Re: GP3 considered opinion..

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:58:19 GMT, "Simon Brown" ><[email hidden]> thus spoke: > >>And although not looking spectacularly good (except in >>wet weather) it certainly looks better than F1 2000. > >Not going by all the sreenshots I've seen it isn't. >You just need a fast cpu and a V5 running 4XFSAA and F12000 looks >great, but you must turn off a few options. From the looks of GP3 it >doesn't even look 3D accelerated.

"3D accelerated look" is NOT necessarilly everyones taste. JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

My point is that people aren't looking past the physics/correctness of it to the damn fun game. look the idea of it is to be FUN! -- Kieran www.pcracing.co.uk for GP3 and WSC Marc Collins <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PqDe5.22345$[email hidden]... > What wheel and controller settings are you using? It looks like it could be > fun (although not a killer sim, by any means) if I could get decent FFB and > steering response. > > Marc. > > "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:lRte5.10472$[email hidden]... > > Ok, no flames for this, it is my honest opinion. :) > > > > I've got to say GP3 really improves after a bit of play-time. About an > hour > > after downloading it I was hugely dissapointed. The graphics were messy, > > the Ferarri and McLaren looked poor, the crowds looked ugly, the trees > > looked messy and some of the graphics were blocky close up. Also I could > > see GP2 everywhere, in every menu and every screen. > > After another hour, I began to think it wasn't that bad. More or less > like > > GP2 with 3d acceleration and a face lift. > > I've now played it about five hours and to my amazement, I now think it's > > wonderful. Seriously, anyone who's already given up on it should give it > > another try and not form an opinion until you've given it some serious > seat > > time (think of all the people who's opinion of GPL was permanently tainted > > by not giving it a fair chance). > > I've just finished a mammoth full length race at Silverstone, starting in > > the dry and then it rained half way through. It was tremendous fun, > > although pretty difficult with no driving aids. Absolutely couldn't do > > anything in the wet on the slicks, it was a real battle just to make it > back > > to the pitlane. Also the weather transitions are excellent. > > I can't really explain why, but after you get used to the game, all the > > problems seem to just dissapear, most probably because it's so much fun. > > The dodgy graphics are still dodgy, but you're so busy playing the game it > > just doesn't matter. For me GP3 has the most important thing in > abundance - > > gamplay, and I recommend it to everyone. > > > > Simon. > > > > > >

Ok, no flames for this, it is my honest opinion. :) I've got to say GP3 really improves after a bit of play-time. About an hour after downloading it I was hugely dissapointed. The graphics were messy, the Ferarri and McLaren looked poor, the crowds looked ugly, the trees looked messy and some of the graphics were blocky close up. Also I could see GP2 everywhere, in every menu and every screen. After another hour, I began to think it wasn't that bad. More or less like GP2 with 3d acceleration and a face lift. I've now played it about five hours and to my amazement, I now think it's wonderful. Seriously, anyone who's already given up on it should give it another try and not form an opinion until you've given it some serious seat time (think of all the people who's opinion of GPL was permanently tainted by not giving it a fair chance). I've just finished a mammoth full length race at Silverstone, starting in the dry and then it rained half way through. It was tremendous fun, although pretty difficult with no driving aids. Absolutely couldn't do anything in the wet on the slicks, it was a real battle just to make it back to the pitlane. Also the weather transitions are excellent. I can't really explain why, but after you get used to the game, all the problems seem to just dissapear, most probably because it's so much fun. The dodgy graphics are still dodgy, but you're so busy playing the game it just doesn't matter. For me GP3 has the most important thing in abundance - gamplay, and I recommend it to everyone. Simon.

