The real reason there will be no good F1 sims..

...is simple. Try figuring out the physics of a modern F1 car, in any way realistically. How the heck will you be able to do that? 1) It is incredibly complicated with all the electronics controlling parts of the car, diffs, brakes, throttle.. 2) "Everything" is based on aerodynamics. 3) Try to get any info, whatsoever, about chassis/electronics/engine/aerodynamics from a state of the art car! It would be easier to obtain info on a stealth fighter... So: let's have more: 1) Sportscar/touringcar sims 2) A better NASCAR sim (N3?) 3) a new CART/IRL sim! (in theory, Papy/EA/Microprose/etc could go and buy the latest car from Lola, R&S or Reynard, and measure their hearts out... my 2 cents, Matt -- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

And you say that a CART simulator would be more easy to do ? They are almost as complicated from a electronic point of view. Both F1 and CART is very advanced in electronic controlling, aerodynamic, etc... F1 specifications can be easily given from teams btw. As for technical data from F1 teams, Renault worked with Ubisoft, I know that Sauber worked with Geoff Crammond (or was it Jordan ?) for Gp2. It's not anything top secret. A Formula 1 is still a racecar. It's not impossible to model correctly. Electronic controlling is not a big factor in the physics of a racecar. Aerodynamics is not that hard with mathematical calculations. IMHO -- -- 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."

the real reason is because they will proberbly not hire Matt Knutsen to do the graphics for them so it will look ribbish anyway! Matts graphics rule jay

Fortenately we are easy to fool :o). /Christer

Quoted text (26 lines)

> ...is simple. Try figuring out the physics of a modern F1 car, in any > way realistically. How the heck will you be able to do that? > 1) It is incredibly complicated with all the electronics controlling > parts of the car, diffs, brakes, throttle.. > 2) "Everything" is based on aerodynamics. > 3) Try to get any info, whatsoever, about > chassis/electronics/engine/aerodynamics from a state of the art car! It > would be easier to obtain info on a stealth fighter... > So: let's have more: > 1) Sportscar/touringcar sims > 2) A better NASCAR sim (N3?) > 3) a new CART/IRL sim! (in theory, Papy/EA/Microprose/etc could go and > buy the latest car from Lola, R&S or Reynard, and measure their hearts > out... > my 2 cents, > Matt > -- > Matthew Knutsen > "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons > http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

-- http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)).

What Matt is saysing here Frankie... is that F1 teams are *far* more reluctant to give information away.. with Cart's you can obtain information more easily since so many teams *buy* the same chassis. Try and ask Ron Dennis about the latest McLaren or something... Most likely... he'll just polish his nails and laugh at ya! :) -- All the best, Edwin Solheim *remove SPAM-GUARD in address to reply* The Paddock - a legendary site.... <http://home.c2i.net/thepaddock> > And you say that a CART simulator would be more easy to do ? They are almost > as complicated from a electronic point of view.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > ...is simple. Try figuring out the physics of a modern F1 car, in any > > way realistically. How the heck will you be able to do that? > > 1) It is incredibly complicated with all the electronics controlling > > parts of the car, diffs, brakes, throttle.. > > 2) "Everything" is based on aerodynamics. > > 3) Try to get any info, whatsoever, about > > chassis/electronics/engine/aerodynamics from a state of the art car! It > > would be easier to obtain info on a stealth fighter... > And you say that a CART simulator would be more easy to do ? They are almost > as complicated from a electronic point of view.

Nope. No electronic diffs. Very strict engine rules, very strict aero rules. Same gearboxes. Same off-the shelf chassis. Both F1 and CART is very ?bsolutely no way! I've been to the Jordan factory, and they've got security gueards *outside*! We were even *checked* before we were let in, and they made sure we were not studying things up too closely... As for technical data from F1 teams, Yeah, right. Well, that's your view...F1 is not anymore "just a racecar". They are far from it....try picking up an issue of Racecar Engineering once:-) Matt -- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

> the real reason is because they will proberbly not hire Matt Knutsen to do > the graphics for them so it will look ribbish anyway! > Matts graphics rule > jay Lol! Thanks! Read on UBI! :-) Matt -- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

Hate to blow your gasket, but the high end sports cars and especially the CART cars are just as much dependent on your first 4 items as are the F1 cars. And no, there should never be a CART/IRL sim...they are NOT the same at all.

