5 things Papy MUST include in N2003...

1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be displayed. 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if this is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that might give an advantage if turned on/off. [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] -- ed_

Ed Solheim wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > 1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > displayed. > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if this > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that might give > an advantage if turned on/off. > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] > > -- > ed_

Agreed, Ed. I real want to see forced cockpit views enforced. ATM, there are too many roof hugging or kite flying cheats out there. Gerry

This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view. Use the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many advantage. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Ed Solheim wrote: > > > > 1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > > displayed. > > > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if

this > > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that mightgive

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > an advantage if turned on/off. > > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] > > > > -- > > ed_ > > Agreed, Ed. I real want to see forced cockpit views enforced. ATM, there > are too many roof hugging or kite flying cheats out there. > > Gerry

Schooner wrote: > > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view. Use > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many > advantage. You're are absolutely right! WHAT WAS I THINKING??? Hold on though...the host's rules should be respected, right?

Oh I agree 100% with that. If the host wants cockpit view then it shouldn't be hacked around. Wasn't trying to argue that point. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Schooner wrote: > > > > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view.Use

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. > > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many > > advantage. > > You're are absolutely right! WHAT WAS I THINKING??? > > Hold on though...the host's rules should be respected, right?

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

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > displayed. > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if

this > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that mightgive > an advantage if turned on/off. > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] > > > -- > ed_ WOW! You seem to have some Enforcement issues, dont'cha? <VBG> Just for the record I could care less either way... Throw them all in as long as they arent a factor in performance for people having them all turned on. If so I would rather NOT see ANY of them. I would much rather have more people willing to race, than a few elitists that think they are racers. - Isotrip�

ie Steering Assistance > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that mightgive

Quoted text (8 lines)

> an advantage if turned on/off. > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] > > > -- > ed_ > >

As long as the race admin can control it I'm happy. Some we force on in our league such as smoke but typically the rest we leave up to the driver.

>"Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote <snip> I guess this would be better to include only 1 thing : "Allow hosts/server to write their own scripts using the open-source language of NR2003 ;-)" -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

In article <[email hidden]>, Ed Solheim <[email hidden]> wrote: >1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" <snip> N. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the idiotic auto censoring of words. In the Finnish league we naturally chat in Finnish and every other word becomes %&"#".. but ironically none of the Finnish curse words are affected :-) -Juha -- //[email hidden]

Same thing in french... like they think english is the only language in the world which can be used to swear (roll eyes) -- Philippe "Philster" Sergerie "Juha Kallioinen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aru862$brmj$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, > Ed Solheim <[email hidden]> wrote: > >1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > <snip> > N. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the idiotic auto censoring > of words. In the Finnish league we naturally chat in Finnish and > every other word becomes %&"#".. but ironically none of the > Finnish curse words are affected :-) > > -Juha > > -- > //[email hidden]

If it is anything like Dirt Track Racing 2 I suspect the dirt/oil will be visible in all driving modes or so I would hope. "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > This should also apply to the roof and chase views. This would > prevent people from choosing a view simply because one of those views > does not have oil/dirt. > > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > > displayed. > > Ummm, why? What could this possibly do to even the playing field. > Some folks' graphics can't support all those moving polygons. > > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if

this

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > This should also apply to the roof and chase views. This would > prevent people from choosing a view simply because one of those views > do not suffer the same characteristics. > > > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that might

give

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > an advantage if turned on/off. > > > I think that they should be able to individually disable driving > line, clutch, steering and braking help. However, the clutch help is > almost necessary if your driving rig does not have a clutch pedal, > especially at the road courses. That's the only "help" item I use. >

6. Vote kicking and banning? "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > displayed. > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if

this > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that mightgive

Quoted text (8 lines)

> an advantage if turned on/off. > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] > > > -- > ed_ > >

I'd settle for a plausible drafting model, damage model, and more flexible collision code. Nice to see some of the eye candy being done, but there's bigger fish to fry imo. John "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > displayed. > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if

this > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that mightgive

Quoted text (8 lines)

> an advantage if turned on/off. > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] > > > -- > ed_ > >

"Schooner" said: > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view. Use > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many > advantage. That is utterly bullshit - and you know it. -- ed_

"Schooner" said: That is utterly bullshit - and you know it. -- ed_

"Schooner" wrote: > If it is anything like Dirt Track Racing 2 I suspect the dirt/oil will be > visible in all driving modes or so I would hope. Eeeerrrr..... I *think* you missed my point/reason for enforcing this.... -- ed_

I have a better 5 things Papy MUST include in N2003: 1) NASCAR cars 2) NASCAR tracks 3) NASCAR drivers 4) Some sort of 3D engine 5) Possibly some way of getting controller inputs into the game I think these are more MUST HAVE than some weird forcing cockpit view garbage ;-)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. This should also apply to the roof and chase views. This would prevent people from choosing a view simply because one of those views does not have oil/dirt. > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > displayed. Ummm, why? What could this possibly do to even the playing field. Some folks' graphics can't support all those moving polygons. > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if this > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) This should also apply to the roof and chase views. This would prevent people from choosing a view simply because one of those views do not suffer the same characteristics. > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that might give > an advantage if turned on/off. I think that they should be able to individually disable driving line, clutch, steering and braking help. However, the clutch help is almost necessary if your driving rig does not have a clutch pedal, especially at the road courses. That's the only "help" item I use.

I agree with all of that. Cars shouldn't flip and roll when hit at 30mph. :-) David G Fisher "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'd settle for a plausible drafting model, damage model, and moreflexible

Quoted text (31 lines)

> collision code. Nice to see some of the eye candy being done, but there's > bigger fish to fry imo. > > John > > > "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > > displayed. > > > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if > this > > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that might > give > > an advantage if turned on/off. > > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] > > > > > > -- > > ed_ > > > > > >

> Eeeerrrr..... I *think* you missed my point/reason for enforcing this.... > > -- > ed_ > I'll say, I thought it was only me who realized EVERYONE including Ed missed the point of his first post. THose evil Kite-flying roof-hugging types MUST be controlled. Why right in this very forum, RAscar's Tim White declared he uses the ARCADE EFF-Ten view because it GIVES HIM AN ADVANTAGE!!! ding ding ding. I'll deal with all these Osama BinupontheRoof drivers as soon as I weed out all the Ron Fellows clones from the LeMans Mods. dave henrie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02

How about in single file restarts, the AI cars that are not on the lead lap drop back behind the lead lap cars. I never hear anybody complain about that one. -Tim "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > displayed. > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if

this > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that mightgive

Quoted text (8 lines)

> an advantage if turned on/off. > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] > > > -- > ed_ > >

<sigh> - no it isn't. Anyway everyone can think how they like on it I'm not arguing this issue for the 99th time. "Ed Solheim" <edwins[ REMOVE ]@[ THIS ].no> wrote in message news:WJzE9.4008$[email hidden]... > "Schooner" said: > > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view.Use

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. > > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many > > advantage. > > > That is utterly bullshit - and you know it. > > -- > ed_ > > >

Whatever guys. Drive how you like, I don't care. So using a shifter is an advantage as well, how you plan to control that? What about a fast PC and larger monitor? Racing frame and seat? ;) "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PfBE9.116389$[email hidden]... > > Eeeerrrr..... I *think* you missed my point/reason for enforcingthis....

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > -- > > ed_ > > > I'll say, I thought it was only me who realized EVERYONE including Ed > missed the point of his first post. THose evil Kite-flying roof-hugging > types MUST be controlled. > Why right in this very forum, RAscar's Tim White declared he uses the > ARCADE EFF-Ten view because it GIVES HIM AN ADVANTAGE!!! > ding ding ding. > I'll deal with all these Osama BinupontheRoof drivers as soon as I

weed

Quoted text (10 lines)

> out all the Ron Fellows clones from the LeMans Mods. > dave henrie > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02 > >

"Schooner" < > Whatever guys. Drive how you like, I don't care. > So using a shifter is an advantage as well, how you plan to control that? > What about a fast PC and larger monitor? Racing frame and seat? ;) That's EASY....XBOX!!!! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02

How about allowing the host to turn off that damn "ideal racing line." Is this a simulation or simple video game? Yeah....thats it...lets follow our nose and keep to the green line....ignoring everything else in the chase for victory.....Not my idea of fun...(let alone realism). Mr. B "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > displayed. > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if

this > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that mightgive

Quoted text (8 lines)

> an advantage if turned on/off. > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] > > > -- > ed_ > >

6. > Interactive debris! 7. > Understanding of being "forced" onto pit road to avoid an accident or being bumped there. Gunner and something that'd be "nice": track flybys (aka MS Golf).

6. > Interactive debris! 7. > Understanding of being "forced" onto pit road to avoid an accident or being bumped there. Gunner and something that'd be "nice": track flybys (aka MS Golf).

In article <[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote: >4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if this >is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > about lense flare. you do know that this only happens when you view it through a camera lense? you never get lense flare in real life while driving down the highway. lense flare in games = unrealistic = not sim. unless you go around driving with a camera attached to you face?

In article <WJzE9.4008$[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim" <edwins[ REMOVE ]@[ THIS ].no> says...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Schooner" said: > > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view. Use > > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. > > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many > > advantage. > > > That is utterly bullshit - and you know it. >

I fail to see how have better peripheral vision (knowing when a car is beside you) and being able to seee over a crumple hood is a bad thing. Forcing cockpit view is just plain stupid and dangerous to other online drivers. For road racing, I roof-race so that I can see a little farther down the track. If Eldred was forcing cockpit on, I wouldn't be racing in RASCAR.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:57:21 GMT, John Simmons <[email hidden]> wrote: > For road racing, I roof-race so that I can see >a little farther down the track. ARCADE RACER!! ARCADE RACER!! Why don't you stick to Roadblasters, John? =) (I'm kidding here) Jason

On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:34:34 GMT, [email hidden] (Obake) wrote: >about lense flare. you do know that this only happens when you view it >through a camera lense? you never get lense flare in real life while driving >down the highway. So you've never been blinded by the sun as it's refracted by your windshield? This is a very real phenomenon that is made worse by helmets. Sun-flare may look kind of silly, but there's nothing unrealistic about the sun blinding you when it's within your line of sight. Jason

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:23:18 +0100, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote: >1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" It should also be possible to disable this in testing and solo race sessions. Biggest nuisance in N2002. >2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. Yep. >3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be >displayed. How would disabling this be an advantage? The confusion of finding your pitstall? Maybe they could just force pit boards for all teams on (wouldn't incur a huge framerate hit but would still make it necessary to pay attention to your pit location). >4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if this >is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) Agreed. I have a feeling this will be in the game, but who knows. >5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that might give >an advantage if turned on/off. >[or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] I'd like to see the ability to define multiple server admins (aside from just a single "Boss") and to allow them more power on the server. Admins should be able to throw black flags, yellow flags, and red flags as well as kicking/banning users by IP addresses and hostmasks with support for wildcards (so you could, for example, ban *.fr or 127.* from your server). Jason

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:23:18 +0100, "Ed Solheim" >1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" It should also be possible to disable this in testing and solo race sessions. Biggest nuisance in N2002. Yep. How would disabling this be an advantage? The confusion of finding your pitstall? Maybe they could just force pit boards for all teams on (wouldn't incur a huge framerate hit but would still make it necessary to pay attention to your pit location). Agreed. I have a feeling this will be in the game, but who knows. I'd like to see the ability to define multiple server admins (aside from just a single "Boss") and to allow them more power on the server. Admins should be able to throw black flags, yellow flags, and red flags as well as kicking/banning users by IP addresses and hostmasks with support for wildcards (so you could, for example, ban *.fr or 127.* from your server). Jason

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gZBE9.140306$nB.11628@sccrnsc03... > > "Schooner" < > > > That's EASY....XBOX!!!! > *GASP* ARCADER!!!! :oP - Isotrip�

I must say it again: bring back the ability for admin to control the race flags. Also, re #1, how about just come up with a realistic solution to wallriding? I don't really care much about sweeter eye-candy. There is a lot of unfulfilled potential in other areas of the game that I'd like to see addressed, most of which has already been mentioned in rhis thread. I am not going to hold my breath. Well, except for the flags part. Gerald "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> 1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > displayed. > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if this > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that might give > an advantage if turned on/off. > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)]

"Obake" said: > > about lense flare. you do know that this only happens when you view it > through a camera lense? you never get lense flare in real life whiledriving > down the highway. > > lense flare in games = unrealistic = not sim. unless you go arounddriving > with a camera attached to you face? That I am *fully* aware of.... My concern/point [with this post] was to get a level playingfield - meaning we all play by the same rules. The realism of lensflare or what ever was not on my mind at all. And just for the record - I am not asking that we *all* must use these rules - all I want is the ability to enforce them - so that each host, driver or league might choose what setting *they* want to enfore in *their* races. -- ed_ $10 says Petter Solberg wins the 2003 WRC.

"Jason Moyer" wrote: > >3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > >displayed. > > How would disabling this be an advantage? The confusion of finding > your pitstall? Exactly. What to you think is easier: findind you pitstall with 1 pitcrew in the pits or finding your pitstall with say... 20 pitcrews? Maybe they could just force pit boards for all teams > on (wouldn't incur a huge framerate hit but would still make it > necessary to pay attention to your pit location). I dont give a rats ass if people's computers cant handle the pitcrews *now* - what I want if *the ability* to enforce this rule *someday* when all the drivers in my league or what ever got PC's the can handle this sort of ting... Remember this *is* the final edition! -- ed_ ---------------------------------------------- $10 says Petter Solberg wins the 2003 WRC.

"John Simmons" wrote: > I fail to see how have better peripheral vision (knowing when a car > is beside you) and being able to seee over a crumple hood is a bad > thing. Forcing cockpit view is just plain stupid and dangerous to > other online drivers. For road racing, I roof-race so that I can see > a little farther down the track. If you cant see - you *slow down* - PERIOD. End of discossuion. All I want is the ability to get equal rules for all the drivers that enter any given race... > If Eldred was forcing cockpit on, I wouldn't be racing in RASCAR. If I were given a choice I'd enforce cockpit-view right away.. Why should you guys be given an advantage just because you cant seem to get to grips with racing from the hotseat? Say if I couldnt reach 198mph at Dega - should I be given 15 hp extra? -- ed_ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- $10 says Petter Solberg wins the 2003 WRC.

