Favourite Driving Sim?

Surely to answer this question, you have to concentrate on which game/sim SIMULATES driving the best? Not which one has the best graphics, or which one has the highest frame rate? And that has to be GP2!!!!!! Forget ***frame rates, forget theres no weather, forget going round and round in little ovals, and concentrate on the superb PHYSICS of actually driving the car. The way the car actually handles, the way it "feels", the way altering the set-up actually alters the way it feels. Every detail of the cars dynamics/physics are absolutely correct. The way you can actually get the back end out of shape and recover it, or even hold it like that, the way you can feather the throttle, lock the brakes, understeer, oversteer, feel the rises and falls of the road, the way the fuel and tyre wear affects the handling, the infinite number of adjustments you can make to every aspect of the car, the way the car keeps you busy, theres always something to think about. Yes, you can do this in other car sims, but in GP2 it is just spot on. GP2 as a GAME, is not tops, due to the lack of weather, tyre choice, adequate frame rate, etc, etc, but, as a MOTOR RACING SIMULATOR, it is the DOGS B*LL*CKS!!!!! The people that made GP2, not only know how to make a computer simulator of motor racing, they know ABOUT MOTOR RACING!!!! **Peter** #:?)

Quoted text (29 lines)

> Surely to answer this question, you have to concentrate on which game/sim > SIMULATES driving the best? Not which one has the best graphics, or which > one has the highest frame rate? > And that has to be GP2!!!!!! > Forget ***frame rates, forget theres no weather, forget going round and > round in little ovals, and concentrate on the superb PHYSICS of actually > driving the car. > The way the car actually handles, the way it "feels", the way altering > the set-up actually alters the way it feels. > Every detail of the cars dynamics/physics are absolutely correct. > The way you can actually get the back end out of shape and recover it, or > even hold it like that, the way you can feather the throttle, lock the > brakes, understeer, oversteer, feel the rises and falls of the road, the > way the fuel and tyre wear affects the handling, the infinite number of > adjustments you can make to every aspect of the car, the way the car > keeps you busy, theres always something to think about. > Yes, you can do this in other car sims, but in GP2 it is just spot on. > GP2 as a GAME, is not tops, due to the lack of weather, tyre choice, > adequate frame rate, etc, etc, but, as a MOTOR RACING SIMULATOR, it is > the DOGS B*LL*CKS!!!!! > The people that made GP2, not only know how to make a computer simulator > of motor racing, they know ABOUT MOTOR RACING!!!! > **Peter** #:?)

Amen, GP2 is the best in my book. After the first 3 months where I couldn't put together any laps to speak of I now find myself completely emersed in the sim. PP Small

> the DOGS B*LL*CKS!!!!! > The people that made GP2, not only know how to make a computer simulator > of motor racing, they know ABOUT MOTOR RACING!!!! > **Peter** #:?) I disagree, Pete old boy. It's hard to get a "feel" for realistic handling when your Pentium Pro 180 can only run a game with half the graphics on. I also get the feeling I'm steering a dashboard (a badly drawn one at that) in GP2. I don't sense that the game has a real 3D physics model the way NASCAR 2 or ICR2 do. Since I can't see my front tires or hear other cars, I really miss out on critical feedback that would help the feel of GP2 out immensely. This game was one of my most disappointing purchases. It really looks too much like World Circuit, with some RAM hungry textures slapped on top.

(snip) No......you have to concentrate on which one you ENJOY the best. You enjoy GP2 the best for the reasons you outlined. Others enjoy their choices for their own particular reasons. Beauty, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. :-) bk

How can it be a best anything (game or sim) when it is so sloooowwwwww? If I had a Cray at home maybe it could give N2 a run for it's money. Regards, ---Wayne.

(snip) Mark....what do you mean by this? If it takes longer than 1/25th of a second to draw one frame then the frame-rate can't be 25fps, surely? This subject of frame-rates I find curious. I was under the impression that the "speed" at which those objects we see moving in our everyday lives equated to (approx) 28 frames per second which, I think, is the speed at which movies are shown. (Modern movies, that is....not the old hand-driven devices that gave us the 'Keystone Kops' flicker effect!). If this is true why then are people so hyped up about achieving, for example, 30fps? If the brain can't appreciate the additional speed, why bother with anything over 28fps? Anyone have any thoughts on this? bk

