Foillowup - Re: "Simulation" lost it's meaning???????

Bryon this is the most concise definative explaination I've read! Your comments make a lot of sense!! Thanx Thom_j. aka ^Fretts..

Quoted text (73 lines)

> It seems that this post has stirred up much contention about the word > "Simulator". Dictionaries and there *present* meanings can and do change > over time, just as new words appear and old ones disappear. In any case, > the point is to find a way to keep companies honest. I think a list of > things simulated and to what degree need to be displayed by those who > claim things like "state of the art" or "most realistic physics modeling > to date", etc, as SCGT does. > If we could get a basic list for this, based on what has been done > to date by all racing games (trivia aside of course) and have companies > display this list somehow (eg a leaflet in the box and also distributed > to all outlets for display say). > eg 3d physics model Yes/no/partial (GPL/ICR2/GP2) > tyre temps " > brake locking " > weather " > independant susp " > etc,etc,etc " > Obviously, as companies get deeper and deeper into the various > aspects of motorsports simulations, this list grows. Not only would it > be obvious which was a serious sim and which was not, we would also be > able to see what sims did what and choose the one that most fits our > tastes. Best example I can think of here is that if you really like the > idea of weather, F1RS is good. If weather is no big deal to you but you > want a full on physics engine then GPL is the way to go. Force feedback > and it's probably Viper. > So by what I'll boldly claim to be the general consensus in here > with use of the words "arcade" and "sim", a sim would have a lot of > "Yes"s and "Partial"s down the list, whereas the arcaders would have > noticeably less "Yes"s in particular. > It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get a > ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved > checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If not, > their loss! :) Something like a sticker that says "Carries the R.A.S. > checklist of simulated components". :) There is no need for us to check > a companies claims - companies would police themselves. If a company > cheated it would be a blatant case of false advertising. The committee > would only need to supply/approve the list. Which would simply be to > weed out things like seagulls in the distance for example. It would be > up to companies to submit things for inclusion of course, then up to the > committee to approve them. > Comments? > > So who decides what's a "simulation"? I've seen it talked about in > > here since I've been a regular (approx 18 months). So who decides? Well, > > no one it seems. How could they? It annoys me to see the likes of Papy > > and Crammond giving a free ride to other companies who come along and > > use the word "simulation" to sell there products. Obviously I am saying > > this upon the release of SCGT. I have only seen the demo, but hey, it's > > their "demo" and it simply gives me the impression of them not > > particularly being committed to making this game as "sim" (diehards > > version of "sim") as possible. However, there have been far worse cases > > of this than SCGT also. It might get better with patches and updates but > > when something is released like this I lose interest fast. Fool me > > once................. > > Anyway, what we have here is a very grey area of what is a sim and > > does a company have a right to use this word in there description of > > what they're trying to sell us. I think the only way to keep companies > > honest is to legally force them to reveal exactly what aspects of > > reality are recreated in their software and to what degree. So any > > racing game that is sold with the word "Simulation" must then declare a > > breakdown of exactly what is being simulated and also give some > > indication as to what depth also. The "legitimate" sim companies have > > specific areas to compete against each other in and those looking for a > > piggy back on them start to slip off fast. Gotta be a good thing. > > Obviously the industry would be doing it's own policing ie checking that > > a companies claims were legitimate. Biggest problem of course is > > classification and who does the classifying. Hmmmmmm...........

no_spam.n2rif1.vcf < 1K Download

It seems that this post has stirred up much contention about the word "Simulator". Dictionaries and there *present* meanings can and do change over time, just as new words appear and old ones disappear. In any case, the point is to find a way to keep companies honest. I think a list of things simulated and to what degree need to be displayed by those who claim things like "state of the art" or "most realistic physics modeling to date", etc, as SCGT does. If we could get a basic list for this, based on what has been done to date by all racing games (trivia aside of course) and have companies display this list somehow (eg a leaflet in the box and also distributed to all outlets for display say). eg 3d physics model Yes/no/partial (GPL/ICR2/GP2) tyre temps " brake locking " weather " independant susp " etc,etc,etc " Obviously, as companies get deeper and deeper into the various aspects of motorsports simulations, this list grows. Not only would it be obvious which was a serious sim and which was not, we would also be able to see what sims did what and choose the one that most fits our tastes. Best example I can think of here is that if you really like the idea of weather, F1RS is good. If weather is no big deal to you but you want a full on physics engine then GPL is the way to go. Force feedback and it's probably Viper. So by what I'll boldly claim to be the general consensus in here with use of the words "arcade" and "sim", a sim would have a lot of "Yes"s and "Partial"s down the list, whereas the arcaders would have noticeably less "Yes"s in particular. It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get a ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If not, their loss! :) Something like a sticker that says "Carries the R.A.S. checklist of simulated components". :) There is no need for us to check a companies claims - companies would police themselves. If a company cheated it would be a blatant case of false advertising. The committee would only need to supply/approve the list. Which would simply be to weed out things like seagulls in the distance for example. It would be up to companies to submit things for inclusion of course, then up to the committee to approve them. Comments?

