Hello Gran Turismo 2, Sleep Well PC

Two years since the first edition of GT, the sequel, released in the UK, keeps this game at the top of the tree in my opinion. Where else can you race 600 cars, all with individual characteristics and tweaks?. The GT1 cars are breathtaking and I can now drive a Lotus Elise, at least in virtual reality. I'm still playing the original, which is still a great game in its own right. Never has so much detail and gameplay been lavished on an ageing console format - it's a unique achievement! With fun like this at an all in cost, including machine of around 100, who gives a damn about P3 1000's and this year's trendy video card. I have a feeling my PC sims will be gathering dust for quite a while - at least until GP3 comes out. Best wishes Chris

(damn! I thought I had this newsreader set to skip commercials) now back to our regular broadcast

>Two years since the first edition of GT, the sequel, released in the UK, >keeps this game at the top of the tree in my opinion. >Where else can you race 600 cars, all with individual characteristics and >tweaks?. The GT1 cars are breathtaking and I can now drive a Lotus Elise, at >least in virtual reality. I love it too. To me, the best feature is the selection of cars, and with reasonable fidelity (not just different skins). Drive an Elise, S2000, GT40, all the way from a Toyota LeMans car to a stock Astra. It, alas, is missing Ferrari, Lamborghini, BMW's M-cars, the latest Porsche's (they have Rufs only) the current gen Vette. Otherwise, it has everthing I'd like. But it is far from perfect. I think the performance is overestimated. At least it was in the first (150 hp Civic Si's capable of 150 mph? Yeah, fersure). No dash. And most importantly, while the driving and hot-lapping is excellent, the racing is far less so. It is badly marred by the "catchup" compensation AI and the bumper-car action and aggresiveness of very clueless AI (and, umm, me sometimes :-)). BTW, I can't get my tweaked Elise 190 (300+ hp) to handle worth a damn. It will always spin out even when I'm SS high-speed cornering. For me, that honeymoon lasted 2-3 weeks. I've now found I'm more interested in really giving GPL a try. Hmm, maybe GT helped me as I've gone from clueless to 1:07 WG's and a 1:30.000 (damn!!) Monza.

Well man i am glad that you enjoy your consol games...The only real "sim" is on a PC, and that is grand prix Legends. Grand Turismo maybe fun..but a "SIM" it is not, and no consol game will ever beat a good PC sim. Even the new superbike 2000 (EA Sports) is being made easier for the consol , and harder for the PC ..just check EA's site to see.

> Well man i am glad that you enjoy your consol games...The only real "sim" is > on a PC, and that is grand prix Legends. > Grand Turismo maybe fun..but a "SIM" it is not, and no consol game will ever > beat a good PC sim. > Even the new superbike 2000 (EA Sports) is being made easier for the consol

Quoted text (9 lines)

> , and harder for the PC ..just check EA's site to see. > > Two years since the first edition of GT, the sequel, released in the UK, > > keeps this game at the top of the tree in my opinion. > > Where else can you race 600 cars, all with individual characteristics

and > > tweaks?. The GT1 cars are breathtaking and I can now drive a Lotus Elise,

Quoted text (12 lines)

> at > > least in virtual reality. > > I'm still playing the original, which is still a great game in its own > > right. Never has so much detail and gameplay been lavished on an ageing > > console format - it's a unique achievement! > > With fun like this at an all in cost, including machine of around 100, > who > > gives a damn about P3 1000's and this year's trendy video card. > > I have a feeling my PC sims will be gathering dust for quite a while -

at > > least until GP3 comes out. > > Best wishes > > Chris

What do you drive with on a PS? Either a hand controller or piece of *** mad catz wheel? Not exactly realistic or precise. I'll stick with my TSW2, LWFF along with GPL, N3, SCGT, NFSHS and the rest. I get your point but GT will never be the best in 640x480 with a $20 dual shock. Too bad bc at $400 for a PS2 and $40 for GT2000 that could be some combo with a good wheel on a 35 inch TV. Joe Marques

Are you talking about GT2, the most buggest Playstation game -ever- ? So bugged that you can replace your crappy copies to Sony ? And the replacement versions are still very buggy and offer not much compared to the original version? Only good thing is gameplay, as for physics and graphics.. those are very bad points. Just a good arcade game with solid gameplay and great lenghts of replayability. -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Sure you can "race" with 600 cars but only "race" against 5 other cars at a time. I don't think the PC users are worried yet. We won't even talk about the graphics. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

