Re: F12K - 4 out of 4 for accuracy!

f1 2000 is very in accurate and quite poor game Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8dstb6$8234p$[email hidden]... > > > Yep, after watching very carefully the in car laps around Silverstonethis > > afternoon at qualifying, its the fourth track in a row that is accuratein

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > F12K. There was Albert PArk, Interlagos, Imola and now Silverstone. I > was > > a little worried about the Northamptonshire circuit as it had a downhill > > section that I didn't remember from the few times I've driven around > > Silverstone, but sure enough F12K was right and my memory was wrong! > > Enjoy therace! > > Iain > > It's a question of how you define "Accurate" . I'd say it needs much more > than a taste of the general track layout. I'd expect correct curb

placement, > track width and track length and bumps - along with realistic "bestlines", > cornering speeds and laptimes from a really "accurately" modelled track. > There only sim ATM that features tracks that can satisfy most of these > demands, is Milestone's SBK2000. I guess you'll also try to tell thisgroup > in 4 weeks that you watched the Nurburgring practice on TV and that the > track is "accurate". It isn't. Neither is Imola, Interlagos orSilverstone. > > GP3 will be based on the 98 Season, so they had plenty of Material to work > with to make it accurate and exciting. > >

> Yep, after watching very carefully the in car laps around Silverstone this > afternoon at qualifying, its the fourth track in a row that is accurate in > F12K. There was Albert PArk, Interlagos, Imola and now Silverstone. Iwas > a little worried about the Northamptonshire circuit as it had a downhill > section that I didn't remember from the few times I've driven around > Silverstone, but sure enough F12K was right and my memory was wrong! > Enjoy therace! > Iain It's a question of how you define "Accurate" . I'd say it needs much more than a taste of the general track layout. I'd expect correct curb placement, track width and track length and bumps - along with realistic "best lines", cornering speeds and laptimes from a really "accurately" modelled track. There only sim ATM that features tracks that can satisfy most of these demands, is Milestone's SBK2000. I guess you'll also try to tell this group in 4 weeks that you watched the Nurburgring practice on TV and that the track is "accurate". It isn't. Neither is Imola, Interlagos or Silverstone. GP3 will be based on the 98 Season, so they had plenty of Material to work with to make it accurate and exciting.

f1 2000 is very in accurate and quite poor game

Yep, after watching very carefully the in car laps around Silverstone this afternoon at qualifying, its the fourth track in a row that is accurate in F12K. There was Albert PArk, Interlagos, Imola and now Silverstone. I was a little worried about the Northamptonshire circuit as it had a downhill section that I didn't remember from the few times I've driven around Silverstone, but sure enough F12K was right and my memory was wrong! Enjoy therace! Iain

Totally don't agree with you, the track layout is very bad. No exceptions. Ok, the corners are in the right directions but that's about all. The worst thing is the curb layout, I expect to find some curbs on places where they are in real life (especially when they are used in real life). One example where the Silverstone model is totally wrong is coming onto the hangar straight. In reality driver let their cars run to the outside in F12000 you can exit the corner on the left side with ease. F12000 just is a very dissapointing game, it's ashame I would have loved to see EA offering some competition to Geoff. Let's just hope Image will indeed be taken from the development of F12001 and that they buy the GPL engine and modify it into a modern F1 sim. I don't think EA would ever do that, after all it needs be a game. "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:51mM4.2785$[email hidden]... > Yep, after watching very carefully the in car laps around Silverstone this > afternoon at qualifying, its the fourth track in a row that is accurate in > F12K. There was Albert PArk, Interlagos, Imola and now Silverstone. Iwas

Quoted text (7 lines)

> a little worried about the Northamptonshire circuit as it had a downhill > section that I didn't remember from the few times I've driven around > Silverstone, but sure enough F12K was right and my memory was wrong! > Enjoy therace! > Iain > >

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote > Yep, after watching very carefully the in car laps around Silverstone this > afternoon at qualifying, its the fourth track in a row that is accurate in > F12K. Sorry but no. Silverstone is VERY wrong, and from the replies you have had it seems to be an agreement. And it's no "anti-F12000" bashing here. It's the truth. Corner radius in the first portion of the circuit is totally wrong (ex : the fast esses at Maggots are almost of the same radius two by two, but in F12k it's clearly not like that). The kurbs are totally out of place, and the Bridge section doesn't have the correct elevation. In fact there's almost no elevation at all compared to real life. There is still some good object placement (in fact, F1 2k has an incredible ammount of polygons at any moment!). >There was Albert PArk, UH? Ask anybody they will tell you that the Australia circuit was NOT really accurate. Some portions are good, but the last portion is clearly inaccurate. In fact I never heard anybody on r.a.s. say the track was accurate, but actually the opposite, with a couple of messages putting down the track in F1 2000. If they only had shined the product instead of releasing it that fast... -- -- 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.

