N2003 Talledega corners

Anyone happen to notice how all the banks in Talledega make the car bounce slightly? I've never noticed this before in any previous versions of Papy Nascar releases. I found it to be strangely reminiscent of EA's NT2003 which has those up 'n down bouncy corners. I think Papy liked what EA did with their corner effects.

Just simulates the bumps. I think Jasper helped them determine the size and locations of the bumps through their telemetry. Wag "Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:70kWb.32725$964.29846@edtnps84... Anyone happen to notice how all the banks in Talledega make the car bounce slightly? I've never noticed this before in any previous versions of Papy Nascar releases. I found it to be strangely reminiscent of EA's NT2003 which has those up 'n down bouncy corners. I think Papy liked what EA did with their corner effects.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:32:35 GMT, "Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Anyone happen to notice how all the banks in Talledega make the car bounce >slightly? >I've never noticed this before in any previous versions of Papy Nascar >releases. >I found it to be strangely reminiscent of EA's NT2003 which has those up 'n >down bouncy corners. >I think Papy liked what EA did with their corner effects.

If Papy were to model EA's bump effects, the car would be getting completely airborne multiple times a lap. Jason

You keep saying that yet some of us get the exact opposite impression. Papy tracks are WAY too flat (except sebring and its a mess). If you setup your car correctly in F1C it feels very realistic and convinces me much more that there REALLY is a suspension down there working while on an uneven surface not a ice rink. I just ran a few laps at dega in the Nascar Thunder 04 demo and I'm gonna pick up the game the next time I see it. It's really making NR2003 look/feel old. The track (dega anyway) looks exceptional compared to NR2003. I havent spent but a few laps so maybe Im still missing something major but my first impression is "Why the hell arent more people talking about this title?" It feel pretty dam good to me and looks better than anything Ive ever seen to date. Duron 700 users need not even try though :-) Mitch "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > If Papy were to model EA's bump effects, the car would be getting > completely airborne multiple times a lap. > > Jason

jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:32:35 GMT, "Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Anyone happen to notice how all the banks in Talledega make the carbounce > >slightly? > >I've never noticed this before in any previous versions of Papy Nascar > >releases. > >I found it to be strangely reminiscent of EA's NT2003 which has those up'n

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >down bouncy corners. > >I think Papy liked what EA did with their corner effects. > > If Papy were to model EA's bump effects, the car would be getting > completely airborne multiple times a lap. > > Jason

With the Papy online code of "look at a car wrong at five mph and it is airborne like a moonshot", maybe it's already there.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:03:55 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You keep saying that yet some of us get the exact opposite impression. Papy >tracks are WAY too flat (except sebring and its a mess). If you setup your >car correctly in F1C it feels very realistic and convinces me much more that >there REALLY is a suspension down there working while on an uneven surface >not a ice rink. I like F1C a lot, and as I've said elsewhere the Simbin addon tracks (as well as some others) are great. NT2004 is a whole nother matter. While the track accuracy in general is suspect, they have done a better job on the ovals this time around. There are still places like Bristol where the car literally skips off the track mid corner with alarming regularity. The thing that makes it even more annoying is that the bumps are about what I'd expect with stiff springs and shocks, but feel just as over exaggerated when you run soft springs and shocks. It's weird that you can build setups that kerb ride all day with no problems (something that actually would cause a stiffly sprung car - i.e. F1 - to get airborne) and still have parts of the pavement itself, right in the racing line, that cause 2 or 4 wheels to lift. As far as Papy tracks being too smooth goes, I don't see that being the case in N2003 at all. Soften the shocks to 1/1 in N2003 and the car will have incredible mechanical grip but will have unbearable weight jacking effects kick in as you hit bumps and crest hills (of course, cresting hills is another matter in itself, as you're likely to flip the car over). Set the shocks to 9/9 and the car skips over bumps to the point where you you'll get a headache from all the cockpit movement (and start to feel sorry for all the ground-effect F1 drivers who had to deal with constant pounding of their spine). The final statement on realism to me when it comes to N2003 vs NT2004, is what do the real drivers race. There are several Cup drivers who are avid N2003 fans - and aren't being paid so say so. When someone is on the cover of a game and continues to openly promote and play a sim that he's not profiting from, that should get some gears grinding. When an entire series is exlusively licensed by a company, and all of the sim-racing drivers continue to openly prefer another company's product, that should drive the point home further. I'm looking forward to GTR, since it will be the first ISI-engined product to feature tracks based on real models with real input from real drivers. I guarantee you that they will drive completely differently than the ones ISI built, and that's only referring to the high-amplitude bumps (as opposed to high-frequency, which no one besides Papy ever bothered modelling), without taking into account the poor layouts, incorrect elevations, uncambered surfaces, and complete lack of atmosphere. Jason

