High Groove are confused

High Groove's statement that Papy has decided to not use the GPL physics in Nascar 2000 and that they (High Groove) pretty much new it would be the case has me wondering if they are really up with the play. It has been my understanding that Papy never intended to use the GPL physics in Nascar 2000. Nascar 2000 is to be a highly modified remake of Nascar 2 with better most things. Nascar 3 on the other hand is the complete rewrite sim from Papy that will incorporate the GPL physics. SO lets get this straight.... Nascar 2000 is a different product to Nascar 3. Nascar 2000 = no GPL physics. Nascar 3 = GPL physics. What High Groove did have right is that it is a lack PC horsepower that concerns Papy when it comes to the GPL physics in the Nascar sim, so they have put Nascar 3 on hold till the average PC is capable of running it. But at this stage Nascar 3 is still on with GPL physics. Now for me personally GPL has moved me away from the N2 sim because I find N2 physics so weak in comparison and that GPL is the only sim to date that gives me the "feeling" that the car has mass weight. And that is where N2 lacks, so I eagerly await Nascar 3 ( even though my PC will not be up to it as yet). Having said that I will consider Nascar 2000 should it be a marked improvement over N2 as I would really like to get back to the Offline racing I was involved in. Take Care Nigel Nichols -- Redline Race Controls Nigel of Lakewood Motorsports Nascar Coruba & Coke Chevy Hamilton New Zealand

Actually, I'm not confused. In February at the Daytona 500, NASCAR 3 was allegedly still on schedule. NASCAR 2000 is a last ditch effort to milk as much money out of the NASCAR 2 engine as possible. NASCAR 2000 wasn't even in the picture in February. So, in all essence it has replaced the release of NASCAR 3. Now, as I eluded to in my column, Papy isn't willing to take the risk of releasing a NASCAR game based upon the GPL engine. The NASCAR series is their cash cow, and if they release a game that the average NASCAR fan can't drive, it could be a financial disaster for them. I thank you for reading the column and hope you find In the High Groove to be entertaining. Jeff Downey GA-Sports **** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****

The problem isn't that the game will be as hard as GPL. The problem is the current PC technology, it just isn't good enough. Think about it... I have a P2 300a, 64 MB RAM and a V2 and I don't have to try to race 19 cars, frame rate becomes to low.... Imagine what a 40+ car Nascar field would do on your PC... MiX

As someone who actually visited Papyrus and saw NASCAR 2000 and NASCAR Legends, I would beg to differ on this. NASCAR 2000 looks like a totally different game. Aside from the front end menu that I saw (which will still be tweaked), the game is nothing like NASCAR 2. NASCAR 3 is still going to be released. My understanding is that it will *NOT* use the GPL engine, but rather a whole new engine. I also disagree with your logic here on Papy releasing their "cash cow". If it is a cash cow, it wouldn't matter if they just released a big piece of junk and threw a NASCAR label on it. It would still sell very well, even if it was thrashed in this newsgroup. You are right about the Daytona thing. The press kit I received said NASCAR 3 all over it. Now, when I saw those screens and movies, I was thinking NASCAR 2 with an updated engine. I do have a caveat: I didn't actually play the game while I was there. I can't really comment if the driving experience is the same or different. However, based on the new 3d sounds, new graphics, new car modeling, new pit crew, new AI, etc, I really can't say we're talking about the same game as NASCAR 2. says... -- Dan Clarke Managing Editor Operation Sports http://www.operationsports.com

% As someone who actually visited Papyrus and saw NASCAR 2000 and NASCAR % Legends, I would beg to differ on this. % NASCAR 3 is still going to be released. My understanding is that it will % *NOT* use the GPL engine, but rather a whole new engine. This is in direct contradiction to what has been "officially" "leaked" about NASCAR 3. Do you care to expand on this? Of course N3 will not use the "GPL" engine since this engine models 1967 F1 cars. However, the physics engine used in GPL is (from my understanding), will still the basis for NASCAR 3's physics engine. % I also disagree with your logic here on Papy releasing their "cash cow". % If it is a cash cow, it wouldn't matter if they just released a big piece % of junk and threw a NASCAR label on it. It would still sell very well, % even if it was thrashed in this newsgroup. And how well is Jeff Gordon's NASCAR "junk" selling? Or NASCAR Revolution? While the results are not scientific, the charts at Games Domain are good indicators of a games popularity and thus sales. NASCAR Racing 1 was on the top 100 chart for 101 weeks and peaked at 21. NASCAR Racing 2 was on the chart for 23 weeks and peaked at 56. NASCAR Revolution made the chart for 5 weeks and peaked at 66. Revolution made its peak the 2nd week on the chart. While N1 peaked after almost 6 months on the chart. N2 took about 3-1/2 months to peak. While we are at it.... Grand Prix 2 was on the charts for 94 weeks, peaking at #6 two months after entering the charts. Grand Prix Legends lived for 6 weeks on the chart with a peak of 84 about 1 month after entering the charts. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[This followup was posted to rec.autos.simulators and a copy was sent to the cited author.]

