counter > >productive in GPL.... > > May be a problem in their aligning moment calculations. I noticed in > my sim that when I tweak some Pacejka curve constants to test, you can > get the steering wheel to get light but still have plenty of grip > (obtained visually). If the formula of aligning moment doesn't match > up with that of lateral force, you indeed have a problem. > > Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ > Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >I can confirm this as a fact. I use a fresnell in front of my 22" > >monitor and the effect is as you describe. It always makes me laugh when > >someone with a plain 17" monitor starts slagging off the FOV in GPL, > >forgetting all about their own poor and inadequate equipment ... > >Chuckle... > > > > Nah, us po' folks with 17" monitors haven't forgotten about our poor equipment. > We just can't do anything about it at the moment... :(

...and I've never heard you complain either. But even if GPL had a zoom option, I don't see how chopping off most of the fast moving peripheral graphics would improve matters. It would just destroy the game's feeling of speed. It's already been stated by Mark Jeangerard that it's difficult to to judge speed. Come to think of it, he also said the perspective was wrong, so how could Papy possibly pleased him!? Cheers Gerry

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > JM wrote: > > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > >I can confirm this as a fact. I use a fresnell in front of my 22" > > >monitor and the effect is as you describe. It always makes me laugh

when > > >someone with a plain 17" monitor starts slagging off the FOV in GPL, > > >Chuckle... > > > > > >Gerry > > > > So a fresnel lense magically removes the blinkers the GPL FoV forces onyou

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > preventing you from seeing the car alongside you? > > I press a little button on my wheel for that. The 22" monitor and lens > merely IMPROVES the immersion, that's all. When I look at the image on > my second PC's 17" monitor, that's when the better quality of the 22" & > lens really comes home to me. > > What size monitor do you have? >

15" sucks to be me. I understand what you were getting at, but consider that not every criticism of the FoV is related to the immersion, or feeling of speed or whatever, a wider FoV would allow the peripheral views without resorting to mummery like "view switching" and possibly a lense would compensate for the visually curious effect of that. cheers John

JM wrote: > I understand what you were getting at, but consider that not every criticism > of the FoV is related to the immersion, or feeling of speed or whatever, a > wider FoV would allow the peripheral views without resorting to mummery like > "view switching" and possibly a lense would compensate for the visually > curious effect of that. I don't believe a lens could even begin to compensate for that. a VR head set would do the trick, as long as we had a 'mouse look' feature added to GPL. Gerry

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I don't believe a lens could even begin to compensate for that. a VR > head set would do the trick, as long as we had a 'mouse look' feature > added to GPL. > > Gerry You could do it with some kind of wierd "goldfish bowl" like the old cine-180 attractions exept much much smaller, and stuck in front of your face (and to the sides). or the headset would need wraparound viewscreen, so your peripheral vision can be filled without moving to see, which would also add to the sense of speed. John

In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> writes: >> Nah, us po' folks with 17" monitors haven't forgotten about our poor >equipment. >> We just can't do anything about it at the moment... :( > >...and I've never heard you complain either. Sure I have. I thought at one time that having a smaller monitor kept me from driving as fast as I should. Then I figured I was just whining because I was so slow. It's only recently that others have said that the larger monitor DOES make a difference...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >But even if GPL had a zoom option, I don't see how chopping off most of >the fast moving peripheral graphics would improve matters. It would just >destroy the game's feeling of speed. It's already been stated by Mark >Jeangerard that it's difficult to to judge speed. Come to think of it, >he also said the perspective was wrong, so how could Papy possibly >pleased him!? > >Cheers > >Gerry

Yeah, I think it's difficult to judge speed too. Therein lies part of my problem with tracks like Monaco and Rouen. The hairpin turns are an adventure. For some reason though, I don't have the same problem at La Source. Not sure why... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Microsoft's Cart Precision Racing. I think it's about the same age as GPL. If you were to take it out of the box, install it, run it, and make every adjustment available in the game to customize it to your exact liking you would find it undrivable. Hands down. This game was a big stinky turd from the get go. Why anyone ever tried to make it work right is beyond me. But they did what they could and I read the articles and tried the things and found a really enjoyable sim. Not much was done to help the game as a whole. For instance, no matter what you do, the AI will blow up and drive around in second gear the whole race, so racing the computer is strictly out. But the car is so lively. The tires are loud, and I don't mean audio. They really let you know what's up. The physics are slightly askew from reality but your instincts pay off. So the game presents itself well, and it's self contradictory level is very low. The cars have gravity. Grip is in my awareness at all times. The WUI offers up the closest approximation of Gs I've ever felt. All in all, my favorite sim when it comes to realism in the driving experience. And I'm not waxing nostalgic. I drove it today. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "J. Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Sorry, I have trouble keeping up. What's CPR again? > Todd Wasson > --- > Performance Simulations > Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction > Software > http://PerformanceSimulations.Com