[snip] Movie frame rates are either 24 or 25 fps. Television is approximately 30 fps (it's actually 15 fps, but interleaved at 30 fps). It's been awhile, but I believe that the eye works at somewhere between 25 and 30 fps, varies from person to person. However, your eye is observing things that are constantly moving. In a video or movie, things are not actually moving, they are stationary for 1/25th of a second. Thus your eye may integrate to images that are identical before moving on. I'll make an attempt to depict this with ASCII (bear with me here): Frames 1 2 3 4 5 Eye | | | | | | So the eye sees frames in the following order: 1,2,3,3,4,5 - which means that there's an apparent discontinuity in motion during frame 3. The classic example is the old spoked wheel, as the stagecoach is slowing down, the wheel appears to move backwards for awhile, the suddenly starts going forward again. In the meantime, your brain is trying to use this information to coordinate your muscle movement so you can steer the car. When the two frame 3's come up, it appears that the car hasn't moved, so your brain reacts by over-compensating. This is why the car feels loose when the frame rate drops. Dave Sparks IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars/index.html Late Night League: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html Hawaii Handle: davids

Quoted text (7 lines)

|> (snip) |> >The problem is in GP2 that if you tell it to draw 25 fps, it will draw |> them no matter how |> >long it takes. |> |> Mark....what do you mean by this? If it takes longer than 1/25th of a |> second to draw one frame then the frame-rate can't be 25fps, surely?

... Exactly...that is his point. It DOES take longer than 1/25th of a second to draw, so what you see is your screen appears to be in slow motion. If your computer can only handle 12.5 fps, and you have GP2 set to 25 fps, GP2 will draw 25 screens in one second of simulated time. However, it will take your computer 2 seconds to draw this. So, it will appear to you that your car is moving at half speed. Other sims will simply skip frames here and there to maintain simulation time = real time. This results in choppy performance. As for acceptable frame rates, I am amazed at the frame rates people require in order for it to be acceptable. Maybe I'm just not spoiled yet, but I find 15-17 fps to be plenty adequate. Even when I have everything turned on in GP2, I can get 12fps, and I don't find this too bad actually. It is definitely very drivable for me, and the advantage of the GP2 approach is that at least if you don't get a very high frame rate, it is at least consistent. Other sims will be unpredictably jumpy. ...Lance -- IBM Microelectronics Burlington, VT Phone: (802) 769-7104 (tie 446)

You don't understand do you? The game/sim is not slow, Computers are slooowwwwwww!!!!!!! GET IT? **Peter** #:?)

Get real. If a piece of software is written for a particular platform and runs like a turd then it is the software that sucks. The software vendor has the responsibility of selecting the hardware platform and requirements for the market they are trying to capture. If they*** up as MicroProse did with GP2 then it is their fault not the hardware. Obviously Papyrus was able to get reasonable performance with the target platform so the hardware must be ok, right? ---Wayne.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> [snip] > >If this is true why then are people so hyped up about achieving, for > >example, 30fps? If the brain can't appreciate the additional speed, why > >bother with anything over 28fps? > >Anyone have any thoughts on this? > Movie frame rates are either 24 or 25 fps. Television is approximately 30 > fps (it's actually 15 fps, but interleaved at 30 fps).

David, this is actually incorrect. As a television director, I can state that yes, film runs between 24-28fps. However, videotape plays 30 frames per second, which can be seen by the *** eye (I frequently make single-frame edits, which I can easily see without using my powers of x-ray vision). Each frame of video consists of two "fields"- hence, there are 60 fields per second. Depending upon the video source, you could even see a change in a single field. The reason people are eager to have 30fps in their games is simply a matter of animation fluidity.

Well explained, guys! Thanks very much for that....appreciated. -- BruceK VR #31, Pro. Division VRE Site is http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/vegemiteracing/index.htm

You still don't get the point of the original question do you? Which is the best racing simulator? Not which has the best graphics, or which has the highest frame rate? Which even I wouldn't argue about!!!!! If the test is, which is the best simulator? then GP2 simulates motor racing like no other, no-one touches it for realism, dynamics, performance, and "feel". Enough said!!!!! **Peter** #:?)

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >This subject of frame-rates I find curious. I was under the impression that > >the "speed" at which those objects we see moving in our everyday lives > >equated to (approx) 28 frames per second which, I think, is the speed at > >which movies are shown. > >If this is true why then are people so hyped up about achieving, for > >example, 30fps? If the brain can't appreciate the additional speed, why > >bother with anything over 28fps? > >Anyone have any thoughts on this? > Movie frame rates are either 24 or 25 fps. Television is approximately 30 > fps (it's actually 15 fps, but interleaved at 30 fps).

