GP3 Track accuracy

GP3 has a quite good accuracy of the track layout itself, but there is an apparent laziness by the Geoff Crammond 3d modelers for object placement. One good thing is that since this is an evolution of the Gp2 game engine, we will soon see some incredible work by the third-party community. Just the fact that the hairpin at Montr�al looks like a botched job from F1GP is enough to summarise the whole situation. The track layout is at some tracks incredibly well done, that's for sure. Yet if you look at Montr�al from the replay, you will find the grandstands very far from the track, while in real-life they are just pass the wall barriers. Also, they exit the hairpin directly at the armco, while in GP3 there is grass&sand (?why?). Such things multiplied by all the tracks makes for some questionnable debate I hope, like we had for F1 2000. Some developers just have the tools and know how to use them, while others lack them. -- -- 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.

I think that says it all, really. We can continue to bash this game, but in the final analysis, it will fall to the 3rd parties to patch this game to an acceptable level (if possible). Just as in F12K, many of us will wait to see what the unpaid game finishers come up with before a decision is made to buy. And that is sad, really, that it has to be that way. BTW, in your opinion, are the track layouts correct? I mean, the granstand placements may be bad, etc, but are the tracks themselves correct? If I remember right, you had a big beef with F12K in that regard. On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:25:52 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>GP3 has a quite good accuracy of the track layout itself, but there is an >apparent laziness by the Geoff Crammond 3d modelers for object placement. >One good thing is that since this is an evolution of the Gp2 game engine, we >will soon see some incredible work by the third-party community. > >Just the fact that the hairpin at Montr�al looks like a botched job from >F1GP is enough to summarise the whole situation. The track layout is at >some tracks incredibly well done, that's for sure. Yet if you look at >Montr�al from the replay, you will find the grandstands very far from the >track, while in real-life they are just pass the wall barriers. Also, they >exit the hairpin directly at the armco, while in GP3 there is grass&sand >(?why?). Such things multiplied by all the tracks makes for some >questionnable debate I hope, like we had for F1 2000. Some developers just >have the tools and know how to use them, while others lack them.

I would imagine that the track accuracy os plenty good for people to have fun with the game. In other words that isn't the problem here... -- [email hidden] "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:A__e5.14660$[email hidden]... > GP3 has a quite good accuracy of the track layout itself, but there is an > apparent laziness by the Geoff Crammond 3d modelers for object placement. > One good thing is that since this is an evolution of the Gp2 game engine, we > will soon see some incredible work by the third-party community. > > Just the fact that the hairpin at Montr�al looks like a botched job from > F1GP is enough to summarise the whole situation. The track layout is at > some tracks incredibly well done, that's for sure. Yet if you look at > Montr�al from the replay, you will find the grandstands very far from the > track, while in real-life they are just pass the wall barriers. Also, they > exit the hairpin directly at the armco, while in GP3 there is grass&sand > (?why?). Such things multiplied by all the tracks makes for some > questionnable debate I hope, like we had for F1 2000. Some developers just > have the tools and know how to use them, while others lack them. > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

> GP3 has a quite good accuracy of the track layout itself, but there is an > apparent laziness by the Geoff Crammond 3d modelers for object > placement. I agree, the track layout itself is very well done, camber and banking are definately in there and well done. Just did some laps at the Nurburgring, Monza and Hockenheim. But they failed to put in authentic run-off areas and they really didn't seem to care about correct grandstands ;-). Eau Rouge really drives a bit strange, too - but at least looks correct. What I like is that the laptimes in ACE mode really match those done in 1998 (and today, because they haven't changed that much). I was at the Nurburgring this year, when the track was wet, there was only one guy who could do a 1.31 in the rain. It was Michael Schumacher. Guess what his virtual self just did in GP3 ? ;-) cheers, Alex

"Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote > I would imagine that the track accuracy os plenty good > for people to have fun with the game. In other words that > isn't the problem here... Yeppo Greg. While F12000 had poor object placement and track accuracy, GP3 only fails with the first problem, so for me it does not alter my impression of Gp3 at all. I like Gp3, It's very entertaining and deep, but unfortunately it just shows how old and tired Geoff's game engine is. Same can be said for N3 and the almost 10 year old game engine. Since GP3 stayed with the same file architecture that was found in the preview Crammond F1 titles, I know we will soon find amazing additions to GP3's graphics, thus a better object placement and even track accuracy. I'm still awaiting that for F1 2000 and MGPRS2, so for me GP3 is clearly the best modern sim available, even with some quite big flaws. -- -- 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.

