What will become of the Papy Nascar legacy?

I know this is old hat but I was just wondering if Nascar Racing 2003 will live on as the greatest nascar sim ever developed. I heard EA Sports is looking at taking over the PC reins at Papyrus. Anyone heard anymore about this disappointing news? Gawd, what the fudge does EA know about physics engines?? Their "semi" latest incarnation NFSHP2 was a disaster.

> I know this is old hat but I was just wondering if Nascar Racing 2003 will > live on as the greatest nascar sim ever developed. Doubtful. > I heard EA Sports is looking at taking over the PC reins at Papyrus.Anyone > heard anymore about this disappointing news? > Gawd, what the fudge does EA know about physics engines?? Their "semi" > latest incarnation NFSHP2 was a disaster. <sigh> I think EA know a lot more about physics than you know about racing sims.... ahem....check out EA's Nascar Thunder 2004 and F1 Challenge 99-02.

"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bo5edk$17ekvq$[email hidden]... > > I know this is old hat but I was just wondering if Nascar Racing 2003will

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > live on as the greatest nascar sim ever developed. > > Doubtful. > > > I heard EA Sports is looking at taking over the PC reins at Papyrus. > Anyone > > heard anymore about this disappointing news? > > Gawd, what the fudge does EA know about physics engines?? Their "semi" > > latest incarnation NFSHP2 was a disaster. > > <sigh> > > I think EA know a lot more about physics than you know about racing

sims.... I'm not saying I know more than EA does. But as an end user and paying customer I have every right to complain. And end user feedback is essential to the development of any software product. Thats the role of beta testers. Have you tried to return opened software to a retailer lately? Good Luck. > ahem....check out EA's Nascar Thunder 2004 and F1 Challenge 99-02. No I haven't. But are these considered sims or games? As far as I'm comcerned, Papyrus held the trademark on the word.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > ahem....check out EA's Nascar Thunder 2004 and F1 Challenge 99-02. > > No I haven't. But are these considered sims or games? > As far as I'm comcerned, Papyrus held the trademark on the word. > >

I think you should give them a go, made by different developers than the NFS series, a much better physics engine, perhaps not quite as good as Papy's best, but fairly close :) All the best, Ash http://www.siroccoracing.com

Rich is right here Papy is way better than EA Sports, something about their stuff always feels whats the word (washed out). It just does not have the same feel to it that Papy's stuff does, something you can't put into words. Steve! "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bo5u8d$s1k$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > > > > > ahem....check out EA's Nascar Thunder 2004 and F1 Challenge 99-02. > > > > No I haven't. But are these considered sims or games? > > As far as I'm comcerned, Papyrus held the trademark on the word. > > > > > > I think you should give them a go, made by different developers than the

NFS

Quoted text (8 lines)

> series, a much better physics engine, perhaps not quite as good as Papy's > best, but fairly close :) > > All the best, > Ash > http://www.siroccoracing.com > >

I'll put it into words. Papy sims feel like they were made by enthusiasts who developed a sim to the point that met their needs and expectations for a racing sim - over the last decade! And the money followed! To me, Papy have always been masters of producung the best sims that modern computer equiptment are capable of running. Above all, the spastic stench of monoply players pushing unpolished garbage out the door has always been absent. I cant see a conglomerate like EA not suffering from this to some degree. This distinguishes Papyrus not only in racing sims but in the software market generally. "Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iqvpb.114143$EO3.54207@clgrps13... > Rich is right here Papy is way better than EA Sports, something about > their stuff always feels whats the word (washed out). It just does nothave

Quoted text (20 lines)

> the same feel to it that Papy's stuff does, something you can't put into > words. > Steve! > > > "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bo5u8d$s1k$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > ahem....check out EA's Nascar Thunder 2004 and F1 Challenge 99-02. > > > > > > No I haven't. But are these considered sims or games? > > > As far as I'm comcerned, Papyrus held the trademark on the word. > > > > > > > > > > I think you should give them a go, made by different developers than the > NFS > > series, a much better physics engine, perhaps not quite as good as

Papy's

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > best, but fairly close :) > > > > All the best, > > Ash > > http://www.siroccoracing.com > > > > > >

The gent diong the physics on EA's NASCAR Thunder 2003 is none other then Doug Arnao. This guy was consulted by Papyrus for GPL. And as many of you know he did the physics in GTR2002 as well.. On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 07:17:51 GMT, "Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>I know this is old hat but I was just wondering if Nascar Racing 2003 will >live on as the greatest nascar sim ever developed. >I heard EA Sports is looking at taking over the PC reins at Papyrus. Anyone >heard anymore about this disappointing news? >Gawd, what the fudge does EA know about physics engines?? Their "semi" >latest incarnation NFSHP2 was a disaster. > > >

No way. Just no way at all EA can compare to Papyrus. Ludicrous. WS

I have. What's your point? Papy isn't perfect, but when it comes to Physics EA can't touch them. EA Sims still feel like the car rotates on a pin about 2 feet in front of the windshield. Kinda like a slot-car, but without the grip :) -Larry "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bo5edk$17ekvq$[email hidden]... > I think EA know a lot more about physics than you know about racingsims.... > > ahem....check out EA's Nascar Thunder 2004 and F1 Challenge 99-02. > >

"Rich8" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The gent diong the physics on EA's NASCAR Thunder 2003 is none other > then Doug Arnao. This guy was consulted by Papyrus for GPL. And as > many of you know he did the physics in GTR2002 as well.. > > I hate that for Doug then, as he is a pretty decent seeming guy. Hate to see him get mixed up in such a situation, doing the physics for a game that will never live up to his or Papy's previous efforts. EA will see to that I'm sure, as they find a way to ruin everything. I mean really, say the physics do get up to snuff one day, how's their online code working? uh huh. A 90%-sim doesn't count in my book. EA has always been about fluff (eye candy) instead of solid performance and features that people over 12 years of age want to see in a sim. Nope, I'll stick with NR2003 so long as there is a following and then I will get out. EA won't get a penny of mine for any of their junk. Maybe I'll buy a Legends or late model car and go real racing for a while after that, who knows.

EA=Publisher ISI=Developer Sierra=Publisher Papy=Developer Why is this so hard to understand, people?

