GP why it _shouldn't_ be harder than GPL

Don't think I'm saying that GPL is the be-all and end-all of sims. But I think it's maybe closer to the mark than you are giving it credit for. > 1) Realism. In real life, a moderately talented GP driver with > limited laps can do a whole bunch of laps at 80% push with no danger > of going off. In real life, a driver has gone through a lot more preparation than a sim racer. This would include things like walking the track. Also, in real life, you have a lot better sense of direction and distance than you can ever have in a sim. This alone would make it easier to stay on the track. After years of sim racing, while on the track I still couldn't tell you if I'm going north, south east or west. I don't know how you are measure 80%. If you are talking lap times, a lot of guys can run at more than 95% indefinitely without crashing. Now, here is my main point. Whatever 'whoopses' you pulled in GPL, if done in real life, would land you in a similar spot alonside the track. I think the difficulty comes from lack of feedback, and not so much from the deficiencies of the sim. I'm absolutely sure you are right that in real a car would have a bit more 'give'. It's probably pretty insignificant, though, and probably not enough to make a difference between saving it in real life and losing it in GPL. The crudeness of our hardware would likely make that extra space in the envelope impossible to sense. That's irrelevant to the reality or unreality of the simulation. I don't land in bushes every five minutes. But, if I do something bone-headed that in real life would land me in a bush, then that's where I should be in the sim. The key is not in how often I crash, but in whether or not the sim responds properly to my inputs. There is a strong case for the opposite point. I know that half the sh** I pull in GPL would get me killed in real life, but I can do it consistently in the sim :) Fine points. A developer may even use them to justify limits on how real they want a sim to be. Still, they are irrelevant to reality. Are you using FF? I find it to especially aid driving in moderate speed situations. Even with FF, our feedback, and our inputs have got to be horribly crude compared to real life. What I would like to see is a plot of G-forces on the driver from a good lap in GPL, compared to the same type of plot from a professional driver on the real track. I'd be surprised if the sim lap weren't very jerky and uneven compared to the real lap. The difference would be caused by the lack of feedback we have. Me too :) I don't _expect_ sims to be hard, just... uncompromising. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

Remarkable! I agree with you on all 6 points. (well maybe #3 is a bit cynical) I get the impression you're a little less satisfied with GPL than I am, but on the whole I think you're right. Mario Andretti once remarked that the Lotus 49 was suprisingly easy to drive (his first F1 drive). And someone in this newsgroup who had the opportunity to drive one also said it was easy, so there is some evidence to back you up. -A

Quoted text (68 lines)

> There's been a thread on here saying that GP3 when it appears should >be harder to drive than GPL because modern cars are more difficult to >drive. > Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the idea that modern cars are >more difficult to drive (I believe they probably are), I'd like to make >the counter case that GP3 should be easier to drive than GPL. > 1) Realism. In real life, a moderately talented GP driver with >limited laps can do a whole bunch of laps at 80% push with no danger >of going off. In GPL, only great drivers can do that after months of >practice. I still have whoopses driving slowly after months of >dedicated practice and there are plenty out tehre worse than me. GPL >is clearly harder (for whatever reason) than real life. > 2) Accuracy of simulation. I believe that the reason GPL is so hard >is a faiing of its (otherwise brilliant) physics engine. EVerything in >GPL is (as far as I can see) very rigidly modelled with no "give" - a >real life car gives at the extremes and I believe these items of "give" >- the deformation of an overstressed tyre, the bouncing of a car over >high-frequency bumps as it begins to spin, the spring in an overstressed >chassis are the missing elements from GPL which make it so easy to lose >it. I believe firmly that in real life, these elements can "save" a >driver rather than see him/her skipping like a stone over water in a >spinning car. > 3) Pragmatism. 90% of people want a sim that they can drive round and >not look a berk after 1 or 2 days. Most people will stop playing >something after the first week if they can't get on with it. I don't >recommend GPL to most of my friends because I know that most of them >would hate it. Only the ones with a love for racing would stay with it >anyway. If we don't want to promulgate the idea that >accuracy=commercial death then we should cling to the idea that a >realistic car doesn't hurtle itself into the bushes every 5 minutes. > 4) Easy to drive != easy to win. A lot of people say "GPL should be >hard - it was hard to win a race in those days". Sure - and it would be >even harder to win a race in GPL if fewer drivers spun off into the >kitty litter on the first lap. In fact I'm damn sure that racing would >be harder and winning would be harder if even the average drivers could >stay on and in-line. > 5) Better racing. How many times do you see a clean start in GPL >outside league racing. I don't think I've ever seen a clean grid get >away without some mishap. Imagine how much more enjoyable racing would >be if there was a game with the same depth of feel but all the drivers >were likely to stay nearly together for the first few laps. GPL almost >never has the feel of "the pack" in non-league racing because you never >get enough drivers good enough to drive close and fast because it's so >hard to drive. > 6) Easier to drive does not mean less feel. I believe that a driving >game would feel more and not less like a sim if it were easier to keep >the car lined up with the road at moderate speeds. > Just a few points to (hopefully) make people think. I get the idea >from some people that their ideal "sim" would dump you in the bushes >every third corner and whack you in the face with a plank while it was >doing it. Realism is not the same as *** and difficult to drive >is not the same as accurate. > Well, that's what I think anyway. >-- >Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group > Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York > www: [link lost in import]

There's been a thread on here saying that GP3 when it appears should be harder to drive than GPL because modern cars are more difficult to drive. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the idea that modern cars are more difficult to drive (I believe they probably are), I'd like to make the counter case that GP3 should be easier to drive than GPL. 1) Realism. In real life, a moderately talented GP driver with limited laps can do a whole bunch of laps at 80% push with no danger of going off. In GPL, only great drivers can do that after months of practice. I still have whoopses driving slowly after months of dedicated practice and there are plenty out tehre worse than me. GPL is clearly harder (for whatever reason) than real life. 2) Accuracy of simulation. I believe that the reason GPL is so hard is a faiing of its (otherwise brilliant) physics engine. EVerything in GPL is (as far as I can see) very rigidly modelled with no "give" - a real life car gives at the extremes and I believe these items of "give" - the deformation of an overstressed tyre, the bouncing of a car over high-frequency bumps as it begins to spin, the spring in an overstressed chassis are the missing elements from GPL which make it so easy to lose it. I believe firmly that in real life, these elements can "save" a driver rather than see him/her skipping like a stone over water in a spinning car. 3) Pragmatism. 90% of people want a sim that they can drive round and not look a berk after 1 or 2 days. Most people will stop playing something after the first week if they can't get on with it. I don't recommend GPL to most of my friends because I know that most of them would hate it. Only the ones with a love for racing would stay with it anyway. If we don't want to promulgate the idea that accuracy=commercial death then we should cling to the idea that a realistic car doesn't hurtle itself into the bushes every 5 minutes. 4) Easy to drive != easy to win. A lot of people say "GPL should be hard - it was hard to win a race in those days". Sure - and it would be even harder to win a race in GPL if fewer drivers spun off into the kitty litter on the first lap. In fact I'm damn sure that racing would be harder and winning would be harder if even the average drivers could stay on and in-line. 5) Better racing. How many times do you see a clean start in GPL outside league racing. I don't think I've ever seen a clean grid get away without some mishap. Imagine how much more enjoyable racing would be if there was a game with the same depth of feel but all the drivers were likely to stay nearly together for the first few laps. GPL almost never has the feel of "the pack" in non-league racing because you never get enough drivers good enough to drive close and fast because it's so hard to drive. 6) Easier to drive does not mean less feel. I believe that a driving game would feel more and not less like a sim if it were easier to keep the car lined up with the road at moderate speeds. Just a few points to (hopefully) make people think. I get the idea from some people that their ideal "sim" would dump you in the bushes every third corner and whack you in the face with a plank while it was doing it. Realism is not the same as *** and difficult to drive is not the same as accurate. Well, that's what I think anyway. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/

from what ive read, alot of that is modelled, but in real life you get alot more sensory input to help you make decisions.......all ive got is an old 14 inch monitor with a tiny view of non textured min detailed non force feedbacked driving, and its still cool because ive learnt to read all i need from that view and the sounds......and now i feel like the car has bags of grip.....its all about getting used to what your doing..... pez pez

