GP3 - Geoff Crammond says yes!

In an interview in PC Format GOLD (a special racing edition) Mr Crammond said thar he is working on GP3 - it will be an evolution of GP2 (he's not starting from scratch but GP2 is so damn good he shouldn't need to). He also stated that it would be pushing the hardware (as GP2 did) but would cater for the range of systems out there. So there you go. There is a God after all. Rob

Quoted text (9 lines)

> In an interview in PC Format GOLD (a special racing edition) > Mr Crammond said thar he is working on GP3 - it will be an evolution > of GP2 (he's not starting from scratch but GP2 is so damn good he > shouldn't need to). He also stated that it would be pushing the hardware > (as GP2 did) but would cater for the range of systems out there. > So there you go. There is a God after all. > Rob

Rob, I have heard the rumors and that is certainly great news! Now of course the job of writing code is going to be judged by the standard set by F1RS. I wore out control devices playing GP2, and when it came out it was a world beater. Poor Geoff really has his work cut out for him though, what with the upcoming GPL following on the heels of F1RS. In other words, GP3 has to be _really, really_ good. I for one can't wait <ggg.> All the best, Mike Davis -- Michael S. Davis Creative Media-Works Computer/Audio/Video Convergence "from Creative minds spring Creative solutions." http://www.creativemedia-works.com

Quoted text (9 lines)

>In an interview in PC Format GOLD (a special racing edition) >Mr Crammond said thar he is working on GP3 - it will be an evolution >of GP2 (he's not starting from scratch but GP2 is so damn good he >shouldn't need to). He also stated that it would be pushing the hardware >(as GP2 did) but would cater for the range of systems out there. >So there you go. There is a God after all. >Rob

Now comes the big question - will it be REAL time this time around, or that sorry, slow-motion idiocy that he thought up? Rob

Quoted text (7 lines)

>In an interview in PC Format GOLD (a special racing edition) >Mr Crammond said thar he is working on GP3 - it will be an evolution >of GP2 (he's not starting from scratch but GP2 is so damn good he >shouldn't need to). He also stated that it would be pushing the hardware >(as GP2 did) but would cater for the range of systems out there. >So there you go. There is a God after all.

If the publisher is still going to be Microprose, this news doesn't quie thrill me. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >In an interview in PC Format GOLD (a special racing edition) > >Mr Crammond said thar he is working on GP3 - it will be an evolution > >of GP2 (he's not starting from scratch but GP2 is so damn good he > >shouldn't need to). He also stated that it would be pushing the hardware > >(as GP2 did) but would cater for the range of systems out there. > >So there you go. There is a God after all. > If the publisher is still going to be Microprose, this news doesn't > quie thrill me. > Randy > Randy Magruder > Contributing Reviewer > Digital Sportspage > http://www.digitalsports.com

Microprose's most recent "future releases" list for the rest of '98/early '99 shows absolutely no sign of GP3. Either that's good and they're not publishing it, or it could be bad and mean that G.C. won't have it done until late '99.

In other words he still can not code worth shit. CHOP CHOP CHOP. Push the hardware....that should be clue enough.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> In an interview in PC Format GOLD (a special racing edition) > Mr Crammond said thar he is working on GP3 - it will be an evolution > of GP2 (he's not starting from scratch but GP2 is so damn good he > shouldn't need to). He also stated that it would be pushing the hard > ware > (as GP2 did) but would cater for the range of systems out there. > So there you go. There is a God after all.

WHOOOYYYHHOOOOOaaaaawwwwww!!!!! YES! Now all we have to do is wait, and wait......... and wait? 8?) *Peter* 8-)

> In other words he still can not code worth shit. > CHOP CHOP CHOP. > Push the hardware....that should be clue enough. I'd play GP2 on my old P90 over F1RS on my P200MMX + 3dfx any day! I'd rather have slowmo (GP2) than dropped frames. How many games do you know that play well in SVGA on a P90? NOBODY has made an in-game F1 car look as good as Geoff Crammond, 3d accelerated or not. Ron

> > In other words he still can not code worth shit. > > CHOP CHOP CHOP. > > Push the hardware....that should be clue enough. > I'd play GP2 on my old P90 over F1RS on my P200MMX + 3dfx any day! > I'd rather have slowmo (GP2) than dropped frames. You might _play_ GP2 on a P90, but you certainly can't _drive_ it effectively. At least not with any significant amount of detail turned on. Fast driving is all about timing and rhythm. When time is not constant, timing and rhythm are thrown out the window. I hope we never see another time warped racing sim again! -- Pat Dotson

: : I'd play GP2 on my old P90 over F1RS on my P200MMX + 3dfx any day! : I'd rather have slowmo (GP2) than dropped frames. Personal opinion. I prefer dropped frames in ICR2 than the slow motion of GP2. For hot-lapping, though, this isn't an issue. The slow motion just ruins the flow of a lap. I don't notice when ICR2 dips from 27 to 22 fps for a corner, but I certainly notice a 10% slowdown of GP2. : How many games do you know that play well in SVGA on a P90? : NOBODY has made an in-game F1 car look as good as Geoff Crammond, : 3d accelerated or not. Actually, I thought the***pits were pretty drab until the user-designed***pits showed up. Stephen

Hi! About those old games: Yes, PONG plays great on my old 4.7MHZ And I used to play an F1 'sim' couple of years ago, which had a williams,mclaren and Ferrari and had 8 circuits incl. detroit! But I agree that F1RS is NOT the step forward we should expect after those years. I reccon that Papyrus will do with GPL! People complained about the delay with GP2. GPL is 1998 - 1967 = 31 years too late :-))))) Bart!

Yeah I like a game that a real lap time is 1:30 and it takes 1:45. That is cool.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > In other words he still can not code worth shit. > > CHOP CHOP CHOP. > > Push the hardware....that should be clue enough. > I'd play GP2 on my old P90 over F1RS on my P200MMX + 3dfx any day! > I'd rather have slowmo (GP2) than dropped frames. > How many games do you know that play well in SVGA on a P90? > NOBODY has made an in-game F1 car look as good as Geoff Crammond, > 3d accelerated or not. > Ron

-- Thank You Marc Johnson Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read -Groucho Marx

I thought I heard he owned all the rights to the series and could do whatever he wanted with it. I was also wondering about the graphics engine in GP2, since I've never really played it. I've seen several people refer to it as a "2D" game. Are they doing this because it doesn't have 3D card support or because the cars arent made of polygons ot what? Brian Short

Quoted text (9 lines)

> If the publisher is still going to be Microprose, this news doesn't > quie thrill me. > Randy > Randy Magruder > Contributing Reviewer > Digital Sportspage > http://www.digitalsports.com

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > In other words he still can not code worth shit. > > > CHOP CHOP CHOP. > > > Push the hardware....that should be clue enough. > > I'd play GP2 on my old P90 over F1RS on my P200MMX + 3dfx any day! > > I'd rather have slowmo (GP2) than dropped frames. > You might _play_ GP2 on a P90, but you certainly can't > _drive_ it effectively. At least not with any significant > amount of detail turned on.

And that's the rub, the detail was highly configurable. A vast range of hardware could render GP2 in 'real' time (i.e. under 100% occupancy, but of course you had to turn off the eye candy. Fast race driving is all about SA. When a sim drop's frames rather than elasticating time, you can find yourself embedded in the rear of the backmarker, simply because you didn't see him start to slow down. Neither of the approaches should cause problems if the software is configured with enough overhead to cope with those situations where the processor bogs down. -- Suck The Goat

On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 14:27:26 +0000, Rob James

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> In other words he still can not code worth shit. >> CHOP CHOP CHOP. >> Push the hardware....that should be clue enough. >I'd play GP2 on my old P90 over F1RS on my P200MMX + 3dfx any day! >I'd rather have slowmo (GP2) than dropped frames. >How many games do you know that play well in SVGA on a P90? >NOBODY has made an in-game F1 car look as good as Geoff Crammond, >3d accelerated or not. >Ron

For that matter, I used to play it on a 486dx2 with 8mg of RAM, and it still beat the s**t out of CPR! Michael Tracy "Involuntary CART Precision Racing beta tester" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Welcome to California. Now go home. ***** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 09:56:48 -0500, "Patrick L. Dotson"

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> > In other words he still can not code worth shit. >> > CHOP CHOP CHOP. >> > Push the hardware....that should be clue enough. >> I'd play GP2 on my old P90 over F1RS on my P200MMX + 3dfx any day! >> I'd rather have slowmo (GP2) than dropped frames. >You might _play_ GP2 on a P90, but you certainly can't >_drive_ it effectively.