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:32:26 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote: >ahem....check out EA's Nascar Thunder 2004 and F1 Challenge 99-02. Poly-based physics = garbage. See also: Mobil 1 Rally Jason

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:38:07 GMT, [email hidden] (Rich8) wrote: >The gent diong the physics on EA's NASCAR Thunder 2003 is none other >then Doug Arnao. This guy was consulted by Papyrus for GPL. And as >many of you know he did the physics in GTR2002 as well.. Doug created the parameters for the cars, not the physics engine itself. Other people have done good work with the parameters they use to model the cars (Simbin, ETCC mod, etc) but at the end of the day the core physics engine is incapable of creating a truly convincing simulation of driving a race car. And I'm saying this with the opinion that Doug Arnao has absolutely nailed the F1 model as close as is possible using this engine. At the end of the day, in Nascar 2003 you can build a setup using real-world values and end up with a car that will take all comers in a long race. In F1C/NT2004 you still have to do odd things to the setups in order to make the car work with all of the unrealistic low frequency/high amplitude bumps that litter even the smoothest track. I can tell you right now my fastest and most consistent laps in F1C are set using setups that no one in their right mind would try to run in real life, but compromises have to be made for the way the tires and suspension in the sim react to the wild gyrations in track surface. Jason

"SimRacer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jpApb.50873$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Rich8" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > The gent diong the physics on EA's NASCAR Thunder 2003 is none other > > then Doug Arnao. This guy was consulted by Papyrus for GPL. And as > > many of you know he did the physics in GTR2002 as well.. > > > > > > I hate that for Doug then, as he is a pretty decent seeming guy. Hate to

see > him get mixed up in such a situation, doing the physics for a game thatwill > never live up to his or Papy's previous efforts. EA will see to that I'm > sure, as they find a way to ruin everything. I mean really, say thephysics > do get up to snuff one day, how's their online code working? uh huh. A > 90%-sim doesn't count in my book. EA has always been about fluff (eyecandy) > instead of solid performance and features that people over 12 years of age > want to see in a sim. > > Nope, I'll stick with NR2003 so long as there is a following and then Iwill > get out. EA won't get a penny of mine for any of their junk. Maybe I'llbuy > a Legends or late model car and go real racing for a while after that, who > knows. EA has the monopoly on NASCAR for the next few years. I will continue to just wait and see the reports on what comes out. Might get good . . . might not. Elrikk

>"Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote > I know this is old hat but I was just wondering if Nascar Racing 2003 will > live on as the greatest nascar sim ever developed. > I heard EA Sports is looking at taking over the PC reins at Papyrus.Anyone > heard anymore about this disappointing news? > Gawd, what the fudge does EA know about physics engines?? Their "semi" > latest incarnation NFSHP2 was a disaster. The important words here are "looking at". NR2003 can be enjoyed for a couple of years. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

>"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote > Poly-based physics = garbage. Well, poly-based game engines with physics incorporated into that is the future of gaming. I said in the past, that when this will happen completely, games will become "less" realistic but it's the risk they have to take. The computing power just isn't there, heck still in F1C there's way too much stuff that's not poly-based and still running in it's own virtual world. Is poly-based physics garbage presently? Yes. But I don't want sims in 10 years to still have completely different entities, physics-wise and game-engine wise. Like Papy has. I don't want my car, graphically on screen, to be unrelated in it's world to what really happens behind the scene with the physics. That's not the way to go. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Combining EA and Papy would be great IMO. Some excellent net code combined with something other than Nascar... How could that be a bad thing? "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BCCpb.6254$[email hidden]... > >"Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I know this is old hat but I was just wondering if Nascar Racing 2003will

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > live on as the greatest nascar sim ever developed. > > I heard EA Sports is looking at taking over the PC reins at Papyrus. > Anyone > > heard anymore about this disappointing news? > > Gawd, what the fudge does EA know about physics engines?? Their "semi" > > latest incarnation NFSHP2 was a disaster. > > > > The important words here are "looking at". > > > > NR2003 can be enjoyed for a couple of years. > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > >

Nice one, Byron. what did you use - a random phrase generator? "Spastic stench"?!!!!!!!!! Where the hell did you get this term? When has there been a stench associated with spasticity, and, more to the point, are those who suffer this disability aware of the smell they are creating? Bruce.

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 19:53:08 -0500, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Is poly-based physics garbage presently? Yes. But I don't want sims in 10 >years to still have completely different entities, physics-wise and >game-engine wise. Like Papy has. I don't want my car, graphically on >screen, to be unrelated in it's world to what really happens behind the >scene with the physics. That's not the way to go. I agree, but the computing power isn't there to render tracks with enough polygons at a high enough frequency for the reactions between car and track to be convincing. I think ISI has done a heck of a job with what they have, but I'd much rather have a Papyrus or Crammond system where the road surface is rendered in more detail in the physics engine than in the graphics engine until we have machines that can pump out the level of detailed required at a high enough frame rate to make poly-physics work. Jason

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 01:47:47 GMT, "Charlie B" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Combining EA and Papy would be great IMO. Some excellent net code combined >with something other than Nascar... If EA bought Papy, why would they make anything besides NASCAR? That's all EA makes now. Jason

In article <nVzpb.163$0d2.81@lakeread06>, "Larry" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I have. What's your point? > >Papy isn't perfect, but when it comes to Physics EA can't touch them. > >EA Sims still feel like the car rotates on a pin about 2 feet in front of >the windshield. > >Kinda like a slot-car, but without the grip :)

You know, I've seen this knock about driving games before. That, or cars turning on their CG. I've honestly never had that feel... Maybe that points to why I have such trouble with driving games. I can't FEEL the car...? Eldred Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

I'm confused, what's your point? lol "Sgt. Lance" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> EA=Publisher > ISI=Developer > > Sierra=Publisher > Papy=Developer > > Why is this so hard to understand, people?

jason moyer wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 01:47:47 GMT, "Charlie B" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Combining EA and Papy would be great IMO. Some excellent net code >> combined with something other than Nascar... > > If EA bought Papy, why would they make anything besides NASCAR? > > That's all EA makes now. > > Jason

I don't know about that, I am having a lot of fun with F1 Challenge and the recent ETCC mod. -- Don Burnette remove clothes when replying via email

exactly my point.. a modable product with excellent net code. "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> jason moyer wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 01:47:47 GMT, "Charlie B" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >> Combining EA and Papy would be great IMO. Some excellent net code > >> combined with something other than Nascar... > > > > If EA bought Papy, why would they make anything besides NASCAR? > > > > That's all EA makes now. > > > > Jason > > I don't know about that, I am having a lot of fun with F1 Challenge and

the

Quoted text (10 lines)

> recent ETCC mod. > > > > -- > Don Burnette > > remove clothes when replying via email > >

