N2003 Demo Opinion

The hypocrisy runs rampant form Papy fans once again. This is absolutely, positively a minor update that they are charging full price for, but I see the same old names saying it's OK for Papyrus to do so even though they rip other companies for doing the same thing. It looks basically the same. By far the biggest difference is the...........menu. Damage (sorry jason) seems the same. Whack a wall at 200mph with your front right at Michigan and the wheel and tire is just fine. Not even a wobble. No real visual damage to the body around the wheel. Lap times barely suffer. There were supposed to be bumpy tracks in N2003. Where are they? Michigan is smooth as glass. Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that's important. Much more grip through the turns even as the tires wear down. People will probably be running multiple lines and replays may now look like the real races do at tracks like California and Michigan. With such a drastic difference (it was immediately obvious), where are the people who insisted that Papyrus had it JUST RIGHT in N2002? Those are apparently the same people who insisted they had the tire model and grip just right in GPL. They would be called "Papy groupies". I'll buy N2003 for the RASCAR races. $50 is very, very cheap for all the fun I get from those races. I always say sims are extremely cheap considering how much enjoyment I get out of them, and how much work and artistry goes into them form the developers and publishers. I just don't want to hear how from Papyrus fans how one developer is supposedly ripping us off with a minor update at full price when N2003 is absolutely a minor update, and nothing else. David G Fisher

"David G Fisher" wrote: > The hypocrisy runs rampant form Papy fans once again. This isabsolutely, > positively a minor update that they are charging full price for, but Isee > the same old names saying it's OK for Papyrus to do so even thoughthey rip > other companies for doing the same thing. Well, Rodney Arndt felt compelled to tell us this is a beta demo based on the posts here like "N2003 - Nice.... but I dont think its worth another $50" > Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that'simportant. > Much more grip through the turns even as the tires wear down. Peoplewill > probably be running multiple lines and replays may now look like thereal > races do at tracks like California and Michigan. With such a drastic > difference (it was immediately obvious), where are the people whoinsisted > that Papyrus had it JUST RIGHT in N2002? Those are apparently the same > people who insisted they had the tire model and grip just right inGPL. They > would be called "Papy groupies". You can't have it both ways. A minor update only Papy fans would consider acceptable at full price and a significant change proving N2002 wasn't perfect. Cheers Tony

Here is a post from Rodney as well. Looks to me like a little more than a minor update. I am always amazed at the expectations people. Name me another genre of sims/games that has amazing updates each year? I sure can't think of any. I'd pay 10 times what they ask for the game, I get hundreds of hours of entertainment for $50! Are you kidding? I am a huge fan and I guess I am the kind of guy you are talking about. I just don't think your expectations are realistic at all. Chad As a beta tester for N2003, Papyrus has allowed me to discuss some of the new features that will be included in N2003. The reason I'm giving you guys this information is to show you how many things have been added, changed or updated. At 1st look, many may not recognize all the work that has gone into this sim. I can honestly say this is the best & most realistic NASCAR racing sim to date :) Improved physics. Input supplied by actual WC chief engineers Tires & grip modeled directly from Goodyear specs 50 more horsepower Wall glue less sticky Improved AI Improved graphics Improved sounds (in car, replays, menus) Actual WC setups Updated tracks Realistic weather that changes during sessions and race Live weather updates shown on F1 screen Tire temps now start out warmer or colder depending on track weather Pace car is now a ghost car Far-chase driving view Adjustable cockpit view Off-line league support in exported standings Polling & vote system Additional admin. commands Advanced controller options Advanced graphic options Gamma & brightness options Shadows options. On ground from cars & structures. Shadows on cars from other cars & structures as well as into cockpit Reflections on structures Solar effects Track lighting Hard core mode Windshield buildup Bumpy tracks accurately modeled 3d crowds Stability driving aid Animated objects (planes, blimps, helicopters) Animated flags indicating wind direction Opponent pit crew & pit box option Improved pit crew graphics Ability to set pit stop frequency Adaptive speed control for AI Auto option for setting AI behavior that adjusts itself automatically based on past performances Damage remodeled Driver hand movements on wheel in rear chase view Texture filtering options Smaller fuel tanks at restrictor tracks Updated rules & penalties -- www.sascar.com "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YLsX9.4316$[email hidden]... > "David G Fisher" wrote: > > The hypocrisy runs rampant form Papy fans once again. This is > absolutely, > > positively a minor update that they are charging full price for, but I > see > > the same old names saying it's OK for Papyrus to do so even though > they rip > > other companies for doing the same thing. > > Well, Rodney Arndt felt compelled to tell us this is a beta demo based > on the posts here like > "N2003 - Nice.... but I dont think its worth another $50" > > > Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that's > important. > > Much more grip through the turns even as the tires wear down. People > will > > probably be running multiple lines and replays may now look like the > real > > races do at tracks like California and Michigan. With such a drastic > > difference (it was immediately obvious), where are the people who > insisted > > that Papyrus had it JUST RIGHT in N2002? Those are apparently the same > > people who insisted they had the tire model and grip just right in > GPL. They > > would be called "Papy groupies". > > You can't have it both ways. A minor update only Papy fans would > consider acceptable at full price and a significant change proving N2002 > wasn't perfect. > > Cheers > Tony > >

"Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YLsX9.4316$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > > Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that's > important. > > Much more grip through the turns even as the tires wear down. People > will > > probably be running multiple lines and replays may now look like the > real > > races do at tracks like California and Michigan. With such a drastic > > difference (it was immediately obvious), where are the people who > insisted > > that Papyrus had it JUST RIGHT in N2002? Those are apparently the same > > people who insisted they had the tire model and grip just right in > GPL. They > > would be called "Papy groupies". > > You can't have it both ways. A minor update only Papy fans would > consider acceptable at full price and a significant change proving N2002 > wasn't perfect. > > Cheers > Tony

Yes, it's still a minor update. How long am I supposed to believe it takes to adjust the tire model/grip? A year of 14 hour days by the entire Papyrus development team? I know, I know, it's more complicated than that. The building of the space station is nothing in comparison. David G Fisher

> Yes, it's still a minor update. How long am I supposed to believe it takes > to adjust the tire model/grip? A year of 14 hour days by the entirePapyrus > development team? > It might. There isn't to many of them left these days. lol MadDAWG

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The hypocrisy runs rampant form Papy fans once again. This is absolutely, > positively a minor update that they are charging full price for, but I see > the same old names saying it's OK for Papyrus to do so even though theyrip > other companies for doing the same thing. Do you have "damage" turned on? I hit a wall at Michigan at well under 200 and the front end was mashed up, the car wobbled like hell and I had a flat tire. > It looks basically the same. By far the biggest difference is > the...........menu. > > Damage (sorry jason) seems the same. Whack a wall at 200mph with yourfront > right at Michigan and the wheel and tire is just fine. Not even a wobble.No > real visual damage to the body around the wheel. Lap times barely suffer. > > There were supposed to be bumpy tracks in N2003. Where are they? Michiganis

Quoted text (9 lines)

> smooth as glass. > > Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that's important. > Much more grip through the turns even as the tires wear down. People will > probably be running multiple lines and replays may now look like the real > races do at tracks like California and Michigan. With such a drastic > difference (it was immediately obvious), where are the people who insisted > that Papyrus had it JUST RIGHT in N2002? Those are apparently the same > people who insisted they had the tire model and grip just right in GPL.

They > would be called "Papy groupies". > > I'll buy N2003 for the RASCAR races. $50 is very, very cheap for all thefun > I get from those races. I always say sims are extremely cheap considering > how much enjoyment I get out of them, and how much work and artistry goes > into them form the developers and publishers. I just don't want to hearhow

Quoted text (10 lines)

> from Papyrus fans how one developer is supposedly ripping us off with a > minor update at full price when N2003 is absolutely a minor update, and > nothing else. > > David G Fisher > > > > >

Hi Dave, Chad already gave us an impressive changelog for a 'minor update' ;-) but the list doesn't mention some aspects I personally find important. - the AI that fender rubbing now works a lot better, and the odds are more realistically distributed between the AI and the human player than before. - there's an option to include various levels of telemetry into the replay. This gives use more control over the replay size and also a better way to check cheating in controlled environments like leagues and hotlap charts. - as for the bumps, Michigan doesn't have many, but you can clearly notice them for example coming out of T4. I suppose they're subtle on the real track as well? You may need to crank up the FF, it's pretty subtle in N2k3. - things like the windscreen buildup, solar effects or the movable driver seat aren't graphics, they're improvements towards more realism as they play a role in real racing. - excellent sensation of speed - the snappiness that has always existed in Papy's sims under certain circumstances has been reduced to a credible level. This has so far been my only gripe with Papy's physics, and it's been cured now. I don't know whether it required a substantial change in some of the underlying formulae or only an adjustment of parameters, but anyway. It's nice to have. - I find the damage partly more realistic actually, when it's been set to realistic - it corresponds better to how the impact actually occurs. As for the maximum level of damage incurred, well, this is a beta demo, we'll see how they fine-tuned it for the final product. - as for the changed physics, that's IMHO no contradiction. Papy had more credible physics than their compeition since GPL, which did fairly well what real cars do, but of course they got improved every year. What a real _Nascar_ does, neither of us knows, and that probably even differs from year to year as different tires and rule changes are introduced, and from car to car. Sims can only be an appoximation of a common denominator there. N2002 had a detailed physics model which under most circumstances in a credible way did what a real car would do - that's all you can expect. And it did it better than most other sims, except IMHO the GTR2002 mod which is pretty darn impressive as well. N2003 now introduces the know-how of an actual Nascar race engineer, and hence feels more like a real average Nascar (ar rather, like the ones this engineer builds and maintains). That's nice progress, but doesn't invalidate previous physics models - both the old and the new one were credible physics models for a car. Now if you want to reply Dave, before you reply, please sit back ;-) and make yourself aware that it isn't my purpose to yank your chain, to annoy you or to make you angry. I've written the above after some serious thinking and consideration, as a contribution of thoughts and facts to the topic. Don't call me names or accuse me of licking someone's boots ;-) Achim

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > This is absolutely, positively a minor update that they are charging fullprice for No. > There were supposed to be bumpy tracks in N2003. Where are they? Michiganis > smooth as glass. No. > Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that's important. Yeah a simple sentence about the physics in your post. Good job! -- -- 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...

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > How long am I supposed to believe it takes to adjust the tire model/grip? You obviously don't know shite about gaming development. > A year of 14 hour days by the entire Papyrus development team? More then that. -- -- 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...

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > The hypocrisy runs rampant form Papy fans once again. This is absolutely, > positively a minor update that they are charging full price for, but I see > the same old names saying it's OK for Papyrus to do so even though they rip > other companies for doing the same thing. List these people, please. > It looks basically the same. By far the biggest difference is > the...........menu. So if the track renditions were good in N2002 is the look supposed to change? They're the same tracks. > Damage (sorry jason) seems the same. Whack a wall at 200mph with your front > right at Michigan and the wheel and tire is just fine. Not even a wobble. No > real visual damage to the body around the wheel. Lap times barely suffer. What angle did you whack the wall at? I've seen wall brushes in real races where the car got away with it. In my limited running the damage seems better - graphically and how you're effected. > There were supposed to be bumpy tracks in N2003. Where are they? Michigan is > smooth as glass. Try Talladega. I have never driven either track in real life, but Tally in this demo is bumpier than in N2002 and it affects handling and the FF effects. > With such a drastic > difference (it was immediately obvious) Um, "absolutely, positively a minor update" OK > where are the people who insisted > that Papyrus had it JUST RIGHT in N2002? Those are apparently the same > people who insisted they had the tire model and grip just right in GPL. They > would be called "Papy groupies". Name a better NASCAR sim at the time. Technology moves on, these things improve over time.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I'll buy N2003 for the RASCAR races. $50 is very, very cheap for all the fun > I get from those races. I always say sims are extremely cheap considering > how much enjoyment I get out of them, and how much work and artistry goes > into them form the developers and publishers. I just don't want to hear how > from Papyrus fans how one developer is supposedly ripping us off with a > minor update at full price when N2003 is absolutely a minor update, and > nothing else.

