NASCARS are easier to drive than 67 F1 CARS!!!!!!!

% I think a lot of the GPL die-hards just believe that since GPL was such a % great game that N2k needs to have the same engine to be a good title or a % good sim. The fact is, I think it would be less of a game with the GPL % engine. It doesn't fit the era or the driving styles. A game doesn't need to % take 4 months to learn just to be a solid title. It has to feel like a % NASCAR does. GPL felt like the old F1 cars, let NASCAR 2000 be it's own % game. Just my .02. There seems to be a common misconception floating about. If NASCAR III uses the GPL "physics" engine it will drive like GPL. Wrong!!! The physics engine in GPL allows the programmers to "dial in" the physics of a Yugo. Therefore if Papyrus did a Yugo simulation based on the GPL "physics" engine, it would not be as difficult as GPL. The difficulty of driving a Lotus 47 is based on the physics of driving a Lotus 47, not the difficulty of the "physics" engine. Therefore, if N3 uses the GPL "physics" engine, then it will be as diffficult as driving a Winston Cup car not a Lotus 47. That is the beauty of the Papyrus' new "physics" engine. There, maybe we should be calling it Papyrus' new physics engine and stop calling it GPL's engine. Then maybe people will begin to understand. Nope.... won't happen, forgot this is r.a.s. <G> -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

They haven't done, I'm afraid to tell you. If you would care to pop over to http://www.operationsports.com/reviewvault/news.asp and look at their review of Nascar 2000, you'll see that they confirm that Nascar 3 will not be using the GPL engine, but with the improvements they wanted to make on it, there aren't enough PC's which are quick enough to support it, which really does make a lot of sense if you step back and think about it. If Papyrus released Nascar 2000 which could only be playe on a Pentium 3 500MHz, with 128MB of RAM and a Voodoo3, I'm sure we'd all have something unpleasant to say about it, as you can better your bottom dollar (or pound, as in my case ;) that most of us don't have systems of anywhere that sort of speed. It is very possible for them to release a simulator which would require that. The technology _is_ available to them, but they have to be fair and release something which isn't so far ahead of its time that no one will be able to play it. Who knows, by the time that a sequel becomes available, the computer industry may have evolutionised far enough to warrant a high performance physics engine. I don't agree however that a GPL engine would do anything bad for Nascar 2000. We were all looking forward to racing Nascars with this sort of 3D effect, with cars leaving the track in crashes, wheel spinning individually, depending on the power you try to squeeze through them, unlike in Nascar 2/99, for example. However, from what I have heard/seen, there are still some _major_ increases to the Nascar 2 engine which is being used. As the review said, they've gutted the whole N2 engine. I hope this offers some light... Griffin, the Slayer

On Tue, 18 May 1999 18:52:49 GMT, "Michael E. Carver"

Quoted text (8 lines)

>The difficulty of driving a Lotus 47 is based on the physics of driving >a Lotus 47, not the difficulty of the "physics" engine. Therefore, if >N3 uses the GPL "physics" engine, then it will be as diffficult as >driving a Winston Cup car not a Lotus 47. >That is the beauty of the Papyrus' new "physics" engine. There, maybe >we should be calling it Papyrus' new physics engine and stop calling it >GPL's engine. Then maybe people will begin to understand. Nope.... >won't happen, forgot this is r.a.s. <G>

I think that's quite a good suggestion actually. It would certainly help to clear up some confusion, which unfortunately seems to be plauging this newsgroup. Griffin, the Slayer

Well, first off, if a NASCAR game is done with the Grand Prix Legends physics engine, it will NOT be the same exact physics as GPL! The physics will be heavily adjusted to suit that of a 3000+ pound stock car with slick tires, closed wheels, much better suspension and engine, and downforce. This will result in a realistic NASCAR sim with not quite the challenge of GPL, but you can't tell me that it's actually easy to hold a NASCAR on the track! That's why I'm wanting a highly advanced realistic 3d physics model to make it feel like a real stock car! My $.02 Dan Belcher Team Racing Unlimited

On Tue, 18 May 1999 18:52:49 GMT, "Michael E. Carver" >There seems to be a common misconception floating about. If NASCAR III >uses the GPL "physics" engine it will drive like GPL. Wrong!!! The >physics engine in GPL allows the programmers to "dial in" the physics of >a Yugo. Therefore if Papyrus did a Yugo simulation based on the GPL >"physics" engine, it would not be as difficult as GPL. Excellent post; It's good you brought this up. But then even the GPL cars aren't ALL hard to drive. Folks having trouble keeping their ubiquitous Loti pointed straight need only hop in the heavier BRM to feel much more planted. And a spin in an F2 will even more closely approximate the power-to-weight ratio of a WC car, though it still won't have nearly as much stability, grip, or downforce. I'd say the WC cars with the GPL engine as-is would be a breeze to drive, relatively. Too bad we'll have to wait to find out....... Steve B. Remove "edy" from address for email

