Revised CART Precision Racing review at Eagle Woman Web site

I've posted an extensively revised review of CART Precision Racing on my site at: http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/sims/ This new version presents a much more balanced view of CPR, I feel. It describes many of CPR's strong points, and describes how I got around three of the four most serious problems that I had with it. I believe one of these problems may be the cause of some other r.a.s. readers' disappointing frame rate, and another may be the cause of what seems to be ineffective paint-ahead controls on some machines. Also in this review are discussions of CPR's sophisticated vehicle dynamics engine, its excellent user interface, and its superb network *** implementation, as well as notes on some of the issues addressed in the upcoming patch, some suggestions on how the TRI/Microsoft team might improve the sim further in future patches, and pointers to some excellent Web sites with setups, carsets, a setup guide, and advice. I find myself enjoying the sim quite a lot now. During a test session in which I was further refining my Long Beach setup, when I hit upon a setup that suited my driving style well and was able to really start pushing the car, I actually found my heart pounding and my palms sweating, just like in CART's adverti***ts on TV! The sensation of speed is awesome; other sims seem rather tame by comparison. I still have issues with CPR, but am feeling much more positive about it now, and hopeful that it will mature into a really excellent racing sim. TRI and Microsoft have shown themselves willing to listen to criticism, and the upcoming patch targets many of the most widespread complaints. **** I would like to apologize publicly o the people at Terminal Reality Inc and Microsoft for the incendiary tone of the initial version of my review of CPR. I'm afraid that in my frustration at trying so hard and not being able to get the game to work, I lost sight of the fact that there are a lot of very dedicated human beings who worked hard to create CART Precision Racing, who care about it very much, and are working hard to make it better. The harshness of my initial review certainly did nothing to make their job easier. I'm sorry! Thanks to the many readers in this newsgroup who responded to my review, including those who offered constructive criticism as well as those who responded with positive feedback. This is a great forum, with a lot of knowledge and expertise, and I'm really grateful for it. The comments and suggestions here - even some of the negative ones - encouraged me to keep looking for solutions to the problems I experienced, and allowed me to see more clearly the potential of CPR. Alison

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I've posted an extensively revised review of CART Precision Racing on my > site at: > http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/sims/ > This new version presents a much more balanced view of CPR, I feel. It > describes many of CPR's strong points, and describes how I got around > three of the four most serious problems that I had with it.

Alison, excellent post, too bad more people dont have the guts to admit when they are wrong :)! Trev

Good or bad, she's entitled to her opinion - there's nothing to apologize for. Cheers! Marc

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I've posted an extensively revised review of CART Precision Racing on my > site at: > http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/sims/ > This new version presents a much more balanced view of CPR, I feel. It > describes many of CPR's strong points, and describes how I got around

snip Oh, my god! Why are you apologizing?? Your review was excellent and to the point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things about a sim in a review (of course it's common to do so). If the bad things are so many, as in this case, you HAVE to say so if your review should have any purpose. So, if you said something that's not true, apologize but otherwise I can't see what made you... (well, I can think of a few ;^) l8er ronny -- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

Other than the technical difficulties you experienced I thought your original review was more accurate and more balanced. There was nothing in your second review (unless I missed it) regarding the lousy AI, which in my opinion almost ruins the game. You certainly are entitled to change your opinion though and otherwise have done a very thorough job. I'm glad Dean didn't see my review at [link lost in import] group long before he did!<bg> Ken The Game Pad [link lost in import]

Quoted text (51 lines)