Quoted text (25 lines)

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

Too much work for both parties with too little gain, IMO anyway. I can't see companies wanting to spend the time with us calling up and saying are you _sure_ you're modelling tire slip correctly, because when I go like "that" at corner X the car should do "that" but it goes like "this". Beyond that, it's not so much a case of whether or not something is modelled or not it is how well it has been implemented - that takes us back into subjective territory and makes it essentially another review. Look at SCGT for example, brake locking is modelled. Is it well modelled? Personally I don't think so, but it is "fun" modelled. It is fully implemented though, so should it be ranked as a "yes" or a "partial"? The above os just a rhetorical example, but seeing the discussions we have here whenever a new sim comes out and all the "cheerleaders" pop out of the woodwork as we know they will, we can't decide anything. Such a committee would probably kill each other by the second review. Cheers! John

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get a > >ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved > >checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If not, > >their loss! :) > Too much work for both parties with too little gain, IMO anyway. I > can't see companies wanting to spend the time with us calling up and > saying are you _sure_ you're modelling tire slip correctly, because > when I go like "that" at corner X the car should do "that" but it goes > like "this".

That would not be a RAS committee's responsibility. Our responsibility would be to provide and endorse a checklist of the many components of racing simulators. As I said further along, companies would police themselves. The list would end up being a compilation of components submitted by the various interested sim companies for review by the RAS committee. This review would simply determine whether it was a significant enough parameter for inclusion on the list. Well, I'll take a bit of a stab in the dark here and say that a breakdown of components would probably reveal these things. It would be up to each company to submit "components for review" so as to highlight the superiority of their modeling for example. Since you raise the issue of brakes or more generally, braking, consider this. Under braking we have things like rotational momentum of wheels/tyres, mass of car, lessening air resistance, tyre grip, weight transfer, etc, etc. Point being, how well the braking of the car is is determined by many more components than just caliper/disk force for example. Not if there responsibility was to simply vote on what components were worthy and which weren't. Much of the time it would be a no brainer I'd say. And when it's note, the vote decides. It would simply need a group of people knowledgable enough and committed enough. The only thing that might be an issue is would Papyrus, for example, wish to disclose to their competition exactly why their sims feel right and the others don't :) I suppose with the apparent lead Papy has at the moment that they could reveal enough to let everyone know who's the boss but not enough to know why they are :))

Quoted text (14 lines)

>> > It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get a >> >ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved >> >checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If not, >> >their loss! :) >> Too much work for both parties with too little gain, IMO anyway. I >> can't see companies wanting to spend the time with us calling up and >> saying are you _sure_ you're modelling tire slip correctly, because >> when I go like "that" at corner X the car should do "that" but it goes >> like "this". > That would not be a RAS committee's responsibility. Our >responsibility would be to provide and endorse a checklist of the many >components of racing simulators.

...and to judge whether a sim meets those, therefore you're going to have to satisfy yourself that what is claimed is true. Ooooooh boy, now there's a refreshing view of the world of business and marketing! Apart from that, if companies are going to police themselves why bother even having the list? Companies can make up a "RAS seal of approval" themselves and whack it on the box. So the companies are submitting things? For what, if they are going to police themselves? I know for sure that a breakdown of components wouldn't reveal this things, just as companies would be unlikely to say what they were modelling and how. How well the braking of the car is done is mathematically calculated by all of these things - if the simulation has all of these things it might _still_ be an awful simulation. Look at XCAR, setup options and modelling to bejeezus and it still was mighty dodgy to drive. It still comes down to not only whether these things are modelled, but how faithfully they interact with each other and how will they are implemented to produce as faithful a simulation of the real beast as possible. Is it necessary to model cooling airflow over a tyre in order to accurately model braking? I don't think we would know. We know what would make a "perfect" simulation, but that will not happen anytime in the next few years. The critical thing is to know what is critical in order to faithfully represent, and anyone who knows that may want to pop a resume off to Papyrus. That would be an issue for sure! :-) Cheers! John

I can't imagine r.a.s. being used as an endor***t for anything. David G Fisher > > > It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get a > > >ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved > > >checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If not, > > >their loss!

