NetKar - give it a try!

Having just tried this promising sim out myself I'm a bit surprised it hasn't gotten more attention here in r.a.s. (unless my news-reader has missed all related posts) It deserves more attention IMO. It might be cause the shipped tracks are a bit too simple (IMHO) and does not give the sim a chance to show its potential. But there exists addon tracks to rectify that, I specially like Imola racing in the Formula Renault 2000. URL for the official site: http://driving.multiplayer.it/netkar/ And for the unofficial (?) containing some addons such as tracks, skins and setups: http://www.nkfunpage.net/index.asp?2& Development of this sim is still in progress and should feature multiplayer rather soon - very soon I hope! Cheers, /Martin

It is crap....total and absolute crap. Gave it 3 hours after being pestered by a mate non stop... Nascar 2002 is good... LFS is good... GPL is good.... Netkar is terrible. Aidee

"Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arefni$luu$[email hidden]... > It is crap....total and absolute crap. >What utter rubbish, it is a rapidly developing sim that has great potential. How constructive. Ash

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:04:19 -0000, "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It is crap....total and absolute crap. >Why?

What's wrong with it? The physics model feels far above average to me... Thanks, Alex "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arelpt$jb4$[email hidden]... > Ashley i tried your 'sim' about a year ago so i think you know a littlemore

Quoted text (15 lines)

> than the average man... > > but....potential does not change what is on offer now. > > Do you want me to lie..? > > I am talking about now...it is crap now. > > It may have the potential....it may reach its potential. > > But atm it isnt looking good.IMO > > AD > >

Ashley i tried your 'sim' about a year ago so i think you know a little more than the average man... but....potential does not change what is on offer now. Do you want me to lie..? I am talking about now...it is crap now. It may have the potential....it may reach its potential. But atm it isnt looking good.IMO AD

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:48:00 -0000, "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It may have the potential....it may reach its potential. > >But atm it isnt looking good.IMO Do you mean graphically? If so, try the new tracks which look much better and gives a better feel plus helps you find braking points, turn-in points etc. I can imagine the old tracks scared a few away, there aren't bad - but not as good as the new ones. If you mean the physics I think it is looking very good! I have mostly tried the Formula Renault and can't really comment on the others. Cheers, /Martin

Come on, that post is a waste of space. If you think it's so bad, tell us why... Sure, the graphics engine needs a lot of work and it's currently extremely hard on the cpu, but the physics seem to survive.... it's no GPL but I would have thought the potential is obvious. "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arefni$luu$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> It is crap....total and absolute crap. > > Gave it 3 hours after being pestered by a mate non stop... > > Nascar 2002 is good... > > LFS is good... > > GPL is good.... > > Netkar is terrible. > > > Aidee > >

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:40:29 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin Granberg) wrote: >Having just tried this promising sim out myself I'm a bit surprised it >hasn't gotten more attention here in r.a.s. (unless my news-reader has >missed all related posts) > >It deserves more attention IMO. Sure, i tried it, physics is good. Graphics are not very good, but .. who care ;o) a strip of tarmac would suffice for me :o) I like this game :) Sebastien TIXIER - Game Developer Dynamics and Car Physics http://www.eden-studios.fr GPLRank Normal:-44.24 Monster:-124.44

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:04:19 -0000, "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It is crap....total and absolute crap. why ? could you just give reasons ? Sebastien TIXIER - Game Developer Dynamics and Car Physics http://www.eden-studios.fr GPLRank Normal:-44.24 Monster:-124.44

Who's turn it is to say whether this is a Gpl or not? "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<IXAC9.13332$[email hidden]>... > What's wrong with it? The physics model feels far above average to me...

On 20 Nov 2002 00:10:02 -0800, [email hidden] (Leo Merikallio) wrote something like this: >Who's turn it is to say whether this is a Gpl or not? Apparently it was Jim's turn... ;) -- - Igor -

wrote something like this: Apparently it was Jim's turn... ;) -- - Igor -

"Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<arelpt$jb4$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Ashley i tried your 'sim' about a year ago so i think you know a little more > than the average man... > > but....potential does not change what is on offer now. > > Do you want me to lie..? > > I am talking about now...it is crap now. > > It may have the potential....it may reach its potential. > > But atm it isnt looking good.IMO > > AD

Thanks for sharing your "deep" review... I hope in the future u'll change your idea.. Stefano Casillo driving.multiplayer.it/netkar

