Brands Hatch Lives!

For those of you who've been on pins & needles since June, 1999, when Dave Noonan's promising Brands Hatch was released, this is the Brands Hatch you've always wanted. Drop everything and go here: http://dixierunners.speedgeezers.com/brands1967 to download David Sabre's brand new Brands Hatch (circa 1967). This is one of the most beautiful GPL tracks ever...and I'm talking about the low-rez version (I couldn't get the hi-rez edition to run on my hoary rig). There is so much detail that the frame rate bogs down around the pits, but it's still a portrait of how add-on track graphics should be done. The track itself is also fantastic - it's hard to see how anybody could keep a really fast car on the road...and it must have been nearly impossible to make a pass. The road swoops and soars and coils around like a rollercoaster. The track surface is also convincingly bumpy. But somebody PLEASE do a program cover featuring Gurney's Eagle, which won the race, after all - the first time a Yank driving a Yank car won a proper Grand Prix (even if it was a non-Championship race).

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<rFqWb.11841$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> For those of you who've been on pins & needles since June, 1999, when Dave > Noonan's promising Brands Hatch was released, this is the Brands Hatch > you've always wanted. Drop everything and go here: > > http://dixierunners.speedgeezers.com/brands1967 > > to download David Sabre's brand new Brands Hatch (circa 1967). > > This is one of the most beautiful GPL tracks ever...and I'm talking about > the low-rez version (I couldn't get the hi-rez edition to run on my hoary > rig). There is so much detail that the frame rate bogs down around the > pits, but it's still a portrait of how add-on track graphics should be done. > > The track itself is also fantastic - it's hard to see how anybody could keep > a really fast car on the road...and it must have been nearly impossible to > make a pass. The road swoops and soars and coils around like a > rollercoaster. The track surface is also convincingly bumpy. > > But somebody PLEASE do a program cover featuring Gurney's Eagle, which won > the race, after all - the first time a Yank driving a Yank car won a proper > Grand Prix (even if it was a non-Championship race).

You know its a real shame GPL is all but dead because I really love this track. Is a Nascar 2003 version going to be released?

GPL looks alive and well to me...as the release of a new Brands Hatch proves! I hope Dave Noonan is going to release a N2003 version of his earlier Brands. I'm also praying for a N2003 ver of his earlier Imola, my fav of all his GPL tracks. No matter how good the N2003 roadies are, graphically, they still look a couple of generations behind the GPL versions, IMO. (The *cars* look great, but the scenery is decidedly low-rez.) GPL For-effing-ever! "cronik" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<rFqWb.11841$[email hidden]>... > > For those of you who've been on pins & needles since June, 1999, whenDave

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Noonan's promising Brands Hatch was released, this is the Brands Hatch > > you've always wanted. Drop everything and go here: > > > > http://dixierunners.speedgeezers.com/brands1967 > > > > to download David Sabre's brand new Brands Hatch (circa 1967). > > > > This is one of the most beautiful GPL tracks ever...and I'm talking

about > > the low-rez version (I couldn't get the hi-rez edition to run on myhoary > > rig). There is so much detail that the frame rate bogs down around the > > pits, but it's still a portrait of how add-on track graphics should bedone. > > > > The track itself is also fantastic - it's hard to see how anybody couldkeep > > a really fast car on the road...and it must have been nearly impossibleto > > make a pass. The road swoops and soars and coils around like a > > rollercoaster. The track surface is also convincingly bumpy. > > > > But somebody PLEASE do a program cover featuring Gurney's Eagle, whichwon > > the race, after all - the first time a Yank driving a Yank car won aproper > > Grand Prix (even if it was a non-Championship race). > > You know its a real shame GPL is all but dead because I really love thistrack. > > Is a Nascar 2003 version going to be released?

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:08:24 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>GPL looks alive and well to me...as the release of a new Brands Hatch >proves! > >I hope Dave Noonan is going to release a N2003 version of his earlier >Brands. I'm also praying for a N2003 ver of his earlier Imola, my fav of >all his GPL tracks. > >No matter how good the N2003 roadies are, graphically, they still look a >couple of generations behind the GPL versions, IMO. (The *cars* look great, >but the scenery is decidedly low-rez.)

IMHO, Project Wildfire's update to Mosport is the standard by which all N2003 tracks should be judged. Quite frankly it's beautiful, it's well balanced resource wise (I get a good framerate there on my 1.4gHz/ti4400 combo using the TPTCC mod), and the level of realistic detail is simply shocking. If you've ever driven Mosport or have seen good in car footage, it's unbelievable how close it is to the real thing. I've heard a lot of talk of inaccuracies in Papy's GPL tracks, but their base layout for Mosport is really good. PWF's attention to detail and standards of quality, hopefully, will inspire other teams to do similar work. In the meantime, I can't wait for Trois-Rivieres (their next track project). Re: Brand's/Imola, I'd say there's a good chance we'll be seeing the Noonan versions in N2003 soon. On the downside, the accuracy of the GPL versions of those 2 (as well as Road Atlanta) leaves a lot to be desired. I think Dave does great work, but I hope he considers buffing up the accuracy of his tracks a bit. With Sandbox and the wealth of information available now on the internet via Terraserv, in-car videos, and so forth, there really is no excuse for tracks to not have a certain degree of accuracy at this point, at least in the layout if not the texture/object placement. Jason

In article <rFqWb.11841$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> For those of you who've been on pins & needles since June, 1999, when Dave > Noonan's promising Brands Hatch was released, this is the Brands Hatch > you've always wanted. Drop everything and go here: > > http://dixierunners.speedgeezers.com/brands1967 > > to download David Sabre's brand new Brands Hatch (circa 1967). > > This is one of the most beautiful GPL tracks ever...and I'm talking about > the low-rez version (I couldn't get the hi-rez edition to run on my hoary > rig). There is so much detail that the frame rate bogs down around the > pits, but it's still a portrait of how add-on track graphics should be done. > > The track itself is also fantastic - it's hard to see how anybody could keep > a really fast car on the road...and it must have been nearly impossible to > make a pass. The road swoops and soars and coils around like a > rollercoaster. The track surface is also convincingly bumpy. > > But somebody PLEASE do a program cover featuring Gurney's Eagle, which won > the race, after all - the first time a Yank driving a Yank car won a proper > Grand Prix (even if it was a non-Championship race). >

I am only going to download this and drive this if it is true to the classic, and yet to be topped, version from the Epyx game Pitstop I (or was it Pitstop II?, my memory is hazy) for the Commodore 64. Can anyone confirm or deny? -- MRSisson LOAD "GPL",8,1 RUN (it's a joke, son)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > You know its a real shame GPL is all but dead because I really love this track. > Where do you come by this information? -- MRSisson LOAD "GPL",8,1 RUN

Michael R Sisson <[email hidden]> wrote in news:MPG.1a9487891f3435ca989686@nntp: > I am only going to download this and drive this if it is true to the > classic, and yet to be topped, version from the Epyx game Pitstop I (or > was it Pitstop II?, my memory is hazy) for the Commodore 64. > > Can anyone confirm or deny? Pitstop II was a two player(split screen) version. Of course few tracks have achieved it's level of realism, but we can only hope that someday a 32bit track will measure to a 4bit classic. I used a special controller from a Colecovision "Rocky" boxing video game. A joystick that had 4 trigger buttons to go along with the 8 way joystick. The Coleco joystick plugged right into the Commodore 64. Did you ever name your little purple pit guy? dave henrie

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Did you ever name your little purple pit guy? > "People Eater" But my memory is hazy.. I just remember being very competitive in the game with my best friend at the time. We spent a lot of time playing games against each other. Through some weird twist of fate we were *very* evenly matched in most games. It made for some very good times. -- MRSisson LOAD "GPL",8,1 RUN

Michael R Sisson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a9487cdddddee54989687@nntp>...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > > > > You know its a real shame GPL is all but dead because I really love this track. > > > > Where do you come by this information?

