Here are my personal initial observations concerning Nascar Thunder 2003.
So far, I have only run in testing mode at one track, Atlanta, so I could
get used to the handling, setup screens, menu's, etc... and these
observations will be limited to those area's. Later I'll post what I think
of the AI.
Inevitably NT2003 is going to be compared with NR2002. So be it. I'll do
the same here, posting what I think is better than NR2002, and what is worse
than NR2002.
First, IMHO, NT2003 does NOT suck as some have posted here. That certainly
doesn't mean it's perfect, or even close to perfect. I'm simply stating
that, IMHO, it does NOT suck.
What's better in NT2003 compared to NR2002
-------------------------------------------------
Tire Squeal sounds - The tire squeal sounds are really cool in NT2003 and it
sounds to me like they did a good job of rendering a true sound in relation
to what the car is actually doing. I am not crazy about the rest of the
sounds, though.
Steering and basic controller 'feel' - Yeah, it's hard to set up. Yeah,
there are too many damned options. No, I don't understand what the hell
"Digital Control Settings" are either, but this much I do know. Once you
get things tweaked right, the overall steering feel and accuracy in NT2003
is better than in NR2002. NT2003 does not have that 'slop around center',
especially at superspeedways, that plagues NR2002. I've not been happy with
the controller code in the NR series since it graduated to the GPL engine in
NR4. And this may be blasphemy to some, but I appreciate the fact that,
realisic or not, the damned pull-to-the-left does not seem to exist in
NT2003. I still contend that this 'feature' of NR2002 is more of a
hindrance than benifit, expecially to those with certain controllers. You
can drive NT2003 with a non-feed-forceback controller, stiff center spring
or not, comfortably. I have been extremely uncomfortable on SuperSpeedways
since NR4 came out with it's limited steering ratio settings, and with
NT2003 I finally feel that there is enough adjustment in the steering lock
to adjust it properly.
Force Feed-Back - I thing the Force Feedback in NT2003 is far better than
NR2002. I get more out of it, and ironically it feels a lot more like the
force-feedback in GPL to me than NR2002 ever did.
Wall Contact - The results of scraping the wall in NT2003 seems far more
compelling and accurate to me than they do in NR2002. The car 'bobbles'
along the wall properly, and the force-feedback relays more realistic
information IMHO. I also dig the way the wheel develops an appropriately
leveled vibration when you apply the brakes.
Tire heat modeling - NT2003 seems to model tire heat and grip FAR more
accurately than NR2002 does. In fact, warming up the tires by weaving
actually makes a difference in NT2003. Also, you absolutely feel the tires
develop pressure and heat in NT2003 in the first few laps. It really does
feel well modeled.
Peripheral Graphics - I'm not talking about the track surface itself. I'll
get to that later. I'm talking about the grandstands, people, infield,
signs, etc... NT2003 simply does it better.
Frame Rates - NT2003 seems to be more robust in the Frame Rate department.
I'm running in 1600X1200X32 and I'm pulling close to 80 fps in testing, and
while it certainly takes a hit with a full field, it's not as big a hit as
NR2002 takes. Call it more consistent. I am also running the MAS patch I
found online that's supposed to improve the car modeling.
Spin/Slide Realism - I honestly believe NT2003 does this better. I detect
NO hint of canning. For example, if set up too loose, everyone knows it can
get real interesting coming off of turn 4 at Atlanta, with the RR losing
bite and the rear of the car coming around. In NR2002, this usually gets
you into trouble fast because it can 'snap-spin' on you. Yeah, you can save
it, but it usually isn't pretty. In NT2003, the effect seems to be more
realistic to what I've felt in a real car. The break-free is more gradual,
more in line with what should be happening. And, you can control the car
better and recover with what feels like realistic inputs from the steering
and throttle. It's kind of neat how you can really steer the rear of the
car with the throttle. Can you go too far and start the "Hospital Wobble"
like you do in NR2002? Hell yes, but it doesn't seem to be as exxagerated
in NT2003.
Modification Abilities - If F1-2002 is any indication, the customization
abilities of NT2003 are going to be interesting.
What's worse in NT2003 compared to NR2002
-------------------------------------------------
Track Graphics/Rendering - God, what a mess! Either NT2003 is tons more
realistic, or NR2002 is. Either way, they are not comparable in any way,
shape or form. In a way, it looks to me like NT2003 models a worn,
post-race track while NR2002 models a clean, pre-race track. The shading of
the tracks in NT2003, like where the braking points start, isn't even
modeled as far as I can tell. And what IS it with this oil-slick blue tinge
on the whole racing line surface? I call it "Shit-Fly Blue". Some will get
that, some won't :)
Menu's - The Menu's in NT2003 are too busy, and there are too many of them.
It seems like you have to do twice the amount of work to get anything done
in NT2003 than you do in NR2002.
Replay System - I don't like it. Not at all. NR2002 blows NT2003 away in
this regard.
Overall Sounds - NR2002, with the exception of the Tire Squeal sounds, beats
the hell out of NT2003. NT2003, especially at high RPM's, has a truly
annoying engine tone. It's similar to the problems that many felt Nascar
Heat had at high RPM's. Once you get above a certain RPM, the engine sounds
are so high-pitched, distorted and annoying, you can't hear small engine
variations that are very important to a driver.
Car Graphics - I still have to think about this one, but I think NR2002 wins
hands-down.
Players Car - I want my OWN car. I don't want to drive someone elses under
someone elses name. Enough said.
What I'm not sure about yet
----------------------------
Physics - Overall, I think NR2002 still wins here, but I'm not completely
decided yet.
Garage Settings - I will say this. When you change something in NT2003, you
KNOW you change something. I'm not saying it's accurate, but I'm saying
there is NO doubt that you changed something. I believe I've uncovered a
few flaws in NT2003's setup modeling, but I'm not sure yet. It might be
that I don't understand the intricities of NT2003 yet. First, there's the
Grille Tape. It just doesn't seem to increase the downforce, and thus
lessen the push, like I expect it to. The fender flares are new, so I'll
pass on them for now. Ok, here's the big one. Either the right-front
camber in NT2003 is completely mis-modeled, or I just don't understand what
the setup screen is relating to me as far as movement-to-effect is
concerned, and here's why. Everyone knows that at most tracks, you have to
run negative camber on the right side to keep the tire temps flat across the
tire. Well, at Atlanta at east, it took me forever to get the inner tire
temp down out of the stratosphere and even across the tire. When I was
done, the setting was at 2.7 degrees. POSITIVE! Wazzup with that ? The
left side was 1.7 degree's. POSITIVE again. Either I don't understand the
screen, or something is screwed up here.
