New Papyrus CART sim in 1999?

In a recent article, GameCenter says that CART and Papyrus have a new licensing agreement and there will be a new CART racing sim by Papyrus in 1999. Anyone know if there is any truth to this? Has Sierra made a formal announcement? I couldn't find anything on their Web site, but if this is true, it is *fantastic* news! An excerpt: "Papyrus Design Group, a division of Sierra On-Line, recently extended its licensing agreement with CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams). Having secured the right to use the CART name and logos through the year 2003, Papyrus will develop a new CART sim (so far unnamed), scheduled for release in spring 1999." The full article is at: http://www.gamecenter.com/News/Item/0,3,1404,00.html Eagle Woman Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison

Yes, Sierra/Papyrus have made an official announcement. The full text is available at http://gamepad.org/

Quoted text (27 lines)

> In a recent article, GameCenter says that CART and Papyrus have a new > licensing agreement and there will be a new CART racing sim by Papyrus > in 1999. > Anyone know if there is any truth to this? Has Sierra made a formal > announcement? I couldn't find anything on their Web site, but if this > is true, it is *fantastic* news! > An excerpt: > "Papyrus Design Group, a division of Sierra On-Line, recently extended > its licensing agreement with CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams). > Having secured the right to use the CART name and logos through the year > 2003, Papyrus will develop a new CART sim (so far unnamed), scheduled > for release in spring 1999." > The full article is at: > http://www.gamecenter.com/News/Item/0,3,1404,00.html > Eagle Woman > Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. > http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison

Great, now they can rehash the Nascar 2 engine and still have no curbs on the game. You people on RAS praise Papyrus for their sims but never seem to point out their shortcomings. FIrst of all where are the functional curbs, the rain( for indycar 1 and 2), the other teams pit crews, etc... In my opinion they seem to re-do the same game over and over with different (albeit improved) graphics. It's time for an overhaul to their game engine before I get e***d over a Papyrus sim. Mike M P.S. I'm only writing this because of all the relentless crying about GP2's missing rain. Last I checked Papyrus isn't foolproAn excerpt:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> "Papyrus Design Group, a division of Sierra On-Line, recently extended > its licensing agreement with CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams). > Having secured the rof either. >> In a recent article, GameCenter says that CART and Papyrus have a new >> licensing agreement and there will be a new CART racing sim by Papyrus >> in 1999. >> Anyone know if there is any truth to this? Has Sierra made a formal >> announcement? I couldn't find anything on their Web site, but if this >> is true, it is *fantastic* news! > ight to use the CART name and logos through the year > 2003, Papyrus will develop a new CART sim (so far unnamed), scheduled > for release in spring 1999."

Each game has its pros and cons. However... on a consistent basis... I think Papyrus is the best there is. I dont recall (if im wrong someone will correct me im sure) any games by papy as bad as CPR in its initial release. IMHO... Papyrus is the leader of the pack by far. Scott

Quoted text (32 lines)

> Great, now they can rehash the Nascar 2 engine and still have no curbs on > the game. You people on RAS praise Papyrus for their sims but never seem to > point out their shortcomings. FIrst of all where are the functional curbs, > the rain( for indycar 1 and 2), the other teams pit crews, etc... In my > opinion they seem to re-do the same game over and over with different > (albeit improved) graphics. It's time for an overhaul to their game engine > before I get e***d over a Papyrus sim. > Mike M > P.S. I'm only writing this because of all the relentless crying about GP2's > missing rain. Last I checked Papyrus isn't foolproAn excerpt: > > "Papyrus Design Group, a division of Sierra On-Line, recently extended > > its licensing agreement with CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams). > > Having secured the rof either. > >> In a recent article, GameCenter says that CART and Papyrus have a new > >> licensing agreement and there will be a new CART racing sim by Papyrus > >> in 1999. > >> Anyone know if there is any truth to this? Has Sierra made a formal > >> announcement? I couldn't find anything on their Web site, but if this > >> is true, it is *fantastic* news! > > ight to use the CART name and logos through the year > > 2003, Papyrus will develop a new CART sim (so far unnamed), scheduled > > for release in spring 1999."

