ARCA stole that one from Montoya
Robert J Batina
it look lighter than it really was, but I think they could have finished
that race under normal conditions. :-(
--
My Site: http://www.rubbertoe.com
Hammer
"Robert J Batina" <rba...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_CPVg.9489$OE1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Did it look too dark for another 20 laps of racing? Maybe the cameras
> made it look lighter than it really was, but I think they could have
> finished that race under normal conditions. :-(
Yeah, they made the comment that the shutters (or whatever) on the cameras
were wide open and letting in a lot more light than was actually there.
Mark B
camera can not let in more light than is there, but an extremely
expensive lens can take in all the light that is there. Im not sure if
its done real time with tv feeds, but then digital software would then
be possible to adjust the brightness and contrast for there making it
look much brighter than it really was.
I remember a few years ago in Cup qualifying they were using the TV
cameras to follow the cars around the track because no one could see
them, to finish qualifying.
Ron
Montoya was very impressive yesterday.
Led some laps, fell back in the pack and saved the car when someone
crashed into his passenger side door, went to the very back after that
and made his way back to the front and even bump drafted Stephen
Wallace into the lead.
Ended up third. Great job!
Greg Bailey
... and it was an ARCA race I know, but there's no doubt who's running the
show when ARCA comes South to one of the Frances' tracks ... they would have
LOVED to be able to blast Montoya's picture all over the place having won a
stock car race.
Montoya is a heck of a race driver, IMHO, with the right style and mindset
to pull it off in stock cars. If he gets bumped around in Cup, he won't
whine about it, I'd be willing to make a hefty wager that he'll give it back
in triplicate when the opportunity arises.
"Robert J Batina" <rba...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_CPVg.9489$OE1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Hammer
"Greg Bailey" <nowhe...@nowhereland.org> wrote in message
news:HaydnUObjK8ldLrY...@comcast.com...
> Doubtful that anybody stole anything. Given NASCAR's big push for
> diversity ... and it was an ARCA race I know, but there's no doubt who's
> running the show when ARCA comes South to one of the Frances' tracks ...
> they would have LOVED to be able to blast Montoya's picture all over the
> place having won a stock car race.
>
> Montoya is a heck of a race driver, IMHO, with the right style and mindset
> to pull it off in stock cars. If he gets bumped around in Cup, he won't
> whine about it, I'd be willing to make a hefty wager that he'll give it
> back in triplicate when the opportunity arises.
What worried me was he seemed to have little clue what to do. He was just
like, "I'm gonna dive to the bottom and stay there AMAP." That's a decent
overall strategy, but the way he appeared to be asking for advice (which IMO
he should have had firmly already/pre-race), and the way he didn't even know
that the accident was in no way his fault, shows me he doesn't have much of
a grasp about NASCAR racing yet. Still, he obviously does have talent, so
he's off to a good start. IMO he needs to get a NASCAR sim and start playing
AMAP.
Greg Bailey
He just needs to learn the ropes.
Did you hear that another F1 guy and former Indy winner, Jacques Villeneuve,
is making noises about trying NASCAR?
I love that. IMHO all the racing series, and their fan bases to an extent,
have gotten so insulated and clannish over the last generation or so. I'm
dating myself but my favorite time of racing was in the mid-60s to early-70s
when you had stock car drivers going to Indy all the time and Indy drivers
and sports car drivers and F1 drivers coming South to race all the time. I
know it was a different era, but I think you had more versatile and balanced
racing drivers then because of all the interchange.
"Hammer" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message
news:uDSVg.1620$Tq3...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Hammer
>I agree. He's got the tools. He's got the equipment. He's got the want-to.
>He just needs to learn the ropes.
>
> Did you hear that another F1 guy and former Indy winner, Jacques
> Villeneuve, is making noises about trying NASCAR?
>
> I love that. IMHO all the racing series, and their fan bases to an extent,
> have gotten so insulated and clannish over the last generation or so. I'm
> dating myself but my favorite time of racing was in the mid-60s to
> early-70s when you had stock car drivers going to Indy all the time and
> Indy drivers and sports car drivers and F1 drivers coming South to race
> all the time. I know it was a different era, but I think you had more
> versatile and balanced racing drivers then because of all the interchange.
Yeah, I think it's great also. My first impression is that the majority of
these guys won't have as much success and carry their "stardom" over to
stock cars, but I could very easily be wrong. We'll see, but I still feel
that most'll hit a wall talent wise and not reach the same heights in NASCAR
they did elsewhere. We'll see. I'd like to be wrong, and history is a good
incentive for them to believe.
bud smith
the shutter is that thingie on a still camera that determines how long the
lens is open. The lens has an aperature (opening), that works like the
pupil in your eye. The more you open it up, the more light comes in. I saw
a cup race a few years back where they were talking about it being dark, but
the screen looked fine; sorta like last night. They mentioned that what we
saw on TV were not actual light conditions and set the camera to show the
level of darkness that was actually there, big difference. I'm in the same
time zone and not too many miles away from the track; it was pretty dark
here when they stopped the race.
But, that race a couple of years ago could have just been a lie told as part
of setting things up for ARAC to steal the win from Montoya yesterday.
Tonester
"Robert J Batina" <rba...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_CPVg.9489$OE1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> made it look lighter than it really was, but I think they could have
> finished that race under normal conditions. :-(
No sun + moon out = too dark to race.
43fan
>I agree. He's got the tools. He's got the equipment. He's got the want-to.
>He just needs to learn the ropes.
>
> Did you hear that another F1 guy and former Indy winner, Jacques
> Villeneuve, is making noises about trying NASCAR?
>
> I love that. IMHO all the racing series, and their fan bases to an extent,
> have gotten so insulated and clannish over the last generation or so. I'm
> dating myself but my favorite time of racing was in the mid-60s to
> early-70s when you had stock car drivers going to Indy all the time and
> Indy drivers and sports car drivers and F1 drivers coming South to race
> all the time. I know it was a different era, but I think you had more
> versatile and balanced racing drivers then because of all the interchange.
>
I agree, but then, winning the race meant as much if not more than winning
the championship, so they could cherrypick which races they wanted to come
run and it made sense... now, not quite the same in that respect
SimRacer
Correction: He needs to get *the* NASCAR sim. Getting the ones from EA won't
help him much...lol I have an extra copy to sell him, since I don't run the
server anymore, and bought 2 copies on Day 1 because I thought one was
required to run a server with...and maybe it was. I can't recall, but still
no longer have a permanent server up and no plans to do so again.
Hammer
"SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ThaWg.8041$UE6....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> Correction: He needs to get *the* NASCAR sim. Getting the ones from EA
> won't
> help him much...lol I have an extra copy to sell him, since I don't run
> the
> server anymore, and bought 2 copies on Day 1 because I thought one was
> required to run a server with...and maybe it was. I can't recall, but
> still
> no longer have a permanent server up and no plans to do so again.
I know. EA TOTALLY screwed us all by locking up the NASCAR rights. NR2003 is
still the best out there, imagine if we had the last 3 years of updates from
Papyrus/Sierra how much more -awesome- it'd be now. I know some people laugh
and call it a video "game," but they have no idea the depth and realism this
simulator delivers. There has to be a reason Jr., Hamlin, and many other
Cup, Busch, etc. drivers use & credit it regularly.
SimRacer
Yore preachin' to the choir here dude, I totally agree with you. Someone has
made my local track for NR2003Season (Wake County, NC) with some of the
stuff/tools that PWF and Papy put out, and I learned that track pretty good
before taking my hobby racer up there this year.
Do you know if anyone is out there yet with an updated Las Vegas (high
banks, new pavement), or if anyone has done the "new pavement" Charlotte, or
Tally with fresh pavement? Surely Charlotte and Dega are as simple as some
grip settings in the track file. A banked Las Vegas will take some know-how
to get right without copying one of the D-oval sister tracks of Lowe's,
Atlanta or Texas.
Hammer
Cool. Any place I can get that? I'd love to check it out.
> Do you know if anyone is out there yet with an updated Las Vegas (high
> banks, new pavement), or if anyone has done the "new pavement" Charlotte,
> or
> Tally with fresh pavement? Surely Charlotte and Dega are as simple as some
> grip settings in the track file. A banked Las Vegas will take some
> know-how
> to get right without copying one of the D-oval sister tracks of Lowe's,
> Atlanta or Texas.
I recently downloaded the Trackmat for 'Dega's new surface from "Blackhole
Motorsports." They have at least 60 track files for download last time I
checked:
http://www.bhmotorsports.com/NR2003/downloads
BM also has a great forum (you probably already know this). If they can't
help you find something, it ain't out there. ;-)
SRC tracks: http://www.nr2k3tracks.com/nascar/SRCtracks.shtml used to have a
good track database but isn't working right now. Don't know what's happened.
RaceLineCentral is awesome for all kinds of tools for many racing sims:
http://www.racelinecentral.com/gamepatches.html#NR2003
Haven't looked for the others you mentioned yet, but if they aren't there
now they usually show up when the Cup schedule coincides with that area.
Seems to give the more creative some incentive. Go figure. ;-)
Hammer
> news:DetWg.8751$UE6....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>> has
>> made my local track for NR2003Season (Wake County, NC) with some of the
>> stuff/tools that PWF and Papy put out, and I learned that track pretty
>> good
>> before taking my hobby racer up there this year.
Sim, is that the name of the track also or just the location? Trying to find
it to run on. It'll be fun and help me relate to your posts & future success
stories. ;-) Or maybe if you wouldn't mind you could send it to me.
mjrhammer...@hotmail.com Thanks.
SimRacer
I can't recall where I downloaded that. It may have been Blackhole, it may
have been from a link in the forum at Project Wildfire when they were still
operating right after Papy shut down and made all the mods possible.
Nevermind, I found a big list here. If they're all still truly available,
Wake County was listed. Makes me want to download Ace (another quasi-local
track to me, near Burlington NC) and try it out:
http://www.slimsimracing.com/tracks.htm
I already have a lot of those since I bought the track converter some years
ago and converted every GPL, NL (NASCAR Legends) and older NR series track I
could find. Like "old" Bristol and Greenville-Pickens, etc. The list above
was only missing one "major" local track that hosts Pro Cup races, and
that'd be Kenly NC....what a shame. lol
And I gotta warn you, Wake County is a short, tight, flat little booger if
you decide to give her a try. I wouldn't add in more than 10-15 AI cars if
you want some traffic.
>
> > Do you know if anyone is out there yet with an updated Las Vegas (high
> > banks, new pavement), or if anyone has done the "new pavement"
Charlotte,
> > or
> > Tally with fresh pavement? Surely Charlotte and Dega are as simple as
some
> > grip settings in the track file. A banked Las Vegas will take some
> > know-how
> > to get right without copying one of the D-oval sister tracks of Lowe's,
> > Atlanta or Texas.
>
> I recently downloaded the Trackmat for 'Dega's new surface from "Blackhole
> Motorsports." They have at least 60 track files for download last time I
> checked:
> http://www.bhmotorsports.com/NR2003/downloads
> BM also has a great forum (you probably already know this). If they can't
> help you find something, it ain't out there. ;-)
Yup, used to hang at the forum there a lot back in the day. It's good to
know that they have decent NR2003 database still. Maybe NR2003 will hang on
as long as GPL has/did.
>
> SRC tracks: http://www.nr2k3tracks.com/nascar/SRCtracks.shtml used to have
a
> good track database but isn't working right now. Don't know what's
happened.
Also familiar with them, but haven't tried to visit them in some time.
