The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The reason I lost interest with GPL is because it was to much like 1967 GPL Racing. There was no feedback like N2. I like to punch F1 or F2 and S, so I could see how I was running. With GPL I got bored waiting until the next lap to see what I did the lap before. Hell, I couldn't remember the last lap. Leave the GPL Engine alone and modify it to N3. Add the feedback that were accustomed to and lets Race. Maybe add the Arcade (Nintendo) Mode that adds stability to the setups for the beginners. Take Nascar 3 (2000) to the next level, I'm sure not buying a revamped Nascar1999 Version again. Jim

the idea of GPL is that it is true to life...... the drivers had no other source of info from the pits other than the pit board whcih is always a lap behind, it is just like club racing today if you want digital uptodate dashes buy a modern sim nad if you must know how you did straight away hit f2 and watch yourself cross the line the beauty of gpl is that you have to keep pushing, the suspense of not knowing what your last lap was like keeps you pushing right to the end of the next lap whih if you new the lap time would probably be your inlap, thje suspense of not nowing how brilliantly quick your last lap will make you want to get to the end of the lap quicker and improve your lap times at the same time. buy another sim if you dont like it but you will be missing out jay

Quoted text (11 lines)

>The reason I lost interest with GPL is because it was to much like 1967 >GPL Racing. There was no feedback like N2. I like to punch F1 or F2 and >S, so I could see how I was running. With GPL I got bored waiting until >the next lap to see what I did the lap before. Hell, I couldn't remember >the last lap. > Leave the GPL Engine alone and modify it to N3. Add the feedback that >were accustomed to and lets Race. Maybe add the Arcade (Nintendo) Mode >that adds stability to the setups for the beginners. Take Nascar 3 >(2000) to the next level, I'm sure not buying a revamped Nascar1999 >Version again. >Jim

I'm sure that a lot of us would be very let down if GPL had a feature like the one you're refering to. The whole point of GPL was to make it as true to life back then as possible. GP drivers had no clue of how they were doing in a race, except for what they could see around them and what would be written to them on the board when they reached the pit lane. You're too used to todays namby-pamby drivers who have taken away the _real_ racing and put in technology instead. I'm a big fan of the Nascar Racing series, but all the features it has are only good because of the type of game that it is Trying to impliment this into GPL would be, and is, a big _NO!_ If you're not interested in pure, 100%, realism, which GPL comes pretty close to offering, you've clearly bought yourself the wrong simulator. Stick with N2 instead. I do wonder how you could get bored with GPL, just because of a tiny thing like this however... Griffin, the Slayer

Unfortunately, pure 100% realism is part of what kept the sim from meeting sales expectations, and has had the suits at Sierra wanting to kill the whole project of using the GPL engine in other software. It is clear that the majority of users playing driving simulations are more interested in "games" rather than "sims." If we, the more *** sim fans, are unable or unwilling to accept that there should be OPTIONAL concessions to make our sims more driveable for beginners, and those that simply want the thrill of racing, it will not be long before we find ourselves without any sims to race. We will also have to accept that these sims should install with all of those options defaulting to ON - making it up to us to take the effort to turn them off. The backlash to demanding ONLY realism will be scores of "Nascar Revolution"s, endless unimproved "Nascar Racing Series," and "Need for Speed," type games. There is a place for such games, but we must realize that if the options making real sims more accessible are not implemented - and keep responding with "you've bought yourself the wrong simulator" instead of pushing for such options, "games" is all we will be left with. For GPL, papyrus listened to the *** simmers, perhaps too much, and the game IS virtually inaccessible to many racing enthusiasts. I don't see any changes on the horizon to salvage this title in terms of market saturation. While a wonderful sim, GPL should also serve as an example to all of us of how too much of a good thing, without options making it accessible to the average racer, hurts our desires for more realism in the long run... Michael > If you're not interested in pure, 100%, realism, which GPL comes > pretty close to offering, you've clearly bought yourself the wrong > simulator. Stick with N2 instead. > Griffin, the Slayer

I must have missed that 100% realism....or maybe I don't have the new USB based gravity generator! And its clear? Where did you get the information? :) I might agree with you if it'd been say a Nascar sim taht supported the advanced racing engine and bombed. But while yes the most realistic racing physics seen in a PC racing title thus far were probably a turn off to some folks, I'd bet more passed it up before even getting to that point because they had no interest in 1967 grand prix racing. But I don't believe that folks are demanding ONLY realism. I believe what they are wanting is the ability to, for themselves, to have the best realism available. I'm sure they don't mind if Bobby down the street buys the same title but only runs the junior mode, as long as they are NOT forced to also run in the junior mode too. saturation. Virtually inaccessible? No, I don't think so. Its very accessible, however it does take some work to begin to understand the concepts and be able to get to a point where you start to become good. If thats virtually inaccessible, well then, the world is screwed because if people aren't willing to put work into something they ENJOY, then what the heck are they going to do when they go to their jobs? :P Perhaps, but then again I highly doubt many "average racers" even considered buying the title because they couldn't run their favorite cars (from Sportscars to production to stock cars to forumla1 cars, etc) or were completely unfimiliar with the topic at hand. Stick a babe on the cover, let lose a bunch of Porsche 959s, Ferrari Tesatorras and F40s, a couple Lamborghini Countach and Diablos, add in a splash of Callaway Vettes, a Mustang GT Cobra, Toyota Supra, a Nissan 300ZX TwinTurbo, a Winston Cup car, a Cuda, perhaps even a Dodge Charger painted up orangee with the rebel flag, et al and I bet even on the 67 GP road courses provided in GPL it would have sold like hotcakes.

>Unfortunately, pure 100% realism is part of what kept the sim from meeting >sales expectations, and has had the suits at Sierra wanting to kill the >whole project of using the GPL engine in other software. It is clear that >the majority of users playing driving simulations are more interested in >"games" rather than "sims." And they should all be shot for this. I mean, really, who on Earth would prefer the wall banging effects of Ultimate Race Pro to GPL? A bit like the Arcade mode in N2 for example? I'd would say that the settings should Default to the most realistic setting, and then it would be for amatures to make it easier on themselves. But would you really want useful time, money and effort, to go into these features for those who can't bare good quality _simulators_, instead of it being directed to a game specifically for one audience [simulator fans], who could then relish in a wonderful sim? I certainly wouldn't. I'm not sure how much I agree with creating game with both Arcade and Simulator properties. We've seen it happen before, in N2 and SBK, for example. When was the last time you used the Arcade modes in either of these games? I used it once or twice only in N2, and only during the demo of SBK. Except for the lack of decent profit which Papy' made, GPL hasn't suffered. A life without GPL is no life at all. :) Griffin, the Slayer

