http://www.gamershell.com/download_5025.shtml
It's taken from an early build so you don't really see much in-game,
but what's there is stunning. The terrain is breathtaking.
Jason
First Richard Burns Rally video stirs hopes for rally sim
Jason Moyer shared an early video of Richard Burns Rally and praised its terrain and suspension behaviour, arguing it looked far more serious than Colin McRae Rally. Others said they would only buy it with a proper in-car view, and a side debate compared ISI and Papyrus physics and sound. Jason also briefly leaked a beta of his CART mod for F1 Challenge.
Automated summary.
If it has no in-car view then it will be crap no matter how good the
phys/gfx is.
i really hope all the screenies and pictures ive seen of this game are from
the console version, and the pc version will be a bit more 'sim'
dan
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> http://www.gamershell.com/download_5025.shtml
>
> It's taken from an early build so you don't really see much in-game,
> but what's there is stunning. The terrain is breathtaking.
>
> Jason
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:57:02 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer)
wrote:
>It's taken from an early build so you don't really see much in-game,
>but what's there is stunning. The terrain is breathtaking.
It doesn't look much different to CMR3.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
"Dan_Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<bvoca1$u271r$[email hidden]>...
Based on the developers' comments they sound very dedicated to making
it a true rally sim. I know we've heard it before, but I really hold
high hopes for this one. RC2000 is *very* long in the tooth, and
there's been nothing that can match the stages in that game.
BTW - any word on the project to get all the RC2000 stages into Rally
Trophy? Last I had seen was a screenshot and that's it.
Kendt
Quoted text (13 lines)
> If it has no in-car view then it will be crap no matter how good the > phys/gfx is. > i really hope all the screenies and pictures ive seen of this game are from > the console version, and the pc version will be a bit more 'sim' > dan > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > http://www.gamershell.com/download_5025.shtml > > > > It's taken from an early build so you don't really see much in-game, > > but what's there is stunning. The terrain is breathtaking. > > > > Jason> >It's taken from an early build so you don't really see much in-game,
> >but what's there is stunning. The terrain is breathtaking.
>
> It doesn't look much different to CMR3.
There's nothing really wrong with the graphics in CMR3&4 - it's the physics
which are frighteningly bad in those games.
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:15:48 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> wrote:
>It doesn't look much different to CMR3.
Other than the narrow roads, proper suspension, car not rotating
around a central point, highly detailed trees/vegetation, long stages
(ok that's not in the vid per se, but the sim uses real stages from
real rallies), gravity that works without requiring any sort of
cheating in the physics code (watch the car jump about 2/3 of the way
through the vid and compare it to the silly gravity-aid that CMR
uses), tires that lose traction individually (as can be seen on the
gravel and dirt stages), etc
Looks pretty damn good and the footage is from several months ago.
They haven't shown us the cockpit view, weather (which is fully
dynamic, changing each time you run the same stage, and includes
details like potholes filling with water, etc), spectators (there's no
"reset car" button in the sim, you either hope spectators are nearby
to help recover the car or retire with a helicopter/toetruck rescue -
also spectators display unpredictable behavior and can wander onto the
course at intersections and so forth), the garage (which is by far the
most detailed ever in a rally sim, and includes differential tuning
among other things), the rally school, the career management portion,
etc. What they have shown us in screens and this video from an early
alpha build is already more impressive than any rally sim I can think
of, altho I suppose that says more about how awful rally games have
been to this point.
Jason
"jason moyer" wrote:
<Lots of neat stuff SNIPPED!>
>....What they have shown us in screens and this video from an early
> alpha build is already more impressive than any rally sim I can think
> of, altho I suppose that says more about how awful rally games have
> been to this point.
sound's like you got "a leg inside the door" Jason.. ;o)
Anyway, this all sounds very good and dandy.... as long as they include a
realistig incar-view to drive from (i.e the from the driving seat) - they
got my money. Fail to include it and my interest is gone - instantly. I
drive from the cockpit and nowhere else.