<<Doug Arnao has absolutely nailed the F1 model as close as is possible using this engine.>> True. "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:38:07 GMT, [email hidden] (Rich8) wrote: > > >The gent diong the physics on EA's NASCAR Thunder 2003 is none other > >then Doug Arnao. This guy was consulted by Papyrus for GPL. And as > >many of you know he did the physics in GTR2002 as well.. > > Doug created the parameters for the cars, not the physics engine > itself. > > Other people have done good work with the parameters they use to model > the cars (Simbin, ETCC mod, etc) but at the end of the day the core > physics engine is incapable of creating a truly convincing simulation > of driving a race car. And I'm saying this with the opinion that Doug > Arnao has absolutely nailed the F1 model as close as is possible using > this engine. > > At the end of the day, in Nascar 2003 you can build a setup using > real-world values and end up with a car that will take all comers in a > long race. In F1C/NT2004 you still have to do odd things to the > setups in order to make the car work with all of the unrealistic low > frequency/high amplitude bumps that litter even the smoothest track. > I can tell you right now my fastest and most consistent laps in F1C > are set using setups that no one in their right mind would try to run > in real life, but compromises have to be made for the way the tires > and suspension in the sim react to the wild gyrations in track > surface. > > Jason

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:38:01 -0600, "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I don't know about that, I am having a lot of fun with F1 Challenge and the >recent ETCC mod. They can't make any more F1 games, and no one makes mods for the nascar titles. If EA bought Papyrus, I imagine they'd dump the ISI engine and use Papy's vastly superior code. Which would kill the type of mods we see now for F1C. Without being able to get the F1 license (Sony has exclusives on it) and with a long term exclusive NASCAR license I imagine they'd continue pumping out nothing but nascar sims. Jason

> You know, I've seen this knock about driving games before. That, or cars > turning on their CG. I've honestly never had that feel... Maybe thatpoints > to why I have such trouble with driving games. I can't FEEL the car...? Don't worry, it's only Larry that harps about that. He's just plain wrong IMO. It's almost as if he drives from the behind view because the car does pivot from that view unlike GPL where the car stays fixed to the view when driving from behind.

No, they're spastics and thus unaware of anything much really! "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fa70817$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Nice one, Byron. what did you use - a random phrase generator? > "Spastic stench"?!!!!!!!!! > Where the hell did you get this term? > When has there been a stench associated with spasticity, and, more to the > point, are those who suffer this disability aware of the smell they are > creating? > > Bruce. > >

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sGCpb.6386$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Poly-based physics = garbage. > > > > Well, poly-based game engines with physics incorporated into that is the > future of gaming. I said in the past, that when this will happen > completely, games will become "less" realistic but it's the risk they have > to take. The computing power just isn't there, heck still in F1C there's > way too much stuff that's not poly-based and still running in it's own > virtual world. > > Is poly-based physics garbage presently? Yes. But I don't want sims in 10 > years to still have completely different entities, physics-wise and > game-engine wise. Like Papy has. I don't want my car, graphically on > screen, to be unrelated in it's world to what really happens behind the > scene with the physics. That's not the way to go. >

Papy's tracks are surface based, which means the surface is described by a formula. Any position on each surface can be found by using U/V barycentric (sp?) co-ordinates (generated by collision detection). This accurately determines the height of the ground and therefore how much the tyre is "squashed". This can be done relatively easily (and quickly) with todays processing power (and yesterdays!). Also this "physics" representation is "tesselated" (turned into polys) depending on how close the viewer is to each surface (more polys for closer surfaces). Therefore the "gfx" representation is exactly the same as the physics representation. I'm pretty sure thats how its done for Papy, it can certainly done on today's hardware. Native support for surfaces will be (is?) supported in hardware soon (if not already). Thats how I intend to do things at least :) All the best, Ash http://www.siroccoracing.com

Byron John Forbes wrote: > No, they're spastics and thus unaware of anything much really! That word it no longer used to describe that condition. But English being a living, breathing language, the same word is now used to describe someone like you, bryon. As in, "That Bryon Forbes is a right spas." or "That Bryon Forbes is a right spacy c*&t." -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 03:13:21 GMT, "TDRacin�" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I'm confused, what's your point? lol You can find "the point" by reading this thread and the previous "bash EA" threads. People are comparing Papy to EA and vice versa although they're not the same thing. It's so easy to bash the ISI sims, because the folks at EA are greedy wankers. Using that theory you could say that N2003 sucks because Sierra are greedy wankers who just want to make money creating NASCAR sims. Well, that won't happen anymore. People don't liken Papy to Sierra so why do they do that with ISI/EA? The bottom line is, that it's ISI making the sims and from what I've seen in interviews and websites they are just as enthusiastic about making realistic racing sims as Papy (not Sierra) are. ISI and Papy are the best by far at the moment. What sims would we have without them? Nothing. N2003 is better than anything ISI has done so far, but the difference in physics for example isn't that big as some guys suggest. The only area where ISI is still a long way from Papy is multiplayer and the basic user interface including replays etc. In modding options ISI's sims eat Papy for breakfast. If only ISI would enhance their game engine a bit to fix these things (the basic game engine has remained the same for a long while, but NT2004 has dedicated server support so they're on the right road) they would be right up there with Papy. There's not that much to look forward to in sim titles, except maybe for RBR, GTR and Racing Legends. So here's hoping that ISI can really match Papy with their next sim. This is the end of my sim rant for now. Thanks for reading.

"Sgt. Lance" wrote: > The only area where ISI is still a long way from > Papy is multiplayer and the basic user interface including replays > etc. In modding options ISI's sims eat Papy for breakfast. Personally I would add graphics engine, sound, track modelling and AI to that list. The graphics one is very personal but I just don't like the ISI graphical style in comparison to Papy. Agreed on the mods but the underlying engine just doesn't cut it for me. > There's not that much to look forward to in sim titles, except maybe > for RBR, GTR and Racing Legends. So here's hoping that ISI can really > match Papy with their next sim. In my view it will need something of a quantum leap. ISI have steadily developed their products but there are still many of the weird things happening with the AI, controller oddities and issues like rewinding replays after damage to find the damage doesn't disappear that were around 3 or 4 versions before. I think a whole new engine is probably required to make the leap you are hoping for. I am not against the evolutionary approach, and if it funds ongoing development then that is good, but don't expect a major leap forward in the next release IMHO. Cheers Tony

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:19:43 +0000 (UTC), "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (43 lines)

