I have been playing papyrus sims since Indy 500 and nobody, I mean nobody
does racing sims like Papyrus. Everyone, including myself, complained about
not having any new information on Nascar3 and now it is coming out of the
woodwork and you guys complain.
My 2 cents.
John McClaren
Electrical Engineer
Interior Communications
JMcClaren on TEN
Mms. Gee, I think that Geoff Crammond did an awesome job with GP2 that came
out around the same time as ICR2/Nascar Racing. Perhaps GP3 will blow the
doors off Papyrus, I'm for one hoping so.
Would be totally cool, but I doubt Geoff can make a better physics engine as
GPL. The reason
I think so is that he works on his own whilst there were several engineers at
papy working a whole
year on the physics engine. It would take Geoff at least 3 or 4 years to make
it... (but HEY ! he might
have started implementing the game before gp2 came out... ;o))
Tadej Krevh
Lotus Internet Racing organization
http://member.xoom.com/LotusRacing/
> Mms. Gee, I think that Geoff Crammond did an awesome job with GP2 that came
> out around the same time as ICR2/Nascar Racing. Perhaps GP3 will blow the
> doors off Papyrus, I'm for one hoping so.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Would be totally cool, but I doubt Geoff can make a better physics engine as > GPL. The reason > I think so is that he works on his own whilst there were several engineers at > papy working a whole > year on the physics engine. It would take Geoff at least 3 or 4 years to make > it... (but HEY ! he might > have started implementing the game before gp2 came out... ;o))Ronald Stoehr wrote
Well... I am checking the Gp2 credits. and if I take out all the producing
aspect of the title made by Microprose..
Programming and Game design : Geoff Crammond
Menu Graphics : Pete Cooke
Topography of the racing circuits : Norman Surplus
Track data research : Celia Holmes
Tester : David Surplus
Oh I had an technical supplement with Gp2 and in it there is an additional
credit to Dave Amey who was the F1 Engineer who helped Geoff.
So yes Geoff made about 95% of Grand Prix2. F1GP was his baby alone, and
for Gp2 he got a little staff, including two brothers. That's why I often
said when people were asking info about a patch for Gp2 or a sequel that he
bought a private Island in Hawaii where he built himself a mansion. Gp2
sold over a million copies in Europe so where is all the money going after
the producing team ? Heh to him ;)
-= 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."
% Would be totally cool, but I doubt Geoff can make a better physics engine as
% GPL. The reason
% I think so is that he works on his own whilst there were several engineers at
% papy working a whole
% year on the physics engine. It would take Geoff at least 3 or 4 years to make
% it... (but HEY ! he might
% have started implementing the game before gp2 came out... ;o))
Originally, GP3 was to be a "completion" of GP2 using the same basic
"engine", but include weather and improved graphics. Unless Geoff
totally scrapped this and started work from scratch on GP3, I highly
doubt we'll see a match for Papyrus's engine. However, that doesn't mean
that GP3 won't feel good. One thing that Geoff is good at, is making a
program feel right. I think his approach has always been to "make" it
feel right, in other words make the program mimic the feel. Where
Papyrus has taken the other approach and built a physics engine and then
worked on the program to utilize it.
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>% Would be totally cool, but I doubt Geoff can make a better physics engine as
>% GPL. The reason
>% I think so is that he works on his own whilst there were several engineers at
>% papy working a whole
>% year on the physics engine. It would take Geoff at least 3 or 4 years to
make
Given how much processor time is spent modelling the physics in GPL, does
anyone out there really think it is practical to use this for a 'modern' F1
sim. This would mean not only modelling everything that GPL models, but
also adding an aero model. To do this properly you would have to model the
effects of the tyres (ie the lift generated at speed), the undertray, front
and rear wing - which would all change depending on wing settings,
suspension setup and car manufacturer. It would also have to model the
effects of 'dirty air' from cars ahead and the loss of downforce when the
car gets sideways thru a corner or rides over a curb. Somewhere along the
line the processor will also have to make some sounds and draw all this on
the screen. Given that most computers out there are lucky to eek out 36fps
in GPL, I think it will be a while before we get to see a 'modern' F1 sim
with the same level of realism.