--
ed_
"Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:4020b957$[email hidden]...
Ditto on the cockpit view, and I also agree that that video looked
promising; looking forward to seeing more of this one. I mousewheeled
through the interesting bits frame by frame (Zoom Player) to see how the
chassis, tires and suspension looked over the bumps and jumps - encouraging!
From that and what the developers have said, they seem to have perhaps
grasped what gives a true sim its appeal. That rather than just making a
game hard, the limitations imposed by a realistic physics model and
environment really do enhance the game experience. After all, if you accept
the basic premise that doing the real thing is FUN, then it makes sense to
ask what makes it that way and try to recreate those same elements. Warthog
sound like they understand that. Bugbear never really bought into that line
of thought in developing RT, and that's why it fizzled as quickly as it did.
Without potential trouble and inconvenience waiting for you at every turn
and bump, you lose all the drama that comes with trying to go fast. And a
physics model, in particular a TIRE model that gives you enough feedback to
let you know when you're approaching the edge is a vital element in that
mix. That's what lets you, as MS likes to say, "listen" to the tires and
adjust your inputs accordingly. Trying to dance on the edge of the traction
circle in a rich, dynamic feedback loop between driver and tires is the
essence of fast driving, either real or sim. The better job Warthog do of
creating that feedback loop, the more engaging and immersive the experience
will be.
Hope they get it right. Papy are the only ones who have gotten close to
date.
SB
Quoted text (15 lines)
> "jason moyer" wrote: > > <Lots of neat stuff SNIPPED!> > > >....What they have shown us in screens and this video from an early > > alpha build is already more impressive than any rally sim I can think > > of, altho I suppose that says more about how awful rally games have > > been to this point. > > sound's like you got "a leg inside the door" Jason.. ;o) > Anyway, this all sounds very good and dandy.... as long as they include a > realistig incar-view to drive from (i.e the from the driving seat) - they > got my money. Fail to include it and my interest is gone - instantly. I > drive from the cockpit and nowhere else. >On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:15:58 +0100, "Ed Solheim"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>sound's like you got "a leg inside the door" Jason.. ;o)
>Anyway, this all sounds very good and dandy.... as long as they include a
>realistig incar-view to drive from (i.e the from the driving seat) - they
>got my money. Fail to include it and my interest is gone - instantly. I
>drive from the cockpit and nowhere else.
I'm willing to compromise slightly, i.e. I don't require the perfect
wheel-less cockpit view that I use in GPL/N2003/ICR2/etc, but I will
not purchase the game if there is not some sort of a view from behind
the windshield. I'm ok if it's more of a CMR3/F355 cockpit where you
only see the very top of the dash altho I'd prefer having real
instruments and such. In any case, it would be a total joke if they
release a simulator without some sort of proper cockpit.
Jason
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:15:58 +0100, "Ed Solheim"
>sound's like you got "a leg inside the door" Jason.. ;o)
>Anyway, this all sounds very good and dandy.... as long as they include a
>realistig incar-view to drive from (i.e the from the driving seat) - they
>got my money. Fail to include it and my interest is gone - instantly. I
>drive from the***pit and nowhere else.
I'm willing to compromise slightly, i.e. I don't require the perfect
wheel-less***pit view that I use in GPL/N2003/ICR2/etc, but I will
not purchase the game if there is not some sort of a view from behind
the windshield. I'm ok if it's more of a CMR3/F355***pit where you
only see the very top of the dash altho I'd prefer having real
instruments and such. In any case, it would be a total joke if they
release a simulator without some sort of proper***pit.
Jason
"Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >
Hope they get it right. Papy are the only ones who have gotten close to
> date.
>
> SB
>
>
You need to fire up F1C or some of its mods Steve. ISI is getting pretty
dang close if not already surpassing NR2003 in the physics dept.
