GP3 60% complete and they are still planning to just bunch 3D-support
on top? The game engine is based on GP2 code because Crammond "Hates
to waste good code"? Hasbro stated that the game WILL be released on
schedule?
Be afraid, be very afraid...
Fears that Grand Prix 3 will disappoint
After ECTS reports that GP3 was 60% complete, still lacked 3D acceleration and reused GP2 code, posters worried it would be a letdown with GP2's 'canned spins' and processor occupancy slowdowns. One ECTS visitor said it looked like GP2 with a facelift, while defenders argued that physics should come first and Geoff Crammond had always delivered. Some said they would not buy it without force feedback, hardware acceleration or a Linux version.
Automated summary.
>GP3 60% complete and they are still planning to just bunch 3D-support
>on top? The game engine is based on GP2 code because Crammond "Hates
>to waste good code"? Hasbro stated that the game WILL be released on
>schedule?
>Be afraid, be very afraid...
I already am. Can you say "canned spins?" I was afraid that you could . .
.
>GP3 60% complete and they are still planning to just bunch 3D-support
>on top? The game engine is based on GP2 code because Crammond "Hates
>to waste good code"? Hasbro stated that the game WILL be released on
>schedule?
>Be afraid, be very afraid...
Actually I am pleased to hear this....looks like they started with the
physics, not with the graphics engine. We all know that the graphic
cards are evolving very fast ATM, so it does make sense to do that
part of the game as last, so you can optimize to the latest graphic
card specs...
Remco
I am of the firm opinion Geoff can't pull it off. Too little too late is all
we'll hear come spring.
Jan.
----
Go look at the screenshots above...the graphics look absolutley stunning and
Geoff has always been the man to deliver realistic sims
Revvin
> Actually I am pleased to hear this....looks like they started with the
> physics, not with the graphics engine. We all know that the graphic
> cards are evolving very fast ATM, so it does make sense to do that
> part of the game as last, so you can optimize to the latest graphic
> card specs...
The problem is, you can't just take an old graphics engine and add
support for whatever graphics card you like. Implementing a complex
3D-interface requires that you design the engine to support 3D-cards from
day one. This is one thing GPL did right.
--
Toni Lassila
> Go look at the screenshots above...the graphics look absolutley stunning and
> Geoff has always been the man to deliver realistic sims
Doesn't mean that it will run properly on any machine, support 3D cards or
have the slowmo-feature and cars-on-rails-features removed. GP2 was a nice
sim, but it doesn't mean one can just overlook all it's shortcomings. And
frankly, by the things I've heard, he didn't bother to fix much.
--
Toni Lassila
I was VERY dissapointed on seeing GP3 at ECTS. I took some screenshot
but it's not worth posting them.
It really does look like our Geoff has spend the lasy 2 years locked in
a room and nobody told him about 3D hardware :(
It looks like GP2 with a bit of a facelift.
It looked like it was running on a playstation - chunky textures, no
filtering, textures jumping around.
I bet he still used fixed-point code :((
very very sad.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Oh man, the game hasn't even come out yet, and people are already whining
that its too hard for them! Who the hell started this "canned spins"
propoganda bullshit anyway?
>I already am. Can you say "canned spins?" I was afraid that you could . .
>.
Does GP2 feature canned spins? Have they stated that GP3 will be based on
the GP2 engine? You figure out the rest.
-- JB
.
>>.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>Oh man, the game hasn't even come out yet, and people are already whining >that its too hard for them! Who the hell started this "canned spins" >propoganda bullshit anyway? >>I already am. Can you say "canned spins?" I was afraid that you could .Quoted text (10 lines)
> > Actually I am pleased to hear this....looks like they started with the > > physics, not with the graphics engine. We all know that the graphic > > cards are evolving very fast ATM, so it does make sense to do that > > part of the game as last, so you can optimize to the latest graphic > > card specs... > The problem is, you can't just take an old graphics engine and add > support for whatever graphics card you like. Implementing a complex > 3D-interface requires that you design the engine to support 3D-cards from > day one. This is one thing GPL did right.Quoted text (10 lines)
>> Actually I am pleased to hear this....looks like they started with the >> physics, not with the graphics engine. We all know that the graphic >> cards are evolving very fast ATM, so it does make sense to do that >> part of the game as last, so you can optimize to the latest graphic >> card specs... >The problem is, you can't just take an old graphics engine and add >support for whatever graphics card you like. Implementing a complex >3D-interface requires that you design the engine to support 3D-cards from >day one. This is one thing GPL did right.> GPL started with Rendition/Software and 3Dfx was included later on...GPL was
> started before Glide was even available.
[...]