Quoted text (11 lines)

> % As someone who actually visited Papyrus and saw NASCAR 2000 and NASCAR > % Legends, I would beg to differ on this. > % NASCAR 3 is still going to be released. My understanding is that it will > % *NOT* use the GPL engine, but rather a whole new engine. > This is in direct contradiction to what has been "officially" "leaked" > about NASCAR 3. Do you care to expand on this? Of course N3 will not > use the "GPL" engine since this engine models 1967 F1 cars. However, > the physics engine used in GPL is (from my understanding), will still the > basis for NASCAR 3's physics engine.

http://www.operationsports.com/reviewvault/Reviews.asp?game=nascar00pc Q. What happened? Why is NASCAR? Racing 3 on hold? A. NASCAR? Racing 3 is on hold because the physics model that we want to implement is so complex, the typical home PC can not handle all the processing right now. We need to wait a little while for technology to catch up. The physics and AI engine are that complex! Now they did not say they are using the GPL engine, nor did they say they were not using this. I'm inferring from this quote that it is a whole new engine. I could be wrong, or I could be right :). Jeff Gordon's game is not an official NASCAR product. You do have me on N Revolution. I do not have any sales figures I can use to refute or ratify you there. I disagree with you here. The GD charts are based on Worldcharts and people voting. Now, as much as I'd like to be the #1 website on Worldcharts I really don't think people visit my site as often as MSNBC. However, according to WC, OpSports is ranked higher than MSNBC. I do understand what you're getting at here, and you have provided valid points to my arguments and I respect that. I was just trying to state that IMHO, NASCAR 2000 looks like a whole different game than Nascar Racing 1999. Of course some profit motives went into releasing the game this year--but I don't think this is the sole reason. Papy has a pretty good relationship with the sim racer as well as the general public. I don't think they would want to tarnish that repuation. Hope this helps. -- Dan Clarke Managing Editor Operation Sports http://www.operationsports.com

I just cannot agree with this logic. When Nascar Racing 1 came out in mid-94' intel had just recently released the first Pentium (P54C w/max onboard memory of 2MB, 3D accel was not even on the table. IDE hard disk access was a joke, etc etc. I could run N1 but had to turn off nearly all details and frame rate was not great. If we were to apply the current logic of not releasing N3 until hardware catches up we would not have been using N2 since 1997. I really think this is "lame excuse"! The Software industry realized a few years ago that if you put in a couple of new features in a product and call it version 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or....(Hmmm) most would pay for the newer version. Microsoft is the King of this type of abuse. (But other caught up quickly) Can anyone tell me what major diff 'tween office 95' and 97'? There are diffs but not $179 worth! I think we will see this more and more until the consumers stand up and say stop this nonsense. When you put out a new product then we will pay, until then they should be free patches. Just my penny and a half Mitch Alatorre naman TEN/NROS Team Tachyon

Quoted text (23 lines)

> I just cannot agree with this logic. When Nascar Racing 1 came out in > mid-94' intel had just recently released the first Pentium (P54C > w/max onboard memory of 2MB, 3D accel was not even on the table. IDE hard > disk access was a joke, etc etc. I could run N1 but had to turn off nearly > all details and frame rate was not great. If we were to apply the current > logic of not releasing N3 until hardware catches up we would not have been > using N2 since 1997. I really think this is "lame excuse"! > The Software industry realized a few years ago that if you put in a couple > of new features in a product and call it version 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 > or....(Hmmm) most would pay for the newer version. Microsoft is the King of > this type of abuse. (But other caught up quickly) Can anyone tell me what > major diff 'tween office 95' and 97'? There are diffs but not $179 worth! > I think we will see this more and more until the consumers stand up and say > stop this nonsense. When you put out a new product then we will pay, until > then they should be free patches. > Just my penny and a half > Mitch Alatorre > naman TEN/NROS > Team Tachyon

