Re: F1 2000 realism

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:07:07 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I have yet to discover any little attempt to model this in F1 2000, > >It's on the level of Codemaster's game engine or Ubisoft's Pod game engine, >a little higher probably. Are you drunk? You are saying that F1 2000 is on the level of POD? If so, give us all a fucking break, Frank. -- * rrev at mindspring dot com * unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m. * http://www.cabal.net

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:38:39 GMT, [email hidden] (Skeeter) wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>If Jim Clark could come back from the dead and drive a modern F1 car, he >>would probably say the same thing that GPL enthusiasts say about F1 2000: >>"This sucks!". > > This sucks???I think jim would pull into the pits and grin so wide >while he says"so this is where were at,huh".Taking a turn at 4 to 5g's >instead of 1g would of opened Jim's eyes very wide.

Yep, he would be a very happy camper. ;) -- * rrev at mindspring dot com * unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m. * http://www.cabal.net

A four wheel drift is fun on a computer screen or in a 80 MPH Kart. It's not so much fun at 150 MPH in a rolling petrol bomb with no seatbelts =) ...Colin Tracey Miller <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:oRtB4.1362$Q%[email hidden]... > Exactly. This is the reason Papy made GPL in the first place, the carswere

Quoted text (9 lines)

> more fun to drive back then. They were really just high powered go carts. > > If Jim Clark could come back from the dead and drive a modern F1 car, he > would probably say the same thing that GPL enthusiasts say about F1 2000: > "This sucks!". > > The only four wheel drift you see in modern F1 races is when the car is > drifting right off the course. GPL spoiled a lot of people for what F1 > racing is really like. It used to be 90% driver and 10% car, now it's

almost

Quoted text (9 lines)

> vice versa. > > > > "Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8b53bj$75d$[email hidden]... > > Hi, > > > > It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand

Prix

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > > realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are > just > > harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving > model > > to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. > > > > Sjoerd > > > > > >

> Besides, I think that if a game correctly modelled a modern F1 car in > detail, only a handful of people (yes, even on this newsgroup) would beable > to drive it. > Detailed, intelligent, testosterone-free follow-ups welcomed. ok, try this....as long as you dont floor the accelerator or the brakes then a modern f1 car isnt all that difficult to drive slowly.....same with most cars (same in gpl) the skill is in driving them at speed. The programmers should tailor the ai to drive at whatever skill level the player wants to give a good race (or just let them drive online...) And i dissagree with the statement that the spins in GP2 are often 'canned' and unrealistic. The drivers were complaining about the 'twitchyness' of the cars back in 94. If youre quick enough with the controller then youll catch the spin. fair and simple in gp2. In gpl the cars take longer to step out, and that is why people are catching them but not th gp2 spins. Its all about talent in the end :) pez

> Besides, I think that if a game correctly modelled a modern F1 car in > detail, only a handful of people (yes, even on this newsgroup) would beable > to drive it. > Detailed, intelligent, testosterone-free follow-ups welcomed. ok, try this....as long as you dont floor the accelerator or the brakes then a modern f1 car isnt all that difficult to drive slowly.....same with most cars (same in gpl) the skill is in driving them at speed. The programmers should tailor the ai to drive at whatever skill level the player wants to give a good race (or just let them drive online...) And i dissagree with the statement that the spins in GP2 are often 'canned' and unrealistic. The drivers were complaining about the 'twitchyness' of the cars back in 94. If youre quick enough with the controller then youll catch the spin. fair and simple in gp2. In gpl the cars take longer to step out, and that is why people are catching them but not th gp2 spins. Its all about talent in the end :) pez

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:08:22 +0100, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: >the trackside graphics also boast G-strings which will alone >be worth the price of the product, Oh, I agree.. ;) -- * rrev at mindspring dot com * unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m. * http://www.cabal.net

> I'd say modern F1 is as hard if not harder to drive than 1960's F1, Yesthe > limit is higher in modern F1 but when you reach that limit you are doomed > !!!! ;) and don't forget that modern f1 drivers all have to go to the limit whereas in the 60s it was a question of bravery, courage and determination - today it's their job. cheers, Alex

Ryan Mitchley <[email hidden]> wrote: > If there are any racers out there who are doing more than simply comparing > the tracks to their experiences of GP2, MGP, or even live television > coverage, I'd be interested to hear their views (and exactly where they're > coming from). I have actually driven a car (if you call a Golf a car, that is) around the A1-Ring. In F1-2000 the bumps are overdone, and some elevations changes are either exaggerated (there is no such huge hill before the Rindtkurve) or to small (the climb up to Remuskurve, the braking zone of the Goesserkurve). Some locations of armco are just plain wrong (after the Goesserkurve). Just stating the facts. For me, this is _not_ a reason not to buy F1 2000. It is actually quite fun and the best current F1 sim, isn't it? BTW: EA will sell _lots_ of copies. That's what they work for. > Besides, I think that if a game correctly modelled a modern F1 car in > detail, only a handful of people (yes, even on this newsgroup) would be able > to drive it. Don't think so. Driving is one thing, driving as quick as the real guys another. OTOH i have never driven an F1, so what do i know. Greetings, Andreas -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Worueber man nicht reden kann, darueber muss man schweigen."(Wittgenstein) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andreas Kroell alias [email hidden]

Someone should tell Alex Zanardi that driving an F1 car is easy. James Larson Omaha, Nebraska, USA

In article <8b5ckd$9h$[email hidden]>, Andreas Kroell <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>Path: >> If there are any racers out there who are doing more than simply comparing >> the tracks to their experiences of GP2, MGP, or even live television >> coverage, I'd be interested to hear their views (and exactly where they're >> coming from). > >I have actually driven a car (if you call a Golf a car, that is) around >the A1-Ring. In F1-2000 the bumps are overdone, and some elevations >changes are either exaggerated (there is no such huge hill before the >Rindtkurve) or to small (the climb up to Remuskurve, the braking zone of >the Goesserkurve). Some locations of armco are just plain wrong (after the >Goesserkurve). > >Just stating the facts. For me, this is _not_ a reason not to buy F1 2000. >It is actually quite fun and the best current F1 sim, isn't it? >BTW: EA will sell _lots_ of copies. That's what they work for. > >> Besides, I think that if a game correctly modelled a modern F1 car in >> detail, only a handful of people (yes, even on this newsgroup) would be able >> to drive it. > >Don't think so. Driving is one thing, driving as quick as the real guys >another. OTOH i have never driven an F1, so what do i know.

-agreed. There's also the g-force/fitness issue- if these were beign simulated, sure- but physical fitness is not a requirement in sims. Z. Please remove my_pants when replying.

Andreas Kroell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8b5ckd$9h$[email hidden]... > Ryan Mitchley <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Besides, I think that if a game correctly modelled a modern F1 car in > > detail, only a handful of people (yes, even on this newsgroup) would beable > > to drive it. > > Don't think so. Driving is one thing, driving as quick as the real guys > another. OTOH i have never driven an F1, so what do i know. > >The ability of average Joes to pay their money and go driving in somewhat modern F1 cars at the various "F1 experience" track-lapping companies shows that most people, with a little instruction, could get an F1 car into gear, move out of the pit lane and motor sedately around the track. With a small amount of teaching (assuming the pupil is not completely out of their element in day-to-day driving) most could also start lapping at speeds that could be considered "brisk". The transition from "brisk" to "fast" is the final difference. I don't think that a F1 car, in the controlled environment of a racetrack, is such a monster. There are many road-legal cars with capabilities not far below the F1 (think Caterham, Porsche) and yet most of us would not claim to be unable to drive one. Stephen

Hi, It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are just harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving model to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. Sjoerd

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:12:02 -0600, "Tracey Miller" >Exactly. This is the reason Papy made GPL in the first place, the cars were >more fun to drive back then. They were really just high powered go carts. More fun??Really,I have read that the drivers of that era hated to race the cars due to their unstable nature.Now for us on our PC's its fun but not more fun than modern F1 just different. This sucks???I think jim would pull into the pits and grin so wide while he says"so this is where were at,huh".Taking a turn at 4 to 5g's instead of 1g would of opened Jim's eyes very wide. Modern F1 cars drift also since all tires generate slip angles. Difference is that the tires from GPL era had a larger slip angle and where more forgiving when you reached thier limit.Modern F1 tires are said to be harder to drive since their slip angles are smaller and the limits are very unforgiving(stick-no stick).This year rookie Cart driver Juan Montoya was told by all the drivers that one of the tracks was a *** to drive at the limit.He never spun once while many of the other drivers were spinning like crazy:)))))

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> Hi, >> It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix >> Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the >> realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are >just >> harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving >model >> to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. >> Sjoerd

"Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Hi, > > It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix > Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are just > harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving model > to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please.

No, it is not stupid to compare a sim to the best there is. Of course the cars are different and they should also feel different in a sim. What we want is a sim where the car is modelled as good as the 67 F1 cars of GPL, and if they are they would feel like a 2000 F1 car (not that any of us have tried one, and would know:) The problem with the sims you mentioned GP2 and MGPRS2 is that since the cars are not modelled good enough, the cars sometimes spin out without you knowing why, and not able to analyze either. Every time i crash out in GPL i know even before I hit the wall why. In GP2 and MGPRS2 you don't sometimes, and that can't be called "easy to drive", only good-for-it's-time-but-not-good- enough-now-physics-model. -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

Sjoerd de Roest wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Hi, > > It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix > Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are just > harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving model > to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. > > Sjoerd

While your point is true that the cars behave differently (althogh not as much as some think), the physics behind the real life cars is always the same, and Sir Isaac Newton alread took care of how it is described. There is, contrary to popular opinion, just one way of realism since there is only one type of (classical) physics, the difference is only in approximations used to make it work on the (limited) computers that we have on (or below or beside) our desks today. The difference between different types of racing is then in the properties of physical objects (tyre performance, aerodynamic properties, mass, inertia, power). The physics are always the same. Some sim approximations are crude due to the lack of attention of programmers and thus very unrealistic (a lot of titles), some are excellent in modelling details, like GPL and Viper Racing. Let's hope F1 2000 leans towards the second camp. That's all there is to realism wishes, noone wants it to drive like GPL. That woulde be unrealistic. -Gregor

"Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8b53bj$75d$[email hidden]... > It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix > Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends arejust > harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the drivingmodel > to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. Agreed. And it goes beyond a mere "difficulty" difference: aerodynamics, slicks and a vast number of other factors should make a huge difference to the feel of the sim. And I'd be interested to know what reference those that slam (or praise) the game are using. Which of them have driven open wheel single seaters? The same goes for those that comment on the realism of the tracks. Have they actually driven on the tracks that they mention? If there are any racers out there who are doing more than simply comparing the tracks to their experiences of GP2, MGP, or even live television coverage, I'd be interested to hear their views (and exactly where they're coming from). And it would be disappointing if a game were to get a bad rap simply because the default controller settings or suchlike are wrong (I think someone has mentioned the speed sensitivity setting of F1 2000). Besides, I think that if a game correctly modelled a modern F1 car in detail, only a handful of people (yes, even on this newsgroup) would be able to drive it. Also, I haven't yet seen any posts specifying exactly what they find unsatisfying about the F1 2000 dynamics, just this kind of general "nothing like GPL" hand-waving . . . Detailed, intelligent, testosterone-free follow-ups welcomed. Ryan

"Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8b53bj$75d$[email hidden]... > > It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix > > Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > > realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are > just > > harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving > model > > to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. > > Agreed. And it goes beyond a mere "difficulty" difference: aerodynamics, > slicks and a vast number of other factors should make a huge difference to > the feel of the sim. And I'd be interested to know what reference those that > slam (or praise) the game are using. Which of them have driven open wheel > single seaters? The same goes for those that comment on the realism of the > tracks. Have they actually driven on the tracks that they mention?

There are many open-wheel racers here in this newsgroup, sadly my only open wheel experience is rental-karts :) Some people here have very good knowledge of the different tracks around the world too. > If there are any racers out there who are doing more than simply comparing > the tracks to their experiences of GP2, MGP, or even live television > coverage, I'd be interested to hear their views (and exactly where they're > coming from). Always nice to hear stories. > And it would be disappointing if a game were to get a bad rap simply because > the default controller settings or suchlike are wrong (I think someone has > mentioned the speed sensitivity setting of F1 2000). True, but a messy controller setup (never understood that speed-sensivity thing ;) is only one factor of a bad game. > Besides, I think that if a game correctly modelled a modern F1 car in > detail, only a handful of people (yes, even on this newsgroup) would be able > to drive it. I think everyone who have some interest in techincal driving would be able to drive a F1 car. At 30 km/h that is. But remember the crazy amount of practice you get in a sim, and how many times you can kill yourself. I think most of us who race GPL on a regular basis have done more laps at many of the tracks than many of the drivers of that time. Alison Hine said that she probably had done more laps at Monza than Jim Clark only during beta-testing. My point is, even if a F1 would be undrivable, many of us would still practice enough do manage after all. I think even Mr Hot-Lap-King Woeger spun in the pits the first time he tried GPL. > Also, I haven't yet seen any posts specifying exactly what they find > unsatisfying about the F1 2000 dynamics, just this kind of general "nothing > like GPL" hand-waving . . . Good point. But I do think it is a thing that is not that easy to describe. When I tried GPL the first time, I felt that this was the way to do it. Every other sim released since haven't given me that feeling again. > Detailed, intelligent, testosterone-free follow-ups welcomed. Hope this was good enough :) -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

Andreas Kroell wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Besides, I think that if a game correctly modelled a modern F1 car in > > detail, only a handful of people (yes, even on this newsgroup) would be able > > to drive it. > > Don't think so. Driving is one thing, driving as quick as the real guys > another. OTOH i have never driven an F1, so what do i know. > > Greetings, > Andreas

I can agree, if anything, a racing car should be easy to drive fast, much easier than to drive your ordinary car close to the limit. I think so because if anything a good racing car should be predictable and controlable, and should speak to the driver of its intentions. Of course, as in any car, one has to be careful not to overdo it. But to really reach the limit, as you say Andreas, is where the true skill comes in.

It is my understanding that modern F1 cars are relatively easy to drive under the limit. Driving at the limit is where they get squirrely, and since the advent of grooved tires, braking is perhaps the most difficult thing to master in a modern F1. Anyone notice how many mishaps drivers are having in the braking zones these days?

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Besides, I think that if a game correctly modelled a modern F1 car in > > detail, only a handful of people (yes, even on this newsgroup) would be able > > to drive it. > > Don't think so. Driving is one thing, driving as quick as the real guys > another. OTOH i have never driven an F1, so what do i know. >

Thomas JS Brown wrote: > > It is my understanding that modern F1 cars are relatively easy to drive > under the limit. Driving at the limit is where they get squirrely, and > since the advent of grooved tires, braking is perhaps the most difficult > thing to master in a modern F1. Anyone notice how many mishaps drivers > are having in the braking zones these days? Not as many as I had in GPL.

James Larson wrote: > > Someone should tell Alex Zanardi that driving an F1 car is easy. > > James Larson > Omaha, Nebraska, USA This still doesn't say it is hard (he did manage to drive it, didn't he?), but very hard to drive very fast.

"Thomas JS Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It is my understanding that modern F1 cars are relatively easy to drive > under the limit. I have heard stories of current F1 drivers nearly losing control when their feet have nudged the accelerator too hard going over bumps. That doesn't sound particularly easy to drive to me. I know that a competitor in some non-F1 form of motorsport (rallying or superbike) got a chance to test an F1 car, and he planted it in the wall while attempting to corner. He reported that he was simply trying to accelerate out of the corner, but that the car just spun before he even thought that he was doing anything wrong (OTOH, Max Biaggi test-drove a Ferrari F1 and was reportedly about a second off Schumachers lap record during the course of the day). I know that Martin Brundle mentioned when he was driving the 2-seater McLaren that it seemed a lot easier to drive than the cars he used to race with. Ryan

Jo Helsen wrote: > > Still waiting for a sim that correctly implements String Theory. Now > THAT would be an accurate sim <G> > > JoH Actually, I programmed one but wasn't able to compactify the non-observable dimensions into the current video cards, so you need 11D glasses to drive the thing. But it is realistic, and the trackside graphics also boast G-strings which will alone be worth the price of the product, which has, however, not been determined yet, as I am still dealing with MIT and NASA on some licencing issues. -Gregor

Jo Helsen wrote: > > I knew they could license genes, but strings??? :-) > > JoH Nah, they did not license strings. But for letting me use the proton-antiproton accelerators during the beta testing, they want to include banners like 'Science is Fun' and their usual logos into the sim. -Gregor

Same here in the States, where we have a large number of driving schools where you can hop into a retired Winston Cup NASCAR stocker and go on actual NASCAR tracks. We have 2 or 3 schools here at Charlotte Motor Speedway, and I've known some people who took the classes. These were the entry level classes, and I think they were doing 140mph laps, following behind an instructor car. They said it was pretty easy and they didn't feel they were going that fast. The reason being...a competitive lap there is in the 185mph range, with braking going into the corners and knowing the lines where you can run those speeds, and how to handle the bump coming out of Turn 4, and how not to spin the tires when they romp on the accelerator out of the corners :-) At 140mph, they didn't have to brake at all, were keeping a constant throttle position, and weren't anywhere near the handling limits of the car - and simply had to follow the tracks of the lead car. I'd imagine things would get interesting closer to 175mph, and brutal at the limit around 185. Driving a race car, much like a street car, at 8/10ths isn't that difficult - running race speeds is something altogether different, and why the pros are pros. -- Ken's Sig 3.01 "Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi Go #43 and #44! volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8b5fce$4hf16$[email hidden]... > > Andreas Kroell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8b5ckd$9h$[email hidden]... > > Ryan Mitchley <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > Besides, I think that if a game correctly modelled a modern F1 car in > > > detail, only a handful of people (yes, even on this newsgroup) would be > able > > > to drive it. > > > > Don't think so. Driving is one thing, driving as quick as the real guys > > another. OTOH i have never driven an F1, so what do i know. > > > > > The ability of average Joes to pay their money and go driving in somewhat > modern F1 cars at the various "F1 experience" track-lapping companies shows > that most people, with a little instruction, could get an F1 car into gear, > move out of the pit lane and motor sedately around the track. With a small > amount of teaching (assuming the pupil is not completely out of their > element in day-to-day driving) most could also start lapping at speeds that > could be considered "brisk". The transition from "brisk" to "fast" is the > final difference. I don't think that a F1 car, in the controlled > environment of a racetrack, is such a monster. There are many road-legal > cars with capabilities not far below the F1 (think Caterham, Porsche) and > yet most of us would not claim to be unable to drive one. > > Stephen > > >