Mark B
on a car sim. Not the game, but a real one. A full motion base,
software developed to take into accounts all aspects of the car, a fully
developed model of every track on the circuit, full visual display, in
other words the works. Once developed you could test as much as you
wanted that way and find set ups before you ever got to a real test. And
gain extra information to add to the sim program. That would just
confirm what you expected. Long term it might actually be cheaper than
running the car. If they can build a sim for the shuttle, why not a
stock car.
Hammer
> I can't recall where I downloaded that. It may have been Blackhole, it may
> have been from a link in the forum at Project Wildfire when they were
> still
> operating right after Papy shut down and made all the mods possible.
>
> Nevermind, I found a big list here. If they're all still truly available,
> Wake County was listed. Makes me want to download Ace (another quasi-local
> track to me, near Burlington NC) and try it out:
> http://www.slimsimracing.com/tracks.htm
I haven't updated my NR'03 sites in some time. This one's excellent. Thanks
much!
> I already have a lot of those since I bought the track converter some
> years
> ago and converted every GPL, NL (NASCAR Legends) and older NR series track
> I
> could find. Like "old" Bristol and Greenville-Pickens, etc. The list above
> was only missing one "major" local track that hosts Pro Cup races, and
> that'd be Kenly NC....what a shame. lol
That is SO cooool converting all those from the other games (esp. Legends
tracks/G-P - sweet). I've wanted to get into it myself. I was a good VB(5/6)
programmer in the late 90's, but NR'03 is probably written in C++whatever.
I've always wanted to get more into upgrading (AI/3 wide, grip, etc.) Does
the
converter work well, or do you have to spend a -lot- of time on each track
conversion? Hope it was a labor of love. You ever post any of 'em?
> And I gotta warn you, Wake County is a short, tight, flat little booger if
> you decide to give her a try. I wouldn't add in more than 10-15 AI cars if
> you want some traffic.
Good advice. Just got done a few minutes of quick testing at WCS (64.651mph)
*gag*. Not the type of track I've had much experience on - YET! Should be a
trip with other cars bumpin' & bangin'. ;-) I love it - It's great! You're
lucky you got such a bitchin' local track. Can't believe how much grip it
has with Expert (seemed a little tight), I know I can loosen more. Is the
surface similar in real life? If so, it has to make for great racing.
A repaved banked Las Vegas has me thinking of vacationing there next year if
at all possible. I loved the new banking they did at Homestead years back
and it worked great in the sim. Phoenix Night Track worked beautifully also.
Having trouble with my Tally trackmat, I think one of my other upgrades
might be conflicting, but it shouldn't it's such a simple thing. I renamed
apron.mip to asphalt.mip and finally got about 30% coverage, then tried a
couple other things, but I think I need to re-download a .dat converter so I
can
open and mess with it directly. Haven't searched for Charlotte yet, I'll get
around to it.
>> > Do you know if anyone is out there yet with an updated Las Vegas (high
>> > banks, new pavement), or if anyone has done the "new pavement"
> Charlotte,
>> > or
>> > Tally with fresh pavement? Surely Charlotte and Dega are as simple as
> some
>> > grip settings in the track file. A banked Las Vegas will take some
>> > know-how
>> > to get right without copying one of the D-oval sister tracks of Lowe's,
>> > Atlanta or Texas.
>>
>> I recently downloaded the Trackmat for 'Dega's new surface from
>> "Blackhole
>> Motorsports." They have at least 60 track files for download last time I
>> checked:
>> http://www.bhmotorsports.com/NR2003/downloads
>> BM also has a great forum (you probably already know this). If they can't
>> help you find something, it ain't out there. ;-)
>
> Yup, used to hang at the forum there a lot back in the day. It's good to
> know that they have decent NR2003 database still. Maybe NR2003 will hang
> on
> as long as GPL has/did.
The forum and downloads aren't what they were, but like you said, it's
beautiful they're still going on and adding when then can. I lurked a long
time there when I was first getting started and learned a lot very quickly.
>> SRC tracks: http://www.nr2k3tracks.com/nascar/SRCtracks.shtml used to
>> have
> a
>> good track database but isn't working right now. Don't know what's
> happened.
>
> Also familiar with them, but haven't tried to visit them in some time.
It wasn't a large database, but they had some hard to find tracks and some
with real personality. I think Nashville Day & Night were the last ones I
got from
them. They were very well done. I'm so stupid, I always said I was going to
download them all to disc if nothing else in case I ever wanted/needed one,
maybe they'll come back.
Thanks again, buddy!
SimRacer
"Mark B" <racef...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ZeQWg.2021$i84.362@trnddc01...
That's all and good Mark, but honestly the "game" you're referring to is
just fine as a training aid. Helped DEJ win Watkins Glen in the Busch
Series, helped Denny Hamlin win both Pocono races this year. You don't need
full motion, space shuttle-type sims to learn how to drive a track. The only
thing missing is the easiest to account for and that is the seat of the
pants feel - which isn't going to tell you when to lift, when to get on the
gas, and how to setup the suspension - and the cockpit heat. That's why the
sim (aka game as you called it) is so nice, you can train any time, in
relative comfort, day or night, rain or shine. And last I saw it was $50 if
you can still find it anywhere other than eBay. Throw in about $500 for a
decent wheel, and have a decent computer with high end graphics card and
you'd be set. No need to spend anywhere near a million bucks.
SimRacer
>
> "SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:BqOWg.8808$UE6....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>
> > I can't recall where I downloaded that. It may have been Blackhole, it
may
> > have been from a link in the forum at Project Wildfire when they were
> > still
> > operating right after Papy shut down and made all the mods possible.
> >
> > Nevermind, I found a big list here. If they're all still truly
available,
> > Wake County was listed. Makes me want to download Ace (another
quasi-local
> > track to me, near Burlington NC) and try it out:
> > http://www.slimsimracing.com/tracks.htm
>
> I haven't updated my NR'03 sites in some time. This one's excellent.
Thanks
> much!
>
Thank Google. That's how I found it this morning. Since I've gotten a little
hobby car to race for real, I don't spend as much time in the sim and like
you, my links for it were "stale" to say the least. Just before I ran Wake
County in my real car this past Spring, I did test at it a couple of nights
in the sim. The setup carried over pretty well once I figured the weight
difference between the sim's "Busch" cars and my 3/4 scale stocker (3200lbs
to my 1100lbs). The race gave me my first top 3 with the new car - in a
field of 16.
I'm considering an offer to move up to late models next year, though it is
for a team that doesn't run Wake County at all. It would appear to get me a
chance to run Myrtle Beach a few times though, if it all comes together. I
like that little track too. Kind of a low-banked, miniature Charlotte, in a
warped kind of way (not a pure oval - more of a tri-oval).
>
> > I already have a lot of those since I bought the track converter some
> > years
> > ago and converted every GPL, NL (NASCAR Legends) and older NR series
track
> > I
> > could find. Like "old" Bristol and Greenville-Pickens, etc. The list
above
> > was only missing one "major" local track that hosts Pro Cup races, and
> > that'd be Kenly NC....what a shame. lol
>
> That is SO cooool converting all those from the other games (esp. Legends
> tracks/G-P - sweet). I've wanted to get into it myself. I was a good
VB(5/6)
> programmer in the late 90's, but NR'03 is probably written in C++whatever.
> I've always wanted to get more into upgrading (AI/3 wide, grip, etc.) Does
> the
> converter work well, or do you have to spend a -lot- of time on each track
> conversion? Hope it was a labor of love. You ever post any of 'em?
Nah, I think that (posting the tracks) went against the EULA of the guy who
created the converter. I bought it from an online source - the inventor of
it. I also paid in "pounds" so I think he is or was in the UK. I wanna say
it was maybe $25-30 US. And you had to have all the other "sims" (and thus,
their tracks) for it to work. Each track came in a retail package, so we
couldn't even share the original DAT files without violating intellectual
property laws. I just happened to have GPL, NASCAR Legends and NASCAR Racing
back to version 1 (incl NR3 with CTS), so I had all the tracks that it could
convert, so I bought it. Took about an hour to convert them all to NR2003,
and then we could run them in all 3 NASCAR series as well as the "Trans Am"
mod.
The Legends tracks rock. Well that is until you get to the whole 17
mile(whatever it is) original Nurburgring track and start trying to remember
ALL those turns. We used to have "fun runs" at both Monaco and Monza in the
CTS when they first came out for NR2003 (via the converter). Talk about
tough passing? The streets of Monaco were not made for CTS-style autos, lol.
Not the 1967 layout of Monaco anyway.
>
> > And I gotta warn you, Wake County is a short, tight, flat little booger
if
> > you decide to give her a try. I wouldn't add in more than 10-15 AI cars
if
> > you want some traffic.
>
> Good advice. Just got done a few minutes of quick testing at WCS
(64.651mph)
> *gag*. Not the type of track I've had much experience on - YET! Should be
a
> trip with other cars bumpin' & bangin'. ;-) I love it - It's great!
You're
> lucky you got such a bitchin' local track. Can't believe how much grip it
> has with Expert (seemed a little tight), I know I can loosen more. Is the
> surface similar in real life? If so, it has to make for great racing.
Sort of. We don't run "Goodyear Racing Eagles" on it in most classes, so
that may be one difference. The surface is somewhere between Atlanta (aged,
but not that old) and Darlington in consistency - grippy but rough. The
setup that works there seems to indeed tend toward loose, but controlable.
Yes, that's a fine line. And EXPERT? lol That's the only way to roll man.
When I ran the league, we ran EXPERT and NO AIDS ALLOWED. Straight up 100%
talent...or else. ;-) We all had "good wheels", with very few force feedback
units. And most of us were so tight, we ran between 95-100% linearity in the
steering setup, regardless of the wheel lock. Those were some fun days and
nights, back in the day. Too bad NASCAR and EA had to eff it up for
everyone.
As to WCS, I told you it was a short rascal, didn't I? lol There's almost 1
of those in each of the 16-20 counties that makes up the NC Piedmont,
they're all over the place here. Some are dirt of course, but just as many
are paved. NASCAR may be trying to get out of NC, but the locals sure still
are going strong.
May I also recommend Caraway? It's out near PEI, in the Ashboro NC area.
I've run there a few times and it has a little more room than Wake County.
Cup and Busch cars test there a fair amount, and the Late Model and Limited
Late Model shows there are some to be seen on the East Coast IMO. And I
thunk I saw Caraway at that first site I linked you to. I have not d'loaded
it, so YMMV as to the accuracy of it, though I imagine it is close enuff.
Yup, if we didn't have it or discuss at our league's home page, Blackhole
was one of the next go-to places to hunt for it.
>
>
> >> SRC tracks: http://www.nr2k3tracks.com/nascar/SRCtracks.shtml used to
> >> have
> > a
> >> good track database but isn't working right now. Don't know what's
> > happened.
> >
> > Also familiar with them, but haven't tried to visit them in some time.
>
> It wasn't a large database, but they had some hard to find tracks and some
> with real personality. I think Nashville Day & Night were the last ones I
> got from
> them. They were very well done. I'm so stupid, I always said I was going
to
> download them all to disc if nothing else in case I ever wanted/needed
one,
> maybe they'll come back.
Nasvhille? The fairgrounds track? Man, that's a fun joint to run IMO. I love
those turns that you "dive" down into. The last season we ran at the league
that I "owned" was a CTS league, and we ran that track twice during our 16
week "season". Of course, we were short trackers and the longest track we
ran was Charlotte that season. The rest were more like I70, IRP,
Greenville-Pickens, Hickory, Mesa Marin, etc...and we threw in the road
course at Heartland Park - Topeka for good measure since it was an original
road course for the trucks back in the day. This sort of schedule kept the
rookies applying to run with us to a minimum since they all seemed to want
to run just Daytona, Talladega, and the D oval sisters (Atlanta, Charlotte &
Texas). And when you take someone that only runs those tracks and put them
on shorties? Yellowfests. So we kept the head count down for the sake of
clean running, with minimum cautions. We ran a Bristol - Night race one
night, a long one, 50% distance, and had only 1 caution all night.
