GP2 Review in PC Gamer

Thanks to whoever pointed me towards this months issue of PC Gamer magazine and their review of Grand Prix 2. For those who haven't managed to get their hands on this magazine, here are a few interesting points: * The in-game graphics look really good. The wing mirrors are up and running and, unlike ICR2, show exactly the same type of graphics as the player sees out front ( i.e. textures etc.. ). * Most of the game engine is written entirely in assembler, a medium which author Geoff Crammond appears to be very happy working in. Many of the routines ( such as the 'lighting' algorithm ) are said to be highly optimised. * The reviewer praises the sound in the game - very realistic but never annoying. * Both the games VGA and SVGA modes get the 'thumbs up', the VGA mode being described as much crisper than most games VGA mode. * They reckon that you can get good SVGA performance out of a P-90 and VGA out of a 486-66. You can 'toggle' a whole load of graphics options, both for the normal views and even for the wing-mirrors! The reviewer reckons you can get 25 fps out of a P-90 system in SVGA mode with all graphics options on. I am highly dubious about this, given that about 4.8 times as many pixels have to be coloured for SVGA mode as VGA mode.... It would also mean that Papyrus's graphics engine wasn't too hot as that can't manage 25 fps on a P-133! * They give the game 95% and say that they can't find any faults in it... I wonder how much Microprose are paying these guys! Fraser

Careful Frase, you're talking about the game I want to marry...... It'll be haggises at 10 paces if I hear another word against GP2 (in the traditional Scottish manner!). Cheers! John -- John Wallace (Edinburgh) Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Thanks to whoever pointed me towards this months issue of >PC Gamer magazine and their review of Grand Prix 2. >the wing-mirrors! The reviewer reckons you can get 25 fps out >of a P-90 system in SVGA mode with all graphics options on. >I am highly dubious about this, given that about 4.8 times as >many pixels have to be coloured for SVGA mode as VGA mode.... >It would also mean that Papyrus's graphics engine wasn't too >hot as that can't manage 25 fps on a P-133!

I also find this *very* unbelievable. One big consideration, however, is if they have also improved the physics of the game to incorporate gravity (as Papyrus has long done) & if they are taking in to count the many car related physics involved or if this is just another F1GP w/ prettier graphics. Those differences could well make up the difference in frame rates, but we'll have to see. Austin, Tx ============================================================ Scott Pruett 1996 PPG Cup Champion! ============================================================

Looking at the screenshots in the magazines I just love the way the suspension moves independently when a wheel hits a curb. BTW hasn't that interview with Sir Geoff been published before if not in the same magazine then in another by the same publisher. Some of it sounded *very* familiar...