Logitech Wingman FF.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:58:19 GMT, "Simon Brown" Not going by all the sreenshots I've seen it isn't. You just need a fast cpu and a V5 running 4XFSAA and F12000 looks great, but you must turn off a few options. From the looks of GP3 it doesn't even look 3D accelerated. -- Nos

"Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lRte5.10472$[email hidden]... > Ok, no flames for this, it is my honest opinion. :) > After another hour, I began to think it wasn't that bad. More or lesslike > GP2 with 3d acceleration and a face lift. No flame here. But GP3 may not be that bad. If it were the only game available... Judging from the reports (yours included) there is no way I can say GP3 would be better than F1 2000. -- [email hidden]

What wheel and controller settings are you using? It looks like it could be fun (although not a killer sim, by any means) if I could get decent FFB and steering response. Marc. "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lRte5.10472$[email hidden]... > Ok, no flames for this, it is my honest opinion. :) > > I've got to say GP3 really improves after a bit of play-time. About anhour > after downloading it I was hugely dissapointed. The graphics were messy, > the Ferarri and McLaren looked poor, the crowds looked ugly, the trees > looked messy and some of the graphics were blocky close up. Also I could > see GP2 everywhere, in every menu and every screen. > After another hour, I began to think it wasn't that bad. More or lesslike > GP2 with 3d acceleration and a face lift. > I've now played it about five hours and to my amazement, I now think it's > wonderful. Seriously, anyone who's already given up on it should give it > another try and not form an opinion until you've given it some seriousseat > time (think of all the people who's opinion of GPL was permanently tainted > by not giving it a fair chance). > I've just finished a mammoth full length race at Silverstone, starting in > the dry and then it rained half way through. It was tremendous fun, > although pretty difficult with no driving aids. Absolutely couldn't do > anything in the wet on the slicks, it was a real battle just to make itback > to the pitlane. Also the weather transitions are excellent. > I can't really explain why, but after you get used to the game, all the > problems seem to just dissapear, most probably because it's so much fun. > The dodgy graphics are still dodgy, but you're so busy playing the game it > just doesn't matter. For me GP3 has the most important thing inabundance - > gamplay, and I recommend it to everyone. > > Simon. > >

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:58:19 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >And although not looking spectacularly good (except in >wet weather) it certainly looks better than F1 2000. Not going by all the sreenshots I've seen it isn't. You just need a fast cpu and a V5 running 4XFSAA and F12000 looks great, but you must turn off a few options. From the looks of GP3 it doesn't even look 3D accelerated. -- Nos

Logitech Wingman FF.

At least the tracks are the right shape and you don't have to download AI patches and run in windowed mode to get it running fast. So far no massive AI pile-ups either. And although not looking spectacularly good (except in wet weather) it certainly looks better than F1 2000.

"Jo Helsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > "3D accelerated look" is NOT necessarilly everyones taste. I imagine those people are the ones that don't have the proper hardware. Or they blindly think they like a game with bad graphics. -- [email hidden]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:14:55 +0100, "Kieran Larkin" <[email hidden]> wrote: >My point is that people aren't looking past the physics/correctness of it to >the damn fun game. look the idea of it is to be FUN! YES! Thats what I wanted and thats what it is. **ElfKing** T'was in a kingdom long ago and far away......

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:59:41 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:Well if you don't really care about how the environment looks keep on playing GP2 then! It sure will outperform GP3 (in fps) and doesn't cost you any extra money! Everybody can c

Quoted text (13 lines)

> It's an argument. :-) > > But this "pixellation" is very relative. First of all it only becomes > really apparent when you get close upto a wall for example. Now how > often does that happen? Secondly, -while racing- you do not have > either time or intention to evaluate every pixel. You focus on the > track ahead, and everything else moves to "peripheral vision". The > importance of the details lowers, and the tint, brightness etc. > becomes more important. IMHO GP3 looks especially stronger in that > department. > > JoH >

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

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:08:50 +0200, Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >"3D accelerated look" is NOT necessarilly everyones taste. Yea right, some people just have bad taste. -- Nos

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 05:32:31 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:08:50 +0200, Jo Helsen ><[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > >>"3D accelerated look" is NOT necessarilly everyones taste. > >Yea right, some people just have bad taste.

