Re: World Sports Cars Gameplay Footage

Marc J. Nelson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I turned a full lap at Monza...Even drove the "old" section. =) > > The shadows look goofy because they're simply a place marker for now > (afterall...it's an alpha). The dynamic ones come later as the simdevelops. > > Cheers! > Marc Marc, What was your honest impression of driving a lap at Monza ? Is WSC really all that they say ? Are we finally looking at the next step after GPL? Joel Willstien [email hidden]

I turned a full lap at Monza...Even drove the "old" section. =) The shadows look goofy because they're simply a place marker for now (afterall...it's an alpha). The dynamic ones come later as the sim develops. Cheers! Marc Dave Henrie wrote: > Did anyone else notice they never turned a full lap? The cars kept > turning around and heading back.... > curious as to just how far this sim really is....tire and car shadows > were goofy too.

If you don't mind putting up with the piece of crap Real Player you can attempt to view about a 3 minute clip of WSC gameplay footage. No in-car views, but it looks very promising... http://www.allgames.com/archives/archive_template.cfm?arch_start=25&showid=14 --David Cook

Did anyone else notice they never turned a full lap? The cars kept turning around and heading back.... curious as to just how far this sim really is....tire and car shadows were goofy too. dave henrie James Pickard wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > WOW > > I tell you now, THIS is the next "GPL". > > James > > David L. Cook <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > If you don't mind putting up with the piece of crap Real Player you can > attempt > > to view about a 3 minute clip of WSC gameplay footage. No in-car views, > but it > > looks very promising... > > > > > http://www.allgames.com/archives/archive_template.cfm?arch_start=25&showid=1 > 4 > > > > --David Cook

WOW I tell you now, THIS is the next "GPL". James http://www.allgames.com/archives/archive_template.cfm?arch_start=25&showid=1 4

On Sat, 13 May 2000 22:00:59 -0400 David L. Cook <[email hidden]> wrote: % If you don't mind putting up with the piece of crap Real Player you can attempt % to view about a 3 minute clip of WSC gameplay footage. No in-car views, but it % looks very promising... % http://www.allgames.com/archives/archive_template.cfm?arch_start=25&showid=14 Geoff Crammond watch out! It looks like there is a new kid on the block that is bound and determined to deliver.... Impressive... Sure hope they get the latches fixed on the doors and bonnet. <G> -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

RAS, Just read a preview in this months issue of Edge mag here in UK. Pictures look absolutely outstanding. Definitely one to look out for. Idav

Can't get past the preferences menu when trying to play the clip. Anyone else with this problem? Suggestions? TIA Larry Joel Willstein wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > Marc J. Nelson <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I turned a full lap at Monza...Even drove the "old" section. =) > > > > The shadows look goofy because they're simply a place marker for now > > (afterall...it's an alpha). The dynamic ones come later as the sim > develops. > > > > Cheers! > > Marc > > Marc, > > What was your honest impression of driving a lap at Monza ? Is WSC > really all that they say ? Are we finally looking at the next step after > GPL? > > Joel Willstien > [email hidden]

Using a software firewall app? On my system, AtGuard catches something in the URL string with its ad blocker. Drop the firewall and it works. -- "Larry Hawes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Can't get past the preferences menu when trying to play the clip. Anyone > else with this problem? Suggestions? >

Thanks bob I have Naviscope. I will disable it and try again. Sideshow Bob wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Using a software firewall app? > > On my system, AtGuard catches something in the URL string with its ad > blocker. Drop the firewall and it works. > > -- > "Larry Hawes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Can't get past the preferences menu when trying to play the clip. Anyone > > else with this problem? Suggestions? > >

On Sun, 14 May 2000 17:49:18 GMT Larry Hawes <[email hidden]> wrote: % Can't get past the preferences menu when trying to play the clip. Anyone % else with this problem? Suggestions? Just a suggestion.... open up your browser's cookie file and delete all line with player.pseudo.com I would close your browser before editing your cookie file just to make sure it doesn't cache the contents and restore it automatically. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Thanks for the help!! I disabled naviscope and downloaded RP version 7. Works fine now. Not sure what to make of the clip I saw. Anything other than the incar view and the physics engine feel ala GPL aren't of much use to me. The pretty graphics in WSC are OK but if I can't use reflections and shadows from inside the car then they are of little use other than another pretty arcade game. I am SOOO looking forward to this being the smash hit we know it can be. I, like the rest, will patiently wait till GPL takes a back seat, till then see you at Monza in the Lotus 49. Larry Sideshow Bob wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Using a software firewall app? > > On my system, AtGuard catches something in the URL string with its ad > blocker. Drop the firewall and it works. > > -- > "Larry Hawes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Can't get past the preferences menu when trying to play the clip. Anyone > > else with this problem? Suggestions? > >

WOW I tell you now, THIS is the next "GPL". James David L. Cook <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > If you don't mind putting up with the piece of crap Real Player you canattempt > to view about a 3 minute clip of WSC gameplay footage. No in-car views,but it > looks very promising... > >http://www.allgames.com/archives/archive_template.cfm?arch_start=25&showid=1 4 > > --David Cook

But why are the graphics on the car backwards, and the graphics on the advertising signs along the track correct? Bill Yowell Larry Hawes wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Thanks for the help!! > > I disabled naviscope and downloaded RP version 7. Works fine now. Not > sure what to make of the clip I saw. Anything other than the incar view > and the physics engine feel ala GPL aren't of much use to me. The pretty > graphics in WSC are OK but if I can't use reflections and shadows from > inside the car then they are of little use other than another pretty > arcade game. I am SOOO looking forward to this being the smash hit we > know it can be. I, like the rest, will patiently wait till GPL takes a > back seat, till then see you at Monza in the Lotus 49. > > Larry > > Sideshow Bob wrote: > > > > Using a software firewall app? > > > > On my system, AtGuard catches something in the URL string with its ad > > blocker. Drop the firewall and it works. > > > > -- > > "Larry Hawes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Can't get past the preferences menu when trying to play the clip. Anyone > > > else with this problem? Suggestions? > > >

