second opinion about F12k : not that fun anymore...

After a couple of hours, I now have very, very mixed feelings about it. There is so much potential, yet Im starting to see flaws everywhere. My main gripe is track accuracy. Even if those screenshots showed us the tracks like no one has ever done before, Im sorry but they are dreadful. I have been to numerous Grand Prix : Montreal, Monaco, France and Brazil. I've seen Silverstone but not in a F1 event. I went to Indianapolis just last year. And heck I've been watching F1 for so many years, so I think I know the track accuracy. The game engine can't really model correctly the real life tracks. First of all, the C:PR ugly track texture is now back? The asphalt and tarmac texture is not brown neither black in F1. FIA regulations make it impossible for safety reasons. Monaco is ugly, it's very wrong in terms of track accuracy. Buildings pop-out where there isn't in real life. Rocks pop-out where there is actually buildings in real-life. Walls appear from nowhere. The Armco is wrong mostly everywhere, and bumps are severely over-done. Oh the bumps are overdone at every track, Spa is the bloody funniest. Looks like a Motocross track near the start/finish line. They all look wrong to me. Sure there is some corners that are very impressive, like Les Combes/Malmedy at Spa or La Rascasse at Monaco. But overall everything else is really bad. I mean WORSE than Ubisoft's game engine. At least they had the corner radius, track width, and overall track accuracy good, if you take some little errors and not being able to do banking/camber. But how can you make people believe at Monza that the hill before Curva Del Vialone is that high. Im sorry but it's not, by the half of the height. Im omitting so much stuff here, btw. Montreal has serious problems with track width and corner length, to the point that I was laughing the first time I lapped the circuit. Spa also. Im not sure of the reason for that. SCGT had a nice track accuracy. I think there is a reason here, and it's the cockpit view. First of all, you don't see that high in the cockpit. You don't see 2/3 of the wheels. Anybody who has sit in a F1 cockpit (it's very possible) knows that. There is something else wrong, and it's the fish-eye camera. Everything is crunched on the sides, like taking a widescreen movie and cropping it for Pan&scan. Everything is too thin and too high, which gives the impression that there is not enough space. Yet, the kurbs are way too wide for FIA standards. So you have the sensation per example on the Monza frontstretch that there is no place for more than 2cars wide, when we all know in real-life you can go 4-wide. The car is also not rewarding at all. You can clearly see the roots from SCGT on how them F1 reacts to their environment. Go at Monaco and you'll sense it. Heck I can go around Loews without braking at all, just letting the car go down at 40mph. I speculate that they had to increase the grip in general compared to reality so that the physics would looks "correct". I can powerslide into the corners without a problem, trailbraking way after the point of no return of a real Formula 1. You almost can't trail-brake in a modern F1. You have to drive with the traditional technique. Brake/downshift, turn. Not turn, brake/downshift. The car is just too easy to drive. I can constantly fastlap the car without any sense of being at the edge. If anybody remembers "Virtua Racing", well it's the same attitude towards driving. Enough challenging without any helps to make a rookie spin or make you do a mistake from time to time, yet too easy to hotlap and have incredible radius cornering speed. In fact do this next thing to look at how the physics aren't quite right. Go in the sand/grass and get in a spin. Put your wheel straight, and plow the gas. Infinite canned spins. I won't go into other details much. The sound isn't really good but that was to expect. I like the car modeling and how visually it reacts to it's environment. Much better than any other modern F1 sim. The virtual cockpit is well made, if only you had the correct view of a F1 driver. Damage is very well made and is actually well represented from the severity of the contact you make. I really like the pit-crew telling me that I've just crashed Schumacher. Hehe 8) Heck I know Im whining, but Im the customer here. Im giving the ISO release another day and I'll see if I cancel or not my online command. Because at the moment, I am :( This is not a pro-GPL bash at F1 2000. We all know it's not close at all. I was at least expecting something near. I would consider Gp2 higher if it simply had 3d-acceleration in terms of sensation of actually driving a Formula . Well, I was expecting that from a developer that didn't even fixed the friggin head size! -- -- 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.