[email hidden] (David Masten) wrote, in article <86uv46$6uds$[email hidden]>: > >BTW, I can't get my tweaked Elise 190 (300+ hp) to handle worth a damn. >It will always spin out even when I'm SS high-speed cornering. Have you adjusted the LSD settings? I think the physics model assumes wheel spin can be provoked very easily otherwise, causing instant loss of traction and induced oversteer. I had been leaving the acceleration and deceleration settings as they came, and raising just the "initial" (does that mean "base"?) setting --to the max for anything over 500bhp, and somewhat less for other cars. But now I think for a RWD car you want the acceleration setting high, initial somewhat low, and deceleration setting very low. For a Denso Sard Supra GT in the Laguna Seca 200 mile race last night I used: LSD initial 20 LSD acceleration 56 (max) LSD deceleration 1 (min) I found all the Lotuses I looked at "twitchy". (I looked at a lot because I want to see if I cat get one close to the 295bhp limit for the Trial Mountain 30, and see if it can catch the cheating AI Vector). I think different sets of GT and GT2 car simulations are created by different people and some have more innate stability than others, regardless of how you tweak them, and others are really easy to make a real mess of, and can be made just tolerable with a bit of difficulty. Many, if not all, MR cars in GT2 have a, perhaps not unrealistic, tendency to spin easily. Adrian.

ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eyNk4.6162$[email hidden]... > No bugs to me are minor. On the PC, we have this great (and not great) > thing called a patch, which of course is very difficult to implement on a > Console-based game. GT2 is ridiculised on PS newsgroups, and many > websites. They did a very bad error with such a decision. I mean cmonyou > think that features _left out_ are minor bugs ? Left out features are not bugs at all, and surely you must know this. > The cars are worse than in GT. They have a lower polygon count, and have > very edgy parts, especially between the side panels and roof/hood. Theyare > not as spectacular as in the original title. I haven't played GT2 yet, but I expect to soon. However, it is very refreshing to read that the playstation people are just as screwed as the PC gaming people when it come to russhing crap out the door. > > As to the physics, I've noted one shortcoming previously. Ya know, I > > get the feeling that most people who talk about physics here, and in the > > FS ng, really don't have the info or background to have what I'd > > consider to be an expert witness opinion. > > LOL! What the heck do you know about us ? Many of us are real liferacecar > driver. What do you want more ? We've read tons of books.. the whole "to > win" series. I think we can tell quality physics from physics that are > there to please the majority. Um... I hate to break it to you, but I am 105% sure that Dave is a Physicist. As such, I expect he would know more about the subject than people that read books. > GT2's physics are as good as what an arcade racer can be. Sure they are > fun, but not accurate. Just throw the car into the corner, and see howthe > output results in. It's as simple as that. It's how the short-minded > average gamer likes it. They like to trailbrake in a very unrealisticway, > which makes fun races but not very accurate. Yes Im talking about the > Simulation CD btw ;) Especially on the PS, which has no accurate > controller. Cheap plastic wheels, or gamepads. I thought you could use the ActLabs FF wheel on the playstation. Surely after over a year of hype, that has been done by now. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

"David Masten" <[email hidden]> wrote > Methinks you overstate. For those who are wondering, yes, the consensus > is that GT2 was rushed out the door for the Xmas season. It has one > major bug where some have lost their garage-full of cars (many think it > has something to do with the "machine test"). If it happened to me, > yes, I'd probably scream bloody murder. All the other bugs are, IMHO, > very minor. No bugs to me are minor. On the PC, we have this great (and not great) thing called a patch, which of course is very difficult to implement on a Console-based game. GT2 is ridiculised on PS newsgroups, and many websites. They did a very bad error with such a decision. I mean cmon you think that features _left out_ are minor bugs ? > Well, the graphics are certainly not up to PC standards, which I gather > is your point. I agree. One shouldn't come away with the impression > that they are a letdown to those familiar with PSX limitations. The cars are worse than in GT. They have a lower polygon count, and have very edgy parts, especially between the side panels and roof/hood. They are not as spectacular as in the original title. > As to the physics, I've noted one shortcoming previously. Ya know, I > get the feeling that most people who talk about physics here, and in the > FS ng, really don't have the info or background to have what I'd > consider to be an expert witness opinion. LOL! What the heck do you know about us ? Many of us are real life racecar driver. What do you want more ? We've read tons of books.. the whole "to win" series. I think we can tell quality physics from physics that are there to please the majority. GT2's physics are as good as what an arcade racer can be. Sure they are fun, but not accurate. Just throw the car into the corner, and see how the output results in. It's as simple as that. It's how the short-minded average gamer likes it. They like to trailbrake in a very unrealistic way, which makes fun races but not very accurate. Yes Im talking about the Simulation CD btw ;) Especially on the PS, which has no accurate controller. Cheap plastic wheels, or gamepads. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

