Re: Hats off to EA

In article <C3jh5.12$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > I have to say after reading several post here, that EA has done a very good > job with F1 2000. Before it came out most of us here thought that it would > be one of the worst F1 sims, it seems that it is more than holding it's own > against GP3. It's obviously not the sim that GPL is, but none of us here > were expecting that any ways. I can't wait to get a copy of GP3. > F1 2000 would be better than GP3, except for its strange non-realistic track layouts. I tried Hockenheim last night, comparing the two sims. This is a relatively flat track, but in F1 2000 it felt like a rollercoaster! - Michael

I have to say after reading several post here, that EA has done a very good job with F1 2000. Before it came out most of us here thought that it would be one of the worst F1 sims, it seems that it is more than holding it's own against GP3. It's obviously not the sim that GPL is, but none of us here were expecting that any ways. I can't wait to get a copy of GP3.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:54:42 GMT, "Jalo" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I have to say after reading several post here, that EA has done a very good >job with F1 2000. Before it came out most of us here thought that it would >be one of the worst F1 sims, it seems that it is more than holding it's own >against GP3. It's obviously not the sim that GPL is, but none of us here >were expecting that any ways. I can't wait to get a copy of GP3. I totally disagree. I admit F12000 wasn�t as bad as I thought it would be, but it is diffinetely not a match for the top 2 (Monaco and GP3) I even think official Formula one is better than F12000. Hats off for EA for making NBA 2000, but hats down for Fifa2000, and F1-2000. .. MVH Anders H. J�rgensen, der snart flytter til �rhus. email: [email hidden]

Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8m4tle$5qt21> It could come close to GP3 if it had better throttle response, better > braking physics, better track accuracy, better graphics performance Eh? I'd go with F12K in Graphics performance, I Get 40fps at Max Detail with FSAA (about 60fps w/out) and graphically its twice as good as GP3. Although I do like GP3's weather system >, good AI > and weather. Impossible to improve all that without major changes to the > game engine. F1-2000 was rushed because they knew otherwise they wouldn't > stand a chance against GP3 in sales. Still, i'm looking forward toF1-2001. > At the moment GP3 is king though. > >

Jason wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Sorry should have said , F12k 1024x768 (the highest it'll go) Maximum detail > on everything bar one (which causes H/Drive thrashing. Bug?) , Athlon 700, > Geforce2 GTS (3D ProphetII). I do like GP3, it'll run at 1280x1024 > everything on including mirrors at 70-80% PO but even then the graphics > don't come near F12k see below.... > http://www.strategic-plus.co.uk/gp3vsf12k/GP3%20vs%20F12K.htm

Well, I really prefer the look of GP3, esp. the cockpit and the tires. I won't even mention the shrink heads driving the F12k cars... oops, now I did it! ;) -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

> F1 2000 would be better than GP3, except for its strange non-realistic > track layouts. I tried Hockenheim last night, comparing the two sims. > This is a relatively flat track, but in F1 2000 it felt like a > rollercoaster! As written in a thread below, Hockenheim should be a rollercoaster in some places, the motodrome and the ostcurve. I agree that F1-2000 has potential. It could come close to GP3 if it had better throttle response, better braking physics, better track accuracy, better graphics performance, good AI and weather. Impossible to improve all that without major changes to the game engine. F1-2000 was rushed because they knew otherwise they wouldn't stand a chance against GP3 in sales. Still, i'm looking forward to F1-2001. At the moment GP3 is king though.

"Jason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lfnh5.2023$[email hidden]... > > Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8m4tle$5qt21> > > It could come close to GP3 if it had better throttle response, better > > braking physics, better track accuracy, better graphics performance What resolution with what CPU and vid card? -- [email hidden]

Sorry should have said , F12k 1024x768 (the highest it'll go) Maximum detail on everything bar one (which causes H/Drive thrashing. Bug?) , Athlon 700, Geforce2 GTS (3D ProphetII). I do like GP3, it'll run at 1280x1024 everything on including mirrors at 70-80% PO but even then the graphics don't come near F12k see below.... http://www.strategic-plus.co.uk/gp3vsf12k/GP3%20vs%20F12K.htm Cheers , Jason Greg Cisko <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aEqh5.9355$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> "Jason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:lfnh5.2023$[email hidden]... > > > > Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8m4tle$5qt21> > > > > It could come close to GP3 if it had better throttle response, better > > > braking physics, better track accuracy, better graphics performance > > What resolution with what CPU and vid card? > > > -- > > [email hidden] > > > > >