-- /////////////////////////////////////////// // // // Scott B. Husted // // // // [link lost in import: /~sbhusted] // // // // // // // ///////////////////////////////////////////

Quoted text (27 lines)

> Yes, Sierra/Papyrus have made an official announcement. The full text is > available at http://gamepad.org/ > > In a recent article, GameCenter says that CART and Papyrus have a new > > licensing agreement and there will be a new CART racing sim by Papyrus > > in 1999. > > Anyone know if there is any truth to this? Has Sierra made a formal > > announcement? I couldn't find anything on their Web site, but if this > > is true, it is *fantastic* news! > > An excerpt: > > "Papyrus Design Group, a division of Sierra On-Line, recently extended > > its licensing agreement with CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams). > > Having secured the right to use the CART name and logos through the year > > 2003, Papyrus will develop a new CART sim (so far unnamed), scheduled > > for release in spring 1999." > > The full article is at: > > http://www.gamecenter.com/News/Item/0,3,1404,00.html > > Eagle Woman

Bet ya right now that it will be full of bugs and will require at least a year to fully patch it. Heck, knowing Sierra, they might push Papy just to get the sim out in time for Christmas '98. <g>

> Great, now they can rehash the Nascar 2 engine and still have no curbs on > the game uh...Nascar 3 and whatever the "new" Cart Champ car sim is called, will be based on the Grand Prix Legends engine. I think you'll see curbs... new engine...Indy 500 The Sim new engine Indycar Racing modified engine Nascar Racing (not sure about N2 hehe) REALLY new engine Grand Prix Legends(N3, ICR3)[except it wont BE Indycar Racing anymore...thanks Tony George!) CCCR(Cart Championship Cars Racing?) > Mike M > P.S. I'm only writing this because of all the relentless crying about GP2's > missing rain. Last I checked Papyrus isn't foolproAn excerpt: and we've been racing in rain in the TPTCC touring car patch. Ok so there are no rain graphics, but the traction etc is definately slippery!(TPTCC is an almost TC patch of N2)dave henrie

think Papyrus is the best there is. I dont recall (if im wrong someone will correct me im sure) any games by papy as bad as CPR in its initial release.>> There aren't any games by Papy that are as ambitious as CPR is, either. But what they do, they do well. Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

Hmm, not as ambitious as CPR? Maybe they were too ambitious, I had the demo for a total of 3 days before deleting it, and seriously doubt I would by the sim. Maybe once their first 500 beta testers of the patch tell them what is still wrong, they fix it, and send it out for public testing again, and get it right, I might consider it. If ya ask me, Papyrus has been a leader in the ambition department with Hawii for N1, and now the Nros for N2 on Ten. Just mho -- Don Burnette I-65 Racing Dburn on Ten

>Hmm, not as ambitious as CPR? Maybe they were too ambitious, I had the demo >for a total of 3 days before deleting it, and seriously doubt I would by >the sim As I said...ambitious. I think Microsoft may have bitten off more than they could chew, at least for a 1.0 release...but then I guess there's not much to do is except patch away and hope that things get addressed over time as has been promised. I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that when it comes to multiplayer, Papyrus is the pioneer. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > Yes, Sierra/Papyrus have made an official announcement. The full text is > > available at http://gamepad.org/ > > > In a recent article, GameCenter says that CART and Papyrus have a new > > > licensing agreement and there will be a new CART racing sim by Papyrus > > > in 1999. > > > Anyone know if there is any truth to this? Has Sierra made a formal > > > announcement? I couldn't find anything on their Web site, but if this > > > is true, it is *fantastic* news! > > > An excerpt: > > > "Papyrus Design Group, a division of Sierra On-Line, recently extended > > > its licensing agreement with CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams). > > > Having secured the right to use the CART name and logos through the year > > > 2003, Papyrus will develop a new CART sim (so far unnamed), scheduled > > > for release in spring 1999." > > > The full article is at: > > > http://www.gamecenter.com/,3,1404,00.html > > > Eagle Woman > Bet ya right now that it will be full of bugs and will require at least > a year to fully patch it. Heck, knowing Sierra, they might push Papy > just to get the sim out in time for Christmas '98. <g>

Yes, Sierra are far from one of my favourite companies. Though I have eased up on them slightly after I learned that the reason they have failed to put out a true upgrade for the Gridiron sims is that the NFL lisencing ***ers insist they put out a new version every 12 months.