"nixx" <[email hidden]> wrote > I think that says it all, really. We can continue to bash this game, > but in the final analysis, it will fall to the 3rd parties to patch > this game to an acceptable level (if possible). Just as in F12K, many > of us will wait to see what the unpaid game finishers come up with > before a decision is made to buy. And that is sad, really, that it > has to be that way. Nice paragraph. I wouldn't even be surprised if such thing was thought for in the development of the software. I remember talking about that when N3 was released. Why waste your time with driver licensing? Some of them can be important to show crediblity, but on some other instances it's almost better to not pay for them. A good portion of the paid customers will easily have access to them via third-party utilities. Btw have you ever seen that most of the third-party work is illegal actually? Painting cars without licensing approval, etc... But who cares? ;-) > BTW, in your opinion, are the track layouts correct? I mean, the > granstand placements may be bad, etc, but are the tracks themselves > correct? If I remember right, you had a big beef with F12K in that > regard. The track layouts are very good, but not perfect. MGPRS2 did a better job on how the corner "flows". Often the corners are squared in GP3. Yet, the overall feeling of the track itself (corner radius, track width, elevation, camber and straight lenght) is the best you can find at the moment for a modern F1 sim. F1 2000 might have had a better object placement (even if it still wasn't really good), it had poor track accuracy. -- -- 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.

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:D%8f5.24064$[email hidden]... > Since GP3 stayed with the same file architecture that was found in the > preview Crammond F1 titles, I know we will soon find amazing additions to > GP3's graphics, thus a better object placement and even track accuracy.I'm > still awaiting that for F1 2000 and MGPRS2, so for me GP3 is clearly the > best modern sim available, even with some quite big flaws. With the way you were blindly slagging F1 2000 I knew there had to be a reason. You would like GP3 no matter what condition it is in... Good for you. -- [email hidden]

After his numerous posts about how bad F1 2000 was, what else could he say? Of course GP3 is the best modern sim in his mind even though it obviously isn't. I'm glad he likes it though. ----------------------------------------------------------- Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

"Robert Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > After his numerous posts about how bad F1 2000 was, what else > could he say? Of course GP3 is the best modern sim in his mind > even though it obviously isn't. I'm glad he likes it though. Well yes. But I guess my point is that ymenard is a total BSing hypocrite. There was no way he would like F1 2000 regardless of it's condition. Also there is no way he was *NOT* going to like GP3 regardless of it's condition. That is how I interpret the facts :-) Now you know why I rarely reply to his posts... -- [email hidden]

"Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote > With the way you were blindly slagging F1 2000 I knew there > had to be a reason. You would like GP3 no matter what > condition it is in... Good for you. GP3 and I have a hmmm <cough> "love/hate" relationship you see Greg? ;-) -- -- 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.

"Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote > Well yes. But I guess my point is that ymenard is a total > BSing hypocrite. There was no way he would like F1 2000 > regardless of it's condition. Also there is no way he was > *NOT* going to like GP3 regardless of it's condition. Of course, only Greg would try to twist the reality in such machiavellian way only to show his ego. How have you extrapolated such thing? Stop ASSuming my dear. > Now you know why I rarely reply to his posts... Because you would simply look more like a bloody idiot. -- -- 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.

Greg, guess what, you are becoming the flip-side of ymenard.... do you really have to reply to every post and tear down GP3 and attempt to build up f12k? Give it a rest (and give me a chance to read some other posts that are flooding r.a.s. <G>). On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:59:17 -0500 Greg Cisko <[email hidden]> wrote: % "Robert Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message % news:[email hidden]... % > After his numerous posts about how bad F1 2000 was, what else % > could he say? Of course GP3 is the best modern sim in his mind % > even though it obviously isn't. I'm glad he likes it though. % Well yes. But I guess my point is that ymenard is a total % BSing hypocrite. There was no way he would like F1 2000 % regardless of it's condition. Also there is no way he was % *NOT* going to like GP3 regardless of it's condition. % That is how I interpret the facts :-) % Now you know why I rarely reply to his posts... % -- % [email hidden] -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"Michael E. Carver" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6Spf5.2347$[email hidden]... > Greg, guess what, you are becoming the flip-side of ymenard.... do you > really have to reply to every post and tear down GP3 and attempt to > build up f12k? Give it a rest (and give me a chance to read some other > posts that are flooding r.a.s. <G>). You are right of course. But I was having so much fun because it was so easy.... (bashing GP2... er... GP3...) -- [email hidden]

"Michael E. Carver" <[email hidden]> wrote > Greg, guess what, you are becoming the flip-side of ymenard.... do you > really have to reply to every post and tear down GP3 and attempt to > build up f12k? Give it a rest (and give me a chance to read some other > posts that are flooding r.a.s. <G>). Greg can we unite and bash MGPRS2? ;-D -- -- 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.