shouldn't we give Papy a break?

The reason I say this is that there is alot of Papy bashing going on right now about the lack of the GPL engine driving N3. Believe me I am as upset as the next guy about this, but it seems simple to me as to why. There simply isn't the horsepower to run it right now with the average CPU. They would be catering to the upper 1% of guys who had the fastest of the fastest. Somewhere in there they have to be accountable to make a profit and my guess is that N3 even on the N2 engine will be a wild success. I for one would would buy whatever damm CPU is necc. to run it on the GPL engine and I bet most here would, but we are a small minority sadly. They will release N4 probably a year later when the CPU's of the world can handle 43 cars and a stable connection (a guy can dream right?) Now it would be nice to hear a response from someone within Papy to let us know that, but lets give these guys a break. I for one know that I have had a hell of alot of fun the last 5 years playing Papy racing sims. Now do us proud and get working on that damm N4 as it will be hard to step backwords. Chad Rogers formerly chadliz on TEN (and boy am I glad I qiut when I did)

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:41:30 -0700, "Chad Rogers" > The reason I say this is that there is alot of Papy bashing going on right > now about the lack of the GPL engine driving N3. Believe me I am as upset > as the next guy about this, but it seems simple to me as to why. There > simply isn't the horsepower to run it right now with the average CPU. They > would be catering to the upper 1% of guys who had the fastest of the > fastest. It's true that this was one of their primary concerns when first designing Nascar 3. What I'm most surprised at is that they decided to use the aging Nascar 2 engine, even though they say that are completely gutting it and making it sparkle like new. The Nascar 2 engine is terrible by todays standards. Cars don't even leave the track for the sky in an accident. What would have been better (IMHO) is if they had designed a whole new engine, just for Nascar 3, which was somewhere in the middle of the N2 and GPL engine. The problem is that, like a dog tasting *** for the first time, now that sim fans have experienced the thrills of GPL, how can they be expected to be pleased when a new sim comes out using a physics engine which has been around for years? I'm sure it will, but perhaps the sheer hype (both good 'and' bad publicity) will sell a great number of copies? I mean this in the nicest possible way, but why should Papyrus be given a break? They are a company after all, who are out (as you say) to make a profit. If this were just one man we were speaking of, who was building these games out of the kindness of his heart, then I would fully support giving him all the breathing room he required. But this is not one man. This is an entire company, who have many years of experience. Thomas Ford "Please remove NOSPAMMING from e-mail address to reply"

I don't think ANYONE should be giving Papyrus a break! Every Papyrus sim that has ever come out has pushed the cpu limit. That is why their sims are still being played YEARS after they were released. I mean, how many of you upgraded from 4mb to 8mb ram on your piddly-ass 486's like I did when Nascar Racing came out...just so you could see the cars with decals on the sides? Games DRIVE the computer industry and are the major reason people upgrade their computers. I mean how many people you know had to get a Pentium III to run MS Word properly? Papy simply is too greedy to wait until a GPL based N3 can be developed or they just plain can't get Nascar physics to work in a GPL engine. I am pissed at Papy because they are forking out a substandard product that takes a step back in technology not forward. Has anyone taken a look at those N2 mirrors lately? I mean come on...a blue line for sky and a gray line for track with shitty little cars in it? The I original Indianapolis simulation did just as well with its mirrors and it was released in 1989 people! I mean let's get serious...I have my original copy still in the box and it came on two 5 1/2" floppies. I bet 3/4's of the N3 target audience has never seen a 5 1/2" floppy! It pisses me off to think that we all have supported them and have been loyal to them for so damn long and they have basically said "*** you!" to all the loyal following that they have developed. At any rate...I refuse to pay for a new product that I already own (N2 disguised as N3). I was a big N2 fan and simply have NEVER played it again since I bought GPL because it DOESN'T EVEN COMPARE!!! Until my next tantrum, Chris

> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:41:30 -0700, "Chad Rogers" > > The reason I say this is that there is alot of Papy bashing going on right > > now about the lack of the GPL engine driving N3. Believe me I am as upset > > as the next guy about this, but it seems simple to me as to why. There > > simply isn't the horsepower to run it right now with the average CPU. They

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > would be catering to the upper 1% of guys who had the fastest of the > > fastest. > It's true that this was one of their primary concerns when first > designing Nascar 3. What I'm most surprised at is that they decided to > use the aging Nascar 2 engine, even though they say that are > completely gutting it and making it sparkle like new. The Nascar 2 > engine is terrible by todays standards.

