N2 - Daytona

Subject: N2 - Daytona Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Lines: 17 Hi, Is there anything out there that can stop us from copy Talladega to another directory and Rename it Daytona. Then, go into a paint program and make Daytona track graphics and put them where the Talladega graphics are and call it Daytona. The only real thing missing is the scenery, but tell me. who is gonna stop and look at the birds at 200 mph. This is just a suggestion, has anyone thought of doing this or has done this. I am not a good enough artist to make Daytona graphics, it someone would do it and be kind enough to post it to this group, that would be great. Well, keep on racing. John O. [link lost in import: /~family/jello.htm]

You can copy the Talladega to a new directory, but AFAIK no one has yet cracked the mip-graphic structure... Best Regards, Marc Marc J. Nelson Sim Racing News - USA http://members.aol.com/simracing

I have done just that. I have even re-named the files INSIDE the DAT file to read "DAYTONA", and not some offshoot of that, and it works perfectly! As far as the graphics, I got mine from the Daytona home page, converted them using Paint Shop Pro, then imported 'em into the 'new' track. Another thing I've done, is changed the length from 2.66 to 2.5, and turned the plate off. Guess what? It gives lap speeds very close to actual lap speeds...works for me!

If you attemp to simply rename the internal references to taladega to daytona, you'll get a heap stack error. The file needs to have the same number of characters (if using a hex editor) for this to work...ie: daytonab The thread refers to 'N2 - Daytona', and AFAIK, no one has cracked the MIP-structure in the N2 dat-file. Great!!...Except that changing the value of the track's length does nothing...It's merely a reference when viewing the track menu. Best Regards, Marc Marc J. Nelson Sim Racing News - USA http://members.aol.com/simracing

Path: lobby01.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-m ail Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators Subject: Re: N2 - Daytona Date: 12 Feb 1997 06:32:57 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Lines: 32 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com Correct, IF the file is hex-edited. I never said I did that. Someone has written a program to unpack the DAT file. Once the files have been unpacked, they can be re-named. That's what I've done. They DON'T have to have the same number of characters anymore, thanks to this utility. Simply re-naming them does the trick. Once the files are re-packed into the DAT file, the program doesn't know the difference! No heap stack errors, in other words. I mis-phrased that. I've only replaced the event files, along with the logo and shot. I dunno...I've had lap times in the 189 range **without** the restrictor plate at the modified track, when I can get well over 200+ lap times at the regular Tally track. That's with 70 degrees at both. Seems kind of strange, eh? This is just what my observations/experiments have been, Mark, not to say that you aren't wrong, just that I haven't experienced what you might have expected.

I think the length in the .txt file does make a difference. I changed mine to 2.5 and only run 183 mph. It looks like it uses the length when it reports speeds based on the time (which is still based on running 2.660 miles). It looks like turning off the restrictor plate would bring the time back down to make a 2.5 mile track report speeds nearer to realistic. Does anyone else agree? ChrisP

Yes it is strange, but it has nothing to do with the length value in the text file. My comments about the value change were not based from an opinion, I happen to know that the value does nothing for how you perform (realistically speaking) at any particular track. Best Regards, Marc J. Nelson Sim Racing News - USA

: I think the length in the .txt file does make a difference. I changed : mine to 2.5 and only run 183 mph. It looks like it uses the length when : it reports speeds based on the time (which is still based on running 2.660 : miles). It looks like turning off the restrictor plate would bring the : time back down to make a 2.5 mile track report speeds nearer to realistic. : Does anyone else agree? I would assume that N2 is using this number to calculate the lap time/speeds. Try it with a stop watch and see if it still is accurate. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

realistic. >Does anyone else agree? Yes! Verification that someone else has experienced the same phenom that I have. The time/speed appear to be fairly close to real life, if not dead on. Marc Nelson is of the opinion that it doesn't do anything, so I was wondering whether or not I was the only one experiencing that.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >I think the length in the .txt file does make a difference. I changed > >mine to 2.5 and only run 183 mph. It looks like it uses the length when > >it reports speeds based on the time (which is still based on running > >2.660 miles). It looks like turning off the restrictor plate would bring > >the time back down to make a 2.5 mile track report speeds nearer to > >realistic. > >Does anyone else agree? > Yes! Verification that someone else has experienced the same phenom that > I have. > The time/speed appear to be fairly close to real life, if not dead on. > Marc Nelson is of the opinion that it doesn't do anything, so I was > wondering whether or not I was the only one experiencing that.

My guess is you both are correct while discussing different aspects. means the 2.500 vs 2.660 doesn't change anything. Your elapsed times are the same, your actual "distance" traveled is the same. that you covered only 2.500 miles instead of the 2.660 miles at the given lap time. Therefore your average speed was calculated down to 183 mph. Run "Daytona" again with the speedometer active. If this theory is correct it should report speeds above 200 mph while driving yet report 183 average. However I gould be wrong. -- MyKey Fif*** Minutes of Fame HTTP://www.***g8t.com/jwhite/fame15.htm

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > >I think the length in the .txt file does make a difference. I changed > > >mine to 2.5 and only run 183 mph. It looks like it uses the length when > > >it reports speeds based on the time (which is still based on running > > >2.660 miles). It looks like turning off the restrictor plate would bring > > >the time back down to make a 2.5 mile track report speeds nearer to > > >realistic. > > >Does anyone else agree?

Close, but not quite. A 215 mph lap without the restrictor plate at 2.66 miles, translates to 202 mph at 2.5 miles. That is not realistic since lap times at Daytona are around 189 mph. What I'd like to know is why Papyrus decided to put the track length and track type in an ASCII file for us to piddle with. It may be a psychology experiment and we're the subjects. David Martin

You are correct, Sir ! (very bad Ed McMahon impersonation). ChrisP

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >Run "Daytona" again with the speedometer active. If this theory is > >correct > >it should report speeds above 200 mph while driving yet report 183 > >average. > >However I gould be wrong. > You are correct, Sir ! (very bad Ed McMahon impersonation). > ChrisP

HEY OHHHHH! -- Todo Es Justo En Amor Y Carreras. The Rusty Wallace Miller Lite stock car, awsome when opened up! GO#2! Mullins Motorsports Inc. http://www.***tron.com/~ddmj

Until the engine breaks, that is! :)