N2002 vs NT2003

http://www.hcmotorsports.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB17&Number=11 733&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 I personally think that the cockpit looks nicer in N2002, but woah, the graphics of the track looks much more alive in NT2003

http://www.hcmotorsports.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB17&Number=11 733&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 I personally think that the***pit looks nicer in N2002, but woah, the graphics of the track looks much more alive in NT2003

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 20:23:49 GMT, "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I personally think that the cockpit looks nicer in N2002, but woah, the >graphics of the track looks much more alive in NT2003 The imperfections in the track surface in NT2003 are really nice (not so much from a modelling standpoint, but texturally). Jason

That's funny, I've heard the track surface looks like garbage. Matter of fact, I've heard nothing but bad things about NT2003. Vintook "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pnZs9.735$[email hidden]... >http://www.hcmotorsports.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB17&Number=11

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 733&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 > > I personally think that the cockpit looks nicer in N2002, but woah, the > graphics of the track looks much more alive in NT2003 > > > >

I gave NT2003 one hour and then hit delete and returned the garbage to EB for store credit. There was a line of gentlemen doing the same thing. Once I refired N2002, it felt like that favarite blue gene shirt I'll never get rid of! "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pnZs9.735$[email hidden]... >http://www.hcmotorsports.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB17&Number=11

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 733&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 > > I personally think that the cockpit looks nicer in N2002, but woah, the > graphics of the track looks much more alive in NT2003 > > > >

I think that NR2002 is in the test/practice lap mode since there is nobody in the stands but on raceday, the stands are filled with people. -Tim "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pnZs9.735$[email hidden]... >http://www.hcmotorsports.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB17&Number=11

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 733&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 > > I personally think that the cockpit looks nicer in N2002, but woah, the > graphics of the track looks much more alive in NT2003 > > > >

> I gave NT2003 one hour and then hit delete and returned the garbage to EB > for store credit. There was a line of gentlemen doing the same thing.Once > I refired N2002, it felt like that favarite blue gene shirt I'll never get > rid of! I had an identical experience with F1 2001, except that instead of returning it to the store, I threw it up onto the shelf and went back to GPL. It was only after digging it up a month later and trying a few suggestions that I'd read in this group that I found out what all the fuss was about. After a while, the game got under my skin and forced me to like it. And now, F1 2002 (despite numerous flaws) is the sim that I find most satisfying to drive. Obviously though, I still stick to GPL (and LFS) for multiplayer racing thrills though they don't feel as realistic to *drive*

>"Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote > I personally think that the cockpit looks nicer in N2002, but woah, the > graphics of the track looks much more alive in NT2003 Funny how the biased post in that webboard thread made pictures of NR2002 in testing mode (meaning of course nobody in the stands as it's accurately made that way by Papy) while in NT2003 there are people (inaccurately) in the stands. Anyway, the whole thing is crispier and more accurate in NR2002. Graphics shmaticks, it's all about ACCURACY. And Papyrus kicks's whatever poor tried effort those EA guys made. -- -- 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...

>"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote > I think that NR2002 is in the test/practice lap mode since there is nobody > in the stands but on raceday, the stands are filled with people. Of course, unlike NT2003, accuracy is what Papyrus aims for, not ADD-gameplay. -- -- 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 personally think that the cockpit looks nicer in N2002, but woah, the >graphics of the track looks much more alive in NT2003 > I hate the NT2003 track graphics. Looks like shiat and pretty much unrealistic to me. ----------------------------------------- Dan Belcher Webmaster, http://simcrash.fameflame.dk

"Rush" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vP0t9.7335$[email hidden]... > I gave NT2003 one hour and then hit delete and returned the garbage to EB > for store credit. There was a line of gentlemen doing the same thing. Once > I refired N2002, it felt like that favarite blue gene shirt I'll never get > rid of! > How many gentleman were in this line ? You're saying this game is SO friggin' bad that people are queuing up to take it back ? Don't believe you. In other words......bullshit.

