Re: N4 with GPL phsyics?

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >Ok, so I'm not too up to date with the NASCAR series but I have to ask >something. > >The latest thing I've been hearing is that N will have GPL's physics engine, >or that it's physics will be based on GPL. > >Now The original thing I heard was that it would have a game engine based on >GPL. I presumed that meant that how the gamE is structured would be based on >GPL. Thats fair enough. > >But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the game engine >confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can't see >that working. > >As I said, I'm not too up to date on NASCAR sims really but I was gonna >consider making N4 my first try at the series. This is sorta putting doubts >in my mind. >

The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine. A CART sim would have been easier though. argh.

Well said Dave!

Ok, so I'm not too up to date with the NASCAR series but I have to ask something. The latest thing I've been hearing is that N will have GPL's physics engine, or that it's physics will be based on GPL. Now The original thing I heard was that it would have a game engine based on GPL. I presumed that meant that how the gamE is structured would be based on GPL. Thats fair enough. But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the game engine confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can't see that working. As I said, I'm not too up to date on NASCAR sims really but I was gonna consider making N4 my first try at the series. This is sorta putting doubts in my mind. TIA!

On 17 Apr 2000 18:02:52 GMT, [email hidden] (TRUSRS85) wrote: >The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine. >A CART sim would have been easier though. argh. I'm still surprised that Papyrus haven't continued with their CART series and have instead chosen to focus on Nascar. Did they ever give a reason for this? I haven't seen a decent CART game in years. It's long overdue. Alpha Omega E-Mail: [email hidden] ICQ: 70300233

Don't think they are going to slap Winston Cup Stockcar bodies on the F1 cars of '67. The engine that allows all the different motions and feedbacks and general overall feel of GPL will be modified to suit 3500 pound stock cars. Modern WC cars have quite a-bit of Aero-effects which are lacking in GPL so that will have to be included. Basically what we are getting...(HOPEFULLY!) is a sim that brings plenty of the REALISM of GPL to the bullrings of Nascar. This does not mean we will have fendered cars that swap ends with the touch of the brakes but a sim that will model each wheel independantly, that tracks weight transfer etc. All the things that make GPL so good and hopefully with the drivability of modern racing cars. dave henrie GraDee wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > Ok, so I'm not too up to date with the NASCAR series but I have to ask > something. > > The latest thing I've been hearing is that N will have GPL's physics engine, > or that it's physics will be based on GPL. > > Now The original thing I heard was that it would have a game engine based on > GPL. I presumed that meant that how the gamE is structured would be based on > GPL. Thats fair enough. > > But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the game engine > confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can't see > that working. > > As I said, I'm not too up to date on NASCAR sims really but I was gonna > consider making N4 my first try at the series. This is sorta putting doubts > in my mind. > > TIA!

"GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote > But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the gameengine > confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can't see > that working. The majority of us know about it since a long time ago. Which is why many bitched about the exclusion of the new Papyrus game engine in N3. Almost everybody understand that Papyrus is using the new game engine for their next title. It doesn't mean at all "GPL with a roof". Those two type of racecars are totally different and that's for good. It's how great the new game engine is. It's still years ahead of everything else and Im sure people here would want ANYTHING with the new game engine. Any type of racing simulation. ANY! As for the principal buyers of a Papyrus racing game (the mass market, as some of us would say), they don't even know what is a game engine! :) -- -- 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.

Well said Dave! "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Don't think they are going to slap Winston Cup Stockcar bodies on the > F1 cars of '67. The engine that allows all the different motions and > feedbacks and general overall feel of GPL will be modified to suit 3500 > pound stock cars. Modern WC cars have quite a-bit of Aero-effects which > are lacking in GPL so that will have to be included. Basically what we > are getting...(HOPEFULLY!) is a sim that brings plenty of the REALISM of > GPL to the bullrings of Nascar. This does not mean we will have > fendered cars that swap ends with the touch of the brakes but a sim that > will model each wheel independantly, that tracks weight transfer etc. > All the things that make GPL so good and hopefully with the drivability > of modern racing cars. > dave henrie

From what I have seen with the upcoming N4 release, they are using menus very similiar to GPL in fact the setup options look very good. The physics model is a toned down version of GPL although I declined to try a beta version it appeared that they have made some improvements in the physics but some of the old bugs are still here. You can expect improved FF and it may be better than GPL's. I just hope they take the graphics and physics up a notch or two in the final release from what I have seen. Pete "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8dfh57$ndo$[email hidden]... > Ok, so I'm not too up to date with the NASCAR series but I have to ask > something. > > The latest thing I've been hearing is that N will have GPL's physicsengine, > or that it's physics will be based on GPL. > > Now The original thing I heard was that it would have a game engine basedon > GPL. I presumed that meant that how the gamE is structured would be basedon > GPL. Thats fair enough. > > But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the gameengine > confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can't see > that working. > > As I said, I'm not too up to date on NASCAR sims really but I was gonna > consider making N4 my first try at the series. This is sorta puttingdoubts > in my mind. > > TIA! > >

U DECLINED?!!!! WTF Y? Md Pete wrote:

Quoted text (40 lines)

> > From what I have seen with the upcoming N4 release, they are using > menus very similiar to GPL in fact the setup options look very good. > The physics model is a toned down version of GPL although I declined > to try a beta version it appeared that they have made some improvements > in the physics but some of the old bugs are still here. > You can expect improved FF and it may be better than GPL's. I > just hope they take the graphics and physics up a notch or two in the final > release from what I have seen. > > Pete > > "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8dfh57$ndo$[email hidden]... > > Ok, so I'm not too up to date with the NASCAR series but I have to ask > > something. > > > > The latest thing I've been hearing is that N will have GPL's physics > engine, > > or that it's physics will be based on GPL. > > > > Now The original thing I heard was that it would have a game engine based > on > > GPL. I presumed that meant that how the gamE is structured would be based > on > > GPL. Thats fair enough. > > > > But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the game > engine > > confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can't see > > that working. > > > > As I said, I'm not too up to date on NASCAR sims really but I was gonna > > consider making N4 my first try at the series. This is sorta putting > doubts > > in my mind. > > > > TIA! > > > >

It just means they're using the same game engine, all the base code, for N4. It does not mean or imply transferring GPL's physics over to stock cars. I think a lot of people are confusing that for some reason. Sort of like id moving from the old Doom engine to the newer Quake engine a few years ago. -- ----------------------------------- Morgan Vincent Wooten mailto:[email hidden] http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ ----------------------------------- GraDee <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8dfh57$ndo$[email hidden]... > Ok, so I'm not too up to date with the NASCAR series but I have to ask > something. > > The latest thing I've been hearing is that N will have GPL's physics engine, > or that it's physics will be based on GPL. > > Now The original thing I heard was that it would have a game engine based on > GPL. I presumed that meant that how the gamE is structured would be based on > GPL. Thats fair enough. > > But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the game engine > confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can't see > that working. > > As I said, I'm not too up to date on NASCAR sims really but I was gonna > consider making N4 my first try at the series. This is sorta putting doubts > in my mind. > > TIA! > > >

Dave Matson (Papy "Project Director") said in The Pit Stop board over in the Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance of a new CART sim anytime soon. -- ----------------------------------- Morgan Vincent Wooten mailto:[email hidden] http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ ----------------------------------- Alpha Omega <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On 17 Apr 2000 18:02:52 GMT, [email hidden] (TRUSRS85) wrote: > > >The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine. > >A CART sim would have been easier though. argh. > > I'm still surprised that Papyrus haven't continued with their CART > series and have instead chosen to focus on Nascar. Did they ever give > a reason for this? > > I haven't seen a decent CART game in years. It's long overdue. > > > Alpha Omega > E-Mail: [email hidden] > ICQ: 70300233 >

In article <[email hidden]>, johnjnelson <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Let's see if I've got this right. >NASCAR hands out it's license right and left, so whenever you look around >there's >a Nascar sim you can buy (Nascar 2,3, Nascar Revolution). CART, which is >being >completely stomped by Nascar when it comes to TV ratings and popularity, >makes it >difficult for sim makers to obtain a license, and thus makes impossible >creation >of the Cart product we're most likely to buy. > >Are the CART marketing people total morons or what? >

Yep, that sounds about right...<sigh> 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.