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:11:58 -0600, "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote: > With the Papy online code of "look at a car wrong at five mph and it is >airborne like a moonshot", maybe it's already there. At least you can race more than 10 people at a time in a Papy sim without half the field flying through the sky. =) As far as the "flying through the sky" effect goes, I haven't seen it since I stopped using a modem. Which makes sense, since it's caused by lag - the physics engine sees two cars move towards each other and if lag causes them to overlap they're forced away from each other without the energy absorption happening as there is when two surfaces collide. It sees two cars separate at one tick, then sees that they're overlapping in the next and says "wow that must have been a solid impact". It sucks but I'm not sure of how they'd fix it without increasing the packet size being used. Jason

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%hAWb.22705$[email hidden]... > > Duron 700 users need not even try though :-) > > Mitch > >Is that a shot at me Mitch? Huh? Huh? C'mon man let's go!! :-P Haha, yeah I tried the Demo some time ago and well, lets just say I could count seconds faster than frames. LOL Sean

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:03:55 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > I like F1C a lot, and as I've said elsewhere the Simbin addon tracks > (as well as some others) are great. NT2004 is a whole nother matter. > While the track accuracy in general is suspect, they have done a > better job on the ovals this time around. There are still places like > Bristol where the car literally skips off the track mid corner with > alarming regularity. The thing that makes it even more annoying is > that the bumps are about what I'd expect with stiff springs and > shocks, but feel just as over exaggerated when you run soft springs > and shocks. It's weird that you can build setups that kerb ride all > day with no problems (something that actually would cause a stiffly > sprung car - i.e. F1 - to get airborne) and still have parts of the > pavement itself, right in the racing line, that cause 2 or 4 wheels to > li > > As far as Papy tracks being too smooth goes, I don't see that being > the case in N2003 at all. Soften the shocks to 1/1 in N2003 and the > car will have incredible mechanical grip but will have unbearable > weight jacking effects kick in as you hit bumps and crest hills (of > course, cresting hills is another matter in itself, as you're likely > to flip the car over). Set the shocks to 9/9 and the car skips over > bumps to the point where you you'll get a headache from all the > cockpit movement (and start to feel sorry for all the ground-effect F1 > drivers who had to deal with constant pounding of their spine).

I run the adv head physics and that really helps in the immersion dept.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > The final statement on realism to me when it comes to N2003 vs NT2004, > is what do the real drivers race. There are several Cup drivers who > are avid N2003 fans - and aren't being paid so say so. When someone > is on the cover of a game and continues to openly promote and play a > sim that he's not profiting from, that should get some gears grinding. > When an entire series is exlusively licensed by a company, and all of > the sim-racing drivers continue to openly prefer another company's > product, that should drive the point home further.

Youre not being fair. Im stuck running N2003 everyweek because thats the game that gets the play. Not much fun running with th AI or alone :) Other factors include PC power. ISI seems require more than the ancient Papy code for optimal play. Another huge factor is online stability. No question the title goes to Papy.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > I'm looking forward to GTR, since it will be the first ISI-engined > product to feature tracks based on real models with real input from > real drivers. I guarantee you that they will drive completely > differently than the ones ISI built, and that's only referring to the > high-amplitude bumps (as opposed to high-frequency, which no one > besides Papy ever bothered modelling), without taking into account the > poor layouts, incorrect elevations, uncambered surfaces, and complete > lack of atmosphere.

