GPL needs some more detail...

> Just being picky. I know GPL is not near finished yet. But I hope Papy doesn't > forget the dirt that gets kicked up when the car is bouncing and digging into > the dirt. The AVI doesn't show this. > Alex The AVI doesn't show the car shedding parts either... more than likely these effects will be in place when GPL ships. Trips

First go rent the movie Grand Prix Legends. Back in the late 60's there was not a ton of marketing as you see in today's motorsports. The cars didn't have a ton of sponsor decals and there wasn't a ton of billboards all over the place. Second this is a very early version of the game. GPL is not due for release until sometime mid year. That leaves Papyrus plenty of time to add environmental objects. Lastly if it came down to choosing between a realistic driving and crashing model or a realistic grand stand I would choose the driving and crash model first! Hopefully we will get both. Thanks John

Quoted text (20 lines)

>agreed.... next thing people will be asking for a more realistic driving >model. > > Luke > >>Oh, give it a rest!!! >>This is an AVI from an *alpha*....probably pre-alpha.....and you're >>nit-picking already!!! >> >>-- >>Bruce >>(at work) >> >>"Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get >>tired." >>(Jules Renard) >> >> > >

Oh, give it a rest!!! This is an AVI from an *alpha*....probably pre-alpha.....and you're nit-picking already!!! -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

agreed.... next thing people will be asking for a more realistic driving model. Luke

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Oh, give it a rest!!! >This is an AVI from an *alpha*....probably pre-alpha.....and you're >nit-picking already!!! >-- >Bruce >(at work) >"Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get >tired." >(Jules Renard)

Hmmmm...sounds like SODA. Jake

(snip) Second this is a very early version of the game. (unsnip) Strictly speaking, John, it's not even a *version*, but a clip from the development of the game. For anybody (such as he of the original post here) to start picking about "detail", or any other aspect of the sim, is absolutely ridiculous. It's like telling God, on the second day of Creation, "Jeez....it looks a bit plain! How about some mountains, oceans and forest, huh?"! -- Bruce. (At home)

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:27:49 흝, Bruce Kennewell >Oh, give it a rest!!! >This is an AVI from an *alpha*....probably pre-alpha.....and you're >nit-picking already!!! I know what you mean, although that is part of the reason why these things get released - to toss things at the public and see what bounces back. If you get overwhelming demand for/against something you can look into it before the product goes gold and that "feature", or the lack of it, damages sales. (For all British readers, that is "toss" with the American-English meaning. Far be it from me to accuse anyone of the true meaning) :) Cheers! John

People really don't need to worry about it. The build of the game I played had the details and trackside objects (even true 3D trees) that one would expect to be around during the timeframe of the sim. Just b/c this 9 sec. clip of the game doesn't show something doesn't mean it's not there... -- Eric T. Busch http://ebusch.akorn.net >I know what you mean, although that is part of the reason why these >things get released - to toss things at the public and see what >bounces back. If you get overwhelming demand for/against something you >can look into it before the product goes gold and that "feature", or >the lack of it, damages sales.

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:48:24 흝, Bruce Kennewell >It's like telling God, on the second day of Creation, "Jeez....it looks >a bit plain! How about some mountains, oceans and forest, huh?"! Careful, you'll be accused of "Papy worship" soon... :-) Cheers! John

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:48:24 흝, Bruce Kennewell >For anybody (such as he of the original post here) to start picking >about "detail", or any other aspect of the sim, is absolutely >ridiculous. Did you notice that the livery of the Lotus 49 in the first GPL video was only every raced at Kyalami in the first race of the '68 season? Not that I'm picking or anything.... ;-)) Cheers, Richard

>> Lastly if it came down to choosing between a >>realistic driving and crashing model or a realistic grand stand I would >>choose the driving and crash model first! Hopefully we will get both. >Hmmmm...sounds like SODA. No, GPL will support 3dfx. Joe

Using the green/yellow lotus in GPlegends would be a hughe mistake, because the year was know for the intro of the Gold Leaf Lotus. GPlegends is probably not made in England :-) Bart

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:48:24 흝, Bruce Kennewell > >For anybody (such as he of the original post here) to start picking > >about "detail", or any other aspect of the sim, is absolutely > >ridiculous. > Did you notice that the livery of the Lotus 49 in the first GPL video was > only every raced at Kyalami in the first race of the '68 season? > Not that I'm picking or anything.... ;-)) > Cheers, > Richard

So? -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

I have a few concerns about the life of this sim...if tracks are like 30 miles long, the chance to compete wheel to wheel with other cars will be decreased...I hope it will not turn out to be a NFS2 with an old F1 <BG> Dan

Depends whether they are aiming for 67 or 68. My understanding is that it is more the 'era' that they are trying to recreate than any particular season. But if it's 67 then it has to be the green/yellow Lotus, if it's 68 then it should indeed be the Gold Leaf Lotus - but Jimmy Clark never drove that car and he *has* to be in the sim :-)) If you look at the first avi, you can see that it is the basic green/yellow Lotus but with orange sponsor decals on either side of the front of the fuselage. Sponsorship wasn't allowed on the cars until after the 67 season finished and the livery exactly matches that of the picture of Clark in his last F1 race at Kyalami in 68. Since Lotus switched to the Gold Leaf colours early in 68 I *think* that the avi livery must have only ever been run at that one Kyalami race. Personally, I want to experience the 67 Lotus 49 - complete with the sudden onset of power at 6,500rpm - so I want the basic green/yellow livery, but without the sponsor decals. But there again, as long as a paint kit is included, we can have whatever we want ;-))) Cheers, Richard

Quoted text (7 lines)

>If you look at the first avi, you can see that it is the basic >green/yellow Lotus but with orange sponsor decals on either side of the >front of the fuselage. Sponsorship wasn't allowed on the cars until after >the 67 season finished and the livery exactly matches that of the picture >of Clark in his last F1 race at Kyalami in 68. Since Lotus switched to >the Gold Leaf colours early in 68 I *think* that the avi livery must have >only ever been run at that one Kyalami race.

Okay Richard, get that anorak off and back into the closet, now! :-)

The longest circuit on the 1967 calendar was the Nordschleife at Nurburgring.....about 23 km. The Spa Francorchamps road circuit was the next longest but nowhere near the length of the Nurburgring. All the other circuits are within the normal size typical of that era. If the simulation is put together properly before it is released I don't think that papyrus will have the slightest concern of the longevity of the product. Simply including the Nurburgring (which I hope they do) will ensure longevity for GP Legends. If they (Papyrus) include changeable weather then this circuit will take a long time to master! -- Bruce. (At home)

At the very outset Papyrus stated that the sim would be representative of the 1967 season. The cars depicted on the AVIs are definitely NOT from a later year. In 1968 the first of the aerodnamic aids were seen...the "ducktailed" Gold leaf Team Lotus 49. Also, in the AVI of the burning car, it depicts Denny Hulme. Although he carried the #9 at the beginning of the season (Monaco for one example) he also sported the #2. So I think you are pretty safe in the knowledge that Papyrus are, indeed, representing 1967. -- Bruce. (At home)

But it's such a nice one <g> Anyway got to go down to the station now & get some trainspotting done.... ;-)) Cheers, Richard

On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:54:02 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >At the very outset Papyrus stated that the sim would be representative >of the 1967 season. That's what I understood. Well, this is where I'm not so certain. Colin Chapman's biography implies that the Gold Leaf livery was used from the start of 68. But in Jim Clarks there is a picture attributed as being of Jimmy's last F1 race at Kyalami 68. In that picture the car has the classic green/yellow livery but with sponsor decals on the fuselage - the same ones that can be seen in the first avi. Since sponsorship was not allowed on the cars in 67 I am inclined to believe that the Gold Leaf livery wasn't used until after Kyalami. He won't win the championship driving like that ;-) The numbering creates a rather interesting problem for Papyrus. Do they try and get the numbering right or just have a single number per driver for all the races? I suspect that it's issues like this that will mean that GPL is more 'representative' of the 67 season than an attempt to strictly emulate it. None of this matters of course - commercially GPL will live or die on it's driving model & graphics. Lets face it, most of the people who are likely to buy it were probably not even alive in the era concerned! Cheers, Richard

Hi Bart, I thought that the Gold Leaf Lotus was the 1968 season (first raced at the Tasman series over winter 67/68). Of course, I might be wrong :) Alan Head =========================================== Grand Prix Legends Homepages http://www.gp-legends.com ===========================================

>I have a few concerns about the life of this sim...if tracks are like >30 miles long, the chance to compete wheel to wheel with other cars >will be decreased...I hope it will not turn out to be a NFS2 with an >old F1 <BG> Hi Dan, The longest track that might be in the game is the Nurburgring-Nordschleiffe, and not even that is 30 miles long (22ks) The longest that is in the sim is the historic Spa-Francorchamps at 14ks, and this has the advantage of being mostly flat-out, so laptimes are low for the distance. Alan Head =========================================== Grand Prix Legends Homepages http://www.gp-legends.com ===========================================

What about Clermont-Ferrand: 57 corners,incl. 3 hairpins, and only around 5 miles ! And nowadays they are comlaining about Monaco ;-) I hope they will have some "non '67"tracks like: Zelweg - This track IS a hairpin :-) !!not the old a1-ring!! Montjuich - racing on the mountain. Rouen - was french gp in '68 Pukukohe - Only 3 real corners Bart

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >I have a few concerns about the life of this sim...if tracks are like > >30 miles long, the chance to compete wheel to wheel with other cars > >will be decreased...I hope it will not turn out to be a NFS2 with an > >old F1 <BG> > Hi Dan, > The longest track that might be in the game is the > Nurburgring-Nordschleiffe, and not even that is 30 miles long (22ks) > The longest that is in the sim is the historic Spa-Francorchamps at > 14ks, and this has the advantage of being mostly flat-out, so laptimes > are low for the distance. > Alan Head > =========================================== > Grand Prix Legends Homepages > http://www.gp-legends.com > ===========================================

On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:54:02 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >At the very outset Papyrus stated that the sim would be representative >of the 1967 season. Actually Papyrus said it would be representative of that era, not specifically 1967. I think the problem is that some on the '67 tracks may prove impossible to license, some of the drivers or cars impossible to track down or some of the tracks just too boring. Better to get interesting tracks IMO. Cheers! John

Quoted text (11 lines)

>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:54:02 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >>At the very outset Papyrus stated that the sim would be representative >>of the 1967 season. >Actually Papyrus said it would be representative of that era, not >specifically 1967. I think the problem is that some on the '67 tracks >may prove impossible to license, some of the drivers or cars >impossible to track down or some of the tracks just too boring. Better >to get interesting tracks IMO.

