Why is there curved pit roads in Nascar 2 (Jim)

Would it be possible for a simple explaination as to why it a problem having straight pit roads in Nascar2. Also along similar lines as to why there a concrete walls where they shouldn't be. e.g. Watkins Glen chicane, turns 7 and 11 at Sears Point etc. -- Nigel of Lakewood Motorsports Nascar Coruba & Coke Chevy Hamilton New Zealand

This is a limitation in our current track tools (which are abysmal in general) and in our current AI. The limitation amounts to "the pit road has to fall on the same arc as the racing surface" It's being looked at very seriously right now for future products. To prevent cheating primarily. Otherwise, you'd have people crashing through T7 at the Glen, completely avoiding the Inner Loop. Of course we could write code to penalize someone for doing it, but that code isn't trivial to write, nor does it really capture all of the human judgement that really goes into it. (Putting a wall there appropriately "penalizes" anyone who tries to avoid the Inner Loop... :-) ) A secondary consideration is the limitations of the current game engine. (Too complicated to explain even in a long post, but basically there was no way to accomplish 100% accurate modelling of the Glen without sacrificing something in the game. The incorrect walls was the "best" of the solutoins available to us.) ---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus

> This is a limitation in our current track tools (which are abysmal in > general) and in our current AI. The limitation amounts to "the pit > road has to fall on the same arc as the racing surface" It's being > looked at very seriously right now for future products. Okay, so you've written two major game releases (Nascar/Indycar times 2!) and you still have what you call "abysmal" tools? I guess this is just one of those things...typical marketing...wait for Nascar 3 they tell us. Just one of the reasons Nascar 2 will never see my hard drive. To prevent cheating doesn't cover it. If cheating were a concern you would have coded that penalty. This is a simulation, and thusly, it should simulate the actual track. At the Glen, if you want to blow through the Inner Loop, you do it and take a possible penalty depending on whether you make up positions. In Nascar 1 and 2, you end up out of the race if you misjudge the braking into the Loop. Realistic? No. James.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> This is a limitation in our current track tools (which are abysmal in >> general) and in our current AI. The limitation amounts to "the pit >> road has to fall on the same arc as the racing surface" It's being >> looked at very seriously right now for future products. >Okay, so you've written two major game releases (Nascar/Indycar times >2!) and you still have what you call "abysmal" tools? I guess this is >just one of those things...typical marketing...wait for Nascar 3 they >tell us. Just one of the reasons Nascar 2 will never see my hard drive.

Yes, and our artists beat us about the head and shoulders routinely for it. (As time goes by, we are delivering them more and better art tools...) The best art tools in the world alone wouldn't solve the problem, because the AI is constrained to follow this rule as well (currently). This is not "marketing" by any means. Marketing doesn't get a rat's red behind what our track tools are like. (It's not like they could put on the box "developed with all new track tools" and sell so much as single extra unit [except to the guy who misreads this and assumes the track tools are INCLUDED in the box... :-) ]) So what do we do if you don't "make up positions", but merely make up time (beacuse you weren't racing near anyone and/or you are the race leader)? By your explanation, no penalty.. What would NASCAR do in that case? Penalize you. Why? Because they are human and can judge perfectly well that you "intended" to cheat, as opposed to some dispassionate AI "official" who can only do precisely what we program it to do... We opted for the dispassionate wall instead of a new complicated (and knowingly insufficient) AI official solution... ---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus PS: Sorry, you'll see this twice James; it appeared first in my e-mail, and then 10 minutes or so later in netnews...

Sorry, that should be "give a rat's red behind" ---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> This is a limitation in our current track tools (which are abysmal in >> general) and in our current AI. The limitation amounts to "the pit >> road has to fall on the same arc as the racing surface" It's being >> looked at very seriously right now for future products. >Okay, so you've written two major game releases (Nascar/Indycar times >2!) and you still have what you call "abysmal" tools? I guess this is >just one of those things...typical marketing...wait for Nascar 3 they >tell us. Just one of the reasons Nascar 2 will never see my hard drive.

Too bad, you're missing out on one hell of an experience. Sure NASCAR 2 isn't perfect, but there are definitely more good points than bad. Would you rather they remain in development until every aspect of the game is 100% identical to real life? Papyrus would go out of business before releasing their next title if they followed that road. This isn't Star Trek: The Next Generation country, where you can walk into a holodeck and get a super releastic, lifelike simulation of auto racing. Just like I couldn't go out and buy some compiler and put together a quality racing sim of this caliber, the Papyrus guys have to go through some kind of development and learning in regards to creating the tools they use to build these sim racing worlds. After Jim described the track tools as 'abysmal', it said to me loud and clear the we have much further to go then we've come so far. And after pondering NASCAR 2 in it's current state, I CAN'T WAIT to see what results at the end of the line. Kyle Langston ____________________________________________ IBM #72 Ford Thunderbird - Hurricane Racing http://www.traction.git.net/hurricane/ NASS Series 1997 Winsten Cup Division