It`s a game for Christs sake! As long as you have fun, who gives a shit? --- The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

Oh, what a breath of fresh air you are, Mr. Oddly!! Thank you for that statement.....I was beginning to think that it was only I who did not "drive" a computer car for my livelihood. -- Bruce. "I envy people who drink. At least they have something to blame everything on." (Oscar Levant)

> > In other words he still can not code worth shit. > > CHOP CHOP CHOP. > > Push the hardware....that should be clue enough. > I'd play GP2 on my old P90 over F1RS on my P200MMX + 3dfx any day! > I'd rather have slowmo (GP2) than dropped frames. Dropped Frames in F1RS? I don't think so, at least not on my P200... l8er ronny -- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 09:56:48 -0500, "Patrick L. Dotson" >You might _play_ GP2 on a P90, but you certainly can't >_drive_ it effectively. At least not with any significant >amount of detail turned on. Fast driving is all about >timing and rhythm. When time is not constant, timing >and rhythm are thrown out the window. I hope we never >see another time warped racing sim again! Your rhythm is fixed by the way the car relates to the track, not by a realtime clock. If the pauses happen at the same point every lap (as they will since the system load is the same) then your rhythm will be unimpaired. The problem comes when AI are around and mess it up unpredictably. Driving hotlaps is no problem. FWIW, the "other method" of dropping frames is no better, since both ***up the fluid transmission of information from car to you. The only real answer is more CPU power, tighter code, or 2 Voodoo2 cards SLI'ed together :-) Cheers! John

Bravo, Dittos, well said ! My sentiments exactly. For goodness sake "it's a damn game". People need to separate fiction from reality. -Rod

Quoted text (17 lines)

>>Oh, what a breath of fresh air you are, Mr. Oddly!! >>Thank you for that statement.....I was beginning to think that it was only >>I who did not "drive" a computer car for my livelihood. >These people are just driving me insane! It`s a game, games are >supposed to be fun. If the game takes 1.1 seconds to emulate 1 second, >so be it. I'm ***at the game. Something like 10 seconds slower at >Monza than the highest HOF times, but do I care? No. Do I have fun? >You betcha! >These people should really get out more. It`s a game, nothing more. >Thanks for your kind comment. I figure i`ll upset some people, but >somebody had to say it. >--- >The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

These people are just driving me insane! It`s a game, games are supposed to be fun. If the game takes 1.1 seconds to emulate 1 second, so be it. I'm ***at the game. Something like 10 seconds slower at Monza than the highest HOF times, but do I care? No. Do I have fun? You betcha! These people should really get out more. It`s a game, nothing more. Thanks for your kind comment. I figure i`ll upset some people, but somebody had to say it. --- The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >Oh, what a breath of fresh air you are, Mr. Oddly!! > >Thank you for that statement.....I was beginning to think that it was only > >I who did not "drive" a computer car for my livelihood. > These people are just driving me insane! It`s a game, games are > supposed to be fun. If the game takes 1.1 seconds to emulate 1 second, > so be it. I'm ***at the game. Something like 10 seconds slower at > Monza than the highest HOF times, but do I care? No. Do I have fun? > You betcha! > These people should really get out more. It`s a game, nothing more. > Thanks for your kind comment. I figure i`ll upset some people, but > somebody had to say it.

So, nobody should be enthusiastic (sp?) about their hobby?? It's okay for you to be less dedicated to racing sims, but accusing someone to have no live because of passion for sims is quite stupid... Geez, a lot of people are enthusiastic about collecting stamps, so be it... l8er ronny -- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

> Bravo, Dittos, well said ! My sentiments exactly. For goodness sake "it's a > damn game". People need to separate fiction from reality. > -Rod Actually doesn't it say on the box "This is not a game" :-) --

% >Oh, what a breath of fresh air you are, Mr. Oddly!! % >Thank you for that statement.....I was beginning to think that it was only % >I who did not "drive" a computer car for my livelihood. % These people are just driving me insane! It`s a game, games are % supposed to be fun. If the game takes 1.1 seconds to emulate 1 second, % so be it. I'm ***at the game. Something like 10 seconds slower at % Monza than the highest HOF times, but do I care? No. Do I have fun? % You betcha! % These people should really get out more. It`s a game, nothing more. % Thanks for your kind comment. I figure i`ll upset some people, but % somebody had to say it. A better frame rate and a more realistic simulation of time will translate to a better driving experience. I was just testing my new machine and tweaking GP2 to make sure that I was staying under 100% CPU occupancy (when ever possible), and found that my "simulated" times increased dramatically and that I was able to easily make some of the turns that had been problematical in the past (with a slower frame rate and higher occupancy). So yes, while you may enjoy the ***out of the "game" with a higher occupancy level, there is a slim possibility that one could enjoy it even more without this bottleneck that Geoff seems married to. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

<snip> % FWIW, the "other method" of dropping frames is no better, since both %***up the fluid transmission of information from car to you. The % only real answer is more CPU power, tighter code, or 2 Voodoo2 cards % SLI'ed together :-) Maybe for the next generation, but at present I am quite pleased with my "old" Rendition and NASCAR2 and ICR2. I am able to get consistent frame rates with all of the detail turned on. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Yeah and these are the same people who said the "GAME" would include "weather". Sorry it's "STILL A GAME". It's not reality if you don't get hurt when you crash. The tracks are not actual representation of the real thing......."it's still a game". Is GP2 great?.............you bet! Do I enjoy playing GP2?................you bet! Are all "sims" really "games"?......................you bet! >Actually doesn't it say on the box "This is not a game" :-) >--

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm sorry to hear that your times *increased* dramatically with a better frame rate... I would have expected the opposite. :-) ---Jim

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Bravo, Dittos, well said ! My sentiments exactly. For goodness sake "it's a > > damn game". People need to separate fiction from reality. > > -Rod > Actually doesn't it say on the box "This is not a game" :-) > --

LOL.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Yeah and these are the same people who said the "GAME" would include > "weather". Sorry it's "STILL A GAME". It's not reality if you don't get hurt > when you crash. The tracks are not actual representation of the real > thing......."it's still a game". > Is GP2 great?.............you bet! > Do I enjoy playing GP2?................you bet! > Are all "sims" really "games"?......................you bet!

I respect Mr. Crammond's programming skills, but I don't think even he could simulate real injuries. I don't need that level of realism to convince me that the game is authentic. The point is that the game is realistic enough to provide a great challenge. I'd like to believe it's as close as you can get to driving the real thing. I agree that the absence of weather is disappointing, but hopefully GP3 will remedy that ? --

% > A better frame rate and a more realistic simulation of time will % > translate to a better driving experience. I was just testing my new % > machine and tweaking GP2 to make sure that I was staying under 100% % > CPU occupancy (when ever possible), and found that my "simulated" % > times increased dramatically and that I was able to easily make some % ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ % > of the turns that had been problematical in the past (with a slower % > frame rate and higher occupancy). % I'm sorry to hear that your times *increased* dramatically with a % better frame rate... I would have expected the opposite. :-) [pure red-faced!] Duh, I uhh, well, ahhh.... Let's see, the simulated "enjoyment" increased, while my times decreased? And my IQ deceased! ;-) -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Patrick L. Dotson" writes: > > You might _play_ GP2 on a P90, but you certainly can't > > _drive_ it effectively. At least not with any significant > > amount of detail turned on. > And that's the rub, the detail was highly configurable. A vast range of > hardware could render GP2 in 'real' time (i.e. under 100% occupancy, but > of course you had to turn off the eye candy.

And of course I did turn off eye candy to attempt to stay below 100% occupancy. The problem is that if you set the graphics to typically average 80% occupancy, you are still likely to see spikes of 120% and more when the screen gets busy. Everytime the occupancy goes high time warps. I'd have to say it's not _all_ about SA. Rhythm is at least as important, probably more important. The point is you need both, and warped time completely eliminates rhythm. On the other hand, low frame rate doesn't eliminate SA, just impaires it. After some practice, you can _easily_ anticipate when and where your opponents will slow down. When frame rate drops, you can still rely on your timing to hit the right brake point. Once you hit the brakes, you know how long it will take you to stop. When time is always changing, I cannot hit my brake points with any accuracy. It's also nearly impossible for me to guage how hard I need to brake when coming up behind another in slow-motion mode. If I'm coming up fast behind a car, I hit the brakes, then I see my rate of closure on the car lowering, I will start easing off of the brake. Often in GP2, the rate of closure was lowering only because I was entering slow-motion mode. BANG! Crashed out of the race. In fairness, I guess I spent so much time running ICR1 and N1 at 12-18 fps that coping with short bursts of low frame rate doesn't cause a problem. Time warps are a different solution to the problem and I haven't spent time trying to learn to deal with it. Let me ask you this though - how well would GP2 work in multiplayer network play? I think this is the reason multiplayer (more than two) was left out of GP2 and also the reason why modem racing with GP2 sucks. From the reports I've heard of GP2 modem play, the frame rate is horrible. Is this because it's operating in real-time? I think time has to remain constant in racing sims. GP3 had better at least have the option of real-time mode! -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Yeah and these are the same people who said the "GAME" would include >"weather". Sorry it's "STILL A GAME". It's not reality if you don't get hurt >when you crash. The tracks are not actual representation of the real >thing......."it's still a game". >Is GP2 great?.............you bet! >Do I enjoy playing GP2?................you bet! >Are all "sims" really "games"?......................you bet!

The flip side is that driving sims stand out among games as actually being capable of developing your ability to drive a real car. I can tell you that the many, many hours I spent in driving sims came in VERY handy when I went to Skip Barber. I knew the circuit like the back of my hand, I knew how to drive the racing line, I knew how to avoid trailing throttle oversteer, my muscle memory allowed me to catch and recover from a potential spin, etc. How many other games (besides flight sims) can claim to actually develop skills and instincts that can be used in the real world? Randy

Randy, my point is, it's still not reality. If I crash at 200 mph into a wall I don't die or wind up in a hospital. You just start the game over. Someone being good or great at GP2, CPR, or Nascar 2 doesn't mean the same will happen in real life. It probably won't happen. It just fantasy. I could drive the hell out of GP2 at the most difficult settings pretending to be Michael Schumacher, but that's were it would end. I and most others with the exception of you would probably either die or pee in our pants if we drove a real F1, Indycar, or Stockcar car at 200+ mph. Where I agree with you is I can learn about F1 cars, Indycars, and Stock cars by learning and playing those games. I also get to appreciate in some sense what the real drivers are subjected to during a race. Now if someone were to make a "product" where you could drive an actual track and be subjected to all the external forces a "real driver" is subjected to; including "G Forces, Vibration and Speed Sensation", then I would call THAT a SIMULATOR. >>Yeah and these are the same people who said the "GAME" would include >>"weather". Sorry it's "STILL A GAME". It's not reality if you don't get hurt

Quoted text (20 lines)

>>when you crash. The tracks are not actual representation of the real >>thing......."it's still a game". >>Is GP2 great?.............you bet! >>Do I enjoy playing GP2?................you bet! >>Are all "sims" really "games"?......................you bet! >The flip side is that driving sims stand out among games as actually >being capable of developing your ability to drive a real car. I can >tell you that the many, many hours I spent in driving sims came in >VERY handy when I went to Skip Barber. I knew the circuit like the >back of my hand, I knew how to drive the racing line, I knew how to >avoid trailing throttle oversteer, my muscle memory allowed me to >catch and recover from a potential spin, etc. How many other games >(besides flight sims) can claim to actually develop skills and >instincts that can be used in the real world? >Randy

> How many other games > (besides flight sims) can claim to actually develop skills and > instincts that can be used in the real world? > Randy Well, "Quake 2" comes to mind immediately, Randy. -- Bruce. (At home)

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> How many other games >> (besides flight sims) can claim to actually develop skills and >> instincts that can be used in the real world? >> Randy > Well, "Quake 2" comes to mind immediately, Randy.

