F1RS --> track non-accuracy

Hello to all F1RS fans, i've had this sim for 2 months now. Haven't even raced on all the circuits yet, i'm concentrating more on individual tracks that i'm comfortable with and improves my setups constantly. I love racing over KALI with others, although i believe we'll need much faster modems to prevent all the bugs encountered by all. Now in regards of tracks accuracy, i've been thinking about this for awhile, let's recap what Ubisoft advertized prior to the release of F1RS, they mentioned that they've used countless hours, viewing videos from previous F1 racing broadcast. Then i thought maybe they've made some "technical" errors in the way to interpret each circuits, the layout, the bumps, the cerbstones and so on... One question i'm asking, is it possible they've used to some extent in board cameras (from F1 car) to draw some circuits ? This is a legitimate question, and i'll explain : all of you have seen F1 racing from TV broadcast and if you've seen some footage when you were seeing from inboard cameras, and specifically the one that is mount on top of the car (looks like a periscope), have you found the view was like a wide angle lens ? For example, following another car, the car in front looked very distant, actually they were much closer. Now why i ask this question? One circuit that i know pretty well is in Montreal (Circuit Gilles Villeneuve), been there 4 times. In F1RS, the hairpin (at the other end of the circuit) it's extremelly wide, you can go around this hairpin in escess of 20-25kph faster than the real thing. In reality, F1 car can go around at about 70 kph. Another example in Montreal, after negociating Senna hairpin, there's a right-left sweeper, and to me, it's way too narrow in F1RS, actually the chicane is not that tight. (Here i ask all of you, who are native or have been at these circuits, to give a list of non-accuracy of track layout, in this NG) Other circuits that i know have "bug", at Spa Francorchamps, Pouhon (it's a long and fast left hander, with a double apex, this one facing the mountains) has 2 external cerbstone, where are they in F1RS ?? At the Bus Stop chicanes, i personnaly feel the cerbstone are too high, same as the exit. (anyhow i like to clip the exit at this one). At the Nurburgring, exiting Dunlop Kurve (long hairpin), there's a fast left-right sweeper which is taken in 4th gear, from what i've seen (prevous GP), it's taken flat out (4th), and i've never saw any depression like the one in F1RS (leading to an enourmous understeer). Is this accurate ? Also Veedol Chicane, the cerbstone are way too high in F1RS. Anyone can confirm this ? At Hockenheimring, the last chicanes (Ayrton Senna Curve), is it that tight ? At Melbourne, there's a corner (no name yet?), which is a fast right hander taken in 4th (it has the reddish sand on it's left, for those who know, very easy to pick dirt there from left tyres), there's definitly a cerbstone on the left, where is it in F1RS ? This one has been mentioned in this NG, At the Hungaroring, there's a fast left corner taken in 5th and is definitly a blind corner, in F1RS it's flat. At Monza, Curva di Lesmo and the one before, is it that tight ? In F1RS you have to take it much slower than what i've seen, How about Variante Ascari ? I'm asking you, what else have you found innacurate ? I probably have other example, but they don't come to mind. Anyhow, i really enjoy this sim, have fun to all, Eric vcard.vcf < 1K Download

Agree with some points but having been to Monaco several times I must say that the F1RS version is superior to any before, especially the swimming pool-absolutely brilliant!And spot on for accuracy. Would love to know if Papyrus plan to include Monaco in GPL? I personally favour driving Monaco and Hungary for some reason-a brilliant sim!!

I agree. But just out of curiosity, what do you like about Hungary? I am sure you have seen the posts here where people are not that thrilled with the flawed rendition of the track. I like it as it is (because I am in blissful ignorance) but I was wondering... -- Header intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

(snip) ....... the flawed rendition of the track. (unsnip) Greg........it doesn't come in Rendition version. :-) -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

If they are modeling F1 then Monoco better be there.... PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...

