Re: GPL: A plea to the Replay Analyser team

Oh, now that would be cool! Sign me up. SLG BC <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

>Simply put, make a replay-to-lp file extractor! > >GPL doesn't need another new track to race on, or a new mod to an >existing car. What it needs is an improvement to offline play, >especially with the engine swapper putting a damper on online racing >to some extent. > >Just think how great it would be to pull a Huttu replay off the net >and race against him! Not only would it be exciting, but a great >learning tool as well. > >Or, we could design our own race lines for the AI to run based on >lines we're comfortable with. No more rear-enders into the Parabolica >or Brabhams hitting 199mph past the Masta kink. > >I single out Jonas and Martin because they've made reference to >another party developing just such an app here on this newsgroup, but >it's been so long now that surely it's ghostware. So my request is >for the GPL Replay Analyser team to include an lp-extractor feature so >we can all enjoy a brand new offline racing experience. > >Thanks. >

(All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers)

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:22:29 GMT, BC <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>Simply put, make a replay-to-lp file extractor! > >GPL doesn't need another new track to race on, or a new mod to an >existing car. What it needs is an improvement to offline play, >especially with the engine swapper putting a damper on online racing >to some extent. > >Just think how great it would be to pull a Huttu replay off the net >and race against him! Not only would it be exciting, but a great >learning tool as well. > >Or, we could design our own race lines for the AI to run based on >lines we're comfortable with. No more rear-enders into the Parabolica >or Brabhams hitting 199mph past the Masta kink. > >I single out Jonas and Martin because they've made reference to >another party developing just such an app here on this newsgroup, but >it's been so long now that surely it's ghostware. So my request is >for the GPL Replay Analyser team to include an lp-extractor feature so >we can all enjoy a brand new offline racing experience. > >Thanks.

EXCELLENT idea! This would really be a cool feature. I sure hope it's possible! Andre

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:22:29 GMT, BC <[email hidden]> wrote: >Simply put, make a replay-to-lp file extractor! OK :) >GPL doesn't need another new track to race on, or a new mod to an >existing car. Not sure I agree. New tracks are fun! :) > What it needs is an improvement to offline play, >especially with the engine swapper putting a damper on online racing >to some extent. This will hopefully be corrected. >Just think how great it would be to pull a Huttu replay off the net >and race against him! Not only would it be exciting, but a great >learning tool as well. True. But I think mr Huttu is too quick for the AI, they wouldn't cope with the cornering speed. :)

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Or, we could design our own race lines for the AI to run based on >lines we're comfortable with. No more rear-enders into the Parabolica >or Brabhams hitting 199mph past the Masta kink. > >I single out Jonas and Martin because they've made reference to >another party developing just such an app here on this newsgroup, but >it's been so long now that surely it's ghostware. So my request is >for the GPL Replay Analyser team to include an lp-extractor feature so >we can all enjoy a brand new offline racing experience.

It isn't ghostware, it does exist. Don't know why it hasn't been released yet though. Might be that the author wants it to be perfected when released, this is my best guess. No plans from us to do an rpy->lp tool, sorry. :( Cheers, /Martin

Martin Granberg wrote on 12 Dec 2000: <snip> >It isn't ghostware, it does exist. Don't know why it hasn't been >released yet though. Might be that the author wants it to be perfected >when released, this is my best guess.<snip> Like Daikatana, you mean? <vbeg> -- David. (final [?] GPLRank handicap: -5.92) The GPL Scrapyard - http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

>"Martin Granberg" <[email hidden]> wrote > It isn't ghostware, it does exist. Don't know why it hasn't been > released yet though. It's another problem caused by those who wants to create a "clique" in the GPL community. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

