Papy has released a track pack of three fantasy tracks:
1) A high-banked 1-mile oval
2) A figure 8 (with an over/underpass)
3) A 9 turn high-speed road course
It's a free download here:
http:/www.3dgamers.com
I have a feeling we're gonna have a replacement for kyalami on the
next off weekend!
Notable threadPapyrus releases free NR2003 fantasy track pack
John Simmons announced that Papyrus had released a free track pack for NR2003 with a high-banked mile oval, a figure-8 with an overpass and a high-speed road course, which were widely praised. Some felt a physics patch should have come first and cited Papyrus's new Havok partnership as a sign that no patch was coming. A debate followed on setup exploits, driving aids and the over-strong draft.
Automated summary.
Link :-)
http://www.3dgamers.com/games/nascarracing2003/#filelist
"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Papy has released a track pack of three fantasy tracks: > > 1) A high-banked 1-mile oval > > 2) A figure 8 (with an over/underpass) > > 3) A 9 turn high-speed road course > > It's a free download here: > > http:/www.3dgamers.com > > I have a feeling we're gonna have a replacement for kyalami on the > next off weekend! >
"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> kirjoitti viestiss�
news:[email hidden]...
It would have been better if they had concentrated their efforts on the much
needed physics patch instead of these fantasy tracks...
I wonder if there is a patch coming at all, as Papyrus has teamed up with
the Havok game engine team.
http://www.havok.com/news/releases/13-05-03_c.html
--
Mika Takala
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Papy has released a track pack of three fantasy tracks: > > 1) A high-banked 1-mile oval > > 2) A figure 8 (with an over/underpass) > > 3) A 9 turn high-speed road course >I would think not unless they allow the devolopers that "may" have already
been working on one to continue or release it independently. I have not
looked for any news from papy but in my experience, one something like this
is announced any other work usually lags and dies off.
:-(
--
McWhom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mika Takala" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:SPuza.6900$[email hidden]...
:
: "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> kirjoitti viestiss�
: news:[email hidden]...
: > Papy has released a track pack of three fantasy tracks:
: >
: > 1) A high-banked 1-mile oval
: >
: > 2) A figure 8 (with an over/underpass)
: >
: > 3) A 9 turn high-speed road course
: >
:
: It would have been better if they had concentrated their efforts on the
much
: needed physics patch instead of these fantasy tracks...
:
: I wonder if there is a patch coming at all, as Papyrus has teamed up with
: the Havok game engine team.
: http://www.havok.com/news/releases/13-05-03_c.html
:
:
: --
: Mika Takala
:
:
"Mika Takala" wrote...
> <snip>
> It would have been better if they had concentrated their
> efforts on the much needed physics patch instead of these
> fantasy tracks...
People involved in track creation are not involved in coding the actual game
according to the credits. I.e. this track pack should not have an impact on
a patch, if one is in the process of being created.
Besides... what's wrong with the physics? -I've heard (and agree with) a
number of gameplay/implementation issues, but not problems with the physics
themselves.
I just thought of another one the other night: how about keeping the car on
the jack untill the stop is truly over or have the crewchief indicate the
dropping of the jack will not be the signal to *go*?
> I wonder if there is a patch coming at all, as Papyrus
> has teamed up with the Havok game engine team.
> http://www.havok.com/news/releases/13-05-03_c.html
I see... doesn't really say if they will use the Havok SDK or lend their
expertise towards developing it further. Typical newsitem, i.e. devoid of
information.
Anyway, if the programmers think the game needs patching, it will be
patched. One way or another.
Jan.
=---
I like all three of these. High speed tracks with none of the tedious stuff.
David G Fisher
"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Papy has released a track pack of three fantasy tracks: > > 1) A high-banked 1-mile oval > > 2) A figure 8 (with an over/underpass) > > 3) A 9 turn high-speed road course > > It's a free download here: > > http:/www.3dgamers.com > > I have a feeling we're gonna have a replacement for kyalami on the > next off weekend! >I have only had time for test sessions at all three so far, but I am very,
very impressed.
That figure 8 track is a bit wierd. A plate track that goes left and right,
can't quite wrap my brain around that one. Probably will race well. The
pit lane is horribly long though.
