I fixed THUNDER2003!!!

1st. Open the Box. 2nd. Re-insert the CD 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........

You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with the sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad at all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. Is it better than N2k? No. Is it almost as good? I think it has come a long way and has some more to go. But it is definitely not a POS. At least you can run a race against the AI and not get taken out under yellow by the AI or the renegade pace car. Is it the best sim ever? No. Is it a decent to good sim that is not perfect and could be made better? Yes. Is it a POS? Absolutely not. "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 1st. Open the Box. > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > >

Sir, it's not "feast or famine" with this group. What you have is a bunch of tight-belted GPLers who think that if it's not GPL (or Papyrus made) then the thing's garbage. I quit listening to these guys long ago. Their myopic vision makes everything they say invalid and downright absurd. Granted, NT2003 may not be that good (I couldn't say, I haven't tried it yet.) But it's not as bad as some would lead you to believe. Alanb "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with the > sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad at > all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti > Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. Is it better thanN2k?

Quoted text (16 lines)

> No. Is it almost as good? I think it has come a long way and has some more > to go. But it is definitely not a POS. At least you can run a race against > the AI and not get taken out under yellow by the AI or the renegade pace > car. Is it the best sim ever? No. Is it a decent to good sim that is not > perfect and could be made better? Yes. Is it a POS? Absolutely not. > > > "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 1st. Open the Box. > > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > > > > > >

"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:I6ms9.16158$%d2.16668@sccrnsc01... <snip> > > Granted, NT2003 may not be that good (I couldn't say, I haven't tried it > yet.) But it's not as bad as some would lead you to believe. > > Alanb > And you know this because of the hours and hours you have spent not playing it ? Elrikk ;o)

<snip> And you know this because of the hours and hours you have spent not playing it ? Elrikk ;o)

"elrikk" wrote... > "Alan Bernardo" wrote... > > <snip> > And you know this because of the hours and hours you have > spent not playing it ? Not to mention his encyclopedic knowledge on GPL players, which allows him to form such nuanced opinions about them. Jan. <g> =---

I am not by any means being closed minded, Hell, I even bought 2 copies of it, one pre-ordered and one at the store because it got there first. I just think it is no where as good as maybe it could have been. The big thing the control is like using a gamepad, no matter what I do I can not get a smooth feel to the Momo wheel. 2nd, no AI in multiplayer? what is the deal with this? 3rd, the graphics are just way to bad, I've got F12002 and the graphics are much better in it, NT2003, they are two dark and grainy even using the patch to turn high detail on. 4th, the tracks do not seem very accurate. I had very high hopes for this, maybe too much, thats why I'm so bitter. I don't care if it is Papy, ID, EA, Microsoft of Joe's software company, some games are just not made for the PC and this seems to be one of them. Maybe thats what Papy's have always been so much better, thats all they know is PC, and not console, but even thats about to change. So, if you like it fine, but I think most hardcore simmers, will not. Just my 3 cents............. "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 1st. Open the Box. > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > >

P.S.S. and before anyone ask: I'm running this on a: P4 2.53 1gig PC800RDRAM Geforce 4 Ti4600 120gig HD 21" Trintron Audigy Platinum Ex Momo Wheel Act Labs perforamce pedals. and have been racing sims, since Papy did their first "The Indy 500" so I'm pretty old........ "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 1st. Open the Box. > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > >

Thank you Philip for this long over due response, the game is much better than people seem to want to believe. I am no big Nascar fan... I do enjoy going in circles on occassion ;-) I enjoy roadracing sims more... but I feel it has a good deal of potential. ISI sims are very moddable. I am already racing a 750 HP 1500 lbs car around the road coarses. Philip wrote

Quoted text (25 lines)

> >You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with the >sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad at >all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti >Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. Is it better than N2k? >No. Is it almost as good? I think it has come a long way and has some more >to go. But it is definitely not a POS. At least you can run a race against >the AI and not get taken out under yellow by the AI or the renegade pace >car. Is it the best sim ever? No. Is it a decent to good sim that is not >perfect and could be made better? Yes. Is it a POS? Absolutely not. > > >"Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> 1st. Open the Box. >> 2nd. Re-insert the CD >> 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ >> >> > > > > > >

Rich Levy

Well, I can respect that. But is it really a pos? I'm sorry your wheel is causing problems but mine is not and the feel of the car is not that bad. As far as AI in multiplayer, I only use the AI when it's me and only one other person so I wouldnt know about that since I havent tried that yet. Seems like they should be able to do that and that would stink if they do not, although they didnt do that in F1 2002 either. I agree that the graphics are grainy. But, in real life they are worse since the junk gets all over the windshield and I just try to picture it that way. I agree that some of the tracks need work. Talladega's trioval seems too flat to me,at least the perception does, but the rest of the tracks seems decent to good and I attest the problems I have with the tracks mostly to the way the game is attempting to model the bumps at the tracks and that is causing problems at a few of them, especially entering turn 1 at Lowes, the car just seems to take off. These are my specs: Athlon XP2000 Vztek GF3 Ti500 512mb SDRAM Turtle Beach Santa Cruz TSW2 Stock w/Momo Wheel, clutch, dual axis kits "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I am not by any means being closed minded, Hell, I even bought 2 copies of > it, one pre-ordered and one at the store because it got there first. Ijust > think it is no where as good as maybe it could have been. The big thingthe > control is like using a gamepad, no matter what I do I can not get asmooth > feel to the Momo wheel. 2nd, no AI in multiplayer? what is the deal with > this? 3rd, the graphics are just way to bad, I've got F12002 and the > graphics are much better in it, NT2003, they are two dark and grainy even > using the patch to turn high detail on. 4th, the tracks do not seem very > accurate. I had very high hopes for this, maybe too much, thats why I'mso > bitter. I don't care if it is Papy, ID, EA, Microsoft of Joe's software > company, some games are just not made for the PC and this seems to be oneof > them. Maybe thats what Papy's have always been so much better, thats all > they know is PC, and not console, but even thats about to change. > So, if you like it fine, but I think most hardcore simmers, will not.Just

Quoted text (10 lines)

> my 3 cents............. > "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 1st. Open the Box. > > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > > > > > >

BTW, have you gotten the graphics update from www.hcmotorsports.com ? "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Well, I can respect that. But is it really a pos? > > I'm sorry your wheel is causing problems but mine is not and the feel ofthe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> car is not that bad. > > As far as AI in multiplayer, I only use the AI when it's me and only one > other person so I wouldnt know about that since I havent tried that yet. > Seems like they should be able to do that and that would stink if they do > not, although they didnt do that in F1 2002 either. > > I agree that the graphics are grainy. But, in real life they are worse

since > the junk gets all over the windshield and I just try to picture it thatway. > > I agree that some of the tracks need work. Talladega's trioval seems too > flat to me,at least the perception does, but the rest of the tracks seems > decent to good and I attest the problems I have with the tracks mostly to > the way the game is attempting to model the bumps at the tracks and thatis > causing problems at a few of them, especially entering turn 1 at Lowes,the

Quoted text (13 lines)

> car just seems to take off. > > These are my specs: > > Athlon XP2000 > Vztek GF3 Ti500 > 512mb SDRAM > Turtle Beach Santa Cruz > TSW2 Stock w/Momo Wheel, clutch, dual axis kits > > "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I am not by any means being closed minded, Hell, I even bought 2 copies

of

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > it, one pre-ordered and one at the store because it got there first. I > just > > think it is no where as good as maybe it could have been. The big thing > the > > control is like using a gamepad, no matter what I do I can not get a > smooth > > feel to the Momo wheel. 2nd, no AI in multiplayer? what is the deal with > > this? 3rd, the graphics are just way to bad, I've got F12002 and the > > graphics are much better in it, NT2003, they are two dark and grainy

even > > using the patch to turn high detail on. 4th, the tracks do not seem very > > accurate. I had very high hopes for this, maybe too much, thats why I'm > so > > bitter. I don't care if it is Papy, ID, EA, Microsoft of Joe's software > > company, some games are just not made for the PC and this seems to beone

Quoted text (17 lines)

> of > > them. Maybe thats what Papy's have always been so much better, thats all > > they know is PC, and not console, but even thats about to change. > > So, if you like it fine, but I think most hardcore simmers, will not. > Just > > my 3 cents............. > > "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > 1st. Open the Box. > > > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > > > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > > > > > > > > > > > >

On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:43:36 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Sir, it's not "feast or famine" with this group. What you have is a bunch >of tight-belted GPLers who think that if it's not GPL (or Papyrus made) then >the thing's garbage. I stopped listening to people who say the above, since it's not in any way grounded in fact. I've bought every single notable racing simulation (and some that weren't so notable) since the 1980's. I've given them all a fair chance, spent several hours on each, even the Grand Prix series up to and including 4, and the truth of the matter is that nothing simulates a car to the same degree of precision like a Papyrus sim. That said, there are several good racing simulations out there. Rally Trophy was good, Mobil 1 Rally and its predecessors were good, F1 2001 and 2002 were good, Nascar Heat was good, the Dirt Track Racing series is very good, Sportscar GT was good, etc. However, the difference between any of these sims and a Papyrus simulation is huge. No company has dedicated as much time and care in perfecting the art of simulating motorsport as Papyrus has, and it shows in their product. That's not a subjective statement, it's pure and simple fact. They create simulations with uncompromising realism, which can not be said about any other company. Their closest competitor in the early years was Geoff Crammond. Indy 500, NASCAR Racing, and Indycar Racing 1 and 2 were miles ahead of the nearest competitor until Grand Prix 2 came out. That was the last time that anyone has even come close to being on the same playing field, nevertheless competing head to head. NASCAR Thunder, which you haven't played, is a joke. There is one feature in the entire game that I find noteworthy, and that involves the paint schemes on the cars (you can have multiple paint schemes for the same car and select from them in the menu). The track models are horrible. The graphics have inherited the awful aliasing/flickering and oversaturated textures from F1 200x. The cars do not exhibit any noticeable engine braking or for that matter anything resembling a realistic torque curve. The weight transfer model is as nonexistent as it is in F1 2002. Rather than feeling like a car with weight that transfers as you accelerate, brake, corner, etc if feels like you're in a piece of plywood that is skipping along the surface of a pond. It's horrible. F1 2002's saving grace is that it's quite possible a real modern ultra-stiff Formula One car handles like that. Is it an inherent problem with ISI's physics code? I suppose GT 2002 will show if that's the case - if Doug Arnao cannot create a realistic representation of a real car using that engine, I doubt anyone can. Beyond the actual gameplay, the menus are horrible, the replay system is barely functional, and the lack of any sort of in-game opponent or skin manager is mindnumbing. I don't think I have to be a Papyrus looney to make statements that are immediately apparent to nearly everyone who has played the game. Jason

Well, I put a setup in the game from Lowe's in N2k2 and it had the same feel. I had to adjust the car since it was a little more loose than in N2k2 but it had basically the same feel. Now that I have adjusted the car a little bit, the lap times are comparable and the car feels very similar. If anything, the car seems like it has a tighter ride to it and you arent on ice like it seems you are in N2k2. While I agree that the game is not as good as N2k2, I seriously disagree that the game is a pos. It has many flaws with the tracks' design and it does not feel quite as realistic. But, if you load the graphics patches and do the tweaks available at www.hcmotorsports.com , the game is fun and challenging to play and is definitely the best sim that EA has ever released for the NASCAR crowd ... "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > However, the difference between any of these sims and a Papyrus > simulation is huge. No company has dedicated as much time and care in > perfecting the art of simulating motorsport as Papyrus has, and it > shows in their product. That's not a subjective statement, it's pure > and simple fact. They create simulations with uncompromising realism, > which can not be said about any other company. I agree completely with what you are saying about Papyrus.

Well, I disagree with that. For the most part, this group is right on. I just dont think this sim is a complete pos, that's all. I'm not saying its better, but I do think it's in between ok to good. I think personal taste is okay and if you prefer the Papy product, which I do anyway, that's fine. But, I think it's okay to have a decent game as well and when you call it a pos, it means it should have never been released, and I disagree with that kind of thinking with this sim. "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:I6ms9.16158$%d2.16668@sccrnsc01... > Sir, it's not "feast or famine" with this group. What you have is a bunch > of tight-belted GPLers who think that if it's not GPL (or Papyrus made)then

Quoted text (9 lines)

> the thing's garbage. > > I quit listening to these guys long ago. Their myopic vision makes > everything they say invalid and downright absurd. > > Granted, NT2003 may not be that good (I couldn't say, I haven't tried it > yet.) But it's not as bad as some would lead you to believe. > > Alanb

If you quit listening why the hell are you even here? -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Alan Bernardo <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:I6ms9.16158$%d2.16668@sccrnsc01... > Sir, it's not "feast or famine" with this group. What you have is a bunch > of tight-belted GPLers who think that if it's not GPL (or Papyrus made) then > the thing's garbage. > > I quit listening to these guys long ago. Their myopic vision makes > everything they say invalid and downright absurd. > > Granted, NT2003 may not be that good (I couldn't say, I haven't tried it > yet.) But it's not as bad as some would lead you to believe. > > Alanb > > "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with the > > sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad at > > all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti > > Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. Is it better than > N2k? > > No. Is it almost as good? I think it has come a long way and has some more > > to go. But it is definitely not a POS. At least you can run a race against > > the AI and not get taken out under yellow by the AI or the renegade pace > > car. Is it the best sim ever? No. Is it a decent to good sim that is not > > perfect and could be made better? Yes. Is it a POS? Absolutely not. > > > > > > "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > 1st. Open the Box. > > > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > > > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > > > > > > > > > > > >

>"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote > Sir, it's not "feast or famine" with this group. What you have is a bunch > of tight-belted GPLers who think that if it's not GPL (or Papyrus made)then > the thing's garbage. Again, Alan still uses the same vinyl stuck on the last skipping groove. LOL Alan, check out the threads on r.a.s. GPL posts are in the minority. > Granted, NT2003 may not be that good (I couldn't say, I haven't tried it > yet.) LOL who's the myopic person here? Us who try them all, or you who don't try them? -- -- 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...