Because of the code not being fully optimized, I feel I can't make an honest assessment. My remarks about WSC's future success is purely speculative. However, Chris pointed out a few other areas (throttle and brake response) they hope to have finished within a few weeks (minor stuff)...Because of this, the car felt a bit sluggish, but realistic in motion...The alpha was more about showing off what they plan to have in the sim, even if each item wasn't 100% active. The ability to grab sections of the screen for forward and side views - for the use of multiple monitors for example - was way cool. What impressed me the most, was that WSC's preponderate ability to configure/edit anything you want - physics, graphics, models, all except the exe - makes for an excellent 'brown-bag' sim...One that can be WSC, Trans Am, CART, or whatever... Chris and Tony also stressed that future support (add-ons and such) for WSC will be for years - not months or weeks (or even at all) like in other sims/games. This probably isn't something Empire has planned, but something the West Bros. want to put back into the sim communities hands. They're perfectly willing to support the sim on their own time if need be - something they've pretty much done anyway for the two years until Empire picked them up. =) Cheers! Marc Joel Willstein wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Marc, > > What was your honest impression of driving a lap at Monza ? Is WSC > really all that they say ? Are we finally looking at the next step after > GPL? > > Joel Willstien > [email hidden]

Mrar, Thanks for your impressions and comments. WSC just might turn out to be the one sim we can build on on for years to come. And just maybe it will be the answer down the road for a modern Cart sim. Joel Willstein [email hidden] Marc J. Nelson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Because of the code not being fully optimized, I feel I can't make anhonest > assessment. My remarks about WSC's future success is purely speculative. > > However, Chris pointed out a few other areas (throttle and brake response) > they hope to have finished within a few weeks (minor stuff)...Because of > this, the car felt a bit sluggish, but realistic in motion...The alpha was > more about showing off what they plan to have in the sim, even if eachitem > wasn't 100% active. The ability to grab sections of the screen forforward > and side views - for the use of multiple monitors for example - was waycool. > > What impressed me the most, was that WSC's preponderate ability to > configure/edit anything you want - physics, graphics, models, all exceptthe > exe - makes for an excellent 'brown-bag' sim...One that can be WSC, TransAm, > CART, or whatever... > > Chris and Tony also stressed that future support (add-ons and such) forWSC > will be for years - not months or weeks (or even at all) like in other > sims/games. This probably isn't something Empire has planned, butsomething > the West Bros. want to put back into the sim communities hands. They're > perfectly willing to support the sim on their own time if need be -something

Quoted text (14 lines)

> they've pretty much done anyway for the two years until Empire picked them > up. =) > > Cheers! > Marc > > > Joel Willstein wrote: > > > > > Marc, > > > > What was your honest impression of driving a lap at Monza ? Is WSC > > really all that they say ? Are we finally looking at the next step

after > > GPL? > > > > Joel Willstien > > [email hidden] > >

One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 lap around Charlotte regarding physics - and what I believe we are all after... It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if that information is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally Championship - From outside the cockpit the cars *look* like they are handling properly. The suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. From within the car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there. I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is my observation: In GPL (and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the cars move on their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certain degree. Because my "eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of "reality". If though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is no sensation (or it is very diminished). After watching the gameplay footage of WSC I started having flashbacks to RC. Great looking physics on the outside - but how will it feel from the cockpit? The key IMHO is "in the eye of the beholder". Keep my eyes stationary while my World Sports Car moves around on its suspension, and we will have a hit. OTOH - move my eyes with the car, and we will have just another pretty face in the crowd of racing titles attempting to match what has to date only been figured out by David Kaemmer and Papyrus. Opinions? --David Cook "Joel Willstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8fotru$9k5$[email hidden]... > Mrar, > > Thanks for your impressions and comments. WSC just might turn out tobe > the one sim we can build on on for years to come. And just maybe it willbe

Quoted text (11 lines)

> the answer down the road for a modern Cart sim. > > Joel Willstein > [email hidden] > > > Marc J. Nelson <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Because of the code not being fully optimized, I feel I can't make an > honest > > assessment. My remarks about WSC's future success is purely

speculative. > > > > However, Chris pointed out a few other areas (throttle and brakeresponse) > > they hope to have finished within a few weeks (minor stuff)...Because of > > this, the car felt a bit sluggish, but realistic in motion...The alphawas

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > more about showing off what they plan to have in the sim, even if each > item > > wasn't 100% active. The ability to grab sections of the screen for > forward > > and side views - for the use of multiple monitors for example - was way > cool. > > > > What impressed me the most, was that WSC's preponderate ability to > > configure/edit anything you want - physics, graphics, models, all

except > the > > exe - makes for an excellent 'brown-bag' sim...One that can be WSC,Trans

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Am, > > CART, or whatever... > > > > Chris and Tony also stressed that future support (add-ons and such) for > WSC > > will be for years - not months or weeks (or even at all) like in other > > sims/games. This probably isn't something Empire has planned, but > something > > the West Bros. want to put back into the sim communities hands. They're > > perfectly willing to support the sim on their own time if need be - > something > > they've pretty much done anyway for the two years until Empire picked

them

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > up. =) > > > > Cheers! > > Marc > > > > > > Joel Willstein wrote: > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > What was your honest impression of driving a lap at Monza ? Is

WSC

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > really all that they say ? Are we finally looking at the next step > after > > > GPL? > > > > > > Joel Willstien > > > [email hidden] > > > > >

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > You're not downloading it from a mirror server, are you? > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > William Yowell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > But why are the graphics on the car backwards, and the graphics on the > > advertising signs along the track correct? > > Bill Yowell > >

Ummmmph... ROTFLOL....!!!! Now if I can just get the coffee out of the keyboard.... -Gregor

You're not downloading it from a mirror server, are you? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- William Yowell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > But why are the graphics on the car backwards, and the graphics on the > advertising signs along the track correct? > Bill Yowell > > Larry Hawes wrote: > > > Thanks for the help!! > > > > I disabled naviscope and downloaded RP version 7. Works fine now. Not > > sure what to make of the clip I saw. Anything other than the incar view > > and the physics engine feel ala GPL aren't of much use to me. The pretty > > graphics in WSC are OK but if I can't use reflections and shadows from > > inside the car then they are of little use other than another pretty > > arcade game. I am SOOO looking forward to this being the smash hit we > > know it can be. I, like the rest, will patiently wait till GPL takes a > > back seat, till then see you at Monza in the Lotus 49. > > > > Larry > > > > Sideshow Bob wrote: > > > > > > Using a software firewall app? > > > > > > On my system, AtGuard catches something in the URL string with its ad > > > blocker. Drop the firewall and it works. > > > > > > -- > > > "Larry Hawes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Can't get past the preferences menu when trying to play the clip. Anyone > > > > else with this problem? Suggestions? > > > > >

(snip) > Chris and Tony also stressed that future support (add-ons and such) forWSC > will be for years - not months or weeks (or even at all) like in other > sims/games. This probably isn't something Empire has planned, butsomething > the West Bros. want to put back into the sim communities hands. They're > perfectly willing to support the sim on their own time if need be -something > they've pretty much done anyway for the two years until Empire picked them > up.(unsnip) This commitment alone gives cause for great expectations. Although the hour of rejoicing is not yet to hand, optimism has pushed aside the grey veil of pessimism and although this is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end, it is surely the end of the beginning. (Apologies to Sir Winston Churchill). Shall we be saying, in the not too distant future, "the King is dead, long live the King"? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Marc J. Nelson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > (Interesting stuff snipped)

