Track Modelling: Talladega

With nothing to do, I thought I'd modify my old web page and put it to some use. For most, this may seem pretty boring. For a few, this may be a little interesting. What I've done is taken a screenshot, at Talladega, from three titles: NASCAR Racing 2002 (full version), NASCAR Racing 2003 (demo) and NASCAR Thunder 2003 (full version). I've opted for a higher resolution jpg for my image conversions, for better effect and whatnot. Each screenie is around the 180KB range. Keep in mind that each screenshot was taken from the S/F line, facing the wrong direction. The reason for doing this is that there would be more points of reference. Even better, the S/F line at Tally is a universal constant. :) Enjoy. -Will

"William Bradshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... <SNIP> Perhaps I should include a link? :) http://users.joplin.com/rmelton/index.html -Will

I'd be interested in seeing the crowd in the NR2k2/3 screenshots for better comparison...the Thunder one looks like a better atmosphere, but it might just be the full stands ;-) W

In article <[email hidden]>, "William Bradshaw" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>"William Bradshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... ><SNIP> > >Perhaps I should include a link? :) > >http://users.joplin.com/rmelton/index.html

Wow, that's just a bit different... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:-1.950 MonsterRank: +305.145 N2002 Rank:+17.59 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

you drive backwards all the time or just for screens? :o) gj "W" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b88m43$ffq$[email hidden]... > I'd be interested in seeing the crowd in the NR2k2/3 screenshots forbetter > comparison...the Thunder one looks like a better atmosphere, but it might > just be the full stands ;-) > > W > >

The main difference to me seems to be the missing tower in the NR2002/3 screen-shots. Does anyone know whether the tower is there in real life or not? Andrew. "William Bradshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "William Bradshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > <SNIP> > > Perhaps I should include a link? :) > > http://users.joplin.com/rmelton/index.html > > -Will > >

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:32:14 +0100, "Andrew Hollom" <[email hidden]> wrote: }The main difference to me seems to be the missing tower in the NR2002/3 }screen-shots. Look at the difference in the fence detail in NR02 & NR03...

In article <[email hidden]>, Me <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:32:14 +0100, "Andrew Hollom" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >}The main difference to me seems to be the missing tower in the NR2002/3 >}screen-shots. > >Look at the difference in the fence detail in NR02 & NR03...

Um, look at the dimensions of pit road. In N2002 and 2003, you can see straight down pit road. In the 3rd, pit lane is quite a ways down the track. I thought that was *obvious* - it certainly jumped off the screen at me... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:-1.950 MonsterRank: +305.145 N2002 Rank:+17.59 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On 26 Apr 2003 01:38:58 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >Um, look at the dimensions of pit road. In N2002 and 2003, you can see >straight down pit road. In the 3rd, pit lane is quite a ways down the track. >I thought that was *obvious* - it certainly jumped off the screen at me... Er yeah. There were some obvious things: The trioval in the Thunder2k3 screenshot doesn't have enough banking. The trioval in the Thunder2k3 screenshot has an unrealistically tight radius (which contributes to the end of pit road being curved which is why you can't see it properly). The graphical differences are meaningless, imho. The obvious differences in the way track is modelled are glaring tho. For an even better example, take comparison shots of Sears Point and Watkins Glen in N2003 and compare them to Thunder 2003. It's like looking at completely different tracks. Jason

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) writes: >The graphical differences are meaningless, imho. The obvious >differences in the way track is modelled are glaring tho. That's what I meant by pointing out the differences in pit road. The dimensions of the track are totally different between the two... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:-1.950 MonsterRank: +305.145 N2002 Rank:+17.59 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On 26 Apr 2003 21:17:58 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >That's what I meant by pointing out the differences in pit road. The >dimensions of the track are totally different between the two... Yeah, I figured. Tho I replied to you, my shock/horror that no one noticed the huge difference sin the track (in an incredibly easy track to model...er wait, N1 tallywhack n/m) was directed towards the rest of the thread. Really, all you need to do to see the accuracy of the Thunder 2003 tracks (as I've said in like 20 different threads) is drive a lap around Watkins Glen. It's pretty silly, really. It's like ISI had used all of their allotted elevation changes on F1 2002 (love porposing around Priory like it has potholes) and didn't have any left over for Thunder 2003 so they made the tracks flat. Jason