: Don't think I'm saying that GPL is the be-all and : end-all of sims. But I think it's maybe closer to : the mark than you are giving it credit for. I'm not trying to be harsh on GPL - I've played it more than any other game I have. But I am trying to be harsh on the "accurate = difficult" school of thought that GPL has given rise to. :> :> 1) Realism. In real life, a moderately talented GP driver with :> limited laps can do a whole bunch of laps at 80% push with no danger :> of going off. : In real life, a driver has gone through a lot more : preparation than a sim racer. This would include : things like walking the track. Also, in real life, : you have a lot better sense of direction and : distance than you can ever have in a sim. This : alone would make it easier to stay on the track. : After years of sim racing, while on the track I : still couldn't tell you if I'm going north, south : east or west. Sure - but the north-south-east-west thing isn't really relevant is it? Surely one major point is that as someone else has pointed out here "I've done far more laps of Monza than Jimmy Clark ever did" - I don't think "ill preparedness" applies to most GPL racers. :> I still have whoopses driving slowly after months of :> dedicated practice and there are plenty out tehre worse than me. GPL :> is clearly harder (for whatever reason) than real life. : Now, here is my main point. Whatever 'whoopses' : you pulled in GPL, if done in real life, would : land you in a similar spot alonside the track. : I think the difficulty comes from lack of feedback, : and not so much from the deficiencies of the sim. To me, if the simulation is harder than real life that is a deficiency in the sim. I don't believe that the deficiencies come from lack of feedback... sure, some of it might be traced by that... : I'm absolutely sure you are right that in real : a car would have a bit more 'give'. It's : probably pretty insignificant, though, and : probably not enough to make a difference between : saving it in real life and losing it in GPL. : The crudeness of our hardware would likely make : that extra space in the envelope impossible to : sense. If there were a damping effect which would cause a car to loose speed rather than spin (I outlined some possible mechanisms) then that would make driving a lot easier since when you went over the limit you wouldn't loose it totally... I think this is more in tune with real life where drivers have more "catchable" problems than spins. In GPL a lot of drivers seem to be either on the money or in the bushes - in real life drivers are on the money, slightly off line, lots off line, have a moment or spin... I think this is a failing in the GPL model that means spins/wash-outs aren't progressive. :> 3) Pragmatism. 90% of people want a sim that they can drive round and :> not look a berk after 1 or 2 days. Most people will stop playing : That's irrelevant to the reality or unreality of : the simulation. Certainly - but it is wholly relevant to how many quality sims are published. :> If we don't want to promulgate the idea that :> accuracy=commercial death then we should cling to the idea that a :> realistic car doesn't hurtle itself into the bushes every 5 minutes. : I don't land in bushes every five minutes. But, : if I do something bone-headed that in real life : would land me in a bush, then that's where I should : be in the sim. The key is not in how often I crash, : but in whether or not the sim responds properly to : my inputs. Certainly - and I am questionning whether something which "responds properly to inputs" is likely to be nigh on undrivable for the first few months you try it. I don't believe so. : There is a strong case for the opposite point. I : know that half the sh** I pull in GPL would get : me killed in real life, but I can do it : consistently in the sim :) (Grin) There is a case for this point. :> 4) Easy to drive != easy to win. A lot of people say "GPL should be :> 5) Better racing. How many times do you see a clean start in GPL : Fine points. A developer may even use them to : justify limits on how real they want a sim to : be. Still, they are irrelevant to reality. Sure - agreed except for the last bit about "limits on how real..." I believe that in a realistic sim all but a field of absolute novices could make clean starts and race in a pack. Remember that this was the case in '67 - some of the guys racing in GPs were not experienced drivers. :> 6) Easier to drive does not mean less feel. I believe that a driving :> game would feel more and not less like a sim if it were easier to keep :> the car lined up with the road at moderate speeds. : Are you using FF? I find it to especially aid : driving in moderate speed situations. Even with : FF, our feedback, and our inputs have got to be : horribly crude compared to real life. I love the FF in GPL - tho I wish it were easier to set up right. : What I would like to see is a plot of G-forces : on the driver from a good lap in GPL, compared : to the same type of plot from a professional : driver on the real track. : I'd be surprised if the sim lap weren't very : jerky and uneven compared to the real lap. The : difference would be caused by the lack of feedback : we have. Hmm.... It's an open question how important the feedback we're missing is (presumably you're talking about inner ear and feelings of momentum). I'm not sure they're enough to explain the huge difference between behaviour of drivers in GPL and in real-life. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

I've got to pretty much agree with you on these points. First I'll say that I've found GPL to be the most ***ive game I've tried. But as I've said before, I think it models the high speeds better than the low speeds, and the sand trap at Parabolica, for example, should slow you down, not speed you up like you're on ice, crashing you into the wall. And yet for some strange reason, driving out of the sand is quite realistic, so the sand dampening effect works one way, but not the other. Still, its a minor point. In my opinion, a good driving sim should capture the essence, the overall feel of the real thing. It is after all, modelling, and all modelling takes certain liberties to create a realistic impression. I'm going to try to make a comparison here. I used to do a lot of railroad modelling in HO scale. So let's say my 'world' is a 9' x 12' table. I want to model crushed stone by the tracks. To be accurate, the stone size would be about the size of grit on a piece of 600 grit sandpaper. The problem is that it looks absolutely smooth at scale and not like stone at all. So I increase the size about 300% and it looks great. Remember, a man is only about 3/4" tall in my world, and the palm of his hand only 1/32", so if he picked up one crushed stone in my model, it would entirely fill his palm. Not very realistic, but a good compromise for the total visual effect. Now, I want a logging shay in the corner of the table up on a mountain. A long way off, but only 10' away in my world. If I use HO scale, it doen't look far off at all, but, if I use an N scale shay (half the size of HO) it looks like its quite a distance away. This is terribly inaccurate and unrealistic in the real world, but visually quite realisitic and pleasing in my 9' x 12' modelled world. So the question here would be, should I stick with real world accuracy and scale, or use my tricks to capture an overall feeling of realism which is perceived to be more realistic than true scale? Which gives you the best overall feel of the real thing? That example is visual modelling, but not so different from physics modelling. A 1/4 pound slotcar or a 2 pound RC car can't possibly handle like a real car. At this scale and weight, gravity effects are totally different than with 2000 pound cars. Physics are absolute, so you have to take modelling liberties when you try to change it. In sim driving we're deprived of using some of our senses that real driving offers, so we have to compensate for this in the modelled physics to give an overall impression that seems realistic. So what do I expect of a sim? Well, I don't want a sim to be so accurate that a guy (ummm...better make that 2 guys) from Papy comes to my house and beats me senseless everytime I crash in GPL so I can model the pain. Some things I do want is for the modelled car to have the proper 'feeling' of grip at realistic speeds and G forces, and for it to lose grip, gracefully. I want fairly consistant AI drivers. I don't want them to brake 200' before a corner if I'm behind them, and yet crash into me from behind when I brake 100' before that same corner (SCGT). I want to capture the essence that I'm driving a real car, but tempered by the limitations of visual reality and usable senses. And if possible, I want to always be able to improve. I think that GPL is popular because it has quite accurate physics modelling, but mostly because it is hard and you don't get bored with it. Slot

<<LIBERALLY SNIPPED TO SAVE SPACE>> > If there were a damping effect which would cause a car to > loose speed rather than spin (I outlined some possible mechanisms) then > that would make driving a lot easier since when you went over the > limit you wouldn't loose it totally... I think this is more in tune > with real life where drivers have more "catchable" problems than spins. > In GPL a lot of drivers seem to be either on the money or in the bushes > - in real life drivers are on the money, slightly off line, lots off > line, have a moment or spin... I think this is a failing in the GPL > model that means spins/wash-outs aren't progressive. AMEN! I think one of the BIGGEST failings with GPL's much-vaunted physics model is that those slight degrees between "on the money" and a total spin are almost completely indiscernable (or missing entirely). I've put in a lot of time in GPL myself, but it's taken MONTHS of practice before I've been able to experience being slightly off-line, lots off-line, and having a moment -- until I *really* learned what GPL expects, it was either all or nothing (that is, a good lap or a spin). I'm a pretty good driver, I think, and I've done some time in racing go- karts and I've also had some seat time in an SCCA Spec racer, so I know what it's like to go fast behind the wheel in a racing environment. GPL is good, but it's not really as good as most people around here would like to make it out to be. Uncompromising? Not really -- just inordinately difficult and nigh-inaccessible for the average driver. Again, AMEN! I drive a real car every day, I've driven high- performance machines both on and off the track, and I've spent COUNTLESS hours behind the wheel at my computer playing with driving sims, and the inherent twitchiness in GPL always makes me wonder just how accurately it's responding to my inputs. Yes, there are some seat- of-the-pants inputs missing in a simulation that we would normally experience in a real vehicle, but just as the programmers must account for the fact that we're manipulating potentiometers in order to simulate steering input (which is what we're doing, even if we DO have wheels clamped to our desks), they must also make allowances for the shortcomings of the simple audio/visual interface. With GPL, Papy erred on the side of difficult for difficulty's sake, I believe, and while it may well be one of THE best driving simulators every, it could have been a LOT better, IMO, even within the existing technological bounds of current computers, controllers, and graphic cards. Somewhere in between NFS and GPL there's a VERY happy medium that has yet to be reached. Viper Racing is just a tad too twitchy (a la GPL), and SCGT as it comes out of the box is a bit too much like a different version of NFS. DTR does a fine job of simulating oval racing on a slick wet-or-dry dirt track, but in the absence of asphalt tracks to test on, it's hard to judge how it would stack up to the NFS/SCGT/Viper/GPL offerings without comparing apples to oranges. Somebody will ultimately get it right, though -- and the latest contender appears to be the WSC folks. I hope they're listening to all this . . . -- JB P.S. You've now attained hero status in my eyes for being brave enough to open this can of worms, Richard! <G> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Did I hear you right? Modern cars are more difficult to drive than the F1 cars from the late 60's. Anybody mind if I check under the bed and in the wardrobe for Mr. Beadle? No, it simply means that when we drive GPL, we push ourselves much harder than the real drivers of the era would ever have dared. Afterall, GPL only simulates real life events, but they were actually driving real life itself. If they spun off less, it was probably because they dared not push themselves beyond the limit of their control. Most good F1 drivers today however will rely heavily on the feedback and support from their car which allows them to make exciting manoeuvres. It's not always because they're better drivers. I disagree with this too. I've had some very memorable 'tight-pack' moments on-line at Watkins Glen where cars have been moving from one position to another half a dozen times a minute. All cars finished within 4 seconds of each other at the very end, besides one kamikaze driver who decided that suicide would be a better option, once his engine began to give way, then finishing the race last. Can't argue with you there. Best regards, The Phoenix

