Re: F1 2000: It was now or never!

Wow!!! Great post, you brought up some very good points.

Do you people think the reason EA distributed F1 2000 in this state (i.e. unfinished) was that they figured it was the only chance they had to make any money out of it? In other words, that once GP3 came out, nobody would go near F1 2000?

They had the date set last year when they tabbed ISI to code the sim. They wanted it out NOT BEFORE GP3 but when the Season started. You'll notice Madden 2001 is scheduled out this fall, not for the Xmas season. EA has always tried to have a title ready when the season starts. Remember Madden 97 or 98 or something....a complete disaster that was late to boot. I'm sure they had a very good feel for when GP3 was going to be released. I'm still not gonna be surpised if we don't see it til late fall....But the product EA had was a 2000 season sim that really isn't competing with gp3 but with Pysnosis F1 and Official F1. I'm sure if they compare themselves to those products, they come out looking very good. Here too is probably the reason EA bought up ISI to distribute SCGT. They could care less about that title, but it gave them a team of developers with a working software engine that could be ported to an F1 title...and if they could get it out on time at the start of the 2000 season, then I'd be willing to bet they felt pretty confident about beating GP3 out of the gate by a substantial margin. I'd be more interested in comparing F12k+1 to GP4 as both the titles released this year seem to be missing components. dave henrie Zen wrote: > > Do you people think the reason EA distributed F1 2000 in this state (i.e. > unfinished) was that they figured it was the only chance they had to make > any money out of it? In other words, that once GP3 came out, nobody would go > near F1 2000?

Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message > But the product EA had was a 2000 season sim that really isn't > competing with gp3 but with Pysnosis F1 and Official F1. No way, Dave. As has been debated many times, F12K is the best modern F1 sim out there, and should be compared with F1RS and MGPRS2. F1 and OF1R were pure arcade games and not worth taking OOTB. Any comparisons with GP3 are purely conjecture as we don't actually know how good (or bad) it is yet. Iain

> > No way, Dave. As has been debated many times, F12K is the best modern F1 > sim out there, Isn't a sim a thing with real-life tracks? F1 2000 isn't!! The tracks are pure shit.

Rod Prince <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws MPG.13ab5da6160cb2dc9896c8@news-server...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> In article <W%005.127688$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > > Isn't a sim a thing with real-life tracks? > > > > F1 2000 isn't!! > > > > The tracks are pure shit. > > So much hostility over a game. > > Tracks are convincing enough for me. I find F1-2000 very enjoyable to > drive. I can find little difference between hotlapping and the number of > mpgs I have downloaded of real hotlaps on each circuit.

True: its only a game. But many people out there depend on PC racing sims to have the feel of driving a real race car on a real race track. I am anoyed because the rest of the game (F1 2000) has so much potential. True: its could almost be perfect, and even on my system (P2-500) its performance is 10 times better that GP2 when it was released. Some of the tracks in F1 2000 are good. I just can't understand why they could NOT make tracks like Spa (the most important one) and some of the rest JUST AS GOOD. They obviously have the technology to measure the real tracks and convert them into computer tracks. I don't know which mpg's you have been watrching, but their version of SPA is the worst I have ever seen. All the track ellevations are totally wrong. The Eau Rouge corner is the most important corner of the whole season (thats what the real drivers say) so its unacceptable that EA messed that whole section up. Yeah, of course its JUST a racing game... Its also JUST your money they're after :)

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> But the product EA had was a 2000 season sim that really isn't >> competing with gp3 but with Pysnosis F1 and Official F1. > >No way, Dave. As has been debated many times, F12K is the best modern F1 >sim out there, and should be compared with F1RS and MGPRS2. F1 and OF1R were >pure arcade games and not worth taking OOTB.

F1-2000 the best? Depends on what you like in a modern F1 game...it is the best in your opinion, I'm sure.... >Any comparisons with GP3 are purely conjecture as we don't actually know how >good (or bad) it is yet. Agreed. Remco

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I feel that the level of track accuracy that people demand on here isn't > absolutely essential for the mass market. Joe Blow is unlikely to even > know. I consider myself an average F1 fan, if it's on TV, I'll watch it. > Every race I want to know the result, several tracks I know reasonably > well. Would I be able to comment on track accuracy on the real thing? Not > likely, all I could do is compare it to other sims that I have raced, or > mpg's that I have seen.

Trust me on this one: I have been a F1 addict for 20 years now, and I have lots of books, videos about F1 racing. I've been to many tracks myself. Still I'm not a maniac: I found the tracks in GP2 very very good. There were some minor flaws, but overal they were good. Compared to the old GP2, the newer F1 2000 tracks are really very bad, apart from a few. I must admid that the Spa track is maybe the worst of all, and its such a nice track IRL. > Of the mpgs that I've downloaded, I could virtually pick each turn-in > point, where each brake point was and which gear they were taking the > turn on which I feel is pretty darn good. That kind of accuracy is most > likely to be more than acceptable to 99% of the game purchasing public. Well this 99% will NOT buy GPL because its too hard to play. But still GPL is the best SIM up to date. Of course Im NOT the average game purchasing guy. And many of us aren't: we want the real thing, and that's what game-makers speculate on when they label their game as 'a true sim'. > Even if a track is totally wrong, why can't you treat that track as a > 'fantasy' track? Imossible! I drive around the tracks I got to know so well with a certain feel, and even some emotions :) I can't have it spoiled by EA. I won't race on the F1 2000 SPA track like it is now. It's painful... There are other tracks there that are modelled very > well. No point damning a game because of one poorly modelled track. I willl admit that F1 2000 has some very good qualities, but as I explained earlier: what really annyoing is that they have the technology to make accurate tracks, but they just don't care. Lets' just hope someone finds a way to edit the tracks, them F1 2000 will be close to perfect

"Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote > I feel that the level of track accuracy that people demand on here isn't > absolutely essential for the mass market. Oh mmmm no. If we start like this, we'll never advance in realism. You could release "track accuracy" in your message by EVERYTHING. Graphics, sound, AI, multiplayer, etc.. If they do not push them the most they can, then virtual reality of motorsports is doomed. Btw, have fun at the pathetic model of the Montreal GP next week. It's so bad I think I'll burn the F1 2000 cd (yes, I finally bought it, shame on me) in the microwave ;-P -- -- 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.

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote > It's not just my opinion, but nevertheless what is your opinion on what is > the best modern F1 sim out there at the moment? Your post insinuate that it's best at the moment but also best as in "good to buy". While I agree that F1 2000 is the best racing simulation of modern F1 at the moment (barely over Gp2 since the graphics make it out-dated simply), the price is not worth the investment and it has major flaws in every aspect of the game. -- -- 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.