For my first impression I must somewhat agree with this. I'm not giving up on it yet but at the moment I think it's has a lot of flaws. I didn't have high hopes for it but after all the good critics I downloaded it anyway. I hate the very overdone fisheye view wich gives the impression of very high objects and small track. And tracks aren't correct. Extreme elevations, wrong buildings... Take for example monaco: The section between Casino and the tunnel is totally wrong. Too short straights, the bump at the beginning of the casino straight is placed at the end and it's so high you can't look over it from cockpit view! I won't mention the tiny heads because we all know about it. I can't stand the arsehole shouting in my ear that I can do better than that when I'm in the gravel. It's worse enough when i'm already in there <g> . Maybe it's because of my system (Celeron550, TNT2 32MB,Aureal Vortex A3d, 128MB RAM) but sound isn't always synchronised. When I turn the resolution down to 640/480 for fluid gameplay screen starts to flicker. I WANT GP3!!!!!!! (I did have a laugh when I took Schumacher for a spin at silverstone without brakes, it brought back some good memories :-) ymenard <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws 5XGA4.46309$[email hidden]... > After a couple of hours, I now have very, very mixed feelings about it. > There is so much potential, yet Im starting to see flaws everywhere. > > My main gripe is track accuracy. Even if those screenshots showed us the > tracks like no one has ever done before, Im sorry but they are dreadful.I

Quoted text (9 lines)

> have been to numerous Grand Prix : Montreal, Monaco, France and Brazil. > I've seen Silverstone but not in a F1 event. I went to Indianapolis just > last year. And heck I've been watching F1 for so many years, so I think I > know the track accuracy. The game engine can't really model correctly the > real life tracks. > > First of all, the C:PR ugly track texture is now back? The asphalt and > tarmac texture is not brown neither black in F1. FIA regulations make it > impossible for safety reasons. Monaco is ugly, it's very wrong in terms

of > track accuracy. Buildings pop-out where there isn't in real life. Rocks > pop-out where there is actually buildings in real-life. Walls appear from > nowhere. The Armco is wrong mostly everywhere, and bumps are severely > over-done. Oh the bumps are overdone at every track, Spa is the bloody > funniest. Looks like a Motocross track near the start/finish line. They > all look wrong to me. Sure there is some corners that are veryimpressive, > like Les Combes/Malmedy at Spa or La Rascasse at Monaco. But overall > everything else is really bad. I mean WORSE than Ubisoft's game engine.At > least they had the corner radius, track width, and overall track accuracy > good, if you take some little errors and not being able to do > banking/camber. But how can you make people believe at Monza that thehill

Quoted text (7 lines)

> before Curva Del Vialone is that high. Im sorry but it's not, by the half > of the height. Im omitting so much stuff here, btw. Montreal has serious > problems with track width and corner length, to the point that I was > laughing the first time I lapped the circuit. Spa also. > > Im not sure of the reason for that. SCGT had a nice track accuracy. I > think there is a reason here, and it's the cockpit view. First of all,

you > don't see that high in the cockpit. You don't see 2/3 of the wheels. > Anybody who has sit in a F1 cockpit (it's very possible) knows that.There > is something else wrong, and it's the fish-eye camera. Everything is > crunched on the sides, like taking a widescreen movie and cropping it for > Pan&scan. Everything is too thin and too high, which gives the impression > that there is not enough space. Yet, the kurbs are way too wide for FIA > standards. So you have the sensation per example on the Monzafrontstretch

Quoted text (7 lines)

> that there is no place for more than 2cars wide, when we all know in > real-life you can go 4-wide. > > The car is also not rewarding at all. You can clearly see the roots from > SCGT on how them F1 reacts to their environment. Go at Monaco and you'll > sense it. Heck I can go around Loews without braking at all, just letting > the car go down at 40mph. I speculate that they had to increase the grip

in > general compared to reality so that the physics would looks "correct". I > can powerslide into the corners without a problem, trailbraking way after > the point of no return of a real Formula 1. You almost can't trail-brakein > a modern F1. You have to drive with the traditional technique. > Brake/downshift, turn. Not turn, brake/downshift. The car is just tooeasy > to drive. I can constantly fastlap the car without any sense of being at > the edge. If anybody remembers "Virtua Racing", well it's the sameattitude > towards driving. Enough challenging without any helps to make a rookiespin > or make you do a mistake from time to time, yet too easy to hotlap andhave > incredible radius cornering speed. In fact do this next thing to look at > how the physics aren't quite right. Go in the sand/grass and get in aspin. > Put your wheel straight, and plow the gas. Infinite canned spins. > > I won't go into other details much. The sound isn't really good but that > was to expect. I like the car modeling and how visually it reacts to it's > environment. Much better than any other modern F1 sim. The virtualcockpit