I once read an article where someone had developed a racing simulator of sorts. It consisted of a 1/4 scale car equipped with a video camera pointing out the front window. The car was remote controlled by a driver using the same type of hardare we use with PC sims - A video monitor showing the in-car camera view mounted above a wheel/pedals setup. Just imagine that instead of a 1/4 scale model car, you had a full-size real F1 car set up with a camera and remote control. Do you really think you could control the car with remote control by watching a video monitor? There is no way. It would be more difficult than GPL, with more to lose on the first crash. You could never learn to drive it quickly, because the car wouldn't survive. This is exactly what we are doing with GPL, or any other sim that uncompromisingly simulates driving a race car. Fortunately, we have the luxury with a sim to continually flirt with the limits of control of the car, until it is etched into our minds. GPL is not hard for me because I know how to sense the limits of the car based on the limited feed- back the sim gives me. Someone who hasn't become sensitized to that feedback cannot possibly drive the car well. So, I think that an uncompromising sim will take the same effort to drive well as it would take to remotely control a real F1 car by looking at a monitor. To make it more 'driveable' by the novice will require, at the very least, a fly-by- wire approach to filtering inputs of the driver. At worst, it will require driving aids, or a dumbing-down of the physics model. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html > I'm not trying to be harsh on GPL - I've played it more than any > other game I have. But I am trying to be harsh on the "accurate = > difficult" school of thought that GPL has given rise to.

I might jusdt add in here that after Jaques Villeneuve drove a Brabham around Monza the banked park that is, before Christmas, there was only one thing to say, he couldn't! Ok, Well he did but he even said it was very difficult to drive, he was drifting in very low gears and speed. He might not be experienced in 1967 F1 racing but he can sure handle speed and control a car but he appered to have difficulty with this one! -- GraDee ------------------------------------------------------------- Karting "3.65" www.esatclear.ie/~karting ------------------------------------------------------------- "The dozens and dozens........." > Don't think I'm saying that GPL is the be-all and > end-all of sims. But I think it's maybe closer to > the mark than you are giving it credit for. > > 1) Realism. In real life, a moderately talented GP driver with > > limited laps can do a whole bunch of laps at 80% push with no danger > > of going off. > In real life, a driver has gone through a lot more > preparation than a sim racer. This would include > things like walking the track. Also, in real life, > you have a lot better sense of direction and > distance than you can ever have in a sim. This > alone would make it easier to stay on the track. > After years of sim racing, while on the track I > still couldn't tell you if I'm going north, south > east or west. > > In GPL, only great drivers can do that after months of > > practice. > I don't know how you are measure 80%. If you are > talking lap times, a lot of guys can run at more > than 95% indefinitely without crashing. > > I still have whoopses driving slowly after months of > > dedicated practice and there are plenty out tehre worse than me. GPL > > is clearly harder (for whatever reason) than real life. > Now, here is my main point. Whatever 'whoopses' > you pulled in GPL, if done in real life, would > land you in a similar spot alonside the track. > I think the difficulty comes from lack of feedback, > and not so much from the deficiencies of the sim. > > 2) Accuracy of simulation. I believe that the reason GPL is so hard > > is a faiing of its (otherwise brilliant) physics engine. EVerything in > > GPL is (as far as I can see) very rigidly modelled with no "give" - a > > real life car gives at the extremes and I believe these items of "give" > > - the deformation of an overstressed tyre, the bouncing of a car over > > high-frequency bumps as it begins to spin, the spring in an overstressed > > chassis are the missing elements from GPL which make it so easy to lose > > it. I believe firmly that in real life, these elements can "save" a > > driver rather than see him/her skipping like a stone over water in a > > spinning car. > I'm absolutely sure you are right that in real > a car would have a bit more 'give'. It's > probably pretty insignificant, though, and > probably not enough to make a difference between > saving it in real life and losing it in GPL. > The crudeness of our hardware would likely make > that extra space in the envelope impossible to > sense. > > 3) Pragmatism. 90% of people want a sim that they can drive round and > > not look a berk after 1 or 2 days. Most people will stop playing > > something after the first week if they can't get on with it. I don't > > recommend GPL to most of my friends because I know that most of them > > would hate it. Only the ones with a love for racing would stay with it > > anyway. > That's irrelevant to the reality or unreality of > the simulation. > > If we don't want to promulgate the idea that > > accuracy=commercial death then we should cling to the idea that a > > realistic car doesn't hurtle itself into the bushes every 5 minutes. > I don't land in bushes every five minutes. But, > if I do something bone-headed that in real life > would land me in a bush, then that's where I should > be in the sim. The key is not in how often I crash, > but in whether or not the sim responds properly to > my inputs. > There is a strong case for the opposite point. I > know that half the sh** I pull in GPL would get > me killed in real life, but I can do it > consistently in the sim :) > > 4) Easy to drive != easy to win. A lot of people say "GPL should be > > 5) Better racing. How many times do you see a clean start in GPL > Fine points. A developer may even use them to > justify limits on how real they want a sim to > be. Still, they are irrelevant to reality. > > 6) Easier to drive does not mean less feel. I believe that a driving > > game would feel more and not less like a sim if it were easier to keep > > the car lined up with the road at moderate speeds. > Are you using FF? I find it to especially aid > driving in moderate speed situations. Even with > FF, our feedback, and our inputs have got to be > horribly crude compared to real life. > What I would like to see is a plot of G-forces > on the driver from a good lap in GPL, compared > to the same type of plot from a professional > driver on the real track. > I'd be surprised if the sim lap weren't very > jerky and uneven compared to the real lap. The > difference would be caused by the lack of feedback > we have. > > Just a few points to (hopefully) make people think. I get the idea > > from some people that their ideal "sim" would dump you in the bushes > > every third corner and whack you in the face with a plank while it was > > doing it. Realism is not the same as *** and difficult to drive > > is not the same as accurate. > > Well, that's what I think anyway. > Me too :) I don't _expect_ sims to be hard, > just... uncompromising. > -- > Pat Dotson > IMPACT Motorsports > http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

> <<LIBERALLY SNIPPED TO SAVE SPACE>> > -- until I *really* learned what GPL > expects, it was either all or nothing (that is, a good lap or a spin). Isn't that what driving any racecar is about? Being able to understand what the car expects is the key to success. As weather and track conditions change, you either adapt, or fall behind. Since everyone wants to use their inability to stay on the track as a measure of GPL's defects, let me recount my experience... Within 24 hours of the release of the original demo, I was doing 1:07's at Watkins Glen, and doing them consistently. That was with the horrible default setup and never having driven the sim before. When the Monza track demo came out, I purposefully tested my ability to adapt my GPL driving skill to a new track. After installing the new track, I pulled out out of the pits and gradually worked up to speed. With no crashes, and no spins, I did a 1:29 in less than 20 laps. Again, this was with the same crappy default setup. The point is that with the right attitude, and a little bit of patience, GPL is not that hard. If it takes someone months to get consistent it's because either a) their controls aren't set up properly, or b) they aren't able to learn from mistakes and use that knowledge to adapt. I've been to the same tracks, and driven the same karts and cars. They like to be driven the same way that GPL likes to be driven. BTW, come out to Stefan Johansson's on Saturday evening. I've got the place rented out starting at 7 pm. Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, but there is no reason for it to take months to drive GPL consistently. The beautiful thing about GPL, though, is that after months, there is still a lot to learn about driving it. I'm still learning after more than a year and a half. We may indeed be doomed to live in a world of SCGT. What I hope they deliver is a sim with the complexity of GPL, and the driving aids of GP2. Then, I think everyone can be happy. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

<<LIBERALLY SNIPPED TO SAVE SPACE>> Isn't that what driving any racecar is about? Being able to understand what the car expects is the key to success. As weather and track conditions change, you either adapt, or fall behind. Since everyone wants to use their inability to stay on the track as a measure of GPL's defects, let me recount my experience... Within 24 hours of the release of the original demo, I was doing 1:07's at Watkins Glen, and doing them consistently. That was with the horrible default setup and never having driven the sim before. When the Monza track demo came out, I purposefully tested my ability to adapt my GPL driving skill to a new track. After installing the new track, I pulled out out of the pits and gradually worked up to speed. With no crashes, and no spins, I did a 1:29 in less than 20 laps. Again, this was with the same crappy default setup. The point is that with the right attitude, and a little bit of patience, GPL is not that hard. If it takes someone months to get consistent it's because either a) their controls aren't set up properly, or b) they aren't able to learn from mistakes and use that knowledge to adapt. I've been to the same tracks, and driven the same karts and cars. They like to be driven the same way that GPL likes to be driven. BTW, come out to Stefan Johansson's on Saturday evening. I've got the place rented out starting at 7 pm. Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, but there is no reason for it to take months to drive GPL consistently. The beautiful thing about GPL, though, is that after months, there is still a lot to learn about driving it. I'm still learning after more than a year and a half. We may indeed be doomed to live in a world of SCGT. What I hope they deliver is a sim with the complexity of GPL, and the driving aids of GP2. Then, I think everyone can be happy. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

