F1RS to MGPRS2.....am I missing something?

I tried out the Monaco demo when it was first released and was disappointed, It was apparent that there was little if any improvement from the F1RS physics engine which IMO was it's (F1RS) major flaw. Have their been patches released_ post demo and Euro release_ to enhance the physics engine in 2? Being somewhat busy with GPL the last several months I probably overlooked that "MGPRS2 updated physics" thread. It's apparent from reading recent posts that It's a very popular title all over the world, I was just wondering why? DN

Because it's the best MODERN day Formula 1 sim out there! Iain

You didn't miss anything because the physics were not improved--just changed slightly (for the better). I have asked and defied someone to explain how they are improved and am still waiting for an answer. To be clear, changing grip levels a bit (to make them somewhat more realistic) does not constitute a physics improvement. Getting rid of canned spins, modelling suspension so you can actually use the kerbs, etc., etc. would constitute improved physics. Marc.

The way the cars can be setup is VERY different in MGPRS. The effect of the various options wing settings, dampers, etc. is very different - much more realistic than F1RS. You simply cannot use the same setups in MGPRS as in F1RS. The AI is also hugely improved in MGPRS as are the graphics as higher res can be used. Being able to select pit options in advance by hitting F12 during the race also gets rid of one of the most irritating aspects of F1RS, i.e. the time wasted in the pits to select how much fuel etc. to be put in. there are many other differences, but I'm too tired to get into them! Iain > You didn't miss anything because the physics were not improved--just changed > slightly (for the better). I have asked and defied someone to explain how > they are improved and am still waiting for an answer. > To be clear, changing grip levels a bit (to make them somewhat more > realistic) does not constitute a physics improvement. Getting rid of canned

Quoted text (16 lines)

> spins, modelling suspension so you can actually use the kerbs, etc., etc. > would constitute improved physics. > Marc. > > I tried out the Monaco demo when it was first released and was > disappointed, > > It was apparent that there was little if any improvement from the F1RS > > physics engine which IMO was it's (F1RS) major flaw. > > Have their been patches released_ post demo and Euro release_ to enhance > the > > physics engine in 2? Being somewhat busy with GPL the last several

months > I > > probably overlooked that "MGPRS2 updated physics" thread. > > It's apparent from reading recent posts that It's a very popular title all > > over the world, I was just wondering why? > > DN

I have asked people at r.a.s who apparently have worked on both MGPRS2 and, say, GPL, to tell me the exact % difference between the two sim's physics models but never got an answer either. That's because no one really knows. The physics model discussion on r.a.s. is where the most guesswork and unsupported claims are made. I felt the difference in the cars in MGPRS2 before I hit the first turn. It's a much improved sim in many ways. What are these "canned spins'? I can slide the car through the turns when necessary. You shouldn't be able to do that with a modern day F1 sim if it has "canned spins". I think if you told some of the best MGPRS2 drivers (people who are good enough to do a 1:19 at Monaco during an online race for example) that the physics model hasn't changed significantly, they'd have a very good laugh. Your earlier comment that, "Of course, Ubi had to patch the same bugs that were in the earlier versions of F1RS, but we shouldn't even be discussing these two companies in the same sentences....right?" tells me to disregard anything you have to say about MGPRS2. I hope others will too. You have your favorite sim. For some reason you (like many other fans of the same sim), feel the need to insult other developers, their employees, their sims, and the millions of people who enjoy them. Strange behavior. David G Fisher

