What makes a good F1 racing sim?

Hi all, For reasons I can not explain in detail, I would like to have your opinion and input in a project of mine. I would need to figure out sixteen points or aspects that define a good formula 1 racing sim. Yes, modern formula 1 racing sim only. Although certainly most of the aspects would be identical to all racing sims in general. The idea is to have sixteen different aspects that would be at least roughly equal in importance when the whole bunch of 16 is compared to each other. As we're talking about simulations here, it obviously means that different aspects of the actual "realism" need to be listed as separate. After thinking for a while I came up with these: REALISM 1. Driving model (i.e. how accurately and dynamically the car responds - the driving "feel") 2. Other physics modelling ("extras", such as taking tyre wear, tyre temperature, car weight, track condition and temperature, etc into account) 3. Damage modelling (self-explanatory, includes variable reliability) 4. Track modelling (not the physics under 2, rather, how well the tracks are modelled to represent the real ones with all the bumps and contours) 5. Adherence to F1 rules (working flag rules, little tidbits such as safety cars, etc) 6. Weather (self-explanatory) 7. Game car performance vs. reality (i.e. is McLaren better than Minardi?) 8. AI performance (i.e. do the other drivers perform and behave credibly according to their real world performance for suspension of disbelief, and maybe have different personalities as well) 9. Car setups (how close they are to the real thing, and how easy they are to understand in the particular game) GRAPHICS 10. Overall graphics appearance 11. Graphics engine performance OTHER 12. Uh... force feedback 13. Er... You see, I am having trouble here dividing "what makes a good F1 simulator" into 16 different aspects. No more, no less. The idea here is to balance the thing so that if you gave GP points for each of the aspects when comparing different sims, you would get a reasonable comparison between them as F1 simulation games. I would be extremely grateful for ANY input, advice, hints, insights, etc on how I could either add some aspects or break the ones I already mentioned into two or more to get sixteen. Unfortunately, I cannot offer anything more than my gratitude in return. Unless you live in Helsinki metropolitan area, Finland, in which case I'll buy you a beer if you can help me out :-) Thanks. -lark- (posted, but not crossposted both to RASF1 and RAS)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote: >Hi all, > >For reasons I can not explain in detail, I would like to have your >opinion and input in a project of mine. I would need to figure out >sixteen points or aspects that define a good formula 1 racing sim. [...] I think you hit the major points, especially in regard to simulation aspects. If you are willing to widen your perspective, I'd suggest adding some game aspects, ie playability. Such a category could include: Tunability: ability to detune the AI and/or physics to allow a player to progress. That is, simple and advanced models. Afterall, if the fidelity was very very high, we'd all fail miserably :-) Interface: usability, simplicity. Modifiability: ability to modify/upgrade the teams/cars/drivers/tracks for instance to other years. Or instead, for a true sim of modern F1: a tyranical interface, call it "Bernie", that forces you to do it its way only. Oh, let's not forget: Disqualifications, with politically-induced reinstatements Bickering and backstabbing primadonna drivers and owners Random rule changes and enforcements Little-to-no passing (except in the ever-exciting pitstops) F1 babes

[email hidden] wrote: Thanks! Nothing like fresh input when you're stuck thinking in circles. After some more replies I think I can get a reasonably fair and balanced set of comparisons together in no time. > Oh, let's not forget: > Disqualifications, with politically-induced reinstatements > Bickering and backstabbing primadonna drivers and owners > Random rule changes and enforcements > Little-to-no passing (except in the ever-exciting pitstops) > F1 babes LOL! THESE would be the stuff for the PERFECT F1 racing sim. Unfortunately, I am limited to aspects that are already covered in at least some of the published sims. -lark-

to add to your list in no particular order of importance: -multiplayer performance -controller set-up (flexibility: wheel lock, deadzone, linearity etc.) -menu navigation -driving aids (abs, traction control etc.) -ease of editing (cars,tracks, objects etc.) -performance analysis (telemetry) -replay quality (include ability to export) oops, we're way beyond 16. probably missed a couple. -Keith Joona Vainio wrote:

Quoted text (62 lines)

> Hi all, > > For reasons I can not explain in detail, I would like to have your > opinion and input in a project of mine. I would need to figure out > sixteen points or aspects that define a good formula 1 racing sim. Yes, > modern formula 1 racing sim only. Although certainly most of the aspects > would be identical to all racing sims in general. > > The idea is to have sixteen different aspects that would be at least > roughly equal in importance when the whole bunch of 16 is compared to > each other. As we're talking about simulations here, it obviously means > that different aspects of the actual "realism" need to be listed as > separate. > > After thinking for a while I came up with these: > > REALISM > 1. Driving model (i.e. how accurately and dynamically the car responds - > the driving "feel") > 2. Other physics modelling ("extras", such as taking tyre wear, tyre > temperature, car weight, track condition and temperature, etc into > account) > 3. Damage modelling (self-explanatory, includes variable reliability) > 4. Track modelling (not the physics under 2, rather, how well the tracks > are modelled to represent the real ones with all the bumps and contours) > 5. Adherence to F1 rules (working flag rules, little tidbits such as > safety cars, etc) > 6. Weather (self-explanatory) > 7. Game car performance vs. reality (i.e. is McLaren better than > Minardi?) > 8. AI performance (i.e. do the other drivers perform and behave credibly > according to their real world performance for suspension of disbelief, > and maybe have different personalities as well) > 9. Car setups (how close they are to the real thing, and how easy they > are to understand in the particular game) > > GRAPHICS > 10. Overall graphics appearance > 11. Graphics engine performance > > OTHER > 12. Uh... force feedback > 13. Er... > > You see, I am having trouble here dividing "what makes a good F1 > simulator" into 16 different aspects. No more, no less. The idea here is > to balance the thing so that if you gave GP points for each of the > aspects when comparing different sims, you would get a reasonable > comparison between them as F1 simulation games. > > I would be extremely grateful for ANY input, advice, hints, insights, > etc on how I could either add some aspects or break the ones I already > mentioned into two or more to get sixteen. Unfortunately, I cannot offer > anything more than my gratitude in return. Unless you live in Helsinki > metropolitan area, Finland, in which case I'll buy you a beer if you can > help me out :-) > > Thanks. > > -lark- > > (posted, but not crossposted both to RASF1 and RAS)

Joona Vainio <[email hidden]> wrote: >For reasons I can not explain in detail, I would like to have your >opinion and input in a project of mine. I would need to figure out >sixteen points or aspects that define a good formula 1 racing sim. Yes, >modern formula 1 racing sim only. Although certainly most of the aspects >would be identical to all racing sims in general. Before you can gather a general list of rules what defines a good formula 1 sim you need to define what a good formula 1 sim is <g> For example, you can say that it should be as close to realism as possible, but the mainstream gamer wouldn't like it. So, IMO you should first tell us what the target audience is for this F1 sim... Remco

Remco Moedt wrote: > For example, you can say that it should be as close to realism as > possible, but the mainstream gamer wouldn't like it. So, IMO you > should first tell us what the target audience is for this F1 sim... Fair enough. I'm supposed to compare the available F1 racing sims from the simulator aspect. That is, realism and the ability to provide an accurate simulated experience of being an F1 driver is the most important point here. Accessibility and overall playability is definitely a bonus. But only a bonus. That's why I stressed the realism part so much in my own first draft. And I'm not trying to hunt for the characteristics of the best possible F1 simulator here. As in what would make up the F1 sim of your dreams. I'm trying to figure out a set of characteristics to compare the existing ones at least somewhat fairly. So I work for a computer games magazine, not for a game company starting an F1 sim project :) But from the sim freaks point of view, yes. -lark-

