Anyone like MS CART racing?

> Does anyone like MS Cart simulator? I quite like more the way the car handles > over Monaco GP. You may have invited a few (well, no - many) flamers, but let me be the first to tell you that there are a lot of people that love CART Precision Racing (like me - but GPL's my baby now), and just as many that hate it. Therefore, I will give you an URL so you can enjoy the sim with extra tracks, updated cars, and cool setups. [link lost in import] Have fun! - John P. Wilson :|: - Downshift http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/1123/index.html - Growing Fan of Sierra's "Grand Prix Legends" 1967 Computer Racing Simulation

>That CPR is so universally disliked in this NG should tell you something >about the mentality of the people here. Its problem is nothing more than >that it's a MS product. Sad isn't it. Sad? Indubitably. When someone decries others for putting down the opinions of others, while at the same time doing the same thing himself. A sort of self-served Q.E.D. if you like. Though some do cite the MS connection as a problem of CPR, in reality it has flaws that go way beyond such trivial matters. It has its good points (sensation of speed, sound, as you mentioned), but being "1,000 times better than ICR2" is not one of them. The way the car handles is awful, and how it compares to ICR2 in that regard depends upon personal preference more than anything. Pre-GPL I found N2 to be most convincing, then SODA, then ICR2 & N2, with F1RS and CPR bringing up the rear. Everyone else's mileage will vary on this, and 100 requests will bring 100 different answers. Cheers! John

% That CPR is so universally disliked in this NG should tell you something % about the mentality of the people here. Its problem is nothing more than % that it's a MS product. Sad isn't it. MS has nothing to do with the "dislike" in this newsgroup. Sure it was easy to pick on "MickeySoft" (all too easy), but the remainder of your post truly explains why it was diskliked by many in this newsgroup. % As a sim, CPR has a lot going for it - not much else (until GPL) would give % you as good a sensation of power and speed; you can feel that 900 odd bhp % under your right foot. In the end it is frustratingly flawed: graphics are % not good enough to see a long way ahead and the AI is not up to scratch. I % don't have any multiplayer experience on it. % A shame because in so many ways (car handling, visceral sensations) it was a % thousand times better than ICR2 but it badly needed to be in its second % incarnation by now to put right those glaring faults. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (8 lines)

>It has its good points (sensation of speed, sound, as you mentioned), >but being "1,000 times better than ICR2" is not one of them. The way >the car handles is awful, and how it compares to ICR2 in that regard >depends upon personal preference more than anything. >Pre-GPL I found N2 to be most convincing, then SODA, then ICR2 & N2, >with F1RS and CPR bringing up the rear. Everyone else's mileage will >vary on this, and 100 requests will bring 100 different answers.

I only have two racing sims, CPR and N2. After I use CPR, I can't use N2 because the cars feel so much less responsive in accelleration, braking, and handling. N2 is fine if I use that first, but the instant response of the IndyCars makes them so much more fun and challenging to drive. Despite the many flaws that others have pointed out for CPR, I have a lot of fun with it, and I'm still improving my laptimes at all the tracks. One thing no one complains about with CPR is the sound - it sounds just like the real thing. It's really amazing in that regard. I like N2 as well and have fun with it, but it pales in e***ment compared with CPR, IMO. The AI is better in N2 in terms of the computer opponents, but the computer drivers will ram into you fromk behind in both games if you're holding them up. I must admit that I like CART racing more than NASCAR in real life as well, and that undoubtedly biases my opinion in favor of CPR. As far as CPR having "awful handling," well I don't know. I've read reviews from professional racers that have praised the handling and physics, and then others that were a lot less positive. To me it seems fairly realistic, though I admit I've never driven a real open***pit racing car other than a go-kart. The laptimes sure are close to what the real CART drivers get at most of the tracks, so the cars are going pretty much the same speeds on the CPR tracks that the real cars are going on the real tracks. -- Bill Jones e-mail addresses: (860) 437-5650 WWW: http://pages.cthome.net/billj

No, the first criterion by which to judge a sim must be the handling and in this CPR was a long, long way ahead of ICR2 in providing proper responses to power and weight transfers. This is not a subjective matter (in other words, not a matter of opinion). ICR2 provided a much better racing environment (this is subjective although you could probably quantify it). I'm not sure what to make of someone who actually thinks that ICR2 cars handled realistically - they're not FWD and they have more than 80 bhp.

