Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?

Are we to continue to respect Papyrus and Sierra when it is obvious that by abandoning the GPL engine in this way, they have given up on advancing the state of the art in sim racing. Even if they had put out a sim that was the equal of GPL in terms of physics, graphics, etc., it would have been the best ever implementation of REALISM in the Nascar world. It was stated in an interview on AGN a few months back that the GPL engine was written to be transferrable to any type of motor sim. When I heard that I had hopes that there would be a bunch of racing titles by others that perhaps would be based on the GPL engine. It could have been like the Doom/Quake engine which was licensed to many other software firms and there were a bunch of other implementations of the same first person shooter technology. But now that the authors of the engine themselves have been unable to make it work for Nascar and are giving up, the hopes that EA or others with the official licenses for their type of racing will use the excellent physics of the GPL engine are gone. If the authors of the engine can't make it work, nobody else is going to take a risk on the GPL licensing fees AND additional R&D dollars to pick up where Papy left off and make it work. They'll just take the easy way out and make an arcadish game. By giving in to what appears to be pressure from Sierra, Papyrus has done the greatest dis-service to the sim racing community. They have created the perception that advancing the state of the art is commercially unfeasable. Forevermore, GPL with its lackluster sales will be percieved by game producers as a testament to what happens when you try to push the state of the art in realism. The last hope we who seek realism most of all have is Geoff Crammond and GP3. At least he had the foresight years ago to retain the rights to GP2 so that he and only he would make the decision as to when to release the game. Do you think Geoff would have allowed Microprose or anyone else to have forced him to release the game instead of spending six additional months on perfecting crashes and spins? The game may not have had everything in it that he would have liked, but at least he never compromised on something as fundamental as the physics engine! So what if the hardware to run it at it's full potential wasn't even on the drawing boards at the time of it's release. It was VERY playable at its first release and it still was capable of growing in graphic detail as the hardware grew more powerful. I hope that GP3 will be a tremendous commercial sucess and that Geoff's business model of retaining full control and being the sole judge of when a game is worthy of release and what will go in it will be validated. If having to deal with slipped dates is the tradeoff for this kind of dedication to quality simulations, then I say its far better than what Papy/Sierra has done. Respect Papyrus? After what they have done to the future of racing sims with this abandonment of the GPL Engine in the face of its greatest opportunity to show the world that the state of the art realism in GPL can be commercially sucessful, I can only say thanks for nothing.

You need to seperate Papyrus from Sierra. Papy cannot be held liable for the decisions of disconnected suits. I would love to hear the real deal from someone at papy! Is this decision a technical issue of not being able to use the GPL engine? Will N2000 be as cutting edge as GPL? If the answer to these is yes then we have nothing to worry about. On the other hand if (imo) if they do not let the cat out of the bag soon they could be considered to be hiding something, scary. JM

Quoted text (50 lines)

> Are we to continue to respect Papyrus and Sierra when it is obvious that by > abandoning the GPL engine in this way, they have given up on advancing the > state of the art in sim racing. Even if they had put out a sim that was the > equal of GPL in terms of physics, graphics, etc., it would have been the > best ever implementation of REALISM in the Nascar world. > It was stated in an interview on AGN a few months back that the GPL engine > was written to be transferrable to any type of motor sim. When I heard that > I had hopes that there would be a bunch of racing titles by others that > perhaps would be based on the GPL engine. It could have been like the > Doom/Quake engine which was licensed to many other software firms and there > were a bunch of other implementations of the same first person shooter > technology. > But now that the authors of the engine themselves have been unable to make > it work for Nascar and are giving up, the hopes that EA or others with the > official licenses for their type of racing will use the excellent physics of > the GPL engine are gone. If the authors of the engine can't make it work, > nobody else is going to take a risk on the GPL licensing fees AND additional > R&D dollars to pick up where Papy left off and make it work. They'll just > take the easy way out and make an arcadish game. > By giving in to what appears to be pressure from Sierra, Papyrus has done > the greatest dis-service to the sim racing community. They have created the > perception that advancing the state of the art is commercially unfeasable. > Forevermore, GPL with its lackluster sales will be percieved by game > producers as a testament to what happens when you try to push the state of > the art in realism. > The last hope we who seek realism most of all have is Geoff Crammond and > GP3. At least he had the foresight years ago to retain the rights to GP2 so > that he and only he would make the decision as to when to release the game. > Do you think Geoff would have allowed Microprose or anyone else to have > forced him to release the game instead of spending six additional months on > perfecting crashes and spins? The game may not have had everything in it > that he would have liked, but at least he never compromised on something as > fundamental as the physics engine! So what if the hardware to run it at it's > full potential wasn't even on the drawing boards at the time of it's > release. It was VERY playable at its first release and it still was capable > of growing in graphic detail as the hardware grew more powerful. I hope that > GP3 will be a tremendous commercial sucess and that Geoff's business model > of retaining full control and being the sole judge of when a game is worthy > of release and what will go in it will be validated. If having to deal with > slipped dates is the tradeoff for this kind of dedication to quality > simulations, then I say its far better than what Papy/Sierra has done. > Respect Papyrus? After what they have done to the future of racing sims with > this abandonment of the GPL Engine in the face of its greatest opportunity > to show the world that the state of the art realism in GPL can be > commercially sucessful, I can only say thanks for nothing.

