Quick TOCA 2 Ramblings

Well... after perusing the net and hearing this and that about TOCA 2 I couldn't wait to try out the demo. The following are the Pro's and Con's from my perspective (sim-head) with a brief summary. PRO'S Graphics - Very nice! I love the way the cars look on and off the track. The atmosphere in the***pit is nice also. On a PII 400/Voodoo2 with everything on there was no noticeable frame rate hit. Interface - While similar to the previous edition this setup has a more tactile feel to it along with the same easy navigation. No complaints here. Fun Factor - Could be rewarding if you decide what you need out of the experience is within the means of the software. CON'S (a second chance will be given to all these topics tonight, it's only fair) Controls - Any driving software that doesn't allow the separation of the gas and brake from the same axis is a major bummer in my opinion. Control of the car is very limited in this scenario. To add to this displeasure, anyone with a wheel not setup in this configuration will have trouble even getting around the menu's as they continually scroll if the controller is un-calibrated or configured incorrectly. Garage - Sparse is too kind a word. I believe my son's tricycle has more available adjustments aside from the gearing changes and to simulate this I give him an apple or some lemon heads. Physics - Set to maximum realism left me flat. I could not tell the difference between these cars and Need for Speed. Absolutely no feel of weight transference whatsoever. Sometimes the car would turn on a dime and sometimes it unexpectedly spun off the track. It almost seemed as if the physics were entirely in sections of the track i.e. sticky corner here, slippery corner there. If the environment played a part in how the car handled I must have been sleeping. Sound - A little more throaty note from the engine would have been nice but overall it didn't entirely suck. * * * * * * * Overall it seems to be more of an arcade racer than anything else. Maybe I was hoping for the simulated version of Gran Turismo on the PC, thus my negative attitude. The info touted on all the web pages prior to this release sure did whet my appetite though<sigh>. Since it's free and everyone has a chance to try it out, by all means do. I for one will give it another go or 3 and finalize my decision then. but as far as first impressions go, this one needs a second. Ripp "Opinions are like..... everybody's got one"

+++++++++++++ Controls - Any driving software that doesn't allow the separation of the gas and brake from the same axis is a major bummer in my opinion. Control of the car is very limited in this scenario. To add to this displeasure, anyone with a wheel not setup in this configuration will have trouble even getting around the menu's as they continually scroll if the controller is un-calibrated or configured incorrectly. +++++++++++++++ Try putting one pedal all the way down and it should stop, then you can use the keyboard. Also, it does support separate throttle and brake. I used my MSFF to great effect with it in that mode. ~daxe -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! -----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------

Jack wrote Yes there is split-axis in IndyCar Racing 2, Nascar2, etc.. but it's more the fact of allowing the seperation of gas/brake at the same time. Most of them will only take the gas/brake axis and create one huge axis. Actually Im not sure if it's modeled. Even if it is it's wrong. Just go slow in a corner, and be 50% on the gas and 100% on the brake. The car will get loose. It should tighten. IIRC there's an analog speedo also in the option somewhere (after layers and layers of menus) the sound is an almost exact replica from Toca1, but it's realistic -= Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -= NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -= SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -= Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -= May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

