Re: Are GPL fans rude and intolerant?

>I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of flames from >the "experts". Hmm, a little sensitive to criticism aren't we? I read through that thread where you (rudely and intolerantly) called the patch "crap", and I saw *one* post which could be considered a flame. You should try saying "GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace after half an hour's practice" and then see what you get :-) -- Cheers! Graeme Nash

>There's a trillion other things in life that are more important than sims, >so don't let them get your blood boiling. :-) "Do as I say, not as I do" :-) -- Cheers! Graeme Nash

>I >already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3. Err... I don't think that's the case at all. Everyone here is looking forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does, great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books. If it doesn't, many will carry on with GPL - because it would therefore still be the best sim around. -- Cheers! Graeme Nash

"Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura" wrote > Its a bit contradictory but it say it. That's a perfect example of the intimidation factor the "no life outside of GPL" crowd (can't say GPL crowd, since I play GPL that would include myself and a lot of good people who are not rude or intolerant) exerts on this newsgroup. It's obvious from the quote that the guy liked GP2, but he felt obliged to throw in the "but of course I realize GPL is the only true sim" disclaimer so he wouldn't get pounced on. It's ridiculous, and the closer GPL comes to being surpassed - with GP3, N4, and WSC on the horizon - the more fanatic they get. RAS reminds me of an Amiga BBS around the time Commodore was folding and IBM compatibles were getting SVGA and 16 bit sound cards. I still think the post that said "no new tracks are available for Viper Racing because it isn't a real sim" was the all time most preposterous.

Shesh People Now that WAS RUDE "You should spend more time with your wife and kids instead of playing stupid computer games! What? You haven't got a wife and kids? See what I mean!!" Infact That was Terrible!! What does having a marrage Impact You playing on Racing simulations!!! This message really shocked me. I dont kow if your being sarcastic, joking, Or whatever! That was the rudest comment on here in a while! I really support GPL its a fun real simulation. Its not my favorite. I like the flips and the AI but, I enjoy N3 more. Of course N3 is 'unreal' 'fake' But its fun, thats why games/simulation sell. Cause there fun. --------------------------------- Crystal Robbinson http://Swtwok.00game.com

he's right; it was really good! :) "Andrew Turner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> You're much too kind. > > Gregor Veble wrote: > > > > > LOL, this must be the most witty post I've ever read here! > > > > -Gregor >

Quoted text (36 lines)

>Just let me start with the fact that I play GPL since it came >out and I still enjoy it. > >What bothers me really is the reaction of the GPL fans to all >kinds of critics to GPL. > >For example I loaded the D3D patch and got bad performance, >I read through the readme and changed the parameters as Papy >recommended. I ended with bad performance. > >I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of flames from >the "experts". > >This is not an exception. SOme time ago someone posted that he >liked the driving model of NFS Porsche - he got flamed a lot, because >"only GPL has an acceptable driving model". > >I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of the GPL patches. >They work only with some of the drivers and the game tends to be unstable >with lots of drivers that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning >of those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL community. > >Here are some of mine opinions: >-GPL is a great game >-GPL is too driver sensitive and the patches were not tested properly >- The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking games like NFS >Porsche >-The GPL community defends their game with religious intolerance, I >already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3. > >Jochen > > > > >

Talking saying your going to get flamed. Woa your dead. :-)

Quoted text (32 lines)

>Just let me start with the fact that I play GPL since it came >out and I still enjoy it. > >What bothers me really is the reaction of the GPL fans to all >kinds of critics to GPL. > >For example I loaded the D3D patch and got bad performance, >I read through the readme and changed the parameters as Papy >recommended. I ended with bad performance. > >I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of flames from >the "experts". > >This is not an exception. SOme time ago someone posted that he >liked the driving model of NFS Porsche - he got flamed a lot, because >"only GPL has an acceptable driving model". > >I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of the GPL patches. >They work only with some of the drivers and the game tends to be unstable >with lots of drivers that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning >of those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL community. > >Here are some of mine opinions: >-GPL is a great game >-GPL is too driver sensitive and the patches were not tested properly >- The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking games like NFS >Porsche >-The GPL community defends their game with religious intolerance, I >already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3. > >Jochen >

Im just playing around. :-D

LOL!! Oh my! I've saved this whole section to a .txt file. Very funny! Todd Wasson

Quoted text (61 lines)

>Brett, > >I think he may have a point. I find, personally, that the more I play >GPL, the more rude and intolerant I get. Especially rude. No, wait. >Intolerant. That's it. I get more intolerant. > >No, wait. > >Sorry, rude. That's it, rude. I seem to have a bit of a rough time >weighing one against the other. No, hold it. > >It is intolerant. Yes. Back to my original feelings. Intolerant. The more >I play GPL, the more intolerant I get. > >For example, when I'm stopping for gas, I like to scream at the attendant >for not keeping it under eighteen seconds. > >Or is that rude? > >Either way, the more I play, the more of a conniving, conceited and >rueful bastard I become. It's interesting how other sims bring out other >personality traits: > >1) NFS:PU - the more I play, the more I feel acute interest in barbequed >hot dogs; I become revengeful, too. > >2) SCGT: Improves my sense of humor, and makes me crave Independent >Films. > >3) Nascar 3: Makes me idealistic; makes me sneaky and insightful. > >Wow, it's amazing how sims can change you. > >Andrew > > > >"Brett C. Cammack" wrote: > >> Perhaps it's a language thing, but what garnered you the response you >> received was refering to the D3D patch as "crap". Quite obviously >> from all the rest of the message traffic, you are the lone ranger in >> this opinion. >> >> In your selection of that word to describe your feelings about it you >> presented yourself as being rather strident and unreasonable which >> annoyed some people. The bottom line is that the D3D patch was a gift >> from a Papyrus engineer who created it solely on his own personal time >> so that he could enjoy his Geoforce2 TNT graphics card when racing in >> GPL. For most people, it would be considered pretty rude to refer to >> a gift as "crap", thus you received the sorts of replies you did. >> >> I've found that, in general, the responses you receive to posts here >> generally reflect the tone of your original message (excepting the >> obvious troll posts) so that if you come off rudely, you are going to >> receive rude responses. That's life... >> >> Regards, >> Brett C. Cammack >> That's Racing! Motorsports >> Pompano Beach, FL

Just let me start with the fact that I play GPL since it came out and I still enjoy it. What bothers me really is the reaction of the GPL fans to all kinds of critics to GPL. For example I loaded the D3D patch and got bad performance, I read through the readme and changed the parameters as Papy recommended. I ended with bad performance. I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of flames from the "experts". This is not an exception. SOme time ago someone posted that he liked the driving model of NFS Porsche - he got flamed a lot, because "only GPL has an acceptable driving model". I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of the GPL patches. They work only with some of the drivers and the game tends to be unstable with lots of drivers that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning of those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL community. Here are some of mine opinions: -GPL is a great game -GPL is too driver sensitive and the patches were not tested properly - The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking games like NFS Porsche -The GPL community defends their game with religious intolerance, I already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3. Jochen

You're much too kind. > LOL, this must be the most witty post I've ever read here! > -Gregor

Im just playing around. :-D

"Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura" wrote You're kidding right? Did someone actually write that? Seriously?

GPL should of been compatible with more cards. Labor of love? You guys must be very close to know each other so intimately. There's quite a few developers who's "labor of love" has been called much worse than ***by fans of GPL (understatement of the decade). Not true. Comments like this are what makes the GPL crowd an annoyance when discussing sims at r.a.s. F12000 has a physics model as complex as GPL's. Viper has a very complex physics model. So does RC2000. So does NFS:PU. Forget opinions. Check the code and you will see. Not true again. There are a number of sims which let you do that. Wrong yet again. See above. LOL. The harsh reception will be for the same boring reasons as always. David G Fisher

"Do as I say, not as I do" :-) -- Cheers! Graeme Nash

Perhaps it's a language thing, but what garnered you the response you received was refering to the D3D patch as "crap". Quite obviously from all the rest of the message traffic, you are the lone ranger in this opinion. In your selection of that word to describe your feelings about it you presented yourself as being rather strident and unreasonable which annoyed some people. The bottom line is that the D3D patch was a gift from a Papyrus engineer who created it solely on his own personal time so that he could enjoy his Geoforce2 TNT graphics card when racing in GPL. For most people, it would be considered pretty rude to refer to a gift as "crap", thus you received the sorts of replies you did. I've found that, in general, the responses you receive to posts here generally reflect the tone of your original message (excepting the obvious troll posts) so that if you come off rudely, you are going to receive rude responses. That's life... Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

Brett, I think he may have a point. I find, personally, that the more I play GPL, the more rude and intolerant I get. Especially rude. No, wait. Intolerant. That's it. I get more intolerant. No, wait. Sorry, rude. That's it, rude. I seem to have a bit of a rough time weighing one against the other. No, hold it. It is intolerant. Yes. Back to my original feelings. Intolerant. The more I play GPL, the more intolerant I get. For example, when I'm stopping for gas, I like to scream at the attendant for not keeping it under eighteen seconds. Or is that rude? Either way, the more I play, the more of a conniving, conceited and rueful bastard I become. It's interesting how other sims bring out other personality traits: 1) NFS:PU - the more I play, the more I feel acute interest in barbequed hot dogs; I become revengeful, too. 2) SCGT: Improves my sense of humor, and makes me crave Independent Films. 3) Nascar 3: Makes me idealistic; makes me sneaky and insightful. Wow, it's amazing how sims can change you. Andrew "Brett C. Cammack" wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Perhaps it's a language thing, but what garnered you the response you > received was refering to the D3D patch as "crap". Quite obviously > from all the rest of the message traffic, you are the lone ranger in > this opinion. > > In your selection of that word to describe your feelings about it you > presented yourself as being rather strident and unreasonable which > annoyed some people. The bottom line is that the D3D patch was a gift > from a Papyrus engineer who created it solely on his own personal time > so that he could enjoy his Geoforce2 TNT graphics card when racing in > GPL. For most people, it would be considered pretty rude to refer to > a gift as "crap", thus you received the sorts of replies you did. > > I've found that, in general, the responses you receive to posts here > generally reflect the tone of your original message (excepting the > obvious troll posts) so that if you come off rudely, you are going to > receive rude responses. That's life... > > Regards, > Brett C. Cammack > That's Racing! Motorsports > Pompano Beach, FL

Andrew Turner wrote:

Quoted text (36 lines)

> > Brett, > > I think he may have a point. I find, personally, that the more I play > GPL, the more rude and intolerant I get. Especially rude. No, wait. > Intolerant. That's it. I get more intolerant. > > No, wait. > > Sorry, rude. That's it, rude. I seem to have a bit of a rough time > weighing one against the other. No, hold it. > > It is intolerant. Yes. Back to my original feelings. Intolerant. The more > I play GPL, the more intolerant I get. > > For example, when I'm stopping for gas, I like to scream at the attendant > for not keeping it under eighteen seconds. > > Or is that rude? > > Either way, the more I play, the more of a conniving, conceited and > rueful bastard I become. It's interesting how other sims bring out other > personality traits: > > 1) NFS:PU - the more I play, the more I feel acute interest in barbequed > hot dogs; I become revengeful, too. > > 2) SCGT: Improves my sense of humor, and makes me crave Independent > Films. > > 3) Nascar 3: Makes me idealistic; makes me sneaky and insightful. > > Wow, it's amazing how sims can change you. > > Andrew >

LOL, this must be the most witty post I've ever read here! -Gregor

Jochen Heistermann wrote: > I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of the GPL patches. > They work only with some of the drivers and the game tends to be unstable > with lots of drivers that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning > of those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL community. Well, there are a couple of things to keep in mind here. This patch is an *unsupported* BETA release. You do know what that entails, correct? Then you decry the quality, without realizing apparently, that they were put together in Grant's spare time so he could run GPL on his GeForce2. Now, as Eric pointed out, once you go back *three* generations from the card it was designed to work on, is it reasonable to demand perfection? Hope for it yes, but how far back they gotta go to please you?? -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +438.42 as of 6/21 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

You're much too kind. Gregor Veble wrote: > > LOL, this must be the most witty post I've ever read here! > > -Gregor

And which one made you such a sly dog??? <g> Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

"Jochen Heistermann" <[email hidden]> wrote > This is not an exception. SOme time ago someone posted that he > liked the driving model of NFS Porsche - he got flamed a lot, because > "only GPL has an acceptable driving model". Bollocks. A great portion of the people here appreciate NFS:PU. Stop over-generalising 1 person's opinion as a whole. We had an incredible amount of positive feedback on that software, and a very small number of negative ones. Electronic Arts are going in the good direction with the new game engine. > -The GPL community defends their game with religious intolerance, I > already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3. I am anxious in a positive way on how our community will react to the "Big threes" that are soon to be released (Gp3, N4, WSC). GPL will still keep it's nostalgic appeal to the majority (why do you think people still race F1GP or N1?). -- -- 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.

Jochen Heistermann <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:01bfdf67$08e4c860$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (29 lines)

> Just let me start with the fact that I play GPL since it came > out and I still enjoy it. > > What bothers me really is the reaction of the GPL fans to all > kinds of critics to GPL. > > For example I loaded the D3D patch and got bad performance, > I read through the readme and changed the parameters as Papy > recommended. I ended with bad performance. > > I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of flames from > the "experts". > > This is not an exception. SOme time ago someone posted that he > liked the driving model of NFS Porsche - he got flamed a lot, because > "only GPL has an acceptable driving model". > > I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of the GPL patches. > They work only with some of the drivers and the game tends to be unstable > with lots of drivers that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning > of those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL community. > > Here are some of mine opinions: > -GPL is a great game > -GPL is too driver sensitive and the patches were not tested properly > - The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking games like NFS > Porsche > -The GPL community defends their game with religious intolerance, I > already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3.

Not everyone is like that, I feel I'm a bit like you, I like GPL and still enjoy it too but I can see the good in other sims and I can see a flaw in GPL when there is one to be seen. Unfortunately, here are some followers of GPL who won't accept another sim. I know damn well that GP3 is going to kick some major ass come July 28th but it is most definitely going to be put down by many around here. This is the whole reason for HIGH Gears poll on: "Is R.A.S a valid NG?". Of course certain RAS subscribers (you'll never guess which ones) got their noses up and "stuffed the box". I think it sums it up when only last week when I read the words..... "I don't think GP2 was a sim".

"Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura" wrote > I think it sums it up when only last week when I read the words..... "I > don't think GP2 was a sim". You're kidding right? Did someone actually write that? Seriously?

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7gN55.66280$[email hidden]... > But on the other hand, no other game allows you to tailor the car to your > own preferences quite as profoundly as GPL. I take exception to this comment. In SCGT you can make any car (even the lowliest of the GTQ class) go over 200 mph and stick to the track like glue with some simple editing of the .veh file associated with that car using Notepad or any other text editor.

Jochen Heistermann wrote... > Just let me start with the fact that I play GPL since > it came out and I still enjoy it. > > What bothers me really is the reaction of the GPL fans > to all kinds of critics to GPL. Here we go again. > For example I loaded the D3D patch and got bad > performance, I read through the readme and changed > the parameters as Papy recommended. I ended with bad > performance. If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an incompatible card in the first place. > I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of > flames from the "experts". Calling a labour of love "crap" will get you that. > This is not an exception. SOme time ago someone posted > that he liked the driving model of NFS Porsche - he > got flamed a lot, because "only GPL has an acceptable > driving model". A lot of people commented favourably on NFS:PU, myself included. EA Sports definately made a step in the rigth direction with this release. I'm sure anyone saying it had better physics than GPL got a pasting though, because it just hasn't. GPL, at 18 months old, still has the most advanced physics found in PC racing simulators. This is not about to change, not before N4 and WSC are released anyway. Might want to get used to that notion. > I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of > the GPL patches. They work only with some of the drivers > and the game tends to be unstable with lots of drivers > that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning of > those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL > community. Yeah well, unsupported sort of implies "don't come crying if it doesn't work on your machine". > Here are some of mine opinions: > -GPL is a great game We already knew that. ;-) > -GPL is too driver sensitive and the patches were not tested properly But on the other hand, no other game allows you to tailor the car to your own preferences quite as profoundly as GPL. > - The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking > games like NFS Porsche. NFS:PU has a lot less to calculate behind the scenes, a lot less often. To quote Keammer:"it's about how many CPU cycles you're willing to spend on eye-candy". > -The GPL community defends their game with religious > intolerance, I already know how sensible they will react > to people who will like GP3. 1) Please don't associate religion with intolerance, although the two might go together with some (loud) minorities, this is not the case for the vast majority of people who actively subscribe to a religion. 2) The GPL community is not intolerant towards people with different opinions unless they make a nuiscance of themselves first. The way things are shaping up GP3 might well receive a harsh reception here. However, should this occur, it won't be a reaction of intolerance, rather one of disappointment. Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7gN55.66280$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Jochen Heistermann wrote... > > Just let me start with the fact that I play GPL since > > it came out and I still enjoy it. > > > > What bothers me really is the reaction of the GPL fans > > to all kinds of critics to GPL. > > Here we go again. > > > For example I loaded the D3D patch and got bad > > performance, I read through the readme and changed > > the parameters as Papy recommended. I ended with bad > > performance. > > If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an incompatible card in

the > first place. GPL should of been compatible with more cards. > > I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of > > flames from the "experts". > > Calling a labour of love "crap" will get you that. Labor of love? You guys must be very close to know each other so intimately. There's quite a few developers who's "labor of love" has been called much worse than crap by fans of GPL (understatement of the decade).

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > This is not an exception. SOme time ago someone posted > > that he liked the driving model of NFS Porsche - he > > got flamed a lot, because "only GPL has an acceptable > > driving model". > > A lot of people commented favourably on NFS:PU, myself included. EA Sports > definately made a step in the rigth direction with this release. I'm sure > anyone saying it had better physics than GPL got a pasting though, because > it just hasn't. GPL, at 18 months old, still has the most advanced physics > found in PC racing simulators. This is not about to change, not before N4 > and WSC are released anyway. Might want to get used to that notion.

Not true. Comments like this are what makes the GPL crowd an annoyance when discussing sims at r.a.s. F12000 has a physics model as complex as GPL's. Viper has a very complex physics model. So does RC2000. So does NFS:PU. Forget opinions. Check the code and you will see.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of > > the GPL patches. They work only with some of the drivers > > and the game tends to be unstable with lots of drivers > > that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning of > > those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL > > community. > > Yeah well, unsupported sort of implies "don't come crying if it doesn't

work

Quoted text (11 lines)

> on your machine". > > > Here are some of mine opinions: > > -GPL is a great game > > We already knew that. ;-) > > > -GPL is too driver sensitive and the patches were not tested properly > > But on the other hand, no other game allows you to tailor the car to your > own preferences quite as profoundly as GPL.

Not true again. There are a number of sims which let you do that. > > - The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking > > games like NFS Porsche. > > NFS:PU has a lot less to calculate behind the scenes, a lot less often. To > quote Keammer:"it's about how many CPU cycles you're willing to spend on > eye-candy". Wrong yet again. See above. > > -The GPL community defends their game with religious > > intolerance, I already know how sensible they will react > > to people who will like GP3. > > 1) Please don't associate religion with intolerance, although the twomight > go together with some (loud) minorities, this is not the case for the vast > majority of people who actively subscribe to a religion. > > 2) The GPL community is not intolerant towards people with different > opinions unless they make a nuiscance of themselves first. LOL. >The way things > are shaping up GP3 might well receive a harsh reception here. However, > should this occur, it won't be a reaction of intolerance, rather one of > disappointment. The harsh reception will be for the same boring reasons as always. David G Fisher

I'm surprised you needed to ask this question. :-) Yes, many but not all, are very rude and intolerant. Not only to other posters but especially to the people who create the sims which comprise their hobby. They insist that GPL's physics are above all others when that's simply not true. Since that's not true, most of what they preach is really nonsense. There's a trillion other things in life that are more important than sims, so don't let them get your blood boiling. :-) David G Fisher "Jochen Heistermann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:01bfdf67$08e4c860$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> Just let me start with the fact that I play GPL since it came > out and I still enjoy it. > > What bothers me really is the reaction of the GPL fans to all > kinds of critics to GPL. > > For example I loaded the D3D patch and got bad performance, > I read through the readme and changed the parameters as Papy > recommended. I ended with bad performance. > > I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of flames from > the "experts". > > This is not an exception. SOme time ago someone posted that he > liked the driving model of NFS Porsche - he got flamed a lot, because > "only GPL has an acceptable driving model". > > I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of the GPL patches. > They work only with some of the drivers and the game tends to be unstable > with lots of drivers that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning > of those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL community. > > Here are some of mine opinions: > -GPL is a great game > -GPL is too driver sensitive and the patches were not tested properly > - The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking games like NFS > Porsche > -The GPL community defends their game with religious intolerance, I > already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3. > > Jochen

You should spend more time with your wife and kids instead of playing stupid computer games! What? You haven't got a wife and kids? See what I mean!! Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws [email hidden]...