Not the last at all. Don't be surprised if Rally Championship is the best sim to date, and sets new, very high, standards in many areas. David G Fisher

You want to hear the real deal? It doesn't take a genious to figure out that you can only produce anything as long as there's constant flow of cash - to pay you, your co-workers, invest in software/hardware etc. To produce a title like GPL is certainly a honorable deed but alone it also will never generate enough to keep the business running, much less make any profit this way. Mind you, they are professionals who wants to make those things for a living and not only to please a handful of *** fans... Therefore, as long as they don't have something ready that will really sell, no matter how simple it is, we won't see any game using the GPL engine and/or historical cars again... --Tel

But it's vaporware David. Cmon. The only thing we saw was a video that didn't showed anything "incredible". No physic presentation, anything... It's as vaporware as N3. -- -- 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."

So after screwing the realism in Red Baron II Sierra are now going to ***the racing sims as well........ that is indeed sad news. Dolle Dolf --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

Read Mr. Nelson's editorial updates to his E3 reports. Appears that N3 based off the GPL engine is still live and well...perhaps that bodes well for CART2/3/2000/whatever. :)

The only thing were all (including me to this point) are forgetting is that NASCAR fans will buy ANYTHING with the NASCAR logo on it. My experiance is they dont really care what it is or who makes it or even (if its a game) how hard it is to play. Ive actually heard alot of complaints from the non simracing community (ie die hard NASCAR fans) that NasRev was totally un realistic (though i can see why) and that they preferred the tougher but more realistic N2/N99. I dont know if it will still hold true but if they dont know how hard GPL is then they might not know how hard N3 with the same physics would be. They will jst run out and buy it cause it says NASCAR on it. Of course im kind of just speculating here. Nobody except Papy knows wht N3 will be like for sure. But i suppose this applys no matter what happens. Nascar fans buy Nascar stuff... Just had to get that out of my system. Chris

There again, Sierra/Papy have sunk a HUGE sum of money in the development of the GPL engine these last few years. I am sure that they (the suits) will want to see a further return from it, apart from GPL. The sales of GPL have in general been disappointing in the UK as far as i can gauge. I hope that the marginal revenue accruing from sales of a 'proper' Nascar sim will outweigh the marginal costs of tweaking/developing the GPL engine for it (and that Sierra can see this and act accordingly). It is not clear though if N3 will supersede or compete with N2000. If it supersedes, surely the game engine can be dumbed down for a mass market whilst retaining an 'ultimate challenge' mode. Additionally, the 'realistic sim ' segment of the overall market for a Nascar simulator although small, is undoubtedly important (not to mention vocal), and carries with it a lot of prestige for any publisher that leads it (as Papy currently does). I waited for GPL for a long time, and was not disappointed with the result. It was and is the biggest advancement in race sims since GP1/World Circuit was in it's day all those years ago. It has set the new standard, and I would be very loath to spend my hard-earned on anything that does not now approach those standards (and certainly not on an N2 hangover as N2000 seems to be) Just my thoughts Ian

Amen brother! Give the arcaders their run-and-gun, never-brake e***ment and let us simmers have at barely keeping the car on the road. I love GPL and will keep racing long after N2000 is on the store shelves. It's a shame sim-racers do not appear to be as dedicated to realism as flight-sim jocks. -- Erik Frechette The Pits Performance Team www.theuspits.com/owheel/gpl/gpl.html