>"Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote > Well, I put a setup in the game from Lowe's in N2k2 and it had the same > feel. Perhaps the same car feel, but since the track layout is considerably wrong (like I wrote, Nascar Racing 2 back in 1996 featured a more accurate rendition of Charlotte Motor Speedway) it's impossible to have anykind of serious relation between what real-life drivers do there and what you do on the screen. In NR2002, you sure can. Of course except the little drafting misaccuracies, who are still 10x times less important than the major failure in the accuracy of the track. I mean, that stretch before T1 is laughable! -- -- 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...

> The graphics have inherited the awful aliasing/flickering WTF? I am a graphics whore and I think that you've got something wrong with your setup if you think that...If you want to see flickering, check out the passing scenary in the (UN-VSYNC-ABLE) N2002. > and oversaturated textures from F1 200x. Pure nonsense. Admittedly the default car textures in F1 2002 are a bit lame but the RH and Bobi addons are the graphics benchmark for all racing simulations. (Not to mention the FIA GT V3 mod which looks much better than N2002)

Quoted text (11 lines)

> The cars do not exhibit any > noticeable engine braking or for that matter anything resembling a > realistic torque curve. The weight transfer model is as nonexistent > as it is in F1 2002. Rather than feeling like a car with weight that > transfers as you accelerate, brake, corner, etc if feels like you're > in a piece of plywood that is skipping along the surface of a pond. > It's horrible. F1 2002's saving grace is that it's quite possible a > real modern ultra-stiff Formula One car handles like that. Is it an > inherent problem with ISI's physics code? I suppose GT 2002 will show > if that's the case - if Doug Arnao cannot create a realistic > representation of a real car using that engine, I doubt anyone can.

The physics in NT 2003 are certainly questionable but Doug Arnao has achieved, with the FIAGTV3 mod, the best sensation of weight transfer currently available. The Live For Speed demo is up there too. Nascar 2002 feels pretty similar to those two to me. Unfortunately, the cars tend to feel like they're floating around in N2002. The other two sims do a much better job of connecting the car to the road. If, as you insist, force feedback plays no part in Nascar, then maybe Papy should stick to Nascar since they obviously have no clue how to implement FF properly. > Beyond the actual gameplay, the menus are horrible, the replay system > is barely functional, and the lack of any sort of in-game opponent or > skin manager is mindnumbing. I don't think I have to be a Papyrus > looney to make statements that are immediately apparent to nearly > everyone who has played the game. Absolutely. Papy are the undisputed kings of online multiplayer and menu/replay implementations. The most frustrating thing is that when it comes to recreating the feeling of driving a car, others do it better.

Thanks for saying exactly what I was about to say. I agree 100% (which is exceedingly rare). Marc "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:43:36 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Sir, it's not "feast or famine" with this group. What you have is abunch > >of tight-belted GPLers who think that if it's not GPL (or Papyrus made)then

Quoted text (52 lines)

> >the thing's garbage. > > I stopped listening to people who say the above, since it's not in any > way grounded in fact. > > I've bought every single notable racing simulation (and some that > weren't so notable) since the 1980's. I've given them all a fair > chance, spent several hours on each, even the Grand Prix series up to > and including 4, and the truth of the matter is that nothing simulates > a car to the same degree of precision like a Papyrus sim. > > That said, there are several good racing simulations out there. Rally > Trophy was good, Mobil 1 Rally and its predecessors were good, F1 2001 > and 2002 were good, Nascar Heat was good, the Dirt Track Racing series > is very good, Sportscar GT was good, etc. > > However, the difference between any of these sims and a Papyrus > simulation is huge. No company has dedicated as much time and care in > perfecting the art of simulating motorsport as Papyrus has, and it > shows in their product. That's not a subjective statement, it's pure > and simple fact. They create simulations with uncompromising realism, > which can not be said about any other company. > > Their closest competitor in the early years was Geoff Crammond. Indy > 500, NASCAR Racing, and Indycar Racing 1 and 2 were miles ahead of the > nearest competitor until Grand Prix 2 came out. That was the last > time that anyone has even come close to being on the same playing > field, nevertheless competing head to head. > > NASCAR Thunder, which you haven't played, is a joke. There is one > feature in the entire game that I find noteworthy, and that involves > the paint schemes on the cars (you can have multiple paint schemes for > the same car and select from them in the menu). The track models are > horrible. The graphics have inherited the awful aliasing/flickering > and oversaturated textures from F1 200x. The cars do not exhibit any > noticeable engine braking or for that matter anything resembling a > realistic torque curve. The weight transfer model is as nonexistent > as it is in F1 2002. Rather than feeling like a car with weight that > transfers as you accelerate, brake, corner, etc if feels like you're > in a piece of plywood that is skipping along the surface of a pond. > It's horrible. F1 2002's saving grace is that it's quite possible a > real modern ultra-stiff Formula One car handles like that. Is it an > inherent problem with ISI's physics code? I suppose GT 2002 will show > if that's the case - if Doug Arnao cannot create a realistic > representation of a real car using that engine, I doubt anyone can. > Beyond the actual gameplay, the menus are horrible, the replay system > is barely functional, and the lack of any sort of in-game opponent or > skin manager is mindnumbing. I don't think I have to be a Papyrus > looney to make statements that are immediately apparent to nearly > everyone who has played the game. > > Jason

On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:02:10 -0400, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote: >Well, I put a setup in the game from Lowe's in N2k2 and it had the same >feel. I had to adjust the car since it was a little more loose than in N2k2 >but it had basically the same feel. Now that I have adjusted the car a >little bit, the lap times are comparable and the car feels very similar. That's a very good idea, Phillip. I'll try that and give it another go round. As far as it being the best NASCAR sim from EA, I agree wholeheartedly. I think POS might be too strong to describe it, it's definitely not as bad as say Nascar Road Racing or that swamp buggy racing that someone did a few years ago (can't remember the name, it was horrible). I'm certainly dissapointed, tho. I am also dumbfounded that they didn't include the career mode from the console - even if I hated everything about the driving, that would make it worth keeping around. Jason

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:00:18 -0400, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Of course except the little drafting >misaccuracies Is this referring to N2002? If so, what's wrong with the drafting model? Jason

Jason Moyer wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:00:18 -0400, "ymenard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Of course except the little drafting > >misaccuracies > > Is this referring to N2002? If so, what's wrong with the drafting > model? > > Jason

From my perspective, the draft cone is too wide, leading to the 'wind tunnel' effect if you are the middle car in between two draft trains-you get shot forward at ungodly (relative) speeds. In a real Nascar race note that cars in such a predicament tend to get shuffled to the BACK, not sucked along towards the front. There is also a 'turbulence barrier' if a group of cars is two seconds ahead of you and your pack. Trying to break through this barrier is almost impossible, if the guys ahead don't keep jockeying for position and everyone's cars are about even performance-wise. John DiFool -- ============================== Emerald haunt in overdrive ==============================

Alan Bernardo wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Sir, it's not "feast or famine" with this group. What you have is a bunch > of tight-belted GPLers who think that if it's not GPL (or Papyrus made) then > the thing's garbage. > > I quit listening to these guys long ago. Their myopic vision makes > everything they say invalid and downright absurd. > > Granted, NT2003 may not be that good (I couldn't say, I haven't tried it > yet.) But it's not as bad as some would lead you to believe.

It's not GPL. Yours sneeringly GDA

hehe.. Morris Jones <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 1st. Open the Box. > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > >

you have to be kidding.. total POS.. Phillip Malphrus, Jr. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with the > sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad at > all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti > Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. Is it better thanN2k?

Quoted text (16 lines)

> No. Is it almost as good? I think it has come a long way and has some more > to go. But it is definitely not a POS. At least you can run a race against > the AI and not get taken out under yellow by the AI or the renegade pace > car. Is it the best sim ever? No. Is it a decent to good sim that is not > perfect and could be made better? Yes. Is it a POS? Absolutely not. > > > "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 1st. Open the Box. > > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > > > > > >

in a word, "NO". "David Ciemny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lvDs9.16630$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> you have to be kidding.. > > total POS.. > > > Phillip Malphrus, Jr. <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with

the

I have to agree. It can't help but be a let-down on a simulation stand point, especially when compared to NR2002. But... It's a game for the masses, not a sim. In that regard, it's probably decent. I'm still working with it, trying to decide what I do and do not like. I'll post my views once I have a handle on them. This much I will say. It does a good job of giving the illusion of speed. I am not sure, however, if I find the tracks more realistic or less realistic than NR2002. NR2002 seems to represent tracks in their pristine, pre-race condition. NT2003 tracks look like they are post-race trashy. NT2003 is, overall, much darker than NR2002 as well. -Larry "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with the > sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad at > all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti > Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. Is it better thanN2k?

Quoted text (16 lines)

> No. Is it almost as good? I think it has come a long way and has some more > to go. But it is definitely not a POS. At least you can run a race against > the AI and not get taken out under yellow by the AI or the renegade pace > car. Is it the best sim ever? No. Is it a decent to good sim that is not > perfect and could be made better? Yes. Is it a POS? Absolutely not. > > > "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 1st. Open the Box. > > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > > > > > >

You've got to be kidding... Loose? Out of the box it heads for the wall with such a horrific push you have to brake at every corner. Hard. That's not even close to the way it's supposed to be. -Larry "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Well, I put a setup in the game from Lowe's in N2k2 and it had the same > feel. I had to adjust the car since it was a little more loose than inN2k2 > but it had basically the same feel. Now that I have adjusted the car a > little bit, the lap times are comparable and the car feels very similar.If > anything, the car seems like it has a tighter ride to it and you arent on > ice like it seems you are in N2k2. While I agree that the game is not as > good as N2k2, I seriously disagree that the game is a pos. It has manyflaws > with the tracks' design and it does not feel quite as realistic. But, ifyou

Quoted text (17 lines)

> load the graphics patches and do the tweaks available at > www.hcmotorsports.com , the game is fun and challenging to play and is > definitely the best sim that EA has ever released for the NASCAR crowd ... > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > However, the difference between any of these sims and a Papyrus > > simulation is huge. No company has dedicated as much time and care in > > perfecting the art of simulating motorsport as Papyrus has, and it > > shows in their product. That's not a subjective statement, it's pure > > and simple fact. They create simulations with uncompromising realism, > > which can not be said about any other company. > > > I agree completely with what you are saying about Papyrus. > >

I've noticed the mip-flopping in NT2003 is quite extensive. Get behind a car and then back off. There's a definite point where the graphics swap something because you can clearly see it, and it happens at exactly the same point every time. -Larry "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aotg51$pp7u0$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (47 lines)

> > The graphics have inherited the awful aliasing/flickering > > WTF? I am a graphics whore and I think that you've got something > wrong with your setup if you think that...If you want to see flickering, > check out the passing scenary in the (UN-VSYNC-ABLE) N2002. > > > and oversaturated textures from F1 200x. > > Pure nonsense. Admittedly the default car textures in F1 2002 are a bit > lame but the RH and Bobi addons are the graphics benchmark for > all racing simulations. (Not to mention the FIA GT V3 mod > which looks much better than N2002) > > > The cars do not exhibit any > > noticeable engine braking or for that matter anything resembling a > > realistic torque curve. The weight transfer model is as nonexistent > > as it is in F1 2002. Rather than feeling like a car with weight that > > transfers as you accelerate, brake, corner, etc if feels like you're > > in a piece of plywood that is skipping along the surface of a pond. > > It's horrible. F1 2002's saving grace is that it's quite possible a > > real modern ultra-stiff Formula One car handles like that. Is it an > > inherent problem with ISI's physics code? I suppose GT 2002 will show > > if that's the case - if Doug Arnao cannot create a realistic > > representation of a real car using that engine, I doubt anyone can. > > The physics in NT 2003 are certainly questionable but Doug Arnao > has achieved, with the FIAGTV3 mod, the best sensation of weight > transfer currently available. The Live For Speed demo is up there too. > Nascar 2002 feels pretty similar to those two to me. Unfortunately, > the cars tend to feel like they're floating around in N2002. The other > two sims do a much better job of connecting the car to the road. If, > as you insist, force feedback plays no part in Nascar, then maybe > Papy should stick to Nascar since they obviously have no clue how > to implement FF properly. > > > Beyond the actual gameplay, the menus are horrible, the replay system > > is barely functional, and the lack of any sort of in-game opponent or > > skin manager is mindnumbing. I don't think I have to be a Papyrus > > looney to make statements that are immediately apparent to nearly > > everyone who has played the game. > > Absolutely. Papy are the undisputed kings of online multiplayer and > menu/replay implementations. The most frustrating thing is that when > it comes to recreating the feeling of driving a car, others do it better. > > >

Argh. What about the track editor they once promised, did they include that? How about the 9 road courses they advertised? "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > I am also > dumbfounded that they didn't include the career mode from the console > - even if I hated everything about the driving, that would make it > worth keeping around. > > Jason

Quoted text (12 lines)

>"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote > From my perspective, the draft cone is too wide, leading to > the 'wind tunnel' effect if you are the middle car in between > two draft trains-you get shot forward at ungodly (relative) speeds. > In a real Nascar race note that cars in such a predicament tend > to get shuffled to the BACK, not sucked along towards the > front. > There is also a 'turbulence barrier' if a group of cars is two > seconds ahead of you and your pack. Trying to break through > this barrier is almost impossible, if the guys ahead don't keep > jockeying for position and everyone's cars are about even > performance-wise.