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Too bad, you're missing out on one hell of an experience. Sure NASCAR > 2 isn't perfect, but there are definitely more good points than bad. > Would you rather they remain in development until every aspect of the > game is 100% identical to real life? Papyrus would go out of business > before releasing their next title if they followed that road. This > isn't Star Trek: The Next Generation country, where you can walk into > a holodeck and get a super releastic, lifelike simulation of auto > racing. Just like I couldn't go out and buy some compiler and put > together a quality racing sim of this caliber, the Papyrus guys have > to go through some kind of development and learning in regards to > creating the tools they use to build these sim racing worlds. > After Jim described the track tools as 'abysmal', it said to me loud > and clear the we have much further to go then we've come so far. And > after pondering NASCAR 2 in it's current state, I CAN'T WAIT to see > what results at the end of the line. > Kyle Langston

It's nice to have some serious, thoughtful discussion here again. As for the current state of Nascar Racing, I would have to say that the original game was a landmark in terms of racing simulators. I remember firing up Indy 500 on my computer a few years ago. I didn't have a joystick or a sound card but I played that game til I fell over. Then Indycar and Nascar came out. I couldn't believe the graphics, the tracks and the realism. The original Nascar and Indycar releases were incredible at the time they came out. One only has to look at how many people are playing both games to see this. Nascar 2 and Indycar 2 were both a lot less revolutionary when they were released. Indycar 2 took advantage of new SVGA graphics as it's main seller. Nascar 2 has only a new interface and a spotter to add to it's game play. My main reason for being critical of Nascar 2 is just that - I don't feel that enough was added to the game to justify the next version. Some of the issues raised in the original posts are important. A straight pit road at Talledega matters to me. Also, that wall in the Inner Loop should not be there. Cheaters...who cares? Most players of Nascar and Indycar would drive that section correctly whether the wall was there or not. Personally, when I want to cheat at the Glen, I turn damage off and fly into the Loop at 170mph and attempt to pass the whole field. To me, if you are going to introduce a new version of a game with some known flaws, you had better try to reduce or eliminate those flaws or you will hear about it. The pit lane issues had been discussed here quite extensively as was the whole AI thing. I guess I would have hoped that the two of the biggest issues with regards to the original game would have been addressed. Jim replied that this was the best that could be done with current tools...I hope they work these issues out fully before they try to release a version 3 of either simulation. James.

I agree... Of course they were; we went from nothing to something that was maybe 70% realistic. In order to be more revolutionary, we'd have had to go to 141% realistic with the next version... :-) I don't think it's necessary to be revolutionary, but rather evolutionary in the pursuit of a fun, entertaining, compelling and realistic NASCAR experience. Just a historical note, N1 saw the debut of SVGA graphics in a Papyrus sim. (If you bought the floppy version, that was VGA-only, but that's another story...) ---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus

> Nascar 2 has only a new interface and a spotter to add to it's > game play. My main reason for being critical of Nascar 2 is just that - > I don't feel that enough was added to the game to justify the next > version. James, There's more under the hood of N2 than just a new interface and spotter (which by itself is a huge feature). The camber of the roadway at Sears Point and the Glen is much improved. You'll find both of these tracks much more "driveable" than they were in N1. The car physics have been tweaked, so handling feels better. It now feels like you're driving a 3,500 pound stock car at every track. Trackside objects are more dense; the tracks themselves look darn good. For instance, Dover now sports concrete, a pedestrian bridge and infield towers. Talladega has an improved tri-oval, so you can race through on any line. Campers that align the infield at each track bear different banners of favorite drivers; ambulances sit at the ready. More parts of each car are paintable, and the paint kit is accessible from directly within the game. You can preview in 3D a finished version of your artwork from within the paintshop, and there are new painting tools such as smudge and polygons. You can race "events" now, rather than tracks- so if you want to run the night race at C***te in a single event, you can do so (as opposed to having only night racing in championship season mode in N1). There is a tow truck (albiet an invisible one) and network play built in. Just thought you might find this info useful. God Bless, Steve

Thanks for your reply re walls where they shouldn,t be in Nascar 2. How about though, would it be simple to make them invisible with orange markers on them to simulate the markers they use in real life. At least then the track would be more to the real track and also it would still discourage cheaters. -- Nigel of Lakewood Motorsports Nascar Coruba & Coke Chevy Hamilton New Zealand

Ahhh... an opening :-) This brings up the next part of the subject, being "evolutionary". Keep in mind, if they keep to their established schedule, nascar 3 , if there is one, will be released some time in late 1998. Think about what the standard computer will be then. Certain things like the AI are damn good now, they can be improved a little, but not radically. It might be easier for the programming grunts to convince "management" they need to seriously improve the track tools to help justify the newest version. Seems like the most obvious improvement to realism they can take next. But, then again, i didn't see spotter audio coming. The biggest improvement games are likely to go through in the next year or so is the use of higher color depths ( 64k or even 16 million colors ). There are a few in development right now. That is at least as significant an improvement in the graphics as SVGA was. Things start to look photo-realistic and a lot less like cartoons. I tried running nascar 1 in regular old vga the other day... ugh!