First thing, it is not terrible. It is the most accurate model NASCAR on the market at the moment. Second, have you seen any of the pictures from the wrecks? They are much better then NR1999E, it is going to be using a 3D engine, not 2D like NASCAR 2, and it will be a pretty good game. Yea, it is going to be NASCAR 3, using a heavly modifed NR1999E engine. Anywyays, you know how fast of a computer you need for GPL, about the fastest PII now, or at least a 400. At about this time, it would have been stupid to design a new engine, it is too hard to do so, and would have cost too much. NASCAR 3 will be what you are talking about, a 3D engine, but not 3D landscape. The physics model has not been around for years, it hasn't even been released, when someone making a game says that they will modify an engine so that cars will act more realisitic. That means, at least in my world, that it is going to use a new physics model which has not been around for years, at least not on the consumer market. It is a NASCAR sim, it will sell a couple of million copies in the next 5 years, like NASCAR Racing did. Papy should be given a break, because with everything that we ask from them, we are never happy. They realise the most realistic physics model EVER to us, and we cry that NASCAR doesn't use it. They tell us they are going to give us a NASCAR game with a new physics model, and we cry because we are too lazy to read the latest press releases or don't want to ask. They should also be given a break because they, like you, are human, they make mistakes. If we never gave a break to anyone who ever releasied a game, and never bought there products again because of this, we would not have many game companies, like id software (Doom II,) EA Sports (NASCAR Revolution) and Dynamix (Lords of Magic.) Stuart Becktell www.Gamewire.org

Chad Rogers wrote That is a sorry excuse. GPL couldn't be ran on the "average CPU" when it came out last year. I couldn't turn all the graphics on when N2 came out and I had a "high end CPU" for that time. The same goes for N1 and Indy Car 1&2. Papy has always pushed the envelope and made a lot of money doing it. But because GPL bombed (at least in the U.S.) they decided to change what has been working for them and every other highly successful game company. Do you think it hurt ID software sales of Quake when few people had enough horsepower to run it at maximum resolution? I doubt it. When you race online (TEN) you only see 6 cars ahead or behind anyway so the whole 43 cars in Nascar argument is another poor excuse for not using the GPL engine. . The big problem is that too many of us suckers ran out and bought N1999 and Sierra decided the money was just too easy than to actually develop a modern Nascar game.

> What would have been better (IMHO) is if they had designed a >whole new engine, just for Nascar 3, whichwas somewhere in the >middle of the N2 and GPL engine. I don't know how close the Sierra ties bind Papyrus and MGI, but I think a lightly modified Viper Racing engine would have made an awesome contender. The only issues are if it can handle the amount of cars (I hear it goes berserk when you use the hack run more than 16), but I know for a fact it stays pegged at over 50fps running with 8 cars on my crummy K6/2 with a Voodoo2 card. If they could get 25-30 cars running at 30fps using the Viper engine on a PC of my spec, they'd be in excellent shape. The second issue is the lack of a software renderer. At this point, I think it's a moot issue though. Anyone with a box capable of running it probably has a 3D capable card. In any case, I'm probably in for N3. If they can successfully take some of the GPL handling things they've learned, put them in a modified N2 engine, then use them to model a tire that doesn't have the traction of a bowling ball on ice, I'll be extremely happy. I'd also be happy to buy a P3 450 and TNT2 if they used the GPL engine, so I suppose my opinion is rather worthless. ;-) Tim

So give us a slider so we can limit the # of AI to 20, like GPL. I don't see your point, sorry :) -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So this aspect is of major importance to you......that the cars have the ability to soar skywards in an accident???!!!!

