iRacing.com and Skip Barber Announce Strategic Alliance

BEDFORD, MA (17 November 2006) - iRacing.com Motorsport Simulations and Skip Barber Racing School have today announced a strategic alliance blending the latest in simulation technology with the real-world training expertise of the world's most well-known racing school. The two companies will collaborate on an online racing school and entry-level, open-wheel series to be offered as part of iRacing.com's simulation, and Skip Barber students will have a new way to acquire and hone their racing skills, even when away from the track. Read more: http://www.iracing.com/news_171106.htm

Not much improvement in graphics from NR2003 based on that video. Bit of a disappointment if that is the all new engine. "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> BEDFORD, MA (17 November 2006) - iRacing.com Motorsport Simulations and > Skip Barber Racing School have today announced a strategic alliance > blending the latest in simulation technology with the real-world > training expertise of the world's most well-known racing school. The > two companies will collaborate on an online racing school and > entry-level, open-wheel series to be offered as part of iRacing.com's > simulation, and Skip Barber students will have a new way to acquire and > hone their racing skills, even when away from the track. > Read more: http://www.iracing.com/news_171106.htm >

schooner: > Not much improvement in graphics from NR2003 based on that video. Bit of > a disappointment if that is the all new engine. Accurency of track is extremly important. If you have accurate track dimensions, then you can start to refine modeling of track surface, along with modeling of everything else. Start with simple things, and develop, until you reach a "complete" simulation of reality. -- Mario

Mario Petrinovich wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> schooner: >> Not much improvement in graphics from NR2003 based on that video. Bit of >> a disappointment if that is the all new engine. > > Accurency of track is extremly important. If you have accurate track > dimensions, then you can start to refine modeling of track surface, along > with modeling of everything else. Start with simple things, and develop, > until you reach a "complete" simulation of reality. -- Mario

Certainly the way the bumps are modelled and match the real track look impressive. The car seems to be doing the right things though it is a bit hard to compare without any driver or steering wheel movement (which makes the computer car look as if it is being driven in a more tame style). I can recall seeing some WIP GPL stuff and thinking I would probably give that one a miss, then I thought I might as well download the demo when it came out. The rest, as they say, is history... Cheers Tony

>On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:58:18 GMT, "schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Not much improvement in graphics from NR2003 based on that video. Bit of a >disappointment if that is the all new engine. I don't believe they care about the latest and greatest graphics at this point but are focusing more on physics and car/track interaction accuracy. Limerock is very accurate, though I would question the lack of RL bumpiness in the downhill apex and in the front straight baking zone. (My RF suspension gets hammered after the downhill if i'm tight to the curb and the sims doesn't seem to..) From what I get from the site this sim is pointed at those that race (or aspire to) in real life and want something that allows them to practice and learn real tracks... without the costs associated in actually going there. Of course time will tell and right now we are inundated with some excellent racing sims.. may be a tough sell in 2007. GP

The comments on graphics are quite amusing to me to be honest, having come from simracing to sim development. Try shrinking a 1600x1200 image of something you think looks good down to the same width and height of the right side of that video, then tell me if you can see the detail you could at 1600x1200. That's all I have to say.

"Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The comments on graphics are quite amusing to me to be honest, having > come from simracing to sim development. Try shrinking a 1600x1200 image > of something you think looks good down to the same width and height of > the right side of that video, then tell me if you can see the detail > you could at 1600x1200. That's all I have to say. > The other thing that people are overlooking is that this will be the 1st thing that is non Oval Racing specific by Kaemmer since GPL (the PTA hack in NR 2003 aside) - that is the most important thing to me. The big ? for me is will we finally see some weather simulation from a Kaemmer sim?

Byron Forbes wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > The comments on graphics are quite amusing to me to be honest, having > > come from simracing to sim development. Try shrinking a 1600x1200 image > > of something you think looks good down to the same width and height of > > the right side of that video, then tell me if you can see the detail > > you could at 1600x1200. That's all I have to say. > > > > The other thing that people are overlooking is that this will be the 1st > thing that is non Oval Racing specific by Kaemmer since GPL (the PTA hack in > NR 2003 aside) - that is the most important thing to me. > > The big ? for me is will we finally see some weather simulation from a > Kaemmer sim?

Don't draw conclusions from cars or tracks announced thusfar as they are the tip of the iceberg... Oval racing will be represented - as will most other forms of motorsport. Infact it's not an accident that our development team includes the engineer responsible for Soda Off-Road Racing (Papyrus, 1997) too. As far as your weather query goes - you'll have to wait for an answer on that, I can't give one at this time.

Tim Wheatley wrote: > As far as your weather query goes - you'll > have to wait for an answer on that, I can't give one at this time. Are you telling us you are unable to forecast the weather?

Tim Wheatley wrote: > The comments on graphics are quite amusing to me to be honest, having > come from simracing to sim development. Try shrinking a 1600x1200 image > of something you think looks good down to the same width and height of > the right side of that video, then tell me if you can see the detail > you could at 1600x1200. That's all I have to say. It is the old damned if you do damned if you don't dilemma, Tim. We have one group clamoring for early WIP as evidence that an iRacing sim exists in the making and another group picking holes at the small video which aims to show how accurate the track is rather than showing off the graphics engine. FWIW I think the real video is worse than the simulated one, with its fish eye view, low quality and it was filmed on such a dull day. Perhaps we should take it to a film makers forum and see what they have to say :) Thanks for sharing the video. I only hope you (and all other sim racing devs) have broad enough shoulders to keep these WIP snippets coming, hopefully there will be some constructive comments to pick out, but to demonstrate track accuracy and then have to field questions on the "missing" dynamic lighting makes you wonder if the effort is worthwhile, which would be a shame for the rest of us keen to monitor progress. Cheers Tony

I'm not a group or picking holes, I made a simple comment on what I seen in the graphics. It is all we have to go on and I made a comment. I guess no one is allowed to comment on anything regarding this sim. God forbid someone ask a question about it. I have yet to see a single PR that was even related to the sim itself, most seem to be marketing deals with race series which is great but I think many of us want to know more about the sim itself in terms of features, release dates, etc. Tim - can we possibly get some real info on the sim beyond the marketing PR, that is all I am looking for. "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WyW7h.2938$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> Tim Wheatley wrote: >> The comments on graphics are quite amusing to me to be honest, having >> come from simracing to sim development. Try shrinking a 1600x1200 image >> of something you think looks good down to the same width and height of >> the right side of that video, then tell me if you can see the detail >> you could at 1600x1200. That's all I have to say. > > It is the old damned if you do damned if you don't dilemma, Tim. > > We have one group clamoring for early WIP as evidence that an iRacing sim > exists in the making and another group picking holes at the small video > which aims to show how accurate the track is rather than showing off the > graphics engine. > > FWIW I think the real video is worse than the simulated one, with its fish > eye view, low quality and it was filmed on such a dull day. Perhaps we > should take it to a film makers forum and see what they have to say :) > > Thanks for sharing the video. I only hope you (and all other sim racing > devs) have broad enough shoulders to keep these WIP snippets coming, > hopefully there will be some constructive comments to pick out, but to > demonstrate track accuracy and then have to field questions on the > "missing" dynamic lighting makes you wonder if the effort is worthwhile, > which would be a shame for the rest of us keen to monitor progress. > > Cheers > Tony