"Scotty" <[email hidden]> wrote > What diference does it make to the playability of the game anyway! Would you race a simulator where it claims accuracy yet has per example Monaco with a first corner turning left? Im exagerating, but everybody has it's own opinion on how far the accuracy level should be in a simulator. I want extreme accuracy as those people HAVE the tools to make them accurate. But the fact that F1 2000 was pushed fast into a release might be the reason for poor track modeling. -- -- 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.

> Would you race a simulator where it claims accuracy yet has per example > Monaco with a first corner turning left? > > Im exagerating Ever so slightly! Pretty soon we'll be arguing about whether the bunch of daisies to the left of the approach to Copse is modelled accurately or not! The words splitting and hairs come to mind. Iain

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote > Pretty soon we'll be arguing about whether the bunch of daisies to theleft > of the approach to Copse is modelled accurately or not! Hey, everybody has their own set of "how realistic they want the track accuracy". Yours seems to be pretty low, while for others it's much higher. Deal with it, but don't come up in this newsgroup (populated with hardcore simracers who promote realism in racing simulators) posting that the track are accurate and expect people who want a high level of track accuracy to simply say "yes Master I agree with thou my lord". -- -- 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.

How would any of you know either way? Watched it on tely, maybee walked around it once. I'll wait until someone who drives around these tracks for a living expresses an opinion before I make any conclusions. What diference does it make to the playability of the game anyway! Iain Mackenzie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:51mM4.2785$[email hidden]... > Yep, after watching very carefully the in car laps around Silverstone this > afternoon at qualifying, its the fourth track in a row that is accurate in > F12K. There was Albert PArk, Interlagos, Imola and now Silverstone. Iwas

Quoted text (7 lines)

> a little worried about the Northamptonshire circuit as it had a downhill > section that I didn't remember from the few times I've driven around > Silverstone, but sure enough F12K was right and my memory was wrong! > Enjoy therace! > Iain > >

Oh God, please let's not go through this again! You ought to carry a mental health warning the way you (very regularly) distort the meaning of people's well intended posts. Please keep your inflammatory statements to yourself. By the way, I have been a 'hardcore simracer' for almost 20 years, starting with Geoff Crammond's superb 'Revs' on the BBC Micro - although I guess that was probably before you were born judging by your attitude! Iain ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zyyM4.55419$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Pretty soon we'll be arguing about whether the bunch of daisies to the > left > > of the approach to Copse is modelled accurately or not! > > > Hey, everybody has their own set of "how realistic they want the track > accuracy". > > Yours seems to be pretty low, while for others it's much higher. Deal

with > it, but don't come up in this newsgroup (populated with hardcore simracers > who promote realism in racing simulators) posting that the track are > accurate and expect people who want a high level of track accuracy tosimply

Quoted text (10 lines)

> say "yes Master I agree with thou my lord". > > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

> Totally don't agree with you, the track layout is very bad. No exceptions. >Not true. I have driven Silverstone on several occasions and it is accurate. >The worst thing is the curb layout, I expect to find some curbs on placeswhere they > are in real life (especially when they are used in real life). >Give me an example. They seemed in the right place to me when I studied the in car shots today. > One example where the Silverstone model is totally wrong is coming ontothe > hangar straight. In reality driver let their cars run to the outside in > F12000 you can exit the corner on the left side with ease. >I checked this very carefully today. Going to Hangar Strait in F12K is the same as in the GP. Of course, you can exit on the left as you can in a GP, but neither would give you the correct racing line, so in both cases one should exit wide on the right. Iain

> >There was Albert PArk, > > UH? Ask anybody they will tell you that the Australia circuit was NOTreally > accurate. Some portions are good, but the last portion is clearly > inaccurate. In fact I never heard anybody on r.a.s. say the track was > accurate, but actually the opposite, with a couple of messages puttingdown > the track in F1 2000. >You seem to have a very selective memory. There were many praises of the accuracy on Albert Park with some debate about small aspects of the last portion. There were also many posts praising the accuracy of Interlagos and Imola. Iain

