Re: GP3 is Looking Good

I'm talking about taking the entire product into account. F1 2000 completely lacks telemetry, and the AI aren't even close to GP3. GP3 also provides a lot more data as far as lap time charts and things. Taken as a whole, I think GP3 is a bit better, because it's more complete (as it should be with 7(?) years of development). Taking ony the driving experience into account (which I do), F1 2000 is the winner by far. Greg Cisko wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Pat Dotson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Taken as a whole, GP3 is the number one modern F1 sim > > now. This is only because of the weather, the AI, and > > Really... I don't say how you can say that in light of > your critism below.

rrevved wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:50:54 -0500, Pat Dotson <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Taken as a whole, GP3 is the number one modern F1 sim > >now. This is only because of the weather, the AI, and > >the telemetry. Other than the weather, it doesn't > >advance anywhere beyond GP2. > > > Pat, wouldn't hardware acceleration, 1280x1024, and > force feedback advance it beyond GP2 as well?

Not in terms of simulation. Every game does hardware acceleration, 1280x1024, and force feedback now. I mean that as a simulation, GP3 isn't far removed from GP2, in the same way that N3 is nearly the same as N2. > >F1 2000 is a better simulation of vehicle physics than > >GP3 is. It's unarguable. > >clip

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >to loose all directional force. It is possible to > >recover from a slide, but it's not really possible > >to control it. > > Pat, is it really possible to do a controlled 4 wheel drift > in a modern F1 car? I've never seen a real, modern F1 > driver accomplish a controlled four-wheel drift with > any regularity.

I'm not talking about a balls out GPL-style four wheel drift. I'm talking about smooth cornering right at the limit, but within the slip angle of the tires. I watch almost no F1 racing. I did see a pass at the A1-ring last week by Mika Salo (I think) going into the first turn. He was really ragged, sliding sideways, but controlled it and completed the pass. I think it was Alesi he was passing. Alesi passed him right back because he lost momentum, but he still controlled the slide. -- PD

That's basically what I was saying. GP3 has more bells and whistles than F1 2000, or GPL for that matter, and provides an arguably better racing experience, but it lacks big-time in the driving experience department. -- PD Sjon Stigter wrote: > > > GPL maybe the best simulation of a car but GP3 is the best simulation of > racing > > Excellently said... I fully agree... Wise words :)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:50:54 -0500, Pat Dotson <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Taken as a whole, GP3 is the number one modern F1 sim > >now. This is only because of the weather, the AI, and > >the telemetry. Other than the weather, it doesn't > >advance anywhere beyond GP2. > > > > Pat, wouldn't hardware acceleration, 1280x1024, and > force feedback advance it beyond GP2 as well? > > >F1 2000 is a better simulation of vehicle physics than > >GP3 is. It's unarguable. > > > >I'll start with the biggest weakness of GP3 physics. > >The car pivots about it's center point. Because of > >this, four wheel drifts feel really out of whack. > >When the car starts drifting, the front wheels seem > >to loose all directional force. It is possible to > >recover from a slide, but it's not really possible > >to control it. > > Pat, is it really possible to do a controlled 4 wheel drift > in a modern F1 car? I've never seen a real, modern F1 > driver accomplish a controlled four-wheel drift with > any regularity. >

I saw the Speedvision coverage of Austria's qualifying - one of the Jordans (Trulli, methinks) came through the A1 Kurve (or was it Castrol) in full drift. They had an excellent slow-mo rearview shot of it - awesome! -- s i m a g e r y @ h o t m a i l . c o m

The weather is amazing - amazing, GPL maybe the best simulation of a car but GP3 is the best simulation of racing !!!! It's fan bloody tastic Regards Mike On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 09:04:03 -0700, Chris Bloom <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

>Well since reading the reviews from those who have already >played GP3, I am even more eager for it's release. > >It can be no coincidence that alot of the GP3 slammers are those >who actually thought F1 2000 was a good sim! These people >obviously seem to have no idea what constitutes a simulation and >anything they write must be treated with alot of suspicion. > >I still play GP2, so I will be very happy if the only >improvements are weather and 3D acceleration. > >Chris > > >----------------------------------------------------------- > >Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. >Up to 100 minutes free! >http://www.keen.com