I know the graphics is not the main focus, I was just commenting on what I saw is all. With no idea of what state it is in or when it will be released it is hard to gauge where in the scheme of things this video falls, is it an early version of what we might see or is a release only a month or two away? I'd also be curious to get some comments on how it will be sold and such, however the site and PR give little if any mention to the sim itself. "GaryP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:58:18 GMT, "schooner" <[email hidden]> > >wrote: >>Not much improvement in graphics from NR2003 based on that video. Bit of >>a >>disappointment if that is the all new engine. > > > I don't believe they care about the latest and greatest graphics at > this point but are focusing more on physics and car/track interaction > accuracy. Limerock is very accurate, though I would question the lack > of RL bumpiness in the downhill apex and in the front straight baking > zone. (My RF suspension gets hammered after the downhill if i'm tight > to the curb and the sims doesn't seem to..) From what I get from the > site this sim is pointed at those that race (or aspire to) in real > life and want something that allows them to practice and learn real > tracks... without the costs associated in actually going there. Of > course time will tell and right now we are inundated with some > excellent racing sims.. may be a tough sell in 2007. > > GP

schooner wrote: > I'm not a group or picking holes, I made a simple comment on what I seen in > the graphics. It is all we have to go on and I made a comment. I guess no > one is allowed to comment on anything regarding this sim. God forbid > someone ask a question about it. My comments referred to the ones being made on RSC specifically about the lack of dynamic lighting and even comparing it with a Commodore 64 !! I wasn't referring to your comment, so apologies if you took it that way. My general comments on reactions on RSC etc. is across the board, not just for iRacing. The sim community is very quick at making judgements and the same goes for an rFactor mod as for a new sim. Cheers Tony

schooner wrote: > I know the graphics is not the main focus, I was just commenting on what I > saw is all. > With no idea of what state it is in or when it will be released it is hard > to gauge where in the scheme of things this video falls, is it an early > version of what we might see or is a release only a month or two away? I would suggest we are some way away yet.The news at the moment is about forging partnerships. When the time is right I am sure we will have plenty to look at pre release. If they can achieve their aims and with the significant investment going into this product I would expect it be big. Let's hope so. Cheers Tony

I never made that suggestion, please read again. schooner wrote:

Quoted text (40 lines)

> I'm not a group or picking holes, I made a simple comment on what I seen in > the graphics. It is all we have to go on and I made a comment. I guess no > one is allowed to comment on anything regarding this sim. God forbid > someone ask a question about it. I have yet to see a single PR that was > even related to the sim itself, most seem to be marketing deals with race > series which is great but I think many of us want to know more about the sim > itself in terms of features, release dates, etc. > > Tim - can we possibly get some real info on the sim beyond the marketing PR, > that is all I am looking for. > > "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:WyW7h.2938$[email hidden]... > > Tim Wheatley wrote: > >> The comments on graphics are quite amusing to me to be honest, having > >> come from simracing to sim development. Try shrinking a 1600x1200 image > >> of something you think looks good down to the same width and height of > >> the right side of that video, then tell me if you can see the detail > >> you could at 1600x1200. That's all I have to say. > > > > It is the old damned if you do damned if you don't dilemma, Tim. > > > > We have one group clamoring for early WIP as evidence that an iRacing sim > > exists in the making and another group picking holes at the small video > > which aims to show how accurate the track is rather than showing off the > > graphics engine. > > > > FWIW I think the real video is worse than the simulated one, with its fish > > eye view, low quality and it was filmed on such a dull day. Perhaps we > > should take it to a film makers forum and see what they have to say :) > > > > Thanks for sharing the video. I only hope you (and all other sim racing > > devs) have broad enough shoulders to keep these WIP snippets coming, > > hopefully there will be some constructive comments to pick out, but to > > demonstrate track accuracy and then have to field questions on the > > "missing" dynamic lighting makes you wonder if the effort is worthwhile, > > which would be a shame for the rest of us keen to monitor progress. > > > > Cheers > > Tony

I'm sure as soon as they know, so will we. Hopefully you read the comment by Tim regarding video quality and the reduction of said quality to achieve size and snycronization with the (poor) RL video at LRP. My guess is at full resolution it is at least up to the standards of anything out there at this point. I just hope they stay with DX9 (or offer two versions) as forcing the Vista upgrade issue (and the purchase of a DX10 video card) would be a shot in the foot.. though I most likely will go that way anyway. GP

Quoted text (9 lines)

>On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:27:27 GMT, "schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I know the graphics is not the main focus, I was just commenting on what I >saw is all. >With no idea of what state it is in or when it will be released it is hard >to gauge where in the scheme of things this video falls, is it an early >version of what we might see or is a release only a month or two away? > >I'd also be curious to get some comments on how it will be sold and such, >however the site and PR give little if any mention to the sim itself.

> Accurency of track is extremly important. Only if you're planning on driving the track in real life and haven't been there. For the rest of us it's a nice to have. If a certain pothole is 2" or 2' away from reality I won't lose any sleep.

mcewena: >> Accurency of track is extremly important. > > Only if you're planning on driving the track in real life and haven't > been there. For the rest of us it's a nice to have. If a certain > pothole is 2" or 2' away from reality I won't lose any sleep. If you are making a game. But, if you are trying to excel on the simulation field (and this is why most of sim reacers regard Keammer as God, ; )), the accurency of track is the only way you can compare the results of your work with the reality. -- Mario

"Tony Rickard" >When the time is right I am sure we will have plenty to look at pre >release. > Cheers > Tony > Id always assumed EVERYONE was in the beta :) Mitch

"Tony Rickard" Id always assumed EVERYONE was in the beta :) Mitch

>On 19 Nov 2006 10:49:03 -0800, "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Only if you're planning on driving the track in real life and haven't >been there. For the rest of us it's a nice to have. If a certain >pothole is 2" or 2' away from reality I won't lose any sleep. You're right, most people will never know the difference. Those of us lucky enough to spend time on these tracks will very much appreciate having accurate, up-to-date representations to run on. It's a simple matter of purity, and the fact is 95% of sim buyers have 0 clue what any given track really looks like other than what their favorite game shows them or they see on TV. It will be great to have the exact same turn-in points, familiar glitches in the curb. Note to iRacing (if you are going to model wet weather) - West Bend inside curb is mashed away just beyond the apex, where a nice puddle forms. Easy to miss until someone doesn't.. The right hander coming out of Big Bend feeding the "short chute" always gets a puddle and if some bozo hits it we usually lose the next 3-4 cars behind him into the weeds. A river runs accross No-Name straight when it rains right about where you need to brake for the uphill.. always a treat... and the right side rumble strip is usually under about 6" of water.. If you try and pass at the wrong time on the main straight you will find yourself in one of a series of 1-2" deep puddles at 120+MPH.. 8-) GP

Gary: http://youtube.com/watch?v=j5udic-Uh18 http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYXwVY7fpbE http://youtube.com/watch?v=-mHh_K8HAls That's me in the R/T cockpit in the wet while at Lime Rock. I had no race car experience and infact very rarely drive on every day roads - I had never driven in the wet in any car. I had been karting before, and by the third race I was quite happily hanging the back end out the whole way around long turns. The nice thing when I was at Lime Rock Park was that I didn't need to learn the circuit, the sim had already done that. You're exactly right about the location of those puddles! That's something about TV too that I have only learned in the past year. I attended Brands Hatch last September (for the A1GP) and Silverstone in April, neither of them were like I have seen in any simulation (even to date). Silverstone, even though it's an airfield, is not flat at all when you actually have a view from the racing surface rather than the TV camera or grandstands. Before I worked for the company, I'd have wanted realistic tracks in their simulation, I'm frankly delighted to be a part of the team bringing these tracks to the community. Tim GaryP wrote:

Quoted text (27 lines)