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote > Oh God, please let's not go through this again! No you seem to have replied to my message. Tell me what's wrong with what I wrote below? Nothing. Some people want more accuracy than others. Nothing wrong in this. Your level seems low in this newsgroup, for others it's in the middle and finally some want track level accuracy to the maximum. I am one of them, since I personally think that with the tools they have, they should easily model the tracks in an accurate way. That includes the correct track width, corner radius, elevation, run-off, camber, banking, etc... But please, don't expect to post in this NG and tell that tracks are accurate. There will always be people (like in this thead, which had everybody put down the accuracy of Silverstone in F1 2000) that will challenge the track accuracy. So another time, read the below text and tell me what's wrong in it? It's simply stating the facts. <snip rubbish attempt to put me down> > > Hey, everybody has their own set of "how realistic they want the track > > accuracy". > > > > Yours seems to be pretty low, while for others it's much higher. Deal > with > > it, but don't come up in this newsgroup (populated with hardcoresimracers > > who promote realism in racing simulators) posting that the track are > > accurate and expect people who want a high level of track accuracy to > simply > > say "yes Master I agree with thou my lord". -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote > There were many praises of the > accuracy on Albert Park with some debate about small aspects of the last > portion. > There were also many posts praising the accuracy of Interlagos and Imola. > Iain Pure invention by yourself. From a DEJA research, I have yet to find any praise about the accuracy of the Australian GP in F1 2000. Your hidden agenda is very obvious. Please state posts that praise the track accuracy of Albert Park. Nice try. Meanwhile, please read just an example of what people have to say about the track : --------------------------------------------- By Todd Dry : The next odd thing I noticed was the track. It has a track that is shaped much like the Albert Park circuit, but when I'm driving it I don't get the feeling that Albert Park is where I am. Call it the immersion factor or whatever, but for me anyway it just doesn't capture, I guess, the spirit of the event. Yes, the car feels like a car and the track feels like a track but it doesn't feel like the Australian Grand Prix. I got comfortable with the car and decided to do some quick races so I put myself at the back of the field (where a Minardi is supposed to be) and proceeded to race. Visions of CPR again. --------------------------------------------- By Harjan Brand : As for the track accuracy, it's horrible. --------------------------------------------- I don't care about the title, but please if you come here and shout that the tracks are correctly modeled (FYI you are not the only person who have been to F1 circuits), expect people to argument with you. -- -- 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.

ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:asJM4.142596$[email hidden]... > Your hidden agenda is very obvious. Please state posts that praise the > track accuracy of Albert Park. Nice try. Exactly what agenda is that? -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8dstb6$8234p$[email hidden]... > It's a question of how you define "Accurate" . I'd say it needs much more > than a taste of the general track layout. I'd expect correct curbplacement, > track width and track length and bumps - along with realistic "bestlines", You have got to be joking. Silverstone in F1 2000 is accurate. Duh. Certainly accurate enough to race on a computer and watch the race to see how accurate every thing in the game is. Frankly I doubt that any track layout in F1 2000 regardless of what it is will satisfy you people. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com > cornering speeds and laptimes from a really "accurately" modelled track. > There only sim ATM that features tracks that can satisfy most of these > demands, is Milestone's SBK2000. I guess you'll also try to tell this group > in 4 weeks that you watched the Nurburgring practice on TV and that the > track is "accurate". It isn't. Neither is Imola, Interlagos or Silverstone. > > GP3 will be based on the 98 Season, so they had plenty of Material to work > with to make it accurate and exciting. > >

ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BIrM4.54803$[email hidden]... > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Yep, after watching very carefully the in car laps around Silverstonethis > > afternoon at qualifying, its the fourth track in a row that is accuratein > > F12K. > > Sorry but no. Silverstone is VERY wrong, and from the replies you havehad > it seems to be an agreement. And it's no "anti-F12000" bashing here.It's No bashing huh??? It seems to me that you do not have a good definition of the silverstone track layout or a good definition of bashing. Besides, what the hell do you care about the tracks in F1 2000 anyway? It isn't GPL (never you mind if GPL's tracks are accurate or not) so it must suck right? At this point you have said your piece, so your continual pounding is bashing. Don't you have a pet dog or something to spend your time on? -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Remco Moedt <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Tracks, like physics, graphics or sound, are never 100% right in > whatever game you'll take. It never will. Francois _might_ be right, > but people who are happy with it are the winners... Exactly right. In fact I am sure he is right. However the extent which he dismisses the game because of some small inaccuracies (which cannot be spotted by most F1 fans anyway) is simply ridiculous. F1 2000 is fun. Way fun. The tracks are great. Maybe not perfect if I were to survey every track. But they are not like Road & Tracks Grand Prix (remember that game?). I feel the tracks are way more accurate than F1RS because if the elevation changes. I also judge the accuracy of the track with actually simulator driving. Meaning that if I have to be in the same gear as the real guys in the same corners that is more than enough for me. Oh and some other idiot was complaining that a curb was in the wrong place... Get real. If people bother to read the F1 2000 stuff on www.easports.com they will see that EA took great pains to get the tracks accurate. The tracks are *FAR* better than the detractors claim and certainly not enough of a problem to dismiss a great F1 game. IMHO the best modern F1 game to date. Now if someone wants to dismiss F1 2000 because of crappy framerates, especially at the starts. Or complain about no SAVE-GAME capability in between GrandPrix sessions... Well I would certainly not argue about that. But this track accuracy stuff is getting a little silly. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:i5RM4.61906$[email hidden]... > "L.R.S." <[email hidden]> wrote > > No shit....but I will say this. The tracks are no where > > near as bad as you and others seem to think they are. > > > Another time, it depends on the level of accuracy some people want inracing > simulators. It's just normal that some people want more compared toothers. > I want that friggin kurb to be at the same place then in real life. Iwant Just curious what you think about the curb layout in GPL. > the last turn at Imola to be accurate darn it! How can they possibily NOT It was accurate. Duh. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com > model it accurately? They have the tools (which you will see below are much > bigger than you may think). If they can't, it's because there is a fault in > the game engine, or on purpose they have chosen to not push the limits of > track accuracy. > > > > > For some reason, I knew exactly where the drivers were on > > the track...I was anticipating their actions (except > > Barrichello's hydraulic fluid induced spin) prior to their > > doing them and that was a first for me. I will admit I am > > not the diehard fan of Formula 1 a lot of folks on this list > > are (I went to my first F1 race in Monaco in 1978 and went > > to several other races that year and one in 79), but I have > > watched the races on tely when I could. And now that I have > > F12K I wish I had it for the first three races. > > > Hmmm... this has been done for years. I bet any of us could easily > anticipate their action based on the track layout back in the days of F1GP. > > > > > > but even an idiot like you would have to > > admit that it wouldn't be cost effective to go to each and > > every track and make each and every measurement. > > > > LOL! You clearly have no knowledge of how the game developers get their > information on the tracks? > > Idiots like me admit that THEY DO infact go to tracks and take > pictures/videos, measure about everything you can see. Looks like the idiot > learned you something today. Nice try to flame somebody eh... If you have > a FIA license, then be sure that they get exclusive data and track > information by the track owners, including very detailled maps of each > track. Be sure that they send somebody to the majority of tracks to get > intensive information on them. That's what Papyrus do. That's what at > Ubisoft they got for F1RS. Of course we know how the modelling appeared on > the final product, but like I said above the reason is that the game engine > couldn't simply model correctly many factors. But in F1 2000 it can. And > in the next Papyrus game engine it can also. And in WSC. And in Motorsim's > game engine (look at the incredible track accuracy in AMA SBK). And in SBK > 2000 (EA should had used track data from that title and give it to ISI). > And in <insert any current game engine>. Is it hard to understand? > > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