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>That CPR is so universally disliked in this NG should tell you something >>about the mentality of the people here. Its problem is nothing more than >>that it's a MS product. Sad isn't it. >Sad? Indubitably. When someone decries others for putting down the >opinions of others, while at the same time doing the same thing >himself. A sort of self-served Q.E.D. if you like. >Though some do cite the MS connection as a problem of CPR, in reality >it has flaws that go way beyond such trivial matters. >>A shame because in so many ways (car handling, visceral sensations) it was

a

Quoted text (14 lines)

>>thousand times better than ICR2 but it badly needed to be in its second >>incarnation by now to put right those glaring faults. >It has its good points (sensation of speed, sound, as you mentioned), >but being "1,000 times better than ICR2" is not one of them. The way >the car handles is awful, and how it compares to ICR2 in that regard >depends upon personal preference more than anything. >Pre-GPL I found N2 to be most convincing, then SODA, then ICR2 & N2, >with F1RS and CPR bringing up the rear. Everyone else's mileage will >vary on this, and 100 requests will bring 100 different answers. >Cheers! >John

>No, the first criterion by which to judge a sim must be the handling and in >this CPR was a long, long way ahead of ICR2 in providing proper responses to >power and weight transfers. This is not a subjective matter (in other words, >not a matter of opinion). This would be in the way CPR properly models the tyre contact patch such that I could race across the dirt and grass in fifth gear? Or perhaps the way that when you gently, ever so gently, caress the wall at a very small angle of incidence the steering leaps instantly to full opposite lock? Go on, tell me that such an effect is a result of the physics engine and not something canned in to paper over a flaw. The flaws in CPR are many and varied, and on the basis of handling alone cannot be held up to be empirically better than ICR2. If that is your opinion I can certainly accept it, but as a statement of fact is unproven and, IMO, very wrong. I have similar feelings about someone who thinks that cars do hiccup furiously at speeds below 30mph and leap to opposite lock when touching a wall. Both sims have flaws, so what? No sim can ever handle realistically, there are simply too many aspects to be modelled. All we can have is an interpretation of reality which can be achieved either by development of an accurate engine which responds accurately to real numbers and inputs, or by cobbling together a fudge to give a sensation of same. What that means is that if a simulation matches your image of what that reality must be like you will think it is good 'un, if it doesn't then it will be classes as bad, or at least worse. This interpretation is made without knowing what is actually modelled and without knowing how it is being done. Cheers! John

>Since I'm one of the few mnisguided fools (according to many) who actually >believe that Microsoft has been good for the PC industry you can't lay that >claim at my door. By making the above statement, you're agreeing with John K. His statement doesn't apply directly to you, but apparently you agree with him. Anyone who believes MS hasn't been good for the PC industry is more than a misguided fool. I'd say a stone cold moron is a better description. David G Fisher DmndDave

Well John, I'm afraid that neither statement is true of CPR. Unless of course you're referring to the speed-lane rev limiter and hitting the wall of an oval at somewhere north of 200kph. You surely wouldn't be doing that, would you? Would you John? John? >I have similar feelings about someone who thinks that cars do hiccup >furiously at speeds below 30mph and leap to opposite lock when >touching a wall.

