A monstrous, thought provoking "sim vs arcade" post

<SNIP about 20 pages of text> Oh my goodness, you should publish this and make money or something. :-) Lee

On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 01:17:26 +0200, Le Professeur

Quoted text (8 lines)

>To put the whole idea in a nutshell: Imperfections in the physics model, and >keyboard or joystick control do NOT devaluate the sim-experience as profoundly >as is commonly proclaimed. When a physics model is not TOO obviously unreal, and >challenging enough, and when the control method is well executed and >challenging, then a simulator can give you EXACTLY the same e***ment as a real >racer. It does not deserve to be slammed. Or: perfect physics alone can >sometimes be insufficient to beat a sim with flawed physics but better in other >aspects.

Good point. The "hard-core" guys can rationalize what they're doing as a simulation, not a game all they want, but when you get right down to it, we're all just dinks sitting at a computer with a plastic steering wheel. Think of yourself this way, and you'll never get crazy enough to post about how accurate GPL cars handle despite never having seen one in person, let along driving a few laps at Monza in one. They're all games. Tim

I offer a different take: the nom-de-plume is an old tradition in public letters. One's personal name might well introduce baggage that the writer is hoping to avoid. At least s/he didn't sign it "Publius," "Junius," or (god forbid) "Cato." And surely this was much more than halfway decent. But cheers all the same, DK PS and you *did* respond ;)

Chris Bloom wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, David Ewing > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Hmmm .... you call yourself "Le Professeur" and you admit that > you're chicken > >.... are you the infamous "Le Chicken" ???!!!??? > > Well what I found brought back some memories and there was a > rumour at that time that Le Chicken was Ymenard. > > In actual fact our brave and fearless leader has been rather > quiet recently, enough time for twenty pages??

I think the English in this post is a little too good to be Francois (no offense, Francois). Dave Ewing -- ***************************************************** David A. Ewing Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] *****************************************************

On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:37:35 +0200, asgeir nes�en <[email hidden]> wrote: >If you think of life in that way, we cannot talk about anything. We're just dinks >sitting on this planet and just doing pointless things... > >No, we need some slack, we need also discuss pointless things from time to time, like >"arcade versus sim". It's fine to discuss it, just not to get too self-important when discussing it. :-) Tim

> To sum it up, people like me aren't trying to simulate being a top class > racing driver, we're trying to simulate being a racing driver. We're aware > of our limitations and don't want the software to make up for them. If > we're crap then we're crap - and we're happy to admit it <g>. I would much > rather be a deserved back marker in Formula Ford than an artificial F1 > Champion. Too damn right. Nail, head, hit. Cheers, Mark Reading, UK

If you think of life in that way, we cannot talk about anything. We're just dinks sitting on this planet and just doing pointless things... No, we need some slack, we need also discuss pointless things from time to time, like "arcade versus sim". ---Asgeir--- "Tim O." wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 01:17:26 +0200, Le Professeur > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >To put the whole idea in a nutshell: Imperfections in the physics model, and > >keyboard or joystick control do NOT devaluate the sim-experience as profoundly > >as is commonly proclaimed. When a physics model is not TOO obviously unreal, and > >challenging enough, and when the control method is well executed and > >challenging, then a simulator can give you EXACTLY the same excitement as a real > >racer. It does not deserve to be slammed. Or: perfect physics alone can > >sometimes be insufficient to beat a sim with flawed physics but better in other > >aspects. > > Good point. The "hard-core" guys can rationalize what they're doing as > a simulation, not a game all they want, but when you get right down to > it, we're all just dinks sitting at a computer with a plastic steering > wheel. > > Think of yourself this way, and you'll never get crazy enough to post > about how accurate GPL cars handle despite never having seen one in > person, let along driving a few laps at Monza in one. > > They're all games. > > Tim

Le Professeur wrote: > the great and intrepid "David Karr" <[email hidden]> wrote: With all this secrecy, it is nice to see you left some clues on your identity, though :-) On topic, I have to agree with what Gregor Veble posted a little further in this thread. I think people can be very sensitive regarding how objects in the real world behave, and therefore, should behave in a simulation. Canned spins can and will be spotted, even by non-hardcore racers. Of course, it all depends on the ideas people have on the world that is simulated. When I first tried out GP500, I could not believe my bike had so much understeer (reality is tough :-) ). Also, the amount of real or virtual racing experience can make or break a sim. People that have tried a great range of simulations will have a better idea of types of physics models, and will be able to tell which feels 'more real' or convincing. I agree with you that a perfect physics model alone does not constitute a great simulation. 'The feel' of the game is made up from a lot of stuff, ranging from graphics, AI and setup-options to a nice intro, menu navigation and other small details. Read the post by Todd Dry ("F1 2000 = disappointing, long") a little further in this NG, and you see what I mean. There will still be a large group of gamers in the world, though, that just wants a simulation in which it can recognize the visual stuff from the real world, and don't care about physics. This group is not necessarily arcade, because accurate sims can deliver an immersive visit to a racetrack too, but they will be just as satisfied with an arcade sim as with a hardcore sim (provided they can use a lot of help :-) ) as long as the experience of 'driving' in a world they recognize is fulfilled. Regards. -- Imar de Vries - [email hidden] - ICQ 6972439

Imar de Vries <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Le Professeur wrote: > > > the great and intrepid "David Karr" <[email hidden]>wrote: > > With all this secrecy, it is nice to see you left some clues on youridentity, > though :-) The full message header provides the rest, for those of us with nothing to do :-) As for where I sit on this, I'm with "Le Professeur". I love the complexity of GPL, but for me, if a sim "feels" right, then for me it *is* right. GPL manages to be both an incredibly complex dynamic sim, and something that "feels" right. GP2 was built up from a lot of tweaking during the testing (and it sounds like GP3 is the same). Geoff Crammond and his brother drive it, Geoff tweaks a few variables in some tables (ok, I simplify) and they do it again until they think it "feels" right. And damned it more than 50% of us here still think it has a nice "feel" for a sim. I love complex code and accurate mathematical simulations, and in theory pretty much everything that is happening on this planet, from the cellular level up to the geological, can be accurately simulated. It's a question of computing resources and time. Corners have to be cut in any simulation to make it run in real time, so there is nothing inherently wrong with throwing in a few lookup tables to cram some empirical data in the back door of an "accurate" mathematical simulation. I have limited time to enjoy sims, much less than I thought I would have when I finally finished up my school, so my requirements of a sim are probably different than others. I want a good, yet believable race. I want something approaching the real-world behaviour of the thing being simulated, but I don't care how they do it. For me, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then for my purposes it is a duck. So, for me: GP2, therefore, is still a decent F1 sim in my books. F1RS and MGPRS2 are not. RC2000 is a decent rally sim. Sega isn't. GPL is a superb classic F1 sim. er.... SOS isn't N3 is a decent Nascar sim. Nascar Revolution isn't. These are purely subjective. I don't pick into the code to decide if it's good or not. My day to day job has enough of that. These sims just feel right. I can hop in, the car behaves enough like the real thing that I can put myself into the cockpit and suspend disbelief, and the racing experience in each of these sims is enough to get me involved to the point that I actually care how things turn out, I get tense if I screw up, and I feel good when I put in a good lap / stage time. Stephen

Le Professeur wrote: > I could give you my bank account number, but then I would reveal my identity. > Since I'm chicken, I can't do that. ;-) Hmmm .... you call yourself "Le Professeur" and you admit that you're chicken ... are you the infamous "Le Chicken" ???!!!??? Dave Ewing -- ***************************************************** David A. Ewing Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] *****************************************************

An excellent follow-up to an excellent original post, Prof -- thanks for sharing your well-thought-out musings with us! Along the lines of your observations regarding Crammond's GP series, I find that the latest of the NFS games -- NFSPU, that is -- is one that hits MY personal "sweet spot" in terms of overall feel. GPL and Viper Racing tickle me in all the right ways, but when it comes to simulating what it's like to drive a "real" everyday car, NFSPU seems to have ALL the sensations and responses just right -- I don't know that I would change much even if I could about the game. As for my allegation about NFSPU simulating "real" everyday cars, it is true that many of the newer Porsches qualify as "supercars," but the older Porsches are/were fairly docile in comparison (the 914s and 944s are pretty tame compared to a Viper, for instance). GPL and Viper Racing (and DTR, for that matter) are the games that I personally turn to when I want to simulate some hardcore racing, but taking a 944 through an orange cone slalom course in NFSPU ranks right up there for me in terms of actual driving experience. And THAT is what you're addressing in your "sim vs. arcade" treatise, and I think YOU are on the money. Remember, the ONLY racing simulator that gets it all 100% right is called a "driving school." <G> Which makes me wonder just how well the upcoming Skip Barber title will stack up against the REAL Skip Barber school experience. Hopefully they will get it as "right" as GPL, Viper Racing, DTR, GP, and NFSPU. -- JB In article <[email hidden]>, Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote: > the great and intrepid Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: ><LIBERAL SNIP> > > But... From my writings by now, you will have learned that the "GrandPrix" > series by Geoff Crammond is my idea of the right approach. I reallyseem to be > on the same wavelength as he is... > > I'll try to give an example like it could happen in reality. Let's saythat > Crammond has the opportunity to create an absolutely perfecttire-model (perfect > temp/pressure/grip etc. model). Then during playtesting he discoversthat he > does not seem to be able to create an appropriate feedback thatadequately > informs the player (ALL of them, keyb/joy/wheel!)of what the tires aredoing. I > bet he would rather "dumb down" the tiremodel than stubbornly holdingto King > Realism. Because if he would hold on to it, he would sacrifice a chunkof Racing > Experience for an aspect that doesn't matter much anyway. See? Or ifhe would > have the choice between an absolutely perfect tire model and fulltumble, he > would choose full tumble. > > Another example is the fact that GC still assigns great importance tokeyboard > control. The real self declared "purists" would drop it immediately.But not > Crammond, because he looks right through the inessentials. Whatmatters is not > that you're holding a wheel, but that your control method gives you asufficient > amount of control and is challenging. Challenging where it MATTERS.The digital > nature of keyboard means that, from a practical point of view, youhave to > compensate. The trick is not to over-compensate. Because then you'remissing the > point and could just as well leave keyboard out. I'm still amazed athow > brilliantly GC solved this problem. How it feels absolutely SPOT ON.Don't > believe that the "ideal line" helps save your ass. :-) Yes, it makes > controlling the car easy, almost automatic, at moderate speeds. But sois > driving a real car at moderate speeds, isn't it? When you drive on thelimit > (and that's what F1 drivers do all the time), you WILL leave the trackif you > turn in 0.25s late, or if you go 10kmph too fast or if you choose aslightly > imperfect line. Or you save the car but get punished by loosing 0.5s.You also > immediately sense the loss of rythm through nearby corners. I don'tknow, but

