arca racing and nr2003 comparison

I'm thinking about buy arca racing and would like to get peoples opinons how it compares to nr2k3. I love the "realizm" factor of NR, setup options, online driving, and driveability of the cars (they can be somewhat of a handful when loose). I still think NR is the best Nascar sim. Thanks for your input.

Jim C wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I'm thinking about buy arca racing and would like to get peoples opinons how > it compares to nr2k3. I love the "realizm" factor of NR, setup options, > online driving, and driveability of the cars (they can be somewhat of a > handful when loose). I still think NR is the best Nascar sim. Thanks for > your input. > >

The drivability,car control,online racing is better in ARCA,the user interface,graphics, are better in NR2003. Setup options are more in ARCA,but also more confusing. Arca seems to have more of a connection to the track whereas NR2003 seems to be like driving on ice. The car feel,sense of speed ,are better in ARCA. BUT! there are many bugs in ARCA right now,you can loose sound and controller settings at random times,ARCA is a FPS hog,you can loose ability to connect online(fixed with a file edit) but when fixed it can happen again.The lucky dog does not function properly,visible damage to cars is nonexistent,pit times are not adjusted for fixing damage. Those are just a few off the top of my head.Arca could be great sim,but we'll have to wait for the first patch and see if TSF is really dedicated to this sim. I will say I'm glad I got it,I'm having a ball racing online with it,and really hope TSF is dedicated.

On Apr 5, 2:15 pm, "Jim C" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I'm thinking about buy arca racing and would like to get peoples opinons how > it compares to nr2k3. I can't say anything bad about N2003. I was just never able to get hooked on it when it came out. I've tried it again a few times over the years, but still couldn't get into it. There was something sterile about it where the car felt disconnected from the track. ARCA is completely different to me. > I love the "realizm" factor of NR, setup options, > online driving, and driveability of the cars (they can be somewhat of a > handful when loose).   I find ARCA to be much more realistic in ways that are most important to me. First of all, the car responds to changes the way you would expect. I find that when real-world ideas and concepts about car setup are applied in ARCA you get substantial improvements. I don't just mean in changing the handling response of the car in terms of dialing in understeer or oversteer. I've repeatedly found that I can come up with an abstract idea about a setup change that should improve some aspect of the car, like improving speed, tire wear, stability, etc. Then when I set down and make the changes in the sim, I get real, positive, expected results. I've never found this in another sim. Along that same line, I haven't seen any sort of setup 'exploit' that gains speed for no apparent reason. In past sims it always seemed like coming up with fast setups required trying random things that didn't necessarily make any sense just to see if it's faster. When speed is found there is no rhyme or reason to it. So far in ARCA this approach doesn't seem to work at all. Another thing is that a really bad setup will not work for more than a few laps. The car has to be finely balanced to be good for a full fuel run. If not tire wear will kill you to the point where the car can be undriveable after a few laps. Similarly the tires in ARCA are very unforgiving to abuse. Reasonable driving technique is absolutely necessary in this sim. ARCA is awesome online. The worst thing I've seen is interruptions in the connection to the servers. It seems to happen most often when there are 30+ drivers on a server. It's not a warp exactly. The good thing is that when it does happen it's only for a second or two, and I have yet to see it interfere with the race proceedings. I have yet to see a warp-related crash. When the connection is smooth you can bump and rub all day long without problems. Cars are no longer launched into the stratosphere. It's not too different from rFactor in this regard. You can do close racing online with confidence. All of this is what I expected it to be based on what I saw in beta testing. Sim Factory seemed to concentrate most on the driving and setup aspect of the sim. They went over and over the tire models and driving characteristics of the cars to get realistic driveability and performance. That work shows in how conscientious you have to be in your car setup and driving approach. To me all the other small details of the sim that might not be perfect pale in comparison to how nice it is to tune and drive these cars. > I still think NR is the best Nascar sim.   Based on what? Have you actually tried? I completely disagree. Pat Dotson

NR2003 still is the best Oval Sim IMHO. ARCA is ok, and is the better of all the ISI based sim's, but it's still an ISI based sim. I don't think we will truly have a replacement for NR2003 until someone steps up and actually writes one from scratch without depending on the ISI engine. -Larry "Jim C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm thinking about buy arca racing and would like to get peoples opinons > how it compares to nr2k3. I love the "realizm" factor of NR, setup > options, online driving, and driveability of the cars (they can be > somewhat of a handful when loose). I still think NR is the best Nascar > sim. Thanks for your input. >