>... > ... The reviewer reckons you can get 25 fps out >of a P-90 system in SVGA mode with all graphics options on. >I am highly dubious about this, given that about 4.8 times as >many pixels have to be coloured for SVGA mode as VGA mode.... >Fraser First of all, thanks for the info. I promised myself not to get carried more in the endless discussion about the frame rate since were supossed to have the game in a short period of time (I hope!) and then well know. However, although I am a bit ceptical about the review saying that it will run at 25 FPS in a P90 I also think that is it possible ... at least if you turn off some of the graphics detail in the game (but still run it in SVGA and with some textures). It is true that youll have about 4.8 many pixels than the VGA mode, but dont forget that changing from VGA to SVGA will only affect some part of the calculation - the rendering of the frames. Grand Prix 2, as well as other 3D simulation game have 3 critical parts where the the computer will spend a lot of time: i) The simulation it self (where all the physics calculations will be done); ii) The 2D to 3D scene and textures transformations + cliping; iii) and finally the rendering of the frames. In each of these three parts the computer will have to spend his time in order to present each of the XX frames per second. Now comes the good part, changing from a VGA to SVGA resolution will only mean an increase of processing power (i.e. in time CPU spends) in the final part - the rendering of the scene. Therefore, many calculations that have been posted to this NG, stating that well need a proporcional increase in MHz to achieve the same increase in FPS are very wrong (of course there are other reasons to it too) - We wont need a 4.8 times better machine to go from VGA to SVGA. We shoul need less than that (thanks to god!) The increase of power well need I dont know, I suspect that only Geoff and his team knows since they know how much time the processor spends calculating in each of the parts. That increase in processing depends on lots of factors like: 1 - The proportion of the rendering time in respect to the other two parts; 2 - How well the texture mapping (and lighting) is optimized so that the rendering is done with less effort (using fast texture mapping - I know it can be done using only a multiply operation for each line of the polygon, and that it is very fast when done in assembler); 3 - The speed of the video board in the SVGA modes, and the drivers; 4 - How well they optimized the code to use a Pentium (dont forget that the pentium is more or less 1.8 times powerful on integer operations but it is also 4 to 5 times in floating point ops - so using Pentium FP unit in the rendering part will have a dramatically increase of power). .... etc. I believe that since the main engine of GP2 is programed in assembler (see PC Gamer Mag), then the game should be highly optimized to run at SVGA even with textures and lightning efects. I believe that if you can run the game well in VGA with a 486 DX66 in these conditions, then youll be able to run it with a P90 at the same level of detail in SVGA. The question I ask myself is: Is the game so optimized so that you can run the game in VGA with a 486 DX66 with a good level of detail ? If you do, then It should run well in a P90 in SVGA. Thats my believe. Lets wait and see. All these news in the PC Gamer magazine is very bad to me, I cant wait no more to play it. Anybody wants to write the full text of the GP2 article ? Greetings Miguel -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Carlos Miguel Santos Cordeiro -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

: is if they have also improved the physics of the game to incorporate : gravity (as Papyrus has long done) & if they are taking in to count What?? If F1GP(1) does not include gravity, then why does the car land back on the track after I've bounced over the kerbs? At Monza for example, all four wheels can leave the ground if you get the chicane wrong - but you soon land again! --

There was an interview with Crammond after the review. In it he says that while the physics modelling of the cars is complex, the processor occupancy due to the simulation is insignificant compared to that for the graphics. How complex this makes the simulation I do not know, but it seems to me that this is to be expected - driving simulators are very graphics intensive. Jules

chortled:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>* They give the game 95% and say that they can't find any faults >>in it... I wonder how much Microprose are paying these guys! >Careful Frase, you're talking about the game I want to marry...... It'll >be haggises at 10 paces if I hear another word against GP2 (in the >traditional Scottish manner!). >Cheers! >John

Never, ever read anything into the score that is given to a new game by the first magazine to read it. I'm not naive enough to believe that PC Gamer were given first divs on GP2 by microprose for nothing. I'm sure they were the first to review Frontier FE, and look at what a pile of shit that turned out to be (another 90 something percent in their ratings). Check out the thread about PCGamer on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic for several long running threads regarding the accuracy of PCG's reviews. I'll wait for a review by PCZONE before making a judgement (although I'll still buy the game the day it is released, sigh!). ================================================================ ================================================================

John, A nice balanced view as always, I see. <g> SteveP - F1SA HQ.

You know me...!! But really, imagine having the impertinence to question His Eminence Sir Geoff Crammond and the second coming of his only child (GP2) who is descending to earth in order to save his people from driving Indycars in circles. Taking a break from commish duties? Actually I've noticed you on here a lot more recently, some well contructed posts as well. C-Serve has been a bit "hot" recently with everyone fighting <G>, I'm keeping a low profile here for a while! Cheers! John -- John Wallace Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Subject: Re: GP2 Review in PC Gamer >Date: 27 Jan 1996 16:59:09 -0000 >: is if they have also improved the physics of the game to incorporate >: gravity (as Papyrus has long done) & if they are taking in to count >What?? If F1GP(1) does not include gravity, then why does the car >land back on the track after I've bounced over the kerbs? >At Monza for example, all four wheels can leave the ground if you get >the chicane wrong - but you soon land again! >--

AND if F1GP does not have gravity, then WHY is your car terribly slow at the start of a 100% race, compared to the speed at the start of a, say, 10% race?!? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!! You little piece of Papyrus lover!!

