"Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

>2) Simulation does not have a precise agreed upon definition (FWIW, I do >computer simulation/modeling for a living) Actually being a Professor of English would qualify you to make that statement with far more authority than doing computer modelling. If you check any dictionary on the planet you'll find there IS a precisely agreed upon definition, and moreover it has an accepted usage and definition with this particular genre of the *** industry. They are also not interchangeable, but there is a distinct shift between one and the other. Military flight trainers are sims, Firefox was a game, in between lies everything else, but you can define it as being closer to one or the other depending upon the intent of the designer or the quality of the finished article. Is Chicago closer to New York or Los Angeles? Perfect fidelity is possible only from the situation you are simulating. What it implies is striving toward perfect fidelity. Of _course_ it has to be of something that exists - how can you possibly try to "recreate" something that doesn't exist in the first place? Agreed. Buyer beware, every time. If anyone still swallows hype and advertising hyperbole I don't see much for them to complain about. Cheers! John

Great post. I agree with everything you said. I love simulators, but I think we go WAY overboard on this newsgroup criticising them (which, like you say, are ALL games). Sometimes it's necessary to step back and get some perspective. There's nothing too realistic, regardless of which CD is in our hard drive, about sitting in front of our computer monitor in our socks pretending to be driving a car? There's almost always something amazing in each game and the developers/publishers deserve our thanks. Also, I think sim racing is an incredible bargain compared to most hobbies. $40.00 for God knows how many hours of enjoyment? Right now, I place all the quality car sims at about the 7 position on a scale of 1-10. There's differences among them, but not enough for me to go overboard with praise or criticism. "10" being a sim which a real race car driver could use daily to practice with in the same way pilots and astronauts do with their flight sims. I think it will be a long time yet before we have that type of sim in our home for a number of obvious reasons. I do think that there may be a sim coming out soon which will make the move to the 8 spot though. :-) David G Fisher > Well, a lot can be said about this, and probably will. But I think we need to > take a step back and take a reality check. > On the issue of advertising/marketting hype and its questionable veracity? > Well, I guess most of us wish the phrase "truth in advertising" was more than > a cliche. But, reality check #1: it isn't, and there is little that is going > to happen about it. At least in this rather non-critical example. > As to "sims" in particular... > 1) These are *all* games.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>2) Simulation does not have a precise agreed upon definition (FWIW, I do >>computer simulation/modeling for a living) >Actually being a Professor of English would qualify you to make that >statement with far more authority than doing computer modelling. If >you check any dictionary on the planet you'll find there IS a >precisely agreed upon definition,

Perhaps, but their definition would most likely be irrelevant. But if you want to get semantic about it, well if you check all dictionaries and find they have the same defintion, yes, you can say my statement is inaccurate. But... a) I don't think you'll check those dictionaries. b) If you did, I bet they would have different definitions. c) The definitions I've read in said dictionaries are vague and applying them to these games would not (IMNSHO) result in any relevation or consensus. BTW, my old dictionary lists the definition of a simulate as: "to create or effect the appearance of: feign". Doesn't help much, does it? That is more germane to the point. However, I think the crux of the original posters remark, and my reply, is that there *isn't* a clearly accepted definition even in this genre. Though like the supreme court justices remark on ***ography, I think we all can tell it when we see it (though our eyes are all different). 100 % agreement. Thus my "shades of grey" comments. First, "recreate" isn't the definition of simulation. Second, No! For example, at work I am modeling a reactor that does not exist. This is in an attempt to shorten the design period, to gain insight into the issues, and to estimate how it will interact with the rest of the system. Some of this system exists, some is also being simulated. I'm simulating a plausible system based on known physical and chemical laws and data. If you want to differentiate this as a model, and not as a simulation, feel free. That's a subtelty that I think is not worthy of debate. Closer to home, if I take a simulation of a Corvette, but add a 20 psi blower onto it (or choose some other reasonable mod that hasn't been applied to a Corvette), is it now not a simulation? Or are no "space sims" sims? Well, in truth, most of them are so far away from real physics that one can legitimately argue that they are not. But is MS Space sim not a sim if it includes something other than the Space Shuttle? Devil's advocating aside, do you really believe elsewise?

Thanks. The shared secret is that we LOVE to criticise. I'm sure there are many of us, at least at various times, who analyze, nit pick, and post more than we play the damned things! And that's our perogative of course. I nit pick as much as most any. But once in a while, I step back and think "they did all this and charge only $40!!!". Amazing stuff (well, sometimes :-) Also, we all have different $ values. I see some who say "that's worth $20, not $40". Or "I wouldn't pay $40 and get only 10, 20 hours of entertainment. Sure, $ values take on a relative nature. We won't pay $80 since we are used to $30. But we (well some) will pay $100 for a good meal out which lasts for 2 hrs. Or more for some running shoes. Relative values. Perhaps it is best that we continue to ***, whine, and complain. It may keep the developers on their toes and the prices down to boot. But we should also give them their due (I mean thanks :-)). Let's not scare them away!

Regarding this whole topic, what if there were some sort of organization of sim racing fans which would grant companies their seal of approval for the box of a game after checking it against certain criteria? I think in a lot of cases, features are left out or deemed "unnecessary" due to time and budget restraints. If we could form something like that, and make it mean something, then perhaps companies would be encouraged to make the time for those features in order to meet the criteria for the seal. Just a thought...