You're right that it is a matter of economics. In fact, I wonder what financial incentive there is for them to really work hard and release the alleged "V1.1 patch". After all, GPL was pretty much bug-free for the main features that it was supposed to support. Internet racing was a last-minute add-on. I suspect that the large majority of people who have bought GPL never race multiplayer and have never heard of VROC or the RAS community. Where is Sierra's incentive? After all, nobody makes any money off of VROC and other player-hosted Internet racing. Unless a patch fixes a serious problem or adds features that will sell more games, why should they do it? On the other hand, someone might see a big market for multiplayer racing that must be hosted by centralized servers that you have to pay hourly rates to access. There are already some efforts along these lines (the American Motorcyclist Assoc. is funding a company that's developing a subscription-style motorcycle racing game), and we can probably expect more. Will the sequel to GPL be a multiplayer game that someone can make money from? -- Doug Gordon --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

Hey if it's realistic, well good for them and good for us. Im in need for a serious and realistic Rally racing simulator. I would pay a hundred bucks for such a thing. I also doubt that Rally 99 will dissapoint, even if it's near the quality of CMR (I liked CMR for the pure fun of racing the stages, even if unrealistically (sp?)). No demo, movie not showing any physics, and PR stuff. It all looks great, but I want to see how it performs before I spend my money. Because it's my own money I worked for... I want to be informed. And I want a solid multiplayer online racing, yes 1 after the other, with a delay of 30seconds ;) I want also to hit a tree _hard_ going at 45mph, and end my weekend. Well I agree with that, but it's still was a great step from the other rally titles on the market. -- -- 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."

On Tue, 18 May 1999 00:45:57 GMT, "Michael E. Carver" >Until of late we have been a rather small "***" consumer (race >simheads). Now with the flood of "car" games and sims on the market, I >think our ranks will swell. I don't think the flight sim junkies (err >excuse me "jockies"), just grew up overnight. I hope the racing sim ranks do swell! And just think about what it would take to run a GPL-based NASCAR sim properly. It takes a 350 mhz machine or better and a state of the art video card to run GPL well with all graphics on and a full field of 20 cars. What would it take to run a full NASCAR field of 43 cars? A 700 mhz machine? How many of us have a Pentium IX/700 lying around? Maybe Papy and Sierra are doing the smart thing by pushing the GPL-based NASCAR sim back awhile. Alison Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me. [link lost in import]

Quoted text (27 lines)

> On Tue, 18 May 1999 00:45:57 GMT, "Michael E. Carver" > >Until of late we have been a rather small "***" consumer (race > >simheads). Now with the flood of "car" games and sims on the market, I > >think our ranks will swell. I don't think the flight sim junkies (err > >excuse me "jockies"), just grew up overnight. > I hope the racing sim ranks do swell! > >One other thing to consider.... the better the simulation the large the > >hardware demand. Until you get the critter hooked on the softer stuff, > >they won't be ready to spring for the hardware they need to feed their > >*** jones. > And just think about what it would take to run a GPL-based NASCAR sim > properly. It takes a 350 mhz machine or better and a state of the art > video card to run GPL well with all graphics on and a full field of 20 > cars. > What would it take to run a full NASCAR field of 43 cars? A 700 mhz > machine? How many of us have a Pentium IX/700 lying around? > Maybe Papy and Sierra are doing the smart thing by pushing the GPL-based > NASCAR sim back awhile. > Alison

Well said, Alison... We may be getting a better Nascar game in a year or two. After all, they will have more time to work on it. Philster

I feel better about the whole thing after reading the Operation Sports article on Monday. The way I look at it now, we'll hopefully be getting a fairly good NASCAR sim in the fall (that will hopefully run well on our current systems) and if things go keep going "on track" we'll have a great NASCAR sim in a couple of years. I wouldn't mind getting a good CART sim too, CART has a great strategic element that I like, pit strategy is extremely important just about every race. Later, John

Also hoping that Rally99 will be terrific! You aren't alone on that opinion of CMR, it's just that there haven't been any decent rally sims since Euroexpress' original Rally Championship, and the bar for rally sims is so low (International Rally Champ, Sega Rally, VRally etc) that rally sim fans jump on anything that is even close to decent, I think this is what happened with CMR. I don't mean to put down CMR too much, I had a good bit of fun with it, since it was fun in its own arcadish way despite a weird physics model and short stages, I'm just hoping that one of these days we will have a rally sim with realistic physics that will raise the bar for this subgenre of racing sims, hopefully Rally99 will set this standard the way GPL did for open-wheel sims (and GP2 before it). We can only hope it lives up to the promises. Seeyas on the track. --John (Joao) Silva

