Do new physics engines make a difference?

I've noticed a few posts with concerns that Grand Prix 3 won't live up to expectations because it uses the GP2 engine and doesn't have a new one all for itself. What I was wondering was whether or not it needs to have a new engine, as long as the one its using does the job well? Some of you certainly seemed to think so, whilst others thought that it was fine to stick with what works. Somebody also said that they wouldn't't be spending 30 for new weather effects and nice graphics, but is that all we get when a sim uses the same engine more than once? Let me remind you that Gran Turismo 2 uses the same physics engine as the original Gran Turismo, but is far superior than its predecessor. Whilst you could claim that all they've given us is new cars, tracks and a higher frame rate, the fact is that that is more than enough for the follow-up to GT. It doesn't need much more than that to sell and sell well. I'm also perfectly aware that sometimes using the same engine can be a mistake and doesn't make many improvements. Take Nascar 3 for example. Little has changed since N1 and N2. I wouldn't consider myself to be a great fan of the GP2 engine. Whilst it has lead the race table for many years (right up to Grand Prix Legends), I've raced it a lot and have never found it to feel quite good enough. I've read that Jeoff has made a lot of changes to the GP2 engine for use with GP3, but I too am wondering if it's going to be as good as we all expect. Judging by Jeoff's previous titles and reputation, I'm sure it will, but I would be interested to hear whether or not YOU think you need a new physics engine with each title for it to be any good, or would you be happy with some minor tweaks to the physics, but superior graphics, options, tracks, cars, weather effects, sounds, etc? Neo

This is taken straight from www.f1-grandprix3.com (official site) "Completely rebuilt simulation system featuring new Physics" So it's GP2 with new physics and new graphics, sounds like 30 worth to me. David C

On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:08:41 -0000, "David Cane" >This is taken straight from www.f1-grandprix3.com (official site) >"Completely rebuilt simulation system featuring new Physics" >So it's GP2 with new physics and new graphics, sounds like 30 worth to me. That's odd. In the PC Gamer (UK) interview with Jeoff Crammond I think I remember something about the same physics engine being used. Or was it in an on-line interview I read it? Clearly I'm not alone in thinking about GP3 would be using the GP2 engine, which you'll see if you find some of the negative GP3 postings, but if it does turn out that GP3 uses its own engine, it'll be a blast. But I wonder if by 'new physics' they mean an entirely new physics engine? Remember that Papy still claim that N3 has new physics over N2, which it does, but not by very much. It could be the same sort of thing here. Neo

It's an entirely new physics engine, but you're right, there are negative posts about GP3. They tend to be about other things such as the lack of internet support (big deal), the fact that all cars use the same carshape and will all handle the same, and all share identical***pit layouts.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:08:41 -0000, "David Cane" > >This is taken straight from www.f1-grandprix3.com (official site) > >"Completely rebuilt simulation system featuring new Physics" > >So it's GP2 with new physics and new graphics, sounds like 30 worth to

me.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> That's odd. In the PC Gamer (UK) interview with Jeoff Crammond I think > I remember something about the same physics engine being used. Or was > it in an on-line interview I read it? > Clearly I'm not alone in thinking about GP3 would be using the GP2 > engine, which you'll see if you find some of the negative GP3 > postings, but if it does turn out that GP3 uses its own engine, it'll > be a blast. > But I wonder if by 'new physics' they mean an entirely new physics > engine? Remember that Papy still claim that N3 has new physics over > N2, which it does, but not by very much. It could be the same sort of > thing here. > Neo

> It's an entirely new physics engine, but you're right, there are negative > posts about GP3. > They tend to be about other things such as the lack of internet support (big > deal), It's easy to see that you have never driven in an online race with 15+ other humans! Or at the very least, you have raced online but only once or twice. If you have raced online you would see why it *is* a big deal! Racing against the AI is child's play after racing online, no ifs, ands, or buts about it!

Geeze, are you living in the year 1995 ??????? -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- 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.

