Re: 4 years

As you said, they didn't NEED to model tire wear, so what's the problem with NOT modeling tire wear??? In article <U7Yf5.62573$[email hidden]>, "Tim McArthur" <[email hidden]> wrote: > As an example, GPL has no tire wear implemented at all. Tire heat is,but > not actual wear. Papy was able to get away with this due to theactual tires > lasting for numerous races (They were street tires) back in 1967. Canyou

Quoted text (32 lines)

> imagine if a modern sim had no tire wear in it? > > "Dennis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was > > 4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts > > rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. > > How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started > > developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, > > wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about > > 3D accel, because the cards were crap. And FF only got > > into the picture around that time too. > > > > Developing software (games) in such an unstable environment > > can be disasterous if the design team makes the wrong > > descisions (like the input module, or the render module, look > > at Unreal), so sometimes whole portions have to be rewritten > > to accomodate recent developments on input and 3D devices. > > > > That's not to say GP3 wasn't late, it took it's time, but now it's > > here I must say, I like it. Sure there are some problems and > > the physics engine has (too) many shortcuts, but basically > > it's an ok simulation. There's just so much you can model in > > the physics departement with the current CPUs, maybe in > > another 4 years time, we'll all be driving *real* simulations. > > (I assume GPL also uses some shortcuts and/or simplyfications > > in the physics module). > > > > Dennis. > > > >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

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

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was > > 4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts > > rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. > > How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started > > developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, > > wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about > > 3D accel, because the cards were crap. And FF only got > > into the picture around that time too. > > You're pretty much right. Geoff is a family man and took a couple of > years off after GP2. After all, he made a ton of money and didn't have to > do much. He's not a 24/7 coder like Carmack, he has other interests. > > I wouldn't be surprised if he had been talked into doing the 3D hardware > upgrade (GP3) by Microprose men with large chequebooks. >

I wouldn't say the 3D update is his. My impression is that he did a one-man routine on most of the game engine using software rendering, then Hasbro dumped a bunch of people on him less than a year ago to tidy up the artwork and somehow add 3D support. The lack of huge performance difference between software and hardware that people have mentioned would hint that the 3D support was just a relatively last minute patch up to add compatibility to modern hardware, and some nice filtering here and there. Somehow, when I think of Crammond, I also think of Valve software and Half-Life, only because both of them did some nice coding to make a lot of "3D card only" effects also work in software. It is *almost* a non-issue now with a fairly large saturation of 3D cards on the market, but Crammond is not a complete idiot for remembering that there are a lot of households still plugging away on PII-s with onboard video. These kind of people aren't going to buy a 200 dollar card to play a game, but they are going to happily put down 50 bucks for a fairly snazzy looking F1 game. Stephen

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was > 4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts > rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. > How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started > developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, > wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about > 3D accel, because the cards were crap. And FF only got > into the picture around that time too.

You're pretty much right. Geoff is a family man and took a couple of years off after GP2. After all, he made a ton of money and didn't have to do much. He's not a 24/7 coder like Carmack, he has other interests. I wouldn't be surprised if he had been talked into doing the 3D hardware upgrade (GP3) by Microprose men with large chequebooks. - Michael

Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was 4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about 3D accel, because the cards were crap. And FF only got into the picture around that time too. Developing software (games) in such an unstable environment can be disasterous if the design team makes the wrong descisions (like the input module, or the render module, look at Unreal), so sometimes whole portions have to be rewritten to accomodate recent developments on input and 3D devices. That's not to say GP3 wasn't late, it took it's time, but now it's here I must say, I like it. Sure there are some problems and the physics engine has (too) many shortcuts, but basically it's an ok simulation. There's just so much you can model in the physics departement with the current CPUs, maybe in another 4 years time, we'll all be driving *real* simulations. (I assume GPL also uses some shortcuts and/or simplyfications in the physics module). Dennis.

