Please don't take this as a troll, but come on...how long has it been?
Long enough that even EB won't take back the software!
Marc.
--
****************************************************************************
Marc Collins
[email hidden]
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
****************************************************************************
Continued wait for F1 Racing Championship patch and AI arguments
Users again asked where Ubisoft's F1RC patch was. Andre Warringa listed the AI, force feedback and multiplayer as needing fixes, and Ubisoft's German site said a patch fixing the aggressive AI was coming. Posters argued over why some saw start-line AI pile-ups and others did not, and a user-made AI update was shared. David G Fisher clashed with Francois Menard and others over Papyrus's past statements on GPL force feedback, and was told to post proof or retract.
Automated summary.
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:47:33 -0400, "Marc Collins"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Please don't take this as a troll, but come on...how long has it been?
>
>Long enough that even EB won't take back the software!
>
>Marc.
Apparently there is nothing wrong with F1RC, it's our driving skills
that are the problem.
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 02:09:37 -0400, #141520 <[email hidden]> wrote:
Yup, only excellent drivers like DGF and Ian get an AI that doesn't
crash at the start. Dang :(
Andre
Quoted text (11 lines)
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:47:33 -0400, "Marc Collins" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Please don't take this as a troll, but come on...how long has it been? >> >>Long enough that even EB won't take back the software! >> >>Marc. > >Apparently there is nothing wrong with F1RC, it's our driving skills >that are the problem.What do you mean? There are frequent crashes at the start of F1 races.
Todd
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (19 lines)
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 02:09:37 -0400, #141520 <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:47:33 -0400, "Marc Collins" > ><[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >>Please don't take this as a troll, but come on...how long has it been? > >> > >>Long enough that even EB won't take back the software! > >> > >>Marc. > > > >Apparently there is nothing wrong with F1RC, it's our driving skills > >that are the problem. > > Yup, only excellent drivers like DGF and Ian get an AI that doesn't > crash at the start. Dang :( > > Andre >On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:20:36 GMT, "Todd Sorensen" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>What do you mean? There are frequent crashes at the start of F1 races.
Last time I saw a start-crash like that was at Spa a couple of years
ago. In F1RC it happens most of the time.
Apparently F1RC came in different versions, allthough I'm supposed to
have the 'good' version: No way anybody would accept the AI as it
behaves on my system.
Andre
Quoted text (26 lines)
> >Todd > >"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 02:09:37 -0400, #141520 <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:47:33 -0400, "Marc Collins" >> ><[email hidden]> wrote: >> > >> >>Please don't take this as a troll, but come on...how long has it been? >> >> >> >>Long enough that even EB won't take back the software! >> >> >> >>Marc. >> > >> >Apparently there is nothing wrong with F1RC, it's our driving skills >> >that are the problem. >> >> Yup, only excellent drivers like DGF and Ian get an AI that doesn't >> crash at the start. Dang :( >> >> Andre >> > >I don't play F1RC that much because it messes up my GPL driving, but I just
went back to it to see if the AI is as bad as everyone says. I did a 6 lap
race at Imola and they weren't bad at all if you want to have a look at the
replay you can get it here:
http://www.btinternet.com/~alex_cameron/ai_not_bad.rar
I'm not saying the game doesn't need patching there are lots of little bugs
and on some tracks the AI are far to slow in some corners and far to fast in
others but most games have that problem, but imo the AI isn't as bad as some
people have made out and F1RC hasn't been given the praise it deserves for
the things it has got right.
Alex
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (13 lines)
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:20:36 GMT, "Todd Sorensen" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >What do you mean? There are frequent crashes at the start of F1 races. > > Last time I saw a start-crash like that was at Spa a couple of years > ago. In F1RC it happens most of the time. > Apparently F1RC came in different versions, allthough I'm supposed to > have the 'good' version: No way anybody would accept the AI as it > behaves on my system. > > Andre >On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:25:22 GMT, "Alex Cameron" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
I have to argue a bit with you here: I praised F1RC for all the great
things it offers and I still think it's the best current F1 sim to
date. But 3 things seriously need to be patched to make it the perfect
sim it could have been:
- working AI (this discussion seems to become pointless, the AI simply
is terrible on my system. WAY to many crashes at the start (involving
half the field), they are MUCH faster in the corner and WAY slower on
the straights than me. Perhaps it gets better after lots of races
against the AI (ubi said it's a self-learning AI) but after a couple
of frustrating races I gave up, waiting for the patch.
Idea: does someone know where the AI files are stored? Is it possible
that you mail me your AI files so I could test your AI to see if it's
better than mine.
- working force feedback
I'm used to GPL's feedback. I expect at least that kind of feedback,
or even better, in newer games. The ff in F1RC is way off.
- Multiplayer
I'm used to races with 20 drivers on the field.
Now it's back to 4 (some people say races with 6 people are possible,
but when more than 4 people join a race it's warp-fiesta.
We all want the perfect AI sim and I simply don't accept a sim with
the above lackings. Especially when Ubi promised a patch.. and we're
still waiting for it. Ubisoft Holland announces F1RC2 to be released
in November (according to High Gear) and Ubi gives as an excuse for
the delay of the patch that it has to be approved by the FIA first.
This is not a rant against Ubi, they made a fantastic game which
deserves a patch to become the game it should have been.
I don't expect Papy-like service, releasing P4 and GFcard patches 3
years after the release of GPL (yes folks, yesterday Papy released an
improved D3D patch for GPL in case you missed it), but the way Ubisoft
handles this is disappointing.
In My Humble Opinion :)
Andre
Quoted text (13 lines)
>I don't play F1RC that much because it messes up my GPL driving, but I just >went back to it to see if the AI is as bad as everyone says. I did a 6 lap >race at Imola and they weren't bad at all if you want to have a look at the >replay you can get it here: >http://www.btinternet.com/~alex_cameron/ai_not_bad.rar > >I'm not saying the game doesn't need patching there are lots of little bugs >and on some tracks the AI are far to slow in some corners and far to fast in >others but most games have that problem, but imo the AI isn't as bad as some >people have made out and F1RC hasn't been given the praise it deserves for >the things it has got right. > >AlexThe german ubi site says that the patch is going to be released soon, but
they don't want to release it before it adresses most , if not all, of the
problems people have reported. They appreciate everyones patience etc etc.
Anyhow, apparently its not too far away. They're fixing the ai to make them
less agressive and fixing the wheel problems, among other things. I read
about it at the bhm forums. Dont know how new/old this info is, but anyway,
thats what they said.
We can only hope.
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:25:22 GMT, "Alex Cameron" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't play F1RC that much because it messes up my GPL driving, but Ijust
> >went back to it to see if the AI is as bad as everyone says. I did a 6lap
> >race at Imola and they weren't bad at all if you want to have a look atthe
> >replay you can get it here:
> >http://www.btinternet.com/~alex_cameron/ai_not_bad.rar
> >
> >I'm not saying the game doesn't need patching there are lots of littlebugs
> >and on some tracks the AI are far to slow in some corners and far to fastin
> >others but most games have that problem, but imo the AI isn't as bad assome
> >people have made out and F1RC hasn't been given the praise it deservesfor
Quoted text (44 lines)
> >the things it has got right. > > > >Alex > > I have to argue a bit with you here: I praised F1RC for all the great > things it offers and I still think it's the best current F1 sim to > date. But 3 things seriously need to be patched to make it the perfect > sim it could have been: > > - working AI (this discussion seems to become pointless, the AI simply > is terrible on my system. WAY to many crashes at the start (involving > half the field), they are MUCH faster in the corner and WAY slower on > the straights than me. Perhaps it gets better after lots of races > against the AI (ubi said it's a self-learning AI) but after a couple > of frustrating races I gave up, waiting for the patch. > Idea: does someone know where the AI files are stored? Is it possible > that you mail me your AI files so I could test your AI to see if it's > better than mine. > > - working force feedback > I'm used to GPL's feedback. I expect at least that kind of feedback, > or even better, in newer games. The ff in F1RC is way off. > > - Multiplayer > I'm used to races with 20 drivers on the field. > Now it's back to 4 (some people say races with 6 people are possible, > but when more than 4 people join a race it's warp-fiesta. > > We all want the perfect AI sim and I simply don't accept a sim with > the above lackings. Especially when Ubi promised a patch.. and we're > still waiting for it. Ubisoft Holland announces F1RC2 to be released > in November (according to High Gear) and Ubi gives as an excuse for > the delay of the patch that it has to be approved by the FIA first. > > This is not a rant against Ubi, they made a fantastic game which > deserves a patch to become the game it should have been. > I don't expect Papy-like service, releasing P4 and GFcard patches 3 > years after the release of GPL (yes folks, yesterday Papy released an > improved D3D patch for GPL in case you missed it), but the way Ubisoft > handles this is disappointing. > > In My Humble Opinion :) > > Andre
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:25:22 GMT, "Alex Cameron" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't play F1RC that much because it messes up my GPL driving, but Ijust
> >went back to it to see if the AI is as bad as everyone says. I did a 6lap
> >race at Imola and they weren't bad at all if you want to have a look atthe
> >replay you can get it here:
> >http://www.btinternet.com/~alex_cameron/ai_not_bad.rar
> >
> >I'm not saying the game doesn't need patching there are lots of littlebugs
> >and on some tracks the AI are far to slow in some corners and far to fastin
> >others but most games have that problem, but imo the AI isn't as bad assome
> >people have made out and F1RC hasn't been given the praise it deservesfor
Yep I agree with you I think there will be a patch and it is taking so long
because they have allot to fix <g>. But imho the AI isn't as disastrously
bad as in your experience I don't know what is causing you problem maybe I
am running tracks where the AI is better and you are running at the problem
tracks? I don't think the AI learn like DGF insists though because F1RC
doesn't store the amount of info needed to do that anywhere.
Apart from the crappy multiplayer and below average AI and dull FF it's
allot better then the other F1 games imho :)
Alex
Quoted text (44 lines)
> >the things it has got right. > > > >Alex > > I have to argue a bit with you here: I praised F1RC for all the great > things it offers and I still think it's the best current F1 sim to > date. But 3 things seriously need to be patched to make it the perfect > sim it could have been: > > - working AI (this discussion seems to become pointless, the AI simply > is terrible on my system. WAY to many crashes at the start (involving > half the field), they are MUCH faster in the corner and WAY slower on > the straights than me. Perhaps it gets better after lots of races > against the AI (ubi said it's a self-learning AI) but after a couple > of frustrating races I gave up, waiting for the patch. > Idea: does someone know where the AI files are stored? Is it possible > that you mail me your AI files so I could test your AI to see if it's > better than mine. > > - working force feedback > I'm used to GPL's feedback. I expect at least that kind of feedback, > or even better, in newer games. The ff in F1RC is way off. > > - Multiplayer > I'm used to races with 20 drivers on the field. > Now it's back to 4 (some people say races with 6 people are possible, > but when more than 4 people join a race it's warp-fiesta. > > We all want the perfect AI sim and I simply don't accept a sim with > the above lackings. Especially when Ubi promised a patch.. and we're > still waiting for it. Ubisoft Holland announces F1RC2 to be released > in November (according to High Gear) and Ubi gives as an excuse for > the delay of the patch that it has to be approved by the FIA first. > > This is not a rant against Ubi, they made a fantastic game which > deserves a patch to become the game it should have been. > I don't expect Papy-like service, releasing P4 and GFcard patches 3 > years after the release of GPL (yes folks, yesterday Papy released an > improved D3D patch for GPL in case you missed it), but the way Ubisoft > handles this is disappointing. > > In My Humble Opinion :) > > AndreR.a.s. has pronounced that there will be no patch for F1RC. R.a.s. is never
wrong.
David G Fisher
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:jeBV6.7929$[email hidden]...
****************************************************************************
> Marc Collins
> [email hidden]
>
> Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> to take effect. Reboot now?