Jason <[email hidden]> wrote: : Sorry should have said , F12k 1024x768 (the highest it'll go) Maximum detail : on everything bar one (which causes H/Drive thrashing. Bug?) , Athlon 700, : Geforce2 GTS (3D ProphetII). I do like GP3, it'll run at 1280x1024 : everything on including mirrors at 70-80% PO but even then the graphics : don't come near F12k see below.... : http://www.strategic-plus.co.uk/gp3vsf12k/GP3%20vs%20F12K.htm Personal preference I guess - from the cockpit shots I'd have picked GP3. The out of car shots you've given from GP3 seem strangely pixelated compared to my version and I'm running on fairly modest hardware - Celeron 450 with v3000. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/

On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:28:59 -0700, "Jason" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Sorry should have said , F12k 1024x768 (the highest it'll go) Maximum detail >on everything bar one (which causes H/Drive thrashing. Bug?) , Athlon 700, >Geforce2 GTS (3D ProphetII). I do like GP3, it'll run at 1280x1024 >everything on including mirrors at 70-80% PO but even then the graphics >don't come near F12k see below.... >http://www.strategic-plus.co.uk/gp3vsf12k/GP3%20vs%20F12K.htm > >Cheers , Jason

Nice to see some *really* representative comparative pictures. But the conclusions are highly subjective. Not everyone (including me :-) ) will agree that "even then the graphics (GP3) don't come near F12k" Some thoughts: First off all, it is true that GP3 doesn't use many special features of graphics cards. Therefore, it absolutely needs the higher resolutions to look OK. So your Imola comparison shot is a little unfair :-). It looks to me that you have "lower res" textures selected for that shot as well (or it is the overall low res?). If I'm not mistaken, the distant background textures look much sharper on my system??? At least I never noticed them being THAT blocky. I must say that backgrounds in GP3 are really great and convincing, something you can't judge from your shots. Now for a comparison: Wheels: Certainly in static screenshots the GP3 wheels look *very* blocky. But in movement it isn't that bad at all. F1 2000 wheels don't look pixelated at all. On the other hand, the overall SHAPE of the wheels is much better in GP3. The colour is also better. F1 2000 wheels are too dark, and they are not rounded. Personal conclusion: I prefer the look of the GP3 wheels. With some filtering, they would be *perfect* looking. Drivers: This is a huge letdown in F12000.... The heads are so small that it makes the cars look like, like... Oil Tankers :-) I find this VERY bad for the immersion factor. Cockpit: It is just sooo dark in F12000. The GP3 cockpit looks much less artificial. On the other hand, the GP3 cockpit takes up too much screen. I used a 3rd party lowre cockpit for GP2 also, and this GP3 cockpit simply makes me feel like it obscures the track ahead :-) Even with the cockpit angle tweaked. The cars: Obviously the cars in F12000 are more "accurate". Mostly due to the GP3 design choice to include only 1 model. (BTW, if you check the shape against a '98 Arrows or even Ferrari, you will see that the shape isn't that bad at all. It really is representative) They might have slightly more polygons as well? And actual mirrors also. So they are undeniably more detailed. GP3 tried to save resources here I think. Then, F12000 cars also look much more "polished". Now it comes down to taste.. Personally I'm not a fan of the "rendered" look. It gives me this "plastic" feeling. It does different things to other people But even if I would like that "polished" look, it would be compensated for me by the out-of-proportion helmets in F12000. I'm sorry but it totally kills the looks. Environment: Certain objects (grandstands?) have much more detail in F12000. But I always get the feeling that there is *something* wrong. My conclusion is that there is a discrepancy between the "sky" and the environmental lighting. The sky looks totally bright in your Imola pick. Yet the trees, the cockpit and in some ways even the cars give the impression that it is much *darker*. It somehow reminds me of how things must look during a partial solar eclipse. This was done much better in GP3. People have also been complaining about the lack of filtering on certain textures in GP3. I certainly agree in some cases. But take the track for example: REAL asphalt has structure also! Same about the trees: does filtering really make them look more real?? I'm not so sure.Obviously, the GP3 carshadows are blocky beyond belief. But then again they are too dark in F12000! Smoke: I want to mention this seperately because F12000 smoke seems to originate from cracks in the track. Like if you have some toasters burried. This is also one of those "looks artificial" features that you spot EVEN in the heat of the action. There are arguments both in favour of, and against each sim. Personally I favour GP3 (rain taken into account also) because it is more effective when it matters. I.e.: when you are racing at 100% concentration you don't have time nor intention to evaluate every single pixel, and the "overall awareness" counts. GP3 wins hands down in that department as far as I'm concerned. But to each his own.... JoH

Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:28:59 -0700, "Jason" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Sorry should have said , F12k 1024x768 (the highest it'll go) Maximumdetail > >on everything bar one (which causes H/Drive thrashing. Bug?) , Athlon700,

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Geforce2 GTS (3D ProphetII). I do like GP3, it'll run at 1280x1024 > >everything on including mirrors at 70-80% PO but even then the graphics > >don't come near F12k see below.... > >http://www.strategic-plus.co.uk/gp3vsf12k/GP3%20vs%20F12K.htm > > > >Cheers , Jason > > Nice to see some *really* representative comparative pictures.

That was the Idea! > > But the conclusions are highly subjective. Not everyone (including me > :-) ) will agree that "even then the graphics (GP3) don't come near > F12k" I didn't mention everyone or anyone? I was saying it'll run on mine at 1280x1024 *BUT* even then it doesn't come close to the graphics of F12K, and I'll be the first one to admit F12K is a Hardware Hog.. :) > > Some thoughts: > > First off all, it is true that GP3 doesn't use many special features > of graphics cards. Therefore, it absolutely needs the higher > resolutions to look OK. Definetly..:) > So your Imola comparison shot is a little > unfair :-). It looks to me that you have "lower res" textures > selected for that shot as well (or it is the overall low res?). 800x600 on both , Both at maximum settings. I'll put 1280x1024 shots up there if you don't mind the long page download ,Unless your one of the lucky buggers with Cable/ADSL :0) > If I'm > not mistaken, the distant background textures look much sharper on my > system??? At least I never noticed them being THAT blocky. I have to admit I've never noticed that either until I grabed the shot. (but when your doing 175mph your hardly looking at the scenery) or maybe its just that corner , I honestly just picked a random point to pause GP3 and then drove there in F12k. If anyone has a request for a better shot of a track/corner then I'll do it, as I said I like them both! and I was trying to simulate a graphic comparison a closely as possible, if it came to weather effects both graphicly and physics wise then I'd go with GP3 > I must say > that backgrounds in GP3 are really great and convincing, something you > can't judge from your shots. This is True of most screen shots, movement will always increase realism.(Except Daikatana)

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Now for a comparison: > > Wheels: > > Certainly in static screenshots the GP3 wheels look *very* blocky. But > in movement it isn't that bad at all. F1 2000 wheels don't look > pixelated at all. On the other hand, the overall SHAPE of the wheels > is much better in GP3. The colour is also better. F1 2000 wheels are > too dark, and they are not rounded.

Agreed! > > Personal conclusion: I prefer the look of the GP3 wheels. With some > filtering, they would be *perfect* looking. > Yep! > Drivers: > > This is a huge letdown in F12000.... The heads are so small that it > makes the cars look like, like... Oil Tankers :-) I find this VERY > bad for the immersion factor. > Hadn't noticed Until you pointed it out ! (Damm it's gonna bug me now :))

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Cockpit: > > It is just sooo dark in F12000. The GP3 cockpit looks much less > artificial. On the other hand, the GP3 cockpit takes up too much > screen. I used a 3rd party lowre cockpit for GP2 also, and this GP3 > cockpit simply makes me feel like it obscures the track ahead :-) > Even with the cockpit angle tweaked.

Maybe someone'll do a third party cushion add on :)

Quoted text (49 lines)

> > The cars: > > Obviously the cars in F12000 are more "accurate". Mostly due to the > GP3 design choice to include only 1 model. (BTW, if you check the > shape against a '98 Arrows or even Ferrari, you will see that the > shape isn't that bad at all. It really is representative) They might > have slightly more polygons as well? And actual mirrors also. So they > are undeniably more detailed. GP3 tried to save resources here I > think. > > Then, F12000 cars also look much more "polished". Now it comes down to > taste.. Personally I'm not a fan of the "rendered" look. It gives me > this "plastic" feeling. It does different things to other people > > But even if I would like that "polished" look, it would be compensated > for me by the out-of-proportion helmets in F12000. I'm sorry but it > totally kills the looks. > > Environment: > > Certain objects (grandstands?) have much more detail in F12000. But I > always get the feeling that there is *something* wrong. My conclusion > is that there is a discrepancy between the "sky" and the environmental > lighting. The sky looks totally bright in your Imola pick. Yet the > trees, the cockpit and in some ways even the cars give the impression > that it is much *darker*. It somehow reminds me of how things must > look during a partial solar eclipse. This was done much better in GP3. > People have also been complaining about the lack of filtering on > certain textures in GP3. I certainly agree in some cases. But take the > track for example: REAL asphalt has structure also! Same about the > trees: does filtering really make them look more real?? I'm not so > sure.Obviously, the GP3 carshadows are blocky beyond belief. But then > again they are too dark in F12000! > > Smoke: > I want to mention this seperately because F12000 smoke seems to > originate from cracks in the track. Like if you have some toasters > burried. This is also one of those "looks artificial" features that > you spot EVEN in the heat of the action. > > > There are arguments both in favour of, and against each sim. > Personally I favour GP3 (rain taken into account also) because it is > more effective when it matters. I.e.: when you are racing at 100% > concentration you don't have time nor intention to evaluate every > single pixel, and the "overall awareness" counts. GP3 wins hands down > in that department as far as I'm concerned. >

