In the March issue of Maximum PC, page 39. T. Liam McDonald flames PAPY for
making GPL too realistic of a sim. Well excuse me, but isn't the idea of
making a racing simulation is to simulate real racing, and the true-life
physics?? He says and I quote:
"Grand Prix Legends is the lesser sinner because its failings are mostly of
omission. Developed by Papyrus, the long-standing developer of
ultra-realistic racing sims, Grand Prix Legends is everything a true
*** racing fan should expect. The physics are modeled in exacting and
impressive detail. No one, not even an experienced racing simmer or
(especially) an actual race car driver, could drive this game right away.
It takes hours and hours of pratice to learn these complex models. Racing
fans lap this up, nonfans admire the attention to detail.
But Papyrus didn't bother to put in any effective difficulty or realism
toggles to make this game approachable by the casual racing fan. Real-world
physics in a game are admirable. Mandatory real-world physics in a game are
stupid.
And Grand Prix Legends is 'overmodeled.' This comment prompts contemptuous
responses from fans demanding to know how physics can be 'overmodeled.'
Here's how:It's a game! It's a two-dimensional re-creation of an activity
that occurs in three dimensions. In this game, you call upon precisley one
of your senses (sight) with a tiny bit of help from another (hearing).
In real driving, feel is essential. The feel of the wheel in your hands and
pedals under your feet. The feel of the road under your tires. The feel of
the car at that precise moment when the wheels lose traction and being to
skid. Driving, more than flying, is a matter of feel, and that sensation is
utterly closed off to you on the PC. Ergo, you don't have the sensory
information needed to cope with this physics model. Ergo, the game becomes
even more of a challenge than driving real cars. Match that with Papyrus's
laughable refusal to even attempt force feedback support (they say no force
feedback device can accuratley re-create the feel of driving these cars) and
you have a sim that's a realistic model of an activity, but not a realistic
re-creation of an activity."
Ok now, this is ridiculous. Let's start at the beginning. First, who could
drive this game right away? Who would want to? If anyone could just drive
this game right away like it was second nature would become discusted
because it would be too easy and have no competition. Second, why would you
want toggles to make the game easier? For one thing, there is something
like that but not in a race mode, it's called the trainer cars. Also,
there's braking, and shifting help. Third, a simulation is a re-creation of
a real-life occurance, in this case, '67 F1 GP racing. It was meant to be
very real and it is! Nothing can be "overmodeled", but it can be
"undermodeled". And last but not least, force feedback is in its infancy,
the only thing it can do right now for racing sims is vibrate and tighten.
Now, that may seem enough but it isnt. It will only vibrate slighty, and
not ***ly, which some people might not approve of, but PAPY was right
when not putting FFB in GPL, it would probably mostly be turned off by most
people anyhow, because it wouldn't have the same level of "greatness" as the
rest of GPL has.
What it seems we have here is someone who couldn't do good in GPL, got mad,
and complained about racing _sims_ being _too realistic_ for him. So he
flamed PAPY and their newest and greatest game so far, GPL. Just an
afterthought. :-)
For anyone who would like to talk to this guy, can e-mail him at:
Adam Zerlin
Maximum PC columnist criticises GPL for being too hard
Fans reacted angrily to a Maximum PC column by T. Liam McDonald that faulted Papyrus for making GPL too difficult and lacking force feedback. Some accepted that a mainstream magazine would judge it as mainstream gamers would, and the debate turned to whether GPL needed scalable difficulty like Falcon 4.0 and why Papyrus had left out force feedback. Several posters wrote letters to the magazine.
Automated summary.
Damn this guy is a total well I dont want to say it on a news group. What
does this guy want? an option to change from realistic physics to pole
position physics cause he sucks so bad that he needs something easy to
drive? Its a sim for crying out loud, he wants sim makers to make their
games more arcade and unrealistic so people that are not capable of trying
can have something to do. If he wanted to play something simple, he coulda
gone out and gotten nascar revolution and praised it for its lack of
realism. He shouldnt have bought a simulation that boasts that it is the
most accurate physics out and hope it would be easy. Though he is also
saying it ISNT realistic enough cause it doesnt have any feel to it.
Putting FF into GPL, knowing papy and how great they are with sims, they
would have had to hold back the release for another 2 years to make it
perfect (which if it were done, it better be) so he shouldnt be complaining
cause im sure if PAPY had rushed FF for it, the man would be complaining
that the FF isnt realistic enough. I think everyone should write this man a
"kind" email explaining how you feel on his views.
Jesse
PS I wouldnt have minded if he would have written to a news group saying
this was how he feels but writing it in a magazine no longer says THIS IS MY
VIEW, its sayig how everyone feels about it cause thats what magazines
normally do, they rate games fairly, obviously this guy didnt.
>In the March issue of Maximum PC, page 39. T. Liam McDonald flames PAPY for
Real-world
>physics in a game are admirable. Mandatory real-world physics in a game are
and
>pedals under your feet. The feel of the road under your tires. The feel of
>the car at that precise moment when the wheels lose traction and being to
>skid. Driving, more than flying, is a matter of feel, and that sensation is
>utterly closed off to you on the PC. Ergo, you don't have the sensory
>information needed to cope with this physics model. Ergo, the game becomes
>even more of a challenge than driving real cars. Match that with Papyrus's
>laughable refusal to even attempt force feedback support (they say no force
>feedback device can accuratley re-create the feel of driving these cars) and
>you have a sim that's a realistic model of an activity, but not a realistic
>re-creation of an activity."