> I've posted an extensively revised review of CART Precision Racing on my > site at: > http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/sims/ > This new version presents a much more balanced view of CPR, I feel. It > describes many of CPR's strong points, and describes how I got around > three of the four most serious problems that I had with it. I believe > one of these problems may be the cause of some other r.a.s. readers' > disappointing frame rate, and another may be the cause of what seems to > be ineffective paint-ahead controls on some machines. > Also in this review are discussions of CPR's sophisticated vehicle > dynamics engine, its excellent user interface, and its superb network > *** implementation, as well as notes on some of the issues addressed > in the upcoming patch, some suggestions on how the TRI/Microsoft team > might improve the sim further in future patches, and pointers to some > excellent Web sites with setups, carsets, a setup guide, and advice. > I find myself enjoying the sim quite a lot now. During a test session > in which I was further refining my Long Beach setup, when I hit upon a > setup that suited my driving style well and was able to really start > pushing the car, I actually found my heart pounding and my palms > sweating, just like in CART's adverti***ts on TV! The sensation of > speed is awesome; other sims seem rather tame by comparison. > I still have issues with CPR, but am feeling much more positive about it > now, and hopeful that it will mature into a really excellent racing sim. > TRI and Microsoft have shown themselves willing to listen to criticism, > and the upcoming patch targets many of the most widespread complaints. > **** > I would like to apologize publicly o the people at Terminal Reality Inc > and Microsoft for the incendiary tone of the initial version of my > review of CPR. I'm afraid that in my frustration at trying so hard and > not being able to get the game to work, I lost sight of the fact that > there are a lot of very dedicated human beings who worked hard to create > CART Precision Racing, who care about it very much, and are working hard > to make it better. The harshness of my initial review certainly did > nothing to make their job easier. I'm sorry! > Thanks to the many readers in this newsgroup who responded to my review, > including those who offered constructive criticism as well as those who > responded with positive feedback. This is a great forum, with a lot of > knowledge and expertise, and I'm really grateful for it. The comments > and suggestions here - even some of the negative ones - encouraged me to > keep looking for solutions to the problems I experienced, and allowed me > to see more clearly the potential of CPR. > Alison

People like you just don't get it do you. Let Alison (and her words) speak for herself.

Quoted text (33 lines)

>> I've posted an extensively revised review of CART Precision Racing on my >> site at: >> http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/sims/ >> This new version presents a much more balanced view of CPR, I feel. It >> describes many of CPR's strong points, and describes how I got around >snip >> I would like to apologize publicly o the people at Terminal Reality Inc >> and Microsoft for the incendiary tone of the initial version of my >Oh, my god! Why are you apologizing?? Your review was excellent and to >the >point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things >about >a sim in a review (of course it's common to do so). If the bad things >are >so many, as in this case, you HAVE to say so if your review should have >any >purpose. So, if you said something that's not true, apologize but >otherwise >I can't see what made you... (well, I can think of a few ;^) >l8er >ronny >-- > |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, > ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. > |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

> People like you just don't get it do you. Let Alison (and her words) speak > for herself. And people like you won't make me stop posting my opinion... ;^) Why do I get the feeling, some people would like to turn this ng into a save haven for the CART team. I never uttered nonsense like "CART sucks", but I have BIG problems with the demo. In comparison F1RS by UbiSoft (V 1.0) works perfectly. So, what's your problem? l8er ronny -- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 12:42:10 -0500, "Marc Collins" >People like you just don't get it do you. Let Alison (and her words) speak >for herself. Funny that, because a bunch of people who fawned all over CPR failed to do exactly that with the original review - no comment at that time as far as I recall. Perhaps you could post an exhaustive list of your other opinions so that we know what else is beyond question...? Cheers! John

point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things about a sim in a review (of course it's common to do so) >> What are YOU talking about?! What is a review intended to do, in your opinion? I think most people would agree that the purpose of a review is to inform readers about all that's good and bad in a sim so they can make an informed purchase. A review which only covers the gripes is not a very informative review, particularly if there are positives that aren't being mentioned. It serves no real purpose. Any game out there right now could receive a review which only harps on the negatives and avoids the positives. Even games that are really great and well-respected could be made to look like turkeys if reviewers only griped about flaws. If the reviewer is truly serving the reader, the review will try to portray the game as accurately as possible. If that means the game is more negative than positive, so be it. If it means the game is more positive than negative, so be it. The point is, the reviewer should be trying very hard to be as informative as possible, or why bother writing a review? Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

left this group long before he did!<bg>>> I think this is history revision (even with humor) Dean didn't leave because of Allison's post. He left because the "worm has turned" post was the final straw and that was not Alison's. Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