Quoted text (62 lines)

> Brett, > > I think he may have a point. I find, personally, that the more I play > GPL, the more rude and intolerant I get. Especially rude. No, wait. > Intolerant. That's it. I get more intolerant. > > No, wait. > > Sorry, rude. That's it, rude. I seem to have a bit of a rough time > weighing one against the other. No, hold it. > > It is intolerant. Yes. Back to my original feelings. Intolerant. The more > I play GPL, the more intolerant I get. > > For example, when I'm stopping for gas, I like to scream at the attendant > for not keeping it under eighteen seconds. > > Or is that rude? > > Either way, the more I play, the more of a conniving, conceited and > rueful bastard I become. It's interesting how other sims bring out other > personality traits: > > 1) NFS:PU - the more I play, the more I feel acute interest in barbequed > hot dogs; I become revengeful, too. > > 2) SCGT: Improves my sense of humor, and makes me crave Independent > Films. > > 3) Nascar 3: Makes me idealistic; makes me sneaky and insightful. > > Wow, it's amazing how sims can change you. > > Andrew > > > > "Brett C. Cammack" wrote: > > > Perhaps it's a language thing, but what garnered you the response you > > received was refering to the D3D patch as "crap". Quite obviously > > from all the rest of the message traffic, you are the lone ranger in > > this opinion. > > > > In your selection of that word to describe your feelings about it you > > presented yourself as being rather strident and unreasonable which > > annoyed some people. The bottom line is that the D3D patch was a gift > > from a Papyrus engineer who created it solely on his own personal time > > so that he could enjoy his Geoforce2 TNT graphics card when racing in > > GPL. For most people, it would be considered pretty rude to refer to > > a gift as "crap", thus you received the sorts of replies you did. > > > > I've found that, in general, the responses you receive to posts here > > generally reflect the tone of your original message (excepting the > > obvious troll posts) so that if you come off rudely, you are going to > > receive rude responses. That's life... > > > > Regards, > > Brett C. Cammack > > That's Racing! Motorsports > > Pompano Beach, FL >

"Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8j848r$2eg$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Jochen Heistermann <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:01bfdf67$08e4c860$[email hidden]... > > Just let me start with the fact that I play GPL since it came > > out and I still enjoy it. > > > > What bothers me really is the reaction of the GPL fans to all > > kinds of critics to GPL. > Not everyone is like that, > I feel I'm a bit like you, I like GPL and still enjoy it too but I can see > the good in other sims and I can see a flaw in GPL when there is one to be > seen. > > Unfortunately, here are some followers of GPL who won't accept another

sim. > I know damn well that GP3 is going to kick some major ass come July 28thbut > it is most definitely going to be put down by many around here. > > This is the whole reason for HIGH Gears poll on: "Is R.A.S a valid NG?".Of > course certain RAS subscribers (you'll never guess which ones) got their > noses up and "stuffed the box". > > I think it sums it up when only last week when I read the words..... "I > don't think GP2 was a sim". And I feel I'm quite a bit like you as well. The release of GP3 will probably prove us right again. The physics surely won't be as advanced as GPL. I can guarantee that one. There will be the insistence of canned spins. The graphics will be considered "eye candy". Blah, blah, blah. I've already enjoyed the posts which berated GP3 for not having ff, and which said the reason it didn't was because the physics model wasn't advanced enough. David G Fisher

Tracey Miller <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:AHM55.196$[email hidden]... > "Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura" wrote > > I think it sums it up when only last week when I read the words..... "I > > don't think GP2 was a sim". > > You're kidding right? Did someone actually write that? Seriously? In the "Anyone aware of this Bug in GPL" thread. Here's a snipping. "Gp2 models this properly and it looks like they modelled it the other way around in GPL, I am not saying that GP2 is better because of this, I know GPL is far superior and don't consider GP2 a true sim but it models this issue better than GPL." Sorry to pick out the author here, I'm ot picking on you or anything, It just to prove a point. Its a bit contradictory but it say it.

Well, quite frankly, I fail to see the point of yours. SCGT setup options are not bad, but no way near as detailed as GPL's. SCGT's "open" architecture is one of it's strong points, but making a car "stick like glue" or soup up a GTQ to 200mph doesn't help the authenticity / realism of the title. That being said I would love to edit a file in GPL to give the cars a little more stick (5% might even be too much) in an off-line install, but it's not possible yet. Jan. =--- Reggie Brooks wrote...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> "Jan Verschueren" wrote... > > But on the other hand, no other game allows you to > > tailor the car to your own preferences quite as > > profoundly as GPL. > > I take exception to this comment. In SCGT you can make > any car (even the lowliest of the GTQ class) go over > 200 mph and stick to the track like glue > with some simple editing of the .veh file associated with that car using > Notepad or any other text editor. > > > >

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >David G Fisher wrote........

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> > The way things are shaping up GP3 might well receive >> > a harsh reception here. However, should this occur, >> > it won't be a reaction of intolerance, rather one of >> > disappointment. >> >> The harsh reception will be for the same boring reasons as always. > >I'm not going to re-iterate my position on GP3 other than to say, judging >from the information I have today, I'm very disappointed Geoff didn't >attempt to move the bar for racing sims again.

Jan, don't you agree that there's more than _one_ bar to move? So yes, Crammond probably chooses to move a different bar than the one that was raised by GPL :-) Again I think it all comes down to the subtle differences that *can* exist between a "racing simulator" and a "driving simulator".Other (?) people have tried to discuss this subject before (at length, I may say... :-) ). "GPL addicts" have great difficulty recognising any value in this different approach. Or they shoot it *immediately*. I can somehow understand because it is very easy for them to believe that they are right and the rest is bullshit. I can see some parallells with religious fudamentalism here. Just like they can't accept anything that doesn't follow their texts to the letter, the most hardcore GPL crowd can't take anything that contains even the slightest flaw against the Physics (which they know so well) (I'm gonna pay for this, I just know :-) ) JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: [email hidden]... > Jochen Heistermann wrote: > > I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of the GPL patches. > > They work only with some of the drivers and the game tends to beunstable

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > with lots of drivers that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning > > of those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL community. > > > Well, there are a couple of things to keep in mind here. This patch is > an *unsupported* BETA release. You do know what that entails, correct? >

Great an unsupported beta patch for a game that is nearly two years old. It does not support D3D officially - besides Redguard this is the only game I know which has 3D graphics but no 3D support. Those are the facts why Papy sucks on the market. Again, the game is great, but that beta patch is an example for poor customer support. Jochen

Tracey A Miller <[email hidden]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 3957f825$0$33690$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > It's ridiculous, and the closer GPL comes to being surpassed - with > GP3, N4, and WSC on the horizon - the more fanatic they get. RAS > reminds me of an Amiga BBS around the time Commodore was folding and > IBM compatibles were getting SVGA and 16 bit sound cards. >

Very good point indeed. I used to have my Amiga from 1988 - 1994 and was satisfied. In 1994 I switched over to a PC, because it was THE gaming platform and working platform, too. In newsgroup I tried to discuss that switch, but there was no real discussion, no argumentation. Concerning GP3, if someone will post "GP3 has a good driving model" than immedialtely some wiseass will answer "try GPL and be quiet". Jochen

Graeme Nash <[email hidden]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: [email hidden]... > > You should try saying "GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace > after half an hour's practice" and then see what you get :-) >I play it for over a year now and still like the game. GPL has until today no real D3D support, this is a shame and a reason for most of gamers to ignore that gem of a game. Just face it, great game, poor graphic support. Jochen

Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 7gN55.66280$[email hidden]... > If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an incompatible card inthe > first place. >The Riva TNT was and still is THE standard 3D graphic card!! > > I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of > > flames from the "experts". > > Calling a labour of love "crap" will get you that. >A 3D game with an unsupported beta patch is a shame, nothing to get proud about. > Yeah well, unsupported sort of implies "don't come crying if it doesn'twork > on your machine". >Sure, but I don't like those companies who are incompatible to standard hardware.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > - The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking > > games like NFS Porsche. > > NFS:PU has a lot less to calculate behind the scenes, a lot less often. To > quote Keammer:"it's about how many CPU cycles you're willing to spend on > eye-candy". >

Forget it. The pace of GPL is totally dependent on resolution and textures, not on the driving model. > 1) Please don't associate religion with intolerance, although the twomight > go together with some (loud) minorities, this is not the case for the vast > majority of people who actively subscribe to a religion. >Okay, you got a point! I DO associate religion with intolerance, but this is overgeneralized. Jochen

Jochen Heistermann wrote... > > <snip> > The Riva TNT was and still is THE standard 3D graphic card!! The TNT chipset was announced August 1998 (I checked ;-)), after GPL had gone gold. GPL supported the two major propriety API's which had been present during it's development: Glide & Rendition. Back then D3D and OpenGL didn't look like ever putting a dent in 3Dfx's armor. Looking back it's easy to say they should have supported Direct3D, but at the time I think it was the right decision. The hardware back then had a hard time producing a decent framerate with a propriaty API let alone in Direct3D. > > <snip> > A 3D game with an unsupported beta patch is a shame, > nothing to get proud about. Get this: Sierra-Papyrus never had the intention to support Direct3D. Grant coded it in his spare time. You can hardly expect him to do a full HWC test. Neither can you expect Sierra-Papyrus to support Grant's creation other than to provide a little webspace on their site for it. > > <snip> > Sure, but I don't like those companies who are incompatible > to standard hardware. Again, Direct3D was not a standard back then and your "standard" card didn't even exist! -Even if you're talking about the budget release, your demand makes no sense. No budget release has ever been updated to include current technology (most of them don't even include available patches). GP2 was released on budget a while back without any 3D or Force Feedback support and why should it? > > <snip> > Forget it. The pace of GPL is totally dependent on > resolution and textures, not on the driving model. Eh? -Then why, prey tell, does GPL produce less fps than NFS:PU at the same "eye candy-level"? Same processor, same clockspeed, same 3D cards, same API... does my processor do "nothing" for a while each frame in GPL perhaps? -Surely, you're not going to tell me GPL is the visually more intricate game of the two? GPL runs slower than NFS:PU because it calculates more parameters more times per second, end of story. > > <snip> Jan. =---

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:32:52 +0100, MichaelJP <[email hidden]> mangled uncounted electrons thus:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] says... >> Everyone here is looking >> forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does, >> great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books. > >I'm looking forward to GP3 and will almost certainly buy it.

I *shall* certainly buy it. I want to see the weather... >However, even if it's better I won't give up on GPL, simply because it >models the cars and tracks from a period of racing which was far more >compelling and exciting than the current high-downforce, zero-suspension, >mega-braked, go-kart track formula. <grin> As one who has no interest *at all* in racing on-line, and who is married with a partner who has no interest in racing sims, and who therefore has only a very limited time to indulge, GPL is too damned hard. I don't have the *time* to indulge in the learning curve, much though I'd like to. The sim looks terrific now I have the patch to properly support my TNT2 graphics card (bought long before I bought GPL - I've only owned the sim for about 3 months, bought as a cheapie in the local discount store) but it's not much fun if the car won't stay on the track... GP2 OTOH I enjoy immensely - I can tinker with the setup enough to make a difference, score points just often enough to keep my interest - and stay on the track unless I do something *really* stupid... I don't decry GPL for those who enjoy the precision and the enjoyment of conquering one of the most... taxing... driving sims out there. But it's not my cup of tea... Martin D. Pay Just my 2 penn'orth...

>I hope not. I'm just learning GPL and modern F1 leaves me a bit cold. >I guess I could always go back to Championship Manager 3 and Quake 3 >Arena. Agreed. Actually I didn't quite mean it like that (originally I had an anti-DGF line in there but I changed that because it was rude and intolerant :-) ). What I meant was that if the driving experience and multiplayer is on a par with GPL then GP3 may well become the most talked about and driven of the current sims. Although even if it is I'm sure I'll fire up the Ferrari at the Ring ever now and then :-) FWIW I don't think GP3 will be up to GPL standard in those areas. I'm awaiting WSC most of all... -- Cheers! Graeme Nash

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Everyone here is looking > forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does, > great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books. I'm looking forward to GP3 and will almost certainly buy it. However, even if it's better I won't give up on GPL, simply because it models the cars and tracks from a period of racing which was far more compelling and exciting than the current high-downforce, zero-suspension, mega-braked, go-kart track formula. - Michael

David G Fisher wrote... > > "Jan Verschueren" wrote... > > > <snip> > > If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an > > incompatible card in the first place. > > GPL should of been compatible with more cards. F1 2000 should have had better framerates and better AI, but has also had to rely on patching to fix some issues. When the alfa demo of GPL came out I doubt even the V2 was widespread and I'm sure there were no TNT or GeForce based cards, at all. One might argue GPL should have supported D3D and OpenGL out of the box, but again nothing indicated these API's would dominate the game market 18 months down the line. > > > <snip> > > Calling a labour of love "crap" will get you that. > > Labor of love? You guys must be very close to know > each other so intimately. I'm sure Grant did what he did because he loves GPL and is pleased we're still enjoying it after 18 months > There's quite a few developers who's "labor of love" > has been called much worse than crap by fans of GPL > (understatement of the decade). Their labour of love spawned a bastard child. ;-))

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > <snip> > > A lot of people commented favourably on NFS:PU, > > myself included. EA Sports definately made a step > > in the rigth direction with this release. I'm sure > > anyone saying it had better physics than GPL got a > > pasting though, because it just hasn't. GPL, at 18 > > months old, still has the most advanced physics > > found in PC racing simulators. This is not about to > > change, not before N4 and WSC are released anyway. > > Might want to get used to that notion. > > Not true. Comments like this are what makes the GPL > crowd an annoyance when discussing sims at r.a.s. > F12000 has a physics model as complex as GPL's. > Viper has a very complex physics model. So does > RC2000. So does NFS:PU. Forget opinions. Check the > code and you will see.

We've had this discussion before, David, technical vs. immersion merit, etc... I challenged you then, I challenge you now. Show me. IMO, there's no way RC2000, NFS:PU and F12k have the same or higher simulation rate and/or equal or greater vehicle component detail. But again I'm ready to entertain anything that might support your argument. Don't get me wrong, I understand the criteria by which you judge sims and I respect that. I just base a lot of my judgement on the technical complexity/realism aspect of the simulation be cause(and this may well be entirely subjective) I'm looking for the most "believable", "precise" and "responsive" virtual driving experience.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > <snip> > > But on the other hand, no other game allows you > > to tailor the car to your own preferences quite > > as profoundly as GPL. > > Not true again. There are a number of sims which let > you do that.

Hmm, yes, I'll give you that. MGPRS2 is very good in that respect too (maybe SODA as well). There's just something very pleasing about having "real" units instead of percentages in the setup screen. > > > <snip> > > NFS:PU has a lot less to calculate behind the scenes, a > > lot less often. To quote Keammer:"it's about how many > > CPU cycles you're willing to spend on eye-candy". > > Wrong yet again. See above. GPL runs a lot smoother if you "only" have 8 AI too. Again, I disagree. See above also.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > <snip> > > 1) Please don't associate religion with intolerance, > > although the two might go together with some (loud) > > minorities, this is not the case for the vast majority > > of people who actively subscribe to a religion. > > > > 2) The GPL community is not intolerant towards people > > with different opinions unless they make a nuiscance > > of themselves first. > > LOL.

People here have strong opinions and word those in a strong manner. I think that's perfectly acceptable. Those who shy away from debate will shy away from other "difficult" things in life. This is the big league, rec.autos.simulators, not rec.let's.all.be.friends. > > The way things are shaping up GP3 might well receive > > a harsh reception here. However, should this occur, > > it won't be a reaction of intolerance, rather one of > > disappointment. > > The harsh reception will be for the same boring reasons as always. I'm not going to re-iterate my position on GP3 other than to say, judging from the information I have today, I'm very disappointed Geoff didn't attempt to move the bar for racing sims again. Jan. =---

Back up that statement David. I'm not willing to take your word for it. Jan. =--- David G Fisher wrote... > <snip> > They insist that GPL's physics are above all others when that's simply not > true. Since that's not true, most of what they preach is really nonsense.

David G Fisher <[email hidden]> schrieb im Beitrag <NGP55.21208$A%[email hidden]>... > I'm surprised you needed to ask this question. :-) > I always got negative comments from those GPL maniacs when asking questions about the game... :-) Its just a fact that GPL is driver sensitive, but write it and you get flamed. I just expect that I can play a 2 years old game on a P2-400 with TNT and have an acceptable frame rate. Is that too much? > Yes, many but not all, are very rude and intolerant. Not only to other > posters but especially to the people who create the sims which comprise > their hobby. > Sure, not everyone is intolerant, but the most vocal people are. Jochen

In article <[email hidden]>, Graeme Nash <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >>I >>already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3. > >Err... I don't think that's the case at all. Everyone here is looking >forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does, >great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books. >If it doesn't, many will carry on with GPL - because it would therefore >still be the best sim around. > >-- >Cheers! >Graeme Nash

Agreed Graeme, Not to mention that many of us have enough room in our life for *many* good sims. Never understood why people have to pick just *one* great sim, and champion it with blinders on to the exclusion of all other great sims that may be equally valid in their own way to the experience they are trying to simulate, whether that be GPL or RC2000 or NFS:PU. Personally I own all three, play all three and am glad I bough all three. And I will also be buying GP3 because I was a huge fan of GP2 up until GPL came along. Then again I still drive GP2 from time to time, and I'm sure I'll be driving GPL from time to time even after I've gone on to other newer favorite sims. Maybe I'm alone in the fact that I can afford to buy more than one good sim, maybe that's why I don't have to spend all my time either beating up on GPL or RC2000, or comparing GPL's physics to RC2000 or F1 2000 etc. Otherwise it's hard to understand the stubborn behavior of some people. Here's hoping we have many more good sims to come, and I can only hope they top out the wonderful sims we already have, nothing wrong with that, it's called progress. --John --

Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura <[email hidden]> schrieb im Beitrag <8j848r$2eg$[email hidden]>... > > Unfortunately, here are some followers of GPL who won't accept anothersim. > I know damn well that GP3 is going to kick some major ass come July 28thbut > it is most definitely going to be put down by many around here. > This is so ridicolous. THis reminds me a lot on religious maniacs who just accept their opinion. > I think it sums it up when only last week when I read the words..... "I > don't think GP2 was a sim". > :-)) Well, it was. IMO even NFS Porsche is a sim, because it has an acceptable driving model. NFS4 was not a sim, just an arcade racer. GPL is still my favorite sim, but I am also annoyed by some design flaws. One is the missing saving feature within a race. Jochen

On Mon 26 Jun 2000 06:28:05pm, ymenard wrote: <snip> A great portion of the people here appreciate NFS:PU <snip> I *must* get around to buying that game. Maybe when my EB loyalty card voucher comes through... >I am anxious in a positive way on how our community will react to >the "Big threes" that are soon to be released (Gp3, N4, WSC). >GPL will still keep it's nostalgic appeal to the majority (why do you >think people still race F1GP or N1?).<snip> Of the three forthcoming games, WSC is the one that excites me most - mainly because of the way it's being written, primarily as a labour of love by enthusiasts rather than as a cash cow. GP3 I'll buy, if only because everyone else will. Then I'll discover it needs 512 megs and a 2GHz processor to get above 10fps, and go back to MGPRS2. N4 I'll ignore, as I don't like NASCAR. I think a great deal more people will continue to play GPL than continue to play F1GP1 - because GPL has never been superseded in the way GP1 has. It's going to take one hell of a game to displace GPL at the top of my list - WSC might just do it, but it'll be very hard. -- David. (GPLRank handicap: +39.92) "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

