Qui, Le Professeur is back! :-)
Empty that can of Black Booster and start reading <G>
The constructive feedback to the first post ("A monstrous, thought provoking
"sim vs arcade" post" 28/3) provided some new inspiration and new approaches to
the subject. It's difficult to not keep repeating the same arguments in other
words all the time, but I thought there were some things left to say.
For those who didn't read the initial post, but also for myself, I'd like to
summarize that first message again: (details see previous post; read that one
before you comment or flame :-) )
The point of view that I defended in that post, is that *Physics* and absolute
copying of reality (like using wheel and pedals) are not necessarilly the
unchallengable "Holy Grails" of sim racing. I tried to justify this view by
investigating the motivations behind real world racing itself. The underlying
idea for this approach was to illustrate that the details behind the physics of
a racecar and environment are not an essential part of the racing experience.
That is: in an imaginary world with totally different, but equally complex,
physical laws, and a totally differently responding car, racing would be just as
exciting and current topdrivers would STILL be topdrivers. It is the
*complexity* of the car behaviour and overall physics that fuels a lot of the
aspects that make racing exciting. The *faithfulness* to real-world car
behaviour and overall physics mainly matter because they improve the
*identification* with the real world. Therefore, after a certain point, the
importance of the simulation of exact physics becomes inferior to the importance
of mimicing other aspects of racing that are totally independant from "correct"
physics. Another consequence is, that keyboard or joystick control do certainly
not devaluate the experience as profoundly as is mostly assumed.
The responses showed a fair balance between pro and contra. While smart people
like Don Scurlock, Richard G Clegg and Stephen Ferguson were able to understand
my point, some stubborn hardcore guys like Richard Walker, Leo Landman and
Daniel Frois refused to capitulate. (joking ;-) )
One of the points that I would like to comment in more detail is the axiom that
a "simulation" MUST strive to offer an absolutely perfect recreation of EVERY
ASPECT of the real thing.
Daniel Frois and Michael Carver responded in that fashion, which was concisely
summarized by Leo Landman:
"If it models something else or takes liberties, it's called a game. That's what
this topic is all about."
First remark: there are no sims that do not take liberties, and there will never
BE sims that do not take liberties. On the most fundamental level, because our
so called "laws of physics" are no better than approximations themselves.
Newtonian physics give you no more than some basic rules to construct yourself
an approximation of reality. Do something unusually fast or look at something on
the atomic scale and Newton sinks like the Titanic :-) It was surpassed by
Einstein's Relativity and later Quantummechanics. And they show their
shortcomings too and will eventually be surpassed by something else. God knows
whether THAT will "be" reality or just a construction that nicely approximates
reality. And on top of that(don't quote me because I'm not a sim programmer) I
think that a transition from concept to computerised simulation also requires
numerical tricks that are a way to be able to actually "calculate" the physics?
Of course this goes a little over the top, it's hardly relevant anymore for the
topic.. But it does illustrate that a clear and fixed border between
"simulation" and "taking liberties" is an illusion. Certainly when you consider
the limited amount of available CPU cycles... Our categorizing is totally
arbitrary. GPL physics are NOT realistic. GPL doesn't simulate the movement of
every single component in the engine. It doesn't simulate the flow of gas
molecules around the carbody. It doesn't simulate the stress within the
materials. It doesn't accurately simulate the inflation of the tire due to the
heating up. Realtime simulation, to a certain degree of realism, of each of
these individual aspects would require a supercomputer in itself!!!
"But," Leo, Michael and Daniel react, "it doesn't NEED to because these aspects
are not relevant and huge simplifications and approximations in these areas
don't hurt the experience."
Well, I wholeheartedly agree with them :-) The issue is then reduced to a
discussion of how far we allow the simplifications to go. Where we allow them
and where not. A good definition is that simplifications are acceptable, as long
as the concessions concern aspects that are of minor importance to what the sim
tries to achieve. What seperates "hardcore" from "sensible" <G> and from
"arcade" is the interpretation of WHAT precisely the sim should try to achieve.