Let's see if I've got this right. NASCAR hands out it's license right and left, so whenever you look around there's a Nascar sim you can buy (Nascar 2,3, Nascar Revolution). CART, which is being completely stomped by Nascar when it comes to TV ratings and popularity, makes it difficult for sim makers to obtain a license, and thus makes impossible creation of the Cart product we're most likely to buy. Are the CART marketing people total morons or what? Skeeter wrote:

Quoted text (76 lines)

> Sounds good! > They could call it FART RACING:) > > Seriuosly though I think that Papyrus should try marketing a some new > racing series > > New tracks > Make believe drivers > New rules > > Names like "Papyrus Openwheeled Racing Series" > "Papyrus Stock Car Championship Racing" > > They should also concentrate on making the sims as super realistic as > possible as us nuts like it(and Papy for that matter)but not release > it with the total realism physics model.Sim installs with a fairly > realistic physics model but not the full realism setting.Then give a > check box to install full realism setting for true hardcore racing > experience. > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:18:30 +0100, "Tim Wheatley" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >who needs a cart license? > > > >can't we race at short beach? > > > >nuzareth? > > > >labuma sicka? > > > >do we need all this? > > > >can we not edit the name? edit the billboards? > > > >for god sake it's the sim that counts, not the sticker saying 'cart' that > >sticks on the box. > > > > > >"Morgan VW�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:c2MK4.37638$[email hidden]... > >> Dave Matson (Papy "Project Director") said in The Pit Stop board over in > >the > >> Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance of a > >new > >> CART sim anytime soon. > >> > >> -- > >> ----------------------------------- > >> Morgan Vincent Wooten > >> mailto:[email hidden] > >> http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ > >> ----------------------------------- > >> > >> Alpha Omega <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:[email hidden]... > >> > On 17 Apr 2000 18:02:52 GMT, [email hidden] (TRUSRS85) wrote: > >> > > >> > >The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine. > >> > >A CART sim would have been easier though. argh. > >> > > >> > I'm still surprised that Papyrus haven't continued with their CART > >> > series and have instead chosen to focus on Nascar. Did they ever give > >> > a reason for this? > >> > > >> > I haven't seen a decent CART game in years. It's long overdue. > >> > > >> > > >> > Alpha Omega > >> > E-Mail: [email hidden] > >> > ICQ: 70300233 > >> > > >> > >> > > > >

ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FqPK4.35937$[email hidden]... > "Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote > > <<The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine>> > > > > I would hope so since a Winston Cup car would handle nothing like a 67GP > > car > > > Looks like we have somebody who doesn't understand the concept of game > engines. Patronising... > What they will do with N4 is to take the incredible "GPL" game engine and > model Stockcars inside the game engine instead of 1967 F1's. That's all. > Fear nothing. It will be more complex that's for sure, but it's notbecause > of GPL. It's because the game engine is the best on the market. I try on > r.a.s. to call the game engine the "new one" instead of "GPL engine" since > some confusion still exist it seems. > > And I suspect that Papyrus is tweaking the hell out of their "magic" GPL engine. They are throwing in lookup tables, fudge factors, "oops, that doesn't drive right" corrections. A rigid-body dynamics simulation is not the be-all and end-all of capturing the behaviour of a racing car. Don't believe the original hype that we heard when GPL was previewed, that the core engine can model any car you can think of. GPL is a fine simulation, and it amazes me that a 20 DOF model can run at 288Hz on a P166 (slash the graphics and it will), but it is not without flaws. The rigid bodies are, by their very nature, too rigid. Some crazy things happen at high yaw angles. I think Tony is actually much closer to the truth than you give him credit for; the "engine" needs an overhaul to be able to model the bahaviour of a stock car, with big, gummy tires and truckloads of aero problems. Stephen

Nascar is much more popular than CART in the US. I guess Papy reasons (probably correctly) that they can make more money churning out Nascar sim after Nascar sim (or more accurately, releasing the same Nascar sim over and over again). Blight On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:08:42 +0100, Alpha Omega <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>On 17 Apr 2000 18:02:52 GMT, [email hidden] (TRUSRS85) wrote: > >>The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine. >>A CART sim would have been easier though. argh. > >I'm still surprised that Papyrus haven't continued with their CART >series and have instead chosen to focus on Nascar. Did they ever give >a reason for this? > >I haven't seen a decent CART game in years. It's long overdue. > > >Alpha Omega >E-Mail: [email hidden] >ICQ: 70300233

Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Stephen Ferguson wrote: > > > Don't > > believe the original hype that we heard when GPL was previewed, that the > > core engine can model any car you can think of. > > With some additions to it (like proper wing simulation, which is not all > that hard to add), it can, especially if you understand how it works. >

Depends on the level of realism. I should first say that I went to the opposite extreme to ymenard in my response, only because we constantly hear what a perfect simulation GPL is. Overall I am very impressed with GPL, but I imagine a lot will have to be added to it to start modeling NASCAR or CART. Many months ago the subject of aero came up, and some of us said it would be perfectly adequate to have a simple lookup-table based aero model that then applies the appropriate downforce and drag to the rigid connection point where the wings meet the chassis. Others (the purists perhaps, or the zealots) started huffing and puffing and claiming that nothing less than a full CFD analysis (running in real time, on a PC!) would be worthy of inclusion in the GPL model. Actually, you and I agree; I just found ymenard's response to the other fellow a little patronising. > > GPL is a fine simulation, > > and it amazes me that a 20 DOF model can run at 288Hz on a P166 (slashthe > > graphics and it will), but it is not without flaws. The rigid bodiesare,

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > by their very nature, too rigid. > > Agreed, see above. > > > Some crazy things happen at high yaw > > angles. > > I thought you made sense up to this very point. You seem to have a very > poor understanding of what a rigid body model means and what it can > describe. The fact is that only a true rigid body simulation can capture > the true behaviour of a car or any other rigid body at high pitch, yaw > and roll angles. See for example H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics > (Addison-Wesley) for a good description of what rigid body mechanics is.

Trust me, I have a decent understanding of it. I have dabbled with most of the commercial rigid body packages, although most of my work now is modeling the non-linear behaviour of human soft tissues. My point here was mostly anecdotal, and based on observations of others (Richard Clegg perhaps) that strange things start to happen when the car spins too far, which should not happen with a properly functioning rigid body simulation. Of course you're right that such a model is the best way to tackle the complex behaviour of a car that is seriously out of shape. In the end, I think the conclusion was that some of the goofy behaviour was due to graphics slowdown caused by all that thick rubber smoke in the air. Again, just a little exaggeration on my part. > > I think Tony is actually much closer to the truth than you give him > > credit for; the "engine" needs an overhaul to be able to model thebahaviour

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > of a stock car, with big, gummy tires and truckloads of aero problems. > > > > Stephen > > That's the difference. The engine does not need an overhaul (perhaps > only minor additions like the forces wings produce on the car (lift and > drag)), just the parameters and data that enter the simulation need to > be adjusted so that they match the real car (stickier tyres, more mass > and inertia, more drag and negative lift when making a transition from > GPL to Nascar, for example). That's also the beauty of a true physics > engine. The closer the weight, tyre and aerodynamics parameters are to a > real car the better the simulation will correspond to it. Any fudging > would only spoil this relationship.

