David G Fisher wrote in message
<1Kkp5.124886$A%[email hidden]>...
>Ths is the same group wh thinks it's unrealistic for a car to flip whenthey
>hit piece of ledge angled at 60 degrees while traveling at 85 mph inRC2000.
Unfortunately, that 85 mph is more like 5 mph.
Bendito;
That could very well explain the phenomenon in NASCAR Heat, Jan -- VERY
astute observation.
-- JB
In article <[email hidden]>,
"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I was thinking it could be linked to the car not taking enoughdamage, i.e.
> not dissapating/dampening the blow sufficiently by crumpling up thebody and
> chassis. Or are the impact physics be the same regardless of whetherthe car
> takes damage or not?
>
> That said, the catching air when spinning out at speed thing seemsoverdone
> to me as well. I try to watch as much Nascar as I can (which issummaries of
> about 1/3rd of the races) and since they have those roof flaps Ihaven't
> seen them take off unassisted, i.e. if they don't hit anything theyjust
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> slide to a stop. > > Jan. > =--- > <[email hidden]> wrote... > > I've seen several comments about how "easy" it is > <snip> > >Plus the cars on TV are shedding all sorts of bits and pieces, changing the
mass properties of the car and using up energy, and they are rubbing against
the ground in ways GPL doesn't (and doesn't really need to) model.
Stephen
Loosay2 <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> >have you ever noticed how unrealistic the physics can be
> >when you DO get airborne in GPL?
>
> I never really thought about the lack of aerodynamics modelling in GPL,but
> maybe that explains some of the wierd looking motions I have seen my carmake
> when I hit an object at hispeed. Twist and turns that don't look quiteright
> given what you see in crashes on tv.
>
I was thinking it could be linked to the car not taking enough damage, i.e.
not dissapating/dampening the blow sufficiently by crumpling up the body and
chassis. Or are the impact physics be the same regardless of whether the car
takes damage or not?
That said, the catching air when spinning out at speed thing seems overdone
to me as well. I try to watch as much Nascar as I can (which is summaries of
about 1/3rd of the races) and since they have those roof flaps I haven't
seen them take off unassisted, i.e. if they don't hit anything they just
slide to a stop.
Jan.
=---
<[email hidden]> wrote...
> I've seen several comments about how "easy" it is<snip>
>have you ever noticed how unrealistic the physics can be
>when you DO get airborne in GPL?
I never really thought about the lack of aerodynamics modelling in GPL, but
maybe that explains some of the wierd looking motions I have seen my car make
when I hit an object at hispeed. Twist and turns that don't look quite right
given what you see in crashes on tv.
I've seen several comments about how "easy" it is to get airborne in
NASCAR Heat, and it's got me thinking, and I'd like to make some of you
think, too. Consider this:
If/when you smack the wall in NH hard enough to get airborne, did you
smack the wall hard enough that you would have sustained major damage
in real life, and would it have been enough damage to possibly result
in a DNF? If so, then does it REALLY matter whether you just get
stranded on the track with a fender ripped off, or if you end up
sitting on your roof? In this case, a DNF is a DNF is a DNF -- and,
realistically, in these instances, then YOU probably pulled a bonehead
move (or were the victim of such) that would have put you out of the
race anyway, yet you're grousing about the NH physics model not being
realistic enough because it flipped you upside down and you got a DNF.
But it's still a DNF, either way, regardless of how "realistic" the
execution was. In other words, same result. Hmmm . . .
But you didn't smack the wall, you say -- you just got sideways at 100
mph while exiting the pits, and THEN you got airborne. Yeah, I see
your point -- look at how often Tony Stewart or Jeff Gordon manage to
get sideways at 100 mph while exiting the pits and still continue on
without any damage whatsoever. Oh, wait -- that's not how it usually
works, is it? Getting sideways at 100 mph or more is usualy a VERY bad
thing, and, quite often, you're not going to finish the race (or not
going to finish very well) when that happens (Danny Sullivan is the
exception here, NOT the rule). Okay, so when you get sideways at 100
mph or so in NASCAR Heat you get airborne and sometimes end up on your
roof, either of which results in a poor finish. Again, hmmmm . . .
