why is r factor going to be better online that gtr if it uses the same
engine?
Will rFactor's multiplayer beat GTR's, and how netcode works
A user asked why rFactor would be better online than GTR if it used the same engine. Answers noted that rFactor used ISI's newer gMotor2 engine, while Jan Verschueren argued its netcode was essentially no better than GTR's. A long technical discussion followed, with flight-sim netcode programmer Nick explaining client-server prediction. Byron Forbes and others debated whether NR2003 and GPL 'warp' crashes were caused by crude prediction.
Automated summary.
"Brendan Hoefs" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:42e2ec6a$0$29468
$[email hidden]:
> why is r factor going to be better online that gtr if it uses the same
> engine?
>
>
>
It does not. Is that enough of an answer? GTR is F1c + rFactor is
F1c + GTR ++ It has many of the same traits, but haven't you been looking
at the muliplayer demo? They have had much better sucess than either F1c
or GTR online. The Motor software engine v2.x that will be used in rF is
way beyond even GTR in many areas. The lighting alone should be worth the
drive.
But how will Multi be? I think the fact we haven't seen tons of posts
complaining about the demo could be a good indication. The GTR threads
over at RSC are full of online problems. It seems that the rfactor forums
just aren't raising the same issues. So we may HOPE it will do ok.
I think I can say with 99% certainty, that the Papy Bred users will be
just a critical of rF as any ISI title, but the fact they have been working
on Multiplayer issues for almost a year certainly is a positive sign.
I don't think we will see 40+ online packs, but I think 20+ will be an
attainable goal. The good news is....we won't have too much longer to sit
around here and speculate.
The next great online title 'should' be iRacing from the ex Papy crew.
But they have several major hurdles to overcome before we see their work.
A) They have never had real time weather. B) They have lately limited
their physics to one flavor, So multi-class simming will be difficult to
acheive. C)They have not shown real-time lighting, which rF has already
acheived. D) they have not ever figured out what to do about wall riding
or wheel to wheel contact. Things that 'should' have been fixed back in
the N3 days. E) The AI abilities are often either brilliant or incredibly
stupid. GTR has shown that AI can behave in a manner that simulates great
racing.
They do know plenty about online community, which is the single greatest
weakness of any ISI product. And that gives me an excellant reminder to
start a new thread that I have been pondering lately. :)
dave henrie
The rfactor demo hasn't impressed me that much in terms of its online
capabilites, although improved it still seems flaky like previous ISI
titles.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> The rfactor demo hasn't impressed me that much in terms of its online
> capabilites, although improved it still seems flaky like previous ISI
> titles.
>
Nothing beats LFS S2 for online racing. Best MP around.
Alanb
Alan Bernardo wrote:
> Nothing beats LFS S2 for online racing. Best MP around.
>
> Alanb
LFS does have very good multi no doubt and it is fun online but for me
at least the physics are not totally convincing.
http://www.rfactor.net/
"Brendan Hoefs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:42e2ec6a$0$29468$[email hidden]...
> why is r factor going to be better online that gtr if it uses the same
> engine?
>
"Dave Henrie" wrote...
>> <snip>
> It does not. <snip>
True.
> But how will Multi be? I think the fact we haven't seen tons
> of posts complaining about the demo could be a good indication.
rFactor corrects some of the issues related to the "ISI" multi, like the
join pauses, but is, in essence, no better than GTR in that department.
Compare a GTR/rFactor client replay with, say, one of a 30 entries NR2003
race and cringe.
Jan.
=---
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Huh? Explain please.
Alanb
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Alan Bernardo wrote: > >> Nothing beats LFS S2 for online racing. Best MP around. >> >> Alanb > > LFS does have very good multi no doubt and it is fun online but for me > at least the physics are not totally convincing. >
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:42e39231$0$32705$[email hidden]...
Wow, man-- that really explains it. The guy asks a question which is
specific enough and you give him a web site?
That would be like someone asking, "Say, how does the Constitution of the
United States protect citizens' rights?
And then someone comes back with,
www.usconstitution.org
If you could answer the guy's question, that would be nice. I'd like to
hear it myself.
Alanb
Quoted text (10 lines)
> http://www.rfactor.net/ > > > "Brendan Hoefs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:42e2ec6a$0$29468$[email hidden]... >> why is r factor going to be better online that gtr if it uses the same >> engine? >> > >
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:42e39231$0$32705$[email hidden]...
This, from the guy who usually answers most questions with "Why don't you
look it up for yourself" or some such helpfull advice. ;o)
At least he gave him a web site to check out.
Elrikk
Quoted text (25 lines)
> > http://www.rfactor.net/ > > > > > > "Brendan Hoefs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:42e2ec6a$0$29468$[email hidden]... > >> why is r factor going to be better online that gtr if it uses the same > >> engine? > >> > > > > > > Wow, man-- that really explains it. The guy asks a question which is > specific enough and you give him a web site? > > That would be like someone asking, "Say, how does the Constitution of the > United States protect citizens' rights? > > And then someone comes back with, > > www.usconstitution.org > > If you could answer the guy's question, that would be nice. I'd like to > hear it myself. > > AlanbIn article <xvNEe.152468$[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
I've only seen a couple of races in the lobbies where there were 30
people racing, and over the last couple of years, any given race is
lucky to have 10 drivers. Even after it was new, NR2k3 races typically
had fewer than 20 drivers. If ISI can't do more than 30 drivers online,
it doesn't seem like much of an issue to me.
Quoted text (20 lines)
> "Dave Henrie" wrote... > >> <snip> > > It does not. <snip> > > True. > > > But how will Multi be? I think the fact we haven't seen tons > > of posts complaining about the demo could be a good indication. > > rFactor corrects some of the issues related to the "ISI" multi, like the > join pauses, but is, in essence, no better than GTR in that department. > > Compare a GTR/rFactor client replay with, say, one of a 30 entries NR2003 > race and cringe. > > Jan. > =--- > > >"John Simmons" wrote...
Big leagues regularly have 30 car races and even on Sierra you occasionally
find full fields at plate tracks. However, I agree capacity is less of an
issue.