Youre a roof rider too John? If there is no advantage then why use it? Ive always felt roof riding was advantagous and should never have been included in this SIM. I will not roof-ride just so I can be competitive. Just by saying "I can see farther" then you have an advantage. When Im running side by side with a roof rider I must be overly cautious while the roof-rider can clearly see where I am. This isnt an advantage? Personally I do this to replicate as closely as possible what the RL drivers see and feel and last I checked Ive never seen a RL driver roof-ride.... Why does RASCAR use fixed setups then? Isnt the point to make it FAIR for everyone? Mitch <==> shocked by the sheer numbers of roof-riders.. "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <WJzE9.4008$[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim" > <edwins[ REMOVE ]@[ THIS ].no> says... > > "Schooner" said: > > > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view.Use > > > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to runnear. > > > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give themany

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > advantage. > > > > > > That is utterly bullshit - and you know it. > > > > I fail to see how have better peripheral vision (knowing when a car > is beside you) and being able to seee over a crumple hood is a bad > thing. Forcing cockpit view is just plain stupid and dangerous to > other online drivers. For road racing, I roof-race so that I can see > a little farther down the track. > > If Eldred was forcing cockpit on, I wouldn't be racing in RASCAR.

"Plain stupid and dangerous to other online drivers"? Not really. Allowing the host to force things like cockpit view levels the playing field. If by roof-riding you're getting better peripheral and distance vision for less mental investment spent on those things, then you have more "human CPU cycles" to spend on other racing areas, which seems a clear advantage to me. I know it takes a fair effort to read my position in heavy traffic from the cockpit, and that's less focus I have to spend on going faster. And knowing I won't be able to see over a crumpled hood might makes me that much more inclined to try to avoid getting one. Which is the point. I do appreciate your desire to avoid crashes; all this would be less of a concern if Papy's online prediction/collision code worked as well as LFS' seems to. It might not be possible with code that allows so many cars online, but being able to bump and rub a bit (without unrealistically disastrous consequences) would make much more difference in the online experience than the above-mentioned restrictions. Crashes resulting from online code-enhanced/induced contact, along with simple undisciplined driving, are imho the main detractors from online racing with NR2002. They also are what leads to most of the usual shouting matches in the chat window. This was less of an issue with GPL simply due the cars not usually being so close together. I can imagine the fiasco that would result from using the current online prediction code in a CART sim, with much greater speeds and the accompanying drop in reaction time. Aside from better online code, what I'd really love to see from a sim would be some sort of scenario-based offline driving certification that could be used like rating and LPI to allow/exclude drivers. Something that would include long runs in heavy traffic without crashing, in order to develop restraint and discipline in drivers. With GPL, I used to practice for VROC by doing offline Pro/Short races from the back of the grid, with the object being to win without touching another car. May not have produced super hotlaps, but it really helped online. SB "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I fail to see how have better peripheral vision (knowing when a car > is beside you) and being able to seee over a crumple hood is a bad > thing. Forcing cockpit view is just plain stupid and dangerous to > other online drivers. For road racing, I roof-race so that I can see > a little farther down the track. > > If Eldred was forcing cockpit on, I wouldn't be racing in RASCAR.

John Simmons wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > In article <WJzE9.4008$[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim" > <edwins[ REMOVE ]@[ THIS ].no> says... > > "Schooner" said: > > > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view. Use > > > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. > > > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many > > > advantage. > > > > > > That is utterly bullshit - and you know it. > > > > I fail to see how have better peripheral vision (knowing when a car > is beside you) and being able to seee over a crumple hood is a bad > thing. Forcing cockpit view is just plain stupid and dangerous to > other online drivers. For road racing, I roof-race so that I can see > a little farther down the track.

One small point: There is actually LESS peripheral vision in both bumper cam and roof cam than in the cockpit view. > > If Eldred was forcing cockpit on, I wouldn't be racing in RASCAR. Well, if he did you could just cheat, could you not? And this is the point we are trying to make. Gerry

>If I were given a choice I'd enforce cockpit-view right away.. >Why should you guys be given an advantage just because you cant seem to get >to grips with racing from the hotseat? Say if I couldnt reach 198mph at >Dega - should I be given 15 hp extra? Understandable argument. However, just tell me one thing; if you were racing me online, would you rather I race in the cockpit and crash into you every five seconds because I'm not comfortable there and have no freaking clue where the edges of the car are, etc. or giving you a great, clean race with me in the roof cam? This is about _FUN_, not realistically emulating every single little tiny detail of NASCAR Winston Cup. ----------------------------------------- Dan Belcher Webmaster, http://simcrash.fameflame.dk

I don't think it is a case of the roof cam giving an advantage over reality, I think the roof cam gives a better approximation of reality (okay, it's a little high, but it's about right on the lateral field of view). From my point of view, using the cockpit view is a DISadvantage, because you are cluttering your already tiny viewport into the world with a whole bunch of pointless eye-candy, for want of a better expression. Try building a cone out of cardboard which only allows you to see the parts of the monitor which look outside of your car from the cockpit view (kinda like an oddly-shaped telescope), go sit in your car, and drive around for a bit with your new 'Field-Of-View-Restrictor' taped to your face. Then you might realise that the only thing realistic about the cockpit view is the fact that there is a steering wheel in front of your face, and I already have one of those... I think the guys who use the cockpit view only do it because of some unconscious belief of it being more realistic. Which it is not. The roof cam is fixed to the car, like the bumper cam, but the cockpit view is free to move around, replicating the exact movements which your brain subconsciously corrects for in real life, but in real life you can lift your head up under braking (and do this without thinking about it), in the sim you have no control over your simulated head movements. Spinning on an oval is a joke from the cockpit view, while from the roof cam you can see exactly what the car is doing, and correct or stop it with minimal risk to others on the racetrack. If you guys want to run your *arcade* cockpit view, then fine, but don't try to stop us real simmers using our realistic roof cam.... Nick. Forever tongue in cheek. Take this post with a little bit of ;-D, it's not totally serious. But I thought I'd let you read all of it before I told ya... "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jeNE9.4397$[email hidden]... > Youre a roof rider too John? If there is no advantage then why use it?Ive > always felt roof riding was advantagous and should never have beenincluded > in this SIM. I will not roof-ride just so I can be competitive. Just by > saying "I can see farther" then you have an advantage. When Im running > side by side with a roof rider I must be overly cautious while the > roof-rider can clearly see where I am. This isnt an advantage?Personally > I do this to replicate as closely as possible what the RL drivers see and > feel and last I checked Ive never seen a RL driver roof-ride.... Why does > RASCAR use fixed setups then? Isnt the point to make it FAIR foreveryone?

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Mitch <==> shocked by the sheer numbers of roof-riders.. > > > "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <WJzE9.4008$[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim" > > <edwins[ REMOVE ]@[ THIS ].no> says... > > > "Schooner" said: > > > > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any

view.

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Use > > > > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run > near. > > > > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the > many > > > > advantage. > > > > > > > > > That is utterly bullshit - and you know it. > > > > > > > I fail to see how have better peripheral vision (knowing when a car > > is beside you) and being able to seee over a crumple hood is a bad > > thing. Forcing cockpit view is just plain stupid and dangerous to > > other online drivers. For road racing, I roof-race so that I can see > > a little farther down the track. > > > > If Eldred was forcing cockpit on, I wouldn't be racing in RASCAR. > >

"Obake" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3de34e21$0$12761$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim"<[email hidden]> wrote: > > >4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (ifthis > >is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > > > about lense flare. you do know that this only happens when you view it > through a camera lense? you never get lense flare in real life whiledriving > down the highway. > > lense flare in games = unrealistic = not sim. unless you go arounddriving > with a camera attached to you face? Note that it's to be forced if it's only shown in-car (which it shouldn't be, but that should be the only view...roof-cam and replays should have lens flare)... My question is, will the dirt and oil 'interact' with the light? It's one thing to drive with a decidedly dirty windshield at noon or at night...another altogether to do it at sunset or sunrise or close to it. Milhouse

"Nick" <said: > From my point of view, using the cockpit view is a DISadvantage,... BINGO! -- ed_ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- $10 says Petter Solberg wins the 2003 WRC.

"Nick" <said: BINGO! -- ed_ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- $10 says Petter Solberg wins the 2003 WRC.

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

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Ed Solheim wrote: > > > > 1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > > displayed. > > > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if

this > > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that mightgive

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > an advantage if turned on/off. > > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)] > > > > -- > > ed_ > > Agreed, Ed. I real want to see forced cockpit views enforced. ATM, there > are too many roof hugging or kite flying cheats out there. > > Gerry

You guys are absolutely right , and I to just pray that maybe this time Papy WILL include the feature where the admin can force realistic racing by BLOCKING out the arcade roof riders ! ! Then maybe their daddy's will give them a nice pocket full of quarters so they can head on back to the mall arcades where they belong ! -=JL

"Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HSsE9.210627$[email hidden]... > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view. Use > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many > advantage. > May I ask what makes you such an expert on what is or isn't an advantage on the sim racing track ? IMO anyone who thinks that roof riding, [where "little johnny" can see for friggin' miles in all directions] does not offer am UNFAIR advantage, should give himself a little shake . -=JL

"Ed Solheim" <edwins[ REMOVE ]@[ THIS ].no> wrote in message news:A9QE9.2654$[email hidden]... > "Nick" <said: > > > From my point of view, using the cockpit view is a DISadvantage,... > > BINGO! That's a selective quote, and it shifts the context of the original statement (do you work for a tabloid? ;-). QUOTE: "I don't think it is a case of the roof cam giving an advantage *over reality*...". The statement was about a realistic viewpoint. The cockpit camera gives a disadvantage compared to what is available visually in real life, it is not necessarily a disadvantage compared to the other cameras available. Imagine a game with only one drivable camera - the cockpit view. That would still give a disadvantage compared to the visual aspects of driving a car in real life, but it doesn't make it a disadvantage over any other viewpoints simply because there is no alternative viewpoint to compare to. The point is, driving from the cockpit view is actually less realistic in terms of visual input than the roof cam. Considering the main method of knowing what the car is doing in a simulator is by looking at the screen [1], whereas in real life you can feel it through your arse, it seems pointless to handicap yourself *even more* from driving the car on the limit on top of the inherent problems with simulators which we all know about. So maybe there should be a Force Roof Cam option in N2003... Stopping head-movement from the cockpit view, and allowing the user to move the camera forwards or backwards as they see fit would be a huge improvement. Not a FOV change, like in Grand Prix 3, but actually moving the camera position and camera target around until you get a natural angle for the camera, which you are comfortable driving from, will not move around inside the car, but still retains the cockpit graphics (so you can have them just off the bottom of the screen if you like). How about a hat-switch on a steering wheel so you can move your head left and right, up and down? I know in my 3D engine this is extremely simple to do; in fact, all the cameras use this arrangement, so you can get every possible angle quite easily, both inside and outside the car. Wow, this is getting quite serious for a tongue-in-cheek post... Nick. [1] Force feedback (when done properly, which only Papyrus seem to be able to do, and they still have a way to go), gives a nice feel to what the front end of the car is doing, and a force feedback brake/clutch would be amazing, especially for GPL. But visual clues give the best idea of what a simulated car is doing, which is also another reason why a viewpoint fixed to the car is better to drive with than one which is relatively free to move around the cockpit, as in N2002, and N2003 I guess.

>"Obake" <[email hidden]> wrote > lense flare in games = unrealistic = not sim. unless you go arounddriving > with a camera attached to you face? Some could argue that gaming into a virtual world gives you a pseudo-lense through that world (FOV, Focus, XYZ position) therefore it's realistic ;) But seriously, the sun glare should be there. It's realistic, you view through the car's windshield. -- -- 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...

I remember people saying it was stupid when RC2000 had it a few years ago, but when Papy decides to put it in, it's suddenly a good thing. :-) David G Fisher "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1rSE9.535$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> >"Obake" <[email hidden]> wrote > > lense flare in games = unrealistic = not sim. unless you go around > driving > > with a camera attached to you face? > > > > Some could argue that gaming into a virtual world gives you a pseudo-lense > through that world (FOV, Focus, XYZ position) therefore it's realistic ;) > > > But seriously, the sun glare should be there. It's realistic, you view > through the car's windshield. > > > > > -- > -- 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... > >

True, but glare and lens flare are not the same thing. Obake was talking about lens flare, not glare. Glare, if anything, will occlude more of your vision than a lens flare effect would. I agree that the option of a glare effect would be nice, but a lens flare effect would be silly. "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1rSE9.535$[email hidden]... > > > But seriously, the sun glare should be there. It's realistic, youview

Quoted text (12 lines)

> through the car's windshield. > > > > > -- > -- 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... > >

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:26:54 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) > wrote: > > > >ARCADE RACER!! ARCADE RACER!! > > > >Why don't you stick to Roadblasters, John? =) > > > >(I'm kidding here) > > > >Jason > > Yea, but the truth is in the jest. He already said so he can see > further down the track which is giving him an advatntage. Also the > roof view gives you a better view of the cars along side you compared > to cockpit view so it is an unfare advantage. Not my opinion, but > fact. >

The depth perception sucks in computer games. when a relatively flat road surface disappears in the distance, it looks like it just drops away.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > "Plain stupid and dangerous to other online drivers"? Not really. Allowing > the host to force things like cockpit view levels the playing field. And for online racing, it makes it *impossible* to make it back to your pit safely without asking for a tow... Thanks, but no thanks - I don't care to lose a lap simply because of someone else's sense of "realism" or "fair play". You do what you gotta do to stay in the race and on the lead lap.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> If by > roof-riding you're getting better peripheral and distance vision for less > mental investment spent on those things, then you have more "human CPU > cycles" to spend on other racing areas, which seems a clear advantage to me. > I know it takes a fair effort to read my position in heavy traffic from the > cockpit, and that's less focus I have to spend on going faster. And knowing > I won't be able to see over a crumpled hood might makes me that much more > inclined to try to avoid getting one. Which is the point.