Holy ****. You mean the West's would even consider releasing it without a moving POV in the cockpit? Having a locked down view as an option is OK, but come on! When I first read you post, David, I thought "duh, that's obvious" :) I've discussed it here lots of times. BTW, I think GPL does the opposite of your description in that the POV moves about in reaction to G-forces, while the cockpit does it's own 6-degrees-of-freedom thing. A moving 3D cockpit is a necessity to anything that claims to be a sim in the 21st century. I think GPL and F12K are the only two car sims that have it (except for SODA). F12K is even disappointing in that it only moves fore-aft. No lateral forces affect the POV. The right way to do the drivers POV is to model it as a point with mass suspended on a 3-dimensional spring system. The mass of the point should move in reaction to any G-forces created by movement of the car. The spring forces suspending the point should be adjusted to limit POV movement to roughly that of a real driver. -- Pat Dotson "David L. Cook" wrote: > > I just got an e-mail from Chris West regarding this thread - > > At 04:41 PM 5/16/2000, Chris West wrote: > Hi David, > > I saw your posts on ras and the Simracingnews forum. Thats an interesting theory > you have there. I currently have it working both ways, with a completely locked > camera, and one which allows the car to move, I prefer the second view, since as > you say it communicates what the car is doing a little more. > > Chris > > In article <8fp018$qja$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote... > >One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 lap around > >Charlotte regarding physics - and what I believe we are all after... > > > >It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if that information > >is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally Championship - From > >outside the cockpit the cars *look* like they are handling properly. The > >suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. From within the > >car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there. > > > >I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is my observation: In GPL > >(and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the cars move on > >their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certain degree. Because my > >"eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of "reality". If > >though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is no sensation (or it > >is very diminished).

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > You're not downloading it from a mirror server, are you? But then they would be correct on the cars, and backwards on the ad signs...???

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > William Yowell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > But why are the graphics on the car backwards, and the graphics on the > > advertising signs along the track correct? > > Bill Yowell

-- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

In article <[email hidden]>, "Marc J. Nelson" <[email hidden]> wrote: [snip] > What impressed me the most, was that WSC's preponderate ability to > configure/edit anything you want - physics, graphics, models, allexcept the > exe - makes for an excellent 'brown-bag' sim...One that can be WSC,Trans Am, > CART, or whatever... > > Chris and Tony also stressed that future support (add-ons and such)for WSC > will be for years - not months or weeks (or even at all) like in other > sims/games. This probably isn't something Empire has planned, butsomething > the West Bros. want to put back into the sim communities hands.They're > perfectly willing to support the sim on their own time if need be -something > they've pretty much done anyway for the two years until Empire pickedthem > up. =) > Now this, more than almost anything else, makes me absolutely drool for this sim! It's about damn time someone besides the big FPS developers realized the value of developing a quality game engine and giving support to 3rd party mod authors. WSC could really be the holy grail of racing sims. Lets hope that doesn't also mean nobody ever finds it ;)! Kendt Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

"David L. Cook" wrote: > OTOH - move my eyes with the car, and we will have just > another pretty face in the crowd of racing titles attempting to match what > has to date only been figured out by David Kaemmer and Papyrus. > > Opinions? Former Papysian Matt Sentel said David Kaemmer was impressed with WSC. If true, says a lot. Cheers! Marc

Those details, unimportant until the major stuff is addressed, will be corrected. Cheers! Marc William Yowell wrote: > But why are the graphics on the car backwards, and the graphics on the > advertising signs along the track correct? > Bill Yowell

This morning my right shoe was impressed with a bit of doggy doo. (JOKE!--just had to toss that in . . .) --DK "Marc J. Nelson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "David L. Cook" wrote: > > > OTOH - move my eyes with the car, and we will have just > > another pretty face in the crowd of racing titles attempting to matchwhat > > has to date only been figured out by David Kaemmer and Papyrus. > > > > Opinions? > > Former Papysian Matt Sentel said David Kaemmer was impressed with WSC. Iftrue, > says a lot. > > Cheers! > Marc >

if the game includes a good scalability option to change it from full sim to arcade and if it lives up the hype then it could capture the whole sim community as well as the arcade types(who would gradually turn into sim-heads like us!). Vintook <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8frv7t$iea$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (37 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > "Marc J. Nelson" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > [snip] > > > What impressed me the most, was that WSC's preponderate ability to > > configure/edit anything you want - physics, graphics, models, all > except the > > exe - makes for an excellent 'brown-bag' sim...One that can be WSC, > Trans Am, > > CART, or whatever... > > > > Chris and Tony also stressed that future support (add-ons and such) > for WSC > > will be for years - not months or weeks (or even at all) like in other > > sims/games. This probably isn't something Empire has planned, but > something > > the West Bros. want to put back into the sim communities hands. > They're > > perfectly willing to support the sim on their own time if need be - > something > > they've pretty much done anyway for the two years until Empire picked > them > > up. =) > > > > Now this, more than almost anything else, makes me absolutely drool for > this sim! It's about damn time someone besides the big FPS developers > realized the value of developing a quality game engine and giving > support to 3rd party mod authors. WSC could really be the holy grail of > racing sims. Lets hope that doesn't also mean nobody ever finds it ;)! > > Kendt > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

I just got an e-mail from Chris West regarding this thread - At 04:41 PM 5/16/2000, Chris West wrote: Hi David, I saw your posts on ras and the Simracingnews forum. Thats an interesting theory you have there. I currently have it working both ways, with a completely locked camera, and one which allows the car to move, I prefer the second view, since as you say it communicates what the car is doing a little more. Chris In article <8fp018$qja$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote...

Quoted text (15 lines)

>One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 lap around >Charlotte regarding physics - and what I believe we are all after... > >It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if that information >is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally Championship - From >outside the cockpit the cars *look* like they are handling properly. The >suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. From within the >car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there. > >I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is my observation: In GPL >(and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the cars move on >their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certain degree. Because my >"eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of "reality". If >though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is no sensation (or it >is very diminished).

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > % A moving 3D cockpit is a necessity to anything that > % claims to be a sim in the 21st century. I think GPL > % and F12K are the only two car sims that have it (except > % for SODA). F12K is even disappointing in that it only > % moves fore-aft. No lateral forces affect the POV. > > If I remember correctly you had your differences with AMA Superbike, but > I thought they also had this feature down pretty well.