All I can say is thanks EA another coffee coster :)))))))))))))))))))) Thunder is crap compared with N2002 ... no even in the same league! I have a good system, yet this to runs and looks to me as a PS2 release! U only help the warez trade by producing crap like this ... I won't be buying a EA Race Release again ... :(

I can't decide if it's hyper-garbage, or hyper-realistic :) -Larry "Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> That's funny, I've heard the track surface looks like garbage. Matter of > fact, I've heard nothing but bad things about NT2003. > > Vintook > > "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:pnZs9.735$[email hidden]... > > >

http://www.hcmotorsports.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB17&Number=11

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > 733&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 > > > > I personally think that the cockpit looks nicer in N2002, but woah, the > > graphics of the track looks much more alive in NT2003 > > > > > > > > > >

It takes more than an hour just to figure out and tune the controller properly. -Larry "Rush" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vP0t9.7335$[email hidden]... > I gave NT2003 one hour and then hit delete and returned the garbage to EB > for store credit. There was a line of gentlemen doing the same thing.Once

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I refired N2002, it felt like that favarite blue gene shirt I'll never get > rid of! > > > "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:pnZs9.735$[email hidden]... > > >

http://www.hcmotorsports.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB17&Number=11

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > 733&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 > > > > I personally think that the cockpit looks nicer in N2002, but woah, the > > graphics of the track looks much more alive in NT2003 > > > > > > > > > >

> Thunder is crap compared with N2002 ... no even in the same league! > Okay, here's my .0000000001c worth: I doubt EA was attempting to get compared to NR2002 (though they should've KNOWN they would!); much like Heat wasn't aiming for NR4. Now, to ME (since I really suck as a simracer) gameplay is more important - not true reality. I enjoy Heat for GAMEPLAY and enjoyment, I enjoy N4 when I want to try to get BETTER. I never got NR2002 (the ONLY Papy NASCAR product I missed), but I'd expect NT to compare more favorably to Heat than NR2002. Therefore I foresee 2 camps: 1) those that "just want to have fun" and 2) those that feel ANYTHING less than NR2002/GPL is "pure crap/toaster material/landfill/fill-in-expletive-here". Those in camp 1 will feel NT is an excellent successor to Heat and a decent aside to NR2002. Those in camp 2 will avoid it like the plague (or buy it knowing full well they won't like it and bitch anyway). Personally I feel Heat had a place and Thunder HAS a place - just don't attempt to fit it into a niche it was never intended for. I'm waiting on NR2003; but I'm expecting to buy NT mostly because of the Truck add-on. Gunner

Okay, here's my .0000000001c worth: I doubt EA was attempting to get compared to NR2002 (though they should've KNOWN they would!); much like Heat wasn't aiming for NR4. Now, to ME (since I really suck as a simracer) gameplay is more important - not true reality. I enjoy Heat for GAMEPLAY and enjoyment, I enjoy N4 when I want to try to get BETTER. I never got NR2002 (the ONLY Papy NASCAR product I missed), but I'd expect NT to compare more favorably to Heat than NR2002. Therefore I foresee 2 camps: 1) those that "just want to have fun" and 2) those that feel ANYTHING less than NR2002/GPL is "pure crap/toaster material/landfill/fill-in-expletive-here". Those in camp 1 will feel NT is an excellent successor to Heat and a decent aside to NR2002. Those in camp 2 will avoid it like the plague (or buy it knowing full well they won't like it and *** anyway). Personally I feel Heat had a place and Thunder HAS a place - just don't attempt to fit it into a niche it was never intended for. I'm waiting on NR2003; but I'm expecting to buy NT mostly because of the Truck add-on. Gunner

Truck Add-ons ? Please 'splain ! -Larry "Don "Gunner" Hancock" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Thunder is crap compared with N2002 ... no even in the same league! > > > > Okay, here's my .0000000001c worth: > I doubt EA was attempting to get compared to NR2002 (though they > should've KNOWN they would!); much like Heat wasn't aiming for NR4. Now,to > ME (since I really suck as a simracer) gameplay is more important - nottrue > reality. I enjoy Heat for GAMEPLAY and enjoyment, I enjoy N4 when I wantto

Quoted text (10 lines)