Movie frames speed is 24 fps. Old movies like Chaplins ones were at 18 fps. TV frames speed is 30 fps in U.S.A but 25 in Europe. This rates are easy to implement (were easy, to be honest)with frecuency dividers by using the frecuency of our homes power supply (50 Hz in Europe 60 Hz in U.S.A.) But there is no such thing as a biological frame rate. Neither the cells in our retina nor the brains has a frame rate, its a continous flow of information. But its true that 24 or 25 fps is enough to give us a smooth movement impresion. Anyway there are some special filmes delivered at 70 fps and people who has watch at them say there is a marked difference. So I think a frame rate between 20 and 25 is good enough for playing racing sims at the PC. (Personal opinion, of course) Canci (Nostromo Racing Team)

: Yeah, I think those IMAX filma are delivered at 70FPS or something : high like that . And as far as I know, humans dont have minimum : or maximum frame rate adjustments!

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> the DOGS B*LL*CKS!!!!! >> The people that made GP2, not only know how to make a computer simulator >> of motor racing, they know ABOUT MOTOR RACING!!!! >I disagree, Pete old boy. It's hard to get a "feel" for realistic >handling when your Pentium Pro 180 can only run a game with half the >graphics on. I also get the feeling I'm steering a dashboard (a badly >drawn one at that) in GP2. I don't sense that the game has a real 3D >physics model the way NASCAR 2 or ICR2 do. Since I can't see my front >tires or hear other cars, I really miss out on critical feedback that >would help the feel of GP2 out immensely. This game was one of my most >disappointing purchases. It really looks too much like World Circuit, >with some RAM hungry textures slapped on top.

You know what I think when I read your complaints? I think you must have a pretty miserable life to feel the need to slam excellent software. Nascar 2 and ICR2 have a "real" 3D physics model and GP2 doesn't? Have YOU seen cars bump over kerbstones in the former two? And try to configure your PPro180. It runs fine on my p166, thank you. JH =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> How can it be a best anything (game or sim) when it is so sloooowwwwww? > If I had a Cray at home maybe it could give N2 a run for it's money. Try GP2 in VGA rather than SVGA. It is still very attractive (much much more than N2 or ICR2 in VGA) and runs very quickly. Paul

After SVGA why would anyone want to go back to VGA ?

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > How can it be a best anything (game or sim) when it is so sloooowwwwww? > > If I had a Cray at home maybe it could give N2 a run for it's money. > Try GP2 in VGA rather than SVGA. It is still very attractive (much much > more than N2 or ICR2 in VGA) and runs very quickly. > Paul

> I disagree, Pete old boy. It's hard to get a "feel" for realistic > handling when your Pentium Pro 180 can only run a game with half the > graphics on. I also get the feeling I'm steering a dashboard (a badly > drawn one at that) in GP2. What does handling have to do with graphics? Provided the handling is accurate, I don't have time to admire scenery very much! That's not to say that I don't appreciate good graphics; just that my first priority is handling. I have a P-120 and run GP2 in VGA mode at 25+ FPS with most graphic options on and I enjoy it immensely. Yes, it isn't as pretty as SVGA, but it's the best looking VGA driving sim on the market (I tried N2 in VGA and it was BUTT-UGLY; so I'm forced to run N2 with SVGA and choppy frame rates or no graphics and a decent frame rate). GP2 at 25+FPS is immensely enjoyable with all options disabled (steering help, oversteer help, traction control, gearchange, etc.); this is simply the most realistic feeling simulation I've ever driven. There are so many things that feel so real, from locking the wheels when braking for that tight hairpin, to feathering the throttle in 1st, 2nd, and maybe even third gear exiting from the slow corners, to getting a twitch if oversteer and correcting it just in time, to bouncing over the curbs trying to scrape those thousandths of your laptime. Incredible! If you haven't made the proper graphic adjustments to get GP2 running at 25+FPS and turned off all those driving aids, you haven't experienced this sim at its highest, purest level. I love N2 and ICR2, but playing those after GP2 makes me feel very limited in my driving scope. Set the game up as I stated above (25+fps and NO DRIVING AIDS) and drive the car to it's limits and then see if you still think the physics model is different. Keep in mind that this is an F1 car (very nimble, very stable up to the edge of adhesion, then it bites you!), not a heavy NASCAR. What does seeing the tires have to do with anything? I don't miss them at all (never even thought about it until someone mentioned it). As far as hearing other cars, it would be nice but it is debateable (and has been debated ad-naseum) whether today's F1 driver can hear the other car's or not. Car motion, wheel lock/spin are the type of things I rely on for critical feedback, not tire graphics and opponent engine sounds. In these areas, GP2 is on the next level, IMO. Paul