"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UO$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> In article <enVe7.49824$[email hidden]>, mark > jeangerard <[email hidden]> writes >>Obviously the steering wheel is > >much more active, but there seems to be an unnatural progression from the > >eyes to the hands. I haven't been able to figure out what the problem is > >there, yet. > > When you say the steering wheel is much more active, do you mean the > onscreen arms/wheel, because I found that one big distraction and turned > it off very early in GPL which then allowed me to focus my eyes more > upon the important parts of the screen.

Actually, I was referring to the sawing motion only. But there is some latency of some sort. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

So... what would a fresnell do for a poor and inadequate 17? -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > > Asbj�rn, I have a solution to your problem. Put a Fresnell lense between your eyes > and the monitor. This way you will get almost 180 degrees, and you won't need to be > very near sighted either, because the fresnell lense will make your eyes focus as > though the object was far away. Just try it, it works. Amazing. > > With such a lense, you will suddenly see how easy it is to place your car on the > track with your periphery vision, and the image will open up , allowing you to > perceive all kinds of things. > > I didn't smoke any herbs, I am not kidding you. I can confirm this as a fact. I use a fresnell in front of my 22" monitor and the effect is as you describe. It always makes me laugh when someone with a plain 17" monitor starts slagging off the FOV in GPL, forgetting all about their own poor and inadequate equipment ... Chuckle... Gerry

Sound is only 50% percent of the equation for NonFF drivers and 33% for FF drivers. I agree with points one and three but would like to submit also, that the dynamic cockpit is largely to blame for both problems. I would believe that papy was so enthralled with the gimmick that they completely lost sight of whether it was beneficial or not. A simple on/off switch would have sufficed and it's very much possible... just look at a replay. Lazy, sloppy, over confident, insensitive, egotistical.... stupid. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ymenard, I think that GPL has it's shortcomings in a few substantial aspects of > what is a part of racing, and to be frank, those failing to see it may have a > problem with their reality checking, just as Mark has trouble adjusting to the > "reality" of GPL. > > What is really disturbing to me is the fact the these shortcomings are in fact > just details that could be easily fixed, if only the beta team did their job > (what on earth were they doing, I ask myself).... > > GPL's shortcomings as I see them are: > 1) No feedback from the game to the driver on slipangle/grip curves of each > wheel. This could have been fixed by using two or tree samples and mixed them > togehter with different weights after where the tyre in question is placed on > the slipangle/grip curve. This includes using different samples for the front > AND rear tires, so that it is possible to hear the traction/slipping of each > tyre separated. > 2) The periphery vision cannot be used in GPL as in real life. In real life, you > place the car on the track with accuracy with your periphery vision. This has to > do with the FOV of GPL, and this could be very easily fixed, if the Beta team > addressed it. > 3) The slipangle/curve is too flat, enabling us to get just as much grip from > the "far" side of the slip angle/grip curve as on the "right" side. This is > unrealistic, and would cause us all to crash spectacularly and die if we were > placed in the real car doing the same thing. With the correct sound feedback > system, we would be able to spend most of the time at the peak of the curve, not > miles above, or below for that matter. > 4) GPL doesn't even have a rudimentary simulation of break pad or break disc > wear. If they did, we would never have seen the ugly driving styles of those > pushing both pedals at the same time. > > All these things would make the sim complete, and if the Papy team got to know > this, they would have been able to put it in. But the Beta team were possibly > too concerned about the honour of taking part of such illustrious company > instead of addressing the few and very simple adjustments needed to make GPL a > simulator for another 5 years. > > ---Asgeir--- >

mark jeangerard wrote: > > So... what would a fresnell do for a poor and inadequate 17? Make it equivalent of a 21"!