> F1-2000 the best? Depends on what you like in a modern F1 game...it is > the best in your opinion, I'm sure.... >It's not just my opinion, but nevertheless what is your opinion on what is the best modern F1 sim out there at the moment? Iain

>I won't race on the F1 2000 SPA track like it is now. It's painful... >Yep, Spa is very disappointing from an accuracy point of view, especially Eau Rouge. However, F12K does a pretty good job at most of the tracks. Iain

It sounds to me as if what you need is to get out of the basement and into some form of real life racing. Perhaps this would satisfy your need for total accuracy and realism. As one who completely enjoys the game, I'm glad to hear you'll be trashing your F1 2000 disk so I don't have to listen to any more of your complaints about this excellent game. Like Rod Prince mentioned in an earlier message: "I feel that the level of track accuracy that people demand on here isn't absolutely essential for the mass market. Joe Blow is unlikely to even know." It's only a handful of people around here that complain about the accuracy or lack thereof in a "GAME". And unless your truly putting your life on the line when you grab onto that wheel that's attached to a desk, then yes...it is a game. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

"Robert Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote > It sounds to me as if what you need is to get out of the > basement and into some form of real life racing. Perhaps this > would satisfy your need for total accuracy and realism. Haha you fail to understand the message Robert. Btw you would be surprised to see how many of us indeed race in real-life. I did. Virtual reality motorsports is a new form of racing, completely different to another form of motorsports like F1 is different to Nascar. It's unique, and shall be considered as serious as any other form of racing. You can go play "go-carts" if you want in real-life, but we all know it's different from karting. You can go play "an arcade F1 game" if you want here also, but we all know it's different from realistic simulations. > As one who completely enjoys the game, I'm glad to hear you'll > be trashing your F1 2000 disk so I don't have to listen to any > more of your complaints about this excellent game. Opinions are like arses. We all have a different one. Learn to deal with them here. But don't expect me to stop posting here about F1 2000. You obviously have a very little knowledge of r.a.s. > "I feel that the level of track accuracy that people demand on > here isn't absolutely essential for the mass market. Joe Blow is > unlikely to even know." Yep! Let's go back ADLIB sound boards with your way of thinking! I bet those Joe Blow are unlikely to even know? Somebody had to say one day "well why don't we digitalise sound boards?". Graphics, AI, multiplayer, physics, etc... Game developers are there to PUSH the limits of virtual reality. Including of course, the modeling of tracks. F1 2000 did a very poor job, and I can show you multiple instances where people have posted on r.a.s. about it, and at a higher rate than any other title in the history of r.a.s. I hope I never get in the gaming business with people like you, or the company will go soon bankrupt. Factually. I bet you still think that 540kb of memory is enough. > It's only a handful of people around here that complain about > the accuracy or lack thereof in a "GAME". And unless your truly > putting your life on the line when you grab onto that wheel > that's attached to a desk, then yes...it is a game. Real-racing is a game also. What you think your some kind of superior human being when playing with semantics? Pathetic. -- -- 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.

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> F1-2000 the best? Depends on what you like in a modern F1 game...it is >> the best in your opinion, I'm sure.... >> >It's not just my opinion, but nevertheless what is your opinion on what is >the best modern F1 sim out there at the moment? Hmm, I'm afraid I still like GP2 more then F1-2000. I must add I didn't try the 1.06 patch yet, but maybe that's the best indication what I think about F1-2000....not worth my time to patch. The reason is, when I play F1-2000, I never get the feeling I'm driving a F1 car. The same with the races. It might be my C300A@450, it might be the sound, or the behaviour of the AI, I don't know. It just doesn't do it for me. Anyway, that's just MY opinion. The reason I posted was that you said it's the best modern F1 sim. It might be for some, and not for others. I do think you don't help people with a statement like that... Remco

>It's just that if it claims to be a sim, then all aspects should be >modelled as accurately as possible. About track accuracy: To those of us, who have not actually driven on those tracks, it is enough that what we see in the games/sims is accurate enough compared to what we see in TV... Arto

>I don't have any quantative numbers, but I'd guess that the >majority of potential purchasers don't share your passion for track >accuracy. I don't think it's necessarily about track accuracy on the whole, it's just that apparently it's quite obvious in F12K that there are some flaws. You say you're happy with partially-accurate tracks: Would you settle for cars that handled "kinda" like F1 cars, or cars which "sorta" looked like F1 cars? Driver names "a bit" like the real ones? It's just that if it claims to be a sim, then all aspects should be modelled as accurately as possible. -- Cheers! Graeme Nash IMHO!

In article <W%005.127688$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Isn't a sim a thing with real-life tracks? > > F1 2000 isn't!! > > The tracks are pure shit. So much hostility over a game. Tracks are convincing enough for me. I find F1-2000 very enjoyable to drive. I can find little difference between hotlapping and the number of mpgs I have downloaded of real hotlaps on each circuit. Cheers, Rod.

"Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted text (7 lines)

> In pushing limits, comprimises have to be made. Hey, it's a shame that > the tracks aren't modelled to perfection, but there's only several > handfulls of people that would be able to tell. As much as games are > about pushing the envelope, it's also about cost vs benefit. For > instance, spending $20,000 and an extra month or two to perfectly model > modern F1 tracks to please those handful that have their panties in a > bunch would hardly be a good business decision.

You have no idea of what you are talking about. ISI had the technical data much more in-depth than you may think. Having participated far in the development of other F1 titles, I can tell you you can have easy access to incredibly detailed track data. Having a FIA license give you an incredible ammount of tools to model tracks. Other companies like Papyrus send people onto those tracks to get detailed information about tracks. The crew who worked on SBK 2000 did that. So why couldn't ISI do it also, when a title by the same producer (EA) did it? Laziness, not caring about a portion of their customers, <insert reason here>. Of course some minor flaws have to be accepted, but limits are limits. Just take a peek at Monza, Monaco, Montreal, Spa, etc.. They have -major- flaws that other titles don't have. Gp2 was modeled with extremely limited tools and had better tracks. Some arcade-based titles, who are obviously targeted to arcade-type gamers who care less about tracks, have better accuracy at Monza. Why is this thread popping up each month or so. Go to deja.com and research about the poor track accuracy. > If GPL was Papy's flagship title, then Papy would be in financial > trouble. Well it's not, so? GPL was marketed for a specific portion of the market. Why do we have to tell this to everybody who doesn't have a clue? It on purpose did not have any kind of versatile help system because that's how it was designed for. Legends-type racing simulations sell poorly also to the mass market. > It had all the realism you'd want, but Joe Schmo didn't buy it. But GPL wasn't made for Joe Schmo. > I'd be interested to know how > F12000 sold against GPL within the first 2 months. Apples and oranges. It's like asking to see the car sales between the Ford Focus and a Ferrari Modena. -- -- 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.

In article <Pl605.130396$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > I don't know which mpg's you have been watrching, but their version of SPA > is the worst I have ever seen. All the track ellevations are totally wrong. > The Eau Rouge corner is the most important corner of the whole season (thats > what the real drivers say) so its unacceptable that EA messed that whole > section up. Spa, Suzuka and Indy are the only 3 I don't have in the boxed season.. so I can't comment on them. I feel that the level of track accuracy that people demand on here isn't absolutely essential for the mass market. Joe Blow is unlikely to even know. I consider myself an average F1 fan, if it's on TV, I'll watch it. Every race I want to know the result, several tracks I know reasonably well. Would I be able to comment on track accuracy on the real thing? Not likely, all I could do is compare it to other sims that I have raced, or mpg's that I have seen. Of the mpgs that I've downloaded, I could virtually pick each turn-in point, where each brake point was and which gear they were taking the turn on which I feel is pretty darn good. That kind of accuracy is most likely to be more than acceptable to 99% of the game purchasing public. Even if a track is totally wrong, why can't you treat that track as a 'fantasy' track? There are other tracks there that are modelled very well. No point damning a game because of one poorly modelled track. Cheers, Rod.