I'm not sure what differences you are talking about. They did do the riders POV pretty well, but there were quite a few other deficiencies in AMA that overshadowed a lot of great features. Does anyone know if GP3 has a moving POV? I don't remember anyone mentioning it. -- Pat Dotson

The spring-mounted point that I talked about would obviously be attached to the car, so I'm not sure what your point is. ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "Pat Dotson" <[email hidden]> wrote > > BTW, I think GPL does the opposite > > of your description in that the POV moves about in > > reaction to G-forces, while the cockpit does it's > > own 6-degrees-of-freedom thing. > > Technically, GPL does both. Both the head movement and the chassis movement > are simulated from what we see. But one is depedant of the other, so it > flows flawlessly. If you ever change your camera position and race it out > of the head, you will see a big difference on how the view reacts to > different mass changes (per example change the view to the side roll bar).

chuckle. . . "Ronald Stoehr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > You're not downloading it from a mirror server, are you? > > But then they would be correct on the cars, and backwards on > the ad signs...??? >

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > Not necessarily. > In the northern hemisphere it could be the other way round, due in no small > part to the Haig Effect, not to mention the Johnnie Walker Effect, the > Glenfiddich Effect and the Chivas Regal Effect. Personally I prefer the "Captain Morgan" effect......, or if I'm lucky enough to get hold of the major ingredient, the "Stroh Inlander Rum" (SP) effect...:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

"Pat Dotson" <[email hidden]> wrote > BTW, I think GPL does the opposite > of your description in that the POV moves about in > reaction to G-forces, while the cockpit does it's > own 6-degrees-of-freedom thing. Technically, GPL does both. Both the head movement and the chassis movement are simulated from what we see. But one is depedant of the other, so it flows flawlessly. If you ever change your camera position and race it out of the head, you will see a big difference on how the view reacts to different mass changes (per example change the view to the side roll bar). -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

On Tue, 16 May 2000 21:10:41 -0500 Pat Dotson <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip> % A moving 3D cockpit is a necessity to anything that % claims to be a sim in the 21st century. I think GPL % and F12K are the only two car sims that have it (except % for SODA). F12K is even disappointing in that it only % moves fore-aft. No lateral forces affect the POV. If I remember correctly you had your differences with AMA Superbike, but I thought they also had this feature down pretty well. % The right way to do the drivers POV is to model it as % a point with mass suspended on a 3-dimensional spring % system. The mass of the point should move in reaction % to any G-forces created by movement of the car. The % spring forces suspending the point should be adjusted % to limit POV movement to roughly that of a real driver. % -- % Pat Dotson % "David L. Cook" wrote: % > % > I just got an e-mail from Chris West regarding this thread - % > % > At 04:41 PM 5/16/2000, Chris West wrote: % > Hi David, % > % > I saw your posts on ras and the Simracingnews forum. Thats an interesting theory % > you have there. I currently have it working both ways, with a completely locked % > camera, and one which allows the car to move, I prefer the second view, since as % > you say it communicates what the car is doing a little more. % > % > Chris % > % > In article <8fp018$qja$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote... % > >One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 lap around % > >Charlotte regarding physics - and what I believe we are all after... % > > % > >It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if that information % > >is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally Championship - From % > >outside the cockpit the cars *look* like they are handling properly. The % > >suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. From within the % > >car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there. % > > % > >I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is my observation: In GPL % > >(and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the cars move on % > >their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certain degree. Because my % > >"eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of "reality". If % > >though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is no sensation (or it % > >is very diminished). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Not necessarily. In the northern hemisphere it could be the other way round, due in no small part to the Haig Effect, not to mention the Johnnie Walker Effect, the Glenfiddich Effect and the Chivas Regal Effect. So there! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > You're not downloading it from a mirror server, are you? > > But then they would be correct on the cars, and backwards on > the ad signs...??? > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > William Yowell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > But why are the graphics on the car backwards, and the graphics on the > > > advertising signs along the track correct? > > > Bill Yowell > > -- > l8er > ronny > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > to take effect. Reboot now? > |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, > ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. > |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > All these types of effects are pretty good, Goy. They sure beat the pants > off things like special effects and sound effects! :-) Sure does, not to mention the special "after effects" you get every now and then :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

All these types of effects are pretty good, Goy. They sure beat the pants off things like special effects and sound effects! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > Not necessarily. > > In the northern hemisphere it could be the other way round, due in no small > > part to the Haig Effect, not to mention the Johnnie Walker Effect, the > > Glenfiddich Effect and the Chivas Regal Effect. > > Personally I prefer the "Captain Morgan" effect......, or if I'm lucky > enough to get hold of the major ingredient, the "Stroh Inlander Rum" > (SP) effect...:-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > Not necessarily. > In the northern hemisphere it could be the other way round, due in no small > part to the Haig Effect, not to mention the Johnnie Walker Effect, the > Glenfiddich Effect and the Chivas Regal Effect. Just three bottles of Becks do that for me, no nead for that jet fuel stuff... So...hicks...here! l8er ronny -- "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > Well, the Chivas Regal Effect, and certainly the Glenfiddich Effect, have > been known to generate a totally devastating After Effect, believe-you-me!!! Oh I do......:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

How can you patent physics? This is like patenting using "i" in for loops for programming. Jason. Doug Milliken wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Hi Pat et al, > > I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS: > > Atari Coin-op Division has a patent on the moving POV (to simulate driver > head motion in reaction to car acceleration). This dates back to the > development of Hard Drivin' (arcade game from late 1980's). I don't know > if Atari has been enforcing this patent, but I've read it and it's real > (sorry, I don't know the patent number). > > -- Doug > Douglas Milliken <[email hidden]> > Milliken Research Associates Inc. >

-- Jason Monds http://www.proracingclub.com - Pro Racing Club! (N3, GPL) http://members.home.net/stuff.mondsj/csp - Car Sim Project (Please remove 'no extra spork' when replying)

Hi Pat et al, I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS: Atari Coin-op Division has a patent on the moving POV (to simulate driver head motion in reaction to car acceleration). This dates back to the development of Hard Drivin' (arcade game from late 1980's). I don't know if Atari has been enforcing this patent, but I've read it and it's real (sorry, I don't know the patent number). -- Doug Douglas Milliken <[email hidden]> Milliken Research Associates Inc. On Tue, 16 May 2000, Pat Dotson wrote:

Quoted text (61 lines)