I hate to tell you this but Monaco is totally inaccurate and i suggest you look at the video of the track and you will see that the tarmac and whole track is too narrow..........it's worse than Hungary F1RS is not in the same level as GP2.........

Monaco is deceptively wide on television-the section sweeping up past Rosies bar is frighteningly narrow-no wonder no one can overtake-tv cameras give a false impression of width. All the best

Maybe because at the end of the day Hungary is a drivers circuit ;) - also set up seems crucial to good lap times but smooth consistent driving rewards you with a finish in the points (Damon, whether you like him or not, is a very smooth driver-look at his victories there)-there seems to be no room for Alesi style power laps at the circuit. A race in the wet there is even better! Keep driving.

Wait your arguing with someone who has been there based on your viewing television....ummm. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...

. skrev i meddelandet ...

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Agree with some points but having been to Monaco several times I must say >> the F1RS version is superior to any before, especially the swimming >> pool-absolutely brilliant!And spot on for accuracy. >I hate to tell you this but Monaco is totally inaccurate and i suggest >you look at the video of the track and you will see that the tarmac and >whole track is too narrow..........it's worse than Hungary >F1RS is not in the same level as GP2.........

Nonsense! rickd2019 is saying he has been to Monaco several times. I went to the Grand Prix in 1996 and 1997, and both times I took a walk one lap around the track right after the race. I agree with him that Monaco is spot on for accuracy. Oh, but what do WE know?! YOU have watched it on TV!! ;-) In fact, when I do watch the races on video, I don't recognize the place. --- Jon Petersson

> Wait your arguing with someone who has been there based on your > viewing television....ummm. > PAPA DOC I don't see a problem with that! After all we all know that you can see a race better on TV. At the track you can only see one corner..hehedave henrie #99 TPTCC Big Sky Racing-We may be Small, but we're Slow!

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >>I hate to tell you this but Monaco is totally inaccurate and i suggest > >>you look at the video of the track and you will see that the tarmac and > >>whole track is too narrow......... > >Monaco is deceptively wide on television-the section sweeping up past Rosies > >bar is frighteningly narrow-no wonder no one can overtake-tv cameras give a > >false impression of width. > >All the best > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Infamous > Pink Flamingo Pilot...

Reminds me of a strip joint ....back in 91.....I think it was 91...umm could have been 81 ahh what the heck anyway me and the buds check this babe out on a commercial for this club....ooooh man look at them ba boom ba's...hehehhee....so we loaded up the car and drove down there promptly...and guess what. The damn things were little bitty....hehehe...damn tube...gonna be the death of us all. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I don't see a problem with that! After all we all know that you can see a race >better on TV. At the track you can only see one corner..hehedave henrie >#99 TPTCC >Big Sky Racing-We may be Small, but we're Slow! >> >>I hate to tell you this but Monaco is totally inaccurate and i suggest >> >>you look at the video of the track and you will see that the tarmac and >> >>whole track is too narrow......... >> >Monaco is deceptively wide on television-the section sweeping up past Rosies >> >bar is frighteningly narrow-no wonder no one can overtake-tv cameras give a >> >false impression of width. >> >All the best >> Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >> Infamous >> Pink Flamingo Pilot...

>If they are modeling F1 then Monoco better be there.... Unfortunately life is rarely so simple, as you know. Monaco is in all current F1 sims because it is a part of the FIA F1 season and therefore comes under the umbrella license granted by the FIA. Papyrus' GPL depicts an era before the FIA license and therefore has to negotiate with each track individually. As you can imagine, for tracks like Silverstone, Spa, Monaco and the like which are still under the FIA license as present day F1 tracks, that could be a little tricky. I sure do hope that all the tracks are in there, but if they're not I suspect it's a bit like the Daytona/Indianapolis deal - not much we or Papyrus can do about it. (This is just my speculation btw, so feel free to disagree at will!) Cheers! John