What high freq bumps has Papy modeled again? I agree about the track modeling. Its not great but not terrible. I guess whats frustrating is knowing we dont have much in the works to replace NR2003 and after all these years I like the bi-annual Nx upg. Dont get me wrong I like Nr2003 its just getting long in the tooth is all and there are better racin sims available imo.. Too me NR2003 feel like re-used N4 code (which it is) slightly modified to feel a bit different but still "the same". Now when we get something more realistic we get the "Papy fanboys" screaming "it doesnt feel like NR2003 so its bad" attitude. When in reality theyve just been conditioned to accept papy physics as the basis of reality instead REAL LIFE. I cant say very much about Thunder as Ive only turned a few laps at dega ao I cant say too much about it but in NT04 you REALLY feel like you are in control of the throttle instead of the Nr2003 canned throttle response. If you mash the gas (from a standstill) even at restrictor plate tracks you will smoke the tires. In NR2003 its feels almost exactly the way N4 felt when you stomp on the gas and your car slowly lurches instead of lighting up the tires as it would in REAL LIFE. Yea yea I know I can get the rev's up and smoke em but this isnt realistic. I want the ultimate reality and NR2003 sure isnt the holy grail of sims for me. It was a very small step forward imo. Mitch > > Jason

jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:11:58 -0600, "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > With the Papy online code of "look at a car wrong at five mph and it is > >airborne like a moonshot", maybe it's already there. > > At least you can race more than 10 people at a time in a Papy sim > without half the field flying through the sky. =) > > As far as the "flying through the sky" effect goes, I haven't seen it > since I stopped using a modem. Which makes sense, since it's caused > by lag - the physics engine sees two cars move towards each other and > if lag causes them to overlap they're forced away from each other > without the energy absorption happening as there is when two surfaces > collide. It sees two cars separate at one tick, then sees that > they're overlapping in the next and says "wow that must have been a > solid impact". It sucks but I'm not sure of how they'd fix it without > increasing the packet size being used. > > Jason

True, online code award goes to them. In terms of lag causing it, nope. I've seen it on everything but modem, with outstanding qual and latency numbers.

Mitch_A <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TXOWb.11889$[email hidden]... <snip> When in reality theyve just been conditioned to accept papy physics as the basis of reality instead REAL LIFE. ><snip> > Mitch Bingo. Nail/head. > >

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:40:26 -0600, "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >Mitch_A <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:TXOWb.11889$[email hidden]... ><snip> > > When in reality theyve just been conditioned to accept papy physics as the >basis of reality instead REAL LIFE. >> ><snip> > >> Mitch > > >Bingo. Nail/head.

So you guys think people like the DEI drivers have been conditioned to think that way? I have a feeling they have some sort of first hand experience. Jason

Dont misunderstand me. I like NR2003 (Cup/trucks anyway) just fine but IMO it's getting old and we don't have a bunch of other alternatives to EA if we want to run Nascar races. I seriously doubt Ill be driving NR2003 this time next year, at least I hope not ;) I just ran a few more laps in the Thunder04 demo and again I come away feeling like it's MUCH superior to NR2003 in everyway that 03 is lacking. The high line works great, the draft feel much more realistic than Papy's implememtation it looks much better and plain feels right. If you have a 2.5gig+/9700p/DSL type rig and get your wheel setup right it really is out-FN-standing. I dont say that lightly either. Believe me Im suprised to hear myself say that :) Once I get the full version Ill know better though. Mitch "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > So you guys think people like the DEI drivers have been conditioned to > think that way? > > I have a feeling they have some sort of first hand experience. > > Jason

Yea, if all the clients are broadband it's about perfect (F1C/mods). > True, online code award goes to them. In terms of lag causing it, nope. > I've seen it on everything but modem, with outstanding qual and latency > numbers. > > >

Jason Moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:40:26 -0600, "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Mitch_A <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:TXOWb.11889$[email hidden]... > ><snip> > > > > When in reality theyve just been conditioned to accept papy physics as

the

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >basis of reality instead REAL LIFE. > >> > ><snip> > > > >> Mitch > > > > > >Bingo. Nail/head. > > So you guys think people like the DEI drivers have been conditioned to > think that way? > > I have a feeling they have some sort of first hand experience. > > Jason

