GP3 ideas

Hi all, hands up who would like to see NOTHING changed in from GP2 to GP3 except support for 3dFx and the new '98 season. Really, what needs changing. I say this because A) any attempt to make it more of s realistic simulation will fail because without actually feeling the inertia etc we can never have a game "realistic". In other words ANY driving game is going to be arcade like to some extent - it has to be. Look at CPR, maybe the driving model is accurate, and even the vibrations etc, but without being able to actually feel the car about to break traction I say it's TOO realistic. GP2, I think is a perfect balance. And B) any attempt to concentrate too much on the graphic and make it like Andretti Racing would suck. AR is graphicaly supurb, and fun to play so long as you accept it as being an arcade game. So to the GP3 developers, PLEASE don't change too much - just fix up the graphics and stats. Thanks

So you don't want a multiplayer setup?? Hotlaps are cool, but...getting a whole pak of dedicated human drivers dicing it out...man how can you beat that?? (of course you also run the risk of getting a bunch of Destruction Derby morons..) dave henrie

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Hi all, > hands up who would like to see NOTHING changed in from GP2 to GP3 except > support for 3dFx and the new '98 season. Really, what needs changing. I say > this because A) any attempt to make it more of s realistic simulation will > fail because without actually feeling the inertia etc we can never have a > game "realistic". In other words ANY driving game is going to be arcade like > to some extent - it has to be. Look at CPR, maybe the driving model is > accurate, and even the vibrations etc, but without being able to actually > feel the car about to break traction I say it's TOO realistic. GP2, I think > is a perfect balance. And B) any attempt to concentrate too much on the > graphic and make it like Andretti Racing would suck. AR is graphicaly > supurb, and fun to play so long as you accept it as being an arcade game. > So to the GP3 developers, PLEASE don't change too much - just fix up the > graphics and stats. > Thanks

I agree that they shouldn't change very much. Big things: 1. Most of all, _keep_ the idea of simulating "on the limit"-driving with tyre squeling. This is sadly missed in F1RS, but will probably show up in F1RS 2 :o). 2. 3Dfx support, but dont overdo it. Not to much, not to little. 3. Multiplayer of course, so we can start up those indoor sim racing places :o))). 4. Get ride of the possibility of driving in slow motion. 5. Internet support. I have an idea how over 20 human players should be able to race online over internet, without having to wait for any new version of the IP (Internet Protocol). 6. '97 season is enough for me. Fast cars, fast tyres :o))). Dont know if there will be any track records in 98? 7. Rain, would be nice, but I dont know what all the fuzz is about this. I dont think the real drivers just hoping for rain in every race. 8. A Super Ace level, where we, who are incredibly fast :o), wont outlap the field by 2 to 4 secs per lap. 9. Hotlap and game checker, to view what grip, BHP, tyre compound, car setup and such has been used. Would make it almost impossible to cheat. 10. Camber, castor, tyre temp, better setup simulation. Unfortenately we drive very fast with all dampers on zero, and ARB's very low. Little things: 10. In qualifying, driving out of the garage, just for the feeling :o). 11. Warmup lap, where you have the possibility to warm up your tyres or spin off before the race. /Christer Andersson, without any helps or aids at all in GP2 and never above 100% processor occupancy - http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/2922/

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Hi all, > hands up who would like to see NOTHING changed in from GP2 to GP3 except > support for 3dFx and the new '98 season. Really, what needs changing. I say > this because A) any attempt to make it more of s realistic simulation will > fail because without actually feeling the inertia etc we can never have a > game "realistic". In other words ANY driving game is going to be arcade like > to some extent - it has to be. Look at CPR, maybe the driving model is > accurate, and even the vibrations etc, but without being able to actually > feel the car about to break traction I say it's TOO realistic. GP2, I think > is a perfect balance. And B) any attempt to concentrate too much on the > graphic and make it like Andretti Racing would suck. AR is graphicaly > supurb, and fun to play so long as you accept it as being an arcade game. > So to the GP3 developers, PLEASE don't change too much - just fix up the > graphics and stats. > Thanks