Which is what they've done by including Rouen instead of Le Mans Bugatti for the French GP... Alan Head =========================================== Grand Prix Legends Homepages http://www.gp-legends.com ===========================================

[snip] Re: paintkit - I hope this decision isn't final, but [snip] Thorsten's info on papy sims has been accurate in the past, as far as I can tell. -- Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome. wopr"at"stud.uni-sb.de \ There is no "2" in my real e-mail address. Uni des Saarlands \ Sorry for the inconvenience. You know why.

>Which is what they've done by including Rouen instead of Le Mans >Bugatti for the French GP... Exactly, and probably for the best two. The variant of the Le Mans track used at that time wasn't the most exciting AFAI recall. I just hope Brands Hatch and the Nordschleife can make it :-) Cheers! John

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>The cars depicted on the AVIs are definitely NOT from a later year. In >>1968 the first of the aerodnamic aids were seen...the "ducktailed" Gold >>leaf Team Lotus 49. >Well, this is where I'm not so certain. Colin Chapman's biography implies >that the Gold Leaf livery was used from the start of 68. But in Jim >Clarks there is a picture attributed as being of Jimmy's last F1 race at >Kyalami 68. In that picture the car has the classic green/yellow livery >but with sponsor decals on the fuselage - the same ones that can be seen >in the first avi. Since sponsorship was not allowed on the cars in 67 I >am inclined to believe that the Gold Leaf livery wasn't used until after >Kyalami.

My limited reference material indicates that in 1968 the Players Gold leaf Team cars included the Mk 48 F2 car which Clark was killed in at Hockenheim,the 49B which was driven by Joe Siffert and Graham Hill,(Lotus won the team championship that year),and the 49T which was the Tasman version with a 2.5 liter engine. Regards, Joel Willstein

I'm delighted to see that Papyrus will NOT be providing an in-built facility to change the liveries. No doubt some "enterprising" person will come up with a way to bastardise the cars using a third-party utility. Then we'll be able to gasp in wonder at a multi-coloured Brabham BT20 plastered, no doubt, with ump*** sponsors decals. Lovely. -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

Well, in that case I would consider it to be NOT representative of the 1967 season. -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

As far as I'm concerned any inclusion of non 1966/67 tracks will demean the authenticity of the sim. -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

Have another look....if you still have a copy of the original HTML.....at what was actually stated, John. I think you'll find that 1967 was most definitely mentioned. If they were referring to it being representative of the era, then the era started in 1966 and went through to the end of the 3.0 litre period....if it's the "3 litre era" being referred to. If the "3 litre, no-wings era" then it covered 1966 and 1967....two years because in 1968 Lotus introduced the "ducktailed" Type 49. So if it's this "era" they are referring to then it narrows it right down. Which means, as far as I am concerned, 1967, particularly as the BT20 featured in the latest AVI (the accident) is Denny Hulme's #2 ...... a number he used in 1967. -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

(snip) Well, this is where I'm not so certain. (unsnip) Richard......there were no "aerodynamic"-shaped cars used in the 1967 season....believe me! There may have been small sponsor's logos on the Type 49 at the end of the 1967 season but the ducktailed Type 49.....new livery or not......did not appear until 1968. (snip) Do they try and get the numbering right or just have a single number per driver (unsnip) It's a moot point. But if I were Papyrus then I'd opt for the numbers that were most often used. Hulme started the season with one number but carried the #2 for the bulk. (snip) Lets face it, most of the people who are likely to buy it were probably not even alive in the era concerned! (unsnip) I'm glad you said "most" and not "all"!! :-) I was definitely alive...and followed the era with great interest. I think that, whilst not forming a major part of the GPL-buying public, oldies like myself will certainly snap it up. Which probably explains why I would like to see it portrayed as accurately as economics allow: driving model/physics/dynamics aside, I hope that the cars/drivers/circuits are at least done with care and honesty. The final product will, for me, become a time-capsule of an era which was so much a part of my motor-racing youth. That's something that I can relate to. -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

Wasn't it 1968 which saw advertising introduced in the shape of the new red (?) Lotus? AFAI remember the races in '67 were run in the green livery, and certainly the footage I've seen from Kyalami and Zandvoort shows the cars in the current livery. Cheers! John

The features I was talking about were the things like dirt being thrown up by the ground impacts and the relatively static nature of the driver throughout all of the chaos. Releasing a demo allows people to comment on these and Papyrus to collect comments from a far wider pool than the relatively small number of testers. Releasing a product like GPL without trees, spectators, grass, straw bales and the like would be a shock, and not something I'm worrying about :) Cheers! John

On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 13:01:31 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >Richard......there were no "aerodynamic"-shaped cars used in the 1967 >season....believe me! There may have been small sponsor's logos on the >Type 49 at the end of the 1967 season but the ducktailed Type 49.....new >livery or not......did not appear until 1968. I know that. But Lotus were using the original 49 at Kyalami in 1968 (it was run on News Year Day after all!). The actual '68' cars didn't come out until after Jimmy's death. And on-car sponsorship was banned until the 68 season. So the avi has a 67 car but done up in a one off livery from the 68 season. I was alive - but too young to follow the action ;-) Cheers, Richard

> Wasn't it 1968 which saw advertising introduced in the shape of the > new red (?) Lotus? AFAI remember the races in '67 were run in the > green livery, and certainly the footage I've seen from Kyalami and > Zandvoort shows the cars in the current livery. Your right. The Lotus introduced adverticing at the second race of the '68 season. -Thorsten Rueter

Incorrect, this AVI file is still a demo (demonstration) but most demo's we are used to are called a "playable demo" these we're less common not all that long ago, simple slide shows being a more common form of a "demo" > I wasn't aware that this small AVI was a "demo", in the normal use of > the > term. > The AVI would be classified more as a 'clip'

(snip) Releasing a demo allows people to comment on these (unsnip) I wasn't aware that this small AVI was a "demo", in the normal use of the term. The AVI would be classified more as a 'clip' from work in progress and, rather than being issued to garner feedback, is more likely to have been released in order to say "Yes....we *ARE* working on the product and this is a sample of what we are proposing". To look for faults/ommissions just by viewing this clip is being ultra-critical and totally unrealistic. -- Bruce. "I envy people who drink. At least they have something to blame everything on." (Oscar Levant)

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> Wasn't it 1968 which saw advertising introduced in the shape of the >> new red (?) Lotus? AFAI remember the races in '67 were run in the >> green livery, and certainly the footage I've seen from Kyalami and >> Zandvoort shows the cars in the current livery. >Your right. The Lotus introduced adverticing at the second race >of the '68 season. >-Thorsten Rueter

But didn't team Lotus run advertising in the 67/68 tasman series? 8) Z.

And I'm not too clear; was it released in "early '98", "first quarter '98", or "during the 20th century"? :-) Perhaps we should rename the group: rec.autos.simulators.sentence.diagramming.and.subtext.analysis ---Jim

> But didn't team Lotus run advertising in the 67/68 tasman series? 8) Yes, you're right. But I was talking about the F1 championship, not about the off-season tasman series. -Thorsten Rueter

Actually what I said was that people can look at features and provide feedback - not criticise. When you are working on anything you can make no improvements whatsoever with praise - only critical appraisal (in the true sense of the word) will help you develop a better product. If by looking at the video enough people say "the driver should move more", "the flames are behind the car", "the car doesn't go over the fence" or whatever, Papyrus can do something about it and release a better product. Cheers! John

On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 12:39:08 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >Have another look....if you still have a copy of the original >HTML.....at what was actually stated, John. >I think you'll find that 1967 was most definitely mentioned. The Sierra Interaction preview mentions the following; "GPL will launch you back to 1967, to the days just before corporate sponsorship and high-tech aerodynamics invaded Grand Prix racing. This was real racing--no chicanery, plenty of high-speed corners, and drivers who constantly risked their lives in the pursuit of victory. Including the actual teams, drivers, and cars from the 1967 season" but that was written in early '97. I reckon licensing problems may have forced them to change the track inclusion (or maybe Kaemmer just wants the best tracks in his sim). You'll notice the above doesn't actually mention any track names, and as far as I know the '67 teams, drivers, and cars will be as close to real as licensing allows Alan Head =========================================== Grand Prix Legends Homepages http://www.gp-legends.com ===========================================

Kai, The AVI is actually an "illustration", rather than a "demonstration." Cheers! Marc

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Incorrect, this AVI file is still a demo (demonstration) but most demo's > we are used to are called a "playable demo" these we're less common not > all that long ago, simple slide shows being a more common form of a > "demo" > > I wasn't aware that this small AVI was a "demo", in the normal use of > > the > > term. > > The AVI would be classified more as a 'clip'

-- (please remove '*' when replying) Sim Racing News - http://www.simnews.com The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com * No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *

Thank you for confirming that, Alan. I didn't think that I was suffering from Alzheimer's just yet! :-) -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

(snip) "the driver should move more", "the flames are behind the car", "the car doesn't go over the fence" or whatever, Papyrus can do something about it and release a better product. (unsnip) I would assume that Papyrus *are* actually employing people who can see and who have IQs above that of a carrot, John! It wouldn't take an Einstein to pick those points up, now would it? You are trying to read more into the release of this clip than what exists. It's nothing more than, as I mentioned, a way of Papyrus saying "Get a load of what *WE* are working on!!" -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 12:43:05 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >As far as I'm concerned any inclusion of non 1966/67 tracks will demean >the authenticity of the sim. Sorry to hear it, but it won't make a difference to me. I'd rather see 100% of the tracks being accurate, licensed and fun to drive than have a couple of turkeys in there just because they were used in '67. Cheers! John