>Ok now, this is ridiculous. Let's start at the beginning. First, who could
>drive this game right away? Who would want to? If anyone could just drive
>this game right away like it was second nature would become discusted
>because it would be too easy and have no competition. Second, why would you
>want toggles to make the game easier? For one thing, there is something
>like that but not in a race mode, it's called the trainer cars. Also,
>there's braking, and shifting help. Third, a simulation is a re-creation of
the
Quoted text (14 lines)
>making GPL too realistic of a sim. Well excuse me, but isn't the idea of >making a racing simulation is to simulate real racing, and the true-life >physics?? He says and I quote: >"Grand Prix Legends is the lesser sinner because its failings are mostly of >omission. Developed by Papyrus, the long-standing developer of >ultra-realistic racing sims, Grand Prix Legends is everything a true >*** racing fan should expect. The physics are modeled in exacting and >impressive detail. No one, not even an experienced racing simmer or >(especially) an actual race car driver, could drive this game right away. >It takes hours and hours of pratice to learn these complex models. Racing >fans lap this up, nonfans admire the attention to detail. >But Papyrus didn't bother to put in any effective difficulty or realism >toggles to make this game approachable by the casual racing fan.Quoted text (7 lines)
>stupid. >And Grand Prix Legends is 'overmodeled.' This comment prompts contemptuous >responses from fans demanding to know how physics can be 'overmodeled.' >Here's how:It's a game! It's a two-dimensional re-creation of an activity >that occurs in three dimensions. In this game, you call upon precisley one >of your senses (sight) with a tiny bit of help from another (hearing). >In real driving, feel is essential. The feel of the wheel in your handsQuoted text (8 lines)
>a real-life occurance, in this case, '67 F1 GP racing. It was meant to be >very real and it is! Nothing can be "overmodeled", but it can be >"undermodeled". And last but not least, force feedback is in its infancy, >the only thing it can do right now for racing sims is vibrate and tighten. >Now, that may seem enough but it isnt. It will only vibrate slighty, and >not ***ly, which some people might not approve of, but PAPY was right >when not putting FFB in GPL, it would probably mostly be turned off by most >people anyhow, because it wouldn't have the same level of "greatness" asQuoted text (11 lines)
>rest of GPL has. >What it seems we have here is someone who couldn't do good in GPL, got mad, >and complained about racing _sims_ being _too realistic_ for him. So he >flamed PAPY and their newest and greatest game so far, GPL. Just an >afterthought. :-) >For anyone who would like to talk to this guy, can e-mail him at: >Adam ZerlinIt doesn't seem unfair for a mainstream magazine to rate it the way most
mainstream gamers (and that is the majority of their audience) would see it.
I think most of us GPL ***s are hard-core simmers, and proud of the
distinction. If Papy wanted to make a game that would sell to gamers, they
failed, but we all know that we are the targets of this product.
I think a lot of people pick up GPL based on experience with previous Papy
sims and are very dissapointed. I remember how frustrating it was not to be
able to keep up with the pack even up to turn 2 at the Glen! I worked at it
a lot, but the real breakthrough for me was finding some setups and holtlap
replays on the web. Most people won't go to that trouble or don't even
realize that the resources are out there. I am married with 3 kids, and if
I hadn't found those hints to get my speeds up to where I could compete with
the AI, I would not enjoy GPL as much as I do (I don't think I would have
given up, I am too stubborn to admit defeat!). My pc time is too limited by
other responsibilities, I am very grateful that I was able to learn from the
experience of others, but I wouldn't have gone to the trouble if I weren't a
hard-core race fan and sim fan.
Charlie
OK once a month at least one of you guys gets pissed off because some
maintstream guy makes an ill will comment about your god racing sim.......I
love the game, I love racing sims.....but this was the MOST COMPLEX,
difficult, frustrating title I have ever loaded on my HD. I totally love it,
but yet there are tons of people who dont even like N2 and think it is too
complex and just "not fun"..........does that take away from my own
enjoyment I get from both Nascar1,2 and 99 series and GPL from Papy? NO!!!!
It affects me about as much as I affect flight sim junkies when I say they
are too realisitc and I dont have the time to learn all the buttons, the
correct placement of the...........whatever......my point is, there are a S
load more of "them" (non racing sim junkies) than there are of us.......so a
mainstream *** mag reveiw should not ruin your year.
Personally, I got tired of all the reveiw bashing back in november and
December......now another reveiw is just another review....I allready have
and love the sim, so what do I care about his OPINION of the game, I have
made my own. I would rather him be honest about the fact that it is a
*** SIM, and save all of us the time of reading post from some pissed
off *** saying GPL SUCKS and NeEd 4 sPeeD RulZe.
Most of us know we love it, for our own little special reasons......let Tim
stick with is first person shooters and what ever, and we will keep racing
and chasing that illusterous lap time.
JT
This isn't a mainstream game, NFS III or Moster Trcuk madness maybe, and to top
it off MaximumPC is supposed to be geared toward the PC savy, I'm a subscribe
but I don't read the game reviews. Grand Prix 2 got the same kind of reaction.
At the time, Grand Prix 2 was the top Formula Sim. Grand Prix Legends is to
sims as Unreal is to graphics. I just won at Silverstone on VROC in a 12 lap
race starting from 4th position. I crossed the line .48 seconds ahead of
second. I felt like I just won a real Formula 1 race. I was exhausted and had
to take a 30 minute break afterwards. I remember when I first downloaded the
demo and couldn't make one complete lap around Watkins Glen. Could anybody
imagine driving a real race car and after the second lap being within a couple
of second of a real driver. I don't even bother to read game reviews anymore
especially after you read a review of your favorite game and the guy or gal
blasts it for not having a feature that is only two menus deep. These people
spend 30 minutes on a game and think they are knowledgeable enough to write a
review.
I bow to the Papyrus programers.
Jerry
What the? GPL has the greatest "feel" of any simulation to date.
You can "feel" your tires breakin' loose for an eternity (in racin' terms)!
You can "feel" the car so well, you can powerslide through coners!
You can "feel" the tinies bit of wheel spin while powerin' out of a coner!
And on, and on, and on.
BTW, all you "sim-haters" out there, please don't pick this apart
with some inane somantical argument. You know what I'm tryin' to say.
Slamming the greatest racing simulator of all time for ANY reason
is whats truly stupid (not just a nit-pick, a SLAM. A small problem here
and there's fine).
S.C. "Gritz" Petty
Spectre Racing
http://members.xoom.com/Gritz/Spectre/spectreracing.htm
You know Liam, some of us have gotten more exhillaration from GPL than we
ever thought possible from a computer game. It's a ***y marvel.. Racing
sim developers everywhere are wetting their shorts about how (more like
if..) they are every going to top GPL in their lifetime, so it really galls
me to hear you pontificate that Grand Prix Legends is somehow defficient
because force feedback was not included. In it's current state, FF is no
more than a pitiful distracting gimmick. Someday, when the technology
improves to achieve the speed and subtlety required to correctly model real
world road feel, FF should be included. Papy was right to leave GPL's
brilliant driving model unencumbered by today's so far, so lame FF
technology.