But I think alot of these parameters are indeed fudge factors, depending on the level that they have gone with their aero and tire model, specifically. Getting the basic rigid body physics right (so the car rotates if you blip the throttle in mid-air) is pretty easy. Making a decent aero and tire model is much more difficult, because these are non-linear phenomena, and there are no "perfect" mathematical relationships to govern them. Aero and tire behaviour will always contain a certain amount of empirical data, and the flow over a more modern car shape (especially F1) is much more complex to simulate than the flow over, say, a 1968 F1 car with rudimentary wings. Likewise, the transitional behaviour of a modern slick is a much more problem to model than the older tires. I equate the addition of empirical data with adding a fudge factor. As soon as you have to add some sort of rule based input, then you are "tuning" your simulation to produce something resembling the real bahaviour, rather than relying solely on well-defined mathematical relationships, such as the more basic rigid body motions of the chassis, suspension, engine rotating mass etc. The aero model, for example, might be defined by a set of drag and lift equations, but at the end of the day it will need a lookup table for lift and drag coefficients based on angle of attack and yaw at the least. Temperature? Humidity? Traffic? More "fudge factors". Stephen

>The game engine is >amazing and incredible (like the game also) and years ahead of anything >else. Of course it's been altered so that stockcars are modeled, but some >people misled and make people think that N4 will be an dumbed down game to >N3-quality, since GPL is very difficult to the mass market. We will never know why papy is so great. :)

<<The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine>> I would hope so since a Winston Cup car would handle nothing like a 67 GP car TK

Lets go back a couple of years. The year is now 1998. Papyrus announces a new racing sim based on an advanced computer model of car physics. In interviews, David K states: (paraphrasing mode engaged) We didn't program a series of fake events, like having the nose dip for no other reason than the brake pedal is depressed. We programed it so that when we enter the proper set of numbers the car is simulated in 100's of calculations. We could enter the numbers for your very own car and if you drove it, it would feel like you were driving a street sedan. Or we could put in the numbers for just about any kind of racing car. So that we can use this basic engine for many different sims. You just have to have the proper calculations for whatever vehicle you want to simulate. (paraphrazing mode off) So kinda like SCGT, when you input the PROPER array of numbers, the sim responds in very different ways. So a 1967 F1 car would not even remotely respond and feel like a 2000 Winston Cup Car. dave henrie

"Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote > <<The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine>> > > I would hope so since a Winston Cup car would handle nothing like a 67 GP > car Looks like we have somebody who doesn't understand the concept of game engines. You see Tony you are been misled with terms here... Game developers have what we call "game engines". To make it short, it's the main part of the game where everything else is attached to it. It is the most important part of any type of games. Sound, gameplay, menus, AI, etc.. it's all far or closely related to the game engine. For racing simulators, it is -the- essential point to create a successful and serious racing simulator. Few companies have a quality game engine. Some titles on the market have great ones, but fail to attach the correct things to it (per example the 3d model structure for track accuracy, bad AI or simply faulty physics). The opposite can be true, where everything else attached is great but the core of the game is lacking. Note that Im talking about racing simulators, and on purpose excluding arcade-type racing games. It's a little different, since the external attachments are a little more important, and the game engine a little less (even if still essential). To get back to N4, Papyrus has with GPL created a completely new game engine. Since IndyCar Racing 1 (Papyrus second title back in the early 90's) they have used the same core game engine that was patched with time. Somehow for a very complicated reason (err... reasons) that would be too long in this thread to talk about, they have never developed a new one until GPL. It took to David Kaemmer's team many many years to develop it, and they decided that the first racing simulation using it would be GPL. It could had been any other title, but it was GPL, modeling cars that are extremely difficult to drive. In no way should you think or being thought that N4 will be "GPL with a roof". People saying "it's an altered GPL engine" use misleading words. The term "GPL engine" is simply to difference it to every other Papyrus title on the market, since at the moment it's unique. Don't make any relation between GPL the game and GPL the game engine. The game engine is amazing and incredible (like the game also) and years ahead of anything else. Of course it's been altered so that stockcars are modeled, but some people misled and make people think that N4 will be an dumbed down game to N3-quality, since GPL is very difficult to the mass market. What they will do with N4 is to take the incredible "GPL" game engine and model Stockcars inside the game engine instead of 1967 F1's. That's all. Fear nothing. It will be more complex that's for sure, but it's not because of GPL. It's because the game engine is the best on the market. I try on r.a.s. to call the game engine the "new one" instead of "GPL engine" since some confusion still exist it seems. -- -- 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.

who needs a cart license? can't we race at short beach? nuzareth? labuma sicka? do we need all this? can we not edit the name? edit the billboards? for god sake it's the sim that counts, not the sticker saying 'cart' that sticks on the box. "Morgan VW�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c2MK4.37638$[email hidden]... > Dave Matson (Papy "Project Director") said in The Pit Stop board over inthe > Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance of anew

Quoted text (29 lines)

> CART sim anytime soon. > > -- > ----------------------------------- > Morgan Vincent Wooten > mailto:[email hidden] > http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ > ----------------------------------- > > Alpha Omega <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On 17 Apr 2000 18:02:52 GMT, [email hidden] (TRUSRS85) wrote: > > > > >The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine. > > >A CART sim would have been easier though. argh. > > > > I'm still surprised that Papyrus haven't continued with their CART > > series and have instead chosen to focus on Nascar. Did they ever give > > a reason for this? > > > > I haven't seen a decent CART game in years. It's long overdue. > > > > > > Alpha Omega > > E-Mail: [email hidden] > > ICQ: 70300233 > > > >

VERY well explained. I would *hope* that if n4 is difficult, then papy release it difficult with maybe a couple of training modes or some kind of physics help, but i personally wouldn't mind it being tough, after all, gpl 'was' :o)) "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FqPK4.35937$[email hidden]... > "Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote > > <<The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine>> > > > > I would hope so since a Winston Cup car would handle nothing like a 67GP

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > car > > > Looks like we have somebody who doesn't understand the concept of game > engines. You see Tony you are been misled with terms here... Game > developers have what we call "game engines". To make it short, it's the > main part of the game where everything else is attached to it. It is the > most important part of any type of games. Sound, gameplay, menus, AI,

etc.. > it's all far or closely related to the game engine. > > For racing simulators, it is -the- essential point to create a successful > and serious racing simulator. Few companies have a quality game engine. > Some titles on the market have great ones, but fail to attach the correct > things to it (per example the 3d model structure for track accuracy, badAI > or simply faulty physics). The opposite can be true, where everythingelse > attached is great but the core of the game is lacking. Note that Imtalking > about racing simulators, and on purpose excluding arcade-type racinggames.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> It's a little different, since the external attachments are a little more > important, and the game engine a little less (even if still essential). > > To get back to N4, Papyrus has with GPL created a completely new game > engine. Since IndyCar Racing 1 (Papyrus second title back in the early > 90's) they have used the same core game engine that was patched with time. > Somehow for a very complicated reason (err... reasons) that would be too > long in this thread to talk about, they have never developed a new one

until

Quoted text (18 lines)

> GPL. It took to David Kaemmer's team many many years to develop it, and > they decided that the first racing simulation using it would be GPL. It > could had been any other title, but it was GPL, modeling cars that are > extremely difficult to drive. > > In no way should you think or being thought that N4 will be "GPL with a > roof". People saying "it's an altered GPL engine" use misleading words. > The term "GPL engine" is simply to difference it to every other Papyrus > title on the market, since at the moment it's unique. Don't make any > relation between GPL the game and GPL the game engine. The game engine is > amazing and incredible (like the game also) and years ahead of anything > else. Of course it's been altered so that stockcars are modeled, but some > people misled and make people think that N4 will be an dumbed down game to > N3-quality, since GPL is very difficult to the mass market. > > What they will do with N4 is to take the incredible "GPL" game engine and > model Stockcars inside the game engine instead of 1967 F1's. That's all. > Fear nothing. It will be more complex that's for sure, but it's not

because

Quoted text (12 lines)

> of GPL. It's because the game engine is the best on the market. I try on > r.a.s. to call the game engine the "new one" instead of "GPL engine" since > some confusion still exist it seems. > > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

i smell toasted bollocks martyn, "i hope they improve the gfx" made me start smelling bull excretion. er... of course they will durrrrr! ;o) "Martyn Danby" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> U DECLINED?!!!! WTF Y? > > Md > > Pete wrote: > > > > From what I have seen with the upcoming N4 release, they are using > > menus very similiar to GPL in fact the setup options look very good. > > The physics model is a toned down version of GPL although I declined > > to try a beta version it appeared that they have made some improvements > > in the physics but some of the old bugs are still here. > > You can expect improved FF and it may be better than GPL's. I > > just hope they take the graphics and physics up a notch or two in the

final

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > release from what I have seen. > > > > Pete > > > > "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:8dfh57$ndo$[email hidden]... > > > Ok, so I'm not too up to date with the NASCAR series but I have to ask > > > something. > > > > > > The latest thing I've been hearing is that N will have GPL's physics > > engine, > > > or that it's physics will be based on GPL. > > > > > > Now The original thing I heard was that it would have a game engine

based > > on > > > GPL. I presumed that meant that how the gamE is structured would bebased > > on > > > GPL. Thats fair enough. > > > > > > But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the game > > engine > > > confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can'tsee > > > that working. > > > > > > As I said, I'm not too up to date on NASCAR sims really but I wasgonna