I agree with this I think someone like "The Pits" would be well qualified to do such a thing, I also think we would need to give different levels to the stamp, like Bronze silver or Gold, Only ultra real games like GPL would get a gold, and games like SCGT that have good physics but have some downfalls like no tire wear would get a bronze, players could go to a web site for a brief description of why this got the award it did. Another thing would be careful to not put so much bearing on graphics and user interface career mode options, just how well the game simulates the racing events, allthough it wouldn't be good to suppoert a game ridden with bugs. this is all very debatable, but needs set parameters to which to grade from.

And why would company accept to do so ? It would never happen. Companies like EA sport who like to push their marketing to the limits of fair-play would never accept to do so. We all know Papyrus titles or even titles made by Geoff Crammond are serious simulators, with the limitations of their era's and game engines. But why would a company that wants to go as high as their level would accept to be "labeled" with a sticker on the box that says that the physics are not perfectly modeled. No standard, won't happen unfortunately (never said it was bad, but it will never happen). Just think that the organization is rec.autos.simulators. Read posts. Make up your mind. Buy in an intelligent way. -- -- 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."

first of we aren't talking about an in depth 10 page attachment on the back of the box, just a sticker saying "Sim racers of america gold standard of aproval" why wouldn't a game company want this on their box?

>Perhaps, but their definition would most likely be irrelevant. I don't see how the precise definition of a word can be irrelevant to a discussion where you are arguing there is none, still... I would be _very_ surprised if most dictionaries were not broadly similar. There is no "one" definition, but we're all capable of telling at which end of the scale things fall. NFS3 is unashamedly arcade, GPL is completely simulation - it's when things are in between that there is somewhat of a grey area, but it's not that tough to place. The key point being that there _is_ a difference between that which is a simulation and that which is a "game" (arcade). To say there isn't, and that NFS3 and GPL address the same audience is like selling a Boeing 747 for catapult shots of the USS Eisenhower. It's a essential part of what simulations are about. What you are simulating is something which could exist and may well exist - it's taking known data and parameters and modelling how they will react together - you are working within the realms of the known. What I believe you can't simulate is, say, an X-Wing. How do you model a quark-level proton drive and how it will perform in various situations? That cannot be "simulated". Cheers! John

Now hold on there just a minute - are you contending that Sims like GPL don't count as PC games? I disagree. If General Hootenany decides tomorrow that he believes the airforce needs an X-wing, what's he gonna do? He's gonna hire some lowest-bidding contractor to do it. What are they gonna do? They're going to make a computer "simulation" of how the thing will work. I think what's needed here is a specification of simulation between "imitative" simulations (simulating that which is known) and "speculative" simulations (simulating that which is not known) Following this model, Nascar '99 is an imitative simulation of Nascar racing, while (shudder) Jeff Gordon's XS racing is a speculative simulation of Nascar racing.

I know it could (probably) never happen, but it's a nice dream anyway. And the seal, or whatever, would not be present to say a game is bad - it's there or it's not. If it's there, sim buyers know it meets certain criteria - all the essential parameters are modeled, and all the essential features are included. If it's not, it doesn't mean the game is bad, or even necessarily that it doesn't meet the criteria, just that the publisher either didn't submit it for approval or it was submitted but didn't pass. The point isn't to highlight bad games, but to have something that guarentees the features that hard core sim fans demand. You're right, Papyrus might easily become the only publisher to submit to this process at first - but if any other racing sim wanted a little instant credibility, they could release a title carrying the seal. And, I'm going to stop talking about it like it's real now, because I'm starting to sound a wee bit insane...

Viper Racing is on everyone's "surprise hit of the year" list. Enough of a simulation to keep me interested, but still ton's O fun. buzard

Quoted text (14 lines)

> What?! Someone besides me touting the many virtues of Viper Racing?! > Inconcievable! <G> > -- JB > >What about the likes of Viper racing? Great "sim" mode with a top fun > >"arcade" mode? Double clasification? > >Just wondering.. > >-ilmore

...read posts on R.A.S........buy intelligently...... I think we have a conflict within that sentence! ; ) buzard

Quoted text (30 lines)

> > Regarding this whole topic, what if there were some sort of organization > of sim > > racing fans which would grant companies their seal of approval for the box > of a > > game after checking it against certain criteria? > And why would company accept to do so ? It would never happen. > Companies like EA sport who like to push their marketing to the limits of > fair-play would never accept to do so. We all know Papyrus titles or even > titles made by Geoff Crammond are serious simulators, with the limitations > of their era's and game engines. But why would a company that wants to go > as high as their level would accept to be "labeled" with a sticker on the > box that says that the physics are not perfectly modeled. > No standard, won't happen unfortunately (never said it was bad, but it will > never happen). > Just think that the organization is rec.autos.simulators. Read posts. Make > up your mind. Buy in an intelligent way. > -- > -- 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."