Neither example works in the case of GP3. Transporting software-code to
hardware-code isn't that easy if you haven't planned for it. And if the
code is based on GP2, Crammons certainly hasn't designed it for 3D cards.
And if N3 is based on ICR1, I'm not buying it!-)
--
Toni Lassila
> Hmmm, ok. And where do you get the information that the current build
> of GP3 uses an old graphics engine?
1. They are even CONSIDERING implementing a software-mode
2. The game is 60% complete and still without 3D-acceleration
3. Crammond has stated that he doesn't like to start all over if he has
good code he can use
Just an educated guess, really...
--
Toni Lassila
OK, my memory is very bad. I have a habit of trying to get a "feel" for the
big picture in my life experiences, to the exclusion of detail. Thus, my
memory is very bad. So hopefully someone will clarify what I think I
remember reading when I say, "Didn't Crammond base GP2 on his World Circuit
code?"
Seemed to work out then.
--
Mark Jeangerard
www.soundchaserweb.com
New Mexico USA
What do the screenshots show? Psygnosis make great looking games but they
play like shit... in addition, does OF1R ring any bells?
M
-gui.server.***.net>:
Quoted text (14 lines)
>Go look at the screenshots above...the graphics look absolutley stunning >and Geoff has always been the man to deliver realistic sims >Revvin >> GP3 60% complete and they are still planning to just bunch 3D-support >> on top? The game engine is based on GP2 code because Crammond "Hates >> to waste good code"? Hasbro stated that the game WILL be released on >> schedule? >> Be afraid, be very afraid...The logical progression that is if GP2 was based on F1GP and GP3 is based
on GP2 code, the new title can trade code back to F1GP. That is worrying
;)
M
>> Go look at the screenshots above...the graphics look absolutley stunning and
>> Geoff has always been the man to deliver realistic sims
>Doesn't mean that it will run properly on any machine, support 3D cards or
>have the slowmo-feature and cars-on-rails-features removed. GP2 was a nice
>sim, but it doesn't mean one can just overlook all it's shortcomings. And
>frankly, by the things I've heard, he didn't bother to fix much.
Right on! I really don't understand people getting this e***d over a
couple of SW rendered screenshots. Sure, GP2 _was_ a good sim at its time
(well, still is :)), but if GP3 doesn't deliver close to GPL physics,
constant +30 fps HW accelerated frame rate, I can't be bothered. I fear the
processor occupancy thingy (slo-mo) will still be there ...
I guess GPL has spoiled me :)
Hena
It is. Are there any sims that you would consider buying since they are all
inevitably based on previous, flawed products?
Cheers,
Richard
Quoted text (7 lines)
>Right on! I really don't understand people getting this e***d over a >couple of SW rendered screenshots. Sure, GP2 _was_ a good sim at its time >(well, still is :)), but if GP3 doesn't deliver close to GPL physics, >constant +30 fps HW accelerated frame rate, I can't be bothered. I fear the >processor occupancy thingy (slo-mo) will still be there ... >I guess GPL has spoiled me :)> > GPL started with Rendition/Software and 3Dfx was included later on...GPL was
> > started before Glide was even available.
> [...]
> > NR3 basically started with ICR1 (no 3d cards) but supports D3D, 3Dfx, and
You think Crammond never planned on 3D card support?!?!?!?!?!?!
________________________________________________
Jon Van Ginneken
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up
with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules, and
***ic pleasure in witnessing ***: in other words it is
war minus the shooting."
--George
Orwell
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > software. How'd they manage that impossible task? > > How did Papy make NR3 in just a couple months from NR99 when NR99 didn't > > support D3D? > Neither example works in the case of GP3. Transporting software-code to > hardware-code isn't that easy if you haven't planned for it. And if the > code is based on GP2, Crammons certainly hasn't designed it for 3D cards. > And if N3 is based on ICR1, I'm not buying it!-)says...
I'm afraid you're right about the graphics engine, it looked really old.
The textures looked like unprocessed scanned in photos.
Geoff should have licensed the GP500 bike racing game engine shown on the
same stand, that looks really nice.
*However* I can't speak for the physics - I didn't try it myself. People
who did said it was using the "arcade" mode so nothing could be learnt.
I'm a big fan of Geoff's previous games so I really hope he pulls it
together in time for the release. I'm not hopeful though.
- Michael
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > GP3 60% complete and they are still planning to just bunch 3D-support > > on top? The game engine is based on GP2 code because Crammond "Hates > > to waste good code"? Hasbro stated that the game WILL be released on > > schedule? > > Be afraid, be very afraid... > I was VERY dissapointed on seeing GP3 at ECTS. I took some screenshot > but it's not worth posting them.>In addition, GP3 better have kick ass Force Feedback effects. If
>it is missing FF or hardware 3D acceleration, then there is virtually
>no chance at all that I would get the game. Of course the physics
>better be pretty good too (goes with FF IMHO).
