Racing Legends - PPU compatibility?

Hi, Unfortunatly, there isn't too much discussion in other forums about the progress in Racing Legends. Does anyone know if the developers have taken advantage of the delay in their work by utilising new technologies such as hardware Physics Processing Units? This would surely aid their goal of a truly component based physics model for their cars? Cheers, Tim

Roflol -- Andi. Remove only one zero to reply "eppy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Rubde.23096$[email hidden]... > Hi, > > Unfortunatly, there isn't too much discussion in other forums about the > progress in Racing Legends. Does anyone know if the developers have taken > advantage of the delay in their work by utilising new technologies such as > hardware Physics Processing Units? This would surely aid their goal of a > truly component based physics model for their cars? > > Cheers, > Tim > > > >

Oh, Sorry 1st of May, not April! -- Andi. Remove only one zero to reply "Andi Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4275458d$0$83067$[email hidden]... > Roflol > > -- > Andi. > > Remove only one zero to reply > > > "eppy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Rubde.23096$[email hidden]... >> Hi, >> >> Unfortunatly, there isn't too much discussion in other forums about the >> progress in Racing Legends. Does anyone know if the developers have taken >> advantage of the delay in their work by utilising new technologies such >> as hardware Physics Processing Units? This would surely aid their goal of >> a truly component based physics model for their cars? >> >> Cheers, >> Tim >> >> >> >> > >

"eppy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Rubde.23096$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Hi, > > Unfortunatly, there isn't too much discussion in other forums about the > progress in Racing Legends. Does anyone know if the developers have taken > advantage of the delay in their work by utilising new technologies such as > hardware Physics Processing Units? This would surely aid their goal of a > truly component based physics model for their cars? > > Cheers, > Tim > > > >

'ot damn! I was thinking the same thing. Alanb

>Unfortunatly, there isn't too much discussion in other forums aboutthe >progress in Racing Legends. I think there's exactly the same amount of disucssion as there is progress ;)

You think wrong. Ash -- http://www.siroccoracing.com

Be very, very quiet. I'm hunting wabbits...er, Wests.... Much like the "You can be saved" and "Will you go to heaven" posts, RL urban myth posts are an unfortunate byproduct of everyone having access to usenet and Google. As was posted elsewhere in regard to those other topics, "Got Proof?"

Darus wrote: > Be very, very quiet. I'm hunting wabbits...er, Wests.... > > Much like the "You can be saved" and "Will you go to heaven" posts,RL > urban myth posts are an unfortunate byproduct of everyone havingaccess > to usenet and Google. > > As was posted elsewhere in regard to those other topics, "Got Proof?" As the authors of the other topics might reply, "because I speak to them every day". ;) I know first hand how much work Chris, Gregor and Tony are putting into RL. I don't understand people who state as absolute fact that they have not made any progress or that they are trying to con us all. What could they possibly profit by doing that? Like anything worth doing, RL takes time. All the best, Ash -- http://www.siroccoracing.com

I think what makes people laugh is how they focus on items like 3D modeling the inside of a bus, which will have 0 use in the game. "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > Darus wrote: >> Be very, very quiet. I'm hunting wabbits...er, Wests.... >> >> Much like the "You can be saved" and "Will you go to heaven" posts, > RL >> urban myth posts are an unfortunate byproduct of everyone having > access >> to usenet and Google. >> >> As was posted elsewhere in regard to those other topics, "Got Proof?" > > As the authors of the other topics might reply, "because I speak to > them every day". ;) > > I know first hand how much work Chris, Gregor and Tony are putting into > RL. I don't understand people who state as absolute fact that they > have not made any progress or that they are trying to con us all. What > could they possibly profit by doing that? > > Like anything worth doing, RL takes time. > > All the best, > Ash > > -- > http://www.siroccoracing.com >

Hello, there's been some comments by Chris and me in the latest AutoSimSport issue. Basically it is felt a PPU would be a great addition, as that is precisely what would be needed to move things that bit forward, but only if it allowed for custom programming solutions and would have good market penetration. So far it's a bit wait and see. Cheers, -Gregor eppy wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Hi, > > Unfortunatly, there isn't too much discussion in other forums about the > progress in Racing Legends. Does anyone know if the developers have taken > advantage of the delay in their work by utilising new technologies such as > hardware Physics Processing Units? This would surely aid their goal of a > truly component based physics model for their cars? > > Cheers, > Tim > > > >