On Mon 26 Jun 2000 11:22:56pm, Graeme Nash wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >>I >>already know how sensible they will react to people who will like >>GP3. > >Err... I don't think that's the case at all. Everyone here is >looking forward to GP3,

Yes, and have been for some years now. Ever since I got GP2, in fact. >and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it >does, great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books. That's possibly overegging it a bit. After all, I still play Network Q Rally Championship, even though RC2000 is much more advanced, because no other game lets me do the whole RAC Rally. In the same way, I'll continue to play GPL, because no other game has such fantastic circuits (especially the Ring!). -- David. (GPLRank handicap: +39.92) "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

Your original comment (see below) that I took exception to stated "tailor the car to your own preferences". It didn't say anything about "setup options" or "authenticity / realism". If it's possible to "give the cars a little more stick" in SCGT, and it's not possible to do it in GPL, then that is but one small example of how SCGT "allows you to tailor the car to your own preferences" more profoundly than GPL. If you were to change your original comment from "tailor the car to your own preferences" to "setup the car to your own preferences", then I would agree with you; however, "tailor the car to your own preferences" would include modifying .veh files, and is not limited to any "setup options" or "authenticity / realism" restrictions. "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:V2P55.68611$[email hidden]... > Well, quite frankly, I fail to see the point of yours. SCGT setup options > are not bad, but no way near as detailed as GPL's. SCGT's "open" > architecture is one of it's strong points, but making a car "stick like > glue" or soup up a GTQ to 200mph doesn't help the authenticity / realismof > the title. > > That being said I would love to edit a file in GPL to give the cars alittle > more stick (5% might even be too much) in an off-line install, but it'snot

Quoted text (21 lines)

> possible yet. > > Jan. > =--- > Reggie Brooks wrote... > > "Jan Verschueren" wrote... > > > But on the other hand, no other game allows you to > > > tailor the car to your own preferences quite as > > > profoundly as GPL. > > > > I take exception to this comment. In SCGT you can make > > any car (even the lowliest of the GTQ class) go over > > 200 mph and stick to the track like glue > > with some simple editing of the .veh file associated with that car using > > Notepad or any other text editor. > > > > > > > > > >

does anyone here consider GP2 a "true sim?" I hope not it's a good sim, but not true to life, however I don't consider GPL a true sim either, until it's exact it's not a true sim. as for GPL being far superior to GP2 in the physics department... I sure hope so GP2 is pretty old, and came out a sim generation before GPL with games like Nascar 2's engine. I'm wondering if we're taking this guys tone a little to harsh? I think he was saying, yeah I think GPL is a lot better than GP2, but it still has it's flaws. Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8j8lci$926$[email hidden]... > > Tracey Miller <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:AHM55.196$[email hidden]... > > "Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura" wrote > > > I think it sums it up when only last week when I read the words....."I

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > > don't think GP2 was a sim". > > > > You're kidding right? Did someone actually write that? Seriously? > > In the "Anyone aware of this Bug in GPL" thread. Here's a snipping. > > "Gp2 models this properly and it looks like they modelled it the other way > around in GPL, I am not saying that GP2 is better because of this, I know > GPL is far superior and don't consider GP2 a true sim but it models this > issue better than GPL." > > Sorry to pick out the author here, I'm ot picking on you or anything, It > just to prove a point. > > Its a bit contradictory but it say it. > > > >

have you really opened up all the code to these games? that is illegal by the way and not easily done. btw, just because the physics are just as complex, doesn't mean that their done right. Nascar 2000 from EA has more complex physics than Nascar 2, but doesn't necciarilly simulate the car better. I could make a extremely deep physics model 5000 times bigger than GPL's but if all my physics were programmed all wrong it wouldn't make a difference. So when we talk about the realism of a sim, lets not talk about how man lines of code are involved anymore David. Everyone knows that GPL does a more realistic job than F1 2000.... you can jump right into F1 2000 and cruise right along, that's not real. The first time I drove out of the pits in GPL I spun out, and that's what I did for the next few weeks, that is. David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ryP55.21199$A%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7gN55.66280$[email hidden]... > > Jochen Heistermann wrote... > > > Just let me start with the fact that I play GPL since > > > it came out and I still enjoy it. > > > > > > What bothers me really is the reaction of the GPL fans > > > to all kinds of critics to GPL. > > > > Here we go again. > > > > > For example I loaded the D3D patch and got bad > > > performance, I read through the readme and changed > > > the parameters as Papy recommended. I ended with bad > > > performance. > > > > If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an incompatible card in > the > > first place. > > > GPL should of been compatible with more cards. > > > > > I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of > > > flames from the "experts". > > > > Calling a labour of love "crap" will get you that. > > Labor of love? You guys must be very close to know each other so

intimately.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > There's quite a few developers who's "labor of love" has been called much > worse than crap by fans of GPL (understatement of the decade). > > > > > This is not an exception. SOme time ago someone posted > > > that he liked the driving model of NFS Porsche - he > > > got flamed a lot, because "only GPL has an acceptable > > > driving model". > > > > A lot of people commented favourably on NFS:PU, myself included. EA

Sports > > definately made a step in the rigth direction with this release. I'msure > > anyone saying it had better physics than GPL got a pasting though,because > > it just hasn't. GPL, at 18 months old, still has the most advancedphysics > > found in PC racing simulators. This is not about to change, not beforeN4 > > and WSC are released anyway. Might want to get used to that notion. > > > Not true. Comments like this are what makes the GPL crowd an annoyancewhen

Quoted text (24 lines)

> discussing sims at r.a.s. F12000 has a physics model as complex as GPL's. > Viper has a very complex physics model. So does RC2000. So does NFS:PU. > Forget opinions. Check the code and you will see. > > > > > I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of > > > the GPL patches. They work only with some of the drivers > > > and the game tends to be unstable with lots of drivers > > > that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning of > > > those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL > > > community. > > > > Yeah well, unsupported sort of implies "don't come crying if it doesn't > work > > on your machine". > > > > > Here are some of mine opinions: > > > -GPL is a great game > > > > We already knew that. ;-) > > > > > -GPL is too driver sensitive and the patches were not tested properly > > > > But on the other hand, no other game allows you to tailor the car to

your

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > own preferences quite as profoundly as GPL. > > > Not true again. There are a number of sims which let you do that. > > > > > - The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking > > > games like NFS Porsche. > > > > NFS:PU has a lot less to calculate behind the scenes, a lot less often.

To

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > quote Keammer:"it's about how many CPU cycles you're willing to spend on > > eye-candy". > > > Wrong yet again. See above. > > > > > -The GPL community defends their game with religious > > > intolerance, I already know how sensible they will react > > > to people who will like GP3. > > > > 1) Please don't associate religion with intolerance, although the two > might > > go together with some (loud) minorities, this is not the case for the

vast

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > majority of people who actively subscribe to a religion. > > > > 2) The GPL community is not intolerant towards people with different > > opinions unless they make a nuiscance of themselves first. > > > LOL. > > > >The way things > > are shaping up GP3 might well receive a harsh reception here. However, > > should this occur, it won't be a reaction of intolerance, rather one of > > disappointment. > > > The harsh reception will be for the same boring reasons as always. > > David G Fisher > > > >

Well done Andrew...we Smirked a-bit. dave henrie "Andrew Turner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Brett, > > I think he may have a point. I find, personally, that the more I play > GPL, the more rude and intolerant I get. Especially rude. No, wait. > Intolerant. That's it. I get more intolerant. > > No, wait.

snips

You make waaay too much sense. :-) David G Fisher "Joao "John" Silva" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8j9inj$v9p$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (38 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > Graeme Nash <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >>I > >>already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3. > > > >Err... I don't think that's the case at all. Everyone here is looking > >forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does, > >great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books. > >If it doesn't, many will carry on with GPL - because it would therefore > >still be the best sim around. > > > >-- > >Cheers! > >Graeme Nash > > Agreed Graeme, > > Not to mention that many of us have enough room in our life for *many* > good sims. > > Never understood why people have to pick just *one* great sim, > and champion it with blinders on to the exclusion of all other great > sims that may be equally valid in their own way to the experience they > are trying to simulate, whether that be GPL or RC2000 or NFS:PU. > > Personally I own all three, play all three and am glad I bough all > three. And I will also be buying GP3 because I was a huge fan of GP2 up > until GPL came along. Then again I still drive GP2 from time to time, > and I'm sure I'll be driving GPL from time to time even after I've gone > on to other newer favorite sims. > > Maybe I'm alone in the fact that I can afford to buy more than one good > sim, maybe that's why I don't have to spend all my time either beating > up on GPL or RC2000, or comparing GPL's physics to RC2000 or F1 2000 etc. > Otherwise it's hard to understand the stubborn behavior of some people. > > Here's hoping we have many more good sims to come, and I can only hope

they > top out the wonderful sims we already have, nothing wrong with that, > it's called progress. > > --John > --

David G Fisher wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > And I feel I'm quite a bit like you as well. > > The release of GP3 will probably prove us right again. > > The physics surely won't be as advanced as GPL. I can guarantee that one. > There will be the insistence of canned spins. The graphics will be > considered "eye candy". Blah, blah, blah. > > I've already enjoyed the posts which berated GP3 for not having ff, and > which said the reason it didn't was because the physics model wasn't > advanced enough. > > David G Fisher

In this case we seem to have the exact same feeling. While I am certain that the physics model will be on par with GPL (footnote 1), the complaints will persist. You know what the funniest thing is? GP2 did NOT have canned spins, and there are many ways to show this. I am sure there will be people complaining of the same in GP3 if it will really model characteristics of modern F1 cars, so I'll really be able to know whom physics models cannot be discussed with. -Gregor (footnote 1) Why do I say on par and not surpass? Simply because GPL model is already very close to what can possibly be achieved regarding the simulation of a vehicle on a PC, and any further advances in precision even if they existed will hardly be observable by the user. This is especially true due the low travel of the suspension of the modern F1 cars, as it is in modelling the suspension there is still some way to go past GPL. I think WSC is going in exactly this direction, though, and there it just may show.

Ok, no problem, as this was how I intended the comment in the first place. Jan. =--- Reggie Brooks wrote... > Your original comment (see below) that I took exception to stated "tailor > the car to your own preferences". It didn't say anything about "setup > options" or "authenticity / realism". > > If it's possible to "give the cars a little more stick" in SCGT, and it's > not possible to do it in GPL, then that is but one small example of howSCGT > "allows you to tailor the car to your own preferences" more profoundlythan > GPL. > > If you were to change your original comment from "tailor the car to yourown > preferences" to "setup the car to your own preferences", then I wouldagree > with you; however, "tailor the car to your own preferences" would include > modifying .veh files, and is not limited to any "setup options" or > "authenticity / realism" restrictions. > > <snip>

> "You should spend more time with your wife and kids instead of playingstupid > computer games! What? You haven't got a wife and kids? > See what I mean!!" It was a fucking joke, you stupid asshole (now this is rude isn't it? - no, no, its a joke as well) > Infact That was Terrible!! What does having a marrage Impact Youplaying > on Racing simulations!!! If your IQ is more than 30 you should ask yourself: "What is the impact of playing Racing simulations on your marriage ?", and NOT the other way round. If you are married, you should know what I mean. Of course my original message was meant as a joke. If your answer was also meant as a joke, then Im the stupid asshole of course :) Keep on racing :)

Well done Andrew...we Smirked a-bit. dave henrie snips

The Riva TNT was and still is THE standard 3D graphic card!! A 3D game with an unsupported beta patch is a shame, nothing to get proud about. Sure, but I don't like those companies who are incompatible to standard hardware. Forget it. The pace of GPL is totally dependent on resolution and textures, not on the driving model. Okay, you got a point! I DO associate religion with intolerance, but this is overgeneralized. Jochen

I heard that. :-) David G Fisher

GPL's learning curve is way too steep, I agree. IMO the reward is enormous once you claw your way up there though. Your 3D card is not supported by the game out of the box. But for the continued efforts of GPL's developers you'd have _NO FRAMERATE_ at all. Is this so hard for people to understand?? -I'm hanging on to my SLI'd V2's for GPL. I therefore accept games like RC2000, SBK2000, NFS:PU, QIII, UT et al will not run at as high a resolution or as smoothly as they could on one of these 3rd generation cards. I have made a priority assessment and that's that. You don't here me complaining about NFS:PU chugging a little at the start of races in 800x600, now do you? I'm sorry if this sounds rude or intolerant, but I assure you it's just exasperation on my part. Jan. =--- Jochen Heistermann wrote...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> <snip> I always got negative comments from those GPL maniacs when > asking questions about the game... :-) > > Its just a fact that GPL is driver sensitive, but write it and you get > flamed. > > I just expect that I can play a 2 years old game on a P2-400 with TNT > and have an acceptable frame rate. Is that too much? > > > Yes, many but not all, are very rude and intolerant. Not only to other > > posters but especially to the people who create the sims which comprise > > their hobby. > > > Sure, not everyone is intolerant, but the most vocal people are. > > Jochen >

"Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YET55.221790$[email hidden]... > have you really opened up all the code to these games? that is illegal by > the way and not easily done. Just as a factual issue you are incorrect about the illegality. The reason people like Noonan and the GPLEA can "get away" with what they do is that they havn't done anything illegal, or even immoral. The reason you feel it is illegal is that software companies have done everything in their power to foster that impression. Just as the "FBI warning" and scrambling of DVD's are there to foster the impression that it's illegal to make copies of them. It isn't. Both the courts, and congress by actual law, affirm your right to copy videos and computer programs. They also affirm your right to look at the code, if you can only figure out how. Even the the DMCA, the most retrictive, consumer unfriendly, piece of copyright legisation every passed still affirms your right, as an end user, to look at and even modify, commercially released code.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:31:39 +0100 Gradee \"The BoDee\" Ventura <[email hidden]> wrote: % Not everyone is like that, % I feel I'm a bit like you, I like GPL and still enjoy it too but I can see % the good in other sims and I can see a flaw in GPL when there is one to be % seen. % Unfortunately, here are some followers of GPL who won't accept another sim. % I know damn well that GP3 is going to kick some major ass come July 28th but % it is most definitely going to be put down by many around here. It's not that we won't except other sims, it's that other sims haven't delivered what we are looking for in a sim. What I want is great physics, mass differences between marques, and great online racing (DG no need to respond -- we know where you stand <G>). Oh and great tracks to race on.... When another sim comes along that can deliver on all of these, I'll be there in the first day line-up to buy it. For the future it looks like N4 may be able to deliver and WSC is making every effort to deliver. For me it looks like GP3 will be a good diversion (wimpy online features?). Heck, even NFS:PU was welcomed by the GPL crowd and it's not even a full fledged sim..... Go figure.... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:03:19 GMT David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote: % Not true. Comments like this are what makes the GPL crowd an annoyance when % discussing sims at r.a.s. F12000 has a physics model as complex as GPL's. % Viper has a very complex physics model. So does RC2000. So does NFS:PU. % Forget opinions. Check the code and you will see. While f12k may have a complex physics model, I didn't feel that it was as complex as what I feel in GPL. That's the difference. Also how well that complex physics model is modeled. Just because it's complex and has alot of variables doesn't mean that it is modeled correctly or in as fine as detail as GPL does it. There I am rude and intolerent <G> -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Kevin Gavitt wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YET55.221790$[email hidden]... > > have you really opened up all the code to these games? that is illegal by > > the way and not easily done. > > Just as a factual issue you are incorrect about the illegality. > > The reason people like Noonan and the GPLEA can "get away" with what they do > is that they havn't done anything illegal, or even immoral. > > The reason you feel it is illegal is that software companies have done > everything in their power to foster that impression. Just as the "FBI > warning" and scrambling of DVD's are there to foster the impression that > it's illegal to make copies of them. It isn't. Both the courts, and congress > by actual law, affirm your right to copy videos and computer programs. > > They also affirm your right to look at the code, if you can only figure out > how. > > Even the the DMCA, the most retrictive, consumer unfriendly, piece of > copyright legisation every passed still affirms your right, as an end user, > to look at and even modify, commercially released code.

Correct. The only time you cross the line is if you should attempt to modify & redistribute their code *for profit*. Sometimes the companies will send their legal hounds on you for redistributing their code at no profit, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on. However, one has to balance that fact against the legal fees they would have to shell out in order to get off the hook. -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +438.42 as of 6/21 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

Jochen Heistermann wrote: > I just expect that I can play a 2 years old game on a P2-400 with TNT > and have an acceptable frame rate. Is that too much? > > > Yes, many but not all, are very rude and intolerant. Not only to other > > posters but especially to the people who create the sims which comprise > > their hobby. I'm not being rude or intolerant, I can't let you know if I don't tell you. But, did you read the box before you purchased this sim? When it was released, it wouldn't work with anything but a Voodoo or a Rendition card. Period. Thanks to the guys at Papy, a beta of OGL was released for the "other people". And now the D3D patch. But back to the original question posed. Did you *read* the requirements before you bought? If not, why? And if you did, do you make it a habit to complain to the manufacturers when their software doesn't run on unsupported equipment? Curious minds want to know... -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +438.42 as of 6/21 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

Now you see, MY theory hold's true. Having a wife and/or kids makes people truly rude...no intolerant...yes that's it, intolerant. No I'm back to rude here. Wait, I don't have a wife and kids. Never mind. C. Hansen Trying really really hard to play well with others. GPL Rank -- rank pretty much captures it. On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:49:05 GMT, "Karl Zosel" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

>> "You should spend more time with your wife and kids instead of playing >stupid >> computer games! What? You haven't got a wife and kids? >> See what I mean!!" > >It was a fucking joke, you stupid asshole (now this is rude isn't it? - no, >no, its a joke as well) > >> Infact That was Terrible!! What does having a marrage Impact You >playing >> on Racing simulations!!! > >If your IQ is more than 30 you should ask yourself: "What is the impact of >playing Racing simulations on your marriage ?", and NOT the other way round. >If you are married, you should know what I mean. > >Of course my original message was meant as a joke. >If your answer was also meant as a joke, then Im the stupid asshole of >course :) > >Keep on racing :) > >

I'm not surprised at GPLs popularity on this newsgroup. Because of its difficulty and complexity there is alot to talk about. Go to some literary discussion (salon.com--actually don't go there) some time and you'll find difficult and complex novels that hardly anybody reads like Infinite Jest generate tons more discussion than fun and widely read Grisham and Clancy best sellers . And GPL is very difficult and complex. I discovered it recently and am completely addicted to it like no other racing game because it is fun, challenging, and captures a certain feel that i generally don't get with racing games. I have no idea whether it has "realistic" physics but it does appear to have physics. As far as people who like other games getting flamed: sheesh deal with it. Just ignore the zealots. We all know that they are, in the end, short bus riding blithering idiots with tiny penises, smaller minds, and strange sexual fetishes i'd rather not get into this early in the morning. C. Hansen (go Holland!!!) On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:33:15 -0700, "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (41 lines)

>does anyone here consider GP2 a "true sim?" I hope not it's a good sim, but >not true to life, however I don't consider GPL a true sim either, until it's >exact it's not a true sim. > >as for GPL being far superior to GP2 in the physics department... I sure >hope so GP2 is pretty old, and came out a sim generation before GPL with >games like Nascar 2's engine. > >I'm wondering if we're taking this guys tone a little to harsh? I think he >was saying, yeah I think GPL is a lot better than GP2, but it still has it's >flaws. > >Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8j8lci$926$[email hidden]... >> >> Tracey Miller <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:AHM55.196$[email hidden]... >> > "Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura" wrote >> > > I think it sums it up when only last week when I read the words..... >"I >> > > don't think GP2 was a sim". >> > >> > You're kidding right? Did someone actually write that? Seriously? >> >> In the "Anyone aware of this Bug in GPL" thread. Here's a snipping. >> >> "Gp2 models this properly and it looks like they modelled it the other way >> around in GPL, I am not saying that GP2 is better because of this, I know >> GPL is far superior and don't consider GP2 a true sim but it models this >> issue better than GPL." >> >> Sorry to pick out the author here, I'm ot picking on you or anything, It >> just to prove a point. >> >> Its a bit contradictory but it say it. >> >> >> >> > >

"Michael E. Carver" [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:03:19 GMT David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote: > >% Not true. Comments like this are what makes the GPL crowd an annoyance when >% discussing sims at r.a.s. F12000 has a physics model as complex as GPL's. >% Viper has a very complex physics model. So does RC2000. So does NFS:PU. >% Forget opinions. Check the code and you will see. > >While f12k may have a complex physics model, I didn't feel that it was >as complex as what I feel in GPL. That's the difference. Also how well >that complex physics model is modeled. Just because it's complex and >has alot of variables doesn't mean that it is modeled correctly or in as >fine as detail as GPL does it.