"such a drastic difference (it was immediately obvious)" OK I don't see so-called "Papyrus fans" doing this. Even you don't seem to be able to make up your mind whether this is "a drastic difference" or "a minor update". N2002 was (and is) I M O an excellent NASCAR Sim. Updates to something of such high quality will therefore not make the whole thing feel like a completely different experience. They're gonna be tweeks and niceities that can take advantage of more modern hardware. They're simulating the same thing, after all. Regards, Mark

"Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<[email hidden]>... > > The hypocrisy runs rampant form Papy fans once again. This isabsolutely, > > positively a minor update that they are charging full price for, but Isee > > the same old names saying it's OK for Papyrus to do so even though theyrip > > other companies for doing the same thing. > > List these people, please. Can't be bothered. > > It looks basically the same. By far the biggest difference is > > the...........menu. > > So if the track renditions were good in N2002 is the look supposed to > change? They're the same tracks. I heard so much about graphical improvements, and it looks the same. Therefor, another area where this is a minor update. > > Damage (sorry jason) seems the same. Whack a wall at 200mph with yourfront > > right at Michigan and the wheel and tire is just fine. Not even awobble. No > > real visual damage to the body around the wheel. Lap times barelysuffer. > > What angle did you whack the wall at? A big enough angle where the car (any car) should of been sent to the scrapyard. At least the body should of been damaged a bit around the wheel. The wheel itself should of been gone. Same type of damage as in N2002. Minor update if updated at all. >I've seen wall brushes in real > races where the car got away with it. In my limited running the > damage seems better - graphically and how you're effected. > > > There were supposed to be bumpy tracks in N2003. Where are they?Michigan is > > smooth as glass. > > Try Talladega. What about Michigan? I have tried Talladega and it's still pretty damn smooth.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I have never driven either track in real life, but > Tally in this demo is bumpier than in N2002 and it affects handling > and the FF effects. > > > With such a drastic > > difference (it was immediately obvious) > > Um, "absolutely, positively a minor update" > OK

I guess you haven't read any other posts in this thread. Updating the tire model/grip (just one aspect of the sim) does not make the ENTIRE game a major update to N2002. I wonder how many other Papy guys will try to claim I'm contradicting myself in this thread. > > where are the people who insisted > > that Papyrus had it JUST RIGHT in N2002? Those are apparently the same > > people who insisted they had the tire model and grip just right in GPL.They > > would be called "Papy groupies". > > Name a better NASCAR sim at the time. Technology moves on, these > things improve over time. How does what you say above change the fact that they were wrong? > > I'll buy N2003 for the RASCAR races. $50 is very, very cheap for all thefun > > I get from those races. I always say sims are extremely cheapconsidering > > how much enjoyment I get out of them, and how much work and artistrygoes > > into them form the developers and publishers. I just don't want to hearhow > > from Papyrus fans how one developer is supposedly ripping us off with a > > minor update at full price when N2003 is absolutely a minor update, and > > nothing else. > > "such a drastic difference (it was immediately obvious)" > OK See above. > I don't see so-called "Papyrus fans" doing this. Even you don't seem > to be able to make up your mind whether this is "a drastic difference" > or "a minor update". Again, see above, and elsewhere in this thread. Tire model/grip is just one feature of the driving model, which is just one feature of the entire sim. David G Fisher

Can't be bothered. I heard so much about graphical improvements, and it looks the same. Therefor, another area where this is a minor update. A big enough angle where the car (any car) should of been sent to the scrapyard. At least the body should of been damaged a bit around the wheel. The wheel itself should of been gone. Same type of damage as in N2002. Minor update if updated at all. What about Michigan? I have tried Talladega and it's still pretty damn smooth. I guess you haven't read any other posts in this thread. Updating the tire model/grip (just one aspect of the sim) does not make the ENTIRE game a major update to N2002. I wonder how many other Papy guys will try to claim I'm contradicting myself in this thread. How does what you say above change the fact that they were wrong? See above. Again, see above, and elsewhere in this thread. Tire model/grip is just one feature of the driving model, which is just one feature of the entire sim. David G Fisher

David G Fisher wrote: First-- > It looks basically the same. By far the biggest difference is > the...........menu. Then-- > Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that's important. > Much more grip through the turns even as the tires wear down. People will > probably be running multiple lines and replays may now look like the real > races do at tracks like California and Michigan. With such a drastic > difference ... Can't have it both ways David. No changes except menus or drastic changes in car handling. Which way ya gonna go?? -- Fester Destroy the Borg? Upload Windows 95 !

"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> David G Fisher wrote: > > First-- > > > It looks basically the same. By far the biggest difference is > > the...........menu. > > Then-- > > > Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that's

important. > > Much more grip through the turns even as the tires wear down. Peoplewill > > probably be running multiple lines and replays may now look like thereal > > races do at tracks like California and Michigan. With such a drastic > > difference ... > > Can't have it both ways David. No changes except menus or drastic > changes in car handling. Which way ya gonna go?? Ok, that's # 3. How many more? David G Fisher

David G Fisher wrote:

Quoted text (38 lines)

> "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>David G Fisher wrote: >> >>First-- >> >> >>>It looks basically the same. By far the biggest difference is >>>the...........menu. >> >>Then-- >> >> >>>Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that's > > important. > >>>Much more grip through the turns even as the tires wear down. People > > will > >>>probably be running multiple lines and replays may now look like the > > real > >>>races do at tracks like California and Michigan. With such a drastic >>>difference ... >> >>Can't have it both ways David. No changes except menus or drastic >>changes in car handling. Which way ya gonna go?? > > > Ok, that's # 3. > > How many more? > > David G Fisher

Uh-huh. No real answer. Just as I suspected. :-) -- Fester A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:51:53 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >- as for the bumps, Michigan doesn't have many, but you can clearly notice >them for example coming out of T4. I suppose they're subtle on the real >track as well? You may need to crank up the FF, it's pretty subtle in N2k3. I can't say what it's like with FF, but without FF the bumps seemed pretty obvious, especially if you're in a pack and you watch the suspension movement up close. I noticed it in my first Talladega race immediately when we started pulling out behind the pace car. As far as how it effects the driving, I can't say I'm noticing a difference but I've only spent an hour or two with it so far. Jason

While the bumps are not "felt" a lot either thru the FF or visual, I think they do have an effect on the downforce. I can do a pretty good DJ impression now coming of T4 at MIS. I'm thinking on that little dip air is getting under the car and making it light. And in my case around she goes. lol MadDAWG

Cool :) Achim "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > While the bumps are not "felt" a lot either thru the FF or visual, I think > they do have an effect on the downforce. I can do a pretty good DJ > impression now coming of T4 at MIS. I'm thinking on that little dip air is > getting under the car and making it light. And in my case around she goes. > lol

David G Fisher wrote:

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YLsX9.4316$[email hidden]... > > > > > Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that's > > important. > > > Much more grip through the turns even as the tires wear down. People > > will > > > probably be running multiple lines and replays may now look like the > > real > > > races do at tracks like California and Michigan. With such a drastic > > > difference (it was immediately obvious), where are the people who > > insisted > > > that Papyrus had it JUST RIGHT in N2002? Those are apparently the same > > > people who insisted they had the tire model and grip just right in > > GPL. They > > > would be called "Papy groupies". > > > > You can't have it both ways. A minor update only Papy fans would > > consider acceptable at full price and a significant change proving N2002 > > wasn't perfect. > > > > Cheers > > Tony > > Yes, it's still a minor update. How long am I supposed to believe it takes > to adjust the tire model/grip? A year of 14 hour days by the entire Papyrus > development team? > > I know, I know, it's more complicated than that. The building of the space > station is nothing in comparison.

Make a stand, Dave, and don't buy it!

Joachim Trensz wrote: <SNIP> Hi mate. > Now if you want to reply Dave, before you reply, please sit back ;-) and > make yourself aware that it isn't my purpose to yank your chain, to annoy > you or to make you angry. That, according to Dave, is my main hobby! > I've written the above after some serious thinking > and consideration, as a contribution of thoughts and facts to the topic. > Don't call me names or accuse me of licking someone's boots ;-) When he does that, I know it's both chips talking. Cheers Gerry

<SNIP> Hi mate. That, according to Dave, is my main hobby! When he does that, I know it's both chips talking. Cheers Gerry

Never ceases to amaze me how many supposedly intelligent people will criticize an unseen finished product, based on a leaked media demo that has been stated to represent only about 80% of what is in the final product. When some one with the reputation of beta tester Rodney Arndt makes such positive comments about the final product, I'm more than ready and willing to plunk down my 50 bucks. "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The hypocrisy runs rampant form Papy fans once again. This is absolutely, > positively a minor update that they are charging full price for, but I see > the same old names saying it's OK for Papyrus to do so even though theyrip > other companies for doing the same thing. > > It looks basically the same. By far the biggest difference is > the...........menu. > > Damage (sorry jason) seems the same. Whack a wall at 200mph with yourfront > right at Michigan and the wheel and tire is just fine. Not even a wobble.No > real visual damage to the body around the wheel. Lap times barely suffer. > > There were supposed to be bumpy tracks in N2003. Where are they? Michiganis

Quoted text (9 lines)

> smooth as glass. > > Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that's important. > Much more grip through the turns even as the tires wear down. People will > probably be running multiple lines and replays may now look like the real > races do at tracks like California and Michigan. With such a drastic > difference (it was immediately obvious), where are the people who insisted > that Papyrus had it JUST RIGHT in N2002? Those are apparently the same > people who insisted they had the tire model and grip just right in GPL.

They > would be called "Papy groupies". > > I'll buy N2003 for the RASCAR races. $50 is very, very cheap for all thefun > I get from those races. I always say sims are extremely cheap considering > how much enjoyment I get out of them, and how much work and artistry goes > into them form the developers and publishers. I just don't want to hearhow

Quoted text (10 lines)

> from Papyrus fans how one developer is supposedly ripping us off with a > minor update at full price when N2003 is absolutely a minor update, and > nothing else. > > David G Fisher > > > > >

As a Demo, maybe the full Damage Model isn't implemented yet? -Larry "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The hypocrisy runs rampant form Papy fans once again. This is absolutely, > positively a minor update that they are charging full price for, but I see > the same old names saying it's OK for Papyrus to do so even though theyrip > other companies for doing the same thing. > > It looks basically the same. By far the biggest difference is > the...........menu. > > Damage (sorry jason) seems the same. Whack a wall at 200mph with yourfront > right at Michigan and the wheel and tire is just fine. Not even a wobble.No > real visual damage to the body around the wheel. Lap times barely suffer. > > There were supposed to be bumpy tracks in N2003. Where are they? Michiganis

Quoted text (9 lines)

> smooth as glass. > > Yes, the cars do handle differently and better IMO, and that's important. > Much more grip through the turns even as the tires wear down. People will > probably be running multiple lines and replays may now look like the real > races do at tracks like California and Michigan. With such a drastic > difference (it was immediately obvious), where are the people who insisted > that Papyrus had it JUST RIGHT in N2002? Those are apparently the same > people who insisted they had the tire model and grip just right in GPL.