On 27 Jul 2000 12:48:19 GMT Dennis <[email hidden]> wrote: % Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was % 4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts % rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. % How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started % developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, % wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about % 3D accel, because the cards were crap. And FF only got % into the picture around that time too. Because in an interview with Geoff, he said they took a few months "vacation" after GP2 and started work on coding the next release. % Developing software (games) in such an unstable environment % can be disasterous if the design team makes the wrong % descisions (like the input module, or the render module, look % at Unreal), so sometimes whole portions have to be rewritten % to accomodate recent developments on input and 3D devices. Don't hardcode yourself into a corner. Apparently Geoff has hardcoded his software and this makes if difficult to be flexiable and change certain "modules" without having to scrap everything and start all over again. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On shortcuts in the physics, there may well be some, or even lots in GPL, I can't possibly judge since i've never tried to write a motor-sports simulation, or driven a 1967 F1 car, but the important thing is that you never notice them. The only time GPL does something weird that 'feels wrong' is in the most extreme of crashes. Although GP3 is an excellent game and one I will play a lot, the physics are a dissapointment.

As an example, GPL has no tire wear implemented at all. Tire heat is, but not actual wear. Papy was able to get away with this due to the actual tires lasting for numerous races (They were street tires) back in 1967. Can you imagine if a modern sim had no tire wear in it? "Dennis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was > 4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts > rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. > How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started > developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, > wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about > 3D accel, because the cards were crap. And FF only got > into the picture around that time too. > > Developing software (games) in such an unstable environment > can be disasterous if the design team makes the wrong > descisions (like the input module, or the render module, look > at Unreal), so sometimes whole portions have to be rewritten > to accomodate recent developments on input and 3D devices. > > That's not to say GP3 wasn't late, it took it's time, but now it's > here I must say, I like it. Sure there are some problems and > the physics engine has (too) many shortcuts, but basically > it's an ok simulation. There's just so much you can model in > the physics departement with the current CPUs, maybe in > another 4 years time, we'll all be driving *real* simulations. > (I assume GPL also uses some shortcuts and/or simplyfications > in the physics module). > > Dennis. >

Tony Whitley <t o n y . w h i t l e y @ n S t P l A w M o r l d . c o m> wrote: : Tim McArthur <[email hidden]> wrote in message : news:U7Yf5.62573$[email hidden]... :> As an example, GPL has no tire wear implemented at all. Tire heat is, but :> not actual wear. Papy was able to get away with this due to the actual : tires :> lasting for numerous races (They were street tires) back in 1967. : I don't think so! The racing tyres were not as sophisticated in those days : but they weren't borrowed from your average Ford. Tyre wear could be a : problem - I've seen pictures of completely bare tyres at Monza, IIRC they : weren't the first set they'd used in the race. Tyres in '67 were certainly not street tyres as you say - however, they would last more than one race - generally several. -- 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/

Simon Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: : On shortcuts in the physics, there may well be some, or even lots in GPL, I : can't possibly judge since i've never tried to write a motor-sports : simulation, or driven a 1967 F1 car, but the important thing is that you : never notice them. The only time GPL does something weird that 'feels : wrong' is in the most extreme of crashes. Nonsense - there's plenty of faults in the GPL simulation engine. It's the best out there but there's lots of problems which could be improved upon in a GPL2. -- 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/

Tim McArthur <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:U7Yf5.62573$[email hidden]... > As an example, GPL has no tire wear implemented at all. Tire heat is, but > not actual wear. Papy was able to get away with this due to the actualtires > lasting for numerous races (They were street tires) back in 1967.I don't think so! The racing tyres were not as sophisticated in those days but they weren't borrowed from your average Ford. Tyre wear could be a problem - I've seen pictures of completely bare tyres at Monza, IIRC they weren't the first set they'd used in the race. That said, it sounds like a fairly serious omission. Tony Whitley

Generally yes, but not always. I'll dig out the picture of the Ferrari (I think) with canvas showing! But not tomorrow :-) Tony Whitley Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8lpmo8$e44$[email hidden]... > Tyres in '67 were certainly not street tyres as you say - however, > they would last more than one race - generally several.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:04:19 +0200, "Stephen Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (36 lines)