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > consider making N4 my first try at the series. This is sorta putting > > doubts > > > in my mind. > > > > > > TIA! > > > > > >

Yes,your post was the way I took it.Papyrus stated that they would use their new physics engine for sometime to come.They said that to model a different car all they would have to do is input all its variables---grip of the tire compounds,vehicle weight,COG,wheel base,track,roll bars,etc.Then you have to remember that they modeled the suspension geometry of the GPL cars and will now have to add the Nascar suspension geometry to the mix.Plus they are gonna add a much more extensive aerodynamic model since thats alot of what Nascar is about. I believe that Nascar4 will be pretty easy to drive just due to the fact that the oval I converted from N2 to GPL is easy as shit.GPL is a bitch because of the tracks that are modeled.Since theres no"seat of the pants feel" one has a hard time coping with the rear end kicking out as the cars crest hills that turn and the like.What I would love from papyrus is a better way of implementing the "feel" of the cars and Im hoping that it can be done.I think that one way to give a better sense of speed is to use a better wind noise so its more noticeable.I recently downloaded Mauritz Lindquitzts(sorry:)) soundpack that has a transmission noise added with the wind noise.It really does give a better sense of speed and I felt I had more control. I know with all my heart that the diehard Papy fans will scream"Papy the Gods that they are did the best thats humanly possible so just take it as it is"but after hearing it I wonder how much more can be done with just sound.The edge of traction for the tires can be improved immenslly I feel.I wanna know how hard I am using my tires and the simple skid sound GPL has doesnt give me this feedback. Later On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:00:57 GMT, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Lets go back a couple of years. The year is now 1998. >Papyrus announces a new racing sim based on an advanced computer >model of car physics. In interviews, David K states: > (paraphrasing mode engaged) > > We didn't program a series of fake events, like having the nose dip >for no other reason than the brake pedal is depressed. We programed it >so that when we enter the proper set of numbers the car is simulated in >100's of calculations. We could enter the numbers for your very own car >and if you drove it, it would feel like you were driving a street >sedan. Or we could put in the numbers for just about any kind of racing >car. So that we can use this basic engine for many different sims. You >just have to have the proper calculations for whatever vehicle you want >to simulate. > >(paraphrazing mode off) > > So kinda like SCGT, when you input the PROPER array of numbers, the >sim responds in very different ways. So a 1967 F1 car would not even >remotely respond and feel like a 2000 Winston Cup Car. >dave henrie

"Skeeter" <[email hidden]> wrote > I believe that Nascar4 will be pretty easy to drive just due to the > fact that the oval I converted from N2 to GPL is easy as shit. But you are comparing two totally different racing types. N4 will be as hard to be the best as GPL is. It's so different that you can't simply say something like that. Of course in the nature of Stockcars compared to 1967 Formula One cars, it's more easy to be fast. Note that if everybody becomes fast, then fast is simply the "average". Online, everybody is much closer to others compared to GPL (in terms of relative distance, which whatever it's a long or short track doesn't make a difference). It's not hard to be fast. It's hard to be consistently fast. To do laps within 1/10th of a second for ten laps in a row. It's even harder to be consistently FASTER than others, since everybody is near the same times. The gap is simply shorter between the slowest and the fastest, but in no way everybody will do hotlaps easily in N4. After all, if I check people who both race GPL and N3, I don't see them leading all laps + getting the pole in N3 (I included). So it's not easier to be the fastest, just easier to be fast. The gap is smaller, and that creates close racing and more passing as we all know. Oh and punting ;) Nascar Racing 4 will probably make that gap a little bigger, since in the nature of the new game engine by Papyrus the physics will be more realistic to the true nature of racing a car. -- -- 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.

I don't feel the sound is what makes the difference although it would help quite a bit. The first time I ran the converted Tally track in GPL the sense of speed was tremendous! I could turn the sound all the way off and still feel I was screaming at 200mph down the track. I don't really get that in N3 no matter what sounds I could add to it. N3 at tally is like driving on an icerink, GPL at tally is how I would imagine it to really be, scary as hell and a little bumpy. I can't wait to see N4 at Tally, it should blow me away! Vintook "Skeeter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (55 lines)

> Yes,your post was the way I took it.Papyrus stated that they would > use their new physics engine for sometime to come.They said that to > model a different car all they would have to do is input all its > variables---grip of the tire compounds,vehicle weight,COG,wheel > base,track,roll bars,etc.Then you have to remember that they modeled > the suspension geometry of the GPL cars and will now have to add the > Nascar suspension geometry to the mix.Plus they are gonna add a much > more extensive aerodynamic model since thats alot of what Nascar is > about. > > I believe that Nascar4 will be pretty easy to drive just due to the > fact that the oval I converted from N2 to GPL is easy as shit.GPL is a > bitch because of the tracks that are modeled.Since theres no"seat of > the pants feel" one has a hard time coping with the rear end kicking > out as the cars crest hills that turn and the like.What I would love > from papyrus is a better way of implementing the "feel" of the cars > and Im hoping that it can be done.I think that one way to give a > better sense of speed is to use a better wind noise so its more > noticeable.I recently downloaded Mauritz Lindquitzts(sorry:)) > soundpack that has a transmission noise added with the wind noise.It > really does give a better sense of speed and I felt I had more > control. > > I know with all my heart that the diehard Papy fans will scream"Papy > the Gods that they are did the best thats humanly possible so just > take it as it is"but after hearing it I wonder how much more can be > done with just sound.The edge of traction for the tires can be > improved immenslly I feel.I wanna know how hard I am using my tires > and the simple skid sound GPL has doesnt give me this feedback. > Later > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:00:57 GMT, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Lets go back a couple of years. The year is now 1998. > >Papyrus announces a new racing sim based on an advanced computer > >model of car physics. In interviews, David K states: > > (paraphrasing mode engaged) > > > > We didn't program a series of fake events, like having the nose dip > >for no other reason than the brake pedal is depressed. We programed it > >so that when we enter the proper set of numbers the car is simulated in > >100's of calculations. We could enter the numbers for your very own car > >and if you drove it, it would feel like you were driving a street > >sedan. Or we could put in the numbers for just about any kind of racing > >car. So that we can use this basic engine for many different sims. You > >just have to have the proper calculations for whatever vehicle you want > >to simulate. > > > >(paraphrazing mode off) > > > > So kinda like SCGT, when you input the PROPER array of numbers, the > >sim responds in very different ways. So a 1967 F1 car would not even > >remotely respond and feel like a 2000 Winston Cup Car. > >dave henrie >

Sounds good! They could call it FART RACING:) Seriuosly though I think that Papyrus should try marketing a some new racing series New tracks Make believe drivers New rules Names like "Papyrus Openwheeled Racing Series" "Papyrus Stock Car Championship Racing" They should also concentrate on making the sims as super realistic as possible as us nuts like it(and Papy for that matter)but not release it with the total realism physics model.Sim installs with a fairly realistic physics model but not the full realism setting.Then give a check box to install full realism setting for true hardcore racing experience. On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:18:30 +0100, "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (53 lines)

>who needs a cart license? > >can't we race at short beach? > >nuzareth? > >labuma sicka? > >do we need all this? > >can we not edit the name? edit the billboards? > >for god sake it's the sim that counts, not the sticker saying 'cart' that >sticks on the box. > > >"Morgan VW�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:c2MK4.37638$[email hidden]... >> Dave Matson (Papy "Project Director") said in The Pit Stop board over in >the >> Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance of a >new >> CART sim anytime soon. >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------- >> Morgan Vincent Wooten >> mailto:[email hidden] >> http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ >> ----------------------------------- >> >> Alpha Omega <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> > On 17 Apr 2000 18:02:52 GMT, [email hidden] (TRUSRS85) wrote: >> > >> > >The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine. >> > >A CART sim would have been easier though. argh. >> > >> > I'm still surprised that Papyrus haven't continued with their CART >> > series and have instead chosen to focus on Nascar. Did they ever give >> > a reason for this? >> > >> > I haven't seen a decent CART game in years. It's long overdue. >> > >> > >> > Alpha Omega >> > E-Mail: [email hidden] >> > ICQ: 70300233 >> > >> >> > >

On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 04:08:33 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>"Skeeter" <[email hidden]> wrote >> I believe that Nascar4 will be pretty easy to drive just due to the >> fact that the oval I converted from N2 to GPL is easy as shit. > > >But you are comparing two totally different racing types. N4 will be as >hard to be the best as GPL is. It's so different that you can't simply say >something like that.