First, WARNING: self-absorbed net debating/drivel ahead. Read at your own risk. Next, lets put in some of the past postings that you decided not to include and see how your responses hold up... [from previous posts in this thread] [me] I'll concede this one! ... ..That is, if there was a precise and all-encompassing definition, my statement is erroneous. However, you aren't going to find any definition in the dictionary that will help you discern whether GP2 is a sim and TOCA2 is not. That is why I called it irrelevant, ie not germane to the subject of interest. What happened to "precise" and "all"? Now we have "most" and "broadly similar". That would certainly lend credence to them being irrelevant to the discussion (and aside for debating purposes, I suspect you accept that). And are you tacitly conceding that there is no "precise" definition? Further, since neither of us are going to check 10,20, 200 dictionaries, I'll just counter with: "I would be _very_ suprised if most dictionaries _were_ broadly similar". Without backing this up with data, both yours and mine are throw-away lines. Please show me where I imply otherwise. I mentioned similar in my first post and even agreed with you when you brought it up a second time. Now you raise this "strawman" yet again? This point has never been in doubt. For the record... [me] [and again] [you] If you say my "no black and white" means I don't agree with your GPL/NFS3 statement, you might have an argument. However, I'd counter with your "in between lies everything else" to be contradictory with your GPL/NFS3 example as they are by definition two of those "elses", thus in between. To make it clearer, I'll state for the record: GPL is IMO the highest fidelity auto sim game around. I haven't played NFS3 as it didn't interest me. While I know it is geared to the arcade audience, I don't know how many "simulation" elements it has. I have talked to pretty reasonable car guys who had positive things to say about the driving model of NFS3 or earlier NFS titles. Now, you might find that unbelievable or ignorant, but to them, it would be a sim. I might call it an arcade game, you do, but again, not everyone does. One must conclude it isn't clearly black or white to some. Now, again, who said "there isn't"? Certainly not me. How does this argue for a clear definition of sim. Saying that black and white exist doesn't get us to the task of discerning from the many shades of grey. Show me the dictionary definition that states this. Mine doesn't. Let's go back to the postings that preceded this... [me] Is it "recreating"? No, it isn't. And since you are not arguing against my reactor model being a simulation, are you agreeing now that: (1) A sim *can* model something the does NOT exist? (2) As I am not recreating, recreating is thus not an "essential"? Nowhere did you previously imply that simulation includes "could exist", you said "something that exists". So, you would agree with me that one could make a sim of the aborted Stealth Attack plane? Many in the fs group would disagree. Again, we can't even decide that point, nevermind SCGT vs TOCA2. Or Gran Turismo (many claim it is the most realistic). This gets more difficult. I'm not sure where I come down on this. Obviously, X-Wing (nor Wing Commander) does not simulate a physical universe as we know it. It is a "recreation" (your essential!) of the Star Wars "universe", a pretty good one. Is that a sim? One can postulate different physical laws and then model/simulate their interaction. Is that a sim? I don't know. Perhaps the best *** mag, CGW, has a "space sim" category. So they consider WC, XW, DF, etc to be "sims". Sounds like you don't. I probably agree with you, but I'm not going to get histrionic if someone does call them a sim (though I suspect we might want to get into a debate on it :-)). I'll play it if I like it. Back to the original thread, the concept of defining a sim and forcing the game developers to fully disclose and comply, or of setting up some agreed upon (us, agree on *anything*!?!) body to preside over the definition of a sim is a pipe dream. Actually, I'd call it a nightmare. And to you...

The point really is that it would be meaningless. A game company that didn't earn the 'Sim Racers of America' gold seal would just invent their own group of 'experts', call it "Sim gamers of America" and put a nearly identical gold sticker on their own box. The only people who would know about (or care about) the sticker and the people who recommended it would be Sim racing fans who would likely already know about the game. AS far as Jane and John Q Public, the 'sim racers of america' and the 'sim gamers of america' are just as good as each other, presuming they notice or even read the sticker. ~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 ==--------

No, I'm stating that the terms are used _within_this_newsgroup_ to denote different subsets of the "auto racing game" genre. Which is going to be rather impossible since we don't quark level proton drives to model. If they make a computer model of what it will be that is one thing, but in that sense the cart is being put before the horse. Auto-sims take something which is there and model it as accurately s they can (ability, budget, desire, whatever). Computer modelling creates something which is not yet there, therefore accuracy to the real world is of no relevance, nor is being judged against it - the area where a simulation of real life (like an auto-sim) will often live or die. Cheers! John

>What happened to "precise" and "all"? Now we have "most" and "broadly >similar" I will use "precise" and "all" if you like, but if the Oxford dictionary chooses to say "create" and the Chambers says "model" you're out with the semantics card again. See above... You said that there is no black and white - if you have shades of grey inbetween then by definition you have black and white as the defining points at either end. I mentioned it as one being black, the other white - that was my point. Ah, my point.... So then by extension of that logic black and white, in any form, do not exist presumably? Show them Lankhor's F1 "simulation" when it's released, they'll change their minds.... :-) No, and there is the key point. Actually (way back in the mists of time!) I think someone mentioned buying a game that sucked, and the discussion w I could argue that "recreate", as the intransitive verb form of recreation, is an integral part of all sims since we play them to relax and have fun - that would of course be an approximately equal amount of semantical nonsense as your assertion that simulations do not try to recreate the experience of driving a race-car. Let's not hide behind dictionary definitions which are obviously not written with auto-sims as their primary target. Not in the sense of an auto-simulation. One mirrors life, the other prcedes it by model what may be made later - the precepts and demands are different. You could make a "simulation" in the *** sense of the word, and in the computer modelling sense of the word, but it would not be in the same manner as an auto-simulation. How would you know if the flight model was correct? Of course you wouldn't - in GPL people comment on the fact that suspension angles are off, colours are slightly different, engine notes not quite bang-on - that is simulating as recreating a real world experience, and that is when it is important to get it right. If a Ferrari 550 didn't exist I could cobble together NFS3 and tell you it's a perfect simulation of a car that Ferrari never made - do you see the difference? Maybe the difference is only important for me, but I see the two as being fundamentally different in approach. Not me - truckloads of fun but far from realistic (especially UK and US versions unfortunately). It is, I suppose, a form of sim - but what would be the point? Products like GP2, F1RS etc put a lot of time and effort into creating a car model because we _know_ (broadly speaking) how a car will react in a number of given situations - there are so many variables of setup, conditions, control combinations etc that if you cobble something together the car is bound to behave pretty strangely at various points and people will notice. In a "space-sim" no-one could ever argue the toss about whether it really could pull a turn that tight or if your proton-quark drive would stall if you forgot to double declutch into second. I doubt the same level of simulation would be appropriate. Likewise, although I've never imagined them to be called sims! The Space Shuttle one, that could probably claim to be a sim, but then the whole point of the Space Shuttle is that _nothing_ out of the ordinary should happen which doesn't sound much fun to me. I'd want at least a forward firing machine gun and perhaps a few small rocks to throw out the window on the way down... I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole - litigation looms in the future methinks. Cheers! John