Quoted text (12 lines)

>From what I've seen so far I think Francois may need some salt and >pepper on those words in a few weeks, since Rally99 looks to be >shaping up very well indeed. It all comes down to each person's >definition of a sim and what you expect from it, but I doubt Rally99 >will disappoint overall. >About time we had a good Rally sim. I seem to be alone in thinking >Colin McRae rally was unentertaining pants, missing the challenges >specific to rallying. >Cheers! >John

% Amen brother! Give the arcaders their run-and-gun, never-brake e***ment % and let us simmers have at barely keeping the car on the road. I love GPL % and will keep racing long after N2000 is on the store shelves. It's a shame % sim-racers do not appear to be as dedicated to realism as flight-sim jocks. Until of late we have been a rather small "***" consumer (race simheads). Now with the flood of "car" games and sims on the market, I think our ranks will swell. I don't think the flight sim junkies (err excuse me "jockies"), just grew up overnight. One other thing to consider.... the better the simulation the large the hardware demand. Until you get the critter hooked on the softer stuff, they won't be ready to spring for the hardware they need to feed their *** jones. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (9 lines)

> You want to hear the real deal? It doesn't take a genious to figure > out that you can only produce anything as long as there's constant > flow of cash - to pay you, your co-workers, invest in > software/hardware etc. > To produce a title like GPL is certainly a honorable deed but alone it > also will never generate enough to keep the business running, much > less make any profit this way. Mind you, they are professionals who > wants to make those things for a living and not only to please a > handful of *** fans...

All true. What I fail to understand is why using the GPL engine would be detrimental to sales. NASCAR (to the extent I played it) was by no means "easier" because of its physics modeling, but because those cars _are_ easier to drive than the ones in GPL. I might pick up N3 when it comes out, but certainly not if it features some dumbed down ***arcade modeling compared to GPL. -- Anssi Lehtinen

Just remember what I said. :-o David G Fisher > > Not the last at all. Don't be surprised if Rally Championship is the best > > sim to date, and sets new, very high, standards in many areas. > But it's vaporware David. Cmon. The only thing we saw was a video that > didn't showed anything "incredible". No physic presentation, anything... > It's as vaporware as N3.

On Tue, 18 May 1999 04:09:38 -0400, "David G Fisher" >Just remember what I said. :-o From what I've seen so far I think Francois may need some salt and pepper on those words in a few weeks, since Rally99 looks to be shaping up very well indeed. It all comes down to each person's definition of a sim and what you expect from it, but I doubt Rally99 will disappoint overall. About time we had a good Rally sim. I seem to be alone in thinking Colin McRae rally was unentertaining pants, missing the challenges specific to rallying. Cheers! John

> My dream sim would be the GPL engine in a Prototype sim from the late 60's > early 70's.... 917's, P3's etc. OR a Can-Am sim...... Mid to late 60's Can-Am sim (66 to 68 with Jim Hall and the Chaparral) would be my dream sim. Unfortunately, this would be even a smaller niche market than 1967 F1. Dave Ewing

Do you know if there a demo on the horizon (late May)? How do you envision multiplayer for RC? --D.Cook

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Just remember what I said. :-o > David G Fisher > > > Not the last at all. Don't be surprised if Rally Championship is the > best > > > sim to date, and sets new, very high, standards in many areas. > > But it's vaporware David. Cmon. The only thing we saw was a video that > > didn't showed anything "incredible". No physic presentation, anything... > > It's as vaporware as N3.

It looks like the demo, and a lot of info, will be released in the in the coming weeks. There was a report at one of the Rally 99 sites that a demo was to be available in time for E3 but it didn't happen. Hopefully soon. David G Fisher

I tend to agree with you here. Another thing to consider is that most of what is in view while driving a Nascar simulation is the***pit and that is stationary. I think the hardware comment is just a story to buy more time so Sierra can use the Papy crew to punch out another N2. One thing is positive - At least we know we'll get FF and A3D when N3 is finally released... David L. Cook

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Remembering how long I ran N2 with only 4 cars visible ahead and 2 behind > me (before the Rendition card arrived), I'm not convinced completely that > performance is the real problem. If it's not the graphics (how much better > looking are the cars in N3 supposed to be?), would they really use the > 100% physics calculations for all AI cars? It's not done in GPL, as you > can guess by looking at them sometimes slide around the track. > Sounds like a *** theory, doesn't it? > <suit mode on> > "We can't scare the kids with those physics, but find a good reason for > those realism nuts at ras!" > <suit mode off>

