Race Sim Central
Rec.Autos.Simulators Archive

Re: Developers missing the point...

11 posts by 9 people · 19 Mar 2000 - 26 Mar 2000

Race1530 19 Mar 2000#286577
What aggravates me the most is they cheat us on the only senses we can use! Of the five senses, Sight, Sound, Touch, Smell, Taste, we as computer users only have Sight, Sound and if you have force feedback, Touch. We can't smell or taste the unburned fuel, burning rubber or barbeques smoking in the infield. So what should the programmers give us? Explosive engine sounds! Tires that sound like they are ripping up the tarmac. Metallick clacking gearshifts. Catastrophic, crunching crash sounds. Magnificent eye candy. Razor sharp video. High frame rates. Detailed dashboards and visual correctness. I hear the engine sounds in F12000 sucks. Then as far as I'm concerned, the sim sucks. They have cheated us. I hated turning on Nascar Legends the first time. The sounds back then were animalistic! These were kitty kat sounds. I remember the first time I fired up the Ferrari in GPL! Absolutley orgasmic. Get it right guys. Sight. Sound. Touch. We need the best of those. That's all we have to use.
Erik Frechette 19 Mar 2000 12:35 UTC#286452
I've not played F1-2000, but probably will sooner or later. I've been reading everyone's comments and one thing is consistent, there is still quite a bit of room for improvement. Now I ask you, knowing what people want, knowing the present benchmark and what you need to truly compete with it, why would you work on a project knowing that your presentation will fall short? They invest all this time and work, only to come up second or third or fourth best. What is the point? Granted, this is a modern F1-sim, to they'll cover their costs and eke out a profit if the simulation can even be considered decent, but when are we going to see the next real blockbuster? GPL was a bust, are we still paying the price for that? If I'm a developer and I see the realism put forth with GPL and I see the level of hardware people have access to these days, I try and code up a sim that at LEAST equals GPL's physics engine. Hell, the graphics engine in Legends wouldn't be hard to beat at all! Instead we get compromises. GP3 will probably be fantastic in terms of physical simulation, but no internet capability kills this sim in my eyes. I've not heard all the details on WSC, but it sounds like that might be hardcore simmers last hope for a successor to GPL this year. Don't forget that the demo of GPL will be two years old in a couple of months, the sim itself released in the Fall of '98. It's remarkable that no one has even come close since then....not even Papy. ::( -- Erik Frechette The Pits Grand Prix Legends www.theuspits.com/owheel/gpl/gpl.html The Pits Rally Championship www.theuspits.com/fbody/rallychamp/rallychamp.html
Morgan VW? 19 Mar 2000 13:15 UTC#286461
Because most publishers don't want time and money wasted on true sims that only appeal to tiny niche market. They want developers to give them arcade games with a poorly implemented "sim" option to give the arcade fans a bit more of a challenge. It all comes down to money. True sims don't sell as well as arcade games. -- ----------------------------------- Morgan Vincent Wooten mailto:[email hidden] http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ ----------------------------------- Erik Frechette <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3Q3B4.8536$[email hidden]... > I've not played F1-2000, but probably will sooner or later. I've been > reading everyone's comments and one thing is consistent, there is still > quite a bit of room for improvement. Now I ask you, knowing what people > want, knowing the present benchmark and what you need to truly compete with > it, why would you work on a project knowing that your presentation will fall > short? They invest all this time and work, only to come up second or third > or fourth best. What is the point? Granted, this is a modern F1-sim, to > they'll cover their costs and eke out a profit if the simulation can even be > considered decent, but when are we going to see the next real blockbuster? > GPL was a bust, are we still paying the price for that? > If I'm a developer and I see the realism put forth with GPL and I see the > level of hardware people have access to these days, I try and code up a sim > that at LEAST equals GPL's physics engine. Hell, the graphics engine in > Legends wouldn't be hard to beat at all! Instead we get compromises. > GP3 will probably be fantastic in terms of physical simulation, but no > internet capability kills this sim in my eyes. I've not heard all the > details on WSC, but it sounds like that might be hardcore simmers last hope > for a successor to GPL this year. Don't forget that the demo of GPL will be > two years old in a couple of months, the sim itself released in the Fall of > '98. It's remarkable that no one has even come close since then....not even > Papy. ::( > > -- > > Erik Frechette > The Pits Grand Prix Legends > www.theuspits.com/owheel/gpl/gpl.html > The Pits Rally Championship > www.theuspits.com/fbody/rallychamp/rallychamp.html > >
