Steve Smith, what do you think of GTL?

I've always found Steve's views on simracing very interesting and informative. Does he still post here?

whooo wrote: > I've always found Steve's views on simracing very interesting and > informative. Does he still post here? stfu

reggie white wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> whooo wrote: > >> I've always found Steve's views on simracing very interesting and >> informative. Does he still post here? > > > stfu

The poor boy is even worse at spelling than we first thought! One four letter word, and the little chap has only got one letter right! Back to school, Reginald. Assuming you ever went to one in the first place. :)

whooo <[email hidden]> wrote in news:4SuNe.15172$Mf6.8489@newsfe2- gui.ntli.net: > I've always found Steve's views on simracing very interesting and > informative. Does he still post here? > sssh...last I saw Steve, he was posting on RSC in the GTR forums. dave henrie

gui.ntli.net: sssh...last I saw Steve, he was posting on RSC in the GTR forums. dave henrie

I'm also a Steve Smith fan.

> I've always found Steve's views on simracing very interesting and > informative. Does he still post here? Well, I'm a Steve and here's my view ;) Pros ==== + probably the best tire model ever in a sim + probably the best AI ever in a sim + impressive lighting - headlights, realtime sun movement etc + virtual driver is nicely done if you're a GPL 'arms' fan. + driver's feet modelled + stunning 3D modelling - particularly cockpits + style of cars make for close, exciting racing + most of the other things that are good about GTR Cons ==== - doesn't have the new rFactor replay editing studio - same old - multiplayer is still an unknown quanity (are they hiding it again?) - starforce (not an issue for me but bothers some people) - cars may not appeal to younger sim racers

Steve Simpson wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

>> I've always found Steve's views on simracing very interesting and >> informative. Does he still post here? > > > Well, I'm a Steve and here's my view ;) > > Pros > ==== > > + probably the best tire model ever in a sim > + probably the best AI ever in a sim > + impressive lighting - headlights, realtime sun movement etc > + virtual driver is nicely done if you're a GPL 'arms' fan. > + driver's feet modelled > + stunning 3D modelling - particularly cockpits > + style of cars make for close, exciting racing > + most of the other things that are good about GTR > > Cons > ==== > > - doesn't have the new rFactor replay editing studio - same old > - multiplayer is still an unknown quanity (are they hiding it again?) > - starforce (not an issue for me but bothers some people) > - cars may not appeal to younger sim racers

Thanks, Steve. The multiplayer will decide it for me. But even if MP is good, why oh why no old tracks? I guess we'll have to trust in the modders for those.

>Thanks, Steve. The multiplayer will decide it for me. But even if MP is > good, why oh why no old tracks? I guess we'll have to trust in the > modders for those. My guess? It's because the tracks don't exist anymore. Seriously. When you consider how they go on about how meticulously they recreated small details for current tracks (e.g. bumps), old tracks don't make sense, because they don't fit. How do you get GPS and telemetry data for something that no longer exists? They could still do it, but IMHO it'd probably be an add-on. Otherwise, that whole accurate down to the bumps thing can't go on the box. I know, I know.... a lot of you don't care about that last bit. Alan

Do you realise that what you've written makes absolutely no sense at all? Let's take the Nurburgring Nordschliefe for starters; it DOES exist. In fact, it is possible to travel around what once was the entire circuit. Then let's have a look at Spa, pre Bernie Ecclestone. The road system ALSO exists, so accurate mapping is certainly plausible. And you're quite correct........not too many of we old curmudgeons would give a rat's arse about the meticulous recreation of small details such as bumps, for Christ's sake! Seriously. Bruce "Alan Le" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:yRvOe.173$[email hidden]... > My guess? It's because the tracks don't exist anymore.Seriously...........

I'm pretty sure half the tracks didn't exist in GPL... there's enough historical data that these tracks can be recreated. This is old old news for anyone who's driven simulators for an length of time... certainly back to 1998! T.