I was referring to the actual quality of the replay. If the client has the
computer horsepower for NR2003, he can choose to have all 30 cars in his
replay and, for the most part, it will be possible to accurately follow each
individual participant afterwards.
Compare that to GTR/rFactor where, even with 10 just drivers, there will be
many position updates missing.
Jan.
=---
Quoted text (7 lines)
> <snip> > I've only seen a couple of races in the lobbies where there > were 30 people racing, and over the last couple of years, > any given race is lucky to have 10 drivers. Even after it > was new, NR2k3 races typically had fewer than 20 > drivers. If ISI can't do more than 30 drivers online, > it doesn't seem like much of an issue to me."Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:AD2Fe.153070$[email hidden]...
I'm getting disheartened again! :(
If this turns out to be right with the full release......what a joke. What
is the big problem with racing sims and multi?
Anyone here got much experience in flight sims or the like. Does this
seemingly HUGE problem exist in other similar genres?
Quoted text (20 lines)
> "John Simmons" wrote... >> <snip> >> I've only seen a couple of races in the lobbies where there >> were 30 people racing, and over the last couple of years, >> any given race is lucky to have 10 drivers. Even after it >> was new, NR2k3 races typically had fewer than 20 >> drivers. If ISI can't do more than 30 drivers online, >> it doesn't seem like much of an issue to me. > > Big leagues regularly have 30 car races and even on Sierra you > occasionally find full fields at plate tracks. However, I agree capacity > is less of an issue. > > I was referring to the actual quality of the replay. If the client has the > computer horsepower for NR2003, he can choose to have all 30 cars in his > replay and, for the most part, it will be possible to accurately follow > each individual participant afterwards. > Compare that to GTR/rFactor where, even with 10 just drivers, there will > be many position updates missing. >
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Well, porcupine head, the reason I did this is because I was browsing
over the rFactor site the other day and one of the things that sticks out
like dogs balls is
"Presenting rFactor, the new racing simulation series from Image Space
Incorporated. After successfully creating over a dozen products in the past
ten years, Image Space takes the next logical step, creating a completely
new technology base and development process. This new isiMotor 2.0
environment will be the foundation on which to build exciting products for
many years to come."
Right there on the front page, paragraph 1. That enlighten you a little?
Quoted text (27 lines)
> > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:42e39231$0$32705$[email hidden]... >> http://www.rfactor.net/ >> >> >> "Brendan Hoefs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:42e2ec6a$0$29468$[email hidden]... >>> why is r factor going to be better online that gtr if it uses the same >>> engine? >>> >> >> > > Wow, man-- that really explains it. The guy asks a question which is > specific enough and you give him a web site? > > That would be like someone asking, "Say, how does the Constitution of the > United States protect citizens' rights? > > And then someone comes back with, > > www.usconstitution.org > > If you could answer the guy's question, that would be nice. I'd like to > hear it myself. >
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:42e63804$0$32751$[email hidden]...
It's nice that you have perfected the art of calling someone names. Good
show.
As far as your link goes, that means nothing, coming from the makers or
rfactor. Of course they are not going to say that their multiplayer is no
better than GTR's. And rfactor's indication of their running a different
engine, means nothing.
From what I've been able to tell from personal experience, rfactor's
multiplayer is not very good. Once again, one only needs to look to those
three guys who made LFS and the game itself, to discover one of the best
multiplayer racing games to come out in quite some time.
Alanb
Quoted text (45 lines)
> > "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> >> "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:42e39231$0$32705$[email hidden]... >>> http://www.rfactor.net/ >>> >>> >>> "Brendan Hoefs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>> news:42e2ec6a$0$29468$[email hidden]... >>>> why is r factor going to be better online that gtr if it uses the same >>>> engine? >>>> >>> >>> >> >> Wow, man-- that really explains it. The guy asks a question which is >> specific enough and you give him a web site? >> >> That would be like someone asking, "Say, how does the Constitution of the >> United States protect citizens' rights? >> >> And then someone comes back with, >> >> www.usconstitution.org >> >> If you could answer the guy's question, that would be nice. I'd like to >> hear it myself. >> > > Well, porcupine head, the reason I did this is because I was browsing > over the rFactor site the other day and one of the things that sticks out > like dogs balls is > > "Presenting rFactor, the new racing simulation series from Image Space > Incorporated. After successfully creating over a dozen products in the > past ten years, Image Space takes the next logical step, creating a > completely new technology base and development process. This new isiMotor > 2.0 environment will be the foundation on which to build exciting products > for many years to come." > > Right there on the front page, paragraph 1. That enlighten you a > little? >
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Thanks porcupine head!
> As far as your link goes, that means nothing, coming from the makers or
> rfactor. Of course they are not going to say that their multiplayer is no
> better than GTR's. And rfactor's indication of their running a different
> engine, means nothing.
>
rotfl
Fucken 'ell, he's serious too. LOL.
Now that I've stopped laughing (and thanks for the laugh btw), anyone
who asks a question, clearly without any research whatsoever (like popping
on over to - http://www.rfactor.net/ for eg.), deserves no more than such a
link anyway. He got off lucky in fact.
> From what I've been able to tell from personal experience, rfactor's
> multiplayer is not very good. Once again, one only needs to look to those
> three guys who made LFS and the game itself, to discover one of the best
> multiplayer racing games to come out in quite some time.
>
yeah.
Quoted text (52 lines)
> > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:42e63804$0$32751$[email hidden]... >> >> "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >>> >>> "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>> news:42e39231$0$32705$[email hidden]... >>>> http://www.rfactor.net/ >>>> >>>> >>>> "Brendan Hoefs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>> news:42e2ec6a$0$29468$[email hidden]... >>>>> why is r factor going to be better online that gtr if it uses the same >>>>> engine? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Wow, man-- that really explains it. The guy asks a question which is >>> specific enough and you give him a web site? >>> >>> That would be like someone asking, "Say, how does the Constitution of >>> the United States protect citizens' rights? >>> >>> And then someone comes back with, >>> >>> www.usconstitution.org >>> >>> If you could answer the guy's question, that would be nice. I'd like to >>> hear it myself. >>> >> >> Well, porcupine head, the reason I did this is because I was browsing >> over the rFactor site the other day and one of the things that sticks out >> like dogs balls is >> >> "Presenting rFactor, the new racing simulation series from Image Space >> Incorporated. After successfully creating over a dozen products in the >> past ten years, Image Space takes the next logical step, creating a >> completely new technology base and development process. This new isiMotor >> 2.0 environment will be the foundation on which to build exciting >> products for many years to come." >> >> Right there on the front page, paragraph 1. That enlighten you a >> little? >> > > It's nice that you have perfected the art of calling someone names. Good > show. >> Fucken 'ell, he's serious too. LOL.