Amazing how I feel just the opposite :) -Larry "Jack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> The drivability,car control,online racing is better in ARCA,the user > interface,graphics, are better in NR2003. > Setup options are more in ARCA,but also more confusing. Arca seems to have > more of a connection to the track whereas NR2003 seems to be like driving > on ice. The car feel,sense of speed ,are better in ARCA. BUT! there are > many bugs in ARCA right now,you can loose sound and controller settings at > random times,ARCA is a FPS hog,you can loose ability to connect > online(fixed with a file edit) but when fixed it can happen again.The > lucky dog does not function properly,visible damage to cars is > nonexistent,pit times are not adjusted for fixing damage. Those are just a > few off the top of my head.Arca could be great sim,but we'll have to wait > for the first patch and see if TSF is really dedicated to this sim. > I will say I'm glad I got it,I'm having a ball racing online with it,and > really hope TSF is dedicated.

A agree with some of this regarding NR2003. The setup 'cheats' were an issue from the start, and I have no doubt they would have been fixed by Papy, but then Sierra screwed us all over and we never saw anything past the first major patch :( This is the main reason I always preferred fixed-setup racing. Everyone is on the same level. Still, I think it's not been beat. Yet. -Larry <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... On Apr 5, 2:15 pm, "Jim C" <[email hidden]> wrote: I can't say anything bad about N2003. I was just never able to get hooked on it when it came out. I've tried it again a few times over the years, but still couldn't get into it. There was something sterile about it where the car felt disconnected from the track. ARCA is completely different to me. > I love the "realizm" factor of NR, setup options, > online driving, and driveability of the cars (they can be somewhat of a > handful when loose). I find ARCA to be much more realistic in ways that are most important to me. First of all, the car responds to changes the way you would expect. I find that when real-world ideas and concepts about car setup are applied in ARCA you get substantial improvements. I don't just mean in changing the handling response of the car in terms of dialing in understeer or oversteer. I've repeatedly found that I can come up with an abstract idea about a setup change that should improve some aspect of the car, like improving speed, tire wear, stability, etc. Then when I set down and make the changes in the sim, I get real, positive, expected results. I've never found this in another sim. Along that same line, I haven't seen any sort of setup 'exploit' that gains speed for no apparent reason. In past sims it always seemed like coming up with fast setups required trying random things that didn't necessarily make any sense just to see if it's faster. When speed is found there is no rhyme or reason to it. So far in ARCA this approach doesn't seem to work at all. Another thing is that a really bad setup will not work for more than a few laps. The car has to be finely balanced to be good for a full fuel run. If not tire wear will kill you to the point where the car can be undriveable after a few laps. Similarly the tires in ARCA are very unforgiving to abuse. Reasonable driving technique is absolutely necessary in this sim. ARCA is awesome online. The worst thing I've seen is interruptions in the connection to the servers. It seems to happen most often when there are 30+ drivers on a server. It's not a warp exactly. The good thing is that when it does happen it's only for a second or two, and I have yet to see it interfere with the race proceedings. I have yet to see a warp-related crash. When the connection is smooth you can bump and rub all day long without problems. Cars are no longer launched into the stratosphere. It's not too different from rFactor in this regard. You can do close racing online with confidence. All of this is what I expected it to be based on what I saw in beta testing. Sim Factory seemed to concentrate most on the driving and setup aspect of the sim. They went over and over the tire models and driving characteristics of the cars to get realistic driveability and performance. That work shows in how conscientious you have to be in your car setup and driving approach. To me all the other small details of the sim that might not be perfect pale in comparison to how nice it is to tune and drive these cars. > I still think NR is the best Nascar sim. Based on what? Have you actually tried? I completely disagree. Pat Dotson

> ARCA is ok, and is the better of all the ISI based sim's, but it's still an ISI based sim. So does this (being an ISI based sim) mean the replays are still missing stuff, like tire scrubb sounds?

On Apr 7, 11:12 am, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I don't think we will truly have a replacement for NR2003 until someone > steps up and actually writes one from scratch without depending on the ISI > engine. So basically whenever iRacing comes out?