One of the great reasons that papy sims are realistic to me is that they allow ones true talent to shine.If GPL were easy to drive then everyone would be lapping the same times but instead you practice for a year and your still seconds off from the fast guys.You then wonder to yourself why these guys are so fast and you realize that the same things happens to real race car drivers.Schumacher seems seconds faster then alot of the other F1 drivers.I totally agree with your statement that it will still be hard to go extremely fast but N4 will even out the times...hopefully.

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >Of course in the nature of Stockcars compared to 1967 Formula One cars, it's >more easy to be fast. Note that if everybody becomes fast, then fast is >simply the "average". Online, everybody is much closer to others compared >to GPL (in terms of relative distance, which whatever it's a long or short >track doesn't make a difference). It's not hard to be fast. It's hard to >be consistently fast. To do laps within 1/10th of a second for ten laps in >a row. It's even harder to be consistently FASTER than others, since >everybody is near the same times. > >The gap is simply shorter between the slowest and the fastest, but in no way >everybody will do hotlaps easily in N4. After all, if I check people who >both race GPL and N3, I don't see them leading all laps + getting the pole >in N3 (I included). So it's not easier to be the fastest, just easier to be >fast. The gap is smaller, and that creates close racing and more passing as >we all know. Oh and punting ;) > >Nascar Racing 4 will probably make that gap a little bigger, since in the >nature of the new game engine by Papyrus the physics will be more realistic >to the true nature of racing a car.

Yes it will allow the people who enter turns correctly,use the least amount of steering lock for the turns and know how to get the power down to excell just that little bit faster and hence show there skill:)

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > > > >-- >-- 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. > > > >

Stephen Ferguson wrote: > > A rigid-body dynamics simulation is not > the be-all and end-all of capturing the behaviour of a racing car. True, the true cars do flex a little and this is a problem that race car engineers try to minimize. The next generation of racing sims should include body flex in order to increase realism, but since true racecars are designed to have this all but excluded, adding this to a sim doesn't bring as much as it complicates the description. > Don't > believe the original hype that we heard when GPL was previewed, that the > core engine can model any car you can think of. With some additions to it (like proper wing simulation, which is not all that hard to add), it can, especially if you understand how it works. > GPL is a fine simulation, > and it amazes me that a 20 DOF model can run at 288Hz on a P166 (slash the > graphics and it will), but it is not without flaws. The rigid bodies are, > by their very nature, too rigid. Agreed, see above. > Some crazy things happen at high yaw > angles. I thought you made sense up to this very point. You seem to have a very poor understanding of what a rigid body model means and what it can describe. The fact is that only a true rigid body simulation can capture the true behaviour of a car or any other rigid body at high pitch, yaw and roll angles. See for example H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics (Addison-Wesley) for a good description of what rigid body mechanics is. > I think Tony is actually much closer to the truth than you give him > credit for; the "engine" needs an overhaul to be able to model the bahaviour > of a stock car, with big, gummy tires and truckloads of aero problems. > > Stephen That's the difference. The engine does not need an overhaul (perhaps only minor additions like the forces wings produce on the car (lift and drag)), just the parameters and data that enter the simulation need to be adjusted so that they match the real car (stickier tyres, more mass and inertia, more drag and negative lift when making a transition from GPL to Nascar, for example). That's also the beauty of a true physics engine. The closer the weight, tyre and aerodynamics parameters are to a real car the better the simulation will correspond to it. Any fudging would only spoil this relationship. To think of an analogy, for example you want to use your computer to solve a problem, let's say invert a 6x6 matrix. Yes, computers can be used for things other than games. You write a program (an 'engine') to invert this matrix by using an algorithm that is used for general matrices, only that you seet the parameter of the dimension of the matrix to 6, problem solved. It happens that after a while you need to invert some 20x20 matrices. Do you write the program again? No, you just specify a different parameter (20 for the dimension of the matrix) to the same program ('engine'), problem solved again. The sim engines are a bit more complex, but the principle still applies. -Gregor

Stephen Ferguson wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > Depends on the level of realism. I should first say that I went to the > opposite extreme to ymenard in my response, only because we constantly hear > what a perfect simulation GPL is. Overall I am very impressed with GPL, but > I imagine a lot will have to be added to it to start modeling NASCAR or > CART. Many months ago the subject of aero came up, and some of us said it > would be perfectly adequate to have a simple lookup-table based aero model > that then applies the appropriate downforce and drag to the rigid connection > point where the wings meet the chassis. Others (the purists perhaps, or the > zealots) started huffing and puffing and claiming that nothing less than a > full CFD analysis (running in real time, on a PC!) would be worthy of > inclusion in the GPL model. Actually, you and I agree; I just found > ymenard's response to the other fellow a little patronising. >

Now I see your point more clearly. The people wanting a full CFD model do not know what they are asking for. I agree with your approach to aero, the full real time CFD model is far, far beyond the reach of the top 1GHz home processors we use today, and the results of both approaches would not be distinguished by us mere mortals, at least not in the normal regimes which matter the most.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Trust me, I have a decent understanding of it. I have dabbled with most of > the commercial rigid body packages, although most of my work now is modeling > the non-linear behaviour of human soft tissues. My point here was mostly > anecdotal, and based on observations of others (Richard Clegg perhaps) that > strange things start to happen when the car spins too far, which should not > happen with a properly functioning rigid body simulation. Of course you're > right that such a model is the best way to tackle the complex behaviour of a > car that is seriously out of shape. In the end, I think the conclusion was > that some of the goofy behaviour was due to graphics slowdown caused by all > that thick rubber smoke in the air. Again, just a little exaggeration on my > part. >

First of all, this is not a problem of the rigid body dynamics situation, but with modelling the forces on the tyres. Second of all, I don't think it is wrong at all. I think that what most people complained about was the fact that of you went into a corner, developed a yaw and then tried to correct it by dialing in some opposite lock, the spin would start to develop further. If this is not what was the issue, then the following explanation can be skipped. This is actually the correct behaviour and is in some sense simmilar to the post-stall regime and aileron reversal with aeroplanes. It happens when the front tires are way past their optimal slip angles, and two effects contribute to it. The first is the fact that while in the regime of small slip angles the lateral force increases with the slip angle, but after the optimal slip angle is reached (where the lateral force is the highest) the lateral force starts slightly decreasing with slip angle. Once you overcook it you are by default in this second regime. You need to decrease the force on the fronts in order to stop the spin. If you decrease the steering lock (and hence the slip angle), the grip on the fronts does not initially decrease but actually increase, because you are in this 'reversal' regime. Only after you reached below the optimal slip angle by dialing in further opposite lock and actually found yourself back in the normal regime (where the lateral force increases with the slip angle) does the opposite lock start doing it purpose of actually decreasing the lateral force on the fronts. Sometimes, there is simply not sufficient opposite lock possible, and even when there is, the transition time the front tyres spend in the regime of increased lateral force before reaching the normal regime can produce enough momenum impulse and hence yaw rate that the recovery is impossible. The second effect to consider is more complicated and may actually contribute more. Let us assume that most of the cornering force comes from the outside wheels (this is true for the cars in GPL which have a relatively high ceter of gravity). In order to stop a spin we need to produce a torque on the car that opposes the direction of the spin. Let us also assume that the lateral force on the tyre does not depend too much upon its orientation, which is also true at high slip (yaw) angles for the tyres of the time. These are all plausible simplifications and may be argued, but it is easiest to show the idea with them. Anyone who has ever worked in science will know this kind of approach. Let us assume a right hand turn. With no lock the situation looking from above on the front wheels looks like this: Picture 1: _ _ | | F | | | |----> | | |_| |_| ^ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ velocity vector O c.g. Let us consider this a balanced situation, so that the torques produced by all wheels (including rears) are 0 and the car maintains a slip (towards the up-left direction) if no steering corrections are applied. The force on the outside wheel is for the sake of simplicity considered negligible. Consider now the case when the driver tries to recover by dialing some opposite lock: Picture 2 (okay, so the lines are not perpendicular, imagine them to be) : ^ F / /\ / \ \/ \ \ \/ \ \ \ O c.g. As the force becomes closer to perpendicular to the vector between the center of gravity (c.g.) while the magnitude of the force stays roughly the same, the torque actually increases so the net torque of all tyres is not 0 anymore but actually contributes to the direction of the spin. Only if the magnitude of the force diminishes enough to cancel this effect (the tyre gets back into the normal slip angle regime) does the opposite lock help, otherwise it can actually cause harm and you would be better of dialing in some further lock INTO the spin.