For me F1 2000, i don't call this a simulator. The setup is quite extensive a la GP2 or GP3, but what were they thinking, there is no bloddy telemetry to help us improve our setup in the right direction !!!! I rather wait for the F1 game by Lankhor !!!!!!!! The only thing, i like about F1 2000, is the chance to ride the new Indy track, that's it !!!!! Bye Coco Sjoerd de Roest wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Hi, > > It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix > Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are just > harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving model > to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. > > Sjoerd

Still waiting for a sim that correctly implements String Theory. Now THAT would be an accurate sim <G> JoH

I knew they could license genes, but strings??? :-) JoH On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:08:22 +0100, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>Jo Helsen wrote: >> >> Still waiting for a sim that correctly implements String Theory. Now >> THAT would be an accurate sim <G> >> >> JoH > >Actually, I programmed one but wasn't able to compactify the >non-observable dimensions into the current video cards, so you need 11D >glasses to drive the thing. But it is realistic, and the trackside >graphics also boast G-strings which will alone be worth the price of the >product, which has, however, not been determined yet, as I am still >dealing with MIT and NASA on some licencing issues. > >-Gregor

If they're so easy to drive why aren't we all racing real F1 at weekends instead of a simulator ? :) I'd say modern F1 is as hard if not harder to drive than 1960's F1, Yes the limit is higher in modern F1 but when you reach that limit you are doomed !!!! ;) -- Ian Parker [email hidden] [email hidden] == Sjoerd de Roest <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8b53bj$75d$[email hidden]... > Hi, > > It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix > Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are just > harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving model > to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. > > Sjoerd > >

Exactly. This is the reason Papy made GPL in the first place, the cars were more fun to drive back then. They were really just high powered go carts. If Jim Clark could come back from the dead and drive a modern F1 car, he would probably say the same thing that GPL enthusiasts say about F1 2000: "This sucks!". The only four wheel drift you see in modern F1 races is when the car is drifting right off the course. GPL spoiled a lot of people for what F1 racing is really like. It used to be 90% driver and 10% car, now it's almost vice versa. "Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8b53bj$75d$[email hidden]... > Hi, > > It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix > Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends arejust > harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the drivingmodel > to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. > > Sjoerd > >

Wings and Slicks open wheel cars are no way near as easy to drive as they are in F1 2000. I think some ppl so keen to see GP3 that they may want to see something in this game that just aint there. :o) GP3 isn't that far away (I hope) On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:12:02 -0600, "Tracey Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (31 lines)

>Exactly. This is the reason Papy made GPL in the first place, the cars were >more fun to drive back then. They were really just high powered go carts. > >If Jim Clark could come back from the dead and drive a modern F1 car, he >would probably say the same thing that GPL enthusiasts say about F1 2000: >"This sucks!". > >The only four wheel drift you see in modern F1 races is when the car is >drifting right off the course. GPL spoiled a lot of people for what F1 >racing is really like. It used to be 90% driver and 10% car, now it's almost >vice versa. > > > >"Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8b53bj$75d$[email hidden]... >> Hi, >> >> It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix >> Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the >> realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are >just >> harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving >model >> to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. >> >> Sjoerd >> >> > >

BS.: the only reason we're not all driving F1's on weekends is that you can't run even a small increment of a lap for the price of a PC + game (assuming you could express the price of a season's worth of F1 on a "per lap" basis). Jan. =--- Ian P <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9ItB4.765$[email hidden]... > If they're so easy to drive why aren't we all racing real F1 at weekends > instead of a simulator ? :) > > I'd say modern F1 is as hard if not harder to drive than 1960's F1, Yesthe > limit is higher in modern F1 but when you reach that limit you are doomed > !!!! ;) > > -- > Ian Parker > <snip>

I'm not into warez so I can't comment on F1 2000 specifically, but the difference between '67 and 2000 automotive technology is almost as night and day as computer technology, and no one exploits the technology better than F1. "Maer Davey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Wings and Slicks open wheel cars are no way near as easy to drive as > they are in F1 2000. I think some ppl so keen to see GP3 that they may > want to see something in this game that just aint there. :o) GP3 > isn't that far away (I hope) > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:12:02 -0600, "Tracey Miller" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Exactly. This is the reason Papy made GPL in the first place, the cars

were

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >more fun to drive back then. They were really just high powered go carts. > > > >If Jim Clark could come back from the dead and drive a modern F1 car, he > >would probably say the same thing that GPL enthusiasts say about F1 2000: > >"This sucks!". > > > >The only four wheel drift you see in modern F1 races is when the car is > >drifting right off the course. GPL spoiled a lot of people for what F1 > >racing is really like. It used to be 90% driver and 10% car, now it's

almost

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >vice versa. > > > > > > > >"Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:8b53bj$75d$[email hidden]... > >> Hi, > >> > >> It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand

Prix

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >> Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > >> realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are > >just > >> harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving > >model > >> to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. > >> > >> Sjoerd > >> > >> > > > > >

"Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> wrote > It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix > Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > realism with GPL is just stupid. I think you might not fully understand the context of "game engines vs. actual car behavior". Be sure we are all aware of the difference in car behavior and handling in both games. That is clearly not what most of us are talking about. We mostly talk about the actual game engine itself, the limitation it has, the feature it has, etc.. -- -- 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.

"Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> wrote > Which of them have driven open wheel > single seaters? If you check out the Flight simulator newsgroup, you'll find the same type of people than us. A good portion of us have actual racing experience, whatever it's open, closed or any type of racing, on 1,2,3,or more wheels ;) > The same goes for those that comment on the realism of the > tracks. Have they actually driven on the tracks that they mention? Of course I have. F1 2000 has one of the worst track modeling in modern gaming. I've raced two of those tracks, plus went to other tracks all-around the world, and Im excluding here the years of extensive F1 watching each two weeks. You'll find that most of us don't say stuff just to impress, but to inform. -- -- 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.

"Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> wrote > I have heard stories of current F1 drivers nearly losing control whentheir > feet have nudged the accelerator too hard going over bumps. That doesn't > sound particularly easy to drive to me. I have yet to discover any little attempt to model this in F1 2000, unfortunately. But we quite knew that the SCGT game engine, even if above-average, just couldn't match up the one in GPL, neither RC2000 or other game engine that have potential like Motorsims, the EA game engine found in SBK 2000, Geoff Crammond's F1GP game engine or Hasbro's GP500 game engine. It's on the level of Codemaster's game engine or Ubisoft's Pod game engine, a little higher probably. -- -- 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 didn't download a pirated version of F12K did you? "the legitimate use of pirated software". Your fucking hilarious ymenard! your also a hypocrite and an asshole Al Stiff > Of course I have. F1 2000 has one of the worst track modeling in modern > gaming. I've raced two of those tracks, plus went to other tracks > all-around the world, and Im excluding here the years of extensive F1 > watching each two weeks. > > You'll find that most of us don't say stuff just to impress, but toinform.

Quoted text (9 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. > > >

"Tracey Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote > The only four wheel drift you see in modern F1 races is when the car is > drifting right off the course. GPL spoiled a lot of people for what F1 > racing is really like. It used to be 90% driver and 10% car, now it'salmost > vice versa. Yep, and F1 2000 has big problems doing that. Look at how much trail-braking and power-sliding you do in EA's Formula 1 game. It is clearly not realistic at all. In a previous post I mentioned that modern F1 are raced the same as technical books told us before. When braking into a corner, you make sure that you have gone down to the correct speed before aiming to the apex. People like Michael Schumacher are able to push that limit to the edge and actually aim the apex while still having a quite heavy braking. Unfortunately in F1 2000, anybody can easily power-brake into the corner (with inducted push), or powerslide "a la GPL" almost. It made the simulator irrelevant for this reason, with the incredible bad track modeling at -each-and-every- track in it. Please note that Im not bashing ISI, just stating facts from how the game engine performs under racing conditions. Let's hope their next attempt will be more realistic than that. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:12:02 -0600, "Tracey Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Exactly. This is the reason Papy made GPL in the first place, the cars were >more fun to drive back then. They were really just high powered go carts. More fun??Really,I have read that the drivers of that era hated to race the cars due to their unstable nature.Now for us on our PC's its fun but not more fun than modern F1 just different. > >If Jim Clark could come back from the dead and drive a modern F1 car, he >would probably say the same thing that GPL enthusiasts say about F1 2000: >"This sucks!". This sucks???I think jim would pull into the pits and grin so wide while he says"so this is where were at,huh".Taking a turn at 4 to 5g's instead of 1g would of opened Jim's eyes very wide. > >The only four wheel drift you see in modern F1 races is when the car is >drifting right off the course. GPL spoiled a lot of people for what F1 >racing is really like. It used to be 90% driver and 10% car, now it's almost >vice versa. > Modern F1 cars drift also since all tires generate slip angles. Difference is that the tires from GPL era had a larger slip angle and where more forgiving when you reached thier limit.Modern F1 tires are said to be harder to drive since their slip angles are smaller and the limits are very unforgiving(stick-no stick).This year rookie Cart driver Juan Montoya was told by all the drivers that one of the tracks was a bitch to drive at the limit.He never spun once while many of the other drivers were spinning like crazy:)))))

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > >"Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8b53bj$75d$[email hidden]... >> Hi, >> >> It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix >> Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the >> realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are >just >> harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving >model >> to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. >> >> Sjoerd >> >> > >

Jim would roll over in his grave if he saw what F1 has become. Back then it was the guy with the biggest balls and the most talent that won the race, now it's the guy with enough talent to get on the right team with the biggest budget. Back then they weren't just drivers they were dare devils, they were putting their lives on the line every lap and surely had the same love/hate relationship with F1 as I have with GPL. Modern F1 racing isn't as rewarding as it was in those days, and therefore a sim can't be either. Is F1 2000 realistic? I don't know, I haven't tried it, but if it is it won't be very much like GPL. "Skeeter" wrote > This sucks???I think jim would pull into the pits and grin so wide > while he says"so this is where were at,huh".Taking a turn at 4 to 5g's > instead of 1g would of opened Jim's eyes very wide.

Really? In that case, I'm off to see Frank or Dennis!! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Sjoerd de Roest <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8b53bj$75d$[email hidden]... > Modern F1 cars are easy to drive.

Bart....your sarcasm is oozing out of the bottom right-hand corner (the monitor is not dead-level) of my screen! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > ymenard wrote: > > > > You'll find that most of us don't say stuff just to impress, but to inform. > > -- 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. > > That would explain your sig and prior behavior, I guess. BTW, I, for > one, would be fascinated to hear more about your extensive racing > experience on two of the tracks currently used in F1. I assume Montreal > is one, but what is the other? What vehicle(s)? I'm sure many of us here > are absolutely agog -- an experienced piloto AND a super genius, that's > quite a rare and precious combination. Tell us more! > > BB

ROFL!!!!! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > ymenard wrote: > > > > But we quite knew that the SCGT game engine, even if above-average, just couldn't match up the one in GPL, > > neither RC2000 or other game engine that have potential like Motorsims, the EA game engine > > found in SBK 2000, Geoff Crammond's F1GP game engine or Hasbro's GP500 game engine. > > > It's on the level of Codemaster's game engine or Ubisoft's Pod game engine, a little higher probably. > > -- 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. > > An experienced piloto, a super genius, and a programmer, too! I've noted > before how you so glibly compare this game engine with that game engine > -- could you explain to us less-gifted mortals some of the algorithms > that make one game engine superior/inferior/just plain different from > another? After all, you've included yourself in the "us" of "most of us > don't say stuff just to impress, but to inform." Inform us, Frank... > > BTW, exactly who comprises this "we" that you're always talking about so > familiarly? You know, like in the statement "we quite knew that the SCGT > game engine, even if above-average, just couldn't match up the one in > GPL." Again, please shed some informative light on how an ace programmer > like yourself (and the others of "we") goes about the scientific method > you so humbly describe as "we quite knew" -- what worlds of scientific > wonder must lie in those three simple words..."we quite knew"! > > Again, I'm agog. > > Please don't hide your light under a bushel -- brilliance is nothing to > be ashamed of or modest about...tell us all! > > BB

In 1967 a chap by the name of Moises Solana rented one of the Lotus 49s (49/R1) for both the USA and Mexican GPs. For the US event he started in 7th. place on the grid...........considered pretty phenomenal for a bloke who hardly had any practise with the car (9 laps!). Denis Jenkinson reported at the time that this "either says a lot for his improvement since last year or that the Lotus is easier to drive than it looks". It was generally accepted by those knowledgable people at the time that, although Solana's abilities had improved, the Lotus was an easy car to get to grips with. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:40:17 +0100, Gregor Veble > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I can agree, if anything, a racing car should be easy to drive fast, > >much easier than to drive your ordinary car close to the limit. I think > >so because if anything a good racing car should be predictable and > >controlable, and should speak to the driver of its intentions. Of > >course, as in any car, one has to be careful not to overdo it. But to > >really reach the limit, as you say Andreas, is where the true skill > >comes in. > > I'd disagree with that (at least as far as a racecar being easier than > a road car). > > A road car is set up at the factory so as not to kill too many of it's > drivers - it's purpose is to safely transport from A to B. A racecar's > purpose is to get from A to B as fast as possible, irrespective of > staying on the road. The driver's job is to dial back any instability > to the point where it is manageable for him, and that will always be > far, far closer to the limit than a road car setup for the lowest > common denominator. > > Any car is "easy to drive" when far from the limit, but a racecar > generally gives you far less warning of when you approach the limit, > and things go pear-shaped more quickly when you reach it. > > Cheers! > John

On 21 Mar 2000 17:53:46 +0100, [email hidden] (Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad) wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>"Ian P" <[email hidden]> writes: > >> Well, I think a Formula 1 car is considerably more powerful and much lighter >> (though I'm not so sure how heavy the Caterham is) than the cars you have >> quoted. > >I agree. >Not much lighter than a Caterham, though. >Caterham seven superlight: kerb weight: 470 kg >A F1 car has a lot more power, of course. The most powerful Caterham >superlight has only 190 Hp. >Let me think..190 hp/470 kg...Yup, I still want one :-)

There was a guy in the local SCCA chapter some time ago that had an original (modified) Super 7 with a 3 ROTOR *TURBO* MAZDA engine in it. Way over 300 hp! It was very light, (lighter and better weight balanced than the original S7) . The suspension was heavily modified with mostly Formula3 and Formula Ford components. It was SOOOOOO quick. -- * rrev at mindspring dot com * unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m. * http://www.cabal.net

Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:37:27 GMT, Coco <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >The only thing, i like about F1 2000, is the chance to ride the new Indytrack, > >that's it !!!!! > > You can do that with GP2 as well. > Except the cars do crazy things on the banking. Stephen

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:40:17 +0100, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I can agree, if anything, a racing car should be easy to drive fast, >much easier than to drive your ordinary car close to the limit. I think >so because if anything a good racing car should be predictable and >controlable, and should speak to the driver of its intentions. Of >course, as in any car, one has to be careful not to overdo it. But to >really reach the limit, as you say Andreas, is where the true skill >comes in.

I'd disagree with that (at least as far as a racecar being easier than a road car). A road car is set up at the factory so as not to kill too many of it's drivers - it's purpose is to safely transport from A to B. A racecar's purpose is to get from A to B as fast as possible, irrespective of staying on the road. The driver's job is to dial back any instability to the point where it is manageable for him, and that will always be far, far closer to the limit than a road car setup for the lowest common denominator. Any car is "easy to drive" when far from the limit, but a racecar generally gives you far less warning of when you approach the limit, and things go pear-shaped more quickly when you reach it. Cheers! John

If Jim Clark tried the GPL he'd say: What the fuck is this, this game has nothing to do with the real '67 F-1 physics. Every [ not paid to plug the product ] F-1 driver commenting on these simulators [ GP2, GPL etc... ] said: NOT REALISTIC AT ALL There's only one game that can truly claim to have realistic physics and that is Viper racing [ and even that one only in bumper view, the rest just feel too slow ] "Tracey Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:oRtB4.1362$Q%[email hidden]... > Exactly. This is the reason Papy made GPL in the first place, the carswere

Quoted text (9 lines)

> more fun to drive back then. They were really just high powered go carts. > > If Jim Clark could come back from the dead and drive a modern F1 car, he > would probably say the same thing that GPL enthusiasts say about F1 2000: > "This sucks!". > > The only four wheel drift you see in modern F1 races is when the car is > drifting right off the course. GPL spoiled a lot of people for what F1 > racing is really like. It used to be 90% driver and 10% car, now it's

almost

Quoted text (9 lines)

> vice versa. > > > > "Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8b53bj$75d$[email hidden]... > > Hi, > > > > It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand

Prix

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > > realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are > just > > harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving > model > > to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. > > > > Sjoerd > > > > > >

Did any F1 driver comment on GPL? Who? What did he say exactly? I read reports of real world drivers that Nascar 3, Rc2000 and Dirt track racing were realistic, and GPL isn't? Andre On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:21:25 GMT, "vipery" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>If Jim Clark tried the GPL he'd say: >What the fuck is this, this game has nothing to do >with the real '67 F-1 physics. > >Every [ not paid to plug the product ] > F-1 driver commenting on these simulators >[ GP2, GPL etc... ] said: NOT REALISTIC AT ALL > >There's only one game that can truly claim to have realistic physics >and that is Viper racing [ and even that one only in >bumper view, the rest just feel too slow ]

"vipery" <[email hidden]> wrote > Every [ not paid to plug the product ] > F-1 driver commenting on these simulators > [ GP2, GPL etc... ] said: NOT REALISTIC AT ALL *PLONK* About GPL, it's more the opposite. You should had see Alexandre Tagliani after they showed him GPL in Blainville. He only swears by it now (with Patrick also in the Players simulation). Or Sir Jack Brabham. Or real-life Vintage F1 racers. Or just go to this URL, http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=594691789&CONTEXT=953604506.1187905559&hitn um=1 read and apologies yourself for such lies and inventions. FYI, Viper Racing still has to my eyes incredible physics, second to GPL, with the only letback of having the title surrounded in a more fantasy-based environment. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

ymenard wrote: > > You'll find that most of us don't say stuff just to impress, but to inform. > -- 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. That would explain your sig and prior behavior, I guess. BTW, I, for one, would be fascinated to hear more about your extensive racing experience on two of the tracks currently used in F1. I assume Montreal is one, but what is the other? What vehicle(s)? I'm sure many of us here are absolutely agog -- an experienced piloto AND a super genius, that's quite a rare and precious combination. Tell us more! BB

ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > But we quite knew that the SCGT game engine, even if above-average, just couldn't match up the one in GPL, > neither RC2000 or other game engine that have potential like Motorsims, the EA game engine > found in SBK 2000, Geoff Crammond's F1GP game engine or Hasbro's GP500 game engine. > It's on the level of Codemaster's game engine or Ubisoft's Pod game engine, a little higher probably. > -- 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.