>Are you talking about GT2, the most buggest Playstation game -ever- ? So >bugged that you can replace your crappy copies to Sony ? Methinks you overstate. For those who are wondering, yes, the consensus is that GT2 was rushed out the door for the Xmas season. It has one major bug where some have lost their garage-full of cars (many think it has something to do with the "machine test"). If it happened to me, yes, I'd probably scream ***y ***. All the other bugs are, IMHO, very minor. They range from the occasional collision detection problem (which I could not testify to) to features that were unfortunately left out. The latter include best laptimes in sim mode, the advertised drag racing, and no longer getting info on your opposition pre-race (again in sim mode). Yes, I'm sorry they weren't included. But they don't prevent this title from being very, very impressive. Again, IMHO. Well, the graphics are certainly not up to PC standards, which I gather is your point. I agree. One shouldn't come away with the impression that they are a letdown to those familiar with PSX limitations. As to the physics, I've noted one shortcoming previously. Ya know, I get the feeling that most people who talk about physics here, and in the FS ng, really don't have the info or background to have what I'd consider to be an expert witness opinion. Yes, many (but not all!) can tell obvious extremes apart, but a lot of the rest is just faith and hype. For example, for years after the release of Falcon3, I saw hundreds of posts on its "almost classified" flight model. For its day it was good, in absolute terms, ***(IMHO :-)). Endless debates on the merits of GP2, SCGT, F1RS, Viper, MGPRS2 come to mind.

In article <eyNk4.6162$[email hidden]>, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >"David Masten" <[email hidden]> wrote >> All the other bugs are, IMHO,very minor. > >No bugs to me are minor. I don't think you really believe that. If there's a momentary glitch on screen resolution change, would you call that a major bug? Or how about when a GPL car "sits" on a hedge at a ninety degree angle, suspended in space? That's major? How do those compare to the realtime slowdown that one inevitably experiences in GP2? For the record, I don't consider the last a bug, just a horrible design decision. >GT2 is ridiculised on PS newsgroups, and many websites. And praised on many more. You and I have been around long enough to know that when unrealistic expectations aren't met, whining begins. And whining is an art not exceeded by any more than netters. I'd expect console advocates to be experts. >They did a very bad error with such a decision. That they released it early for sales is something I agree they did and won't defend. They at least did release a patch (which you apparently consider a negative meanwhile expecting N patch releases for each of the sims you and I play). You haven't yet listed a bug that seriously effects either its sim or gameplay (I did mention THE one, the disappearing garage). > I mean cmon you >think that features _left out_ are minor bugs ? Actually, I don't think they are bugs at all. But yes, I sure would like to know my competition before the race starts. >The cars are worse than in GT. They have a lower polygon count, and have >very edgy parts, especially between the side panels and roof/hood. They are >not as spectacular as in the original title. I did a comparison by switching between the two games. I didn't note any very significant difference. If anything, the second title looked a bit better. >> As to the physics, I've noted one shortcoming previously. Ya know, I >> get the feeling that most people who talk about physics here, and in the >> FS ng, really don't have the info or background to have what I'd >> consider to be an expert witness opinion. > >LOL! What the heck do you know about us ? I've read your posts for as long as you've been here. I've been around that long, and longer. Just I get tired of it sometimes. > Many of us are real life racecar driver. (Partial) apology to those. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there aren't some very educated informative people here. But some of you just go on one-man campaigns against sim/games they dislike. And many more just talk about F1 cars not "feeling right". I use endless debates about F1RS/MGPRS2 as an example. The discussion generally centers on "canned spins" and "riding on rails" and "steering doesn't feel real", not on talk of weight transfer, rotational inertia, bump steer... And even a "racecar" driver (does that mean a professional, or one who has taken a Bondourant course?), isn't necessarily privy to enough info to be an "expert witness" on a physics model (more on this below). >What do you want more ? We've read tons of books.. the whole "to >win" series. I think we can tell quality physics from physics that are >there to please the majority. Well, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Suspension performance is not only about spring/damper/sway rates and bump stops. The actual geometry of the links has a big effect. How is this handled in the sims you laud (we'll assume it isn't in the ones you don't)? Do you really know what is under the cover of these physics models, or just go by the honor system? I work every day with modeling and simulation of complex systems. Before I pass final judgement on a physics model, I'd have to look "under the cover" and see what governing eqns are used. Sure you can tell a lot by judging the end results, how it works when you "drive" it. That is, afterall, the end goal. But very few of us have driven F1 cars, '67 or '99. Okay, most of us *have* driven cars like in GT2, thus the comparison is more valid. Input from racecar drivers is not only informative and welcome, but should be in part what this ng is about. I'd be interested in more concrete and specific examples of car behavior where you think GT2 fails, and where say SCGT (or pick another game with cars you've driven) succeeds.

"Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote > Left out features are not bugs at all, and surely you must know this. So for your left-out features are a good thing ? Especially on console-based games, in which you have about no chance unless you need to do extreme measures to fix the problems like for GT2. > I haven't played GT2 yet, but I expect to soon. However, it is very > refreshing to read that the playstation people are just as screwed > as the PC gaming people when it come to russhing crap out the > door. Well, your right about that. Console games are not immunised from bugs, au contraire. > Um... I hate to break it to you, but I am 105% sure that Dave is a > Physicist. As such, I expect he would know more about the subject > than people that read books. Please don't tell me that he find GT2's physics to be realistic. What about driving -racecars-. Touring Cars, little drag racing, Karting, Driving Schools, normal life cars in the normal world... That's way enough to see that GT2 is an arcade game that is very fun and has a deep gameplay, but lacks many parts in the realism aspect of the game. > I thought you could use the ActLabs FF wheel on the playstation. > Surely after over a year of hype, that has been done by now. Ok, you have a point here. So, how is it on a quality plastic wheel ? -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"David Masten" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I don't think you really believe that. > If there's a momentary glitch on screen resolution change, would you > call that a major bug? > Or how about when a GPL car "sits" on a hedge at > a ninety degree angle, suspended in space? That's major? How do those > compare to the realtime slowdown that one inevitably experiences in GP2? > For the record, I don't consider the last a bug, just a horrible design > decision.

Yes and your point is ? Shows that every titles aren't perfect. GPL is the closest to perfection, but has of course plenty of flaws in terms of realistic racing simulators. What do you want to learn me here ? It's not like your talking to a newbie. > And praised on many more. You and I have been around long enough to > know that when unrealistic expectations aren't met, whining begins. And > whining is an art not exceeded by any more than netters. I'd expect > console advocates to be experts. Uh have you -ever- read the reviews in gaming magazine ? It was a very big letdown for many, as it brought little to the original titles. More cars, but wow look at how many you can drive against in maximum on the track. > I did a comparison by switching between the two games. I didn't note > any very significant difference. If anything, the second title looked a > bit better. Well I, and most of the game reviewers criticised the game for such a thing. It clearly shows wide pixels at those parts of the tracks, much more than in GT. Also, the wings are pretty much pathetically done. > I've read your posts for as long as you've been here. I've been around > that long, and longer. Just I get tired of it sometimes. Yes and you made the people assume that some of us knew nothing about how a racecar should act. I would suggest that you actually think that if you were in a racecar in the same situation than in GT2 but in real-life, the cars would act the same way ? Bollocks I say. Im sorry but what's your point btw ? Your trying to generalise our whole view as a community of how racing games should be. Nobody elected you to do so, we are just sharing opinions here. And you won't change ours. Like I won't change yours. Heck we are talking about GT2 having fun but NOT realistic physics.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> (Partial) apology to those. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that > there aren't some very educated informative people here. But some of > you just go on one-man campaigns against sim/games they dislike. And > many more just talk about F1 cars not "feeling right". I use endless > debates about F1RS/MGPRS2 as an example. The discussion generally > centers on "canned spins" and "riding on rails" and "steering doesn't > feel real", not on talk of weight transfer, rotational inertia, bump > steer... And even a "racecar" driver (does that mean a professional, or > one who has taken a Bondourant course?), isn't necessarily privy to > enough info to be an "expert witness" on a physics model (more on this > below).

Most if not all the racing games on the market have settings like weight transfer, rotational inertia and such... Most of them have it accurately modeled, except few exceptions. Some of them fail at different level, also.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Well, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Suspension performance > is not only about spring/damper/sway rates and bump stops. The actual > geometry of the links has a big effect. How is this handled in the sims > you laud (we'll assume it isn't in the ones you don't)? Do you really > know what is under the cover of these physics models, or just go by the > honor system? I work every day with modeling and simulation of complex > systems. Before I pass final judgement on a physics model, I'd have to > look "under the cover" and see what governing eqns are used.