I know that you know that I have been complaining of the exact same problems since day 1 with GPL. The only thing that has changed is the depth with which I understand those problems. Critical inspection is a big part of my craft. I also think it is a big part of a racers craft. Sim or not. Sometimes it's very hard to pinpoint a problem. Once noticed, it can be even harder to find a cause and even harder still to find a cure. At my job, we A/B constantly. A/B is a simple comparison. A is a product that we know to be 'good' and B is our product. We play them both at the same time then monitor A, then B... etc paying careful attention to the differences. That practice in itself will reveal so much. Finding the differences is as much a craft as anything else and learning to be objective, one of the hardest accomplishments. Especially of one's own work. We also A/B on an array of what we hope to represent the spectrum of possible consumer equipment. A practice I'm pretty sure computer software and hardware engineers use. Now, we know, in this industry, that no one person is going to go into a room by themselves and come out a month later with quality product. Subjectivity being the main reason here. My tastes will preclude diversity in my work. A certain grayness will manifest simply from my chemical nature. Personality, ability, talent. My work will usually lay within my known boundaries because inspiration rarely comes from within and there is no one there with different aspects to refute my ideas. But even one other person in the room, with all their nature and achievement to that point, there own angle.... will see things that I can not possibly see. Imagine five different people even. And that is where the discussions start. So if I go to the audio programmer and the physical programmer and I say, "I can't tell if the brakes are on or off." They may have some spare time to explain to me how they've modeled these things. They may not. But it's up to me to insist to the producer that my perception is valid. The producer must then prioritize and ask anyone involved to put it on there list if it's important. Some days you go, "Oh, this 6 should be a 7." and everything falls in place. Other days you rely on faith that the physics guy respects your opinion and will get back to you. Either way, when a group of people are in a room together, and really looking into something, things get done. It's not like a news group. Drawings and eyebrows and jokes and sound effects and wild hand, arm and full body gestures. Abstract word associations. Incomplete sentences. One person completing another's is usually when you can tell when you've been awake long enough to get down to the nitty gritty. Brainstorming is definitely gets the best results with no small amount of sleep deprivation. :-) But face to face, no social ladder or authority or ranking when troubleshooting. I would expect the GPL team worked very much like that. Except for the A/B part. It's very obvious they stayed in house for this thing. N4 drives that point home. Anyway, if I were producing, I'd also be simming so I could beta myself. Even just being me, I knew the brakes and perspective were goofy 8 months before Papy released the game. I just didn't know who to call. 2 parts to go.... -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Sorry Asgeir, > > But I got to stand up for the GPL beta team here... it's all good and well > to pick GPL apart after 3 years of intensive use, but let's not forget GPL > was a bombshell when it first came onto the scene. I remember being > completely blown away by the immediacity of the car's response and the > feedback this game gave me. I imagine it was a bit of an eye opener for the > betatesters as well. GPL presented such a leap that arguing this point, if > it ever came up would have seemed decidedly petty back then. Though the > excessive sliding was clear more or less from the beginning, I think > everyone was way too busy enjoying the good aspects of this sim to really, > really care. > > Don't forget that it is GPL that caused us to become more sofisticated > simracers and made us think about all these aspects, not the other way > 'round. > > Jan. > =--- > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > "Asgeir Nesoen" wrote... > > Ymenard, I think that GPL has it's shortcomings in > > a few substantial aspects of what is a part of racing, > > <snip> > >

Tires Tires Tires What are the tires doing? For me, that's ninety nine percent of driving at the limit. Tires - So whattayou gonna simulate in your sim? -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Jan, one of the *first* things I thought about GPL was: Oh, the sound doesn't > give me much feedback because it sounds the same no matter what happens to the > car..... One of the *first* things. So, one thing is being taken by awe, > another is to pinpoint significant weaknesses of a sim. > > A beta team should not be blown away by the new fancy sim, they should get down > to work, and find flaws, weak points. > > But when that is said, I fully understand their "weakness" for GPL. I was weak > myself. In fact, I have been since... :-) > > Kind of intriguing then, knowing that if the source code was available, we > would be able to fix most of this in a month or two here, on this newsgroup. > I'd love to rewrite the sound parts. :-) > > ---Asgeir--- >