An experienced piloto, a super genius, and a programmer, too! I've noted before how you so glibly compare this game engine with that game engine -- could you explain to us less-gifted mortals some of the algorithms that make one game engine superior/inferior/just plain different from another? After all, you've included yourself in the "us" of "most of us don't say stuff just to impress, but to inform." Inform us, Frank... BTW, exactly who comprises this "we" that you're always talking about so familiarly? You know, like in the statement "we quite knew that the SCGT game engine, even if above-average, just couldn't match up the one in GPL." Again, please shed some informative light on how an ace programmer like yourself (and the others of "we") goes about the scientific method you so humbly describe as "we quite knew" -- what worlds of scientific wonder must lie in those three simple words..."we quite knew"! Again, I'm agog. Please don't hide your light under a bushel -- brilliance is nothing to be ashamed of or modest about...tell us all! BB

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:33:01 +0100, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote: >Did any F1 driver comment on GPL? Who? What did he say exactly? >I read reports of real world drivers that Nascar 3, Rc2000 and Dirt >track racing were realistic, and GPL isn't? > >Andre > WHAT!!?! What'dya mean not realistic? Who said that? Where are they? Maybe, just maybe GPL ISN'T the most realistic simulation that has been or ever will be produced. How d'ya like them apples? Can anyone with any authority on the subject really tell me if GPL is truly a realistic portrayal of late 60's F1 cars so far as the driving model is concerned. I always hear, "damn straight it's realistic. The physics model has been programmed such that even a pebble stuck in the tread will wildly alter the handling of the car. With that level of detail, it MUST be realistic." That's basically what I keep hearing, but has anyone with an extensive racing background been able to support this claim. And by extensive background, I don't mean "Eagle Woman" or some guy who drove his Datsun in IMSA twenty five years ago. I know that the physics model is supposed to accurately model dozens of variables which affect car handling, but in the end, is it really the sum of it's parts? I honestly would like to know. For months and months I've read hundreds of posts proclaiming GPL as "the sim which has just made every other present and future sim complete and utter arcade like garbage." Not in those exact words of course, but that's the general attitude I get from many how shall I say, 'enthusiastic,' GPL fans. If someone, Michael Schumacher for example, ever tried out GPL and proclaimed that it didn't feel very realistic, I think it would forever shatter the lives of all the GPL groupies. To them it would be a revelation on par with aliens landing on Earth and the realization that we are not the only sentient life in the universe......

"rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote > You are saying that F1 2000 is on the level of POD? > If so, give us all a fucking break, Frank. No no you misunderstood me :). Many of the Ubisoft employees always refered to Ubisoft's game engine as the "POD game engine", quite like per example the "Unreal game engine", as it's the first title that used it. In the thread you replied I was rating development game engine on my opinion of the potential they have, and forgetting about MGI's Viper Game engine, which should be below GPL but at the level of RC2000 and others. Their name has no relation with a title that would have the same name, as it represent a global opinion of the potential of the developper. We could call the old Papyrus game engine the "Icr1 game engine" if we wanted! -- -- 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.

"Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote > That would explain your sig and prior behavior, I guess. BTW, I, for > one, would be fascinated to hear more about your extensive racing > experience on two of the tracks currently used in F1. I assume Montreal > is one, but what is the other? What vehicle(s)? I'm sure many of us here > are absolutely agog -- an experienced piloto AND a super genius, that's > quite a rare and precious combination. Tell us more! I suggest you go look at a Deja.com message not more than 2days ago, to see what tracks I went saw racing and/or F1. I've drove Monaco as it's a public road, and of course Montreal, and lapped a good portion of the Magny-Cours circuit when I visited some people there last year. I know Montreal by heart, and only one track has a good accuracy and it's a user-created track by a GP2 fanatic. I told well enough that I've raced Touring Cars for 2season before an accident that left me unable to race anymore. Please, your anti-ymenard crusade is quite funny, and started for no reason not even a month ago. You must feel very good about this. Always wondered the sociological fun of actually choosing an human being and putting him down. It's just a fact that we have not seen even 1 post mentionning of the good accuracy of F1 2000's track, yet we more have dozens of them agreeing it's one of the main flaw of the software. Just to help you, look at a thread called "second opinion about F1 2000...". About the knowledge some people on this newsgroup have of the track accuracy. I do suspect many people have lapped Silverstone, Spa, Monaco, Montreal, France, the AI-Ring, The Nurburgring, the Touring car portion of Hockenheim, and finally Imola. They all offer racing clubs. -- -- 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.

Let's just *plonk* this guy and get on with life. Many top line drivers have spoken out in favour of racing simulations. They all agree the actual sensations can not be accurately simulated, but they all praised the various sim's merits for track reconnaissance and general driver training. Jan. =--- Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Did any F1 driver comment on GPL? Who? What did he say exactly? > I read reports of real world drivers that Nascar 3, Rc2000 and Dirt > track racing were realistic, and GPL isn't? > > Andre > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:21:25 GMT, "vipery" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > ><snip>

BB, I suggest you wait for frank by the slide, during playtime. Getting a bit tedious, hearing your whine here in the classroom. Proper bullies do their best work outside. --DK "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > ymenard wrote: > > > > You'll find that most of us don't say stuff just to impress, but toinform. > > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don'trealise

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > That would explain your sig and prior behavior, I guess. BTW, I, for > one, would be fascinated to hear more about your extensive racing > experience on two of the tracks currently used in F1. I assume Montreal > is one, but what is the other? What vehicle(s)? I'm sure many of us here > are absolutely agog -- an experienced piloto AND a super genius, that's > quite a rare and precious combination. Tell us more! > > BB

There was an article (I think in AutoSport) with Jaques Villenueve and James Garner and it talked about the F1 cars now days and the cars of the Grand Prix movie era. JV drove an old F1 car like in the movie and said it was a hand full. He said something about it felt like it was nervous down the straight. There are a lot of vintage car drivers that I have seen in 1983 and older cars that I dont consider "professional" drivers, but they went through a simple driving school and have the money do buy and race the cars. A few of them might crash the car and decide that its too difficult, but most of them just cruise around at a speed they can handle( I would say at about 7/10 speed), and only a small handful seem to go near the speed of the car is capable. I dont see why it would anymore difficult to drive a modern F1 at 7/10ths. as long as your very careful with the throttle. I think its all a matter of being able to feel what the car is doing and learning its limits. With a computer sim you dont get the G forces to feel what the car is doing so I think it takes longer to learn the car limits. We have to use on the visuals, sounds, and now with FF we get some feedback. In a real car you can get a sense of how hard you are braking by the G's pulling you forward, but in a sim you might have to wait for the tires to squeal or lock up or if you have visuals like in GPL with the front end diving. So I think without having all the feel and G forces in a sim they might make it a little less realistic and easier to drive or make it more realistic and try to translate the car feel through the visuals, sound or FF like in GPL. OBTW, I have never driven an F1 car, but I have a lot of racing experience in other formula and sport racers. Lutrell

Quoted text (30 lines)

>> > >> >The only four wheel drift you see in modern F1 races is when the car is >> >drifting right off the course. GPL spoiled a lot of people for what F1 >> >racing is really like. It used to be 90% driver and 10% car, now it's >almost >> >vice versa. >> > >> > >> > >> >"Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> >news:8b53bj$75d$[email hidden]... >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand >Prix >> >> Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the >> >> realism with GPL is just stupid. The cars of the Grand Prix Legends are >> >just >> >> harder to drive. Modern F1 cars are easy to drive. Compare the driving >> >model >> >> to Gp2, MGRS2 or any other recent F1 sim please. >> >> >> >> Sjoerd >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >

ymenard wrote: > > I've raced two of those tracks, plus went to other tracks > all-around the world, and Im excluding here the years of extensive F1 > watching each two weeks. > > You'll find that most of us don't say stuff just to impress, but to inform. You've *raced* at Ile Notre-Dame? Come on Francois, roller-blading doesn't count. :)

Why bother racing at 200 mph if you can play with lightspeed tools? And you get lots of spectacular crashes for free :-) Are we getting off-topic here? :-)

Quoted text (12 lines)

>Jo Helsen wrote: >> >> I knew they could license genes, but strings??? :-) >> >> JoH > >Nah, they did not license strings. But for letting me use the >proton-antiproton accelerators during the beta testing, they want to >include banners like 'Science is Fun' and their usual logos into the >sim. > >-Gregor

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:37:27 GMT, Coco <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>For me F1 2000, i don't call this a simulator. The setup is quite extensive a la >GP2 or GP3, but >what were they thinking, there is no bloddy telemetry to help us improve our >setup in the right direction !!!! > >I rather wait for the F1 game by Lankhor !!!!!!!! > >The only thing, i like about F1 2000, is the chance to ride the new Indy track, >that's it !!!!!

You can do that with GP2 as well. There goes the last reason to buy F12000 <G> JoH

Tracey Miller wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Exactly. This is the reason Papy made GPL in the first place, the cars were > more fun to drive back then. They were really just high powered go carts. > > If Jim Clark could come back from the dead and drive a modern F1 car, he > would probably say the same thing that GPL enthusiasts say about F1 2000: > "This sucks!". > > The only four wheel drift you see in modern F1 races is when the car is > drifting right off the course. GPL spoiled a lot of people for what F1 > racing is really like. It used to be 90% driver and 10% car, now it's almost > vice versa. >

Actually, I can remember Rubens Barichelo when he put up an amazing qualifying result in Brazil last year. You could clearly see him drifting out of the corners. The drift was not as pronounced as in GPL due to the much stiffer tires that are common these days, but those were some creamy drifts nevertheless, and it showed in the time he put up. But most amazement I had recently was watching McCoy going for the win in the South African GP 500 this Sunday. The man was constantly powersliding out of corners! I did not think that was really an option on recing bikes, I guess I was wrong.

Intimidator wrote: > ... I know that the physics model is supposed to accurately > model dozens of variables which affect car handling, but in the end, > is it really the sum of it's parts? I honestly would like to know. The whole world is a sum of its interacing parts. Yet, interacting parts can have qualities (as vaguely defined as this is) that individual parts don't. But, if you simulate individual parts and their interactions correctly, the overall result will also be correct. That's the idea that is behind the whole of science, that's what got Armstrong and the gang on the Moon. So, the (simulated) parts are tyres and chassis and links and springs and such, going around their Newtonian business, while the whole is a car that is able to drift around corners in virtual Monza. It is still purely a sum of its elements, but gets an additional quality of being exhillarating to drive. I hope you see my point. -Gregor

John Wallace wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:40:17 +0100, Gregor Veble > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I can agree, if anything, a racing car should be easy to drive fast, > >much easier than to drive your ordinary car close to the limit. I think > >so because if anything a good racing car should be predictable and > >controlable, and should speak to the driver of its intentions. Of > >course, as in any car, one has to be careful not to overdo it. But to > >really reach the limit, as you say Andreas, is where the true skill > >comes in. > > I'd disagree with that (at least as far as a racecar being easier than > a road car). > > A road car is set up at the factory so as not to kill too many of it's > drivers - it's purpose is to safely transport from A to B. A racecar's > purpose is to get from A to B as fast as possible, irrespective of > staying on the road. The driver's job is to dial back any instability > to the point where it is manageable for him, and that will always be > far, far closer to the limit than a road car setup for the lowest > common denominator. > > Any car is "easy to drive" when far from the limit, but a racecar > generally gives you far less warning of when you approach the limit, > and things go pear-shaped more quickly when you reach it. > > Cheers! > John

I can only compare driving rental karts to my (t)rusty Renault Clio. What the normal road cars have is usualy the characteristic of not being able to goof it up easily (the 'sneeze factor'), so they usually just plow if you overcook it. But when at the limit with these cars, the level of communication and control is far less than for a racecar. It is so easy to correct powerslides or other tail-out antics in a kart, you have a really good gut feeling for this when you are driving them. But I've spun my Clio twice in completely dry conditions (on a very special corner that I know of here that has enough run off area - two empty lanes on the other side of the road), simply because the level of communication is not very good, and the steering wheel response too slugish. The first time I spun was a 'wow, what happened here' thing, and the second one I provoked it, so I anticipated it, then tried to correct it with the accelerator down and opposite lock, but then I spun in the other direction, which was really scary, so I do not do that anymore :). The road cars may be more stable, but the instability of racecars is usually more than compensated for by the large vocabulary of the car about what it has to say, and the direct controls.

Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Drifting is a major part of the Australian / American approach to going fast > on a motorbike. I don't see why these highly powered GP machines (relative > to their weight) cannot be successfully drifted. Very punishing on the > rubber, for sure, but with 2 to go I don't think that's much of an issue. > Nothing is much of an issue if you're going balls out for a win. > > Congrats Gary!! >

The drift on these bikes is amazing simply for the fact that a drift of a modern racecar - the large cornering stiffness of the modern tyres and an unforgiving sliding charcteristic. You really need to be in perfect control of these machines to induce a long slide. McCoy's achivement was one of the best motorsport achivement I've seen in years. Congrats, Gary, from me, too!

Drifting is a major part of the Australian / American approach to going fast on a motorbike. I don't see why these highly powered GP machines (relative to their weight) cannot be successfully drifted. Very punishing on the rubber, for sure, but with 2 to go I don't think that's much of an issue. Nothing is much of an issue if you're going balls out for a win. Congrats Gary!! Jan. =--- Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Tracey Miller wrote: > > > > <snip> > Actually, I can remember Rubens Barichelo when he put up an amazing > qualifying result in Brazil last year. You could clearly see him > drifting out of the corners. The drift was not as pronounced as in GPL > due to the much stiffer tires that are common these days, but those were > some creamy drifts nevertheless, and it showed in the time he put up. > > But most amazement I had recently was watching McCoy going for the win > in the South African GP 500 this Sunday. The man was constantly > powersliding out of corners! I did not think that was really an option > on recing bikes, I guess I was wrong.

good point !!! -- Ian Parker ==

ymenard wrote: > > I suggest you go look at a Deja.com message not more than 2 days ago, to see what tracks I went saw racing and/or F1. I went, I saw, I learned nothing new. What vehicle(s)? What "Touring Car" series? > I've drove Monaco as it's a public road, and of course Montreal, and lapped a good portion of the Magny-Cours > circuit when I visited some people there last year. I've spectated, walked, driven, run, and bicycled Watkins Glen in all it's incarnations since 1962, and I wouldn't *begin* to think I knew the physics of the place. You must be one great engineer/programmer -- BTW, you still haven't talked about THAT aspect of your fascinating short life -- I'd really like to know more about the dynamics of game engines from the perspective of an expert. Please tell us more. > I know Montreal by heart, and only one track has a good accuracy and it's a user-created track by a GP2 fanatic. Ah, yes -- Montreal, with its dramatic elevation changes and many off-camber turns. > I told well enough that I've raced Touring Cars for 2season before an accident that left me unable to race anymore. Well, I'm sorry about your accident, but I've been through the CASC archives and have yet to see you listed as a competitor in any year or any class -- what "Touring Car" series? What vehicle(s)? > Please, your anti-ymenard crusade is quite funny, and started for no reason not even a month ago. No, it's not an "anti-ymenard" crusade; it's an anti-bullshit crusade, and it started for good reason five years ago. And allow me to take back what I said about your English skills -- when you get your shorts in a bunch, your English goes straight to hell. > I do suspect many people have lapped Silverstone Yeah, I've often suspected that, too. > Finally, I do hope you take my signature file seriously. No, *I* don't take it seriously, and as far as I know *you're* the only person who does -- though I notice that when you post in other newsgroups (rec.arts.sf.starwars, alt.music.pink-floyd), you never use the main ouvre: > -- 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. As Lincoln said of McLellan, "there's too much tail to that kite" Killfile? What fun would THAT be? BB

Man.. chill a little bit. You do not have to go through the whole NG and find every post by ymenard just to say that over and over. I think we got the point of your feelings about 10 messages ago. Besides, he was not posting anti-piracy, he was posting about not being so open about it in this NG. Stiff <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:clxB4.4973$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (29 lines)

> You didn't download a pirated version of F12K did you? > "the legitimate use of pirated software". > Your fucking hilarious ymenard! your also a hypocrite and an asshole > Al Stiff > > > > Of course I have. F1 2000 has one of the worst track modeling in modern > > gaming. I've raced two of those tracks, plus went to other tracks > > all-around the world, and Im excluding here the years of extensive F1 > > watching each two weeks. > > > > You'll find that most of us don't say stuff just to impress, but to > inform. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- 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. > > > > > > > >

good point !!! -- Ian Parker [email hidden] [email hidden] == Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8b5qds$4gsiu$[email hidden]... > > > I'd say modern F1 is as hard if not harder to drive than 1960's F1, Yes > the > > limit is higher in modern F1 but when you reach that limit you are doomed > > !!!! ;) > > and don't forget that modern f1 drivers all have to go to the limit whereas > in the 60s it was a question of bravery, courage and determination - today > it's their job. > > cheers, > Alex > >

Well, I think a Formula 1 car is considerably more powerful and much lighter (though I'm not so sure how heavy the Caterham is) than the cars you have quoted. On a recent day out to a motorpsort show, the point was proven to me when Ferrari showed a video of their F1 car completely trouncing their F550 by a not insignificant amount -- Ian Parker == Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8b5fce$4hf16$[email hidden]... > > Andreas Kroell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8b5ckd$9h$[email hidden]... > > Ryan Mitchley <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > Besides, I think that if a game correctly modelled a modern F1 car in > > > detail, only a handful of people (yes, even on this newsgroup) would be > able > > > to drive it. > > > > Don't think so. Driving is one thing, driving as quick as the real guys > > another. OTOH i have never driven an F1, so what do i know. > > > > > The ability of average Joes to pay their money and go driving in somewhat > modern F1 cars at the various "F1 experience" track-lapping companies shows > that most people, with a little instruction, could get an F1 car into gear, > move out of the pit lane and motor sedately around the track. With a small > amount of teaching (assuming the pupil is not completely out of their > element in day-to-day driving) most could also start lapping at speeds that > could be considered "brisk". The transition from "brisk" to "fast" is the > final difference. I don't think that a F1 car, in the controlled > environment of a racetrack, is such a monster. There are many road-legal > cars with capabilities not far below the F1 (think Caterham, Porsche) and > yet most of us would not claim to be unable to drive one. > > Stephen > > >