Mitch
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:23:02 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer)
wrote:
So far I haven't seen any in car screenshots :-/ Often a sign that the
developers aren't interested in creating a stunning car interiour. And
also a sign that the developers don't have a clue what hardcore
simmers want, or they aren't interested in hardcore simmers.... :-(
As always with these things, I hope to be proven wrong, but that never
happened in the past with car sims :-( Well, apart from Mario Kart)
Cheers!
Remco
Quoted text (16 lines)
>On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:15:58 +0100, "Ed Solheim" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>sound's like you got "a leg inside the door" Jason.. ;o) >>Anyway, this all sounds very good and dandy.... as long as they include a >>realistig incar-view to drive from (i.e the from the driving seat) - they >>got my money. Fail to include it and my interest is gone - instantly. I >>drive from the cockpit and nowhere else. > >I'm willing to compromise slightly, i.e. I don't require the perfect >wheel-less cockpit view that I use in GPL/N2003/ICR2/etc, but I will >not purchase the game if there is not some sort of a view from behind >the windshield. I'm ok if it's more of a CMR3/F355 cockpit where you >only see the very top of the dash altho I'd prefer having real >instruments and such. In any case, it would be a total joke if they >release a simulator without some sort of proper cockpit.Quoted text (16 lines)
>On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:15:58 +0100, "Ed Solheim" >>sound's like you got "a leg inside the door" Jason.. ;o) >>Anyway, this all sounds very good and dandy.... as long as they include a >>realistig incar-view to drive from (i.e the from the driving seat) - they >>got my money. Fail to include it and my interest is gone - instantly. I >>drive from the***pit and nowhere else. >I'm willing to compromise slightly, i.e. I don't require the perfect >wheel-less***pit view that I use in GPL/N2003/ICR2/etc, but I will >not purchase the game if there is not some sort of a view from behind >the windshield. I'm ok if it's more of a CMR3/F355***pit where you >only see the very top of the dash altho I'd prefer having real >instruments and such. In any case, it would be a total joke if they >release a simulator without some sort of proper***pit."Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:jo9Ub.9489$[email hidden]...
Gee; didn't see THAT coming... ;-) Got F12K2, GTR, F1C, & ETCC, and while I
do enjoy them, IMHO they still fall short of Papy's benchmark.
Of course a lot of that is in the overall game engine; graphics, gui,
multiplayer, replay, etc., and not the physics. And while I do appreciate
and applaud the big improvements in physics modeling (& mod-ability) that
ISI's made over the years, they're still missing something in the driver
feedback department. Their sims all feel kind of sterile to me, as none
give as good a sense of what's happening with the individual tires as the
Papy sims. Even GPL, with it's admittedly flawed tire model, does a very
nice job of letting you know where the edge of grip is, when you're getting
close to it, etc. Pretty goofy-acting tires, to be sure, but at least you
always know what they're up to and can drive accordingly. You can just
pretend they brought a bad batch for race weekend, curse the tire company
and get on with it! And NR2003 is much improved of course. Even with a lot
more sprung weight, you can still feel the tires "talking".
Hard to pin down exactly what's lacking, but it's a function of both how you
perceive the car moving around you in cockpit view and how the sim
communicates to the driver what the state of the tires' relationship to the
ground is. Just look at all the tiresounds values in the app.ini file for
NR2003, and then watch the subtleties in the skidmarks of a replay as the
tires' grip on the pavement varies during a brake lock, slide or spin.
Papy's put a LOT of effort into letting you know what's going on at the
contact patches, and that's where it all happens, after all.
YMMV, of course! ;-)
SB
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > Hope they get it right. Papy are the only ones who have gotten close to > > date. > > > > SB > > > > > > You need to fire up F1C or some of its mods Steve. ISI is getting pretty > dang close if not already surpassing NR2003 in the physics dept. > > Mitch >I think you nailed it. The sound representation of each tires varying
degree of grip is totally lacking in ISI sims. Ya get an idea but not
precise or loud enough. Amazing how much you DEPEND on sound in a sim. If
anyone can address that and the online experience we'll have something. I
dont really care what series so long as it's done right :) Though a early
70's Can-AM is my personal hope.
