GP3..What if......

......it turns out to be crap !!! I hope not, because I am just about to spend about �1,800.00 on a new computer. Fingers crossed... :) Ben http://www.durley.demon.co.uk/gplgp3

�1,800 !!!??!!??!! I could build you one for much less! and it's make you breakfast in the morning. David C "Sam Daniels" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> ......it turns out to be crap !!! > > I hope not, because I am just about to spend about �1,800.00 on a new > computer. > Fingers crossed... :) > Ben > http://www.durley.demon.co.uk/gplgp3 > > >

Sam Daniels <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > ......it turns out to be crap !!! And why on earth would it? Heck GP2 with 3D support as enough for me...... now all this wet weather and stuff.....there ain't know way it'll be crap, although I doubt anythign is going to live up to the GPL based standards set by this NG.

You could always take up other racing simulations :) -- Don Burnette Dburn in N3 and Legends ICQ# 74084566 "Sam Daniels" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > ......it turns out to be crap !!! > > I hope not, because I am just about to spend about �1,800.00 on a new > computer. > Fingers crossed... :) > Ben > http://www.durley.demon.co.uk/gplgp3 > > >

I like toast and jam please.... and make sure the toast isnt black...that really pisses me off :))) Im sure GP3 will be great. I, like we all have, have waited sooooo long. It JUST has to be good <BG> http://www.durley.demon.co.uk/gplgp3 R4 wrote in message <8j8d80$lbf$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (22 lines)

>�1,800 !!!??!!??!! >I could build you one for much less! and it's make you breakfast in the >morning. > >David C > > > >"Sam Daniels" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> ......it turns out to be crap !!! >> >> I hope not, because I am just about to spend about �1,800.00 on a new >> computer. >> Fingers crossed... :) >> Ben >> http://www.durley.demon.co.uk/gplgp3 >> >> >> > >

In article <18Z55.2193$[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>Having tested GP3 at Goodwood... - it's *not* a matter of "what if"... it's >a matter of "what happends *when* GP3 turns out to be crap"! > >Imho, it was nothing more that a 3D-accelerated version of GP2. > >Ed_ > > >"Sam Daniels"wrote: >> ......it turns out to be crap !!! >> >> I hope not, because I am just about to spend about �1,800.00 on a new >> computer. >> Fingers crossed... :) >

It would STILL probably be worth it. New cars and drivers, newer tracks, better graphics... 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.

"Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8j8knk$8q8$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Sam Daniels <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > ......it turns out to be crap !!! > > And why on earth would it? > Heck GP2 with 3D support as enough for me...... now all this wet weather

and > stuff.....there ain't know way it'll be crap, although I doubt anythign is > going to live up to the GPL based standards set by this NG. $100 says N4 does. Jon

Ed Solheim wrote: > > Imho, it was nothing more that a 3D-accelerated version of GP2. > > Ed_ > If this is really so, I can't wait untill I get my hands on it! -Gregor

Having tested GP3 at Goodwood... - it's *not* a matter of "what if"... it's a matter of "what happends *when* GP3 turns out to be crap"! Imho, it was nothing more that a 3D-accelerated version of GP2. Ed_ "Sam Daniels"wrote: > ......it turns out to be crap !!! > > I hope not, because I am just about to spend about �1,800.00 on a new > computer. > Fingers crossed... :)

That's YOUR definition of crap. And BTW, if it was still the Monaco demo as reported, then you're talking about a very early version. Reality beats fiction as presented in my "typical RAS GP3 review"-post... I expected the slaughtering to start on the basis of downloaded warez versions somewhere in the second half of july. But now it has already started on the basis of 2 all-helps-eabled laps with a very early demo. :-) JoH On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:57:30 +0200, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>Having tested GP3 at Goodwood... - it's *not* a matter of "what if"... it's >a matter of "what happends *when* GP3 turns out to be crap"! > >Imho, it was nothing more that a 3D-accelerated version of GP2. > >Ed_ > > >"Sam Daniels"wrote: >> ......it turns out to be crap !!! >> >> I hope not, because I am just about to spend about �1,800.00 on a new >> computer. >> Fingers crossed... :) > > >