And here, I would like to use the words of Stephen Ferguson: a perfect
simulation of car physics only guarantees that you have a "car physics
simulator". But is that really what we're looking for? The key is that
racepilots are more than just "car physics experts". Patrick Head is a "car
physics expert" (or at least a few years ago he WAS, by the looks of it :-) ),
but do we really think about HIM when we enjoy a racingsim? Would Patrick Head
become World Champion?
Where one puts the borderline might seem arbitrary, but I see it as more than
that. The hardcore approach has an inherent problem: it never ends! When exactly
are those physics sufficiently detailed to be satisfied? In a sense, the
hardcore approach is obliged to NEVER be totally satisfied. Since, by
definition, a simulation of the physics can never be perfect, a "satisfied
hardcore simmer" would imply that the accuracy of the physics WASN'T his ONLY
priority after all. What other priorities are there? And what other priorities
are *sensible*? What aspect is important enough to compromise physics for it? I
think "simulating what a racingdriver experiences" is a good candidate :-)
I UNDERSTAND that those with real-world carsetup experience and
car-handling-on-the-limit experience WILL be annoyed by some of the things that
I would call "details". If I would be in that position, I would probably be
annoyed also! But they suffer a DISadvantage rather than an advantage. Since
they have gone "one bridge too far" in their realworld experience, they are
blinded by a hunt for perfect physics that is DOOMED anyway. And in the process
they risk to miss the real point of a racingsim...
There's another, more implicit, argument in the quest for perfect physics
reproduction. A hardcore simmer reasons that, no matter what, more perfect
physics and equipment automatically also get you closer to the thrills of the
racing experience. Or in other words: the more accurate the "car physics
simulator", the more accurate also the "car racing simulator". From that point
of view, the hardcore choice of where to put the borderline ("as far as you
can") seems more "pure", less arbitrary. Instead of "artificially" recreating
the driving experience, you get to it the way it is supposed to happen. Instead
of a "surrogate", you get the original. Instead of a synthetic diamond, you get
a natural one. That way, you can no longer blame them that they "miss the
point". On the contrary: with THEIR hardcore approach, they naturally get what
the less hardcore approach tries to reach via unrealistic illusion.
Well, there are two counter arguments here that I can think off.
First of all: is reality the best there is? Maybe sometimes, reality is such
that it does no longer fullfill the expectations of those who started racing.
Important aspects that made them love racing, get mutilated in such a way that
it makes their experience less enjoyable. Are we really obliged to get THOSE
aspects into a sim, too? This sounds silly, but consider the following examples:
- the most obvious one: accidents! We certainly don't want to get hurt via a
simulator. Real pilots don't have the choice. If they WOULD have the choice,
they would certainly "disable" the "injuries" option. I'm still wondering what
would happen if the most hardcore of hardcore simdrivers are actually ABLE to
enable "injuries" in GPL218 :-)
- too much technology: it was an evolution that almost got out of hand in the
early nineties. Active suspension, advanced throttle control, computerized
everything... why not satellity navigation <G>? The driver was becoming a
passenger in his own vehicle. The best were no longer the best, and I'm sure
many lost a lot of racing experience. Must we stubbornly implement this type of
evolution, no matter how far it goes, into a sim and dig the grave of our own
enjoyment?