I'm looking forward to its release too. In fact, if you want to read some good reviews about it, check out this URL. http://forums.simracingnews.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi

Chris Bloom wrote: > > It can be no coincidence that alot of the GP3 slammers are those > who actually thought F1 2000 was a good sim! These people > obviously seem to have no idea what constitutes a simulation and > anything they write must be treated with alot of suspicion. Taken as a whole, GP3 is the number one modern F1 sim now. This is only because of the weather, the AI, and the telemetry. Other than the weather, it doesn't advance anywhere beyond GP2. F1 2000 is a better simulation of vehicle physics than GP3 is. It's unarguable. I'll start with the biggest weakness of GP3 physics. The car pivots about it's center point. Because of this, four wheel drifts feel really out of whack. When the car starts drifting, the front wheels seem to loose all directional force. It is possible to recover from a slide, but it's not really possible to control it. I think this is the reason others have described the feel of the car in GP3 as "dead". GP2 coming out in, what, 1994, was a break through because of the independently locking and spinning wheels, but it didn't fully simulate four different tire contact patches. GP3 still doesn't. This is unforgivable for a "sim" in the year 2000. Secondly, Track BANKING! Where is it at? The A1- ring in Austria in F1 2000 is awesome, because of the off-camber sections. In GP3, those sections feel banked in comparison, because they are flat. Anyone who complained about the lack of track accuracy in F1 2000 is nuts if they think GP3 tracks are better! F1 2000 AI sucks. If it was decent, F1 2000 would be head and shoulders above GP3, IMO. -- PD

Well since reading the reviews from those who have already played GP3, I am even more eager for it's release. It can be no coincidence that alot of the GP3 slammers are those who actually thought F1 2000 was a good sim! These people obviously seem to have no idea what constitutes a simulation and anything they write must be treated with alot of suspicion. I still play GP2, so I will be very happy if the only improvements are weather and 3D acceleration. Chris ----------------------------------------------------------- Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

"Chris Bloom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Well since reading the reviews from those who have already > played GP3, I am even more eager for it's release. > > It can be no coincidence that alot of the GP3 slammers are those > who actually thought F1 2000 was a good sim! These people Thought??? > obviously seem to have no idea what constitutes a simulation and > anything they write must be treated with alot of suspicion. Obviously. > I still play GP2, so I will be very happy if the only > improvements are weather and 3D acceleration. Well if you get GP3, you will still be playing Gp2 so I am happy that you will be happy. -- [email hidden]

"Pat Dotson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Taken as a whole, GP3 is the number one modern F1 sim > now. This is only because of the weather, the AI, and Really... I don't say how you can say that in light of your critism below. > the telemetry. Other than the weather, it doesn't > advance anywhere beyond GP2. > > F1 2000 is a better simulation of vehicle physics than > GP3 is. It's unarguable. But Gp3 is the best modern F1 simulator?? > I'll start with the biggest weakness of GP3 physics. > The car pivots about it's center point. Because of I think we can stop with this silliness right here. If anyone thinks a good modern F1 game is one where the car pivots around it's center point, well I just don't know what to think. But such people certainly should tell me or anyone else what to look for in a modern F1 game. I am certain of that much. -- [email hidden]

LOL. You are pretty strange. "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hwGe5.2592$9%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > "Chris Bloom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Well since reading the reviews from those who have already > > played GP3, I am even more eager for it's release. > > > > It can be no coincidence that alot of the GP3 slammers are those > > who actually thought F1 2000 was a good sim! These people > > Thought??? > > > obviously seem to have no idea what constitutes a simulation and > > anything they write must be treated with alot of suspicion. > > Obviously. > > > I still play GP2, so I will be very happy if the only > > improvements are weather and 3D acceleration. > > Well if you get GP3, you will still be playing Gp2 so I am > happy that you will be happy. > > > -- > > [email hidden] > > > > >