Perhaps I should qualify that statement, what I really mean is all but dead for me at least for the time being as I'm having too much fun with the TPTCC mod and I don't think anyone can deny that the physics and feel is vastly superior to the five year old GPL. But don't get me wrong GPL is still a wonderful period racing sim and will probably never die in the sense that it will always have its enthusiasts and cult following to some degree.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:09:40 -0600, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote: > Pitstop II was a two player(split screen) version. Of course few tracks >have achieved it's level of realism, but we can only hope that someday a >32bit track will measure to a 4bit classic. I used a special controller >from a Colecovision "Rocky" boxing video game. A joystick that had 4 >trigger buttons to go along with the 8 way joystick. The Coleco joystick >plugged right into the Commodore 64. The C64 version of Pitstop II is one of the greatest racing games ever made. First game I ever played that modelled tire wear and fuel use (and modelled both better than most sims do now). Jason

18 months ago I had a gpl rank ranking of about 150. Now it's 350+ !! Someone out there has been doing a few laps! :) "cronik" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > You know its a real shame GPL is all but dead because I really love thistrack. > > Is a Nascar 2003 version going to be released?

On 11 Feb 2004 23:03:03 -0800, [email hidden] (cronik) wrote: >Perhaps I should qualify that statement, what I really mean is all but >dead for me at least for the time being as I'm having too much fun >with the TPTCC mod and I don't think anyone can deny that the physics >and feel is vastly superior to the five year old GPL. Yeah, it's amazing what a tire model and proper suspension geometry will do, eh? I'm still amazed everytime I build a setup and it reacts exactly the way I want it to in the sim, and how using extreme values (especially for shocks) often results in the opposite effect that you'd expect. It's the first sim I've ever played where each time I make an adjustment to the car I feel I need to take into consideration how it's affecting the rest of the car. >But don't get me wrong GPL is still a wonderful period racing sim and >will probably never die in the sense that it will always have its >enthusiasts and cult following to some degree. I'll always play it because the era rocks, and it's still the 2nd best simulator ever released to the consumer market (at least, if you disregard N2002/N4). Jason

"cronik" wrote... > > > <snip> > Perhaps I should qualify that statement, what I really > mean is all but dead for me at least for the time being > as I'm having too much fun with the TPTCC mod and I > don't think anyone can deny that the physics and feel > is vastly superior to the five year old GPL. Those vastly superior physics and feel have been around since NR2003 came out (in fact, since NR2002 came out) and I enjoy them very much in the series the game represents well (Cup, BGN, CTS). TPTCC, because of the underlying stock car setup limitations and, more importantly I think, the stock car tyres hardcoded into the game, does a very poor job of representing Trans-Am. For those not doing their own setups the perveiling setup philosophy adds insult to injury. All credit to The Pits boys for investing their time and getting it out there, but the amount of praise and credit this mod receives is totally disproportional. If you've only come to enjoy NR200x because now there's cars in it that look like road racing cars, you've been selling yourself short as a driver for two years through prejudice towards stock car racing. > But don't get me wrong GPL is still a wonderful period > racing sim and will probably never die in the sense > that it will always have its enthusiasts and cult > following to some degree. GPL is still up there in its own right and still has more than a token following. Jan. =---

Yer right, PWF's Mosport is the Gold Standard, but I suspect it's still based on Papy's ver, which was one of their least faithful recreations (Mid-O being the worst...of those tracks I've actually driven; I haven't a clue abt. Rouen, f'rinstance). GPL tracks like Brands 67 and Laguna 95 still look graphically superior to me, and more finely balanced between insane car detail and sufficient environmental nuances as to be completely immersive. Nobody's ever got Road Atlanta right, IMO. Can't wait for Trois-Riviers! Should be a fab N2003 track! "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:08:24 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >GPL looks alive and well to me...as the release of a new Brands Hatch > >proves! > > > >I hope Dave Noonan is going to release a N2003 version of his earlier > >Brands. I'm also praying for a N2003 ver of his earlier Imola, my fav of > >all his GPL tracks. > > > >No matter how good the N2003 roadies are, graphically, they still look a > >couple of generations behind the GPL versions, IMO. (The *cars* look

great,

Quoted text (25 lines)

> >but the scenery is decidedly low-rez.) > > IMHO, Project Wildfire's update to Mosport is the standard by which > all N2003 tracks should be judged. Quite frankly it's beautiful, it's > well balanced resource wise (I get a good framerate there on my > 1.4gHz/ti4400 combo using the TPTCC mod), and the level of realistic > detail is simply shocking. If you've ever driven Mosport or have seen > good in car footage, it's unbelievable how close it is to the real > thing. I've heard a lot of talk of inaccuracies in Papy's GPL tracks, > but their base layout for Mosport is really good. PWF's attention to > detail and standards of quality, hopefully, will inspire other teams > to do similar work. In the meantime, I can't wait for Trois-Rivieres > (their next track project). > > Re: Brand's/Imola, I'd say there's a good chance we'll be seeing the > Noonan versions in N2003 soon. On the downside, the accuracy of the > GPL versions of those 2 (as well as Road Atlanta) leaves a lot to be > desired. I think Dave does great work, but I hope he considers > buffing up the accuracy of his tracks a bit. With Sandbox and the > wealth of information available now on the internet via Terraserv, > in-car videos, and so forth, there really is no excuse for tracks to > not have a certain degree of accuracy at this point, at least in the > layout if not the texture/object placement. > > Jason

"Steve Smith" said:...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Yer right, PWF's Mosport is the Gold Standard, but I suspect it's still > based on Papy's ver, which was one of their least faithful recreations > (Mid-O being the worst...of those tracks I've actually driven; I haven't a > clue abt. Rouen, f'rinstance). GPL tracks like Brands 67 and Laguna 95 > still look graphically superior to me, and more finely balanced between > insane car detail and sufficient environmental nuances as to be completely > immersive. >

Track look's great - just a shame GPL drives like a nosediving pig. After N4,NR2002 and NR2003 I cant stand more 5 minutes in GPL before I have to exit and get back into a proper "car" - it just feels so very very wrong. -- ed_

"Ed Solheim" wrote... > > <snip> > Track look's great - just a shame GPL drives like a > nosediving pig. After N4,NR2002 and NR2003 I cant > stand more 5 minutes in GPL before I have to exit > and get back into a proper "car" - it just feels so > very very wrong. Strange sentiment, Ed. I don't get that at all... GPL is less detailed, less immediate, sure, but it doesn't feel more wrong now than it used to. BTW: you still thinking about running a Euro friendly BGN series? Jan. =---

Youre not running the Cup season Jan? The setup controversy is officially over ;) Mitch "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hnPWb.225$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Ed Solheim" wrote... > > > <snip> > > Track look's great - just a shame GPL drives like a > > nosediving pig. After N4,NR2002 and NR2003 I cant > > stand more 5 minutes in GPL before I have to exit > > and get back into a proper "car" - it just feels so > > very very wrong. > > Strange sentiment, Ed. I don't get that at all... GPL is less detailed,

less

Quoted text (8 lines)