I had to quickly scan down the thread before posting the same comment! Go to work. Brian -- remove 'bye' from address to reply

possible for me to guage how hard I need to brake when coming Yes I have exactly the same problem, and it's even more annoying when you've driven half a race, are well in the grove, in the lead with great lap times, and you come up behind 4 or 5 back markers on a corner and drive into the back of them in slo-mo. One reason I never had any detail on the mirrors? N2 and (esp) icr2 had much less of this problem. Get a rendition card and you now have a constant 30 fps (occasional slow downs for smoke, but when do you see this except AFTER you crash). Frame rate loss is not ideal, but still better than slo-mo. It is still fun, but thinking back I think alot of collisions could have been ascribed to the slo-mo effect. I would definitely like GP3 to be real time, as I find this easier for my mind to accommodate. Brian remove 'bye' from address to reply

> Now if someone were to make a "product" where you could drive an actual > track and be subjected to all the external forces a "real driver" is > subjected to; including "G Forces, Vibration and Speed Sensation", then I > would call THAT a SIMULATOR. I would call it a race car! Your idea of a simulator is simply unachievable. Modern sims, yes, simulators, give you all the feel you need to be able to drive them as good or better than the real thing. Like in real racing, it's just a matter of doing enough laps with the car/setup and finding where the limits are. FF wheels will give better feel. The G's are not really that important to a well conditioned driver and don't really give the driver much feedback as to what he should do - it's determined by the amount of understeer/oversteer and how balanced/stable the car is. And things like "hmmmmmm?, I wonder if my rate of turn is enough to keep me from hitting that wall at 150mph" etc. Of course they're simulators, and of course motor racing is just a game. -- We are the Hosh! You will be assimilated! Lower your defences and surrender! Your technological and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Your culture will be adapted to service us. Resistance is futile. Have a nice &*($ing day!

Then it's just a game ! That's the point i've been making. It's fiction, fantasy, an escape from all the BS we put up with each day. For whatever time we decide to "play" GP2 we can make believe we are a world class Formula 1 driver winning races by beating the worlds best drivers. Does it makes us feel like we accomplished something....you bet! In the end when we turn off the computer and it's back to the real world. "It's just a game" folks face it. There's nothing wrong with that. These games are fun, no doubt about that.

Quoted text (22 lines)

>> Now if someone were to make a "product" where you could drive an actual >> track and be subjected to all the external forces a "real driver" is >> subjected to; including "G Forces, Vibration and Speed Sensation", then I >> would call THAT a SIMULATOR. > I would call it a race car! Your idea of a simulator is simply >unachievable. Modern sims, yes, simulators, give you all the feel you >need to be able to drive them as good or better than the real thing. >Like in real racing, it's just a matter of doing enough laps with the >car/setup and finding where the limits are. FF wheels will give better >feel. The G's are not really that important to a well conditioned driver >and don't really give the driver much feedback as to what he should do - >it's determined by the amount of understeer/oversteer and how >balanced/stable the car is. And things like "hmmmmmm?, I wonder if my >rate of turn is enough to keep me from hitting that wall at 150mph" etc. >Of course they're simulators, and of course motor racing is just a game. >-- >We are the Hosh! You will be assimilated! Lower your defences >and surrender! Your technological and biological distinctiveness >will be added to our own. Your culture will be adapted to >service us. Resistance is futile. Have a nice &*($ing day!

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Then it's just a game ! That's the point i've been making. It's fiction, > fantasy, an escape from all the BS we put up with each day. For whatever > time we decide to "play" GP2 we can make believe we are a world class > Formula 1 driver winning races by beating the worlds best drivers. Does it > makes us feel like we accomplished something....you bet! > In the end when we turn off the computer and it's back to the real world. > "It's just a game" folks face it. > There's nothing wrong with that. These games are fun, no doubt about that.

A simulation is, by definition, not reality. A simulation is, at the same time, much more than a game - it simulates reality. Are military and commercial airline pilots who train in multi-million dollar _simulators_ playing a game? Of course not. They are using a computer generated reality to improve their skills. Real-life world class race car drivers have said explicitly that the same racing sims we use have helped them perform better in a real race car. No one with an ounce of sanity would say that these sims could prepare someone with no racing experience enough to hop in an F1 car or a WC car and drive it to the limit. I would guarantee that someone who has a lot of sim racing experience is likely to be more prepared to drive a car to it's limits than someone who has no simulator experience. I think that is what Randy was saying, and he is right. Why are you so adamant that there is no difference between a game and a simulator? -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports

Because it's fiction, if you crash you don't get hurt or die. You are not induced to the physical aspects of real racing, such as real fatigue, G-loads, etc. It's phycially demanding to drive the real thing. If you're good at playing the game it doesn't mean your going to be able to drive the real thing with the same skill. In fact if you took the best GP2, Nascar2, or CPR "gamer", put them in the real thing and told them to duplicate what they just did in the game the following would probably happen: They probably couldn't start the car and keep it running properly. They would probably crash the car hurt or kill others and be badly hurt themselves if not die. They would probably "PEE IN THEIR PANTS" from the ungodly speeds the pros race at. Not counting Nascar where you drive at close to 200mph in packs of cars. It even worries some of the pros like Darrell Waltrip to race like that. Now I love to race that way (in tight) when playing Nascar2. It makes me appreciate what it's like to drive a race in that manner. Am I a Darrell Waltrip or a Dale Earnhardt....hell no. When I finish a race and if I win (with full realism on) I say to myself, man that was fun, i'm sure glad I don't have to do that for a living. Now if your making the point that these "games" helps us appreciate or teaches us what the real pros driving Stock Cars, Formula 1, and Indycars (CART) have to deal with during a race in order to win. Then yeah it does that. As I said there is nothing wrong with calling them games. They are informitive and best of all "they are fun". Pat nice try it's still a "game". >Why are you so adamant that there is no difference between a game >and a simulator? >-- >Pat Dotson >IMPACT Motorsports

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. It ceases to be a game and becomes a simulator when people go through the effort to implement every little detail of every track, and implement accurate physics, and accurate AI. It is no longer a game. Some race drivers actually use these simulators to learn the tracks before they go to them. Honestly! And having used the sims myself, I can see how it could be a big advantage, if programmed right. So I doubt these drivers view it as a game, either.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Bravo, Dittos, well said ! My sentiments exactly. For goodness sake "it's a >damn game". People need to separate fiction from reality. >-Rod >>>Oh, what a breath of fresh air you are, Mr. Oddly!! >>>Thank you for that statement.....I was beginning to think that it was

only

Quoted text (15 lines)

>>>I who did not "drive" a computer car for my livelihood. >>These people are just driving me insane! It`s a game, games are >>supposed to be fun. If the game takes 1.1 seconds to emulate 1 second, >>so be it. I'm ***at the game. Something like 10 seconds slower at >>Monza than the highest HOF times, but do I care? No. Do I have fun? >>You betcha! >>These people should really get out more. It`s a game, nothing more. >>Thanks for your kind comment. I figure i`ll upset some people, but >>somebody had to say it. >>--- >>The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

Sorry, real racing is "reality". If you wreck you can cause injury or death to others as well as yourself. There are actual laws of physics that are placed on the drivers compounded by "physical and mental fatique". There's no "PAUSE" button in real racing. Rather than saying real racing is a game, it would be more appropriate to call it a "Sport". There's a huge difference between "fiction and real life". Sims are still games. Keep that in mind when you flip, and roll the car while your playing and find yourself in the hospital's ICU on life support.