Actually I'm not doing history revision; I think it's a matter of opinion as to why he left. I felt it was because of her review( and yes, the follow-ups to said review) , which I thought was very well done except for the technical difficulties part, but I suppose only Dean really knows why he left. My point was simply that my review which had already been out for a couple weeks was also very critical (fair, but critical) and I was trying to lighten things up about at the same time. Ken the Game Pad http://gamepad.org/

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >> I'm glad Dean didn't see my review at http://gamepad.org/ or he might have > left this group long before he did!<bg>>> > I think this is history revision (even with humor) Dean didn't leave because of > Allison's post. He left because the "worm has turned" post was the final straw > and that was not Alison's. > Randy > Randy Magruder > Staff Writer > Digital Sportspage > http://www.digitalsports.com/

as to why he left. I felt it was because of her review( and yes, the follow-ups to said review) >> Two different things. He responded to her review. He left when someone posted something about "the worm has turned" and accused Microsoft of not listening or caring. Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > I've posted an extensively revised review of CART Precision Racing on my > > site at: > > http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/sims/ > > This new version presents a much more balanced view of CPR, I feel. It > > describes many of CPR's strong points, and describes how I got around > > three of the four most serious problems that I had with it. > Alison, excellent post, too bad more people dont have the guts to admit > when they are wrong :)! > Trev

More like - too bad she was bullied into changing her first and true impressions of CPR. Shame!

Ok, so perhaps the review was the coffin, and " the worm has turned" quote was the nail. It doesn't really matter. He's gone (either way) and the real reason as to why he left may be completely different than what we believe. Like I said, only Dean knows for sure. My point was that I liked the original review (overall) more than the second one because I felt the first one was more balanced, except for the system/software incompatibility issues. Some will disagree and say the second was more balanced. Just my 2 cents. Ken The Game Pad http://gamepad.org/

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >> Actually I'm not doing history revision; I think it's a matter of opinion > as to why he left. I felt it was because of her review( and yes, the follow-ups > to said review) >> > Two different things. He responded to her review. He left when someone posted > something about "the worm has turned" and accused Microsoft of not listening or > caring. > Randy > Randy Magruder > Staff Writer > Digital Sportspage > http://www.digitalsports.com/

> People like you just don't get it do you. Let Alison (and her words) speak > for herself. I get it. Now she is more to your liking in what she says. A shame. I respected her more when she posted what she truely thought - not what she has been bullied into saying. The game was a piece of shit the way it shipped. Get it?

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >> Oh, my god! Why are you apologizing?? Your review was excellent and to the > point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things about a sim > in a review (of course it's common to do so) >> > What are YOU talking about?! What is a review intended to do, in your opinion? > I think most people would agree that the purpose of a review is to inform > readers about all that's good and bad in a sim so they can make an informed > purchase. A review which only covers the gripes is not a very informative > review, particularly if there are positives that aren't being mentioned. It > serves no real purpose. Any game out there right now could receive a review > which only harps on the negatives and avoids the positives. Even games that > are really great and well-respected could be made to look like turkeys if > reviewers only griped about flaws. If the reviewer is truly serving the > reader, the review will try to portray the game as accurately as possible. If > that means the game is more negative than positive, so be it. If it means the > game is more positive than negative, so be it. The point is, the reviewer > should be trying very hard to be as informative as possible, or why bother > writing a review?

How can you cover the good? points when the bad are so bad as to not let you? Her original review was spot on as far as many are concerned. Looks like another reviewer bites the dust and joins the ranks of the "not worth taking much notice of". The only thing good to say about CPR fearless sector!