Kev...all those points you mentioned apply to ALL forms of racing...not just
F1. :? Even a GPL car does have some aerodynamic properties. I don't know
how much of that is or is not already modeled in GPL's physics engine or
not. As to "eeking" out at 36fps...don't compare graphical FPS with actual
physics engine speed. Physics engine was running at 288hz (i.e. 288fps..) or
so if I remember right (ICR2/N/N2 ran at 33hz...Quake2's "physics" runs at
10hz). That physics engine has to be "constant" all the time or you would
end up with each client (whether it be AI or human) with different views of
the world's physics. Anyways, having multiple physics engine run for each
client on the system does take a large hint in processing power, but I don't
believe that GPL's graphics system is as good as the physics engine and is
part of the reason you only see 36fps. Also note, someone stated that one
of the guys from Papyrus said they had limited the engine to 36 anyways for
synchronization purposes with the physics engine. But in the end, I think
you can get a good F1/CART game out of the GPL engine w/o too suffering too
much more of a processing hit. :)
You could be right Michael. But then again, I really don't know how much
"physics" was built into GP2 or not. It was quite the hog of resources, and
I haven't tried it lately but should....but I hear that it still uses up a
lot even on the most current machines. That could bode well even for a
"upgraded" GP2. :)
> Given how much processor time is spent modelling the physics in GPL, does
> anyone out there really think it is practical to use this for a 'modern' F1
> sim. This would mean not only modelling everything that GPL models, but
> also adding an aero model.
Hopefully, Papyrus has already taken this into consideration when they
designed the physics engine for GPL. Converting it to modern F1, or any
other era/form of racing, would then simply be just to plug in the right
values for that format. My guess is this is exactly what they have
done, given that the GPL engine is to be the basis of NASCAR3, a very
different form of racing.
Dave Ewing
But seriously,
Didn't we hear some sort of vague rumors shortly after GP2 came out that Mr.
Crammond _was_ working on GP3? I think these sayings started when GP2 was
displayed at Brands Hatch... Can anybody back me up on that?
Mikey
I remember some time back reading an interview with someone from Papy, and
they stated that the way this physics engine was designed, once they knew a
specific set of values for a given vehicle they could plug those in, and thats
they way the sim would respond. they said you could make it feel like a '67 GP
car, or an 88 Honda Prelude.
T
<<
Hopefully, Papyrus has already taken this into consideration when they
designed the physics engine for GPL. Converting it to modern F1, or any
other era/form of racing, would then simply be just to plug in the right
values for that format. My guess is this is exactly what they have
done, given that the GPL engine is to be the basis of NASCAR3, a very
different form of racing.>>>
It looks like you have missed the point of my post - being that the ovehead
required for the GPL physics model currently leaves little time for the
processor to take care of functions like graphics and sound. Adding an aero
model on top of this will leave even less time. Consider the fact that the
current physics model will account for aero drag only (with some modelling
for drafting ?), while to model any car with aero assists will need to take
into account wing sizes/settings, suspension settings, ride height, distance
behind other cars, car pitch and yaw and calculate the effect of the forces
produced. Given the huge load on processing power this would require, I
don't think we will see any sim which does this as accurately as the
non-aero model used in GPL anytime soon.
Papyrus is most likely looking at the newer top of the line cpu's
that will arrive at about the same time N3 does.This way they can put
the advanced aero model into the sim and also allow a full field of
cars at a decent resolution with a constant 36fps as they did with the
P2-450mhz.I dont know if anyone else has wrote about this before but I
think Papyrus has downgraded the graphics a bit since the first
pictures arrived in NEXT GENERATION ONLINE.Cmpare the pictures 11,12
and 13 to the newer ones on this page and youll see what i mean.
http://members.xoom.com/ChrusS/gallery.htm
It appears as if the older pictures had much more texture depth
especially in the road surfaceand the cars look more detailed but they
mostlikely have to do this to run it full field with the current cpu
at the time.N3 should still rock:))
Skeeter