The Rendition version already uses 16-bit color (as do all games using bi-linear filtering). -- The IWCCCARS Project: Q & A Representative http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars/index.html-ssi http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Thanks for your reply re walls where they shouldn,t be in > Nascar 2. > How about though, would it be simple to make them invisible > with orange markers on them to simulate the markers they use > in real life. > At least then the track would be more to the real track and > also it would still discourage cheaters.

That's an interesting suggestion. The other option would be to use traction differences to bog the car down so bably that the route through the escape road would be less than profitable for cheaters. A trip across the grass will show you that there are varying traction levels in the game already. Perhaps there are just two levels - grass and asphalt? Just another idea. James.

There's way more than that. Pretty much every surface has a slightly different grip value. (Even the painted lines differ slightly from the concrete or asphalt next to them...) This gave me no end of amu***t when I discovered this little tidbit (a few weeks after starting at Papyrus) It was then that I realized just how serious this was... :-) The only problem is that reducing the grip doesn't really fix it, as you don't need much grip at all to shoot straight through the "shortcut." ---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus

Jim, is this your job? Is this all you do during your day? Just post responses to everyone's questions? If it is my resume' is on the way:)

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >That's an interesting suggestion. The other option would be to use > >traction differences to bog the car down so bably that the route through > >the escape road would be less than profitable for cheaters. A trip > >across the grass will show you that there are varying traction levels in > >the game already. Perhaps there are just two levels - grass and > >asphalt? > There's way more than that. Pretty much every surface has a slightly > different grip value. (Even the painted lines differ slightly from the > concrete or asphalt next to them...) This gave me no end of amu***t > when I discovered this little tidbit (a few weeks after starting at > Papyrus) It was then that I realized just how serious this was... :-) > The only problem is that reducing the grip doesn't really fix it, as > you don't need much grip at all to shoot straight through the > "shortcut." > ---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus

Unless you add so much grip(friction) that it slows you.

No, I do this on my own time, from my own computer at home... I found no one would pay me for doing this anywhere near what I can make being a computer jockey... ---Jim, Papyrus

Jim, I saw a post from you concerning N2 Atlanta with respects to high vs low groove. I can't seem to get the high groove to work anywhere as well as the low groove. What do you see as good times at Atlanta for the "high groovers" at Papy. Regards, ---Wayne

On 14 Mar 1997 10:37:01 -0700, "Wayne Williams" >I saw a post from you concerning N2 Atlanta with respects to high vs low >groove. I can't >seem to get the high groove to work anywhere as well as the low groove. >What do you >see as good times at Atlanta for the "high groovers" at Papy. I don't know for N2; I can let you know after week three of our in-house series... :-) For N1, I recall qualifying speeds of greater than 186, and race speeds on fresh tires of roughly 184.5... The best I can do is run the low groove, for about a 182.9 or so. So I routinely get blown away at Atlanta and just go out there to make laps and hope for frequent cautions to stay on the lead lap... Even after being given a good high-groove setup, I just can't keep the thing under me at anywhere near the speeds my officemates turn there. (It's just a driving style thing I presume.) ---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus, one of the distressingly slow, but reasonably safe drivers in the in-house league.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Jim, is this your job? Is this all you do during your day? Just post > >responses to everyone's questions? If it is my resume' is on the way:) > No, I do this on my own time, from my own computer at home... I found > no one would pay me for doing this anywhere near what I can make being > a computer jockey... > ---Jim, Papyrus

you gonna answer his question about the pit roads or not? sheesh.

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 16:02:27 -0500, Bill Hutson

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> >Jim, is this your job? Is this all you do during your day? Just post >> >responses to everyone's questions? If it is my resume' is on the way:) >> No, I do this on my own time, from my own computer at home... I found >> no one would pay me for doing this anywhere near what I can make being >> a computer jockey... >> ---Jim, Papyrus >you gonna answer his question about the pit roads or not? sheesh.

The question was answered and discussed earlier in the thread. Kyle Langston ____________________________________________ IBM #72 Ford Thunderbird - Hurricane Racing http://www.traction.git.net/hurricane/ NASS Series 1997 Winsten Cup Division

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 16:02:27 -0500, Bill Hutson >you gonna answer his question about the pit roads or not? sheesh. I believe that I already did. Check www.dejanews.com if you missed it... Sheesh... ---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus

Quoted text (11 lines)

> There's way more than that. Pretty much every surface has a slightly > different grip value. (Even the painted lines differ slightly from the > concrete or asphalt next to them...) This gave me no end of amu***t > when I discovered this little tidbit (a few weeks after starting at > Papyrus) It was then that I realized just how serious this was... :-) > The only problem is that reducing the grip doesn't really fix it, as > you don't need much grip at all to shoot straight through the > "shortcut." > ---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus

What about removing the walls and giving a black flag anytime you re-enter the track ahead of where you left it? I would much rather get a black flag instead of a smashed up car when I overshoot the turn. Robert