I'm sure we're all well aware of the limitations of "feedback" in racing sims. But the real issue is whether or not GPL's physics model is entirely realistic. Surely there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that the physics is 100% realistic. And if there's any doubt that it is not, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with the next relatively realistic sim that comes along being a bit easier to drive. As it happens, I expect GP3 will turn out to be easier to drive, AND less realistic than GPL, but that's besides the point. -A

Quoted text (52 lines)

>I once read an article where someone had developed >a racing simulator of sorts. >It consisted of a 1/4 scale car equipped with a >video camera pointing out the front window. The >car was remote controlled by a driver using the >same type of hardare we use with PC sims - A video >monitor showing the in-car camera view mounted >above a wheel/pedals setup. >Just imagine that instead of a 1/4 scale model car, >you had a full-size real F1 car set up with a >camera and remote control. Do you really think >you could control the car with remote control by >watching a video monitor? There is no way. It >would be more difficult than GPL, with more to >lose on the first crash. You could never learn to >drive it quickly, because the car wouldn't survive. >This is exactly what we are doing with GPL, or any >other sim that uncompromisingly simulates driving >a race car. >Fortunately, we have the luxury with a sim to >continually flirt with the limits of control of >the car, until it is etched into our minds. GPL >is not hard for me because I know how to sense >the limits of the car based on the limited feed- >back the sim gives me. Someone who hasn't become >sensitized to that feedback cannot possibly drive >the car well. >So, I think that an uncompromising sim will take >the same effort to drive well as it would take to >remotely control a real F1 car by looking at a >monitor. To make it more 'driveable' by the >novice will require, at the very least, a fly-by- >wire approach to filtering inputs of the driver. >At worst, it will require driving aids, or a >dumbing-down of the physics model. >-- >Pat Dotson >IMPACT Motorsports >http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html >> I'm not trying to be harsh on GPL - I've played it more than any >> other game I have. But I am trying to be harsh on the "accurate = >> difficult" school of thought that GPL has given rise to.

Have you tried Alison's 'high ride' setups? They are significantly more forgiving.

Sorry, but for me the whole thrill of GPL is that you *can* tread the fine line between traction and Meet Mr. Wall. Racing at the edge of performance should always be this difficult, it's just that the edge moves around (different envelope/whatever) depending upon vehicle type. Andrew McP

:> I think one of the BIGGEST failings with GPL's much-vaunted :> physics model is that those slight degrees between "on the money" :> and a total spin are almost completely indiscernable : Sorry, but for me the whole thrill of GPL is that you *can* tread the fine : line between traction and Meet Mr. Wall. Racing at the edge of performance : should always be this difficult, it's just that the edge moves around : (different envelope/whatever) depending upon vehicle type. I don't get a lot of "seat time" in GPL (maybe a few hours on the weekends) and yet I also find the "feel" very communicative, much moreso than any other game out there. I drive with a ***joystick and I still find it quite easy to catch slides, hold them exactly where I want them etc. I still don't think it's the big, bad program everyone says it is. I think it's great. Stephen

Quoted text (24 lines)

> There's been a thread on here saying that GP3 when it appears should > be harder to drive than GPL because modern cars are more difficult to > drive. > Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the idea that modern cars are > more difficult to drive (I believe they probably are), I'd like to make > the counter case that GP3 should be easier to drive than GPL. > 1) Realism. In real life, a moderately talented GP driver with > limited laps can do a whole bunch of laps at 80% push with no danger > of going off. In GPL, only great drivers can do that after months of > practice. I still have whoopses driving slowly after months of > dedicated practice and there are plenty out tehre worse than me. GPL > is clearly harder (for whatever reason) than real life. > 2) Accuracy of simulation. I believe that the reason GPL is so hard > is a faiing of its (otherwise brilliant) physics engine. EVerything in > GPL is (as far as I can see) very rigidly modelled with no "give" - a > real life car gives at the extremes and I believe these items of "give" > - the deformation of an overstressed tyre, the bouncing of a car over > high-frequency bumps as it begins to spin, the spring in an overstressed > chassis are the missing elements from GPL which make it so easy to lose > it. I believe firmly that in real life, these elements can "save" a > driver rather than see him/her skipping like a stone over water in a > spinning car.

IMHO GPL is much better than any sim out there in a way that you can actually <feel> a spin before it happens and catch it. I think the physics modelling in GPL is very credible, and lack of feedback is indeed what makes it THAT difficult to learn (to learn, not to drive). I can do laps at 90% all day without going off. But to get it right for a 100% lap it takes a lot of concentration and determination. And what makes GPL so special is that there's still that thin red line between 100-105% that you can sometimes touch in a qualifying lap. Balancing these cars "on the edge" is possible with GPL, but only for the most skilled drivers and if you have a good and precise steering input. I work with a professional racing simulator and sometimes run both GP2 and GPL on that machine. It's a modified Formula3 car with a massive speaker and subwoofer unit instead of an engine. The sound can be turned up to authentic volume levels and really gives you a very special kind of force feedback. anyway - using this setup, the feeling is authentic with GPL even when going lower speeds. There's a clearly defined line between going slow, going fast and REALLY going fast. And it's defined almost exclusively by the driver's racing experience, bravery and skill. When running this setup with GP2, it's much EASIER to crash out , because there's no fear induced to the driver, and GP2 (no aids and steering help off) suffers the problem that you can't clearly feel the limit. GP2 in this car feels like a rollercoaster ride where you are allowed to move the wheel but you are not really controlling the car. GPL let's you do whatever you wan, lets YOU be in control, not some obscure "steering input deficency compensation" of the sim. in GP2 a controlled slide when exiting a corner is almost impossible, in GPL you can do this every corner. Newbies that sit into this car go too fast in GP2 and crash, in GPL they don't even dare too push the metal down. GP2 is the best modern F1 sim, but it still pales in comparison with GPL. GPL may be harder than real life, but that is because you do things that you wouldn't do in real life because of the lack of feedback (especially G-Forces). Most people racing on VROC tend to think they can attack their personal best time by going 120% EVERY race lap and can move up several positions at the start. This is nuts. I have been doing LAN races with people that CAN do 1.05s at watkins in qualifying but were only doing 1.07/1.08 during the race. When people stay within the limits of their abilities and concentration racing in the "pack" is possible in GPL. Also, you have to react to what is happening on the screen in GPL, you have to know what to do- and when. In real life no one would have entered the ascari curve at 290+ kph WITHOUT knowing what do do when he starts to feel that he's slightly off the ideal line and starts do drift wide. What would you call moderate speeds ? If you do speeds similar to those you would do in a road car and stay in the low rev range you will be surprised how easy and yet realistic the handling of GPL in fact is. 90mph might feel "slow" in GPL, but it's VERY fast in real life. I think that "GPL is too difficult" thing is a bit of a myth. I'm more frustrated with most Arcade games than I am with GPL. I tried to do a bit of fun racing with NFS4 one day with a friend, and he always was faster than me - I tried braking later, tried to brake differently, accelerate earlier, trailbrake deep into the corner - no success. He still was 4 seconds faster. I was really getting frustrated UNTIL the other day I found out that all I had to do was in fact stay full throttle all the time around the circuit and turn the wheel. THIS is frustration. SCGT also suffers from this, you can't do things by instinct, you have to do what the game wants you to do even if it does feel completely unnatural to you. Most games designed today are racing games. GPL is a driving simulator with the added bonus that you can race other cars once you're good enough. I sincerely hope that the developers of WSC will take same approach - then it could really be great. Alex

<<LIBERALLY SNIPPED TO SAVE SPACE>> IMHO GPL is much better than any sim out there in a way that you can actually <feel> a spin before it happens and catch it. I think the physics modelling in GPL is very credible, and lack of feedback is indeed what makes it THAT difficult to learn (to learn, not to drive). I can do laps at 90% all day without going off. But to get it right for a 100% lap it takes a lot of concentration and determination. And what makes GPL so special is that there's still that thin red line between 100-105% that you can sometimes touch in a qualifying lap. Balancing these cars "on the edge" is possible with GPL, but only for the most skilled drivers and if you have a good and precise steering input. I work with a professional racing simulator and sometimes run both GP2 and GPL on that machine. It's a modified Formula3 car with a massive speaker and subwoofer unit instead of an engine. The sound can be turned up to authentic volume levels and really gives you a very special kind of force feedback. anyway - using this setup, the feeling is authentic with GPL even when going lower speeds. There's a clearly defined line between going slow, going fast and REALLY going fast. And it's defined almost exclusively by the driver's racing experience, bravery and skill. When running this setup with GP2, it's much EASIER to crash out , because there's no fear induced to the driver, and GP2 (no aids and steering help off) suffers the problem that you can't clearly feel the limit. GP2 in this car feels like a rollercoaster ride where you are allowed to move the wheel but you are not really controlling the car. GPL let's you do whatever you wan, lets YOU be in control, not some obscure "steering input deficency compensation" of the sim. in GP2 a controlled slide when exiting a corner is almost impossible, in GPL you can do this every corner. Newbies that sit into this car go too fast in GP2 and crash, in GPL they don't even dare too push the metal down. GP2 is the best modern F1 sim, but it still pales in comparison with GPL. GPL may be harder than real life, but that is because you do things that you wouldn't do in real life because of the lack of feedback (especially G-Forces). With GPL, Papy Again, I think that "GPL is too difficult" thing is a bit of a myth. I'm more frustrated with most Arcade games than I am with GPL. I tried to do a bit of fun racing with NFS4 one day with a friend, and he always was faster than me - I tried braking later, tried to brake differently, accelerate earlier, trailbrake deep into the corner - no success. He still was 4 seconds faster. I was really getting frustrated UNTIL the other day I found out that all I had to do was in fact stay full throttle all the time around the circuit and turn the wheel. THIS is frustration. SCGT also suffers from this, you can't do things by instinct, you have to do what the game wants you to do even if it does feel completely unnatural to you. Most games designed today are racing games. GPL is a driving simulator with the added bonus that you can race other cars once you're good enough. I sincerely hope that the developers of WSC will take same approach.

