A return to N2 after driving GPL

I have been driving GPL since it's realease and had not drivong N2 in that time. I thought I would reload N2 so Icould compeat in a Pocono race for an Offline League I am a director for. At the end of the day if N2000 physics are not a huge improvemnet of N2 I will not be buying it. As the car started pushing I eased of the gas as I do in GPL to move the weight forward and losen the car up a bit, doe! it doesn't work like that in N2. Better grahpics, better AI, better anything else won't cut it if the physics are not up to GPL's. Sorry Papy, but I didn't buy N99 because it's revamped N2 and if that is all N2000 is then I'll wait for Nascar blah blah with GPL phyics. And if Nascar blah blah never happens then you have sold me the last Nascar product when I bought N2 and the BGN pack. Nigel -- Redline Race Controls Nigel of Lakewood Motorsports Nascar Coruba & Coke Chevy Hamilton New Zealand

Nigel, Although I understand your point, just remember that these are two totally different types of cars. The weight factor alone is enough to differentiate the throttle responses. I agree with you though on the physics update needed. I think (hope) that Papyrus will do enough upgrades to the physics engine to make it more realistic than N2/N99. However, using the GPL Physics engine is definitely the next step in progression for them. I never bought N99 because it had no multiplayer functionality. If you are waiting for a NASCAR to react to throttle response like the 1967 F1 cars, then I assure you, you will never be buying another NASCAR Simulation <VBG> ;) Scott PA-Scott High Gear Editor - "The View" - http://www.simracingnews.com G.T.S. Racing - http://www.GTS-Racing.com -- Scott B. Husted ICQ# 4395450

Quoted text (9 lines)

>I have been driving GPL since it's realease and had not >drivong N2 in that time. >I thought I would reload N2 so Icould compeat in a Pocono race >for an Offline League I am a director for. >At the end of the day if N2000 physics are not a huge >improvemnet of N2 I will not be buying it. As the car started >pushing I eased of the gas as I do in GPL to move the weight >forward and losen the car up a bit, doe! it doesn't work like >that in N2.

pretty funny, huh? what used to seem god-like is just a little toy now. i'm not worried about another NASCAR (even though i am a NASCAR fan mainly) because of GPL. let's say nothing has happened in the next five years. GPL will still be running great on everyones pentium 5-966 with 512K of RAM. by then, every track that someone could dream of having available will be just that. in five years, somebody will have found a way to put different body styles on the GPL cars and make them run either more sluggishly for NASCAR or more sticky for modern F1. the future is great no matter what.

<snip> In the future, I plan to have alot more than 512K of RAM. In fact, I have about 512 times as much as that already ;) ~daxe

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Nigel, > Although I understand your point, just remember that these are two > totally different types of cars. The weight factor alone is enough to > differentiate the throttle responses. > I agree with you though on the physics update needed. I think (hope) > that Papyrus will do enough upgrades to the physics engine to make it > more realistic than N2/N99. However, using the GPL Physics engine is > definitely the next step in progression for them. I never bought N99 > because it had no multiplayer functionality. > If you are waiting for a NASCAR to react to throttle response like the > 1967 F1 cars, then I assure you, you will never be buying another > NASCAR Simulation <VBG> ;) > Scott > PA-Scott > High Gear Editor - "The View" - http://www.simracingnews.com > G.T.S. Racing - http://www.GTS-Racing.com

I heard that the car could be "flipped" in Nascar 3/2000 (whatever the name). Doesn't that constitute an improvement in the physics department? Also, looking at the first demo movie, the car handling seemed different. Just look at that car spining out towards the wall. In N2/N99, the "turn axis" of the car is smack in the middle of the car, while it doesn't seem to be the case in the upcoming game. Philster

Yes, but who in the world would EVER need more than 640K of memory on a PC? There will never be a need to surpass that threshold! <g>

>>In the future, I plan to have alot more than 512K of RAM. In fact, I have >>about >>512 times as much as that already >Yes, but who in the world would EVER need more than 640K of memory on a PC? >There will never be a need to surpass that threshold! <g> i feel like i just took a left at curva grande...

I never bought N99 Hmm I race it multiplayer all the time on a LAN. Same ole multiplayer bugs that n2 had but better voodoo support and the trucks make it worth it. BH

The way my N2 runs in multiplayer, you could say it has no functionality. The thing skips like crazy, and the cars jump around all over the track, constantly wrecking me. I mean, the AI car will be in front, next disappears all together, shows up again high up on the track, then in a blink its down right next to me pushing me out of the way. No matter how many graphics I turn off, and even if my friend and I limit the field to 6 cars, it still happens. I suppose it has something to do with the latency (.13 secs, I think) at a 28.8 connection. I don't even bother with it anymore, and if N3/2000/whatever doesn't show substantial improvement, I doubt I'll be buying it.