Quoted text (12 lines)

>% Pat nice try it's still a "game". >To be truthful, real racing is just a "game". There is nothing real, >they have rules, they follow the rules, there is a winner and there are >losers. No one has to race, it's just a game they decided to play and >the better ones get paid to do it. >-- >**************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> Are military and commercial airline pilots who train in multi-million > dollar _simulators_ playing a game? Of course not. They are using a > computer generated reality to improve their skills. There is a HUGE difference between a 'simulation' and a 'simulator'....and I am not being pedantic, either. You want a racing 'simulator'? then be prepared to pay a hell of a lot more than fifty bucks for it!!! Villeneuve was reported as using GP2 to *familiarise* himself with Spa. It is extremely doubtful that he would have been using the game to improve his overall performance. To him, it was the equivalent of a moving road map as seen from the driver's viewpoint. There have also been instances of drivers saying that, whilst the game is enjoyable in its own right, there is no way that any driver would use that medium to improve his skills. Can't agree simply because there are no physical effects. A force-feedback joystick can and will never replace seat of the pants feedback. -- Bruce. (At home)

On Sat, 07 Mar 1998 17:08:32 -0800, "Michael S. Davis"

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Rob, > I have heard the rumors and that is certainly great news! Now of course >the job of writing code is going to be judged by the standard set by >F1RS. I wore out control devices playing GP2, and when it came out it >was a world beater. Poor Geoff really has his work cut out for him >though, what with the upcoming GPL following on the heels of F1RS. In >other words, GP3 has to be _really, really_ good. I for one can't wait ><ggg.> > All the best, Mike Davis

GP3 doesn't have to be really really good. All it has to do is to be better than F1RS, and AFAIC GP2 already does that. OK maybe the grafix in F1RS are prettier, if you like those gaudy greens, blues and reds but now that the initial e***ment has gone and the complaints are rolling in for F1RS, I'll still stick with the most playable and enjoyable game and that's GP2. Roll on GP3, it will blow everything away. We don't need cartoon grafix and pretty special effects - just keep it the same as GP2 only improve all it's shortcomings. One more thing, GP2 is the only game out there that supports a real multiplayer function - that is one where several people can all play on the one computer. Saves humping PC's around to friends houses or telephone calls, and is much better for the social aspect of the game. Six of us play every week and have an ongoing championship along with the real Grands Prix. All done in a***pit, along with steering wheel and of course, a few cans of beer to help us along. Much better than playing by yourself. :-) Cheers.....Ken Remove "NOSPAM" from address for e-mail _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ !_ _! |_| | | | | \| | _ \| __| \ | | | _ | !_! | .` | !_) | _!| !! / !_! !_! !_!\___/!_!\_!___ /!___!_!\_\

On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 09:56:48 -0500, "Patrick L. Dotson" >You might _play_ GP2 on a P90, but you certainly can't >_drive_ it effectively. At least not with any significant >amount of detail turned on. Fast driving is all about >timing and rhythm. When time is not constant, timing >and rhythm are thrown out the window. I hope we never >see another time warped racing sim again! What do you play it on ??? a 386 ?? I regularly DRIVE GP2 in SVGA with everything turned on , except the sky (who needs it), and I get 28 -30 fps without ANY problems whatsoever. Thats on a P166 with a decent video card. Get real.... Cheers.....Ken Remove "NOSPAM" from address for e-mail _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ !_ _! |_| | | | | \| | _ \| __| \ | | | _ | !_! | .` | !_) | _!| !! / !_! !_! !_!\___/!_!\_!___ /!___!_!\_\

Only one word for you mate - BOLLOX !!!! Cheers.....Ken Remove "NOSPAM" from address for e-mail _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ !_ _! |_| | | | | \| | _ \| __| \ | | | _ | !_! | .` | !_) | _!| !! / !_! !_! !_!\___/!_!\_!___ /!___!_!\_\

You playing GP2 on a 486 or what. Dont talk shite mate... Cheers.....Ken Remove "NOSPAM" from address for e-mail _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ !_ _! |_| | | | | \| | _ \| __| \ | | | _ | !_! | .` | !_) | _!| !! / !_! !_! !_!\___/!_!\_!___ /!___!_!\_\

% Pat nice try it's still a "game". To be truthful, real racing is just a "game". There is nothing real, they have rules, they follow the rules, there is a winner and there are losers. No one has to race, it's just a game they decided to play and the better ones get paid to do it. Someone taking a Skip Barbar course, is of course just playing, it's not real, right? -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> What do you play it on ??? a 386 ?? > I regularly DRIVE GP2 in SVGA with everything turned on , except the > sky (who needs it), and I get 28 -30 fps without ANY problems > whatsoever. Ken, how exactly do you get 28 - 30 fps when it has a max setting of 25. Is there a patch/addon to allow more fps over the std game?

To quote Ken Barrow, "Don't talk shite, mate"! > GP3 doesn't have to be really really good. All it has to do is to be > better than F1RS, and AFAIC GP2 already does that. Roll on GP3, it will > blow everything away. ---Bruce. (At home)

Okay.....let's get pendantic about this, shall we? It is NOT a "simulator"! A "simulator" is, according to the ***y great lump of a dictionary I have, (1) One who, or that which, simulates. (2) A training or experimental device that simulates movement, flight or some other condition". It MAY, however, be a "simulation". "(1) Pretending, feigning. (2) Assumption of a particular appearance or form. (3, Maths) The use of an analogue in order to study the properties of a system. (4, Psychiatry) The concious attempt to imitate some mental or physical disorder to escape punishment or to gain some desirable objective." On the basis of description (1) I would conclude that these games are most definitely "simulations", wouldn't you? But they are most certainly NOT "simulators". > I'm sorry, I have to disagree. It ceases to be a game and becomes a > simulator when people go through the effort to implement every little detail > of every track, and implement accurate physics, and accurate AI. It is no > longer a game. Some race drivers actually use these simulators to learn the > tracks before they go to them. Honestly! And having used the sims myself, > I can see how it could be a big advantage, if programmed right. -- Bruce. (At home)

% Okay.....let's get pendantic about this, shall we? % It is NOT a "simulator"! % A "simulator" is, according to the ***y great lump of a dictionary I have, (1) % One who, or that which, simulates. (2) A training or experimental device that % simulates movement, flight or some other condition". % It MAY, however, be a "simulation". % "(1) Pretending, feigning. (2) Assumption of a particular appearance or form. % (3, Maths) The use of an analogue in order to study the properties of a system. % (4, Psychiatry) The concious attempt to imitate some mental or physical disorder % to escape punishment or to gain some desirable objective." % On the basis of description (1) I would conclude that these games are most % definitely "simulations", wouldn't you? % But they are most certainly NOT "simulators". Tell this to the programmers at Papyrus who have "simulated" the physics involved in their simulator engines. I think the "flavor" of their programs simulates (as in simulation) a racing environment (scenery, AI, etc.), but the actual core of their program simulates (as in simulator) the actual physics of a race car. Even more so in the next generation to appear with GPL. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

% What do you play it on ??? a 386 ?? % I regularly DRIVE GP2 in SVGA with everything turned on , except the % sky (who needs it), and I get 28 -30 fps without ANY problems % whatsoever. % Thats on a P166 with a decent video card. Uhhh, can you please share your "hacked" version of GP2. To the best of my knowledge GP2 can do no better than 25 fps. Instead of producing more fps beyond 25, the program simply lowers its CPU occupancy. And I am more than sure you can not have all detail on and have all items drawn (including mirrors) and even begin to have a frame rate over 21-22 at the most barest of tracks (in off-season testing mode). Well that is unless you have a super-hacked version of GP2. And if this is the case everyone out here would like a copy. ;-) -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>What do you play it on ??? a 386 ?? >I regularly DRIVE GP2 in SVGA with everything turned on , except the >sky (who needs it), and I get 28 -30 fps without ANY problems >whatsoever. >Thats on a P166 with a decent video card. Not saying your a liar or something like that, it's just plain impossible to produce what you are presently saying. First of all the Gp2 game engine stuck you at 25fps, and if you have a PC to make this happened, it will lower the Processor Occupancy. Not saying you are lying, but can you please tell us how can you possibly determinate you are running between 28-30fps. Secondly, it's impossible with a Pentium 166 and a decent video card to play decently Gp2 with all the options you have. It's been proven that with the new PII processor the simulator can't be run at full details at 25fps (well in normal conditions non-overclocked). I have a PII 266mhz with a STB Velocity 128 AGP. This is one of the best combination for racing titles overall, and I get 25fps with everything on except the sky and some mirror details. The difference between your system and mine is incredible (not saying your system is bad). If you are not lying you... 1) Think you are racing with Gp2 but in fact it's World Circuit 2) You have a brain problem that double the frames you see on a PC screen (heh that would be a good deseace). Hopefully, you will answer us.... Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ 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) --"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."--

>You playing GP2 on a 486 or what. Dont talk shite mate... P200 ... the game still to slow for anything but VGA ... blech! Joe

>What do you play it on ??? a 386 ?? >I regularly DRIVE GP2 in SVGA with everything turned on , except the >sky (who needs it), and I get 28 -30 fps without ANY problems >whatsoever. >Thats on a P166 with a decent video card. That is quite impossible. Joe

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Patrick L. Dotson" writes: > > > You might _play_ GP2 on a P90, but you certainly can't > > > _drive_ it effectively. At least not with any significant > > > amount of detail turned on. > > And that's the rub, the detail was highly configurable. A vast range of > > hardware could render GP2 in 'real' time (i.e. under 100% occupancy, but > > of course you had to turn off the eye candy. > And of course I did turn off eye candy to attempt to stay below 100% > occupancy. The problem is that if you set the graphics to typically > average 80% occupancy, you are still likely to see spikes of 120% > and more when the screen gets busy. Everytime the occupancy > goes high time warps.

So you didn't turn enough off... Overtaking a backmarker destroys rhythm, comming up on one destroys rhythm. It's nice when your just out lapping to get up a rhythm, but you need to be able to cope without it. I put in plenty of time in ICR1 and I still detest dropped frames. I can cope with them to a degree, but I would quite properly blame them for many incidents. While network play has come a long way in the last 3 years, it obviously still has a long way to go. You certainly can't do multiplayer in 'real time' - the present level of technology will just not allow it. -- Suck The Goat

> P200 ... the game still to slow for anything but VGA ... blech! Erm, then might I suggest that you *tweak* the settings of your p200? I have a k6 200 and it flies along nicely in svga with everything on bother to check the many gp2 websites that carry performance testing results, that is the *usual* performance of most 200MHz pc's? So I suggest your pc is not set-up for optimal performance? *Peter* 8-)

Quoted text (18 lines)

>possible for me to guage how hard I need to brake when coming >>up behind another in slow-motion mode. If I'm coming up fast behind a >>car, I hit the brakes, then I see my rate of closure on the car >>lowering, >>I will start easing off of the brake. Often in GP2, the rate of >>closure was lowering only because I was entering slow-motion mode. >>BANG! Crashed out of the race. >>In fairness, I guess I spent so much time running ICR1 and N1 at >>12-18 fps that coping with short bursts of low frame rate doesn't >>cause a problem. Time warps are a different solution to the >>problem and I haven't spent time trying to learn to deal with >>it. >Yes I have exactly the same problem, and it's even more annoying when you've >driven half a race, are well in the grove, in the lead with great lap times, >and you come up behind 4 or 5 back markers on a corner and drive into the back >of them in slo-mo. One reason I never had any detail on the mirrors?