In article <CzzZ5.822$[email hidden]>, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >"Martin Granberg" <[email hidden]> wrote > > It isn't ghostware, it does exist. Don't know why it hasn't been > > released yet though. > > It's another problem caused by those who wants to create a "clique"in the > GPL community. Not sure what you are trying to say, but the guy who makes the tool has released lots of useful programs for GPL etc in the past. He doesn't only give away his work to a few selected people as I think you are trying to hint. If he thought the program was ready for release (which also require that the program wouldn't generate lots of "support mails"), he would. He still plans to release it. Cheers, /Martin Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

>"Martin Granberg" <[email hidden]> wrote > Not sure what you are trying to say, but the guy who makes the tool has > released lots of useful programs for GPL etc in the past. He doesn't > only give away his work to a few selected people as I think you are > trying to hint. If so, then tell me how do track creators create their own AI???? I know it, tell the community please. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

In article <MjGZ5.65669$[email hidden]>, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >"Martin Granberg" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Not sure what you are trying to say, but the guy who makes the toolhas > > released lots of useful programs for GPL etc in the past. He doesn't > > only give away his work to a few selected people as I think you are > > trying to hint. > > If so, then tell me how do track creators create their own AI???? Iknow it, > tell the community please. I can only speak for myself and Anderstorp and I used this tool to create the AI. Also got valuable help from Sabre Team in fixing some problems with only a few AI cars qualifying and including better overtaking. The one and only reason I knew about the existence of this tool was that the author contacted me about replay file-format info when he started to work on the tool. So when I needed an rpy->lp tool I contacted him and asked if he had finished it. There are other tools not spread in public, this is true. There are a lot of reasons for this I think. One is that cheating would be easier for people who don't know how to do it otherwise, but I think the main reason is that they are not user-friendly with hardly no documentation at all. This would result in lots of mails with questions to the creators. Keeping that amount of mails to a reasonable level is understandable IMO. I've read opinions before that all available tools should be released so that everyone can use it. I think this is down to the ones who spent a lot of time doing the tools to decide. Some programs are best unreleased, for example the engine swapper program IMO. Cheers, /Martin Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:09:38 GMT, Martin Granberg <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip> >I've read opinions before that all available tools should be released >so that everyone can use it. I think this is down to the ones who spent >a lot of time doing the tools to decide. Some programs are best >unreleased, for example the engine swapper program IMO. Very true. Same reason why GPLEA doesn't release the track editor, people could use it to modify existing tracks. Allthough my biggest wish is a (user friendly) track editor for GPL, if it could be used for cheating, simply don't release it in public. Same thing goes for the Swappah (pronounced as WHAZZAAAPP I guess). I don't like it being released, the closing of Schubi because of it's release is a very sad thing, but after the first shock I can live with the swappah. But I don't see why a lp editor is being hold back from the public. How could this possibly be used for cheating? Yesterday I won my first Pro Long World Championship against the AI, and for some tracks (especially the converted ones) I'd love to improve the AI at some places. Just make it an unsupported utility and ignore mails with questions about it. Martin, a short question about GPLRA 3.5: Yesterday I did a lap comparisson on Spa. The replay was very slow, it took allmost a minute from the start to that lefthander after Eau Rouge (I'm bad in remembering corner names). This surprised me even more since I upgraded from a PII450 V2 to a PIII500 V3. Also, can I change the standard zoom level of a lap replay? I'd like to see the replay zoomed in a little bit more. Andre

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Cheers, > >/Martin > > >Sent via Deja.com >http://www.deja.com/