Many thanks for the update, Greg. I understand the hestitation - no use going out a limb if the technology doesn't take off. However, I understand that the PPU has good buy-in from some of the big names in gaming. I'm happy to see that it has been thought about. Cheers, Tim "Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d580u1$smm$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Hello, > > there's been some comments by Chris and me in the latest AutoSimSport > issue. Basically it is felt a PPU would be a great addition, as that is > precisely what would be needed to move things that bit forward, but only > if it allowed for custom programming solutions and would have good market > penetration. So far it's a bit wait and see. > > Cheers, > > -Gregor > > eppy wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Unfortunatly, there isn't too much discussion in other forums about the >> progress in Racing Legends. Does anyone know if the developers have taken >> advantage of the delay in their work by utilising new technologies such >> as hardware Physics Processing Units? This would surely aid their goal of >> a truly component based physics model for their cars? >> >> Cheers, >> Tim >> >> >>

I think "Mythbusters" needs to have a go at this one, Bruce. "Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d580u1$smm$[email hidden]... > So far it's a bit wait and see. >

I strongly suggest that if you have not already you download this months AutoSimSport and read the article about PPU's in which there is comment from many Simracing developers on the subject. www.autosimsport.com Jon. "eppy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d6Qde.24412$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Many thanks for the update, Greg. > > I understand the hestitation - no use going out a limb if the technology > doesn't take off. However, I understand that the PPU has good buy-in from > some of the big names in gaming. > > I'm happy to see that it has been thought about. > > Cheers, > Tim > > > > "Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:d580u1$smm$[email hidden]... > > Hello, > > > > there's been some comments by Chris and me in the latest AutoSimSport > > issue. Basically it is felt a PPU would be a great addition, as that is > > precisely what would be needed to move things that bit forward, but only > > if it allowed for custom programming solutions and would have good

market

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > penetration. So far it's a bit wait and see. > > > > Cheers, > > > > -Gregor > > > > eppy wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Unfortunatly, there isn't too much discussion in other forums about the > >> progress in Racing Legends. Does anyone know if the developers have

taken > >> advantage of the delay in their work by utilising new technologies such > >> as hardware Physics Processing Units? This would surely aid their goalof

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> a truly component based physics model for their cars? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Tim > >> > >> > >> >

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > I don't understand people who state as absolute fact that they > have not made any progress or that they are trying to con us all. The Wests put themselves in that position. They announced the game at LEAST four years ago, and we're all still waiting around to see something more tangible than a few 3D models. Further, activity on their website is restricted to the forums where racing anarchists have even lost interest in talking about RL, and instead are talking about other racing games. Where are the Wests? Probably out looking for a replacement for their cat...

John Simmons wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > > > I don't understand people who state as absolute fact that they > > have not made any progress or that they are trying to con us all. > > The Wests put themselves in that position. They announced the game at > LEAST four years ago, and we're all still waiting around to see > something more tangible than a few 3D models. Further, activity on

their > website is restricted to the forums where racing anarchists have even > lost interest in talking about RL, and instead are talking aboutother > racing games. Where are the Wests? Probably out looking for a > replacement for their cat... ....and so it begins :D Nothing like a good flamewar. Should I just question your parentage now and get it over with? All that turning left has made you dizzy methinks :) All the best, Ash -- http://www.siroccoracing.com <-- heavily out of date, but i'm still working on it honest.

"Takes time"? "TAKES TIME"?!!! Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it! All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your theory it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate! Gimme a break. Bruce. "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Like anything worth doing, RL takes time. >

I knew I shouldn't have started this thread - even though I did ask a polite, innocent question. To be fair, I recieved a polite answer from Gregor, and followed his link to the very interesting Sim Racing magazine article on PPUs. Unfortunatly, the signal to noise ratio is now decreasing at an alarming rate. Tim "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> "Takes time"? > "TAKES TIME"?!!! > Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it! > > All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your theory > it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate! > > Gimme a break. > > Bruce. > > "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> >> Like anything worth doing, RL takes time. >> > >

Anything that annoys the prat Kennewell gets my support. 3 Years idiot get your facts right. "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> "Takes time"? > "TAKES TIME"?!!! > Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it! > > All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your theory > it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate! > > Gimme a break. > > Bruce. > > "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> >> Like anything worth doing, RL takes time. >> > >

On Wed, 4 May 2005 18:09:13 +0000 (UTC), "." <.@..i> wrote: >Anything that annoys the prat Kennewell gets my support. 3 Years idiot get >your facts right. Well, didn't they spent 5 years before that on WSC? Cheers! Remco

Quoted text (10 lines)

>"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> "Takes time"? >> "TAKES TIME"?!!! >> Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it! >> >> All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your theory >> it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate! >> >> Gimme a break.