> What's wrong is that it is not opposite opinions we are arguing about,it's > about who is right. There are a lot of things in life that are a matterof > opinion, e.g. music, politics, etc. etc. In these cases, there is noright > and wrong, there are only opinions which each individual legitimately > holds - all a question of taste. > In the case of something like track accuracy, there is a right and awrong, > and that is what we disagree on. So you think that the tracks are 100% accurate and one cannot argue about it? I would have no problem with you stating that you are satisfied with the track layout in F12K, but if you insist on the fact that there is only right and wrong then it's you who is on the wrong side. From the few times I've watched the CART TV coverage I could've assumed that the Laguna Seca representation in SCGT was accurate. All the people in this group who know this track better than me say it's completely and utterly wrong. From personal experience I know that Hockenheim track in SCGT is a bad joke. F12K simply continues that infamous ISI tradition of <very> poor track modelling. Everybody who has real life experience at a certain track has more or less confirmed that (except you). That is even more disappointing because they have a game engine that should be able to do much better. And that is exactly why I'm not satisfied with this level of track accuracy because I know it can be done better. Much better. For me, the tracks are a major part of F1. Each of these corners is designed to provide a certain unique challenge for the driver. If a sim doesn't reflect this challenge, there is a major part of the F1 fascination missing. If there is no challenge in getting Eau Rouge right then I get no satisfaction out of driving at Spa. If I can't drive the castrol bend at the Nurburgring similar to like I would do it in real life because the corner radius and curb placement is totally wrong then the whole point of having a F1 simulation is questioned. Why not use fantasy tracks from the start? This might be splitting hairs, but it should be allowed to be critical in a group that carries the name "rec.autos.simulators". Leave the praises to the EA-sponsored gaming mags. The fact that there is nothing better at the moment, doesn't make F12K a good sim. P.S. I urge everyone who thinks that F12K is the best modern F1 sim to install GP2 on a powerful machine, turn off all driving aids (including the steering and opposite lock help in the control setup screen), download the excellent user-created tracks from the net and have a GP weekend against "Ace" opponents. Then ask yourself: "Is F1-2000 really better?". I don't think so. P.S. II : FYI: For everyone in Europe (ONLY Europe, i'm afraid) who likes F1-2000 there is an interesting competition run by Mobil-1 Motorsport. You can win tickets to GP weekends and more while competing in a championship that consists of 10% GP length races. Take a look at http://www.mobil1-motorsport.com/Welcome/index.html if you're interested.

On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 04:10:58 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Would you race a simulator where it claims accuracy yet has per example >Monaco with a first corner turning left? > >Im exagerating, but No shit....but I will say this. The tracks are no where near as bad as you and others seem to think they are. I ran a 50 percent race at Silverstone Saturday and got to know the track in F1 2000 fairly well. Then this morning, I watched the taped and very delayed broadcast of the race. For some reason, I knew exactly where the drivers were on the track...I was anticipating their actions (except Barrichello's hydraulic fluid induced spin) prior to their doing them and that was a first for me. I will admit I am not the diehard fan of Formula 1 a lot of folks on this list are (I went to my first F1 race in Monaco in 1978 and went to several other races that year and one in 79), but I have watched the races on tely when I could. And now that I have F12K I wish I had it for the first three races. Tracks may not be perfect, but even an idiot like you would have to admit that it wouldn't be cost effective to go to each and every track and make each and every measurement. From the information they were provided, the makers of the sim did a good job. Now shut up and drive...okay? Or wait for the 1998 version of Grand Prix 3. L. Sobkoviak, who needs to learn how to break a lot better