On Tue, 18 May 1999 16:39:13 -0500, "Chris Schletter" >And its clear? Where did you get the information? :) I might agree with you >if it'd been say a Nascar sim taht supported the advanced racing engine and >bombed. But while yes the most realistic racing physics seen in a PC racing >title thus far were probably a turn off to some folks, I'd bet more passed >it up before even getting to that point because they had no interest in 1967 >grand prix racing. Good point, Chris. The date of GPL probably had something to do with the lack of interest by some people. I had reservations when I first saw the previews of GPL too. How wrong I was... Again, another good point. You really are full of good comments today! :) I agree, GPL is _accessible_ to everyboy who wants to put some time and effort into it. Those who don't can go ahead and cry. I think you're absolutely right about this! I can't remember the last time I agreed with anybody more than I have done with your comments in this message. You've certainly done your homework and know what you're talking about! :) Griffin, the Slayer

> The reason I lost interest with GPL is because it was to much like 1967 > GPL Racing. There was no feedback like N2. I like to punch F1 or F2 and Yepp, like me flying Red Baron 3D for the first time and searching for the key to switch on that damn radar screen... l8er ronny -- How to get rid of censorship in German game releases <http://www.gamesmania.com/german/maniac/freedom/freedom.htm> |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

... GPL Racing. I'd worry if it was like horse racing Mark

>The reason I lost interest with GPL is because it was to much like 1967 >GPL Racing. A stunning observation indeed! -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet ===============================================

And of course, the question: How did the fellows racing in 1967 already know they were not just GP-ers, but indeed GPL'ers! Talk about egos . . . --David

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >The reason I lost interest with GPL is because it was to much like 1967 > >GPL Racing. > A stunning observation indeed! > -- > Best regards, > Bruce. > ====== > The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! > http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet > ===============================================

> The reason I lost interest with GPL is because it was to much like 1967 > GPL Racing. Sounds like Papy did their job to me. And a damn good one at that! Think you just bought the wrong sim for your taste. -- Chuck Kandler #70 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Unarmed & unafraid!

>Yepp, like me flying Red Baron 3D for the first time and searching for the >key to switch on that damn radar screen... ;) <lol> Griffin, the Slayer

>For GPL, papyrus listened to the *** simmers, perhaps too much, and the >game IS virtually inaccessible to many racing enthusiasts. I don't see any >changes on the horizon to salvage this title in terms of market saturation. >While a wonderful sim, GPL should also serve as an example to all of us of >how too much of a good thing, without options making it accessible to the >average racer, hurts our desires for more realism in the long run... Too true. Unfortunately, some here will not get it no matter how hard you try. They will continue to demand from the developers to create the most sophisticated simulation for them (and only them) while they have absolutely no clue how to finance such a project... --Tel

LOL...oh my, can it get any more ignorant? That's exactly the point why we won't see any other games of that type in the foreseeable future... With that attitude you're just going to kill the genre. --Tel

Ok, Knew I'd catch some flack for those comments, so here goes... 1) To get the information - it is only necessary to check the sales figures for different genres. It is compliled and available from gamespot, among others. If you really want the best information - buy stock and read your quarterly reports - if you request it, the depth of information they can provide you with includes revenues vs expectations versus title - region - and packaging. Since revenues for racing "games" over the last two to three years is considerably higher than racing "sims," saying that the demand for games is greater than the overall demand for sims is an easy call. It is not that GPL hasn't made a profit, simply that it didn't meet minimum projected profit - which is often more damaging in the business world than abject failure. 2) I agree that the era and type of racing reduced sales on their own. However, this was expected and taken into account when projections were made. The expectation of revenues from GPL was much lower than for a NASCAR or even a CART title. The problem is that GPL has not met even these reduced expectations - and had a high return rate for Papyrus titles (ask Sierra about the return rate - the only higher was the FBPro 99 fiasco as a percentage of original sales). Which leads us to: 3) I never said anything about being forced to run in junior mode. Why do I think arcade mode should be the default? Simple - it helps to prevent returns by those people looking for an arcade racer and unwilling to take the time and effort to toggle on switches. Ideally it would be controlled by an on/off toggle available when the player first puts in their name. I think that the default setting should be easy enough that ANY computer racer can complete a circuit around the track on their first attempt. Difficulty can then be added in layers. Please realize - most of us on this newsgroup would never race with this setting, but there are many out there who bought GPL, and promptly took it back after crashing several times on their first attempt to race - never completing a full lap. This phenomena is what led to my "virtually inaccessible" comment. I know many of us treat computer racing as very serious business, and would like to see as many as realistic as possible sims available for our perusal. If you get nothing else from what I say, please understand that we as the *** simmers must be willing to argue for features we will personally never use to keep the games playable by less *** gamers, or we are destroying the chance for future, more realistic sims. Michael... Comments by Chris and Griffin:

rrevved, (for the most specific - see #3) 1) Most information out of Sierra available to the general public - even their PR - mentions that GPL has not been considered a real success. See even their very recent press releases. They are openly stating such as justification for altering the specifications of this years NASCAR titles. That GPL has not met financial expectations is pretty much general knowledge. 2) As far as returns - it can be as simple as asking local software stores how many were returned within the first two weeks of release, and how many times some copies were repackaged before they didn't come back. In most states, software stores are required to keep such records (legal and piracy issues). At one local store here (JAX,FL), a single box was repackaged and resold FIVE times before finding a permanent home. Since repackaged sales are typically not reported to the publisher, the return rate may be much higher in local stores than even Sierra's numbers. If the sim would have been more usable by the purchasers - that could have been six sales (original plus five return sales) rather than one. You also have to realize that salespeople usually stop recommending titles that have more than one or two returns in most locations - which further cuts sales. 3) Ask for information from investor relations if you are a stockholder - you can get pretty much any information you want if you have enough stock. Some of their reports are VERY detailed (down to how many boxes are in which warehouse, how long they have been sitting there, if they have been there before, how long they are expected to stay, etc.). The best information for revenues, projections, and returns is in the monthly accounting office report. Sierra has a past history of killing entire lines of development when one title didn't meet their expectations. (The Laura Bow mysteries for example - and that series lead developer was one of the founders of the company, who until that point got her way in everything. Like GPL, Laura Bow II was a success - most companies would have thought it a great success - but it didn't meet expectations and LBIII was stopped dead in its tracks as a result). The reports on and changes to upcoming titles (as reported here and at E3) leads me to believe that Sierra accounting and marketing have been putting considerable pressure on Papyrus concerning their 1999 releases. Michael

