Seat of your pants....

Nearly 5 years old and still no auto simulator to beat GPL for 'seat of your pants' driving..... Papy well ahead of their time, huh? Go4it.....

October 1997 My mistake, Nearly 6 years... "Alan Coates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kYyLa.5892$[email hidden]... > Nearly 5 years old and still no auto simulator to beat GPL for 'seat ofyour

Quoted text (7 lines)

> pants' driving..... > > Papy well ahead of their time, huh? > > Go4it..... > >

Aaaah....memories! I remember the day well when I first saw the little demo video of the two Lotuses racing together at Monza. I watched that clip over, and over, and over, drooling all over the keyboard. And when the playable demo was issued.......Good Grief! I think I started playing after dinner that night and never went to bed! And I STILL get just as much enjoyment out of that package, and what has spun of it. Bruce. "Alan Coates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YZyLa.5898$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> October 1997 > > My mistake, Nearly 6 years... > > > "Alan Coates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:kYyLa.5892$[email hidden]... > > Nearly 5 years old and still no auto simulator to beat GPL for 'seat of > your > > pants' driving..... > > > > Papy well ahead of their time, huh? > > > > Go4it..... > > > > > >

> Nearly 5 years old and still no auto simulator to beat GPL for 'seat ofyour > pants' driving..... Nope, it obviously just struck a chord with you at the time and now you're too blinded by nostalgia to see past the end of your nose. You're not alone here....

Papy was certainly well ahead of their time when they released GPL I think in it was October '98, and they're still ahead of their time because N2k3 beats GPL hands down on most accounts, including physics and seat of pants driving :) Achim "Alan Coates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kYyLa.5892$[email hidden]... > Nearly 5 years old and still no auto simulator to beat GPL for 'seat ofyour

Quoted text (7 lines)

> pants' driving..... > > Papy well ahead of their time, huh? > > Go4it..... > >

"Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdmf31$uuo2a$[email hidden]... > > Nearly 5 years old and still no auto simulator to beat GPL for 'seat of > your > > pants' driving..... > > Nope, it obviously just struck a chord with you at the time and now you're > too blinded by nostalgia to see past the end of your nose. You're notalone > here.... I'd have to agree with this up to a point. gpl has been the benchmark for a long time though, and imo it's still right up there with the best in terms of sheer entertainment value. Rolls Royce are described as making the 'Best Cars in the World'. They are not the most well made, or the fastest, or the most powerful or well equipped, but to drive one (or own one I guess) makes you feel special, and as long as you don't try to justify what 'best' means too hard you can still believe it. In the same way, imo gpl is still 'King of Sims' and probably will be for a long time. Nostalgia is part of the reason why I reckon, and in those terms it's right up there with space invaders, pacman and Elite. Malc.

In article <3efebf95$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Aaaah....memories! > I remember the day well when I first saw the little demo video of the two > Lotuses racing together at Monza. > I watched that clip over, and over, and over, drooling all over the > keyboard. > > And when the playable demo was issued.......Good Grief! I think I started > playing after dinner that night and never went to bed! > > And I STILL get just as much enjoyment out of that package, and what has > spun of it. >

When the playable demo came out, I decided I didn't like GPL., and that I wouldn't buy it. However, so many people raved about it when it was finally released in stores that I had to take a serious look at it. I ended up liking it enough to run two league seasons. It's definitely one of the best (if not the best) racing sim ever produced. It's really too bad that Papy wasn't given time to further develop the extensibility that was obviously designed into the game. Have the ability to race with different types of cars would be a great feature for the more serious sims.

>"Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote > Nope, it obviously just struck a chord with you at the time and now you're > too blinded by nostalgia to see past the end of your nose. Bzzzzzzz, wrong answer. The quality of a game doesn't diminish with time. It stays the same. You are blinded by the sheer power of corporate media that says to you "This thing, now, it's better then anything before!" when most of the developers can't even equal some stuff made 6 years ago. But the real answer is, NR2003 is technically superior in about every aspect to GPL, it's truly the "king of sims". F1C is a couple of years behind NR2003. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

> But the real answer is, NR2003 is technically superior in about everyaspect > to GPL, it's truly the "king of sims". F1C is a couple of years behind > NR2003. In most respects, yes, except the ones that really matter.

"Alan Coates" <[email hidden]> wrote here on 29 Jun 2003: > Nearly 5 years old and still no auto simulator to beat GPL for > 'seat of your pants' driving..... > > Papy well ahead of their time, huh? > > Go4it..... And for those of us who don't get excited by NASCAR games[1], excellent as they may be, that's still the case. [1] No, not even on road courses. -- Above address *is* valid - but snip spamtrap to get me to *read*! Support the world's oldest motorsport venue! http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html

> And for those of us who don't get excited by NASCAR games[1], > excellent as they may be, that's still the case. > > [1] No, not even on road courses. That's the thing I don't get - I love GPL, GTR2002, F1C etc. but N2003 even on the road courses feels like it's lacking something and I can't work out what it is....

"Redmist" wrote... > > <snip> > That's the thing I don't get - I love GPL, GTR2002, F1C etc. but > N2003 even on the road courses feels like it's lacking something > and I can't work out what it is.... Chassis rigidity. <g> Jan. =---

Pretty sure it was 1998. I remember it coming out about the same time as Half-Life. Just felt like being nit-picky. ;o) As far as seat of the pants feel I think I get more from NR 2003, at least on the road courses. Honestly I sometimes feel like I can feel the texture of the pavement in NR2003, it's uncanny. But admittedly in a lot of way it's not as *fun* a feeling as GPL. Yep, GPL is the most fun arcade racer I have ever played... <runs away very very quickly> "Alan Coates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YZyLa.5898$[email hidden]... > October 1997 > > My mistake, Nearly 6 years... > >

"Alan Coates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kYyLa.5892$[email hidden]... > Nearly 5 years old and still no auto simulator to beat GPL for 'seat ofyour > pants' driving..... > > Papy well ahead of their time, huh? > > Go4it..... Well, for me, it stands just behind Quake as one of the best games ever made. Some might question the Q word, but as a developer, it really was/is something special, as it introducted a whole bunch of new ideas that not only revolutionised the FPS genre, but also found their way into almost every genre of computer gaming since.

What a year 98 was eh. Probably the best year EVER for PC gaming and likely will not be repeated. Falcon4, Hlaf-Life and GPL. All three and all the many mods are still played religously by many after all these years. The real sad part is of the three only HL qualified as a financial success. Gilman Louie, where are you now? Mitch "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdn0hl$ttsau$[email hidden]... > Pretty sure it was 1998. I remember it coming out about the same time as > Half-Life. Just felt like being nit-picky. ;o) > > As far as seat of the pants feel I think I get more from NR 2003, at least > on the road courses. Honestly I sometimes feel like I can feel thetexture > of the pavement in NR2003, it's uncanny. But admittedly in a lot of way > it's not as *fun* a feeling as GPL. Yep, GPL is the most fun arcade racerI

Quoted text (14 lines)

> have ever played... > > <runs away very very quickly> > > > "Alan Coates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YZyLa.5898$[email hidden]... > > October 1997 > > > > My mistake, Nearly 6 years... > > > > > >

Nice lot of replies..... I see that the old argument between Nascar 2003 and GPL still gets quite an airing. My two pennies worth is that modern racing is very technically advanced and seems to have lost a lot of the human fun element, dare I say, soul? For example I would rather fly a Spitfire than an F15 anyday. The F15 makes flying 'easy' so you can concentrate on the enemy, but hey, I like flying! Similar with say modern F1. All the tech gadgets, auto-gears, traction control, wings etc just means the driver can concentrate on getting round the track with much less regard for the car. And most of all the very small degree of suspension travel on modern cars including Nascar 2003 means you get much less feel of the beast your driving. No. Give me GPL with its trail-braking, slipping and sliding into corners and always in control when your've mastered the cars still gives me the driving buzz it did nearly five years ago. Not to mention the art form: They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me the GPL (GPLEA) cars are paintings on wheels. Aside: I stood outside my house yesterday watching a solitary Spitfire do 8 loops and rolls. To me one of the most awe-inspiring sites I have ever seen. I apologise in advance for my rambling.... Alan

"Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >Well, for me, it stands just behind Quake as one of the best games ever > >made. Some might question the Q word, but as a developer, it reallywas/is

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >something special, as it introducted a whole bunch of new ideas that not > >only revolutionised the FPS genre, but also found their way into almost > >every genre of computer gaming since. > > > > Like what? You run and around and shoot things. How revolutionary is > that? From a graphics technical point of view it was evolutionary but > I fail to see anything revolutionary about it.