That, wasn't what I meant. I don't see M Schumacher paying per lap ;) -- Ian Parker == Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SauB4.4734$[email hidden]... > BS.: the only reason we're not all driving F1's on weekends is that you > can't run even a small increment of a lap for the price of a PC + game > (assuming you could express the price of a season's worth of F1 on a "per > lap" basis). > > Jan. > =--- > Ian P <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9ItB4.765$[email hidden]... > > If they're so easy to drive why aren't we all racing real F1 at weekends > > instead of a simulator ? :) > > > > I'd say modern F1 is as hard if not harder to drive than 1960's F1, Yes > the > > limit is higher in modern F1 but when you reach that limit you are doomed > > !!!! ;) > > > > -- > > Ian Parker > > <snip> > >

"Ian P" <[email hidden]> writes: > Well, I think a Formula 1 car is considerably more powerful and much lighter > (though I'm not so sure how heavy the Caterham is) than the cars you have > quoted. I agree. Not much lighter than a Caterham, though. Caterham seven superlight: kerb weight: 470 kg A F1 car has a lot more power, of course. The most powerful Caterham superlight has only 190 Hp. Let me think..190 hp/470 kg...Yup, I still want one :-) -- [asbjxrn] [lLd25z*%ds1-100/sLlSdI%ds2-O/sSl1l2*PlL0<l]sl 21172310731916131628237117 3237142523312SSSLllxq

f1 cars weigh 600kg don't they? -- Cheers, Robin Lord - Trance DJ & Sim Racer. http://www.oppositelock.co.uk N�rburgring and Grand Prix Legends Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... | "Ian P" <[email hidden]> writes: | | > Well, I think a Formula 1 car is considerably more powerful and much lighter | > (though I'm not so sure how heavy the Caterham is) than the cars you have | > quoted. | | I agree. | Not much lighter than a Caterham, though. | Caterham seven superlight: kerb weight: 470 kg | A F1 car has a lot more power, of course. The most powerful Caterham | superlight has only 190 Hp. | Let me think..190 hp/470 kg...Yup, I still want one :-) | -- | [asbjxrn] [lLd25z*%ds1-100/sLlSdI%ds2-O/sSl1l2*PlL0<l]sl | 21172310731916131628237117 3237142523312SSSLllxq

On Wed 22 Mar 2000 04:53:40p, Gregor Veble wrote: <snip> >About myself then, my name is obvious, >otherwise I am pursuing a Ph.D. in Physics at University of >Ljubljana (University of Maribor is where I work) in the field of >quantum chaos. I do not want to claim that this makes me know a lot >about technicalities of cars as this is probably not true, just to >let you know from which standpoint I am looking at the issue.<snip> Hmmm... I wonder if GPL's John Surtees is a "quantum driver"? One minute he's safely well behind, and the next he's crashed into you, without seeming to cross the intervening space. And every time you look at where he should be, he goes away, as if the very act of looking at him makes him move. Must be those bloody photons again... :-) Of course, using "paired photons" could be handy for team races in GPL, in that you and your team-mate could co-operate easily without affecting the other cars at all. And if anyone tried to interfere (ie crash into you) you would suddenly not be there anymore. No, I don't know anything about quantum mechanics (as is probably all too obvious), but as far as I understand it, no-one really does anyway, and it's all completely impossible in any case unless lots of extra dimensions exist curled up on one another (or something). My brain hurts... -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

Modern or any F1 cars are easy to drive, don't be so ignorant, must of us wouldn't last 5 laps at race speeds, all those F1 cars that you can drive for a couple of laps for money arn't the set up to race specks but to make it easy for non racers to drive longer first, soft suspension, lower revs, etc. Regarding 60 vs 00 racing it's just as hard because going fast is hard whatever car you drive, simulators are games and have nothing to do with reality despite there mis leading name, GPL is fun but to base your knowledge on how REAL world racecars are on computergames is plean stupid and to think that racing a 800hp car weighing 600 kg reving at 18000rpm is easy because you can drive GP2, GPL or anyother sim it's time to see a shrink. ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> "Sjoerd de Roest" <[email hidden]> wrote > > It's seems that everyone is comparing the realism of F1 2000 to Grand Prix > > Legends. I know there are some problems with the game but comparing the > > realism with GPL is just stupid. > > I think you might not fully understand the context of "game engines vs. > actual car behavior". Be sure we are all aware of the difference in car > behavior and handling in both games. That is clearly not what most of us > are talking about. We mostly talk about the actual game engine itself, the > limitation it has, the feature it has, etc.. > > -- > -- 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 know nothing about me nor what I do and yet you seem to dismiss every thing I say without even bothering to discuss it with me and presume you know it all yourself.. Have you ever seen a racing teams simulator, I guess not beause its nothing like GP2 or an other sim, as they don't drive around on a 3d track. Some race car driver do us sims but to learn tracks or for entertainment. Sims cannot simulate the most important factor for realisme that is the human element, heat, physical exhuastion, G-Forces,mental exhaustion from consentration etc, etc. I do agree with you that sim are getting better but there is a long way to go, and Papy did a great job with GPL but commercial pressures are forcing company's to make enjoyable games rather than hardcore sims, Papy jumped in and have made the best sim ever but it wasn't a commercial succes (I wish it was and they had the impulse to develop it as they do with there Nascar series). I love sims but can't say with a straight face that 60's cars are harder to drive than 2000 cars, based on comparing GPL with GP2, sorry that's just to much for me, I can believe that 60's cars are harder to drive than 2000 cars if somebody who drives both tells us that, but basing it on cuurent sims is to much for me, just my OPPINION and YOU don't have to agree I love sims and hope that one day they can match the real thing but there not there yet. And your right if your attidude is the tone of this forum in persuing the quest for the most realstic simulator then I shoulden't come here because obvoisly you think they are allready there. Goodbye, Gregor Veble wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > Car companies use simulators to predict car behaviour that are in > principle not much more sophisticated than the ones we use, not to speak > about racing teams. If you want to see a comparison of a simulated and > actually measured car behaviour unde the same inputs, read Millikens' > 'Race Car Vehicle Dynamics'. And the results presented there, while > truly impressive, are far from being what can be achieved by simulators > of today, even on our own PCs. > > If you really believe all of this, what are you doing on this newsgroup > anyway? It is about simulators, and we know what simulating means. If > you don't believe in PC simulations becoming a progressively better > reflection of reality, then I really don't see how you could positively > contribute to this community that strives towards this goal. > > -Gregor

"Pierre Robitaille" <[email hidden]> wrote > You've *raced* at Ile Notre-Dame? Come on Francois, roller-blading > doesn't count. :) Go there Friday nights after midnight and you'll be surprised Pierre ;) -- -- 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.

"Stiff" <[email hidden]> wrote > You didn't download a pirated version of F12K did you? > "the legitimate use of pirated software". > Your fucking hilarious ymenard! your also a hypocrite and an asshole > Al Stiff <whoosh> that was the sound of my point, going -way- over your head. Teehee your Canadian? -- -- 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.

"Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote > I went, I saw, I learned nothing new. What vehicle(s)? What "Touring > Car" series? Volvo's! Would give anything for not having that bike crash. Have you ever got injections inside your spinal chord for that? Never had anything more hurtful than that. That's what your mirror would say if he could talk. Fun. > I've spectated, walked, driven, run, and bicycled Watkins Glen in all > it's incarnations since 1962, and I wouldn't *begin* to think I knew the > physics of the place. Physics? Ah tracks have physics now? Good to know ;) I think that with your knowledge, you could easily give an accurate rendition of the track and compare different versions of that track by different software companies. Let's see who made it. Well Papyrus in many versions, and EA sports. Was there any other? > I'd really like to know more about the dynamics of game engines > from the perspective of an expert. Please tell us more. I was a simple pawn around the bottom of the pyramid. What makes you think I was working on the physics department? > Ah, yes -- Montreal, with its dramatic elevation changes and many > off-camber turns. Not much elevation changes. There is about 10 meters of unevenness out of the Senna curve (right under the bridge), 5meters going down into turn 8 (backstretch), and some very little slope on the long straight before the last chicane (you could see that in GP2 even if a little overdone). Off-camber turns? It's a very flat track in terms of road camber, at the exception of everything between the Senna curve and the first backstretch chicane. They flattened portions of the track around the hairpin a couple of years ago. > No, it's not an "anti-ymenard" crusade; it's an anti-bullshit crusade Then kill-file me. Or I'll have fun continuing. It's fun, since you obviously have no clue. > No, *I* don't take it seriously, and as far as I know *you're* the only > person who does Really? It's a fun Calvin and Hobbes quote. Funny cartoon, suggest you actual read something to change from your obvious boring life of putting down other people and actually failing at that ;) > though I notice that when you post in other > newsgroups (rec.arts.sf.starwars, alt.music.pink-floyd), you never use > the main ouvre: So? I like different .sig approach depending on my relation with the newsgroup community. As far as I know, there ain't anything wrong with that ;-D -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fixB4.56187$[email hidden]... > "Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> wrote > It's on the level of Codemaster's game engine or Ubisoft's Pod gameengine, > a little higher probably. Please don't say that it's on the level of the TOCA2 engine, because that sucks dirt IMHO. TOCA2 makes absolutely zero attempt to model understeer, and had driven me mad after a few weeks (the first corner of Brands Hatch is one particularly painful memory - I think any racer would have shot the engineer that gave him a car that oversteered that dramatically on such a fast corner). SCGT at least had the basics of understeer/oversteer, suspension movement and weight transfer. The Ubisoft games were just plain horrible, although maybe I didn't give them enough of a chance. GP2 was good, but it definitely had its flaws (the canned spins, e.g.) Powerslide/DTR are pretty good in my books for the detail of the physical model that they provide, although I get the feeling that some of the fundamental constants don't quite line up with reality (e.g. gravity feels a little bit out, some major sideways slides seem too recoverable, etc.) Ryan

"pez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8b616o$av3$[email hidden]... > And i dissagree with the statement that the spins in GP2 are often'canned' > and unrealistic. The drivers were complaining about the 'twitchyness' of > the cars back in 94. If youre quick enough with the controller then youll > catch the spin. fair and simple in gp2. In gpl the cars take longer to > step out, and that is why people are catching them but not th gp2 spins. I don't think the reaction speed is the issue. Most professional drivers know before they've lost control that they've overdone it a bit and need to apply countersteering, etc. (i.e. preemptive control). I've read several interviews with rally drivers who have said that if you wait for the car to get out of line and then correct it (i.e. the typical "driving by the seat of your pants" approach) you won't survive very long. What you really need to be able to do is to predict the behaviour of the car ahead of time. The GP2 model may not be particularly predictable as it approaches the limit. Unfortunately, I can't really comment on the accuracy of such behaviour. Ryan

No I'm French............

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > You didn't download a pirated version of F12K did you? > > "the legitimate use of pirated software". > > Your ***ing hilarious ymenard! your also a hypocrite and an *** > > Al Stiff > <whoosh> that was the sound of my point, going -way- over your head. > Teehee your Canadian? > -- > -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't

realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

piston wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Modern or any F1 cars are easy to drive, don't be so ignorant, must of us > wouldn't last 5 laps at race speeds, all those F1 cars that you can drive for a > couple of laps for money arn't the set up to race specks but to make it easy for > non racers to drive longer first, soft suspension, lower revs, etc. > > Regarding 60 vs 00 racing it's just as hard because going fast is hard whatever > car you drive, simulators are games and have nothing to do with reality despite > there mis leading name, GPL is fun but to base your knowledge on how REAL world > racecars are on computergames is plean stupid and to think that racing a 800hp > car weighing 600 kg reving at 18000rpm is easy because you can drive GP2, GPL or > anyother sim it's time to see a shrink. >

Car companies use simulators to predict car behaviour that are in principle not much more sophisticated than the ones we use, not to speak about racing teams. If you want to see a comparison of a simulated and actually measured car behaviour unde the same inputs, read Millikens' 'Race Car Vehicle Dynamics'. And the results presented there, while truly impressive, are far from being what can be achieved by simulators of today, even on our own PCs. If you really believe all of this, what are you doing on this newsgroup anyway? It is about simulators, and we know what simulating means. If you don't believe in PC simulations becoming a progressively better reflection of reality, then I really don't see how you could positively contribute to this community that strives towards this goal. -Gregor

Barton Brown wrote: > <message - watch thread> ....now this is a thread I'm not going to miss, if my news provider screws up now I'm going over there personally with the biggest blow torch (flame thrower substitute :-) I can find, this ought to be a good one..... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Piston, It is not that I disagree with you completely, and my attitude was no less harsh than yours (I am refering to your remark about visiting a shrink if your opinion is such and such), I was trying to respond in a simmilar manner with a point taken in the other direction. Let's try to discuss things then in a constructive manner, instead of pointlessly fighting. piston wrote: > > You know nothing about me nor what I do and yet you seem to dismiss every thing I say > without even bothering to discuss it with me and presume you know it all yourself.. > I really do not know anything about you, and you didn't say much about yourself either. About myself then, my name is obvious, otherwise I am pursuing a Ph.D. in Physics at University of Ljubljana (University of Maribor is where I work) in the field of quantum chaos. I do not want to claim that this makes me know a lot about technicalities of cars as this is probably not true, just to let you know from which standpoint I am looking at the issue. Never was my intention to dismiss what you wrote, I just didn't take the time to respond to all of your post but to just a part of it (the one I find mildly insulting if I may say so). I agree with you completely, if any of us who only have sim experience in driving true race cars (rental karts and such excepted) were put into a cockpit of a F1 car, none of us would come near competitive speeds in a short time. But this would probably stem from the whole new spectrum of senses and an overwhelment by them, which would take our focus away from what we do know. I do believe that if we drove a car remotely from a screen with a camera attached to the cockpit, some of us (not me, for sure) might do it better than some of the racing drivers, simply because we are more used to the information this would provide, while in real life other senses come into picture more and a rela racing driver can put those into effect. And, yes, I believe sims of today have reached the point where they can display the technical if not sensual behaviour of the cars correctly. Why do I think so? Because apart from material flexibility there is not a whole lot left to be modelled post GPL in PC sims. On the other hand, I am not the kind of person to presume I know it all, and I am always willing to discuss things. I am more than happy if someone can prove me wrong with strong arguments as that's the best way to learn new stuff. I think you will agree with me that after a single post by you and then by me, you cannot say there was much room for discussion. > > Have you ever seen a racing teams simulator, I guess not beause its nothing like GP2 > or an other sim, as they don't drive around on a 3d track. > No, I haven't seen such a sim in person, true enough, only a couple of car manufacturers sims on the TV (which did sport a 3D environment). But I can imagine that a 3d representaion is not strictly necessary when you are trying to establish the performance of a car. But the simulation core is similar in both cases, and that was what I was refering to. > > Some race car driver do us sims but to learn tracks or for entertainment. > Yes, see above, as the information we get in sims is not what a racing driver is used to, so the sims in my opinion cannot contribute to his performance. > > Sims cannot simulate the most important factor for realisme that is the human element, > heat, physical exhuastion, G-Forces,mental exhaustion from consentration etc, etc. > Agreed. Apart from mental exhaustion, I know I am done after a long GPL online race.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > I do agree with you that sim are getting better but there is a long way to go, and > Papy did a great job with GPL but commercial pressures are forcing company's to make > enjoyable games rather than hardcore sims, Papy jumped in and have made the best sim > ever but it wasn't a commercial succes (I wish it was and they had the impulse to > develop it as they do with there Nascar series). >

This is where I mildly disagree, see above, as GPL takes into account most of the theory that you can, for example, find in the Milliken's book apart from material compliances, and I am not sure whether they model the steering behaviour of the wheel properly, i.e. castor and kingpin angles, but I think they do. > > I love sims but can't say with a straight face that 60's cars are harder to drive than > 2000 cars, based on comparing GPL with GP2, sorry that's just to much for me, I can > believe that 60's cars are harder to drive than 2000 cars if somebody who drives both > tells us that, but basing it on cuurent sims is to much for me, just my OPPINION and > YOU don't have to agree I've never claimed that any is harder than the other, both are hard but for different reasons. Actually, doing anything at the limit is hard, and true racing is at the limit. As you, I think basing it purely on the sims is not really appropriate as there is so many sensual factors left out. But, I do believe that the technical aspects (how much throttle or braking or steering wheel one may apply) may be simulated correctly on nowadays sims, so it can give some indication. But as hardness is a percieved thing, the amount of perception we get from today's sim is probably a bit too low to be conclusive.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I love sims and hope that one day they can match the real thing but there not there > yet. > > > And your right if your attidude is the tone of this forum in persuing the quest for > the most realstic simulator then I shoulden't come here because obvoisly you think > they are allready there.

At least as much as yours my attitude was a bit out of place here. I do feel strongly about someone calling me insane for believing that you can actually represent behaviour (if not sensual perception) of a racecar on PCs. But, I see that your post was not intended for people who belive that, but those who think that are born racing drivers after they put in a hotlap in GP2. At least, a good discussion cam out of it.

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Goodbye, > > Gregor Veble wrote: > > > > > > > Car companies use simulators to predict car behaviour that are in > > principle not much more sophisticated than the ones we use, not to speak > > about racing teams. If you want to see a comparison of a simulated and > > actually measured car behaviour unde the same inputs, read Millikens' > > 'Race Car Vehicle Dynamics'. And the results presented there, while > > truly impressive, are far from being what can be achieved by simulators > > of today, even on our own PCs. > > > > If you really believe all of this, what are you doing on this newsgroup > > anyway? It is about simulators, and we know what simulating means. If > > you don't believe in PC simulations becoming a progressively better > > reflection of reality, then I really don't see how you could positively > > contribute to this community that strives towards this goal. > > > > -Gregor

-Gregor

No I'm French............ "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:br_B4.1204$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "Stiff" <[email hidden]> wrote > > You didn't download a pirated version of F12K did you? > > "the legitimate use of pirated software". > > Your fucking hilarious ymenard! your also a hypocrite and an asshole > > Al Stiff > > <whoosh> that was the sound of my point, going -way- over your head. > > Teehee your Canadian? > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

Nothing like saying "I'm a genius". Little conceded huh? The first thing I have learned you little pup is that your only getting smart when you understand you know really know nothing, but your to stupid to think that you are stupid........................... Al Stiff "Some people think ymenard is an asshole, I'm one of them" "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:yB_B4.3239$[email hidden]... > -- 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'trealise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

"piston" <[email hidden]> wrote > Modern or any F1 cars are easy to drive, don't be so ignorant, must of us > wouldn't last 5 laps at race speeds, all those F1 cars that you can drivefor a > couple of laps for money arn't the set up to race specks but to make iteasy for > non racers to drive longer first, soft suspension, lower revs, etc. > > Regarding 60 vs 00 racing it's just as hard because going fast is hardwhatever > car you drive, simulators are games and have nothing to do with realitydespite > there mis leading name, GPL is fun but to base your knowledge on how REALworld > racecars are on computergames is plean stupid and to think that racing a800hp > car weighing 600 kg reving at 18000rpm is easy because you can drive GP2,GPL or > anyother sim it's time to see a shrink. Could you please tell me why did you reply to my message with an out-of-context argument? I see nowhere in my message reference to how hard modern Formula 1 is, neither how historical cars such as the 1967 F1 compare to a modern car. Im simply talking about the game at it's purest form, the game engine, and what it can/can't achieve. > ymenard wrote: > > I think you might not fully understand the context of "game engines vs. > > actual car behavior". Be sure we are all aware of the difference in car > > behavior and handling in both games. That is clearly not what most ofus > > are talking about. We mostly talk about the actual game engine itself,the > > limitation it has, the feature it has, etc.. -- -- 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.