I've had the same problem too, just one of the things that MUST NOT remain in GP3, along with canned spins and the limited track designs. -- Dave Bowers

Oh dear, young Michael. What will we do with you?! I was speaking grammatically, old mate. "Simulator" is the *hardware*. Everybody here is talking about the GAMES as if they are the HARDWARE! "Simulation" is the software. The games, therefore, are *simulations*, NOT *simulators*!!

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Tell this to the programmers at Papyrus who have "simulated" the physics > involved in their simulator engines. I think the "flavor" of their > programs simulates (as in simulation) a racing environment (scenery, AI, > etc.), but the actual core of their program simulates (as in simulator) > the actual physics of a race car. Even more so in the next generation > to appear with GPL. > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-- Bruce. (At home)

>I have a k6 200 and it flies along nicely in svga with everything on >bother to check the many gp2 websites that carry performance testing >results, that is the *usual* performance of most 200MHz pc's? >So I suggest your pc is not set-up for optimal performance? Nope, it is. There's no way you're getting 25 fps with all features on. It's impossible. Joe

> Sorry, real racing is "reality". If you wreck you can cause injury or death > to others as well as yourself. There are actual laws of physics that are > placed on the drivers compounded by "physical and mental fatique". There's > no "PAUSE" button in real racing. Rather than saying real racing is a game, > it would be more appropriate to call it a "Sport". Well the reality is Rod that I have a real computer with a real sim running on it. If the online/offline comps are not sport then what the hell do you think they are. With your attitude your no doubt a backmarker. It seems by your thinking there is not such a thing as a simulator. Nothing except driving a real car can ever totally simulate driving a real car. Really? Thanks for the tip. When I do a 1.06.5 at Mid Ohio with ICR2 that is a reality I can tell you! So is life and thus motor racing (real and sim) and everything else you can think of. It is a reality that if you crash in a sim it can cost you a championship that you have been trying to win for 8 months. Your simply talking about the stakes. Poker is poker whether the looser looses a matchstick or his balls. It's real poker one way or another. Rod, get yourself in a good comp, spend hours practicing and working on setups for a full season and "really" try to win and then get back to us about how lightly you take it all then!

> Oh dear, young Michael. What will we do with you?! > I was speaking grammatically, old mate. > "Simulator" is the *hardware*. Everybody here is talking about the GAMES as if they > are the HARDWARE! > "Simulation" is the software. The games, therefore, are *simulations*, NOT > *simulators*!! So Bruce, what is the difference. What does a simulator do that our simulations do not? I just can't imagine what a simulator is or how it could be better than a simulation. In fact, I see no need to make a distinction at all. Please tell us of your knowledge of these allegedly superior simulators because I personally have no knowledge of them. I can see no way that they could, for eg, simulate G's.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > P200 ... the game still to slow for anything but VGA ... blech! > Erm, then might I suggest that you *tweak* the settings of your p200? > I have a k6 200 and it flies along nicely in svga with everything on > bother to check the many gp2 websites that carry performance testing > results, that is the *usual* performance of most 200MHz pc's? > So I suggest your pc is not set-up for optimal performance? > *Peter* 8-)

Firstly, everything except clouds at 25fps and "mostly" under 100% Occ I find hard to believe, especially in traffic and with a lot of trees around. And more importantly, most of the time is not good enough. It's no longer a sim when she goes to slow motion.

Sorry dude it's still a PC game. It's fiction plain and simple. I'm glad your good at the racing game(s) of your choice. OTOH playing all the racing games in the world won't put you behind the wheel of a real race car in an actual race, competing against Schmaucher, Earnhardt or Andretti. If we were all that "good" after playing GP2, Nascar2 or ICR2, they'd give us a contract and pay us to drive the real thing. You can dream all you want of how your a world class driver and how running fast laps might make you feel how you just beat the best in the world. In the end you turn off your computer and you'll probably watch the race on TV and watch the winner on the podium only wishing it might be you. And please don't misinterpret that as a put down , it's NOT. PC racing game's= ficition, fantasy, or an escape from reality. I'm not saying it's wrong I just know there's a difference. *Rare people with rare talents that push the limits to the extreme get paid lots of money to win "real", "actual races" and risk there lives. I equally admire those that risk their life and their family, and those that are good behind the wheel of their favorite PC racing game. But there is a difference. * They get paid to win and "We Pay" to race and restart the game if we crash. * >> Sorry, real racing is "reality". If you wreck you can cause injury or death >> to others as well as yourself. There are actual laws of physics that are >> placed on the drivers compounded by "physical and mental fatique". There's >> no "PAUSE" button in real racing. Rather than saying real racing is a game,

Quoted text (32 lines)

>> it would be more appropriate to call it a "Sport". > Well the reality is Rod that I have a real computer with a real sim >running on it. If the online/offline comps are not sport then what the >hell do you think they are. With your attitude your no doubt a >backmarker. It seems by your thinking there is not such a thing as a >simulator. Nothing except driving a real car can ever totally simulate >driving a real car. >> There's a huge difference between "fiction and real life". > Really? Thanks for the tip. When I do a 1.06.5 at Mid Ohio with ICR2 >that is a reality I can tell you! >> Sims are still games. > So is life and thus motor racing (real and sim) and everything else >you can think of. >> >Someone taking a Skip Barbar course, is of course just playing, it's not >> >real, right? >> Keep that in mind when you flip, and roll the car while your playing and >> find yourself in the hospital's ICU on life support. > It is a reality that if you crash in a sim it can cost you a >championship that you have been trying to win for 8 months. Your simply >talking about the stakes. Poker is poker whether the looser looses a >matchstick or his balls. It's real poker one way or another. Rod, get >yourself in a good comp, spend hours practicing and working on setups >for a full season and "really" try to win and then get back to us about >how lightly you take it all then!

>Oh dear, young Michael. What will we do with you?! >I was speaking grammatically, old mate. >"Simulator" is the *hardware*. Everybody here is talking about the GAMES as if they >are the HARDWARE! >"Simulation" is the software. The games, therefore, are *simulations*, NOT >*simulators*!! Nice play with words, I grant you that. What is a PC (hardware) running a simulation? A simulator, of course. *** http://www.netlife.fi/users/ttammi/

>FWIW, the "other method" of dropping frames is no better, since both >screw up the fluid transmission of information from car to you. The >only real answer is more CPU power, tighter code, or 2 Voodoo2 cards >SLI'ed together :-) I agree to all of the above ... except the main point. I do believe the "other method" (fixed time) is superior. At least there, one can set detail to some level that gives real-time at an acceptable framerate, and then get the benefit of even faster framerate on the less CPU-intensive parts of the track. Or, in the case of ICR2 with auto-detail, get increased detail level (I find this sort of distracting however). In GP2, you are instead stuck with the lowered detail/framerate throughout (unless you have kicked down the alt-D detail and raise it up on parts of the track).

% Oh dear, young Michael. What will we do with you?! % I was speaking grammatically, old mate. % "Simulator" is the *hardware*. Everybody here is talking about the GAMES as if they % are the HARDWARE! % "Simulation" is the software. The games, therefore, are *simulations*, NOT % *simulators*!! Now we're getting into another "s" word -- semantics. Even grammer can't help us here. Since a "simulator" is "One that simulates" and "simulation" is "The act or process of simulating" (according to my dictionary). The software is the simulator and running the software is the simulation. Hardware alone doesn't make a simulator, as my computer is hardware and without software it don't simulate nothing but a block of plastic, metal and silicon. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> Okay.....let's get pendantic about this, shall we? OK. Wouldn't N2/GPL/F1GP2 simulate the condition of driving a race car around a race circuit? (Yes.) My on-line webster's defines a simulator as: simulator n. One that simulates, esp. an apparatus that generates test conditions approximating actual or operational conditions. Which the above mentioned computer software indeed qualifies (each to their own degree) as a simulator. That doesn't follow from th pedantic definitions above. ---Jim

>>You playing GP2 on a 486 or what. Dont talk shite mate... >P200 ... the game still to slow for anything but VGA ... blech! I think you got screwed mate. It runs fine in SVGA for me on a P166, and I only have a crappy 1meg graphics card, so that`s hardly making up for the deficiencies. Sounds like your systems up shit creek. --- The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Sorry dude it's still a PC game. It's fiction plain and simple. I'm glad > your good at the racing game(s) of your choice. OTOH playing all the racing > games in the world won't put you behind the wheel of a real race car in an > actual race, competing against Schmaucher, Earnhardt or Andretti. If we were > all that "good" after playing GP2, Nascar2 or ICR2, they'd give us a > contract and pay us to drive the real thing. You can dream all you want of > how your a world class driver and how running fast laps might make you feel > how you just beat the best in the world. In the end you turn off your > computer and you'll probably watch the race on TV and watch the winner on > the podium only wishing it might be you. And please don't misinterpret that > as a put down , it's NOT.