<sarcasm> Yes, because now 'every genre of computer gaming' has running around and shooting things... Please read the post before you reply to it. I was refering to things like: Mods : the first game to *really* open up the engine to user *coded* modifications - Remember Quake Chess, Quake Rally, Air Quake? Imagine trying to make a flight sim mod in NR2003 / F1C... 3D : not only did the engine make people start to buy in 3D engines - which led to better game content (eg Half-Life, Deus Ex), but it also looked damn good and was single-handedly responsible 3DFX winning the 3D accelerator war. It introduced things like Binary Space Partitioning, which is still used in almost every FPS today. It is also still being upgraded by the community - witness Tenebrae with full real-time dynamic shadows, full bump mapping and a whole host of other features which are making their commercial debuts with Doom 3 and the Deus Ex 2 / Thief 3 engine. Multiplayer : the first game to introduce internet gaming to most players. The first game to show developers how to write good netcode. Could host more players on a 28.8 modem in QuakeWorld than F1C can manage on broadband. The most played online game ever, Counter-Strike, runs on the original Quake netcode. Introducing all of these features to PC computer gaming in one product, in 1996, simply blows away anything any other single piece of gaming software has ever done, before or since, in my personal technical opinion. Whether the game itself was good or not varies from person to person (it usually depends on whether they were expecting Doom 3 or not ;-) Nick

Did you actually just use the words "technically advanced" and "Nascar" in the same paragraph? ;o) "AlanRCo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2cKLa.6659$[email hidden]... > Nice lot of replies..... > > I see that the old argument between Nascar 2003 and GPL still gets quitean > airing. > > My two pennies worth is that modern racing is very technically advancedand > seems to have lost a lot of the human fun element, dare I say, soul? For > example I would rather fly a Spitfire than an F15 anyday. The F15 makes > flying 'easy' so you can concentrate on the enemy, but hey, I like flying! > Similar with say modern F1. All the tech gadgets, auto-gears, traction > control, wings etc just means the driver can concentrate on getting round > the track with much less regard for the car. And most of all the verysmall

Quoted text (20 lines)

> degree of suspension travel on modern cars including Nascar 2003 means you > get much less feel of the beast your driving. > > No. Give me GPL with its trail-braking, slipping and sliding into corners > and always in control when your've mastered the cars still gives me the > driving buzz it did nearly five years ago. > > Not to mention the art form: > They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me the GPL (GPLEA) cars > are paintings on wheels. > > Aside: > I stood outside my house yesterday watching a solitary Spitfire do 8 loops > and rolls. To me one of the most awe-inspiring sites I have ever seen. > > I apologise in advance for my rambling.... > > Alan > >

"Peter Parker" wrote... > <snip> > 6 years later and people are still gloating over how > much better GPL is. It's only 5 years and it has been surpassed in every way but subjectmatter/nostalgia. > It reminds me of the Linux groups and how they > continually gloat over how much better it is > than Windows. Well, Linux is, but GPL has not been ported over yet. Jan. ;-) =---

First truly 3D shooter (i.e. no sprites and no height maps), first client-server network game, first game to support 3D cards, first game to unabashedly open itself up to mod development, the game that fathered both the CTF and Team Fortress mods and thus became the father of all subsequent teamplay shooters, the game that defined the mouse and keyboard interface that we have used ever since, the first game to use light maps and bsp trees, thus creating a paradigm that dominated game programming for the next 6 years, the first game with a particle system, ... I'm sure there's more but that ought to do for now. Basically nearly everything that happened in first person gaming between 1996 and 2002 or so was done first by Quake, and it is only more recent technological advancements like T&L and shaders that have enabled people to move beyond the paradigm that Id created 7 years ago (although I would hasten to add that Id pioneered those newer technologies also, in their later games). "Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Like what? You run and around and shoot things. How revolutionary is > that? From a graphics technical point of view it was evolutionary but > I fail to see anything revolutionary about it. Wasn't the first Lara > Croft game out the same tme as Quake?

"Haqsau" wrote... > Did you actually just use the words "technically advanced" > and "Nascar" in the same paragraph? ;o) Ok... you try and make a 427 cubic inch, caburated V8 engine run 9200rpm and hold together for 400 miles. Not to mention the aerodynamics of the bodies or the fact that entire 43 car fields have less performance spread than the top 6 at most F1 venues. The level of technology used may be lower, but the standard of engineering is just as high, if not higher seeing as there's less scope for finding an edge. Jan. =--

Didn't say first 3D game since flight sims were clearly the first. I said first 3D shooter. There were also other games that did 3D levels first, such as Ultima Underworld, but they still used sprites instead of models for the characters and items. BTW what is POD? Don't remember that one. And yes Quake had a particle system. Not a very good one, but it had one. The rocket smoke and several other effects were implemented using it. "Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Particle system was Quake2. And I don't think it was the *1st* 3D game > that I can remember. There were a number of 3D games out at the same > time. POD? > >

Nick wrote: > Well, for me, it stands just behind Quake as one of the best games ever > made. Some might question the Q word, but as a developer, it really was/is > something special, Of course - it was developed on the NeXT :) (Like the WWW, btw) Regards, Rudy

Alan, you may like the 67 F1 cars more than you like Nascars, but that has little to do with how well GPL or N2k3 simulate the cars they simulate. N2k3 is two generations ahead of GPL, N2k3's tire model alone is so much better that it renders GPL obsolete. You may enjoy driving the cars simulated by GPL more for various reasons, but N2k3 is by a huge margin the better sim :-) To tell you the truth, I'm not a huge fan of Nascars as racing vehicles either. They're big, heavy, and comparatively unresponsive. But, racing is racing, no matter which car you do it in - it always requires the same dedication, the same effort, the same attitude, and the same expertise. I've come to think that it's a little snobbish to insist that racing one car is worth more or better than racing another, and rather decided to accept the challenge and get good at racing Nascars now. And racing Nascars is as much fun as racing anything else, it's just a little more difficult :-) Meanwile, I'm enjoying N2k3 tremendously, I don't even miss GPL2. Would I quit racing Nascars if there were a GPL2 or Racing Legends (if it lived up to its promise)? Probably. But until then, I'll use the most challenging and best racing simulation, and if that's a Nascar sim, you'll see me racing Nascars :) And I can ramble at least as much as you do ;-) Achim "AlanRCo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2cKLa.6659$[email hidden]... > Nice lot of replies..... > > I see that the old argument between Nascar 2003 and GPL still gets quitean > airing. > > My two pennies worth is that modern racing is very technically advancedand > seems to have lost a lot of the human fun element, dare I say, soul? For > example I would rather fly a Spitfire than an F15 anyday. The F15 makes > flying 'easy' so you can concentrate on the enemy, but hey, I like flying! > Similar with say modern F1. All the tech gadgets, auto-gears, traction > control, wings etc just means the driver can concentrate on getting round > the track with much less regard for the car. And most of all the verysmall

Quoted text (20 lines)