Quoted text (7 lines)

> all this sounds pretty close to the real racing experience? > > I'll stop now because it could get out of hand again <G> > > Le Prof > "There are no failed experiments, only more data." --Thomas Edison >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 01:17:26 +0200, Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote in message <[email hidden]> : >Oh boy.. This got quite out of hand :-) People with a short attention-span are >invited to skip to the last 5 sentences <G> Hehe. Good post. Thought provoking and no resorting to insults! Are you sure you've posted this in the right location? <g> I'm not going to attempt to respond point for point. What's the point? (excuse the pun). Rather, I'm going to put forward why I take the "hardcore" approach and why it is what gives me the enjoyment. First off, I do not want to pretend that I am a Schumacher, Earnhardt or whoever. I haven't that degree of skill and would get no satisfaction from pretending that I do have. What I am though is a student of auto racing. I enjoy the technicalities. I enjoy reading about real racers experiences. I enjoy watching racing (all racing, all time periods) and understanding what I'm seeing. So largely what I am looking for in a racing sim is the chance to try out what I see the real racers do in as close a fashion as is possible within the confines of a simulation. This is something that you didn't really include in your list, btw. The problem with this approach though is that once you have experienced something it is very difficult to go back to something lessor. A phrase often used in sim racing is "suspension of disbelief". This is a relative, not absolute, term. It also varies by individual. So whilst in 1986 I was more than happy to be racing with a keyboard against primitive AI in "Revs", I wouldn't be able to stand such a thing now - it would seem so far removed from what I know can be done as to appear "arcade" even though it was the height of simulation at the time. So if a new sim doesn't offer anything new in terms of either car physics or online racing I really have little interest in it. I have a pretty good idea of how high performance cars react and the strategy & tactics required to do well in races. No amount of hype or eye candy will persuade me otherwise. To sum it up, people like me aren't trying to simulate being a top class racing driver, we're trying to simulate being a racing driver. We're aware of our limitations and don't want the software to make up for them. If we're crap then we're crap - and we're happy to admit it <g>. I would much rather be a deserved back marker in Formula Ford than an artificial F1 Champion. The above is in no way a put down of those who do want to simulate being Schumacher. When I play golf sims I want to think that I am a Nicklaus, Norman or Woods after all! Different strokes for different folks..... Cheers, Richard

Le Professeur wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> - turning a steeringwheel and pushing pedals: > > In the real world, they are _practical_: the easiest and most efficient way to > change direction or to produce a mechanical pressure to slow down the vehicle. > But they are also _historical_ in a way. In the past there was no other way to > control a car, but now or in the future it could be possible (and IS even > reality sometimes!!) to use joysticks, paddles and buttons to achieve the same > or better accuracy!

Well, we could try tiller bars again also, but.... ;) > However, if we ignore this, we > could come up with some pretty interesting and complex alternative physics. > Physics that are JUST as challenging to handle as the physics that we know. Well, I like to study race car driving as an "armchair hobbyist." Only one book out so far (?) on Pod Racing ;)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> To put the whole idea in a nutshell: Imperfections in the physics model, and > keyboard or joystick control do NOT devaluate the sim-experience as profoundly > as is commonly proclaimed. When a physics model is not TOO obviously unreal, and > challenging enough, and when the control method is well executed and > challenging, then a simulator can give you EXACTLY the same excitement as a real > racer. It does not deserve to be slammed. Or: perfect physics alone can > sometimes be insufficient to beat a sim with flawed physics but better in other > aspects.

For me, there is a big difference between just "directing" a car model's motion and actually "controlling" it. When controlling it I have to worry if I might get it out of shape and lose it. If all I have to do is throw the stick over to direct it into a 2G turn, it's not that interesting. I analyzed optimal trajectories for many years. Just picking a line isn't that interesting to me. Particularly in a sterile sim environment. So I evaluate a model based on what my controls do. If the programmer can convince me that I'm theta-double-dotting then I like it. If all I get is psi-dot then I'm bored. ;) -- Matthew V. Jessick WB: para

the great and intrepid [email hidden] (Lee Mills) wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

><SNIP about 20 pages of text> > >Oh my goodness, you should publish this and make money or something. > >:-) > >Lee >

Hehe... I could give you my bank account number, but then I would reveal my identity. Since I'm chicken, I can't do that. ;-) Le Prof =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= A friend is one to whom you can pour out all the contents of your heart; chaff and grain together. Knowing that the gentlest of hands will take it and sift it. Keep what's worth keeping and with the breath of kindness blow the rest away. YLM =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

the great and intrepid "David Karr" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I offer a different take: the nom-de-plume is an old tradition in public >letters. One's personal name might well introduce baggage that the writer >is hoping to avoid. Thanks David. Although I did not consciously reanimate this old tradition. It was more a matter of re-inventing. <G> Yes, I admit that I spent some time deciding whether I was going to use my (kn)own name or not. I admit that I am chicken and that I decided not to. But Jan, aren't you disguising yourself also (what's this "no-spam" in your mail-address ;-) )? I also find it funny that you call my post a "half decent argument" without explaining. Maybe you just didn't respond because it's too difficult to explain WHY? (just trying to trick you into a reply here,hehe ) Why a "nom-de-plume"? First of all an argument should be considered seperate from the person that presents it. The argument counts, not the man behind it. And secondly: it seems quite easy to burn yourself here (cfr "Frank" ;-) ). I wasn't sure whether the hardcore scene wouldn't regard it as pure blasphemy and "expell" me, hehe (I admit it wouldn't be half as bad as burning the witches in the middle-ages, but anyway... :-) ) People with unusual opinions get "marked" pretty easily. You end up in a little niche before you know it. I have been wandering undisturbed around this newsgroup for quite some time now, and I intend to keep it that way :-) Anyway: I'm quite pleased that already a few people have crawled through my monster-post. When I actually looked back after completing it, and noticed how impossibly long and precise it all was, I never hoped more than 5-10 people would bother reading it :-) Le Prof "If you can't laugh at yourself you may be missing the joke of the century." - Edna Everidge

Professeur, a truly great post! While I do not agree with what you say, it did make me think. I think the physics is something that needs to be modelled properly in order to make us believe we are racing, asthis is what sims are about. It's not only about handling a complex environment, but also handling a somewhat familiar environment, too. While most of us have no idea how it is to really drive a racecar, even less how to program real world physics, we all posess very good intuition in how all things behave in a real world where gravity and drag apply. I think we are quite sensitive regarding this, and the margin of tolerance of how much off the basic behaviour in a sim can be is really low. I could get convinced to some extent by GP2, but F1RS for example really left a lot to be desired. Basic Newtonian physics has to be applied to feed our intuition. This cosists of forces and torques that produce lateral and angular accelerations. It is the less well defined things like specific tyre behaviour or aerodynamic lift and drag coefficients that need not be perfectly modelled in order to not shatter the illusion. This is where sim designers have some playing ground regarding ultimate realism. -Gregor

Point taken. I understand what using a pseudonym is about. However, in these days of free internet accounts thrown at you from every direction (been ducking and weaving for months now), and with the miriad of free E-mail account providers I would have expected a valid e-mail address (albeit using anti-spam). Also, I can't help but feel it devaluates the reasoning a little when the poster is not really prepared to own up to what he says. But that's probably just me and my warped sense of values. Jan. =--- David Karr wrote in message... > I offer a different take: the nom-de-plume is an old tradition in public > letters. <snip>