- reality too complex: there are situations where reality turns out to be just
that little bit *too* difficult to handle. Struggling to get a car set up right
is one thing, but if there is *no* progress whatshowever it becomes more of a
torture than anything else. My fellow countryman (another clue ;-) ) and
multiple 500cc motocross champion Joel Smets saw an entire season destroyed
because his bike (Husaberg?) was so totally unreliable that he was barely able
to finish a single race (while constantly running in first position...). If a
sim would be incredibly accurate, to such degree that you get totally lost at
some point, how fun would it be? Would it still *make sense* to use the sim at
all? There has to be *some* system in there, and it should not be hidden in such
a way that only ingenious physicists are able to uncover and handle it. When it
becomes sheer agony, there's no point anymore in using the sim. So in a sense,
racing similators HAVE to be dumbed down to some degree if they don't want to
have a market that consists of Patrick Head, Harvey Postletwaite, Adrian Newey,
Ross Brown, John Barnard and Gordon Murray :-)
Second remark: if we transfer a certain aspect as accurately as possible to a
computersim, does this automatically guarantee that it retains its essence? I
think it does not necessarilly, and that it should also be carefully considered
whether the increased accuracy for that particular aspect is worth the cost. As
for example Don Scurlock pointed out in one of his replies, sometimes we have to
introduce artificial aspects into the sim to compensate for the absence of
"unsimulatable" aspects. It's nice to have an absolutely perfect tiregrip model
in your sim. But because we can (currently, some would say) not simulate the
feeling of the car under our but, we have to include artificial clues to
substitute it. Or over-emphasize aspects that would provide only minor feedback
in reality.
In a nutshell: because of inherent physical limitations, a bare, pixel-perfect
transition from reality to a sim will likely disrupt the experience in some way.
It will require you to introduce artificial "compensators". Or sometimes you can
opt to simplify the transition in such a way that you don't *need* the
artificial compensators. Which approach results in the best suspension of
disbelief??? Highly debatable.... But the simplification at least allows you to
invest CPU in OTHER aspects!
Therefore, along the same lines, a sim developer is obliged to evaluate the
limited computer power at his disposal and make the most efficient choices. It
could be great to accurately calculate the airflow over the spoilers in
realtime, but does the surplus value justify the CPU-cost? If he thinks a little
longer, he could realise that a considerable improvement in graphics would
increase the suspension of disbelief much more, against the same CPU-cost.
So.... I think it's NOT obvious that choosing for an increase in the accuracy of
physics always improves the authenticity of the driving experience. After some
point, it makes no sense to invest even more in the physics, and the remaining
resources should be invested in OTHER aspects (graphics, sound, AI, atmosphere).
It's enough that A) the implemented physics are complex enough to offer a
sufficiently engrossing challenge. B) they are "true" enough as to not
completely destroy the identification with the real world and real racing, C)
they have a certain degree of consistency.
Was this even longer than the previous one? Oh boy :-)
Le Professeur
"For every problem, there's at least one solution that is
simple, convenient and plain wrong."
H.L.Mencken
Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Qui, Le Professeur is back! :-)
<SNIP!>
Hmmm, loads of text, but I've no idea what you're trying to
accomplish...
Remco
the great and intrepid [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote:
I warned you that you first had to empty your can of Black Booster!
I'll try to target my next post to the lower part of the scale ;-)
Le Prof
"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already
knows."
Epictetus
Quoted text (12 lines)
>Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Qui, Le Professeur is back! :-) > > ><SNIP!> > >Hmmm, loads of text, but I've no idea what you're trying to >accomplish... > > >RemcoHello le Prof... why don't you do a chronicle about these subjects on my website ?
give me a shout...