>AND if F1GP does not have gravity, then WHY is your car terribly slow at >the start of a 100% race, compared to the speed at the start of a, say, >10% race?!? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!! You little piece of Papyrus lover!! Oops... someone wasn't paying attention in Physics class. Don't confuse gravity and inertia. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that other tricky stuff that, it seems, is best left to the simulator programmers. Gravity has little to do with it (apart from traction). -- Stephen Ferguson

: : is if they have also improved the physics of the game to incorporate : : gravity (as Papyrus has long done) & if they are taking in to count : What?? If F1GP(1) does not include gravity, then why does the car : land back on the track after I've bounced over the kerbs? : At Monza for example, all four wheels can leave the ground if you get : the chicane wrong - but you soon land again! I think the poster is referring to the fact that the car does not roll on its own when stopped on an incline and the brake is off. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>Gravity HAs a lot to do with it, in this case, the gravity of your fuel >tank! Mass=slow, that's why your car is slow at the start of a 100% race, >and fast at the end (if you didn't***up your tires of course...) "The gravity of your fuel tank"? You'd have a hard job even measuring that! Take a physics course, JJ! F1GP does not _really_ support gravity - bring the car to a halt on the hill either side of Eau Rouge at Spa to see what I mean - it doesn't appear to roll (I think - I could be eating my words soon!). --

Quoted text (21 lines)

>>Subject: Re: GP2 Review in PC Gamer >>Date: 29 Jan 1996 21:53:47 GMT >>>AND if F1GP does not have gravity, then WHY is your car terribly slow at >>>the start of a 100% race, compared to the speed at the start of a, say, >>>10% race?!? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!! You little piece of Papyrus lover!! >>Oops... someone wasn't paying attention in Physics class. Don't confuse >>gravity and inertia. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that other >>tricky stuff that, it seems, is best left to the simulator programmers. >>Gravity has little to do with it (apart from traction). >>-- >>Stephen Ferguson >Gravity HAs a lot to do with it, in this case, the gravity of your fuel >tank!

Hold it right there! I think you need the difference between inertial mass and weight explained to you. Inertial mass is the degree to which an object can be accelarated by a force. This quantity has got NOTHING AT ALL to do with gravity. Weight - the force downwards on an object in a gravitational field - is just that - it is dependant on both the mass AND the magnitude of the gravitational field. The reason cars are slow(in terms of lap times) at the start of the race is because they have a large inertial mass - which means they are harder to make accelerate. If one was racing spaceships in zero gravity, the same phenomenon would occur: lap times (round our space track) would become faster as the spacecraft became lighter (in terms of their inertial mass). Their weights would remain zero. -- Paul Smyth, Dept of Medical BioPhysics, University of Manchester. Telephone: +44 (0161) 275 5157

I think a better answer to this problem would be to assume for a moment that the tires on the car can only exert so much friction force. Lets called this force F. Going back to high school physics, F = ma, where m is equal to mass and a is equal to acceleration. Now, if you rearrange the equation such that a = F/m, one can see that if the friction force exerted by the tires is assumed to be relatively constant independent of the weight of the car, and if one increases the mass due to the full fuel load, the acceleration would decrease accordingly; therefore, the car would accelerate slower.

Quoted text (14 lines)

>Subject: Re: GP2 Review in PC Gamer >Date: 29 Jan 1996 21:53:47 GMT >>AND if F1GP does not have gravity, then WHY is your car terribly slow at >>the start of a 100% race, compared to the speed at the start of a, say, >>10% race?!? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!! You little piece of Papyrus lover!! >Oops... someone wasn't paying attention in Physics class. Don't confuse >gravity and inertia. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that other >tricky stuff that, it seems, is best left to the simulator programmers. >Gravity has little to do with it (apart from traction). >-- >Stephen Ferguson

Gravity HAs a lot to do with it, in this case, the gravity of your fuel tank! Mass=slow, that's why your car is slow at the start of a 100% race, and fast at the end (if you didn't***up your tires of course...)