Most of us try not to get a crumpled hood, but the plain and simple fact of the matter is that your race almost never goes as planned. Shit happens, and we get our hoods pushed up to the point that we can't see past them. I for one don't want to get flamed because I happened to run into someone because cockpits were forced on and I couldn't see past my hood because of it.

> > I fail to see how have better peripheral vision (knowing when a car > > is beside you) and being able to seee over a crumple hood is a bad > > thing. Forcing cockpit view is just plain stupid and dangerous to > > other online drivers. For road racing, I roof-race so that I cansee > > a little farther down the track. > > One small point: There is actually LESS peripheral vision in bothbumper > cam and roof cam than in the cockpit view. I will agree with the last statement. Bristol testing session.... Drive but don't move. In the cockpit view you can see some of the radatior grill of the ambulance. In roof view you cannot even see the left headlight. Norman

They won't do that because graphic updates are easier to implement. Physic re-writes, server changes etc... Take too much time and money. I am not holding my breath that the damage model or drafting model will be fixed. "Gerald Moore" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I must say it again: bring back the ability for admin to control the > race flags. > > Also, re #1, how about just come up with a realistic solution to > wallriding? > > I don't really care much about sweeter eye-candy. There is a lot of > unfulfilled potential in other areas of the game that I'd like to see > addressed, most of which has already been mentioned in rhis thread. > > I am not going to hold my breath. Well, except for the flags part. > > Gerald > > > "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > 1. Allow hosts/server-admins to turn off the wall-riding "fix" > > > > 2. Allow hosts/server-admins to force dirt/oil on wind-shield. > > > > 3. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce the number of pitcrews to be > > displayed. > > > > 4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (if

this > > is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > > > 5. Allow hosts/server-admins to enforce any [other] setting that mightgive > > an advantage if turned on/off. > > [or any other setting I might have forgotten :-)]

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

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I'd like to see the ability to define multiple server admins (aside > from just a single "Boss") and to allow them more power on the server. > Admins should be able to throw black flags, yellow flags, and red > flags as well as kicking/banning users by IP addresses and hostmasks > with support for wildcards (so you could, for example, ban *.fr or > 127.* from your server). > > Jason

That would mean they would need to code a REAL server code. I know, bring it into the 21st century. I wouldn't hold my breath. That has been asked as an addition for the last 3 years. Here is another addition: When a "Boss" or whomever starts up a race on a server. Have the server pull that persons muzzle list rather than using whatever one is on the server. That by itself would be very easy to implement. Will it be done? Doubt it...

"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, <snip> And for online racing, it makes it *impossible* to make it back to > your pit safely without asking for a tow... Thanks, but no thanks - > I don't care to lose a lap simply because of someone else's sense of > "realism" or "fair play". You do what you gotta do to stay in the > race and on the lead lap. Hmmm... Never had my hood wasted so bad I couldn't manage to crawl back to the pits, and I've been in some truly gruesome pickup races. In my defense, I have managed to bash the windshield badly enough in Rally Trophy to cause me to hop out onto the hood to finish a stage. So perhaps there's hope for me yet! While I know it has a frustration element, I think that for ALL INVOLVED to have to deal equally with racing's difficulties makes for racers who are more uniformly careful, and thus more predictable to drive close to. I have a number of online replays where there are more than a few cars running around with bashed-up hoods, and I think those drivers would've approached the races differently if they'd expected to be more inconvenienced by any accidents they got into or caused. Which I think would've made those races much better in terms of quality for all involved. In truth, the possibility of being put out by a crash not only encourages caution, but heightens the drama of close racing; it actually enriches the experience of racing. Crashes are SUPPOSED to suck, after all; especially when they're not your fault. And no problem you "run into" online will ever get close to how much they really DO suck. I have real scars to attest to that one. But as I said before, the current prediction/collision code too often makes the result of slight contacts worse than it should be. A lot of that annoying hood-crumpling just shouldn't be happening. Anyway, as long as it's an optional host/server choice, there should still be plenty of races without POV and other similar restrictions for those who don't like them. Obviously, some don't! ;-) SB

<"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote > True, but glare and lens flare are not the same thing. Obake was > talking about lens flare, not glare. Glare, if anything, will occlude > more of your vision than a lens flare effect would. I agree that the > option of a glare effect would be nice, but a lens flare effect would be > silly. Indeed. Papyrus still hasn't said anything about lens flare except for external views in those screenshots. Nobody can assume they will be for the cockpit driving view. I speculate they will only be for external views (Replay cameras) therefore making them realistic. -- -- 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...

"John Simmons" wrote: > > And for online racing, it makes it *impossible* to make it back to > your pit safely without asking for a tow... Thanks, but no thanks - > I don't care to lose a lap simply because of someone else's sense of > "realism" or "fair play". You do what you gotta do to stay in the > race and on the lead lap. This is exacly why I want to enforce this. Why should you be allowed to race back to the pit's when others can't? Should the other drivers be "penalized" just because another drive cant cope with the limits of racing from within the car? -- ed_

"Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:qtQE9.2162$[email hidden]... > > May I ask what makes you such an expert on what is or isn't anadvantage > on the sim racing track ? > > IMO anyone who thinks that roof riding, [where "little johnny" can seefor > friggin' miles in all directions] does not offer am UNFAIR advantage,should > give himself a little shake . > > -=JL > > So, just because you can SEE "for friggin' miles" as you so eloquently put it, do you actually think that, that person can GET to that spot they are LOOKING at before a "Cage Driver" does? If you do you have a LOT to learn about Sim Racing. Given that they are both running fixed setup, the better driver will always get there first irregardless of which View he is using. And if it is open setup it is opened up to even more variables, none of which include which view either of them are using. Just because you can SEE it doesnt mean you can GET there any faster. - Isotrip�

Exactly, each view has advantages/disadvantages over the others but no one view gives an unfair advantage to any driver IMHO. I have raced in leagues where the choice is up to the driver and no one view seems to win all the races, in fact it is pretty equal among all views with the top 10 always being a mix. The cockpit view has a wider field of vision than the roof and also provides more feedback due to the movement of the car that is displayed, the roof view is a bit higher but has less field of view, the chase view has a wide field of view but is too high for some and there is less sense of speed or feel for the car. Leagues that want to enforce a view are fine by me but as for the whole realism thing I don't think cockpit view makes it any more real than say roof view. It is a personal preference. I would never enforce it in my league nor would I run in a league that did. Typically those that want to enforce the cockpit view are those that have run it for years and thus are use to it and have an advantage. Personally I like the variety and to me the roof view is a more real vision of reality. "Norman Black" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:as1ejv$39i$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > > I fail to see how have better peripheral vision (knowing when a car > > > is beside you) and being able to seee over a crumple hood is a bad > > > thing. Forcing cockpit view is just plain stupid and dangerous to > > > other online drivers. For road racing, I roof-race so that I can > see > > > a little farther down the track. > > > > One small point: There is actually LESS peripheral vision in both > bumper > > cam and roof cam than in the cockpit view. > > I will agree with the last statement. > > Bristol testing session.... Drive but don't move. > In the cockpit view you can see some of the radatior grill of the > ambulance. In roof view you cannot even see the left headlight. > > Norman > >

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <[email hidden]>, > > <snip> And for online racing, it makes it *impossible* to make it back to > > your pit safely without asking for a tow... Thanks, but no thanks - > > I don't care to lose a lap simply because of someone else's sense of > > "realism" or "fair play". You do what you gotta do to stay in the > > race and on the lead lap. > > Hmmm... Never had my hood wasted so bad I couldn't manage to crawl back to > the pits, and I've been in some truly gruesome pickup races. In my defense, > I have managed to bash the windshield badly enough in Rally Trophy to cause > me to hop out onto the hood to finish a stage. So perhaps there's hope for > me yet! > > While I know it has a frustration element, I think that for ALL INVOLVED to > have to deal equally with racing's difficulties makes for racers who are > more uniformly careful, and thus more predictable to drive close to.

I don't have a problem with driving safely, and I don't think you'll find too many (if any) folks in RASCAR that wouldn't go side-by-side with me, and I'm a roof-rider.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "John Simmons" wrote: > > > > And for online racing, it makes it *impossible* to make it back to > > your pit safely without asking for a tow... Thanks, but no thanks - > > I don't care to lose a lap simply because of someone else's sense of > > "realism" or "fair play". You do what you gotta do to stay in the > > race and on the lead lap. > > This is exacly why I want to enforce this. Why should you be allowed to race > back to the pit's when others can't? > Should the other drivers be "penalized" just because another drive cant cope > with the limits of racing from within the car?

I don't see it as penalizing other drivers. I think that the in-car view is wholly unrealistic itself - I've driven a cup car and you have a lot more vision out the front than we get in the sim. They say that the POV in NR2K3 will be adjustable when in cockpit mode, and I'll probably go back to cockpit mode if i think the POV is adequate, but if not, I'm staying on the roof.

"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... <snip>They say that the POV in NR2K3 will be adjustable when in cockpit mode, and I'll probably go back to cockpit mode if i think the POV is adequate, but if not, I'm staying on the roof. That's good to hear; I agree it is overly restrictive. I actually messed around with changing the FOV to a wider angle (82 vs the std 78) to improve my in-car peripheral vision and enhance the sense of speed, but the tracks ended up looking weird, so I went back to the original settings. Now if they'll just tweak the code a bit to make rubbin' a little more do-able, we'll all be happy! SB

Fine and I said if it was forced that I had no issue with that and was against cheats. I just pointed out that cockpit view wasn't the be all and end all. I guess I'll just go one being a twit and let you guys run the group and dictate what is "real". "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Schooner wrote: > > > > Whatever guys. Drive how you like, I don't care. > > So using a shifter is an advantage as well, how you plan to controlthat?

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > No need to control it! It's bloody well more realistic, you twit! :) If > people want to spend money on hardware that makes sim racing more > realistic, that great, good on 'em. > > > What about a fast PC and larger monitor? Racing frame and seat? ;) > > What about it? > > I just want forced cockpit views that cannot be worked around by cheats! > What's wrong with that? > > I wouldn't mind forced shifter servers, or even forced heel & toe > servers. I want my racing to be as close to the real thing as possible, > and I'd like to be able to offer a server with a level playing field for > others that like the more hardcore approach too.

Fine then you win. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Schooner wrote: > > > > Fine and I said if it was forced that I had no issue with that and was > > against cheats. I just pointed out that cockpit view wasn't the be alland

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > end all. I guess I'll just go one being a twit and let you guys run the > > group and dictate what is "real". > > Just admit roof view gives you an unrealistic advantage in being able to > over a bent hood and further ahead. Could you do that? > > Gerry

Gerry, I know you try hard to make your point and prove other wrong but the next time you quote me how about using a quote from me as opposed to someone else and then saying I contradicted myself. What you list as my quote from the other day is not from me at all but from John Simmons: > > I fail to see how have better peripheral vision (knowing when a car > > is beside you) and being able to seee over a crumple hood is a bad > > thing. Forcing cockpit view is just plain stupid and dangerous to > > other online drivers. For road racing, I roof-race so that I can see > > a little farther down the track. Any reason for doing this other than to confuse the subject? please next time don't misquote people to make your point. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Schooner wrote: > > > > Exactly, each view has advantages/disadvantages over the others but noone > > view gives an unfair advantage to any driver IMHO. > > Rubbish! > > > I have raced in leagues > > where the choice is up to the driver and no one view seems to win allthe > > races, in fact it is pretty equal among all views with the top 10 always > > being a mix. The cockpit view has a wider field of vision than the roofand

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > also provides more feedback due to the movement of the car that is > > displayed, the roof view is a bit higher but has less field of view, > > Make your mind up, you were saying this the other day: > > Schooner wrote, only just the other day, that roof cam has better > peripheral vision: > > > I fail to see how have better peripheral vision (knowing when a car > > is beside you) and being able to seee over a crumple hood is a bad > > thing. Forcing cockpit view is just plain stupid and dangerous to > > other online drivers. For road racing, I roof-race so that I can see > > a little farther down the track. > > The only thing that is 'plain stupid' is you. > > But back to you present: > > > the > > chase view has a wide field of view but is too high for some and there

is

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > less sense of speed or feel for the car. > > Leagues that want to enforce a view are fine by me > > Me too. > > > but as for the whole > > realism thing I don't think cockpit view makes it any more real than say > > roof view. > > But you can see over a bent hood in roof cam, and that is unrealistic. > > > It is a personal preference. I would never enforce it in my > > league nor would I run in a league that did. > > Your choice, and of course the cheats can just do what they like ATM. > > > Typically those that want to > > enforce the cockpit view are those that have run it for years and thus

are

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > use to it and have an advantage. > > Yep, I've been driving my real car that way for years, so I guess I > guilty. <ROLLS EYES> > > > Personally I like the variety and to me > > the roof view is a more real vision of reality. > > Apart from the ability to look over the hood, further down the track and > over the car in front! Your reality is different to mine, obviously. > <ROLLS EYE AGAIN> > > Gerry

Schooner wrote: > > Whatever guys. Drive how you like, I don't care. > So using a shifter is an advantage as well, how you plan to control that? No need to control it! It's bloody well more realistic, you twit! :) If people want to spend money on hardware that makes sim racing more realistic, that great, good on 'em. > What about a fast PC and larger monitor? Racing frame and seat? ;) What about it? I just want forced cockpit views that cannot be worked around by cheats! What's wrong with that? I wouldn't mind forced shifter servers, or even forced heel & toe servers. I want my racing to be as close to the real thing as possible, and I'd like to be able to offer a server with a level playing field for others that like the more hardcore approach too.