>"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote > Very true. Same reason why GPLEA doesn't release the track editor, > people could use it to modify existing tracks. Hmmm, tracks can easily be modified without those non-released tools be 100% sure. Many test in the past have been done without those tools to check out the limits of the client/server architecture. Simple things that change the TRk and 3DO without the need for their software. Still, who are they to judge upon the community? Why do they decide of what is wrong and what is good... Having the knowledge to create those utility is not enough. It's another case that for 1 wrong, we keep the community from a hundred goods. It would be like GPLRank never being released because "a couple of drivers on thousands have the possibility to cheat". > Same thing goes for the Swappah (pronounced as WHAZZAAAPP I guess). > I don't like it being released, the closing of Schubi because of it's > release is a very sad thing, but after the first shock I can live with > the swappah. Hey Schubi closed because GP3 was released no? He's very emotive, too much imho to control a site on hotlaps. So because of 1 site that controls hotlaps, we shouldn't have the greatness of having a tool that gives us FOURTY-TWO new cars in GPL? > But I don't see why a lp editor is being hold back from the public. > How could this possibly be used for cheating? It can't, but some people may decided that "the clique" is more important then the goods of the community. Their ego is important, the fact that they have their names written in the readme files. Of course, I'll get some rants because I speak loud for a good portion of people. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Andre Warringa) wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:09:38 GMT, Martin Granberg > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > <snip> > >I've read opinions before that all available tools should be released > >so that everyone can use it. I think this is down to the ones whospent > >a lot of time doing the tools to decide. Some programs are best > >unreleased, for example the engine swapper program IMO. > > But I don't see why a lp editor is being hold back from the public. > How could this possibly be used for cheating? It couldn't, that isn't the reason for it not being released (read my earlier reply) > Martin, a short question about GPLRA 3.5: Yesterday I did a lap > comparisson on Spa. The replay was very slow, it took allmost a minute > from the start to that lefthander after Eau Rouge (I'm bad in > remembering corner names). This surprised me even more since I > upgraded from a PII450 V2 to a PIII500 V3. Hmm, replaying the lap you mean? Strange, shouldn't happen. Try again and see if you get the same result. If so, contact me again. > Also, can I change the standard zoom level of a lap replay? I'd like > to see the replay zoomed in a little bit more. You can't now. However, if you pause you can change zoom and then "unpause". Cheers, /Martin Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

>"Martin Granberg" <[email hidden]> wrote > The one and only reason I knew about the existence of this tool was > that the author contacted me about replay file-format info when he > started to work on the tool. So when I needed an rpy->lp tool I > contacted him and asked if he had finished it. RPY>LP ain't much the problem here. It's normal it takes time, it's understandable, it's different from the real utility that people use to create tracks (and in this situation), or the AI. If it's not done yet, then don't release it ;-) We're more talking here about the already finished software or the software that is used at the moment for the full creation of tracks. The GPL community is mature, it's not made of teen gamers. After two years of being on the shelves, the only people left racing it at 99.99% are the ones who are serious about it. Read below for more information about the community. > There are other tools not spread in public, this is true. There are a > lot of reasons for this I think. One is that cheating would be easier > for people who don't know how to do it otherwise, but I think the main > reason is that they are not user-friendly with hardly no documentation > at all. There is thousands of things on the internet that have no documentation. If those people are able to use them, I don't see why the hardcore GPL community couldn't. The file structure in GPL is quite easy, there is exaustive sites that have information on that. The knowledge within the years has build-up. Their ego is important, they need to keep the monopoly on some things (I'm stretching reality just a little bit, it's really not far from that). But they'll deny it (of course "they" is vague, I will not specify anybody as it's not my goal). Just release it without any kinds of help, like Grant Reeves did with the D3D rasterizer. ===Community rant below=== Another case of a few thinking they have the rights to decide for everybody else. This ain't Quake, we are a mature community of hardcore simracers who want to expand the simulation, but some people give us handcuffs instead. We want it to be better for us! We want fresh stuff, new stuff. Not just new stuff that a few selected lucky ones give us, but new stuff that the whole community creates. Just check out the flight sim community, especially the one created with Microsoft Flight Simulator. Sure they released the SDK, and look at how the community goes with it. It's not a few people who do things, it's everybody. They don't whine about multiplayer flying because some whiz-kid wanted to create a super-sonic plane that goes at Mach 20. Who cares, that's not important. What is important is how they are able to still expand after all those years the simulation, to make it more realistic. New airports, better representation of airports, new airplanes, better airplanes. People make a big deal about the engine swap, and it serves the cause of the "clique" who has a nice excuse for going "tata, you won't have a bite of the cake I was given!". The Replay analyser was released with a detection of it, and VROC will possibily be modified to enforce/restrict the usage of it. If the whole community sets standards, then it's a good, no a GREAT add-on. If a hundred does good and a few does wrong, is it still ok? More so, if TWO person do good but 1 does wrong, should they be penalised? In the GPL community, it's far closer to the first ratio then the second one. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:44:46 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Very true. Same reason why GPLEA doesn't release the track editor, >> people could use it to modify existing tracks. > >Hmmm, tracks can easily be modified without those non-released tools be 100% >sure. Many test in the past have been done without those tools to check out >the limits of the client/server architecture. Simple things that change the >TRk and 3DO without the need for their software.