We should celibrate GPL, this milestone in motor racing simulation
technology.. Yes!
Best regd's,
=rez=
~^~^~ Alan Alvarez - PC ToYBOX Ltd. ~~^~^~~^~^^~
~^~~^ Digital Audio Production and Consulting ^~~^
((((< ..>))))
.......( o)
..........'......Woofer!
Well just a comment, a lot of people that dont have the internet or dont
check it just goof around in the game and are glad they can turn a 40 at
monza cause thats what they know is as fast as it will go. if you never
know what the potential is of a car then you will not try to get there.
Wosco
PS i see what you mean though
>>VIEW, its sayig how everyone feels about it cause thats what magazines
>>normally do, they rate games fairly, obviously this guy didnt.
>It doesn't seem unfair for a mainstream magazine to rate it the way most
>mainstream gamers (and that is the majority of their audience) would see it.
>I think most of us GPL ***s are hard-core simmers, and proud of the
>distinction. If Papy wanted to make a game that would sell to gamers, they
>failed, but we all know that we are the targets of this product.
>I think a lot of people pick up GPL based on experience with previous Papy
>sims and are very dissapointed. I remember how frustrating it was not to be
>able to keep up with the pack even up to turn 2 at the Glen! I worked at it
>a lot, but the real breakthrough for me was finding some setups and holtlap
>replays on the web. Most people won't go to that trouble or don't even
>realize that the resources are out there. I am married with 3 kids, and if
>I hadn't found those hints to get my speeds up to where I could compete with
>the AI, I would not enjoy GPL as much as I do (I don't think I would have
>given up, I am too stubborn to admit defeat!). My pc time is too limited by
>other responsibilities, I am very grateful that I was able to learn from the
>experience of others, but I wouldn't have gone to the trouble if I weren't a
>hard-core race fan and sim fan.
>Charlie
Quoted text (7 lines)
>OK once a month at least one of you guys gets pissed off because some >maintstream guy makes an ill will comment about your god racing sim.......I >love the game, I love racing sims.....but this was the MOST COMPLEX, >difficult, frustrating title I have ever loaded on my HD. I totally love it, >but yet there are tons of people who dont even like N2 and think it is too >complex and just "not fun"..........does that take away from my own >enjoyment I get from both Nascar1,2 and 99 series and GPL from Papy? NO!!!!Quoted text (17 lines)
> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:49:46 -0500, > >Force feedback is in its infancy, > >the only thing it can do right now for racing sims is vibrate and tighten. > >Now, that may seem enough but it isnt. It will only vibrate slighty, and > >not ***ly, which some people might not approve of, but PAPY was right > >when not putting FFB in GPL, > I guess you haven't used FF in Viper Racing. > I agree with your opinion about FF implementation in other games/sims, > but I can *no longer* buy the argument that FF is not a usuable feature, > if it is implemented properly. > GPL would be MUCH improved with FF as was done in Viper Racing.says...
Exactly. Most "gamers" are exactly that - gamers. They aren't concerned
with the accuracy of the car models, or the period accuracy of the track-
side graphics, or the intensity of the physics model. The typical gamer
wants to kill or mame, or generally break the law in a virtual world. To
that group, companies have provided test-drive 5, Need For Speed, Grand
Theft Auto, Pod, and games of that ilk.
I picked it up based on my experience with past Papy sims (Nascar),
expecting iot to be many times better. I was not disappointed. I picked
it up knowing NOTHING about driving open-wheel cars, knowing that the
learning curve would be steeper for me than for those used to ICR2 and
GP2. In other words, I went in pretty much expecting the sim to be
tougher to drive than what I was used to, and I wasn't disappointed in
the least.
You people have to realize something - the people that do reviews don't
get weeks and weeks to play with a game and learn it's nuances. They're
on a deadline. What would probably be a more fair way to review a game
would be to have a "typical gamer" review it, and at the same time, allow
a "hard-core-simmer" do a review, and present both reviews in the same
magazine.
--
=========================================================
John Simmons - Redneck Techno-Biker (Zerex12)
http://www.members.home.net/jms1/index.html
John Simmons - Barbarian Diecast Collector
http://members.home.net/jsimm/diecast_index.html
IGPS Director
[link lost in import]
If you want to send me email, go to either of the URL's
shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame.
=========================================================
> And last but not least, force feedback is in its infancy,
A couple of years ago, 3D video acceleration was
in it's infancy. It couldn't do anything nearly
as realistic as what can be done now. Does that
mean it wasn't worth supporting then?
What wheels/sims have you even tried? It doesn't
sound like you have enough hands-on experience
to pass judgement the way you have.
This further sounds like you don't have enough
experience with FF wheels to make such sweeping
statements. My ACT Labs wheel will shake my
entire computer cabinet, to the point where
thing will fall off the top of it.
So what if people turn it off? If you don't want
it, don't use it. Papy IS NOT right in blowing
off FF support. They should provide the best FF
support currently possible (which is pretty good).
They could be big part of speeding the progress
of FF technology. Instead, they are taking the
same attitude that they did with 3D acceleration.
They've been slow to move there as well.
--
Pat Dotson
IMPACT Motorsports
http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html
> me to hear you pontificate that Grand Prix Legends is somehow defficient
> because force feedback was not included
I would by no means call GPL deficient without FF,
but it would be nice to have.
I, for one, want that time to get here as soon
as possible. Don't you think that it will happen
sooner with more support for currently available
hardware? What would be the point of manufacturing
a high fidelity FF wheel when there aren't any
high fidelity FF sims? Papy COULD do it better
than anyone else, but they choose not to.
By this philosophy, Papy should have skipped
INDY500/ICR1/N1/ICR2/N2/N99, and waited until
GPL was ready before ever releasing a simulation.
After all, those were all terribly simplified
models, weren't they? Hardly even worth ever using...
Yes. But include FF.