Your completely missing the point. You are seeing things from your own very limited view. Sim racing is a sport unto itself. Like any sport, it's a great as the participants are ie as great as the participants commitment to winning. Once again, this is just wrong. Sim racing is a reality or you and I typing on the NG must be just a dream! To be honest, if you take it all this lightly I really don't know why your here. I'm a semi pro driver for S&S Motorsports - winners of the Enduro 24 II (see http://www.miracing.com/endurance/index.htm ). If you look around the site you'll see an article announcing this. Not a lot of money but a lot better than a kick in the arse! It's a start. I'm sure this will be a continuing trend and won't be suprised if people can make a "real" living out of it in the not to distant future.

> Now if someone were to make a "product" where you could drive an actual > track and be subjected to all the external forces a "real driver" is > subjected to; including "G Forces, Vibration and Speed Sensation", then I > would call THAT a SIMULATOR. GP2 is a simulation, meaning it simulates the F1 racing experience within the current limits of home computers. It is also called a simulation in relation to arcade type F1 games such as that one by Psychnosis. Yes its a game of course it is. But its a simulation game, not an arcade game. This is why its called a simulation. From the sounds of it, driving on an "actual track" would not be a simulator in my mind, but actually the real thing. Cheers, Rochester

>> Oh dear, young Michael. What will we do with you?! >> I was speaking grammatically, old mate. >> "Simulator" is the *hardware*. Everybody here is talking about the GAMES as if they >> are the HARDWARE! >> "Simulation" is the software. The games, therefore, are *simulations*, NOT >> *simulators*!! A "simulator" as you describe it encompasses simulation software as part of the whole unit - without the software it is not a simulator. By that token your computer becomes a low level form of "simulator" when you run the software on it. The software itself is a "simulation", but running it makes the host PC become a "simulator". That's my understanding, and I'm not at all sure that it matters (my opinion or the meaning!). Cheers! John

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > And of course I did turn off eye candy to attempt to stay below 100% > > occupancy. The problem is that if you set the graphics to typically > > average 80% occupancy, you are still likely to see spikes of 120% > > and more when the screen gets busy. Everytime the occupancy > > goes high time warps. > So you didn't turn enough off...

I can say the same thing to you if you are dropping frames in other sims. At least time is constant. In GP2 nothing is constant. Overtaking and passing a back marker takes as much rhythm as hot lapping. Managing you inertia v.s the inertia of your opponent requires precise timing. If time is warping you can't possibly have a clue about how the car is handling and how fast you are actually going. Lost frames are at least similar to other things that can actually happen in real life, like blinking or glancing at your mirrors or the dashboard. You momentarily don't see what is happening in front of you. When does time-warping ever happen in real life? NEVER! - at least not at 200 mph or less. - OPINION - The time warp thing was a cheap marketing ploy that allowed Microprose to claim that GP2 would run in SVGA at 25 fps on a 486. Remember all the hype? They never told us it would be in slow motion. With the 3d accelereators available now, there is no reason for this bug/feature to be carried over to GP3. - OPINION - This debate has grown tiresome. Now is the time on RAS when we dance! :) (vague SNL reference) What planet are you on? Oh, just another country. Try NROS sometime. -- Pat Dotson

> Pat nice try it's still a "game". > >Why are you so adamant that there is no difference between a game > >and a simulator? Thanks, it was a nice try at getting through to you. Too bad it was unsuccessful. I'm sure most people were persuaded that there is a difference between a simulator and a game, and that N2/GP2/GPL etc. fit into the former. The bottom line is that if software makers truly want to simulate rather than entertain, time should be constant! -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 09:56:48 -0500, "Patrick L. Dotson" > >You might _play_ GP2 on a P90, but you certainly can't > >_drive_ it effectively. At least not with any significant > >amount of detail turned on. Fast driving is all about > >timing and rhythm. When time is not constant, timing > >and rhythm are thrown out the window. I hope we never > >see another time warped racing sim again! > What do you play it on ??? a 386 ?? > I regularly DRIVE GP2 in SVGA with everything turned on , except the > sky (who needs it), and I get 28 -30 fps without ANY problems > whatsoever. > Thats on a P166 with a decent video card. > Get real....

Your post was obviously incorrect based on you report of frame rates. Regardless, GP2 is not capable of running with full detail at real-time on the fastest computers available today. I have a K6-200, FYI, and it does pretty well with GP2. But GP2 still goes into slow motion even with much detail turned off. My standards for performance must be higher than yours. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports

> Nope, it is. There's no way you're getting 25 fps with all features > on. It's impossible. You obviously don't know what you are talking about, anyone can have 25fps and all details on, they may get cpu occupancies of 500, but they can do it? This is not what I actually said. What I said was that I can have all details on, except sky, at 25 fps, with *mostly* under 100 cpu occupancy, I actually get from 83 to 110 on average, the absolute max at any time is 133. And as I stated in my previous post, if you bother to check any of the good gp2 sites that have performance testing, you will see that my set-up is getting the same sort of performance as most other 200MHz based users? They use a standard format for testing cpu occupancy compared to hardware configuration. This is done by putting the car at a race start, at Monaco, and then pause the game before the race starts, and note the cpu occupancy of the game from all the various camera angles. If you do not believe me, fine, thats your choice, but you will have to disbelieve all those other 200 cpu users too as well? 8?) *Peter* 8-)

You are intitled to your opinion, but as I have stated to the other gentleman in this thread, it is easily tested using the standard gp2 performance test method. This is done by starting gp2 in a race, at Monaco, and pausing the game at the start before the race has started. Then note all the cpu occupancies from the different camera angles. You can also drive around any track and note the lowest, average and highest cpu occupancy readings. My results are average for most 200MHz based systems, check out any of the good gp2 websites and see for yourself. If you don't like gp2, or its graphics, or its fps rates, simply don't drive it, no-one forces you to. There are a lot of people however, who do like it, and who do wish to drive it. There is no such thing as the perfect sim, I have most of the good sims available, and there are flaws in all of them, you just have to make do with what is available and get on with it. 8?) *Peter* 8-)

> > Nope, it is. There's no way you're getting 25 fps with all features > > on. It's impossible. > You obviously don't know what you are talking about, anyone can have > 25fps and all details on, they may get cpu occupancies of 500, but > they can do it? This is not what I actually said. I can run a raytracer to re-create a "Long Ray's Journey into Light" and get 100fps on an 386-16 by that definition of fps. Quoting frames per second as a performance measure doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense if the seconds are fanciful units of simulator time rather than the things that my wall clock ticks off... 25 "fps" at 500% processor is not 25fps. It's 5 fps, with a 1/5x slow-motion. ---Jim

Well, your opinion's wrong :-) GP2 simply uses many parts of the F1GP game engine. That's the reason why this choice was made, and that's probably the reason why GP3 WILL use the same system. I'm not sure, but I assume that the use of 3D accelerators can cure the problem even without changing to dropped-frames algorythm. Let's hope.... JoH Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

% > Nope, it is. There's no way you're getting 25 fps with all features % > on. It's impossible. % You obviously don't know what you are talking about, anyone can have % 25fps and all details on, they may get cpu occupancies of 500, but % they can do it? This is not what I actually said. Anyone can get 25 fps with all detail on? Einstein would say, "whose reality?" In GP2 space/time reality you may be able to get 25 fps, but in my space/time reality this could equate to about 2.5 fps. First turn, smoke, stopped cars, flying parts, GP2 reality = 25 fps, my reality = 2.5 fps (approx.). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>What do you play it on ??? a 386 ?? >I regularly DRIVE GP2 in SVGA with everything turned on , except the >sky (who needs it), and I get 28 -30 fps without ANY problems >whatsoever. OOPS - TYPO . I've only just read the responses to my original post. Sorry guys. Should read 18-20 fps. In my e***ment to post, I made a faux pas. Nevertheless, these frame rates are achieved with a processor occupancy of usually in the 80's. I find the racing VERY acceptable under these conditions, and thoroughly enjoy it. Monaco, as everyone knows, is the only track that really presents any sort of problem when the processor occupancy does sometimes go over the 100. But, I still find the speed of the race to be very acceptable, with very little slowdown. I do have a top of the range motherboard and a 4 meg mattrox millenium. 32 meg of memory, but c'mon guys, this isn't anything special nowdays. I would like to think that when I upgrade my pc to a PII 266 or thereabouts, that there will be a substantial increase in speed. Too many moaners who dont like gp2 - don't play it then. To all the disbelievers, I can post a screenshot if you wish, although I doubt if it will change your mind at all. What I also would like to say is that in comparison, I find GP2 to be a much more enjoyable experience that F1RS, even with my 3D card and even with higher fps. Grafix aren't everything. It just doesn't feel right, and to me feels as if the car is floating 1-2 mm over the track. Roll on GP3 ! ! ! Cheers.....Ken Remove "NOSPAM" from address for e-mail _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ !_ _! |_| | | | | \| | _ \| __| \ | | | _ | !_! | .` | !_) | _!| !! / !_! !_! !_!\___/!_!\_!___ /!___!_!\_\

It was, see my latest post in this group. apologies I doubt this statement very much - and I will keep you posted when I upgrade. I think that moving up to a PII 233 or 266, or even a 300 shouldn't make it too difficult to find another 7 fps. Cheers.....Ken Remove "NOSPAM" from address for e-mail _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ !_ _! |_| | | | | \| | _ \| __| \ | | | _ | !_! | .` | !_) | _!| !! / !_! !_! !_!\___/!_!\_!___ /!___!_!\_\

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > Firstly, everything except clouds at 25fps and "mostly" under 100% > > Occ I find hard to believe, especially in traffic and with a lot of > > trees around. And more importantly, most of the time is not good eno > > ugh. > > It's no longer a sim when she goes to slow motion. > You are intitled to your opinion, but as I have stated to the other > gentleman in this thread, it is easily tested using the standard gp2 > performance test method. > This is done by starting gp2 in a race, at Monaco, and pausing the > game at the start before the race has started. Then note all the cpu > occupancies from the different camera angles. You can also drive > around any track and note the lowest, average and highest cpu > occupancy readings. > My results are average for most 200MHz based systems, check out any of > the good gp2 websites and see for yourself. > If you don't like gp2, or its graphics, or its fps rates, simply don't > drive it, no-one forces you to. There are a lot of people however, who > do like it, and who do wish to drive it. > There is no such thing as the perfect sim, I have most of the good > sims available, and there are flaws in all of them, you just have to > make do with what is available and get on with it.