I don't know how to do that. But it's the same as with the swappah, why would you give people a tool to do this with a few simple mouseclicks? >Still, who are they to judge upon the community? Why do they decide of what >is wrong and what is good... Having the knowledge to create those utility is >not enough. They made it, they decide wether to release it or not. Simple. >It's another case that for 1 wrong, we keep the community from a hundred >goods. It would be like GPLRank never being released because "a couple of >drivers on thousands have the possibility to cheat". I see your point, good example. I think that the community just has to be very carefull to choose wether to release some utils or not. I don't want to see the same things happening to GPL as it does in most online games, with all the bigtime cheating going on. I know, the GPL community is not comparable with the 'pick-up' games community like UT and NFS, bit still: yesterday I had a race at Spa. I was driving full speed. I saw a Lotus in my mirror, within a couple of secs he overtook me, and a couple of secs later he was out of my sight. It was allmost spooky. I really started to wonder if he was playing fair or that he was using some kind of cheat. Later I checked the replay, saw that it was a famous fast driver who passed me, and I could only admire his driving style. I see the good points about the engine swappah, but the big negative thing is that people who are way faster than the rest are becoming suspicious untill the replay is being checked. I don't like that.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> Same thing goes for the Swappah (pronounced as WHAZZAAAPP I guess). >> I don't like it being released, the closing of Schubi because of it's >> release is a very sad thing, but after the first shock I can live with >> the swappah. > >Hey Schubi closed because GP3 was released no? He's very emotive, too much >imho to control a site on hotlaps. So because of 1 site that controls >hotlaps, we shouldn't have the greatness of having a tool that gives us >FOURTY-TWO new cars in GPL?

He is emotional, but I like that in a person. I couldn't help but smile that he came back with the GPL hotlap site the day after GP3 was released :) Don't forget how much work it is for him to update his site, and he has done it for how long now, 1.5 year? Don't say that he's not capable of controlling a hotlap site. >> But I don't see why a lp editor is being hold back from the public. >> How could this possibly be used for cheating? > >It can't, but some people may decided that "the clique" is more important >then the goods of the community. Their ego is important, the fact that they >have their names written in the readme files. Some of the creators I know do have an ego problem. Most of them have not and spend lots of free time in creating fantastic addons for the community, for f-r-e-e. But again, if someone makes a tool, he decides wether to release it or not. We can only hope that this person not only has the programming skills, but also the skills to see what influence his tool would have on the GPL community. >Of course, I'll get some rants because I speak loud for a good portion of >people. Your 'I speak for the rest of the world' is allmost just as annoying as Bruce's grammar correction... :) Andre

Quoted text (9 lines)