Quoted text (7 lines)

> is well made, if only you had the correct view of a F1 driver. Damage is > very well made and is actually well represented from the severity of the > contact you make. I really like the pit-crew telling me that I've just > crashed Schumacher. Hehe 8) > > > Heck I know Im whining, but Im the customer here. Im giving the ISO

release > another day and I'll see if I cancel or not my online command. Because at > the moment, I am :( > > This is not a pro-GPL bash at F1 2000. We all know it's not close at all. > I was at least expecting something near. I would consider Gp2 higher ifit

Quoted text (13 lines)

> simply had 3d-acceleration in terms of sensation of actually driving a > Formula . > > Well, I was expecting that from a developer that didn't even fixed the > friggin head size! > > > > -- > -- 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, try the final version, I noticed that a lot of track files have changed too. Andre On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:16:01 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >After a couple of hours, I now have very, very mixed feelings about it. >There is so much potential, yet Im starting to see flaws everywhere. ><snip>

They may have changed a lot of the track files for the final, but I have the Myth release, and the tracks are really bad. It's like the model can't do long, gradual inclines, so you get these ridiculous "stairsteps" instead. As already mentioned, Spa and Monaco are topographically just wrong. Have to agree about the "fisheye" lense, as well - funny, we all seem rather spoiled by the letterboxing in GPL that drew such derision on release. Amazingly prescient decision by Papyrus on that one, in hindsight. I'll probably wait for GP3, unless something dramatic happens with F1 2000 after release. Rick

Question:What is WSC?World Stockcar Championship?I guess not;) Could those of you who uses accronyms please state the whole title just once if it isn't too bloody obvious:) James Pickard wrote:

Quoted text (139 lines)