Actually, as Gregor Veble once pointed out, the physics in F1-2000 are at least on par with GPL. Also the AI must abide to the same laws of physics as the player. What ISI did wrong, IMO, is that they didn't model an F1 car. The distribution of weight is off, and the suspension is way too soft. And then they added ABS in certain cases....all this to "improve" the gameplay. You might fix some of these problems by editing various files, but if I want a tool to create the ultimate sim I'll use MSVC++ 6.0... Ah, and I see David still is claiming a full physics model in RC2000...sigh Remco

If GP3 is good it can share my HD with GPL, ain't no way I'm removing that gem <G> -- Ian P <email address invalid due to spam Graeme Nash <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > >I > >already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3. > > Err... I don't think that's the case at all. Everyone here is looking > forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does, > great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books. > If it doesn't, many will carry on with GPL - because it would therefore > still be the best sim around. > > -- > Cheers! > Graeme Nash

GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace after half the last month's practice. Indigo On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:47:22 +0100, Graeme Nash <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >>I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of flames from >>the "experts". > >Hmm, a little sensitive to criticism aren't we? I read through that >thread where you (rudely and intolerantly) called the patch "crap", and >I saw *one* post which could be considered a flame. > >You should try saying "GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace >after half an hour's practice" and then see what you get :-) > >-- >Cheers! >Graeme Nash

I hope not. I'm just learning GPL and modern F1 leaves me a bit cold. I guess I could always go back to Championship Manager 3 and Quake 3 Arena. C. Hansen On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:22:56 +0100, Graeme Nash <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >>I >>already know how sensible they will react to people who will like GP3. > >Err... I don't think that's the case at all. Everyone here is looking >forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does, >great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books. >If it doesn't, many will carry on with GPL - because it would therefore >still be the best sim around. > >-- >Cheers! >Graeme Nash

bingo On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:32:52 +0100, MichaelJP <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] says... >> Everyone here is looking >> forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does, >> great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books. > >I'm looking forward to GP3 and will almost certainly buy it. > >However, even if it's better I won't give up on GPL, simply because it >models the cars and tracks from a period of racing which was far more >compelling and exciting than the current high-downforce, zero-suspension, >mega-braked, go-kart track formula. > >- Michael

Wouldn't this mean that a person could alter the code of a game in a very insignificant way and redistribute the game on the internet as WAREZ for no profit? If so then that would make WAREZ legal! I would think cracking the game would qualify as altering the code. Vintook "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Kevin Gavitt wrote: > > > > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:YET55.221790$[email hidden]... > > > have you really opened up all the code to these games? that is illegalby > > > the way and not easily done. > > > > Just as a factual issue you are incorrect about the illegality. > > > > The reason people like Noonan and the GPLEA can "get away" with whatthey do > > is that they havn't done anything illegal, or even immoral. > > > > The reason you feel it is illegal is that software companies have done > > everything in their power to foster that impression. Just as the "FBI > > warning" and scrambling of DVD's are there to foster the impression that > > it's illegal to make copies of them. It isn't. Both the courts, andcongress > > by actual law, affirm your right to copy videos and computer programs. > > > > They also affirm your right to look at the code, if you can only figureout > > how. > > > > Even the the DMCA, the most retrictive, consumer unfriendly, piece of > > copyright legisation every passed still affirms your right, as an enduser,

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > to look at and even modify, commercially released code. > > > Correct. The only time you cross the line is if you should attempt to > modify & redistribute their code *for profit*. Sometimes the companies > will send their legal hounds on you for redistributing their code at no > profit, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on. However, one has > to balance that fact against the legal fees they would have to shell out > in order to get off the hook. > > -- > Chuck Kandler > GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 > GPL F3 Handicap of +438.42 as of 6/21 > K&S Racing > http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 > > Registered Linux User #180746 > http://counter.li.org

Kai Fuller <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tuT55.278867$[email hidden]... > does anyone here consider GP2 a "true sim?" I hope not it's a good sim,but > not true to life, however I don't consider GPL a true sim either, untilit's

Quoted text (8 lines)

> exact it's not a true sim. > > as for GPL being far superior to GP2 in the physics department... I sure > hope so GP2 is pretty old, and came out a sim generation before GPL with > games like Nascar 2's engine. > > I'm wondering if we're taking this guys tone a little to harsh? I think he > was saying, yeah I think GPL is a lot better than GP2, but it still has

it's > flaws. Well no sim is a "true" sim if you over analyse them but yes why would anyone say GP2 was not a good sim? It as, it as the best of its time and according to some still the best modern day sim around. Maybe the quote as a little out of context but my basic point is this: GPL is NOT *far* superior to GP2. GP2 *IS* a sim. Theres more to life than GPL. And as I must repeat over and over, difficulty is not realism!

Quoted text (9 lines)

> deal with it. Just ignore the zealots. We all know that they are, in > the end, short bus riding blithering idiots with tiny penises, smaller > minds, and strange sexual fetishes i'd rather not get into this early > in the morning. > > C. Hansen > > (go Holland!!!) >

If you feel up to it later in the day, care to meet down on the corner? :)

> Correct. The only time you cross the line is if you should attempt to > modify & redistribute their code *for profit*. Sometimes the companies > will send their legal hounds on you for redistributing their code at no > profit, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on. However, one has > to balance that fact against the legal fees they would have to shell out > in order to get off the hook. And I'm afraid here you are incorrect. In fact the law specifically says that profit motive is irrelevant and imposes a minimun fine of $250 *per count* on those who distribute copyrighted material without permission. If this were not the case piracy without a profit motive would be legal. It isn't. The rational is that IP is indeed property, and thus the owner, and ONLY the owner has to right to distribute it as he sees fit. If he chooses to distribute for profit anyone distributing for free dilutes the value of the property and thus finacially harms the owner, whether the said distribution was overtly for profit or not. Think about it a bit, you'll see how it works and makes sense. I've spent years as a music publisher, and am now considering the switch to software publishing. I know what I'm talking about here.

"Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:OC565.22771$[email hidden]... > Wouldn't this mean that a person could alter the code of a game in a very > insignificant way and redistribute the game on the internet as WAREZ forno > profit? If so then that would make WAREZ legal! I would think cracking the > game would qualify as altering the code. > > Vintook You are correct. See my response to our electrically charged relative. Note the DMCA specifically forbids this. People have some vague awarness of this perhaps and add it to their mistaken belief that it's illegal to look at or modify the code. The DMCA again *specifically* states that this does NOT modify any existing fair use laws. i.e., the *end user* retains the right to whatever he damn well pleases to do with the code * for his own use.* Some shrink wrap licenses under the code deny this. Just as the "FBI warning" on your video tapes falsley claim, or at least intentially misleadingly claim, that you can't copy them legally. Noonan's case is actually somewhat different. He isn't distributing any code to which he * is not the legal copyright holder.* His converters are all his own, and only his own work. They do in fact modify existing code, but they only do that to code that the end user already has the legal right use, and the fair use right to modify.

> You might fix some of these problems by editing various files, but if > I want a tool to create the ultimate sim I'll use MSVC++ 6.0... Hear hear! Only if you want my advice, ( which is a statement that always precedes said advice whether wanted or not), develop it in Linux and simultaniously port it over to Windows. Avoid all that MFC crap and other related Microsoft canned code.

I'm with you. I expect to be driving GPL for many years to come, unless, of course, there is a future GPL 2 that is an updated version of GPL as we know it, or perhaps if the West Bros. current project turns out to be tranformable into a GPL 2. The best NASCAR, WSC, Modern F1, CART sim that can be imagined won't replace GPL. I play chess too, this despite the fact that it's "more than 2 years old." It's still a good game and the great granddaddy of all strategic war games.

I heard that. :-) David G Fisher "Graeme Nash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Agreed. Actually I didn't quite mean it like that (originally I had an > anti-DGF line in there but I changed that because it was rude and > intolerant :-) ). > > What I meant was that if the driving experience and multiplayer is on a > par with GPL then GP3 may well become the most talked about and driven > of the current sims. Although even if it is I'm sure I'll fire up the > Ferrari at the Ring ever now and then :-) > > FWIW I don't think GP3 will be up to GPL standard in those areas. I'm > awaiting WSC most of all... > > -- > Cheers! > Graeme Nash

what do you mean it has no 3D support... Glide, Rendition and OpenGL are just as much a 3D API as D3D is, just because 3D isn't in the name, doesn't mean if you don;t have D3D (in 1998) you don't support 3D.! Jochen Heistermann <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8jaqth$n9p$15$[email hidden]... > Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: > [email hidden]... > > Jochen Heistermann wrote: > > > I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of the GPLpatches. > > > They work only with some of the drivers and the game tends to be > unstable > > > with lots of drivers that work with other graphic cards. Evenmentioning

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > of those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL community. > > > > > > Well, there are a couple of things to keep in mind here. This patch is > > an *unsupported* BETA release. You do know what that entails, correct? > > > Great an unsupported beta patch for a game that is nearly two years old. > It does not support D3D officially - besides Redguard this is the only > game I know which has 3D graphics but no 3D support. > > Those are the facts why Papy sucks on the market. > > Again, the game is great, but that beta patch is an example for > poor customer support. > > Jochen > >

well in racing simulations, I would assume for most of us yahoos realism would entail difficulty. Do you really think you would be able to jump right in a F1 McLaren and turn GP qualifying speeds in a couple days? And then take away several tactile sense, and still do so? If there was a simulated Toyota Corolla driving through the country of New York based on the GPL physics I would hope all of us with licenses could just cruise a long. While a modern F1 game should take a considerable amount of time to be able to make consistent laps. If not, then Michael Schumacher doesn't really have talent, he just got lucky and get to drive an extremely easy car around the track, and make it looks hard so that some upstart doesn't get any ideas. So GPL still has some ways to go, and in physics GPL is superior to GP2, it's a newer sim , and the way technology develops, I would hope it's pretty far. At least as far as GP2 was from the Indy 500 simulation. Far is subjective. and no GPL isn't life for us all, but for those who live for the most realistic and challenging simulations, then it is ok to really love GPL above and beyond everything out there, if that's how you feel. And people have the right to express their feeling about that. It's their opinion, and everymen someone thinks that they don't deserved to be flamed. Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8jaqd0$12n$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Kai Fuller <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tuT55.278867$[email hidden]... > > does anyone here consider GP2 a "true sim?" I hope not it's a good sim, > but > > not true to life, however I don't consider GPL a true sim either, until > it's > > exact it's not a true sim. > > > > as for GPL being far superior to GP2 in the physics department... I sure > > hope so GP2 is pretty old, and came out a sim generation before GPL with > > games like Nascar 2's engine. > > > > I'm wondering if we're taking this guys tone a little to harsh? I think

he

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > was saying, yeah I think GPL is a lot better than GP2, but it still has > it's > > flaws. > > Well no sim is a "true" sim if you over analyse them but yes why would > anyone say GP2 was not a good sim? It as, it as the best of its time and > according to some still the best modern day sim around. > > Maybe the quote as a little out of context but my basic point is this: > GPL is NOT *far* superior to GP2. > GP2 *IS* a sim. > > Theres more to life than GPL. > > And as I must repeat over and over, difficulty is not realism! > >

How do we know Gregor Veble has all the knowledge necessary to say that F12K's physics are accurate? what are his credentials? Just wondering... and once again, they could have every good physics model, but if that Sauber drives like a VW Bug, then that's all that really matters... (wait that sauber does drive like a VW Bug.) Remco Moedt <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Michael E. Carver" [email hidden] wrote: > > >On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:03:19 GMT David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >% Not true. Comments like this are what makes the GPL crowd an annoyancewhen > >% discussing sims at r.a.s. F12000 has a physics model as complex asGPL's.

Quoted text (24 lines)

> >% Viper has a very complex physics model. So does RC2000. So does NFS:PU. > >% Forget opinions. Check the code and you will see. > > > >While f12k may have a complex physics model, I didn't feel that it was > >as complex as what I feel in GPL. That's the difference. Also how well > >that complex physics model is modeled. Just because it's complex and > >has alot of variables doesn't mean that it is modeled correctly or in as > >fine as detail as GPL does it. > > Actually, as Gregor Veble once pointed out, the physics in F1-2000 are > at least on par with GPL. Also the AI must abide to the same laws of > physics as the player. What ISI did wrong, IMO, is that they didn't > model an F1 car. The distribution of weight is off, and the suspension > is way too soft. And then they added ABS in certain cases....all this > to "improve" the gameplay. > > You might fix some of these problems by editing various files, but if > I want a tool to create the ultimate sim I'll use MSVC++ 6.0... > > Ah, and I see David still is claiming a full physics model in > RC2000...sigh > > Remco >

GPL does take more CPU to do the physics. and the more that is taken from your processor, the lower the frame rate. The tires bouncing on uneven pavement doesn't just happen, because that's the way it happens... the CPU has to figure it in real time, taking away from the CPU's ability to perform its graphics ability. Jochen Heistermann <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8jarm5$nid$15$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> schrieb in im > Newsbeitrag: 7gN55.66280$[email hidden]... > > If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an incompatible card in > the > > first place. > > > The Riva TNT was and still is THE standard 3D graphic card!! > > > > I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of > > > flames from the "experts". > > > > Calling a labour of love "crap" will get you that. > > > A 3D game with an unsupported beta patch is a shame, nothing to get > proud about. > > > Yeah well, unsupported sort of implies "don't come crying if it doesn't > work > > on your machine". > > > Sure, but I don't like those companies who are incompatible to standard > hardware. > > > > - The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking > > > games like NFS Porsche. > > > > NFS:PU has a lot less to calculate behind the scenes, a lot less often.

To > > quote Keammer:"it's about how many CPU cycles you're willing to spend on > > eye-candy". > > > Forget it. The pace of GPL is totally dependent on resolution andtextures, > not > on the driving model. > > > 1) Please don't associate religion with intolerance, although the two > might > > go together with some (loud) minorities, this is not the case for thevast

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > majority of people who actively subscribe to a religion. > > > Okay, you got a point! I DO associate religion with intolerance, but this > is overgeneralized. > Jochen > > >

The best post I've read on this for a while. It's ok for GP3 not to be as tough and realistic as GPL. But if it's not, it's ok for people to call it for what it is. A Lite sim. It doesn't always have to be a competition over which sim is more realistic for everyone, but it's ok for those want that, to make those comparisons. Martin D. Pay <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (39 lines)

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:32:52 +0100, MichaelJP <[email hidden]> > mangled uncounted electrons thus: > > >In article <[email hidden]>, > >[email hidden] says... > >> Everyone here is looking > >> forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does, > >> great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books. > > > >I'm looking forward to GP3 and will almost certainly buy it. > > I *shall* certainly buy it. I want to see the weather... > > >However, even if it's better I won't give up on GPL, simply because it > >models the cars and tracks from a period of racing which was far more > >compelling and exciting than the current high-downforce, zero-suspension, > >mega-braked, go-kart track formula. > > <grin> As one who has no interest *at all* in racing on-line, and > who is married with a partner who has no interest in racing sims, > and who therefore has only a very limited time to indulge, GPL is > too damned hard. I don't have the *time* to indulge in the > learning curve, much though I'd like to. The sim looks terrific > now I have the patch to properly support my TNT2 graphics card > (bought long before I bought GPL - I've only owned the sim for > about 3 months, bought as a cheapie in the local discount store) > but it's not much fun if the car won't stay on the track... > > GP2 OTOH I enjoy immensely - I can tinker with the setup enough > to make a difference, score points just often enough to keep my > interest - and stay on the track unless I do something *really* > stupid... > > I don't decry GPL for those who enjoy the precision and the > enjoyment of conquering one of the most... taxing... driving sims > out there. But it's not my cup of tea... > > Martin D. Pay > Just my 2 penn'orth...

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:53:02 GMT, [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote: >Ah, and I see David still is claiming a full physics model in >RC2000...sigh But is does Remco, just check out the code yourself! Andre > >Remco

There are tons of games without d3d support. quake3, soldier of forture, mdk2. I'm not sure I understand your point about almost 2 years old. The older it is, the more likely it is to NOT have d3d support. Papy made what I consider a nice game with GPL but nobody bought it. Given that, it is surprising there are any patches whatsoever. The beta patch is an example of poor customer support? One could argure the lack of d3d support is poor customer support but that would be pretty attenuated since papy never promised d3d support. Papy sucks on the market (sic)? Nascar is keeping them in business. you mean GPL "sucks on the market?" True This is not to say software developers should be held to a higher standard. However I think people should temper high expectations with a bit of reallism. Chris H. On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:18:01 +0200, "Jochen Heistermann" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

>Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: >[email hidden]... >> Jochen Heistermann wrote: >> > I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of the GPL patches. >> > They work only with some of the drivers and the game tends to be >unstable >> > with lots of drivers that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning >> > of those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL community. >> >> >> Well, there are a couple of things to keep in mind here. This patch is >> an *unsupported* BETA release. You do know what that entails, correct? >> >Great an unsupported beta patch for a game that is nearly two years old. >It does not support D3D officially - besides Redguard this is the only >game I know which has 3D graphics but no 3D support. > >Those are the facts why Papy sucks on the market. > >Again, the game is great, but that beta patch is an example for >poor customer support. > >Jochen > >

Facts are tough to deal with. BTW, remember all those posts of yours which insisted 1:16 was the WR for Spain in F12000, and how you matched it so quickly? It's down to 1:13 now. You were wrong about that, just like you have no idea how a rally car handles. David G Fisher "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:53:02 GMT, [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) > wrote: > > >Ah, and I see David still is claiming a full physics model in > >RC2000...sigh > > But is does Remco, just check out the code yourself! > > Andre > > > > >Remco >

If only F12000 had a squishy suspension. David G Fisher "Michael E. Carver" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2o265.515$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:03:19 GMT David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote: > While f12k may have a complex physics model, I didn't feel that it was > as complex as what I feel in GPL. That's the difference. Also how well > that complex physics model is modeled. Just because it's complex and > has alot of variables doesn't mean that it is modeled correctly or in as > fine as detail as GPL does it. > > There I am rude and intolerent <G> > > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> David G Fisher wrote... > > > "Jan Verschueren" wrote... > > > > <snip> > > > If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an > > > incompatible card in the first place. > > > > GPL should of been compatible with more cards. > > F1 2000 should have had better framerates and better AI, but has also had

to > rely on patching to fix some issues. When the alfa demo of GPL came out I > doubt even the V2 was widespread and I'm sure there were no TNT or GeForce > based cards, at all. One might argue GPL should have supported D3D and > OpenGL out of the box, but again nothing indicated these API's would > dominate the game market 18 months down the line. GPL should have had better framerates. D3D patch should have come out one year ago.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > <snip> > > > Calling a labour of love "crap" will get you that. > > > > Labor of love? You guys must be very close to know > > each other so intimately. > > I'm sure Grant did what he did because he loves GPL and is pleased we're > still enjoying it after 18 months

I'm sure most developers do what they do because they love their work. > We've had this discussion before, David, technical vs. immersion merit, > etc... I challenged you then, I challenge you now. Show me. IMO, there'sno > way RC2000, NFS:PU and F12k have the same or higher simulation rate and/or > equal or greater vehicle component detail. But again I'm ready toentertain > anything that might support your argument. Why don't you show me they don't? > Don't get me wrong, I understand the criteria by which you judge sims andI > respect that. I just base a lot of my judgement on the technical > complexity/realism aspect of the simulation be cause(and this may well be > entirely subjective) I'm looking for the most "believable", "precise" and > "responsive" virtual driving experience. So do I. Physics models in car simulations can really only go so far. There's no secret as to what needs to be modeled. Once they reach that point, one model could be used for all auto sims. David G Fisher