> >On 19 Nov 2006 10:49:03 -0800, "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Only if you're planning on driving the track in real life and haven't > >been there. For the rest of us it's a nice to have. If a certain > >pothole is 2" or 2' away from reality I won't lose any sleep. > > You're right, most people will never know the difference. Those of us > lucky enough to spend time on these tracks will very much appreciate > having accurate, up-to-date representations to run on. It's a simple > matter of purity, and the fact is 95% of sim buyers have 0 clue what > any given track really looks like other than what their favorite game > shows them or they see on TV. It will be great to have the exact same > turn-in points, familiar glitches in the curb. > > Note to iRacing (if you are going to model wet weather) - > West Bend inside curb is mashed away just beyond the apex, where a > nice puddle forms. Easy to miss until someone doesn't.. > The right hander coming out of Big Bend feeding the "short chute" > always gets a puddle and if some bozo hits it we usually lose the next > 3-4 cars behind him into the weeds. > A river runs accross No-Name straight when it rains right about where > you need to brake for the uphill.. always a treat... and the right > side rumble strip is usually under about 6" of water.. > If you try and pass at the wrong time on the main straight you will > find yourself in one of a series of 1-2" deep puddles at 120+MPH.. > > 8-) > GP

Hey, maybe you guys can shame LRP into repaving... and putting proper drainge in... and regrading the off areas and putting in gravel traps so your car doesn't end up in the woods! ;-) LRP is a scary place in the rain Tim, you did well to make it around. GP

Quoted text (55 lines)

>On 19 Nov 2006 16:14:36 -0800, "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Gary: >http://youtube.com/watch?v=j5udic-Uh18 >http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYXwVY7fpbE >http://youtube.com/watch?v=-mHh_K8HAls > >That's me in the R/T cockpit in the wet while at Lime Rock. I had no >race car experience and infact very rarely drive on every day roads - I >had never driven in the wet in any car. I had been karting before, and >by the third race I was quite happily hanging the back end out the >whole way around long turns. The nice thing when I was at Lime Rock >Park was that I didn't need to learn the circuit, the sim had already >done that. You're exactly right about the location of those puddles! > >That's something about TV too that I have only learned in the past >year. I attended Brands Hatch last September (for the A1GP) and >Silverstone in April, neither of them were like I have seen in any >simulation (even to date). Silverstone, even though it's an airfield, >is not flat at all when you actually have a view from the racing >surface rather than the TV camera or grandstands. Before I worked for >the company, I'd have wanted realistic tracks in their simulation, I'm >frankly delighted to be a part of the team bringing these tracks to the >community. > >Tim > >GaryP wrote: > >> >On 19 Nov 2006 10:49:03 -0800, "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >Only if you're planning on driving the track in real life and haven't >> >been there. For the rest of us it's a nice to have. If a certain >> >pothole is 2" or 2' away from reality I won't lose any sleep. >> >> You're right, most people will never know the difference. Those of us >> lucky enough to spend time on these tracks will very much appreciate >> having accurate, up-to-date representations to run on. It's a simple >> matter of purity, and the fact is 95% of sim buyers have 0 clue what >> any given track really looks like other than what their favorite game >> shows them or they see on TV. It will be great to have the exact same >> turn-in points, familiar glitches in the curb. >> >> Note to iRacing (if you are going to model wet weather) - >> West Bend inside curb is mashed away just beyond the apex, where a >> nice puddle forms. Easy to miss until someone doesn't.. >> The right hander coming out of Big Bend feeding the "short chute" >> always gets a puddle and if some bozo hits it we usually lose the next >> 3-4 cars behind him into the weeds. >> A river runs accross No-Name straight when it rains right about where >> you need to brake for the uphill.. always a treat... and the right >> side rumble strip is usually under about 6" of water.. >> If you try and pass at the wrong time on the main straight you will >> find yourself in one of a series of 1-2" deep puddles at 120+MPH.. >> >> 8-) >> GP

Silverstone in rFactor just came out a few months ago, and isn't flat at all. Take this as criticism or someone just being very honest, but GPS track making seems like it's being way over used as a gimmick to say, "Our sim is the most realistic." And that worries me that there might not be more and better things to offer. I 'd rather have 200 of the greatest current and historic tracks in the world modeled to 98% accuracy (plus an endless supply of others) than a small amount of mostly obscure tracks modeled to 99% accuracy (nothing will be 100%). Will every F1 track be made so I can run a full F1 season? They can't make any historic tracks without lessening their claims of the importance of GPS track accuracy, so they are off the list? All I think of when I hear the mention of GPS tracks is what a very, very long list of tracks that **won't** be in this sim. This talk of perfect GPS track accuracy just seems a little silly to me. Watch this side by side video of Schumacher at Monza in rFactor and in real life and tell me what I'm missing. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nr5zu4bE3jw&mode=related&search= On top of that, the track has 6 layouts, including the historic banked oval. It's brilliant. Will there even be a GPS made version of Monza, or am I supposed to be happier with an obscure GPS made club track I've never heard of that can only run cars that bore me to death? As for the hype that GPS tracks will be a benefit to helping a person learn a track in preparation for real life racing more than a non GPS sim track....only an idiot and a lousy driver could say it makes a difference to them. I've heard real F1 drivers and other pros say it takes them a **dozen** laps to learn a track. If a bad arcade game has a basic layout of a track at 70 % accuracy, it should be more than enough to help a real driver with the first 10 minutes on the track. After that, reality is all you should need for the next 10 minutes and then you had better know the track, or please get very far away from any rolling machinery. This sim will be good if it has the **right**cars and tracks (absolutely critical), great graphics, excellent physics, and great multiplay. Partnerships mean nothing except I have to take $$$ from my pocket month after month .....put it into your hands.....which you put it into the pockets of grinning track owners because they let you drive around with a GPS device on their track for a day or two. Screw them. :-) -- David G Fisher "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Gary: > http://youtube.com/watch?v=j5udic-Uh18 > http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYXwVY7fpbE > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-mHh_K8HAls > > That's me in the R/T cockpit in the wet while at Lime Rock. I had no > race car experience and infact very rarely drive on every day roads - I > had never driven in the wet in any car. I had been karting before, and > by the third race I was quite happily hanging the back end out the > whole way around long turns. The nice thing when I was at Lime Rock > Park was that I didn't need to learn the circuit, the sim had already > done that. You're exactly right about the location of those puddles! > > That's something about TV too that I have only learned in the past > year. I attended Brands Hatch last September (for the A1GP) and > Silverstone in April, neither of them were like I have seen in any > simulation (even to date). Silverstone, even though it's an airfield, > is not flat at all when you actually have a view from the racing > surface rather than the TV camera or grandstands. Before I worked for > the company, I'd have wanted realistic tracks in their simulation, I'm > frankly delighted to be a part of the team bringing these tracks to the > community. > > Tim > > GaryP wrote: > >> >On 19 Nov 2006 10:49:03 -0800, "mcewena" <[email hidden]> >> >wrote: >> >Only if you're planning on driving the track in real life and haven't >> >been there. For the rest of us it's a nice to have. If a certain >> >pothole is 2" or 2' away from reality I won't lose any sleep. >> >> You're right, most people will never know the difference. Those of us >> lucky enough to spend time on these tracks will very much appreciate >> having accurate, up-to-date representations to run on. It's a simple >> matter of purity, and the fact is 95% of sim buyers have 0 clue what >> any given track really looks like other than what their favorite game >> shows them or they see on TV. It will be great to have the exact same >> turn-in points, familiar glitches in the curb. >> >> Note to iRacing (if you are going to model wet weather) - >> West Bend inside curb is mashed away just beyond the apex, where a >> nice puddle forms. Easy to miss until someone doesn't.. >> The right hander coming out of Big Bend feeding the "short chute" >> always gets a puddle and if some bozo hits it we usually lose the next >> 3-4 cars behind him into the weeds. >> A river runs accross No-Name straight when it rains right about where >> you need to brake for the uphill.. always a treat... and the right >> side rumble strip is usually under about 6" of water.. >> If you try and pass at the wrong time on the main straight you will >> find yourself in one of a series of 1-2" deep puddles at 120+MPH.. >> >> 8-) >> GP >