On Tue, 18 May 1999 17:01:07 GMT, "Tony Wyss" >Right, I love sims as much as the next guy. Im just questioning what it >takes to make a NASCAR title a true-sim. Have you tried N2 since driving GPL? Feels a bit...."dead"? Don't equate "GPL" with "difficult", the cars in '67 were difficult ergo a realistic simulation of them is also going to be difficult. Yes you can argue whether that is a good or a bad thing for a simulation to follow, but that's another discussion. I think to an extent NASCAR will be (should be) easier even if modelled absolutely realistically, although wheelspin would be an issue to control. The main difference would be that life at the limit would be pretty tricky, since grip decrease with slip increase is very sharp. GPL however was difficult to drive at all initially, so I think "tricky at the limit" wouldn't be a problem. I would say that it will now take a lot more than N2 to turn me on, that's sure. Cheers! John

Quoted text (13 lines)

>There seems to be a common misconception floating about. If NASCAR III >uses the GPL "physics" engine it will drive like GPL. Wrong!!! The >physics engine in GPL allows the programmers to "dial in" the physics of >a Yugo. Therefore if Papyrus did a Yugo simulation based on the GPL >"physics" engine, it would not be as difficult as GPL. >Excellent post; It's good you brought this up. But then even the GPL >cars aren't ALL hard to drive. Folks having trouble keeping their >ubiquitous Loti pointed straight need only hop in the heavier BRM to >feel much more planted. And a spin in an F2 will even more closely >approximate the power-to-weight ratio of a WC car, though it still >won't have nearly as much stability, grip, or downforce. I'd say the >WC cars with the GPL engine as-is would be a breeze to drive, >relatively. Too bad we'll have to wait to find out.......

You're right. The BRM is the best car in the 'Expert' styles to start with, as it will show you what the real GPL cars are like at high speeds, but also is slow, sluggish and unchallenging enough to give you a fairly easy drive to begin with. I can't imagine why anybody would want to stick with it for more than a couple of test sessions on each track to begin with. Probably less in fact... Griffin, the Slayer

Because it feels so damn good when you get it right<g>. -don

People seem to think that NASCAR 3 is going to be incredibly difficult if the GPL physics engine is used, BUT NASCARS TODAY ARE WAY EASIER TO DRIVE THAN 1967 F1 CARS!!!!!! they have more grip (alot more) only 4 gears (SO WHEELSPIN IS MORE DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE) and most of the tracks are only OVAL (no where near as tricky as the GP tracks - dont forget, NASCAR drivers race eachother - not the track) SO A NASCAR SIM USING GPL PHYSICS WILL NOT BE THAT DIFIICULT TO DRIVE. I think the real issue is that certain people (money men) hear the words GPL and remember a poor selling, difficult racing sim. and dont get me started on the hardware needed to run 40 cars in GPL..... pez 2 pence

Quoted text (8 lines)

>People seem to think that NASCAR 3 is going to be incredibly difficult if >the GPL physics engine is used, BUT NASCARS TODAY ARE WAY EASIER TO DRIVE >THAN 1967 F1 CARS!!!!!! >they have more grip (alot more) only 4 gears (SO WHEELSPIN IS MORE DIFFICULT >TO ACHIEVE) and most of the tracks are only OVAL (no where near as tricky as >the GP tracks - dont forget, NASCAR drivers race eachother - not the track) >SO A NASCAR SIM USING GPL PHYSICS WILL NOT BE THAT DIFIICULT TO DRIVE.

and once again it all comes down to the question whether a Nascar-type game *really* needs a sophisticated engine like GPL. I seriously doubt that, there are simply not as many situations where it would benefit from it. I'd say a more advanced car deformation model would certainly be more appropriated :)... --Tel

I think a lot of the GPL die-hards just believe that since GPL was such a great game that N2k needs to have the same engine to be a good title or a good sim. The fact is, I think it would be less of a game with the GPL engine. It doesn't fit the era or the driving styles. A game doesn't need to take 4 months to learn just to be a solid title. It has to feel like a NASCAR does. GPL felt like the old F1 cars, let NASCAR 2000 be it's own game. Just my .02. -- Tony Wyss, Editor-in-Chief Gamers Alliance Sports www.ga-sports.com ------------------------------- Network Developer Gamers Alliance, Inc. www.gagames.com ------------------------------- "I'm not an athlete, I'm a baseball player" - John Kruk

Ever driven a real one? I believe with a 700 hp engine, wheel spin is rather easy. And yes, I have driven a real Winston Cup stock car. Ever watched a Bristol, Martainsville, or Darlington race? >certain people (money men) hear the words GPL I am surprised that GPL is such a poor selling sim. With the *** of GPL posts here in this ng, [somewhere nearing 20,000] either it is the greatest selling of all time or there are just a few people playing it and they "just don't get it" and have to post about every little thing in that sim. My question....why would you want a game that is almost unplayable due to it's difficulty of it AND the strain that it would put on a normal PC to get it to run smoothly?