"L.R.S." <[email hidden]> wrote > No shit....but I will say this. The tracks are no where > near as bad as you and others seem to think they are. Another time, it depends on the level of accuracy some people want in racing simulators. It's just normal that some people want more compared to others. I want that friggin kurb to be at the same place then in real life. I want the last turn at Imola to be accurate darn it! How can they possibily NOT model it accurately? They have the tools (which you will see below are much bigger than you may think). If they can't, it's because there is a fault in the game engine, or on purpose they have chosen to not push the limits of track accuracy.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> For some reason, I knew exactly where the drivers were on > the track...I was anticipating their actions (except > Barrichello's hydraulic fluid induced spin) prior to their > doing them and that was a first for me. I will admit I am > not the diehard fan of Formula 1 a lot of folks on this list > are (I went to my first F1 race in Monaco in 1978 and went > to several other races that year and one in 79), but I have > watched the races on tely when I could. And now that I have > F12K I wish I had it for the first three races.

Hmmm... this has been done for years. I bet any of us could easily anticipate their action based on the track layout back in the days of F1GP. > but even an idiot like you would have to > admit that it wouldn't be cost effective to go to each and > every track and make each and every measurement. LOL! You clearly have no knowledge of how the game developers get their information on the tracks? Idiots like me admit that THEY DO infact go to tracks and take pictures/videos, measure about everything you can see. Looks like the idiot learned you something today. Nice try to flame somebody eh... If you have a FIA license, then be sure that they get exclusive data and track information by the track owners, including very detailled maps of each track. Be sure that they send somebody to the majority of tracks to get intensive information on them. That's what Papyrus do. That's what at Ubisoft they got for F1RS. Of course we know how the modelling appeared on the final product, but like I said above the reason is that the game engine couldn't simply model correctly many factors. But in F1 2000 it can. And in the next Papyrus game engine it can also. And in WSC. And in Motorsim's game engine (look at the incredible track accuracy in AMA SBK). And in SBK 2000 (EA should had used track data from that title and give it to ISI). And in <insert any current game engine>. Is it hard to understand? -- -- 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.

Although I find it difficult myself (obviously!), it's best to ignore posts from 'ymenard' as he seems to relish in distorting the essence of the meaning of posts and is positively insulting at times while making out that it's the other person that is! In all the years I've been contributing to RAS, there have been a few people who have got my back up, but this guy is the best so far! The best thing to do is carry on regardless and enjoy F12K and GPL as the best racing sims (for different reasons) that are out there at the moment. Iain As far as I and others are concerned F12K does a great job when tweaked properly. L.R.S. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 04:10:58 GMT, "ymenard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Would you race a simulator where it claims accuracy yet has per example > >Monaco with a first corner turning left? > > > >Im exagerating, but > > No shit....but I will say this. The tracks are no where > near as bad as you and others seem to think they are. I ran > a 50 percent race at Silverstone Saturday and got to know > the track in F1 2000 fairly well. Then this morning, I > watched the taped and very delayed broadcast of the race. > For some reason, I knew exactly where the drivers were on > the track...I was anticipating their actions (except > Barrichello's hydraulic fluid induced spin) prior to their > doing them and that was a first for me. I will admit I am > not the diehard fan of Formula 1 a lot of folks on this list > are (I went to my first F1 race in Monaco in 1978 and went > to several other races that year and one in 79), but I have > watched the races on tely when I could. And now that I have > F12K I wish I had it for the first three races. Tracks may > not be perfect, but even an idiot like you would have to > admit that it wouldn't be cost effective to go to each and > every track and make each and every measurement. From the > information they were provided, the makers of the sim did a > good job. Now shut up and drive...okay? Or wait for the > 1998 version of Grand Prix 3. > > L. Sobkoviak, who needs to learn how to break a lot better

On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:08:44 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Totally don't agree with you, the track layout is very bad. No exceptions. >> >Not true. I have driven Silverstone on several occasions and it is >accurate. I agree with you. When I start training on a new circuit (Barcelona now), I always wonder if it's accurate. For instant Imola doesn't seem very accurate to me. But watching the inboard camera on television told me I was wrong. In the real life GP they accelarate, shift and decelarate on almost excactly the same positions as on the F1 2000 game. About the curbs, when you are trying really hard to set good times, you use the same lines as the real GP. So you have to use also all the curbs as the real drivers. It's beginning to be a hype to dislike F1 2000. But I like this game very much. I've downloaded the 37 mb GP3-mpeg of Monaco. After watching it several times, I played the same circuit with F1 2000. And I don't see any big differences, even the sounds seems to be very equal. And doesn't just everybody hate the sounds of F1 2000? I don't understand why. F1 2000 has a good gameplay, I'm afraid GP3 is coming close to GPL. GPL is also for me a perfect sim , but almost no fun to play. Much to difficult to have fun with it. What is the fun of needing month's of practising on one circuit to set proper times? Ben

On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 04:10:58 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>"Scotty" <[email hidden]> wrote >> What diference does it make to the playability of the game anyway! > >Would you race a simulator where it claims accuracy yet has per example >Monaco with a first corner turning left? > >Im exagerating, but everybody has it's own opinion on how far the accuracy >level should be in a simulator. I want extreme accuracy as those people >HAVE the tools to make them accurate. But the fact that F1 2000 was pushed >fast into a release might be the reason for poor track modeling.