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Eh? -Then why, prey tell, does GPL produce less fps than NFS:PU at thesame > "eye candy-level"? The framerate is capped in GPL. How do you know how to determine the same level of eye candy? > Same processor, same clockspeed, same 3D cards, same API... does my > processor do "nothing" for a while each frame in GPL perhaps? -Surely, > you're not going to tell me GPL is the visually more intricate game of the > two? > > GPL runs slower than NFS:PU because it calculates more parameters moretimes > per second, end of story. The graphics engines have nothing to do with the framerate? That's news to me. I've asked this question before but never received an answer. Why does the frmarate shoot up so much in GPL when using the chase view? Physics are the same in either view. Simple Answer: It's because of the graphics engine. GPL doesn't have a very good one compared to some others IMO. David G Fisher

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dZa65.22128$A%[email hidden]... > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > David G Fisher wrote... > Why don't you show me they don't? I can't believe I wrote that. David G Fisher

The chase view doesn't have to calculate a 3d moving cockpit. It doesn't shoot up at all on a PC that runs 36fps in cockpit view. -- Ian P <email address invalid due to spam David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:S_a65.22130$A%[email hidden]... > Why does the frmarate shoot up so much in GPL when using the chase view? > Physics are the same in either view. > > Simple Answer: It's because of the graphics engine. GPL doesn't have a very > good one compared to some others IMO. > > David G Fisher >

GPL runs just fine at 36fps, why would it need any more ? -- Ian P <email address invalid due to spam David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dZa65.22128$A%[email hidden]... > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > David G Fisher wrote... > > > > "Jan Verschueren" wrote... > > > > > <snip> > > > > If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an > > > > incompatible card in the first place. > > > > > > GPL should of been compatible with more cards. > > > > F1 2000 should have had better framerates and better AI, but has also had > to > > rely on patching to fix some issues. When the alfa demo of GPL came out I > > doubt even the V2 was widespread and I'm sure there were no TNT or GeForce > > based cards, at all. One might argue GPL should have supported D3D and > > OpenGL out of the box, but again nothing indicated these API's would > > dominate the game market 18 months down the line. > > GPL should have had better framerates. > > > David G Fisher > > >

LOl ;-) Keep digging Eldred, you're getting up there. Jan. =--- EldredP wrote...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> <snip> > GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace after a YEAR AND A HALF'S > practice... > > C'mon, you *knew* that was coming... :) > > Eldred > -- > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPL hcp. +70.45 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

I'm in the same boat here. Girlfriend, long commute to work, pressure-cooker job and a foolish unwillingness to give up competitive triathlons and the training that goes with them. I'm a mechanical engineer, and on that level I love GPL for its quality of simulation, but I don't have the time to commit to it to get above mid-pack, and I have absolutely no time for online racing. GP2 used to be my favourite fix. Now it's NFS:Porsche. It has a lively driving model, the graphics are superb, even on my *notebook* computer (which solves the problem of my commute eating into my leisure time, as I can now "drive" on the train, when I'm not writing) and it is easily as immersive as GPL, if Porsches mean anything to you, the way 1967 Grand Prix cars mean a lot to some people. Stephen Martin D. Pay <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (39 lines)

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:32:52 +0100, MichaelJP <[email hidden]> > mangled uncounted electrons thus: > > >In article <[email hidden]>, > >[email hidden] says... > >> Everyone here is looking > >> forward to GP3, and we hope it will walk all over GPL. If it does, > >> great. GPL will be pretty much consigned to the history books. > > > >I'm looking forward to GP3 and will almost certainly buy it. > > I *shall* certainly buy it. I want to see the weather... > > >However, even if it's better I won't give up on GPL, simply because it > >models the cars and tracks from a period of racing which was far more > >compelling and exciting than the current high-downforce, zero-suspension, > >mega-braked, go-kart track formula. > > <grin> As one who has no interest *at all* in racing on-line, and > who is married with a partner who has no interest in racing sims, > and who therefore has only a very limited time to indulge, GPL is > too damned hard. I don't have the *time* to indulge in the > learning curve, much though I'd like to. The sim looks terrific > now I have the patch to properly support my TNT2 graphics card > (bought long before I bought GPL - I've only owned the sim for > about 3 months, bought as a cheapie in the local discount store) > but it's not much fun if the car won't stay on the track... > > GP2 OTOH I enjoy immensely - I can tinker with the setup enough > to make a difference, score points just often enough to keep my > interest - and stay on the track unless I do something *really* > stupid... > > I don't decry GPL for those who enjoy the precision and the > enjoyment of conquering one of the most... taxing... driving sims > out there. But it's not my cup of tea... > > Martin D. Pay > Just my 2 penn'orth...

Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Kai Fuller wrote: > > > > How do we know Gregor Veble has all the knowledge necessary to say that > > F12K's physics are accurate? what are his credentials? Just wondering... > > I never really wanted to speak about my credentials as people then tend > to say that I would just be throwing them around instead of discussing > things properly. I thought that while discussing things in a scientific > manner credentials really do not matter, only facts do. Still, for those > who really wonder, comb through the site http://www.camtp.uni-mb.si/ a > bit, you'll find all the info there. > > -Gregor

Quantum chaos? That only applies during the first corner of the race... Stephen

In article <YET55.221790$[email hidden]>, "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> writes: >have you really opened up all the code to these games? that is illegal by >the way and not easily done. It's illegal to LOOK at the code? Bullshit. If I bought it, I can certainly look at it, and adapt it for my own purposes if I choose. What I *can't* do is modify it a bit, and sell it as my own... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>First, I drove a 1:14 lap after 2-3 hours of practice. Secondly, I >clearly said that is was not the WR, and that surely it would be >beaten sooner or later, but at that moment it was the fastest lap I >could find on the internet. It didn't felt good that it took so little >practice to be so fast. >The world record now is 1:13.552, barely more than half a second >faster (by Huttu ofcourse, congrats Greger :) >

Can we somehow find a way to get this man a SPONSOR...? <g> I have a feeling that Greger would do very well in a real race car... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <Ie965.236379$[email hidden]>, "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> writes: >well in racing simulations, I would assume for most of us yahoos realism >would entail difficulty. > >Do you really think you would be able to jump right in a F1 McLaren and turn >GP qualifying speeds in a couple days? And then take away several tactile >sense, and still do so? Qualifying speeds? No. Keep it on the track without spinning at every turn? Most certainly. I'd have no doubt in my ability(or anyone else here) to drive a lap or two in ANY racing car. To drive *competitively*, that's another story. Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] writes:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace after half the last >month's practice. > >Indigo > >On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:47:22 +0100, Graeme Nash ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >> >>>I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of flames from >>>the "experts". >> >>Hmm, a little sensitive to criticism aren't we? I read through that >>thread where you (rudely and intolerantly) called the patch "crap", and >>I saw *one* post which could be considered a flame. >> >>You should try saying "GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace >>after half an hour's practice" and then see what you get :-) >> >>-- >>Cheers! >>Graeme Nash

GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace after a YEAR AND A HALF'S practice... C'mon, you *knew* that was coming... :) Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: [email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Jochen Heistermann wrote... > > > <snip> > > The Riva TNT was and still is THE standard 3D graphic card!! > > The TNT chipset was announced August 1998 (I checked ;-)), after GPL had > gone gold. GPL supported the two major propriety API's which had been > present during it's development: Glide & Rendition. Back then D3D and

OpenGL > didn't look like ever putting a dent in 3Dfx's armor. Looking back it'seasy > to say they should have supported Direct3D, but at the time I think it was > the right decision. The hardware back then had a hard time producing a > decent framerate with a propriaty API let alone in Direct3D. >Okay, when GPl came out I played on a P200 with a Voodoo1 card. After upgrading to my P2 400 I was disappointed because there was no D3D patch for GPL. I guess that brought down the market chances of GPL. But okay, your arguments are valid. When GPL gone gold the TNT was just announced. Jochen

Finally, thank you! I'm pretty sure Grant saw the lack of Direct3D support as a threat to GPL's longlevity and therefore did what lay in his power to rectify that. Jan./Why do I suddenly feel so old? <sigh> =--- Jochen Heistermann wrote...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> <snip> > Okay, when GPl came out I played on a P200 with a Voodoo1 card. After > upgrading > to my P2 400 I was disappointed because there was no D3D patch for GPL. > > I guess that brought down the market chances of GPL. > > But okay, your arguments are valid. When GPL gone gold the TNT was just > announced. > > Jochen > >

Mainly because it doesn't have to draw a mirror. -- Eric "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:S_a65.22130$A%[email hidden]... > > Why does the frmarate shoot up so much in GPL when using the chase view? > Physics are the same in either view.

Two years ago GPL came out and no one had trouble with their framerates? F12000 has a high demand on the CPU just like GPL did, yet GPL fans criticize F12000 for doing so. Ridiculous. They will do the same for GP3. David G Fisher "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8jbf55$o70$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> > GPL runs just fine at 36fps, why would it need any more ? > -- > Ian P > <email address invalid due to spam > > > David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:dZa65.22128$A%[email hidden]... > > > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > David G Fisher wrote... > > > > > "Jan Verschueren" wrote... > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an > > > > > incompatible card in the first place. > > > > > > > > GPL should of been compatible with more cards. > > > > > > F1 2000 should have had better framerates and better AI, but has also > had > > to > > > rely on patching to fix some issues. When the alfa demo of GPL came

out

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I > > > doubt even the V2 was widespread and I'm sure there were no TNT or > GeForce > > > based cards, at all. One might argue GPL should have supported D3D and > > > OpenGL out of the box, but again nothing indicated these API's would > > > dominate the game market 18 months down the line. > > > > GPL should have had better framerates. > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > >

That's a graphics engine situation, not a physics engine "Eric Busch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8jbfan$f42$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Mainly because it doesn't have to draw a mirror. > > -- > Eric > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:S_a65.22130$A%[email hidden]... > > > > Why does the frmarate shoot up so much in GPL when using the chase > view? > > Physics are the same in either view.

I know it's because of the drawing of the mirrors. Tell that to Jan. You have to be following this thread to know why I brought that question up. It's because of this exchange between Jan and Jochen: ------------------------------------ Jochen: Forget it. The pace of GPL is totally dependent on resolution and textures, not on the driving model. Jan: Eh? -Then why, prey tell, does GPL produce less fps than NFS:PU at the same "eye candy-level"? Same processor, same clockspeed, same 3D cards, same API... does my processor do "nothing" for a while each frame in GPL perhaps? -Surely, you're not going to tell me GPL is the visually more intricate game of the two? GPL runs slower than NFS:PU because it calculates more parameters more times per second, end of story. ----------------------------------- As you pointed out, GPL slows down quite a bit because the graphics engine has trouble with the mirrors. That's a graphics engine issue. Jan thinks that GPL runs the way it does only because of the incredible physics calculations it has to do, and other sims don't. For some reaosn, GPL fans can't conceive that a company like (for example) Ratbag may be able to develope a graphics engine that runs significantly smoother than a graphics engine from another company. David G Fisher

Exactly. The frame rate is actually affected by the graphics engine. Tell that to Jan. David G Fisher "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8jbf17$o57$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> The chase view doesn't have to calculate a 3d moving cockpit. > It doesn't shoot up at all on a PC that runs 36fps in cockpit view. > > -- > Ian P > <email address invalid due to spam > >

You are making me cry. DGF "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:47:54 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > > >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:dZa65.22128$A%[email hidden]... > >> > >> "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:[email hidden]... > >> > David G Fisher wrote... > >> Why don't you show me they don't? > > > >I can't believe I wrote that. > > Me neither. > > Andre > > > > >David G Fisher > > >

Keep reading the thread Andre. You won't look so foolish when you reply. DGF "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> David, if you would have checked the code of GPL, you could have > figured this out by yourself... > > Andre > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:04:18 -0400, "Eric Busch" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Mainly because it doesn't have to draw a mirror. > > > >-- > >Eric > > > >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:S_a65.22130$A%[email hidden]... > >> > >> Why does the frmarate shoot up so much in GPL when using the chase > >view? > >> Physics are the same in either view. >

It's a fact of life that rendering two different scenes and drawing one into the mirror texture for simultaneous display is expensive in any graphics engine. Even Quake3 takes a significant (near 50% in some cases) framerate hit when portals or mirrors are in view. -- Eric "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HEb65.22159$A%[email hidden]... > That's a graphics engine situation, not a physics engine

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:24:32 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Facts are tough to deal with. You don't give facts. You only shout 'check the code' without giving us examples. > >BTW, remember all those posts of yours which insisted 1:16 was the WR for >Spain in F12000, and how you matched it so quickly? First, I drove a 1:14 lap after 2-3 hours of practice. Secondly, I clearly said that is was not the WR, and that surely it would be beaten sooner or later, but at that moment it was the fastest lap I could find on the internet. It didn't felt good that it took so little practice to be so fast. The world record now is 1:13.552, barely more than half a second faster (by Huttu ofcourse, congrats Greger :) Come on, I explained this to you, you didn't get it, I explained it again to you very clearly, and now I have to start explaining all over again? You really are getting boring now... >It's down to 1:13 now. 1:13.552 >You were wrong about that, just like you have no idea how a rally car >handles. David: Get a life. Please. Andre

Quoted text (18 lines)

>David G Fisher > > >"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:53:02 GMT, [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) >> wrote: >> >> >Ah, and I see David still is claiming a full physics model in >> >RC2000...sigh >> >> But is does Remco, just check out the code yourself! >> >> Andre >> >> > >> >Remco >>

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:26:48 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >If only F12000 had a squishy suspension. If only you would shut up for a moment. Andre

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >David G Fisher > > >"Michael E. Carver" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:2o265.515$[email hidden]... >> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:03:19 GMT David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote: >> While f12k may have a complex physics model, I didn't feel that it was >> as complex as what I feel in GPL. That's the difference. Also how well >> that complex physics model is modeled. Just because it's complex and >> has alot of variables doesn't mean that it is modeled correctly or in as >> fine as detail as GPL does it. >> >> There I am rude and intolerent <G> >> >> -- >> **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* >> Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. >> [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver >> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:47:54 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:dZa65.22128$A%[email hidden]... >> >> "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> > David G Fisher wrote... >> Why don't you show me they don't? > >I can't believe I wrote that.

Me neither. Andre > >David G Fisher >

David, if you would have checked the code of GPL, you could have figured this out by yourself... Andre On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:04:18 -0400, "Eric Busch" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Mainly because it doesn't have to draw a mirror. > >-- >Eric > >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:S_a65.22130$A%[email hidden]... >> >> Why does the frmarate shoot up so much in GPL when using the chase >view? >> Physics are the same in either view.

Kevin Gavitt wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > > Correct. The only time you cross the line is if you should attempt to > > modify & redistribute their code *for profit*. Sometimes the companies > > will send their legal hounds on you for redistributing their code at no > > profit, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on. However, one has > > to balance that fact against the legal fees they would have to shell out > > in order to get off the hook. > > And I'm afraid here you are incorrect. In fact the law specifically says > that profit motive is irrelevant and imposes a minimun fine of $250 *per > count* on those who distribute copyrighted material without permission. > > If this were not the case piracy without a profit motive would be legal. It > isn't. > > The rational is that IP is indeed property, and thus the owner, and ONLY > the owner has to right to distribute it as he sees fit. If he chooses to > distribute for profit anyone distributing for free dilutes the value of the > property and thus finacially harms the owner, whether the said distribution > was overtly for profit or not. > > Think about it a bit, you'll see how it works and makes sense. > > I've spent years as a music publisher, and am now considering the switch to > software publishing. I know what I'm talking about here.

Although this goes counter to all I've understood to this point, I'm reserving right to rebuttal on this point until I've reviewed some more software license agreements. *Then* I'll decide if I wanna say, "Never mind..." or "You're full of baloney because..." :-) -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +438.42 as of 6/21 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

<snip> David G Fisher wrote... > >GPL should have had better framerates. > >D3D patch should have come out one year ago. > <snip> You should be in everyones killfilter. You are going into mine now. Jon

> Although this goes counter to all I've understood to this point, I'm > reserving right to rebuttal on this point until I've reviewed some more > software license agreements. *Then* I'll decide if I wanna say, "Never > mind..." or "You're full of baloney because..." :-) > Sure. Go right ahead. Just remember, I'm not talking about software licenses here. I could license you software under any terms that are otherwise legal. For instance I could license you my software for free, but with the provision that you mow my lawn on Saturdays for a year. If I license you my software for free, but with the provision that you give me your first born child the privisions of that license are inherently illegal, and therefore not binding, even if I signed a legal contract to those terms. What I've discussed here is the LAW. The law says you may not distribute any code that is not yours, under any circumstances, for profit or not. If you do you will be fined a minimun of $250 per count. If you modify commercial code and distribute ONLY your modification, including NONE of the original code, as does Dave Noonan, that's ok. That code is YOURS, you own the copyright. An interesting side note here. The DMCA says that you cannot distribute a utility to look at encrypted code. That has already been tested in several courts, and the courts have upheld it.

Kevin Gavitt wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > Although this goes counter to all I've understood to this point, I'm > > reserving right to rebuttal on this point until I've reviewed some more > > software license agreements. *Then* I'll decide if I wanna say, "Never > > mind..." or "You're full of baloney because..." :-) > > > > Sure. Go right ahead. Just remember, I'm not talking about software licenses > here.

No, no, no. The software license is *exactly* what you are under, so long as such agreement is legal, from the time you accept the EULA when opening your package/installing your software. More often than not, as I recall, you are forbidden resale of the repackaged code. Although nobody can stop you from modifying it on your own machine! The difference with Warez is that those distributing it are (usually) not legally under an EULA yet as the software hasn't been released yet (usually). Therefore it'd be more akin to an electronic form of "distribution of stolen property". >I could license you software under any terms that are otherwise legal. > For instance I could license you my software for free, but with the > provision that you mow my lawn on Saturdays for a year. Sure you could. And if I accept your terms in this example, I'd be bound to it. > If I license you my software for free, but with the provision that you give > me your first born child the privisions of that license are inherently > illegal, and therefore not binding, even if I signed a legal contract to > those terms. Agreed. No-brainer there. <g> Duress is another factor that can void legal agreements. > What I've discussed here is the LAW. The law says you may not distribute any > code that is not yours, under any circumstances, for profit or not. If you > do you will be fined a minimun of $250 per count. Under a law that is not yet fully tested and on shaky ground. > If you modify commercial code and distribute ONLY your modification, > including NONE of the original code, as does Dave Noonan, that's ok. That > code is YOURS, you own the copyright. Agreed. > An interesting side note here. The DMCA says that you cannot distribute a > utility to look at encrypted code. That has already been tested in several > courts, and the courts have upheld it. Again, the DMCA isn't in stone yet. There are several challenges to it in the works, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it go down. For now, I dismiss this one. -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +438.42 as of 6/21 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

"Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote > Actually, as Gregor Veble once pointed out, the physics in F1-2000 are > at least on par with GPL. Which is why I can trailbrake and powerslide exiting most of the slow corners in F12k, something that any Formula 1 fan/driver knows impossible to do with those beasts, unless you are one true master like Schumacher. Especially more with the grooved tyres <g> F1 drivers back in 67 could throw the rear at incredible angle (and that's a fact), but for the sake of their life they did not. But in those modern F1's with extremely stiff suspensions, no. How can they be on par when we can do such flagrant errors? Is this your opinion Remco or just words from somebody else? ;) > What ISI did wrong, IMO, is that they didn't > model an F1 car. The distribution of weight is off, and the suspension > is way too soft. And then they added ABS in certain cases....all this > to "improve" the gameplay. Ah, so true. But how can you say it's on par with GPL when it has such errors? I also don't feel those 800hp behind me in F12k. I WANT the car to scream it's rage when I plow the gas. I want it! Like I could in GP2, like in real life! That's why I hope Geoff keep the correct feeling of a F1 even if it means altering reality. It's a very touchy issue. Should we alter the physics to create a correct feeling? We all know as veterans that racing sims do give you feelings with touch, view and sound. Even if it had correct physics, the ISI game engine doesn't give you a good sensation I would say compared to the others. > Ah, and I see David still is claiming a full physics model in > RC2000...sigh Hehe ;) Oh and I still have no clue why people think this NG is GPL-biased. They never name names, they just point at the group and say we are. Well who are those people? Name names! ;) -- -- 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.