Yes, it was clear, and I never understood how something so major could be overlooked by anyone. David G Fisher "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

>Though the > excessive sliding was clear more or less from the beginning, I think > everyone was way too busy enjoying the good aspects of this sim to really, > really care. > > Don't forget that it is GPL that caused us to become more sofisticated > simracers and made us think about all these aspects, not the other way > 'round. > > Jan. > =--- > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > "Asgeir Nesoen" wrote... > > Ymenard, I think that GPL has it's shortcomings in > > a few substantial aspects of what is a part of racing, > > <snip> > >

I think there's something glaring one could point out in most sims. Perhaps this is something people on the inside like yourself could look into. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "David G Fisher" wrote... > Yes, it was clear, and I never understood how something > so major could be overlooked by anyone. > > David G Fisher

Inside of what? I know-----my own little world, right? Grip levels are a pretty huge part of the car modelling to get wrong. Especially since so much of the feedback you would get in real life is missing. I can't enjoy any sim for very long if the grip modelling seems too far off the mark one way or the other. Remember you said recently that you found you could re-create in F1RC what you saw the driver doing on TV, but not in GP3? I can do the same in F1RC and that, along with the knowledge I'm driving on almost perfect replicas of the tracks tells me a lot about the driving model. Back end breaking loose, wheel action, using the same amount of curb, etc., on the same sections of tracks in F1RC as I see the real life drivers do in TV means a lot when judging the accuracy of the sim. Driver view, or trackside camera view replays look exactly like what I see on TV. That isn't the only way of judging a sim's driving model obviously, but it is important. From the very beginning, replays I saw from experienced, talented GPL drivers did not look like what I saw in real life footage, and from the GPL AI. The racing line seemed irrelevent. People were criss-crossing all over it, and were drifting for way too long. Something seemed way off IMO, and was the main reason why I didn't stick with it longer. David G Fisher "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I think there's something glaring one could point out in most sims.Perhaps

Quoted text (13 lines)

> this is something people on the inside like yourself could look into. > > Jan. > =--- > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > "David G Fisher" wrote... > > Yes, it was clear, and I never understood how something > > so major could be overlooked by anyone. > > > > David G Fisher > >

"David G Fisher" wrote... > Inside of what? I know-----my own little world, right? I thought you would have more decorum than the old "everybody hates me"-routine. I also thought we'd built up more of an understanding since our earlier run-ins than that. Anyhow, I wasn't being sarcastic (otherwise I would have "flagged" the sentence more clearly). I was being serious. You have claimed to have tested (and to still have opportunities to test) software in the beta stage. I'm just the guy who buys software and sits in amazement at some of the stuff in there. So if either of us is in a position to know how some of that makes it "in there" it is you, or am I mistaken? Take GP3 (pre-2000 add-on) for example... when a real F1 driver cuts a chicane there's no hand of god holding him down afterward, nor does the FIA jamm his engine management resulting in loss of power. So what kind of black flag penalty was Geoff simulating there? GPx players have been miffed about this *feature* since the Amiga days.... yet it had been present in every incarnation since (even in the add-on during qualifying... I mean, how hard can disallowing that particular laptime possibly be??) How can any betatester not have noticed *that*?? To take the experience closer to home, there are those in this newsgroup who claim you tested RC2000. If this is the case, how come the word "chicane" made it into the pacenotes? I can understand it would be very hard to vary the "reading speed" according to the lie of the land as it is done in real life, but to throw in this stop-gap without any indication of the severity of the turns or the width of the road (narrows/opens) is nothing short of staggering. If I'd ever done that to Johan I'm sure he would have had me dragged along by the service van on the way home. Obviously one can argue the simmer would practise the stages more than the real life rally driver, but if the driver is going to go from memory as in circuit racing, why bother with pacenotes at all?