--
Pat Dotson
IMPACT Motorsports
http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html
Not to muddy the waters, but I am building a homemade wheel/pedals. So
FF support should be there, but should be able to be "turned off."
But I do have a hard time believing good FF is that tough... I remember
a thread a long time ago about Atari's Race Drivin' full-size arcade
video game.
The physics were pretty damn good and the FF was good too, with changes
taking place when the rear end got light and so on. It was pretty good.
And that game is like 6 or 7 years old! Doing it on a PC should be
easier these days... and I'm sure it will.
I'm just too dang cheap to shell out the $$ for a good FF! :-)
-_Dave
--
Dave Schwabe
The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site
http://users.wi.net/~schwabe
Quoted text (38 lines)
> > me to hear you pontificate that Grand Prix Legends is somehow defficient > > because force feedback was not included > I would by no means call GPL deficient without FF, > but it would be nice to have. > > In it's current state, FF is no > > more than a pitiful distracting gimmick. Someday, when the technology > > improves to achieve the speed and subtlety required to correctly model real > > world road feel, FF should be included > I, for one, want that time to get here as soon > as possible. Don't you think that it will happen > sooner with more support for currently available > hardware? What would be the point of manufacturing > a high fidelity FF wheel when there aren't any > high fidelity FF sims? Papy COULD do it better > than anyone else, but they choose not to. > > Papy was right to leave GPL's > > brilliant driving model unencumbered by today's so far, so lame FF > > technology. > By this philosophy, Papy should have skipped > INDY500/ICR1/N1/ICR2/N2/N99, and waited until > GPL was ready before ever releasing a simulation. > After all, those were all terribly simplified > models, weren't they? Hardly even worth ever using... > > We should celibrate GPL, this milestone in motor racing simulation > > technology.. Yes! > Yes. But include FF. > -- > Pat Dotson > IMPACT Motorsports > http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.htmlGood point about having different people with different skill levels review
the same game. Here in town (Nampa, ID) the local paper reviews games every
once in a while. They have three people do the review, one that has little
experience in playing games on a PC, one that would be considered one of
your average game player and finaly a *** game player. Overall you get
a better review of the game/program. You know where it is coming from. My
brother and I have completely different tastes in what we like for computer
games. Would expect him to like GPL. Just like he wouldn't expect me to
like Railroad Tycoon.
For me, If certain people/mags gives it a bad review, then I know that I am
going to just absolutely love the game. Others, I will take their word for
it. Kinda like movie reviews....
Oh, the best way to see if your going to like a game or not is demo it
yourself. Or, ask question?
Thad
Quoted text (54 lines)
>says... >>>VIEW, its sayig how everyone feels about it cause thats what >>>magazines normally do, they rate games fairly, obviously >>>this guy didnt. >>It doesn't seem unfair for a mainstream magazine to rate it the >>way most mainstream gamers (and that is the majority of their >>audience) would see it. >Exactly. Most "gamers" are exactly that - gamers. They aren't concerned >with the accuracy of the car models, or the period accuracy of the track- >side graphics, or the intensity of the physics model. The typical gamer >wants to kill or mame, or generally break the law in a virtual world. To >that group, companies have provided test-drive 5, Need For Speed, Grand >Theft Auto, Pod, and games of that ilk. >>I think most of us GPL ***s are hard-core simmers, and proud >>of the distinction. If Papy wanted to make a game that would >>sell to gamers, they failed, but we all know that we are the >>targets of this product. >>I think a lot of people pick up GPL based on experience with >>previous Papy sims and are very dissapointed. >I picked it up based on my experience with past Papy sims (Nascar), >expecting iot to be many times better. I was not disappointed. I picked >it up knowing NOTHING about driving open-wheel cars, knowing that the >learning curve would be steeper for me than for those used to ICR2 and >GP2. In other words, I went in pretty much expecting the sim to be >tougher to drive than what I was used to, and I wasn't disappointed in >the least. >You people have to realize something - the people that do reviews don't >get weeks and weeks to play with a game and learn it's nuances. They're >on a deadline. What would probably be a more fair way to review a game >would be to have a "typical gamer" review it, and at the same time, allow >a "hard-core-simmer" do a review, and present both reviews in the same >magazine. >-- >========================================================= >John Simmons - Redneck Techno-Biker (Zerex12) >http://www.members.home.net/jms1/index.html >John Simmons - Barbarian Diecast Collector >http://members.home.net/jsimm/diecast_index.html >IGPS Director >[link lost in import] >If you want to send me email, go to either of the URL's >shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame. >=========================================================If he have trouble completing a lap without spinning out or launching your
car into orbit, what makes him think that he would be able to do with his
wheel shaking and vibrating all over the place? This sim is demanding
enough without a shaking wheel. I probably wouldn't make it through the
first turn. If Mr. McDonald thinks the game is too hard as it is, FF would
make it virtually impossible for him.
Tracy Dean
tdean
Just to mention something mentioned earlier, would you have rather waited
until July to get this sim? Yeah papy could have thrown together a quick FF
support (at the time of release there were very few FF wheels on teh market
anyways) but papy wouldnt do that. What if papy had done that, everyone
would be bi..i mean complaining about how bad the FF is and how much it
sucks or how it doesnt give you a full feel of the car, so papy would have
had to waste another year of development to implement perfect FF support
which is what papy does, they make things perfect. Personally im glad that
they didnt include it cause i wouldnt have wanted to wait another year for
FF to be implemented. Now if they come out with a patch in a year after N3
is released then it could be worth it and im not bashing FF at all, just
rather they release it now and maybe support it later with a patch.
Jesse
tighten.
most
>> people anyhow, because it wouldn't have the same level of "greatness" as the
Quoted text (8 lines)
>> And last but not least, force feedback is in its infancy, >A couple of years ago, 3D video acceleration was >in it's infancy. It couldn't do anything nearly >as realistic as what can be done now. Does that >mean it wasn't worth supporting then? >> the only thing it can do right now for racing sims is vibrate andQuoted text (15 lines)
>What wheels/sims have you even tried? It doesn't >sound like you have enough hands-on experience >to pass judgement the way you have. >> Now, that may seem enough but it isnt. It will only vibrate slighty, and >> not ***ly, which some people might not approve of, >This further sounds like you don't have enough >experience with FF wheels to make such sweeping >statements. My ACT Labs wheel will shake my >entire computer cabinet, to the point where >thing will fall off the top of it. >> but PAPY was right >> when not putting FFB in GPL, it would probably mostly be turned off byQuoted text (15 lines)
>> rest of GPL has. >So what if people turn it off? If you don't want >it, don't use it. Papy IS NOT right in blowing >off FF support. They should provide the best FF >support currently possible (which is pretty good). >They could be big part of speeding the progress >of FF technology. Instead, they are taking the >same attitude that they did with 3D acceleration. >They've been slow to move there as well. >-- >Pat Dotson >IMPACT Motorsports >http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.htmlWhat wheel do you use?
