F1 Simulators - What a Joke.

I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit, well, rubbish) It seems that I buy GP2 or GPL - hmm, what variety. Having had a look around, I'm beginning to think that this particular *** area suffers from two annoying faults: 1- The marketing is awful - there is a real lack of reliable information. For example, The "official" FIA tag appears to move about as often as a new PC video board is released (i.e. every two weeks). I recently heard that Electronic Arts had won FIA approval, but Eidos seem to be using the 1998 data for a game its about to release. Does it change every year? What is going on? I notice Eidos seem to have absolutely nothin on there web site about this despite sim racing news stating its due for release next week. Wouldn't it be better assess one developer and allow them theFIA licence for several years, building up some kind of brand ownership that would allow the buying public to have some continuity? This would allow the developers to actually develop better understanding and contacts within the sport as well as allowing the game buyer a support path and some continuity to upgrade. I know GP 2 does this - but the simulator developers are missing an opportunity to develop simulators in the long term - they all appear to want to be the best for one week, make a killing and get out. This maybe why the FIA licence moves about so frequently. This means that you cannot ensure that the FIA licence comes with a Quality simulation (Formula 1 97 for example). Which is terrible. Surely the FIA should represent a quality product to reflect the standard of the series? Maybe Bernie Ecclestone just takes the cash. Driver endor***ts seem to follow a similar trend. (With the possible exception of Jacques Villeneuve's unoffical endor***t of GP2.) I hear the Johnny Herbert game is a bit of a no-no. 2. The second fault is a total lack of originallity. They all seem to be "race around these 16 tracks, win the championship, goodbye". They only seem to differ in the graphics and sound support and extent to which you can customise the car. Excuse me, but, how about a bit of additional interest? For example, Toca 2 allows your to enter support races, Colin McRae has a Rally school. At the very least, it might be interesting if the Grand Prix simulators actually allowed you to drive into the pits yourself or see movement in the crowd - maybe show other views of the track on the trackside monitors whilst you pass them. Do any of the more recent f1 simulators ask you to line up behind a safety car during a race? Run the formation lap? Perform testing off season? Work on introducing new features to the car? Damage your car if you run over debris from a shunt? Please tell me - the marketing blurb doesn't. I don't know, the whole thing seems to lack innovation to me - of course I would not wish to buy an "arcade" f1 game - but the developers of F1 games have the imagination of a cold wet haddock - or maybe its just that F1 itself needs a bit of a warm up. Yes, Yes, I know GPL is great, but thats the one innovation in a pretty grotty industry. It appears that its GP2 or GPL - I doubt any other industry could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years. Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being devalued in the games industry as far as can tell.

<snipe> Have you tried F1RS or MGPRS2? You did not mention those in your post. MGPRS2 is quite good (not as good as GPL, of course). Eidos Official Formula 1 was developed by another company, I believe Lankhor. Not much is known about it, and it's odd that it doesn't have a web site. Very strange actually, for a game coming out in about 2 weeks.

On Wed, 05 May 1999 16:57:29 +0100, Steven Dawkins >It seems that I buy GP2 or GPL - hmm, what variety. Come on, the one is 3 years old and the other not really exactly a simulation of current F1 (I guess that's what you're looking for)... certainly you'll find a couple of alternatives. A FOCA license is not given out exclusively. Everyone who has too much money can buy it and incorporate into their game. It's of course no guarantee for quality (see Psygnosis who managed to have the license for 3 years and still produced just crap) I'm not aware of a support path for GP2. In fact it's got absolutely *no* support from official side whatsoever. MGPRS got a few extras like scenario mode where you can re-play certain real situations (i.e. Jerez 97 etc) or a career mode. Is it any different with other simulations? I don't think there where too many good CART/Indycar<insert whatever you like> sims either... -- Tel http://tel.tsx.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a.k.a. Holger Bachert Cars & Design

What are you smoking?! MGPRS2 and F1RS are not even half as realistic as GP2 is! At least in GP2 you get a sense of how hard you can push your car before it begins to get loose or to push. In F1RS and the demo for MGPRS2 that I've played, the physics just feel so canned! Dan Belcher Team Racing Unlimited

Here is a site for OF1; http://perso.club-internet.fr/beko/of1r/ Enjoy

Quoted text (17 lines)

> <snipe> > >- or maybe its just that F1 itself needs a bit of a warm up. > >Yes, Yes, I know GPL is great, but thats the one innovation in a pretty > >grotty industry. It appears that its GP2 or GPL - I doubt any other > industry > >could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years. > >Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being devalued > >in the games industry as far as can tell. > Have you tried F1RS or MGPRS2? You did not mention those in your post. > MGPRS2 is quite good (not as good as GPL, of course). > Eidos Official Formula 1 was developed by another company, I believe > Lankhor. Not much is known about it, and it's odd that it doesn't have a web > site. Very strange actually, for a game coming out in about 2 weeks.

no_spam.n2rif1.vcf < 1K Download

This is odd? I feel that it is the exact opposite here. This brings up another question: If so many on R.A.S. have opposite subjective opinions {imho} how can we have a "seal of approval" on any sim/arcade race type game? Just curious?? Cheers Thom_j. no_spam.n2rif1.vcf < 1K Download

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Wed, 05 May 1999 16:57:29 +0100, > >I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit, > >well, rubbish) > >It seems that I buy GP2 or GPL - hmm, what variety. > Also F1RS, Monaco Grand Prix Racing, Official F1. > There's a glut of F1 sims...