That summarises it pretty well indeed John. I couldn't have said it better. It's still not a major problem compared to anything that NT2002 has in it's faults -- -- 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 Sun, 20 Oct 2002 17:43:38 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Argh. What about the track editor they once promised, did they include >that? How about the 9 road courses they advertised? =( I hate Ed Martin. Jason

In article <[email hidden]>, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> writes: >You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with the >sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad at >all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti >Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. I've seen posts from people who like both CART Precision Racing and Andretti Racing. So, they could say the same about YOUR post... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <nUEs9.160418$[email hidden]>, "Larry" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>You've got to be kidding... > >Loose? > >Out of the box it heads for the wall with such a horrific push you have to >brake at every corner. Hard. That's not even close to the way it's >supposed to be. > >-Larry > >"Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Well, I put a setup in the game from Lowe's in N2k2 and it had the same >> feel. I had to adjust the car since it was a little more loose than in >N2k2 >> but it had basically the same feel. Now that I have adjusted the car a >> little bit, the lap times are comparable and the car feels very similar. >If

He said he tried one of his setups from N2K2, he didn't say it was the default NT2003 setup... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

they can say anything they want but what's the truth? "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine withthe > >sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad at > >all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti > >Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. > > I've seen posts from people who like both CART Precision Racing andAndretti

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Racing. So, they could say the same about YOUR post... > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+6.21 > N2002 Rank:+18.91 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

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

It certainly seems that way. Most of the opinions I've read elsewhere on other forums don't match up very well with what I've read from the GPL/Papy faithful here. David G Fisher "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:I6ms9.16158$%d2.16668@sccrnsc01... > Sir, it's not "feast or famine" with this group. What you have is a bunch > of tight-belted GPLers who think that if it's not GPL (or Papyrus made)then

Quoted text (13 lines)

> the thing's garbage. > > I quit listening to these guys long ago. Their myopic vision makes > everything they say invalid and downright absurd. > > Granted, NT2003 may not be that good (I couldn't say, I haven't tried it > yet.) But it's not as bad as some would lead you to believe. > > Alanb > > "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with

the > > sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that badat > > all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti > > Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. Is it better than > N2k? > > No. Is it almost as good? I think it has come a long way and has somemore > > to go. But it is definitely not a POS. At least you can run a raceagainst

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > the AI and not get taken out under yellow by the AI or the renegade pace > > car. Is it the best sim ever? No. Is it a decent to good sim that is not > > perfect and could be made better? Yes. Is it a POS? Absolutely not. > > > > > > "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > 1st. Open the Box. > > > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > > > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > > > > > > > > > > > >

There is a fix for that...it's a common trick in the F1 sims and is exactly the same(from what I've heard for NT.) Check out the tips and tweeks at just about any NT website...they should have it. dave henrie (it changes the same place based on distance from your car or dropping below a certain speed)

If you don't know what problems there are within the drafting model in N2002, why should we even believe you know what you are talking about regarding physics? The aero package in N2002 is VERY arcadish and artificially keeps cars together. That along with the damage model in n2002 makes online racing very difficult. "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:00:18 -0400, "ymenard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Of course except the little drafting > >misaccuracies > > Is this referring to N2002? If so, what's wrong with the drafting > model? > > Jason

That is just at Tona and Dega. Just thing about how fubar'd it is at the other tracks. You can even pick up a draft at Bristol and Marty! Totally Fubar'd... "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (33 lines)

> Jason Moyer wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:00:18 -0400, "ymenard" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Of course except the little drafting > > >misaccuracies > > > > Is this referring to N2002? If so, what's wrong with the drafting > > model? > > > > Jason > > From my perspective, the draft cone is too wide, leading to > the 'wind tunnel' effect if you are the middle car in between > two draft trains-you get shot forward at ungodly (relative) speeds. > In a real Nascar race note that cars in such a predicament tend > to get shuffled to the BACK, not sucked along towards the > front. > There is also a 'turbulence barrier' if a group of cars is two > seconds ahead of you and your pack. Trying to break through > this barrier is almost impossible, if the guys ahead don't keep > jockeying for position and everyone's cars are about even > performance-wise. > > John DiFool > > -- > ============================== > Emerald haunt in overdrive > ============================== > >

You have probably not even spent any time with the simulation. If you had or had any idea what to do in a sim-garage, you wouldn't say that. I can consistently run 28.8's at Texas... Go try and match 28.8's at Texas and tell me that the physics model stinks. Btw, I am running the hardcore version. If you can't run 28.8's or are pathetically slow, don't even come on here talking trash. If you can run 28.8's there is no way you can say the physics model is off. It is fantastic... Just no Perma-Papy-Fan can come to grips there is anything else out there that is decent. "David Ciemny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lvDs9.16630$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> you have to be kidding.. > > total POS.. > > > Phillip Malphrus, Jr. <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with

the > > sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that badat > > all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti > > Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. Is it better than > N2k? > > No. Is it almost as good? I think it has come a long way and has somemore > > to go. But it is definitely not a POS. At least you can run a raceagainst

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > the AI and not get taken out under yellow by the AI or the renegade pace > > car. Is it the best sim ever? No. Is it a decent to good sim that is not > > perfect and could be made better? Yes. Is it a POS? Absolutely not. > > > > > > "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > 1st. Open the Box. > > > 2nd. Re-insert the CD > > > 3rd. Take this POS back to the store........ > > > > > > > > > > > >

Here is a crazy idea.. and truth... I can name several "out of the box" N2002 setups that push like a dump truck. Why not just go play the game a little before typing next time. Or, (GASP) use the Easy Tweak Setup. Heck, I converted a Thunder Setup back into N2002 with a lot of success tonight and used their Easy Tweak Setup to do it. "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:nUEs9.160418$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> You've got to be kidding... > > Loose? > > Out of the box it heads for the wall with such a horrific push you have to > brake at every corner. Hard. That's not even close to the way it's > supposed to be. > > -Larry > > "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Well, I put a setup in the game from Lowe's in N2k2 and it had the same > > feel. I had to adjust the car since it was a little more loose than in > N2k2 > > but it had basically the same feel. Now that I have adjusted the car a > > little bit, the lap times are comparable and the car feels very similar. > If > > anything, the car seems like it has a tighter ride to it and you arent

on

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > ice like it seems you are in N2k2. While I agree that the game is not as > > good as N2k2, I seriously disagree that the game is a pos. It has many > flaws > > with the tracks' design and it does not feel quite as realistic. But, if > you > > load the graphics patches and do the tweaks available at > > www.hcmotorsports.com , the game is fun and challenging to play and is > > definitely the best sim that EA has ever released for the NASCAR crowd

...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > However, the difference between any of these sims and a Papyrus > > > simulation is huge. No company has dedicated as much time and care in > > > perfecting the art of simulating motorsport as Papyrus has, and it > > > shows in their product. That's not a subjective statement, it's pure > > > and simple fact. They create simulations with uncompromising realism, > > > which can not be said about any other company. > > > > > > I agree completely with what you are saying about Papyrus. > > > > > >

It is a huge problem in online racing. That along with the damage model, just about makes this game arcadish. You can be .3 faster than someone and not pull away at tracks like Michigan, Texas, Charlotte, Kansas, Chicago.. The list goes on. It artificially keeps the cars in one snake. It causes more yellows and then you combine that with the limited damage model, it just causes more wrecks than there should be. All in the name of "Keeping people more competitive with the best online drivers". "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sYFs9.663$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote > > From my perspective, the draft cone is too wide, leading to > > the 'wind tunnel' effect if you are the middle car in between > > two draft trains-you get shot forward at ungodly (relative) speeds. > > In a real Nascar race note that cars in such a predicament tend > > to get shuffled to the BACK, not sucked along towards the > > front. > > There is also a 'turbulence barrier' if a group of cars is two > > seconds ahead of you and your pack. Trying to break through > > this barrier is almost impossible, if the guys ahead don't keep > > jockeying for position and everyone's cars are about even > > performance-wise. > > > That summarises it pretty well indeed John. I couldn't have said it

better. > It's still not a major problem compared to anything that NT2002 has init's

Quoted text (12 lines)

> faults > > > > > -- > -- 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... > >

David G Fisher wrote: > > It certainly seems that way. Most of the opinions I've read elsewhere on > other forums don't match up very well with what I've read from the GPL/Papy > faithful here. It's the CPR fan.

"David G Fisher" wrote... > It certainly seems that way. Most of the opinions I've read > elsewhere on other forums don't match up very well with what > I've read from the GPL/Papy faithful here. > I haven't said a word... heck, I haven't even tried it yet! <g> Jan. =---

Yeah, didn't he promise an awful lot in an interview a while back somewhere? -Larry "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 17:43:38 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Argh. What about the track editor they once promised, did they include > >that? How about the 9 road courses they advertised? > > =( > > I hate Ed Martin. > > Jason

Um, excuse me Bill, but I have not generally been trashing your beloved NT2003. I've simply been stating what I"ve seen so far, whether it be good or bad. I do the same with NR2002. It's not all good, it's not all bad. Don't start with me :) -Larry "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Here is a crazy idea.. and truth... I can name several "out of the box" > N2002 setups that push like a dump truck. Why not just go play the game a > little before typing next time. Or, (GASP) use the Easy Tweak Setup.Heck,

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I converted a Thunder Setup back into N2002 with a lot of success tonight > and used their Easy Tweak Setup to do it. > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:nUEs9.160418$[email hidden]... > > You've got to be kidding... > > > > Loose? > > > > Out of the box it heads for the wall with such a horrific push you have

to

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > brake at every corner. Hard. That's not even close to the way it's > > supposed to be. > > > > -Larry > > > > "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Well, I put a setup in the game from Lowe's in N2k2 and it had the

same > > > feel. I had to adjust the car since it was a little more loose than in > > N2k2 > > > but it had basically the same feel. Now that I have adjusted the car a > > > little bit, the lap times are comparable and the car feels verysimilar. > > If > > > anything, the car seems like it has a tighter ride to it and you arent > on > > > ice like it seems you are in N2k2. While I agree that the game is notas > > > good as N2k2, I seriously disagree that the game is a pos. It has many > > flaws > > > with the tracks' design and it does not feel quite as realistic. But,if

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > you > > > load the graphics patches and do the tweaks available at > > > www.hcmotorsports.com , the game is fun and challenging to play and is > > > definitely the best sim that EA has ever released for the NASCAR crowd > ... > > > > > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > However, the difference between any of these sims and a Papyrus > > > > simulation is huge. No company has dedicated as much time and care

in > > > > perfecting the art of simulating motorsport as Papyrus has, and it > > > > shows in their product. That's not a subjective statement, it'spure > > > > and simple fact. They create simulations with uncompromisingrealism,

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > which can not be said about any other company. > > > > > > > > > I agree completely with what you are saying about Papyrus. > > > > > > > > > > > >

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>It is a huge problem in online racing. That along with the damage model, >just about makes this game arcadish. You can be .3 faster than someone and >not pull away at tracks like Michigan, Texas, Charlotte, Kansas, Chicago.. >The list goes on. It artificially keeps the cars in one snake. It causes >more yellows and then you combine that with the limited damage model, it >just causes more wrecks than there should be. All in the name of "Keeping >people more competitive with the best online drivers".

Same thing happens at the real tracks, doesn't it? Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>they can say anything they want but what's the truth? > >"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> In article <[email hidden]>, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." >> <[email hidden]> writes: >> >> >You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with >the >> >sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad at >> >all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS. Andretti >> >Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. >> >> I've seen posts from people who like both CART Precision Racing and >Andretti >> Racing. So, they could say the same about YOUR post...

What's the difference? For just about every new game that comes out, you'll find some who LOVE it, and some who HATE it. Find someone who's opinion you generally agree with, and use that as a guideline. The truth is that some people(a LOT, maybe) don't like NT2003. So to them, it's a POS. Same for those who don't like F1 2002, or GPL, or N2K2... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>You have probably not even spent any time with the simulation. If you had >or had any idea what to do in a sim-garage, you wouldn't say that. I can >consistently run 28.8's at Texas... Go try and match 28.8's at Texas and >tell me that the physics model stinks. Btw, I am running the hardcore >version. If you can't run 28.8's or are pathetically slow, don't even come >on here talking trash. If you can run 28.8's there is no way you can say >the physics model is off. It is fantastic... Just no Perma-Papy-Fan can >come to grips there is anything else out there that is decent.