Jerry Morelock
Hi Tracy,
I think you may have a misconception of what FF tech really does
offer. Done correctly, it can offer much more than "shaking and
vibrating." Done correctly, it can help you react to the car, because
it *feels* very much like a real car. I'll take any useful sensory
input i can get in a sim, to supplement visual and auditory. FF tech
done correctly is definitely useful, and a sim like GPL could
definitely benefit from it.
Viper Racing has proven this to me.
Brett
Quoted text (8 lines)
>So what if people turn it off? If you don't want >it, don't use it. Papy IS NOT right in blowing >off FF support. They should provide the best FF >support currently possible (which is pretty good). >They could be big part of speeding the progress >of FF technology. Instead, they are taking the >same attitude that they did with 3D acceleration. >They've been slow to move there as well.I wonder what Mr. MacDonald would have to say about a sim like Falcon
4.0... People that play this sim want it to be the most realistic
experience. That's why a 200 pages BINDER is included. You have to take
a class just to learn how to use the radar. What about landing? 9 times
out of ten, you destroy the landing gear and crash the plane. The game
took 4 years to make and it's still full of bugs, and needs a super
system to run it. Yet, with all that, it still got 3 stars and a half
(out of 4) from Computer *** world....
I don't understand. Is it ok for a flight sim to be super realistic and
hard to play? Racing sims always have to be designed with arcarde
physics... Come on! just like our flight sims colleagues, we like our
sims to be as realistic as possible even if it means it's hard to use
them. After all, people that find Falcon 4.0 too hard can play Top Gun
Hornet's nest instead, just like people that find GPL to hard should
stick to Speed buster. No offense to Speed buster lovers.
It just too much when I see those comments ("it's too hard, so it's not
a good game).
Philster
I think that you are missing part of the arguement here. Of course it is OK
for a Flight Sim to be super realistic, and it is OK for GPL to be super
realistic as well...
but...
A Falcon 4.0 or other top flight sims allow the user to turn off (or down)
most of the physics/difficulty settings so that almost anyone can pick up
and enjoy the sim. As they get better they can choose to increase the
difficulty level (If they choose). GPL doesn't fail at the "top end", it
fails at the "low end", to allow the rest of us to enjoy the riches of this
sim/time in the world of racing as well (Heck, I'm old enough to actually
remember the '67 season!)
It wouldn't hurt the *** racer for them to include options for the rest
of us...
My $.02
-tom
<Snip>
From my point of view it's more that the approach of gamers between air sims
and racing sims is different. It's a psychological aspect that makes the
gamers think like that... Let's just think about real-life situations here.
Go to the arcade mall. Count the numbers of arcade style racing games on
the floor. I say about 10% of the total arcade are racing games. Now count
the numbers of arcade air games there ? Normally 0, maybe 1or 2. And those
ones are normally those 2$ simulators that are extremely realistic. Just
here you can see the main difference. Because every guy like driving fast.
But not every guy likes to "fly in an arcade way". If you understand my
point of view.
Most of the gamers understand that most of the air sims are made to be
realistic, compared to those racing games. There's soo many of them on the
market.
And it's just 1 example. I will say the shifting of the gamers mentality
started way back with Pole Position, but consolidated it's position when
Daytona USA and Sega Rally appeared at the arcade males, PC's and ***
consoles.
I will say that in about 2-3years the difference between arcade-style and
realistic racing simulators will be enough high that *** magazines and
websites will really show the difference by making them two different
categories. I already see this on websites that will rate GPL in the
"Simulation" field with air sims but include NFS3 in the "action" section.
-= 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 (12 lines)
> Just to mention something mentioned earlier, would you have rather waited > until July to get this sim? Yeah papy could have thrown together a quick FF > support (at the time of release there were very few FF wheels on teh market > anyways) but papy wouldnt do that. What if papy had done that, everyone > would be bi..i mean complaining about how bad the FF is and how much it > sucks or how it doesnt give you a full feel of the car, so papy would have > had to waste another year of development to implement perfect FF support > which is what papy does, they make things perfect. Personally im glad that > they didnt include it cause i wouldnt have wanted to wait another year for > FF to be implemented. Now if they come out with a patch in a year after N3 > is released then it could be worth it and im not bashing FF at all, just > rather they release it now and maybe support it later with a patch.> When the spec decisions for GPL were made, FF really wasn't that good.
> It's been only within the last few months that a variety of decent FF
> wheels has come into the market. Therefore, the "FF isn't good, so
> we're not doing it" explanation wasn't completely wrong.
The basics for how FF works have been around for a lot
longer, though. Prototype hardware has been around for
a long time too. I know that proto wheels from a
particular company were went to Papy early on, but
that company never got ANY response back from Papy.
Whereas weather is a pervasive factor in all aspects
of the sim, it is complex to implement. GPL already
calculates the parameters needed to control a FF
wheel. FF support is more of a superficial layer
on top of the main program, and it's far less complex.
I just find Papy's attitude toward new hardware
difficult to understand. They push the envelope
in terms of software, but drag their feet on
adapting to new hardware (FF and 3d acceleration).
--
Pat Dotson
IMPACT Motorsports
http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html
There have been 2 stated reasons why Papyrus did not include Force
Feedback in GPL:
1) At the time, the designers did not feel the technology was up to
their (Papy's) standards for providing "real" driver/car feedback.
2) For FF that use gameport or serial connections, there's a
significant latency hit. Whether this is true for USB I do not know.