Oh boy.. This got quite out of hand :-) People with a short attention-span are invited to skip to the last 5 sentences <G> Over the years, numerous threads have been devoted here to the sim vs arcade debate. What is a sim and what is an arcade racer? Obviously these discussions exist because everybody has different expectations and priorities. However, the general attitude here seems that the absolute realism of the physics makes or breaks a sim. That is: for more than half of the frequent posters here, a sim will be spoiled when a car doesn't react like it would in reality. A sim that, as a matter of speaking, *only* has correct physics to offer seems to be regarded higher than one that fails in this respect, but has everything else (see later). Along the same lines, a wheel and pedals are considered *absolutely* required to fully get the experience right. I've always had the feeling that this "hardcore" approach misses the point somewhere. The thinking has gone too much in one direction. Because it seems so obvious and because nobody really challenged it :-) So that's why I did some hard thinking to rationalize this rather "undefined" feeling that I always had. When I started, I didn't know where it would end. Turns out like some philosophical voyage of discovery of simulation, hehe :-) It's just MY view, which I do not consider better or worse than other views. All that I want is that the hardcore guys give it an honest read. And of course discuss it... throw it all out if the logic fails!! :-) Ok, here goes... I'd like to start with a simple question: WHY do racing simulators exist at all? Well, millions of people would like to experience racing. Unfortunately, for several reasons, only a few hundred worldwide are able to *actually* experience it. Therefore, a racingsim offers ordinary people the best possible illusion of racing. And to achieve this, it uses the virtual reality capacities of a computer. Right. If this would be my ultimate answer, then I could just as well stop here because with this definition, the what I call "hardcore approach" would be unchallengable <G> HOWEVER, we have peeled only the first layer of the onion :-) The key here is that, to get to the essence, we also have to answer the question why realworld racing ITSELF (thinking about F1 in particular) exists. Why people want to be a racecar driver and why those who already are, find it enjoyable? I've put together a list of reasons here (would be interested to hear whether anyone can add things?). They are in no particular order, and most are interconnected in some way. 1) glamour; the 'happy few', exotic places and flashy cars 2) getting respect, BEING someone; because of 1) 3) competition; measuring yourself against others 4) the challenge,getting the best out of yourself; a battle with your own capacities 5) *physical* sensations: G-forces, arms hurt, bumps...; these give you an adrenalin rush because you are well aware that you're "taming" a powerful beast 6) *sound* and *smell* of racecars; (HOW it sounds and smells is secondary to the fact that these particular sounds and smells are associated with racing) 7) *visual* sensations; the impression of moving very very fast 8) the danger involved; another source of adrenalin (9) commercials, pit girls,groupies, your own Jet and champagne or Guinness<G> Apart from the smell and the danger, pretty much everything in this list can be simulated to some degree. The physical sensations are difficult, the online community gives respect and, together with AI, competition. Licenses give you an idea of taking part in the real glamour. Item (4), the challenge, can be broken down further. The challenge consists of constantly pushing yourself to improve these particular skills. The constant battle to improve these skills *IS* racing. 1) "feeling" the car with that part of your body under your back <G> 2) "listening" to the car, in order to preserve it to get it over the finishline 3) understanding how to tweak car parameters to make the car faster/better 4) braveness; not being afraid of taking risks 5) accuracy; how precise is your control over the car 6) reaction-speed; responding fast to the inputs of your senses 7) concentration; staying focused over longer periods 8) physical condition and stamina; to maintain concentration during the course of a race 9) regularity; the ability to do it over and over again (laps/races) 10) tactics; making the right decisions even in the heat of the action 11) mental strength; controlling nerves and recovering from bad luck You also need a rich dad and social "connections" or the ability to sell yourself <G> Apart from 4), every challenge in this second list is, or can be, simulated to some degree. Simulating "feeling" the car is difficult once again. Complex car tweaking is already available. Simulation of tactics and "listening" to the car will undoubtedly get better and better over time. **How well everything in this list is implemented, is what really sets a sim apart from an arcade game!** I think we pretty much all agree that a simulator which offers all of this, could be called the PERFECT simulator, not? Now comes the "mental leap": there is a subtle difference between simulating autoracing, and simulating the enumerated aspects that make autoracing exciting and enjoyable! Some aspects of real autoracing as we know it now, may not be essential at all. That is: they are what they are, but if they would be different, they would not make the racing less enjoyable and less of a challenge. The reasons that they "are what they are" could be historical or practical or even just random. As a result, they aren't mentioned in the lists above! Some examples: - turning a steeringwheel and pushing pedals: In the real world, they are _practical_: the easiest and most efficient way to change direction or to produce a mechanical pressure to slow down the vehicle. But they are also _historical_ in a way. In the past there was no other way to control a car, but now or in the future it could be possible (and IS even reality sometimes!!) to use joysticks, paddles and buttons to achieve the same or better accuracy! In the real world, they have the added advantage of feedback: a whole pallette of forces is transferred through wheel and pedals to the pilot. - real-world physics: It has been shown that real-world physics seem to be finetuned to make our Universe possible. If physical constants would be just a little bit different, the Universe would pretty much fall apart :-) However, if we ignore this, we could come up with some pretty interesting and complex alternative physics. Physics that are JUST as challenging to handle as the physics that we know. Springs and dampers acting totally different... Air-resistance increasing when you brake instead of decreasing... Lateral forces the faster you go in a straight line.... Current top pilots would STILL be top pilots under those circumstances (if they were born in that world..) Because the really important skill is to handle "a" complex environment. - "trivial" things that are pretty much random: the whole points system, technical regulations, car-liveries, the F1 circus as a whole... We could change ALL of these things, and still end up with a great and fantastically challenging sim. The only reason why a PERFECT simulation of these particular aspects adds to the essence of a racingsim, is the _association_ with real world racing. For example the "trivial" aspects mentioned above make it easy to identify with the "real" thing, so by getting them right the sim tries to offer you a little of the "glamour". The physics will never be TOO obviously unreal, because that would also immediately kill the whole identification. And we like to hold a wheel because the real drivers do so too, and because that's what we see on TV all the time... Take special hardware: do a wheel and pedals, as symbols for a more perfect true-to-life simulation, significantly improve any of the enumerated "essentials"? Force feedback gives some physical sensations, but nothing like the real thing. They provide better accuracy, but with keyboard control that is carefully tuned, you can also get a very challenging and complex experience.(remember that "accuracy" was just one of the 11 required skills, BTW) In GP2 for example, it is obviously very easy to drive slow to moderately fast with the keyboard. But once you go to the limit, lap after lap, it becomes very challenging and engrossing indeed! The details become important. Admittedly not quite as difficult as with a wheel, but sufficiently exciting nevertheless! A quality sim can obviously not get away with _totally_ neglecting all of these non-essential aspects. The more a player knows about real racing, the more sensitive he will be for these aspects that mainly improve the identification with the real thing. As an example, for people who regularly drive real cars to the limit, it might be harder to ignore the imperfections in the physics model. (But why do they need a sim anyway? ;-) ) They will notice when the car reacts funny. They will notice when a change in setup does not have the real-world effect. Those who do NOT regularly drive real cars to the limit, will NOT be distracted by this, and can nevertheless enjoy a slightly different model that is just as complex. Kids or people who only occasionally watch races and are totally unaware of what being a racepilot really takes, will even be satisfied with an arcade game that offers barely more than the visual experience. They will not feel the same excitement as a real racer though! To put the whole idea in a nutshell: Imperfections in the physics model, and keyboard or joystick control do NOT devaluate the sim-experience as profoundly as is commonly proclaimed. When a physics model is not TOO obviously unreal, and challenging enough, and when the control method is well executed and challenging, ... read more »

I might have considered responding had you posted under your own name or true E-mail address (lots of people go by well established nicks on R.A.S.). As it is, I'm just sad a fellow countryman posted a half way decent argument, but was too chicken to really stand up for his opinion. Jan. =---

a nice take with some really good points. my view has always been that, providing the car/ bike handles as i would expect it to handle in a certain condition, ie over/ understeer, wheel spin etc. Then you can have fun with it. As for racing with other players, providing there is a level playing field you can have a real ball. -- regards Shane Lowry

Le Professeur wrote: > > Yes, I admit that I spent some time deciding whether I was going to use my > (kn)own name or not. I admit that I am chicken and that I decided not to. > Let me guess... Alain Prost? Seriously, your post was a good introspective into our hobby and was a joy to read, so it surprised me when you said you are posting under a different name. I saw nothing in your post that would offend anyone or in any other way be inappropriate in its theme to not be accepted here. Whoever would have been jumping at your throat because you expressed and argumented your ideas, well, I think they would have shown where they stand in this community themselves. -Gregor

the great and intrepid Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: >Professeur, > >a truly great post! Thanks! (another one who made it through the post <G>) >While I do not agree with what you say, it did make >me think. Oh, I'm not so sure that our points of view are so far apart...

Quoted text (10 lines)

>I think the physics is something that needs to be modelled properly in >order to make us believe we are racing, asthis is what sims are about. >It's not only about handling a complex environment, but also handling a >somewhat familiar environment, too. While most of us have no idea how it >is to really drive a racecar, even less how to program real world >physics, we all posess very good intuition in how all things behave in a >real world where gravity and drag apply. I think we are quite sensitive >regarding this, and the margin of tolerance of how much off the basic >behaviour in a sim can be is really low. I could get convinced to some >extent by GP2, but F1RS for example really left a lot to be desired.