<...> How is the way the car handles so awful? It is certainly an awful shock after driving the comparatively unresponsive, mushy ICR2 model- in ICR2 the fastest way to go straight is to "just floor it"- in CPR, if you try that, you "sit and spin"- which seems a lot more realistic to me. And braking too in CPR seems much more realistic. But I think the AI is pretty abominable compared to ICR2 or N2; although it shines over ICR2 in a couple of minor points (none of ICR2 or N2's unnaturally sudden AI manouvers that will take you out at a moments notice) I never did buy GPL because the demo ran so poorly on my machine (crashed it, actually). perhaps the final version wouldn't- but here's a case where a demo scared me off.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>No, the first criterion by which to judge a sim must be the handling and in >>this CPR was a long, long way ahead of ICR2 in providing proper responses to >>power and weight transfers. This is not a subjective matter (in other words, >>not a matter of opinion). >This would be in the way CPR properly models the tyre contact patch >such that I could race across the dirt and grass in fifth gear?

Are you racing in Professional Mode, or Intermediate Mode? Here's what the FAQ says: [start quote FAQ] (13) Q. Is the way the car handles on sand and grass different when you're driving at the Professional skill level? A. Yes. When you're driving at the Professional skill level, you can expect a challenging and slippery ride when you go off on grass or gravel. In interviews, real-world CART drivers often compare driving on sand and grass to "being on ice," and that sensation is included in the game for those who are skilled enough to drive at the Professional Skill level. If you can't handle the challenge, you may want to consider driving under the Rookie or Intermediate skill levels. [end quote FAQ] I was surprised how different each mode is from each other- I figured they would all be the same, with only different "Helps" available. But apparently, each mode has it's own driving model. Seems sort of an odd approach. <...>

>Are you racing in Professional Mode, or Intermediate Mode? Here's what >the FAQ says: Pro mode with all help off - my starting point in any sim. Cheers! John

>Well John, I'm afraid that neither statement is true of CPR. Hmmm, this is known as an "own shaft" - blowing your own theory right out the water. Of course not - I know it, you know it, everyone reading knows it. As regulars here will know I believe CPR to be very good in many respects, as with any sim it's when the zealots stop extolling it's virtues and try to paper over the cracks that they begin to look foolish. Enjoy CPR for what it is, praise it's virtues, acknowledge it's flaws. Drive along a straight as slowly as you like, now move gently toward a wall. Touch aforementioned wall with steering straight ahead - now come back and tell me the steering doesn't wildly leap to opposite lock. Beyond that, consider if your road car, an Indycar, a pedal car, any car at all behaves in this manner. If you STILL believe neither statement is true then it's time for you to move up a couple of dioptres... Cheers! John

>Pro mode with all help off - my starting point in any sim. Boy, you must have some big***! Just kidding. I know, I'm adding nothing to the conversation. - John P. Wilson :|: - Downshift http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/1123/index.html - Growing Fan of Sierra's "Grand Prix Legends" 1967 Computer Racing Simulation

I think you need a hobby! Obviously too much time on your hands.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>Well John, I'm afraid that neither statement is true of CPR. >Hmmm, this is known as an "own shaft" - blowing your own theory right >out the water. >>Unless of >>course you're referring to the speed-lane rev limiter and hitting the wall >>of an oval at somewhere north of 200kph. You surely wouldn't be doing

that,

Quoted text (19 lines)

>>would you? Would you John? John? >Of course not - I know it, you know it, everyone reading knows it. As >regulars here will know I believe CPR to be very good in many >respects, as with any sim it's when the zealots stop extolling it's >virtues and try to paper over the cracks that they begin to look >foolish. Enjoy CPR for what it is, praise it's virtues, acknowledge >it's flaws. >Drive along a straight as slowly as you like, now move gently toward a >wall. Touch aforementioned wall with steering straight ahead - now >come back and tell me the steering doesn't wildly leap to opposite >lock. Beyond that, consider if your road car, an Indycar, a pedal car, >any car at all behaves in this manner. If you STILL believe neither >statement is true then it's time for you to move up a couple of >dioptres... >Cheers! >John

>I think you need a hobby! Obviously too much time on your hands. Well, at least it's nice to know it's not only sims that you formulate theories about based upon the most scant information. Cheers! John