> GPL maybe the best simulation of a car but GP3 is the best simulation ofracing Excellently said... I fully agree... Wise words :) -- Sjon Mike Blackmore <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (29 lines)

> The weather is amazing - amazing, GPL maybe the best simulation of a > car but GP3 is the best simulation of racing !!!! It's fan bloody > tastic > > Regards Mike > > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 09:04:03 -0700, Chris Bloom > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Well since reading the reviews from those who have already > >played GP3, I am even more eager for it's release. > > > >It can be no coincidence that alot of the GP3 slammers are those > >who actually thought F1 2000 was a good sim! These people > >obviously seem to have no idea what constitutes a simulation and > >anything they write must be treated with alot of suspicion. > > > >I still play GP2, so I will be very happy if the only > >improvements are weather and 3D acceleration. > > > >Chris > > > > > >----------------------------------------------------------- > > > >Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. > >Up to 100 minutes free! > >http://www.keen.com >

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:53:40 -0500, Pat Dotson <[email hidden]> wrote: >That's basically what I was saying. GP3 has more >bells and whistles than F1 2000, or GPL for that >matter, and provides an arguably better racing >experience, but it lacks big-time in the driving >experience department. I agree. I have never been after "the total racing experience" so for me this is a good beacause it lacks the "totally" realistic physics. If you are what could be called a good sim driver (GPL or F1 2K top 6 finisher, would be good) then you may not like GP3. For me it is good because it provides a FUN, and for me, very challenging drive. For others it will be a cake walk.:-( And that is a shame after having waited so long for it. **ElfKing** T'was in a kingdom long ago and far away......

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I have no knowledge of F1 tracks, except from racing on them in sims. So, I guess from that perspective, I find F1 2000 tracks a lot more fun. When I do see an F1 race on TV, I can always recognize it, and can't readily find differences between the real thing and the F1 2000 simulated tracks. I raced GP2 exclusively for about a year after it was released, and GP3 is about the same. I find the tracks uninspiring - zero camber, and they seem to be a constant width around the entire track. Andy Marson wrote:

Quoted text (34 lines)

> > > Secondly, Track BANKING! Where is it at? The A1- > > ring in Austria in F1 2000 is awesome, because of > > the off-camber sections. In GP3, those sections > > feel banked in comparison, because they are flat. > > Anyone who complained about the lack of track > > accuracy in F1 2000 is nuts if they think GP3 > > tracks are better! > > I haven't played GP3 yet, got it on order but can't be bothered to download > it, slow modem :-[ > some of the tracks in f1-2000 are pretty shocking. The randon gradient > changes are just silly. The last time I walked from casino square in Monaco > to the mirabeau, it was downhill. F1-2000 has it being uphill. There is no > gradient coming through bridge at silverstone and up to priory, something > which is certainly eveident in real life. Other silly things like the > chicane in hungary (which can be taken in 4th gear in f1-2000) and the > complete mis-representation of Eau Rouge (which you approach perfectly flat > in the game, not downhill as in real life) make this game little more than a > toy. The A1 ring is good fun, but the gradient changes are far too > exaggerated, feels like a rollercoster.... > Some of the tracks are nice and accurate such as Albert Park, Nurburgring, > Monza and Sepang but others are pretty bad. The physics are just wierd and > you can drive over most of the curbs and get away with it, even all over the > grass (imola chicanes for instance). It never feels like you are totally in > touch with the car, it seems to drive you sometimes. I thought the tracks in > gp2 were mostly spot on from my experiences, and I'm sure that they have not > significantly changed bar graphics in gp3. > I DO play f1-2000, but it just never seems anything like real to me, whereas > in gp2 you actualy felt like you were there. F1-200 feels more like a > cartoon game than a sim. > > Just my view.... :-) > andy

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Secondly, Track BANKING! Where is it at? The A1- > ring in Austria in F1 2000 is awesome, because of > the off-camber sections. In GP3, those sections > feel banked in comparison, because they are flat. > Anyone who complained about the lack of track > accuracy in F1 2000 is nuts if they think GP3 > tracks are better!

