Re: F1 2000- Imola seems to be accurate!

Arto Wikla <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wikla.955224766@rullouri... > Today they sent in tv about one and half lap of qualifying from the > on board camera of Barrichello. From the tape I compared section > by section the the real track and the F1 2000 Imola - you can > get the very same "over the helmet" view in the sim. And to > me the modelled Imola was pretty near the real one! Much better > than I had expected after having read some complains in r.a.s... Exactly right it is accurate. Forget about those whiners. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Today they sent in tv about one and half lap of qualifying from the on board camera of Barrichello. From the tape I compared section by section the the real track and the F1 2000 Imola - you can get the very same "over the helmet" view in the sim. And to me the modelled Imola was pretty near the real one! Much better than I had expected after having read some complains in r.a.s... Arto

ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Au4I4.13785$[email hidden]... > It's not like Im the only person saying the track aren't accurate at all, > many many others have said that comment. Yeah, I know you are not the only one. Some other asshole said imola was not accurate and totally sucked. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Fw4I4.13787$[email hidden]... > "Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote > > Drunkenness would explain your bizarre attitude with track renditions. > > Your missing obvious sarcasm Greg. I got your sarcasm. I just think my version is probably more accurate :-) > > Maybe if you actually try F1 2000 sober you will see the tracks are > > good. Duh. > > Duh you. Your ok to personally judge somebody compared to the other in > terms of how the F1 tracks are in terms of accuracy (ex: trusting Darren > Duncan from what he saw on TV). I never said Imola wasn't accurate. Why Darren was saying he lives in Japan and has been to Suzuka numerous times. Someone else said they say the barachello incar on TV and thought imola was accurate. Like I said try it sober... Shit try reading newsgroups sober and you may see what the hell is going on. Oh wait, it isn't GPL so forget about it. Well how in the hell do you know that the ancient track renderings in GPL are accurate. Have you driven the old Monza track? Better yet maybe you think F1 2000's Monza sucks because you are comparing it to GPL's version. Yeah that has got to be it. > are you thinking that? It is very good. It's just 1 track out of thewhole > season. You said that several tracks were accurate in your opinion earlier. > Just ask all the other people in this NG, many people find the tracks very > poor. Maybe they need to sober up too. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Darren Duncan <dags@(nospam)ky.xaxon.ne.jp> wrote in message news:8cpun3$oql$[email hidden]... > Rubbish - having lived in Japan, near Suzuka for 9 years I can tell you it > is the closest I've ever seen to accurately modelling the track. So please > remove it from your list..... What part of it are you questioning? Your confirmation is good enough for me. Thanks! -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com > > Darren > > (I can't comment on the other tracks however but driving around Suzuka is > great) > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:42WH4.54037$[email hidden]... > > > Still, tracks like Monaco, the A1-Ring, Hockenheim, Montreal, Spa, Monza, > > Suzuka and the Nurburgring are extremely poor. > > > > >

ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:42WH4.54037$[email hidden]... > Nobody complained about Imola, as they did a great job with the Oh sure. > environmental objects surrounding the track (just look at the greatammount > of object on the inside of the track layout). It's the best F1 2000track, > with Interlagos and Silverstone. > > Btw there is a 1950 track hidden in F1 2000. > > Still, tracks like Monaco, the A1-Ring, Hockenheim, Montreal, Spa, Monza, > Suzuka and the Nurburgring are extremely poor. Curious after you *BOUGHT* the game how much time did you actually give it? -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mH2I4.13380$[email hidden]... > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Btw there is a 1950 track hidden in F1 2000. > > > LOL... ignore this, it was a poor attempt by me to create sarcasm after a > couple of guinness pints... 8) Drunkenness would explain your bizarre attitude with track renditions. Maybe if you actually try F1 2000 sober you will see the tracks are good. Duh. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Greg Cisko <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote in message news:8cqivv$b78$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:42WH4.54037$[email hidden]... > > Nobody complained about Imola, as they did a great job with the > > Oh sure. > > > environmental objects surrounding the track (just look at the great > ammount > > of object on the inside of the track layout). It's the best F1 2000 > track, > > with Interlagos and Silverstone. > > > > Btw there is a 1950 track hidden in F1 2000. > > > > Still, tracks like Monaco, the A1-Ring, Hockenheim, Montreal, Spa,

Monza, > > Suzuka and the Nurburgring are extremely poor. > > Curious after you *BOUGHT* the game how much time did > you actually give it? I know this wasn't directed at me but I just had to answer it. I gave it about 4 hours. When I put a Minardi on pole at Australia, at 100% difficulty, without driving aids, by seconds (not tenths), in my first ever attempt, I came to the conclusion that this wasn't a sim.