this post shouldn't be here, it's a reply to the original poster - look below sorry

: If there were a damping effect which would cause a car to : loose speed rather than spin (I outlined some possible mechanisms) then : that would make driving a lot easier since when you went over the : limit you wouldn't loose it totally... I think this is more in tune : with real life where drivers have more "catchable" problems than spins. : In GPL a lot of drivers seem to be either on the money or in the bushes : - in real life drivers are on the money, slightly off line, lots off : line, have a moment or spin... I think this is a failing in the GPL : model that means spins/wash-outs aren't progressive. I'm no expert in GPL or racing in general, but if it's true that 40% of the drivers who started the racing season ended up dead in those cars, I'd have to assume that their problems were not that "catchable" at all. Maybe they avoided a few accidents by getting back into control, but eventually they couldn't avoid crashing badly. I don't know, but there probably was lot more spinning in the sixties than nowadays. Or am I wrong? Anyway, my driving in GPL is like that, you catch some, you lose one. (I haven't been winning many races :) But, like I said, I'm no expert. - Jussi

An excellent post, and it echos my sentiments exactly, including the opinion of GP2 vs GPL. The steering is just so much nicer in GPL. : indeed what makes it THAT difficult to learn (to learn, not to drive). I : can do laps at 90% all day without going off. But to get it right for a : 100% lap it takes a lot of concentration and determination. And what : makes GPL so special is that there's still that thin red line between : 100-105% that you can sometimes touch in a qualifying lap. Balancing : these cars "on the edge" is possible with GPL, but only for the most The humbling thing for me, of course, is that my 100% laps *are* 90% laps for a lot of the really hot GPL drivers, so I'm not getting the full experience! Stephen

: Within 24 hours of the release of the original : demo, I was doing 1:07's at Watkins Glen, and : doing them consistently. That was with the : horrible default setup and never having driven : the sim before. So you're a natural at it - it took me months to get to that time (with good controls and everything set up properly). : When the Monza track demo came out, I : purposefully tested my ability to adapt my : GPL driving skill to a new track. After : installing the new track, I pulled out out of : the pits and gradually worked up to speed. : With no crashes, and no spins, I did a : 1:29 in less than 20 laps. Again, this : was with the same crappy default setup. I think your experience is somewhat unusual. : The point is that with the right attitude, : and a little bit of patience, GPL is not : that hard. If it takes someone months to : get consistent it's because either a) their : controls aren't set up properly, or b) they : aren't able to learn from mistakes and use : that knowledge to adapt. I disagree and I'm sure a number of people on here would disagree completely. Some of us just take longer. :> > Certainly - and I am questionning whether something which "responds :> > properly to inputs" is likely to be nigh on undrivable for the first :> few months you try it. I don't believe so. : Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, but there is : no reason for it to take months to drive GPL : consistently. The beautiful thing about GPL, : though, is that after months, there is still : a lot to learn about driving it. I'm still : learning after more than a year and a half. Yes - most of us are - but I think your experience is the exception rather than the rule. A lot of people (like myself) still find themselves spinning out inexplicably after many months of dedicated practice. Compare with reality - there are a few "naturals" who can do your thing of putting in good laps - there are many "strugglers" like myself who have to work at it for months to get to that stage. :> Somebody will ultimately get it right, though -- and the latest :> contender appears to be the WSC folks. I hope they're listening to all :> this . . . : What I hope they deliver is a sim with the : complexity of GPL, and the driving aids of : GP2. Then, I think everyone can be happy. Well, as I think everyone knows now, I hope they deliever something with the complexity of GPL, the driving aids of GP2 and a large amount of "give" and "feel" to allow us lesser drivers to keep the thing lined up on track long enough to enjoy it. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

:> There's been a thread on here saying that GP3 when it appears should :> be harder to drive than GPL because modern cars are more difficult to :> drive. : Did I hear you right? Modern cars are more difficult to drive than the F1 : cars from the late 60's. I'm not firmly convinced by this - but I have a few reasons to believe it. The 67 F1 cars had higher tyre grip at a slip angle - which should mean they lose traction progressively - you know before they let go. Modern F1 cars do not have this and apparently lose grip very quickly. Modern F1 cars are extremely aero-sensitive and set-up is critical. The performance can be severely compromised by a cross-wind. This area was less critical in the 67 cars. A '67 car generated no down-force and probably a modicum of lift. Aero downforce is surely going to make driving more difficult since the grip you get is going to change through the corner - particularly if there is a significant cross-wind. A modern car can lose 1/2 a second a lap due to a change in track temperature. Surely this is going to make it more tricky if your corner entry speed has to reduce because the sun's gone in? OK - there are a few reasons to believe the '67 cars would be harder to drive - the high power to grip and the manual gear box. Overall tho, I think a modern car is a more sensitive beast and more demanding on the driver. I believe that various drivers have described the Lotus 49 as "surprisingly easy to drive". Mario Andretti for one. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

: Just imagine that instead of a 1/4 scale model car, : you had a full-size real F1 car set up with a : camera and remote control. Do you really think : you could control the car with remote control by : watching a video monitor? There is no way. It : would be more difficult than GPL, with more to : lose on the first crash. You could never learn to : drive it quickly, because the car wouldn't survive. why do you believe this? I don't think you're correct. Especially if you had FF wheel and pedals. OK, you might write the car off eventually, but I think that a good driver could do OK with this set up if there were minimal delay between input and image. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

<snip> % To me, if the simulation is harder than real life that is a deficiency % in the sim. I don't believe that the deficiencies come from lack of % feedback... sure, some of it might be traced by that... I think alot of the deficiencies are in the lack of physical feedback in GPL. Then again alot more of the deficiencies are the lack of the "player" learning to adapt to the feedback cues that GPL does offer and the refusal to drive within those limits. <snip> % If there were a damping effect which would cause a car to % loose speed rather than spin (I outlined some possible mechanisms) then % that would make driving a lot easier since when you went over the % limit you wouldn't loose it totally... I think this is more in tune % with real life where drivers have more "catchable" problems than spins. % In GPL a lot of drivers seem to be either on the money or in the bushes % - in real life drivers are on the money, slightly off line, lots off % line, have a moment or spin... I think this is a failing in the GPL % model that means spins/wash-outs aren't progressive. Again, this is more a deficiency in the player and not the physics of GPL. Of course I must admit that the physics in GPL are not perfect nor model real-life 100%. But just as in real life, not everyone has the skill or talent to become a F1 pilot. The same applies to GPL. There are some drivers who can take a GPL car to the edge and know where that edge is. Then there are many drivers who simply ignore the edge and try to muscle the car around the track. The latter will always be on/off drivers. But, the former can take the car over the bitter edge and bring it back into shape and carry on the ever repeating process of pushing the envelope to almost breaking and back again. <snip> % Certainly - and I am questionning whether something which "responds % properly to inputs" is likely to be nigh on undrivable for the first few % months you try it. I don't believe so. Show me anyone who could tool around all day in a family sedan through the normal streets and freeways that could be plunked into the seat of 1967 F1 car that could drive it to its potential within a couple of months. F1 pilots have years of experience in other forms of racing before they ever get a chance to pilot the cream-of-the-crop racing car. <snip> % Sure - agreed except for the last bit about "limits on how real..." % I believe that in a realistic sim all but a field of absolute novices % could make clean starts and race in a pack. Remember that this was the % case in '67 - some of the guys racing in GPs were not experienced % drivers. Yeh, they were just bicycle messanger kids that got a chance to race because of some contest they entered. <G> <snip> -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> I believe that various drivers have described the Lotus 49 as >"surprisingly easy to drive". Mario Andretti for one. See the current issue of Motorsport for more stuff along these lines... Apparentlt the Eagle Weslake is particularly docile, and even has an engine[1] which works at sane RPM levels. Having said that, Mario Andrettis view of "easy to drive" may be just a little different to mine :-) [1] Interesting aside. Apparently the Weslake V12 was originally intended to be a BRM... -- JG

Sounds cool. Remind me not to lend my car to you though!!!