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > just like you have no idea how a rally car handles. David, brace yourself! ;) My idea is that a rally car doesn't handle like in RC2k! -- -- 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.

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > D3D patch should have come out one year ago. It did not. <end of discussion> No? I mean you'll start shouting on top of the roof because of that? Blackmail Papyrus for that? What's next? Blast SODA for no D3D patch? Nascar 1? F1GP? Pole Position? Where is the limit? -- -- 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.

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > Two years ago GPL came out and no one had trouble with their framerates? I had no trouble in 640x480 with a very acceptable level of details and # of cars. Why do people whine, when they can get an incredible increase in framerate by simply going down a resolution? Geeze some people are so addicted to good looking graphics, they loose touch of the reality of gaming. Warcraft did not sell because of it's incredible graphics. So didn't Diablo, or Roller Coaster Tycoon, or <etc..> > F12000 has a high demand on the CPU just like GPL did, yet GPL fans > criticize F12000 for doing so. Another over-generalisation. Many did not. GP2 is the best VGA game in the history remember! ;) -- -- 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.

"Jochen Heistermann" <[email hidden]> wrote > Those are the facts why Papy sucks on the market. No, the principal market of GPL is people who are 1) older 2) with a higher income than the majority of gamers so they can buy the correct video card for the software. Another time, GPL was not made for the average gamer to enjoy, as it's a pure racing simulation made for people who enjoy racing simulations. It could had included a greater range of driving aids and marketed to the masses, but they took the decision to not do so. Like some artist don't make music to get a #1 on the Billboard, or paint so they have it at the Met, or create movies to get an oscar. And that's a fact. Just look here, or on VROC, or in offline league, or web boards. -- -- 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.

You keep implying with your tone that I'm disagreeing with this fact. I'm not. I think you may have missed 99% of the post (maybe you didn't scroll down all the way, because you cut everything but the first line). If you did, then you'd see that you are supporting my reply to Jan. David G Fisher "Eric Busch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8jbnct$99m$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> It's a fact of life that rendering two different scenes and drawing one > into the mirror texture for simultaneous display is expensive in any > graphics engine. Even Quake3 takes a significant (near 50% in some > cases) framerate hit when portals or mirrors are in view. > > -- > Eric > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:HEb65.22159$A%[email hidden]... > > That's a graphics engine situation, not a physics engine > >

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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:24:32 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Facts are tough to deal with. > > You don't give facts. You only shout 'check the code' without giving > us examples.

I can't believe guys like you have been telling everyone what a sim's physics model contains without ever looking at them. Maybe the physics fairy comes to you at night and gives you your info.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >BTW, remember all those posts of yours which insisted 1:16 was the WR for > >Spain in F12000, and how you matched it so quickly? > > First, I drove a 1:14 lap after 2-3 hours of practice. Secondly, I > clearly said that is was not the WR, and that surely it would be > beaten sooner or later, but at that moment it was the fastest lap I > could find on the internet. It didn't felt good that it took so little > practice to be so fast. > The world record now is 1:13.552, barely more than half a second > faster (by Huttu ofcourse, congrats Greger :) > > Come on, I explained this to you, you didn't get it, I explained it > again to you very clearly, and now I have to start explaining all over > again? You really are getting boring now...

No Andre, you said you drove a 1:16, which at that time was the fastest lap at the Blackhole Motorsports web site, and which you said proved that F12000 was too easy and didn't give you the challenge that only GPL could. You even said that if it came down to the 1:14 range, you'd be impressed. It's gradually come down over the weeks, just as I said it would. How could it not? You were claiming it reached it's limit so soon after the game was released.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >It's down to 1:13 now. > > 1:13.552 > > >You were wrong about that, just like you have no idea how a rally car > >handles. > > David: Get a life. Please.

Andre, I am very lucky to have an excellent life. I hope you do as well. David G Fisher

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sEe65.5928$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Actually, as Gregor Veble once pointed out, the physics in F1-2000 are > > at least on par with GPL. > > > Which is why I can trailbrake and powerslide exiting most of the slow > corners in F12k, something that any Formula 1 fan/driver knows impossible

to > do with those beasts, unless you are one true master like Schumacher. > Especially more with the grooved tyres <g> FIrst you say it can't be done, then you say it can be done if you are Schumacher. So F12000 models an F1 car correctly. > F1 drivers back in 67 could throw the rear at incredible angle (and that'sa > fact), but for the sake of their life they did not. But in those modern > F1's with extremely stiff suspensions, no. How can they be on par when we > can do such flagrant errors? Is this your opinion Remco or just wordsfrom > somebody else? ;) There are many things we can do in GPL that the real drivers never did. Take a look at a hotlap. David G Fisher

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "Jochen Heistermann" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Those are the facts why Papy sucks on the market. > > > No, the principal market of GPL is people who are 1) older 2) with a higher > income than the majority of gamers so they can buy the correct video card > for the software. Another time, GPL was not made for the average gamer to > enjoy, as it's a pure racing simulation made for people who enjoy racing > simulations. It could had included a greater range of driving aids and > marketed to the masses, but they took the decision to not do so. Like some > artist don't make music to get a #1 on the Billboard, or paint so they have > it at the Met, or create movies to get an oscar. > > And that's a fact. > > Just look here, or on VROC, or in offline league, or web boards.

You forgot 3) People with genuine love of motorracing. I was born 7 years after the year GPL simulates, but I still couln't wait for the title to be released after seeing the first indications of GPL on the Papy website back in 96 or something. Actually I think a sim from any year up to the early 90's when I was able to follow F1 on TV would be great since I want to fill out my holes in F1 history. -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

Kai Fuller wrote: > > How do we know Gregor Veble has all the knowledge necessary to say that > F12K's physics are accurate? what are his credentials? Just wondering... I never really wanted to speak about my credentials as people then tend to say that I would just be throwing them around instead of discussing things properly. I thought that while discussing things in a scientific manner credentials really do not matter, only facts do. Still, for those who really wonder, comb through the site http://www.camtp.uni-mb.si/ a bit, you'll find all the info there. -Gregor

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Thanks Eldred. Andre On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:04:16 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (27 lines)

>Keep reading the thread Andre. You won't look so foolish when you reply. > >DGF > >"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> David, if you would have checked the code of GPL, you could have >> figured this out by yourself... >> >> Andre >> >> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:04:18 -0400, "Eric Busch" <[email hidden]> >> wrote: >> >> >Mainly because it doesn't have to draw a mirror. >> > >> >-- >> >Eric >> > >> >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> >news:S_a65.22130$A%[email hidden]... >> >> >> >> Why does the frmarate shoot up so much in GPL when using the chase >> >view? >> >> Physics are the same in either view. >> >

David G Fisher wrote in message ...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:sEe65.5928$[email hidden]... >> "Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Which is why I can trailbrake and powerslide exiting most of the slow >> corners in F12k, something that any Formula 1 fan/driver knows impossible >to >> do with those beasts, unless you are one true master like Schumacher. >> Especially more with the grooved tyres <g> > >FIrst you say it can't be done, then you say it can be done if you are >Schumacher. So F12000 models an F1 car correctly.

So, if F12k models an F1 car correctly, that'll make Fran�ois ... a Schumacher!!!! Congrats, Fran�ois! You're moving up in the world! <G> Hena

Hehe Fran�ois, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>"Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Actually, as Gregor Veble once pointed out, the physics in F1-2000 are >> at least on par with GPL. > >Which is why I can trailbrake and powerslide exiting most of the slow >corners in F12k, something that any Formula 1 fan/driver knows impossible to >do with those beasts, unless you are one true master like Schumacher. >Especially more with the grooved tyres <g> > >F1 drivers back in 67 could throw the rear at incredible angle (and that's a >fact), but for the sake of their life they did not. But in those modern >F1's with extremely stiff suspensions, no. How can they be on par when we >can do such flagrant errors? Is this your opinion Remco or just words from >somebody else? ;)

All I say is IMO, except if stated different..

Quoted text (16 lines)

>> What ISI did wrong, IMO, is that they didn't >> model an F1 car. The distribution of weight is off, and the suspension >> is way too soft. And then they added ABS in certain cases....all this >> to "improve" the gameplay. > > >Ah, so true. But how can you say it's on par with GPL when it has such >errors? I also don't feel those 800hp behind me in F12k. I WANT the car to >scream it's rage when I plow the gas. I want it! Like I could in GP2, like >in real life! That's why I hope Geoff keep the correct feeling of a F1 even >if it means altering reality. >It's a very touchy issue. Should we alter the physics to create a correct >feeling? We all know as veterans that racing sims do give you feelings with >touch, view and sound. Even if it had correct physics, the ISI game engine >doesn't give you a good sensation I would say compared to the others.

My SEAT Terra with a stunning 29 Bhp engine still uses the same physics as a 2000 Ferrari F1 car....Same as with 1967 F1 and 2000 F1 cars....both still comply to the same laws of physics, but handle different. You're confusing physics with the parameters used for the F1 car in F1 2000. Physics are....well, just physics...if I drop a brick or a feather from 10 feet, the physics are the same, the result isn't... Remco

Remco Moedt wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > You're confusing physics with the parameters used for the F1 > car in F1 2000. > > Physics are....well, just physics...if I drop a brick or a feather > from 10 feet, the physics are the same, the result isn't... > > Remco

Exactly. The physics engine in F1 2000 is admirable. If you have some physics and race car knowledge, open up the .veh files and this will give clues as to what and how it is all modelled. The only problem is, this will also show that some parameters are off. Luckily, one is free to tweak those parameters. So the physics engine is marvelous, but the implementation of parameters within it suggests that the creators might have leaned towards playability. Tweak the parameters towards more realistic values, and the sim will become very hard to master. -Gregor

The chase view doesn't have to calculate a 3d moving***pit. It doesn't shoot up at all on a PC that runs 36fps in***pit view. -- Ian P <email address invalid due to spam

You are making me cry. DGF

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >> > David G Fisher wrote... > >> Why don't you show me they don't? > >I can't believe I wrote that. > Me neither. > Andre > >David G Fisher

Keep reading the thread Andre. You won't look so foolish when you reply. DGF

Quoted text (21 lines)

> David, if you would have checked the code of GPL, you could have > figured this out by yourself... > Andre > >Mainly because it doesn't have to draw a mirror. > >-- > >Eric > >> Why does the frmarate shoot up so much in GPL when using the chase > >view? > >> Physics are the same in either view.

<snip> <snip> You should be in everyones killfilter. You are going into mine now. Jon

Your quote was: "Why does the framerate shoot up so much in GPL when using the chase view? Physics are the same in either view. Simple Answer: It's because of the graphics engine. GPL doesn't have a very good one compared to some others IMO." In my subsequent replies I was trying to get the point across that the performance hit due to the mirrors is not really a GPL specific problem, but rather a fundamental issue for 3D engine games. -- Eric "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c3g65.22294$A%[email hidden]... > You keep implying with your tone that I'm disagreeing with this fact. I'm > not. > > I think you may have missed 99% of the post (maybe you didn't scroll down > all the way, because you cut everything but the first line). If you did, > then you'd see that you are supporting my reply to Jan.

Hi Kai, New York isn't a country. ; ) Andrew Kai Fuller wrote: > If there was a simulated Toyota Corolla driving through the country of New > York based on the GPL physics I would hope all of us with licenses could > just cruise a long.

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:42:06 +0300, "Hena H�kk�nen" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>David G Fisher wrote in message ... >> >>"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:sEe65.5928$[email hidden]... >>> "Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote >>> Which is why I can trailbrake and powerslide exiting most of the slow >>> corners in F12k, something that any Formula 1 fan/driver knows impossible >>to >>> do with those beasts, unless you are one true master like Schumacher. >>> Especially more with the grooved tyres <g> >> >>FIrst you say it can't be done, then you say it can be done if you are >>Schumacher. So F12000 models an F1 car correctly. > >So, if F12k models an F1 car correctly, that'll make Fran�ois ... a >Schumacher!!!! >Congrats, Fran�ois! You're moving up in the world! <G>

I'm afraid David won't get this one... Andre > >Hena > >

"Andrew Turner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hi Kai, > > New York isn't a country. ; ) > > Andrew No, but it has some that is stunning, with great roads to drive through it on. A road just about 15 minutes from me made Car and Driver's top 10 driving roads a few years ago. Take that all you left coasters with your Highway 1. Hah!

Quoted text (9 lines)

> No, no, no. The software license is *exactly* what you are under, so > long as such agreement is legal, from the time you accept the EULA when > opening your package/installing your software. More often than not, as > I recall, you are forbidden resale of the repackaged code. Although > nobody can stop you from modifying it on your own machine! The > difference with Warez is that those distributing it are (usually) not > legally under an EULA yet as the software hasn't been released yet > (usually). Therefore it'd be more akin to an electronic form of > "distribution of stolen property".

So long as the agreement is legal. It is legal to sell your software you know, just like a used book, no matter what the EULA says. At least up until the DMCA. You are dead wrong about your belief about the legality of warz and the reason for it's illegality. Dead wrong. Here, I'm afraid, you simply don't know what you are talking about. By your view you could by a legally released game from the store, change a file, and put it on the web? Go ahead, give it a try. Buy N4 when it comes out. Make a car set. Put all of N4 with your carset on a web site. Make sure you have metatags to make the web site easy to find. See how long it takes for you to recieve a cease and desist letter. Refuse to cease and desist. See what happens to you. You don't get it. IP is property. Distributing it without permission is ALWAYS theft. It isn't yours. Period. Go look it up.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > >I could license you software under any terms that are otherwise legal. > > For instance I could license you my software for free, but with the > > provision that you mow my lawn on Saturdays for a year. > > > Sure you could. And if I accept your terms in this example, I'd be > bound to it.

Because such terms are legal. > > > > If I license you my software for free, but with the provision that yougive

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > me your first born child the privisions of that license are inherently > > illegal, and therefore not binding, even if I signed a legal contract to > > those terms. > > > Agreed. No-brainer there. <g> Duress is another factor that can void > legal agreements. > > > > What I've discussed here is the LAW. The law says you may not distribute

any > > code that is not yours, under any circumstances, for profit or not. Ifyou > > do you will be fined a minimun of $250 per count. > > > Under a law that is not yet fully tested and on shaky ground. Copyright law is not shakey, and this particular area is WELL tested. Look it up. > > > If you modify commercial code and distribute ONLY your modification, > > including NONE of the original code, as does Dave Noonan, that's ok.That > > code is YOURS, you own the copyright. > > Agreed. > > > > An interesting side note here. The DMCA says that you cannot distributea > > utility to look at encrypted code. That has already been tested inseveral > > courts, and the courts have upheld it. > > > Again, the DMCA isn't in stone yet. There are several challenges to it > in the works, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it go down. For > now, I dismiss this one. The DMCA is an abomination. It is counter to the the whole idea of copyright.This aspect of it may live however. You see, it dosn't forbid HAVING such a utility, or USING it. Just distributing it. Just as prohibition didn't forbid possesing or consuming alcohol, just distributing it. It's horrid. It's anti consumer, but it may just be legal. Right now it hasn't hit the federal courts at all. The NY Supreme court is the higest it's gone, and they upheld it. We'll just have to wait to see what the feds do with it.

> > There are many things we can do in GPL that the real drivers never did.Take > a look at a hotlap. > > David G Fisher > There is a difference between couldn't do, and DIDN'T do. Take a look at an auto thrill show. There isn't anything you can do in GPL that you can't do with a Camaro. Take a look at the Rockford Files.

> So the physics engine is marvelous, but the implementation of parameters > within it suggests that the creators might have leaned towards > playability. Tweak the parameters towards more realistic values, and the > sim will become very hard to master. > > -Gregor But what does the software model DO with all those parameters? That's my problem with SCGT. It dosn't matter what values you put in the .veh file. The MODEL dosn't use them correctly. The .veh file isn't the code at all, it's just database of variables. I don't have it, so I can't comment. I'm honestly looking for input here. Is SCGT2 better in this regard than SCGT was?

> > > Geeze some people are so addicted to good looking graphics, they loosetouch > of the reality of gaming. Warcraft did not sell because of it'sincredible > graphics. So didn't Diablo, or Roller Coaster Tycoon, or <etc..> I never had to drive an orc at 200 mph in first person view :)

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:01:36 +0100 Gradee \"The BoDee\" Ventura <[email hidden]> wrote: % And as I must repeat over and over, difficulty is not realism! Yeh, you got that right, "repeat over and over"... However when what your are simulating is a difficult thing then difficulty is realism. Driving a 1967 F1 car was difficult, so if it is simulated and it's not difficult then it's not realism. This is what Dave Kaemmer had to say about this: DK: I mean. NASCAR 4 is as realistic as anything you are going to find, and we can keep it on the road, and race with each other. Doorhandle to doorhandle. But you have to learn a few things and build a few good habits which are part and parcel of racing. And that's the fun of the product. You learn good car control habits. Umm...[thinking] You know, I think there is a general tendency to equate realistic physics with difficulty. And I think that's kind of a cheap and easy way to look at it. I don't think that's true at all. Everybody's experienced trying to land Flight Simulator. And obviously that's difficult. So, you know. Part of it is frame-rate. Everybody that plays GPL once they get it running at a good frame-rate, they find: "oh wow! I'm faster. It's easier. It's better" There are a lot of factors. [in deep thought] Some of them are: what kind of machine are you running it on, what kind of peripherals are you using, how much time have you put it in. You know? -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Kevin Gavitt wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > But what does the software model DO with all those parameters? That's my > problem with SCGT. It dosn't matter what values you put in the .veh file. > The MODEL dosn't use them correctly. The .veh file isn't the code at all, > it's just database of variables. > > I don't have it, so I can't comment. I'm honestly looking for input here. Is > SCGT2 better in this regard than SCGT was?

The problem is, I don't have SCGT, so I cannot comment on that either. I can assure you, though, that the dynamics of the car is altered exactly in the way it should by tweaking these parameters. For example, lowering the vehicle inertia value to approximately what the real life figure should be like, going over the curbs and spinning becomes frighteningly like watching the real cars, and when your car is launched in the air even more so. Making the tyre sidewall stiffness harder produces a much more precise car that will, on the other hand, find you in a spin really quickly if you step on the gas too fast out of corners, or brake too much into them. With tweaking this values closer to what a real F1 car should be like based on some physics estimates, the sim becomes very close to GP2 to drive. It does make you wonder, doesn't it? -Gregor

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:09:50 +0200 Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: % Exactly. The physics engine in F1 2000 is admirable. If you have some % physics and race car knowledge, open up the .veh files and this will % give clues as to what and how it is all modelled. The only problem is, % this will also show that some parameters are off. Luckily, one is free % to tweak those parameters. It tells us "what" is modelled but not how accurately. One wonders if the reason "tweaking" is necessary is because the modelling wasn't accurate enough to begin with.... % So the physics engine is marvelous, but the implementation of parameters % within it suggests that the creators might have leaned towards % playability. Tweak the parameters towards more realistic values, and the % sim will become very hard to master. Still doesn't tell us how accurate or even how well all of the compenents work in conjunction with each other.... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:56:38 +0100 Ian P <[email hidden]> wrote: % The chase view doesn't have to calculate a 3d moving cockpit. % It doesn't shoot up at all on a PC that runs 36fps in cockpit view. Or mirrors (which I think is the bigger frame rate robber). Also remember that GPL was programmed to keep the max frame rate in "time" with the physics engine. This is one of the reasons it is capped at 36 frames per second. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:29:44 GMT David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote: % You keep implying with your tone that I'm disagreeing with this fact. I'm % not. [why oh why is everyone picking on me, poor little oh me????? you gotta admit David, you love it, or else you would post what you do... so stop your whining you got exactly what you wanted.... <G>] -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:44:18 GMT Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote: % Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then % beats you % with experience... Thanks, we needed that. <G> I am very familiar with the first part, just don't recall the experience part before (but oh so true). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:09:50 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Exactly. The physics engine in F1 2000 is admirable. If you have some >physics and race car knowledge, open up the .veh files and this will >give clues as to what and how it is all modelled. The only problem is, >this will also show that some parameters are off. Luckily, one is free >to tweak those parameters. > >So the physics engine is marvelous, but the implementation of parameters >within it suggests that the creators might have leaned towards >playability. Tweak the parameters towards more realistic values, and the >sim will become very hard to master.