I think the gameplay was more important then making a game like GPL. Face it, GPL wasn't a big hit because of it's accurate level. And there are just a few GPL freaks worldwide. Ben

On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:40:30 -0700, L.R.S. <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 04:10:58 GMT, "ymenard" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >> >>Would you race a simulator where it claims accuracy yet has per example >>Monaco with a first corner turning left? >Then this morning, I watched the taped and very delayed broadcast of the race. >For some reason, I knew exactly where the drivers were on >the track...

Right, for the first time it's much more fun to watch the GP on television just because of that fact. When I used to watch a GP, I always wondered where the camera positions where. And now it's very obvious, you'll even know now on what positions other drivers are when you watch just one on TV. For instance, watching the inboard camera of HH Frentzen, you know were Hakkinen must be at the same time. Ben

Last year here in Australia, the tv station would use a lap on F1rs to deemonstrate the track. Allen Jones (Australian Champion many years ago) would talk us through the lap. He never once said that anything was wrong with the track modelling in that. I'll listen to Alen Jones before you lot anyday. So f1rs must be the most accurate, cos Allen said so. Iain Mackenzie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:51mM4.2785$[email hidden]... > Yep, after watching very carefully the in car laps around Silverstone this > afternoon at qualifying, its the fourth track in a row that is accurate in > F12K. There was Albert PArk, Interlagos, Imola and now Silverstone. Iwas

Quoted text (7 lines)

> a little worried about the Northamptonshire circuit as it had a downhill > section that I didn't remember from the few times I've driven around > Silverstone, but sure enough F12K was right and my memory was wrong! > Enjoy therace! > Iain > >

> Yours seems to be pretty low, while for others it's much higher. Dealwith > it, but don't come up in this newsgroup (populated with hardcore simracers > who promote realism in racing simulators) posting that the track are > accurate and expect people who want a high level of track accuracy tosimply Well, I'm not sure what F1 you're watching on TV, but to me F12K is the most accurate F1 sim, in terms of track accuracy.

"Jalo" <[email hidden]> wrote > Well, I'm not sure what F1 you're watching on TV, but to me F12K is themost > accurate F1 sim, in terms of track accuracy. Another time... even if it's the best at the moment, it doesn't mean it's well modeled!!!! And FYI, some user created tracks for GP2 was amazing. And another time, it always depends on your level of accuracy. Some people will find the basic layout enough to satisfy themselves, while for others it's much more in-depth. Nothing wrong with both sides, unless you have a person like Iain who wants to discuss about it here. Then it's normal to have meticulous people about the track accuracy to argue with him. Why is it hard to understand? And what's wrong with that? -- -- 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.

Tracks, like physics, graphics or sound, are never 100% right in whatever game you'll take. It never will. Francois _might_ be right, but people who are happy with it are the winners... Remco "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>>Some people will find the basic layout enough to satisfy themselves, while >for others >> it's much more in-depth. Nothing wrong with both sides, unless you have a >> person like Iain who wants to discuss about it here. Then it's normal to >> have meticulous people about the track accuracy to argue with him. Why is >> it hard to understand? And what's wrong with that? >> >What's wrong is that it is not opposite opinions we are arguing about, it's >about who is right. There are a lot of things in life that are a matter of >opinion, e.g. music, politics, etc. etc. In these cases, there is no right >and wrong, there are only opinions which each individual legitimately >holds - all a question of taste. >In the case of something like track accuracy, there is a right and a wrong, >and that is what we disagree on. >Iain >PS Please don't take a few words out of context here as usual.

>Some people will find the basic layout enough to satisfy themselves, whilefor others > it's much more in-depth. Nothing wrong with both sides, unless you have a > person like Iain who wants to discuss about it here. Then it's normal to > have meticulous people about the track accuracy to argue with him. Why is > it hard to understand? And what's wrong with that? >What's wrong is that it is not opposite opinions we are arguing about, it's about who is right. There are a lot of things in life that are a matter of opinion, e.g. music, politics, etc. etc. In these cases, there is no right and wrong, there are only opinions which each individual legitimately holds - all a question of taste. In the case of something like track accuracy, there is a right and a wrong, and that is what we disagree on. Iain PS Please don't take a few words out of context here as usual.

