What would be better

I`m thinking about changing my setup, i would basicly like to play race sims with allround vision.. Would it be better to go backwards from a GeForce 4 to a Matrox multi monitor GFX card... or should i look into these glasses you wear.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/gothamracing --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://uk.geocities.com/[email hidden]/side.jpg http://uk.geocities.com/[email hidden]/front.jpg http://uk.geocities.com/[email hidden]/tank.jpg

I've not had much success with my ED glasses, they don't support ATI cards very well or high resolutions. Andi. -- Remove only one zero to reply. "Paulinho" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bsn7ed$og9$[email hidden]... > I`m thinking about changing my setup, i would basicly like to play race sims > with allround vision.. > > > Would it be better to go backwards from a GeForce 4 to a Matrox multi > monitor GFX card... or should i look into these glasses you wear.... > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/gothamracing > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > http://uk.geocities.com/[email hidden]/side.jpg > http://uk.geocities.com/[email hidden]/front.jpg > http://uk.geocities.com/[email hidden]/tank.jpg > >

> I`m thinking about changing my setup, i would basicly like to play racesims > with allround vision.. > > > Would it be better to go backwards from a GeForce 4 to a Matrox multi > monitor GFX card... or should i look into these glasses you wear.... Drive from a different view. These games that take up 3/4 of the screen with a pretty picture of a cockpit are just plain silly.

> > Drive from a different view. These games that take up 3/4 of the screen > with a pretty picture of a cockpit are just plain silly. > And driving from a kite hanging above the car is NOT silly? Or hanging off the nose like a license plate? These are not silly? Sorry lad you are talking to a confirmed cockpit NAZI. I simulate a very bad driver not some hanglider. You can give every reason known to man and all you'll get from me is you should be where you belong. In the cockpit. dave henrie

Quoted text (7 lines)

> And driving from a kite hanging above the car is NOT silly? > Or hanging off the nose like a license plate? These are not > silly? > Sorry lad you are talking to a confirmed cockpit NAZI. > I simulate a very bad driver not some hanglider. You can > give every reason known to man and all you'll get from me > is you should be where you belong. In the cockpit.

Sorry but having 1/3 of the visibility of a real race car is just not realistic. I hate kite flyers too but it's one of those situations where common sense and compromise has to prevail.

Absolutely agreed, and this is the main reason why Console 'racers' are not my cup o tea. -Larry "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > > > Drive from a different view. These games that take up 3/4 of the screen > > with a pretty picture of a cockpit are just plain silly. > > > > And driving from a kite hanging above the car is NOT silly? > Or hanging off the nose like a license plate? These are not > silly? > Sorry lad you are talking to a confirmed cockpit NAZI. > I simulate a very bad driver not some hanglider. You can > give every reason known to man and all you'll get from me > is you should be where you belong. In the cockpit. > dave henrie

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:01:04 -0600, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote: > You can >give every reason known to man and all you'll get from me >is you should be where you belong. In the cockpit. Up until recently, I'd agree with you, but I've been practicing at Mosport in the new TPTCC mod and going into that one sharp turn, the track is simply out of sight. That's not realistic and there's now option to sit up higher in the cockpit. Cockpit view is still best, but the player needs to be able to see the track.

Ah guys..... There's just about a zillion places on real-world race track, in real-world race cars, where the driver can not see the track surface in front of him. Example: Turn 3a at Infineon Raceway (Sears Point Raceway).....you lose sight of the track surface just as you end your braking and turn in...to the apex.....over the turn and all the way to the track out exit.....during that entire time all you see is grandstand and sky! That's about 3 seconds in time.....no track! You also can't see the track surface at the entrance of the carousel turn (at Infineon), or under the footbridge on the next-to-last turn at Road Atlanta, or heading into the last turn at Lime Rock, or in several places at Mosport, or going up through the esses at Watkins Glen......need I go on? Since when did seeing the track surface become a pre-requisite for a racing driver. How many times do you think a rally driver loses eye contact with the track surface? LOL....are you guys kidding me or something? If you want to "play games"....drive from anywhere you want (just don't race against me). If you want enjoy your racing sim as a "racing simulation"....better listen to Mr. Dave Henry....drive from the cockpit like the rest of the world must do. Regards, Tom PS: I can't believe this argument still goes on in here.....what, is this something like five years now I have read this BS about....."whine....whine...I can't see the track....whine, whine....I must drive from the F-10 view, whine, whine, whine......." Huh? Geeeesh....kiddies!

Michael Waltrip at Daytona Testing - 2004: "Well boys..... Since they let me test that new NASCAR escape hatch last year, I've had my crew raise my seat up just a little bit in my Cup car! Works really good for seeing the track better. The fact that my head now sticks out of the roof about 18 inches is really not a problem.....we fixed the aerodynamic drag that created in the wind tunnel this winter! I do burn through a few more tear-offs on my helmet now, though. And dam....if I hit another bird like I did last year at Daytona....that's going to really smart my nose a ton! My brother Darryl says I looks really cool now.....but maybe I should put some flames on my helmet since everyone can see it so much better now. But I don't want it to conflict with the paint job on my Aarons Dream Machine....you know?" LOL.....can't wait to hear this interview! No...can't wait to hear the other driver's inteviews afterwards! TP

"Tom Pabst" wrote... > Michael Waltrip at Daytona Testing - 2004: > <snip> > LOL.....can't wait to hear this interview! No...can't wait > to hear the other driver's inteviews afterwards! Thing is, if you stick a camera and microphone in front of his face and offer him a chance to mention his sponsors, Michael would probably be game to recite that nugget verbatim. <g> Jan. =---

ROFLMAO....you are dead right there, Jan! TP

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>Drive from a different view. These games that take up 3/4 of the screen >>with a pretty picture of a cockpit are just plain silly. >> > > > And driving from a kite hanging above the car is NOT silly? > Or hanging off the nose like a license plate? These are not > silly? > Sorry lad you are talking to a confirmed cockpit NAZI. > I simulate a very bad driver not some hanglider. You can > give every reason known to man and all you'll get from me > is you should be where you belong. In the cockpit. > dave henrie

Hi Dave: You've heard this from me before. I agree that the view I want is at driver's eye level. Give me a view similar to what I see out my windshield and I'll be happy. That would be best approximated by a driver's eye view and the instruments sized and positioned for each driver's preference, floating over a transparent dash with the road visible behind the instruments. We don't have G forces for feedback, we don't get a 180 degree peripheral view, what's wrong with maximizing our visual field to compensate? Seeing more of the road passing under the part of the display obscured by the useless image of the dash, and the less than useless image of two hands on a moving steering wheel, is great feedback to give a sense of speed and feel for the road sim drivers don't get. I can see two hands on a steering wheel, they are my two hands and my old but sweet ECCI CDS2. As in a real car, I don't spend much time staring at the steering wheel, I look over it. I have no interest in a substantial part of my display dedicated to an animation of that image. The business I'm about is getting around the track. A real car is designed to assist in that task. Does having most of the display of a sim dedicated to dash board and top of the window frame simulate a such a vehicle? Bumper cam on F1C is too low and doesn't have mirrors. I want a drivers eye level view and mirrors. Do any road race mods to F1C or NR2003 have what I want? Try driving a real car with the view you have in a sim. That would require masking off most of your windshield. And jail time for reckless driving. : ) How 'bout this for a compromise. Mod developers, please give each driver their preference. Let Dave have a display that includes the pedals complete with Nomex booties, the headliner, and a little strip of race track in the middle, give me the open view of the road I desire. Then everyone is happy. I'm sure I won't get my wish. So I'll bitch the next time I see this topic. : ) Larry

> > I'm sure I won't get my wish. So I'll bitch the next > time I see this topic. : ) > > Larry > ditto!!! :) dave henrie

Damien Evans :

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > And driving from a kite hanging above the car is NOT silly? > > Or hanging off the nose like a license plate? These are not > > silly? > > Sorry lad you are talking to a confirmed cockpit NAZI. > > I simulate a very bad driver not some hanglider. You can > > give every reason known to man and all you'll get from me > > is you should be where you belong. In the cockpit. > > Sorry but having 1/3 of the visibility of a real race car is just not > realistic. I hate kite flyers too but it's one of those situations where > common sense and compromise has to prevail.

I'll always drive from the cockpit view. Saying that, I never-the-less am ready to acknowle the problem. The problem is that we should have 180 deg. field of view. Without that it is harder to judge the distance. Especially since distant objects are so clearly visible on a computer. With 180 deg. of view we would have much better 3 D sense of our car and the track around it. You could have a pretty reasonamble sense with 78 deg., but you need to adjust to that. One day whem computers will be fast enough, and monitors cheap enough (for being able to buy a 3 monitor set) we will be able to enjoy this. Until then, I am happy that I can enjoy 1600x1200 resolution. Much better than 800x600. BTW, I cannot drive a car from a birds view, and I really don't understand how somebody can. But, if I'll have a choice, nobody who is racing with me won't race that way. -- Mario

Way back when ESPN was pioneering in car cameras for NASCAR racing, Buddy baker commented on the difference between the in car camera view and the roof mounted cameras. He indicated that the roof camera gave an image that was closer to a drivers actual perception of the track than the more limited in car view. I have relly enjoyed using the roll bar view in GPL until I could commit each new track to memory, however the F10 kite view is very difficult for me to use. The representation of the road surface on a CRT seems to provide much less information than a real world view of the road from the same perspective. This seems much worse on flat tracks than on tracks with elevation changes. My vote is for choice. Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > I'm sure I won't get my wish. So I'll bitch the next > > time I see this topic. : ) > > > > Larry > > > ditto!!! > > > :) > dave henrie

In article <[email hidden]>, The Black Cat =^..^= <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> You can >>give every reason known to man and all you'll get from me >>is you should be where you belong. In the cockpit. > >Up until recently, I'd agree with you, but I've been practicing at >Mosport in the new TPTCC mod and going into that one sharp turn, the >track is simply out of sight. That's not realistic and there's now >option to sit up higher in the cockpit. Cockpit view is still best, >but the player needs to be able to see the track.