Hey, here in UK we have no access to ASDL or Cable modem connections. So for me with just our pathetic little phone-line internet connections, online racing is crap. That's why for me Internet support isn't important at the moment. So I suppose you could say I am living in 1995 as far as the crappy internet connection is concerned. David C

There is no more overblown topic on this newsgroup than that of the "physics engine". It's just code. Then when you realize that most of the cars in the sims we play have never been driven by anyone here, what you get when the physics engine topic is debated is a lot of opinions, but almost no facts to back them up. It's supposed to have an all new engine and unless someone here has absolute proof that it isn't, then this is just another case of r.a.s. negativity. Even if he did redo the code from GP2, it's still "new". No. That's just a person being negative. > I wouldn't consider myself to be a great fan of the GP2 engine. Whilst Well, GP2's***pit didn't jiggle around like GPL's, so that's probably why it doesn't feel quite right to you and others. :-) David G Fisher

I can't imagine anyone could enjoy online racing as much as me, and I was one of the minority a few years ago who was saying that online sim racing could become huge. Turns out I was wrong. GP3 won't be hurt a bit in it's sales by not having TCP/IP capability. Online arcade racing is fairly big on the internet (check MTM2), but online sim racing really has gone nowhere so far. No one bought GPL, and the people who did and race online are basically the same names over the past year and a half. Just a relative handful. Some of them I was racing 2 years ago with CPR, (then found some of them racing MTM2). With 6 billion people on the planet, I really shouldn't be recognizing too many names. Online racing of the more arcade titles is pretty big, and the racing games from MS have done a great job of bringing people to the Zone and making online racing a major feature of their titles. The Papyrus Nascar series had a pretty large following, but many of those racers were of the more arcade mentality, just like MGPRS2. Whatever the numbers were, people who race online are still only a tiny fraction of sim buyers. David G Fisher > > It's an entirely new physics engine, but you're right, there are negative > > posts about GP3. > > They tend to be about other things such as the lack of internet support (big

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > deal), > It's easy to see that you have never driven in an online race with 15+ > other humans! Or at the very least, you have raced online but only once > or twice. If you have raced online you would see why it *is* a big > deal! Racing against the AI is child's play after racing online, no > ifs, ands, or buts about it!

>The most obvious thing that was missing was the complete lack of engine >friction. So the car handled the same in 1st gear as it did in 6th. What do you mean by "friction" in this case? Engine braking due to compression? I do recall that at least F1RS if you costed in a lower gear, you would decelerate more quickly. Don't recall if GP2 did this. Camber it is. Do modern (not WG!) racetracks have much camber?

I think that's the true point here. We all know that per example the old Papyrus game engine is the best example of "FAR" physic modeling. The feel is quite realistic, except of course when we push them to the edges. Which is the basic of any model. It's made to go the further on each side, but it match perfectly real-life, there will be always extremes. Like the Codemaster Engine. FAR, but when you push a car to it's limit it shows it's flaws, like per example Toca. Or GP2. I know GP3 will be extremely fun to drive. I will pay for it anytime, but it has to have at least Internet Racing if not Online community tools. They are missing the boat if they don't. I already know that offline gamers will be very pleased with Gp3. I doubt it can fail. But I won't buy GP3 only to do hotlapping and pass some stupid AI cars!!! See Everquest? AC? Online RPG's ? Quake 3 ? Unreal Tournament ? <insert the multitude of software who today push Internet *** to the mainstream market> -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- 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.

Don't do it folks, it's not worth it! This guy's a bit of a zealot: his mind is well-sealed . . . ;) --DK > > I've noticed a few posts with concerns that Grand Prix 3 won't live up > > to expectations because it uses the GP2 engine and doesn't have a new > > one all for itself. > There is no more overblown topic on this newsgroup than that of the "physics > engine". It's just code. Then when you realize that most of the cars in the > sims we play have never been driven by anyone here, what you get when the > physics engine topic is debated is a lot of opinions, but almost no facts to

Quoted text (8 lines)

> back them up. > > What I was wondering was whether or not it needs to have a new engine, > > as long as the one its using does the job well? Some of you certainly > > seemed to think so, whilst others thought that it was fine to stick > > with what works. > It's supposed to have an all new engine and unless someone here has

absolute

Quoted text (15 lines)