> I think ymeynard is being way too harsh. > > I have been mucking around with it for a while now and when I first saw it, > I thought .. Hmm.. yeah.. well.. maybe (I wasn't convinced) > > But after several hours of practise and setup tweaking I can say that this > has a lot of potential and is really quite good. > > Ok, it is no GPL killer.. (wait for WSC), but it is well worth a look if > your open minded and serious about sim racing. > > It is a little easy and I think GP3 will be better, but don't just write off > F1 2000 just yet.... > > I guess you could call it a fun / realistic F1 sim (not game). With full > realism settings, it is quite a challenge (can anyone beat my 1:40.xxx at > Malaysia? :-) > > I will be buying both F1 2000 AND GP3 (aswell as WSC :-) > > Keep an open mind... and don't write it off purely because it isn't a > realistic simulation as GPL.... > > James Pickard > Melbourne > > ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5XGA4.46309$[email hidden]... > > After a couple of hours, I now have very, very mixed feelings about it. > > There is so much potential, yet Im starting to see flaws everywhere. > > > > My main gripe is track accuracy. Even if those screenshots showed us the > > tracks like no one has ever done before, Im sorry but they are dreadful. > I > > have been to numerous Grand Prix : Montreal, Monaco, France and Brazil. > > I've seen Silverstone but not in a F1 event. I went to Indianapolis just > > last year. And heck I've been watching F1 for so many years, so I think I > > know the track accuracy. The game engine can't really model correctly the > > real life tracks. > > > > First of all, the C:PR ugly track texture is now back? The asphalt and > > tarmac texture is not brown neither black in F1. FIA regulations make it > > impossible for safety reasons. Monaco is ugly, it's very wrong in terms > of > > track accuracy. Buildings pop-out where there isn't in real life. Rocks > > pop-out where there is actually buildings in real-life. Walls appear from > > > nowhere. The Armco is wrong mostly everywhere, and bumps are severely > > over-done. Oh the bumps are overdone at every track, Spa is the bloody > > funniest. Looks like a Motocross track near the start/finish line. They > > all look wrong to me. Sure there is some corners that are very > impressive, > > like Les Combes/Malmedy at Spa or La Rascasse at Monaco. But overall > > everything else is really bad. I mean WORSE than Ubisoft's game engine. > At > > least they had the corner radius, track width, and overall track accuracy > > good, if you take some little errors and not being able to do > > banking/camber. But how can you make people believe at Monza that the > hill > > before Curva Del Vialone is that high. Im sorry but it's not, by the half > > of the height. Im omitting so much stuff here, btw. Montreal has serious > > problems with track width and corner length, to the point that I was > > laughing the first time I lapped the circuit. Spa also. > > > > Im not sure of the reason for that. SCGT had a nice track accuracy. I > > think there is a reason here, and it's the cockpit view. First of all, > you > > don't see that high in the cockpit. You don't see 2/3 of the wheels. > > Anybody who has sit in a F1 cockpit (it's very possible) knows that. > There > > is something else wrong, and it's the fish-eye camera. Everything is > > crunched on the sides, like taking a widescreen movie and cropping it for > > Pan&scan. Everything is too thin and too high, which gives the impression > > that there is not enough space. Yet, the kurbs are way too wide for FIA > > standards. So you have the sensation per example on the Monza > frontstretch > > that there is no place for more than 2cars wide, when we all know in > > real-life you can go 4-wide. > > > > The car is also not rewarding at all. You can clearly see the roots from > > SCGT on how them F1 reacts to their environment. Go at Monaco and you'll > > sense it. Heck I can go around Loews without braking at all, just letting > > the car go down at 40mph. I speculate that they had to increase the grip > in > > general compared to reality so that the physics would looks "correct". I > > can powerslide into the corners without a problem, trailbraking way after > > the point of no return of a real Formula 1. You almost can't trail-brake > in > > a modern F1. You have to drive with the traditional technique. > > Brake/downshift, turn. Not turn, brake/downshift. The car is just too > easy > > to drive. I can constantly fastlap the car without any sense of being at > > the edge. If anybody remembers "Virtua Racing", well it's the same > attitude > > towards driving. Enough challenging without any helps to make a rookie > spin > > or make you do a mistake from time to time, yet too easy to hotlap and > have > > incredible radius cornering speed. In fact do this next thing to look at > > how the physics aren't quite right. Go in the sand/grass and get in a > spin. > > Put your wheel straight, and plow the gas. Infinite canned spins. > > > > I won't go into other details much. The sound isn't really good but that > > was to expect. I like the car modeling and how visually it reacts to it's > > environment. Much better than any other modern F1 sim. The virtual > cockpit > > is well made, if only you had the correct view of a F1 driver. Damage is > > very well made and is actually well represented from the severity of the > > contact you make. I really like the pit-crew telling me that I've just > > crashed Schumacher. Hehe 8) > > > > > > Heck I know Im whining, but Im the customer here. Im giving the ISO > release > > another day and I'll see if I cancel or not my online command. Because at > > the moment, I am :( > > > > This is not a pro-GPL bash at F1 2000. We all know it's not close at all. > > I was at least expecting something near. I would consider Gp2 higher if > it > > simply had 3d-acceleration in terms of sensation of actually driving a > > Formula . > > > > Well, I was expecting that from a developer that didn't even fixed the > > friggin head size! > > > > > > > > -- > > -- 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. > > > > > >

Mr. Anti PIRATE downloaded a warez game? I'm ashamed of you ymenard. "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5XGA4.46309$[email hidden]... > After a couple of hours, I now have very, very mixed feelings about it. > There is so much potential, yet Im starting to see flaws everywhere. > > My main gripe is track accuracy. Even if those screenshots showed us the > tracks like no one has ever done before, Im sorry but they are dreadful.I

Quoted text (9 lines)

> have been to numerous Grand Prix : Montreal, Monaco, France and Brazil. > I've seen Silverstone but not in a F1 event. I went to Indianapolis just > last year. And heck I've been watching F1 for so many years, so I think I > know the track accuracy. The game engine can't really model correctly the > real life tracks. > > First of all, the C:PR ugly track texture is now back? The asphalt and > tarmac texture is not brown neither black in F1. FIA regulations make it > impossible for safety reasons. Monaco is ugly, it's very wrong in terms

of > track accuracy. Buildings pop-out where there isn't in real life. Rocks > pop-out where there is actually buildings in real-life. Walls appear from > nowhere. The Armco is wrong mostly everywhere, and bumps are severely > over-done. Oh the bumps are overdone at every track, Spa is the bloody > funniest. Looks like a Motocross track near the start/finish line. They > all look wrong to me. Sure there is some corners that are veryimpressive, > like Les Combes/Malmedy at Spa or La Rascasse at Monaco. But overall > everything else is really bad. I mean WORSE than Ubisoft's game engine.At > least they had the corner radius, track width, and overall track accuracy > good, if you take some little errors and not being able to do > banking/camber. But how can you make people believe at Monza that thehill