Rubbish - having lived in Japan, near Suzuka for 9 years I can tell you it is the closest I've ever seen to accurately modelling the track. So please remove it from your list..... What part of it are you questioning? Darren (I can't comment on the other tracks however but driving around Suzuka is great) "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:42WH4.54037$[email hidden]... > Still, tracks like Monaco, the A1-Ring, Hockenheim, Montreal, Spa, Monza, > Suzuka and the Nurburgring are extremely poor. >

That's what I said in an earlier thread! Very accurate, as was Interlagos. Iain Arto Wikla <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wikla.955224766@rullouri...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Today they sent in tv about one and half lap of qualifying from the > on board camera of Barrichello. From the tape I compared section > by section the the real track and the F1 2000 Imola - you can > get the very same "over the helmet" view in the sim. And to > me the modelled Imola was pretty near the real one! Much better > than I had expected after having read some complains in r.a.s... > > Arto

"Arto Wikla" <[email hidden]> wrote > Today they sent in tv about one and half lap of qualifying from the > on board camera of Barrichello. From the tape I compared section > by section the the real track and the F1 2000 Imola - you can > get the very same "over the helmet" view in the sim. And to > me the modelled Imola was pretty near the real one! Much better > than I had expected after having read some complains in r.a.s... Nobody complained about Imola, as they did a great job with the environmental objects surrounding the track (just look at the great ammount of object on the inside of the track layout). It's the best F1 2000 track, with Interlagos and Silverstone. Btw there is a 1950 track hidden in F1 2000. Still, tracks like Monaco, the A1-Ring, Hockenheim, Montreal, Spa, Monza, Suzuka and the Nurburgring are extremely poor. -- -- 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.

Total exaggeration as always from you! Iain > Still, tracks like Monaco, the A1-Ring, Hockenheim, Montreal, Spa, Monza, > Suzuka and the Nurburgring are extremely poor. >

Total exaggeration as always from you! Iain

You know what I get a kick out of is people how have only seen most tracks by way of TV or a different game saying how poorly the tracks are done or how inaccurate they are. Actually Papy' s ICR series was very inaccurate and I know of some other tracks that were way off they did, and since I have actaully been in a race car and on those tracks I can comment on em. Dave > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:42WH4.54037$[email hidden]... > > > Still, tracks like Monaco, the A1-Ring, Hockenheim, Montreal, Spa,Monza, > > Suzuka and the Nurburgring are extremely poor. > > > > > >

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:42WH4.54037$[email hidden]... > Nobody complained about Imola, as they did a great job with the > environmental objects surrounding the track (just look at the greatammount > of object on the inside of the track layout). It's the best F1 2000track, > with Interlagos and Silverstone. > > Btw there is a 1950 track hidden in F1 2000. > > Still, tracks like Monaco, the A1-Ring, Hockenheim, Montreal, Spa, Monza, > Suzuka and the Nurburgring are extremely poor. Hmmm, maybe, but I am having a blast running them. If y'all would quit telling me their not realistic, I probably would never know :) -- Don Burnette Dburn in N3 and Legends

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote > Btw there is a 1950 track hidden in F1 2000. LOL... ignore this, it was a poor attempt by me to create sarcasm after a couple of guinness pints... 8) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote > Curious after you *BOUGHT* the game how much time did > you actually give it? I said I don't feel the track renditions of some tracks are accurate, that's all. Simple as that. Anything else is irrelevant. At least I know for sure that Monaco, Montreal, the A1-Ring, Monza and the Ring are totally wrong. Some of them from having been on those tracks, others for having watched since years television reports on them, etc.. Just compare the SBK2000 Nurburgring to the one in F1 2000... The one in SBK2k is correctly accurate, and was reported by MANY other people here. It's not like Im the only person saying the track aren't accurate at all, many many others have said that comment. Good for you if you think they are enough accurate for you. They aren't for me. To answer your question, I've raced it much more than you think in the past couple of weeks, as I was able to have third and fourth opinions on the software (with AI and other adjustements) at some people's house. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote > Drunkenness would explain your bizarre attitude with track renditions. Your missing obvious sarcasm Greg. > Maybe if you actually try F1 2000 sober you will see the tracks are > good. Duh. Duh you. Your ok to personally judge somebody compared to the other in terms of how the F1 tracks are in terms of accuracy (ex: trusting Darren Duncan from what he saw on TV). I never said Imola wasn't accurate. Why are you thinking that? It is very good. It's just 1 track out of the whole season. Just ask all the other people in this NG, many people find the tracks very poor. -- -- 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.

Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8crqt1$6nug7$[email hidden]... > > > Yeah, I know you are not the only one. Some other asshole said > > imola was not accurate and totally sucked. > > *plonk* Yep... I guess it hit a little too close to home. Cool you didn't know what the hell you were talking about anyway. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Doh! Where did I say I have only seen it on TV? I've been to the track numerous times and have been driven around it and walked around it. All of which leads me to believe that it is the closest I have seen a game model the Suzuka circuit. The only part that is slightly out is the fast right hander before spoon. Other than that, the F1 2000 version looks how I remember the track. The elevations are bang on, as are most of the bends. Suzuka is actually a very narrow track which I think they did very well in F1 2000. Again, which part of it are you questioning? On what experience do you base your comments? I was at Suzuka just 1 week ago and before that in November. Were you? Don't listen to him folks, Suzuka is pretty accurately modeled (IMHO). Darren "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Fw4I4.13787$[email hidden]... > Duh you. Your ok to personally judge somebody compared to the other in > terms of how the F1 tracks are in terms of accuracy (ex: trusting Darren > Duncan from what he saw on TV). I never said Imola wasn't accurate. Why > are you thinking that? It is very good. It's just 1 track out of thewhole > season. > > Just ask all the other people in this NG, many people find the tracks very > poor.

> Yeah, I know you are not the only one. Some other asshole said > imola was not accurate and totally sucked. *plonk*

Ok, thanks for apologizing as well. Darren "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FadI4.61525$[email hidden]... > I shouldn't had wrote Suzuka. Sorry, but it's actually a small nitpick > there with some track width and the first set of corners before the track > goes uphill. All other tracks listed are very poor.

"Darren Duncan" <dags@(nospam)ky.xaxon.ne.jp> wrote > Don't listen to him folks, Suzuka is pretty accurately modeled (IMHO). I shouldn't had wrote Suzuka. Sorry, but it's actually a small nitpick there with some track width and the first set of corners before the track goes uphill. All other tracks listed are very poor. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote > I got your sarcasm. I just think my version is probably more > accurate :-) ;) > Darren was saying he lives in Japan and has been to Suzuka numerous > times. Someone else said they say the barachello incar on TV and thought > imola was accurate. Like I said try it sober... Shit try readingnewsgroups > sober and you may see what the hell is going on. Oh wait, it isn't GPL so > forget about it. I have my track accuracy nitpicks with a majority of racing games, including GPL. It's a very touchy issue for me. Which is why I probably enjoy AMA SBK more than others for the sensation of realism at Mid-Ohio or Elkhart Lake per example. I can accept the flaws in GPL considering it's an historical recreation, but on modern racing simulators it should be perfect, I say. Basically, a quality game engine has to have a good 3d environment. Why is the track width on the monza frontstretch that small? Why does the parabolica corner exit have no mention at all of the banking track? Why is there elevations where there shouldn't be? Where is the brick wall on the outside of Curva Grande? > You said that several tracks were accurate in your opinion earlier. I said 1 track out of the whole. I think that you might imply that since Imola (and at some extent Interlagos) is modeled quite good, that my opinion about track accuracy is 100% false and Im just a troll. > Maybe they need to sober up too. I'll drink to that and answer you after. Cheers! ;-) -- -- 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.

you would be able to do the same thing in GP3 as well, considering both games have the same driving model for the player's car and only the AI have differing performace characteristics. That isnt to say the AI in GP3 isnt better, that will have to wait til it is released. Howeve the AI in F1 2000 is affected by the setups they use. Which i think is fantastic. It means the physics that the player has is reflected at least in part to the AI. If you want better performance out of the AI ... give them better setups -- regards Shane Lowry

*plonk*

Ok, thanks for apologizing as well. Darren

In article <[email hidden]>, "Todd Dry" <[email hidden]> writes: >I know this wasn't directed at me but I just had to answer it. I gave it >about 4 hours. When I put a Minardi on pole at Australia, at 100% >difficulty, without driving aids, by seconds (not tenths), in my first ever >attempt, I came to the conclusion that this wasn't a sim. Show-off.... <g> 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.