> Each game has its pros and cons. However... on a consistent basis... I > think Papyrus is the best there is. I dont recall (if im wrong someone > will correct me im sure) any games by papy as bad as CPR in its initial > release. > IMHO... Papyrus is the leader of the pack by far. Yep, they have the only sims so far (the old GP1 aside) that are infinantly usable. GP2 was way too far ahead of it's time (graphics/physics burden on cpu) and is only just becoming fully usable to the masses now. Hopefully at least F1RS may keep us occupied till the next round of "decent" sims come around. Unfortunately it seems at this point that CPR will never be properly usable :((

Hi Randy, I would have to disagree with this statement, as Papy's N1 far exceeds the ambitions of MS/TRI's CPR. In its time, N1 was perhaps the most ambitious racing "sim" project to date on the PC, having many notable "firsts", and setting many standards by which we gauge the sims today. Please don't misunderstand me, I think CPR has some fine features, but some of the more important items (for gameplay) are missing, a perfect example is the lack of yellow-flags in CPR - a serious oversight on MS/TRI's part, and one which absolutely kills it in the sim-dept IMHO. First of all, N1 was the first race-sim that supported multiplayer exceeding 2-players. On the Hawaii system, you could have as many as 30 other players on the same course, and it was not uncommon to have clean connections - where all players experienced little (if any) warping due to latency. Of course, the zone and Hawaii are 2 entirely different systems, using different protocols, but keeping in mind the available (practical) technology. The Zone has a big handicap in the multiplayer department, since 1) it only supports (in a practical sense) 4-players, and 2) the latency of one seems to have a quantum effect in quality for the other players. One bad apple spoils the bunch I'm afraid. N1 was also the first race-sim to have SVGA graphics - and 3D graphics (albeit the 3D version only came with the Blaster card), as well as a built-in paintkit - and one that "scales" the graphics, where as CPR appears to revert back to the original paint as the cars get further away. Of course, there's an item that's difficult to measure; N1 has a certain "classyness" associated with it, which may be part of the reason for its longevity. CPR lacks this important ingredient IMHO, but perhaps MS/TRI will show us in their next version...Let's hope! =) Cheers! Marc

Hmm, would that be the modern euphemism for "biting off more than you can chew"? :) Cheers! John

% >> Each game has its pros and cons. However... on a consistent basis... I % think Papyrus is the best there is. I dont recall (if im wrong someone will % correct me im sure) any games by papy as bad as CPR in its initial release.>> % There aren't any games by Papy that are as ambitious as CPR is, either. But % what they do, they do well. There is something to be said about letting ambition to get in the way of one's talents and abilities. At least Papyrus understands their limits and yet continues to push the envelope enough to exand their abilities. There are some pretty "talented" drivers in the racing world. Some of them are too ambitious and never learn to drive within their means. Then there are those that realize their limits and learn to capitalize on them. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >> Each game has its pros and cons. However... on a consistent > basis... I > think Papyrus is the best there is. I dont recall (if im wrong > someone will > correct me im sure) any games by papy as bad as CPR in its initial > release.>> > There aren't any games by Papy that are as ambitious as CPR is, > either.

are u drunk? How could you possibly say this? Thing about what was out at the time and then think about Indy 500 The Simulation. A book could be writen about what was revolutionary about that one.

> There aren't any games by Papy that are as ambitious as CPR is, either. But > what they do, they do well. I agree that CPR was ambitious. But that does not excuse the release of a shithouse product. A software house with pride would have worked on it till it was all it was meant to be. And of course I will now be flooded with all the bullshit about business practicallity - and why shouldn't I be considering MS's limited resources :) 6 months ago I never understood why so many people were anti MS. It didn't take me long to find out :(((((((

>> There aren't any games by Papy that are as ambitious as CPR is, either. But >> what they do, they do well. > I agree that CPR was ambitious. But that does not excuse the release >of a shithouse product. We might disagree to a certain extent on the latter part, but I do agree with you that ambition does not excuse failure. I think you can take the whole "MS" angle too far. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