> immediate, sure, but it doesn't feel more wrong now than it used to. > > BTW: you still thinking about running a Euro friendly BGN series? > > Jan. > =--- > >

Ed! Try some decaf and stronger rear springs! "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:402b94ae$[email hidden]... > "Steve Smith" said:... > > Yer right, PWF's Mosport is the Gold Standard, but I suspect it's still > > based on Papy's ver, which was one of their least faithful recreations > > (Mid-O being the worst...of those tracks I've actually driven; I haven'ta > > clue abt. Rouen, f'rinstance). GPL tracks like Brands 67 and Laguna 95 > > still look graphically superior to me, and more finely balanced between > > insane car detail and sufficient environmental nuances as to becompletely

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > immersive. > > > > Track look's great - just a shame GPL drives like a nosediving pig. After > N4,NR2002 and NR2003 I cant stand more 5 minutes in GPL before I have to > exit and get back into a proper "car" - it just feels so very very wrong. > > -- > ed_ > >

"Ed Solheim" wrote: > Track look's great - just a shame GPL drives like a nosediving pig. After > N4,NR2002 and NR2003 I cant stand more 5 minutes in GPL before I have to > exit and get back into a proper "car" - it just feels so very very wrong. Granted Nascars are closer to the bloated pigs of vehicles filling our roads, so I guess it feels more like an SUV on the school run, which is closer to reality for most than simulating a real race car designed for road courses. I think Papy have done a great job with NR2003 of getting the feeling of a heavy car designed for high speed ovals which is out of sorts on a road track (they look just as hideously cumbersome on TV). The NR series maybe a more technically advanced development of the GPL engine but for many hurling these pigs around just doesn't cut it. The 1965 GPL mod just maybe the more significant release for running the new Brands Hatch track. All IMHO of course :) Cheers Tony

"Jan Verschueren" wrote: > TPTCC, because of the underlying stock car setup limitations and, more > importantly I think, the stock car tyres hardcoded into the game, does a > very poor job of representing Trans-Am. For those not doing their ownsetups > the perveiling setup philosophy adds insult to injury. All credit to The > Pits boys for investing their time and getting it out there, but theamount > of praise and credit this mod receives is totally disproportional. Agreed Jan. Yes you can download Aussie V8 & BTCC looking cars but they don't feel anything like I would expect a sorted race saloon to feel. Watching the directional change and controllable oversteer dialled in to the FWD BTCCs is something else, that just doesn't come across in the T/A patch which still feels way too heavy and cumbersome to me. When the T/A patch came out I really had hoped for a saloon car sim to eclipse GPL as a road racer but was disappointed. Cheers Tony

"cronik" wrote: > > > You know its a real shame GPL is all but dead because I really lovethis track. BLASPHEMY!!! > > Where do you come by this information? > > Perhaps I should qualify that statement, what I really mean is all but > dead for me at least for the time being as I'm having too much fun > with the TPTCC mod and I don't think anyone can deny that the physics > and feel is vastly superior to the five year old GPL. You are only making it worse for yourself :)

"Mitch_A" wrote... > Youre not running the Cup season Jan? The setup > controversy is officially over ;) I wasn't aware of Ed's plans clashing with RASCAR ? I now have access to a server, an itch to run BGN and I thought I might float the idea again. Jan. =---

"Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ocRWb.2927$[email hidden]... > > Watching the directional change and controllable oversteer dialled in tothe > FWD BTCCs is something else, that just doesn't come across in the T/Apatch > which still feels way too heavy and cumbersome to me. How can you expect a 5-600hp RWD tube-frame PTA car to behave anything like a 2-250hp unibody FWD BTCC car? :-/ -jde --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> skrev i melding news:CVQWb.13189$[email hidden]... > Ed! Try some decaf and stronger rear springs! I have - well not quite... I won't touch decaf! Joke aside... GPL got one major issue that really really kills it for me (having seen greener pastures (sp?)) - and that is it's cronic understeer. It's completely impossible to get a car setup so that it oversteers without help from the throttle. Try it on a skidpad... Full soft up front - as stiff as it goes at the rear - damn thing still understeers like a nosediving pig. A touch of the throttle can cure that - for sure.. but that's not the way it ought to be. You should be able to setup a car so that it understeers or oversteers in a steady state "enviroment" - but the latter is impossible with GPL. -- ed_

"J.D. Ellis" wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Watching the directional change and controllable oversteer >> dialled in to the FWD BTCCs is something else, that just >> doesn't come across in the T/A patch which still feels way >> too heavy and cumbersome to me. > > How can you expect a 5-600hp RWD tube-frame PTA car to behave anything > like a 2-250hp unibody FWD BTCC car? :-/

I guess a bad analogy. Aussie V8s maybe a more sensible choice. My point is that I hoped for a good saloon car sim and the T/A patch still feels too Nascar like for me. If that is what Transams are like then so be it. Cheers Tony

I agree completely. NR2003 may be accurate, but I for one would have no interest in flailing those overweight 1950's pickup truck technology barges around a road course if I could choose a thoroughbred instead...even if it is a wee bit less accurately simulated. Marc "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:k0RWb.2916$[email hidden]... > "Ed Solheim" wrote: > > > Track look's great - just a shame GPL drives like a nosediving pig.After > > N4,NR2002 and NR2003 I cant stand more 5 minutes in GPL before I have to > > exit and get back into a proper "car" - it just feels so very verywrong. > > Granted Nascars are closer to the bloated pigs of vehicles filling our > roads, so I guess it feels more like an SUV on the school run, which is > closer to reality for most than simulating a real race car designed forroad

Quoted text (8 lines)

> courses. I think Papy have done a great job with NR2003 of getting the > feeling of a heavy car designed for high speed ovals which is out of sorts > on a road track (they look just as hideously cumbersome on TV). > > The NR series maybe a more technically advanced development of the GPL > engine but for many hurling these pigs around just doesn't cut it. > > The 1965 GPL mod just maybe the more significant release for running the

new

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Brands Hatch track. > > All IMHO of course :) > > Cheers > Tony > > >

"Tony Rickard" wrote: > > > Track look's great - just a shame GPL drives like a nosediving pig.After > > N4,NR2002 and NR2003 I cant stand more 5 minutes in GPL before I have to > > exit and get back into a proper "car" - it just feels so very verywrong. > > Granted Nascars are closer to the bloated pigs of vehicles filling our > roads, so I guess it feels more like an SUV on the school run, which is > closer to reality for most than simulating a real race car designed forroad > courses. I think Papy have done a great job with NR2003 of getting the > feeling of a heavy car designed for high speed ovals which is out of sorts > on a road track (they look just as hideously cumbersome on TV). Ever seen one up close "and personal" - i.e. for real? It's actually not so very much larger than BTCC racer. (i.e the real deals from the 90's - not the crap they got going now) -- ed_

