GP3 vs F1 2K - Dueling frustrations

Like anybody wanted to know :), here's my take on the most sim-like of the modern F1 games..................... After watching the Belgian GP this weekend (a CLASSIC, the likes of which we just don't see much these days), I did back-to-back testing of F1-2000 (v1.09) and GP3. The results were a tale of frustration, endless lists of "If only"s........(test machine is a Cel450, GeForce 256 SDR, 256mb ram, Win98se) F1-2000's driving model does feel more lively and communicative, and the graphics engine (for all the complaints about performance issues) is SO much more advanced and optimized than GP3. It also doesn't hurt that F1 2k's controller setup is so much better than GP3's - it's irksome beyond words that I can't use my LWFF/CH pedals combo, and have to use the Logitech pedals. This is especially true now that I've gotten used to braking with my left foot in GPL, and trying to left-foot-brake with the Logitech pedals leads to a cramped left ankle in no time. On the other hand, GP3 more accurately conveys the "feel" of a GP event in some ways. The track layouts, in particular, actually feel like the real tracks. Comparing the two versions of Spa, it's hard to believe that they represent the same track. GP3 feels and looks like the track I just saw on TV - the elevations, corner radii, track widths all just feel right. The F1 2K version feels like it was designed from a track schematic and a general idea of the topology of the area, but no pictures or video (doesn't the track go sorta downhill to Eau Rouge, then uphill after? like this? Uhm, no, not really.................). There is simply NO WAY that Hakkinen could have made the pass he made in F1 2K - there's barely room for two cars in most places on the track, let alone three. I don't care about the lack of "other car" sounds in GP3, and the sound overall is much more appealing, though they could have gotten a new engine sample in the last four years. Only the "wall hit" sound is particularly jarring. I could live a long time without listening to the stock F1 2K engine sound and not feel I'd missed anything. As mentioned above, the graphic engine itself is more advanced in F1 2k - I can't believe that I've actually seen the Processor Occupancy spike at up to 500% (at 800x600) in GP3 at the start in Germany. There's simply no excuse for using such outdated code these days and charging full price for it - not only is the graphic engine just a 3D patch on top of GP2, it's a BAD 3d patch at that. All that said, I'm still not sure that, for it's better graphic engine, F1 2K actually LOOKS better - the tools seem to be there, but they don't seem to have been used to best advantage. When it comes to the AI, I think GP3 gets the nod - while the individual drivers don't seem to be modeled (witness most of them being as bloody-minded about being passed as Schuey), they take realistic lines and generally behave quite realistically. Watching the cars stream through Eau Rouge was just like watching a race on television, where the F1 2k cars seem far too darty and rather mass-less overall. For weather effects (particularly the rain, of course) GP3 definitely gets the nod - GP3's smoke may be more processor intensive, but it's leagues better than the horrid, obvious "bitmap on a an alpha-mapped plane" tricks in F1 2k. Overall, I'd definitely give the nod to GP3 - it just seems to reproduce the feel of a real GP much better than F1 2K. While it has its glaring deficiencies (particularly the graphics engine, which borders on the criminally inadequate), the overall modeling of a GP event feels much more true-to-life. If F1 2k had adequate track modeling, I'd be inclined to give it more time, but on the F1 2k tracks I *never* feel like I'm seeing anything that resembles reality, and there's just no excuse for such poor modeling. F1 cars have been carrying cameras at every race for over a decade - producing tracks to match that footage should not be difficult. Oh yeah, I think the opening movie is far superior in GP3 - the almost ghostly track in the fog, the ghostly sounds of the cars, better music. Very minor, to be sure, since most of us will just hit ESC after the first few times we see it (or find a way to avoid it altogether), but I found it a pleasant surprise. On the other hand, F1 2k pays much more attention to Pit Babes in the menu screens, which can't be a bad thing....................... .. Please understand that, even though I prefer GP3, it isn't without some serious reservations - there's far too much legacy code on the CD four years on from GP2, but it still produces the feeling that says "Formula 1" to me, much better than F1 2k. Rick