"Jo Helsen" wrote: > Reality beats fiction as presented in my "typical RAS GP3 > review"-post... I expected the slaughtering to start on the basis of > downloaded warez versions somewhere in the second half of july. But > now it has already started on the basis of 2 all-helps-eabled laps > with a very early demo. Actually, I had the guy turn off all aids, but had to make him turn on auto-shift again 'cause the damn controller was setup so crappy (you had to go completely off the throttle and use the same paddla as used for up-shifts). Sure, the version they showed *might* be an old one, but it still sucked big-time! Even the first GPL-pre alphas was better than that! Ed_

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:09:46 +0200, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote: ...

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Actually, I had the guy turn off all aids, but had to make him turn on >auto-shift again 'cause the damn controller was setup so crappy (you had to >go completely off the throttle and use the same paddla as used for >up-shifts). > >Sure, the version they showed *might* be an old one, but it still sucked >big-time! >Even the first GPL-pre alphas was better than that! > >Ed_

<no more words needed> JoH

Damn... I was hoping against hope. ;-( Thanks for charing your view Ed, I appreciate your honesty. Jan. =--- Ed Solheim <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:18Z55.2193$[email hidden]... > Having tested GP3 at Goodwood... - it's *not* a matter of "what if"...it's > a matter of "what happends *when* GP3 turns out to be crap"! > > Imho, it was nothing more that a 3D-accelerated version of GP2. > > Ed_

It really is great news! JoH On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:16:09 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>Damn... I was hoping against hope. ;-( > >Thanks for charing your view Ed, I appreciate your honesty. > >Jan. >=--- >Ed Solheim <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:18Z55.2193$[email hidden]... >> Having tested GP3 at Goodwood... - it's *not* a matter of "what if"... >it's >> a matter of "what happends *when* GP3 turns out to be crap"! >> >> Imho, it was nothing more that a 3D-accelerated version of GP2. >> >> Ed_ > >

... <no more words needed> JoH

"Sam Daniels" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > ......it turns out to be crap !!! > > I hope not, because I am just about to spend about �1,800.00 on a new > computer. > Fingers crossed... :) > Ben Then I won't play it. Simple enough. I've already got more sims than I can devote the time to be good at, and even more in the pipeline.

Jon Van Ginneken <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DAW55.38$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "Gradee "The BoDee" Ventura" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8j8knk$8q8$[email hidden]... > > > > Sam Daniels <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > ......it turns out to be crap !!! > > > > And why on earth would it? > > Heck GP2 with 3D support as enough for me...... now all this wet weather > and > > stuff.....there ain't know way it'll be crap, although I doubt anythign

is > > going to live up to the GPL based standards set by this NG. > > > $100 says N4 does. It'll attract some attention for a while but it won't be long before we get the old "I just dusted off my GPL CD today and guess what.....?" type of posts.

sure it is Jo... If I'm interpreting everything properly (which honestly, things get interpreted with a pretty high chance of misunderstanding around here.) The question was basically, if the game turns out to not have physics as deep as GPL (which in some peoples fair opinion would be substandard, that's fair if what you want is the absolute closest thing to reality) in this newsgroup. How bad will it get? People tempers have gotten high as of late about GPL when people compared it to F12K, which wasn't nearly as highly anticipated. I personally think it's time to start over again and stop jumping to conclusions. Just because someone says swamp buggy racing isn't as good as GPL, doesn't mean that their some sort of crazy that will only accept GPL forever. That goes on up the scale of realism. Most everyone but not everyone would accept that kind of talk about Nascar 2000, even less would so about SCGT, and even less for F12K. So if you ask me, we're all in agreement that GPL is a great sim, (if not a great game) but that we're not in agreement over to what point it should be compared to other games. I personally think it's fair to say, if you have reasoning, to say that another game just doesn't live up to GPL's standards in the physics department, without a flame from someone. I don't think it's ok to play a game for 3 laps, call it crap, and flame everyone who's playing it instead of GPL. Lets all remember that so many people brought GPL back to the store because they spent a day with it, with a bad controller and gave up on it. So in this case Jo I slightly agree with you. I don't think it's fair to compare GP3 to GPL when you just had one day with a bad controller. Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:09:46 +0200, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > ... > > >Actually, I had the guy turn off all aids, but had to make him turn on > >auto-shift again 'cause the damn controller was setup so crappy (you hadto