The following is my humble opinion. Please, no flames..... To classify as a sim an auto game needs four things.... 1) Real setup options. e.g. The same choice of tyre compounds, suspension settings, rake, trail, camber, gearing, ride height, rebound etc as the real car/bike is is trying to simulate. These settings need to realistically alter the physics and handling of the car/bike. 2) They physics need to not only realistically take into account the car/bike settings but weather conditions such as hunidity and track tempereture. 3) A realistic career mode. Racedays should be spread to race weekends. All of the free practice, practice and qualifying session that are involved in the real race should be allowed. 4) Realistic AI. The AI drivers/riders should react different according to the conditions and season positions. If they can win the championship by beating you on the day they should be more aggresive. If they are better in the rain than other then this should be simulated. A bit of "personality" should be easy to simulate. 1 to 3 are mostly covered by what most people in this forum consider sims. GPL, GP2, Superbikes and Viper racing. Number 4 is yet to be really tackled by anybody This is my humble opinion.

Quoted text (25 lines)

> So who decides what's a "simulation"? I've seen it talked about in > here since I've been a regular (approx 18 months). So who decides? Well, > no one it seems. How could they? It annoys me to see the likes of Papy > and Crammond giving a free ride to other companies who come along and > use the word "simulation" to sell there products. Obviously I am saying > this upon the release of SCGT. I have only seen the demo, but hey, it's > their "demo" and it simply gives me the impression of them not > particularly being committed to making this game as "sim" (diehards > version of "sim") as possible. However, there have been far worse cases > of this than SCGT also. It might get better with patches and updates but > when something is released like this I lose interest fast. Fool me > once................. > Anyway, what we have here is a very grey area of what is a sim and > does a company have a right to use this word in there description of > what they're trying to sell us. I think the only way to keep companies > honest is to legally force them to reveal exactly what aspects of > reality are recreated in their software and to what degree. So any > racing game that is sold with the word "Simulation" must then declare a > breakdown of exactly what is being simulated and also give some > indication as to what depth also. The "legitimate" sim companies have > specific areas to compete against each other in and those looking for a > piggy back on them start to slip off fast. Gotta be a good thing. > Obviously the industry would be doing it's own policing ie checking that > a companies claims were legitimate. Biggest problem of course is > classification and who does the classifying. Hmmmmmm...........

I love Viper. Just can't divide my limited PC time between Superbike, GPL and TOCA 2, Viper as well as the newly aquired SCGT. Tend to spend a month on one then it gets boxed a forgot for quite a while.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> What?! Someone besides me touting the many virtues of Viper Racing?! > Inconcievable! <G> > -- JB > >What about the likes of Viper racing? Great "sim" mode with a top fun > >"arcade" mode? Double clasification? > >Just wondering.. > >-ilmore

Hello Fellow R.A.S Readers; I have read as many posts as I can on this subject. I've read many great "subjective" opinions. Also using the definition in the Oxford Dictionary? Hmmm? Not sure here? Hopefully without opening more of Pandora's Box I have a few questions. No comments.. #1 When you buy a so-called sim in a store what category is it found on the shelf/shelves? # 2 Are any-all sims-arcades made by the afor mentioned companies; Made-designed as games or sims? #3 If you have somekind of panel-type who would give a seal of approval as a sim & who'd monitor this group? #4 I understand all posts in r.a.s are for discussion.. Has this subject gone into a "hair-splitting" issue of what is & what is not? As all other posts; This post is entirely subjective! Cheers Thom_j. aka ^Fretts.. no_spam.n2rif1.vcf < 1K Download

Well for me it would be an online store.. "Entertainment software/racing simulations" ;-) But for 99.9% of the people they buy it in the game section. It depends. We know they are games, but this is not the point. They are all games. Some of them are targeted more into the arcade-type racing, others into the sim-type racing. Me and me, of course 8) This is the oldest debate of all. We are fighting about the sim vs. arcade debate for years. Everybody has their own list of what is and what is not. It's like people arguing about their top5 movies. Everybody has their opinions, and our egos take much place in this. So join the discussion with us. Personnally I feel there's not many sims, many "was sims", and many bad sims. My list also changed with the time. Icr2 and N2, that I considered as pure sim before, is now a "was sim". The same goes for GP2. They live with the limitations of their era and game engine. -- -- 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."

ymenard I believe I did not articulate enough here: **" # 2 Are any-all sims-arcades made by the afor mentioned companies; Made-designed as games or sims?"** Change to: # 2 Are any-all sims-arcades made by the afor mentioned companies; Made-designed as arcade-sim games & what seems to determine {or deciding factors} in making these categories arcade verses sim? (yikes tough to verbalize!} Revised; Thom_j. aka ^Fretts..