> Holy ****. You mean the West's would even consider > releasing it without a moving POV in the cockpit? > Having a locked down view as an option is OK, but > come on! When I first read you post, David, I > thought "duh, that's obvious" :) I've discussed > it here lots of times. > > BTW, I think GPL does the opposite > of your description in that the POV moves about in > reaction to G-forces, while the cockpit does it's > own 6-degrees-of-freedom thing. > > A moving 3D cockpit is a necessity to anything that > claims to be a sim in the 21st century. I think GPL > and F12K are the only two car sims that have it (except > for SODA). F12K is even disappointing in that it only > moves fore-aft. No lateral forces affect the POV. > > The right way to do the drivers POV is to model it as > a point with mass suspended on a 3-dimensional spring > system. The mass of the point should move in reaction > to any G-forces created by movement of the car. The > spring forces suspending the point should be adjusted > to limit POV movement to roughly that of a real driver. > > -- > Pat Dotson > > > "David L. Cook" wrote: > > > > I just got an e-mail from Chris West regarding this thread - > > > > At 04:41 PM 5/16/2000, Chris West wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > I saw your posts on ras and the Simracingnews forum. Thats an interesting theory > > you have there. I currently have it working both ways, with a completely locked > > camera, and one which allows the car to move, I prefer the second view, since as > > you say it communicates what the car is doing a little more. > > > > Chris > > > > In article <8fp018$qja$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote... > > >One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 lap around > > >Charlotte regarding physics - and what I believe we are all after... > > > > > >It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if that information > > >is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally Championship - From > > >outside the cockpit the cars *look* like they are handling properly. The > > >suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. From within the > > >car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there. > > > > > >I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is my observation: In GPL > > >(and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the cars move on > > >their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certain degree. Because my > > >"eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of "reality". If > > >though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is no sensation (or it > > >is very diminished). > >

Well, the Chivas Regal Effect, and certainly the Glenfiddich Effect, have been known to generate a totally devastating After Effect, believe-you-me!!! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > All these types of effects are pretty good, Goy. They sure beat the pants > > off things like special effects and sound effects! :-) > > Sure does, not to mention the special "after effects" you get every now > and then :-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

You can look at the patent here http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html patent no: 5,005,148 I think it applies to a 2D dashboard display only, they describe scrolling it on the screen based on the forces applied to the drivers head. A 3-D moving***pit would probably be something different, however, I'm not a lawyer. Dave.

Quoted text (55 lines)

> Hi Pat et al, > I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS: > Atari Coin-op Division has a patent on the moving POV (to simulate driver > head motion in reaction to car acceleration). This dates back to the > development of Hard Drivin' (arcade game from late 1980's). I don't know > if Atari has been enforcing this patent, but I've read it and it's real > (sorry, I don't know the patent number). > -- Doug > Milliken Research Associates Inc. > > Holy ****. You mean the West's would even consider > > releasing it without a moving POV in the***pit? > > Having a locked down view as an option is OK, but > > come on! When I first read you post, David, I > > thought "duh, that's obvious" :) I've discussed > > it here lots of times. > > BTW, I think GPL does the opposite > > of your description in that the POV moves about in > > reaction to G-forces, while the***pit does it's > > own 6-degrees-of-freedom thing. > > A moving 3D***pit is a necessity to anything that > > claims to be a sim in the 21st century. I think GPL > > and F12K are the only two car sims that have it (except > > for SODA). F12K is even disappointing in that it only > > moves fore-aft. No lateral forces affect the POV. > > The right way to do the drivers POV is to model it as > > a point with mass suspended on a 3-dimensional spring > > system. The mass of the point should move in reaction > > to any G-forces created by movement of the car. The > > spring forces suspending the point should be adjusted > > to limit POV movement to roughly that of a real driver. > > -- > > Pat Dotson > > > I just got an e-mail from Chris West regarding this thread - > > > Hi David, > > > I saw your posts on ras and the Simracingnews forum. Thats an

interesting theory > > > you have there. I currently have it working both ways, with a completely locked > > > camera, and one which allows the car to move, I prefer the second view, since as > > > you say it communicates what the car is doing a little more. > > > Chris wrote... > > > >One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 lap around > > > >C***te regarding physics - and what I believe we are all after... > > > >It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if that information > > > >is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally Championship - From > > > >outside the***pit the cars *look* like they are handling properly. The > > > >suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. From within the > > > >car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there. > > > >I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is my observation: In GPL > > > >(and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the cars move on > > > >their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certain degree. Because my > > > >"eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of "reality". If > > > >though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is no sensation (or it > > > >is very diminished).

"JET FUEL"?!!!! How DARE you insult some of the finest fluids in the known universe?! :-) ("Jet fuel" indeed!! Hrrmmph!) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > Not necessarily. > > In the northern hemisphere it could be the other way round, due in no small > > part to the Haig Effect, not to mention the Johnnie Walker Effect, the > > Glenfiddich Effect and the Chivas Regal Effect. > > Just three bottles of Becks do that for me, no nead for that jet fuel stuff... > > So...hicks...here! > > l8er > ronny > > -- > "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" > "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.

Ha! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > Well, the Chivas Regal Effect, and certainly the Glenfiddich Effect, have > > been known to generate a totally devastating After Effect, believe-you-me!!! > > Oh I do......:-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

And what's wrong with the occasional wee dram of avgas? Admittedly, it's an aquired taste and not one for the lightweight but it's definately better than the stuff they sell in decorating shops. MS "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (32 lines)

> "JET FUEL"?!!!! > How DARE you insult some of the finest fluids in the known universe?! :-) > ("Jet fuel" indeed!! Hrrmmph!) > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > > > Not necessarily. > > > In the northern hemisphere it could be the other way round, due in no > small > > > part to the Haig Effect, not to mention the Johnnie Walker Effect, the > > > Glenfiddich Effect and the Chivas Regal Effect. > > > > Just three bottles of Becks do that for me, no nead for that jet fuel > stuff... > > > > So...hicks...here! > > > > l8er > > ronny > > > > -- > > "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" > > "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert. > >

You can look at the patent here http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html patent no: 5,005,148 I think it applies to a 2D dashboard display only, they describe scrolling it on the screen based on the forces applied to the drivers head. A 3-D moving cockpit would probably be something different, however, I'm not a lawyer. Dave. Doug Milliken <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (55 lines)