"J.D. Ellis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:402bfb50$0$82224$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ocRWb.2927$[email hidden]... > > > > Watching the directional change and controllable oversteer dialled in to > the > > FWD BTCCs is something else, that just doesn't come across in the T/A > patch > > which still feels way too heavy and cumbersome to me. > > How can you expect a 5-600hp RWD tube-frame PTA car to behave anything

like > a 2-250hp unibody FWD BTCC car? :-/ > > -jde Make that 625hp, at least at 70clr. One of the neat features of NR2003 Replay Analyzer is the ability to turn on more advanced telemetry for replays, including hp and torque. Did a few test runs from a stop at Coca-Cola in 3rd gear to see what the various cars' power curves looked like. The PTA cars appear to use the same engine as the GNS cars. Output varies depending on conditions, but for reference, at 70clr the Cup cars make 706hp, GNS & PTA 625hp, and the CTS trucks 570hp. Haven't looked at all of them in varying weather, but Cup cars go up to about 775hp at 40 degrees and down to about 630 at 100 degrees (2.33hp/degree; looks linear). And then there are the restrictor plates; at 70clr with plates on at Tally, the Cup cars only make around 370hp! SB

Ed Solheim wrote: > Track look's great - just a shame GPL drives like a nosediving pig. After > N4,NR2002 and NR2003 I cant stand more 5 minutes in GPL before I have to > exit and get back into a proper "car" - it just feels so very very wrong. Well, it's a matter of preference I guess - when I last tried NR2002 the tyre improvement was obvious, but the whole thing also felt like driving a whale on wheels. The agility of the 67 F1 cars is still unmatched (but the 65 mod should be more fun for those who have gotten more used to NR2k3 by now). Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -21)

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:53:47 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yer right, PWF's Mosport is the Gold Standard, but I suspect it's still >based on Papy's ver, which was one of their least faithful recreations >(Mid-O being the worst...of those tracks I've actually driven; I haven't a >clue abt. Rouen, f'rinstance). What don't you like about GPL's Mosport? Just from the in-car vids I've seen, the layout seems pretty faithful to the modern one except for the jump at the end of Andretti and the huge hill going down towards Moss. Jason

Tony Rickard wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> "cronik" wrote: > > >>>>You know its a real shame GPL is all but dead because I really love >>> > this track. > > BLASPHEMY!!! > > >>>Where do you come by this information? >> >>Perhaps I should qualify that statement, what I really mean is all but >>dead for me at least for the time being as I'm having too much fun >>with the TPTCC mod and I don't think anyone can deny that the physics >>and feel is vastly superior to the five year old GPL. > > > You are only making it worse for yourself :) > >

Burn the witch! -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

Yer right, of course. After driving N2003 on roadies for a while, Alison Hine went back to GPL and said it felt like driving on "wooden tires." Think of it this way. The tire model isn't accurate for 1967 (much less modern Cup cars, which have more technology in the radials than the whole rest of the car combined), but it's probably better than the rubber on a 700-hp Auto Union D-Type trying to communicate with the ground thru 4-1/2" rims! I owned one of the first 3 Corvettes that ran at Le Mans (in 1960) and drove it on the street with the same tires it raced on (they used Firestone Indy tires), and they had considerably less grip than the balloons on my father's 1948 Nash. "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:402bfcde$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> skrev i melding > news:CVQWb.13189$[email hidden]... > > Ed! Try some decaf and stronger rear springs! > > I have - well not quite... I won't touch decaf! > > Joke aside... GPL got one major issue that really really kills it for me > (having seen greener pastures (sp?)) - and that is it's cronic understeer. > It's completely impossible to get a car setup so that it oversteers

without > help from the throttle. Try it on a skidpad... Full soft up front - asstiff > as it goes at the rear - damn thing still understeers like a nosedivingpig. > A touch of the throttle can cure that - for sure.. but that's not the wayit

Quoted text (8 lines)

> ought to be. You should be able to setup a car so that it understeers or > oversteers in a steady state "enviroment" - but the latter is impossible > with GPL. > > -- > ed_ > >

I've driven it. It isn't even close. "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:53:47 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Yer right, PWF's Mosport is the Gold Standard, but I suspect it's still > >based on Papy's ver, which was one of their least faithful recreations > >(Mid-O being the worst...of those tracks I've actually driven; I haven'ta

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >clue abt. Rouen, f'rinstance). > > What don't you like about GPL's Mosport? Just from the in-car vids > I've seen, the layout seems pretty faithful to the modern one except > for the jump at the end of Andretti and the huge hill going down > towards Moss. > > Jason

Jason Moyer wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:53:47 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Yer right, PWF's Mosport is the Gold Standard, but I suspect it's >>still based on Papy's ver, which was one of their least faithful >>recreations (Mid-O being the worst...of those tracks I've actually >>driven; I haven't a clue abt. Rouen, f'rinstance). > > What don't you like about GPL's Mosport? Just from the in-car > vids I've seen, the layout seems pretty faithful to the modern one > except for the jump at the end of Andretti and the huge hill going > down towards Moss. > > Jason

The modern track had the hill at the end of the straight shaved down considerably. My flawed memory tells me it had something to do with the Can-Am cars wanting to do backflips as they came over the top of the original hill. But I may be recalling more urban legend than actual fact. I'm not sure what you mean by "the huge hill going down towards Moss." Corner 4, the left hander, is at the top of a steep downhill run into a valley, which turns into a steep uphill run into 5A (Moss). You'd know that if you'd ever hiked a Colman cooler full of beer along the goat-track running outside the left fence. <g> In GPL, in-car, I get very little sense of this valley, especially lacking in the sense of the steep uphill run into Moss. (But the Mosport track for N2K3 doesn't give me much more of a sense of this elevation change either...) Perhaps _no_ in-car view gives this impression, I don't know. Most of the latest modernising of Mosport has been widening the track. Comparing the modern track (as a spectator) to the old track in the 70s when I did some Formula Ford driving there, I can't see too much in the way of changes to the corners -- except maybe for turn 2, which seems a _lot_ faster than I remember it, and they've added more run-off room as well. I remember my heart being in my throat every time I crested the top of the hill going into T2. For some odd reason, I didn't get the same feeling going into a similar T4 corner, although I know as many people who went into the armco at T4 as went into the catch fencing at T2. -- Darryl

Steve Smith wrote: > I've driven it. It isn't even close. Huh? I thought GPL's Mosport was supposed to be fairly close to the real thing (apart from the differences in surroundings, grandstands and humps, which have naturally all changed since '67), especially when compared to SCGT's Mosport, for instance. So now I'm confused. Sniff. Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -21)

"Ed Solheim" wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> I think Papy have done a great job with NR2003 of getting the >> feeling of a heavy car designed for high speed ovals which is >> out of sorts on a road track (they look just as hideously >> cumbersome on TV). > > Ever seen one up close "and personal" - i.e. for real? > > It's actually not so very much larger than BTCC racer. (i.e the real deals > from the 90's - not the crap they got going now)

Its not the size (or weight come to that - Aussie V8s are close to the same weight) but the fact they look ponderous in RL on road courses (that I have seen anyway). As a stoopid Brit when it comes to Nascar I may be talking out my arse, but it seems the regulations limit the capability to turn a car capable of running wheel to wheel at 200 mph on high speed banked ovals with great accuracy and control to one that can manage large direction and speed changes in a more nimble fashion. They look at home on the ovals yet out of sorts on the roadies. Cheers Tony

