Re: 45/85 diff in GPL

On Mon, 15 May 2000 23:34:07 +1000, "Ned Kelly" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>I have been trying a 45/85 diff lately after i read somewhere that is what >real cars use. > >At first I hated it,the car was too hard to control, but after fiddling with >the suspension I'm having a ball. > >I'm down to just 0.2 off my PB at monza in the Ferrari. > >Is this diff setting correct for '67 cars? > >Anyone else using this setting?

I've been using 45/60 for a few weeks, mostly with the Lotus, and I've broken my old records on most of the tracks by 0.4 seconds. The car is a bit harder to drive but definately more fun and *definately* faster. -- Greger

I have been trying a 45/85 diff lately after i read somewhere that is what real cars use. At first I hated it,the car was too hard to control, but after fiddling with the suspension I'm having a ball. I'm down to just 0.2 off my PB at monza in the Ferrari. Is this diff setting correct for '67 cars? Anyone else using this setting?

At Monaco, I cannot race succesfully with anyt diff but 85/85... Same with the Ring... The open diff makes it much easier to get around those slow turns. 85/30 (the default) makes it very difficult to turn the car in, and I don't think the diff should "impose" too much of oversteer/understeer on your car, the balance should come from elsewhere... I think that generally, the tighter the curves, the more "open" diff. And the fast corners need a closed diff, in particular on the accel side... I use 60/60 or greater on all tracks now. ---Asgeir--- Ned Kelly wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I have been trying a 45/85 diff lately after i read somewhere that is what > real cars use. > > At first I hated it,the car was too hard to control, but after fiddling with > the suspension I'm having a ball. > > I'm down to just 0.2 off my PB at monza in the Ferrari. > > Is this diff setting correct for '67 cars? > > Anyone else using this setting?

I've tried it too Ned, and I have read that, 45/85 is more realistic Md Ned Kelly wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > I have been trying a 45/85 diff lately after i read somewhere that is what > real cars use. > > At first I hated it,the car was too hard to control, but after fiddling with > the suspension I'm having a ball. > > I'm down to just 0.2 off my PB at monza in the Ferrari. > > Is this diff setting correct for '67 cars? > > Anyone else using this setting?

Correct: 45/85 seems to be "historically accurate". I tried it for this reason too and quickly fell in love with it. I now concur with our good friend Carroll Smith: "I see no reason for ever locking up the coast side." ;-) The main advantage with the locked up power side lies in getting the power down early. But otherwise, as Asgeir says, the higher numbers allow the car to turn better (diff doesn't work against speed difference between rear wheels). If I were you I'd be running 60/85 at Monza. Jan. =--- Ned Kelly wrote... > I have been trying a 45/85 diff lately after i read somewhere that is what > real cars use. > > At first I hated it,the car was too hard to control, but after fiddlingwith

Quoted text (10 lines)

> the suspension I'm having a ball. > > I'm down to just 0.2 off my PB at monza in the Ferrari. > > Is this diff setting correct for '67 cars? > > Anyone else using this setting? > > >

Greger Huttu wrote in message <[email hidden]>... > >I've been using 45/60 for a few weeks, mostly with the Lotus, and I've >broken my old records on most of the tracks by 0.4 seconds. The car is >a bit harder to drive but definately more fun and *definately* faster. > >-- Greger Keep tinkering, Greger. One of these days you'll probably get pretty good at this stuff. ;-) Regards, Kurt

Do you use a split-axis (dual axis, whatever) wheel unit Gregger? Just wondering. Thanks. On Mon, 15 May 2000 21:04:29 GMT, [email hidden] (Greger Huttu) wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>On Mon, 15 May 2000 23:34:07 +1000, "Ned Kelly" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>I have been trying a 45/85 diff lately after i read somewhere that is what >>real cars use. >> >>At first I hated it,the car was too hard to control, but after fiddling with >>the suspension I'm having a ball. >> >>I'm down to just 0.2 off my PB at monza in the Ferrari. >> >>Is this diff setting correct for '67 cars? >> >>Anyone else using this setting? > >I've been using 45/60 for a few weeks, mostly with the Lotus, and I've >broken my old records on most of the tracks by 0.4 seconds. The car is >a bit harder to drive but definately more fun and *definately* faster. > >-- Greger