>-- >-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> >-- May the Downforce be with you... >-- http://www.WeRace.net >-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise >how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:48:15 GMT, Martin Granberg <[email hidden]> wrote: >> But I don't see why a lp editor is being hold back from the public. >> How could this possibly be used for cheating? > >It couldn't, that isn't the reason for it not being released (read my >earlier reply) I did, quote: " There are other tools not spread in public, this is true. There are a lot of reasons for this I think. One is that cheating would be easier for people who don't know how to do it otherwise, but I think the main reason is that they are not user-friendly with hardly no documentation at all. This would result in lots of mails with questions to the creators. Keeping that amount of mails to a reasonable level is understandable IMO." I know you were talking about tools in general here, but my point was: An lp editor could not be used for cheating. I can understand why GPLEA doesn't release their editor (because of the cheating problem) but the only reason we can think of of not releasing the lp editor is because the author doesn't want to answer hundreds of mails with questions about the editor. Well, it seems simple to me: Simply release the lp editor unsupported! I'm sure we'll figure out how it works (it can't be THAT hard?) Toad's editor was released without support. People use it in a good way. I think the same will be the case with the release of a good lp editor. Many people drive against the AI, which could need improvement on some tracks badly. I'd love to be able to design my own AI, to let them drive as I want them to (slow and making lots of room for me :)) Andre

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Andre Warringa) wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I know you were talking about tools in general here, but my point was: > > An lp editor could not be used for cheating. I can understand why > GPLEA doesn't release their editor (because of the cheating problem) > but the only reason we can think of of not releasing the lp editor is > because the author doesn't want to answer hundreds of mails with > questions about the editor.

Don't know if this is the case for the rpy->lp tool. > Well, it seems simple to me: Simply release the lp editor unsupported! :) Think the delay is because he wants it to be perfected. BTW, Andre - do you remember another program which the author claimed would be perfect wihout any bugs...? :) > I'm sure we'll figure out how it works (it can't be THAT hard?) No, when I brought all "support-mails" up I had other programs in mind. Cheers, /Martin Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:06:01 GMT, Martin Granberg <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] (Andre Warringa) wrote: >> I know you were talking about tools in general here, but my point was: >> >> An lp editor could not be used for cheating. I can understand why >> GPLEA doesn't release their editor (because of the cheating problem) >> but the only reason we can think of of not releasing the lp editor is >> because the author doesn't want to answer hundreds of mails with >> questions about the editor. > >Don't know if this is the case for the rpy->lp tool.

Ok. Can you ask the guy about the status? >> Well, it seems simple to me: Simply release the lp editor unsupported! > >:) Think the delay is because he wants it to be perfected. > >BTW, Andre - do you remember another program which the author claimed >would be perfect wihout any bugs...? :) LOL! I can only think of one program... DON'T remind me :)) I remember that he wrote a couple of times that it would be perfect, without any bugs since he tested it lots of times and made sure no bugs were left :) >> I'm sure we'll figure out how it works (it can't be THAT hard?) > >No, when I brought all "support-mails" up I had other programs in mind. Ok, miscommunicado (is that proper English Bruce?) Thanks Martin for the reply btw, Andre

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Cheers, > >/Martin > > >Sent via Deja.com >http://www.deja.com/

[email hidden] (ymenard) wrote in <8DIZ5.2495$[email hidden]>: >Another case of a few thinking they have the rights to decide for >everybody else. This ain't Quake, we are a mature community of hardcore >simracers who want to expand the simulation, but some people give us >handcuffs instead. We want it to be better for us! We want fresh stuff, new >stuff. No one has any obligation, morally or otherwise, to release knowledge that they possess, and I don't think it's appropriate to pester them to do so. I've been happy with the quantity, and very impressed with the quality, of new tracks and ultilites coming out for gpl, and I'd much rather that continue, rather than being flooded with a bunch of mediocre creations. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -5.09 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://gplrank.ringlord.com/