It's a good penny and a half. To their credit, Papy has offered their products to registered owners at a discount in the past. I do agree with you that NASCAR 1999 was a lot like NASCAR 2. When you see NASCAR 2000, you'll know it isn't the case this year. You have a point about NASCAR 3. I didn't see it run on anything, so I can't judge that point as it applies to NASCAR 3. We'll just have to wait and see. -- Dan Clarke Managing Editor Operation Sports http://www.operationsports.com

On Wed, 26 May 1999 11:42:53 -0700, "Mitch_Alatorre"

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I just cannot agree with this logic. When Nascar Racing 1 came out in >mid-94' intel had just recently released the first Pentium (P54C >w/max onboard memory of 2MB, 3D accel was not even on the table. IDE hard >disk access was a joke, etc etc. I could run N1 but had to turn off nearly >all details and frame rate was not great. If we were to apply the current >logic of not releasing N3 until hardware catches up we would not have been >using N2 since 1997. I really think this is "lame excuse"!

I agree, too. That's what's been bugging me about all this lately: why CAN'T they release a sim that not every machine can run? Wouldn't 100 sales be better than NONE?! Do they realize how many people bought NEW computers just to run Falcon 4? Do they realize how many people spend BIG bucks for TSW and Hyperstims? I should think they'd settle for whatever numbers they can get instead of NONE! Personally, I'm actually looking forward to N2000. I don't care if the engine is N2-based; all I care about is how DIFFERENT from N2 is the overall game? How improved are the graphics? Sounds? Online play? Championship mode? Physics? AI? Sounds like they're attacking each of these areas with enough detail to virtually make it whole new game, not just a repackage... FF, 3Dfx, 3D Audio, TCP/IP, new carshapes.... sounds new enough to warrant $40 to ME (and I'm a CHEAP bastard!!). Gunner

% [link lost in import] % Q. What happened? Why is NASCAR? Racing 3 on hold? % A. NASCAR? Racing 3 is on hold because the physics model that we want to % implement is so complex, the typical home PC can not handle all the % processing right now. We need to wait a little while for technology to % catch up. The physics and AI engine are that complex! % Now they did not say they are using the GPL engine, nor did they say they % were not using this. I'm inferring from this quote that it is a whole new % engine. I could be wrong, or I could be right :). Okay, I think it may just be a case of reading too much into too little. But, then everyone here seems so hungry for any little tidbit, I can see why we are reading between the lines. % I do understand what you're getting at here, and you have provided valid % points to my arguments and I respect that. % I was just trying to state that IMHO, NASCAR 2000 looks like a whole % different game than Nascar Racing 1999. Of course some profit motives % went into releasing the game this year--but I don't think this is the % sole reason. Papy has a pretty good relationship with the sim racer as % well as the general public. I don't think they would want to tarnish that % repuation. I think this hits one of the nails squarely on the head. Everyone is quick to judge a product that hardly anyone outside of Papyrus knows about (and those that do probably have an NDA). I agree with you here. I think that too many folks got fueled by the physics engine in GPL and aren't willing or ready to give NASCAR2000 a chance. This is not to say that NASCAR2000 isn't a dressed up N2. But, then again, I don't recall folks bashing Papy too much for just dressing up ICR2 when they used the same graphics/physics engine for N2. Sit back folks, enjoy GPL and wait until we have something concrete to shoot at on the N2000 issue. However, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to express your concerns and wishes for a NASCAR (or CART) sim based on the physics engine that gave birth to GPL. Just do it based on facts and not some mad *** X-File scenario.... (On second thought, go ahead and expand on the *** themes, as it does make for some interesting reading while we wait for GP3. <G>). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>As someone who actually visited Papyrus and saw NASCAR 2000 and NASCAR >Legends, I would beg to differ on this. >NASCAR 3 is still going to be released. My understanding is that it will >*NOT* use the GPL engine, but rather a whole new engine. Having neither seen nor tried N3 how can this be said with any greater degree of accuracy than anyone else on the newsgroup can claim? I'd think it unlikely that a "new" engine would be created (different from current old (ICR2, N2) and new (GPL) engines, since that would be a huge and unnecessary undertaking. At present it is clear from what has been publically announced that N2000 and NASCAR Legends will be released using a seriously overhauled (updated) N2 engine, and that NASCAR3 is somewhere on the horizon - anything beyond that is speculation. It would also *** sales of following products to a greater or lesser degree depending upon how big a piece of junk it as. Cash cows are generally much better if they can have cash-calf offspring. Single generation short-term thinking is a convenient analogy but not a sound basis for a business plan. What is the difference between "new graphics" and "new car modelling"? A new car model is essentially new graphics, but new car modelling implies a different (more or less extensive) game engine, which would require driving to evaluate. In terms of sales I think all of the frills will most definitely help to sell more copies, far more than an enhanced driving model (unfortunately). I would still like _very_ much to see additions such as brake locking, realistic wheelspin and the like otherwise I fear N2000 will feel as dead to me as N2 does when set alongside GPL. Those are my personal desires though, and if it makes more commercial sense to concentrate efforts elsewhere then I can only hope that the money brought in will allow future products (N3, CART?) to satisfy my requirements. That will of course depend upon whether the "sim" market is big enough to make an out and out simulation a viable commercial proposition - I very much doubt that. For a long time I've thought that the only way to profitably make sims is to follow the approach of GP2, F1RS etc and provide a product which can appeal to the arcade fans and to the simulation fans. The drawback of this of course is that if 75% of your sales come from arcade fans and 75% of your development time goes into the sim side of the product then there is a very simple choice which would make your profits look much better. It also precludes the possibility of pricing the product at a premium for the sim market, since then the arcade fans won't buy it. It's quite a tricky market to be in, and a market is always very difficult to develop with only one supplier. It's a tough challenge for Papyrus to carve out and develop the market, since with, for example, the flight-sim market there are many companies bringing more and more people into the genre. With racing-sims it's not as easy. Cheers! John