>
> Thanks again, buddy!
>
>
>
Mark B
Cup level, you shouldn't need development. If you have the skill to be
in Cup you should be able to adapt to a new track EXTREMELY quickly,
especially if you have a team mate. What I am talking about is FAR FAR
more advanced. You should be able to input things like car
measurements, grip levels, suspension geometry and tons of other things
to not only develop a driver, but develop a car without having to build
them, take em to the tunnel to find out what you did did not work well.
Rebuild, repeat all requireing man hours and time as well as expense.
SimDriver
>
> That's all and good Mark, but honestly the "game" you're referring to is
> just fine as a training aid. Helped DEJ win Watkins Glen in the Busch
> Series, helped Denny Hamlin win both Pocono races this year. You don't
> need
> full motion, space shuttle-type sims to learn how to drive a track. The
> only
> thing missing is the easiest to account for and that is the seat of the
> pants feel - which isn't going to tell you when to lift, when to get on
> the
> gas, and how to setup the suspension - and the cockpit heat. That's why
> the
> sim (aka game as you called it) is so nice, you can train any time, in
> relative comfort, day or night, rain or shine. And last I saw it was $50
> if
> you can still find it anywhere other than eBay. Throw in about $500 for a
> decent wheel, and have a decent computer with high end graphics card and
> you'd be set. No need to spend anywhere near a million bucks.
>
>
Since many pro racers have started using it, it has become quite a rare and
valuable commodity.
I sold a new backup copy on ebay 6 months ago for 150 bucks to a young ARCA
racer.
I paid 9.99 for it 2 years ago at the Best Buy clearance bin.
Wish I had bought more of them when I had the chance. :-(
Tom Duwe
Mark, do you have any familiarity with what a 'seven post shaker' is all about?
They've become almost a necessity for top level teams for car development...some
even own their own, others rent time on a strictly confidential basis so their
data remains secure.
A couple links for ref...
http://www.autoresearchcenter.com/index.php?main=services&subMain=7-post%20rig
http://insideracingtechnology.com/o7postshkr.htm
--
Tom in Bristol
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Hammer
"SimDriver" <NR2003...@best.sim.net> wrote in message
news:ZmXWg.5566$Lv3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
When is EA going to release their next PC version, do you hear anything,
Sim? Their last was obviously another disappointment, but eventually they've
got to come up with something to compete with NR'03. How pathetic that when
they actually do, they'll have the privilege of saying, "See, we're just as
good as them. So what if it's a 5 year old version, we're finally just as
good." </sarc>
Mark B
the technology is out there to do it yet. It would effectively model
the aero, car, setups, track, grip, weather, essentially everything that
would effect a real race car all on computer. Design, set up and even
testing, driver practice could all be done on one piece of equipment.
Get exactly what you want, then build it.
Open wheelers right now can reproduce a car exactly the same way. A
champ car driver that takes out a backup car, sets it up the same and it
will handle the same. Stock cars can't do that yet. They are all a bit
different. Shows how far the technology would have to progress to make
it exact, but it could be done.
Hammer
>>
> Thank Google. That's how I found it this morning. Since I've gotten a
> little
> hobby car to race for real, I don't spend as much time in the sim and like
> you, my links for it were "stale" to say the least. Just before I ran Wake
> County in my real car this past Spring, I did test at it a couple of
> nights
> in the sim. The setup carried over pretty well once I figured the weight
> difference between the sim's "Busch" cars and my 3/4 scale stocker
> (3200lbs
> to my 1100lbs). The race gave me my first top 3 with the new car - in a
> field of 16.
That's great. I don't have the real life experience, but it's nice to have
verified what I've always believed. Time on the sim can only be a positive,
even if it's just to help someone become more comfortable with a particular
venue. Any setup carry-over/help has to be sweet also.
> I'm considering an offer to move up to late models next year, though it is
> for a team that doesn't run Wake County at all. It would appear to get me
> a
> chance to run Myrtle Beach a few times though, if it all comes together. I
> like that little track too. Kind of a low-banked, miniature Charlotte, in
> a
> warped kind of way (not a pure oval - more of a tri-oval).
I've heard some very good things about Myrtle. Got some former co-worker
"friends" who work on the casino boat in Myrtle who've said it's a great
track and there's good racing there. Seems definitely like a step "up,"
sounds like it'd be hard to pass on the opportunity.
> Nah, I think that (posting the tracks) went against the EULA of the guy
> who
> created the converter. I bought it from an online source - the inventor of
> it. I also paid in "pounds" so I think he is or was in the UK. I wanna say
> it was maybe $25-30 US. And you had to have all the other "sims" (and
> thus,
> their tracks) for it to work. Each track came in a retail package, so we
> couldn't even share the original DAT files without violating intellectual
> property laws. I just happened to have GPL, NASCAR Legends and NASCAR
> Racing
> back to version 1 (incl NR3 with CTS), so I had all the tracks that it
> could
> convert, so I bought it. Took about an hour to convert them all to NR2003,
> and then we could run them in all 3 NASCAR series as well as the "Trans
> Am"
> mod.
Wow, only an hour? That's cool. Nice to be able to run all 3 series on all
those.
> The Legends tracks rock. Well that is until you get to the whole 17
> mile(whatever it is) original Nurburgring track and start trying to
> remember
> ALL those turns. We used to have "fun runs" at both Monaco and Monza in
> the
> CTS when they first came out for NR2003 (via the converter). Talk about
> tough passing? The streets of Monaco were not made for CTS-style autos,
> lol.
> Not the 1967 layout of Monaco anyway.
LOL Yeah, sounds like a fun experience, but a little too tough for me to get
addicted. ;)
NR3 was the first sim a friend let me use in '01 because that was all my
computer then could handle, and I immediately went out and got the whole 3
set expansion pack. Love the Legends but haven't really messed with it in a
while. I had a '69 440 mag Charger R/T so it brings back a lot of good
memories of great races when I was a kid growing up and a car that'll always
be in my heart. I'd love to convert those tracks and run Cups on 'em. ;)
You know that's what really got me back into NASCAR. As a kid I really
enjoyed watching it whenever it came on, but the coverage up north was so
sporadic. Plus, we had only 6 channels (and PB) and one TV in the entire
house. I can remember being outside playing roller Hockey and my dad would
yell out the window, "NASCAR's on" and I'd drop everything. Everyone thought
I was weird & crazy. Lost interest in the mid to late '80s though. Once I
started playing it all came back & the bug really bit me hard, and by the
start of the '02 season I was absolutely hooked. So that's another thing
I'll always have to thank and give simming credit for.
> Sort of. We don't run "Goodyear Racing Eagles" on it in most classes, so
> that may be one difference. The surface is somewhere between Atlanta
> (aged,
> but not that old) and Darlington in consistency - grippy but rough. The
> setup that works there seems to indeed tend toward loose, but controlable.
> Yes, that's a fine line. And EXPERT? lol That's the only way to roll man.
> When I ran the league, we ran EXPERT and NO AIDS ALLOWED. Straight up 100%
> talent...or else. ;-) We all had "good wheels", with very few force
> feedback
> units. And most of us were so tight, we ran between 95-100% linearity in
> the
> steering setup, regardless of the wheel lock. Those were some fun days and
> nights, back in the day. Too bad NASCAR and EA had to eff it up for
> everyone.
Yeah, really. :-( 'Effin EA.
I always run with 85-90% steering linearity and have my force feedback
centering spring set to 150%, so it's a good feel for me. The fact that I
refused to use any driving aids probably hurt me more in the beginning and
slowed my improvement. I tried them and even the arcade mode/setup recently
for fun but find they only slow me down now. The only aid I use is the pit
road steering (boost steering at low speeds) to help enter/exit stalls.
Wonder if I still even need that.
What's pathetic is how -long- it took me to learn to use a really loose
setup. I couldn't grasp the feel & concept of steering with the throttle and
holding the wheel straight & sometimes even slightly counter-steering
through the corners. Had to practice dirt trackin' on the WOO sim before it
all came together. Now a fast or Jasper setup seems so tight, but it's nice
to know after years of playing driving doesn't get old and I'm still getting
better. :-)
I've also gotten much better on my recoveries, another concept that took
forever to absorb through my thick skull. Instead of counter-steering when
the rear's starting to break loose I've learned to actually turn -into- the
turn and apply a little brake so the front wheels break loose/free also and
it straightens the car out much quicker than normal CS & braking. I've
always wondered if that'd work in a real car or it's just something that
works in the sim. Do you know what I'm talking about, and is that a
realistic response? Prolly not.
> As to WCS, I told you it was a short rascal, didn't I? lol There's almost
> 1
> of those in each of the 16-20 counties that makes up the NC Piedmont,
> they're all over the place here. Some are dirt of course, but just as many
> are paved. NASCAR may be trying to get out of NC, but the locals sure
> still
> are going strong.
Reminds me of one of the two paved surfaces I ran on some 27 years ago in
PA. I haven't even simmed on anything that size, though I've been meaning
to. It's fun as sh** and can only help me improve, so I appreciate the push.
After that Martinsville seems huge, which is what I was hoping for. ;-)
I really envy and admire guys like you and Carey for pursing a passion/hobby
that's expensive, time consuming, and a lot of hard work. I can only imagine
the pleasure & satisfaction you must get from all the different facets of
your experiences. Hope you keep it up and find ever more increasing and
rewarding challenges & opportunities.
> May I also recommend Caraway? It's out near PEI, in the Ashboro NC area.
> I've run there a few times and it has a little more room than Wake County.
> Cup and Busch cars test there a fair amount, and the Late Model and
> Limited
> Late Model shows there are some to be seen on the East Coast IMO. And I
> thunk I saw Caraway at that first site I linked you to. I have not
> d'loaded
> it, so YMMV as to the accuracy of it, though I imagine it is close enuff.
Cool. Always appreciate such recommendations, I'll definitely check it out.
> Nasvhille? The fairgrounds track? Man, that's a fun joint to run IMO. I
> love
> those turns that you "dive" down into. The last season we ran at the
> league
> that I "owned" was a CTS league, and we ran that track twice during our 16
> week "season". Of course, we were short trackers and the longest track we
> ran was Charlotte that season. The rest were more like I70, IRP,
> Greenville-Pickens, Hickory, Mesa Marin, etc...and we threw in the road
> course at Heartland Park - Topeka for good measure since it was an
> original
> road course for the trucks back in the day. This sort of schedule kept the
> rookies applying to run with us to a minimum since they all seemed to want
> to run just Daytona, Talladega, and the D oval sisters (Atlanta, Charlotte
> &
> Texas). And when you take someone that only runs those tracks and put them
> on shorties? Yellowfests. So we kept the head count down for the sake of
> clean running, with minimum cautions. We ran a Bristol - Night race one
> night, a long one, 50% distance, and had only 1 caution all night.
Wow! That must be so awesome to run those places. Sh**, I'd be thrilled just
to make it to there as a spectator.
I can't believe you guys ran Bristol that long with only 1 caution, even
with a smaller field. That's beautiful racin'. Guess that short track
experience pays off. Nashville is really fun on the sim, I know what you
mean about diving-down, I'm a bit of a Kamikaze [who wants to be more
calculatin' ;) ]
Wish I had the experience and was better informed to really appreciate and
communicate/connect more with you about the other tracks & real life racin'
in general. I enjoy reading when guys like you and Carey post about your
experiences. :-)
Carey Akin
>
<snip>
> Wish I had the experience and was better informed to really appreciate and
> communicate/connect more with you about the other tracks & real life
> racin' in general. I enjoy reading when guys like you and Carey post about
> your experiences. :-)
can get onto a pit crew. If there is a track in your area, just go down
there and buy a pit pass. Get to talking to the teams. You will often find
that most could use an extra hand. Sometimes, if you are lucky, they may
might feed you and occasionally buy a pit pass for you. It certainly adds
a whole new dimension to racing. But I have been hanging out on "both sides
of the track" for decades now. I can't even imagine a life without racing
being a major part of it. It was even one of the reasons the ex ran off.