On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 12:39:08 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >Have another look....if you still have a copy of the original >HTML.....at what was actually stated, John. >I think you'll find that 1967 was most definitely mentioned. Okay, if it pleases you.... Dave Kaemmer stated "The idea was to pick the late '60s and we are not so much trying to create an exact year with all the exact tracks and everything being just the way it was because Grand Prix racing is always in such flux...." etc. Convinced, or is the opinion of the game's designer still not enough? :) Cheers! John

No...not convinced, as per this extract....kindly provided by Mr. Head from the original Papyrus notice:- The Sierra Interaction preview mentions the following; "GPL will launch you back to 1967, to the days just before corporate sponsorship and high-tech aerodynamics invaded Grand Prix racing. This was real racing--no chicanery, plenty of high-speed corners, and drivers who constantly risked their lives in the pursuit of victory. Including the actual teams, drivers, and cars from the 1967 season" I see two references to 1967 in that quote. ---- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

(snip) but it won't make a difference to me. (unsnip) Heavens! And you....such a stickler for accuracy!! Obviously that demand of yours doesn't apply to *everything* in a simulation. Tsk, tsk! -- Bruce (at work) "Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get tired." (Jules Renard)

Depends on the dimension you're referring to. ;)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > The AVI is actually an "illustration", rather than a "demonstration." > And I'm not too clear; was it released in "early '98", "first quarter > '98", or "during the 20th century"? :-) > Perhaps we should rename the group: > rec.autos.simulators.sentence.diagramming.and.subtext.analysis > ---Jim

-- (please remove '*' when replying) Sim Racing News - http://www.simnews.com The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com * No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *

On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:48:48 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >No...not convinced, as per this extract....kindly provided by Mr. Head >from the original Papyrus notice:- >I see two references to 1967 in that quote. Yoiks, stubborn :-) Well, you now have all information and can choose to believe who you want - marketing or the game's creator - it's not called "Dave Kaemmer's Grand Prix Legends" for nothing you know! Hope you're not too disappointed when the game is released as described above and as originally stated. Cheers! John

On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:57:12 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >Heavens! >And you....such a stickler for accuracy!! >Obviously that demand of yours doesn't apply to *everything* in a >simulation. Accuracy in driving, but if someone wanted to take the Hungaroring and Buenos Aires out of F1RS and give me the old Osterreichring and Brands Hatch instead I'd be more than happy. I can't remember the last time I ran a full simulated season in a sim, and single races are more fun with good tracks. I know that isn't an opinion that will be shared by everyone, but it's my own feeling. Cheers! John

On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:20:07 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >I would assume that Papyrus *are* actually employing people who can see >and who have IQs above that of a carrot, John! >It wouldn't take an Einstein to pick those points up, now would it? Not once they're pointed out, no. You'd be surprised how opinions can differ between the development group and the market, and any chance of feedback or information is eagerly accepted. The points I mentioned are examples, and I'm sure to one such as yourself they are all too obvious. Nevertheless, among all the chaff there is wheat, and if a couple of good points come back to them it is good. It is what you mention, but also more besides. Frankly however it's a bit tiresome (not to mention ridiculous) arguing semantics over what a third party may party may or may not be doing! I doubt that Papyrus would have taken no notice if they had released the AVI and we all cried "THIS SUCKS!" - IMO they will be listening to the comments on the group carefully and acting on anything that is appropriate. I'm not going to try and persuade you of that though, which should save us both a lot of time! :) Cheers! John

On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:48:48 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >No...not convinced, as per this extract....kindly provided by Mr. Head >from the original Papyrus notice:- Er, no, that was from Sierra, not Papy. Dave Kaemmer is just a little closer to the horse's mouth ;-) Cheers, Richard

>Incidentally, I noticed that there will *NOT* be changeable weather >included in this sim. That's a pity, in my view. Are you joking? I was not really going to get e***d about GPL because I do prefer the more modern cars. But after the changing weather of F1RS and the multitude of graphical goodies, I would pass on anything that does not give at least as much as F1RS. And I would not care one single bit if they got the tracks right but missed on the changing weather and graphical goodies (from Alisons review of the beta or alpha or whatever it was). I would be willing to bet that John would be OK with this though :-) Oh well... -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

(snip) I know that isn't an opinion that will be shared by everyone, but it's my own feeling. (unsnip) ............which is exactly the reason why 99% of all posts here are subjective; we all have our own likes and dislikes and we all swear that *our* preferences are the best! :-) -- Bruce (at work) "How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?" (Woody Allen)

(snip) Yoiks, stubborn :-) Well, you now have all information and can choose to believe who you want....... (unsnip) John...it wasn't a matter of who or what I chose to believe but a matter of what Papyrus actually stated in their original announcement. As now shown, they *DID* say '1967'; the fact that this has changed since their blurb was issued is neither here nor there.......we all know that a lot of things change between initial fanfare and final product! Perhaps their inability to get permission to use particular circuits/drivers had something to do with this. Incidentally, I noticed that there will *NOT* be changeable weather included in this sim. That's a pity, in my view. ----- Bruce

Oh...of course! My mistake for thinking that there was any connection between the two. -- Bruce (at work) "How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?" (Woody Allen)

To be honest I'm not sure what useful feedback can come from a short clip of avi. All I can deduce is... (1) the fences are very strong ;-) (2) the suspension moves, apparently quite realistically (3) the little bloke has a very strong neck. (4) the flight dynamics of those 60's F1 cars is very realistic (better than Falcon 4's anyway). If Papyrus want real feedback then they need to be throwing a demo at us. Just a flat bit of car park will do... I just want to get my hands on that driving model! :-) Andrew... with his tongue in his cheek in a serious sort of way

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:19:09 -0600, "Greg Cisko"

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Are you joking? I was not really going to get e***d about GPL because >I do prefer the more modern cars. But after the changing weather of F1RS >and the multitude of graphical goodies, I would pass on anything that does >not give at least as much as F1RS. And I would not care one single bit >if they got the tracks right but missed on the changing weather and >graphical >goodies (from Alisons review of the beta or alpha or whatever it was). >I would be willing to bet that John would be OK with this though :-)

Of course I am :-) I'd rather see weather of course, but I guess it comes down to what is important to each potential customer. Given the choice of having either weather with F1RS driving model, or no weather with GPL's driving model, then I myself would go with GPL every time. Gaining weather in no way offsets for me the fact that the cars in GPL are so much more challenging, involving and fun to drive than F1RS (note: for ME). As I said though, weather is nice to have, so if enough people shout for the inclusion of weather in the new CART sim perhaps we'll get it. Cheers! John

>To be honest I'm not sure what useful feedback can come from a short clip >of avi. All I can deduce is... Remember when Mike released the first demo and asked for feedback? It achieves a dual purpose, although my first comment to him at the time was that it's difficult to deduce anything meaningful (in a driving sense) from an AVI clip. Despite that there were a lot of comments on car livery, relative degree of slide, moving hands, ride height, squat and dive, car models, etc etc. Cheers! John

You can add me to the "what's the big deal about weather?" list. For me, immersion in a driving sim has little to do with wiping rain off your visor :-) Seriously, I have little enough time to spend learning tracks in the dry, let alone the wet or any combination of the two. Maybe if GPL (or whatever) came with just a couple of tracks it'd be a different matter. Of course, I'm not saying weather isn't a nice idea... I enjoyed the fx and slippery driving conditions in the few days I had both TOCA Touring Cars and F1rs on my HD. But they didn't make any difference to my interest in the overall product. As ever, the three most important factors in any driving sim are... (1) driving model (2) see (1) (3) etc Surprised Papa D's not with me on this one. Sure we've had this discussion before, only substituting the word "flight" for "driving" ;-) Andrew/Ic

On Thu, 05 Feb 1998 09:31:21 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >John...it wasn't a matter of who or what I chose to believe but a matter >of what Papyrus actually stated in their original announcement. >As now shown, they *DID* say '1967'; the fact that this has changed >since their blurb was issued is neither here nor there.......we all know >that a lot of things change between initial fanfare and final product! Either that or the blurb was wrong - it was after all Sierra's press release, not Papyrus', and given conflicting information I would follow what Dave Kaemmer said rather than Sierra. He did develop the game and the engine after all, and is a bit closer to the sharp end than whoever wrote the release. It could be, or it could be that the statement was wrong, that they just disliked some of the '67 circuits or that they didn't think it was as big a deal as we do. It's for sure not worth arguing over - the tracks are in, they're good, and it will bother some and not others. It is, I'd have liked to see it included. Cheers! John

> I would forego moving suspensions and flaming wrecks to have at a situation > where the weather was modelled to some extent. If it were modelled to the > degree of that done in F1RS would be even better. Not that rain wouldn't be nice, but I think it's a bit less important than accurately modelled suspensions. (Recall that suspensions were very soft in those days, not much like modern racers with aerodynamic downforce bearing on the body.) My prediction: When you get the game you will already have sensory overload doing the above in the dry... :-) ---Jim

> >Incidentally, I noticed that there will *NOT* be changeable weather > >included in this sim. That's a pity, in my view. Are you joking? No, Greg. From what I understand that will be the case. The reason that I think it's a pity is very simple:- To model a circuit such as the 14Km Spa track, (and, hopefully, the Nurburgring) where the changeable weather has played a big part in the outcome of races over many, many years, and to NOT include weather effects is, to *me*, an omission of one of the core parts of this historical representation. I would forego moving suspensions and flaming wrecks to have at a situation where the weather was modelled to some extent. If it were modelled to the degree of that done in F1RS would be even better. Can you imagine what it would be like to be driving aat high speed along those skinny, crowned roads at Spa in streaming rain, with fences, stone walls, trees, bushes, cottages etc. just metres away from the edge of the track?!! No safe run-off areas, no barriers.....just death or injury awaiting your mistake!! But that is just MY desire.......it's purely a personal "want" and, naturally, may not be important to anyone else. -- Bruce (at work) "How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?" (Woody Allen)