Damage Modeling - Not there yet. Will find out when I start running with
other cars.
Effects of wear as laps go on - Not there yet, will find out more later, but
if the tire temp modeling is any sign, I think it's going to be pretty good.
That's enough for now. Another bite to come later :)
-Larry
Larry's detailed initial review of NASCAR Thunder 2003
Larry posted a lengthy, balanced review of NASCAR Thunder 2003 based on testing at Atlanta, covering handling, setups and menus, which readers praised as fair. Discussion turned to whether a stock car should pull left, with ymenard and others arguing it reflected realism in Papyrus sims, and to odd camber behaviour requiring positive right-side camber for even tyre temperatures. No track editor was included.
Automated summary.
Excellent review Larry. Thanks very much.
Todd
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ommt9.1812$[email hidden]...
> Here are my personal initial observations concerning Nascar Thunder 2003.
> So far, I have only run in testing mode at one track, Atlanta, so I could
> get used to the handling, setup screens, menu's, etc... and these
> observations will be limited to those area's. Later I'll post what Ithink
> of the AI.
>
> Inevitably NT2003 is going to be compared with NR2002. So be it. I'll do
> the same here, posting what I think is better than NR2002, and what isworse
> than NR2002.
>
> First, IMHO, NT2003 does NOT suck as some have posted here. Thatcertainly
> doesn't mean it's perfect, or even close to perfect. I'm simply stating
> that, IMHO, it does NOT suck.
>
> What's better in NT2003 compared to NR2002
> -------------------------------------------------
> Tire Squeal sounds - The tire squeal sounds are really cool in NT2003 andit
> sounds to me like they did a good job of rendering a true sound inrelation
with
> the controller code in the NR series since it graduated to the GPL enginein
> NR4. And this may be blasphemy to some, but I appreciate the fact that,
> realisic or not, the damned pull-to-the-left does not seem to exist in
> NT2003. I still contend that this 'feature' of NR2002 is more of a
> hindrance than benifit, expecially to those with certain controllers. You
> can drive NT2003 with a non-feed-forceback controller, stiff center spring
> or not, comfortably. I have been extremely uncomfortable onSuperSpeedways
tires
> develop pressure and heat in NT2003 in the first few laps. It really does
> feel well modeled.
>
> Peripheral Graphics - I'm not talking about the track surface itself.I'll
> get to that later. I'm talking about the grandstands, people, infield,
> signs, etc... NT2003 simply does it better.
>
> Frame Rates - NT2003 seems to be more robust in the Frame Rate department.
> I'm running in 1600X1200X32 and I'm pulling close to 80 fps in testing,and
> while it certainly takes a hit with a full field, it's not as big a hit as
> NR2002 takes. Call it more consistent. I am also running the MAS patch I
> found online that's supposed to improve the car modeling.
>
> Spin/Slide Realism - I honestly believe NT2003 does this better. I detect
> NO hint of canning. For example, if set up too loose, everyone knows itcan
> get real interesting coming off of turn 4 at Atlanta, with the RR losing
> bite and the rear of the car coming around. In NR2002, this usually gets
> you into trouble fast because it can 'snap-spin' on you. Yeah, you cansave
> it, but it usually isn't pretty. In NT2003, the effect seems to be more
> realistic to what I've felt in a real car. The break-free is moregradual,
of
> the tracks in NT2003, like where the braking points start, isn't even
> modeled as far as I can tell. And what IS it with this oil-slick bluetinge
> on the whole racing line surface? I call it "Shit-Fly Blue". Some willget
> that, some won't :)
>
> Menu's - The Menu's in NT2003 are too busy, and there are too many ofthem.
beats
> the hell out of NT2003. NT2003, especially at high RPM's, has a truly
> annoying engine tone. It's similar to the problems that many felt Nascar
> Heat had at high RPM's. Once you get above a certain RPM, the enginesounds
> are so high-pitched, distorted and annoying, you can't hear small engine
> variations that are very important to a driver.
>
> Car Graphics - I still have to think about this one, but I think NR2002wins
> hands-down.
>
> Players Car - I want my OWN car. I don't want to drive someone elsesunder
you
what
> the setup screen is relating to me as far as movement-to-effect is
> concerned, and here's why. Everyone knows that at most tracks, you haveto
> run negative camber on the right side to keep the tire temps flat acrossthe
> tire. Well, at Atlanta at east, it took me forever to get the inner tire
> temp down out of the stratosphere and even across the tire. When I was
> done, the setting was at 2.7 degrees. POSITIVE! Wazzup with that ? The
> left side was 1.7 degree's. POSITIVE again. Either I don't understandthe
> screen, or something is screwed up here.
>
> Damage Modeling - Not there yet. Will find out when I start running with
> other cars.
>
> Effects of wear as laps go on - Not there yet, will find out more later,but
> if the tire temp modeling is any sign, I think it's going to be prettygood.
>
> That's enough for now. Another bite to come later :)
>
> -Larry
>
>
Quoted text (9 lines)
> to what the car is actually doing. I am not crazy about the rest of the > sounds, though. > > Steering and basic controller 'feel' - Yeah, it's hard to set up. Yeah, > there are too many damned options. No, I don't understand what the hell > "Digital Control Settings" are either, but this much I do know. Once you > get things tweaked right, the overall steering feel and accuracy in NT2003 > is better than in NR2002. NT2003 does not have that 'slop around center', > especially at superspeedways, that plagues NR2002. I've not been happyQuoted text (17 lines)
> since NR4 came out with it's limited steering ratio settings, and with > NT2003 I finally feel that there is enough adjustment in the steering lock > to adjust it properly. > > Force Feed-Back - I thing the Force Feedback in NT2003 is far better than > NR2002. I get more out of it, and ironically it feels a lot more like the > force-feedback in GPL to me than NR2002 ever did. > > Wall Contact - The results of scraping the wall in NT2003 seems far more > compelling and accurate to me than they do in NR2002. The car 'bobbles' > along the wall properly, and the force-feedback relays more realistic > information IMHO. I also dig the way the wheel develops an appropriately > leveled vibration when you apply the brakes. > > Tire heat modeling - NT2003 seems to model tire heat and grip FAR more > accurately than NR2002 does. In fact, warming up the tires by weaving > actually makes a difference in NT2003. Also, you absolutely feel theQuoted text (18 lines)
> more in line with what should be happening. And, you can control the car > better and recover with what feels like realistic inputs from the steering > and throttle. It's kind of neat how you can really steer the rear of the > car with the throttle. Can you go too far and start the "Hospital Wobble" > like you do in NR2002? Hell yes, but it doesn't seem to be as exxagerated > in NT2003. > > Modification Abilities - If F1-2002 is any indication, the customization > abilities of NT2003 are going to be interesting. > > > > What's worse in NT2003 compared to NR2002 > ------------------------------------------------- > Track Graphics/Rendering - God, what a mess! Either NT2003 is tons more > realistic, or NR2002 is. Either way, they are not comparable in any way, > shape or form. In a way, it looks to me like NT2003 models a worn, > post-race track while NR2002 models a clean, pre-race track. The shadingQuoted text (7 lines)
> It seems like you have to do twice the amount of work to get anything done > in NT2003 than you do in NR2002. > > Replay System - I don't like it. Not at all. NR2002 blows NT2003 away in > this regard. > > Overall Sounds - NR2002, with the exception of the Tire Squeal sounds,Quoted text (9 lines)
> someone elses name. Enough said. > > > What I'm not sure about yet > ---------------------------- > Physics - Overall, I think NR2002 still wins here, but I'm not completely > decided yet. > > Garage Settings - I will say this. When you change something in NT2003,Quoted text (8 lines)
> KNOW you change something. I'm not saying it's accurate, but I'm saying > there is NO doubt that you changed something. I believe I've uncovered a > few flaws in NT2003's setup modeling, but I'm not sure yet. It might be > that I don't understand the intricities of NT2003 yet. First, there's the > Grille Tape. It just doesn't seem to increase the downforce, and thus > lessen the push, like I expect it to. The fender flares are new, so I'll > pass on them for now. Ok, here's the big one. Either the right-front > camber in NT2003 is completely mis-modeled, or I just don't understandLarry wrote:
Umm, isn't there a track editor, where you change such things as
the track textures and even the track inaccuracies? I haven't been able
to get a straight answer on that from anyone here (despite previews
which indicated that an editor would be present)...