Have you ever seen Laguna Seca? At the top of the corkscrew, you canNOT see the track at the bottom. Trust me - I've driven it(Skip Barber). I would imagine the turn you mention at Mosport is the same way in real life. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

I have a few old phone-books... :) -Larry "The Black Cat =^..^=" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:01:04 -0600, Dave Henrie > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > You can > >give every reason known to man and all you'll get from me > >is you should be where you belong. In the cockpit. > > Up until recently, I'd agree with you, but I've been practicing at > Mosport in the new TPTCC mod and going into that one sharp turn, the > track is simply out of sight. That's not realistic and there's now > option to sit up higher in the cockpit. Cockpit view is still best, > but the player needs to be able to see the track.

"Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<XuMHb.224735$_M.993996@attbi_s54>... > > If you want to "play games"....drive from anywhere you want (just don't race > against me). If you want enjoy your racing sim as a "racing > simulation"....better listen to Mr. Dave Henry....drive from the cockpit > like the rest of the world must do. Hey, Tom, have you had a chance to make a roof/cockpit hybrid like you did for NR2002? I really liked the wider perspective in that view.

Thats obviously not a fair comparison. Ask BB if he would rather roof ride in the SIM... Mitch rcmrcm wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Way back when ESPN was pioneering in car cameras for NASCAR racing, > Buddy baker commented on the difference between the in car camera view > and the roof mounted cameras. He indicated that the roof camera gave > an image that was closer to a drivers actual perception of the track > than the more limited in car view. I have relly enjoyed using the > roll bar view in GPL until I could commit each new track to memory, > however the F10 kite view is very difficult for me to use. The > representation of the road surface on a CRT seems to provide much less > information than a real world view of the road from the same > perspective. This seems much worse on flat tracks than on tracks with > elevation changes. My vote is for choice. > > > Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > >>> I'm sure I won't get my wish. So I'll bitch the next >>>time I see this topic. : ) >>> >>> Larry >>> >> >> ditto!!! >> >> >>:) >> dave henrie

Larry Lindstrom <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (67 lines)

> Dave Henrie wrote: > > >>Drive from a different view. These games that take up 3/4 of the screen > >>with a pretty picture of a cockpit are just plain silly. > >> > > > > > > And driving from a kite hanging above the car is NOT silly? > > Or hanging off the nose like a license plate? These are not > > silly? > > Sorry lad you are talking to a confirmed cockpit NAZI. > > I simulate a very bad driver not some hanglider. You can > > give every reason known to man and all you'll get from me > > is you should be where you belong. In the cockpit. > > dave henrie > > Hi Dave: > > You've heard this from me before. > > I agree that the view I want is at driver's eye level. > > Give me a view similar to what I see out my windshield > and I'll be happy. That would be best approximated by a > driver's eye view and the instruments sized and positioned > for each driver's preference, floating over a transparent > dash with the road visible behind the instruments. > > We don't have G forces for feedback, we don't get a > 180 degree peripheral view, what's wrong with maximizing > our visual field to compensate? Seeing more of the road > passing under the part of the display obscured by the > useless image of the dash, and the less than useless > image of two hands on a moving steering wheel, is great > feedback to give a sense of speed and feel for the road > sim drivers don't get. > > I can see two hands on a steering wheel, they are my > two hands and my old but sweet ECCI CDS2. As in a real > car, I don't spend much time staring at the steering wheel, > I look over it. I have no interest in a substantial part > of my display dedicated to an animation of that image. > > The business I'm about is getting around the track. A > real car is designed to assist in that task. Does having > most of the display of a sim dedicated to dash board and > top of the window frame simulate a such a vehicle? > > Bumper cam on F1C is too low and doesn't have mirrors. > I want a drivers eye level view and mirrors. Do any road > race mods to F1C or NR2003 have what I want? > > Try driving a real car with the view you have in a > sim. That would require masking off most of your > windshield. And jail time for reckless driving. : ) > > How 'bout this for a compromise. Mod developers, > please give each driver their preference. Let Dave have > a display that includes the pedals complete with Nomex > booties, the headliner, and a little strip of race track > in the middle, give me the open view of the road I desire. > Then everyone is happy. > > I'm sure I won't get my wish. So I'll bitch the next > time I see this topic. : ) > > Larry

Here's an idea (so crazy - it just might work!) - take a car model, and change all the textures but the guages on the dash to fully transparent. It'd look like you were driving Wonder Woman's car in a replay, but otherwise I think it would give you exactly what you want - a full view of the road ahead from the driver's eye-level. Kinda like the dogfight mode some combat flight sims have. Any modellers out there willing to try it? BTW - I don't want it - I'm a cockpit-only grognard, and my gaming arrangement has my wheel out of my line of sight, so I actually like a wheel/hands on the screen. Kendt

Hi Gerald... Yes....I did it first thing the day I installed NR003. I race NR003 only in my Winston Cup cockpit sim.....so this altered cam is a requirement for it. Send me an email message and I will send it to you (remember to remove the "anti-spam" section in my email address when you hit the "reply" button). TP

Larry... I think your comments, and those of Dave and Kendt, etc. all have merit and really seem to point to the primary problem with the current "state of the art" of our sim racing software/hardware. This issue of "driving view" is going to continue until a couple of "milestones" are reached in sim racing software and hardware. And, it is my belief that we are the ones that need to take the lead and do this.....the "gaming industry" companies have no financial incentive to do it. A. We need to take the cockpit completely out of the sim software. To be replaced by real cockpits we sit in (depending on what sim we drive....that could be a closed GT or Winston Cup style cockpit....or an open wheel "tub" of some sort). The telemetry data and dash instrument data from the sim needs to be sent to and displayed by.....real live dash-board instruments or digital LCD's like are used in most modern race cars. MoteC and CSA and many makers of these dash board displays would be more than happy to sell us their products....I can promise you! Can we afford them? Hell no....not at today's prices ($20K and up). But, that does not negate the "need" for this.....if we want our simulator experience to move to the next level. B. Only a small change from our current large screen monitors is needed (I am speaking of the 21"....or 22" models). The answer is not totally in screen width, however. Otherwise....sitting in front of a big screen TV or even a 40" x 60" plasma screen would be the answer.....and IT IS NOT. I have done it.....tested it extensively.....and it does not do what you think it will (explained below). What we do need is a screen which wraps....is curved so that objects at a distance from our nose.......down track......and objects from a distance off to the left and right of our nose.......appear the same size when they are the same distance away. Currently, flat screens (no matter how wide or large) can not do this. It is the sim software....graphics software where the limitation is I believe....not so much in the hardware (monitors, TV's, etc.). **Cockpit Driver's View in A Real Race Car** Those of you that don't know me may not be aware that I was a real-world race car driver.....race team owner, for more than 15 years. I also instructed for both SCCA and for the Dane Pitarressi Racing School. I won three Regional SCCA championships and drove in the ESCORT Endurance Series (12 and 24hr endurance sportscar racing) for the BMW factory team for three seasons. All of this was back in the late 80's and early 90's. I have been actively sim racing since the late 90's. None of this means crap as per my driving skills which are no better than most of yours. In fact, I know a ton of sim racers who have never been in a real race car, who are better drivers than I am. But, I do know what the "driver's view" is like from the cockpit of a real race car.....testing or in a race. Most of you.....who have never been in a race car.......are incorrect in many of your assumptions of what this view is like......in what it looks like. Even though the vast majority of my racing experience is in sedan, or GT type race cars......my experience as an SCCA racing instructor, and vintage racing license instructor.....has allowed me to drive almost every type of race car there is....or has been. I have driven a modern Indy car (the Porsche Indy car from the late 80's), two fairly modern F1 cars (95' year Ferrari and a 94' year Arrows)....several 70's and 80's F1 cars, TransAm cars, Winston Cup cars......etc. I currently own a race shop next to Huffaker Racing at Infineon raceway.....and I get out on the track usually about once a month....testing something for one of the race teams located at Infineon (Sears Point). I say all of this only to point out that my "perspective" of what the driving view is from the cockpit of a real race car.....is fairly accurate. And, that is: **Peripheral Vision** In a GT or closed cockpit race car.....with helmet, side head braces....Hans device....etc., it is almost zero! Sitting at a dead stop....the peripheral vision is probably less than 50% of what you have in a street car....without all that gear on. At race speeds.....your peripheral vision is only 20% of what you have in a street car. The worst is a Winston Cup car or a TransAm car......the best is in any open wheel car.....but its still never better than 50% of what you have in a street car. At race speeds....with engine vibration and the car shaking from contact with the track surface......only your straight ahead vision is clear....your peripheral vision is limited to recognition of colors only.....not object shape or size in much detail.....at all. With a 21" monitor....our racing sims currently (NR003 or F1-C or F1-2002) with a driving cam FOV of between 70 and 95 (or so)....is very accurate to what you get in a real race car! I would say....its something more like 95% accurate (and you guys are talking like it's something more like 50% accurate....that is just not correct). **3D Vision** 3D vision is something you have very little of in a real race car......and is NOT related to depth perception anyway. And depth perception in a real race car is extremely limited....almost non existent.....just like in our sims. I know that does not sound logical to those of you who have never been in a race car. But, maybe this explanation will help you understand: At race speeds, the driving point of focus (depending on how fast you are going) is anywhere from 20 to 30 feet in front of your car (at very low speeds) to several hundred yards down track (at very high speeds). The human eye has very little 3D site....much past about 100 feet! At race speeds....most of the time your driving focus point is more than a 100 feet in front of you.....and therefore during that entire time....you see in 2D only! This driving speed/driving focus point relationship totally screws with your depth perception for objects which are nearby you. Primarily that would be other cars.....since all other objects nearby you are in your field of vision for only micro-seconds (as you speed by them). The other race cars.....depending on your speed differential to them......tend to "float" along near you.....like airplanes flying in formation....in flight. You can't really remove your focus from the distant "driving focus point" to focus long enough on a nearby race car to really get much of your depth perception to return to you......so...they appear in your conscious vision field..."yes"...but they are more like flat, 2D floating objects.....not 3D, depth perceptive objects....like most of you imagine them to be. This is why it is so difficult for a real world race car driver to even read an instrument reading on the dash instruments right in front of them. If you are lucky and on a track with long straight....you can take the two or three seconds it takes to refocus your eyes on the dash (from the driving point down track) to read maybe a tach....or an oil temp.....if the needles/numbers are large and well contrasted. Its a time verses "time to focus" issue. This is also why it is so very difficult during a pit stop to come down from high speeds and hit your mark exactly. The pro drivers we see on TV every week.....make us think this is easy because you see them very rarely miss their mark (pit stop marks). Let me tell you.....it takes a ton of experience and PRACTICE.....to be able to do that consistently....and the pro drivers we see on TV have it.....and they make it look easy. Its not easy at all! Overall, the visuals....and driver visual cues.....of our current racing simulator hardware.....is very accurate. Most of the time, you can't see the road surface directly in front of you....even in open wheel cars! You can't see other cars around you with very much depth perception either....and you can easily run into the back of a car in front of you....who brakes a little earlier than you expected???? Doesn't this describe our sims.....because I am describing being in a real race car....not a simulator! I hope a few of you may have a better appreciation of your racing simulator hardware and equipment now. It does a far better job of simulating racing in a real-world race car than you imagine! I do have an alternate driving view cam I designed for my Winston Cup cockpit simulator I use for driving in NR003 (and a few of the sports car sims). It is not just an altered driving view cam....but also altered cockpit graphics and combined, its a rather large file. If somebody wants to try it....and many on r.a.s. have already used it for some time (I've been doing this cam for all Papy sims since the N3 days)....email me and I will send you the zip package. Mind you, you'll have to alter your cockpit graphics (so if you have special cockpits....these files will screw that up). Take car and much regards, Tom

"Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fe3Ib.231694$_M.1017689@attbi_s54... <Snip Most Excellent Post> Well Said... Jay In AZ

Tom Pabst wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Larry... > > I think your comments, and those of Dave and Kendt, etc. all have merit and > really seem to point to the primary problem with the current "state of the > art" of our sim racing software/hardware. > > This issue of "driving view" is going to continue until a couple of > "milestones" are reached in sim racing software and hardware. And, it is my > belief that we are the ones that need to take the lead and do this.....the > "gaming industry" companies have no financial incentive to do it. > > A. We need to take the cockpit completely out of the sim software. To be > replaced by real cockpits we sit in

Yea, I'm working again after a long period of unemployment. I just want to retire my P3/600.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > B. Only a small change from our current large screen monitors is needed (I > am speaking of the 21"....or 22" models). The answer is not totally in > screen width, however. Otherwise....sitting in front of a big screen TV or > even a 40" x 60" plasma screen would be the answer.....and IT IS NOT. I > have done it.....tested it extensively.....and it does not do what you think > it will (explained below). What we do need is a screen which wraps....is > curved so that objects at a distance from our nose.......down track......and > objects from a distance off to the left and right of our nose.......appear > the same size when they are the same distance away. Currently, flat screens > (no matter how wide or large) can not do this. It is the sim > software....graphics software where the limitation is I believe....not so > much in the hardware (monitors, TV's, etc.).

Over the years I've been very impressed with 3 monitor driving and flying games in video arcades. Sometimes I see websites that show sims being played on monitors arranged this way, approximating the curve of a windshield. It's not just the ability to see more of the track. I think the images fed to the peripheral vision also come in under the conscious in a way that makes for a very convincing illusion of physically movement through the virtual world. Matrox has a card that drives 3 displays, and does work with some sims. I haven't heard that Matrox can compete with ATI and Nvidia in terms of 3D graphics performance. I've seen posts of people talking about getting this card and three monitors setup, but I haven't read any posts describing the experience of racing with this equipment.

Quoted text (46 lines)

> **Cockpit Driver's View in A Real Race Car** > Those of you that don't know me may not be aware that I was a real-world > race car driver.....race team owner, for more than 15 years. I also > instructed for both SCCA and for the Dane Pitarressi Racing School. I won > three Regional SCCA championships and drove in the ESCORT Endurance Series > (12 and 24hr endurance sportscar racing) for the BMW factory team for three > seasons. All of this was back in the late 80's and early 90's. I have > been actively sim racing since the late 90's. None of this means crap as > per my driving skills which are no better than most of yours. In fact, I > know a ton of sim racers who have never been in a real race car, who are > better drivers than I am. But, I do know what the "driver's view" is like > from the cockpit of a real race car.....testing or in a race. Most of > you.....who have never been in a race car.......are incorrect in many of > your assumptions of what this view is like......in what it looks like. Even > though the vast majority of my racing experience is in sedan, or GT type > race cars......my experience as an SCCA racing instructor, and vintage > racing license instructor.....has allowed me to drive almost every type of > race car there is....or has been. I have driven a modern Indy car (the > Porsche Indy car from the late 80's), two fairly modern F1 cars (95' year > Ferrari and a 94' year Arrows)....several 70's and 80's F1 cars, TransAm > cars, Winston Cup cars......etc. I currently own a race shop next to > Huffaker Racing at Infineon raceway.....and I get out on the track usually > about once a month....testing something for one of the race teams located at > Infineon (Sears Point). > > I say all of this only to point out that my "perspective" of what the > driving view is from the cockpit of a real race car.....is fairly accurate. > > And, that is: > > **Peripheral Vision** > In a GT or closed cockpit race car.....with helmet, side head braces....Hans > device....etc., it is almost zero! Sitting at a dead stop....the peripheral > vision is probably less than 50% of what you have in a street car....without > all that gear on. At race speeds.....your peripheral vision is only 20% of > what you have in a street car. The worst is a Winston Cup car or a TransAm > car......the best is in any open wheel car.....but its still never better > than 50% of what you have in a street car. At race speeds....with engine > vibration and the car shaking from contact with the track surface......only > your straight ahead vision is clear....your peripheral vision is limited to > recognition of colors only.....not object shape or size in much > detail.....at all. With a 21" monitor....our racing sims currently (NR003 > or F1-C or F1-2002) with a driving cam FOV of between 70 and 95 (or > so)....is very accurate to what you get in a real race car! I would > say....its something more like 95% accurate (and you guys are talking like > it's something more like 50% accurate....that is just not correct).

Thanks, that's interesting. However, the point I'm trying to make is that it's not just an issue of field of view. When I drive a sim I try to synthesize the sensation of G Forces from what I see on the display. Nothing I've experienced works well, but the nose cam in F1C serves that purpose better than any other view. As I stated, it's too low and there are no mirrors, so it can't be used by a backmarker like me for online racing.

Quoted text (26 lines)

> **3D Vision** > 3D vision is something you have very little of in a real race car......and > is NOT related to depth perception anyway. And depth perception in a real > race car is extremely limited....almost non existent.....just like in our > sims. I know that does not sound logical to those of you who have never > been in a race car. But, maybe this explanation will help you understand: > > At race speeds, the driving point of focus (depending on how fast you are > going) is anywhere from 20 to 30 feet in front of your car (at very low > speeds) to several hundred yards down track (at very high speeds). The > human eye has very little 3D site....much past about 100 feet! At race > speeds....most of the time your driving focus point is more than a 100 feet > in front of you.....and therefore during that entire time....you see in 2D > only! > This driving speed/driving focus point relationship totally screws with your > depth perception for objects which are nearby you. Primarily that would be > other cars.....since all other objects nearby you are in your field of > vision for only micro-seconds (as you speed by them). The other race > cars.....depending on your speed differential to them......tend to "float" > along near you.....like airplanes flying in formation....in flight. You > can't really remove your focus from the distant "driving focus point" to > focus long enough on a nearby race car to really get much of your depth > perception to return to you......so...they appear in your conscious vision > field..."yes"...but they are more like flat, 2D floating objects.....not 3D, > depth perceptive objects....like most of you imagine them to be.

Yea, I'd assume as much. I've never been interested in the 3D glasses.

Quoted text (38 lines)

> This is why it is so difficult for a real world race car driver to even read > an instrument reading on the dash instruments right in front of them. If > you are lucky and on a track with long straight....you can take the two or > three seconds it takes to refocus your eyes on the dash (from the driving > point down track) to read maybe a tach....or an oil temp.....if the > needles/numbers are large and well contrasted. Its a time verses "time to > focus" issue. This is also why it is so very difficult during a pit stop to > come down from high speeds and hit your mark exactly. The pro drivers we > see on TV every week.....make us think this is easy because you see them > very rarely miss their mark (pit stop marks). Let me tell you.....it takes > a ton of experience and PRACTICE.....to be able to do that > consistently....and the pro drivers we see on TV have it.....and they make > it look easy. Its not easy at all! > > Overall, the visuals....and driver visual cues.....of our current racing > simulator hardware.....is very accurate. Most of the time, you can't see > the road surface directly in front of you....even in open wheel cars! You > can't see other cars around you with very much depth perception > either....and you can easily run into the back of a car in front of > you....who brakes a little earlier than you expected???? Doesn't this > describe our sims.....because I am describing being in a real race > car....not a simulator! > > I hope a few of you may have a better appreciation of your racing simulator > hardware and equipment now. It does a far better job of simulating racing > in a real-world race car than you imagine! > > I do have an alternate driving view cam I designed for my Winston Cup > cockpit simulator I use for driving in NR003 (and a few of the sports car > sims). It is not just an altered driving view cam....but also altered > cockpit graphics and combined, its a rather large file. If somebody wants > to try it....and many on r.a.s. have already used it for some time (I've > been doing this cam for all Papy sims since the N3 days)....email me and I > will send you the zip package. Mind you, you'll have to alter your cockpit > graphics (so if you have special cockpits....these files will screw that > up). > > Take car and much regards,

I feel the absence of G forces telling me how hard I'm working the tires is my greatest problem in sim racing. How do you judge how close you are to the car's limits on turns? What got you interested in sims? Which sims do you drive online most often? Why were you asking about F1-2002? Thanks Tom. I appreciate you taking time to explain this stuff. I hated to snip any of it. Larry