Dave Henrie 19 Mar 2000 17:06 UTC#286564
Hey Erik, How many users are here in RAS? about 20 regulars and maybe a few hundred casual readers. Ok so they spend two years coding a sim for us and sell less than 500 copies. The programmers "may" have the right idea, but it is the Publishers that more and more determine what is or isn't in a sim. for example: ISI to EA. We'd like to go to Europe and record all the different engines so we can have each team with a unique sound. EA to ISI. How long will this delay the release? How many people will be needed? How much equipment will we have to lease? How much will this impact the project's budget? What features are you willing to drop to get these different sounds? FWIW, these days the engines just don't sound that much different. Back just a few years ago, when Ferrari was still using V-12's, the Honda's and Renaults were V-10's and the Ford's were V-8's, then you had a wealth of different sounding engines. But today, they all rev about the same, with about the same powerbands, with about the same reliability, Granted an improvement or two each year sets one or two packages above the rest, but the "noise" is getting very similar. dave henrie Erik Frechette wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)> > I've not played F1-2000, but probably will sooner or later. I've been > reading everyone's comments and one thing is consistent, there is still > quite a bit of room for improvement. Now I ask you, knowing what people > want, knowing the present benchmark and what you need to truly compete with > it, why would you work on a project knowing that your presentation will fall > short?
antony 19 Mar 2000 23:49 UTC#286377
A totaly agree with you. And i also hate it when people are saying that they are going to be the GP3 beater (you know who i mean) That's what i call cheating. Thank god i have enough experience with EA and their big mouth. I will never buy a sim blindly anymore except GP3 and maybe GPL-2. Don't spread the rumor yet :o)
Quoted text (15 lines)> What aggravates me the most is they cheat us on the only senses we can use! Of > the five senses, Sight, Sound, Touch, Smell, Taste, we as computer users only > have Sight, Sound and if you have force feedback, Touch. > We can't smell or taste the unburned fuel, burning rubber or barbeques smoking > in the infield. > So what should the programmers give us? Explosive engine sounds! Tires that > sound like they are ripping up the tarmac. Metallick clacking gearshifts. > Catastrophic, crunching crash sounds. Magnificent eye candy. Razor sharp > video. High frame rates. Detailed dashboards and visual correctness. > I hear the engine sounds in F12000 sucks. Then as far as I'm concerned, the > sim sucks. They have cheated us. I hated turning on Nascar Legends the first > time. The sounds back then were animalistic! These were kitty kat sounds. > I remember the first time I fired up the Ferrari in GPL! Absolutley orgasmic. > Get it right guys. Sight. Sound. Touch. We need the best of those. That's > all we have to use.
Erik, every so often a classic comes along. Not often, but once in a blue moon. Examples are everywhere: in aeronautics it's the Supermarine Spitfire or the North American P-51 Mustang. In art it's the Mona Lisa, or Michaelangelo's statue of David. In motor vehicles it's the Bugatti type 35B, the Mercedes SSK, the Jaguar E-type. In racing cars it's the Maserati 250F, the Lotus 49. We all know what a "classic" is....it's something that simply stands out from the crowd because of its excellent, beauty, innovation and, in most cases, it represents a milestone in it's particular genre. Most classics are the results of the dreams and desires of individuals and most (if not all) can be considered works of art in one way or another. So it is with Grand Prix Legends. GPL is, quite simply, a classic in the Sim-Racing category. It was conceived out of passion, not out of a need to "conform to a plan", and it was crafted to the desires of an individual, not a committee. It met all the criteria for the successful birth of a classic. We will not see this type of creation very often. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Erik Frechette <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3Q3B4.8536$[email hidden]... > I've not played F1-2000, but probably will sooner or later. I've been > reading everyone's comments and one thing is consistent, there is still > quite a bit of room for improvement. Now I ask you, knowing what people > want, knowing the present benchmark and what you need to truly compete with > it, why would you work on a project knowing that your presentation will fall > short? They invest all this time and work, only to come up second or third > or fourth best. What is the point? Granted, this is a modern F1-sim, to > they'll cover their costs and eke out a profit if the simulation can even be > considered decent, but when are we going to see the next real blockbuster? > GPL was a bust, are we still paying the price for that? > If I'm a developer and I see the realism put forth with GPL and I see the > level of hardware people have access to these days, I try and code up a sim > that at LEAST equals GPL's physics engine. Hell, the graphics engine in > Legends wouldn't be hard to beat at all! Instead we get compromises. > GP3 will probably be fantastic in terms of physical simulation, but no > internet capability kills this sim in my eyes. I've not heard all the > details on WSC, but it sounds like that might be hardcore simmers last hope > for a successor to GPL this year. Don't forget that the demo of GPL will be > two years old in a couple of months, the sim itself released in the Fall of > '98. It's remarkable that no one has even come close since then....not even > Papy. ::( > > -- > > Erik Frechette > The Pits Grand Prix Legends > www.theuspits.com/owheel/gpl/gpl.html > The Pits Rally Championship > www.theuspits.com/fbody/rallychamp/rallychamp.html >
On Sun 19 Mar 2000 01:15:35p, Morgan VW� wrote: >Because most publishers don't want time and money wasted on true >sims that only appeal to tiny niche market. They want developers to >give them arcade games with a poorly implemented "sim" option to >give the arcade fans a bit more of a challenge. It all comes down to >money. True sims don't sell as well as arcade games.<snip> Regrettably true. For example: GPL, SCGT, F1RS, Monaco GPRS2. Every one was heavily discounted in the UK inside a few months. GP2 seems to have been the only one to stay full price for a good while. -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)
Dave Henrie 22 Mar 2000 05:59 UTC#285627
antony wrote: > I will never buy a sim blindly anymore except GP3 and maybe GPL-2. > Don't spread the rumor yet :o) > That would be the version of GPL that has Winston Cup cars and trucks right? :) dave henrie
Andre Warringa 24 Mar 2000 00:53 UTC#284864
Beautiful words Bruce... Andre On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:59:27 +1100, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (20 lines)>Erik, every so often a classic comes along. Not often, but once in a blue >moon. Examples are everywhere: in aeronautics it's the Supermarine Spitfire >or the North American P-51 Mustang. In art it's the Mona Lisa, or >Michaelangelo's statue of David. In motor vehicles it's the Bugatti type >35B, the Mercedes SSK, the Jaguar E-type. In racing cars it's the Maserati >250F, the Lotus 49. >We all know what a "classic" is....it's something that simply stands out >from the crowd because of its excellent, beauty, innovation and, in most >cases, it represents a milestone in it's particular genre. Most classics are >the results of the dreams and desires of individuals and most (if not all) >can be considered works of art in one way or another. > >So it is with Grand Prix Legends. > >GPL is, quite simply, a classic in the Sim-Racing category. It was conceived >out of passion, not out of a need to "conform to a plan", and it was crafted >to the desires of an individual, not a committee. It met all the criteria >for the successful birth of a classic. > >We will not see this type of creation very often.
Bruce Kennewell 25 Mar 2000 04:32 UTC#284648
Thank you, Andre. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Beautiful words Bruce... > > Andre > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:59:27 +1100, "Bruce Kennewell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Erik, every so often a classic comes along. Not often, but once in a blue > >moon. Examples are everywhere: in aeronautics it's the Supermarine Spitfire > >or the North American P-51 Mustang. In art it's the Mona Lisa, or > >Michaelangelo's statue of David. In motor vehicles it's the Bugatti type > >35B, the Mercedes SSK, the Jaguar E-type. In racing cars it's the Maserati > >250F, the Lotus 49. > >We all know what a "classic" is....it's something that simply stands out > >from the crowd because of its excellent, beauty, innovation and, in most > >cases, it represents a milestone in it's particular genre. Most classics are > >the results of the dreams and desires of individuals and most (if not all) > >can be considered works of art in one way or another. > > > >So it is with Grand Prix Legends. > > > >GPL is, quite simply, a classic in the Sim-Racing category. It was conceived > >out of passion, not out of a need to "conform to a plan", and it was crafted > >to the desires of an individual, not a committee. It met all the criteria > >for the successful birth of a classic. > > > >We will not see this type of creation very often. >