This margin of tolerance exists indeed, and as I pointed out it can be significantly different from person to person. Those who have some experience driving real cars on the limit could be considered unlucky here! Because their margin of tolerance is so small that it sometimes keeps them from appreciating how nicely a sim simulates all the OTHER, more significant, aspects of racing. Personally, I totally enjoy the GP2 physics. I find it a model that is sufficiently challenging and the only things that really bother me a bit are canned spins and the absence of total tumble. And why? Because they are both also visual aspects. Through watching hundreds of hours of F1 coverage, we know that it's not how it should be. But do these omissions seriously impact the racing experience? No, they just impact our identification with the real thing. If spinning or tumbling would ususally happen once a lap, the omission would have a higher impact though :-) >Basic Newtonian physics has to be applied to feed our intuition. This >cosists of forces and torques that produce lateral and angular >accelerations. It is the less well defined things like specific tyre >behaviour or aerodynamic lift and drag coefficients that need not be >perfectly modelled in order to not shatter the illusion. This is where >sim designers have some playing ground regarding ultimate realism. I'm sure they will strive for even more accurate physics. And they have my blessing, because physics that are even CLOSER to reality will (usually) not make the sim _worse_. :-) But... From my writings by now, you will have learned that the "Grand Prix" series by Geoff Crammond is my idea of the right approach. I really seem to be on the same wavelength as he is... I'll try to give an example like it could happen in reality. Let's say that Crammond has the opportunity to create an absolutely perfect tire-model (perfect temp/pressure/grip etc. model). Then during playtesting he discovers that he does not seem to be able to create an appropriate feedback that adequately informs the player (ALL of them, keyb/joy/wheel!)of what the tires are doing. I bet he would rather "dumb down" the tiremodel than stubbornly holding to King Realism. Because if he would hold on to it, he would sacrifice a chunk of Racing Experience for an aspect that doesn't matter much anyway. See? Or if he would have the choice between an absolutely perfect tire model and full tumble, he would choose full tumble. Another example is the fact that GC still assigns great importance to keyboard control. The real self declared "purists" would drop it immediately. But not Crammond, because he looks right through the inessentials. What matters is not that you're holding a wheel, but that your control method gives you a sufficient amount of control and is challenging. Challenging where it MATTERS. The digital nature of keyboard means that, from a practical point of view, you have to compensate. The trick is not to over-compensate. Because then you're missing the point and could just as well leave keyboard out. I'm still amazed at how brilliantly GC solved this problem. How it feels absolutely SPOT ON. Don't believe that the "ideal line" helps save your ass. :-) Yes, it makes controlling the car easy, almost automatic, at moderate speeds. But so is driving a real car at moderate speeds, isn't it? When you drive on the limit (and that's what F1 drivers do all the time), you WILL leave the track if you turn in 0.25s late, or if you go 10kmph too fast or if you choose a slightly imperfect line. Or you save the car but get punished by loosing 0.5s. You also immediately sense the loss of rythm through nearby corners. I don't know, but all this sounds pretty close to the real racing experience? I'll stop now because it could get out of hand again <G> Le Prof "There are no failed experiments, only more data." --Thomas Edison

In article <8bqcpg$5dj8k$[email hidden]>, "Stephen Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >So, for me: > >GP2, therefore, is still a decent F1 sim in my books. F1RS andMGPRS2 are >not. >RC2000 is a decent rally sim. Sega isn't. >GPL is a superb classic F1 sim. er.... SOS isn't >N3 is a decent Nascar sim. Nascar Revolution isn't. > My feelings precisely, I feel that to get a result in any of those sims you commend (I havn't tried the rally ones though) you have to work for it. This maybe applies more to GPL, in any race you are going to have more than one moment where the car slides and your heart skips a beat as you battle to catch it. It is also the only sim where I will literally hold my breath while taking the two lesmos or going over flag platz (is that correct?). I found that in F1 2000 I was either going way faster or way slower than the AI (depending on which part of the circuit). With GPL and even GP2 you can spend many laps closing on an AI opponent and as in real life that is the easy part, trying to find a way past can very often end in tears. I also agree with all the points made below. Chris >I can hop in, the car behaves enough like the real thing that Ican put >myself into the cockpit and suspend disbelief, and the racingexperience in >each of these sims is enough to get me involved to the pointthat I actually >care how things turn out, I get tense if I screw up, and I feelgood when I

Quoted text (12 lines)

>put in a good lap / stage time. > >Stephen > > > > > >

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

In article <[email hidden]>, David Ewing <[email hidden]> wrote: >Le Professeur wrote: > >> I could give you my bank account number, but then I wouldreveal my identity. >> Since I'm chicken, I can't do that. ;-) > >Hmmm .... you call yourself "Le Professeur" and you admit thatyou're chicken >.... are you the infamous "Le Chicken" ???!!!??? > >Dave Ewing > Funny you should mention that Dave. Last night I was dredging through the Deja archive partly because of the Barton vs. Ymenard debate. I used to lurk alot in this NG in '97 but rarely posted as RAS was (as today) very pro Papy and I was just GP2 at the time. Well what I found brought back some memories and there was a rumour at that time that Le Chicken was Ymenard. In actual fact our brave and fearless leader has been rather quiet recently, enough time for twenty pages?? Chris :) * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

the ("disguiser active") Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Le Professeur wrote: >> >> Yes, I admit that I spent some time deciding whether I was going to use my >> (kn)own name or not. I admit that I am chicken and that I decided not to. >> > >Let me guess... Alain Prost?

So you're thinking in the same direction? <G>

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Seriously, your post was a good introspective into our hobby and was a >joy to read, so it surprised me when you said you are posting under a >different name. I saw nothing in your post that would offend anyone or >in any other way be inappropriate in its theme to not be accepted here. > >Whoever would have been jumping at your throat because you expressed and >argumented your ideas, well, I think they would have shown where they >stand in this community themselves. > >-Gregor

Oh please don't take this too seriously :-) The real main reason was that the post DOES sound a little pedantic. I'm not (or don't want to be :-) ) pedantic, so I thought "Le Professeur" put things more into perspective. Le Prof Another clue: ,_ . ._. _. . , _-\','|~\~ ~/ ;-'_ _-' ,;_;_, ~~- /~~-\_/-'~'--' \~~| ', ,' / / ~|-_\_/~/~~ ~~--~~~~'---_ / ,/'-/~ '\ ,' _ , '|,'|~ ._/-, /~~ ~/-'~\_, '-,| '|. ' ~ ,\ /'~ I'M / /_ /~ .-~ '| '',\~|\ _\~<== HERE!, /| '\ /'~ |_/~\\,-,~ \ " ,_,/ | | / ._-~'\_ _~| \ ) / \ __-\ '/ ~ |\ \_ / ~ ., '\ |, ~-_ - | \\_' ~| /~\ \~ , ~-_' _; '\ '-, \,' /\/ | '\_,~'\_ \_ _, /' ' |, /|' / \_ ~ | / \ ~'; -,_. | ~\ | | , '-_, ,; ~ ~\ \, / \ / /| ,-, , -, | ,/ | |' |/ ,- ~ \ '. ,| ,/ \ ,/ \ | / | ~ -~~-, / _ | ,-' ~ / / ,' ~ ',| ~ ~' sig courtesy of Jorn Barger Thanks Jorn!

the great and intrepid Chris Bloom <[email hidden]> wrote: ....

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Well what I found brought back some memories and there was a >rumour at that time that Le Chicken was Ymenard. > >In actual fact our brave and fearless leader has been rather >quiet recently, enough time for twenty pages?? > >Chris > >:)

Is my English really THAT bad? ;-) (No offence of any kind intended, of course. I know a hell of a lot of French who do much worse <G>) Le Prof aka Chickendale "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking." Murphy

the great and intrepid Imar de Vries <[email hidden]> wrote: >Le Professeur wrote: > >> the great and intrepid "David Karr" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >With all this secrecy, it is nice to see you left some clues on your identity, >though :-) Shit! :-) But it was not that bad for a first attempt, was it? <G> Le Prof, still learning to hide efficiently.... Murphy's Military Law: "Teamwork is essential -- it gives the enemy someone else to shoot at."

the great and intrepid Richard Walker <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 01:17:26 +0200, Le Professeur ><[email hidden]> wrote in message ><[email hidden]> : > >>Oh boy.. This got quite out of hand :-) People with a short attention-span are >>invited to skip to the last 5 sentences <G> > >Hehe. > >Good post. Thought provoking and no resorting to insults! Are you sure >you've posted this in the right location? <g>

It's never too late to change. Maybe once, a million zillion times billion years from now, r.a.s. will be a flame-free place :-) Although I guess we should be happy if this thread remains clean. "Let's start small"

Quoted text (13 lines)

>I'm not going to attempt to respond point for point. What's the point? >(excuse the pun). Rather, I'm going to put forward why I take the >"hardcore" approach and why it is what gives me the enjoyment. > >First off, I do not want to pretend that I am a Schumacher, Earnhardt or >whoever. I haven't that degree of skill and would get no satisfaction from >pretending that I do have. What I am though is a student of auto racing. I >enjoy the technicalities. I enjoy reading about real racers experiences. I >enjoy watching racing (all racing, all time periods) and understanding what >I'm seeing. So largely what I am looking for in a racing sim is the chance >to try out what I see the real racers do in as close a fashion as is >possible within the confines of a simulation. This is something that you >didn't really include in your list, btw.

I don't really understand I must say. Do you simply enjoy the "mimicry" and studying in itself? But there are many other things that you can choose to mimic and study. So there must be a reason why you chose racing? I reckon this reason relies on at least some of the aspects that I listed. The glamour, the respect they get, the understanding that what they do is complex and demanding etc..?