De Hoog <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > >You have got to be joking. > > Download the qualificationlap of Herbert with a inboard camera. > YOU have to be joking. > Watching this mpeg is watching F1 2000 > > http://members.xoom.com/f1high/

So you are saying that this lap will prove that F1 2000 is not accurate? I am claiming that I saw the same lap (I have it taped) and from what I saw Silverstone in F1 2000 was accurate. That is why I said Alexander had to be joking. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Remco Moedt wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote: > > >But this track accuracy stuff is getting a little silly. > > Not if it's important for Francois. I can understand his reaction when > someone says that the tracks are accurate. When people critize a > game, it doesn't mean they don't like it. But this critism does help > to get a better game in the future.

Each his own, I say. Some guys get a seizure if a Hellfire rocket in a flightsim has a slightly inaccurate flight path, some guys just hate minor (in F1 2000 quite major) track inaccuracies. -- 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 <5o5N4.7876$[email hidden]>, "Scotty" <[email hidden]> writes: > >I'd still be playing gp2 if I could get the fucking sound to work!!!!! SBLive? I'm just guessing... I have one too, but I haven't tried GP2 since I bought the SBlive. Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Pete <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:U4bN4.145178$[email hidden]... > Greg, having a hidden agenda means that Frank > doesn't like you! He tells me this repeatedly! :-) Oh I'm certain he doesn't like me. Big deal the guy is totally fucking nuts. > By the way I like F12k although I would rather > play it then put it under a microscope looking for > minute flaws as some seem to do. Yep. I think that is my problem. I am too busy playing it. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Greg, having a hidden agenda means that Frank doesn't like you! He tells me this repeatedly! :-) By the way I like F12k although I would rather play it then put it under a microscope looking for minute flaws as some seem to do. Pete "Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote in message news:8e33e4$ud2$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:asJM4.142596$[email hidden]... > > Your hidden agenda is very obvious. Please state posts that praise the > > track accuracy of Albert Park. Nice try. > > Exactly what agenda is that? > -- > > Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. > > cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com > > >

> So you think that the tracks are 100% accurate and one cannot argue about > it?No, I didn't say that. >F12K simply continues that infamous ISI tradition of <very> poor trackmodelling. It's that sort of opinion that I and others think is rather silly - a total exaggeration. > Everybody who has real life experience at a certain track has more or less > confirmed that (except you).Simply not true either. > For me, the tracks are a major part of F1. Each of these corners is > designed to provide a certain unique challenge for the driver. If a sim > doesn't reflect this challenge, there is a major part of the F1fascination > missing. If there is no challenge in getting Eau Rouge right then I get no > satisfaction out of driving at Spa.I agree with you here. Eau Rouge is particularly disappointing, but most of Spa is good. However, this argument should all have been about Silverstone, and I really feel that those who are criticising the layout there are wrong. >Leave the praises to the EA-sponsored gaming mags.So, we're not allowed to say good things about F12K or anything that isn't GPL or GP2 in the F1 software world in this group? Dangerous. > The fact that there is nothing better at the moment, doesn't make F12K a > good sim.In principle, you are right. However, in practice, you are wrong! Iain

I'd still be playing gp2 if I could get the ***ing sound to work!!!!!

"Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote: >But this track accuracy stuff is getting a little silly. Not if it's important for Francois. I can understand his reaction when someone says that the tracks are accurate. When people critize a game, it doesn't mean they don't like it. But this critism does help to get a better game in the future. Remco

I'd still be playing gp2 if I could get the fucking sound to work!!!!! Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8e2e3d$8ff92$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > > What's wrong is that it is not opposite opinions we are arguing about, > it's > > about who is right. There are a lot of things in life that are a matter > of > > opinion, e.g. music, politics, etc. etc. In these cases, there is no > right > > and wrong, there are only opinions which each individual legitimately > > holds - all a question of taste. > > In the case of something like track accuracy, there is a right and a > wrong, > > and that is what we disagree on. > > So you think that the tracks are 100% accurate and one cannot argue about > it? I would have no problem with you stating that you are satisfied with > the track layout in F12K, but if you insist on the fact that there is only > right and wrong then it's you who is on the wrong side. From the few times > I've watched the CART TV coverage I could've assumed that the Laguna Seca > representation in SCGT was accurate. All the people in this group who know > this track better than me say it's completely and utterly wrong. From > personal experience I know that Hockenheim track in SCGT is a bad joke.

F12K > simply continues that infamous ISI tradition of <very> poor trackmodelling.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Everybody who has real life experience at a certain track has more or less > confirmed that (except you). That is even more disappointing because they > have a game engine that should be able to do much better. And that is > exactly why I'm not satisfied with this level of track accuracy because I > know it can be done better. Much better. > > For me, the tracks are a major part of F1. Each of these corners is > designed to provide a certain unique challenge for the driver. If a sim > doesn't reflect this challenge, there is a major part of the F1

fascination > missing. If there is no challenge in getting Eau Rouge right then I get no > satisfaction out of driving at Spa. If I can't drive the castrol bend atthe > Nurburgring similar to like I would do it in real life because the corner > radius and curb placement is totally wrong then the whole point of havinga > F1 simulation is questioned. Why not use fantasy tracks from the start?This > might be splitting hairs, but it should be allowed to be critical in agroup