% I tend to agree with you here. Another thing to consider is that most of what % is in view while driving a Nascar simulation is the***pit and that is % stationary. I think the hardware comment is just a story to buy more time so % Sierra can use the Papy crew to punch out another N2. Remember, even if you don't see the cars, they still require CPU cycles to run their AI. % > Remembering how long I ran N2 with only 4 cars visible ahead and 2 behind % > me (before the Rendition card arrived), I'm not convinced completely that % > performance is the real problem. If it's not the graphics (how much better % > looking are the cars in N3 supposed to be?), would they really use the % > 100% physics calculations for all AI cars? It's not done in GPL, as you % > can guess by looking at them sometimes slide around the track. % > % > Sounds like a *** theory, doesn't it? % > % > <suit mode on> % > "We can't scare the kids with those physics, but find a good reason for % > those realism nuts at ras!" % > <suit mode off> -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

<lots of quoted stuff snipped> >I tend to agree with you here. Another thing to consider is that most of what >is in view while driving a Nascar simulation is the***pit and that is >stationary. I think the hardware comment is just a story to buy more time so >Sierra can use the Papy crew to punch out another N2. Umm, I think you're close. The people at what's left of papyrus just can't meet Sierra's we-got-to-get-it-out-NOW deadline, so, they're forced to do something quick to meet the demands of the lame parent company. Papyrus as some of us older crowd knew it disappeared when Sierra bought them. The "papyrus" titles are the ONLY thing I've bought from that lousy company in MANY years. And anybody who pre-orders from them is a total fool. They always release to the stores first. Sierra has ALWAYS been dollars first, quality second. Umm. how 'bout IF? I'm not waiting on it so much anymore... Later. -Mark Gums

I disagree, the hardware requirement sounds quite reasonable to me. As Alison has already pointed out, it takes a PII 350 and SLI'ed V2s to run GPL at reasonable graphics settings. The amount of AI cars makes a big difference. Take the same physics engine and add in: Aerodynamics calculations More graphics on the cars Twice the number of AI cars Spotter speech Heads up display Pace car and Yellows Force Feedback - probably the biggest hit I'm willing to bet that a PIII 600 would need most of the graphics turned off to run at 20 FPS. If they came out with that, everyone would be crying about that. These guys just can't win. (In this forum, at least) Don McCorkle Libertarian Motorsports

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> What would it take to run a full NASCAR field of 43 cars? A 700 mhz >> machine? How many of us have a Pentium IX/700 lying around? >> Maybe Papy and Sierra are doing the smart thing by pushing the GPL-based >> NASCAR sim back awhile. >I feel better about the whole thing after reading the Operation Sports >article on Monday. The way I look at it now, we'll hopefully be getting >a fairly good NASCAR sim in the fall (that will hopefully run well on our >current systems) and if things go keep going "on track" we'll have a >great NASCAR sim in a couple of years. I wouldn't mind getting a good >CART sim too, CART has a great strategic element that I like, pit >strategy is extremely important just about every race.

Yup. Now that they've decided to sit on N3, Papy should do a CART sim using GPL engine. After all, fields in CART are much smaller than in nascar. Just my $.02 Hena

Um, interesting point on the FF there, wonder what effect the 1.1 GPL patch will have on fps - anyone know? -- Mike Buckley Cotswold Pig Development Co Ltd Tel: +44 (0)1472 371591 Fax: +44 (0)1472 371208 http://www.toastyhamster.freeserve.co.uk

Don't care - I can't afford it... :) __ Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea... remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

> Um, interesting point on the FF there, wonder what effect the 1.1 GPL > patch will have on fps - anyone know? My estimate is that it's about 5-10%. It's going to depend on your system and what type of wheel you have, though. I'm using a K6-2 333 and a Force RS. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

Well, the PII 350 part is right - one overclocked to 466 :) That, and a $30 Rendition 4MB video card, GPL in 640X480 35+ fps 100% of the time -- Kirk Lane ICQ: 28171652 >>I tend to agree with you here. Another thing to consider is that most of >>what >>is in view while driving a Nascar simulation is the***pit and that is >>stationary. I think the hardware comment is just a story to buy more time so >>Sierra can use the Papy crew to punch out another N2. >I disagree, the hardware requirement sounds quite reasonable to me. As Alison >has already pointed out, it takes a PII 350 and SLI'ed V2s to run GPL at >reasonable graphics settings. The amount of AI cars makes a big difference. >Take the same physics engine and add in: >Aerodynamics calculations >More graphics on the cars >Twice the number of AI cars >Spotter speech >Heads up display >Pace car and Yellows >Force Feedback - probably the biggest hit >I'm willing to bet that a PIII 600 would need most of the graphics turned off >to run at 20 FPS. If they came out with that, everyone would be crying about >that. These guys just can't win. (In this forum, at least) >Don McCorkle >Libertarian Motorsports