Alison can stand up for herself, but I don't think she was bullied into anything. I think she simply spent more time with the game, fixed some of the problems she had, and finally got a chance to see the potential of the title. She STILL said it was released unfinished and she STILL has the steering problems, the latter I think being one of the biggest game killers in this title. Anyway, I'll let her stand up for herself now :) Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

Who has bullied her? Your comment is insulting and demeaning to her. Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

you? That's not the case with CART. It might be the case with YOU, but its not the case with this title. Yes, it was spot on for those people for whom a simulator is either wonderful or trash, and never the two shall meet. Thankfully, there are a lot of people who also want to read a complete, balanced and fair review. Some of her comments were spot on in the first review and some of her comments are spot on in her second review. worth taking much notice of". >> More like: It looks like yet another case of "I don't respect you unless you agree with me and trash the thing like I do". fearless sector! >> Yeah right. So now being abusive and extreme is now "fearless"? The only people who deserve the "Fearless" label in THIS group are the level headed people who have pointed out both the positive and negative, and taken the heat from the extremists on both sides who don't tolerate finding out that the world isn't as black and white as their conflict-loving newsgroup attitude dictates. Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

If you're going to take the trouble to "review" a product then you have a responsibility to do it right. Many people here (myself included and probably you as well) have been slamming game review sites for glossing over the faults and reporting only the good things, and thus coming up with a glowing recommendation. I ask you, where's the difference in glossing over the good stuff and reporting only the bad? Either one is a distorted picture and, IMO, an unethical approach to reviewing a product. It's got nothing to do with your own personal opinions, or it shouldn't have. It's to do with the way the product as a whole will reach it's target market, as they are the ones you are writing for - not yourself. Cheers! John

% Alison can stand up for herself, but I don't think she was bullied into % anything. I think she simply spent more time with the game, fixed some of the % problems she had, and finally got a chance to see the potential of the title. % She STILL said it was released unfinished and she STILL has the steering % problems, the latter I think being one of the biggest game killers in this % title. Hopefully this will be fixed in the patch, but it looks like they don't seem fit to address the yellow flag issue. Aside from the FAQ, they simply ignore this issue totally. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

fit to address the yellow flag issue. Aside from the FAQ, they simply ignore this issue totally.>> There's "ignore" and then there's "defer". I would be willing to be that the coding involved in getting yellow flags implemented correctly is much bigger than getting a few more FPS or adding a null zone slider, don't you think? If people are finding the cars undrivable right now, then I agree that Patch #1 should address this and not be held up for yellow flag implementation, don't you think? Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

Magruder, the voice of reason. Regards, Tom Petersen

Quoted text (35 lines)

> >> How can you cover the good? points when the bad are so bad as to not let > you? > That's not the case with CART. It might be the case with YOU, but its not the > case with this title. > >> Her original review was spot on as far as many are concerned.>> > Yes, it was spot on for those people for whom a simulator is either wonderful > or trash, and never the two shall meet. Thankfully, there are a lot of people > who also want to read a complete, balanced and fair review. Some of her > comments were spot on in the first review and some of her comments are spot on > in her second review. > >> Looks like another reviewer bites the dust and joins the ranks of the "not > worth taking much notice of". >> > More like: It looks like yet another case of "I don't respect you unless you > agree with me and trash the thing like I do". > >> The only thing good to say about CPR > fearless sector! >> > Yeah right. So now being abusive and extreme is now "fearless"? The only > people who deserve the "Fearless" label in THIS group are the level headed > people who have pointed out both the positive and negative, and taken the heat > from the extremists on both sides who don't tolerate finding out that the world > isn't as black and white as their conflict-loving newsgroup attitude dictates. > Randy > Randy Magruder > Staff Writer > Digital Sportspage > http://www.digitalsports.com/

Randy, well said, I agree with you and also wonder why it is that if an opinion differs from someone elses, the person is either stupid, bought off or doesnt have a clue! Trev