Quoted text (42 lines)

> > #1 When you buy a so-called sim in a store what category > > is it found on the shelf/shelves? > Well for me it would be an online store.. "Entertainment software/racing > simulations" ;-) > But for 99.9% of the people they buy it in the game section. > > # 2 Are any-all sims-arcades made by the afor mentioned > > companies; Made-designed as games or sims? > It depends. We know they are games, but this is not the point. They are > all games. Some of them are targeted more into the arcade-type racing, > others into the sim-type racing. > > #3 If you have somekind of panel-type who would give a > > seal of approval as a sim & who'd monitor this group? > Me and me, of course 8) > > #4 I understand all posts in r.a.s are for discussion.. Has > > this subject gone into a "hair-splitting" issue of what is & > > what is not? > This is the oldest debate of all. We are fighting about the sim vs. arcade > debate for years. Everybody has their own list of what is and what is not. > It's like people arguing about their top5 movies. Everybody has their > opinions, and our egos take much place in this. So join the discussion with > us. Personnally I feel there's not many sims, many "was sims", and many bad > sims. My list also changed with the time. Icr2 and N2, that I considered > as pure sim before, is now a "was sim". The same goes for GP2. They live > with the limitations of their era and game engine. > -- > -- 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."

no_spam.n2rif1.vcf < 1K Download

Huh? 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 ==--------

( I apologize for the snippage Mark, :} ) I tend to apply the Need For Speed rule. If it is just a tunnel/track/rails ride then it is arcade. If you are merely dodging oncomming traffic then it is no more than the original Atari 4-bit game of move left and right while advancing up the screen. so games like Test Drive, Need for Speed etc clearly fall into the arcade group. Now up until GPL, it was easier to classify the "real" sims. Setups, pitstops, real world conditions...i.e. if tire wear slows ya down, lets have it. Gas Mileage..things like that. include enough real world items and you are in the sim camp. I haven't driven the final release of SCGT but little things that bug me are generic dashboards and no control in the pits. Hey! I'm a big boy..I can find my own bleeping pit stall. {ps wasn't there a WC event last week where a Nascar driver missed his pit?} I do have some problem classifying the fake racing games like Nas rev and the Pysgnosis F1 type racers. perhaps we should have sub category's to the sim genre..like 1) Sims: Full blown physics, seasons, ai, etc. 2) Racers: Anything from Daytona USA to Power F1 where the "game" is to finish first 3) drivers: NFS type games where driving is the key element. Sure you may go fast but there is no real race here. I would think #'s 2 & 3 would have the most entries...pity. dave henrie

Quoted text (42 lines)

>The following is my humble opinion. Please, no flames..... >To classify as a sim an auto game needs four things.... >1) Real setup options. e.g> >2) They physics need to not only realistically take into account the >car/bike settings but weather conditions such as hunidity and track >tempereture. >3) A realistic career mode> >4) Realistic AI. >Number 4 is yet to be really tackled by anybody >This is my humble opinion. >> So who decides what's a "simulation"? I've seen it talked about in >> here since I've been a regular (approx 18 months). So who decides? Well, >> no one it seems. How could they? It annoys me to see the likes of Papy >> and Crammond giving a free ride to other companies who come along and >> use the word "simulation" to sell there products. Obviously I am saying >> this upon the release of SCGT. I have only seen the demo, but hey, it's >> their "demo" and it simply gives me the impression of them not >> particularly being committed to making this game as "sim" (diehards >> version of "sim") as possible. However, there have been far worse cases >> of this than SCGT also. It might get better with patches and updates but >> when something is released like this I lose interest fast. Fool me >> once................. >> Anyway, what we have here is a very grey area of what is a sim and >> does a company have a right to use this word in there description of >> what they're trying to sell us. I think the only way to keep companies >> honest is to legally force them to reveal exactly what aspects of >> reality are recreated in their software and to what degree. So any >> racing game that is sold with the word "Simulation" must then declare a >> breakdown of exactly what is being simulated and also give some >> indication as to what depth also. The "legitimate" sim companies have >> specific areas to compete against each other in and those looking for a >> piggy back on them start to slip off fast. Gotta be a good thing. >> Obviously the industry would be doing it's own policing ie checking that >> a companies claims were legitimate. Biggest problem of course is >> classification and who does the classifying. Hmmmmmm...........

