GPL and Nascar3 Theory

Guys -- I have a theory (who hasn't had one!). Hear me out, then let me know what you think. GPL is a test bed for N3's physics model. Think about it -- Papy decided after N2 to do something radical about the model -- model in 3 dimensions with essetially a "virtual" car that moved on its own suspension (squat during acceleration and the like). They tested it, and found it to be a very different driving experience from N2. So, I'm sure they were worried. N1/N2 is the franchise at Papy. An untested physics model could bomb. Hence, GPL. A perfect analog -- lightweight cars with 400 hp, skinny tires and no wings. Not much of a leap to 680 hp tankers with skinny tires and no aero. Thus, while I'm sure GPL is as legitimate a product as can be, and I state unequivocally that I enjoy it immensely, I don't think that the sim was designed from the ground up to accurately depict the 1967 Formula One cars (I now stand ready to get flamed and proven wrong). I think its a test bed for N3's physics model. They want to see what the reaction is to their model before the implant it in their franchise product. And I'm drooling over both GPL and N3 with the new physics. Any of you guys been to Martinsville or Wilkesboro? You should see them stockers twitch and dive under braking, squat under acceleration and kick the tail out coming of the corners. EXACTLY like the GPL demo. GPL will be great, but the new physics model will find its true home in N3, and will be incredible. My opinion only, flame away. Let me know what you think. Just a theory, and I might be wrong.

% Guys -- I have a theory (who hasn't had one!). Hear me out, then let me know % what you think. % GPL is a test bed for N3's physics model. Think about it -- Papy decided after % N2 to do something radical about the model -- model in 3 dimensions with % essetially a "virtual" car that moved on its own suspension (squat during % acceleration and the like). They tested it, and found it to be a very % different driving experience from N2. I think there is some "truth" to your theory. However, Papyrus cut their teeth on open-wheel simulations and I know that there is still a core left that still lust after the perfect CART simulation. With the success of NASCAR, many of the CART developers left (after ICR2) for other ventures. The core left were more NASCAR fans than open-wheel fans. Thus the concentration on NASCAR2 and the TEN project. Also the CART license somehow slipped by Papy. I think there were other reasons for GPL than just a testbed for NASCAR3. 1) The couldn't (or wouldn't deal with Bernie) over a current F1 license and wanted to try their hand at wooing the F1 fans. 2) An excellent open-wheel sim with all of the physics of their new engine could woo the CART bean-counters back to Papy's camp. 3) The e***ment for the employees of the reception of a killer open-wheel sim could woo them back to wanting to do a CART sim. 4) The workings of the 1967 era cars were less complicated than current Winston Cup and CART cars -- so what better to iron out the kinks of their new sim, before adding all of the complexities of sheet metal, wings, aerodynamics, etc.... <snip> -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> Guys -- I have a theory (who hasn't had one!). Hear me out, then let me know > what you think. <snip theory> interesting:) but i suspect you are putting too much into the idea that Nascar3 is papyrus's Great Goal and that all else is just a "test". David Kaemmer's goal has always been to simulate motor- racing as perfectly as possible, and each game that Papyrus produces reflects their improving physics modelling. GPL is simply the next step up for them. I expect that by the time Nascar3 is complete the physics model they bring over from GPL will have been improved in many subtle ways again. And then by the time ICR3/Cart2 arrives (just exactly when is difficult to tell as yet, my crystal ball is all cloudy) the physics model will probably be improved some more still. and they'll keep improving it after that. As to why they chose to make a sim based on the '67 F1 season, well, i figure they wanted to do something different than the same old Nascar and Cart that they've done for the last 4-5 games. And you have to admit these '67 cars are awesomely fun to drive:) At least they didn't go too far back in time. a fully simulated Chariot racing game would be a bit too weird. now of course i may be completely wrong myself! i try not to imagine too elaborate reasoning behind actual real life things, as opposed to TV programs where all motivation behind anything is as complicated and as twisted as possible. Maybe i'm just being an idiot, to dare think that the world is sensible:) cheerio, Grant.

This I imagine was part of the reason for Marc's faith in the "No CART 2" rumour. Interesting. Surely Papy/Sierra made a killing on ICR1 and 2. I cannot remember ever walking into a games shop and not seeing plenty of copies of them since their release. And surely in the U.S. even more so. I would imagine that CART has an equivalent following in the U.S. as Nascar and most definantly a greater appeal on an international stage. I just can't understand why Papy/Sierra let the CART side of things go for so long. I would have thought it a no brainer to re establish the CART team ASAP (part or wholey independant of the NAS team). Maybe so many people are still buying CART 2 they don't see a need. Ok fellas, lets stop praising ICR2 :) Let's start telling the world CPR is the best CART sim on the planet. LOL. Maybe some of these game reviewers are smarter than we give them credit for :) 3 cheers for CGW!