I'd be perfectly happy to accept a track that looks the same as Monaco (1967 of course) and was called "Principality" (or'Fred'.....doesn't matter what they call it). Then, once have bought the sim, with the stroke of the in-built editor that Papyrus will include just to cover this situation (vbg), Hey Presto!!!......I suddenly have 'Monaco'!!! The same applies to any other circuits where licensing, the FIA and/or Bonkers Ecclestones may be involved. -- Bruce. (At home)

eeee.......papy sure does get the short end of the stick it seems all the time in these issues. Time for new mouthpieces..... PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:35:42 +1100, Bruce Kennewell

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I'd be perfectly happy to accept a track that looks the same as Monaco >(1967 of course) and was called "Principality" (or'Fred'.....doesn't >matter what they call it). Then, once have bought the sim, with the >stroke of the in-built editor that Papyrus will include just to cover >this situation (vbg), Hey Presto!!!......I suddenly have 'Monaco'!!! >The same applies to any other circuits where licensing, the FIA and/or >Bonkers Ecclestones may be involved.

Sounds cool - can we have separate lawyers though? Your interpretation of licensing laws tends toward the "advantageous" rather than realistic :-) Cheers! John

<snip> Btw this is cut/pasted from a previous post I did. Sorry for being repetitive. I would like also to add that the Montreal track is the most fake track I ever saw in F1RS. I live 5mins of this track, and I raced many times on it. 11months a year 1/4 of the track is a road for people to get into the *** (the 180turn and the stretch before the pits chicane serves as that). Btw the *** is the big round thins you see in the middle of the track. All the rest (3/4) is also a road, without any cops (hehe) so my friend and I go often race there "for the fun of it". I went to all the F1 races since 1989 so I know how it is. Overall the Gp2 Montreal track is very much better. The front stretch is good, the little turn to the right after the grandstands turns too much (it's about 10degrees less in reality). The Senna chicane is "decent", but grandstand are not really what and where they are (Gp2 has them better). 1 major thing. Where is the elevation change after the Senna chicane !!!!!!!! This is the best part of the track, and Gp2 has it perfect !!!!!. In F1RS there is no elevation, but in reality it's about 3meters high. This is the best place in the circuit to see who is the best driver, and Schumi is the only one who takes it perfectly. After there is a right-left and it's wayyy to slow. It's full speed in reality. After there is the stretch where Panis got his crash, and it's not very good in F1RS. After it's getting better. The next chicane is good. The stretch were you pass under the bridge is very well done. The only bad thing is the bridge itself, it's REALLY not it ;-). The only thing bad is that there is too many trees, in reality you can see Montreal downtown there. Btw the downtown is so lame, it's West in F1RS, but in reality it's North ! Another well done chicane after, and a good stretch (the one before the 180turn). The 180 hairpin is not good. It's kinda a double-apex turn in F1RS but it isn't that in reality. Finally, the long straight is "decent" it still turns too much, in reality there is a little tiny turn. Gp2 had Montreal 1994 modelled perfectly, except the pits that are funny. I'm not whining, just saying that the Montreal track is F1RS is not well done. F1RS is a blast. (but nothing is better than N2 IMHO still....). Heh it's very fun to try to cut those chicane. Pretty good replay. But I like Gp2's replay of the Bus Stop. I remember some replays where my car was at most 1millimeter from the walls. Adrenaline flowing ! Variante Ascari is very good IMHO, but I think the Lesmo curves are this slow in real life. Well, let me explain. I think that UbiSoft modelled those curves uncorrectly, but this only to make the real impression of the speed with the game engine. IMHO. Yes we all do. Thanks for this thread it's better to help than to flame. Fran?ois Mnard [link lost in import] begin 666 ymenard.vcf M0D5'24XZ5D-!4D0-"DXZ3>EN87)D.T9R86[G;VES.TXN#0I&3CIY;65N87)D M3#M#14Q,.U9/24-%.DXO00T*5$5,.TA/344[1D%8.DXO00T*0412.TA/344Z M.SLQ,30V.2!/=FED92U#;&5R;6]N=#M-;VYT<F5A;"U.;W)D.U%U96)E8SM( M3E1!0DQ%.C$Q-#8Y($]V:61E+4-L97)M;VYT/3!$/3!!36]N=')E86PM3F]R M+F%W<'-S+F-O;2\-"E523#IH='1P.B\O=W=W+F%W<'-S+F-O;2\-"D5-04E, M.U!2148[24Y415).150Z>6UE;F%R9$!A=W!S<RYC;VT-"D5.1#I60T%21 T* ` end