>>Gravity HAs a lot to do with it, in this case, the gravity of your fuel >>tank! Mass=slow, that's why your car is slow at the start of a 100% race, >>and fast at the end (if you didn't***up your tires of course...) >"The gravity of your fuel tank"? You'd have a hard job even >measuring that! Take a physics course, JJ! perhaps the original poster meant the weight of the fuel in the fuel-tank. Last I checked, this is mass x g (with g the local acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 ft/sec^2 on the earth's surface). Hence, if there is no gravity there is no weight. Of course, without gravity there is also no traction, etc. etc. :) (There is current physics research aimed at measureing for the existance of gravitational waves that could be emitted by the actual fuel-tank, but I don't think that this work has yet migrated into F1 technology; I believe that it is due to be implemented in the year 2001 if my sources are correct) My question, then, is will GP2 allow for alternative values of g so that we can simulate formula one racing on other planets? How could anyone call this new program complete without this all-important feature? Beyond this, it had better simulate alternative atmospheric pressure and chemical constituients as well (to simulate F1 on jupiter or venus) or else I ain't buying it! now back to my gravity-wave research... ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael F. Hundley Santa Fe, New Mexico USA -------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted text (7 lines)

>: is if they have also improved the physics of the game to incorporate >: gravity (as Papyrus has long done) & if they are taking in to count >What?? If F1GP(1) does not include gravity, then why does the car >land back on the track after I've bounced over the kerbs? >At Monza for example, all four wheels can leave the ground if you get >the chicane wrong - but you soon land again! >--

What I was referring to is the lack of the gravitational effects of such things as elevation changes - ala the corkscrew at Laguna Seca in Indy Car (I & II) - that are not present in World Circuit. Austin, Tx ============================================================ Scott Pruett 1996 PPG Cup Champion! ============================================================

: AND if F1GP does not have gravity, then WHY is your car terribly slow at : the start of a 100% race, compared to the speed at the start of a, say, : 10% race?!? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!! You little piece of Papyrus lover!! One explanation could be programmed "drag" not gravity. If there was gravity the car should roll down a hill of its own accord (brake off -- no throttle). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (40 lines)

>Subject: Re: GP2 Review in PC Gamer >Date: 30 Jan 1996 16:14:17 GMT >>>Subject: Re: GP2 Review in PC Gamer >>>Date: 29 Jan 1996 21:53:47 GMT >>>>AND if F1GP does not have gravity, then WHY is your car terribly slow at >>>>the start of a 100% race, compared to the speed at the start of a, say, >>>>10% race?!? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!! You little piece of Papyrus lover!! >>>Oops... someone wasn't paying attention in Physics class. Don't confuse >>>gravity and inertia. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that other >>>tricky stuff that, it seems, is best left to the simulator programmers. >>>Gravity has little to do with it (apart from traction). >>>-- >>>Stephen Ferguson >>Gravity HAs a lot to do with it, in this case, the gravity of your fuel >>tank! >Hold it right there! >I think you need the difference between inertial mass and weight explained to you. >Inertial mass is the degree to which an object can be accelarated by a force. This >quantity has got NOTHING AT ALL to do with gravity. >Weight - the force downwards on an object in a gravitational field - is just that - >it is dependant on both the mass AND the magnitude of the gravitational field. >The reason cars are slow(in terms of lap times) at the start of the race is because >they have a large inertial mass - which means they are harder to make accelerate. >If one was racing spaceships in zero gravity, the same phenomenon would occur: >lap times (round our space track) would become faster as the spacecraft >became lighter (in terms of their inertial mass). >Their weights would remain zero. >> Mass=slow, that's why your car is slow at the start of a 100% race, >>and fast at the end (if you didn't***up your tires of course...)