>****************************************************************************
>
>
>
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Please don't take this as a troll, but come on...how long has it been? > > Long enough that even EB won't take back the software! > > Marc. > > -- >I think DGF was right about the learning AI. I had raced F1RC for a while,
the AI seemd better, but I was willing to accept that I was just driving to
avoid their mistakes. Well, I just reformatted my HD and did a clean install
of F1RC, the result is crappy AI again :(
--
Ian P
<email invalid due to spammers>
"Alex Cameron" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:fGOV6.10502$[email hidden]...
>
> Yep I agree with you I think there will be a patch and it is taking so
long
> because they have allot to fix <g>. But imho the AI isn't as disastrously
> bad as in your experience I don't know what is causing you problem maybe I
> am running tracks where the AI is better and you are running at the
problem
> tracks? I don't think the AI learn like DGF insists though because F1RC
> doesn't store the amount of info needed to do that anywhere.
>
> Apart from the crappy multiplayer and below average AI and dull FF it's
> allot better then the other F1 games imho :)
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
Everyone with crappy F1RC-AI, try this AI Update:
http://www.f1-star.de/f1rc/f1rctools/KI_Perf_Phys_v_1_3.rar
It' s a trial worth, i think, but I don't know, if it works.
Marc Collins <[email hidden]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
jeBV6.7929$[email hidden]...
****************************************************************************
> Marc Collins
> [email hidden]
>
> Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> to take effect. Reboot now?
>****************************************************************************
>
>
>
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Please don't take this as a troll, but come on...how long has it been? > > Long enough that even EB won't take back the software! > > Marc. > > -- >Keep quiet you anti-Papy pig!!!
Don Burnette
:)
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:LTQV6.13161$[email hidden]...
> R.a.s. has pronounced that there will be no patch for F1RC. R.a.s. isnever
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
>
Quoted text (15 lines)
> wrong. > > David G Fisher > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:jeBV6.7929$[email hidden]... > > Please don't take this as a troll, but come on...how long has it been? > > > > Long enough that even EB won't take back the software! > > > > Marc. > > > > -- > > >Quoted text (7 lines)
> > Marc Collins > > [email hidden] > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > > to take effect. Reboot now? > > >Keep quiet you anti-Papy pig!!!
Don Burnette
:)
> R.a.s. has pronounced that there will be no patch for F1RC. R.a.s. is never
****************************************************************************
> > Marc Collins
> > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> > to take effect. Reboot now?
****************************************************************************
Quoted text (14 lines)
> wrong. > David G Fisher > > Please don't take this as a troll, but come on...how long has it been? > > Long enough that even EB won't take back the software! > > Marc. > > --"Never believe anything you read" Words by Fred Flinstone
"Incubus" wrote:
| The german ubi site says that the patch is going to be released soon, but
| they don't want to release it before it adresses most , if not all, of the
| problems people have reported. They appreciate everyones patience etc etc.
| Anyhow, apparently its not too far away. They're fixing the ai to makethem
| less agressive and fixing the wheel problems, among other things. I read
| about it at the bhm forums. Dont know how new/old this info is, butanyway,
| thats what they said.
|
| We can only hope.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
Don, He prays to the Ubi-Stock Gods every morn, noon & eve!!! :-)
"Don Burnette" wrote:
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
Quoted text (11 lines)
| Keep quiet you anti-Papy pig!!! | Don Burnette | :) | "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message | news:LTQV6.13161$[email hidden]... | > R.a.s. has pronounced that there will be no patch for F1RC. R.a.s. is | never | > wrong. | > | > David G FisherThe problem with this theory is that F1RC just doesn't store enough info
anywhere to do it. If you do a race it modifies only 2 files one is the
replay store tape.tap and that is overwritten constantly. And the other is
in files called Presults.pds located in \save\gm_1999\pseudos\#\ these are
the only files that could contain the data that improve the AI because they
are the only files that are modified in/after a race. But they are only 255
bytes in size and I can't see how they could contain the amount of data
needed, they most likely store race results.
So imo there is 'no way' that the AI could be learning.
Alex
"Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:9g8mtv$sjh$[email hidden]...
> I think DGF was right about the learning AI. I had raced F1RC for a while,
> the AI seemd better, but I was willing to accept that I was just drivingto
> avoid their mistakes. Well, I just reformatted my HD and did a cleaninstall
disastrously
> > bad as in your experience I don't know what is causing you problem maybeI
Quoted text (14 lines)
> of F1RC, the result is crappy AI again :( > > -- > > Ian P > <email invalid due to spammers> > > > "Alex Cameron" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:fGOV6.10502$[email hidden]... > > > > Yep I agree with you I think there will be a patch and it is taking so > long > > because they have allot to fix <g>. But imho the AI isn't asQuoted text (15 lines)
> > am running tracks where the AI is better and you are running at the > problem > > tracks? I don't think the AI learn like DGF insists though because F1RC > > doesn't store the amount of info needed to do that anywhere. > > > > Apart from the crappy multiplayer and below average AI and dull FF it's > > allot better then the other F1 games imho :) > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > >
> - working AI (this discussion seems to become pointless, the AI simply
> is terrible on my system. WAY to many crashes at the start (involving
> half the field), they are MUCH faster in the corner and WAY slower on
> the straights than me.
will this ever go away? as i've said many times, it is very difficult to
understand how this situation is occurring. why do some not have the
(apparent) problem of crashes at the start and others do. clearly neither
of those groups are lying, so there must be a reason. if F1RC crashed half
the field at every T1 of every race, I would be very pissed off and would
likely be posting in the same vein as some of you have. however, it doesn't
happen with me, and i could also send a replay to anyone who wants it to
prove it! i also don't have the faster/slower problem. some people say the
opposite to Andre, so i guess that is just a setup thing.
> - working force feedback
> I'm used to GPL's feedback. I expect at least that kind of feedback,
> or even better, in newer games. The ff in F1RC is way off.
>the ff does work OK, it's just that it's not as good as gpl. however, it is
better than any other f1 sim - including gp3.
Iain
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:56:28 GMT, "Alex Cameron" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Yep I agree with you I think there will be a patch and it is taking so long
>because they have allot to fix <g>. But imho the AI isn't as disastrously
>bad as in your experience I don't know what is causing you problem maybe I
>am running tracks where the AI is better and you are running at the problem
>tracks? I don't think the AI learn like DGF insists though because F1RC
>doesn't store the amount of info needed to do that anywhere.
Hey Alex,
Are you absolutely sure about this?? Do you know where F1RC stores the
AI files? I'd still like to experiment with other people's AI files,
to see if there are different versions..
>Apart from the crappy multiplayer and below average AI and dull FF it's
>allot better then the other F1 games imho :)
But isn't is SO sad that a 3 year old sim still does these things WAY
better?
Andre
>Alex
>
>
>
>
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:26:03 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>R.a.s. has pronounced that there will be no patch for F1RC. R.a.s. is never
>wrong.
>
>David G Fisher
Good answer David, very helpfull, thank you.
You must be a great betatester.
Andre
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:46:26 +0200, "Thomas Gatschnegg"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Everyone with crappy F1RC-AI, try this AI Update:
>http://www.f1-star.de/f1rc/f1rctools/KI_Perf_Phys_v_1_3.rar
>
>It' s a trial worth, i think, but I don't know, if it works.
I will, thanks! This update is user-made I assume?
Andre
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:40:07 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Ian, yes, I've talked about this AI problem before, but in the
discussion with Alex I had to say this again.
Bottom line is that obviously there are different AI versions around
(there WERE two different versions of the AI released, maybe more??)
and in my post I suggested to find out where the AI files are stored
and experiment with it.
As long as this matter is not solved it -won't- go away :)
>the ff does work OK, it's just that it's not as good as gpl. however, it is
>better than any other f1 sim - including gp3.
I heavily disagree with you, In My Humble Opinion the ff in GP3 is way
better. But as you say so yourself, the ff in 3-year old GPL is way
better and that is sad.
When I'm driving behind an AI car the ff goes wild, maybe they try to
simulate dirty air, but if that is the case it's very poorly done.
In My: yes, Humble Opinion.
Andre
>Iain
>
>
>
>
Quoted text (9 lines)
>will this ever go away? as i've said many times, it is very difficult to >understand how this situation is occurring. why do some not have the >(apparent) problem of crashes at the start and others do. clearly neither >of those groups are lying, so there must be a reason. if F1RC crashed half >the field at every T1 of every race, I would be very pissed off and would >likely be posting in the same vein as some of you have. however, it doesn't >happen with me, and i could also send a replay to anyone who wants it to >prove it! i also don't have the faster/slower problem. some people say the >opposite to Andre, so i guess that is just a setup thing.I don't understand. So many of you are saying that Ubi is lying, and there
will be no patch. I'm convinced. If there is a patch after all, then those
people and now myself, will certainly and unfortunately look like total
a**holes.
David G Fisher (Who secretly feels that Ubi is now reworking the patch and
taking advantage of the DX 8 API)
David G Fisher
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:26:03 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
> >R.a.s. has pronounced that there will be no patch for F1RC. R.a.s. isnever
Quoted text (8 lines)
> >wrong. > > > >David G Fisher > > Good answer David, very helpfull, thank you. > You must be a great betatester. > > Andre
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> >the ff does work OK, it's just that it's not as good as gpl. however, itis
> >better than any other f1 sim - including gp3.
>
> I heavily disagree with you, In My Humble Opinion the ff in GP3 is way
> better. But as you say so yourself, the ff in 3-year old GPL is way
> better and that is sad.
It's also sad that GPL doesn't have the best graphics ever in a sim ("way
better" in detail, complexity and optimization), pitting, tire wear, ghost
mode, perfect track accuracy, telemetry (although either did the old boys),
dynamic weather..............
I don't think GPL even had ff at all three months after it's release.
David G Fisher
I'm an anti-Papy pig who has said a hundred times that GPL is an excellent
sim, and that if someone likes NASCAR, then N4 is probably as much as they
could hope for.
Some of their fans need a laxative though :-)
David G Fisher
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:TDSV6.143481$[email hidden]...
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Quoted text (26 lines)
> Keep quiet you anti-Papy pig!!! > > Don Burnette > > :) > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:LTQV6.13161$[email hidden]... > > R.a.s. has pronounced that there will be no patch for F1RC. R.a.s. is > never > > wrong. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:jeBV6.7929$[email hidden]... > > > Please don't take this as a troll, but come on...how long has it been? > > > > > > Long enough that even EB won't take back the software! > > > > > > Marc. > > > > > > -- > > > > > >Quoted text (8 lines)
> > > Marc Collins > > > [email hidden] > > > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > > > to take effect. Reboot now? > > > > > >Andre and Thomas, don't say I didn't warn you that messing with the physics
is likely a major reason why some people have AI problems and others don't.
David G Fisher
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:46:26 +0200, "Thomas Gatschnegg" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Everyone with crappy F1RC-AI, try this AI Update: > >http://www.f1-star.de/f1rc/f1rctools/KI_Perf_Phys_v_1_3.rar > > > >It' s a trial worth, i think, but I don't know, if it works. > > I will, thanks! This update is user-made I assume? > > AndreOn Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:06:29 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Andre and Thomas, don't say I didn't warn you that messing with the physics
>is likely a major reason why some people have AI problems and others don't.
>
>David G Fisher
I understand, but I -haven't- messed with the physics so far and have
a crappy AI on my installation. Trying a user-made patch will lead to
a reinstall of F1RC in the worst case..
Andre
Quoted text (15 lines)
> >"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:46:26 +0200, "Thomas Gatschnegg" >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >Everyone with crappy F1RC-AI, try this AI Update: >> >http://www.f1-star.de/f1rc/f1rctools/KI_Perf_Phys_v_1_3.rar >> > >> >It' s a trial worth, i think, but I don't know, if it works. >> >> I will, thanks! This update is user-made I assume? >> >> Andre >On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:38:46 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>I don't understand. So many of you are saying that Ubi is lying, and there
>will be no patch. I'm convinced. If there is a patch after all, then those
>people and now myself, will certainly and unfortunately look like total
>a**holes.
What a nonsense David. I at least have never said this and I can't
remember any else saying things like this.