>I have yet to see a good sim that doesn't get creamed in the >newsgroups. Agreed. Whoa there, we we're not "defending" anything. I pointed out that CPR was unable to live up to the tag of "1,000 times better than ICR2" that it was given - no more, no less. Any of these things are a matter of how the sim in question meets your impression of what the real thing should be - personal opinion in other words. At least if people are arguing it shows that _some_ people like them. That was one of the problems in ICR2 in my opinion, lack of feedback on brake locking. Papyrus have addressed this in GPL and IMO it's very good. OTOH you _should_ be able to stomp the brakes in an Indycar, the downforce ensures the wheels are very unlikely to lock up until you have scrubbed off some speed (and therefore grip and dwonforce). I didn't like the fact that in CPR the wheels locked instantly with too much brake. Still, others obviously like that. Cheers! John

The laptimes are the same because they were designed to be. In beta versions the laptimes and car speeds were a _long_ way from realistic, but these things are adjusted prior to release to match what you would expect. It would actually be more surprising if the times DIDN'T match real world. Cheers! John

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Since I'm one of the few mnisguided fools (according to many) who actually > >believe that Microsoft has been good for the PC industry you can't lay that > >claim at my door. > By making the above statement, you're agreeing with John K. His statement > doesn't apply directly to you, but apparently you agree with him. Anyone who > believes MS hasn't been good for the PC industry is more than a misguided > fool. I'd say a stone cold moron is a better description.

Hmm, you've got some stone cold morons in the Justice Department then, don't you? ;^) l8er ronny -- Toys'R'Us '99: "So, would you like a hand gun with that action figure, kiddo?" |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

> I think you need a hobby! Obviously too much time on your hands. You actually don't get it, do you? l8er ronny -- Toys'R'Us '99: "So, would you like a hand gun with that action figure, kiddo?" |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

% Yes, I do agree that a lot of the criticism of CPR (and particularly the % vitriol with which it was expressed) was due to it having "Microsoft" on % the box cover. But John K was saying that "Its problem is nothing more than % that it's a MS product." That is simply not true and I most certainly do % not agree with him on that aspect. To be frank about this, I think the real reason CPR got the treatment it did here was because the developers promised to support and improve the product based on input from us the users. When people voiced their concerns (all be it at times quite harshly), the developers took their ball and went home, leaving us with an uncompleted simulation (one that held quite alot of promise). I think more than anything, many people took offense to this attitude and felt that they had been "duped" by the hype and where short-changed in the process. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:25:34 -0500, "John P. Wilson" >Boy, you must have some big***! Just kidding. You'll probably find a lot of people here would start as I do - it's when you see us spinning all over the track that you realise our dreams are bigger than our talent :-) No-one _could_ add anything to this discussion. It was an equine corpse long before this and is to this day been mercilessly flogged. Cheers! John

Isn't it ammusing watching these CPR fans argue the***off a bull. LOL. In a few months he'll be scratching his head wondering why he ever bothered either argueing or having CPR on his HD!

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >I think you need a hobby! Obviously too much time on your hands. > Well, at least it's nice to know it's not only sims that you formulate > theories about based upon the most scant information. > Cheers! > John

-- Byron Forbes Captain of Team Lightning Bolt http://members.tripod.com/~HOSHUMUNGUS and http://www.frontiernet.net/~godsoe/bolt/home.htm

> I have yet to see a good sim that doesn't get creamed in the > newsgroups. ICR2, the wonder that we're defending here, got so hot > that we all got the impression Rick Genter and his pals gave up on us > because we were so rude. Is GPL getting creamed? Most negative posts are from people simply venting frustration at how difficult it is (which is actually a selling point IMO). And the usual upgrade blues. I have been*** around here for around 12 months and have never seen anything recieved as well as GPL. F1RS peaked for a while but the off track physics, menus and lack of proper TCP/IP support held it back. There is very little holding GPL back apart from peoples upgrade schedules :) -- Byron Forbes Captain of Team Lightning Bolt http://members.tripod.com/~HOSHUMUNGUS and http://www.frontiernet.net/~godsoe/bolt/home.htm