Schooner wrote: > > Exactly, each view has advantages/disadvantages over the others but no one > view gives an unfair advantage to any driver IMHO. Rubbish! > I have raced in leagues > where the choice is up to the driver and no one view seems to win all the > races, in fact it is pretty equal among all views with the top 10 always > being a mix. The cockpit view has a wider field of vision than the roof and > also provides more feedback due to the movement of the car that is > displayed, the roof view is a bit higher but has less field of view, Make your mind up, you were saying this the other day: Schooner wrote, only just the other day, that roof cam has better peripheral vision: > I fail to see how have better peripheral vision (knowing when a car > is beside you) and being able to seee over a crumple hood is a bad > thing. Forcing cockpit view is just plain stupid and dangerous to > other online drivers. For road racing, I roof-race so that I can see > a little farther down the track. The only thing that is 'plain stupid' is you. But back to you present: > the > chase view has a wide field of view but is too high for some and there is > less sense of speed or feel for the car. > Leagues that want to enforce a view are fine by me Me too. > but as for the whole > realism thing I don't think cockpit view makes it any more real than say > roof view. But you can see over a bent hood in roof cam, and that is unrealistic. > It is a personal preference. I would never enforce it in my > league nor would I run in a league that did. Your choice, and of course the cheats can just do what they like ATM. > Typically those that want to > enforce the cockpit view are those that have run it for years and thus are > use to it and have an advantage. Yep, I've been driving my real car that way for years, so I guess I guilty. <ROLLS EYES> > Personally I like the variety and to me > the roof view is a more real vision of reality. Apart from the ability to look over the hood, further down the track and over the car in front! Your reality is different to mine, obviously. <ROLLS EYE AGAIN> Gerry

Schooner wrote: > > Fine and I said if it was forced that I had no issue with that and was > against cheats. I just pointed out that cockpit view wasn't the be all and > end all. I guess I'll just go one being a twit and let you guys run the > group and dictate what is "real". Just admit roof view gives you an unrealistic advantage in being able to over a bent hood and further ahead. Could you do that? Gerry

Yes ! , and I would like to "eloquently" add......... there's no such word as "irregardless" ! ! -=JL "Isotrip�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > "Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:qtQE9.2162$[email hidden]... > > > > May I ask what makes you such an expert on what is or isn't an > advantage > > on the sim racing track ? > > > > IMO anyone who thinks that roof riding, [where "little johnny" can see > for > > friggin' miles in all directions] does not offer am UNFAIR advantage, > should > > give himself a little shake . > > > > -=JL > > > > > > So, just because you can SEE "for friggin' miles" as you so eloquently put > it, do you actually think that, that person can GET to that spot they are > LOOKING at before a "Cage Driver" does? If you do you have a LOT to learn > about Sim Racing. Given that they are both running fixed setup, the better > driver will always get there first irregardless of which View he is using. > And if it is open setup it is opened up to even more variables, none of > which include which view either of them are using. Just because you can

SEE > it doesnt mean you can GET there any faster. > > - Isotrip� > >

Actually irregardless is a word and means the same thign as regardless. It is a common misconception that it is not a real english word however that is not correct. Although I'm sure Mr Aitken will quote me as saying differently ;-) From http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary: Main Entry: ir�re�gard�less Pronunciation: "ir-i-'g�rd-l&s Function: adverb Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless Date: circa 1912 nonstandard : REGARDLESS usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. "Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Fo7F9.4029$[email hidden]... > > Yes ! , and I would like to "eloquently" add......... there's no suchword

Quoted text (17 lines)

> as "irregardless" ! ! > > -=JL > > > > "Isotrip�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:qtQE9.2162$[email hidden]... > > > > > > May I ask what makes you such an expert on what is or isn't an > > advantage > > > on the sim racing track ? > > > > > > IMO anyone who thinks that roof riding, [where "little johnny" can

see

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > for > > > friggin' miles in all directions] does not offer am UNFAIR advantage, > > should > > > give himself a little shake . > > > > > > -=JL > > > > > > > > > > So, just because you can SEE "for friggin' miles" as you so eloquently

put > > it, do you actually think that, that person can GET to that spot theyare > > LOOKING at before a "Cage Driver" does? If you do you have a LOT tolearn > > about Sim Racing. Given that they are both running fixed setup, thebetter > > driver will always get there first irregardless of which View he isusing.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > And if it is open setup it is opened up to even more variables, none of > > which include which view either of them are using. Just because you can > SEE > > it doesnt mean you can GET there any faster. > > > > - Isotrip� > > > > > >

Schooner wrote: > > Gerry, > > I know you try hard to make your point and prove other wrong but the next > time you quote me how about using a quote from me as opposed to someone else > and then saying I contradicted myself. Your quit write, of course. I made an honest mistake, very sorry about that. Gerry

Gerry Aitken wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Schooner wrote: > > > > Gerry, > > > > I know you try hard to make your point and prove other wrong but the next > > time you quote me how about using a quote from me as opposed to someone else > > and then saying I contradicted myself. > > Your quit write, of course. I made an honest mistake, very sorry about > that. > > Gerry

QUITE RIGHT

John Simmons wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:26:54 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) > > wrote: > > > > > > >ARCADE RACER!! ARCADE RACER!! > > > > > >Why don't you stick to Roadblasters, John? =) > > > > > >(I'm kidding here) > > > > > >Jason > > > > Yea, but the truth is in the jest. He already said so he can see > > further down the track which is giving him an advatntage. Also the > > roof view gives you a better view of the cars along side you compared > > to cockpit view so it is an unfare advantage. Not my opinion, but > > fact. > > > > The depth perception sucks in computer games. when a relatively flat > road surface disappears in the distance, it looks like it just drops > away.

Irrelevant, but anyway... I think you mean, it sucks on small monitors. Try a large monitor, fresnal lens, 3D glasses and you'll find it won't. Gerry

"Try a large monitor, fresnal lens, 3D glasses and you'll find it won't." But wouldn't that be cheating ;-) "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (33 lines)

> John Simmons wrote: > > > > In article <[email hidden]>, > > [email hidden] says... > > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:26:54 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >ARCADE RACER!! ARCADE RACER!! > > > > > > > >Why don't you stick to Roadblasters, John? =) > > > > > > > >(I'm kidding here) > > > > > > > >Jason > > > > > > Yea, but the truth is in the jest. He already said so he can see > > > further down the track which is giving him an advatntage. Also the > > > roof view gives you a better view of the cars along side you compared > > > to cockpit view so it is an unfare advantage. Not my opinion, but > > > fact. > > > > > > > The depth perception sucks in computer games. when a relatively flat > > road surface disappears in the distance, it looks like it just drops > > away. > > Irrelevant, but anyway... > > I think you mean, it sucks on small monitors. Try a large monitor, > fresnal lens, 3D glasses and you'll find it won't. > > Gerry

No problem. We all seem to get too caught up in these discussions and focus on calling people names and shooting them down that the point is lost. Driving view is just one of the touchy topics here. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Schooner wrote: > > > > Gerry, > > > > I know you try hard to make your point and prove other wrong but thenext > > time you quote me how about using a quote from me as opposed to someoneelse > > and then saying I contradicted myself. > > Your quit write, of course. I made an honest mistake, very sorry about > that. > > Gerry

Schooner wrote: > > Actually irregardless is a word and means the same thign as regardless. It > is a common misconception that it is not a real english word however that is > not correct. Although I'm sure Mr Aitken will quote me as saying > differently ;-) Not this time, mate. :) Gerry

Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. BTW is there anything you're NOT an expert on ? -=JL "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Wx7F9.213288$[email hidden]... > Actually irregardless is a word and means the same thign as regardless.It > is a common misconception that it is not a real english word however thatis

Quoted text (12 lines)

> not correct. Although I'm sure Mr Aitken will quote me as saying > differently ;-) > > From http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary: > > Main Entry: ir�re�gard�less > Pronunciation: "ir-i-'g�rd-l&s > Function: adverb > Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless > Date: circa 1912 > nonstandard : REGARDLESS > usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early

20th > century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of > usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark > about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however.It > is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to > time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and itis

Quoted text (27 lines)

> still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. > > "Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Fo7F9.4029$[email hidden]... > > > > Yes ! , and I would like to "eloquently" add......... there's no such > word > > as "irregardless" ! ! > > > > -=JL > > > > > > > > "Isotrip�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:qtQE9.2162$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > May I ask what makes you such an expert on what is or isn't an > > > advantage > > > > on the sim racing track ? > > > > > > > > IMO anyone who thinks that roof riding, [where "little johnny" can > see > > > for > > > > friggin' miles in all directions] does not offer am UNFAIR

advantage,

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > should > > > > give himself a little shake . > > > > > > > > -=JL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, just because you can SEE "for friggin' miles" as you so eloquently > put > > > it, do you actually think that, that person can GET to that spot they > are > > > LOOKING at before a "Cage Driver" does? If you do you have a LOT to > learn > > > about Sim Racing. Given that they are both running fixed setup, the > better > > > driver will always get there first irregardless of which View he is > using. > > > And if it is open setup it is opened up to even more variables, none

of > > > which include which view either of them are using. Just because youcan

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > SEE > > > it doesnt mean you can GET there any faster. > > > > > > - Isotrip� > > > > > > > > > > > >

Jim Locking wrote: > > Yes ! , and I would like to "eloquently" add......... there's no such word > as "irregardless" ! ! Well actually...

Schooner wrote: > > "Try a large monitor, fresnal lens, 3D glasses and you'll find it won't." > > But wouldn't that be cheating ;-) Hehe, no, that would be more realistic. :) Gerry

Many things. I only speak on those I know about. "Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lT7F9.4095$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is > still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. > > BTW is there anything you're NOT an expert on ? > > -=JL > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Wx7F9.213288$[email hidden]... > > Actually irregardless is a word and means the same thign as regardless. > It > > is a common misconception that it is not a real english word however

that

Quoted text (15 lines)

> is > > not correct. Although I'm sure Mr Aitken will quote me as saying > > differently ;-) > > > > From http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary: > > > > Main Entry: ir�re�gard�less > > Pronunciation: "ir-i-'g�rd-l&s > > Function: adverb > > Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless > > Date: circa 1912 > > nonstandard : REGARDLESS > > usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early > 20th > > century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention

of > > usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark > > about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. > It > > is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to > > time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, andit

Quoted text (25 lines)

> is > > still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. > > > > "Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Fo7F9.4029$[email hidden]... > > > > > > Yes ! , and I would like to "eloquently" add......... there's no such > > word > > > as "irregardless" ! ! > > > > > > -=JL > > > > > > > > > > > > "Isotrip�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > "Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:qtQE9.2162$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > May I ask what makes you such an expert on what is or isn't an > > > > advantage > > > > > on the sim racing track ? > > > > > > > > > > IMO anyone who thinks that roof riding, [where "little johnny"

can

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > see > > > > for > > > > > friggin' miles in all directions] does not offer am UNFAIR > advantage, > > > > should > > > > > give himself a little shake . > > > > > > > > > > -=JL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, just because you can SEE "for friggin' miles" as you so

eloquently > > put > > > > it, do you actually think that, that person can GET to that spotthey

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > are > > > > LOOKING at before a "Cage Driver" does? If you do you have a LOT to > > learn > > > > about Sim Racing. Given that they are both running fixed setup, the > > better > > > > driver will always get there first irregardless of which View he is > > using. > > > > And if it is open setup it is opened up to even more variables, none > of > > > > which include which view either of them are using. Just because you > can > > > SEE > > > > it doesnt mean you can GET there any faster. > > > > > > > > - Isotrip� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Schooner wrote: > > No problem. We all seem to get too caught up in these discussions and focus > on calling people names and shooting them down that the point is lost. > Driving view is just one of the touchy topics here. Thanks, you're a gentleman. Gerry

"Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Fo7F9.4029$[email hidden]... > > Yes ! , and I would like to "eloquently" add......... there's no suchword > as "irregardless" ! ! > > -=JL > > > I shall continue to use any word that actually IS a word thanks very much... And is that all you can use as a rebuttal? An incorrect Grammar issue? *shaking my head* ;-) - Isotrip�

How about some right hand bends, and maybe even proper racing cars? They could call it Grand Prix Legends 2 -- Some Call Me Tim

Wasn't there a Springer episode about the men who roof ride and the women who love them? -Tim "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jeNE9.4397$[email hidden]... > Youre a roof rider too John? If there is no advantage then why use it?Ive > always felt roof riding was advantagous and should never have beenincluded > in this SIM. I will not roof-ride just so I can be competitive. Just by > saying "I can see farther" then you have an advantage. When Im running > side by side with a roof rider I must be overly cautious while the > roof-rider can clearly see where I am. This isnt an advantage?Personally > I do this to replicate as closely as possible what the RL drivers see and > feel and last I checked Ive never seen a RL driver roof-ride.... Why does > RASCAR use fixed setups then? Isnt the point to make it FAIR foreveryone? > > Mitch <==> shocked by the sheer numbers of roof-riders.. >

What's the difference between a lense and a windshield? "Obake" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3de34e21$0$12761$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim"<[email hidden]> wrote: > > >4. Allow hosts/server-admins to force sun-glare/lens flare/shadows (ifthis > >is something you see in the car and not just on replays.) > > > > about lense flare. you do know that this only happens when you view it > through a camera lense? you never get lense flare in real life whiledriving > down the highway. > > lense flare in games = unrealistic = not sim. unless you go arounddriving > with a camera attached to you face?

It is a misnomer the N2002 has virtual head movement. I race from the cockpit because it's THE ONLY FRICKIN WAY I CAN TELL WHAT THE CAR'S DOING! If you watch closely, your view remains locked in relation to the track. What you see is the movement of the car on the track, not your head in the car. Subtle but important difference. CMR1 had virtual head movement and was undriveable (IMO) because of it. Don't know about the sequels - never tried them. People can use whatever view they want as far as I'm concerned. Whatever works for them. I'd rather race them clean than not at all or stuggle and wreck. The seeing further down the road argument means nothing as soon as you know a track, and I've never raced a track online that I didn't know... Regards, Mark Reading, UK

> I shall continue to use any word that actually IS a word thanks verymuch... > I'm sure you would, .... doing things incorrectly really would go hand in hand with the distorted ideas of an arcade roof rider ! But I would like to add one thing that just occurred to me and would support your roof rider theory..... If Dale Earnhardt had been roof riding when he hit the wall at Daytona, he would be alive today ! Heck , he would have just sailed right on by and watched the whole thing from 40 feet up ! ! LOL * shaking my head * -=JL

"Mark Davison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:as36on$blv$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> It is a misnomer the N2002 has virtual head movement. > > I race from the cockpit because it's THE ONLY FRICKIN WAY I CAN TELL WHAT > THE CAR'S DOING! > > If you watch closely, your view remains locked in relation to the track. > What you see is the movement of the car on the track, not your head in the > car. Subtle but important difference. CMR1 had virtual head movement and > was undriveable (IMO) because of it. Don't know about the sequels - never > tried them.