"Greger Huttu" <[email hidden]> skrev i meddelandet news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> On Mon, 15 May 2000 22:44:45 GMT, Duff <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>I've been using 45/60 for a few weeks, mostly with the Lotus, and I've > >>broken my old records on most of the tracks by 0.4 seconds. The car is > >>a bit harder to drive but definately more fun and *definately* faster. > > > >Do you use a split-axis (dual axis, whatever) wheel unit Gregger? > >Just wondering. > > Yes, I use split axis pedals in GPL with my TM F1. It's a pretty good > wheel and I like the pedals. Lately there has been some noises coming > from inside the wheel unit, though. Oh well, it has worked well for 1 > 1/2 years, only needed to change two springs in the brake pedal and > two pots for the steering wheel. :) > > -- Greger

Damn, Greger is using the same type of wheel as I am! There goes one of my excuses for being slow :o) -Bj�rn

45/85 I believe would be historically accurate if papy had got all the friction values etc for the diff spot on. Personally from observing the behaviour of the car with different diff values I don't think 45/85 is at all historicaly accurate when used in GPL. 85/30 isn't either though. If only the diff values were not hardcoded, because I would like to try approx 70/60 with 3 clutches ..... I think that with this setting the cars would behave most like they did in 1967. Be warned about having blind faith in papys numbers .... just because it says 45/85 or 20psi or whatever, doesn't mean that it will act the same as 45/85 or 20psi in real life Marc Mercer

On Mon, 15 May 2000 22:29:23 GMT, "Kurt Steinbock" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >Greger Huttu wrote in message <[email hidden]>... > >> >>I've been using 45/60 for a few weeks, mostly with the Lotus, and I've >>broken my old records on most of the tracks by 0.4 seconds. The car is >>a bit harder to drive but definately more fun and *definately* faster. >> >>-- Greger > >Keep tinkering, Greger. One of these days you'll probably get pretty good >at this stuff. >;-)

Thanks for the encouragement, Kurt. :) -- Greger

On Mon, 15 May 2000 22:44:45 GMT, Duff <[email hidden]> wrote: >>I've been using 45/60 for a few weeks, mostly with the Lotus, and I've >>broken my old records on most of the tracks by 0.4 seconds. The car is >>a bit harder to drive but definately more fun and *definately* faster. > >Do you use a split-axis (dual axis, whatever) wheel unit Gregger? >Just wondering. Yes, I use split axis pedals in GPL with my TM F1. It's a pretty good wheel and I like the pedals. Lately there has been some noises coming from inside the wheel unit, though. Oh well, it has worked well for 1 1/2 years, only needed to change two springs in the brake pedal and two pots for the steering wheel. :) -- Greger

I use 45/85 and 60/85 settings on my Eagle. I had tried this in the past and became very frustrated with the results. I could make the car run very quickly but it was quite nervous in a race. After returning to 85/45 and 85/60 settings I decided to give it one more go with extremly conservative (understeering) settings. I also used the shortest gears I could to avoid wheelspin. I found that the car behaved a lot better. Then I dialed in some taller gears and dialed out the understeer and the car felt great. Of course I had to do a lot of tweaking to get the car to feel just right. I have to be precise and smooth with my control inputs, especially with the throttle, but the car responds a lot more smoothly than before. Now I know what D.Kaemmer. was on about! 1:28.5's at Monza right now. I'm working towards a low 1:28 (maybe even 1:27 :-) ) at Monza with a race setup. Ned Kelly <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:391ffcd4$0$[email hidden]... > I have been trying a 45/85 diff lately after i read somewhere that is what > real cars use. > > At first I hated it,the car was too hard to control, but after fiddlingwith

Quoted text (10 lines)

> the suspension I'm having a ball. > > I'm down to just 0.2 off my PB at monza in the Ferrari. > > Is this diff setting correct for '67 cars? > > Anyone else using this setting? > > >

Another important thing to keep in mind is the less pre-load (clutches) the more the diff is allowed to operate smoothly. Too many clutches and the diff functions almost solely on pre-load without the ramps coming into play. You might find that if you mess around with the toe settings (rear) that you can actually tune out some of the tendency towards power on oversteer, and also the tendency to walk about its rotational axis under braking (front). GPL...the sim that keeps on giving :)...unfortunately I only have time to play once or twice a month now... SACRILEGE!! TJSB Jim Allison wrote:

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > I use 45/85 and 60/85 settings on my Eagle. I had tried this in the past and > became very frustrated with the results. I could make the car run very > quickly but it was quite nervous in a race. After returning to 85/45 and > 85/60 settings I decided to give it one more go with extremly conservative > (understeering) settings. I also used the shortest gears I could to avoid > wheelspin. I found that the car behaved a lot better. Then I dialed in some > taller gears and dialed out the understeer and the car felt great. Of course > I had to do a lot of tweaking to get the car to feel just right. I have to > be precise and smooth with my control inputs, especially with the throttle, > but the car responds a lot more smoothly than before. > > Now I know what D.Kaemmer. was on about! 1:28.5's at Monza right now. I'm > working towards a low 1:28 (maybe even 1:27 :-) ) at Monza with a race > setup. > > Ned Kelly <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:391ffcd4$0$[email hidden]... > > I have been trying a 45/85 diff lately after i read somewhere that is what > > real cars use. > > > > At first I hated it,the car was too hard to control, but after fiddling > with > > the suspension I'm having a ball. > > > > I'm down to just 0.2 off my PB at monza in the Ferrari. > > > > Is this diff setting correct for '67 cars? > > > > Anyone else using this setting? > > > > > >

I also find that using ##/85 means I have to set realistic front toe-in as opposed to the strange amount of toe-out used on the front in most 85/30 setups these days. Md Thomas JS Brown wrote:

Quoted text (50 lines)

> > Another important thing to keep in mind is the less pre-load (clutches) > the more the diff is allowed to operate smoothly. Too many clutches and > the diff functions almost solely on pre-load without the ramps coming > into play. > > You might find that if you mess around with the toe settings (rear) that > you can actually tune out some of the tendency towards power on > oversteer, and also the tendency to walk about its rotational axis under > braking (front). > > GPL...the sim that keeps on giving :)...unfortunately I only have time > to play once or twice a month now... SACRILEGE!! > > TJSB > > Jim Allison wrote: > > > > I use 45/85 and 60/85 settings on my Eagle. I had tried this in the past and > > became very frustrated with the results. I could make the car run very > > quickly but it was quite nervous in a race. After returning to 85/45 and > > 85/60 settings I decided to give it one more go with extremly conservative > > (understeering) settings. I also used the shortest gears I could to avoid > > wheelspin. I found that the car behaved a lot better. Then I dialed in some > > taller gears and dialed out the understeer and the car felt great. Of course > > I had to do a lot of tweaking to get the car to feel just right. I have to > > be precise and smooth with my control inputs, especially with the throttle, > > but the car responds a lot more smoothly than before. > > > > Now I know what D.Kaemmer. was on about! 1:28.5's at Monza right now. I'm > > working towards a low 1:28 (maybe even 1:27 :-) ) at Monza with a race > > setup. > > > > Ned Kelly <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:391ffcd4$0$[email hidden]... > > > I have been trying a 45/85 diff lately after i read somewhere that is what > > > real cars use. > > > > > > At first I hated it,the car was too hard to control, but after fiddling > > with > > > the suspension I'm having a ball. > > > > > > I'm down to just 0.2 off my PB at monza in the Ferrari. > > > > > > Is this diff setting correct for '67 cars? > > > > > > Anyone else using this setting? > > > > > > > > >

Ned Kelly wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I have been trying a 45/85 diff lately after i read somewhere that is what > real cars use. > > At first I hated it,the car was too hard to control, but after fiddling with > the suspension I'm having a ball. > > I'm down to just 0.2 off my PB at monza in the Ferrari. > > Is this diff setting correct for '67 cars? > > Anyone else using this setting?

I've been working on a 45/60/2 setup for the Ferrari at Laguna. With the low, tightly spaced gearing, I was getting lots of inside wheelspin with the 60-85 ramps. At 45, I can bury the throttle in 2nd gear (if I'm smooth) without any loss of traction. The car just rockets out of the corners! I have to be _very_ carefull exiting 6 and 9 where I encounter a crown or bump at the corner's exit. Also, running the 45 ramps makes driving on cold tires very difficult. I tried an 85 braking ramp, but it was too loose under braking. 60 gives me a bit up turn-in understeer, but lots of trail braking gets me turning in fairly well. -Greg -- Note! Anti-spam tactics engaged! Remove the duplicate "g" and "s" before replying.