http://simracingmag.com/simracingmag/
Eric
Le Professeur wrote:
Quoted text (200 lines)
> Qui, Le Professeur is back! :-) > > Empty that can of Black Booster and start reading <G> > > The constructive feedback to the first post ("A monstrous, thought provoking > "sim vs arcade" post" 28/3) provided some new inspiration and new approaches to > the subject. It's difficult to not keep repeating the same arguments in other > words all the time, but I thought there were some things left to say. > > For those who didn't read the initial post, but also for myself, I'd like to > summarize that first message again: (details see previous post; read that one > before you comment or flame :-) ) > > The point of view that I defended in that post, is that *Physics* and absolute > copying of reality (like using wheel and pedals) are not necessarilly the > unchallengable "Holy Grails" of sim racing. I tried to justify this view by > investigating the motivations behind real world racing itself. The underlying > idea for this approach was to illustrate that the details behind the physics of > a racecar and environment are not an essential part of the racing experience. > That is: in an imaginary world with totally different, but equally complex, > physical laws, and a totally differently responding car, racing would be just as > exciting and current topdrivers would STILL be topdrivers. It is the > *complexity* of the car behaviour and overall physics that fuels a lot of the > aspects that make racing exciting. The *faithfulness* to real-world car > behaviour and overall physics mainly matter because they improve the > *identification* with the real world. Therefore, after a certain point, the > importance of the simulation of exact physics becomes inferior to the importance > of mimicing other aspects of racing that are totally independant from "correct" > physics. Another consequence is, that keyboard or joystick control do certainly > not devaluate the experience as profoundly as is mostly assumed. > > The responses showed a fair balance between pro and contra. While smart people > like Don Scurlock, Richard G Clegg and Stephen Ferguson were able to understand > my point, some stubborn hardcore guys like Richard Walker, Leo Landman and > Daniel Frois refused to capitulate. (joking ;-) ) > > One of the points that I would like to comment in more detail is the axiom that > a "simulation" MUST strive to offer an absolutely perfect recreation of EVERY > ASPECT of the real thing. > > Daniel Frois and Michael Carver responded in that fashion, which was concisely > summarized by Leo Landman: > > "If it models something else or takes liberties, it's called a game. That's what > this topic is all about." > > First remark: there are no sims that do not take liberties, and there will never > BE sims that do not take liberties. On the most fundamental level, because our > so called "laws of physics" are no better than approximations themselves. > Newtonian physics give you no more than some basic rules to construct yourself > an approximation of reality. Do something unusually fast or look at something on > the atomic scale and Newton sinks like the Titanic :-) It was surpassed by > Einstein's Relativity and later Quantummechanics. And they show their > shortcomings too and will eventually be surpassed by something else. God knows > whether THAT will "be" reality or just a construction that nicely approximates > reality. And on top of that(don't quote me because I'm not a sim programmer) I > think that a transition from concept to computerised simulation also requires > numerical tricks that are a way to be able to actually "calculate" the physics? > > Of course this goes a little over the top, it's hardly relevant anymore for the > topic.. But it does illustrate that a clear and fixed border between > "simulation" and "taking liberties" is an illusion. Certainly when you consider > the limited amount of available CPU cycles... Our categorizing is totally > arbitrary. GPL physics are NOT realistic. GPL doesn't simulate the movement of > every single component in the engine. It doesn't simulate the flow of gas > molecules around the carbody. It doesn't simulate the stress within the > materials. It doesn't accurately simulate the inflation of the tire due to the > heating up. Realtime simulation, to a certain degree of realism, of each of > these individual aspects would require a supercomputer in itself!!! > > "But," Leo, Michael and Daniel react, "it doesn't NEED to because these aspects > are not relevant and huge simplifications and approximations in these areas > don't hurt the experience." > > Well, I wholeheartedly agree with them :-) The issue is then reduced to a > discussion of how far we allow the simplifications to go. Where we allow them > and where not. A good definition is that simplifications are acceptable, as long > as the concessions concern aspects that are of minor importance to what the sim > tries to achieve. What seperates "hardcore" from "sensible" <G> and from > "arcade" is the interpretation of WHAT precisely the sim should try to achieve. > And here, I would like to use the words of Stephen Ferguson: a perfect > simulation of car physics only guarantees that you have a "car physics > simulator". But is that really what we're looking for? The key is that > racepilots are more than just "car physics experts". Patrick Head is a "car > physics expert" (or at least a few years ago he WAS, by the looks of it :-) ), > but do we really think about HIM when we enjoy a racingsim? Would Patrick Head > become World Champion? > > Where one puts the borderline might seem arbitrary, but I see it as more than > that. The hardcore approach has an inherent problem: it never ends! When exactly > are those physics sufficiently detailed to be satisfied? In a sense, the > hardcore approach is obliged to NEVER be totally satisfied. Since, by > definition, a simulation of the physics can never be perfect, a "satisfied > hardcore simmer" would imply that the accuracy of the physics WASN'T his ONLY > priority after all. What other priorities are there? And what other priorities > are *sensible*? What aspect is important enough to compromise physics for it? I > think "simulating what a racingdriver experiences" is a good candidate :-) > > I UNDERSTAND that those with real-world carsetup experience and > car-handling-on-the-limit experience WILL be annoyed by some of the things that > I would call "details". If I would be in that position, I would probably be > annoyed also! But they suffer a DISadvantage rather than an advantage. Since > they have gone "one bridge too far" in their realworld experience, they are > blinded by a hunt for perfect physics that is DOOMED anyway. And in the process > they risk to miss the real point of a racingsim... > > There's another, more implicit, argument in the quest for perfect physics > reproduction. A hardcore simmer reasons that, no matter what, more perfect > physics and equipment automatically also get you closer to the thrills of the > racing experience. Or in other words: the more accurate the "car physics > simulator", the more accurate also the "car racing simulator". From that point > of view, the hardcore choice of where to put the borderline ("as far as you > can") seems more "pure", less arbitrary. Instead of "artificially" recreating > the driving experience, you get to it the way it is supposed to happen. Instead > of a "surrogate", you get the original. Instead of a synthetic diamond, you get > a natural one. That way, you can no longer blame them that they "miss the > point". On the contrary: with THEIR hardcore approach, they naturally get what > the less hardcore approach tries to reach via unrealistic illusion. > > Well, there are two counter arguments here that I can think off. > > First of all: is reality the best there is? Maybe sometimes, reality is such > that it does no longer fullfill the expectations of those who started racing. > Important aspects that made them love racing, get mutilated in such a way that > it makes their experience less enjoyable. Are we really obliged to get THOSE > aspects into a sim, too? This sounds silly, but consider the following examples: > > - the most obvious one: accidents! We certainly don't want to get hurt via a > simulator. Real pilots don't have the choice. If they WOULD have the choice, > they would certainly "disable" the "injuries" option. I'm still wondering what > would happen if the most hardcore of hardcore simdrivers are actually ABLE to > enable "injuries" in GPL218 :-) > > - too much technology: it was an evolution that almost got out of hand in the > early nineties. Active suspension, advanced throttle control, computerized > everything... why not satellity navigation <G>? The driver was becoming a > passenger in his own vehicle. The best were no longer the best, and I'm sure > many lost a lot of racing experience. Must we stubbornly implement this type of > evolution, no matter how far it goes, into a sim and dig the grave of our own > enjoyment? > > - reality too complex: there are situations where reality turns out to be just > that little bit *too* difficult to handle. Struggling to get a car set up right > is one thing, but if there is *no* progress whatshowever it becomes more of a > torture than anything else. My fellow countryman (another clue ;-) ) and > multiple 500cc motocross champion Joel Smets saw an entire season destroyed > because his bike (Husaberg?) was so totally unreliable that he was barely able > to finish a single race (while constantly running in first position...). If a > sim would be incredibly accurate, to such degree that you get totally lost at > some point, how fun would it be? Would it still *make sense* to use the sim at > all? There has to be *some* system in there, and it should not be hidden in such > a way that only ingenious physicists are able to uncover and handle it. When it > becomes sheer agony, there's no point anymore in using the sim. So in a sense, > racing similators HAVE to be dumbed down to some degree if they don't want to > have a market that consists of Patrick Head, Harvey Postletwaite, Adrian Newey, > Ross Brown, John Barnard and Gordon Murray :-) > > Second remark: if we transfer a certain aspect as accurately as possible to a > computersim, does this