> >Real-racing is a game also. What you think your some kind ofsuperior human being when playing with semantics? Pathetic. > >-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> Coming from you it can only be the truth, so yes I guess I must be a superior human being. If nothing else you are entertaining. Please keep posting. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

> Anyway, that's just MY opinion. The reason I posted was that you said > it's the best modern F1 sim. It might be for some, and not for others. > I do think you don't help people with a statement like that... > > Remco >Sorry, are you saying I shouldn't post my opinion on RAS? It may come as a shock, but my opinion is as valid as yours! Iain

> Why is this thread popping up each month or so. Go to deja.com and > research about the poor track accuracy. >Because some people get hung up on these things and some don't let it spoil their enjoyment. I mean it's not as if any of us are using F12K to hone our skills for racing on the real circuits is it? The tracks are accurate enough for most people. BTW, Francois, I'm beginning to think that you have a financial interest in deja.com! I was glad to see from another post that you actually got round to buying F12K. Have you installed the patch, or do you just run it to get your blood pressure up when you go round Eau Rouge. I just have this vision of you measuring the lengths of the kerbing and the grandstands, writing to RAS about how F12K is 3 feet short on the main hot dog stand at Suzuka! Still, I hope you're getting some enjoyment out of it! Iain

> Of course some minor flaws have to be accepted, but limits are limits.Just > take a peek at Monza, Monaco, Montreal, Spa, etc.. They have -major- flaws > that other titles don't have. Gp2 was modeled with extremely limitedtools > and had better tracks. Some arcade-based titles, who are obviouslytargeted > to arcade-type gamers who care less about tracks, have better accuracy at > Monza. Thats exactly my point. I just got F1 99 by Psychnosis. An arcade game with awfull GP1-type car physics. But still: some tracks are better than those in F1 2000. Just WHY are most of the F1 2000 tracks SOOOO bad? I just don't get it. For those who don't care about track accuracy, go to the newsgroup: rec.auto.games This one is called : rec.auto.SIMULATORS! So thats what we should be talking about: SIMULATION.

In article <C6805.131056$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Well this 99% will NOT buy GPL because its too hard to play. But still GPL > is the best SIM up to date. > Of course Im NOT the average game purchasing guy. And many of us aren't: we > want the real thing, and that's what game-makers speculate on when they > label their game as 'a true sim'. I must agree, it is a shame that GPL did not sell well. I've played it for many hours and managed to defeat the usual time barriers that most complain of, but unfortunately I didn't find it fun. The lack of help options alienated it to the majority of the market, but up until F1-2000, I'd still jump in it every now and then and marvel at what Papy actually achieved.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Even if a track is totally wrong, why can't you treat that track as a > > 'fantasy' track? > > Imossible! I drive around the tracks I got to know so well with a certain > feel, and even some emotions :) > I can't have it spoiled by EA. I won't race on the F1 2000 SPA track like it > is now. It's painful...

Fair enough, I hope GP3 models tracks to your satisfaction cos you look wanting. ;) I don't have any quantative numbers, but I'd guess that the majority of potential purchasers don't share your passion for track accuracy. > I willl admit that F1 2000 has some very good qualities, but as I explained > earlier: what really annyoing is that they have the technology to make > accurate tracks, but they just don't care. Lets' just hope someone finds a > way to edit the tracks, them F1 2000 will be close to perfect I guess we won't know what ISI had to go on when modelling the tracks. I don't think they purposely made a half-assed effort in modelling the tracks. Could have been a time to release constraint, could have only had mpgs of the tracks in order to model them, who knows. I doubt it was due to them just not caring. I suspect they wouldn't have released the unofficial patch if they just didn't care. I skipped the game based on the outcry in here about poorly modelled 'insert track/car/size of head here'. However, I read a number of glowing reviews with 1.6 applied and I couldn't resist. I'm glad I got it because I was hungry for an F1 sim aand going back to F1RS 1 and 2 didn't satisfy me. Cheers, Rod.

In article <xtc05.55496$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Yep! Let's go back ADLIB sound boards with your way of thinking! I bet > those Joe Blow are unlikely to even know? Somebody had to say one day > "well why don't we digitalise sound boards?". Graphics, AI, multiplayer, > physics, etc... Game developers are there to PUSH the limits of virtual > reality. Including of course, the modeling of tracks. F1 2000 did a very > poor job, and I can show you multiple instances where people have posted on > r.a.s. about it, and at a higher rate than any other title in the history of > r.a.s.

In pushing limits, comprimises have to be made. Hey, it's a shame that the tracks aren't modelled to perfection, but there's only several handfulls of people that would be able to tell. As much as games are about pushing the envelope, it's also about cost vs benefit. For instance, spending $20,000 and an extra month or two to perfectly model modern F1 tracks to please those handful that have their panties in a bunch would hardly be a good business decision. > I hope I never get in the gaming business with people like you, or the > company will go soon bankrupt. Factually. At least the title would actually make it to market though ;) If GPL was Papy's flagship title, then Papy would be in financial trouble. It had all the realism you'd want, but Joe Schmo didn't buy it. Down to the last inch realism won't sell you any more titles than close enough to real for the average game buyer. I'd be interested to know how F12000 sold against GPL within the first 2 months. Cheers, Rod.

In article <AHb05.55309$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > If we start like this, we'll never advance in realism. You could release > "track accuracy" in your message by EVERYTHING. Graphics, sound, AI, > multiplayer, etc.. If they do not push them the most they can, then virtual > reality of motorsports is doomed. We'll also start to alienate developers who don't see the financial investment of bringing out a simulator to market because it costs too much to develop. Same thing is happening to flight-sims right now, ironically, the sim that nearly everyone holds in such high regard right now is a chopper sim that makes *alot* of reality comprimises. Virtual motorsports will be doomed when it can't be sold to a large section of the mass market. Just because a sim doesn't meet your reality requirements, doesn't mean the ass is going to fall out of the racing sim market. Cheers, Rod.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 07:56:02 GMT Rod Prince <[email hidden]> wrote: % It's simulating an F1 car, the accuracy of the tracks is inconsequential. % It's still a simulator. % But you've taken it to the extreme. I don't think anyone in this thread % said they didn't care about track accuracy, but that the accuracy of the % tracks was acceptable to everyone but a handfull of people. % You obviously don't like F12000, that's fine. But some of us here do. Actually when f12k first showed up, its defenders were saying that the tracks "were" accurate and those that felt they weren't, were wrong or just plain blind. I find it interesting that now we are defending f12k for not having accurate tracks. Just an interesting observation. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"Michael E. Carver" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZBr05.12059$[email hidden]... > Actually when f12k first showed up, its defenders were saying that the > tracks "were" accurate and those that felt they weren't, were wrong or > just plain blind. I find it interesting that now we are defending f12k > for not having accurate tracks. I'm certainly not doing that now. In the past I have said the track modeling in F1 2000 was accurate enough for me to think it is the best modern F1 sim on the market. Noting has changed that. The only thing wrong with F1 2000 is the framerate during GP's when you try to run at full details. All I can say to that is "well Duh". -- [email hidden] > > Just an interesting observation. > > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > I don't think it's necessarily about track accuracy on the whole, it's > just that apparently it's quite obvious in F12K that there are some > flaws. All simulators have flaws. ;) > You say you're happy with partially-accurate tracks: Would you settle > for cars that handled "kinda" like F1 cars, or cars which "sorta" looked > like F1 cars? Driver names "a bit" like the real ones? I don't know how F1 cars actually handle, yet F12000 is convincing enough for me to believe that F! cars handle in a similar fashion. Would I play something that was obviously incorrect? Depends on whether it was fun or not. You could also call the drivers or tracks whatever the hell you want, doesn't affect my enjoyment while I am in the cockpit. We all know that it'll be patched by fans to modify those kinds of minor details anyway ;) > It's just that if it claims to be a sim, then all aspects should be > modelled as accurately as possible. Perhaps it's modelled as accurately as possible whilst taking into consideration, time, financial and gameplay constraints? ISI's goal whilst trying to develop a mass marketed realistic simulator is to actually make a profit. Cheers, Rod.