I don't hafta if I don't wanna (poking tongue out like a cheeky little brat)

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >- OPINION - > >The time warp thing was a cheap marketing ploy that allowed Microprose > >to claim that GP2 would run in SVGA at 25 fps on a 486. Remember > >all the hype? They never told us it would be in slow motion. With > >the 3d accelereators available now, there is no reason for this > >bug/feature to be carried over to GP3. > >- OPINION - > Well, your opinion's wrong :-) > GP2 simply uses many parts of the F1GP game engine. That's the reason why this > choice was made, and that's probably the reason why GP3 WILL use the same > system. I'm not sure, but I assume that the use of 3D accelerators can cure the > problem even without changing to dropped-frames algorythm. > Let's hope....

Why? What's up with ICR2's constant 30fps. Or better still, how about an option to disable trackside objects so as to try to achieve a constant FR all around a given track ie each track disables certain graphics options/objects to even out fps all around the track. Arguing in the slow mo's favour is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of!

> >Regardless, GP2 is not capable of running > >with full detail at real-time on the fastest computers > >available today. > I doubt this statement very much - and I will keep you posted when I > upgrade. I think that moving up to a PII 233 or 266, or even a 300 > shouldn't make it too difficult to find another 7 fps. First turn at Monaco from the back of the pack with full detail and smoke is still going to be a bad slide show. It's going to be a long time before a computer that will handle that loadis available, and by then GP2 will seem like GP1 does today. GP3 with 3D-acceleration will probably fix the problem to a great extent. Lest I be percieved as a GP2 hater, let me say that I love the sim and still drive it occasionally. But the time warp thing has to go. -- Pat Dotson

% >Regardless, GP2 is not capable of running % >with full detail at real-time on the fastest computers % >available today. % > % I doubt this statement very much - and I will keep you posted when I % upgrade. I think that moving up to a PII 233 or 266, or even a 300 % shouldn't make it too difficult to find another 7 fps. Don't make the upgrade just for GP2. My jump from a P5-166 to PII-300 only produced a few fps with similar details on both machines. No where close to 7 fps. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In GP2 space/time reality you may be able to get 25 fps, I agree totally, in real terms gp2 may be running very slow compared to realtime, but technically you are getting 25fps (frames per seconds in *gametime*). This was in answer to the original query? there are many arguments for and against the way gp2 was designed to run, in the end you pays your money, and you makes your choice. Personally I ran GP2 fine on a 486dx4 100 when I first got it, Yes I had to run it in vga only, and with most of the graphics turned off, and with a lowered frame rate, and the cpu occupancy was still skyhigh? But hey, it was still *the* sim to beat when it first came out? (and is *still* one of the benchmarks for new sims, IMHO?) I really cannot understand why there are still people moaning and whining about GP2 after all this time? GP2 has stood the test of time, yes, it has faults, but all other sims also have faults, there is no such thing as the *perfect* sim, even though we would all love one. Yes, it has now been bettered (by F1RS), but it is still a great sim by *any* standards. *Peter* 8-)

Oh, ok then? 8?p *Peter* 8-)

: Sure it's stood the test of time. In GP2 terms, it's only been out for : about 2 months of simulated time. :-) : (NB the smiley before flaming me about the release date of GP2.) : ---Jim :), does this align with the earlier 5 fps? :)

> I really cannot understand why there are still people moaning and > whining about GP2 after all this time? GP2 has stood the test of time, Sure it's stood the test of time. In GP2 terms, it's only been out for about 2 months of simulated time. :-) (NB the smiley before flaming me about the release date of GP2.) ---Jim

> I really cannot understand why there are still people moaning and > whining about GP2 after all this time? GP2 has stood the test of time, > yes, it has faults, but all other sims also have faults, there is no > such thing as the *perfect* sim, even though we would all love one. > Yes, it has now been bettered (by F1RS), but it is still a great sim > by *any* standards. Yes, it's a great sim. People are just trying to make it clear that one aspect of this particular sim (time-warp, which is different from every other sim on the market), is something they don't want to see carried over to another sim, or implemented by another sim developer. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > I really cannot understand why there are still people moaning and > > whining about GP2 after all this time? GP2 has stood the test of time, > Sure it's stood the test of time. In GP2 terms, it's only been out for > about 2 months of simulated time. :-) > (NB the smiley before flaming me about the release date of GP2.) > ---Jim

Ouch, that hurt Jim Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy, BIG fan of GP2

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > I really cannot understand why there are still people moaning and > > whining about GP2 after all this time? GP2 has stood the test of time, > > yes, it has faults, but all other sims also have faults, there is no > > such thing as the *perfect* sim, even though we would all love one. > > Yes, it has now been bettered (by F1RS), but it is still a great sim > > by *any* standards. > Yes, it's a great sim. People are just trying to make it clear > that one aspect of this particular sim (time-warp, which is different > from every other sim on the market), is something they don't > want to see carried over to another sim, or implemented by > another sim developer.

Geeze, he's defensive our Pete aint he? Glad you pointed this out to him. The reason that computer varied fps is better is that cpu OCC is always 100% exactly ie your getting the most out of the sim that your hardware can offer. This dropped frames stuff is bullshit. If I turn up the options in ICR2, I might drop from 30 to 25 occasionally. Dropped frames would only be an issue at very low fps. I don't race at lower than 30 fps ever anymore. If I can avoid it I never will again either. Once you have seen 30fps (in real time of course) constant there's no going back :) I will be very disappointed if GP3 stays with fixed FR! It would be waisting our cpu's.

% > I really cannot understand why there are still people moaning and % > whining about GP2 after all this time? GP2 has stood the test of time, % Sure it's stood the test of time. In GP2 terms, it's only been out for % about 2 months of simulated time. :-) % (NB the smiley before flaming me about the release date of GP2.) ROTFL. Thanks.... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

% > >Regardless, GP2 is not capable of running % > >with full detail at real-time on the fastest computers % > >available today. % > I doubt this statement very much - and I will keep you posted when I % > upgrade. I think that moving up to a PII 233 or 266, or even a 300 % > shouldn't make it too difficult to find another 7 fps. % First turn at Monaco from the back of the pack with full detail and % smoke is still going to be a bad slide show. It's going to be a % long time before a computer that will handle that loadis available, % and by then GP2 will seem like GP1 does today. GP3 with 3D-acceleration % will probably fix the problem to a great extent. The other real bad thing about Monaco (other than the inflated CPU Occupancy), is the wide range and quickly varying CPU Occupancy level. It can range from 180 to 50 in just a few hundred feet. This is a real accordion-roller-coaster ride that recks havoc even with hot lapping. The above range is solo on the track and not other AI. I have also noticed that the AI tend to go brain-dead when the occupancy level gets high. This is extremely noticable on the starts when they just stop on the track even though there is a clear path ahead and beside them. I suspect they may also suffer oxygen deprivation (a.k.a. CPU deprivation) to the brain when the CPU occupancy level spikes during tight battles in the turns. I think we are not "knocking" GP2 for its contribution to the auto sim market, but as someone else pointed out, are just decrying this one particular shortcoming in the coding of this product. While I still have reservations about some of the physic modeling of the way the car handles, they can be overlooked as an "artistic license" issue. However, there is NO excuse for furthering this method of graphics coding. Even if GP3 is 3d accelerated, this CPU occupancy has to go. Unless Geoff sub-contracts the graphics coding to someone else, I am not so sure we will see a departure from this approach. It was used in GP1 and was carried over into GP2 (along with other flaws). As we have heard, Geoff is "building" on the core of GP2 for GP3, unless he chucks certain parts of this core, we will see the same shortcomings in GP3, and with the competition having raised the bar fairly high (when it comes to graphics and multiplayer capabilities) this could very well make GP3 a back marker. % Lest I be percieved as a GP2 hater, let me say that I love the % sim and still drive it occasionally. But the time warp thing has % to go. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (13 lines)

> : > % > I really cannot understand why there are still people moaning an > d > % > whining about GP2 after all this time? GP2 has stood the test of > time, > % Sure it's stood the test of time. In GP2 terms, it's only been out > for > % about 2 months of simulated time. :-) > % (NB the smiley before flaming me about the release date of GP2.)

8?) *Peter* 8-)

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > I really cannot understand why there are still people moaning and > > whining about GP2 after all this time? GP2 has stood the test of t > ime, > Sure it's stood the test of time. In GP2 terms, it's only been out f > or > about 2 months of simulated time. :-) > (NB the smiley before flaming me about the release date of GP2.) > ---Jim

Ooh that hurt!!!! 8?) *Peter* #:-)

Yep, I definitely AM!!!! Only because I luuuuvvvvv GP2 so much? I have most of the other *quality* sims available, and like all of them in different ways, (F1RS, RAC Rally, Indy car racing II, Nascar Racing, Moto Racer, etc, etc), as well as a few driving programs which are not strictly sims? (TOCA Touring Cars, Destruction Derby, Screamer2, GTA). Despite this, I still keep coming back to GP2, as the actual driving model just seems so right? (I actually think F1RS is *the* best sim available at the moment overall), but GP2 gives me the most enjoyment, even after all this time. So I'm sorry if I keep defending GP2, I do realise it has faults, and acknowledge that GP3 must address these issues, and hopefully it will. But just leave GP2 alone alright!!!! OR ELSE!!!! 8?) *Peter* 8-)

You tell'em Peter. GP2 is the best racing sim ever. I got a fifty dollar bill sitting on my monitor for GP3. Jerry

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > I really cannot understand why there are still people moaning and > > > whining about GP2 after all this time? GP2 has stood the test of t > > ime, > > Sure it's stood the test of time. In GP2 terms, it's only been out f > > or > > about 2 months of simulated time. :-) > > (NB the smiley before flaming me about the release date of GP2.) > > ---Jim > Ooh that hurt!!!! 8?)