Oops. . . . .
Carey in Manvel
SimRacer
>
> "SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:zfUWg.18203$fy....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> >>
> > Thank Google. That's how I found it this morning. Since I've gotten a
> > little
> > hobby car to race for real, I don't spend as much time in the sim and
like
> > you, my links for it were "stale" to say the least. Just before I ran
Wake
> > County in my real car this past Spring, I did test at it a couple of
> > nights
> > in the sim. The setup carried over pretty well once I figured the weight
> > difference between the sim's "Busch" cars and my 3/4 scale stocker
> > (3200lbs
> > to my 1100lbs). The race gave me my first top 3 with the new car - in a
> > field of 16.
>
> That's great. I don't have the real life experience, but it's nice to have
> verified what I've always believed. Time on the sim can only be a
positive,
> even if it's just to help someone become more comfortable with a
particular
> venue. Any setup carry-over/help has to be sweet also.
The info carryover would be sweeter if it were a direct swap. But, I've done
just enough simming and real life racing to get myself into trouble even
trying sometimes, lol. What I try to do is find a setup that works in the
sim and take the "broad strokes" over to the little car, essentially just
trying to replicate the feel, or balance if you will.
>
> > I'm considering an offer to move up to late models next year, though it
is
> > for a team that doesn't run Wake County at all. It would appear to get
me
> > a
> > chance to run Myrtle Beach a few times though, if it all comes together.
I
> > like that little track too. Kind of a low-banked, miniature Charlotte,
in
> > a
> > warped kind of way (not a pure oval - more of a tri-oval).
>
> I've heard some very good things about Myrtle. Got some former co-worker
> "friends" who work on the casino boat in Myrtle who've said it's a great
> track and there's good racing there. Seems definitely like a step "up,"
> sounds like it'd be hard to pass on the opportunity.
It would be a nice step up for someone going backwards like me - a corporate
worker that wants to retire into racing instead of a racer that wants to
retire to the coroporate world. I am weighing the impact it would have on my
business, but am otherwise about set to just say what the hay, and try it.
It'd just be for a single season. Unless I liked it and tried to buy my own
car later and do it on my own that is. Late models, used, in decent shape,
can be had for as little as $3500 and less around here as rollers, and less
than $10k with an engine.
>
> > Nah, I think that (posting the tracks) went against the EULA of the guy
> > who
> > created the converter. I bought it from an online source - the inventor
of
> > it. I also paid in "pounds" so I think he is or was in the UK. I wanna
say
> > it was maybe $25-30 US. And you had to have all the other "sims" (and
> > thus,
> > their tracks) for it to work. Each track came in a retail package, so we
> > couldn't even share the original DAT files without violating
intellectual
> > property laws. I just happened to have GPL, NASCAR Legends and NASCAR
> > Racing
> > back to version 1 (incl NR3 with CTS), so I had all the tracks that it
> > could
> > convert, so I bought it. Took about an hour to convert them all to
NR2003,
> > and then we could run them in all 3 NASCAR series as well as the "Trans
> > Am"
> > mod.
>
> Wow, only an hour? That's cool. Nice to be able to run all 3 series on all
> those.
Yup, it's neat. There are some decent "original" and real track recreations
out there tho, as you already know. The recreations that I've run, even Papy
originals, seem pretty accurate. As a much younger adult I ran a couple of
schools here near home, at Charlotte (Fast Track) and at Rockingham (Buck
Baker), and Papy's versions of those tracks (the surfaces, banking, etc)
were spot on to the best of my recollections.
When you drive in a sim on the same tracks as the big boys, then it gives
you insight on racing there that no amount of TV coverage or behind the
scenes interviews can give you, I'll admit to that. Like no one out in the
general populous could ever really understand what it meant to traverse the
"Humpy Bumps" in T3-4 at Charlotte, or that aweful "dip" in the low line
there in T1. The drivers used to try and explain them on TV, but us simmers
already knew what they were all about.
Likely not. The better/more comfortable you get with it, the more any sort
of aids begin to actually bog you down IMO. My favorite times were going
into Sears Point or The Glen pickup races with rooks that ran traction
control, anti-lock brakes and so on. Us guys that went at it clean, with no
aids, would have most of them a lap down by lap 10. The best traction
control unit ever invented for a stock car was a talented right foot IMO.
>
> What's pathetic is how -long- it took me to learn to use a really loose
> setup. I couldn't grasp the feel & concept of steering with the throttle
and
> holding the wheel straight & sometimes even slightly counter-steering
> through the corners. Had to practice dirt trackin' on the WOO sim before
it
> all came together. Now a fast or Jasper setup seems so tight, but it's
nice
> to know after years of playing driving doesn't get old and I'm still
getting
> better. :-)
>
> I've also gotten much better on my recoveries, another concept that took
> forever to absorb through my thick skull. Instead of counter-steering when
> the rear's starting to break loose I've learned to actually turn -into-
the
> turn and apply a little brake so the front wheels break loose/free also
and
> it straightens the car out much quicker than normal CS & braking. I've
> always wondered if that'd work in a real car or it's just something that
> works in the sim. Do you know what I'm talking about, and is that a
> realistic response? Prolly not.
What you're doing, it sounds like to me, is tightening the car up as it gets
loose on you - by braking, you're shifting weight forward which will cause
it to be tight - but I typically find the best way to recover a loose car
that has broke loose in a turn is with the throttle, not the brake (provided
that it's truly just loose and not about to spinout). Sounds funky to the
uninitiated I know, but it's how I do it. I perscribe to the theory that any
braking I can avoid, I do, since it slows your momentum and ultimately will
hurt your exit from "that" corner, slowing you down the next straight, and
ends up affecting your next corner entry as well.
Take the "old Las Vegas" in the sim. To go fast there, you had to startout
really really loose. So loose, that if you lift going into T1, you'd almost
just spin uncontrollably. The fix? Lift "just enough" early, to get the car
to start the turn, and then feather back into the throttle - to maybe 10% -
and carry that much throttle until the car "took a set" (hooked back up) and
began to turn under your approach back full power from the center to the
exit. Until you could perfect this, you were either really slow (comparing
lap times) or you simply swapped ends each time into T1 and backed into the
wall hard (kind of like the Kansas race the Cup guys just ran, where a lot
of "loose induced end swapping" was observed by me in the race).
>
> > As to WCS, I told you it was a short rascal, didn't I? lol There's
almost
> > 1
> > of those in each of the 16-20 counties that makes up the NC Piedmont,
> > they're all over the place here. Some are dirt of course, but just as
many
> > are paved. NASCAR may be trying to get out of NC, but the locals sure
> > still
> > are going strong.
>
> Reminds me of one of the two paved surfaces I ran on some 27 years ago in
> PA. I haven't even simmed on anything that size, though I've been meaning
> to. It's fun as sh** and can only help me improve, so I appreciate the
push.
> After that Martinsville seems huge, which is what I was hoping for. ;-)
>
> I really envy and admire guys like you and Carey for pursing a
passion/hobby
> that's expensive, time consuming, and a lot of hard work. I can only
imagine
> the pleasure & satisfaction you must get from all the different facets of
> your experiences. Hope you keep it up and find ever more increasing and
> rewarding challenges & opportunities.
Carey's deal is more big time than mine. My stuff is just a notch above what
most peeps call "mini stockers" and even though we can hit speeds in excess
of 100mph, we aren't full sized late models - and as such, aren't taken very
seriously by anyone but ourselves. I do enjoy it though, as I said, it's how
I hope to spend my retirement one day.
Yes, we definitely had a great bunch of guys in the league those last few
seasons. Not a lot of bitchin', mostly clean racing, and generally overall a
great time was had by all.
>
> Wish I had the experience and was better informed to really appreciate and
> communicate/connect more with you about the other tracks & real life
racin'
> in general. I enjoy reading when guys like you and Carey post about your
> experiences. :-)
Well, thanks. It is just a hobby to me, but I am passionate about it. My
wife supports me, and it brings me great joy, a rarity in today's world. lol
And like you said earlier, having just a little more "insider" info on
racing just makes it that much easier to follow and be fanatic about
NASCAR - which IMO is the ultimate Late Model series - even though NASCAR
has begun to tick me off over the past few seasons with their rules changes,
schedule realignments and such. But, like most addicts, I refuse to admit
that I have a problem...and keep on tuning in. Damn them. :-)
>
>
SimRacer
"SimDriver" <NR2003...@best.sim.net> wrote in message
news:ZmXWg.5566$Lv3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
WOW! Never knew it had such a life left still. I knew a bunch of the "pros"
were still using it, but had no idea that its value had risen so sharply. I
guess supply and demand does still live. lol
I bought my 2 copies of NR2003Season the day it came out, full price. I had
no choice, I was running a league and we made the move immediately to it
after its release. We had our own practice server on my office computer -
it's my office, so no boss worries - and our "race" server the last few
years we ran were hosted by Blademan.
SimRacer
While not "quite" that advanced, the sim does all that. You can throw
hundreds of thousands of "setup" variables at a car in our sim. And it's not
about developing a driver if he/she is already Cup level, its about seat
time on a track without having to go to it. It's about trying setup things
on the computer that has a reset button so you don't have to trash a $100k
car. It's about intimate familiarity with those said tracks since the sim's
recreations of them were taken from original blueprints and on-site laser
measurements, among other things.
Your ultra high-end approach is overthinking what our deal is all about. We
aren't training anyone, we're fine tuning what they already know. In a broad
sense, of course.
Mark B
involve learning new things. Yes you can do that with your sim, but if
just one thing is different, the simulation is no longer valid. A tire
compound changes, so would the set up. If the track wears and no longer
has the same friction levels, so would the desired result. Roof height
changes, so would the set up. What you are talking about is playing a
game which is fun, but not scientific by any measurement.
To make the comparison you are saying that the game like MS flight Sim
is as effective as the software used at Edwards to design, model,
develop a sim, and then build an experimental airplane are effectively
equal. Rather than just trying to get familiar with the track, you want
a sim that can model any race car, including shapes one hasn't thought
of yet, deal with all the variables before the first piece of metal is
ever cut.
Not only that the driver would get something else. It would feel
exactly the same as the real race car. If it takes 1 pound of pressure
to turn the wheel 1/4 of an inch in the real race car, it would in the
sim as well. Same visuals. Its like you are really in the race car.
A game could be helpful for a rookie at the most basic levels,
especially for a road course, but thats about it.
SimRacer
It's obvious to me that you simply don't understand the sim in question, so
let's just stop after this and agree to disagree. First off, you're last
statement couldn't be any farther from the truth if you had any real idea
about what we're talking about (multiple regular full time Cup and Busch
racers use this sim, weekly). And BTW, we can change tire compounds, track
grip, ride height and all your other thoughts on how void the sim is today
(it requires some changes to the underlying datafiles, but is not only
possible, it is done regularly to account for repaves, aging tracks, and
rebanking - like Homestead, and soon I'm sure, Las Vegas). Sure, the cars
have advanced to "common templates" since we got the sim, but guess what, in
the interest of fairness to the simmers that were to use it, Papyrus made
all the cars common from day one. The "skins" that made them look like GM,
Ford, Pontiac (and later Dodge) were just visual. So in essence, we were
running common templates in the sim back in 1994.
