Re: f12000 better than gp3?

F1 2000 has a better physics model than GP3, which translates into a more believable driving experience. The tracks are a lot better, both in looks and in accuracy (I've never seen a real track that has zero degrees banking over it's entire length). The force feedback is better. There is no >100% occupancy time warp in F1 2000. But, GP3 has a ton of other non-physics related features that make it a lot better in some other ways. The casual sim racer will most likely prefer GP3. If you've grown accustomed to the rewards of driving some of the better physics models (Viper, GPL, F1 2000), however, then driving GP3 is a let down. I can't stand to drive Nascar 3 for the same reason. If you aren't concerned about the intricacies of car handling, as long as it goes in the direction you point it, GP3 is the winner over F1 2000 easily. With competent AI, smoother frame rates, telemetry, and dynamic weather, F1 2000 would leave GP3 in the dust. I think ISI will release a sim with all those features a long time before Crammond will release a sim with a modern physics model. -- PD Macca wrote: > > on what aspect do you people say this. I have not played either, but > have read nearly every review here on both games.

clone wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:53:45 -0500, Pat Dotson > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Your wacky tabacy ways have confused you, GP2 has a better physics > engine than F12000. GP3 has a superior physics engine to GP2. You, sir, are the anonymous stoner. Please enlighten us as to the advantages of the GP3 physics. I still see a car that pivots on its center point, and a seeming lack of modeling of four individual tire contact patches. The GP3 cars really feel as if they are "floating" in comparison to F1 2000, which feels a lot more connected to the ground. F1 2000 is a more complete vehicle simulation, and that shows through in the driving experience. > Time > warp is of no consequence, seeing as GP3s file system and structure > are the same, one only need wait a couple of weeks before the GP2 > hotlapper program is updated. It can still have a time warp, which is of GREAT consequence. Whether or not you can check for time warp after the fact, in a replay, is irrelevant.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >F1 2000 has a better physics model than GP3, which > >translates into a more believable driving experience. > > > >The tracks are a lot better, both in looks and in > >accuracy (I've never seen a real track that has > >zero degrees banking over it's entire length). > > > >The force feedback is better. > > > >There is no >100% occupancy time warp in F1 2000. > > > >But, GP3 has a ton of other non-physics related > >features that make it a lot better in some other > >ways. > > > >

Hi Michael, "\"Michael E. Carver\" mcarver"@teleport.com wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:53:45 -0500 Pat Dotson <[email hidden]> wrote: > % The tracks are a lot better, both in looks and in > % accuracy (I've never seen a real track that has > % zero degrees banking over it's entire length). > > I coulda swore that in interviews with the developers of GP3 they said > they finally included road camber and banking.... You mean to tell me > they still have flat tracks?

I've driven at Silverstone, Austria, and Melbourne, and have yet to see a banked surface. Austria is especially sterile in GP3, after driving the inspiring version of the A1-ring in F1 2000. > % There is no >100% occupancy time warp in F1 2000. > > No but you still have to disable/cripple most of the graphics features > to get decent frame rates with f12k... So I would say it's a tie here. On my Athlon 800, with version 1.09 of F1 2000, frame rate is NOT an issue. It's incredibly smooth, compared to running on the Celeron 450 I had until last week.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> % GP3. If you've grown accustomed to the rewards > % of driving some of the better physics models > % (Viper, GPL, F1 2000), however, then driving > % GP3 is a let down. I can't stand to drive > % Nascar 3 for the same reason. > > Same here...... N3 was to me what GP3 sounds.... a prettied up version > of the #2 release of the products... Though N3 did add almost decent > Internet play (and it sounds like GP3 didn't even get that far a year > later in being released).

Yes, and it didn't take Papyrus four years to release N3. > % With competent AI, smoother frame rates, > % telemetry, and dynamic weather, F1 2000 > % would leave GP3 in the dust. > > And incompetent AI, crappy graphics/frame rates are some of the reasons I > left f12k in the dust..... I can't blame you there, but those things will be much easier for ISI to address, than it will be for Crammond to come up with a modern physics model. Will we have to wait another four years? > If we can believe Hasbro's plans for GPx, that will certainly be the > case. Round 4 will be a season update and perhaps some tightening up of > the graphics, FF.... but it sounds like online play is going to be highly > crippled by the core code of GPx. :( So, four years may be about right. -- PD