"Bruce Kennewell" wrote: > "Takes time"? > "TAKES TIME"?!!! > Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it! > > All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your theory > it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate! Indy 500 beginning 1990 Indycar Racing end 1993 Grand Prix Legends end 1998 F1GP end 1992 GP2 mid 1996 GP3 mid 1999 It takes several man years to do something remotely ground breaking, if there aren't many men it takes several years! I am pretty sure there is something to show for it, however, the sim community aren't suitably patient to be shown any teasers. We've scared all the development teams off into private beta test groups where it probably is all happening and I really don't blame them, too many cycles are wasted responding to claims of flawed business models and how it should be done. This isn't just true of sim racing but endemic of computer game communities in general, demanding demos be released because they have been waiting months etc. It is not surprising the developers huddle with their private groups behind their NDAs until they are ready to go public with the finished article. It would be great if the Wests felt they could give an alpha version to RAS to get some positive feedback, but why face the hassle... Cheers Tony

"John Simmons" wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> The Wests put themselves in that position. They announced the game at > LEAST four years ago, and we're all still waiting around to see > something more tangible than a few 3D models. Further, activity on their > website is restricted to the forums where racing anarchists have even > lost interest in talking about RL, and instead are talking about other > racing games. Where are the Wests? Probably out looking for a > replacement for their cat...

I agree they misunderstood the sim community. Although in an odd way this adds to the charm of a small team displaying a naive view of a group of sim enthusiasts rather than business or marketing men. They went from all to nothing. Showing a transporter because they thought the sim community would be enthralled at the level of detail to shutting up shop after the backlash. The reality is the transporter didn't delay anything. The sim engine was still in development which meant the graphics development could not take place until ready. So the transporter was done in slack time. I was just as critical as anyone at the time because I simply didn't understand. So, yes it was bad PR but the Wests aren't about PR they are about creating sims - hence the charm, at least for me. Cheers Tony

I'm sure their copy of Photoshop runs faster... -Larry "eppy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Rubde.23096$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Hi, > > Unfortunatly, there isn't too much discussion in other forums about the > progress in Racing Legends. Does anyone know if the developers have taken > advantage of the delay in their work by utilising new technologies such as > hardware Physics Processing Units? This would surely aid their goal of a > truly component based physics model for their cars? > > Cheers, > Tim > > > >

Ashley, What is one TO think ? It's been like 5 years now this same conversation has been going on. We've erected the better part of a friggin' SPACE STATION in that period of time. I realize they don't have to be concerned with tire wear or physics, but I'm quiet sure the GRIP issue is a bitch... -Larry "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > Darus wrote: >> Be very, very quiet. I'm hunting wabbits...er, Wests.... >> >> Much like the "You can be saved" and "Will you go to heaven" posts, > RL >> urban myth posts are an unfortunate byproduct of everyone having > access >> to usenet and Google. >> >> As was posted elsewhere in regard to those other topics, "Got Proof?" > > As the authors of the other topics might reply, "because I speak to > them every day". ;) > > I know first hand how much work Chris, Gregor and Tony are putting into > RL. I don't understand people who state as absolute fact that they > have not made any progress or that they are trying to con us all. What > could they possibly profit by doing that? > > Like anything worth doing, RL takes time. > > All the best, > Ash > > -- > http://www.siroccoracing.com >

What a shame that Messrs West didn't do the same. (They probably wish that they HAD done so!) Bruce. "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4R8ee.25143$[email hidden]... > .... It is not surprising the developers huddle with their private > groups behind their NDAs until they are ready to go public with thefinished > article..

It is certainly more than three years since the terms "West brothers" and "simulation" were seen together in the same sentence in RAS. Cretin! Bruce. "." <.@..i> wrote in message news:d5b349$n4b$[email hidden]... > Anything that annoys the prat Kennewell gets my support. 3 Years idiot get > your facts right.

