GP3 carshape

I know this is an old debate, so if you don't want to read it..... Ok, I know GP3 only has one carshape, which considering GP2 has 2 is.......well you know, plain odd. The thing that gets my is that the car doesn't even look like an F1 car, but much more like an F3000. No, seriously it really does look just like a current F3000. I just can't understand this one. GC, such a fussy man over details (so we're told) yet he isn't fussed over this one detail. Strange David C (R4)

It looks odd indeed, but it really looks more like a 1998 Formula 1 than people might think. Best example is to look at the first ferrari in 98. The only problem is that the GP3 nose goes too much down compared to any real-life 98 F1 car. http://www.alphaf1.com/gp3/pics/hung38.jpg http://www.forix.com/asp/photos.asp?z=0&k=0&l=2&x=101&f=1998/06003_DH... Compare those two pictures from Forix and AtlasF1. -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Quoted text (15 lines)

>> The thing that gets my is that the car doesn't even look like an F1 car, >but >> much more like an F3000. No, seriously it really does look just like a >> current F3000. >It looks odd indeed, but it really looks more like a 1998 Formula 1 than >people might think. Best example is to look at the first ferrari in 98. >The only problem is that the GP3 nose goes too much down compared to any >real-life 98 F1 car. >http://www.alphaf1.com/gp3/pics/hung38.jpg >http://www.forix.com/asp/photos.asp?z=0&k=0&l=2&x=101&f=1998/06003_DH... >Compare those two pictures from Forix and AtlasF1.

Thanks for showing us this FACT. AND: the DRIVER HEADS are the correct size! As we know that is just about the most difficult thing to get right in a F1 sim. ;-) JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

It has 3 actually:-) Yeah, your very right about that. Thing is though that the cars are actually based on the Arrows we are led to believe and they do actually look lke the Arrows.... combine that with slight deformations in the screenshots and they look damn near F3000 cars..... Although,in the proper game the cars will look more "stretched" than in the screenshots so it should work out ok.

R4 wrote; One car shape probably allows code optimizations. Just like F1 2000 all cars have same sound, even though SCGT allowed different sounds. I think all GP3 car physics will be the same? If so, it's fine with me, ought to run faster than F1 2000, which already has different car shapes and physics. No point in putting out the same game just different name. Well, he's not going to beat F1 2000 in car shapes, since it does the current season cars pretty good. He has to provide an alternative, a reason to buy GP3. And he can do that by fussing over stable and effecient code, track accuracy, FF, replay, stable, right out of the box. If he has all that, I say let the cars go, and put the game out. Tom

<snip> Quite a difference indeed. fortunately GC's car looks better :) Andre

The reason GP2 had two shapes was simply because the transition from low to high noses was occurring. Nowadays all the cars are equally ugly, ergo, no need for different shapes. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. ---------------------------

I agree, F3000....why? Sudesh

Quoted text (15 lines)

> I know this is an old debate, so if you don't want to read it..... > Ok, I know GP3 only has one carshape, which considering GP2 has 2 > is.......well you know, plain odd. > The thing that gets my is that the car doesn't even look like an F1 car, but > much more like an F3000. No, seriously it really does look just like a > current F3000. > I just can't understand this one. GC, such a fussy man over details (so > we're told) yet he isn't fussed over this one detail. > Strange > David C (R4)

>I agree, F3000....why? Maybe because a current F3000 car looks like a '98 F1 car? JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

in 98. Didn't the Ferrari and others start the year with dropped noses, and only switched after getting their butt's spanked in the early rounds? The last low nose Ferrari was a beautiful design, but now...bugs just plain bugs... dave henrie

Yeah I agree cars nowadays are very ugly and totally inefficient. Do you wanna make a 1993 or 1994 carset with me for GP3 ? shapes.

BINGO!! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > >I agree, F3000....why? > Maybe because a current F3000 car looks like a '98 F1 car? > JoH > ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- > --------------------------------------------------------------

Well...I can't comment on whether they are inefficient or not. I would hazard a guess that they actually ARE efficient in what they do. But in my eye they are not attractive. Thanks for the offer but no, I'll simply stick to what comes in the box.....ugly or not! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > Yeah I agree cars nowadays are very ugly and totally inefficient. Do you > wanna make a 1993 or 1994 carset with me for GP3 ? > > The reason GP2 had two shapes was simply because the transition from low > to > > high noses was occurring. > > Nowadays all the cars are equally ugly, ergo, no need for different > shapes.

With all the rules like trapped bottoms and the profiled tires and the plank they are inefficient > Well...I can't comment on whether they are inefficient or not. I would > hazard a guess that they actually ARE efficient in what they do. But in my

Quoted text (19 lines)

> eye they are not attractive. > Thanks for the offer but no, I'll simply stick to what comes in the > box.....ugly or not! :-) > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Yeah I agree cars nowadays are very ugly and totally inefficient. Do you > > wanna make a 1993 or 1994 carset with me for GP3 ? > > > The reason GP2 had two shapes was simply because the transition from

low > > to > > > high noses was occurring. > > > Nowadays all the cars are equally ugly, ergo, no need for different > > shapes.

