track accuracy

Have you ever noticed how many versions of Hockenheim, Monza, etc. there are? Each game developer seems to have his own idea of what tracks really look and feel like. I wonder if it would be possible for the track owners (or some other governing body) to give a 'seal of approval'. Strict guidelines could be given for track accuracy and if a developer passes them he could be allowed to advertise the seal on the game box, or however he sees fit. Sometimes it's the little things on a track that piss me off and I can't always tell by watching real race footage which is the most accurate. For example, (one of the many, many, things I didn't like about GP4) I'm racing Suzuka in GP4 trying to use the same lines I use in F1 2002. Going down the straight just before the corner that brings you under the bridge, and I run out of curbing (on the left) just before I make the hard right, and end up driving in the grass. The difference between GP4 and F1 2002 is only a few feet, but one of them is wrong (GP4?) and it's almost impossible to tell by watching a real race. If there was a 'seal of approval' for each track, you could tell before buying a game whether or not the developer did his homework. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

F1RC !!! -- The first ever pinball ezboard !! http://pub7.ezboard.com/bpinball "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message de news: ar0rt8$d7mtq$[email hidden]... > Have you ever noticed how many versions of Hockenheim, Monza, etc. there > are? Each game developer seems to have his own idea of what tracks really > look and feel like. > I wonder if it would be possible for the track owners (or some other > governing body) to give a 'seal of approval'. Strict guidelines could be > given for track accuracy and if a developer passes them he could be allowed > to advertise the seal on the game box, or however he sees fit. > Sometimes it's the little things on a track that piss me off and I can't > always tell by watching real race footage which is the most accurate. For > example, (one of the many, many, things I didn't like about GP4) I'm racing > Suzuka in GP4 trying to use the same lines I use in F1 2002. Going down the > straight just before the corner that brings you under the bridge, and I run > out of curbing (on the left) just before I make the hard right, and end up > driving in the grass. The difference between GP4 and F1 2002 is only a few > feet, but one of them is wrong (GP4?) and it's almost impossible to tell by > watching a real race. If there was a 'seal of approval' for each track, you > could tell before buying a game whether or not the developer did his > homework. > > -- > Slot > > Tweaks & Reviews > www.slottweak.com > >

F1RC !!! -- The first ever pinball ezboard !! http://pub7.ezboard.com/bpinball

Generally speaking ( pun kind of intended ) - if it's a toss up between F12002 and ANYTHING - then F12002's the one with the track errors I seriously dont think a single person from the ISI track modelling team has EVER watched a british gp in their life Doug

Has everyone seen the Real F1 vs F1 2002 comparison videos over at relaygames (site down at the moment) They show that F1 2002 isn't perfect, but it's darn close at *some* tracks.

"Andrew Williams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ar197q$dv954$[email hidden]... > Has everyone seen the Real F1 vs F1 2002 comparison videos over at > relaygames (site down at the moment) They show that F1 2002 isn'tperfect, > but it's darn close at *some* tracks. But some tracks are not even FUNNY Doug

