GP2, Monaco, or F1 2000?

Hi again, you gentlemen starting your virtual engines every other day Recently, I posted an inquiry about what would be the most important aspects of defining a good MODERN F1 simulation in a sort of balanced way that wouldn't give any game undue advantage to start with. I got lots of replies from folks who had understood I was hunting for the perfect dream F1 sim we'd all like to see. Put the point here was to compare the three only worthy sim contestants available today. Thanks for the "dream sim" aspects as well. All ideas for such one matched with mine, and maybe someday I'll use the input as a help and database for a different article to support my own views. Now I have more or less determined the 16 GP:s that these three racing simulations will go through, and I'd like to have your input to bring some objective balance to my own judgements. I know I'm asking a free luch here. SO if you don't wish to bother with questionnaires, just ignore this whole message and cease reading now. However there are a lot of folks who actually like filling in surveys (including silly me). So could you please rate in a simple 1,2,3 order the following games: Grand Prix 2, F1 2000, and Monaco GP racing Sim 2. If you want to put in justa a number (1 being the best naturally), that would be a great hep. Even better would be if you have the time and patience to explain the "result" in one or two sentences. Again, my undying gratitude to each and every bit of valuable input from experts. Feel free to reply via email, but posting here is ok too. -lark- 1. Drivimg model How realistically the car behaves in extreme condiotions. The famous "gut feeling"? 2. Other Physics External physics modelling affecting car performance. Including tyre temperature, track temeperature, track surface, etc. 3. Damage modelling How realistic, how detailed? 4. Track Modelling How faithful the computer tracks are to thei real-world counterparts? What about bumps, elevations, and tarmac surface. 5. Rules For just the right formula feeel, it is important that both the player and computer pilots actually read yelllow and black flags. For example. And the rules and penalties are enforced. This also includes the possibility to play a GP and a season accurately with all the races, warm-ups, quals, parade laps, etcetera. Just like the real thing. 6. Weather Is there any kind of weather variation? 7. Car performance versus reality. Are the varying team cars different? Is it possible to drive impossible lap times with just a little practice. 8. AI Are the AI drivers any good? Does the game have to resort to cheating and improving AI pilots' cars' performance to keep these bungling fools up with the player? 9. Car setup How well the different parts of the car can be tuned to get the right "balance" for each track and driving style? As each of the games has several dozens of details to tune, we're rather comparing how well setting up the car is explained in the manual and in-game interface. Will the player get enough feedback to know what he's doing wrong and how to put it right? Telemetry, perhaps? 10. Graphics appearance Simply, how beautiful and realistic it is? 11. Graphics performance Beautiful must also move beautifully. Unfortunately this isn't always true. The feel and sense of speed is essential. 12. Sounds There's no F1 without the mighty roar of 22 V10s. How well do engine and other game sounds immerse the player into his F1 cockpit? 13. Interface Even the best of games can be ruined if it becomes a frustrating struggle with confusing menus and interfaces. Ingludes also the interface of scheduling unscheduled pitstops from the car. 14. Learning curve Only an expert can start playing an F1 sim without at least some kind of driving aids. How well these are implemented. In each of the games full aids on makes the game playable even to complete novices. But how well has the gradual learning to full realism settings been implemented? 15. Customizing The best of sims leaves always SOMETHING computer-literate sim fans can and will tweak afterwards. From single adverts to complete season packs including updated car performances and new tracks as well. Which of the three is most easily modified, and for which can we find the best, most realistic "season updates"? 16. Playability A game as a whole is always more than the sum of it's parts. A truly great and realistic simulation may still lack that "something" that makes you go "this roxxxx". Call it chrome. Call it karma. Call it points for style. Or call it the final insult.

additional comments: > > 3. Damage modelling > > How realistic, how detailed? > > MGPRS2 The damage modelling in F12K is, in principle, also very, very good, but I don't like how they visualized the damage - and how it affects car performance. > > 4. Track Modelling > > How faithful the computer tracks are to thei real-world counterparts? > > What about bumps, elevations, and tarmac surface. > > GP2 GP2 really starts to shine with some user-made tracks you can download from www.grandprix2.com Some of the original tracks are rather poor.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > 5. Rules > > For just the right formula feeel, it is important that both the player > > and computer pilots actually read yelllow and black flags. For example. > > And the rules and penalties are enforced. This also includes the > > possibility to play a GP and a season accurately with all the races, > > warm-ups, quals, parade laps, etcetera. Just like the real thing. > > GP2