> > Hi Pat et al, > > I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS: > > Atari Coin-op Division has a patent on the moving POV (to simulate driver > head motion in reaction to car acceleration). This dates back to the > development of Hard Drivin' (arcade game from late 1980's). I don't know > if Atari has been enforcing this patent, but I've read it and it's real > (sorry, I don't know the patent number). > > -- Doug > Douglas Milliken <[email hidden]> > Milliken Research Associates Inc. > > > On Tue, 16 May 2000, Pat Dotson wrote: > > > Holy ****. You mean the West's would even consider > > releasing it without a moving POV in the cockpit? > > Having a locked down view as an option is OK, but > > come on! When I first read you post, David, I > > thought "duh, that's obvious" :) I've discussed > > it here lots of times. > > > > BTW, I think GPL does the opposite > > of your description in that the POV moves about in > > reaction to G-forces, while the cockpit does it's > > own 6-degrees-of-freedom thing. > > > > A moving 3D cockpit is a necessity to anything that > > claims to be a sim in the 21st century. I think GPL > > and F12K are the only two car sims that have it (except > > for SODA). F12K is even disappointing in that it only > > moves fore-aft. No lateral forces affect the POV. > > > > The right way to do the drivers POV is to model it as > > a point with mass suspended on a 3-dimensional spring > > system. The mass of the point should move in reaction > > to any G-forces created by movement of the car. The > > spring forces suspending the point should be adjusted > > to limit POV movement to roughly that of a real driver. > > > > -- > > Pat Dotson > > > > > > "David L. Cook" wrote: > > > > > > I just got an e-mail from Chris West regarding this thread - > > > > > > At 04:41 PM 5/16/2000, Chris West wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > > > I saw your posts on ras and the Simracingnews forum. Thats an

interesting theory > > > you have there. I currently have it working both ways, with acompletely locked > > > camera, and one which allows the car to move, I prefer the secondview, since as > > > you say it communicates what the car is doing a little more. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > In article <8fp018$qja$[email hidden]>, [email hidden]wrote... > > > >One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 laparound > > > >Charlotte regarding physics - and what I believe we are all after... > > > > > > > >It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if thatinformation > > > >is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally Championship -From > > > >outside the cockpit the cars *look* like they are handling properly.The > > > >suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. From withinthe > > > >car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there. > > > > > > > >I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is my observation:In GPL > > > >(and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the cars moveon > > > >their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certain degree.Because my > > > >"eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of "reality".If > > > >though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is no sensation(or it > > > >is very diminished). > > > > >

Just because you have a patent does not make it enforceable. "DLK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3KgV4.262$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> You can look at the patent here http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html > patent no: 5,005,148 > > I think it applies to a 2D dashboard display only, they describe scrolling > it on the screen based on the forces applied to the drivers head. A 3-D > moving cockpit would probably be something different, however, I'm not a > lawyer. > > Dave. > > > > Doug Milliken <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Hi Pat et al, > > > > I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS: > > > > Atari Coin-op Division has a patent on the moving POV (to simulate

driver > > head motion in reaction to car acceleration). This dates back to the > > development of Hard Drivin' (arcade game from late 1980's). I don'tknow

Quoted text (57 lines)

> > if Atari has been enforcing this patent, but I've read it and it's real > > (sorry, I don't know the patent number). > > > > -- Doug > > Douglas Milliken <[email hidden]> > > Milliken Research Associates Inc. > > > > > > On Tue, 16 May 2000, Pat Dotson wrote: > > > > > Holy ****. You mean the West's would even consider > > > releasing it without a moving POV in the cockpit? > > > Having a locked down view as an option is OK, but > > > come on! When I first read you post, David, I > > > thought "duh, that's obvious" :) I've discussed > > > it here lots of times. > > > > > > BTW, I think GPL does the opposite > > > of your description in that the POV moves about in > > > reaction to G-forces, while the cockpit does it's > > > own 6-degrees-of-freedom thing. > > > > > > A moving 3D cockpit is a necessity to anything that > > > claims to be a sim in the 21st century. I think GPL > > > and F12K are the only two car sims that have it (except > > > for SODA). F12K is even disappointing in that it only > > > moves fore-aft. No lateral forces affect the POV. > > > > > > The right way to do the drivers POV is to model it as > > > a point with mass suspended on a 3-dimensional spring > > > system. The mass of the point should move in reaction > > > to any G-forces created by movement of the car. The > > > spring forces suspending the point should be adjusted > > > to limit POV movement to roughly that of a real driver. > > > > > > -- > > > Pat Dotson > > > > > > > > > "David L. Cook" wrote: > > > > > > > > I just got an e-mail from Chris West regarding this thread - > > > > > > > > At 04:41 PM 5/16/2000, Chris West wrote: > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > I saw your posts on ras and the Simracingnews forum. Thats an > interesting theory > > > > you have there. I currently have it working both ways, with a > completely locked > > > > camera, and one which allows the car to move, I prefer the second > view, since as > > > > you say it communicates what the car is doing a little more. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > In article <8fp018$qja$[email hidden]>,

[email hidden] > wrote... > > > > >One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 lap > around > > > > >Charlotte regarding physics - and what I believe we are allafter... > > > > > > > > > >It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if that > information > > > > >is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally Championship - > From > > > > >outside the cockpit the cars *look* like they are handlingproperly. > The > > > > >suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. Fromwithin > the > > > > >car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there. > > > > > > > > > >I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is myobservation: > In GPL > > > > >(and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the carsmove > on > > > > >their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certain degree. > Because my > > > > >"eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of"reality". > If > > > > >though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is nosensation

Quoted text (7 lines)

> (or it > > > > >is very diminished). > > > > > > > > > >

That is most certainly true. Whether enforceable or not, it is defendable, which means big bucks. "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> But it CERTAINLY makes it possible to take you to court and sue the pants > off you!! > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Eddie proracingclub.com> <eddie@<remove> wrote in message > news:P6hV4.200340$[email hidden]... > > Just because you have a patent does not make it enforceable. > > > > "DLK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3KgV4.262$[email hidden]... > > > You can look at the patent here http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html > > > patent no: 5,005,148 > > > > > > I think it applies to a 2D dashboard display only, they describe > scrolling > > > it on the screen based on the forces applied to the drivers head. A

3-D > > > moving cockpit would probably be something different, however, I'm nota

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > > lawyer. > > > > > > Dave. > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug Milliken <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > Hi Pat et al, > > > > > > > > I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS: > > > > > > > > Atari Coin-op Division has a patent on the moving POV (to simulate > > driver > > > > head motion in reaction to car acceleration). This dates back to

the

Quoted text (54 lines)