I watch each F1 race on television. The tracks look very accurate to me. David G Fisher "Michael E. Carver" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZBr05.12059$[email hidden]... > On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 07:56:02 GMT Rod Prince<[email hidden]> wrote: > > % It's simulating an F1 car, the accuracy of the tracks isinconsequential.

Quoted text (20 lines)

> % It's still a simulator. > > % But you've taken it to the extreme. I don't think anyone in this thread > % said they didn't care about track accuracy, but that the accuracy of the > % tracks was acceptable to everyone but a handfull of people. > > % You obviously don't like F12000, that's fine. But some of us here do. > > Actually when f12k first showed up, its defenders were saying that the > tracks "were" accurate and those that felt they weren't, were wrong or > just plain blind. I find it interesting that now we are defending f12k > for not having accurate tracks. > > Just an interesting observation. > > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In article <QXg05.56122$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > You have no idea of what you are talking about. You've just got to love messages that start like this. > ISI had the technical data much more in-depth than you may think. > Having participated far in the development of other F1 titles, I can > tell you you can have easy access to incredibly detailed track data. I wasn't questioning whether they had the data, but the time and money to model the track to your personal specifications. Both you nor I will know the answer to that one. Participated in devlopment? Did it include funding it? > Having a FIA license give you an incredible ammount of tools to model tracks. > Other companies like Papyrus send people onto those tracks to get detailed > information about tracks. The crew who worked on SBK 2000 did that. So why > couldn't ISI do it also, when a title by the same producer (EA) did it? > Laziness, not caring about a portion of their customers, <insert reason here>. You've just said they've got access to incredible detailed track data, why are you damning ISI for not going out to the track? If the amount of data they had was accurate, why would it be neccessary to go out to the track? Not caring about a portion of their customers? You can't please everyone, and EA Sports products are typically marketed to the mainstream. Do you know what goals of the development team were? If not, how can you claim they were either lazy or did not care? I've never been involved in the development of an F1 sim, but I suspect that modelling a track to ~90% accuracy would take a fraction of the time and development costs of modelling the track to 100% accuracy. > Why is this thread popping up each month or so. Go to deja.com and > research about the poor track accuracy. It's not me that has a problem with the tracks (?) I've also never stated that they were 100% accurate! If you want such a thread to die, you should stop laying the boot into this sim at every opportunity you get, then it will die. > > If GPL was Papy's flagship title, then Papy would be in financial > > trouble. > Well it's not, so? GPL was marketed for a specific portion of the market. > Why do we have to tell this to everybody who doesn't have a clue? You're quite the obnoxious schmuck, aren't you? It demonstrates my point. Model something to the nth degree and you risk alienating the majority of potential customers. Something I'm sure ISI and EA *didn't* want to do. > It on purpose did not have any kind of versatile help system because that's > how it was designed for. Legends-type racing simulations sell poorly also > to the mass market. Doesn't really help a developer in a competitive market, does it? > > It had all the realism you'd want, but Joe Schmo didn't buy it. > But GPL wasn't made for Joe Schmo. Exactly my point! We've got a group of GPL fanatics salivating at the thought of GPL2, if GPL was made more accessible to the average schmoo via help functions, it would have been received better by reviewers, most likely have sold more copies and GPL2 could have been closer to reality! >> I'd be interested to know how >> F12000 sold against GPL within the first 2 months. > Apples and oranges. It's like asking to see the car sales between the Ford > Focus and a Ferrari Modena. They're both motor racing simulations that run on my PC, hence *my interest* in knowing the comparable sales. You're not going to start telling me what I'm allowed to be interested in now, are you? Cheers, Rod.

Errrr, when you say "As has been debated many times, F12K is the best modern F1 sim out there", I can't see that as _your_ opinion. And I fail to see where I said you shouldn't post to RAS AT ALL.... Remco "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> Anyway, that's just MY opinion. The reason I posted was that you said >> it's the best modern F1 sim. It might be for some, and not for others. >> I do think you don't help people with a statement like that... >> >> Remco >> >Sorry, are you saying I shouldn't post my opinion on RAS? It may come as a >shock, but my opinion is as valid as yours! >Iain > >

In article <s8m05.141607$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > For those who don't care about track accuracy, go to the newsgroup: > rec.auto.games > This one is called : rec.auto.SIMULATORS! > So thats what we should be talking about: SIMULATION. It's simulating an F1 car, the accuracy of the tracks is inconsequential. It's still a simulator. But you've taken it to the extreme. I don't think anyone in this thread said they didn't care about track accuracy, but that the accuracy of the tracks was acceptable to everyone but a handfull of people. You obviously don't like F12000, that's fine. But some of us here do. Cheers, Rod.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >F1 2000 totally fucked up this track section. In fact the whole Spa track is >awful: track is too wide or too narrow, and worst of all are all the wrong >track elevations. And this goes for many of the other tracks too. F1 2000 >has done an awful job, and that's a fact. Those who claim they saw a few >in-car mpg's and decide the tracks are accurate are talking bullshit. >Even Monza doesn't give the feel the track really has.

Er, uh, hmmm.... Well, look at the bright side. Nobody has posted any hotlaps for Spa. The top talent seems to have completely ignored it. Therefore, the top rank for Spa is wide open!

Greg Cisko wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Yep same here. I didn't notice any problems with Monaco either. I > guess people are just complaining about track inaccuracy just to > give themselves the impression that they are elitist or something :-) > > -- > > [email hidden]

Greg, didn't you notice that in Monaco at the Loews corner the track drops at about 10 degrees on the inside line while it should do so at about 8 degrees? I mean, how can you enjoy a sim with such innacuracies? -Gregor

"Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote > Huh? And, how exactly would you model a rigid body? And a pivot is an > improper term anyway, there are no hinges or joints holding a car to the > rest of the world. Could you, please, explain a bit more about what you > meant with the above statement? What I mean is that instead of having a car steering correctly with the front wheels, it rotates the car on the center of the car. The Papyrus old game engine is like that, and many other basic game engines fake it that way. The car pivots on it's middle axis, hence the term "to pivot : to rotate on an axis". -- -- 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.

Outdated? Bah-humbug!

On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:40:11 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >While I agree that F1 2000 is the best racing simulation of modern F1 at the >moment (barely over Gp2 since the graphics make it out-dated simply), the Outdated? Bah-humbug!