Everybody here have to assume. You, me, everybody. We trust gaming developpers with a long history of quality titles, so that their titles are accurately done in terms of physics. Extremely canned physics just don't feel good. You can feel it behind the sim wheel. Any driver with experience would tell you. A car is a car is a car. Some of them don't feel right, thus they are -not- right. Some of them of course feel right but are not right. Which ones are them ? We don't know, but they feel right. So your assuming here that Gran Turismo 2 has incredibly sophisticated physics never achieved in racing simulations. Pfffft. What's next, Ford Racing is a serious sim ? > Sure you can tell a lot by judging the end results, how it works when > you "drive" it. That is, afterall, the end goal. But very few of us > have driven F1 cars, '67 or '99. Okay, most of us *have* driven cars > like in GT2, thus the comparison is more valid. Input from racecar > drivers is not only informative and welcome, but should be in part what > this ng is about. The few of us that have reported how accurate some simulators are compared to otherse. Clearly everybody who tried GT2 or the original said that it's a quality fun title but with questionable physics compared to real-life. Also, why care ? Nobody at Sony would listen anyway. GT2 is a quality arcade game. What do you want more ? It's a great blast, nice replayability. But having realistic physics ? Sorry but no. I have driven many of those cars, and they do not feel right. It's not like in real-life. So there is a flaw somewhere no ? You don't need to be a physicist to know that. No need to be a Football fanatic to see that the SuperBowl was a great game. > I'd be interested in more concrete and specific examples of car > behavior where you think GT2 fails, and where say SCGT (or pick another > game with cars you've driven) succeeds. I have never said that SCGT succeeded. Why do you ASSume that ? Why don't -you- give us your supposed insights on how GT2 is that incredible simulator even if most of the FWD cars feel sloppy like in TOCA, with a very wrong pendulum movement. It's as exaggerated as RC2k, but on the opposite. Ever tried the most powerful brakes in GT2 ? It would put F1 brakes to shame. Or the tyre slip angle ? Look how far you can transfer the weight without having the tyre breaking loose. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I won't even begin to get into this argument. I've driven GPL, N3 with GPL's physics, SCGT, etc... My choice to drive right now would be GT2 for the sheer variety (read: tons and tons of cars to choose from and modify to no end), the sense of speed (much better than GT1, must be those fatter pixels, lol), the depth of the garage (what the heck did I buy this fully adjustable limited slip differential doohickey for?) and the tangible feel that changes to the setup actually affect the car realistically (uh oh, I blew it<g>). Of course it's not perfect, no driving sim is, but I can't stop driving it. The tracks are unbelievable too, all 40 or so, of em. And yes you can only race against 5 cars at a time because of the physics. (Hmm, sounds like the original N3 to me<vbg>...processing-overhead anyone?). Right now I race in a league called FGT2, (http://www.granturismo.com/cgi-ubb/Ultimate.cgi) using 4 door sedans, weighing over 2350 lbs and having less than 303 horsepower, and all I can say is wow!! Never have I been so hard pressed to get my car to perform against the other 50 drivers in the league. Every tenth counts with my pokey front wheel drive, Nissan Infiniti G20 2.0Te '96. Heck, even my 7 year-old competes also in a 4-wheel drive Subaru Legacy. If anyone is interested, pop over to the forum and join a league or two. You'll get spanked by the fast guys (I'm not nearly one of 'em) but you will learn a thing or two about physics and gosh darnit, some of it'll be accurate, lol. There's also manufacturers contest and IROC (therefore I AM) races where you take a car and its designated settings to a track and see who's the best driver. Actually there are tons of league to join because of the variety supplied by GT2. And no, I've not been hindered one iota by the bugs in the game. Superficial if you ask me, but present nonetheless. It's a welcome change of pace from Nascar and GPL but still requires the old 'grey matter'. You also have the ability to send replays, garages, and settings over the net using a Dex drive. This indeed, keeps the playground fair. So David, I agree, if it weren't for the LAN race in Charlotte this week, my PC would be tucked in too!!

"Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote So for your left-out features are a good thing ? Especially on console-based games, in which you have about no chance unless you need to do extreme measures to fix the problems like for GT2. Well, your right about that. Console games are not immunised from bugs, au contraire. Please don't tell me that he find GT2's physics to be realistic. What about driving -racecars-. Touring Cars, little drag racing, Karting, Driving Schools, normal life cars in the normal world... That's way enough to see that GT2 is an arcade game that is very fun and has a deep gameplay, but lacks many parts in the realism aspect of the game. Ok, you have a point here. So, how is it on a quality plastic wheel ? -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Never released, but Rhawn is a beta tester. > >I've driven GPL, N3 with GPL's physics, SCGT, etc... > IIRC, there is no N3 with GPL's physics engine... > Remco

>I've driven GPL, N3 with GPL's physics, SCGT, etc... IIRC, there is no N3 with GPL's physics engine... Remco