EXCELLENT post, Rick. Just to add my own personal frustration to the heap, why, oh WHY can't ISI produce a sim that doesn't feature graphics "pop-up"? This was my biggest gripe with SCGT, and it's still there in F12K -- and I don't see this in ANY other self-respecting driving sim. -- JB (And you guys thought I was going to bang on GP3 again, didn't you? <G>) <BIG SNIP -- SORRY RICK> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Pretty much nails it. If only GP3 hadn't used the Microprose Glitchtech Emulator (able to perfectly emulate 1994 graphics engines on new Ghz machines). [How come that building 1km away sticks out of the road just in front of me?] -Deckard Rick Baumhauer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8oh4pc$amit5$[email hidden]... > Like anybody wanted to know :), here's my take on the most sim-like of the > modern F1 games..................... > > After watching the Belgian GP this weekend (a CLASSIC, the likes of whichwe > just don't see much these days), I did back-to-back testing of F1-2000 > (v1.09) and GP3. The results were a tale of frustration, endless lists of > "If only"s........(test machine is a Cel450, GeForce 256 SDR, 256mb ram, > Win98se) > [snip] > Overall, I'd definitely give the nod to GP3 - it just seems to reproducethe > feel of a real GP much better than F1 2K. While it has its glaring > deficiencies (particularly the graphics engine, which borders on the > criminally inadequate), the overall modeling of a GP event feels much more > true-to-life. If F1 2k had adequate track modeling, I'd be inclined togive

Quoted text (9 lines)

> it more time, but on the F1 2k tracks I *never* feel like I'm seeing > anything that resembles reality, and there's just no excuse for such poor > modeling. F1 cars have been carrying cameras at every race for over a > decade - producing tracks to match that footage should not be difficult. > > Oh yeah, I think the opening movie is far superior in GP3 - the almost > ghostly track in the fog, the ghostly sounds of the cars, better music. > Very minor, to be sure, since most of us will just hit ESC after the first > few times we see it (or find a way to avoid it altogether), but I found it

a > pleasant surprise. On the other hand, F1 2k pays much more attention toPit > Babes in the menu screens, which can't be a badthing....................... > .. > > Please understand that, even though I prefer GP3, it isn't without some > serious reservations - there's far too much legacy code on the CD fouryears > on from GP2, but it still produces the feeling that says "Formula 1" tome,

Quoted text (13 lines)

> much better than F1 2k. > > Rick > > > > > > > > > >

What a pleasant read that was :) Very considered and reasonable post. Criticism where due and praise where due. I find myself agreeing with you pretty much entirely. "Rick Baumhauer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8oh4pc$amit5$[email hidden]... > Like anybody wanted to know :), here's my take on the most sim-like of the > modern F1 games..................... > > After watching the Belgian GP this weekend (a CLASSIC, the likes of whichwe > just don't see much these days), I did back-to-back testing of F1-2000 > (v1.09) and GP3. The results were a tale of frustration, endless lists of > "If only"s........(test machine is a Cel450, GeForce 256 SDR, 256mb ram, > Win98se) ><snip> > > Please understand that, even though I prefer GP3, it isn't without some > serious reservations - there's far too much legacy code on the CD fouryears > on from GP2, but it still produces the feeling that says "Formula 1" tome, > much better than F1 2k. > > Rick

Nice post, thanks for the heads up on F1 2000. I will know what to expect when I grab that one. InViCtuS "Rick Baumhauer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8oh4pc$amit5$[email hidden]... > Like anybody wanted to know :), here's my take on the most sim-like of the > modern F1 games..................... > > After watching the Belgian GP this weekend (a CLASSIC, the likes of whichwe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> just don't see much these days), I did back-to-back testing of F1-2000 > (v1.09) and GP3. The results were a tale of frustration, endless lists of > "If only"s........(test machine is a Cel450, GeForce 256 SDR, 256mb ram, > Win98se) > > F1-2000's driving model does feel more lively and communicative, and the > graphics engine (for all the complaints about performance issues) is SO

much > more advanced and optimized than GP3. It also doesn't hurt that F1 2k's > controller setup is so much better than GP3's - it's irksome beyond words > that I can't use my LWFF/CH pedals combo, and have to use the Logitech > pedals. This is especially true now that I've gotten used to braking with > my left foot in GPL, and trying to left-foot-brake with the Logitechpedals > leads to a cramped left ankle in no time. > > On the other hand, GP3 more accurately conveys the "feel" of a GP event in > some ways. The track layouts, in particular, actually feel like the real > tracks. Comparing the two versions of Spa, it's hard to believe that they > represent the same track. GP3 feels and looks like the track I just sawon > TV - the elevations, corner radii, track widths all just feel right. TheF1 > 2K version feels like it was designed from a track schematic and a general > idea of the topology of the area, but no pictures or video (doesn't the > track go sorta downhill to Eau Rouge, then uphill after? like this? Uhm, > no, not really.................). There is simply NO WAY that Hakkinen > could have made the pass he made in F1 2K - there's barely room for twocars

Quoted text (9 lines)

> in most places on the track, let alone three. > > I don't care about the lack of "other car" sounds in GP3, and the sound > overall is much more appealing, though they could have gotten a new engine > sample in the last four years. Only the "wall hit" sound is particularly > jarring. I could live a long time without listening to the stock F1 2K > engine sound and not feel I'd missed anything. > > As mentioned above, the graphic engine itself is more advanced in F1 2k -