Ah, linguistics! The problem with dictionary definitions is that they describe the "use" of a word. They are descriptive and not proscriptive. They can only be precise if the common use is precise - i.e. the word "nine***" has a very precise meaning upon which every dictionary and almost every English speaker will agree. However "simulation" does not fall into that bracket and you will often see a range of definitions in any dictionary to describe the varying usages of a word. Words like "wicked" and "cool" have acquired new meanings that are already reflected in modern dictionaries. This is not purely slang - English is a flexible and ever-changing language without a Francais or Espanol Society to limit and restrict what is and what is not "good English". Where definitions can be precise, however, in within a framework of a non-linguistic discipline. For example, the word "power" has very many usages and thus many definitions in dictionaries. Within the discipline of Physics, "power" has a very precise definition. The word base "simulat-" has, according to 3 dictionaries I have here, several different meanings (usages), none of which relate precisely to automative simulations sold for entertainment purposes. However that does not proclude "simulation" having a precise meaning within the framework of this n.g. - not one as well defined as "power" is for physicists but one which we all understand. There is almost universal agreement here as to what is and what is not a "simulation". The opposite of simulation, here, is "arcade". It is a universally accepted scale. At the one end is GPL that meets many, but not all, of the current requirements for a "simulation", it's pretty dark, but not exactly black. There is no need to enumerate them here we all know what they are. At the other end of the scale is NFS - an "arcade" game and again there is no need to enumerate why is is so - we all know why. NFS is pretty light, but not exactly white. In between GPL and NFS are all the grey items - Viper and MGP are pretty dark grey, TOCA and Gran Turismo are mid shades. There is no need to get into linguistic arguments here - this IS the use od the word. Linguistics ends up in the mires of Frege and Russell and the paradox of Plato's beard and simply makes you realise that analysis of language is futile. Cheers, Paul

Hmm ok (I think I understood). I guess it's just a development thing. Some developers want to produce an arcade racer. There is multiple of reasons. It's a nice market, where you can produce on both PC and consoles. Since the mass market will easily get tired of a software and jump to another, you need to make him happy and quickly. Thus you need to create easier challenges, to as I said make him happy so he will continue with thus the same software. It's also easier to do in a sense that you can go around the physics laws and create a handling that is easier. But at the same time, the arcade racing market is full of titles, so it's difficult to create a title that will be over the others. One that goes into my mind is Powerslide. -- -- 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."

Great idea. See my followup.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Regarding this whole topic, what if there were some sort of organization of sim > racing fans which would grant companies their seal of approval for the box of a > game after checking it against certain criteria? I think in a lot of cases, > features are left out or deemed "unnecessary" due to time and budget > restraints. If we could form something like that, and make it mean something, > then perhaps companies would be encouraged to make the time for those features > in order to meet the criteria for the seal. Just a thought...

> 7) It all comes down to one's definition and who is to say that yours should > be "law". There is no absolute black and white, but a whole range of greys. Well, there are definantly black and whites. Something is either modeled or it isn't for starters. And then we can talk to what degree. Seems pretty black and white to me. "Upset"s a strong word. It's more a case of insulted intelligence. Did you see the reviews of CPR. Say no more. I have not purchased SCGT and might not. Unless patches/updates bring it up to par. But even then, on principle alone, I might not. Possibly the key component of a **sim** these days is online play ie competition Vs real opponents. And the computer controlled pitstops turn me off too. Trivia depending on how seriously you take your sim racing. To me and many it's a sport. To others a bit of fun. In any case, how seriously it's taken, as with anything, determines it's greatness.

No flames. I'll even refrain from making this a semantic debate :-) First, you are real tough, anyone ever thell you that? :-) So, none are sims then? I'd be less restrictive. I won't say what is or isn't a sim, but I will say what I look for in a flight or auto sim: Realistic physics Realistic AI Good graphics Good framerate I'd like: Lots of cars, each with individual handling,***pit, graphics like that of the real one. Real tracks, well modeled The career or upgrade as you earn are interesting and make a nice *** environment, but not req'd for me. I could get more specific, but it's late.

> I haven't driven the final release of SCGT but little things that bug me >are generic dashboards I too would very much like nice, representative***pits. But I don't think it disqualifies it as a sim (not saying that you explicityl said that). I find I appreciate having the few seconds to figure out if I wanted the damage fixed, tires replaced, and most importantly a *** calc on how much fuel to take. In a real race, your chief would be doing a lot of that for you. Having the slight respite does help in quickly trying to make all those decisions. To get us all on the same page, I would like pit control to be an option.

>Hello Fellow R.A.S Readers; >I have read as many posts as I can on this subject. I've read >many great "subjective" opinions. Also using the definition in >the Oxford Dictionary? Hmmm? Not sure here? Okay, it went a little overboard :-) Sort of my point. Lets face it, this is us just mental ***. Depends on the store. Most just throw all the car games in together, ditto for flight sims (err, games). The really bad stores just line everything up alphabetically :-( Don't know what you are asking. One reason why it wouldn't work. I for one don't need, nor want, any panel to do so. I can read the previews and reviews and decide. And almost every game now has a playable demo which answers most questions. True, sometimes it is misleading. SCGT was verging on failure with the sim crowd until the realism patch came out. And that was even after some "trusted" RAS "experts" had waxed enthusiastically about it. These "trusted" experts, probably the ones that would be advocated as panel-members, were then attacked as being biased and bought-out. Frankly, I wanted more data. And the realism patch addressed this quite well. By its nature, I think it had to go that way. If one is going to suggest some panel to grant a game the hallowed classification of "sim", then we better find out if we can agree (and I would strongly argue we can't) on what a sim is and isn't.