On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:01:31 +0100 Iain Mackenzie <[email hidden]> wrote: % The anger is on both sides, and is largely as a result of both sides of the % camp being rather annoyed with the other. % The CPR anger was universal, because that piece of **** was bad in every % respect and caused major frustration because it had the potential for being % great! Errrr it was not universal..... CPR had its staunch supporters just as f12k does. That's where f12k is (in my book and even in some of its supporters' books).... "major frustration because it [has] the potential for being great". But it's not great, it's just the "only" modern F1 sim we have that's even close. (oh, should I add IMHO <G>). % BTW, this is an autos simulator group, not a track simulator group. It's % the simulation of the cars and racing that is important, not whether angles % of elevation should be 8 degrees or 10 degrees as another poster said. % Perhaps you and a couple of your mates should start a new NG called rts % (rec.tracks.simulators). May be you'll get some software company to produce % 100% accurate tracks for you. The driving and the physics might be crap, but % what the hell, at least you'll get a correct set of kerbs and trees in the % right place! Actually, I disagree. There is a marriage between racing and tracks. That's where they doing the racing, on the tracks. As it seems many folks enjoy "re-living" the experience of racing they see on the tube or at the track. Part of that experience is the track (as I said without the track there would be no racing). Some of us are looking for the whole enchilada -- not just the tortilla. I am not trying to tell you what you should enjoy in a simulation. But I am also tired of folks telling me (and others) that we should accept what is offered when I want more in my simulations. Some folks get a kick out of 2 slices of bread and some mayonnaise in between. Then there are some that would like a slice of bologna added to the mix. Me, I would rather have a fine steak with all the trimmings and maybe even a fine single-malt scotch for after dinner drinks. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The anger is on both sides, and is largely as a result of both sides of the camp being rather annoyed with the other. The CPR anger was universal, because that piece of **** was bad in every respect and caused major frustration because it had the potential for being great! BTW, this is an autos simulator group, not a track simulator group. It's the simulation of the cars and racing that is important, not whether angles of elevation should be 8 degrees or 10 degrees as another poster said. Perhaps you and a couple of your mates should start a new NG called rts (rec.tracks.simulators). May be you'll get some software company to produce 100% accurate tracks for you. The driving and the physics might be crap, but what the hell, at least you'll get a correct set of kerbs and trees in the right place! Iain ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:QG015.61971$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > Well it spoils the enjoyment for many Iain. > > I wouldn't say for 'many' Francois, more like for some. > > > Have you polled the NG? Where are the informal statistics saying so? My > assumption tells me that never in the history of r.a.s. have I seen such > anger towards the modeling of tracks in a simulation. The only one close > was C:PR, but that was anger towards Microsoft who hyped the tracks as > "accurate to the inch and made with state of the art GPS technology", yet > had major flaws. At least we don't whine to ISI, in fact Im starting to > wonder if the reason is simply that either 1) the game engine isn't

capable > of some situation (like the Ubisoft game engine) or 2) the 3d modeling > artist are not as good as elsewhere (take per example Laguna Seca inSCGT).

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Most of us accept that it won't be fixed. > > > > As we have debated earlier, I have driven around Silverstone many times > and > > the modelling in F12K was almost perfect for me, but others complained > about > > a piece of missing kerb! It's all about tolerance I guess. > > > Exactly. But when some people say "tracks are accurate", some will say

they > are not. Many, in fact. Like I'll say that Mosport has an inaccurate > graphics in GPL, as we all know there was more than 50,000 people on the > circuit for the race, all jammed up in the hills around the track. Orthat > the approach to the Monaco chicane was different in 67. There is manyother > situations like that, I could grip much about the modeling of Stock-car > tracks in N3 also! > > It's the same as people saying "The physics in Rally 2k are very well > modeled". Many people would disagree. Or some people saying "NascarRacing

Quoted text (11 lines)

> 3 has good AI". Another time, people will disagree. > > This is r.a.s., and realism will always be promoted primarily at any cost. > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

> EA got many important corners and many track elevations on many tracks > TOTALLY wrong.Some corners on some tracks. > REC.AUTO.SIMULATORS !!!! >Not REC.TRACK.SIMULATORS! This is about racing and getting car physics and the excitement of a race challenge as close to reality as you can when sitting in front of a monitor, not whether the width at Monza is 0.5m less than it should be. Iain

Some people only listen to the latest flaky wannabe who can't sell more than 100 copies of their crappy recording. They do so because they think that gives them an image of being "deep". Which they're not. David G Fisher "Karl Zosel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:qZ015.182654$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Since when do WE care about the mass market??? > > Some people only listen to music that's made for the masses. > Others are looking for quality. > > > > Rod Prince <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws > MPG.13aec2d911a2589a9896d5@news-server... > > In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > > Robert Allen wrote: > > > > > See, I don't give a damn what the mass market wants. I fly realistic > > > flight sims and realistic racing sims. If they sell 20 million copies > > > of "Bart Simpson's Death Race", I'd still not be interested. > > > > Even flight sims have consessions from realism in order to make them > > appealing to the mass market. The latest and greatest being EECH which

is

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > very far from being realistic, which does pander to the mass market and > > is being very well received by most. I hope you don't play that one! :) > > > > Cheers, > > Rod. > >

Well that's the problem them, you're thinking of the gradient when it was Loews, they changed it when they changed the name to Grand Hotel <G> -- Ian P <E-mail address invalid due to spam> Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Greg Cisko wrote: > > > > Yep same here. I didn't notice any problems with Monaco either. I > > guess people are just complaining about track inaccuracy just to > > give themselves the impression that they are elitist or something :-) > > > > -- > > > > [email hidden] > > Greg, > > didn't you notice that in Monaco at the Loews corner the track drops at > about 10 degrees on the inside line while it should do so at about 8 > degrees? I mean, how can you enjoy a sim with such innacuracies? > > -Gregor

"Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote > A rigid body is correcly described in Newtonian mechanics in the > following way: the sum of all forces on the body creates an acceleration > of its *center* of mass, and the sum of all torques these forces produce > and other possible additional torques results in the change of the > angular momentum and hence the angular velocity with respect to the > *center* of mass of the car. Note the use of the words *center*. Ok ok ok you want to play with Semantics. Whatever. Let's make it simple for you. We turn the littly tiddly wheel on the left. On some littly games, those cars will not have all those four wheels modeled on the ground. When you do this with your cutesy wheel, the car will not be like the real car your daddy drives to go to work. Instead, the front tyres won't be the turning wheels but some invisible ball in the perfect center of the car. Some new games today like GPL actually model the same way your daddy drives the car. When you turn the tiddly wheel, the front tyres are the thing that affects the turn. -- -- 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.