What on earth are you on about now? If I map a circuit as it was 30 years ago, and call it by any name I like other than what it really is, there is no infringement of licensing laws. How in Christ's name do you think Microprose got around the teams and drivers situation with GP1? How do you think Ubi Soft got around the Jacques Villeneuve situation in F1RS? Wake up! -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

Quoted text (16 lines)

> What on earth are you on about now? > If I map a circuit as it was 30 years ago, and call it by any name I > like other than what it really is, there is no infringement of licensing > laws. > How in Christ's name do you think Microprose got around the teams and > drivers situation with GP1? > How do you think Ubi Soft got around the Jacques Villeneuve situation in > F1RS? > Wake up! > -- > Bruce > (at work)

Try asking Jan and Jed from "The Pits" about the Daytona project Bruce (I wouldn`t), and you "may" change your mind. They were going to distribute that under a different name while providing us with a patch to change it to Daytona, they changed their mind quikly after a call from "them". Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy

Very true....I certainly wont argue with that. However, I still stand by what I said in regard to the examples quoted: if the companies involved thought that they would be in strife for doing what they did then they never would have proceeded. You can't sue someone for creating a likeness. If I created, using an editor currently available for GP2, a track that had the same outline as Monaco, Spa...whatever....and used it or sold it with a fictitious name then I can't be sued for using a licensed name. If that were not correct then there wouldn't be too many hamburger or pizza joints around! -- Bruce. (At home)

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:53:23 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >What on earth are you on about now? Thanks for the courteous response. Easy for you to say. The Monaco track is laid out around the streets of Monaco. That means the roads do not change from season to season, and Ste' Devote, *** Square, Mirabeau etc are all identical nowadays to what they were thirty years ago. The buildings are also the same. That means that you would still be in grave danger of infringing the license for using Monaco, since you can also copyright the likeness of a circuit (look on Dejanews for the discussions about Daytona if you need to know more on this). Furthermore, even if that were not the case, while it is okay for you to thumb your nose at the F1 license and just go ahead with it anyway, Papyrus would a) risk a protracted and potentially very expensive legal case, and b) seriously damage their chances of getting an F1 license in future when/if they ever decided to do a modern day F1 sim. Cheers! John

snip > You can't sue someone for creating a likeness. If I created, using an > editor currently available for GP2, a track that had the same outline as > Monaco, Spa...whatever....and used it or sold it with a fictitious name > then I can't be sued for using a licensed name. > If that were not correct then there wouldn't be too many hamburger or > pizza joints around! Hi Bruce Don`t know about the pizzas and hamburgers, BUT, this topic was discussed in depth here a while back, and someone with the apropriate knowledge (don`t remember who) explained it to us in detail and the essence was that it`s not only the name that is protected, but the whole concept (including likeness) that is protected, as was the case with Daytona :-( Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy

Bruce you TPTCCer you.... have you noticed how difficult it was to get Daytona on N2? Do you think GPL will be any different? Companies like Papyrus respect licensing agreements and go to great lengths to honor and protect them. A Track editor??? No, I'd be suprised, but also...the private concerned citizens are getting quite good at making tracks...If GPL is a hit..you can bet SOMEBODY would include a Monaco clone.... Personally I'm hoping for a Mt. Panorama track for our Touring Cars... dave henrie #99 TPTCC Big Sky Racing Team- We're small but were slow!