"Bruce Kennewell" wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Tony Rickard" wrote: > > .... It is not surprising the developers huddle with their private > > groups behind their NDAs until they are ready to go public with the > > finished article.. > What a shame that Messrs West didn't do the same. > (They probably wish that they HAD done so!)

I guess the point is I believe they are now. Once burnt and all that...

If you havnt got the intelligence to differentiate between one product and a totally new product then I wonder how you manage to breathe. "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> It is certainly more than three years since the terms "West brothers" and > "simulation" were seen together in the same sentence in RAS. > > Cretin! > > Bruce. > > "." <.@..i> wrote in message > news:d5b349$n4b$[email hidden]... >> Anything that annoys the prat Kennewell gets my support. 3 Years idiot >> get >> your facts right. > >

Another one who cant tell the difference between one product and starting from scratch on an all new one. What the hell does it matter. "Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> On Wed, 4 May 2005 18:09:13 +0000 (UTC), "." <.@..i> wrote: > >>Anything that annoys the prat Kennewell gets my support. 3 Years idiot get >>your facts right. > > Well, didn't they spent 5 years before that on WSC? > > Cheers! > > > Remco > > >>"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:[email hidden]... >>> "Takes time"? >>> "TAKES TIME"?!!! >>> Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it! >>> >>> All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your >>> theory >>> it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate! >>> >>> Gimme a break. >

In article <_Y8ee.25151$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "John Simmons" wrote: > > > The Wests put themselves in that position. They announced the game at > > LEAST four years ago, and we're all still waiting around to see > > something more tangible than a few 3D models. Further, activity on their > > website is restricted to the forums where racing anarchists have even > > lost interest in talking about RL, and instead are talking about other > > racing games. Where are the Wests? Probably out looking for a > > replacement for their cat... > > I agree they misunderstood the sim community. Although in an odd way this > adds to the charm of a small team displaying a naive view of a group of sim > enthusiasts rather than business or marketing men.

First we were waiting for WSC, now RL. I don't think they understand the game development business, much less the small niche of users they're trying to sell to. The primary problem is that they have nobody standing over them cracking a whip. Programmers are the worst possible people to be in charge of a software project.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> They went from all to nothing. Showing a transporter because they thought > the sim community would be enthralled at the level of detail to shutting up > shop after the backlash. > > The reality is the transporter didn't delay anything. The sim engine was > still in development which meant the graphics development could not take > place until ready. So the transporter was done in slack time.

They should have a crapload of transporters done by now then... > I was just as critical as anyone at the time because I simply didn't > understand. So, yes it was bad PR but the Wests aren't about PR they are > about creating sims - hence the charm, at least for me. I understand, and the Wests haven't been about creating sims as much as they have been in creating vapor. I think I've been as patient about this as anyone else, but blind belief in this product is pretty pointless. If it is ever released, I might buy it, but I'm not going to stand by and let comments like Ashley's go un-touched. It's simply not my nature, especially if I have an already formed opinion. Lastly, I've been a programmer for over 25 years, and I've turned out a number of fairly huge applications from 175,000 lines of code to well over 750,000 (sorry, I don't know the metric equivalent - grin). These guys are taking too freakin long to come up with a product.

Why does it matter to you? Move on, forget about it. Seems to me if you are so convinced they are all vapour you cant be too bright to be interested in it enough still to post about it. Face it you still want it too happen, but it makes you feel good to slag them off for some odd reason.Something wrong with people who dislike something so much that they would continue to help it exists by posting than just to let it go away and move on to something thats probably worth concerning their time with. > Lastly, I've been a programmer for over 25 years, and I've turned out a > number of fairly huge applications from 175,000 lines of code to well > over 750,000 (sorry, I don't know the metric equivalent - grin). These > guys are taking too freakin long to come up with a product. How many of those lines did you do that you wernt being paid for?

"John Simmons" wrote: > > The reality is the transporter didn't delay anything. The sim engine was > > still in development which meant the graphics development could not take > > place until ready. So the transporter was done in slack time. > > They should have a crapload of transporters done by now then... In a sense, yes. Tony, who produced the transporter went on to work on another project, Virtual RC, whilst Chris worked on the physics engine. > I think I've been as patient about this as anyone else, but blind belief > in this product is pretty pointless. If it is ever released, I might > buy it, but I'm not going to stand by and let comments like Ashley's go > un-touched. It's simply not my nature, especially if I have an already > formed opinion. I would suggest Ashley has inside knowledge he is unable to share with us right now. In my view they have got their communication wrong twice. First by giving too much too early, then by saying nothing, but like I said once burnt...