JD
--
==============================
I love you sometimes, always never
==============================
Quoted text (13 lines)
> > > What's worse in NT2003 compared to NR2002 > ------------------------------------------------- > Track Graphics/Rendering - God, what a mess! Either NT2003 is tons more > realistic, or NR2002 is. Either way, they are not comparable in any way, > shape or form. In a way, it looks to me like NT2003 models a worn, > post-race track while NR2002 models a clean, pre-race track. The shading of > the tracks in NT2003, like where the braking points start, isn't even > modeled as far as I can tell. And what IS it with this oil-slick blue tinge > on the whole racing line surface? I call it "Shit-Fly Blue". Some will get > that, some won't :) >Excellent review, Larry. Unbiased, open-minded. Tough, but fair. Can't
ask for more.
> Umm, isn't there a track editor, where you change such things as
> the track textures and even the track inaccuracies? I haven't been able
> to get a straight answer on that from anyone here (despite previews
> which indicated that an editor would be present)...
There's no track editor included, but there's a number of tools floating
around the 'net that let you edit tracks very easily in ISI sims. It's been
a while, but I think there's a tool called MAS studio that lets you do it.
I even stumbled across a site dedicated to MAS editing at one stage. I'm
sure someone here can help..
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ommt9.1812$[email hidden]...
> And this may be blasphemy to some, but I appreciate the fact that,
> realisic or not, the damned pull-to-the-left does not seem to exist in
> NT2003. I still contend that this 'feature' of NR2002 is more of a
> hindrance than benifit,
It's not a feature they added in. It's a symptom of a realistic physics
engine
Thus - if it's absent - it says much about the physics model.
Doug
It's fun to play with. It really is...
You know, I won't even get upset if the AI isn't that smart. I just want
them to be _respectful_, unlike the dive-bombers in NR2002.
I hope to get some more time in tonight or tomorrow night.
Thurday night is Survivor and CSI night, though :)
-Larry
"Dastardly Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 00:49:24 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >That's enough for now. Another bite to come later :) > > > >-Larry > > > > Cool. Finally somneone doing a rational review. Thx. Based on what you > said so far I would maybe buy it. Depends on how your review of the AI > is. Looking forward to it.Thanks :)
-Larry
"JTBurn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
2003.
> > So far, I have only run in testing mode at one track, Atlanta, so Icould
> > get used to the handling, setup screens, menu's, etc... and these
> > observations will be limited to those area's. Later I'll post what I
> think
> > of the AI.
> >
> > Inevitably NT2003 is going to be compared with NR2002. So be it. I'lldo
and
you
> > get things tweaked right, the overall steering feel and accuracy inNT2003
> > is better than in NR2002. NT2003 does not have that 'slop aroundcenter',
> > especially at superspeedways, that plagues NR2002. I've not been happy
> with
> > the controller code in the NR series since it graduated to the GPLengine
> in
> > NR4. And this may be blasphemy to some, but I appreciate the fact that,
> > realisic or not, the damned pull-to-the-left does not seem to exist in
> > NT2003. I still contend that this 'feature' of NR2002 is more of a
> > hindrance than benifit, expecially to those with certain controllers.You
> > can drive NT2003 with a non-feed-forceback controller, stiff centerspring
> > or not, comfortably. I have been extremely uncomfortable on
> SuperSpeedways
> > since NR4 came out with it's limited steering ratio settings, and with
> > NT2003 I finally feel that there is enough adjustment in the steeringlock
> > to adjust it properly.
> >
> > Force Feed-Back - I thing the Force Feedback in NT2003 is far betterthan
> > NR2002. I get more out of it, and ironically it feels a lot more likethe
> > force-feedback in GPL to me than NR2002 ever did.
> >
> > Wall Contact - The results of scraping the wall in NT2003 seems far more
> > compelling and accurate to me than they do in NR2002. The car 'bobbles'
> > along the wall properly, and the force-feedback relays more realistic
> > information IMHO. I also dig the way the wheel develops anappropriately
does
department.
> > I'm running in 1600X1200X32 and I'm pulling close to 80 fps in testing,
> and
> > while it certainly takes a hit with a full field, it's not as big a hitas
> > NR2002 takes. Call it more consistent. I am also running the MAS patchI
> > found online that's supposed to improve the car modeling.
> >
> > Spin/Slide Realism - I honestly believe NT2003 does this better. Idetect
> > NO hint of canning. For example, if set up too loose, everyone knows it
> can
> > get real interesting coming off of turn 4 at Atlanta, with the RR losing
> > bite and the rear of the car coming around. In NR2002, this usuallygets
> > you into trouble fast because it can 'snap-spin' on you. Yeah, you can
> save
> > it, but it usually isn't pretty. In NT2003, the effect seems to be more
> > realistic to what I've felt in a real car. The break-free is more
> gradual,
> > more in line with what should be happening. And, you can control thecar
> > better and recover with what feels like realistic inputs from thesteering
> > and throttle. It's kind of neat how you can really steer the rear ofthe
> > car with the throttle. Can you go too far and start the "HospitalWobble"
> > like you do in NR2002? Hell yes, but it doesn't seem to be asexxagerated
way,
> > shape or form. In a way, it looks to me like NT2003 models a worn,
> > post-race track while NR2002 models a clean, pre-race track. Theshading
done
> > in NT2003 than you do in NR2002.