(Lots of interesting theory-stuff snipped) Hmmmm. There is always the possibility that you are correct. There is also the possibility that Papyrus is, in truth, the espionage arm of the Egyptian Secret Service (papyrus...Egypt. Get the connection there?)and that 'GPL' is really a method of encrypting a doomsday device that Dr. Evil, aka Mike Lescault, will place in orbit around the Earth, the intent being that, as soon as its detection system senses that Geoff Crammond has completed GP3, a powerful death ray will zap down from 22,000 miles above Geoffs' house and will, quite literally, fry his brains. Of course, this is just my theory. Regards, --- Bruce. The Grand Prix Legends Historic Motor Racing Club:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

Good theory there 666 but it is not a very big leap in logic. Almost from the moment GPL was anounced, they confirmed the same engine would be used for N3. Look at it from another angle....There are half a dozen F1 sims recreating the last few years. Everybody is trying to outbid each other to garner the rights to the most recent seasons so name recognition is high. BUT....that gets expensive. How do you get your foot into a world wide sim audience(F1) and still keep costs somewhat manageable? Go back in time. I think the track licensing probably cost more than Papyrus originally thought but I'm sure it is nothing to the blackmail money the FIA demands for current products. btw...does anybody know how Papy is gonna stick a 14 mile track in a 16 meg system??? dave henrie

Quoted text (29 lines)

> Guys -- I have a theory (who hasn't had one!). Hear me out, then let me know > what you think. > GPL is a test bed for N3's physics model. Think about it -- Papy decided after > N2 to do something radical about the model -- model in 3 dimensions with > essetially a "virtual" car that moved on its own suspension (squat during > acceleration and the like). They tested it, and found it to be a very > different driving experience from N2. > So, I'm sure they were worried. N1/N2 is the franchise at Papy. An untested > physics model could bomb. Hence, GPL. A perfect analog -- lightweight cars > with 400 hp, skinny tires and no wings. Not much of a leap to 680 hp tankers > with skinny tires and no aero. > Thus, while I'm sure GPL is as legitimate a product as can be, and I state > unequivocally that I enjoy it immensely, I don't think that the sim was > designed from the ground up to accurately depict the 1967 Formula One cars (I > now stand ready to get flamed and proven wrong). I think its a test bed for > N3's physics model. They want to see what the reaction is to their model > before the implant it in their franchise product. > And I'm drooling over both GPL and N3 with the new physics. Any of you guys > been to Martinsville or Wilkesboro? You should see them stockers twitch and > dive under braking, squat under acceleration and kick the tail out coming of > the corners. EXACTLY like the GPL demo. GPL will be great, but the new > physics model will find its true home in N3, and will be incredible. My > opinion only, flame away. > Let me know what you think. Just a theory, and I might be wrong.

% btw...does anybody know how Papy is gonna stick a 14 mile track in a 16 meg % system??? Yes! By requiring all 16 meg systems to have an extra spare 16 meg installed. <G> -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> At least they didn't go too far back in time. a fully simulated > Chariot racing game would be a bit too weird. Darn, you stole MY idea ;) - Matt

Hi, It probably has to do with the performance of today's computers. Somewhere I read that GPL is updating its physics model at approximately 200Hz. This is probably not enough if you want to correctly simulate modern race cars with high down force, stiffer suspension, stiffer tires, much better brakes, lighter wheels and so on. The time constants in a modern race car are much smaller compared to old race cars. A simple analogy would be if you wanted to do a numerical simulation of a mass suspended in a spring. You would have to update the simulation faster than the frequency of the system to capture its correct motion. If you now increase the stiffness of the spring (as have happened in modern race cars) the frequency of the system will increase. Therefore, you have to update the simulation more often to capture the correct motion of the system. Due to this you probably end up at updating the physics model at 500Hz or more for a modern race car. This would require a faster computer and that is probably why they will wait to use this physics model until the average computer is fast enough for simulating a modern race car. This could be one of the reasons for simulating older race cars. This theory is based on my own (spare time) effort developing a race car simulation game using multibody dynamics and fixed step ode-integrators. Jesper Adolfsson Department of Mechanics Royal Institute of Technology SWEDEN