> > > > development of Hard Drivin' (arcade game from late 1980's). I don't > > know > > > > if Atari has been enforcing this patent, but I've read it and it's > real > > > > (sorry, I don't know the patent number). > > > > > > > > -- Doug > > > > Douglas Milliken <[email hidden]> > > > > Milliken Research Associates Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 16 May 2000, Pat Dotson wrote: > > > > > > > > > Holy ****. You mean the West's would even consider > > > > > releasing it without a moving POV in the cockpit? > > > > > Having a locked down view as an option is OK, but > > > > > come on! When I first read you post, David, I > > > > > thought "duh, that's obvious" :) I've discussed > > > > > it here lots of times. > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I think GPL does the opposite > > > > > of your description in that the POV moves about in > > > > > reaction to G-forces, while the cockpit does it's > > > > > own 6-degrees-of-freedom thing. > > > > > > > > > > A moving 3D cockpit is a necessity to anything that > > > > > claims to be a sim in the 21st century. I think GPL > > > > > and F12K are the only two car sims that have it (except > > > > > for SODA). F12K is even disappointing in that it only > > > > > moves fore-aft. No lateral forces affect the POV. > > > > > > > > > > The right way to do the drivers POV is to model it as > > > > > a point with mass suspended on a 3-dimensional spring > > > > > system. The mass of the point should move in reaction > > > > > to any G-forces created by movement of the car. The > > > > > spring forces suspending the point should be adjusted > > > > > to limit POV movement to roughly that of a real driver. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Pat Dotson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "David L. Cook" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I just got an e-mail from Chris West regarding this thread - > > > > > > > > > > > > At 04:41 PM 5/16/2000, Chris West wrote: > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > > > > > I saw your posts on ras and the Simracingnews forum. Thats an > > > interesting theory > > > > > > you have there. I currently have it working both ways, with a > > > completely locked > > > > > > camera, and one which allows the car to move, I prefer the

second

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > view, since as > > > > > > you say it communicates what the car is doing a little more. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > In article <8fp018$qja$[email hidden]>, > > [email hidden] > > > wrote... > > > > > > >One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 lap > > > around > > > > > > >Charlotte regarding physics - and what I believe we are all > > after... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if

that

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > > information > > > > > > >is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally > Championship - > > > From > > > > > > >outside the cockpit the cars *look* like they are handling > > properly. > > > The > > > > > > >suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. From > > within > > > the > > > > > > >car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is my > > observation: > > > In GPL > > > > > > >(and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the

cars > > move > > > on > > > > > > >their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certaindegree.

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > Because my > > > > > > >"eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of > > "reality". > > > If > > > > > > >though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is no > > sensation > > > (or it > > > > > > >is very diminished). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

As in the "Milliken" the Last word on vehicle dynamics? Sudesh Doug Milliken wrote:

Quoted text (79 lines)

> > Hi Pat et al, > > I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS: > > Atari Coin-op Division has a patent on the moving POV (to simulate driver > head motion in reaction to car acceleration). This dates back to the > development of Hard Drivin' (arcade game from late 1980's). I don't know > if Atari has been enforcing this patent, but I've read it and it's real > (sorry, I don't know the patent number). > > -- Doug > Douglas Milliken <[email hidden]> > Milliken Research Associates Inc. > > > On Tue, 16 May 2000, Pat Dotson wrote: > > > Holy ****. You mean the West's would even consider > > releasing it without a moving POV in the cockpit? > > Having a locked down view as an option is OK, but > > come on! When I first read you post, David, I > > thought "duh, that's obvious" :) I've discussed > > it here lots of times. > > > > BTW, I think GPL does the opposite > > of your description in that the POV moves about in > > reaction to G-forces, while the cockpit does it's > > own 6-degrees-of-freedom thing. > > > > A moving 3D cockpit is a necessity to anything that > > claims to be a sim in the 21st century. I think GPL > > and F12K are the only two car sims that have it (except > > for SODA). F12K is even disappointing in that it only > > moves fore-aft. No lateral forces affect the POV. > > > > The right way to do the drivers POV is to model it as > > a point with mass suspended on a 3-dimensional spring > > system. The mass of the point should move in reaction > > to any G-forces created by movement of the car. The > > spring forces suspending the point should be adjusted > > to limit POV movement to roughly that of a real driver. > > > > -- > > Pat Dotson > > > > > > "David L. Cook" wrote: > > > > > > I just got an e-mail from Chris West regarding this thread - > > > > > > At 04:41 PM 5/16/2000, Chris West wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > > > I saw your posts on ras and the Simracingnews forum. Thats an interesting theory > > > you have there. I currently have it working both ways, with a completely locked > > > camera, and one which allows the car to move, I prefer the second view, since as > > > you say it communicates what the car is doing a little more. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > In article <8fp018$qja$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote... > > > >One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 lap around > > > >Charlotte regarding physics - and what I believe we are all after... > > > > > > > >It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if that information > > > >is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally Championship - From > > > >outside the cockpit the cars *look* like they are handling properly. The > > > >suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. From within the > > > >car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there. > > > > > > > >I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is my observation: In GPL > > > >(and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the cars move on > > > >their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certain degree. Because my > > > >"eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of "reality". If > > > >though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is no sensation (or it > > > >is very diminished). > > > >

Yup... *The* Milliken :)) Kinda flattering (sp?) to see that real engineers etc. hang around here - isn't it? :) -- All the best, Ed Solheim ** Proud member of the GPLEA ** (Remove SPAM-GUARD in address to reply) amos-opus asked: > As in the "Milliken" the Last word on vehicle dynamics? > > Sudesh > Doug Milliken wrote: > > > > Hi Pat et al, > > > > I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS: <snip!>

Yup... the man. Very flattering indeed. Good book too... if you got any kind of engineering/science/maths background, that is. Wouldn't recommend it to the casual reader. Jan. =--- Ed Solheim <ed_solheim[SPAM-GUARD]@c2i.net> wrote in message news:rMkV4.10957$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Yup... > *The* Milliken :)) > > Kinda flattering (sp?) to see that real engineers etc. hang around here - > isn't it? :) > > -- > All the best, > Ed Solheim > ** Proud member of the GPLEA ** > (Remove SPAM-GUARD in address to reply) >

<snip>

DLK wrote: > >..snip... however, I'm not a lawyer. Don't be sad, this will give you the possibility of actually earning the respect and admiration of your fellow humans, instead of only earning it from other lawyers..... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Ed Solheim wrote: > > Now *thats* a post worth a beer!! > > 'Pint's on me Goy! I might remind you of this some day :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Now *thats* a post worth a beer!! 'Pint's on me Goy! - All the best, Ed Solheim ** Proud member of the GPLEA ** (Remove SPAM-GUARD in address to reply) Goy Larsen wrote: > Don't be sad, this will give you the possibility of actually earning the > respect and admiration of your fellow humans, instead of only earning it > from other lawyers..... >