Quoted text (8 lines)

> that carries the name "rec.autos.simulators". Leave the praises to the > EA-sponsored gaming mags. > > The fact that there is nothing better at the moment, doesn't make F12K a > good sim. > > P.S. I urge everyone who thinks that F12K is the best modern F1 sim to > install GP2 on a powerful machine, turn off all driving aids (including

the

Quoted text (14 lines)

> steering and opposite lock help in the control setup screen), download the > excellent user-created tracks from the net and have a GP weekend against > "Ace" opponents. Then ask yourself: "Is F1-2000 really better?". I don't > think so. > > P.S. II : FYI: For everyone in Europe (ONLY Europe, i'm afraid) who likes > F1-2000 there is an interesting competition run by Mobil-1 Motorsport. You > can win tickets to GP weekends and more while competing in a championship > that consists of 10% GP length races. Take a look at > http://www.mobil1-motorsport.com/Welcome/index.html if you're interested. > > > >

>You have got to be joking. Download the qualificationlap of Herbert with a inboard camera. YOU have to be joking. Watching this mpeg is watching F1 2000 http://members.xoom.com/f1high/ Ben

Excellent post Alexander! Congratulations! Chris * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

GP2 works fine with the SB Live's SB16 emulation driver. But I know of some other PCI soundcards that don't work, which is a shame.

Hi Eldred & "Scotty", If it is an SBLive! than I can assure you it is possible to get sound in GP2. I have. You have to add a line to your autoexec.bat to put the card in SB16 emulation in case of running a MS-DOS program (GP2). Since I'm not at home at the moment I can't tell you exactly how. If you want I can give it to you later...... Jan. EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> In article <5o5N4.7876$[email hidden]>, "Scotty" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > >I'd still be playing gp2 if I could get the fucking sound to work!!!!! > > SBLive? I'm just guessing... > I have one too, but I haven't tried GP2 since I bought the SBlive. > > Eldred > -- > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5EvN4.78886$[email hidden]... > It's slowly growing on me. Each time I re-try it, I find that some > positions I had before are a little exagerated, even if overall I find it > rushed and extremely flawled. A little exaggerated??? Right. But hey I guess if it is growing on you then you might realize that you had prejudices against the game (like it could never be any good). I agree it was rushed out the door as it took 9 moths from start to finish. Otherwise the weather would have been switched on and FF would be better and there would be a save-game option in GrandPrix mode races. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

"Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote > Greg, having a hidden agenda means that Frank > doesn't like you! He tells me this repeatedly! :-) LOL! ;-D Good one Pete ;-) > By the way I like F12k although I would rather > play it then put it under a microscope looking for > minute flaws as some seem to do. It's slowly growing on me. Each time I re-try it, I find that some positions I had before are a little exagerated, even if overall I find it rushed and extremely flawled. -- -- 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.

"Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote > Oh I'm certain he doesn't like me. I dislike nobody Greg ;) > Big deal the guy is totally > fucking nuts. Yeah, I know ;) -- -- 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.

> It's slowly growing on me. Each time I re-try it, I find that some > positions I had before are a little exagerated, even if overall I find it > rushed and extremely flawled. >Francois, Do I hear peace breaking out very quietly? Iain

"Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote I dislike nobody Greg ;) Yeah, I know ;) -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <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, 25 Apr 2000 21:00:57 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>De Hoog <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> >> >You have got to be joking. >> >> Download the qualificationlap of Herbert with a inboard camera. >> YOU have to be joking. >> Watching this mpeg is watching F1 2000 >> >> http://members.xoom.com/f1high/ > >So you are saying that this lap will prove that F1 2000 is not accurate? >I am claiming that I saw the same lap (I have it taped) and from what >I saw Silverstone in F1 2000 was accurate. That is why I said Alexander >had to be joking.

Sorry, I misunderstood. After reading the message's again I saw that I didn't read it well. Ben

In article <[email hidden]>, Jan Hovius <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Hi Eldred & "Scotty", > >If it is an SBLive! than I can assure you it is possible to get sound in GP2. >I have. You have to add a line to your autoexec.bat to put the card in SB16 >emulation in case of running a MS-DOS program (GP2). Since I'm not at home at >the moment I can't tell you exactly how. If you want I can give it to you >later...... > >Jan.

Then I'm ok. I think the standard install loads the SB Emulation. At least I've see one in the device list... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Frank, sometimes my poor attempts at humour work! :-) The game does grow on you, unfortunately nothing will ever be perfect even GPL! Pete "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5EvN4.78886$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> "Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Greg, having a hidden agenda means that Frank > > doesn't like you! He tells me this repeatedly! :-) > > > LOL! ;-D > > Good one Pete ;-) > > > > By the way I like F12k although I would rather > > play it then put it under a microscope looking for > > minute flaws as some seem to do. > > > It's slowly growing on me. Each time I re-try it, I find that some > positions I had before are a little exagerated, even if overall I find it > rushed and extremely flawled. > > > > -- > -- 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. > > > >