"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Hmmm... I wonder if GPL's John Surtees is a "quantum driver"? One > minute he's safely well behind, and the next he's crashed into you, > without seeming to cross the intervening space. And every time you look > at where he should be, he goes away, as if the very act of looking at > him makes him move. Must be those bloody photons again... :-) > > Of course, using "paired photons" could be handy for team races in GPL, > in that you and your team-mate could co-operate easily without > affecting the other cars at all. And if anyone tried to interfere (ie > crash into you) you would suddenly not be there anymore. > > No, I don't know anything about quantum mechanics (as is probably all > too obvious), but as far as I understand it, no-one really does anyway, > and it's all completely impossible in any case unless lots of extra > dimensions exist curled up on one another (or something).

Good one, David ;-D I someday will start if I have time something called "Noteless quotes & Shameless flames", a weekly collection of memorable message by r.a.s. citizens that people would enjoy re-read, mostly for humoristic reasons. Anybody dislike the idea? It's been adopted on many newsgroups towards the Usenet, and is a step forward to bring the community a little closer. -- -- 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.

"Stiff one" <[email hidden]> wrote > No I'm French............ Ah I see. Your living outside the province of Qu�bec I speculate? -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you...

"Stiff one" <[email hidden]> wrote > Nothing like saying "I'm a genius". Little conceded huh? See Barton ^^^. Some people simply take things a little too seriously in life. Why don't we share a pint someday? It's just a signature file Stiff, it's made especially so you can have a sarcastic and ironic end to your message. Always liked Ronald's. And it's a bloody funny one when you think about it, especially related to the Americans who correct my "ising" of the word. Some great fun on n3.discussion :) -- -- 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.

"Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> wrote > Please don't say that it's on the level of the TOCA2 engine, because that > sucks dirt IMHO. TOCA2 makes absolutely zero attempt to model understeer, > and had driven me mad after a few weeks (the first corner of Brands Hatchis

Quoted text (7 lines)

> one particularly painful memory - I think any racer would have shot the > engineer that gave him a car that oversteered that dramatically on such a > fast corner). SCGT at least had the basics of understeer/oversteer, > suspension movement and weight transfer. > > The Ubisoft games were just plain horrible, although maybe I didn't give > them enough of a chance. GP2 was good, but it definitely had its flaws

(the > canned spins, e.g.) > > Powerslide/DTR are pretty good in my books for the detail of the physical > model that they provide, although I get the feeling that some of the > fundamental constants don't quite line up with reality (e.g. gravity feelsa > little bit out, some major sideways slides seem too recoverable, etc.) Good arguments, you have some great points. Im not talking about only physics here, but an overall opinion of a game engine. It's the single most important feature of any racing game, whatever it's arcade or simulation. It's what blends everything. How the graphics are, how the sound is related to the car (it could have it's own physics per example), how the track 3d architecture is modeled, how the car and AI reacts to this environments, etc... I always felt that even if Codemaster was lacking in some point, it has potential. It's the same reason why I included the Motorsims game engine. We all know that AMA Superbike wasn't the result we want it to be. Still, the game engine has incredible potential I would say. Same goes for the Ubisoft game engine IF they finally decide to start out from scratch some things like the track 3d architecture model. Remember the intro video from MGPRS2? Many of those shots are actually made from the game engine, but boosted to the maximum of realism and track detail. Same goes for the RC2000 intro video. I forgot the DTR game engine and should had mentioned it even with it's flaws. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

ymenard wrote: > > Physics? Ah tracks have physics now? Good to know ;) Not like the ones you take when you're constipated, Frankie... those *other* natural forces: traction circles, surface adhesion, gravity, inertia, lift, downforce, centripetal force, centers of gravity, roll centers, bump steer, slip angles...

Yours will head the list............... "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:IVbC4.4039$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (33 lines)

> "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Hmmm... I wonder if GPL's John Surtees is a "quantum driver"? One > > minute he's safely well behind, and the next he's crashed into you, > > without seeming to cross the intervening space. And every time you look > > at where he should be, he goes away, as if the very act of looking at > > him makes him move. Must be those bloody photons again... :-) > > > > Of course, using "paired photons" could be handy for team races in GPL, > > in that you and your team-mate could co-operate easily without > > affecting the other cars at all. And if anyone tried to interfere (ie > > crash into you) you would suddenly not be there anymore. > > > > No, I don't know anything about quantum mechanics (as is probably all > > too obvious), but as far as I understand it, no-one really does anyway, > > and it's all completely impossible in any case unless lots of extra > > dimensions exist curled up on one another (or something). > > Good one, David ;-D > > I someday will start if I have time something called "Noteless quotes & > Shameless flames", a weekly collection of memorable message by r.a.s. > citizens that people would enjoy re-read, mostly for humoristic reasons. > Anybody dislike the idea? It's been adopted on many newsgroups towards the > Usenet, and is a step forward to bring the community a little closer. > > > > > -- > -- 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. > > > >

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:32:23 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Could you please tell me why did you reply to my message with an >out-of-context argument? I see nowhere in my message reference to how hard >modern Formula 1 is, neither how historical cars such as the 1967 F1 compare >to a modern car. Im simply talking about the game at it's purest form, the >game engine, and what it can/can't achieve. Can you say "troll"? I thought you could... Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

How bout this one ymenard, "some people think it's hard to be smug" I'll let you finish the rest "super genius". I'll be watching to see what you come up with.......... Al Stiff "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C4cC4.4074$[email hidden]... > "Stiff one" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Nothing like saying "I'm a genius". Little conceded huh? > > See Barton ^^^. Some people simply take things a little too seriously in > life. Why don't we share a pint someday? It's just a signature fileStiff, > it's made especially so you can have a sarcastic and ironic end to your > message. Always liked Ronald's. And it's a bloody funny one when youthink > about it, especially related to the Americans who correct my "ising" ofthe

Quoted text (11 lines)

> word. Some great fun on n3.discussion :) > > > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

>Nothing like saying "I'm a genius". Little conceded huh? The first thing I >have learned you little pup is that your only getting smart when you >understand you know really know nothing, but your to stupid to think that >you are stupid. On the subject of stupidity, you might want to run your post through a grammar and spelling checker... -- Cheers! Graeme Nash

It's very much like coming home, plonking down in front of the TV and watching a favourite sitcom. I can't wait for the next episode! :-) Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Barton Brown wrote: > > > > <message - watch thread> > > ....now this is a thread I'm not going to miss, if my news provider > screws up now I'm going over there personally with the biggest blow > torch (flame thrower substitute :-) I can find, this ought to be a good > one..... > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

"Stiff one" <[email hidden]> wrote > How bout this one ymenard, "some people think it's hard to be smug" > I'll let you finish the rest "super genius". I'll be watching to see what > you come up with.......... Why would I change a quote? Especially a Calvin & Hobbes quote? :) That would be like taking "Eureka!" and saying "Aukare!". Doesn't make any sense, but Im not surprised to see that eh 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.

Hope your foot tastes good. ;-) Jan. =--- Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> ymenard wrote: > > > > Physics? Ah tracks have physics now? Good to know ;) > > Not like the ones you take when you're constipated, Frankie... those > *other* natural forces: traction circles, surface adhesion, gravity, > inertia, lift, downforce, centripetal force, centers of gravity, roll > centers, bump steer, slip angles...

I won the Canadian grammar rodeo bud!

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:53:40 +0100, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: >I really do not know anything about you, and you didn't say much about >yourself either. About myself then, my name is obvious, otherwise I am >pursuing a Ph.D. in Physics at University of Ljubljana (University of >Maribor is where I work) in the field of quantum chaos. Jezus! I better stop talking nonsense about string theory and lightspeed particles before I say stupid things <G> There are actually *smart* people over here, hehe JoH

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:53:40 +0100, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: .... <Piston> >> Sims cannot simulate the most important factor for realisme that is the human element, >> heat, physical exhuastion, G-Forces,mental exhaustion from consentration etc, etc. >> > >Agreed. Apart from mental exhaustion, I know I am done after a long GPL >online race. I think we have to nuance here.. "Sims cannot..."? If someone really wants to put all effort into it, and if there would be a PROFITABLE MARKET for such (verrry expensive) gear, then I think it would be perfectly possible to develope a sim with all these properties. But it could be more expensive than the real thing :-) Just think about realworld aircraft simulators: they are absolutely spot-on, and the visuals could be made even better if that would make them more efficient. But there are the economics: the simulators as they are now are good enough to do what they should do. So why waste money on even better visuals? Back to the racecar sim: the market consists of HOME users who would like to have such a sim just for their ENTERTAINMENT. Now, for me THAT is the biggest reason why we haven't seen the racecar equivalent of real aircraft sims. JoH

This is the best post I've seen in a long time. "Intimidator" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > WHAT!!?! What'dya mean not realistic? Who said that? Where are > they? Maybe, just maybe GPL ISN'T the most realistic simulation that > has been or ever will be produced. How d'ya like them apples? Can > anyone with any authority on the subject really tell me if GPL is > truly a realistic portrayal of late 60's F1 cars so far as the driving > model is concerned. NO. They can't. No one here has ever driven a '67 F1 car. Not once in two years have I read a post from someone who has. >I always hear, "damn straight it's realistic. > The physics model has been programmed such that even a pebble stuck in > the tread will wildly alter the handling of the car. With that level > of detail, it MUST be realistic." That's basically what I keep > hearing, but has anyone with an extensive racing background been able > to support this claim. No. >And by extensive background, I don't mean > "Eagle Woman" or some guy who drove his Datsun in IMSA twenty five > years ago. That's all you'll get. > I know that the physics model is supposed to accurately > model dozens of variables which affect car handling, but in the end, > is it really the sum of it's parts? I honestly would like to know. I asked the same questions long ago. Still don't know the answer. > For months and months I've read hundreds of posts proclaiming GPL as > "the sim which has just made every other present and future sim > complete and utter arcade like garbage." Not in those exact words of > course, but that's the general attitude I get from many how shall I > say, 'enthusiastic,' GPL fans. Boring, isn't it? > If someone, Michael Schumacher for example, ever tried out GPL and > proclaimed that it didn't feel very realistic, I think it would > forever shatter the lives of all the GPL groupies. To them it would > be a revelation on par with aliens landing on Earth and the > realization that we are not the only sentient life in the > universe...... What they would say is that MS doesn't know as much as they do about how a sim should feel. I know, it makes no sense at all, but that's exactly what they've said in the past. What NEVER gets mentioned on r.a.s. is that in the two years since GPL was released, it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a mountain of articles and quotes from current and former F1 drivers who rave about GPL. Actually, I've never read ANYTHING at all. You would think that it would be EASY to find these articles and quotes. Where is the article where Jackie Stewart raves on and on....................and on............... about how incredibly accurate GPL is? His glory years as a race car driver have been recreated. He should looooooove it. Nothing. They don't exist. That's why I find the GPL fan club so ridiculous. Move on guys. David G Fisher

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pYwC4.11745$[email hidden]... "move on guys" Hah, good one ymenard! You had me going there for a bit. LOL! --DK

Your a pup too! I didn't know you were an English major? "Graeme Nash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > >Nothing like saying "I'm a genius". Little conceded huh? The first thingI

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >have learned you little pup is that your only getting smart when you > >understand you know really know nothing, but your to stupid to think that > >you are stupid. > > On the subject of stupidity, you might want to run your post through a > grammar and spelling checker... > > -- > Cheers! > Graeme Nash

I won the Canadian grammar rodeo bud! "Graeme Nash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > >Nothing like saying "I'm a genius". Little conceded huh? The first thingI

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >have learned you little pup is that your only getting smart when you > >understand you know really know nothing, but your to stupid to think that > >you are stupid. > > On the subject of stupidity, you might want to run your post through a > grammar and spelling checker... > > -- > Cheers! > Graeme Nash

On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:22:35 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Quite aside from all that, Francois was already considered a voice of >authority when I first ventured on RAS now four years ago. Jan, no hard feelings, but I hope you're kidding. -- * rrev at mindspring dot com *

Hi David, It's you again, would have noticed without reading the header anyway. I've got a suggestion since you're fed up with all those GPL threads: Start some threads on RC2K, see what happens. I know it's hard to admit that your favourite sim isn't on par with it's pre-historic 67-sim brother but face the facts: Why would people keep on raving on a product if it wasn't good (I don't judge on it being the most realistic because I too haven't raced the real thing), why would people keep comparing other products to this one? I don't earn any money in favourising GPL above other products, really, believe me. I too long for a proper modern F1 sim but it simply isn't there at the moment, point! You claim that no real F1 driver has an opinion on GPL, that may be true but I think they don't even know the existence of this product (like so many other people don't) and they do have other things on their mind. In fact I believe no sim whatsoever will ever be comparable to the real-thing anyway. I came across a lot of real-world racers in this n.g. who absolutely favour GPL above anything else, admitted they didn't race the '67 beasts but nevertheless they know how a car should react to certain inputs! If GPL really was this bad/moderate threads in this newsgroup would have vanished long time ago! J. David G Fisher wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > NO. They can't. No one here has ever driven a '67 F1 car. Not once in two > years have I read a post from someone who has. > > >I always hear, "damn straight it's realistic. > > The physics model has been programmed such that even a pebble stuck in > > the tread will wildly alter the handling of the car. With that level > > of detail, it MUST be realistic." That's basically what I keep > > hearing, but has anyone with an extensive racing background been able > > to support this claim. > > No. >

<snip><snip>

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > > If someone, Michael Schumacher for example, ever tried out GPL and > > proclaimed that it didn't feel very realistic, I think it would > > forever shatter the lives of all the GPL groupies. To them it would > > be a revelation on par with aliens landing on Earth and the > > realization that we are not the only sentient life in the > > universe...... > > What they would say is that MS doesn't know as much as they do about how a > sim should feel. I know, it makes no sense at all, but that's exactly what > they've said in the past. > > What NEVER gets mentioned on r.a.s. is that in the two years since GPL was > released, it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a mountain of articles and quotes from > current and former F1 drivers who rave about GPL. Actually, I've never read > ANYTHING at all. You would think that it would be EASY to find these > articles and quotes. Where is the article where Jackie Stewart raves on and > on....................and on............... about how incredibly accurate > GPL is? His glory years as a race car driver have been recreated. He should > looooooove it. > > Nothing. > > They don't exist. That's why I find the GPL fan club so ridiculous. > > Move on guys. > > David G Fisher

-- Jan Hovius

Oh no, now there's two of them... Andre On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:32:53 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (74 lines)

>This is the best post I've seen in a long time. > > >"Intimidator" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... > >> WHAT!!?! What'dya mean not realistic? Who said that? Where are >> they? Maybe, just maybe GPL ISN'T the most realistic simulation that >> has been or ever will be produced. How d'ya like them apples? Can >> anyone with any authority on the subject really tell me if GPL is >> truly a realistic portrayal of late 60's F1 cars so far as the driving >> model is concerned. > >NO. They can't. No one here has ever driven a '67 F1 car. Not once in two >years have I read a post from someone who has. > >>I always hear, "damn straight it's realistic. >> The physics model has been programmed such that even a pebble stuck in >> the tread will wildly alter the handling of the car. With that level >> of detail, it MUST be realistic." That's basically what I keep >> hearing, but has anyone with an extensive racing background been able >> to support this claim. > >No. > >>And by extensive background, I don't mean >> "Eagle Woman" or some guy who drove his Datsun in IMSA twenty five >> years ago. > >That's all you'll get. > >> I know that the physics model is supposed to accurately >> model dozens of variables which affect car handling, but in the end, >> is it really the sum of it's parts? I honestly would like to know. > >I asked the same questions long ago. Still don't know the answer. > >> For months and months I've read hundreds of posts proclaiming GPL as >> "the sim which has just made every other present and future sim >> complete and utter arcade like garbage." Not in those exact words of >> course, but that's the general attitude I get from many how shall I >> say, 'enthusiastic,' GPL fans. > >Boring, isn't it? > >> If someone, Michael Schumacher for example, ever tried out GPL and >> proclaimed that it didn't feel very realistic, I think it would >> forever shatter the lives of all the GPL groupies. To them it would >> be a revelation on par with aliens landing on Earth and the >> realization that we are not the only sentient life in the >> universe...... > >What they would say is that MS doesn't know as much as they do about how a >sim should feel. I know, it makes no sense at all, but that's exactly what >they've said in the past. > >What NEVER gets mentioned on r.a.s. is that in the two years since GPL was >released, it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a mountain of articles and quotes from >current and former F1 drivers who rave about GPL. Actually, I've never read >ANYTHING at all. You would think that it would be EASY to find these >articles and quotes. Where is the article where Jackie Stewart raves on and >on....................and on............... about how incredibly accurate >GPL is? His glory years as a race car driver have been recreated. He should >looooooove it. > >Nothing. > >They don't exist. That's why I find the GPL fan club so ridiculous. > >Move on guys. > >David G Fisher > >

Do not laugh... the way in which ymenard expresses himself is mostly due to him being a native French speaker... this Barton indivudual is judging Francois more by how he says things than what he says. Of course I cannot help but smile myself as I subconsiously read (in French) what he was trying to get across in English, this, to me, does not make what he says any less "honest". Besides, the "tests" to assertain which RL properties are simulated in game engines have been well documented here. Jan. =--- Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> ROFL!!!!! > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > ymenard wrote: > > <snip>

"Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The whole world is a sum of its interacing parts. Yet, interacting parts > can have qualities (as vaguely defined as this is) that individual parts > don't. But, if you simulate individual parts and their interactions > correctly, the overall result will also be correct. That's the idea that > is behind the whole of science, that's what got Armstrong and the gang > on the Moon. This is, in principle, true, but the sum of parts that are even vaguely out of touch with reality may result in an overall model that is WILDLY out of kilter. Tweak every little bit of GPL's physical model just a little, and I'll bet that you'll end up with a very different sim. Slightly different "initial conditions" may result in immensely varied final results. Anyway, ALL cars have pretty much the same basic model of springs, dampers, inertia, force, torque etc., although an F1 car is very different to, say, a Ford Fiesta. Who is to say that the designers of GPL have got the parts and their interactions right? Ryan