Quoted text (50 lines)

> > : Just imagine you had a full-size real F1 car > > : set up with a camera and remote control. (clip) > > : You could never learn to drive it quickly, > > : because the car wouldn't survive. > > why do you believe this? > It is intuitively obvious to me. > It would be an interesting experiment, eh? > Last week, I had a '98 Formula Firebird with > a V8 in my possesion temporarily. The cool thing > about that car is it has some sort of locking > rear axle, so that if one wheel starts to spin, > power is transferred to the other wheel. > I'd been experimenting quite a bit with accelerat- > ing around a corner and feathering the throttle to > maintain that edge where the rear wheels are > slipping, but not spinning out of control. This > was all done at low speed, and felt just like > GPL does when doing the same thing - it was > easy to control. I then decided to see how > it handled at a slightly higher speed. After > picking out a nice open spot at the back of > a parking lot, I picked the apex for the 90 > degree turn I was about to execute. After > accelerating smoothly through 1st, I shifted > to second and stepped on it. Instead of > feathering the throttle, I just stayed on > it to see if I could steer through it. The > rear came around on me far more quickly than > expected. I let of the gas and saved it from > spinning, but not before going through a couple > of oscillations back and forth with the tires > squealing. I was basically out of control. > I know that I could not have caught that spin if > I'd been driving the car by remote control - no > matter how good the FF might be in a wheel. > > I don't think you're correct. > Be that as it may, I think I am :) > -- > Pat Dotson > IMPACT Motorsports > http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

> : Just imagine you had a full-size real F1 car > : set up with a camera and remote control. (clip) > : You could never learn to drive it quickly, > : because the car wouldn't survive. > why do you believe this? It is intuitively obvious to me. It would be an interesting experiment, eh? Last week, I had a '98 Formula Firebird with a V8 in my possesion temporarily. The cool thing about that car is it has some sort of locking rear axle, so that if one wheel starts to spin, power is transferred to the other wheel. I'd been experimenting quite a bit with accelerat- ing around a corner and feathering the throttle to maintain that edge where the rear wheels are slipping, but not spinning out of control. This was all done at low speed, and felt just like GPL does when doing the same thing - it was easy to control. I then decided to see how it handled at a slightly higher speed. After picking out a nice open spot at the back of a parking lot, I picked the apex for the 90 degree turn I was about to execute. After accelerating smoothly through 1st, I shifted to second and stepped on it. Instead of feathering the throttle, I just stayed on it to see if I could steer through it. The rear came around on me far more quickly than expected. I let of the gas and saved it from spinning, but not before going through a couple of oscillations back and forth with the tires squealing. I was basically out of control. I know that I could not have caught that spin if I'd been driving the car by remote control - no matter how good the FF might be in a wheel. Be that as it may, I think I am :) -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

> Well, as I think everyone knows now, I hope they deliever > something with the complexity of GPL, the driving aids of > GP2 and a large amount of "give" and "feel" to allow us > lesser drivers to keep the thing lined up on track long enough > to enjoy it. Just curious. Are you able to discern any difference between GPL 1.0 and GPL 1.2 when driving with the same setup? I think the tire modeling got quite a bit of attention between those two versions. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

> Sounds cool. Remind me not to lend my car to you though!!! No problem :) I was very careful to make sure there was nothing around to make contact with. It was nothing more than what happens at an autocross event. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html

Since the general tone seems to be controlability, something that helped me make a huge leap forward at all tracks was strictly in setup. I noticed that a setup I downloaded for the Ferrari had quite a bit of negative toe in at the front, and quite a bit of positive toe in at the rear. It is my belief that this, combined with fairly stiff roll bars, made the car much more controllable. It's easy to catch under braking and acceleration. Might want to give it a try. Scott

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > There's been a thread on here saying that GP3 when it appears should > > be harder to drive than GPL because modern cars are more difficult to > > drive. > Did I hear you right? Modern cars are more difficult to drive than the F1 > cars from the late 60's. > Anybody mind if I check under the bed and in the wardrobe for Mr. Beadle? > > 1) Realism. In real life, a moderately talented GP driver with > > limited laps can do a whole bunch of laps at 80% push with no danger > > of going off. In GPL, only great drivers can do that after months of > > practice. I still have whoopses driving slowly after months of > > dedicated practice and there are plenty out tehre worse than me. GPL > > is clearly harder (for whatever reason) than real life. > No, it simply means that when we drive GPL, we push ourselves much harder > than the real drivers of the era would ever have dared. Afterall, GPL only > simulates real life events, but they were actually driving real life

itself.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> If they spun off less, it was probably because they dared not push > themselves beyond the limit of their control. Most good F1 drivers today > however will rely heavily on the feedback and support from their car which > allows them to make exciting manoeuvres. It's not always because they're > better drivers. > > 5) Better racing. How many times do you see a clean start in GPL > > outside league racing. I don't think I've ever seen a clean grid get > > away without some mishap. Imagine how much more enjoyable racing would > > be if there was a game with the same depth of feel but all the drivers > > were likely to stay nearly together for the first few laps. GPL almost > > never has the feel of "the pack" in non-league racing because you never > > get enough drivers good enough to drive close and fast because it's so > > hard to drive. > I disagree with this too. I've had some very memorable 'tight-pack'

moments

Quoted text (17 lines)

> on-line at Watkins Glen where cars have been moving from one position to > another half a dozen times a minute. All cars finished within 4 seconds of > each other at the very end, besides one kamikaze driver who decided that > suicide would be a better option, once his engine began to give way, then > finishing the race last. > > Just a few points to (hopefully) make people think. I get the idea > > from some people that their ideal "sim" would dump you in the bushes > > every third corner and whack you in the face with a plank while it was > > doing it. Realism is not the same as *** and difficult to drive > > is not the same as accurate. > Can't argue with you there. > Best regards, > The Phoenix

Fact: all cars are difficult to drive when on the limit. Be it a go-kart, a racing car or a sit-on lawn-mower. If the game models the car and its attributes closely enough, it should be easy to drive up to a point, but something to add is that even the most difficult of handling cars to drive should have some degree of predictability, and this is what allows you to drive fast and "feel" the edge. There shouldn't exist a situation where it is possible to drive easily AND as fast as possible. Driving to the limit should use up your full amount of concentration - and in these situations, it should always be possible to go off. Mike.

This is a cool discussion. I try to take each game on its own merits. I have had GPL for approx. 9 months now. I am still relatively hopeless( best performed 7 laps no offs and lap of1:35.4{Monza} in intermediate using an Alison Hines setup). Still as difficult as it is I enjoy it immensley each time I play it. I just find it too frustrating to play for too long,but man the sound of that Ferrari in full song(Pits patch) chills me.Similarly GP2 and ICR2 are still on my machine and played. Both of these took me a long time to learn too. My point is that all my favorite driving games/sims took me a long time to come to grips with. Those ,TOCA 2 NFS's SCGT type games were quick to get into and fun to,but were just as quick to get out of. How much reality/frustration you are willing to put upwith is a personal thing. But it is just this realism that for me makes a sim playable again and again.Maybe in a years time I'll bea good GPL driver maybe not but for now those 7 laps arestill real enjoyable. I hope we never get to the situation were sims become instantly accessable for the sake of mass acceptance. Brad

:> :> Sounds cool. Remind me not to lend my car to you though!!! : No problem :) : I was very careful to make sure there was : nothing around to make contact with. It : was nothing more than what happens at an : autocross event. Thanks for the loan of the car... sorry about the rear tires. :) Stephen

Quoted text (15 lines)

> :> I think one of the BIGGEST failings with GPL's much-vaunted > :> physics model is that those slight degrees between "on the money" > :> and a total spin are almost completely indiscernable > : Sorry, but for me the whole thrill of GPL is that you *can* tread the fine > : line between traction and Meet Mr. Wall. Racing at the edge of performance > : should always be this difficult, it's just that the edge moves around > : (different envelope/whatever) depending upon vehicle type. > I don't get a lot of "seat time" in GPL (maybe a few hours on the > weekends) and yet I also find the "feel" very communicative, much moreso > than any other game out there. I drive with a ***joystick and I still > find it quite easy to catch slides, hold them exactly where I want them > etc. I still don't think it's the big, bad program everyone says it > is. I think it's great.

Who is saying that it is a ***program? Not in R.A.S.!!!! In fact I think it's the only sim they're still talking about after more than one and a half year after release date!!!! Fact is that it is not perfect but IMHO it's the one closest to this state (up until now). Jan.

Yes, there's a very noticable difference! Some GPL experts at this time compared GPL 1.2 with TOCA2 and accused papy of "dumbing down" GPL too much for the masses.