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >go completely off the throttle and use the same paddla as used for > >up-shifts). > > > >Sure, the version they showed *might* be an old one, but it still sucked > >big-time! > >Even the first GPL-pre alphas was better than that! > > > >Ed_ > > <no more words needed> > > JoH >

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:57:30 +0200, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Having tested GP3 at Goodwood... - it's *not* a matter of "what if"... it's >a matter of "what happends *when* GP3 turns out to be crap"! > >Imho, it was nothing more that a 3D-accelerated version of GP2. Good enough for me :) Andre

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >Ed_ > > >"Sam Daniels"wrote: >> ......it turns out to be crap !!! >> >> I hope not, because I am just about to spend about �1,800.00 on a new >> computer. >> Fingers crossed... :) > > >

[email hidden] (Jo Helsen) writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I have absolutely no problem with people who worship (up to a point > where *I* find it absurd) the physics in a racingsim. But I often get > the feeling that many of them tend to be rather narrowminded. In the > sense that they will think of anything else as essentially simply > "inferior". Not "different" or "another approach" but plain simply > "below par". Instead of recognising that other interpretations of the > racingsim genre can also be valid and can have their merits, too.

If you buy a new import beer and don't like it, would you still buy it, just to by something different from your favourite ? If a friend of yours is drinking the beer you didn't like and ask you what you think, do you then answer "I don't like it" or "It tastes nearly as good as my favorite, but it's a little too flat for me, so I will only buy it from time to time since it's beer" ? Disclaimer : I may follow up a bit out of context here, but I just got this beer idea into my head (hmm, still only Wednesday), and had to share it. I've said it before, and say it again, no race-sim released after GPL has given me the WHOOOAA feel that I got first time I floored the throttle on the back straight of Watkins Glen in the GPL demo. The WHOOOAA moment I had before that was when I bought GP2 and flew up the hill towards Casino at Monaco. I'm still waiting, hoping for this sensation again. Maybe GP3, maybe N4, maybe WSC, time will tell. (hmm, going far off-topic now) -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

I have absolutely no problem with people who worship (up to a point where *I* find it absurd) the physics in a racingsim. But I often get the feeling that many of them tend to be rather narrowminded. In the sense that they will think of anything else as essentially simply "inferior". Not "different" or "another approach" but plain simply "below par". Instead of recognising that other interpretations of the racingsim genre can also be valid and can have their merits, too. JoH

[email hidden] (Jo Helsen) writes:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> On 28 Jun 2000 13:31:54 +0200, [email hidden] (Olav > K. Malmin) wrote: > > >[email hidden] (Jo Helsen) writes: > > > >> I have absolutely no problem with people who worship (up to a point > >> where *I* find it absurd) the physics in a racingsim. But I often get > >> the feeling that many of them tend to be rather narrowminded. In the > >> sense that they will think of anything else as essentially simply > >> "inferior". Not "different" or "another approach" but plain simply > >> "below par". Instead of recognising that other interpretations of the > >> racingsim genre can also be valid and can have their merits, too. > > > >If you buy a new import beer and don't like it, would you still buy > >it, just to by something different from your favourite ? > > > >If a friend of yours is drinking the beer you didn't like and ask you > >what you think, do you then answer "I don't like it" or "It tastes > >nearly as good as my favorite, but it's a little too flat for me, so I > >will only buy it from time to time since it's beer" ? > > Olav, you're close :-)