On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:59:58 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >The reason that I think it's a pity is very simple:- >To model a circuit such as the 14Km Spa track, (and, hopefully, the >Nurburgring) where the changeable weather has played a big part in the outcome >of races over many, many years, and to NOT include weather effects is, to >*me*, an omission of one of the core parts of this historical representation. As ever this will impact different people to different extents, and I think it would come down to a choice between having GPL in summer without weather, or by Christmas or beyond with weather. I'd guess it wouldn't be too hard to cobble together some weather "effects" such as CPR or TOCA have, rain streaming down, an overcast texture to the sky, some spray and lower the overall grip - that's only part of the story though. To model "real" weather, with changing grip, modelling of flowing or standing water, spray, changing weather, aquaplaning, emergence of dry line, circuit partly wet and partly dry etc etc. is much more complex, and that's really what I'd like to see, especially at a track like Spa which can be wet in one part and bone dry in the other. If you could model this and also have the weather changing dynamically, can you imagine a wet/dry race at the Nurburgring?! How much the conditions would change from one lap to the next over the course of 8 minutes and that sort of land area, heck if you could even remember what the conditions were at that section on the previous lap. Would be incredible if done right. NASCARs don't run in the rain AFAIK, so perhaps if demand is strong enough Papy can be persuaded to include dynamic and realistic weather in the new CART sim. Look how much rain affected last season's championship, with some amazing racing at Portland and Road America. Even F1RS can be improved upon IMO, although it's the best yet by a mile. Still no drying line though, the track is either wet or dry across the full width, no modelling of increased grip off the standard line where no *** has been laid down, no aquaplaning, running water or pools, that sort of thing. (Hope no-one takes this as slagging F1RS, I think the weather is really great. It's just that everything can be improved upon!). My guess would be that you'll get exactly the same feeling driving GPL in the dry! :-) It's already exhilerating enough without rain (not to say it wouldn't be good to have, I'd love to be drifting round Eau Rouge looking with concern up the hill at the clouds forming over the far side of the circuit). Cheers! John

Grand Prix Legends is NOT going to have weather...ummm....seems like a pretty big omission. Im sure we will hear the same reasons that were given for Grand Prix2 not having weather...and they will be bad reasons for the same reason that those excuses were wrong for GP2. F1 is about racing in the rain....no rain and its not a simulation of F1....may be a nice simulation of some of the cars of the F1 but its not a simulation of F1....also not having rain at SPA is well.....a joke....especially with the old track that was so big it probably went across a couple of time zones...<VBG>. Damn I really had hoped that GPL would do it right. Doing it right means including important items like rain. Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...

>Would be incredible if done right. NASCARs don't run in the rain >AFAIK, so perhaps if demand is strong enough Papy can be persuaded to >include dynamic and realistic weather in the new CART sim. Look how >much rain affected last season's championship, with some amazing >racing at Portland and Road America. I missed Road America, but yeah, Portland was incredible. BTW, NASCAR is experimenting with racing in the rain on the road courses, has been for several years. A couple of years back, Mark Martin and Dale Earnhardt tested rain tires at an artificially-drenched Watkins Glen, both for Goodyear to experiment and NASCAR to investigate the possibility. And this past November, NASCAR ran official competition in the rain at Suzuka, because of the tight schedule and lack of a raindate. Qualifying was done with three- or four-lap (can't remember which), European-style time trials with about five cars on the track at a time; the cars had a windshield wiper, rain tires, and a red rear beacon light added (the light being to make it easier to see the car through spray going into the corners). Several of the drivers have said they thought it was a great idea (even if they found the track to be "slicker than snot"); rumor is that NASCAR is now considering maybe racing in the rain at Watkins Glen and Sears Point in the near future. In time for NASCAR 3? Probably not. But maybe in time for N4... ;-) RM, who didn't mean to go on quite so much of a tangent.

>F1 is about racing in the rain. Er, I think they race when it isn't raining as well, in fact most of the time. F1GP had rain, and I'd bet that virtually no-one used it as the car was undrivable, probably realistically so. I'd like to see rain done _really_ well, but if it's something like TOCA or CPR it would be as well not to bother and spend the time on something useful. Cheers! John

>>F1 is about racing in the rain. >Er, I think they race when it isn't raining as well, in fact most of >the time. Agreed. But it is the random weather which is the key IMHO. I sure used it, and was quite surprised at the omission of rain in GP2. I am sure that rain would have made the processor occupancy even worse that it already was. One thing about F1GP was the rain was the same intensity for the whole race. In real F1 there is strategy as to when to go with the slicks ect. F1RS sure as heck comes much closer than anything else in this regard. Well rain is done really well in F1RS. Strange that you somehow did not mention it. It can rain hard or soft, and even clear up, all with a great framerate. Can't ask for more than that.

> F1 is about racing in the rain....no rain and its not a simulation of > F1....may be a nice simulation of some of the cars of the F1 but its > not a simulation of F1....also not having rain at SPA is well.....a > joke.... So, than skip Spa if you don't like it. I prefer to have GPL in july '98without rain rather than with rain in januari '99. And there have also been dry races at Spa......... I probably can come up with a lot of important items that I'm surethat will not be in the game. But if you hear all the exciting features that will be in the game, than this sim is a major step forward. Doing rain RIGHT seems to me like a mission impossible. There are so many variables to it that it would have caused a serious slowdown of game-play. The longer I think about it , the more it looks impossible to me. How would you implement a drying track for instance? If there are 2 cars in front of you than your traction is already different than the cars in front of you....... Hey, we're talking about doing it right ;-) Just wait for GPL2............<g> Harald

Yes they race in the dry as well....but tell the truth how many times will you race at SPA when GPL comes out...?? More than once...ok. Well from just my memory it rains at SPA at least every other race....at least a little bit. So I guess if we are all just gonna race ONCE at SPA with GPL then not having rain is ok. Actually there have been seasons that almost 25% if not more of the races were run in the rain. Rain is intergral to F1...I really dont see how you can say otherwise. The strategy and art of racing in the rain is part and parcel of the F1 experience. Other sims are NOT relevent...unless we are all interested in repeating their mistakes. Take their strengths and build a better Racing Sim. GP2 was something of a joke to me as a simulation because it didnt have rain....why..?? Because for me...a rabid F1 fan and huge fan of drivers who excel in the rain...(Senna, Alesi, Shuey and Patrese come to mind) it was NOT simulating the most exciting thing about F1.... Dont get me wrong...I loved GP2 as a game...but as a simulation it didnt cut the mustard....for me. (Im the type who thinks that NOT having wind in a flight sim is beyond stupid...) The bottom line is there is NO excuse for NOT having rain...none. This is akin to the lameness of Red Baron not having 3d Card support....What is Sierra thinking....??? Yea yea I know its PAPY...but this decsion feels like a typical Sierra cheapo rush the product decsion. The technology is here...(F1 Racing sim proves that) the desire of the public is here....(the raving about F1 RS simulation proves that) now PAPY/Sierra have to get off their duff's and deliver. Not only should they implement it at least as well as F1 Racing sim...they should exceed F1RS since they are releasing their product later on in the hardware developement cycle. Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...<G>

On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:04:53 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >Well rain is done really well in F1RS. Strange that you somehow >did not mention it. It can rain hard or soft, and even clear up, all >with a great framerate. Can't ask for more than that. I didn't mention because it isn't done "really well" IMO. It's by far the best we've seen so far, but there's still no dry line, no differing grip on and off line, no aquaplaning, no running water or puddles etc etc. There's a lot of room yet for someone to do it _really_ well. Cheers! John

>>Er, I think they race when it isn't raining as well, in fact most of >>the time. >Actually there have been seasons that almost 25% if not more of the >races were run in the rain. Rain is intergral to F1...I really dont see >how you can say otherwise. I said they race in the dry most of the time. You said, sometimes it rains almost 25% of the time. Since when did 75% stop constituting "most of the time"? ;-) Rain is _far_ from the most exciting thing in F1. It makes a race more exciting, but that's primarily due to the lack of passing in F1 these days. Rain makes it easier and breaks up the normal order. Of course there is, the above is waaaaay overstating the importance of it IMO. I suppose you didn't play CPR, TOCA, ICR2, N2, N1, GP2 etc etc because they didn't have rain? Or do you think that putting some streaking lines and a dark sky constitutes rain? It's a bit of a shame but it's far from the tragedy you describe. It depends when you started the project and how long your development cycle is. GPL is new from the ground up, F1RS was based upon POD. Cheers! John

>I didn't mention because it isn't done "really well" IMO. It's by far >the best we've seen so far, but there's still no dry line, no OK. But it is progress, in a big way. Or do you somehow not see that? I have no problem with these points. In fact I should think that GPL would have included them. Especially since the game should be bumping the bar up another notch. From what Alison said, the graphics in F1RS is better. Weather will apparently be modeled better in F1RS. What does GPL have? It is a Papy game with moving suspension parts and lower grip. I can understand how you will defend this since I believe you are a papy beta tester. But really... -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

>I said they race in the dry most of the time. You said, sometimes it >rains almost 25% of the time. Since when did 75% stop constituting >"most of the time"? ;-) You sir would make an excellant politician :-) No fooling. You know? You make it sound like law or something. Obviously *FOR YOU* "rain is _far_ from the most exciting thing in F1" I suppose. Hows about letting the rest of us have our own opinion? How in the world do you think rain makes it easier? Ya it was *SO* easy that I remember Prost cracking up on the front straight in the rain at Interlagos (while he was leading in a Williams I think). You saying you are better than him? Come on now really... You have any F1RS rain times or 25% rain race times to share with us proving how easy it is. I simply don't believe it. I suppose you would have to model reduced traction like F1RS does in addition to the streaking lines. The rain in F1RS is nothing like the dry. Even racing against the AMTR level you will likely have a rough time in the rain. I've tried. I can out pace them by 5-6 seconds per lap during a race, but completely get creamed in the rain. I don't see how this feature could have been left you by anyone designing a F1 simulator. Are you saying that they didn't have rain in the 1960's? This is almost as much a joke as N2 not having SAVE Games (Uh we didn't have time to design that into the game and it would take too much effort to add.) What a joke. IMHO SAVE Games should be the #1 thing on the list of features. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