Quoted text (7 lines)

> before Curva Del Vialone is that high. Im sorry but it's not, by the half > of the height. Im omitting so much stuff here, btw. Montreal has serious > problems with track width and corner length, to the point that I was > laughing the first time I lapped the circuit. Spa also. > > Im not sure of the reason for that. SCGT had a nice track accuracy. I > think there is a reason here, and it's the cockpit view. First of all,

you > don't see that high in the cockpit. You don't see 2/3 of the wheels. > Anybody who has sit in a F1 cockpit (it's very possible) knows that.There > is something else wrong, and it's the fish-eye camera. Everything is > crunched on the sides, like taking a widescreen movie and cropping it for > Pan&scan. Everything is too thin and too high, which gives the impression > that there is not enough space. Yet, the kurbs are way too wide for FIA > standards. So you have the sensation per example on the Monzafrontstretch

Quoted text (7 lines)

> that there is no place for more than 2cars wide, when we all know in > real-life you can go 4-wide. > > The car is also not rewarding at all. You can clearly see the roots from > SCGT on how them F1 reacts to their environment. Go at Monaco and you'll > sense it. Heck I can go around Loews without braking at all, just letting > the car go down at 40mph. I speculate that they had to increase the grip

in > general compared to reality so that the physics would looks "correct". I > can powerslide into the corners without a problem, trailbraking way after > the point of no return of a real Formula 1. You almost can't trail-brakein > a modern F1. You have to drive with the traditional technique. > Brake/downshift, turn. Not turn, brake/downshift. The car is just tooeasy > to drive. I can constantly fastlap the car without any sense of being at > the edge. If anybody remembers "Virtua Racing", well it's the sameattitude > towards driving. Enough challenging without any helps to make a rookiespin > or make you do a mistake from time to time, yet too easy to hotlap andhave > incredible radius cornering speed. In fact do this next thing to look at > how the physics aren't quite right. Go in the sand/grass and get in aspin. > Put your wheel straight, and plow the gas. Infinite canned spins. > > I won't go into other details much. The sound isn't really good but that > was to expect. I like the car modeling and how visually it reacts to it's > environment. Much better than any other modern F1 sim. The virtualcockpit

Quoted text (7 lines)

> is well made, if only you had the correct view of a F1 driver. Damage is > very well made and is actually well represented from the severity of the > contact you make. I really like the pit-crew telling me that I've just > crashed Schumacher. Hehe 8) > > > Heck I know Im whining, but Im the customer here. Im giving the ISO

release > another day and I'll see if I cancel or not my online command. Because at > the moment, I am :( > > This is not a pro-GPL bash at F1 2000. We all know it's not close at all. > I was at least expecting something near. I would consider Gp2 higher ifit

Quoted text (13 lines)

> simply had 3d-acceleration in terms of sensation of actually driving a > Formula . > > Well, I was expecting that from a developer that didn't even fixed the > friggin head size! > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