It's a commercial fact of life, friend Griff, that corporations exist for one thing, and one thing only: to make money for their shareholders. If that target is achieved by pleasuring you, well and good. If not.......tough ***. -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet =============================================== >>Unfortunately, pure 100% realism is part of what kept the sim from meeting >>sales expectations, and has had the suits at Sierra wanting to kill the >>whole project of using the GPL engine in other software. It is clear that >>the majority of users playing driving simulations are more interested in >>"games" rather than "sims." >And they should all be shot for this. I mean, really, who on Earth >would prefer the wall banging effects of Ultimate Race Pro to GPL? >>If we, the more *** sim fans, are unable or unwilling to accept that >>there should be OPTIONAL concessions to make our sims more driveable for >>beginners, and those that simply want the thrill of racing, it will not be >>long before we find ourselves without any sims to race. We will also have >>to accept that these sims should install with all of those options >>defaulting to ON - making it up to us to take the effort to turn them off. >A bit like the Arcade mode in N2 for example? >I'd would say that the settings should Default to the most realistic >setting, and then it would be for amatures to make it easier on >themselves. >>The backlash to demanding ONLY realism will be scores of "Nascar >>Revolution"s, endless unimproved "Nascar Racing Series," and "Need for >>Speed," type games. There is a place for such games, but we must realize >>that if the options making real sims more accessible are not implemented - >>and keep responding with "you've bought yourself the wrong simulator" >>instead of pushing for such options, "games" is all we will be left with. >But would you really want useful time, money and effort, to go into >these features for those who can't bare good quality _simulators_, >instead of it being directed to a game specifically for one audience >[simulator fans], who could then relish in a wonderful sim? I >certainly wouldn't. >I'm not sure how much I agree with creating game with both Arcade and >Simulator properties. We've seen it happen before, in N2 and SBK, for >example. > When was the last time you used the Arcade modes in either of these >games? I used it once or twice only in N2, and only during the demo of >SBK. >>For GPL, papyrus listened to the *** simmers, perhaps too much, and the >>game IS virtually inaccessible to many racing enthusiasts. I don't see any >>changes on the horizon to salvage this title in terms of market saturation. >>While a wonderful sim, GPL should also serve as an example to all of us of >>how too much of a good thing, without options making it accessible to the >>average racer, hurts our desires for more realism in the long run... >Except for the lack of decent profit which Papy' made, GPL hasn't >suffered. >A life without GPL is no life at all. >:) >Griffin, the Slayer

Sport, it's not up to consumers to worry about how to finance a product!! That's the concern of the supplier.....not the buyer! If the supplier doesn't wish to go down the road of producing a marginal product, then that's his/her/their decision, but don't blame the poor consumer for asking. Jeeeezuz! -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet =============================================== >>For GPL, papyrus listened to the *** simmers, perhaps too much, and the >>game IS virtually inaccessible to many racing enthusiasts. I don't see any >>changes on the horizon to salvage this title in terms of market saturation. >>While a wonderful sim, GPL should also serve as an example to all of us of >>how too much of a good thing, without options making it accessible to the >>average racer, hurts our desires for more realism in the long run... >Too true. Unfortunately, some here will not get it no matter how hard >you try. They will continue to demand from the developers to create >the most sophisticated simulation for them (and only them) while they >have absolutely no clue how to finance such a project... >--Tel

No.....it's not *HIS* attitude that's killing anything. He is merely expressing *HIS* desires.....something that we can all do. Again....the call is with the supplier and if they did some decent market research once in a while instead of simply listening to their own marketing hype then they *may* just get the picture, eh? -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet =============================================== >>Except for the lack of decent profit which Papy' made, GPL hasn't >>suffered. >LOL...oh my, can it get any more ignorant? That's exactly the point >why we won't see any other games of that type in the foreseeable >future... With that attitude you're just going to kill the genre. >--Tel

Get a grip Michael....read what you've written.....here is the snip:- If the software developers/publishers don't take it upon themselves to discover what the bulk of the marketplace wants then they should not be in this business or any other business associated with selling. This practise is called MARKET RESEARCH. Most successful enterprises who produce something for mass sale use it. We as the "***" simmers should argue for what *WE* would like. We are not here to (a) act as the advocates for those with less lofty desires nor (b) act as non-paid employees of the company whom we are petitioning. -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet ===============================================

Michael... Interesting information and perspectives that you offer in your posts. The accessibility issue is one of the things that GPaL attempts to address...i.e. scaleable AI in terms of both speed and diversity, novice trainers that the novice racer can easily use in single race mode, etc.etc. My view is that the average gamer buys a racing sim to race, not to train. I think it's unfortunate that when that average gamer tries to do what he wants to do most and clicks on Single Race mode, he's automatically handed a F1 car, without even an option for F2 or F3. Sure, if his machismo will allow it (and I think many times it won't), he has the driving aids, and if he selects Novice (an acknowledgment that you don't have the "right stuff" to many) or Intermediate, the AI is scaled back further, but he still fundamentally has the F1 car to wrestle. And then, assuming he's swallowed his pride and been patient enough to race in Novice, he's forced to go to a more advanced level before he can enjoy longer races. To further frustrate the novice racer, the NPT system virtually insures that he'll never win or even finish near the front. Sure NPT has it's benefits in that it insures that the racer will always have some AI competition, but my bet is that the overwhelming majority of new GPL racers would prefer, after a few hours of effort, to be contending for the podium rather than avoiding Surtees in mid-pack of a progressively faster AI field. So GPaL addresses that situation with it's flexible AI controls. My feeling: With more flexible gameplay options, and a little more creative, aggressive marketing, I think GPL could have been and still can be a much greater commercial success. I continue to be intrigued by the idea of bundling the movie "Grand Prix" with GPL that someone else purposed here earlier. I think it would add tremendously to its shelf appeal! Ever seen a two-cassette movie offered with a video game? And wouldn't it add an element of intrigue to the younger prospective buyer who otherwise takes a look at the packaging says, "What!?! 1967? That's when my dad was a kid! Yuck!" And the movie would certainly add to the appeal and the romance of the game once the customer got it home. I don't pretend to understand the economics of the movie biz, but come on, how much incremental income is MGM, or whoever currently owns the rights, generating off of "Grand Prix"? It seems to me that you might be able to pull off a bundle deal without too much incremental expense if you also threw in some additional collateral...like some coupons for rentals/purchases at your neighborhood Blockbuster. Can you imagine if at your local Blockbuster there was a kiosk full of these Grand Prix/GPL bundles and overhead there was one of those powerful Blockbuster monitors playing a well-produced, voice-over video that jumped back and forth between clips from the movies with rugged Jim Garner sawing at the wheel in Monaco, clips from the game, and clips of guys racing against each other from all corners of the globe via the Internet? Beats the heck out of languishing on the shelf amongst all the NASCAR and arcade titles! I think they could sell truckloads on the basis of curiosity alone! And if GPL was sufficiently accessible, those curiosity buyers might actually become GPL ***s, like us! Jack Rambo www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