Um, Dave... I never mentioned that there wasn't a good version of Silverstone out there. Did I? Other than that, your points really don't have much relevance to anything I'm talking of because most of them don't apply to where we're going and/or things that you and the community are not aware of at this point. Also, GPS isn't what we use - so critisizing it is a little confusing, I assume you meant it the other way around. I have absolutely no intention to attack other simulations, I don't recall mentioning any other simulation? I am delighted to be bringing this simulation to you guys because I know how good I believe it is and I can't wait for the wider community to race it. I can quite easily roll back and give you no information at all if every point I make is going to be misread or taken as some sort of assumed insult. I don't want to do that, because I care about the community, I have served it for a long time. Tim Dave F wrote:

Quoted text (107 lines)

> Silverstone in rFactor just came out a few months ago, and isn't flat at > all. > > Take this as criticism or someone just being very honest, but GPS track > making seems like it's being way over used as a gimmick to say, "Our sim is > the most realistic." And that worries me that there might not be more and > better things to offer. > > I 'd rather have 200 of the greatest current and historic tracks in the > world modeled to 98% accuracy (plus an endless supply of others) than a > small amount of mostly obscure tracks modeled to 99% accuracy (nothing will > be 100%). Will every F1 track be made so I can run a full F1 season? They > can't make any historic tracks without lessening their claims of the > importance of GPS track accuracy, so they are off the list? All I think of > when I hear the mention of GPS tracks is what a very, very long list of > tracks that **won't** be in this sim. > > This talk of perfect GPS track accuracy just seems a little silly to me. > Watch this side by side video of Schumacher at Monza in rFactor and in real > life and tell me what I'm missing. > http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nr5zu4bE3jw&mode=related&search= On top of that, > the track has 6 layouts, including the historic banked oval. It's brilliant. > Will there even be a GPS made version of Monza, or am I supposed to be > happier with an obscure GPS made club track I've never heard of that can > only run cars that bore me to death? > > As for the hype that GPS tracks will be a benefit to helping a person learn > a track in preparation for real life racing more than a non GPS sim > track....only an idiot and a lousy driver could say it makes a difference to > them. I've heard real F1 drivers and other pros say it takes them a > **dozen** laps to learn a track. If a bad arcade game has a basic layout of > a track at 70 % accuracy, it should be more than enough to help a real > driver with the first 10 minutes on the track. After that, reality is all > you should need for the next 10 minutes and then you had better know the > track, or please get very far away from any rolling machinery. > > This sim will be good if it has the **right**cars and tracks (absolutely > critical), great graphics, excellent physics, and great multiplay. > Partnerships mean nothing except I have to take $$$ from my pocket month > after month .....put it into your hands.....which you put it into the > pockets of grinning track owners because they let you drive around with a > GPS device on their track for a day or two. Screw them. :-) > > > -- > David G Fisher > > > > "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Gary: > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=j5udic-Uh18 > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYXwVY7fpbE > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-mHh_K8HAls > > > > That's me in the R/T cockpit in the wet while at Lime Rock. I had no > > race car experience and infact very rarely drive on every day roads - I > > had never driven in the wet in any car. I had been karting before, and > > by the third race I was quite happily hanging the back end out the > > whole way around long turns. The nice thing when I was at Lime Rock > > Park was that I didn't need to learn the circuit, the sim had already > > done that. You're exactly right about the location of those puddles! > > > > That's something about TV too that I have only learned in the past > > year. I attended Brands Hatch last September (for the A1GP) and > > Silverstone in April, neither of them were like I have seen in any > > simulation (even to date). Silverstone, even though it's an airfield, > > is not flat at all when you actually have a view from the racing > > surface rather than the TV camera or grandstands. Before I worked for > > the company, I'd have wanted realistic tracks in their simulation, I'm > > frankly delighted to be a part of the team bringing these tracks to the > > community. > > > > Tim > > > > GaryP wrote: > > > >> >On 19 Nov 2006 10:49:03 -0800, "mcewena" <[email hidden]> > >> >wrote: > >> >Only if you're planning on driving the track in real life and haven't > >> >been there. For the rest of us it's a nice to have. If a certain > >> >pothole is 2" or 2' away from reality I won't lose any sleep. > >> > >> You're right, most people will never know the difference. Those of us > >> lucky enough to spend time on these tracks will very much appreciate > >> having accurate, up-to-date representations to run on. It's a simple > >> matter of purity, and the fact is 95% of sim buyers have 0 clue what > >> any given track really looks like other than what their favorite game > >> shows them or they see on TV. It will be great to have the exact same > >> turn-in points, familiar glitches in the curb. > >> > >> Note to iRacing (if you are going to model wet weather) - > >> West Bend inside curb is mashed away just beyond the apex, where a > >> nice puddle forms. Easy to miss until someone doesn't.. > >> The right hander coming out of Big Bend feeding the "short chute" > >> always gets a puddle and if some bozo hits it we usually lose the next > >> 3-4 cars behind him into the weeds. > >> A river runs accross No-Name straight when it rains right about where > >> you need to brake for the uphill.. always a treat... and the right > >> side rumble strip is usually under about 6" of water.. > >> If you try and pass at the wrong time on the main straight you will > >> find yourself in one of a series of 1-2" deep puddles at 120+MPH.. > >> > >> 8-) > >> GP > >

I couldn't believe the lack of runoff... Lime Rock is such a wonderful circuit and a thrill to drive in real life and in simulations, but man does it punish errors! Tim GaryP wrote:

Quoted text (63 lines)

> Hey, maybe you guys can shame LRP into repaving... and putting proper > drainge in... and regrading the off areas and putting in gravel traps > so your car doesn't end up in the woods! > ;-) > > LRP is a scary place in the rain Tim, you did well to make it around. > GP > > >On 19 Nov 2006 16:14:36 -0800, "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Gary: > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=j5udic-Uh18 > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYXwVY7fpbE > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=-mHh_K8HAls > > > >That's me in the R/T cockpit in the wet while at Lime Rock. I had no > >race car experience and infact very rarely drive on every day roads - I > >had never driven in the wet in any car. I had been karting before, and > >by the third race I was quite happily hanging the back end out the > >whole way around long turns. The nice thing when I was at Lime Rock > >Park was that I didn't need to learn the circuit, the sim had already > >done that. You're exactly right about the location of those puddles! > > > >That's something about TV too that I have only learned in the past > >year. I attended Brands Hatch last September (for the A1GP) and > >Silverstone in April, neither of them were like I have seen in any > >simulation (even to date). Silverstone, even though it's an airfield, > >is not flat at all when you actually have a view from the racing > >surface rather than the TV camera or grandstands. Before I worked for > >the company, I'd have wanted realistic tracks in their simulation, I'm > >frankly delighted to be a part of the team bringing these tracks to the > >community. > > > >Tim > > > >GaryP wrote: > > > >> >On 19 Nov 2006 10:49:03 -0800, "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> >Only if you're planning on driving the track in real life and haven't > >> >been there. For the rest of us it's a nice to have. If a certain > >> >pothole is 2" or 2' away from reality I won't lose any sleep. > >> > >> You're right, most people will never know the difference. Those of us > >> lucky enough to spend time on these tracks will very much appreciate > >> having accurate, up-to-date representations to run on. It's a simple > >> matter of purity, and the fact is 95% of sim buyers have 0 clue what > >> any given track really looks like other than what their favorite game > >> shows them or they see on TV. It will be great to have the exact same > >> turn-in points, familiar glitches in the curb. > >> > >> Note to iRacing (if you are going to model wet weather) - > >> West Bend inside curb is mashed away just beyond the apex, where a > >> nice puddle forms. Easy to miss until someone doesn't.. > >> The right hander coming out of Big Bend feeding the "short chute" > >> always gets a puddle and if some bozo hits it we usually lose the next > >> 3-4 cars behind him into the weeds. > >> A river runs accross No-Name straight when it rains right about where > >> you need to brake for the uphill.. always a treat... and the right > >> side rumble strip is usually under about 6" of water.. > >> If you try and pass at the wrong time on the main straight you will > >> find yourself in one of a series of 1-2" deep puddles at 120+MPH.. > >> > >> 8-) > >> GP

"Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Um, Dave... I never mentioned that there wasn't a good version of > Silverstone out there. Did I? You said, "I attended Brands Hatch last September (for the A1GP) and Silverstone in April, neither of them were like I have seen in any simulation (even to date). Silverstone, even though it's an airfield, is not flat at all when you actually have a view from the racing surface rather than the TV camera or grandstands." "neither of them were like I have seen in any simulation (even to date)" sure sounds to me like you don't think there's a good version of Silverstone available right now. I said the one recently released with rFactor wasn't flat at all. That's all I said. No idea if you've actually seen that particular version or not. > Other than that, your points really don't have much relevance to > anything I'm talking of because most of them don't apply to where we're > going and/or things that you and the community are not aware of at this > point. My post is about the track accuracy issue in the new sim. That's what everyone is discussing in this thread, including you. > Also, GPS isn't what we use - so critisizing it is a little confusing, > I assume you meant it the other way around. Laser scanning then. > I have absolutely no intention to attack other simulations, I don't > recall mentioning any other simulation? Don't know what you are referring to there. Who said you attacked another sim? What sim? > I am delighted to be bringing this simulation to you guys because I > know how good I believe it is and I can't wait for the wider community > to race it. I can quite easily roll back and give you no information at > all if every point I make is going to be misread or taken as some sort > of assumed insult. I don't want to do that, because I care about the > community, I have served it for a long time. Again, no idea what you are talking about with this insult stuff. I didn't see you refer to any other sim, either directly or indirectly. Did you? Now if you are going to imagine things that aren't there and threaten not to say anything else about this sim, then just go right ahead and do so. No time for that kind of bullshit to be honest. Sim developers who act as if they are doing me some great favor by revealing bits of info of something they want me to **buy** doesn't fly anymore. -- David G Fisher > > Tim > > Dave F wrote: > >> Silverstone in rFactor just came out a few months ago, and isn't flat at >> all. >> >> Take this as criticism or someone just being very honest, but GPS track >> making seems like it's being way over used as a gimmick to say, "Our sim >> is >> the most realistic." And that worries me that there might not be more and >> better things to offer. >> >> I 'd rather have 200 of the greatest current and historic tracks in the >> world modeled to 98% accuracy (plus an endless supply of others) than a >> small amount of mostly obscure tracks modeled to 99% accuracy (nothing >> will >> be 100%). Will every F1 track be made so I can run a full F1 season? They >> can't make any historic tracks without lessening their claims of the >> importance of GPS track accuracy, so they are off the list? All I think >> of >> when I hear the mention of GPS tracks is what a very, very long list of >> tracks that **won't** be in this sim. >> >> This talk of perfect GPS track accuracy just seems a little silly to me. >> Watch this side by side video of Schumacher at Monza in rFactor and in >> real >> life and tell me what I'm missing. >> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nr5zu4bE3jw&mode=related&search= On top of >> that, >> the track has 6 layouts, including the historic banked oval. It's >> brilliant. >> Will there even be a GPS made version of Monza, or am I supposed to be >> happier with an obscure GPS made club track I've never heard of that can >> only run cars that bore me to death? >> >> As for the hype that GPS tracks will be a benefit to helping a person >> learn >> a track in preparation for real life racing more than a non GPS sim >> track....only an idiot and a lousy driver could say it makes a difference >> to >> them. I've heard real F1 drivers and other pros say it takes them a >> **dozen** laps to learn a track. If a bad arcade game has a basic layout >> of >> a track at 70 % accuracy, it should be more than enough to help a real >> driver with the first 10 minutes on the track. After that, reality is all >> you should need for the next 10 minutes and then you had better know the >> track, or please get very far away from any rolling machinery. >> >> This sim will be good if it has the **right**cars and tracks (absolutely >> critical), great graphics, excellent physics, and great multiplay. >> Partnerships mean nothing except I have to take $$$ from my pocket month >> after month .....put it into your hands.....which you put it into the >> pockets of grinning track owners because they let you drive around with a >> GPS device on their track for a day or two. Screw them. :-) >> >> >> -- >> David G Fisher >> >> >> >> "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> > Gary: >> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=j5udic-Uh18 >> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYXwVY7fpbE >> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-mHh_K8HAls >> > >> > That's me in the R/T cockpit in the wet while at Lime Rock. I had no >> > race car experience and infact very rarely drive on every day roads - I >> > had never driven in the wet in any car. I had been karting before, and >> > by the third race I was quite happily hanging the back end out the >> > whole way around long turns. The nice thing when I was at Lime Rock >> > Park was that I didn't need to learn the circuit, the sim had already >> > done that. You're exactly right about the location of those puddles! >> > >> > That's something about TV too that I have only learned in the past >> > year. I attended Brands Hatch last September (for the A1GP) and >> > Silverstone in April, neither of them were like I have seen in any >> > simulation (even to date). Silverstone, even though it's an airfield, >> > is not flat at all when you actually have a view from the racing >> > surface rather than the TV camera or grandstands. Before I worked for >> > the company, I'd have wanted realistic tracks in their simulation, I'm >> > frankly delighted to be a part of the team bringing these tracks to the >> > community. >> > >> > Tim >> > >> > GaryP wrote: >> > >> >> >On 19 Nov 2006 10:49:03 -0800, "mcewena" <[email hidden]> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >Only if you're planning on driving the track in real life and haven't >> >> >been there. For the rest of us it's a nice to have. If a certain >> >> >pothole is 2" or 2' away from reality I won't lose any sleep. >> >> >> >> You're right, most people will never know the difference. Those of us >> >> lucky enough to spend time on these tracks will very much appreciate >> >> having accurate, up-to-date representations to run on. It's a simple >> >> matter of purity, and the fact is 95% of sim buyers have 0 clue what >> >> any given track really looks like other than what their favorite game >> >> shows them or they see on TV. It will be great to have the exact same >> >> turn-in points, familiar glitches in the curb. >> >> >> >> Note to iRacing (if you are going to model wet weather) - >> >> West Bend inside curb is mashed away just beyond the apex, where a >> >> nice puddle forms. Easy to miss until someone doesn't.. >> >> The right hander coming out of Big Bend feeding the "short chute" >> >> always gets a puddle and if some bozo hits it we usually lose the next >> >> 3-4 cars behind him into the weeds. >> >> A river runs accross No-Name straight when it rains right about where >> >> you need to brake for the uphill.. always a treat... and the right >> >> side rumble strip is usually under about 6" of water.. >> >> If you try and pass at the wrong time on the main straight you will >> >> find yourself in one of a series of 1-2" deep puddles at 120+MPH.. >> >> >> >> 8-) >> >> GP >> > >

Fair enough. Sorry for the confusion on my part David. Dave F wrote:

Quoted text (180 lines)

> "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Um, Dave... I never mentioned that there wasn't a good version of > > Silverstone out there. Did I? > > You said, "I attended Brands Hatch last September (for the A1GP) and > Silverstone in April, neither of them were like I have seen in any > simulation (even to date). Silverstone, even though it's an airfield, > is not flat at all when you actually have a view from the racing > surface rather than the TV camera or grandstands." > > "neither of them were like I have seen in any > simulation (even to date)" sure sounds to me like you don't think there's a > good version of Silverstone available right now. I said the one recently > released with rFactor wasn't flat at all. That's all I said. No idea if > you've actually seen that particular version or not. > > > Other than that, your points really don't have much relevance to > > anything I'm talking of because most of them don't apply to where we're > > going and/or things that you and the community are not aware of at this > > point. > > My post is about the track accuracy issue in the new sim. That's what > everyone is discussing in this thread, including you. > > > Also, GPS isn't what we use - so critisizing it is a little confusing, > > I assume you meant it the other way around. > > Laser scanning then. > > > I have absolutely no intention to attack other simulations, I don't > > recall mentioning any other simulation? > > Don't know what you are referring to there. Who said you attacked another > sim? What sim? > > > I am delighted to be bringing this simulation to you guys because I > > know how good I believe it is and I can't wait for the wider community > > to race it. I can quite easily roll back and give you no information at > > all if every point I make is going to be misread or taken as some sort > > of assumed insult. I don't want to do that, because I care about the > > community, I have served it for a long time. > > Again, no idea what you are talking about with this insult stuff. I didn't > see you refer to any other sim, either directly or indirectly. Did you? > > Now if you are going to imagine things that aren't there and threaten not to > say anything else about this sim, then just go right ahead and do so. No > time for that kind of bullshit to be honest. Sim developers who act as if > they are doing me some great favor by revealing bits of info of something > they want me to **buy** doesn't fly anymore. > > > -- > David G Fisher > > > > > > > Tim > > > > Dave F wrote: > > > >> Silverstone in rFactor just came out a few months ago, and isn't flat at > >> all. > >> > >> Take this as criticism or someone just being very honest, but GPS track > >> making seems like it's being way over used as a gimmick to say, "Our sim > >> is > >> the most realistic." And that worries me that there might not be more and > >> better things to offer. > >> > >> I 'd rather have 200 of the greatest current and historic tracks in the > >> world modeled to 98% accuracy (plus an endless supply of others) than a > >> small amount of mostly obscure tracks modeled to 99% accuracy (nothing > >> will > >> be 100%). Will every F1 track be made so I can run a full F1 season? They > >> can't make any historic tracks without lessening their claims of the > >> importance of GPS track accuracy, so they are off the list? All I think > >> of > >> when I hear the mention of GPS tracks is what a very, very long list of > >> tracks that **won't** be in this sim. > >> > >> This talk of perfect GPS track accuracy just seems a little silly to me. > >> Watch this side by side video of Schumacher at Monza in rFactor and in > >> real > >> life and tell me what I'm missing. > >> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nr5zu4bE3jw&mode=related&search= On top of > >> that, > >> the track has 6 layouts, including the historic banked oval. It's > >> brilliant. > >> Will there even be a GPS made version of Monza, or am I supposed to be > >> happier with an obscure GPS made club track I've never heard of that can > >> only run cars that bore me to death? > >> > >> As for the hype that GPS tracks will be a benefit to helping a person > >> learn > >> a track in preparation for real life racing more than a non GPS sim > >> track....only an idiot and a lousy driver could say it makes a difference > >> to > >> them. I've heard real F1 drivers and other pros say it takes them a > >> **dozen** laps to learn a track. If a bad arcade game has a basic layout > >> of > >> a track at 70 % accuracy, it should be more than enough to help a real > >> driver with the first 10 minutes on the track. After that, reality is all > >> you should need for the next 10 minutes and then you had better know the > >> track, or please get very far away from any rolling machinery. > >> > >> This sim will be good if it has the **right**cars and tracks (absolutely > >> critical), great graphics, excellent physics, and great multiplay. > >> Partnerships mean nothing except I have to take $$$ from my pocket month > >> after month .....put it into your hands.....which you put it into the > >> pockets of grinning track owners because they let you drive around with a > >> GPS device on their track for a day or two. Screw them. :-) > >> > >> > >> -- > >> David G Fisher > >> > >> > >> > >> "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:[email hidden]... > >> > Gary: > >> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=j5udic-Uh18 > >> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYXwVY7fpbE > >> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-mHh_K8HAls > >> > > >> > That's me in the R/T cockpit in the wet while at Lime Rock. I had no > >> > race car experience and infact very rarely drive on every day roads - I > >> > had never driven in the wet in any car. I had been karting before, and > >> > by the third race I was quite happily hanging the back end out the > >> > whole way around long turns. The nice thing when I was at Lime Rock > >> > Park was that I didn't need to learn the circuit, the sim had already > >> > done that. You're exactly right about the location of those puddles! > >> > > >> > That's something about TV too that I have only learned in the past > >> > year. I attended Brands Hatch last September (for the A1GP) and > >> > Silverstone in April, neither of them were like I have seen in any > >> > simulation (even to date). Silverstone, even though it's an airfield, > >> > is not flat at all when you actually have a view from the racing > >> > surface rather than the TV camera or grandstands. Before I worked for > >> > the company, I'd have wanted realistic tracks in their simulation, I'm > >> > frankly delighted to be a part of the team bringing these tracks to the > >> > community. > >> > > >> > Tim > >> > > >> > GaryP wrote: > >> > > >> >> >On 19 Nov 2006 10:49:03 -0800, "mcewena" <[email hidden]> > >> >> >wrote: > >> >> >Only if you're planning on driving the track in real life and haven't > >> >> >been there. For the rest of us it's a nice to have. If a certain > >> >> >pothole is 2" or 2' away from reality I won't lose any sleep. > >> >> > >> >> You're right, most people will never know the difference. Those of us > >> >> lucky enough to spend time on these tracks will very much appreciate > >> >> having accurate, up-to-date representations to run on. It's a simple > >> >> matter of purity, and the fact is 95% of sim buyers have 0 clue what > >> >> any given track really looks like other than what their favorite game > >> >> shows them or they see on TV. It will be great to have the exact same > >> >> turn-in points, familiar glitches in the curb. > >> >> > >> >> Note to iRacing (if you are going to model wet weather) - > >> >> West Bend inside curb is mashed away just beyond the apex, where a > >> >> nice puddle forms. Easy to miss until someone doesn't.. > >> >> The right hander coming out of Big Bend feeding the "short chute" > >> >> always gets a puddle and if some bozo hits it we usually lose the next > >> >> 3-4 cars behind him into the weeds. > >> >> A river runs accross No-Name straight when it rains right about where > >> >> you need to brake for the uphill.. always a treat... and the right > >> >> side rumble strip is usually under about 6" of water.. > >> >> If you try and pass at the wrong time on the main straight you will > >> >> find yourself in one of a series of 1-2" deep puddles at 120+MPH.. > >> >> > >> >> 8-) > >> >> GP > >> > > >

Tim Wheatley wrote: > Infact it's not an accident that our > development team includes the engineer responsible for Soda Off-Road > Racing (Papyrus, 1997) too. Stadium truck racing = I will get a second job to race this if need be.