> proof that it isn't, then this is just another case of r.a.s. negativity. > Even if he did redo the code from GP2, it's still "new". > > Somebody also said that they wouldn't't be spending 30 for new > > weather effects and nice graphics, but is that all we get when a sim > > uses the same engine more than once? > No. That's just a person being negative. > > I wouldn't consider myself to be a great fan of the GP2 engine. Whilst > > it has lead the race table for many years (right up to Grand Prix > > Legends), I've raced it a lot and have never found it to feel quite > > good enough. > Well, GP2's***pit didn't jiggle around like GPL's, so that's probably

why > it doesn't feel quite right to you and others. :-) > David G Fisher

GP2 feels pretty primitive to us GPL junkies, and that might be where a lot of the demands for improvement are coming from. The most obvious thing that was missing was the complete lack of engine friction. So the car handled the same in 1st gear as it did in 6th. Also, the tracks were all completely flat across their width. There were no camber (I think that's the right word) changes at all. If they could fix these two things, I'd be pretty happy with it. I understand you'll be able to completely flip the car in GP3, so they are catching up to GPL in at least one respect. :) -A

Quoted text (37 lines)

>I've noticed a few posts with concerns that Grand Prix 3 won't live up >to expectations because it uses the GP2 engine and doesn't have a new >one all for itself. >What I was wondering was whether or not it needs to have a new engine, >as long as the one its using does the job well? Some of you certainly >seemed to think so, whilst others thought that it was fine to stick >with what works. >Somebody also said that they wouldn't't be spending 30 for new >weather effects and nice graphics, but is that all we get when a sim >uses the same engine more than once? >Let me remind you that Gran Turismo 2 uses the same physics engine as >the original Gran Turismo, but is far superior than its predecessor. >Whilst you could claim that all they've given us is new cars, tracks >and a higher frame rate, the fact is that that is more than enough for >the follow-up to GT. It doesn't need much more than that to sell and >sell well. >I'm also perfectly aware that sometimes using the same engine can be a >mistake and doesn't make many improvements. Take Nascar 3 for example. >Little has changed since N1 and N2. >I wouldn't consider myself to be a great fan of the GP2 engine. Whilst >it has lead the race table for many years (right up to Grand Prix >Legends), I've raced it a lot and have never found it to feel quite >good enough. I've read that Jeoff has made a lot of changes to the GP2 >engine for use with GP3, but I too am wondering if it's going to be as >good as we all expect. Judging by Jeoff's previous titles and >reputation, I'm sure it will, but I would be interested to hear >whether or not YOU think you need a new physics engine with each title >for it to be any good, or would you be happy with some minor tweaks to >the physics, but superior graphics, options, tracks, cars, weather >effects, sounds, etc? >Neo

I have to agree 100% with this. Very,very few would have the real life experience to make an accurate judgement on the physics involved,most would have to rely on what they think/feel the physics should be. GP3 will be its own game it doesnt have to earn its worth through comparison. If its physics engine is not as "accurate" as some other games it will be more "accurate" than others-where does it end? You'll either enjoy it or not,new physics engine or re-done GP2 physics engine.WithGeoff Crammond making it you can rest assured it wont be crap.You might not like GP3; but it wont be any Ultima Ascension schemozzle. > > I've noticed a few posts with concerns that Grand Prix 3 won't live up > > to expectations because it uses the GP2 engine and doesn't have a new > > one all for itself. > There is no more overblown topic on this newsgroup than that of the "physics > engine". It's just code. Then when you realize that most of the cars in the > sims we play have never been driven by anyone here, what you get when the > physics engine topic is debated is a lot of opinions, but almost no facts to

Quoted text (8 lines)

> back them up. > > What I was wondering was whether or not it needs to have a new engine, > > as long as the one its using does the job well? Some of you certainly > > seemed to think so, whilst others thought that it was fine to stick > > with what works. > It's supposed to have an all new engine and unless someone here has

absolute

Quoted text (15 lines)