Hi Larry, First of all, "snipping" the post when you have it in your reply.....is just fine. The original post is on display for all to read at the top of the string. In fact, you don't even need to "include the original post" in your reply, unless you intend to interlineate it (as you did). The tri-monitor display set up you refer to doesn't work. At least, it doesn't add anything to your driving experience. Your "intuition" about that.....that it would add to your sim experience, is just not correct. I've experimented with it, and trust me when I say, "If it worked well we would be using it." Because, most of the stuff we build "cost" is not an issue. We've put real-world drivers in a sim with a tri-monitor display.....real-world drivers with sim racing experience and real-drivers without any sim racing experience.....and both groups say basically the same thing, "The three monitors doesn't make the simulation experience any more real than it is with one center monitor." This is primarily because your brain (in a real race car or in a sim) only pays attention to the "driver's focus point"....several hundred feet down track (at full race speed)...directly in front of you. It ignores all the peripheral images flashing by. That is not the case in a flight simulation, where the pilot rarely pays attention to only the straight ahead focus point. You don't fly an airplane the way you race a race car.....they are two totally different "hand-eye coordination" acts.....not related in any way. Your head and eye movement in an airplane is not restricted like it is in a race car, and your "focus of attention" is free to wander about the sky. That isn't the case in a race car where you are barely free to take your eyes off your "focus point" long enough to look at your gauges! G-Force is another issue that is mostly over-rated by non race car driving sim racers. Yes, there is some "back of the seat" feel....that is provided by g-force in a real race car that is missing in a sim. But it is not something that is tough for the brain to deal with when its missing from the simulation experience. What I mean is, it doesn't cause our brains to "discount" the whole experience as unrealistic. Here's why (and this comes primarily from some research that NASA did early on in training the astronauts in simulators): Our brains are very good a creating a simulated environment for us.....when we do tasks in a simulator (fly, race, etc.). Let's say there are 10 elements, or "inputs" of data.....that we receive when racing in a real race car. 10 categories of data/input to our brains, like: Sight (visuals), sound, smell, g-force, vibration, etc. If you put the brain into a simulated environment that does 5 to 7 of those really well (does them well enough to be believable by our brain as real), then the brain helps us out and starts filling in the missing items! However, if we put our brain into a simulator environment that does 5 to 7 things really well, but it does the 8th thing really badly (like g-forces that are not timed properly to the visual event...and I mean the timing has to be dead on perfect....not off by a milli-second because our brains can tell when it is), then the brain will actually discount and discard all the really good things and say...."Nope, this whole experience is not realistic!" This is why we don't use force feedback controllers. They are fun, but the timing is off....in even the best of them. This "timing" is not a function of the FF controller, but more of the sim software that triggers the FF events. I would love to use it.....show me a sim program that does the timing right....and we'll start using them. In the meantime, we use "sound generated vibration" to accomplish something of the same thing. Racing from the nose cam: I think its fun, and sometimes I do it just to have fun with it. But, it is not realistic and while it gives you an illusion of speed.....its not an illusion of speed that you get from racing in a real racing car. It's not even close! In a real race car, the driver has input as to how hard he's working the tires comes from two sensory inputs: 1. Sound.....this represents about 90% of the sensory input he relies on. Our sims do an excellent job of this and if set right, our brains totally believe the tire squeal they hear in our simulators. 2. Smell......this fills in only about 10% of the sensor input necessary to inform the driver of tire abuse. Actually, our sims could easily do smell simulation and there was a unit on the market three years ago that did this very well (for not a whole lot of money). It used these little test tube like canisters, that atomized a micro-amount of scent oil into the air....just briefly. The "demo" that came with the unit was totally cool.....but no game manufactures wrote the code into their games....so you never got to actually use it. If remember (and maybe some others on r.a.s. remember this little device.....you could buy it at CompUSA.....it did smoke, burning rubber, gun powder (can't remember what all). But, it was ahead of its time and the company making those units went out of business. G-force virtually has nothing to do with telling you how hard you are working the tires. Of course, you'll feel the slip angles increase as the tire grip fades.....but you can pick that up visually very easily. As to your last couple of questions.......I don't drive online sims much any more. I wish I could, but I don't have the time to do it, particularly I don't have the time to compete in regular league racing because my work schedule isn't "regular" and I don't have the time to put the practice hours in that a good sim racing league requires. I really miss it though! I'm asking questions about F1-2002 (and soon, about F1-C) because I am needing to make a decision which one of those I'm going to use as the software base (and then modify) for a customer simulator we are currently building and are about to deliver (in about a month). In order to make that decision, I need to get both of those sims up and running with all the "tweaks, bells and whistles".....so I can make an intelligent decision about which one I want to use for our customer simulator software. That's the reason for the questions, I've had neither of those sims installed (though I've owned both of them ever since they were released). Again, this is kind of a "no time for fun sim racing" story....which I'll try not to whine about too much! LOL..... So Larry, I guess what I'm trying to tell you is that the current sim racing software and hardware we have right now, even on a desktop sim rig.....is much more realistic than you are giving it credit to be. Stop looking for some off-the-wall thing that will make it "real".....because frankly, your brain doesn't even know what is real if you've not spent a considerable amount of seat time in a real race car. Here's the cheapest thing you all can do to "double" the emersion factor for your simulators right now. And you can go do this tomorrow for about $10 bucks! Go to a crafts store and buy two sheets of black foam board and a roll of black photographic tape! Cover the face of your monitor with the black photographic tape (its a nice flat black) and then use the rest of it to tape together a screen shroud......and enclosed "box" around your monitor. It should extend out about 18 to 20 inches.....and when you sim race, make sure your head is almost inside the very end of the box. This will block out all visual cues that you are sitting at a computer monitor.....and will actually suck your brain right into the screen! Once your brain is sucked in.......it will be much more believable that you are in a real race car. Try it......bet you $100 you will improve your "personal best lap times" at all your favorite tracks if you'll go spend $10 bucks and build yourself a screen shroud! Want to do something even more "emersion getting" to your brain? Add this to your new "screen shroud" sim rig: Go to a local circle track race shop. Buy yourself a Kirkey aluminum drag racing seat (drag racing seats don't have the wrap around your mid-section extensions like the circle track or road racing seats do....and they are really cheap).....for about $90 bucks....with a seat cover. Stop by your local junk office store and buy a cheap/used office chair. Take the top of the office chair off and throw it away....save the base. Put your new and totally cool Kirkey racing seat on the office chair base.....and bingo.....you have a cool "racing seat" office chair....that doubles as a great sim racing seat! Your brain will like the way it feels.....when you are sim racing (and your friends with think you are really cool......or a little crazy....perhaps a little of both). Ask around here in r.a.s. about who has done this type of thing, or who has built themselves a little "racing rig cockpit and/or maybe a race frame rig".....and what it did for their sim racing experience....how much it increased their "emersion factor" and fun in their sim racing hobby! I bet you won't find anyone who will say it was a waste of time or money! You don't need to spend a ton of money to do some little things that will help your brain to stop thinking its sitting at a computer.....and start thinking its sitting in a race car! Have fun with it, Tom

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:57:04 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote: >First of all, "snipping" the post when you have it in your reply.....is just >fine. The original post is on display for all to read at the top of the >string. In fact, you don't even need to "include the original post" in your >reply, unless you intend to interlineate it (as you did). Go to the back of the class and learn how to post a Usenet message properly before preaching to others. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

"Tom Pabst" wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> The tri-monitor display set up you refer to doesn't work. At least, it > doesn't add anything to your driving experience. Your "intuition" about > that.....that it would add to your sim experience, is just not correct. > I've experimented with it, and trust me when I say, "If it worked well we > would be using it." Because, most of the stuff we build "cost" is not an > issue. We've put real-world drivers in a sim with a tri-monitor > display.....real-world drivers with sim racing experience and real-drivers > without any sim racing experience.....and both groups say basically the

same > thing, "The three monitors doesn't make the simulation experience any more > real than it is with one center monitor." This is primarily because your > brain (in a real race car or in a sim) only pays attention to the"driver's > focus point"....several hundred feet down track (at full race > speed)...directly in front of you. It ignores all the peripheral images > flashing by. With my own experience with tri-monitor setups I would agree that it adds nothing to the driving alone experience. Whilst it may look good to see the track at a hairpin, it adds nothing to the knowledge of the corner once you have reached as it is too late!. The peripheral screens are simply ignored. What it does add is the capability to know where other traffic is - especially at starts. Whether that peripheral vision is unrealistic I am unsure, but drivers certainly do turn their heads and any mechanism for look left/right on a single screen has never worked for me. It certainly does add a lot to side by side racing on road courses - without the two drivers know the other is there but not sure exactly where - often leading to an unrealisticly slow progress (driver 1 runs wide anticipating a pass, driver 2 hangs back waiting for driver 1 to turn in. Maybe it simply makes up for the lack of experience but it certainly would prevent a lot of T1 accidents! Great post btw Tom. I once drove an F2000 and my overriding experience with just a few other cars around the track and having one spinning well over a hundred yards in front of me leaving me to decide which way to go whilst watching another behind me in a small vibrating mirror was how do these guys manage with cars all around them especially at the starts. Cheers Tony

"Tom Pabst" wrote: > G-Force is another issue that is mostly over-rated by non race car driving > sim racers. Yes, there is some "back of the seat" feel....that isprovided > by g-force in a real race car that is missing in a sim. But it is not > something that is tough for the brain to deal with when its missing fromthe > simulation experience. What I mean is, it doesn't cause our brains to > "discount" the whole experience as unrealistic. Here's why (and thiscomes > primarily from some research that NASA did early on in training the > astronauts in simulators): Though we are replacing a physical input with a visual one. I don't believe it is purely simulating physics to provide the missing "feel", but there is a black art to fooling the brain into "feeling" a rear end slide starting before there is a significant visual cue. This can be done without force feedback once the driver's brain has been trained by the visual and audio cues alone. For me the GPL engine has provided the most feel. Others seem somehow dead in comparison. The GPL engine was such a significant step forward thet it felt streets ahead of the competition from lap 1. Perhaps I am now so accustomed to it that different programming doesn't feel right (the black art element) even though the physics may be modelled as well or even better. This isn't through a lack of effort with other sims and a lot of trial and error with EA controller settings! Either another significant step with a sim engine and/or peripherals needs to happen - or a magic controller setting found for my brain to provide the feel I yearn for the EA series and mods. Cheers Tony

Andrew wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:57:04 GMT, "Tom Pabst" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> First of all, "snipping" the post when you have it in your >> reply.....is just fine. The original post is on display for all to >> read at the top of the string. In fact, you don't even need to >> "include the original post" in your reply, unless you intend to >> interlineate it (as you did). > > Go to the back of the class and learn how to post a Usenet message > properly before preaching to others.

