rFactor Update v1150 Released

http://www.rfactor.net/ http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=rFactor%20Update A lot of good stuff in there. :-) -- David G Fisher

http://www.rfactor.net/ http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=rFactor%20Update A lot of good stuff in there. :-) -- David G Fisher

David G Fisher wrote: > http://www.rfactor.net/ > > http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=rFactor%20Update > > A lot of good stuff in there. :-) > It's not GPL.

In article <h7Xzg.3887$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> David G Fisher wrote: > > http://www.rfactor.net/ > > > > http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=rFactor%20Update > > > > A lot of good stuff in there. :-) > > > It's not GPL.

Yeah, it's much better! :) -- Cheers, Rod.

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

Quoted text (17 lines)

> In article <h7Xzg.3887$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] > says... > >> David G Fisher wrote: >> > http://www.rfactor.net/ >> > >> > http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=rFactor%20Update >> > >> > A lot of good stuff in there. :-) >> > >> It's not GPL. > > Yeah, it's much better! :) > > -- > Cheers, > Rod.

Just downloaded the new rFactor. I agree with the previous poster. It is still no where near as good as GPL. All you folk who disagree probably weren't worth a damn at GPL. GPL is hard, the learning curve for GPL is very steep. There really is no learning curve for rFactor. It is geared for boneheads. Not to mention the graphics. They suck, compared to GPL, in rFactor. So, keep trying, there's a long way to go to catch up.

Just to have a friendly debate :) first off, let me say I was an average driver in gpl. mainly did full length races against the ai, with probably 10 pickup races a week thrown in. my ranking was -6,25 or there abouts :) running gpl with updated graphics can not look as good as rF in dx9 with everything on max, if your rig can handle it. but then thats just a matter of opinion. I remember when n2k3 came out, and it was said that driving the cars was getting to easy. I think Kreammer said in an interview that it should be. the more realistic a sim/game is, the easier it should be to drive. I tend to agree with that. GPL was hard to drive, mainly as discussed in many places in the sim community, since Kreammer admitted, the tyre physics were way off. If the tyres, being the most important part of the car, aren't doing what a lot of drivers feel they should be doing, then the learning curve is going to be steep. As you have to relearn how to drive in an un-natural way. now to follow that arguement. with the years of pc and game physics difference bwtween gpl and rf, rF should be a lot easier to drive, and the learning curve not as steep, as you are doing things in the cars as you would be in real life. admittedly, rF aint perfect. But if you want perfection in a racing sim, you'll have to purchase a main-frame computer to handle the data inputs. but in regards to pure fun factor, and league racing enjoyment and satisfaction, rF gets me over gpl and n2k3 everytime. but having said all that, feel quite free to disagree :) cheers steve

Your not Santa "Trev B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:h7Xzg.3887$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> David G Fisher wrote: >> http://www.rfactor.net/ >> >> http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=rFactor%20Update >> >> A lot of good stuff in there. :-) >> > It's not GPL.

> Just downloaded the new rFactor. I agree with the previous poster. It is > still no where near as good as GPL. All you folk who disagree probably > weren't worth a damn at GPL. GPL is hard, the learning curve for GPL is very > steep. There really is no learning curve for rFactor. It is geared for > boneheads. Not to mention the graphics. They suck, compared to GPL, in > rFactor. So, keep trying, there's a long way to go to catch up. 1. The difficulty of game has ZERO to do with its realism. 2. Ones own ability in a particular sim matters not either. I was a +35 driver in GPL for years (mostly Nurby related) but loved every frustrating minute of it. 3. The current gfx of rF are AT LEAST on 90% of the ones that are available for the 6 1/2 y/o GPL. GPL has phenomenal gfx NOW, but not when it was released. It took a long time for modders to make GPL what it is today. Assuming rF has a lifespan of similar time, one can only imagine the possibilities in 6 years. 4. LEt's not overlook the fact the lack of tire heat modeling in GPL. A lot of "fast" drivers would be in trouble if they had to worry about smoking the rubber off the car as they turned their 10th hot lap in a row.

Darus wrote: > 4. LEt's not overlook the fact the lack of tire heat modeling in GPL. A > lot of "fast" drivers would be in trouble if they had to worry about > smoking the rubber off the car as they turned their 10th hot lap in a > row. You must mean tire wear modeling, heat was definitely in there. I had the exact problem you describe at short tracks like Watkins Glen, and I'm not a "fast" driver. You ever try the Indianapolis track in GPL? After five laps, your lap times went up by 3 seconds. Don McCorkle

Trev B wrote: > It's not GPL. Shouldn't that be "it's no GPL" ? Mr. S.

