GT4 Driving view

What driving view is it in GT4? Can not find screenshots from inside a car..?

Driver <[email hidden]> wrote: >What driving view is it in GT4? Can not find screenshots from inside a >car..? No in-car (probably not practical with 700+ cars). The "bumper view" though is superbly done. You have a real feel for the motion of the car, and it seems very natural to feel where the sides of your car are. Plus as a bonus, because your own car doesn't have to render, you get a rear-view mirror in this mode. Joe62

Joe62 wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Driver <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>What driving view is it in GT4? Can not find screenshots from inside a >>car..? > > No in-car (probably not practical with 700+ cars). The "bumper view" > though is superbly done. You have a real feel for the motion of the > car, and it seems very natural to feel where the sides of your car > are. Plus as a bonus, because your own car doesn't have to render, you > get a rear-view mirror in this mode. > > Joe62

Not practical? If it doenst have a cockpit it isnt a simulating anything except other console racing games. It sure isnt simulating reality. Mitch -- Remove "nospam." to reply. SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

I'd rather have 350 cars with cockpits. Being surrounded by a real dash, instruments, switchgear, steering wheel & trim (not to mention sound) is a great immersion factor. I'm guessing that Polyphony figures the feckless pre-teens that drool over this surfeit of ironmongery swoon over the (exterior) styling and don't care a fig about the interiors. Pity. (I remember the convincing cockpit views that came with the early Need for Speed series fondly. But those were the days of co-op multiplay in FPS's too. Sic transit....) "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YzEYd.17562$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Joe62 wrote: > > > Driver <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >>What driving view is it in GT4? Can not find screenshots from inside a > >>car..? > > > > No in-car (probably not practical with 700+ cars). The "bumper view" > > though is superbly done. You have a real feel for the motion of the > > car, and it seems very natural to feel where the sides of your car > > are. Plus as a bonus, because your own car doesn't have to render, you > > get a rear-view mirror in this mode. > > > > Joe62 > > Not practical? If it doenst have a cockpit it isnt a simulating anything > except other console racing games. It sure isnt simulating reality. > > Mitch > -- > Remove "nospam." to reply. > SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

In article <[email hidden]>, Joe62 <[email hidden]> wrote: >No in-car (probably not practical with 700+ cars). The "bumper view" >though is superbly done. I always thought "bumper view" (or "cam") is a bit unfair. A loaded term. It is not the view from a bumper, but from the cockpit, ie higher up and further back. It just doesn't have dash bits, properly placed gauges etc. Perhaps more importantly (at least to me) it doesn't have fenders so you have to learn from practice as to where the ends of the car are. But you do adjust. As to whether this makes it a "toy" or "game" to you (not you Joe62, just in general), well, an opinion. Suffice to say that everyone doesn't share it. Including many sim enthusiasts. If you do not buy the game because of that, well, that's your decision and IMO, your loss. I've always been taught to look up and out. One Evolution School exercise is to actually tape off the lower part of the view to force you to look further out. I doubt in real racing you spend much time looking at the pretty gauges. And honestly, I find the views in games with complex, big dashes to be too confining, and in some ways less like what I see when I autoX than a no-dash view. Having said all that, I'll admit this was a touch of a rationalization. Hell yes, I wish they did have a dash view :-) -Dave

I don't have PS2 or GT4, but I agree with your "view" (sorry, bad joke) about the perception of what one sees when you drive a car IRL. You simply do not see the dash, aside from a periphal view, unless you consciously look down for something. I realize that the dash/gauges are there, but they don't dominate my vision as they do in sim games. There was one view that someone made (NR2003) that was essentially a view from the top of the dash just behind the wheel, that included a bit of the window frame and the hood and fenders. I liked that as it "framed" the view like a cockpit, but didn't allow a complete view of the track i.e. curbs, road edge etc. It was a good compromise, IMO.

Mitch_A <[email hidden]> wrote: >Not practical? If it doenst have a cockpit it isnt a simulating anything >except other console racing games. It sure isnt simulating reality. Oh please. This is such a useless tired old cliche of an argument. When driving a real car you don't even really see the cockpit; your brain filters out all that extraneous info to focus on the important data coming through the windshield. Joe62

"Joe62" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Mitch_A <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Not practical? If it doenst have a cockpit it isnt a simulating anything > >except other console racing games. It sure isnt simulating reality. > > Oh please. This is such a useless tired old cliche of an argument. > When driving a real car you don't even really see the cockpit; your > brain filters out all that extraneous info to focus on the important > data coming through the windshield. > > Joe62

Since I don't see a little smiley face in your post I have to assume you were serious. OH MY GOD!