Ryan Mitchley wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > "Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > The whole world is a sum of its interacing parts. Yet, interacting parts > > can have qualities (as vaguely defined as this is) that individual parts > > don't. But, if you simulate individual parts and their interactions > > correctly, the overall result will also be correct. That's the idea that > > is behind the whole of science, that's what got Armstrong and the gang > > on the Moon. > > This is, in principle, true, but the sum of parts that are even vaguely out > of touch with reality may result in an overall model that is WILDLY out of > kilter. Tweak every little bit of GPL's physical model just a little, and > I'll bet that you'll end up with a very different sim. Slightly different > "initial conditions" may result in immensely varied final results. Anyway, > ALL cars have pretty much the same basic model of springs, dampers, inertia, > force, torque etc., although an F1 car is very different to, say, a Ford > Fiesta. Who is to say that the designers of GPL have got the parts and their > interactions right? > > Ryan

I expected a similar reply. What you say about initial conditions is the main principle of the chaos theory. The theory of synergetics, on the other hand, tells you that self organization that occurs in very complex systems is largely independent of the specific microscopic model. Neither of these apply to sim models, in my opinion. Let's consider an autonomous coplex system (that we do not interact with), for example an AI driver in a car in our favourite sim. The theory of chaos may tell you that, if a certain parameter is only a bit different, the trajectory of the car after a while can be wildly different from the unperturbed one. But the behaviour of the car to inputs will remain practically the same, which is what simulating is all about. Yet, the system is not complex enough for synergetics to apply (this works nicely in human brain, for example). A change of individual components is directly felt on the car behaviour. The developer then has to set the parameters to be as close to possible to a real car. The difference between a fiesta and an F1 car is not that big in terms of components that have to be modelled, but these components contribute to a much different feel of the two. -Gregor

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > Bart....your sarcasm is oozing out of the bottom right-hand corner (the > monitor is not dead-level) of my screen! :-) Bruce-- Don't let it get into your keyboard; it'll eat it right up! BB

Jan Verschueren wrote: > > Do not laugh... the way in which ymenard expresses himself is mostly due to > him being a native French speaker... this Barton indivudual is judging > Francois more by how he says things than what he says. Bzzzzzzzzt! Wrong! Having watched Frank's shaky climb up the ladder of understandable English for 5 years, I have a pretty good grasp of his idioms and linguistic idiosyncrasies. > Besides, the "tests" to assertain which RL properties are simulated in game engines have been well documented here. Well, since Frank won't deign to answer this one, maybe *you* can enlighten us, Jan: Just what *are* those "real life" properties? By what path of education, experience, and sub-genius are Frankie and the We's qualified to judge the respective merits of those game engines, and could one of you explain, in technical terms, the differences between the various game engines of which Frank speaks so knowingly? See, it's one thing to say "I *know* THIS game engine doesn't model particular "real life" properties (physics) as well as this OTHER game engine does", but without being able to explain to the densest dummy on the newsgroup (me) the precise empirical evidence that brought you to that conclusion, then that conclusion is merely an opinion. No problem if it's EXPRESSED as an opinion, but Frankie speaks with the "Royal We" authority of One Who Knows -- so if he and his We DO know, it would be a great service to the sim racing community (which dedicated service *you* claim is Frankie's raison d'etre) if Frankie et al would show the rest of us how he came to his many scientific conclusions, stated as irrefutable fact. As Werner Heisenberg (or maybe it was Mr. Wizard) said: "Any scientist who cannot explain his findings to a five-year-old is a charlatan" So the question is: are Frankie and the We just blowing smoke up our respective chuffs, or can they present the evidence behind their stentorian conclusions and authoritative judgements of the relative merits of different game engines? Simple question, easily answered. If it's all just opinion...well, there's an old expression for that occasion, too. Even my cat has an opinion on GPL. Don't take this as adversarial, but it's "put up or shut up" time... BB

On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:18:45 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >"David Karr" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Do us a favor and tell Bartress that he's won . . . game, set, match, >world. > >Nobody wins or loose in this newsgroup. People simply exchange opinions, >give news and help people with problems. .. or proselytize, unfairly criticize, claim knowledge that they don't possess, ego-stroke ... -- * rrev at mindspring dot com *

On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:21:58 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I can understand how that bothers you (and other people), but I can't help >but feel it's more constructive to argue what follows the 'we the sim >community believe'-bit, not the phrase itself. You can always add "Speak for >yourself" at the beginning of your reply afaic. > Thats a good idea. That is sort of what I have been saying to him recently.. ;) >I don't have a lot of time to read news, so I tend to look past form and >search for meaning, which is probably why those phrases never caught my eye >(only started noticing after you guys pointed it out). > Do you find meaning when Frank includes you in his 'we simmers want' group? >BTW, and this is just an observation, if you're worried about ymenard >"speaking for the group", doesn't that imply his words, however ludecrous, >somehow carry some authoriy? ;-) > Not with me, Jan, but if someone doesn't counter him publicly, it may appear to sim developers that he, Frank.in.Quebec (tm), IS speaking for the sim 'community'. I don't want to see that happen, Jan. >Anyhow, let's drop this line of discussion as I'm starting to sound like a >stuck record. There are more productive ways in which we (<---deliberate! >;-)) can contribute to the sim community. -Whattaya say? > >Jan. I agree wholeheartedly.

Quoted text (13 lines)

>rrevved wrote... >> <snip> >> Jan, as for me, I dont have -any- problem with what he says and >> I defend his right to freedom of speech, here on the internet, >> which is something he apparently doesn't enjoy in his own state/country. >> >> What I object to is his incessant referral to 'we simmers want', >> 'we the sim community believe' .. etc. Frank doesn't speak for -anyone- >> but Frank. If he continues his 'we-ness' posts, someone will be >> there to counter him. >> >> Thats happening now >

-- * rrev at mindspring dot com *

On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:54:06 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Slight misinterpretation there I think Barton. > >It's a "good thing" he posts dissenting and sometimes downright >controversial messages. It provokes thought and discussion, whether I, you >or anyone else agrees or not is beside the point. This also does not make >him a saint or a martyr<sp?>. He's just Francois, which is also a good thing >in its own right. > >Sometimes it takes an aggressive post to get an issue explained clearly, >just like when you posted on the "realism tests" in fact (at least I hope it >was clear). > >Jan.

Jan, as for me, I dont have -any- problem with what he says and I defend his right to freedom of speech, here on the internet, which is something he apparently doesn't enjoy in his own state/country. What I object to is his incessant referral to 'we simmers want', 'we the sim community believe' .. etc. Frank doesn't speak for -anyone- but Frank. If he continues his 'we-ness' posts, someone will be there to counter him. Thats happening now.

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Jan Verschueren wrote: >> > >> > If nothing else, he brings character to the group, which is a good >thing. >> >> There's a statement I cannot argue with. Except maybe the "good thing" >> part -- I think even his most ardent sycophants would have to grant that >> he's not an unalloyed joy ... >> >> BB >

-- * rrev at mindspring dot com *

On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 07:53:18 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Thanks for clueing us in on the Rick affair, Goy. I never did get into that >thread.......thank God! :-) He was over on the private newsserver a lot. I can't remember the server's IP number. Bill Gates ate it.. ;) -- * rrev at mindspring dot com *

Jan-- Thanks for the explanation. Now I at least semi-understand what all the nattering is about. You were going along quite nicely, until this: > Quite aside from all that, Francois was already considered a voice of authority when I first ventured on RAS now four years ago. Whether, in your opinion, he deserves to be or not, that's just the way it is. I have nothing against Frankie, except for his unending grandiose claims to knowledge he can't back up with facts, but I've been on and off ras for considerably longer than you, and I can assure the audience that (until I read this message) the only person I had met or heard of who considered Frank a "voice of authority" for more than five minutes was Frank. "Authority" isn't a matter of my opinion, or anyone else's opinion -- it's a matter of demonstrable fact. I'll cheerfully admit I know practically nothing when it comes to sim design, or coding in general, but I *do* know bullshit when I smell it. Cheers BB

Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> <Snip> > Well, since Frank won't deign to answer this one, maybe *you* can > enlighten us, Jan: Just what *are* those "real life" properties? By what > path of education, experience, and sub-genius are Frankie and the We's > qualified to judge the respective merits of those game engines, and > could one of you explain, in technical terms, the differences between > the various game engines of which Frank speaks so knowingly?

Ah!!! -I get it. Sorry, misunderstood your point, my mistake. Let me try and say this without getting into knots myself. There are certain things you can do in the simulated car which in some cases provoke a response which differs from the one you would assume to get in real life. E.g. jamming on the brakes and locking all fours during a spin should see you more or less continue at a tangent from your immediate heading at the time you applied the brakes. In many sims, it doesn't. So we can do stuff to show "something's wrong" with the model. I now understand you don't contest that. You have a problem with the conclusion of "therefore so and so are not modeled in the game". And, I have to admit, you're right. There is no real way of backing that up. It's just an assumption based on what we know (i.e. read about) about how the real world works. I guess you are referring to another post (the thread escapes me) where it was said the GPL model calculates certain parameters as an aside to other calculations instead of modeling them in their own right. If there are properties which are calculated without being actually modeled, saying (with any authority) that a certain property is not modeled in a game is hogwash by definition. I may not agree, but I can't argue the point as it's valid. We don't really know what's in the code.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> See, it's one thing to say "I *know* THIS game engine doesn't model > particular "real life" properties (physics) as well as this OTHER game > engine does", but without being able to explain to the densest dummy on > the newsgroup (me) the precise empirical evidence that brought you to > that conclusion, then that conclusion is merely an opinion. No problem > if it's EXPRESSED as an opinion, but Frankie speaks with the "Royal We" > authority of One Who Knows -- so if he and his We DO know, it would be a > great service to the sim racing community (which dedicated service *you* > claim is Frankie's raison d'etre) if Frankie et al would show the rest > of us how he came to his many scientific conclusions, stated as > irrefutable fact. As Werner Heisenberg (or maybe it was Mr. Wizard) > said: "Any scientist who cannot explain his findings to a five-year-old > is a charlatan"

I still say the "we-thing" is partly a language issue. It is a nuance but I have often noticed native French speakers (I, native Flemish, catch myself doing it a lot as well), when communicating in English, tend to use "we" where a native English speaker would use "one" (i.e. "we conclude" instead of "one concludes"). Please note I'm not a linguist, so I can't back up this theory with fact. It's just something I've *observed*. Quite aside from all that, Francois was already considered a voice of authority when I first ventured on RAS now four years ago. Whether, in your opinion, he deserves to be or not, that's just the way it is. Jan. =---

Why? David G Fisher wrote:

Quoted text (71 lines)

> This is the best post I've seen in a long time. > > "Intimidator" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > WHAT!!?! What'dya mean not realistic? Who said that? Where are > > they? Maybe, just maybe GPL ISN'T the most realistic simulation that > > has been or ever will be produced. How d'ya like them apples? Can > > anyone with any authority on the subject really tell me if GPL is > > truly a realistic portrayal of late 60's F1 cars so far as the driving > > model is concerned. > > NO. They can't. No one here has ever driven a '67 F1 car. Not once in two > years have I read a post from someone who has. > > >I always hear, "damn straight it's realistic. > > The physics model has been programmed such that even a pebble stuck in > > the tread will wildly alter the handling of the car. With that level > > of detail, it MUST be realistic." That's basically what I keep > > hearing, but has anyone with an extensive racing background been able > > to support this claim. > > No. > > >And by extensive background, I don't mean > > "Eagle Woman" or some guy who drove his Datsun in IMSA twenty five > > years ago. > > That's all you'll get. > > > I know that the physics model is supposed to accurately > > model dozens of variables which affect car handling, but in the end, > > is it really the sum of it's parts? I honestly would like to know. > > I asked the same questions long ago. Still don't know the answer. > > > For months and months I've read hundreds of posts proclaiming GPL as > > "the sim which has just made every other present and future sim > > complete and utter arcade like garbage." Not in those exact words of > > course, but that's the general attitude I get from many how shall I > > say, 'enthusiastic,' GPL fans. > > Boring, isn't it? > > > If someone, Michael Schumacher for example, ever tried out GPL and > > proclaimed that it didn't feel very realistic, I think it would > > forever shatter the lives of all the GPL groupies. To them it would > > be a revelation on par with aliens landing on Earth and the > > realization that we are not the only sentient life in the > > universe...... > > What they would say is that MS doesn't know as much as they do about how a > sim should feel. I know, it makes no sense at all, but that's exactly what > they've said in the past. > > What NEVER gets mentioned on r.a.s. is that in the two years since GPL was > released, it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a mountain of articles and quotes from > current and former F1 drivers who rave about GPL. Actually, I've never read > ANYTHING at all. You would think that it would be EASY to find these > articles and quotes. Where is the article where Jackie Stewart raves on and > on....................and on............... about how incredibly accurate > GPL is? His glory years as a race car driver have been recreated. He should > looooooove it. > > Nothing. > > They don't exist. That's why I find the GPL fan club so ridiculous. > > Move on guys. > > David G Fisher

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote > Jan. I'm not going into the debate about Frank's standing in various > NG's as of today, but 4 years ago, he was *not* considered a voice of > authority in this NG, trust me, even Frank won't argue that point, that > was around the time of his "theses" and all that other stuff that we > won't go into here, water under the bridge and all that, but it was an > amusing time :-))) <sarcasm> I on purpose won't reply to you, but that's because it would be too hilarious Goy. Hmm.. my theses! Great stuff in them, still ;-) I won't challenge nor will I approve your message Goy. Instead, when someday we race on WON at a road track, you will see or not if I agreed with you. If you get punted, you'll know I didn't agreed ;-D And since people like Barton obviously don't like cynical messages, then we shall go to N3.D to actually have some fun 8) </s> -- -- 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 I don't know what to say really... Just that I've always been able to see past his excentricisms and gain usefull information from his ramblings. I still respect his opinion (don't always agree, he's gotten more cynical than I have) and while Francois and I are not friends in any real sense of the word, he's always treated me as one. Call me oldfashioned (and whatever else you can think of), but I still believe in standing up for my buddies. If nothing else, he brings character to the group, which is a good thing. Jan. =--- Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > <snip> > Thanks for the explanation. Now I at least semi-understand what all the > nattering is about. You were going along quite nicely, until this: > > <snip>

Barton Brown wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > Jan-- > > Thanks for the explanation. Now I at least semi-understand what all the > nattering is about. You were going along quite nicely, until this: > > > Quite aside from all that, Francois was already considered a voice of authority when I first ventured on RAS now four years ago. Whether, in your opinion, he deserves to be or not, that's just the way it is. > > I have nothing against Frankie, except for his unending grandiose claims > to knowledge he can't back up with facts, but I've been on and off ras > for considerably longer than you, and I can assure the audience that > (until I read this message) the only person I had met or heard of who > considered Frank a "voice of authority" for more than five minutes was > Frank. "Authority" isn't a matter of my opinion, or anyone else's > opinion -- it's a matter of demonstrable fact. I'll cheerfully admit I > know practically nothing when it comes to sim design, or coding in > general, but I *do* know bullshit when I smell it.

LOL, I missed that one myself, thx for pointing it out Bart :-) Jan. I'm not going into the debate about Frank's standing in various NG's as of today, but 4 years ago, he was *not* considered a voice of authority in this NG, trust me, even Frank won't argue that point, that was around the time of his "theses" and all that other stuff that we won't go into here, water under the bridge and all that, but it was an amusing time :-))) Man I love this place at times, better than TV !!! Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com http://www.teammirage.com "Mountain climbing, auto racing and bullfighting are the only true sports...all others are games." --Ernest Hemingway--

I'm not laughing at Francois but at the overall situation.........it's like watching a tennis match!! :-) DEUCE! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5IyC4.21668$[email hidden]... > Do not laugh... the way in which ymenard expresses himself is mostly due to > him being a native French speaker... this Barton indivudual is judging > Francois more by how he says things than what he says. Of course I cannot > help but smile myself as I subconsiously read (in French) what he was trying > to get across in English, this, to me, does not make what he says any less > "honest". > > Besides, the "tests" to assertain which RL properties are simulated in game > engines have been well documented here. > > Jan. > =--- > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > ROFL!!!!! > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > ymenard wrote: > > > <snip> > >

That's one of the most humane things I've read in this group in a long time, and makes me feel a bit lousy for some of the stuff I've written here lately. Hats off to you, Jan. "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:s8UC4.26938$[email hidden]... > Well I don't know what to say really... > > Just that I've always been able to see past his excentricisms and gain > usefull information from his ramblings. I still respect his opinion (don't > always agree, he's gotten more cynical than I have) and while Francois andI

Quoted text (9 lines)

> are not friends in any real sense of the word, he's always treated me as > one. > > Call me oldfashioned (and whatever else you can think of), but I still > believe in standing up for my buddies. > > If nothing else, he brings character to the group, which is a good thing. > > Jan.

ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > <sarcasm> > I on purpose won't reply to you, but that's because it would be too > hilarious Goy. Hmm.. my theses! Great stuff in them, still ;-) I won't > challenge nor will I approve your message Goy. Instead, when someday we > race on WON at a road track, you will see or not if I agreed with you. If > you get punted, you'll know I didn't agreed ;-D > > And since people like Barton obviously don't like cynical messages, then we > shall go to N3.D to actually have some fun 8) > </s>

Huh, let's go make fun of Ramsden..... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Stay quite unless you know the FULL story.........