I think there is some confusion here. L2 cache on processors today (PII/PIII) have 512k running at 1/2 of processor speed. I'm betting Jay meant 512 megs of ram, not 512k! We all knew what he meant.

That movie, was the 'old' Nascar3, the Nascar game that will use the GPL engine. Now, they are going to release another N2 style game, called Nascar3, but is not the same Nascar3 that was announced months ago ... if you dont understand this (I dont :D ) ask papyrus .... :) McKafre De La Rosa

>> Although I understand your point, just remember that these are two >> totally different types of cars. The weight factor alone is enough to >> differentiate the throttle responses. They are different types of car, but not "totally different" - a car is a car is a car. That throttle movement will cause the corresponding weight transfer in any car, the only difference is the magnitude. Cheers! John

% >> Although I understand your point, just remember that these are two % >> totally different types of cars. The weight factor alone is enough to % >> differentiate the throttle responses. % They are different types of car, but not "totally different" - a car % is a car is a car. That throttle movement will cause the corresponding % weight transfer in any car, the only difference is the magnitude. Also, the engines (errr excuse me, motors) in NASCAR are powerful enough that easing off the throttle should cause weight transfer (how much will depend on the setup of springs, cross-weight, etc.). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Of course there will be weight transfer, but the results are nothing close to what you experience in GPL with no aerodynamics, tire differences, etc. Ive raced a few different types of race cars. From Spec Racers to Sports2000 to GT-1 and even a little NASCAR Modified. A car is not a car is not a car when it comes to racing <VBG> My whole point is you cant base the analysis of the physics in NASCAR Racing by comparing it to the same handling reaction characteristics of GPL. Magnitude is not the only difference. Scott PA-Scott High Gear Editor - "The View" - http://www.simracingnews.com G.T.S. Racing - http://www.GTS-Racing.com -- Scott B. Husted ICQ# 4395450

For those that aren't aware: that is pretty close to an EXACT quote from Bill Gates from around 1984 (?). I remember telling my dad to get the 30MB hdd instead of the 20MB one and he'll never need another one. I also remember buying a flow-charting program that HAD WINDOWS 3.0 INCLUDED and BOTH programs fit on a 720K floppy!!!!! Anybody else remember when Windows also had a "redistributable" (Microsoft's word) version? Gunner

Hmmm.... I just ran several races last night over TEN with an average latency of around .13 and had VERY little "jittering" that you experience. My 56K modem only connected at 32K and TEN said my connection was "Good." Couldn't speak for 28.8 yet - but my wife's computer has a 28.8 in it.... I'll try that sometime to see if the 4K of baud (or BPS for the nitpicky types) makes that much difference. I'm DAMN happy if my latency is .15 or less! ONLINE PLAY'S the ONLY way to fly now!!!!! I'm totally hooked. Gunner

I actually remember vividly talking my dad into a computer circa 1984. Of course, he goes out and buys an IBM PCjr! Little did we know IBM would drop it within about 6 months! No hard drive in this puppy, I had to boot to 2 - 5 1/4" DOS 2.2 floppies. I could also use a cartridge (almost identical to the old Atari cartridges) to program in BASIC. I was able to run a couple of graphical games, including King's Quest I and II, and an old golf game that featured Pinhurst No.2 (can't remember the name)...... Ah, the days of 160x120 resolution in 16 colors!!! I could ramp it up to 320x240, but then only 4 colors...........The funny thing is, the PCjr is still operable down i my ba***t! Every year or so I fire it up for a trip down memory lane.......