Ya, ok teach. Geez.....Get a F-n life. Sean

Firstly, Tom, thanks for those beautiful posts. Tom Pabst :

Quoted text (19 lines)

> However, if we put our brain into > a simulator environment that does 5 to 7 things really well, but it does > the > 8th thing really badly (like g-forces that are not timed properly to the > visual event...and I mean the timing has to be dead on perfect....not off > by > a milli-second because our brains can tell when it is), then the brain > will > actually discount and discard all the really good things and say...."Nope, > this whole experience is not realistic!" > > This is why we don't use force feedback controllers. They are fun, but > the > timing is off....in even the best of them. This "timing" is not a > function > of the FF controller, but more of the sim software that triggers the FF > events. I would love to use it.....show me a sim program that does the > timing right....and we'll start using them. In the meantime, we use > "sound generated vibration" to accomplish something of the same thing.

Yes. From day one I was all for FF. I wanted experience. But, after I read your post, I tried it without FF. And, you know what? I really felt everything much more accurate than with FF. You are apsolutely right. I have better feeling without FF than with it. Visual clues make G-forces much more real than FF. Thanks for that. And you know what else? Now I don't need 3 monitors anymore to correct my experience. Now this one is enough. But, I'll miss some of the effects I had with FF (especially a twitch when you change gear). I had some good times with FF. But, now I have a problem. I don't think my Thrustmaster FF GT is adequate for non-FF driving. With what to replace it? -- Mario

"Mario Petrinovich" wrote: > But, now I have a problem. I don't think my Thrustmaster FF GT is > adequate for non-FF driving. With what to replace it? -- Mario I recently found stocks of new Thrustmaster Formula Pro/Nascar Pro on eBay. Yes a four year old design but a great low cost wheel, shifter & pedal combo for serious use. Of course there are a number of higher end wheels (BRD, TSW) which have not gone down the FF route for the very reasons Tom suggests. Cheers Tony

Tony Rickard :

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Mario Petrinovich : > > But, now I have a problem. I don't think my Thrustmaster FF GT > > is adequate for non-FF driving. With what to replace it? -- Mario > > I recently found stocks of new Thrustmaster Formula Pro/Nascar Pro on > eBay. > Yes a four year old design but a great low cost wheel, shifter & pedal > combo for serious use. > > Of course there are a number of higher end wheels (BRD, TSW) which have > not gone down the FF route for the very reasons Tom suggests. Tony

Thanks Tony, very much. Unfortunately I am not living in US. I am from Croatia. You know, Balkan. I'll take a Thrustmaster wheel, I have a good experience with TM. But cannot decide which one right now, because it looks like TM site is down today. Higher end wheels are out of the question. I could afford one, but adding shipping cost is too much for me. Even if I could possibly stretch enough to add shipping cost, I still have to bring it into my country. And my country didn't change much, back from the days of Dracula. You know, at the entrance we have a huge fat man, with even huger axe. And he demands that for every wheel I am bringing into country, I also must bring one for a local pharaon's son. Which maybe also wouldn't be too much, except that that son isn't used to a simulation wheels, but to real ones. And he just don't like the one he got with a brand new Rolls-Royce he has, so he wants another one. IOW, it wouldn't be like 20 % or so taxes, but I-am-even-afraid-to-think-how-much %. Sorry for this, : ), but I just like so much to explain civilized people in what conditions I am living, so that they don't possibly allow something like this in their own countries. -- Mario

Andrew, I was not trying to "preach" but was trying to help out since it didn't seem to me that he understood that it wasn't "required" to include the original text in a reply post. Something tells me that there's something about my posts you think is inappropriate and since this is a brand new installation of WinXP on a new computer, I very well could have something set wrong on my newsgroup program (Outlook Express....which I only use for newsgroups.....not a lot of memory with how to set it and use it). Please help me out, if you can.....what's wrong with my posts? I will fix it immediately. Thanks, Tom

Mario, The FF effects you speak of (gear twitching when you shift) are not really FF cues, but audible cues that you have just become accustomed to receiving via "feel cues" because you race with a FF wheel. But, I hear you completely.....once you have those cues.....in any form, you miss them when they are gone. I may add another important one (to the shifting gear cue) and that is when you run over a curb....particularly the FIA type rumble-strip curbs. Though we don't use FF in our sims because of reasons I've posted already, we do use engine/sound vibration actuators which replace those "shifting and curb" cues with a vibration "twitch" - very easily felt through the steering wheel (steering train), particularly when running over rumble strip curbing. There's various ways to do this we've found, but unfortunately - they are all expensive. Currently, we use a device called an actuator (they have other names). Essentially they are like a big speaker magnet....without the sound cone. On my WC cockpit, I have two of them (you need to have them connected to a totally separate amplifier from your primary sound amps) mounted at the back of the Kirkey racing seat (just above belt level at the small of your back) and another that is steel-strapped to the steering column. The vibration is so accurate, you don't have to look at the tach for rev-limit shifting and this picks up every shift (I enhanced the "clunk" shift sound in NR003 to help out this "clank" vibration when shifting) and vibrates the hell out of the steering wheel when banging the curbs (which is a no no, in a real race car....except for F1). We feed this vibration system with the "rear center channel" of a Dolby 6.1 sound system......that channel has about 90% of the full sound wave (using the sub-woofer channel just does not work).....works very well. The problem: The total costs is around $2000 for the equipment......not very cost effective for the average sim racer. On the question of what wheel to use: I don't use "plastic game" wheels any more.....and I'm not putting anyone down who does because I totally understand that you all would use real-life, metal, fabricated from real racing components.....if you could afford them. I can.....I make them.....so I do. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate all the years I raced with my Thrustmaster plastic wheel (and still had a blast doing it). But, if I had to go buy one "game-store" racing wheel right now and that was all I could use, then I would by a Thrustmaster Pro (Digital) 2 racing wheel. I used one for many years.....from their very first design. They are the best all around controller on the market for the price.....with paddles for running F1 or other open wheel sims.....and sequential shifter for GT, sports car and NASCAR sim racing. You can't beat it......not at any price for "game level" racing controls. I even think it is as good as BRD's controls and I have several of those sets as well as Thrustmasters Digital Pro 2 wheels. By the way, on the TM Dig Pro-2.....stick a piece of hard rubber (about a half inch thick) under the brake pedal.....tape it in place if it won't stay....and you'll improve the "feel" of your brake pedal about 2000%. Easy, cheap trick....it really works nice on a TM Dig Pro-2 controller (not so well on BRD's or MS FF or AL's controls). Hope this info helps you to improve your "emersion experience" sim racing? Regards, tom

"Mario Petrinovich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bss6qq$hgi$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Tony Rickard : > > Mario Petrinovich : > > > But, now I have a problem. I don't think my Thrustmaster FF GT > > > is adequate for non-FF driving. With what to replace it? -- Mario > > > > I recently found stocks of new Thrustmaster Formula Pro/Nascar Pro on > > eBay. > > Yes a four year old design but a great low cost wheel, shifter & pedal > > combo for serious use. > > > > Of course there are a number of higher end wheels (BRD, TSW) which have > > not gone down the FF route for the very reasons Tom suggests. Tony > > Thanks Tony, very much. > Unfortunately I am not living in US. I am from Croatia. You know, > Balkan. I'll take a Thrustmaster wheel, I have a good experience with TM. > But cannot decide which one right now, because it looks like TM site is

down

Quoted text (7 lines)

> today. > Higher end wheels are out of the question. I could afford one, but > adding shipping cost is too much for me. Even if I could possibly stretch > enough to add shipping cost, I still have to bring it into my country. And > my country didn't change much, back from the days of Dracula. You know, at > the entrance we have a huge fat man, with even huger axe. And he demands > that for every wheel I am bringing into country, I also must bring one for

a > local pharaon's son. Which maybe also wouldn't be too much, except thatthat > son isn't used to a simulation wheels, but to real ones. And he just don't > like the one he got with a brand new Rolls-Royce he has, so he wantsanother

Quoted text (7 lines)

> one. IOW, it wouldn't be like 20 % or so taxes, but > I-am-even-afraid-to-think-how-much %. > Sorry for this, : ), but I just like so much to explain civilized > people in what conditions I am living, so that they don't possibly allow > something like this in their own countries. -- Mario > >

Well i go away for a bit and this is what has happened... lol, So does anyone have a set of these 3d gig`s that you where.. do they work...?

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:45:37 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I was not trying to "preach" but was trying to help out since it didn't seem >to me that he understood that it wasn't "required" to include the original >text in a reply post. It *is* required so the reader who has not necessarily read the previous post has some sense of what you are replying to. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Tom Pabst :

Quoted text (20 lines)

> But, if I had to go buy one "game-store" racing wheel right now and that > was > all I could use, then I would by a Thrustmaster Pro (Digital) 2 racing > wheel. I used one for many years.....from their very first design. They > are the best all around controller on the market for the price.....with > paddles for running F1 or other open wheel sims.....and sequential shifter > for GT, sports car and NASCAR sim racing. You can't beat it......not at > any > price for "game level" racing controls. I even think it is as good as > BRD's > controls and I have several of those sets as well as Thrustmasters Digital > Pro 2 wheels. By the way, on the TM Dig Pro-2.....stick a piece of hard > rubber (about a half inch thick) under the brake pedal.....tape it in > place > if it won't stay....and you'll improve the "feel" of your brake pedal > about > 2000%. Easy, cheap trick....it really works nice on a TM Dig Pro-2 > controller (not so well on BRD's or MS FF or AL's controls). > > Hope this info helps you to improve your "emersion experience" sim racing?