Personally I rather think that the code for yellow flags should be in the original release, being a part of the sport that has a major influence on the outcome of the vast majority of races. Given that it's not, a step-by-step approach to patching would be best, but we need to keep in mind that a) it should have been in there from the outset, and b) there has been no commitment from MS or TRI that it will _ever_ be in there. Cheers! John

> >> How can you cover the good? points when the bad are so bad as to not let > you? > That's not the case with CART. It might be the case with YOU, but its not the > case with this title. It was the case with CART. If the TERRIBLE frame rate didn't kill it, then the WORST AI of all times did it. l8er ronny -- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Ok, so perhaps the review was the coffin, and " the worm has turned" quote was the > nail. It doesn't really matter. He's gone (either way) and the real reason as to > why he left may be completely different than what we believe. Like I said, only > Dean knows for sure. My point was that I liked the original review (overall) more > than the second one because I felt the first one was more balanced, except for the > system/software incompatibility issues. Some will disagree and say the second was > more balanced. Just my 2 cents. > Ken

Yes. The first impression is always the best one. Not the second opinion one is bullied into. Ganging up on a poor little girl like that (hehehehehe). Gee, I dunno!

% >> Hopefully this will be fixed in the patch, but it looks like they don't seem % fit to address the yellow flag issue. Aside from the FAQ, they simply ignore % this issue totally.>> % There's "ignore" and then there's "defer". I would be willing to be that the % coding involved in getting yellow flags implemented correctly is much bigger % than getting a few more FPS or adding a null zone slider, don't you think? If % people are finding the cars undrivable right now, then I agree that Patch #1 % should address this and not be held up for yellow flag implementation, don't % you think? When I say ignore, "they" haven't commented on the yellow flag issue and it was mentioned quite a number of times while Dean was busy answering questions. In fact he ignored this question at least twice when he did respond to someone asking about it. To me that is ignoring the issue. If they are deferring it, at least make comment to the fact that it is or isn't an issue which may be addressed. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Trev, given your recent exchange's about drag racing over on SPRTSIMS I find your above statement utterly astonishing. Let he who is without sin..... Cheers! John

> >> not what she has been bullied into saying. >> > Who has bullied her? Your comment is insulting and demeaning to her. Did you get some brain memory cut out Randy?

> That's not the case with CART. It might be the case with YOU, but its not the > case with this title. I have the demo. It doesn't steer properly. How can I assess the sim? "Um, the box looks really good" For many people, in case you have not noticed, if the game doesn't steer properly then what is it if not garbage? Where's the good? Her original review is a "complete, balanced and fair review" in the eyes of many. LOL. It's this attitude from the likes of you that prompted Alison to change her review. Absolute rubbish!

> Randy, well said, I agree with you and also wonder why it is that if an > opinion differs from someone elses, the person is either stupid, bought > off or doesnt have a clue! > Trev Well Trev, that's because most of the time it is true.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > How can you cover the good? points when the bad are so bad as to not > >let you? Her original review was spot on as far as many are concerned. > If you're going to take the trouble to "review" a product then you > have a responsibility to do it right. Many people here (myself > included and probably you as well) have been slamming game review > sites for glossing over the faults and reporting only the good things, > and thus coming up with a glowing recommendation. I ask you, where's > the difference in glossing over the good stuff and reporting only the > bad? > Either one is a distorted picture and, IMO, an unethical approach to > reviewing a product. It's got nothing to do with your own personal > opinions, or it shouldn't have. It's to do with the way the product as > a whole will reach it's target market, as they are the ones you are > writing for - not yourself. > Cheers! > John