Quoted text (24 lines)

> >> the DOGS B*LL*CKS!!!!! > >> The people that made GP2, not only know how to make a computer simulator > >> of motor racing, they know ABOUT MOTOR RACING!!!! > >I disagree, Pete old boy. It's hard to get a "feel" for realistic > >handling when your Pentium Pro 180 can only run a game with half the > >graphics on. I also get the feeling I'm steering a dashboard (a badly > >drawn one at that) in GP2. I don't sense that the game has a real 3D > >physics model the way NASCAR 2 or ICR2 do. Since I can't see my front > >tires or hear other cars, I really miss out on critical feedback that > >would help the feel of GP2 out immensely. This game was one of my most > >disappointing purchases. It really looks too much like World Circuit, > >with some RAM hungry textures slapped on top. > You know what I think when I read your complaints? I think you must have a > pretty miserable life to feel the need to slam excellent software. > Nascar 2 and ICR2 have a "real" 3D physics model and GP2 doesn't? Have YOU seen > cars bump over kerbstones in the former two? > And try to configure your PPro180. It runs fine on my p166, thank you. > JH

Actually, there's nothing wrong with my machine; I can run SVGA Nascar 2 with all (did I mention ALL?) graphics options on, and get a marvelous frame rate. I can also run NHL 97, Longbow and a host of other high powered games on my machine without a hitch. So, why does the frame rate in GP2 suck? I dunno, but I haven't heard many folks disagree that the game is c-c-h-h-o-o-p-p-p-p-y-y. In the early eighties, I loved Revs + by Crammond; I was disappointed in World Circuit however, with it's twitchy controls minus steering help (a bug Microprose admitted to) and with steering help on making things way too easy and unrealistic. Unfortunately, although the twitch is gone in GP2, it looks too much like World Circuit with memory hungry graphics slapped on top. The driving engine just doesn't feel "seat of the pants" realistic to me. It's too arcady. Having driven real race cars, this is something I really wish they could get right.

Quoted text (46 lines)

> > I disagree, Pete old boy. It's hard to get a "feel" for realistic > > handling when your Pentium Pro 180 can only run a game with half the > > graphics on. I also get the feeling I'm steering a dashboard (a badly > > drawn one at that) in GP2. > What does handling have to do with graphics? Provided the handling is > accurate, I don't have time to admire scenery very much! That's not to > say that I don't appreciate good graphics; just that my first priority > is handling. I have a P-120 and run GP2 in VGA mode at 25+ FPS with most > graphic options on and I enjoy it immensely. Yes, it isn't as pretty as > SVGA, but it's the best looking VGA driving sim on the market (I tried > N2 in VGA and it was BUTT-UGLY; so I'm forced to run N2 with SVGA and > choppy frame rates or no graphics and a decent frame rate). GP2 at > 25+FPS is immensely enjoyable with all options disabled (steering help, > oversteer help, traction control, gearchange, etc.); this is simply the > most realistic feeling simulation I've ever driven. There are so many > things that feel so real, from locking the wheels when braking for that > tight hairpin, to feathering the throttle in 1st, 2nd, and maybe even > third gear exiting from the slow corners, to getting a twitch if > oversteer and correcting it just in time, to bouncing over the curbs > trying to scrape those thousandths of your laptime. Incredible! If you > haven't made the proper graphic adjustments to get GP2 running at 25+FPS > and turned off all those driving aids, you haven't experienced this sim > at its highest, purest level. I love N2 and ICR2, but playing those > after GP2 makes me feel very limited in my driving scope. > >I don't sense that the game has a real 3D > > physics model the way NASCAR 2 or ICR2 do. Since I can't see my front > > tires or hear other cars, I really miss out on critical feedback that > > would help the feel of GP2 out immensely. > Set the game up as I stated above (25+fps and NO DRIVING AIDS) and drive > the car to it's limits and then see if you still think the physics model > is different. Keep in mind that this is an F1 car (very nimble, very > stable up to the edge of adhesion, then it bites you!), not a heavy > NASCAR. > What does seeing the tires have to do with anything? I don't miss them > at all (never even thought about it until someone mentioned it). As far > as hearing other cars, it would be nice but it is debateable (and has > been debated ad-naseum) whether today's F1 driver can hear the other > car's or not. Car motion, wheel lock/spin are the type of things I rely > on for critical feedback, not tire graphics and opponent engine sounds. > In these areas, GP2 is on the next level, IMO. > Paul

It's hard to even think about handling if you're only getting 10fps with a lot of graphics options on. Sure, I could lean out the graphics like you did, but I didn't spend all that dough on a top machine to have to put up with that. I want to be able to get the best *** experience I can- I think it's absurd that I have to turn over half the graphic details off to play GP2 or any other game in an enjoyable manner. BTW, I do drive GP2 with all help doohickies off; it just doesn't feel like the real thing to me.