Rotflol. I've just picked up this week's copy of Autosport. There is a cartoon on the letters page depicting a scene from the Goodwood festival of speed. Cut to the paddock...Drivers signing autographs....The tannoy pipes up. .... "And now direct from Le Mans, the Silver Arrows Display team". Up in the skies can bee seen three Mercedes flying in close formation. Regards -- Mark Seery GPML league director http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/mark.seery/ > So this aspect is of major importance to you......that the cars have the > ability to soar skywards in an accident???!!!! > > On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:41:30 -0700, "Chad Rogers" > > Cars don't even leave the track for the sky in an accident.

My thoughts exactly... Scottie >That is a sorry excuse. GPL couldn't be ran on the "average CPU" when it >came out last year. I couldn't turn all the graphics on when N2 came out and >I had a "high end CPU" for that time.

> It pisses me off to think that we all have supported them and have been >loyal to them for so damn long and they have basically said "*** you!" to >all the loyal following that they have developed. Inhale. Exhale. Inhale. Exhale. Ok, now that you've had a couple deep breaths, allow me to point out one tiny little thing to you. NO ONE knows who made these decisions or why. They could very well have been decisions made by Sierra that Papyrus is being forced to deal with. There are many people who feel that this is more likely the case than Papyrus having come to these decisions on there own. So before you go launching a personal shitstorm at Papy, at least consider flinging some (if not all) of it Sierra's way. -- | "Instead of letting the moon be the Bill Mette | gateway to our future, we have let Enteract, Chicago | it become a brief chapter in our

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:48:01 -0500, "Tracey A Miller" >Chad Rogers wrote >>There simply isn't the horsepower to run it right now with the average CPU. > That is a sorry excuse. GPL couldn't be ran on the "average CPU" when it >came out last year. And what _is_ the 'average CPU' now ? 400 seems to be entry level for a new PC in the UK now. Probably higher than even this in US. Most software is known to be bought by people with newer PCs. Such a PC should be capable of running GPL/N3 to something approaching their potential (video hardware notwithstanding). By the date N3 actually ships, I am sure that most new PCs will have 450MHz/V3 configurations. My suspicion (and I would love to be proved wrong) is that the GPL physics model is judged too hard for the mass market.

That's a myth. It's not the physic model who is too hard. It's the era of GPL cars, being 1967 Formula 1 with over-powered engines for the chassis and crappy tyres. Physics can't be hard, they can only become more and more realistic. Saying that N3 would blow because it would be "GPLesque" is a myth, since the physic model is of course different, your now passing to a Stock-car who is very heavy. Sierra did a stupid decision, but a monetary decision. Of course it stinks, but eh it's Sierra, nothing should be surprising anymore. -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:58:14 -0000, "Bruce Kennewell"

Quoted text (8 lines)

>So this aspect is of major importance to you......that the cars have the >ability to soar skywards in an accident???!!!! >> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:41:30 -0700, "Chad Rogers" >> Cars don't even leave the track for the sky in an accident.

Actually, yes: when a car gets airborne it has a tendancy to both sustain and dispense different damage. If a car can flip over on its roof it'll damage more differently than if it just plows straight into a wall. You could sustain MUCH different damage if a car lands on your roof than if it slams into your quarterpanel. A car could get launched off the front end of another and damage the hood as opposed to the grill.... You may be able to get underneath a flipping car that would be in your way if they were on the ground instead of in the air... Yes, flips and airborne recreations can have an impact on gameplay and should be modelled! Gunner GunnerDon on TEN and Heat.net