I can only tell you what the people at Papy told me. I don't know where everyone in the ng gets their information. We got our information right from the source. Agreed. Again, you have a valid point, but again, cash cow and quality are not synonomous. Two words here: Deer Hunter. Well, there are new graphics, and they used the term "modeling" as well. It looked to me (my observations only) that the cars damage model was different, meaning that hoods fly off, and so forth. Of course the game requires driving to evaluate. We could get the game and many people will say Dan what were you thinking? I doubt this will be the case, but I didn't play the game, I saw it and talked with the developers. I think most pepole will be happy with the result. 42 players on the internet is very exciting! -- Dan Clarke Managing Editor Operation Sports http://www.operationsports.com

Gunner, I can't believe you said this. No company in their right mind would release a product for sale,knowing that the vast majority of its customers can't use it. Add to that just how many retailers would purchase it,knowing that so few of their customers can run it on their computers. Unless the product is sold to them on a guaranteed sales basis,very few companies would even touch the product. After all,they have just so much funds allocated to this category. 1st of all,they will loose their shirts. The Bean counters would stop production as soon as they see the projected sales vs. gross profit. And in your example of 100 sales is better than none,the bottom line;net profit,would certainly be in the red. Time and effort can be better utilized on projects that will produce acceptable GP. What you and others are confusing is that this is a business to them,not a game. They have to produce enough cash flow to pay salaries,benefits,rent,light,etc. No one I know has purchased any hardware for sims that weren't currently on the market. If you do,then perhaps they have nearly unlimited funds to constantly upgrade. I don't. N2000 is a product that the majority of us can run and enjoy with our current hardware. N3 will be refined,and finally released when the time is right from strictly a business point of view. Joel Willstein

>I can only tell you what the people at Papy told me. I don't know where >everyone in the ng gets their information. We got our information right >from the source. As do many people - the question here is not one of source but rather of interpretation - your means of speculating or "filling in the gaps" if you like. Having not tried N3 I think comments can be made only on N2000 and NL, and even then only on what was seen. Changes in driving feel can only be summarised by having driven. I think we should be careful not to misuse the word "quality". If deer hunter is the best game in it's class and satisfies the requirements of it's market then it is by definition a good quality product relative to what is required. This is somewhat different from releasing a turkey and cashing in on it, since whether or not something is a turkey is defined by the buying public's reaction. If they react badly then the offspring are killed and your short-term financial solution becomes a cyanide capsule. I agree, and I'm sure many people (probably myself included) will be delighted with the result. My only concern is that a precious few facts are stated in the newsgroup, speculations then made, assumptions sketched in and before long "facts" are born, definitions of reality which are based upon a million assumptions. My intention was a reality check, nothing more. That I meandered of onto what we in Scotland call "a mazy", rambling on about this and that is more down to me than the subject :-) Cheers! John

So if the shop is out of prime materials, they can sell second rate as great quality? Not having any good hunting games doesn't make Deer Hunter any less amateurish and crappy.