TOCA2's physics are not up to the standards of GPL, there can be no doubt about that. But they are heaps better than TOCA1 which in turn is heaps better than Need For Speed. You say "Absolutely no feel of weight transference whatsoever. " Well I got a feeling of weight transfer, so I'd urge you to look a little harder. Understeer and oversteer are not canned but are governed by 4 individual tyres turning on the track. I would rate the physics alongside, or a little bit below, MGPRS2. However, it does feel like there are is a very fine line between destroying a corner and it destroying you - I kept looking round for the b**** that had sent me into a spin, but none was there. Having said that the spins themselves don't feel "canned" - I did get opposite lock to work once or twice. I have grounds to beleive, but am not certain, that the driving model isn't canned, and the cars certainly feel quite realistic. I'd have to agree with you about setups. And damage is minimal - I understand that you can lose up to 20% of performance - this is not enough - you should be able to write off your car completely - this is a much much worse thing than the setups. I haven't got independant brake/throttle axes, but I feel these really ought to be in any driving title. The actual racing is fine. I thought that the AI is pretty good though at this level they are very slow out of corners, though their choice of lines looks ok. Minor collisions don't register too well in the graphics - the car should jar more - I'd like to try this title with FF to see whether that gave you any feedback. The replay is great but I'd like to see more telemetry in it - speed, splits, revs etc etc - just what's in GPL plus splits. Sound is great, IMHO, sounds pretty realistic to me with the different layers of noise from the engine and surrounding cars - would more throaty be accurate for BTCC cars, or would it just sound nicer? Flat shifting, I definitely didn't like. Nor do I like the lack of a neutral gear between R and 1st, which you should be in for the start not 1st and you should be able to false start. Graphics are great on a dual Voodoo2. Looks like the stupid cheat codes are still there - God, how irritating, and are we going to be able to drive with zero gravity and the like. So that's ok for PSX but can't they just comment out the cheat codes for the PC version and let us drive all the cars, but all of them realistically only. I agree with Fran?ois Mnard on this one - somewhere between sim and arcade but closer to sim than TOCA1 and overall a great improvement over it. Quite a nice title, I thought. Cheers, Paul

Quoted text (37 lines)

> Well... after perusing the net and hearing this and that about TOCA 2 > I couldn't wait to try out the demo. The following are the Pro's and > Con's from my perspective (sim-head) with a brief > summary. PRO'S Graphics - Very nice! I love the way the cars look on > and off the track. The atmosphere in the***pit is nice also. On a > PII 400/Voodoo2 with everything on there was no noticeable frame rate > hit. Interface - While similar to the previous edition this setup has > a more tactile feel to it along with the same easy navigation. No > complaints here. Fun Factor - Could be rewarding if you decide what > you need out of the experience is within the means of the > software. CON'S (a second chance will be given to all these topics > tonight, it's only fair) Controls - Any driving software that doesn't > allow the separation of the gas and brake from the same axis is a > major bummer in my opinion. Control of the car is very limited in > this scenario. To add to this displeasure, anyone with a wheel not > setup in this configuration will have trouble even getting around the > menu's as they continually scroll if the controller is un-calibrated > or configured incorrectly. Garage - Sparse is too kind a word. I > believe my son's tricycle has more available adjustments aside from > the gearing changes and to simulate this I give him an apple or some > lemon heads. Physics - Set to maximum realism left me flat. I could > not tell the difference between these cars and Need for Speed. > Absolutely no feel of weight transference whatsoever. Sometimes the > car would turn on a dime and sometimes it unexpectedly spun off the > track. It almost seemed as if the physics were entirely in sections > of the track i.e. sticky corner here, slippery corner there. If the > environment played a part in how the car handled I must have been > sleeping. Sound - A little more throaty note from the engine would > have been nice but overall it didn't entirely suck. * * * > * * * *Overall it seems to be more of an arcade racer than > anything else. Maybe I was hoping for the simulated version of Gran > Turismo on the PC, thus my negative attitude. The info touted on all > the web pages prior to this release sure did whet my appetite > though<sigh>. Since it's free and everyone has a chance to try it out, > by all means do. I for one will give it another go or 3 and finalize > my decision then. but as far as first impressions go, this one needs > a second. Ripp"Opinions are like..... everybody's got one"

Yup...pretty much my impression. I was hoping (prolly unrealistically) for GPL-type experience in touring cars. One thing tho, on my MS precision pro I could separate brake/throttle to my throttle wheel and y-axis. Ben

I've been using split-axis in TOCA 2 with my MS FF wheel. Cocking the wheel to one extreme and/or standing on the pedals stabilized the menus for me. I found the force feedback to be impressive. I could definitely tell when the tires on the fwd Accord were breaking free. Also, got a very impressive FF effect when I clouted the berm on the inside of the hairpin leading on to the front straight under power! Question: Why give us a little digital speedometer that you can only read with wheel turned??? Sound: I agree that the engine sound could be improved somewhat. It seems touring car authentic...maybe that it just needs to be a little more ***? I thought the "shake, rattle, and roll" sounds generated during off-road excursions were great. Along the lines of off-road excursions... Question: Why does the AI always seem to be able to get back underway so quickly after such an excursion. They can go off behind you and always seem to rocket away as if they're not subject to the same potential wheelspin in the grass that we mortals are. Seems to be the case in GPL also. Agreed?