> try to get BETTER. I never got NR2002 (the ONLY Papy NASCAR product I > missed), but I'd expect NT to compare more favorably to Heat than NR2002. > Therefore I foresee 2 camps: 1) those that "just want to have fun" and > 2) those that feel ANYTHING less than NR2002/GPL is "pure crap/toaster > material/landfill/fill-in-expletive-here". > Those in camp 1 will feel NT is an excellent successor to Heat and a > decent aside to NR2002. > Those in camp 2 will avoid it like the plague (or buy it knowing full > well they won't like it and bitch anyway). > Personally I feel Heat had a place and Thunder HAS a place - just

don't > attempt to fit it into a niche it was never intended for. > I'm waiting on NR2003; but I'm expecting to buy NT mostly because ofthe > Truck add-on. > > Gunner > >

actually, with lifeless i mean the lack of shadows on the tracks etc. I also saw shots from watkins glen, and it looked much better imo in nt2003. the only bad thing, (and it stinks) is the textures used for crowds.. are they blind? it looks crap! "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I think that NR2002 is in the test/practice lap mode since there is nobody > in the stands but on raceday, the stands are filled with people. > > -Tim > > "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:pnZs9.735$[email hidden]... > > >

http://www.hcmotorsports.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB17&Number=11

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > 733&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 > > > > I personally think that the cockpit looks nicer in N2002, but woah, the > > graphics of the track looks much more alive in NT2003 > > > > > > > > > >

It's really the MAIN reason I plan on getting Thunder. www.hcmotorsports.com did an OUTSTANDING mod for NH that was CTS. Man, was it awesome!!! I still try to fire it up every chance I get. They even modelled the black donut on the doors from tires rubbing! Absolutely fantastic work. Problem is, they've halted all work on NH for the NT2003 truck mod. I'm sure others here can give more details... Gunner "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ycAt9.2744$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Truck Add-ons ? > > Please 'splain ! > > -Larry > > "Don "Gunner" Hancock" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > Thunder is crap compared with N2002 ... no even in the same league! > > > > > > > Okay, here's my .0000000001c worth: > > I doubt EA was attempting to get compared to NR2002 (though they > > should've KNOWN they would!); much like Heat wasn't aiming for NR4. Now, > to > > ME (since I really suck as a simracer) gameplay is more important - not > true > > reality. I enjoy Heat for GAMEPLAY and enjoyment, I enjoy N4 when I want > to > > try to get BETTER. I never got NR2002 (the ONLY Papy NASCAR product I > > missed), but I'd expect NT to compare more favorably to Heat than

NR2002. > > Therefore I foresee 2 camps: 1) those that "just want to have fun"and > > 2) those that feel ANYTHING less than NR2002/GPL is "pure crap/toaster > > material/landfill/fill-in-expletive-here". > > Those in camp 1 will feel NT is an excellent successor to Heat and a > > decent aside to NR2002. > > Those in camp 2 will avoid it like the plague (or buy it knowingfull

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > well they won't like it and bitch anyway). > > Personally I feel Heat had a place and Thunder HAS a place - just > don't > > attempt to fit it into a niche it was never intended for. > > I'm waiting on NR2003; but I'm expecting to buy NT mostly because of > the > > Truck add-on. > > > > Gunner > > > > > >

It's really the MAIN reason I plan on getting Thunder. www.hcmotorsports.com did an OUTSTANDING mod for NH that was CTS. Man, was it awesome!!! I still try to fire it up every chance I get. They even modelled the black donut on the doors from tires rubbing! Absolutely fantastic work. Problem is, they've halted all work on NH for the NT2003 truck mod. I'm sure others here can give more details... Gunner

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Truck Add-ons ? > Please 'splain ! > -Larry > > > Thunder is ***compared with N2002 ... no even in the same league! > > Okay, here's my .0000000001c worth: > > I doubt EA was attempting to get compared to NR2002 (though they > > should've KNOWN they would!); much like Heat wasn't aiming for NR4. Now, > to > > ME (since I really suck as a simracer) gameplay is more important - not > true > > reality. I enjoy Heat for GAMEPLAY and enjoyment, I enjoy N4 when I want > to > > try to get BETTER. I never got NR2002 (the ONLY Papy NASCAR product I > > missed), but I'd expect NT to compare more favorably to Heat than

NR2002. > > Therefore I foresee 2 camps: 1) those that "just want to have fun" and > > 2) those that feel ANYTHING less than NR2002/GPL is "pure crap/toaster > > material/landfill/fill-in-expletive-here". > > Those in camp 1 will feel NT is an excellent successor to Heat and a > > decent aside to NR2002. > > Those in camp 2 will avoid it like the plague (or buy it knowing full

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > well they won't like it and *** anyway). > > Personally I feel Heat had a place and Thunder HAS a place - just > don't > > attempt to fit it into a niche it was never intended for. > > I'm waiting on NR2003; but I'm expecting to buy NT mostly because of > the > > Truck add-on. > > Gunner