Indy and Daytona tracks, not avail in sims.

I see that there's a lot of hype on here about the Indy track for IC II and even still some about the Daytona track for NC. To be honest, not only don't I care about the two tracks as a whole, (I don't think either one is worth the trouble to have) I would never again consider going to either of the two for a live event, just because the management has been so arrogant and stingy with the very idea of a racing sim having THEIR track in the game for people to enjoy. I get to 1-3 nascar events each year and I can say that if I was given round trip fare and free admission to Daytona, I would'nt go just because of what they did to the guys at The Pits (theuspits.com) Thats BS and I don't think I'm alone in being disgusted with the 1st grade mentality of the management at daytona for it. I guess the owners of Talladega, Pocono, Rockingham, Dover, The Glen, Sears Point, Elkhart lake, Laguna Seca... and all are REAL PEOPLE like us who want to promote their sport instead of their sport to promote them! Why is it that those two tracks are so much better than the others. (Certainly not cause there more fun to watch OR drive) Personaly, I don't like Indy... Oh well, to each there own. I'll have just as much fun with NC/NCii/ICRii/GPii without the brickyard or daytona. I like new tracks! PS. GPii has ALL the Tracks and ALL the Drivers with no copyright problems. Guess the F1 guys want people to enjoy the game more than the Nascar/Indycar People. Even if there is a frame rate problem.

People want these for season racing. I agree that they are not the best tracks. If C***te or Dover were missing - the NASCAR sim fans would be upset too. I think the owners of these tracks are unique. Just look at the problems with the Indy car split - all caused by the Indianapolis track owners. Sim fans are always searching for more tracks too. Even if the tracks weren't Indy or Daytona - any new tracks would be well received. Las Vegas and Texas, for example. Maybe eveb the Suzuka track. /THansen

It's been said here many times: International Speedway Corporation, the company that owns Daytona, licensed the game rights exclusively to Sega before there was ever a NASCAR simulation. The license expires early next year, and I can assure you that Papyrus is doing everything in their power to get the rights to use the track. As to IMS, well... that's Tony George, and I'd just as soon not open that can of worms here. <g> Dave (davids) Sparks Late Night League http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html

By the GP 2 doesn"t have all the F1 tracks just off the top of my head theres no Mexico City no Nurburgring no Detroit no surfers paradice no S. Africa And probably 2 or 3 in Europe I forgot. Just my 2 cents Ichiban L.A. Sake Otokonoko. Jack Out And Jack In. We rule the future people.

I think he ment all the CURRENT F1 tracks! Mexico City has'nt been used for F1 racing since 91 i think, and to my knowledge, there's never been a F1 race at Surfers Paradise!! -- --/ Best Racing Regards, Edwin Solheim To finnish 1st - 1st u have to finnish

Quoted text (8 lines)

>People want these for season racing. I agree that they are not the best >tracks. If C***te or Dover were missing - the NASCAR sim fans would be >upset too. I think the owners of these tracks are unique. Just look at >the problems with the Indy car split - all caused by the Indianapolis track >owners. Sim fans are always searching for more tracks too. Even if the >tracks weren't Indy or Daytona - any new tracks would be well received. >Las Vegas and Texas, for example. Maybe eveb the Suzuka track. >/THansen

Is THAT the reason why (pardon my newbie-like question) we don't see Indy when we buy Indycar2? Because the owners of the track won't let Papyrus use it? It that's true, they're pinheads, sheez... I find it nice to be able to watch a race on the tube with a friend, and then let him try the track in an indycar, or a nascar. Papyrus makes great sims, and having bought them makes me even more of a fan of the races. I have a whole new appreciation for what the drivers do, and are capable of. Perhaps I need another beer, but I simply can't think of one good reason why a track owner would NOT allow a racing sim to use their track. Curt

>Perhaps I need another beer, but I simply can't think of one good reason why a >track owner would NOT allow a racing sim to use their track. Because they've already licensed it to someone else, because Papy won't pay them enough..... or because they are simply too pissed off at the people who rip them off by posting the tracks here :(( Richard

> >Perhaps I need another beer, but I simply can't think of one good reason why a

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >track owner would NOT allow a racing sim to use their track. > Because they've already licensed it to someone else, because Papy won't > pay them enough..... or because they are simply too pissed off at the > people who rip them off by posting the tracks here :(( > Richard

It's because CART doesn't run at Indianapolis anymore. Maybe if Papyrus makes an IRL sim then you can get Indy, but I wouldn't by the game no matter how good it is.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Perhaps I need another beer, but I simply can't think of one good reason why a > >track owner would NOT allow a racing sim to use their track. > Because they've already licensed it to someone else, because Papy won't > pay them enough..... or because they are simply too pissed off at the > people who rip them off by posting the tracks here :(( > Richard

Or because in the case of Daytona, Sega has greedily acquired an exclusive license for the Daytona track and name, even though they don't have a realistic version of the track in their game, and don't really compete with Papyrus. As a matter of fact, I've heard that people are returning Sega's Daytona USA game in droves.