See Jason's comments (above) and Darryl's comments (below). Mosport isn't as far off as Mid-O, but Papy got the elevation changes wrong, and everybody who's copied the track since then has faithfully reproduced the errors. Elevation changes have been Papy's bete noir. They got the 2D layouts right, thanks to track maps and satellite imagery, but pre-GPS, the elevation changes have been way off. Case in point: Road Atlanta (I know; it's not a Papy track). And Darryl is also right abt. the Can-Am cars doing "blow-overs," as they were called - Road Atlanta had 'em too - no urban myth. At Mosport, they shaved off the crest of the hill (much the way they did at Le Mans at the end of Mulsanne...and for the same reason); at Road Atlanta, they stuck in a chicane. And yes, SCGT's Mosport was worse. "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c0j606$uu7$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Steve Smith wrote: > > > I've driven it. It isn't even close. > > Huh? I thought GPL's Mosport was supposed to be fairly close to the real > thing (apart from the differences in surroundings, grandstands and > humps, which have naturally all changed since '67), especially when > compared to SCGT's Mosport, for instance. So now I'm confused. Sniff. > > Regards, Rudy > (GPLRank -21) >

"Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Make that 625hp, at least at 70clr. One of the neat features of NR2003 > Replay Analyzer is the ability to turn on more advanced telemetry for > replays, including hp and torque. I was just throwing a ballpark number out, I forgot about using NR2003RA. :-) -jde --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ee9Xb.13591$[email hidden]... at Road Atlanta, they stuck in a > chicane. > I thought the chicane at the beginning of the back straight was added 10-15 yrs ago for the SCCA Runoffs to make it less of a HP track? -jde --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004

"J.D. Ellis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:402d6a2d$0$82250$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Make that 625hp, at least at 70clr. One of the neat features of NR2003 > > Replay Analyzer is the ability to turn on more advanced telemetry for > > replays, including hp and torque. > > I was just throwing a ballpark number out, I forgot about using NR2003RA. > :-)

Don't mind me; just another telemetry geek... ;-)

Tony Rickard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c49Xb.3572$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Ed Solheim" wrote: > > >> I think Papy have done a great job with NR2003 of getting the > >> feeling of a heavy car designed for high speed ovals which is > >> out of sorts on a road track (they look just as hideously > >> cumbersome on TV). > > > > Ever seen one up close "and personal" - i.e. for real? > > > > It's actually not so very much larger than BTCC racer. (i.e the real

deals > > from the 90's - not the crap they got going now) > > Its not the size (or weight come to that - Aussie V8s are close to thesame > weight) but the fact they look ponderous in RL on road courses (that Ihave > seen anyway). > > As a stoopid Brit when it comes to Nascar I may be talking out my arse,but

Quoted text (11 lines)

> it seems the regulations limit the capability to turn a car capable of > running wheel to wheel at 200 mph on high speed banked ovals with great > accuracy and control to one that can manage large direction and speed > changes in a more nimble fashion. > > They look at home on the ovals yet out of sorts on the roadies. > > Cheers > Tony > >

The same cars are not used for the two track examples you mention. They're not even close in construction. >

"JP" wrote... > > <snip> > The same cars are not used for the two track examples > you mention. They're not even close in construction. The point is, in the game, they're grafted onto the exact same blueprint, which sort of defeats the object of the exercise. The parameters are different, but the basic structure remains a stock car. Jan. =---

Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:u1fXb.482$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "JP" wrote... > > > <snip> > > The same cars are not used for the two track examples > > you mention. They're not even close in construction. > > The point is, in the game, they're grafted onto the exact same blueprint, > which sort of defeats the object of the exercise. The parameters are > different, but the basic structure remains a stock car. > > Jan. > =---

Yes, I know. I was responding to his comment about the actual cars. > >

In article <402bfcde$[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Joke aside... GPL got one major issue that really really kills it for me >(having seen greener pastures (sp?)) - and that is it's cronic understeer. >It's completely impossible to get a car setup so that it oversteers without >help from the throttle. Try it on a skidpad... Full soft up front - as stiff >as it goes at the rear - damn thing still understeers like a nosediving pig. >A touch of the throttle can cure that - for sure.. but that's not the way it >ought to be. You should be able to setup a car so that it understeers or >oversteers in a steady state "enviroment" - but the latter is impossible >with GPL.

Man, what setups are YOU driving? I've tried some hotlapper setups that had me spinning out as often as going straight... I couldn't keep the back end BEHIND me... 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

In article <fPJWb.60285$%[email hidden]>, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> writes: >Yer right, PWF's Mosport is the Gold Standard, Anybody have any driving tips for this track(TPTCC)? I'm burning up the tires on lap 16, and I'm nowhere NEAR the pace of the other drivers in my league... :-( 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

In article <402b94ae$[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> writes: >Track look's great - just a shame GPL drives like a nosediving pig. After >N4,NR2002 and NR2003 I cant stand more 5 minutes in GPL before I have to >exit and get back into a proper "car" - it just feels so very very wrong. Wow... I don't have that issue. Maybe I just can't run enough graphics to get 'spoiled' on N2k3?<g> 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

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:48:07 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote: >The C64 version of Pitstop II is one of the greatest racing games ever >made. You have got to be kidding. In no way is it one of the greatest racing games of all time. For its time, it might have been unequaled, but its hardly one of the greatest racing games ever. Go here and download it: http://s64.emuunlim.com/gameinfos/pitstop2/pitstop2.htm play it and see how long before you're back to GPL/Papy/RT/etc.... jeff

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:48:07 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > wrote: > > >The C64 version of Pitstop II is one of the greatest racing games ever > >made. > > You have got to be kidding. In no way is it one of the greatest > racing games of all time. For its time, it might have been unequaled, > but its hardly one of the greatest racing games ever. > > Go here and download it: > > http://s64.emuunlim.com/gameinfos/pitstop2/pitstop2.htm > > play it and see how long before you're back to GPL/Papy/RT/etc.... > > jeff >

Are you a real moron, or do you just play one on usenet? -- MRSisson LOAD "GPL",8,1 RUN

Jeez, I'd say chicanes would make it MORE of an HP track! "J.D. Ellis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:402d6aa2$0$49451$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Ee9Xb.13591$[email hidden]... > at Road Atlanta, they stuck in a > > chicane. > > > > I thought the chicane at the beginning of the back straight was added

10-15

Quoted text (11 lines)

> yrs ago for the SCCA Runoffs to make it less of a HP track? > > -jde > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004 > >

The graphics DO leave a bit to be desired.... <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:48:07 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > wrote: > > >The C64 version of Pitstop II is one of the greatest racing games ever > >made. > > You have got to be kidding. In no way is it one of the greatest > racing games of all time. For its time, it might have been unequaled, > but its hardly one of the greatest racing games ever. > > Go here and download it: > > http://s64.emuunlim.com/gameinfos/pitstop2/pitstop2.htm > > play it and see how long before you're back to GPL/Papy/RT/etc.... > > jeff

On 14 Feb 2004 02:57:21 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >Man, what setups are YOU driving? I've tried some hotlapper setups that had me >spinning out as often as going straight... I couldn't keep the back end BEHIND >me... If you run fairly even bars/shocks and realistic springs (i.e. springs that are proportional to the weight of the car) and stuff an xx/85/1 into it you'll be oversteering like crazy. I think the big problem with understeer in a lot of "realistic" GPL setups is the way the shocks and diff are set up. Lots of non-alien setups come with the standard 85/30/4 diff and 2/3 type shocks and I always find I have to actually force the ass end into a slide just to make turns half the time. Speaking of springs that are setup based on the weight balance of the car, I bumped into someone on sierra the other night who had been trying out one of my old banzai PTA setups that used GPL style springs (i.e. 450/475 front to back and 48.1% front weight) and he was kicking my ass all over the place, even with the high drag. I might start messing with that idea again. Jason

"Steve Smith"

Quoted text (15 lines)

>> >The C64 version of Pitstop II is one of the greatest racing games ever >> >made. >> >> You have got to be kidding. In no way is it one of the greatest >> racing games of all time. For its time, it might have been unequaled, >> but its hardly one of the greatest racing games ever. >> >> Go here and download it: >> >> http://s64.emuunlim.com/gameinfos/pitstop2/pitstop2.htm >> >> play it and see how long before you're back to GPL/Papy/RT/etc.... >> >> jeff >

:) Got one on the hook and in the box. :) dave henrie Is this "catch and release" or can we keep them? dh

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:01:20 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:48:07 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) >wrote: > >>The C64 version of Pitstop II is one of the greatest racing games ever >>made. > >You have got to be kidding. In no way is it one of the greatest >racing games of all time. For its time, it might have been unequaled, >but its hardly one of the greatest racing games ever. > >Go here and download it: > >http://s64.emuunlim.com/gameinfos/pitstop2/pitstop2.htm > >play it and see how long before you're back to GPL/Papy/RT/etc....