In article <d5bjgi$1v4$[email hidden]>, .@..i says...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Why does it matter to you? Move on, forget about it. Seems to me if you are > so convinced they are all vapour you cant be too bright to be interested in > it enough still to post about it. Face it you still want it too happen, but > it makes you feel good to slag them off for some odd reason.Something wrong > with people who dislike something so much that they would continue to help > it exists by posting than just to let it go away and move on to something > thats probably worth concerning their time with. > > > Lastly, I've been a programmer for over 25 years, and I've turned out a > > number of fairly huge applications from 175,000 lines of code to well > > over 750,000 (sorry, I don't know the metric equivalent - grin). These > > guys are taking too freakin long to come up with a product. > > How many of those lines did you do that you wernt being paid for? >

I don't reply in context to anonymous posts. Tell us who you are, and I'll hold a conversation with you.

On Wed, 4 May 2005 22:22:23 +0000 (UTC), "." <.@..i> wrote: >Another one who cant tell the difference between one product and starting >from scratch on an all new one. What the hell does it matter. Well, Mr. Anonymous....At first I can't imagine they emptied their brains when they started RL, and second starting from scratch didn't seem to hinder them when coming up with a estimated release date.... Cheers! Remco

Quoted text (28 lines)

>"Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Wed, 4 May 2005 18:09:13 +0000 (UTC), "." <.@..i> wrote: >> >>>Anything that annoys the prat Kennewell gets my support. 3 Years idiot get >>>your facts right. >> >> Well, didn't they spent 5 years before that on WSC? >> >> Cheers! >> >> >> Remco >> >> >>>"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>news:[email hidden]... >>>> "Takes time"? >>>> "TAKES TIME"?!!! >>>> Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it! >>>> >>>> All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your >>>> theory >>>> it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate! >>>> >>>> Gimme a break. >> >

"John Simmons" wrote: > Lastly, I've been a programmer for over 25 years, and I've turned out a > number of fairly huge applications from 175,000 lines of code to well > over 750,000 (sorry, I don't know the metric equivalent - grin). These > guys are taking too freakin long to come up with a product. That reminds me, John, how is Duke Nukem Forever coming along :)

In article <Nokee.25455$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "John Simmons" wrote: > > > Lastly, I've been a programmer for over 25 years, and I've turned out a > > number of fairly huge applications from 175,000 lines of code to well > > over 750,000 (sorry, I don't know the metric equivalent - grin). These > > guys are taking too freakin long to come up with a product. > > That reminds me, John, how is Duke Nukem Forever coming along :) > > > >

I gave up on it because none of the other programmers could understand why I'd want a different super-detailed 3-D race hauler in every map. :)

"John Simmons" wrote: > > That reminds me, John, how is Duke Nukem Forever coming along :) > > > I gave up on it because none of the other programmers could understand > why I'd want a different super-detailed 3-D race hauler in every map. :) Killer punch - ouch :)

Breathing is an involuntary action, you cretin; we don't have to manage it. Bruce. "." <.@..i> wrote in message news:d5bgmq$elt$[email hidden]... > If you havnt got the intelligence to differentiate between one product anda > totally new product then I wonder how you manage to breathe.

I kinda suspect that was the point :O) Never mind, seems people just like to wind oen another up on here. "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4279ff04$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Breathing is an involuntary action, you cretin; we don't have to manage > it. > > Bruce. > > "." <.@..i> wrote in message > news:d5bgmq$elt$[email hidden]... >> If you havnt got the intelligence to differentiate between one product >> and > a >> totally new product then I wonder how you manage to breathe. > >

Larry wrote: > We've erected the better part of a friggin' SPACE STATION in thatperiod of > time. I realize they don't have to be concerned with tire wear orphysics, > but I'm quiet sure the GRIP issue is a bitch... Not to nitpick, but the design of the international space station started nearly 30 years ago. I'm not sure that would be a very good turnaround for a racing simulation.