On Sun, 09 May 1999 19:06:25 +0200, Matthew Birger Knutsen >...is simple. Try figuring out the physics of a modern F1 car, in any >way realistically. How the heck will you be able to do that? >1) It is incredibly complicated with all the electronics controlling >parts of the car, diffs, brakes, throttle.. And electronics are not already doing these things in our PC's? Heck, I've got a full drive-by-wire Lotus 49 in mine. :-) Seriously, it'd be less a problem now than modelling cars from the full-active days, though you already have the likes of ABS and traction control in some sims (however well or poorly they're executed). And if you think about it, the hard part is for the real guys, converting the electronic signals into the desired analog behavior of the components. With sims, there's no analog part to foul things up by behaving other than you expected it to! Again, I suspect it's a lot easier to model how a car will behave, given certain overall aerodynamic properties, than to actually build one that will have those properties. But still, it'll be interesting to see if and how N3, for example, models the effect of drafting on downforce and grip. Well, you could lurk behind the armco with a stinger missle and shoot one down when it whizzed by. Then you only need to haul off the bits and reverse-engineer! :-) But no, as far as "accurately" modelling the minute differences between each make of car, that'll never happen in a mass-market sim, ever. Nor will it for a CART, Touring Car, or Nascar sim, as all the teams work incessantly to find advantages and are not about to go public with them. All on the way, rest assured. Just buy the good ones and slam the bad ones to all who'll listen. Companies are fond of profit, and tend to do whatever brings more of 'em! Steve B. Remove "edy" from address for email

> Hate to blow your gasket, but the high end sports cars and especially the > CART cars are just as much dependent on your first 4 items as are the F1 > cars. And no, there should never be a CART/IRL sim...they are NOT the same > at all. Ok, I don't think my point is clear here Chris :-) First, I did not categorize CART and IRL cars as the same.... Ask me, and I'll tell you the differences <g> My point is; F1 is a show, the pinnacle of Hi-tec. Whereas I can go (and have done so) and photograph a Ferrari 333, R&S MkIII, Lola 99 CART, Reynard 99 CART, 98 Toyota GT-One, 98 BTCC Volvo etc etc up close, talk to the engineers, discuss why they've done what and so on, I could only dream about doing this with F1 cars unless I had $ 1 mill on my bank account, and half of that was donated to Mr.Ecclestone. No matter how big EA, Psygnosis or Sierra think they are, they would *never* have access to the same detail levels in F1. The difference is obvious: you can buy a 99 Reynard. You cannot buy a Formula one McLaren or Williams. They are not for sale! No matter how old! What I am saying is; it is possible to "simulate" a CART chassis because you can actually go find a car, buy it, drive it, take it to pieces, whatever. The only F1s you'll ever get close to are 4-5 year old Jordans, Footworks (been working on one), Tyrrells etc. Of course, you can make this the basic of the physics, and just say that a williams has 30% better physics... Try getting any data on the *front* diff on the 99 Bennetton..... :-) Matt

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > ...is simple. Try figuring out the physics of a modern F1 car, in any > > way realistically. How the heck will you be able to do that? > > 1) It is incredibly complicated with all the electronics controlling > > parts of the car, diffs, brakes, throttle.. > > 2) "Everything" is based on aerodynamics. > > 3) Try to get any info, whatsoever, about > > chassis/electronics/engine/aerodynamics from a state of the art car! It > > would be easier to obtain info on a stealth fighter...

-- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

Of course you cant buy the 99 F1 cars because there is secret information the teams are keeping from each other obviously. You can though buy a 98 Ferrari, I have seen it for sale and why not if youve got a few million laying about. Whats actually wrong with manufacturors competeing in a technological race instead of everybody buying the same chassis? Besides the chances of Papy actually buying a Reynard to take a part is about the same as Bernie E giving away tv rights for free! :-) ilmore

On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:30:29 +0200, Matthew Birger Knutsen The only F1s you'll ever get close to are 4-5 year old Matt, Does this esoteric stuff really matter? I mean are we as non feeling computer pilotes really going to feel the difference of the front diff on the 99 Bennetton? My gut feeling is no. I think really having an accurate sim of an up to date F1 car will be damn boring. We can't follow close or we lose aero grip, so overtaking is out. With the grooved tires the limit appears to be very difficult to find without going over so spins will be frequent. The thrill of feeling the sensation is not available so what is left? Well, hot lapping and the starts I guess. I immensly enjoy watching the drama of an F1 weekend but for a sim I would like to see some liberties taken with the ride the rails cars (I know that they are twitchy but still the aero downforce is high) and have a bit of the aero effects taken out. It is just more enjoyable to drive. Having Papy do a mid/late 70's GP season is more appealing than the modern aero cars. Don't get me wrong, I love high tech stuff, read Race Car Engineering and appreciate the technical race as much as the on the track race in F1 but to have a totally accurate sim of modern day cars without the physical sensations just doesn't do much for me. Don't know if that makes sense... Jeff Haas PS: When do you get to drive the Footwork you're working on ... ?

On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:30:29 +0200, Matthew Birger Knutsen >The difference is obvious: you can buy a 99 Reynard. You cannot buy a >Formula one McLaren or Williams. They are not for sale! No matter how >old! Not true. You may not get a McLaren because Ron Dennis is keeping them for himself but anything else goes. Up to last years F300 - which would be pretty much the pinnacle of it all. We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way too small. --Tel

I don't think the simulation of the car is the problem. I would see it a a problem with the interface. The experiance of driving a car goes far beyond holding a steering wheel and looking at a flat view of the world. There is no "feel" sitting at a desk. To provide better "cues" sound and graphics have to be adjusted to to get the driver better informed of what the car is doing. This must lead to inaccuracies of the presentation of the real effects - which I would guess is seen as not real physics. But then it isn't a real situation is it. I would prefer a game that felt right (based on some arbitrarily derived physics) but tha was not exactly real-world simulated. I would not want the absurd canned slides of Ridge Racer, I would like to be able to induce oversteer and control steering using the power etc, but it doesn't have to be exactly correct if I can't tell it is going to happen and can't judge the extent of the effect because the rest of the model isn't there (the feel). I would rather sacrifice some accuracy for a better experience based on wheel and screen. Does this make sense to anyone ? John

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:30:29 +0200, Matthew Birger Knutsen > The only F1s you'll ever get close to are 4-5 year old > >Jordans, Footworks (been working on one), Tyrrells etc. Of course, you > >can make this the basic of the physics, and just say that a williams has > >30% better physics... > >Try getting any data on the *front* diff on the 99 Bennetton..... > Matt, > Does this esoteric stuff really matter? I mean are we as non feeling > computer pilotes really going to feel the difference of the front diff > on the 99 Bennetton? My gut feeling is no.

Another question is; does Fisi and Wurz feel it ? :-) I think really having an Yes, couldn't agree more. A pity F1 has become what it is... Also my dream. The thing is; there are fewer physics "sensations" to simulate in modern car.."no" suspension travel/pitch/roll engine has about as much torque as a lawnmower..or am I garbling the words up...:-) LOL, as a mechanic, I worked on one year, my team were meant to buy it, but we ended up modifying a 91 Reynard F3000 for a 4 cyl turbo engine instead...hell, it's a loong, boring story:-) Matt (happy there are simulators, cause I'm to damn tall for single seaters anyway!) -- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

> Well, you could lurk behind the armco with a stinger missle and shoot > one down when it whizzed by. Then you only need to haul off the bits > and reverse-engineer! :-) Lol, a good idea:) I agree, but I think it's more about the prospect of the "generic" modern F1. Isn't it easier to make a better sim out of the so-called lesser formulae? I mean, those people have access to all the computer power they want, and still end up making dogs out of cars...:) I truly hope so. I guess I'm just put out by the fact that IMO the best, most driveable sim today uses cars from the 60s. Kinda reminds me of my road cars, I used to have a GTI that wasn't any fun until you were doing 100MPH, whereas my Mini is fun at 40:-) Matt -- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I don't think the simulation of the car is the problem. I would see > it a a problem with the interface. The experiance of driving a car > goes far beyond holding a steering wheel and looking at a flat > view of the world. There is no "feel" sitting at a desk. To > provide better "cues" sound and graphics have to be adjusted to > to get the driver better informed of what the car is doing. This must > lead to inaccuracies of the presentation of the real effects - > which I would guess is seen as not real physics. But then it isn't > a real situation is it.