Setup cheats??? Please explain! "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6XqKj.46001$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (81 lines)

>A agree with some of this regarding NR2003. The setup 'cheats' were an >issue from the start, and I have no doubt they would have been fixed by >Papy, but then Sierra screwed us all over and we never saw anything past >the first major patch :( > > This is the main reason I always preferred fixed-setup racing. Everyone is > on the same level. > > Still, I think it's not been beat. Yet. > > -Larry > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > On Apr 5, 2:15 pm, "Jim C" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > I can't say anything bad about N2003. I was just never able to get > hooked on it when it came out. I've tried it again a few times over > the years, but still couldn't get into it. There was something > sterile about it where the car felt disconnected from the track. ARCA > is completely different to me. > >> I love the "realizm" factor of NR, setup options, >> online driving, and driveability of the cars (they can be somewhat of a >> handful when loose). > > I find ARCA to be much more realistic in ways that are most important > to me. > > First of all, the car responds to changes the way you would expect. I > find that when real-world ideas and concepts about car setup are > applied in ARCA you get substantial improvements. I don't just mean > in changing the handling response of the car in terms of dialing in > understeer or oversteer. I've repeatedly found that I can come up > with an abstract idea about a setup change that should improve some > aspect of the car, like improving speed, tire wear, stability, etc. > Then when I set down and make the changes in the sim, I get real, > positive, expected results. I've never found this in another sim. > > Along that same line, I haven't seen any sort of setup 'exploit' that > gains speed for no apparent reason. In past sims it always seemed > like coming up with fast setups required trying random things that > didn't necessarily make any sense just to see if it's faster. When > speed is found there is no rhyme or reason to it. So far in ARCA this > approach doesn't seem to work at all. > > Another thing is that a really bad setup will not work for more than a > few laps. The car has to be finely balanced to be good for a full > fuel run. If not tire wear will kill you to the point where the car > can be undriveable after a few laps. > > Similarly the tires in ARCA are very unforgiving to abuse. Reasonable > driving technique is absolutely necessary in this sim. > > ARCA is awesome online. The worst thing I've seen is interruptions in > the connection to the servers. It seems to happen most often when > there are 30+ drivers on a server. It's not a warp exactly. The good > thing is that when it does happen it's only for a second or two, and I > have yet to see it interfere with the race proceedings. I have yet to > see a warp-related crash. > > When the connection is smooth you can bump and rub all day long > without problems. Cars are no longer launched into the stratosphere. > It's not too different from rFactor in this regard. You can do close > racing online with confidence. > > All of this is what I expected it to be based on what I saw in beta > testing. Sim Factory seemed to concentrate most on the driving and > setup aspect of the sim. They went over and over the tire models and > driving characteristics of the cars to get realistic driveability and > performance. That work shows in how conscientious you have to be in > your car setup and driving approach. To me all the other small > details of the sim that might not be perfect pale in comparison to how > nice it is to tune and drive these cars. > >> I still think NR is the best Nascar sim. > > Based on what? Have you actually tried? I completely disagree. > > Pat Dotson

You've never had your ass kicked by some punk in a car 10mph faster than anyone elses? If so, that's how :) I was in a California race once and on the last lap some ass passed like 7 cars in turn 4 on the outside doing like 210mph and won the race. I don't know the in's and out's of it however. -Larry "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:47fb274c$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (88 lines)