I haven't played GP3 yet, got it on order but can't be bothered to download it, slow modem :-[ some of the tracks in f1-2000 are pretty shocking. The randon gradient changes are just silly. The last time I walked from casino square in Monaco to the mirabeau, it was downhill. F1-2000 has it being uphill. There is no gradient coming through bridge at silverstone and up to priory, something which is certainly eveident in real life. Other silly things like the chicane in hungary (which can be taken in 4th gear in f1-2000) and the complete mis-representation of Eau Rouge (which you approach perfectly flat in the game, not downhill as in real life) make this game little more than a toy. The A1 ring is good fun, but the gradient changes are far too exaggerated, feels like a rollercoster.... Some of the tracks are nice and accurate such as Albert Park, Nurburgring, Monza and Sepang but others are pretty bad. The physics are just wierd and you can drive over most of the curbs and get away with it, even all over the grass (imola chicanes for instance). It never feels like you are totally in touch with the car, it seems to drive you sometimes. I thought the tracks in gp2 were mostly spot on from my experiences, and I'm sure that they have not significantly changed bar graphics in gp3. I DO play f1-2000, but it just never seems anything like real to me, whereas in gp2 you actualy felt like you were there. F1-200 feels more like a cartoon game than a sim. Just my view.... :-) andy

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:31:16 GMT, SKurj <[email hidden]> mangled uncounted electrons thus: >Try the Nurburgring, the off camber turns are there, and abit nasty +) <grin> Why does *everything* on this newsgroup come back to the Ring, one way or another? Martin D. Pay Tried it in GPL last night. An... interesting... circuit.

Jo Helsen wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:31:44 -0500, Pat Dotson > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >OOPS! You are right. I didn't try enough tracks. > > > >GP3 does indeed have banking on some of the tracks. I > > I've said it several times: > > - people are generally TOO fast with their conclusions > - realism is often mistaken with own preferences > > At least you dont have a problem admitting misjudgements.

Whoa! :) I stand by most of my comments. GP3 is like Nascar 2 and 3, in terms of it's improvement over GP2. I still bought N3 though. The physics are still lacking in a lot of ways in GP3, when I would have thought they really would have done a big update in that area. I still find that it graphically looks essentially the same as GP2.

OOPS! You are right. I didn't try enough tracks. GP3 does indeed have banking on some of the tracks. I was expecting banking at Austria, and there is none. The first lap I did at Brazil caused me to slap my forehead! It has a lot of banking, though in different places than in F1 2000. The F1 2000 and the GP3 Brazil tracks are very different! Is there an in-car video of a lap at Brazil available anywhere on the net? I'd like to see which one is closer to the real thing. -- PD SKurj wrote: > > Try the Nurburgring, the off camber turns are there, and abit nasty +) > > Martyn_D > > Pat Dotson wrote: > > > Interesting. Thanks for the info. > > > > I have no knowledge of F1 tracks, except from racing > > on them in sims. So, I guess from that perspective, > > I find F1 2000 tracks a lot more fun. When I do see > > an F1 race on TV, I can always recognize it, and > > can't readily find differences between the real > > thing and the F1 2000 simulated tracks. > > > > I raced GP2 exclusively for about a year after it > > was released, and GP3 is about the same. I find > > the tracks uninspiring - zero camber, and they > > seem to be a constant width around the entire > > track. > > > > Andy Marson wrote: > > > > > > > Secondly, Track BANKING! Where is it at? The A1- > > > > ring in Austria in F1 2000 is awesome, because of > > > > the off-camber sections. In GP3, those sections > > > > feel banked in comparison, because they are flat. > > > > Anyone who complained about the lack of track > > > > accuracy in F1 2000 is nuts if they think GP3 > > > > tracks are better! > > > > > > I haven't played GP3 yet, got it on order but can't be bothered to download > > > it, slow modem :-[ > > > some of the tracks in f1-2000 are pretty shocking. The randon gradient > > > changes are just silly. The last time I walked from casino square in Monaco > > > to the mirabeau, it was downhill. F1-2000 has it being uphill. There is no > > > gradient coming through bridge at silverstone and up to priory, something > > > which is certainly eveident in real life. Other silly things like the > > > chicane in hungary (which can be taken in 4th gear in f1-2000) and the > > > complete mis-representation of Eau Rouge (which you approach perfectly flat > > > in the game, not downhill as in real life) make this game little more than a > > > toy. The A1 ring is good fun, but the gradient changes are far too > > > exaggerated, feels like a rollercoster.... > > > Some of the tracks are nice and accurate such as Albert Park, Nurburgring, > > > Monza and Sepang but others are pretty bad. The physics are just wierd and > > > you can drive over most of the curbs and get away with it, even all over the > > > grass (imola chicanes for instance). It never feels like you are totally in > > > touch with the car, it seems to drive you sometimes. I thought the tracks in > > > gp2 were mostly spot on from my experiences, and I'm sure that they have not > > > significantly changed bar graphics in gp3. > > > I DO play f1-2000, but it just never seems anything like real to me, whereas > > > in gp2 you actualy felt like you were there. F1-200 feels more like a > > > cartoon game than a sim. > > > > > > Just my view.... :-) > > > andy