What I did say was that the patch is taking very long to arrive.
I have no problem with waiting for a patch if it's worth it, but now
with Ubisoft Holland stating F1RC2 is due to be released in November,
I do start worrying if we'll ever see a patch for F1RC.
To be honest it would be.. unwise if Ubi patches F1RC and releases
F1RC2 a couple of months after that.
And it's hard to believe the FIA approval story.. The FIA has to
approve improvements for an F1 sim? No logic in that.
Anyway, back to the point. Do you know where the AI files are hidden
so we can test these? Any comments on Alex' findings that apparantly
the AI files aren't altered after a race?
Andre
Quoted text (21 lines)
>David G Fisher (Who secretly feels that Ubi is now reworking the patch and >taking advantage of the DX 8 API) > >David G Fisher > >"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:26:03 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> >> wrote: >> >> >R.a.s. has pronounced that there will be no patch for F1RC. R.a.s. is >never >> >wrong. >> > >> >David G Fisher >> >> Good answer David, very helpfull, thank you. >> You must be a great betatester. >> >> Andre >On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:40:07 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
But, you said the AI in F12K was fine too and it was our driving
skills that was the problem so your opinion means jack-shit to me.
Quoted text (10 lines)
>will this ever go away? as i've said many times, it is very difficult to >understand how this situation is occurring. why do some not have the >(apparent) problem of crashes at the start and others do. clearly neither >of those groups are lying, so there must be a reason. if F1RC crashed half >the field at every T1 of every race, I would be very pissed off and would >likely be posting in the same vein as some of you have. however, it doesn't >happen with me, and i could also send a replay to anyone who wants it to >prove it! i also don't have the faster/slower problem. some people say the >opposite to Andre, so i guess that is just a setup thing. >On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:46:06 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Is it really that hard to understand? It's three years later, ofcourse
these things are much better in F1RC! Nobody will disagree on that.
But back to the point: Why does a 3-year old game have much better ff
and multiplayer?? The ff -addon- (not patch) being released a couple
of months after GPL's release is totally irrelevant.
Andre
Quoted text (20 lines)
> >"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... > >> >the ff does work OK, it's just that it's not as good as gpl. however, it >is >> >better than any other f1 sim - including gp3. >> >> I heavily disagree with you, In My Humble Opinion the ff in GP3 is way >> better. But as you say so yourself, the ff in 3-year old GPL is way >> better and that is sad. > >It's also sad that GPL doesn't have the best graphics ever in a sim ("way >better" in detail, complexity and optimization), pitting, tire wear, ghost >mode, perfect track accuracy, telemetry (although either did the old boys), >dynamic weather.............. > >I don't think GPL even had ff at all three months after it's release. > >David G FisherAbsolutely depressing Andre. It's *such* a burden to continu playing GPL
because nothing surpasses it on all levels.
Jan. ;-)
=---
Andre Warringa wrote...
Quoted text (13 lines)
> <snip> > But isn't is SO sad that a 3 year old sim still does > these things WAY better? > > Andre > > > >Alex > > > > > > > > >On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:00:22 GMT, "Jan Verschueren"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Absolutely depressing Andre. It's *such* a burden to continu playing GPL
>because nothing surpasses it on all levels.
Ok.. point taken :)
Andre / Still hoping for a current F1 sim equalling GPL's level
Quoted text (19 lines)
> >Jan. ;-) >=--- >Andre Warringa wrote... >> <snip> >> But isn't is SO sad that a 3 year old sim still does >> these things WAY better? >> >> Andre >> >> >> >Alex >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >There isn't much that surpasses it on ANY level. Physics / Multiplayer /
Graphics / Fun / Community, thats why its so hard to beat!
Ash
"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:WW%V6.33478$[email hidden]...
| Absolutely depressing Andre. It's *such* a burden to continu playing GPL
| because nothing surpasses it on all levels.
|
| Jan. ;-)
| =---
Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[email hidden]...
Yes, it is user made, i noticed it on the german official Forum. On this
Forum was (and is?) some discussion of this patch. I have tried the patch
only at Melbourne, but i had not the time to make some intensive testing.
It simply comes with a new MechaCar.mfd. The author played 15 days with the
F1RCMaster (in advanced Modus).
But what i dont understand:
1. If it is really so simple to improve the AI -> why didnt Ubisoft give us
a patch for the AI????
2. If there are two versions released, why didnt Ubisoft gives us a patch
for the user with the crappy AI-Version??? If they released a version with
good AI, then they have the solution for the version with the crappy AI.
Its very mystique for me.
Thomas
Quoted text (11 lines)
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:46:26 +0200, "Thomas Gatschnegg" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Everyone with crappy F1RC-AI, try this AI Update: > >http://www.f1-star.de/f1rc/f1rctools/KI_Perf_Phys_v_1_3.rar > > > >It' s a trial worth, i think, but I don't know, if it works. > > I will, thanks! This update is user-made I assume? > > AndreOn Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:38:59 +0200, "Thomas Gatschnegg"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Memory is lacking again, but I remember two versions were released.
Even the version numbers were confusing, they were the same, but the
file sizes were different if I recall correctly.
Anyway, very soon the correct exe file was posted in the high gear
forums. It -did- improve the AI, but it was still way too bad.
But first we had the hassle with two different versions of F1RC, and
still there seems to be a bigtime difference between the quality of
the AI.. Perhaps they were even more different versions released?
Andre
>Its very mystique for me.
>
>Thomas
>
>
Quoted text (11 lines)
>Yes, it is user made, i noticed it on the german official Forum. On this >Forum was (and is?) some discussion of this patch. I have tried the patch >only at Melbourne, but i had not the time to make some intensive testing. >It simply comes with a new MechaCar.mfd. The author played 15 days with the >F1RCMaster (in advanced Modus). >But what i dont understand: >1. If it is really so simple to improve the AI -> why didnt Ubisoft give us >a patch for the AI???? >2. If there are two versions released, why didnt Ubisoft gives us a patch >for the user with the crappy AI-Version??? If they released a version with >good AI, then they have the solution for the version with the crappy AI.>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
> It's also sad that GPL doesn't have the best graphics ever in a sim ("way
> better" in detail, complexity and optimization), pitting, tire wear, ghost
> mode, perfect track accuracy, telemetry (although either did the oldboys),
> dynamic weather..............
GPL release year : 1998.
F1RC release year : 2001.
Btw, F1RC doesn't have perfect track accuracy.
--
-- 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...
oh here we go again. i don't really know why i bother with you, but i find
it compulsive!
To repeat yet again, what i (and many others in other forums as well as ras)
said about f12k and f1rc is that a LOT of the problems people encounter with
the ai are related to their driving ability. (Note use of english here, a
LOT does not mean all - look them up if you're in doubt.)
The ai in some sims, is dumbed down and made to be much less precise and
aggressive than it should be. Try braking hard in f1cs on a straight and
you'll see all the ai cars finding a way round you. Try that in a real F1
race and find x cars piled up into your rear end! In real F1, missing a
gear can involve a pile up. Try that in gp3 or f1cs or f12k and see what
happens.
I repeat, there are problems with some aspects of the ai in f1rc (and f12k)
but certainly not to the extent that SOME people here bang on about.
Iain
"#141520" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
neither
> >of those groups are lying, so there must be a reason. if F1RC crashedhalf
> >the field at every T1 of every race, I would be very pissed off and would
> >likely be posting in the same vein as some of you have. however, itdoesn't
> >happen with me, and i could also send a replay to anyone who wants it to
> >prove it! i also don't have the faster/slower problem. some people saythe
> >opposite to Andre, so i guess that is just a setup thing.
> >
>
> But, you said the AI in F12K was fine too and it was our driving
> skills that was the problem so your opinion means jack-shit to me.
>
Quoted text (7 lines)
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:40:07 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >will this ever go away? as i've said many times, it is very difficult to > >understand how this situation is occurring. why do some not have the > >(apparent) problem of crashes at the start and others do. clearlyActually Andre, I think you'll find that many people here have said that
they don't believe there will be a patch.
Iain
> What a nonsense David. I at least have never said this and I can't
> remember any else saying things like this.
"Of course" those features are better? Why aren't all sims at the level of
F1RC in graphics for example if it's so easy?
As for FF and multiplayer, we've gone over this. The multiplayer option was
limited by the FIA, regardless of what ymenard would have you believe. Ubi
was not allowed to have dedicated servers, and the TCP/IP feature was snuck
into the game. You can't even type an IP address into the little box on the
multiplayer screen.
As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people say it's
great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, they didn't
have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison. All
those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easily forgive
that.
BTW, the FF "add on" was released a year after GPL was released, not a
couple of months.
David G Fisher
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (7 lines)
>> Is it really that hard to understand? It's three years later, ofcourse > these things are much better in F1RC! Nobody will disagree on that. > But back to the point: Why does a 3-year old game have much better ff > and multiplayer?? The ff -addon- (not patch) being released a couple > of months after GPL's release is totally irrelevant. > > Andre
"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:zB7W6.24485$[email hidden]...
> oh here we go again. i don't really know why i bother with you, but i find
> it compulsive!
> To repeat yet again, what i (and many others in other forums as well asras)
> said about f12k and f1rc is that a LOT of the problems people encounterwith
> the ai are related to their driving ability.
Hey, I can say with absolute certainty that I'm NOT having any problems with
the AI in F1RC!
Of course, I wish that I *was* having problems with the AI in F1RC. :-)
Jerry Morelock
Did you limit the number of characters in your driver name to less than 12?
David G Fisher
"chainbreaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:6ybW6.150458$[email hidden]...
>
> Hey, I can say with absolute certainty that I'm NOT having any problemswith
Quoted text (7 lines)
> the AI in F1RC! > > Of course, I wish that I *was* having problems with the AI in F1RC. :-) > > Jerry Morelock > >Ummm, GPL came out what, almost 3 years ago?
At the time of it's release, the graphics were top notch.
Btw, they didn't have telemetry in 1967 either.
Now keep quiet you anti-Papy pig !!!!
Don Burnette
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:iR_V6.14394$[email hidden]...
>
> "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>
> > >the ff does work OK, it's just that it's not as good as gpl. however,it
boys),
> dynamic weather..............
>
> I don't think GPL even had ff at all three months after it's release.
>
> David G Fisher
>
Quoted text (10 lines)
> is > > >better than any other f1 sim - including gp3. > > > > I heavily disagree with you, In My Humble Opinion the ff in GP3 is way > > better. But as you say so yourself, the ff in 3-year old GPL is way > > better and that is sad. > > It's also sad that GPL doesn't have the best graphics ever in a sim ("way > better" in detail, complexity and optimization), pitting, tire wear, ghost > mode, perfect track accuracy, telemetry (although either did the oldWell your sure not convincing me to run out and buy F1RC.
:)
Don Burnette
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:VL8W6.14901$[email hidden]...
> "Of course" those features are better? Why aren't all sims at the level of
> F1RC in graphics for example if it's so easy?
>
> As for FF and multiplayer, we've gone over this. The multiplayer optionwas
> limited by the FIA, regardless of what ymenard would have you believe. Ubi
> was not allowed to have dedicated servers, and the TCP/IP feature wassnuck
> into the game. You can't even type an IP address into the little box onthe
Quoted text (23 lines)
> multiplayer screen. > > As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people say it's > great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, they didn't > have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison. All > those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easily forgive > that. > > BTW, the FF "add on" was released a year after GPL was released, not a > couple of months. > > David G Fisher > > "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >> Is it really that hard to understand? It's three years later, ofcourse > > these things are much better in F1RC! Nobody will disagree on that. > > But back to the point: Why does a 3-year old game have much better ff > > and multiplayer?? The ff -addon- (not patch) being released a couple > > of months after GPL's release is totally irrelevant. > > > > Andre >
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:AucW6.150933$[email hidden]...
> Btw, they didn't have telemetry in 1967 either.
That's what I said. "perfect track accuracy, telemetry (although either did
the old
boys), dynamic weather.............."
> Now keep quiet you anti-Papy pig !!!!
Sorry.
