Digital Sports rcolumn esponds to ASC Games Jeff Gordon Racing ad

Sorry, guys, after seeing the ASC ad in CGW, I could not stay silent. I hope you enjoy this... http://www.digitalsports.com/mine/dsports/frameset.htm Randy Magruder Randy Magruder http://members.home.com/rmagruder

>Sorry, guys, after seeing the ASC ad in CGW, I could not stay silent. >I hope you enjoy this... >http://www.digitalsports.com/mine/dsports/frameset.htm Hi Randy, Where is the article? I couldn't find the link on that page. I'm sure it's right there but I can't see it for some reason (probably staring at the screen too damn much this week!). Joe

Standing on feet, clapping hands loudly. Great article!! Brian

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Sorry, guys, after seeing the ASC ad in CGW, I could not stay silent. >I hope you enjoy this... >http://www.digitalsports.com/mine/dsports/frameset.htm >Randy Magruder >Randy Magruder >http://members.home.com/rmagruder

Thanks, Brian :)

Quoted text (16 lines)

>Standing on feet, clapping hands loudly. Great article!! >Brian >>Sorry, guys, after seeing the ASC ad in CGW, I could not stay silent. >>I hope you enjoy this... >>http://www.digitalsports.com/mine/dsports/frameset.htm >>Randy Magruder >>Randy Magruder >>http://members.home.com/rmagruder

Randy Magruder http://members.home.com/rmagruder

I seriously don't see the point here... GPL is incredible NOT because it's in a primitive form of racing (being 1967 Formula 1). It's incredible because of the GAME ENGINE that makes it possible. Cars act on a road with simple physics applied to each parts of the car. Engine, suspension, chassis, wheel, body, etc.. On r.a.s. we do not say that GPL is incredible because of the difficulty of it. Not at all. We rave about the extreme realism of the game engine that finally doesn't need much canned routines as previous titles had. This makes GPL hard, because it's realistic. As in real-life. If they would had choose whatever type of racing, it would had been the same. They use the same game engine, with the same physic laws. A car is a car is a car <g>. Nascar Racing 3 will be as realistic as GPL (and probably even more). Don't expect the realism to be put down in the next Papyrus software. Why would they do this ? If anybody think that we would be whining (like some do about Toca2 and it's arcadish style) because they would had made Nascar Racing 3 at first, that's totally 100% _FALSE_. It's the game engine... only that -= 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."

Mark, I will definitely concede that because today's cars are stiffer and so much more based upon aero, that movement which a driver feels in his body will be less visible to the *** eye. Certainly you don't expect to see Michael Andretti's champ car wallow around turns the way a GPL car often does. However, I think it will just be that the cues are more subtle. I really think that if the GPL model is properly adapted to other types, I think we'll be amazed at how much we feel even today's "stiff" cars. It may take as long or longer to get tuned into them as in GPL, but just as was the case in GPL where every beginner loops the cars for unfathomed reasons, after enough seat time you "feel" the car, and if the physics is RIGHT, it will be predictable and second nature. Randy

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Hi Randy, nice review! Let me bounce this off you: Do you think the >Physics Excellence of GPL was possible in part because of the 'latitude' they >had in programming a sim from an era with cars of that nature - no downforce, >primitive tires, etc.? Since our bodies arent picking up all kinds of >information from the track, as it would in reality, I wonder at what point >'Excellent Physics' would be overkill(inperceptable) in a simulation of a >'stable platform' type form of racing ..at what point would the achieved- >physics in a game like TOCA 2(very stiff, stable platform, using latest tech, >wide tires) run into the fact that we cant actually *feel* the car. Stable >car + no actuall feeling being sent through our rear-ends... there must be a >point of diminishing physics-returns(where we cant tell the difference >anymore), that is arrived at quicker in game like TOCA 2 than it is in a >wide-open style of racing like GPL, wouldnt you guess? If it is arrived at >quicker, mabey they have less to brag about! Mabey they have room to >advertise the 'fun' aspect. ..Your article was very thought provoking. Like >usual :)

Randy Magruder http://members.home.com/rmagruder

It's at a link on the bottom of the page titled "Are racing sims fun" Great reading!

Good article, Randy, and I completely agree (on most points). I would like it if someone could point me to ASC's website, because I'd like to give them a little feedback as a sim-racer at the insult delivered to us by their crappy advertising... However, two points I don't agree with are this... Comparing modern cars to '67 Grand Prix cars is not a comparison...as I've mentioned before on this forum. I've driven many different cars (in real life) including a Winston Cup stock car (at RPDE). While yes, modern stock cars are pretty different to their simulator counterparts, the difference between them at 140 mph in a corner and some of the other road-going cars I've driven is amazing...they stick while the older street legal ones don't. While I've never driven a '67 F1 car, I can appreciate some of the same attributes in other vehicles I've driven... '70 Chevelle w/450 hp 350, '67 Tbird w/425hp 390 Thunderjet, ect. Similarities? Overpowered, underdeveloped suspension, and complete lack of aerodynamics. Ok, a little aero, but not much. Trying to keep these cars on back country roads at 90 mph can be a real handful. The Winston Cup car I drove? No problem...could've probably did it at 120. Could've probably did it in a Lotus at 120 as well, but would have been pretty hairy...not to mention, I prefer alot of bodywork and rollcages between me and the outside world... Point is, simulated modern cars cannot be accurately compared with a simulation for 30 year old cars. While N99 and Viper Racing's physics do lack the level of realism that GPL does, they are not as bad as everyone keeps going on about...you DON'T feel alot of the things that you did in older cars. The tires, the suspensions, power steering, everything has progressed to a point where alot of the things you feel in GPL have been dampened by modern technology. If you don't believe me, just take a late model Corvette out for a spin... it'll take corners you only dreamed about in a '64 Stingray... And the last thing...if you've found that normal NASCAR 2 racing is boring, you've obviously not tried our TPTCC patch...it's consistenly been rated the highest against everything except GPL as far as competitive AI goes...and probably why we've got one of the most successful offline leagues of any...going on 3 years now. Cheers! -- ??Jan Kohl?? **The Pits Performance Team** Computer Systems Programmer USAF Air-Ground Operations School Hurlburt Field, FL Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com/ The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com/

I must agree to this, the TPTCC patch adds a new life to NR1999, it's loads of fun and Jan is right about the AI, it's very aggressive and competitive. They did a wonderful job with that patch. To anyone who hasn't tried it yet, I'd say "well... what are you waiting for?" A. Renault

Oh of course we could, and we will ! If you take previous game engines, you can see the resemblance between titles even if they have different type of racing. Per example, Pod/F1RS/MGPRS2 by Ubisoft, or Toca/ColinMcRae/Toca2 by Codemaster. The same goes for Icr1/N1/Icr2/N2 by Papyrus. They have their own style of racing but you can see resemblance in the game engine. The problem is that there's actually two side of people here. There's the hard-core simmers who want more and more realism all the time, whatever the difficulty of the title (that would be my case). But there's also the hard-core simmers who want more and more realism but they also worry about going "too far" in that road, because of the lack of inputs you have from it. It's mostly visual and audio. You can have with a wheel some sense of being there (the springs on a wheel will help you for physical cues and FF will also. I understand those two points of view,but It's chicken/egg here. We go into the realism, or wait until we can have better Inputs for simracing software (I qualify this now as virtual reality). -= 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."