Ah, ok. 1. Well, first, since it's a driving sim, the physics should be convincing. 2. It's existing in real life, so the tracks much represent real life aswell. 3. As driver you must be able to make the same mistakes as in real life, damaging your car/engine, stalling the engine ot get stuck in the bunker. 4. The track conditions when dry should contain slippery grass, dirt and marbles on the track. 5. Dynamic weather. 6. Graphical representation of this all. Granted, it's subjective. 7. Same for the sound. 8. The FIA rule set, including being suspended sue to bad behaviour on the track. Flags, pace car, limited tyres, etc. 9. The AI should represent the real drivers, with all their habits. 10. The car setup. You need telemetry, and a raceengineer who'll set your car up, after you explained the car behaviour. This all (optional) in real time. 11. TV coverage, Data channel, pit monitor, being in the pitbox when pitcrew is adjusting the setup. Linked to the replay feature. 12. Cars should have real life performance. The player should earn a ride for a faster team. (or be sacked....) If you want it close to reality, certain teams should have greater risc of mechanical failure. It could be refreshing to play Mr Herbert in the 2000 season.... 13. Feedback. Can be done by FF wheel, virtual cockpit, sound, etc. 14. Pit strategy. Voice recognition would be nice when implemented in a pit <-> car communication. Animated pitcrew would be nice. 15. Ambient sounds/animation, like audience, moving trees. 16. Car development during the season. I'm not sure if Multiplayer fits in there. Joona Vainio <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>Remco Moedt wrote: > >> For example, you can say that it should be as close to realism as >> possible, but the mainstream gamer wouldn't like it. So, IMO you >> should first tell us what the target audience is for this F1 sim... > >Fair enough. > >I'm supposed to compare the available F1 racing sims from the simulator >aspect. That is, realism and the ability to provide an accurate >simulated experience of being an F1 driver is the most important point >here. Accessibility and overall playability is definitely a bonus. But >only a bonus. That's why I stressed the realism part so much in my own >first draft. > >And I'm not trying to hunt for the characteristics of the best possible >F1 simulator here. As in what would make up the F1 sim of your dreams. >I'm trying to figure out a set of characteristics to compare the >existing ones at least somewhat fairly. So I work for a computer games >magazine, not for a game company starting an F1 sim project :) > >But from the sim freaks point of view, yes. > >-lark-

Didn't spot sound in your list... you could split that in two parts... engine (going up and down the gearbox) and ambient (wind, tyres, kerbs, knocks/scrapes, etc...). Jan. =--- Joona Vainio <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hi all, > > <Snip>

As any opinions that you receive will be subjective, then it is an easy question to answer: one that appeals to the individual, for whatever reason. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Joona Vainio <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hi all, > > For reasons I can not explain in detail, I would like to have your > opinion and input in a project of mine. I would need to figure out > sixteen points or aspects that define a good formula 1 racing sim. Yes, > modern formula 1 racing sim only. Although certainly most of the aspects > would be identical to all racing sims in general. > > The idea is to have sixteen different aspects that would be at least > roughly equal in importance when the whole bunch of 16 is compared to > each other. As we're talking about simulations here, it obviously means > that different aspects of the actual "realism" need to be listed as > separate. > > After thinking for a while I came up with these: > > REALISM > 1. Driving model (i.e. how accurately and dynamically the car responds - > the driving "feel") > 2. Other physics modelling ("extras", such as taking tyre wear, tyre > temperature, car weight, track condition and temperature, etc into > account) > 3. Damage modelling (self-explanatory, includes variable reliability) > 4. Track modelling (not the physics under 2, rather, how well the tracks > are modelled to represent the real ones with all the bumps and contours) > 5. Adherence to F1 rules (working flag rules, little tidbits such as > safety cars, etc) > 6. Weather (self-explanatory) > 7. Game car performance vs. reality (i.e. is McLaren better than > Minardi?) > 8. AI performance (i.e. do the other drivers perform and behave credibly > according to their real world performance for suspension of disbelief, > and maybe have different personalities as well) > 9. Car setups (how close they are to the real thing, and how easy they > are to understand in the particular game) > > GRAPHICS > 10. Overall graphics appearance > 11. Graphics engine performance > > OTHER > 12. Uh... force feedback > 13. Er... > > You see, I am having trouble here dividing "what makes a good F1 > simulator" into 16 different aspects. No more, no less. The idea here is > to balance the thing so that if you gave GP points for each of the > aspects when comparing different sims, you would get a reasonable > comparison between them as F1 simulation games. > > I would be extremely grateful for ANY input, advice, hints, insights, > etc on how I could either add some aspects or break the ones I already > mentioned into two or more to get sixteen. Unfortunately, I cannot offer > anything more than my gratitude in return. Unless you live in Helsinki > metropolitan area, Finland, in which case I'll buy you a beer if you can > help me out :-) > > Thanks. > > -lark- > > (posted, but not crossposted both to RASF1 and RAS)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Joona Vainio) wrote:

Quoted text (50 lines)

> Hi all, > > For reasons I can not explain in detail, I would like to have your > opinion and input in a project of mine. I would need to figure out > sixteen points or aspects that define a good formula 1 racing sim. > Yes, > modern formula 1 racing sim only. Although certainly most of the > aspects > would be identical to all racing sims in general. > > The idea is to have sixteen different aspects that would be at least > roughly equal in importance when the whole bunch of 16 is compared to > each other. As we're talking about simulations here, it obviously > means > that different aspects of the actual "realism" need to be listed as > separate. > > After thinking for a while I came up with these: > > REALISM > 1. Driving model (i.e. how accurately and dynamically the car > responds - > the driving "feel") > 2. Other physics modelling ("extras", such as taking tyre wear, tyre > temperature, car weight, track condition and temperature, etc into > account) > 3. Damage modelling (self-explanatory, includes variable reliability) > 4. Track modelling (not the physics under 2, rather, how well the > tracks > are modelled to represent the real ones with all the bumps and > contours) > 5. Adherence to F1 rules (working flag rules, little tidbits such as > safety cars, etc) > 6. Weather (self-explanatory) > 7. Game car performance vs. reality (i.e. is McLaren better than > Minardi?) > 8. AI performance (i.e. do the other drivers perform and behave > credibly > according to their real world performance for suspension of disbelief, > and maybe have different personalities as well) > 9. Car setups (how close they are to the real thing, and how easy they > are to understand in the particular game) > > GRAPHICS > 10. Overall graphics appearance > 11. Graphics engine performance > > OTHER > 12. Uh... force feedback > 13. Er...

How about.... Sound: How accurately the sim recreates the in-car sounds, and other sounds, background sounds, opponents car sounds, etc. Car set-ups: The ability to alter the cars set-up, and how it effects the car? Pit stops: The ability to schedule pitstops at pre-determined times, and the ability to repair the car, adjust wings, etc (manual or automatic pit-stops?) add fuel, etc. + Management/tactics: The ability to make tactical decisions regarding the race, letting team mates through, changing from 2 pitstops to 1 pitstop, changing tyres if the weather changes mid race, etc. Buying and upgrading drivers, cars, car parts, carrying out research, testing, etc. Modes: The actual choice of racing *modes*: EG: time trials, single race, practice sessions, qualifying sessions, full season championship, etc. 8-) *Peter* - http://www.cix.co.uk/~peterpc/home.html

I would think the most important points for good gameplay are a reliable response where the drivers input provides a realistic response from the car quick enough so that further action can be taken. Thus four wheel drifting and throttle steering can be achieved allowing the most skillful driver rather than the driver who has learnt the sim best to win. I consider multiplayer racing over the internet a great feature with as many drivers as possible. Racing against the AI is a toy. Racing against people is a real competition. Racing against foreign nationals over the internet and we have something which is almost better than real life Formula 1.