Why do you insist that someone's opinion on a game is only valid if he's fast enough to meet *your* standards? Do you really need to say that to pump up your own self-worth? That's elitist, man... :-( Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

No... "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill Bollinger" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >It is a huge problem in online racing. That along with the damage model, > >just about makes this game arcadish. You can be .3 faster than someoneand > >not pull away at tracks like Michigan, Texas, Charlotte, Kansas,Chicago.. > >The list goes on. It artificially keeps the cars in one snake. Itcauses > >more yellows and then you combine that with the limited damage model, it > >just causes more wrecks than there should be. All in the name of"Keeping

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >people more competitive with the best online drivers". > > Same thing happens at the real tracks, doesn't it? > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+6.21 > N2002 Rank:+18.91 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

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

No... > >It is a huge problem in online racing. That along with the damage model, > >just about makes this game arcadish. You can be .3 faster than someone and > >not pull away at tracks like Michigan, Texas, C***te, Kansas, Chicago.. > >The list goes on. It artificially keeps the cars in one snake. It causes > >more yellows and then you combine that with the limited damage model, it > >just causes more wrecks than there should be. All in the name of "Keeping

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >people more competitive with the best online drivers". > Same thing happens at the real tracks, doesn't it? > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+6.21 > N2002 Rank:+18.91 > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

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

So why do the Perma-Papy-Fans start slaming other games? What is so funny is that these elitist have no reason to be. They THINK they are pure "sim-heads" but whine about graphics, have no clue as to how a real race car will operate on a high speed ovals, and generally get waxed online by kids who could care less about those things. We as a group wonder WHY we don't get more people interested in online racing / sim-racing in general. Well it isn't a wonder to me. Most of these "sim-heads" have no clue. "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >they can say anything they want but what's the truth? > > > >"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> In article <[email hidden]>, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." > >> <[email hidden]> writes: > >> > >> >You know, this is getting ridiculous. It's either feast or famine with > >the > >> >sim group. This game is definitely not a POS. It's really not that bad

at > >> >all. Nascar Revolution was a POS, Nascar Road Racing was a POS.Andretti

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> >Racing was a POS. Cart Unprecision Racing was a POS. > >> > >> I've seen posts from people who like both CART Precision Racing and > >Andretti > >> Racing. So, they could say the same about YOUR post... > > What's the difference? For just about every new game that comes out,

you'll > find some who LOVE it, and some who HATE it. Find someone who's opinionyou

Quoted text (12 lines)

> generally agree with, and use that as a guideline. The truth is that some > people(a LOT, maybe) don't like NT2003. So to them, it's a POS. Same for > those who don't like F1 2002, or GPL, or N2K2... > > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+6.21 > N2002 Rank:+18.91 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

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

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:43:09 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yeah, didn't he promise an awful lot in an interview a while back somewhere? For which game? Jason

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:11:21 -0500, "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>You have probably not even spent any time with the simulation. If you had >or had any idea what to do in a sim-garage, you wouldn't say that. I can >consistently run 28.8's at Texas... Go try and match 28.8's at Texas and >tell me that the physics model stinks. Btw, I am running the hardcore >version. If you can't run 28.8's or are pathetically slow, don't even come >on here talking trash. If you can run 28.8's there is no way you can say >the physics model is off. It is fantastic... Just no Perma-Papy-Fan can >come to grips there is anything else out there that is decent.

Interesting. I need to reinstall it and get an actual figure, but I'm pretty sure I was cracking 27's within moments of starting the game for the first time. I found the fastest way to drive Atlanta/Charlotte/Texas was to keep the throttle at 100% until you were about 2-3 car lengths from the turn apex, hammer the brakes for a split second (since you can lock them up in the middle of a turn without losing the car - that's fucking realism), then immediately go to 100% throttle. Speaking of lap times, it's pretty sad that without any practice I'm nearly 10 seconds faster than the AI at 100% at Watkins Glen. Maybe if they didn't brake for the esses like they're 90 degree turns or something... Jason

"Bill Bollinger" wrote... > So why do the Perma-Papy-Fans start slaming other games? > What is so funny is that these elitist have no reason to be. > They THINK they are pure "sim-heads" but whine about graphics, > have no clue as to how a real race car will operate on a high > speed ovals, and generally get waxed online by kids who could > care less about those things. You must read a different RAS than me. I've not seen anyone I consider to be a simracer slam NT2003. You sure you're not confusing graphics with track-accuracy? -There has been more discussion about that than usual lately in view of F1 2002 being a particularly bad offender in that category. Most simmers I know have a pretty good grasp of what consists a "realistic" response to a certain set of conditions. From behind the wheel things may be a bit confusing, but looking at it "from the outside" in a replay I find a lot of the "WTF?" incidents look pretty reasonable (warp excluded) hindsight. Draft is over the top in N2k2 for some reason and collisions in warpy conditions are questionable, but these are all known factors and the game is very good in other aspects. I don't think it's possible to code a game that pleases everyone completely, so let's try to be positive towards those who get it mostly right, I say. I haven't been beaten over distance by a casual racer and I'm sure neither has anyone else who takes his simming seriously. Most people I run into online are pretty serious students of the game, regardless of their relative speeds. > We as a group wonder WHY we don't get more people interested in > online racing / sim-racing in general. Well it isn't a wonder > to me. Most of these "sim-heads" have no clue. Attitudes like "if you can't do xx.xs at Yyyyy, you're pathetic" don't help much, either. I'll bet you also don't spare the language filter on Sierra.com when a slower driver pinches you. The ability gap between the newbie and the seasoned online racer is big enough as it is. No need for pressure or agression when things go wrong to put people even more off climbing the learning curve. Jan. =---

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Interesting. I need to reinstall it and get an actual figure, but I'm > pretty sure I was cracking 27's within moments of starting the game > for the first time. Arcade mode doesn't count. > > I found the fastest way to drive Atlanta/Charlotte/Texas was to keep > the throttle at 100% until you were about 2-3 car lengths from the > turn apex, hammer the brakes for a split second (since you can lock > them up in the middle of a turn without losing the car - that's > fucking realism), then immediately go to 100% throttle. Regarding the braking and not losing the car. I can do the same thing with N2002 as well. Enough front weight and brake bias and you don't have to loop it to be "realistic". I can give you a thunder setup that if you slam the brakes in the middle of even the most banked track you will loop it. Get realistic and actually try the game before slamming it please. > > Speaking of lap times, it's pretty sad that without any practice I'm > nearly 10 seconds faster than the AI at 100% at Watkins Glen. Maybe > if they didn't brake for the esses like they're 90 degree turns or > something... > I can't comment on the Glen, because I havn't tried it yet. You may be right on that. However, the nice thing with this game is that the AI is programmable track by track vs. wholesale changes.

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:M_Ws9.172096$[email hidden]... > "Bill Bollinger" wrote... > > > Attitudes like "if you can't do xx.xs at Yyyyy, you're pathetic" don'thelp > much, either. I'll bet you also don't spare the language filter on > Sierra.com when a slower driver pinches you. Well Jan, you have never raced me so you have no clue as to how I would react to the above incident. You have no idea how many people I have helped, or how much I have contributed to the online community. What I am saying is: If someone comes in here and starts talking trash about a physics engine (Thunder) but has failed to even drive the sim for more than a few minutes or hours, they really should hold back what they think regarding the physics. I can make setups in N2002 that would make the game "feel" totally off as well. I can make setups that will not loop and push like a dump truck. Does it make it a bad game? No. Well, people who fail to get "into" the garage part of Thunder have cheated themselves and then when they come on here slamming the physics are cheating someone else the possible opportunity of buying a quality offline experience. The setups transfer between N2002 and Thunder actually quite well. Not perfect but very close. > > The ability gap between the newbie and the seasoned online racer is big > enough as it is. No need for pressure or agression when things go wrong to > put people even more off climbing the learning curve. > You have made a giant leap here. This is where Thunder is an EXCELLENT learning tool. The EASY TWEAK Setup option they have is fantastic. I totally disagree with you regarding what most "Simmers" know. I believe that most "Simmers" have no clue as to what they should change/not change to make a setup go fast or more stable. Most people just do not have the time and knowledge to do that. They want a realistic feeling of the car and the ability to make realistic changes but not need to be on the computer 8 hours a day to learn it. The EASY TWEAK setup option that THUNDER has included is an absolute brain child. Whomever thought of that idea needs a sim-racer award. I wouldn't be surprised to see that option available in future sim-games because it is that good. EASY TWEAK will get the newbies up to speed faster, but still leave enough room between that person who wants to spend enough time to be the best. N2002 levels the playing field through arcadish drafting. Thunder levels the playing field by making it easier to develop setups and teaching people to get better. Which is better to do in life? Give a man a fish (Increase Arcade Drafting) or teach him how to fish (Show him how to build his own setups)? Go EASY TWEAK!

Now I remember why i quit racing and left the racing sim community and to think I was thinking of coming back. Jesus it's has to be a love hate thing with racing sims and sim racers, that I will never understand. Why can't a game be enjoyed for what it is instead of being bashed for what it isn't. By the way N2002 isn't a Sim by any means people, they only Sim papyrus ever made was GPL and all they did with N4 and N2002 is put Stock car skins on top of it, the driving physics in N4/N2002 are completly way off basis, but so is NT2003. N4/N2002 is way to unforgiving for a stock car the cars drive like a 60's F1 car (hmm wonder why that is) and they are way to forgiving in NT2003. Now with that said I enjoyed my time playing Papyrus racing gamea (sims if you must) but got tired of $50 patches very year. I am enjoying my limited time with Nt2003 for what it is which will be short since I just find sim racing boring these days. Anyway just enojoy the games for what they are instead of bashing it and th epeople who play them for what it isn't. On a side Note I never thought I would see the day when Bill Bollinger would come to the dark side (anyone who remembers my days with BHMS and Julian Data will know what I'm speaking about) and be critical of Papyrus. <VBG> Give them hell Bill Now time to go back into my hole God Bless the US and all that have toendure the totures of terrorism Robert GT86 Platts

"Bill Bollinger" wrote...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Well Jan, you have never raced me so you have no clue > as to how I would react to the above incident. You > have no idea how many people I have helped, or how > much I have contributed to the online community. What > I am saying is: If someone comes in here and starts > talking trash about a physics engine (Thunder) but has > failed to even drive the sim for more than a few minutes > or hours, they really should hold back what they think > regarding the physics. I can make setups in N2002 that > would make the game "feel" totally off as well. I can > make setups that will not loop and push like a dump > truck. Does it make it a bad game? No.

True, but I have raced people in your speed brackett and, from my experience, there is a prevailing attitude. I see you don't like getting included in a broad generalisation any more than I do, which is something to think about when you talk about fans of Papyrus games. > Well, people who fail to get "into" the garage part of > Thunder have cheated themselves and then when they come > on here slamming the physics are cheating someone else > the possible opportunity of buying a quality offline > experience. The setups transfer between N2002 and > Thunder actually quite well. Not perfect but very close. There is a bit of a catch there for people who do not make their own setups. There's no legacy community for NT2003 that gets stuck right in and gets the cars running the way they want to and then publishes their settings on the web. Having to think and understand for themselves scares some people. > > <snip> > You have made a giant leap here. I have to... I type too slowly to explain the intermediate steps. > This is where Thunder is an EXCELLENT learning tool. The EASY > TWEAK Setup option they have is fantastic. Now we're getting somewhere... pointing out positive features aides to form an opinion of the game in question. > I totally disagree with you regarding what most "Simmers" know. > I believe that most "Simmers" have no clue as to what they should > change/not change to make a setup go fast or more stable. Most > people just do not have the time and knowledge to do that. Hold it... that's not what you said. You said most people don't have a clue how a car will react at speed on an oval. I hold that they do. Certainly in America, where there's channels pumping 24hr coverage of NASCAR sanctioned events at them. They might not know which setting on the car does what, but they surely have an empirical knowledge of what it should look like and do on the track as well as what the overall pattern of cars should be in a race and which lines should be possible. > They want a realistic feeling of the car and the ability to make > realistic changes but not need to be on the computer 8 hours > a day to learn it. Like I said, some rely on the community to figure that out. Personally, I want to learn for myself. It will take time as my track time is limited, but I'm sort of getting there. > The EASY TWEAK setup option that THUNDER has included is an > absolute brain child. Whomever thought of that idea needs a > sim-racer award. I wouldn't be surprised to see that option > available in future sim-games because it is that good. How does it work?

Quoted text (8 lines)

> EASY TWEAK will get the newbies up to speed faster, but still > leave enough room between that person who wants to spend enough > time to be the best. N2002 levels the playing field through > arcadish drafting. Thunder levels the playing field by making > it easier to develop setups and teaching people to get better. > Which is better to do in life? Give a man a fish (Increase Arcade > Drafting) or teach him how to fish (Show him how to build his own > setups)?

So there's a future for NT2003 as a setup tool for N2k2? ;-)) > Go EASY TWEAK! Lol... ;-) Jan. =---

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >Sir, it's not "feast or famine" with this group. What you have is abunch > >of tight-belted GPLers who think that if it's not GPL (or Papyrus made)then > >the thing's garbage. > > I stopped listening to people who say the above, since it's not in any > way grounded in fact. It is absolutely grounded in fact. This newsgroup is severely dysfunctional with a very select few setting the tone of opinion and a majority of sheeple following blindly. I would assume there is no small number of them that follow simply in an effort to be part of the group. Whatever, the problem remains that any newbie coming in and asking a question is going to get a huge majority of like answers when it comes to the subjective interpretation of realism in a driving simulation. If the newbie asks the wrong question the newbie will be flooded with biased and often hateful information that will lead said newbie to exactly incorrect conclusions. Hell, even people who come around as much as I do can be terribly confused by what is stated and fanatically reinforced here. I almost didn't buy my favorite game because of what I read here. > I've bought every single notable racing simulation (and some that > weren't so notable) since the 1980's. I've given them all a fair > chance, spent several hours on each, even the Grand Prix series up to > and including 4, and the truth of the matter is that nothing simulates > a car to the same degree of precision like a Papyrus sim. I too spend a lot of time on different sims, although, a fair chance comes in around the 40 hour mark.... at least in my book. And here's where we get into the subjective bit, that statement about Papy is very tricky. Sure, nothing does, but a few do it better, many do it worse. > That said, there are several good racing simulations out there. Rally > Trophy was good, Mobil 1 Rally and its predecessors were good, F1 2001 > and 2002 were good, Nascar Heat was good, the Dirt Track Racing series > is very good, Sportscar GT was good, etc. Your opinions are very interesting. Well stated. A boon in this group. > However, the difference between any of these sims and a Papyrus > simulation is huge. No company has dedicated as much time and care in > perfecting the art of simulating motorsport as Papyrus has, and it > shows in their product. That's not a subjective statement, it's pure > and simple fact. They create simulations with uncompromising realism, > which can not be said about any other company. Wrong. It is subjective. I find several titles to be every bit as real and more realistic as anything Papy has been able to produce. One of them came out at the same time GPL did. Maybe it's a problem of a title being called a 'simulation', a term that's pretty popular here. Maybe that's were I get confused. But if we are talking about software driving simulators, Papy has consistently flawed products. The perspective they insist upon using leads to poor perceptions of speed, sense of placement on the track, and available grip. If those things are apparent to a higher degree in any other simulator then Papy cannot hold the title that you and so many other agree to. In my subjective opinion, almost all other titles beat Papy in those respects and a few have physics models that are as accurate and/or are more detailed than the Papy offerings. Why is my opinion worthwhile? Because I think about what I am saying. Unlike many around here who comment on things they've never even tried. (Remember, a newbie isn't going to "know" when someone incorrectly describes a menu page or characteristic of a certain software title.) In the end, my opinion is no more worthwhile than yours, or a newbie's, or Arnao's. The fact of the matter is, that even though there are titles that we probably all call arcades, like PU or RT. There are titles that are going to be much harder to classify.