> Setup cheats??? Please explain! > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:6XqKj.46001$[email hidden]... >>A agree with some of this regarding NR2003. The setup 'cheats' were an >>issue from the start, and I have no doubt they would have been fixed by >>Papy, but then Sierra screwed us all over and we never saw anything past >>the first major patch :( >> >> This is the main reason I always preferred fixed-setup racing. Everyone >> is on the same level. >> >> Still, I think it's not been beat. Yet. >> >> -Larry >> >> <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> On Apr 5, 2:15 pm, "Jim C" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >> I can't say anything bad about N2003. I was just never able to get >> hooked on it when it came out. I've tried it again a few times over >> the years, but still couldn't get into it. There was something >> sterile about it where the car felt disconnected from the track. ARCA >> is completely different to me. >> >>> I love the "realizm" factor of NR, setup options, >>> online driving, and driveability of the cars (they can be somewhat of a >>> handful when loose). >> >> I find ARCA to be much more realistic in ways that are most important >> to me. >> >> First of all, the car responds to changes the way you would expect. I >> find that when real-world ideas and concepts about car setup are >> applied in ARCA you get substantial improvements. I don't just mean >> in changing the handling response of the car in terms of dialing in >> understeer or oversteer. I've repeatedly found that I can come up >> with an abstract idea about a setup change that should improve some >> aspect of the car, like improving speed, tire wear, stability, etc. >> Then when I set down and make the changes in the sim, I get real, >> positive, expected results. I've never found this in another sim. >> >> Along that same line, I haven't seen any sort of setup 'exploit' that >> gains speed for no apparent reason. In past sims it always seemed >> like coming up with fast setups required trying random things that >> didn't necessarily make any sense just to see if it's faster. When >> speed is found there is no rhyme or reason to it. So far in ARCA this >> approach doesn't seem to work at all. >> >> Another thing is that a really bad setup will not work for more than a >> few laps. The car has to be finely balanced to be good for a full >> fuel run. If not tire wear will kill you to the point where the car >> can be undriveable after a few laps. >> >> Similarly the tires in ARCA are very unforgiving to abuse. Reasonable >> driving technique is absolutely necessary in this sim. >> >> ARCA is awesome online. The worst thing I've seen is interruptions in >> the connection to the servers. It seems to happen most often when >> there are 30+ drivers on a server. It's not a warp exactly. The good >> thing is that when it does happen it's only for a second or two, and I >> have yet to see it interfere with the race proceedings. I have yet to >> see a warp-related crash. >> >> When the connection is smooth you can bump and rub all day long >> without problems. Cars are no longer launched into the stratosphere. >> It's not too different from rFactor in this regard. You can do close >> racing online with confidence. >> >> All of this is what I expected it to be based on what I saw in beta >> testing. Sim Factory seemed to concentrate most on the driving and >> setup aspect of the sim. They went over and over the tire models and >> driving characteristics of the cars to get realistic driveability and >> performance. That work shows in how conscientious you have to be in >> your car setup and driving approach. To me all the other small >> details of the sim that might not be perfect pale in comparison to how >> nice it is to tune and drive these cars. >> >>> I still think NR is the best Nascar sim. >> >> Based on what? Have you actually tried? I completely disagree. >> >> Pat Dotson > >

> I was in a California race once and on the last lap some ass passed like 7 cars in turn 4 on the outside doing like > 210mph and won the race. That would be a hack or a trainer, not a setup cheat. No PC based game is "trainer proof", depending on the level of motivation of the trainer makers.

jason moyer wrote: > So basically whenever iRacing comes out? No, that is not a Nascar sim. It also has a subscription fee so is a non contender for me.

On Apr 12, 9:28 pm, Rat River Cemetary <[email hidden]> wrote: > No, that is not a Nascar sim. It also has a subscription fee so is a non > contender for me. There is no NASCAR sim, and I suspect there won't be one for a few years unless EA lets their exlusive licenselapse. I was responding to Larry's suggestion that we won't have a good oval sim until someone makes one that doesn't use the ISI engine, and I was simply trying to point out that several of the gentlemen who made the best oval-based stockcar sims ever have a new one coming out that features ovals and stock cars.

jason moyer wrote: > I was responding to Larry's suggestion that we won't have a good oval > sim until someone makes one that doesn't use the ISI engine, and I was > simply trying to point out that several of the gentlemen who made the > best oval-based stockcar sims ever have a new one coming out that > features ovals and stock cars. Well, I like ISI based sims quite a bit more than GPL (feeling like you are driving on ice is not realistic, I repeat, not realisitc). Never cared much for Papy Nascar sims either as I don't like oval racing much. I did like their Indycar sims though and it is a shame they were forced to make just Nascar sims by Sierra.

IMHO, ISI INVENTED the driving-on-ice feeling. -Larry "Rat River Cemetary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:uMUMj.181130$pM4.22023@pd7urf1no... > Well, I like ISI based sims quite a bit more than GPL (feeling like you > are driving on ice is not realistic, I repeat, not realisitc). Never cared > much for Papy Nascar sims either as I don't like oval racing much. I did > like their Indycar sims though and it is a shame they were forced to make > just Nascar sims by Sierra.

On Apr 14, 10:53 pm, Rat River Cemetary <[email hidden]> wrote: > Well, I like ISI based sims quite a bit more than GPL (feeling like you > are driving on ice is not realistic, I repeat, not realisitc). Have you tried the 65/66/69 mods for GPL? It's obviously 10 year old tech, but physics-wise the engine feels significantly better when you're not driving on wooden tires.

On Apr 15, 4:35 pm, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > IMHO, ISI INVENTED the driving-on-ice feeling. > > -Larry Larry, can you drop me an email?