Okay, trying to reel this one in and not just have it be the usual "well, I'm going to change the subject until I'm right" or "I'll just keep misquoting and misunderstanding"... Also, please remember that I too am a fan of sims, perhaps not as avid as you. But we're members of the same community. Though that usually means we come to blows here :-) Never said that. You said no bug is minor. I gave examples that were minor IMO, and I think most would agree (you didn't disagree). Just online. Most every was positive. Including Randy's, who I think is the best driving sim reviewer online (at least that I know of). I agree with the above. Some did say, rightly, that it was essentially more of the same. Given that the hp one plays it on hasn't changed, is it suprising that this is the case? It's a matter of how one weights this. Again, the issue I was debating with you was you calling it buggy and crappy. More of GT1 with a lot more interesting cars is not a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. Which is true ("some"). Now whether you do, I can't say. Again, I ask you to provide examples. Mind you, I am NOT saying that it DOES perform like a racecar. Nor can you show in any of my posts where I claim it does have an excellent physics model, as I did not say that (to be honest, I don't think I'm expert enough to). You said it doesn't. The onus is on you to give the examples. Or don't. But tehn don't expect much buy-in. No, I'm (in vain) generalising how it would be nice if one discussed using concrete examples and logic. Not just getting ones dander up because someone said a console title makes ones PC obsolete (and note I replied to the original poster with favorable comments on GT2 but that I continue to play GPL, et al). Therein lies the problem. If one never changes ones opinion, one is either right all the time, or just obstinate and refusing to learn. Hey, you still might :-) Really? Flywheel inertia? I suppose some do, but I don't know which. See, I don't. So we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'll give you one more example of something I read today here. I won't quote a name, but he's respected here. His quote: "I've driven F1 2000 (visited ISI) and it rocks! I couldn't complete one single clean lap at Monaco without brushing this or breaking that." Now, I'm sure he might have good reasons to think the physics is good. But the above quote essentially says "it was hard, therefore it has good physics". I don't know how many times over the years I've seen this, especially in the flightsim ng. This my friend, is not a convincing argument (though I'll probably still get the sim :-)). Again, I did not say GT2 has an incredibly sophisticated physics model. I challenge you yo show me where I did. BTW, I do recall one of the more vaunted members of this ng praising GT1. As I've seen at least one leading light in the rec.autos.driving ng. Read again. "or pick another game". That is, I used SCGT as an example. Nice play on the ASS, very clever. Again, I didn't say it did. Note that I was refuting your "buggy" and crappy comments. Then you brought in arcade. I didn't say it had the best model. Just that most people who talk about physics don't know what they're talking about. As to TOCA, interesting example. Read Randy Macgruder's excellent review of it. I agree that it doesn't exhibit understeer. Surely GT and GT2 do. I think you are right there. I suspect they exaggerate the weight transfer, both longtiudinally and laterally. Also, they do allow the "simulation tires" option if one wants tires that are more like a real car. In essence, they are admiting that in normal sim mode, that it has been relaxed. Thanks for the examples.