Thomas JS Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Another important thing to keep in mind is the less pre-load (clutches) > the more the diff is allowed to operate smoothly. Too many clutches and > the diff functions almost solely on pre-load without the ramps coming > into play. ><snip> Thats's right. I vary the diff settings, depending on the circuit, but only ever use 1 clutch. I found the car is much more willing to turn corners that way.

Have you seen the contraption Ian Lake uses?? -Depressing. Jan. =--- Bj�rn Nyhl�n wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> <snip> > Damn, Greger is using the same type of wheel as I am! There goes one of my > excuses for being slow :o) > > -Bj�rn > >

45/85 I believe would be historically accurate if papy had got all the friction values etc for the diff spot on. Personally from observing the behaviour of the car with different diff values I don't think 45/85 is at all historicaly accurate when used in GPL. 85/30 isn't either though. If only the diff values were not hardcoded, because I would like to try approx 70/60 with 3 clutches ..... I think that with this setting the cars would behave most like they did in 1967. Be warned about having blind faith in papys numbers .... just because it says 45/85 or 20psi or whatever, doesn't mean that it will act the same as 45/85 or 20psi in real life Marc Mercer

PLease excuse the double post .. OE went balls up on me Marc

Actually, I don't think the innaccuracy is in the modelling of the diff. but rather the fact that Papy decided to reduce grip as an artificial means of making the sim more difficult since PCs at the time were unable to handle all the physics involved with a more realistic physical model and environment. Aside from that however, driving with a 45/85 in GPL looks and behaves a lot like what I've seen of 67 footage, and vintage races within the last year. Your mileage may vary TJSB Marc Mercer wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > 45/85 I believe would be historically accurate if papy had got all the > friction values etc for the diff spot on. > > Personally from observing the behaviour of the car with different diff > values I don't think 45/85 is at all historicaly accurate when used in GPL. > 85/30 isn't either though. > > If only the diff values were not hardcoded, because I would like to try > approx 70/60 with 3 clutches ..... I think that with this setting the cars > would behave most like they did in 1967. > > Be warned about having blind faith in papys numbers .... just because it > says 45/85 or 20psi or whatever, doesn't mean that it will act the same as > 45/85 or 20psi in real life > > Marc Mercer

On Thu, 18 May 2000 04:34:20 GMT, Thomas JS Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: >Actually, I don't think the innaccuracy is in the modelling of the diff. >but rather the fact that Papy decided to reduce grip as an artificial >means of making the sim more difficult since PCs at the time were unable >to handle all the physics involved with a more realistic physical model >and environment. Interesting thought, but I don't see the logic. Because they lessened the grip, physics became more easier to handle? >Aside from that however, driving with a 45/85 in GPL looks and behaves a >lot like what I've seen of 67 footage, and vintage races within the last >year. Agree! Andre > >Your mileage may vary > >TJSB

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >Actually, I don't think the innaccuracy is in the modelling of the diff. > >but rather the fact that Papy decided to reduce grip as an artificial > >means of making the sim more difficult since PCs at the time were unable > >to handle all the physics involved with a more realistic physical model > >and environment. > > Interesting thought, but I don't see the logic. Because they lessened > the grip, physics became more easier to handle? >

Yes, easier for the PC harder for the driver. The point being that since the physical model had to be dumbed down for the PC but still a challenge to the driver.

Hold up!! You guys are saying it USED to be possible to run the RL times without overdriving (i.e. with a more or less "in-line" car)? Right.... Papy, listen up, I've had it up to here with driving balls out to get anywhere near your <censored> AI, tell me how to change that value back to the way it was before you made this gameplay compromise. Jan. =--- Thomas JS Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > >Actually, I don't think the innaccuracy is in the modelling of thediff. > > >but rather the fact that Papy decided to reduce grip as an artificial > > >means of making the sim more difficult since PCs at the time wereunable

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > >to handle all the physics involved with a more realistic physical model > > >and environment. > > > > Interesting thought, but I don't see the logic. Because they lessened > > the grip, physics became more easier to handle? > > > Yes, easier for the PC harder for the driver. The point being that since > the physical model had to be dumbed down for the PC but still a > challenge to the driver.