Hmm, I didn't know that the scenery of Monaco and Hockenheim were the same... <g> Cheers! Remco

Michael R Sisson coughed up:

Quoted text (28 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > >>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:48:07 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) >>wrote: >> >> >>>The C64 version of Pitstop II is one of the greatest racing games ever >>>made. >> >>You have got to be kidding. In no way is it one of the greatest >>racing games of all time. For its time, it might have been unequaled, >>but its hardly one of the greatest racing games ever. >> >>Go here and download it: >> >>http://s64.emuunlim.com/gameinfos/pitstop2/pitstop2.htm >> >>play it and see how long before you're back to GPL/Papy/RT/etc.... >> >>jeff >> > > > Are you a real moron, or do you just play one on usenet? > >

So not liking Pitstop II makes him a moron, does it? You must be forking joking, son! -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

I've been messing with N2003 setups for almost a year now, and I'm AMAZED at how responsive the chassis is...particularly to spring/weight changes. There are several things to play with that weren't in GPL (caster, track bars, weight jacking), and with N2003's more lively tire model, you can really feel the result of minute changes. Setting up a car for an oval is kinda monomaniacal, but the road circuits are a real challenge...and often a complete surprise. I thought Hockenheim (v2.1) would be easy--it's a bog simple layout, innit?--but it's been giving me fits. My only regret: no differential params. "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On 14 Feb 2004 02:57:21 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > >Man, what setups are YOU driving? I've tried some hotlapper setups thathad me > >spinning out as often as going straight... I couldn't keep the back endBEHIND

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >me... > > If you run fairly even bars/shocks and realistic springs (i.e. springs > that are proportional to the weight of the car) and stuff an xx/85/1 > into it you'll be oversteering like crazy. I think the big problem > with understeer in a lot of "realistic" GPL setups is the way the > shocks and diff are set up. Lots of non-alien setups come with the > standard 85/30/4 diff and 2/3 type shocks and I always find I have to > actually force the ass end into a slide just to make turns half the > time. > > Speaking of springs that are setup based on the weight balance of the > car, I bumped into someone on sierra the other night who had been > trying out one of my old banzai PTA setups that used GPL style springs > (i.e. 450/475 front to back and 48.1% front weight) and he was kicking > my ass all over the place, even with the high drag. I might start > messing with that idea again. > > Jason

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PEgXb.56614$[email hidden]... > Jeez, I'd say chicanes would make it MORE of an HP track! I won't hold myself to the accuracy of that, as that was before I'd joined the club. My info was limited to AutoWeek & On Track back then. ;-) Probably more realistically a combination of slowing the faster classes at the kink, as well as giving another slight braking zone for the slower classes. -jde --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:35:29 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I've been messing with N2003 setups for almost a year now, and I'm AMAZED at >how responsive the chassis is... Me too. N2003 is the first sim I've really enjoyed messing about in the garage with too, even if I tend to ignore a few adjustments for the sake of simplicity (eg. I typically leave the track bar down all the way). The responsiveness of the handling has also led me to try similar setups in other sims after I've worked on them a bit in N2003. > Setting up a car for an oval is >kinda monomaniacal, but the road circuits are a real challenge...and often a >complete surprise. I thought Hockenheim (v2.1) would be easy--it's a bog >simple layout, innit?--but it's been giving me fits. My only regret: no >differential params. What kind of diff do stock cars use? Jason

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:01:20 GMT, [email hidden] wrote: >play it and see how long before you're back to GPL/Papy/RT/etc.... If I had to make a list of racing games that brought me the most enjoyment, Pitstop II would be in the top 10 easily. So would Final Lap, and maybe even Pole Position II if I could squeeze it in somewhere. Jason

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:34:07 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >The graphics DO leave a bit to be desired.... At least you can clearly see what condition your tires are in. =) Jason

Springs proportional to weight is not actually realistic. Making the springs proportional to weight gives you equal ride frequencies front and rear, which in the real world would cause excessive pitch response that is very difficult to damp out. Normally on RWD pavement racing cars you want the front to have a higher ride frequency than the rear, which means the front is proportionally stiffer than the rear. For off road it is usually the opposite. "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On 14 Feb 2004 02:57:21 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > If you run fairly even bars/shocks and realistic springs (i.e. springs > that are proportional to the weight of the car) ...

Interesting observation. In general, wouldn't higher ride frequencies be easier to damp (with viscous shocks, as opposed to Houdailles) than lower Hz? And why is it the obverse in off-road cars (by which I assume you mean dune buggies, which have something like 20/80 weight distrib., as opposed to 4WDs)? "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Springs proportional to weight is not actually realistic. Making the > springs proportional to weight gives you equal ride frequencies front and > rear, which in the real world would cause excessive pitch response that is > very difficult to damp out. Normally on RWD pavement racing cars you want > the front to have a higher ride frequency than the rear, which means the > front is proportionally stiffer than the rear. For off road it is usually > the opposite. > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On 14 Feb 2004 02:57:21 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > > > If you run fairly even bars/shocks and realistic springs (i.e. springs > > that are proportional to the weight of the car) ... > >

"Steve Smith" wrote... > Interesting observation. In general, wouldn't higher ride > frequencies be easier to damp (with viscous shocks, as > opposed to Houdailles) than lower Hz? And why is it the > obverse in off-road cars (by which I assume you mean dune > buggies, which have something like 20/80 weight distrib., > as opposed to 4WDs)? Also, wouldn't this have more to do with aero concerns than anything chassis related? Jan. =---

The problem is not high ride frequencies, it is equal ride frequencies. This will cause the car to oscillate in pitch, and because of the high moment of inertia of the car in the pitch direction you would have to use extremely stiff shocks to damp it out. It works much better to simply offset the frequencies so that it can't oscillate in pitch. For passenger cars the rear frequency is usually higher than the front, so that the rear can catch up to the front over a bump or dip, the so-called "level ride". Off road cars are also tuned that way, for the same reason. Doesn't matter if it's a dune buggy or a 4WD truck, the problem is how to keep the car under control over the big bumps and dips and the solution is the same for both. For rwd race cars on pavement it is much more important to have a stiff front (in order to preserve the steering geometry) and a soft rear (for traction under power), so for those cars the front is normally set up to have a higher ride frequency than the rear. If you look at the setups that are included with NR2003 or F1C, or PWF's setups or Arnao's setups, you will see the same thing in all cases, front is proportionally stiffer than rear, meaning higher ride frequency in front. You would also normally want the front bar to be proportionally stiffer than the rear to help prevent roll oscillation. Stiff front, soft rear, then use camber and roll center heights to make the car turn. That seems to be the current standard setup practice for RWD race cars on pavement. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ELKXb.70640$%[email hidden]... > Interesting observation. In general, wouldn't higher ride frequencies be > easier to damp (with viscous shocks, as opposed to Houdailles) than lower > Hz? And why is it the obverse in off-road cars (by which I assume youmean > dune buggies, which have something like 20/80 weight distrib., as opposedto > 4WDs)? >