No, this is not the case, because sometimes I have hit the barrier really hard at Sears and my 'virtual head' has ended up over the top of the steering wheel. I thought that was extremely odd, because if you are strapped into the car tight, your head can't move forwards as much as it does in this situation. I watched the replay to check. The view definitely wasn't locked to the track because the car had stopped moving when it hit the barrier, and it didn't really bounce away much, but my 'virtual head' kept moving forwards, into the barrier, then returned to centre exactly as if it was modelled as a spring (the further the distance from the rest point, the larger the force trying to return it there). The only reason I remember this is because it stood out so blatantly...

"Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5haF9.64125$e%[email hidden]... > If Dale Earnhardt had been roof riding when he hit the wall at Daytona,he > would be alive today ! Heck , he would have just sailed right on by and > watched the whole thing from 40 feet up ! ! LOL Just a small point. Dale Earnhardt was driving a race car at a race track. We are sitting at home looking at a rectangle with glowing dots on it, holding a plastic circular tube which occasionally shakes, pressing down on two rectangular pieces of plastic which always seem to be designed to move in exactly the way that real pedals don't. Not to mention, if he'd been sat on the roof, he wouldn't have been able to reach the throttle and so wouldn't have crashed....

"Some Call Me Tim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > How about some right hand bends, and maybe even proper racing cars? > > They could call it Grand Prix Legends 2 Blasphemy! Why take the best physics engine around and model something fun with it? <g> N2003 should have about 15 right turns anyway, don't know what you are complaining about... PS/ Don't tell anybody, but I'm with you all the way!

WhooooooooosssssSSShhHHH !! LOL -=JL "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:as3npp$mvbtn$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5haF9.64125$e%[email hidden]... > > If Dale Earnhardt had been roof riding when he hit the wall at Daytona, > he > > would be alive today ! Heck , he would have just sailed right on by and > > watched the whole thing from 40 feet up ! ! LOL > > Just a small point. Dale Earnhardt was driving a race car at a race track. > We are sitting at home looking at a rectangle with glowing dots on it, > holding a plastic circular tube which occasionally shakes, pressing down

on > two rectangular pieces of plastic which always seem to be designed to move > in exactly the way that real pedals don't. > > Not to mention, if he'd been sat on the roof, he wouldn't have been ableto > reach the throttle and so wouldn't have crashed.... > > >

That happened because you didn't wear your "Virtual HANS" device. :-) "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:as3n7n$nmnef$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > No, this is not the case, because sometimes I have hit the barrier really > hard at Sears and my 'virtual head' has ended up over the top of the > steering wheel. I thought that was extremely odd, because if you are > strapped into the car tight, your head can't move forwards as much as it > does in this situation. I watched the replay to check. The view definitely > wasn't locked to the track because the car had stopped moving when it hit > the barrier, and it didn't really bounce away much, but my 'virtual head' > kept moving forwards, into the barrier, then returned to centre exactly as > if it was modelled as a spring (the further the distance from the rest > point, the larger the force trying to return it there). > > The only reason I remember this is because it stood out so blatantly... > > >

Refraction. "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > What's the difference between a lense and a windshield? >

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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Gerry Aitken wrote: > > > > Schooner wrote: > > > > > > Gerry, > > > > > > I know you try hard to make your point and prove other wrong but the

next > > > time you quote me how about using a quote from me as opposed tosomeone else

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > and then saying I contradicted myself. > > > > Your quit write, of course. I made an honest mistake, very sorry about > > that. > > > > Gerry > > QUITE RIGHT >

No problem with the "Your" ?

"Mike White" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NkjF9.4658$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Gerry Aitken wrote: > > > > > > Schooner wrote: > > > > > > > > Gerry, > > > > > > > > I know you try hard to make your point and prove other wrong but the > next > > > > time you quote me how about using a quote from me as opposed to > someone else > > > > and then saying I contradicted myself. > > > > > > Your quit write, of course. I made an honest mistake, very sorry about > > > that. > > > > > > Gerry > > > > QUITE RIGHT > > > > > No problem with the "Your" ? > >

Give a guy a break why don't ya. ;O) Elrikk

"Champ" <nofrigginway@iwantspam> wrote in message news:as471g$k1v$[email hidden]... > That happened because you didn't wear your "Virtual HANS" device. :-) Lol!

"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > What's the difference between a lense and a windshield? Windshield begins with a 'W'. Lense doesn't.

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:as3n7n$nmnef$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> No, this is not the case, because sometimes I have hit the barrier really > hard at Sears and my 'virtual head' has ended up over the top of the > steering wheel. I thought that was extremely odd, because if you are > strapped into the car tight, your head can't move forwards as much as it > does in this situation. I watched the replay to check. The view definitely > wasn't locked to the track because the car had stopped moving when it hit > the barrier, and it didn't really bounce away much, but my 'virtual head' > kept moving forwards, into the barrier, then returned to centre exactly as > if it was modelled as a spring (the further the distance from the rest > point, the larger the force trying to return it there).

This is something I have *never* witnessed. I have witnessed my car go half way through a barrier and spring right on back, though. All I can think of is that it was just a case of graphics trying to catchup in an extreme situation. I stand by my own experience :-) It feels to me like what you see is a solid view in relation to the track with car movement modeled around it. This method may produce some peculiar effects under extreme conditions. There's obviously a bit more to it than I've stated, as the view isn't locked to the track when you get airbourne, but I don't think there's any fancy modeling of g-forces on your noggin going on. Papy have *nailed* visual feedback from cockpit view since GPL, IMO. As they say, YMMV. I obviously get more mileage out of the cockpit view than you. I said in an earlier post that I could not give a monkey's what view others use, although I don't comprehend how they get any feedback about what the car is doing outside - I know I can't. Whatever floats your boat. Regards, Mark Reading, UK

"Mark Davison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:as5fl9$94g$[email hidden]... > As they say, YMMV. I obviously get more mileage out of the cockpit view > than you. I said in an earlier post that I could not give a monkey's what > view others use, although I don't comprehend how they get any feedbackabout > what the car is doing outside - I know I can't. Whatever floats yourboat. Exactly the same with me. I don't understand how people using the cockpit view can get a feel for exactly how the car is moving, because the roof cam is fixed to the car, but the cockpit view moves around. But it doesn't make any difference to me whatsoever which view you choose, until somebody tries to complain that I am cheating (not you saying that, by the way, other people).

Ed Solheim wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > "John Simmons" wrote: > > > > And for online racing, it makes it *impossible* to make it back to > > your pit safely without asking for a tow... Thanks, but no thanks - > > I don't care to lose a lap simply because of someone else's sense of > > "realism" or "fair play". You do what you gotta do to stay in the > > race and on the lead lap. > > This is exacly why I want to enforce this. Why should you be allowed to race > back to the pit's when others can't? > Should the other drivers be "penalized" just because another drive cant cope > with the limits of racing from within the car? > > -- > ed_

I agree, Ed.

John Simmons wrote: > Most of us try not to get a crumpled hood, but the plain and simple > fact of the matter is that your race almost never goes as planned. > Shit happens, and we get our hoods pushed up to the point that we > can't see past them. I for one don't want to get flamed because I > happened to run into someone because cockpits were forced on and I > couldn't see past my hood because of it. Roof view is an over compensation, and it's unrealistic in the above situation. That's a fact, and I think it's only your childish lack of reason which is stopping you from agreeing with me. If it's not safe to drive, then call the tow truck. Gerry

Steve Blankenship wrote: <SNIP> > Anyway, as long as it's an optional host/server choice, there should still > be plenty of races without POV and other similar restrictions for those who > don't like them. Obviously, some don't! ;-) A cheat proof option is all we want. In truth, I'd like to see all out side views ditched, but given the mentality of the average purchaser, this will never happen. Gerry

:-| Back to name calling are we? I think it's time to give this whole thread up. Seems all people want to do is sling mud and call names on this topic. If they want to remove all other views then fine, I have had people state already they will quit racing if they do that. The cockpit view is not want everyone wants from a sim. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve Blankenship wrote: > > <SNIP> > > > Anyway, as long as it's an optional host/server choice, there shouldstill > > be plenty of races without POV and other similar restrictions for thosewho

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > don't like them. Obviously, some don't! ;-) > > A cheat proof option is all we want. In truth, I'd like to see all out > side views ditched, but given the mentality of the average purchaser, > this will never happen. > > Gerry

"Jim Locking" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aGfF9.8412$[email hidden]... > WhooooooooosssssSSShhHHH !! LOL Was that Dale flying over my head??? By the way, > > Not to mention, if he'd been sat on the roof, he wouldn't have been able > > to reach the throttle and so wouldn't have crashed.... Did you not notice the inherent irony in that statement?

In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> writes: >I think you mean, it sucks on small monitors. Try a large monitor, >fresnal lens, 3D glasses and you'll find it won't. What size monitor do you think is good? Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <odNE9.4190$[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim" <edwins[ REMOVE ]@[ THIS ].no> writes: >> If Eldred was forcing cockpit on, I wouldn't be racing in RASCAR. > >If I were given a choice I'd enforce cockpit-view right away.. Actually, the first few races I hosted DID have forced cockpit. I changed that because I got tired of the arguments. I drive in the cockpit, and hope that everyone does, but I decided not to force it... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Dan Belcher) writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Understandable argument. However, just tell me one thing; if you were racing >me online, would you rather I race in the cockpit and crash into you every >five >seconds because I'm not comfortable there and have no freaking clue where the >edges of the car are, etc. or giving you a great, clean race with me in the >roof cam? This is about _FUN_, not realistically emulating every single >little >tiny detail of NASCAR Winston Cup.

Truthfully, I'd expect you to practice enough to GET comfortable with it... :-) Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

>> If Eldred was forcing***pit on, I wouldn't be racing in RASCAR. >If I were given a choice I'd enforce***pit-view right away.. Actually, the first few races I hosted DID have forced***pit. I changed that because I got tired of the arguments. I drive in the***pit, and hope that everyone does, but I decided not to force it... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >I think you mean, it sucks on small monitors. Try a large monitor, > >fresnal lens, 3D glasses and you'll find it won't. > > What size monitor do you think is good?

19" = Good 22" = Excellent 25" = Superb IMO, of course. Gerry

Schooner wrote: > > :-| > > Back to name calling are we? Who am I calling names? > I think it's time to give this whole thread > up. Seems all people want to do is sling mud and call names on this topic. > If they want to remove all other views then fine, I have had people state > already they will quit racing if they do that. The cockpit view is not want > everyone wants from a sim. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. IMO, outside views are unrealistic and they encourage an unrealistic racing mentality. But as long as we can keep roof riders out of our servers, i'm happy with that. Gerry

In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> What size monitor do you think is good? > >19" = Good > >22" = Excellent > >25" = Superb

Damn, I only have a 17" monitor - that's not even on your SCALE... :-( Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >> What size monitor do you think is good? > > > >19" = Good > > > >22" = Excellent > > > >25" = Superb > > Damn, I only have a 17" monitor - that's not even on your SCALE... :-(

17" = Adequate. :)

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

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Schooner wrote: > > > > :-| > > > > Back to name calling are we? > > Who am I calling names? > > > I think it's time to give this whole thread > > up. Seems all people want to do is sling mud and call names on this

topic. > > If they want to remove all other views then fine, I have had peoplestate > > already they will quit racing if they do that. The cockpit view is notwant

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > everyone wants from a sim. > > You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. IMO, outside > views are unrealistic and they encourage an unrealistic racing > mentality. But as long as we can keep roof riders out of our servers, > i'm happy with that. > > Gerry >

Can you elaborate on this "unrealistic racing mentality"?

Mike White wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Schooner wrote: > > > > > > :-| > > > > > > Back to name calling are we? > > > > Who am I calling names? > > > > > I think it's time to give this whole thread > > > up. Seems all people want to do is sling mud and call names on this > topic. > > > If they want to remove all other views then fine, I have had people > state > > > already they will quit racing if they do that. The cockpit view is not > want > > > everyone wants from a sim. > > > > You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. IMO, outside > > views are unrealistic and they encourage an unrealistic racing > > mentality. But as long as we can keep roof riders out of our servers, > > i'm happy with that. > > > > Gerry > > > > Can you elaborate on this "unrealistic racing mentality"?

Yes... Because a roof rider can see over a crumpled hood, and is able to drive to the pits rather than call a tow track, he/she is likely to be more cavalier in his/her driving style. Yes/no? Gerry

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Can you elaborate on this "unrealistic racing mentality"? > > Yes... > > Because a roof rider can see over a crumpled hood, and is able to drive > to the pits rather than call a tow track, he/she is likely to be more > cavalier in his/her driving style. > > Yes/no?

No.

Well for the amount of times a crumpled hood comes into being a determining factor in the outcome of a race then this is a non issue. If your hood gets crumpled your certainly not in any position to win anyway. Yes there is an advantage to get back to the pits as it is easier to see, however if it were a real race your spotter would also help you back to the pits which they don't do in the sim. I think we can leave it at this - if a server enforces the cockpit rule then stick to that, otherwise lets use the views we want and stop degrading those that don't use the cockpit view. It's the elitest attitude of some cockpit drivers that causes this argument. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Mike White wrote: > > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Schooner wrote: > > > > > > > > :-| > > > > > > > > Back to name calling are we? > > > > > > Who am I calling names? > > > > > > > I think it's time to give this whole thread > > > > up. Seems all people want to do is sling mud and call names on this > > topic. > > > > If they want to remove all other views then fine, I have had people > > state > > > > already they will quit racing if they do that. The cockpit view is

not > > want > > > > everyone wants from a sim. > > > > > > You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. IMO,outside

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > views are unrealistic and they encourage an unrealistic racing > > > mentality. But as long as we can keep roof riders out of our servers, > > > i'm happy with that. > > > > > > Gerry > > > > > > > Can you elaborate on this "unrealistic racing mentality"? > > Yes... > > Because a roof rider can see over a crumpled hood, and is able to drive > to the pits rather than call a tow track, he/she is likely to be more > cavalier in his/her driving style. > > Yes/no? > > Gerry

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > Can you elaborate on this "unrealistic racing mentality"? > > > > Yes... > > > > Because a roof rider can see over a crumpled hood, and is able to drive > > to the pits rather than call a tow track, he/she is likely to be more > > cavalier in his/her driving style. > > > > Yes/no? > > No.