> degree of suspension travel on modern cars including Nascar 2003 means you > get much less feel of the beast your driving. > > No. Give me GPL with its trail-braking, slipping and sliding into corners > and always in control when your've mastered the cars still gives me the > driving buzz it did nearly five years ago. > > Not to mention the art form: > They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me the GPL (GPLEA) cars > are paintings on wheels. > > Aside: > I stood outside my house yesterday watching a solitary Spitfire do 8 loops > and rolls. To me one of the most awe-inspiring sites I have ever seen. > > I apologise in advance for my rambling.... > > Alan > >

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdo7rm$ugnkl$[email hidden]... > . . . BTW what is POD? Don't remember that one . . . Futuristic racing game set on a doomed planet. The winner of a series of races gets to use the only escape pod left. Silly . . . but fun. ;o) Elrikk

Strongly disagree. N2003 is much easier to drive than GPL 'cuz yer getting so much more feedback from the physics engine...and much more fun 'cuz the car feels so much more alive! "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdn0hl$ttsau$[email hidden]... > Pretty sure it was 1998. I remember it coming out about the same time as > Half-Life. Just felt like being nit-picky. ;o) > > As far as seat of the pants feel I think I get more from NR 2003, at least > on the road courses. Honestly I sometimes feel like I can feel thetexture > of the pavement in NR2003, it's uncanny. But admittedly in a lot of way > it's not as *fun* a feeling as GPL. Yep, GPL is the most fun arcade racerI

Quoted text (14 lines)

> have ever played... > > <runs away very very quickly> > > > "Alan Coates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YZyLa.5898$[email hidden]... > > October 1997 > > > > My mistake, Nearly 6 years... > > > > > >

What Achim said.... "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdoorp$ujjee$[email hidden]... > Alan, you may like the 67 F1 cars more than you like Nascars, but that has > little to do with how well GPL or N2k3 simulate the cars they simulate.N2k3

Quoted text (10 lines)

> is two generations ahead of GPL, N2k3's tire model alone is so much better > that it renders GPL obsolete. > > You may enjoy driving the cars simulated by GPL more for various reasons, > but N2k3 is by a huge margin the better sim :-) > > To tell you the truth, I'm not a huge fan of Nascars as racing vehicles > either. They're big, heavy, and comparatively unresponsive. But, racing is > racing, no matter which car you do it in - it always requires the same > dedication, the same effort, the same attitude, and the same expertise.

I've > come to think that it's a little snobbish to insist that racing one car is > worth more or better than racing another, and rather decided to accept the > challenge and get good at racing Nascars now. And racing Nascars is asmuch > fun as racing anything else, it's just a little more difficult :-) > > Meanwile, I'm enjoying N2k3 tremendously, I don't even miss GPL2. Would I > quit racing Nascars if there were a GPL2 or Racing Legends (if it lived up > to its promise)? Probably. But until then, I'll use the most challengingand

Quoted text (21 lines)

> best racing simulation, and if that's a Nascar sim, you'll see me racing > Nascars :) > > And I can ramble at least as much as you do ;-) > > Achim > > > "AlanRCo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2cKLa.6659$[email hidden]... > > Nice lot of replies..... > > > > I see that the old argument between Nascar 2003 and GPL still gets quite > an > > airing. > > > > My two pennies worth is that modern racing is very technically advanced > and > > seems to have lost a lot of the human fun element, dare I say, soul? For > > example I would rather fly a Spitfire than an F15 anyday. The F15 makes > > flying 'easy' so you can concentrate on the enemy, but hey, I like

flying! > > Similar with say modern F1. All the tech gadgets, auto-gears, traction > > control, wings etc just means the driver can concentrate on gettinground > > the track with much less regard for the car. And most of all the very > small > > degree of suspension travel on modern cars including Nascar 2003 meansyou > > get much less feel of the beast your driving. > > > > No. Give me GPL with its trail-braking, slipping and sliding intocorners > > and always in control when your've mastered the cars still gives me the > > driving buzz it did nearly five years ago. > > > > Not to mention the art form: > > They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me the GPL (GPLEA)cars > > are paintings on wheels. > > > > Aside: > > I stood outside my house yesterday watching a solitary Spitfire do 8loops

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > and rolls. To me one of the most awe-inspiring sites I have ever seen. > > > > I apologise in advance for my rambling.... > > > > Alan > > > > > >

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote here on 30 Jun 2003: <snip> > You may enjoy driving the cars simulated by GPL more for various > reasons, but N2k3 is by a huge margin the better sim :-)<snip> Most enjoyable sim = best sim. ;-) -- Above address *is* valid - but snip spamtrap to get me to *read*! Support the world's oldest motorsport venue! http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html

Nope :) Most enjoyable sim = most enjoyable sim Most accurate sim = best sim :) Achim "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > Most enjoyable sim = best sim. ;-)

Redmist wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>But the real answer is, NR2003 is technically superior in about every > > aspect > >>to GPL, it's truly the "king of sims". F1C is a couple of years behind >>NR2003. > > > In most respects, yes, except the ones that really matter. > >

Which are? <AWAITING ENLIGHTENMENT>

Redmist wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>And for those of us who don't get excited by NASCAR games[1], >>excellent as they may be, that's still the case. >> >>[1] No, not even on road courses. > > > That's the thing I don't get - I love GPL, GTR2002, F1C etc. but N2003 even > on the road courses feels like it's lacking something and I can't work out > what it is.... > >

For me it the V8 engine. It's low revving and doesn't convey the feeling of speed needed in a racing sim as well as a buzzing cosworth does. And another thing: you cannot spin the wheels from a standing start like you should be able to. That says to me that something is wrong in the physics department. Gerry

Gerry, old mate!! :) > you cannot spin the wheels from a standing start like you should > be able to. That says to me that something is wrong in the > physics department. That statement surprises me, as I certainly can spin the wheels from a standing start most easily - and once a certain minimum revv has been reached, I can even make them spin anywhere throughout the entire revv range of first gear, sometimes even in second if it's set to a short ratio. AAMOF at least in first gear it's really difficult to _avoid_ spinning the rear wheels for me. Maybe N2k3's analog clutch doesn't work properly? I've never had a chance to try that, but I think I remember you're using a real clutch. About the only diff between your system and mine that could cause this strange difference. As for the sound, you indeed need to get used to N2k3's sound. At least it's a lot better than in all the older Nx sims. But, you can replace it, if you like. There are Cosworth-like engine sounds available. A guy in my league uses it (I think he created it himself). Achim "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Redmist wrote: > >>And for those of us who don't get excited by NASCAR games[1], > >>excellent as they may be, that's still the case. > >> > >>[1] No, not even on road courses. > > > > > > That's the thing I don't get - I love GPL, GTR2002, F1C etc. but N2003

even > > on the road courses feels like it's lacking something and I can't workout

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > what it is.... > > > > > > For me it the V8 engine. It's low revving and doesn't convey the feeling > of speed needed in a racing sim as well as a buzzing cosworth does. > > > Gerry >

Me too. I can't figure it out exactly, but it just has never felt right. The FFB in GPL or GTR2002 is vastly more communicative on my rig. But NR2003 is at least a big step above NR2002 in the FFB/feel department. Marc "Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdmq02$uts0c$[email hidden]... > > And for those of us who don't get excited by NASCAR games[1], > > excellent as they may be, that's still the case. > > > > [1] No, not even on road courses. > > That's the thing I don't get - I love GPL, GTR2002, F1C etc. but N2003even > on the road courses feels like it's lacking something and I can't work out > what it is.... > >