Could you do that Gregor? Andre > >-Gregor

Hey Kevin, Yeah, I know!! I'm in Jersey now; I was born in New York and lived in Pennsylvania for most of my childhood... Moved to California in 1980; went to high school there & learned to drive.. some really, really, really good mountain roads there. And go-kart tracks, which unfortunately, I never took advantage of. And I'll say this: Driving in total bumper-to-bumper traffic at 80 mph on a six lane highway for 40 minutes can be pretty exiting! Andrew PS Still jealous about that road near you, though. Kevin Gavitt wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Andrew Turner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Hi Kai, > > > > New York isn't a country. ; ) > > > > Andrew > > No, but it has some that is stunning, with great roads to drive through it > on. A road just about 15 minutes from me made Car and Driver's top 10 > driving roads a few years ago. > > Take that all you left coasters with your Highway 1. Hah!

I haven't criticised F1 2000 for poor framerate, it works just fine on my Athlon ;) If GP3 has problems I guess I'll be looking at another upgrade as no amount of complaining will improve it <G> -- Ian P <email address invalid due to spam David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jtb65.22150$A%[email hidden]... > Two years ago GPL came out and no one had trouble with their framerates? > > F12000 has a high demand on the CPU just like GPL did, yet GPL fans > criticize F12000 for doing so. > > Ridiculous. > > They will do the same for GP3. > > David G Fisher >

I think what he's trying to say is that if most of the CPU is working on the physics engine there's not a lot left to do the graphics. -- Ian P <email address invalid due to spam David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c3g65.22294$A%[email hidden]... > You keep implying with your tone that I'm disagreeing with this fact. I'm > not. > > I think you may have missed 99% of the post (maybe you didn't scroll down > all the way, because you cut everything but the first line). If you did, > then you'd see that you are supporting my reply to Jan. > > David G Fisher > > > "Eric Busch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8jbnct$99m$[email hidden]... > > It's a fact of life that rendering two different scenes and drawing one > > into the mirror texture for simultaneous display is expensive in any > > graphics engine. Even Quake3 takes a significant (near 50% in some > > cases) framerate hit when portals or mirrors are in view. > > > > -- > > Eric > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:HEb65.22159$A%[email hidden]... > > > That's a graphics engine situation, not a physics engine > > > > >

You win :-) But, lets face it I bet most of us are better in GPL than we would be in the real cars and we wouldn't live to get a year and a half of practice. Everybody thinks they can sing and everybody thinks they can drive. I'm just glad the same isn't true with the violin--in the wrong hands those things can be deadly weapons. Chris Hansen On 28 Jun 2000 05:01:45 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:

Quoted text (40 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] >writes: > >>GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace after half the last >>month's practice. >> >>Indigo >> >>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:47:22 +0100, Graeme Nash >><[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>> >>>>I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of flames from >>>>the "experts". >>> >>>Hmm, a little sensitive to criticism aren't we? I read through that >>>thread where you (rudely and intolerantly) called the patch "crap", and >>>I saw *one* post which could be considered a flame. >>> >>>You should try saying "GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace >>>after half an hour's practice" and then see what you get :-) >>> >>>-- >>>Cheers! >>>Graeme Nash > >GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace after a YEAR AND A HALF'S >practice... > >C'mon, you *knew* that was coming... :) > >Eldred >-- >Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 >Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett >GPL hcp. +70.45 > >Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you >with experience... >Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote > You're confusing physics with the parameters used for the F1 > car in F1 2000. No no, I think I was misunderstood. Somehow, the information gattered in F12k is impressive, but the physics engine fails to correctly use that data (which in some cases is false). You can say the same thing about RC2k, per example. I would say that in GPL, the game engine applies those physics in a much more realistic way. -- -- 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.

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > First you say it can't be done, then you say it can be done if you are > Schumacher. So F12000 models an F1 car correctly. Errr play with words. You know what I tried to say. <replace impossible by "nearly-impossible unless you are a real F1 driver"> I'm not one, but thanks for the kind words now that I know that I'm the greatest F1 driver in the world! Whoohoo! ;) It all goes back to "Is this a racing or a driving simulation?". > There are many things we can do in GPL that the real drivers never did.Take > a look at a hotlap. No, there is many things that real drivers never would do because they had their lives hanging on the edge of a cliff behind those wheels. We are not. How many times have we Shift-R'ed in two years of GPL? How many of those times have we suffered from a virtual death? -- -- 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.

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:38:36 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> You don't give facts. You only shout 'check the code' without giving >> us examples. > >I can't believe guys like you have been telling everyone what a sim's >physics model contains without ever looking at them. Maybe the physics fairy >comes to you at night and gives you your info. I never said what a physics model contained. You say that you know that RC2000 has real life physics because you checked the code. You never went into details, never gave us examples. Only suggeration.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>No Andre, you said you drove a 1:16, which at that time was the fastest lap >at the Blackhole Motorsports web site, and which you said proved that F12000 >was too easy and didn't give you the challenge that only GPL could. You even >said that if it came down to the 1:14 range, you'd be impressed. It's >gradually come down over the weeks, just as I said it would. How could it >not? You were claiming it reached it's limit so soon after the game was >released.

You're right, my mistake. It was a 1.16 lap which I drove after 2 hours practice. Here's the original post: -------------- I'll say it again, 1:16 was the fastest lap I could find, by someone who is one of the faster drivers among us, and I broke that time within 2 hours. And I also don't know what the record time eventually will be. Guess what? Nobody knows! -------------- Never said it was the WR, never said it would never be broken, never claimed it had reached it's limit. It just wasn't very satisfactory that I was so fast after so little practice. What times would I have gotten if I kept practicing and tweaking my setups for F1 2000? And if the F1 2000 physics are so real to life as you say (because you checked the code :) that would mean that I would be a quite fast driver in real life, no? >> >You were wrong about that, just like you have no idea how a rally car >> >handles. >> >> David: Get a life. Please. > >Andre, I am very lucky to have an excellent life. I hope you do as well. You don't sound happy. You allways whine an complain. I'm glad you are having an excellent life, but it didn't seem that way. Andre > >David G Fisher

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>"Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote >> You're confusing physics with the parameters used for the F1 >> car in F1 2000. > >No no, I think I was misunderstood. Somehow, the information gattered in >F12k is impressive, but the physics engine fails to correctly use that data >(which in some cases is false). You can say the same thing about RC2k, per >example. I would say that in GPL, the game engine applies those physics in >a much more realistic way.

In a way we say the same. Only you say the behavior of the cars in F1 2000 is off due to the physics engine, while I say it's the parameters they use to model the cars. Only way to be sure what the culprit is, is tweaking those values in the .veh files. To be honest, since there are more things in F1 2000 I don't like, I don't bother.... Remco

The country of New York,,, New York state.... you know the part that isn't in the city. Come on guys it wasn't that difficult to understand. Lets rephrase for our slower viewers, through the countryside of New York... Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Hi Kai, > > New York isn't a country. ; ) > > Andrew > > Kai Fuller wrote: > > > If there was a simulated Toyota Corolla driving through the country of

New > > York based on the GPL physics I would hope all of us with licenses could > > just cruise a long. >

I heard the first time Colin McRae went out, he spun it a bunch of times... Since some people aren't actually reading my posts, and assuming that when I say driving through the country means sovereign nation, and not understanding that there are multiple meanings to most words... Sure anyone could slowly take the car out on the track very slowly and make a couple laps... I think my quite obvious point was implied that you couldn't just gun it out of the pits reach speeds of 200 mph, the in 2 weeks be fast enough to race with the best at Monaco. Most of these "simulations" you can do just that. I really don't think current F1 cars are much easier to drive than the 67 ones. Give me a break. It's been said that most people think that pro racers aren't real athletes, if GP2 (GP3?) is that easy, then what they do is no big deal. You have to have true talent to drive a F1 car. nuff' said. EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> In article <Ie965.236379$[email hidden]>, "Kai Fuller" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >well in racing simulations, I would assume for most of us yahoos realism > >would entail difficulty. > > > >Do you really think you would be able to jump right in a F1 McLaren and

turn > >GP qualifying speeds in a couple days? And then take away several tactile > >sense, and still do so? > > Qualifying speeds? No. Keep it on the track without spinning at everyturn? > Most certainly. I'd have no doubt in my ability(or anyone else here) todrive

Quoted text (10 lines)

> a lap or two in ANY racing car. To drive *competitively*, that's another > story. > > Eldred > -- > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPL hcp. +70.45 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Come on Andrew read it again. "Driving through the country of New York." We're driving through the country (low population areas.) of (the property meaning) New York (as in the state of New York). I would think that's a pretty easy conclusion to come to. Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Hi Kai, > > New York isn't a country. ; ) > > Andrew > > Kai Fuller wrote: > > > If there was a simulated Toyota Corolla driving through the country of

New > > York based on the GPL physics I would hope all of us with licenses could > > just cruise a long. >

I just don't agree that you can just look at some code, and say, well this is realistic when it comes to simulating a specific automobile. It's pretty obvious that while DGF say RC2k has physics as complex GPL. that there are so many things that are not correct about the modeling that throws it all off. There a few things in GPL that are IMPLEMENTED wrong that most anyone can notice. NFS:PU apparently has physics as deep as GPL, but when I go b;asting though the course with my tires off the shoulder half the time, it just isn't realistic anymore. When I can wreck like I do in that game and keep going without a hitch, it's just not realistic. I'm not looking for who can put down the most useless code in 9 months, I'm looking for the game that gives me the most realistic driving experience. Which is what racing is all about. You the track, and if you have to pass a guy, then you do it when you get there, then back to the track. That's the true beauty of Formula 1. Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Kai Fuller wrote: > > > > How do we know Gregor Veble has all the knowledge necessary to say that > > F12K's physics are accurate? what are his credentials? Just wondering... > > I never really wanted to speak about my credentials as people then tend > to say that I would just be throwing them around instead of discussing > things properly. I thought that while discussing things in a scientific > manner credentials really do not matter, only facts do. Still, for those > who really wonder, comb through the site http://www.camtp.uni-mb.si/ a > bit, you'll find all the info there. > > -Gregor

he's just being a jerk DGF makes non-sensible conclusions all the time. He thinks that if Schumacher can do it, then you should be able to do it out of the box. Despite the fact that maybe Eddie Irvine can't do it. ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ecr65.5226$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > > First you say it can't be done, then you say it can be done if you are > > Schumacher. So F12000 models an F1 car correctly. > > > Errr play with words. You know what I tried to say. > > <replace impossible by "nearly-impossible unless you are a real F1

driver"> > > I'm not one, but thanks for the kind words now that I know that I'm the > greatest F1 driver in the world! Whoohoo! ;) It all goes back to "Is thisa

Quoted text (11 lines)

> racing or a driving simulation?". > > > > > There are many things we can do in GPL that the real drivers never did. > Take > > a look at a hotlap. > > > No, there is many things that real drivers never would do because they had > their lives hanging on the edge of a cliff behind those wheels. We are

not.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> How many times have we Shift-R'ed in two years of GPL? How many of those > times have we suffered from a virtual death? > > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

um no one said that the framerate wasn't effected by the graphics, but that it is effected by both graphics and physics. David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lGb65.22161$A%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Exactly. The frame rate is actually affected by the graphics engine. Tell > that to Jan. > > David G Fisher > > > "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8jbf17$o57$[email hidden]... > > The chase view doesn't have to calculate a 3d moving cockpit. > > It doesn't shoot up at all on a PC that runs 36fps in cockpit view. > > > > -- > > Ian P > > <email address invalid due to spam > > > > > >

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:32:39 -0700, "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: >he's just being a jerk DGF makes non-sensible conclusions all the time. He >thinks that if Schumacher can do it, then you should be able to do it out of >the box. Despite the fact that maybe Eddie Irvine can't do it. Hey! Don't call my friend a jerk! Andre

Quoted text (48 lines)

> > > > >ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:Ecr65.5226$[email hidden]... >> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote >> > First you say it can't be done, then you say it can be done if you are >> > Schumacher. So F12000 models an F1 car correctly. >> >> >> Errr play with words. You know what I tried to say. >> >> <replace impossible by "nearly-impossible unless you are a real F1 >driver"> >> >> I'm not one, but thanks for the kind words now that I know that I'm the >> greatest F1 driver in the world! Whoohoo! ;) It all goes back to "Is this >a >> racing or a driving simulation?". >> >> >> >> > There are many things we can do in GPL that the real drivers never did. >> Take >> > a look at a hotlap. >> >> >> No, there is many things that real drivers never would do because they had >> their lives hanging on the edge of a cliff behind those wheels. We are >not. >> How many times have we Shift-R'ed in two years of GPL? How many of those >> times have we suffered from a virtual death? >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- 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. >> >> >> >

Kevin Gavitt wrote: > By your view you could by a legally > released game from the store, change a file, and put it on the web? I don't think so! Such a concept would be so stupid, it'd be laughable. But on the other hand, any user-modified or user-distributed add-ons for *any* program under the sun would be illegal under the definitions you were putting forward. Way out of line with reality too... <Psssst, hey Buddy. Got a bunch of cool modified GPL 3do files here, free for the taking. Want some? Oops, the Coppers! Let's scram!!> Think it's a draw. -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +438.42 as of 6/21 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

Andre Warringa wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:09:50 +0200, Gregor Veble > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Exactly. The physics engine in F1 2000 is admirable. If you have some > >physics and race car knowledge, open up the .veh files and this will > >give clues as to what and how it is all modelled. The only problem is, > >this will also show that some parameters are off. Luckily, one is free > >to tweak those parameters. > > > >So the physics engine is marvelous, but the implementation of parameters > >within it suggests that the creators might have leaned towards > >playability. Tweak the parameters towards more realistic values, and the > >sim will become very hard to master. > > Could you do that Gregor? > > Andre > > > > >-Gregor

I actually did that, but the AI have troubl driving such more responsive cars. You can download the http://www.uni-mb.si/~ucamtpgvn/VehNew.zip file and unzip it into your Season00/Vehicles folder. To restore the old values, use http://www.uni-mb.si/~ucamtpgvn/VehOld.zip But, as I said, these settings rather confuse the AI cars, and this is for two reasons. At some corners the AI cars take a too aggressive line and spin out. Secondly, the physics engine seems to be running at a slower rate for the AI cars than for the player, and this may cause certain instabilities in their cars calculations. Some of this can be cured by modifying the setups that the AI cars use, but i haven't found a satisfying solution yet. So use those files only to get a good feel of the car, but for offline racing use the old settings for now. -Gregor

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

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:09:50 +0200 Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: > > % Exactly. The physics engine in F1 2000 is admirable. If you have some > % physics and race car knowledge, open up the .veh files and this will > % give clues as to what and how it is all modelled. The only problem is, > % this will also show that some parameters are off. Luckily, one is free > % to tweak those parameters. > > It tells us "what" is modelled but not how accurately. One wonders if > the reason "tweaking" is necessary is because the modelling wasn't > accurate enough to begin with.... >

That is why you can perform certain test to show that the modelling is indeed as it should be. You see, modelling the overall behaviour of the car as a rigid body is not that hard, and there is only one correct way to do it. The F1 2000 car, just like in GPL or Viper Racing, responds that way. I've played the demo of RC2000, and in there the car does not. Trust me, when you see the physics parameters in .veh files you know how they modelled it, there is really not much room to use this data in any other way, and it shows in the sim. Either that, or at least I am as unimaginative as to how to use the, for example, inertia tensor in any other way. -Gregor

Kai Fuller wrote: > > I just don't agree that you can just look at some code, and say, well this > is realistic when it comes to simulating a specific automobile. If you could really look at the code you could tell immediately whether something is wrong or not. Yet we do not have access to the code. But we do have access to data files that use that code in F1 2000. These give a very strong clue as to what is modelled, and the car responds exactly as it should to changes in these files.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > It's pretty obvious that while DGF say RC2k has physics as complex GPL. that > there are so many things that are not correct about the modeling that throws > it all off. There a few things in GPL that are IMPLEMENTED wrong that most > anyone can notice. NFS:PU apparently has physics as deep as GPL, but when I > go b;asting though the course with my tires off the shoulder half the time, > it just isn't realistic anymore. When I can wreck like I do in that game and > keep going without a hitch, it's just not realistic. >

As I said already in this thread, here I have to disagree with DGF. I tried the RC2000 demo, and the car there does not respond as a rigid body with mass and inertia should. Perhaps the release is different, but form what I've heard it probably isn't. As for GPL, not only is the physics engine superb, but I've also tried hard to see what is implemented wrong. I still am not sure I can say with certainty that any aspect of the car behaviour is off. The only thing that comes to mind is that perhaps the camber changes due to castor and kingpin angles on the front wheels are *perhaps* not implemented, but I am not sure about that. As for NFS:PU. The physics model is a vast improvement over the previous ones, at least according to the demo I played. But there are some major flaws that are not present in GPL and F1 2000. I have no ideas why this comes about, but some physics aspects are clearly not very realistic in NFS:PU. When your car gets really sideways, apply the throttle, and you will straighten it out, for example. I think it is the tyre model, the modelling of the chassis inertia properties seems rather good. -Gregor

Kai, relax, he was putting you on. :)

> I'm in Jersey now; I was born in New York and lived in Pennsylvania formost > of my childhood... > And I'll say this: Driving in total bumper-to-bumper traffic at 80 mph ona > six lane highway for 40 minutes can be pretty exiting! > > Andrew And for a real thrill you can make that "outside pass" by riding up the "Jersey" barriers! :)

Kai, relax, he was putting you on. :)

Wow, thanks Greger, can't wait to try it! I'm at work now, I'll let you know how it goes! Andre

Quoted text (25 lines)

>I actually did that, but the AI have troubl driving such more responsive >cars. > >You can download the > >http://www.uni-mb.si/~ucamtpgvn/VehNew.zip > >file and unzip it into your Season00/Vehicles folder. To restore the old >values, use > >http://www.uni-mb.si/~ucamtpgvn/VehOld.zip > >But, as I said, these settings rather confuse the AI cars, and this is >for two reasons. At some corners the AI cars take a too aggressive line >and spin out. Secondly, the physics engine seems to be running at a >slower rate for the AI cars than for the player, and this may cause >certain instabilities in their cars calculations. > >Some of this can be cured by modifying the setups that the AI cars use, >but i haven't found a satisfying solution yet. > >So use those files only to get a good feel of the car, but for offline >racing use the old settings for now. > >-Gregor

actually I read off the High Gear web-site that the physics in the RC2000 demo are merely place holder.Which is a shame, because I'm not going to buy if I don't which parts of the placeholder physics are still there. as for all this about physics modeling. I'd like to reiterate and add to my thoughts on the subject. There are 3 major thing that make a sim realistic. (to me) 1. The underlying physics code needs to be as dead on as possible. There are a few aerodynamics things we don't really know, so close as currently possible. 2. The vehicles being modeled need to be implemented with as much detail as possible. I think one reason NFS:PU was so good, was because the unprecedented access to the cars helped this area make up for most of then shortcoming in area 1. This is actually a problem with modern F1 games, as it is hard to get access to some important information on all of the cars. 3. All the information needs to be presented to the senses as best possible. This includes a perfected cockpit view, as many dynamic audio ques as possible, including engine, tires and a spotter. (if applicable) Finally proper force feedback is the best new hop for bringing us total car control. Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Kai Fuller wrote: > > > > I just don't agree that you can just look at some code, and say, wellthis

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > is realistic when it comes to simulating a specific automobile. > > If you could really look at the code you could tell immediately whether > something is wrong or not. Yet we do not have access to the code. But we > do have access to data files that use that code in F1 2000. These give a > very strong clue as to what is modelled, and the car responds exactly as > it should to changes in these files. > > > > > It's pretty obvious that while DGF say RC2k has physics as complex GPL.