I > can't believe that I've actually seen the Processor Occupancy spike at upto > 500% (at 800x600) in GP3 at the start in Germany. There's simply noexcuse > for using such outdated code these days and charging full price for it -not

Quoted text (9 lines)

> only is the graphic engine just a 3D patch on top of GP2, it's a BAD 3d > patch at that. All that said, I'm still not sure that, for it's better > graphic engine, F1 2K actually LOOKS better - the tools seem to be there, > but they don't seem to have been used to best advantage. > > When it comes to the AI, I think GP3 gets the nod - while the individual > drivers don't seem to be modeled (witness most of them being as > bloody-minded about being passed as Schuey), they take realistic lines and > generally behave quite realistically. Watching the cars stream through

Eau > Rouge was just like watching a race on television, where the F1 2k carsseem

Quoted text (8 lines)

> far too darty and rather mass-less overall. > > For weather effects (particularly the rain, of course) GP3 definitely gets > the nod - GP3's smoke may be more processor intensive, but it's leagues > better than the horrid, obvious "bitmap on a an alpha-mapped plane" tricks > in F1 2k. > > Overall, I'd definitely give the nod to GP3 - it just seems to reproduce

the > feel of a real GP much better than F1 2K. While it has its glaring > deficiencies (particularly the graphics engine, which borders on the > criminally inadequate), the overall modeling of a GP event feels much more > true-to-life. If F1 2k had adequate track modeling, I'd be inclined togive

Quoted text (9 lines)

> it more time, but on the F1 2k tracks I *never* feel like I'm seeing > anything that resembles reality, and there's just no excuse for such poor > modeling. F1 cars have been carrying cameras at every race for over a > decade - producing tracks to match that footage should not be difficult. > > Oh yeah, I think the opening movie is far superior in GP3 - the almost > ghostly track in the fog, the ghostly sounds of the cars, better music. > Very minor, to be sure, since most of us will just hit ESC after the first > few times we see it (or find a way to avoid it altogether), but I found it

a > pleasant surprise. On the other hand, F1 2k pays much more attention toPit > Babes in the menu screens, which can't be a badthing....................... > .. > > Please understand that, even though I prefer GP3, it isn't without some > serious reservations - there's far too much legacy code on the CD fouryears > on from GP2, but it still produces the feeling that says "Formula 1" tome,

Quoted text (13 lines)

> much better than F1 2k. > > Rick > > > > > > > > > >

Sometimes there is a lot more room on the track than you think. I can recall passing a friend on the inside in a NASCAR 3 race when he was afraid he was going to hit the inside wall. He could not believe there was enough room to pass on the inside. Some games view does not match real vision. There is most likely more room in F1-2000 than you think. buzard "Rick Baumhauer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8oh4pc$amit5$[email hidden]... > Like anybody wanted to know :), here's my take on the most sim-like of the > modern F1 games..................... > > After watching the Belgian GP this weekend (a CLASSIC, the likes of whichwe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> just don't see much these days), I did back-to-back testing of F1-2000 > (v1.09) and GP3. The results were a tale of frustration, endless lists of > "If only"s........(test machine is a Cel450, GeForce 256 SDR, 256mb ram, > Win98se) > > F1-2000's driving model does feel more lively and communicative, and the > graphics engine (for all the complaints about performance issues) is SO

much > more advanced and optimized than GP3. It also doesn't hurt that F1 2k's > controller setup is so much better than GP3's - it's irksome beyond words > that I can't use my LWFF/CH pedals combo, and have to use the Logitech > pedals. This is especially true now that I've gotten used to braking with > my left foot in GPL, and trying to left-foot-brake with the Logitechpedals > leads to a cramped left ankle in no time. > > On the other hand, GP3 more accurately conveys the "feel" of a GP event in > some ways. The track layouts, in particular, actually feel like the real > tracks. Comparing the two versions of Spa, it's hard to believe that they > represent the same track. GP3 feels and looks like the track I just sawon > TV - the elevations, corner radii, track widths all just feel right. TheF1 > 2K version feels like it was designed from a track schematic and a general > idea of the topology of the area, but no pictures or video (doesn't the > track go sorta downhill to Eau Rouge, then uphill after? like this? Uhm, > no, not really.................). There is simply NO WAY that Hakkinen > could have made the pass he made in F1 2K - there's barely room for twocars

Quoted text (9 lines)