They > would be called "Papy groupies". > > I'll buy N2003 for the RASCAR races. $50 is very, very cheap for all thefun > I get from those races. I always say sims are extremely cheap considering > how much enjoyment I get out of them, and how much work and artistry goes > into them form the developers and publishers. I just don't want to hearhow

Quoted text (10 lines)

> from Papyrus fans how one developer is supposedly ripping us off with a > minor update at full price when N2003 is absolutely a minor update, and > nothing else. > > David G Fisher > > > > >

"Tire temps now start out warmer or colder depending on track weather" Does this now mean that there is a benifit to warming the tires while under pace/yellow ? Larry

"Auto option for setting AI behavior that adjusts itself automatically based on past performances" I understand the adaptive speed control, but I don't quite get this one. Does this mean they raise/lower their level based on how YOU do each race, lap or ??? Larry

"Hard core mode" Can anyone amplify this one a bit? Where is it turned on, and what exactly does it do ? Larry

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0mfim$rnc6h$[email hidden]... > Cool :) > > Achim Not if your one of my cyber body men. lol I did notice driving one the grass (I told you i do it a lot) that you do get more of the typical bump feel. MadDAWG

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0m0kp$r075b$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Hi Dave, > > Chad already gave us an impressive changelog for a 'minor update' ;-) but > the list doesn't mention some aspects I personally find important. > > - the AI that fender rubbing now works a lot better, and the odds are more > realistically distributed between the AI and the human player than before.

I noticed this too! I did a few particulary stupid corner entries at Dega (the fast setup is tight as hell) and in both cases the AI corrected for MY mistakes and avoided the major collisions quite well. If the online collision reactions have improved this much, then online racing with NR may have just changed in a major way. Maybe this is the end of the "Flea Flicker" collision detection online ? > > - there's an option to include various levels of telemetry into thereplay. > This gives use more control over the replay size and also a better way to > check cheating in controlled environments like leagues and hotlap charts. Haven't found this yet. Where are the settings? > > - as for the bumps, Michigan doesn't have many, but you can clearly notice > them for example coming out of T4. I suppose they're subtle on the real > track as well? You may need to crank up the FF, it's pretty subtle inN2k3. > > - things like the windscreen buildup, solar effects or the movable driver > seat aren't graphics, they're improvements towards more realism as they > play a role in real racing. > > - excellent sensation of speed I think it's a bit better too, especially at lower frame rates. > > - the snappiness that has always existed in Papy's sims under certain > circumstances has been reduced to a credible level. This has so far beenmy > only gripe with Papy's physics, and it's been cured now. I don't know > whether it required a substantial change in some of the underlyingformulae > or only an adjustment of parameters, but anyway. It's nice to have. You know, I think the "Wobbles" might finally be gone! -Larry

Yeah, with the standard fast setup I've been losing the ass-end about 3 out of every 5 laps there so far :) Larry "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> While the bumps are not "felt" a lot either thru the FF or visual, I think > they do have an effect on the downforce. I can do a pretty good DJ > impression now coming of T4 at MIS. I'm thinking on that little dip air is > getting under the car and making it light. And in my case around she goes. > lol > > MadDAWG > >

"Larry" wrote... > <snip> > Does this now mean that there is a benifit to warming > the tires while under pace/yellow ? No, it never is benificial to attempt to warm the tyres at pacing speed. The risks far outweigh what little temperature you can get in the tyres. Just don't do it. Jan. =---

Hi Larry, IMHO the AI not only try to avoid the player more than they used to, but also when collisions happen, it's not always the human player who loses out. I also find that actual fender rubbing is now a lot more possible without getting the player into trouble. I hadn't actually thought of consequences on online racing, but if it is as you suggest, that would indeed be a substantial step toward more realistic online racing. As for the telemetry options, they're in the replay section of core.ini, and they're pretty detailed. I've tried them and at least on my system they didn't cause any fps hit, so I think we can easily use them in online races and the only price we'll pay is replay size. Achim "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gQAX9.52804$[email hidden]... ... > I noticed this too...

Hi Gerry, we've been missing you for some flying the other night. But then we guessed you're having so much fun with the demo that you've forgotten to come back :-) Achim "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Joachim Trensz wrote: > > <SNIP> > > Hi mate. > > > Now if you want to reply Dave, before you reply, please sit back ;-) and > > make yourself aware that it isn't my purpose to yank your chain, to

annoy

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > you or to make you angry. > > That, according to Dave, is my main hobby! > > > I've written the above after some serious thinking > > and consideration, as a contribution of thoughts and facts to the topic. > > Don't call me names or accuse me of licking someone's boots ;-) > > When he does that, I know it's both chips talking. > > Cheers > > Gerry

Hardcore mode is an option for multiplayer races that forces smoke, cockpit view, and window build up. Jay Taylor "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sKAX9.52784$[email hidden]... > "Hard core mode" > > Can anyone amplify this one a bit? Where is it turned on, and whatexactly > does it do ? > > Larry > >

My understanding is that hardcore is a online option. Its basically an extension of the forced cockpit, not a higher level of physics like in Heat. I think it includes stuff like smoke and sun glare as well as cockpit view. MadDAWG

My understanding is that *** is a online option. Its basically an extension of the forced***pit, not a higher level of physics like in Heat. I think it includes stuff like smoke and sun glare as well as***pit view. MadDAWG

Adaptive AI is were the AI will run close to your speed. Auto AI is were it sets the AI percent based on your previous races at any given track. The auto AI percent will be great for an offline season. Say you kick but at Daytona, but get your but kicked at Sears Point at 100%. The auto AI would give you a higher percent for Daytona say 110%, and a lower percent at Sears say 85% all in the same season. The only downfall is it starts at 70% so you will have to run a few races at each track to get your values tuned in. MadDAWG

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ISAX9.52812$[email hidden]... > Yeah, with the standard fast setup I've been losing the ass-end about 3out > of every 5 laps there so far :) > > Larry Sounds about right. lol MadDAWG

"David G Fisher" wrote: > > You can't have it both ways. A minor update only Papy fans would > > consider acceptable at full price and a significant change provingN2002 > > wasn't perfect. > Yes, it's still a minor update. How long am I supposed to believe ittakes > to adjust the tire model/grip? A year of 14 hour days by the entirePapyrus > development team? Yet you are saying there is a significant improvement in gameplay. The technical improvement to make that change may be small, but isn't it the gameplay that matters? There could be man years of technical work (in any sim) we just don't appreciate. > I know, I know, it's more complicated than that. The building of thespace > station is nothing in comparison. Exactly - implementating Nascar rules would delay the programme by years... Cheers Tony

"MadDAWG" wrote... > My understanding is that hardcore is a online option. Its > basically an extension of the forced cockpit, not a higher > level of physics like in Heat. I think it includes stuff > like smoke and sun glare as well as cockpit view. Apparently, the glare has been excluded because of the FPS hit it produces. Jan. =---

Yeah, but it used to not matter. Now it might if it's modeled. That's the question I'm trying to get answered :) Larry "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sgBX9.28620$[email hidden]... > "Larry" wrote... > > <snip> > > Does this now mean that there is a benifit to warming > > the tires while under pace/yellow ? > > No, it never is benificial to attempt to warm the tyres at pacing speed.The

Quoted text (8 lines)

> risks far outweigh what little temperature you can get in the tyres. > > Just don't do it. > > Jan. > =--- > >

That's what I thought. Thanks! Larry "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Adaptive AI is were the AI will run close to your speed. > > Auto AI is were it sets the AI percent based on your previous races at any > given track. The auto AI percent will be great for an offline season. Say > you kick but at Daytona, but get your but kicked at Sears Point at 100%. > The auto AI would give you a higher percent for Daytona say 110%, and a > lower percent at Sears say 85% all in the same season. The only downfall

is > it starts at 70% so you will have to run a few races at each track to get > your values tuned in. > > MadDAWG > >

Ah, in other words a normal race :) Larry "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JEBX9.497$[email hidden]... > Hardcore mode is an option for multiplayer races that forces smoke,cockpit

Quoted text (21 lines)

> view, and window build up. > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:sKAX9.52784$[email hidden]... > > "Hard core mode" > > > > Can anyone amplify this one a bit? Where is it turned on, and what > exactly > > does it do ? > > > > Larry > > > > > >

Ah, in other words a normal race :) Larry > *** mode is an option for multiplayer races that forces smoke, ***pit

Quoted text (14 lines)

> view, and window build up. > Jay Taylor > > "Hard core mode" > > Can anyone amplify this one a bit? Where is it turned on, and what > exactly > > does it do ? > > Larry

Thanks! Larry "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0mng5$r6ad0$[email hidden]... > Hi Larry, > > IMHO the AI not only try to avoid the player more than they used to, but > also when collisions happen, it's not always the human player who losesout. > I also find that actual fender rubbing is now a lot more possible without > getting the player into trouble. > > I hadn't actually thought of consequences on online racing, but if it isas > you suggest, that would indeed be a substantial step toward more realistic > online racing. > > As for the telemetry options, they're in the replay section of core.ini,and > they're pretty detailed. I've tried them and at least on my system they > didn't cause any fps hit, so I think we can easily use them in onlineraces

Quoted text (12 lines)

> and the only price we'll pay is replay size. > > Achim > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:gQAX9.52804$[email hidden]... > ... > > I noticed this too... > > >

Thanks for that invaluable hint MadDawg, not sure I want to try it during a race though just to feel the bumps <g> Achim "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b0mfim$rnc6h$[email hidden]... > > Cool :) > > > > Achim > > Not if your one of my cyber body men. lol > > I did notice driving one the grass (I told you i do it a lot) that you do > get more of the typical bump feel. > > MadDAWG > >

You can put heat in the tires but its minimal. Cup drivers mainly scrub their tires during a pace/caution lap to keep them clean, not to try to bring them up to race temperature. Since debris such as dirt and rocks isnt modeled on the racing surface you're wasting time trying to warm up the tires. You might get 10 degrees in them if youre lucky. TK "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DkEX9.1216$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Yeah, but it used to not matter. Now it might if it's modeled. > > That's the question I'm trying to get answered :) > > Larry > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:sgBX9.28620$[email hidden]... > > "Larry" wrote... > > > <snip> > > > Does this now mean that there is a benifit to warming > > > the tires while under pace/yellow ? > > > > No, it never is benificial to attempt to warm the tyres at pacing speed. > The > > risks far outweigh what little temperature you can get in the tyres. > > > > Just don't do it. > > > > Jan. > > =--- > > > > > > >

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:<[email hidden]>... > > > The hypocrisy runs rampant form Papy fans once again. This is > absolutely, > > > positively a minor update that they are charging full price for, but I > see > > > the same old names saying it's OK for Papyrus to do so even though

they > rip > > > other companies for doing the same thing. > > > > List these people, please. > > Can't be bothered. Thought not.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > It looks basically the same. By far the biggest difference is > > > the...........menu. > > > > So if the track renditions were good in N2002 is the look supposed to > > change? They're the same tracks. > > I heard so much about graphical improvements, and it looks the same. > Therefor, another area where this is a minor update.