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:41:30 -0700, "Chad Rogers" > Now it would be nice to hear a response from someone within Papy to let us >know that, but lets give these guys a break. I for one know that I have had >a hell of alot of fun the last 5 years playing Papy racing sims. Now do us >proud and get working on that damm N4 as it will be hard to step backwords. You know, I've thought the same. Then I go the flight-sim newsgroup and I see Andy Hollis fielding all these questions about A-10 and F-18 (products that are MANY months away from release!!!!) and he's telling them where they are in developement; asking for input and answering questions!!!!! WHY CAN'T PAPY DO THIS???!!!!! EVERY time Andy or one of the other developers on his teams posts to that group I think about how much different all these threads about N3 would be if we could hear from the developers DIRECTLY!! Can't make GPL work on Nascar? FINE! TELL us! Can't support current hardware? FINE! TELL us! Also: tell us about black flags; animated flagmen; AI fixes.... There's no real need for total silence... And lastly: I find it a TOTAL INSULT when they put out an 8-bit sound file and ask for input, then dissappear! They'll put out a ridiculous 30-second "video" and dissappear.... I PERSONALLY feel they'd keep the hype built up better by periodic news releases. Descent 3 did that: I got email every couple of weeks with DETAILED descriptions of what they were doing that week (level development, boss development, artwork, sound)..... Take notes from Andy Hollis' team and let us KNOW YOU CARE - WE CARE!!! Gunner GunnerDon on TEN and Heat.net

my central point being that Joe Public would find anything approaching a realistic simulation of WC cars (i.e. using a modified GPL engine) much too demanding, and that this depress sales for Sierra. Not having driven one for real however, i am unable to comment further !

wrote... And - If driving WC cars were so easy (compared to GPL) then why on any given Sunday do we see the *best* drivers in these cars losing it? Either all by themselves or in a crowd, it's nearly guaranteed that you'll see someone lose it and end up in the wall. I can think of a few off hand recently - Michael Waltrip, Steve Park, Dave Marcus (with help from Brett Bodine), and Dale Earnhardt (during practice). These guys are in the top Nascar series, and they sometimes can't handle the cars they are driving. I want the same in a Sim'. I don't care how bad I suck at it. I want it to be REAL. David L. Cook

says...

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>That's a myth. It's not the physic model who is too hard. >>It's the era of GPL cars, being 1967 Formula 1 with over- >>powered engines for the chassis and crappy tyres. Physics >>can't be hard, they can only become more and more realistic. >>Saying that N3 would blow because it would be "GPLesque" is >>a myth, since the physic model is of course different, your >>now passing to a Stock-car who is very heavy. >my central point being that Joe Public would find anything approaching >a realistic simulation of WC cars (i.e. using a modified GPL engine) >much too demanding, and that this depress sales for Sierra. Not having >driven one for real however, i am unable to comment further !

1) The physics engine *is* at the root of GPL being a difficult sim to master. Considering the power generated by the motor and the less then optimum aerodynamics and handling of the cars of that period, the physics engine has everything in the worl to do with why GPL is so hard to get a handle on. 2) The physics model in GPL requires a fairly hefty processor and lots of memory to keep up with 20 cars on the track. Add the burden of collision detection position prediction, and velocity, acceleration, and other technical stuff, and the CPU is workin it's ass off to provide something close to correct information. I don't know where they got their minimum of a P/166, but whoever came up with that should be shot. 3) The graphics rendering partially utilizes the CPU for some calaulctions as far as attitude and shadows are concerned, but for the most part, a decent 3D card removes a significant chunk of the load as far as rendering goes. 4) The CPU is also managing network/communications info. Now, knowing all of that.... 1) Take what GPL models in terms of physics, and multiply the load by 112%. In Nascar, you have more than twice as many cars to display, model, and predict. There's NO WAY in hell ANY of our machines will be able to model all of that info with the current state of today's CPUs. 2) Granted stock cars don't have to model suspension movement in terms of graphic rendering, but they DO have to model suspension movement in terms of physics. 3) To acurately model a stock car's physics, one has to consider whether or not the car is a super speedway car (more pronounced roof rails that also extended down the back window), a road course car, or a short track car. Not only that, but they have to model the roof flpas and the effect on the aero depolyed flaps would have on the moving body. A Nascar sim with GPL physics would never be able to run sufficiently to get much attention by the *** public, and would probably be blasted for being "unplayable with even the best hardware currently available". It would gather dust on store shelves until the hardware caught up. It's as plain as the noses on your faces. Should we give papy a break? Yeah, they're not to blame that the hardware isn't available to run the sim they want to design. At the same time, we should also let them know that they should keep striving to do the next one better. In other words, maintain a visible and vocal presence in the newsgroup, but don't make what has already been pointed out as baseless accusations and unrealistic goals. You only annoy other sim racers and make the Papy folks wonder why the hell they even waste their time writing software for such an unappreciative bunch of ingrates. -- ========================================================= John Simmons - Redneck Techno-Biker (Zerex12) http://www.members.home.net/jms1/index.html John Simmons - Barbarian Diecast Collector http://members.home.net/jsimm/diecast_index.html IGPS (Season 2) Director http://207.104.111.77/igps2/igps2.html If you want to send me email, go to either of the URL's shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame. =========================================================