That leads me to ask the following question: If GPL requires a (more or less) top of the line system to run on, what will the system requirements be for Nascar3 when it comes out in December? Remember, N3 will have many more features that weren't implemented in GPL, increasing the processor load. It boggles the mind... doktorB ---

Quoted text (18 lines)

>Hi, >It probably has to do with the performance of today's computers. >Somewhere I read that GPL is updating its physics model at approximately >200Hz. This is probably not enough if you want to correctly simulate >modern race cars with high down force, stiffer suspension, stiffer >tires, much better brakes, lighter wheels and so on. The time constants >in a modern race car are much smaller compared to old race cars. >Due to this you probably end up at updating the physics model at 500Hz >or more for a modern race car. This would require a faster computer and >that is probably why they will wait to use this physics model until the >average computer is fast enough for simulating a modern race car. >This could be one of the reasons for simulating older race cars. >This theory is based on my own (spare time) effort developing a race car >simulation game using multibody dynamics and fixed step ode-integrators

doktorB wrote Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the gap isn't that big. First of all, it's the same game engine. It's like Nascar1/Indycar2. So you can expect the same gap in details/graphics/etc.. IMHO, around the end of this year 3d card will hopefully chip standard on most of the PC. In the eventuality that Voodoo-based card do some sort of monopol like Creative (SB) some years ago, I may speculate that there isn't going to be a non-accelerated version anymore. Many things can happend. OpenGL, D3D, etc... can make some big steps, nobody knows. 32mb minimum (tracks more little than in GPL), but 64recommended. P200mmx minimum. That would be a good speculation. But it's at least 8months away (I don't expect it before X-mas). It will all depend on how the *** market goes. Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-) Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. Member of the r.a.s. Ego-maniac club 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."--

I'm not sure how much the comparision between '67 F1 cars and current WC cars applies, but I agree with a lot of the above. GPL is a relatively 'low risk' approach. If it should turn out that the market simply can't bear this level of realism then it hasn't hurt Papy's main franchise(s). Another thought in this though - 'all' that GPL requires is the phyisics engine and normal-racing circumstance AI. A lot of the problem areas with previous Papy sims have been due to getting the yellow flag situations right. This is clearly a very complex area since Papy haven't mastered it yet and other companies seem to shy clear of even trying. GPL won't have any full course yellows, allowing Papy to concentrate on the fundamentals. Again, a relatively 'low risk' approach. GPL was always supposed to be about the 'spirit' of F1 racing at the time of the introduction of the 3 litre formula. I think a lot of the hostorical accuracy bit is as much from pressure from the likes of us as from within Papy. Hey, GPL cars at Wilkes. Now there's a wonderful thought! <vbg> I hope the track formats are sufficiently compatible for someone to produce a N3 to/from GPL track converted. Running WC cars at the 'Ring would also be fantastic <g. Well I don't think it is the whole story <g> Final thought - Papy's NASCAR and CART franchises appeal predominently to the US market. F1 however has a truly worldwide customer base. People who would shun N3 because 'oval racing is boring' may buy GPL, discover how wonderful it is and be tempted to buy N3 on the back of it. Cheers, Richard

Francois, In my experience with the software industry, I have found that they determine what the average system people have, and write the game to run well on that system. They won't sell many copies if they are written for the top of the line systems only. Right now, I think that a p133mmx is about the baseline they are looking at. Very few PIIs out there yet. It will be another year before even a low-end PII will be considered an "average" system. Simmers seem to go to the high-end stuff quicker than most IMHO......:-).......we demand a certain performance level, and pay to get it. The majority of the people buying the software are not what I call dedicated simmers, so the industry has to look at them and their systems. If GPL will not run correctly on say, a 166mmx or there-abouts, I think it will be a problem for Papy and Sierra to market to the people who have those or lower systems. Ram is not looked at as closely as in the past, mainly because the price of an extra 32megs is less than most good programs are now. I expect most people have 32 or more on their systems now anyway. -- Regards, Ed Medlin www.edmedlin.netminds.com Columnist, Software Critics Unlimited www.softwarecritic.com >>Remember, N3 will have many more features that weren't implemented in GPL, >>increasing the processor load. >Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the gap isn't that big. >First of all, it's the same game engine. It's like Nascar1/Indycar2. So >you can expect the same gap in details/graphics/etc.. >IMHO, around the end of this year 3d card will hopefully chip standard on >most of the PC. In the eventuality that Voodoo-based card do some sort of >monopol like Creative (SB) some years ago, I may speculate that there isn't >going to be a non-accelerated version anymore. Many things can happend. >OpenGL, D3D, etc... can make some big steps, nobody knows. >32mb minimum (tracks more little than in GPL), but 64recommended. P200mmx >minimum. That would be a good speculation. But it's at least 8months away >(I don't expect it before X-mas). It will all depend on how the *** >market goes.