Quoted text (14 lines)

>The problem with this approach though is that once you have experienced >something it is very difficult to go back to something lessor. A phrase >often used in sim racing is "suspension of disbelief". This is a relative, >not absolute, term. It also varies by individual. So whilst in 1986 I was >more than happy to be racing with a keyboard against primitive AI in >"Revs", I wouldn't be able to stand such a thing now - it would seem so far >removed from what I know can be done as to appear "arcade" even though it >was the height of simulation at the time. > >So if a new sim doesn't offer anything new in terms of either car physics >or online racing I really have little interest in it. I have a pretty good >idea of how high performance cars react and the strategy & tactics required >to do well in races. No amount of hype or eye candy will persuade me >otherwise.

It must be really hard <G>. Knowing that it will be almost impossible to get your hands on something better than GPL :-) >To sum it up, people like me aren't trying to simulate being a top class >racing driver, we're trying to simulate being a racing driver. Yes, but WHY a racingdriver? Why not a nurse for example? :-) What I mean is: It seems to me that the underlying reasons that make you want to simulate a racingdriver, should be the same as the reasons why this racingdriver wanted to be racingdriver in the first place. (Ok, this gets confusing :-) ) At sometime in the past, someone started racing. Not because he wanted to be a racedriver(none existed at the time), but because there are certain aspects that make racing enjoyable. So, isn't it enough to try to mimic THESE aspects, and assign less importance to rather trivial things like the exact functioning of a damper or the ideal tiretemperature? Things that would not prevent someone from wanting to be a racedriver if they would be (even TOTALLY) different? >We're aware >of our limitations and don't want the software to make up for them. If >we're crap then we're crap - and we're happy to admit it <g>. I would much >rather be a deserved back marker in Formula Ford than an artificial F1 >Champion. Ok. This tells me that you mainly focus on the "challenge" part of racing. Was in my list :-) >The above is in no way a put down of those who do want to simulate being >Schumacher. Which was not really what I intended to say. >When I play golf sims I want to think that I am a Nicklaus, >Norman or Woods after all! Hehe.. The ideal, quiet passtime after some hard racing :-) Le Prof "The day you stopped feeling yourself a little bit dumber each day, is the day you stopped learning." W.T.

> I don't really understand I must say. Do you simply enjoy the "mimicry"and > studying in itself? But there are many other things that you can choose tomimic > and study. So there must be a reason why you chose racing? I reckon thisreason > relies on at least some of the aspects that I listed. The glamour, therespect > they get, the understanding that what they do is complex and demandingetc..? Prof, How about the sheer beauty of driving a fast car around a corner well? It's quite an experience if you're so inclined. Then there's the element of competition. Two entirely different things. But when combined it can be bliss. The other things, glamour, respect etc. also beat simulating being a nurse <g> Hard to say why though. Other people are fascinated by climbing mountains, fishing, origami of even golf. Ask a psychiatrist. Bye, Leo

geez... what in the hell is all this? this'll take a while... :) -- ----------------------------------- Morgan Vincent Wooten mailto:[email hidden] http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/ ----------------------------------- Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Oh boy.. This got quite out of hand :-) People with a short attention-span are > invited to skip to the last 5 sentences <G> > > Over the years, numerous threads have been devoted here to the sim vs arcade > debate. What is a sim and what is an arcade racer? Obviously these discussions > exist because everybody has different expectations and priorities. However, the > general attitude here seems that the absolute realism of the physics makes or > breaks a sim. That is: for more than half of the frequent posters here, a sim > will be spoiled when a car doesn't react like it would in reality. A sim that, > as a matter of speaking, *only* has correct physics to offer seems to be > regarded higher than one that fails in this respect, but has everything else > (see later). Along the same lines, a wheel and pedals are considered > *absolutely* required to fully get the experience right. > > I've always had the feeling that this "hardcore" approach misses the point > somewhere. The thinking has gone too much in one direction. Because it seems so > obvious and because nobody really challenged it :-) So that's why I did some > hard thinking to rationalize this rather "undefined" feeling that I always had. > When I started, I didn't know where it would end. Turns out like some > philosophical voyage of discovery of simulation, hehe :-) It's just MY view, > which I do not consider better or worse than other views. All that I want is > that the hardcore guys give it an honest read. And of course discuss it... throw > it all out if the logic fails!! :-) > > Ok, here goes... > > I'd like to start with a simple question: WHY do racing simulators exist at all? > > Well, millions of people would like to experience racing. Unfortunately, for > several reasons, only a few hundred worldwide are able to *actually* experience > it. Therefore, a racingsim offers ordinary people the best possible illusion of > racing. And to achieve this, it uses the virtual reality capacities of a > computer. > > Right. If this would be my ultimate answer, then I could just as well stop here > because with this definition, the what I call "hardcore approach" would be > unchallengable <G> > > HOWEVER, we have peeled only the first layer of the onion :-) The key here is > that, to get to the essence, we also have to answer the question why realworld > racing ITSELF (thinking about F1 in particular) exists. Why people want to be a > racecar driver and why those who already are, find it enjoyable? > > I've put together a list of reasons here (would be interested to hear whether > anyone can add things?). They are in no particular order, and most are > interconnected in some way. > > 1) glamour; the 'happy few', exotic places and flashy cars > 2) getting respect, BEING someone; because of 1) > 3) competition; measuring yourself against others > 4) the challenge,getting the best out of yourself; a battle with your own > capacities > 5) *physical* sensations: G-forces, arms hurt, bumps...; these give you an > adrenalin rush because you are well aware that you're "taming" a powerful beast > 6) *sound* and *smell* of racecars; (HOW it sounds and smells is secondary to > the fact that these particular sounds and smells are associated with racing) > 7) *visual* sensations; the impression of moving very very fast > 8) the danger involved; another source of adrenalin > (9) commercials, pit girls,groupies, your own Jet and champagne or Guinness<G> > > Apart from the smell and the danger, pretty much everything in this list can be > simulated to some degree. The physical sensations are difficult, the online > community gives respect and, together with AI, competition. Licenses give you an > idea of taking part in the real glamour. > > Item (4), the challenge, can be broken down further. The challenge consists of > constantly pushing yourself to improve these particular skills. The constant > battle to improve these skills *IS* racing. > > 1) "feeling" the car with that part of your body under your back <G> > 2) "listening" to the car, in order to preserve it to get it over the finishline > 3) understanding how to tweak car parameters to make the car faster/better > 4) braveness; not being afraid of taking risks > 5) accuracy; how precise is your control over the car > 6) reaction-speed; responding fast to the inputs of your senses > 7) concentration; staying focused over longer periods > 8) physical condition and stamina; to maintain concentration during the course > of a race > 9) regularity; the ability to do it over and over again (laps/races) > 10) tactics; making the right decisions even in the heat of the action > 11) mental strength; controlling nerves and recovering from bad luck > > You also need a rich dad and social "connections" or the ability to sell > yourself <G> > > Apart from 4), every challenge in this second list is, or can be, simulated to > some degree. Simulating "feeling" the car is difficult once again. Complex car > tweaking is already available. Simulation of tactics and "listening" to the car > will undoubtedly get better and better over time. > > **How well everything in this list is implemented, is what really sets a sim > apart from an arcade game!** > > I think we pretty much all agree that a simulator which offers all of this, > could be called the PERFECT simulator, not? > > > Now comes the "mental leap": there is a subtle difference between simulating > autoracing, and simulating the enumerated aspects that make autoracing exciting > and enjoyable! > > Some aspects of real autoracing as we know it now, may not be essential at all. > That is: they are what they are, but if they would be different, they would not > make the racing less enjoyable and less of a challenge. The reasons that they > "are what they are" could be historical or practical or even just random. As a > result, they aren't mentioned in the lists above! > > Some examples: > > - turning a steeringwheel and pushing pedals: > > In the real world, they are _practical_: the easiest and most efficient way to > change direction or to produce a mechanical pressure to slow down the vehicle. > But they are also _historical_ in a way. In the past there was no other way to > control a car, but now or in the future it could be possible (and IS even > reality sometimes!!) to use joysticks, paddles and buttons to achieve the same > or better accuracy! In the real world, they have the added advantage of > feedback: a whole pallette of forces is transferred through wheel and pedals to > the pilot. > > - real-world physics: > > It has been shown that real-world physics seem to be finetuned to make our > Universe possible. If physical constants would be just a little bit different, > the Universe would pretty much fall apart :-) However, if we ignore this, we > could come up with some pretty interesting and complex alternative physics. > Physics that are JUST as challenging to handle as the physics that we know. > Springs and dampers acting totally different... Air-resistance increasing when > you brake instead of decreasing... Lateral forces the faster you go in a > straight line.... Current top pilots would STILL be top pilots under those > circumstances (if they were born in that world..) Because the really important > skill is to handle "a" complex environment. > > - "trivial" things that are pretty much random: the whole points system, > technical regulations, car-liveries, the F1 circus as a whole... > > > We could change ALL of these things, and still end up with a great and > fantastically challenging sim. The only reason why a PERFECT simulation of these > particular aspects adds to the essence of a racingsim, is the _association_ with > real world racing. For example the "trivial" aspects mentioned above make it > easy to identify with the "real" thing, so by getting them right the sim tries > to offer you a little of the "glamour". The physics will never be TOO obviously > unreal, because that would also immediately kill the whole identification. And > we like to hold a wheel because the real drivers do so too, and because that's > what we see on TV all the time... > > Take special hardware: do a wheel and pedals, as symbols for a more perfect > true-to-life simulation, significantly improve any of the enumerated > "essentials"? Force feedback gives some physical sensations, but nothing like > the real thing. They provide better accuracy, but with keyboard control that is > carefully tuned, you can also get a very challenging and complex > experience.(remember that "accuracy" was just one of the 11 required skills, > BTW) In GP2 for example, it is obviously very easy to drive slow to moderately > fast with the keyboard. But once you go to the limit, lap after lap, it becomes > very challenging and engrossing indeed! The details become important. Admittedly > not quite as difficult as with a wheel, but sufficiently exciting nevertheless! > > A quality sim can obviously not get away with _totally_ neglecting all of these > non-essential aspects. The more a player knows about real racing, the more > sensitive he will be for these aspects that mainly improve the identification > with the real thing. As an example, for people who regularly drive real cars to > the limit, it might be harder to ignore the imperfections in the physics model. > (But why do they need a sim anyway? ;-) ) They will notice when the car reacts > funny. They will notice when a change in setup does not have the real-world > effect. Those who do NOT regularly drive real cars to the limit, will NOT be > distracted by this, and can nevertheless enjoy a slightly different model that > is just as complex. Kids or people who only occasionally watch races and are > totally unaware of what being a racepilot really takes, will even be satisfied > with an arcade game that offers barely more than the visual experience. They > will not feel the same excitement as a real racer though! > > > > > To put the whole idea in a nutshell: Imperfections in the physics model, and > keyboard or joystick control do NOT devaluate the sim-experience as profoundly > as is commonly proclaimed. When a physics model is not TOO obviously unreal, and > challenging enough, and when the control method is well executed and > challenging, then a simulator can give you EXACTLY the same excitement as a real > racer. It does not deserve to be slammed. Or: perfect physics alone can > sometimes be insufficient to beat a sim with flawed physics but better in other > aspects. > > > Voila, > > thanks for going through all this (hello, where is everybody? <G> ). > > Le Professeur > "Gravity doesn't exist; the Earth sucks!"