> >"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:sGCpb.6386$[email hidden]... >> >"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote >> > Poly-based physics = garbage. >> >> >> >> Well, poly-based game engines with physics incorporated into that is the >> future of gaming. I said in the past, that when this will happen >> completely, games will become "less" realistic but it's the risk they have >> to take. The computing power just isn't there, heck still in F1C there's >> way too much stuff that's not poly-based and still running in it's own >> virtual world. >> >> Is poly-based physics garbage presently? Yes. But I don't want sims in 10 >> years to still have completely different entities, physics-wise and >> game-engine wise. Like Papy has. I don't want my car, graphically on >> screen, to be unrelated in it's world to what really happens behind the >> scene with the physics. That's not the way to go. >> > >Papy's tracks are surface based, which means the surface is described by a >formula. Any position on each surface can be found by using U/V barycentric >(sp?) co-ordinates (generated by collision detection). This accurately >determines the height of the ground and therefore how much the tyre is >"squashed". > >This can be done relatively easily (and quickly) with todays processing >power (and yesterdays!). Also this "physics" representation is "tesselated" >(turned into polys) depending on how close the viewer is to each surface >(more polys for closer surfaces). Therefore the "gfx" representation is >exactly the same as the physics representation. > >I'm pretty sure thats how its done for Papy, it can certainly done on >today's hardware. Native support for surfaces will be (is?) supported in >hardware soon (if not already). > >Thats how I intend to do things at least :) > >All the best, >Ash >http://www.siroccoracing.com

This entire discussion begs the question of how much more accurate future sim developers can get than Papy's current models. What will racing sims be like in 10 years? 20? 50? It would seem to me that future sims will just be refinements of what Papy (and some others) have done... John DiFool

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:27:35 GMT, John DiFool <[email hidden]> wrote: >This entire discussion begs the question of how much more >accurate future sim developers can get than Papy's current >models. What will racing sims be like in 10 years? 20? 50? >It would seem to me that future sims will just be refinements >of what Papy (and some others) have done... >Of course they will. Sims will just get closer to reality as computing power increases. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

We're missing G force. Hope it happens before i get 70 years old. EL "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:19:43 +0000 (UTC), "Ashley McConnell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:sGCpb.6386$[email hidden]... > >> >"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote > >> > Poly-based physics = garbage. > >> > >> > >> > >> Well, poly-based game engines with physics incorporated into that is

the > >> future of gaming. I said in the past, that when this will happen > >> completely, games will become "less" realistic but it's the risk theyhave > >> to take. The computing power just isn't there, heck still in F1Cthere's > >> way too much stuff that's not poly-based and still running in it's own > >> virtual world. > >> > >> Is poly-based physics garbage presently? Yes. But I don't want sims in10

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> years to still have completely different entities, physics-wise and > >> game-engine wise. Like Papy has. I don't want my car, graphically on > >> screen, to be unrelated in it's world to what really happens behind the > >> scene with the physics. That's not the way to go. > >> > > > >Papy's tracks are surface based, which means the surface is described by

a > >formula. Any position on each surface can be found by using U/Vbarycentric > >(sp?) co-ordinates (generated by collision detection). This accurately > >determines the height of the ground and therefore how much the tyre is > >"squashed". > > > >This can be done relatively easily (and quickly) with todays processing > >power (and yesterdays!). Also this "physics" representation is"tesselated"

Quoted text (22 lines)

> >(turned into polys) depending on how close the viewer is to each surface > >(more polys for closer surfaces). Therefore the "gfx" representation is > >exactly the same as the physics representation. > > > >I'm pretty sure thats how its done for Papy, it can certainly done on > >today's hardware. Native support for surfaces will be (is?) supported in > >hardware soon (if not already). > > > >Thats how I intend to do things at least :) > > > >All the best, > >Ash > >http://www.siroccoracing.com > > This entire discussion begs the question of how much more > accurate future sim developers can get than Papy's current > models. What will racing sims be like in 10 years? 20? 50? > It would seem to me that future sims will just be refinements > of what Papy (and some others) have done... > > John DiFool >

"Eric Leblanc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vNXpb.73107$[email hidden]... > We're missing G force. > > Hope it happens before i get 70 years old. > > EL First, hope that you get to 70 years old. ;o) Elrikk

In article <veFpb.6430$[email hidden]>, "Charlie B" <[email hidden]> writes: >exactly my point.. a modable product with excellent net code. F1C? Define "excellent". I think the lack of a dedicated server sucks, but maybe I'm the only one who feels that way... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <veFpb.6430$[email hidden]>,"Charlie B" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >exactly my point.. a modable product with excellent net code. > > F1C? Define "excellent". I think the lack of a dedicated server sucks,but > maybe I'm the only one who feels that way... If excellent means 'sucks donkey dick' then yea the netcode is excellent

morons. <g> Read both my posts. I said it would be a GOOD THING FOR EA TO BUY PAPY. A modable product with excellent net code WOULD BE THE RESULT. Once again for the extra thick: EA buys Papy. EA uses Papys netcode, hence excellent netcode. lol. "frederickson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:yj0qb.34497$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <veFpb.6430$[email hidden]>, > "Charlie B" > > <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > >exactly my point.. a modable product with excellent net code. > > > > F1C? Define "excellent". I think the lack of a dedicated server sucks, > but > > maybe I'm the only one who feels that way... > > > If excellent means 'sucks donkey dick' then yea the netcode is excellent > >

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 06:20:16 GMT, "Charlie B" <[email hidden]> wrote: >morons. <g> > >Read both my posts. I said it would be a GOOD THING FOR EA TO BUY PAPY. A >modable product with excellent net code WOULD BE THE RESULT. I still don't understand the "modable product" part. If they bought Papy and had them make the next Thunder title, why would their software suddenly be more modable? F1C is modable because of the way ISI designed the software, and not because of some agenda from the people at EA. Jason

Larry wrote: > I have. What's your point? What do you think his point is, you fuckwit!? -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

>morons. <g> > >Read both my posts. I said it would be a GOOD THING FOR EA TO BUY PAPY. A >modable product with excellent net code WOULD BE THE RESULT. >Once again for the extra thick: EA buys Papy. EA uses Papys netcode, hence >excellent netcode. lol. Well, you don't have to be a DICK about it... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

You seem to think the _Developer_ has creative control. They don't. What the publisher says goes. That has been seen time and time again. -Larry "Sgt. Lance" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> EA=Publisher > ISI=Developer > > Sierra=Publisher > Papy=Developer > > Why is this so hard to understand, people?