Yep. I saw and selected that, though as I recall it was for an analog tach. In any case it, had no effect...still the same digital tach and seldom visible digital speedometer.

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:03:27 +0000, Paul Jones >TOCA2's physics are not up to the standards of GPL, there can be no >doubt about that. But they are heaps better than TOCA1 which in turn is >heaps better than Need For Speed. You say "Absolutely no feel of weight >transference whatsoever. " Well I got a feeling of weight transfer, so >I'd urge you to look a little harder. It depends upon your view. GPL is purely sim and NFS3 is purely arcade, and both do a very good job to hit that target. If something exceeds the arcade but falls short of sim is that a good thing or a bad thing? Neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring perhaps? There does seem to be "weight transfer", but it is very ponderous and not at all what I'd expect from a touring car. Then too look at the on-screen depiction of this transfer and body roll - it is extremely canned and unloads in one smooth movement well after the corner has been completed, not bearing a relation to the lateral g as it should. They are pretty wild though - the car loses grip _incredibly_ quickly (which may well be fair enough), but, and this is what seems wierd, it regains the grip incredibly quickly as well. If you dial-in opposite lock very rapidly the rear catches despite the rotational speed being seemingly uncatchable. Way overgenerous IMO. I can hammer over kerbs or through chicanes and land sideways with full throttle and the rear remains planted. I thought the camera angles were a bit wierd and flicked too rapidly from one view to the next - it made it difficult or impossible to watch races (although it did add to the e***ment). I'd prefer a more "TV" view as other sims have. Cheers! John

Supplementary question - when did you find the time to look at the speedo or tach?! :-) I haven't yet found the time (or the need) to use it. I found that aspect okay - maybe I'm just punting the AI farther than you! :-) Seriously though, I didn't think they got underway any quicker than I was able. The exception to this is the FF - those guys just disappear at the start! Cheers! John

FWD makes that a little more plausible, perhaps.

Let me correct myself on this point. Selecting the analog tach option DOES change the tach from digital to analog in the "windscreen" view. BTW, I find this view to be the most realistic and best driving view. It conveys the sense of speed very effectively.

Well, I have since discovered that a digital speedo is displayed in what I'm calling the "windscreen view", as well as a digital OR analog tach. The disappointing thing is I haven't found a really visible speedo in the replay views to help in analyzing my driving style. On the need to glance at the tach: I've found that this thing seems to continue to pull and sound strong well past redline, so when I was initially shifting by ear I discovered that I was shifting well past their displayed redline. The Accord seems to accelerate best when somewhat short-shifted. Right. It does seem to help when you discover yourself amongst a bunch of sideways fenders to just find a lower gear and bull your way through! But if that gets you sideways and hopelessly off the back, have you discovered the connecting road that will get you back in the fray if you feel compelled to swap paint for the balance of your 3 laps?

gas and brake from the same in this scenario. To add to have trouble even getting around or configured incorrectly. You can separate the brake and gas under TOCA 2. First you have to calibrate the stick in the TOCA options screen. Once it knows all of the axes that are available, you can then split the brake/gas. It works. -Paul