I agree too, but I still find something missing in NR2003--and I think I have finally figured it out. It is in my brain. I only started loving GPL after AH's fantastic symmetrical set-ups came out. Before that I was struggling with all the hotlappers set-ups, and doing poorly. I think that I just find asymmetrical set-ups distasteful, so when the car is as twisted as it is at a NASCAR oval, it just doesn't feel enjoyable to drive. That doesn't take away from the accuracy of the simulator, but it does reduce my enjoyment factor a lot. Oval racing with severely staggered set-up is an art and a science that is quite different from "regular" road racing. Guess I just prefer rally, open-wheel road course and closed-wheel road course racing in that order. The older F1 cars were closer to a decent road-going sports car of today than either modern F1 or NASCAR. Long live GPL and GTR2002! And someone PLEASE make a decent WRC sim! Marc "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4ZULa.18642$[email hidden]... > What Achim said.... > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bdoorp$ujjee$[email hidden]... > > Alan, you may like the 67 F1 cars more than you like Nascars, but thathas > > little to do with how well GPL or N2k3 simulate the cars they simulate. > N2k3 > > is two generations ahead of GPL, N2k3's tire model alone is so muchbetter > > that it renders GPL obsolete. > > > > You may enjoy driving the cars simulated by GPL more for variousreasons, > > but N2k3 is by a huge margin the better sim :-) > > > > To tell you the truth, I'm not a huge fan of Nascars as racing vehicles > > either. They're big, heavy, and comparatively unresponsive. But, racingis > > racing, no matter which car you do it in - it always requires the same > > dedication, the same effort, the same attitude, and the same expertise. > I've > > come to think that it's a little snobbish to insist that racing one caris > > worth more or better than racing another, and rather decided to acceptthe > > challenge and get good at racing Nascars now. And racing Nascars is as > much > > fun as racing anything else, it's just a little more difficult :-) > > > > Meanwile, I'm enjoying N2k3 tremendously, I don't even miss GPL2. WouldI > > quit racing Nascars if there were a GPL2 or Racing Legends (if it livedup

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > to its promise)? Probably. But until then, I'll use the most challenging > and > > best racing simulation, and if that's a Nascar sim, you'll see me racing > > Nascars :) > > > > And I can ramble at least as much as you do ;-) > > > > Achim > > > > > > "AlanRCo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:2cKLa.6659$[email hidden]... > > > Nice lot of replies..... > > > > > > I see that the old argument between Nascar 2003 and GPL still gets

quite > > an > > > airing. > > > > > > My two pennies worth is that modern racing is very technicallyadvanced > > and > > > seems to have lost a lot of the human fun element, dare I say, soul?For > > > example I would rather fly a Spitfire than an F15 anyday. The F15makes

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > flying 'easy' so you can concentrate on the enemy, but hey, I like > flying! > > > Similar with say modern F1. All the tech gadgets, auto-gears, traction > > > control, wings etc just means the driver can concentrate on getting > round > > > the track with much less regard for the car. And most of all the very > > small > > > degree of suspension travel on modern cars including Nascar 2003 means > you > > > get much less feel of the beast your driving. > > > > > > No. Give me GPL with its trail-braking, slipping and sliding into > corners > > > and always in control when your've mastered the cars still gives me

the

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > > driving buzz it did nearly five years ago. > > > > > > Not to mention the art form: > > > They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me the GPL (GPLEA) > cars > > > are paintings on wheels. > > > > > > Aside: > > > I stood outside my house yesterday watching a solitary Spitfire do 8 > loops > > > and rolls. To me one of the most awe-inspiring sites I have ever seen. > > > > > > I apologise in advance for my rambling.... > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > >

In article <PUULa.18641$[email hidden]>, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> writes: >Strongly disagree. N2003 is much easier to drive than GPL 'cuz yer getting >so much more feedback from the physics engine...and much more fun 'cuz the >car feels so much more alive! Interesting. I find myself MUCH less aware of what the cars in N2003 are going to do. I keep spinning, and can't catch the slides. Eldred -- Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chillcutt from Michigan(info on my homepage) Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

> Ok... you try and make a 427 cubic inch, caburated V8 engine run 9200rpmand > hold together for 400 miles. lol Looks like you just killed your own argument. Being the most fantastically engineered and developed carb V8 (it's OHV pushrod too, isn't it?) isn't as good as being the most fantastically engineered and developed inj 3l V10 running at 18,000rpm for 300 miles (and have to go through intense periods of acceleration during a lap, rather than just sit at the high end of one cog). By the way, what is 427 cubic inches in real numbers? Is it 7l? Nick the F1 guy

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KsLLa.5418$[email hidden]... > Well, Linux is [better than Windows] In your (obviously incorrect) opinion <g> Nick

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > In article <PUULa.18641$[email hidden]>, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Strongly disagree. N2003 is much easier to drive than GPL 'cuz yer getting > >so much more feedback from the physics engine...and much more fun 'cuz the > >car feels so much more alive! > > Interesting. I find myself MUCH less aware of what the cars in N2003 are going > to do. I keep spinning, and can't catch the slides.

Ah, but that could easily be contributed to running mostly fixed setups that don't suit your (lack of) driving style :-) and/or wheel/pedal setup, personally I found N4 rather horrible, N2002 pretty good and N2003 rather excellent and I can control the cars on the throttle at will with a half decent setup Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Redmist wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > And for those of us who don't get excited by NASCAR games[1], > > excellent as they may be, that's still the case. > > > > [1] No, not even on road courses. > > That's the thing I don't get - I love GPL, GTR2002, F1C etc. but N2003 even > on the road courses feels like it's lacking something and I can't work out > what it is....

A "proper" racing car ? :-) However, I've enjoyed road course racing in both N2002 and N2003 and can't really see myself going back to GPL in a serious way, yes, I enjoy 1967 GP cars more than I'd enjoy 2003 GP cars, but that doesn't say much :-) However, there's something in the works that may raise your enjoyment about racing "N2003" on road courses Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Haqsau" wrote... > > Did you actually just use the words "technically advanced" > > and "Nascar" in the same paragraph? ;o) > > Ok... you try and make a 427 cubic inch, caburated V8 engine run 9200rpm and > hold together for 400 miles. Not to mention the aerodynamics of the bodies > or the fact that entire 43 car fields have less performance spread than the > top 6 at most F1 venues. > > The level of technology used may be lower, but the standard of engineering > is just as high, if not higher seeing as there's less scope for finding an > edge.

If you can get a 427 past tech inspection I'm pretty sure you'd run away from the field these days :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Gerry Aitken wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > Redmist wrote: > >>And for those of us who don't get excited by NASCAR games[1], > >>excellent as they may be, that's still the case. > >> > >>[1] No, not even on road courses. > > > > > > That's the thing I don't get - I love GPL, GTR2002, F1C etc. but N2003 even > > on the road courses feels like it's lacking something and I can't work out > > what it is.... > > > > > > For me it the V8 engine. It's low revving and doesn't convey the feeling > of speed needed in a racing sim as well as a buzzing cosworth does. > > And another thing: you cannot spin the wheels from a standing start like > you should be able to. That says to me that something is wrong in the > physics department.

What Achim said....:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

On 30 Jun 2003 18:51:41 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >Interesting. I find myself MUCH less aware of what the cars in N2003 are going >to do. Come now, we all know *exactly* what they're going to do. Turn left. ;-)

Joachim Trensz wrote: > Gerry, old mate!! :) Ello mate :)

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > >>you cannot spin the wheels from a standing start like you should >>be able to. That says to me that something is wrong in the >>physics department. > > > That statement surprises me, as I certainly can spin the wheels from a > standing start most easily - and once a certain minimum revv has been > reached, I can even make them spin anywhere throughout the entire revv range > of first gear, sometimes even in second if it's set to a short ratio. AAMOF > at least in first gear it's really difficult to _avoid_ spinning the rear > wheels for me.