> >
> > Replay System - I don't like it. Not at all. NR2002 blows NT2003 awayin
> > this regard.
> >
> > Overall Sounds - NR2002, with the exception of the Tire Squeal sounds,
> beats
> > the hell out of NT2003. NT2003, especially at high RPM's, has a truly
> > annoying engine tone. It's similar to the problems that many feltNascar
completely
> > decided yet.
> >
> > Garage Settings - I will say this. When you change something in NT2003,
> you
> > KNOW you change something. I'm not saying it's accurate, but I'm saying
> > there is NO doubt that you changed something. I believe I've uncovereda
> > few flaws in NT2003's setup modeling, but I'm not sure yet. It might be
> > that I don't understand the intricities of NT2003 yet. First, there'sthe
> > Grille Tape. It just doesn't seem to increase the downforce, and thus
> > lessen the push, like I expect it to. The fender flares are new, soI'll
tire
> > temp down out of the stratosphere and even across the tire. When I was
> > done, the setting was at 2.7 degrees. POSITIVE! Wazzup with that ?The
> > left side was 1.7 degree's. POSITIVE again. Either I don't understand
> the
> > screen, or something is screwed up here.
> >
> > Damage Modeling - Not there yet. Will find out when I start runningwith
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Excellent review Larry. Thanks very much. > > Todd > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ommt9.1812$[email hidden]... > > Here are my personal initial observations concerning Nascar ThunderQuoted text (12 lines)
> > the same here, posting what I think is better than NR2002, and what is > worse > > than NR2002. > > > > First, IMHO, NT2003 does NOT suck as some have posted here. That > certainly > > doesn't mean it's perfect, or even close to perfect. I'm simply stating > > that, IMHO, it does NOT suck. > > > > What's better in NT2003 compared to NR2002 > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Tire Squeal sounds - The tire squeal sounds are really cool in NT2003Quoted text (9 lines)
> it > > sounds to me like they did a good job of rendering a true sound in > relation > > to what the car is actually doing. I am not crazy about the rest of the > > sounds, though. > > > > Steering and basic controller 'feel' - Yeah, it's hard to set up. Yeah, > > there are too many damned options. No, I don't understand what the hell > > "Digital Control Settings" are either, but this much I do know. OnceQuoted text (7 lines)
> > leveled vibration when you apply the brakes. > > > > Tire heat modeling - NT2003 seems to model tire heat and grip FAR more > > accurately than NR2002 does. In fact, warming up the tires by weaving > > actually makes a difference in NT2003. Also, you absolutely feel the > tires > > develop pressure and heat in NT2003 in the first few laps. It reallyQuoted text (8 lines)
> > feel well modeled. > > > > Peripheral Graphics - I'm not talking about the track surface itself. > I'll > > get to that later. I'm talking about the grandstands, people, infield, > > signs, etc... NT2003 simply does it better. > > > > Frame Rates - NT2003 seems to be more robust in the Frame RateQuoted text (11 lines)
> > in NT2003. > > > > Modification Abilities - If F1-2002 is any indication, the customization > > abilities of NT2003 are going to be interesting. > > > > > > > > What's worse in NT2003 compared to NR2002 > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Track Graphics/Rendering - God, what a mess! Either NT2003 is tons more > > realistic, or NR2002 is. Either way, they are not comparable in anyQuoted text (11 lines)
> of > > the tracks in NT2003, like where the braking points start, isn't even > > modeled as far as I can tell. And what IS it with this oil-slick blue > tinge > > on the whole racing line surface? I call it "Shit-Fly Blue". Some will > get > > that, some won't :) > > > > Menu's - The Menu's in NT2003 are too busy, and there are too many of > them. > > It seems like you have to do twice the amount of work to get anythingQuoted text (17 lines)
> > Heat had at high RPM's. Once you get above a certain RPM, the engine > sounds > > are so high-pitched, distorted and annoying, you can't hear small engine > > variations that are very important to a driver. > > > > Car Graphics - I still have to think about this one, but I think NR2002 > wins > > hands-down. > > > > Players Car - I want my OWN car. I don't want to drive someone elses > under > > someone elses name. Enough said. > > > > > > What I'm not sure about yet > > ---------------------------- > > Physics - Overall, I think NR2002 still wins here, but I'm notQuoted text (9 lines)
> > pass on them for now. Ok, here's the big one. Either the right-front > > camber in NT2003 is completely mis-modeled, or I just don't understand > what > > the setup screen is relating to me as far as movement-to-effect is > > concerned, and here's why. Everyone knows that at most tracks, you have > to > > run negative camber on the right side to keep the tire temps flat across > the > > tire. Well, at Atlanta at east, it took me forever to get the innerQuoted text (14 lines)
> > other cars. > > > > Effects of wear as laps go on - Not there yet, will find out more later, > but > > if the tire temp modeling is any sign, I think it's going to be pretty > good. > > > > That's enough for now. Another bite to come later :) > > > > -Larry > > > > > >I haven't seen one.
-Larry
"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
way,
> > shape or form. In a way, it looks to me like NT2003 models a worn,
> > post-race track while NR2002 models a clean, pre-race track. Theshading of
> > the tracks in NT2003, like where the braking points start, isn't even
> > modeled as far as I can tell. And what IS it with this oil-slick bluetinge
> > on the whole racing line surface? I call it "Shit-Fly Blue". Some willget
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Larry wrote: > > > > > > > What's worse in NT2003 compared to NR2002 > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Track Graphics/Rendering - God, what a mess! Either NT2003 is tons more > > realistic, or NR2002 is. Either way, they are not comparable in anyQuoted text (16 lines)
> > that, some won't :) > > > > Umm, isn't there a track editor, where you change such things as > the track textures and even the track inaccuracies? I haven't been able > to get a straight answer on that from anyone here (despite previews > which indicated that an editor would be present)... > > JD > > -- > ============================== > I love you sometimes, always never > ============================== > >Thanks :)
-Larry
"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ap50cb$rmkr7$[email hidden]...
> Excellent review, Larry. Unbiased, open-minded. Tough, but fair. Can't
> ask for more.
>
>
Actually, you are wrong, but I'm not getting myself buried into THIS
argument.