> >"MichaelJP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> > Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was >> > 4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts >> > rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. >> > How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started >> > developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, >> > wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about >> > 3D accel, because the cards were crap. And FF only got >> > into the picture around that time too. >> >> You're pretty much right. Geoff is a family man and took a couple of >> years off after GP2. After all, he made a ton of money and didn't have to >> do much. He's not a 24/7 coder like Carmack, he has other interests. >> >> I wouldn't be surprised if he had been talked into doing the 3D hardware >> upgrade (GP3) by Microprose men with large chequebooks. >> > >I wouldn't say the 3D update is his. My impression is that he did a one-man >routine on most of the game engine using software rendering, then Hasbro >dumped a bunch of people on him less than a year ago to tidy up the artwork >and somehow add 3D support. The lack of huge performance difference between >software and hardware that people have mentioned would hint that the 3D >support was just a relatively last minute patch up to add compatibility to >modern hardware, and some nice filtering here and there. > >Somehow, when I think of Crammond, I also think of Valve software and >Half-Life, only because both of them did some nice coding to make a lot of >"3D card only" effects also work in software. It is *almost* a non-issue >now with a fairly large saturation of 3D cards on the market, but Crammond >is not a complete idiot for remembering that there are a lot of households >still plugging away on PII-s with onboard video. These kind of people >aren't going to buy a 200 dollar card to play a game, but they are going to >happily put down 50 bucks for a fairly snazzy looking F1 game.

I could have written this (the post, not GP3 software engine :-) ) JoH

Did I say otherwise? I said there may be lots of shortcuts in the GPL physics, but that I couldn't tell because i've never driven a 1967 F1 car. Sounds like a pretty reasonable comment to me. :) "Richard G Clegg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8lpmr0$e44$[email hidden]... > Simon Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: > : On shortcuts in the physics, there may well be some, or even lots inGPL, I

Quoted text (14 lines)

> : can't possibly judge since i've never tried to write a motor-sports > : simulation, or driven a 1967 F1 car, but the important thing is that you > : never notice them. The only time GPL does something weird that 'feels > : wrong' is in the most extreme of crashes. > > Nonsense - there's plenty of faults in the GPL simulation engine. > It's the best out there but there's lots of problems which could be > improved upon in a GPL2. > > -- > 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/

"Ed Solheim" <igplc@[ S P A M G U A R D)online.no> wrote in message news:su0g5.23256$[email hidden]... > MichaelJP wrote: > > > > You're pretty much right. Geoff is a family man and took a couple of > > years off after GP2. After all, he made a ton of money and didn't haveto

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > do much. He's not a 24/7 coder like Carmack, he has other interests. > > I seem to recall reading in an interview (on the official GP-site ?) that > Goeff actually took 3-4 months vacation after GP2 and then started to work > on GP3. > > Imho, he should probably had taken a much, much longer vacation tho...(and

I > cant blame you for thinking that he did) by the looks of his so called > "masterpiece". But then, we wouldn't have GP3 right now, don't you think? Dennis.

MichaelJP wrote: > > You're pretty much right. Geoff is a family man and took a couple of > years off after GP2. After all, he made a ton of money and didn't have to > do much. He's not a 24/7 coder like Carmack, he has other interests. I seem to recall reading in an interview (on the official GP-site ?) that Goeff actually took 3-4 months vacation after GP2 and then started to work on GP3. Imho, he should probably had taken a much, much longer vacation tho...(and I cant blame you for thinking that he did) by the looks of his so called "masterpiece". -- All the best, Ed Solheim The GPLEA

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:13:32 +0100, MichaelJP <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was >> 4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts >> rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. >> How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started >> developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, >> wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about >> 3D accel, because the cards were crap. And FF only got >> into the picture around that time too. > >You're pretty much right. Geoff is a family man and took a couple of >years off after GP2. After all, he made a ton of money and didn't have to >do much. He's not a 24/7 coder like Carmack, he has other interests. >

Months, not years. And given the # of people behind this project, it is pretty sad how little improvement was made between GP2 and GP3. Great game, but given say 2-3yrs development time I do expect better. Two years ago people did care about 3d accel and 3d sound was emerging as well. It doesn't take 2 years to adopt to either unless your code is a mass of spaghetti.