>So after screwing the realism in Red Baron II Sierra are now going to >screw the racing sims as well........ that is indeed sad news. >Dolle Dolf How bad was RB II compared to RB I? Just curious... __ Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea... remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Um, a question from one who doesn't have FF, and deosn't plan to ($$$ reason, no other): Is that estimate (5-10%) up or down? --David

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Um, interesting point on the FF there, wonder what effect the 1.1 GPL > > patch will have on fps - anyone know? > My estimate is that it's about 5-10%. It's going > to depend on your system and what type of wheel > you have, though. I'm using a K6-2 333 and a Force RS. > -- > Pat Dotson > IMPACT Motorsports > http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

> Um, a question from one who doesn't have FF, and deosn't plan to ($$$ > reason, no other): > Is that estimate (5-10%) up or down? Down of course. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

Down of course. Nothing in life is free. Of course, you CAN turn it off, if that 5-10% is a problem. Scott says...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Um, a question from one who doesn't have FF, and deosn't plan to ($$$ > reason, no other): > Is that estimate (5-10%) up or down? > --David > > > Um, interesting point on the FF there, wonder what effect the 1.1 GPL > > > patch will have on fps - anyone know? > > My estimate is that it's about 5-10%. It's going > > to depend on your system and what type of wheel > > you have, though. I'm using a K6-2 333 and a Force RS. > > -- > > Pat Dotson > > IMPACT Motorsports > > http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >So after screwing the realism in Red Baron II Sierra are now going to > >screw the racing sims as well........ that is indeed sad news. > >Dolle Dolf > How bad was RB II compared to RB I? Just curious... > __

RBI was state of the art when it came out, and RBII was essentially already obsolete when it arrived, not a lot to set it apart from Wings of Glory of late 1995. The problems with RBII/3d are with the flight modelling. They were promising the "most realistic flight model ever" blah di blah and the flight model was plain awful on release. It then went through several rehashes, and was never fixed. Hackers have tried, succesfully to a certain extent, to change the flight models. However when certain deficiencies were corrected, most notably speed bleed in turns (with the Sierra flight model you could turn and turn forever without the plane losing speed or alt) the AI cannot fly the planes and crash. The campaign is almost the same as the one in RBI. Unfortunately RBII does not have a flight recorder. The saving grace of the game is the plethora of third party patches, and the dynamic campaign, or more precisely, a dynamic "little world" where other squadrons, friend and foe, go about their business. It is kind of cool to send an extra patrol out on a mission as a squadron commander, finish your own mission and then go over to find that patrol still performing their duties. The damage model after the latest patch was also excellent. Historical inaccuracies have been corrected by third party patchers (Sierra did a lousy job there, living aces were reported as dead, victory tallies were wrong), plane colours have been corrected, there are a few damage models to choose from, there is a "squadron manager" which lets you type after combat reports and the like, and now there are people improving the graphics. I have not tried those yet, as I seriously overate on RBII/3d, and the original third party improvements to the flight model were abolished as the AI cannot fly the patched FM planes. What really pissed me off about RBII/3d is the Sierra statements continually contradicting themselves. When it came out 3d acceleration had already become the norm in games, but according to Sierra the game engine was too old to be able to implement 3d acceleration. Of course 6 months down the road (and 2 FM rehashes later) and complaint after complaint the decision was made to give 3d accelaration in a patch, and then Sierra went on thumping their chest about giving the simmers a "free 3d patch". As multiplayer had been screwed up with the initial release that was also in the "free patch" so more self congratulatory shoulder patting. When it appeared that the FM in that particular patch was as bad as it had been, and mmp was still porked, another "free patch" was unleashed upon the simming hordes, and more self-back patting from Sierra. Of course the icing was the release of the 3d boxed version which was the same as the mmp patched RBII. RBII owners could get that for free, with a refund upon sending the RBII CD. I actually got my money 4 months later. Dolle Dolf --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---