So to sum it up GP2 didnt have rain....ICR 1 &2 didnt have rain, SODA doesnt have rain....so rain isnt important. And if it IS important its SO important that you should ONLY put it in the sim if its done perfectly......anything less is justification for NOT having it at all. Geez thats some mental flip flops.... Lets repeat after me.... Rain in F1 is important...world championships have been decided because of it.... The technology is here to allow implementation in sims.... No implementation of Rain is gonna be perfect (especially for a group of people who are quibbling about a track having an elevation of 2,334 instead of 2,335) if you wait till you can implement it perfectly then we will be waiting a long time. GPL not having rain is wrong...and people defending it almost sound like apologists for Sierra/Papy. Pierre Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...

hehehe.... Ah yes clever but I just wanted to avoid allowing you to give the impression that it was a rare thing....25% is not rare. First off as Greg rightly points out...speak for yourself...<VBG> I LOVE watching Rain races not so much for the passing (you are correct there is more, but thats easy to do...pass once and you have passed more than the typical F1 dry race)...no not so much for the Passing. But for the sheer display of courage, talent, touch and panache'. I did play all of those except CPR...but first off...comparisons to old sims is self defeating...unless our goal is to repeat their mistakes. Second of all NO implemtation of rain will satisfy some around here....but so what. The question isnt whether you can satisfy some maniac arguing about whether Hungary is at 2,334 or 2,335 elevation (evil grin) the question is whether you can implement rain in a believeable manner. F1 RS has done it...so it can be done. Now that it has been done it should be done in all future sims. To bring your words back to you...when you were complaining about the elevations..."Why should a sim go backwards..." why indeed??? Take the best of the current sims and expand. Thats almost a cheap shot....true of course, but the differences are so significant as to make a person wonder what you were trying to conjure up with that association. Of course they do have rain...Papy better hope that they dont do a Vintage F1 sim...as they would probably do a lot better version than the current F1Racing sim. Given the resources they will probably have after the success of F1 Racing sim...oooh boy. Dont look back Papy the sound you here is the sound of your slow ass being overtaken. And yet this does NOT excuse GPL from not having rain. Apparently the people at Sierra/Papy need to hire some serious 3d graphics wizards since with the release of Red Baron2 and the coming release of GPL its apparent they havent gotten a handle on whats possible using 3d graphics. With Red Baron they explained that they couldnt do it...then they wouldnt do it....then they shouldnt do it....then they are doing it but its gonna take a lifetime. Geez someone fire someone there and get rid of the person making these feature decsions. Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:57:43 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >OK. But it is progress, in a big way. Or do you somehow not see >that? Do you somehow see me saying that somewhere? If you want graphics, F1RS is better, but then so is Croc and Quake2. If you are interested in actually driving your driving sim, perhaps you may be interested in other aspects. Cheers! John

>And if it IS important its SO important that you should ONLY put it in >the sim if its done perfectly......anything less is justification for >NOT having it at all. Geez thats some mental flip flops.... <sigh> Why do some people find it sooooooo difficult to understand anything that doesn't exactly meet their blinkered outlook on life. Let me try to explain it for you. If rain will be done, and done reasonably well, I think it is a marvellous addition to a sim. If rain will consist of CPR or TOCA style rain graphics, with little or no difference to the driving, then IMO it is an utter waste of time and effort. As they have been decided because of driver injury, FIA bans, deaths, technical infringements etc ad nauseum. Where is the clamour for these, or is it simply that F1RS hasn't done these? You obviously don't know Suzuka very well either... GPL not having rain is a decision based upon available time and relative importance of it compared to all of the other features which are being put in. If you think they're deliberately trying to*** you then don't buy it. I can assure you that they would like to have rain even more than you would, but unfortunately their hands are tied by that little aspect known as "making money". Cheers! John

On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:04:53 -0600, "Greg Cisko"

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I sure used it, and was quite surprised at the omission of rain >in GP2. I am sure that rain would have made the processor >occupancy even worse that it already was. One thing about F1GP >was the rain was the same intensity for the whole race. In real >F1 there is strategy as to when to go with the slicks ect. F1RS >sure as heck comes much closer than anything else in this >regard.

Yes, as I have said again and again F1RS is the best we have seen. However, the fact that I choose to believe that F1RS is not perfect and can be improved upon seems to be read as "the rain in F1RS is crap"! I guess some people will always read what they want to. Some of the comments here truly crack me up - I literally LOL'ed when I read that "GP2 is not a true sim because it doesn't have rain"! Can you believe that? Like if you added rain to Psygnosis F1 it would suddenly be a sim?! Rain is the decisive factor. Priceless, truly priceless :-) Cheers! John PS - The above not directed at you btw, just some of the folks getting their wires a bit too crossed about some H2O

>GPL not having rain is wrong...and people defending it almost sound >like apologists for Sierra/Papy. Or known beta testers :-) -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:57:43 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >>OK. But it is progress, in a big way. Or do you somehow not see >>that? >Do you somehow see me saying that somewhere?

I see you admitting that F1RS has the best rain effects available in one post, then completely ignoring that in the next. Very confusing. Frankly I am not even sure what this means. But hey, whatever :-) -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

>If rain will be done, and done reasonably well, I think it is a >marvellous addition to a sim. If rain will consist of CPR or TOCA >style rain graphics, with little or no difference to the driving, then >IMO it is an utter waste of time and effort. Um... This is exactly what I am talking about. Rain in F1RS makes a huge difference in the driving. I can kick ass in the dry and suck in the wet. So the difference is definately there. Well rain is the one constant you can count on. Death is not. Neither is all that other stuff. The thing that gets me, is that F1RS not only does rain, but variable weather. But the jist I get from you is vague appreciation of even totaly ignoring that. You association with Papy is really about the only thing I can think of for such bizzare reasoning :-) Oh no not that again!! I probably won't. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

>Yes, as I have said again and again F1RS is the best we have seen. >However, the fact that I choose to believe that F1RS is not perfect >and can be improved upon seems to be read as "the rain in F1RS is >crap"! I guess some people will always read what they want to. How much rain racing have you actually done in F1RS? I certainly can believe that you LOL'd when you read that. I also believe that GP2 was not a true sim because of lack of rain. Since F1PG (World Circuit) had rain modeled (admittedly poorly because it either rained the entire race or was clear), I think most really expected GP2 to take what F1GP had and move up a notch. When I bought the game I had every intention of EXPECTING rain racing. MPS certainly did not advertise that rain was missing from GP2. Obviously not. Psygnosis F1 sucked for different reasons. I returned that turkey the very next day. Sure is. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >Some of the comments here truly crack me up - I literally LOL'ed when > >I read that "GP2 is not a true sim because it doesn't have rain"! Can > >you believe that? Like if you added rain to Psygnosis F1 it would > I certainly can believe that you LOL'd when you read that. I also believe > that GP2 was not a true sim because of lack of rain. Since F1PG > (World Circuit) had rain modeled (admittedly poorly because it either > rained the entire race or was clear), I think most really expected > GP2 to take what F1GP had and move up a notch. When I bought the > game I had every intention of EXPECTING rain racing. MPS certainly > did not advertise that rain was missing from GP2. > >Priceless, truly priceless :-) > Sure is. > -- > Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

Greg, One word - killfile. You'll enjoy this newsgroup more - I know I do. -- Rob

>One word - killfile. You'll enjoy this newsgroup more - I know I do. Frankly I do enjoy this NG. After awhile of beating my head on the wall though, I will simply ignore some issues. No killfile needed here :-) -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. >-- >Rob

> > But didn't team Lotus run advertising in the 67/68 tasman series? 8) > Yes, you're right. But I was talking about the F1 championship, > not about the off-season tasman series. Wouldn't it be great if they ran the Tasman series again! I would love to see international F1 drivers compete against Australia's and NZ's best in (relatively) equal machinery. I reckon there would be a few Aussies to give the European pretty-boys a hurry up! Sorry to go off-topic, but I just think it would be interesting. -Jono Hill

Ah John now lets not get upset...eh Im not upset and havent said anything that should upset you. hehehe...yea do that.... Yes of course if they are gonna do it badly then better off not doing it at all. Of course rain is such and intergral part of Formula 1 that makes me wonder what else they are deciding to leave out...of course I WILL have moving suspension pieces wooo hoo.. True enough all of these things have affected Formula 1 but Rain is visible...the courage displayed by the Pilots is visible, the absolute brilliance of the pilots in the rain is visible...its something we all want to duplicate, who doesnt want to emulate Senna's race at Donnington in 93, or Shuey's race at Spa, or Alesi in France. We dont play these simulations to do the ugly things of life but to somehow taste the brilliance of life....in whatever the sim is simulating, whether it be the Lotus, or the Ferrari, or the Su-27 Flanker... Life is ugly enough without trying to simulate the mundane....Racing at SPA in 1967 in the RAIN is NOT mundane. Swooosh....the sound you here is the sound of that going right over.....someones head. That was a meager attempt at humor John sorry you took it wrong. But also you are correct I dont know Suzuka foot by foot...it would be nice to have them model it better but all in all I think that Ubisoft blew everyone away with their first attempt at F1...and all these fat lazy excuse making sim makers better not look behind...someone is gaining....oops sorry check that...someone just went past. I say that not as an insult but as an incentive to look to the old guard Car sim makers operations, question everything....take nothing for granted. The rules in Racing sims changed....a French team changed them...wooo hooo...hehhe. Its not a question of being screwed. These are games after all....and if they work (ie run) have all the features promised then I have not been screwed. No its certainly not a question of being screwed. Its more of a question of Papy/Sierra consistently making poor choices about feature sets. And this is my meager effort to make my voice heard. I wish this group were larger and really do think that the developers are being derelict in not developing this area for feedback. All together now...RAIN RAIN RAIN... Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...<G>

Ahhh...didnt know that...geez. Thats still not a valid excuse....hell I was pretty damn *** the guys when we beta tested Flanker 1.5....you have to call it the way it is or your useless as a beta tester. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>GPL not having rain is wrong...and people defending it almost sound >>like apologists for Sierra/Papy. >Or known beta testers :-) >-- >Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...