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Grip levels are a pretty huge part of the car modelling > to get wrong. Especially since so much of the feedback > you would get in real life is missing. I can't enjoy any > sim for very long if the grip modelling seems too far > off the mark one way or the other. > > Remember you said recently that you found you could re- > create in F1RC what you saw the driver doing on TV, but > not in GP3? I can do the same in F1RC and that, along > with the knowledge I'm driving on almost perfect replicas > of the tracks tells me a lot about the driving model. Back > end breaking loose, wheel action, using the same amount > of curb, etc., on the same sections of tracks in F1RC as > I see the real life drivers do in TV means a lot when > judging the accuracy of the sim. Driver view, or trackside > camera view replays look exactly like what I see on TV. > That isn't the only way of judging a sim's driving model > obviously, but it is important.

True. However, you have also pointed out the AI is terrible at avoiding wrecks. Do you have any indication this was picked up in-house and it was just lack of time which prevented a fix before release?

Quoted text (7 lines)

> From the very beginning, replays I saw from experienced, > talented GPL drivers did not look like what I saw in real > life footage, and from the GPL AI. The racing line seemed > irrelevent. People were criss-crossing all over it, and > were drifting for way too long. Something seemed way off > IMO, and was the main reason why I didn't stick with it > longer.

Also true, yet, and I'm 100% positive on this, at the time there was also a strong sentiment of "this is miles ahead of anything at the moment, let's not nit pick" and "there is always the option not to exploit it". I should know as I was eventually swayed by this argument on the issue. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FbCh7.132002$[email hidden]... > Grip levels are a pretty huge part of the car modelling to getwrong. > Especially since so much of the feedback you would get in real lifeis > missing. I can't enjoy any sim for very long if the grip modellingseems too > far off the mark one way or the other. I knew some of the people who did the physics modelling for Vanishing Point (on the Dreamcast IIRC). Apparently they ended up using approximately double the grip / tyre stiffness (I don't know details), since an 'accurate' model left the car feeling like it was on ice. Jonny

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "David G Fisher" wrote... > > Inside of what? I know-----my own little world, right? > > I thought you would have more decorum than the old "everybody hates > me"-routine. I also thought we'd built up more of an understanding sinceour > earlier run-ins than that. > > Anyhow, I wasn't being sarcastic (otherwise I would have "flagged" the > sentence more clearly). It did seem to be sarcastic in some way. My reply was not serious though. Just thought I'd fill in the blank before someone else did (like my buddy Thom). > I was being serious. You have claimed to have tested > (and to still have opportunities to test) software in the beta stage. I'm > just the guy who buys software and sits in amazement at some of the stuffin > there. So if either of us is in a position to know how some of that makesit > "in there" it is you, or am I mistaken? > Take GP3 (pre-2000 add-on) for example... when a real F1 driver cuts a > chicane there's no hand of god holding him down afterward, nor does theFIA > jamm his engine management resulting in loss of power. So what kind ofblack > flag penalty was Geoff simulating there? GPx players have been miffedabout > this *feature* since the Amiga days.... yet it had been present in every > incarnation since (even in the add-on during qualifying... I mean, howhard > can disallowing that particular laptime possibly be??) How can any > betatester not have noticed *that*?? I think I read where Crammond doesn't take feedback from testers. They are probably only used to find bugs after teh game is completed. He obviously likes it that way, or something in the program makes it difficult to do it the right way (like F1RC). > To take the experience closer to home, there are those in this newsgroupwho

Quoted text (7 lines)

> claim you tested RC2000. If this is the case, how come the word "chicane" > made it into the pacenotes? I can understand it would be very hard to vary > the "reading speed" according to the lie of the land as it is done in real > life, but to throw in this stop-gap without any indication of the severity > of the turns or the width of the road (narrows/opens) is nothing short of > staggering. If I'd ever done that to Johan I'm sure he would have had me > dragged along by the service van on the way home.

They had Derek Ringer and Clare Mole do the pace notes, and about 17 other real life drivers from the various teams, including Martin Rowe (BRC champ). I'm sure they noticed what you did. My only guess to explain this has would be that it probably has something to do with the track editor. I think that the editor automatically added the correct pace note as a particualr section of track (type of turn or straight) is added to a stage. To go through all 500 miles (I think that's right) of track and individually describe each section perfectly would of been a lot of added work. The sim was a pretty massive undertaking as it was.