>
Same response a lot of people come back with. Swearing and then the stupid
LOL. It's a wonder you didn't plop in,
<rolling eyes>
All in all, you're worth a killfile.
Alanb
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
asap too thanks!
Quoted text (10 lines)
>> Fucken 'ell, he's serious too. LOL. >> > > Same response a lot of people come back with. Swearing and then the > stupid LOL. It's a wonder you didn't plop in, > > <rolling eyes> > > All in all, you're worth a killfile. >Cause it don't use the same engine :)
-Larry
"Brendan Hoefs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:42e2ec6a$0$29468$[email hidden]...
> why is r factor going to be better online that gtr if it uses the same
> engine?
>
Quoted text (8 lines)
> I'm getting disheartened again! :( > > If this turns out to be right with the full release......what a joke. > What > is the big problem with racing sims and multi? > > Anyone here got much experience in flight sims or the like. Does this > seemingly HUGE problem exist in other similar genres?> Huh? Explain please.
The physics seem good to me, but the cars & tracks are about as exciting
as sliced bread and the graphics & sounds are woeful.
As I'm writing client/server netcode for a flight sim right at this
very moment, I can tell you that it is a grade-A bitch.
This is the basic way things work...
You have a whole bunch of clients who are trying to play the same
game-that is, everyone needs to know where everyone else is, what
they're doing, etc. This is called the game state. You designate a
server to be the one 'true' game, and each client sends info on what
they are doing to the server, and the server collates it and sends it
all back out to the clients. As a client, you tell the server what
you're doing, the server tells you what everybody else is doing.
Except... the game state is *huge*, much bigger than even broadband
could possibly cope with as player numbers go up, so the server only
sends 'deltas', it only sends what changed since the last frame. But
each packet might get lost en route, a series of packets might arrive
out of order, so the client has to somehow patch this all together to
get some kind of representation of what's going on.
Also, when you steer left, you don't send your new position/velocity to
the server, you send your control input, and the server does the
physics and stuff, then tells you where you end up. This is because
you might have just steered into another car. Lets say you're driving
alongside somebody else, there's a bit of a gap between you, and you
move towards them just as they move towards you. You (your computer)
thinks there is no crash (because you steer immediately but you don't
see them move for a while due to lag), their computer thinks there is
no crash, but the server sees you *both* steer, decides you crashed and
then has to tell you both (and everybody else) that you just crashed.
Even stranger, because of lag, lets say everyone in the game has a ping
of 100ms to the server. If you steer, the server only finds out about
it 100ms later. If someone else steers, you only find out about it
200ms later. 1/5 of a second. If you're on dialup and your ping is
500ms, you steer and it happens on your screen *half a second* later.
That's unplayable, so your computer doesn't wait for the server, it
does it immediately, assuming that the server will tell you the same
thing anyway. Your computer also predicts what everybody else is up
to. When you finally get an answer from the server, your computer
shifts everybody in the world into their proper place, which makes them
jump, or 'warp'. Of course, they warp to the places they were at when
the server sent the packet, so 100ms ago...
Basically, no client ever sees what's really going on. They are always
incorrect by some margin. If you have a steady broadband connection to
a decent server in a game with good netcode and prediction, you might
not even notice anything except the occasional warp, but you're still
seeing into the past to a certain extent.
As for client replays, the positions of the cars comes from the server,
the client does no physics on them, it just puts them where it's told,
or predicts if it has no data. Client replays are *always* incorrect.
Plus, good netcode will drop distant state info. If the server is
sending out state for 40 cars, that's a lot of data (=bandwidth), so it
will drop cars which are further away, updating them less often, so the
client does more prediction. It's less accurate, but you don't care.
Sometimes they might disappear completely. The only replay which shows
what really happened to everybody is (by design) the server replay.
Why are flight sims better for replays? Because if you're 10 miles
from someone and the server isn't giving you much info, or you have a
lot of lag, then you start to predict, your predictions start to go
wrong, but hey! If they are 10 miles away and their position is 5
metres out of true, can you tell? No. If you're driving alongside
someone at 200mph and their position is 5 metres out, can you tell?
You betcha.
I know this is a bit epic, but I've had my head in this stuff for ages
and I'm only just figuring it out. I'm making my netcode generic, but
I'm starting with a flight sim because it hides the errors ;-) The
biggest problem I've had (thankfully 'solved' now) is, if you're
sending the difference on each frame, what happens if the last packet
didn't arrive? How do you work out the new values if you never had the
old ones?! You could just resend the lot, but that takes *ages*. What
happens if you get packet 6 before packet 5? Arrgh, it's a nightmare!
Thanks for letting me vent! :-)
By the way if anybody wants to know more (details, code), I'm happy to
help out. The internet is great for WinSock tutorials, great to tell
you the problems for games, but thin on solutions... all of my info
comes mainly from Quake, Quake 2 and Freespace 2 source code.
"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
An educated guess tells me that any netcode that starts out using
control input is stuffed. I would think it should start by having 6 pieces
of info, X times per secong. The 6 pieces of info are a 3D point + the
accompanying 3 angles of rotation about the 3 planes. I'd guess that's how
Papy code works. The only problem with Papy code is the crude use of linear
prediction which creates collisions that never actually happened such as
when an inside car warps up into an outsie car. Anyway, anything after these
6 bits of info is just nice - engine rpm and throttle opening/engine volume,
tyre squeal/smoke probably being next in the pecking order. Then maybe you
throw in front wheel turn, etc, etc. The server should be able to have the
option to enable/disable as much of the nice stuff as possible and also
control the freq that data is sent/recieved at. That way available bandwidth
can be used to either maximize field numbers and/or the quality of the multi
I basically disagree with the gist of your post too ie that it's a
nightmare. Papy have had it pretty well sorted since GPL and even b4 that
with Hawai. Any company setting out to do things properly, with the right,
dedicated people, should have this sorted in no time. And it should be the
first thing to be sorted with emphasis on not only the racing, but the
results reporting after races.