Joe62 wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Mitch_A <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>Not practical? If it doenst have a cockpit it isnt a simulating anything >>except other console racing games. It sure isnt simulating reality. > > > Oh please. This is such a useless tired old cliche of an argument. > When driving a real car you don't even really see the cockpit; your > brain filters out all that extraneous info to focus on the important > data coming through the windshield.

So you get 5 speeding tickets a week, right? "No, officer, the tacho is extraneous info to me, so how the hell..." l8er ronny

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:22:20 GMT, Joe62 <[email hidden]> wrote: >Oh please. This is such a useless tired old cliche of an argument. >When driving a real car you don't even really see the cockpit; your >brain filters out all that extraneous info to focus on the important >data coming through the windshield. > >Joe62 When I drive my car I certainly don't see the road and nothing else. The hood of my car sits out in front about five feet at least. No cockpit racers are for arcade weenies.

Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote: >So you get 5 speeding tickets a week, right? You're actually proving my point. Most unintentional speeding tickets are caused by someone not consciously flicking their eyes down to the speedometer often enough. Joe62

Connected <[email hidden]> wrote: >When I drive my car I certainly don't see the road and nothing else. >The hood of my car sits out in front about five feet at least. You have a hood-view in GT4 >No >cockpit racers are for arcade weenies. A highly cogent argument. Joe62

"Joe62" wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> <snip> > Oh please. This is such a useless tired old cliche of an > argument. > When driving a real car you don't even really see the > cockpit; your brain filters out all that extraneous info > to focus on the important data coming through the > windshield.

Yes, obviously, I do not look at the dash parts in a sim other than to read the instruments either, but the point, with reference to creating a "driving a car" instead of a "remote controlling a car" experience, is that my viewpoint is not moved away from the actual driving position, be it to in front of the front axle or several feet behind and above the car as in GT4. To reverse your argument, it's hard for me to grasp anyone "not seeing" this after 16 years of racing simulation. Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:IW4Zd.37205$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> "Joe62" wrote... >>> <snip> >> Oh please. This is such a useless tired old cliche of an >> argument. >> When driving a real car you don't even really see the >> cockpit; your brain filters out all that extraneous info >> to focus on the important data coming through the >> windshield. > > Yes, obviously, I do not look at the dash parts in a sim other than to > read the instruments either, but the point, with reference to creating > a "driving a car" instead of a "remote controlling a car" experience, > is that my viewpoint is not moved away from the actual driving > position, be it to in front of the front axle or several feet behind > and above the car as in GT4. > > To reverse your argument, it's hard for me to grasp anyone "not > seeing" this after 16 years of racing simulation. > > Jan. > =--- >

Agreed. Cockpit is the natural view. We are simulating DRIVING. We drive from a seat INSIDE the car, not perched on the front bumper and certainly not floating cosmicly above and behind like some quasi-god. If I wanted a non cockpit viewing angle, then Generally with it's top down view is just as 'real' as any nose-picking view. I'm not saying GT4 isn't a good piece of code, but it's lack of several sim features really penalizes it when comparing products. Can you race against cars that can take and cause damage? Does your performance suffer if that happens? Does the AI speed up or slow down depending upon your progress? I noticed in one of the promo adds, they had A BMW LMR V12 Le Mans car racing against a C60 Courage. Kudos for them, even tho I'm betting 98% of GT4's target audience doesn't have the slightest clue about the kind of racing those cars participated in. As a simmer who races online, I want my competitors to face the same restrictions of view that I do. Nobody can say a kite flyer on an oval doesn't have an advantage, he can see the distance to the wall, he can see how close the other cars are to his side, those are advantages that are not possible in real racing and thus should dissuade a true 'Simmer.' The fact that two generations have grown up thumb-driving behind cars from console products will only add to this divergence. Use GT4 all you want, enjoy it's diversity, marvel at it's near lifelike graphics, "thrill" to competing against a half dozen other cars, but don't even begin to think that it compares to titles with 40 or 50+ car fields with damage physics and AI that attempt to mimic racecraft and and incar views. As Jan stated, you can be an R/C operator, or you can be a simulated pilot driving your car, not operating it from a distance. So float behind your car all you want, I'm sure you'll be emminently qualified when a true Hang Gliding sim finally is released. But don't expect folks like me to ACCEPT your lame justification that hanging your butt on the bumper is "JUST LIKE THE REAL THING!" Your brain may be able to filter out this non-sequiter, mine can't. dave henrie