> proof that it isn't, then this is just another case of r.a.s. negativity. > Even if he did redo the code from GP2, it's still "new". > > Somebody also said that they wouldn't't be spending 30 for new > > weather effects and nice graphics, but is that all we get when a sim > > uses the same engine more than once? > No. That's just a person being negative. > > I wouldn't consider myself to be a great fan of the GP2 engine. Whilst > > it has lead the race table for many years (right up to Grand Prix > > Legends), I've raced it a lot and have never found it to feel quite > > good enough. > Well, GP2's***pit didn't jiggle around like GPL's, so that's probably

why > it doesn't feel quite right to you and others. :-) > David G Fisher

Yeah, it is just code.....but it isn't the code we discuss, but the result of the code.... There is a difference between modelling car behaviour and modelling the laws of physics. Things like gravity, inertia, mass, tire contact path, etc. are returning every time. Well, it should be, until now there aren't much games who model a tire contact path. RC2000 for example..... So, to get back on topic, don't confuse Physics and car behaviour. It is possible with a FAR (Feel About Right) physics model to get the behaviour of a car somewhat right, (understeer for a frontwheel driven car for example), while the implementation of the law of physics aren't on an high level... Remco

>>The most obvious thing that was missing was the complete lack of engine >>friction. So the car handled the same in 1st gear as it did in 6th. >What do you mean by "friction" in this case? Engine braking due to >compression? I do recall that at least F1RS if you costed in a lower gear, >you would decelerate more quickly. Don't recall if GP2 did this. Yeah that's what I meant. I'm not too good with technical terms. I'm sure I've noticed some moderate banking in certain places on modern F1 tracks. Or at least I've heard drivers describing certain corners as "off camber". I think it adds a whole lot of character to GPL's tracks. -A

> >Camber it is. Do modern (not WG!) racetracks have much camber? > I'm sure I've noticed some moderate banking in certain places on modern F1 > tracks. Or at least I've heard drivers describing certain corners as "off > camber". I think it adds a whole lot of character to GPL's tracks. Off the top of my head, I can remember a few places with much camber. Number one is the final little kink before the start/finish straight at Interlagos, that one has lots of camber! Try checking out a head-on shot of the grid there, and it really looks weird, and no F1 sim/game has made it looks quite like that yet... The tight esses the infield also has quite a lot of banking, that tight 180 corner at far side of the new Nrburgring has quite a bit of camber, and several corners at Suzuka does too. I'm sure there are many more corners with more or less banking, and it really should be in any sim, as it gives much character to the tracks! -- Arne Martin

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >>The most obvious thing that was missing was the complete lack of engine > >>friction. So the car handled the same in 1st gear as it did in 6th. > >What do you mean by "friction" in this case? Engine braking due to > >compression? I do recall that at least F1RS if you costed in a lower gear, > >you would decelerate more quickly. Don't recall if GP2 did this. > Yeah that's what I meant. I'm not too good with technical terms.

GP2 does model engine braking, and admirably so. Make yourself a nice setup that is fairly neutral in high speed corners (so that you are able to throttle steer - yes, you can do that in GP2!), and then try taking any 1st gear hairpin close to the limit with throttle off. Guaranteed to make you spin any time, because the engine braking doesn't leave much grip on the rears while at the same time the decceleration is putting the weight on the fronts.

online.freeserve.co.uk says... The main thing about GP2 that got to me was the non-constant measure of time. In other words 1 second of sim time did not equal 1 second of real time. This made some slow corners at Monaco seem to last ages. Also, as another poster has said, the tracks need gradient, camber and bumps. Thirdly the AI was a bit flawed. You could pass loads of cars going in to hairpins (Similar to GPL). I would assume Mr. Crammond will have fixed all these problems for GP3. - Michael

Well I'm in the UK using our crappy internet connections for online racing nearly every day, it seems ok to me !!! -- Ian Parker UKGPL League http://members.xoom.com/ukgpl ==

I think that's because of the lack of downforce in slow corners rater than any engine braking. A better test would be to take a slow corner in 6th gear. You'll note that it feels pretty much the same as 1st gear, until you get on the throttle, of course. -A >> >>The most obvious thing that was missing was the complete lack of engine >> >>friction. So the car handled the same in 1st gear as it did in 6th. >> >What do you mean by "friction" in this case? Engine braking due to >> >compression? I do recall that at least F1RS if you costed in a lower gear,

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> >you would decelerate more quickly. Don't recall if GP2 did this. >> Yeah that's what I meant. I'm not too good with technical terms. >GP2 does model engine braking, and admirably so. Make yourself a nice >setup that is fairly neutral in high speed corners (so that you are able >to throttle steer - yes, you can do that in GP2!), and then try taking >any 1st gear hairpin close to the limit with throttle off. Guaranteed to >make you spin any time, because the engine braking doesn't leave much >grip on the rears while at the same time the decceleration is putting >the weight on the fronts.