You seem to have a very emotional relationship with GP2... ;^) Geez, if something better than F1RS comes along next month, I will loose interest in it in a minute. l8er ronny -- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

> A "simulator" as you describe it encompasses simulation software as > part of the whole unit - without the software it is not a simulator. > By that token your computer becomes a low level form of "simulator" > when you run the software on it. The software itself is a > "simulation", but running it makes the host PC become a "simulator". In todays F1 cars we have a lot of software. If we run the same software on our PCs what are we doing then? Simulating? <g> The idea is that "little" PCs are part of modern F1 cars. From this point of view it is possible to do partially exactly the same as in a real car: run a piece of software. ;-) Markus

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > Geeze, he's defensive our Pete aint he? > Yep, I definitely AM!!!! > Only because I luuuuvvvvv GP2 so much? I have most of the other > *quality* sims available, and like all of them in different ways, > (F1RS, RAC Rally, Indy car racing II, Nascar Racing, Moto Racer, etc, > etc), as well as a few driving programs which are not strictly sims? > (TOCA Touring Cars, Destruction Derby, Screamer2, GTA). > Despite this, I still keep coming back to GP2, as the actual driving > model just seems so right? (I actually think F1RS is *the* best sim > available at the moment overall), but GP2 gives me the most enjoyment, > even after all this time. > So I'm sorry if I keep defending GP2, I do realise it has faults, and > acknowledge that GP3 must address these issues, and hopefully it will. > But just leave GP2 alone alright!!!! OR ELSE!!!! > 8?) > *Peter* 8-)

Yes, no doubt GP2 had the best physics of it's time easily and maybe even now. But the cost was total usability. On my old 166 it was only really good for hotlapping (VGA is not an option IMO). After having GP2 since it's release and drooling over it when I got it I found ICR2 a bit of a joke in comparison when I first tried it last June. ICR2 is very easy to brake with and accelerate out of corners with in comparison to GP2. However, after browsing the web, all the GP2 comps I saw allowed helps and this to me was a complete joke. As you know, the helps in ICR2 slow you down - a very big thing in favour of ICR2. Also, despite the lesser physics of ICR2, being able to race in SVGA with over 30 cars and a constant 30 fps is brilliant! I was once a RTS fan, turn based strategies, flight sims, etc, etc. Now I have no interest in anything except racing sims and that is because of the brilliant experience I am having competing in offline comps with ICR2. Papyrus seem to understand that there is no use trying to pack a physics model into a sim that is just too good for modern hardware. I must say that even with the release of CPR (hopeless) and F1RS (hate the off track modelling) that I still think ICR2 is the best sim for the PC overall and that this won't change until GPL and later ICR3 and GP3. Crammond must make GP3 fully useable for the modern PC system else ICR3 will goble it up I'd predict. If I hear that GP3 is the same as GP2 in terms of it being a system hog then I will definantly not rush in next time. From here on in I'll only purchase sims that can maintain 30fps under all circumstances - or very close to it. Else their not sims at all - IMO their just a waste of time! GP2 was a glimpse of the future. This time I want the future today!

: of a joke in comparison when I first tried it last June. ICR2 is very : easy to brake with and accelerate out of corners with in comparison to : GP2. However, after browsing the web, all the GP2 comps I saw allowed : helps and this to me was a complete joke. As you know, the helps in ICR2 : slow you down - a very big thing in favour of ICR2. Also, despite the : lesser physics of ICR2, being able to race in SVGA with over 30 cars and : a constant 30 fps is brilliant! I was once a RTS fan, turn based The one thing that I prefer about GP2 is that I can get away with a little wheel banging. One light touch of another car in ICR2 sends the two of us spinning down the road. I have often seen the real things bang wheels and get away with it. Apart from that, though, the decision is easy. If I am at home, and can plug in an analog controler of some sort, then ICR2 it is. The graphics may not be as pretty on full detail as GP2, but when I turn the graphics down to a playable level in both sims, I have beautiful cars racing on a featureless track in GP2 at 20fps, or pretty nice cars on a nice looking track at 27fps in ICR2 (this is on a P133 notebook). I've got controllable slides with ICR2 instead of canned spins, I can race in the middle of 8 other cars without things slowing down, and the cool "wide angle" mirrors in ICR2 take care of the fixed head position. If I am on the road and have just a keyboard to play with, then GP2 it is with steering help on. I pick and choose the courses that let me keep the frame rate up (Germany and Monza are dull anyway, so no loss if I don't race there) and I can have pretty intense, enjoyable races away from home. ICR2 isn't playable with the kb. Overall, I keep coming back to the Papyrus product. Stephen

I wasn't *defending* an architecture that has possible slow-mo as disadvantage. I'm just saying that if Crammond is able to exploit the speed of 3D cards fairly easy so that even mediocre machines can get 25fps, he might not bother about totally reworking the concept from scratch. JoH Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ah well then come here..........[link lost in import] Crash damage on in all classes. Also try the Ace class where F helps are auto gears and throttle help if you must. But really only intended for keyboards Im sure. Also nice to note the Motorhome used to extract submitted league results checking for accuracy and honesty.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Why? What's up with ICR2's constant 30fps. Or better still, how about > >an option to disable trackside objects so as to try to achieve a > >constant FR all around a given track ie each track disables certain > >graphics options/objects to even out fps all around the track. Arguing > >in the slow mo's favour is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of! > I wasn't *defending* an architecture that has possible slow-mo as disadvantage. > I'm just saying that if Crammond is able to exploit the speed of 3D cards fairly > easy so that even mediocre machines can get 25fps, he might not bother about > totally reworking the concept from scratch.

I hope he does re-do that part of things. Come to think of it, ICR2 dos has a fps ceiling of 30 fps, but at least 30 fps is acceptable. What I'm saying here is that I want my i233mmx working to it's full potential to give me as much fps/detail as possible. With GP2 you must keep cpu OCC below 100% to stay in real time which also means you will probably be running well below the 100% mark for most of any lap - an obvious waist of those cpu/graphics card dollars :)

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I hope he does re-do that part of things. Come to think of it, ICR2 >dos has a fps ceiling of 30 fps, but at least 30 fps is acceptable. What >I'm saying here is that I want my i233mmx working to it's full potential >to give me as much fps/detail as possible. With GP2 you must keep cpu >OCC below 100% to stay in real time which also means you will probably >be running well below the 100% mark for most of any lap - an obvious >waist of those cpu/graphics card dollars :)

In order to have Multiplayer capabilities you cant use the slow motion option. How can more than two players compete if there is different real time accruing for each player the only way to do it is to make every players CPU occupancy the same on all machines at the same time this would mean that with 8 players there would never be a time where everyone is under 100% so everyone would would be slowing everyone else down. The reason the slow motion option was used in GP2 was because it had no multiplayer and because it was such a graphics pig that if it dropped frames, the first corner of the race, would have dropped below 5 fps if you think the first corner jitters are bad in F1RS it would be nothing like GP2 would have been if it also dropped frames. Dropping frames is the only way if you want multiplayer, but You cant drop too many frames or the car becomes impossible to control.

> You tell'em Peter. GP2 is the best racing sim ever. I got a fifty > dollar bill > sitting on my monitor for GP3. 8?) Hmmm, (fx: does mental calculation.....$50.00 = about 30.00) yep, I have 30.00 sitting on top of mine too!!!!! #:-) *Peter* 8-)

>Sorry dude it's still a PC game. It's fiction plain and simple. Of course it is. Absolutely, but racing good simulations can develop good understandings of the racing line, familiarity with tracks, the effects of setup changes etc. A good sim can develop and reinforce proper racing techniques. The difference is "traction sampling". You only have audio and visual cues in a PC sim, wheras in real life, your inner ear, the feel of the road through the wheel and the seat, and of course the inevitable 'fear factor' will influence your ability to apply the principles you've learned in the sim. Those barrieres can only be overcome with seat time and good feedback. The force feedback wheels may help with traction sampling by providing another input, but short of expensive seats, there won't be anything soon that gives you the remaining physical sensations. However, its also true that real pilots do train using flight simulators, and real drivers do actually use games like NASCAR 2 and Formula One to learn circuits, develop rhythms and practice racing lines. So they do transcend a mere "game" and become a valuable instructional tool. Obviously there is a difference, but its not quite fair to simply say "its a game -- no more", because it really is more than that, as I've described above. Actually, "talent" doesn't have as much to do with it as you think. Read some good books by race instructors and they'll tell you a lot about how important hard work is in developing a driver. Its seat time, good instructor feedback, more seat time, etc. Michael Andretti isn't great because he's talented (which he surely is), but because he has been racing since he was a boy, and racing a LOT. He's got an incredible amount of seat time, as do most professional racers. Its that seat time which has given him a strong, almost unconscious familiarity with how to drive a car at its limits, so he can do it more easily than most of us who drive simulators can. We just don't have the years of seat time he does, along with the training he has had. I'm not saing talent doesn't exist or isn't important: it can speed up the learning curve dramatically, but most race drivers are made, not born. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com