DAMN! DAMN! DAMN! You're right... >Paul Smyth, Dept of Medical BioPhysics, University of Manchester. >Telephone: +44 (0161) 275 5157

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>AND if F1GP does not have gravity, then WHY is your car terribly slow at >>the start of a 100% race, compared to the speed at the start of a, say, >>10% race?!? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!! You little piece of Papyrus lover!! >Oops... someone wasn't paying attention in Physics class. Don't confuse >gravity and inertia. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that other >tricky stuff that, it seems, is best left to the simulator programmers. >Gravity has little to do with it (apart from traction).

Right! The same thing would happen in outer space with zero gravity. Damn f1gp players...

: > : >AND if F1GP does not have gravity, then WHY is your car terribly slow at : >the start of a 100% race, compared to the speed at the start of a, say, : >10% race?!? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!! You little piece of Papyrus lover!! : > : : Oops... someone wasn't paying attention in Physics class. Don't confuse : gravity and inertia. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that other : tricky stuff that, it seems, is best left to the simulator programmers. : Gravity has little to do with it (apart from traction). To add a little more into this stew. . . One of the major disappointments I had with F1GP was that there was no need to change gearing when going up a steep incline. In the real world, more power is needed to go up a hill and less is needed to go down one. Both ICR's and NASCAR included this bit of physics in their modeling. Example: the climb to the corkscrew at Laguna Seca. And I too miss the affects of curbing in these simulations. I also miss the turbo on my "real" car, but hell you can't have everything . . . Where would you put it?! (Thank you S. Wright) Now I have heard that there is no such thing as gravity, that the earth "sucks". I won't go as far as to say that F1GP doesn't have gravity, but that it sucks. That wouldn't be nice and of course would start a huge flame war. (For the humor impaired, this is a pun -- no slam is intended. I still have my copy of World Circuit/F1GP and I look forward to checking out F1GP2.) -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

: >A nice balanced view as always, I see. <g> : You know me...!! : But really, imagine having the impertinence to question His Eminence Sir : Geoff Crammond and the second coming of his only child (GP2) who is : descending to earth in order to save his people from driving Indycars in : circles. Wait a minute. . . Okay, you seem to be tipping the balance a little... ICR2 has 15 tracks -- Of these only 5 are ovals. And a couple of these are very, very difficult ovals. Sometimes I think those who do protest the most have something to hide. I find that Indycar drivers are a little more rounded in that they handle at least 2 different disciplines in their art/sport. Being able to handle both demanding road circuits and ovals requires a broader driving discipline. The other reason for ovals, is that it gives the attending fans a better chance to see more of a race than sitting at 1 corner or straight on at a road circuit. ________________ | /\ | | / \ | V / \ V / \ Okay, things seem to balanced a little bit better now. Thank you for your consideration and time... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (24 lines)

>>>Subject: Re: GP2 Review in PC Gamer >>>Date: 29 Jan 1996 21:53:47 GMT >>>>AND if F1GP does not have gravity, then WHY is your car terribly slow at >>>>the start of a 100% race, compared to the speed at the start of a, say, >>>>10% race?!? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!! You little piece of Papyrus lover!! >>>Oops... someone wasn't paying attention in Physics class. Don't confuse >>>gravity and inertia. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that other >>>tricky stuff that, it seems, is best left to the simulator programmers. >>>Gravity has little to do with it (apart from traction). >>>-- >>>Stephen Ferguson >>Gravity HAs a lot to do with it, in this case, the gravity of your fuel >>tank! >Hold it right there! >I think you need the difference between inertial mass and weight explained to

you. >Inertial mass is the degree to which an object can be accelarated by a force. This >quantity has got NOTHING AT ALL to do with gravity. >Weight - the force downwards on an object in a gravitational field - is just that - >it is dependant on both the mass AND the magnitude of the gravitational field. >The reason cars are slow(in terms of lap times) at the start of the race is because >they have a large inertial mass - which means they are harder to make accelerate. >If one was racing spaceships in zero gravity, the same phenomenon would occur:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>lap times (round our space track) would become faster as the spacecraft >became lighter (in terms of their inertial mass). >Their weights would remain zero. >> Mass=slow, that's why your car is slow at the start of a 100% race, >>and fast at the end (if you didn't***up your tires of course...) >The same is true when braking. The greater the mass the harder to

decelerate, which is why braking distances are greater on full tanks.