Zonoskar wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > "Ed Solheim" <igplc@[ S P A M G U A R D)online.no> wrote in message > news:su0g5.23256$[email hidden]... > > MichaelJP wrote: > > > > > > You're pretty much right. Geoff is a family man and took a couple of > > > years off after GP2. After all, he made a ton of money and didn't have > to > > > do much. He's not a 24/7 coder like Carmack, he has other interests. > > > > I seem to recall reading in an interview (on the official GP-site ?) that > > Goeff actually took 3-4 months vacation after GP2 and then started to work > > on GP3. > > > > Imho, he should probably had taken a much, much longer vacation tho...(and > I > > cant blame you for thinking that he did) by the looks of his so called > > "masterpiece". > > But then, we wouldn't have GP3 right now, don't you think? > > Dennis.

I think what we have here is GP2.1 for Winxx. To put it another way...If GPL is the jewel in the crown, then GP3 is the turd in the drinking water...IMHO. Flame away, I wont be here, I'll be in the refund que at EB. If you own it and you like it and you are reading this, that's fine, it's just MHO. Would'nt the world be a boring place if.....ect.

On 28 Jul 2000 07:15:56 GMT, [email hidden] (Dennis) wrote:

Quoted text (42 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]> >[email hidden] (Jeff Vincent) wrote: > >> On 27 Jul 2000 12:48:19 GMT, [email hidden] (Dennis) wrote: >> >>>Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was >>>4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts >>>rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. >>>How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started >>>developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, >>>wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about >>>3D accel, because the cards were crap. >> >> Dennis, >> >> Ummm, four years ago (and change - early '96), Rendition had made >> its V1000 chips and manufacturers were prototyping cards for it. >> Papyrus had ported ICR2 to Rendition 3D (640x480x16-bit color) four >> years ago. 3 3/4 years ago (late '96), the cards were sold and most >> of them had ICR2-3D as bundled software (many would say that ICR2-3D >> was *the* ultimate demonstrator for abilities of these cards). Maybe >> they were crap, but they gave 16-bit color at 30fps on my P133. >> >> Two years ago (two and a half?), the Voodoo2 (y'know, the one after >> the Voodoo1) was the big thing. If it was crap, it sure sold a lot of >> hardware... >> >> Almost two years ago, GPL was released. I think 3D hardware was >> "cared about" for that release (or at least every one that *didn't* >> have a Voodoo or Rendition card sure was crying pretty loud). >> >> Do you have *any* idea what you're talking about? ;) > >Well, maybe I had the timeframe a bit wrong. When remembering back, >I forgot to multiply by 2 (which seems to be in the ballpark for the >actual years it has been since an event. Like when this Concorde crashed >and they said it was in service since 1975 or something, I would have >guessed it started flying around 1985). > >Maybe I should have said 3 years ago? The voodoo 1 was a pretty useless >card for anything other than Quake (after the patch, even Quake needed >an OpenGL patch).

Dennis, Aside from debating 3D video card chronology, my point was: Papyrus released a contemporary sim to GP2, ICR2. One year after its release (and the delay was more the manufacturers getting the cards ready for production, not porting the software to 3D, that only took a few months), a 3D version was available and was essentially given away (bundled) with the video cards. How does that compare with four years and another $50 for a 3D patch? (Yes, GP3 is more than a 3D patch, but not that much more, certainly not 2 or 3 or 4 years worth more.) "But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:12:10 GMT, [email hidden] (Jeff Vincent) wrote: > Papyrus released a contemporary sim to GP2, ICR2. One year after >its release (and the delay was more the manufacturers getting the >cards ready for production, not porting the software to 3D, that only >took a few months), a 3D version was available and was essentially >given away (bundled) with the video cards. Just one more point here to clarify and amplify the chronology... ICR2 was released in fall '95. The ICR2 3D patch was working, in-house at Papyrus, in the spring of '96. GP2 was released in the summer of '96. So Papyrus actually had a working 3D-enhanced simulation *even before GP2 was released*. And you wonder why some of us think Crammond is behind the times, with no 3D patch to GP2, taking four years to come up with GP3 (which is substanially JLGP2), having poor internet play in GP3... :( "But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

As far as I'm concerned, we still don't. ;-( Jan. =--- Zonoskar wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > But then, we wouldn't have GP3 right now, don't > you think? > > Dennis. > >

On 27 Jul 2000 12:48:19 GMT, [email hidden] (Dennis) wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was >4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts >rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. >How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started >developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, >wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about >3D accel, because the cards were crap.