Quoted text (29 lines)

> Their closest competitor in the early years was Geoff Crammond. Indy > 500, NASCAR Racing, and Indycar Racing 1 and 2 were miles ahead of the > nearest competitor until Grand Prix 2 came out. That was the last > time that anyone has even come close to being on the same playing > field, nevertheless competing head to head. > > NASCAR Thunder, which you haven't played, is a joke. There is one > feature in the entire game that I find noteworthy, and that involves > the paint schemes on the cars (you can have multiple paint schemes for > the same car and select from them in the menu). The track models are > horrible. The graphics have inherited the awful aliasing/flickering > and oversaturated textures from F1 200x. The cars do not exhibit any > noticeable engine braking or for that matter anything resembling a > realistic torque curve. The weight transfer model is as nonexistent > as it is in F1 2002. Rather than feeling like a car with weight that > transfers as you accelerate, brake, corner, etc if feels like you're > in a piece of plywood that is skipping along the surface of a pond. > It's horrible. F1 2002's saving grace is that it's quite possible a > real modern ultra-stiff Formula One car handles like that. Is it an > inherent problem with ISI's physics code? I suppose GT 2002 will show > if that's the case - if Doug Arnao cannot create a realistic > representation of a real car using that engine, I doubt anyone can. > Beyond the actual gameplay, the menus are horrible, the replay system > is barely functional, and the lack of any sort of in-game opponent or > skin manager is mindnumbing. I don't think I have to be a Papyrus > looney to make statements that are immediately apparent to nearly > everyone who has played the game. > > Jason

Again, the subjectivity of this whole thing comes through. I find F12002 so far removed from reality that I would call it an arcade without hesitation. (I haven't tried it with FF.) Now, I have no problem with being wrong. I practice being wrong daily. But I can quantify and demonstrate my opinions o n F12002 and if anyone of you were sitting here with me and had graduated MJ's School of Comparative High Performance Driving Analysis - Focusing on the Relationships Between Reality and Sims (which is a 4 day course with 2 days in a sedan and racing kart and 2 days on all the sims on my machine.), and no one from r.a.s. would ever find out what you had experienced or said here, I bet 90% of you would agree with 90% of my ideas concerning all the sims we tried. But it still would not mean "it's pure and simple fact". It would only mean that the way my computer is set up on my desk, with my wheel and GFX card creates certain environments in our imaginations that would lead us to a more believable driving experience from one title to the next. It's not that I don't try, or that I have no experience, or poor analytical skills... it's just that the whole thing really is very subjective. Unless we are talking about real simulation, not driving simulation, in which case I would think that very few of us are privy to the actual simulation level that goes into any title. In any case, that doesn't matter because it either feels real on the track or it doesn't and that's the whole reason we use graphics cards an wheels instead of spreadsheets. Jason, you are obviously not a Papy Loony, but there are those who are and the group has a real problem. I have caught certain people lying about whether they'd tried certain games... who's gonna call you out if you agree with the majority, right? Lotta bandwagon jumping around here. If I felt the Papy games were more realistic I may be ignorant to the problem, but because I genuinely feel there are better titles out there, I have a perspective of what goes on around here that is different from the majority. There is definitely a problem. -- "Nothing gets closer!" - Crammond mark

>"mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote > This newsgroup is severely dysfunctional BWAHAHAHA. "Oh my god a newsgroup that's not perfect". Well fucking _duh_ welcome to the Usenet Mark. Either you leave or you play the game. Anyway, non-Papyrus games are more talked about in this NG. Fact. Papy-threads are in the minority, even if the #1 possible thread in this NG. Fact. There are still far more other types of discussion in this NG in general. Fact. > Wrong. It is subjective. No, it's a reality of life. > I find several titles to be every bit as real and > more realistic as anything Papy has been able to produce. Like... ??? ? ? ? ? ?? Stop using rheotorics and put some BLOODY FACTS here! > Papy has consistently flawed products. Wow another time, "fucking _duh_". No sim is perfect, we all know that here. You ain't giving us brain time here Mark. Papy has consistently flawed product, well also don't forget that Geoff Crammond has consistently flawed products, that Ubisoft also has, that ISI has, that <insert EVERY sim or arcade or whatever racing game developper ever> No shit Jose!!! > to poor perceptions of speed Absolutely false. It was proven MATHEMATICALLY in the past that the perception of speed in various Papy simulations are deadly accurate for what we view in our 4:3 ratio screen. Every other sim/game/whatever with an enhanced sense of speed is *innacurate*. Whose being subjective now? > Because I think about what I am saying. Unlike many around here You are so *3733+* dude, we bow to your superiority skillz. <roll eyes> -- -- 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...

WRONG. You and certain other people in this group have a really warped understanding of the terms subjectivity and objectivity. Objectivity concerns factual information and facts are measurable, everything else is a subjective opinion. Just because you are absolutely certain about something and can find people that agree with you does not make that thing a fact. It is a belief, or an opinion, until you can measure it. Statements like "Papy is more real" or "ISI is more real" are subjective opinions, you cannot prove them. And as far as the below mentioned mathematical proof, perception is subjective, you cannot mathematically prove anything about it. If you are referring to the proof that I recall (a link would be helpful) the person didn't even understand the correct definition of FOV and therefore his whole argument was flawed. Come on, Frank. Perception of speed? How the hell can you measure that? "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kC6t9.4834$[email hidden]... > Absolutely false. It was proven MATHEMATICALLY in the past that the > perception of speed in various Papy simulations are deadly accuratefor what > we view in our 4:3 ratio screen. Every other sim/game/whatever withan > enhanced sense of speed is *innacurate*. Whose being subjective now? >

He's promised the moon for his last two projects, Heat and this. He needs to run for political office; he's a natural. All talk, no results. John "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xDSs9.162666$[email hidden]... > Yeah, didn't he promise an awful lot in an interview a while backsomewhere?

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > -Larry > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 17:43:38 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > > >Argh. What about the track editor they once promised, did they include > > >that? How about the 9 road courses they advertised? > > > > =( > > > > I hate Ed Martin. > > > > Jason > >

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

Quoted text (31 lines)

> Jason Moyer wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:00:18 -0400, "ymenard" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Of course except the little drafting > > >misaccuracies > > > > Is this referring to N2002? If so, what's wrong with the drafting > > model? > > > > Jason > > From my perspective, the draft cone is too wide, leading to > the 'wind tunnel' effect if you are the middle car in between > two draft trains-you get shot forward at ungodly (relative) speeds. > In a real Nascar race note that cars in such a predicament tend > to get shuffled to the BACK, not sucked along towards the > front. > There is also a 'turbulence barrier' if a group of cars is two > seconds ahead of you and your pack. Trying to break through > this barrier is almost impossible, if the guys ahead don't keep > jockeying for position and everyone's cars are about even > performance-wise. > > John DiFool > > -- > ============================== > Emerald haunt in overdrive > ==============================

Agreed about the drafting model, but not being able to advance in the middle in an actual race isn't completely true. Earnhardt was a master at it, and did it virtually every race. John > >

Yep. Some of the points you mention, don't bother me, but the model is no good. Then again, who cares about a damage model, when the slightest contact sends a car into orbit anyway <g> See ya at Kharkov comrade <g> "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It is a huge problem in online racing. That along with the damage model, > just about makes this game arcadish. You can be .3 faster than someoneand

Quoted text (41 lines)

> not pull away at tracks like Michigan, Texas, Charlotte, Kansas, Chicago.. > The list goes on. It artificially keeps the cars in one snake. It causes > more yellows and then you combine that with the limited damage model, it > just causes more wrecks than there should be. All in the name of "Keeping > people more competitive with the best online drivers". > > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:sYFs9.663$[email hidden]... > > >"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > From my perspective, the draft cone is too wide, leading to > > > the 'wind tunnel' effect if you are the middle car in between > > > two draft trains-you get shot forward at ungodly (relative) speeds. > > > In a real Nascar race note that cars in such a predicament tend > > > to get shuffled to the BACK, not sucked along towards the > > > front. > > > There is also a 'turbulence barrier' if a group of cars is two > > > seconds ahead of you and your pack. Trying to break through > > > this barrier is almost impossible, if the guys ahead don't keep > > > jockeying for position and everyone's cars are about even > > > performance-wise. > > > > > > That summarises it pretty well indeed John. I couldn't have said it > better. > > It's still not a major problem compared to anything that NT2002 has in > it's > > faults > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- 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... > > > > > >

Yep, so true. John "Robert Platts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:qwXs9.160160$[email hidden]... > Now I remember why i quit racing and left the racing sim community and to > think I was thinking of coming back. Jesus it's has to be a love hatething > with racing sims and sim racers, that I will never understand. Why can't a > game be enjoyed for what it is instead of being bashed for what it isn't.By > the way N2002 isn't a Sim by any means people, they only Sim papyrus ever > made was GPL and all they did with N4 and N2002 is put Stock car skins on > top of it, the driving physics in N4/N2002 are completly way off basis,but > so is NT2003. N4/N2002 is way to unforgiving for a stock car the carsdrive > like a 60's F1 car (hmm wonder why that is) and they are way to forgivingin > NT2003. Now with that said I enjoyed my time playing Papyrus racing gamea > (sims if you must) but got tired of $50 patches very year. I am enjoyingmy

Quoted text (7 lines)

> limited time with Nt2003 for what it is which will be short since I just > find sim racing boring these days. Anyway just enojoy the games for what > they are instead of bashing it and th epeople who play them for what it > isn't. > > > On a side Note I never thought I would see the day when Bill Bollinger

would

Quoted text (14 lines)

> come to the dark side (anyone who remembers my days with BHMS and Julian > Data will know what I'm speaking about) and be critical of Papyrus. <VBG> > Give them hell Bill > > > Now time to go back into my hole > > > God Bless the US and all that have toendure the totures of terrorism > > > Robert GT86 Platts > >

Oh lets not forget how far off the speeds are in every Nascar Racing game especially Papyrus's. For example when I stopped racing in N4 we were racing at Lowes at 182-183 mph laptimes , this is race speeds not hot laps or qual laps mind you. When is the last time you seen a Wc car race at these speeds in a race, they are in the mid 170's for god's sake. Here's another example the speeds were 92-94 mph at Marty , hmm I remeber seing the guys racing at 86-88 mph this past weekend. If the Wc boys ran the setups I and others use to use they would crash in by lap 10. Besides their Ai this has been papyrus's biggest problem , that being the speeds are anywhere from 5 - 10 mph higher than what is really run depending on the track you go to. Also lets don't gforget about the lack of more than 1 groove at most tracks in papyrus's Nascar sims and don't even get me started on the total joke of restrictor plate racing they have always had. Don't take this as a bash on papyrus or a praise for Nt2003 , it's just flaws and facts that people tend to forget about Paryru's Nascar games everytime a new one comes out from a different company. Peace Robert GT86 Platts "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Yep, so true. > > John > > > "Robert Platts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:qwXs9.160160$[email hidden]... > > Now I remember why i quit racing and left the racing sim community and

to > > think I was thinking of coming back. Jesus it's has to be a love hate > thing > > with racing sims and sim racers, that I will never understand. Why can'ta > > game be enjoyed for what it is instead of being bashed for what itisn't. > By > > the way N2002 isn't a Sim by any means people, they only Sim papyrusever > > made was GPL and all they did with N4 and N2002 is put Stock car skinson > > top of it, the driving physics in N4/N2002 are completly way off basis, > but > > so is NT2003. N4/N2002 is way to unforgiving for a stock car the cars > drive > > like a 60's F1 car (hmm wonder why that is) and they are way toforgiving > in > > NT2003. Now with that said I enjoyed my time playing Papyrus racinggamea > > (sims if you must) but got tired of $50 patches very year. I amenjoying

Quoted text (11 lines)

> my > > limited time with Nt2003 for what it is which will be short since I just > > find sim racing boring these days. Anyway just enojoy the games for what > > they are instead of bashing it and th epeople who play them for what it > > isn't. > > > > > > On a side Note I never thought I would see the day when Bill Bollinger > would > > come to the dark side (anyone who remembers my days with BHMS and Julian > > Data will know what I'm speaking about) and be critical of Papyrus.