David G Fisher
("way
> > better" in detail, complexity and optimization), pitting, tire wear,ghost
Quoted text (19 lines)
> > Don Burnette > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:iR_V6.14394$[email hidden]... > > > > "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > >the ff does work OK, it's just that it's not as good as gpl. however, > it > > is > > > >better than any other f1 sim - including gp3. > > > > > > I heavily disagree with you, In My Humble Opinion the ff in GP3 is way > > > better. But as you say so yourself, the ff in 3-year old GPL is way > > > better and that is sad. > > > > It's also sad that GPL doesn't have the best graphics ever in a simQuoted text (10 lines)
> > mode, perfect track accuracy, telemetry (although either did the old > boys), > > dynamic weather.............. > > > > I don't think GPL even had ff at all three months after it's release. > > > > David G Fisher > > > >Don't bother then! It's only you who'll suffer, no-one else.
Iain
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:CvcW6.150950$[email hidden]...
of
> > F1RC in graphics for example if it's so easy?
> >
> > As for FF and multiplayer, we've gone over this. The multiplayer option
> was
> > limited by the FIA, regardless of what ymenard would have you believe.Ubi
didn't
ofcourse
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Well your sure not convincing me to run out and buy F1RC. > :) > > Don Burnette > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:VL8W6.14901$[email hidden]... > > "Of course" those features are better? Why aren't all sims at the levelQuoted text (8 lines)
> > was not allowed to have dedicated servers, and the TCP/IP feature was > snuck > > into the game. You can't even type an IP address into the little box on > the > > multiplayer screen. > > > > As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people say it's > > great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, theyQuoted text (12 lines)
> > have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison. All > > those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easily forgive > > that. > > > > BTW, the FF "add on" was released a year after GPL was released, not a > > couple of months. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > >> Is it really that hard to understand? It's three years later,Quoted text (9 lines)
> > > these things are much better in F1RC! Nobody will disagree on that. > > > But back to the point: Why does a 3-year old game have much better ff > > > and multiplayer?? The ff -addon- (not patch) being released a couple > > > of months after GPL's release is totally irrelevant. > > > > > > Andre > > > >Mmm...I've tired this patch for a couple of days and didn't notice ANY
improvements with the AI. In most cases they started doing weird things that
I never experienced before. So I've reverted back to the original file.
My main problem with the AI (aside form the occasional rear ending:-) is
trying to outbrake them while entering a turn. They seem to have waaaaay
better brakes than me because I can brake REALLY late and they are still
beside me, which isn't so bad and realistic to some extent I guess (if a
real driver is expecting this he'll try and brake late too). The problem
arises when they do a Schuey and turn into me 90% of the time when I have
the inside line. It's like they don't even know I'm there and just blindly
turn into me while I completely hold my line! But there's that 10% of the
time where the AI starts their turn in, waits and then backs off! It's times
like that where I almost lose control of the car because I'm in a state of
shock! Why can't this happen more often!
Also, they seem way less aggressive during the first lap of the race. They
back off, they give you room, they'll try and pass you cleanly and usually
won't hit you from behind. But after the first lap it's a crap shoot. Is the
AI going to turn into me? Are they going to ram me even if I brake really,
reeeeeally late into this turn? Damn, I really wish this would get sorted
out by Ubisoft. It's very frustrating to have such a fun sim but be plagued
with such INCONSISTENT AI.
Something inside of me says "why would they release a patch if the 'sequel'
is coming out in five months". Would you buy the sequel if F1RC's AI was
properly fixed? Honestly, what reason would you have to buy the sequel if
the patch fixed the AI? Looking at the way Ubisoft operates, this is the
kind of thinking that *may* prevent them from ever releasing a patch that
addresses the AI in F1RC. Just look at EA. F1 2000...suspect AI, CPU
intensive graphics engine. A patch is released that 'sort of addresses' the
AI issues but is still in need of an improvement. Then, like 6-8 months
later the real patch comes out in the form of F1CS 2000 (which addresses
both issues BTW). Of course you have to pay $45 to get the "fixes" :-)
<Sigh> Well, I did buy F1CS2K (once the price was reduced) and this is
currently my favorite modern F1 sim at the moment. Why? The physics engine
(with the advanced physics patch) is good, the online play is 'alright', the
graphics are 'okay' and the AI is very fun to run with. For me it's offers
more of a complete package than F1RC or GP3. If F1RC's AI is patched
properly, then F1RC steps into the slot as my favorite F1 sim (which to me
shows how much this sim actually gets right).
I REALLY hope Ubisoft proves me wrong on this one but I have a bad feeling
about EVER seeing a 'free' patch. The 'patch' will be F1RC2 in November...
- Plum
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:03:01 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>"Of course" those features are better? Why aren't all sims at the level of
>F1RC in graphics for example if it's so easy?
Yup, that's sad indeed :(
>As for FF and multiplayer, we've gone over this. The multiplayer option was
>limited by the FIA, regardless of what ymenard would have you believe. Ubi
>was not allowed to have dedicated servers, and the TCP/IP feature was snuck
>into the game. You can't even type an IP address into the little box on the
>multiplayer screen.
Ok, so you agree that multiplayer in F1RC is not as great as it
should/could have been?
And why-oh-why would the FIA limit the multiplayer options?
I don't say I doubt you, I just can't see the logic behind this all..
FIA limiting the multiplayer options, FIA has to approve a patch for
F1RC first (and they are taking their time, how long has it been since
we heard this story).. not logical captain..
>As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people say it's
>great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, they didn't
>have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison. All
>those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easily forgive
>that.
I think good ff is VERY important in a racing sim since we miss out on
so much other cues you have in real life. But ok, this is apparently a
designers choice which I heavily disagree with..
>BTW, the FF "add on" was released a year after GPL was released, not a
>couple of months.
Irrelevant. GPL was delivered without ff and the ff add-on released a
year later was a big surprise, especially being so good.. still the
best ff around without a doubt. If set correctly (which is quite a
pain to do I admit) you can feel every tiny movement of the car,
giving the so much needed cues to what the car is doing.
In F1RC, F1CS and all those other lately released sims the ff is quite
useless, even distracting.
Andre
Quoted text (12 lines)
>David G Fisher > >"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >>> Is it really that hard to understand? It's three years later, ofcourse >> these things are much better in F1RC! Nobody will disagree on that. >> But back to the point: Why does a 3-year old game have much better ff >> and multiplayer?? The ff -addon- (not patch) being released a couple >> of months after GPL's release is totally irrelevant. >> >> Andre >On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 06:58:38 GMT, "Plum" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Mmm...I've tired this patch for a couple of days and didn't notice ANY
>improvements with the AI. In most cases they started doing weird things that
>I never experienced before. So I've reverted back to the original file.<snip>
I only had about an hour time to test it yesterday, but so far indeed
I didn't notice any improvements. But I also didn't notice any worse
behaviour than before actually, have to test this some more.
Good post btw, exactly how I feel about the AI and the patch
situation.
Andre
David G Fisher wrote:
> As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people say it's
> great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, they didn't
> have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison. All
> those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easily forgive
> that.
Or perhaps the sophistication of GPL's physics model actually made it possible
to implement meaningful feedback.
Dave Ewing
--
*****************************************************
David A. Ewing
Xilinx Boulder [email hidden]
*****************************************************
So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to
emerge?
You do know that a sim can have a perfect, complex physics model, and still
have poor ff?
The physics model in F1RC is superb btw, but I'm guessing you don't even own
the sim. If you haven't bought F1RC and experienced Eau Rouge, and the
thrill of slashing through Pouhon and Stavelot just perfectly (especially
the exits as the rear wheels fight for grip as you accelerate and push the
Ferrari to it's limit), then you are missing out on something very special.
David G Fisher
"David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> David G Fisher wrote:
>
> > As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people say it's
> > great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, theydidn't
> > have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison. All
> > those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easily forgive
> > that.
>
> Or perhaps the sophistication of GPL's physics model actually made itpossible
Quoted text (13 lines)
> to implement meaningful feedback. > > Dave Ewing > > > -- > ***************************************************** > David A. Ewing > Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] > ***************************************************** > > >
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:JIbW6.15501$[email hidden]...
> Did you limit the number of characters in your driver name to less than12?
>
> David G Fisher
>
Yeah, David, I've done that and every thing else that I can think of that
I've ever tried to get anything running. Regarding the driver name, I
deleted the "Save" folder, started the game, and even deleted the default
"Player" driver name, adding a single letter name in its place.
The last time I absolutely couldn't get the meat of a program to run was
back in the '80s when there was about a half-dozen different CD drive
standards around, and I had a CD that wouldn't behave.
As I've said before, the GUI works fine, but immediately after the track
loading progress bar fills I get either dumped to the desktop or a system
freeze, which suggests some type of mode switching problem.
There's absolutely nothing strange about this system--P3/800, 256mb, Geforce
3, Windows ME, SBLive. Well, I am running a beta build of DirectX 8.1, but
I got the same behavior out of F1RC with the DX8 release version. Nothing's
OC'd, either.
Here's the latest crash.log from the game. Maybe someone who knows such can
decipher and give me a clue. It's for sure Ubisoft tech support can't--but
they do know how to reply with a two-year-old form letter. Any help will be
appreciated--after all, I *would* like to have the chance to be able to
bitch about the same stuff everyone else is bitching about. :-)
CrashLogVersion 2
Date 01/06/15 18:23:13
Module: F1RC.EXE
Version: R.1.00.004
Infos: English -
Exception "Acces Violation" (address FFFFFFFF is unreadable) at :
0046A200
EAX 00000000
EBX 00000014
ECX 00000000
EDX 0072F6F8
ESI 044A6B6C
EDI 044A6C30
EIP 0046A200
FLG 00010256
EBP 0260E564
ESP 0072F6D4
Code from 0046A200 to 0046A220 :
8B 09 8B 54 24 04 8B 01 FF 50 18 C2 04 00 90 90
8B 09 8B 54 24 04 8B 01 FF 50 28 C2 04 00 90 90
Stack from 0072F6D4 to 0072FAD4 :
00440062 0072F6F8 043D008C 0259928C
00000004 0072F7D0 00000000 00000014
0260E564 80000000 80000000 80000000
00001388 80000000 80000000 004BE9B2
00438EC8 044A6C4C 00000008 00001388
0072F804 02598E84 06B31748 028B5F88
044A4B10 00000001 0041A278 043D008C
028B5F88 0072F7D0 02566330 00000000
025BBD60 0256630C 02A3EAE4 02A1284C
06B31748 043D008C 00409CC0 0072F7C0
028B5F88 0072F804 00000001 0072F984
0256644F 025BBFEC 025BBD60 00000004
00000007 010055A3 025BBD60 02584990
00000000 0256630C 0256634C 0260C2B8
02569E90 00000001 02566330 00000000
0256A454 3DB851EB 3DB851EB 00005D01
Oh yea, I know what that error log means. :-P
Have you posted your problem at the High Gear forums? You're more likely to
get help there. Also, did you call Ubi technical support (9am to 9pm EST,
Monday through Friday -- Call (919) 460-9778).
Have you changed the .exe to the one which improves the AI? I could zip up
mine and e-mail it to you. Worth a try.
David G Fisher
"chainbreaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:tiwW6.155353$[email hidden]...
Geforce
> 3, Windows ME, SBLive. Well, I am running a beta build of DirectX 8.1,but
> I got the same behavior out of F1RC with the DX8 release version.Nothing's
> OC'd, either.