They are trying :) -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Larry wrote: > >> We've erected the better part of a friggin' SPACE STATION in that > period of >> time. I realize they don't have to be concerned with tire wear or > physics, >> but I'm quiet sure the GRIP issue is a bitch... > > Not to nitpick, but the design of the international space station > started nearly 30 years ago. I'm not sure that would be a very good > turnaround for a racing simulation. >

lol --A-- On 01.05.2005 23:16, Andi Cole wrote: > Oh, Sorry 1st of May, not April! >

The thing is: Internet is a tremendous resource, but it requires a great deal of management for anything good to come out of it. I am absolutely sure RAS, as a group, has the best beta test capabilities on the planet since we combine sim racing, real racing and computer knowledge to great extents. However, this group is also some of the most anarchistic and chaotic group imaginable, and in order to include RAS in *any* communication strategy, you'll have to set aside the resources to filter, massage, and write messages to the group. And this is a resource development teams don't see worthwhile, because they're already on the edge budgetwise. And a developer cannot take on the chore, since the last thing a developer wants is noise, constant and loud. But I still firmly believe that the very nature of internet makes RAS the ultimate beta team. And the very nature of internet makes the same resource void. Much like us humans, innit? Full of contradictions. Internet has it's best chance of success when you gather committed persons, and block out all the noise, like sourceforge. ---A--- On 04.05.2005 22:21, Tony Rickard wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> "Bruce Kennewell" wrote: > > >>"Tony Rickard" wrote: >> >>>.... It is not surprising the developers huddle with their private >>>groups behind their NDAs until they are ready to go public with the >>>finished article.. > > >>What a shame that Messrs West didn't do the same. >>(They probably wish that they HAD done so!) > > > I guess the point is I believe they are now. Once burnt and all that... > > >

"Mythbusters" is an excellent program, and I am truly confident they'd get to the bottom of things. Usually they find a myth to be untrue, so we have two alternatives here: Myth 1: There is no RL, and there is no or next to no development taking place Myth 2: RL :-) ---A--- On 03.05.2005 21:52, Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I think "Mythbusters" needs to have a go at this one, > > Bruce. > > "Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:d580u1$smm$[email hidden]... > > >>So far it's a bit wait and see. >> > > >

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d5f5pv$504$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> The thing is: Internet is a tremendous resource, but it requires a great > deal of management for anything good to come out of it. > > I am absolutely sure RAS, as a group, has the best beta test capabilities > on the planet since we combine sim racing, real racing and computer > knowledge to great extents. > > However, this group is also some of the most anarchistic and chaotic group > imaginable, and in order to include RAS in *any* communication strategy, > you'll have to set aside the resources to filter, massage, and write > messages to the group.

I agree with you that the skills within this group would make for a fine technical beta feedback group. However, this is not the type of group that I would approach if I were seeking feedback for commercial success. This group is highly atypical when compared with the typical purchaser of computer games/sims. 1. The people here tend to be highly technically skilled, whilst most games require simplicity and ease of use as prime criteria for commercial success. 2. The peple here tend to be of a older mean age group that the typical gamer or even sim racer. This is purely speculation, but is based on what I feel is a solid argument. Newsgroups are ancient technology in the Internet era, and most people using them have been doing so for more than 10 years (i.e. prior to the web revolution). 3. Eye candy and great marketing, combined with retail penetration is a better selling point than technical superiority - compare RBR with CMR for example. I don't know the numbers but expect that CMR has outsold RBR at least 10 fold - probably more like 100 fold. The reality is that hard core sim racing is and will remain niche for the considerable future, thus severely restricting the number of titles available. Why was there no GPL 2 considering the overwhelming cries from the sim community? The short answer is that it wasn't commercialy viable, and the voices heard were the very loud minority. I expect that many people here earn decent money, or are prepared to spend considerably more on their hardware in terms of percent of disposable income compared to the casual gamer, as they conisder sim racing to be a primary "hobby" more than entertainment. As such, why not spend more on software? I think that the Wests had a good idea when it came to charging a premium for their product, as well as additional charges for each new track and/or car. Maybe the powers that be in the commercial gaming world should be lobbied to introduce a new business model for racing sims: forget the standard shop price for sims and charge at least $100 per title and more for additional tracks and cars. I would even go so far as to suggest charging for online racing. Tim

Quoted text (32 lines)