Ah Johnny....Im also known for my sarcasm. What am I gonna do with ya.... Nah you cant add Rain to Psygnosis and make it realistic...but you can subtract from others and lose realism...oooopsy. Thats what I mean....to me its still not a simulation of the experience of F1 without rain....No matter which God programmed it. GP2 is an excellent simulation of the cars of F1 (to a degree) of the tracks of F1 (to a degree) but its not in my view a simulation of F1. Sorry I know the reverence that GP2 is held in here on the group....and certainly I dont have the vaunted expertise of the group here. But I do enjoy watching F1...F1 races are run in the rain....its probably at its most spectacular in the Rain...but because several supposed sims have NOT deemed it important its not in supposed simulations. Wha....???? Actually to me its priceless that people sit here and act as apologists for a sim that chooses to leave out a very important Factor in F1....when the sim is months away. Or they defend a sim that deemed it so unimportant to add rain that they never released a patch for rain. To me thats not priceless...its well sort of well ok lets not go there. Pierre Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...

Hi Greg, I wonder ..., beside the graphics, what is so special about the rain in F1RS? Just curieus. Cheers! Remco >I suppose you would have to model reduced traction like F1RS does >in addition to the streaking lines. The rain in F1RS is nothing like >the dry. Even racing against the AMTR level you will likely have a >rough time in the rain. I've tried. I can out pace them by 5-6 seconds >per lap during a race, but completely get creamed in the rain.

Most certainly not. Indeed one of the reasons I love Flanker so much is that they included many things that most flight simmers deemed unrequired. Such as modeling winds, crosswinds, air pressure, air temp and all the effects on the airframe those items had. Many many many sim pilots question whether thats required or not...the ones who fly Flanker though would kill you if you take them away. And Rain is even more crucial than any of those items... Rain is part and parcel of the Formula 1 racing season....simulating it gives us the chance to enjoy in some small way the brilliance of the pilots who do this for real. Its called attention to detail. Its called lovingly crafting a simulation because you can....not because some committee took a vote and decided it wasnt worth it. Its the kind of Easter eggs I like finding. Now all I need is the Donnington Race circuit and the 93 carset and I can try being Senna in the brilliant race against Prost. Thats what these sims should be trying to do....give us the chance of living greatness. Not making lame excuses about we dont have enough time.... PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...

You cant say besides the graphics since the graphics do a good job of conveying one of the problems of rain.....lack of visibility. But also the grip is reduced...also in F1 Rs the rain is random...its possible to have it stop during a race....its possible for it to start during a race... Not perfect of course...but miles and miles ahead of any of the competition now....and it appears future competition. Why...??? Because its deemed not essential....wha....???? You have to start somewhere...and because you cant do it perfectly is NO excuse for not doing it at all. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...

>I wonder ..., beside the graphics, what is so special about the rain >in F1RS? Just curieus. Have you tried it? That would show you immediately. However, the rain does not reduce your traction SOME. It is a whole different ball game. Your chassis really needs serious adjustment to be competitive. The physics in the rain are such that on most straights you cannot even get to 6th gear without spinning the rears. Plus the rain is random. I have seen it rain while the Sun was out. It can clear up, be a mild rain or a down pour. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

> What does GPL have? It is a Papy game with moving suspension parts > and lower grip. I can understand how you will defend this since I > believe you are a papy beta tester. But really... From your "moving suspension parts and lower grip" comment, I can tell that you haven't driven GPL. GPL is about a lot more than those two points. :-) If you *have* to have rain, don't buy GPL; it won't have rain. If you have to have a very demanding realistic simulator, buy GPL. Salt to taste... I've been to the track with Papy folks; I've raced formula cars with them in the rain; trust me, we all KNOW how different the wet is, and I'm sure DaveK and his colleagues would have liked to have had rain. But, I remain convinced that GPL will represent such a quantum leap over existing simulators that will far exceed the incremental leap that well-done rain would provide. ---Jim

>You cant say besides the graphics since the graphics do a good job of >conveying one of the problems of rain.....lack of visibility. I agree Here I've mixed feelings. If I try to race like I would in real life, the car behave different as I'm used to. Don't get me wrong, I still like it, but... it's different. In real life, you'll have to drive a different line in the corners compared with dry conditions This isn't needed in F1RS. You just 've to be carefull. Another thing which I don't get is the behaviour of the AI. Are they, or are they not affected by variable weather? I, for once, haven't noticed an AI car pitting for different tires, when the weather changed. Or am I completely out of line here? I agree again

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 18:25:50 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >>GPL not having rain is wrong...and people defending it almost sound >>like apologists for Sierra/Papy. >Or known beta testers :-) Such as who? If you mean me I have to point out that you are as misinformed on this as you are about elevations at Hungaroring and Suzuka ;-) Unfortunately for the above argument, I have never beta-tested any Papyrus product, nor been asked to. In any case, assuming I _was_ a Papyrus beta-tester, that would mean I had access to all of the same information you had, PLUS whatever the beta-testing brought - surely my opinion would be _more_ likely to be accurate in that case. The argument comes down purely to a question of deliberate bias, and I'm sure you wouldn't stoop so low or resort to something as desperate as that to try and prove your argument right. Cheers! John

On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:31:29 +1100, Bruce Kennewell >*You* should have learnt by now that John will not admit to making an >erroneous statement even if the proof is staring him in the face. What I have learned is that Bruce will expect people to admit they're wrong even when there is total absence of proof :-) As has been pointed out any number of times, any discussion here is not a matter of "right" or "wrong", it's the differing aspects of people's opinions. If you reduce it to right and wrong you need to learn to respect another's opinion rather than trying to make them come around to your way of thinking, the RIGHT way of thinking. I don't think it's right not to have rain, I personally would love to see it. I also know that the people here have no clue what is going on in Papy (myself included), and so have no idea of the reason why it isn't there - I don't see why we should villify them for it in that case. The best thing is to make the point and hope it can be included in the new CART sim. Cheers! John

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:11:35 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >You sir would make an excellant politician :-) Hey, how do you know my prediliction for extra marital affairs, accepting backhanders or *** deviancy?! :-) Greg, I hope I don't need to make a .sig and put this in it - EVERYTHING I say here is simply my opinion, and if I know something to be a fact I will explicity say so, along with why I know it to be a fact or why I cannot say how I know. By "makes it easier" I mean makes it easier to pass, since braking distances are lengthened and a good driver or a smart setup move can find grip that others cannot. Prost's spin was at Interlagos '93 on the run down to the Senna-S. He'd misheard his pit call and went round for another lap on slicks and spun off under braking. As a Senna fan it was one of my all-time favourite F1 moments I'm sorry to say :-) As I said, driving is not easier, and that's because F1RS makes a good attempt at rain. I've done a lot of rain racing in CPR and in TOCA, and found absolutely no difference in the car whatsoever. That's not entirely true, the car feels a _little_ more anxious to spin in TOCA, but nothing like the night and day difference I would expect. That, for me, is a waste of programming time in a sim, but since TOCA is not a sim it's pretty excusable. Well, F1GP had it in and few people ever used it. GP2 doesn't have it and was the fastest selling CD of all time. CPR has a half-assed effort and no-one makes any comment. The jury seems to be out on the subject of rain, but my vote is firmly in the "for rain" group, provided I can see what will get booted because of the rain (and change my mind accordingly if it is something I would like more!). Cheers! John

>First off as Greg rightly points out...speak for yourself...<VBG> I was, and always do - as I described to Greg. 2,334 or 2,335 is my concern - if you are prepared to accept the vast deficiencies of Suzuka, I wonder what sort of rain you would be prepared to put up with? Like accurate tracks you mean? GP2 got them pretty accurate, Psygnosis F1 climbed the ladder and got them pretty much perfect, then F1RS stood on a snake and took us back to pre-GP2 days in the realm of track accuracy. <g> Cheers! John

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 18:47:38 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >>Yes, as I have said again and again F1RS is the best we have seen. >>However, the fact that I choose to believe that F1RS is not perfect >>and can be improved upon seems to be read as "the rain in F1RS is >>crap"! I guess some people will always read what they want to. >How much rain racing have you actually done in F1RS? How is that relevant to the above? Anyway, I've done a fair amount, perhaps two full wet races and three changeable ones (these are 100% races). Really?! Yet you can't accept F1RS to be even slightly deficient because it doesn't have accurate tracks? What precisely defined standards you have. :-) Rain was in GP2 but disabled IMO (look at the sound files), so I suspect that the rain graphics ***ed the frame-rate even more than it was already. The public clamour for GP2's release may have been the culprit here. It did have rain though, and rain which changed the grip and handling of the car. By your definition that should be our perfect sim - accurate tracks for me, and rain for you! ;-) Cheers! John

>Ah John now lets not get upset...eh Im not upset and havent said >anything that should upset you. Nor will you Pierre, it's not THAT important to me! I'm not likely to start calling anyone a "dickwad" anytime soon ;-) Movins suspension is necessary in 60's F1, whereas today's F1 cars are so rigid that the couple of mm travel would be utterly impossible to detect on the screen. Pierre, I really like the above paragraph, and that is what sim-racing should be like. The question is, to what extent do you simulate it? I know for a fact that there is no way on earth that I could emulate Senna's drive that day, and I imagine there are but a handful who probably could. So how accurate do you make it? Rain _is_ important to F1, vastly so, but the very nature of that means that it is an enormous project to include in a sim since it impacts on every aspect of it. You make it sound mundane in the dry, which it most certainly is not! :-) If you look at Alison's preview of GPL you'll see the rules are about to change again. People direct their efforts toward different things, and while F1RS really went to town on the graphics, GPL really goes to town on the driving. Now to bring them both together and have someone devte the time to make a sim with the graphics, the awesome driving AND all the features. Seriously Pierre, I don't see how we can judge the choices sim ompanies make without knowing the background of why they make them. I guess if people here were more open and less judgmental then sim companies would participate more rather than simply lurking. :-) Cheers! John