> in most places on the track, let alone three. > > I don't care about the lack of "other car" sounds in GP3, and the sound > overall is much more appealing, though they could have gotten a new engine > sample in the last four years. Only the "wall hit" sound is particularly > jarring. I could live a long time without listening to the stock F1 2K > engine sound and not feel I'd missed anything. > > As mentioned above, the graphic engine itself is more advanced in F1 2k -

I > can't believe that I've actually seen the Processor Occupancy spike at upto > 500% (at 800x600) in GP3 at the start in Germany. There's simply noexcuse > for using such outdated code these days and charging full price for it -not

Quoted text (9 lines)

> only is the graphic engine just a 3D patch on top of GP2, it's a BAD 3d > patch at that. All that said, I'm still not sure that, for it's better > graphic engine, F1 2K actually LOOKS better - the tools seem to be there, > but they don't seem to have been used to best advantage. > > When it comes to the AI, I think GP3 gets the nod - while the individual > drivers don't seem to be modeled (witness most of them being as > bloody-minded about being passed as Schuey), they take realistic lines and > generally behave quite realistically. Watching the cars stream through

Eau > Rouge was just like watching a race on television, where the F1 2k carsseem

Quoted text (8 lines)

> far too darty and rather mass-less overall. > > For weather effects (particularly the rain, of course) GP3 definitely gets > the nod - GP3's smoke may be more processor intensive, but it's leagues > better than the horrid, obvious "bitmap on a an alpha-mapped plane" tricks > in F1 2k. > > Overall, I'd definitely give the nod to GP3 - it just seems to reproduce

the > feel of a real GP much better than F1 2K. While it has its glaring > deficiencies (particularly the graphics engine, which borders on the > criminally inadequate), the overall modeling of a GP event feels much more > true-to-life. If F1 2k had adequate track modeling, I'd be inclined togive

Quoted text (9 lines)

> it more time, but on the F1 2k tracks I *never* feel like I'm seeing > anything that resembles reality, and there's just no excuse for such poor > modeling. F1 cars have been carrying cameras at every race for over a > decade - producing tracks to match that footage should not be difficult. > > Oh yeah, I think the opening movie is far superior in GP3 - the almost > ghostly track in the fog, the ghostly sounds of the cars, better music. > Very minor, to be sure, since most of us will just hit ESC after the first > few times we see it (or find a way to avoid it altogether), but I found it

a > pleasant surprise. On the other hand, F1 2k pays much more attention toPit > Babes in the menu screens, which can't be a badthing....................... > .. > > Please understand that, even though I prefer GP3, it isn't without some > serious reservations - there's far too much legacy code on the CD fouryears > on from GP2, but it still produces the feeling that says "Formula 1" tome,

Quoted text (13 lines)

> much better than F1 2k. > > Rick > > > > > > > > > >

Rick Baumhauer wrote: > I don't care about the lack of "other car" sounds in GP3, I complained about it before, but now that I'm not that much beside the track anymore ;-) I think it was a well-chosen 'feature'. Also, while you're in the Pits you DO hear the competition roaring by, acurately reflected by the increasing number in the Position display. That _is_ a nice touch which I wouldn't have missed, but adds to the experience. > As mentioned above, the graphic engine itself is more advanced in F1 2k - I > can't believe that I've actually seen the Processor Occupancy spike at up to > 500% (at 800x600) in GP3 at the start in Germany. There's simply no excuse > for using such outdated code these days and charging full price for it - not > only is the graphic engine just a 3D patch on top of GP2, it's a BAD 3d > patch at that. As someone else pointed out, they emulate the 1998 competition :-). Come to think, it looks like maybe the game was finished before the 1998 season and was for some reason released only now. > When it comes to the AI, I think GP3 gets the nod - while the individual > drivers don't seem to be modeled (witness most of them being as > bloody-minded about being passed as Schuey), they take realistic lines and > generally behave quite realistically. Watching the cars stream through Eau > Rouge was just like watching a race on television, where the F1 2k cars seem > far too darty and rather mass-less overall. If the AI in F12K is worse then in GP3 it must be really bad. In GP3 I still can't get around the first two bends in Monza without being demolished (if not for F4) by the others. And sometimes they chop of my aft-wheels after I overtook them and made a real wide pass around. Am I doing something wrong, anyone? > Please understand that, even though I prefer GP3, it isn't without some > serious reservations - there's far too much legacy code on the CD four years > on from GP2, but it still produces the feeling that says "Formula 1" to me, > much better than F1 2k. Also, what may be important to a lot of us is to 'feel' which ppl are behind the product and with what purpose they made it. Is it just a product to get a share of the market, or is it a real effort to recreate F1 racing. I think GP3 wins this 'feeling' thing hands down. Ursa.. -- ================================== Ursa (Major)/ mailto:[email hidden] \ *-*-* * ___________/====================================\_______*-*______