The way GP2 immerses you in a F1 Weekend is unmatched. > > 6. Weather > > Is there any kind of weather variation? > > MGPRS2 neither GP2 nor F12K do have weather variations, so RS2 is King, but personally I don't like how weather affects the car handling in RS2... > > 10. Graphics appearance > > Simply, how beautiful and realistic it is? > > GP2 Even without Hardware support, GP2 looks cleaner than F12K - with all details set to max F12K looks very good, but is unplayable on almost every system. With low detail F12K's graphics are a pain. > > 12. Sounds > > There's no F1 without the mighty roar of 22 V10s. How well do engine and > > other game sounds immerse the player into his F1 cockpit? > > GP2 This one wasn't easy - F12K also has excellent sounds. But what annoys me is that under acceleration, the sound in F12k doesn't match the revs. The sound in MGPRS2 is so bad it's unbelievable.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > 14. Learning curve > > Only an expert can start playing an F1 sim without at least some kind of > > driving aids. How well these are implemented. In each of the games full > > aids on makes the game playable even to complete novices. But how well > > has the gradual learning to full realism settings been implemented? > > GP2

GP2s system of driving aids cannot be bettered.

all the following is IMO: ---------- > 1. Drivimg model > How realistically the car behaves in extreme condiotions. The famous > "gut feeling"? GP2 > 2. Other Physics > External physics modelling affecting car performance. Including tyre > temperature, track temeperature, track surface, etc. F1-2000 > 3. Damage modelling > How realistic, how detailed? MGPRS2 > 4. Track Modelling > How faithful the computer tracks are to thei real-world counterparts? > What about bumps, elevations, and tarmac surface. GP2 > 5. Rules > For just the right formula feeel, it is important that both the player > and computer pilots actually read yelllow and black flags. For example. > And the rules and penalties are enforced. This also includes the > possibility to play a GP and a season accurately with all the races, > warm-ups, quals, parade laps, etcetera. Just like the real thing. GP2 > 6. Weather > Is there any kind of weather variation? MGPRS2 > 7. Car performance versus reality. Are the varying team cars different? > Is it possible to drive impossible lap times with just a little > practice. GP2 >8. AI > Are the AI drivers any good? Does the game have to resort to cheating > and improving AI pilots' cars' performance to keep these bungling fools > up with the player? GP2

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 9. Car setup > How well the different parts of the car can be tuned to get the right > "balance" for each track and driving style? As each of the games has > several dozens of details to tune, we're rather comparing how well > setting up the car is explained in the manual and in-game interface. > Will the player get enough feedback to know what he's doing wrong and > how to put it right? Telemetry, perhaps?

GP2 > 10. Graphics appearance > Simply, how beautiful and realistic it is? GP2 > 11. Graphics performance > Beautiful must also move beautifully. Unfortunately this isn't always > true. The feel and sense of speed is essential. MGPRS2 > 12. Sounds > There's no F1 without the mighty roar of 22 V10s. How well do engine and > other game sounds immerse the player into his F1 cockpit? GP2 > 13. Interface > Even the best of games can be ruined if it becomes a frustrating > struggle with confusing menus and interfaces. Ingludes also the > interface of scheduling unscheduled pitstops from the car. GP2 > 14. Learning curve > Only an expert can start playing an F1 sim without at least some kind of > driving aids. How well these are implemented. In each of the games full > aids on makes the game playable even to complete novices. But how well > has the gradual learning to full realism settings been implemented? GP2 > 15. Customizing > The best of sims leaves always SOMETHING computer-literate sim fans can > and will tweak afterwards. From single adverts to complete season packs > including updated car performances and new tracks as well. Which of the > three is most easily modified, and for which can we find the best, most > realistic "season updates"? GP2 > 16. Playability > A game as a whole is always more than the sum of it's parts. A truly > great and realistic simulation may still lack that "something" that > makes you go "this roxxxx". Call it chrome. Call it karma. Call it > points for style. Or call it the final insult. GP2 ----- final score: 1. GP2 (12pts) 2. MGPRS2 (3pts) 3. F1-2000 (1pt)

Sounds about right to me... :)

all the following is IMO: ---------- GP2 F1-2000 MGPRS2 GP2 GP2 MGPRS2 GP2 GP2 GP2 GP2 MGPRS2 GP2 GP2 GP2 GP2 GP2 ----- final score: 1. GP2 (12pts) 2. MGPRS2 (3pts) 3. F1-2000 (1pt)

Sounds about right to me... :)

GP2 F1 2000 F1 2000 F1 2000 GP2 MGPRS2 MGPRS2 GP2 MGPRS2 MGPRS2 at 1024 X 768 in Direct3D MGPRS2 F1 2000 MGPRS2 GP2 MGPRS2 GP2 FINAL: 1. MGPRS2 (7 pts) 2. GP2 (5 pts) 3. F1 2000 (4 pts)

Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : 8f26kf$9vnug$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> all the following is IMO: > > ---------- > > 1. Drivimg model > > How realistically the car behaves in extreme condiotions. The famous > > "gut feeling"? > > GP2