Dennis, Ummm, four years ago (and change - early '96), Rendition had made its V1000 chips and manufacturers were prototyping cards for it. Papyrus had ported ICR2 to Rendition 3D (640x480x16-bit color) four years ago. 3 3/4 years ago (late '96), the cards were sold and most of them had ICR2-3D as bundled software (many would say that ICR2-3D was *the* ultimate demonstrator for abilities of these cards). Maybe they were crap, but they gave 16-bit color at 30fps on my P133. Two years ago (two and a half?), the Voodoo2 (y'know, the one after the Voodoo1) was the big thing. If it was crap, it sure sold a lot of hardware... Almost two years ago, GPL was released. I think 3D hardware was "cared about" for that release (or at least every one that *didn't* have a Voodoo or Rendition card sure was crying pretty loud). Do you have *any* idea what you're talking about? ;) "But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

Zonoskar wrote: > > Imho, he should probably had taken a much, much longer vacationtho...(and > I > > cant blame you for thinking that he did) by the looks of his so called > > "masterpiece". > > But then, we wouldn't have GP3 right now, don't you think? And we have a winner!!! :-D -- All the best, Ed Solheim ** Proud member of the GPLEA ** (Remove SPAM-GUARD in address to reply)

[email hidden] (Dennis) wrote: >How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started >developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago... I think it's more like he's a do-it-yourself kind of person. Which was great in the DOS days, but leaves you seriously undermanned in the modern era. A typical game team has have 5-10 programmers. Four years = 20-40 person years of programming. So when a title's in development for that long, people expect a LOT. I don't know this for a fact but that's how it seems to me. It would explain the pieces of old legacy code still hanging around, and might even explain the inexcusably bad user interface (i.e., he didn't have the time or skill to fix it, and wasn't willing to trust someone else to do it?). Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

In article <[email hidden]> Duff <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:13:32 +0100, MichaelJP <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>> Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was >>> 4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts >>> rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. >>> How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started >>> developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, >>> wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about >>> 3D accel, because the cards were crap. And FF only got >>> into the picture around that time too. >> >>You're pretty much right. Geoff is a family man and took a couple of >>years off after GP2. After all, he made a ton of money and didn't have to >>do much. He's not a 24/7 coder like Carmack, he has other interests. >> > > Months, not years. And given the # of people behind this project, it > is pretty sad how little improvement was made between GP2 and GP3. > Great game, but given say 2-3yrs development time I do expect better. > Two years ago people did care about 3d accel and 3d sound was emerging > as well. It doesn't take 2 years to adopt to either unless your code > is a mass of spaghetti.

But exectly how many people were involved, and that right from the start (say, 3.5 years ago)? I guess it will only have been GC himself, and maybe one more. No way were there anywhere near as much workers involved as say, with Quake3. Dennis.

In article <[email hidden]> [email hidden] (Jeff Vincent) wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

> On 27 Jul 2000 12:48:19 GMT, [email hidden] (Dennis) wrote: > >>Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was >>4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts >>rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. >>How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started >>developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, >>wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about >>3D accel, because the cards were crap. > > Dennis, > > Ummm, four years ago (and change - early '96), Rendition had made > its V1000 chips and manufacturers were prototyping cards for it. > Papyrus had ported ICR2 to Rendition 3D (640x480x16-bit color) four > years ago. 3 3/4 years ago (late '96), the cards were sold and most > of them had ICR2-3D as bundled software (many would say that ICR2-3D > was *the* ultimate demonstrator for abilities of these cards). Maybe > they were crap, but they gave 16-bit color at 30fps on my P133. > > Two years ago (two and a half?), the Voodoo2 (y'know, the one after > the Voodoo1) was the big thing. If it was crap, it sure sold a lot of > hardware... > > Almost two years ago, GPL was released. I think 3D hardware was > "cared about" for that release (or at least every one that *didn't* > have a Voodoo or Rendition card sure was crying pretty loud). > > Do you have *any* idea what you're talking about? ;)

Well, maybe I had the timeframe a bit wrong. When remembering back, I forgot to multiply by 2 (which seems to be in the ballpark for the actual years it has been since an event. Like when this Concorde crashed and they said it was in service since 1975 or something, I would have guessed it started flying around 1985). Maybe I should have said 3 years ago? The voodoo 1 was a pretty useless card for anything other than Quake (after the patch, even Quake needed an OpenGL patch). Dennis.

