r.a.s FAQ in progress

Quoted text (27 lines)

> I am getting ready to work on a FAQ for r.a.s. However, I have one > question and I know that this isn't the "official" procedure, but... > I am looking for a consesus on whether we want to be "hardnosed" about > what type of "sims" are allowed in r.a.s for discussion. The following > is the original charter. As you can see "past practice" has tolerated > "borderline sims". I for one don't see a problem with allowing past > practice to rule over the charger. But, I would like some input from > everyone else. > rec.autos.simulators > An unmoderated newsgroup for discussions of realistic computer > simulations of automotive vehicles, irrespective of the > platforms on which the simulations are supported. This includes > simulations which have a competitive component (racing > simulations) and those which do not. Arcade racing simulators, which > give an overhead perspective and which do not attempt > to provide realism of handling of the vehicle, would not be > appropriate in this newsgroup, whilst discussion of Microprose's > Formula 1 Grand Prix and Papyrus's IndyCar Racing would be > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Personally I don't have a problem with this group talking about the various simulations whether they give a real view (like N2) or an arcade view. Hearing about some of the other sims is kind of fun (whether I use them or not). Lets just remind everyone to use proper netiquette and not to post them damn binaries. Good Racin ! Chasman

I am getting ready to work on a FAQ for r.a.s. However, I have one question and I know that this isn't the "official" procedure, but... I am looking for a consesus on whether we want to be "hardnosed" about what type of "sims" are allowed in r.a.s for discussion. The following is the original charter. As you can see "past practice" has tolerated "borderline sims". I for one don't see a problem with allowing past practice to rule over the charger. But, I would like some input from everyone else. rec.autos.simulators An unmoderated newsgroup for discussions of realistic computer simulations of automotive vehicles, irrespective of the platforms on which the simulations are supported. This includes simulations which have a competitive component (racing simulations) and those which do not. Arcade racing simulators, which give an overhead perspective and which do not attempt to provide realism of handling of the vehicle, would not be appropriate in this newsgroup, whilst discussion of Microprose's Formula 1 Grand Prix and Papyrus's IndyCar Racing would be -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> Arcade racing simulators, which > give an overhead perspective and which do not attempt > to provide realism of handling of the vehicle, would not be > appropriate in this newsgroup, whilst discussion of Microprose's > Formula 1 Grand Prix and Papyrus's IndyCar Racing would be Mike, I don't think it is fair for us to have to draw a line in the sand on the realism of simulator games that are discussed in this newsgroup. For example, Monster Truck Madness...This game does have a realistic approach to it. I.E. the physics model....But is overall an arcade simulator. I don't mind hearing about Screamer or Sega Rally or the likes of that type of game here.....After all, those games are discussed here now...Why make changes? Josh Walsh (sirglock on Hawaii and TEN)

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I am looking for a consesus on whether we want to be "hardnosed" about > what type of "sims" are allowed in r.a.s for discussion. The following > is the original charter. As you can see "past practice" has tolerated > "borderline sims". I for one don't see a problem with allowing past > practice to rule over the charger. But, I would like some input from > everyone else. > **************************** Michael E. Carver *************************

Michael: In my opinion, "borderline" sims and arcade racing games should be allowed for conversation in r.a.s. Many of the participants here, myself included, play both types. As I know of, there are no newsgroups dedicated to arcade racing, so banning these topics will leave many members of r.a.s. high and dry. Also, who is going to draw the line between what games stay and what games leave? I wouldn't want to put that weight on your shoulders, Mike :-) P.S. Thanks for taking on the responsibility to organize and post a r.a.s. FAQ. This should be very helpful... Matt Lewis

I see no problem with sim or arcade posting to ras. The majority will always be sim postings anyway cause theres never been a really big arcade style racing game for a pc. Most of the succesful arcade racers have been on consoles, Nintendo, Sega..etc and they already have there own ng's. rgds MP ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MP Scurvydog #00 Simpson-Cowlings Motorsports http://www.netcom.com/~svydog/scms/index.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with that, as long as it pertains to auto sims I don't see a problem with it. The more the merrier. -- > > I am getting ready to work on a FAQ for r.a.s. However, I have one > > question and I know that this isn't the "official" procedure, but... > > I am looking for a consesus on whether we want to be "hardnosed" about > > what type of "sims" are allowed in r.a.s for discussion. The following > > is the original charter. As you can see "past practice" has tolerated > > "borderline sims". I for one don't see a problem with allowing past > > practice to rule over the charger. But, I would like some input from > > everyone else. > > rec.autos.simulators > > An unmoderated newsgroup for discussions of realistic computer > > simulations of automotive vehicles, irrespective of the > > platforms on which the simulations are supported. This includes > > simulations which have a competitive component (racing > > simulations) and those which do not. Arcade racing simulators, which > > give an overhead perspective and which do not attempt > > to provide realism of handling of the vehicle, would not be > > appropriate in this newsgroup, whilst discussion of Microprose's > > Formula 1 Grand Prix and Papyrus's IndyCar Racing would be > > -- > > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I agree with everyone else here that we should allow discussion of all sims in the FAQ. However, in the FAQ (and we can set a great example amongst ourselves) we should request the use of four-letter codes before each posting such as ICR2, NAS2, GP2, or OTHR for sims that don't have a wide following. I know that this suggestion has been made before to little avail, but people do seem to be using them more than they used to, and the FAQ should contain these codes. Cheers, Pooch O-iiiii-O