First off, I don't think any of us have a right to complain until we pick up a store bought version. That being said, I do agree with much of what you have written. When I first booted up the game I had a lot of fun, but the more I get into it there is more I don't like. -My main problem is with visibility from the cockpit. It is very difficult to pick up braking points and track layout. This was true in GPL until you learned the track. I know the Melbourne track quite well, and still have a bitch of time driving it. -Car physics are very forgiving. I don't necessarily count this against the game, because they need to make it accessible. On the other hand, isn't that what the driving aids are for? -Start a race, drop out and simply watch a few cars from the "TV" cameras. Most of the drivers are behaving odd. Cars are weaving, sliding, and exhibiting none of the smoothness of F1 drivers. -There is only 1 car model. Everyone has 7 gears, same shift points, power curve, etc... -I haven't been able to blow apart an engine. -You can't check tire temperatures after a practice session or during the race. The HUD on the wheel gives a bit of info, but pull into the pits and nada. -There is a remarkable amount of detail with all trackside detail turned on, but who can use it? This game is a resource hog. -Sound. Each car is the same (naturally) and it's not an awe inspiring whine. -Commentary. Start a race that is 10% of a full race. Why are drivers on a 3 pit strategy? Is that the only line that was recorded? Why are they pitting after 2 laps? -Track design: Indianapolis. I have never watched a race, never intend to until F1 arrives, but the track looks awfully narrow. I'm able to spot that merely from watching ESPN Malaysia: Again, the Track is entirely too narrow. This is one wide track which is very apparent from TV. There are other things that dampen my enthusiasm for this game as well, but it's hard to pinpoint them. On the 24th I may end up deleting this game without a follow up purchase. -Andrew

WSC = Woohoo, Supersim's Coming! (no really, World Sports Cars) I name it once so I hope you know what we are talking about (I don't want you to miss out on this one!). Do not expect us to use it all of the time because we are to lazy to speak out the whole title all of the time. Trygve Jensen <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws [email hidden]... > Question:What is WSC?World Stockcar Championship?I guess not;) > > Could those of you who uses accronyms please state the whole titlejust once > if it isn't too bloody obvious:) > >

with full realism its still not that hard.. I thought at first it would be cool, but soon proved to be waaay to easy. close, but not quite. and man, it takes a fast computer.. scooter James Pickard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9aJA4.34952$[email hidden]... > I think ymeynard is being way too harsh. > > I have been mucking around with it for a while now and when I first sawit,

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I thought .. Hmm.. yeah.. well.. maybe (I wasn't convinced) > > But after several hours of practise and setup tweaking I can say that this > has a lot of potential and is really quite good. > > Ok, it is no GPL killer.. (wait for WSC), but it is well worth a look if > your open minded and serious about sim racing. > > It is a little easy and I think GP3 will be better, but don't just write

off > F1 2000 just yet.... > > I guess you could call it a fun / realistic F1 sim (not game). Withfull

Quoted text (23 lines)

> realism settings, it is quite a challenge (can anyone beat my 1:40.xxx at > Malaysia? :-) > > I will be buying both F1 2000 AND GP3 (aswell as WSC :-) > > > Keep an open mind... and don't write it off purely because it isn't a > realistic simulation as GPL.... > > > > > James Pickard > Melbourne > > > > ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5XGA4.46309$[email hidden]... > > After a couple of hours, I now have very, very mixed feelings about it. > > There is so much potential, yet Im starting to see flaws everywhere. > > > > My main gripe is track accuracy. Even if those screenshots showed us

the > > tracks like no one has ever done before, Im sorry but they are dreadful. > I > > have been to numerous Grand Prix : Montreal, Monaco, France and Brazil. > > I've seen Silverstone but not in a F1 event. I went to Indianapolisjust > > last year. And heck I've been watching F1 for so many years, so I thinkI > > know the track accuracy. The game engine can't really model correctlythe > > real life tracks. > > > > First of all, the C:PR ugly track texture is now back? The asphalt and > > tarmac texture is not brown neither black in F1. FIA regulations makeit > > impossible for safety reasons. Monaco is ugly, it's very wrong in terms > of > > track accuracy. Buildings pop-out where there isn't in real life.Rocks > > pop-out where there is actually buildings in real-life. Walls appearfrom > > > nowhere. The Armco is wrong mostly everywhere, and bumps are severely > > over-done. Oh the bumps are overdone at every track, Spa is the bloody > > funniest. Looks like a Motocross track near the start/finish line.They > > all look wrong to me. Sure there is some corners that are very > impressive, > > like Les Combes/Malmedy at Spa or La Rascasse at Monaco. But overall > > everything else is really bad. I mean WORSE than Ubisoft's game engine. > At > > least they had the corner radius, track width, and overall trackaccuracy > > good, if you take some little errors and not being able to do > > banking/camber. But how can you make people believe at Monza that the > hill > > before Curva Del Vialone is that high. Im sorry but it's not, by thehalf > > of the height. Im omitting so much stuff here, btw. Montreal hasserious