Maybe SOME of the details in NASCAR Heat aren't 100% dead-on in terms
of realism, but it seems to me like it's still FAR closer to the GPL
end of the spectrum than N3 or any other NASCAR sim to come along to
date. And, again, what's realistic, and where does the realism count
the most?
Then again, there's always that learning curve thing. How many people
who played the heck out of GP2 and ICR2 were able to IMMEDIATELY jump
into GPL and start turning good laps without making mistakes that
forced the physics model to bite them hard? Maybe NH represents a
similar level of sophistication compared to previous NASCAR products,
and maybe a lot of people who are still plugged-in to the N3 world are
getting bit -- a LOT, it seems -- by NASCAR Heat? I'm just
conjecturing here, but it is something worth considering. I haven't
played much N3 or NASCAR Legends at all recently, and I've only been
airborne in NH maybe 2 or 3 times, and I've only ended up on my roof
once or twice, too, so maybe you N3 guys have some un-learning and re-
learning to do, perhaps? I'm not proposing that any of you are
anything but excellent sim drivers, but I do propose that a paradigm
shift may be in order before you pass judgement on NH.
Just my $0.02. Let the flames begin!
-- JB
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ths is the same group wh thinks it's unrealistic for a car to flip when they
hit piece of ledge angled at 60 degrees while traveling at 85 mph in RC2000.
David G Fisher
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8o4dm1$tum$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (57 lines)
> I've seen several comments about how "easy" it is to get airborne in > NASCAR Heat, and it's got me thinking, and I'd like to make some of you > think, too. Consider this: > > If/when you smack the wall in NH hard enough to get airborne, did you > smack the wall hard enough that you would have sustained major damage > in real life, and would it have been enough damage to possibly result > in a DNF? If so, then does it REALLY matter whether you just get > stranded on the track with a fender ripped off, or if you end up > sitting on your roof? In this case, a DNF is a DNF is a DNF -- and, > realistically, in these instances, then YOU probably pulled a bonehead > move (or were the victim of such) that would have put you out of the > race anyway, yet you're grousing about the NH physics model not being > realistic enough because it flipped you upside down and you got a DNF. > But it's still a DNF, either way, regardless of how "realistic" the > execution was. In other words, same result. Hmmm . . . > > But you didn't smack the wall, you say -- you just got sideways at 100 > mph while exiting the pits, and THEN you got airborne. Yeah, I see > your point -- look at how often Tony Stewart or Jeff Gordon manage to > get sideways at 100 mph while exiting the pits and still continue on > without any damage whatsoever. Oh, wait -- that's not how it usually > works, is it? Getting sideways at 100 mph or more is usualy a VERY bad > thing, and, quite often, you're not going to finish the race (or not > going to finish very well) when that happens (Danny Sullivan is the > exception here, NOT the rule). Okay, so when you get sideways at 100 > mph or so in NASCAR Heat you get airborne and sometimes end up on your > roof, either of which results in a poor finish. Again, hmmmm . . . > > Maybe SOME of the details in NASCAR Heat aren't 100% dead-on in terms > of realism, but it seems to me like it's still FAR closer to the GPL > end of the spectrum than N3 or any other NASCAR sim to come along to > date. And, again, what's realistic, and where does the realism count > the most? > > Then again, there's always that learning curve thing. How many people > who played the heck out of GP2 and ICR2 were able to IMMEDIATELY jump > into GPL and start turning good laps without making mistakes that > forced the physics model to bite them hard? Maybe NH represents a > similar level of sophistication compared to previous NASCAR products, > and maybe a lot of people who are still plugged-in to the N3 world are > getting bit -- a LOT, it seems -- by NASCAR Heat? I'm just > conjecturing here, but it is something worth considering. I haven't > played much N3 or NASCAR Legends at all recently, and I've only been > airborne in NH maybe 2 or 3 times, and I've only ended up on my roof > once or twice, too, so maybe you N3 guys have some un-learning and re- > learning to do, perhaps? I'm not proposing that any of you are > anything but excellent sim drivers, but I do propose that a paradigm > shift may be in order before you pass judgement on NH. > > Just my $0.02. Let the flames begin! > > -- JB > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.well, did tony stewart flip when he ran into jeff gordon? no! sure, a DNF is a
DNF but the way you get it is different from time to time and doesnt always
wind up in a flip. a DNF doesnt always have to be from a bonehead move either,
its called blown engines and bad suspensions! o, btw, do you play GPL? let me
tell ya, the only times i have flipped are becuase i purposely ran into a hey
bale, well that and a few times where my brakes weren't balanced and my car did
a 180 and then flipped when it hit a ditch but thats another story!