Dirk, I think yoy should stick to making porno movies, and leave the serious F1 game criticism alone. OF1 is absolute shite - and was only installed on my system for a month before I threw it away! F1 2000 works well for me - and is IMHO just as good an experience as was GP2 in the good old 486DX66 days. Don't forget, when GP2 came out - I could not get any more than 12fps in the game with full detail - which made it less playable and enjoyable - you needed to turn off some detail to get the best out of it. Sounds familar, yes? - Wait for hardware platforms to catch up with F1 2000 - and I suspect also with GP3 - from what I've seen and heard so far - it's going to want some pretty hefty hardware to run it too! All the best, Keith dirk diggler <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8i5iuj$a83$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> F12000 is complete rubbish comparedto OF1 racing, OF1 gives you a much > better driving experience with over steer and understeer etc. > > Graphics and tracks are utter crap on F12000. Don't waste your money! > > "TToommLL" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > >F1 2000 totally fucked up this track section. In fact the whole Spa

track > is > > >awful: track is too wide or too narrow, and worst of all are all the > wrong > > >track elevations. And this goes for many of the other tracks too. F12000 > > >has done an awful job, and that's a fact. Those who claim they saw afew

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > >in-car mpg's and decide the tracks are accurate are talking bullshit. > > >Even Monza doesn't give the feel the track really has. > > > > Er, uh, hmmm.... > > Well, look at the bright side. Nobody has posted any hotlaps for Spa. > > The top talent seems to have completely ignored it. Therefore, > > the top rank for Spa is wide open! > > > > > > > >

ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote > > A rigid body is correcly described in Newtonian mechanics in the > > following way: the sum of all forces on the body creates an acceleration > > of its *center* of mass, and the sum of all torques these forces produce > > and other possible additional torques results in the change of the > > angular momentum and hence the angular velocity with respect to the > > *center* of mass of the car. Note the use of the words *center*. > > Ok ok ok you want to play with Semantics. Whatever. >

You take a paragraph about basic facts of physics and you say I am playing with Semantics, with a capital S? It seems futile for me to discuss this matter any further with you, as we are talking in rather different terms, and the precision needed to express oneself scientifically is not something you keep in high esteem, it seems. I feel the need to discuss your attitude, though:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Let's make it simple for you. We turn the littly tiddly wheel on the left. > On some littly games, those cars will not have all those four wheels modeled > on the ground. When you do this with your cutesy wheel, the car will not be > like the real car your daddy drives to go to work. Instead, the front tyres > won't be the turning wheels but some invisible ball in the perfect center of > the car. Some new games today like GPL actually model the same way your > daddy drives the car. When you turn the tiddly wheel, the front tyres are > the thing that affects the turn. >

Francois, you do have to realize that up to now I had some respect towards you and your posts, even though I did not agree with them from time to time. Was there anything in my previous post that could upset or hurt you so much as to adopt a self protecting, seemingly superior patronizing position? You should know by now that the posts sometimes reflect what you want to see and not what is actually written. I ask you to reread the original post and tell me what you find so offensive that you had to revert to such infantile measures. I only hope that you did this out of boredom and wanted to start a small flame war. I am sorry, but I don't really have time for that. -Gregor

> Errrr it was not universal..... CPR had its staunch supporters just as > f12k does.For various reasons, CPR was ultimately unplayable. The same cannot be said about F12K. > Me, I would rather have a fine steak with all the trimmings and maybe evena > fine single-malt scotch for after dinner drinks. >As I've said before Michael, you're going to be waiting a long time (if ever) for the perfect simulation, so you might as well get some enjoyment out of the best of what is out there - whatever you think that is - at the moment. Iain

Ah, that explains it perfectly! :) -Gregor Ian P wrote:

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > Well that's the problem them, you're thinking of the gradient when it was > Loews, they changed it when they changed the name to Grand Hotel <G> > > -- > Ian P > <E-mail address invalid due to spam> > > Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Greg Cisko wrote: > > > > > > Yep same here. I didn't notice any problems with Monaco either. I > > > guess people are just complaining about track inaccuracy just to > > > give themselves the impression that they are elitist or something :-) > > > > > > -- > > > > > > [email hidden] > > > > Greg, > > > > didn't you notice that in Monaco at the Loews corner the track drops at > > about 10 degrees on the inside line while it should do so at about 8 > > degrees? I mean, how can you enjoy a sim with such innacuracies? > > > > -Gregor

On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:13:12 +0100, "dirk diggler" And I bet you tell the babes you have a 16inch*** too. -- Nos

I checked the demo for one lap or two :-) --

Wow... Who in the hell are you anyway??? --

F12000 is complete rubbish comparedto OF1 racing, OF1 gives you a much better driving experience with over steer and understeer etc. Graphics and tracks are utter crap on F12000. Don't waste your money! "TToommLL" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > >F1 2000 totally fucked up this track section. In fact the whole Spa trackis > >awful: track is too wide or too narrow, and worst of all are all thewrong

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >track elevations. And this goes for many of the other tracks too. F1 2000 > >has done an awful job, and that's a fact. Those who claim they saw a few > >in-car mpg's and decide the tracks are accurate are talking bullshit. > >Even Monza doesn't give the feel the track really has. > > Er, uh, hmmm.... > Well, look at the bright side. Nobody has posted any hotlaps for Spa. > The top talent seems to have completely ignored it. Therefore, > the top rank for Spa is wide open! > > >

On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:13:12 +0100, "dirk diggler" <[email hidden]> wrote: >F12000 is complete rubbish comparedto OF1 racing, OF1 gives you a much >better driving experience with over steer and understeer etc. > >Graphics and tracks are utter crap on F12000. Don't waste your money! This 'review' is utter crap too! Andre

I disagree. If someone doesn't like a particular sim / game for whatever reason be it track inaccuracies or any other reason, it is their decision. It's pointless saying that they should make the most of what's currently available, if they don't like the sim then they simply won't enjoy the experience. I personally like F1 2000 other's don't, they may like sim x while I absolutely hate it, that is fair enough. They can use their sim of choice and hopefully get a lot of enjoyment with it, I'll stick to what I like and do the same :) but I wouldn't say "sim x is total crap don't bother with it, get sim y because I think its the best that is currently available in it's genre" I think it's called freedom of choice or something ;) I do however like to hear people's opinions on new sims as it helps me make a choice on what to get next, after a while you get to know who likes similar games to yourself :) -- Ian P <E-mail address invalid due to spam> Iain Mackenzie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YMk15.33$[email hidden]... > > Errrr it was not universal..... CPR had its staunch supporters just as > > f12k does. > For various reasons, CPR was ultimately unplayable. The same cannot be said > about F12K. > > > Me, I would rather have a fine steak with all the trimmings and maybe even > a > > fine single-malt scotch for after dinner drinks. > > > As I've said before Michael, you're going to be waiting a long time (if > ever) for the perfect simulation, so you might as well get some enjoyment > out of the best of what is out there - whatever you think that is - at the > moment. > > Iain > >

On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:13:12 +0100, "dirk diggler" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >F12000 is complete rubbish comparedto OF1 racing, OF1 gives you a much >better driving experience with over steer and understeer etc. And I bet you tell the babes you have a 16inch dick too. -- Nos

If you can't spot under and over steer in F1 2000 then you will prefer OF1R as it is arcade and the physics model exaggerates those effects. Real f1 cars don't slide very much until they reach their limits then it's usually all or nothing. Even F1 2000 shows too much oversteer or understter compared to a real F1 car. As for the graphics you must be running on a slow PC and / or older graphics card because it looks damn pretty on my PC :) No comment on the tracks, that's been dealt with already ;) -- Ian P <E-mail address invalid due to spam> dirk diggler <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8i5iuj$a83$[email hidden]... > F12000 is complete rubbish comparedto OF1 racing, OF1 gives you a much > better driving experience with over steer and understeer etc. > > Graphics and tracks are utter crap on F12000. Don't waste your money!