I think his point is that there have been no *quality* modern F1 simulators since GP2......I agree. OF1 hasn't been released yet but I'm not holding my breath in anticipation. David Noe

Let's not get on one of those GP2 is better than MGPRS2, ok. If you like GP2, fine. He was asking if there are any good F1sims, MGPRS2 is the best of the "current" sims.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >>Yes, Yes, I know GPL is great, but thats the one innovation in a pretty > >>grotty industry. It appears that its GP2 or GPL - I doubt any other > >industry > >>could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years. > What are you smoking?! MGPRS2 and F1RS are not even half as realistic as GP2 > is! At least in GP2 you get a sense of how hard you can push your car before > it begins to get loose or to push. In F1RS and the demo for MGPRS2 that I've > played, the physics just feel so canned!

hehehe...you are the one smoking bad stuff! ;+) How do you evaluate a full product by a tiny demo? Are you test driving a car by starting the engine and going at the next stop light? hehehe...get real! How can you get sense of when the car tends to get loose when there is no force feedback in GP2??? Am I missing something? Yes MGPRS2 has it's flaws, but it's the only modern F1 racer there is available on the market! Cheers! -- Jean-Francois Lepage Web designer & 3D Artist/Animator __________________________________________ The Web's World http://www.supernet.ca/~stealth/index.html Includes: -Inspire 3D & LightWave Resources -The AirSpace -The Unofficial Fly! Web Site

this only for the people like the F1RS MGPRS2 games :) is F1RS much differant than MGPRS2? F1RS comes with the Logitech wheel and I was just wondering if it was about the same as MGPRS2, or will I be driving a dated game? I'll be geeting SC:GT also so F1RS will be my refined sim for now... some other arcade game comes with it, I hope that it's good too, but It'd be best to come with NFS3 or something... >> >>Yes, Yes, I know GPL is great, but thats the one innovation in a pretty >> >>grotty industry. It appears that its GP2 or GPL - I doubt any other >> >industry >> >>could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years. >> What are you smoking?! MGPRS2 and F1RS are not even half as realistic as GP2 >> is! At least in GP2 you get a sense of how hard you can push your car before >> it begins to get loose or to push. In F1RS and the demo for MGPRS2 that I've >> played, the physics just feel so canned! >hehehe...you are the one smoking bad stuff! ;+) >How do you evaluate a full product by a tiny demo? Are you test driving a car by >starting the engine and going at the next stop light? hehehe...get real! >How can you get sense of when the car tends to get loose when there is no force >feedback in GP2??? Am I missing something? >Yes MGPRS2 has it's flaws, but it's the only modern F1 racer there is available

Quoted text (15 lines)

>on the market! >Cheers! >-- >Jean-Francois Lepage >Web designer & 3D Artist/Animator >__________________________________________ >The Web's World >http://www.supernet.ca/~stealth/index.html >Includes: >-Inspire 3D & LightWave Resources >-The AirSpace >-The Unofficial Fly! Web Site

> Come on, the one is 3 years old > Is it any different with other simulations? I don't think there where > too many good CART/Indycar<insert whatever you like> sims either... ICR2 was and still is the best Cart sim! Oh my, I forgot its' too old :(

But that doesn't mean that the physics are good. That also doesn't mean that the graphics are accurate, or realistic. More cartoon than before, but at least they made some improvement on the shadow side. But how can you say better graphics when there's no FIA or advertising sponsor license ? You should only need a***pit view in a racing sim. That doesn't mean that the online racing is good. You gained 2, but you lost 1 track also. But that doesn't mean that they are good and accurate racing simulators. -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

>this only for the people like the F1RS MGPRS2 games :) >is F1RS much differant than MGPRS2? F1RS comes with the Logitech wheel and I >was just wondering if it was about the same as MGPRS2, or will I be driving >a dated game? I'll be geeting SC:GT also so F1RS will be my refined sim for >now... some other arcade game comes with it, I hope that it's good too, but >It'd be best to come with NFS3 or something... MGPRS2 is the updated version of F1RS. It has better physics, updated graphics, more driving views, a game service that lets you play on line, and a couple of new tracks. At first it seems like the same game, but after awhile of playing MGPRS2, it really is much better than F1RS. The logitech wheel comes with F1RS and Motorhead (a arcade racer). By the way latest release date for MGPRS2 in America is May 20th.

>> MGPRS2 is the updated version of F1RS. It has better physics, >But that doesn't mean that the physics are good. Doesn't mean they are bad either. Non sequiter. You need an FIA license to have better graphics? I guess no 1st person shooter or flight sim has nice graphics. If the graphics have a higher polygon count, greater resolution capacity and cleaner textures, can't that count as better? Anyway, I didn't think the graphics were all that much better than the original. They are both very good, albeit somewhat too brightly colorful. Oh, you never look at other views when in replay mode? (okay, that's not an MGPRS2 strength anyway). Get off your anti-Ubisoft crusade.