On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:25:02 +0200, Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote in message <[email hidden]> : >I don't really understand I must say. Do you simply enjoy the "mimicry" and >studying in itself? But there are many other things that you can choose to mimic >and study. So there must be a reason why you chose racing? I reckon this reason >relies on at least some of the aspects that I listed. The glamour, the respect >they get, the understanding that what they do is complex and demanding etc..? Well, I've been interested in racing longer than sims have been around. So yes, the sort of things you listed drew me to racing in the first place and I started racing sims because of my interest in real life racing. But that's not why I race the sims I do. >What I mean is: It seems to me that the underlying reasons that make you want to >simulate a racingdriver, should be the same as the reasons why this racingdriver >wanted to be racingdriver in the first place. (Ok, this gets confusing :-) ) At >sometime in the past, someone started racing. Not because he wanted to be a >racedriver(none existed at the time), but because there are certain aspects that >make racing enjoyable. Yes and no. The glamour, thrill, etc attracted me to racing as a spectator. Similar aspects may have attracted me to being a real driver in the right circumstances. But I'm not going to get mobbed by scantily clad ladies just because I win a sim race. I'm never going to make a living at being a sim driver, even if I were to be the best in the world. I may get a thrill out of executing a pass or getting a fast corner just right, but I'm never going to be testing myself to the real limits - i.e. where a mistake is going to be very painful or much, much worse. >So, isn't it enough to try to mimic THESE aspects, and assign less importance to >rather trivial things like the exact functioning of a damper or the ideal >tiretemperature? Things that would not prevent someone from wanting to be a >racedriver if they would be (even TOTALLY) different? What if you had the mentality of a Ross Brawn or a Patrick Head? You would be extremely interested in these aspects. You might also wish to be able to go out onto the track and race the cars to test out the changes for yourself. In a sim you can do just that (up to the limitations of the simulation). There are many different aspects of the sport and a sim gives you the chance to explore many of them. The "race driver" aspect is just one of them - sure it is by far the biggest & most popular part but it's not the only one. >?Ok. This tells me that you mainly focus on the "challenge" part of racing. Was >in my list :-) Correct up to a point, but I got plenty of "challenge" when I played competitive chess and if that was the prime motivation I can get a challenge from many other pursuits. Some aspects of the challenge of being a real racing driver can be accessed via sims but the main one - pushing yourself to your physical limits whilst knowing that mistakes are going to hurt - can't be simulated. So whilst the challenge is a factor, it's not the defining one. Cheers, Richard

Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Just a quick comment here; GP2 does not seem to have canned spins in my > opinion. The spins do happen suddenly, this is probably due to the fact > the grip is lost too fast when the rear wheels start to slide (I don't > know about the real deal, perhaps this is the way it should be). They > ARE catchable, you just need to have a setup with a good feel (not too > much understeer, this in turn means that any oversteer will be of the > snap sort and really hard to catch), and be careful not to overcorrect > it. I usually end up in a spin of the opposite direction to the original > tendency, simply because I catch the slide but then provoke another one > in the opposite direction. >

Except if you jumped on the brakes in the middle of a spin, the car ceased to rotate. This was often the easiest way to recover from a mistake with a minimal loss of time. Remember, I posted earlier that I *like* GP2, so it's a minor criticism. Stephen

"David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote > Hmmm .... you call yourself "Le Professeur" and you admit that you'rechicken > ... are you the infamous "Le Chicken" ???!!!??? Muahahaha sorry but that clearly made my day 8) Mmm... LeChicken. Who said it was really me? ;-) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <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.

"Chris Bloom" <[email hidden]> wrote > Well what I found brought back some memories and there was a > rumour at that time that Le Chicken was Ymenard. LeChicken is no longer of our world, but his spirit lies over the haunted place that is rec.autos.simulators ;) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <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.

<extreme snippage> Great! at last people are making valid sensible comments on this prickly subject. I quite agree with both Chris and Steven, It's about the percieved feel of the cars, and I must say GPL, physics or not, is one of the most immersive games I've played, I still catch my breath at the chicane at monaco, and at Antoniusbuche at the Ring. PS: by the way, it's Flugplatz (means "airfield" in German)

the great and intrepid Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>the great and intrepid Chris Bloom <[email hidden]> wrote: > >.... > >>Well what I found brought back some memories and there was a >>rumour at that time that Le Chicken was Ymenard. >> >>In actual fact our brave and fearless leader has been rather >>quiet recently, enough time for twenty pages?? >> >>Chris >> >>:) > > >Is my English really THAT bad? ;-)

I think there's a name for this: "synchronicity" :-D Le Prof "Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out alive." Elbert Hubbard

Le Professeur wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Personally, I totally enjoy the GP2 physics. I find it a model that is > sufficiently challenging and the only things that really bother me a bit are > canned spins and the absence of total tumble. And why? Because they are both > also visual aspects. Through watching hundreds of hours of F1 coverage, we know > that it's not how it should be. But do these omissions seriously impact the > racing experience? No, they just impact our identification with the real thing. > If spinning or tumbling would ususally happen once a lap, the omission would > have a higher impact though :-) >

Just a quick comment here; GP2 does not seem to have canned spins in my opinion. The spins do happen suddenly, this is probably due to the fact the grip is lost too fast when the rear wheels start to slide (I don't know about the real deal, perhaps this is the way it should be). They ARE catchable, you just need to have a setup with a good feel (not too much understeer, this in turn means that any oversteer will be of the snap sort and really hard to catch), and be careful not to overcorrect it. I usually end up in a spin of the opposite direction to the original tendency, simply because I catch the slide but then provoke another one in the opposite direction. Another misconception is that full tumble physics is the only way to go. Full tumble is only necessary in cars that have large amounts of roll and pitch (i.e. soft suspension) relative to the road, so that also the nonlinear changes in movements are taken into account. GP2 and N3 do not have it, but in the normal regimes of operation (not flying around) the linear approximations are so good that the simulation can be considered just as accurate as the full tumble one with the levels of roll and pitch in these two sims if the approximation is executed properly. So that's why I rate GP2 physics very high and that's why in my opinion it can have a terrific feel without a full tumble engine. -Gregor

Stephen Ferguson wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > Except if you jumped on the brakes in the middle of a spin, the car ceased > to rotate. This was often the easiest way to recover from a mistake with a > minimal loss of time. Remember, I posted earlier that I *like* GP2, so it's > a minor criticism. > > Stephen

I didn't knw that, I'll look into it, sounds like a good test. I'll report later when I try it out, thanks for the info! I still haven't quite figured out how the physics system works in GP2, so this might be useful. -Gregor

In article <1FKE4.1230$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote: <SNIP> > By not including as much as is possible to simulate, one isexperiencing > a rather 1 or 2 dimensional simulation. Don't get me wrong, there is > room and a place for 1 or 2 dimensional simulations (NSF: PU is one > example). Just curious, Michael, but what do you feel is missing in NFSPU that qualifies it as a 1 or 2 dimensional simulation? NFSPU seems to simulate just about as much in the area of physics modeling as Viper Racing does in my opinion. NFSPU may have fewer chassis setup options than Viper Racing or GPL, but these type of chassis tweaks are NOT typically performed on most roadgoing supercars anyway, which is what NFSPU is modeling (as opposed to Viper Racing's racing-oriented modeling). Aside from setup options, what is missing in NFSPU in your opinion? If we can define and quantify our subjective feelings, maybe the developers will work to include these type of things in the future (NFSPU is a HUGE improvement over previous NFS versions, so somebody must be listening). -- JB Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Le Professeur wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> <snip> > > So, isn't it enough to try to mimic THESE aspects, and assign less importance to > rather trivial things like the exact functioning of a damper or the ideal > tiretemperature? Things that would not prevent someone from wanting to be a > racedriver if they would be (even TOTALLY) different? > > > > Le Prof > > "The day you stopped feeling yourself a little bit dumber each > day, is the day you stopped learning." > > W.T.