You need your eyes tested.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > Damage (sorry jason) seems the same. Whack a wall at 200mph with your > front > > > right at Michigan and the wheel and tire is just fine. Not even a > wobble. No > > > real visual damage to the body around the wheel. Lap times barely > suffer. > > > > What angle did you whack the wall at? > > A big enough angle where the car (any car) should of been sent to the > scrapyard. At least the body should of been damaged a bit around the

wheel. > The wheel itself should of been gone. Same type of damage as in N2002.Minor > update if updated at all. So our experiences differ. Fair enough.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >I've seen wall brushes in real > > races where the car got away with it. In my limited running the > > damage seems better - graphically and how you're effected. > > > > > There were supposed to be bumpy tracks in N2003. Where are they? > Michigan is > > > smooth as glass. > > > > Try Talladega. > > What about Michigan?

Don't know how bumpy Michigan is in real life, but you asked where the bumpy tracks were and I told you. > I have tried Talladega and it's still pretty damn smooth. Riiight...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > I have never driven either track in real life, but > > Tally in this demo is bumpier than in N2002 and it affects handling > > and the FF effects. > > > > > With such a drastic > > > difference (it was immediately obvious) > > > > Um, "absolutely, positively a minor update" > > OK > I guess you haven't read any other posts in this thread.

Nope. Yours was the only post when I saw it on Google. > I wonder how many other Papy guys will try to claim > I'm contradicting myself in this thread. I'm a Papy guy? Where's my paycheque? I would imagine the people who "claim" that you're contradicting yourself are the ones who actually see that you are doing it. If labelling people who spot this "Papy guys" makes you feel better, then knock yourself out. > > > where are the people who insisted > > > that Papyrus had it JUST RIGHT in N2002? Those are apparently the same > > > people who insisted they had the tire model and grip just right inGPL.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> They > > > would be called "Papy groupies". > > > > Name a better NASCAR sim at the time. Technology moves on, these > > things improve over time. > > How does what you say above change the fact that they were wrong?

1. See below. 2. Of course it's gonna be wrong. I've no doubt N2K3's is wrong too. Anything that isn't 100% perfect is, by definition, wrong. The best we can hope for is as close an approximation as possible. *Anyone* out there who thinks any sim has got this stuff "JUST RIGHT" is deluded. Anyone not involved in the development of these sims who thinks Papy have got it more right than anyone else at this point is expressing an opinion. Why do you get bent out of shape because someone like a Papy product? > > > I'll buy N2003 for the RASCAR races. $50 is very, very cheap for allthe > fun > > > I get from those races. I always say sims are extremely cheap > considering > > > how much enjoyment I get out of them, and how much work and artistry > goes > > > into them form the developers and publishers. I just don't want tohear > how > > > from Papyrus fans how one developer is supposedly ripping us off witha > > > minor update at full price when N2003 is absolutely a minor update,and

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > nothing else. > > > > "such a drastic difference (it was immediately obvious)" > > OK > > See above. > > > I don't see so-called "Papyrus fans" doing this. Even you don't seem > > to be able to make up your mind whether this is "a drastic difference" > > or "a minor update". > > Again, see above, and elsewhere in this thread. Tire model/grip is just

one > feature of the driving model, which is just one feature of the entire sim. But it's the ONE THING that you bang on and on (and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on) about. It's the reason GPL is so lame, isn't it. It must be a MAJOR aspect of the sim. Regards, Mark <no-middle-name> Davison

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:51:36 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yeah, with the standard fast setup I've been losing the ass-end about 3 out >of every 5 laps there so far :) Pretty nice for a setup with NO REAR BAR. =) Jason

"Larry" wrote... > Yeah, but it used to not matter. Now it might if it's > modeled. > > That's the question I'm trying to get answered :) All it does in real NASCAR is keep the drivers busy... doesn't work in RL, doesn't work in the sim. Correctly modelled. Jan. =---

Ten degrees is a lot of heat. But you don't get that much doing it anyway :) John p.s. it's worn tire rubber on the track that they want off their tires :) "Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:EbFX9.6776$[email hidden]... > You can put heat in the tires but its minimal. Cup drivers mainly scrub > their tires during a pace/caution lap to keep them clean, not to try to > bring them up to race temperature. Since debris such as dirt and rocksisnt

Quoted text (22 lines)

> modeled on the racing surface you're wasting time trying to warm up the > tires. You might get 10 degrees in them if youre lucky. > > TK > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:DkEX9.1216$[email hidden]... > > Yeah, but it used to not matter. Now it might if it's modeled. > > > > That's the question I'm trying to get answered :) > > > > Larry > > > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:sgBX9.28620$[email hidden]... > > > "Larry" wrote... > > > > <snip> > > > > Does this now mean that there is a benifit to warming > > > > the tires while under pace/yellow ? > > > > > > No, it never is benificial to attempt to warm the tyres at pacing

speed.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > The > > > risks far outweigh what little temperature you can get in the tyres. > > > > > > Just don't do it. > > > > > > Jan. > > > =--- > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >snip........ > > Obviously Papyrus had the grip levels wrong in N2002 or they wouldn't have > changed so much in N2003. Obviously those who INSISTED that Papyrus hadthem > correct were wrong. Just like they were wrong when they insisted they were > accurate in GPL. Kaemmer confirmed that himself eventually. > > I'm glad they changed the tire model in N2003. What I don't understand is > why it is so hard for them and their devoted fans to see when the grip > levels are off in their sims. I'm not a NASCAR fan at all, but after justa > bit of time with N2002, and watching some races, it was obvious that what > was being done in the real races was not able to be recreated by the most > experienced N2002 drivers due to the way the tires were modeled. The > difference slapped you in the face. Other Papyrus NASCAR sim veterans said > the same thing as well, and were told they were wrong. Same type ofscenario > with GPL. snip...... > David G Fisher Agreed. John

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0m0kp$r075b$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Hi Dave, > > Chad already gave us an impressive changelog for a 'minor update' ;-) but > the list doesn't mention some aspects I personally find important. > > - the AI that fender rubbing now works a lot better, and the odds are more > realistically distributed between the AI and the human player than before. > > - there's an option to include various levels of telemetry into the

replay. > This gives use more control over the replay size and also a better way to > check cheating in controlled environments like leagues and hotlap charts. Neither one of those things mean much to me as I don't race offline, cheating should be obvious, and hotlapping in NASCAR is somehthing I'll neve rmake time for. > - as for the bumps, Michigan doesn't have many, but you can clearly notice > them for example coming out of T4. > I suppose they're subtle on the real > track as well? You may need to crank up the FF, it's pretty subtle inN2k3. If they are there at all, they are so tiny as to be irrelevent. Hardly a feature worrth promoting. > - things like the windscreen buildup, solar effects or the movable driver > seat aren't graphics, they're improvements towards more realism as they > play a role in real racing. Those are features that have been in other sims for a long, long time. Big deal. > - excellent sensation of speed Seems no different to me. > - the snappiness that has always existed in Papy's sims under certain > circumstances has been reduced to a credible level. This has so far beenmy > only gripe with Papy's physics, and it's been cured now. I don't know > whether it required a substantial change in some of the underlyingformulae > or only an adjustment of parameters, but anyway. It's nice to have. It's funny, but jason seems to be saying the opposite. Maybe he's talking about something else. "Seems like there's more grip when the tires are heated and the wings/tires are oriented correctly in terms of shouldering the weight of the car, but if you get out of the groove and continue pushing hard the car wants to turn around faster than before." > - I find the damage partly more realistic actually, when it's been set to > realistic - it corresponds better to how the impact actually occurs. Asfor > the maximum level of damage incurred, well, this is a beta demo, we'll see > how they fine-tuned it for the final product. > - as for the changed physics, that's IMHO no contradiction. Papy had more > credible physics than their compeition since GPL, which did fairly wellwhat > real cars do, but of course they got improved every year. What a real > _Nascar_ does, neither of us knows, and that probably even differs fromyear > to year as different tires and rule changes are introduced, and from carto > car. Sims can only be an appoximation of a common denominator there. N2002 > had a detailed physics model which under most circumstances in a credible > way did what a real car would do - that's all you can expect. And it didit > better than most other sims, except IMHO the GTR2002 mod which is pretty > darn impressive as well. N2003 now introduces the know-how of an actual > Nascar race engineer, and hence feels more like a real average Nascar (ar > rather, like the ones this engineer builds and maintains). That's nice > progress, but doesn't invalidate previous physics models - both the oldand > the new one were credible physics models for a car. Obviously Papyrus had the grip levels wrong in N2002 or they wouldn't have changed so much in N2003. Obviously those who INSISTED that Papyrus had them correct were wrong. Just like they were wrong when they insisted they were accurate in GPL. Kaemmer confirmed that himself eventually. I'm glad they changed the tire model in N2003. What I don't understand is why it is so hard for them and their devoted fans to see when the grip levels are off in their sims. I'm not a NASCAR fan at all, but after just a bit of time with N2002, and watching some races, it was obvious that what was being done in the real races was not able to be recreated by the most experienced N2002 drivers due to the way the tires were modeled. The difference slapped you in the face. Other Papyrus NASCAR sim veterans said the same thing as well, and were told they were wrong. Same type of scenario with GPL. Why does it take a NASCAR engineer (shouldn't they of had someone from NASCAR working with them a long time ago?) to make changes that someone like me can see right away? Do they listen to beta testers opinions? Do the beta testers do anything but say everything's great, and give feedback on compatability issues? Who knows. Again, I see N2003 as a minor update to N2002. The changed grip level could of been done in a patch to N2002 10 months ago if they'd just asked me my opinions, and I'm not even a NASCAR fan. :-p David G Fisher

> I'm glad they changed the tire model in N2003. What I don't understand is > why it is so hard for them and their devoted fans to see when the grip > levels are off in their sims. I'm not a NASCAR fan at all, but after justa > bit of time with N2002, and watching some races, it was obvious that what > was being done in the real races was not able to be recreated by the most > experienced N2002 drivers due to the way the tires were modeled. The > difference slapped you in the face. Other Papyrus NASCAR sim veterans said > the same thing as well, and were told they were wrong. Same type ofscenario > with GPL. Why does it take a NASCAR engineer (shouldn't they of hadsomeone > from NASCAR working with them a long time ago?) to make changes thatsomeone > like me can see right away? Do they listen to beta testers opinions? Dothe > beta testers do anything but say everything's great, and give feedback on > compatability issues? Who knows. > > Again, I see N2003 as a minor update to N2002. The changed grip levelcould > of been done in a patch to N2002 10 months ago if they'd just asked me my > opinions, and I'm not even a NASCAR fan. :-p Yes, David. (and on, and on, and on...) Regards, Mark

> As I said to Joachim, the changed grip level could of been done in a patch > to N2002 10 months ago if they'd just listened to the right people. (and on and on and on...) Regards, Mark

"Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MrCX9.603$R%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> "David G Fisher" wrote: > > > > You can't have it both ways. A minor update only Papy fans would > > > consider acceptable at full price and a significant change proving > N2002 > > > wasn't perfect. > > > Yes, it's still a minor update. How long am I supposed to believe it > takes > > to adjust the tire model/grip? A year of 14 hour days by the entire > Papyrus > > development team? > > Yet you are saying there is a significant improvement in gameplay. The > technical improvement to make that change may be small, but isn't it the > gameplay that matters? There could be man years of technical work (in > any sim) we just don't appreciate.

