Do the cars in GP2 actually have different...

Everyone certainly is agressive about this. No wonder company reps disappear from here as quickly as they appear. As for whether or not the comments about editors were on topic, the original post asked whether or not the cars were different in GP2. Mr. (forgot his name) from MPS replied that this was indeed a feature of Crammond's code, and that changing the game with an editor somehow upset the balance of the universe. Who knows if this is right? I installed GP2 fresh last night to compare to my much edited copy. It seemed different, and even a little smoother, but I imagine it's just the power of suggestion. Certainly, though, the cars of the original are no match for the beautifully done carsets. At the very least, editing the carsets does change the performance of the cars relative to each other, bacause that is what we wanted. I would also like to point out that this MPS rep's comments about the legality of the editors, while not what we want to hear, are correct. Go read your manual. read the license agreement on the back. Decompiling the code is forbidden under the terms of the agreement that we accept when we open the package. I doubt the company would go after any of us unless we tried to sell something (last I heard, MPS didn't go after Instant Access) but legally the rep had a point. Some people in here, like in every other USENET group, are not well versed in etiquette and intelligent discourse. Your reactionary posts aren't likely to get answers. As for GP3, why are you getting all worked up over *vapourware*? Until there is at least something like a screenshot, don't you think there are better things to worry about? I thought we all learned our lesson waiting for GP2. There are plenty of other fun sims to fill our time. Stephen

I think you're right on, Steve. I don't think Mr. Rich is a particularly good Customer Service Representative, but he sure got a couple of extra barrels' full. And I think most of the readers missed the most interesting part ... In a recent and extraordinarily petulant and bitter-sounding post, Geoff Crammond says there won't be a GP3. (He also took a shot at the newsgroup -- which some of us just kinda laughed off. I thought he was being a jerk.) Several days later, Mr. Rich said essentially the same thing, in his own endearing CSR language. Then, today, reader Richard Walker showed up with his explantion from "Jeff," another MicroProse Representative, from last year, which took an equally negative, but more gently-worded assessment of likelihood of GP3. It's entirely possible that all of this is just public posturing by the two sides in a negotiation (which, by all appearances isn't going very well) -- Geoff Crammond and MicroProse. It's not unlike a pro athlete threatening to become a free agent, and the kind of posturing owners do during those negotiations. But that's just speculation. We'll have to wait and see. But did you notice this inconsistency? This is real cool! Here's a snip from Geoff's note -- However, if you really wanted to show your support you should have gone = out and bought the game. Shouldn't you have? I read these groups, and = everybody seems to have a copy, but Microprose assures me that only 1400 = copies have been sold world wide. Here's a quote from "Jeff / GP2 Support Representative" of MicroProse, from his note to Richard Walker ... We currently have sold over a million copies of GP2. Now, wouldn't it be interesting to know who's telling the truth here? Regards, Kurt

Steve, you are overlooking the point that there is a difference of "fact" here: on the one hand, Mr. Rich is denying, via this medium, the correctness of a report published in a magazine. On the other hand, people who have read such a report want a clarification from MPS, in the same medium, regarding the "interview with Geoff Crammond". It is simply a matter of some of us awaiting Mr. Rich advising that such a clarification will take place with magazines relating to the computer entertainment industry, the point being that if he can state it here, why can't he state it in a magazine article? As for GP3, > why are you getting all worked up over *vapourware*? Until > there is at least something like a screenshot, don't you think > there are better things to worry about? -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

> And I think most of the readers missed the most interesting part ... > In a recent and extraordinarily petulant and bitter-sounding post, Geoff > Crammond says there won't be a GP3. (He also took a shot at the newsgroup -- > which some of us just kinda laughed off. I thought he was being a jerk.) Erm.. Are you serious? I understood this to be a joke post by someone masquerading as G.C. -- UK.

In response to my stepping squarely in it yesterday, Richard Beckett >unfortunately, you failed to spot that the "recent and extraordinarily >petulant and bitter-sounding post" wasn't actually posted by Geoff >crammond, which explains why we laughed it off. It was actually posted >by someone called Jeangerrard, or something, I can't remember his name. Is my face red! Hell, I even went back through Deja News to make sure I got the names and sequence right! But I DIDN'T notice the "forgery. "Thanks for straightening me out, Richard. I think I may have to stick to driving instead of posting. Regards, Kurt

Go for it, Richard!! tell him one, twice....three times, even! :o) > Kurt, > unfortunately, you failed to spot that the "recent and extraordinarily > petulant and bitter-sounding post" wasn't actually posted by Geoff > crammond, which explains why we laughed it off. It was actually posted > by someone called Jeangerrard, or something, I can't remember his name. -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

Quoted text (16 lines)

>Go for it, Richard!! >tell him one, twice....three times, even! :o) >> Kurt, >> unfortunately, you failed to spot that the "recent and extraordinarily >> petulant and bitter-sounding post" wasn't actually posted by Geoff >> crammond, which explains why we laughed it off. It was actually posted >> by someone called Jeangerrard, or something, I can't remember his name. >-- >Regards, >Bruce.

Hi, Bruce -- I just assumed Richard thought I was a little thick, and needed repetition for the message to get through to me. One could get that impression ... Considering how I've been called to task before, Richard was extraordinarily kind! Thanks, you guys. I get a lot out of this group -- even at the expense of looking like a doofus every now and then. Regards, Kurt

.... Steve, all I want to say is: compare the message of Mr. Rich with the message by "Jeff" from MPS forwarded by Richard Walker to the same thread. What they say is not *that* different, but there is a world of difference in the WAY they say it. One is clearly negative and confronting, the other is how it should be. 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

But I think you are all getting too worked up over a *very* meagre s***of information at the end of that interview. Look at Crammond's wording again... it's all hand-waving and non-committal. Better to spend the better part of next year enjoying GPL and forget about GP3 until something concrete like a screenshot rolls out. Even if they confirm that it is in development, what good does that do? It will just fuel more tedious debate and rhetoric. S. : Steve, you are overlooking the point that there is a difference of : "fact" here: on the one hand, Mr. Rich is denying, via this medium, the : correctness of a report published in a magazine. On the other hand, : people who have read such a report want a clarification from MPS, in the : same medium, regarding the "interview with Geoff Crammond". : : It is simply a matter of some of us awaiting Mr. Rich advising that such : a clarification will take place with magazines relating to the computer : entertainment industry, the point being that if he can state it here, : why can't he state it in a magazine article? : : > : As for GP3, : > why are you getting all worked up over *vapourware*? Until : > there is at least something like a screenshot, don't you think : > there are better things to worry about? : > : : : -- : Regards, : Bruce. : ---------- : The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- : http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

EXACTLY!!! And that's what this newsgroup THRIVES on!! :o) > It will just fuel more tedious debate and rhetoric. > S. -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/