Bruce, Point taken - it was a little overboard. Like all companies mass marketing, Sierra does market research. The problem from the sim players point of view is that market research delivers information in statistical format - and is most useful in determining the lowest common denominator (LCD) of the market - where sales will likely be highest. This is especially true in the land of sequels (i.e. the US market). Much more than market research, however, most companies use the success of previous products to estimate the success of current ideas. It would have been better to say that we the sim players that want more realism must realize that we are not the LCD of the racing market. If we wish to see realism remain an issue, particularily for Sierra/Papyrus products in the wake of GPL, then we must convince them that products, by providing various options, can meet the demands of both the average (LCD) racer and the more *** sim driver - thereby selling to both markets. Since the "average" racer is much more common, we will have to accept that installation defaults will need to cater to that racer, otherwise viability of the title is risked. If we are unable to do this, financial dictates will push to remove increased realism from racing software, and in the end will leave us only with "games" not "sims" as they have higher potential sales. Eventually the market would rebound - probably by some small upstart similar to the original Papyrus - but we would lose the expertise of those groups who have developed their art of sim design in the interim. Michael

% Unfortunately, pure 100% realism is part of what kept the sim from meeting % sales expectations, and has had the suits at Sierra wanting to kill the % whole project of using the GPL engine in other software. It is clear that % the majority of users playing driving simulations are more interested in % "games" rather than "sims." Wait a minute! Hold on a second! Things are getting just a little out of hand here. I am sorry, but Moses has not come down from the mountain yet. We do NOT know that any of the above is a true fact. 1) I highly doubt that 100% realism is part of what kept the sim from market expectations.... a) Does anyone outside of Papy/Sierra know what their market expectations where? b) Sierra did a piss-poor marketing job in GPL. Almost $0.00 in fact. Sierra doesn't seem to hot to market any of Papyrus's products well. 2) We have no way of knowing what the "suits" are saying or doing. Everything posted here in r.a.s. and other forums is 100% pure speculation. But if we say it enough times, I am sure it will become true. Who says that the physics engine in GPL is be tossed out with the bath water by the suits? 3) It is NOT clear that the majority of users playing driving simulations are more interested in "games" rather than "sims". a) I will concede that the majority of users playing driving games are more insterested in "games" rather then "sims". b) For many there just isn't the apppeal in a 1967 Grand Prix simulation. Many users need the "I see it on TV" and I can do it on my computer crutch to be jived on a racing simulation. Why else do you think the developers spend so much money on licensing? c) The hardware requirements for GPL are almost state of the art and many folks just can't justify upgrading for a simple past-time. <snip> % For GPL, papyrus listened to the *** simmers, perhaps too much, and the % game IS virtually inaccessible to many racing enthusiasts. I don't see any % changes on the horizon to salvage this title in terms of market saturation. % While a wonderful sim, GPL should also serve as an example to all of us of % how too much of a good thing, without options making it accessible to the % average racer, hurts our desires for more realism in the long run... Nope, for GPL, Papyrus listened to their "hearts" and "souls". And they listened well and should be applauded for their results. GPL is a labor of love and dedication to what Papyrus Design Group has always been since the birth of Indianapolis 500 the Simulation. People are getting confused between the "profession" and "avocation". Papyrus's profession is to produce products that will sell well in the entertainment industry. Their avocation (or calling) is to produce computer based racing simulations for the home computer. In order for PDG to keep their avocation alive, they must keep their profession alive. That's all that is happening... That is why the NASCAR99 dress-up, and now the enhanced NASCAR2000 (which if people had read between the lines many months ago we were being told about from posts here in r.a.s. by Papy employees). GPL was a work of art that was forced on the market before it could be completed. The starving artist needed to stay alive in order to continue creating. Have no fear, Papyrus will never stoop as low as to produce a NASCAR Revolution game to stay alive. But it has no qualms with taking an early art project and making variations on the theme available to keep food on the table. Patience grasshopper.... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Well said Jack, about 2 months after buying GPL I also bought "Grand Prix". Packaging them together would be a great idea...they're made for each other. I'd also suggest that your GPaL should be in that bundle too :) My enjoyment of GPL went through the roof after I discovered an AI Tweak package on the web... Dennis

>It is not that GPL hasn't made a profit, simply that it didn't meet >minimum projected profit - which is often more damaging in the business >world than abject failure. I agreed with you all the way up to the "abject failure" being better than the "meeting minimum projected profit". How would meeting your required profit be worse than making a huge loss? If the product met the minimum projected profit but didn't sell as well as expected it presumably sold at a higher ASP then predicted? Fully agree with this, and have argued this for a long time. The simulation realism must be married with sales (and hence profits), with an acceptance of whatever that entails. Cheers! John

I have to thank Papy/Sierra for getting GPL out when they did. Just think if we all had to wait 9 months longer for GPL! Ack! What would I have done in November '98 when I worked 95 hours overtime in the month and one race of GPL a day kept me sane? ;-D Jason.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> GPL was a work of art that was forced on the market before it could be > completed. The starving artist needed to stay alive in order to > continue creating. > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-------- Jason Monds "My other car is a Ferrari" http://members.home.net/gpl.mondsj/gpl - For my combined gas/brake setups (Please remove 'no extra spork' when replying)

> c) The hardware requirements for GPL are almost state of the art > and many folks just can't justify upgrading for a simple > past-time. The hardware requirments for GPL are hardly state of the art. They are however, narrow-banded. Z. Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

Quoted text (13 lines)

>On Wed, 19 May 1999 08:34:27 GMT, >>The expectation of revenues from GPL was much lower than for a NASCAR >>or even a CART title. The problem is that GPL has not met even these >>reduced expectations >Michael, how do you know? Be specific, please. >> and had a high return rate for Papyrus titles (ask >>Sierra about the return rate - the only higher was the FBPro 99 fiasco as a >>percentage of original sales).

Interesting. I assume because of the ***software rendering, and the lack of Broad 3D card support? Z. Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

On Wed, 19 May 1999 22:31:32 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" >Sport, it's not up to consumers to worry about how to finance a product!! >That's the concern of the supplier.....not the buyer! >If the supplier doesn't wish to go down the road of producing a marginal >product, then that's his/her/their decision, but don't blame the poor >consumer for asking. Jeeeezuz! Umm...of course. But I think there's a difference between 'asking' or 'suggesting' and 'demanding'... If certain people are not willing to make compromises (i.e. optional easier modes etc.), they will have to accept the consequences too - what means in the end no complex simulations at all. --Tel

Quoted text (20 lines)

>>On Wed, 19 May 1999 08:34:27 GMT, >>>The expectation of revenues from GPL was much lower than for a NASCAR >>>or even a CART title. The problem is that GPL has not met even these >>>reduced expectations >>Michael, how do you know? Be specific, please. >>> and had a high return rate for Papyrus titles (ask >>>Sierra about the return rate - the only higher was the FBPro 99 fiasco as a >>>percentage of original sales). >Interesting. I assume because of the ***software rendering, and the lack of >Broad 3D card support? >Z. >Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