That's just the answer that best suits your case, rather than the truth.

Your also implying that roof view drivers are more reckless which is another untrue blanket statement. Do you think because they can see over a twisted hood that they don't; care if they wreck? Where I race the goal is to finish totally clean, any wreck will probably take you out of a top 5-10 even if you can see over the hood. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Nick wrote: > > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Can you elaborate on this "unrealistic racing mentality"? > > > > > > Yes... > > > > > > Because a roof rider can see over a crumpled hood, and is able to

drive

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > to the pits rather than call a tow track, he/she is likely to be more > > > cavalier in his/her driving style. > > > > > > Yes/no? > > > > No. > > That's just the answer that best suits your case, rather than the truth.

Schooner wrote: > > Well for the amount of times a crumpled hood comes into being a determining > factor in the outcome of a race then this is a non issue. It's got nothing to do with it being a win determining factor, it's very definitely a factor in over aggressive driving. > If your hood gets > crumpled your certainly not in any position to win anyway. It still unrealistic and give an advantage, you insist there is no advantage. Remember saying that? > Yes there is an advantage to get back to the pits as it is easier to see, Now we're getting somewhere. > however if it were a real race your spotter would also help you back to the > pits which they don't do in the sim. No, there is no 'however' about it, a cockpit racer cannot see to do this. > I think we can leave it at this - if a server enforces the cockpit rule then > stick to that, That's all we want. > otherwise lets use the views we want and stop degrading those > that don't use the cockpit view. Cockpit is more realistic and those that race with it show a greater skill level. > It's the elitest attitude of some cockpit > drivers that causes this argument. Well, I'm only interested in facts, and I don't care who's feeling get hurt. Don't forget, you started the whole argument in this threat when you said: Schooner wrote: > > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view. Use > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many > advantage. We were just concerned with enforcement.

> Well for the amount of times a crumpled hood comes into being a determining > factor in the outcome of a race then this is a non issue. It's got nothing to do with it being a win determining factor, it's very definitely a factor in over aggressive driving. It still unrealistic and give an advantage, you insist there is no advantage. Remember saying that? Now we're getting somewhere. No, there is no 'however' about it, a***pit racer cannot see to do this. That's all we want. Cockpit is more realistic and those that race with it show a greater skill level. Well, I'm only interested in facts, and I don't care who's feeling get hurt. Don't forget, you started the whole argument in this threat when you said: > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view. Use > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many > advantage. We were just concerned with enforcement.

Schooner wrote: > > Your also implying that roof view drivers are more reckless which is another > untrue blanket statement. Do you think because they can see over a twisted > hood that they don't; care if they wreck? Where I race the goal is to > finish totally clean, any wreck will probably take you out of a top 5-10 > even if you can see over the hood. It's a factor in the way roof racers dive.

I have never seen where roof driver is over aggressive. That is your opinion, not a fact as you seem to state it. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Schooner wrote: > > > > Well for the amount of times a crumpled hood comes into being adetermining

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > factor in the outcome of a race then this is a non issue. > > It's got nothing to do with it being a win determining factor, it's very > definitely a factor in over aggressive driving. > > > If your hood gets > > crumpled your certainly not in any position to win anyway. > > It still unrealistic and give an advantage, you insist there is no > advantage. Remember saying that? > > > Yes there is an advantage to get back to the pits as it is easier to

see, > > Now we're getting somewhere. > > > however if it were a real race your spotter would also help you back tothe > > pits which they don't do in the sim. > > No, there is no 'however' about it, a cockpit racer cannot see to do > this. > > > I think we can leave it at this - if a server enforces the cockpit rulethen

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > stick to that, > > That's all we want. > > > otherwise lets use the views we want and stop degrading those > > that don't use the cockpit view. > > Cockpit is more realistic and those that race with it show a greater > skill level. > > > It's the elitest attitude of some cockpit > > drivers that causes this argument. > > Well, I'm only interested in facts, and I don't care who's feeling get > hurt. Don't forget, you started the whole argument in this threat when > you said: > > Schooner wrote: > > > > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view.

Use > > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. > > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many > > advantage. > > We were just concerned with enforcement.

"Cockpit is more realistic and those that race with it show a greater skill level. " Hehe ok Gerry, I have nothing more to say, if that is you belief then good luck. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Schooner wrote: > > > > Well for the amount of times a crumpled hood comes into being adetermining

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > factor in the outcome of a race then this is a non issue. > > It's got nothing to do with it being a win determining factor, it's very > definitely a factor in over aggressive driving. > > > If your hood gets > > crumpled your certainly not in any position to win anyway. > > It still unrealistic and give an advantage, you insist there is no > advantage. Remember saying that? > > > Yes there is an advantage to get back to the pits as it is easier to

see, > > Now we're getting somewhere. > > > however if it were a real race your spotter would also help you back tothe > > pits which they don't do in the sim. > > No, there is no 'however' about it, a cockpit racer cannot see to do > this. > > > I think we can leave it at this - if a server enforces the cockpit rulethen

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > stick to that, > > That's all we want. > > > otherwise lets use the views we want and stop degrading those > > that don't use the cockpit view. > > Cockpit is more realistic and those that race with it show a greater > skill level. > > > It's the elitest attitude of some cockpit > > drivers that causes this argument. > > Well, I'm only interested in facts, and I don't care who's feeling get > hurt. Don't forget, you started the whole argument in this threat when > you said: > > Schooner wrote: > > > > This has been beat to death, there is no advantage of using any view.

Use > > the one that makes the driver the most comfortable and safe to run near. > > The view does little to impact the drivers performance or give the many > > advantage. > > We were just concerned with enforcement.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Mike White wrote: > > > > Can you elaborate on this "unrealistic racing mentality"? > > Yes... > > Because a roof rider can see over a crumpled hood, and is able to drive > to the pits rather than call a tow track, he/she is likely to be more > cavalier in his/her driving style. > > Yes/no? >

That's a pretty broad statement. I wouldn't call my driving style "cavalier" at all, and I don't think you'd find *anyone* in Rascar that would say otherwise.

"Schooner" > I think we can leave it at this - if a server enforces the cockpit rulethen > stick to that, otherwise lets use the views we want and stop degradingthose > that don't use the cockpit view. It's the elitest attitude of somecockpit > drivers that causes this argument. I've only been in a few 'forced cockpit' sessions, but everytime I have at least one roof rider spent the whole practice session complaining. Rather than leaving and finding another session they seem to feel it's their right to have the host boot everyone and restart the session with the option disabled. Granted Papyrus dropped the ball on this by not having some marker in the multiplayer lobby for Cockpit Only games, but the moment a non-cockpit driver(is that PC enough?) plops into a Forced session, the whining begins. And from my point of view it's not 'elitest'--Hell I'm usually very near the back of most sessions-- It is damn tough to be elitest back there....I'd rather be known as a rightest...i.e.. there is a 'right' way and a wrong way. I'll let you-all figure out which is which. I made a statement several years ago on the issue and it still stands...."I'd rather be the slowest pig in the field than gain speed by using the outside view." Non-cockpit drivers have advantage, whether they admit it or not. I don't thing they are more reckless, I don't think they are cheating. I just know what's right for me. dave henrie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Schooner wrote: > > > > Well for the amount of times a crumpled hood comes into being a determining > > factor in the outcome of a race then this is a non issue. > > It's got nothing to do with it being a win determining factor, it's very > definitely a factor in over aggressive driving.

You're so full of shit that your eyes are brown. The view you use is of no consequuence when judging someone's aggressiveness. > > > If your hood gets > > crumpled your certainly not in any position to win anyway. > > It still unrealistic and give an advantage, you insist there is no > advantage. Remember saying that? There is no spoon. > > > Yes there is an advantage to get back to the pits as it is easier to see, > > Now we're getting somewhere. He meant to say that it gives you a better chance of making it to the pits *safely*. > > however if it were a real race your spotter would also help you back to the > > pits which they don't do in the sim. > > No, there is no 'however' about it, a cockpit racer cannot see to do > this. That's his/her own problem to deal with.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > I think we can leave it at this - if a server enforces the cockpit rule then > > stick to that, > > That's all we want. > > > otherwise lets use the views we want and stop degrading those > > that don't use the cockpit view. > > Cockpit is more realistic and those that race with it show a greater > skill level.

That's a complete crock of shit. People that don't use steering, breaking of shifting help are more skilled that those that do. > > It's the elitest attitude of some cockpit > > drivers that causes this argument. Exactly. > Well, I'm only interested in facts But you haven't provided any facts. > We were just concerned with enforcement. Enforcement of what? I still don't understand why this is suich a big fucking deal. You drive cockpit mode all the time, I don't, and some folks don't use the cockpit mode at all. I'm more interested in not wrecking or being wrecked than anything else, and if someone driving in one of the externmal views lessens that possibilty, than I'm all for it. The POV setting in NR2K3 just might bring more folks into the cockpit and I agree that it would be a good thing, but I'm not going for a single second force someone to drive from a view they're not comfortable with. If a league wants to force cockpit mode, that's fine, and I certainly won't argue with their ruleset, but then again, I probably wouldn't race in that league either. Like I said before, if RASCAR forced cockpit mode, I probably wouldn't race with them either. It's a matter of choice, and your statements that people who don't use the cocckpit view "have an advantage", are "over-aggressive", "aren't as skilled" are simply the ravings of a lunatic and are complete and utter bullshit. Example: We all know that Eldred ran in tha back last season - he was almost always the slowest in practice, qual'd in the back, and raced in the back. He stated that he drove in cockpit mode. I drove in roof mode sometimes, and cockpit mode sometimes. I was ALWAYS faster that Eldred. Was I being over-aggressive? No - I gave a lot more than I took in pretty much every race, and I made amazing recoveries from some really nasty slides and spins, and unless I was taken out of contention by someone else's screw-up, I could usually be found in the top 5 at most points during any given race. Was I more skilled? I would say yes, but I think it's more of a confidence thing than anything else, and confidence is a primary factor in building skill. Did I have an advantage over all the other drivers? Most certainly not. I won one race (the one at Poconoi that we ran with no cautions) because I stayed out of trouble and DIDN'T drive so aggressively as to require two pit stops like everyone else needed.

Schooner wrote: > > "Cockpit is more realistic and those that race with it show a greater skill > level. " > > Hehe ok Gerry, I have nothing more to say, if that is you belief then good > luck. So you must think the opposite then? Roof view is not easier according to you? Way do people use it then?

John, No point trying to explain an alternate view. Seems the lines are drawn and the "elitists feel that it's cockpit or nothing and the rest of us and nothing more than 2 bit wreckers. I'm done discussing this any further as the point is lost. Some feel they are right and must belittle others to prove their point. Why people cannot drive using a view they feel comfortable with I will never know. If a server is cockpit only then that is fine, but when it comes done to trying to make those using other views less of a driver then I take issue but from now on I don't care. To each his own. "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] > says... > > Schooner wrote: > > > > > > Well for the amount of times a crumpled hood comes into being adetermining

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > > factor in the outcome of a race then this is a non issue. > > > > It's got nothing to do with it being a win determining factor, it's very > > definitely a factor in over aggressive driving. > > You're so full of shit that your eyes are brown. The view you use is > of no consequuence when judging someone's aggressiveness. > > > > > > If your hood gets > > > crumpled your certainly not in any position to win anyway. > > > > It still unrealistic and give an advantage, you insist there is no > > advantage. Remember saying that? > > There is no spoon. > > > > > > Yes there is an advantage to get back to the pits as it is easier to

see,

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > Now we're getting somewhere. > > He meant to say that it gives you a better chance of making it to the > pits *safely*. > > > > however if it were a real race your spotter would also help you back

to the

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > pits which they don't do in the sim. > > > > No, there is no 'however' about it, a cockpit racer cannot see to do > > this. > > That's his/her own problem to deal with. > > > > I think we can leave it at this - if a server enforces the cockpit

rule then

Quoted text (64 lines)

> > > stick to that, > > > > That's all we want. > > > > > otherwise lets use the views we want and stop degrading those > > > that don't use the cockpit view. > > > > Cockpit is more realistic and those that race with it show a greater > > skill level. > > That's a complete crock of shit. People that don't use steering, > breaking of shifting help are more skilled that those that do. > > > > It's the elitest attitude of some cockpit > > > drivers that causes this argument. > > Exactly. > > > Well, I'm only interested in facts > > > But you haven't provided any facts. > > > > We were just concerned with enforcement. > > > Enforcement of what? I still don't understand why this is suich a > big fucking deal. You drive cockpit mode all the time, I don't, and > some folks don't use the cockpit mode at all. I'm more interested in > not wrecking or being wrecked than anything else, and if someone > driving in one of the externmal views lessens that possibilty, than > I'm all for it. > > The POV setting in NR2K3 just might bring more folks into the cockpit > and I agree that it would be a good thing, but I'm not going for a > single second force someone to drive from a view they're not > comfortable with. If a league wants to force cockpit mode, that's > fine, and I certainly won't argue with their ruleset, but then again, > I probably wouldn't race in that league either. Like I said before, > if RASCAR forced cockpit mode, I probably wouldn't race with them > either. > > It's a matter of choice, and your statements that people who don't > use the cocckpit view "have an advantage", are "over-aggressive", > "aren't as skilled" are simply the ravings of a lunatic and are > complete and utter bullshit. > > Example: We all know that Eldred ran in tha back last season - he > was almost always the slowest in practice, qual'd in the back, and > raced in the back. He stated that he drove in cockpit mode. I drove > in roof mode sometimes, and cockpit mode sometimes. I was ALWAYS > faster that Eldred. Was I being over-aggressive? No - I gave a lot > more than I took in pretty much every race, and I made amazing > recoveries from some really nasty slides and spins, and unless I was > taken out of contention by someone else's screw-up, I could usually > be found in the top 5 at most points during any given race. Was I > more skilled? I would say yes, but I think it's more of a confidence > thing than anything else, and confidence is a primary factor in > building skill. Did I have an advantage over all the other drivers? > Most certainly not. I won one race (the one at Poconoi that we ran > with no cautions) because I stayed out of trouble and DIDN'T drive so > aggressively as to require two pit stops like everyone else needed. >

It's not easier, it's different and a personal choice in how they get the most fun and feel out of the sim. End of story. I'm not going to argue this any more. I use roof view because to me it feels more realistic, not because it's easier or gives me some advantage. Out of all the views I prefer it that's it. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Schooner wrote: > > > > "Cockpit is more realistic and those that race with it show a greaterskill > > level. " > > > > Hehe ok Gerry, I have nothing more to say, if that is you belief thengood > > luck. > > So you must think the opposite then? Roof view is not easier according > to you? Way do people use it then?