>> I think the real issue is that certain people (money men) hear the words GPL and remember a poor selling, difficult racing sim. and dont get me started on the hardware needed to run 40 cars in GPL.....<< Go easy on the moneymen; not everything's an X-Files outtake. Besides, we all know it's the marketing types who are the evil ones! But as to Papy's N3/hardware comments, consider the following: On my old P200/V2, I could only run 5-6 AI at 8X6 with conservative graphics options and still get in-race framerates above 30FPS(& then not always). It took a jump to a 450 Celery(same V2) to be able to run all 19AI, and I still can't max out the graphics(10X7, full mirrors, etc.) Assume the physics and AI for N3 are basically similar to GPL, which seems reasonable. Then add; FF and 3D sound support, much more sophisticated aerodynamic modeling (based on published comments from Papy folks), and, oh yeah, 20 more AI while you're at it. Combine with the competitive pressure for ever-better graphics coming from the likes of SBK (& RC 99!). Don't get me wrong; I definitely see the postponement of N3 as a Bad Thing, and a gussied-up N2 doesn't interest me too much. (Note the Op.Sports interview's lack of ANY mention of physics improvements in N2000; mainly eye & ear candy. Also check out their review of GPL :-( ) But I HAD wondered how Papy were going to pack all that into a game that would run on current hardware. Guess I'd better start a PIII/V4 fund, pronto. Deja Vu all over again. But hey, maybe I'll finally be able to run full graphics in GP2! Cheers, Steve B. remove "edy" from address for email

Right, I love sims as much as the next guy. Im just questioning what it takes to make a NASCAR title a true-sim. -- Tony Wyss, Editor-in-Chief Gamers Alliance Sports www.ga-sports.com ------------------------------- Network Developer Gamers Alliance, Inc. www.gagames.com ------------------------------- "I'm not an athlete, I'm a baseball player" - John Kruk

> The fact is, I think it would be less of a game with the GPL > engine....... ........ A game doesn't need to take 4 months to learn just > to be a solid title. You're right, Tony! We are not looking for a *game*, but for an accurate sim. THAT'S what has us up in a lather. Once you've experienced the 3D physics engine of GPL, you don't care to go back to the 2D world in a sim. And if you're lookin for a *game*, you can load up a Rollcage, Motorhead or a number of other titles. There's plenty of driving games out there. We want, and have been waiting on, a quality sim for doorslammers. Lets hope the hardware manufacturers catch up soon to the requirements of such quality physics engines. -- Chuck Kandler #70 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Unarmed & unafraid!

Better bet is a Merced, Steve. ;)

Couldn't have put it better myself. :) Griffin, the Slayer

Yup! I agree 100% John! I didn't mean for it to sound like GPL was inaccurately difficult. I guess the correlation between GPL being such a great game and the cars being so difficult to drive (in real life) make some people think that this is necessary for all driving engines. Correct, and another point that we agree on. I highly doubt that Papy would release a title so anticipated with just added eyecandy and the same N2 engine. They know what we want and I really expect them to deliver. There will be people that aren't happy with the game just as they are people who don't like GPL. Can't please everyone, but you can sure try. Regards, -- Tony Wyss, Editor-in-Chief Gamers Alliance Sports www.ga-sports.com ------------------------------- Network Developer Gamers Alliance, Inc. www.gagames.com ------------------------------- "I'm not an athlete, I'm a baseball player" - John Kruk

You are correct. But it seems to me that the GPLers are crying for the engine for reasons outside of what you stated. Almost a blind assertion. Kind of rough here but I think you know what I mean :) -- Tony Wyss, Editor-in-Chief Gamers Alliance Sports www.ga-sports.com ------------------------------- Network Developer Gamers Alliance, Inc. www.gagames.com ------------------------------- "I'm not an athlete, I'm a baseball player" - John Kruk

If you think N2 is easy to drive try a race against some of the best on TEN. Hans-