>Hi Randy, >>There aren't any games by Papy that are as ambitious as CPR is, either. >I would have to disagree with this statement, as Papy's N1 far exceeds >the ambitions of MS/TRI's CPR. I really should have been more specific in my statement. I'm referring more to how little of a leap N2 was over N1, ICR2 over N1, etc. Even N1 borrows VERY heavily from ICR1. I think the big leaps the company made were the original Indianapolis 500, and ICR1. Since then, most of their stuff has been incremental in nature. Look at the setup options, for instance. And in all of the jumps in graphics, did Papyrus ever jump to a 3D model where the cars could actually leave the road? Or how about realistic curbs? Again, everything since ICR1 has been evolutionary, not revolutionary. I'm not dissing those products at all, so please don't misinterpret, but we really haven't seen a 'from scratch' effort with the kind of leap that was made in, say, Grand Prix 2 or CPR. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

>are u drunk? How could you possibly say this? Thing about what was out >at the time and then think about Indy 500 The Simulation. A book could >be writen about what was revolutionary about that one. I really should have been more specific in my statement. I'm referring more to how little of a leap N2 was over N1, ICR2 over N1, etc. Even N1 borrows VERY heavily from ICR1. I think the big leaps the company made were the original Indianapolis 500, and ICR1. Since then, most of their stuff has been incremental in nature. Look at the setup options, for instance. And in all of the jumps in graphics, did Papyrus ever jump to a 3D model where the cars could actually leave the road? Or how about realistic curbs? Again, everything since ICR1 has been evolutionary, not revolutionary. I'm not dissing those products at all, so please don't misinterpret, but we really haven't seen a 'from scratch' effort with the kind of leap that was made in, say, Grand Prix 2 or CPR. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

says... Well, I guess if you have a winning formula then improving it is a good idea. CPR is a first product, on a trail that has been well and truly blazed by Papyrus. Compare N2 to Indy 500 and see the progress they've made. I was happy with the improvements on each of those titles (n1 to icr2 would have been the smallest, but I prefer icr2), especially the svga graphics that work and the networking that also works. I thnk Geoff Crammond may have started the whole ball rolling with Revs, but he still hasn't got the networking at all. CPR is a modern day product, with the support of 3d cards that were unheard of two years ago when icr2 came out. -- remove 'bye' from address to reply

% <snip> I'm not dissing those % products at all, so please don't misinterpret, but we really haven't % seen a 'from scratch' effort with the kind of leap that was made in, % say, Grand Prix 2 or CPR. Neither of these products are "from scratch". GP2 borrowed heavily from World Circuit/Grand Prix and I would say that CPR borrowed quite alot from Monster Truck Madness. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Borrowed heavily?! I don't recall texture mapping, tons o' telemetry and several setup screens for tuning the car right down to fast bump dampers. Not to mention the graphics engine overhaul, completely new sounds, etc. And saying CPR borrowed from MTM is a rather gross exaggeration. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >Neither of these products are "from scratch". GP2 borrowed heavily from > >World Circuit/Grand Prix and I would say that CPR borrowed quite alot from > >Monster Truck Madness. > Borrowed heavily?! I don't recall texture mapping, tons o' telemetry > and several setup screens for tuning the car right down to fast bump > dampers. Not to mention the graphics engine overhaul, completely new > sounds, etc. And saying CPR borrowed from MTM is a rather gross > exaggeration.

I'm sure they showed you the source tree... ;^) 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!

>Borrowed heavily?! I don't recall texture mapping, tons o' telemetry >and several setup screens for tuning the car right down to fast bump >dampers. Not to mention the graphics engine overhaul, completely new >sounds, etc These are all the things that are bolted onto the game engine, not the engine itself. It's _very_ apparent that GP2 was a descendant of F1GP rather than being an entirely new product. "Borrowed heavily" is entirely appropriate. A look either at the basics such as track design or more in depth such as the modelling of progressive tyre wear relative to grip will confirm this. Not in the slightest. Same menu structures, same frame-rate and pausing issues, developed and released by the same company and for the same company, same connectivity to the Zone, same editing of tracks which themselves are stored in almost the same format - there appears to be a pattern emerging here. Put it like this - if TRI went out and re-invented the wheel for CPR having already done so with MTM then I would be extremely surprised. Even if they did not borrow heavily from MTM, they most certainly had experience with producing a racing title before starting CPR. It is therefore misguided to say that CPR is a "V1.0" when they had a chance to practice at least the simple things like frame-rate, AI, control configuration etc in MTM. The same things which were so wrong in CPR. Cheers! John