<VBG>

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Give them hell Bill > > > > > > Now time to go back into my hole > > > > > > God Bless the US and all that have toendure the totures of terrorism > > > > > > Robert GT86 Platts > > > > > > >

He's an "Alien". <G> -- Scott B. Husted PA-Scott ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill Bollinger" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > Why do you insist that someone's opinion on a game is only valid if he's fast > enough to meet *your* standards? Do you really need to say that to pump up > your own self-worth? That's elitist, man... :-( > > Eldred > --

With the number of players you can run online in NT2003.... it will seem like an F1 race on ovals. ;) -- Scott B. Husted PA-Scott ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yep. Some of the points you mention, don't bother me, but the model is > no good. Then again, who cares about a damage model, when the slightest > contact sends a car into orbit anyway <g> > > See ya at Kharkov comrade <g>

>"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote > WRONG. Again, I'm right. Saying that Papyrus in GPL or NR2002 doesn't have an accurate sense of speed is ABSOLUTELY false. There was discussions about this in the past, and even a website was created that had shown mathematical proof of the realistic sense of speed in GPL. Every one of those "whoa look at the speed you feel" games on the market have it incorrectly. > Statements like "Papy is more real" or "ISI is more real" are subjective > opinions, you cannot prove them. On something simple as a POV, how the lens is distorsed and how the horizon acts, yes. It's pure mathematical and physical calculations. Again, just show us that it's wrong. -- -- 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...

> Again, I'm right. Saying that Papyrus in GPL or NR2002 doesn't have an > accurate sense of speed is ABSOLUTELY false. There was discussions about > this in the past, and even a website was created that had shownmathematical > proof of the realistic sense of speed in GPL. Every one of those "whoalook > at the speed you feel" games on the market have it incorrectly. <sigh> ymenard gets it wrong yet again. Most of the "whoa look at the speed you feel" posts were generated when F1 2001 was released. Why? Well, mainly it has to do with frame rate and FOV (field of view) F1 200X has also been proven to have a correctly scaled speed. The road texture also has an enormous impact. The stark, plain textures used in GPL, N2002, GP4 etc don't appear to be moving as quickly as in F1 200X because a fast-moving, plain texture doesn't appear to be moving at all. After playing F1 200X at 60+fps, GPL at 36fps feels like a snail. So, yes, sense of speed *is* subjective. (Please nobody replay saying that you only need 30fps for smooth motion <rolls eyes>)

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kC6t9.4834$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >"mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote > > This newsgroup is severely dysfunctional > > BWAHAHAHA. > > "Oh my god a newsgroup that's not perfect". Well fucking _duh_ welcome to > the Usenet Mark. Either you leave or you play the game.

So you back me up in that statement? Good. I knew I wasn't alone. BTW There are some very helpful and honest newsgroups on Usenet. Guess I'm used to a higher standard. > Anyway, non-Papyrus games are more talked about in this NG. Fact. > Papy-threads are in the minority, even if the #1 possible thread in thisNG. > Fact. There are still far more other types of discussion in this NG in > general. Fact. I never disputed any of these claims. I haven't checked them either as they do not interest me. Nor are they related to what I was trying to say. > > I find several titles to be every bit as real and > > more realistic as anything Papy has been able to produce. > > Like... ??? ? ? ? ? ?? Stop using rheotorics and put some BLOODY FACTS > here! From time to time I try to take the time to state what I think is wrong or right with certain titles. The discussion in this strand of this thread was not what title is real, it was whether or not this group is "feast or famine", at least as an overall trait. So, I summarized to help make my point. Surely you understand that technique. Or shall I go through a detailed background description of every sentence in my post? I will be happy to write what I think as far as comparisons of different titles goes, at some point. Right now I have neither the time nor energy to withstand the abuse. > Wow another time, "fucking _duh_". No sim is perfect, we all know that > here. You ain't giving us brain time here Mark. Papy has consistently > flawed product, well also don't forget that Geoff Crammond hasconsistently > flawed products, that Ubisoft also has, that ISI has, that <insert EVERYsim > or arcade or whatever racing game developper ever> No shit Jose!!! True. OK, I guess what I am complaining about is that it can seem that flaws in popular titles are forgivable and any flaws by less popular manufacturers are not. At the same time, I ask you to review what you have written in the paragraph above... and try to remember it. > > to poor perceptions of speed > > Absolutely false. It was proven MATHEMATICALLY in the past that the > perception of speed in various Papy simulations are deadly accurate forwhat > we view in our 4:3 ratio screen. Every other sim/game/whatever with an > enhanced sense of speed is *innacurate*. Whose being subjective now? I don't think math is a good tool to use when measuring my perception of speed. I remember the link to which you refer. I recall that it calculated the accuracy with which GPL reported speed, or, if it covered so many feet in so many seconds at such and such a rate of speed. I would expect no less than exact accuracy from anything I would call a simulation. The fact that I had a habit of braking, turning, and throttling too early in GPL (until the timing patch, anyway) is my sole source of measurement of my perception of speed in GPL. Sure there were theories backing up my suspicions, but the only way I had of proving what I thought was going on was by monitoring my habits in all sims. My official answer to your question is, "I'm being subjective now." Which, is what I was trying to get at the whole time. Sorry if I was unclear. > > Because I think about what I am saying. Unlike many around here > > You are so *3733+* dude, we bow to your superiority skillz. <roll eyes> > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> Thanks for the chat Frank. I always enjoy your company. Be sure to stop me the next time we pass. "-) -- "Nothing gets closer!" - Crammond mark

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hFkt9.3859$[email hidden]... > > Again, I'm right. Saying that Papyrus in GPL or NR2002 doesn't havean > accurate sense of speed is ABSOLUTELY false. There was discussionsabout > this in the past, and even a website was created that had shownmathematical > proof of the realistic sense of speed in GPL. Link please? > > > Statements like "Papy is more real" or "ISI is more real" aresubjective > > opinions, you cannot prove them. > > On something simple as a POV, how the lens is distorsed and how thehorizon > acts, yes. It's pure mathematical and physical calculations. > No it isn't, because you are assuming that you know where the driver's sensation of speed is coming from. For me the sensation of speed comes from how fast detail is moving past my eyes. You can see this clearly by running games at radically different mip levels. At extremely low texture detail your sensation of speed disappears almost completely. Concerning that web site, if you are referring to the site I am thinking of, he was basing his calculations on the angular rate of objects moving off the edge of the screen. But guess what, the edge of the screen is not the edge of your vision! Or if it is, then I want to borrow your monitor. ;o) I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the screen area should in any way match my real life FOV, and I fundamentally disagree with the idea that perception of speed has anything to do with the angular rate at which objects move across my viewing frustum. For me it is tied to the linear speed at which detail moves towards me. > > Again, just show us that it's wrong. > I can't, nor can you prove me wrong, any more than you can look out of my eyes and see what I am seeing. You are trying to say that there is some science to perception, and I disagree with you. I have even given you an example above of how I perceive things differently than the author of that web page (assuming we are talking about the same one). There is perhaps a science to how the sense organs receive stimuli, and to how they relay those signals to the brain. But that is where the science stops. After that it is all psychology, which is about as subjective as you can possibly get.

>"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote > <sigh> ymenard gets it wrong yet again. Most of the "whoa look at thespeed > you feel" posts were generated when F1 2001 was released. Hmmm, wasn't it for another sim? Considering every data of the FOV of F1 2001 can be modified, why would it had been a problem? I think the threads about that started because somebody was willing to view outside of the 4:3 box we have our vision. I have never said ISI's sims have incorrect FOV. But I disagree that the capped 36fps affects a correct "sense of speed", but that's pretty much to be debated also. Like somebody told me, the debates goes towards the law of diminishing returns. > The stark, plain textures used in GPL, N2002, GP4 > etc don't appear to be moving as quickly as in F1 200X because a > fast-moving, plain texture doesn't appear to be moving at all. The textures are more realistic in those sims then F1 200x (and especially NT2003). It's more of a philosophical issue here. Should some things be unrealistic so that in other aspects they become realistic? ;) > (Please nobody replay saying that you only need 30fps for smooth motion > <rolls eyes>) smooth motion =! sense of speed. -- -- 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...

>"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote > Link please? Sorry, I have failed to remember the URL. I had it backed up, but I lost my thousands of bookmarks earlier this year. Therefore, I admit my failure to continue argumenting :) :( (yes people, mark your calendars LOL) > But guess what, the edge of the screen is not the edge of your vision! Of course. 4:3 dimensions limit our vision, but since every sim is on the same standpoint, it can be compared. Now with those 3:1-supported video cards, it can be much different. After viewing NR2002 raced on 3 screens, I have to say that the angular rate is perfect. Perhaps it could be put up front of let's say a feet or two, but not much more. > I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the screen > area should in any way match my real life FOV, and I fundamentally > disagree with the idea that perception of speed has anything to do with > the angular rate at which objects move across my viewing frustum. For > me it is tied to the linear speed at which detail moves towards me. Interesting concept that I knew would come in this thread. It can be debated for sure. -- -- 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...

>"mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote > So you back me up in that statement? Good. I knew I wasn't alone. Actually yes I back you up here Mark. I was just saying that you say the obvious here often in this thread. We all know and act that way because we understand what the Usenet really is 8) > BTW There are some very helpful and honest newsgroups on Usenet. I know from my experience (my list of frequented NG's weekly is in the hundreds) that this is one. Of course it's surely not sci.space.station but it's neither alt.fan.karl-malden.nose ;) > I never disputed any of these claims. I haven't checked them either asthey > do not interest me. Nor are they related to what I was trying to say. Hmmm <confused> ;-/ > From time to time I try to take the time to state what I think is wrong or > right with certain titles. Well the point is, you say that you find "several" titles to be more realistic as anything Papyrus ever produced (which would include NR2003). I would like to know what those "several" titles are. Please don't say GP4. > > Wow another time, "fucking _duh_". No sim is perfect, we all know that > > here. You ain't giving us brain time here Mark. Papy has consistently > > flawed product, well also don't forget that Geoff Crammond hasconsistently > > flawed products, that Ubisoft also has, that ISI has, that <insert EVERYsim > > or arcade or whatever racing game developper ever> No shit Jose!!! > > True. OK, I guess what I am complaining about is that it can seem thatflaws > in popular titles are forgivable and any flaws by less popularmanufacturers > are not. At the same time, I ask you to review what you have written inthe > paragraph above... and try to remember it. Well if you read my words here you'll see that I'm cynical of every title ever. Even Papy products aren't up to my standards. I bitch and whine about everything, because I understand that all sims are flawed. It's somehow our job in the community to make sure those failures in the sims are known. > My official answer to your question is, "I'm being > subjective now." Which, is what I was trying to get at the whole time.Sorry > if I was unclear.. True > Thanks for the chat Frank. I always enjoy your company. Be sure to stop me > the next time we pass. "-) Eh ;) -- -- 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...

Damien Smith wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > Again, I'm right. Saying that Papyrus in GPL or NR2002 doesn't have an > > accurate sense of speed is ABSOLUTELY false. There was discussions about > > this in the past, and even a website was created that had shown > mathematical > > proof of the realistic sense of speed in GPL. Every one of those "whoa > look > > at the speed you feel" games on the market have it incorrectly. > > <sigh> ymenard gets it wrong yet again. Most of the "whoa look at the speed > you feel" posts were generated when F1 2001 was released. Why? Well, > mainly it has to do with frame rate and FOV (field of view) F1 200X has > also been proven to have a correctly scaled speed. The road texture also > has an enormous impact. The stark, plain textures used in GPL, N2002, GP4 > etc don't appear to be moving as quickly as in F1 200X because a > fast-moving, plain texture doesn't appear to be moving at all. After > playing F1 200X at 60+fps, GPL at 36fps feels like a snail. So, yes, sense > of speed *is* subjective.

Modern F1 car accelerate faster and go faster than stocks and 67 F1 cars. Maybe that's what give you a better feeling of speed, you are actually going faster! Gerry

In article <sD2t9.6814$46.3378@fe01>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> writes: >It is absolutely grounded in fact. This newsgroup is severely dysfunctional >with a very select few setting the tone of opinion and a majority of sheeple >following blindly. Wait - are you using the term "sheeple" to describe people who may just *happen* to like a game that a few are very vocal about? If so, I don't consider that fair. Besides, you may TRY a game because a majority like it. But if YOU don't like it, you certainly won't keep PLAYING it... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > Modern F1 car accelerate faster and go faster than stocks and 67 F1 > cars. Maybe that's what give you a better feeling of speed, you are > actually going faster! In my Renault 5 Turbo, 100mph felt *fast* In a Vectra, 100mph felt gentle In a novice kart, 30 mph feels fast as feck In car WC footage looks sedate Wall-cam WC footage looks faaaaast! FWIW, I can't remember any sim giving overly bad speed sensations. I guess I'm lucky that way... As for NT2003? I'll try it whenever a demo becomes available... Mark Reading, UK A fan of Papyrus products, not because the company name is spelled P-A-P-Y-R-U-S but because I actually *enjoy* using their products - hey, go figure!