Dennis wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was > 4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts > rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. > How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started > developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, > wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about > 3D accel, because the cards were crap. And FF only got > into the picture around that time too.

Are you f------ kidding me? Two years ago we already had excellent 3D-cards. MGPRS2 is from that time and looks *much* better than GP3. If Crammond has been coding GP3 for the past 4 years, he's a much worse coder than I thought he was. My guess is that he has been working no more than a year on it. And if it's true he has coded everything in Assembler instead of using a high-level OOP language (which is the way to go for programming sims), the guy is a dinosaur and I will *not* be looking forward to GP4 or GP5. GP3 would have been cool 2-3 years ago. GP3 now is an insult to us F1-simmers.

As far as I'm concerned, we still don't. ;-( Jan. =---

Dennis, Ummm, four years ago (and change - early '96), Rendition had made its V1000 chips and manufacturers were prototyping cards for it. Papyrus had ported ICR2 to Rendition 3D (640x480x16-bit color) four years ago. 3 3/4 years ago (late '96), the cards were sold and most of them had ICR2-3D as bundled software (many would say that ICR2-3D was *the* ultimate demonstrator for abilities of these cards). Maybe they were crap, but they gave 16-bit color at 30fps on my P133. Two years ago (two and a half?), the Voodoo2 (y'know, the one after the Voodoo1) was the big thing. If it was crap, it sure sold a lot of hardware... Almost two years ago, GPL was released. I think 3D hardware was "cared about" for that release (or at least every one that *didn't* have a Voodoo or Rendition card sure was crying pretty loud). Do you have *any* idea what you're talking about? ;) "But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

On 28 Jul 2000 07:10:43 GMT, [email hidden] (Dennis) wrote:

Quoted text (31 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]> >Duff <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:13:32 +0100, MichaelJP <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>>> Yep, you guessed it, GP3 again. It is true that it was >>>> 4 years ago when GP2 was released an I see many posts >>>> rambling on about the 4 years it took to develop GP3. >>>> How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started >>>> developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago, that would seem ok, >>>> wouldn't it. Besides, 2 years ago, nobody cared about >>>> 3D accel, because the cards were crap. And FF only got >>>> into the picture around that time too. >>> >>>You're pretty much right. Geoff is a family man and took a couple of >>>years off after GP2. After all, he made a ton of money and didn't have to >>>do much. He's not a 24/7 coder like Carmack, he has other interests. >>> >> >> Months, not years. And given the # of people behind this project, it >> is pretty sad how little improvement was made between GP2 and GP3. >> Great game, but given say 2-3yrs development time I do expect better. >> Two years ago people did care about 3d accel and 3d sound was emerging >> as well. It doesn't take 2 years to adopt to either unless your code >> is a mass of spaghetti. > >But exectly how many people were involved, and that right from the >start (say, 3.5 years ago)? I guess it will only have been GC himself, >and maybe one more. No way were there anywhere near as much >workers involved as say, with Quake3. >

I'm judging from the credits in the game. Seems like a lot to me. What's the point of paying these people if they can't add anything significant to gp3 (other than the weather, which in itself isn't sufficient after 3 years)? And if it is just Crammond, then it still isn't an excuse. No one with a conscious should put out a "new" game that is simply Gp2 with a marginal face lift. >Dennis. >

In article <[email hidden]> Duff <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On 28 Jul 2000 07:10:43 GMT, [email hidden] (Dennis) wrote: >>But exactly how many people were involved, and that right from the >>start (say, 3.5 years ago)? I guess it will only have been GC himself, >>and maybe one more. No way were there anywhere near as much >>workers involved as say, with Quake3. > > I'm judging from the credits in the game. Seems like a lot to me. > What's the point of paying these people if they can't add anything > significant to gp3 (other than the weather, which in itself isn't > sufficient after 3 years)?