Get ready for a let down. Sad it took Crammond 4 years to release a game so unfinished and flawed. Chris Bloom wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > Well since reading the reviews from those who have already > played GP3, I am even more eager for it's release. > > It can be no coincidence that alot of the GP3 slammers are those > who actually thought F1 2000 was a good sim! These people > obviously seem to have no idea what constitutes a simulation and > anything they write must be treated with alot of suspicion. > > I still play GP2, so I will be very happy if the only > improvements are weather and 3D acceleration. > > Chris > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. > Up to 100 minutes free! > http://www.keen.com

Try the Nurburgring, the off camber turns are there, and abit nasty +) Martyn_D Pat Dotson wrote:

Quoted text (50 lines)

> Interesting. Thanks for the info. > > I have no knowledge of F1 tracks, except from racing > on them in sims. So, I guess from that perspective, > I find F1 2000 tracks a lot more fun. When I do see > an F1 race on TV, I can always recognize it, and > can't readily find differences between the real > thing and the F1 2000 simulated tracks. > > I raced GP2 exclusively for about a year after it > was released, and GP3 is about the same. I find > the tracks uninspiring - zero camber, and they > seem to be a constant width around the entire > track. > > Andy Marson wrote: > > > > > Secondly, Track BANKING! Where is it at? The A1- > > > ring in Austria in F1 2000 is awesome, because of > > > the off-camber sections. In GP3, those sections > > > feel banked in comparison, because they are flat. > > > Anyone who complained about the lack of track > > > accuracy in F1 2000 is nuts if they think GP3 > > > tracks are better! > > > > I haven't played GP3 yet, got it on order but can't be bothered to download > > it, slow modem :-[ > > some of the tracks in f1-2000 are pretty shocking. The randon gradient > > changes are just silly. The last time I walked from casino square in Monaco > > to the mirabeau, it was downhill. F1-2000 has it being uphill. There is no > > gradient coming through bridge at silverstone and up to priory, something > > which is certainly eveident in real life. Other silly things like the > > chicane in hungary (which can be taken in 4th gear in f1-2000) and the > > complete mis-representation of Eau Rouge (which you approach perfectly flat > > in the game, not downhill as in real life) make this game little more than a > > toy. The A1 ring is good fun, but the gradient changes are far too > > exaggerated, feels like a rollercoster.... > > Some of the tracks are nice and accurate such as Albert Park, Nurburgring, > > Monza and Sepang but others are pretty bad. The physics are just wierd and > > you can drive over most of the curbs and get away with it, even all over the > > grass (imola chicanes for instance). It never feels like you are totally in > > touch with the car, it seems to drive you sometimes. I thought the tracks in > > gp2 were mostly spot on from my experiences, and I'm sure that they have not > > significantly changed bar graphics in gp3. > > I DO play f1-2000, but it just never seems anything like real to me, whereas > > in gp2 you actualy felt like you were there. F1-200 feels more like a > > cartoon game than a sim. > > > > Just my view.... :-) > > andy

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > >I raced GP2 exclusively for about a year after it >was released, and GP3 is about the same. I find >the tracks uninspiring - zero camber, and they >seem to be a constant width around the entire >track.