This is an enjoyable thread. Congrats to all. On the point above, there are 2 things I would like to add as part of my opinion: 1) Things ARE NOT totally different. Real-world physics are what they are, not something else. This is because of something I think most people here are forgetting: 2) What is a simulator (any simulator, of anything)? Something that, by definition, is as close as possible to the real thing. THE REAL THING, not the figment of someone`s imagination. That`s why driving sim physics must be as close as they can get to the real-world physics. As for the importance of physics, I see a simple reason for it: it is easy to find good graphics, great gameplay, etc., in many games, including arcade-racers. Good physics is the rare commodity these days, so I believe the sim-racing community must push the developers to improve that. The rest will come, whether we like it or not. As for the real importance of all this, it`s all about having fun. But the fun I expect from playing Quake Arena is not the same I expect from GPL. To a lesser degree, the same is true with TOCA and GPL. They do not do deliver the same goods. Both are good, but in doing different things. But only one, in my opinion, is a racing car simulator. And that one should be as close to the real world as possible, even if it is too difficult for my skills (can`t beat 1:06:98 in the Glen) or too ugly compared to some others (not my opinion, but could be someone else`s; I don`t give a damn about the graphics, above a minimum). Just my take on it. Daniel Fr�is

Daniel Frois <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > 2) What is a simulator (any simulator, of anything)? Something that, bydefinition, > is as close as possible to the real thing. THE REAL THING, not the figmentof > someone`s imagination. That`s why driving sim physics must be as close asthey can > get to the real-world physics. > If it is specifically a simulator of driving physics! If it is simulating the experience of being a racing driver (one can simulate an experience) then physics aren't everything. Stephen

In article <[email hidden]>, Daniel Frois <[email hidden]> wrote: > As for the real importance of all this, it`s all about having fun. Butthe fun I > expect from playing Quake Arena is not the same I expect from GPL. Toa lesser > degree, the same is true with TOCA and GPL. They do not do deliver thesame goods. > Both are good, but in doing different things. But only one, in myopinion, is a > racing car simulator. And that one should be as close to the realworld as possible, > even if it is too difficult for my skills (can`t beat 1:06:98 in theGlen) or too > ugly compared to some others (not my opinion, but could be someoneelse`s; I don`t > give a damn about the graphics, above a minimum). Agreed -- and if we classify GPL as a true racing simulator, then I would contend that NFSPU may be our first true sports car simulator. Viper Racing straddled the line between racer and sports cars (erring on the side of a racer, which ain't bad, mind you), but NFSPU deals solidly with roadgoing cars with a racing flavor (race-inspired, rather than purpose-built racers). We need to continue to demand better physics and realism from the developers -- if we do so, they will ultimately deliver. I think NFSPU is proof of this, given that the previous NFS titles were nothing but pure arcade racers with shaky physics modeling at best, compared to the much-improved physics modeling in NFSPU. If EA can learn (and get it pretty much right), then there's hope for other developers, too. Which means better sims -- and more fun -- for us! -- JB Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:05:02 +0200 Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote: % Daniel Frois <[email hidden]> wrote in message % news:[email hidden]... % > % > 2) What is a simulator (any simulator, of anything)? Something that, by % definition, % > is as close as possible to the real thing. THE REAL THING, not the figment % of % > someone`s imagination. That`s why driving sim physics must be as close as % they can % > get to the real-world physics. % > % If it is specifically a simulator of driving physics! If it is simulating % the experience of being a racing driver (one can simulate an experience) % then physics aren't everything. In order to simulate the experience of being a racing driver, doesn't one need to simulate the physics of the race car? At least in my book a real race car driver has to deal with the physics in the real world. If real race car drivers drove virtual cars in a non-physics virtual world, then it would be possible to simulate being a race car driver without real world physics being simulated. By not including as much as is possible to simulate, one is experiencing a rather 1 or 2 dimensional simulation. Don't get me wrong, there is room and a place for 1 or 2 dimensional simulations (NSF: PU is one example). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Daniel Frois <[email hidden]> wrote: : This is an enjoyable thread. Congrats to all. : On the point above, there are 2 things I would like to add as part of my opinion: : 1) Things ARE NOT totally different. Real-world physics : are what they are, not something else. This is because of : something I think most people here are forgetting: : 2) What is a simulator (any simulator, of anything)? : Something that, by definition, is as close as possible : to the real thing. THE REAL THING, not the figment of : someone`s imagination. That`s why driving sim physics : must be as close as they can get to the real-world physics. I disagree - a driving sim is always going to be a simplification of real-world physics. The goal of a driving sim is to make something which has, as close as possible, the behaviour of the real-world car while expanding as little computational effort as possible to do so. For this reason, in many situations, it's simply for the best to ignore what the actual physics of the situation is and construct a mathematical law which well approximates it. Example - there is no "law of physics" which says that "the higher the engine above physics , the slower it runs" - this is a consequence of the lower amount of oxygen at race tracks which are in places way above sea-level. (I can't remember which race-tracks this affects - I seem to remember that Kyalami is one). If we want to incorporate this into a sim it would be a bad idea to include some modelling of the spacing of air molecules going into the intake. It would be a good idea to have an engine power fiddle factor for each track which is far enough above sea-level for this to matter. My opinion anyway, as someone who spends a bit of time with physics is that a skillful modeller avoids physics as much as possible. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/

> >PS: by the way, it's Flugplatz (means "airfield" in German) >Hehe....I usually say something which sounds rather similar to "Flugplatz" as I land after that jump and inevitably end up losing control and flipping myself on the grass bank:) Chris > > > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

In the track.ini file for each GPL track there is a track altitude section. I have checked the Kyalami one and this says 0.0 metres. In real life it is about 1700 metres above sea level. The Mexico track is also set at 0.0 as do all the other circuits. Maybe this was something Papyrus hoped to model (power deficiency due to altitude) but had to leave out because of time/money constraints. A bit like ISI left the simulation bit out of F1 2000. Chris > Example - there is no "law of physics" which says that "thehigher the >engine above physics , the slower it runs" - this is aconsequence of >the lower amount of oxygen at race tracks which are in placesway above >sea-level. (I can't remember which race-tracks this affects -I seem to >remember that Kyalami is one). If we want to incorporate thisinto a >sim it would be a bad idea to include some modelling of thespacing of >air molecules going into the intake. It would be a good ideato have an >engine power fiddle factor for each track which is far enoughabove >sea-level for this to matter. * 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] wrote in <1FKE4.1230$[email hidden]>: >In order to simulate the experience of being a racing driver, doesn't >one need to simulate the physics of the race car? Not necessarily. It's a matter of degree. The vast majority of the feedback that a real world driver uses is not available to us. To be ruthlessly accurate about the cars physics, when the driver is denied most of the information he would normally have to drive it, guarantees that it will NOT be an accurate simulation of the experience. We are still missing a vital component of the simulation experience, a moving cockpit that will give us the physical input that is so central to the experience of driving. Until then I think that you need to fudge the physics a bit to compensate for the lack of information that we have to go by, so that ironically, by being a bit less realistic with the cars physics, we can more realistically simulate the driving experience. Having said that, let me contradict myself by saying that I love the degree of accuracy of gpl's physics, I don't really want to go backwards to a more arcadish model. but I am frustrated by the lack of information that I have about what the cars doing. We need to accept the reality of driving on a computer. I'd like to see on screen indicators that would give us some of the input that were not getting through our bodies eg: g-force meter, traction limits, slip angle, audible bumpstop contact, on and on. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C.