I love the weather in GP3 but an annoying quirk kind of ruined the physics aspect for me in GP3, which was some sort of routine that says if rainning and wheels on one side =grass and wheels on other side=tarmac and the bit in the middle of the car was a kerb then Spin car...now I here you say that would happen in a real car! At 50-120Mph yes but I could re-create this by driving at about 2Mph slowly on to the kerb until BAM! car starts spining around like a bronco :) > But to each his own.... Exactly ,

Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8m72sl$63j$[email hidden]... > Jason <[email hidden]> wrote: > : Sorry should have said , F12k 1024x768 (the highest it'll go) Maximumdetail > : on everything bar one (which causes H/Drive thrashing. Bug?) , Athlon700,

Quoted text (11 lines)

> : Geforce2 GTS (3D ProphetII). I do like GP3, it'll run at 1280x1024 > : everything on including mirrors at 70-80% PO but even then the graphics > : don't come near F12k see below.... > : http://www.strategic-plus.co.uk/gp3vsf12k/GP3%20vs%20F12K.htm > > Personal preference I guess - from the cockpit shots I'd have picked > GP3. > > The out of car shots you've given from GP3 seem strangely pixelated > compared to my version and I'm running on fairly modest hardware - > Celeron 450 with v3000.

Yeah! I've noticed that pausing tends to show up Pixels which you wouldn't notice as much when moving but the same is true F12K its just that their renderer works with hardware better. I did both shots in 800x600 to try and be fair. although 1280x1024 in gp3 will improve graphics , still not enough to beat F12K IMO and this would also have been an inacurte comparison. But as you said it's Personal preference, which was what the page is supposed to gauge, I wasn't originally doing the screen shots to say F12k is better, it just looked that way in my preference. > > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group > Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York > UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/

On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:36:30 -0700, "Jason" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You Obviously Haven't read my replies Above to Jo & Richard. Have you? > > i did after i wrote the post ___________________ Macca "I don't know why but it's the best way to die You are the trigger and my deepest desire I'm losing you, but you will always be mine Promise me now that you will enter my mind" Drain Sth - Enter My Mind

On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:28:59 -0700, "Jason" <[email hidden]> wrote: >http://www.strategic-plus.co.uk/gp3vsf12k/GP3%20vs%20F12K.htm > >Cheers , Jason > Why dont you make it fair and put the top notch GP3 graphics on instead of the semi good ones. That imola shot looks nothing like what the GP3 graphics can do. Look at the saubers. The EA Sports one looks very cartoonish. Look how long the front of the car is?!?!?!?!?! Its totally out of shape, the front of the car is waaaaaaayyyyyyy too long. The head is tiny. The F!2000 cars look more clearer in some shots. I much prefer the GP3 graphics, lots more detail around the place as in where everything should be, the correct sponsers etc. ___________________ Macca "I don't know why but it's the best way to die You are the trigger and my deepest desire I'm losing you, but you will always be mine Promise me now that you will enter my mind" Drain Sth - Enter My Mind

On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 17:20:54 GMT, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Some thoughts: > >First off all, it is true that GP3 doesn't use many special features >of graphics cards. Therefore, it absolutely needs the higher >resolutions to look OK. So your Imola comparison shot is a little >unfair :-). It looks to me that you have "lower res" textures >selected for that shot as well (or it is the overall low res?). If I'm >not mistaken, the distant background textures look much sharper on my >system??? At least I never noticed them being THAT blocky. I must say >that backgrounds in GP3 are really great and convincing, something you >can't judge from your shots.