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:54:04 -0000, "Jim Seamus" <[email hidden]> wrote: >and it's currently extremely >hard on the cpu Strange, I have seen others comment on this as well. But for me it is no problem at all, using a P3-850 and a GF2MX gfx-card. Flows very well indeed with plenty of CPU-power to spare according to the CPU-occupancy counter in NetKar. I can't say the same for LFS, this runs like a dog on my PC. But I still think it is good. :) Cheers, /Martin

Aidee, of course you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. The again, this is a simulator discussing group, and anyone who enthusiastically follows sim developments will agree that there is some very solid modelling going on in netKar. This indicates that your opinion is somewhat uninformed, no matter how much you are entitled to it. Saying that you would be lying if you said otherwise is therefore a bit strange, as it is hard to lie about things one isn't really capable of appreciating. I would not normaly reply to such posts, but since you managed to put down not one, but two people who develop their simulators purely out of their passion for it, I felt I needed to. Besides, you mention that you tried Ashman's sim (not 'sim') a year ago; I recommend you try it again now, it has come a long way since then. Then again, do not. -Gregor On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Aidee wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Ashley i tried your 'sim' about a year ago so i think you know a little more > than the average man... > > but....potential does not change what is on offer now. > > Do you want me to lie..? > > I am talking about now...it is crap now. > > It may have the potential....it may reach its potential. > > But atm it isnt looking good.IMO > > AD > > >

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:04:19 -0000, "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It is crap....total and absolute crap. Odd, I am far more unthused about the physics in NetKar than I am about those in LFS. IMO LFS is so popular because of it's online capabilities - it does have huge potential however as does NetKar and I am just thankful we have people out there putting time into trying to produce realistic simulations rather than much of the cr*p (in terms of realistic simulation) we are served up from the bigger players. Maxx

"Jussi 'Igor' Koukku" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On 20 Nov 2002 00:10:02 -0800, [email hidden] (Leo Merikallio) > wrote something like this: > > >Who's turn it is to say whether this is a Gpl or not? > > Apparently it was Jim's turn... ;) > --

Hehe :0)

Thankyou Gregor :) Thankyou Jim :) To quantify my original comment it seems i must go into detail or i get the lynch mob R.A.S posse collective on my case ;) So here goes. Sorry Gregor but I do know what i am talking about,it's just that despite your 'high profile' part time job,even you have no idea what you are talking about. What is on offer to the general sim driver...? A real mixture of whats correct and what isnt.A diverse look at 'real' physics and virtual driving.I can appreciate 100% that all the individuals involved in all the great projects,netkar,LFS,Racer,RL and even Odysscar think they are inching closer and closer to what 'feels ' right,what 'reacts' right.... IMO...none of them are even close. I will use a comment from a dear old friend who sadly died this year ... " It's great,nice feeling.....but do you think they will ever replicate the wind in your face...?" An old man of 71 ,former Air force racer,first time ever seeing GPL,enjoyed watching me drive,thoroughly enjoyed driving himself,but still wanted more realism to 'complete' HIS own thoughts of what a sim should provide.Further discussion brought out g-force requirements,conclusive comment being that it still feels like a game. My point being that 1000 or 10,000 people will all give different answers to what they require in a simulation and that is why none of them will ever be perfect,nor close to perfect. They can of course please the majority greatly.....any of them could do this but never for one second are they accurate to real racing. You can program in certain sensations or feel....you can make it more enjoyable for the masses....you can dumb it down...you can do alot.....but you can't make it real or close to real,it will always be a simulation limited by what a computer and a wheel and the programmers can do. Netkar.....i saw no bad graphics,i wasnt looking for graphics,i understood the effort had gone into the physics model....but he is further away from 'realism' than Papy are. LFS.....looks great,but i saw a FWD model that has tremendous potential,for me it will always be personal taste the last 15% so if they change it and it please 500 people it wil displease 500 others. GPL....no idea what a 1967 F1 car feels/felt like ,but this is so good it just 'seems' right...maybe a long long way away if Jackie Stewart testes it for us....but for me,it feels good. Nascar 2002.....again,what does a real 750hp car feel like on those ovals..?...just feels good....no back end snapping out for no reason like there is a RND instruction in the programming....thats all...other feel totally like there is. This was all my opinion and as ever,others will disagree with me here,but then we will agree on something else,thats the point. Aidee

Aidee, do I agree with you that netKar doesn't feel as solid as Papy's efforts? I certainly do, and I'm sure Stefano would immediately agree with you as well. One can, however, see, that the general modelling (rigid body dynamics, tyre model, suspension etc.) is done correctly, and a bit of sandpaper here and a little polish there will transform it into something much more refined, as the trick indeed is in the details. Therefore calling it 'crap' can mean either that you are not entirely capable of judging the above mentioned simulation aspects, or that you lack any respect for other people's good work, not to mention basic decency. You decide. -Gregor

Absolutely ! Driving the formula Renault (and the MG, and the Supra) at Imola is extremely addictive, even on an out-of-date rig (T-Bird 900MHz, GeForce 2). Graphics are good enough for me. FFB too (it even models flat spots !). Physics ? Well, the cars can be so vicious these remind me of my first contact with GPL. But perseverance is worth it (as in GPL). Cheers, Xavier.