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Obviously one can argue the simmer would practise the stages more than the > real life rally driver, but if the driver is going to go from memory as in > circuit racing, why bother with pacenotes at all? > > > Grip levels are a pretty huge part of the car modelling > > to get wrong. Especially since so much of the feedback > > you would get in real life is missing. I can't enjoy any > > sim for very long if the grip modelling seems too far > > off the mark one way or the other. > > > > Remember you said recently that you found you could re- > > create in F1RC what you saw the driver doing on TV, but > > not in GP3? I can do the same in F1RC and that, along > > with the knowledge I'm driving on almost perfect replicas > > of the tracks tells me a lot about the driving model. Back > > end breaking loose, wheel action, using the same amount > > of curb, etc., on the same sections of tracks in F1RC as > > I see the real life drivers do in TV means a lot when > > judging the accuracy of the sim. Driver view, or trackside > > camera view replays look exactly like what I see on TV. > > That isn't the only way of judging a sim's driving model > > obviously, but it is important. > > True. However, you have also pointed out the AI is terrible at avoiding > wrecks. Do you have any indication this was picked up in-house and it was > just lack of time which prevented a fix before release?

I have no idea.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > From the very beginning, replays I saw from experienced, > > talented GPL drivers did not look like what I saw in real > > life footage, and from the GPL AI. The racing line seemed > > irrelevent. People were criss-crossing all over it, and > > were drifting for way too long. Something seemed way off > > IMO, and was the main reason why I didn't stick with it > > longer. > > Also true, yet, and I'm 100% positive on this, at the time there was also

a > strong sentiment of "this is miles ahead of anything at the moment, let's > not nit pick" and "there is always the option not to exploit it". I should > know as I was eventually swayed by this argument on the issue. Well, for me it's not nit picking at all. Just the opposite. I wouldn't play F1RC if the grip was as far off as it seems to me it is in GPL. I used to say that GPL would be simply ridiculous to play if it had rain racing. Someone else said it's a shame that there wasn't some way to adjust the grip since it's release, and I agree. > Jan. > =--- > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > >

"David G Fisher" wrote... > <snip> > It did seem to be sarcastic in some way. My reply was not > serious though. Just thought I'd fill in the blank before > someone else did (like my buddy Thom). Ok sorry 'bout that, anyway... > > <snip> > I think I read where Crammond doesn't take feedback from > testers. They are probably only used to find bugs after > the game is completed. He obviously likes it that way, > or something in the program makes it difficult to do it > the right way (like F1RC). That is one way these things happen, of course, ignoring feedback.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > <snip> > They had Derek Ringer and Clare Mole do the pace notes, > and about 17 other real life drivers from the various > teams, including Martin Rowe (BRC champ). I'm sure they > noticed what you did. My only guess to explain this has > would be that it probably has something to do with the > track editor. I think that the editor automatically > added the correct pace note as a particular section of > track (type of turn or straight) is added to a stage. > To go through all 500 miles (I think that's right) of > track and individually describe each section perfectly > would of been a lot of added work. The sim was a pretty > massive undertaking as it was.

Like I said, I can understand that. Trouble is this method is bound to throw up some accuracy/timing errors. Corners which, on the basis of radius would equate to a certain number on the severity scale usually can either be taken faster or should be taken slower according to certain factors (camber / bumps / width). Similarly, in the case of a much slower corner closely following a fast one, a pure "geographical" note might be called too late to slow enough for the 2nd corner. Both types of error are indeed quite common in RC2000 (not a lot of *really* bad ones though), leaving the player having to remember where the notes can be trusted and where not. An activity which is not exactly part of a rally driver's job. Ideally the player should be able to change/amend these base notes, insert warning calls and such. An idea for a sequal perhaps. > > <snip> > I have no idea. Ok, fair enough.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > <snip> > Well, for me it's not nit picking at all. Just the opposite. > I wouldn't play F1RC if the grip was as far off as it seems > to me it is in GPL. I used to say that GPL would be simply > ridiculous to play if it had rain racing. Someone else said > it's a shame that there wasn't some way to adjust the grip > since it's release, and I agree.