automatically guarantee that it retains its essence? I > think it does not necessarilly, and that it should also be carefully considered > whether the increased accuracy for that particular aspect is worth the cost. As > for example Don Scurlock pointed out in one of his replies, sometimes we have to > introduce artificial aspects into the sim to compensate for the absence of > "unsimulatable" aspects. It's nice to have an absolutely perfect tiregrip model > in your sim. But because we can (currently, some would say) not simulate the > feeling of the car under our but, we have to include artificial clues to > substitute it. Or over-emphasize aspects that would provide only minor feedback > in reality. > > In a nutshell: because of inherent physical limitations, a bare, pixel-perfect > transition from reality to a sim will likely disrupt the experience in some way. > It will require you to introduce artificial "compensators". Or sometimes you can > opt to simplify the transition in such a way that you don't *need* the > artificial compensators. Which approach results in the best suspension of > disbelief??? Highly debatable.... But the simplification at least allows you to > invest CPU in OTHER aspects! > > Therefore, along the same lines, a sim developer is obliged to evaluate the > limited computer power at his disposal and make the most efficient choices. It > could be great to accurately calculate the airflow over the spoilers in > realtime, but does the surplus value justify the CPU-cost? If he thinks a little > longer, he could realise that a considerable improvement in graphics would > increase the suspension of disbelief much more, against the same CPU-cost. > > So.... I think it's NOT obvious that choosing for an increase in the accuracy of > physics always improves the authenticity of the driving experience. After some > point, it makes no sense to invest even more in the physics, and the remaining > resources should be invested in OTHER aspects (graphics, sound, AI, atmosphere). > It's enough that A) the implemented physics are complex enough to offer a > sufficiently engrossing challenge. B) they are "true" enough as to not > completely destroy the identification with the real world and real racing, C) > they have a certain degree of consistency. > > Was this even longer than the previous one? Oh boy :-) > > Le Professeur > > "For every problem, there's at least one solution that is > simple, convenient and plain wrong." > H.L.MenckenLe Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote:
Err, I didn't start drinking yet...
>I'll try to target my next post to the lower part of the scale ;-)
Cool, maybe then you're able to answer the question..... <g>
But honestly, I still can't figure out what you're trying to do. It
seems that you try to find a way to label a racinggame, so you're able
to tell what's Arcade or what's a Simulation.... Well, it's never a
simulation, because that's a totaly different type of software.
It's a game.....the only thing what matters is, is it fun or not. And
that depends on the person who's playing the game.
Heeey, a Black Booster!
Remco
Quoted text (16 lines)
>the great and intrepid [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote: > >>Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>>Qui, Le Professeur is back! :-) >> >> >><SNIP!> >> >>Hmmm, loads of text, but I've no idea what you're trying to >>accomplish... >> >> >>Remco > >I warned you that you first had to empty your can of Black Booster!Don't lower your level just yet Professor!!
I don't know about the others, but I'm still thinking about my reply.
Honestly, you wouldn't want to post thought provoking material, only to have
people jumping to conclusions in their replies?? ;-))
Seriously, there is a lot of stuff in your post and I've been very busy
professionally, but I'll get around to it if things cool down (saved a copy
of your message just in case).
Jan.
=---
Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (7 lines)
> the great and intrepid [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote: > > <snip> > I warned you that you first had to empty your can of Black Booster! > I'll try to target my next post to the lower part of the scale ;-) > > Le ProfThe major point (IMO) about true physics is that GPL only has partial
implementation. I feel no G-Forces, which for me is probably a 50% feedback
of how the car is handling, am I going too fast etc. Having said this,
sometimes you need something a bit different to counter the absence of this
feeling. Maybe its a delay in the loss of total grip to help you have that
extra time to react. Some would say, this is more arcadey, whilst I would
say it is simply a counter for other absences. Sometimes you have to adjust
certain senses (feedback) in order to counter the absence of others. This
means you make some feedback/handling less realistic in order to be
fairer/more responsive. For me FF made GPL a whole new game/sim. I felt
much more in control, without it, I needed more time/different cues to
recognise the loss of grip. If I had the G-Forces, I'd probably be a
champion :) , but without them some things need to be dumbed down (IMHO).