As I said to Joachim, the changed grip level could of been done in a patch to N2002 10 months ago if they'd just listened to the right people. David G Fisher

"John Pancoast" wrote... > <snip> > Agreed. Please, don't encourage him. <g> Jan. =---

I gotta agree about the bumps David. They are pretty much un-noticeable to me, maybe some of the other tracks will exhibit a bit more travel on the vert.. The sim that models bumps is GTR2002. Now that's some vertical movement. Mitch "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b0m0kp$r075b$[email hidden]... > > Hi Dave, > > > > Chad already gave us an impressive changelog for a 'minor update' ;-)but > > the list doesn't mention some aspects I personally find important. > > > > - the AI that fender rubbing now works a lot better, and the odds aremore > > realistically distributed between the AI and the human player thanbefore. > > > > - there's an option to include various levels of telemetry into the > replay. > > This gives use more control over the replay size and also a better wayto > > check cheating in controlled environments like leagues and hotlapcharts. > > Neither one of those things mean much to me as I don't race offline, > cheating should be obvious, and hotlapping in NASCAR is somehthing I'llneve > rmake time for. > > > - as for the bumps, Michigan doesn't have many, but you can clearlynotice

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > them for example coming out of T4. > > > I suppose they're subtle on the real > > track as well? You may need to crank up the FF, it's pretty subtle in > N2k3. > > If they are there at all, they are so tiny as to be irrelevent. Hardly a > feature worrth promoting. > > > > - things like the windscreen buildup, solar effects or the movable

driver

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > seat aren't graphics, they're improvements towards more realism as they > > play a role in real racing. > > Those are features that have been in other sims for a long, long time. Big > deal. > > > - excellent sensation of speed > > Seems no different to me. > > > - the snappiness that has always existed in Papy's sims under certain > > circumstances has been reduced to a credible level. This has so far been > my > > only gripe with Papy's physics, and it's been cured now. I don't know > > whether it required a substantial change in some of the underlying > formulae > > or only an adjustment of parameters, but anyway. It's nice to have. > > It's funny, but jason seems to be saying the opposite. Maybe he's talking > about something else. > > "Seems like there's more grip when the tires > are heated and the wings/tires are oriented correctly in terms of > shouldering the weight of the car, but if you get out of the groove > and continue pushing hard the car wants to turn around faster than > before." > > > - I find the damage partly more realistic actually, when it's been set

to > > realistic - it corresponds better to how the impact actually occurs. As > for > > the maximum level of damage incurred, well, this is a beta demo, we'llsee > > how they fine-tuned it for the final product. > > - as for the changed physics, that's IMHO no contradiction. Papy hadmore

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > credible physics than their compeition since GPL, which did fairly well > what > > real cars do, but of course they got improved every year. What a real > > _Nascar_ does, neither of us knows, and that probably even differs from > year > > to year as different tires and rule changes are introduced, and from car > to > > car. Sims can only be an appoximation of a common denominator there.

N2002 > > had a detailed physics model which under most circumstances in acredible > > way did what a real car would do - that's all you can expect. And it did > it > > better than most other sims, except IMHO the GTR2002 mod which is pretty > > darn impressive as well. N2003 now introduces the know-how of an actual > > Nascar race engineer, and hence feels more like a real average Nascar(ar

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > rather, like the ones this engineer builds and maintains). That's nice > > progress, but doesn't invalidate previous physics models - both the old > and > > the new one were credible physics models for a car. > > Obviously Papyrus had the grip levels wrong in N2002 or they wouldn't have > changed so much in N2003. Obviously those who INSISTED that Papyrus had

them > correct were wrong. Just like they were wrong when they insisted they were > accurate in GPL. Kaemmer confirmed that himself eventually. > > I'm glad they changed the tire model in N2003. What I don't understand is > why it is so hard for them and their devoted fans to see when the grip > levels are off in their sims. I'm not a NASCAR fan at all, but after justa > bit of time with N2002, and watching some races, it was obvious that what > was being done in the real races was not able to be recreated by the most > experienced N2002 drivers due to the way the tires were modeled. The > difference slapped you in the face. Other Papyrus NASCAR sim veterans said > the same thing as well, and were told they were wrong. Same type ofscenario > with GPL. Why does it take a NASCAR engineer (shouldn't they of hadsomeone > from NASCAR working with them a long time ago?) to make changes thatsomeone > like me can see right away? Do they listen to beta testers opinions? Dothe > beta testers do anything but say everything's great, and give feedback on > compatability issues? Who knows. > > Again, I see N2003 as a minor update to N2002. The changed grip levelcould

Quoted text (8 lines)

> of been done in a patch to N2002 10 months ago if they'd just asked me my > opinions, and I'm not even a NASCAR fan. :-p > > David G Fisher > > > >

It definitely does work. It isn't putting heat in the tires, but it is cleaning the excess rubber buildup off the tires. I have witnessed drivers not cleaning their tires, and when they get to the first turn, they slip up the track due to loss of traction, and the cars behind who remembered to clean their tires drive by underneath. Glen "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TFFX9.809$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Larry" wrote... > > Yeah, but it used to not matter. Now it might if it's > > modeled. > > > > That's the question I'm trying to get answered :) > > All it does in real NASCAR is keep the drivers busy... doesn't work in RL, > doesn't work in the sim. Correctly modelled. > > Jan. > =--- > >

"Glen Pittman" wrote... > It definitely does work. It isn't putting heat in the > tires, Indeed, doesn't work to build up heat. My point exactly. As simracers we are not concerned with marble build-up and have latency to contend with. Not worth the risk. > but it is cleaning the excess rubber buildup off the > tires. I have witnessed drivers not cleaning their > tires, and when they get to the first turn, they > slip up the track due to loss of traction, and the > cars behind who remembered to clean their tires drive > by underneath. There's two futher sides to this... one is to not drive over the crap if you can possibly avoid it. Secondly, cleaning one's tyres is better accomplished by alternating power understeer and oversteer once for each end. Evidently, this can be done without squirming all over the place for the duration of a or several laps. I agree with Carroll Smith on this one... it's just mental masturbation on the part of the drivers. A way to look purposefull while they're just dawdling around. Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eqGX9.883$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "John Pancoast" wrote... > > <snip> > > Agreed. > > Please, don't encourage him. <g> > > Jan.

Oh, I don't think Dave needs anyones encouragement on anything he has a strong opinion on <g> Besides, he has a point imo. John > >

"John Pancoast" wrote... > Oh, I don't think Dave needs anyones encouragement on > anything he has a strong opinion on <g> Besides, he > has a point imo. And what may that be? -Every "GPL-head" I know agrees there's something fundamentally wrong with the way grip and slip angle work in the game. They also all agree GPL is still the best single seater online racing simulation at our disposal, so it's pointless to whine about its shortcomings. Where does Dave's conspiracy theory fit into this? Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KXGX9.928$[email hidden]... > "Glen Pittman" wrote... > > It definitely does work. It isn't putting heat in the > > tires, > > Indeed, doesn't work to build up heat. My point exactly. As simracers weare

Quoted text (11 lines)

> not concerned with marble build-up and have latency to contend with. Not > worth the risk. > > > but it is cleaning the excess rubber buildup off the > > tires. I have witnessed drivers not cleaning their > > tires, and when they get to the first turn, they > > slip up the track due to loss of traction, and the > > cars behind who remembered to clean their tires drive > > by underneath. > > There's two futher sides to this... one is to not drive over the crap if

you > can possibly avoid it. Secondly, cleaning one's tyres is betteraccomplished > by alternating power understeer and oversteer once for each end.Evidently, > this can be done without squirming all over the place for the duration ofa > or several laps. I agree with Carroll Smith on this one... it's justmental > masturbation on the part of the drivers. A way to look purposefull while > they're just dawdling around. > > Jan. Carroll's wrong :) John > =--- > >

Carroll's wrong :) John

"John Pancoast" wrote... > Carroll's wrong :) Caroll's drivers have won F1 GPs, Le Mans and the Indy500... you were saying? Jan.<g> =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:B3HX9.933$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "John Pancoast" wrote... > > Carroll's wrong :) > > Caroll's drivers have won F1 GPs, Le Mans and the Indy500... you were > saying? > > Jan.<g>

Hmm....not one stock car event listed there <g> John > =--- > >

"John Pancoast" wrote... > <snip> > Hmm....not one stock car event listed there <g> Hot slick tyres are hot slick tyres and marbles are marbles, regardless of what car they're mounted or which track they happen to be strewn about on. The point is ridding ones tyres of pick-up can be done efficiently and gracefully, without endangering oneself or other drivers for a prolonged period of time. Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:v0HX9.932$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "John Pancoast" wrote... > > Oh, I don't think Dave needs anyones encouragement on > > anything he has a strong opinion on <g> Besides, he > > has a point imo. > > And what may that be? -Every "GPL-head" I know agrees there's something > fundamentally wrong with the way grip and slip angle work in the game.

They > also all agree GPL is still the best single seater online racingsimulation > at our disposal, so it's pointless to whine about its shortcomings. > > Where does Dave's conspiracy theory fit into this? > > Jan. > =--- Because he's right about the denial points....sure, folks agree.........now, after the fact. Before it was mentioned by the Papy folks, very few if any agreed. I had the same thing happen to me, in both GPL and the Nascar sims. He's a bit more adamant about things than I am, or care to be, but also basically correct imo. I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same with the Nascar sims. But I also don't think they're not without major flaws, and if Company X made them, they'd be hammered left and right I bet. John

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:AbHX9.941$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "John Pancoast" wrote... > > <snip> > > Hmm....not one stock car event listed there <g> > > Hot slick tyres are hot slick tyres and marbles are marbles, regardless of > what car they're mounted or which track they happen to be strewn about on. > > The point is ridding ones tyres of pick-up can be done efficiently and > gracefully, without endangering oneself or other drivers for a prolonged > period of time. > > Jan.