... |> say that I don't appreciate good graphics; just that my first priority |> is handling. I have a P-120 and run GP2 in VGA mode at 25+ FPS with most |> graphic options on and I enjoy it immensely. Yes, it isn't as pretty as |> SVGA, but it's the best looking VGA driving sim on the market (I tried |> N2 in VGA and it was BUTT-UGLY; so I'm forced to run N2 with SVGA and |> choppy frame rates or no graphics and a decent frame rate). GP2 at ... Actually this is true. You don't gain that much when running GP2 in SVGA mode. The most noticeable improvements are the***pit looks a lot nicer (esp the steering wheel) (big deal!); the starting lights look a little better, and when you are VERY close to the other cars they look a little better (especially the wheels). But most of the scenery and textures pretty much look the same. I agree--GP2 looks very good at VGA resolution. ...

Quoted text (18 lines)

|> >I don't sense that the game has a real 3D |> > physics model the way NASCAR 2 or ICR2 do. Since I can't see my front |> > tires or hear other cars, I really miss out on critical feedback that |> > would help the feel of GP2 out immensely. |> |> Set the game up as I stated above (25+fps and NO DRIVING AIDS) and drive |> the car to it's limits and then see if you still think the physics model |> is different. Keep in mind that this is an F1 car (very nimble, very |> stable up to the edge of adhesion, then it bites you!), not a heavy |> NASCAR. |> |> What does seeing the tires have to do with anything? I don't miss them |> at all (never even thought about it until someone mentioned it). As far |> as hearing other cars, it would be nice but it is debateable (and has |> been debated ad-naseum) whether today's F1 driver can hear the other |> car's or not. Car motion, wheel lock/spin are the type of things I rely |> on for critical feedback, not tire graphics and opponent engine sounds. |> In these areas, GP2 is on the next level, IMO.

This part I don't get (hearing other cars). IMO, I can hear the other cars better on GP2 than ICR2 and Nascar. By this I mean that the stereo placement of the other engine noises is superb and I've learned to tell exactly where a car is in relation to me so I know when it's safe to cut back in (or not) just by listening. I haven't developed this ability in ICR2 (don't know if I ever will) but instead have to rely on the funky rear-view mirror which does help, but I haven't mastered it yet. As for the tire graphics, I too don't miss them, but I am curious as to what sort of feedback you CAN get from them (besides knowing when they are moving or not :-). Could someone educate me here? I am having a heck of a time with ICR2 and could use any help I can get. -- IBM Microelectronics ICQ UIN: 216830 Burlington, VT Phone: (802) 769-7104 (tie 446)

... |> driving engine just doesn't feel "seat of the pants" realistic to me. |> It's too arcady. Having driven real race cars, this is something I |> really wish they could get right. I do agree with this. I will probably outgrow this game as I get better, but for a beginner like myself, I appreciate the forgiveness of this game. I have a heck of a time with ICR2 trying not to cause accidents (the opponents seem to slow WAY down right in front of me (going into turns on an oval that can be taken straight-out), forcing me to brake, and then I usually get tangled up with the cars behind me somehow). Maybe this is "real" but it is definitely going to take me awhile to get the hang of it. -- IBM Microelectronics ICQ UIN: 216830 Burlington, VT Phone: (802) 769-7104 (tie 446)

: This part I don't get (hearing other cars). IMO, I can hear the other : cars better on GP2 than ICR2 and Nascar. By this I mean that the stereo : placement of the other engine noises is superb and I've learned to tell : exactly where a car is in relation to me so I know when it's safe to cut : back in (or not) just by listening. I haven't developed this ability : in ICR2 (don't know if I ever will) but instead have to rely on the funky : rear-view mirror which does help, but I haven't mastered it yet. Wait a minute. What sim drug are you taking when you run GP2? <g> The only time I have heard other cars is when I am sitting in the pits. A replay sometimes shows no cars going by, even though the sound was there. What's your secret? Any Philip K.*** fans out there? Sounds like something from one of his books (Ubik?). The one with the Patty Perk dolls, where the poor miners take *** and live their lives by creating a simulated reality with their dolls... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Hey S***bag GP2 is the best racing sim by far,you should take out your old 2600 from your chest to play something like Pole Position it would be cheaper for you and it won`t be complicated cause you don`t need to configure it and by the way, please (I`m asking for everyone go see your mom! C`mom!) Enjoy it and dream on it!! GSXRR

Quoted text (7 lines)

> You don't understand do you? > The game/sim is not slow, Computers are slooowwwwwww!!!!!!! > GET IT? > **Peter** #:?)