>
> Here's the latest crash.log from the game. Maybe someone who knows suchcan
> decipher and give me a clue. It's for sure Ubisoft tech supportcan't--but
> they do know how to reply with a two-year-old form letter. Any help willbe
Quoted text (24 lines)
> > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:JIbW6.15501$[email hidden]... > > Did you limit the number of characters in your driver name to less than > 12? > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > Yeah, David, I've done that and every thing else that I can think of that > I've ever tried to get anything running. Regarding the driver name, I > deleted the "Save" folder, started the game, and even deleted the default > "Player" driver name, adding a single letter name in its place. > > The last time I absolutely couldn't get the meat of a program to run was > back in the '80s when there was about a half-dozen different CD drive > standards around, and I had a CD that wouldn't behave. > > As I've said before, the GUI works fine, but immediately after the track > loading progress bar fills I get either dumped to the desktop or a system > freeze, which suggests some type of mode switching problem. > > There's absolutely nothing strange about this system--P3/800, 256mb,Quoted text (46 lines)
> appreciated--after all, I *would* like to have the chance to be able to > bitch about the same stuff everyone else is bitching about. :-) > > CrashLogVersion 2 > Date 01/06/15 18:23:13 > Module: F1RC.EXE > Version: R.1.00.004 > Infos: English - > > Exception "Acces Violation" (address FFFFFFFF is unreadable) at : > 0046A200 > > EAX 00000000 > EBX 00000014 > ECX 00000000 > EDX 0072F6F8 > ESI 044A6B6C > EDI 044A6C30 > EIP 0046A200 > FLG 00010256 > EBP 0260E564 > ESP 0072F6D4 > > Code from 0046A200 to 0046A220 : > 8B 09 8B 54 24 04 8B 01 FF 50 18 C2 04 00 90 90 > 8B 09 8B 54 24 04 8B 01 FF 50 28 C2 04 00 90 90 > > Stack from 0072F6D4 to 0072FAD4 : > 00440062 0072F6F8 043D008C 0259928C > 00000004 0072F7D0 00000000 00000014 > 0260E564 80000000 80000000 80000000 > 00001388 80000000 80000000 004BE9B2 > 00438EC8 044A6C4C 00000008 00001388 > 0072F804 02598E84 06B31748 028B5F88 > 044A4B10 00000001 0041A278 043D008C > 028B5F88 0072F7D0 02566330 00000000 > 025BBD60 0256630C 02A3EAE4 02A1284C > 06B31748 043D008C 00409CC0 0072F7C0 > 028B5F88 0072F804 00000001 0072F984 > 0256644F 025BBFEC 025BBD60 00000004 > 00000007 010055A3 025BBD60 02584990 > 00000000 0256630C 0256634C 0260C2B8 > 02569E90 00000001 02566330 00000000 > 0256A454 3DB851EB 3DB851EB 00005D01 > >Ahhh? Wasnt FF just really getting started as a reliable controller when
GPL first came out? huh? huh?huh??
"David G Fisher" wrote:
| So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to
| emerge?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
Hey, will be interesting to see if Ubi is supporting F1RC a year or two
after it's out no?
Don Burnette
racers against anti-papy pigs
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:7ewW6.16478$[email hidden]...
> So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to
> emerge?
>
> You do know that a sim can have a perfect, complex physics model, andstill
> have poor ff?
>
> The physics model in F1RC is superb btw, but I'm guessing you don't evenown
> the sim. If you haven't bought F1RC and experienced Eau Rouge, and the
> thrill of slashing through Pouhon and Stavelot just perfectly (especially
> the exits as the rear wheels fight for grip as you accelerate and push the
> Ferrari to it's limit), then you are missing out on something veryspecial.
it's
> > > great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, they
> didn't
> > > have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison.All
> > > those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easilyforgive
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > David G Fisher > > > "David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > > As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people sayQuoted text (18 lines)
> > > that. > > > > Or perhaps the sophistication of GPL's physics model actually made it > possible > > to implement meaningful feedback. > > > > Dave Ewing > > > > > > -- > > ***************************************************** > > David A. Ewing > > Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > >No 800# Tech Support either? Damm what a rip!
"David G Fisher" wrote:
| Have you posted your problem at the High Gear forums? You're more likelyto
| get help there. Also, did you call Ubi technical support (9am to 9pm EST,
| Monday through Friday -- Call (919) 460-9778).
| David G Fisher
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:LOwW6.16639$[email hidden]...
> Oh yea, I know what that error log means. :-P
>
> Have you posted your problem at the High Gear forums? You're more likelyto
Haven't tried the forums, but thanks for the suggestion. Haven't called
their tech support, either--Do you have direct knowledge of their worth? I
pretty much quit calling for any tech support years ago; seems most of the
time I knew more about troubleshooting than whoever I was talking to, and
the only thing I ever got was PO'd. :-) Besides, ever since I was able to
get iF-22 into a semblance of working order ("semblance" is the only thing
that sim was capable of, I think), I've figured I could handle just about
anything. Until now, that is.
Sure, why not try the AI hack--it for sure won't make F1RC run any worse on
my machine than it already is, LOL. THX.
Jerry Morelock
Quoted text (8 lines)
> get help there. Also, did you call Ubi technical support (9am to 9pm EST, > Monday through Friday -- Call (919) 460-9778). > > Have you changed the .exe to the one which improves the AI? I could zip up > mine and e-mail it to you. Worth a try. > > David G Fisher >Ubi puts out sequals, and some of us move on.
Anti-Papy Pig
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:M5xW6.155381$[email hidden]...
(especially
> > the exits as the rear wheels fight for grip as you accelerate and pushthe
Quoted text (21 lines)
> Hey, will be interesting to see if Ubi is supporting F1RC a year or two > after it's out no? > > Don Burnette > > racers against anti-papy pigs > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7ewW6.16478$[email hidden]... > > So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to > > emerge? > > > > You do know that a sim can have a perfect, complex physics model, and > still > > have poor ff? > > > > The physics model in F1RC is superb btw, but I'm guessing you don't even > own > > the sim. If you haven't bought F1RC and experienced Eau Rouge, and the > > thrill of slashing through Pouhon and Stavelot just perfectlyQuoted text (38 lines)
> > Ferrari to it's limit), then you are missing out on something very > special. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > "David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > > > > As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people say > it's > > > > great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, they > > didn't > > > > have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison. > All > > > > those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easily > forgive > > > > that. > > > > > > Or perhaps the sophistication of GPL's physics model actually made it > > possible > > > to implement meaningful feedback. > > > > > > Dave Ewing > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ***************************************************** > > > David A. Ewing > > > Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] > > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > >Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. I seem to remember
Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch was released. Very
strange.
David G Fisher
"Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:C1xW6.16751$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Ahhh? Wasnt FF just really getting started as a reliable controller when > GPL first came out? huh? huh?huh?? > > "David G Fisher" wrote: > | So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to > | emerge? > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > > >I don't think I've called their tech support since POD four years ago, so I
don't really know how they are now.
I'll send the .exe now.
David G Fisher
"chainbreaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:m9xW6.155388$[email hidden]...
EST,
> > Monday through Friday -- Call (919) 460-9778).
> >
> > Have you changed the .exe to the one which improves the AI? I could zipup
I
> pretty much quit calling for any tech support years ago; seems most of the
> time I knew more about troubleshooting than whoever I was talking to, and
> the only thing I ever got was PO'd. :-) Besides, ever since I was ableto
> get iF-22 into a semblance of working order ("semblance" is the only thing
> that sim was capable of, I think), I've figured I could handle just about
> anything. Until now, that is.
>
> Sure, why not try the AI hack--it for sure won't make F1RC run any worseon
> my machine than it already is, LOL. THX.
>
> Jerry Morelock
>
>
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:LOwW6.16639$[email hidden]... > > Oh yea, I know what that error log means. :-P > > > > Have you posted your problem at the High Gear forums? You're more likely > to > > get help there. Also, did you call Ubi technical support (9am to 9pmQuoted text (7 lines)
> > mine and e-mail it to you. Worth a try. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > Haven't tried the forums, but thanks for the suggestion. Haven't called > their tech support, either--Do you have direct knowledge of their worth?heh heh.
Don Burnette
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:jdxW6.16792$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (12 lines)
> Ubi puts out sequals, and some of us move on. > > Anti-Papy Pig > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:M5xW6.155381$[email hidden]... > > Hey, will be interesting to see if Ubi is supporting F1RC a year or two > > after it's out no? > > > > Don Burnette > > > > racers against anti-papy pigs"crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy Cassidy ever talk like
this!
TrollOmeter time!! :o)~
"David G Fisher" wrote:
| Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. I seem to remember
| Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch was released. Very
| strange.
| David G Fisher
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
David G Fisher wrote:
>
> Ubi puts out sequals, and some of us move on.
>
> Anti-Papy Pig
GPLers don't need to move on. Papy supports us to the hilt. :-)
--
Fester
I don't remember which Papy employee it was, but they used some pretty harsh
words to describe it on another board, and the post was shown here. As a
team, they said ff wasn't worth doing.
David G Fisher
"Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:TkxW6.16820$[email hidden]...
> "crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy Cassidy ever talk like
> this!
> TrollOmeter time!! :o)~
>
> "David G Fisher" wrote:
> | Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. I seem toremember
Quoted text (12 lines)
> | Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch was released. Very > | strange. > | David G Fisher > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > > >
"Thom j." wrote:
>
> "crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy Cassidy ever talk like
> this!
> TrollOmeter time!! :o)~
No. IIRC, they stated to the effect they wouldn't support it until it
could be done *right*. Nobody has outdone GPL ff effects to date, so
I'd venture to say they nailed it.
--
Fester
Papy never said FF was crap, they said they would not implement it UNTIL it
could be done right, and at that time they had not seen it done quite right.
So they did,
Don Burnette
"Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:TkxW6.16820$[email hidden]...
> "crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy Cassidy ever talk like
> this!
> TrollOmeter time!! :o)~
>
> "David G Fisher" wrote:
> | Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. I seem toremember
Quoted text (12 lines)
> | Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch was released. Very > | strange. > | David G Fisher > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > > >Not true imho, they said it had not been done right at that time, and they
would not do so until they could.
Don Burnette
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:apxW6.16852$[email hidden]...
> I don't remember which Papy employee it was, but they used some prettyharsh
like
Quoted text (8 lines)
> words to describe it on another board, and the post was shown here. As a > team, they said ff wasn't worth doing. > > David G Fisher > > "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:TkxW6.16820$[email hidden]... > > "crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy Cassidy ever talkQuoted text (19 lines)
> > this! > > TrollOmeter time!! :o)~ > > > > "David G Fisher" wrote: > > | Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. I seem to > remember > > | Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch was released. Very > > | strange. > > | David G Fisher > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > > > > > > >Again, they (at least one of the Papy crew) said in a post at another forum
that ff was junk, crap, worthless..........whatever adjective you want to
use. Papy supporters said "yea, it isn't, Papy says so!" Then a little while
later (month or two), the ff patch was released.
Don't re-write history.
FF technology did not go from not being worth the time to implement it, to
being essential within a year. They simply didn'thave the time to get it in
before the release, just like Ubi didn't have time to polish their ff.
David G Fisher
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:xvxW6.155405$[email hidden]...
> Papy never said FF was crap, they said they would not implement it UNTILit
> could be done right, and at that time they had not seen it done quiteright.
like
Quoted text (8 lines)
> So they did, > > Don Burnette > > > "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:TkxW6.16820$[email hidden]... > > "crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy Cassidy ever talkQuoted text (20 lines)
> > this! > > TrollOmeter time!! :o)~ > > > > "David G Fisher" wrote: > > | Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. I seem to > remember > > | Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch was released. Very > > | strange. > > | David G Fisher > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > > > > > > > >Who is rewriting history David? We're both going by memories here. You
saying yours is factual and mine is not?
I followed the development of GPL very closely, and have followed all of
Papy's work very closely as well, for several years. And I simply do not
recall ever seeing them state the things you are saying they did.
Don Burnette
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:HOxW6.16975$[email hidden]...
> Again, they (at least one of the Papy crew) said in a post at anotherforum
> that ff was junk, crap, worthless..........whatever adjective you want to
> use. Papy supporters said "yea, it isn't, Papy says so!" Then a littlewhile
> later (month or two), the ff patch was released.
>
> Don't re-write history.