Automotive reality, or Marketing reality? That's the ugly question (at least for SIM racers). -Larry "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:27:35 GMT, John DiFool > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >This entire discussion begs the question of how much more > >accurate future sim developers can get than Papy's current > >models. What will racing sims be like in 10 years? 20? 50? > >It would seem to me that future sims will just be refinements > >of what Papy (and some others) have done... > > > Of course they will. Sims will just get closer to reality as computing > power increases. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

You ARE kidding, right ? Project WildFire ring a bell ? -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:38:01 -0600, "Don Burnette" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > They can't make any more F1 games, and no one makes mods for the > nascar titles. > Jason

Well, Gerry, you just commited what I consider the only sin in this Newsgroup. Have a nice life. -Larry "Gerry Aitken�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Larry wrote: > I have. What's your point? What do you think his point is, you fuckwit!? -- Gerry Aitken�

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:t0kqb.3052$0d2.572@lakeread06: > You ARE kidding, right ? > > Project WildFire ring a bell ? > > -Larry I think Jason was referring to the EA THunder Nascar sim, there was some interest in modding the last version of Thunder<2003>, but I haven't seen too much interest yet in the new title<2004> yet. IT<2004> has some advantages over mods based on F1c,(dedicated server support, rolling starts, analog guages to name a few) but I think most of the mod teams will try and push F1c to the limit before exploring making a mod with NAscar THunder 2004 PWF is modding the Papyrus Nascar sim, and doing a pretty good job so far. The biggest roadblock with any new mod from Nr2k3{papyrus} is the limited number of bodystyles and the locked in physics. A mod team can't just pick any series and mod away...Series with many different car classes, like most Sportscar series, will be difficult to pull off. THe modders will have to pick four body styles carefully and attempt to 'paint' the various extra body styles on top of those. And I don't think any Papyrus mod can run mixed classes because each mod can only use one set of physics parameteres. So a GTR clone or a LeMans field is out of the question, the Papyrus engine, afaik, doesn't allow running a group of smaller, lighter, ngt's along with the bigger stronger GT class. Even mixing two currently available mods, the CTS trucks with Busch cars seems to be not do-able. dave henrie

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:17:42 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You seem to think the _Developer_ has creative control. They don't. > >What the publisher says goes. That has been seen time and time again. >Eidos publish Deus Ex and Tomb Raider (two action games at the opposite ends of the quality scale in case you don't know). How does that square with your innacurate view of publishers? -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

On this day of our lord Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:32:26 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> scribed: >ahem....check out EA's Nascar Thunder 2004 and F1 Challenge 99-02. > Thunder 2004 is good? 2003 was supposedly crap so never even gave 2004 a glimmer of hope on my HDD.

On this day of our lord Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:11:23 GMT, "Byron John Forbes" <[email hidden]> scribed:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I'll put it into words. Papy sims feel like they were made by enthusiasts >who developed a sim to the point that met their needs and expectations for a >racing sim - over the last decade! And the money followed! To me, Papy have >always been masters of producung the best sims that modern computer >equiptment are capable of running. Above all, the spastic stench of monoply >players pushing unpolished garbage out the door has always been absent. I >cant see a conglomerate like EA not suffering from this to some degree. This >distinguishes Papyrus not only in racing sims but in the software market >generally.

EA is a publisher for ISI just like Sierra was the publisher for Papayrus. You think Sierra is better than EA? Not IMO. You should be comparing ISI to Papayrus if you are going to compare apples to apples. I like ISI, not quite Papyrus level yet but they are the best we have left so don't crap on them.

> >ahem....check out EA's Nascar Thunder 2004 and F1 Challenge 99-02. > > > > Thunder 2004 is good? 2003 was supposedly crap so never even gave 2004 > a glimmer of hope on my HDD. It's better than N2003 in many departments. The menus are a bit sloppy though and the multiplayer is well below par. I prefer the physics, graphics & AI in NT2004 but many others feel the opposite. It shouldn't be dismissed. There's a lot of "I only play Papyrus sims" types who bag it when it's blindingly obvious that they haven't even given it a chance.

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:46:01 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It's better than N2003 in many departments. The menus are a bit sloppy >though and the multiplayer is well below par. I prefer the physics, >graphics & AI in NT2004 but many others feel the opposite. It shouldn't be >dismissed. There's a lot of "I only play Papyrus sims" types who bag it >when it's blindingly obvious that they haven't even given it a chance. >I agree its better in several ways, but graphically? Assuming the full game is like the demo, objects in the far distance don't respond well to FSAA, the cars lose a lot of detail when only slightly away from the viewer, and the short depth of rendering in the mirror is just plain ugly. I do prefer the track textures though. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:T1kqb.3053$0d2.1554@lakeread06...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Well, Gerry, you just commited what I consider the only sin in this > Newsgroup. > > Have a nice life. > > -Larry >

I concur fully. He could have expressed that sentiment in a much nicer and nobler way. That is not to say I would have shared his sentiment, but I would have at least still held respect for him as a gentleman. Gerry, a big -K to you, dude. Not cool, not cool at ALL!! Anyway, when I sit down to play the ISI titles, I feel a little like I'm playing those fighting games that were so popular in the arcades back in say the mid nineties, like Killer Instinct. If you entered just the right combinations you could pull off some really kick ass moves. I really got into some of those games. Played some F1 2002, and I was always trying to find just the right combination of brake, throttle, etc., inputs to give the game to get the corners down. Now my daily driver in real life is an LS1 powered chevy. It will run a mid 13's in the quarter mile bone stock. Anyone who has ever driven such a car knows, sometimes you get carried away. I have given my car too much throttle, and the first time it happened and I felt the rear end of that car wanting to shuck, jive, shimmy and shake in ways unbeknownst to me, you could have colored me shitless. But I liked it. Similarly, when I sit down to practice driving in the latest Papy brilliancy, and I give it too much coming out of a turn, and I still got grip, I can feel my tires sliding as I push high. I don't understand how, and maybe it's just my imagination, but that's the way it feels. And when I don't have grip, and give it too much, I'm positive that I can feel it breaking loose as it goes into a spin. When it happens in a race, I am usually so intent on recovering the car I yell at it. Call it a bitch, sometimes, I do. I am convinced that a part of my brain really believes I am driving a car when I play N2003. I can feel it as I scream down along the wall, I hold my breath and lean in when I turn, and I can't help it. This simulator has many times tricked my brain into thinking it needed to flood my system with adrenaline, and folks, I'll pay good money all day long for something that can safely do that. Those feelings just aren't there for me in the ISI titles yet. Of course, I still haven't tried F1C and the ETCC mod. I had pretty much assumed, I guess, that it would be a rehash of F12002 . Not that it was bad, it just didn't really compare. F12002 and I'm guessing F1C seems kinda like vienna sausage, I'll eat it if I'm hungry enough, but as long as I have this big heaping helping of prime rib a' la Papy in front of me, I'm not liable to mess with it too much. Naturally, my impression of both papy and isi is based on the cockpit view. And so it should be.

Larry wrote: > Well, Gerry, you just commited what I consider the only sin in this > Newsgroup. Well, every time you open your mouth an ill-conceived turd of a comment falls out and fouls the usenet. -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

jon wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:T1kqb.3053$0d2.1554@lakeread06... > >>Well, Gerry, you just commited what I consider the only sin in this >>Newsgroup. >> >>Have a nice life. > Gerry, a big -K to you, dude. Not cool, not cool at ALL!!