ok, you can have the graphic level in GP3 set up as high as it will go and the background pics will look blocky. What matters is if you go advanced in graphics, and unselect reduce texture detail then they look completly real, and totally crisp, no blockyness at all. The picture in that shot looks awful and is nothing what GP3 can do. >Drivers: > >This is a huge letdown in F12000.... The heads are so small that it >makes the cars look like, like... Oil Tankers :-) I find this VERY >bad for the immersion factor. Are they babies driving the cars?? I didnt think drivers heads were THAT small.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Cockpit: > >It is just sooo dark in F12000. The GP3 cockpit looks much less >artificial. On the other hand, the GP3 cockpit takes up too much >screen. I used a 3rd party lowre cockpit for GP2 also, and this GP3 >cockpit simply makes me feel like it obscures the track ahead :-) >Even with the cockpit angle tweaked.

GP3 cockpit hands down

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >The cars: > >Obviously the cars in F12000 are more "accurate". Mostly due to the >GP3 design choice to include only 1 model. (BTW, if you check the >shape against a '98 Arrows or even Ferrari, you will see that the >shape isn't that bad at all. It really is representative) They might >have slightly more polygons as well? And actual mirrors also. So they >are undeniably more detailed. GP3 tried to save resources here I >think.

The F12000 cars look cartoonish, very bright looking, as does most of the game (cartoonish that is) I prefer the GP3 cars. I spun out at Melbourne yesterday, and it was a complete mirror image to Coulthards spin this year there, i could not tell the difference it was that good. > >Then, F12000 cars also look much more "polished". Now it comes down to >taste.. Personally I'm not a fan of the "rendered" look. It gives me >this "plastic" feeling. It does different things to other people I dont like the F12000 cars. They look so long and wierd, totally out of shape. The front of the car is 3 times longer than the back of the car (which isnt right)

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Environment: > >Certain objects (grandstands?) have much more detail in F12000. But I >always get the feeling that there is *something* wrong. My conclusion >is that there is a discrepancy between the "sky" and the environmental >lighting. The sky looks totally bright in your Imola pick. Yet the >trees, the cockpit and in some ways even the cars give the impression >that it is much *darker*.

GP3 has great backgrounds and trackside objects. The f12000 graphics...in that imola pic, you cant tell if the trees are green or black. Gp3 hands down again!! ___________________ Macca "I don't know why but it's the best way to die You are the trigger and my deepest desire I'm losing you, but you will always be mine Promise me now that you will enter my mind" Drain Sth - Enter My Mind

On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 22:46:22 GMT, "Jason" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> So your Imola comparison shot is a little >> unfair :-). It looks to me that you have "lower res" textures >> selected for that shot as well (or it is the overall low res?). > >800x600 on both , Both at maximum settings. I'll put 1280x1024 shots up >there if you don't mind the long page download ,Unless your one of the lucky >buggers with Cable/ADSL :0) >

turn off "reduced texture detail" in the advanced graphics section in gp3. It look s much sharper, and isnt blocky at all ___________________ Macca "I don't know why but it's the best way to die You are the trigger and my deepest desire I'm losing you, but you will always be mine Promise me now that you will enter my mind" Drain Sth - Enter My Mind

It was Off!

It was Off!

Quoted text (12 lines)

> turn off "reduced texture detail" in the advanced graphics section in > gp3. It look s much sharper, and isnt blocky at all > > > > ___________________ > Macca > "I don't know why but it's the best way to die > You are the trigger and my deepest desire > I'm losing you, but you will always be mine > Promise me now that you will enter my mind" > Drain Sth - Enter My Mind

You Obviously Haven't read my replies Above to Jo & Richard. Have you? Macca <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:28:59 -0700, "Jason" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > >http://www.strategic-plus.co.uk/gp3vsf12k/GP3%20vs%20F12K.htm > > > >Cheers , Jason > > > > Why dont you make it fair and put the top notch GP3 graphics on > instead of the semi good ones. That imola shot looks nothing like > what the GP3 graphics can do. > Look at the saubers. The EA Sports one looks very cartoonish. Look > how long the front of the car is?!?!?!?!?! Its totally out of shape, > the front of the car is waaaaaaayyyyyyy too long. The head is tiny. > The F!2000 cars look more clearer in some shots. > > I much prefer the GP3 graphics, lots more detail around the place as > in where everything should be, the correct sponsers etc. > ___________________ > Macca > "I don't know why but it's the best way to die > You are the trigger and my deepest desire > I'm losing you, but you will always be mine > Promise me now that you will enter my mind" > Drain Sth - Enter My Mind