Ok, let me join the recap with a few of my memories/opinions! 1/ Game is hyped to the hilt for over a year - Revolutionary, 6 degree of freedom physics model. An MMX/D3D Showcase item! best this, best that etc............. 2/ Shipped for Xmas in alpha status! 3/ MS promises ongoing support but simply keeps sucking people into buying it and waiting for all the 1 month refund opportunities to expire. 4/ TRI sees the light and flees into the open arms of G.O.D. 5/ Goodbye! 6/ People don't want to admit they've been suckered and defend CPR to the death - yes, till their inevitable death! LOL. My view is that MS had no idea how easy the likes of Papyrus were making racing sim developement look! CPR should have probably been being released this Xmas, not last!

Quoted text (20 lines)

> % Yes, I do agree that a lot of the criticism of CPR (and particularly the > % vitriol with which it was expressed) was due to it having "Microsoft" on > % the box cover. But John K was saying that "Its problem is nothing more than > % that it's a MS product." That is simply not true and I most certainly do > % not agree with him on that aspect. > To be frank about this, I think the real reason CPR got the treatment it > did here was because the developers promised to support and improve the > product based on input from us the users. When people voiced their > concerns (all be it at times quite harshly), the developers took their > ball and went home, leaving us with an uncompleted simulation (one that > held quite alot of promise). I think more than anything, many people > took offense to this attitude and felt that they had been "duped" by the > hype and where short-changed in the process. > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-- Byron Forbes Captain of Team Lightning Bolt http://members.tripod.com/~HOSHUMUNGUS and http://www.frontiernet.net/~godsoe/bolt/home.htm

I love racing sims, and have been involved in this group for many years. Yet when did I finally buy CPR? Well, I downloaded the demo within a day of it's release. But I bought it last week! And why? Because it was $17 ! What did I buy with it? World Circuit (GP1) for $6.50, because I never did have a copy of that one either. I basically wanted both for my "archive"- in there with Indy500 The Simulation, ICR1, and other odd gems from the past. Fact is, CPR surprised me- it was a lot better than I expected from an MS product. And in terms of it's flaws- I think a lot of it has to do with it coming from a background that didn't make racing sims as it's bread and butter. Unusual for this day, and deeply to CPR's credit, I don't think it was an out-and-out attempt at rip-off- I think the programmers must have been pretty proud of what they achieved with this piece of software. All may disagree, but I rank the car physics above GP2. I hate the fact that the race difficulty is so difficult to calibrate, though. But I do respect that the sim is so damn hard- this wasn't a "Playstation" sort of thing, they really went for the Sim. I've never used a sim where it was so difficult to keep on the edge before; it is hard to do more that 2 laps at qualifying speed without making a tremendous blunder in braking somewhere. Funny, I hadn't read this part- but I guess I've already agreed with you! <snip> I think you are right in saying MS didn't know what they were getting in to, and discovered that there really is no satisfying people with a "give me your opinions" approach in the Racing Sim arena. This isn't a flying simulation- something about a racing sim really gets under people's skin in a peculiar way, and leaves people viciously angry with it's flaws. And people get ***! Again, I hark back to Rick Genter and the ICR2 days- I couldn't read this groups sometimes; it was painful, and you wondered how a programmer feels about working on his sim after reading nothing but this vitreol crap, and even having (as in N2 history) people faking e-mails and putting words in your mouth, or doing *** personal (and illegal) things. One reason I love racing sims: it is the only action sport I know of that can be almost perfectly experienced (visually speaking) on a screen. Where esle can you be watching TV of a race after basically learning every nuance of a track before hand? Or have the sense of battling spedific opponents on that course? I think it draws people in to it deeper than most other sorts of sports simulations, and people get a lot more intense about them. But then, maybe I just love racing.