Not as close as you think :)) > A number of GPL addicts over here would answer the beer question with > "It sucks, period!", EVEN if he knew that his friend liked it. But > tastes differ, so this is a very *unreasonable* answer by an > *unreasonable* person. "it suck!" is always a bad answer no matter what, "I don't like it" is a subjective opinion, so we agree there. Depending on how bad it is, I think most people would go from "don't like it" to "not as good" I threw in the line "so I will only buy it from time to time since it's beer" to try to prove my point. Who buys something not so good, when the best is available ? I was just trying to provoke a little bit, and offer a different perspective. My point is still that I try out new sims and see what they have to offer, but sadly I return to GPL exclusivly after some time (more than 30 minutes :) > Not that this analogy is flawless.... Hehe -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

On 28 Jun 2000 13:31:54 +0200, [email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>[email hidden] (Jo Helsen) writes: > >> I have absolutely no problem with people who worship (up to a point >> where *I* find it absurd) the physics in a racingsim. But I often get >> the feeling that many of them tend to be rather narrowminded. In the >> sense that they will think of anything else as essentially simply >> "inferior". Not "different" or "another approach" but plain simply >> "below par". Instead of recognising that other interpretations of the >> racingsim genre can also be valid and can have their merits, too. > >If you buy a new import beer and don't like it, would you still buy >it, just to by something different from your favourite ? > >If a friend of yours is drinking the beer you didn't like and ask you >what you think, do you then answer "I don't like it" or "It tastes >nearly as good as my favorite, but it's a little too flat for me, so I >will only buy it from time to time since it's beer" ?

Olav, you're close :-) A number of GPL addicts over here would answer the beer question with "It sucks, period!", EVEN if he knew that his friend liked it. But tastes differ, so this is a very *unreasonable* answer by an *unreasonable* person. Not that this analogy is flawless.... JoH

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:14:22 GMT Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote: % I have absolutely no problem with people who worship (up to a point % where *I* find it absurd) the physics in a racingsim. But I often get % the feeling that many of them tend to be rather narrowminded. In the % sense that they will think of anything else as essentially simply % "inferior". Not "different" or "another approach" but plain simply % "below par". Instead of recognising that other interpretations of the % racingsim genre can also be valid and can have their merits, too. But you also have to accept that fact that for them it is inferior if it doesn't deliver the goods they expect or desire. I think you have mentioned "religion" in some threads here..... Well the same is true about what religion one adheres to. Some religions offer "features" that others don't. That's called tolerence. Accept that and be tolerent of their intolerence. Else you are being as intolerent as they are.... -- **************************** 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 12:49:09 GMT Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote: % A number of GPL addicts over here would answer the beer question with % "It sucks, period!", EVEN if he knew that his friend liked it. But % tastes differ, so this is a very *unreasonable* answer by an % *unreasonable* person. And we have the GPL detractors that say GPL sucks.... that's life (and by the way..... r.a.s. is doing a great job of simulating real life -- except for the whimpy physics <G>). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Just to clearify a few things here.... I don't worship GPL at all. Sure I enjoy it like hell and it's still (unbeleivably enough) the "top-dog" of sims out there. I merly aired my thought and feeling of GP3 based upon what I saw and felt.. Sure the wheel and controllers in that cockpit they had there were below par (a blue cockpit - like the one they had at E3 - I believe), but it still felt weird. To me it looked and felt just like GP2 apart from the Hardware acceleration. I guess a good way to put it is that GP3 sounded and felt a bit like Nascar 3.... whilch was basicly a new version of Nascar 2. I asked the representative there about multiplayer-features and such... sure they would do 16 player multi-races, but only LAN... "...because of the "lag" occuring when 2 cars are racing side by side etc...", i.e. no net play - accoding to him. This alone is a damn good reason for me NOT to buy GP3! GP3 might turn out to be much better than what I saw at Goodwood, but without any online play, it's still not worth it in *my* book. Ed_ "Jo Helsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I have absolutely no problem with people who worship (up to a point > where *I* find it absurd) the physics in a racingsim. But I often get > the feeling that many of them tend to be rather narrowminded. In the > sense that they will think of anything else as essentially simply > "inferior". Not "different" or "another approach" but plain simply > "below par". Instead of recognising that other interpretations of the > racingsim genre can also be valid and can have their merits, too. > > JoH