> > And this is a resource development teams don't see worthwhile, because > they're already on the edge budgetwise. And a developer cannot take on the > chore, since the last thing a developer wants is noise, constant and loud. > > But I still firmly believe that the very nature of internet makes RAS the > ultimate beta team. And the very nature of internet makes the same > resource void. Much like us humans, innit? Full of contradictions. > > Internet has it's best chance of success when you gather committed > persons, and block out all the noise, like sourceforge. > > ---A--- > > On 04.05.2005 22:21, Tony Rickard wrote: >> "Bruce Kennewell" wrote: >> >> >>>"Tony Rickard" wrote: >>> >>>>.... It is not surprising the developers huddle with their private >>>>groups behind their NDAs until they are ready to go public with the >>>>finished article.. >> >> >>>What a shame that Messrs West didn't do the same. >>>(They probably wish that they HAD done so!) >> >> >> I guess the point is I believe they are now. Once burnt and all that... >> >>

"Maybe the powers that be in the commercial gaming world should be lobbied to introduce a new business model for racing sims: forget the standard shop price for sims and charge at least $100 per title and more for additional tracks and cars. I would even go so far as to suggest charging for online racing." Big risk for little payoff. Reality is why bother. The niche is small and very hard to win over. it is much easier to make a mass market arcade title for a console. Even if it does poorly it will still outsell a pure sim in volume. But with that said you basically just stated what FIRSTRACING is planning to do, charge for online racing. So far the concept has had a cold reception at best. "Tim Epstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:OWIee.26350$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (95 lines)

> > "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:d5f5pv$504$[email hidden]... >> The thing is: Internet is a tremendous resource, but it requires a great >> deal of management for anything good to come out of it. >> >> I am absolutely sure RAS, as a group, has the best beta test capabilities >> on the planet since we combine sim racing, real racing and computer >> knowledge to great extents. >> >> However, this group is also some of the most anarchistic and chaotic >> group imaginable, and in order to include RAS in *any* communication >> strategy, you'll have to set aside the resources to filter, massage, and >> write messages to the group. > > I agree with you that the skills within this group would make for a fine > technical beta feedback group. However, this is not the type of group that > I would approach if I were seeking feedback for commercial success. This > group is highly atypical when compared with the typical purchaser of > computer games/sims. > > 1. The people here tend to be highly technically skilled, whilst most > games require simplicity and ease of use as prime criteria for commercial > success. > > 2. The peple here tend to be of a older mean age group that the typical > gamer or even sim racer. This is purely speculation, but is based on what > I feel is a solid argument. Newsgroups are ancient technology in the > Internet era, and most people using them have been doing so for more than > 10 years (i.e. prior to the web revolution). > > 3. Eye candy and great marketing, combined with retail penetration is a > better selling point than technical superiority - compare RBR with CMR for > example. I don't know the numbers but expect that CMR has outsold RBR at > least 10 fold - probably more like 100 fold. > > The reality is that hard core sim racing is and will remain niche for the > considerable future, thus severely restricting the number of titles > available. Why was there no GPL 2 considering the overwhelming cries from > the sim community? The short answer is that it wasn't commercialy viable, > and the voices heard were the very loud minority. > > I expect that many people here earn decent money, or are prepared to spend > considerably more on their hardware in terms of percent of disposable > income compared to the casual gamer, as they conisder sim racing to be a > primary "hobby" more than entertainment. As such, why not spend more on > software? I think that the Wests had a good idea when it came to charging > a premium for their product, as well as additional charges for each new > track and/or car. > > Maybe the powers that be in the commercial gaming world should be lobbied > to introduce a new business model for racing sims: forget the standard > shop price for sims and charge at least $100 per title and more for > additional tracks and cars. I would even go so far as to suggest charging > for online racing. > > Tim > > > > >> >> And this is a resource development teams don't see worthwhile, because >> they're already on the edge budgetwise. And a developer cannot take on >> the chore, since the last thing a developer wants is noise, constant and >> loud. >> >> But I still firmly believe that the very nature of internet makes RAS the >> ultimate beta team. And the very nature of internet makes the same >> resource void. Much like us humans, innit? Full of contradictions. >> >> Internet has it's best chance of success when you gather committed >> persons, and block out all the noise, like sourceforge. >> >> ---A--- >> >> On 04.05.2005 22:21, Tony Rickard wrote: >>> "Bruce Kennewell" wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Tony Rickard" wrote: >>>> >>>>>.... It is not surprising the developers huddle with their private >>>>>groups behind their NDAs until they are ready to go public with the >>>>>finished article.. >>> >>> >>>>What a shame that Messrs West didn't do the same. >>>>(They probably wish that they HAD done so!) >>> >>> >>> I guess the point is I believe they are now. Once burnt and all that... >>> >>> >

"schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:D2Jee.27241$0X6.16704@edtnps90... >> "Tim Epstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:OWIee.26350$[email hidden]... > > >> "Maybe the powers that be in the commercial gaming world should belobbied

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>to >> introduce a new business model for racing sims: forget the standard shop >> price for sims and charge at least $100 per title and more for additional >> tracks and cars. I would even go so far as to suggest charging for online >> racing." > > Big risk for little payoff. Reality is why bother. The niche is small

and > very hard to win over. it is much easier to make a mass market arcadetitle > for a console. Even if it does poorly it will still outsell a pure sim in > volume. > > But with that said you basically just stated what FIRSTRACING is planningto > do, charge for online racing. So far the concept has had a cold reception > at best. Niche size hasn't deterred a number of dedicated sim developers in the past, though the big publishers like Sony, MS and EA have tended to steer clear of it. The thing is that right now the guys who want to play in the sim market are trying to find a business model that works better than what they've used before. You either go at it by reducing development/marketing/distribution expenses ala LFS or NetKar Pro, cutting out the publisher ala ISI/rFactor (no more EA), cutting or amortizing dev costs through engine licensing (ISI again, with the likes of SimBin and EA/Tiburon on the other side of the deal), or you try to recoup through other ways, pay to play being just one possibility. FWIW, monthly fees don't seem to have held Everquest sales back too much. And First are not the only ones looking at that model; the latest RaceMore service for GTR is a first step in that direction too. And I may be wrong, but the virtual car companies and showrooms for rFactor just positively smell of extra-cost add-ons. Similar to the expansion packs talked about on the West Racing site for Racing Legends. Can't say I'm too thrilled about the idea of having to choose which service(s) to give my limited discretionary toy funds to, but no-charge online racing is not going away anyway. The thing for people to remember about pay to play is that for it to be saleable for the providers, it has to offer added value to the consumers (us). Meaning it has to be more and/or better than what you can and have gotten for free, or rather as part of the deal with your one-time purchase price. For example, SimBin's Diego Sartori just noted the other day on RSC that the only things RaceMore might charge for would be over and above the current offerings. Added value. Bottom line, if you want more than you've gotten from online racing in the past, you have to be willing to ante up. If you don't, there will still be options for you - and they will keep the new niche players in check pricewise through competition. Heck; I just now see RBR has been added to VROC. No charge... ;-) SB

It's also produced by an Aussie company (Beyond) and filmed by an Aussie team. (We're not only good at cricket! :) ) I think they (Jamie and Adam) would find that no such sim exists or is in development and THEN they'd do what they always try to do....prove that it COULD happen. At which point they'd approach Electronic Arts. AAAAAAARRGH! Bruce. "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d5f6eb$5cj$[email hidden]... > "Mythbusters" is an excellent program, ....

And if you don't have the intelligence to realize that no programmer doesn't "re-use" code in some way even if it's a different language or engine then I have to wonder how you manage to breathe. I'd be willing to bet a month's pay that there's code in N2003 that was in Indy 500 or code in NSR that was in the original Revolution. I wish the West's the best of luck but I, for one, am not holding my breath. "." <.@..i> wrote in message news:d5bgmq$elt$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> If you havnt got the intelligence to differentiate between one product and > a totally new product then I wonder how you manage to breathe. > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> It is certainly more than three years since the terms "West brothers" and >> "simulation" were seen together in the same sentence in RAS. >> >> Cretin! >> >> Bruce. >> >> "." <.@..i> wrote in message >> news:d5b349$n4b$[email hidden]... >>> Anything that annoys the prat Kennewell gets my support. 3 Years idiot >>> get >>> your facts right. >> >> > >

Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > "Mythbusters" is an excellent program, and I am truly confident they'd > get to the bottom of things. ...and when all else fails, they'd blow up a Lotus transporter with Buster and a bushel of Westie Bears inside! -jde