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wGv15.709$[email hidden]... > > > OF1 is absolute shite - and was only installed on my system for a month > > before I threw it away! > > > It lasted a month! Wow, that's dedication to duty for you. I would have > thought that an hour was too long! I checked the demo for one lap or two :-) -- [email hidden]

"dirk diggler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8i5iuj$a83$[email hidden]... > F12000 is complete rubbish comparedto OF1 racing, OF1 gives you a much > better driving experience with over steer and understeer etc. Wow... > Graphics and tracks are utter crap on F12000. Don't waste your money! Who in the hell are you anyway??? -- [email hidden]

Don't know what your talking about here. I didn't even mention F12K! I said that rather than wait for the perfect sim that may not happen, one should get some enjoyment from racing the best available - WHATEVER ANYONE THINKS THAT IS. So it's probably best if you read the posts thoroughly before spouting forth. Iain Ian P <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8i5ulu$qvv$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I disagree. If someone doesn't like a particular sim / game for whatever > reason be it track inaccuracies or any other reason, it is their decision. > It's pointless saying that they should make the most of what's currently > available, if they don't like the sim then they simply won't enjoy the > experience. > > I personally like F1 2000 other's don't, they may like sim x while I > absolutely hate it, that is fair enough. They can use their sim of choice > and hopefully get a lot of enjoyment with it, I'll stick to what I like

and > do the same :) but I wouldn't say "sim x is total crap don't bother withit, > get sim y because I think its the best that is currently available in it's > genre" > I think it's called freedom of choice or something ;) > > I do however like to hear people's opinions on new sims as it helps memake

Quoted text (22 lines)

> a choice on what to get next, after a while you get to know who likes > similar games to yourself :) > -- > Ian P > <E-mail address invalid due to spam> > > > Iain Mackenzie <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YMk15.33$[email hidden]... > > > Errrr it was not universal..... CPR had its staunch supporters just as > > > f12k does. > > For various reasons, CPR was ultimately unplayable. The same cannot be > said > > about F12K. > > > > > Me, I would rather have a fine steak with all the trimmings and maybe > even > > a > > > fine single-malt scotch for after dinner drinks. > > > > > As I've said before Michael, you're going to be waiting a long time (if > > ever) for the perfect simulation, so you might as well get some

enjoyment > > out of the best of what is out there - whatever you think that is - atthe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > moment. > > > > Iain > > > > > >

> OF1 is absolute shite - and was only installed on my system for a month > before I threw it away! >It lasted a month! Wow, that's dedication to duty for you. I would have thought that an hour was too long! Iain

Sorry, I misinterpreted your meaning, written text can do that some times. Just with it being an F1 2000 thread and it also being mentioned in the message you replied to I put 2 and 2 together came up with 3 ;) BTW I wasn't having a go at you just giving my opinion, and I'm not deaf yet :) -- Ian P <E-mail address invalid due to spam> Iain Mackenzie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:IEv15.707$[email hidden]... > Don't know what your talking about here. > I didn't even mention F12K! I said that rather than wait for the perfect > sim that may not happen, one should get some enjoyment from racing the best > available - WHATEVER ANYONE THINKS THAT IS. > So it's probably best if you read the posts thoroughly before spouting > forth. > Iain

"Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote > You take a paragraph about basic facts of physics and you say I am > playing with Semantics, with a capital S? It seems futile for me to > discuss this matter any further with you, as we are talking in rather > different terms, and the precision needed to express oneself > scientifically is not something you keep in high esteem, it seems. I fully understand what you were trying to say Gregor. It was semantics, but I was on purpose saying those words because they are recognised. Everybody knew what I was talking about, since we use those words for years on r.a.s. to describe the effect. The cars turn like if we put a pole stick dead-center of the car and make it pivot instead of having the front wheels act as the "natural gardians" of turning. Remember that I wasn't referring to F1 2000 about this effect, but mostly to argue against poor track modeling, and the importance of it in racing simulation ;) > I only hope that you did this out of boredom and wanted to start a small > flame war. I am sorry, but I don't really have time for that. It was a joke, most of all ;) -- -- 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.

Hi Francois, ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > "Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote > > You take a paragraph about basic facts of physics and you say I am > > playing with Semantics, with a capital S? It seems futile for me to > > discuss this matter any further with you, as we are talking in rather > > different terms, and the precision needed to express oneself > > scientifically is not something you keep in high esteem, it seems. > > I fully understand what you were trying to say Gregor. It was semantics, > but I was on purpose saying those words because they are recognised. > Everybody knew what I was talking about, since we use those words for years > on r.a.s. to describe the effect. The cars turn like if we put a pole stick > dead-center of the car and make it pivot instead of having the front wheels > act as the "natural gardians" of turning. >

I still claim that I wanted to point out what a real physics description of the system should be like. A prolonged usage of certain terms doesn't make the idea behind them any more valid. As I said, I remeber how CPR physics model was described in these same terms and I do believe that this is where the terminlogy came from. Now I can only assume that these same terms have either kept their meaning, or their meaning was so much altered without any real agreement on them in the community so that they now only provide a vague idea of what they are about, which in effect renders them useless for any precise discussions. One may perhaps say that it is about semantics. The problem is, you make it sound that discussions of semantics are taking the topic away from the main issue. You must be aware, though, that semantics is of high importance when trying to discuss precise engineering or scientific terms, otherwise you are talking past each other. Either you stick to established scientific or engineering terms and expressions, and agree on any new ones that are necessary to be introduced, or you cannot discuss such matters to any reasonable degree. It's really very common in any scientific discussion to stop and discuss the terms and their meaning untill everyone agrees on them, and only then can the discussion of a subject continue. And we do agree that we are talking simulators and hence science and engineering here, right? > > Remember that I wasn't referring to F1 2000 about this effect, but mostly to > argue against poor track modeling, and the importance of it in racing > simulation ;) I know that it was not about F1 2000, but it's a matter I wanted to discuss for quite some time as I find the discussion of whether a car turns with the center or the front wheels pointless since not one of these rather vague terms describes what is really happening. The transitional behaviour of a car is really all a combination of the car actually turning around its center of mass due to the torques provided by the front wheels. > > > I only hope that you did this out of boredom and wanted to start a small > > flame war. I am sorry, but I don't really have time for that. > > It was a joke, most of all ;) > OK, probably I overreacted, but you did as well, don't you agree ;) ? You can call it a professional deformation, but I sometimes strive to be rather precise when discussing such matters. It's the diversity amongst us that makes the discussions interesting, though. -Gregor

Iain Mackenzie wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > EA got many important corners and many track elevations on many tracks > > TOTALLY wrong. > Some corners on some tracks. > > > REC.AUTO.SIMULATORS !!!! > > > Not REC.TRACK.SIMULATORS! This is about racing and getting car physics and > the excitement of a race challenge as close to reality as you can when > sitting in front of a monitor, not whether the width at Monza is 0.5m less > than it should be.

If I wonder which track I'm driving (What corner is that?) than there's a lot more wrong than half a meter of track width. And there is... If you can live with those "problems", that's fine. Have fun. l8er ronny -- "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.

Are you kidding, that Eidos game really SUCKS big time, it comes nowhere near F1-2000 (wich i think is a pretty good sim) Mrv <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Not many went near it even though Gp3 is not out. F1-2000 is a badproduct and > should have never been released. Check out Grand Prix World by Eidos itis a > much better racing sim then F1-2000. > > Zen wrote: > > > Do you people think the reason EA distributed F1 2000 in this state(i.e. > > unfinished) was that they figured it was the only chance they had tomake > > any money out of it? In other words, that once GP3 came out, nobodywould go > > near F1 2000? >

Not many went near it even though Gp3 is not out. F1-2000 is a bad product and should have never been released. Check out Grand Prix World by Eidos it is a much better racing sim then F1-2000. Zen wrote: > Do you people think the reason EA distributed F1 2000 in this state (i.e. > unfinished) was that they figured it was the only chance they had to make > any money out of it? In other words, that once GP3 came out, nobody would go > near F1 2000?