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > But I think alot of these parameters are indeed fudge factors, depending on > the level that they have gone with their aero and tire model, specifically. > Getting the basic rigid body physics right (so the car rotates if you blip > the throttle in mid-air) is pretty easy. Making a decent aero and tire > model is much more difficult, because these are non-linear phenomena, and > there are no "perfect" mathematical relationships to govern them. Aero and > tire behaviour will always contain a certain amount of empirical data, and > the flow over a more modern car shape (especially F1) is much more complex > to simulate than the flow over, say, a 1968 F1 car with rudimentary wings. > Likewise, the transitional behaviour of a modern slick is a much more > problem to model than the older tires. I equate the addition of empirical > data with adding a fudge factor. As soon as you have to add some sort of > rule based input, then you are "tuning" your simulation to produce something > resembling the real bahaviour, rather than relying solely on well-defined > mathematical relationships, such as the more basic rigid body motions of the > chassis, suspension, engine rotating mass etc. The aero model, for example, > might be defined by a set of drag and lift equations, but at the end of the > day it will need a lookup table for lift and drag coefficients based on > angle of attack and yaw at the least. Temperature? Humidity? Traffic? > More "fudge factors".

A physics model by any other name would still be a physics model. When doing physics you always have to have in mind that what you are doing is just an approximation, it can never be totally exact. The boundary between exact and approximation can be hard to determine sometimes. But there is a difference between fudging it and approximating something. Approximating means deviating from reality for the sake of simplicity, but at the same time knowing in what ways you are deviating and therefore when the deviations will be noticable. Fudging it means making something work without knowing how. There is a huge difference in both approaches. Tyre and aero model always involve a bit of fudging, true. But there are a few properites that these models have to obbey so that they still at least do not contradict reality, the main one being that the energy can only be lost by the forces produced if no power is applied. -Gregor

We will never know why papy is so great. :)

Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Lets go back a couple of years. The year is now 1998. > Papyrus announces a new racing sim based on an advanced computer > model of car physics. In interviews, David K states: Ok, now, let's really go back to 1998. Did anybody think to save all those screenshots and the little trailer movie that Papy put out when they had the GPL-engined Nascar '3' up and running? I did. I will put it together into something web-based. Yes, they HAVE had it in development that long. They were originally shooting to make it N3, but, it had way too steep system and operator requirements. So instead they released what we have had as N3, and put it on the back burner, continuing to tweak it up till it's big showing at E3. That's why it's coming out now; the systems have caught up, and I think, they have made it a little easier for the operator. Later. -Mark

From the articles posted in RAS I get the feeling that NASCAR sims are paying the electricity bill over at Papyrus these days. I'm sure NASCAR 4 will have the accesibility of previous NASCAR sims so not to scare away the masses, I'm also certain that the Sim will be tougher and more realistic than any NASCAR sim before it to keep the hardcore simmers happy. I have no doubt Papy have learnt from GPL in this regard. Chris In article <kFPK4.14122$[email hidden]>, "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote: >VERY well explained. > >I would *hope* that if n4 is difficult, then papy release itdifficult with >maybe a couple of training modes or some kind of physics help,but i >personally wouldn't mind it being tough, after all,gpl 'was' :o)) > > > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:15:36 GMT Morgan VW <[email hidden]> wrote: % Dave Matson (Papy "Project Director") said in The Pit Stop board over in the % Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance of a new % CART sim anytime soon. They had one, but I think it expires this year. They sat on it and didn't do anything. The profit wasn't there. I think they needed to concentrate on NASCAR to recoup the revenue loss of GPL. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:22:08 GMT Pete <[email hidden]> wrote: % From what I have seen with the upcoming N4 release, they are using % menus very similiar to GPL in fact the setup options look very good. % The physics model is a toned down version of GPL although I declined % to try a beta version it appeared that they have made some improvements % in the physics but some of the old bugs are still here. Are the physics really toned down? Or are they tuned to fit the dynamics of a Winston Cup Car..... I would think the latter is more to the point. % You can expect improved FF and it may be better than GPL's. I % just hope they take the graphics and physics up a notch or two in the final % release from what I have seen. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> for god sake it's the sim that counts, not the sticker saying 'cart' that > sticks on the box. Well to *us* thats true. We love our true sims and so on, we hear about them for ages. As long as they don't encode it too heavily nobody has a problem. The main matter is though that RS2 kinda bombed because it hadn't an FIA licence. It sold mostly to followers of F1RS and sim racers but to the average Joe. When you see boxes lined up with the name "Official Formula 1 Simulator" by Eidos or similar games, the yellow and blue boxed CD of RS2 paled in comparison. WE all know which was the better but to people just looking in the store and seeing both for the first time (which I bet a large percentage of people do, which we often forget), OF1R just looked like the one to get. Thats their problem I bet.

> The majority of us know about it since a long time ago.I understand this, but lke I said, I don't kep too up to date with the NASCAR (or Papy) series too much. >Which is why many > bitched about the exclusion of the new Papyrus game engine in N3. Almost > everybody understand that Papyrus is using the new game engine for their > next title. It doesn't mean at all "GPL with a roof". Those two type of > racecars are totally different and that's for good. It's how great thenew > game engine is. It's still years ahead of everything else and Im sure > people here would want ANYTHING with the new game engine. Any type of > racing simulation. ANY! Thats fair enough. I think its jsut the basic thing to peole are geting mixed up about what an engine is, which is what confsed me when I read all the stuff. I was kinda led to believe that the phsics would be based on GPL. While it would be great to get realism close to GPL, I don't know if having the basic phsyics of a WC car, a 1967 GP car was the best of ideas. Anyhoo....... As a short-time followr of the real-NASCARS (hey, have to watch something, Eurpsport quit showing the CART races), do these lads race totally on ovals?