Here, let me clarify this a little, "But the biggest weakness of sim racing is the inability of a computer to simulate the feel of a car. And in most race cars, tire slip angles are too small to provide any visual cue that something's amiss until long after the seat of the pants has identified the problem. This leaves game developers the option of either simulating too much cornering stability (the Grand Prix II paradigm) or too much instability (the GPL model)." - Automobile sept. '99 This is all I was referring to. It is a fact of life that there is currently no way of producing a sim that will give all the feedback of a real car, and so developers have to make decisions in the early development of a masterpiece like GPL in order to make it more of a challenge. It's common to hear people say that "GPL is the most realistic sim ever", when perhaps it might be more accurate to say that it has the most detailed physics engine yet produced. If you're more concerned about setting record laps, than you might as well not spend time worrying about whether your setup is realistic or not since there are plenty of ways to go fast in a simulation, even one as detailed and complex as GPL. TJSB Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > Hold up!! > > You guys are saying it USED to be possible to run the RL times without > overdriving (i.e. with a more or less "in-line" car)? > > Right.... Papy, listen up, I've had it up to here with driving balls out to > get anywhere near your <censored> AI, tell me how to change that value back > to the way it was before you made this gameplay compromise. > > Jan. > =--- > Thomas JS Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > >Actually, I don't think the innaccuracy is in the modelling of the > diff. > > > >but rather the fact that Papy decided to reduce grip as an artificial > > > >means of making the sim more difficult since PCs at the time were > unable > > > >to handle all the physics involved with a more realistic physical model > > > >and environment. > > > > > > Interesting thought, but I don't see the logic. Because they lessened > > > the grip, physics became more easier to handle? > > > > > Yes, easier for the PC harder for the driver. The point being that since > > the physical model had to be dumbed down for the PC but still a > > challenge to the driver.

Thomas JS Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Here, let me clarify this a little, > > "But the biggest weakness of sim racing is the inability of a computer > to simulate the feel of a car. And in most > race cars, tire slip angles are too small to provide any visual cue that > something's amiss until long after the seat > of the pants has identified the problem. This leaves game developers the > option of either simulating too much > cornering stability (the Grand Prix II paradigm) or too much instability > (the GPL model)." - Automobile sept. '99

Check, I agree the medium demands certain compensations from the simulation. No bones with that. > This is all I was referring to. It is a fact of life that there is > currently no way of producing a sim that will give all the feedback of a > real car, and so developers have to make decisions in the early > development of a masterpiece like GPL in order to make it more of a > challenge. Again I have to agree, but in making it "more challenging" they have heavily compromised the "playable history" factor, IMO. Fact of the matter is, to run mid pack in the simulation I am taking insane risks viewed from the perspective of the 1967 grand prix driver. At the Glen for example I enter The Loop in a big stonking braking drift whereas Clark and Co only reverted to such measures if they overcooked their entry. Even seen the "9 Days in Summer"-video?? While slight 4 wheel drift is evident in the corners, the only "GPL-type" sliding in evidence is a polite twitch from the rear as power is applied. Papy went to far in adjusting the gameplay, IMO, and, if there's a relatively simple way of changing (hex editing or somesuch) the value in question I'd like to know how to do it, so I can have a seperate GPL install for off-line use and can finally have a season which contains less than 70% of DNF's through overdriving. > It's common to hear people say that "GPL is the most realistic sim > ever", when perhaps it might be more accurate to say that it has the > most detailed physics engine yet produced. It's got the best handling of any sim out there, though I always had the feeling the cars didn't quite "stick" enough (grip doesn't really "snap" back the way it's supposed to IMO either). > If you're more concerned about setting record laps, than you might as > well not spend time worrying about whether your setup is realistic or > not since there are plenty of ways to go fast in a simulation, even one > as detailed and complex as GPL. I hate hotlapping with a vengance and "tolerate" the people who indulge in it. It's a sad fact of life any simulation will have loopholes which can be exploited. Luckily, with the recently released GRE, we can remove the stopgap solution of 1" bump rubbers so it's possible to run the car at it's natural rideheight (as per Richard Nunnini's pages) again on most of the tracks. Jan. =--- > Jan Verschueren wrote: > > Hold up!! > > <Snip>

I'm not suggesting they tell everybody Don... ;-)) Jan. =---

I don't know enough about programming to know what would be possible, but I would be very, very, hesitant to open that can of worms. You can't buy, or knowingly create what has developed around gpl. If we were to lose it I would have to go back to sport bike riding, and that's the last thing this world needs. [email hidden] (Chuck Kandler) wrote in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Don Scurlock wrote: >> I agree with everything you say, except: If it were to become >> common knowledge how to modify the traction it would be the >> beginning of the end for the world wide gpl competition that we >> now have. The playing field would no longer be level. > >Unless of course a checksum on the GPL exe was instituted. >

-- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C.