Ha! I wiped it up but not before it had etched the painted surface of my desk. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > Bart....your sarcasm is oozing out of the bottom right-hand corner (the > > monitor is not dead-level) of my screen! :-) > > Bruce-- > > Don't let it get into your keyboard; it'll eat it right up! > > BB

Jan Verschueren wrote: > > If nothing else, he brings character to the group, which is a good thing. There's a statement I cannot argue with. Except maybe the "good thing" part -- I think even his most ardent sycophants would have to grant that he's not an unalloyed joy ... BB

ymenard wrote: > Hmm.. my theses! Great stuff in them, still ;-) Theses!? I thought he said "feces"! Well, *that's* a different matter, then. I hate to dredge up old grievances (again), but who was that young Quebecois whose "theses" included pirating Indy, offering it to all and sundry, and then boasting about it in his sig at the time? I think a certain software company objected quite strenuously to that bit of bare-faced larceny, didn't they? Could that be the same guy who's *now* preaching against the evils of warez (and you, Frank, know *my* position against piracy very well). Is this the same Francois Menard who once claimed to have created RAS, and now talks of the algorithms and relative merits of sim game engines as if he had coded them himself? You *still* haven't answered my very honest question: what are the functional, objective (based on the mechanics of the game engines, not on you and your buddies' opinions of "how they feel") differences among the various game engines that are at the heart of sims like GPL, GP2, N3, F12K, etc.? If you *know*, it's not a difficult answer, and you can spare everyone here by replying by email if you like (or not -- I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like a better understanding of how these engines work). If you *don't* know...well, I think everyone can draw their own conclusions. I'm not pickin' on ya, little buddy -- I just want some info. Are you da man, or what? > And since people like Barton obviously don't like cynical messages Au contraire, mon frere! I love *well-crafted" cynical messages, it's just the completely unimaginative ones that bore me to tears. What is life without art? BB

Barton Brown wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Jan Verschueren wrote: > > > > If nothing else, he brings character to the group, which is a good thing. > > There's a statement I cannot argue with. Except maybe the "good thing" > part -- I think even his most ardent sycophants would have to grant that > he's not an unalloyed joy ...

If I may be so bold as to but into your little discussion yet another time, I disagree here Bart, we need all sorts of people in this group, it would be an incredibly boring place if everyone adhered to the conformity rule (trying to impress everyone here with my vast knowledge of the English language :-), which is why I'm glad we have people like Ymenard around, and Don Wilshe and yes, even Bruce Kennewell :-), we are blessed with very few people in here that are only morons that do not contribute in one way or another, the only person I've ever really wanted to leave was Y2K rick, for rather obvious reasons...:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Goy Larsen wrote: > > the only person I've ever really > wanted to leave was Y2K rick, for rather obvious reasons...:-) hehe... has anyone told him it's safe to leave his bunker now?

Pierre Robitaille wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Goy Larsen wrote: > > > > the only person I've ever really > > wanted to leave was Y2K rick, for rather obvious reasons...:-) > > hehe... has anyone told him it's safe to leave his bunker now?

It's not safe for him, he pissed off too many people, so his Y2K proof bunker came in handy after all.... ...and he *did* actually come out of hiding for a few days just after new year, he posted a few time in the N3.discussion group about how he had been wrong (gee, we already knew that rick), not an apology for all his annoying posts or anything mind you, just stated the obvious, and then started talking about that we were not out of the woods yet as some problems wouldn't arise until a bit into the new year, and then there was the "leap year" problem .... But I must admit that I'm curious as to what he's up to know, it's always a good idea to know what people like him are doing, he might move to a place near you...the horror of it all... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Goy Larsen wrote: > If I may be so bold as to but into your little discussion yet another > time, I disagree here Bart, we need all sorts of people in this group Couldn't agree more. I was simply unwilling to characterize Frank's ...er, *character* as necessarily and unequivocally "good". Nor is mine. BB

Barton Brown wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Goy Larsen wrote: > > > If I may be so bold as to but into your little discussion yet another > > time, I disagree here Bart, we need all sorts of people in this group > > Couldn't agree more. I was simply unwilling to characterize Frank's > ...er, *character* as necessarily and unequivocally "good". Nor is mine.

Ah, got you all wrong then, it "sounded" to me as you thought Ymenard had no place in here because he chose to be different, and that surprised me more than a little coming from you, glad I was wrong..... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

"Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote > Couldn't agree more. I was simply unwilling to characterize Frank's > ...er, *character* as necessarily and unequivocally "good". Nor is mine. Everybody has evil in himself, I think we both know that... So Im not perfect? Well Goodly-yes Im not! Should I become a sheep that gets powered by the Powers that be? Never, that's not anywhere my personnal goals. Will I continue to stand against racing developpers who fail to produce just simply "quality titles"? Of course, I will... Will I actually stop posting here? No, but I'll calm down a little. Careful with that Axe, Barton... -- eh -- 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.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:28:22 +0100, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote: >of the English language :-), which is why I'm glad we have people like >Ymenard around, and Don Wilshe and yes, even Bruce Kennewell :-), we are Even David G. Fisher? :) >blessed with very few people in here that are only morons that do not >contribute in one way or another, the only person I've ever really >wanted to leave was Y2K rick, for rather obvious reasons...:-) Never saw him on RAS. Who's he? Andre

Stay quite unless you know the FULL story......... "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iA8D4.30438$[email hidden]... > Something tells me I should have put a smiley on that sentence... ;-) > > I will make a confession here and now: most days I can't remember what Ihad > for lunch come dinner time. I honestly don't remember what the general > appreciation of Francois was at the time. I just threw it in to taunt Barta > little. > > I must have joined R.A.S. in the aftermath of "the post", when things were > nearly back to normal with just a few people, it seemed to me at the time, > on a personal crusade against Francois. I only learned what happened whenI

Quoted text (13 lines)

> enquired about his sig much, much later. > > Jan. > =--- > Proud ICR2 Indy500 winner (98% AI) <vwg> > > <snip> > > Jan, no hard feelings, but I hope you're kidding. > > > > -- > > * rrev at mindspring dot com * > >

Goy Larsen wrote: > > Ah, got you all wrong then, it "sounded" to me as you thought Ymenard > had no place in here because he chose to be different Gad! If *that* were true, I'd go eat the gas pipe myself! BB

Goy Larsen wrote: > > he was a Y2K prophet that insisted on telling us that the world as we knew it would end on > December 31st 1999, doomsday and all that And now you're saying it didn't? You mean I've been down in this fallout shelter for 3 months with nothing but Pabst Blue Ribbon and Twinkies for no reason? Somebody could have told me -- I thought all that was left of civilization was UseNet....no, wait a minute.... BB

Something tells me I should have put a smiley on that sentence... ;-) I will make a confession here and now: most days I can't remember what I had for lunch come dinner time. I honestly don't remember what the general appreciation of Francois was at the time. I just threw it in to taunt Bart a little. I must have joined R.A.S. in the aftermath of "the post", when things were nearly back to normal with just a few people, it seemed to me at the time, on a personal crusade against Francois. I only learned what happened when I enquired about his sig much, much later. Jan. =--- Proud ICR2 Indy500 winner (98% AI) <vwg> <snip> > Jan, no hard feelings, but I hope you're kidding. > > -- > * rrev at mindspring dot com *

Andre Warringa wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:28:22 +0100, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >of the English language :-), which is why I'm glad we have people like > >Ymenard around, and Don Wilshe and yes, even Bruce Kennewell :-), we are > > Even David G. Fisher? :)

Weeeeeeeeell, in principle, yes ....:-) Naa, seriously though, it's all the different people in here that make it what it is, and thankfully only a few are morons with nothing to contribute in any way, very few... > >blessed with very few people in here that are only morons that do not > >contribute in one way or another, the only person I've ever really > >wanted to leave was Y2K rick, for rather obvious reasons...:-) > > Never saw him on RAS. Who's he? Ah, you've missed out on a "legend" my friend, he was a Y2K prophet that insisted on telling us that the world as we knew it would end on December 31st 1999, doomsday and all that, riots in the streets, total collapse of the banking system, the Russians launching a full scale nuclear attack because all their weapons would be useless after January 1st so they might as well use them, and because of that, USA ought to strike first, you probably saw his kind on the news every now and then, "Y2K survivalists"......head for the hills, the world is ending.... Then there was a bit about people on welfare and the degeneration of the human race as a whole I think, I got lost in there after a while, but have a look for [email hidden] or something on Dejanews, it's well worth it, he also posted as Omegaman in one of the Y2K NG's, it's funny now after the fact, but people like him can make a lot of damage with their misinformation, and there's so much information to be found on the i-net to support just about any view you care to take, so that kind of extremist people can be really dangerous He didn't post too much here on r.a.s. as someone made a complaint to his ISP that his postings here was not as per the charter of this NG and that this was a violation of his ISP's rules, unfortunately, some of the other groups he frequented wasn't so lucky and had to endure quite a bit of him, so hats off to whoever it was, I'll buy you a beer or two if we ever meet up (I have a pretty good idea who it was :-) -- Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com http://www.teammirage.com "Mountain climbing, auto racing and bullfighting are the only true sports...all others are games." --Ernest Hemingway--

Slight misinterpretation there I think Barton. It's a "good thing" he posts dissenting and sometimes downright controversial messages. It provokes thought and discussion, whether I, you or anyone else agrees or not is beside the point. This also does not make him a saint or a martyr<sp?>. He's just Francois, which is also a good thing in its own right. Sometimes it takes an aggressive post to get an issue explained clearly, just like when you posted on the "realism tests" in fact (at least I hope it was clear). Jan. =--- Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Jan Verschueren wrote: > > > > If nothing else, he brings character to the group, which is a goodthing. > > There's a statement I cannot argue with. Except maybe the "good thing" > part -- I think even his most ardent sycophants would have to grant that > he's not an unalloyed joy ... > > BB

"Stiff one" <[email hidden]> wrote > Stay quite unless you know the FULL story......... Only I know the FULL story, so stay quiet yourself 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.

Barton Brown wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Goy Larsen wrote: > > > > he was a Y2K prophet that insisted on telling us that the world as we knew it would end on > > December 31st 1999, doomsday and all that > > And now you're saying it didn't? You mean I've been down in this fallout > shelter for 3 months with nothing but Pabst Blue Ribbon and Twinkies for > no reason? Somebody could have told me -- I thought all that was left of > civilization was UseNet....no, wait a minute.... > > BB

Well, it could have been worse, you could have been down there with "rick".... Quite a combination there Bart, PBR and Twinkies...what made you go for that one ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com http://www.teammirage.com "Mountain climbing, auto racing and bullfighting are the only true sports...all others are games." --Ernest Hemingway--

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > Thanks for the vote, Uncle! :-) You welcome, I can appreciate that you might feel a little uncomfy in that company, but at least I didn't put you in the "very few people in here that are only morons that do not contribute in one way or another" category :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com http://www.teammirage.com "Mountain climbing, auto racing and bullfighting are the only true sports...all others are games." --Ernest Hemingway--

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > He's searching the heavens for approaching asteroids, Uncle. Thx. I'll sleep a lot safer tonight then, knowing that "rick" is looking out for all of us.... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com http://www.teammirage.com "Mountain climbing, auto racing and bullfighting are the only true sports...all others are games." --Ernest Hemingway--

Frank, Do us a favor and tell Bartress that he's won . . . game, set, match, world. I dunno if it'll work, but maybe it's worth a try. Here's my version: Bart, you've been correct in everything you've said in this ng. You're a living god. You rock my world, baby. --DK (fingers crossed) "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:u0VC4.15801$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Jan. I'm not going into the debate about Frank's standing in various > > NG's as of today, but 4 years ago, he was *not* considered a voice of > > authority in this NG, trust me, even Frank won't argue that point, that > > was around the time of his "theses" and all that other stuff that we > > won't go into here, water under the bridge and all that, but it was an > > amusing time :-))) > > > <sarcasm> > I on purpose won't reply to you, but that's because it would be too > hilarious Goy. Hmm.. my theses! Great stuff in them, still ;-) I won't > challenge nor will I approve your message Goy. Instead, when someday we > race on WON at a road track, you will see or not if I agreed with you. If > you get punted, you'll know I didn't agreed ;-D > > And since people like Barton obviously don't like cynical messages, then

we

Quoted text (11 lines)

> shall go to N3.D to actually have some fun 8) > </s> > > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

"David Karr" <[email hidden]> wrote > Do us a favor and tell Bartress that he's won . . . game, set, match,world. > I dunno if it'll work, but maybe it's worth a try. Nobody wins or loose in this newsgroup. People simply exchange opinions, give news and help people with problems. -- -- 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.

Section 34 in June = Foot in your ass.......... "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YP9D4.17065$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Stiff one" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Stay quite unless you know the FULL story......... > > Only I know the FULL story, so stay quiet yourself 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. > > >

I run this place, I also invented RAS so what I say goes............ "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HmbD4.31812$[email hidden]... > Excuse me if I missed something (I write my own posts, but I may have > subconscious slips... one never knows), but have I said something aboutthis

Quoted text (17 lines)

> episode, other than I wasn't around when it happened? -Not exactly > speculation on my behalf, IMO. > > You might want to try reading people's posts before telling them what > they're allowed to say or not. Which you cannot hope to alter anyway (most > people don't scare easily enough to fear your verbal wrath), you can only > prevent yourself from reading it. > > Jan. > =--- > Stiff one wrote... > > Stay quite unless you know the FULL story......... > ^^^^^| > |_--> Define the state of "quite" and > I'll try to assume it! ;-) > >

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > Thanks for clueing us in on the Rick affair, Goy. I never did get into that > thread.......thank God! :-) You're most welcome, and I must admit that there were times when I just couldn't resist no more and just *had* to reply to some of his posts, his problem was that he wasn't very good at what he was doing, all you had to do was read what was posted on these sites he posted links too, and you'd soon see so many conflicting statements you'd think these people were running for office somewhere :-), and when confronted by it, he would then drop the subject altogether and find a new subject, very tiresome chap to discuss with Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com http://www.teammirage.com "Mountain climbing, auto racing and bullfighting are the only true sports...all others are games." --Ernest Hemingway--

They tell us all they know and use it to give examples of hypocrisy as well,............ New names for this group Rec.Autos.Policing.Piracy Rec.Autos.Assholes Rec.Autos.Knowitalls "rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:18:45 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]>wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > >"David Karr" <[email hidden]> wrote > >> Do us a favor and tell Bartress that he's won . . . game, set, match, > >world. > > > >Nobody wins or loose in this newsgroup. People simply exchange opinions, > >give news and help people with problems. > > .. or proselytize, unfairly criticize, claim knowledge that they don't

possess, > ego-stroke ... > > -- > * rrev at mindspring dot com *

I forgot Rec.Autos.Hypocrites Reevved hit the nail on the head "ego stroke". Good call reevved............... "Stiff one" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:l7cD4.2769$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> They tell us all they know and use it to give examples of hypocrisy as > well,............ > New names for this group > > Rec.Autos.Policing.Piracy > Rec.Autos.Assholes > Rec.Autos.Knowitalls > > "rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:18:45 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > > >"David Karr" <[email hidden]> wrote > > >> Do us a favor and tell Bartress that he's won . . . game, set, match, > > >world. > > > > > >Nobody wins or loose in this newsgroup. People simply exchange

opinions,

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > >give news and help people with problems. > > > > .. or proselytize, unfairly criticize, claim knowledge that they don't > possess, > > ego-stroke ... > > > > -- > > * rrev at mindspring dot com * > >

Excuse me if I missed something (I write my own posts, but I may have subconscious slips... one never knows), but have I said something about this episode, other than I wasn't around when it happened? -Not exactly speculation on my behalf, IMO. You might want to try reading people's posts before telling them what they're allowed to say or not. Which you cannot hope to alter anyway (most people don't scare easily enough to fear your verbal wrath), you can only prevent yourself from reading it. Jan. =--- Stiff one wrote... > Stay quite unless you know the FULL story......... ^^^^^| |_--> Define the state of "quite" and I'll try to assume it! ;-)

I have absolutely no regrets for my position on the Y2K threat pre-rollover. Only I wish I could of gotten more folks to prepare. If I had to do it all over again, I would have done the same thing, only now I have more experience with it. So, I would be more effective. Now, you expect some kind of "apology"? For what? First, I stayed within the bounds of the law and exercised my right to free speech - a cause that many of my ancestors died for. Sure, my views were a bit extreme, yet all you needed to do was filter my posts from your newsreader. I was the only one who you wished I never posted here. But what do you do? In a quantum leap of hypocrisy, you spend your precious sim-racing time reading *all* of my posts on dejanews! What's more, you suggest to your comrades to do the same! <eyes squinting> This seems inconsistent since reading my posts isn't an addictive drug, and that it took an *effort* on your part to follow through and read all of my material. I never acted in such a way that would fool you into unintentionally reading my posts. You hate me and my articles. And you profoundly resented my posting to USENET, and "wished" I'd never appeared in your newsreader. Then turn around and *repost* some of my archived material and *suggest* that others delve into. It all appears very weird to me. This isn't meant to be a flame, I just can't find an explanation for your inconsistencies. Second, I was not *wrong* in executing my Y2K survival cause. "What? Y2K turned out to be nothing!" you ask? Well, let me provide an analogy that would help you understand how right I was: Let's say a dweeb goes for a walk down a dark alley searching for cocaine. He finds a peddler and buys a bag of white powder and wanders off. Shortly thereafter, the dweeb is arrested for possession. The bag contained powdered sugar. The dweeb will be tried, convicted, and *sentenced* as if it were real cocaine in the bag. There are many other examples, but you get the point. I hope this clears the air somewhat. If it is against the law to be an extremist, I would appreciate the courtesy of someone clueing me in on the particulars. Otherwise, your only problem with me was the fact that my view differed from your own. In which case, you need to learn how to deal with it. I was not wrong and there was nothing to be sorry for in the first place. I still stand by my view that Russia needs a first strike as soon as possible. That the lazy welfare layabouts need to get a job or starve, etc, etc... You can cease the habit of calling me "dangerous" until I make an official announcement of my plans to run for the U.S. presidency. Even then you wouldn't have anything to worry about until the day I get elected. Well, I've got better things to do than hanging out on USENET all day....like figuring out what caused all of the crop circles in my back yard. Good night. Rick Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (32 lines)

> Pierre Robitaille wrote: > > > > Goy Larsen wrote: > > > > > > the only person I've ever really > > > wanted to leave was Y2K rick, for rather obvious reasons...:-) > > > > hehe... has anyone told him it's safe to leave his bunker now? > > It's not safe for him, he pissed off too many people, so his Y2K proof > bunker came in handy after all.... > > ...and he *did* actually come out of hiding for a few days just after > new year, he posted a few time in the N3.discussion group about how he > had been wrong (gee, we already knew that rick), not an apology for all > his annoying posts or anything mind you, just stated the obvious, and > then started talking about that we were not out of the woods yet as some > problems wouldn't arise until a bit into the new year, and then there > was the "leap year" problem .... > > But I must admit that I'm curious as to what he's up to know, it's > always a good idea to know what people like him are doing, he might move > to a place near you...the horror of it all... > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:20:10 -0600, Rick <[email hidden]> wrote: >I was not *wrong* in executing my Y2K survival cause. ..in the auto simulators newsgroup? -- * rrev at mindspring dot com *