Dave emailed and pointed out that he never actually said they couldn't get the license, but that they simply didn't have plans for a future CART sim. Maybe they can get the license? Anyway, having no plans is worse than an inability to get the license. It means they don't even care. With the competition from EA Sports and now Hasbro, Sierra probably won't allow anything except constant NASCAR. I'm a NASCAR fan myself, but even I'd like to see an updated CART or F1 sim. -- ----------------------------------- Morgan Vincent Wooten mailto:[email hidden] http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ ----------------------------------- Morgan VW� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c2MK4.37638$[email hidden]... > Dave Matson (Papy "Project Director") said in The Pit Stop board over in the > Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance of a new > CART sim anytime soon. > > -- > ----------------------------------- > Morgan Vincent Wooten > mailto:[email hidden] > http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ > ----------------------------------- > > Alpha Omega <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On 17 Apr 2000 18:02:52 GMT, [email hidden] (TRUSRS85) wrote: > > > > >The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine. > > >A CART sim would have been easier though. argh. > > > > I'm still surprised that Papyrus haven't continued with their CART > > series and have instead chosen to focus on Nascar. Did they ever give > > a reason for this? > > > > I haven't seen a decent CART game in years. It's long overdue. > > > > > > Alpha Omega > > E-Mail: [email hidden] > > ICQ: 70300233 > > > >

This explanation needs to be put into a FAQ so everyone will quit confusing this stuff. -- ----------------------------------- Morgan Vincent Wooten mailto:[email hidden] http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ ----------------------------------- ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FqPK4.35937$[email hidden]... > "Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote > > <<The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine>> > > > > I would hope so since a Winston Cup car would handle nothing like a 67 GP > > car > > > Looks like we have somebody who doesn't understand the concept of game > engines. You see Tony you are been misled with terms here... Game > developers have what we call "game engines". To make it short, it's the > main part of the game where everything else is attached to it. It is the > most important part of any type of games. Sound, gameplay, menus, AI, etc.. > it's all far or closely related to the game engine. > > For racing simulators, it is -the- essential point to create a successful > and serious racing simulator. Few companies have a quality game engine. > Some titles on the market have great ones, but fail to attach the correct > things to it (per example the 3d model structure for track accuracy, bad AI > or simply faulty physics). The opposite can be true, where everything else > attached is great but the core of the game is lacking. Note that Im talking > about racing simulators, and on purpose excluding arcade-type racing games. > It's a little different, since the external attachments are a little more > important, and the game engine a little less (even if still essential). > > To get back to N4, Papyrus has with GPL created a completely new game > engine. Since IndyCar Racing 1 (Papyrus second title back in the early > 90's) they have used the same core game engine that was patched with time. > Somehow for a very complicated reason (err... reasons) that would be too > long in this thread to talk about, they have never developed a new one until > GPL. It took to David Kaemmer's team many many years to develop it, and > they decided that the first racing simulation using it would be GPL. It > could had been any other title, but it was GPL, modeling cars that are > extremely difficult to drive. > > In no way should you think or being thought that N4 will be "GPL with a > roof". People saying "it's an altered GPL engine" use misleading words. > The term "GPL engine" is simply to difference it to every other Papyrus > title on the market, since at the moment it's unique. Don't make any > relation between GPL the game and GPL the game engine. The game engine is > amazing and incredible (like the game also) and years ahead of anything > else. Of course it's been altered so that stockcars are modeled, but some > people misled and make people think that N4 will be an dumbed down game to > N3-quality, since GPL is very difficult to the mass market. > > What they will do with N4 is to take the incredible "GPL" game engine and > model Stockcars inside the game engine instead of 1967 F1's. That's all. > Fear nothing. It will be more complex that's for sure, but it's not because > of GPL. It's because the game engine is the best on the market. I try on > r.a.s. to call the game engine the "new one" instead of "GPL engine" since > some confusion still exist it seems. > > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

"Chris Bloom" <[email hidden]> wrote > From the articles posted in RAS I get the feeling that NASCAR > sims are paying the electricity bill over at Papyrus these > days. I'm sure NASCAR 4 will have the accesibility of previous > NASCAR sims so not to scare away the masses, I'm also certain > that the Sim will be tougher and more realistic than any NASCAR > sim before it to keep the hardcore simmers happy. Of course!! Look at how deep the gameplay is in the NASCAR series from Papyrus. You have so many parameters you can adjust that in no-way will the mass market for the title (the average gamer) feel it's too difficult like GPL was. But of course, GPL was not market for those people. -- -- 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.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >Dave Matson (Papy "Project Director") said in The Pit Stop board over in the >Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance of a >new >CART sim anytime soon. > >

He never said anything about the CART liscence. I check those boards every day for any news on a new CART sim.

Because it was an illegal copy that somebody from the inside had passed out to a few friends and I decided to pass on it. But then again leaks used to be common hopefully they have listened to my warnings. I have received a few emails from Papy people but the arrogance some of them exibit makes me doubt it. Pete "Martyn Danby" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > U DECLINED?!!!! WTF Y? > > Md >

The early betas were system pigs to the Nth degree. Some people were complaining about problems with F12k, they are minor compared to the early betas. How about 8fps on a 800mhz system! The later betas were much better but now that they were drivable and had a ton of setup options ala GPL they didn't exibit any huge improvement in physics. And as I have stated some of the old "Papy" type setup bugs ie. springs set to 100% are still there! I'm sure that some things will be tweaked and worked on from what I saw as the beta was from a few months ago. It will be another evolution not revolution. There will be some new quirks and surprises. Pete "Michael E. Carver" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Qi%K4.361$[email hidden]... > Are the physics really toned down? Or are they tuned to fit the > dynamics of a Winston Cup Car..... I would think the latter is more to > the point. > > % You can expect improved FF and it may be better than GPL's. I > % just hope they take the graphics and physics up a notch or two in thefinal

Quoted text (7 lines)

> % release from what I have seen. > > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Gregor Veble wrote: > To think of an analogy, for example you want to use your computer to > solve a problem, let's say invert a 6x6 matrix. Yes, computers can be > used for things other than games. You write a program (an 'engine') to > invert this matrix by using an algorithm that is used for general > matrices, only that you seet the parameter of the dimension of the > matrix to 6, problem solved. It's good analogy, but a bad example ;) By coincidence, I spent several hours this afternoon implementing an algorithm to invert a 10x10 matrix for a game. It was built for exactly the specific problem at hand, in order to take advantage of all the zeros common in some of the matrices of various of our equations of motion. Eventually, we will optimize it much more by sucking the life out of every common factor we can find, ;) and precalculating (or low rate recalculating) any parts for which that is appropriate. It is specifically for use with one type of suspension that we deal with. We will repeat this task for other suspension types later, as required.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > It happens that after a while you need to invert some 20x20 matrices. Do > you write the program again? No, you just specify a different parameter > (20 for the dimension of the matrix) to the same program ('engine'), > problem solved again. > > The sim engines are a bit more complex, but the principle still applies. >

This algorithm replaces a general routine that was used until it's slowness got too annoying. This is the algorithmic equivalent of designing an ASIC (Application Specifric Integrated Circuit) Having said all that, I actually agree with the basic premise. I was part of the team that revised a completely general trajectory optimization program (OTIS 3) for new uses by NASA a few years back. I'd love to use OTIS on race car simulations, it would rock. It would be a fun challenge to implement everything in an input file. It could _almost_ be done, I think ;) As you suggested, we tended to use that tool for everything. Once you have a general hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail! ;) However, if I was using it day in and day out for a particular problem, rather than staring at my screen for long periods of time, I'd consider ripping out 100,000 lines of general code and specializing the equations of motion for the particular problem (the tool is designed to allow that.) I'd advocate using general algorithms to save engineering time up front, and specialized tools once you change over to turning the crank. If the speed improvements are worth revalidating the specialized code. And in games, they still often are. -- Matthew V. Jessick Motorsims [email hidden] http://www.moto1.net Vehicle Dynamics Engineer (972)910-8866, Fax: (972)910-8216

Gregor Veble wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Now I see your point more clearly. The people wanting a full CFD model > do not know what they are asking for. I agree with your approach to > aero, the full real time CFD model is far, far beyond the reach of the > top 1GHz home processors we use today, and the results of both > approaches would not be distinguished by us mere mortals, at least not > in the normal regimes which matter the most. >

Definitly. In aerospace, the aero guys take the results of their CFD runs and build us tables for use in real time and engineering analysis simulations. We can't model all the detail they can, and the aero guys can't run exactly all the test cases we want anyway. 10 other programs want their time and their computers time. The guys over in the flight sim group have a real phobia of "Tables". Which amuses me because the last airplane program I worked on _added_ 400 more table look ups during the time I worked with the simulation to model how the wings flapped ;) We ran that sim in real time on a Power PC chip, BTW. ;) The aero worked fine, but the brakes still locked up badly (wrongly) on occasion, even at 1000 Hz. The sim ran twice as fast off the ground as on the ground. (Cars are hard ;) -- Matthew V. Jessick Motorsims [email hidden] http://www.motorsims.com Vehicle Dynamics Engineer (972)910-8866, Fax: (972)910-8216