Garry Lewis 26 Mar 2000#283645
I'd be surprised if we saw anything like it at all considering how badly it sold.Don't get me wrong,I bought it,play it and like it although I would rather it had been a modern F1 sim.Unfortunately it sold rather poorly and I picked mine up a few weeks after release for half price.Because of this I find it difficult to anticipate any company now commiting to a pure hardcore sim,a title has to make money/sell units.So every time a sim is released you'll always get the naysayers comments that it's not as realistic as GPL the trouble is in the majority of cases it's by design and not accident. "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Erik, every so often a classic comes along. Not often, but once in a blue > moon. Examples are everywhere: in aeronautics it's the SupermarineSpitfire > or the North American P-51 Mustang. In art it's the Mona Lisa, or > Michaelangelo's statue of David. In motor vehicles it's the Bugatti type > 35B, the Mercedes SSK, the Jaguar E-type. In racing cars it's theMaserati > 250F, the Lotus 49. > We all know what a "classic" is....it's something that simply stands out > from the crowd because of its excellent, beauty, innovation and, in most > cases, it represents a milestone in it's particular genre. Most classicsare > the results of the dreams and desires of individuals and most (if not all) > can be considered works of art in one way or another. > > So it is with Grand Prix Legends. > > GPL is, quite simply, a classic in the Sim-Racing category. It wasconceived > out of passion, not out of a need to "conform to a plan", and it wascrafted
Quoted text (14 lines)> to the desires of an individual, not a committee. It met all the criteria > for the successful birth of a classic. > > We will not see this type of creation very often. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Erik Frechette <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3Q3B4.8536$[email hidden]... > > I've not played F1-2000, but probably will sooner or later. I've
been
Quoted text (9 lines)> > reading everyone's comments and one thing is consistent, there is still > > quite a bit of room for improvement. Now I ask you, knowing what people > > want, knowing the present benchmark and what you need to truly compete > with > > it, why would you work on a project knowing that your presentation will > fall > > short? They invest all this time and work, only to come up second or > third > > or fourth best. What is the point? Granted, this is a modern F1-sim,
to > > they'll cover their costs and eke out a profit if the simulation caneven > be > > considered decent, but when are we going to see the next realblockbuster?
Quoted text (8 lines)> > GPL was a bust, are we still paying the price for that? > > If I'm a developer and I see the realism put forth with GPL and I see > the > > level of hardware people have access to these days, I try and code up a > sim > > that at LEAST equals GPL's physics engine. Hell, the graphics engine in > > Legends wouldn't be hard to beat at all! Instead we get compromises. > > GP3 will probably be fantastic in terms of physical simulation, but
no > > internet capability kills this sim in my eyes. I've not heard all the > > details on WSC, but it sounds like that might be hardcore simmers last > hope > > for a successor to GPL this year. Don't forget that the demo of GPLwill
Quoted text (17 lines)> be > > two years old in a couple of months, the sim itself released in the Fall > of > > '98. It's remarkable that no one has even come close since then....not > even > > Papy. ::( > > > > -- > > > > Erik Frechette > > The Pits Grand Prix Legends > > www.theuspits.com/owheel/gpl/gpl.html > > The Pits Rally Championship > > www.theuspits.com/fbody/rallychamp/rallychamp.html > > > >

Sponsors

Affiliate Links

Sim Gaming Expo MOZA Racing Sim-Lab Fanatec TrakRacer Asetek Internet Privacy From NordVPN Dreamhost Capital One Credit Card Application Fanatical CDKeys Amazon Amazon UK Project Motor Racing iRacing Get your racing gloves, boots and more from Demon Tweeks. Enlist at Roberts Space Industries, developers of Star Citizen and Squadron 42


Back from the ashes since July, 2019. First created in 2001 with the merger of Legends Central (founded 1999) and simracing.dk.

A site by a sort of sim racer, for sim racers, about racing sims. News and information on both modern and historic sim racing software titles.

All products and licenses property of their respective owners.


Facebook Threads Bluesky Twitter Mastodon Instagram YouTube Tiktok Twitch Reddit Google News Apple News Subscribe via WordPress Flipboard eBay

Race Sim Central © 1999-2026 | Some links pay RSC a commission. Advertising does not equal endorsement.Cookie Policy