Fran?ois, You have got a real downer on UbiSoft. GPL has a better physics engine than MGP - so? We all know that. Whether GP2 has a better physics engine than MGP is certainly a debatable subject. However MGP is really not at all bad - certainly it's no where near as bad as you say. You obviously have a personal reason to hate UbiSoft which doesn't really affect how good the sim is for other people. IMO There are two good modern F1 sims MGP and GP2 and one good historic one GPL (which is streets beeter than both the modern ones). GP2 has a good car "feel", but little fixes here and there allow you to drive at absurd speeds and at times the cars appear to be on rails. The spins seem very unrealistic at times. GP2 is not graphics accelerated which is a very major negative in my book - it makes it so much harder to suspend one's disbelief. It also has a very badly organised menu system that makes it very hard to find where out where the various options are. GP2 has no multiplayer options. GP2 is a very well supported sim and you can download lots of extra graphics and even new tracks. MGP doesn't "feel" quite as nice as GP2 but feels quite good. The graphics are very good and you can download lots of extras to make up for the lack of an FIA licence. The menu system has been criticised by many but I find it very easy to negotiate my way around. The replays are computer selected highlights and are very short. This is a major negative. MGP has good LAN multiplayer but the game service is only average. Before all real F1 races, I like to get to know the track so that I can understand the race better. I choose MGP for this exercise. IMO all other currently available F1 sims are worthless. Cheers, Paul

Quoted text (39 lines)

> > MGPRS2 is the updated version of F1RS. It has better physics, > But that doesn't mean that the physics are good. > > updated graphics > That also doesn't mean that the graphics are accurate, or realistic. More > cartoon than before, but at least they made some improvement on the shadow > side. But how can you say better graphics when there's no FIA or > advertising sponsor license ? > > more driving views > You should only need a***pit view in a racing sim. > > a game service that lets you play on line > That doesn't mean that the online racing is good. > > and > > a couple of new tracks. > You gained 2, but you lost 1 track also. > > At first it seems like the same game, but after awhile of playing MGPRS2, > it > > really is much better than F1RS. > But that doesn't mean that they are good and accurate racing simulators. > -- > -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> > -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ > -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ > -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. > -- May the Downforce be with you... > "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Graphics look nice. Wonder what the final thing will be like. Cheers, Paul

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Here is a site for OF1; > [link lost in import] > Enjoy > > <snipe> > > >- or maybe its just that F1 itself needs a bit of a warm up. > > >Yes, Yes, I know GPL is great, but thats the one innovation in a pretty > > >grotty industry. It appears that its GP2 or GPL - I doubt any other > > industry > > >could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years. > > >Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being devalued > > >in the games industry as far as can tell. > > Have you tried F1RS or MGPRS2? You did not mention those in your post. > > MGPRS2 is quite good (not as good as GPL, of course). > > Eidos Official Formula 1 was developed by another company, I believe > > Lankhor. Not much is known about it, and it's odd that it doesn't have a web > > site. Very strange actually, for a game coming out in about 2 weeks.

Hello Kai, I have GP2, F1RS & GPL and i like them all. Because i still use a "lowly" 233 Mmx i can't really race GPL online (15 fps with 8 cars), but F1RS rocks on here. As for multiplayer i was able to race some with a buddy by using "Heat.net". As for the comparaison between F1RS & GP2, well i prefer F1RS. For real sense of going fast GPL is the best IMO. But that wouldn't mean that F1RS isn't good, i think it's a personnal thing.... I don't really understand people who are bashing F1RS.... Regards, Enforcer. Kai Fuller a crit dans le message ...

Some games get released using unlicenced elements. The GP500 motorcycle game released everywhere but Australia last year was a good example. They tried to cover there bums by renaming the riders and tracks and changing a few corners but they still used the copyrighted GP500 name. I don't thing the FIA hands out licences to more than one distributor.

Quoted text (72 lines)

> I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit, > well, rubbish) > It seems that I buy GP2 or GPL - hmm, what variety. > Having had a look around, I'm beginning to think that this particular > *** area suffers from two annoying faults: > 1- The marketing is awful - there is a real lack of reliable information. > For example, > The "official" FIA tag appears to move about as often as a new PC video board > is released (i.e. every two weeks). I recently heard that Electronic Arts had > won FIA > approval, but Eidos seem to be using the 1998 data for a game its about to > release. > Does it change every year? What is going on? I notice Eidos seem to have > absolutely > nothin on there web site about this despite sim racing news stating its due > for > release next week. > Wouldn't it be > better assess one developer and allow them theFIA licence for several years, > building > up some kind of brand ownership that would allow the buying public to have > some continuity? This would allow the developers to actually develop better > understanding and contacts within the sport as well as allowing the game > buyer > a support path and some continuity to upgrade. I know GP 2 does this - but > the simulator developers are missing an opportunity to develop simulators in > the > long term - they all appear to want to be the best for one week, make a > killing > and get out. This maybe why the FIA licence moves about so frequently. > This means that you cannot ensure that the FIA licence comes > with a Quality simulation (Formula 1 97 for example). Which is terrible. > Surely the FIA should represent a quality product to reflect the standard of > the series? Maybe Bernie Ecclestone just takes the cash. > Driver endor***ts seem to follow > a similar trend. (With the possible exception of Jacques Villeneuve's > unoffical > endor***t of GP2.) I hear the Johnny Herbert game is a bit of a no-no. > 2. The second fault is a total lack of originallity. They all seem to be > "race around these 16 tracks, win the championship, goodbye". > They only seem to differ in the graphics and sound support > and extent to which you can customise the car. Excuse me, > but, how about a bit of additional interest? For example, Toca 2 > allows your to enter support races, Colin McRae has a Rally school. > At the very least, it might be interesting if the Grand Prix simulators > actually allowed you to drive into the pits yourself or see movement > in the crowd - maybe show other views of the track on the trackside > monitors whilst you pass them. Do any of the more recent f1 simulators > ask you to line up behind a safety car during a race? Run the formation > lap? Perform testing off season? Work on introducing new features > to the car? Damage your car if you run over debris from a shunt? > Please tell me - the marketing blurb doesn't. > I don't know, the whole thing seems to lack innovation to me - of > course I would not wish to buy an "arcade" f1 game - but the > developers of F1 games have the imagination of a cold wet haddock > - or maybe its just that F1 itself needs a bit of a warm up. > Yes, Yes, I know GPL is great, but thats the one innovation in a pretty > grotty industry. It appears that its GP2 or GPL - I doubt any other industry > could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years. > Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being devalued > in the games industry as far as can tell.