% >Neither of these products are "from scratch". GP2 borrowed heavily from % >World Circuit/Grand Prix and I would say that CPR borrowed quite alot from % >Monster Truck Madness. % % Borrowed heavily?! I don't recall texture mapping, tons o' telemetry % and several setup screens for tuning the car right down to fast bump % dampers. Not to mention the graphics engine overhaul, completely new % sounds, etc. And saying CPR borrowed from MTM is a rather gross % exaggeration. Not to argue, but saying that it is from "scratch" sounds rather exaggerating also. ;-) This would mean they had NO experience in modeling the physics of a 4-wheel vehicle in a sim. Besides, I am sure they had many resources from the flight sim side of Microsoft's products also. But, the latter is pure speculation. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

John, I think we're talking on two different wavelengths. What I'm trying to talk about is the content of the products more so than the actual source code under the physics engine. MTM and CPR are apples and oranges in very many ways, even if the graphics engine and some of the interface stuff is re-used code. The same is true for GP2 vs GP1. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

>I think we're talking on two different wavelengths. What I'm trying >to talk about is the content of the products more so than the actual >source code under the physics engine. MTM and CPR are apples and >oranges in very many ways, even if the graphics engine and some of the >interface stuff is re-used code. The same is true for GP2 vs GP1. Well, the phrase used was "borrowed heavily", so you can't blame people for picking you up on it since CPR obviously does borrow heavily from MTM. I couldn't possibly comment on what was borrowed as regards the driving physics, and nor could anyone else outside of MS or TRI I suspect. I do know that I played MTM a heck of a lot more than I have played CPR, so the balance has been lost somewhere along the road from arcade racer to "sim". Cheers! John

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >Neither of these products are "from scratch". GP2 borrowed heavily from > >World Circuit/Grand Prix and I would say that CPR borrowed quite alot from > >Monster Truck Madness. > Borrowed heavily?! I don't recall texture mapping, tons o' telemetry > and several setup screens for tuning the car right down to fast bump > dampers. Not to mention the graphics engine overhaul, completely new > sounds, etc. And saying CPR borrowed from MTM is a rather gross > exaggeration.

I must jump in here and say that you yourself exaggerated by saying that CPR was as big a leap in CART sims as GP2 was in F1 sims. Unless of course that you meant CPR was leaping backwards, hehehehehehehe. I get into ICR2 with ease but shudder at the prospect of the inadaquacies of CPR. I consider CPR to be a broken toy. The only thing that seems to save it is if you are in the U.S. and can use it on the Zone - so long as you have that IE4 piece of ***installed!

> I must jump in here and say that you yourself exaggerated by saying >that CPR was as big a leap in CART sims as GP2 was in F1 sims. I don't think so. ICR2 had NO telemetry, about half as many garage adjustments, most of which were more coarse, a two dimensional physics model, inability to properly save races, etc. GP2 really got the ball rolling on a major series sim having telemetry and mimicking almost every setup option imaginable. It also added full 3 dimensional physics where cars can go airborne, leap curbs, etc. CPR makes a similar leap over ICR2. I'm not going to defend CPR on the basis of its bugs or incomplete features. Microsoft clearly rushed this puppy out long before it was done. Funny how fed up we all got with the GP2 delays, but ultimately when it finally did ship, it was a pretty complete product that lived up to most of its expectations. CPR was just as ambitious, but rather than miss the Christmas window, it just got shipped. But we're really arguing apples and oranges. I'm talking about the feature set and physics model, you're talking about the state of completion (or rather, incompletion) of the execution of those features. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

> arguing apples and oranges. I'm talking about the feature set and > physics model, you're talking about the state of completion (or > rather, incompletion) of the execution of those features. Thanks, this saved me some typing. :) To elaborate, I am talking about the overall product. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's no good having a sim with mere potential. Come to think of it, the finished? version of CPR is like a demo that shows a very hazy peek into the future.