I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather,
better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or
series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff
still bears to be improved upon (or even invented),
and what has been pretty much optimized? What will
we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of
intended...]
When I watch a NASCAR telecast I get the impression
that a lot more is going on than there is in either of our
NASCAR titles, as teams feverishly try to tweak the car
back to optimum during a race. [Not that you'll get a
lot of this technical info from the announcers, just a
bunch of stuff like "Gordon is tight in the middle of the
turn, loose on exit"...].
John DiFool
What is left to improve in racing sims?
John DiFool asked what aspects of sims still needed improvement. Suggestions included tyre models, aerodynamics and drafting, multiplayer prediction, damage, dual-rate shocks, better force feedback and wheels, head-mounted displays and open standards for content. A side discussion clarified that physics update rates are independent of frame rate, and Greg Campbell noted Kaemmer's First Racing was rumoured to be working on a Champ Car sim.
physics/realism debatecommunity/meta
Automated summary.
"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Rubber behaves in a very complex way, and with temps (ambient, surface &
tyre), surface type & so on so varied from one race format & track to
another there's probably quite a bit of mileage left in the perfect tyre
model. Most if the rest of a car (at least a racing car with rose joints) is
pretty straightforward mathematically speaking so there probably isn't much
that can be improved, just tweaks for things like chassis flex etc.
The main improvement I can see coming over the next few years is the damage
model, both from mechanical abuse (do a donut & pop a driveshaft etc) and
panel/body damage. There's an awful lot of variables here too & I'd like to
see a move away from look-up tables to modelled wear & damage, a bit like
Viper Racing's ace body damage but taking into account the varying strengths
of different parts of the car.
Other than that it's just a matter of simulating different racing formats
but the problem there is what sells gets made ;-)
Malc.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > intended...]John DiFool <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
(this is a topic I've covered about once a year for the last 4 or5 years)
An online pitcrew sim. 7 or 8 guys sit around and do nothing for 30
minutes, then they all jump over the wall, change the tires and jump back
over the wall. One player, the crewchief, makes the calls for tire
pressure, wedge adjustment etc. A Doom3 engine or Halflife would make an
excellant base for such a sim. You could even meld in a real racing sim,
so that the driver needs to recruit the country's best online pitcrew.
Crews could be like hired professionals, pitting for drivers in various
leagues all over the world.
you'd need voice comms, you'd need telemetry, you'd need a way to
interact with the racing sim itself...sheesh...a couple of weeks coding
right???
dave henrie
ps...due to the limitations F1 always puts on multiplayer, you could have
a bigger crew..but they could only hotseat compete against another team
at the same site.
dh
Quoted text (18 lines)
> I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > intended...] > > When I watch a NASCAR telecast I get the impression > that a lot more is going on than there is in either of our > NASCAR titles, as teams feverishly try to tweak the car > back to optimum during a race. [Not that you'll get a > lot of this technical info from the announcers, just a > bunch of stuff like "Gordon is tight in the middle of the > turn, loose on exit"...]. > > John DiFool >John DiFool wrote:
Here are a few that jump to mind.
How about non-linear client vehicle prediction for multiplayer racing.
AFAIK, every multiplayer sim out there defines client car paths as a
series of short straight lines. This stepped car paths leads to warp
collisions and whatnot.
Papy has yet to give us dual rate shocks.
Voice recognition and intelligent pit crew answers.
You ask the computer, "Has Eldred pitted yet?"
The team boss replies "no."
Dynamic marbles, oil, and other junk on road surface.
-Greg
Quoted text (7 lines)
> I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > intended...]Greg Campbell <[email hidden]> wrote in news:UBXnd.116316$bk1.73598
@fed1read05:
>
> Dynamic marbles, oil, and other junk on road surface.
>
> -Greg
>
don't they already have corvettes?
<teeehheeee>
dave henrie
Better FF.. better wheels.
Wheels that turn in a 1:1 ratio that the car's wheel would turn.. and be
totally linear.
Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com
"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (18 lines)
>I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > intended...] > > When I watch a NASCAR telecast I get the impression > that a lot more is going on than there is in either of our > NASCAR titles, as teams feverishly try to tweak the car > back to optimum during a race. [Not that you'll get a > lot of this technical info from the announcers, just a > bunch of stuff like "Gordon is tight in the middle of the > turn, loose on exit"...]. > > John DiFool >In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (John DiFool) wrote:
> what kinds of stuff
> still bears to be improved upon
As well as tyre behaviour, I'm sure there's still a *lot* of work to be
done and CPU cycles to be absorbed on advanced aerodynamics, particularly
in complex situations like drafting.
However it may be that we're increasingly close to the point where
additional simulation can't translate well through our limited interface
to the computer. The law of diminishing returns may have kicked in for
sim developers... why bother putting in the extra programming & debugging
hours when most folk probably won't notice or feel the difference?
Actually for me that started with GPL. It's not perfect, as we all know,
but I can still imagine having it on my HD in 20 years' time. Whether I'll
be able to find it among the 24 squillion terrabytes of other accumulated
detritus is a different matter.
Still, I hope developers keep trying to push the boundaries. Sometimes you
don't know a threshold is there until someone crosses it.
Andrew McP
Quoted text (8 lines)
>"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote >I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > intended...]>"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote
> However it may be that we're increasingly close to the point where
> additional simulation can't translate well through our limited interface
> to the computer. The law of diminishing returns may have kicked in for
> sim developers... why bother putting in the extra programming & debugging
> hours when most folk probably won't notice or feel the difference?
That's where open-sourced stuff or a large SDK-type tool would give you the
advantage. Weight in the millions of hours in development, why do ALL
companies waste their time redoing what others have already done... Really
it's crazy the work they waste modeling tracks and cars when a set of
standards would make it possible to seriously advance the simulation in
other aspects while still offering the same level of quality in the final
product.
In other domains, they never do that. Movie directors don't have to
re-invent the camera each time they make a movie. Same for about every
other form of entertainment.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
Papy...gone.
"Greg Campbell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:UBXnd.116316$bk1.73598@fed1read05...
Quoted text (27 lines)
> John DiFool wrote: > > > I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > > intended...] > > > Here are a few that jump to mind. > > How about non-linear client vehicle prediction for multiplayer racing. > AFAIK, every multiplayer sim out there defines client car paths as a > series of short straight lines. This stepped car paths leads to warp > collisions and whatnot. > > Papy has yet to give us dual rate shocks. > > Voice recognition and intelligent pit crew answers. > You ask the computer, "Has Eldred pitted yet?" > The team boss replies "no." > > Dynamic marbles, oil, and other junk on road surface. > > -GregBernie Ecclestone?
"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (18 lines)
> I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > intended...] > > When I watch a NASCAR telecast I get the impression > that a lot more is going on than there is in either of our > NASCAR titles, as teams feverishly try to tweak the car > back to optimum during a race. [Not that you'll get a > lot of this technical info from the announcers, just a > bunch of stuff like "Gordon is tight in the middle of the > turn, loose on exit"...]. > > John DiFool >PS2/Logitech already has that: 2-1/2 turns lock-to-lock.
"Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (30 lines)
> Better FF.. better wheels. > Wheels that turn in a 1:1 ratio that the car's wheel would turn.. and be > totally linear. > > Mike > http://mikebeauchamp.com > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > > intended...] > > > > When I watch a NASCAR telecast I get the impression > > that a lot more is going on than there is in either of our > > NASCAR titles, as teams feverishly try to tweak the car > > back to optimum during a race. [Not that you'll get a > > lot of this technical info from the announcers, just a > > bunch of stuff like "Gordon is tight in the middle of the > > turn, loose on exit"...]. > > > > John DiFool > > > > Not that it's to do with the guts of sims themselves, but the next big
step for me will be when you have a headset like the Track-IR but the
headset will have 3D sound in the ears and a pair of small monitors over
each eye - now that will be total immersion for all computer games! :) The
peripheral vision problem will be a thing of the past!