Thank you Peter and by the way I hope sandbag,mom,or a tv director is listening to your intelligent comment!! GSXRR

Actually the average person's eyes `sample' at a rate around 50Hz. This can be demonstrated by playing with a variable strobe light and adjusting the frequnecy around that value. Things look really weired and the subject can end up quite nausious. 25-30fps seems to provide the illusion of smooth movement -- 50fps is hard to look at -- 70fps would not seem that much better than 30, but is more comfortable to look at for long periods. (based on vague memories of experiements in high scool) -julian ps: Same reason why good monitors have higher scan rates and 70 is alot better than 50-60 which lead to eye strain, etc -- research scientist crc for distributed systems technology

Quoted text (19 lines)

> ... > |> driving engine just doesn't feel "seat of the pants" realistic to me. > |> It's too arcady. Having driven real race cars, this is something I > |> really wish they could get right. > I do agree with this. I will probably outgrow this game as I get better, but > for a beginner like myself, I appreciate the forgiveness of this game. > I have a heck of a time with ICR2 trying not to cause accidents (the > opponents seem to slow WAY down right in front of me (going into turns on > an oval that can be taken straight-out), forcing me to brake, > and then I usually get tangled up with the cars behind me somehow). Maybe > this is "real" but it is definitely going to take me awhile to get the hang > of it. > -- > IBM Microelectronics ICQ UIN: 216830 > Burlington, VT Phone: (802) 769-7104 (tie 446)

Lance, I agree that GP2 is not the end to all simulators. Once in a real car you never get any of the vibrations, screams or smells adds the terror to driving really fast, but no one has died yet playing GP2! My company is working on a simulator not only for driving but for the tsunami of simulation games coming out. snomobiles, jetskis, hovercraft, and even faster F-18's and Y22's. To make it more realistic, transducers can be put in frame and seat areas to coincide with engine noise levels, but the motion of starting stopping and cornering can only be done with a hydraulic driven gizmo that nobody could afford. Therefore accuracy of feedback is the most important way to convey realism. A boosted signal to the game port that reduces the circuit response time to below a noticeable delay will do more for right now realism than anything else. Seating and steering options range from a comfy chair to the real thing with a 10 inch MOMO with shifter paddles and lights. We've even though of gasoline aroma therapy wafting out of the air intakes! Any way, I share your need for more REAL! R. Hunt

> I disagree, Pete old boy. It's hard to get a "feel" for realistic > handling when your Pentium Pro 180 can only run a game with half the > graphics on. I also get the feeling I'm steering a dashboard (a badly > drawn one at that) in GP2. I don't sense that the game has a real 3D Hello, I read a lot of your messages, and almost all of them seems to be against GP2. You also repeat the same things each time, which makes them a bit boring :) Even in a N2 thread, for instance, you seem to say "N2 is wonderful, not like GP2 which is ***..." even when GP2 was not nominated before. I am really curios: why do you have such an harsh feeling against GP2 :) ? How can I be sure your advise is objective if you seem to be so "singleminded" ? Bye, Luca

We'll talk again in two years time: ICR2 and NASCAR will be in the garbage bin, but I'll still play GP2 (with full detail!!!) Just forget about the textures you can't use. JH =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> Movie frame rates are either 24 or 25 fps. Television is approximately 30 >> fps (it's actually 15 fps, but interleaved at 30 fps). >David, this is actually incorrect. As a television director, I can >state that yes, film runs between 24-28fps. However, videotape plays 30 >frames per second, which can be seen by the *** eye (I frequently make >single-frame edits, which I can easily see without using my powers of >x-ray vision). Each frame of video consists of two "fields"- hence, >there are 60 fields per second. Depending upon the video source, you >could even see a change in a single field. The reason people are eager >to have 30fps in their games is simply a matter of animation fluidity.

