SCGT Vs ICR2

Amen!! A very thoughtful post, hell someone is actually using their head for something other than a hat rack. Paul

Quoted text (45 lines)

> >3) No, its not really a sim since there are things it doesn't model such as > >tire temps, doesn't have telemetry, etc. However, its a pretty good racing > >game (not to say arcade racer either). > >4) The use of "simulation" on a game is generally the result of the > >marketing department of the publisher, witness EA Sports and Nascar > >Revolution. In none of the marketing ***or stuff that came with the game > >can I find one mention of the word "simulation", the closest that I've found > >to say this is the quote "Sports Car GT is the most riveting and ***ing > >racing game ever made, featuring state of the graphics, and the most > >realistic physics model ever created for a racing sim. " from the ISI sight. > >Its a fairly riveting and ***ing racing game, at least for awhile...but > >no its no GPL and no its not the most realistic physics model ever, > >especially since at the very least tire temps aren't modeled. But even > >though I still get away with things I don't think I should be able to, its > >detailed enough to give you the sense of driving a race car and not a large > >polygonal block. > SCGT is a simulation. Most racing games are, including the ones we > all think suck! The word simulation has become a religious holy grail > which is bestowed only on a cherished few, but by strict definition, > it's wrong. As I state very often in my columns and reviews, by the > right definition of the word almost every racing game would qualify as > a simulation. It is more correct to put an adjective in front of the > word "simulation". e.g. > SCGT is relaxed-physics simulation > GPL is an excellent simulation > Newman-Haas Racing is a very inaccurate simulation > ICR2 was a reasonably accurate simulation but didn't simulate > everything (such as brake lockups) > GP2 was well-done simulation that no one could run fast enough > i.e. you simply cannot defend saying something is NOT a simulation > based upon the fact that this or that aspect of some other simulation > is or isn't there. That's why these turn into religious wars. Rather > than leave "simulation" some kind of religious term, let's just admit > that each development team tries to simulate reality, and some do it > very well, some do it terribly, and some fall somewhere in the middle. > SCGT is a very nice simulation, but it is not as accurate of a > simulation of GT cars as GPL is of 1967 Grand Prix cars. > Randy > Randy Magruder > [link lost in import]

On Sat, 1 May 1999 07:59:13 -0500, "Chris Schletter" >1) Demo is a lot easier than the release version, not by much but >nonetheless. Murray Walker, step aside! Sorry; couldn't help myself :-) Steve B. Remove "edy" from address for email

Quoted text (41 lines)

>>3) No, its not really a sim since there are things it doesn't model such as >>tire temps, doesn't have telemetry, etc. However, its a pretty good racing >>game (not to say arcade racer either). >>4) The use of "simulation" on a game is generally the result of the >>marketing department of the publisher, witness EA Sports and Nascar >>Revolution. In none of the marketing ***or stuff that came with the game >>can I find one mention of the word "simulation", the closest that I've found >>to say this is the quote "Sports Car GT is the most riveting and ***ing >>racing game ever made, featuring state of the graphics, and the most >>realistic physics model ever created for a racing sim. " from the ISI sight. >>Its a fairly riveting and ***ing racing game, at least for awhile...but >>no its no GPL and no its not the most realistic physics model ever, >>especially since at the very least tire temps aren't modeled. But even >>though I still get away with things I don't think I should be able to, its >>detailed enough to give you the sense of driving a race car and not a large >>polygonal block. >SCGT is a simulation. Most racing games are, including the ones we >all think suck! The word simulation has become a religious holy grail >which is bestowed only on a cherished few, but by strict definition, >it's wrong. As I state very often in my columns and reviews, by the >right definition of the word almost every racing game would qualify as >a simulation. It is more correct to put an adjective in front of the >word "simulation". e.g. >SCGT is relaxed-physics simulation >GPL is an excellent simulation >Newman-Haas Racing is a very inaccurate simulation >ICR2 was a reasonably accurate simulation but didn't simulate >everything (such as brake lockups) >GP2 was well-done simulation that no one could run fast enough >i.e. you simply cannot defend saying something is NOT a simulation >based upon the fact that this or that aspect of some other simulation >is or isn't there. That's why these turn into religious wars. Rather >than leave "simulation" some kind of religious term, let's just admit >that each development team tries to simulate reality, and some do it >very well, some do it terribly, and some fall somewhere in the middle. >SCGT is a very nice simulation, but it is not as accurate of a >simulation of GT cars as GPL is of 1967 Grand Prix cars.

All very well-put, Randy. Would you concur that Viper Racing is as accurate of a simulation of the Dodge Viper GTS as GPL is of 1967 Grans Prix cars? <G> -- JB

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>All very well-put, Randy. Would you concur that Viper Racing is as >>accurate of a simulation of the Dodge Viper GTS as GPL is of 1967 >>Grans Prix cars? <G> >Well, this is where it gets ugly. I made a bold statement and in >reality I'm not the right person to say that the 67 cars were >perfectly modelled. We tend to give Papyrus the benefit of a doubt >because know how heavily they invested in their physics engine and >what kind of detail is in it. As far as Viper is concerned, when I >reviewed the game I gave it high marks for physics and I think it >deserved them, but I was concerned somewhat about their company's LACK >of data from Dodge as well as any kind of company audit to ensure the >accuracy of the performance envelope of the Viper.

On this topic, I'm not sure that the physics are 100% accurate, but based on my experience with late-model high-performance rear-drive cars (current model Trans Ams in particular), I have to say that Viper's physics at least "feel" right. If someone pumped more testosterone into a Trans Am, for example, it would feel much like this, which is probably fairly analagous to how the Viper would feel. On these grounds, I'd say that Viper Racing is an accurate enough simulation for me. -- JB

I hope your not an advocate of the practice of people constantly letting shit dribble out of their mouth. I'm simply hinting at false advertising and the parsites of the computer *** world.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I'd love to see the Papys of > > the world get legislation passed for the use of this word. > I hope nobody, ever, at any time gets legislation passed on the use of words. > ~daxe > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > ---------== Over 72,000 Groups, Plus Dedicated Binaries Servers ==--------

Ummm, I think you need to read that again. As for my ICR2 experience......... Sorry, IEC98 results are gone :(((( Let's just say I have extensive ICR2 experience. ICR2 was indeed a sim in it's day, but if a sim like that was released today it would be laughed at if it took itself seriously. So if SCGT is easier then................

Quoted text (21 lines)

> I assume you have only played the demo of ICR2. You DID disable the driver > aids didn't you!?! This might explain why you hardly needed to brake. And > if you are comparing the sim to GPL then it should be no surprise that a > sim of cars of the 60's has larger stopping distances than that of cars of > the 90's! > Anyway, the demo was limited to a single setup - the default 'Easy' setting > which makes the car very forgiving. However, as avid ICR2 gamers will tell > you, once you start using the faster setups (and even faster setups of your > own) you soon realise that the car is no longer quite so tolerant. > Also, the demo had opponent strength fixed at 80%, and an ARCADE damage > model, amongst other things. > Yes, GPL is more realistic than ICR2, but it would be unfair to say that > ICR2 plays like an arcade game (unless that's how you have configured it). > > even ICR2 is virtually considered arcade! The demo could be > > driven in a way that defies credability. Almost no braking was > > required and full throttle application in low speed corners was > > extremely friendly.