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > problems with track width and corner length, to the point that I was > > laughing the first time I lapped the circuit. Spa also. > > > > Im not sure of the reason for that. SCGT had a nice track accuracy. I > > think there is a reason here, and it's the cockpit view. First of all, > you > > don't see that high in the cockpit. You don't see 2/3 of the wheels. > > Anybody who has sit in a F1 cockpit (it's very possible) knows that. > There > > is something else wrong, and it's the fish-eye camera. Everything is > > crunched on the sides, like taking a widescreen movie and cropping it

for > > Pan&scan. Everything is too thin and too high, which gives theimpression

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > that there is not enough space. Yet, the kurbs are way too wide for FIA > > standards. So you have the sensation per example on the Monza > frontstretch > > that there is no place for more than 2cars wide, when we all know in > > real-life you can go 4-wide. > > > > The car is also not rewarding at all. You can clearly see the roots

from > > SCGT on how them F1 reacts to their environment. Go at Monaco andyou'll > > sense it. Heck I can go around Loews without braking at all, justletting > > the car go down at 40mph. I speculate that they had to increase thegrip > in > > general compared to reality so that the physics would looks "correct".I > > can powerslide into the corners without a problem, trailbraking wayafter > > the point of no return of a real Formula 1. You almost can'ttrail-brake > in > > a modern F1. You have to drive with the traditional technique. > > Brake/downshift, turn. Not turn, brake/downshift. The car is just too > easy > > to drive. I can constantly fastlap the car without any sense of beingat

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > the edge. If anybody remembers "Virtua Racing", well it's the same > attitude > > towards driving. Enough challenging without any helps to make a rookie > spin > > or make you do a mistake from time to time, yet too easy to hotlap and > have > > incredible radius cornering speed. In fact do this next thing to look

at > > how the physics aren't quite right. Go in the sand/grass and get in a > spin. > > Put your wheel straight, and plow the gas. Infinite canned spins. > > > > I won't go into other details much. The sound isn't really good butthat > > was to expect. I like the car modeling and how visually it reacts toit's > > environment. Much better than any other modern F1 sim. The virtual > cockpit > > is well made, if only you had the correct view of a F1 driver. Damageis

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > very well made and is actually well represented from the severity of the > > contact you make. I really like the pit-crew telling me that I've just > > crashed Schumacher. Hehe 8) > > > > > > Heck I know Im whining, but Im the customer here. Im giving the ISO > release > > another day and I'll see if I cancel or not my online command. Because

at > > the moment, I am :( > > > > This is not a pro-GPL bash at F1 2000. We all know it's not close atall.

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > I was at least expecting something near. I would consider Gp2 higher if > it > > simply had 3d-acceleration in terms of sensation of actually driving a > > Formula . > > > > Well, I was expecting that from a developer that didn't even fixed the > > friggin head size! > > > > > > > > -- > > -- 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. > > > > > > > >

"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote > Ymenard, try the final version, I noticed that a lot of track files > have changed too. I was racing the final ISO version. -- -- 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.

Hypocritical asshole................ "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zLTA4.80153$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Ymenard, try the final version, I noticed that a lot of track files > > have changed too. > > I was racing the final ISO version. > > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

(snip) > Keep an open mind... and don't write it off purely because it isn't a > realistic simulation as GPL....(unsnip) Why not, James? (Write it off, that is). It is all subjective anyway and, as has been stated previously many times, what appeals to one won't necessarily appeal to another. On a purely personal basis, any new sim with less than GPL-physics *IS* second-rate. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- James Pickard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9aJA4.34952$[email hidden]... > I think ymeynard is being way too harsh. >

Today I drove all the tracks, and agree with you that some tracks are really not accurately modeled. Andre On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:51:11 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Ymenard, try the final version, I noticed that a lot of track files >> have changed too. > >I was racing the final ISO version.

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > (snip) > > Keep an open mind... and don't write it off purely because it isn't a > > realistic simulation as GPL.... > (unsnip) > > Why not, James? (Write it off, that is). > It is all subjective anyway and, as has been stated previously many times, > what appeals to one won't necessarily appeal to another. > > On a purely personal basis, any new sim with less than GPL-physics *IS* > second-rate.

But can still be a lot of fun. Otherwise I see grim times coming up for your racing hobby... l8er ronny -- "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.