Agree. Check the tracks from Grand Prix World then look at F1-2000. I had a good laugh. Karl Zosel wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > No way, Dave. As has been debated many times, F12K is the best modern F1 > > sim out there, > > Isn't a sim a thing with real-life tracks? > > F1 2000 isn't!! > > The tracks are pure shit.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:12:46 GMT, Mrv <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Not many went near it even though Gp3 is not out. F1-2000 is a bad product and >should have never been released. Check out Grand Prix World by Eidos it is a >much better racing sim then F1-2000. Geez...them must be some powerful drugs you be takin'. :-) -- Nos

spoke: Geez...them must be some powerful *** you be takin'. :-) -- Nos

As the great cliche goes, 'whatever you're on I want some'!!! Iain Mrv <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Not many went near it even though Gp3 is not out. F1-2000 is a badproduct and > should have never been released. Check out Grand Prix World by Eidos itis a > much better racing sim then F1-2000. > > Zen wrote: > > > Do you people think the reason EA distributed F1 2000 in this state(i.e. > > unfinished) was that they figured it was the only chance they had tomake > > any money out of it? In other words, that once GP3 came out, nobodywould go > > near F1 2000? >

F1 2k is a rushed product. But, :) here is why. They had the license for the year 2000. EA has only once delayed a product that is tied to a calendar year, that was Madden 96 or 97. Absolutely awful and it damn near killed the Madden series. EA puts out sports titles when the seasons begin. You'll see the new Madden title this fall, the NBA a few weeks later, and Hockey also. They tie the product release to the season schedule. So obviously they wanted F12k out when the season began, and they hit that mark. They were able to acheive this by buying up ISI and using an exisitng software engine(scgt) rather than start from scratch. Many of F12k's limitations are a direct result of the close kinship to scgt. If EA had built a whole complete title from the ground up, they KNEW they would miss the 2000 season and their license would be worthless. However, even though GP3 was originally scheduled to ship in the early spring, I think EA could feel pretty confident that the title would slip. I am frankly suprised that GP3 has gone gold. Based on the difficulties getting GP2 out the door, I didn't think even this fall was realistic. I have to give credit to Crammond and his team for that. So EA knew they had a window, and they slipped in, sold what they could. I'm sure Hasbro would have loved to go head to head with EA but it just didn't happen. Now next year....we will see probably a radical upgrade for EA's series, and an evolutionary upgrade for GP3 and those titles should really make for an interesting comparison. dave henrie "Mrv" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Not many went near it even though Gp3 is not out. F1-2000 is a badproduct and > should have never been released. Check out Grand Prix World by Eidos itis a > much better racing sim then F1-2000. > > Zen wrote: > > > Do you people think the reason EA distributed F1 2000 in this state(i.e. > > unfinished) was that they figured it was the only chance they had tomake > > any money out of it? In other words, that once GP3 came out, nobodywould go > > near F1 2000? >

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cVb65.34343$[email hidden]... > So EA knew they had a window, and they slipped in, sold what they could. > I'm sure Hasbro would have loved to go head to head with EA but it just > didn't happen. Now next year....we will see probably a radical upgradefor > EA's series, and an evolutionary upgrade for GP3 and those titles should > really make for an interesting comparison. Just curious why you think GP3 will have an evolutionary upgrade next year? I expect the GP3 game sometime this year, but that is about it for several more years. You know that MPS is dedicated to doing a yearly GP series??? That doesn't seem to be Crammond's style. -- [email hidden]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:10:25 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:cVb65.34343$[email hidden]... >> So EA knew they had a window, and they slipped in, sold what they could. >> I'm sure Hasbro would have loved to go head to head with EA but it just >> didn't happen. Now next year....we will see probably a radical upgrade >for >> EA's series, and an evolutionary upgrade for GP3 and those titles should >> really make for an interesting comparison. > >Just curious why you think GP3 will have an evolutionary upgrade >next year?

Where have you been? Hasbro has been shouting for months that they have F1 licenses for several years 1998-xxxx and will release a GP4, GP5... the next years. JoH

Yes, Greg, since Hasbro has plans for yearly projects, the massive undertaking that GP2 and GP3 were, just doesn't sound do-able. I'm betting GP4 will have most of the features that are missing in GP3, especially internet mulitplayer. Since they did manage to squeeze in FF into GP3, that is one less feature I thought would be in 4. Of course, this is merely my estimate and I have NO, absolutely NO info that would support this beyond common speculation.(how's that for covering my backside?) dave henrie "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:uGn65.11167$[email hidden]... > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:cVb65.34343$[email hidden]... > > So EA knew they had a window, and they slipped in, sold what theycould.

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > I'm sure Hasbro would have loved to go head to head with EA but it just > > didn't happen. Now next year....we will see probably a radical upgrade > for > > EA's series, and an evolutionary upgrade for GP3 and those titles should > > really make for an interesting comparison. > > Just curious why you think GP3 will have an evolutionary upgrade > next year? I expect the GP3 game sometime this year, but that is > about it for several more years. You know that MPS is dedicated > to doing a yearly GP series??? That doesn't seem to be Crammond's > style. > > > -- > > [email hidden] > > > > >

Dave Henrie wrote;

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Yes, Greg, since Hasbro has plans for yearly projects, the massive >undertaking that GP2 and GP3 were, just doesn't sound do-able. I'm betting >GP4 will have most of the features that are missing in GP3, especially >internet mulitplayer. Since they did manage to squeeze in FF into GP3, >that is one less feature I thought would be in 4. > Of course, this is merely my estimate and I have NO, absolutely NO info >that would support this beyond common speculation.(how's that for covering >my backside?) >dave henrie

One of the GP3 sites did have an FAQ about this. Just from memory GP4 would be out in Christmas or early next year, in time to go head to head with F1 2001. Among other features it will have a virtual cockpit, a career mode where you work your way up to the top teams, and I think at the time of the info, FF. So, you know... One thing I've wondered about, is that in some early software screenshots, the tire smoke looked volumetric or 3d, like in rendered movie animations. I haven't seen it in any of the recent hardware screenshots. Haven't read a thing about how the smoke was done or what to expect. Tom

On 29 Jun 2000 02:29:17 GMT, [email hidden] (TToommLL) wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>Dave Henrie wrote; >> Yes, Greg, since Hasbro has plans for yearly projects, the massive >>undertaking that GP2 and GP3 were, just doesn't sound do-able. I'm betting >>GP4 will have most of the features that are missing in GP3, especially >>internet mulitplayer. Since they did manage to squeeze in FF into GP3, >>that is one less feature I thought would be in 4. >> Of course, this is merely my estimate and I have NO, absolutely NO info >>that would support this beyond common speculation.(how's that for covering >>my backside?) >>dave henrie > >One of the GP3 sites did have an FAQ about this. Just from memory >GP4 would be out in Christmas or early next year, in time to go head >to head with F1 2001. Among other features it will have a virtual >cockpit, a career mode where you work your way up to the top teams, >and I think at the time of the info, FF. So, you know...

Hmmm... I don't think those "GP4-features" are anything official. More a wishlist. JoH