>I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit, >well, rubbish) >It seems that I buy GP2 or GPL - hmm, what variety. Try UBI F1.

>What are you smoking?! MGPRS2 and F1RS are not even half as realistic as GP2 >is! At least in GP2 you get a sense of how hard you can push your car before >it begins to get loose or to push. In F1RS and the demo for MGPRS2 that I've >played, the physics just feel so canned! IMHO F1RS is way better than GP2. Also the push effects you are referring to are very evident is you tried F1RS with a good FF wheel. GP2 haha. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

> > MGPRS2 is the updated version of F1RS. It has better physics, > But that doesn't mean that the physics are good. Comparing to which other *modern* F1 sim? do you qualify good physics by easy to drive cars that stick to the road like hell? :+) Whew! hehehe...I didn't know the FIA was in charge of the graphics in F1 racing sims! Ok...good point here! :+) So what? It doesn't make it a good sim because it lost a track that even the FIA abandonned? Is the FIA not good anymore for taking off a few tracks? hehehe Who said they were the best ever made? Again, what modern F1 sim is better? Don't give me the GPL thing like too many does...they are 2 different eras. We don't mix WWII a/c with F-16 and F-22! :+) So, instead of bashing as long as you want any sim from Ubisoft, get some facts and knowledgable arguements, not just short answers like tis one rules and this one sucks. :+) Cheers! -- Jean-Francois Lepage Web designer & 3D Artist/Animator ICQ#5404541 __________________________________________ The Web's World http://www.supernet.ca/~stealth/index.html Includes: -Inspire 3D & LightWave Resources -The AirSpace -The Unofficial Fly! Web Site

Worse than SCGT's. They look like cartoons. The tracks are inaccurate. So therefore they are bad graphics. Only when Ubisoft produces a good game.

Does it matter? GP2s physics are better so that doesn't say much for Ubisoft's effort. If they wanted to make an arcady racer...they succeeded. Just becuase there isn't a better modern F1 sim does not make the game a good game. What facts is he missing? Graphics are cartoony, tracks aren't right, the physics are not all that fabalous, the sound absolutely are horrid, network play? yeah, right. It may be the best modern F1 game currently on the market, but that doesn't make it the best or even any good.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > But that doesn't mean that the physics are good. > > Comparing to which other *modern* F1 sim? do you qualify good physics by > easy > > to drive cars that stick to the road like hell? :+) > Does it matter? GP2s physics are better so that doesn't say much for > Ubisoft's effort. If they wanted to make an arcady racer...they succeeded.

At least this "Arcade Racer" has real time weather, black and blue flags and Force Feedback! :+) Hehe...a guy asked for a goo modern F1 Racing Sim, which one is better on the market??? Read all the sentences! :+) Graphics may be cartoony to you but at least they aren't 2D bitmaps! Get real dude! GP2 is over! It was the best darn F1 Sim of it's time, but time has gone by...let's hope for GP3 at E3. Now that one may be the best ever, *IF* it ever comes out! :+) Cheers! -- Jean-Francois Lepage Web designer & 3D Artist/Animator ICQ#5404541 __________________________________________ The Web's World http://www.supernet.ca/~stealth/index.html Includes: -Inspire 3D & LightWave Resources -The AirSpace -The Unofficial Fly! Web Site

The problem with the whole industry as far as I'm concerned is it's subservience to the graphic bell/whistle mentality of the hoi poloi as well as the manufacturers. The vast majority of players out there judge games almost soley on their visual quality - i.e. your average schmuck is more concerned about how the trees look or whether the lens-flare is right. This attitude only hurts the possibilty of truly realistic sims appearing on the market. Personally I would be perfectly happy if GP3 came out with NO graphical changes whatsoever.. as long as the extra computer power available was used to: improve the physics; improve the AI (changes in team-work over a season, for example); more random and varied breakdowns/accidents (on the grid, in the pits, etc.); variable weather; grease/debris on track; tear-offs/pit communications; proper flags (i.e. black/blue!)... In other words.. anything which will actually increase the realism of the so-called simulation. Until programmer's start to concentrate in these areas instead of just making their games prettier we're not gonna get any better simulations (in the purist's sense of the word). Simon Goodwin

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit, > well, rubbish) > [snip] > could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years. > Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being devalued > in the games industry as far as can tell.

I disagree to some extent. In our computer sims we have very little tactile feedback available so the better the graphics and the better the sound can reproduce what would actually be seen and heard will help us feel the cars. However, its time to get rid of the stupid stuff like lens-flare...however, it would be very nice to see a well done rain racing scenario happen (even with track drying! and puddles! ;). However, I think another area you neglected to mention is the network code...this needs to be something that is really worked on. A lot of developers just seem to slap something in at the last second and call it "networking". Other than that I agree with you. > The problem with the whole industry as far as I'm concerned is it's subservience > to the graphic bell/whistle mentality of the hoi poloi as well as the > manufacturers. The vast majority of players out there judge games almost soley > on their visual quality - i.e. your average schmuck is more concerned about how > the trees look or whether the lens-flare is right. This attitude only hurts the > possibilty of truly realistic sims appearing on the market. > Personally I would be perfectly happy if GP3 came out with NO graphical changes > whatsoever.. as long as the extra computer power available was used to: improve > the physics; improve the AI (changes in team-work over a season, for example); > more random and varied breakdowns/accidents (on the grid, in the pits, etc.); > variable weather; grease/debris on track; tear-offs/pit communications; proper > flags (i.e. black/blue!)... In other words.. anything which will actually > increase the realism of the so-called simulation. > Until programmer's start to concentrate in these areas instead of just making > their games prettier we're not gonna get any better simulations (in the purist's

Quoted text (15 lines)

> sense of the word). > Simon Goodwin > > I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit, > > well, rubbish) > > [snip] > > could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years. > > Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being

devalued > > in the games industry as far as can tell.