Alan Le wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>>Thanks, Steve. The multiplayer will decide it for me. But even if MP is >>good, why oh why no old tracks? I guess we'll have to trust in the >>modders for those. > > > My guess? It's because the tracks don't exist anymore. Seriously. When > you consider how they go on about how meticulously they recreated small > details for current tracks (e.g. bumps), old tracks don't make sense, > because they don't fit. How do you get GPS and telemetry data for something > that no longer exists? They could still do it, but IMHO it'd probably be an > add-on. Otherwise, that whole accurate down to the bumps thing can't go on > the box. > > I know, I know.... a lot of you don't care about that last bit. > > Alan > >

Actually, I think it's more a licensing issue. It's much easier to license a current series than to do what papy did with GPL. These modern track, with their wide run-off areas, will make for some great racing. The more I consider it, the less I'm worried about old tracks.

If we got some of these GPL track builders to covert over to GTL we'd be in track heaven... lol Besides all we really need is The Ring, already a GTR version, convert it to GTL of course thats easier said than done... I'd love to see GPL's Zandvoort in GTL. On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:24:12 GMT, whooo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

>Alan Le wrote: >>>Thanks, Steve. The multiplayer will decide it for me. But even if MP is >>>good, why oh why no old tracks? I guess we'll have to trust in the >>>modders for those. >> >> >> My guess? It's because the tracks don't exist anymore. Seriously. When >> you consider how they go on about how meticulously they recreated small >> details for current tracks (e.g. bumps), old tracks don't make sense, >> because they don't fit. How do you get GPS and telemetry data for something >> that no longer exists? They could still do it, but IMHO it'd probably be an >> add-on. Otherwise, that whole accurate down to the bumps thing can't go on >> the box. >> >> I know, I know.... a lot of you don't care about that last bit. >> >> Alan >> >> >Actually, I think it's more a licensing issue. It's much easier to >license a current series than to do what papy did with GPL. > >These modern track, with their wide run-off areas, will make for some >great racing. > >The more I consider it, the less I'm worried about old tracks.

The 'Ring, Spa, Zandvoort and Rouen would make my day with GTL. If they were either included or available, I'd definitely buy the product. BK "Rich8" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > If we got some of these GPL track builders to covert over to GTL we'd bein track heaven... lol

> Do you realise that what you've written makes absolutely no sense at all? > Let's take the Nurburgring Nordschliefe for starters; it DOES exist. In > fact, it is possible to travel around what once was the entire circuit. > >Then let's have a look at Spa, pre Bernie Ecclestone. >The road system ALSO exists, so accurate mapping is certainly plausible. Many tracks have undergone changes here and there. Take Spa. The bus stop, for example, was updated recently. Small as that may be relative to overall course length, how can they accurately reproduce Spa with the granularity they boast about as it existed several decades ago? Bottom line is they can't. Maybe they could get fairly close and fudge the rest. You or I might not particularly mind, but that wouldn't change the fact that fudging runs contrary to "complete realism." Obviously, they can do whatever they please regardless of their pitch. I'm just giving one reason why they might choose not to. Alan

Alan, think about it......think about it! If the circuits don't exist any more, as they existed in the 1960's, who the hell is ever going to be able to say..."THAT isn't accurate!"? No-one, my friend. And if the general layout is correct (and there is a plethora of historical data, including circuit layouts to scale) then who the hell cares about "granularity"? Not me, for sure, and I'll wager, not anyone else whose racing memories of these cars (GTL) goes back to the sixties and seventies. As someone else has posted.....give us the GPL circuits in GTL and we'll be perfectly happy. :) Bruce.

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > Alan, think about it......think about it! > Bruce, think about it... Simbin are modelling a contemporary historic series that *gasp* runs old cars on select contemporary tracks. If the sim takes off, leave it to the community to whip up some historic tracks. -jde

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:430c2ffe$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Alan, think about it......think about it! > > If the circuits don't exist any more, as they existed in the 1960's, > who the hell is ever going to be able to say..."THAT isn't accurate!"? > > No-one, my friend. > > And if the general layout is correct (and there is a plethora of > historical data, including circuit layouts to scale) then who the hell > cares about "granularity"? > Not me, for sure, and I'll wager, not anyone else whose racing > memories of these cars (GTL) goes back to the sixties and seventies. > > As someone else has posted.....give us the GPL circuits in GTL and > we'll be perfectly happy. :) > > Bruce. > >

Most of the GPL circuits have already been converted over to F1c, from there it is a short stay in the Code Hospital to update them to GTR and/or GTL. Rouen is almost boring with a fully Winged Group C Prototype. dave henrie