And what ymenard, myself and others contend is that a stock car sim using the same or nearly the same physics engine that powers GPL would not be anywhere near as hard to "jump-in" and drive as GPL. A lot of the problems with GPL lie not in the physics of the game, but rather in the fact these are 1967 Formula 1 cars that as ymenard stated have over-powered engines, light weight chassises, no aerodynamics and very very hard *** that doesn't grip really well. Thats a far cry from just about any modern race car.

Who the hell cares if it is a Papyrus decision or a Sierra decision?! Either way it was still a bad one for anyone who enjoys a quality, cutting edge racing sim. I have no doubt that there are people within Papyrus that are as pissed as I am. My point is if we all sit around here like a bunch of pansies saying "oh poor Papyrus" we will continue to be offered substandard arcade games and the days of high performance realistic racing sims will end. Chris

Well put! Chris >Chad Rogers wrote >>There simply isn't the horsepower to run it right now with the average CPU. > That is a sorry excuse. GPL couldn't be ran on the "average CPU" when it >came out last year. I couldn't turn all the graphics on when N2 came out and >I had a "high end CPU" for that time. The same goes for N1 and Indy Car >1&2. Papy has always pushed the envelope and made a lot of money doing it. >But because GPL bombed (at least in the U.S.) they decided to change what >has been working for them and every other highly successful game company. Do >you think it hurt ID software sales of Quake when few people had enough >horsepower to run it at maximum resolution? I doubt it. When you race online >(TEN) you only see 6 cars ahead or behind anyway so the whole 43 cars in >Nascar argument is another poor excuse for not using the GPL engine. >. > The big problem is that too many of us suckers ran out and bought N1999 >and Sierra decided the money was just too easy than to actually develop a >modern Nascar game.

Bruce Kennewell schrieb: I would really miss my amazing flight shows in GPL, that's for sure! ;^) l8er ronny > > On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:41:30 -0700, "Chad Rogers" > > Cars don't even leave the track for the sky in an accident. -- 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!

Ian Greenwood schrieb:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >That's a myth. It's not the physic model who is too hard. It's the era of > >GPL cars, being 1967 Formula 1 with over-powered engines for the chassis and > >crappy tyres. Physics can't be hard, they can only become more and more > >realistic. Saying that N3 would blow because it would be "GPLesque" is a > >myth, since the physic model is of course different, your now passing to a > >Stock-car who is very heavy. > my central point being that Joe Public would find anything approaching > a realistic simulation of WC cars (i.e. using a modified GPL engine) > much too demanding, and that this depress sales for Sierra. Not having > driven one for real however, i am unable to comment further !

Add an arcade mode as in N1/2, put it on the box in big letters, case closed. 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!