The tires aren't even close to the same compounds Jan, let alone the tracks. 43 stock car drivers year after year, race after race, aren't wrong. Guess we agree to disagree here. John > >

Hi Dave, - I'm hoping the improved fender rubbing comes from better collision detection routines and hence works better online as well - knock on wood. - the bumps are not impressive at the two demoed ovals. I'm also a bit disappointed by them. But then, I have no idea how significant they are at the real tracks. I assume they're quite moderate on SW and SS ovals, considering the speeds which are driven there. I hope they're more significant on other tracks in the full version of the game, especially on the RC's. - windscreen buildup etc. - the fact that it's been done in other games before doesn't mean it's not nice to have it in N2k3 as well ;-) - snappiness is not what Jason is talking about. I'm not an expert for this but I think the snappiness I'm referring to comes from elasticity parameters of the car's suspension and chassis components, and from how the resulting force vectors and their strengths are calculated. Including struts, shocks, tires, arms etc. and even weight transfer vectors, inertia and such. But I'm only guessing here - as for the changes we perceive in the driving, I don't think it's just the grip levels. I think other changes were made as well, as several aspect's of the car's behaviour make me believe that either the formulae calculating the actions of the car's suspension/chassis components or the parameters fed to them (like suspension/chassis geometry) were changed. But again this is purely my opinion without any fact to back it up. - the telemetry/cheating aspect is significant for online leagues etc., so it's worth the money for them. As for your comments regarding contradictions in the statements made by Papy fans, please understand that I'd rather keep out of that discussion. I'm getting too old for this ;-) Achim

I think you are each arguing about different things. John, you are right on about the tar cleaning. All of the announcers that have driven or crew cheifed have mentioned it during races over the years. Just last year during a busch race some guy spun his tars on a late race restart and attributed it to a rook mistake for not cleaniing his tars well. And Jan you are right on that marbles arent modeled and *would* cause problems online were everyone to begin the swerv needlessly... Group Hug... Scratch that, some of you freaks scare me ;) Mitch "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:AbHX9.941$[email hidden]... > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > <snip> > > > Hmm....not one stock car event listed there <g> > > > > Hot slick tyres are hot slick tyres and marbles are marbles, regardless

of > > what car they're mounted or which track they happen to be strewn abouton.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > > > The point is ridding ones tyres of pick-up can be done efficiently and > > gracefully, without endangering oneself or other drivers for a prolonged > > period of time. > > > > Jan. > > > The tires aren't even close to the same compounds Jan, let alone the > tracks. 43 stock car drivers year after year, race after race, aren't > wrong. Guess we agree to disagree here. > > John > > > > > > > >

Nah, I'm not pissed or anything, hope it didn't come across that way :) Got more important things to get mad about than a piece of software. Definately agree it's not needed in an online race, for the reasons mentioned. John "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:EQHX9.1898$[email hidden]... > I think you are each arguing about different things. John, you are righton > about the tar cleaning. All of the announcers that have driven or crew > cheifed have mentioned it during races over the years. Just last yearduring > a busch race some guy spun his tars on a late race restart and attributedit

Quoted text (19 lines)

> to a rook mistake for not cleaniing his tars well. And Jan you are right > on that marbles arent modeled and *would* cause problems online were > everyone to begin the swerv needlessly... > > Group Hug... Scratch that, some of you freaks scare me ;) > > Mitch > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:AbHX9.941$[email hidden]... > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > > <snip> > > > > Hmm....not one stock car event listed there <g> > > > > > > Hot slick tyres are hot slick tyres and marbles are marbles,

regardless > of > > > what car they're mounted or which track they happen to be strewn about > on. > > > > > > The point is ridding ones tyres of pick-up can be done efficiently and > > > gracefully, without endangering oneself or other drivers for aprolonged

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > period of time. > > > > > > Jan. > > > > > > The tires aren't even close to the same compounds Jan, let alone the > > tracks. 43 stock car drivers year after year, race after race, aren't > > wrong. Guess we agree to disagree here. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 02:33:18 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >- snappiness is not what Jason is talking about. I'm not an expert for this >but I think the snappiness I'm referring to comes from elasticity parameters >of the car's suspension and chassis components, and from how the resulting >force vectors and their strengths are calculated. Including struts, shocks, >tires, arms etc. and even weight transfer vectors, inertia and such. But I'm >only guessing here I was referring to the way grip seems less progressive at high angles of attack, as if the expected loss of grip from a less-effective wing angle is being modelled better. I am guessing my observation is likely true since airflow over and under the car has been modelled in much more detail in this release. The snappiness that you're referring to is something that has bothered me as well, altho I can't recall experiencing it at the larger tracks in N4/2002 except for under unusual crash-related circumstances. If I'm thinking of the same thing you are, it was much more noticeable at Watkins Glen and especially Sears Point as well as the converted road courses. Really I'm going to hold off on any significant praise or criticism for the new physics model until we get a chance to try it out on some tracks that have a more complex effect on the overall dynamics of the car. Now that I think of it, I do believe I've experienced sudden snaps at Michigan in the past which I haven't seen in the beta build so far, but I haven't put enough time in to determine if they're gone. I haven't experienced the anoying quick-twitch up the banking and head on into the wall as of yet. Jason

The snappiness is indeed seen more often on RCs - I always thought it comes from the fact that you're steering more and with higher locks, and hence get into that situation more often. I've also always wondered whether it's my setups that make it worse as well, but since I had it in GPL, N4 and N2k2 with all sorts of setups, and especially since it seems to be gone in this N2k3 beta demo, I think it was probably something characteristic to the physics model that has now been modified. And I agree that we need to wait for the full version before we praise or criticise, all I'm saying here is of course first impression and only applies to this beta-demo. Achim "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> I was referring to the way grip seems less progressive at high angles > of attack, as if the expected loss of grip from a less-effective wing > angle is being modelled better. I am guessing my observation is > likely true since airflow over and under the car has been modelled in > much more detail in this release. > > The snappiness that you're referring to is something that has bothered > me as well, altho I can't recall experiencing it at the larger tracks > in N4/2002 except for under unusual crash-related circumstances. If > I'm thinking of the same thing you are, it was much more noticeable at > Watkins Glen and especially Sears Point as well as the converted road > courses. Really I'm going to hold off on any significant praise or > criticism for the new physics model until we get a chance to try it > out on some tracks that have a more complex effect on the overall > dynamics of the car. > > Now that I think of it, I do believe I've experienced sudden snaps at > Michigan in the past which I haven't seen in the beta build so far, > but I haven't put enough time in to determine if they're gone. I > haven't experienced the anoying quick-twitch up the banking and head > on into the wall as of yet.

...

> Apparently, the glare has been excluded because of the FPS hit itproduces. > > Jan. > =--- What you mean to tell me all these guys that scream realism won't spend a few bucks if its needed <gasp> You can't turn the sun off in real life. lol MadDAWG

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<atGX9.1864$[email hidden]>... > I gotta agree about the bumps David. They are pretty much un-noticeable to > me, maybe some of the other tracks will exhibit a bit more travel on the > vert.. The sim that models bumps is GTR2002. Now that's some vertical > movement. > > Mitch That's a joke, right? The bumps in GTR are comical - at least at Siverstone which is one of the few tracks I've tried. Either the bumps are over exagerated or the physics of the game can't handle them. I bought F12002 for GTR. Not tried the F1 side, but drove Donnington and Brands in an N-GT class Porsche and thought it was good, tried Silverstone and it put me off. I can't comment from experience, but doesn't NT2003 suffer similarly? Regards, Mark

"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same with the Nascar > sims. But I also don't think they're not without major flaws, and if > Company X made them, they'd be hammered left and right I bet. Really? That's wierd. Why? Do you *honestly* think anyone gives a shit about which company produces a sim? Do you not think Papy are (generally) respected because they've earned it? Do you also think that if they released a POS that people would not state it as being a POS? ISI have, by accounts I've read here, produced a competent, flawed (like *all* sims are) sim in F12002. LFS is also highly regarded. I think people pretty much give credit where it's due around here, but for some strange reason there's a hardcore few who like to take snipes at Papy. What I *don't* see are so-called "Papy Nazis", just people who *happen to* enjoy sims that have been produced by that company. At the end of the day, until Papy produces some crap, and I hope it doesn't come to that, we will never know if there are *really* people around here who just blindly preach that all that Papy produces is gold whilst trashing all else. I seriously doubt that there is anyone like that on this NG, but I don't doubt for a second that there are people around here who feel more comfortable with themselves if they believe "Papy Nazis" are a reality. Regards, Mark

We don't know of course whether the bumps on the F1_2002 tracks are exaggerated, but the GTR2002 mod physics handle them well IMHO. As for the exaggeration - sometimes you hear racedrivers complaining about bumps making their backs hurt over a race distance. I assume for this to happen, the bumps need to have a certain magnitude, so maybe the bumps on the F1_2002 tracks aren't that exaggerated after all? Achim "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> The bumps in GTR are comical - at least at Siverstone which is one of > the few tracks I've tried. > > Either the bumps are over exagerated or the physics of the game can't > handle them. I bought F12002 for GTR. Not tried the F1 side, but > drove Donnington and Brands in an N-GT class Porsche and thought it > was good, tried Silverstone and it put me off. > I can't comment from experience, but doesn't NT2003 suffer similarly?

...

[email hidden] (Mark) wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:<atGX9.1864$[email hidden]>... >> I gotta agree about the bumps David. They are pretty much >> un-noticeable to me, maybe some of the other tracks will exhibit a >> bit more travel on the vert.. The sim that models bumps is GTR2002. >> Now that's some vertical movement. >> >> Mitch > > That's a joke, right? > > The bumps in GTR are comical - at least at Siverstone which is one of > the few tracks I've tried. > > Either the bumps are over exagerated or the physics of the game can't > handle them. I bought F12002 for GTR. Not tried the F1 side, but > drove Donnington and Brands in an N-GT class Porsche and thought it > was good, tried Silverstone and it put me off. > I can't comment from experience, but doesn't NT2003 suffer similarly? > > Regards, > > Mark >

The ISI physics engine seems heavily dependant upon frame-rate for accuracy. First off, did you enable the Hardcore physics by editing the .plr text in the save\your driver name\ folder? 2nd. Make whatever graphic sacrifices you can to bump up the fps. It really makes a difference how the car reacts to the track. dave henrie

"Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same with the Nascar > > sims. But I also don't think they're not without major flaws, and if > > Company X made them, they'd be hammered left and right I bet. > > Really? That's wierd. Why? > > Do you *honestly* think anyone gives a shit about which company > produces a sim? Do you not think Papy are (generally) respected > because they've earned it? Do you also think that if they released a > POS that people would not state it as being a POS? ISI have, by > accounts I've read here, produced a competent, flawed (like *all* sims > are) sim in F12002. LFS is also highly regarded. I think people > pretty much give credit where it's due around here, but for some > strange reason there's a hardcore few who like to take snipes at Papy. > What I *don't* see are so-called "Papy Nazis", just people who > *happen to* enjoy sims that have been produced by that company. > > At the end of the day, until Papy produces some crap, and I hope it > doesn't come to that, we will never know if there are *really* people > around here who just blindly preach that all that Papy produces is > gold whilst trashing all else. > > I seriously doubt that there is anyone like that on this NG, but I > don't doubt for a second that there are people around here who feel > more comfortable with themselves if they believe "Papy Nazis" are a > reality. > > Regards, > > Mark

Shrugs. No need to get worked up about it. I'm not. John

"Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same with the Nascar > > sims. But I also don't think they're not without major flaws, and if > > Company X made them, they'd be hammered left and right I bet. > > Really? That's wierd. Why? >

It happened in the case of F1 2002. The hardcore Papy fanboys thought it was mediocre until Doug Arnao did wonders with the underlying physics engine in GTR 2002. I find nothing that drives better than GTR 2002. I'm sure there are many who still claim "it's no GPL". While it's fair to say that ISI didn't maximize their engine with F1 2002, it was still far better than it was given credit by some GPL fanatics. The "true" expert (Arnao) knew the quality of the sim all along. Classic double standard. -- Joe M.