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:40:15 +0200, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

>Just to clearify a few things here.... > >I don't worship GPL at all. Sure I enjoy it like hell and it's still >(unbeleivably enough) the "top-dog" of sims out there. > >I merly aired my thought and feeling of GP3 based upon what I saw and felt.. > >Sure the wheel and controllers in that cockpit they had there were below par >(a blue cockpit - like the one they had at E3 - I believe), but it still >felt weird. > >To me it looked and felt just like GP2 apart from the Hardware acceleration. > >I guess a good way to put it is that GP3 sounded and felt a bit like Nascar >3.... whilch was basicly a new version of Nascar 2. > >I asked the representative there about multiplayer-features and such... sure >they would do 16 player multi-races, but only LAN... "...because of the >"lag" occuring when 2 cars are racing side by side etc...", i.e. no net >play - accoding to him. >This alone is a damn good reason for me NOT to buy GP3! > >GP3 might turn out to be much better than what I saw at Goodwood, but >without any online play, it's still not worth it in *my* book. > >Ed_

THAT's more like it, Ed ;-) I'm still wondering how relevant the "feeling" is that you get after a few laps with a game that you don't know, an unfamiliar controller and an unfamiliar environment. There's simply no time to settle. Just FYI: - the sound used in that demo was still the GP2 sound (was used during development). (source: producer of GP3) - the demo-Monaco was wider than the final version (source: producer of GP3) - the latest specs of GP3 (as mentioned on the Official German GP3 site) now also talk about TCP/IP support, for the first time. - until just a few weeks ago (so, in the demo as well), FF wasn't officially included either. But now it is, and it is advertised to be "linked to the physics engine" so it doesn't sound like a quick job they did. According to the producer, FF was postponed to GP4 because early tests didn't give satisfying results. But the disappointment on the Internet forums seems to have pushed them to finalise it in time for GP3. Compare what happened with FF to the TCP/IP story, and it seems they will ship GP3 with a TCP/IP implementation that works well over a LAN but will have flaws over WAN. Sounds very similar to what happened with GPL? If all this turns out to be true, then maybe GP3 won't be executed on RAS after all :-) JoH

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:00:16 GMT, "Michael E. Carver" [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:14:22 GMT Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote: >% I have absolutely no problem with people who worship (up to a point >% where *I* find it absurd) the physics in a racingsim. But I often get >% the feeling that many of them tend to be rather narrowminded. In the >% sense that they will think of anything else as essentially simply >% "inferior". Not "different" or "another approach" but plain simply >% "below par". Instead of recognising that other interpretations of the >% racingsim genre can also be valid and can have their merits, too. > >But you also have to accept that fact that for them it is inferior if it >doesn't deliver the goods they expect or desire. I think you have >mentioned "religion" in some threads here..... Well the same is true >about what religion one adheres to. Some religions offer "features" >that others don't. That's called tolerence. Accept that and be >tolerent of their intolerence. Else you are being as intolerent as they >are....

I don't think one is expected to accept intollerance. It has to come from both sides, and it doesn't always. Look, I'm not letting my sleep for this :-) I'm mainly pointing out that I understand what some people mean when they talk about certain people in the GPL scene appearing rude, unreasonable and over-fanatic. JoH

Possibly because Jo, for the last two years we have seen posts here in RAS, print advertising and word of mouth that sim X or sim Y was going to have gpl or better physics. After you hear it over and over but have yet to see anything rival gpl's physics, it is easy to understand why folks get so worked up. Heck, we'd LOVE it if EVERY new sim far surpassed GPL. We are not here yammering about how nothing else can ever top GPL, but rather, two years ago we got a taste of something special....we liked that taste, and we want more----but so far at least: nothing has sastified our taste buds. (boy talk about sentence run-on!) Some absolutely dreadful racing sims have been made with promises of realism that rivals GPL, but obviously that was just marketing fluff. And some actually pretty good sims have made the attempt to match gpl, but have fallen short. I think our patience has been worn thin by the false and spurious claims many companies have made so that even when some product comes close to GPL, we still feel letdown. dave henrie "Jo Helsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I have absolutely no problem with people who worship (up to a point > where *I* find it absurd) the physics in a racingsim. But I often get > the feeling that many of them tend to be rather narrowminded. In the > sense that they will think of anything else as essentially simply > "inferior". Not "different" or "another approach" but plain simply > "below par". Instead of recognising that other interpretations of the > racingsim genre can also be valid and can have their merits, too. > > JoH