Here goes..... 1) Racing tires (tyres?) are not only mechanically stuck on the track, but chemically, as well. Those little clumps that Indycars leave all over Lakeshore Blvd. are REALLY STICKY, like chewing gum. Friction is never independent of mass (or more properly, weight). Slide a book across a table. Now have Murray Walker sit on it. Which is harder to move?? 2) Friction's force is a product of a friction coefficient, cleverly called 'the coefficient of friction', and has two values, static and kinetic. static is higher, always, and is effective whenever an object is at rest and a force is trying to move it. Since the velocity of a tire is zero (at the bottom of the tire, where it touches the ground- else it would spin, like a burnout), static applies. Since kinetic is less, a spinning tire is easier to keep spinning than it is to start the thing spinning. That out of the way, friction is governed by the equation F=uN. F is frictional force, u is the coefficient (called 'mu') and N is the normal force (force perpendicular to the plane of motion). Note that both F and N are vectors, and F is parallel to the plane of motion. In this case, N is the WEIGHT (not mass) of the object, let's call it 1/4 of the car's weight for simplicity. Now, 1/4 of the weight will give F=u*(mass of car/4)*g, where g is gravity. If mass is increased, say due to Prost having a nosejob OR running with a full fuel load, than the normal force will be larger by 1/4 of the larger amount, and thus higher friction will result. Thus (whew!) friction is NEVER independent of weight (assuming fixed 'g', it's mass dependent also) SO.... the heavier car has better grip through corners, all other things being equal. It might have a greater tendency to slide off, even with more frictional adhesion. This is covered in Chapter 2, Inertia and the Chicane. 3) Using your a=F/m arguement as it applies to friction...here goes... a=F/m F=uN a=uN/m (replace F with uN, as the friction eqn. allows) a=umg/m (replace normal force (N) with m*g, the weight) a=g (acceleration in this case is gravity) g=umg/m 1=u (you have now proven that all friction coeff's are =1)! Obviously incorrect, as I once found out on a dynamics exam. 4) The friction caused by the tires is the maximum limit of force that they can exert on the track. This is (hopefully) never exceeded (are you listening, Gerhard?!??), since the tires spin if it is. As far as a heavier car accelerating slower- the force the car can impart to the track is more or less constant during a race- so F=ma here, but in a different direction (accelerating forward) and with the force constant, and a higher mass (fuel, or maybe Nigel's donut) the acceleration will drop. There are more issues involving kinetic energy and inertia, but I'll leave that for another physics student.... Sigh. Time for coffee. Jeff

Correct, absolutely. But more people think of F1 as the absolute leading (err, bleeding) edge of racing, so the fans are secondary as far as the 'spectacle' of racing. As it should be with a series that says it is the pinnacle. Indycar 1-mile ovals are a blast. Sitting on the straights at Toronto sucked big-time. Sitting at an 'S' in Montreal, however, was much better. No way you can't say that ovals are more show than race- particularly with the equalizer (err, yellow) flags....

