Looking for any mod sites, thx.
Settings and mods for Mobil 1 Rally Championship
Jagg sought mod sites and physics settings for Mobil 1 Rally Championship, and Marc Collins shared realism-oriented config settings. Posters compared it with Colin McRae Rally 2, finding RC more sim-like but with narrow-looking roads and oddly effective brakes, and pointed to a configuration manager tool.
Automated summary.
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Looking for any mod sites, thx.
That time warp must have been a doozy !
Try http://rally.btwracing.com/
Not too many still around.
get patch 6 from gamecopyworld
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message news:
[email hidden]...
> Looking for any mod sites, thx.
>
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:12:10 -0000, "redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>That time warp must have been a doozy !
Not sure what you mean. You talking about Mods from the '60's? :-)
>Try http://rally.btwracing.com/
Thx.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:41:02 GMT, "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>get patch 6 from gamecopyworld
I have the latest patch. Thx. I'm more specifically looking for the
best settings to use in that txt file to increase gravity etc.
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Just a little joke. RC came out quite some time ago and a lot of the best
sites are no longer around.
http://www.racesim.net/rc2000/index.htm Italian site, but easy to navigate.
http://www.rallychampionship.net/ Official site
Quoted text (8 lines)
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:12:10 -0000, "redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >That time warp must have been a doozy ! > > Not sure what you mean. You talking about Mods from the '60's? :-) > > >Try http://rally.btwracing.com/On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:32:54 -0000, "redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Just a little joke. RC came out quite some time ago and a lot of the best
>sites are no longer around.
Yea, but I only paid $36.00 Canadian for it. Worth every penny. Bought
CM 2.0 last week and it is pretty good also, but I can see that RC is
more of a sim than CM 2.0. The tracks sure are narrow in RC though. In
the replays it looks wider, but from the drivers position they look a
little too narrow to me. That last site had what I was looking for,
thx again.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:16:46 -0800, Tim O <[email hidden]> wrote:
The cars in CM 2.0 slide all over the place, fishtailing on every
corner. I don't think that's too realistic either. The cars in RC do
slide if you are going fast enough around a corner and hit the hand
brake. But, maybe it is a bit under modelled. To me though, RC feels
more convincing. I like both games for different reasons. That's why
I bought both.
Quoted text (10 lines)
>Please give a report after spending some time with it. >Even with the patches, something never seemed right about it. >The car just seemed like it was floating or something. It braked to >fast and didn't slide right. The weirdness is tough to pin down, but >thats the best way I can describe it. > >Even though CM 2 seems to lean more towards the fun/arcade end of the >spectrum, I think the feel is way more convincing than RC. > >TimOn Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:20:18 GMT, "Marc Collins"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Here is my .cfg...after months of tweaking.
>
>Marc.
Thankyou Mark. Just what I was looking for.
By the way, this is intended to be as realistic as possible. Everyone may
not agree with my settings, but that was my aim. Enjoy.
Marc.
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:S1Fm6.307822$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Here is my .cfg...after months of tweaking. > > Marc. > > "Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:41:02 GMT, "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >get patch 6 from gamecopyworld > > > > I have the latest patch. Thx. I'm more specifically looking for the > > best settings to use in that txt file to increase gravity etc. > > >CMR2 has a nice "feel" to it when cornering. It is exaggerated, for sure,
but they are on the right track as far as being able to power your way
through a turn. If RC2000 (RC2001??) could get some aspect of that feel
into it, but maintain the accurate tracks and cars, it would be the GPL of
rally sims.
Marc.
"Tim O" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (20 lines)
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:00:32 GMT, Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Yea, but I only paid $36.00 Canadian for it. Worth every penny. Bought > >CM 2.0 last week and it is pretty good also, but I can see that RC is > >more of a sim than CM 2.0. The tracks sure are narrow in RC though. In > >the replays it looks wider, but from the drivers position they look a > >little too narrow to me. That last site had what I was looking for, > >thx again. > > Please give a report after spending some time with it. > Even with the patches, something never seemed right about it. > The car just seemed like it was floating or something. It braked to > fast and didn't slide right. The weirdness is tough to pin down, but > thats the best way I can describe it. > > Even though CM 2 seems to lean more towards the fun/arcade end of the > spectrum, I think the feel is way more convincing than RC. > > Tim >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:00:32 GMT, Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Yea, but I only paid $36.00 Canadian for it. Worth every penny. Bought
>CM 2.0 last week and it is pretty good also, but I can see that RC is
>more of a sim than CM 2.0. The tracks sure are narrow in RC though. In
>the replays it looks wider, but from the drivers position they look a
>little too narrow to me. That last site had what I was looking for,
>thx again.
Please give a report after spending some time with it.
Even with the patches, something never seemed right about it.
The car just seemed like it was floating or something. It braked to
fast and didn't slide right. The weirdness is tough to pin down, but
thats the best way I can describe it.
Even though CM 2 seems to lean more towards the fun/arcade end of the
spectrum, I think the feel is way more convincing than RC.
Tim
You might get a bit more info from
http://forums.simracingnews.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi and going to Rally
Championship, it's a bit more specific for RC2000. The RAS NG is just a wee
bit pro-GPL (understandably, it is an awesome sim and one day I'll do a full
lap of Nurburgring). The simracingnews forum is searchable for key words,
which can be very useful, and contributors have developed little GUI
programs that help you set up the physics of the car (one such is called
Ralwiz).