>"David Masten" <[email hidden]> wrote Btw this is a little pointless as a debate. We both have nice points, and agree with many of yours. I like GT2, but I wanted more than what I have. There is some nice settings you change change, in the setups menu and the acceleration/decelleration settings. Heck I'll be playing it for months without having tried all the cars to their full potential 8) > Okay, trying to reel this one in and not just have it be the usual > "well, I'm going to change the subject until I'm right" or "I'll just > keep misquoting and misunderstanding"... You are right. > Also, please remember that I too am a fan of sims, perhaps not as avid > as you. But we're members of the same community. Though that usually > means we come to blows here :-) I am a fan of serious sims and also arcade-based games. Pod Racer is excellent. Screamers 2 was a blast a couple of years ago. Every software is blended somewhere in the middle between GPL and hmm.. Ford Racing. I feel GT2 is in the middle. probably near stuff like Toca or maybe Rally Masters. But it's in a good way. Some titles are just bad, and they are normal on the serious side because of that. Some titles are good, and they are normal on the serious side because of that. Eh I like the last 2sentences I just wrote. > >Yes and your point is ? Shows that every titles aren't perfect. > Never said that. You said no bug is minor. I gave examples that were > minor IMO, and I think most would agree (you didn't disagree). Your right 8) > Just online. Most every was positive. Including Randy's, who I think > is the best driving sim reviewer online (at least that I know of). Yes I agree he is the best. You have a point, I forgot about his review. GT2 is a quality title, just many people were letdown by some factors. I think the real sequel is awaiting the PSX2. > I agree with the above. Some did say, rightly, that it was essentially > more of the same. Given that the hp one plays it on hasn't changed, is > it suprising that this is the case? It's a matter of how one > weights this. Again, the issue I was debating with you was you calling > it buggy and crappy. More of GT1 with a lot more interesting cars is > not a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. Well, essentially the GT series for me is hotlapping or playing against another human. The limited AI creates that, and it's not necessary a bad thing. Like in GPL, I spent most of my time alone on the track even when there's AI on the track. > Which is true ("some"). Now whether you do, I can't say. I would qualify my racing background as being very helpfull in deciding on how the cars should feel. Of course I have never drove a Mercedes CLK, but I know how the normal road cars should act, even in racing configuration. FWD, RWD or 4WD. I think any freaks like us are able too ;-) > Again, I ask you to provide examples. Mind you, I am NOT saying that it > DOES perform like a racecar. Nor can you show in any of my posts where > I claim it does have an excellent physics model, as I did not say that > (to be honest, I don't think I'm expert enough to). You said it > doesn't. The onus is on you to give the examples. Or don't. But > tehn don't expect much buy-in. Well I think we reached a concensus further into the message. I say that it's sligthy unrealistic, but enough for me to say to myself "Well I know this ain't really how the cars act, but it won't keep me from having fun". I said myself the same even for Nascar Racing 3, but the only one at the moment I won't say this is GPL. And that's a fact Jack! (inside joke to Conan O'Brien fans). > No, I'm (in vain) generalising how it would be nice if one discussed > using concrete examples and logic. Not just getting ones dander up > because someone said a console title makes ones PC obsolete (and note I > replied to the original poster with favorable comments on GT2 but that I > continue to play GPL, et al). I agree with that. I think as a community we have developped a sense of opinion more than just "it suks" and "it rulz". Since we are mostly speaking to our own community, the usage of technical terms is for me not always necessary. Sure we talk about suspension geometry in GPL but in normal discussion here we won't. There's no need for me to say that Ford Racing sucks because they are not able to "correctly model the tyre patch surface under circumstances within it's environment". Any fool can see how it's badly created. Many titles on the market use badly canned effects. You know like me that even GPL is canned, if we push the limits here. Someday we might have a real game engine that does Real-Time 3d architecture within it's own environment, but those days are far away I say... Ok maybe half a decade ;) > Therein lies the problem. If one never changes ones opinion, one is > either right all the time, or just obstinate and refusing to learn. > >Like I won't change yours. > Hey, you still might :-) Ok.. hmm <Force Mind trick> ;-) > >Most if not all the racing games on the market have settings like weight > >transfer, rotational inertia and such... > Really? Flywheel inertia? I suppose some do, but I don't know which. Good Q. I suspect that the processor power is well enough today to model such things in simulations. If the WSC tells us they will do it and it's pretty much easy, I suspect most of the quality game engines, ISI's, MGI's, Papy's new one and so have such model effect. I know Ubisoft's one has very limited effects in terms of weight movements. For them, static is the rule in F1, which I disagree with. Even if the suspension in F1 has a gap between both edges of not even a centimeter (according to the tech stuff I have read), it has a very flowing weight possibility that should affect the car much more. Which is why I feel that RC2k has a too stiff chassis model also. Darn Im babbling and searching my terms here btw.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I'll give you one more example of something I read today here. > I won't quote a name, but he's respected here. His quote: > "I've driven F1 2000 (visited ISI) and it rocks! I couldn't complete one > single clean lap at Monaco without brushing this or breaking that." > Now, I'm sure he might have good reasons to think the physics is good. > But the above quote essentially says "it was hard, therefore it has good > physics". I don't know how many times over the years I've seen this, > especially in the flightsim ng. This my friend, is not a convincing > argument (though I'll probably still get the sim :-)).

Actually you bring a very interesting point. I know who said that, and It also made my mind tickle a little bit :) . I personally feel that the more realistic the physics should be, that the learning curve is exponentially harder. Racing is not an easy task. It is not something that anybody can perform well. It's not like being able to ride a bike. I quite understand the logic behind his comments. For him, since it's harder, there is a bigger chance for the racing physics to be realistic, or at least.. give a sensation of realism. I do not expect to sit in a F1 car and have an easy ride. Or even a Formula Ford, or a simple Kart if I want to perform at the maximum capabilities that a Kart can give you. <snip good points> > I suspect they exaggerate the weight transfer, both longtiudinally and > laterally. Also, they do allow the "simulation tires" option if one > wants tires that are more like a real car. In essence, they are > admiting that in normal sim mode, that it has been relaxed. Thanks for > the examples. Yes those street tyres really bring it to a higher level of realism. Btw maybe I'll try to look on the Dodge Vipers and compare them to the MGI model of it. I would expect some subtle differences. I have found the MGI model to be a little too light, but very realistic to it's real-life driving capabilities. I also feel some cars have a tendency to overspin a little, as with some little problems in the Z-axis part of the simulation. Riding kurbs seem to have a very little effect on the suspension. I would expect when riding on them that the suspension gives me a low-frequency effect on them, but I don't get that. Finally, I would expect a better collision model, but it's not what Im researching for in GT2. But of course, I could be wrong. -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

In a word AWESOME!. More than 9 cars in multiplayer (AI didnt work yet) and you had a 2 frames per second slide show. To many calculations going on for the PC and thus they had to s***it. Hated it but hey, they gotta stay afloat until the hardware can keep up.