I agree with you about the software rendering. Terrible is an understatement! Griffin, the Slayer

I think it is very nice that this "not completed" sim could give so much joy to so much demanding sim racers still, what is it now, 6-7 months after its release, without a single patch. How many games do that? Is any PC game today completed when it is released? /Magnus

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>Except for the lack of decent profit which Papy' made, GPL hasn't >>suffered. >LOL...oh my, can it get any more ignorant? That's exactly the point >why we won't see any other games of that type in the foreseeable >future... With that attitude you're just going to kill the genre. >--Tel

Actually, you're wrong about this. Check out this months edition of Ultimate PC. There's a review of an upcoming game called _Spirit of Speed_. It's not too long, but here's what it says - watch out for the highlights... [SPIRIT OF SPEED] Hasbro Interactive have hit top gear with news of a pre World War II racing game tiled 'Spirit of Speed'. This vintage car simulation will feature cars from the late thirtes such as the Bentley Blower, Bugatti and Mercedes. Big lumbering cars wit huge engines, ineffetive brakes and doggy handling, these vehicles are a world apart from the relitively safety of the Formula 1 vehicles of today. _The success of Grand Prix Legends_ seems to have sparked an explosion of 'classic' car racing games, but Sprit of Racing will push the years back further than all others. Whether this will work remains to be seen. The cars of the era were not particularly quick, nor easy to control. Of Broadsword attempt a strict simulation they could end up producing a game that deters more games than it attracts. My point exactly. :) Griffin, the Slayer

It is because of the way investors react. Most expect occasional losses, especially in ground breaking industries, and continue to invest in that industry even when they occur. However, when something does generate a return, but that return is lower than desired, they typically move their investment to other areas. Why? Most companies that have a true failure often follow it with a good success - they learn from the failure and redesign. A marginal success is usually followed by more marginal successes as the company only tries to tweak what they have done rather than really stepping back and evaluating their product. Michael ----- Original Message -----

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >It is not that GPL hasn't made a profit, simply that it didn't meet > >minimum projected profit - which is often more damaging in the business > >world than abject failure. > I agreed with you all the way up to the "abject failure" being better > than the "meeting minimum projected profit". How would meeting your > required profit be worse than making a huge loss?

Michael, that is the silliest generalization about the nature of business I have ever read here. And there've been some silly ones! I suggest we all get back to simulated racing and leave all this "business-related" speculation behind. Kurt Steinbock (some clipped)>

>It is because of the way investors react. Most expect occasional losses, >especially in ground breaking industries, and continue to invest in that >industry even when they occur. However, when something does generate a >return, but that return is lower than desired, they typically move their >investment to other areas. Hmmm... Take a look at the modest success of some Japanese semiconductor companies this year versus the abject failure of some U.S. ones. Observe the stampede away from those U.S. stocks while the Japanese ones hit new record highs. Really don't agree with that at all. It could happen in occasional cases, but as a generalisation it's way off the mark. Cheers! John

On Wed, 19 May 1999 17:25:11 -0400, "Kurt Steinbock" >I suggest we all get back to simulated racing and leave all this >"business-related" speculation behind. Might be wise, as everybody seems to have their own opinions on how a good business is run. Griffin, the Slayer

% Well said Jack, % about 2 months after buying GPL I also bought "Grand Prix". Packaging % them together would be a great idea...they're made for each other. % I'd also suggest that your GPaL should be in that bundle too :) % My enjoyment of GPL went through the roof after I discovered an AI Tweak % package on the web... While we are bundling, let's not forget VROC. I know that I would still be driving GPL without VROC, but I am positive I wouldn't be enjoying it half as much without VROC! -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Huh? We *HAVE* to accept any compromise that a software producer feeds us!! *WE* don't design, program and deliver the product.....*THEY* do!! And what's this "demanding" got to do with it? We can demand until we are blue in the face and it won't matter one iota if the developer/publisher wishes to cater for the mass market...........which just happens to *NOT* subscribe to this newsgroup! -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet =============================================== >Umm...of course. But I think there's a difference between 'asking' or >'suggesting' and 'demanding'... >If certain people are not willing to make compromises (i.e. optional >easier modes etc.), they will have to accept the consequences too - >what means in the end no complex simulations at all. >--Tel

They were certainly "home computer" state-of-the-art when the sim was in development and when the demo (Watkins Glen) was first made available. And not everybody plays this game on-line, either. -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet =============================================== >> c) The hardware requirements for GPL are almost state of the art >> and many folks just can't justify upgrading for a simple >> past-time. >The hardware requirments for GPL are hardly state of the art. >They are however, narrow-banded.

[snip] From the mouths of Papyrus themselves at http://www.operationsports.com/reviewvault/articlesfull.asp?featureid=26 [begin quote] Q. Dan - Why not use the Grand Prix Legends engine for NASCAR? Racing 2000? A. Papyrus has always been the leader in developing products with the highest degree of racing simulation realism available, and we intend to maintain that leadership. Last years release of Grand Prix Legends is widely regarded as the most stunningly accurate and rigorous vehicle simulation ever created in a consumer package. However, given the limited commercial success of Grand Prix Legends, its clear that we would be doing a disservice to our core NASCAR? Racing fans if we released NASCAR? Racing 3 with the same degree of difficulty and steep learning curve. The average customer shouldnt be expected to have real world racecar driving skills to enjoy the game. In addition, a NASCAR? simulation based on the same engine at GPL would have even steeper system requirements. Add to that a higher graphics load and a system that will run the game smoothly is out of reach to the vast majority of our customers. [end quote] Get that "limited commercial success" part? I think your source is mistaken. -- http://www.users.fast.net/~fusion1 (dirt bikes, rat bikes, rental car abuse...)

completed. Well, Michael, all I can say is thank *GOD* it was delivered before completion because, as my driving enjoyment is almost ***ic, I shudder to think what the completed version would have done to me!!! :o) -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet ================================================-=-=-=

>Path: >They were certainly "home computer" state-of-the-art when the sim was in >development and when the demo (Watkins Glen) was first made available. >And not everybody plays this game on-line, either. They certainly were not bruce. All you needed was a mid spec PII and a plain old Voodoo graphics card for a decent frame rate. I even had it working fine on a P166 with 32mb and a Voodoo Graphics!. Even he full release just needs a mid-spec PII and a Voodoo2 or the like. Software mode is bad, though, and the 3D hardware supported in laughable- i'm not really counting the poor opengl patch released. But at the end of the day, next to FPS, or heavy Flight Sim, the hardware requirements are not that over the top. Z. Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