Quoted text (12 lines)
> > Also, when you steer left, you don't send your new position/velocity to > the server, you send your control input, and the server does the > physics and stuff, then tells you where you end up. This is because > you might have just steered into another car. Lets say you're driving > alongside somebody else, there's a bit of a gap between you, and you > move towards them just as they move towards you. You (your computer) > thinks there is no crash (because you steer immediately but you don't > see them move for a while due to lag), their computer thinks there is > no crash, but the server sees you *both* steer, decides you crashed and > then has to tell you both (and everybody else) that you just crashed. >> An educated guess tells me that any netcode that starts out using
> control input is stuffed.
Well, that's about all the net games ever made, then. If you let
clients just send their positions, they can hack the game to speed up,
for example. If you don't send the control inputs to the server for it
to verify movement, you've got one almighty cheat-filled game going on.
Ideally, you would want to do as much as possible on the client, but
clients are easy to hack. Look at Counter-Strike-the most common hacks
are aimbots, because the speed you can turn is not restricted, so they
just lock on to the nearest player, calculate the control inputs they
would need to do so and send them back to the server, so the server
can't tell anything bad is going on. You never see teleport hacks or
jump hacks or speed hacks, because the server would notice and disallow
it.
There are a few good articles around, such as "The Internet Sucks: Or,
What I Learned Coding X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter" by Peter Lincroft on
Gamasutra. Another good one is "Instant Replay : Building a Game
Engine with Reproducible Behavior" by Patrick Dickinson. They dovetail
quite nicely. You could also check out the Unreal Networking
Architecture at http://unreal.epicgames.com/Network.htm (look at the
client prediction bit). Or, just check out the source code to, say,
Quake, which is pretty much identical in operation to Quake 2, Quake 3,
Half-Life, Counter-Strike, and all the other games descended from
Quake.
> The 6 pieces of info are a 3D point + the accompanying 3
> angles of rotation about the 3 planes.
Well, you need a velocity vector to even start predicting any kind of
movement, and if you wanted to add any kind of accuracy you'd need an
acceleration vector too. Same for angular velocity and angular
acceleration. So minimum 18 floats, which is 72 bytes per packet.
That, as you say, is without the 'nice' stuff. Add on the IP header
(20 bytes) and UDP header (8 bytes), and it starts getting big. Figure
100 bytes for this 'bare minimum' stuff. If the server is running at
20fps (like Quake 2), and you have 40 cars, each client has to download
100 * 20 * 39 = 78,000 bytes every second from the server. If you're
on 512kbps broadband, that's 512 kiloBITS per second, 64 kiloBYTES per
second. So you physically CANNOT play the game, even on half-a-meg
broadband. God help you if you're on dialup. Remember, this wouldn't
result in lag, that's the delay between sending and receiving data,
this is beyond the physical limit of the amount of data you can receive
over a given timeslice.
> I basically disagree with the gist of your post too ie that it's
> a nightmare. Papy have had it pretty well sorted since
> GPL and even b4 that with Hawai.
LOL! Papy have some of the best netcode around, and as you say, it's
been in development since, well, when was Hawaii? We're talking 8
years minimum. My netcode isn't even 8 weeks old! It is a nightmare
trying to coordinate dozens of people across the world, each with
different pings, packets getting lost, arriving out of order, needing
to severely restrict what you send due to the reasons I've outlined
above, stopping cheating, etc. It isn't a case of ISI netcode being
especially bad, it's Papy netcode being especially good. Remember, ISI
weren't even allowed to do dedicated servers until recently, so they
don't exactly have 8+ years of experience here...
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Nick) wrote:
> Well, you need a velocity vector to even start predicting
> any kind of movement
If every online object has a buffer that's stored between frames all
you need is X,Y,Z. As you already have a record of the last N
locations you can use that to predict the next movement. Ok it'd use
local CPU cycles, but that's a fair swap and look-up tables ought to
help considerably.
Andrew McP
Lets say that a remote players' data takes 100ms to get to the server,
and it takes another 100ms to get to you, their data is already 200ms
old by the time it gets to you. To go back another 50ms (server rate)
to take an average is just increasing the inaccuracies twofold (older
data, and averaging). Plus, what happens if data from the remote
player gets lost for a bit? You either use some data that's whole
seconds old to get your average, or you have no velocity data at all.
Either way it's pretty meaningless. This is what makes it so hard, you
come up with something that sounds like it works, it works on your LAN,
but as soon as it hits the internet it dies, and more often than not
it's hard to figure out why it died, because you can't replicate the
conditions, and you can't exactly set breakpoints in a multiplayer
game...
As soon as a car goes around a corner, the velocity keeps changing, but
the acceleration remains pretty constant (towards the centre of the
corner), so if you only use velocities, then as soon as you lose data
in a corner, all the cars start going straight (imagine swirling a rock
on a piece of string around your head-losing a packet is like cutting
the string, the rock moves in a straight line with its last known
velocity, now that it has no acceleration acting on it to drag it round
the circle).
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:18 +0100 (BST),
[email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:
Actually, you need more than XYZ. You obviously need a time stamp, but
also travel velocity, travel accelaration, turn velocity and turn
accelaration. You also want to send other data aswell, to represent
the car right, like rpm, wheel angle and suspension state.
Cheers!
Remco
Quoted text (11 lines)
>In article <[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] (Nick) wrote: > >> Well, you need a velocity vector to even start predicting >> any kind of movement > >If every online object has a buffer that's stored between frames all >you need is X,Y,Z. As you already have a record of the last N >locations you can use that to predict the next movement. Ok it'd use >local CPU cycles, but that's a fair swap and look-up tables ought to >help considerably.In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote:
> Actually, you need more than XYZ
Obviously! :-) I was just commenting on the velocity.