Schooner wrote: > > It's not easier, it's different and a personal choice in how they get the > most fun and feel out of the sim. End of story. I'm not going to argue > this any more. I use roof view because to me it feels more realistic, not > because it's easier or gives me some advantage. Out of all the views I > prefer it that's it. Are you faster in roof view? In a real car is the view from the driving seat anything like roof view?

>Truthfully, I'd expect you to practice enough to GET comfortable with it... >:-) I'm in college. It takes like 5 minutes just to make room in my dorm to set up my wheel and pedals. It's too much of a pain in the ass to practice often. ;) And just to throw 2 more of my cents into this argument, I'll say right now there's no way the roof view is more realistic than the cockpit view. That's not the reason I drive there. I just feel confused and blind in the cockpit and have a bad habit of hitting things. I drove last night at Indy in the cockpit view. Yeah, I managed to cause a 20 car pileup on the very first lap... On the other hand, I drove last week from the roof view and won my league race at Talladega. Yes, I was involved in a wreck, but it wasn't my fault. The car I was passing decided it was a good idea to run on the apron... (sigh) ----------------------------------------- Dan Belcher Webmaster, http://simcrash.fameflame.dk

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in > with the option disabled. Granted Papyrus dropped the ball on this > by not having some marker in the multiplayer lobby for Cockpit Only > games, but the moment a non-cockpit driver(is that PC enough?) plops > into a Forced session, the whining begins. Forced cockpit view is one of the columns in the race list in NR2002, between F and C in the column list. Maybe you didn't keep your eye on the ball, rather than Papyrus dropping it? Cheers John

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Nick wrote: > > No. > That's just the answer that best suits your case, rather than the truth. No...

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Are you faster in roof view? In a real car is the view from the driving > seat anything like roof view? In a real car is the view from the driving seat anything like the cockpit view? The answer to both is no.

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Cockpit is more realistic and those that race with it show a greater > skill level. > > > It's the elitest attitude of some cockpit > > drivers that causes this argument. Wow, you left both these statements right next to each other in that post. Kinda sums up the argument nicely... :-)

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mk3G9.170076$WL3.66694@rwcrnsc54...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Schooner" > > I think we can leave it at this - if a server enforces the cockpit rule > then > > stick to that, otherwise lets use the views we want and stop degrading > those > > that don't use the cockpit view. It's the elitest attitude of some > cockpit > > drivers that causes this argument. > > I've only been in a few 'forced cockpit' sessions, but everytime I

have > at least one roof rider spent the whole practice session complaining. > Rather than leaving and finding another session they seem to feel it'stheir > right to have the host boot everyone and restart the session with theoption > disabled. Granted Papyrus dropped the ball on this by not having some > marker in the multiplayer lobby for Cockpit Only games, but the moment a > non-cockpit driver(is that PC enough?) plops into a Forced session, the > whining begins. Had Papy included the option to force the outside view, you would probably still see whining, but from the other camp.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Dan Belcher) writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>Truthfully, I'd expect you to practice enough to GET comfortable with it... >>:-) > >I'm in college. It takes like 5 minutes just to make room in my dorm to set >up >my wheel and pedals. It's too much of a pain in the ass to practice often. >;)

Priorities, man...stop bowling - that will give you time to practice driving...<g> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> writes: >> otherwise lets use the views we want and stop degrading those >> that don't use the cockpit view. > >Cockpit is more realistic and those that race with it show a greater >skill level. I disagree with this. It may show a greater desire for staying true to reality, but it doesn't show greater skill. *I* drive in cockpit mode, and routinely get beaten by kite drivers. If the cockpit driving automatically gave you more skill, I wouldn't finish near the back all the time... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Nick wrote: > > > No. > > That's just the answer that best suits your case, rather than the truth. > > No...

And so is that. ;)

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

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Mike White wrote: > > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Schooner wrote: > > > > > > > > :-| > > > > > > > > Back to name calling are we? > > > > > > Who am I calling names? > > > > > > > I think it's time to give this whole thread > > > > up. Seems all people want to do is sling mud and call names on this > > topic. > > > > If they want to remove all other views then fine, I have had people > > state > > > > already they will quit racing if they do that. The cockpit view is

not > > want > > > > everyone wants from a sim. > > > > > > You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. IMO,outside

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > > views are unrealistic and they encourage an unrealistic racing > > > mentality. But as long as we can keep roof riders out of our servers, > > > i'm happy with that. > > > > > > Gerry > > > > > > > Can you elaborate on this "unrealistic racing mentality"? > > Yes... > > Because a roof rider can see over a crumpled hood, and is able to drive > to the pits rather than call a tow track, he/she is likely to be more > cavalier in his/her driving style. > > Yes/no? > > Gerry >

Do you honestly believe this? For me it has nothing to do with seeing over a hood, it's all about being able to enjoy the game or not. If I didn't have the option of the outside view I couldn't participate. The inside view causes me nausea.

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

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > with the option disabled. Granted Papyrus dropped the ball on this > > by not having some marker in the multiplayer lobby for Cockpit Only > > games, but the moment a non-cockpit driver(is that PC enough?) plops > > into a Forced session, the whining begins. > > Forced cockpit view is one of the columns in the race list in NR2002, > between F and C in the column list. Maybe you didn't keep your eye on the > ball, rather than Papyrus dropping it? > > Cheers > John

Really? Keeripes...as soon as I'm done dloading GTR 2k2, I'll have to take a look at that. What ELSE have I missed? dave henrie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02

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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Nick wrote: > > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Nick wrote: > > > > No. > > > That's just the answer that best suits your case, rather than the

truth. > > > > No... > > And so is that. ;) Okay, I give up. But the answer is still 'No'...

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > > No. > > > > That's just the answer that best suits your case, rather than the > truth. > > > > > > No... > > > > And so is that. ;) > > Okay, I give up. But the answer is still 'No'...

The answer cannot be 'no', now can it? Are you saying that not one single roof rider's racing style has been influenced by the fact you can see over a crumpled hood?

"Schooner" It's the elitest attitude of some cockpit > drivers that causes this argument. Schooner it's theChicken and the Egg syndrome, if there weren't any kite-flying/roof-riding/bumper-camming drivers, then we wouldn't have to worry about the elitest attitude of some cagers now would we? :) dave henrie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02

In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> writes: >The answer cannot be 'no', now can it? Are you saying that not one >single roof rider's racing style has been influenced by the fact you can >see over a crumpled hood? Yeah, there might be a couple. But to assume that ALL roof riders drive like crap because they can see over a crumpled hood is absurd. Some cockpit drivers are wreckers - doesn't mean we ALL are... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

>Priorities, man...stop bowling - that will give you time to practice >driving...<g> > >Eldred Bah, I shot 258, 258, and 214 last night. 730 series. I had some of the best bowlers in the house watching me and congratulating me. My average should be back over 200 after this week. I don't think I'm going to give up any time soon. ;) ----------------------------------------- Dan Belcher Webmaster, http://simcrash.fameflame.dk

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >The answer cannot be 'no', now can it? Are you saying that not one > >single roof rider's racing style has been influenced by the fact you can > >see over a crumpled hood? > > Yeah, there might be a couple. But to assume that ALL roof riders drive like > crap because they can see over a crumpled hood is absurd. Some cockpit drivers > are wreckers - doesn't mean we ALL are...

Where did I say all? I do think it's likely that all will be affected to some degree, though. What makes you think that only a couple occupy the extreme end of the scale? Gerry

Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote in news:3DEA0FB7.A55F2CF8 @ntlworld.com:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Nick wrote: >> > > > > No. >> > > > That's just the answer that best suits your case, rather than the >> truth. >> > > >> > > No... >> > >> > And so is that. ;) >> >> Okay, I give up. But the answer is still 'No'... > > The answer cannot be 'no', now can it? Are you saying that not one > single roof rider's racing style has been influenced by the fact you can > see over a crumpled hood?

That's not what he said at all. If you weren't such a stupid cunt, you'd have seen that. cheers John

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

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote in news:3DEA0FB7.A55F2CF8 > @ntlworld.com: > > > Nick wrote: > >> > > > > No. > >> > > > That's just the answer that best suits your case, rather than the > >> truth. > >> > > > >> > > No... > >> > > >> > And so is that. ;) > >> > >> Okay, I give up. But the answer is still 'No'... > > > > The answer cannot be 'no', now can it? Are you saying that not one > > single roof rider's racing style has been influenced by the fact you can > > see over a crumpled hood? > > That's not what he said at all. If you weren't such a stupid cunt, you'd > have seen that.

Yes. ;-) Right, finally I will elaborate on the one-word answers... Just because you can see over a crumpled hood, doesn't in any way mean that you go into a race *trying* to crumple it. That is probably the funniest thing I have heard in a loooong time. "Dave, why are you hitting your legs with a baseball bat?" "Don't worry, Gary - I can still walk." Nick.

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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >Priorities, man...stop bowling - that will give you time to practice > >driving...<g> > > > >Eldred > > > Bah, I shot 258, 258, and 214 last night. 730 series. I had some of the

best > bowlers in the house watching me and congratulating me. My average shouldbe > back over 200 after this week. I don't think I'm going to give up anytime > soon. ;) > The ONLY time I've ever broken 200 was 20 years ago when I 'bumped' into a Dolly Parton sized clone right before starting...bowled in a daze...missed the headpin 3 times and still got strikes...:) Inspiration is a mother. dave henrie

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > "JM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote in news:3DEA0FB7.A55F2CF8 > > @ntlworld.com: > > > > > Nick wrote: > > >> > > > > No. > > >> > > > That's just the answer that best suits your case, rather than the > > >> truth. > > >> > > > > >> > > No... > > >> > > > >> > And so is that. ;) > > >> > > >> Okay, I give up. But the answer is still 'No'... > > > > > > The answer cannot be 'no', now can it? Are you saying that not one > > > single roof rider's racing style has been influenced by the fact you can > > > see over a crumpled hood? > > > > That's not what he said at all. If you weren't such a stupid cunt, you'd > > have seen that. > > Yes. ;-) > > Right, finally I will elaborate on the one-word answers... > > Just because you can see over a crumpled hood, doesn't in any way mean that > you go into a race *trying* to crumple it. That is probably the funniest > thing I have heard in a loooong time.

Well if the two of you weren't both stupid cunts you'd both realize it's not a conscious decision.

In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> >The answer cannot be 'no', now can it? Are you saying that not one >> >single roof rider's racing style has been influenced by the fact you can >> >see over a crumpled hood? >> >> Yeah, there might be a couple. But to assume that ALL roof riders drive >like >> crap because they can see over a crumpled hood is absurd. Some cockpit >drivers >> are wreckers - doesn't mean we ALL are... > >Where did I say all? I do think it's likely that all will be affected to >some degree, though. What makes you think that only a couple occupy the >extreme end of the scale?

That's what *extreme* means. A few at each end. You're right - you DIDN'T say 'all. But your wording implied it. Your statement seemed to be "Well, if even ONE person drives that way because of the roof cam, then it's a bad thing." As if that's the key point of your whole argument. I don't see that as the case, s'all.... I do think it gives people an advantage, whether they want to admit it or not. You're viewing from a higher, uncluttered vantage point. That means you can see the turns better, and you can see trouble occuring farther down the track. If the people who use roof view don't see that logic, then it's a wasted discussion. ANYTHING that helps you see the track better helps you drive better. Common sense, IMO. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Dan Belcher) writes:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>Priorities, man...stop bowling - that will give you time to practice >>driving...<g> >> >>Eldred > > >Bah, I shot 258, 258, and 214 last night. 730 series. I had some of the >best >bowlers in the house watching me and congratulating me. My average should be >back over 200 after this week. I don't think I'm going to give up any time >soon. ;)

Show-off - shouldn't you be *studying*, or something? Nice shooting. :-) Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Don't forget the argument that the cockpit isn't realistic! LOL (like driving 10 feet back and above is any closer!!!!!!!!) "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >> >The answer cannot be 'no', now can it? Are you saying that not one > >> >single roof rider's racing style has been influenced by the fact youcan > >> >see over a crumpled hood? > >> > >> Yeah, there might be a couple. But to assume that ALL roof ridersdrive

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >like > >> crap because they can see over a crumpled hood is absurd. Some cockpit > >drivers > >> are wreckers - doesn't mean we ALL are... > > > >Where did I say all? I do think it's likely that all will be affected to > >some degree, though. What makes you think that only a couple occupy the > >extreme end of the scale? > > That's what *extreme* means. A few at each end. You're right - you

DIDN'T say > 'all. But your wording implied it. Your statement seemed to be "Well, ifeven > ONE person drives that way because of the roof cam, then it's a badthing." As > if that's the key point of your whole argument. I don't see that as thecase, > s'all.... > I do think it gives people an advantage, whether they want to admit it ornot. > You're viewing from a higher, uncluttered vantage point. That means youcan > see the turns better, and you can see trouble occuring farther down thetrack.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> If the people who use roof view don't see that logic, then it's a wasted > discussion. ANYTHING that helps you see the track better helps you drive > better. Common sense, IMO. > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+6.19 > N2002 Rank:+18.91 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Nick wrote: > > Just because you can see over a crumpled hood, doesn't in any way meanthat > > you go into a race *trying* to crumple it. That is probably the funniest > > thing I have heard in a loooong time. > > Well if the two of you weren't both stupid cunts you'd both realize it's > not a conscious decision. Right. A subconscious decision to wreck myself and other people simply because of the camera view I drive from. Yes. Now I come to think of it, I haven't had a clean race since I started driving from the roof cam. I always get tangled up with somebody as I try to pass them, 'accidentally' punting them in the back to spin them, or sliding up the track to nudge them in to the wall. In fact, any incident which will leave my hood crumpled. Wow, I never noticed that before, that my subconscious mind was making me wreck myself because my camera view was different to somebody elses. </IRONY> What the fuck are you talking about? Please don't go outside alone, or go within 20 feet of any sharp implements. You subconscious mind might make you stick them into yourself.