I guess what we need is a new sim occasionally just so the guys that have
the "advantages" nailed down have to start over once in a while :)
Any Nascar Thunder 04 drivers care to comment if ISI improved on the sounds?
Mitch
"Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >
Hard to pin down exactly what's lacking, but it's a function of both how you
> perceive the car moving around you in cockpit view and how the sim
> communicates to the driver what the state of the tires' relationship tothe
Quoted text (11 lines)
> ground is. Just look at all the tiresounds values in the app.ini file for > NR2003, and then watch the subtleties in the skidmarks of a replay as the > tires' grip on the pavement varies during a brake lock, slide or spin. > Papy's put a LOT of effort into letting you know what's going on at the > contact patches, and that's where it all happens, after all. > > YMMV, of course! ;-) > > SB > >> ISI's made over the years, they're still missing something in the driver
> feedback department. Their sims all feel kind of sterile to me, as none
> give as good a sense of what's happening with the individual tires as the
> Papy sims.
<shrug> Despite its flaws, I can 'feel' absolutely everything in NT2004.
The suspension feels so alive and behaves almost exactly like a real car.
In NR2003 the car feels vague by comparison and it's like any real-life
driving experience is worthless. I'm sure people who've cut their teeth on
Papy sims can walk into it and feel perfectly comfortable but for someone
like me who's never played any Papy or ISI games previously, NT2004
reproduced the 'feel' of driving a car far more accurately despite some
fairly obvious mistakes in the car's parameters. ymmv
"Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Even GPL, with it's admittedly flawed tire model, does a very
> nice job of letting you know where the edge of grip is, when you're getting
> close to it, etc.
>
> SB
> Yup...GPL is REAL good at letting me know I've gone over the edge.
As soon as I touch the gas pedal....I KNOW!!!
dave henrie
Hi.
http://firebrand11.stargate.net/CART/
- models and some graphics from the wheel2wheel 2002 mod
- engines and aero are 2002 spec (altho speeds on ovals are a bit
faster and closer to mid 90's since I can't have separate wings for
ovals - more fun with proper champcar wings anyway)
- suspension/tires still using f1 values, so f1 setups should work
with a few clicks added to the final drive
Lemme know what you think.
Jason
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 02:15:37 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer)
wrote:
Woops. Was meant for email. =)
Jason
What is this an add-on for?
Sounds great!
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (14 lines)
> Hi. > > http://firebrand11.stargate.net/CART/ > > - models and some graphics from the wheel2wheel 2002 mod > - engines and aero are 2002 spec (altho speeds on ovals are a bit > faster and closer to mid 90's since I can't have separate wings for > ovals - more fun with proper champcar wings anyway) > - suspension/tires still using f1 values, so f1 setups should work > with a few clicks added to the final drive > > Lemme know what you think. > > Jason"Demented One" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:sWrUb.180775$sv6.942947@attbi_s52:
> What is this an add-on for?
>
> Sounds great!
>
It's a beta of a Cart/OWRS mod Jason is working on for F1c.
Strictly hush-hush. NOBODY is supposed to know about it.
In fact, I've already forgotten what we were talking about.
Lovely weather today isn't it?
dave :) henrie
But 1000's of people already downloaded from your link.....
I can't wait until it's done, what a great idea!!!
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Demented One" <[email hidden]> wrote innews:sWrUb.180775$sv6.942947@attbi_s52:
Quoted text (13 lines)
> > > What is this an add-on for? > > > > Sounds great! > > > > It's a beta of a Cart/OWRS mod Jason is working on for F1c. > Strictly hush-hush. NOBODY is supposed to know about it. > In fact, I've already forgotten what we were talking about. > Lovely weather today isn't it? > > dave :) henrie >"Damien Evans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:bvrpad$vf3di$[email hidden]...
> > ISI's made over the years, they're still missing something in the driver
> > feedback department. Their sims all feel kind of sterile to me, as none
> > give as good a sense of what's happening with the individual tires asthe
> > Papy sims.