I'm not suggesting they tell everybody Don... ;-)) Jan. =--- Don Scurlock wrote...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> <snip> I agree with everything you say, except: If it were to become > common knowledge how to modify the traction it would be the beginning > of the end for the world wide gpl competition that we now have. The > playing field would no longer be level. > <snip> > -- > Don Scurlock > Vancouver,B.C.

The problem is, that even if you were to increase the amount of grip, you're still stuck with "baby bottom smooth" tracks. Or more precisely, tracks that don't have any high frequency bumps... So you'd have better grip, but you'd still be stuck with an environment that doesn't emulate the real thing...so what's the point? As D. Kaemmer mentioned some time ago, the physical model that exists in GPL could be made even more detailed as PCs become more powerful, but sadly, since GPL was (in corporate terms) a financial failure, we're likely never to see such a development. Unless we all unite in some fashion and make our purchasing power as a niche group stand for something, then we're stuck with what the corporations will "allow" the developers to make. TJSB Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > I'm not suggesting they tell everybody Don... ;-)) > > Jan. > =--- > Don Scurlock wrote... > > <snip> I agree with everything you say, except: If it were to become > > common knowledge how to modify the traction it would be the beginning > > of the end for the world wide gpl competition that we now have. The > > playing field would no longer be level. > > <snip> > > -- > > Don Scurlock > > Vancouver,B.C.

On Sat, 20 May 2000 05:20:48 GMT, Thomas JS Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>As D. Kaemmer mentioned some time ago, the physical model that exists in >GPL could be made even more detailed as PCs become more powerful, but >sadly, since GPL was (in corporate terms) a financial failure, we're >likely never to see such a development. Unless we all unite in some >fashion and make our purchasing power as a niche group stand for >something, then we're stuck with what the corporations will "allow" the >developers to make. >> > Don Scurlock >> > Vancouver,B.C.

I would most definitely be willing to contribute with some money towards a new development for GPL. Maybe we could all come up with some kind of petition. Or perhaps they could charge the price of a full game for the updates. But obviously we'd have to produce a proposal from which Sierra would be seen to benefit rather than ourselves, which in contrast is not what we looking for here. I just think its ludicrous to let this piece of software just fade away after all the obvious amount of work put into it, Its hard not to think of the possibilities for this engine, including my favorite possibility of course, a modern F1 sim, or even better a '80s F1 sim. The way I see it, there is still a bit more money to made out of GPL from a company's point o view, but if they're not interested than why not release the code? Like they do with Quake. The online community would take car of the life of GPL until, if ever, a superior product came along for sure. It was said at the begriming of this post that people doubt that a superior engine might not be produced by anyone even in 3 or 4 years time, why not let other companies improve GPL in the mean time?

Good idea, perhaps we could petition for a new GPL, but with all the work and expense creating the original model, I don't think that'll be released for a long time. BTW, I thought the Quake I & II engines were free. BendsMaster <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> On Sat, 20 May 2000 05:20:48 GMT, Thomas JS Brown <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > I would most definitely be willing to contribute with some money > towards a new development for GPL. Maybe we could all come up with > some kind of petition. Or perhaps they could charge the price of a > full game for the updates. But obviously we'd have to produce a > proposal from which Sierra would be seen to benefit rather than > ourselves, which in contrast is not what we looking for here. > I just think its ludicrous to let this piece of software just fade > away after all the obvious amount of work put into it, Its hard not to > think of the possibilities for this engine, including my favorite > possibility of course, a modern F1 sim, or even better a '80s F1 sim. > The way I see it, there is still a bit more money to made out of GPL > from a company's point o view, but if they're not interested than why > not release the code? Like they do with Quake. The online community > would take car of the life of GPL until, if ever, a superior product > came along for sure. It was said at the begriming of this post that > people doubt that a superior engine might not be produced by anyone > even in 3 or 4 years time, why not let other companies improve GPL in > the mean time? >