% From the mouths of Papyrus themselves at % http://www.operationsports.com/reviewvault/articlesfull.asp?featureid=26 % [begin quote] % Q. Dan - Why not use the Grand Prix Legends engine for NASCAR? Racing % 2000? <answer snipped> "Marketing Hype" -- "Double Speak" -- "Spokesman" -- Come on folks.... Unless we are really in the head of Dave K. we are never ever going to know exactly what is going on. I have a feeling that even those close to him in the biz don't know exactly what is going on. We are going to be told various stories (spins) by every spokesman, contact in the Sierra/Papy kingdom. The proof will be in the pudding. Besides, what is being said now is more than likely something based on a decision or conversation that took place months ago. Things change in the business daily and sometimes hourly. As it comes time for the products to be released we will know more about what is going on, but we will never ever know exactly why/how they came about. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

% Huh? % We *HAVE* to accept any compromise that a software producer feeds us!! % *WE* don't design, program and deliver the product.....*THEY* do!! Nope, we don't "have" to accept it. We contribute to the design of a product where it counts the most, with our pocketbook. % And what's this "demanding" got to do with it? We can demand until we are % blue in the face and it won't matter one iota if the developer/publisher % wishes to cater for the mass market...........which just happens to *NOT* % subscribe to this newsgroup! True, but again we voice or demands (and they are heard) via our pocketbooks. As the "driving" game/sim market gets more crowded and glutted with schlock, the winners will be the ones that find a "niche" that will reward them. In the past Papyrus has found that niche by providing some of the most acurate simulations available at the time they are released. And the succeeded, because we helped with the design by demanding such degrees of realism with our pocketbooks. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

% >GPL was a work of art that was forced on the market before it could be % completed. % Well, Michael, all I can say is thank *GOD* it was delivered before % completion because, as my driving enjoyment is almost ***ic, I shudder to % think what the completed version would have done to me!!! :o) I whole-heartedly agree. I think that is why the big ballyhoo about N2000/NL not using the sophistication we have tasted with GPL. But, remember there were things that were meant for GPL that never made it. I am sure there would have been pit stops had there been time to fine tune it. Weather I am sure was in the original conceptions for GPL. I am also sure that the physics model had to be scaled back because their just wasn't enough CPU horsepower to fully implement the "artist's" desire. Even in it's incomplete state, GPL is a work of ART!!!!!! And like the old saw about, I don't know what art is, but I know what I like.... goes... The same can be said about racing simulations (the old GP2 vs ICRII see-saw battles). Some see GPL as a masterpiece and others see it as a overkill piece of artistic self-endulgence. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

But can you be sure that this is because sales weren't very good, or that they were _expecting_ a lot more from the sales and didn't receive it, even though a large number of copies were sold? Griffin, the Slayer

Quoted text (40 lines)

>[snip] >> _The success of Grand Prix Legends_ seems to have sparked an >>explosion of 'classic' car racing games, but Sprit of Racing will push >>the years back further than all others. Whether this will work remains >>to be seen. The cars of the era were not particularly quick, nor easy >>to control. Of Broadsword attempt a strict simulation they could end >>up producing a game that deters more games than it attracts. >From the mouths of Papyrus themselves at >http://www.operationsports.com/reviewvault/articlesfull.asp?featureid=26 >[begin quote] >Q. Dan - Why not use the Grand Prix Legends engine for NASCAR? Racing >2000? >A. Papyrus has always been the leader in developing products with the >highest degree of racing simulation realism available, and we intend >to maintain that leadership. Last years release of Grand Prix Legends >is widely regarded as the most stunningly accurate and rigorous >vehicle simulation ever created in a consumer package. However, given >the limited commercial success of Grand Prix Legends, its clear that >we would be doing a disservice to our core NASCAR? Racing fans if we >released NASCAR? Racing 3 with the same degree of difficulty and steep >learning curve. The average customer shouldnt be expected to have >real world racecar driving skills to enjoy the game. In addition, a >NASCAR? simulation based on the same engine at GPL would have even >steeper system requirements. Add to that a higher graphics load and a >system that will run the game smoothly is out of reach to the vast >majority of our customers. >[end quote] >Get that "limited commercial success" part? >I think your source is mistaken. >-- > http://www.users.fast.net/~fusion1 > (dirt bikes, rat bikes, rental car abuse...)

In fact, if you pop over to www.core-games/commercial/index~1/sales.com you'll see that it's said that no matter how well a company does with a product, they'll _never_ be satisfied, because they'll always want to know why they couldn't reach the few people who didn't buy their product. It's also important for a company to be modest about their sales, to protect them in the future, if another product doesn't do quite as well. Griffin, the Slayer

I have the full version working fine on my Pentium 166 with 32MB of RAM and a 12MB Voodoo2. With all the detail turned on I get around 20-25fps, on virtually all the tracks. This is with Vsync turned off. Griffin, the Slayer

On Thu, 20 May 1999 14:54:37 GMT, "Michael E. Carver"

Quoted text (27 lines)

>% >GPL was a work of art that was forced on the market before it could be >% completed. >% Well, Michael, all I can say is thank *GOD* it was delivered before >% completion because, as my driving enjoyment is almost ***ic, I shudder to >% think what the completed version would have done to me!!! :o) >I whole-heartedly agree. I think that is why the big ballyhoo about >N2000/NL not using the sophistication we have tasted with GPL. But, >remember there were things that were meant for GPL that never made it. >I am sure there would have been pit stops had there been time to fine >tune it. Weather I am sure was in the original conceptions for GPL. I >am also sure that the physics model had to be scaled back because their >just wasn't enough CPU horsepower to fully implement the "artist's" >desire. >Even in it's incomplete state, GPL is a work of ART!!!!!! And like the >old saw about, I don't know what art is, but I know what I like.... >goes... The same can be said about racing simulations (the old GP2 vs >ICRII see-saw battles). Some see GPL as a masterpiece and others see it >as a overkill piece of artistic self-endulgence. >-- >**************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Pit stops would have been perfect for GPL. The damage modelling is really something, yes, but I would like to have seen tyres being damaged with visible wearing. Griffin, the Slayer