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:32:15 -0600, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip> > So float behind your car all you want, I'm sure you'll be emminently >qualified when a true Hang Gliding sim finally is released. http://www.pcgameworld.com/review.php/id/142/Hang_Sim/ Enjoy :) Andre

In article <[email hidden]>, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote: > So float behind your car all you want, I'm sure you'll be emminently >qualified when a true Hang Gliding sim finally is released. But don't >expect folks like me to ACCEPT your lame justification that hanging your >butt on the bumper is "JUST LIKE THE REAL THING!" Are you so sure that it is on the bumper? It looks more like a view from the drivers seat, but without dash and fenders visible. Now admittedly that's a big but (one 't'), however that isn't the same as the "bumper" view the detractors insist on using. Perhaps to belittle it more than warranted?

EXCEEDINGLY well-put, Dave! "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (64 lines)

> "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:IW4Zd.37205$[email hidden]: > > > "Joe62" wrote... > >>> <snip> > >> Oh please. This is such a useless tired old cliche of an > >> argument. > >> When driving a real car you don't even really see the > >> cockpit; your brain filters out all that extraneous info > >> to focus on the important data coming through the > >> windshield. > > > > Yes, obviously, I do not look at the dash parts in a sim other than to > > read the instruments either, but the point, with reference to creating > > a "driving a car" instead of a "remote controlling a car" experience, > > is that my viewpoint is not moved away from the actual driving > > position, be it to in front of the front axle or several feet behind > > and above the car as in GT4. > > > > To reverse your argument, it's hard for me to grasp anyone "not > > seeing" this after 16 years of racing simulation. > > > > Jan. > > =--- > > > Agreed. Cockpit is the natural view. We are simulating DRIVING. We > drive from a seat INSIDE the car, not perched on the front bumper and > certainly not floating cosmicly above and behind like some quasi-god. > If I wanted a non cockpit viewing angle, then Generally with it's top > down view is just as 'real' as any nose-picking view. > I'm not saying GT4 isn't a good piece of code, but it's lack of > several sim features really penalizes it when comparing products. Can > you race against cars that can take and cause damage? Does your > performance suffer if that happens? Does the AI speed up or slow down > depending upon your progress? > I noticed in one of the promo adds, they had A BMW LMR V12 Le Mans car > racing against a C60 Courage. Kudos for them, even tho I'm betting 98% > of GT4's target audience doesn't have the slightest clue about the kind > of racing those cars participated in. > As a simmer who races online, I want my competitors to face the same > restrictions of view that I do. Nobody can say a kite flyer on an oval > doesn't have an advantage, he can see the distance to the wall, he can > see how close the other cars are to his side, those are advantages that > are not possible in real racing and thus should dissuade a true 'Simmer.' > The fact that two generations have grown up thumb-driving behind cars > from console products will only add to this divergence. > > Use GT4 all you want, enjoy it's diversity, marvel at it's near > lifelike graphics, "thrill" to competing against a half dozen other cars, > but don't even begin to think that it compares to titles with 40 or 50+ > car fields with damage physics and AI that attempt to mimic racecraft and > and incar views. > > As Jan stated, you can be an R/C operator, or you can be a simulated > pilot driving your car, not operating it from a distance. > So float behind your car all you want, I'm sure you'll be emminently > qualified when a true Hang Gliding sim finally is released. But don't > expect folks like me to ACCEPT your lame justification that hanging your > butt on the bumper is "JUST LIKE THE REAL THING!" Your brain may be able > to filter out this non-sequiter, mine can't. > > dave henrie > >