Hey! We stil have an operable PC Junior here too! My brother bought it 2 weeks before IBM dropped it all together, paid 700$ CDN (around $24.99 USD these days <G>) for the damn thing! We still have a few games on floppies, but hey, if you'd like, we can trade some! Frank

Quoted text (16 lines)

>> For those that aren't aware: that is pretty close to an EXACT >>quote from Bill Gates from around 1984 (?). I remember telling my dad >>to get the 30MB hdd instead of the 20MB one and he'll never need >>another one. I also remember buying a flow-charting program that HAD >>WINDOWS 3.0 INCLUDED and BOTH programs fit on a 720K floppy!!!!! >I actually remember vividly talking my dad into a computer circa 1984. Of >course, he goes out and buys an IBM PCjr! Little did we know IBM would drop it >within about 6 months! No hard drive in this puppy, I had to boot to 2 - 5 >1/4" DOS 2.2 floppies. I could also use a cartridge (almost identical to the >old Atari cartridges) to program in BASIC. I was able to run a couple of >graphical games, including King's Quest I and II, and an old golf game that >featured Pinhurst No.2 (can't remember the name)...... Ah, the days of 160x120 >resolution in 16 colors!!! I could ramp it up to 320x240, but then only 4 >colors...........The funny thing is, the PCjr is still operable down i my >ba***t! Every year or so I fire it up for a trip down memory lane.......

Francois Dubuc, Simulator ***world, [link lost in import: /***world/]

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>> Although I understand your point, just remember that these are two >>> totally different types of cars. The weight factor alone is enough to >>> differentiate the throttle responses. >They are different types of car, but not "totally different" - a car >is a car is a car. That throttle movement will cause the corresponding >weight transfer in any car, the only difference is the magnitude. >Cheers! >John

I also recall that sometime mid last year during a interview with a Papy chap that his said then that in Nascar 3 you will not simply get off the gas in a turn as we do in N2 because the new physics will incure a major weight shift and the car get big time loose. He said we will need to learn to apply throttle to control it. Like I said when I started this post, if Papy give us the N2 physics in N3/2000 then they won't make another Nascar sim sale to me. (And I tend to be very bias towards Papy sims, but they are loosing me on the rebuild N2 to N3 deal.) Nigel -- Redline Race Controls Nigel of Lakewood Motorsports Nascar Coruba & Coke Chevy Hamilton New Zealand

Nigel, I do understand what you are saying, I just thought your original post stated you expected the NASCARs to behave the same as in GPL. If you are simply referring to a MUCH improved handling of weight transfers, etc... I absolutely agree. N3 will NOT have the GPL Physics. However, it will supposedly be a "gutted" and improved version of the N2/N99 physics. What does that mean?? Who knows?!?! <VBG> I would probably buy it regardless because of the updated graphics, sounds, limited upgraded physics, and the fact that it will have multiplayer capabilities. I basically boycotted N99 because it had not real multiplayer capability. Without multiplayer... its nothing but a coaster for the coffee table ;) Scott PA-Scott High Gear Editor - "The View" - http://www.simracingnews.com G.T.S. Racing - http://www.GTS-Racing.com -- Scott B. Husted ICQ# 4395450

I never heard someone from Papyrus say that the driving model will be redone or improved. The "gutted" engine is the graphics engine only, not the physics engine, so far as I know (from several previews, interviews...). However, if Papy won't upgrate the driving model with N3 I won't buy it either; tried N2 after a loooooong pause again, some days ago, and entering the first corner took all the fun out of it, because I'm "GPL spoiled". -Thorsten Rueter Scott B. Husted schrieb: ...

The N2 physics engine does that now.... Bill / Amish on TEN

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I also recall that sometime mid last year during a interview > with a Papy chap that his said then that in Nascar 3 you will > not simply get off the gas in a turn as we do in N2 because > the new physics will incure a major weight shift and the car > get big time loose. He said we will need to learn to apply > throttle to control it. > Like I said when I started this post, if Papy give us the N2 > physics in N3/2000 then they won't make another Nascar sim > sale to me. (And I tend to be very bias towards Papy sims, > but they are loosing me on the rebuild N2 to N3 deal.) > Nigel > --