Quoted text (12 lines)

> I'd be perfectly happy to accept a track that looks the same as Monaco > (1967 of course) and was called "Principality" (or'Fred'.....doesn't > matter what they call it). Then, once have bought the sim, with the > stroke of the in-built editor that Papyrus will include just to cover > this situation (vbg), Hey Presto!!!......I suddenly have 'Monaco'!!! > The same applies to any other circuits where licensing, the FIA and/or > Bonkers Ecclestones may be involved. > -- > Bruce. > (At home)

Well, Goy....we'll agree to disagree :-) -- Bruce. (At home)

> Well, Goy....we'll agree to disagree :-) > -- > Bruce. > (At home) Let`s just race at Sears Point instead Bruce, you too Dave H, but please check the license agreements with a lawyer (yieekes) before you do anything Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy #12 in TPTCC

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 23:50:30 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >However, I still stand by what I said in regard to the examples quoted: >if the companies involved thought that they would be in strife for doing >what they did then they never would have proceeded. Which companies? Yes you can. A likeness is copyrighted just as much as a logo, a name or anything else. If you make a likeness of Spa or Monaco you _can_ be sued, it's just a question of whether or not the track wants to. You can take that risk as you have relatively little to lose, a companu like Papyrus cannot. Cheers! John

call it by any name I like other than what it really is, there is no infringement of licensing laws. How ... do you think Microprose got around the teams and drivers situation with GP1? How do you think Ubi Soft got around the Jacques Villeneuve situation in F1RS? << Daytona project Bruce (I wouldnt), and you "may" change your mind. They were going to distribute that under a different name while providing us with a patch to change it to Daytona, they changed their mind quickly after a call from "them". << I understand the Daytona heavies threatened to take action against anyone producing even a look-alike track, regardless of what they called it. But I wonder if their case would have stood up if tested. Yes the logos are theirs, the name is theirs, the corporate logos and signages etc belong to their respective owners, but can they say that the general look and layout of the track is copyrightable ? I have my doubts. It brings to mind the recent case of Coke and their famous shaped bottle. Some other company apparently wanted to use the classic shaped Coke bottle. Coke went to court to get an injunction to prevent anyone else from using the design. Coke argued that the bottle shape had been long used exclusively by them, and that it was a distinctive and recognisable shape with a long established association with the Coke product, and therefore it was a copyrightable design that no one else should be able to use. Coke had their lawyers, the other side had theirs, and Coke lost the case. Now my point is that if something with as strong and distinctive design and association as the classic Coke bottle was deemed by the courts to be non-copyrightable, then I would have to expect that the shape and design of the Daytona track layout would fall into the same category. If fact Id have to say that Coke would have a much stronger case for copyright in this area than Daytona. In general, publishable material via any medium is copyrightable. Machines and functional apparatus is patentable. Designs are registrable. Copyright, patents, and registrations are not all the same thing and all have different implications. Another side of the coin is the nature of the punishment if you were guilty of copyright infringement anyway. Copyright infringement isnt a crime. Its not a criminal offence. Its purely a civil matter. Also you dont get sued for copyright infringement. You get accused of copyright infringement and you get sued for damages. Damages are not only actually outlays or loss of property but can also be the loss of earnings as it would be in this kind of case. The thing is this, if person A made a Daytona type track and gave it away to person B then the only damages that could be claimed are those associated in that single deal. You couldnt, for example, be sued for $1,000,000 because you gave away a single copy of a track. Daytona, or whoever they sold the copyright licence to, could only sue you for the loss of income on that single copy, which might be only $10. If you let it go to court youd also have to pay court costs etc if you lost but youd be dumb to let such a thing go to court for that reason. Admit fault in the first instance and send them their $10. Neither-the-less, when someone with the resources of Daytona tells you they will sue you and youre just a ordinary person whos only involved in a hobby anyway, then youd very likely be totally intimidated and acquiesce at least I would. So I dont blame The Pits in the least for backing down on this point. However I feel in light of the Coke precedence, and other things, that Daytona wouldnt have a chance. They are bluffing but who among us have the resources to call them. Certainly not I. BTW, all of this is just my thoughts and understandings of the matter and cant be taken as being correct on any point. Phillip McNelley