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Ah, thanks. Now Rhawn, how was it? <g> > Remco > >Never released, but Rhawn is a beta tester. > >> >I've driven GPL, N3 with GPL's physics, SCGT, etc... > >> IIRC, there is no N3 with GPL's physics engine...

Ah, thanks. Now Rhawn, how was it? <g> Remco

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Never released, but Rhawn is a beta tester. >> >I've driven GPL, N3 with GPL's physics, SCGT, etc... >> IIRC, there is no N3 with GPL's physics engine...

Who are Lotus DB

uhm ... what?

Who's on second... -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Best team ever, EVER in the history of Grand Prix racing. Also the most beautiful car of the 1967 season :o) They were run in their golden era by the legendary Colin Chapman and his cars were driven by such greats as Mario Andretti, Jim Clark, Graham Hill, Stirling Moss, Ronnie Peterssssson and (later, after Chapman had passed away) that Brazilian 'Aryton Senna'. Many of the cars were revolutionary, but ask someone who know's better about that :-) > Who are Lotus > DB -- Rob Swindells "Add life to your days, not days to your life." "The greatest substitute for talent is hard work." "Doing it, is better than watching it, is better than simulating it." "I may not be perfect, but parts of me are excellent."

Im sorry, my 11-year old son has been here. His grown up father knows what Lotus is (at least was) P

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Come again??? > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Who are Lotus > > DB > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News

==---------- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

no problem with that here - thanks god this is no ng where you get flamed badly ... unless you say something against GPL of course ;-) Lio

Me. I'm a Lotus! But I'm only 23. So I'm a Lotus 23. -- ----------------------------------- Morgan Vincent Wooten http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ -----------------------------------

Come again??? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

LOL!!! Well, Per, you'll just have to sit him on your knee and tell him the story that starts, "once upon a time a man named Colin.........." :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > Im sorry, my 11-year old son has been here. > His grown up father knows what Lotus is (at least was) > P > > Come again??? > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > Who are Lotus > > > DB > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News > ==---------- > > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > > ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers > ==----- -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

> LOL!!! > Well, Per, you'll just have to sit him on your knee and tell him the story > that starts, "once upon a time a man named Colin.........." :-) .....changed the way we look at cars for ever, one day I *will* own a Super7 ...:-) I love that phrase, "adding lightness" Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy

Trouble was, Goy, in some instances he added just a bit too much! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > > LOL!!! > > Well, Per, you'll just have to sit him on your knee and tell him the story > > that starts, "once upon a time a man named Colin.........." :-) > .....changed the way we look at cars for ever, one day I *will* own a > Super7 ...:-) > I love that phrase, "adding lightness" > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Not sure about best ever but certainly the most innovative. Also the most beautiful car of the 1967 season :o) Hehe. Apart from the Eagle I think you forgot a certain 1992 champ as well Rob <G> MS

Heaven forbid someone mentions HWM, Osella or Dome <G> Mark

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Im sorry, my 11-year old son has been here. > His grown up father knows what Lotus is (at least was) > P > > Come again??? > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > Who are Lotus > > > DB > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News > ==---------- > > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the

World! > > ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers > ==-----

>> Who are Lotus >Who's on second... I know who's on second, what I want to know is who's on first. -Tim

Oh Francois, you never heard of Abbott and Costello? -- Richard "ZZ" Busch Official member: Screamers Racing League Sim Racing Mag Honda Challenge NASROC ---------------- Busch Motorsports: Remember racecar is racecar spelled backward ----------------- Busch Carpentry: Plans?, Oh, you mean that napkin sketch? NOTICE TO BULK E-MAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, p.227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to download and archival fee in the amount of Five-Hundred Dollars U.S. E-Mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.

Errr Richard, I was just continuing that same Abbott and Costello dialogue :) Should had wrote "I don't know" ;) -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Lotus. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > >> Who are Lotus > >Who's on second... > I know who's on second, what I want to know is who's on first. > -Tim -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----