Well, I guess i'm an "idiot and a lousy driver" because having the visual points for turn-in/braking/etc. on a track exactly where they are in real life is quite important to me in a sim. "You've heard"... how comforting to know! I'm only a lowly Club racer, not a pro, so I guess my not knowing a track after 12 laps goes back to my being an idiot and crappy driver. What you are is someone that knows absolutely nothing about RL racing besides what you see on TV. GP >On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:28:28 -0500, "Dave F" <[email hidden]> wrote: >As for the hype that GPS tracks will be a benefit to helping a person learn >a track in preparation for real life racing more than a non GPS sim >track....only an idiot and a lousy driver could say it makes a difference to >them. I've heard real F1 drivers and other pros say it takes them a >**dozen** laps to learn a track.

I never said you did, please read again as I was replying to Tony not you. "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (54 lines)

>I never made that suggestion, please read again. > > schooner wrote: > >> I'm not a group or picking holes, I made a simple comment on what I seen >> in >> the graphics. It is all we have to go on and I made a comment. I guess >> no >> one is allowed to comment on anything regarding this sim. God forbid >> someone ask a question about it. I have yet to see a single PR that was >> even related to the sim itself, most seem to be marketing deals with race >> series which is great but I think many of us want to know more about the >> sim >> itself in terms of features, release dates, etc. >> >> Tim - can we possibly get some real info on the sim beyond the marketing >> PR, >> that is all I am looking for. >> >> "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:WyW7h.2938$[email hidden]... >> > Tim Wheatley wrote: >> >> The comments on graphics are quite amusing to me to be honest, having >> >> come from simracing to sim development. Try shrinking a 1600x1200 >> >> image >> >> of something you think looks good down to the same width and height of >> >> the right side of that video, then tell me if you can see the detail >> >> you could at 1600x1200. That's all I have to say. >> > >> > It is the old damned if you do damned if you don't dilemma, Tim. >> > >> > We have one group clamoring for early WIP as evidence that an iRacing >> > sim >> > exists in the making and another group picking holes at the small video >> > which aims to show how accurate the track is rather than showing off >> > the >> > graphics engine. >> > >> > FWIW I think the real video is worse than the simulated one, with its >> > fish >> > eye view, low quality and it was filmed on such a dull day. Perhaps we >> > should take it to a film makers forum and see what they have to say :) >> > >> > Thanks for sharing the video. I only hope you (and all other sim racing >> > devs) have broad enough shoulders to keep these WIP snippets coming, >> > hopefully there will be some constructive comments to pick out, but to >> > demonstrate track accuracy and then have to field questions on the >> > "missing" dynamic lighting makes you wonder if the effort is >> > worthwhile, >> > which would be a shame for the rest of us keen to monitor progress. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Tony >

> (and this is why most of sim reacers regard Keammer as God, Pioneer maybe ;) >accurency of track is the only way you can compare the >results of your work with the reality For that I suspect any accurate representation of a pot hole and curb will do, it doesn't have to be the exact pot hole and curb of a specfic track. Unless of course you also have the exact physics of every car that races there along with the setup notes from every engineer suspension specialist etc.. Don't get me wrong it's neat, but at somewhere here there's a point of dimishing returns if your market is amatuer sim racers on sub$500 wheel/pedals and 21" 2D monitors. Although I'm guessing iracing is going after a differnet market. ;)

mcewena: > Don't get me wrong it's neat, but at somewhere here there's a point of > dimishing returns if your market is amatuer sim racers on sub$500 > wheel/pedals and 21" 2D monitors. > > Although I'm guessing iracing is going after a differnet market. ;) Well, only for you not to stay unanswered, I will not get you wrong (but thanks for taking care, : )), and I agree with everything. But, a "simulation" is about reality. This really gives a sense of reality. Although I don't have enough time to practice and practice, I do have enough time to take a ride, and "feel" what it is like to be there. Plus, I really do think that this is the way to go. You can almost ride with the proffesional drivers in the same time. Long ago I had a proposition for somebody to make really accurate tracks. Then you can hook a transmiter on real cars, which would transmit the position and attitude of cars. You can feed those signals over the Internet, and that way you can watch live feed on your computer. Whether this is some minor league race, whether you are on the opposite side of the World, you can sit in front of your computer, pick a car you want to be in, and watch that race through the eyes of live racer. Then you can change to another car. All this you can save, and watch replays how many times you want, from whatever position you want. You can add all the telemetry, so that you can get a sense what happens to the car. -- Mario

GaryP wrote: > Well, I guess i'm an "idiot and a lousy driver" because having the > visual points for turn-in/braking/etc. on a track exactly where they > are in real life is quite important to me in a sim. Well, it depends on what you're interested in. If you care about the simulation aspect, then you're going to care about the tracks being accurate. If you're more interested in the competition, then you might not care. Personally, I don't give a shit about sims that have badly modelled or fictional tracks, since I'm more interested in the experience of driving a particular car on a particular track than I am in beating off about being better than someone else.

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

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >> (and this is why most of sim reacers regard Keammer as God, > > Pioneer maybe ;) > >>accurency of track is the only way you can compare the >results of your >>work with the reality > > For that I suspect any accurate representation of a pot hole and curb > will do, it doesn't have to be the exact pot hole and curb of a specfic > track. Unless of course you also have the exact physics of every car > that races there along with the setup notes from every engineer > suspension specialist etc.. > > Don't get me wrong it's neat, but at somewhere here there's a point of > dimishing returns if your market is amatuer sim racers on sub$500 > wheel/pedals and 21" 2D monitors. > > Although I'm guessing iracing is going after a differnet market. ;) >

Man put himself on the moon about 4 decades ago! How hard can it be to get track owners/officials to get their track digitally mapped and then sell it on to developers. Once it's done it's done. Keeping it up to date when changes are made to track geometry wouldn't be too difficult either.

Although the software is targetting real racers, it has never, ever sidelined simracers. mcewena wrote: > > Although I'm guessing iracing is going after a differnet market. ;)

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> GaryP wrote: > >> Well, I guess i'm an "idiot and a lousy driver" because having the >> visual points for turn-in/braking/etc. on a track exactly where they >> are in real life is quite important to me in a sim. > > Well, it depends on what you're interested in. If you care about the > simulation aspect, then you're going to care about the tracks being > accurate. If you're more interested in the competition, then you might > not care. Personally, I don't give a shit about sims that have badly > modelled or fictional tracks, since I'm more interested in the > experience of driving a particular car on a particular track than I am > in beating off about being better than someone else. >

It must be surely easier for sim companies to to it right anyway - if they use radar, GPS or whatever method to get a digital image/mapping of a track then there's the track - no need for guess work and approximations. Working from pictures and the like or even roughly surveyed geometry is a joke. The ultimate goal of a sim company should be to get to the point where you go to a track with their gear and at the end of the day you have your track including all surrounding buildings, etc. Ths software/hardware used is literally creating your track as you scan! Every point in space is mapped with a 3D co-ordinate and associated colour! Easy in theory! :)

Byron Forbes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> The ultimate goal of a sim company should be to get to the point where > you go to a track with their gear and at the end of the day you have your > track including all surrounding buildings, etc. Ths software/hardware used > is literally creating your track as you scan! Every point in space is > mapped with a 3D co-ordinate and associated colour! > > Easy in theory! :)

Much easier than hireing 300 Russians. And probably cheaper, too. -- Mario

Byron Forbes: Much easier than hireing 300 Russians. And probably cheaper, too. -- Mario

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> GaryP wrote: > >> Well, I guess i'm an "idiot and a lousy driver" because having the >> visual points for turn-in/braking/etc. on a track exactly where they >> are in real life is quite important to me in a sim. > > Well, it depends on what you're interested in. If you care about the > simulation aspect, then you're going to care about the tracks being > accurate. If you're more interested in the competition, then you might > not care. Personally, I don't give a shit about sims that have badly > modelled or fictional tracks, since I'm more interested in the > experience of driving a particular car on a particular track than I am > in beating off about being better than someone else. >