that > > there are so many things that are not correct about the modeling thatthrows > > it all off. There a few things in GPL that are IMPLEMENTED wrong thatmost > > anyone can notice. NFS:PU apparently has physics as deep as GPL, butwhen I > > go b;asting though the course with my tires off the shoulder half thetime, > > it just isn't realistic anymore. When I can wreck like I do in that gameand

Quoted text (24 lines)

> > keep going without a hitch, it's just not realistic. > > > > As I said already in this thread, here I have to disagree with DGF. I > tried the RC2000 demo, and the car there does not respond as a rigid > body with mass and inertia should. Perhaps the release is different, but > form what I've heard it probably isn't. > > As for GPL, not only is the physics engine superb, but I've also tried > hard to see what is implemented wrong. I still am not sure I can say > with certainty that any aspect of the car behaviour is off. The only > thing that comes to mind is that perhaps the camber changes due to > castor and kingpin angles on the front wheels are *perhaps* not > implemented, but I am not sure about that. > > As for NFS:PU. The physics model is a vast improvement over the previous > ones, at least according to the demo I played. But there are some major > flaws that are not present in GPL and F1 2000. I have no ideas why this > comes about, but some physics aspects are clearly not very realistic in > NFS:PU. When your car gets really sideways, apply the throttle, and you > will straighten it out, for example. I think it is the tyre model, the > modelling of the chassis inertia properties seems rather good. > > -Gregor

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:29:31 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: Gregor: This is the post of the month, congrats! :) Damn, you -really- know what you're talking about. Have you also studied the SoS'37 physics by the way? :) Andre

Quoted text (21 lines)

>As I said already in this thread, here I have to disagree with DGF. I >tried the RC2000 demo, and the car there does not respond as a rigid >body with mass and inertia should. Perhaps the release is different, but >form what I've heard it probably isn't. > >As for GPL, not only is the physics engine superb, but I've also tried >hard to see what is implemented wrong. I still am not sure I can say >with certainty that any aspect of the car behaviour is off. The only >thing that comes to mind is that perhaps the camber changes due to >castor and kingpin angles on the front wheels are *perhaps* not >implemented, but I am not sure about that. > >As for NFS:PU. The physics model is a vast improvement over the previous >ones, at least according to the demo I played. But there are some major >flaws that are not present in GPL and F1 2000. I have no ideas why this >comes about, but some physics aspects are clearly not very realistic in >NFS:PU. When your car gets really sideways, apply the throttle, and you >will straighten it out, for example. I think it is the tyre model, the >modelling of the chassis inertia properties seems rather good. > >-Gregor

In article <wNt65.229976$[email hidden]>, "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (38 lines)

>I heard the first time Colin McRae went out, he spun it a bunch of times... > >Since some people aren't actually reading my posts, and assuming that when I >say driving through the country means sovereign nation, and not >understanding that there are multiple meanings to most words... > >Sure anyone could slowly take the car out on the track very slowly and make >a couple laps... I think my quite obvious point was implied that you >couldn't just gun it out of the pits reach speeds of 200 mph, the in 2 weeks >be fast enough to race with the best at Monaco. Most of these "simulations" >you can do just that. I really don't think current F1 cars are much easier >to drive than the 67 ones. Give me a break. It's been said that most people >think that pro racers aren't real athletes, if GP2 (GP3?) is that easy, then >what they do is no big deal. You have to have true talent to drive a F1 car. > >nuff' said. > >EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> In article <Ie965.236379$[email hidden]>, "Kai Fuller" >> <[email hidden]> writes: >> >> >well in racing simulations, I would assume for most of us yahoos realism >> >would entail difficulty. >> > >> >Do you really think you would be able to jump right in a F1 McLaren and >turn >> >GP qualifying speeds in a couple days? And then take away several tactile >> >sense, and still do so? >> >> Qualifying speeds? No. Keep it on the track without spinning at every >turn? >> Most certainly. I'd have no doubt in my ability(or anyone else here) to >drive >> a lap or two in ANY racing car. To drive *competitively*, that's another >> story. >> >> Eldred

Why jump on me? Didn't I say what you just typed? I just don't think it's as difficult driving out of the pits as GPL purports is to be... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>LOl ;-) > >Keep digging Eldred, you're getting up there. > >Jan. >=--- >EldredP wrote... >> <snip> >> GPL must be crap because I can't run WR pace after a YEAR AND A HALF'S >> practice... >> >> C'mon, you *knew* that was coming... :)

Nah, I'll *never* get to WR pace. I just have to accept that...>snif< Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <Ecr65.5226$[email hidden]>, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> There are many things we can do in GPL that the real drivers never did. >Take >> a look at a hotlap. > > >No, there is many things that real drivers never would do because they had >their lives hanging on the edge of a cliff behind those wheels. We are not. >How many times have we Shift-R'ed in two years of GPL? How many of those >times have we suffered from a virtual death?

How many stars are in the sky...? :) Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Have you even driven GPL?? David G Fisher wrote in message ...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> >"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:7gN55.66280$[email hidden]... >> Jochen Heistermann wrote... >> > Just let me start with the fact that I play GPL since >> > it came out and I still enjoy it. >> > >> > What bothers me really is the reaction of the GPL fans >> > to all kinds of critics to GPL. >> >> Here we go again. >> >> > For example I loaded the D3D patch and got bad >> > performance, I read through the readme and changed >> > the parameters as Papy recommended. I ended with bad >> > performance. >> >> If you really liked GPL you wouldn't have bought an incompatible card in >the >> first place. > > >GPL should of been compatible with more cards. > > >> > I just asked here in the newsgroup and got a bunch of >> > flames from the "experts". >> >> Calling a labour of love "crap" will get you that. > >Labor of love? You guys must be very close to know each other so

intimately.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >There's quite a few developers who's "labor of love" has been called much >worse than crap by fans of GPL (understatement of the decade). > > >> > This is not an exception. SOme time ago someone posted >> > that he liked the driving model of NFS Porsche - he >> > got flamed a lot, because "only GPL has an acceptable >> > driving model". >> >> A lot of people commented favourably on NFS:PU, myself included. EA

Sports >> definately made a step in the rigth direction with this release. I'm sure >> anyone saying it had better physics than GPL got a pasting though,because >> it just hasn't. GPL, at 18 months old, still has the most advancedphysics

Quoted text (39 lines)

>> found in PC racing simulators. This is not about to change, not before N4 >> and WSC are released anyway. Might want to get used to that notion. > > >Not true. Comments like this are what makes the GPL crowd an annoyance when >discussing sims at r.a.s. F12000 has a physics model as complex as GPL's. >Viper has a very complex physics model. So does RC2000. So does NFS:PU. >Forget opinions. Check the code and you will see. > > >> > I am also annoyed by the quality - or lack thereof - of >> > the GPL patches. They work only with some of the drivers >> > and the game tends to be unstable with lots of drivers >> > that work with other graphic cards. Even mentioning of >> > those problems generates lots of protests from the GPL >> > community. >> >> Yeah well, unsupported sort of implies "don't come crying if it doesn't >work >> on your machine". >> >> > Here are some of mine opinions: >> > -GPL is a great game >> >> We already knew that. ;-) >> >> > -GPL is too driver sensitive and the patches were not tested properly >> >> But on the other hand, no other game allows you to tailor the car to your >> own preferences quite as profoundly as GPL. > > >Not true again. There are a number of sims which let you do that. > > >> > - The game runs too slow in comparison to better looking >> > games like NFS Porsche. >> >> NFS:PU has a lot less to calculate behind the scenes, a lot less often.

To

Quoted text (14 lines)

>> quote Keammer:"it's about how many CPU cycles you're willing to spend on >> eye-candy". > > >Wrong yet again. See above. > > >> > -The GPL community defends their game with religious >> > intolerance, I already know how sensible they will react >> > to people who will like GP3. >> >> 1) Please don't associate religion with intolerance, although the two >might >> go together with some (loud) minorities, this is not the case for the

vast

Quoted text (22 lines)

>> majority of people who actively subscribe to a religion. >> >> 2) The GPL community is not intolerant towards people with different >> opinions unless they make a nuiscance of themselves first. > > >LOL. > > >>The way things >> are shaping up GP3 might well receive a harsh reception here. However, >> should this occur, it won't be a reaction of intolerance, rather one of >> disappointment. > > >The harsh reception will be for the same boring reasons as always. > >David G Fisher > > > >

David G Fisher wrote in message ...

Quoted text (13 lines)

>I'm surprised you needed to ask this question. :-) > >Yes, many but not all, are very rude and intolerant. Not only to other >posters but especially to the people who create the sims which comprise >their hobby. > >They insist that GPL's physics are above all others when that's simply not >true. Since that's not true, most of what they preach is really nonsense. > >There's a trillion other things in life that are more important than sims, >so don't let them get your blood boiling. :-) > >David G Fisher

So have you ever tried GPL then?

Jochen Heistermann wrote in message <01bfe01a$857879e0 >Its just a fact that GPL is driver sensitive, but write it and you get >flamed. What does "diver sensitive" mean...or what do you think it means?

No. Andre told me it would be too difficult for me. David G Fisher "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8jill7$fno$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > David G Fisher wrote in message ... > >I'm surprised you needed to ask this question. :-) > > > >Yes, many but not all, are very rude and intolerant. Not only to other > >posters but especially to the people who create the sims which comprise > >their hobby. > > > >They insist that GPL's physics are above all others when that's simply

not > >true. Since that's not true, most of what they preach is really nonsense. > > > >There's a trillion other things in life that are more important thansims,

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >so don't let them get your blood boiling. :-) > > > >David G Fisher > > > So have you ever tried GPL then? > >

And we know how much you value his opinion <g> -- -Ace- David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_0675.24490$A%[email hidden]... > No. Andre told me it would be too difficult for me. > > David G Fisher > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message <snip> > > So have you ever tried GPL then? > > > > >

On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 18:40:52 +0100, "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >Jochen Heistermann wrote in message <01bfe01a$857879e0 > >>Its just a fact that GPL is driver sensitive, but write it and you get >>flamed. > > >What does "diver sensitive" mean...or what do you think it means? >

He wrote driver sensitive instead of diver sensitive, but neither of them make any sense to me :) Andre

On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 18:27:14 +0100, "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Have you even driven GPL?? No, he was too busy checking the code. Andre > >David G Fisher wrote in message ... <yada yada yada>

Hi shit for brains :-) David G Fisher wrote in message <_0675.24490$A%[email hidden]>... >No. Andre told me it would be too difficult for me. > >David G Fisher So when you wrote... >They insist that GPL's physics are above all others when that's simply not >true. Since that's not true, most of what they preach is really nonsense. ...you were talking out of your arse then? You really should try GPL, it's rather good. Until you have, your opinion is just a pile of worthless comment!

Gerry, I was kidding. I've spent plenty of time with GPL, and my overall view of it has always been that it's an excellent sim. David G Fisher "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8jj6t3$1et$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Hi shit for brains :-) > > David G Fisher wrote in message > <_0675.24490$A%[email hidden]>... > >No. Andre told me it would be too difficult for me. > > > >David G Fisher > > So when you wrote... > > >They insist that GPL's physics are above all others when that's simply

not > >true. Since that's not true, most of what they preach is really nonsense. > > ...you were talking out of your arse then? > > You really should try GPL, it's rather good. Until you have, your opinionis > just a pile of worthless comment! > > >

Hi David David G Fisher wrote in message ... >Gerry, > >I was kidding. I've spent plenty of time with GPL, and my overall view ofit >has always been that it's an excellent sim. > >David G Fisher Thanks for putting me straight, I thought you were mad :-).

What if Papyrus/Sierra does a modern F1 or Cart sim using the GPL physics model ? Joel Willstein

On Sun, 2 Jul 2000 14:11:56 -0300, "Joel Willstein"

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> I'm with you. I expect to be driving GPL for many years to come, unless, >of >> course, there is a future GPL 2 that is an updated version of GPL as we >know >> it, or perhaps if the West Bros. current project turns out to be >> tranformable into a GPL 2. >> The best NASCAR, WSC, Modern F1, CART sim that can be imagined won't >replace >> GPL. > What if Papyrus/Sierra does a modern F1 or Cart sim using the GPL >physics model ?

It's not about the physics model, this is about the cars and tracks from that era. Even if GP3 will be the best racing sim imaginable, I will still want to drive a Lotus 49 on the Nurnburgring... Andre

Will I be able to put my '67 cars and tracks in it? If not, it isn't a replacment for GPL. I'll buy them, I'll play them, but I'll still probably spend most of my driving time in GPL. They may be the best sim on the market, but not the best '67 GP sim.

The best lines from the David Kaemmer interview: http://www.simracingnews.com/newscenter/e3/articles/davekaemmer/index. shtml F1F: OK, well then if you could do another Legends-era Formula 1 sim DK: What would I pick? F1F: Yeah, what era? DK: Umm, that's a tough one. [thinking] F1F: Well I'll narrow it down to the Lauda-era, or the Turbo-era DK: I would probably say[pauses]the mid-70's F1F: So '76 - '77? DK: Yeah. You still want to be racing at the 'Ring. [grins] -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -2.86 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 21:13:45 GMT, [email hidden] (Don Scurlock) mangled uncounted electrons thus: >The best lines from the David Kaemmer interview: >http://www.simracingnews.com/newscenter/e3/articles/davekaemmer/index. >shtml <snip> >DK: Yeah. You still want to be racing at the 'Ring. [grins] <grins back> Not if you're sane, you don't! Martin D. Pay That's a... nasty... circuit.

Lighten up Martin... you don't die for real driving it in the game, after all. Jan. =--- Martin D. Pay wrote...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> <snip> > > >DK: Yeah. You still want to be racing at the 'Ring. [grins] > > <grins back> Not if you're sane, you don't! > > Martin D. Pay > That's a... nasty... circuit.

What? the Ring is the most majestic of circuits, and truly fun to drive Let me guess, you've been using the BRM haven't you?. -- -Ace- Martin D. Pay <[email hidden]> wrote in message > <snip> > > >DK: Yeah. You still want to be racing at the 'Ring. [grins] > > <grins back> Not if you're sane, you don't! > > Martin D. Pay > That's a... nasty... circuit.

"Ace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8k013p$1dq$[email hidden]... > What? the Ring is the most majestic of circuits, and truly fun to driveLet > me guess, you've been using the BRM haven't you?. > -- > -Ace- Hey there,guy! Nothing wrong with the BRM at the 'ring. A challenge sure but never a dull moment! Not only that but the BRM is tough: just the thing for bouncing off the scenery. Row that gearbox and keep the tail tucked behind you and you can surprise the unwary. David (defender of the marque) :)

If I can get within a minute of my current PB (8.27~) at the ring in that old crock, then I shall relent... -- -Ace- David Erb <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:40O85.50599$[email hidden]... > > "Ace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8k013p$1dq$[email hidden]... > > What? the Ring is the most majestic of circuits, and truly fun to drive > Let > > me guess, you've been using the BRM haven't you?. > > -- > > -Ace- > > Hey there,guy! Nothing wrong with the BRM at the 'ring. A challenge sure > but never a dull moment! Not only that but the BRM is tough: just the thing > for bouncing off the scenery. Row that gearbox and keep the tail tucked > behind you and you can surprise the unwary. > > David (defender of the marque) :) > >

I can generally lap in the 8:40 range with a BRM pb of 8:42. This compares with an 8:34 in the Cooper (the only other car I've seriously used at the 'ring) so yes:crock though it may be it is not necessarily a slow crock :) It is an entertaining car that can really build your finesse with the throttle and give you a philosophical atitude regarding spinning. It can do very nicely on some of the 'rings longer sweeping S curves as long as there isn't a lot of elevation change mid curve. Just the thing for those been-there-done-that-GPL-blues. David "Ace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8k0dv9$a4k$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> If I can get within a minute of my current PB (8.27~) at the ring in that > old crock, then I shall relent... > -- > -Ace- > David Erb <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:40O85.50599$[email hidden]... > > > > "Ace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:8k013p$1dq$[email hidden]... > > > What? the Ring is the most majestic of circuits, and truly fun to

drive > > Let > > > me guess, you've been using the BRM haven't you?. > > > -- > > > -Ace- > > > > Hey there,guy! Nothing wrong with the BRM at the 'ring. A challengesure

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > but never a dull moment! Not only that but the BRM is tough: just the > thing > > for bouncing off the scenery. Row that gearbox and keep the tail tucked > > behind you and you can surprise the unwary. > > > > David (defender of the marque) :) > > > > > >

[email hidden] (Ace) wrote in <8k0dv9$a4k$[email hidden]>: >If I can get within a minute of my current PB (8.27~) at the ring in >that old crock, then I shall relent... Greger Huttu's done 8:02.04, I'm down to 8:36. It's a very nice car to drive, very forgiving. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -2.86 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

BRM ? Forgiving ? both in the same sentence ? You are a mad man !!!! <G> :) -- Ian Parker "Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy." <email invalid due to spam> Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8F68DE002dscurlock@news... > [email hidden] (Ace) wrote in > <8k0dv9$a4k$[email hidden]>: > > >If I can get within a minute of my current PB (8.27~) at the ring in > >that old crock, then I shall relent... > > Greger Huttu's done 8:02.04, I'm down to 8:36. It's a very nice car > to drive, very forgiving. > > -- > Don Scurlock > Vancouver,B.C. > GPLRank -2.86 > > Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site > http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in message > Greger Huttu's done 8:02.04, I'm down to 8:36. It's a very nice car > to drive, very forgiving. > Until it gets to 8,500 rpm,yeah. And I'm sure the ruggedness of the RS shifter will be put to the test driving the BRm at the ring -- -Ace-

"Ace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8k2ipu$lf4$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > Greger Huttu's done 8:02.04, I'm down to 8:36. It's a very nice car > > to drive, very forgiving. > > > Until it gets to 8,500 rpm,yeah. And I'm sure the ruggedness of the RS > shifter will be put to the test driving the BRm at the ring > > -- > -Ace- >

Ah, no doubt you're referring to that saucy little flick of the tail that happens when the H16 finally finds more than a dozen foot/pounds of torque? Theres the trick to the BRM; spin the motor hard all the time and keep it above 8,500. That 6 speed gearbox is there for more than just getting you off the starting line. It eats fuel at an amazing rate (but sounds *sooo* good)when you do this but you can scramble around the 'ring surprisingly well plus the power makes the car " pointable" (neologism alert!). One nice thing about driving the BRM exclusively for several months is that I now find every other marque in GPL relaxed and easy to drive :) David P.S. nice change in the subject line

In article <8k2gb6$pta$[email hidden]>, "Ian P" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>BRM ? Forgiving ? both in the same sentence ? >You are a mad man !!!! <G> :) > >-- >Ian Parker >"Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy." > ><email invalid due to spam> > > >Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8F68DE002dscurlock@news... >> [email hidden] (Ace) wrote in >> <8k0dv9$a4k$[email hidden]>: >> >> >If I can get within a minute of my current PB (8.27~) at the ring in >> >that old crock, then I shall relent... >> >> Greger Huttu's done 8:02.04, I'm down to 8:36. It's a very nice car >> to drive, very forgiving.

Probably thinks Rouen is a fun track, too...<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Well, I had a blast at a the ring, but I'm sorry to say I gave up by Karrusell. The Engine sound is delicious, but the handling is truly abysmal, and keeping the revs in the useful range is one of the hardest things to do. Maybe, one day I'll have another go, but yesterday I simply didn't have the patience to "learn" a new car -- -Ace- (GPLRank +4.88) David Erb <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:G_595.52713> Ah, no doubt you're referring to that saucy little flick of the tail that > happens when the H16 finally finds more than a dozen foot/pounds of torque? > Theres the trick to the BRM; spin the motor hard all the time and keep it > above 8,500. That 6 speed gearbox is there for more than just getting you > off the starting line. It eats fuel at an amazing rate (but sounds *sooo* > good)when you do this but you can scramble around the 'ring surprisingly > well plus the power makes the car " pointable" (neologism alert!). One nice > thing about driving the BRM exclusively for several months is that I now > find every other marque in GPL relaxed and easy to drive :) > > David > P.S. nice change in the subject line > > > >