: Personally I would be perfectly happy if GP3 came out with NO graphical changes : whatsoever.. as long as the extra computer power available was used to: improve : the physics; improve the AI (changes in team-work over a season, for example); : more random and varied breakdowns/accidents (on the grid, in the pits, etc.); : variable weather; grease/debris on track; tear-offs/pit communications; proper : flags (i.e. black/blue!)... In other words.. anything which will actually : increase the realism of the so-called simulation. Except GP2 still chokes even a fast PII with full details and sky at Monaco. I would definitely like to see graphical changes, but minor ones. Some more trackside objects would be nice, but not essential. For example, there is a lot missing from the infield of Brazil. I would like to see the graphics go to a 16bit palette at least. The cars look good, but they have always been a little funky with their polygon bodies/bitmap wheels. I think changes are needed to make it contemporary, but certainly you are right that there should be some compromises. Most of the graphics enhancements are "free" with a 3D card, so why not do it? Stephen

We need improved graphics [ who wants to drive GP2 anymore ] It shouldn't be done at the expense of the physics, but a realistic driving environment is important [ lens flares are ***though, I'm yet to see any while walking, running or driving around :-] ] >The problem with the whole industry as far as I'm concerned is it's subservience >to the graphic bell/whistle mentality of the hoi poloi as well as the >manufacturers. The vast majority of players out there judge games almost soley >on their visual quality - i.e. your average schmuck is more concerned about how >the trees look or whether the lens-flare is right. This attitude only hurts the >possibilty of truly realistic sims appearing on the market. >Personally I would be perfectly happy if GP3 came out with NO graphical changes >whatsoever.. as long as the extra computer power available was used to: improve >the physics; improve the AI (changes in team-work over a season, for example); >more random and varied breakdowns/accidents (on the grid, in the pits, etc.); >variable weather; grease/debris on track; tear-offs/pit communications; proper >flags (i.e. black/blue!)... In other words.. anything which will actually >increase the realism of the so-called simulation. >Until programmer's start to concentrate in these areas instead of just making >their games prettier we're not gonna get any better simulations (in the purist's

Quoted text (15 lines)

>sense of the word). >Simon Goodwin >> I am looking for a F1 simulator (to replace F1 97 - which is a bit, >> well, rubbish) >> [snip] >> could survive if it only produced two innovations in two years. >> Bit annoyed about this - It seems that the Formula 1 tag is being

devalued >> in the games industry as far as can tell.

On Thu, 06 May 1999 13:05:01 -0400, Simon Goodwin

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Personally I would be perfectly happy if GP3 came out with NO graphical changes >whatsoever.. as long as the extra computer power available was used to: improve >the physics; improve the AI (changes in team-work over a season, for example); >more random and varied breakdowns/accidents (on the grid, in the pits, etc.); >variable weather; grease/debris on track; tear-offs/pit communications; proper >flags (i.e. black/blue!)... In other words.. anything which will actually >increase the realism of the so-called simulation.

I absolutely disagree. Superb graphics are an essential feature of any true simulation and absolutely vital for the visual *realism*. This ranges from such simple things as debris on the track to the flagwaving track steward and much more importantly the driving view & range. And btw, it's actually one of the reasons why GP2 was an immediate success, back in 95/96 it simply blew everything away with it's top-notch graphics. PS: I don't know what kind of system you have but I cannot really find much 'extra computer power' when playing GP2 ... --Tel

Load Gp2. Take every Fxx option off. Look at how great the physics are for modeling the Formula 1's of that year. Ubisoft's game engine is not the best, (but still not the worst). There is several canned effect, but at least they fixed some problems in MGPRS2. Still it doesn't mean it's good, but they are at least going the correct way. Until they change their game engine completly (which they won't for their new title I think), I will continue to warn people that even if it's currently the overall best modern F1 sim (GP2 fails only for the non-accelerated graphics), it's far from being and excellent sim ;) No he only said "updated graphics". For me that means they updated their graphics. Thus changed their visual representation of what is on the screen. That means the accuracy of the buildings, track objects, accuracy of sponsors, quality of the graphics of both moving and non-moving objects. They lost their FIA license, that is not "updating" their graphics. And adding resolutions doesn't "update" graphics also. There is some nice additions, still, with the shadow effects on trackside objects, and some remodeling of some tracks (still not perfect). hehehe Im just saying that you lost a track and gained 2, never said if it was good or bad :-) Im excluding GPL, as everybody know they are in a class apart. But look at the Ubisoft old mode and compare to GPL :) . Im just trying to warn people that even if MGPRS2 is the best modern F1 sim on the market, it's not nessecary perfect. Naw if you want you can look at dejanews.com for "rec.autos.simulators ymenard Ubisoft". You will see that I can write for hours about simracing titles, with correct and sometimes incorrect arguments, especially towards Ubisoft. If they do a correct sequel, with accurate tracks, accurate game engine, accurate sound, physics, AI, network play, well I will now stop and praise Ubisoft for the good title that it will be. But not until. And they should think about doing it fast, since Gp3 is near. Im not bashing you here also, remember ;-P -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I couldn't agree more. Just look at the *blurbs* while installing SCGT, "Best graphics ever", "It really does look this good" etc...and this from a sim that has decent physics....no multiplay and unrealistic AI but decent physics never the less. Instead of concentrating on the meat of the program they hype the eye candy. Who are the game producers trying to shit anyway? You can't judge a book............. DN