Seal of Approval stuff would have to be regulated by some group. This means money. This means if EA WANTS the seal on their box, all they have to do is cough up enough cash. I agree track accuracy is a problem. But I think it really comes down to budgets. What part of the budget do you cut to send teams all over the world? WHat part of the budget suffers so that 2 feet of curbing is placed properly? Imagine my confusion, when driving the updated Nurburgring for SCGT, when a relatively flat section from the GPL track is actually a downhill run!! :) I remember folks griping about the original F1 2000 because the parabolica at monza was in the game a linked group of short straights, rather than a continuous turn. The guys had a point, but I suspect the line they drove was still the same whether the track borders were curved or short straight segments. Once again that is a budge issue, but this time not dollars and cents. But polygon budgets. The more detail in the track, the higher the hardware limit becomes. You could produce a perfectly crafted track, and it 'could' be a real performance killer. Folks have also claimed F1Rc and it's decendants were near perfect. I have only driven the demo but from that experience and from what others have claimed, the Ubi tracks are near perfectly smooth. More like a photocopy of an oil painting, you get the looks perfectly, but the texture and richness is lost.(damn...I'm sounding dang near sophisticated) dave henrie "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ar0rt8$d7mtq$[email hidden]... > Have you ever noticed how many versions of Hockenheim, Monza, etc. there > are? Each game developer seems to have his own idea of what tracks really > look and feel like. > I wonder if it would be possible for the track owners (or some other > governing body) to give a 'seal of approval'. Strict guidelines could be > given for track accuracy and if a developer passes them he could beallowed > to advertise the seal on the game box, or however he sees fit. > Sometimes it's the little things on a track that piss me off and I can't > always tell by watching real race footage which is the most accurate. For > example, (one of the many, many, things I didn't like about GP4) I'mracing > Suzuka in GP4 trying to use the same lines I use in F1 2002. Going downthe > straight just before the corner that brings you under the bridge, and Irun > out of curbing (on the left) just before I make the hard right, and end up > driving in the grass. The difference between GP4 and F1 2002 is only a few > feet, but one of them is wrong (GP4?) and it's almost impossible to tellby > watching a real race. If there was a 'seal of approval' for each track,you

Quoted text (10 lines)

> could tell before buying a game whether or not the developer did his > homework. > > -- > Slot > > Tweaks & Reviews > www.slottweak.com > >

> But some tracks are not even FUNNY Very true. Hungary and Silverstone are downright sad.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:00:55 -0500, "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote: > The difference between GP4 and F1 2002 is only a few >feet, but one of them is wrong (GP4?) F1 2002's tracks are among the worst ever modelled in a computer game. If you've ever played the version of Talladega that came with Nascar 1, I'd say that their track models are about that accurate. I.E. they sort of resemble the real tracks. The GP4 tracks, FWIW, are pretty spot on. Really, while I hate GP4 (mostly because of the controller config, actually) I think it could be argued that it's a better sim in many ways than F1 2002. Jason

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:16:34 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Imagine my confusion, when driving the updated Nurburgring for SCGT, when >a relatively flat section from the GPL track is actually a downhill run!! Since the Nurburgring was converted from GPL using GPLex (or am I mistaken here?) and models the modern one rather than the one from 1967, that sort of thing should be common everywhere. In 1970 (if I remember the year correctly) the Ring was highly renovated and large sections of the track were significantly changed. I can't imagine a relatively flat bit being changed into a downhill bit, but safety standards rarely made sense back then. A properly modelled post-1970 Ring should feel incredibly tame compared to the one in GPL. Most of the large elevation chanes were removed, particularly the jumps. Jason

Theres a guy called SLN that fixes the tracks...so its all good "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jyTA9.6049$dz2.677061@stones... > Generally speaking ( pun kind of intended ) - if it's a toss up between > F12002 and ANYTHING - then F12002's the one with the track errors > > I seriously dont think a single person from the ISI track modelling teamhas > EVER watched a british gp in their life > > Doug > >

> The GP4 tracks, FWIW, are pretty spot on. Really, while I hate GP4 > (mostly because of the controller config, actually) I think it could > be argued that it's a better sim in many ways than F1 2002. For sure, but not in the areas that really matter. GP4 has got it's problems, but the controller config is the least of its flaws. It's unusual, as is F1 2002's but they both work fine once you've sussed them. I prefer GPL's method of axis calibration, but on the whole, I find GP4 and F1 2002 to be more configurable.