Hey, as long as the tracks are accurate within plus or minus .05 inch, most will be happy. :) not - I sure hope that's not the case, -- Don Burnette Dburn in N3 and Legends ICQ# 74084566 "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:th_55.85261$[email hidden]... > Damn... I was hoping against hope. ;-( > > Thanks for charing your view Ed, I appreciate your honesty. > > Jan. > =--- > Ed Solheim <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:18Z55.2193$[email hidden]... > > Having tested GP3 at Goodwood... - it's *not* a matter of "what if"... > it's > > a matter of "what happends *when* GP3 turns out to be crap"! > > > > Imho, it was nothing more that a 3D-accelerated version of GP2. > > > > Ed_ > >

"Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:V%o65.3166$[email hidden]... > Just to clearify a few things here.... > > I don't worship GPL at all. Sure I enjoy it like hell and it's still > (unbeleivably enough) the "top-dog" of sims out there. > > I merly aired my thought and feeling of GP3 based upon what I saw andfelt.. > > Sure the wheel and controllers in that cockpit they had there were belowpar > (a blue cockpit - like the one they had at E3 - I believe), but it still > felt weird. > > To me it looked and felt just like GP2 apart from the Hardwareacceleration. > > I guess a good way to put it is that GP3 sounded and felt a bit likeNascar > 3.... whilch was basicly a new version of Nascar 2. > > I asked the representative there about multiplayer-features and such...sure > they would do 16 player multi-races, but only LAN... "...because of the > "lag" occuring when 2 cars are racing side by side etc...", i.e. no net > play - accoding to him. > This alone is a damn good reason for me NOT to buy GP3! Crammond been hiding out in a cave these last few years or what? I still cannot believe their going to release a racing "sim" in the year 2000, with no more mulitplayer support than what they say it will have. Unbelievable, -- Don Burnette Dburn in N3 and Legends ICQ# 74084566

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:07:34 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Possibly because Jo, for the last two years we have seen posts here in >RAS, print advertising and word of mouth that sim X or sim Y was going to >have gpl or better physics. After you hear it over and over but have yet to >see anything rival gpl's physics, it is easy to understand why folks get so >worked up. Well, reality is that the expectations of the typical games-buying (even race-sim buying) public are NOT the same as the expectations of the GPL addict. Why don't we all keep that in the back of our mind? Do you still believe in Santa Claus? :-) Only Papyrus or Geoff Crammond sims justify realistic hope. By definition, I treat all the others as probably not in the same league. This _doesn't_ mean that they can't turn out to be good enough after all. But if they aren't, I don't feel any disappointment. > Heck, we'd LOVE it if EVERY new sim far surpassed GPL. We are not here >yammering about how nothing else can ever top GPL, but rather, two years ago >we got a taste of something special....we liked that taste, and we want >more----but so far at least: nothing has sastified our taste buds. (boy talk >about sentence run-on!) No problem. But try to understand that the GPL approach is not necessarilly the unchallengable one and only alpha&omega of racing sims. It's YOUR idea of the alpha&omega, but maybe not according to someone else. JoH

"Jo Helsen" wrote: > Well, reality is that the expectations of the typical games-buying > (even race-sim buying) public are NOT the same as the expectations of > the GPL addict. Why don't we all keep that in the back of our mind? Why should should we? I mean, I really dont care much about what the typical games-buyer wants... I care about what *I* want. The typical game-buyer aint the one paying for my games or sims. - I do... hence, I care about what I want and what I'm willing to use my hard earned cash on. If the developers can't offer what *I* wont - then I wont buy it! I dont give a rats-ass if it's every "typical gamers" big dream.... if it dont please *me* - then no sale! It's as simple as that. Ed_