Nicely put:-) Like the moving***pit of GPL? Absolutely! That's why a modern F1 "sim" would always be a friendly-interfaced game with an "officcial license" stamp om the cover...using real world F1 physics, and making them controllable via my desk will be hard. GP2 did give some sort of good impression, in fact I will be surprised if anyone can better it (at high speed).... Matt:-) -- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

On Sun, 9 May 1999 16:02:50 -0500, "Chris Schletter" >Hate to blow your gasket, but the high end sports cars and especially the >CART cars are just as much dependent on your first 4 items as are the F1 >cars. Any car is dependent on those things - it is how advanced, how much money and how secretive they are. In those areas F1 is _way_ ahead of anyone else. Peruse the latest concerns over engine materials to get an idea. Cheers! John

The real reason is that to be realistic they would make the sim so that it is impossible to pass. Whoever gets to the first turn first leads the race, and unless you run a long enough race so you stand a chance of passing during a pitstop, nothing more happens. -- Doug Gordon --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

Yes I understood his point, just wanted to put a little heat in the discussion :) Of course F1 is alot more secret and information is difficult to get, but it's not that impossible. If we are in 1999, the companies can easily make a 1998 F1 simulator of the "car physics", and since the development of the title normally takes more than a year, well when the title gets on the market in 2000 you can take data from the 1999 cars. I know it's not that easy, but it's IMHO possible. If the company can get a FIA license, Im sure they will have a section in the contract where they will be able to get data specifications directly from the FIA, hopefully. ;-D -- -- 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."

> The real reason is that to be realistic they would make the sim so that > it is impossible to pass. Whoever gets to the first turn first leads > the race, and unless you run a long enough race so you stand a chance > of passing during a pitstop, nothing more happens. LOL! Absolutely true! And for those who hate seeing Lotus 49s in GPL, imagine a modern F1 sim. No prob programming the Ai, tho. IF Player = Michael Schumacher then pass else StayInLine :-D Matt -- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers?

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:30:29 +0200, Matthew Birger Knutsen > We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games > here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or > learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way > too small. > --Tel

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers? > > On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:30:29 +0200, Matthew Birger Knutsen > > We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games > > here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or > > learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way > > too small. > > --Tel

err, I didn't write that..... Matt -- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

Sorry Matt; This wasnt directed to you!!

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers? > > > On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:30:29 +0200, Matthew Birger Knutsen > > > We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games > > > here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or > > > learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way > > > too small. > > > --Tel > err, I didn't write that..... > Matt > -- > Matthew Knutsen > "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons > http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

> Sorry Matt; This wasnt directed to you!! np:) But, doesn't Tamiya et.al "borrow" cars for their model kits? Why can't gamecompanies do the same? Boo-hooo :)) Matt

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > > Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers? > > > > On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:30:29 +0200, Matthew Birger Knutsen > > > > We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games > > > > here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or > > > > learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way > > > > too small. > > > > --Tel > > err, I didn't write that..... > > Matt > > -- > > Matthew Knutsen > > "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons > > http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

-- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

Goes back to my idea about a Supercart sim. Pure racing. 99% driver and 1% car to win a race. Damn, wish I could still fit in the 125cc racing cart in the garage.....