Good point - too tuned into GPL :-) Cheers! John

> It depends upon your view. GPL is purely sim and NFS3 is purely > arcade, and both do a very good job to hit that target. If something > exceeds the arcade but falls short of sim is that a good thing or a > bad thing? Neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring perhaps? I guess the giveaway is Gavin Raeburn (the game producer) saying "TOCA is a game, is a game, is a game. There was no real target to be either a sim or and arcade action title - just a damn fine game. However, its easy to understand your viewpoint. The real life sport of Touring Car racing is almost an arcade action itself, with hugely competitive racing and aggressive 16-car pack racing. The look and detail of the game was very realistic - the TOCA licence gave us access to the real team, real car, real driver and real track data. Combine those two together and, I guess, you could say you've got a sim of action racing." That being the case, we should review it in the context of a game - did you find it fun? It becomes a personal opinion - what gives you fun. I find GPL a whole load of fun, and one of the big contributers to that is the realism - it is fun to drive and race simulated 1967 Formula 1 cars. I guess I view all sims as games - just as I view the karting I do as a game. I rate NFS, TOCA and GPL by this same criteria, how much fun can I get from it, and NFS loses badly because the only card it holds is astonishly good graphics. TOCA2 looks to offer great door to door racing and a whole load of fun but the accuracy of the experience is vital colours my opinion - I'm still out on this. I've only ever raced karts and driven in Formula Firsts (both RWD). I understand a little of the theoretical physics of racing but I'm in no position to accurately evaluate the accuracy beyond how it "feels". I have to bow to those who know better. It felt heaps better than TOCA1 (not surprisingly, as they've completely rewritten their physics engine), and I felt this immediately I "got in" the Honda. It was almost impossible to induce oversteer from TOCA1 etc etc I wasn't looking hard enough - I'll recheck. "Canned" is an interesting concept in programming though - you almost never want to do it. The principle reason is that it's very inefficient - loads of "if" statements make for weighty code and you'd prefer to use an algorithm if at all possible. The exceptions are sounds and graphical textures (eg. the people in most sims - cardboard cut-outs). I suspect that even NFS uses algorithms to determine car behaviour. The issue then becomes the accuracy and depth of the algorithms. This is what makes GPL so good - the algorithms map the various car/track parts to a low level and the whole resembles a car more accurately than anything before. I wrote an evolution simulation once. I was mapping gene frequencies and how they spread. The main problem here was that I had to "can" the effects of the genes or rather the resulting proteins. No way could I predict the behaviour of the protein without using every computer in the galaxy and a few from the next. The problem all sims face is that the world is much too complex to model. You have to make generalisations and GPL has done so to a lesser degree than TOCA2 which is less again than NFS. For example, in an imaginary sim, one set of algorithms will yield the approximate surface area of *** from one tyre in contact with a section of track and another the approximate forces at work between the two. A third set of algorithms will determine the reactions of that contact and feed the results back into other algorithms that will finally predict the positional, kinetic, potential and other data for the various parts of the car. However sophisticated the algorithms are this approach is "canned" in another sense. What is happening is that billions of *** molecules of *** and other stuff are interreacting with billions of molecules of tarmac and other stuff - some of the interreactions are chemical - the *** is oxidising - some physical etc etc. The point is that either all driving models are canned or none are. Perhaps this is a linguistic point, perhaps it's deeper. Probably right - on the other hand FWD would make the rear more easy to lose especially with different wheel spins or grip across the 2 front tyres. Magical isn't it :-) Problems in their algorithms, I expect. Dunno - perhaps you're right. I don't want to get into MGP right now, but it seems to me that there are one or two problems with this one as well. On the other hand, I've never driven a modern F1 either so I can't talk authoritively about it anyway. Yep, agree 100%. I wish they'd have given us longer with each view, though I quite liked the track-cam. Still want to see splits in GPL, though, or at least an elapsed clock that showed hundreths of seconds. Cheers, Paul

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:51:21 +0000, Paul Jones >I wasn't looking hard enough - I'll recheck. "Canned" is an interesting >concept in programming though - you almost never want to do it. It depends what you are modelling I suppose. If you are modelling lateral g, and it's effect and interaction with camber, contact patch etc then it is better not to have a canned effect. If, OTOH, you are not modelling all of these things then you can write a "lean" effect for when the car corners at beyond a certain speed/turn radius. Certainly within TOCA2 the "lean" effect reacts more slowly even than my own road-going Honda Accord, and since the touring car will be sprung far more stiffly and with less total movement it is clear that the effect bears no relation to the on-screen events. The important question is whether that actually matters, and frankly I don't give a damn. If it was a sim I'd be a mite suspicious of it, but as an arcade racer it really doesn't matter - the overall effect is way more important and TOCA2 does very well in that regard. Obviously anything which is not "real world" is canned, but this to a greater or lesser degree rather than a black or white yea/nay. GPL models in far greater depth than anything up until now, but then as a sim that's something it should aspire to. Even then it doesn't model changing track conditions, debris pick up, marbles or a host of other things. TOCA2 is a different beast in that I would expect things to be canned - if someone told me the TOCA2 programmers had spent weeks coding the camber change due to body roll I'd be askiny why they didn't spend that time and money giving me another couple of cars and tracks. A bit like the catapult launchers the other FFs seem to use at the start. Can anyone even kep them in sight off the line? I usually catch them up into the first right hander after the chicane complex, but they're seriously quick off the line. Unfortunately they're too slow thereafter. Cheers! John