"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (18 lines)
> I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > intended...] > > When I watch a NASCAR telecast I get the impression > that a lot more is going on than there is in either of our > NASCAR titles, as teams feverishly try to tweak the car > back to optimum during a race. [Not that you'll get a > lot of this technical info from the announcers, just a > bunch of stuff like "Gordon is tight in the middle of the > turn, loose on exit"...]. > > John DiFool >
John DiFool <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Lots of good new ideas posted by others. Stuff that still bears to be
improved (especially since some of it has taken steps backwards).
Better/more accurate track modeling, better online collision/detection
code, better damage models, better physics, especially drafting.
Of these four, the latter three have decreased in quality over the years,
in terms of Nascar sims.
>
Quoted text (17 lines)
> I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > intended...] > > When I watch a NASCAR telecast I get the impression > that a lot more is going on than there is in either of our > NASCAR titles, as teams feverishly try to tweak the car > back to optimum during a race. [Not that you'll get a > lot of this technical info from the announcers, just a > bunch of stuff like "Gordon is tight in the middle of the > turn, loose on exit"...]. > > John DiFoolIn article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
That watchamacallit to do with being able to emulate the bumps on the
road. Yeah, I forget the name and I'm pressed for time to look it up.
<BG> Unfortunately, we'll need sims that run at 1000fps I'd guess. :)
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Quoted text (19 lines)
> I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > intended...] > > When I watch a NASCAR telecast I get the impression > that a lot more is going on than there is in either of our > NASCAR titles, as teams feverishly try to tweak the car > back to optimum during a race. [Not that you'll get a > lot of this technical info from the announcers, just a > bunch of stuff like "Gordon is tight in the middle of the > turn, loose on exit"...]. > > John DiFool > >
I've always wondered: if you adjust your seat in GTR, does it change
the center of gravity of the car / driver combination?
cheers,
uwe
--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
Uwe =?iso-8859-15?Q?Sch=FCrkamp?= <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
I think the cg is defined in their hidden .hdv files. The point of view
is merely a convieance for a driver's paticular taste. When I drive coupes
like those in GTR, I tend to raise the viewpoint up so I can see the top
edges of the fenders, and thus the apex of a corner. I usually move it
back some too, as I prefer to see all of the mirrors. In an open LeMans
prototype, I generally stick to the default setting, being 'canyoned' down
low between the front tires, gives me great immersion.
dave henrie
Quoted text (7 lines)
> I've always wondered: if you adjust your seat in GTR, does it change > the center of gravity of the car / driver combination? > > cheers, > > uwe >
Uwe Sch�rkamp <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Visual affect only would be my guess.
Quoted text (14 lines)
> > I've always wondered: if you adjust your seat in GTR, does it change > the center of gravity of the car / driver combination? > > cheers, > > uwe > > > -- > mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) > Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ > Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) > GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:iW1od.187$[email hidden]...
years,
> in terms of Nascar sims.
I think rFactor will improve a lot on those four. Here's a quote from today
from a from a post at RSC that I thought sounded kind of interesting
regarding aero modeling.
Another thing I just discovered is how the airflow vibration is reduced when
drafting and seems to increase above normal when I pulled out to pass the
draftee - really great effect."
Not a big deal I guess, but it's something I've never seen before.
David G Fisher
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > John DiFool <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Lots of good new ideas posted by others. Stuff that still bears to be > improved (especially since some of it has taken steps backwards). > Better/more accurate track modeling, better online collision/detection > code, better damage models, better physics, especially drafting. > Of these four, the latter three have decreased in quality over theOn Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:10:48 -0000, Peter
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>That watchamacallit to do with being able to emulate the bumps on the
>road. Yeah, I forget the name and I'm pressed for time to look it up.