And I have to ask, if "one thing is changed" voids all this stuff you're
trying to void, then why do they (Cup drivers) race trucks and Busch cars on
same-venue tracks to get seat time? If they are so different, which they
are, aren't they wasting their time running the track in cars unlike Cup
cars since so much is different between them? Why even bother putting
Montoya in ARCA and Busch cars if he is to end up in Cup if the
"differences" in the cars void that practice/experience carrying over to his
eventual Cup-level car? Short answer, the differences in cars don't change
the track or how to drive it. Not in the broad sense. Fine tuning must be
done to the actual car of course, but the balance a driver likes never
changes, even if the cars do.
Personally, I'd like to stand behind you when you tried this sim, and get
your opinion of how much of a "game" it was then. It would change your tune,
or you would just be one of those people that simply cannot admit that you
were wrong, even when it's been proven to you. I'd go so far as to say that
you'd have to restart it several times just to get past the blend line and
onto the racing surface without wrecking. But it's just a game right? lol I
just love people who know everything there is to know about something that
they've never seen.
Carey Akin
learning. Far be it from me to suggest not exchanging ideas with him, just
never, never, ever expect him to understand what he as already convinced
himself of. No matter how far his belief is from reality.
Carey in Manvel
Hammer
"Carey Akin" <cma...@att.net> wrote in message
news:C45Xg.51542$QZ1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Hammer" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message
> news:FdZWg.8865$Tq3...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
> <snip>
>> Wish I had the experience and was better informed to really appreciate
>> and communicate/connect more with you about the other tracks & real life
>> racin' in general. I enjoy reading when guys like you and Carey post
>> about your experiences. :-)
> Thanks. Sometimes I think that I may be boring people.
Can't speak for others, but I've always enjoyed "eavesdropping" in on those
conversations. ;)
> You know, anyone can get onto a pit crew. If there is a track in your
> area, just go down there and buy a pit pass. Get to talking to the teams.
> You will often find that most could use an extra hand. Sometimes, if you
> are lucky, they may might feed you and occasionally buy a pit pass for
> you. It certainly adds a whole new dimension to racing. But I have been
> hanging out on "both sides of the track" for decades now. I can't even
> imagine a life without racing being a major part of it. It was even one
> of the reasons the ex ran off. Oops. . . . .
Thanks, that's a good tip. Doesn't work right now in my life situation, but
it's something to consider in the future, hopefully.
SimRacer
"Carey Akin" <cma...@att.net> wrote in message
news:C45Xg.51542$QZ1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Hey, you aren't alone in the ex department, so don't fret that. lol There
are lots of similar stories out there in race-land.
And I too spent a lot of times in the pits back when I was into racing,
before I got out, before I have now gotten back in....wow, I sound like a
politician...LOL
My first job in a real race car team? Steering my dad's super stock drag
racer through the lanes while someone was towing it up from the pit area. I
have a photo of me doing that somewhere at my mom's house. Had to be early
70s, right after the current Pro Stock class was born out of that super
stock class and we were relegated to bracket and match racing. They soon
left racing and just like me, got heavily into NASCAR - as fans - for the
rest of their days.....I need to find those photos again someday to scan. I
remember seeing some of me as a toddler almost, sitting in one of the Sox &
Martin stockers back in the day. I was so young, those photos are all I have
left to recall the experiences by. I have some of me with Richard Petty at
the dealership that my dad and uncles worked at - prior to Mopars mid 70s
NASCAR pullout - as well as some of me with David Pearson and even Cale
Yarborough hanging in the infield at Rockingham in the mid-late 70s. Come to
think of it, I think my folks even have some photos (without me in them) of
the Petty drag racing effort during that year or so that Mopar said it was
out since they couldn't run those big block Hemis anymore in NASCAR. Petty
drag racing photos? Hmmm. Wonder what they'd be worth on eBay? LOL!
My current job on the race team? Everything. Hauler driver, car waxer,
driver, crew chief, owner. lol I do have a car chief tho (thank gawd), who
was wrenching and welding a decade before I was born....
I'm with you Carey, racing is in me, to the core. I can't imagine a life
without some sort motorsport involvement, even if it is just as a fan.
Luckily, the wife understands this, so there may be long lasting hope for my
marriage... ;-)
Carey Akin
>
>>
>
> Hey, you aren't alone in the ex department, so don't fret that. lol There
> are lots of similar stories out there in race-land.
Oh, I wasn't fretting. That's what I get for not using "smileys"
I believe that was in 1969 or 70. His NASCAR racing back then was in a Ford
(when he dropped out of drag racing). That was also back when he killed a
spectator at a drag strip.
>
> My current job on the race team? Everything. Hauler driver, car waxer,
> driver, crew chief, owner. lol I do have a car chief tho (thank gawd), who
> was wrenching and welding a decade before I was born....
The team I am with now is large as our kind of racing goes. Owner, driver,
myself and one other (who has been there for several years-I defer to him
just out of his being on the same team for so long) regular folks. My
girlfriend when she can make it, the other fellows and the driver's sons (15
and 17 years old), my son who comes out when he isn't babysitting Penny's
kids, and one other who shows up every now and again. We all work well
together, and better, we all play well together. It means we have the
manpower when we need to thrash, and can get chassis changes done pretty
quickly; largely because we have all been around the sport for years.
>
> I'm with you Carey, racing is in me, to the core. I can't imagine a life
> without some sort motorsport involvement, even if it is just as a fan.
> Luckily, the wife understands this, so there may be long lasting hope for
> my
> marriage... ;-)
>
As you can tell by my paragraph above, I have rectified the racing
situation. Penny has really become a huge race fan, but one that doesn't
really enjoy watching it on TV. My kids are the same way.
Carey in Manvel
TimW
<nOspaM@simracer68@yahoo.com> wrote:
>When you drive in a sim on the same tracks as the big boys, then it gives
>you insight on racing there that no amount of TV coverage or behind the
>scenes interviews can give you, I'll admit to that. Like no one out in the
>general populous could ever really understand what it meant to traverse the
>"Humpy Bumps" in T3-4 at Charlotte, or that aweful "dip" in the low line
>there in T1. The drivers used to try and explain them on TV, but us simmers
>already knew what they were all about.
I can testify to that. After doing the Petty school at Charlotte back
in '98, I came out of the car with a whole new respect for what these
guys do every weekend. They make it look so easy, like any armchair
driver could hop in the car and do 180 laps. I like to drive fast, but
even doing 140 laps at Charlotte was very intimidating. Those bumps in
T3-4 will really get your attention even at that speed. For any avid
Nascar fan who hasn't done a driving school, I can tell you it's worth
10 times what you pay for it.
Any I was very surprised at how the experience related to the Papy
sim. The only thing missing from the sim were the physical
things....the fear of hitting the concrete, the seat of the pants
feel, and about 60 beats/minute of the ole heart rate. ;-)
TimW
SimRacer
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
news:2rpqi29e29sfi923e...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:20:47 GMT, "SimRacer"
> <nOspaM@simracer68@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >When you drive in a sim on the same tracks as the big boys, then it gives
> >you insight on racing there that no amount of TV coverage or behind the
> >scenes interviews can give you, I'll admit to that. Like no one out in
the
> >general populous could ever really understand what it meant to traverse
the
> >"Humpy Bumps" in T3-4 at Charlotte, or that aweful "dip" in the low line
> >there in T1. The drivers used to try and explain them on TV, but us
simmers
> >already knew what they were all about.
>
> I can testify to that. After doing the Petty school at Charlotte back
> in '98, I came out of the car with a whole new respect for what these
> guys do every weekend. They make it look so easy, like any armchair
> driver could hop in the car and do 180 laps. I like to drive fast, but
> even doing 140 laps at Charlotte was very intimidating. Those bumps in
> T3-4 will really get your attention even at that speed. For any avid
> Nascar fan who hasn't done a driving school, I can tell you it's worth
> 10 times what you pay for it.
That's a sound observation that I've never thought to mention. Doing even a
few laps at a real track in at least a "quasi real" race car will give you a
solid respect for the competitors. This ain't your daddy's Oldsmobile out on
the interstate, that's for sure.
>
> Any I was very surprised at how the experience related to the Papy
> sim. The only thing missing from the sim were the physical
> things....the fear of hitting the concrete, the seat of the pants
> feel, and about 60 beats/minute of the ole heart rate. ;-)
>
I never really got a sense of concern about hitting the wall in my time in
stock car schools, I was usually too focused on hitting my marks and trying
to tell the "crew" what the car was doing. But the g-forces (seat of the
pants) and adrenaline (pulse rate) are spot on. If you don't pickup a few
heart beats, or get out a little sore (the neck especially), you weren't
doing it right.
> TimW
>
> www.nasscar.com
That website is a sim league site, no? You guys still running out there in
virtual land? Hmmm. Have a truck series? lol All this sim talk already has
me wanting to pull the old TSW2 out of the closet when I get home later...I
thought about doing it anyway to put in some time at Charlotte before the
racing there this weekend....if I could just find an
updated/repaved/smoothed out version to download.
TimW
<nOspaM@simracer68@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> www.nasscar.com
>
>That website is a sim league site, no? You guys still running out there in
>virtual land? Hmmm. Have a truck series? lol All this sim talk already has
>me wanting to pull the old TSW2 out of the closet when I get home later...I
>thought about doing it anyway to put in some time at Charlotte before the
>racing there this weekend....if I could just find an
>updated/repaved/smoothed out version to download.
In fact, we are the 2nd oldest league still in existence (is HAL still
running? Maybe we're the oldest now), dating back to the Hawaii days.
And yes, we have a CTS series running every Thursday night. If you
really get serious about getting back on the track just click the
register button and someone will be in touch with you.
TimW
SimRacer
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
Man, I dunno about HAL. And I never ran Hawaii, but did race on TEN. Your
league's monikor does seem familiar, so I don't really doubt it's age. It's
just good to see such a long running place still going strong. I ran with a
little startup for a while in 99 (first got into league racing then) at
WROL, didn't last I don't think. Then went with the ASRL for a good while,
and I think they're still around too - decently large group there when I
left. Then started my own (SERL - Southeastern Racing League) and ran it for
several years before having to come back to Earth and run my own
"profitable" business for a while now...lol....Thursday nights huh? I don't
do much on Thursdays come to think of it....Let me check out the site and
schedule and see what I can commit to.
My real racing schedule would not interfere with it at least...That's all
weekend stuff with some Friday travel. I mean, I did upgrade my old Thomas
to a USB unit, with new pots and even some new pedals...I should dust it off
and get some more return on my investment out of it. And I think I still
have one of Rodney Arndt's (HotRod) old setup guides laying around too....
:-) lol
>
> TimW
>
> www.nasscar.com
TimW
<nOspaM@simracer68@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My real racing schedule would not interfere with it at least...That's all
>weekend stuff with some Friday travel. I mean, I did upgrade my old Thomas
>to a USB unit, with new pots and even some new pedals...I should dust it off
>and get some more return on my investment out of it. And I think I still
>have one of Rodney Arndt's (HotRod) old setup guides laying around too....
>:-) lol
Funny you mention that.....I'm just getting ready to send mine back to
Thomas over the winter for the USB upgrade myself. Pots are shot, and
the USB adapter doesn't give rock solid reading like you need. Did you
see a noticeable improvement with the upgrade?
TimW
SimDriver
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
scheduling conflicts.
Had a lot of fun. Great group of racers.
You run one of the best leagues out there.
Recently I have been a member of ASRL.
SimDriver
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
It's worth every penny.
I suggest not to order the kit, just ship it to TSW and have it installed by
them.
Mine felt much more stable after the upgrade.