-Larry
"Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ap630h$rqs4t$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (16 lines)
> > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ommt9.1812$[email hidden]... > > And this may be blasphemy to some, but I appreciate the fact that, > > realisic or not, the damned pull-to-the-left does not seem to exist in > > NT2003. I still contend that this 'feature' of NR2002 is more of a > > hindrance than benifit, > > It's not a feature they added in. It's a symptom of a realistic physics > engine > > Thus - if it's absent - it says much about the physics model. > > Doug > >Can't wait to hear your review of the AI. AI would be the biggest reason for
me to by NT2003. I play mostly offline so the multiplayer part is not a big
deal for me.
MadDAWG
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:%sAt9.2771$[email hidden]...
> Actually, you are wrong, but I'm not getting myself buried into THIS
> argument.
>
> -Larry
lol - sounds like something in a school playground!!
Doug
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:58:50 +0100, "Doug Ellison"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>It's not a feature they added in. It's a symptom of a realistic physics
>engine
>
>Thus - if it's absent - it says much about the physics model.
It's there slightly in the default setups (or at least I feel it with
my wheel set to full-linear - i.e. 50% axis sensitivity, 0% speed
sensitivity) but not really overly noticeable. I stil haven't had the
time to try real setups, but, as Larry pointed out, if ideal tire
temps come with positive camber on both sides then the pull to the
left won't be there.
After running Thunder for a few hours I have serious problems just
pulling out of the pits in N2002. I was running some more laps last
night at Atlanta (smoking the AI by simply not braking until the last
possible moment near mid corner and then immediately hammering the
throttle, bah) and afterwards I wanted to directly compare it to N2002
and I couldn't even pull the car out of the pits without looping it.
The underlying physics code in NT2k3 seems solid, but the torque and
engine braking models seem way off base to me. Most games seem to
have too much engine braking, NT2k3 doesn't really seem to model it at
all, and it seems impossible to me to generate any torque at all from
a standstill (car basically remains inert in first gear until you get
into the high RPM's, where it wants to snap-spin). Jumping back into
N2002 the much more extreme camber-pull and ability to smoke the tires
by gunning the gas in 1st immediately smack you in the face. In Nt2k3
the biggest places I've seen the lack of engine braking cause me
trouble is at Dover, where I can be running a great line, and have 0
throttle mid-corner and suddenly the car is into the wall, and Watkins
Glen where I'm started to adopt a slightly more extreme version of the
line the AI uses, applying a tiny bit of brake for the esses and the
outer loop.
So far while I don't find the game to be realistic in any manner (the
handling isn't awful, but the tracks are ridiculous, at least the 3
I've been to in real life and the Glen), quick dices with the AI can
be fun. I'm not sure which sim I would give the nod to in AI, since
each series does some things well and other things not so well.
NT2k3's AI seems to be over sensitive to the aggression slider, I
still haven't been able to find a good setting between completely
docile and hammering your bumper. I'm not sure if the cars ever have
accidents or mechanical problems since I haven't seen either myself
and if you sim races they all finish a'la Heat. The actual driving,
as far as lines and car interaction reminds me of F1 2002 except I
haven't seen the same level of mistakes. Occasionally I'll notice a
car getting a bit squirrely up ahead, but since cars can bounce off of
each other so easily it doesn't make much of a difference. NR 2002
still feels, to me, more like professional WC drivers if tuned
correctly (and will be even better when the Pits release the RPY
editor and I can fix the glaring problems at Pocono). Sometimes they
lose it mid-turn by being too aggressive, sometimes they bump each
other and can't save it, sometimes they'll hang off my rear looking
for a way past and other times they sit back waiting for a mistake.
The AI's behavior when passing being passed in Nt2k3 is heavily linked
to the aggression slider, there doesn't seem to be multiple AI states
in overtaking situations. Either they rarely pass and move over the
second you get near them, or bang off your bumper incessantly and make
diving passes anywhere they please. That said, NT2k3 with the
aggression set to 100% probably does a better job of simulatng the
drivers you'd find in a pickup race on WON rather than WC cars, which
seems to be what people prefer so YMMV. I still hate that fix Papy
added a few patches ago to make the AI super-resistant to taps from
the rear. At this point I'd give the AI a tie. The way the AI
instantly slows when yellow is thrown in Nt2k3 is also annoying, don't
expect to see realistic multi-car pileups in tight traffic since the
AI has Nascar 1-through-3 style insta-brakes. Also, watch your
following distance into T1 at the Glen because the AI can and will
stop on a dime.
Jason
What about cautions in Multiplayer.
--
Mike Grandy
www.precision-racing.com
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ommt9.1812$[email hidden]...
> Here are my personal initial observations concerning Nascar Thunder 2003.
> So far, I have only run in testing mode at one track, Atlanta, so I could
> get used to the handling, setup screens, menu's, etc... and these
> observations will be limited to those area's. Later I'll post what I
think
> of the AI.
>
> Inevitably NT2003 is going to be compared with NR2002. So be it. I'll do
> the same here, posting what I think is better than NR2002, and what is
worse
> than NR2002.
>
> First, IMHO, NT2003 does NOT suck as some have posted here. That
certainly
> doesn't mean it's perfect, or even close to perfect. I'm simply stating
> that, IMHO, it does NOT suck.
>
> What's better in NT2003 compared to NR2002
> -------------------------------------------------
> Tire Squeal sounds - The tire squeal sounds are really cool in NT2003 and
it
> sounds to me like they did a good job of rendering a true sound in
relation
> to what the car is actually doing. I am not crazy about the rest of the
> sounds, though.
>
> Steering and basic controller 'feel' - Yeah, it's hard to set up. Yeah,
> there are too many damned options. No, I don't understand what the hell
> "Digital Control Settings" are either, but this much I do know. Once you
> get things tweaked right, the overall steering feel and accuracy in NT2003
> is better than in NR2002. NT2003 does not have that 'slop around center',
> especially at superspeedways, that plagues NR2002. I've not been happy
with
> the controller code in the NR series since it graduated to the GPL engine
in
> NR4. And this may be blasphemy to some, but I appreciate the fact that,
> realisic or not, the damned pull-to-the-left does not seem to exist in
> NT2003. I still contend that this 'feature' of NR2002 is more of a
> hindrance than benifit, expecially to those with certain controllers. You
> can drive NT2003 with a non-feed-forceback controller, stiff center spring
> or not, comfortably. I have been extremely uncomfortable on
SuperSpeedways
> since NR4 came out with it's limited steering ratio settings, and with
> NT2003 I finally feel that there is enough adjustment in the steering lock
> to adjust it properly.