That's the problem. It's not the correct feeling at all. I do not have F1 experience (I mean <g>), but I have experience in real life racing. I have open-wheel experience. A car is a car is a car. F1's have more HP, better aerodynamics and overall best power/weight ratio, but there is stuff that is easy to understand how it handles. The snap oversteering is incredible bad, with several canned effects with the weight shifting under power/braking. Look at real life F1, look closely and try to feel the car when they are in-car, and compare it to watching an AI in-car in MGPRS2. I agree with that. The cars look good. Very good indeed. Much better polygon count. Ah you see ? That's just a bad argument. "I" think that it's a great track, "you" think it's not. But <g> don't try to say that what Im saying is non-sense. No way, it's just a different argument. Portugal is a GREAT track. Fast corners, nice chicanes, great places to past. I would take it anyday instead of that boring A1-Ring. -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Actually the physics are quite good, maybe not outstanding as in GPL, but they are good. I have downloaded the files for all the cars and tracks from the web. With those files, MGPRS2 is the best looking "current" F1 sim. Ubisoft made it easy for people to update the game that way. Why? But, they also re-did Melbourne. Accurate by who's standards? For me they are the most accurate "current" F1 simulators.

How are you rating the physics in MGPRS2? If you watch the races, and then play MGPRS2, it feels pretty acturate to me. I'm no race car driver, but it seems pretty close to what I would expect a F1 car to feel like. What about the chrome effect on the cars? What about the wheels? Also, I'm not sure about this, but the cars also look like they have a higher polygon count in MGPRS2, like I said, I'm not sure, but the cars do look better in MGPRS2 than in F1RS. It didn't need greatly updated graphics, F1RS is still a very pretty game. And yes updated graphics in my book means higher resolutions. Give it a rest, the Portugal track wasn't great any way.

Anybody who has played EA Superbikes and passed under the trees at Monza know the ultimate in current sim graphics. Absolutely brilliant and the detail adds enourmously to the enjoyment and feeling of realism.

Quoted text (22 lines)

> On Thu, 06 May 1999 13:05:01 -0400, Simon Goodwin > >Personally I would be perfectly happy if GP3 came out with NO graphical changes > >whatsoever.. as long as the extra computer power available was used to: improve > >the physics; improve the AI (changes in team-work over a season, for example); > >more random and varied breakdowns/accidents (on the grid, in the pits, etc.); > >variable weather; grease/debris on track; tear-offs/pit communications; proper > >flags (i.e. black/blue!)... In other words.. anything which will actually > >increase the realism of the so-called simulation. > I absolutely disagree. Superb graphics are an essential feature of any > true simulation and absolutely vital for the visual *realism*. This > ranges from such simple things as debris on the track to the > flagwaving track steward and much more importantly the driving view & > range. And btw, it's actually one of the reasons why GP2 was an > immediate success, back in 95/96 it simply blew everything away with > it's top-notch graphics. > PS: I don't know what kind of system you have but I cannot really find > much 'extra computer power' when playing GP2 ... > --Tel

>They look like cartoons. The tracks are inaccurate. So therefore they are >bad graphics. Cartoons? Try using a 3dfx card.

>That's the problem. It's not the correct feeling at all. I do not have F1 >experience (I mean <g>), but I have experience in real life racing. I have >open-wheel experience. A car is a car is a car. F1's have more HP, better >aerodynamics and overall best power/weight ratio, but there is stuff that is >easy to understand how it handles. The snap oversteering is incredible bad, >with several canned effects with the weight shifting under power/braking. >Look at real life F1, look closely and try to feel the car when they are >in-car, and compare it to watching an AI in-car in MGPRS2. Well I have done the same maneuver at Imola that Mika H. did on lap 18 last Sunday. So maybe F1RS does model physics better than you are saying. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Comparing to which other *modern* F1 sim? do you qualify good physics by > easy > > to drive cars that stick to the road like hell? :+) > Load Gp2. Take every Fxx option off. Look at how great the physics are for > modeling the Formula 1's of that year. Ubisoft's game engine is not the > best, (but still not the worst).

I agree, GP2 was really good for the time...and UbiSoft has a lot to do in physics...but they are slowly getting there. IMHO they should have waited another 6 months before releasing MGP but it's still good, even with the patches. ...GP2 also lacks Force Feedback! :+) you are right, it's not the best ever made...but best overall (graphics, weather, AI, Multiplayer...) for any modern F1 sims. I sure hope GP3 gets out...it will surely intensify the competition, and in the end we (the simmers) would be the real winners...let's face it, we still need a lot more in any modern F1 sim. I know...and I am here to exchange coherent arguements. :+) Cheers! -- Jean-Francois Lepage Web designer & 3D Artist/Animator ICQ#5404541 __________________________________________ The Web's World http://www.supernet.ca/~stealth/index.html Includes: -Inspire 3D & LightWave Resources -The AirSpace -The Unofficial Fly! Web Site

% > > But that doesn't mean that the physics are good. % > % > Comparing to which other *modern* F1 sim? do you qualify good physics by % easy % > to drive cars that stick to the road like hell? :+) % Does it matter? GP2s physics are better so that doesn't say much for % Ubisoft's effort. If they wanted to make an arcady racer...they succeeded. I guess that is up to personal taste. I personally couldn't say that GP2's physics were better than F1RS/MGPRS. They were just different. <snip> -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ditto!!! > Anybody who has played EA Superbikes and passed under the trees at Monza know the > ultimate in current sim graphics. Absolutely brilliant and the detail adds > enourmously to the enjoyment and feeling of realism.