"Robert Platts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:khht9.18591$[email hidden]... > Oh lets not forget how far off the speeds are in every Nascar Racing game > especially Papyrus's. For example when I stopped racing in N4 we wereracing > at Lowes at 182-183 mph laptimes , this is race speeds not hot laps orqual > laps mind you. When is the last time you seen a Wc car race at thesespeeds > in a race, they are in the mid 170's for god's sake. Here's anotherexample > the speeds were 92-94 mph at Marty , hmm I remeber seing the guys racingat > 86-88 mph this past weekend. If the Wc boys ran the setups I and othersuse > to use they would crash in by lap 10. Besides their Ai this has been > papyrus's biggest problem , that being the speeds are anywhere from 5 - 10 > mph higher than what is really run depending on the track you go to.Also > lets don't gforget about the lack of more than 1 groove at most tracks in > papyrus's Nascar sims and don't even get me started on the total joke of > restrictor plate racing they have always had. Don't take this as a bash on > papyrus or a praise for Nt2003 , it's just flaws and facts that peopletend

Quoted text (8 lines)

> to forget about Paryru's Nascar games everytime a new one comes out from a > different company. > > > Peace > > > Robert GT86 Platts

I don't think it is a matter of people forgetting about papyrus' Nascar games everytime a new title comes out. But rather by the time the new title comes out all the Papy bashing has become old hat for each current version of said papy title. I think this Newsgroup has been just as harsh on Papy as it has on every other developer of software in this Genre. It is true that it is "feast or famine" But at least we know exactly what we want and how to voice our displeasure when we are told one thing and then sold another. This goes for both Papyrus and EA as well as every other title we have all purchased. I personally dont see a reason to post re-hashes of what the flaws are in NR2K2 as we all collectively are aware of them. - Isotrip�

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:15:52 -0400, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Hmmm, wasn't it for another sim? Considering every data of the FOV of F1 >2001 can be modified, why would it had been a problem? It's a problem because the default cockpit camera has a distorted FOV. If I'm correctly interpreting the data in default.cfg, then the default camera has a wider FOV at the cockpit and narrower further away (or vice versa). I changed it to 76/76 and got rid of all the positional modifiers and I could finally drive the cars with some accuracy. I don't find the sense of speed to be overwhelming in NT2k3. Unfortunately you can't really do much with the FOV anyway because of the crappy cockpit model which has huge gaps on either side if you widen it beyond 70/70. I've tried it at 76/76 and found I enjoyed driving more but the 4 inch gap on either side of the cockpit destroyed any sense of "being there". Jason

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:15:52 -0400, "ymenard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Hmmm, wasn't it for another sim? Considering every data of the FOVof F1

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >2001 can be modified, why would it had been a problem? > > It's a problem because the default cockpit camera has a distorted FOV. > If I'm correctly interpreting the data in default.cfg, then the > default camera has a wider FOV at the cockpit and narrower further > away (or vice versa). I changed it to 76/76 and got rid of all the > positional modifiers and I could finally drive the cars with some > accuracy.

Haven't had time to play with this, but from a programming standpoint I don't believe that it is possible to blend two different FOV's like you suggest. Admittedly I don't know what the second number is for, but it seems unlikely that it has anything to do with distance. Have you tried comparing screenshots with only the second number changed to see what is different?

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > I don't find the sense of speed to be overwhelming in NT2k3. > Unfortunately you can't really do much with the FOV anyway because of > the crappy cockpit model which has huge gaps on either side if you > widen it beyond 70/70. I've tried it at 76/76 and found I enjoyed > driving more but the 4 inch gap on either side of the cockpit > destroyed any sense of "being there". >

If it's setup the same as F1 2002, you should be able to get rid of the gaps by moving the eye point forward a little. It's the third number in the Position Offset variable, the units are meters, and I think positive is rearward.

In article <3db437c4$[email hidden]>, "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>So why do the Perma-Papy-Fans start slaming other games? What is so funny >is that these elitist have no reason to be. They THINK they are pure >"sim-heads" but whine about graphics, have no clue as to how a real race car >will operate on a high speed ovals, and generally get waxed online by kids >who could care less about those things. We as a group wonder WHY we don't >get more people interested in online racing / sim-racing in general. Well >it isn't a wonder to me. Most of these "sim-heads" have no clue.

People have slammed Papy games, too - are THEY elitist? Different people have different opinions. Why insult someone just because they vew something differently than you do? Very FEW of us here have driven a real race car on a high speed oval. So according to you, someone shouldn't say a game doesn't "feel right" to them? People know what they like and dislike, and those really aren't open to argument. I've never flown a real plane either, but I can certainly say that I don't like how a particular game handles flight. A lot of people here already know how to drive a real car, so their sim driving is seen from that point of view. The kids online who 'wax' everyone have two things in their favor. 1 - they don't have any previous knowledge of how a car SHOULD handle that they need to unlearn. They can simply work within the frame of the game. In other words, they don't know what WOULDN'T work in real life, so they try everything. 2 - they tend to have a lot more time available to practice than an adult who's working 40+ hours per week, and maybe taking care of a house and a family... That means the kids SHOULD be better. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>No... > >"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill Bollinger" >> <[email hidden]> writes: >> >> >It is a huge problem in online racing. That along with the damage model, >> >just about makes this game arcadish. You can be .3 faster than someone >and >> >not pull away at tracks like Michigan, Texas, Charlotte, Kansas, >Chicago..

You can't stay close in the draft at the higher speed tracks...? Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

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

Quoted text (14 lines)

>> <sigh> ymenard gets it wrong yet again. Most of the "whoa look at the >speed >> you feel" posts were generated when F1 2001 was released. Why? Well, >> mainly it has to do with frame rate and FOV (field of view) F1 200X has >> also been proven to have a correctly scaled speed. The road texture also >> has an enormous impact. The stark, plain textures used in GPL, N2002, GP4 >> etc don't appear to be moving as quickly as in F1 200X because a >> fast-moving, plain texture doesn't appear to be moving at all. After >> playing F1 200X at 60+fps, GPL at 36fps feels like a snail. So, yes, sense >> of speed *is* subjective. > >Modern F1 car accelerate faster and go faster than stocks and 67 F1 >cars. Maybe that's what give you a better feeling of speed, you are >actually going faster!

But he mentioned GP4 also...<g> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > In article <[email hidden]>, Gerry Aitken > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >> <sigh> ymenard gets it wrong yet again. Most of the "whoa look at the > >speed > >> you feel" posts were generated when F1 2001 was released. Why? Well, > >> mainly it has to do with frame rate and FOV (field of view) F1 200X has > >> also been proven to have a correctly scaled speed. The road texture also > >> has an enormous impact. The stark, plain textures used in GPL, N2002, GP4 > >> etc don't appear to be moving as quickly as in F1 200X because a > >> fast-moving, plain texture doesn't appear to be moving at all. After > >> playing F1 200X at 60+fps, GPL at 36fps feels like a snail. So, yes, sense > >> of speed *is* subjective. > > > >Modern F1 car accelerate faster and go faster than stocks and 67 F1 > >cars. Maybe that's what give you a better feeling of speed, you are > >actually going faster! > > But he mentioned GP4 also...<g>

Yeah, but the slow motion effect inherent with GP4/3/2/1 goes without saying. Gerry

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <3db437c4$[email hidden]>, "Bill Bollinger" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > > People have slammed Papy games, too - are THEY elitist? Yes (And they shouldn't do that either), but in general, Papy games are what the majority on this newsgroup view as "Reality". While that is good for Papy, it doesn't mean it is true. People slamming a product without actually trying, are IMHO ignorant. No clue and base their opinions on what they read on some website. So I agree, it is wrong for people to slam Papy games without trying/knowing what they are talking about. > Different people have different opinions. Why insult someone just becausethey vew something > differently than you do? Very FEW of us here have driven a real race caron a > high speed oval. So according to you, someone shouldn't say a gamedoesn't > "feel right" to them? People know what they like and dislike, and thosereally > aren't open to argument. I've never flown a real plane either, but I can > certainly say that I don't like how a particular game handles flight. Alot of > people here already know how to drive a real car, so their sim driving isseen > from that point of view. Again, I go back to the fact that Papy has done a good job in making their product the industry standard or "reality". If another game doesn't feel similar in style, those Perma-Papy-Fans start waving their hands, jumping arround screaming about how "unrealistic" the physics are or how the tracks are not as acurrate blah blah blah. I can remember the flames HEAT took when it was first released for the "Pull to the left". Perma-Papy-Fans were in an uproar as to how HEAT could have released such a piece of junk without even testing an OBVIOUS flaw as to a "Pull to the left". Today, because Papy incorporated the same sensation, consider it normal or "reality". >The kids online who 'wax' everyone have two things in > their favor. 1 - they don't have any previous knowledge of how a carSHOULD > handle that they need to unlearn. They can simply work within the frameof the > game. In other words, they don't know what WOULDN'T work in real life, sothey > try everything. 2 - they tend to have a lot more time available topractice > than an adult who's working 40+ hours per week, and maybe taking care of a > house and a family... That means the kids SHOULD be better. I do agree with the idea they are better because of the time they spend. What is interesting is the comment of: "They can simply work with the frame of the game. In other words, they don't know what WOULDN'T work in real life, so they try everything". What I will say to this statement is that in fact, if this statement is TRUE, then the PHYSICS within N2002 must be FALSE. Because kids who use tweaks that WOULDN'T work in real life, but are able to go faster and drive better, then the TRUTH of the PHYSICS must be FALSE. Is N2002's physics false? I agree totally with the above logic. However, what is not discussed in this newsgroup is how to setup N2002 cars. How those kids today are making those unrealistic setups. Why? Is it because it would ruin the image of the glorious GPL and N2002 physics engine? Is it because it would bring again the FACT these are GAMES not true simulations? I say yes, therefore, when people start slamming on a game they never played for the lack of "Physics Accuracy" blah blah... Let's just get to the truth. They don't "like" the game because it doesn't play exactly like Papy games. What I don't understand is why they don't tell that truth rather than ranting on how it sucks.

"EldredP" wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> <snip> > Wait - are you using the term "sheeple" to describe people > who may just *happen* to like a game that a few are very > vocal about? If so, I don't consider that fair. > Besides, you may TRY a game because a majority like it. > But if YOU don't like it, you certainly won't keep PLAYING > it...

Never argue with Mark Jeangerard. He'll take your mind places you don't want it to go. Jan. ;-)) =---

Jason Moyer wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:15:52 -0400, "ymenard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Hmmm, wasn't it for another sim? Considering every data of the FOV of F1 > >2001 can be modified, why would it had been a problem? > > It's a problem because the default cockpit camera has a distorted FOV. > If I'm correctly interpreting the data in default.cfg, then the > default camera has a wider FOV at the cockpit and narrower further > away (or vice versa). I changed it to 76/76 and got rid of all the > positional modifiers and I could finally drive the cars with some > accuracy. > > I don't find the sense of speed to be overwhelming in NT2k3. > Unfortunately you can't really do much with the FOV anyway because of > the crappy cockpit model which has huge gaps on either side if you > widen it beyond 70/70. I've tried it at 76/76 and found I enjoyed > driving more but the 4 inch gap on either side of the cockpit > destroyed any sense of "being there".

Duck tape it. ;) Gerry

Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "EldredP" wrote... > > <snip> > > Wait - are you using the term "sheeple" to describe people > > who may just *happen* to like a game that a few are very > > vocal about? If so, I don't consider that fair. > > Besides, you may TRY a game because a majority like it. > > But if YOU don't like it, you certainly won't keep PLAYING > > it... > > Never argue with Mark Jeangerard. He'll take your mind places you don't want > it to go.

Like to his own dimension where Newton's laws don't exist. He's good for a laugh tho', just search ras for his cpr posts. I'm really looking forward to his definitive list of what's 'wrong' with LFS. I'll have to wear a corset when I read it or my sides might split like they nearly did when I read his ideas on the use of virtual cockpits and POV in GPL. :-/ Bloody aliens, crossing into our dimension and slagging of GPL physics! Gerry

Bill Bollinger wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > I agree totally with the above logic. However, what is not discussed in > this newsgroup is how to setup N2002 cars. How those kids today are making > those unrealistic setups. Why? Is it because it would ruin the image of > the glorious GPL and N2002 physics engine? Is it because it would bring > again the FACT these are GAMES not true simulations? I say yes, therefore, > when people start slamming on a game they never played for the lack of > "Physics Accuracy" blah blah... Let's just get to the truth. They don't > "like" the game because it doesn't play exactly like Papy games. What I > don't understand is why they don't tell that truth rather than ranting on > how it sucks.

You assume far too much. I'm going to assume you cannot drive gpl with any speed or consistency, this makes you feel like you have a small dick, hence the chip on your shoulder over papy physics? Yours sneeringly GDA

"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bill Bollinger wrote: > > > > > I agree totally with the above logic. However, what is not discussed in > > this newsgroup is how to setup N2002 cars. How those kids today aremaking > > those unrealistic setups. Why? Is it because it would ruin the imageof > > the glorious GPL and N2002 physics engine? Is it because it would bring > > again the FACT these are GAMES not true simulations? I say yes,therefore, > > when people start slamming on a game they never played for the lack of > > "Physics Accuracy" blah blah... Let's just get to the truth. Theydon't > > "like" the game because it doesn't play exactly like Papy games. What I > > don't understand is why they don't tell that truth rather than rantingon

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > how it sucks. > > You assume far too much. I'm going to assume you cannot drive gpl with > any speed or consistency, this makes you feel like you have a small > dick, hence the chip on your shoulder over papy physics? > > Yours sneeringly > > GDA

I assume you can't drive anything well unless you have four years of practice. David G Fisher P.S. GPL tire model stinks.