On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:55:38 GMT, [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote in message <[email hidden]> : >IMO the terms simulator/arcade/game are just labels we attach to >programs. Today's simulator is tomorrow's arcade racer ;-) Cheers, Richard

Richard Walker wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:55:38 GMT, [email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote in > message <[email hidden]> : > > >IMO the terms simulator/arcade/game are just labels we attach to > >programs. > > Today's simulator is tomorrow's arcade racer ;-)

Can I put that in my sig? ;^) -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:25:18 GMT [email hidden] wrote: % > By not including as much as is possible to simulate, one is % experiencing % > a rather 1 or 2 dimensional simulation. Don't get me wrong, there is % > room and a place for 1 or 2 dimensional simulations (NSF: PU is one % > example). % Just curious, Michael, but what do you feel is missing in NFSPU that % qualifies it as a 1 or 2 dimensional simulation? NFSPU seems to % simulate just about as much in the area of physics modeling as Viper % Racing does in my opinion. NFSPU may have fewer chassis setup options % than Viper Racing or GPL, but these type of chassis tweaks are % NOT typically performed on most roadgoing supercars anyway, which is % what NFSPU is modeling (as opposed to Viper Racing's racing-oriented % modeling). Actually I feel that overall NFSPU is a notch above the physics in Viper Racing. I sense more inertia in NFSPU. But running over curbs does not seem to unsettle the car as much as I think it would. Getting tapped by another car doesn't provide the exact feel that I think it should. But I do very much enjoy NFSPU. Except for the limits of the tracks, I prefer it over Viper Racing. The physics in NFSPU are toned down somewhat, but in some ways, I also feel they are better as a whole than N3. N3 seems to have gaps between what it provides in the physics department, where NFSPU feels like it is smooth and solid. % Aside from setup options, what is missing in NFSPU in your opinion? If % we can define and quantify our subjective feelings, maybe the developers % will work to include these type of things in the future (NFSPU is a HUGE % improvement over previous NFS versions, so somebody must be listening). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

in article 8bvqd7$5mqan$[email hidden], Stephen Ferguson at [email hidden] wrote on 30-03-2000 17:05: > If it is specifically a simulator of driving physics! If it is simulating > the experience of being a racing driver (one can simulate an experience) > then physics aren't everything. You must be kidding. A simulation is supposed to be a recreation of reality. What else should it recreate? If it models something else or takes liberties, it's called a game. That's what this topic is all about. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy a game, but the experience of being a racing driver is the direct product of the accuracy of the simulation. That includes the physics. If you leave them out, you haven't simulated the experience. -- Bye, Leo

Leo Landman <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>in article 8bvqd7$5mqan$[email hidden], Stephen Ferguson at >[email hidden] wrote on 30-03-2000 17:05: > >> If it is specifically a simulator of driving physics! If it is simulating >> the experience of being a racing driver (one can simulate an experience) >> then physics aren't everything. > >You must be kidding. A simulation is supposed to be a recreation of reality. >What else should it recreate? If it models something else or takes >liberties, it's called a game. That's what this topic is all about.

In that case only reality can be a simulator.... <g> >That doesn't mean you can't enjoy a game, but the experience of being a >racing driver is the direct product of the accuracy of the simulation. That >includes the physics. If you leave them out, you haven't simulated the >experience. Well, yeah, of course....you need at least a form of physics... IMO the terms simulator/arcade/game are just labels we attach to programs. Since everyone has a different definition of those labels they are not a big help. Discussions like this will not help either. In the end your own experience and other's opinion of games is the only way to understand where those others are talking about when they are reviewing a new game. Remco

Hey, whats with this plastic crap, mines metal !! ;) -- Ian Parker [email hidden] [email hidden] == Tim O. <[email hidden]> wrote > > Good point. The "hard-core" guys can rationalize what they're doing as > a simulation, not a game all they want, but when you get right down to > it, we're all just dinks sitting at a computer with a plastic steering > wheel. > > Think of yourself this way, and you'll never get crazy enough to post > about how accurate GPL cars handle despite never having seen one in > person, let along driving a few laps at Monza in one. > > They're all games. > > Tim >

In article <QlSE4.1567$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:25:18 GMT [email hidden] wrote: > > % > By not including as much as is possible to simulate, one is > % experiencing > % > a rather 1 or 2 dimensional simulation. Don't get me wrong, thereis > % > room and a place for 1 or 2 dimensional simulations (NSF: PU isone > % > example). > > % Just curious, Michael, but what do you feel is missing in NFSPU that > % qualifies it as a 1 or 2 dimensional simulation? NFSPU seems to > % simulate just about as much in the area of physics modeling as Viper > % Racing does in my opinion. NFSPU may have fewer chassis setupoptions > % than Viper Racing or GPL, but these type of chassis tweaks are > % NOT typically performed on most roadgoing supercars anyway, which is > % what NFSPU is modeling (as opposed to Viper Racing's racing-oriented > % modeling). > > Actually I feel that overall NFSPU is a notch above the physics inViper > Racing. I sense more inertia in NFSPU. But running over curbs does not > seem to unsettle the car as much as I think it would. Getting tappedby > another car doesn't provide the exact feel that I think it should. But > I do very much enjoy NFSPU. Except for the limits of the tracks, I > prefer it over Viper Racing. The physics in NFSPU are toned down > somewhat, but in some ways, I also feel they are better as a wholethan > N3. N3 seems to have gaps between what it provides in the physics > department, where NFSPU feels like it is smooth and solid. Looks like we pretty much feel the same way about NFSPU, then. I do think it captures the sense of inertia better than Viper Racing, and I also agree about curbs and getting tapped by other cars. Saying that the physics feel toned down somewhat is probably a good way to put it, but that aside, I still think the physics in NFSPU feel pretty darned good. Much better than SCGT, for example (or N3, for that matter, which has really failed to grab me). Thanks for the response -- glad to see we can agree and/or disagree as necessary, and still not be too far off base either way! <G> -- JB > % Aside from setup options, what is missing in NFSPU in your opinion?If > % we can define and quantify our subjective feelings, maybe thedevelopers > % will work to include these type of things in the future (NFSPU is aHUGE > % improvement over previous NFS versions, so somebody must belistening). > > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Oh right Richard...Like we'll ever see a processor powerful enough to run Chess at a decent framerate<g>. -- don "Getting hit by a meteorite is an accident... everything else is driver-error." "Richard Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 17:28:48 +0200, Le Professeur > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > <[email hidden]> : > > > You simply get a different set > >of rules. But the skill of manipulating them remains the same. > > We might as well all go & play chess then. Very challenging and lots of > complexity ;-) > > Cheers, > Richard

I like your argument concerning " sim vs. arcade", and I agree with you for the most part. Some individuals in the newsgroup take their simulated racing a bit too seriously, and need to maintain a reasonable perspective. We are simply playing videogames, and as long as you get enjoyment from it, then it's a good videogame. My personal measure of a good "sim" type racer, is whether or not it "feels" like what I experience in an actual car at less than racing speeds. If I have trouble driving a sim at 50 MPH, bumping into walls and weaving all over the road, then I don't enjoy playing it at any speed , because I don't beleive that I could not drive even a Formula 1 car in real life at 30 MPH with a bit of time to get used to the clutch and accelerator. And yet I have played with more than a few " sim " racers which felt nothing like a real world car even at pedestrian speeds let alone 200 MPH, and even after more than an hour of playing , left me bumping from one wall into another and spinning in circles. If a " sim " feels reasonably similar to a real car ( albeit on steroids) at low speeds, then I can accept that it may behave and feel quite differently at racing speeds, and be difficult to control. However, it seems that alot of sim racers assume that if it is difficult to control a given sim vehicle, that this simply demonstrates the accurracy of the physics model. As far as arcade racers are concerned, I think that as long as they are well thought out by the designers, and consequently "fun", then they can have totally outrageous physics models and be great games. My expectations for them are totally different.

On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 22:40:28 +0200, Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote in message <[email hidden]> : >Can I put that in my sig? ;^) Sure, with the proper accreditation of course <g> Cheers, Richard

On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 17:28:48 +0200, Le Professeur <[email hidden]> wrote in message <[email hidden]> : > You simply get a different set >of rules. But the skill of manipulating them remains the same. We might as well all go & play chess then. Very challenging and lots of complexity ;-) Cheers, Richard

the great and intrepid Richard Walker <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:25:02 +0200, Le Professeur ><[email hidden]> wrote in message ><[email hidden]> : >>So, isn't it enough to assign less importance to >>rather trivial things like the exact functioning of a damper or the ideal >>tiretemperature? Things that would not prevent someone from wanting to be a >>racedriver if they would be (even TOTALLY) different? > >What if you had the mentality of a Ross Brawn or a Patrick Head? You would >be extremely interested in these aspects. You might also wish to be able to >go out onto the track and race the cars to test out the changes for >yourself. In a sim you can do just that (up to the limitations of the >simulation). There are many different aspects of the sport and a sim gives >you the chance to explore many of them. The "race driver" aspect is just >one of them - sure it is by far the biggest & most popular part but it's >not the only one.

I understand what you're up to. But let there be no misunderstanding: I never intended to say that I rate an "arcadegame" as high as a "simulator". (BTW, the fact that I use these terms illustrates that I mostly agree with the classifications by r.a.s. posters) Or in other words: that a game has complex "physics" is important to ME also. What I wanted to get accross is that even Ross Brawn or Patrick Head are in the first place fascinated by the *complexity* of it all, and by the challenge to *tame* this complexity. Does Patrick Head really care about the fact that gravitational acceleration is 9.81 km/s^2 on the earth's surface? It's just something that he needs to know to efficiently "tame" the physics. The type of challenge would be the same if it were 150 km/s^2. Or imagine it this way: imagine that virtual games take an enormous flight. We are 2500 AD, and a futuristic multi-player space racing sim is THE hype of the century. It features totally alien but very complex and challenging physics. It attracts more money, women and attention than soccer and F1 together. It makes stars brighter than Michael Jackson (not by using bleach agent <G>) Wouldn't the Ross Brawns and Patrick Heads of that era work in this Space Racing Sim world? Would they care about the fact that the physics they work with are not "real" physics? I'm not so sure they would. You simply get a different set of rules. But the skill of manipulating them remains the same. Le Prof ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------