Well, two things: 1) 1967 is a long time ago. Footage contradicting GPL is pretty thin on the ground nowadays. In F1RC's case any car attidude inaccuracies would be flaunted in our faces every forthnight as <sarcasm>350 million people cannot help to watch some part the races</sarcasm>. 2) it is possible to change GPL, not in a nice, user friendly way, but it is possible. I know for a fact one person edited in his very own 4 cylinder, 5 speed, 10500rpm F3 engine (based on real life data of a 1972 Ford unit IIRC). I've seen a replay of it in action. This same person claimed it was possible to alter the simulated shape/weight/drag (as opposed to the drawn shape) of the cars. I assume a person armed with that knowledge could find the data for the tyres too if he/she knew what those might look like. However the person in question didn't want to take it further, much less release it due to the negative reaction the GPL Engine manager received. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

A radial tyre will have a much more peakier slipangle/grip curve than a diagonal tyre. Because the radial tyre makes the patch constant, until it collapses very quickly. The slipangle/grip curve will rise fast with increasing angle, and then flatten somewhat at the peak, and then drop very quickly (or in other words, very difficult to recover once overstepped). I think that the peak slip angle for a racing radial tyre is 7 or 8 degrees, probably 12-15 degrees on a road tyre made for longevity. A diagonal tyre, however, has a contact patch that degrades more slowly, decreasing in size with greater angles, and yielding less grip. So, a radial tyre has a much flatter slipangle/grip curve. Especially on the "far" side. Making it easier to recover. But with less grip. But when that is said, the tires in GPL just give too much grip on the far side of the slipangle/grip curve, and this enables us to drive with the rear sticking out 30 degrees lap after lap. They didn't drive that way back in 67. Well, they did, if they made a mistake. We focus on the footage, but we see only the close shave cuts, I think. My main complaint about GPL is that there is no way telling if a tyre is sliding or gripping. This is fundamental in all road racing, and should have been treated more thoroughly by Papy. ---Asgeir--- Gregor Veble wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> In fact, after reading this very informative article, > > http://www.simracingmag.com/articles/various/01q3/tyre_5.shtml > > I am even more convinced that this is so. The sidewalls in a bias ply > tyre (which is what mainly affects the behaviour at low slip angles) are > probably even harder than in a comparable radial tyre, which means that > the cornering stiffnesses of both the radial and the bias ply tyre could > be comparable. > > The radial tyre, on the other hand, since its sidewalls may be soft but > the contact patch is very rigid, will probably have linear > chracteristics in a far longer range of slip angles (should the > deformation of sidewalls remain at least somewhat linear), and would > also let go much more suddenly for the same reason. > > Could anyone with more knowledge shed some more light on the subject > (Doug, are you around :) ) ? > > -Gregor > >

No, no, Gerry, it would make it much bigger than a 21 incher. It would fill your FOV with more than 90 degrees. And this is indefinitely bigger than the mere 10-12 degrees of a 17 inch screen placed a fair distance from your eyes. And most importantly, your eyes would focus on something far away, so it means the eye strain would be less as well. ---Asgeir--- Gerry Aitken wrote: > mark jeangerard wrote: > > > > So... what would a fresnell do for a poor and inadequate 17? > > Make it equivalent of a 21"!

Asgeir Nesoen wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > No, no, Gerry, it would make it much bigger than a 21 incher. It would > fill your FOV with more than 90 degrees. And this is indefinitely bigger > than the mere 10-12 degrees of a 17 inch screen placed a fair distance > from your eyes. And most importantly, your eyes would focus on something > far away, so it means the eye strain would be less as well. >

So how big then? Gerry

If I presume that you'd get a field of vision of about 90 degrees, you'd get a virtual 2 meter wide screen (or a 100 inch (diagonal) screen) screen at a 1 meter distance. Overawing, that's for sure. :-) ---Asgeir--- Gerry Aitken wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > > > > No, no, Gerry, it would make it much bigger than a 21 incher. It would > > fill your FOV with more than 90 degrees. And this is indefinitely bigger > > than the mere 10-12 degrees of a 17 inch screen placed a fair distance > > from your eyes. And most importantly, your eyes would focus on something > > far away, so it means the eye strain would be less as well. > > > > So how big then? > > Gerry

Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > > If I presume that you'd get a field of vision of about 90 degrees, you'd get a > virtual 2 meter wide screen (or a 100 inch (diagonal) screen) screen at a 1 > meter distance. Overawing, that's for sure. :-) Indeed, I've been looking through mine for three years now, and it still overawes me <G>. BTW, 90 degrees is bang on, I just measured it. Gerry