Oh, I don't know. I let myself decide, instead of letting others opinions do it for me <g> 03 is great, no doubt. But there is life besides Papy, and a future too. Expand your horizons, and the hobby becomes more enjoyable, not less; just because it doesn't feel like a Papy game, doesn't mean its wrong. Shudder, maybe its the other way around <g> EA had done some things that Papy still hasn't after numerous releases(and why a patch was needed to fix a basic setup flaw after all these releases is another question), and Papy has done some things that EA(or whoever else) hasn't yet. But bottom line is that Papy hasn't had competition yet. No one has really tried. Now they will imo.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:34:35 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Dont misunderstand me. I like NR2003 (Cup/trucks anyway) just fine but IMO >it's getting old and we don't have a bunch of other alternatives to EA if we >want to run Nascar races. I seriously doubt Ill be driving NR2003 this time >next year, at least I hope not ;) I just ran a few more laps in the >Thunder04 demo and again I come away feeling like it's MUCH superior to >NR2003 in everyway that 03 is lacking. The high line works great, the draft >feel much more realistic than Papy's implememtation it looks much better and >plain feels right. If you have a 2.5gig+/9700p/DSL type rig and get your >wheel setup right it really is out-FN-standing. I dont say that lightly >either. Believe me Im suprised to hear myself say that :) Once I get the >full version Ill know better though.

Without continuing the comparison to N2003, I doubt you'll be disappointed. It's a *much* better sim than last year. Aside from physics/tracks/graphics/whatever, one legitimate complaint I have is with the career mode balancing. The AI are slow as shit during races, but outqualify their race times by considerable margins everywhere. The career aspect is also seriously lacking in detail, as it consists almost entirely of spending money to upgrade your car's hdv file (it's not presented that way, but it's essentially how it works). Hopefully for 2005 they'll get around to implementing the single player depth that the Tiburion-produced console versions have. Jason

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:09:53 -0600, "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Oh, I don't know. I let myself decide, instead of letting others opinions >do it for me <g> I dunno, I thought the primary argument that was being made here was realism, in which case I tend to value the opinions of people who do it for a living. Consider that Dale Jr was paid to be the Thunder 2003 coverboy last year and ended up promoting a product competing with it. For that matter, consider that he runs an entire website dedicated to it: http://www.jrsraceplace.com/ > Expand your horizons, I find that pretty condescending considering I buy every sim that comes out and am typically one of the first people to post a review here. I've easily spent $320 on ISI products alone over the past 6 years. It's even weirder considering that the 2 sims I'm really looking forward to this year are Richard Burns Rally and GTR, the latter of which apparently contains a modified version of the ISI engine. If my opinions were founded on some irrational loyalty to Papy, I wouldn't waste my time and cash on any other sims. What I post here is based purely on my feelings about what a sim does or doesn't bring to the table, and in many cases isn't indicative of my overall opinion anyway (i.e. as much as there is to hate about F1C, it's still one of my favorite sims and one of the handful I have installed now). Jason

Hehe, not directed at you Sean but I did use your machine as a reference :-) "McWhom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%hAWb.22705$[email hidden]... > > > > Duron 700 users need not even try though :-) > > > > Mitch > > > > > Is that a shot at me Mitch? Huh? Huh? C'mon man let's go!! :-P > > Haha, yeah I tried the Demo some time ago and well, lets just say I could > count seconds faster than frames. LOL > > > Sean > >

In article <TXOWb.11889$[email hidden]>, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> writes: >Youre not being fair. Im stuck running N2003 everyweek because thats the >game that gets the play. Not much fun running with th AI or alone :) Sure it is! At least I can turn down the AI and keep UP with them. That's often more fun than watching human drivers disappear into the next zip code... Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Screamers League IICC League GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71 Hist. +82.34 MoH:na N2k3 rank:in progress Slayer Spektera lvl 65 assassin Slayer Hendryx lvl 30 barbarian US East