You have some good ideas and so does everyone else - you know, physics and all. But none of it is worth a hill of beans unless I can tailor my control situation, whatever that may be, to the way I think the car should feel and react while I'm driving it. So, the game MUST have it's own controller setup and not rely on Windows setup and calibration. It must be accessible from the track by one button. Going through ten menus just to get back to Monaco to find you hate the sensitivity is not my idea of how one should spend their week. A lot of detail would help too. The GP2 advanced setup screen is a good starting point. Then deadzone and shape of slope and such. I bring games with even the smallest amount of deadzone right back to the dealer. I don't have the time to goof around with that particular unrealism. With more and better sims coming out, I will start bringing sims back for merely relying on the Windows setup. I hate that. :-) After drive model and physics and strategy and bumps and marbles and rocks and candy wrappers and failures and track accuracy and everything else: Then graphics. Perspective is very important. Situational awareness is paramount to racing, especially since we're all online now. How fast am I going? How fast is he going? How far away is that corner? How close am I to that rail? Is he inside me now? Will I chop his nose off? He's gonna chop my nose off?!!! Overall I would like to see a view about 60% wider than GPL's. So, GPL view *plus* both side views. Make yourself a little JPG of that at Portier at turn in. You'll love it. Racing in real life will help sort out what a good perspective is. Spend 10 hours on a local track or favorite road over the weekend, then go home to play all your sims on Sunday night. It should become apparent very quickly that Kaemmer sims have extremely poor perspective and Crammond sims have really good perspective. Other goodies would include CPR and SCGT. What the key is I could not say. Now the really important thing. Sound. Exactly 50% of the feedback comes from the sound. FF aint done yet. No matter what the owners may say. It's more confusing than it is helpful on the good software, and on the bad software.... well. So, since we can't rely on visual alone to tell what the car is doing, sound is our saving grace. I have a gazillion ideas on how to implement sound in sims and will spare you that here. Suffice it to say that the sound should increase overall awareness of speed, engine speed, traction, position on the track, and anything else you can squeeze out of it. If you turn the sound off and drive just as well then it aint workin'. Feel, feel, feel. Have to feel the car. Like in GPL. Sound could go a long way towards that feel. -- Mark Jeangerard www.soundchaserweb.com New Mexico, USA Joona Vainio <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hi all, > > For reasons I can not explain in detail, I would like to have your > opinion and input in a project of mine. I would need to figure out > sixteen points or aspects that define a good formula 1 racing sim. Yes, > modern formula 1 racing sim only. Although certainly most of the aspects > would be identical to all racing sims in general. > > The idea is to have sixteen different aspects that would be at least > roughly equal in importance when the whole bunch of 16 is compared to > each other. As we're talking about simulations here, it obviously means > that different aspects of the actual "realism" need to be listed as > separate. > > After thinking for a while I came up with these: > > REALISM > 1. Driving model (i.e. how accurately and dynamically the car responds - > the driving "feel") > 2. Other physics modelling ("extras", such as taking tyre wear, tyre > temperature, car weight, track condition and temperature, etc into > account) > 3. Damage modelling (self-explanatory, includes variable reliability) > 4. Track modelling (not the physics under 2, rather, how well the tracks > are modelled to represent the real ones with all the bumps and contours) > 5. Adherence to F1 rules (working flag rules, little tidbits such as > safety cars, etc) > 6. Weather (self-explanatory) > 7. Game car performance vs. reality (i.e. is McLaren better than > Minardi?) > 8. AI performance (i.e. do the other drivers perform and behave credibly > according to their real world performance for suspension of disbelief, > and maybe have different personalities as well) > 9. Car setups (how close they are to the real thing, and how easy they > are to understand in the particular game) > > GRAPHICS > 10. Overall graphics appearance > 11. Graphics engine performance > > OTHER > 12. Uh... force feedback > 13. Er... > > You see, I am having trouble here dividing "what makes a good F1 > simulator" into 16 different aspects. No more, no less. The idea here is > to balance the thing so that if you gave GP points for each of the > aspects when comparing different sims, you would get a reasonable > comparison between them as F1 simulation games. > > I would be extremely grateful for ANY input, advice, hints, insights, > etc on how I could either add some aspects or break the ones I already > mentioned into two or more to get sixteen. Unfortunately, I cannot offer > anything more than my gratitude in return. Unless you live in Helsinki > metropolitan area, Finland, in which case I'll buy you a beer if you can > help me out :-) > > Thanks. > > -lark- > > (posted, but not crossposted both to RASF1 and RAS)