David G Fisher wrote: > http://www.rfactor.net/ > > http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=rFactor%20Update > > A lot of good stuff in there. :-) > EXXXXXXXXXXXXCELLENT

Mr. Sylvestre wrote: > Trev B wrote: >> It's not GPL. > > Shouldn't that be "it's no GPL" ? > > Mr. S.Thank god its no GPL!

DOH! Yup....wear. Woodie83 wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Darus wrote: > > > 4. LEt's not overlook the fact the lack of tire heat modeling in GPL. A > > lot of "fast" drivers would be in trouble if they had to worry about > > smoking the rubber off the car as they turned their 10th hot lap in a > > row. > > You must mean tire wear modeling, heat was definitely in there. I had > the exact problem you describe at short tracks like Watkins Glen, and > I'm not a "fast" driver. You ever try the Indianapolis track in GPL? > After five laps, your lap times went up by 3 seconds. > > > Don McCorkle

"graycat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Xc_zg.906$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > "Rod" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> In article <h7Xzg.3887$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] >> says... >> >>> David G Fisher wrote: >>> > http://www.rfactor.net/ >>> > >>> > http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=rFactor%20Update >>> > >>> > A lot of good stuff in there. :-) >>> > >>> It's not GPL. >> >> Yeah, it's much better! :) >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Rod. > > Just downloaded the new rFactor. I agree with the previous poster. It is > still no where near as good as GPL. All you folk who disagree probably > weren't worth a damn at GPL. GPL is hard, the learning curve for GPL is > very steep. There really is no learning curve for rFactor. It is geared > for boneheads. Not to mention the graphics. They suck, compared to GPL, in > rFactor. So, keep trying, there's a long way to go to catch up. >

This is a typical elitist GPL response. If someone is satisfied with his particular brand of racing simulator, who's to say what is good and what is not? Alanb

Problem is, I could say that Nascar Thunder is a wonderful SIM. That would blow your whole theory :) -Laryr "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > This is a typical elitist GPL response. If someone is satisfied with his > particular brand of racing simulator, who's to say what is good and what > is not? > > Alanb >

I spend about 30 days a year on race tracks on the east coast and I can say without reservation that all sims out there are fun... but it stops there. If my car handled like the ones in sims I would be dead by now. Enjoy playing whatever you like, just remember you are only playing.. GP >On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 23:42:18 -0400, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >http://www.rfactor.net/ > >http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=rFactor%20Update > >A lot of good stuff in there. :-)

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

Quoted text (17 lines)

>I spend about 30 days a year on race tracks on the east coast and I > can say without reservation that all sims out there are fun... but it > stops there. If my car handled like the ones in sims I would be dead > by now. > > Enjoy playing whatever you like, just remember you are only playing.. > > GP > > >>On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 23:42:18 -0400, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> >>wrote: >>http://www.rfactor.net/ >> >>http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=rFactor%20Update >> >>A lot of good stuff in there. :-)

You are correct: there is certainly no comparison between driving a simulator on a computer and driving the real thing in real life. But your meaning is that computer sim cars are much more difficult to handle than the real thing? I'm thinking that's what you mean. Even driving casually (I own a '99 Miata, standard), I can notice an obvious difference. My Miata is much easier to handle, though, again, I'm not typically driving at extremely fast speeds. But also, even driving my Miata at high speeds, I don't usually drive as recklessly as I do with a computer sim, knowing full well that in real life I could die if I did drive so recklessly. Alanb