Regardless of our varying personal takes on the technology, it comes down to product differentiation in the market. If you want to position your product as the "one true way" (my phrase, not iRacing's mind you), then you do what's required to back that up. You get (buy) exclusive rights to high-res track and car data that make you the reference point. Sort of like Simbin's "Get Real" idea taken to the nth degree. If you extrapolate what that approach means to the rest of the simracing experience, quite a number of interesting possibililies come to mind... ;-) SB

This is the same guy that says head shake is unrealistic and NR2003 had it 'bout right cause thats what he see's on TNN, ROTFLMAO... Dave has his own warped version of reality from which he bases his view of the world. If you dont live in his hollyweirded, peta screaming, tinfoiled, roof-riding world youre just an "idiot" :) Mitch "GaryP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Well, I guess i'm an "idiot and a lousy driver" because having the > visual points for turn-in/braking/etc. on a track exactly where they > are in real life is quite important to me in a sim. > > "You've heard"... how comforting to know! I'm only a lowly Club racer, > not a pro, so I guess my not knowing a track after 12 laps goes back > to my being an idiot and crappy driver. What you are is someone that > knows absolutely nothing about RL racing besides what you see on TV. > > GP > >

Steve Blankenship wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Regardless of our varying personal takes on the technology, it comes down to > product differentiation in the market. If you want to position your product > as the "one true way" (my phrase, not iRacing's mind you), then you do > what's required to back that up. You get (buy) exclusive rights to high-res > track and car data that make you the reference point. Sort of like Simbin's > "Get Real" idea taken to the nth degree. > > If you extrapolate what that approach means to the rest of the simracing > experience, quite a number of interesting possibililies come to mind... ;-)

Good point. This thread started out as an announcement of the Skip Barber & iRacing partnership and we have jumped on the track accuracy aspect as the rationale behind the video - which shows not surprisingly a Skip Barber car at Lime Rock in both real life and sim to show progress with the partnership. The track accuracy is one aspect but not necessarily the be all and end all, as you rightly remind us. Cheers Tony

On Nov 20, 6:15 pm, "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Although the software is targetting real racers, it has never, ever > sidelined simracers. > No they'll do that with the retail price ;)

That is my fear as well. I also wonder if there will be any support for leagues and third party hosted servers. My impression is that this will be an online subscription service only and possibly pricey. Hopefully I am wrong. "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > On Nov 20, 6:15 pm, "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Although the software is targetting real racers, it has never, ever >> sidelined simracers. >> > No they'll do that with the retail price ;) >

Have any of you read the FAQ, both pricing and leagues are mentioned in those. schooner wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> That is my fear as well. I also wonder if there will be any support for > leagues and third party hosted servers. > My impression is that this will be an online subscription service only and > possibly pricey. Hopefully I am wrong. > > "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > On Nov 20, 6:15 pm, "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Although the software is targetting real racers, it has never, ever > >> sidelined simracers. > >> > > No they'll do that with the retail price ;) > >

The FAQ leaves a lot to the imagination regarding these issues at this point. I understand it's too early to lock these things down and will simply wait until they are finalized before worrying about it.... Maybe it will be like the MMP online model of Aces High with thousands of subscribers at $14.95 per month using their dedicated servers...hmmm, wasn't Papyrus set up that way at one time? ;-) GP >On 21 Nov 2006 15:14:39 -0800, "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Have any of you read the FAQ, both pricing and leagues are mentioned in >those.

Didn't mean pay per month, meant dedicated servers..

Quoted text (14 lines)

>On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:57:04 -0500, GaryP <[email hidden]> wrote: >The FAQ leaves a lot to the imagination regarding these issues at this >point. I understand it's too early to lock these things down and will >simply wait until they are finalized before worrying about it.... >Maybe it will be like the MMP online model of Aces High with thousands >of subscribers at $14.95 per month using their dedicated >servers...hmmm, wasn't Papyrus set up that way at one time? >;-) > >GP > >>On 21 Nov 2006 15:14:39 -0800, "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote: >>Have any of you read the FAQ, both pricing and leagues are mentioned in >>those.

It does leave a lot open, but is also clearly says certain things too. :-) GaryP wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Didn't mean pay per month, meant dedicated servers.. > > >On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:57:04 -0500, GaryP <[email hidden]> wrote: > >The FAQ leaves a lot to the imagination regarding these issues at this > >point. I understand it's too early to lock these things down and will > >simply wait until they are finalized before worrying about it.... > >Maybe it will be like the MMP online model of Aces High with thousands > >of subscribers at $14.95 per month using their dedicated > >servers...hmmm, wasn't Papyrus set up that way at one time? > >;-) > > > >GP > > > >>On 21 Nov 2006 15:14:39 -0800, "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Have any of you read the FAQ, both pricing and leagues are mentioned in > >>those.

GaryP wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> The FAQ leaves a lot to the imagination regarding these issues at this > point. I understand it's too early to lock these things down and will > simply wait until they are finalized before worrying about it.... > Maybe it will be like the MMP online model of Aces High with thousands > of subscribers at $14.95 per month using their dedicated > servers...hmmm, wasn't Papyrus set up that way at one time? > ;-)

Priced somewhere between a low volume professional trainer sim and a high volume online game like World of Warcraft - so anyone's guess! I would imagine those forecasting sales and determining the final pricing model will need to wait until a lot closer to release before anything gets finalised and goes to print. So yes I think we will have to wait... Cheers Tony

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > The FAQ leaves a lot to the imagination regarding these issues at this > point. I understand it's too early to lock these things down and will > simply wait until they are finalized before worrying about it.... > Maybe it will be like the MMP online model of Aces High with thousands > of subscribers at $14.95 per month using their dedicated > servers...hmmm, wasn't Papyrus set up that way at one time? > ;-) >

I couldn't see it being financially viable for iRacing to be much different to Papyrus ie to cater for pretty much everyone.

> I couldn't see it being financially viable for iRacing to be much > different to Papyrus ie to cater for pretty much everyone. Well those laser guided heat seaking smart track scanners are going cost iracing a lot more then the by guess & golly, looks pretty good method Papy & everbody else used to employ. Plus in order to make it worth the effort they'll have to have something equally sophisticated for their car modelling, the array of engine & suspension choices with just a Porsche alone is mind blowing and they all act differently depending on how they're cobbled together. They got to recoup that cost somehow. I think some people thing that all this new fangled sophistication is going to come in a $49 one time price that they're used to. I can't see it myself.

As I've posted elsewhere, if any of you would like to see the work-in-progress simulation at a resolution above 320x240 (which the video ran at), you can download 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 wallpaper images from the Web site.

Man do I like those Papyrus ... I mean iRacing graphics ;) The image sure looks nice! It's now my new desktop pic. P. Tim Wheatley wrote: > As I've posted elsewhere, if any of you would like to see the > work-in-progress simulation at a resolution above 320x240 (which the > video ran at), you can download 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 wallpaper images > from the Web site. >

No offense Tim but the FAQ doesn't say much and is vague at best. "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Have any of you read the FAQ, both pricing and leagues are mentioned in > those. > > schooner wrote: > >> That is my fear as well. I also wonder if there will be any support for >> leagues and third party hosted servers. >> My impression is that this will be an online subscription service only >> and >> possibly pricey. Hopefully I am wrong. >> >> "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> > >> > >> > On Nov 20, 6:15 pm, "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> Although the software is targetting real racers, it has never, ever >> >> sidelined simracers. >> >> >> > No they'll do that with the retail price ;) >> > >