There's TV and video outside the US also! And over here it's 25fps. Just to point that out. JH =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I read a lot of your messages, and almost all of them seems to be > against GP2. > I am really curios: why do you have such an harsh feeling against > GP2 :) ? > How can I be sure your advise is objective if you seem to be so > "singleminded" ? > Bye, > Luca

Luca, I wish there were more good things to say about GP2; I wanted to like this game. I had a Geoff Crammond game from the early eighties that was awesome! However, GP2 looks like nothing more than World Circuit with a graphical facelift. World Circuit had great weather effects, which sadly, are now absent in GP2. GP2 does have a great pit lane, what with all the activity on screen there. But I hoped the driving model itself would be better. Even the menus look very dated, as they really didn't change from World Circuit. But my biggest beef is with the frame rate...what gives? Why did it HAVE to be so bad? Did they really give us a new product, or did they just refurbish the old one? And if so, why did it take so long?

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Hey S***bag > GP2 is the best racing sim by far,you should take out your old 2600 from > your chest to play something like Pole Position it would be cheaper for > you and it won`t be complicated cause you don`t need to configure it and > by the way, please (I`m asking for everyone go see your mom! C`mom!) > Enjoy it and dream on it!! > GSXRR

Well, maybe I'll do that. At least I'll get a playable frame rate on the 2600! But heck, no need- NASCAR 2 runs awesome on my machine, with all details on. Go fast, turn left!

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > You don't understand do you? > > The game/sim is not slow, Computers are slooowwwwwww!!!!!!! > > GET IT? > > **Peter** #:?) > Thank you Peter and by the way I hope sandbag,mom,or a tv director is > listening to your intelligent comment!! > GSXRR

Hey, ya know? You're right! I just chucked my GP2 CD across the room, and boy did it fly! I'd say it travelled at about 28fps! Almost hit the dog!

Quoted text (23 lines)

> >> Movie frame rates are either 24 or 25 fps. Television is approximately 30 > >> fps (it's actually 15 fps, but interleaved at 30 fps). > >David, this is actually incorrect. As a television director, I can > >state that yes, film runs between 24-28fps. However, videotape plays 30 > >frames per second, which can be seen by the *** eye (I frequently make > >single-frame edits, which I can easily see without using my powers of > >x-ray vision). Each frame of video consists of two "fields"- hence, > >there are 60 fields per second. Depending upon the video source, you > >could even see a change in a single field. The reason people are eager > >to have 30fps in their games is simply a matter of animation fluidity. > There's TV and video outside the US also! And over here it's 25fps. > Just to point that out. > JH > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > When everything else failed, we can still become im- > mortal by making an enormous blunder.... > John Kenneth Galbraith > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Not only that, but it's 625 lines of vertical resolution, versus 525 used here in the states (not counting hi-def). May as well be thorough.

I think that all three sims, ICR2, N2, and Gp2 are great. Microprose left a lot of things out of Gp2, but it is still a lot of fun.

... |> Wait a minute. What sim drug are you taking when you run GP2? <g> The |> only time I have heard other cars is when I am sitting in the pits. A |> replay sometimes shows no cars going by, even though the sound was |> there. What's your secret? ... No *** or secrets...it pretty much did this out of the box! I suppose I could be confusing this with another game, but I don't think so. -- IBM Microelectronics ICQ UIN: 216830 Burlington, VT Phone: (802) 769-7104 (tie 446)

> > Hey S***bag > > GP2 is the best racing sim by far, You mean "the best unfininshed racing sim by far"! You dont have a clue, it dont rhyme, but it sure is true! -DG-

Might be a MicroProse trademark. I bought their karting game. You could only run it off the CD which took an eternity to load. The frame rate sucked because the made every little texture or graphic a PCX file which had to be drawn. There wasn't much realism there, either.

Until you get a 17" monitor :-) You must have been dreaming. You can't hear other cars from***pit view in GP2. Check your ears! :-) JH =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Hey S***bag > > GP2 is the best racing sim by far,you should take out your old 2600 from > > your chest to play something like Pole Position it would be cheaper for > > you and it won`t be complicated cause you don`t need to configure it and > > by the way, please (I`m asking for everyone go see your mom! C`mom!) > > Enjoy it and dream on it!! > > GSXRR > Well, maybe I'll do that. At least I'll get a playable frame rate on > the 2600! But heck, no need- NASCAR 2 runs awesome on my machine, with > all details on. Go fast, turn left!

O.K now I understand!! You can`t turn right,just try it before you say it`s to hard to do Mom!! By the way Mr.Doctor,Technician or w*** t** f*** a simulation is not an arcade game so if your Pro don`t allow you 25, play VGA till a beter choice that woud have been a MMX or an overclocked but I think it would be a bit complicated ;)!!! GSXRR

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > > You don't understand do you? > > > The game/sim is not slow, Computers are slooowwwwwww!!!!!!! > > > GET IT? > > > **Peter** #:?) > > Thank you Peter and by the way I hope sandbag,mom,or a tv director is > > listening to your intelligent comment!! > > GSXRR > Hey, ya know? You're right! I just chucked my GP2 CD across the room, > and boy did it fly! I'd say it travelled at about 28fps! Almost hit > the dog!