><BG> Unfortunately, we'll need sims that run at 1000fps I'd guess. :)
High frequency bumps? BTW, the fps don't matter when you're talking
physics...
Cheers!
Remco
>"Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote
> High frequency bumps? BTW, the fps don't matter when you're talking
> physics...
fysics per seconds <g>
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
Hmmm, tracks can't be "improved" over REAL sims when they are fantasy
tracks. They can't even match up to Motorsims' tracks back 5 years ago or
what Papy does in terms of polygonal smoothness anyway. And considering
it's semi-serious nature (similar to LFS), the physics are bound to be
degraded.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote >> John DiFool <[email hidden]> wrote >>> Lots of good new ideas posted by others. Stuff that still bears to be >> improved (especially since some of it has taken steps backwards). >> Better/more accurate track modeling, better online collision/detection >> code, better damage models, better physics, especially drafting. >> Of these four, the latter three have decreased in quality over the > years, >> in terms of Nascar sims. > > I think rFactor will improve a lot on those four.
David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
be
today
> from a from a post at RSC that I thought sounded kind of interesting
> regarding aero modeling.
>
> Another thing I just discovered is how the airflow vibration is reducedwhen
> drafting and seems to increase above normal when I pulled out to pass the
> draftee - really great effect."
>
> Not a big deal I guess, but it's something I've never seen before.
>
> David G Fisher
Interesting info., thanks.
>
>
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:iW1od.187$[email hidden]... > > > > John DiFool <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > >> Lots of good new ideas posted by others. Stuff that still bears toQuoted text (8 lines)
> > improved (especially since some of it has taken steps backwards). > > Better/more accurate track modeling, better online collision/detection > > code, better damage models, better physics, especially drafting. > > Of these four, the latter three have decreased in quality over the > years, > > in terms of Nascar sims. > > I think rFactor will improve a lot on those four. Here's a quote fromWhen will sim go from polygons/surface to solid modling?
Probably when we all going to be able to buy a home PC not running copper
cpu.
EL
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:HMZnd.10$[email hidden]...
real
> entity and not be a bunch of polygons together, with a hidden set of
> parameters for the physics engine to take in consideration.
>
> The oil a car will let on the track, will run down it if it's banked. A
> fence will be a fence, not just a transparent polygon with a texture onit.
today
> companies have devoted that much attention to them. All that work is
> wasted. Developpers spend TONS of money recreated existing tracks. How
> many fucking version of Laguna exist? Now if Laguna Seca would createtheir
> own perfect model and sell it to companies, it would always be perfect.Or
Quoted text (14 lines)
> >"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote > >I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > > intended...] > > > > The whole simracing world is slowly closing the gap between their physics > and graphical engine. The transition is long, and it'll take a while. > Around 10 years (makes sense). Someday everything on screen, will be aQuoted text (7 lines)
> It'll be deformable. Same goes for any part of a car. They will become > more and more complex. > > > The only thing I hate of the whole thing, is the lack of cooperation, or > open-standardness between companies. Heck, FIVE years ago a company like > Motorsims created the most incredible tracks I've ever seen. Not evenQuoted text (12 lines)
> perhaps a company that would sell track information to other developpers. > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > >Steve Smith wrote:
> Papy...gone.
But http://first-racing.net/ is not! Word is that these guys (Kaemmer
and other ex-pappy dudes) are working on a Champcar sim, essentially
ICR3. :)
-Greg
Byron Forbes wrote:
>
> Not that it's to do with the guts of sims themselves, but the next big
> step for me will be when you have a headset like the Track-IR but the
> headset will have 3D sound in the ears and a pair of small monitors over
> each eye - now that will be total immersion for all computer games! :) The
> peripheral vision problem will be a thing of the past!
I'd love to see it, but I wonder if anyone's dealt with the depth of
field (visual focus) issues yet, or if they can be dealt with...
Charlie
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<sH8od.4623$[email hidden]>...