:> :> Well, as I think everyone knows now, I hope they deliever :> something with the complexity of GPL, the driving aids of :> GP2 and a large amount of "give" and "feel" to allow us :> lesser drivers to keep the thing lined up on track long enough :> to enjoy it. : Just curious. Are you able to discern any : difference between GPL 1.0 and GPL 1.2 when : driving with the same setup? I think the : tire modeling got quite a bit of attention : between those two versions. I can't - or rather, the addition of force feed-back was such a _major_ change that physical tweaks I don't notice as much. I simply don't like non-FF GPL these days. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

: I hope we never get to the situation were sims become instantly accessable : for the sake of mass acceptance. : Brad Brad, What I'm trying to argue for isn't a situation where everyone can get in and drive at the same speed - no fun. What I _am_ arguing for is a situation where the car has enough give and feel that it is more "catchable" at the limit. Of course there will always be times when you miss it and throw the car into the gravel. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

: [1] Interesting aside. Apparently the Weslake V12 was originally intended to : be a BRM... I'd never heard this - do you mean that Weslake was originally intending to flog his engine to BRM? I thought that Eagle and Weslake sort of started together. I'd also heard that the Weslake was originally cobbled together from 6 V twins - not sure if that one's true. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

But this "simsomething" should still be designed to drive WITHOUT the aids, and the aids should be there to help he beginner learn how to drive - IMHO they should not be there to make the inexperienced driver competitive how you demand it. This kind of feature should instead be implemented as a cheat code, the use of which can be detected and disabled. A negative example would be MGPRS2 - this is a very good and exciting Sim (If you are able to forgive the highl unrealistic track layouts) as long as you drive with all the aids on - with no-aids it is a pain - it just doesn't work and it becomes clear that not enough thought and testing went into the driving physics and controls when using no aids. As long as you drive with aids on - you don't notice it because the sim compensates for these deficiencies. The Fact that the sim allows you to turn much faster laps with the aids on is annoying, but no real failure. If the drivers in modern F1 could use electronic driving aids such as Automatic shifting, traction control or ABS they would also be much faster, so the effect of these aids may be even realistic. But IMO they shouldn't be a valid option, just a cheat code and the sim / game should be designed with the idea that the player is driving without aids. Getting back to GPL, I absolutely love the difficulty balance of this sim when you turn the global hype scaling off. Racing the AI has never been that exciting in any Sim / Game before and this is often overlooked as the talk about GPL is focussed very much on VROC. If it sadly weren't for some very obvious flaws in the AI (T3R at Kyalami, Loews at Monza, the infamous Parabolica problem), I could just go on and call it perfect. Alex

:> :> I don't get a lot of "seat time" in GPL (maybe a few hours on the :> weekends) and yet I also find the "feel" very communicative, much moreso :> than any other game out there. I drive with a ***joystick and I still :> find it quite easy to catch slides, hold them exactly where I want them :> etc. I still don't think it's the big, bad program everyone says it :> is. I think it's great. :> : Who is saying that it is a ***program? Not in R.A.S.!!!! In fact I think it's : the only sim they're still talking about after more than one and a half year : after release date!!!! Fact is that it is not perfect but IMHO it's the one : closest to this state (up until now). You've misinterpreted my note, but I'm sure there are more than a few Dutch sayings that I wouldn't understand :) I don't mean "bad" in the literal sense of "not good". I mean "big, bad" as in "this thing deserves a LOT of respect". GPL is the 500kg gorilla of racing sims, or at least that is its reputation. Most people feel you have to give it a lot respect, and step very lightly. I would argue that it is somehow one of the *easier* sims to drive, because the steering is so fluid, the feedback so good, the***pit motion dead-on. Stephen

yea, sure %:) At least the first three characters are correct, aren't they ? It's monaco , of course....

>: [1] Interesting aside. Apparently the Weslake V12 was originally intended to

Quoted text (8 lines)

>: be a BRM... > I'd never heard this - do you mean that Weslake was originally >intending to flog his engine to BRM? I thought that Eagle and Weslake >sort of started together. > I'd also heard that the Weslake was originally cobbled together from >6 V twins - not sure if that one's true.

Assuming that the account on Motorsport is correct, you could be half right here... I'll quote verbatim, hopefully remaining within the "fair usage" convention... "The engine originated from a design by Aubrey Woods and Harry Weslake, that was rejected by BRM for the new 3-litre formula of 1966. It was highly thought of at Weslakes however, and in its narrow angle cylinder head was genuinely ground-breaking. So, a two cylinder version was produced and tested to such effect that Gurney needed little persuading to ask Weslake to build the proper thing for the Eagle..." I doesn't say what shape the twin cylinder test engine was, but producing a "slice" off the projected V-12 certainly sounds plausible. That test engine might have made a rather fine 500cc GP motorcycle engine for somebody :-) If I can be permitted to qo off at a minor tangent here there's a pleasing symetry at work here, in that Cosworth were later to produce a twin-cylinder motorcycle engine for a projected Norton by (effectively) hacking a pair of cylinders off one bank of the DFV motor to produce a parrarell twin engine. Norton never used the engine in competition, but it later re-surfaced to great effect as the "Quantel Challenge" BoTT racer which, apparently, was able to short-cut about five years of engine development by simply nicking combustion chamber shapes, porting, and camshaft profiles from the then-current incarnation of the DFV! Further tangent: Isn't it a shame that nobody's come up with a way of hacking the car models in GPL so that you could build hybrids. On more than one occasion I've found myself wondering what the Cooper/Coventry (lovely to drive, but just not fast enough...)would be capable of if you could replace that heavy, rather underpowered Maserati engine with, say, the Weslake unit, and what a Brabham/Cosworth might go like just doesn't bear thinking about :-) -- JG

: Assuming that the account on Motorsport is correct, you could be half right : here... <Excellent stuff snipped - thanks> : Further tangent: Isn't it a shame that nobody's come up with a way of : hacking the car models in GPL so that you could build hybrids. On more than : one occasion I've found myself wondering what the Cooper/Coventry (lovely to : drive, but just not fast enough...)would be capable of if you could replace : that heavy, rather underpowered Maserati engine with, say, the Weslake unit, : and what a Brabham/Cosworth might go like just doesn't bear thinking about : :-) Heh - how about a Cooper with a BRM engine - that'd be a challenge - so rear-end heavy it'd probably spend most of it's time doing wheelies :-) -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Fortunately, we have the luxury with a sim to >continually flirt with the limits of control of >the car, until it is etched into our minds. GPL >is not hard for me because I know how to sense >the limits of the car based on the limited feed- >back the sim gives me. Someone who hasn't become >sensitized to that feedback cannot possibly drive >the car well.

That's why I have problems with Zandvoort and Monaco. On those tracks, I often lose it before I know *why*... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

>Somewhere in between NFS and GPL there's a VERY happy medium that has >yet to be reached. Viper Racing is just a tad too twitchy (a la GPL), That's strange - I found Viper a LOT easier to control than GPL...and I had GPL for longer... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>When the Monza track demo came out, I >purposefully tested my ability to adapt my >GPL driving skill to a new track. After >installing the new track, I pulled out out of >the pits and gradually worked up to speed. >With no crashes, and no spins, I did a >1:29 in less than 20 laps. Again, this >was with the same crappy default setup.

You got to 1:29 in less than 20 laps?!? I haven't gotten to 1:29 in more than a YEAR...and I've had *plenty* of crashes and spins. I can't figure out how you're doing it! If I push to go faster, brake later, or even try a diferent line sometimes, I'm in the weeds(or wall). Are you just THAT MUCH better than me? That's depressing... You also mentioned others are either not able to adapt, or have their hardware setup wrong. Assuming that I *can* adapt(or have been able to before), how should my hardware be setup? I have an AMD k6-2 350(128MB) with a voodoo3 and 15" monitor(win95). I can usually get over 30fps. I'm using a TSW2mod wheel and pedal set. My PB at Monza is only 1:30.50 after about 14(?) months. Any suggestions? (and be NICE<g>) Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Hey I got this tip for you. Instead of following tips like heel to toe braking, always brake in a straight line and stuff like that. Just do whatever you feel comfortable with. try turn in little early or later to see what you can do. Just make sure you stay on the track, you will notice a big difference. I am no expert because I only have the demo and 15fps (video card comes in sunday, GPL next Tuesday or so) But I got down to 1:06 at the Glen just by doing a lot of practicing. If I can do it, you can do it too

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>When the Monza track demo came out, I >>purposefully tested my ability to adapt my >>GPL driving skill to a new track. After >>installing the new track, I pulled out out of >>the pits and gradually worked up to speed. >>With no crashes, and no spins, I did a >>1:29 in less than 20 laps. Again, this >>was with the same crappy default setup. >You got to 1:29 in less than 20 laps?!? I haven't gotten to 1:29 in more

than >a YEAR...and I've had *plenty* of crashes and spins. I can't figure out how >you're doing it! If I push to go faster, brake later, or even try a diferent >line sometimes, I'm in the weeds(or wall). Are you just THAT MUCH better than >me? That's depressing... >You also mentioned others are either not able to adapt, or have their hardware >setup wrong. Assuming that I *can* adapt(or have been able to before), how >should my hardware be setup? I have an AMD k6-2 350(128MB) with a voodoo3 and >15" monitor(win95). I can usually get over 30fps. I'm using a TSW2mod wheel

Quoted text (11 lines)

>and pedal set. My PB at Monza is only 1:30.50 after about 14(?) months. >Any suggestions? (and be NICE<g>) >Eldred >-- >Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 >Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc >Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you >with experience... >Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

I've only had GPL for a couple weeks now and a Voodoo board for two days. I've been concentrating on Monza and have gotten down to a 1:36 in Alison's Ferrari setup. As a former race driver (came to grips with the concept of my own mortality years back... <g>) I started out approaching the driving as I would in a real race car. That was fairly okay and got me into the mid 40's in the Lotus at Monza. (was wierd to me, but the GP car was much easier to drive than the trainers) I had a small epiphany yesterday when, for no particular reason, I went into the Replay section off the main screen and discovered there were a sample videos from each track! (a couple by da man himself) Watching the one from Monza was quite illuminating. I'm more familiar with a more genteel approach to car control at speed, but, apparently, you are supposed to fight these hairy-chested bastards tooth and nail to get a good lap in. Kick it sideways into Curva Gande at 160+ and then gather it back in as many times as necessary until you're through the corner. Smooth, straight braking and high corner exit speeds are the key to fast laps. Apparently there are no style points awarded for what you do between those two points in a corner. <g> Just my impression so far. Now to rearrange my computer station to afford more ergonomically correct seating and control positions! Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