Yes, I do play GPL -- and I have been steadily improving my GPL Rank
over the past week or so, in fact.
Yes, the cars in GPL are less prone to getting airborne in GPL than in
NH, but the cars in NH are DESIGNED (in real life and in the sim) to
RELY on aerodynamics, which isn't even modeled in GPL. As for realism
in GPL, yes, you do have to do something like hit hay bales to get
airborne, but have you ever noticed how unrealistic the physics can be
when you DO get airborne in GPL? That doesn't make it a bad sim in and
of itself, does it?
-- JB
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Ray127611) wrote:
> well, did tony stewart flip when he ran into jeff gordon? no! sure, aDNF is a
> DNF but the way you get it is different from time to time and doesntalways
> wind up in a flip. a DNF doesnt always have to be from a boneheadmove either,
> its called blown engines and bad suspensions! o, btw, do you playGPL? let me
> tell ya, the only times i have flipped are becuase i purposely raninto a hey
> bale, well that and a few times where my brakes weren't balanced andmy car did
> a 180 and then flipped when it hit a ditch but thats another story!
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
In article <1Kkp5.124886$A%[email hidden]>,
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Ths is the same group wh thinks it's unrealistic for a car to flipwhen they
> hit piece of ledge angled at 60 degrees while traveling at 85 mph inRC2000.
True, true.
-- JB
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
It could also be linked to the fact maybe you took the corner so much
faster then well someone in a real car that it rolled and bounced a lot. I
find that you will probably take more chances in a sim then you ever would
in a race car.
Kinda goes to the deal in the old days if you really took a corner hard you
may or may not be here tomorrow.
dave
[email hidden] wrote in article <8o6lur$hoa$[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (37 lines)
> That could very well explain the phenomenon in NASCAR Heat, Jan -- VERY > astute observation. > > -- JB > > In article <[email hidden]>, > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > I was thinking it could be linked to the car not taking enough > damage, i.e. > > not dissapating/dampening the blow sufficiently by crumpling up the > body and > > chassis. Or are the impact physics be the same regardless of whether > the car > > takes damage or not? > > > > That said, the catching air when spinning out at speed thing seems > overdone > > to me as well. I try to watch as much Nascar as I can (which is > summaries of > > about 1/3rd of the races) and since they have those roof flaps I > haven't > > seen them take off unassisted, i.e. if they don't hit anything they > just > > slide to a stop. > > > > Jan. > > =--- > > <[email hidden]> wrote... > > > I've seen several comments about how "easy" it is > > <snip> > > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. >David wrote in message <01c00ebc$9dbca3c0$fcd2fc3f@packardbell>...
>I find that you will probably take more chances in a sim then you ever
>would in a race car.
I've ended a small city's worth of lives in sim racing. 99% of those
lives were mine, of course. About 0.5% belonged to that Surtees fellow.
Bendito;
Excellent point, too, Dave -- I would bet that this is also
contributing to the various "airborne incidents," regardless of other
factors.
-- JB
In article <01c00ebc$9dbca3c0$fcd2fc3f@packardbell>,
"David" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> It could also be linked to the fact maybe you took the corner so much
> faster then well someone in a real car that it rolled and bounced alot. I
> find that you will probably take more chances in a sim then you everwould
> in a race car.
>
> Kinda goes to the deal in the old days if you really took a cornerhard you
> may or may not be here tomorrow.
>
> dave
>
> [email hidden] wrote in article <8o6lur$hoa$[email hidden]>...
> > That could very well explain the phenomenon in NASCAR Heat, Jan --VERY
the
> > body and
> > > chassis. Or are the impact physics be the same regardless ofwhether
they
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