I think it's called bumps. They're really there! -Larry "Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:70kWb.32725$964.29846@edtnps84... > Anyone happen to notice how all the banks in Talledega make the car bounce > slightly? > I've never noticed this before in any previous versions of Papy Nascar > releases. > I found it to be strangely reminiscent of EA's NT2003 which has those up'n > down bouncy corners. > I think Papy liked what EA did with their corner effects. > > >

Jason Moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:09:53 -0600, "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Oh, I don't know. I let myself decide, instead of letting othersopinions

Quoted text (28 lines)

> >do it for me <g> > > I dunno, I thought the primary argument that was being made here was > realism, in which case I tend to value the opinions of people who do > it for a living. Consider that Dale Jr was paid to be the Thunder > 2003 coverboy last year and ended up promoting a product competing > with it. For that matter, consider that he runs an entire website > dedicated to it: http://www.jrsraceplace.com/ > > > Expand your horizons, > > I find that pretty condescending considering I buy every sim that > comes out and am typically one of the first people to post a review > here. I've easily spent $320 on ISI products alone over the past 6 > years. > > It's even weirder considering that the 2 sims I'm really looking > forward to this year are Richard Burns Rally and GTR, the latter of > which apparently contains a modified version of the ISI engine. > > If my opinions were founded on some irrational loyalty to Papy, I > wouldn't waste my time and cash on any other sims. What I post here > is based purely on my feelings about what a sim does or doesn't bring > to the table, and in many cases isn't indicative of my overall opinion > anyway (i.e. as much as there is to hate about F1C, it's still one of > my favorite sims and one of the handful I have installed now). > > Jason

Or quite possibly your Jr. examples are because of the online difference. I.e., the ISI stuff stinks online/LAN, where as the Papy stuff is better at that, and I would bet he and his friends would rather race online/lan than off, so why bother with the ISI stuff. Who knows. Anyway, I was just agreeing with Mitch's point about Papy blinders. I'm not one of those who thinks they're the only ones who know how to slice bread <g>

>"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote > When in reality theyve just been conditioned to accept > papy physics as the basis of reality instead REAL LIFE. Care to explain why every Nascar driver that want to keep a sharp eye during the week off races NR2003 instead of those EA games? Junior, etc..? Oh wait they know nothing, I guess <G> -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Youre snipping out of context. I think you been hangin around the wrong crowd for so long youre starting to think the same way Madame Presidant ;) It takes more than a "My daddy is bigger than yours" attitude to convince me of anything. The CURRENT online NASCAR experience is NR2003 (have I argued that before or something?) and will be for awhile longer. Will it be next year or the year after that? That's my point and all I'm saying is Thunder 2004 gets a MUCH worse rap than it deserves IMO and I suggest everyone try it out just to see for yourself. It does a few things better than NR03 and a few thing worse. Actually suprised me at how good it was when I tried it is all. Eventually the Thunder series (or even someone else) will overtake NR2003 in looks and physics. My hope is that as a community we dont shut out the EA/ISI guys based on NASCAR Revolution or we may just shut ourselves out of PC Nascar sims completely if we don't support the PC version of Thunder at some point (small community that we are). Explained! Mitch "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:OQiXb.17142$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote > > When in reality theyve just been conditioned to accept > > papy physics as the basis of reality instead REAL LIFE. > > > > Care to explain why every Nascar driver that want to keep a sharp eye

during

Quoted text (14 lines)

> the week off races NR2003 instead of those EA games? Junior, etc..? Oh > wait they know nothing, I guess <G> > > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > >

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<6iTWb.32$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Mitch_A <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:TXOWb.11889$[email hidden]... > <snip> > > When in reality theyve just been conditioned to accept papy physics as the > basis of reality instead REAL LIFE. > > > Mitch > > Bingo. Nail/head.

On a slightly related topic - if your knowledge of F1 tracks stems from the Grand Prix series, or EA's F1 series (or actually any F1 game ever made), take a visit to a few tracks and prepare to be surprised... Oh, and if you've *ever* raced around a version of Brands Hatch in any racing sim whatsoever, then you won't have a clue what it's like in real life. Paddock Hill bend is one of the most famous corners in the world, but I've never played a sim with an accurate representation of just that one corner. Jeez, some of those sims could make it turn LEFT and be more accurate...