Interesting point!

Quoted text (19 lines)

> I can't imagine r.a.s. being used as an endor***t for anything. > David G Fisher > > > > It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get > a > > > >ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved > > > >checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If > not, > > > >their loss!

no_spam.n2rif1.vcf < 1K Download

We've disagreed about one or two things in the past, but not this :-) Andrew McP

On Tue, 4 May 1999 03:05:05 -0400, "David G Fisher" >I can't imagine r.a.s. being used as an endor***t for anything. Heated debate? Cynicism? :-) Cheers! John

:) Well, it would be actually "The RAS Committee" rather than just RAS. In fact, if such a thing was to get off the ground and mean anything to the general public it would probably need to be something more like "The Simulated Racing Organization". RAS would be more of a recruiting ground for such a thing and a voice for it. > I can't imagine r.a.s. being used as an endor***t for anything. > David G Fisher

Ok John, simple question. Would you like all alleged serious sims to provide such a list or not?

Quoted text (72 lines)

> >> > It all gets back to where it starts of course. Maybe we should get a > >> >ras committee going :) Which could then offer companies a ras approved > >> >checklist of simulated aspects :) If they want it, they have it. If not, > >> >their loss! :) > >> Too much work for both parties with too little gain, IMO anyway. I > >> can't see companies wanting to spend the time with us calling up and > >> saying are you _sure_ you're modelling tire slip correctly, because > >> when I go like "that" at corner X the car should do "that" but it goes > >> like "this". > > That would not be a RAS committee's responsibility. Our > >responsibility would be to provide and endorse a checklist of the many > >components of racing simulators. > ...and to judge whether a sim meets those, therefore you're going to > have to satisfy yourself that what is claimed is true. > >As I said further along, companies would police themselves. > Ooooooh boy, now there's a refreshing view of the world of business > and marketing! Apart from that, if companies are going to police > themselves why bother even having the list? Companies can make up a > "RAS seal of approval" themselves and whack it on the box. > > Well, I'll take a bit of a stab in the dark here and say that a > >breakdown of components would probably reveal these things. It would be > >up to each company to submit "components for review" so as to highlight > >the superiority of their modeling for example. > So the companies are submitting things? For what, if they are going to > police themselves? I know for sure that a breakdown of components > wouldn't reveal this things, just as companies would be unlikely to > say what they were modelling and how. > > Since you raise the issue of brakes or more generally, braking, > >consider this. Under braking we have things like rotational momentum of > >wheels/tyres, mass of car, lessening air resistance, tyre grip, weight > >transfer, etc, etc. Point being, how well the braking of the car is is > >determined by many more components than just caliper/disk force for > >example. > How well the braking of the car is done is mathematically calculated > by all of these things - if the simulation has all of these things it > might _still_ be an awful simulation. Look at XCAR, setup options and > modelling to bejeezus and it still was mighty dodgy to drive. It still > comes down to not only whether these things are modelled, but how > faithfully they interact with each other and how will they are > implemented to produce as faithful a simulation of the real beast as > possible. > > Not if there responsibility was to simply vote on what components > >were worthy and which weren't. Much of the time it would be a no brainer > >I'd say. And when it's note, the vote decides. > Is it necessary to model cooling airflow over a tyre in order to > accurately model braking? I don't think we would know. We know what > would make a "perfect" simulation, but that will not happen anytime in > the next few years. The critical thing is to know what is critical in > order to faithfully represent, and anyone who knows that may want to > pop a resume off to Papyrus. > > The only thing that might be an issue is would Papyrus, for > >example, wish to disclose to their competition exactly why their sims > >feel right and the others don't :) I suppose with the apparent lead Papy > >has at the moment that they could reveal enough to let everyone know > >who's the boss but not enough to know why they are :)) > That would be an issue for sure! :-) > Cheers! > John