On Wed, 19 May 1999 00:50:53 GMT, "Tony Wyss" >I agree 100% John! I didn't mean for it to sound like GPL was inaccurately >difficult. I guess the correlation between GPL being such a great game and >the cars being so difficult to drive (in real life) make some people think >that this is necessary for all driving engines. No, I would agree that it's not. However the "liveliness" or convincing feel of GPL comes not from the difficulty nor from the "'67" era but from the use of the new engine. Modelling all of the different parameters allows the car to react in more ways to more inputs and to more coordinating and related forces, and this ultimately makes the sim more rewarding. To go back to the N2 engine, however much is added in to it, will always be a backward step from the driving aspect, since the car will ultmately feel dead. Of course NASCARs are not as lively in general as those '67 F1 cars, but NASCARs modelled with the new engine, while overall heavier and less reactive than GPL, are still a huge step forward and feel and realistic response. Overall I think that you *do* need as convincing and detailed an engine to have a really good sim, but it doesn't necessarily need to be difficult. The difficulty then is related to what is being modelled rather than the engine. I'm not really an appropriate person to talk about what Papy can do, will do or are likely to do. However I will say that while I know what you mean with the above statement, taken literally I disagree with it. Trying to please everyone is the most likely way to end up pleasing no-one. I think a product needs to know it's overall market and please the target sector completely, and secondary sectors as time and money allows. That way you are more likely to end up with a succesful product and greater revenue. Cheers! John

(SEE BOTTOM OF POST)..... My answer:I want a "sim" (not game) that is realistic. That is what Papyrus produced. It is very much drivable. I race with folks a lot who agree. It takes effort, knowledge, concentration, and skill to keep the car on the road. Now, add consistency, and you are well on your way to being dangerous 8-). This is not a game, and if you expect it to be, you will never learn how to drive one of these beasts. It just takes some time and patience. I am glad it is realistic and challenging, otherwise I would be bored. BTW, it took me a while to get consistent at many different tracks, as it does most people. Now, I can run with the best of them at many tracks (ok, not WW...but most!). One way to start is by following AI cars around the track. I know they are fairly slow, but it will give you some general braking points and driving lines that will help you get started. --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

Not that you're one of them, but funny how so many people lately have posted in one thread "Papy, don't release it till it's ready. Take as much time as you want." Then in other threads "It's too bad it's taking so long to get N3 out. It's a shame we have to wait for hardware. Why can't they get it out sooner?" Personally I'll accept N2K as a temporary holdover if they include what's missing in NR99 that's important to ME! Pit staills according to qual; animated flagmen; REAL smoke!!!; better sounds; full Win95 multiplay and joystick support; bouncing/airborne; better spotter. Gunner

>> Don't get me wrong; I definitely see the postponement of N3 as a Bad >>Thing, and a gussied-up N2 doesn't interest me too much. (Note the Op.Sports <SNIP> > Personally I'll accept N2K as a temporary holdover if they >include what's missing in NR99 that's important to ME! Pit staills >according to qual; animated flagmen; REAL smoke!!!; better sounds; >full Win95 multiplay and joystick support; bouncing/airborne; better >spotter. As I said, "a gussied-up N2 doesn't interest me too much." That said, I'm not writing off N2K completely just yet. If Papy can "liven up" the feel a bit along with including easy multiplayer racing ala VROC, I could see dropping a coin or two on it. We'll just have to see. Bring on the demo! Steve B. Remove "edy" from address for email

Quoted text (15 lines)

>> Don't get me wrong; I definitely see the postponement of N3 as a Bad >>Thing, and a gussied-up N2 doesn't interest me too much. (Note the Op.Sports > Not that you're one of them, but funny how so many people >lately have posted in one thread "Papy, don't release it till it's >ready. Take as much time as you want." Then in other threads "It's >too bad it's taking so long to get N3 out. It's a shame we have to >wait for hardware. Why can't they get it out sooner?" > Personally I'll accept N2K as a temporary holdover if they >include what's missing in NR99 that's important to ME! Pit staills >according to qual; animated flagmen; REAL smoke!!!; better sounds; >full Win95 multiplay and joystick support; bouncing/airborne; better >spotter. >Gunner

In responce to the 'real smoke' part of your message. Nascar 3 looks set to have the most realistic illlusion of smoke we've ever had the pleasure of viewing. Try to imagine the sort of smoke seen in the film Days of Thunder, right before the big crash, where Cole Trickle has to driver through thick smoke with cars all around him, and he can barely see a thing. Personally, I can't wait! :) Griffin, the Slayer

Quoted text (18 lines)