I even had to turn down the linearity settings from what I had before the
upgrade.
Hammer
One of the things Mark may not realize is that the physics model & specs
were taken from a ton of stats supplied by a real NASCAR race team. And back
in '03 this "game" was called by real engineers a true simulator in every
sense of the word. If Papy could have continued these last 3 years who knows
how much fine tuning they could have done to make it even more exact and
accurate (closer to Mark's & my own dream). But as it stands, it's more than
enough challenge and a close enough experience that the Pros themselves
still practice on/with it. That should say enough right there.
TimW
<NR2003...@best.sim.net> wrote:
Ah, another well respected league for sure. Thanks for the kind words.
TimW
Hammer
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
The Australian Surf Rowers League?
http://www.asrl.com.au/main/default.asp
Dude, you are versatile and must be in great shape. ;)
Mark B
difference in degrees. To take the aviation as an example, Microsoft FS
has just about every adjustment you can have in it. Yet the FAA won't
approve it for anything. You can design your own aircraft ect all in
good fun and the results are modeled after real data just like the game
you are talking about. The next step up are some programs that the FAA
will allow you to use with "approved equipment and certification" that
will allow you to log a part of the time needed for a pilots certificate
or instrument rating. The flight characteristics are modeled MUCH
better than MSFS and are far more advanced. Even they don't come close
to what its really like to land.
There are several other classifications of sims, all the way up. The
more advanced sims not only allow just about any type of a instruction
in it, you can even get credit for the landings you make in them. They
are so advance that some airlines have sims that the first time you
might actually fly a real airplane would be with a load of paying
passengers in the back. Far far ahead of the $50 game. Even those are
only for a single aircraft.
The next step up would be software to simulate what a newly designed
airplane might be and how it would fly. Software used by the major
manufactures to fly something before its ever built, to look for problem
areas and give a good idea of handling characteristics. ect. VERY high
dollar, very high tech, but the results give a degree of precision you
can get no other way.
Lots of flight instructors have uses MSFS as essentially a blackboard
for many things. The faa never certified a chalkboard either, but it
doesn't mean its not valuable. That does not means its more advanced
than it is, just because its being used for training and practice. Its
one of those things that reasonable adults can agree to disagree and
thats fair.
Hammer
>
> The info carryover would be sweeter if it were a direct swap. But, I've
> done
> just enough simming and real life racing to get myself into trouble even
> trying sometimes, lol. What I try to do is find a setup that works in the
> sim and take the "broad strokes" over to the little car, essentially just
> trying to replicate the feel, or balance if you will.
Sure, I understand, and even just the broad strokes should be a good help &
save time. It should also put you in a position where you're already pointed
in the right direction and more quickly able adjust to all the real-life
differences.
My own feeling as I practice and fantasize that I'm a crew chief/driver
preparing for a real race is not just about the car and setup (which I
love), but my own driving tendencies/habits also. There are so many things
you can do on the sim that you can't do in real life. You can push the car
up to & past its limits, you can try dangerous moves you would never do in
real traffic, etc. Essentially, you can get all the things out of your
system simming so that when you do race, you're in a much more patient &
focused mode and don't have to make those mistakes on track because you've
already gotten your over-aggressiveness and experimenting out of the way.
I'd think that'd be a huge help to any driver on any level.
> Yup, it's neat. There are some decent "original" and real track
> recreations
> out there tho, as you already know. The recreations that I've run, even
> Papy
> originals, seem pretty accurate. As a much younger adult I ran a couple of
> schools here near home, at Charlotte (Fast Track) and at Rockingham (Buck
> Baker), and Papy's versions of those tracks (the surfaces, banking, etc)
> were spot on to the best of my recollections.
I've heard that about the tracks, but it's great to have reinforced by
someone I know has real experience. Excellent!
So I assume you got some very good training there also to go with your ever
increasing experience. Nice! I'd love to go to a school or two myself when
my financial & time situations improve. That'd be one of my dream vacations.
> When you drive in a sim on the same tracks as the big boys, then it gives
> you insight on racing there that no amount of TV coverage or behind the
> scenes interviews can give you, I'll admit to that. Like no one out in the
> general populous could ever really understand what it meant to traverse
> the
> "Humpy Bumps" in T3-4 at Charlotte, or that aweful "dip" in the low line
> there in T1. The drivers used to try and explain them on TV, but us
> simmers
> already knew what they were all about.
Definitely. It makes watching the event come alive and you can really
associate with what they're going through. That's why I always spend most of
the week practicing on the same track that week's race is on. Esp. the dips
and bumps, which are so easy to miss just watching. I love to see how a guy
sets up for an entry, "lands" his car, gets bite coming off, etc., and it's
amazing how that transfers from the sim. Papy really did an unbelievable job
recreating not only the feel of the cars, but the tracks as well.
> Likely not. The better/more comfortable you get with it, the more any sort
> of aids begin to actually bog you down IMO. My favorite times were going
> into Sears Point or The Glen pickup races with rooks that ran traction
> control, anti-lock brakes and so on. Us guys that went at it clean, with
> no
> aids, would have most of them a lap down by lap 10. The best traction
> control unit ever invented for a stock car was a talented right foot IMO.
Great line! ;) I was very surprised also when I tried aids recently. I
thought since I had never used them and gotten good with no help, they'd
make me even faster. No way! They slowed the sh** out of me and made
handling so dull and unresponsive. I've been concentrating on getting really
comfortable with the loosest setup possible and running in traffic. I want
to try racing online again and as we all know, you've got to run clean to
get any respect or acceptance. Those guys spend all week getting ready for a
scheduled race and don't want some reckless newbie ruining it for them. I'll
start worrying more about my speed/times next, but I'm finally starting to
feel confident with my car control running 3 wide for entire runs, and
that's the most important thing IMO.
> What you're doing, it sounds like to me, is tightening the car up as it
> gets
> loose on you - by braking, you're shifting weight forward which will cause
> it to be tight -
Exactly. It briefly causes a tight condition so I can get the front to push
up the track and straighten out/help the rear recover.
> but I typically find the best way to recover a loose car
> that has broke loose in a turn is with the throttle, not the brake
> (provided
> that it's truly just loose and not about to spinout).
Yeah, I agree, but unfortunately I'm referring to the point where I'm just
starting to spin out. Obviously because I used too much throttle, and/or too
much steering instead of letting the throttle turn me on its own.
> Sounds funky to the
> uninitiated I know, but it's how I do it. I perscribe to the theory that
> any
> braking I can avoid, I do, since it slows your momentum and ultimately
> will
> hurt your exit from "that" corner, slowing you down the next straight, and
> ends up affecting your next corner entry as well.
Thank you very much for that. I didn't know if it was me or because it's a
sim, but I use -much- less brake than it appears the pros do. I hate braking
and would much rather adjust my entry (angle & speed) for the reasons you've
stated well. It makes for much better lap times & tire wear, but it's always
make me wonder if I drove harder and braked more might I get faster. I
thought maybe I just wasn't doing it right, but my experiences prove more
braking has never helped which is why I use very little.
> Take the "old Las Vegas" in the sim. To go fast there, you had to startout
> really really loose. So loose, that if you lift going into T1, you'd
> almost
> just spin uncontrollably. The fix? Lift "just enough" early, to get the
> car
> to start the turn, and then feather back into the throttle - to maybe
> 10% -
> and carry that much throttle until the car "took a set" (hooked back up)
> and
> began to turn under your approach back full power from the center to the
> exit.
That's exactly how I do it now. But it wasn't always so...
> Until you could perfect this, you were either really slow (comparing
> lap times) or you simply swapped ends each time into T1 and backed into
> the
> wall hard (kind of like the Kansas race the Cup guys just ran, where a lot
> of "loose induced end swapping" was observed by me in the race).
Tell me about it. When I first starting downloading setups from guys like
Bob Stanley, I was horrible and did precisely what you've described above. I
absolutely sucked and kept going back to Fasts or Jaspers in frustration. I
couldn't figure out why I was unable keep the rear from breaking loose until
I realized 2 important things:
- The throttle & brake are just as important & sensitive as the steering
wheel, and
- To keep the wheel straight AMAP (or even slightly counter-steer)
throughout the turn. Once I stopped trying to turn with the wheel and got
real feel with the throttle, everything changed and racing rose to a whole
new level of challenge, excitement and fun.
Prolly a boring story to someone with your experience and who I'm sure
learned much quicker/earlier than I, but it was a revelation for me that
didn't come easy. Doh! Now I love running loose as possible and can really
feel the speed coming out of the corners.
I know you, Carey and others are probably laughing at what an amateur I am.
That's okay. :-)
> Carey's deal is more big time than mine. My stuff is just a notch above
> what
> most peeps call "mini stockers" and even though we can hit speeds in
> excess
> of 100mph, we aren't full sized late models - and as such, aren't taken
> very
> seriously by anyone but ourselves. I do enjoy it though, as I said, it's
> how
> I hope to spend my retirement one day.
I'm happy for you. Doesn't look like I'm going to be doing anything but
working for the rest of my life, so at least you've got retirement to look
forward to. It'd be great to be able to do something you love and not just
sitting around or whacking golf balls every day. ;)
> Yes, we definitely had a great bunch of guys in the league those last few
> seasons. Not a lot of bitchin', mostly clean racing, and generally overall
> a
> great time was had by all.
Sounds like a blast. Very inspirational.
> Well, thanks. It is just a hobby to me, but I am passionate about it. My
> wife supports me, and it brings me great joy, a rarity in today's world.
> lol
A happy man makes a better husband. Your wife's smart, and you're lucky. :)
> And like you said earlier, having just a little more "insider" info on
> racing just makes it that much easier to follow and be fanatic about
> NASCAR - which IMO is the ultimate Late Model series - even though NASCAR
> has begun to tick me off over the past few seasons with their rules
> changes,
> schedule realignments and such. But, like most addicts, I refuse to admit
> that I have a problem...and keep on tuning in. Damn them. :-)
Nothing's perfect, and even if NASCAR was we'd probably still find something
to bitch about. Hopefully we're both smart enough to enjoy it for what it is
and let the rest go. Hard enough to find pleasure in the world today, best
we take it where & when we can.
Great stuff, bro! I may even start pulling for Jr a little more. ;-)
Hammer
I'm not disagreeing with your idea at all, Mark. Like I said, I've
fantasized about having such an instrument that would take away most if not
all the guesswork out of car setups. Just seems next to impossible at this
point in time unless perhaps millions were spent on development, and even
then I'd have to wonder if it could still keep up with all the changes
everything in the sport goes through from tires to tracks. Great idea if
someone could actually implement it. Until then, for $50 we've got one hell
of a tool to use in the meantime. ;)
Chuck Steak
>"Mark B" <racef...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> A game could be helpful for a rookie at the most basic levels,
>> especially for a road course, but thats about it.
>It's obvious to me that you simply don't understand the sim in question, so
>let's just stop after this and agree to disagree. First off, you're last
>statement couldn't be any farther from the truth if you had any real idea
>about what we're talking about (multiple regular full time Cup and Busch
>racers use this sim, weekly).
MB,
Don't be calling this stuff a "game" or he'll killfile you....
I did once, and questioned whether or not these drivers that claim
it's such a great tool, were doing it because it was, or because it was
some of the biggest, easiest money for them to make...
I know of one that said he's never used one, but the money was fantastic...
So... he plugged it... as he should.
I mean... you get a huge check for doing nothing,
what are you supposed to say?
So I guess it's as good as you want to believe it is...
Now... I'm the biggest know nothing guy on this list, for that opinion.
Which, I suppose I very well could be..
But I did have to laugh, after years of discussing racing subjects,
with so many very knowledgable people on this list, getting KF'd for calling
something a "game".... wow..... touchy, touchy...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan
I got a new Matco tool box for my wife.