The Hillside mile oval is fantastic, I can't wait to race that one. They
even modelled some bumps into the low line, feels much more realistic than
the Coca Cola track. At Hillside I found it was about half a second faster
(for me) to run either the high line or a very heavily diamonded line,
almost like Darlington. Trying to stay low seemed slower, no matter what I
did.
And saving the best for last - Papyrus Motorsports Park. Wow. WOW. Damn
that track is fun. It has some of the same high speed thrills as Spa or
Rouen in GPL. Left and right, up and down, 200 mph on the main straight
without even drafting someone. Yeeeeeehaaaaaaaww!!! Think I'm going to
play with the gearing though. Turns 4 and 5 seem to want 3rd gear, but with
the fast setup 3rd gear runs out just slightly before the braking zone for
5. Seems like with just a little tweaking you could eliminate the shift
there.
Anyway, well worth the 18 meg download. Thanks Papy!!!!
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> I like all three of these. High speed tracks with none of the tediousstuff.
>
> David G Fisher
>
OK im ready for the f1 2002 and gtr 2002 versions of these tracks!
"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:fwwza.16824$[email hidden]...
I thought that it pretty plainly stated that Papyrus was using the Havok
physics engine in conjunction with their vehicle physics in future
"cross-platform" racing titles.
Kyle
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > I wonder if there is a patch coming at all, as Papyrus > > has teamed up with the Havok game engine team. > > http://www.havok.com/news/releases/13-05-03_c.html > > I see... doesn't really say if they will use the Havok SDK or lend their > expertise towards developing it further. Typical newsitem, i.e. devoid of > information. > Anyway, if the programmers think the game needs patching, it will be > patched. One way or another.In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
(John Simmons) wrote:
> Papy has released a track pack of three fantasy tracks:
Thanks for the heads up, and thanks to Papy for the freebie. Great racing
tracks.
So many tracks, so little time :o)
Andrew McP
"Kyle Roberts" wrote...
> I thought that it pretty plainly stated that Papyrus
> was using the Havok physics engine in conjunction
> with their vehicle physics in future "cross-platform"
> racing titles.
"Papyrus, developers of a highly successful NASCAR(r) racing franchise, has
teamed up with Havok to deliver top notch physics in a number of US produced
future titles."
Doesn't say Papyrus will be coding the titles, only that they will be "US
produced".
Though, on the other hand, one might assume that extensions to the SDK would
be available worldwide, so it's more likely that Papyrus will be using the
Havok software for forthcoming console titles than the other way around.
Like I said, typical newsitem nowadays: no thought whatsoever has gone into
communicating the message clearly.
Jan.
=---
> Besides... what's wrong with the physics? -I've heard (and agree with) a
> number of gameplay/implementation issues, but not problems with thephysics
> themselves.
Well, if setting the weight balance of the the car unrealistically to near
the back and then applying positive camper to RF and in conjunction, using
stability help and other driving aids, you can be second faster than a
driver who uses realistic setups and has driven nascar sims for years, then
something has to be wrong with physics and/or game design.
--
Mika Takala
"Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<JpCza.3598$[email hidden]>...
"what's wrong with the physics?".....well, when you can put positive
camber in the right front, put all the weight back and run laps a half
second faster than the track record...then, yes, there are some
problems with the physics. BTW, that's w/out aids.
Quoted text (18 lines)
> "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:fwwza.16824$[email hidden]... > > > > I wonder if there is a patch coming at all, as Papyrus > > > has teamed up with the Havok game engine team. > > > http://www.havok.com/news/releases/13-05-03_c.html > > > > I see... doesn't really say if they will use the Havok SDK or lend their > > expertise towards developing it further. Typical newsitem, i.e. devoid of > > information. > > Anyway, if the programmers think the game needs patching, it will be > > patched. One way or another. > > I thought that it pretty plainly stated that Papyrus was using the Havok > physics engine in conjunction with their vehicle physics in future > "cross-platform" racing titles. > > Kyle"Mika Takala" wrote...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this has been possible in every racing sim
ever produced. Hotlappers have always exploited the fringes of the physics
model and the rules implementation to go faster and will continue to do so.
There's no way the Papyrus guys can fix this. They can make it harder by
allowing driving aids to be forced off, but they can't eliminate it.