Important comment/observation!!

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I guess that is up to personal taste. I personally couldn't say that > GP2's physics were better than F1RS/MGPRS. They were just different. > <snip> > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Agree, but I still want sound in replay in MGPRS2 ;-) LOL ! I would like to see more and more companies head into the Formula 1 sims. Not arcade games. The more the better. Competition makes better software, and makes us more happy. Gp3 will push the current limits hopefully, as for the next Ubisoft title (how will they name it this time ? MGPRS3 ;-) ). -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Michael, I don't even play Gp2 much anymore with the NROS. I have the same time in both Gp2 and F1RS/MGPRS2. Im not bashing Ubisoft because of what Geoff Crammond did. That would be hypocrite from myself. Here I compared both titles, that doesn't mean I think Gp2 is perfect, far away from that. Im not even good in Gp2 !!! (I have difficulties adjusting, since I got way much more time in Icr2 and the whole driving physics difference between both titles). I don't like some aspects of how Ubisoft is doing their titles, the way they develop their titles, the way they re-use their game engine (same can be said for other companies), how they work with their employees, etc... I could expand on them if you want, but they are not the only ones who are like that. I agree. No title is perfect, and it's up to us to advice people of the problems they have. GPL lacks in some gameplay, some physic problems, some sound problems, etc... Gp2 lacks in 3d acceleration, some physic problems, some gameplay, sound, etc.. MGPRS2 (I eliminate F1RS) lacks in some physic problems, sound, some gameplay, etc.. So read both 3description, they all have similar problems. Gameplay, physics, sound, etc.. ;) -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

>> ...GP2 also lacks Force Feedback! :+) >LOL ! What exactly is this about? GP2 does not have FF and because of that it is lacking. Just because you say "LOL" means nothing. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

>Michael, I don't even play Gp2 much anymore with the NROS. I have the same >time in both Gp2 and F1RS/MGPRS2. Im not bashing Ubisoft because of what >Geoff Crammond did. That would be hypocrite from myself. Here I compared >both titles, that doesn't mean I think Gp2 is perfect, far away from that. >Im not even good in Gp2 !!! (I have difficulties adjusting, since I got way >much more time in Icr2 and the whole driving physics difference between both >titles). Sounds to me like you are ***ing about UBIsoft just to be ***ing. Good for you. GP2 or F1RS/MGPRS2 as a total modern F1 sim is not even a close call. The Ubi titles clean up. 3D graphics, 3D sound and force feedback... No problem, F1RS is it... Unlike you I play F1RS all the time... -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Yeah I see F1 cars flipping all the time in gravel traps in real races. What a bunch of shit these game are that don't model that properly. the I have flipped in F1RS and don't really recall doing it in GP2. DUH! So you are a PC F1 auto racing sim expert or something just because you have this in your sig? haha. That is a good one! Jeezus H... Where do these people come from? -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

I have not been on the Portugal track in awhile (I have not played F1RS in a while). I do remember there was one turn that I would wipe out on like 80% of the time. So for me, it was not a great track, your right, that was my opinion. I wish Ubisoft would have put it into MGPRS2, it would have been a good challenge for me (I am a better sim racer now, thanks to GPL). I guess Ubisoft will remove Argentina from MGPRS3. I do agree with you, more tracks is better, and I can't understand why they left out the Portugal track. I guess they wanted the tracks from the 1997 season (I think). But why would that mattter, they didn't have the F1 lisence any way.

The problem I've got with the current F1 simluators is that they all lack one major thing in my book: realistic flips in the gravel trap. GP2 came the closest to this. At least you really dug into that gravel sometimes and got the car to almost roll. But on F1RS and MGPRS2, when you get into the gravel, the car doesn't even attempt to roll over at all. And if you slide into the gravel trap upside down, the car doesn't dig in a roll over hard (remember Wurz at the Canadian GP a year or so ago?) So once the actual physics are fixed on the Ubisoft so they don't feel canned and Geoff Crammond gets some 3D graphics acceleration and some more help to make the game better, maybe we'll get a great F1 sim from either company. Or, Papyrus could just do a F1 sim after N3 and ICR3 come out. heh Dan Belcher Team Racing Unlimited

Too bad the AI riders are so dam slow, and also the fact you almost have to crawl about 2nd gear corners. The bikes in this game corner so slow it's pathetic. Watch some real World Superbike racing at Monza and you'll see just how fast they go thru that first set of chicanes.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Ditto!!! >> Anybody who has played EA Superbikes and passed under the trees at Monza know the >> ultimate in current sim graphics. Absolutely brilliant and the detail adds >> enourmously to the enjoyment and feeling of realism.