Best trade I ever made...
Hammer
"Chuck Steak" <Chuck...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Uu2dnV5C_r-VF7PY...@rcn.net...
There are numerous NASCAR video "games" out there that are decent and a lot
of fun. Elliot is on the cover of Electronic Arts' new one "NASCAR '07," and
I'm sure it's a candidate for what you're describing. Elliot is probably
collecting his money and moved beyond that game, if he ever really got into
it at all. The simulator Sim is talking about and the one everyone agrees is
still the best is "NASCAR Racing 2003 Season" by Papyrus/Sierra. It's only
made for PC, and it's the one Jr., Hamlin, and most other pros & serious
simmers use. There's no comparison to console games or even PC versions of
the games as mentioned above because NR'03 blows them away. NR'03 pays no
more sponsorship money to anyone since it's last new edition was in '03 and
distribution has probably diminished or ceased completely, so anyone using
it is doing so because it's simply the best thing going.
Now don't go callin' it a game or I'll have to plonk your a$$! ;-)
TimW
wrote:
> "SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Mark B" <racef...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>>> A game could be helpful for a rookie at the most basic levels,
>>> especially for a road course, but thats about it.
>
>>It's obvious to me that you simply don't understand the sim in question, so
>>let's just stop after this and agree to disagree. First off, you're last
>>statement couldn't be any farther from the truth if you had any real idea
>>about what we're talking about (multiple regular full time Cup and Busch
>>racers use this sim, weekly).
>
>MB,
>Don't be calling this stuff a "game" or he'll killfile you....
>I did once, and questioned whether or not these drivers that claim
>it's such a great tool, were doing it because it was, or because it was
>some of the biggest, easiest money for them to make...
>I know of one that said he's never used one, but the money was fantastic...
>So... he plugged it... as he should.
>I mean... you get a huge check for doing nothing,
>what are you supposed to say?
>So I guess it's as good as you want to believe it is...
I'm sure there are professional athletes in every sport that promote
something they really don't believe in or use. But it's hard to argue
with the fact that several drivers have boasted using NR2003 for
training purposes who probably never received a cent for the
promotion. Denny Hamlin for example, after winning the Pocono race in
June, said he used it, and game hasn't been on store shelved in ages.
Another example.....Jr and Truex in the Busch race at Talladega last
year. After a late race pit stop they found themselves nose to tail in
about 7th or 8th place. Jr asked his spotter to deliver a message to
Truex that was simply "Talladega BR". As anyone who is seriously into
this sim knows the BR version of the track makes the high groove work,
and Jr was sending a coded message for Martin to run the high line.
And it worked, finishing 1st and 2nd.
TimW
SimRacer
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
Yes, I did, but I must caveat the statement by telling you I have an ASUS
mobo with built-in sound card, and that there was a "twitch" issue with it
off and on - when connected via the sound card/game port connector - so
when I went to USB, it went away, so it was certainly worth the upgrade to
me. Otherwise, it seems to just work normally. Very accurate. No random once
or twice a month twitching anymore.
And I just had them send me the upgrade kit. Took no time to install, and I
wanted to do it so I could see how everything was wired up in case I needed
to do any repairs to it myself in the future.
Also, I checked out your site. Looks good, looks like a fair number of guys
run there. Also seems you run concurrent to the schedules of NASCAR, so I
don't have much chance at it for this year it seems. Lemme practice some
over the "winter" and see if y'all will have any openings in February, after
I've gotten back into the groove of the sim and the tracks again.
SimRacer
May I ask why you suggest that? I bought the kit, installed it in about an
hour - even took my time and was less than an hour really - and all went
very well with my install. Honestly, I did so for a couple of reasons: 1) I
wanted to see the guts and learn how it all worked after racing it for
several years, and 2) Having them ship me the kit and doing it myself saved
several weeks of turnaround time. Not panning on the suggestion, just
curious as to why you think a self-install is a no-no. Thomas sent excellent
instructions, and it worked 100% right off the workbench.
Of course, I was also replacing pots (and know how to center them) and added
some upgraded "sport" pads to the pedals. They're more comfortable to me
than the basic rubber pads that came with mine originally. (Mine is
a1999-2000ish model TSW2 Cup)
> Mine felt much more stable after the upgrade.
> I even had to turn down the linearity settings from what I had before the
> upgrade.
>
I still run my linearity pretty high, didn't notice anything so much so that
I needed to lower it. I will tweak it depending on the track occasionally,
using one setting for shorties, one for speedways, and one for roadies if I
need just the right feel - especially when running a fixed setup series. Or
at least, I used too. I haven't raced for points since about 2003, when I
ran with a league for the BMS Speedway Children's Charity deal.
SimRacer
>
> "SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jZ7Xg.23020$fy.1...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > The info carryover would be sweeter if it were a direct swap. But, I've
> > done
> > just enough simming and real life racing to get myself into trouble even
> > trying sometimes, lol. What I try to do is find a setup that works in
the
> > sim and take the "broad strokes" over to the little car, essentially
just
> > trying to replicate the feel, or balance if you will.
>
> Sure, I understand, and even just the broad strokes should be a good help
&
> save time. It should also put you in a position where you're already
pointed
> in the right direction and more quickly able adjust to all the real-life
> differences.
That's my focus, to cut down on tuning at the track, by having a basic idea
I can plug into the car at home in the shop. Then I can fine tune at the
track and not neccsarily unload "junk" ($ to Mark Martin) when I get to the
venue. Sometimes it works better than others.
>
> My own feeling as I practice and fantasize that I'm a crew chief/driver
> preparing for a real race is not just about the car and setup (which I
> love), but my own driving tendencies/habits also. There are so many things
> you can do on the sim that you can't do in real life. You can push the car
> up to & past its limits, you can try dangerous moves you would never do in
> real traffic, etc. Essentially, you can get all the things out of your
> system simming so that when you do race, you're in a much more patient &
> focused mode and don't have to make those mistakes on track because you've
> already gotten your over-aggressiveness and experimenting out of the way.
> I'd think that'd be a huge help to any driver on any level.
You and I see it that way, others here and everywhere that view it as a game
will *never* get that aspect of it.
>
> > Yup, it's neat. There are some decent "original" and real track
> > recreations
> > out there tho, as you already know. The recreations that I've run, even
> > Papy
> > originals, seem pretty accurate. As a much younger adult I ran a couple
of
> > schools here near home, at Charlotte (Fast Track) and at Rockingham
(Buck
> > Baker), and Papy's versions of those tracks (the surfaces, banking, etc)
> > were spot on to the best of my recollections.
>
> I've heard that about the tracks, but it's great to have reinforced by
> someone I know has real experience. Excellent!
>
> So I assume you got some very good training there also to go with your
ever
> increasing experience. Nice! I'd love to go to a school or two myself when
> my financial & time situations improve. That'd be one of my dream
vacations.
Yup. I had drag raced as a teen - legally, at the track, of course - but
wanted to at least experience the oval scene. My wife recommended the
"experiences" that were out there, and I found Fast Track and Buck Baker
"schools" and took then over a period of a couple of years back in the 90s
instead. Fast Track was a 3 day deal, where we learned "how to drive", and
how to setup the cars a little. Had a little "race" at the end of it among
the students. The Baker school at Rockingham was the funner of the 2 though,
simply because even with a good setup, you still had to "drive" that track.
A "good setup" at Charlotte will almost drive itself until the tires wear
enough - in the old days anyway, I have no experience on the new surface
obviously.
Oh, and I have also taken a road course driving school through Panoz, at
Road Atlanta. I think one day too, that I would like to compete in the SCCA
at the club level, in production class cars. If the late model thing doesn't
workout, that is my backup plan. And I was one of Roy Hill's first Pro Stock
(drag racing) School students at Rockingham back in the day too. I love the
schools, even though I've never really entertained any idea of becoming a
pro racer. I just love to go fast, and wanted to learn how to do it safely
before even trying anything on my own.
>
> > When you drive in a sim on the same tracks as the big boys, then it
gives
> > you insight on racing there that no amount of TV coverage or behind the
> > scenes interviews can give you, I'll admit to that. Like no one out in
the
> > general populous could ever really understand what it meant to traverse
> > the
> > "Humpy Bumps" in T3-4 at Charlotte, or that aweful "dip" in the low line
> > there in T1. The drivers used to try and explain them on TV, but us
> > simmers
> > already knew what they were all about.
>
> Definitely. It makes watching the event come alive and you can really
> associate with what they're going through. That's why I always spend most
of
> the week practicing on the same track that week's race is on. Esp. the
dips
> and bumps, which are so easy to miss just watching. I love to see how a
guy
> sets up for an entry, "lands" his car, gets bite coming off, etc., and
it's
> amazing how that transfers from the sim. Papy really did an unbelievable
job
> recreating not only the feel of the cars, but the tracks as well.
>
Yes they did IMO. One of the reasons I washed my hands of sim racing when I
did was because Papy got out of the biz and EA took over. I bought their
"sim" to give it a try, and was highly, HIGHLY disappointed with the result.
Seeing a few leagues out there still going are tempting me back into running
some more. With a possible late model ride in the works for next year, I
could sure use the practice...
> > Likely not. The better/more comfortable you get with it, the more any
sort
> > of aids begin to actually bog you down IMO. My favorite times were going
> > into Sears Point or The Glen pickup races with rooks that ran traction
> > control, anti-lock brakes and so on. Us guys that went at it clean, with
> > no
> > aids, would have most of them a lap down by lap 10. The best traction
> > control unit ever invented for a stock car was a talented right foot
IMO.
>
> Great line! ;) I was very surprised also when I tried aids recently. I
> thought since I had never used them and gotten good with no help, they'd
> make me even faster. No way! They slowed the sh** out of me and made
> handling so dull and unresponsive. I've been concentrating on getting
really
> comfortable with the loosest setup possible and running in traffic. I want
> to try racing online again and as we all know, you've got to run clean to
> get any respect or acceptance. Those guys spend all week getting ready for
a
> scheduled race and don't want some reckless newbie ruining it for them.
I'll
> start worrying more about my speed/times next, but I'm finally starting to
> feel confident with my car control running 3 wide for entire runs, and
> that's the most important thing IMO.
>
IMHO, the aids are in there to help absolute noobs get into the sim before
giving up. If there weren't aids, there are some people that wouldn't put in
the days, weeks, months it takes to get the hang of it without them. They'd
just give up after spinning while trying to blend onto their first track 10
times in a row. The sim really does a good job of recreating the built-in
stagger in the cars, that they turn left by themselves if you don't counter
steer at slow speeds and on the straights.
> > What you're doing, it sounds like to me, is tightening the car up as it
> > gets
> > loose on you - by braking, you're shifting weight forward which will
cause
> > it to be tight -
>
> Exactly. It briefly causes a tight condition so I can get the front to
push
> up the track and straighten out/help the rear recover.
>
> > but I typically find the best way to recover a loose car
> > that has broke loose in a turn is with the throttle, not the brake
> > (provided
> > that it's truly just loose and not about to spinout).
>
> Yeah, I agree, but unfortunately I'm referring to the point where I'm just
> starting to spin out. Obviously because I used too much throttle, and/or
too
> much steering instead of letting the throttle turn me on its own.
Yes, too much "wheel" when you enter a corner can begin to heat up that RF,
and by nature it begins not to grip like it should, then you're tight. It's
a fine line between a setup loose enough to "come in" over a run (without
being so loose to be dangerous those first 10-20 laps), and one that is
perfect at the get go and then gets undrivably tight late in the run due to
tire wear and fuel burnoff.