>
> Force Feed-Back - I thing the Force Feedback in NT2003 is far better than
> NR2002. I get more out of it, and ironically it feels a lot more like the
> force-feedback in GPL to me than NR2002 ever did.
>
> Wall Contact - The results of scraping the wall in NT2003 seems far more
> compelling and accurate to me than they do in NR2002. The car 'bobbles'
> along the wall properly, and the force-feedback relays more realistic
> information IMHO. I also dig the way the wheel develops an appropriately
> leveled vibration when you apply the brakes.
>
> Tire heat modeling - NT2003 seems to model tire heat and grip FAR more
> accurately than NR2002 does. In fact, warming up the tires by weaving
> actually makes a difference in NT2003. Also, you absolutely feel the
tires
> develop pressure and heat in NT2003 in the first few laps. It really does
> feel well modeled.
>
> Peripheral Graphics - I'm not talking about the track surface itself.
I'll
> get to that later. I'm talking about the grandstands, people, infield,
> signs, etc... NT2003 simply does it better.
>
> Frame Rates - NT2003 seems to be more robust in the Frame Rate department.
> I'm running in 1600X1200X32 and I'm pulling close to 80 fps in testing,
and
> while it certainly takes a hit with a full field, it's not as big a hit as
> NR2002 takes. Call it more consistent. I am also running the MAS patch I
> found online that's supposed to improve the car modeling.
>
> Spin/Slide Realism - I honestly believe NT2003 does this better. I detect
> NO hint of canning. For example, if set up too loose, everyone knows it
can
> get real interesting coming off of turn 4 at Atlanta, with the RR losing
> bite and the rear of the car coming around. In NR2002, this usually gets
> you into trouble fast because it can 'snap-spin' on you. Yeah, you can
save
> it, but it usually isn't pretty. In NT2003, the effect seems to be more
> realistic to what I've felt in a real car. The break-free is more
gradual,
> more in line with what should be happening. And, you can control the car
> better and recover with what feels like realistic inputs from the steering
> and throttle. It's kind of neat how you can really steer the rear of the
> car with the throttle. Can you go too far and start the "Hospital Wobble"
> like you do in NR2002? Hell yes, but it doesn't seem to be as exxagerated
> in NT2003.
>
> Modification Abilities - If F1-2002 is any indication, the customization
> abilities of NT2003 are going to be interesting.
>
>
>
> What's worse in NT2003 compared to NR2002
> -------------------------------------------------
> Track Graphics/Rendering - God, what a mess! Either NT2003 is tons more
> realistic, or NR2002 is. Either way, they are not comparable in any way,
> shape or form. In a way, it looks to me like NT2003 models a worn,
> post-race track while NR2002 models a clean, pre-race track. The shading
of
> the tracks in NT2003, like where the braking points start, isn't even
> modeled as far as I can tell. And what IS it with this oil-slick blue
tinge
> on the whole racing line surface? I call it "Shit-Fly Blue". Some will
get
> that, some won't :)
>
> Menu's - The Menu's in NT2003 are too busy, and there are too many of
them.
> It seems like you have to do twice the amount of work to get anything done
> in NT2003 than you do in NR2002.
>
> Replay System - I don't like it. Not at all. NR2002 blows NT2003 away in
> this regard.
>
> Overall Sounds - NR2002, with the exception of the Tire Squeal sounds,
beats
> the hell out of NT2003. NT2003, especially at high RPM's, has a truly
> annoying engine tone. It's similar to the problems that many felt Nascar
> Heat had at high RPM's. Once you get above a certain RPM, the engine
sounds
> are so high-pitched, distorted and annoying, you can't hear small engine
> variations that are very important to a driver.
>
> Car Graphics - I still have to think about this one, but I think NR2002
wins
> hands-down.
>
> Players Car - I want my OWN car. I don't want to drive someone elses
under
> someone elses name. Enough said.
>
>
> What I'm not sure about yet
> ----------------------------
> Physics - Overall, I think NR2002 still wins here, but I'm not completely
> decided yet.
>
> Garage Settings - I will say this. When you change something in NT2003,
you
> KNOW you change something. I'm not saying it's accurate, but I'm saying
> there is NO doubt that you changed something. I believe I've uncovered a
> few flaws in NT2003's setup modeling, but I'm not sure yet. It might be
> that I don't understand the intricities of NT2003 yet. First, there's the
> Grille Tape. It just doesn't seem to increase the downforce, and thus
> lessen the push, like I expect it to. The fender flares are new, so I'll
> pass on them for now. Ok, here's the big one. Either the right-front
> camber in NT2003 is completely mis-modeled, or I just don't understand
what
> the setup screen is relating to me as far as movement-to-effect is
> concerned, and here's why. Everyone knows that at most tracks, you have
to
> run negative camber on the right side to keep the tire temps flat across
the
> tire. Well, at Atlanta at east, it took me forever to get the inner tire
> temp down out of the stratosphere and even across the tire. When I was
> done, the setting was at 2.7 degrees. POSITIVE! Wazzup with that ? The
> left side was 1.7 degree's. POSITIVE again. Either I don't understand
the
> screen, or something is screwed up here.
>
> Damage Modeling - Not there yet. Will find out when I start running with
> other cars.
>
> Effects of wear as laps go on - Not there yet, will find out more later,
but
> if the tire temp modeling is any sign, I think it's going to be pretty
good.
>
> That's enough for now. Another bite to come later :)
>
> -Larry
>
>
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:52:11 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Actually, you are wrong, but I'm not getting myself buried into THIS
>argument.
Ah so you're saying that a car with positive camber on one side and
negative camber on the other, tires that are larger on one side than
the other, and most of the weight on on side won't try to steer to one
side? Even the original Leadfoot games model the pull to the left
with a good setup.
Jason
Actually it's more a feature of a certain type of setup, and if the base
setups in NT2003 aren't designed that way, then I wouldn't expect it to
happen, regardless of physics model. Larry, is it possible to do
asymmetric caster in NT2003? I think that is what primarily causes the
pull.
"Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ap630h$rqs4t$[email hidden]...
>
> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:ommt9.1812$[email hidden]...
> > And this may be blasphemy to some, but I appreciate the fact that,
> > realisic or not, the damned pull-to-the-left does not seem to existin
> > NT2003. I still contend that this 'feature' of NR2002 is more of a
> > hindrance than benifit,
>
> It's not a feature they added in. It's a symptom of a realisticphysics
Quoted text (7 lines)
> engine > > Thus - if it's absent - it says much about the physics model. > > Doug > >On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:44:27 GMT, Larry wrote:
> Thanks :)
>
> -Larry
>
While Larry's reviews tend to be good and unbiased, his quoting
is severely handicapped (as opposed to Todd Sorensen ;-). You
just quoted 240 lines of text for a simple "thank you". Great use of
electrons, mate! ;-)
Cheers,
Uwe
--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
>"Dastardly Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Well, it's less noticable in NR2002 than it was in N4 so are you
> saying the physics engine in N4 is better than NR2002?