>What I was referring to is the lack of the gravitational effects of >such things as elevation changes - ala the corkscrew at Laguna Seca in >Indy Car (I & II) - that are not present in World Circuit. >Robert Berryhill Always nice to see a balanced opinion <G>! -- John Wallace Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/

You're welcome. Perhaps next time you could take just a LITTLE time to see I was joking, or maybe I should make it more obvious for the Nigel Mansell's among us.... Cheers! John -- John Wallace

That old green eyed monster again....tut tut. John -- John Wallace Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>>AND if F1GP does not have gravity, then WHY is your car terribly slow at >>>the start of a 100% race, compared to the speed at the start of a, say, >>>10% race?!? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!! You little piece of Papyrus lover!! >>Oops... someone wasn't paying attention in Physics class. Don't confuse >>gravity and inertia. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that other >>tricky stuff that, it seems, is best left to the simulator programmers. >>Gravity has little to do with it (apart from traction). >Gravity HAs a lot to do with it, in this case, the gravity of your fuel >tank! Mass=slow, that's why your car is slow at the start of a 100% race, >and fast at the end

Fuel (mass in general) does not "have" gravity. The fuel's mass "has" inertia. Mass = Slow because of inertia not gravity. Acceleration would be the same with zero gravity. I don't know if f1gp models gravity or not, but I never noticed the cars rolling downhill on their own. That's where gravity comes in. 8^)

Oh really, I'm getting a bit sick of this "bash F1GP for being years older than ICR2 and it's lacking features". If ICR2 is so damn accurately modelled and beloved of physics professors the world over, why is it that when you DO leave this wonderful piece of equipment on a hill, it DOES roll down it? The damn car is still in gear, it shouldn't go anywhere.... So much for accuracy. Cheers! John -- John Wallace Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>What I was referring to is the lack of the gravitational effects of >>such things as elevation changes - ala the corkscrew at Laguna Seca in >>Indy Car (I & II) - that are not present in World Circuit. >>Robert Berryhill >Always nice to see a balanced opinion <G>! >-- >John Wallace

When I originally posted this question - it was just that - an *honest* question. I was just wondering how they had achieved good frame rates while at the same time modeling the physics of a racing car & at the same time having such terrific graphics. Don't get me wrong - I don't hate F1GP, I just like ICR 1 & 2 much better. Have no doubt, however, I will be one of the first ones in line to purchase F1GP 2 as soon as it is released. Austin, Tx ============================================================ Scott Pruett 1996 PPG Cup Champion! ============================================================

This isn't quite right. Friction force is not constant, but depends on the weight of the car. Lets call if Fr: Fr = u*N , where N is the the force the car presses on the surface (the weight of the car) and u is a constant depending of the tire and the surface (don't know what it is called in English, but direct translation from the Finnish term would be "friction factor"). N = m*g when the car is on horizontal surface (ie. direction of gravity is perpendicular to the surface). This gives: Fr = u*m*g , so the force is directly related to the weight (and mass) of car. Actually, this is not the real friction force, but is the maximum possible force engine can use to accelerate the car before wheel spin occurs (well, in fact wheel spin occurs much earlier, because only the rear wheels are accelerating the car, so N should be te part of the cars weight which is distributed on the rear wheels... To make it more complicated, this will change when the car accelerates...) Fr is the limiting factor only when the car is accelerating at a slow speed (as in the start or after a slow corner for example). At these situations, the weight of the car has no effect on the acceleration: a = Fr/m a = u*m*g/m a = u*g , so at these situations, the acceleration is only affected by friction factor and g (acceleration caused by gravitation). This is of course when the driver is not spinning wheels. But, when the force engine can generate stays below Fr, a car with less fuel (and thus with less mass) will accelerate faster: a = F/m , F is the force generated by engine, and m is the mass of the car. As F doesn't depend on the weight or mass of the car (depends on rev and gear, can be considered constant in this calculation), lighter car accelerates more quickly at speeds where Fr is no longer the limiting factor. Aerodynamics affect these figures quite a lot, especially at higher speeds, causing the increase of N and Fr (downforce), and loss of acceleration (negative force due to drag). However, it has nothing to do with the fact that lighter car accelerates more quickly. To sum this up, there is no need to simulate gravity to make the car accelerate differently depending on fuel load. I hope I make some sense, Samppa -- Samuli Takala, Pajamaentie 14 C 38, 00360 Helsinki | "Ron Dennis smiled like URL: http://www.hut.fi/~tax/ (soon) | -- Matti Kyllonen

Actually John, it should stall. But your point is well taken (and totally agreed with <g>). The lack of a clutch mechanism (or at least neutral gear) and wheelspin is one area where I think the Papyrus sims are weak. Steve.