True words, indeed. Particularly the last sentence. The sim provides me with an opportunity to re-live a period in motor-racing history that I actually witnessed and to be able to do this in an inter-active way is, for me, sheer enjoyment. Pit stops and weather modelling would have been the icing on the already magnificent cake and maybe one day before I lose the use of my facilities I'll be able to see the sequel to GPL that includes these features. But with the current version the only tweak that I would like to see is the ability to select the historically-accurate grids for each race. That is, the correct drivers and the correct numbers in the correct starting placements on a race-by-race basis. A very, very minor wish but one that would add that dollop of whipped cream to the top of the creation! -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet =============================================== >% >GPL was a work of art that was forced on the market before it could be >% completed. >% Well, Michael, all I can say is thank *GOD* it was delivered before >% completion because, as my driving enjoyment is almost ***ic, I shudder to >% think what the completed version would have done to me!!! :o) >I whole-heartedly agree. I think that is why the big ballyhoo about >N2000/NL not using the sophistication we have tasted with GPL. But, >remember there were things that were meant for GPL that never made it. >I am sure there would have been pit stops had there been time to fine >tune it. Weather I am sure was in the original conceptions for GPL. I >am also sure that the physics model had to be scaled back because their >just wasn't enough CPU horsepower to fully implement the "artist's" >desire. >Even in it's incomplete state, GPL is a work of ART!!!!!! And like the >old saw about, I don't know what art is, but I know what I like.... >goes... The same can be said about racing simulations (the old GP2 vs >ICRII see-saw battles). Some see GPL as a masterpiece and others see it >as a overkill piece of artistic self-endulgence. >-- >**************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Unfortunately, Michael, time has shown that the denizens of rec.autos.simulators do not represent the majority of the mass-market. In fact, we are but a rather small fraction of the buying public. We may be able to advise and submit wish lists and give qualified feedback but when it comes to boycotting the purchase of anything, we carry very little weight. -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet =============================================== >% Huh? >% We *HAVE* to accept any compromise that a software producer feeds us!! >% *WE* don't design, program and deliver the product.....*THEY* do!! >Nope, we don't "have" to accept it. We contribute to the design of a >product where it counts the most, with our pocketbook. >% And what's this "demanding" got to do with it? We can demand until we are >% blue in the face and it won't matter one iota if the developer/publisher >% wishes to cater for the mass market...........which just happens to *NOT* >% subscribe to this newsgroup! >True, but again we voice or demands (and they are heard) via our >pocketbooks. As the "driving" game/sim market gets more crowded and >glutted with schlock, the winners will be the ones that find a "niche" >that will reward them. In the past Papyrus has found that niche by >providing some of the most acurate simulations available at the time >they are released. And the succeeded, because we helped with the design >by demanding such degrees of realism with our pocketbooks. >-- >**************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

You are overlooking the fact that, at the time the game was in final development (when the demo was issued) the **AVERAGE HOME COMPUTER** was **NOT** of the technological level now being experienced. You have also ignored the vast number of concerns expressed from the release of the demo to October 1998 about the hardware needed to run the game with any AI at all and at a reasonable frame-rate. -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet =============================================== >>Path: >>They were certainly "home computer" state-of-the-art when the sim was in >>development and when the demo (Watkins Glen) was first made available. >>And not everybody plays this game on-line, either. >They certainly were not bruce. All you needed was a mid spec PII and a plain >old Voodoo graphics card for a decent frame rate. I even had it working fine >on a P166 with 32mb and a Voodoo Graphics!. >Even he full release just needs a mid-spec PII and a Voodoo2 or the like. >Software mode is bad, though, and the 3D hardware supported in laughable- i'm >not really counting the poor opengl patch released. >But at the end of the day, next to FPS, or heavy Flight Sim, the hardware >requirements are not that over the top. >Z. >Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

> Software mode is bad, though, and the 3D hardware supported in laughable- i'm > not really counting the poor opengl patch released. No need to put the beta opengl down that much. The mirror feature doesn't bother me much, and game crashes happen perhaps once every two days or so. -- Ari Nieminen Remove .NOSPAM from my e-mail address when replying.

>You are overlooking the fact that, at the time the game was in final >development (when the demo was issued) the **AVERAGE HOME COMPUTER** was >**NOT** of the technological level now being experienced. >You have also ignored the vast number of concerns expressed from the release >of the demo to October 1998 about the hardware needed to run the game with >any AI at all and at a reasonable frame-rate. I think you'll find the *average* home computer still doesn't have a 3D Accelerator. But for a gamer, a P166 & a Voodoo Graphics card with 32mb of ram, in mid October '98, was not a stretch. Z. Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Unfortunately, Michael, time has shown that the denizens of > rec.autos.simulators do not represent the majority of the mass-market. In > fact, we are but a rather small fraction of the buying public. > We may be able to advise and submit wish lists and give qualified feedback > but when it comes to boycotting the purchase of anything, we carry very > little weight.

Maybe, but when I looked at hotgames.com to see what people thought of the various games out there, my decision to buy GPL was influenced by the fact there were so many positive comments from users. The only negative one was of the form "yaa boo old cars boring" which probably shows the sort of person that isn't going to like it. Perhaps there are too many of them! My suspicion is that if there were a lot of returns of the game it's more likely to be due to problems with incompatibility (ie. the game just doesn't work at all when you first install it). All three games I've bought so far have required me to scour the internet to find updated drivers for graphics card and steering wheel (before I got the TSW!), a also a patch for Colin McRae Rally. This is really the problem with PC games generally - they just don't work straight out of the box in the way that PlayStation games do.

Unfortunately, the demo didn't reflect reality in any way (as it should have) simply due to the fact that there was no AI at all. Try running the full game on your P166 with only a *few* cc cars on and you'll notice that this is hardly sufficient... and no, the average '*** machine' wasn't a P2 450 at that time - and still isn't. --Tel

GPaL will address both of those issues, Byron. If you haven't seen it, check out the sneak preview at www.RaceLive.com/GPaL. Jack Rambo www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

2 big mistakes with GPL! 1/ No AI difficulty slider on the menu. 2/ No way to race in F2 and F3 mode against the AI! This equals no way for rookies to make a smooth transition to F1 and no way for more casual users to have anything much but the frustration of having their egos bashed :) Funny thing is, I suspect it's the suits pushing that is responsible for this and at the end of the day a significant factor as to why sales may be down. Why no AI slider amazes me. Even the lack of AI for F2 and F3 mystified me too! I just can't see how these thing would be such a big deal to do.

Quoted text (34 lines)

> Unfortunately, pure 100% realism is part of what kept the sim from meeting > sales expectations, and has had the suits at Sierra wanting to kill the > whole project of using the GPL engine in other software. It is clear that > the majority of users playing driving simulations are more interested in > "games" rather than "sims." > If we, the more *** sim fans, are unable or unwilling to accept that > there should be OPTIONAL concessions to make our sims more driveable for > beginners, and those that simply want the thrill of racing, it will not be > long before we find ourselves without any sims to race. We will also have > to accept that these sims should install with all of those options > defaulting to ON - making it up to us to take the effort to turn them off. > The backlash to demanding ONLY realism will be scores of "Nascar > Revolution"s, endless unimproved "Nascar Racing Series," and "Need for > Speed," type games. There is a place for such games, but we must realize > that if the options making real sims more accessible are not implemented - > and keep responding with "you've bought yourself the wrong simulator" > instead of pushing for such options, "games" is all we will be left with. > For GPL, papyrus listened to the *** simmers, perhaps too much, and the > game IS virtually inaccessible to many racing enthusiasts. I don't see any > changes on the horizon to salvage this title in terms of market saturation. > While a wonderful sim, GPL should also serve as an example to all of us of > how too much of a good thing, without options making it accessible to the > average racer, hurts our desires for more realism in the long run... > Michael > > If you're not interested in pure, 100%, realism, which GPL comes > > pretty close to offering, you've clearly bought yourself the wrong > > simulator. Stick with N2 instead. > > Griffin, the Slayer

A sim developer should be able to, and trying to, get the WHOLE market. Much of the racing sim market is now spoiled by GPL. Example - if SCGT had been released before GPL we may have all raved about it. If a racing sim company wants good returns they will quite simply need to cater for the *** simmers as well as everyone else. A modern F1 or CART sim using the GPL engine plus arcade mode would outsell everything in the history of racing sims!