>Ahhh...didnt know that...geez. Thats still not a valid excuse....hell >I was pretty damn *** the guys when we beta tested Flanker >1.5....you have to call it the way it is or your useless as a beta >tester. You must also be realistic. If the folks who made SU-27 Flanker told you it was impossible to make rain effects for it within the time limit and budget they had and yet you kept harping on at them, that's counter-productive. Cheers! John

>Such as who? If you mean me I have to point out that you are as >misinformed on this as you are about elevations at Hungaroring and >Suzuka ;-) Unfortunately for the above argument, I have never >beta-tested any Papyrus product, nor been asked to. My apologies then. I thought I had read here that you were. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

>>I certainly can believe that you LOL'd when you read that. I also believe >>that GP2 was not a true sim because of lack of rain. >Really?! Yet you can't accept F1RS to be even slightly deficient >because it doesn't have accurate tracks? What precisely defined >standards you have. :-) I accept that the F1RS tracks are not perfect. I do not accept that those tracks are ruined. IMHO. Agreed. Very scary when you put it that way :-) -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

Absolutely ......I wanted a couple of features and fixes that didnt make it into the sim. And yes at one point I had to realize that harping on it was gonna be counterproductive....but boy was I a pain in the ass until that point was reached. Especially the missile ranging bug....eeee. You have to understand that I have been completely spoiled by the flight sims group....in general and Andy Hollis in particular. The amount of control that the average sim player had in the making of Longbow2 is astounding...simply astounding. The result....the best simulator released in recent times. Several other developers are just as responsive but not as vocal. These sims also display brilliance. Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...<G>

There's no point, Jono, now that Oz is on the F1 calendar. And such a thing would be virtually impossible to impliment whether we were on the calendar or not. Back when the Tasman Series started, and during the "F1 Period" (that is, before it sank to the depths of Formula 5000), the negotiations were handled directly with the teams themselves by a consortium of promotors/CAMS and the New Zealand equivalent of CAMS. It was also seen as a "rest period" for the F1 people, a respite from the northern winter. -- Bruce. (At home) > > > But didn't team Lotus run advertising in the 67/68 tasman series? 8) > > Yes, you're right. But I was talking about the F1 championship, > > not about the off-season tasman series. > Wouldn't it be great if they ran the Tasman series again! I would love > to see international F1 drivers compete against Australia's and NZ's > best in (relatively) equal machinery. I reckon there would be a few > Aussies to give the European pretty-boys a hurry up! > Sorry to go off-topic, but I just think it would be interesting. > -Jono Hill

> OK. But it is progress, in a big way. Or do you somehow not see > that? Greg.... *You* should have learnt by now that John will not admit to making an erroneous statement even if the proof is staring him in the face. I did. -- Bruce. (At home)

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 18:40:45 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >>GPL not having rain is a decision based upon available time and >>relative importance of it compared to all of the other features which >>are being put in. If you think they're deliberately trying to*** >>you then don't buy it. I can assure you that they would like to have >I probably won't. There you go - problem solved. I bet you will though ;-) Cheers! John

On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 16:30:54 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >I accept that the F1RS tracks are not perfect. I do not accept that those >tracks are ruined. IMHO. They're not. Hungaroring is actually pretty fun (as I reported earlier), although I would still prefer it was done correctly). Suzuka is definitely totally screwed, although that is most likely a personal thing since I like Suzuka so much. I still feel the tracks should be done properly, but the fact that they're not isn't an utter horror for me - I still bought it and still scored it highly in the review. It's a damn fine game. It is actually, I don't know what I was thinking of! Actually it was a real shame that Psygnosis F1 couldn't get the handling accurate enough to even be a a good arcade racer like TOCA. The graphics and features were pretty good (if you can forget the handling and the menus). Cheers! John

Quoted text (13 lines)

> There's no point, Jono, now that Oz is on the F1 calendar. > And such a thing would be virtually impossible to impliment whether we were > on the calendar or not. > Back when the Tasman Series started, and during the "F1 Period" (that is, > before it sank to the depths of Formula 5000), the negotiations were handled > directly with the teams themselves by a consortium of promotors/CAMS and the > New Zealand equivalent of CAMS. It was also seen as a "rest period" for the > F1 people, a respite from the northern winter. > -- > Bruce. > (At home)

Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but I wasn't seriously proposing that they do it. I know that it would be a logistical nightmare, but surely you must agree that it would be fun to watch. -Jono Hill

>They're not. Hungaroring is actually pretty fun (as I reported >earlier), although I would still prefer it was done correctly). Suzuka I guess I missed that post. The last I remembered, I thought Hungaroring was great fun (short track) and you thought it sucked because of the lack of elevation changes. I'm glad it isn't ruined for you after all. Yes, I guess I have to admit that I am not even bothered by Suzuka. I guess in a way it is good I don't know the track as well as you. Cool! I was starting to think you thought the opposite. I guess we can all relax now and let the PROZAC kick in :-) This may sound stupid, but what is TOCA? As for Psygnosis F1, I did like some of the game. I did not like the fact that your graphics and controller options would not get saved. This is the #1 thing that pushed me to return the game. The handling I guess I didn't mind since I looked at the game as totally arcade. -- Header intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

>>>you then don't buy it. I can assure you that they would like to have >>I probably won't. >There you go - problem solved. I bet you will though ;-) I honestly cannot say for sure. I know that I definately do not get every flightsim or naval sim produced. I guess I have what-you-call expectations. First off, I like the old GP days about as much as I like offroad or Nascar Truck racing. ie not at all. But we will see though, since I said 'probably' I have an "out" :-) -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:11:03 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >I guess I missed that post. The last I remembered, I thought >Hungaroring was great fun (short track) and you thought it >sucked because of the lack of elevation changes. I'm glad >it isn't ruined for you after all. It's a pretty poor person who isn't open enough to change his/her mind, and so based on your comments I went back and tried the track again. Although I still think it would be better with correct elevation, it is a lot of fun. Buoyed by that I headed for Suzuka, but no such luck there :-( Still, one more track to enjoy. TOCA is the depiction of the British Touring Car Championship (BTCC) by Codemasters. Although it's very arcade oriented, I personally find it a lot of fun. The controls are a bit "vague", but the frantic essence of Touring Car has been captured well along with the associated bumping and barging. As for Psy-F1, what can I say? It was a Playstation port with Playstation menus, and should have been totally re-thought for the PC. I'm still really hoping that someone can do a good touring car _sim_, since TOCA really whets my appetite for something more. Cheers! John

>It's a pretty poor person who isn't open enough to change his/her >mind, and so based on your comments I went back and tried the track >again. Although I still think it would be better with correct >elevation, it is a lot of fun. Buoyed by that I headed for Suzuka, but >no such luck there :-( Still, one more track to enjoy. Well 1 out of 2 isn't bad, glad I could help :-) I guess we will have to wait for the next Japan PG for me to see how terrible Suzuka is. At the moment though I'm having fun. I got a 1:44.617 with an unmodified stock setup. -- Header intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

>You have to understand that I have been completely spoiled by the flight >sims group....in general and Andy Hollis in particular. The amount of >control that the average sim player had in the making of Longbow2 is >astounding...simply astounding. The result....the best simulator >released in recent times. I think we'd be surprised how many people listen in on this group and feed off the ideas and discussions. CPR in particular had many features which I first saw mentioned here or on WWW "wish-lists". It looked to me as though someone scoured the web at some point looking for some features, or read the discussions on what was missing from GP2, ICR2 etc. The discussion you speak about as happening on the flight-sim group does still happen for auto-sims, it just isn't conducted in public anymore due to the extraordinarily bad signal to noise ratio. That's why I think this group is important, even if it doesn't carry much clout (since we are only a tine percentage of the market). What this group does have is a concentration of people who are _very_ interested in auto-sims, and who bring a lot of good feedback and ideas which will be incorporated into future products. I'm sure MS/TRI learned a lot from CPR, and I know that both Papyrus and ABC Sports learned a lot from SODA and RTI respectively. If the clamour for something like weather effects is loud enough and meaningful enough it will be heard and acted upon. Cheers! John

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:24:44 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >I honestly cannot say for sure. I know that I definately do not get >every flightsim or naval sim produced. I guess I have what-you-call >expectations. First off, I like the old GP days about as much as I >like offroad or Nascar Truck racing. ie not at all. But we will see >though, since I said 'probably' I have an "out" :-) Frankly I can't stand NASCAR, but I do like racing the sim. So too with GPL - the era is important only insofar as it defines the handling of what you drive - the rest is just the fun of taming it. We still have race series over here in the UK where historic F1 cars participate, and these are often shown on cable. To see these guys sliding the cars around is incredible, and they pass so often and race so close it makes me sorta wish modern day F1 could be even half as thrilling. Cheers! John

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:00:59 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >Well 1 out of 2 isn't bad, glad I could help :-) I guess we will have to >wait for the next >Japan PG for me to see how terrible Suzuka is. At the moment though >I'm having fun. I got a 1:44.617 with an unmodified stock setup. You could look at GP2's rendition of Suzuka, since it is pretty good, even correcting the errors to the *** section from F1GP. The elevations at least are accurate enough. Cheers! John

I think we should also add the fact that Simracing titles aren't as mature as AirSims... Airplane simulators are here since maybe the start of the 80's (Microsoft FS, even if it was not great). There was probably over 100 airplane titles (like the great Secret Weapon of the Lutwaffe sp? which I still play), and each of them had the opportunity to learn from his predecessor. Racing simulators are less mature. It's still relativly new. The first "sim" (Btw in this post I am talking about Simulators only, because arcade racing titles are very old) was Indy:500 The Simulation, and after we had to wait 2years approx. for World Circuit. Here is the list of the "only" Racing simulators IMHO. It's clearly less that Airplane simulators: Indy:500 World Circuit Indycar Racing Nascar Racing IndyCar Racing 2 Grand Prix 2 R.A.C. Rally (NetworkQ) <---- Bordeline Nascar Racing 2 Soda Off-Road Cart: Precision Racing Formula 1 Racing Simulation This is IMHO, I dislike any "non-serious" racing title, but I make this list the most neutral possible. I'm so stupid I'm sure I forgot 1big title. Well, all this to say that comparing Racing titles to Air title is like comparing Star Wars to Star Trek. Or Apples and Oranges. But one this is sure is that Air Sims are more mature than Racing sims. >>You have to understand that I have been completely spoiled by the flight >>sims group....in general and Andy Hollis in particular. The amount of >>control that the average sim player had in the making of Longbow2 is >>astounding...simply astounding. The result....the best simulator >>released in recent times. Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard on NROS> Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ May the downforce be with you and Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-) - Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. - Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) - Excuse me for being provocative (I'm dumb speaking) 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