Ditto, well said.
Joe McGinn
==========================================
Staff Writer for the Sports *** Network
[link lost in import: /***.com/]
==========================================
>(well, still is :)), but if GP3 doesn't deliver close to GPL physics,
>constant +30 fps HW accelerated frame rate, I can't be bothered. I fear the
>processor occupancy thingy (slo-mo) will still be there ...
Same here. For me, the knockout issue will be: "Is there a
Linux version?" If not, no money from me. GPL was the last
Windows only title I shelled out money on.
Regards,
Uwe
--
Uwe Schuerkamp http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany (52.0N/8h30mE)
Ever wondered what's wrong with the world? http://bnetwork.com/
PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
I guess it's how you look at it. I'm really exited about the game and know
nothing about programming. But my latest recordings have things in common
with my first ones in the early sixties. Such as voice coil and diaphragm
transducers. (Common microphones and speakers.) The materials are better but
the design still kicks ass. So that's how I interpret Crammond "good code"
statement. Is that a fair example? I hope so. I want GP3 to rip. :-)
--
Mark Jeangerard
www.soundchaserweb.com
New Mexico USA
> The logical progression that is if GP2 was based on F1GP and GP3 is based
> on GP2 code, the new title can trade code back to F1GP. That is worrying
> ;)
> M
> >OK, my memory is very bad. I have a habit of trying to get a "feel" for
> >the big picture in my life experiences, to the exclusion of detail.
> >Thus, my memory is very bad. So hopefully someone will clarify what I
> >think I remember reading when I say, "Didn't Crammond base GP2 on his
> >World Circuit code?"
> >Seemed to work out then.
Being based on the same code, is NOT the same as being the same code.
Geoff, got an awful lot of things right in F1GP, and got even more right
in GP2.
Don't you think he knows where the flaws were, and has changed and
upgraded those sections.
All I know that Revs, Stunt Car Racer, F1GP and GP2 have pushed the sim
envelope forward. Why start to doubt his ability to continue the good
work ?
Dave.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Well I guess you're not playing GP3 then.
M
I dunno... GP3 gets shown for the first time and people get all defensive.
Did you see the ;) at the end of the post or are you blind?
I *want* GP3 to be as good as GP2 and F1GP were for their time but I am
really not seeing or reading anything as groundbreaking as the ancestors of
GP3 managed in their day.
M
Quoted text (10 lines)
>> Actually I am pleased to hear this....looks like they started with the >> physics, not with the graphics engine. We all know that the graphic >> cards are evolving very fast ATM, so it does make sense to do that >> part of the game as last, so you can optimize to the latest graphic >> card specs... >The problem is, you can't just take an old graphics engine and add >support for whatever graphics card you like. Implementing a complex >3D-interface requires that you design the engine to support 3D-cards from >day one. This is one thing GPL did right.defensive.
Dunno about people getting defensive, we seem to be in the minority,
most people are getting on the offensive.
Yeah, I missed it. But a little harsh don't you think ?
I wouldn't have put GP2 or F1GP as groundbreaking, they did pretty much
what everyone else was attempting to do, but did it better, MUCH better
IMHO.
Without anymore information than someone doing 3 laps of Monaco on an
"arcade" setting, it's very difficult to state how good it's going to
be.
All I was trying to say is that Geoff has a proven track record, so
maybe, just maybe he knows a little bit more than some people are
prepared to give him credit for.
Dave.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> 3D card support is one thing that GPL should *not* be proud of.
Look out, it's disgruntled TNT-users!
--
Toni Lassila
2 words "John" and "Romero"
discuss
M
Zonk has SLI Voodoo2... so why would he be disgruntled?
>> 3D card support is one thing that GPL should *not* be proud of.
>Look out, it's disgruntled TNT-users!
Quoted text (11 lines)
>Well I guess you're not playing GP3 then. >M >>Same here. For me, the knockout issue will be: "Is there a >>Linux version?" If not, no money from me. GPL was the last >>Windows only title I shelled out money on.It its rather short sighted of pap to only support the Voodoo range of
cards. i would really like GPL but not in Glide of Software only. ho hum.
Quoted text (11 lines)
> Zonk has SLI Voodoo2... so why would he be disgruntled? > >> 3D card support is one thing that GPL should *not* be proud of. > >Look out, it's disgruntled TNT-users!hum.
You know that GPL supports OpenGL via a betapatch ? Find it at
http://www.papy.com/
--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- 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."