>
> FF technology did not go from not being worth the time to implement it, to
> being essential within a year. They simply didn'thave the time to get itin
Quoted text (41 lines)
> before the release, just like Ubi didn't have time to polish their ff. > > David G Fisher > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:xvxW6.155405$[email hidden]... > > Papy never said FF was crap, they said they would not implement it UNTIL > it > > could be done right, and at that time they had not seen it done quite > right. > > So they did, > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:TkxW6.16820$[email hidden]... > > > "crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy Cassidy ever talk > like > > > this! > > > TrollOmeter time!! :o)~ > > > > > > "David G Fisher" wrote: > > > | Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. I seem to > > remember > > > | Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch was released. Very > > > | strange. > > > | David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Even the people who were huge fans of GPL were surprised at the ff patch,
simply because of what Papy had been saying for months, and specifically
because of what that one employee had said very shortly before it's release.
Others will have to chime in on this.
David G Fisher
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:DRxW6.155415$[email hidden]...
to
to
UNTIL
Very
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Who is rewriting history David? We're both going by memories here. You > saying yours is factual and mine is not? > > I followed the development of GPL very closely, and have followed all of > Papy's work very closely as well, for several years. And I simply do not > recall ever seeing them state the things you are saying they did. > > Don Burnette > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:HOxW6.16975$[email hidden]... > > Again, they (at least one of the Papy crew) said in a post at another > forum > > that ff was junk, crap, worthless..........whatever adjective you wantQuoted text (7 lines)
> > use. Papy supporters said "yea, it isn't, Papy says so!" Then a little > while > > later (month or two), the ff patch was released. > > > > Don't re-write history. > > > > FF technology did not go from not being worth the time to implement it,Quoted text (10 lines)
> > being essential within a year. They simply didn'thave the time to get it > in > > before the release, just like Ubi didn't have time to polish their ff. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:xvxW6.155405$[email hidden]... > > > Papy never said FF was crap, they said they would not implement itQuoted text (19 lines)
> > it > > > could be done right, and at that time they had not seen it done quite > > right. > > > So they did, > > > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > > > > "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:TkxW6.16820$[email hidden]... > > > > "crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy Cassidy ever talk > > like > > > > this! > > > > TrollOmeter time!! :o)~ > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" wrote: > > > > | Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. I seem to > > > remember > > > > | Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch was released.Quoted text (16 lines)
> > > > | strange. > > > > | David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Don't remember who at Papy said it or what game/api he was talking about,
but I definately remember reading something to the extend of "current
implementations are too crude and event induced rater than a result of
vehicle dynamics. If it's done like that, it's not worth the processor time
takes."
Jan.
=---
Don Burnette wrote...
<snip>
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Who is rewriting history David? We're both going by > memories here. You saying yours is factual and mine > is not? > > I followed the development of GPL very closely, and > have followed all of Papy's work very closely as well, > for several years. And I simply do not recall ever > seeing them state the things you are saying they did. > > Don BurnetteOk, to the best of my recollection:
Yes, folks were suprised when Papy released it so soon, as Papy had been
saying they had not seen FF that had been done properly, and would not do so
until it could be done, and they were stating this fairly recently prior to
the FF patch for GPL.
I believe they also stated they hadn't seen any FF wheels that quite
properly modeled FF either.
I agree with you, there were several suprised GPLer's when this came out. I
just don't believe they referred to FF as crap and said it was not worth
doing.
This is how I remember it, like you said I am sure others will state what
they recollect as well.
Don Burnette
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:p%xW6.17021$[email hidden]...
> Even the people who were huge fans of GPL were surprised at the ff patch,
> simply because of what Papy had been saying for months, and specifically
> because of what that one employee had said very shortly before it'srelease.
it,
> to
> > > being essential within a year. They simply didn'thave the time to getit
quite
talk
> > > like
> > > > > this!
> > > > > TrollOmeter time!! :o)~
> > > > >
> > > > > "David G Fisher" wrote:
> > > > > | Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. I seemto
Quoted text (30 lines)
> > Others will have to chime in on this. > > David G Fisher > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:DRxW6.155415$[email hidden]... > > Who is rewriting history David? We're both going by memories here. You > > saying yours is factual and mine is not? > > > > I followed the development of GPL very closely, and have followed all of > > Papy's work very closely as well, for several years. And I simply do not > > recall ever seeing them state the things you are saying they did. > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:HOxW6.16975$[email hidden]... > > > Again, they (at least one of the Papy crew) said in a post at another > > forum > > > that ff was junk, crap, worthless..........whatever adjective you want > to > > > use. Papy supporters said "yea, it isn't, Papy says so!" Then a little > > while > > > later (month or two), the ff patch was released. > > > > > > Don't re-write history. > > > > > > FF technology did not go from not being worth the time to implementQuoted text (12 lines)
> > in > > > before the release, just like Ubi didn't have time to polish their ff. > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:xvxW6.155405$[email hidden]... > > > > Papy never said FF was crap, they said they would not implement it > UNTIL > > > it > > > > could be done right, and at that time they had not seen it doneQuoted text (9 lines)
> > > right. > > > > So they did, > > > > > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > > > > > > > "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:TkxW6.16820$[email hidden]... > > > > > "crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy Cassidy everQuoted text (20 lines)
> > > > remember > > > > > | Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch was released. > Very > > > > > | strange. > > > > > | David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > > > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >TOUCHE`.. hahaha
"Uncle Fester" wrote:
| GPLers don't need to move on. Papy supports us to the hilt. :-)
| --
| Fester
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
LOL@Fester.. I hope you didnt think I was making an honest query?!
"Uncle Fester" wrote:
| No. IIRC, they stated to the effect they wouldn't support it until it
| could be done *right*. Nobody has outdone GPL ff effects to date, so
| I'd venture to say they nailed it.
| --
| Fester
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
"Thom j." wrote:
Not at all, but I'm glad Mr. Burnette remembers it almost identically to
the way I do. At least I know I'm not yet *totally* senile!
--
Fester
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > LOL@Fester.. I hope you didnt think I was making an honest query?! > > "Uncle Fester" wrote: > | No. IIRC, they stated to the effect they wouldn't support it until it > | could be done *right*. Nobody has outdone GPL ff effects to date, so > | I'd venture to say they nailed it. > | -- > | FesterI am amazed at how poor your memory is for being a self proclaimed
intellect, superb sim racer & a beta-tester!! I recall the entire series of
events about ff and Gpl via Papy & its nothing like your history recall!
This time I know for a fact you are dead wrong DGF and I challenge
you to prove I am wrong! but I know you wont as you can not!!
A Very Knowing Thom_j. This Time...lol :-)
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:HOxW6.16975$[email hidden]...
| Again, they (at least one of the Papy crew) said in a post at anotherforum
| that ff was junk, crap, worthless..........whatever adjective you want to
| use. Papy supporters said "yea, it isn't, Papy says so!" Then a littlewhile
| later (month or two), the ff patch was released.
|
| Don't re-write history.<snipp'ed really worthless stuff>
| David G Fisher
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
You're real close on all issues Don! Still I want to hear about this "crap"
[or whatever] trash type comment that any Papy employee said during
this time frame in regards to GPL & FF.. The Gauntlet is tossed DGF!
"Don Burnette" wrote:
| Ok, to the best of my recollection:
| Yes, folks were suprised when Papy released it so soon, as Papy had been
| saying they had not seen FF that had been done properly, and would not doso
| until it could be done, and they were stating this fairly recently priorto
| the FF patch for GPL.
| I believe they also stated they hadn't seen any FF wheels that quite
| properly modeled FF either.
| I agree with you, there were several suprised GPLer's when this came out.I
| just don't believe they referred to FF as crap and said it was not worth
| doing.
| This is how I remember it, like you said I am sure others will state what
| they recollect as well.
|
| Don Burnette
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
Well, we pretty much agree then on everything, except I remember the
employee's comments, and you don't.
David G Fisher
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:S8yW6.155425$[email hidden]...
> Ok, to the best of my recollection:
> Yes, folks were suprised when Papy released it so soon, as Papy had been
> saying they had not seen FF that had been done properly, and would not doso
> until it could be done, and they were stating this fairly recently priorto
> the FF patch for GPL.
> I believe they also stated they hadn't seen any FF wheels that quite
> properly modeled FF either.
> I agree with you, there were several suprised GPLer's when this came out.I
patch,
of
> > > Papy's work very closely as well, for several years. And I simply donot
another
> > > forum
> > > > that ff was junk, crap, worthless..........whatever adjective youwant
> > to
> > > > use. Papy supporters said "yea, it isn't, Papy says so!" Then alittle
get
> it
> > > in
> > > > before the release, just like Ubi didn't have time to polish theirff.
released.
Quoted text (10 lines)
> just don't believe they referred to FF as crap and said it was not worth > doing. > This is how I remember it, like you said I am sure others will state what > they recollect as well. > > Don Burnette > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:p%xW6.17021$[email hidden]... > > Even the people who were huge fans of GPL were surprised at the ffQuoted text (14 lines)
> > simply because of what Papy had been saying for months, and specifically > > because of what that one employee had said very shortly before it's > release. > > > > Others will have to chime in on this. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:DRxW6.155415$[email hidden]... > > > Who is rewriting history David? We're both going by memories here. You > > > saying yours is factual and mine is not? > > > > > > I followed the development of GPL very closely, and have followed allQuoted text (8 lines)
> > > recall ever seeing them state the things you are saying they did. > > > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:HOxW6.16975$[email hidden]... > > > > Again, they (at least one of the Papy crew) said in a post atQuoted text (9 lines)
> > > while > > > > later (month or two), the ff patch was released. > > > > > > > > Don't re-write history. > > > > > > > > FF technology did not go from not being worth the time to implement > it, > > to > > > > being essential within a year. They simply didn'thave the time toQuoted text (30 lines)
> > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:xvxW6.155405$[email hidden]... > > > > > Papy never said FF was crap, they said they would not implement it > > UNTIL > > > > it > > > > > could be done right, and at that time they had not seen it done > quite > > > > right. > > > > > So they did, > > > > > > > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:TkxW6.16820$[email hidden]... > > > > > > "crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy Cassidy ever > talk > > > > like > > > > > > this! > > > > > > TrollOmeter time!! :o)~ > > > > > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" wrote: > > > > > > | Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. I seem > to > > > > > remember > > > > > > | Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch wasQuoted text (20 lines)
> > Very > > > > > > | strange. > > > > > > | David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > > > > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
"Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:DmzW6.17200$[email hidden]...
> I am amazed at how poor your memory is for being a self proclaimed
> intellect, superb sim racer & a beta-tester!! I recall the entire seriesof
> events about ff and Gpl via Papy & its nothing like your history recall!
Nothing like my recall? Don and I actually agree on what Papy was saying up
until the release of the patch except he, like you, doesn't remember the
employee's comments.
Found out yet how many people watch an F1 race each week?
David G Fisher
It's because he didn't make them.
:)
Don Burnette
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:X6AW6.17305$[email hidden]...
do
> so
> > until it could be done, and they were stating this fairly recentlyprior
> to
> > the FF patch for GPL.
> > I believe they also stated they hadn't seen any FF wheels that quite
> > properly modeled FF either.
> > I agree with you, there were several suprised GPLer's when this cameout.
> I
> > just don't believe they referred to FF as crap and said it was not worth
> > doing.
> > This is how I remember it, like you said I am sure others will statewhat
specifically
You
> > > > saying yours is factual and mine is not?