This is what happens when I try: I give it some beans and drop the clutch, there's a little screech from the rears, a buff of smoke, then the revs die but the engine doesn't stall like I would in real life, and it chugs back into life. I've timed it 0 to 60 MPH with the default setup at watkins and can only do it in 7.4! > Maybe N2k3's analog clutch doesn't work properly? I've never had a chance to > try that, but I think I remember you're using a real clutch. About the only > diff between your system and mine that could cause this strange difference. Yep, still using a pedal for the clutch and a stick to shift. But... No matter how many revs I feed in the result is the some. I also defined the clutch as a button and the result was the same. It just seems canned to me. Could you send me a reply of you spinning the rears please? I really don't understand what I'm doing wrong. > > As for the sound, you indeed need to get used to N2k3's sound. At least it's > a lot better than in all the older Nx sims. But, you can replace it, if you > like. There are Cosworth-like engine sounds available. A guy in my league > uses it (I think he created it himself). Ok I'll check out some of the sound add-ons. N2k3 is indeed more advanced than GPL in many areas, it's just that it doesn't light my fire as much as gpl. Maybe I need to get Noonans converter and beat Spa up with it? Gerry

Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote here on 30 Jun 2003:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> A "proper" racing car ? :-) > > However, I've enjoyed road course racing in both N2002 and N2003 > and can't really see myself going back to GPL in a serious way, > yes, I enjoy 1967 GP cars more than I'd enjoy 2003 GP cars, but > that doesn't say much >:-) > > However, there's something in the works that may raise your > enjoyment about racing "N2003" on road courses

Well, in my case it's not really an objective decision (and I wouldn't want it to be!) I like GPL because I've put enormous amounts of time into it and actually managed to become reasonably capable (which is more than I can say for most computer games), because I like the general feel of the community, and because in my own small way I've contributed something to it (GPLStat). None of those really have to do with the accuracy of the simulation! ;-) -- Above address *is* valid - but snip spamtrap to get me to *read*! Support the world's oldest motorsport venue! http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html

Gerry Aitken wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Yep, still using a pedal for the clutch and a stick to shift. > > But... > > No matter how many revs I feed in the result is the some. I also defined > the clutch as a button and the result was the same. It just seems canned > to me.

Still using RRC pedals Gerry ? I am, and I can spin the rears at will in 1st basically Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

David Buttery wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Well, in my case it's not really an objective decision (and I wouldn't > want it to be!) I like GPL because I've put enormous amounts of time > into it and actually managed to become reasonably capable (which is > more than I can say for most computer games), because I like the > general feel of the community, and because in my own small way I've > contributed something to it (GPLStat). None of those really have to do > with the accuracy of the simulation! ;-)

Fair enough, everyone has their preferences and (dis)likes :-), but to say that GPL hasn't been bettered, at least technically, is quite a stretch Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Goy Larsen" wrote... > <snip> > If you can get a 427 past tech inspection I'm pretty > sure you'd run away from the field these days :-) Or whatever ridiculous displacement they run nowadays... sheesh. Bunch of nitpickers. ;-) Jan. =---

"Nick" wrote...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > lol > > Looks like you just killed your own argument. Being the > most fantastically engineered and developed carb V8 > (it's OHV pushrod too, isn't it?) isn't as good as being > the most fantastically engineered and developed inj 3l V10 > running at 18,000rpm for 300 miles (and have to go > through intense periods of acceleration during a lap, > rather than just sit at the high end of one cog). By the > way, what is 427 cubic inches in real numbers? Is it 7l?

1) read the whole post and don't lift my argument out of context. 2) F1 engines don't have to last even nearly 300miles, only just over 300km. Jan. =---

Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Goy Larsen" wrote... > > <snip> > > If you can get a 427 past tech inspection I'm pretty > > sure you'd run away from the field these days :-) > > Or whatever ridiculous displacement they run nowadays... sheesh. Bunch of > nitpickers. ;-)

355 or something I think.....? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

So you're saying NR2003 is the most fun arcade racer you have ever played? ;o) "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PUULa.18641$[email hidden]... > Strongly disagree. N2003 is much easier to drive than GPL 'cuz yergetting

Quoted text (7 lines)

> so much more feedback from the physics engine...and much more fun 'cuz the > car feels so much more alive! > > "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bdn0hl$ttsau$[email hidden]... > > > > As far as seat of the pants feel I think I get more from NR 2003, at

least > > on the road courses. Honestly I sometimes feel like I can feel the > texture > > of the pavement in NR2003, it's uncanny. But admittedly in a lot of way > > it's not as *fun* a feeling as GPL. Yep, GPL is the most fun arcaderacer > I > > have ever played... > > > > <runs away very very quickly> > > > >

<perks up> What? WHAT? Tell us more! "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > However, there's something in the works that may raise your enjoyment > about racing "N2003" on road courses > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

In article <[email hidden]>, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes: >Ah, but that could easily be contributed to running mostly fixed setups >that don't suit your (lack of) driving style :-) Ouch... <g> Eldred -- Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chillcutt from Michigan(info on my homepage) Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Most enjoyable = best. This IS a subjective thing, after all. Most accurate = most accurate. High accuracy does not necessarily relate to great enjoyment, or vice-versa. Bruce. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdphv3$usqs8$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Nope :) > > Most enjoyable sim = most enjoyable sim > > Most accurate sim = best sim :) > > Achim > > > "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > ... > > Most enjoyable sim = best sim. ;-) > >

Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Gerry Aitken wrote: > >>Yep, still using a pedal for the clutch and a stick to shift. >> >>But... >> >>No matter how many revs I feed in the result is the some. I also defined >>the clutch as a button and the result was the same. It just seems canned >>to me. > > > Still using RRC pedals Gerry ?

Sure am. :) > > I am, and I can spin the rears at will in 1st basically Are we talking BIG wheel spin and a snaking back end? Gerry

Hi Gerry, I'll send you a replay of spinning wheels later today. You're right of course in that stalling the engine doesn't seem possible. However, there's quite a penalty for not shifting into neutral or opening the clutch, as at least for me, accelerating from idle revvs takes forever, at least that's what it seems like to me. Considering that we're mostly using first gears which are much longer than those in our street cars, I'd say this is even realistic. I can get the same effect you describe, though, when I use a very long first gear. I have no idea with how long a first gear a Nascar clutch would still be able to survive a few starts from standstill, but are you perhaps using a fairly long first gear in general, and this in turn causes the no-wheel-spin effect you're seeing? In which case this would be realistic, except that in a real Nascar, dropping the clutch like this would stall the engine? You should btw indeed get Dave Noonans converter. Without Dave's RCs I wouldn't be driving N2k3 either. Not making this very clear when I'm talking about N2k3 being so much better than GPL is probably a major inaccuracy on my part. But together with those RCs, N2k3 is such a blast, it beats every other sim hands down, especially for online racing, as it offers more track feeling than any other sim, more realistic car behaviour (you should see the Nascars blast around the Ring, the way they drive looks so real you could think it's a TV broadcast you're watching), and combines this with excellent online racing, better even than GPL as some aspects of GPL's online behaviour have even improved. N2k3 + converted road circuits = wow! <g> Achim "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Joachim Trensz wrote: > > Gerry, old mate!! :) > > Ello mate :) > > > > > > >>you cannot spin the wheels from a standing start like you should > >>be able to. That says to me that something is wrong in the > >>physics department. > > > > > > That statement surprises me, as I certainly can spin the wheels from a > > standing start most easily - and once a certain minimum revv has been > > reached, I can even make them spin anywhere throughout the entire revv

range > > of first gear, sometimes even in second if it's set to a short ratio.AAMOF > > at least in first gear it's really difficult to _avoid_ spinning therear

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > wheels for me. > > This is what happens when I try: > > I give it some beans and drop the clutch, there's a little screech from > the rears, a buff of smoke, then the revs die but the engine doesn't > stall like I would in real life, and it chugs back into life. I've timed > it 0 to 60 MPH with the default setup at watkins and can only do it in