I'm not interested in being seen to be cool. In kicking the odd turd out of the way so others won't have to deal with it, I expect to get the occasional bit o' shit on my shoe. -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

hey whatever. they're your K's not mine. -K -K -K -K -K "Gerry Aitken�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... jon wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:T1kqb.3053$0d2.1554@lakeread06... > >>Well, Gerry, you just commited what I consider the only sin in this >>Newsgroup. >> >>Have a nice life. > Gerry, a big -K to you, dude. Not cool, not cool at ALL!!

I'm not interested in being seen to be cool. In kicking the odd turd out of the way so others won't have to deal with it, I expect to get the occasional bit o' shit on my shoe. -- Gerry Aitken� ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:31:28 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You ARE kidding, right ? > >Project WildFire ring a bell ? You can change body shapes in N2003, but that's it. If you want to race on Sierra you have to use the 4 physics models that Papyrus has supplied. It's not quite the same as what you can do with the ISI engine. Jason

Larry wrote: > > You ARE kidding, right ? > > Project WildFire ring a bell ? Aside for the fact that he was most likely talking about EA, who's Project WildFire ? Oh right, the new guys on the block ....:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

On this day of our lord Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:46:01 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> scribed: >It's better than N2003 in many departments. The menus are a bit sloppy >though and the multiplayer is well below par. I prefer the physics, >graphics & AI in NT2004 but many others feel the opposite. It shouldn't be >dismissed. There's a lot of "I only play Papyrus sims" types who bag it >when it's blindingly obvious that they haven't even given it a chance. >I'll download the demo and give it a chance. What I'm looking for in a new Nascar sim is one with better AI.

Let me clarify a little. Papy seems to be a company that, like most if not all, realize they need a company to market their products. But unlike many others, they dont let the marketing "suits" get control, impose idiotic deadlines and push a product out before it's done ie done up to pre targeted standards and then polished. The ultimate example (if you've been around for a while you'd know) of the anti Papyrus was the debacle with Microsoft and Cart Precision Racing. This NG was lit up over that for months. Fond memories. LOL. "Richard III" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On this day of our lord Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:11:23 GMT, "Byron John > Forbes" <[email hidden]> scribed: > > > I'll put it into words. Papy sims feel like they were made byenthusiasts > >who developed a sim to the point that met their needs and expectationsfor a > >racing sim - over the last decade! And the money followed! To me, Papyhave > >always been masters of producung the best sims that modern computer > >equiptment are capable of running. Above all, the spastic stench ofmonoply > >players pushing unpolished garbage out the door has always been absent. I > >cant see a conglomerate like EA not suffering from this to some degree.This

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >distinguishes Papyrus not only in racing sims but in the software market > >generally. > > EA is a publisher for ISI just like Sierra was the publisher for > Papayrus. You think Sierra is better than EA? Not IMO. You should be > comparing ISI to Papayrus if you are going to compare apples to > apples. I like ISI, not quite Papyrus level yet but they are the best > we have left so don't crap on them.

Hi Jon, while I do not approve of Gerry's choice of words and emotionality, I have to say that Larry's comments regarding ISI's physics are very critical, but not that well substantiated. Apart from the fact that you can only compare ISI to Papy, not EA, ISI's physics are actually highly detailed, as a quick glance into all the conf files and some playing with the values there shows. And while I share your sentiments that currently N2003's physics feel more real than ISI's, this does not distract from the fact that ISI are highly qualified enthusiasts who're doing a great job, and who show a lot of dedication to both the job and their customers. We should show them respect rather than mocking them and making derogatory fun of the results of their work and dedication. Achim jon wrote: ... > I concur fully. He could have expressed that sentiment in a much nicer and > nobler way. That is not to say I would have shared his sentiment, but I > would have at least still held respect for him as a gentleman....

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bofru5$1djm0e$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Hi Jon, > > while I do not approve of Gerry's choice of words and emotionality, I > have to say that Larry's comments regarding ISI's physics are very > critical, but not that well substantiated. > > Apart from the fact that you can only compare ISI to Papy, not EA, ISI's > physics are actually highly detailed, as a quick glance into all the > conf files and some playing with the values there shows. > > And while I share your sentiments that currently N2003's physics feel > more real than ISI's, this does not distract from the fact that ISI are > highly qualified enthusiasts who're doing a great job, and who show a > lot of dedication to both the job and their customers. We should show > them respect rather than mocking them and making derogatory fun of the > results of their work and dedication. > > Achim > > >

Achim, I completely agree, elequently put. All the best, Ash http://www.siroccoracing.com

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bofru5$1djm0e$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Hi Jon, > > We should show > them respect rather than mocking them and making derogatory fun of the > results of their work and dedication. > > Achim >

Their hard work and dedication will pay off as I intend to purchase F1C. Mainly just to give the ETCC mod a try, but I am also interested in seeing how much the netcode improved.

:) But don't expect too much from the netcode, Papy's is still better. Achim jon wrote: ... > Their hard work and dedication will pay off as I intend to purchase F1C. > Mainly just to give the ETCC mod a try, but I am also interested in seeing > how much the netcode improved.

+K "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bofru5$1djm0e$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> Hi Jon, > > while I do not approve of Gerry's choice of words and emotionality, I > have to say that Larry's comments regarding ISI's physics are very > critical, but not that well substantiated. > > Apart from the fact that you can only compare ISI to Papy, not EA, ISI's > physics are actually highly detailed, as a quick glance into all the > conf files and some playing with the values there shows. > > And while I share your sentiments that currently N2003's physics feel > more real than ISI's, this does not distract from the fact that ISI are > highly qualified enthusiasts who're doing a great job, and who show a > lot of dedication to both the job and their customers. We should show > them respect rather than mocking them and making derogatory fun of the > results of their work and dedication. > > Achim > > > > jon wrote: > ... > > > I concur fully. He could have expressed that sentiment in a much nicer

and > > nobler way. That is not to say I would have shared his sentiment, but I > > would have at least still held respect for him as a gentleman. > ... >

OK, I've been around usenet for long enough that I should probably know this, but, just what in the Sam Hill are you talking about? "jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<Nzvqb.42237$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> hey whatever. they're your K's not mine. > -K > -K > -K > -K > -K > > a big -K to you, dude. Not cool, not cool at ALL!! >

"Joachim Trensz" wrote: > Apart from the fact that you can only compare ISI to Papy, not EA, ISI's > physics are actually highly detailed, as a quick glance into all the > conf files and some playing with the values there shows. The real factor though is the feel factor. Somehow Papy sims seem to work well with most hardware setups yet ISI sims have a hardcore group of fans who swear the sim (particularly mods) is right up there in the physics department. For the rest of us we either haven't found the right combination of controller settings or somehow the sim engine just doesn't (and will never) convey the feel. I am not convinced it is completely down to the detail of the true life physics being modelled accurately but some amount of fudge to replace the lack of physical factors that real racing drivers have the benefit of ("seat of the pants feel"). Personally I do not think FFB is sufficiently mature to provide this so the seat of the pants feel is provided by a combination of graphics, audio and reaction to controller input. This is something of a black art which Papy have had longer to perfect - and are the current masters IMHO, but then any feel thing is going to come down to personal preference. Cheers Tony --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003