I also think it's a personal taste. How many of us stopped for 2 minutes and thought of the comparisons between GP2 and F1RS/MGPRS2? How can we all compare their physics when one simulates 1994 F1 and the others simulates the 1996-97 seasons! :+) Don't we all remember all the changes in the cars since 1994? They are way different in any aspects! Engines, wings, transmissions, hydraulics...and a lot more! So, if we say the GP2 cars handled a lot better than in MGPRS2, aren't we comparing 2 different car physics? If someone actually says that it's irrevelant I givehim the award of the ignorance! ;+) Anyways, I played a lot of almost every damn sim and arcade racing games in the last 9 years and I must say that they are *ALL* lacking in realism!!! I think GP2 was excellent for it's time and the cars it simulated and MGPRS2 is somewhat great for the cars it simulates. I must add an important point: I am not reffering to off-track realism...no sim can recreate the true accidents, believe me! :+) We all know how the present F1 are far from being easy to drive (except the latest McLarens and Ferraris)...look at most of the teams. They all have tendencies to have heavy oversteeer or heavy understeer...which ones have neutral handlings? Yes the McLarens tend to be closer than the others, but it's still far from a Sunday Drive!!! :+) Anyways, let's see more and more Force Feedback in the sims we all like! :+) Cheers! -- Jean-Francois Lepage Web designer & 3D Artist/Animator ICQ#5404541 __________________________________________ The Web's World http://www.supernet.ca/~stealth/index.html Includes: -Inspire 3D & LightWave Resources -The AirSpace -The Unofficial Fly! Web Site

Exactly the reason that I couldn't really get to grips with any of these sims........after all, I paid ***y good money to get a simulation that would feature cars flipping in the gravel traps. -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet ===============================================

Play EA Superbike. The most spectacular gravel trap flips possible and you get a birdseye view as you fly over your bike. The landing is a *** though.....

Quoted text (35 lines)

> Exactly the reason that I couldn't really get to grips with any of these > sims........after all, I paid ***y good money to get a simulation that > would feature cars flipping in the gravel traps. > -- > Best regards, > Bruce. > ====== > The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! > http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet > =============================================== > >The problem I've got with the current F1 simluators is that they all lack > one > >major thing in my book: realistic flips in the gravel trap. GP2 came the > >closest to this. At least you really dug into that gravel sometimes and > got > >the car to almost roll. But on F1RS and MGPRS2, when you get into the > gravel, > >the car doesn't even attempt to roll over at all. And if you slide into > the > >gravel trap upside down, the car doesn't dig in a roll over hard (remember > Wurz > >at the Canadian GP a year or so ago?) So once the actual physics are fixed > on > >the Ubisoft so they don't feel canned and Geoff Crammond gets some 3D > graphics > >acceleration and some more help to make the game better, maybe we'll get a > >great F1 sim from either company. Or, Papyrus could just do a F1 sim after > N3 > >and ICR3 come out. heh > >Dan Belcher > >Team Racing Unlimited

WHOOOOOOOOOSSSSH! Straight through to the keeper! -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet =============================================== >Play EA Superbike. The most spectacular gravel trap flips possible and you get a >birdseye view as you fly over your bike. The landing is a *** though..... >> Exactly the reason that I couldn't really get to grips with any of these >> sims........after all, I paid ***y good money to get a simulation that >> would feature cars flipping in the gravel traps. >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bruce. >> ====== >> The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! >> http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet >> =============================================== >> >The problem I've got with the current F1 simluators is that they all lack >> one >> >major thing in my book: realistic flips in the gravel trap. GP2 came the >> >closest to this. At least you really dug into that gravel sometimes and >> got >> >the car to almost roll. But on F1RS and MGPRS2, when you get into the >> gravel, >> >the car doesn't even attempt to roll over at all. And if you slide into >> the >> >gravel trap upside down, the car doesn't dig in a roll over hard (remember >> Wurz >> >at the Canadian GP a year or so ago?) So once the actual physics are fixed >> on >> >the Ubisoft so they don't feel canned and Geoff Crammond gets some 3D >> graphics >> >acceleration and some more help to make the game better, maybe we'll get a >> >great F1 sim from either company. Or, Papyrus could just do a F1 sim after >> N3 >> >and ICR3 come out. heh >> >Dan Belcher >> >Team Racing Unlimited

I find it amazing that a game made in 1994 is still being talked about. Grand Prix 2 really was ahead of it's time. I have bought every Papyrus Sim and GP1 and GP2, SODA Off Road and F1RS. And all had some very good points and of course none match GPL for physics excpet for maybe SODA Off Road, very underated because of lack of 3D hardware support. Grand Prix Legends is today what Grand Prix 2 was back then, the best racing sim of the day. Grand Prix 2 had locking brakes and you could lock the fronts coming into a chicane and understeer until you eased up on the brakes, none of Papyrus' sims was caple of even this simple feature. The only problem with Grand Prix Legends is that no other racing sim seems worth playing: SportsCarGT or maybe even the new F1 game from Eidos. Geof Crammond really has his work cut out to top Grand Prix Legends, but if anybody can do it I'll put my money on him. Jerry

All good points Jerry but below is the most important & I've played the new OF1.. If it is "Geof Crammond" working on the new F1 he better go back to the drawing board for awhile. It still isn't close as a sim compared to Gpl & {imho} the graphics do not compare yet either!! Somebody better "fyi" him "imho".. ;0) No facts here folks only my lonely sole opinions.. Cheers Thom_j. aka ^Fretts.. > <snipped> The only problem with Grand Prix Legends is that no > other racing sim seems worth playing: SportsCarGT or maybe even the new F1 game > from Eidos. Geof Crammond really has his work cut out to top Grand Prix > Legends, but if anybody can do it I'll put my money on him. > Jerry