Ed, no doubt your experiences haven't included a Mr. Geoff Crammond and a product known as "Grand prix 2". Mr. Crammond, in his infinite wisdom, programmed this sim so that it would run in optimum configuration on a Cray super-computer of the type used by NORAD, who were delighted, of course: with the scaling down of the Cold War it meant that the console operators who would normally monitor their screens for Soviet missiles were now free to play Grand Prix 2 on the system. > Francois, > In my experience with the software industry, I have found that they > determine what the average system people have, and write the game to run > well on that system. -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

I see in the future that 3dfx and Voodoo get bigger and bigger and eventually the smaller chipmakers will fall by the wayside. If you look at most of the board companies making video cards now, almost all of them have a 3dfx version that they sell. I personally don't like having to have two video cards wastings space, but it is by far the fastest solution I have seen, because you can use this card with any other card, regardless of whose chip is in it, and find some benefits if it is programmed for voodoo, and almost all the new games coming out support 3dfx. Direct 3d may lessen the need for 3dfx, but it will never take over, a game will always run at least as fast or faster when it is optimized for the card then on D3D. >> IMHO, around the end of this year 3d card will hopefully chip standard on >> most of the PC. In the eventuality that Voodoo-based card do some sort of >> monopol like Creative (SB) some years ago, I may speculate that there isn't

Quoted text (22 lines)

>> going to be a non-accelerated version anymore. Many things can happend. >> OpenGL, D3D, etc... can make some big steps, nobody knows. > Lets face it! If you want to play games you NEED a 3D card! Soon, >there will be a D3D (or something similar) that is truely good and that >properly standardises the 3D card world. Imagine if when you purchased a >2D card in the past that it only worked with games/software designed for >it! Until this "proper" D3D standard appears the gamers of the world >will be justifyably put off by the current state of things. I have a >Riva card in my system that was a complete waist of money. If MS or the >3D card manufacturers don't do something soon then people will just go >and get themselves a Playstation, etc and who could blame them. The >current state of affairs is simply a joke! > It seems that all the card manufacturers have a standard for their >own cards that is optimum. There will never be an overall solution like >D3D that allows all cards to operate as well as with their own >drivers/API so when does all the rebellion come to an end. I think we >might need legislation to step in and say "Ok, this is the standard API >and that is that". Then all card and game makers MUST program and design >around this new API. Without legislation, this nonsense could go on >forever!

Quoted text (24 lines)

> It probably has to do with the performance of today's computers. > Somewhere I read that GPL is updating its physics model at approximately > 200Hz. This is probably not enough if you want to correctly simulate > modern race cars with high down force, stiffer suspension, stiffer > tires, much better brakes, lighter wheels and so on. The time constants > in a modern race car are much smaller compared to old race cars. > A simple analogy would be if you wanted to do a numerical simulation of > a mass suspended in a spring. You would have to update the simulation > faster than the frequency of the system to capture its correct motion. > If you now increase the stiffness of the spring (as have happened in > modern race cars) the frequency of the system will increase. Therefore, > you have to update the simulation more often to capture the correct > motion of the system. > Due to this you probably end up at updating the physics model at 500Hz > or more for a modern race car. This would require a faster computer and > that is probably why they will wait to use this physics model until the > average computer is fast enough for simulating a modern race car. > This could be one of the reasons for simulating older race cars. > This theory is based on my own (spare time) effort developing a race car > simulation game using multibody dynamics and fixed step ode-integrators.