Gerald Moore wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > OK, I've been around usenet for long enough that I should probably > know this, but, just what in the Sam Hill are you talking about? > > "jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<Nzvqb.42237$[email hidden]>... > > hey whatever. they're your K's not mine. > > -K > > -K > > -K > > -K > > -K > > > > a big -K to you, dude. Not cool, not cool at ALL!! > >

So it wasn't only me then....:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

jon wrote: > > Their hard work and dedication will pay off as I intend to purchase F1C. > Mainly just to give the ETCC mod a try, but I am also interested in seeing > how much the netcode improved. According to some people who ought to know, a fair bit but it needs tweaking on the server side apparently And, wait for it....wait for it....wait for it.....I've ordered it too, the ETCC mod won me over, any sim that lets me drive an Alfa Romeo 156 GTA is worth having, that is, after I've tried driving a Holden Commodore in some form :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Gerald Moore" wrote: > OK, I've been around usenet for long enough that I should probably > know this, but, just what in the Sam Hill are you talking about? Kudos? Gerry's gonna be inconsolable when he finds out! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003

Tony Rickard wrote: > Somehow Papy sims seem to work well with most hardware setups Like I said in the message you quote, I agree that Papy's physics give more detailed feedback, and feel more realistic. What I wanted to say is, ISI's physics may not quite live up to Papy's, but they are very detailed, and not at all simplistic. Especially with FF, both the front and rear ends not only return a wealth of information, but also setup changes have very detailed effects on how the car drives. Maybe it doesn't always feel perfectly realistic, but it is nonetheless a complex physics model. That said, the GTR mod was pretty great, wasn't it :) Achim

"Goy Larsen" wrote: > And, wait for it....wait for it....wait for it.....I've ordered it too, > the ETCC mod won me over, any sim that lets me drive an Alfa Romeo 156 > GTA is worth having, that is, after I've tried driving a Holden > Commodore in some form :-) Now don't get me started on Alfas (I drive a V6 156, the wife a GTV). If anything could win me over to F1C it would be a decent 156 GTA model. I hope it works well for you Goy, but it doesn't convey the feeling of a GTA as in this video of how a stock 156 GTA handles and sounds: http://www.fimonet.com/alfa/alfa_gb.wmv Despite modelling the power going to the other end of the car the transam mod for NR2003 gets closer IMHO. Cheers Tony --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 17/10/2003

Tony Rickard wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Goy Larsen" wrote: > > > And, wait for it....wait for it....wait for it.....I've ordered it too, > > the ETCC mod won me over, any sim that lets me drive an Alfa Romeo 156 > > GTA is worth having, that is, after I've tried driving a Holden > > Commodore in some form :-) > > Now don't get me started on Alfas (I drive a V6 156, the wife a GTV). If > anything could win me over to F1C it would be a decent 156 GTA model.

You lucky bastard, I've only driven the 156 1.8 TS, a friend of mine is the daily manager for a car dealer that used to sell Alfa Romeo and used to call me and invite me to try one of their Demo cars, and all I could think of during that drive, aside from the fact that I wanted one of these, was THIS CAR NEEDS MORE POWER !!! I need a station wagon, so I would have to go for the Sport Wagon, but it's a compromise I could live with....if it was a tad bigger, but a 156 GTA Sport Wagon, if I could afford one, would be a compromise I could at least try to live with :-) > I hope it works well for you Goy, but it doesn't convey the feeling of a > GTA as in this video of how a stock 156 GTA handles and sounds: > > http://www.fimonet.com/alfa/alfa_gb.wmv Well, in all fairness, the "real" GTA has the V6 engine, the ETCC car has the 2 liter 4 cylinder if I'm not mistaken ? And there's nothing else in the "production" engine category that compares to howl of an Alfa V6 at full song....:-) > Despite modelling the power going to the other end of the car the transam > mod for NR2003 gets closer IMHO. Well, there are a few other mods out there too, RSDG does quality work so it's about time I gave their work a closer look Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Goy Larsen" wrote: > > > And, wait for it....wait for it....wait for it.....I've ordered ittoo, > > > the ETCC mod won me over, any sim that lets me drive an Alfa Romeo156 > > > GTA is worth having, that is, after I've tried driving a Holden > > > Commodore in some form :-) > > > > Now don't get me started on Alfas (I drive a V6 156, the wife a GTV).If

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > anything could win me over to F1C it would be a decent 156 GTA model. > > You lucky bastard, I've only driven the 156 1.8 TS, a friend of mine is > the daily manager for a car dealer that used to sell Alfa Romeo and used > to call me and invite me to try one of their Demo cars, and all I could > think of during that drive, aside from the fact that I wanted one of > these, was THIS CAR NEEDS MORE POWER !!!

I finally get a V6 Alfa and the roads are flooded with speed cameras... Not that I am suggesting speeding is ok of course (officer) - just that playing tunes with the engine has cost me 6 points so far... > I need a station wagon, so I would have to go for the Sport Wagon, but > it's a compromise I could live with....if it was a tad bigger, but a 156 > GTA Sport Wagon, if I could afford one, would be a compromise I could at > least try to live with :-) Well I went from an MPV to the 156 saloon - still got the kids :) > > I hope it works well for you Goy, but it doesn't convey the feeling ofa

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > GTA as in this video of how a stock 156 GTA handles and sounds: > > > > http://www.fimonet.com/alfa/alfa_gb.wmv > > Well, in all fairness, the "real" GTA has the V6 engine, the ETCC car > has the 2 liter 4 cylinder if I'm not mistaken ? > > And there's nothing else in the "production" engine category that > compares to howl of an Alfa V6 at full song....:-)

I would still expect a race prepared 4 cylinder to sound pretty rorty. The GTV sounds pretty good too :) > > Despite modelling the power going to the other end of the car thetransam > > mod for NR2003 gets closer IMHO. > > Well, there are a few other mods out there too, RSDG does quality work > so it's about time I gave their work a closer look Definitely quality work. I'm still yet to be convinced by the ISI engine - the modders are doing fantastic jobs... Cheers Tony --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 17/10/2003

jon wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bofru5$1djm0e$[email hidden]... >> Hi Jon, >> >> We should show >> them respect rather than mocking them and making derogatory fun of >> the results of their work and dedication. >> >> Achim >> > > Their hard work and dedication will pay off as I intend to purchase > F1C. Mainly just to give the ETCC mod a try, but I am also interested > in seeing how much the netcode improved.