That's the thing. I don't consider myself to be particularly fast. When I did the qualifying time my first thought was that there is something dreadfully wrong with this game. It's just not accurate at all. I couldn't have done that in MGPRS2 with a Minardi. EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Todd Dry"<[email hidden]> > writes: > > >I know this wasn't directed at me but I just had to answer it. I gave it > >about 4 hours. When I put a Minardi on pole at Australia, at 100% > >difficulty, without driving aids, by seconds (not tenths), in my firstever

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >attempt, I came to the conclusion that this wasn't a sim. > > Show-off.... > > <g> > > 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.

writes: Show-off.... <g> 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.

Todd Dry wrote: > That's the thing. I don't consider myself to be particularly fast. When I > did the qualifying time my first thought was that there is something > dreadfully wrong with this game. It's just not accurate at all. I couldn't > have done that in MGPRS2 with a Minardi. I was under the impression that F1 2000 took the Crammond approach, in that all the cars performed the same in the hands of the human driver. Is this not true? I've only been driving the Ferrari. Given that all the gear boxes are 7-speed, and that is not true in real life, seems to back this to some degree. Or at least they cut some serious corners in modeling the differences. Dave Ewing -- ***************************************************** David A. Ewing Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] *****************************************************

David Ewing wrote: > > I was under the impression that F1 2000 took the Crammond approach, in that all > the cars performed the same in the hands of the human driver. Is this not > true? I've only been driving the Ferrari. Yes, your car always has the performance of the fastest car in the sim. You can edit some files and get the performance of the other cars. -- pd

Todd Dry wrote: > > That's the thing. I don't consider myself to be particularly fast. When I > did the qualifying time my first thought was that there is something > dreadfully wrong with this game. It's just not accurate at all. I couldn't > have done that in MGPRS2 with a Minardi. > You know what, I've found I could go faster in a Minardi than I was able to in a McLaren in F12K. Don't know why that is, a bug? Found it by accident at Hockenheim. Switched to Minardi & instantly lost a second or so a lap before any other setup tweaks. Weird.... -- Chuck Kandler #70 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Competitor in the TopGear MGPRS2 league at: http://topgear.dhs.org/ Come on & join the fun! They'll call you names And spit in your face, But legends never die. --Gene Simmons

In article <[email hidden]>, Chuck Kandler <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>Pat Dotson wrote: >> Yes, your car always has the performance of the >> fastest car in the sim. You can edit some >> files and get the performance of the other >> cars. > >Are you absolutely sure of this? I must have had one helluva >coincidence then, finding a second per lap difference by switching cars >out at Hockenheim. Here I was thinking maybe I wasn't managing the >extra power of the McLaren well & getting too much wheelspin & losing >time! Hmmm....

I tried the McLaren vs a much lesser car (Minardi) at Hockenheim and got the same top speed in the same 7th gear. When driven by an AI driver, the Minardi has only 6 gears and was decidedly slower. Same default setup (for this track, the "speed" one). I'm convinced that, alas, when you drive the car, they are identical.

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > In article <[email hidden]>, Chuck Kandler <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Pat Dotson wrote: > > >> Yes, your car always has the performance of the > >> fastest car in the sim. You can edit some > >> files and get the performance of the other > >> cars. > > > >Are you absolutely sure of this? I must have had one helluva > >coincidence then, finding a second per lap difference by switching cars > >out at Hockenheim. Here I was thinking maybe I wasn't managing the > >extra power of the McLaren well & getting too much wheelspin & losing > >time! Hmmm.... > > I tried the McLaren vs a much lesser car (Minardi) at Hockenheim and got the > same top speed in the same 7th gear. When driven by an AI driver, the Minardi > has only 6 gears and was decidedly slower. Same default setup (for this > track, the "speed" one). I'm convinced that, alas, when you drive the car, > they are identical.

Agreed, I didn't see any real difference in top speed. What I did get was a drop in overall lap time when I switched, which I attributed at the time to less wheel spin & sooner power-on hookup due to lower power output at the rear wheels. Alas, I've come to the conclusion I was in error. Maybe I should have taken more of the credit for the improved lap times on myself, and attributed less to the car. =-) -- Chuck Kandler #70 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Competitor in the TopGear MGPRS2 league at: http://topgear.dhs.org/ Come on & join the fun! They'll call you names And spit in your face, But legends never die. --Gene Simmons