>"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote > >Hmmm, tracks can easily be modified without those non-released tools be100% > >sure. Many test in the past have been done without those tools to checkout > >the limits of the client/server architecture. Simple things that changethe > >TRk and 3DO without the need for their software. > > I don't know how to do that. But it's the same as with the swappah, > why would you give people a tool to do this with a few simple > mouseclicks? You can't edit tracks with a simple few mouseclicks ;) Still the needs of the community outgrows the needs of the few! Just think about the possibilities if everybody could create new tracks for GPL. Sure there would be that 1% of the people who would cheat with it, but so bloody what if it can create hundreds of new tracks for GPL? > They made it, they decide wether to release it or not. Simple. No, the problem is that they have released it but only for a few selected ego-centrical "clique-type" people. <snip good point and nice story about faster drivers and suspicion> > >Hey Schubi closed because GP3 was released no? He's very emotive, toomuch

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >imho to control a site on hotlaps. So because of 1 site that controls > >hotlaps, we shouldn't have the greatness of having a tool that gives us > >FOURTY-TWO new cars in GPL? > > He is emotional, but I like that in a person. I couldn't help but > smile that he came back with the GPL hotlap site the day after GP3 was > released :)

LOL I had the same reaction ;) "What.. all that wait for _that_??" > Some of the creators I know do have an ego problem. Most of them have > not and spend lots of free time in creating fantastic addons for the > community, for f-r-e-e. But again, if someone makes a tool, he decides > wether to release it or not. We can only hope that this person not > only has the programming skills, but also the skills to see what > influence his tool would have on the GPL community. Yes but some of them release them for a few selected. They want to keep the supposed "power" that they create themselves. > >Of course, I'll get some rants because I speak loud for a good portion of > >people. > > Your 'I speak for the rest of the world' is allmost just as annoying > as Bruce's grammar correction... :) Naw c'mon look at the words again. I carefully chosen them so people like you wouldn't extrapolate in such way. I'm rhetoric, that's all I can say. I didn't include any "we" in that sentence nor did I include everybody. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

> >"Don Scurlock" <[email hidden]> wrote > >Another case of a few thinking they have the rights to decide for > >everybody else. This ain't Quake, we are a mature community of hardcore > >simracers who want to expand the simulation, but some people give us > >handcuffs instead. We want it to be better for us! We want fresh stuff,new > >stuff. > > No one has any obligation, morally or otherwise, to release knowledge thatthey > possess, and I don't think it's appropriate to pester them to do so. I'vebeen > happy with the quantity, and very impressed with the quality, of newtracks and > ultilites coming out for gpl, and I'd much rather that continue, ratherthan > being flooded with a bunch of mediocre creations. Bah it all comes down to this. You might like it how it is currently, with 1 quality track each 3-4months, but some people do not. They want to expand GPL to further levels, but some people have chosen to decide for everybody else. We would still keep a quality if those tools were to be released. Another time, this ain't Quake, we are hardcore simracers and I doubt that if somebody creates a track from the passion he has for GPL he would release a cheap version of it. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote > An lp editor could not be used for cheating. I can understand why > GPLEA doesn't release their editor (because of the cheating problem) What makes you think that some people that have access to some track editing tools don't cheat themselves? After what we saw with the engine swapper, do you have any suspicion? Do you doubt the credibility of such group of supposed elites in their choice of deciding what is good and what is wrong? -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:22:02 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> I don't know how to do that. But it's the same as with the swappah, >> why would you give people a tool to do this with a few simple >> mouseclicks? > >You can't edit tracks with a simple few mouseclicks ;) I was talking about the swappah ;) >Still the needs of the community outgrows the needs of the few! Just think >about the possibilities if everybody could create new tracks for GPL. Sure >there would be that 1% of the people who would cheat with it, but so bloody >what if it can create hundreds of new tracks for GPL? Uhhmm... the cheating ofcourse, lots of badly created tracks, so probably lots of different versions of the same tracks, and uhhmm.. lots of empty races on vroc? I do want a track editor, but a track editor release does have it's negative points. >> They made it, they decide wether to release it or not. Simple. > >No, the problem is that they have released it but only for a few selected >ego-centrical "clique-type" people. They made it. Their choice. Not that I like it, but you can only accept it. They don't owe you anything. ><snip good point and nice story about faster drivers and suspicion><don't snip compliment about good point and nice story :) > >> He is emotional, but I like that in a person. I couldn't help but >> smile that he came back with the GPL hotlap site the day after GP3 was >> released :) > >LOL I had the same reaction ;) "What.. all that wait for _that_??" Indeed, lol :)