It is well worth it, even if it is just for the Mod. -- Don Burnette

lol. now that was pretty funny. heh heh. hear ya go..... K+ "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:o1Uqb.1057$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "Gerald Moore" wrote: > > > OK, I've been around usenet for long enough that I should probably > > know this, but, just what in the Sam Hill are you talking about? > > Kudos? > > Gerry's gonna be inconsolable when he finds out! > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 > >

I can't tell you what the K is Gerald, no one can. You must see it for yourself. I have here a red pill, and a blue pill. Take the red one, and I'll show you the K. Take the blue, and as Chris_K would say "Si you be's delted." "Gerald Moore" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > OK, I've been around usenet for long enough that I should probably > know this, but, just what in the Sam Hill are you talking about? > > > "jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<Nzvqb.42237$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > hey whatever. they're your K's not mine. > > -K > > -K > > -K > > -K > > -K > > > > a big -K to you, dude. Not cool, not cool at ALL!! > >

Tony Rickard wrote: > > I finally get a V6 Alfa and the roads are flooded with speed cameras... > > Not that I am suggesting speeding is ok of course (officer) - just that > playing tunes with the engine has cost me 6 points so far... Don't you just hate that ? Speed cameras aplenty in my neck of the woods as well > Well I went from an MPV to the 156 saloon - still got the kids :) I have a shop and need the load space to carry goods, I could get a 2nd hand 156 of course and some cheap 15 year old van on the side, but with insurance on two cars and the running costs of an old banger it would quickly add up, it was easier back when we didn't have the bi-annual EU regulation checkups :-) > I would still expect a race prepared 4 cylinder to sound pretty rorty. The > GTV sounds pretty good too :) I'll compare once I get the friggin game, it was supposed to be delivered yesterday > Definitely quality work. I'm still yet to be convinced by the ISI engine - > the modders are doing fantastic jobs... One of the RSDG guys is a member of "The Pits", he keeps asking why the rest of the lot even bothers with Papy products and keeps trying to recruit people for ISI modding :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Gerald Moore wrote: > > > > OK, I've been around usenet for long enough that I should probably > > know this, but, just what in the Sam Hill are you talking about? > > > > So it wasn't only me then....:-) >

I guess we'll never know.

Gerald Moore wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > Gerald Moore wrote: > > > > > > OK, I've been around usenet for long enough that I should probably > > > know this, but, just what in the Sam Hill are you talking about? > > > > > > > So it wasn't only me then....:-) > > > > I guess we'll never know.

One of life's great mysteries Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Gerald Moore wrote: > > > > Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > Gerald Moore wrote: > > > > > > > > OK, I've been around usenet for long enough that I should probably > > > > know this, but, just what in the Sam Hill are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > So it wasn't only me then....:-) > > > > > > > I guess we'll never know. > > One of life's great mysteries >

Jesus, you guys were serious? I thought you were kidding. Thought it was a rhetorical question. I would gladly tell you both what K is, but there is a problem. See, if you are asking what the K is, that tells me you are far too primitive to ever understand it. Trying to explain the K would be similar in many ways to trying teach an amoeba algebra. Besides, it would be reckless of me to give knowledge of the K to people that just aren't ready for the responsibility. Kind of like giving nuclear weapons to third world countries. Sorry.

Kind of like > giving nuclear weapons to third world countries. > > Sorry. > It would seem most of the tech jobs are going to 2nd tier countries. It would seem that even those a country may be labled 3rd world, they still have plenty of smart people. It would seem that K has no real meaning other than a symbol to irritate those who don't know it has no power. If someone tells you they are too smart to enlighten you about K, then I would suspect they are actually not smart enough to concoct a plausible explanation. dave henrie

K++ "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Kind of like > > giving nuclear weapons to third world countries. > > > > Sorry. > > > It would seem most of the tech jobs are going to 2nd tier countries. > It would seem that even those a country may be labled 3rd world, they

still

Quoted text (7 lines)

> have plenty of smart people. It would seem that K has no real meaning > other than a symbol to irritate those who don't know it has no power. > If someone tells you they are too smart to enlighten you about K, > then I would suspect they are actually not smart enough to concoct a > plausible explanation. > dave henrie >

Well, not so fast there... :) Yes, some CEO's are trying Outsourcing to save money in the short run, but now that it's been around a bit (and it didn't take long), the industry is starting to feel the downside. There is a tremendous amount of news on this subject recently, and most of it is not good. To be clear, I am not talking about a company Outsourcing it's IT support to highly qualified IT specialty firms that provide good service. There's something to be said for having a specialty company manage your network, help desk, on-site service, etc... IF they do a good job, and the work is done LOCALLY. And this also does not mean replacing a companies entire staff with outsource people. I also believe that is a bad thing. But the marriage of a dedicated group of internal IT personel with a quality, dedicated IT services company can be very efficient and cost-effective if done properly. I know this for a fact because that's exactly what I do for a living. -Larry "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It would seem most of the tech jobs are going to 2nd tier countries. > It would seem that even those a country may be labled 3rd world, theystill

Quoted text (7 lines)

> have plenty of smart people. It would seem that K has no real meaning > other than a symbol to irritate those who don't know it has no power. > If someone tells you they are too smart to enlighten you about K, > then I would suspect they are actually not smart enough to concoct a > plausible explanation. > dave henrie >

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:caPvb.11782$yM6.4388@lakeread06: > I know this for a fact because that's exactly what I do for a living. > > -Larry > I thought that post was starting to sound like a sales pitch :) My most recent experience with out of country help was a sales pitch by an Indian(Hindu) for an additional feature to my credit card. I usually am pretty good with accents...years of Monty Python watching helps....but I can honestly say I'm not really sure what the guy was saying. Not tech or IT, but the same idea...who knows where that calling center was located. I am a big supporter of local business, as long as you can find locals who are knowledgeable. Unfortunately, as far as gaming computers are concerned, there are very few shops around here that can afford to be knowledgeable in high end fast components. Mainstream-lowest-common- denominator seems to be the target, even amoung the non-chainstore shops. dave henrie

"jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<OKpvb.10351$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > I would gladly tell you both what K is, but there is a problem. See, if you > are asking what the K is, that tells me you are far too primitive to ever > understand it. Trying to explain the K would be similar in many ways to > trying teach an amoeba algebra. > > Besides, it would be reckless of me to give knowledge of the K to people > that just aren't ready for the responsibility. Kind of like giving nuclear > weapons to third world countries.

I *can* find my ass with my thumb, doesn't that count for something? Will you tell me if I promise not to spill the beans to Goy?