"Matthew V. Jessick" wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > By coincidence, I spent several hours this afternoon implementing > an algorithm to invert a 10x10 matrix for a game. > It was built for exactly the specific problem at hand, in order > to take advantage of all the zeros common in some of the > matrices of various of our equations of motion. Eventually, we will optimize it > much more by sucking the life out of every common factor we can find, ;) > and precalculating (or low rate recalculating) any parts for which that is > appropriate. It is specifically for use with one type of suspension that we > deal with. We will repeat this task for other suspension types later, as required. >

I know the problem you are dealing with, I am trying to build a realistic simulation of vehicles myself (but I am just starting). I just wonder how on earth you got to a 10x10 matrix ;) ? I am implementing a multiple link suspension, and the dimension is always 6x6 (the number of degrees of freedom). Or are you actually going into modelling the inertial properties of tyre (its mass and accelerations)? I thought of doing it myself, but then realized that the time steps are so small that when playing it would barely be noticable, but could cause stability problems in calculations. I would like to hear more about your approach. We can take this discussion to e-mail if you prefer.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > As you suggested, we tended to use that tool for everything. > Once you have a general hammer, every problem starts > looking like a nail! ;) However, if I was using it day in and day out for a > particular problem, rather than staring at my screen for long periods of time, > I'd consider ripping out 100,000 lines of general code and specializing > the equations of motion for the particular problem > (the tool is designed to allow that.) > > I'd advocate using general algorithms to save engineering time up front, and > specialized tools once you change over to turning the crank. > If the speed improvements are worth revalidating the specialized code. > And in games, they still often are. >

I agree. In games this is really an issue. Do you use old tested code for the sake of stability and low cost of the program (not numerical stability), or do you optimize every part to make it run fast but more susceptible to bugs and running over the budget? It's hard to tell, but at the times that favour fast development cycles, the first option seems more appropriate, even though it has its downfalls. -Gregor P.S.: You have no idea what a drooling factor you started for me by mentioning that you are using matrices for calculating the suspension (I thik I know what this is about). Will this already be used in the Trans-Am sim? I think you should start to create more hype about it with the sim fans.

Yes he did

Yes he did TRUSRS85 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > >Dave Matson (Papy "Project Director") said in The Pit Stop board over inthe > >Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance ofa

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >new > >CART sim anytime soon. > > > > > > He never said anything about the CART liscence. > I check those boards every day for any news on a new CART sim.

In article <[email hidden]>, Alpha Omega <[email hidden]> writes: >>The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine. >>A CART sim would have been easier though. argh. > >I'm still surprised that Papyrus haven't continued with their CART >series and have instead chosen to focus on Nascar. Did they ever give >a reason for this? $$$$$... Nascar sells. Although I'd like a CART sim too, I can't say that I blame them. Besides, the split between CART and the IRL turned MANY people off to indycar racing... 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.

You're right about that... Can't believe my friend Brian who lives in the US has to watch the CART races with a 1 hour delay while I'm watching it live in Canada... Can't believe they sometimes interrupted race coverage to show guess what... GOLF!!! That's too much to take... If I was a US citizen, I'd move out to Canada... <G> Frank On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 04:20:59 -0400, Buck Futter <[email hidden]> wrote: >Nascar is much more popular than CART in the US. I guess Papy reasons >(probably correctly) that they can make more money churning out Nascar >sim after Nascar sim (or more accurately, releasing the same Nascar >sim over and over again). > >Blight Francois Dubuc, [email hidden] Simulator Cyberworld, http://www.simracing.com/simcyberworld/

I remember seeing a post from someone at papy stating that most of the CART nuts have left the company, and the people that remain are more thrilled by NASCAR than anything else... Anyone else remembers reading something like this? Frank On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:00:03 GMT, "Morgan VW�" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Dave emailed and pointed out that he never actually said they couldn't get the >license, but that they simply didn't have plans for a future CART sim. Maybe >they can get the license? Anyway, having no plans is worse than an inability to >get the license. It means they don't even care. With the competition from EA >Sports and now Hasbro, Sierra probably won't allow anything except constant >NASCAR. I'm a NASCAR fan myself, but even I'd like to see an updated CART or F1 >sim.

Francois Dubuc, [email hidden] Simulator Cyberworld, http://www.simracing.com/simcyberworld/

That about sums it up.... Francois Dubuc wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > I remember seeing a post from someone at papy stating that most of the > CART nuts have left the company, and the people that remain are more > thrilled by NASCAR than anything else... Anyone else remembers > reading something like this? > > Frank > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:00:03 GMT, "Morgan VW�" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Dave emailed and pointed out that he never actually said they couldn't get the > >license, but that they simply didn't have plans for a future CART sim. Maybe > >they can get the license? Anyway, having no plans is worse than an inability to > >get the license. It means they don't even care. With the competition from EA > >Sports and now Hasbro, Sierra probably won't allow anything except constant > >NASCAR. I'm a NASCAR fan myself, but even I'd like to see an updated CART or F1 > >sim. > > Francois Dubuc, > [email hidden] > Simulator Cyberworld, > http://www.simracing.com/simcyberworld/

[email hidden] ("Francois Dubuc") wrote in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>You're right about that... Can't believe my friend Brian who lives in >the US has to watch the CART races with a 1 hour delay while I'm >watching it live in Canada... Can't believe they sometimes >interrupted race coverage to show guess what... GOLF!!! That's too >much to take... If I was a US citizen, I'd move out to Canada... <G> > >Frank

Oooh, oooh, d'you know what else? Sometimes when they, you know, the US, like when they show the Olympics, they actually interrupt their coverage to show the Olympics! yeah. I mean like not often. But sometimes they do. Really, I'm not kidding. I actually once saw a bobsled go down the track. Well, like part of the way, before they went to commercial.... And oh! A skier. Yeah. I once saw a skier on the screen. I did. Like for 15 seconds. But he was there. And he was skiing. But I think he started trying to sell me chapstick or something. so maybe it was just another commecial. but at least he was skiing. like some sporting, you know? not some story of how this 100th place downhill skier from the Congo stubbed his toe in the second grade and got like inspired to do incredible things and how.... Of course we all know who to blame for this.... CANADA! Yes, yes, you and your insidious alpha-gamma-delta-epsilon.... RAYS! Aim them at us you do. But strong are we with the force. Mind what we have learned. Pay you will soon!

Ok I have to change my story here... the last CART race wasn't shown live in Canada, only here in Quebec... Glad I'm not a Canadian either! Frank On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 04:20:07 GMT, [email hidden] (lbaum) wrote:

Quoted text (27 lines)

>[email hidden] ("Francois Dubuc") wrote in ><[email hidden]>: > >>You're right about that... Can't believe my friend Brian who lives in >>the US has to watch the CART races with a 1 hour delay while I'm >>watching it live in Canada... Can't believe they sometimes >>interrupted race coverage to show guess what... GOLF!!! That's too >>much to take... If I was a US citizen, I'd move out to Canada... <G> >> >>Frank > >Oooh, oooh, d'you know what else? Sometimes when they, you know, the US, >like when they show the Olympics, they actually interrupt their coverage to >show the Olympics! yeah. I mean like not often. But sometimes they do. >Really, I'm not kidding. I actually once saw a bobsled go down the track. >Well, like part of the way, before they went to commercial.... And oh! A >skier. Yeah. I once saw a skier on the screen. I did. Like for 15 seconds. >But he was there. And he was skiing. But I think he started trying to sell >me chapstick or something. so maybe it was just another commecial. but at >least he was skiing. like some sporting, you know? not some story of how >this 100th place downhill skier from the Congo stubbed his toe in the >second grade and got like inspired to do incredible things and how.... > >Of course we all know who to blame for this.... CANADA! >Yes, yes, you and your insidious alpha-gamma-delta-epsilon.... RAYS! >Aim them at us you do. But strong are we with the force. Mind what we have >learned. Pay you will soon!

Francois Dubuc, [email hidden] Simulator Cyberworld, http://www.simracing.com/simcyberworld/