Not really. Totally a question of trying to control the different modes of oscillation that the chassis can get into. The chassis has more inertia in pitch and roll than in bump and therefore trying to control motion in those directions with dampers alone would lead to too much damping in bump. So the suspension is set up in such a way as to cancel the natural frequencies in pitch and roll. More detail in my reply to Steve. Also this is covered pretty well in RCVD and in Carroll Smith's books. "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C9LXb.2095$[email hidden]... > > Also, wouldn't this have more to do with aero concerns than anythingchassis > related? > > Jan. > =--- > >

"Haqsau" wrote...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Not really. Totally a question of trying to control the > different modes of oscillation that the chassis can get > into. The chassis has more inertia in pitch and roll > than in bump and therefore trying to control motion in > those directions with dampers alone would lead to too > much damping in bump. So the suspension is set up in > such a way as to cancel the natural frequencies > in pitch and roll. More detail in my reply to Steve. > Also this is covered pretty well in RCVD and in Carroll > Smith's books.

Yes, but while you say that, nowadays the aero balance dominates the high speed handling. If you go about applying this logic to the cars in GPL you are going to end up with chronic understeer because there's nothing to help you turn. You can trail the brakes heavily and "squat to go" to make up for that in a slow turn (if you're Alison Fisher, that is), but there's only one way to take Gresil flat and that's to boost the rear spring rate. Sorrry to keep going on about this, but applying "current" setup ideas to GPL is one of my pet peeves. <g> Jan. =---

Well I can't claim to be a GPL expert but I find I can get the cars in GPL to turn just fine using this setup philosophy. Typically where I end up with a Lotus, Ferrari, or Eagle is springs around 90 front, 75 rear, bars around 120 front, 60 rear. Shouldn't turn right? Well, I use about -1 to -1.5 degrees of camber in front and only -0.25 to -0.50 in the rear, sit the rear end up about 1/2" higher than the front, use no more than 0.125 toe out in front, and 85 degree on the coast side of the diff. Turns just fine. And yes, I can take Gresil flat out in such a setup. "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CXMXb.2328$[email hidden]... > > Yes, but while you say that, nowadays the aero balance dominates the high > speed handling. If you go about applying this logic to the cars in GPL you > are going to end up with chronic understeer because there's nothing tohelp > you turn. You can trail the brakes heavily and "squat to go" to make upfor > that in a slow turn (if you're Alison Fisher, that is), but there's onlyone

Quoted text (9 lines)

> way to take Gresil flat and that's to boost the rear spring rate. > > Sorrry to keep going on about this, but applying "current" setup ideas to > GPL is one of my pet peeves. <g> > > Jan. > =--- > >

"Haqsau" wrote...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Well I can't claim to be a GPL expert but I find I can get > the cars in GPL to turn just fine using this setup philosophy. > Typically where I end up with a Lotus, Ferrari, or Eagle is > springs around 90 front, 75 rear, bars around 120 front, 60 > rear. Shouldn't turn right? Well, I use about -1 to -1.5 > degrees of camber in front and only -0.25 to -0.50 in the rear, > sit the rear end up about 1/2" higher than the front, use no > more than 0.125 toe out in front, and 85 degree on the coast > side of the diff. Turns just fine. And yes, I can take Gresil > flat out in such a setup.

I see where the 1/2 inch rake comes in as the rear will squat more with the weight transfer. I gotta see this for myself, send me a Rouen and WG setup. Jan. =---

It's not just the squat, but raising the rear raises the rear roll center which adds oversteer. It's a similar effect to raising the trackbar on a cup car. I'll send you a couple of Ferrari setups, I think those are the ones I have used most recently. "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tcTXb.2913$[email hidden]... > > I see where the 1/2 inch rake comes in as the rear will squat more withthe > weight transfer. I gotta see this for myself, send me a Rouen and WGsetup. > > Jan. > =--- > >

Hi Eldred. Not an expert on Mosport but I just participated in a TPTCC race there this morning and finally got to a good comfort zone with this track. Didn't finish too well due to some racing incidents, but during happy hour I finally figured out how to save my tires. You have to be very careful to not overdrive the car. For me at least it was very tempting to push really hard between the turns. But since there aren't any real straights, if you don't have the line exactly right then going full throttle will require you to use too much steering input to keep the car on the track, and that will burn up your front tires very quickly, not to mention slowing you down. I found I could push pretty hard through 1, but the section from 2 to 3, from 3 to 4, and the final 3 turns at the end of the back straight are all tire killers if you use too much throttle and are even a little off line. Not that I can keep it on the line, but I found that if I got off line in any of those sections the best thing to do was lift the throttle very slightly to bring it back, trying not to use the wheel too much, and then squeeze it back on smoothly. My lap times also improved when I started steering more with the throttle and less with the wheel. Still a bit off the pace but once I figured this out I was able to run low 1:15's consistently and still keep the tire temps down. So it was both faster and easier on the tires to not go to full throttle unless I was absolutely certain I had the car right on the line. Looking at my fastest lap in Replay Analyzer I was only slow through Moss, everywhere else I was as fast as the leaders. So smoothness is the key, that will get you up to speed and still save your tires. BTW what's that slayer stuff in your sig? Diablo 2? Or something else? "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <fPJWb.60285$%[email hidden]>, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Yer right, PWF's Mosport is the Gold Standard, > > Anybody have any driving tips for this track(TPTCC)? I'm burning up thetires > on lap 16, and I'm nowhere NEAR the pace of the other drivers in myleague...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> :-( > > 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

In article <[email hidden]>, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (23 lines)

>Hi Eldred. Not an expert on Mosport but I just participated in a TPTCC race >there this morning and finally got to a good comfort zone with this track. >Didn't finish too well due to some racing incidents, but during happy hour I >finally figured out how to save my tires. You have to be very careful to >not overdrive the car. For me at least it was very tempting to push really >hard between the turns. But since there aren't any real straights, if you >don't have the line exactly right then going full throttle will require you >to use too much steering input to keep the car on the track, and that will >burn up your front tires very quickly, not to mention slowing you down. I >found I could push pretty hard through 1, but the section from 2 to 3, from >3 to 4, and the final 3 turns at the end of the back straight are all tire >killers if you use too much throttle and are even a little off line. Not >that I can keep it on the line, but I found that if I got off line in any of >those sections the best thing to do was lift the throttle very slightly to >bring it back, trying not to use the wheel too much, and then squeeze it >back on smoothly. My lap times also improved when I started steering more >with the throttle and less with the wheel. Still a bit off the pace but >once I figured this out I was able to run low 1:15's consistently and still >keep the tire temps down. So it was both faster and easier on the tires to >not go to full throttle unless I was absolutely certain I had the car right >on the line. Looking at my fastest lap in Replay Analyzer I was only slow >through Moss, everywhere else I was as fast as the leaders. So smoothness >is the key, that will get you up to speed and still save your tires.