7.4! > > > Maybe N2k3's analog clutch doesn't work properly? I've never had achance to > > try that, but I think I remember you're using a real clutch. About theonly > > diff between your system and mine that could cause this strangedifference.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Yep, still using a pedal for the clutch and a stick to shift. > > But... > > No matter how many revs I feed in the result is the some. I also defined > the clutch as a button and the result was the same. It just seems canned > to me. > > Could you send me a reply of you spinning the rears please? I really > don't understand what I'm doing wrong. > > > > > As for the sound, you indeed need to get used to N2k3's sound. At least

it's > > a lot better than in all the older Nx sims. But, you can replace it, ifyou > > like. There are Cosworth-like engine sounds available. A guy in myleague

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > uses it (I think he created it himself). > > > Ok I'll check out some of the sound add-ons. > > N2k3 is indeed more advanced than GPL in many areas, it's just that it > doesn't light my fire as much as gpl. Maybe I need to get Noonans > converter and beat Spa up with it? > > Gerry >

Hi Bruce, I was and am nit-picking with my tongue firmly in my cheek :-) but a sim's purpose is to simulate well. The most accurate sim does this best, and hence fulfills the purpose of a sim best, and consequently is... the best sim ;-) But of course, using the word sim more leisurely, the more enjoyable (racing) sim can also be the best (racing) sim - like you say, it's a matter of personal preference. Which brings me back to - N2k3 + converted road circuits = triple-wow! ;-) Achim "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f00f8ba$[email hidden]... > Most enjoyable = best. > This IS a subjective thing, after all. > > Most accurate = most accurate. > High accuracy does not necessarily relate to great enjoyment, orvice-versa.

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > Bruce. > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bdphv3$usqs8$[email hidden]... > > Nope :) > > > > Most enjoyable sim = most enjoyable sim > > > > Most accurate sim = best sim :) > > > > Achim > > > > > > "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > ... > > > Most enjoyable sim = best sim. ;-) > > > > > >

Haqsau wrote: > > <perks up> What? WHAT? Tell us more! http://www.tptcc.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=291 Our main "body" guys, who've also done work on Pamela Anderson in the past, are hard at work right now, wish I had some more recent pics to share with you Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdpub5$v72jb$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> <sarcasm> Yes, because now 'every genre of computer gaming' has running > around and shooting things... > Please read the post before you reply to it. > > I was refering to things like: > Mods : the first game to *really* open up the engine to user *coded* > modifications > - Remember Quake Chess, Quake Rally, Air Quake? Imagine trying to make

a > flight sim mod in NR2003 / F1C... > > 3D : not only did the engine make people start to buy in 3D engines -which > led to better game content (eg Half-Life, Deus Ex), but it also lookeddamn > good and was single-handedly responsible 3DFX winning the 3D accelerator > war. It introduced things like Binary Space Partitioning, which is still > used in almost every FPS today. It is also still being upgraded by the > community - witness Tenebrae with full real-time dynamic shadows, fullbump > mapping and a whole host of other features which are making theircommercial > debuts with Doom 3 and the Deus Ex 2 / Thief 3 engine. > > Multiplayer : the first game to introduce internet gaming to most players. > The first game to show developers how to write good netcode. Could hostmore > players on a 28.8 modem in QuakeWorld than F1C can manage on broadband.The

Quoted text (10 lines)

> most played online game ever, Counter-Strike, runs on the original Quake > netcode. > > Introducing all of these features to PC computer gaming in one product, in > 1996, simply blows away anything any other single piece of gaming software > has ever done, before or since, in my personal technical opinion. Whether > the game itself was good or not varies from person to person (it usually > depends on whether they were expecting Doom 3 or not ;-) > > Nick

Hey kid, they were doing things like that in racing and flight sims long before Quake. Quake and Doom are overrated IMO.

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdpub5$v72jb$[email hidden]... > - Remember Quake Chess, Quake Rally, Air Quake? Imagine trying to makea > flight sim mod in NR2003 / F1C... Why would I remember those? I never even bought Quake. Did play it a few times though. You think Air Quake is a flight sim now? Hehe... give me a break.

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdo7rm$ugnkl$[email hidden]... > Didn't say first 3D game since flight sims were clearly the first. I said > first 3D shooter. There were also other games that did 3D levels first, > such as Ultima Underworld, but they still used sprites instead of modelsfor > the characters and items. BTW what is POD? Don't remember that one. And > yes Quake had a particle system. Not a very good one, but it had one.The > rocket smoke and several other effects were implemented using it. Yea, so it's evolutionary, nothing REVOLUTIONARY about it!

Yep, I totally agree with you. Most fun on a road course that I've had since GPL was initially released.....although I've only got the free ones at the moment. Which prompts me to ask...has David released the actual N2003/GPL converter yet, or is it still the N2002/GPL + "burn-in"? Bruce. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdrdgj$10ecn6$[email hidden]... > Which brings me back to - N2k3 + converted road circuits = triple-wow! ;-) >

Hi Bruce, the final version has been released a week or so ago. If you already have the N2k2-converter, all you have to do is download from the URL Dave points to on his website. You'll then get a version of the N2k3-converter which checks whether you have the N2k2-version in the same directory, and then converts the tracks for N2k3, again using the originals from GPL, ICR2, NL, N3. A good thing is, you can now highlight all tracks of a sim and convert them in one go, no need to convert every track individually. Achim "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yep, I totally agree with you. Most fun on a road course that I've hadsince > GPL was initially released.....although I've only got the free ones at the > moment. > > Which prompts me to ask...has David released the actual N2003/GPLconverter > yet, or is it still the N2002/GPL + "burn-in"? > > Bruce. > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bdrdgj$10ecn6$[email hidden]... > > Which brings me back to - N2k3 + converted road circuits = triple-wow!;-) > > > > >

Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote here on 30 Jun 2003: > Fair enough, everyone has their preferences and (dis)likes :-), > but to say that GPL hasn't been bettered, at least technically, is > quite a stretch I don't think I said otherwise, did I? If I did, I was half asleep. :-P -- Above address *is* valid - but snip spamtrap to get me to *read*! Support the world's oldest motorsport venue! http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:26:18 GMT, Jan Verschueren wrote: > > Well, Linux is, but GPL has not been ported over yet. > > Jan. ;-) >=--- You can run GPL in Wine in full OpenGL glory on any modern Linux distro, even without needing to install windows on another partition. Online works too! Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Uwe hoover Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:26:18 GMT, Jan Verschueren wrote: > > > > Well, Linux is, but GPL has not been ported over yet. > > > > Jan. ;-) > >=--- > > You can run GPL in Wine in full OpenGL glory on any modern > Linux distro, even without needing to install windows on > another partition. Online works too!

Amazing. But how about the good old MSFF wheel ? -- Olav Malmin remove .spam when replying

"Uwe hoover Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:26:18 GMT, Jan Verschueren wrote: > > > > Well, Linux is, but GPL has not been ported over yet. > > > > Jan. ;-) > >=--- > > You can run GPL in Wine in full OpenGL glory on any modern > Linux distro, even without needing to install windows on > another partition. Online works too! > > Cheers, > > uwe

Any estimates of the performance hit?