Hmmm, not sure I follow here, Frank. What is it about rFactor's
fantasy test track that makes you think the potential for quality
recreations of real facilities is in doubt? In terms of PC sims, the
graphics, IMNSHO, are a marked step up from anything else I've seen.
Certainly makes the Papy efforts look almost 2 years out of date...
Dynamic time-of-day effects are stunning and really add to the
immersion factor. Far better than, say, Papy's perma-dusk "night"
races.
I would also ask where you get the idea that this is "semi-serious"?
Papy had a fantastic run of form and were for their day unbeatable.
Nothing felt as convincing to drive for me. Until now.
RBR and rFactor give me the sort of grin I haven't experienced since
GPL first came out all those years ago...
The king is dead, etc.
Quoted text (8 lines)
> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I think rFactor will improve a lot on those four. > > Hmmm, tracks can't be "improved" over REAL sims when they are fantasy > tracks. They can't even match up to Motorsims' tracks back 5 years ago or > what Papy does in terms of polygonal smoothness anyway. And considering > it's semi-serious nature (similar to LFS), the physics are bound to be > degraded.
"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:vP0od.3447$[email hidden]...
> Bernie Ecclestone?
>
Too easy - just a random answer generator! :)
Quoted text (22 lines)
> "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather, > > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or > > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff > > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented), > > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will > > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of > > intended...] > > > > When I watch a NASCAR telecast I get the impression > > that a lot more is going on than there is in either of our > > NASCAR titles, as teams feverishly try to tweak the car > > back to optimum during a race. [Not that you'll get a > > lot of this technical info from the announcers, just a > > bunch of stuff like "Gordon is tight in the middle of the > > turn, loose on exit"...]. > > > > John DiFool > > > >
"Charlie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Byron Forbes wrote:
> >
> > Not that it's to do with the guts of sims themselves, but the nextbig
> > step for me will be when you have a headset like the Track-IR but the
> > headset will have 3D sound in the ears and a pair of small monitors over
> > each eye - now that will be total immersion for all computer games! :)The
> > peripheral vision problem will be a thing of the past!
>
> I'd love to see it, but I wonder if anyone's dealt with the depth of
> field (visual focus) issues yet, or if they can be dealt with...
>
> Charlie
'corse they can!
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
Eh? Are you saying that simulating high frequency bumps is nothing to
do with physics? They certainly would be in my world coz they're going
to affect how the car behaves. And I thought hfb could not be reproduced
in an effective enough way because, in the time it takes to jump from 1
frame to the next, the car would have travelled too far along the track
in order to allow for hfb's to be simulated correctly. Hence more fps
required.
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Quoted text (14 lines)
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:10:48 -0000, Peter > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >That watchamacallit to do with being able to emulate the bumps on the > >road. Yeah, I forget the name and I'm pressed for time to look it up. > ><BG> Unfortunately, we'll need sims that run at 1000fps I'd guess. :) > > High frequency bumps? BTW, the fps don't matter when you're talking > physics... > > Cheers! > > Remco > >Quoted text (7 lines)
> Eh? Are you saying that simulating high frequency bumps is nothing to > do with physics? They certainly would be in my world coz they're going > to affect how the car behaves. And I thought hfb could not be reproduced > in an effective enough way because, in the time it takes to jump from 1 > frame to the next, the car would have travelled too far along the track > in order to allow for hfb's to be simulated correctly. Hence more fps > required.Peter <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
He said that simulating HFB has nothing to do with fps. FPS reflects how
often the image is drawn on the screen. When the time to draw the next
frame arrives, renderer takes the current state from the physics engine
(which may either operate on higher frequency or use continuous model, or
combination of both).
Alex.