Andrew McP
Steve Simpson wrote:
> > Huh? Explain please.
>
> The physics seem good to me, but the cars & tracks are about as exciting
> as sliced bread and the graphics & sounds are woeful.
I've just recently unlocked the LFS S2 alpha and am having a bunch of
fun with it, the physics are actually very good and there is a good
selection of cars with my favourite probably being the open wheel
formula XR.
Have no problem with the tracks and graphics but the sound is perhaps
the weakest part of the game but it doesn't detract hugely from what is
a very well done racing simulator with solid netcode.
The guys behind this deserve a lot of credit.
Jan Verschueren wrote:
> rFactor corrects some of the issues related to the "ISI" multi, like the
> join pauses, but is, in essence, no better than GTR in that department.
Boo.
I haven't messed much with the multi demo, have they at least
implemented a better tire model if not better net, menu (argh, the demo
menus are worse than the old SCGT/F1x menus), and replay code?
>> An educated guess tells me that any netcode that starts out using
>> control input is stuffed.
> Well, that's about all the net games ever made, then.
Almost all current racing games use position updates as opposed
to control inputs for online racing. Need for Speed 4 - High Stakes
and Need for Speed 5 - Porsche Unleashed are two of the few
games that allow players to choose between control inputs or
position updates for online play. The limit is 8 players per
race and virtually no one uses control input mode because there
is too much delay in control feedback.
Another issue is that some racing games react differently
depending on the system they are running on. Control input
for online play wouldn't work at all on these games.
> If you let clients just send their positions, they can hack the
> game to speed up, for example.
Yes, and that's exactly what happens online. If the replays record
enough telemetry information for every car in a race, then they
can be used to check for cheats. This is how it's done in NR2003.
You just have to put up with it in some games. In NR2003, a server
can ban specific players, which helps, but it also gets abused,
some players getting unfairly banned. In LFS, a player can post
a vote during a race to eject a player, again the potential for
abuse occurs here, like the "crasher" putting up a vote to ban
the "crashee".
Real time cheat detection schemes are difficult to implement. EA
uses this for NFS7 (Underground 1) and NFS8 (Underground 2). The
server code tries to determine if the telemetry info it receives
indicates a cheat or unfair play. Even with months of updates,
EA never got this to work right. It rarely detects true cheats,
and about 90% of the time that it does disqualify a player, it
wrongly does so (false detection of a cheat or unfair play).
< saving control inputs during replays
If both control inputs and telemetry were saved during replays, then
the replay could be re-run using the control inputs to check for
hacked physics. However this would mean that all factors affecting
performance, like tuning, would be included in the replay, and a lot
of players guard their setups. Note that Need For Speed 2 thru 5
save only the control inputs for replays (along with car id,
tuning, assist and cheat codes used), and work perfectly, even
when viewed on other systems. In order for this to work, the control
inputs are filtered (one byte for each control input, sampled at a
fixed rate) before being applied to a player's car and stored in the
replay. For NFS 2 thru 5, these replays make great cheat detectors
for offline runs, since it just used the creator's control inputs
on the viewers game.
< some games are system senstitive, so control inputs wouldn't work
< it also means that these games aren't fair
EA's NFS7 was extremely affected by system speed. There was a patch
but it over-compensated, so that faster lap times would occur on
slower machines. On some newer racing games, the peformance varies
from system to system, the same control inputs on one system won't
have the same results as the same control inputs on another system.
This could be do to the controller (wheel versus joystick), system
speed, graphics card speed, sound card speed, ... .
Live for speed S1 runs better if you enable force feedback, as
this has the affect of adding a stability assist in the game.
Since most newer games use telemetry based replays, replays can't
be interchanged to check if the game runs the same on two different
systems. In the case of one of the more popular games, I read a
thread were a player played a game at a friend's house, and had
to adjust the setup to compensate for the game performing differently
between the two systems (the player brought his own controller,
a momo racing wheel, and used the same controller driver, so it
wasn't a controller issue). One of the systems resulted in faster
lap times than the others.
One test that can be used is to run fraps to capture screen data while
running a race. I've found a few games where performance seems to
improve when running a fraps capture while playing. Another simple
thing to try is to reduce the graphics (lower resolution).
The only games I know of that use controller input based replays
are the Need for Speed games 2 through 5, and Toca Race Driver 2.
These are also the only games I've confirmed to run on multiple
systems and perform exactly the same.
"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
I think that you, and others in this thread, and Papy even, have
overlooked the opportunity to use each clients computer cpu to do AI ie any
car with no incoming data defaults to AI control. There are a number of
things that can happen when data resumes eg the car flashes for the same
amount of time it was discoed (5 sec max say) and during this flashing is
only a ghost ie no collision.
Also, prediction is probably always in use in Papy sims I'd say anyway.
I would imagine the server looks at all client pings eg client A is pinging
the server at 100, client B at 50 so there is a local client prediction on A
and B's game, relative to each other, of 150ms ahead. I would imagine that
there are "benifit of the doubt" routines for collision, especially in the
braking zones.
As for Velocity and acc, those deltas could also be computed by clients
from incoming data.
A rule I'd like to see all sim companies stick to is that there is never
a collision based on prediction - only when the data proves overlap at the
same point in time.
Quoted text (23 lines)
> Lets say that a remote players' data takes 100ms to get to the server, > and it takes another 100ms to get to you, their data is already 200ms > old by the time it gets to you. To go back another 50ms (server rate) > to take an average is just increasing the inaccuracies twofold (older > data, and averaging). Plus, what happens if data from the remote > player gets lost for a bit? You either use some data that's whole > seconds old to get your average, or you have no velocity data at all. > Either way it's pretty meaningless. This is what makes it so hard, you > come up with something that sounds like it works, it works on your LAN, > but as soon as it hits the internet it dies, and more often than not > it's hard to figure out why it died, because you can't replicate the > conditions, and you can't exactly set breakpoints in a multiplayer > game... > > As soon as a car goes around a corner, the velocity keeps changing, but > the acceleration remains pretty constant (towards the centre of the > corner), so if you only use velocities, then as soon as you lose data > in a corner, all the cars start going straight (imagine swirling a rock > on a piece of string around your head-losing a packet is like cutting > the string, the rock moves in a straight line with its last known > velocity, now that it has no acceleration acting on it to drag it round > the circle). >For using AI to predict, it's overkill because usually the prediction
is only needed for a small amount of time, a quarter of a second say,
so just extrapolating from the last known vel/acc is close enough.