>snip Well I guess we`ll never know for sure and I`m getting off the bandwagon here as it was never my intention to bring up the Daytona project as such, merely to point out to Bruce that things aren`t always clear cut and may be a little different in the eyes of the law than in the eyes of the consumer. Now where is my racing gear, I have a (two) races to run in the TPTCC tonight and the clock is ticking. Bruce and Dave, have you run yours yet ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy

(snip) Which companies? (unsnip) Microprose and Ubi Soft respectively. (snip) Yes you can. A likeness is copyrighted just as much as a logo, a name or anything else. If you make a likeness of Spa or Monaco you _can_ be sued, it's just a question of whether or not the track wants to. You can take that risk as you have relatively little to lose, a companu like Papyrus cannot. (unsnip) Okay.....I *CAN* be sued. But the likelihood of the suit being successful is minimal. The likeness is NOT copyrighted....witness a case involving the Coca-Cola bottle. What *is* likely to be successful is that I would not have the finances to withstand a lawsuit from a multi-national conglomerate, and would therefore back down. This does not mean that, if the case went to court, that the FIA/FOCA/Monagesque Government would win. My point is that there is nothing LEGALLY preventing my doing what I suggested........and if there were any problem with that then Microprose would not have done it with GP1/World Circuit and Ubi Soft would not have disguised Jacques Villeneuve as 'Driver X'. -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 13:13:52 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >My point is that there is nothing LEGALLY preventing my doing what I >suggested........and if there were any problem with that then Microprose >would not have done it with GP1/World Circuit and Ubi Soft would not >have disguised Jacques Villeneuve as 'Driver X'. Frankly Bruce, I do not know - but then equally, nor do you. My opinion is that you _can_ be sued for copyright infringement for using the likeness of something, yours is that you cannot and it is just scare tactics. Only a lawyer can separate these opinions into right and wrong. The point is that if Papyrus were just going to include Monaco and to hang with the FIA license or getting Monaco's permission, regardless of whether that was legal or illegal it would not be a smart move for a company in their position to make. You as an individual can do that sort of thing and get away with it, but if you may have to deal with the FIA or Monaco in future then that is not a very good way to bring yourself to their attention, quite apart from the danger you put your company in by bringing a potentially large lawsuit to their door. Cheers! John

(snip) it would not be a smart move for a company in their position to make. (unsnip) Hey! I never advocated that they *DO* it!! I simply said that it would not be *illegal* to do it. There is a big difference between what *can* be done legally and what commonsense says *should* be done! -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

Quoted text (14 lines)

>(snip) >Yes you can. A likeness is copyrighted just as much as a logo, a name >or anything else. If you make a likeness of Spa or Monaco you _can_ be >sued, it's just a question of whether or not the track wants to. You >can take that risk as you have relatively little to lose, a companu >like Papyrus cannot. >(unsnip) >Okay.....I *CAN* be sued. But the likelihood of the suit being >successful is minimal. The likeness is NOT copyrighted....witness a >case involving the Coca-Cola bottle. >What *is* likely to be successful is that I would not have the finances >to withstand a lawsuit from a multi-national conglomerate, and would >therefore back down.

Agreed. However Papyrus does not have this problem as the parent company of Sierra has big bucks. Proof of this is whether the Driver X (Villeneuve) helmut in the game is painted like the real Villeneuve helmut. I have not checked but suspect it may be. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

> Proof of this is whether the Driver X (Villeneuve) helmut in the game > is painted like the real Villeneuve helmut. I have not checked but > suspect it may be. Greg.... It is. Not only that, but the personal information regarding "Driver X" is also related to Jacques V. -- Bruce. (At home)