All of what you say is true of course. I would go along with any review of this game that pointed out that the game is not worth buying for now and hammered MS/Tri for insulting peoples intelligence. To me all one should do to review? this game at the moment is this "CPR is a game in alpha that is showing good potential. Someone made a mistake and shipped it. This review is deliberately incomplete to reflect the incompleteness of CPR". This too me would be the perfect and fair review. Fair to everyone.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> If you're going to take the trouble to "review" a product then you > have a responsibility to do it right. Many people here (myself > included and probably you as well) have been slamming game review > sites for glossing over the faults and reporting only the good things, > and thus coming up with a glowing recommendation. I ask you, where's > the difference in glossing over the good stuff and reporting only the > bad? > Either one is a distorted picture and, IMO, an unethical approach to > reviewing a product. It's got nothing to do with your own personal > opinions, or it shouldn't have. It's to do with the way the product as > a whole will reach it's target market, as they are the ones you are > writing for - not yourself. > Cheers! > John

John, excellent post and point well made, have to agree with you on this, reviews should not be biased one direction or the other. As alison has said, her origional review was written after becoming frustrated over problems she was having and was influenced by same. The second was a much fairer review after taking time to really evaluate CART PR and her feelings toward it. Given her experience as a real life race car driver, I would put a lot more creedence in a review from her than others :). Trev

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:23:39 +0100, Ronald Stoehr >> I would like to apologize publicly o the people at Terminal Reality Inc >> and Microsoft for the incendiary tone of the initial version of my >Oh, my god! Why are you apologizing?? Your review was excellent and to >the point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things >about a sim in a review... Note that I apologized for the *tone* of my review, not the content. I stand behind the content, and it's all still there. Eagle Woman Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison

Whatever the factors influencing Alison's rewrite, Microsoft would be well advised to take a long hard look at the original, and really go to school on it. Their average customer for CPR is going to experience exactly the same frustrations as Alison, and they are unlikely to come on here and come under fire to take another look. They are far more likely to take it straight back to where they bought it and pocket a copy of F1RS. Does that mean the original review, or only her reviews that you would agree with? Personally I thought the first review better. Although harsh in tone the content seemed more accurate - given the harsh way that MS treated their customers in firing this out the door early, I see no problem in taking a harsh tone in the review. People reading the review should be in no doubt about whether you think they would enjoy the product, and the first review conveyed that very well. I'd give CPR about a 55% rating, on a scale where 50% is strictly average for the genre. As released it is little better than average, doing some areas pretty well and other areas (the important ones) poorly at best. Don't let your thinking be clouded by the patch, since the majority haven't seen that yet, and all those poor suckers who bought CPR and do not have internet access will probably never see it. Ah the harsh realities of the modern software business at Christmas time. "Do unto the consumers whatever they will let you get away with". Cheers! John

Exactly right, Randy. Plus I realized that the harsh tone of my original review was not constructive, and didn't contribute to encouraging TRI and MS to keep working to improve the sim. Nor did it acknowledge the very considerable effort that went into this sim, and it failed to offer enough information for those whose priorities are different from mine, or who might not encounter the difficulties I did. Now that I've been able to run the sim effectively, my impressions of CPR are very different, and my revised review reflects that. Actually, my entire original discussion about bugs and design issues is still in the review. I split this part out to a separate page because the byte count of the detailed analysis got so large. New navigational enhancements as of today make this section easier to find. <grin> Thanks, Randy! I do appreciate your thoughts, though! The voice of reason, as always! Eagle Woman Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Randy, well said, I agree with you and also wonder why it is that if an > >opinion differs from someone elses, the person is either stupid, bought > >off or doesnt have a clue! > Trev, given your recent exchange's about drag racing over on SPRTSIMS > I find your above statement utterly astonishing. > Let he who is without sin.....

That would make for a very quiet newsgroup. Roel Canare

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:23:39 +0100, Ronald Stoehr > >> I would like to apologize publicly o the people at Terminal Reality Inc > >> and Microsoft for the incendiary tone of the initial version of my > >Oh, my god! Why are you apologizing?? Your review was excellent and to > >the point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things > >about a sim in a review... > Note that I apologized for the *tone* of my review, not the content. I > stand behind the content, and it's all still there.