HTF do you download this!??!?! I don't speak Italian, and after trying to find the gd link to download this, I give up. Is there something simple I am missing?!?! "Martin Granberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Having just tried this promising sim out myself I'm a bit surprised it > hasn't gotten more attention here in r.a.s. (unless my news-reader has > missed all related posts) > > It deserves more attention IMO. > > It might be cause the shipped tracks are a bit too simple (IMHO) and > does not give the sim a chance to show its potential. > > But there exists addon tracks to rectify that, I specially like Imola > racing in the Formula Renault 2000. > > URL for the official site: > http://driving.multiplayer.it/netkar/ > > And for the unofficial (?) containing some addons such as tracks, > skins and setups: > http://www.nkfunpage.net/index.asp?2& > > Development of this sim is still in progress and should feature > multiplayer rather soon - very soon I hope! > > Cheers, > > /Martin >

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:19:23 GMT, "TDRacin�" <[email hidden]> wrote: >HTF do you download this!??!?! I don't speak Italian, and after trying to >find the gd link to download this, I give up. Is there something simple I >am missing?!?! Try this english site: http://www.nkfunpage.net/index.asp?2& or http://www.nkfunpage.net/download/netKar/nkSetup093.exe I was also lost in circles on the main italian download site, but found it in the end! :) Cheers, /Martin

ahhhhhahahha lol Thank you Martin!!! lol ns, I have been going around in circles for months trying to figure out how to get this. Each time I kept ending up in the same spot thinking how the hell are people getting this? You da man! "Martin Granberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:19:23 GMT, "TDRacin�" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >HTF do you download this!??!?! I don't speak Italian, and after tryingto > >find the gd link to download this, I give up. Is there something simpleI

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >am missing?!?! > > Try this english site: > > http://www.nkfunpage.net/index.asp?2& > or > http://www.nkfunpage.net/download/netKar/nkSetup093.exe > > I was also lost in circles on the main italian download site, but > found it in the end! :) > > Cheers, > > /Martin

Aidee wrote: > Netkar.....i saw no bad graphics,i wasnt looking for graphics,i understood > the effort had gone into the physics model....but he is further away from > 'realism' than Papy are. Why?

Gregor Veble wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Aidee, > > do I agree with you that netKar doesn't feel as solid as Papy's efforts? I > certainly do, and I'm sure Stefano would immediately agree with you as > well. One can, however, see, that the general modelling (rigid body > dynamics, tyre model, suspension etc.) is done correctly, > and a bit of sandpaper here and a little polish there will transform it > into something much more refined, as the trick indeed is in the details. > > Therefore calling it 'crap' can mean either that you are not entirely > capable of judging the above mentioned simulation aspects, or that you > lack any respect for other people's good work, not to mention basic > decency. You decide.

Ouch.... (mental note to self, don't piss off Gregor :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:09:33 -0000, "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Sorry Gregor but I do know what i am talking about,it's just that despite >your 'high profile' part time job,even you have no idea what you are talking >about. Gregor's got a pretty nifty driving sim of his own. Based more on the physical side perhaps than the rest of the gameplay, but remarkably accurate stuff nevertheless (the last time I drove it). Certainly something a company might be interested in as a simulation base, which often makes it interesting for most readers here as well.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>A real mixture of whats correct and what isnt.A diverse look at 'real' >physics and virtual driving.I can appreciate 100% that all the individuals >involved in all the great projects,netkar,LFS,Racer,RL and even Odysscar >think they are inching closer and closer to what 'feels ' right,what >'reacts' right.... > >IMO...none of them are even close.