GP2 > > > 2. Other Physics > > External physics modelling affecting car performance. Including tyre > > temperature, track temeperature, track surface, etc. > > F1-2000 F1 2000 > > > 3. Damage modelling > > How realistic, how detailed? > > MGPRS2 F1 2000 > > > 4. Track Modelling > > How faithful the computer tracks are to thei real-world counterparts? > > What about bumps, elevations, and tarmac surface. > > GP2 F1 2000

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > 5. Rules > > For just the right formula feeel, it is important that both the player > > and computer pilots actually read yelllow and black flags. For example. > > And the rules and penalties are enforced. This also includes the > > possibility to play a GP and a season accurately with all the races, > > warm-ups, quals, parade laps, etcetera. Just like the real thing. > > GP2

GP2 > > > 6. Weather > > Is there any kind of weather variation? > > MGPRS2 MGPRS2 > > > 7. Car performance versus reality. Are the varying team cars different? > > Is it possible to drive impossible lap times with just a little > > practice. > > GP2 MGPRS2

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > >8. AI > > Are the AI drivers any good? Does the game have to resort to cheating > > and improving AI pilots' cars' performance to keep these bungling fools > > up with the player? > > GP2

GP2

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > 9. Car setup > > How well the different parts of the car can be tuned to get the right > > "balance" for each track and driving style? As each of the games has > > several dozens of details to tune, we're rather comparing how well > > setting up the car is explained in the manual and in-game interface. > > Will the player get enough feedback to know what he's doing wrong and > > how to put it right? Telemetry, perhaps? > > GP2

MGPRS2 > > > 10. Graphics appearance > > Simply, how beautiful and realistic it is? > > GP2 MGPRS2 at 1024 X 768 in Direct3D > > > 11. Graphics performance > > Beautiful must also move beautifully. Unfortunately this isn't always > > true. The feel and sense of speed is essential. > > MGPRS2 MGPRS2 > > > 12. Sounds > > There's no F1 without the mighty roar of 22 V10s. How well do engine and > > other game sounds immerse the player into his F1 cockpit? > > GP2 F1 2000

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > 13. Interface > > Even the best of games can be ruined if it becomes a frustrating > > struggle with confusing menus and interfaces. Ingludes also the > > interface of scheduling unscheduled pitstops from the car. > > GP2

MGPRS2

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > 14. Learning curve > > Only an expert can start playing an F1 sim without at least some kind of > > driving aids. How well these are implemented. In each of the games full > > aids on makes the game playable even to complete novices. But how well > > has the gradual learning to full realism settings been implemented? > > GP2

GP2

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > 15. Customizing > > The best of sims leaves always SOMETHING computer-literate sim fans can > > and will tweak afterwards. From single adverts to complete season packs > > including updated car performances and new tracks as well. Which of the > > three is most easily modified, and for which can we find the best, most > > realistic "season updates"? > > GP2

MGPRS2

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > 16. Playability > > A game as a whole is always more than the sum of it's parts. A truly > > great and realistic simulation may still lack that "something" that > > makes you go "this roxxxx". Call it chrome. Call it karma. Call it > > points for style. Or call it the final insult. > > GP2

GP2 FINAL: 1. MGPRS2 (7 pts) 2. GP2 (5 pts) 3. F1 2000 (4 pts)

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > ----- > final score: > 1. GP2 (12pts) > 2. MGPRS2 (3pts) > 3. F1-2000 (1pt) > >

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > ----- > final score: > 1. GP2 (12pts) > 2. MGPRS2 (3pts) > 3. F1-2000 (1pt) >

Thanks to the results of the poll above, I *ordered GP2 last night. * Note: I've been searching for the last year trying to find GP2. If you want the game but are having trouble finding it, drop me a note and I'll tell you where I got mine. -- Pops Email: [email hidden]

>> 10. Graphics appearance >> Simply, how beautiful and realistic it is? > >GP2 I must say that I'm shocked that people can pick GP2 and the extremely cartoonish looking Monaco over F1 2000. Maybe it takes a GeForce to make F1 2000 look good or something. I've seen a number of people complain that the visuals of F1 2000 don't approach the 'pre-rendered' pictures on the back of the box, but I've captured many screen shots from the game that look better than those.

I agree....GP2 was brilliant.....but F1 2000 is still an excellent game....and it can look georgous if you have a decent CPU and Voodoo 3 GFX card. I loved GP2......but no LAN play really kills it for me now. Ash lbaum <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

| >> 10. Graphics appearance | >> Simply, how beautiful and realistic it is? | > | >GP2 | | I must say that I'm shocked that people can pick GP2 and the extremely | cartoonish looking Monaco over F1 2000. Maybe it takes a GeForce to make

F1 | 2000 look good or something. I've seen a number of people complain thatthe | visuals of F1 2000 don't approach the 'pre-rendered' pictures on the back | of the box, but I've captured many screen shots from the game that look | better than those. |