Watched all the practice sessions live from two of the best places at the
nurburgring this weekend, back at home I was anxious to try which sim has
the best track accuracy. here are the results (from worst to best)
tried:
F1-2000:
awful, worst representation of the track layout. Invented bumps and
elevation changes, corner radius is very wrong and banking and camber are
there, but at completely wrong places.
Verdict: 1 out of 10
SCGT:
awful, track too wide and much too flat.
Verdict: 2 out of 10
MGPRS2:
surprisingly good modelled chicanes , but flat motodrom section. No banking
in the important motodrom sections.
Verdict: 5 out of 10
F1 WORLD GRAND PRIX:
A real surprise. Track is a bit too wide otherwise the outer track section
is pretty much spot on. The motodrom (stadium) is not that well done,
missing realistic brake and acceleration points as well as banking and
realistic curbs.
Verdics: 6 out of 10
SBK2000:
didn't drive much because I don't like the bikes (like the game though), but
the track model is comparable with MGPRS2. Definately one of the weaker
tracks in SBK 2000.
Verdict: 5 out of 10
GP3:
feels just like what I saw, the track layout is spot on. Track width is
correct. If the Sachs curve was a bit more banked and the elevation change
in the ostcurve was modelled it would be perfect. But the scenery is not
done with much attention to detail and most runoff areas are missing.
Verdict: 8 of 10
The Hockenheim Track model in GP3 beats the representation in every
available sim - with major flaws in the scenery and buildings. No sim has
really got it right until now.
cheers,
---
Alexander Marx
mailo:[email hidden]
When it comes to actual track layout Gp3 is very good... Though other games
get trackobjects and scenery just a bit better as Gp3 does.... But I don't
care about that... I am going that fast, I have no time to go sightseeing
:)) For me actual tracklayout is more important as trackobjects are
anyway...
-- Sjon
Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8lvimg$58n0m$[email hidden]...
banking
but
change
Quoted text (18 lines)
> Watched all the practice sessions live from two of the best places at the > nurburgring this weekend, back at home I was anxious to try which sim has > the best track accuracy. here are the results (from worst to best) > > tried: > > F1-2000: > awful, worst representation of the track layout. Invented bumps and > elevation changes, corner radius is very wrong and banking and camber are > there, but at completely wrong places. > Verdict: 1 out of 10 > > SCGT: > awful, track too wide and much too flat. > Verdict: 2 out of 10 > > MGPRS2: > surprisingly good modelled chicanes , but flat motodrom section. NoQuoted text (12 lines)
> in the important motodrom sections. > Verdict: 5 out of 10 > > F1 WORLD GRAND PRIX: > A real surprise. Track is a bit too wide otherwise the outer track section > is pretty much spot on. The motodrom (stadium) is not that well done, > missing realistic brake and acceleration points as well as banking and > realistic curbs. > Verdics: 6 out of 10 > > SBK2000: > didn't drive much because I don't like the bikes (like the game though),Quoted text (7 lines)
> the track model is comparable with MGPRS2. Definately one of the weaker > tracks in SBK 2000. > Verdict: 5 out of 10 > > GP3: > feels just like what I saw, the track layout is spot on. Track width is > correct. If the Sachs curve was a bit more banked and the elevationQuoted text (17 lines)
> in the ostcurve was modelled it would be perfect. But the scenery is not > done with much attention to detail and most runoff areas are missing. > Verdict: 8 of 10 > > The Hockenheim Track model in GP3 beats the representation in every > available sim - with major flaws in the scenery and buildings. No sim has > really got it right until now. > > > > cheers, > --- > Alexander Marx > mailo:[email hidden] > > >On Sat 29 Jul 2000 10:30:43pm, Alexander Marx wrote:
<snip>
>The Hockenheim Track model in GP3 beats the representation in every
>available sim - with major flaws in the scenery and buildings. No
>sim has really got it right until now.
(spoiler below)
I haven't noticed madmen wandering about on the track though... (sorry,
couldn't resist it).
--
David. (GPLRank handicap: -3.01)
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really."
(Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)
> Watched all the practice sessions live from two of the best places at the
> nurburgring this weekend
that should be Hockenheimring, of course
I'll give you my honest evaluation tomorrow. You might be right...
--
[email hidden]
"Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8lvimg$58n0m$[email hidden]...
> Watched all the practice sessions live from two of the best places at the
> nurburgring this weekend, back at home I was anxious to try which sim has
> the best track accuracy. here are the results (from worst to best)
>
> tried:
>
> F1-2000:
> awful, worst representation of the track layout. Invented bumps and
> elevation changes, corner radius is very wrong and banking and camber are
> there, but at completely wrong places.
> Verdict: 1 out of 10
>
> SCGT:
> awful, track too wide and much too flat.
> Verdict: 2 out of 10
>
> MGPRS2:
> surprisingly good modelled chicanes , but flat motodrom section. No
banking
> in the important motodrom sections.
> Verdict: 5 out of 10
>
> F1 WORLD GRAND PRIX:
> A real surprise. Track is a bit too wide otherwise the outer track section
> is pretty much spot on. The motodrom (stadium) is not that well done,
> missing realistic brake and acceleration points as well as banking and
> realistic curbs.