I assume not all of these people have worked on the game for 3.5 years, otherwise they will have to sell a lot of copies. > And if it is just Crammond, then it still isn't an excuse. No one > with a conscious should put out a "new" game that is simply Gp2 with a > marginal face lift. I disapprove of 'marginal facelift', but other than that, you're right, it took way too long. Dennis.

On 28 Jul 2000 07:10:43 GMT Dennis <[email hidden]> wrote: % > Months, not years. And given the # of people behind this project, it % > is pretty sad how little improvement was made between GP2 and GP3. % > Great game, but given say 2-3yrs development time I do expect better. % > Two years ago people did care about 3d accel and 3d sound was emerging % > as well. It doesn't take 2 years to adopt to either unless your code % > is a mass of spaghetti. % But exectly how many people were involved, and that right from the % start (say, 3.5 years ago)? I guess it will only have been GC himself, % and maybe one more. No way were there anywhere near as much % workers involved as say, with Quake3. And whose fault is that? I also know that both Microprose and Hasbro provided a quite a number of "teams" for the development of GP3.... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

rrevved wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:10:12 +0100, "G.Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >If GPL is the jewel in the crown, then GP3 is the turd in the drinking > >water...IMHO. > > Bullshit... IMHO.

Nah, it's one off Geoff's...smelly c&%t :0)

On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:41:39 GMT, [email hidden] (Joe62) wrote: -------------------- Remembering delays/problems (threat of lawsuit, etc.) with GP2, I'm quite sure Crammond promised he would never make another F1 sequel, unless he had complete control over the entire project. With Gp2, and working under Microprose, I'm sure that wasn't the case With GP3, and considering previous development troubles/squabbles with GP2 (via now-disolved Microprose), I think Crammond did just that; I think he did it "his way". Heck within 4 years, he may have done the whole thing on his own (not a bad idea for him). From all posts, it's obvious he used GP2's main code as the base for GP3. Several years ago, Crammond (in an online interview) even stated he was going do this. Not a bad idea either, as GP2 worked, and was never patched. Crammond is no fool. If pre-order claims are true, and if he receives (at the very least) $5.00 for each copy sold, he should be able to make $1-million come August 10th. Another 3-12 months, maybe another several million. Not sure if I want to purchase GP3, but I really admire Crammond's marketing skill. Hmmm, I wonder if Crammond is (distantly-remotely) related to Bill Gates?....<g>. Matt

Quoted text (20 lines)

>[email hidden] (Dennis) wrote: > >>How about GC taking a *big* vacation and actually started >>developing GP3 1 or 2 years ago... > >I think it's more like he's a do-it-yourself kind of person. Which was >great in the DOS days, but leaves you seriously undermanned in the >modern era. A typical game team has have 5-10 programmers. Four years >= 20-40 person years of programming. So when a title's in development >for that long, people expect a LOT. > >I don't know this for a fact but that's how it seems to me. It would >explain the pieces of old legacy code still hanging around, and might >even explain the inexcusably bad user interface (i.e., he didn't have >the time or skill to fix it, and wasn't willing to trust someone else >to do it?). > >Joe McGinn >_____________________ >Radical Entertainment

teehole <holysmokes!@spammy.net> wrote: > Remembering delays/problems (threat of lawsuit, etc.) with GP2, I'm >quite sure Crammond promised he would never make another F1 sequel, >unless he had complete control over the entire project. Nothing wrong with that. But control isn't the same as needing to do everything yourself. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:02:25 GMT, [email hidden] (Joe62) wrote: >Nothing wrong with that. But control isn't the same as needing to do >everything yourself. I dunno... I think he got pretty "burnt" on GP2, and probably decided to do GP3 his way. Perhaps with only Crammond, Cooke, Surplus & Surplus. I agree with you though; too tight of control, and we all get to see what happens (not much). He'll make a bundle on GP3, but GP4, hmmm, geez, probably... (if it were me I wouldn't even bother with a GP4, after the last GP3 "killing").