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> Some of the creators I know do have an ego problem. Most of them have >> not and spend lots of free time in creating fantastic addons for the >> community, for f-r-e-e. But again, if someone makes a tool, he decides >> wether to release it or not. We can only hope that this person not >> only has the programming skills, but also the skills to see what >> influence his tool would have on the GPL community. > >Yes but some of them release them for a few selected. They want to keep the >supposed "power" that they create themselves.

Again Ym (can I call you Ym? :), it's their choice. Enjoy the fantastic things they create with it untill they release it. I'm still hoping Phil is working on that 'only usable for creating new tracks, not usable for modifying existing tracks' version of the track editor...

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> >Of course, I'll get some rants because I speak loud for a good portion of >> >people. >> >> Your 'I speak for the rest of the world' is allmost just as annoying >> as Bruce's grammar correction... :) > >Naw c'mon look at the words again. I carefully chosen them so people like >you wouldn't extrapolate in such way. I'm rhetoric, that's all I can say. >I didn't include any "we" in that sentence nor did I include everybody.

"I speak loud for a good portion of the people"... sounds a little bit like 'we' to me :) Only pulling your leg Ym, don't feel offended :) I understand and respect your point of view, I simply don't agree with it. (but Phil, don't get me wrong.. I DO want a track editor :) Andre

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:26:36 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote >> An lp editor could not be used for cheating. I can understand why >> GPLEA doesn't release their editor (because of the cheating problem) > >What makes you think that some people that have access to some track editing >tools don't cheat themselves? After what we saw with the engine swapper, do >you have any suspicion? Do you doubt the credibility of such group of >supposed elites in their choice of deciding what is good and what is wrong?

Uhhmm... errr... I trust the GPLEA guys, simply because they're some of the biggest GPL freaks (in a positive way :) in the community, spending all that time in creating their work. On VROC I do hear some non-GPLEA people talk about creating tracks, I suspect that they have it.. I can only hope that GPLEA stay behind their choice and either keep the editor to themselves or release it to all. We don't want to get the same <beep> as with the engine story, that quite some people knew about it and had it. I heard from too many people that they allready knew how to modify the engines. After I heard that I could only applaud the release of the swappah. Looking backwards it was necessary to release it, only the way it was released was wrong. The note from Paul helped a lot in understanding the thoughts behind the release, a readme like this should have been included in the swappah, a lot of confusion and anger would have been avoided then. Andre

"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote > >You can't edit tracks with a simple few mouseclicks ;) > I was talking about the swappah ;) Oh ;) > Uhhmm... the cheating ofcourse, lots of badly created tracks, so > probably lots of different versions of the same tracks, and uhhmm.. > lots of empty races on vroc? Since it takes more then a few clicks to create a track, the community wouldn't really have the problem at the extreme that you just wrote. Perhaps that instead of a few groups creating tracks, why not expand the field to a couple of more groups of people? The numbers of tracks people would want in GPL is enormous. > I do want a track editor, but a track editor release does have it's > negative points. But how many positive points? ;) > They made it. Their choice. Not that I like it, but you can only > accept it. They don't owe you anything. I can understand somebody creating something and not releasing it publically. The problem is that they send it to a few "elite" people who are lucky to be in that supposed position of decision towards the community. That is unfair the the hardcore GPL simracer who wants to expand his simulation. The demand is bigger then the offer. > Again Ym (can I call you Ym? :), it's their choice. Enjoy the > fantastic things they create with it untill they release it. I'm still > hoping Phil is working on that 'only usable for creating new tracks, > not usable for modifying existing tracks' version of the track > editor... Call me how you like, except "Menard" (inside joke for Jacob's NG hehe). I agree with what you wrote, but they still try to decide for the rest of the group. They create themselves a form of decisional power, which I dislike in an anarchic community that we have on the Internet. > "I speak loud for a good portion of the people"... sounds a little bit > like 'we' to me :) > Only pulling your leg Ym, don't feel offended :) Hehe okie :) > I understand and respect your point of view, I simply don't agree with > it. (but Phil, don't get me wrong.. I DO want a track editor :) Ok how about "We want a track editor" ;-) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