Before tracks are built (or rebuilt) in the US, they must go through planning board approval. That means detailed, engineered prints with elevations are submitted to local code enforcement offices. Except for Hong Kong until a couple years ago, red tape in the Asia, Japan and Europe is even worse than it is in the US, so I assume they have them, also. The prints are public record and available to anyone, but it would be a nice gesture if track owners would give them out to game developers and offer to review the completed game's tracks as a matter of good will to their fans (probably more likely to happen with Nascar than F1). Then they could just allow them to use a logo or seal of approval stamp to show the track is accurate within certain standards. Or, they could just not allow the track name to be used if the game's version wasn't up to certain standards. Location and lengths of curbs could be covered with pictures. I'm not so concerned with tree locations that can change each year unless they're in the middle of the track :-) I don't believe it would cost too much to send someone out to 20 or so tracks and use a roll of film on each one. I know a few good amature photographers/race fans locally that would probably do it if their travel expenses were covered. For that matter, the track owners could probably provide plenty of pictures. How about this- Use in-car footage (already available for most F1 and Nascar tracks) showing the speed or time, get the measurments from that and couple it with the submitted elevation data. I don't see a big expense here IF a little ingenuity is used. By using a governing body, I just meant that the track owners could make the stuff available to Nascar (for example) so the developers wouldn't have to go to each track. Either way works. I don't think it would overburden the track owners. It's not like there are 100 developers writing a new Nascar or F1 game every year. I guess what I'm saying is that it appeared to be a big task at first, but after thinking about it for a while, it didn't seem like such a big deal. As it is, they're all fantasy tracks that look a lot like something else. Good physics seems to be subjective, at least in this ng. In some sims is pretty good now, but it may be a long time (if ever) before it can be perfect on a PC. Accurate tracks could be done now. At least if would be a step forward for sim fans. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:58:02 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:16:34 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >> Imagine my confusion, when driving the updated Nurburgring for SCGT, when >>a relatively flat section from the GPL track is actually a downhill run!! > >Since the Nurburgring was converted from GPL using GPLex (or am I >mistaken here?) and models the modern one rather than the one from >1967, that sort of thing should be common everywhere. In 1970 (if I >remember the year correctly) the Ring was highly renovated and large >sections of the track were significantly changed. I can't imagine a >relatively flat bit being changed into a downhill bit, but safety >standards rarely made sense back then. > >A properly modelled post-1970 Ring should feel incredibly tame >compared to the one in GPL. Most of the large elevation chanes were >removed, particularly the jumps.

Well, they didn't reshape the entire Eifel mountains, that's for sure! They planed off some of the sharper transients(jumps) and added the armco and a couple of metres of grass outside the kerbing and that's mostly it. Even still the F1's caught air at several places up until 1976. Something much other than that would have been entirely impossible. Unless you've been there you can't really appreciate the vastness of the place. It's HUGE and all natural. It is just not possible to alter any significant elevation changes without MAJOR landscaping. GPL's version of the ring is actually probably based on the modern configuration with the jumps added and kerbs removed. It seems to fit as the wooden handrail fence seems to correlate to the present armco and the grass on the side of the road. Pre-'70 fences, shrubbery and trees stood right next to the road all around the circuit.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:53:47 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) wrote: >... >F1 2002's tracks are among the worst ever modelled in a computer game. >... IMHO this simply is not true. I can only speak about the tracks I've experienced myself, and I must admit that particularly Spa is _really_ spot on. Even the older parts of Nürburgring and Hockenheim are quite good (NOT the season 2002 parts though, but: F1 2002 hit the shelves before those recent changes were even finished at the RL locations. Seems ISI had to deal with some blueprints). So don't intimate that *all* tracks are bad. Maybe *some* have shortcomings. Chris

On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:16:58 +0100, CMS <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:53:47 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) >wrote: >>... >>F1 2002's tracks are among the worst ever modelled in a computer game. >>... > >IMHO this simply is not true. >I can only speak about the tracks I've experienced myself, and I must >admit that particularly Spa is _really_ spot on. >Even the older parts of N�rburgring and Hockenheim are quite good

HARDLY N�rburgring! The track is _literally_ HALF as wide it should be. Some of the roadcamber is seriously messed up to.