If, like myself, you value the realism aspect in your own driving, this is
something you will either have to make your peace with or quit the scene.
In NR2003 the underlying physics are, IMO, about as good as they can be
within the constraints the game forces upon them. There will always be
loopholes in the model, that's an inevitable concequence of them having to
be calculated in real time along with all other aspects of the game.
Jan.
=---
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > <snip> > Well, if setting the weight balance of the the car > unrealistically to near the back and then applying > positive camper to RF and in conjunction, using > stability help and other driving aids, you can be > second faster than a driver who uses realistic > setups and has driven nascar sims for years, then > something has to be wrong with physics and/or game > design."Will" wrote...
> <snip>
> "what's wrong with the physics?".....well, when you
> can put positive camber in the right front, put all
> the weight back and run laps a half second faster
> than the track record...then, yes, there are some
> problems with the physics. BTW, that's w/out aids.
Wake up and smell the coffee... this sort of stuff has been going on for the
last 15 years (see also my reply to Mika). This is the "NR2003-trick". If
Papyrus produces a patch there will be a "NR2003 with patch-trick". Nobody
can stop this from happening.
As physics models get more complex it's simply impossible to stop glitches
from occurring. The only solution is to only race those you know play the
game properly.
Jan.
=---
"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> kirjoitti viestiss�
news:FzJza.17434$[email hidden]...
yes, I know. But in N4/N2002 the driving aids didn't make the car faster;
for experienced drivers it was always better without them. In N2003 the
computer really helps the driving, and can make a driver go faster.... with
a setup that cannot be even go round a lap withought spinning without aids!
> Hotlappers have always exploited the fringes of the physics
> model and the rules implementation to go faster and will continue to doso.
Oh... I forgot to say that positive camper in RF significantly reduces the
tire wear. That is an example of a straightforward bug when compared to
N4/N2002.
> There will always be
> loopholes in the model, that's an inevitable concequence of them having to
> be calculated in real time along with all other aspects of the game.
yes, I understand the limitations of consumer games/sims induced by the time
and money (and market!) to make them. Bugs that seriously hamper online
racing and its atmosphere should, however, be corrected.
--
Mika Takala
Quoted text (13 lines)
> "Mika Takala" wrote... > > > <snip> > > Well, if setting the weight balance of the the car > > unrealistically to near the back and then applying > > positive camper to RF and in conjunction, using > > stability help and other driving aids, you can be > > second faster than a driver who uses realistic > > setups and has driven nascar sims for years, then > > something has to be wrong with physics and/or game > > design. > > Sorry to burst your bubble, but this has been possible in every racing sim > ever produced.Quoted text (8 lines)
> There's no way the Papyrus guys can fix this. They can make it harder by > allowing driving aids to be forced off, but they can't eliminate it. > > If, like myself, you value the realism aspect in your own driving, this is > something you will either have to make your peace with or quit the scene. > > In NR2003 the underlying physics are, IMO, about as good as they can be > within the constraints the game forces upon them.It continues to say:
"We are incorporating components of our superb physics model for the PC with
the Havok physics engine for cross platform development. While our vehicle
model is considered to be the state of the art in the industry, we can
deliver a new level of high octane gameplay by incorporating the complete
Havok physics system. Future titles will benefit from a level of
interactivity not available in other racing titles," said Rich Reily,
General Manager of Papyrus Racing Games.
It's right there, plain as day, they will be using it for future cross
platform racing titles.
"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:iSEza.17079$[email hidden]...
>
> "Papyrus, developers of a highly successful NASCAR(r) racing franchise,has
> teamed up with Havok to deliver top notch physics in a number of USproduced
> future titles."
>
> Doesn't say Papyrus will be coding the titles, only that they will be "US
> produced".
>
> Though, on the other hand, one might assume that extensions to the SDKwould
> be available worldwide, so it's more likely that Papyrus will be using the
> Havok software for forthcoming console titles than the other way around.
>
> Like I said, typical newsitem nowadays: no thought whatsoever has goneinto
> communicating the message clearly.
>
> Jan.