When delays start to increase beyond a second, there are far more
problems with that clients connection than just lag, and they will
probably be disconnected anyway.
I'm pretty sure clients never simulate collisions with predicted data,
I mean, clients *predict* collisions, but the server is the only one
with the true information on positions of all cars, the server
calculates the collision and tells the clients. You will never collide
with a car because of prediction, only because of true contact,
although you might collide with somebody because you *thought* they
weren't there (due to prediction), the truth is they were there, you
just didn't see them because of the packet loss.
You could calculate velocity and acceleration from storing old
positions, but the velocity would be quite inaccurate, and the
acceleration would be dire. Imagine a car going through a chicane in a
quick left-right fashion, and you will quickly see that the large swing
of the velocity vector and the massive swing of the acceleration vector
cannot even be estimated with any kind of accuracy by taking old car
positions.
All I can say is, I once thought as you did, 'it seriously can't be as
hard as people make it sound', but when you try it, it really is. You
can't figure out all the ifs and buts and situations for lots of cars
interacting over lossy, laggy channels in your head, you just need to
keep trying it out and fixing all the problems which come up with
prediction, collisions, etc... this is definitely one area where the
practical bears no resemblance to the theory whatsoever-and jeez do I
wish it did!
> virtually no one uses control input mode because
> there is too much delay in control feedback.
Or, there was when Quake came out. QuakeWorld introduced clientside
prediction which removed this phenomenon for the 95% of cases where
your character is not physically interacting with another player (eg a
car-car collision, or player collision in Quake). That was 1996, by
the way.
> Another issue is that some racing games react
> differently depending on the system they are
> running on. Control input for online play wouldn't
> work at all on these games.
That is true, but only for badly coded games. Sorry, I mean games that
have been coded not to take this into account. If you're going to use
control inputs, then you make sure your game is deterministic with
regard to the same inputs. In truth, this isn't such a big deal. If
you record replays using control inputs, then you want them to play
back in the same way on all systems. The only games I can remember
which had this problem were Grand Prix 2, maybe GP3 as well, and I
haven't played GP4 enough to know if it's in there as well, but I
expect so.
> If the replays record enough telemetry information
> for every car in a race, then they can be used to
> check for cheats. This is how it's done in NR2003.
Do you know for a fact that it works this way? That clients send their
positions to the server and the server accepts them on blind faith
until you check after the race to see if anybody was moving a bit
outside the game laws of physics? If that's the case (I'm not
suggesting it isn't, I would just like proof because it sounds a bit
far-fetched), do Papy not care about online cheating, because that's a
huge and easily-exploited hole, and I'd like to know how they got
around it.
> Note that Need For Speed 2 thru 5 save only
> the control inputs for replays (along with car id,
> tuning, assist and cheat codes used), and work
> perfectly, even when viewed on other systems.
And that's exactly the same concept as control input based multiplayer.
If you like, you could think of it as each client seeing a real-time
'replay' of each other client in the game. You can crash into them
because the server calculates the collisions for each client.
"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
There are hoards that can tell you this is wrong - I have countless
recollections of a car on the low line "warping" up into the car to the
outside. You know it is crude, linear prediction because you will often see
the lower car immediately drop back down to where it actually is once
dataflow recommences.
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > I'm pretty sure clients never simulate collisions with predicted data, > I mean, clients *predict* collisions, but the server is the only one > with the true information on positions of all cars, the server > calculates the collision and tells the clients. You will never collide > with a car because of prediction, only because of true contact, > although you might collide with somebody because you *thought* they > weren't there (due to prediction), the truth is they were there, you > just didn't see them because of the packet loss. >Byron Forbes wrote:
> There are hoards that can tell you this is wrong - I have countless
> recollections of a car on the low line "warping" up into the car to the
> outside. You know it is crude, linear prediction because you will often see
> the lower car immediately drop back down to where it actually is once
> dataflow recommences.
1) If the client predicts somebody to move up into them, then simulates
a crash, that client will have a 'predict' crash, but when the server
data gets through, it will tell the client that no, there wasn't
actually a crash, you just thought there was, and that client will warp
from the crash state back to racing. I've had that happen to me in
NR2002 where I've crashed into someone, got up into the wall, started
rolling, then popped back onto my wheels on the racing line and
continued racing...
2) I used to race NR2002 on dialup, and a few times I've been the cause
of 'warp' collisions, where I've hit someone and the people behind said
I warped into them because of my bad connection. Every single time it
has been me making a mistake and pushing up into him. On my machine, I
see it happen oh-so-clearly, but everybody else sees me in a cloud of
warp and just assumes it was a predict collision. I even had it happen
5 laps from the end of a RASCAR race, where I hooked the apron, pushed
up and put somebody in the wall (sorry!), but everybody else thought it
was warp. I came clean and admitted my mistake :)
"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Well, I have warped up into people heaps of times - in my replay there is
clearly no contact and they end up in the wall - permanently!
You are simply wrong about that.
I'd need to see a replay of what you describe in 1) - got one? I've
never seen anything like that in 7 years!