Simon Brown wrote: > > The F1 2000 tracks feature layout errors, And GP3 features ZERO track banking! Which is closer to reality? F1 2000 by a long shot. > and all the track-side objects are > slightly the wrong colour. OK, you've convinced me. How could someone possibly release a sim where the "the track- side objects are slightly the wrong colour". You're right, GP3 is better (sarcasm). > Take a look at the thread above entitled "Comparison Screen shots, GP3 with > FSAA, without FSAA and F1 2000" which features comparison screenshots of GP3 > and F1 2000. On graphics alone, GP3 looks more like real F1 to me. Screen shots of GP3 look great, especially with the rain effects. But when it's dry, GP3 looks almost exactly like GP2, and F1 2000 looks a lot better. -- PD

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:53:45 -0500, Pat Dotson <[email hidden]> wrote: Your wacky tabacy ways have confused you, GP2 has a better physics engine than F12000. GP3 has a superior physics engine to GP2. Time warp is of no consequence, seeing as GP3s file system and structure are the same, one only need wait a couple of weeks before the GP2 hotlapper program is updated.

Quoted text (16 lines)

>F1 2000 has a better physics model than GP3, which >translates into a more believable driving experience. > >The tracks are a lot better, both in looks and in >accuracy (I've never seen a real track that has >zero degrees banking over it's entire length). > >The force feedback is better. > >There is no >100% occupancy time warp in F1 2000. > >But, GP3 has a ton of other non-physics related >features that make it a lot better in some other >ways. > >

The F1 2000 tracks feature layout errors, and all the track-side objects are slightly the wrong colour. Take a look at the thread above entitled "Comparison Screen shots, GP3 with FSAA, without FSAA and F1 2000" which features comparison screenshots of GP3 and F1 2000. On graphics alone, GP3 looks more like real F1 to me.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:53:45 -0500 Pat Dotson <[email hidden]> wrote: % F1 2000 has a better physics model than GP3, which % translates into a more believable driving experience. % The tracks are a lot better, both in looks and in % accuracy (I've never seen a real track that has % zero degrees banking over it's entire length). I coulda swore that in interviews with the developers of GP3 they said they finally included road camber and banking.... You mean to tell me they still have flat tracks? % There is no >100% occupancy time warp in F1 2000. No but you still have to disable/cripple most of the graphics features to get decent frame rates with f12k... So I would say it's a tie here. % But, GP3 has a ton of other non-physics related % features that make it a lot better in some other % ways. % The casual sim racer will most likely prefer % GP3. If you've grown accustomed to the rewards % of driving some of the better physics models % (Viper, GPL, F1 2000), however, then driving % GP3 is a let down. I can't stand to drive % Nascar 3 for the same reason. Same here...... N3 was to me what GP3 sounds.... a prettied up version of the #2 release of the products... Though N3 did add almost decent Internet play (and it sounds like GP3 didn't even get that far a year later in being released). % If you aren't concerned about the intricacies % of car handling, as long as it goes in the % direction you point it, GP3 is the winner % over F1 2000 easily. % With competent AI, smoother frame rates, % telemetry, and dynamic weather, F1 2000 % would leave GP3 in the dust. And incompetent AI, crappy graphics/frame rates are some of the reasons I left f12k in the dust..... % I think ISI will release a sim with all % those features a long time before Crammond % will release a sim with a modern physics % model. If we can believe Hasbro's plans for GPx, that will certainly be the case. Round 4 will be a season update and perhaps some tightening up of the graphics, FF.... but it sounds like online play is going to be highly crippled by the core code of GPx. :( -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:31:55 -0500, Pat Dotson <[email hidden]> wrote: >Simon Brown wrote: >> >> The F1 2000 tracks feature layout errors, > >And GP3 features ZERO track banking! I find this SO strange. I have read multiple reviews by people who say there *is* banking in several places. Are there two versions going around maybe?? JoH

GP3 has track banking, which makes me doubt whether you've played it. I used the word "slighty" so as not to be offensive. I've been watching F1 for a heck of a long time, and F1 2000 just doesn't look like F1. The colour of the track surface is way too dark, everywhere. The tarck-side objects look drab and dull. All this means the bright shiny cars look out of place. The mip-mapping is way overdone, so everything tends to look blurry at a distance. The cars look damn silly on the replays once they pass a certain distance away with their hectagon wheels. And the drivers helmets are too small :). The AI is rather dreadful, the frame rates are poor, the engine notes are way too high, and the force-feedback is practically none-existant. And no wet weather... Also track layout errors are completely unforgiveable and totally avoidable. And just to show I'm only expressing my honest opinion, I think F1 2000 physics are excellent. :)

"Pat Dotson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Please enlighten us as to the advantages of the > GP3 physics. I still see a car that pivots on > its center point, and a seeming lack of modeling As I said before you can stop right here on that point ;-) -- [email hidden]