It's less noticeable because they went too far in N4. It's accurate in
NR2002. Anybody who says that it's not realistic should ask Dale Jr. who've
said often on and off-camera (while racing NR2002 in multiplayer) that is
truly is.
Just the fact that the physics in NT2003 don't model such thing are the best
example that it's not made for us at all. It totally unrealistically
changes how you 1) drive the car and 2) setup your car.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:GaOt9.11209$[email hidden]...
who've
> said often on and off-camera (while racing NR2002 in multiplayer) that is
> truly is.
>
>
> Just the fact that the physics in NT2003 don't model such thing are thebest
Francois, you know better than to listen to driver product endorsements
<g> They'd say anything's the best if paid enough.
John
>
Quoted text (7 lines)
> >"Dastardly Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Well, it's less noticable in NR2002 than it was in N4 so are you > > saying the physics engine in N4 is better than NR2002? > > > It's less noticeable because they went too far in N4. It's accurate in > NR2002. Anybody who says that it's not realistic should ask Dale Jr.Quoted text (13 lines)
> example that it's not made for us at all. It totally unrealistically > changes how you 1) drive the car and 2) setup your car. > > > > > > -- > -- 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 wonder what Sim modeled the "Pull to the left" first? When that sim was
first released people said it wasn't realistic. Why? Because Papy hadn't
had it in its sims, therefore it must not be realistic. Now, if someone
puts in a different style of "pull to the left", people say that isn't
realistic because Papy has a different pull to the left. Reality is NOT
defined as to what is or is not in a Papy game. Quit falling prey to the
marketing and spin of Developers, Publishers and PR people. Geez...
"Dastardly Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (14 lines)
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:28:39 -0400, "ymenard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >It's less noticeable because they went too far in N4. > > That's not what you said when N4 was released. You said it was > realistic - the hard pull to the left. Now you are saying it was > overdone.The other fellow said the pull to the left is stronger in > N4/2002 because the physics engine is better/more realistic. Just > pointing out a bit of hypocrisy. Heat has a the pull to the left too > but it is modelled less noticeable like in N2002, I guess at the time > the driving model in Heat was actually more realistic than N4 even > though some said otherwise. I think they were wrong.What multiplayer? ;-)
"Mike Grandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:S%Ft9.6606$[email hidden]...
> What about cautions in Multiplayer.
>
>
> --
> Mike Grandy
> www.precision-racing.com
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:28:39 -0400, "ymenard"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>It's less noticeable because they went too far in N4.
I was under the impression that it was less noticeable in N2002
because they revamped the camber model.
Jason
Me too.
Jason
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:12:03 +0200, Uwe Schuerkamp
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (21 lines)
>On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:44:27 GMT, Larry wrote: >> Thanks :) >> >> -Larry >> > >While Larry's reviews tend to be good and unbiased, his quoting >is severely handicapped (as opposed to Todd Sorensen ;-). You >just quoted 240 lines of text for a simple "thank you". Great use of >electrons, mate! ;-) > >Cheers, > >Uwe > > >-- >mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) >Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ >Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) >GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61>"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Francois, you know better than to listen to driver product endorsements
> <g> They'd say anything's the best if paid enough.
Hmm John, Dale Jr. *races* online. He's there, racing against us. When he
talks there, he doesn't spout his typical PR that is require in NASCAR.
Anyway, Papyrus doesn't pay anybody to endorse their products. EA does.
Yet, everybody knows that in Winston Cup and BGN, they all race NR2002 to
stay in mental racing shape and for the fun of racing. Not EA sim-arcade
crap-o-tastic.
--
-- 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...
>"Dastardly Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote
> That's not what you said when N4 was released. You said it was
> realistic - the hard pull to the left.
It was realistic, but done too far.
> The other fellow said the pull to the left is stronger in
> N4/2002 because the physics engine is better/more realistic.
No, the pull is there because of realism. Do you read the words that are
coming out of my posts ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
> Heat has a the pull to the left too but it is modelled less noticeablelike in N2002, I guess at the time
> the driving model in Heat was actually more realistic than N4 even
> though some said otherwise.
?
--
-- 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...
Quoted text (8 lines)
>"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote > On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:28:39 -0400, "ymenard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >It's less noticeable because they went too far in N4. > > I was under the impression that it was less noticeable in N2002 > because they revamped the camber model.I'm saying that the pull to the left SHOULD be there if true realism is what
is wanted.
I thought you were saying the opposite, and that if the car pulls, it is
unrealistic.
-Larry
"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (12 lines)
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:52:11 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Actually, you are wrong, but I'm not getting myself buried into THIS > >argument. > > Ah so you're saying that a car with positive camber on one side and > negative camber on the other, tires that are larger on one side than > the other, and most of the weight on on side won't try to steer to one > side? Even the original Leadfoot games model the pull to the left > with a good setup. > > JasonYes.
I was running 2.5 on the left, and 3.5 on the right if I remember correctly.
-Larry
"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ap7e1e$s9ofm$[email hidden]...
> Actually it's more a feature of a certain type of setup, and if the base
> setups in NT2003 aren't designed that way, then I wouldn't expect it to
> happen, regardless of physics model. Larry, is it possible to do
> asymmetric caster in NT2003? I think that is what primarily causes the
> pull.
<snip> just for Uwe... :)
Nascar Heat started it all.
-Larry
"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:3db81add$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (7 lines)
> I wonder what Sim modeled the "Pull to the left" first? When that sim was > first released people said it wasn't realistic. Why? Because Papy hadn't > had it in its sims, therefore it must not be realistic. Now, if someone > puts in a different style of "pull to the left", people say that isn't > realistic because Papy has a different pull to the left. Reality is NOT > defined as to what is or is not in a Papy game. Quit falling prey to the > marketing and spin of Developers, Publishers and PR people. Geez...>"Dastardly Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote
>One ? will suffice.
�
--
-- 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...
>One ? will suffice.
?
--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
>"Dastardly Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote
> No, he is saying they changed a part of the physics model and that is
> why it is different.
_duh_
> You are saying they made it less noticable to make it more realistic.
Making it less noticable was a direct resultance of the modified physics
from N4 to NR2002. Again, _DUH_ why are you trying to achieve here????
--
-- 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...
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:58:03 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>I'm saying that the pull to the left SHOULD be there if true realism is what
>is wanted.
