CMR 2.0 .... still the most fun !

I've been running CMR 4 for a few months now - but I realised that it was 2.0 that I was missing, so I decided to reinstall it. While 4.0 is very pretty and all, it lacks the punchy fun of CMR 2.0 arcading ... particularly the French circuit - which is just sooooh compulsive. I don't quite know why Codemasters got rid of arcading (maybe to boost sales of TOCA ?) - but it was never the same after 2.0. I guess they wanted to draw more of the purist simmers, but they could still have retained arcading with no loss of sales. That said, I still often feel that the 2.0 physics model is feels realer than succeeding versions - with 4.0 still retaining some of 3.0's pivot-in-the-middliness. Why can't they go back to an updated 2.0 physics model with the 4.0 graphics ? Rant done !

2.0 is very fun.. keyboard/joystick/wheel.. whatever. I agree. I had it on my laptop to play at work all the time :) Mike "Scumball" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ci1an8$ne7$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> I've been running CMR 4 for a few months now - but I realised that it was > 2.0 that I was missing, so I decided to reinstall it. > While 4.0 is very pretty and all, it lacks the punchy fun of CMR 2.0 > arcading ... particularly the French circuit - which is just sooooh > compulsive. > > I don't quite know why Codemasters got rid of arcading (maybe to boost > sales of TOCA ?) - but it was never the same after 2.0. > > I guess they wanted to draw more of the purist simmers, but they could > still have retained arcading with no loss of sales. > > That said, I still often feel that the 2.0 physics model is feels realer > than succeeding versions - with 4.0 still retaining some of 3.0's > pivot-in-the-middliness. > > Why can't they go back to an updated 2.0 physics model with the 4.0 > graphics ? > > Rant done ! >

Ack! "Scumball" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:ci1an8$ne7$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I've been running CMR 4 for a few months now - but I realised that it was > 2.0 that I was missing, so I decided to reinstall it. > While 4.0 is very pretty and all, it lacks the punchy fun of CMR 2.0 > arcading ... particularly the French circuit - which is just sooooh > compulsive. > > I don't quite know why Codemasters got rid of arcading (maybe to boost

sales > of TOCA ?) - but it was never the same after 2.0. > > I guess they wanted to draw more of the purist simmers, but they couldstill

Quoted text (7 lines)

> have retained arcading with no loss of sales. > > That said, I still often feel that the 2.0 physics model is feels realer > than succeeding versions - with 4.0 still retaining some of 3.0's > pivot-in-the-middliness. > > Why can't they go back to an updated 2.0 physics model with the 4.0

graphics > ? > > Rant done ! > >

"K_Raikkonen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:41449e4a$0$26114$[email hidden]... > Ack! You disagree ? How dare you ! ;)

Quoted text (29 lines)

> "Scumball" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:ci1an8$ne7$[email hidden]... >> I've been running CMR 4 for a few months now - but I realised that it was >> 2.0 that I was missing, so I decided to reinstall it. >> While 4.0 is very pretty and all, it lacks the punchy fun of CMR 2.0 >> arcading ... particularly the French circuit - which is just sooooh >> compulsive. >> >> I don't quite know why Codemasters got rid of arcading (maybe to boost > sales >> of TOCA ?) - but it was never the same after 2.0. >> >> I guess they wanted to draw more of the purist simmers, but they could > still >> have retained arcading with no loss of sales. >> >> That said, I still often feel that the 2.0 physics model is feels realer >> than succeeding versions - with 4.0 still retaining some of 3.0's >> pivot-in-the-middliness. >> >> Why can't they go back to an updated 2.0 physics model with the 4.0 > graphics >> ? >> >> Rant done ! >> >> > >