>"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote > On VROC I do hear some non-GPLEA people talk about creating tracks, I > suspect that they have it.. I can only hope that GPLEA stay behind > their choice and either keep the editor to themselves or release it to > all. Okie. Well I wish they would release it to more and more people. People that are axed on the development of new tracks. How many of us would want to do that? Create a group of 4-5people and create a track during the course of a month. GPLEA could find dozens of groups like that easily. So why won't they? They want to keep the software for their own. > After I heard that I could only applaud the release of the swappah. > Looking backwards it was necessary to release it, only the way it was > released was wrong. The note from Paul helped a lot in understanding > the thoughts behind the release, a readme like this should have been > included in the swappah, a lot of confusion and anger would have been > avoided then. True. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 05:23:08 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Okie. Well I wish they would release it to more and more people. People >that are axed on the development of new tracks. How many of us would want >to do that? Create a group of 4-5people and create a track during the course >of a month. GPLEA could find dozens of groups like that easily. So why >won't they? They want to keep the software for their own. Have you asked them if you could have it? Have you heard anyone asking for it who didn't get it? Cheers, /Martin

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:49:35 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin Granberg) wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 05:23:08 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>Okie. Well I wish they would release it to more and more people. People >>that are axed on the development of new tracks. How many of us would want >>to do that? Create a group of 4-5people and create a track during the course >>of a month. GPLEA could find dozens of groups like that easily. So why >>won't they? They want to keep the software for their own. > >Have you asked them if you could have it? Have you heard anyone asking >for it who didn't get it? > >Cheers, > >/Martin

/Andre raises his hand :) Andre

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:39:07 GMT, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote: >/Andre raises his hand :) OK :) /Martin

Your "carefully chosen words" remind me a lot of some rants you had before. How about looking up the results of that discussion instead of trying to do it all over again? Martijn

Quoted text (12 lines)

>No, the problem is that they have released it but only for a few selected >ego-centrical "clique-type" people. >> Some of the creators I know do have an ego problem. Most of them have >> not and spend lots of free time in creating fantastic addons for the >> community, for f-r-e-e. But again, if someone makes a tool, he decides >> wether to release it or not. We can only hope that this person not >> only has the programming skills, but also the skills to see what >> influence his tool would have on the GPL community. > >Yes but some of them release them for a few selected. They want to keep

the >supposed "power" that they create themselves. > >> >Of course, I'll get some rants because I speak loud for a good portionof

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> >people. >> >> Your 'I speak for the rest of the world' is allmost just as annoying >> as Bruce's grammar correction... :) > >Naw c'mon look at the words again. I carefully chosen them so people like >you wouldn't extrapolate in such way. I'm rhetoric, that's all I can say. >I didn't include any "we" in that sentence nor did I include everybody.

>"�artijn" <[email hidden]> wrote > Your "carefully chosen words" remind me a lot of some rants you hadbefore. > How about looking up the results of that discussion instead of trying todo > it all over again? Because maybe someday the wannabe "clique" will understand that hundreds of people are just awaiting some tools to expand GPL (which let's remember is starting to age, and in need for fresh stuff) to levels never achieved yet. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.