>
> <shrug> Despite its flaws, I can 'feel' absolutely everything in NT2004.
> The suspension feels so alive and behaves almost exactly like a real car.
> In NR2003 the car feels vague by comparison and it's like any real-life
> driving experience is worthless. I'm sure people who've cut their teethon
> Papy sims can walk into it and feel perfectly comfortable but for someone
> like me who's never played any Papy or ISI games previously, NT2004
> reproduced the 'feel' of driving a car far more accurately despite some
> fairly obvious mistakes in the car's parameters. ymmv
Interesting; what are the obvious mistakes in the car's parameters?
After reading the above, I DL'ed the NT2004 demo so I could compare apples
to apples. Drove the same tracks back to back with both NT2004 and NR2003.
Well, no surprise here; I came away with a different take. No big deal, and
probably a good example of why there aren't more sims out there; it's no
easy task to make one, and even if you do, different drivers will perceive
the experience very differently. How do you define what's *right*; where do
you set your target? Tough job!
Sim driving is such a different environment from real driving that you
perceive the experience very differently. So the mechanisms that developers
build in to give us the seat-of-the-pants feedback that's missing are vital.
I could sample two stock car sims with absolutely perfect (& therefore
identical) physics, but if one didn't communicate to me as the driver what
my "virtually perfect" tires were doing in as much detail as the other, I'd
think it was less of a sim. Even though from a pure physics viewpoint, it
wouldn't be.
I guess it's a matter of how a developer "translates" the driving experience
from the real to the virtual world. You get a certain level of overall
sensory input driving a real car. Even if you can build a virtual car that
behaves absolutely identically, you're still deprived of the majority of
those real-world sensory inputs, and unless you find a way to get enough of
them back into the virtual experience (through admittedly other channels
than the real ones), and on a high-enough level, the experience is going to
feel sterile. I think Papy's many variables for modulating the tire sounds
in NR2003 are evidence that they understand the importance getting these
sensory inputs back in by providing very precise aural feedback. The car
and in particular the contact patches, are "talking" to you, and one just
has to learn how to listen. The graphical nuances in their skidmarks points
are just further evidence of the richness of the tire model. There are more
translational cues in how the cockpit moves relative to your POV and the
track.
ISI have made great strides in their physics, to be sure. But I think Papy
are still up the road a bit in the "experience-translation" area. As the
cues they've added are so subtle, I can easily see why not everyone's picked
them up. It's common to hear tales of people having struggled with GPL,
until it suddenly "clicked" and from then on they loved it and everything
else was suddenly "no GPL!". ;-) Heck; even Dave Kaemmer himself has been
quoted on the need to develop new "neural pathways" for driving Papy sims.
And I think that's a big part of why you have people on both sides of the
fence regarding Papy's stuff - if they haven't clicked for you (or just
don't for whatever reason), you won't think so highly of them. But once
they click, everything else just feels (here it is again) sterile. I also
think the variation in ability of people to perceive and interpret the
subtle cues in Papy's current sims is where you get the alien/mortal divide.
I rather expect Huttu, et al "got it" right out of the box!
Getting this long-winded bit back on-topic; I have no idea whether Warthog
will get RBR anywhere near the levels Papy and ISI have established, but it
looks promising at this point. They sound like they might "get it" too.
Let's all cross our fingers.
SB
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:12:44 GMT, "Demented One"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>But 1000's of people already downloaded from your link.....
>
>I can't wait until it's done, what a great idea!!!
Heh, link is broken, I put a fix in that folder if you really want to
try it, but I'd hold off until I put v2 in there as it will have all
the cars, and all the gear ratio/3d gen/etc files are separate from
the f1 ones (i.e. nothing will be overwritten including tracks).
One thing that's broken that won't be fixed is the pit guys being
white. It sucks, it looks retarded, but it's not worth the effort to
get it working atm.
Jason
I got that patch, but it was corrupt.....
I look forward to the finished version, good luck!
I wanted to try it, but I probably can't without the patch.
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