>>> Don't get me wrong; I definitely see the postponement of N3 as a Bad >>>Thing, and a gussied-up N2 doesn't interest me too much. (Note the Op.Sports ><SNIP> >> Personally I'll accept N2K as a temporary holdover if they >>include what's missing in NR99 that's important to ME! Pit staills >>according to qual; animated flagmen; REAL smoke!!!; better sounds; >>full Win95 multiplay and joystick support; bouncing/airborne; better >>spotter. >As I said, "a gussied-up N2 doesn't interest me too much." That said, >I'm not writing off N2K completely just yet. If Papy can "liven up" >the feel a bit along with including easy multiplayer racing ala VROC, >I could see dropping a coin or two on it. We'll just have to see. >Bring on the demo! >Steve B. >Remove "edy" from address for email

I wonder how long until a demo will be released. Will they do what they did with GPL and release it before the retail version, which was certainly a very good thing, IMO. Or will they make the same mistake which other companies have made and release a demo a year after the final product is out? Nah, Papy' aren't silly enough for that. Griffin, the Slayer

> Personally I'll accept N2K as a temporary holdover if they >include what's missing in NR99 that's important to ME! Pit staills >according to qual; animated flagmen; REAL smoke!!!; better sounds; >full Win95 multiplay and joystick support; bouncing/airborne; better >spotter. Proof positive of how hard it is to please the public. There's very little here that I care about AT ALL. Don McCorkle Libertarian Motorsports

Quoted text (45 lines)

> (SEE BOTTOM OF POST)..... > > >only 4 gears (SO WHEELSPIN IS MORE DIFFICULT > > >TO ACHIEVE) > > Ever driven a real one? I believe with a 700 hp engine, wheel spin is > rather > > easy. And yes, I have driven a real Winston Cup stock car. > > >most of the tracks are only OVAL (no where near as tricky as > > >the GP tracks - dont forget, NASCAR drivers race eachother - not the > track) > > Ever watched a Bristol, Martainsville, or Darlington race? > > >certain people (money men) hear the words GPL > > >and remember a poor selling, difficult racing sim. > > I am surprised that GPL is such a poor selling sim. With the *** > of GPL > > posts here in this ng, [somewhere nearing 20,000] either it is the > greatest > > selling of all time or there are just a few people playing it and they > "just > > don't get it" and have to post about every little thing in that sim. > > My question....why would you want a game that is almost > > unplayable due to it's difficulty of it AND the strain > > that it would put on a normal PC to get it to run smoothly? > My answer:I want a "sim" (not game) that is realistic. That is what > Papyrus produced. It is very much drivable. I race with folks a lot who > agree. It takes effort, knowledge, concentration, and skill to keep the > car on the road. Now, add consistency, and you are well on your way to > being dangerous 8-). This is not a game, and if you expect it to be, you > will never learn how to drive one of these beasts. It just takes some > time and patience. I am glad it is realistic and challenging, otherwise > I would be bored. > BTW, it took me a while to get consistent at many different tracks, as > it does most people. Now, I can run with the best of them at many tracks > (ok, not WW...but most!). > One way to start is by following AI cars around the track. I know they > are fairly slow, but it will give you some general braking points and > driving lines that will help you get started.

Well, you may say they're slow now, but I remember when I started the AI cars were way too fast for me, and even now I can only win novice races at Monza (as that's the easiest track). The problem is that I need to reduce the number of AI cars running to keep the FPS high enough, and since GPL drops off the slower cars first, you end up racing against the very best. However, I then found that by renumbering the drivers in the driver.ini file, I could choose my opponents, which is a lot more fun, as I can gradually move up to the faster drivers as I improve. Anyway, the most fun I've had so far is just driving the Nurburgring in training mode - who needs opponents when you've got a track like that!

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> Personally I'll accept N2K as a temporary holdover if they >>include what's missing in NR99 that's important to ME! Pit staills >>according to qual; animated flagmen; REAL smoke!!!; better sounds; >>full Win95 multiplay and joystick support; bouncing/airborne; better >>spotter. >Proof positive of how hard it is to please the public. >There's very little here that I care about AT ALL. >Don McCorkle >Libertarian Motorsports

Strange! Griffin, the Slayer

Not if you are on the limit my friend, beign on the limit is being on the limit, and I suspect more if us will be eating wall in n3 than did in GPL. -- Tim "Calm Down" Wheatley ________________________________________________ Tim Wheatley "Yellow menacing helmet in the mirror" http://start.at/igps_stats IGPS - Ferrari Challenge - UKGPL - Summer Cup Driver http://drive.to/grandprixlegends http://website.lineone.net/~nascar ________________________________________________

writes: The AI's are SLOW?!? Damn, I wish *I* could say that... :) __ Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea... remove SPAM-OFF to reply.