<...> Here- I'll give one major rant: I have one major, major problem with it: Papy wrote it so it requires a game card to run, and yet they wrote it for use with only two chips! Well, one common one and one obscure one. What were they thinking? In terms of sheer video *** performance, Quake2 can run circles around GPL. Yet it will run just fine and useably in software mode. Most importantly, Id used a standard graphics library to access people's video cards- granted, people scream that Id used OpenGL instead of the more common D3D... but compared to Papy, at least they wrote for a set of instructions all card manufacturers would eventually support. Papy should have tried OpenGL or D3D. Or they should include a Rendition card in the box- because that is what I'll need to do with this brand new little CD if I choose to keep it. Because 9 FPS on a P2-300 is... terrible! And 200x320 at 19 FPS is even worse- worse than ICR2 on my old 486-33. Might as well go back to Indy500 The Simulation.

You've taken my words out of context. Please see my full post. >Ok, let me join the recap with a few of my memories/opinions! >1/ Game is hyped to the hilt for over a year - Revolutionary, 6 degree of freedom physics >model. An MMX/D3D Showcase item! best this, best that etc............. >2/ Shipped for Xmas in alpha status! >3/ MS promises ongoing support but simply keeps sucking people into buying it and waiting

Quoted text (7 lines)

>for all the 1 month refund opportunities to expire. >4/ TRI sees the light and flees into the open arms of G.O.D. >5/ Goodbye! >6/ People don't want to admit they've been suckered and defend CPR to the

death - yes, >till their inevitable death! LOL. > My view is that MS had no idea how easy the likes of Papyrus were making racing sim >developement look! CPR should have probably been being released this Xmas, not last! >> % Yes, I do agree that a lot of the criticism of CPR (and particularly the >> % vitriol with which it was expressed) was due to it having "Microsoft" on >> % the box cover. But John K was saying that "Its problem is nothing more than >> % that it's a MS product." That is simply not true and I most certainly do

Quoted text (26 lines)

>> % not agree with him on that aspect. >> To be frank about this, I think the real reason CPR got the treatment it >> did here was because the developers promised to support and improve the >> product based on input from us the users. When people voiced their >> concerns (all be it at times quite harshly), the developers took their >> ball and went home, leaving us with an uncompleted simulation (one that >> held quite alot of promise). I think more than anything, many people >> took offense to this attitude and felt that they had been "duped" by the >> hype and where short-changed in the process. >> -- >> **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* >> Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. >> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >-- > Byron Forbes > Captain of Team Lightning Bolt > http://members.tripod.com/~HOSHUMUNGUS > and > http://www.frontiernet.net/~godsoe/bolt/home.htm

God, prejudice is a wonderful thing. Some poor innocent comes and asks a question along the lines of "Is it just me or does CPR actually have some good things going for it?" Well it wasn't a good product but it did have a couple of strong points. He's not going to get a well-balanced answer in this NG, which I point out. The hysterical reaction - in at least one case from someone who was so articulate and inventive with his list of "handling" deficiencies that I had to go and check for myself, makes the point. When you grow up, you'll discover that life isn't black or white, good or bad. >Isn't it ammusing watching these CPR fans argue the***off a bull. LOL. In a few >months he'll be scratching his head wondering why he ever bothered either argueing or

Quoted text (25 lines)

>having CPR on his HD! >> >I think you need a hobby! Obviously too much time on your hands. >> Well, at least it's nice to know it's not only sims that you formulate >> theories about based upon the most scant information. >> Cheers! >> John >-- > Byron Forbes > Captain of Team Lightning Bolt > http://members.tripod.com/~HOSHUMUNGUS > and > [link lost in import: /~godsoe/bolt/home.htm]

>this NG, which I point out. The hysterical reaction - in at least one case >from someone who was so articulate and inventive with his list of "handling" >deficiencies that I had to go and check for myself, makes the point. Actually the fact that even with the aid of written instructions you apparently found none is what makes the point. Cheers! John