I can understand how that bothers you (and other people), but I can't help but feel it's more constructive to argue what follows the 'we the sim community believe'-bit, not the phrase itself. You can always add "Speak for yourself" at the beginning of your reply afaic. I don't have a lot of time to read news, so I tend to look past form and search for meaning, which is probably why those phrases never caught my eye (only started noticing after you guys pointed it out). BTW, and this is just an observation, if you're worried about ymenard "speaking for the group", doesn't that imply his words, however ludecrous, somehow carry some authoriy? ;-) Anyhow, let's drop this line of discussion as I'm starting to sound like a stuck record. There are more productive ways in which we (<---deliberate! ;-)) can contribute to the sim community. -Whattaya say? Jan. =--- rrevved wrote...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> <snip> > Jan, as for me, I dont have -any- problem with what he says and > I defend his right to freedom of speech, here on the internet, > which is something he apparently doesn't enjoy in his own state/country. > > What I object to is his incessant referral to 'we simmers want', > 'we the sim community believe' .. etc. Frank doesn't speak for -anyone- > but Frank. If he continues his 'we-ness' posts, someone will be > there to counter him. > > Thats happening now

Hehe... sarcasm, not bad. Jan. =--- Stiff one wrote... > I run this place, I also invented RAS so what I say goes............ ><snip>

Goy Larsen wrote: > > > Quite a combination there Bart, PBR and Twinkies...what made you go for > that one ? > No matter how long you keep them, they taste exactly the same as when fresh...in other words, ghastly. BB

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > What then, Bart....simple basic pig-iron? :-) Low carbon steel with some random impurities, I think... BB

David Karr wrote: > Bart, you've been correct in everything you've said in this ng. You're a > living god. You rock my world, baby. > > --DK Sorry, David -- Mongo straight! BB

Hehe... sarcasm, not bad. Jan. =--- <snip>

What then, Bart....simple basic pig-iron? :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > - I think even his most ardent sycophants would have to grant that > he's not an unalloyed joy ... >

Bart....it's just struck me (notice how observant I'm becoming in my old age!)....what's happened to the "Spencer"? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > ymenard wrote: > > > Hmm.. my theses! Great stuff in them, still ;-) > > Theses!? I thought he said "feces"! Well, *that's* a different matter, > then. I hate to dredge up old grievances (again), but who was that young > Quebecois whose "theses" included pirating Indy, offering it to all and > sundry, and then boasting about it in his sig at the time? I think a > certain software company objected quite strenuously to that bit of > bare-faced larceny, didn't they? Could that be the same guy who's *now* > preaching against the evils of warez (and you, Frank, know *my* position > against piracy very well). Is this the same Francois Menard who once > claimed to have created RAS, and now talks of the algorithms and > relative merits of sim game engines as if he had coded them himself? You > *still* haven't answered my very honest question: what are the > functional, objective (based on the mechanics of the game engines, not > on you and your buddies' opinions of "how they feel") differences among > the various game engines that are at the heart of sims like GPL, GP2, > N3, F12K, etc.? If you *know*, it's not a difficult answer, and you can > spare everyone here by replying by email if you like (or not -- I'm sure > there are plenty of people who would like a better understanding of how > these engines work). If you *don't* know...well, I think everyone can > draw their own conclusions. I'm not pickin' on ya, little buddy -- I > just want some info. Are you da man, or what? > > > And since people like Barton obviously don't like cynical messages > > Au contraire, mon frere! I love *well-crafted" cynical messages, it's > just the completely unimaginative ones that bore me to tears. What is > life without art? > > BB

Thanks for the vote, Uncle! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Barton Brown wrote: > > > > Jan Verschueren wrote: > > > > > > If nothing else, he brings character to the group, which is a good thing. > > > > There's a statement I cannot argue with. Except maybe the "good thing" > > part -- I think even his most ardent sycophants would have to grant that > > he's not an unalloyed joy ... > > If I may be so bold as to but into your little discussion yet another > time, I disagree here Bart, we need all sorts of people in this group, > it would be an incredibly boring place if everyone adhered to the > conformity rule (trying to impress everyone here with my vast knowledge > of the English language :-), which is why I'm glad we have people like > Ymenard around, and Don Wilshe and yes, even Bruce Kennewell :-), we are > blessed with very few people in here that are only morons that do not > contribute in one way or another, the only person I've ever really > wanted to leave was Y2K rick, for rather obvious reasons...:-) > > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

He's searching the heavens for approaching asteroids, Uncle. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Pierre Robitaille wrote: > > > > Goy Larsen wrote: > > > > > > the only person I've ever really > > > wanted to leave was Y2K rick, for rather obvious reasons...:-) > > > > hehe... has anyone told him it's safe to leave his bunker now? > > It's not safe for him, he pissed off too many people, so his Y2K proof > bunker came in handy after all.... > > ...and he *did* actually come out of hiding for a few days just after > new year, he posted a few time in the N3.discussion group about how he > had been wrong (gee, we already knew that rick), not an apology for all > his annoying posts or anything mind you, just stated the obvious, and > then started talking about that we were not out of the woods yet as some > problems wouldn't arise until a bit into the new year, and then there > was the "leap year" problem .... > > But I must admit that I'm curious as to what he's up to know, it's > always a good idea to know what people like him are doing, he might move > to a place near you...the horror of it all... > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

I think he was the bloke who predicted (here) The End Of Civilisation As We Know It for January 1st. 2000, Andre. I can't recall all of the story but I'm sure it was about that. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:28:22 +0100, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >of the English language :-), which is why I'm glad we have people like > >Ymenard around, and Don Wilshe and yes, even Bruce Kennewell :-), we are > > Even David G. Fisher? :) > > >blessed with very few people in here that are only morons that do not > >contribute in one way or another, the only person I've ever really > >wanted to leave was Y2K rick, for rather obvious reasons...:-) > > Never saw him on RAS. Who's he? > > Andre

Thanks for clueing us in on the Rick affair, Goy. I never did get into that thread.......thank God! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Andre Warringa wrote: > > > > On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:28:22 +0100, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >of the English language :-), which is why I'm glad we have people like > > >Ymenard around, and Don Wilshe and yes, even Bruce Kennewell :-), we are > > > > Even David G. Fisher? :) > > Weeeeeeeeell, in principle, yes ....:-) > > Naa, seriously though, it's all the different people in here that make > it what it is, and thankfully only a few are morons with nothing to > contribute in any way, very few... > > > >blessed with very few people in here that are only morons that do not > > >contribute in one way or another, the only person I've ever really > > >wanted to leave was Y2K rick, for rather obvious reasons...:-) > > > > Never saw him on RAS. Who's he? > > Ah, you've missed out on a "legend" my friend, he was a Y2K prophet that > insisted on telling us that the world as we knew it would end on > December 31st 1999, doomsday and all that, riots in the streets, total > collapse of the banking system, the Russians launching a full scale > nuclear attack because all their weapons would be useless after January > 1st so they might as well use them, and because of that, USA ought to > strike first, you probably saw his kind on the news every now and then, > "Y2K survivalists"......head for the hills, the world is ending.... > > Then there was a bit about people on welfare and the degeneration of the > human race as a whole I think, I got lost in there after a while, but > have a look for [email hidden] or something on Dejanews, it's well > worth it, he also posted as Omegaman in one of the Y2K NG's, it's funny > now after the fact, but people like him can make a lot of damage with > their misinformation, and there's so much information to be found on the > i-net to support just about any view you care to take, so that kind of > extremist people can be really dangerous > > He didn't post too much here on r.a.s. as someone made a complaint to > his ISP that his postings here was not as per the charter of this NG and > that this was a violation of his ISP's rules, unfortunately, some of the > other groups he frequented wasn't so lucky and had to endure quite a bit > of him, so hats off to whoever it was, I'll buy you a beer or two if we > ever meet up (I have a pretty good idea who it was :-) > > > -- > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > http://www.teammirage.com > > "Mountain climbing, auto racing and bullfighting > are the only true sports...all others are games." > --Ernest Hemingway--

LOL!! Thanks again, Goy! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > Thanks for the vote, Uncle! :-) > > You welcome, I can appreciate that you might feel a little uncomfy in > that company, but at least I didn't put you in the "very few people in > here that are only morons that do not contribute in one way or another" > category :-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > http://www.teammirage.com > > "Mountain climbing, auto racing and bullfighting > are the only true sports...all others are games." > --Ernest Hemingway--

Careful....he might hear you! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > Thanks for clueing us in on the Rick affair, Goy. I never did get into that > > thread.......thank God! :-) > > You're most welcome, and I must admit that there were times when I just > couldn't resist no more and just *had* to reply to some of his posts, > his problem was that he wasn't very good at what he was doing, all you > had to do was read what was posted on these sites he posted links too, > and you'd soon see so many conflicting statements you'd think these > people were running for office somewhere :-), and when confronted by it, > he would then drop the subject altogether and find a new subject, very > tiresome chap to discuss with > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > http://www.teammirage.com > > "Mountain climbing, auto racing and bullfighting > are the only true sports...all others are games." > --Ernest Hemingway--

:-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > What then, Bart....simple basic pig-iron? :-) > > Low carbon steel with some random impurities, I think... > > BB

>David G Fisher wrote: > NO. They can't. No one here has ever driven a '67 F1 car. Not once in two > years have I read a post from someone who has. Wow, having not driven GPL nor looked at r.a.s. for over a year, it's like never having been away. Is this STILL an issue?! >> I asked the same questions long ago. Still don't know the answer. Is it important? When you drive a BMW M5 you have a computer braking, steering, balancing the car, doing everything possible to separate you from reality - that's still driving. I don't see that it's an issue as long as it's fun. Realism is not attainable, it's only to what degree a product approaches it. GPL was by far the best at the time, and may still be for all I know, that alone should be a recommendation. >> Boring, isn't it? Yes, equally as much as the responses from the GPL "anti-groupies". >> They don't exist. That's why I find the GPL fan club so ridiculous. Hmm, if YOU were Michael Schumacher and had a Bugatti as your home car and drove a Ferrari all day, you'd be unlikely to be interested in a computer sim that can only fall short of what you enjoy. It's a daft comparison. In any case, even when a "sim" did have a real driver singing it's praises (Blundell with CPR) he was ignored anyway, so why bother? > Move on guys. A sound proposition. S'only a game after all. Cheers! John

Well, if you ask me (and by posting here, you did), that analogy works better with you as the figurative peddler. I think you're a silly person. But of course, I only know you through your psychedelic haze. --DK [snip]

Ahh Rick, we miss you in n3.dicussions! > I have absolutely no regrets for my position on the Y2K threat > pre-rollover. Only I wish I could of gotten more folks to prepare. If I had

Quoted text (9 lines)

> to do it all over again, I would have done the same thing, only now I have > more experience with it. So, I would be more effective. > Now, you expect some kind of "apology"? For what? First, I stayed within > the bounds of the law and exercised my right to free speech - a cause that > many of my ancestors died for. Sure, my views were a bit extreme, yet all > you needed to do was filter my posts from your newsreader. I was the only > one who you wished I never posted here. But what do you do? In a quantum > leap of hypocrisy, you spend your precious sim-racing time reading *all*

of > my posts on dejanews! What's more, you suggest to your comrades to do the > same! <eyes squinting> > This seems inconsistent since reading my posts isn't an ***ive drug, and > that it took an *effort* on your part to follow through and read all of my > material. I never acted in such a way that would fool you into > unintentionally reading my posts. You hate me and my articles. And you > profoundly resented my posting to USENET, and "wished" I'd never appeared in > your newsreader. Then turn around and *repost* some of my archived material

Quoted text (10 lines)

> and *suggest* that others delve into. It all appears very weird to me. > This isn't meant to be a flame, I just can't find an explanation for your > inconsistencies. > Second, I was not *wrong* in executing my Y2K survival cause. "What? Y2K > turned out to be nothing!" you ask? Well, let me provide an analogy that > would help you understand how right I was: > Let's say a dweeb goes for a walk down a dark alley searching for ***. > He finds a peddler and buys a bag of white powder and wanders off.

Shortly

Quoted text (9 lines)

> thereafter, the dweeb is arrested for possession. The bag contained > powdered sugar. The dweeb will be tried, convicted, and *sentenced* as if > it were real *** in the bag. > There are many other examples, but you get the point. > I hope this clears the air somewhat. If it is against the law to be an > extremist, I would appreciate the courtesy of someone clueing me in on the > particulars. Otherwise, your only problem with me was the fact that my

view > differed from your own. In which case, you need to learn how to deal with > it. > I was not wrong and there was nothing to be sorry for in the first place. I > still stand by my view that Russia needs a first strike as soon as possible.

Quoted text (48 lines)

> That the lazy welfare layabouts need to get a job or starve, etc, etc... > You can cease the habit of calling me "dangerous" until I make an official > announcement of my plans to run for the U.S. presidency. Even then you > wouldn't have anything to worry about until the day I get elected. > Well, I've got better things to do than*** out on USENET all > day....like figuring out what caused all of the crop circles in my back > yard. Good night. > Rick > > > > the only person I've ever really > > > > wanted to leave was Y2K rick, for rather obvious reasons...:-) > > > hehe... has anyone told him it's safe to leave his bunker now? > > It's not safe for him, he pissed off too many people, so his Y2K proof > > bunker came in handy after all.... > > ...and he *did* actually come out of hiding for a few days just after > > new year, he posted a few time in the N3.discussion group about how he > > had been wrong (gee, we already knew that rick), not an apology for all > > his annoying posts or anything mind you, just stated the obvious, and > > then started talking about that we were not out of the woods yet as some > > problems wouldn't arise until a bit into the new year, and then there > > was the "leap year" problem .... > > But I must admit that I'm curious as to what he's up to know, it's > > always a good idea to know what people like him are doing, he might move > > to a place near you...the horror of it all... > > Beers and cheers > > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

No we don't. :) -- Don Burnette Dburn in N3 and Legends

> Good Lord!! > No wonder you folks were concerned about this chappy......."first strike on > Russia"!!!! > And he says you only need to worry if he decides to run for President? > Sheeeeeeeeeet.....I'd be worried if he decides to go outdoors! LOL, yeah, he's quite a character, isn't he, good thing there's this big blue thing called the Atlantic Ocean between him and me, although air tickets have come down a fair bit..... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

snip > Well, I've got better things to do than*** out on USENET all > day....like figuring out what caused all of the crop circles in my back > yard. Good night. Was it something I said ? LOL, you really don't get it do you, but since people have tried telling you what it's all about in this NG, the TEN NG and on the simracing.org NG's since your first Y2K post, I'm not going to go through all that again, but just for the record, as long as you post about sim racing, or sim racing related topics, I have no problem with having you in this NG, in fact, I seem to remember that you had quite a bit of knowledge about video editing and such, and it's kinda sad to see a potential asset to the community go to waste Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

> Wow, having not driven GPL nor looked at r.a.s. for over a year, it's > like never having been away. Is this STILL an issue?! Same old place :-) Nice to have you back John, what have you been up to these past months ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

> No we don't. > :) Shut up Don !!!.....no, that doesn't sound right at all.... ...Shut up Scott !!!...ah, much better Would you mind changing your name to Scott ? :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Plus ca change. Andrew McP

Good Lord!! No wonder you folks were concerned about this chappy......."first strike on Russia"!!!! And he says you only need to worry if he decides to run for President? Sheeeeeeeeeet.....I'd be worried if he decides to go outdoors! Froot Loops for breakfast, anyone?! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Rick <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I have absolutely no regrets for my position on the Y2K threat > pre-rollover. Only I wish I could of gotten more folks to prepare. If I had > to do it all over again, I would have done the same thing, only now I have > more experience with it. So, I would be more effective. > > Now, you expect some kind of "apology"? For what? First, I stayed within > the bounds of the law and exercised my right to free speech - a cause that > many of my ancestors died for. Sure, my views were a bit extreme, yet all > you needed to do was filter my posts from your newsreader. I was the only > one who you wished I never posted here. But what do you do? In a quantum > leap of hypocrisy, you spend your precious sim-racing time reading *all* of > my posts on dejanews! What's more, you suggest to your comrades to do the > same! <eyes squinting> > > This seems inconsistent since reading my posts isn't an addictive drug, and > that it took an *effort* on your part to follow through and read all of my > material. I never acted in such a way that would fool you into > unintentionally reading my posts. You hate me and my articles. And you > profoundly resented my posting to USENET, and "wished" I'd never appeared in > your newsreader. Then turn around and *repost* some of my archived material > and *suggest* that others delve into. It all appears very weird to me. > This isn't meant to be a flame, I just can't find an explanation for your > inconsistencies. > > Second, I was not *wrong* in executing my Y2K survival cause. "What? Y2K > turned out to be nothing!" you ask? Well, let me provide an analogy that > would help you understand how right I was: > > Let's say a dweeb goes for a walk down a dark alley searching for cocaine. > He finds a peddler and buys a bag of white powder and wanders off. Shortly > thereafter, the dweeb is arrested for possession. The bag contained > powdered sugar. The dweeb will be tried, convicted, and *sentenced* as if > it were real cocaine in the bag. > > There are many other examples, but you get the point. > > I hope this clears the air somewhat. If it is against the law to be an > extremist, I would appreciate the courtesy of someone clueing me in on the > particulars. Otherwise, your only problem with me was the fact that my view > differed from your own. In which case, you need to learn how to deal with > it. > > I was not wrong and there was nothing to be sorry for in the first place. I > still stand by my view that Russia needs a first strike as soon as possible. > That the lazy welfare layabouts need to get a job or starve, etc, etc... > You can cease the habit of calling me "dangerous" until I make an official > announcement of my plans to run for the U.S. presidency. Even then you > wouldn't have anything to worry about until the day I get elected. > > Well, I've got better things to do than hanging out on USENET all > day....like figuring out what caused all of the crop circles in my back > yard. Good night. > > Rick

The Pacific is even bigger, Goy......thank God! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > > Good Lord!! > > No wonder you folks were concerned about this chappy......."first strike on > > Russia"!!!! > > And he says you only need to worry if he decides to run for President? > > Sheeeeeeeeeet.....I'd be worried if he decides to go outdoors! > LOL, yeah, he's quite a character, isn't he, good thing there's this big > blue thing called the Atlantic Ocean between him and me, although air > tickets have come down a fair bit..... > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

In article <[email hidden]>, John Wallace <[email hidden]> writes: >Any car is "easy to drive" when far from the limit, but a racecar >generally gives you far less warning of when you approach the limit, >and things go pear-shaped more quickly when you reach it. > 'Pear-shaped'? -- 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.

> 'Pear-shaped'? Just means when things go wrong. I don't know the derivation. If I was in chauvinistic mode I'd guess it has non-pc roots referring to what happens to gorgeous young women as time marches on :-) Andrew McP (not pear shaped...yet)