Francois...here is an minor update for your English. Unatractable = unattractive. (I know that you will take this in the spirit in which it is offered). Cheers, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KAR75.26761$[email hidden]... > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Didn't the Ferrari and others start the year with dropped noses, and > only > > switched after getting their butt's spanked in the early rounds? Thelast

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > low nose Ferrari was a beautiful design, but now.. > > > Actually, that was in 1996. I have a picture of the last lap ever of a > low-nosed Ferrari during the Montr�al Grand Prix. They changed to the > high-nose configuration on the second practice on Friday. It was a beauty > indeed. > > You can see a great picture of the F310 from Forix at this URL > http://www.forix.com/asp/photos.asp?z=0&k=0&l=2&x=101&f=1996/06002_RN.JPG

. > > Btw does anybody here find ugly the camera mount on top of F1's? Let'shope > they eliminate them someday, since they make the cars for me totally > unatractable with that "spike". > > Finally, I forward you to this URL to compare during the same Grand Prixthe

Quoted text (11 lines)

> completely different Ferrari cars that were used : > http://www.forix.com/asp/photos.asp?z=0&k=0&l=2&x=1&r=1996&f=jplc&i=63 > > > > > -- > -- 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. > > >

Well?!! What IS a "trapped bottom"???!! :-) I genuinely don't know what he means. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Kai Fuller <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0RU75.301443$[email hidden]... > "> (Incidentally.....what's a "trapped bottom"? Sounds most painful.)" > > You never fail to amaze me Bruce... > > > >

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote > Didn't the Ferrari and others start the year with dropped noses, andonly > switched after getting their butt's spanked in the early rounds? The last > low nose Ferrari was a beautiful design, but now.. Actually, that was in 1996. I have a picture of the last lap ever of a low-nosed Ferrari during the Montr�al Grand Prix. They changed to the high-nose configuration on the second practice on Friday. It was a beauty indeed. You can see a great picture of the F310 from Forix at this URL http://www.forix.com/asp/photos.asp?z=0&k=0&l=2&x=101&f=1996/06002_RN.JPG . Btw does anybody here find ugly the camera mount on top of F1's? Let's hope they eliminate them someday, since they make the cars for me totally unatractable with that "spike". Finally, I forward you to this URL to compare during the same Grand Prix the completely different Ferrari cars that were used : http://www.forix.com/asp/photos.asp?z=0&k=0&l=2&x=1&r=1996&f=jplc&i=63 -- -- 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.

"> (Incidentally.....what's a "trapped bottom"? Sounds most painful.)" You never fail to amaze me Bruce...

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > Well?!! > What IS a "trapped bottom"???!! :-) I genuinely don't know what he means. Stepped bottom perhaps ? :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

D'oh! Of course ;-) -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Oh. Okay......but wouldn't they have to be as efficient as possible to work within those constraints? (Incidentally.....what's a "trapped bottom"? Sounds most painful.) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- NTR <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8jnhpt$5gu$[email hidden]... > With all the rules like trapped bottoms and the profiled tires and the plank > they are inefficient > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:395ecdb3$[email hidden]... > > Well...I can't comment on whether they are inefficient or not. I would > > hazard a guess that they actually ARE efficient in what they do. But in > my > > eye they are not attractive. > > > > Thanks for the offer but no, I'll simply stick to what comes in the > > box.....ugly or not! :-) > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > NTR <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8jmgq4$ldi$[email hidden]... > > > Yeah I agree cars nowadays are very ugly and totally inefficient. Do you > > > wanna make a 1993 or 1994 carset with me for GP3 ? > > > > > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > The reason GP2 had two shapes was simply because the transition from > low > > > to > > > > high noses was occurring. > > > > Nowadays all the cars are equally ugly, ergo, no need for different > > > shapes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote > Francois...here is an minor update for your English. > Unatractable = unattractive. D'oh! > (I know that you will take this in the spirit in which it is offered). Of course ;-) -- -- 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.

I did some scooting around on the net on this subject and found some photos of 1998 F1 cars and the GP3 carshape is *very* similar to the 1998 Jordan and Stewart. Ok, it's nothing like the McLaren or Ferrari, but it does look like at least one F1 car from 98. If anyone wants me to find that photo, I know how to locate it again.

Ah-ha! Thanks, Goy.......of course, that mus be what the intention was. I was hung up on the "trapped" bit! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > Well?!! > > What IS a "trapped bottom"???!! :-) I genuinely don't know what he means. > > Stepped bottom perhaps ? :-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com