Excuse me, English is quite context sensitive. I missunderstood the reasons for your apology then, because of time pressure reading... ;^) I reread your review and it's still on the spot. l8er ronny -- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >There's "ignore" and then there's "defer". I would be willing to be that the > >coding involved in getting yellow flags implemented correctly is much bigger > >than getting a few more FPS or adding a null zone slider, don't you think? If > >people are finding the cars undrivable right now, then I agree that Patch #1 > >should address this and not be held up for yellow flag implementation, don't > >you think? > Personally I rather think that the code for yellow flags should be in > the original release, being a part of the sport that has a major > influence on the outcome of the vast majority of races. > Given that it's not, a step-by-step approach to patching would be > best, but we need to keep in mind that a) it should have been in there > from the outset, and b) there has been no commitment from MS or TRI > that it will _ever_ be in there. > Cheers! > John

Exactly!

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:23:39 +0100, Ronald Stoehr > >> I would like to apologize publicly o the people at Terminal Reality Inc > >> and Microsoft for the incendiary tone of the initial version of my > >Oh, my god! Why are you apologizing?? Your review was excellent and to > >the point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things > >about a sim in a review... > Note that I apologized for the *tone* of my review, not the content. I > stand behind the content, and it's all still there. > Eagle Woman

Well Alison, I think your original "tone" was appropriate. I personally have no interest in reviews that are toned down to be more polite? to software companies who themselves are very unpolite. Stick with your guns! The first impression, in most cases including this one, is the true indication. I heard someone mention that you should have done this and that to contact MS/Tri for support. Wrong! Why in the hell should you have to do that. Your review was of a so called finished product, not a preview of an alpha (though come to think about it, it was a preview of an alpha :) )

> Exactly right, Randy. Plus I realized that the harsh tone of my > original review was not constructive, and didn't contribute to > encouraging TRI and MS to keep working to improve the sim. Sorry, but I think this part of your post is exactly wrong. Frankly, I am glad to see all the contoversy stirred up as a result of your review. It has raised peoples awareness, both customers and developers hopefully.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >Randy, well said, I agree with you and also wonder why it is that if an > >opinion differs from someone elses, the person is either stupid, bought > >off or doesnt have a clue! > Trev, given your recent exchange's about drag racing over on SPRTSIMS > I find your above statement utterly astonishing. > Let he who is without sin..... > Cheers! > John

John, as I said SS offered no proof whatsoever other than "secret" stats, BS! Please dont take your dislike of Drag Racing out on me, OK? Trev

Oh Trevor, please save the wild accusations. First of all you're countering SS's politely stated statistics quoted from a respected source by calling it "BS", and now it's saying that my comments are made purely because I dislike drag racing - what argument would you have used if I hadn't told you that?! Here's a scoop for you - no, I don't like drag racing. Having said that I don't particularly enjoy NASCAR as a sport either, yet I can still enjoy the game and hold a reasoned discourse on it while sticking objectively to the facts at hand. I don't have a particular interest in hyping drag-racing and having no money at stake I'm also devoid of rose-tinted glasses. Compared to a drag-racing fan who is a partner in developing a drag-racing sim, I would say I'm _vastly_ more likely to be unbiased here, and yet you don't hear me accusing you of "taking out your love of drag racing on me". Before you can say something is "BS" you need to be able to prove that it is BS - even then there's about a million better ways to phrase it. You simply telling me that it's BS means absolutely nothing, especially when you are an interested party. SS was giving you stats, and you chose to simply ignore them while offering nothing in return. That's fine and of course you are at liberty to do that, but please don't assume that everyone else can be so easily convinced. Come back and talk to me when you can be either civil or have something to say which is based in fact, preferably both. Either one would be an improvement on the above - but then on your recent form I suspect this is just more "BS" in your book. John