LOL!! Due to the incredible strength of the "driver pod", and a fair whack of good fortune, at least we can laugh about it! :o) > Rotflol. I've just picked up this week's copy of Autosport. There is a > cartoon on the letters page depicting a scene from the Goodwood festival of

Quoted text (20 lines)

> speed. Cut to the paddock...Drivers signing autographs....The tannoy pipes > up. .... "And now direct from Le Mans, the Silver Arrows Display team". Up > in the skies can bee seen three Mercedes flying in close formation. > Regards > -- > Mark Seery > GPML league director > http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/mark.seery/ > > So this aspect is of major importance to you......that the cars have the > > ability to soar skywards in an accident???!!!! > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:41:30 -0700, "Chad Rogers" > > > Cars don't even leave the track for the sky in an accident.

Fair enough. Personally, I would rather the time spent developing flying cars be put to use enhancing the game elsewhere. -- Regards, Bruce. ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- > On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:58:14 -0000, "Bruce Kennewell" > >So this aspect is of major importance to you......that the cars have the > >ability to soar skywards in an accident???!!!! > >> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:41:30 -0700, "Chad Rogers" > >> Cars don't even leave the track for the sky in an accident. > Actually, yes: when a car gets airborne it has a tendancy to > both sustain and dispense different damage. If a car can flip over on > its roof it'll damage more differently than if it just plows straight > into a wall. You could sustain MUCH different damage if a car lands > on your roof than if it slams into your quarterpanel. > A car could get launched off the front end of another and > damage the hood as opposed to the grill.... You may be able to get > underneath a flipping car that would be in your way if they were on > the ground instead of in the air... Yes, flips and airborne > recreations can have an impact on gameplay and should be modelled! > Gunner > GunnerDon on TEN and Heat.net

Wrong, Francois. (snip) (unsnip) What you fail to recognise is that back in 1967 the cars were *NOT* considered "overpowered" and the tyres were *NOT* considered crappy!! In fact, when the 3-litre formula was announced for introduction in 1966, a cry of delight swept the ranks of the drivers, most of whom considered the then-current 1500cc engine size as being anything *BUT* "Formula One"!! It is very easy to be wise and all-seeing through the benefit of the passage of time. You are rating something 30+years old on the basis of current technology and that just doesn't work, I'm afraid. -- Regards, Bruce. ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > My suspicion (and I would love to be proved wrong) is that the GPL > > physics model is judged too hard for the mass market. > That's a myth. It's not the physic model who is too hard. It's the era of > GPL cars, being 1967 Formula 1 with over-powered engines for the chassis and > crappy tyres. Physics can't be hard, they can only become more and more > realistic. Saying that N3 would blow because it would be "GPLesque" is a > myth, since the physic model is of course different, your now passing to a > Stock-car who is very heavy. > Sierra did a stupid decision, but a monetary decision. Of course it stinks, > but eh it's Sierra, nothing should be surprising anymore. > -- > -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> > -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ > -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ > -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. > -- May the Downforce be with you... > "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Agreed...... Unless you consider concorde of course ;-) Mark

I have always been impressed with Andy Hollis' and company's involvement in the flight sim newsgroup. -- Don Burnette Dburn on Ten http://members.home.net/d.burnette/Sportsman%204.htm snip

Now that's funny!

Good Post

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> Add an arcade mode as in N1/2, put it on the box in big letters, >> case closed. >Exactly. >Instead of putting the Papyrus office into 3different teams working on >3different projects, N3 with an arcade mode and the REAL game engine would >had been easily possible. But of course, they went for the easy side, they >went for the money by putting 3titles on the shelves in the next year >instead of just 1. I understand this from a business point of view, but >it's not something expected from Papyrus. EA Sports yes. Papyrus no. >-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>

You may not expect it from papyrus, but who do you think is pulling the trigger? Perhaps Havas is leaning on Sierra to get some titles out the door, Sierra to Papyrus..."Can you have Nascarx(gpl) out the door and running on the mainstream computer by xmas?" Papy: 'No' Sierra :"then you'd better get busy modifying N2 again." possible...??? dave henrie