No, that would be 'updated' and not 'new'.

Quoted text (16 lines)

>> >Camber it is. Do modern (not WG!) racetracks have much camber? >> I'm sure I've noticed some moderate banking in certain places on modern F1 >> tracks. Or at least I've heard drivers describing certain corners as "off >> camber". I think it adds a whole lot of character to GPL's tracks. >Off the top of my head, I can remember a few places with much camber. >Number one is the final little kink before the start/finish straight at >Interlagos, that one has lots of camber! Try checking out a head-on shot >of the grid there, and it really looks weird, and no F1 sim/game has >made it looks quite like that yet... The tight esses the infield also >has quite a lot of banking, that tight 180 corner at far side of the >new Nrburgring has quite a bit of camber, and several corners at Suzuka >does too. I'm sure there are many more corners with more or less >banking, and it really should be in any sim, as it gives much character >to the tracks!

When listening to F1 commentary here in the UK I've heard Martin Brundle talking about off-camber corners all the time. And as for Murray's knowledge on this area, well... erm... oh never mind! :) -- Peter Ives - (AKA Ivington) No person's opinions can be said to be more correct than another's, because each is the sole judge of his or her own experience.

As much as I love GPL and Vroc, I've got to agree with you. Most times I log on, there are probably only 100-150 people racing total, and that really is the only place where GPLers meet up and race. Most of the time there's only one race with a full grid! Compare that with the number of people online at somewhere mainstream like the Zone:-( - Michael

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Hey, here in UK we have no access to ASDL or Cable modem connections. > So for me with just our pathetic little phone-line internet > connections, > online racing is crap. > That's why for me Internet support isn't important at the moment. > So I suppose you could say I am living in 1995 as far as the crappy > internet > connection is concerned.

There *is* ASDL and Cable connection in the UK, but they are *not* widely available yet. And don't forget there is also ISDN. I have a 56k modem here and have enjoyed on-line *** for a few years now, Motorhead was great fun, I even tried a few GP2 and F1RS races on-line, and TOCA 2 is great on-line, and GPL is just awesome! Try to configure your pc for games, and tweak your DUN connection. There are plenty of good sites out there that explain how to do it..... 8-) *Peter* - http://www.cix.co.uk/~peterpc/home.html [address restored]

David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4SEp4.107348$[email hidden]... > I can't imagine anyone could enjoy online racing as much as me, and I was > one of the minority a few years ago who was saying that online sim racing > could become huge. Turns out I was wrong. GP3 won't be hurt a bit in it's > sales by not having TCP/IP capability. Online arcade racing is fairly bigon > the internet (check MTM2), but online sim racing really has gone nowhereso > far. No one bought GPL, and the people who did and race online arebasically > the same names over the past year and a half. Just a relative handful.Some > of them I was racing 2 years ago with CPR, (then found some of them racing > MTM2). With 6 billion people on the planet, I really shouldn't be > recognizing too many names. > > Online racing of the more arcade titles is pretty big, and the racinggames > from MS have done a great job of bringing people to the Zone and making > online racing a major feature of their titles. The Papyrus Nascar serieshad > a pretty large following, but many of those racers were of the more arcade > mentality, just like MGPRS2. Whatever the numbers were, people who race > online are still only a tiny fraction of sim buyers. > > David G Fisher David, I'm one of those online racers at WinVROC thats been there since the beginning. I don't recall ever seeing more than 78 in the chat room and more than 36 or so running races at any one time. So there is usually no more than 100 or so gplers online at any one time. So even if you figure for the differences for the various zones; Europe 100, Eastern half of the US 100, Western half of the USA 100, and then then all of the pacific zones another 50. That's no more than 350-400 racers per day, and thats out of 40,000 units sold. Pretty poor. Nascar 3 online had more than 650 racers when I logged on for my league race. But still out of nearly 500,000 copies sold, that's still a small percentage. So your point of why any producer would care about providing any type of online racing is certainly a valid point. Better to spend your development funds on other areas that matter to the majority. Joel Willstein [email hidden]