John, are you sure about the marbles thing? It certainly seems that there are marbles on the outside of Speed Trap at The Glen, for example. Or is that just the supposed negative camber there?

> The important question is whether that actually matters, and frankly I > don't give a damn. If it was a sim I'd be a mite suspicious of it, but > as an arcade racer it really doesn't matter - the overall effect is > way more important and TOCA2 does very well in that regard. But the realism is very important and it's hard to see how the complexity of the algorithms won't be proportional to the realism. I don't see why an arcade game shouldn't be realistic. This is what lets NFS down so badly. There is nothing to driving those cars. It's almost <amount throttle down> proportional to <velocity> and <steering wheel turn> proportional to <change in direction>. Admittedly you can turn the car with the brake but I need more, and the cops don't give me that. Again, I don't accept "canned" but I will accept that the algorithms are much simpler than GPL's and thus the realism is less than in GPL. I would much prefer for TOCA2 to max out on realism. More tracks and cars are fine but I'd rather a hyper-realistic simulation of the BTCC. TOCA2 is probably the best we're going to get until TOCA3, and it is fun. What I found is that if you hold the revs between 8 and 9 on the tach until the green light and then floor the throttle while clicking up to 4th as quickly as you can you can overtake 4 of them before the first right hander (Hawthorne). For some "canned" reason the car only really starts to pull in 4th even if you set the ratio for 3rd to be the same as the default 4th. There after it seems to me that you never want to drop below 4th even on that tight hairpin, whatever ratios you set. Seems to me that you get more grip from the lower gears but speed is compromised. Acceration doesn't seem to be affected by the gear selected and the car picks up pretty well in 6th. Realistic, huh :-) I think back to my school boy physics and think, no. Shame. They done a great job on the graphics and the look of the car pack is gorgeous. Just a little consultation with a school physics teacher, yourself or Doug Arno might have got their physics up to an acceptable level. This said the game is amazing fun. Cheers, Paul

Paul Jones wrote I take this as a good explanation, and what we expected (well I did) for Toca2. I had fun, but for me I'll rather get a Cooper at the Ring. Personnal flavors, but I do respect that Codemaster did a great job with their title to appeal the market they targeted. I will argue with you. I launched Toca1 after... and Im sorry but the physic engine (or game engine) is not different at all. It's mostly the same. Same effects on medium-speed corners (the canned oversteering spin), same effect braking into a corner, or turning into a slow corner (the chicanes at the end of the lap). There's no major upgrade to the physics in Toca2. Probably some little adjustments, but nothing more. <snipped good stuff about canned physics> The problem with canned physics is that even if the company tried their best to immitate the feeling, it will always be wrong in heavy-weight transfering situations. You can't immitate real life physics with canned algorithm. You can with mathematical calculations. Take per example the Ubi game engine. Their tracks are flat. it only goes up and down. No camber, no banking, no heavy elevation changes (like ex: Zandvoort out-of-track mountain climbing hehe). When the track loads, inside the track files there is data that contains XYZ position of bumps on the tracks. Each time the car pass that bump, the algorithm calculates the Z-position of the***pit travels, without affecting the physical look of the suspension. Now take the same with GPL, and look at what mathematical calculation will do. You will see first of all visually the bump in the track (Monaco near the ***). You will see the wheel go up/down in the Z axis, the suspension act realistically under the physics, the shock absorbing the rotation of the wheel up/down, the***pit who will visually act on the bump, the other wheels who will have more weight on them, right rear wheel will have the biggest weight on it, etc.., etc.. That's what makes GPL so incredible compared to the other game engines using canned algorithms. Not because GPL is difficult, but because it's the closest at the moment to real-life. I remember saying when the GPL demo went out (almost a year ago !), that I don't see in the next two full years a company having a better game engine than the Papy one. That's mostly what will happen. I see only ahead the Trans-am Racing and the Rally 99 game engine that could be as good as the Papy game engine. Hmm, that means the physics are canned ;-) Hmm, "upgrading" to the MGP game engine would be more a downgrade ;-) -= Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -= NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -= SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -= Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -= May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Paul Jones wrote well, it can be realistic, but is it nessecary for an arcade game ? Well, let's remember they tried to hype Toca2 saying it would be hyper-realistic. But you have you 2 good points. I don't really care if it's canned physics, since I feel it's not the major focus on it. Arcade game needs a good feeling of speed, good eye-candy, fun tracks, average AI that fights with the driver, and probably less complicated physics to please the mass market. Anybody know what are the secret tracks ? I wish for a long Brands Hatch ;) Thanks for the hint ;-) the FF cars also seems to be slingshooted when the cars go by the frontstrech another time. Watch them exiting the last slow corners. Im wheelspining, trying to gain momentum with the less wheel spin, but those AI just power off like a Formula 1 car ;-) -= Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -= NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -= SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -= Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -= May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I think that will be a camber effect. I'm as sure as I can be about the marbles without knowing for sure (if you know what I mean!) :-) Cheers! John