But, you have to consider that the game engine is already pushing the
frequency envolope. So even if there isn't a "hardware" latency issue
with USB, there would still be a software latency issue.
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I only have the demo for Viper ( Full game not out in the UK yet :( ), but
the FF is first rate with my MS FF wheel :)
--
Ian Parker
ICQ 21772592
>On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:27:40 -0800,
>>If he have trouble completing a lap without spinning out or launching your
>>car into orbit, what makes him think that he would be able to do with his
>>wheel shaking and vibrating all over the place? This sim is demanding
>>enough without a shaking wheel. I probably wouldn't make it through the
>>first turn. If Mr. McDonald thinks the game is too hard as it is, FF
would
>>make it virtually impossible for him.
>>Tracy Dean
>>tdean
>Tracy, I guess you haven't driven Viper Racing with a good FF wheel.
>--
>// rrevved posts from mindspring dot com
Quoted text (28 lines)
> I'm going to take a bit different view than I think a lot of people in this > group are taking, and say that I think Mr. McDonald is correct. He does > point out that the sim is aimed at hard core race sim fans, but the magazine > he writes for is not aimed at that group, so ne needs to write a review that > aims at the general *** public, who might just see this game on a shelf, > think it looks interesting, and buy it. There was nothing stopping Papyrus > from including an arcadish mode for the casual computer racing driver to > drive. Look at what UbiSoft did with F1RS... you can turn all the aids off, > and turn the realism to realistic, and it makes for a fairly challenging game > to drive. Or you can turn all the aids on, turn the mode to arcade, and you > have a game where you can blast around any track with barely a hitch. Sure, > Papyrus put in the trainer cars... and they are easier to drive... but OOOPS > you cant race them!!! I would figure that most casual gamers that might pick > this game up is going to be more interested in racing, not practicing lap > after lap to get good enough to actually stay somewhere in the field of AI > cars. I still suck at GPL, and havent really tried racing, but I do enjoy > driving around the tracks solo trying to get better. But most casual gamers > arent going to have that patience. As far as Force Feedback goes, I've heard > games like Viper Racing managed to put in some very nice FF support, that > actually helps you feel what the car is doing. I havent experinced this > myself (I dont have a FF controller), but I think if MGI could do it with > Viper, I see no reason why Papyrus couldnt have, even in a "primitive" state. > It would have certainly at least HELPED, as I think it's going to be awile > before there is some sort of interface with the computer that models G-forces > and vibrations in the seat. > I think GPL is a great sim, but I think Mr. McDonalds view of it is completely > fair.I was gonna' stay away from this thread but..........
Falcon 4.0 has 161 keystroke variables that you use to fly with (this
does not include the basic "steering" and throttle controls) I think
some scaleability is in order. GPL has 10 input variables that I can
think of. It DOES have training cars and "help" for the shifting ,
braking, and throttle. I don't know what else anyone would want.
That having been said : T. Liam McDonald was spot on with the
comment about GPL trying to recreate a 3d activity in a 2d world and
about how it was probably more difficult than driving the real thing.
I have felt this way about all of the driving sims that I have tried.
In other words if you put a real 67 Cooper GP car on a real track and
then set GPL on a computer right next to it (and also assume I have
never seen/used either of them) I bet you I would be better ,at least
initially ,at driving the real GP car around the circuit. (if anyone
has a 67 cooper and would like to test this theory , I am available <
G>) Now there is no way I could ever do laps as fast as I do in GPL (
I'd be long dead by now) There just isn't the same level of feed back
in a simulation. Try racing GPL without the sound on and you'll see
what I mean.
So to me all of the argument about realism is silly.(see the "what
about rain "thread for example , geeesh!) There IS a level of realism
that is just too high given the environment that we are currently
using too create simulations in. GPL is a good compromise of realism
and usability but ,only if you are complete racing "hack". If you are
not there is always F1RS.
(Daisy slips on the Nomex suit and awaits his punishment)
Quoted text (34 lines)
>>I think GPL is great. I just don't quite understand why people feel >>so threatened by the thought of it containing difficulty options, as >>long as the highest levels are there. To use your initial analogy, >>Falcon 4 is hailed as the most complex, realistic flight sim ever - >>yet it has quite a range of switchable difficulty optiions. None of >>the ultra-hard core flight sim fanatics are screaming that this makes >>Falcon 4 a "Novalogic arcade sim". > I was gonna' stay away from this thread but.......... > Falcon 4.0 has 161 keystroke variables that you use to fly with (this >does not include the basic "steering" and throttle controls) I think >some scaleability is in order. GPL has 10 input variables that I can >think of. It DOES have training cars and "help" for the shifting , >braking, and throttle. I don't know what else anyone would want. > That having been said : T. Liam McDonald was spot on with the >comment about GPL trying to recreate a 3d activity in a 2d world and >about how it was probably more difficult than driving the real thing. >I have felt this way about all of the driving sims that I have tried. >In other words if you put a real 67 Cooper GP car on a real track and >then set GPL on a computer right next to it (and also assume I have >never seen/used either of them) I bet you I would be better ,at least >initially ,at driving the real GP car around the circuit. (if anyone >has a 67 cooper and would like to test this theory , I am available < >G>) Now there is no way I could ever do laps as fast as I do in GPL ( >I'd be long dead by now) There just isn't the same level of feed back >in a simulation. Try racing GPL without the sound on and you'll see >what I mean. > So to me all of the argument about realism is silly.(see the "what >about rain "thread for example , geeesh!) There IS a level of realism >that is just too high given the environment that we are currently >using too create simulations in. GPL is a good compromise of realism >and usability but ,only if you are complete racing "hack". If you are >not there is always F1RS. > (Daisy slips on the Nomex suit and awaits his punishment)That's nice to hear ... I bet your stereo tastes great too.