graycat wrote: > Just downloaded the new rFactor. I agree with the previous poster. It is > still no where near as good as GPL. All you folk who disagree probably > weren't worth a damn at GPL. GPL is hard, the learning curve for GPL is very > steep. There really is no learning curve for rFactor. It is geared for > boneheads. Not to mention the graphics. They suck, compared to GPL, in > rFactor. So, keep trying, there's a long way to go to catch up. Repeat after me: hard is NOT synonymous with realistic (or fun, or whatever) :) Don't get me wrong, I still love GPL very much, partly because of the era it depicts, its atmosphere, and -yes- partly because it is so challenging. But I also appreciate rFactor very much. IMHO, there is a learning curve to it too. It is indeed quite easy to drive the rFactor cars at reasonable speed (as it should be !) but scraping those last tenths of a second per lap and achieving consistant fast lap times is as hard as it is with GPL. To me, this is definitely an improvement over the older ISI and Papy physics with respect to low speed handling. As for the graphics, I am not so fond of ISI's cars and track textures, although it bugs me that I cannot pinpoint what is wrong with these. But as long as I can drive some of the best rFactor mods (McLaren, Protoracers, Armaroli, F3Euro, Beetles) on GTL converted tracks (Spa, Monza, Imola, Magny-Cours, Nurburgring), the new Kyalami or Monaco, I am more than happy. [Note: before anyone flames me for using Simbin tracks in rFactor, I bought GTL and will buy GTR2, for George's sake]. Trev B is right, it is not GPL, it is different. But not an inferior sim, or game, IMHO. Regards, Mr. Sylvestre (still dreaming of a good Lotus 49 mod for rFactor ;) )

Mr. Sylvestre wrote: > graycat wrote: [...] > [Note: before anyone flames me for using Simbin tracks in rFactor, I > bought GTL and will buy GTR2, for George's sake]. Is it possible to extract the tracks from the GTL-disc without installing it? I don�t want Starforce on my machine. > Trev B is right, it is not GPL, it is different. But not an inferior > sim, or game, IMHO. > > Regards, > Mr. Sylvestre (still dreaming of a good Lotus 49 mod for rFactor ;) ) Stephan

Stephan Paskert wrote: > Is it possible to extract the tracks from the GTL-disc without installing > it? I don�t want Starforce on my machine. I have no idea, but please note that the GTL tracks have to be converted to be used in rFactor, there is a little bit more than just drag and drop. Moreover, as some of the track files are encrypted and as the easiest way to decrypt these is to make use of GTL itself, there is a reason for installing GTL (in addition, the game is very good). If your dislike of Starforce is such that it prevents you enjoying GTL (your loss) or if Starforce has real issues with your PC (it could be), you might also save the hassle by considering whether downloading an already converted track is conflicting with your personal ethics assuming that you bought GTL (am I sounding like Jiminy cricket yet ? ;) ). Mr. S.

Yes, that's about it Alan. The great debate over which sim is more "realistic" makes me crazy because none of them can be until they figure a way to simulate G-Forces on your body and a LOT of other factors. They can make controls, graphics, and "physics" on paper extremely close to the real thing and I guess thats why the good ones are called simulators! Pick one that you like to play and be happy that they haven't gone dodo like flight sims.. I personally like rFactor at the moment, but have a good time in GTL and will always love GPL. One good thing that I have found that correlates to RL is the tracks (when they are accurate). You CAN get a good feeling for a new track from a sim, gives you a good basis to start from before you get your first run in.. Enjoy! GP

Quoted text (14 lines)

>On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:59:20 -0400, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You are correct: there is certainly no comparison between driving a >simulator on a computer and driving the real thing in real life. > >But your meaning is that computer sim cars are much more difficult to handle >than the real thing? I'm thinking that's what you mean. Even driving >casually (I own a '99 Miata, standard), I can notice an obvious difference. >My Miata is much easier to handle, though, again, I'm not typically driving >at extremely fast speeds. But also, even driving my Miata at high speeds, I >don't usually drive as recklessly as I do with a computer sim, knowing full >well that in real life I could die if I did drive so recklessly. > >Alanb >

Mr. Sylvestre wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Stephan Paskert wrote: >> Is it possible to extract the tracks from the GTL-disc without >> installing it? I don�t want Starforce on my machine. > > I have no idea, but please note that the GTL tracks have to be > converted to be used in rFactor, there is a little bit more than just > drag and drop. Moreover, as some of the track files are encrypted and as > the > easiest way to decrypt these is to make use of GTL itself, there is a > reason for installing GTL (in addition, the game is very good). > > If your dislike of Starforce is such that it prevents you enjoying GTL > (your loss) or if Starforce has real issues with your PC (it could > be), you might also save the hassle by considering whether > downloading an already converted track is conflicting with your > personal ethics assuming that you bought GTL (am I sounding like Jiminy > cricket yet ? > ;) ). > Mr. S.

Thanks for the info. I just dislike Starforce and because of that have not bought any game that uses it, my PC is too slow for them anyway. I will think about GTL again when I have upgraded my gaming-rig. Greets Stephan