"TDRacin�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:uRvG9.21965$[email hidden]... > Don't forget the argument that the cockpit isn't realistic! LOL (like > driving 10 feet back and above is any closer!!!!!!!!) The argument is that the cockpit view is no more realistic than the roof cam. I don't think anybody uses the chase cam anyway.

Well see, that's where you're wrong. It's the most realistic view in the sim, and based on testing with real cars, is pretty close to what you will see in-car. Saying a view outside of the car is just as real is laughable. Where do you think the term "Arcade view" comes from? "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ase94f$pu0k8$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "TDRacin�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:uRvG9.21965$[email hidden]... > > Don't forget the argument that the cockpit isn't realistic! LOL (like > > driving 10 feet back and above is any closer!!!!!!!!) > > The argument is that the cockpit view is no more realistic than the roof > cam. I don't think anybody uses the chase cam anyway. > >

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Nick wrote: > > > Just because you can see over a crumpled hood, doesn't in any way mean > that > > > you go into a race *trying* to crumple it. That is probably the funniest > > > thing I have heard in a loooong time. > > > > Well if the two of you weren't both stupid cunts you'd both realize it's > > not a conscious decision. > > Right. A subconscious decision to wreck myself and other people simply > because of the camera view I drive from. Yes. Now I come to think of it, I > haven't had a clean race since I started driving from the roof cam. I always > get tangled up with somebody as I try to pass them, 'accidentally' punting > them in the back to spin them, or sliding up the track to nudge them in to > the wall. In fact, any incident which will leave my hood crumpled. Wow, I > never noticed that before, that my subconscious mind was making me wreck > myself because my camera view was different to somebody elses. > > </IRONY> > > What the fuck are you talking about? Please don't go outside alone, or go > within 20 feet of any sharp implements. You subconscious mind might make you > stick them into yourself.

Nick, it's simple really. I'll try to explain: Arcade damage will generally cause people to be more cavalier, while realistic will encourage safer driving. Your silly head-out-the-sun-roof-view does the same thing. Without realizing it you will drive with less caution than a cockpit view driver. You do this because your view gives you a vision advantage not afforded by cockpit view. This encourages you to keep your foot in longer and to drive closer because of your better vision to the front and sides. The harder and closer you drive, the greater the likelihood of contact. This is especially true in on-line races where warp is a constant threat.

At least we're not forced to wear a Hans Device! -Larry "TDRacin�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dfBG9.22170$[email hidden]... > Well see, that's where you're wrong. It's the most realistic view in the > sim, and based on testing with real cars, is pretty close to what you will > see in-car. Saying a view outside of the car is just as real islaughable.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Where do you think the term "Arcade view" comes from? > > > "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ase94f$pu0k8$[email hidden]... > > > > "TDRacin�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:uRvG9.21965$[email hidden]... > > > Don't forget the argument that the cockpit isn't realistic! LOL

(like

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > driving 10 feet back and above is any closer!!!!!!!!) > > > > The argument is that the cockpit view is no more realistic than the roof > > cam. I don't think anybody uses the chase cam anyway. > > > > > >

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Arcade damage will generally cause people to be more cavalier, while > realistic will encourage safer driving. That is true. > Your silly > head-out-the-sun-roof-view... It is not silly... > does the same thing. No it doesn't. A collision will create just as much damage and time penalty regardless of viewpoint. > Without realizing it you > will drive with less caution than a cockpit view driver. No I wont. I drive with too much caution in semi-league races or races involving like-minded individuals (like RASCAR), where there will be no wreckers, because I don't want to wreck anybody else and ruin their race for them. > You do this > because your view gives you a vision advantage not afforded by cockpit > view. It allows you to see more clearly, yes, which makes you a *safer* driver in my opinion. Being higher up, you can judge distance a little more accurately than the lower cockpit view. > This encourages you to keep your foot in longer and to drive > closer because of your better vision to the front and sides. That is untrue. Roof cam doesn't let you see through smoke, or let you predict any more accurately where a car is going to be in 2 seconds' time. It is harder to see cars immediately in front of you get a little loose. And you cannot use the look left/right keys/buttons while using the roof cam, so your point about greater lateral awareness is untrue. Admittedly, you have to press a key to look left/right in cockpit view, but that is still better than not being able to do it at all. > The harder and closer you drive, the greater the likelihood of contact. > This is especially true in on-line races where warp is a constant > threat. That is true, but I/we don't drive harder and closer because of our viewpoint. I try to be a considerate driver, and especially in semi-league races like RASCAR, sometimes a passing opportunity presents itself but I don't take it, for fear of causing an incident if I screw up. Only if an opportunity of high probability occurs will I try the move. I am more agressive when racing in real life because I can feel the limits of grip a lot better, and I have more confidence throwing the car/kart in underneath somebody else. Oh, and by the way, don't talk down to me like I am a little kid just because you have an elitist opinion, which classes me as below you because I use a different camera view. I am not arguing that roof cam is better than cockpit view, I am just arguing that they are equal. I am trying to make you understand this. Subconsciously I know it is a waste of effort, because you are the type of person who will not change their viewpoint in the face of evidence to the contrary; in fact, you will disregard the evidence as being untrue simply because it contradicts your viewpoint. No offence intended, by the way. It's a real dumb subject to make enemies over.

"TDRacin�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dfBG9.22170$[email hidden]... > Well see, that's where you're wrong. It's the most realistic view in the > sim, and based on testing with real cars, is pretty close to what you will > see in-car. Saying a view outside of the car is just as real islaughable. > Where do you think the term "Arcade view" comes from? It is the most realistic view in the sim because it tries to simulate what a real NASCAR driver sees, you are correct. The problem is how you define realistic. If your realism is based around seeing what a NASCAR driver sees, hearing what they hear, then you will believe the cockpit view is more realistic. Nobody will argue. If, on the other hand, you believe realism to be giving as much of a window on the world as possible, to make it easier to judge exactly what the car is doing at any particular moment, to be able to add some depth perception to a display which naturally removes it (ie viewing on a monitor without 3D glasses), then the roof cam is more realistic. The fundamental qualities of a racing driver are the ability to look ahead, to not concentrate on what the car is doing now, but what it will be doing in a few seconds' time. To be able to judge exactly where you will reach the edge of the track if you start applying the power now. To preempt what the car will do, where it will end up if you alter your inputs at this moment in time. It's all about predicting the future. If you apply the power too late, you will be slow out of the corner, not using as much of the track as you could have. If you apply it too early, you will run out over the kerbs and onto the grass. Some people (in fact, most people who drive sims and think they are great racing drivers), learn visually when to hit the throttle out of turns in terms of trackside objects or markings in the road. Some don't realise that they are running bad lines through corners until they see a replay analyser, because a monitor can't give that kind of depth perception needed to drive properly. A sim racer encountering a new track will either be very slow to begin with, or spin off at all the corners, because they have to *learn* the layout of the track; they can't *see* it as they go. A real race driver will be able to lap relatively quickly the first time out, because they can calculate on the fly using their visual input. To emulate this depth perception in the game (thereby making it more realistic), you need to raise the camera a little, but still keep it locked to the car (after all, you don't want to lose the visual input of what the car is doing in terms of sliding, etc). This point is just as important a factor in the problem with racing sims as the g-force argument of not being able to feel the car, in my opinion. I have yet to see what the E3D glasses do to help, but results are encouraging from what I have heard. So the cockpit view is realistic in some respects, the roof cam is realistic in others, and a view which combined the realism of both (which is impossible unless you are simulating truck racing) would be the most realistic view available.

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

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > >19" = Good > > > > > > > >22" = Excellent > > > > > > > >25" = Superb > > > > > > > 17" = Adequate. :) > > What was it we were talking about?? > ;) >

I dunno but I guess it must be something they folded in half before measuring. dh

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > > >19" = Good > > > > > >22" = Excellent > > > > > >25" = Superb > > > > 17" = Adequate. :)

What was it we were talking about?? ;)

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:o5UG9.212391$QZ.32905@sccrnsc02...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > >19" = Good > > > > > > > > > >22" = Excellent > > > > > > > > > >25" = Superb > > > > > > > > > > 17" = Adequate. :) > > > > What was it we were talking about?? > > ;) > > > I dunno but I guess it must be something they folded in half before > measuring. > dh

I thought they were only measuring the end of it... whatever it was.

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:o5UG9.212391$QZ.32905@sccrnsc02... > > > > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > >19" = Good > > > > > > > > > > > >22" = Excellent > > > > > > > > > > > >25" = Superb > > > > > > > > > > > > > 17" = Adequate. :) > > > > > > What was it we were talking about?? > > > ;) > > > > > I dunno but I guess it must be something they folded in half before > > measuring. > > dh > > I thought they were only measuring the end of it... whatever it was.

I wish I had a 25" cock! <SIGH> This 30" one is just too big. :)

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

Quoted text (34 lines)

> Nick wrote: > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:o5UG9.212391$QZ.32905@sccrnsc02... > > > > > > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >19" = Good > > > > > > > > > > > > > >22" = Excellent > > > > > > > > > > > > > >25" = Superb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 17" = Adequate. :) > > > > > > > > What was it we were talking about?? > > > > ;) > > > > > > > I dunno but I guess it must be something they folded in half before > > > measuring. > > > dh > > > > I thought they were only measuring the end of it... whatever it was. > > I wish I had a 25" cock! > > <SIGH> > > This 30" one is just too big. :)

Do you also find it difficult to revert back to measuring it in inches? I thought measuring it in feet was the norm... ;-)

"You measure your screen size in inches... How quaint." I will never be able to race on a monitor again after moving up to a DLP projector. Still not much to write home about in terms of depth perception, but bigger IS better. With an 8 foot screen, things take on a certain lifelike, immersive quality. Too bad my racing has little to show for it. I'd like to try some 3d goggles, but I dont think the refresh from the proj. is fast enough. I've been flying a lot of IL-2 lately, but may have to add the F1 title to my xmas list so I can check out this GTR mod. cheers, Gerald Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> EldredP wrote: > > > > In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken > > <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > >I think you mean, it sucks on small monitors. Try a large monitor, > > >fresnal lens, 3D glasses and you'll find it won't. > > > > What size monitor do you think is good? > > 19" = Good > > 22" = Excellent > > 25" = Superb > > IMO, of course. > > Gerry

Gerald Moore wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "You measure your screen size in inches... How quaint." > > I will never be able to race on a monitor again after moving up to a > DLP projector. Still not much to write home about in terms of depth > perception, but bigger IS better. With an 8 foot screen, things take > on a certain lifelike, immersive quality. Too bad my racing has > little to show for it.

What resolution can you get? I'm thinking about getting one, but can't decide if I would rather have three monitors instead. Decisions, decisions. > I'd like to try some 3d goggles, but I dont think the refresh from the > proj. is fast enough. You need 120hz. If it can handle that you should be fine, Oh yeah, and you'll be utterly amazed as well! :) > I've been flying a lot of IL-2 lately, but may have to add the F1 > title to my xmas list so I can check out this GTR mod. GTR is the only thing that's dragged me away from IL-2 in weeks, so I'd say you should go for it! :) Best Gerry

In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> "You measure your screen size in inches... How quaint." >> >> I will never be able to race on a monitor again after moving up to a >> DLP projector. Still not much to write home about in terms of depth >> perception, but bigger IS better. With an 8 foot screen, things take >> on a certain lifelike, immersive quality. Too bad my racing has >> little to show for it. > >What resolution can you get? I'm thinking about getting one, but can't >decide if I would rather have three monitors instead. Decisions, >decisions.

"Decisions, decisions"?!? What about MONEY?!? Damn, I can't even afford a 21" monitor, let alone one of those DLP thingys... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I wish I had a 25" cock! whoa, put OT in that header big fella.

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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > I wish I had a 25" xxxx! > > whoa, put OT in that header big fella. >

is THAT what he thought we were talking about? dave henrie :)

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:oPgH9.227181$QZ.35781@sccrnsc02...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > I wish I had a 25" xxxx! > > > > whoa, put OT in that header big fella. > > > is THAT what he thought we were talking about? > dave henrie > :)

I guess so. Who woulda thunk it? I'll bet he's got one of them big Cougar joysticks on his desk too.

Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > What resolution can you get? I'm thinking about getting one, but can't > decide if I would rather have three monitors instead. Decisions, > decisions. I get 1024x768 native, which with FSAA, looks pretty good. I use the widescreen patch with NR2002, @ 1024 x 576, which I set up with Powerstrip. Very nice improvement over 4:3. All future racing games should do this. > > I'd like to try some 3d goggles, but I dont think the refresh from the > > proj. is fast enough. > > You need 120hz. If it can handle that you should be fine, Oh yeah, and > you'll be utterly amazed as well! :) Bollocks. The DLP wheel is only 60Hz. What happens when you use a slower refresh rate? Flicker? > > I've been flying a lot of IL-2 lately, but may have to add the F1 > > title to my xmas list so I can check out this GTR mod. > > GTR is the only thing that's dragged me away from IL-2 in weeks, so I'd > say you should go for it! :) Alrighty, then, it's on the list! cheers, Gerald

Gerald Moore wrote: > > You need 120hz. If it can handle that you should be fine, Oh yeah, and > > you'll be utterly amazed as well! :) > > Bollocks. The DLP wheel is only 60Hz. What happens when you use a > slower refresh rate? Flicker? With 60Hz you'll get 30Hz in each eye. That you will find very uncomfortable. Gerry