You aren't allowed to have an opinion flight boy!! ;) -- Scott B. Husted PA-Scott ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:eqGX9.883$[email hidden]... > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > <snip> > > > Agreed. > > > > Please, don't encourage him. <g> > > > > Jan. > > > Oh, I don't think Dave needs anyones encouragement on anything he has a > strong opinion on <g> Besides, he has a point imo. > > John > > > > > > > >

The reason many want nothing to do with it is simple..... Multiplayer -- Scott B. Husted PA-Scott ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:<[email hidden]>... > > > > > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same with the Nascar > > > sims. But I also don't think they're not without major flaws, and if > > > Company X made them, they'd be hammered left and right I bet. > > > > Really? That's wierd. Why? > > > > It happened in the case of F1 2002. The hardcore Papy fanboys thought it > was mediocre until Doug Arnao did wonders with the underlying physics engine > in GTR 2002. I find nothing that drives better than GTR 2002. I'm sure > there are many who still claim "it's no GPL". While it's fair to say that > ISI didn't maximize their engine with F1 2002, it was still far better than > it was given credit by some GPL fanatics. The "true" expert (Arnao) knew > the quality of the sim all along. Classic double standard. > > -- > Joe M. > >

Lol ! Hey Scott, I was wondering the other day, did anything ever come with that beta testing for a Trak sim or whatever that Stevens was organizing ? John "Scott B. Husted�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7WTX9.292$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> You aren't allowed to have an opinion flight boy!! ;) > > -- > Scott B. Husted > PA-Scott > ICQ# 4395450 > http://www.Husted.cc > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:eqGX9.883$[email hidden]... > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > > <snip> > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > Please, don't encourage him. <g> > > > > > > Jan. > > > > > > Oh, I don't think Dave needs anyones encouragement on anything he has

a

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > strong opinion on <g> Besides, he has a point imo. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

I haven't heard anything about it for quite some time actually. But I haven't been subscribed to OLR for about 6 months now, although I may go back depending on NR2003. -- Scott B. Husted PA-Scott ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Lol ! Hey Scott, I was wondering the other day, did anything ever come > with that beta testing for a Trak sim or whatever that Stevens was > organizing ? > > John > > > "Scott B. Husted�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7WTX9.292$[email hidden]... > > You aren't allowed to have an opinion flight boy!! ;) > > > > -- > > Scott B. Husted > > PA-Scott > > ICQ# 4395450 > > http://www.Husted.cc > >

Ok, thanks. Btw, it's "aisles", not "isles". I sure hope you bean count better than you spell <G> John "Scott B. Husted�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hrUX9.337$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I haven't heard anything about it for quite some time actually. But I > haven't been subscribed to OLR for about 6 months now, although I may go > back depending on NR2003. > > -- > Scott B. Husted > PA-Scott > ICQ# 4395450 > http://www.Husted.cc > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Lol ! Hey Scott, I was wondering the other day, did anything ever

come

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > with that beta testing for a Trak sim or whatever that Stevens was > > organizing ? > > > > John > > > > > > "Scott B. Husted�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:7WTX9.292$[email hidden]... > > > You aren't allowed to have an opinion flight boy!! ;) > > > > > > -- > > > Scott B. Husted > > > PA-Scott > > > ICQ# 4395450 > > > http://www.Husted.cc > > > > > >

No joke Mark. Perhaps they are exaggerated a bit but overall it just feels *right*. The first time I fired up the GPL demo it just felt *right* also. Prior to GTR2k2 I paid little attention to sports car racing but since GTR2k2 was released I cant watch enough. The in-car shots clearly shows vertical movement. This may be partly due to the Camera mount. Kinda reminds me of the early days of Nascar in-car cameras. No kind of image stabilization really shows the vertical movement. Yeah, Silver is kinda bumby ;) Mitch "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<atGX9.1864$[email hidden]>... > > I gotta agree about the bumps David. They are pretty much un-noticeableto

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > me, maybe some of the other tracks will exhibit a bit more travel on the > > vert.. The sim that models bumps is GTR2002. Now that's some vertical > > movement. > > > > Mitch > > That's a joke, right? > > The bumps in GTR are comical - at least at Siverstone which is one of > the few tracks I've tried. > > Either the bumps are over exagerated or the physics of the game can't > handle them. I bought F12002 for GTR. Not tried the F1 side, but > drove Donnington and Brands in an N-GT class Porsche and thought it > was good, tried Silverstone and it put me off. > I can't comment from experience, but doesn't NT2003 suffer similarly? > > Regards, > > Mark

Wut B Ronge wid me spelin' ?? I'm a financier & economist, not an accountant! When number don't match, we financiers & economists just create new formulas to get the numbers to match our results!! LOLOL ;) -- Scott B. Husted PA-Scott ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ok, thanks. Btw, it's "aisles", not "isles". I sure hope you bean count > better than you spell <G> > > John > > > "Scott B. Husted�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:hrUX9.337$[email hidden]... > > I haven't heard anything about it for quite some time actually. But I > > haven't been subscribed to OLR for about 6 months now, although I may go > > back depending on NR2003. > > > > -- > > Scott B. Husted > > PA-Scott > > ICQ# 4395450 > > http://www.Husted.cc > > > > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Lol ! Hey Scott, I was wondering the other day, did anything ever > come > > > with that beta testing for a Trak sim or whatever that Stevens was > > > organizing ? > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > "Scott B. Husted�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:7WTX9.292$[email hidden]... > > > > You aren't allowed to have an opinion flight boy!! ;) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Scott B. Husted > > > > PA-Scott > > > > ICQ# 4395450 > > > > http://www.Husted.cc > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<b0ok25$r3h0i$[email hidden]>... > We don't know of course whether the bumps on the F1_2002 tracks are > exaggerated, but the GTR2002 mod physics handle them well IMHO. With all due respect, I will disagree with you here :-) Around the back end of Silverstone (Priory?) the car bouces around like crazy. I don't think I've seen a GT car bounce to that extent outside of Gran Turisom on Playstation. Thinking about it a bit more, given that the cars seem to handle kerb riding (again in my limited experience) OK I am lead to believe that it's the track surfaces themselves that leave something to be desired. > As for the exaggeration - sometimes you hear racedrivers complaining about > bumps making their backs hurt over a race distance. I assume for this to > happen, the bumps need to have a certain magnitude With the not unreasonable assumption that GT cars have stiffer suspensions than the sportiest of road cars I've been a passenger in (Elise, F355, 360 Modena) along with lower profile tyres and far less creature comfort, I would imagine that the back pain is less from the car "bouncing" but from transference of the bumps through the seat of the pants. The road cars definately give your butt something to feel without bouncing and no doubt a racing version would be a lot more, erm, communicative ;-) > so maybe the bumps on > the F1_2002 tracks aren't that exaggerated after all? My *guess* based on my world view (as opposed to some bizarre desire to slam ISI) is that the track bumps are exagerated. Regards, Mark

Mark Davison wrote: <SNIP> > Regards, > > Mark <no-middle-name> Davison :)

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:50:44 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >And I agree that we need to wait for the full version before we praise or >criticise Say what? *rips the intertwined-P Papy badge off your armband* Someone load Achim into the train and ship him to EA-Dachsau. (Ok that's in bad taste, sorry.) Jason

"John Pancoast" wrote... > <snip> > Because he's right about the denial points.... No he's not. > sure, folks agree.........now, after the fact. The perceptive ones always have. > Before it was mentioned by the Papy folks, very > few if any agreed. Very shortly after release, even before the V1.1.0.3 patch, a Papyrus programmer (forgot who it was) admitted on this very forum, the tyre model had been fudged with respect to the beta because of gameplay issues. What actually happened between the "Papy fanboys" and David G. Fisher was he started claiming superiority for titles which threw up FAR more physics inconsistencies than GPL. All the "Papy fanclub" ever said was "regardless of it's flaws it's still (technically) the best." > I had the same thing happen to me, in both GPL and the > Nascar sims. Anybody who claims to be in the business of making racing sims (and even the makers of NFS Hot Pursuit use the word "simulation" in their blurb), must match or better Papyrus. It's that simple. Games with controller issues, blatant physics inconsistencies, poor multiplayer and poor support by means of no patches to fix issues will receive a pasting. Papyrus has set a high standard, both for other companies and themselves. I don't think there's any doubt F1 2k2 is technically a better simulation than GPL, but possibly slightly flawed physics implementation, controller issues (again!!... if Ashley McConnell can do it, why can't EA Sports?) and poor multiplayer prevented it from establishing a foothold with the hardcore crowd. There is absolutely no doubt the SBDT have outdone Papyrus in the single player experience, regardless of the fact it's still an F1 game underneath and therefore all aspects of FIA GT racing could not be modelled. > He's a bit more adamant about things than I am, or care > to be, but also basically correct imo. The common factor is you read something that isn't there. Papyrus sims have refined the simracer's palet and made him more critical rather than less. This has had an adverse effect on the appreciation of other efforts, sure, but it's not in a racer's nature to accept mediocrity. > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same > with the Nascar sims. But I also don't think they're > not without major flaws, and if Company X made them, > they'd be hammered left and right I bet. You'd lose that bet... those who get their stuff right are almost universally praised. LFS, GTR2002 and, up to a point, Rally Trophy and F1 2k2 are cases in point. Papyrus have had their fair share of criticism as well. You conveniently forget the aftermath of the v1.1.0.3 patch... the online GPL community wasn't a warm and welcoming place for a Papyrus coder around that time.<g> A lot of criticism has been leveled against the way draft works in NR2k2, Papyrus' handling of wreckers and wallriders and such... Also, the point is not that Papyrus sims don't have flaws, the point is Papyrus usual manage to produce the better overall game and, when things don't work out, are willing to get off their asses and do something about it. Jan. =---

"John Pancoast" wrote... > <snip> > The tires aren't even close to the same compounds Jan, > let alone the tracks. 43 stock car drivers year after > year, race after race, aren't wrong. Guess we agree > to disagree here. Good, because 43 stock car drivers are wrong, just like the 20-odd each F1 and CART drivers etc., etc... They all do it because they see others do it and think it helps, even though telemetry refutes it and realistically, it doesn't do anything which can't be acchieved in one or two relatively sharp corners. When someone goes down the road because the tyres were dirty, he/she goes down the road because he/she wasn't driving the footprints, i.e. not paying attention, not because the tyres had reduced grip. Eventhough it squirmed at the green flag and pushed a bit through that kink they turn expecting a certain grip level of which they have indications of it just not being there. Result: big embarrassment and a cover story for the press. Of course, he who is free of sin cast the first stone and what have you... I can't do it, but I don't claim to be good enough to make a living at this sort of thing either. Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:82XX9.2280$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> "John Pancoast" wrote... > > <snip> > > Because he's right about the denial points.... > > No he's not. > > > sure, folks agree.........now, after the fact. > > The perceptive ones always have. > > > Before it was mentioned by the Papy folks, very > > few if any agreed. > > Very shortly after release, even before the V1.1.0.3 patch, a Papyrus > programmer (forgot who it was) admitted on this very forum, the tyre model > had been fudged with respect to the beta because of gameplay issues. > > What actually happened between the "Papy fanboys" and David G. Fisher was

he

Quoted text (8 lines)

> started claiming superiority for titles which threw up FAR more physics > inconsistencies than GPL. All the "Papy fanclub" ever said was "regardless > of it's flaws it's still (technically) the best." > > > I had the same thing happen to me, in both GPL and the > > Nascar sims. > > Anybody who claims to be in the business of making racing sims (and even

the > makers of NFS Hot Pursuit use the word "simulation" in their blurb), must > match or better Papyrus. It's that simple. Games with controller issues, > blatant physics inconsistencies, poor multiplayer and poor support bymeans > of no patches to fix issues will receive a pasting. Papyrus has set a high > standard, both for other companies and themselves. > > I don't think there's any doubt F1 2k2 is technically a better simulation > than GPL, but possibly slightly flawed physics implementation, controller > issues (again!!... if Ashley McConnell can do it, why can't EA Sports?)and > poor multiplayer prevented it from establishing a foothold with thehardcore > crowd. There is absolutely no doubt the SBDT have outdone Papyrus in the > single player experience, regardless of the fact it's still an F1 game > underneath and therefore all aspects of FIA GT racing could not bemodelled. > > > He's a bit more adamant about things than I am, or care > > to be, but also basically correct imo. > > The common factor is you read something that isn't there. Papyrus simshave

Quoted text (24 lines)

> refined the simracer's palet and made him more critical rather than less. > This has had an adverse effect on the appreciation of other efforts, sure, > but it's not in a racer's nature to accept mediocrity. > > > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same > > with the Nascar sims. But I also don't think they're > > not without major flaws, and if Company X made them, > > they'd be hammered left and right I bet. > > You'd lose that bet... those who get their stuff right are almost > universally praised. LFS, GTR2002 and, up to a point, Rally Trophy and F1 > 2k2 are cases in point. Papyrus have had their fair share of criticism as > well. You conveniently forget the aftermath of the v1.1.0.3 patch... the > online GPL community wasn't a warm and welcoming place for a Papyrus coder > around that time.<g> A lot of criticism has been leveled against the way > draft works in NR2k2, Papyrus' handling of wreckers and wallriders and > such... > > Also, the point is not that Papyrus sims don't have flaws, the point is > Papyrus usual manage to produce the better overall game and, when things > don't work out, are willing to get off their asses and do something about > it. > > Jan.