> > > >
> > > > I followed the development of GPL very closely, and have followedall
implement
it
ever
seem
6/5/2001
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Well, we pretty much agree then on everything, except I remember the > employee's comments, and you don't. > > David G Fisher > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:S8yW6.155425$[email hidden]... > > Ok, to the best of my recollection: > > Yes, folks were suprised when Papy released it so soon, as Papy had been > > saying they had not seen FF that had been done properly, and would notQuoted text (9 lines)
> > they recollect as well. > > > > Don Burnette > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:p%xW6.17021$[email hidden]... > > > Even the people who were huge fans of GPL were surprised at the ff > patch, > > > simply because of what Papy had been saying for months, andQuoted text (10 lines)
> > > because of what that one employee had said very shortly before it's > > release. > > > > > > Others will have to chime in on this. > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:DRxW6.155415$[email hidden]... > > > > Who is rewriting history David? We're both going by memories here.Quoted text (24 lines)
> of > > > > Papy's work very closely as well, for several years. And I simply do > not > > > > recall ever seeing them state the things you are saying they did. > > > > > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:HOxW6.16975$[email hidden]... > > > > > Again, they (at least one of the Papy crew) said in a post at > another > > > > forum > > > > > that ff was junk, crap, worthless..........whatever adjective you > want > > > to > > > > > use. Papy supporters said "yea, it isn't, Papy says so!" Then a > little > > > > while > > > > > later (month or two), the ff patch was released. > > > > > > > > > > Don't re-write history. > > > > > > > > > > FF technology did not go from not being worth the time toQuoted text (15 lines)
> > it, > > > to > > > > > being essential within a year. They simply didn'thave the time to > get > > it > > > > in > > > > > before the release, just like Ubi didn't have time to polish their > ff. > > > > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:xvxW6.155405$[email hidden]... > > > > > > Papy never said FF was crap, they said they would not implementQuoted text (13 lines)
> > > UNTIL > > > > > it > > > > > > could be done right, and at that time they had not seen it done > > quite > > > > > right. > > > > > > So they did, > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:TkxW6.16820$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > "crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy CassidyQuoted text (7 lines)
> > talk > > > > > like > > > > > > > this! > > > > > > > TrollOmeter time!! :o)~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" wrote: > > > > > > > | Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. IQuoted text (13 lines)
> > to > > > > > > remember > > > > > > > | Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch was > released. > > > Very > > > > > > > | strange. > > > > > > > | David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > > > > > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date:Quoted text (12 lines)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"O" I do remember!
Thats why this time my chest it proudly pushed outward! :-)
On your claim of 600million viewers each F1 race? Well there
was so many different #s here & on many sites that it was even
more nebulas then when you made the comment!! So I do not
have a clue? I still can't in my wildest dreams invision a viewer
base of 600million on any one program! Not one! I'd just like
to know how many TVs there are in our 5+billion Sphere. In
the grand scale of things, who knows? who cares?
"David G Fisher" wrote:
| Nothing like my recall? Don and I actually agree on what Papy was sayingup
| until the release of the patch except he, like you, doesn't remember the
| employee's comments.
| Found out yet how many people watch an F1 race each week?
| David G Fisher
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
Actually, I said 300 million. The article said 600. I still will stick with
300. I heard it again on the broadcast of a recent race (probably Monaco).
David G Fisher
"Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:2KAW6.17374$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (26 lines)
> "O" I do remember! > Thats why this time my chest it proudly pushed outward! :-) > On your claim of 600million viewers each F1 race? Well there > was so many different #s here & on many sites that it was even > more nebulas then when you made the comment!! So I do not > have a clue? I still can't in my wildest dreams invision a viewer > base of 600million on any one program! Not one! I'd just like > to know how many TVs there are in our 5+billion Sphere. In > the grand scale of things, who knows? who cares? > > "David G Fisher" wrote: > | Nothing like my recall? Don and I actually agree on what Papy was saying > up > | until the release of the patch except he, like you, doesn't remember the > | employee's comments. > | Found out yet how many people watch an F1 race each week? > | David G Fisher > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > > >I am a fan of F1RC I believe it is the best modern f1 sim and very
underrated but I don't believe it's physics model is a patch on GPL. The FF
in GPL is so good because GPL actually models caster and the FF is linked to
it, a good example of this is if you drive backwards in GPL with a FF wheel
and let go of the wheel the car will sway from side to side that to me is
very impressive, I doubt F1RC physics engine has that level of depth.
Alex
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:7ewW6.16478$[email hidden]...
> So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to
> emerge?
>
> You do know that a sim can have a perfect, complex physics model, andstill
> have poor ff?
>
> The physics model in F1RC is superb btw, but I'm guessing you don't evenown
> the sim. If you haven't bought F1RC and experienced Eau Rouge, and the
> thrill of slashing through Pouhon and Stavelot just perfectly (especially
> the exits as the rear wheels fight for grip as you accelerate and push the
> Ferrari to it's limit), then you are missing out on something veryspecial.
it's
> > > great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, they
> didn't
> > > have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison.All
> > > those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easilyforgive
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > David G Fisher > > > "David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > > As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people sayQuoted text (18 lines)
> > > that. > > > > Or perhaps the sophistication of GPL's physics model actually made it > possible > > to implement meaningful feedback. > > > > Dave Ewing > > > > > > -- > > ***************************************************** > > David A. Ewing > > Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > >I am a fan of F1RC I believe it is the best modern f1 sim and very
underrated but I don't believe it's physics model is a patch on GPL. The FF
in GPL is so good because GPL actually models caster and the FF is linked to
it, a good example of this is if you drive backwards in GPL with a FF wheel
and let go of the wheel the car will sway from side to side that to me is
very impressive, I doubt F1RC physics engine has that level of depth.
Alex
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:7ewW6.16478$[email hidden]...
> So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to
> emerge?
>
> You do know that a sim can have a perfect, complex physics model, andstill
> have poor ff?
>
> The physics model in F1RC is superb btw, but I'm guessing you don't evenown
> the sim. If you haven't bought F1RC and experienced Eau Rouge, and the
> thrill of slashing through Pouhon and Stavelot just perfectly (especially
> the exits as the rear wheels fight for grip as you accelerate and push the
> Ferrari to it's limit), then you are missing out on something veryspecial.
it's
> > > great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, they
> didn't
> > > have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison.All
> > > those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easilyforgive
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > David G Fisher > > > "David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > > As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people sayQuoted text (18 lines)
> > > that. > > > > Or perhaps the sophistication of GPL's physics model actually made it > possible > > to implement meaningful feedback. > > > > Dave Ewing > > > > > > -- > > ***************************************************** > > David A. Ewing > > Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > >I am a fan of F1RC I believe it is the best modern f1 sim and very
underrated but I don't believe it's physics model is a patch on GPL. The FF
in GPL is so good because GPL actually models caster and the FF is linked to
it, a good example of this is if you drive backwards in GPL with a FF wheel
and let go of the wheel the car will sway from side to side that to me is
very impressive, I doubt F1RC physics engine has that level of depth.
Alex
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:7ewW6.16478$[email hidden]...
> So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to
> emerge?
>
> You do know that a sim can have a perfect, complex physics model, andstill
> have poor ff?
>
> The physics model in F1RC is superb btw, but I'm guessing you don't evenown
> the sim. If you haven't bought F1RC and experienced Eau Rouge, and the
> thrill of slashing through Pouhon and Stavelot just perfectly (especially
> the exits as the rear wheels fight for grip as you accelerate and push the
> Ferrari to it's limit), then you are missing out on something veryspecial.
it's
> > > great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, they
> didn't
> > > have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison.All
> > > those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easilyforgive
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > David G Fisher > > > "David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > > As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people sayQuoted text (18 lines)
> > > that. > > > > Or perhaps the sophistication of GPL's physics model actually made it > possible > > to implement meaningful feedback. > > > > Dave Ewing > > > > > > -- > > ***************************************************** > > David A. Ewing > > Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > >I am a fan of F1RC I believe it is the best modern f1 sim and very
underrated but I don't believe it's physics model is a patch on GPL. The FF
in GPL is so good because GPL actually models caster and the FF is linked to
it, a good example of this is if you drive backwards in GPL with a FF wheel
and let go of the wheel the car will sway from side to side that to me is
very impressive, I doubt F1RC physics engine has that level of depth.
Alex
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:7ewW6.16478$[email hidden]...
> So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to
> emerge?
>
> You do know that a sim can have a perfect, complex physics model, andstill
> have poor ff?
>
> The physics model in F1RC is superb btw, but I'm guessing you don't evenown
> the sim. If you haven't bought F1RC and experienced Eau Rouge, and the
> thrill of slashing through Pouhon and Stavelot just perfectly (especially
> the exits as the rear wheels fight for grip as you accelerate and push the
> Ferrari to it's limit), then you are missing out on something veryspecial.
it's
> > > great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, they
> didn't
> > > have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison.All
> > > those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easilyforgive
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > David G Fisher > > > "David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > > As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people sayQuoted text (18 lines)
> > > that. > > > > Or perhaps the sophistication of GPL's physics model actually made it > possible > > to implement meaningful feedback. > > > > Dave Ewing > > > > > > -- > > ***************************************************** > > David A. Ewing > > Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > >You can say that again.
:)
Don Burnette
"Alex Cameron" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:70FW6.2796$[email hidden]...
> I am a fan of F1RC I believe it is the best modern f1 sim and very
> underrated but I don't believe it's physics model is a patch on GPL. TheFF
> in GPL is so good because GPL actually models caster and the FF is linkedto
> it, a good example of this is if you drive backwards in GPL with a FFwheel
(especially
> > the exits as the rear wheels fight for grip as you accelerate and pushthe
Quoted text (18 lines)
> and let go of the wheel the car will sway from side to side that to me is > very impressive, I doubt F1RC physics engine has that level of depth. > > Alex > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7ewW6.16478$[email hidden]... > > So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to > > emerge? > > > > You do know that a sim can have a perfect, complex physics model, and > still > > have poor ff? > > > > The physics model in F1RC is superb btw, but I'm guessing you don't even > own > > the sim. If you haven't bought F1RC and experienced Eau Rouge, and the > > thrill of slashing through Pouhon and Stavelot just perfectlyQuoted text (38 lines)
> > Ferrari to it's limit), then you are missing out on something very > special. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > "David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > > > > As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some people say > it's > > > > great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed, they > > didn't > > > > have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim in comparison. > All > > > > those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easily > forgive > > > > that. > > > > > > Or perhaps the sophistication of GPL's physics model actually made it > > possible > > > to implement meaningful feedback. > > > > > > Dave Ewing > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ***************************************************** > > > David A. Ewing > > > Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] > > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > >Sssshhh... he might.
Jan.
=---
Don Burnette wrote...
> You can say that again.
> :)
>
> Don Burnette
>
> <snip>
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:SgxW6.16808$[email hidden]...
> I don't think I've called their tech support since POD four years ago, soI
> don't really know how they are now.
>
> I'll send the .exe now.
>
> David G Fisher
Got it and it works! At least the condition creating the crash.log seems to
be cured, which means I can actually get on a track. :-) I've sent you an
email with some details and a request.
Thanks!
Jerry Morelock
hey, well done Dave. good luck Jerry!
Iain
"chainbreaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:_VKW6.158286$[email hidden]...
>
> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:SgxW6.16808$[email hidden]...
> > I don't think I've called their tech support since POD four years ago,so
to
> be cured, which means I can actually get on a track. :-) I've sent youan
Quoted text (8 lines)
> I > > don't really know how they are now. > > > > I'll send the .exe now. > > > > David G Fisher > > Got it and it works! At least the condition creating the crash.log seemsQuoted text (7 lines)
> email with some details and a request. > > Thanks! > > Jerry Morelock > >Lol f***in Outlook Express ;-)
Alex
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:P1KW6.157896$[email hidden]...
linked
> to
> > it, a good example of this is if you drive backwards in GPL with a FF
> wheel
> > and let go of the wheel the car will sway from side to side that to meis
even
say
> > it's
> > > > > great), or after working on ALL THOSE OTHER features I listed,they
> > > didn't
> > > > > have time to polish the FF. GPL was a bare bones sim incomparison.
> > All
> > > > > those other features matter more to me than FF, so I can easily
> > forgive
> > > > > that.