Actually, most of these are pretty right, as far as what can be simulated. As soon as test results in the sim begin to approach the real-life counterpart, given the same measured parameters, then you could argue that a sim is pretty good. However, as a sim is still a sim, it will never be as good as actually stepping into the real car and doing the same stuff for real. G-forces mainly. The problem is that simulating these is costly and pretty high-end (not many of those G-force chairs around and they're not that cheap either). >I will use a comment from a dear old friend who sadly died this year ... > >" It's great,nice feeling.....but do you think they will ever replicate the >wind in your face...?" Ok, an external fan controller, would be easy to do. ;-) But surely, an actual simulation would have to plug into your brains directly, to the point where you get to scared to even play the game. Given the technology that's available, sims are doing a remarkable job at the moment, I'd say. >My point being that 1000 or 10,000 people will all give different answers to >what they require in a simulation and that is why none of them will ever be >perfect,nor close to perfect. Still, an attempt for physical accuracy of the components involved can be done relatively objectively. Netkar seems quite good at this. Most games probably do have a nice physics basis, but often go around their own engine to make gameplay easier. Netkar seems to target physical accuracy, so if you're into that, it's quite a nice thing to play with. Not crap, even if you're only into finished polished products. >You can program in certain sensations or feel....you can make it more >enjoyable for the masses....you can dumb it down...you can do alot.....but >you can't make it real or close to real,it will always be a simulation >limited by what a computer and a wheel and the programmers can do. Actually, it's started to really be limited by hardware more & more. As for accuracy, you can probably run Adams models by now in realtime, making for more accuracy in the calculations than most humans would be able to distinguish. Mostly limited by what users want, and that is mostly recognizable (Nascar) and player-friendly (automatic stabilisers) stuff. >Netkar.....i saw no bad graphics,i wasnt looking for graphics,i understood >the effort had gone into the physics model....but he is further away from >'realism' than Papy are. Actually, a lot of realism is mainly in the parameters. With even simpler models, you can get very close to Papy's. >Nascar 2002.....again,what does a real 750hp car feel like on those >ovals..? If anything, it feels like big G-forces pulling you to every side. Unfortunately, any G-machine can only give you about 1G max, or >1G for just a moment (it needs space to do that). Absolutely fun to play with though. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Nothing but a slew of invalid page faults here. I did send in a bug report ;) GJ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 11/13/2002

"Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arefni$luu$[email hidden]... > It is crap....total and absolute crap.<snip> I found it quite a lot of fun. The physics has a good feel to it, good lines = good times and there are features in this free simulation which only appeared in commercial sims a few years ago. It looks like it is designed modularly, it runs well and has immersive physics. It handles different types of cars pretty well and appears to have third party support in the form of tracks, paintjobs etc. So what part was crap? iksteh

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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > Gregor Veble wrote: > > > > Aidee, > > > > do I agree with you that netKar doesn't feel as solid as Papy's efforts?

I

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > certainly do, and I'm sure Stefano would immediately agree with you as > > well. One can, however, see, that the general modelling (rigid body > > dynamics, tyre model, suspension etc.) is done correctly, > > and a bit of sandpaper here and a little polish there will transform it > > into something much more refined, as the trick indeed is in the details. > > > > Therefore calling it 'crap' can mean either that you are not entirely > > capable of judging the above mentioned simulation aspects, or that you > > lack any respect for other people's good work, not to mention basic > > decency. You decide. > > Ouch.... > > (mental note to self, don't piss off Gregor :-) >

He IS right though - netKar is actually very very good - certainly a great deal better than ( no offense to Ruud) - Racer was early on!! Doug

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:04:19 -0000, "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It is crap....total and absolute crap. After giving this some thought I think you managed to help netKar quite a bit here. What I wanted with this thread was to point some attention to it, and this growing thread will certainly have made a few people download it and try it. Thanks! :) /Martin

Doug Ellison wrote: > > He IS right though - netKar is actually very very good - certainly a great > deal better than ( no offense to Ruud) - Racer was early on!! I don't doubt Gregor for a second, so if he says the physics of this sim is good, then that's good enough for me, whether or not that translates in to a good product is another matter, I wish I had the time to try all this stuff but unfortunately time is in short supply and high demand these days, so I will have to listen to other people's opinions for the time being Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:33:14 -0000, "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> >> Gregor Veble wrote:...

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> > Therefore calling it 'crap' can mean either that you are not entirely >> > capable of judging the above mentioned simulation aspects, or that you >> > lack any respect for other people's good work, not to mention basic >> > decency. You decide. >> >> Ouch.... >> (mental note to self, don't piss off Gregor :-) > >He IS right though - netKar is actually very very good - certainly a great >deal better than ( no offense to Ruud) - Racer was early on!!

No offense taken. :) I must say they're doing a terrific job. Getting multiplayer to work nicely is certainly one of the most treacherous terrains (probably), and they seem to be doing that well (although I only have a PII400 which runs LFS too slowly to be really fun, so I haven't really tried online). Racer also started out as more of a 'hm, physics can't be that difficult, just add all forces and integrate' type of simple try. Ouch! 6 books and 2,5 years later I stand corrected. :) I wonder how the LFS guys finance themselves to be able to work fulltime on the project. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/