Bazza
the great and intrepid [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote:
I noticed it :-)
I'm not trying to achieve anything world shocking. I'm not on a crusade. Sorry
if I made you feel as if I was trying to brainwash you (how am I supposed to
achieve that, hehehe ;-) )
It's just that the "sim vs arcade" debate regularly returns to this group, and
mostly the same superficial arguments are used to defend ones position. I
thought it would be interesting to dive a little deeper into the subject, and
try to discover actual facts and points of view which are not mere "opinions".
A collection of observations that make people think a bit about what they are
talking about. Trying to challenge a few "obvious" assumptions. Of course I
smuggled my own opinion in there, but the most important goal was not to
convince everybody but to make people think.
It's called "reflection" and it's basically what philosophers do all the time
It might actually help some people to enjoy certain so called "failed attempts
at a sim" again. Indeed I believe some here are really blocked from
appreciating certain sims because of an almost religious adoration of "The
Physics".
Le Prof
"The hidden flaw never remains hidden."
Murphy
Quoted text (20 lines)
>Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>the great and intrepid [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote: >> >>>Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote: >>> >>>>Qui, Le Professeur is back! :-) >>> >>> >>><SNIP!> >>> >>>Hmmm, loads of text, but I've no idea what you're trying to >>>accomplish... >>> >>> >>>Remco >> >>I warned you that you first had to empty your can of Black Booster! > >Err, I didn't start drinking yet...Quoted text (12 lines)
> >>I'll try to target my next post to the lower part of the scale ;-) > >Cool, maybe then you're able to answer the question..... <g> > >But honestly, I still can't figure out what you're trying to do. It >seems that you try to find a way to label a racinggame, so you're able >to tell what's Arcade or what's a Simulation.... Well, it's never a >simulation, because that's a totaly different type of software. > >It's a game.....the only thing what matters is, is it fun or not. And >that depends on the person who's playing the game.the great and intrepid "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Don't lower your level just yet Professor!!
I was just going to watch my "Jerry Springer" tapes to kill my brains. You are
just in time, hehe :-)
>I don't know about the others, but I'm still thinking about my reply.
>Honestly, you wouldn't want to post thought provoking material, only to have
>people jumping to conclusions in their replies?? ;-))
If they think while they jump, it's ok :-)
>Seriously, there is a lot of stuff in your post and I've been very busy
>professionally, but I'll get around to it if things cool down (saved a copy
>of your message just in case).
I picked up the gauntlet you threw me... "Let's Rock" ;-)
Le Prof
"Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies."
Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote:
>It might actually help some people to enjoy certain so called "failed attempts
>at a sim" again. Indeed I believe some here are really blocked from
>appreciating certain sims because of an almost religious adoration of "The
>Physics".
Hmmm, I wish you luck <g>
Remco
the great and intrepid [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote:
Hehe..
Notice that this was not the "goal" of my post. It's just a possible positive
side effect :-)
Le Prof
------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 --------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted text (8 lines)
>Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>It might actually help some people to enjoy certain so called "failed attempts >>at a sim" again. Indeed I believe some here are really blocked from >>appreciating certain sims because of an almost religious adoration of "The >>Physics". > >Hmmm, I wish you luck <g>the great and intrepid Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote:
Hmmm... I think I shot my last bullets here. Not much left to chronicle :-)
But you are invited to publish my 2 articles on your site and encourage
discussion.
Why does this remind me of the Trojan Horse story? <G>
Le Prof
"If your philosophy fits in a nutshell, you better leave it in
there."
Sydney J. Harris
Quoted text (7 lines)
>Hello le Prof... why don't you do a chronicle about these subjects on my website ? > >give me a shout... > >http://simracingmag.com/simracingmag/ > >Ericthe great and intrepid Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote:
Hmmm... I think I shot my last bullets here. Not much left to chronicle :-)
But you are invited to publish my 2 articles on your site and encourage
discussion.
Why does this remind me of the Trojan Horse story? <G>
Le Prof
"If your philosophy fits in a nutshell, you better leave it in
there."
Sydney J. Harris