GMF
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:41:02 GMT, "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> I have the latest patch. Thx. I'm more specifically looking for the
> best settings to use in that txt file to increase gravity etc.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:34:13 GMT, The Black Cat =^..^=
<[email hidden]> wrote:
16mb?! That's not enough for most games. Are you talking real physical
ram or the virtual memory settings in Windows? On todays machines you
should have 128mb of real ram (64mb is passable) and your virtual
memory should be at least 300mb.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>I installed those settings and the difference is remarkable -- >although I've never actually driven a rally car like that, this does >feel a LOT more believable than the original settings. > >Now, I just have to figure out why the game keeps crashing and giving >me a message that I don't have enough virtual memory when I have 16 >megs of it... :(On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:52:05 -0000, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>I think that's the point "tv" views make tracks deceptively wide.
>Old English country roads are what they are... represented pretty well I
>think... they don't race on duel-carriageways!!!
Hey, I'm from the UK and know how narrow the typical country road in
the UK is. I'm talking perspective here. They look narrower from the
drivers view than they really are in the game.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:47:05 GMT, The Black Cat =^..^=
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>16 megs virtual. 256 megs physical.
No wonder you are getting the error message. Are you letting windows
control the virtual memory size and that's all the free space you have
left on C:? Or did you set it to that size manually? Either free up
some space on C: (about 300mb) or set it manually to a permanent 300mb
minimum and maximum.
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
well they look pretty right for Irish roads.... I figured English country
roads couldn't be much wider :-)
Quoted text (10 lines)
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:52:05 -0000, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >I think that's the point "tv" views make tracks deceptively wide. > >Old English country roads are what they are... represented pretty well I > >think... they don't race on duel-carriageways!!! > > Hey, I'm from the UK and know how narrow the typical country road in > the UK is. I'm talking perspective here. They look narrower from the > drivers view than they really are in the game.Whaddaya want? They're one-lane-wide logging roads!!!
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:32:54 -0000, "redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >Just a little joke. RC came out quite some time ago and a lot of the best > >sites are no longer around. > > Yea, but I only paid $36.00 Canadian for it. Worth every penny. Bought > CM 2.0 last week and it is pretty good also, but I can see that RC is > more of a sim than CM 2.0. The tracks sure are narrow in RC though. In > the replays it looks wider, but from the drivers position they look a > little too narrow to me. That last site had what I was looking for, > thx again. > > >Tim,
There's a physics 'patch' for RC that allows you to alter the co-effs of
friction, etc. I found the brakes to be wildly over-effective (vs. reality,
particularly on muddy roads!!!), so I fixed 'em.
My main objection to RC: it cheats. The numbers are bogus. You can be
going like stink, beating everybody else's time, and still place 32nd
overall. Or v.v. They just didn't do the math. In the end, it hurts to
put your heart and sould into something that rewards mediocrity and punishes
success.
(Also: that lovely frame-rate turns into a slide-show...or a Plato's shadows
on the cave wall...when there's more than one car visible, as in
multiplayer. Maybe that's how the WSC movies look so great--all you see is
one car alone on the track.)
--Steve Smith
Tim O <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (20 lines)
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:00:32 GMT, Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Yea, but I only paid $36.00 Canadian for it. Worth every penny. Bought > >CM 2.0 last week and it is pretty good also, but I can see that RC is > >more of a sim than CM 2.0. The tracks sure are narrow in RC though. In > >the replays it looks wider, but from the drivers position they look a > >little too narrow to me. That last site had what I was looking for, > >thx again. > > Please give a report after spending some time with it. > Even with the patches, something never seemed right about it. > The car just seemed like it was floating or something. It braked to > fast and didn't slide right. The weirdness is tough to pin down, but > thats the best way I can describe it. > > Even though CM 2 seems to lean more towards the fun/arcade end of the > spectrum, I think the feel is way more convincing than RC. > > Tim >Sixteen megs (and whaddaya get?) ain't a big number. I've got 256 on one
machine, and B-17 II like a gig!!!
The Black Cat =^..^= <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (13 lines)
> I installed those settings and the difference is remarkable -- > although I've never actually driven a rally car like that, this does > feel a LOT more believable than the original settings. > > Now, I just have to figure out why the game keeps crashing and giving > me a message that I don't have enough virtual memory when I have 16 > megs of it... :( > > Paul the Cat =^..^= > > "We've been sleeping all our lives -- > At last we can open our eyes." > -- Carly SimonSix*** megs (and whaddaya get?) ain't a big number. I've got 256 on one
machine, and B-17 II like a gig!!!
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:52:23 GMT, "Stephen Smith"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Whaddaya want? They're one-lane-wide logging roads!!!
They must use pretty small logging trucks in the UK then. Logging
roads here can fit two vehicles easily. In RC they look more like cow
paths.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:16:46 -0800, Tim O <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Even though CM 2 seems to lean more towards the fun/arcade end of the
>spectrum, I think the feel is way more convincing than RC.
...especially on the tarmac sections! The car really *feels* like
it's gripping *hard* when you throw it into the corners!
If the framerates would maintain a decent rate thru the whole stage,
I'd like it better tho! Having an awful time trying to come up with a
combo of drivers/settings that will let this game shine!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Did you try the Rally Championship Configuration manager at
http://www.muenster.de/~gauczin/rc2000.htm
well worth the download-can configure everything but the weather
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:28:06 -0500, hobbit <nospam@here> wrote:
>>Even though CM 2 seems to lean more towards the fun/arcade end of the
>>spectrum, I think the feel is way more convincing than RC.
>
>...especially on the tarmac sections! The car really *feels* like
>it's gripping *hard* when you throw it into the corners!
sorry you can shut off the rain and snow,(I like more rain)
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:01:19 GMT, Dan Drumm <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Did you try the Rally Championship Configuration manager at
>
> http://www.muenster.de/~gauczin/rc2000.htm
>
>well worth the download-can configure everything but the weather
>
I'm there now! Thanks for sharing!
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:01:19 GMT, Dan Drumm <[email hidden]>
wrote:
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