% hands up who would like to see NOTHING changed in from GP2 to GP3 except % support for 3dFx and the new '98 season. Really, what needs changing. I say % this because A) any attempt to make it more of s realistic simulation will % fail because without actually feeling the inertia etc we can never have a % game "realistic". In other words ANY driving game is going to be arcade like % to some extent - it has to be. Look at CPR, maybe the driving model is % accurate, and even the vibrations etc, but without being able to actually % feel the car about to break traction I say it's TOO realistic. GP2, I think % is a perfect balance. And B) any attempt to concentrate too much on the % graphic and make it like Andretti Racing would suck. AR is graphicaly % supurb, and fun to play so long as you accept it as being an arcade game. My hands are down. Work on variable weather. Create realistic pit stops (i.e., don't rebuild a wrecked car in the same amount of time it takes to do a regular pit stop). Fix modem hook-up. Add multiplayer over the IPX & Internet. Work on the driving model, even with all help turned off GP2 didn't quite capture driving on the edge. Work on the AI (good, but still needs some improvement). Work on the curbs and the gravel pits. Realistic penalities for rule violations. When going up or down in elevation, give us gravity. Find someone who knows how to create a working graphical engine that doesn't violate the 4th dimension. Stop cars that sit in the pits for extended amounts of time from floating up into space (not a game killer, but certainly a bug). From your short list all you want is version 2.01, I would like to see a version 3.0. % So to the GP3 developers, PLEASE don't change too much - just fix up the % graphics and stats. % Thanks -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Vital: 3dfx support - better graphic performance better Artificial Intelligence (more than just horsepower and grip) 97 upgrade (circuits, cars, rules, no friday qual) wanted: real warming uplap with possible jump start (result: black flag) real black flag (5 sec penalty) better interface for reloading saved games (shortcuts) rain situation more sounds (other cars!)

Black flags for driving into other cars deliberately Also, if the player has damage turned off, computer cars should also be indestructable, like in F1RS

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Hi all, >hands up who would like to see NOTHING changed in from GP2 to GP3 except >support for 3dFx and the new '98 season. Really, what needs changing. I say >this because A) any attempt to make it more of s realistic simulation will >fail because without actually feeling the inertia etc we can never have a >game "realistic". In other words ANY driving game is going to be arcade

like

Quoted text (11 lines)

>to some extent - it has to be. Look at CPR, maybe the driving model is >accurate, and even the vibrations etc, but without being able to actually >feel the car about to break traction I say it's TOO realistic. GP2, I think >is a perfect balance. And B) any attempt to concentrate too much on the >graphic and make it like Andretti Racing would suck. AR is graphicaly >supurb, and fun to play so long as you accept it as being an arcade game. >So to the GP3 developers, PLEASE don't change too much - just fix up the >graphics and stats. >Thanks

I hope you've driven a real racing car to make that statement. I personally haven't driven anything faster than a normal car and an indoor kart when I started to drive GP2 without any helps or aids at all, of course. It's important to turn off opposite lock help, many forget this help on, and then make statements on the driving model. My experience from the start was that I could feel the car very well. After driving GP2 without helps and aids for about 500 hours I for the first time sat down in a Formula Ford at a track here in Sweden. I was not surprised by anything this race car did. I was prepared thanks to GP2. I missed my buttons on the wheel for gear changes, though :o). Trailbraking I had no trouble with in the Formula Ford. I could control the car with brake and throttle as I control the car in GP2. At the end of the day I was really pushing the car and was sliding the rear end in practically every corner, but it was much easier to catch than in GP2. Well, sliding the rear in every corner doesn't make any good times, so the last laps I drove with a little bit more controll and set the four fastest laps on the track that day in a five lap session :o). I was 2.4 sec faster than the second fastest. The track has many corners and is said to be technical. So, what's your experience :o)? /Christer Andersson, one of the fastest GP2 no helps and no aids driver in the world :o)? http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/2922/