> =---
>
>
Positive *static* camber in the right front doesn't necessarily mean you
have positive *dynamic* camber in the corners. I have not tried this trick
so I'm not going to claim it's legit, but it is conceptually possible. If,
in addition to moving the weight back, you decreased the front spring
strength significantly but kept a big front bar, you could end up with
enough front compression in the banking to cause the front camber to go
negative. Roll makes the outside tire camber dynamically go positive,
compression makes it dynamically go negative. So big bars and soft springs
can make positive static camber work. Have you tried it? How does the RF
tire temp look?
"Will" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "what's wrong with the physics?".....well, when you can put positive
> camber in the right front, put all the weight back and run laps a half
> second faster than the track record...then, yes, there are some
> problems with the physics. BTW, that's w/out aids.
Good grief, what track is this ?
Larry
"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:oJJza.17442$[email hidden]...
the
Quoted text (9 lines)
> "Will" wrote... > > <snip> > > "what's wrong with the physics?".....well, when you > > can put positive camber in the right front, put all > > the weight back and run laps a half second faster > > than the track record...then, yes, there are some > > problems with the physics. BTW, that's w/out aids. > > Wake up and smell the coffee... this sort of stuff has been going on forQuoted text (12 lines)
> last 15 years (see also my reply to Mika). This is the "NR2003-trick". If > Papyrus produces a patch there will be a "NR2003 with patch-trick". Nobody > can stop this from happening. > > As physics models get more complex it's simply impossible to stop glitches > from occurring. The only solution is to only race those you know play the > game properly. > > Jan. > =--- > >The Hillside is a little boring, but that figure-8 is cool :) It's a shame
they made it a plate track, which is truly ODD considering it's a fantasy
track!
Larry
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> I like all three of these. High speed tracks with none of the tediousstuff.
Quoted text (22 lines)
> > David G Fisher > > "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Papy has released a track pack of three fantasy tracks: > > > > 1) A high-banked 1-mile oval > > > > 2) A figure 8 (with an over/underpass) > > > > 3) A 9 turn high-speed road course > > > > It's a free download here: > > > > http:/www.3dgamers.com > > > > I have a feeling we're gonna have a replacement for kyalami on the > > next off weekend! > > > >Hmmm... interresting to note that the file is called "trackpack_01"....
Perhaps there is more to come?
I still want the damn patch though!
--
ed_
"Mika Takala" wrote...
Driving aids are not the physics.
> Oh... I forgot to say that positive camper in RF
> significantly reduces the tire wear. That is an
> example of a straightforward bug when compared to
> N4/N2002.
Are you sure tyre wear was normal or accellerated in NR2002? -Tyre data is
indeed significantly different between the two versions, but that's just
numbers fed into the model, not the model itself (which stayed largely the
same AFAIK).
The tyres in the sim don't blister or chunk locally, the amount of
punishment exacted is somehow weighed and then translated into a certain
grip level and position of the wear indicator according to a translation
table. I.e. any abuse is distributed across the thread, which, possibly, is
why you (we) don't see the expected decrease in performance.
Like I implied before, the only way to really solve this is to play the game
properly and to only race those who do so as well.
> > <snip>
> yes, I understand the limitations of consumer games/sims
> induced by the time and money (and market!) to make them.
> Bugs that seriously hamper online racing and its
> atmosphere should, however, be corrected.
I do think more aspects of the game should be under server control as
discussed on this group, but I also think it's not the developer's
responsibility to fix what ain't broken just because we're too chicken to
really police our races. Throw out exploiters and keep 'm out by using
invite lists, I say. Just isolate those who refuse to play ball with the
majority.
Jan.
=---
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > > <snip> > yes, I know. But in N4/N2002 the driving aids didn't > make the car faster; for experienced drivers it was > always better without them. In N2003 the computer > really helps the driving, and can make a driver go > faster.... with a setup that cannot be even go round > a lap withought spinning without aids!"Haqsau" wrote...
> It continues to say:
>
> <snip>
> It's right there, plain as day, they will be using it
> for future cross platform racing titles.
My bad... I'd not realised that paragraph was a continuation rather than a
seperate item.
Jan.
=---
PS.: so the layout of this news sections sucks too! <g>
On Fri, 23 May 2003 21:37:15 GMT, "Jan Verschueren"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>Besides... what's wrong with the physics? -I've heard (and agree with) a
>number of gameplay/implementation issues, but not problems with the physics
>themselves.