> Verdics: 6 out of 10
>
> SBK2000:
> didn't drive much because I don't like the bikes (like the game though),
but
> the track model is comparable with MGPRS2. Definately one of the weaker
> tracks in SBK 2000.
> Verdict: 5 out of 10
>
> GP3:
> feels just like what I saw, the track layout is spot on. Track width is
> correct. If the Sachs curve was a bit more banked and the elevation
change
> in the ostcurve was modelled it would be perfect. But the scenery is not
> done with much attention to detail and most runoff areas are missing.
> Verdict: 8 of 10
>
> The Hockenheim Track model in GP3 beats the representation in every
> available sim - with major flaws in the scenery and buildings. No sim has
> really got it right until now.
>
>
>
> cheers,
> ---
> Alexander Marx
> mailo:[email hidden]
>
>
>
that should be Hockenheimring, of course
David Buttery <[email hidden]> wrote:
Alas, local wildlife is sadly missing from most track modellings. No
sheep for target practice in GPL Spa, no groundhogs to squash in Montreal,
no drunken Germans...
+Cinquo
Quoted text (22 lines)
> On Sat 29 Jul 2000 10:30:43pm, Alexander Marx wrote: > <snip> >>The Hockenheim Track model in GP3 beats the representation in every >>available sim - with major flaws in the scenery and buildings. No >>sim has really got it right until now. > (spoiler below) > I haven't noticed madmen wandering about on the track though... (sorry, > couldn't resist it)."Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Watched all the practice sessions live from two of the best places at the
> nurburgring this weekend, back at home I was anxious to try which sim has
> the best track accuracy. here are the results (from worst to best)
> F1-2000:
> Verdict: 1 out of 10
True.
> The Hockenheim Track model in GP3 beats the representation in every
> available sim - with major flaws in the scenery and buildings. No sim has
> really got it right until now.
This summarise most of the GP3 tracks. The tracks themselves are very well
done. All the corner radius, track width and straight lenghts are nicely
modeled. Some elevations seem to be missing (ex: the first two chicanes at
Hocke feel flat), but overall all the gradiant elevation are very well done.
The only problem is all the objects surrounding the track itself. Per
example, exiting the chicane at Montr�al is a big flat armco wall. F1 cars
go within inches of it. In Gp3 it's not there, there is grass and sand
before the wall. That doesn't mean the track accuracy isn't good. It's
very good, but for me such thing is an "object placement" problem, not the
track itself :)
With the track editor already released and graphical upgrades being done,
it's just a matter of time until the "object placement" is correctly done.
I mean, the BEST representation of Formula 1 tracks are the user-created
tracks for GP2. No developer has achieved better accuracy than the
third-party community. I'm still not buying GP3. Not yet ;)
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.WeRace.net
-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.
In article <BnZg5.73016$[email hidden]>, "ymenard"
<[email hidden]> writes:
>This summarise most of the GP3 tracks. The tracks themselves are very well
>done. All the corner radius, track width and straight lenghts are nicely
>modeled. Some elevations seem to be missing (ex: the first two chicanes at
>Hocke feel flat), but overall all the gradiant elevation are very well done.
The commentators on Speedvision said the track was dead flat. Or, were they
just talking about the stadium section? Still, others have complained of no
elevations in the stadium before...
Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL hcp. +59.33
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
the track certainly isn't flat. The straights are bumpy, the chicanes
feature elevation changes and the "Ostkurve" is a rollercoaster ride (which
is best represented in F1WGP). The entry to the stadium is flat, the
Sachskurve is pretty steep banked this is why you always think you can brake
just a tad later... and then overshoot. This is also missing in every sim.
After the Sachs Kurve it goes uphill and then downhill into a heavily banked
right kink where couldhard lost it in warmup, then a long corner onto the
s/f straigt. All in all GP3 requires the most realistic driving line through
the stadium. The strange thing about F1-2K is that while the scenery is done
pretty close to perfection and even little details are in there, the track
itself goes down where it should go up, goes up where it should go down, is
banked where it should be flat and vice versa. If you combine the Track
Layout of GP3 and the attention to detail in the scenery of F12K you'd get
the perfect Hockenheim.
You're right. I've been at barcelona track this year and walked around the
whole track. I think the layout of GP3 is exactly the same! Just the streets
around and old track-parts (like turn 8 or 9) are missing.
marc
"Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8lvimg$58n0m$[email hidden]...