Quoted text (26 lines)

> ...is simple. Try figuring out the physics of a modern F1 car, in any > way realistically. How the heck will you be able to do that? > 1) It is incredibly complicated with all the electronics controlling > parts of the car, diffs, brakes, throttle.. > 2) "Everything" is based on aerodynamics. > 3) Try to get any info, whatsoever, about > chassis/electronics/engine/aerodynamics from a state of the art car! It > would be easier to obtain info on a stealth fighter... > So: let's have more: > 1) Sportscar/touringcar sims > 2) A better NASCAR sim (N3?) > 3) a new CART/IRL sim! (in theory, Papy/EA/Microprose/etc could go and > buy the latest car from Lola, R&S or Reynard, and measure their hearts > out... > my 2 cents, > Matt > -- > Matthew Knutsen > "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons > http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

Some sim developers actually get the telemetry readings. This is already in usable format and provides exactly the required datas on g forces, accleration, tire temp etc. This allows for a realistic physics model and is okay with the teams as long as its old telemetry and the sim writers don't give away wing and tyre settings etc. EA Superbikes is a good example. Ducati supplied telemetry readings to help with the physics. No need to go and make physical measurements. Who cares how wide a McLaren is compared to a Ferrari as long as the physics and setup options come somewhere near the real thing?

Quoted text (20 lines)

> On Mon, 10 May 1999 00:30:29 +0200, Matthew Birger Knutsen > >The difference is obvious: you can buy a 99 Reynard. You cannot buy a > >Formula one McLaren or Williams. They are not for sale! No matter how > >old! > Not true. You may not get a McLaren because Ron Dennis is keeping them > for himself but anything else goes. Up to last years F300 - which > would be pretty much the pinnacle of it all. > >What I am saying is; it is possible to "simulate" a CART chassis because > >you can actually go find a car, buy it, drive it, take it to pieces, > We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games > here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or > learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way > too small. > --Tel

> Some sim developers actually get the telemetry readings. This is already in > usable format and provides exactly the required datas on g forces, > accleration, tire temp etc. This allows for a realistic physics model and is > okay with the teams as long as its old telemetry and the sim writers don't > give away wing and tyre settings etc. EA Superbikes is a good example. Ducati > supplied telemetry readings to help with the physics. Yeah, great, and PI Research helped out on Cart Precision Racing...:-D Haven't tried Superbike yet, but it looks good:) To figure out correct physics from a chassis, you would most definitely need to know measurements, after all, it is something that is simulated! Roll centre movements, wheelbase, track width, weight distribution etc etc. Kinda hard to reverse engineer this? A few years back, we took a homebuilt sports-prototype to a company, we had designed it from the bottom as best as we could. They measured everything on the car, except aerodynamic devices. They then gave us a computer readout that explained what the car in current state would do, and how to improve that (i.e move left upper rear suspension pickup point down 2mm, raise steering rack 5mm etc etc, actually it was a small book of details. Using such a computer program, one could easily measure a car, feed the info into a physics model, and you would have the car in your PC. This work took the company two days, and it was years ago. Mind, the car was very competitive on it's first outing :-) It's all a case of mathemetics, and given a good representation of the track...very interesting indeed... What I would give to know how Papy applied this to GPL! Matt -- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

With an annual turnover of more than Fifty Thousand Million dollars ($50,000,000,000) I think Sony could probably afford an F1 car or two if they so wished... Cheers! John

yes but the telemetry tell them the wing settings, tyre setting, camber setting etc. They can see what adjusting gizmo b will do to measurement x. They know for instance the maximum and minimum camber adjustment and the telemetry reading from the variations in this adjustment. This is the information they need. It would be nice to know the wheelbase or track width but really, since they aren't adjustable in F1 cars, who really cares. It is all just mathematics up to a point. If they could find a proper AI formula to measure a Shuey vs a Coultard or a Doohan vs a Biaggi it would be fantastic! Perhaps the first measurement they should take is the size of their balls! I don't think Coultard's got any after his performance in the last race.

Quoted text (42 lines)