Mike, This statement brings up a question I've wondered about for years. In ICR2 I thought the graphics were much much better than N2. The reason..Anti-Aliasing! If they could put that feature in ICR2, and N2 is based on the N2 graphics engine then why did we never see AA in N2? Just curious? Mitch Alatorre naman TEN/NROS Team Tachyon

>So if the shop is out of prime materials, they can sell second rate as >great quality? Not having any good hunting games doesn't make Deer >Hunter any less amateurish and crappy. Okay, once again... "I think we should be careful not to misuse the word "quality". __IF__ deer hunter is the best game in it's class and satisfies the requirements of it's market then it is by definition a good quality product relative to what is required" Now I don't know deer hunter from a hole in the wall and wouldn't play it if I did. However, if people are buying it and are happy with it then it is "a good product". It doesn't matter if you or I think it's crap, we're not the market. What does matter is if a) the market thinks it's bad, or b) a better product shows up and opens people's eyes to something new. Cheers! John

On Thu, 27 May 1999 10:15:08 -0400, "Joel Willstein" > Gunner, > I can't believe you said this. No company in their right mind would >release a product for sale,knowing that the vast majority of its customers You're right.... guess I was just drunk.... lol. Actually I hadn't thought about the initial startup costs of packaging, etc. EVENTUALLY they may recoup some of it, but it'd take a while, agreed. BUT I stand by my statement that they could be surprised what some people to do to run it... Gunner

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Having neither seen nor tried N3 how can this be said with any greater > > degree of accuracy than anyone else on the newsgroup can claim? I'd > > think it unlikely that a "new" engine would be created (different from > > current old (ICR2, N2) and new (GPL) engines, since that would be a > > huge and unnecessary undertaking. > I can only tell you what the people at Papy told me. I don't know where > everyone in the ng gets their information. We got our information right > from the source.

Just a quick note here that it was "from the horses mouth" that much of the reason for GPL was to provide the physics engine to take Papyrus sims into the next millenium. Mike Lescault represented Papyrus on The Apex message boards from the onset of the GPL demo and this was one of the first things he said. I bet my ..... that N3 will use the GPL engine. It may be slightly upgraded in some areas and even dumbed down in others, but it will use the GPL engine unless Papy suddenly loses all sanity. In fact, I'm sure that much of what was learned making the GPL physics engine will be used in the overhaul of N2 -> N2000 - even some cutting and pasting :)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Now I don't know deer hunter from a hole in the wall and wouldn't play > it if I did. However, if people are buying it and are happy with it > then it is "a good product". It doesn't matter if you or I think it's > crap, we're not the market. What does matter is if a) the market > thinks it's bad, or b) a better product shows up and opens people's > eyes to something new. > Cheers! > John

From the Accountant's point of view, not the Artist's :)

The number one rule of retail: "90% of customers are less intelligent than average". Trabants and such sold huge quantities in the former Soviet Union, yet I challenge anyone to call them quality. Not even "quality".

Thus the reason behind the popularity of NASCAR in the US. Just as in our television programming, our popular films and music and in our education system, our racing is being "dumbed-down" to the lowest common denominator to suit the needs of people with the attention span of the average Golden Retriever. -don

The analogy works whichever you are, just that each may respond to different things. The key thing is satisfying a market, and if you're in the business of making money (aka "a company") an accountant's view is as valid as an artist - in fact one is as essential as the other to maintain a balance. Cheers! John

>The number one rule of retail: "90% of customers are less intelligent >than average". Trabants and such sold huge quantities in the former >Soviet Union, yet I challenge anyone to call them quality. Not even >"quality". I may need to resort to pictures soon - the pop-up book of market awareness. :-) How many Ferrari showrooms were there in the former Soviet Union? Porsche? Ford? How about even Fiat, or Renault then? Could it be that in_relation_to_what_was_available it is a quality car? Or that in _relation_to_what_the_market_wanted/could_afford_ that the Trabant was actually a quality car? Of course it was. Just look at the cars that sell well in India or Malaysia, since what is relevant is what your market wants. There's no doubting that a BMW is a better car than a Trabant, but when it costs about 10 years wages you'll take a bath on it if you try selling them. So too with sims - deer hunter might suck to you and I, but until someone else releases the "Ferrari 360 Modena" of Deer Hunter sims it will continue to satisfy the market at a profit - the single most critical thing for a product to achieve. Cheers! John