TB
anything,
Quoted text (64 lines)
>So then dont race a computer game, go do it in real life! Well about the >feel part, gpl has the best feel of any racing game out there, they never >give you feedback with the steering wheel and the***pit moving around and >once you play it enough, you learn which way the car is going and which way >you are pointed and can really sense the loose and pushness. I must admit, >real life is much better because of all the feedback you get from your *** >and the Gs that are put on you but of all the games Ive played, gpl has the >most feedback it can give a person. Even if it is very limited, and the >physics model is consistent and predictable unlike others, it handles >realistically so you know how it should react and it normally reacts that >way. So for modern day capabilities, gpl is highly sofisticated. >Jesse >>>>I think GPL is great. I just don't quite understand why people feel >>>>so threatened by the thought of it containing difficulty options, as >>>>long as the highest levels are there. To use your initial analogy, >>>>Falcon 4 is hailed as the most complex, realistic flight sim ever - >>>>yet it has quite a range of switchable difficulty optiions. None of >>>>the ultra-hard core flight sim fanatics are screaming that this makes >>>>Falcon 4 a "Novalogic arcade sim". >>> I was gonna' stay away from this thread but.......... >>> Falcon 4.0 has 161 keystroke variables that you use to fly with (this >>>does not include the basic "steering" and throttle controls) I think >>>some scaleability is in order. GPL has 10 input variables that I can >>>think of. It DOES have training cars and "help" for the shifting , >>>braking, and throttle. I don't know what else anyone would want. >>> That having been said : T. Liam McDonald was spot on with the >>>comment about GPL trying to recreate a 3d activity in a 2d world and >>>about how it was probably more difficult than driving the real thing. >>>I have felt this way about all of the driving sims that I have tried. >>>In other words if you put a real 67 Cooper GP car on a real track and >>>then set GPL on a computer right next to it (and also assume I have >>>never seen/used either of them) I bet you I would be better ,at least >>>initially ,at driving the real GP car around the circuit. (if anyone >>>has a 67 cooper and would like to test this theory , I am available < >>>G>) Now there is no way I could ever do laps as fast as I do in GPL ( >>>I'd be long dead by now) There just isn't the same level of feed back >>>in a simulation. Try racing GPL without the sound on and you'll see >>>what I mean. >>> So to me all of the argument about realism is silly.(see the "what >>>about rain "thread for example , geeesh!) There IS a level of realism >>>that is just too high given the environment that we are currently >>>using too create simulations in. GPL is a good compromise of realism >>>and usability but ,only if you are complete racing "hack". If you are >>>not there is always F1RS. >>> (Daisy slips on the Nomex suit and awaits his punishment) >>I have to agree with you on this. >>A while back (I can't remember the thread or who posted it), someone went >on >>and on in response to a guy who said that GPL was too hard. He basically >let >>this guy have it with both barrels for saying that you can't fellQuoted text (17 lines)
>>and that makes GPL very hard. >>Anyway, the guy went on and on saying things like, 'how can you say that?! >>GPL has the best FELL of any racing sim ever!' I was very tempted to ask >the >>guy where he got his moving base simulator from, and did he hack the code >of >>GPL to get the base to work right. >>Like I said, I agree with you: I think GPL is asking you to do with only >>your eyes (and a little bit your hearing), what you normally do with all >>five of your senses. It seems to me like they're almost asking you to so >the >>equivalent of air to air combat by only looking at the instrument panel. I >>suppose you could do that to, but I'm not sure how much fun it would be. >>TBHi Tony,
Your point is completely correct, and impossible to argue against.
However, when speaking of sims in RAS, it seems that "feel" takes on
an esoteric meaning that does not necessarily relate to the sense of
touch. Given the fact that this sense was, until recently, a
non-factor in sims, I think one could relate "feel" to how a sim acts
relative to how one would expect its real life counterpart to act.
Consider your quote below: "That's nice to hear..." You may, or may
not, have written that phrase tongue-in-cheek to make your point, but
many people write the same thing in posts. We don't really "hear"
anyone's post, but we all understand the intent of the phrase.
With this understood, it makes perfect sense to say that GPL has
excellent "feel" in comparison to other sims, even though one can not
really "feel" anything.
With the emergence of force feedback technology, "feel" will obviously
need to be considered in a different light, with a meaning closer to
what you are saying -- correctly -- that it should mean.
A sim like Viper Racing... Now *that* I can feel! I hope Papy can
come up with an implementation of FF tech that is on par with Viper in
the near future.
Brett
Quoted text (19 lines)
>That's nice to hear ... I bet your stereo tastes great too. >TB >>So then dont race a computer game, go do it in real life! Well about the >>feel part, gpl has the best feel of any racing game out there, they never >>give you feedback with the steering wheel and the***pit moving around and >>once you play it enough, you learn which way the car is going and which way >>you are pointed and can really sense the loose and pushness. I must admit, >>real life is much better because of all the feedback you get from your *** >>and the Gs that are put on you but of all the games Ive played, gpl has the >>most feedback it can give a person. Even if it is very limited, and the >>physics model is consistent and predictable unlike others, it handles >>realistically so you know how it should react and it normally reacts that >>way. So for modern day capabilities, gpl is highly sofisticated. >>JesseSo then dont race a computer game, go do it in real life! Well about the
feel part, gpl has the best feel of any racing game out there, they never
give you feedback with the steering wheel and the***pit moving around and
once you play it enough, you learn which way the car is going and which way
you are pointed and can really sense the loose and pushness. I must admit,
real life is much better because of all the feedback you get from your ***
and the Gs that are put on you but of all the games Ive played, gpl has the
most feedback it can give a person. Even if it is very limited, and the
physics model is consistent and predictable unlike others, it handles
realistically so you know how it should react and it normally reacts that
way. So for modern day capabilities, gpl is highly sofisticated.
Jesse
on
>and on in response to a guy who said that GPL was too hard. He basically let
>this guy have it with both barrels for saying that you can't fell anything,
>and that makes GPL very hard.
>Anyway, the guy went on and on saying things like, 'how can you say that?!
>GPL has the best FELL of any racing sim ever!' I was very tempted to ask the
>guy where he got his moving base simulator from, and did he hack the code of
>GPL to get the base to work right.
>Like I said, I agree with you: I think GPL is asking you to do with only
>your eyes (and a little bit your hearing), what you normally do with all
>five of your senses. It seems to me like they're almost asking you to so the
>equivalent of air to air combat by only looking at the instrument panel. I
>suppose you could do that to, but I'm not sure how much fun it would be.