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:13:37 +0200, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >"Jo Helsen" wrote: > >> Well, reality is that the expectations of the typical games-buying >> (even race-sim buying) public are NOT the same as the expectations of >> the GPL addict. Why don't we all keep that in the back of our mind? > >Why should should we? > >I mean, I really dont care much about what the typical games-buyer wants... >I care about what *I* want. The typical game-buyer aint the one paying for >my games or sims. - I do... hence, I care about what I want and what I'm >willing to use my hard earned cash on. > >If the developers can't offer what *I* wont - then I wont buy it! > >I dont give a rats-ass if it's every "typical gamers" big dream.... if it >dont please *me* - then no sale! It's as simple as that.

That was not the point. The point was that it is unnecesarry to get your hopes high up every time a sim is announced with "state-of-the-art physics" and "unparallelled realism" on the box or in the presstalk. A small dose of realism is enough to prevent frustration setting in. The same frustration that was reportedly one of the reasons why some GPL addicts become rather rude over here. Without it, maybe they wouldn't have this tendency to break everything down to the very last stone. JoH

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:13:57 GMT Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote: % I don't think one is expected to accept intollerance. It has to come % from both sides, and it doesn't always. % Look, I'm not letting my sleep for this :-) I'm mainly pointing % out that I understand what some people mean when they talk about % certain people in the GPL scene appearing rude, unreasonable and % over-fanatic. And my point is that we have some folks in the r.a.s. scene appearing rude, unreasonable and over-fanatic (and no ties to GPL). That's human nature, if the GPL folks like GPL and don't like f12k, fine.... If the f12k folks want to tout f12k as the new holy sacrament and lambaste anyone who likes GPL instead as a fanatic, what's the difference. You are appearing to be rude, unreasonable and over-fanatic if you don't apply the same principals to the non-GPL "scene". Hmmmmm I remember the GP2 vs ICRII holy wars. And then there was the CPR vs ICRII holy war. the list can go on and on..... It has nothing to do with GPL..... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:41:21 GMT, "Michael E. Carver" [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

>On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:13:57 GMT Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote: > >% I don't think one is expected to accept intollerance. It has to come >% from both sides, and it doesn't always. > >% Look, I'm not letting my sleep for this :-) I'm mainly pointing >% out that I understand what some people mean when they talk about >% certain people in the GPL scene appearing rude, unreasonable and >% over-fanatic. > >And my point is that we have some folks in the r.a.s. scene appearing >rude, unreasonable and over-fanatic (and no ties to GPL). That's human >nature, if the GPL folks like GPL and don't like f12k, fine.... If the >f12k folks want to tout f12k as the new holy sacrament and lambaste >anyone who likes GPL instead as a fanatic, what's the difference. You >are appearing to be rude, unreasonable and over-fanatic if you don't >apply the same principals to the non-GPL "scene". > >Hmmmmm I remember the GP2 vs ICRII holy wars. > >And then there was the CPR vs ICRII holy war. > >the list can go on and on..... It has nothing to do with GPL.....

If THEY have the right to fight in that war, then *I* have that right, too. In fact, we ALL have that right and we are executing it right now. Isn't it GREAT FUN! <G> ;-) JoH

"Jo Helsen" wrote: > > > The point was that it is unnecesarry to get your hopes high up every > time a sim is announced with "state-of-the-art physics" and > "unparallelled realism" on the box or in the presstalk. Ahh...now I see! Btw, who's hopes are you referring to? They certainly cant be mine.... but I seem to recall having head/seen them before... somewhere. <G!> Ed_

> the list can go on and on..... It has nothing > to do with GPL..... Well said. Blokes like to argue, GPL's just the most visible target to aim at. Long may it continue <g>. Andrew McP

In article <leJ65.2468$[email hidden]>, "Michael E. Carver" [email hidden] writes: >Hmmmmm I remember the GP2 vs ICRII holy wars. > >And then there was the CPR vs ICRII holy war. "Holy war". Now THAT'S a contradiction in terms... Makes me glad I'm an atheist... 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.