Exactly. Instead of putting the Papyrus office into 3different teams working on 3different projects, N3 with an arcade mode and the REAL game engine would had been easily possible. But of course, they went for the easy side, they went for the money by putting 3titles on the shelves in the next year instead of just 1. I understand this from a business point of view, but it's not something expected from Papyrus. EA Sports yes. Papyrus no. -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I don't think ANYONE should be giving Papyrus a break! > It pisses me off to think that we all have supported them and have been >loyal to them for so damn long and they have basically said "*** you!" to >all the loyal following that they have developed. > At any rate...I refuse to pay for a new product that I already own (N2 >disguised as N3). I was a big N2 fan and simply have NEVER played it

again >since I bought GPL because it DOESN'T EVEN COMPARE!!! >Until my next tantrum, > Chris Chris, Calm down. N3 is not N2. Read what has been written. And then if you still don't think it will be worth it,don't buy it. I for one think Papyrus has done more for us than any other sim producer. GPL is getting a patch with Force Feedback,and this is for a product that has lost money for them. Joel Willstein

> N3 is not N2. Read what has been written. And then if you still don't >think it will be worth it,don't buy it. N3 is N2 with a pretty paint job. I also feel that they have done more for us than any other producer. Too bad Sierra doesn't agree. But N3 based on N2 does nothing for us. Period! It is a step back in time and I personally feel it is a slap in our collective face. has lost money for them. I haven't figured out how they could waste time on this new patch either when they clain it was such a dog in stores. However, the fat lady isn't singing yet so we will see. Trust me, I will be the first to go buy a FF wheel when it does come out though and will be greatful for their efforts.

This is somehow what happened. The Mainstream PC would be able to run Nascarx(gpl) this Christmas. Not full AI, but it could without a single problem. Mainstream PC were not able to run Nascar Racing 1 when it was released with full everything (even in VGA), the same goes for GP2 also, and GPL, etc.. It was more like "Hello, Im your boss and Im splitting the development teams so we can have two titles on the shelves this Christmas instead of just one. And since with this split you won't have time to finish Nascarx(gpl), and since the Nascar Racing 99 sales were pretty good, let's continue to slap that old game engine into the software". -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

My guess is the GPL Engine is in a NASCAR Sim, and is prepared, but it is probably impossible for humans to run it. I agree, give Papyrus a break, they are number one, we all know that, I haven't hassled them about it, if they improve stuff with n3, good for them, mulitplayer is what I am looking for, and I will get it, so point over, done, finished, I am buying n3, all you 'complainers' can miss out on it if you want... Enjoy the wait.

Any Sim with the nascar winston cup series is going to sell. Go to any WC race and see the 30 dollar t-shirts flying out the door. The .01% of us that will know the difference in the graphics engine won't amout to a hill of beans.

And I also say Papyrus should turn out a nice cash cow to fund future sims. Their "mediocre" effort at warming over N2 (and I doubt it will be a mediocre upgrade) will still be a very enjoyable game/sim. If it isn't up to GPL standards and you don't like it, then don't buy it. A lot of us will, and will pump some much neded cash into their development pot. I agree with Tim on this one and never understood all the whining about Papyrus selling out. Stephen : My guess is the GPL Engine is in a NASCAR Sim, and is prepared, but it is : probably impossible for humans to run it. : I agree, give Papyrus a break, they are number one, we all know that, I : haven't hassled them about it, if they improve stuff with n3, good for them, : mulitplayer is what I am looking for, and I will get it, so point over, : done, finished, I am buying n3, all you 'complainers' can miss out on it if : you want... Enjoy the wait.

The problem seems to be that people here have grown to expect certain things from Papyrus when in actual fact they're just as subject to the market and the will of the publisher as any other developer. I'm sure they'd love to produce a totally new engine for the next title but they can't so that#s that. Perhaps people here have to start to realise that they're not the most important market in the world and don't buy enough titles to fund a developers soft drinks & food bill for a year, let alone a games engine. Let Papyrus earn some more money and develop as they see fit and I'm sure things will sort themselves out in time. If you don't like it, vote with your wallet. M