Gerry Aitken wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Joachim Trensz wrote: >> Gerry, old mate!! :) > > Ello mate :) > > Could you send me a reply of you spinning the rears please? I really > don't understand what I'm doing wrong. > > > Gerry

Gerry, http://www.iparker.plus.com/spin.zip Here's a couple I did at Watkins Glen. The standard gearing is way too high though, I dropped mine to 2.4 ish. -- Ian P <email invalid due to spammers>

David Buttery wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote here on 30 Jun 2003: > > > Fair enough, everyone has their preferences and (dis)likes :-), > > but to say that GPL hasn't been bettered, at least technically, is > > quite a stretch > > I don't think I said otherwise, did I? If I did, I was half asleep. :-P

No you didn't, but other indicated such, and to me that's just plain wrong, however, everyone is entitltled to have preferences that makes GPL the most enjoyable sim for *them*, nothing wrong with that, take Bruce K for example, hopeless romantic who's getting to relive his youth....:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Reply 1: > Hey kid, they were doing things like that in racing and flight sims long > before Quake. Quake and Doom are overrated IMO. Name a racing or flight sim pre-Quake that allowed you to code in your own modifications to the game source? I think you miss my argument that *from a technical perspective* Quake was amazing. The game maybe wasn't so good, but that's not what I'm talking about. Reply 2: > Why would I remember those? I never even bought Quake. Did play it a few > times though. You think Air Quake is a flight sim now? Hehe... give me a > break. Oh I see. You played it a few times? Wow. And yes, Air Quake *is* a flight sim because it *simulates flight*. It doesn't matter how anal/arcade it is, it's still a flight sim. NR2003 is a racing sim, but so is Daytona USA. Obviously the former is a hell of a lot better than the latter, but they are both still racing sims. The point was that a corridor FPS shooter 3D engine was capable of doing racing/flight sims as an example of just how good it was. And id made probably *the* most important decision in PC gaming history when they allowed the fanbase to modify their code, making mods as diverse as the ones above possible.

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdo7rm$ugnkl$[email hidden]... > The rocket smoke and several other effects were implemented using it. I think the rocket 'smoke' was actually a sprite, one of the 3 non-3D elements in the entire Quake engine (another was the bubbles coming from submerged players, but I can't remember the third). I'm pretty sure the original Quake didn't have a particle engine, but they had to stop somewhere <g>.

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:U63Ma.144$[email hidden]... > 1) read the whole post and don't lift my argument out of context. I didn't, you said that it's quality engineering, not technology which is important, and I said that IMO they go hand in hand. > 2) F1 engines don't have to last even nearly 300miles, only just over300km. Sorry, that's what I meant, but I was tired and had a temporary units slip <g> Nick

Gerry Aitken wrote: > > Goy Larsen wrote: > > > > Still using RRC pedals Gerry ? > > Sure am. :) When only the best will do eh ? :-) > > I am, and I can spin the rears at will in 1st basically > > Are we talking BIG wheel spin and a snaking back end? Yes, not easily controlled though, car has a tendency to swap ends on me :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

What wheel do you use eldred

Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote here on 01 Jul 2003:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > David Buttery wrote: >> >> Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote here on 30 Jun 2003: >> >> > Fair enough, everyone has their preferences and (dis)likes :-), >> > but to say that GPL hasn't been bettered, at least technically, >> > is quite a stretch >> >> I don't think I said otherwise, did I? If I did, I was half >> asleep. :-P > > No you didn't, but other indicated such, and to me that's just > plain wrong, however, everyone is entitltled to have preferences > that makes GPL the most enjoyable sim for *them*, nothing wrong > with that, take Bruce K for example, hopeless romantic who's > getting to relive his youth....:-)

I was born in 1975, so it doesn't really apply to me... I will happily say here and now that NR2003 is more technically advanced than GPL. But then I happen to prefer open-wheel racing by a long way, have no interest whatever in NASCAR itself, like the huge number of tracks available for GPL, and am an old dinosaur in terms of gaming preferences. ;-) For reference, I played three games this evening, which were: GPL, Civilisation II and Arcadians on the BBC Micro. Draw your own conclusions... ;-) -- Above address *is* valid - but snip spamtrap to get me to *read*! Support the world's oldest motorsport venue! http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:14:45 +0200, Stephen F. wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > "Uwe hoover Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:26:18 GMT, Jan Verschueren wrote: >> > >> > Well, Linux is, but GPL has not been ported over yet. >> > >> > Jan. ;-) >> >=--- >> >> You can run GPL in Wine in full OpenGL glory on any modern >> Linux distro, even without needing to install windows on >> another partition. Online works too! >> >> Cheers, >> >> uwe > > Any estimates of the performance hit? > >

not too bad, essentially the same fps as with windows (maxed out ;-) Ridcully has written a little how-to: http://www.zefix.tv/gpl_linux/ cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:04:55 +0200, Uwe hoover Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>You can run GPL in Wine in full OpenGL glory on any modern >Linux distro, even without needing to install windows on >another partition. Online works too! > >Cheers, > >uwe

So someone is going to switch to Linux for *one* game? Don't think so, and TuxRacer is a non-contender too.

In article <dkoMa.224532$[email hidden]>, "frederickson" <[email hidden]> writes: >What wheel do you use eldred > TSW2mod. Eldred -- Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chillcutt from Michigan(info on my homepage) Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, David Buttery <[email hidden]> writes: >For reference, I played three games this evening, which were: GPL, >Civilisation II and Arcadians on the BBC Micro. Draw your own >conclusions... ;-) Civ II?!? There are at LEAST 3 revisions since that...<g> 'Course, I've just recently gotten back into Starcraft, which is an older game, but they never came out with a sequel... :-( Eldred -- Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chillcutt from Michigan(info on my homepage) Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Parker <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>You can run GPL in Wine in full OpenGL glory on any modern >>Linux distro, even without needing to install windows on >>another partition. Online works too! >> >>Cheers, >> >>uwe > >So someone is going to switch to Linux for *one* game? Don't think so, >and TuxRacer is a non-contender too.

Some people only stay with Windows because their favorite games don't run under Linux. Or, they have one Windows system with only the one or two games that they like. Everything else, they do in Linux. Remove that limitation, and many more people might make the switch... Eldred -- Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chillcutt from Michigan(info on my homepage) Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

you need FF "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <dkoMa.224532$[email hidden]>,"frederickson"

Quoted text (10 lines)

> <[email hidden]> writes: > > >What wheel do you use eldred > > > > TSW2mod. > > Eldred > -- > Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chillcutt from Michigan(info on

my > homepage) > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply. >

Hi Eldred, it's not just the games. Maybe even a couple more than just GPL would work under Wine. But there's no sufficient support yet for FF wheels and joysticks, soundcards, 3d graphics cards, and also the self-installation packages often don't work for all the distros. On my system, the situation currently is: 3D - no joy with the Radeon as I'm using a version of Xfree86 newer than 4.2.0. Audio - my Audigy doesn't work with either the drivers supplied with my distro, nor with those developed by the open source community. Creative doesn't seem to write Linux drivers at all. FF wheel - the Wingmanteam site has a page with Linux drivers - but without FF. A private guy seems to be writing drivers supporting FF for some of the Logitech devices, but I am not under the impression that it's fully working yet. Sensible installation - self-installing packages usually don't exist for all distros, and if this happens, installing drivers becomes pretty complex, it's nothing I'm willing to go through frequently. IMHO, as great as Linux is if everything you need works and is supported, Linux still has some distance to go before it will become as suitable for everyday use as Windows is today. Achim "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > Some people only stay with Windows because their favorite games > don't run under Linux. Or, they have one Windows system with only > the one or two games that they like. Everything else, they do in Linux. > Remove that limitation, and many more people might make the switch......

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:be4cav$161uk$[email hidden]... > It doesn't matter how anal/arcade it is, > it's still a flight sim. You just lost your argument right there I reckon. And you were doing so well... ;-) Malc.