>TB
Quoted text (38 lines)
>>>I think GPL is great. I just don't quite understand why people feel >>>so threatened by the thought of it containing difficulty options, as >>>long as the highest levels are there. To use your initial analogy, >>>Falcon 4 is hailed as the most complex, realistic flight sim ever - >>>yet it has quite a range of switchable difficulty optiions. None of >>>the ultra-hard core flight sim fanatics are screaming that this makes >>>Falcon 4 a "Novalogic arcade sim". >> I was gonna' stay away from this thread but.......... >> Falcon 4.0 has 161 keystroke variables that you use to fly with (this >>does not include the basic "steering" and throttle controls) I think >>some scaleability is in order. GPL has 10 input variables that I can >>think of. It DOES have training cars and "help" for the shifting , >>braking, and throttle. I don't know what else anyone would want. >> That having been said : T. Liam McDonald was spot on with the >>comment about GPL trying to recreate a 3d activity in a 2d world and >>about how it was probably more difficult than driving the real thing. >>I have felt this way about all of the driving sims that I have tried. >>In other words if you put a real 67 Cooper GP car on a real track and >>then set GPL on a computer right next to it (and also assume I have >>never seen/used either of them) I bet you I would be better ,at least >>initially ,at driving the real GP car around the circuit. (if anyone >>has a 67 cooper and would like to test this theory , I am available < >>G>) Now there is no way I could ever do laps as fast as I do in GPL ( >>I'd be long dead by now) There just isn't the same level of feed back >>in a simulation. Try racing GPL without the sound on and you'll see >>what I mean. >> So to me all of the argument about realism is silly.(see the "what >>about rain "thread for example , geeesh!) There IS a level of realism >>that is just too high given the environment that we are currently >>using too create simulations in. GPL is a good compromise of realism >>and usability but ,only if you are complete racing "hack". If you are >>not there is always F1RS. >> (Daisy slips on the Nomex suit and awaits his punishment) >I have to agree with you on this. >A while back (I can't remember the thread or who posted it), someone wentMy letter to Mr. McDonald:
Dear Liam McDonald,
Your review of Grand Prix Legends in the March issue of Maximum PC is missplaced
and rather galling.
I have owned GPL since mid-October and since then it has hardly come out of my
CD tray. No computer game and certainly no racing simulation has given me more
pleasure and more fun.
I have no idea if you have ever driven a race car but from your article, I can
only presume that you haven't.
It is not easy.
Sure, you can potter around the track at 4000 rpm and feel, hey I'm in charge of
this. But anyone can potter around the track at 4000 rpm in a GPL car - even my
4 year old can do that (no, he really can). But if you push it, and try and run
around the track near the red-line, you will find it very hard. You have to
practice. And you have to practice in GPL.
For you to say that the game is over-modelled and too exacting, offends me. How
can it be over-modelled? Why on earth would you want to drive a racing game
where the cars were deliberately under-modelled? The only reason I can think of
is that you want a little light entertainment and do not want the challenge of
the real thing. If this is the case, then you are not the person who should be
reviewing this title. It's rather like a non-programmer reviewing a C++ compiler
and declaring that it is far too difficult. Yes, GPL is difficult, but it is not
randomly difficult - it is difficult because the thing that it models is
difficult.
You claim that the overmodelling makes it harder than it should be because you
cannot feel the cars. Papyrus have given us other cues, the tyres squeal in an
"unrealistic" way so that we can detect when they are approaching the limits of
traction. Sure elements of force-feedback would have been another way this could
have been acheived. However you can only pass on very little of the race car
"feel" with FF as it currently exists. G-Forces, which are far and away the most
important physical sensation you can feel when racing, cannot be modelled with
FF. I agree that FF is an omission, but it is not as glaring a one as you
suggest and it is certainly not "stupid". Do you imagine that a racing
simulation software house didn't consider it - just who is being stupid here?
You make comparison with flying. Flying is difficult, but flying certain
aeroplanes is even more so. Only a handful of pilots in the world could fly a
Hawker Harrier - they are reputed to be extremely unforgiving - and death-traps
as well. An accurate Harrier simulation would be very, very difficult. I don't
doubt that they exist and are used in the airforces that own Harriers. Grand
Prix Legends is the same. These cars are as unforgiving as were the real cars of
that era. Jim Clark and Jack Brabham were extremely good drivers and GPL gives
us the opportunity to see what they faced - but without the danger.
For many of us driving a hyper-realistic 1967 Formula One simulation is a real
delight. You acknowledge this fact by saying "Racing fans lap this up, nonfans
admire the attention to detail." Why then do you say "Mandatory real-world
physics in a game are stupid." They may not be to your taste - that is your
predeliction - but they are not stupid. Many of us revel in titles like GPL and
regret that so many people like you, who are unprepared to put in the time to
achieve the satisfaction possible, are prepared to bad-mouth it and damage its
sales. What this does is to make it less likely that such a masterpiece will be
written again. For that I despise you,
Yours sincerely,
Paul Jones
> Exactly. Most "gamers" are exactly that - gamers. They aren't concerned
> with the accuracy of the car models, or the period accuracy of the track-
> side graphics, or the intensity of the physics model. The typical gamer
> wants to kill or mame, or generally break the law in a virtual world. To
> that group, companies have provided test-drive 5, Need For Speed, Grand
> Theft Auto, Pod, and games of that ilk.
That is true of many gamers but by no means all. Three examples of three
gamers:
A guy at work said that he didn't care much for racing games but GPL was
different - it was like a real car - it is the only one he plays.
The guy opposite comes round to race on my LAN. At first, we raced NFS3, TOCA
and MGP because I thought he would find GPL too difficult. When we put it on
he said, "Now this is the real thing - let's just race this".
A nine year old friend of my son loves GPL. He likes the challenge. It feels
to him fuller - more real - and of course he's never driven a car.
Cheers,
Paul
What a great letter, I could not have said it better myself. I just hope
Papyrus doesn't "detune" the next version of Nascar Racing to appease
idiots like this, that is what I'm afraid is going to happen.
Dave
This has changed?
-Larry
> At the time, Grand Prix 2 was the top Formula Sim.
> My letter to Mr. McDonald:
****Excellent letter snipped****
Great letter, well written, to the point, accurate.
I agree wholeheartedly.
8-)
*Peter* #:-)