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:40:43 +0000, Paul Jones >Again, I don't accept "canned" but I will accept that the algorithms are much >simpler than GPL's and thus the realism is less than in GPL. Now there's a statement I disagree with - algorithms are a means to achieving realism, but they alone do not ensure a game will feel realistic. I'd far rather have something "canned" to hell but feeling right than programmed to the "n"th degree of complexity and feeling awful. Even with TOCA3 I doubt we'll see such realism, since it is clearly a console title now and being ported to the PC because it can be and sales will be good. Developing an utterly realistic title for the Playstation would be neither possible nor good sales (IMO), and the only alternatives would be developing solely for the PC or to develop two separate releases - neither very likely (again, IMO). AFAI am concerned it achieves what it sets out to do and then some, and while I would like a totally realistic BTCC sim I also really like a fun one and this fits the bill perfectly. No disrespect to Codemasters but if a BTCC sim were to be made I'd prefer it to be done by GC or Papyrus since we'll likely only get one shot at it and I'd like it to be perfect. Where I think Codemasters have really got it is the "rough and tumble", door-rubbing, love-tapping closeness of it all, something that even Papyrus have failed to capture in past titles. Even in N2 the cars would spin with even minimal contact, whereas I'd expect a hugely heavy NASCAR to be able to take nad dish-out quite a bit of punishment, especially at low speeds around Bristol etc. TOCA2 is great for this (perhaps a bit too exaggerated, but let's not split hairs!) and I love leaning on cars round corners and squeezing between a duelling pair as the sparks fly :-) All in all it's certainly one on my "buy" list, and the addition of Formula Fords and other cars to drive is just great. Even the inclusion of mini track guides corner by corner - nice attention to detail. It's almost like some of the people have done some background research here or on the web to hear some suggestions and ideas people made to improve past products, but it couldn't be that. Could it? Cheers! John

John Wallace wrote I agree to disagree with that John ;-) The problem here, is that we're close to the "third generation" of racing titles now. GPL is the first step into it IMHO. You would rather like the canned to hell but feeling right. I can see that. But how could a software programmed to the "n"th degree of complexity feel wrong ? I can't see how a hard-core simracing title, using real-life physics without any canned feature can feel wrong. Physics don't change wether it's virtual or real. I just can't imagine myself how a realistic game engine can feel wrong. If it doesn't feel good it's because it has some canned features no ? And if whatever the case it does feel wrong and the physics are true, thus that would suggest that the real-life version of it is feel wrong, no ? :) -= Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -= NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -= SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -= Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -= May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Quoted text (18 lines)