I am not saying you are incorrect. FWIW, I have both games, I haven't played much with setups other than dl'ing net ones and some fine tweaking. I don't find that the physics is *clearly* superior, or more realistic, at least on such an obvious level. Nor do I find that the "feel" is *obviously* superior except that it is a little more fluid feeling. I do find that the vehicles feel a bit less on-rails with quick transition to canned-feeling spin (though that is still there more than any other sim). Maybe this is how the F1 cars are. I'm not saying that they are wrong. Maybe they overhauled the physics engine, but I can't say I notice that from driving it (quite a lot in RS1, much less in RS2, but includes some hours of races). Can you get specific, both by example of the effect and its outcome? Or point out areas that someone knows were specifically changed in the code to enhance the engine? I find that the majority of arguments in this ng about "realism" come from guesswork and, at best, some actual racing experience (usually in fairly different vehicle type and environment), and some basic physics discussion. But nothing that strikes me as compelling evidence that those stating their opinion can back it up effectively. Please, no "well, I can tell GPL from NFS3 if you can't" comments. I'm talking about knowing about whether the tire models use maps of g vs slip angle, how the tire temps are generated and convected/distributed, how the contact patch is established and shapes itself, how the individual suspension links contribute, how the sprung, non-sprung, and rotating masses interact. Or whether it is all taken to some very simplified model (and what might that be?). In what ways? I, obviously, note the blue flags. Which are done in a better than-nothing fashion, but are still far from satisfying. In the past, I've cited examples of how the way they did it was unrealistic, but it's been too long since I played it a lot to recall. I do recall the time that a "broken" lead car was allowed to pass due to blue flag, but then was immediately repassed due to its failure. And this cycle repeated a number of times on the lap. as are the graphics as higher res Agreed, though I find little reason to go past 640x480, it is so sharp even there. I agree with that one, and the inclusion of in-car suspension tweaks. Hey, it's an enhanced game. But I don't call it worthy of a new name and release. But that's a marketting decision. Flight sims are usually very updated on a new release. If not, it is usually an "add-on". Many sports games favor the yearly release to take advantage of the yearly nature of the sports. That would be more justifiable/acceptable I think if the game included data (real names and performance) of that most recent year's real sports figures. Such isn't the case with RS2.

Because it's a tremendous sim regardless of whether or not it is the most popular sim here. If you look at this very large and extremely well run league for MGPRS2 http://www.rs2league.com/Standings/Drivers/standings_drivers.htm there seems to be about 160 drivers. Look at the countries the people are from. It is an extrememly popular sim all around the world. I think very few (if any) of the people in that league actually post here at r.a.s. yet they are some of the best, and most knowledgeable, sim racers. What is the biggest name in F1? Ferrari. What country has the most rabid F1 fans? Italy. How many Italians post here? I enjoy r.a.s. a lot, mostly for the information it provides (not the opinion polls), but it is only representative of itself and nothing more. David G Fisher

> > It's apparent from reading recent posts that It's a very popular title all > > over the world, I was just wondering why? > Because it's a tremendous sim regardless of whether or not it is the most > popular sim here. I really don't care how popular it is in RAS_for instance I really like SCGT, primarily for it's physics engine, but it gets very little ink in this group_ I was hoping that Ubi had dramatically updated their physics model for 2 but from what I gather that has not happened, which leads to..........why, If I have F1RS should I *buy* 2 If there have not been dramatic upgrades all around? If 2 would allow me to clip the curbs without going into the spin that seems to always end facing backwards_or, while facing backwards, the ability to slam it into 1st and do a 180 within the width of the track_ I would snatch it up in a heartbeat. DN

>group_ I was hoping that Ubi had dramatically updated their physics model >for 2 but from what I gather that has not happened, which leads >to..........why, If I have F1RS should I *buy* 2 If there have not been >dramatic upgrades all around? I bought MGPRS2 and promptly returned it the next day. I have raced the ***out of F1RS and felt that MGPRS2 was definatley not worth the $20 price that Electronics Boutique was charging. I also felt the 800x600 was not suffucently different from 640x480. I have a P2-450 128MB ram and a 12MB V2 card. I did not notice anything drastic enough to pay $20 for. Yes the car was looser. But better physics? I didn't think so. The sound was also not fixed compared to F1RS (it still had that horrid highspeed downshifting sound). -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

FWIW, I definitely thought GP2 had canned spins. I think people are mistaking an unrecoverable spin with a canned spin. Obviously when you get too far out of shape, you can only hold on for the ride (and spin out). In F1RS you have to really drive like an ahole to get into an unrecoverable spin, at least that is my experience :-) This is will all driving aids OFF. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

People do have to clip the curbs to get the very fast times so I'm not sure why you say it results in a spin. I also can right myself with a 180 when needed. You stated you only tried the demo of MGPRS2. The setup options were not available, and the default tires were "hard". It was possible to change to soft tires in a pit stop though. I suggest you post your questions at the forum at mgprs2.com. David G Fisher If I have F1RS should I *buy* 2 If there have not been