> > > >
> > > > Or perhaps the sophistication of GPL's physics model actually madeit
Quoted text (11 lines)
> You can say that again. > :) > > Don Burnette > > "Alex Cameron" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:70FW6.2796$[email hidden]... > > I am a fan of F1RC I believe it is the best modern f1 sim and very > > underrated but I don't believe it's physics model is a patch on GPL. The > FF > > in GPL is so good because GPL actually models caster and the FF isQuoted text (14 lines)
> > very impressive, I doubt F1RC physics engine has that level of depth. > > > > Alex > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:7ewW6.16478$[email hidden]... > > > So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to > > > emerge? > > > > > > You do know that a sim can have a perfect, complex physics model, and > > still > > > have poor ff? > > > > > > The physics model in F1RC is superb btw, but I'm guessing you don'tQuoted text (17 lines)
> > own > > > the sim. If you haven't bought F1RC and experienced Eau Rouge, and the > > > thrill of slashing through Pouhon and Stavelot just perfectly > (especially > > > the exits as the rear wheels fight for grip as you accelerate and push > the > > > Ferrari to it's limit), then you are missing out on something very > > special. > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > "David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > > > > > > As for FF, all I can say is that it's either buggy (some peopleQuoted text (19 lines)
> > > possible > > > > to implement meaningful feedback. > > > > > > > > Dave Ewing > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ***************************************************** > > > > David A. Ewing > > > > Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] > > > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Ubi puts out sequals, and some of us move on.
sequels.
--
-- 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...
>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Don't re-write history.
Yep, DGF please don't do that.
--
-- 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 know what and maybe even who I am referring to at Papy, and you
just don't want to spill the beans. Actually, I'm SURE you know.
If anyone does, it's you Frenchie.
David G Fisher
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:zEOW6.70699$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (17 lines)
> >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Don't re-write history. > > Yep, DGF please don't do that. > > > > > -- > -- 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... > > >>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
> I think you know what and maybe even who I am referring to at Papy, andyou
> just don't want to spill the beans. Actually, I'm SURE you know.
Nope, I clearly remember. You are now in the defensive position, having
said something completely untrue.
POST PROOF OR RETRACT now.
--
-- 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 am 100% positive as to what I remember. The guy surprised a number of
people here with his comments.
No doubts. None. 0. Nada. Zilch.
I just don't remember his name. Not being a card carrying member of the Papy
fan club, I haven't memorized all the names, their autobiographies, and what
they like for dessert.
I'm not retracting anything. Somebody here remembers. Whether or not they
come forward and why, is another matter.
I still think you remember, although maybe I give you too much cranial
credit.
David G Fisher
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aDUW6.73374$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (25 lines)
> >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I think you know what and maybe even who I am referring to at Papy, and > you > > just don't want to spill the beans. Actually, I'm SURE you know. > > > Nope, I clearly remember. You are now in the defensive position, having > said something completely untrue. > > > > POST PROOF OR RETRACT now. > > > > > -- > -- 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... > > >Wow Fran�ois!! UR tossing the Gauntlet down too?? hahaha Hmmmm?
And the plot thickens.....
"ymenard" wrote:
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
Quoted text (15 lines)
| >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote | > I think you know what and maybe even who I am referring to at Papy, and | you | > just don't want to spill the beans. Actually, I'm SURE you know. | | Nope, I clearly remember. You are now in the defensive position, having | said something completely untrue. | | POST PROOF OR RETRACT now. | -- | -- 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...DGF I am really disappointed in you. You never hesitated to post the info
on the so called 600-million viewers and now you are "baulking" with this?
Odd!!! Very Odd!! If it is true and you have it just post it!! Then you can
make us 'Papy card carrying members of the fan club' really look foolish!
Ball is in your court now DGF!! :-)
"David G Fisher" wrote:
| I am 100% positive as to what I remember. The guy surprised a number of
| people here with his comments.
|
| No doubts. None. 0. Nada. Zilch.
|
| I just don't remember his name. Not being a card carrying member of thePapy
| fan club, I haven't memorized all the names, their autobiographies, andwhat
and
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
Quoted text (14 lines)
| they like for dessert. | | I'm not retracting anything. Somebody here remembers. Whether or not they | come forward and why, is another matter. | | I still think you remember, although maybe I give you too much cranial | credit. | | David G Fisher | | "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message | news:aDUW6.73374$[email hidden]... | > >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote | > > I think you know what and maybe even who I am referring to at Papy,Quoted text (24 lines)
| > you | > > just don't want to spill the beans. Actually, I'm SURE you know. | > | > | > Nope, I clearly remember. You are now in the defensive position, having | > said something completely untrue. | > | > | > | > POST PROOF OR RETRACT now. | > | > | > | > | > -- | > -- 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... | > | > | > |What is it that I'm refusing to post? I didn't save his quotes from two
years ago.
DGF
"Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ObXW6.19476$[email hidden]...
> DGF I am really disappointed in you. You never hesitated to post the info
> on the so called 600-million viewers and now you are "baulking" with this?
> Odd!!! Very Odd!! If it is true and you have it just post it!! Then youcan
they
having
Quoted text (16 lines)
> make us 'Papy card carrying members of the fan club' really look foolish! > Ball is in your court now DGF!! :-) > > "David G Fisher" wrote: > | I am 100% positive as to what I remember. The guy surprised a number of > | people here with his comments. > | > | No doubts. None. 0. Nada. Zilch. > | > | I just don't remember his name. Not being a card carrying member of the > Papy > | fan club, I haven't memorized all the names, their autobiographies, and > what > | they like for dessert. > | > | I'm not retracting anything. Somebody here remembers. Whether or notQuoted text (17 lines)
> | come forward and why, is another matter. > | > | I still think you remember, although maybe I give you too much cranial > | credit. > | > | David G Fisher > | > | "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > | news:aDUW6.73374$[email hidden]... > | > >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > | > > I think you know what and maybe even who I am referring to at Papy, > and > | > you > | > > just don't want to spill the beans. Actually, I'm SURE you know. > | > > | > > | > Nope, I clearly remember. You are now in the defensive position,Quoted text (27 lines)
> | > said something completely untrue. > | > > | > > | > > | > POST PROOF OR RETRACT now. > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > -- > | > -- 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: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > >
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:9RAW6.17376$[email hidden]...
> Actually, I said 300 million. The article said 600. I still will stickwith
> 300. I heard it again on the broadcast of a recent race (probably Monaco).
Well, that's 300 million very bored viewers, in that case!
"O" well then!!! I just think you opened a can of worms here.
If this is un-substantiated it just doesnt look good but no big
deal I guess?? Thom_j.
"David G Fisher" wrote:
| What is it that I'm refusing to post? I didn't save his quotes from two
| years ago.
|
| DGF
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
> I am 100% positive as to what I remember. The guy surprised a number of
> people here with his comments.
Like I said, post proof or retract.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.ymenard.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
I have never trusted my memory...it has suffered tremendously from abuse
during my early years. However, I have a 'feeling' that the comments made
by Papy were more in the line of the following:
" FF(or weather) is not something we want to do until we can do it
properly. "
Whether or not that's accurate or just me combineing too many posts in a
cramped skull I don't know.
But after seeing the latest weather efforts, I think papy will really have
to begin focusing on that aspect as well. And while they are doing that,
the rest of the sim community can try and figure out how to have full field
online events.
dave henrie
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:p%xW6.17021$[email hidden]...
> Even the people who were huge fans of GPL were surprised at the ff patch,
> simply because of what Papy had been saying for months, and specifically
> because of what that one employee had said very shortly before it'srelease.
it,
> to
> > > being essential within a year. They simply didn'thave the time to getit
quite
talk
> > > like
> > > > > this!
> > > > > TrollOmeter time!! :o)~
> > > > >
> > > > > "David G Fisher" wrote:
> > > > > | Other racing games/sims had ff before GPL was released. I seemto
Quoted text (30 lines)
> > Others will have to chime in on this. > > David G Fisher > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:DRxW6.155415$[email hidden]... > > Who is rewriting history David? We're both going by memories here. You > > saying yours is factual and mine is not? > > > > I followed the development of GPL very closely, and have followed all of > > Papy's work very closely as well, for several years. And I simply do not > > recall ever seeing them state the things you are saying they did. > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:HOxW6.16975$[email hidden]... > > > Again, they (at least one of the Papy crew) said in a post at another > > forum > > > that ff was junk, crap, worthless..........whatever adjective you want > to > > > use. Papy supporters said "yea, it isn't, Papy says so!" Then a little > > while > > > later (month or two), the ff patch was released. > > > > > > Don't re-write history. > > > > > > FF technology did not go from not being worth the time to implementQuoted text (12 lines)
> > in > > > before the release, just like Ubi didn't have time to polish their ff. > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:xvxW6.155405$[email hidden]... > > > > Papy never said FF was crap, they said they would not implement it > UNTIL > > > it > > > > could be done right, and at that time they had not seen it doneQuoted text (9 lines)
> > > right. > > > > So they did, > > > > > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > > > > > > > "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:TkxW6.16820$[email hidden]... > > > > > "crap"?? is this a quote? I have never heard Randy Cassidy everQuoted text (20 lines)
> > > > remember > > > > > | Papy saying ff was crap right up until the patch was released. > Very > > > > > | strange. > > > > > | David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > > > Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ditto on this too Fran�ois!! Come'on DGF Fess'up Fess'up!!! :-)
"ymenard" wrote:
| Like I said, post proof or retract.
| >"David G Fisher" wrote:
| > I am 100% positive as to what I remember. The guy surprised a number of
| > people here with his comments.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:p%xW6.17021$[email hidden]...
> Even the people who were huge fans of GPL were surprised at the ff patch,
> simply because of what Papy had been saying for months, and specifically
> because of what that one employee had said very shortly before it'srelease.
>
> Others will have to chime in on this.
>
> David G Fisher
>
I don't remember exactly what Papy was saying, but I do remember resigning
myself to not seeing FF in GPL and being extraordinarily surprised when it
did happen. I do remember a post by someone who (I assume) was a Papy
employee that was something to the effect (paraphrased) that "FF is
something that was looked at, but we felt like the technology isn't here
yet, so we didn't consider it any more".
Well, obviously somebody did continue to consider it officially or no, and
IMO it stands (still) as just about the best example of FF in a driving sim
ever--IMO, of course.
Jerry Morelock
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:55:10 GMT, "Jan Verschueren"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Don't remember who at Papy said it or what game/api he was talking about,
>but I definately remember reading something to the extend of "current
>implementations are too crude and event induced rater than a result of
>vehicle dynamics. If it's done like that, it's not worth the processor time
>takes."
Yup, this is mentioned in the foreword of the GPL manual.
Anyway, we got GPL without ff, for whatever reason papy changed their
mind and implemented ff, which is still the best ff ever used in a
racing sim.
Andre
Knew I read it somewhere!! ;-)
Thanks,
Jan.
=---
Andre Warringa wrote...
Quoted text (7 lines)
> <snip> > Yup, this is mentioned in the foreword of the GPL manual. > Anyway, we got GPL without ff, for whatever reason papy > changed their mind and implemented ff, which is still the > best ff ever used in a racing sim. > > AndreDavid G Fisher wrote:
> So why did it take a year after the release of GPL for the ff patch to
> emerge?
As I remember it, they weren't convinced that FF was worth the trouble for
whatever reason. I also remember them being concerned about the CPU drain and
latency issues. However, it seems like once they decided to add it, they were
able to drop it in rather quickly and I seriously believe that the primary
reason for that was due to their detailed physics model.
> You do know that a sim can have a perfect, complex physics model, and still
> have poor ff?
Of course. But the opposite isn't true - without good physics modeling, it
would be next to impossible to have meaningful force feedback.
> The physics model in F1RC is superb btw, but I'm guessing you don't even own
> the sim. If you haven't bought F1RC and experienced Eau Rouge, and the
> thrill of slashing through Pouhon and Stavelot just perfectly (especially
> the exits as the rear wheels fight for grip as you accelerate and push the
> Ferrari to it's limit), then you are missing out on something very special.
I'm not sure why you would assume that. I am one of the more vocal modern F1
fans on the newsgroup and have even posted positive reviews of F12000 in the
past. You're right that I don't own F1RC, yet ;-) But that's more due to my
waiting until I upgrade my computer (P2 400, Voodoo3 3000 and a serious lack of
disk space) than any GPL snobbery.
Dave Ewing
--
*****************************************************
David A. Ewing
Xilinx Boulder [email hidden]
*****************************************************