"Dave" wrote... >> <snip> > Are you so sure that it is on the bumper? It looks more > like a view from the drivers seat, but without dash and > fenders visible. Are you kidding? -of course it's a bumper cam. While it may not be at bumper height for the Sauber (C9 or C11, I guess?), if you compare it's significantly lower than the dash view in the Strietzel M3 clip. From the way the viewpoint reacts as the car clips the kerbs it's also fairly obvious to me it's in front of the front axle and situated smack in the middle of the car, whereas the Sauber prototypes are right hand drive. > Now admittedly that's a big but (one 't'), however that > isn't the same as the "bumper" view the detractors insist > on using. Perhaps to belittle it more than warranted? It's "front of the hood" view at best. Don't get me wrong: not having a cockpit view, in itself, does not detract from a game, IMO, unless it claims to be a simulation. Jan. =---

>> Don't get me wrong: not having a cockpit view, in itself, does notdetract >> from a game, IMO, unless it claims to be a simulation. That's why I've never played a sports game. NFL, NBA, NHL, Soccer, there are alot of sports that call them selves simulatrions, but unless they're all done from a 1st person perspective, then they're simply kiddie games. The Sims? How can that be called a simulator? It doesn't simulate 99% of what it means to be a human. People, it's called a S-I-M-U-L-A-T-I-O-N. Simply because something doesn't simulate every nuance of an activity doesn't mean it's not a simulation. GT4 is every bit a simulation as Grand Prix Legends, Nascar 2003, GTR, GTP, and any other product you want to throw out. sim·u·la·tion P Pronunciation Key (smy-lshn) n. The act or process of simulating. - An imitation; a sham. - Assumption of a false appearance. - Imitation or representation, as of a potential situation or in experimental testing. - Representation of the operation or features of one process or system through the use of another: computer simulation of an in-flight emergency.

<[email hidden]> wrote...

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> <snip> > <attempt at sarcasm snipped> > People, it's called a S-I-M-U-L-A-T-I-O-N. Simply > because something doesn't simulate every nuance of > an activity doesn't mean it's not a simulation. > GT4 is every bit a simulation as Grand Prix Legends, > Nascar 2003, GTR, GTP, and any other product you > want to throw out. > > <general definition snipped>

Yes, I'm aware the general definition of simulation covers a broad spectrum, that's why the likes of Codemasters and Polyphony get away with using it as an adjective with regard to their products. In the context of this group and driving/racing simulations, however, I tend to use a rather more strict definition of the term, as do most posters I think. As any further elaboration has been proven pointless in the past, I'd like to leave it at that. We've strayed far enough from the original point(*) as it is. Jan. =--- (*): which was that the omission of a cockpit view in GT4 puts off a lot of simmers who otherwise enjoy less elaborate sims, not "GT4 is crap because it doesn't have a cockpit view", BTW.

><[email hidden]> wrote >GT4 is every bit a simulation as Grand Prix Legends, >Nascar 2003, GTR, GTP, and any other product you want to throw out. No. Check the charter for this NG. And google, for the numerous threads we've had here in it's existence. The GT series isn't what we would call anywere near the simulation level that some PC software offer, in terms of realism of racing. Ain't anything that I call *racing* in GT4. BANG into the wall/other driver/great let's face the next corner now while the AI artificially is faster behind us and slower in front of us... -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Dave Henrie wrote: > We are simulating DRIVING. Yet you're still relegated to translating visual inputs into what your butt should be telling you. ;-) That's not very realistic either... -jde

I still have my old ThunderSeat. Better than ExLax, but of limited use for seat o' th' pants driving impressions. And for the past 6-7 years, we've had good feedback thru the wheel rim. Finally, of the 5 senses, the visual almost always trumps the rest (unless yer a dog), so I can live with that. Simulation means, no these games aren't exactly like driving a real car, they're as much like driving a real car as a bunch of car-crazy programmers and high-end h/w engineers can make it. It's good enuf for me. In fact, I'm lovin' it! "J.D. Ellis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ubqZd.1176$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Dave Henrie wrote: > > > We are simulating DRIVING. > > Yet you're still relegated to translating visual inputs into what your > butt should be telling you. ;-) > > That's not very realistic either... > > -jde > > >

Steve Smith wrote: > It's good enuf for me. In fact, I'm lovin' it! Me too, but I see the strength in the simulation is in capturing the mental aspects of racing and racecraft (esp. online) more than the actual driving experience. Plus, Dave and I have been poking each other's buttons for years. ;-) -jde

On 14 Mar 2005 10:34:45 -0800, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote: >That's why I've never played a sports game. NFL, NBA, NHL, Soccer, >there are alot of sports that call them selves simulatrions, but unless >they're all done from a 1st person perspective, then they're simply >kiddie games. They don't call them simulations. They call them - wait for it - "Sports Games". The only ones that are called simulations are the text sports games that are all number crunching which are simulating the results of a sports game based on statistics.

ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> ><[email hidden]> wrote > >GT4 is every bit a simulation as Grand Prix Legends, > >Nascar 2003, GTR, GTP, and any other product you want to throw out. > > > No. > > Check the charter for this NG. And google, for the numerous threads

we've > had here in it's existence. The GT series isn't what we would callanywere > near the simulation level that some PC software offer, in terms ofrealism > of racing. Ain't anything that I call *racing* in GT4. BANG intothe > wall/other driver/great let's face the next corner now while the AI > artificially is faster behind us and slower in front of us... > The GT series has always been a driving simulator, never a racing simulator. And GT4 is as much a simulator as anything released up to and including GPL. It simulates more than ICR every did, and anything prior to Nascar 2003. So those games must not be simulators. rec.autos.simulators.... hmmmm, let me think about that. GT models automobiles, simulates them and it mainly used for recreation. Seems to me it fits right into the charter.

On 14 Mar 2005 19:51:42 -0800, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>The GT series has always been a driving simulator, never a racing >simulator. And GT4 is as much a simulator as anything released up to >and including GPL. It simulates more than ICR every did, and anything >prior to Nascar 2003. So those games must not be simulators. > >rec.autos.simulators.... hmmmm, let me think about that. GT models >automobiles, simulates them and it mainly used for recreation. Seems >to me it fits right into the charter.

None of the cars in the GT series drive like the real thing. It doesn't even try to because it models so many cars.

"J.D. Ellis" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:9NrZd.1194$185.433 @fe37.usenetserver.com:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Me too, but I see the strength in the simulation is in capturing the > mental aspects of racing and racecraft (esp. online) more than the > actual driving experience. > > Plus, Dave and I have been poking each other's buttons for years. ;-) > > -jde >

yup, In fact I almost got him to admit that Ton...I mean Satan's CHild really is a bad guy. lol!!! dave henrie

In article <[email hidden]>, Connected <[email hidden]> wrote: >None of the cars in the GT series drive like the real thing. It >doesn't even try to because it models so many cars. If you have a decent physics model, and the data set needed to populate it for each car, I don't see why that precludes it being "like the real thing". How many parameters do you think these sims have for a single car physics model anyway? If you can model one car, you can model hundreds.

Yer right. Games like GPL and N2003 may not be real driving, but they sure are real racing! "J.D. Ellis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9NrZd.1194$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Steve Smith wrote: > > > It's good enuf for me. In fact, I'm lovin' it! > > Me too, but I see the strength in the simulation is in capturing the > mental aspects of racing and racecraft (esp. online) more than the > actual driving experience. > > Plus, Dave and I have been poking each other's buttons for years. ;-) > > -jde >

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:44:34 GMT, [email hidden] (Dave) wrote: >How many parameters do you think these >sims have for a single car physics model anyway? If you can model >one car, you can model hundreds. Disagree. Each car has its own nuance.

In article <[email hidden]>, Connected <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:44:34 GMT, [email hidden] (Dave) wrote: > >>How many parameters do you think these >>sims have for a single car physics model anyway? If you can model >>one car, you can model hundreds. > >Disagree. Each car has its own nuance.

I'm sure they do. But do they actually accurately capture these in the other sims? Or are they ignore,d or faked? Do you know for a fact how GT models the cars? Or how the usual suspect "real sims" model theirs? And maybe Polyphony's team & budget are so big that they can do this in GT with the majority, if not all, of the vehicles too. Yes, there are 700 cars, but about half of them are Skylines and Evos :-)

Dave Henrie wrote: > > yup, In fact I almost got him to admit that Ton...I mean Satan's CHild > really is a bad guy. lol!!! Let's not get carried away here, Herr Henrie. The most complimentary thing I've probably said is he won the war in spite of himself. ;-) -jde

Connected wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:44:34 GMT, [email hidden] (Dave) wrote: > > >How many parameters do you think these > >sims have for a single car physics model anyway? If you can model > >one car, you can model hundreds. > > Disagree. Each car has its own nuance.