GP3 is said to have camber, but track width has always been variable in the GP2 engine. There's quite a few tracks out there with mucho varying width. You might have been seeing a problem with the track designs, but it certainly isnt a problem with the software.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:31:44 -0500, Pat Dotson <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>OOPS! You are right. I didn't try enough tracks. > >GP3 does indeed have banking on some of the tracks. I >was expecting banking at Austria, and there is none. >The first lap I did at Brazil caused me to slap my >forehead! It has a lot of banking, though in >different places than in F1 2000. The F1 2000 >and the GP3 Brazil tracks are very different! > >Is there an in-car video of a lap at Brazil >available anywhere on the net? I'd like to >see which one is closer to the real thing. > >-- >PD

There you go! :-) I've said it several times: - people are generally TOO fast with their conclusions - realism is often mistaken with own preferences It happens more often than you think. At least you dont have a problem admitting misjudgements. JoH

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:25:35 -0500, Pat Dotson <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>Jo Helsen wrote: >> I've said it several times: >> >> - people are generally TOO fast with their conclusions >> - realism is often mistaken with own preferences >> >> At least you dont have a problem admitting misjudgements. > >Whoa! :) I stand by most of my comments. GP3 is >like Nascar 2 and 3, in terms of it's improvement over >GP2. I still bought N3 though.

I was just referring to the "no camber!" comment after checking out less than 20% of the tracks. >The physics are still lacking in a lot of ways in GP3, >when I would have thought they really would have done >a big update in that area. I still find that it >graphically looks essentially the same as GP2. I don't understand that. What do you understand under "graphics". I was wondering. - resolution maybe? GP2: 640*480 software max GP3: 1280*1024 3D accelerated max - number of colours? 8 bit to 16 bit - framerate? from unplayable full detail on machines of that era to something like steady 43fps (if you remove the 25.6 limit) on a current day top system - texture resolution? (much higher) - track model has camber now - cars must have 5x as many polygons as GP2, dynamical shadows - tires? fronttires can be seen from cockpit, "zoom out" cockpit, no longer just bitmap cockpit, no longer sprites for wheels, wheel actuallu turn instead of stationary So enlighten me: WHAT is still the same??? JoH

How do u remove the 25fps limit? Martyn_D Jo Helsen wrote:

Quoted text (63 lines)

> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:25:35 -0500, Pat Dotson > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Jo Helsen wrote: > > >> I've said it several times: > >> > >> - people are generally TOO fast with their conclusions > >> - realism is often mistaken with own preferences > >> > >> At least you dont have a problem admitting misjudgements. > > > >Whoa! :) I stand by most of my comments. GP3 is > >like Nascar 2 and 3, in terms of it's improvement over > >GP2. I still bought N3 though. > > I was just referring to the "no camber!" comment after checking out > less than 20% of the tracks. > > >The physics are still lacking in a lot of ways in GP3, > >when I would have thought they really would have done > >a big update in that area. I still find that it > >graphically looks essentially the same as GP2. > > I don't understand that. What do you understand under "graphics". I > was wondering. > > - resolution maybe? > > GP2: 640*480 software max > GP3: 1280*1024 3D accelerated max > > - number of colours? > > 8 bit to 16 bit > > - framerate? > > from unplayable full detail on machines of that era to something like > steady 43fps (if you remove the 25.6 limit) on a current day top > system > > - texture resolution? > > (much higher) > > - track model > > has camber now > > - cars > > must have 5x as many polygons as GP2, dynamical shadows > > - tires? > > fronttires can be seen from cockpit, "zoom out" cockpit, no longer > just bitmap cockpit, no longer sprites for wheels, wheel actuallu turn > instead of stationary > > So enlighten me: WHAT is still the same??? > > JoH

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:35:50 GMT, SKurj <[email hidden]> wrote: >How do u remove the 25fps limit? Check out http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/31235#TOP JoH