Allright!!!! I hope whit this move we (I mean everyone I hope in this group)are going to be able to comment without prejudice like you had.Please remember your move in 2 years I think by the time you`d have learn that a configuration for a game is not the same for every game!!! GSXRR

Other engines noises? Listening? Am I missing something here? Last time I checked there was no sound coming from other cars in GP2... You're gonna have some explaining to do here mister! Cause when I play GP2, bumping into other cars is the only way you're gonna get sound from them! A. Renault

> Hey, ya know? You're right! I just chucked my GP2 CD across the room, > and boy did it fly! I'd say it travelled at about 28fps! Almost hit > the dog! Did the dog manage to avoid the CD or did you miss the dog? If the first is true we might try to find out at which fps rate the dog's eyes/brain work, and we might even install a 3D card into the dog if we decide he's too slow. Bye, Luca

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Hey, ya know? You're right! I just chucked my GP2 CD across the room, > > and boy did it fly! I'd say it travelled at about 28fps! Almost hit > > the dog! > Did the dog manage to avoid the CD or did you miss the dog? If the first > is true we might try to find out at which fps rate the dog's eyes/brain work, > and we might even install a 3D card into the dog if we decide he's too slow. > Bye, > Luca

Nice comment Luca!! I hope everyone in this place had your type of humor,it would be a lot more interresting than frustration and paranoiac comments from people who got personnal problems (I assume!)in their lives or don`t understand the meaning of the word GAME. See ya!! GSXRR

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > Hey S***bag > > > GP2 is the best racing sim by far, > You mean "the best unfininshed racing sim by far"! > You dont have a clue, it dont rhyme, but it sure is true! > -DG-

Hey David you sound like someone who got a lot of experience with sims you should finish this game as everyone wishes,that would be something great and everyone would owe you something(have fun!!) GSXRR

> > Hey, ya know? You're right! I just chucked my GP2 CD across the room, > > and boy did it fly! I'd say it travelled at about 28fps! Almost hit > > the dog! > Did the dog manage to avoid the CD or did you miss the dog? If the first > is true we might try to find out at which fps rate the dog's eyes/brain work, > and we might even install a 3D card into the dog if we decide he's too slow. > Bye, > Luca First you need to upgrade the dog's CPU before installing a 3D card. and pls make it a Soundblaster card or else your dog will keep getting a blank screen.

> Might be a MicroProse trademark. I bought their karting game. You could > only run it off the CD which took an eternity to load. The frame rate > sucked because the made every little texture or graphic a PCX file which > had to be drawn. There wasn't much realism there, either. Maybe in 2069 Microprose/S.H. would made enough money to buy Sierra so the Papy guys would work on an update for Gp2! :) [===] Go R. Barrichello, Jacques Villeneuve, | ! | And all you that thinks that Jacques Villeneuve is |!| from Canada, your right!! He's from St-Jean sur le |o| Richelieu, 30 minutes from Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [--I--] v Fran?ois Mnard "Wasupe LeGrand" Nicolas Mnard "Nien Numb" Nien Numb in the National Star Wars League(X-Wing vs Tie-Fighter league) http://www.dakotacom.net/~strange/ http://www.starwars.com/ Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition,N2,Gp2,Icr2.How can my life be better? May the force be with you, always!! Que la force soit avec toi, jamais!(for you French people) Excuse me for my poor English(I'm French speaking)

Should I upgrade the dog's CPU to a regular P200, or use one that has MMX?

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > > Hey, ya know? You're right! I just chucked my GP2 CD across the room, > > > and boy did it fly! I'd say it travelled at about 28fps! Almost hit > > > the dog! > > Did the dog manage to avoid the CD or did you miss the dog? If the first > > is true we might try to find out at which fps rate the dog's eyes/brain > work, > > and we might even install a 3D card into the dog if we decide he's too > slow. > > Bye, > > Luca > First you need to upgrade the dog's CPU before installing a 3D card. > and pls make it a Soundblaster card or else your dog will keep getting a > blank screen.

You also need to make sure the dog has multi-player capablities too so he will get along with you and the rest of the family even though you chunked a CD at 'em.

Also make sure he is Windows 95 compatible, or he might bite Bill Gates in the butt. Hey, maybe that would be a good thing? Who knows....