Thanks. I wasn't strolling computer shops for a long time, but I hope I'll find it. We have a limited choice over here (in Croatia). I don't remember that I saw that particular wheel for some time. I remember I used to see MS non-FF, and the other TM a lot. But they are cheap now. I'll buy what I find, and can easily replace it for Dig Pro later, if I don't find it in first try. Yes, it looks like this is the wheel to have. Everybody have good words for it. BTW, I dismantled my Thrustmaster FF GT, and will not use it again, so I cannot recheck, but believe me, when I shift gears it IS FF, : ). -- Mario

Paulinho : > So does anyone have a set of these 3d gig`s that you where.. do they > work...? I believe some rephrasing would be neceseary here, if you expect some answer from me (if this is meant for me to answer?). -- Mario

Thanks again Tom: I have another obstacle. I have a 21 inch monitor, but it's on a coffee table and I work, and drive, on a couch. I'd guess it's about 5 feet from my face. So my 21" monitor is smaller than it seems. What are you currently using for a display, and how far is it from the drivers eyes? > The tri-monitor display set up you refer to doesn't work. At least, it > doesn't add anything to your driving experience. Your "intuition" about > that.....that it would add to your sim experience, is just not correct. It's been several years since I tried a tri-monitor setup. But I found it added to my emersion. Looking back, I think it was most effective for the flight games. But I did get something from having roadside objects pass by in my peripheral vision. This might be personal taste. I can feel like I'm in motion watching nose cam shots, from cars, planes or space ships, if I'm centered in a movie theater. Not front row, but a couple of rows forward of "center-center" is close enough to feed my peripheral vision while I'm watching the middle of the screen. So I was thinking this would translate to sims.

Quoted text (23 lines)

> G-Force is another issue that is mostly over-rated by non race car driving > sim racers. Yes, there is some "back of the seat" feel....that is provided > by g-force in a real race car that is missing in a sim. But it is not > something that is tough for the brain to deal with when its missing from the > simulation experience. What I mean is, it doesn't cause our brains to > "discount" the whole experience as unrealistic. Here's why (and this comes > primarily from some research that NASA did early on in training the > astronauts in simulators): > > Our brains are very good a creating a simulated environment for us.....when > we do tasks in a simulator (fly, race, etc.). Let's say there are 10 > elements, or "inputs" of data.....that we receive when racing in a real race > car. 10 categories of data/input to our brains, like: Sight (visuals), > sound, smell, g-force, vibration, etc. If you put the brain into a > simulated environment that does 5 to 7 of those really well (does them well > enough to be believable by our brain as real), then the brain helps us out > and starts filling in the missing items! However, if we put our brain into > a simulator environment that does 5 to 7 things really well, but it does the > 8th thing really badly (like g-forces that are not timed properly to the > visual event...and I mean the timing has to be dead on perfect....not off by > a milli-second because our brains can tell when it is), then the brain will > actually discount and discard all the really good things and say...."Nope, > this whole experience is not realistic!"

This is my point about the transparent cockpit. More screen real estate dedicated to delivering these queues. I don't think I get much from the majority of the screen displaying the car's dash and the rest of the interior.

Quoted text (18 lines)

> This is why we don't use force feedback controllers. They are fun, but the > timing is off....in even the best of them. This "timing" is not a function > of the FF controller, but more of the sim software that triggers the FF > events. I would love to use it.....show me a sim program that does the > timing right....and we'll start using them. In the meantime, we use "sound > generated vibration" to accomplish something of the same thing. > > Racing from the nose cam: I think its fun, and sometimes I do it just to > have fun with it. But, it is not realistic and while it gives you an > illusion of speed.....its not an illusion of speed that you get from racing > in a real racing car. It's not even close! > > In a real race car, the driver has input as to how hard he's working the > tires comes from two sensory inputs: > > 1. Sound.....this represents about 90% of the sensory input he relies on. > Our sims do an excellent job of this and if set right, our brains totally > believe the tire squeal they hear in our simulators.

I've found F1C a little deficient on tire squeal feedback. Someone recommended importing tire sounds from another sim, I'll check this out. > G-force virtually has nothing to do with telling you how hard you are > working the tires. Of course, you'll feel the slip angles increase as the > tire grip fades.....but you can pick that up visually very easily. I find this surprising . You have obviously studied this and I don't doubt what you are saying. But it goes against what I thought I knew. > As to your last couple of questions.......I don't drive online sims much any > more. I wish I could, but I don't have the time to do it, particularly I > don't have the time to compete in regular league racing because my work > schedule isn't "regular" and I don't have the time to put the practice hours > in that a good sim racing league requires. I really miss it though! F1C has a very nice facility, using gamespy, for 24 hour drop in racing. The community is friendly with good advice and conversation between races. I think F1RST offerers something similar, but I've only used it for scheduled RASF1 races. Every one here hates NFS, but I was introduced to online racing with NFS/Porsche Unleashed. EA had servers online that also facilitated 24x7 drop in racing. Those servers are now down.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I'm asking questions about F1-2002 (and soon, about F1-C) because I am > needing to make a decision which one of those I'm going to use as the > software base (and then modify) for a customer simulator we are currently > building and are about to deliver (in about a month). In order to make that > decision, I need to get both of those sims up and running with all the > "tweaks, bells and whistles".....so I can make an intelligent decision about > which one I want to use for our customer simulator software. That's the > reason for the questions, I've had neither of those sims installed (though > I've owned both of them ever since they were released). Again, this is kind > of a "no time for fun sim racing" story....which I'll try not to whine about > too much! LOL.....

You're going to have a tough time getting much sympathy from us. : ) Who's using these simulators you're building? What are they using them for? When ECCI left the consumer market several years ago they didn't stop making wheels. I was wondering who they were selling to. > So Larry, I guess what I'm trying to tell you is that the current sim racing > software and hardware we have right now, even on a desktop sim rig.....is > much more realistic than you are giving it credit to be. Stop looking for > some off-the-wall thing that will make it "real".....because frankly, your > brain doesn't even know what is real if you've not spent a considerable > amount of seat time in a real race car. You are absolutely right. I don't have a clue what a real Formula 1 race car handles like. I can't do a lap on GPL without asking myself "Why did the car do THAT?" What I'm looking for is emersion, to the point where I feel familiar with the simulated vehicle, and can push it to it's limits. Something I've never been able to do.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Ask around here in r.a.s. about who has done this type of thing, or who has > built themselves a little "racing rig cockpit and/or maybe a race frame > rig".....and what it did for their sim racing experience....how much it > increased their "emersion factor" and fun in their sim racing hobby! I bet > you won't find anyone who will say it was a waste of time or money! > > You don't need to spend a ton of money to do some little things that will > help your brain to stop thinking its sitting at a computer.....and start > thinking its sitting in a race car! > > Have fun with it,

Again, I appreciate you taking this time to inform us. Thanks Larry

In article <0TbIb.1587$[email hidden]>, "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> writes: >Though we are replacing a physical input with a visual one. I don't believe >it is purely simulating physics to provide the missing "feel", but there is >a black art to fooling the brain into "feeling" a rear end slide starting >before there is a significant visual cue. This can be done without force >feedback once the driver's brain has been trained by the visual and audio >cues alone. How is that 'training' accomplished? I've had GPL for about 4 years, and I'm still never sure exactly what the car is going to do. Very often I'm sideways before I'm even aware that I've lost traction. For whatever reason, I'm not picking up on the visual(and/or aural) cues that the faster guys have internalized. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <fe3Ib.231694$_M.1017689@attbi_s54>, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> writes: >I hope a few of you may have a better appreciation of your racing simulator >hardware and equipment now. It does a far better job of simulating racing >in a real-world race car than you imagine! > Interesting and informative post. Thanks for sharing. My only experience in driving a 'race' car is at the Skip Barber school. I can attest to limited vision, and mirrors that are made almost useless by the vibration of the car. But my experience was limited to just lapping, with little passing, and NO 'racing'. I'd like to try one of the 'arrive-and-drive' series, but funds simply won't let me live out my dream. Oh well...maybe in the next life. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"EldredP" wrote: > >Though we are replacing a physical input with a visual one. I don'tbelieve > >it is purely simulating physics to provide the missing "feel", but thereis > >a black art to fooling the brain into "feeling" a rear end slide starting > >before there is a significant visual cue. This can be done without force > >feedback once the driver's brain has been trained by the visual and audio > >cues alone. > > How is that 'training' accomplished? I've had GPL for about 4 years, andI'm > still never sure exactly what the car is going to do. Very often I'msideways > before I'm even aware that I've lost traction. For whatever reason, I'mnot > picking up on the visual(and/or aural) cues that the faster guys have > internalized. That is the "black art", Eldred. What works for some doesn't for others. There are plenty of respected RAS members who find the EA series provides plenty of feel for them yet the Papy sims work best for me. After god knows how many laps of GPL for 4 years I suddenly found approx a second per minute at each track. I drove FD/F2 for a year before returning to F1 and finding an instant increase in F1 speed having been pretty crap at F2! Cheers Tony