Well, I certainly agree that GP2 is a fantastic effort that I enjoy thoroughly, but I would change a lot of things! However, I would happily sacrifce any graphic improvement for greater simulation reality. I would like to see more finely tuned AI: they should re-act accordingly to random situations (weather!); shaking fists and waves from the***pit; teamwork. Also, REAL black flags, and other flags.. blue etc. Overall, here are a lot of subtle things that could improve the realism Simon > Hi all, > hands up who would like to see NOTHING changed in from GP2 to GP3 except > support for 3dFx and the new '98 season. Really, what needs changing. I say > this because A) any attempt to make it more of s realistic simulation will {snip]

One more thing that no one has mentioned yet: Camber on the tracks, rather than just elevation changes. -- Ian Rae, Motorola GSM Products Division, | Tel: +44 1793 565159 16 Euro Way, Blagrove, Swindon, England, SN5 8YQ.| Fax: +44 1793 541228

good point and also the thing I love most about CPR is the bumps in the tracks and going back to GP2 it (to me anyway)seems to be the only thing drastically missing. Look at the helmet of any driver at any track and you will notice how bumpy it is.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> One more thing that no one has mentioned yet: > Camber on the tracks, rather than just elevation changes. > -- > Ian Rae, Motorola GSM Products Division, | Tel: +44 1793 565159 > 16 Euro Way, Blagrove, Swindon, England, SN5 8YQ.| Fax: +44 1793 541228

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Vital: >3dfx support - better graphic performance >better Artificial Intelligence (more than just horsepower and grip) >97 upgrade (circuits, cars, rules, no friday qual) >wanted: >real warming uplap with possible jump start (result: black flag) >real black flag (5 sec penalty) >better interface for reloading saved games (shortcuts) >rain situation >more sounds (other cars!)

Real marshals - yellow, blue, oil flags etc.. Pits to car radio Pit boards on the pitlane rather than info on the dashboard. Different***pit designs for different cars. Better frame-rate. Pit engineer to help you through set-up problems? Adjustable anti-roll bars, fuel setting and brake balance in the car Wing /tyre pressure adjustments in the pits during race. Real ten second penalties - i.e. have to visit the pits. variable weather. More realistic breakages/misfires/sandtraps - you should have at least the option not to slam into a wall at 120 mph and just drive out of the sand trap and carry on as if nothing had happened.

How about having a "CAREER" mode. Imagine getting into, and committing to, an entire career of F1 racing. Every race finish has an effect on your future with a particular team. Challange the players to set themselves up with the right equiptment and people to eventually win the championship. It would be kinda like merging GPManager (whose ideas were excellent but came out all wrong) and GP2.

Any one ever try Formula One World Championship-Beyond the Limit for the Sega CD? This has been done before. Great idea, bad execution.

That just serves to highlight the differing expectations of people. Only last night I was sitting thinking through all the things I did and didn't like about CPR overall, and that was one feature I concluded was a complete waste of time, money and programming hours! Working out and writing down exactly what the should say, paying him to say all the phrases, writing the interface, adding all the sounds into the game - would that same time and money have allowed the game to be shipped in better condition? I'd rather have cut that procedure after the first stage and just printed all the phrases in the appropriate section of the manual. Would have saved on hard disk space too. Nothing against your own opinion, and if the majority disagree with me then I must accept I'm wrong at least from a marketing standpoint, but I thought it a bit of a waste of time. The race engineer had potential though, that's something that would really help those who don't know their third spring from the third Stooge. Cheers! John

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > One of the features I would like to see in future racing sims, > >(and GP3 if all the rumours are for real) was one of the few features > >I liked in CPR. It was nice in the garage, when you clicked on the > >"speaker icon" you got a full description of what the setting was and > >effects on the car. (it is a lot easier than flipping through a > >manual, when you forget exactly what a settings change does!) > That just serves to highlight the differing expectations of people. > Only last night I was sitting thinking through all the things I did > and didn't like about CPR overall, and that was one feature I > concluded was a complete waste of time, money and programming hours!