Interesting. If I slow down in the turns, I just...get slower. I don't have RA for Nascar, so I can't compare any laps. But, it seems that I have to turn the wheel a LOT, and the car doesn't respond very well. I think I just can't drive the correct line. >BTW what's that slayer stuff in your sig? Diablo 2? Or something else? Yep, Diablo 2. I've been playing that a lot recently, since most of my GPL leagues folded... :-( 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 68 assassin Spectral_K lvl 35 Necromancer US East

In article <[email hidden]>, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>The problem is not high ride frequencies, it is equal ride frequencies. >This will cause the car to oscillate in pitch, and because of the high >moment of inertia of the car in the pitch direction you would have to use >extremely stiff shocks to damp it out. It works much better to simply >offset the frequencies so that it can't oscillate in pitch. > >For passenger cars the rear frequency is usually higher than the front, so >that the rear can catch up to the front over a bump or dip, the so-called >"level ride". Off road cars are also tuned that way, for the same reason. >Doesn't matter if it's a dune buggy or a 4WD truck, the problem is how to >keep the car under control over the big bumps and dips and the solution is >the same for both. For rwd race cars on pavement it is much more important >to have a stiff front (in order to preserve the steering geometry) and a >soft rear (for traction under power), so for those cars the front is >normally set up to have a higher ride frequency than the rear. > >If you look at the setups that are included with NR2003 or F1C, or PWF's >setups or Arnao's setups, you will see the same thing in all cases, front is >proportionally stiffer than rear, meaning higher ride frequency in front. > >You would also normally want the front bar to be proportionally stiffer than >the rear to help prevent roll oscillation. Stiff front, soft rear, then use >camber and roll center heights to make the car turn. That seems to be the >current standard setup practice for RWD race cars on pavement.

Now my head hurts... 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 68 assassin Spectral_K lvl 35 Necromancer US East

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:56:55 -0500, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You would also normally want the front bar to be proportionally stiffer than >the rear to help prevent roll oscillation. Stiff front, soft rear, then use >camber and roll center heights to make the car turn. That seems to be the >current standard setup practice for RWD race cars on pavement. That's pretty much my normal setup practice for GPL/F1C/N2k3/GP4. Altho I tend to use the shocks for tweaking handling and save camber and weight adjustments for evening out tire temps. Generally in N2k3 I (and people much much much faster than me) tend to use front roll couples in the 90% range, at least on road courses. Haven't done as many oval setups as I'd like so I can't comment there. but the few I've worked on have been loose as hell if I use any kind of rear bar. Jason

On 16 Feb 2004 02:09:07 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >Yep, Diablo 2. I've been playing that a lot recently, since most of my GPL >leagues folded... :-( Eldred if you have TPTCC2 installed and your server is available for practice, let me know. I'm not incredibly fast (mid 13's to mid 14's) but I'd gladly drive around with you for awhile to work on the line. Jason

It's not so much a case of deliberately going slower as it is a case of going just slow enough to stay on the line without a large amount of steering angle. You will end up faster when you get it right. It applies more to the short chutes than the turns at the beginning of the track, but is also important in the three final turns since you are decelerating most of the way through them. Regarding the chutes, from 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and 3 to 4 you have these short chutes that look like straights but really aren't, you are turning all the way through them. If you get the line right (and I seldom do) you can go full throttle through the chutes. If you don't you are better off backing off just a hair than trying to force the car along the line with the steering wheel. You can force the car, but after a lap or two of doing that you won't have any front tires left. Similarly for the final turns you can force the car through and feel like you are going really fast once or twice, but after that your tires will be gone. And it's not really that fast. It's actually faster and easier on the tires to use less deceleration initially but carry the deceleration almost all the way through. Use the throttle briefly to point the car between turns but decelerate through them, using the forward weight shift to keep the car balanced on the line. Now that I think about it, that's really the key concept. Using weight transfer to help steer the car is how you save the tires, and it usually ends up being faster too. "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Haqsau"<[email hidden]> > writes: > > > Interesting. If I slow down in the turns, I just...get slower. I don'thave > RA for Nascar, so I can't compare any laps. But, it seems that I have toturn > the wheel a LOT, and the car doesn't respond very well. I think I justcan't > drive the correct line. >

>Now that I think about it, that's really the key concept. Using weight >transfer to help steer the car is how you save the tires, and it usually >ends up being faster too. We have a league race at Mosport this weekend. I'll see if I can put in 100 or so laps of practice. If I can't get any faster in that amount of time, maybe I should just give it up. 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 68 assassin Spectral_K lvl 35 Necromancer US East

"Tony Rickard"wrote: > Its not the size (or weight come to that - Aussie V8s are close to thesame > weight) but the fact they look ponderous in RL on road courses (that Ihave > seen anyway). > > As a stoopid Brit when it comes to Nascar I may be talking out my arse,but > it seems the regulations limit the capability to turn a car capable of > running wheel to wheel at 200 mph on high speed banked ovals with great > accuracy and control to one that can manage large direction and speed > changes in a more nimble fashion. > > They look at home on the ovals yet out of sorts on the roadies. 'PTA' og Trans-Am cars look pretty good to me. Having said that - looks mean little to me if it drives like a brick... I would sum it like this: GPL is to [the] NR2003 [physics] what IRC2 was compared to GPL. IMO - of course :) -- ed_

"Ed Solheim" wrote: > I would sum it like this: > > GPL is to [the] NR2003 [physics] what IRC2 was compared to GPL. > > IMO - of course :) Fighting talk! GPL is to ICR2 what NR2003 is to N3 is what I think you meant to say! NR2003 is an evolution of GPL, GPL was no evolution of ICR2. NR2003 is a work of art though - to transform a lightweight, nimble thoroughbred race car into a heavy musclebound stock car speaks volumes of the underlying sim engine. Which makes it even more of a shame it wasn't used more... All IMO of course :) Cheers Tony

"Tony Rickard" wrote: > GPL is to ICR2 what NR2003 is to N3 is what I think you meant to say! Acually no - that not what I mean.. Like I wrote; to me the difference between GPL and NR2003 is jst as great as the difference between GPL and IRC2. Both being miles ahead of the "previous version" - if you get my meaning... -- ed_

"Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<OnuYb.1270$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> "Ed Solheim" wrote: > > > I would sum it like this: > > > > GPL is to [the] NR2003 [physics] what IRC2 was compared to GPL. > > > > IMO - of course :) > > Fighting talk! > > GPL is to ICR2 what NR2003 is to N3 is what I think you meant to say! > > NR2003 is an evolution of GPL, GPL was no evolution of ICR2. > > NR2003 is a work of art though - to transform a lightweight, nimble > thoroughbred race car into a heavy musclebound stock car speaks volumes of > the underlying sim engine. Which makes it even more of a shame it wasn't > used more...

... and a shame it wasn't used in a current F1 or ChampCar sim and got stuck on a roundabout... And that's IMO, of course ;-) Nick

"Ed Solheim" wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Tony Rickard" wrote: > > > GPL is to ICR2 what NR2003 is to N3 is what I think you meant to say! > > Acually no - that not what I mean.. > > Like I wrote; to me the difference between GPL and NR2003 is jst as great

as > the difference between GPL and IRC2. Both being miles ahead of the"previous > version" - if you get my meaning... I was just politely disagreeing with you :)

"Tony Rickard" wrote: > > I was just politely disagreeing with you :) WHAAAAAT?!?!?! Who the heck do you think you are - diagreeing with *me*??? Line up before the fireing squad at once! Go on - MAAAARCH!!! :) -- ed_