42 Racer Multiplay gives me wood LOL...... That alone will make me buy the game. Nascar Cars SHOULD/WOULD be much easier to handle than GPL cars.... For MOST of the GPL fans the KEY to their racing (Road Racing) is much more dependent on the driver vs. setup. In oval racing (n2/nascar)the setup is much more important. I will bet my bottom dollar that if I set up a car properly, that I could get the GPL Physics Nascar sim-cars to feel almost like my N2 cars. The reason I KNOW, is I can do it now with the GPL cars at the oval tracks. You let off the gas, brake a little coast and get on the gas. You give me a little more rear weight on the exit of the turns and it will feel identical. Oval Racing is majority setup vs. driver. Those "N2 Physics" they are talking about is still very addequate. The reason, I know is because we are STILL finding more speed and tire wear at every NROS track. Simple physics engine this is not. While it isn't giving as MUCH feedback as GPL does graphically, the GOOD setup guys on NROS can tell excactly how the car is handling. I race both GPL and N2 and while GPL is definately better on giving feedback on how the car is handling, a car with a proper setup ON A OVAL will re-act very similar to the current N2 cars we have now. You put a GPL car at C***te and I bet money you will be able to set up a GPL car that you just roll off the gas into the corner and smash the gas on exit. The car wouldn't get loose either (With proper setup). The BIG difference is that on ovals you can "dial" in the cars much better than on road courses. You gain some speed in one corner on a Roadie and many times you loose speed in another corner. I am just not exactly sure WHAT some of the guys who are thinking that the GPL engine inside the Nascar Frame will give them? Flips? When I was in Daytona for the NROS finals I saw 5 Nascar Cars flipping at Loudon... In ALL my time watching Nascar, I dont think I have EVER seen a Nascar car flipping at Loudon New Hampshire. IF they "gutt" the N2 physics and give us more setup tweeking options, I say it would make it just as fun and a better seller. MOST of the guys slamming the current N3 proposed physics, I could with 99% certainty say have NOT found the top limit at any N2 track. The physics engine within N2 while not 100% realistic is NOT bad, god forbid it takes time to be good at N2 vs GPL. WHY? because developing TOP OF THE LINE setups takes a TON OF TIME. It takes more time to develop STELLAR SETUPS than becoming a STELLAR DRIVER. The GPL guys think that it takes time to make a good setup for GPL. LOL ---- Between myself and my team we have over 5,000 races on TEN/NROS and we STILL havnt found the "Perfect" setup. We just found MORE tire wear at Michigan, Marty, Richmond etc.... Bill / Amish on TEN

Thorsten, This was posted on the Sierra web site: "When it comes to new features, PNR is full of them. It will be based on the N99 physics engine, but it has been totally gutted and remodeled. As far as graphics are concerned, this year's "Papyrus NASCAR Racing" (PNR) will support 3dfx(Glide), Direct3D, and software modes. There will be no native Rendition support." Totally "gutted and remodeled" ;) We shall see. Scott PA-Scott High Gear Editor - "The View" - http://www.simracingnews.com G.T.S. Racing - http://www.GTS-Racing.com -- Scott B. Husted ICQ# 4395450

I have no problems in terms of performance. The old bugs reside in the fact that many times the cars don't align with their right paint jobs on each system or driver name for that matter. It is pretty much exactly the same multiplayer as in N2. I think it counts. :) BH > > I never bought N99 > > > because it had no multiplayer functionality. > > Hmm I race it multiplayer all the time on a LAN. Same ole multiplayer bugs

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > that n2 had but better voodoo support and the trucks make it worth it. > > BH > The way my N2 runs in multiplayer, you could say it has no functionality. > The thing skips like crazy, and the cars jump around all over the track, > constantly wrecking me. I mean, the AI car will be in front, next > disappears all together, shows up again high up on the track, then in a > blink its down right next to me pushing me out of the way. No matter how > many graphics I turn off, and even if my friend and I limit the field to 6 > cars, it still happens. > I suppose it has something to do with the latency (.13 secs, I think) at a > 28.8 connection. I don't even bother with it anymore, and if > N3/2000/whatever doesn't show substantial improvement, I doubt I'll be > buying it.

Hey Jeff, the next time you go to a comedy show, take me along..I can explain the jokes to you.. daxe

Well, ...yes, let's wait and see and hope :) -Thorsten Scott B. Husted schrieb:

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:01:53 GMT, "Scott B. Husted" >Ive raced a few different types of race cars. From Spec Racers to Sports2000 to >GT-1 and even a little NASCAR Modified. A car is not a car is not a car when it >comes to racing <VBG> That's a pretty astonishing statement which I would challenge anyone to uphold. Weight transfer occurs, to a greater or lesser extent, whatever the car. The least likely is F1, given the stiffness and lack of movement of the shocks, but it still (of course!) occurs even with flexing of the tyre wall. If we were comparing a NASCAR with an F1 car (or indeed a simulated NASCAR with a simulated F1 car) then magnitude should comprise the vast majority of the difference. Anything otherwise is contained in the implementation within the sim. Cheers! John

Yeah, but it will be 2010 before TEN ever supports it :( -Larry > 42 Racer Multiplay gives me wood LOL...... That alone will make me buy > the game.

Exactly why we have this Silicon-Based Brick Wall we have to deal with :( :) -Larry > Yes, but who in the world would EVER need more than 640K of memory on a PC? > There will never be a need to surpass that threshold! <g>