And a lot of people prefer a real manual with a good tutorial on setting up the car (why does FS98 cross my mind right now?). So, is there a real manual in the released product? 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 (12 lines)

>That just serves to highlight the differing expectations of people. >Only last night I was sitting thinking through all the things I did >and didn't like about CPR overall, and that was one feature I >concluded was a complete waste of time, money and programming hours! >Working out and writing down exactly what the should say, paying him >to say all the phrases, writing the interface, adding all the sounds >into the game - would that same time and money have allowed the game >to be shipped in better condition? I'd rather have cut that procedure >after the first stage and just printed all the phrases in the >appropriate section of the manual. Would have saved on hard disk space >too.

Well I sort of agree with you, except that from a publisher's viewpoint it is probably a lot cheaper to include such on-line help than a printed manual. One-off costs vs a cost for every copy sold. Personally, my driving style tends to mean that my setups are somewhat different to the accepted norm, so all such features are a little wasted on me ;-)) Cheers, Richard

Hi, One of the features I would like to see in future racing sims, (and GP3 if all the rumours are for real) was one of the few features I liked in CPR. It was nice in the garage, when you clicked on the "speaker icon" you got a full description of what the setting was and effects on the car. (it is a lot easier than flipping through a manual, when you forget exactly what a settings change does!) John

Hi, Acutally this feature is useful to me because my circumstances, I'am visually impaired, so reading those "small print" manuals is a bit of a bother somethimes (it seems to take me a lot longer to read something, than someone with full sight. Reading this computer screen is somewhat easier because the text is larger, and it is on a lit background (you don't want to know how close I am to the screen right now, however!). Having the garage settings description/effects being spoken to me is a lot easier. (I also seem to be able to remember things better when I hear them). John

Here we go again ... Geoff or who ever is lurking around here for ideas: The sim(GP2) is a classic. Most people here are probably noding w/ their heads while reading this. The support from Microprose was a brutal disgrace. Please keep these two words in mind when the code is being written up for GP3. "Customer Support". Jude R. 1996 AC Cobra(540hp) 1995 SHO(225hp) 1997 Windstar(It carries the kids and the spare parts)

>That just serves to highlight the differing expectations of people. >Only last night I was sitting thinking through all the things I did >and didn't like about CPR overall, and that was one feature I >concluded was a complete waste of time, money and programming hours! Money, okay, time and programming hours? I don't think so. They are just buttons that play wave files. It probably took Nigel Bennett half a day or so to go in and describe each setting, and each wave file was hooked up to a little button in the UI. Waste? I don't think so. How many people understand what freeplay is and the 3rd spring? Do you really think that Nigel had to have all that carefully scripted for him? I'm sure he looked over the settings and thought about the best way to describe each one, but I doubt great effort was expended in this area. He *is* a race engineer and can rattle these things off at the top of his head. And as far as whether they could have used that time and money to ship the game in better condition? I doubt it. From a monetary standpoint, Microsoft has enough money to throw at anything it wants, so its not really an issue, and if money could make products great in their initial incarnation, Microsoft would never have shipped a buggy 1.0 of anything, including Windows! (Its the old adage, 9 women can't make a baby in one month!). As far as time, again, putting a little icon on the UI and attaching it to a wave file is stuff any junior Windows programmer could do in very little time. AI routines and grip physics...that's another story. There's nothing I hate more than having to constantly dig through a manual. Looking over the setup options and having Nigel Bennett refresh my memory about the function of some option is rather nice. Granted, I use the right click pop-up help now more often. John, your background is such that you can go into these screens and understand what 90+% of the settings do without ever looking at a manual. How many people in the mass market have the same background as you? Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > One of the features I would like to see in future racing sims, > >(and GP3 if all the rumours are for real) was one of the few features > >I liked in CPR. It was nice in the garage, when you clicked on the > >"speaker icon" you got a full description of what the setting was and > >effects on the car. (it is a lot easier than flipping through a > >manual, when you forget exactly what a settings change does!) > That just serves to highlight the differing expectations of people. > Only last night I was sitting thinking through all the things I did > and didn't like about CPR overall, and that was one feature I > concluded was a complete waste of time, money and programming hours! > Working out and writing down exactly what the should say, paying him > to say all the phrases, writing the interface, adding all the sounds > into the game - would that same time and money have allowed the game > to be shipped in better condition? I'd rather have cut that procedure > after the first stage and just printed all the phrases in the > appropriate section of the manual. Would have saved on hard disk space > too. > Nothing against your own opinion, and if the majority disagree with me > then I must accept I'm wrong at least from a marketing standpoint, but > I thought it a bit of a waste of time. The race engineer had potential > though, that's something that would really help those who don't know > their third spring from the third Stooge. > Cheers! > John