>
>I thought you were saying the opposite, and that if the car pulls, it is
>unrealistic.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. I'll have to reread. I agree with you then, hehe.
Jason
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:59:46 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Yes.
>
>I was running 2.5 on the left, and 3.5 on the right if I remember correctly.
Have you been putting any laps in at Atlanta, yet?
I converted the N2002 fast and qual setups to NT2k3 because they're
faster and much less pushy. The tires also seem to heat up a bit
less, I'm way over 300 on the front right in the default setup.
What I'm finding weird right now is that in order to get even temps at
most tracks I have to set the right side camber to positive? My
Atlanta setup currently has more positive camber on the right front
than the left front in order to get the temps even. Seems kinda odd
to me.
Jason
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:58:07 -0400, Dastardly Dan
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>No, he is saying they changed a part of the physics model and that is
>why it is different. You are saying they made it less noticable to
>make it more realistic. Make up your mind. Which is it? The two are
>not the same.
Honestly, I don't think they put it in as a canned response. One of
the Papyrus guys even mentioned that after they improved the camber
model, that the car was easier to drive and pulled left less. I
believe this was in one of the N2002 pre-release interviews, may have
been with Yasi.
Jason
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:58:07 -0400, Dastardly Dan
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>No, he is saying they changed a part of the physics model and that is
>why it is different. You are saying they made it less noticable to
>make it more realistic. Make up your mind. Which is it? The two are
>not the same.
In addition to my other reply, it should be noted that if you build a
symmetrical setup and drive it on an oval, the car will track
straight. The default "easy" setups that ship with the game don't
pull to the left at all, at least the ones I've tried.
Jason
Did I do a bad thing?!!
Todd
Yeah, I hear you. But don't be to sure about what he can do/say, even
informally. His Bud contract is void, i.e., if he's ever seen drinking
anything but Bud/AB products, if he's drinking beer. Anytime, anywhere,
with anyone.
According to him anyway, in an interview a few years back. Whether AH
would literally do that may be another question.
You're probably right........but then again, who knows.
John
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:drYt9.19$[email hidden]...
> >"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > Francois, you know better than to listen to driver productendorsements
> > <g> They'd say anything's the best if paid enough.
>
>
> Hmm John, Dale Jr. *races* online. He's there, racing against us. Whenhe
Quoted text (20 lines)
> talks there, he doesn't spout his typical PR that is require in NASCAR. > > Anyway, Papyrus doesn't pay anybody to endorse their products. EA does. > Yet, everybody knows that in Winston Cup and BGN, they all race NR2002 to > stay in mental racing shape and for the fun of racing. Not EA sim-arcade > crap-o-tastic. > > > > > > > > -- > -- 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... > >Do you have a lot of stagger on the car? Maybe that's not the right
word, but if they measure camber relative to the vehicle coordinate
axes, and you have the right side of the vehicle higher than the left,
then it would be possible to have some positive camber on the right side
relative to the vehicle but still have negative camber relative to the
road.
"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:59:46 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >Yes.
> >
> >I was running 2.5 on the left, and 3.5 on the right if I remembercorrectly.
Quoted text (14 lines)
> > Have you been putting any laps in at Atlanta, yet? > > I converted the N2002 fast and qual setups to NT2k3 because they're > faster and much less pushy. The tires also seem to heat up a bit > less, I'm way over 300 on the front right in the default setup. > > What I'm finding weird right now is that in order to get even temps at > most tracks I have to set the right side camber to positive? My > Atlanta setup currently has more positive camber on the right front > than the left front in order to get the temps even. Seems kinda odd > to me. > > JasonI could have read your post wrong too. Either way, we got that straightened
out :)
-Larry
"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:58:03 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >I'm saying that the pull to the left SHOULD be there if true realism iswhat
Quoted text (8 lines)
> >is wanted. > > > >I thought you were saying the opposite, and that if the car pulls, it is > >unrealistic. > > Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. I'll have to reread. I agree with you then, hehe. > > JasonI already brought that up. Something is screwy with the right-side camber.
I have to run +2.7 to get even tire temps on the right and +1.7 on the left.
Something is severely hosed here.
I still can't get the push out of it like I want, and it likes to stay loose
on exit. I know what to do, it just seems like you have to do an awful lot
of it.
I'm down to the low 29's at Atlanta.
-Larry
"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:59:46 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >Yes.
> >
> >I was running 2.5 on the left, and 3.5 on the right if I remembercorrectly.
Quoted text (14 lines)
> > Have you been putting any laps in at Atlanta, yet? > > I converted the N2002 fast and qual setups to NT2k3 because they're > faster and much less pushy. The tires also seem to heat up a bit > less, I'm way over 300 on the front right in the default setup. > > What I'm finding weird right now is that in order to get even temps at > most tracks I have to set the right side camber to positive? My > Atlanta setup currently has more positive camber on the right front > than the left front in order to get the temps even. Seems kinda odd > to me. > > Jason I'm no setup guru at all but shouldn't you be running -NEGATIVE- camber
on the outside?
dave henrie
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:eKfu9.11059$[email hidden]...
> I already brought that up. Something is screwy with the right-sidecamber.
> I have to run +2.7 to get even tire temps on the right and +1.7 on theleft.
> Something is severely hosed here.
>
> I still can't get the push out of it like I want, and it likes to stayloose
> on exit. I know what to do, it just seems like you have to do an awfullot
Quoted text (30 lines)
> of it. > > I'm down to the low 29's at Atlanta. > > -Larry > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:59:46 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Yes. > > > > > >I was running 2.5 on the left, and 3.5 on the right if I remember > correctly. > > > > Have you been putting any laps in at Atlanta, yet? > > > > I converted the N2002 fast and qual setups to NT2k3 because they're > > faster and much less pushy. The tires also seem to heat up a bit > > less, I'm way over 300 on the front right in the default setup. > > > > What I'm finding weird right now is that in order to get even temps at > > most tracks I have to set the right side camber to positive? My > > Atlanta setup currently has more positive camber on the right front > > than the left front in order to get the temps even. Seems kinda odd > > to me. > > > > Jason > >On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 02:28:01 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> I'm no setup guru at all but shouldn't you be running -NEGATIVE- camber
>on the outside?
That's the point we're making. You can run over a degree of positive
camber on the right front at many tracks in NT2k3 and still have tires
that are too hot on the inside.
Atlanta IMHO is admittedly a bad example because you do tend to run
less negative camber there, even in N2002.
Jason
That's my point Henry :)
You have to run POSITIVE numbers on the right to get even tire temps. This
is all wrong.
Someone else noticed it and posted recently as well.
-Larry
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Rg1v9.135371$%d2.50031@sccrnsc01...