> John Wallace wrote > >Now there's a statement I disagree with - algorithms are a means to > >achieving realism, but they alone do not ensure a game will feel > >realistic. I'd far rather have something "canned" to hell but feeling > >right than programmed to the "n"th degree of complexity and feeling > >awful. > The problem here, is that we're close to the "third generation" of racing > titles now. GPL is the first step into it IMHO. You would rather like the > canned to hell but feeling right. I can see that. But how could a software > programmed to the "n"th degree of complexity feel wrong ? > I can't see how a hard-core simracing title, using real-life physics without > any canned feature can feel wrong. Physics don't change wether it's virtual > or real. I just can't imagine myself how a realistic game engine can feel > wrong. If it doesn't feel good it's because it has some canned features no ? > And if whatever the case it does feel wrong and the physics are true, thus > that would suggest that the real-life version of it is feel wrong, no ? :)

Hi John, Fran?ois, The issue I take here is that no programmer in their right mind would "can" a driving model - arcade or simulation. "Canned" as in "canned laughter" in a tv comedy is analagous to certain programming tricks like sticking bitmap textures on objects. That is canned. The simulated movement of a vehicle whether realistic or not will almost always be governed by algorithms. We should get out of the habit of talking about canned driving models when what we really mean are poor or over simplified algorithms. Of course, complexity does not guarantee realism. At the level of considering car physics, the world is a very complex place and even if you get the physics of each individual component correct (ie it obeys all Newtons, Hookes etc laws), you have to consider how each interreacts with the other, and the total input into the final system each component might make. Gross simplicity is almost guaranteed to fail when applied to the total car physics, as the resulting n-dimensional performance curve is guaranteed to deviate from reality and pretty soon sim drivers will spot this (probably before turn 1). But simplification will be necessary because the physical world out there outscales the computing power of any computer that will ever be built - ever, ever, ever. The trick to good simulation (apart from running it on the very fastest machine you can get your hands on), is to identify the level of complexity each sub-component should be assigned. You could spend out almost your entire computing budget on the behaviour of say, fuel ignition and grossly oversimplify tyre behaviour. You will then end up with something that is worse than Need For Speed. Thinking about this makes me want to develop a driving sim - sounds fun doesn't it. John (or anyone else in the UK) fancy having a go at it? I'm a very experienced technical programmer (I've done a variety of non-racing sims and my Bridge program won the gold medal at the 1st Computer Olympiad). My physics and maths are adequate. My racing and automotive skills are rudimentary and I'd like to team up with someone with the converse ie. rudimentary programming skills, good racing automotive knowledge and at least passable physics and maths. I've got one or two ideas that I think would be revolutionary. I guess the end product would be the "engine" for the game which we could sell to a games developer. The graphics, though important, don't really interest me, unless anyone out there would like to take that aspect on. It would have to be a spare time project because I need my job to finance my family. Just a thought, really, Cheers, Paul

On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 01:40:50 +0000, Paul Jones

Quoted text (7 lines)

>The issue I take here is that no programmer in their right mind would "can" a >driving model - arcade or simulation. "Canned" as in "canned laughter" in a tv >comedy is analagous to certain programming tricks like sticking bitmap textures >on objects. That is canned. The simulated movement of a vehicle whether >realistic or not will almost always be governed by algorithms. We should get out >of the habit of talking about canned driving models when what we really mean are >poor or over simplified algorithms.

Those are two different things, leastaways in "ras-speak". A simplified driving model is one which models only that which is necessary to achieve the effect the programmer is looking for. At the basic level you could program an acceleration curve linked to the joystick input position without worrying about engine revs, flywheel mass, temps or whatever. A canned model is not a driving model, it is an effect within that which takes over when a certain set of conditions are met. Examples are GP2's spin and spin-turn or TOCA2's "lean" effect. If cornering force >= "x" then "lean" the view window. It depends what you mean by "fail". The final target is something that feels real, be that by hook or by crook, and how it is achieved can be argued afterwards. Something like Mario Kart 64 has given a lot more pleasure to me than MGPRS2, and while it may not be remotely "real" nor based upon real-world physics it isn't difficult to see which has been the greater commercial success (quite apart from the fun). Cheers! John