> > Some sim developers actually get the telemetry readings. This is already in > > usable format and provides exactly the required datas on g forces, > > accleration, tire temp etc. This allows for a realistic physics model and is > > okay with the teams as long as its old telemetry and the sim writers don't > > give away wing and tyre settings etc. EA Superbikes is a good example. Ducati > > supplied telemetry readings to help with the physics. > Yeah, great, and PI Research helped out on Cart Precision Racing...:-D > Haven't tried Superbike yet, but it looks good:) > > No need to go and make physical measurements. Who cares how wide a McLaren is > > compared to a Ferrari as long as the physics and setup options come somewhere > > near the real thing? > To figure out correct physics from a chassis, you would most definitely > need to know measurements, after all, it is something that is simulated! > Roll centre movements, wheelbase, track width, weight distribution etc > etc. > Kinda hard to reverse engineer this? > A few years back, we took a homebuilt sports-prototype to a company, we > had designed it from the bottom as best as we could. They measured > everything on the car, except aerodynamic devices. They then gave us a > computer readout that explained what the car in current state would do, > and how to improve that (i.e move left upper rear suspension pickup > point down 2mm, raise steering rack 5mm etc etc, actually it was a small > book of details. Using such a computer program, one could easily measure > a car, feed the info into a physics model, and you would have the car in > your PC. This work took the company two days, and it was years ago. > Mind, the car was very competitive on it's first outing :-) > It's all a case of mathemetics, and given a good representation of the > track...very interesting indeed... > What I would give to know how Papy applied this to GPL! > Matt > -- > Matthew Knutsen > "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons > http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

Yeah, and if it cost them $100,000,000 in research to produce an F1 game that makes a profit of $20,000,000 they will be happy?

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers? > >> We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games > >> here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or > >> learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way > >> too small. > With an annual turnover of more than Fifty Thousand Million dollars > ($50,000,000,000) I think Sony could probably afford an F1 car or two > if they so wished... > Cheers! > John

Quoted text (17 lines)

>Path: >>Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers? >>> We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games >>> here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or >>> learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way >>> too small. >With an annual turnover of more than Fifty Thousand Million dollars >($50,000,000,000) I think Sony could probably afford an F1 car or two >if they so wished... >Cheers! >John

Er... but the potential income from the project? Tiny. Z. Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

> yes but the telemetry tell them the wing settings, tyre setting, camber setting > etc. They can see what adjusting gizmo b will do to measurement x. They know for > instance the maximum and minimum camber adjustment and the telemetry reading from > the variations in this adjustment. This is the information they need. It would be > nice to know the wheelbase or track width but really, since they aren't adjustable > in F1 cars, who really cares. Nice discussion we're having here, Mark! :-) But, IMO, wouldn't this also mean that you would require; 1) Telemetry readouts from all the cars, with a readout of each possible combo of settings 2) Telemetry readouts from all the tracks, in variying track temperatures i.e a combo of both 1&2, wouldn't it be easier to have the chassis implemented in the physcics model, and let it respond to different tracks, weather, settings? Not to mention cheaper? Now that is THE challenge! Frankly, I haven't raced against AI much since N2, I find online racing far more enjoyable, but computing AI is interesting...simulating brain fade, or the possibility of a driver crashing his car, and keep going to take his rival out (schumacher) or even thump soebody after crossing the line (Gordon) :-) Maybe they removed the wrong lumps in that operation DC had a few years ago :-) Matt -- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

The question was that companies like Sony et al couldn't afford it, to which I pointed out that they could. Whether they would be happy would be another matter. I also think you overestimate how much an F1 car costs - probably closer to $1m if you omit development costs etc. They could have picked up a complete Simtek car for less than that after the 94 season, and I'm sure they could buy last season's Tyrrell quite reasonably. Since their license is usually at least one and usually two years out of date that would seem reasonable. It would all be a waste of time though, since real world physics do not necessarily transalte into a convincing simulation, and even if it did I know there are many cheaper ways of making us believe it to be real. Cheers! John

Different subject - the question was whether it was possible, not whether it was reasonable or likely. If they did it I'd presume they needed a head doctor. Cheers! John

Where these numbers coming from & can they be validated? Sounds like numbers from GM, Ford & maybe even Chrysler? Hmmm? Again just curious? Cheers.. Thom_j. aka ^Fretts..