And how much seat time did Papyrus have in the GPL cars? How much seat time did the developers of GTR have in the FIA cars? What about Papy and CART? Not open wheel cars but specifically champ cars? How much seat time did Polyphony have in their cars? Have you seen the documentaries where they would test hundreds of cars? Actual seat and track time with cars provided by the manufacturer. On top of that, each manufacturer would provide countless amount of data and measurements for the cars modeled. GT may not be perfect, it may not even be close and it may be a huge leap from reality but the fact remains that more effort has been made in the GT series than any of your so called sims.

Joe62 wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>So you get 5 speeding tickets a week, right? > > > You're actually proving my point. Most unintentional speeding tickets > are caused by someone not consciously flicking their eyes down to the > speedometer often enough.

Of course, to read the tacho you have to look at it. But it's always there in a sim. You were saying the cockpit is not needed, ever, thus it's useless to add it to a sim, eh, game. So what is it now? l8er ronny

On 16 Mar 2005 06:07:37 -0800, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote: >than any of >your so called sims. Haha...tosspot.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:25:22 +0100, Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote: >You were saying the cockpit is not needed, ever, thus it's >useless to add it to a sim, eh, game. No, I didn't say that. I just don't agree with the "it's not a sim without a cockpit" view.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:25:22 +0100, Ronald Stoehr >You were saying the***pit is not needed, ever, thus it's >useless to add it to a sim, eh, game. No, I didn't say that. I just don't agree with the "it's not a sim without a***pit" view.

In article <d19tis$se5$04$[email hidden]>, Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote: >Of course, to read the tacho you have to look at it. But it's always >there in a sim. And it is always there in GT4, too. Just not surrounded by a lot of pretty dashwork. Again, I wish they did include it. But to say it isn't a sim because they don't show a steering wheel (actually, you do have this option), or bits of a dash is well, it's your opinion. Can't you see why it isn't absolutely a criteria for Simdomhood for all? Usual knocks against the GT series: 1) No dash A: see above. 2) "Bumper view" Again, I say it isn't a bumper height, nor bumper longitudinal location. Yes, I very much wish they had some fenderwork so you could get a better feel for where you are. Note that in many a real car, you don't see much fender either. Not a real excuse. I wish they had it. 3) Crappy AI. Guilty as charged. This is the worst part, IMO. But I spend >50% of my time as the *only* car on the track, ie hotlapping. As many do with GPL. 4) Only 6 cars in a race. A: Yes, I wished there were more. See above hotlapping comment. 5) No damage. A: No big deal for me. Unless the AI is real good, I'd turn it off. I turn it off in every PC sim I've ever played and that's most all of the ones heralded here. 6) No online. Guilty. Not an issue for me, but for many it is. As to driving model, using gross comments about lots of cars (or console game) means poor model, just isn't a very compelling argument. To be fair, I've seen some good discourses on where it *may* be lacking. And I've read as many, or more, from enthusiast racers who say it handles very much like real cars on a track at speed. So, who to believe? It passes my suspension of disbelief test, for the most part. Be honest, do you really, really know what their physics model does and doesn't include? How about for your favorite sim? Is it the highest fidelity sim out there? I doubt it. Is it a sim? Absolutely. Is it the most fun sim out there? To me, yes.

This coming from an individual that believes something other than physics dictates the nuances of an automobile.

"Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:i23_d.83572$[email hidden]... > In article <d19tis$se5$04$[email hidden]>, Ronald Stoehr<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > >Of course, to read the tacho you have to look at it. But it's always > >there in a sim. > > And it is always there in GT4, too. Just not surrounded by a lot > of pretty dashwork. Again, I wish they did include it. But to > say it isn't a sim because they don't show a steering wheel > (actually, you do have this option), or bits of a dash is well, > it's your opinion. Can't you see why it isn't absolutely a > criteria for Simdomhood for all? > > Usual knocks against the GT series: > > 1) No dash > A: see above. > > 2) "Bumper view" > Again, I say it isn't a bumper height, nor bumper longitudinal > location. Yes, I very much wish they had some fenderwork so you > could get a better feel for where you are. Note that in many a

On my copy you can get a hood view complete with fenders. > real car, you don't see much fender either. Not a real excuse. I > wish they had it. > /snip Elrikk

On 16 Mar 2005 16:19:33 -0800, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote: >This coming from an individual that believes something other than >physics dictates the nuances of an automobile. Go play your GT4 arcade weenie game. It sure ain't no racing sim.