After reading what you have said and the replies to it I conclude that it should be not much more effort to have a popup for all the setup options in the garage. Saves printing costs and trees. Also, since GP is already a proven product I think that real voices would add to the atmoshere of the game without it being a case of waisting time in unimportant areas at the cost of playability as is the case with CPR. But I think the only real need for voices is with the radio communications whilst on the track.

> How about having a "CAREER" mode. Imagine getting into, and committing to, an > entire career of F1 racing. Every race finish has an effect on your future with > a particular team. Challange the players to set themselves up with the right > equiptment and people to eventually win the championship. It would be kinda like > merging GPManager (whose ideas were excellent but came out all wrong) and GP2. After my quest to find a good gridiron sim the best to date is FPS Football Pro by Sierra. Because of all the career stuff in that game the actual onfield sim is pitiful. Believe me, you dont want a company compromising what goes on on the track with career stuff :)

> Vital: > 3dfx support - better graphic performance > better Artificial Intelligence (more than just horsepower and grip) > 97 upgrade (circuits, cars, rules, no friday qual) Actually, I have just been thru the fps thread titled CPR Bullshit and it occured to me that there is no sim that evens out the trackside graphics with reguard to fps. In GP2, the CPU OCC would be as low as 40 at times and then get up to around 100 because of, say, trees. So what I'm saying is that rather than just turning off a particular type of graphic (eg buildings) that the overall surroundings for each track should be able to be smoothed out so that CPU OCC and fps remain consistant ie take a building out here, a cluster of trees there. This would then maximise the fps/performance of any machine.

I guess that makes it a ***y useful feature! I doubt it took too much programming time, just play a sample when the user clicks here. Is the dialogue the same as the manual? Brian -- remove 'bye' from address to reply

I sure hope they won't change one thing, and that is it being a DOS game. They should make their own _dedicated_ 3dfx support , graphics routines, IPX routines, etc. , because dedicated routines are faster than general ones. And when programmed well, they will be a lot better and more stable than that Windows crap. -- Ren van Lobberegt, The Netherlands. Personal Web Site : http://www.toptown.com/INNERCIRCLE/1846/ Webmaster of AMCA Web Site : http://home.pi.net/~amcarcnl/

Ren van Lobberegt heeft geschreven in bericht ... You're hoping for a DOS-version? What? You live on Mars? DOS=DEAD If F1RS had been a DOS program, there'd been so much trouble getting it to work. Different 3Dfx cards, different soundcards, different systems. Grow up. Win95 is a blessing for us all, DirectX is the biggest step forward in ***. Bring on Win98. Dos...jeesh. I suppose if Activision has released Win95 there wouldn't be that much hatred, totally based on nothing, against Win95. It's Microsoft, so I got to have a grudge against it. Get real.