I guess I'd have to disagree with you on that one. No biggy, though. Tom

Hi Larry.... I'll try to answer your questions, but I'm a little pressed for time tonight....so don't take maybe a short answer or two as my not being interested in your questions.....they are all pretty good ones. "I have another obstacle. I have a 21 inch monitor, but it's on a coffee table and I work, and drive, on a couch. I'd guess it's about 5 feet from my face. So my 21" monitor is smaller than it seems. What are you currently using for a display, and how far is it from the drivers eyes?" I have to tell you the couch and coffee table monitor is not good. But, you have to live with what you have to live with......so that's all I'll say about that. The monitor I use for personal racing (NASCAR or sports car) is a 21" and in my cockpit it is exactly 18" from my nose. That is something a tad on the personal side, but that distance, the screen res I use and the driving FOV I use pretty much gives me a duplicate field of vision to what I have in either a GTA car (a type of stock car similar to a Winston Cup car) or in something like a TransAm car. In fact, just today I sat in Huffaker's Jaguar TransAm car, talking with him about the driving view, and how restricted it is in such a big car (the driver sits way toward the rear of the car with this huge "boat" like bow that is the hood.....and you can barely see over it. I would guess the first instance where you can see the ground/track in front of you is a good 30 or 40 feet ahead of the car's nose...maybe more, I didn't measure it but maybe I will go do that tomorrow). I don't use a cockpit for open wheel racing (at home), I just sort of use a "make-do" setup at the office desk where I do my business and the track graphics work. I do have a racing seat which I pull up to the desk, its laid back so my body is in the position of almost laying down on my back (like in an F1 car, or most open wheel cars). The steering wheel (with paddles) is almost full-extension arms length away, but I have the monitor on a sliding bracket (easy to do, just go buy a rack-mount drawer slides at most computer surplus stores, they are only about $20 bucks). This allows me to slide the monitor towards me and the position I use is where the monitor almost scrapes my knuckles on the steering wheel (the monitor could extend closer to me...over the top of the wheel if I wanted to do that). Since you asked me this question, I just got the seat out and got into the seating position I use.....slid the monitor into position and then measure the distance from the screen (21") to my nose.....and it was 18.5 inches! I was surprised....that's within a half inch of where I have the monitor in my more upright driving position (cockpit) for NASCAR racing. The other thing I do in both sim setups.....is use the "move screen" function on the monitor to adjust the FOV "driving point" (that point down the track where you concentrate your focus at all times....especially in road racing). I make sure that point is slightly lower than perfectly level....to my eyes. If it is higher than "level" to my eyes, it creates eye fatigue and my brain doesn't think its realistic....so I lose a substantial amount of emersion effect. But as I said, this is all something of a personal taste and since I spent....and spend a fair amount of time in real race cars, I try to make it as close as possible to the real visual geometry as I can.....so brain accepts that its in a race car and not sitting at a computer screen. Truthfully, the whole discussion of driving view and driving position is relative to only two things. 1) If your desire is to reproduce something close to what real driver's experience, then you must reproduce something close to the same visual geometry they experience. 2) Short of that, you should choose a visual geometry that works for you, is comfortable and that immerses you in your sim racing to best extent possible.........that is totally personal and up to you and your own enjoyment....IMHO. "I've found F1C a little deficient on tire squeal feedback. Someone recommended importing tire sounds from another sim, I'll check this out." That is one of the first things I did a few days ago when I was installing F1-2002 and tweaking it for my taste (cars, car sets, tracks, controller settings, etc.). Since I do sound editing for engine sounds and "fx" sounds, I just modified the existing tire squeal.......which EA may have correct (never sat in a current year F1 car and listened to the tire squeal......but it would surprise me if it is as "flat" as EA's sound). This was a huge improvement I think, in the emersion factor for F1-2002....at least for me (I had to make major changes to the driving FOV as well). There's plenty of tire squeals around you can try.......go get a few and see which ones work for you. "I find this surprising . You have obviously studied this and I don't doubt what you are saying. But it goes against what I thought I knew." That's kind of the point I have been trying to make a couple of times here. Some things are the way they are....in a real race car but they surprise you when you first experience them.....because they don't at first seem logical. Therefore, if you sim race, but have never raced in a real race car, then you are kind of chasing your tail aren't you.....trying to make assumptions about what should be "real!" Some assumptions you make will be correct.....and many will not be correct. "Who's using these simulators you're building? What are they using them for? When ECCI left the consumer market several years ago they didn't stop making wheels. I was wondering who they were selling to." I can't tell you who.....by name, that's information protected by an NDA with the customer. I will tell you the customer is a real-life race team, the sim is being used (will be used...for the one we are building at the moment) to improve the team driver's "race craft" experience and this is being done in conjunction with a "racing coach" that gives instruction "in person" and over an Internet connection while racing with the driver online (private race). The "race coach" is employed by me, I also did most of his training over the last two years (in sim racing). He is an accomplished driver himself (has won a couple of ALMS races in the last 24 months). We also have four sim racing "demo" units in the upstairs mezzanine portion of our race shop. Two are open wheel sims, one is setup for stockcar sim racing and the other is setup right now to simulate a Porsche GTSR racing/testing. Local driver's based at Infineon rent seat time from me in these simulators, and two "race teams" based at Infineon use them to do driver evaluations (before putting prospective drivers into the seat of their very expensive, real race cars). Most of what ECCI is doing now is making "bullet-proof" racing sim controls for "arcade" machine type demos and displays.....all non-pro racing stuff. You can not destroy an ECCI controller and they are smooth. But, they are way too bulky....and not very realistic in feel. We custom fabricate all of our controllers, using as often as possible the real racing pedals, wheel, etc.....from whatever racing car our simulation is trying to reproduce/replicate. We just completed a set of pedals for the current sim we are building to be delivered to this race team. This is not something anyone in the sim racing community would be interested in......believe me. These pedals are going to cost the race team (as part of the sim they are buying) about $5,500 (and I'm not making much money on them.....that's dang near my cost to fabricate them). The over-all price of the sim will be close to $100K when completed. Hope this answers most of your questions? Regards, Tom

In article <FzqIb.700757$Tr4.1755339@attbi_s03>, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> writes: >I guess I'd have to disagree with you on that one. No biggy, though. > Disagree with who? Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Eldred... Which Skip Barber school? What track? You are way ahead of most people....never get into the cockpit of a real race car. And trust me, you don't want to try passing or "racing" until you had a few hundred more hours in that race car....or any race car! TP

In article <unrIb.700955$Tr4.1756948@attbi_s03>, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Eldred... > >Which Skip Barber school? What track? > >You are way ahead of most people....never get into the cockpit of a real >race car. And trust me, you don't want to try passing or "racing" until you >had a few hundred more hours in that race car....or any race car!

3-day racing school at Laguna Seca in June, 2000. I put 'race' car in quotes because I realize it's nowhere near a real race car. But, I still learned a few things (or at least gained some insight) by being on the track that I wouldn't have known otherwise. I couldn't *afford* a few hundred hours in a race car before I tried a real race. Yeah, I know I'd have to go through a couple of 'advanced activities' before I could enter a Barber Dodge race. But I'm sure that's nowhere NEAR a hundred hours of track time. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Andrew >>I was not trying to "preach" but was trying to help out since it didn't seem >>to me that he understood that it wasn't "required" to include the original >>text in a reply post. > > It *is* required so the reader who has not necessarily read the > previous post has some sense of what you are replying to. As long as some of Tom's posts are, snipping is almost a requirement. The whole post is really really irrelavent.(sp?) A quick snip with the focus of the reply is all that is needed. Sometimes when I'm whipping out a ton of messages, I'll leave the whole thing.,,and I use dots a-lot too... :) But a long message followed by a short reply is also inconvienant. AND, if I may point out, I don't recall there being a sherrif around to force me to post in any paticular way. If my point is understood by some or all of the readers, then format be damned. As long as the original post is available in a thread, then quoting, especially quoting large chunks of a post is redundant. One might also say that jumping into a thread mid-stream WITHOUT reading the first posts is also rude...but then, I am also guilty of that offense as well. Tom just spent a goodly amount of time sharing some real world/sim world experience and all we can do is piss and moan about the structure of a reply? You might as well google back through all my posts and begin critiqueing them. Of course such a task will take you till next year. :) dave henrie

Dave.....you are so funny! But...also almost always right. TP

It was a figure of speech.....probably not appropriately used. The SB cars are just as much race cars as any other. And, if you had been "released" to hot lap, you'd have found them to be pretty fast. The class you took had them de-throttled a lot....they don't tell you that. If you are ever up for another racing school, take the Russell School at Infineon.....its a light-year's better racing experience for the buck. TP

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:33:09 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> continued to show his Usenet incompetance by uttering to himself: >I guess I'd have to disagree with you on that one. No biggy, though. >In a thread containing dozens of posts, what and who are you disagreeing with? -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:33:09 GMT, "Tom Pabst" incompetance by uttering to himself: In a thread containing dozens of posts, what and who are you disagreeing with? -- Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

In article <[email hidden]>, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> writes: > As long as the original post is available in a thread, then quoting, > especially quoting large chunks of a post is redundant. But, some newsreaders don't keep previous posts. Other people delete posts as soon as they're read to save space. So it you give a one-sentence reply to something posted 2 days ago, but don't quote anything, chances are that many people won't know what the hell you're talking about. Some news servers also occasionally post a reply before they post the original question. That makes quoting helpful as well... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> writes: > >> As long as the original post is available in a thread, then >> quoting, especially quoting large chunks of a post is redundant. > > But, some newsreaders don't keep previous posts. Other people delete > posts as soon as they're read to save space. So it you give a > one-sentence reply to something posted 2 days ago, but don't quote > anything, chances are that many people won't know what the hell > you're talking about. > Some news servers also occasionally post a reply before they post the > original question. That makes quoting helpful as well... > > Eldred

Happy New Year all! Now as far as this snipping/top posting/middle of the thread thing goes. I am all for courtesy and practice it often myself. Trying to be sure all the little lemmings properly post in a group is just a *little* bit anal in my opinion, something to be saved for the constant abuser that just never makes any sense to anyone. really all this *correctness* in posting came about in the world of 14.4k dial ups, 8mb RAM, and small or non-existant HD's. If someone wants to delete posts in a thread they are following or does not filter by date/time, well, I guess they know what they are doing but I feel no obligation to make sure my posts fit into their proper structure. Really, I use OE for NG's only and it gets very bloated. Every once in a while I will purge the program as it is very easy to do and curse over partial threads for a couple of weeks then all is right with the world. Just my thoughts on the matter....... Still thinking about wieghing in on the threads actual subject matter, very interesting stuff here. Sean

It would be the one that is (1) string-level up from my post, as this is a response to yours. TP

I couldn't agree with you more, Sean. Some people act like those of us with normal (modern) computers are supposed to handicap ourselves by making sure the "P1-200 community" doesn't have to actually do any extra work so they can still participate in the Internet. Foolish......IMHO. I think its a pain in the ass to have to scroll through the top-level string text....again and again and again, just to read replies. So, I choose to "not include original text" in replies. And, that makes me the bad guy? LOL..... Take care, Tom

Tom Pabst :

Quoted text (12 lines)