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >For GPL, papyrus listened to the *** simmers, perhaps too much, and the > >game IS virtually inaccessible to many racing enthusiasts. I don't see any > >changes on the horizon to salvage this title in terms of market saturation. > >While a wonderful sim, GPL should also serve as an example to all of us of > >how too much of a good thing, without options making it accessible to the > >average racer, hurts our desires for more realism in the long run... > Too true. Unfortunately, some here will not get it no matter how hard > you try. They will continue to demand from the developers to create > the most sophisticated simulation for them (and only them) while they > have absolutely no clue how to finance such a project... > --Tel

True, but then again, I can't see how it would be any far at all. It wouldn't offer a challenge even to the earliest of beginners. Griffin, the Slayer

Thanks Jack, and I'm aware of your outstanding work. Point being that most of what your doing shouldn't have been necessary and those not on the net or net savvy will never have it either.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> GPaL will address both of those issues, Byron. > If you haven't seen it, check out the sneak preview at > www.RaceLive.com/GPaL. > Jack Rambo > www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

I believe that these were the result of Mr. Kaemmers wishes, along with no "save" function. -- Best regards, Bruce. ====== The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff! http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet =============================================== >2 big mistakes with GPL! > 1/ No AI difficulty slider on the menu. > 2/ No way to race in F2 and F3 mode against the AI! > This equals no way for rookies to make a smooth transition to F1 and >no way for more casual users to have anything much but the frustration >of having their egos bashed :) > Funny thing is, I suspect it's the suits pushing that is responsible >for this and at the end of the day a significant factor as to why sales >may be down. Why no AI slider amazes me. Even the lack of AI for F2 and >F3 mystified me too! I just can't see how these thing would be such a >big deal to do. >> Unfortunately, pure 100% realism is part of what kept the sim from meeting >> sales expectations, and has had the suits at Sierra wanting to kill the >> whole project of using the GPL engine in other software. It is clear that >> the majority of users playing driving simulations are more interested in >> "games" rather than "sims." >> If we, the more *** sim fans, are unable or unwilling to accept that >> there should be OPTIONAL concessions to make our sims more driveable for >> beginners, and those that simply want the thrill of racing, it will not be >> long before we find ourselves without any sims to race. We will also have >> to accept that these sims should install with all of those options >> defaulting to ON - making it up to us to take the effort to turn them off. >> The backlash to demanding ONLY realism will be scores of "Nascar >> Revolution"s, endless unimproved "Nascar Racing Series," and "Need for >> Speed," type games. There is a place for such games, but we must realize >> that if the options making real sims more accessible are not implemented - >> and keep responding with "you've bought yourself the wrong simulator" >> instead of pushing for such options, "games" is all we will be left with. >> For GPL, papyrus listened to the *** simmers, perhaps too much, and the >> game IS virtually inaccessible to many racing enthusiasts. I don't see any >> changes on the horizon to salvage this title in terms of market saturation. >> While a wonderful sim, GPL should also serve as an example to all of us of >> how too much of a good thing, without options making it accessible to the >> average racer, hurts our desires for more realism in the long run... >> Michael >> > If you're not interested in pure, 100%, realism, which GPL comes >> > pretty close to offering, you've clearly bought yourself the wrong >> > simulator. Stick with N2 instead. >> > Griffin, the Slayer

But to their credit, Papyrus did make GPL *very* accessible for enhancement. I'm convinced that they looked at their budget, resources, and timeline and decided to focus on what they do best...development of an outstanding physics engine, and superior sound, graphics, and AI to support that engine. My bet is that Papy intentionally made the development of alternative interfaces, like GPaL, easy. Jack Rambo www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

>> 2/ No way to race in F2 and F3 mode against the AI! >True, but then again, I can't see how it would be any far at all. It >wouldn't offer a challenge even to the earliest of beginners. >Griffin, the Slayer Griffin, have you tried an F3 race on VROC? It's some of the most competitive and fun racing you'll find on the net. -don

Now Jack, I know it's easy to fall into the Papy worship syndrome <G>, but I do believe they erred on these points. The general theme here is the sales appeal of GPL, and the average user wants what they want and they want to be able to do it quickly and easily. A host of adjustable settings via ini files is great, but it is really for advanced users. Having an adjustable AI slider on the main menu is a 2 sec job for Papy. Though the "AI adjusts to you" feature is welcome, I find the AI is still a little to slow after they adjust. I would like to be able to simply make a simple adjustment until their qual and race times are where I want them and then go racing. I realize I can do all this in the ini's, but frankly, I can't be bothered. And I think the "can't be bothered" attitude applies to many. Computer *** is supposed to be fun. Going thru ini's trying to work out what's what or searching the web for utilities is work (4 letter word!). And work is the last thing the computer gamer is looking for.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> But to their credit, Papyrus did make GPL *very* accessible for enhancement. > I'm convinced that they looked at their budget, resources, and timeline and > decided to focus on what they do best...development of an outstanding > physics engine, and superior sound, graphics, and AI to support that engine. > My bet is that Papy intentionally made the development of alternative > interfaces, like GPaL, easy. > Jack Rambo > www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

Byron... I agree that what you point are deficiencies, which is precisely why GPaL was created. Your point about "can't be bothered" is precisely right. Even *you* can't be bothered, and you're a lot more sophisticated than the average gamer! My point was simply that perhaps for budgetary reasons or because of project deadlines, Papy elected to not make the interface as comprehensive as it could have been. Fortunately, they left GPL accessible, so that third-party developers could tackle it. Jack Rambo www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

Ooops... Jack Rambo www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

On Tue, 18 May 1999 19:01:21 +0100, "JAY B" >the suspense of not >knowing what your last lap was like keeps you pushing right to the end of >the next lap whih if you new the lap time would probably be your inlap, thje >suspense of not nowing how brilliantly quick your last lap will make you >want to get to the end of the lap quicker and improve your lap times at the >same time. How true. Phoenix "Phoenix - A fabulous bird, reborn from the ashes of its earlier life" ICQ# 39578846