>
The draft is much too strong-you can go 10+ MPH above the
real-world speeds at the plate tracks if you get together with
4-6 other cars...
JD
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<bXNza.81713$[email hidden]>...
> Good grief, what track is this ?
Lowes.
Quoted text (27 lines)
> > Larry > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:oJJza.17442$[email hidden]... > > "Will" wrote... > > > <snip> > > > "what's wrong with the physics?".....well, when you > > > can put positive camber in the right front, put all > > > the weight back and run laps a half second faster > > > than the track record...then, yes, there are some > > > problems with the physics. BTW, that's w/out aids. > > > > Wake up and smell the coffee... this sort of stuff has been going on for > the > > last 15 years (see also my reply to Mika). This is the "NR2003-trick". If > > Papyrus produces a patch there will be a "NR2003 with patch-trick". Nobody > > can stop this from happening. > > > > As physics models get more complex it's simply impossible to stop glitches > > from occurring. The only solution is to only race those you know play the > > game properly. > > > > Jan. > > =--- > > > >On Sat, 24 May 2003 16:41:17 +0300, "Mika Takala"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
I find anti-lock braking less than worthless. I have been
retraining myself to go without them, and am loving life-
before I would have to brake REALLY early to make a lot
of corners (esp. on road courses), as I would stutter and
bump along.
Traction control, on the other hand...I'll drop that as soon
as I master using normal brakes...
JD
Quoted text (11 lines)
>"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> kirjoitti viestiss� >> >> Sorry to burst your bubble, but this has been possible in every racing sim >> ever produced. > >yes, I know. But in N4/N2002 the driving aids didn't make the car faster; >for experienced drivers it was always better without them. In N2003 the >computer really helps the driving, and can make a driver go faster.... with >a setup that cannot be even go round a lap withought spinning without aids! > >The only time I use ABS is if I end up in a race on a Road Track I have no
time on at all.
Larry
"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Sat, 24 May 2003 16:41:17 +0300, "Mika Takala"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> kirjoittiviestiss�
> >>
> >> Sorry to burst your bubble, but this has been possible in every racingsim
> >> ever produced.
> >
> >yes, I know. But in N4/N2002 the driving aids didn't make the car faster;
> >for experienced drivers it was always better without them. In N2003 the
> >computer really helps the driving, and can make a driver go faster....with
> >a setup that cannot be even go round a lap withought spinning withoutaids!
Quoted text (13 lines)
> > > > > > I find anti-lock braking less than worthless. I have been > retraining myself to go without them, and am loving life- > before I would have to brake REALLY early to make a lot > of corners (esp. on road courses), as I would stutter and > bump along. > Traction control, on the other hand...I'll drop that as soon > as I master using normal brakes... > > JD >These tracks are @#$%ing great!
"John DiFool" wrote...
> > <snip>
> The draft is much too strong-you can go 10+ MPH
> above the real-world speeds at the plate tracks
> if you get together with 4-6 other cars...
Two things:
1) Every time you model something you have to simplify it. Aerodynamics is a
very complex subject that is not fully understood and "modelable",
regardless of how much time you got to calculate effects. Any implementation
in a game is going to be a gross simplification and will ignore all kinds of
spurious effects which annul part of the advantages in real life. Again we
got a case of whether to use RL data to feed the model and live with the
consequences of conditions being "too perfect" or fudging it so it matches
"real life".
2) The player has too much horsepower (when unrestricted) in the game.
Perhaps this translates to restricted running as well?
Jan.
=---
Jan Verschueren wrote:
> 2) The player has too much horsepower (when unrestricted) in the game.
> Perhaps this translates to restricted running as well?
>
> Jan.
> =---
You bring up a good point. I remember reading that NR2003 offered
something like 50+ more horsepower than what today's stock car drivers
currently have. That would certainly explain beating track records and
possibly drafting speed (I'd couple this one with whatever aero changes
they made to the cars, too).
-Will
On Sun, 25 May 2003 06:56:14 -0500, William Bradshaw
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Well, it's a simple matter of comparing speeds running alone at
Tona and Dega, and running in the draft. I typically can do 185
(on a good day-no subzero temp settings!) by myself, but can
approach 200 in a draft train. In real life the WC cars are about
where I am alone, but only gain about 5-8 MPH in the draft...
John DiFool