I should of said "CD player". David G Fisher > > There's nothing too realistic, regardless of which CD is in our > > hard drive, > Huh? > daxe

So if you have 100 things which can be modelled what if, say, 50 of them were done in a given product, is it a sim? How about 60? 40 perhaps? Seems a bit of a grey area. Black and white are easy, there are lots of shades of grey inbetween. It's only if someone says "60% must be included" that it's back and white, but ah, then we come to _which_ 60% are the important ones..still grey. You mentioned for example that online play is the single critical definition of a sim these days, where I totally disagree - NFS3 has online play, so do a million other products but that doesn't make them sims. It's a factor that's important in a good sim product, but it's not what makes it what it is. That was pretty dodgy reviewing without a doubt. Cheers! John

On Sun, 02 May 1999 22:22:08 +0100, Paul Jones >Ah, linguistics! The problem with dictionary definitions is that they describe the >"use" of a word. They are descriptive and not proscriptive. They can only be >precise if the common use is precise - i.e. the word "nine***" has a very precise >meaning upon which every dictionary and almost every English speaker will agree. Not me :-) I bet the would forget Paul Hardcastle in the dictionary - N-n-n-n-n-nine***! Cheers! John

Poor sales usually gets the message across. I bow to the Papyrus gurus! Jerry

>You mentioned for example that online play is the single critical >definition of a sim these days, where I totally disagree I skipped some posts...did he really say that? If so, this shows how off the track we are in agreeing. I'm with you. It might be something that one may find necessary for their true enjoyment, and/or a requirement for purchase, but it has little to nothing to do with what I would call a sim. Take on-line play out of GPL and it is no longer a sim? When you play it offline, it isn't a sim? Maybe I'm taking him out of context.

I know my #2 was "kinda" garbled {it was hard to put in words and make it short} but you did undertand & your reply {for me} answered my question.. Thanx... Thom_j. aka ^Fretts...

Quoted text (30 lines)

> > # 2 Are any-all sims-arcades made by the afor mentioned > > companies; Made-designed as arcade-sim games & what > > seems to determine {or deciding factors} in making these > > categories arcade verses sim? (yikes tough to verbalize!} > > Revised; Thom_j. aka ^Fretts.. > Hmm ok (I think I understood). > I guess it's just a development thing. Some developers want to produce an > arcade racer. There is multiple of reasons. It's a nice market, where you > can produce on both PC and consoles. Since the mass market will easily get > tired of a software and jump to another, you need to make him happy and > quickly. > Thus you need to create easier challenges, to as I said make him happy so he > will continue with thus the same software. It's also easier to do in a > sense that you can go around the physics laws and create a handling that is > easier. But at the same time, the arcade racing market is full of titles, > so it's difficult to create a title that will be over the others. One that > goes into my mind is Powerslide. > -- > -- 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."

no_spam.n2rif1.vcf < 1K Download

Well one thing's for sure, we're certainly getting off the track :)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >You mentioned for example that online play is the single critical > >definition of a sim these days, where I totally disagree > I skipped some posts...did he really say that? If so, this shows how off the > track we are in agreeing. I'm with you. It might be something that one may > find necessary for their true enjoyment, and/or a requirement for purchase, > but it has little to nothing to do with what I would call a sim. Take on-line > play out of GPL and it is no longer a sim? When you play it offline, it isn't > a sim? Maybe I'm taking him out of context.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Well, there are definantly black and whites. Something is either > >modeled or it isn't for starters. And then we can talk to what degree. > >Seems pretty black and white to me. > So if you have 100 things which can be modelled what if, say, 50 of > them were done in a given product, is it a sim? How about 60? 40 > perhaps? Seems a bit of a grey area. Black and white are easy, there > are lots of shades of grey inbetween. It's only if someone says "60% > must be included" that it's back and white, but ah, then we come to > _which_ 60% are the important ones..still grey.

If there was a list of things with a sim then it would certainly be black and white as to what it was all about. You guys were talking about the word "sim" in general whereas I went off on a bit of a tangent of my own talking of specific things. Probably my mistake. Wooooooo up there Johnny! :) "Single critical definition" I did not say. I said "key component". And let me go on a bit about this too. Why spend oodles of time creating something like "the most intelligent and advanced computer opponents in history" when you can simply have that from online play (arguably VBG). Even from an Aussie perspective of relatively warpy online play, I have no interest in offline racing whatsoever. I suppose I should add though that I have done a hell of a lot of offline racing Vs CCs which explains some of this I suppose. But the present situation with SCGT in this reguard makes it a definate NO BUY IMO. Also, I get the impression that SCGT has been sold giving the impression that TCP and IPX are in there which is misleading. If that doesn't mean a minimum of 10 people at once (and I think this is a very generous amount I have chosen here) then I call that false advertising.

It wouldn't, that's the point I was making. Unless a sim has _none_ of the requirements to qualify or all of them then it is still open to subjective interpretation. Before you do, I should say it may well be a critical component of a good product but it is certainly not a defining criteria for what is a sim or not. By that token GP2, ICR2, NASCAR Racing etc are _not_ sims, yet NFS3 is. Again, that was the point I was making. How often do you get a race on VROC where you can comfortably race a minimum of 10 people at once from Oz? Cheers! John

I get so many flames lately I am getting a bit crispy around the edges.....