Quoted text (24 lines)
> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:10:48 -0000, Peter >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >That watchamacallit to do with being able to emulate the bumps on the >> >road. Yeah, I forget the name and I'm pressed for time to look it >> >up. <BG> Unfortunately, we'll need sims that run at 1000fps I'd >> >guess. :) >> >> High frequency bumps? BTW, the fps don't matter when you're talking >> physics... >> >> Cheers! >> >> Remco >> >> > Eh? Are you saying that simulating high frequency bumps is nothing to > do with physics? They certainly would be in my world coz they're going > to affect how the car behaves. And I thought hfb could not be > reproduced in an effective enough way because, in the time it takes to > jump from 1 frame to the next, the car would have travelled too far > along the track in order to allow for hfb's to be simulated correctly. > Hence more fps required.>"Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Hmmm, not sure I follow here, Frank. What is it about rFactor's
> fantasy test track that makes you think the potential for quality
> recreations of real facilities is in doubt?
I just think it's much more easy to create a fantasy track in terms of # of
details than to recreate meticulously a real track. You spent lots less
time with data gathering compared to the track designing, so your efforts
can be moved towards more 3d modeling and 2d artistery. Like time-of-day
dynamics like you told. But heck like I told lots of times, 5 years ago
with Motorsims you had complete facilities modeling highly detailed by some
companies. Those tracks had everything, on *and* off the track. Road
access, parkings, you name it, it was there. By today's standards the 2d
renderings aren't up to par but still...
> Far better than, say, Papy's perma-dusk "night" races.
Hey they at least gave us a rainbow from time to time at Dover <g>
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
>"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote
> FPS has nothing to do with the physics.
pssst, don't tell that to Geoff Crammond ;-P
Btw, what's happened with him? I guess he's gone back living on his island
with all the ca$h he made cowing a 15 year old game engine.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
Cheers to those who put me straight. So are HFB's being simulated in
some sims? I remembered an old discussion here on ras which, after some
google groups research, may have been to do with GPL and some time ago,
that said that pc's weren't fast enough to simulate them. Has that
changed now?
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Quoted text (36 lines)
> Peter <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > > > In article <[email hidden]>, > > [email hidden] says... > >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:10:48 -0000, Peter > >> <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> >That watchamacallit to do with being able to emulate the bumps on the > >> >road. Yeah, I forget the name and I'm pressed for time to look it > >> >up. <BG> Unfortunately, we'll need sims that run at 1000fps I'd > >> >guess. :) > >> > >> High frequency bumps? BTW, the fps don't matter when you're talking > >> physics... > >> > >> Cheers! > >> > >> Remco > >> > >> > > Eh? Are you saying that simulating high frequency bumps is nothing to > > do with physics? They certainly would be in my world coz they're going > > to affect how the car behaves. And I thought hfb could not be > > reproduced in an effective enough way because, in the time it takes to > > jump from 1 frame to the next, the car would have travelled too far > > along the track in order to allow for hfb's to be simulated correctly. > > Hence more fps required. > > He said that simulating HFB has nothing to do with fps. FPS reflects how > often the image is drawn on the screen. When the time to draw the next > frame arrives, renderer takes the current state from the physics engine > (which may either operate on higher frequency or use continuous model, or > combination of both). > > Alex. >"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Yes, in numerous sims. But for just one (easy to paste) example, here's the
basic track variable stanza from the terrain.ini file in ISI's latest,
rFactor (though similar lines are in its predecessors as well). Note there
are high-frequency bump length and amplitude values for three different road
surface types.
[TRACKVARS]
RoadDryGrip=1.00
RoadWetGrip=0.80
RoadmetalGrip=0.80
RoadDustGrip=0.90
RoadBumpAmp=0.010
RoadBumpLen=13.0
RumbleDryGrip=0.95
RumbleWetGrip=0.60
RumbleBumpAmp=0.015
RumbleBumpLen=8.0
MiscBumpAmp=0.08
MiscBumpLen=4.0
There are also other stanzas in the file that modify these HF variables as
well as add more for washboard bumps, road cracks, cement patches, dusty
berms, grass, gravel and rumblestrips.