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Yeah, and if it cost them $100,000,000 in research to produce an F1 game that > makes a profit of $20,000,000 they will be happy? > > >Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers? > > >> We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games > > >> here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or > > >> learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way > > >> too small. > > With an annual turnover of more than Fifty Thousand Million dollars > > ($50,000,000,000) I think Sony could probably afford an F1 car or two > > if they so wished... > > Cheers! > > John

Driver AI should be the easiest to simulate. Aggression Braking Skill Car Control Tactical Ability Desperation Team Orders These are some of the factors that could be used to alter the dribing characteristics of the standard physics model. Things like Car Control and Tactical ability would be fairly static for a driver. His desperation and aggression would change with the season and who he is trying to pass. Team orders could turn him into a mobile chicane! Surely this is within the ability of the sim developers. I would love to see an AI Shuey brake later in a cloud of smoke to pass me on the inside if he was behind in the championship or an Irvine make his Ferrari look 10 meters wide whilst blocking a passing manouver.

Quoted text (46 lines)

> > yes but the telemetry tell them the wing settings, tyre setting, camber setting > > etc. They can see what adjusting gizmo b will do to measurement x. They know for > > instance the maximum and minimum camber adjustment and the telemetry reading from > > the variations in this adjustment. This is the information they need. It would be > > nice to know the wheelbase or track width but really, since they aren't adjustable > > in F1 cars, who really cares. > Nice discussion we're having here, Mark! :-) > But, IMO, wouldn't this also mean that you would require; > 1) Telemetry readouts from all the cars, with a readout of each possible > combo of settings > 2) Telemetry readouts from all the tracks, in variying track > temperatures > i.e a combo of both 1&2, wouldn't it be easier to have the chassis > implemented in > the physcics model, and let it respond to different tracks, weather, > settings? > Not to mention cheaper? > > It is all just mathematics up to a point. If they could find a proper AI formula to > > measure a Shuey vs a Coultard or a Doohan vs a Biaggi it would be fantastic! > > Perhaps the first measurement they should take is the size of their balls! I don't > > think Coultard's got any after his performance in the last race. > Now that is THE challenge! Frankly, I haven't raced against AI much > since N2, I find online racing > far more enjoyable, but computing AI is interesting...simulating brain > fade, or the possibility > of a driver crashing his car, and keep going to take his rival out > (schumacher) or even thump soebody after > crossing the line (Gordon) :-) > Maybe they removed the wrong lumps in that operation DC had a few years > ago :-) > Matt > -- > Matthew Knutsen > "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons > http://www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/

Just using the figures as an exagerated example, not as real figures. The point I was making that even a a $1,000,000 the investment would be out of proportion to the estimated earnings of the game whether or not they can afford it. Everyhting companies like Sony do is for profit, even that Robodog they just released.

Quoted text (21 lines)

> >Yeah, and if it cost them $100,000,000 in research to produce an F1 game that > >makes a profit of $20,000,000 they will be happy? > The question was that companies like Sony et al couldn't afford it, to > which I pointed out that they could. Whether they would be happy would > be another matter. > I also think you overestimate how much an F1 car costs - probably > closer to $1m if you omit development costs etc. They could have > picked up a complete Simtek car for less than that after the 94 > season, and I'm sure they could buy last season's Tyrrell quite > reasonably. Since their license is usually at least one and usually > two years out of date that would seem reasonable. > It would all be a waste of time though, since real world physics do > not necessarily transalte into a convincing simulation, and even if it > did I know there are many cheaper ways of making us believe it to be > real. > Cheers! > John

Just using exagerated figures to make a point. A classic example of overkill in development costs is Atari with their licence for E.T. I have heard there is a very large hole full of E.T. cartridges somewhere....

Quoted text (30 lines)

> Where these numbers coming from & can they be validated? Sounds > like numbers from GM, Ford & maybe even Chrysler? Hmmm? > Again just curious? Cheers.. Thom_j. aka ^Fretts.. > > Yeah, and if it cost them $100,000,000 in research to produce an F1 game that > > makes a profit of $20,000,000 they will be happy? > > > >Don't you think this makes sense fellow r.a.s readers? > > > >> We should not forget that we're still talking about computer games > > > >> here. No one will ever actually buy such a car to get a closer look or > > > >> learn about it. Not EA nor Sony nor anyone, the revenues are just way > > > >> too small. > > > With an annual turnover of more than Fifty Thousand Million dollars > > > ($50,000,000,000) I think Sony could probably afford an F1 car or two > > > if they so wished... > > > Cheers! > > > John