Quoted text (32 lines)

> >The following is my humble opinion. Please, no flames..... > No flames. I'll even refrain from making this a semantic debate :-) > >To classify as a sim an auto game needs four things.... > First, you are real tough, anyone ever thell you that? :-) > >1 to 3 are mostly covered by what most people in this forum consider sims. > >GPL, GP2, Superbikes and Viper racing. > >Number 4 is yet to be really tackled by anybody > So, none are sims then? > I'd be less restrictive. I won't say what is or isn't a sim, but I will say > what I look for in a flight or auto sim: > Realistic physics > Realistic AI > Good graphics > Good framerate > I'd like: > Lots of cars, each with individual handling,***pit, graphics like that of > the real one. > Real tracks, well modeled > The career or upgrade as you earn are interesting and make a nice *** > environment, but not req'd for me. > I could get more specific, but it's late.

Could be worse -- you could be a diehard IRL fan, too . . . <G> -- JB

Quoted text (32 lines)

>> >The following is my humble opinion. Please, no flames..... >> No flames. I'll even refrain from making this a semantic debate :-) >> >To classify as a sim an auto game needs four things.... >> First, you are real tough, anyone ever thell you that? :-) >> >1 to 3 are mostly covered by what most people in this forum consider sims. >> >GPL, GP2, Superbikes and Viper racing. >> >Number 4 is yet to be really tackled by anybody >> So, none are sims then? >> I'd be less restrictive. I won't say what is or isn't a sim, but I will say >> what I look for in a flight or auto sim: >> Realistic physics >> Realistic AI >> Good graphics >> Good framerate >> I'd like: >> Lots of cars, each with individual handling,***pit, graphics like that of >> the real one. >> Real tracks, well modeled >> The career or upgrade as you earn are interesting and make a nice *** >> environment, but not req'd for me. >> I could get more specific, but it's late.

Now! Now! John I spent many hours with my ICR1&2 plus I've been to many IRL races.. Yes I know good for me..<VBG> Thom_j. aka ^Fretts

Quoted text (43 lines)

> >I get so many flames lately I am getting a bit crispy around the edges..... > Could be worse -- you could be a diehard IRL fan, too . . . <G> > -- JB > >> >The following is my humble opinion. Please, no flames..... > >> No flames. I'll even refrain from making this a semantic debate :-) > >> >To classify as a sim an auto game needs four things.... > >> First, you are real tough, anyone ever thell you that? :-) > >> >1 to 3 are mostly covered by what most people in this forum consider sims. > >> >GPL, GP2, Superbikes and Viper racing. > >> >Number 4 is yet to be really tackled by anybody > >> So, none are sims then? > >> I'd be less restrictive. I won't say what is or isn't a sim, but I will say > >> what I look for in a flight or auto sim: > >> Realistic physics > >> Realistic AI > >> Good graphics > >> Good framerate > >> I'd like: > >> Lots of cars, each with individual handling,***pit, graphics like that of > >> the real one. > >> Real tracks, well modeled > >> The career or upgrade as you earn are interesting and make a nice *** > >> environment, but not req'd for me. > >> I could get more specific, but it's late.

no_spam.n2rif1.vcf < 1K Download

First of all TCP\IP is supported, not internet play. TCP\IP is not a networking code exclusive to internet, it is very commonly used in LAN's. While it may be poorly implemented, it does work. Do you expect them to say on their box "***NEW*** IPX and TCP\IP, race you friends, but you may get warping!" They have the right to advertise what is in their product without qualifying everything, in the end we either need a government body spending our money to rate the qualities of a game and paste it on the box, or consumers can be careful and do research.... you make the call.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >> You mentioned for example that online play is the single critical > >> definition of a sim these days, where I totally disagree - NFS3 has > >> online play, so do a million other products but that doesn't make them > >> sims. It's a factor that's important in a good sim product, but it's > >> not what makes it what it is. > > Wooooooo up there Johnny! :) "Single critical definition" I did not > >say. I said "key component". And let me go on a bit about this too. > Before you do, I should say it may well be a critical component of a > good product but it is certainly not a defining criteria for what is a > sim or not. By that token GP2, ICR2, NASCAR Racing etc are _not_ sims, > yet NFS3 is. Again, that was the point I was making.

Yes, but this is dependant on time frame. As I said in another post, when a sim is a sim has a lot to do with things. As time passes, the bar is raised. Many times. It is totally dependant upon the hosts ability to handle more than 10 cars.

Flames have dies down. Those damn kill filters wreck everything. Now they just ignore me!

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >>I get so many flames lately I am getting a bit crispy around the edges..... > >Could be worse -- you could be a diehard IRL fan, too . . . <G> > >-- JB > You're still being persecuted, my friend? :) > Randy > Randy Magruder > [link lost in import]

Is it my imagination or is this message being repeated over and over and over and over.......

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >>I get so many flames lately I am getting a bit crispy around the edges..... > >Could be worse -- you could be a diehard IRL fan, too . . . <G> > >-- JB > You're still being persecuted, my friend? :) > Randy > Randy Magruder > http://members.home.com/rmagruder

My threads never die! :)

Quoted text (25 lines)

> Is it my imagination or is this message being repeated over and over and over and > over....... > > >>I get so many flames lately I am getting a bit crispy around the edges..... > > >Could be worse -- you could be a diehard IRL fan, too . . . <G> > > >-- JB > > You're still being persecuted, my friend? :) > > Randy > > Randy Magruder > > http://members.home.com/rmagruder