> I couldn't agree with you more, Sean. Some people act like those of us > with > normal (modern) computers are supposed to handicap ourselves by making > sure > the "P1-200 community" doesn't have to actually do any extra work so they > can still participate in the Internet. Foolish......IMHO. > > I think its a pain in the ass to have to scroll through the top-level > string > text....again and again and again, just to read replies. So, I choose to > "not include original text" in replies. And, that makes me the bad guy? > LOL..... Tom

Tom, you know that I appreciate your posts very much. So, I don't care how they are posted, if I don't know on what you are refering, I'll do an effort and find out. But, I noticed that you possibly are not aware of where the problem is. Most people don't use newsreader the way you are using it. For example, I am setting my newsreader to not show me read messages. IOW, once I've read top post I'll never see it again in my newsreader. So, I simply cannot find out on what you are refering, without some hustle. This is why most of the people are putting the part of original post, on which they are refering, included in their answer. A lot of people are following more newsgroups, and they simply cannot remember anymore what was top post about, and they have set their newsreader in the way I explained so that they see only unread messages. It is much easier to follow newsgroups that way. Once again, I don't care how you post, do whatever you like. But, if you ask yourself why somebody is making big problem of this, this is the answer. Take care Mario

In article <VA_Ib.722363$Fm2.622217@attbi_s04>, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> writes: >It would be the one that is (1) string-level up from my post, as this is a >response to yours. My newsreader doesn't list messages like that, so I still don't know who or what you were responding to... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <RF_Ib.708720$HS4.5052957@attbi_s01>, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>I couldn't agree with you more, Sean. Some people act like those of us with >normal (modern) computers are supposed to handicap ourselves by making sure >the "P1-200 community" doesn't have to actually do any extra work so they >can still participate in the Internet. Foolish......IMHO. > >I think its a pain in the ass to have to scroll through the top-level string >text....again and again and again, just to read replies. So, I choose to >"not include original text" in replies. And, that makes me the bad guy? >LOL.....

I never said you were the bad guy. I only explained why some people would prefer that you at least give some semblance of what you're replying to. But some people seem to take an 'elitist' attitude about it, and make snide comments. I don't think that's called for. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On 01 Jan 2004 21:04:23 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >I never said you were the bad guy. I only explained why some people would >prefer that you at least give some semblance of what you're replying to. But >some people seem to take an 'elitist' attitude about it, and make snide >comments. I don't think that's called for. I think he deserves all he gets. He was the one who started preaching about posting style when he hasn't got a clue himself. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

In article <[email hidden]>, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> writes: >I think he deserves all he gets. He was the one who started preaching >about posting style when he hasn't got a clue himself. I was talking about his and Sean's comments towards those of us on the other side. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Eldred, Configure your newsreader properly, then! LOL..... I'm pretty sure its in the "options" tab under "tools"....at least it is for Outlook Express. Not sure what you are using, though. TP

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 07:40:15 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Configure your newsreader properly, then! LOL..... I'm pretty sure its in >the "options" tab under "tools"....at least it is for Outlook Express. Not >sure what you are using, though. >Some of us understand Usenet and know how crap OE is. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Thanks Mario, for the explanation. I wasn't aware that others were doing that. I'm not sure why, and as far as my experience in Usenet and newsgroups (going back to the late 80's), its unusual. "Read" messages are unbolded, "unread" messages are bolded. As soon as you read one, it turns unbolded. The string stays intact, and its very easy to see what you've read and what you've not read. And, if you need to refresh your memory, you have all the messages in the string (that you've read) still there. It's even easy to tell if a "string" has new posts, the header string post will be bolded when new replies are present (not bolded when no new replies are present). Not sure why you'd want to be deleting all read messages? Can't be a hard drive space problem (compact in the background any message over 60 days).....hard drives are dirt cheap these days (60 gigs for about $80 bucks......buy a dozen of them....LOL). This is all kind of silly.....but my eyes were open to alternate settings for newsgroups....didn't even imagine that people did it this way, though. Regards, Tom

I know you weren't calling me the "bad guy." I was just fooling.....I really don't sweat this at all, was just teasing you a little bit. I here you about the "elitist" attitude.....been accused of that myself a few million times in here. Thanks for the explanation, you were right....I didn't have a clue. Regards, Tom

Andrew, I don't think I was "preaching." All I originally said to Larry was not to sweat "snipping" my post from his reply. How is that preaching? On the other hand, your remarks (all of them in this string) are quite acid in tone.....and add nothing to the conversation including that they are totally irrelevant to the string topic. And, by the looks of your auto-signature......you are another one of those Usenet "nazis" we used to throw out of our newsgroups....back in the old days when we could do that sort of thing quite easily. If your presence in this string is typical of your posts, you've probably been thrown out of a few newsgroups yourself, huh? Enjoy your day, Andrew....and try to get a life somewhere off your computer.....it would do you wonder. Regards, Tom

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 08:02:38 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I don't think I was "preaching." All I originally said to Larry was not to >sweat "snipping" my post from his reply. How is that preaching? On the >other hand, your remarks (all of them in this string) are quite acid in >tone.....and add nothing to the conversation including that they are totally >irrelevant to the string topic. I wish you would stop demonstrating your Usenet ignorance by talking about string. >And, by the looks of your auto-signature......you are another one of those >Usenet "nazis" we used to throw out of our newsgroups....back in the old >days when we could do that sort of thing quite easily. If your presence in >this string is typical of your posts, you've probably been thrown out of a >few newsgroups yourself, huh? And how exactly does someone get thrown out of a newsgroup? >Enjoy your day, Andrew....and try to get a life somewhere off your >computer.....it would do you wonder. I, and others in the thread, are just trying to explain to you why you need to quote the text you are replying to. You refuse to take the hint and continue to post moronic messages that have no context. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

"Andrew" wrote... > > <snip> > Some of us understand Usenet and know how crap OE is. Maybe, but I still prefer it over Agent for non-binary groups. Jan. =---

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 09:40:59 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Maybe, but I still prefer it over Agent for non-binary groups. Huh? Agent's main weakness (although it is still miles better than OE) is with binaries. It is predominently designed and used for text groups. Agent's main problem is that the default settings it installs with are terrible, and gives people a bad first impression of it. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

"Andrew" wrote... > > <snip> > Huh? Agent's main weakness (although it is still miles > better than OE) is with binaries. Strange how people can perceive the same program differently. Select a range of messages and Free Agent automatically combines, decodes and saves any attachments into a directory I selected when configuring the group. That's pretty darn easy/usefull in my book. I don't really see how that can be improved upon, certainly seeing as I only need this ability once or twice per year. > It is predominently designed and used for text groups. > Agent's main problem is that the default settings it > installs with are terrible, and gives people a bad > first impression of it. You're right there... Jan. =---

Andrew wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 07:40:15 GMT, "Tom Pabst" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Configure your newsreader properly, then! LOL..... I'm pretty sure >> its in the "options" tab under "tools"....at least it is for Outlook >> Express. Not sure what you are using, though. >> > Some of us understand Usenet and know how crap OE is.

That is where your whole attitude bothers me. OE is not crap, in fact it is one of the best news readers out there! Of course that is my opinion and I am allowed to have it. I hope you understand my point. Sean

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, Andrew > <spamtrap@localhost> writes: > >> I think he deserves all he gets. He was the one who started preaching >> about posting style when he hasn't got a clue himself. > > I was talking about his and Sean's comments towards those of us on > the other side. > > Eldred

Eldred, I hope you do not think I was making any snide remarks towards you. My point was to allow folks to post the way they are comfortable. As this thread has gone on I think Tom may want to consider at least indicating who the poster is he is replying to. My settings allow me to follow that quite easily but there is that courtesy to consider others. I also think that Andrew could stand to be a little less confrontational and may find he is given more of the credit I am sure he deserves. So as to be on topic with this: What the hell was the topic?? oh, yeah, driving views! hehe :-) I drive from the cockpit without the steering wheel. It looks funny but have gotten to the point I don't even notice the steering post sticking out there. I like Tom cockpit though I have not dl'd it yet. I also like the FF feature of my wheel, I do not know about accuracy of feel but I have played with the settings and time/practice now have my using the same style I use on the highway. I hold pressure against the forces on the wheel and that allows me to make small adjustments by the (percieved) movements of the car. I am learning to interpret the movements I see in the sim with the movements I feel with my butt in the real car. Of course these are normal cars on normal highways but driving is driving. Perhaps one day I will sit in a real race car but until that happens I will not know what I am missing. It was very hard to get used to cockpit view and ff steering but just like anything else, I got used to it and now it seems to be the only way to go. using the rearview mirror and sounds I am able to *know* where the other cars are around me and drive accordingly. My vote: Cockpit and FF Of course, I am not a great driver either :) Sean

Tom Pabst :

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Thanks Mario, for the explanation. I wasn't aware that others were doing > that. I'm not sure why, and as far as my experience in Usenet and > newsgroups (going back to the late 80's), its unusual. "Read" messages > are > unbolded, "unread" messages are bolded. As soon as you read one, it turns > unbolded. The string stays intact, and its very easy to see what you've > read and what you've not read. And, if you need to refresh your memory, > you > have all the messages in the string (that you've read) still there. It's > even easy to tell if a "string" has new posts, the header string post will > be bolded when new replies are present (not bolded when no new replies are > present). Not sure why you'd want to be deleting all read messages? > Can't > be a hard drive space problem (compact in the background any message over > 60 > days).....hard drives are dirt cheap these days (60 gigs for about $80 > bucks......buy a dozen of them....LOL). > > This is all kind of silly.....but my eyes were open to alternate settings > for newsgroups....didn't even imagine that people did it this way, though.

: ) Drivers are cheap these days (I have 80 Gb). It is that it is easier when I don't have to scroll through message headers. And it isn't always easy to connect the links between them. And I would need to open both of them (original and answer). I have opened messages, and a preview pane bellow them. When I have only unread messages shown it is easy for me to simply pick one of them (because there is not much of them to choose), and read it in preview pane. If I do it your way I would need a lot of scrolling in messages pane, if there are a lot of messages there I would have hard time to connect links, then I would need to click firstly on the original, and then finally on answer. And I do have a 21" monitor, and still it is a lot of work. But, as I said, do however you like. I'll cope with it, : ). -- Mario