banking
but
change
Quoted text (18 lines)
> Watched all the practice sessions live from two of the best places at the > nurburgring this weekend, back at home I was anxious to try which sim has > the best track accuracy. here are the results (from worst to best) > > tried: > > F1-2000: > awful, worst representation of the track layout. Invented bumps and > elevation changes, corner radius is very wrong and banking and camber are > there, but at completely wrong places. > Verdict: 1 out of 10 > > SCGT: > awful, track too wide and much too flat. > Verdict: 2 out of 10 > > MGPRS2: > surprisingly good modelled chicanes , but flat motodrom section. NoQuoted text (12 lines)
> in the important motodrom sections. > Verdict: 5 out of 10 > > F1 WORLD GRAND PRIX: > A real surprise. Track is a bit too wide otherwise the outer track section > is pretty much spot on. The motodrom (stadium) is not that well done, > missing realistic brake and acceleration points as well as banking and > realistic curbs. > Verdics: 6 out of 10 > > SBK2000: > didn't drive much because I don't like the bikes (like the game though),Quoted text (7 lines)
> the track model is comparable with MGPRS2. Definately one of the weaker > tracks in SBK 2000. > Verdict: 5 out of 10 > > GP3: > feels just like what I saw, the track layout is spot on. Track width is > correct. If the Sachs curve was a bit more banked and the elevationQuoted text (17 lines)
> in the ostcurve was modelled it would be perfect. But the scenery is not > done with much attention to detail and most runoff areas are missing. > Verdict: 8 of 10 > > The Hockenheim Track model in GP3 beats the representation in every > available sim - with major flaws in the scenery and buildings. No sim has > really got it right until now. > > > > cheers, > --- > Alexander Marx > mailo:[email hidden] > > >"Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8lvimg$58n0m$[email hidden]...
> F1-2000:
> awful, worst representation of the track layout. Invented bumps and
> elevation changes, corner radius is very wrong and banking and camber are
> there, but at completely wrong places.
> Verdict: 1 out of 10
Well after watching the race, I must say that the banking on the chicanes
and turns is quite pronounced. At least at those camera angles. You
seemed to see less of that from the incar views. I thought the East
Curve (which is the last of the chicanes I believe) was better done that
I feared from all of your reports. In F1 2000 it is a pretty big downhill
slope. As in real life. The first chicane (senna?) appeared less blind
in real life than in F1 2000.
All in all the track representation of hockenhiem in F1 2000 is not bad
enough to not be enjoyable for me. I really like racing hockenhiem in
F1RS and that was totally flat!
Nope... The #1 thing about the hockenhiem track which I dislike
is that the AI *ALWAYS* seem to spin out on the last turn going
onto the main pit straight. That would certainly wreck any race
attempt. So there I said something bad about F1 2000 :-)
--
[email hidden]
"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> The commentators on Speedvision said the track was dead flat. Or, werethey
> just talking about the stadium section? Still, others have complained ofno
> elevations in the stadium before...
The stadium looked very flat to me. While many of the esses and turns
(mainly the east curve) had pronounced banks. You couldn't see it
much while you were in the incar though. The esse complex in the
east curve was very downhill just as portrayed in F1 2000.
--
[email hidden]
"Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8m4g2n$5q7at$[email hidden]...
> the track certainly isn't flat. The straights are bumpy, the chicanes
> feature elevation changes and the "Ostkurve" is a rollercoaster ride(which
Opps... I could have sworn it was called the east curve. I am totally
embarrased now...
But I totally freaked when I first came up to this curve in F1 2000.
Wow.
> is best represented in F1WGP). The entry to the stadium is flat, the
> Sachskurve is pretty steep banked this is why you always think you canbrake
> just a tad later... and then overshoot. This is also missing in everysim.
> After the Sachs Kurve it goes uphill and then downhill into a heavilybanked
> right kink where couldhard lost it in warmup, then a long corner onto the
> s/f straigt. All in all GP3 requires the most realistic driving linethrough
> the stadium. The strange thing about F1-2K is that while the scenery isdone
> pretty close to perfection and even little details are in there, the track
> itself goes down where it should go up, goes up where it should go down,is
> banked where it should be flat and vice versa. If you combine the Track
> Layout of GP3 and the attention to detail in the scenery of F12K you'd get
> the perfect Hockenheim.
Huh. I guess the opposite hills you describe haven't sunk in
for me yet. Thankfully :-)
Anyway, on to Hungary. Now is someone going to start with
the F1 2000 Hungary sucks? So far every F1 2000 track has
been really close to the real deal. Well close enough where
I am not totally bummed.
--
[email hidden]
In article <BOmh5.8086$[email hidden]>, "Greg Cisko"
<[email hidden]> writes:
I assume that 'Ostkurve' is German for 'east curve'...<g>
Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL hcp. +59.33
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Quoted text (8 lines)
>"Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8m4g2n$5q7at$[email hidden]... >> the track certainly isn't flat. The straights are bumpy, the chicanes >> feature elevation changes and the "Ostkurve" is a rollercoaster ride >(which > >Opps... I could have sworn it was called the east curve. I am totally >embarrased now...On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 07:33:57 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>seemed to see less of that from the incar views. I thought the East
>Curve (which is the last of the chicanes I believe) was better done that
Ostkurve (or East Curve because it's the eastmost part of the track) is actually
the fast right hander that you enter immediately after leaving the chicane,
Bremskurve. It used to be taken without the chicane at 300 kph, before the
chicane was added in 1982.
Elevation limits from hockenheimring.de:
100 NN at start and finish
min 99,40 NN
max 103,50 NN (East curve)
"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Well I just wanted to make sure :-) Either way I think it is cool
in F1 2000 :-)
--
[email hidden]