HAA! Nice one, Mark. I'll stick to the 'Product of Scotland' stuff, methinks! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- m.seery <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JsfV4.799$[email hidden]... > And what's wrong with the occasional wee dram of avgas? > Admittedly, it's an aquired taste and not one for the lightweight but it's > definately better than the stuff they sell in decorating shops. > > MS > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "JET FUEL"?!!!! > > How DARE you insult some of the finest fluids in the known universe?! :-) > > ("Jet fuel" indeed!! Hrrmmph!) > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > > > > > Not necessarily. > > > > In the northern hemisphere it could be the other way round, due in no > > small > > > > part to the Haig Effect, not to mention the Johnnie Walker Effect, the > > > > Glenfiddich Effect and the Chivas Regal Effect. > > > > > > Just three bottles of Becks do that for me, no nead for that jet fuel > > stuff... > > > > > > So...hicks...here! > > > > > > l8er > > > ronny > > > > > > -- > > > "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" > > > "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert. > > > > > >

They most likely have a patent on the way in which it is done in their particular instance. They could not POSSIBLY patent the result.....only their method of obtaining that result. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jason Monds <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > How can you patent physics? This is like patenting using "i" in for loops for > programming. > > Jason. > > Doug Milliken wrote: > > > Hi Pat et al, > > > > I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS: > > > > Atari Coin-op Division has a patent on the moving POV (to simulate driver > > head motion in reaction to car acceleration). This dates back to the > > development of Hard Drivin' (arcade game from late 1980's). I don't know > > if Atari has been enforcing this patent, but I've read it and it's real > > (sorry, I don't know the patent number). > > > > -- Doug > > Douglas Milliken <[email hidden]> > > Milliken Research Associates Inc. > > > > -- > Jason Monds > http://www.proracingclub.com - Pro Racing Club! (N3, GPL) > http://members.home.net/stuff.mondsj/csp - Car Sim Project > (Please remove 'no extra spork' when replying) > >

But it CERTAINLY makes it possible to take you to court and sue the pants off you!! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Eddie proracingclub.com> <eddie@<remove> wrote in message news:P6hV4.200340$[email hidden]... > Just because you have a patent does not make it enforceable. > > "DLK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3KgV4.262$[email hidden]... > > You can look at the patent here http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html > > patent no: 5,005,148 > > > > I think it applies to a 2D dashboard display only, they describe scrolling > > it on the screen based on the forces applied to the drivers head. A 3-D > > moving cockpit would probably be something different, however, I'm not a > > lawyer. > > > > Dave. > > > > > > > > Doug Milliken <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Hi Pat et al, > > > > > > I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS: > > > > > > Atari Coin-op Division has a patent on the moving POV (to simulate > driver > > > head motion in reaction to car acceleration). This dates back to the > > > development of Hard Drivin' (arcade game from late 1980's). I don't > know > > > if Atari has been enforcing this patent, but I've read it and it's real > > > (sorry, I don't know the patent number). > > > > > > -- Doug > > > Douglas Milliken <[email hidden]> > > > Milliken Research Associates Inc. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 16 May 2000, Pat Dotson wrote: > > > > > > > Holy ****. You mean the West's would even consider > > > > releasing it without a moving POV in the cockpit? > > > > Having a locked down view as an option is OK, but > > > > come on! When I first read you post, David, I > > > > thought "duh, that's obvious" :) I've discussed > > > > it here lots of times. > > > > > > > > BTW, I think GPL does the opposite > > > > of your description in that the POV moves about in > > > > reaction to G-forces, while the cockpit does it's > > > > own 6-degrees-of-freedom thing. > > > > > > > > A moving 3D cockpit is a necessity to anything that > > > > claims to be a sim in the 21st century. I think GPL > > > > and F12K are the only two car sims that have it (except > > > > for SODA). F12K is even disappointing in that it only > > > > moves fore-aft. No lateral forces affect the POV. > > > > > > > > The right way to do the drivers POV is to model it as > > > > a point with mass suspended on a 3-dimensional spring > > > > system. The mass of the point should move in reaction > > > > to any G-forces created by movement of the car. The > > > > spring forces suspending the point should be adjusted > > > > to limit POV movement to roughly that of a real driver. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Pat Dotson > > > > > > > > > > > > "David L. Cook" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I just got an e-mail from Chris West regarding this thread - > > > > > > > > > > At 04:41 PM 5/16/2000, Chris West wrote: > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > > > I saw your posts on ras and the Simracingnews forum. Thats an > > interesting theory > > > > > you have there. I currently have it working both ways, with a > > completely locked > > > > > camera, and one which allows the car to move, I prefer the second > > view, since as > > > > > you say it communicates what the car is doing a little more. > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > In article <8fp018$qja$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] > > wrote... > > > > > >One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 lap > > around > > > > > >Charlotte regarding physics - and what I believe we are all > after... > > > > > > > > > > > >It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if that > > information > > > > > >is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally Championship - > > From > > > > > >outside the cockpit the cars *look* like they are handling > properly. > > The > > > > > >suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. From > within > > the > > > > > >car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there. > > > > > > > > > > > >I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is my > observation: > > In GPL > > > > > >(and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the cars > move > > on > > > > > >their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certain degree. > > Because my > > > > > >"eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of > "reality". > > If > > > > > >though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is no > sensation > > (or it > > > > > >is very diminished). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

LOL!!! HAAAAAAAAA!!! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > DLK wrote: > > > >..snip... however, I'm not a lawyer. > > Don't be sad, this will give you the possibility of actually earning the > respect and admiration of your fellow humans, instead of only earning it > from other lawyers..... > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

I agree with that then :-) After reading the patent it is for 2D cockpits and their you had to be much more resourceful I guess. Jason. Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (44 lines)

> They most likely have a patent on the way in which it is done in their > particular instance. They could not POSSIBLY patent the result.....only > their method of obtaining that result. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Jason Monds <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > How can you patent physics? This is like patenting using "i" in for loops > for > > programming. > > > > Jason. > > > > Doug Milliken wrote: > > > > > Hi Pat et al, > > > > > > I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS: > > > > > > Atari Coin-op Division has a patent on the moving POV (to simulate > driver > > > head motion in reaction to car acceleration). This dates back to the > > > development of Hard Drivin' (arcade game from late 1980's). I don't > know > > > if Atari has been enforcing this patent, but I've read it and it's real > > > (sorry, I don't know the patent number). > > > > > > -- Doug > > > Douglas Milliken <[email hidden]> > > > Milliken Research Associates Inc. > > > > > > > -- > > Jason Monds > > http://www.proracingclub.com - Pro Racing Club! (N3, GPL) > > http://members.home.net/stuff.mondsj/csp - Car Sim Project > > (Please remove 'no extra spork' when replying) > > > >

-- Jason Monds http://www.proracingclub.com - Pro Racing Club! (N3, GPL) http://members.home.net/stuff.mondsj/csp - Car Sim Project (Please remove 'no extra spork' when replying)