Indeed. Question is: WHO has the bad taste? :-) JoH

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:03:54 GMT, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) thus spoke: >Indeed. Question is: WHO has the bad taste? :-) > >JoH In all honesty I think GP3 looks pretty good, it just doesn't look like it is filtering all of the textures. Without 3D acceleration you get no filtering to smooth textures so anyone who thinks non-3D accelerated looks better than 3D accelerated needs to clean their glasses more often. :-) -- Nos

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:08:50 +0200, Jo Helsen Yea right, some people just have bad taste. -- Nos

Errr background textures are blocky as well, with very little detail even from a loooong way off Martyn_D Jo Helsen wrote:

Quoted text (28 lines)

> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:59:41 GMT, [email hidden] wrote: > > >On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:03:54 GMT, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) > >thus spoke: > > > > > >>Indeed. Question is: WHO has the bad taste? :-) > >> > >>JoH > > > >In all honesty I think GP3 looks pretty good, it just doesn't look > >like it is filtering all of the textures. Without 3D acceleration you > >get no filtering to smooth textures so anyone who thinks non-3D > >accelerated looks better than 3D accelerated needs to clean their > >glasses more often. :-) > > It's an argument. :-) > > But this "pixellation" is very relative. First of all it only becomes > really apparent when you get close upto a wall for example. Now how > often does that happen? Secondly, -while racing- you do not have > either time or intention to evaluate every pixel. You focus on the > track ahead, and everything else moves to "peripheral vision". The > importance of the details lowers, and the tint, brightness etc. > becomes more important. IMHO GP3 looks especially stronger in that > department. > > JoH

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:59:41 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:03:54 GMT, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) >thus spoke: > > >>Indeed. Question is: WHO has the bad taste? :-) >> >>JoH > >In all honesty I think GP3 looks pretty good, it just doesn't look >like it is filtering all of the textures. Without 3D acceleration you >get no filtering to smooth textures so anyone who thinks non-3D >accelerated looks better than 3D accelerated needs to clean their >glasses more often. :-)

It's an argument. :-) But this "pixellation" is very relative. First of all it only becomes really apparent when you get close upto a wall for example. Now how often does that happen? Secondly, -while racing- you do not have either time or intention to evaluate every pixel. You focus on the track ahead, and everything else moves to "peripheral vision". The importance of the details lowers, and the tint, brightness etc. becomes more important. IMHO GP3 looks especially stronger in that department. JoH

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:20:43 GMT, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) thus spoke: >You focus on the >track ahead, and everything else moves to "peripheral vision". Ah...but this is where the problem is. The track in GP3 is not filtered and looks pixellated. If you compare the track in F1 2000 it is smooth which I much prefer. -- Nos

Matrox was all excited about bump-mapping the asphalt textures on roads, so it seems a more "grainy" texture would be better. It's all a matter of preferences, but mine is for "horrible" pixellation in things which in the real world have "grain", like trees, gravel roads, asphalt, etc... Stephen "Jo Helsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:02:10 GMT, [email hidden] wrote: > > >On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:23:32 GMT, "Simon Brown" > ><[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > >>The track is filtered in the version I am playing. > > > >Well, it isn't filtered enough! > > The last time I checked, realworld asphalt had quite a bit of > structure. I dunno, but it might just was well look more real with > "less filtering"? > > JoH > > >

The track is filtered in the version I am playing. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:20:43 GMT, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) > thus spoke: > > >You focus on the > >track ahead, and everything else moves to "peripheral vision". > > Ah...but this is where the problem is. The track in GP3 is not > filtered and looks pixellated. If you compare the track in F1 2000 it > is smooth which I much prefer. > -- > Nos

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:23:32 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >The track is filtered in the version I am playing. Well, it isn't filtered enough! -- Nos

fair enough :) <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:23:32 GMT, "Simon Brown" > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > >The track is filtered in the version I am playing. > > Well, it isn't filtered enough! > -- > Nos

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:24:17 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >fair enough :) Actually the tracks look pretty good. Just being a nit-picker. :-) -- Nos

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:23:32 GMT, "Simon Brown" Well, it isn't filtered enough! -- Nos

fair enough :)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:23:32 GMT, "Simon Brown" > >The track is filtered in the version I am playing. > Well, it isn't filtered enough! > -- > Nos

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:02:10 GMT, [email hidden] wrote: >On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:23:32 GMT, "Simon Brown" ><[email hidden]> thus spoke: > >>The track is filtered in the version I am playing. > >Well, it isn't filtered enough! The last time I checked, realworld asphalt had quite a bit of structure. I dunno, but it might just was well look more real with "less filtering"? JoH