Wow! Very few times in my life have I been blown away by technical acumen and a clear explanation of a reasonably difficult subject in UseNet. Jesper, the above reads like a job application for an auto-sim company... :-) Best of luck in your own efforts, but if you wanted to relocate to the US, I know of a couple companies that would be very interested in speaking with you... :-) ---Jim

Quoted text (17 lines)

> interesting:) but i suspect you are putting too much into the idea > that Nascar3 is papyrus's Great Goal and that all else is just > a "test". David Kaemmer's goal has always been to simulate motor- > racing as perfectly as possible, and each game that Papyrus produces > reflects their improving physics modelling. GPL is simply the next > step up for them. I expect that by the time Nascar3 is complete > the physics model they bring over from GPL will have been improved > in many subtle ways again. And then by the time ICR3/Cart2 arrives > (just exactly when is difficult to tell as yet, my crystal ball > is all cloudy) the physics model will probably be improved some more > still. and they'll keep improving it after that. > As to why they chose to make a sim based on the '67 F1 season, well, > i figure they wanted to do something different than the same old > Nascar and Cart that they've done for the last 4-5 games. And you > have to admit these '67 cars are awesomely fun to drive:) > At least they didn't go too far back in time. a fully simulated > Chariot racing game would be a bit too weird.

I thought Papy did GPL as a replacement open wheeler sim since the lost (very regretably) the CART license!

> IMHO, around the end of this year 3d card will hopefully chip standard on > most of the PC. In the eventuality that Voodoo-based card do some sort of > monopol like Creative (SB) some years ago, I may speculate that there isn't > going to be a non-accelerated version anymore. Many things can happend. > OpenGL, D3D, etc... can make some big steps, nobody knows. Lets face it! If you want to play games you NEED a 3D card! Soon, there will be a D3D (or something similar) that is truely good and that properly standardises the 3D card world. Imagine if when you purchased a 2D card in the past that it only worked with games/software designed for it! Until this "proper" D3D standard appears the gamers of the world will be justifyably put off by the current state of things. I have a Riva card in my system that was a complete waist of money. If MS or the 3D card manufacturers don't do something soon then people will just go and get themselves a Playstation, etc and who could blame them. The current state of affairs is simply a joke! It seems that all the card manufacturers have a standard for their own cards that is optimum. There will never be an overall solution like D3D that allows all cards to operate as well as with their own drivers/API so when does all the rebellion come to an end. I think we might need legislation to step in and say "Ok, this is the standard API and that is that". Then all card and game makers MUST program and design around this new API. Without legislation, this nonsense could go on forever!

Quoted text (8 lines)

> It seems that all the card manufacturers have a standard for their >own cards that is optimum. There will never be an overall solution like >D3D that allows all cards to operate as well as with their own >drivers/API so when does all the rebellion come to an end. I think we >might need legislation to step in and say "Ok, this is the standard API >and that is that". Then all card and game makers MUST program and design >around this new API. Without legislation, this nonsense could go on >forever!

You realize, of course, that the API introduced by any given government, knowledgeable and impartial as they are on these matters, would be four-color CGA. -- Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome. Uni des Saarlands \ and U.S. law. You have been warned.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> It seems that all the card manufacturers have a standard for their > own cards that is optimum. There will never be an overall solution like > D3D that allows all cards to operate as well as with their own > drivers/API so when does all the rebellion come to an end. I think we > might need legislation to step in and say "Ok, this is the standard API > and that is that". Then all card and game makers MUST program and design > around this new API. Without legislation, this nonsense could go on > forever!

Trust me, the last thing you want is the government poking its nose into this. NEVER ask for government regulations unless it is truly the last resort and no other solution is possible... "Hi! I'm from the government and I'm here to help you..." :-) ---Jim

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > It seems that all the card manufacturers have a standard for their > > own cards that is optimum. There will never be an overall solution like > > D3D that allows all cards to operate as well as with their own > > drivers/API so when does all the rebellion come to an end. I think we > > might need legislation to step in and say "Ok, this is the standard API > > and that is that". Then all card and game makers MUST program and design > > around this new API. Without legislation, this nonsense could go on > > forever! > Trust me, the last thing you want is the government poking its nose > into this. NEVER ask for government regulations unless it is truly the > last resort and no other solution is possible... "Hi! I'm from the > government and I'm here to help you..." :-) > ---Jim

Well, this is of course what I mean ie last resort. Has anyone heard about a truely good solution? I have heard about Direct X 6 being an Open GL based API. Anyone prepared to expand on this? All I have heard personally is that MS has basically conceded the inferiority of Direct X 5 and was looking at Open GL.

> Well, this is of course what I mean ie last resort. Has anyone heard >about a truely good solution? I have heard about Direct X 6 being an >Open GL based API. Anyone prepared to expand on this? All I have heard >personally is that MS has basically conceded the inferiority of Direct X >5 and was looking at Open GL. Check out http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/980505/ca_msft_di_1.html Doesn't say anything about OpenGL though. Only time will tell DX6's worthiness ... Hena