SB
Quoted text (8 lines)
> In article <[email hidden]>, > Cheers to those who put me straight. So are HFB's being simulated in > some sims? I remembered an old discussion here on ras which, after some > google groups research, may have been to do with GPL and some time ago, > that said that pc's weren't fast enough to simulate them. Has that > changed now? > --Quoted text (51 lines)
>From: Peter [email hidden] >Date: 11/23/2004 6:27 A.M. Central Standard Time >Message-id: <[email hidden]> > >In article <[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] says... >> Peter <[email hidden]> wrote in >> news:[email hidden]: >> >> > In article <[email hidden]>, >> > [email hidden] says... >> >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:10:48 -0000, Peter >> >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >That watchamacallit to do with being able to emulate the bumps on the >> >> >road. Yeah, I forget the name and I'm pressed for time to look it >> >> >up. <BG> Unfortunately, we'll need sims that run at 1000fps I'd >> >> >guess. :) >> >> >> >> High frequency bumps? BTW, the fps don't matter when you're talking >> >> physics... >> >> >> >> Cheers! >> >> >> >> Remco >> >> >> >> >> > Eh? Are you saying that simulating high frequency bumps is nothing to >> > do with physics? They certainly would be in my world coz they're going >> > to affect how the car behaves. And I thought hfb could not be >> > reproduced in an effective enough way because, in the time it takes to >> > jump from 1 frame to the next, the car would have travelled too far >> > along the track in order to allow for hfb's to be simulated correctly. >> > Hence more fps required. >> >> He said that simulating HFB has nothing to do with fps. FPS reflects how >> often the image is drawn on the screen. When the time to draw the next >> frame arrives, renderer takes the current state from the physics engine >> (which may either operate on higher frequency or use continuous model, or >> combination of both). >> >> Alex. >> >Cheers to those who put me straight. So are HFB's being simulated in >some sims? I remembered an old discussion here on ras which, after some >google groups research, may have been to do with GPL and some time ago, >that said that pc's weren't fast enough to simulate them. Has that >changed now? >-- >Pete Ives >Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email >
"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
I
> believe the ISI engine games update the physics at up to 400 times per
> second.
>
>
Yep. I remember someone from Papy saying how much more accurate the
physics engine in GPL was due to the cpu's of the day allowing 2XXhz (two
hundred and something) running of the physics engine! :)
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > Eh? Are you saying that simulating high frequency bumps is nothing to > > do with physics? They certainly would be in my world coz they're going > > to affect how the car behaves. And I thought hfb could not be reproduced > > in an effective enough way because, in the time it takes to jump from 1 > > frame to the next, the car would have travelled too far along the track > > in order to allow for hfb's to be simulated correctly. Hence more fps > > required. > > FPS has nothing to do with the physics. There's lots of examples of sims > that have a physics engine which updates independantly of the frame rate.
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
<snip<
Oh Yea? But what would happen if one of the crew members git's sent
a'packin for the weekend? Where would he watch the race from? City 17?
Quoted text (18 lines)
> (this is a topic I've covered about once a year for the last 4 or5 years) > An online pitcrew sim. 7 or 8 guys sit around and do nothing for 30 > minutes, then they all jump over the wall, change the tires and jump back > over the wall. One player, the crewchief, makes the calls for tire > pressure, wedge adjustment etc. A Doom3 engine or Halflife would make an > excellant base for such a sim. You could even meld in a real racing sim, > so that the driver needs to recruit the country's best online pitcrew. > Crews could be like hired professionals, pitting for drivers in various > leagues all over the world. > you'd need voice comms, you'd need telemetry, you'd need a way to > interact with the racing sim itself...sheesh...a couple of weeks coding > right??? > > dave henrie > ps...due to the limitations F1 always puts on multiplayer, you could have > a bigger crew..but they could only hotseat compete against another team > at the same site. > dhIn ten years I predict that the West Brothers will have at least one more
update on their website...oh...and buy a new cat.
Mike
Damage.
-Larry
"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