Quoted text (22 lines)

> >When the Monza track demo came out, I > >purposefully tested my ability to adapt my > >GPL driving skill to a new track. After > >installing the new track, I pulled out out of > >the pits and gradually worked up to speed. > >With no crashes, and no spins, I did a > >1:29 in less than 20 laps. Again, this > >was with the same crappy default setup. > You got to 1:29 in less than 20 laps?!? I haven't gotten to 1:29 in more than > a YEAR...and I've had *plenty* of crashes and spins. I can't figure out how > you're doing it! If I push to go faster, brake later, or even try a diferent > line sometimes, I'm in the weeds(or wall). Are you just THAT MUCH better than > me? That's depressing... > You also mentioned others are either not able to adapt, or have their hardware > setup wrong. Assuming that I *can* adapt(or have been able to before), how > should my hardware be setup? I have an AMD k6-2 350(128MB) with a voodoo3 and > 15" monitor(win95). I can usually get over 30fps. I'm using a TSW2mod wheel > and pedal set. My PB at Monza is only 1:30.50 after about 14(?) months. > Any suggestions? (and be NICE<g>) > Eldred

Talk about depressing............. a teammate of mine just got GPL not too long ago. At the time, I still hadn't broken the 1:30 barrier (1:30.2) after 12+ months. In the span of approx. two weeks, he had his Monza lap times into the low 1:28's!! One of the most jaw-dropping things I've ever witnessed. He's what got me under 1:30. Using replays with GPL Track Computer & GPL Spy Girl, I could see what areas I most needed attention at and work on them directly one at a time. You may also try, at least temporarily, another car instead of the Ferrari. Either the Eagle or the Lotus, depending on driving style, should provide you with improved lap times as well. More FPS might help you as well, but if you're already turning graphics options down presently then I wouldn't go further. Is there an upgrade in your future? Your Voodoo3 and TSW are definitely up to the task. Good Luck!! -- //Chuck Kandler #70 //ChuckK on Won.net & WinVROC //K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 //The box said "Windows 0x5h or better", so I installed LINUX!

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Hey I got this tip for you. Instead of following tips like heel to toe >braking, always brake in a straight line and stuff like that. Just do >whatever you feel comfortable with. try turn in little early or later to see >what you can do. Just make sure you stay on the track, you will notice a big >difference. >I am no expert because I only have the demo and 15fps (video card comes in >sunday, GPL next Tuesday or so) But I got down to 1:06 at the Glen just by >doing a lot of practicing. If I can do it, you can do it too

Let me know your times at WG with the full program. If you're running 1:06 with only 15fps in the demo, and I'm only running 1:07.61 with 36fps in the full game...? Something's wrong here. I'd like a closer comparison. Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> <<LIBERALLY SNIPPED TO SAVE SPACE>> > Somebody will ultimately get it right, though -- and the latest > contender appears to be the WSC folks. I hope they're listening to all > this . . . > -- JB

John, There are many of us that have these hopes for WSC and the Trans-Am sim. But if only one raises the current gpl bench mark, I'll be pleasantly surprised. Joel Willstein

EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, Pat Dotson > <[email hidden]> writes: > You got to 1:29 in less than 20 laps?!? I haven't gotten to 1:29 in morethan > a YEAR...and I've had *plenty* of crashes and spins. I can't figure outhow > you're doing it! If I push to go faster, brake later, or even try adiferent > line sometimes, I'm in the weeds(or wall). Are you just THAT MUCH betterthan > me? That's depressing... > > You also mentioned others are either not able to adapt, or have theirhardware > setup wrong. Assuming that I *can* adapt(or have been able to before),how > should my hardware be setup? I have an AMD k6-2 350(128MB) with a voodoo3and > 15" monitor(win95). I can usually get over 30fps. I'm using a TSW2modwheel > and pedal set. My PB at Monza is only 1:30.50 after about 14(?) months. > Any suggestions? (and be NICE<g>) > Eldred Eldred, I've read all your posts about the majical 1:29 lap at Monza and you struggle to get there. Hope you're running a Lotus or Eagle. I've been driving a Ferrari and a Brabham for the last 6 months, and rarely turn a 1:29 at Monza online. Tons and tons of very low 1:30s. Then just for the sake of it, I used my basic Monza setup and applied it to both the Lotus and the Eagle. I was turning 1:29s from the 2nd lap on in training mode,even turned a few 1:28s in each car. Monza is easy for fast laps. But I'm still faster at Zandvoort,Mosport,Kyalami, & Rouen in the Ferrari. For me GPL online racing isn't about driving the fastest cars, it's about driving the car of my choice for that night to the best of my ability in a clean professional manner. I run in some league/clubs where 1:24s at the Glen and 1:26-7s are the norm for the front of the grid. I'm a mid packer at best. But I'm usually there at the end of the race. I'm invited to join simply because of my style and reputation, not my speed. There are plenty of really fast guys out there that will never get into these leagues simply because of their diving style. Joel Willstein [email hidden]

Eldred, I meant to imply that Viper was on the GPL end of the spectrum -- it IS a lot easier to control than GPL, but more difficult (in full sim mode) than most others aside from GPL. FWIW, having been away from GPL for a while, and now getting back into it, I am TRULY amazed at how wonderful this game is, and how easy it is to get back into. IMO, the ONLY major problem with GPL -- and the ONLY thing that kept it from being a major success -- is that it was a SIMULATION with no GAME mode, and, hence, it was unaccessible to those who wanted something slightly less than a full-blown simulation. Viper Racing was a great simulation that provided an "arcade" version for those less-serious drivers, and the fact that it fared better than GPL in terms of sales could be partially attributed to that, I think. In this respect, I still think that there IS a happy medium to be met, and someday, some developer is going to give us a game that can be as fun as NFS for people who like that kind of game, and as demanding as GPL for those who want ultimate realism. DTR kind of hits this mark, but if you don't like dirt racing on ovals, then DTR may be too specialized for you to enjoy. Still, Ratbag has showed us that it can be done, potentially. That said, I believe that if hardware upgrades (primarily video cards) don't render GPL's limited suite of graphics compatibility obsolete, I probably WILL still be playing around with it still in 2002 and maybe beyond. The graphics issue is a tough one, though, because the Rendition/Voodoo support may become a problem over time -- I no longer play ICR2 because I no longer have a Rendition card installed . . . quite a shame, too. Long live GPL! -- JB In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > In article <865cct$qa0$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] writes: > > >Somewhere in between NFS and GPL there's a VERY happy medium that has > >yet to be reached. Viper Racing is just a tad too twitchy (a laGPL), > > That's strange - I found Viper a LOT easier to control than GPL...andI had GPL

Quoted text (8 lines)

> for longer... > > Eldred > -- > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then

beats you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply. > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <86psl8$8km$[email hidden]>, "Joel Willstein" <[email hidden]> writes: >Eldred, > > I've read all your posts about the majical 1:29 lap at Monza and you >struggle to get there. Hope you're running a Lotus or Eagle. >I started in the Eagle, but switched to the Ferrari after Alison posted her settings. I haven't gone back to the Eagle enough to 're-learn' it.(yet) I'm running Coopers in a league, and that's very interesting...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> I've been driving a Ferrari and a Brabham for the last 6 months, and >rarely turn a 1:29 at Monza online. Tons and tons of very low 1:30s. Then >just for the sake of it, I used my basic Monza setup and applied it to both >the Lotus and the Eagle. I was turning 1:29s from the 2nd lap on in training >mode,even turned a few 1:28s in each car. Monza is easy for fast laps. But >I'm still faster at Zandvoort,Mosport,Kyalami, & Rouen in the Ferrari. > > For me GPL online racing isn't about driving the fastest cars, it's >about driving the car of my choice for that night to the best of my ability >in a clean professional manner. I run in some league/clubs where 1:24s at >the Glen and 1:26-7s are the norm for the front of the grid. I'm a mid >packer at best. But I'm usually there at the end of the race. I'm invited to >join simply because of my style and reputation, not my speed. There are >plenty of really fast guys out there that will never get into these leagues >simply because of their diving style.

Oh, I'm *there* at the end. I may be a couple of laps down, but I finish every race I start(barring a disco). And, I don't *think* I get in the way too much. I usually finish last of all the non-quitting drivers.<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <86qhi9$vhr$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] writes: >Eldred, > >I meant to imply that Viper was on the GPL end of the spectrum -- it IS >a lot easier to control than GPL, but more difficult (in full sim mode) >than most others aside from GPL. >Oh, ok. Point taken.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>FWIW, having been away from GPL for a while, and now getting back into >it, I am TRULY amazed at how wonderful this game is, and how easy it is >to get back into. IMO, the ONLY major problem with GPL -- and the ONLY >thing that kept it from being a major success -- is that it was a >SIMULATION with no GAME mode, and, hence, it was unaccessible to those >who wanted something slightly less than a full-blown simulation. Viper >Racing was a great simulation that provided an "arcade" version for >those less-serious drivers, and the fact that it fared better than GPL >in terms of sales could be partially attributed to that, I think. >

I showed GPL to a couple of friends. They had too many problems keeping the car on the track. And since their systems weren't strong enough to run it, they lacked the seat time to get GOOD at it. So, I could never race them on my LAN... :( Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.