Quoted text (27 lines)
> Byron Forbes wrote: >> There are hoards that can tell you this is wrong - I have countless >> recollections of a car on the low line "warping" up into the car to the >> outside. You know it is crude, linear prediction because you will often >> see >> the lower car immediately drop back down to where it actually is once >> dataflow recommences. > > 1) If the client predicts somebody to move up into them, then simulates > a crash, that client will have a 'predict' crash, but when the server > data gets through, it will tell the client that no, there wasn't > actually a crash, you just thought there was, and that client will warp > from the crash state back to racing. I've had that happen to me in > NR2002 where I've crashed into someone, got up into the wall, started > rolling, then popped back onto my wheels on the racing line and > continued racing... > > 2) I used to race NR2002 on dialup, and a few times I've been the cause > of 'warp' collisions, where I've hit someone and the people behind said > I warped into them because of my bad connection. Every single time it > has been me making a mistake and pushing up into him. On my machine, I > see it happen oh-so-clearly, but everybody else sees me in a cloud of > warp and just assumes it was a predict collision. I even had it happen > 5 laps from the end of a RASCAR race, where I hooked the apron, pushed > up and put somebody in the wall (sorry!), but everybody else thought it > was warp. I came clean and admitted my mistake :) >
Byron Forbes wrote:
> Well, I have warped up into people heaps of times - in my replay there is
> clearly no contact and they end up in the wall - permanently!
>
> You are simply wrong about that.
Okay, so it can happen, it's never happened to me though, all of my
high ping 'warp' accidents have been caused by me, not warp. I have
absolutely no idea how the game can even work if clients can have
accidents with predicted cars unless the server decided there was
contact... weird.
> I'd need to see a replay of what you describe in 1) - got one? I've
> never seen anything like that in 7 years!
Well I don't have NR2003, this was NR2002, and I was on dialup, so it's
a pretty specialised situation. I'd guess it was in NR2003 though. I
don't make a habit of saving client replays, because they're always
wrong (especially if you're a 56k'er!) and just eat my much-coveted HD
space! I used to get it a lot on Papy superspeedway servers, where
there are *always* crashes involving lots of cars, and due to my lag
and the erratic trajectories involved, my poor 56k connection couldn't
cope and cars would be jumping everywhere-so I'd always hit somebody.
About half the time the server would correct me back into the race-and
I could even keep on going if I remembered to hold my control inputs
while my computer was predicting a crash, in case I was really still
going around the track!
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
Gotta go with Byron here. Played GPL (another Papy product) online
many, many times on dialup with plenty of warp going on amongst the
drivers and if you got catapulted off the track that was it. I cannot
recall a single situation where I reappeared back on track going merrily
on my way after what seemed like a collision based upon warp. Seems
strange that they would have sorted this for NR2002 (which I never
played online) and then gone back to how it used to be with NR2003
(which I have played online many times with the same problems).
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Quoted text (30 lines)
> > Byron Forbes wrote: > > Well, I have warped up into people heaps of times - in my replay there is > > clearly no contact and they end up in the wall - permanently! > > > > You are simply wrong about that. > > Okay, so it can happen, it's never happened to me though, all of my > high ping 'warp' accidents have been caused by me, not warp. I have > absolutely no idea how the game can even work if clients can have > accidents with predicted cars unless the server decided there was > contact... weird. > > > I'd need to see a replay of what you describe in 1) - got one? I've > > never seen anything like that in 7 years! > > Well I don't have NR2003, this was NR2002, and I was on dialup, so it's > a pretty specialised situation. I'd guess it was in NR2003 though. I > don't make a habit of saving client replays, because they're always > wrong (especially if you're a 56k'er!) and just eat my much-coveted HD > space! I used to get it a lot on Papy superspeedway servers, where > there are *always* crashes involving lots of cars, and due to my lag > and the erratic trajectories involved, my poor 56k connection couldn't > cope and cars would be jumping everywhere-so I'd always hit somebody. > About half the time the server would correct me back into the race-and > I could even keep on going if I remembered to hold my control inputs > while my computer was predicting a crash, in case I was really still > going around the track! > >In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Peter) wrote:
> Gotta go with Byron here. Played GPL (another Papy product) online
> many, many times on dialup with plenty of warp going on amongst the
> drivers and if you got catapulted off the track that was it.
WHS. With modem connections it could be a nightmare at times. Cars
disappearing, then reappearing miles away, then back again. I got used
to backing well away from anyone who started to "flicker".
Andrew McP
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:39 +0100 (BST),
[email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:
Ah, the good old days....blinking cars in a Monza T1....sigh
Cheers!
Remco
Quoted text (10 lines)
>In article <[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] (Peter) wrote: > >> Gotta go with Byron here. Played GPL (another Papy product) online >> many, many times on dialup with plenty of warp going on amongst the >> drivers and if you got catapulted off the track that was it. > >WHS. With modem connections it could be a nightmare at times. Cars >disappearing, then reappearing miles away, then back again. I got used >to backing well away from anyone who started to "flicker".> > Another issue is that some racing games react
> > differently depending on the system they are
> > running on. Control input for online play wouldn't
> > work at all on these games.
> That is true, but only for badly coded games.
Since the newer games use telemetry based replays, there's really
no easy way to confirm that a game isn't system sensitive.
I found that Live For Speed S1 gave a player the equivalent of a
steering assist if a force feedback controller was instead of a
non-force feed back controller. The increased stability
allowed you to push the limits harder and resulted in better
lap times.
The original Need for Speed Underground 1 was one of the worst
offenders ever in this regard to system peformance. It was improved,
but never completely fixed.
>> If the replays record enough telemetry information
>> for every car in a race, then they can be used to
>> check for cheats. This is how it's done in NR2003.
> Do you know for a fact that it works this way?
The moderators for many NR2003 online servers review replays for
evidence of cheating or deliberate wrecking. I would assume that
league servers do the same.
but as I mentioned, every one hated using contol input mode for
multiplayer play. It slowed down your own cars response time by too much,
and it didn't solve the lag - collision issue. I've been recently
playing NR2003 online, and there have been a few times where I've been
close to another car and that car has been spun, even though my
game didn't detect any contact, and my replay showed that there
was clearly a gap between the cars (usually about a foot), yet the
other car responded as if there was a collision. I'm pretty sure
that the replay on the other system would have shown a collision.
I call this "lag" induced collision. It was really bad back in
the early days of online racing because most players were using
slow modems.
One of the first racing games to have server based online play was
NFS4 (High Stakes). Almost all NFS4 online play was done with collision
off. Most NFS5 (Porsche Unleashed) play was done with collision off.