Have you looked at the source? It's available from Id or many other sources under GNU license. If you are curious, check out the file r_part.c in the qw client to see what I am talking about. It's in there, honest. ;o) "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:be4cb0$161uk$[email hidden]... > > I think the rocket 'smoke' was actually a sprite, one of the 3 non-3D > elements in the entire Quake engine (another was the bubbles coming from > submerged players, but I can't remember the third). I'm pretty sure the > original Quake didn't have a particle engine, but they had to stopsomewhere > <g>. > >

[email hidden] (EldredP) wrote here on 04 Jul 2003: > Civ II?!? There are at LEAST 3 revisions since that...<g> None of which are improvements. :-P > 'Course, I've just recently gotten back into Starcraft, which is > an older game, but they never came out with a sequel... :-( > > Eldred You can add Elite to that list of olde games as well - the original BBC Micro version, I might add. -- Above address *is* valid - but snip spamtrap to get me to *read*! Support the world's oldest motorsport venue! http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html

David Buttery wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote here on 04 Jul 2003: > > > Civ II?!? There are at LEAST 3 revisions since that...<g> > > None of which are improvements. :-P > > > 'Course, I've just recently gotten back into Starcraft, which is > > an older game, but they never came out with a sequel... :-( > > > > Eldred > > You can add Elite to that list of olde games as well - the original > BBC Micro version, I might add.

"Freelancer" from MS :-) A touched up Elite with some basic story line in the background, was good fun for a couple of evenings and have now been put on the shelf for the time being, yet to try MP though Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:04jNa.47026$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:be4cav$161uk$[email hidden]... > > > It doesn't matter how anal/arcade it is, > > it's still a flight sim. > > > You just lost your argument right there I reckon. > > And you were doing so well... ;-) > > Malc.

It just depends on respective viewpoints. Some people think 'simulation' means 'as real as possible', and 'arcade' is everything else. Others believe that everything is a simulation, just that some are better simulators than others. I subscribe to the second viewpoint, because it's too hard to draw the line of where 'arcade' ends and 'simulation' begins. I prefer to think that NR2003, GTR2002, GPL and Sega Rally, Daytona USA are all racing simulators (of varying quality of simulation), whereas Doom 3 and Age of Empires are not racing simulators. If you stuck somebody down in front of any car-based game on any platform, they would still recognise that it was about driving, rather than flying or controlling a giant robot, so whatever game it is can be classed as a racing simulation, regardless of quality IMO.

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:be4fm1$15jfr$[email hidden]... > Have you looked at the source? Of course. I have done some small scale 3D editing, like stencil shadows, per-pixel collision detection, and (following on from that) dynamic damage meshes for players/monsters etc. > If you are curious, check out the file r_part.c I stand corrected. The blood effects, slipgates and rocket *trails* are all particle effects. I haven't played Quake in a little while! The rocket *explosion* is a sprite though <g> Wow, chalk another one up to the good guys at id for that one fantastic technological breakthrough game! Cheers, Nick

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:be9f0e$2flov$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:04jNa.47026$[email hidden]... > > "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:be4cav$161uk$[email hidden]... > > > > > It doesn't matter how anal/arcade it is, > > > it's still a flight sim. > > > > You just lost your argument right there I reckon. > > It just depends on respective viewpoints. Some people think 'simulation' > means 'as real as possible', and 'arcade' is everything else. Others

believe > that everything is a simulation, just that some are better simulators than > others. I subscribe to the second viewpoint, because it's too hard to draw > the line of where 'arcade' ends and 'simulation' begins. > > I prefer to think that NR2003, GTR2002, GPL and Sega Rally, Daytona USAare > all racing simulators (of varying quality of simulation), whereas Doom 3and > Age of Empires are not racing simulators. If you stuck somebody down in > front of any car-based game on any platform, they would still recognisethat > it was about driving, rather than flying or controlling a giant robot, so > whatever game it is can be classed as a racing simulation, regardless of > quality IMO. Essentially every game is a simulation of reality in some way. Chess is a simulation of pre-20th Century war tactics, but with very specific, unrealistic and rigid rules applied, for example in the way that the pieces can move. In this respect Chess does not attempt to simulate what would really happen, it is a game. In much the same way, your character in a game like Quake or Doom will happily continue to run around like nothing happened even if they receive several direct hits, until the health bar reaches zero. This is not a simulation of reality either, it is a game, with it's own specific rules. Some games, or arcade games as you describe them, are very good in their own right, but the reason why they are good has nothing to do with how well they simulate reality. They are good because they are FUN ;-) Something which attempts to simulate reality is also judged by the community on how much fun it is, but in the main, it is judged by how accurately it simulates whatever it is trying to simulate. There is a grey area between the definitions for sim and game, but it's not as big an overlap as you suggest. So some games/sims are more fun than others, and some sims are more accurate than others. 'fun' is very much a matter of opinion, but whether something is a sim or not isn't. For example, NR2003 is a better sim than gpl, and Motorhead, as good as it may be, is not a sim. These are quantifiable facts, and difficult to argue with. However, imo gpl is more fun, because I prefer Grand Prix cars to NASCAR cars. This is very much a personal opinion, and one that can be debated endlessly ;-) The 'simness' of something is not a matter of debate (grey area excepted), it's just a matter of knowing what the word 'sim' means in this newsgroup ;-) Malc.

There we are, that's settled. I think all games featuring cars in a race are 'racing simulators' of varying degrees of realism, whereas you think that only realistic racing games are 'simulators'. Fair enough. Quake still kicked ass technically, though <g>

Agreed! "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:be9f0g$2flov$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > Wow, chalk another one up to the good guys at id for that one fantastic > technological breakthrough game! > > Cheers, > > Nick > > >

On 04 Jul 2003 02:33:53 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >Some people only stay with Windows because their favorite games don't run under >Linux. Or, they have one Windows system with only the one or two games that >they like. Everything else, they do in Linux. Remove that limitation, and >many more people might make the switch... > >Eldred I have a mobile rack so do have Linux installed to a HD, but rarely use it because the hardware support is lacking and requires too much of my time to get it all up and running. Right now I have Mandrake 9.0 and it doesn't support my printer, Audigy2 soundcard, or TV card. Unless, I want to spend about a week learning how to recompile the kernel and build driver support in for that hardware. NFW, I've got better things to do wity my time. I like Linux but there is no way it is ready for primetime, no matter what the fanboys may tell you. Only reasons to use Linux are if you want to set up a server and don't want to pay Billy-boy to do it. Oh, and are really poor and can't afford Photoshop.

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Parker <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>On 04 Jul 2003 02:33:53 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > >>Some people only stay with Windows because their favorite games don't run >under >>Linux. Or, they have one Windows system with only the one or two games that >>they like. Everything else, they do in Linux. Remove that limitation, and >>many more people might make the switch... >> >>Eldred > >I have a mobile rack so do have Linux installed to a HD, but rarely >use it because the hardware support is lacking and requires too much >of my time to get it all up and running. Right now I have Mandrake 9.0 >and it doesn't support my printer, Audigy2 soundcard, or TV card. >Unless, I want to spend about a week learning how to recompile the >kernel and build driver support in for that hardware. NFW, I've got >better things to do wity my time. I like Linux but there is no way it >is ready for primetime, no matter what the fanboys may tell you. Only >reasons to use Linux are if you want to set up a server and don't want >to pay Billy-boy to do it. Oh, and are really poor and can't afford >Photoshop.

Actually, I'd like to learn Linux because there are a lot of jobs that require said knowledge...<g> How much *is* Photoshop, anyway? Eldred -- Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chillcutt from Michigan(info on my homepage) Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

> How much *is* Photoshop, anyway? Too much.

EldredP wrote: > > Actually, I'd like to learn Linux because there are a lot of jobs that require > said knowledge...<g> > How much *is* Photoshop, anyway? The full retail version is 550+ dollars or thereabouts....according to Pricewatch Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

On 07 Jul 2003 12:58:32 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >Actually, I'd like to learn Linux because there are a lot of jobs that require >said knowledge...<g> Well, it's free to download. Just go to http://www.linuxiso.org/ and download any distro you want and then burn to cdr. Big downlaods though. Mandrake 9.1 might be your best option for a newbie. You can just download disk#1 if you want a small install without all the extra goods. >How much *is* Photoshop, anyway? In Canada it is well over $900.00 CAD plus 15% tax.