Christ, didn't mean to make it into a pissing match. I got nothing against Papy, etc. Own every piece of software they've made, and I'd buy anything else they made sight unseen. It's just imo Jan. I think it's correct, you think it's not. No big deal. I'm certainly not trying to change anyone's viewpoint, and it sure as hell ain't worth arguing about. John > =--- > >

"John Pancoast" wrote...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> <snip> > Christ, didn't mean to make it into a pissing match. > I got nothing against Papy, etc. Own every piece of > software they've made, and I'd buy anything else they > made sight unseen. > > It's just imo Jan. I think it's correct, you think > it's not. No big deal. I'm certainly not trying to > change anyone's viewpoint, and it sure as hell ain't > worth arguing about.

Well, it happens to be my pet argument, so sue me! ;-)) Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UoXX9.2357$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> "John Pancoast" wrote... > > <snip> > > Christ, didn't mean to make it into a pissing match. > > I got nothing against Papy, etc. Own every piece of > > software they've made, and I'd buy anything else they > > made sight unseen. > > > > It's just imo Jan. I think it's correct, you think > > it's not. No big deal. I'm certainly not trying to > > change anyone's viewpoint, and it sure as hell ain't > > worth arguing about. > > Well, it happens to be my pet argument, so sue me! ;-)) > > Jan.

:) John > =--- > >

> Shrugs. No need to get worked up about it. I'm not. Did it come across as worked up? Sorry 'bout that. It was meant to come across as utterly bewildered. Glad you're not worked up :-) Regards, Mark

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:82XX9.2280$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> "John Pancoast" wrote... > > <snip> > > Because he's right about the denial points.... > > No he's not. > > > sure, folks agree.........now, after the fact. > > The perceptive ones always have. > > > Before it was mentioned by the Papy folks, very > > few if any agreed. > > Very shortly after release, even before the V1.1.0.3 patch, a Papyrus > programmer (forgot who it was) admitted on this very forum, the tyre model > had been fudged with respect to the beta because of gameplay issues. > > What actually happened between the "Papy fanboys" and David G. Fisher was

he > started claiming superiority for titles which threw up FAR more physics > inconsistencies than GPL. All the "Papy fanclub" ever said was "regardless > of it's flaws it's still (technically) the best." I love it when people COMPLETELY REWRITE HISTORY. David G Fisher

"Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:<[email hidden]>... > > > > > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same with the

Nascar

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > sims. But I also don't think they're not without major flaws, and if > > > Company X made them, they'd be hammered left and right I bet. > > > > Really? That's wierd. Why? > > > > It happened in the case of F1 2002. The hardcore Papy fanboys thought it > was mediocre until Doug Arnao did wonders with the underlying physics

engine > in GTR 2002. I find nothing that drives better than GTR 2002. I'm sure > there are many who still claim "it's no GPL". While it's fair to say that > ISI didn't maximize their engine with F1 2002, it was still far betterthan > it was given credit by some GPL fanatics. The "true" expert (Arnao) knew > the quality of the sim all along. Classic double standard. > > -- > Joe M. Exactly. David G Fisher

Didn't notice that, but bar would make it worse :) Larry "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:51:36 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Yeah, with the standard fast setup I've been losing the ass-end about 3out > >of every 5 laps there so far :) > > Pretty nice for a setup with NO REAR BAR. =) > > Jason

LOL! So much for the proposed hug... :) Larry "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JcXX9.2318$[email hidden]... > Good, because 43 stock car drivers are wrong, just like the 20-odd each F1 > and CART drivers etc., etc...

"Larry" wrote... > LOL! So much for the proposed hug... :) You guys are no fun, avoiding conflict like that.<g> Jan. =---

"Scott B. Husted�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:z3UX9.321$[email hidden]... > The reason many want nothing to do with it is simple..... Multiplayer > I'm well aware of the much deserved multiplayer criticism of ISI Scott. My post is about the few GPL snobs that played F1 2002 and didn't give it the credit it deserved from a physics, handling and racing stand point. I suspect some of the early F1 2002 critics were flat out wrong in their analysis of the physics engine "flaws". -- Joe M.

Hi Mark, we seem to agree in that the physics handle the bumps more or less ok. Since neither of us knows whether the bumps are that high at Silver or not, and since we've already exchanged our opinions, I guess this is where we need to rest our cases :-) Achim

bad taste indeed Jason, but I forgive you ;-) Achim "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > Someone load Achim into the train and ship him to EA-Dachsau. > > (Ok that's in bad taste, sorry.)...

"Joe M." wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> <snip> > I'm well aware of the much deserved multiplayer criticism > of ISI Scott. My post is about the few GPL snobs that > played F1 2002 and didn't give it the credit it deserved > from a physics, handling and racing stand point. I suspect > some of the early F1 2002 critics were flat out wrong in > their analysis of the physics engine "flaws".

Strange.... I read this very same newsgroup and I don't remember any of that. "F1 2k2, nice drive, nice graphics, same old interface/controller setup niggles, shame about the tracks and the multiplayer" is the summation I came away with. You've got to know whose opinion to trust and whose to disregard on this forum, I agree, but that's fairly easy to work out if you hang around for a while. I've said it before and I'll say it again: GPL snobbism is imagined by people who can't understand how others can be as fond of a simulation as they are of GPL and just invent a reason to make sense of it. Jan. =---

"Joe M." wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:<[email hidden]>... > > > > > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same with the Nascar > > > sims. But I also don't think they're not without major flaws, and if > > > Company X made them, they'd be hammered left and right I bet. > > > > Really? That's wierd. Why? > > > > It happened in the case of F1 2002. The hardcore Papy fanboys thought it > was mediocre

Name names please.

Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > "Joe M." wrote... > > <snip> > > I'm well aware of the much deserved multiplayer criticism > > of ISI Scott. My post is about the few GPL snobs that > > played F1 2002 and didn't give it the credit it deserved > > from a physics, handling and racing stand point. I suspect > > some of the early F1 2002 critics were flat out wrong in > > their analysis of the physics engine "flaws". > > Strange.... I read this very same newsgroup and I don't remember any of > that. "F1 2k2, nice drive, nice graphics, same old interface/controller > setup niggles, shame about the tracks and the multiplayer" is the summation > I came away with. You've got to know whose opinion to trust and whose to > disregard on this forum, I agree, but that's fairly easy to work out if you > hang around for a while. > > I've said it before and I'll say it again: GPL snobbism is imagined by > people who can't understand how others can be as fond of a simulation as > they are of GPL and just invent a reason to make sense of it. > > Jan. > =---

Precisely!

David G Fisher wrote:

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > "Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:<[email hidden]>... > > > > > > > I also agree GPL is the best single-seater, etc. Same with the > Nascar > > > > sims. But I also don't think they're not without major flaws, and if > > > > Company X made them, they'd be hammered left and right I bet. > > > > > > Really? That's wierd. Why? > > > > > > > It happened in the case of F1 2002. The hardcore Papy fanboys thought it > > was mediocre until Doug Arnao did wonders with the underlying physics > engine > > in GTR 2002. I find nothing that drives better than GTR 2002. I'm sure > > there are many who still claim "it's no GPL". While it's fair to say that > > ISI didn't maximize their engine with F1 2002, it was still far better > than > > it was given credit by some GPL fanatics. The "true" expert (Arnao) knew > > the quality of the sim all along. Classic double standard. > > > > -- > > Joe M. > > Exactly. > > David G Fisher

Name names than, Dave boy. Was it ten or twenty people, or, as I suspect, one or two?

John Pancoast wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Christ, didn't mean to make it into a pissing match. I got nothing > against Papy, etc. Own every piece of software they've made, and I'd buy > anything else they made sight unseen. > > It's just imo Jan. I think it's correct, you think it's not. No big > deal. I'm certainly not trying to change anyone's viewpoint, and it sure as > hell ain't worth arguing about.

John, you got it wrong, mate! Gerry

"Jan Verschueren" , it doesn't do anything which can't > be acchieved in one or two relatively sharp corners. > If it happens to take two sharp corners to clean the tars then what happens in the first corner? Generally a slip and a slide, no?

> I've said it before and I'll say it again: GPL snobbism is imagined by > people who can't understand how others can be as fond of a simulation as > they are of GPL and just invent a reason to make sense of it. > > Jan. What really bugs me is when people sum up my thoughts better in their second language than my first! Agree 100% Cheers Tony

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > John Pancoast wrote: > > > Christ, didn't mean to make it into a pissing match. I got nothing > > against Papy, etc. Own every piece of software they've made, and I'dbuy > > anything else they made sight unseen. > > > > It's just imo Jan. I think it's correct, you think it's not. No big > > deal. I'm certainly not trying to change anyone's viewpoint, and itsure as > > hell ain't worth arguing about. > > John, you got it wrong, mate! > > Gerry Yeah, well, like I said, it's just imo, I have other more important things to blow a gasket over. Someone thinks I'm wrong, no big deal. Besides, I like GPL <g> John

"Mitch_A" wrote... > > <snip> > If it happens to take two sharp corners to clean the tars > then what happens in the first corner? Generally a slip > and a slide, no? FCY laps preceding a restart (circuit should be clean at the start of a race and even then there's pace laps) have more than one corner, no? Just kick out both ends to get the rubbish off and go... Jan. =---

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > I love it when people COMPLETELY REWRITE HISTORY. > > David G Fisher Ah, so *that's* why you do it... Regards, Mark

"David G Fisher" wrote... > <snip> > I love it when people COMPLETELY REWRITE HISTORY. I merely summarised it, but you're the Google king, so I bet you can lift a quote out of context to support your side of the argument. <g> Jan. =---

In article <AA%X9.2977$[email hidden]>, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes: >FCY laps preceding a restart (circuit should be clean at the start of a race >and even then there's pace laps) have more than one corner, no? > >Just kick out both ends to get the rubbish off and go... > To me, that sounds *more* dangerous than a quick side-to-side before the green... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:-0.381 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.