[eloquent words snipped...] I hate to beat a dead horse, but did anyone notice that on the screen-shots of GPL's menus on gpl.gamestats.com (the third, Monza setup I think), there are three weather-related items? There is: 1) < Partly Cloudy> 2) < Heavy Rain > 3) < Sunny (?) > I'm not sure about the third one, I can't figure why they would put "Sunny" option on a different line than the cloudy line, but whatever. Opinions? Is this just a real old screenshot that won't make the cut? Regards, John Wehman

>That's why I think this group is important, even if it doesn't carry >much clout (since we are only a tine percentage of the market). What Well *WE* *** gamers do carry clout. Did you hear about the CGW poll where the % of *** gamers was 15%? Kind of small until you realize that *WE* account for something like 55% of total revenue. They ignore us, they lose :-) I'll be willing to bet that they got the main idea. Especially if next gen. games with less features and goodies as the current games sell poorly. That is something else we see allot in the flightsim NG. At one point a few years ago I *EXPECTED* new flightsims to contain the basic core features of the older games which were huge hits. At this time there are maybe 2%-3% which come close. All the others are lacking, but people are so hardup for flightsims that they put up with it. Not me. -- Header intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

John Wehman wrote > [eloquent words snipped...] [Usage of econimic snip also...] <Drum roll>........ Tadam ! Remember Nascar Racing 2 first screenshots 2years (wow already 2years!) ago. Sun-glare... hmm looked very good but didn't make it in the final product. Btw any of you still know where to find the sunglare screenshot of N2 ? AFAIK it was at Atlanta. Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard on NROS> Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ May the downforce be with you and Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-) - Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. - Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) - Excuse me for being provocative (I'm dumb speaking) 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

>Opinions? Is this just a real old screenshot that won't make the cut? Maybe. Another possibility is some confusion over what is meant by "changeable weather". Since Papy's previous engine (that used in the ICR & NR series) modelled temperature and wind and allowed them to be changed I would be surprised, nay astonished, if the new engine also did not model these. Constant rain is also a possibility - personally I would give it a 50/50 chance of making it into the initial release, maybe a little less at the moment but I have a sneaky feeling that once F1RS gets better known in the States that priorities may change ;-) What I would NOT expect given the info so far is that dynamic weather will not be modelled. So no races starting dry & ending up wet or vice versa. Personally I would like it to be included, but I'm not going to get all upset if it isn't. Rather like the tracks in F1RS - I *want* them to be accurate and I can tell when they clearly are not, but it ain't going to ruin the sim for me if the driving model is good enough. What really makes me laugh is that we have everyone under the sun (no pun intended) complaining about the weather, EXCEPT for us Brits. I thought *we* were the ones who were supposed to do nothing but talk about the weather ;-)) Cheers, Richard

The screen shots that I think you are referring to are real old screen shots (The APEX - GPL http://gpl.gamestats.com ). I think the items in the screen shots were items that Papyrus would ideally like in the game. I'm betting that weather does not make it into the sim. I'm sure Papyrus is working their butt's off to get in as many cool features as possible within the limited time they have left. -John +AD4-In article +ADw-34e0341b.9924757+AEA-news.demon.co.uk+AD4-, john+AEA-runrun.demon.co.uk +AD4- +AD4AWw-eloquent words snipped...+AF0- +AD4- +AD4APg-If the clamour for +AD4APg-something like weather effects is loud enough and meaningful enough it +AD4APg-will be heard and acted upon. +AD4APg- +AD4APg-Cheers+ACE- +AD4APg-John +AD4- +AD4-I hate to beat a dead horse, but did anyone notice that on the screen-shots of +AD4-GPL's menus on gpl.gamestats.com (the third, Monza setup I think), there are +AD4-three weather-related items? There is: +AD4- +AD4-1) +ADw- Partly Cloudy+AD4- +AD4-2) +ADw- Heavy Rain +AD4- +AD4-3) +ADw- Sunny (?) +AD4- +AD4- +AD4-I'm not sure about the third one, I can't figure why they would put +ACI-Sunny+ACI- +AD4-option on a different line than the cloudy line, but whatever. +AD4- +AD4-Opinions? Is this just a real old screenshot that won't make the cut? +AD4- +AD4-Regards, +AD4- +AD4-John Wehman

I think the glare was at C***te, and the screen shot is still on the CompuServe SportSim forum. Cheers! Marc

Quoted text (30 lines)

> John Wehman wrote > > [eloquent words snipped...] > [Usage of econimic snip also...] > >1) < Partly Cloudy> > >2) < Heavy Rain > > >3) < Sunny (?) > > >I'm not sure about the third one, I can't figure why they would put "Sunny" > >option on a different line than the cloudy line, but whatever. > >Opinions? Is this just a real old screenshot that won't make the cut? > <Drum roll>........ Tadam ! > Remember Nascar Racing 2 first screenshots 2years (wow already 2years!) ago. > Sun-glare... hmm looked very good but didn't make it in the final product. > Btw any of you still know where to find the sunglare screenshot of N2 ? > AFAIK it was at Atlanta. > Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard on NROS> Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ > May the downforce be with you and Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-) > - Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. > - Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) > - Excuse me for being provocative (I'm dumb speaking) > Name: ymenard.vcf > Part 1.2 Type: unspecified type (application/octet-stream) > Encoding: x-uuencode

-- (please remove '_*_' when replying) Sim Racing News - http://www.simnews.com The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com * No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *

>What I would NOT expect given the info so far is that dynamic weather >will not be modelled. So no races starting dry & ending up wet or vice >versa. At this point I would think that *ANY* rain or weather would be better than none at all, ala GP2. -- Header intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:20:35 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >Well *WE* *** gamers do carry clout. Did you hear about >the CGW poll where the % of *** gamers was 15%? >Kind of small until you realize that *WE* account for something >like 55% of total revenue. They ignore us, they lose :-) They do say that statistics can say anything you want, but I can't let you away with taking THAT much of a liberty! :-) The CGW poll was talking about *** GAMERS, not specifically hard core auto-sim fans. I would think that fans of Quake and flight-sims would make up the vast majority of their survey. Even considering a large percentage of auto-sim fans, their survey covered hard-core fans in general, not hard core auto-sim fans who have internet access, much less who frequent this group. Undoubtedly, which has to be a good thing for both. Sim companies then have to take our comments, and guess how far they have to go to make a product appeal to the rest of the market. I know that any product that was universally acclaimed here would be a monster hit with the mass market, but it would also be total overkill in terms of development time and money. How far to go is the question, and I'm sure sim companies glean useful information here to guide them in that. That said, I remain to be convinced that this group has any sort of influence in terms of what they actually decide - mass market appeal is first, and if that hits the spot with the group here it's a bonus. Cheers! John

>What I would NOT expect given the info so far is that dynamic weather >will not be modelled. So no races starting dry & ending up wet or vice >versa. You would NOT expect that dynamic weather will NOT be modelled? Er..... :-) Cheers! John

> >What I would NOT expect given the info so far is that dynamic weather > >will not be modelled. So no races starting dry & ending up wet or vice > >versa. > You would NOT expect that dynamic weather will NOT be modelled? > Er..... :-) Yeah... I'm not sure if did not understand that or not either... Trips

>You would NOT expect that dynamic weather will NOT be modelled? >Er..... :-) It was late <g> Cheers, Richard

% Undoubtedly, which has to be a good thing for both. Sim companies then % have to take our comments, and guess how far they have to go to make a % product appeal to the rest of the market. I know that any product that % was universally acclaimed here would be a monster hit with the mass % market, but it would also be total overkill in terms of development % time and money. How far to go is the question, and I'm sure sim % companies glean useful information here to guide them in that. That % said, I remain to be convinced that this group has any sort of % influence in terms of what they actually decide - mass market appeal % is first, and if that hits the spot with the group here it's a bonus. Yes and no (though mostly yes). However, there are certain developers out there that are really in the sim racing biz for the same reason we are in the sim racing buzz. At the moment I can only think of two, Papyrus and Geoff Crammond. They are in it cuz they love the same things we do. The rest of the sim products being released tend to be by companies attempting to capitalize on the success created by the trailblazers of Papy & Geoff. Where the trailblazers look first to the elements us hard-core simmers want and then look at the time vs. money issue, I tend to think that most of the competition look at time vs. money before they even consider the soul of the sim. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 07:55:02 -0600, "Greg Cisko" >At this point I would think that *ANY* rain or weather would be better >than none at all, ala GP2. Back to our previous discussion - "ANY" rain is totally unacceptable for me. A few clouds in the sky, a thunder effect and some streaks on the screen do not, in my estimation, constitute rain. They constitute a complete waste of time. In lieu of perfection I would, however, accept anything reasonably decent (nice and specfic I know!). Cheers! John

I can think of one more and if the other two arent careful they will go the way of the goony bird....CYA wouldnt want to be ya. F1 Racing sim is landmark and for a first attempt at a serious sim is a shot across the bow. Competition is good...even CPR is a good wake up call for the two sleeping Giants...lets see how good they are now. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (15 lines)

>Yes and no (though mostly yes). However, there are certain developers >out there that are really in the sim racing biz for the same reason we >are in the sim racing buzz. At the moment I can only think of two, >Papyrus and Geoff Crammond. They are in it cuz they love the same >things we do. The rest of the sim products being released tend to be >by companies attempting to capitalize on the success created by the >trailblazers of Papy & Geoff. Where the trailblazers look first to the >elements us hard-core simmers want and then look at the time vs. money >issue, I tend to think that most of the competition look at time vs. >money before they even consider the soul of the sim. >-- >**************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...

Wish I would have said that.....<VBG> PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...<G>