These games didn't simulate drafting so it wasn't an issue. Lag was
never an issue, because there were no collisions between cars (just
objects). Wreckers didn't exist. Personally, I found the collision
off online racing to be just as enjoyable as collision on racing
with the newer games of today. The racing can be closer when you
can drive right through the car ahead of you. In the case of
NFS4 and NFS5, it was handled well because you could see the dash
and through the windshield of any car you were driving through.
NFS4 control input sampling rate is 32 times a second. NFS5 is 64.
I don't know what modern games use, but the cycle time for
a control input based online racing would really mess up the force
feedback so often used these days. Even in the non-force feedback
day of NFS4 and NFS5, control input based online racing really
messed up the handling of the cars (most were using modems in those
days so the cycle time was probably much worse than it would
be today).
Quoted text (9 lines)
>> Note that Need For Speed 2 thru 5 save only >> the control inputs for replays (along with car id, >> tuning, assist and cheat codes used), and work >> perfectly, even when viewed on other systems. > > And that's exactly the same concept as control input based multiplayer. > If you like, you could think of it as each client seeing a real-time > 'replay' of each other client in the game. You can crash into them > because the server calculates the collisions for each client.> With modem connections it could be a nightmare at times. Cars
> disappearing, then reappearing miles away, then back again. I got used
> to backing well away from anyone who started to "flicker".
Even with high speed connections, racing in a pack of 20+ cars nn
a super speedway race in NR2003, where most are bumper to bumper and
side by side at 190mph, a small amount of lag often leads to huge
wrecks. You see a car flickering and you'd be wise to back off or
try to get by and get a car between you and the lagging car.
Jeff Reid wrote:
> but as I mentioned, every one hated using contol input mode for
> multiplayer play. It slowed down your own cars response time by too much
Well, you can negate that entirely by doing clientside prediction,
which began in QuakeWorld. Just because the game you describe didn't
bother doing it, and suffered the lag, doesn't mean that it happens in
every other game.
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
Remember one time racing at Monaco I started from somewhere near the
back and managed to tiptoe through cars hanging from barriers, guard
rails and even lampposts on my way up to casino square. I was laughing
so much at the time at all these oddly placed cars, hanging like
ornaments around the circuit that I was struggling to keep the car on
the road.
Great times!!
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Quoted text (22 lines)
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:39 +0100 (BST), > [email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) wrote: > > >In article <[email hidden]>, > >[email hidden] (Peter) wrote: > > > >> Gotta go with Byron here. Played GPL (another Papy product) online > >> many, many times on dialup with plenty of warp going on amongst the > >> drivers and if you got catapulted off the track that was it. > > > >WHS. With modem connections it could be a nightmare at times. Cars > >disappearing, then reappearing miles away, then back again. I got used > >to backing well away from anyone who started to "flicker". > > > Ah, the good old days....blinking cars in a Monza T1....sigh > > > Cheers! > > Remco >On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 03:51:36 -0700, "Jeff Reid"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Hmm, that's not racing, that's social hotlapping.
Cheers!
Remco
Quoted text (11 lines)
>One of the first racing games to have server based online play was >NFS4 (High Stakes). Almost all NFS4 online play was done with collision >off. Most NFS5 (Porsche Unleashed) play was done with collision off. >These games didn't simulate drafting so it wasn't an issue. Lag was >never an issue, because there were no collisions between cars (just >objects). Wreckers didn't exist. Personally, I found the collision >off online racing to be just as enjoyable as collision on racing >with the newer games of today. The racing can be closer when you >can drive right through the car ahead of you. In the case of >NFS4 and NFS5, it was handled well because you could see the dash >and through the windshield of any car you were driving through.>>Almost all NFS4 online play was done with collision off.
> Hmm, that's not racing, that's social hotlapping.
You're correct, it is social hotlapping, but it can be fun.
One thing that collision off racing allows is tracks with
a single line. In the case of NFS4, the game had very
narrow lines (shortcuts through rocks, pillars, or trees)
which had to be used to get the best lap times. For this
game, collision off made sense. Part of the draw of NFS4
was it's fast pace combined with very narrow lines you
had to get just right (or end up crashed).
Other than super speedway racing on NR2003, cars usually
spread out pretty quickly on most racing games, so the
collision factor isn't much of an issue after the first
few turns of a race. Another exception would be a F1
type street course, where almost all of the passing
takes place in the pits, probably wouldn't be fun.
Rule 1 of sim racing - never trust the other bloke OR his connection (or
the internet for that matter).
If I'm to the outside of anyone I normally try to have a minimum of half
a car width between us - more like a whole car width. :)
"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:M_DNe.105282$E95.54399@fed1read01...
Quoted text (14 lines)
>> With modem connections it could be a nightmare at times. Cars >> disappearing, then reappearing miles away, then back again. I got used >> to backing well away from anyone who started to "flicker". > > Even with high speed connections, racing in a pack of 20+ cars nn > a super speedway race in NR2003, where most are bumper to bumper and > side by side at 190mph, a small amount of lag often leads to huge > wrecks. You see a car flickering and you'd be wise to back off or > try to get by and get a car between you and the lagging car. > > > > >Maybe thats why I never became a GPL freak like many here. (Though I did
enjoy it for a short time)
I have a hard time calling it "fun" to see the field wrecked on the first
lap of a race. "Annoyed": describes my feeling better than fun.
Thats the norm on just about any non league online race nowadays. Whether
GPL. NR200 GTR LSF it doesnt matter.
The GTL AI is better than 90% of todays sim racers anyway.
Mitch
"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote in > rails and even
lampposts on my way up to casino square. I was laughing
Quoted text (9 lines)
> so much at the time at all these oddly placed cars, hanging like > ornaments around the circuit that I was struggling to keep the car on > the road. > > Great times!! > > -- > Pete Ives > Remove All_stRESS before sending me an emailIn article <sKINe.804$[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Mitch_A) wrote:
> The GTL AI is better than 90% of todays sim racers anyway.
I haven't had chance to get to grips with the GTL demo yet, but last
week I did dig out GPL65 for the first time in a while and got sucked
into an offline race accidentally, purely by the fact I'd forgotten how
good the AI is to race against. I know GPL is past its sell-by date in
many ways, but the overall racing experience still has much to offer the
virtual petrol-head.
Andrew McP