Ah, but presumably you have to assume that the simulated driver has his foot on the clutch pedal otherwise the car would have stalled!! Fraser

John, Never! <g> contructed posts as well.<< Thanks - I started scanning this newsgroup after somebody mentioned it over on CompuServe. It confirmed my thoughts about the internet - some useful stuff strung amongst the free for all. Cheers, Steve.

Uh, if the car is in gear, and not moving, how the engine can be running? ICR2 must have some sort of automatic clutch, with some traction control elements included (it's hard to make the car spin, when you want, but it's quite easy when trying to stay on track. I mean here spinning as a result of wheel spin). Samppa -- Samuli Takala, Pajamaentie 14 C 38, 00360 Helsinki | "Ron Dennis smiled like URL: http://www.hut.fi/~tax/ (soon) | -- Matti Kyllonen

Give up, you can't argue an indefensible position. So what you're saying is that when I fly into the pits for a splash of fuel, the mechanics turn off my engine to stop it stalling? NOT very accurate.... Or perhaps the Indycar has an automatic clutch with traction control. Does a REAL Indycar have this? NOT very accurate.... I'm not knocking Indycar, it's a good program but please don't hold it up to be so much more realistic than GP because it isn't. It also falls down on the fundamentals. Cheers! John -- John Wallace

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>Oops... someone wasn't paying attention in Physics class. Don't confuse >>gravity and inertia.Bodies at rest and in motion and all that other >>tricky stuff that, it seems, is best left to the simulator programmers. >>Gravity has little to do with it (apart from traction). >>-- >>Stephen Ferguson >Gravity HAs a lot to do with it, in this case, the gravity of your fuel >tank! Mass=slow, that's why your car is slow at the start of a 100% race, >and fast at the end (if you didn't***up your tires of course...)

Don't confuse gravity and mass. The more massive a car (e.g. a car with a heavy fuel load), the harder it is to accelerate - this has nothing to do with gravity. However, gravity does come into the equation when considering: a) Circuits which have elevations, such as at Spa (Eau Rouge). A more massive car will accelerate more slowly up this hill than a lighter car because it gains more potential energy. b) The tractive force produced by the car's tyres is related to gravity by the equation F=uR (where F is the force acting against the car's direction of travel, u is the coefficient of friction and R is the normal reaction, which equals the weight of the car (determined by the value 'g' for gravity) + the downforce produced by the car. (O.K., this is a simplification because you get static and dynamic friction et cetera... ). Fraser

Quoted text (14 lines)

>>Uh, if the car is in gear, and not moving, how the engine can be running? >>ICR2 must have some sort of automatic clutch, with some traction control >>elements included >Give up, you can't argue an indefensible position. So what you're saying >is that when I fly into the pits for a splash of fuel, the mechanics >turn off my engine to stop it stalling? NOT very accurate.... >Or perhaps the Indycar has an automatic clutch with traction control. >Does a REAL Indycar have this? NOT very accurate.... >I'm not knocking Indycar, it's a good program but please don't hold it >up to be so much more realistic than GP because it isn't. It also falls >down on the fundamentals.

Ok, sorry. I had a need to do a little nit-picking when writing that post. If you think of the way ICR2 handles, you actually control the acceleration and deceleration of the car, not throttle and brake pedals (well, not sure about the brake). So the absence of clutch isn't a problem. In fact, adding stalling to ICR2 wouldn't be that hard. Just make the gear shift to neutral when shifting down from 1, and if you stop with gear on, the car stalls. Also, you'd have to apply some throttle when stationary and changing from neutral to first gear. -- Samuli Takala, Pajamaentie 14 C 38, 00360 Helsinki | "Ron Dennis smiled like URL: http://www.hut.fi/~tax/ (soon) | -- Matti Kyllonen