David G Fisher whined: > > P.S. GPL tire model stinks. Multiplayer's good! I'm going to assume you cannot drive gpl with any speed or consistency, this makes you feel like you have a small dick, hence the chip on your shoulder over papy physics? Yours sneeringly GDA

Come on Eldred. On this group and at other forums, Papy/GPL fans have acted the way Mark and Bill have described. It would be really nice if some people here could actually just admit it for once. It's been going on for years now. David G Fisher "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <3db437c4$[email hidden]>, "Bill Bollinger" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >So why do the Perma-Papy-Fans start slaming other games? What is sofunny > >is that these elitist have no reason to be. They THINK they are pure > >"sim-heads" but whine about graphics, have no clue as to how a real racecar > >will operate on a high speed ovals, and generally get waxed online bykids > >who could care less about those things. We as a group wonder WHY wedon't > >get more people interested in online racing / sim-racing in general.Well > >it isn't a wonder to me. Most of these "sim-heads" have no clue. > > People have slammed Papy games, too - are THEY elitist? Different peoplehave > different opinions. Why insult someone just because they vew something > differently than you do? Very FEW of us here have driven a real race caron a > high speed oval. So according to you, someone shouldn't say a gamedoesn't > "feel right" to them? People know what they like and dislike, and thosereally > aren't open to argument. I've never flown a real plane either, but I can > certainly say that I don't like how a particular game handles flight. Alot of > people here already know how to drive a real car, so their sim driving isseen > from that point of view. The kids online who 'wax' everyone have twothings in > their favor. 1 - they don't have any previous knowledge of how a carSHOULD > handle that they need to unlearn. They can simply work within the frameof the > game. In other words, they don't know what WOULDN'T work in real life, sothey > try everything. 2 - they tend to have a lot more time available topractice

Quoted text (11 lines)

> than an adult who's working 40+ hours per week, and maybe taking care of a > house and a family... That means the kids SHOULD be better. > > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+6.21 > N2002 Rank:+18.91 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

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

You know, Gerry, sometimes you can be annoying, and sometimes you can be damned funny. Today, you're funny :) -Larry "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> You assume far too much. I'm going to assume you cannot drive gpl with > any speed or consistency, this makes you feel like you have a small > dick, hence the chip on your shoulder over papy physics? > > Yours sneeringly > > GDA

>"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote > Yes (And they shouldn't do that either), but in general, Papy games arewhat > the majority on this newsgroup view as "Reality". No Bill, Papy games are what the majority on this newsgroup view as "the most Reality". -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

In article <[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> writes: >Come on Eldred. On this group and at other forums, Papy/GPL fans have acted >the way Mark and Bill have described. It would be really nice if some people >here could actually just admit it for once. It's been going on for years >now. > What I'm saying is why ANYONE slams a game they don't like(and its fans), just for the heck of it? And, why make it border on a religious argument? Someone says "Game A sucks!" Game A's fans come on and say "Oh yeah? Well you're an ass and Game B sucks WORSE!" Honestly, it sounds like a kindergarden class in here at times... :-( Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <3db81f16$[email hidden]>, "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> In article <3db437c4$[email hidden]>, "Bill Bollinger" >> <[email hidden]> writes: >> >> >> People have slammed Papy games, too - are THEY elitist? > >Yes (And they shouldn't do that either), but in general, Papy games are what >the majority on this newsgroup view as "Reality". While that is good for >Papy, it doesn't mean it is true. People slamming a product without >actually trying, are IMHO ignorant. No clue and base their opinions on what >they read on some website. So I agree, it is wrong for people to slam Papy >games without trying/knowing what they are talking about. >

People *can* have valid complaints about certain things even if they haven't played a game. People who only race online don't like a game that doesn't have multiplayer. People who only use cockpit view will complain if the game only has 'kite driver' view. You can get info like this from the publisher's website, and those two that I named are valid points that people look at.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >Again, I go back to the fact that Papy has done a good job in making their >product the industry standard or "reality". If another game doesn't feel >similar in style, those Perma-Papy-Fans start waving their hands, jumping >arround screaming about how "unrealistic" the physics are or how the tracks >are not as acurrate blah blah blah. I can remember the flames HEAT took >when it was first released for the "Pull to the left". Perma-Papy-Fans were >in an uproar as to how HEAT could have released such a piece of junk without >even testing an OBVIOUS flaw as to a "Pull to the left". Today, because >Papy incorporated the same sensation, consider it normal or "reality".

I'm not sure you interpret that correctly, and that's all I'll say.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>I do agree with the idea they are better because of the time they spend. >What is interesting is the comment of: "They can simply work with the frame >of the game. In other words, they don't know what WOULDN'T work in real >life, so they try everything". > >What I will say to this statement is that in fact, if this statement is >TRUE, then the PHYSICS within N2002 must be FALSE. Because kids who use >tweaks that WOULDN'T work in real life, but are able to go faster and drive >better, then the TRUTH of the PHYSICS must be FALSE. Is N2002's physics >false?

I dunno. I still haven't figured out how people drive away from me in fixed setup races, even if I follow RIGHT in their tire tracks... :-( But, I thought of another reason that the kids might be better suited to games. Lack of fear. They might not have had the experience of crashing in a car, or seeing a bad crash in a race. To them it's just a game. We've had a similar discussion before about how some people might not be fast *because* they drive like it's a real car. Taking a turn too fast doesn't register as "Phooey, now I have to shift-r and restart with cold tires." It comes out as "Ack - I'm gonna DIE!"

Quoted text (10 lines)

>I agree totally with the above logic. However, what is not discussed in >this newsgroup is how to setup N2002 cars. How those kids today are making >those unrealistic setups. Why? Is it because it would ruin the image of >the glorious GPL and N2002 physics engine? Is it because it would bring >again the FACT these are GAMES not true simulations? I say yes, therefore, >when people start slamming on a game they never played for the lack of >"Physics Accuracy" blah blah... Let's just get to the truth. They don't >"like" the game because it doesn't play exactly like Papy games. What I >don't understand is why they don't tell that truth rather than ranting on >how it sucks.

I'm not sure that 'your' truth is THE truth, but I know I can't comment on the driving model of NT2003 because I haven't driven it. If there was a demo(I hear there isn't?), then I could try it and see what the fuss was. What I *can* comment on is that I haven't heard anything yet that would make me plunk down my hard-earned money for it. Subjective? Sure - I can't argue that... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On 25 Oct 2002 00:06:20 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >What I'm saying is why ANYONE slams a game they don't like(and its fans), just >for the heck of it? And, why make it border on a religious argument? >Someone says "Game A sucks!" Game A's fans come on and say "Oh yeah? Well >you're an ass and Game B sucks WORSE!" >Honestly, it sounds like a kindergarden class in here at times... :-( I confess. My negative review of NT 2003 (which, FWIW is still installed and played regularly) was biased and unfair in light of the fact that I have sold my soul to Dave Kaemmer. No one else is capable of making a simulation that I will like unless they pretend to be him. I have an altar dedicated to him in my bedroom, also. So anyway, anyone know where the hell I can get setups for the ALMS cars in the SSM mod? Jason

i here that "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Come on Eldred. On this group and at other forums, Papy/GPL fans haveacted > >the way Mark and Bill have described. It would be really nice if somepeople > >here could actually just admit it for once. It's been going on for years > >now. > > > > What I'm saying is why ANYONE slams a game they don't like(and its fans),just

Quoted text (12 lines)

> for the heck of it? And, why make it border on a religious argument? > Someone says "Game A sucks!" Game A's fans come on and say "Oh yeah? Well > you're an ass and Game B sucks WORSE!" > Honestly, it sounds like a kindergarden class in here at times... :-( > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+6.21 > N2002 Rank:+18.91 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

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

Eye here U2. Jason On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:25:20 -0700, "Neil Canning" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (34 lines)

>i here that > >"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> In article <[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" >> <[email hidden]> writes: >> >> >Come on Eldred. On this group and at other forums, Papy/GPL fans have >acted >> >the way Mark and Bill have described. It would be really nice if some >people >> >here could actually just admit it for once. It's been going on for years >> >now. >> > >> >> What I'm saying is why ANYONE slams a game they don't like(and its fans), >just >> for the heck of it? And, why make it border on a religious argument? >> Someone says "Game A sucks!" Game A's fans come on and say "Oh yeah? Well >> you're an ass and Game B sucks WORSE!" >> Honestly, it sounds like a kindergarden class in here at times... :-( >> >> Eldred >> -- >> Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett >> GPLRank:+6.21 >> N2002 Rank:+18.91 >> >> Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats >you >> with experience... >> Remove SPAM-OFF to reply. > >

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

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Like to his own dimension where Newton's laws don't exist. He's good for > a laugh tho', just search ras for his cpr posts. I'm really looking > forward to his definitive list of what's 'wrong' with LFS. I'll have to > wear a corset when I read it or my sides might split like they nearly > did when I read his ideas on the use of virtual cockpits and POV in GPL. > :-/ > > Bloody aliens, crossing into our dimension and slagging of GPL physics! > > Gerry

Helps if you've driven a real car, Ger. "-) -- "Nothing gets closer!" - Crammond mark

No, no. Of course, everything you mention is pretty obvious. I shouldn't have said majority. However, the tone of the group when referring to the reality of sims is very much black and white. Which leads me to believe that there is a most likely a number of posters who are simply going with the flow. That's what I meant. -- "Nothing gets closer!" - Crammond mark "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <sD2t9.6814$46.3378@fe01>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> > writes: > > >It is absolutely grounded in fact. This newsgroup is severely dysfunctional > >with a very select few setting the tone of opinion and a majority of sheeple > >following blindly. > > Wait - are you using the term "sheeple" to describe people who may just > *happen* to like a game that a few are very vocal about? If so, I don't > consider that fair. > Besides, you may TRY a game because a majority like it. But if YOU don't like > it, you certainly won't keep PLAYING it... > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+6.21 > N2002 Rank:+18.91 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

mark jeangerard wrote: > Helps if you've driven a real car, Ger. "-) I've driven lots of real cars, including racing ones. > "Nothing gets closer!" - Crammond I see you haven't.

mark jeangerard wrote: > > No, no. Of course, everything you mention is pretty obvious. I shouldn't > have said majority. However, the tone of the group when referring to the > reality of sims is very much black and white. Which leads me to believe that > there is a most likely a number of posters who are simply going with the > flow. That's what I meant. Then, of course, there are the people who take the minority view just to be bloody minded.

In article <eG4u9.9299$46.5809@fe01>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> writes: >No, no. Of course, everything you mention is pretty obvious. I shouldn't >have said majority. However, the tone of the group when referring to the >reality of sims is very much black and white. Which leads me to believe that >there is a most likely a number of posters who are simply going with the >flow. That's what I meant. Fair enough... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"EldredP" wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> People *can* have valid complaints about certain things > even if they haven't played a game. People who only > race online don't like a game that doesn't have multi- > player. People who only use cockpit view will complain > if the game only has 'kite driver' view. You can get > info like this from the publisher's website, and those > two that I named are valid points that people look at.

Or, for example, no demo or reviews before retail release, which, usually, doesn't bode well for a game. This may be prejudice, but it's a known prejudice, which developers that have got something to show can exploit. Enticing demo + good review from trusted source = sale. > > <snip> > I'm not sure you interpret that correctly, and that's > all I'll say. He doesn't interpret that correctly. I was here when Heat was released and it got pasted because of the controller assignment/setup issues, not because of the "pull to the left". Obviously, a car set up assymetrically to turn left exclusively and quickly will have to be steered to the right to go straight (it makes sense to make it turn to the left "hands off"). Only non-force feedback users experience this as a pull, for though the wheel is slightly cocked to the right, the FF user experiences the steering as "centered" on straights, both in Heat and N4/N2k2. IIRC the response from the Papy crowd to the "pull" bleaters at the time was "look at the road, not at the steering wheel and get on with it". Heat, at release, also had glaring AI problems if one didn't turn on the autopilot under yellow. Shortly after, N4 was released without controller problems, reasonalby good multiplayer (non-GPL veterans had some connection setup problems) and fairly obvious but limited AI problems. I think it's human nature not to work hard at solving a particular problem if a solution can be bought (from a trusted source, I might add) quite easily/cheaply. > > <snip> > > I dunno. I still haven't figured out how people drive away > from me in fixed setup races, even if I follow RIGHT in their > tire tracks... :-( I'd say this happens to me because some have more talent, more affinity with the sport, or both than I do. Why you usually fare even worse than myself is something I can't explain. > But, I thought of another reason that the kids might be > better suited to games. Lack of fear. They might not > have had the experience of crashing in a car, or seeing > a bad crash in a race. To them it's just a game. Hmmm... I haven't crashed a real car yet and have only experienced one really "out of control" moment, but, my first memory of F1 is watching Lauda burn. Over subsequent years I have seen a fair number of people lose their lives in motorsport, so there might be something to that theory. > We've had a similar discussion before about how some > people might not be fast *because* they drive like it's > a real car. Taking a turn too fast doesn't register as > "Phooey, now I have to shift-r and restart with cold > tires." It comes out as "Ack - I'm gonna DIE!" I get that very strongly. I experience fear when simracing and have to overcome it to be somewhat competitive. One of the more fascinating aspects of our hobby, IMO. > > <snip> > I'm not sure that 'your' truth is THE truth, but I know > I can't comment on the driving model of NT2003 because I > haven't driven it. Ditto, however, with a bit of surfing I managed to "convert" a base setup for a Winston Cup car I found at ProShocks.com to the N2k2's setup screen and instantly gained time (up to a second) at speedways. Ultimately it's up to the player to decide on the level of simulation he applies to his "gaming". > If there was a demo(I hear there isn't?), then I could try > it and see what the fuss was. What I *can* comment on is > that I haven't heard anything yet that would make me plunk > down my hard-earned money for it. Subjective? Sure - I > can't argue that... Again: ditto. And the fact it's not out over here yet (will it ever be?). ;-)) Jan. =---

In article <Afgu9.178383$[email hidden]>, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> I dunno. I still haven't figured out how people drive away >> from me in fixed setup races, even if I follow RIGHT in their >> tire tracks... :-( > >I'd say this happens to me because some have more talent, more affinity with >the sport, or both than I do. Why you usually fare even worse than myself is >something I can't explain.

You said it yourself - you have more talent... My ego isn't damaged if I admit that...<g> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.21 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Hey, I'm the one with the small dick here, so please leave DGF alone. And yes, I still suck at GPL, even four years later...:-) -- See ya in the pits, Dean I have a terrible memory. In fact my memory's so bad I can't remember how long it's been since I've forgotten anything. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > David G Fisher whined: > > > > > P.S. GPL tire model stinks. > > Multiplayer's good! > > I'm going to assume you cannot drive gpl with any speed or consistency, > this makes you feel like you have a small dick, hence the chip on your > shoulder over papy physics? > > Yours sneeringly > > GDA >