>
> > Sounds funky to the
> > uninitiated I know, but it's how I do it. I perscribe to the theory that
> > any
> > braking I can avoid, I do, since it slows your momentum and ultimately
> > will
> > hurt your exit from "that" corner, slowing you down the next straight,
and
> > ends up affecting your next corner entry as well.
>
> Thank you very much for that. I didn't know if it was me or because it's a
> sim, but I use -much- less brake than it appears the pros do. I hate
braking
> and would much rather adjust my entry (angle & speed) for the reasons
you've
> stated well. It makes for much better lap times & tire wear, but it's
always
> make me wonder if I drove harder and braked more might I get faster. I
> thought maybe I just wasn't doing it right, but my experiences prove more
> braking has never helped which is why I use very little.
No, I think you need to brake as little as you can get by with. Momentum
around the whole track will help you better over the long run than will
overdriving the corners in an attempt to gain a few tenths or hundreths on
the stop watch for one or two particular laps. And overdriving (which can
include driving in too deep and using too much brake) often really hurts
your corner exits, which kills the next straight. It's a slippery slope. I
like to think of an even pendulum of momentum as my ultimate goal -
certainly on ovals- and braking as a road block to that goal. Obviously,
traffic will have a bearing on how much you can stay off the brakes...
>
>
> > Take the "old Las Vegas" in the sim. To go fast there, you had to
startout
> > really really loose. So loose, that if you lift going into T1, you'd
> > almost
> > just spin uncontrollably. The fix? Lift "just enough" early, to get the
> > car
> > to start the turn, and then feather back into the throttle - to maybe
> > 10% -
> > and carry that much throttle until the car "took a set" (hooked back up)
> > and
> > began to turn under your approach back full power from the center to the
> > exit.
>
> That's exactly how I do it now. But it wasn't always so...
I used to love to drop in on pickup races at Vegas just to watch the rookies
back into the T1 wall EVERY lap. The keys there were: take the time to get
your tires up to temp, and then to use light throttle on entry until the car
is turning without the rear end stepping out, before easing into full
throttle on exit. Sometimes, that means not hitting WOT until the actual
exit itself depending on the "weather" that day. The "old unbanked,
rectangular oval" Homestead was just as bad to me, and some days, California
(Fontana) can be too.
>
> > Until you could perfect this, you were either really slow (comparing
> > lap times) or you simply swapped ends each time into T1 and backed into
> > the
> > wall hard (kind of like the Kansas race the Cup guys just ran, where a
lot
> > of "loose induced end swapping" was observed by me in the race).
>
> Tell me about it. When I first starting downloading setups from guys like
> Bob Stanley, I was horrible and did precisely what you've described above.
I
> absolutely sucked and kept going back to Fasts or Jaspers in frustration.
I
> couldn't figure out why I was unable keep the rear from breaking loose
until
> I realized 2 important things:
> - The throttle & brake are just as important & sensitive as the steering
> wheel, and
Yep. And donut forget to adjust on the steering linearity setting until you
have comfortable "wheel lock" locally, on the steering wheel connected to
your computer. You don't want to have to even "feel" like your steering
input is too little or too much. I typically use anything in the range of
85%-100% depending on the venue - less for big tracks, closer 100% for road
courses and Martinsville. This can also make it easier to "catch" a car if
you don't have to turn the wheel as much to do so. And this is all personal
preference, so don't take my numbers here as the law, or even a bill trying
to become a law ;-).
> - To keep the wheel straight AMAP (or even slightly counter-steer)
> throughout the turn. Once I stopped trying to turn with the wheel and got
> real feel with the throttle, everything changed and racing rose to a whole
> new level of challenge, excitement and fun.
This is the concept DW keeps yelping about: Turning the car with the RR
wheel. It makes you fast - since IMO, the more you turn the steering wheel,
the more the car is "bound up", the slower it is - but it can burn up a RR
if you're "too fast" or "too loose". Again, it's one of those proverbial
fine lines. Ask Matt Kenseth, they had a setup at Kansas a while back that
had the RR tire at 300º each time they pitted and temped it. They "unbound"
the car too much, made it too loose, and the RR was nearly melted at each
pit stop - per MK in a Sirius Speedway interview a couple weeks ago.
>
> Prolly a boring story to someone with your experience and who I'm sure
> learned much quicker/earlier than I, but it was a revelation for me that
> didn't come easy. Doh! Now I love running loose as possible and can really
> feel the speed coming out of the corners.
Running loose comfortably early in a run likely means: 1) You'll not tighten
up as much as the run wears on and 2) You'll get better gas mileage since
you aren't on and off the throttle trying to get the car to turn and since
you aren't binding the car up too much by giving it too much steering input
at each corner.
>
> I know you, Carey and others are probably laughing at what an amateur I
am.
> That's okay. :-)
>
No, your simming experience is teaching you a behind the scenes aspect most
NASCAR fans doesn't even know exists. I don't think it's anything to laugh
at, at all. And we're all still rookies at some aspect of it, whether we'll
admit it or not. Except what us online simmers call "Aliens". Those are
cats that are fast, every week, on every track. I've raced against several
of those in my time, and it's often irritating that someone can take the
"same equipment" and get just that much more out of it, lol.
> > Carey's deal is more big time than mine. My stuff is just a notch above
> > what
> > most peeps call "mini stockers" and even though we can hit speeds in
> > excess
> > of 100mph, we aren't full sized late models - and as such, aren't taken
> > very
> > seriously by anyone but ourselves. I do enjoy it though, as I said, it's
> > how
> > I hope to spend my retirement one day.
>
> I'm happy for you. Doesn't look like I'm going to be doing anything but
> working for the rest of my life, so at least you've got retirement to look
> forward to. It'd be great to be able to do something you love and not just
> sitting around or whacking golf balls every day. ;)
I've experienced a lot of deaths close to me in the past 20 years, so I've
promised myself more than once that regardless of my monetary status at the
time, I was going to retire in time to enjoy some of my life - provided I
don't pass on tomorrow, of course.
>
> > Yes, we definitely had a great bunch of guys in the league those last
few
> > seasons. Not a lot of bitchin', mostly clean racing, and generally
overall
> > a
> > great time was had by all.
>
> Sounds like a blast. Very inspirational.
Inspirational? That's too heavy an adjective for me, lol. But it was a
blast.
>
> > Well, thanks. It is just a hobby to me, but I am passionate about it. My
> > wife supports me, and it brings me great joy, a rarity in today's world.
> > lol
>
> A happy man makes a better husband. Your wife's smart, and you're lucky.
:)
Yup. We're a match made somewhere. Heaven if you're a religous man.
>
> > And like you said earlier, having just a little more "insider" info on
> > racing just makes it that much easier to follow and be fanatic about
> > NASCAR - which IMO is the ultimate Late Model series - even though
NASCAR
> > has begun to tick me off over the past few seasons with their rules
> > changes,
> > schedule realignments and such. But, like most addicts, I refuse to
admit
> > that I have a problem...and keep on tuning in. Damn them. :-)
>
> Nothing's perfect, and even if NASCAR was we'd probably still find
something
> to bitch about. Hopefully we're both smart enough to enjoy it for what it
is
> and let the rest go. Hard enough to find pleasure in the world today, best
> we take it where & when we can.
>
> Great stuff, bro! I may even start pulling for Jr a little more. ;-)
Pull for who you want man, this is the US and you're free to choose. There
are more of us "normal" Junior fans out here than ever gets credited tho.
But then again, Junior is a simmer too.....LOL! I think he and all his guys
(Truex, McFarland, etc) still run on Tuesday nights with the CTS series in
NR2003. I even hear Jerry Nadeau continues to run the sim weekly, so he
won't be stone cold if he ever gets the chance to get back into another car
one day.
>
>
SimRacer
LOL! I've even run at the ASRL in my past...it's The American Sim Racing
League
Used to be a pretty decent bunch of folks. Can't comment of late, haven't
been a member there for several/many years. I see Gary Creswell is still
running the Legends over there, and the Sutter brothers are still active
too. One of them is, or was, the band director at a high school down the
road a little bit from my house. Given that, I'd say they're still an
overall decent bunch to run with.
>
SimDriver
>
>
> May I ask why you suggest that? I bought the kit, installed it in about an
> hour - even took my time and was less than an hour really - and all went
> very well with my install. Honestly, I did so for a couple of reasons: 1)
> I
> wanted to see the guts and learn how it all worked after racing it for
> several years, and 2) Having them ship me the kit and doing it myself
> saved
> several weeks of turnaround time. Not panning on the suggestion, just
> curious as to why you think a self-install is a no-no. Thomas sent
> excellent
> instructions, and it worked 100% right off the workbench.
>
> Of course, I was also replacing pots (and know how to center them) and
> added
> some upgraded "sport" pads to the pedals. They're more comfortable to me
> than the basic rubber pads that came with mine originally. (Mine is
> a1999-2000ish model TSW2 Cup)
>
>
>
Performance either method is exactly the same.
I just prefer the cleaner look of the TSW factory installed (internal) kit.
I wasn't in a big hurry for the upgrade so it didn't matter to me the extra
weeks waiting for shipping back and forth.
SimDriver
>
> comfortable with the loosest setup possible and running in traffic. ....I
> clean to get any respect or acceptance. Those guys spend all week getting
> ready for a scheduled race and don't want some reckless newbie ruining it
> for them. I'll start worrying more about my speed/times next, but I'm
> finally starting to feel confident with my car control running 3 wide for
> entire runs, and that's the most important thing IMO.
>
as is lack of temper.
They look for guys who don't get bent out of shape every time they're
involved in an accident.
Having fun is more imortant than anything else. Hot heads are not tolerated.
There are many online leagues which have series specifically for newbie or
beginner level racers.
They would be happy to have you join here for example:
http://www.asrl.us/
SimDriver
> Hammer wrote:
>>
> Well I fully understand that, but what we are talking about is difference
> in degrees. To take the aviation as an example, Microsoft FS has just
> about every adjustment you can have in it. Yet the FAA won't approve it
> for anything. You can design your own aircraft ect all in good fun and
> the results are modeled after real data just like the game you are talking
> about. The next step up are some programs that the FAA will allow you to
> use with "approved equipment and certification" that will allow you to log
> a part of the time needed for a pilots certificate or instrument rating.
> The flight characteristics are modeled MUCH better than MSFS and are far
> more advanced. Even they don't come close to what its really like to
> land.
>
shortly after the terrorist attack?
Were they worried that their sim might assist other would be terrorists in
some obscure way?
SimDriver
>
>
> There are numerous NASCAR video "games" out there that are decent and a
> lot of fun. Elliot is on the cover of Electronic Arts' new one "NASCAR
> '07," and I'm sure it's a candidate for what you're describing. Elliot is
> probably collecting his money and moved beyond that game, if he ever
> really got into it at all. The simulator Sim is talking about and the one
> everyone agrees is still the best is "NASCAR Racing 2003 Season" by
> Papyrus/Sierra. It's only made for PC, and it's the one Jr., Hamlin, and
> most other pros & serious simmers use. There's no comparison to console
> games or even PC versions of the games as mentioned above because NR'03
> blows them away. NR'03 pays no more sponsorship money to anyone since it's
> last new edition was in '03 and distribution has probably diminished or
> ceased completely, so anyone using it is doing so because it's simply the
> best thing going.
>
> Now don't go callin' it a game or I'll have to plonk your a$$! ;-)
It's been years since NASCAR, and it's drivers gave licensing rights to
Papyrus.
The main reason Papyrus ceased making the sim was because NASCAR wanted
ridiculous amounts of money to allow usage of their name in the Sim.
EA had the money to burn. Thus all the media advertising was awarded to
them.
Unfortunately EA didn't have programmers who could duplicate the phenominal
code which Papyrus developed.
EA's game was a flop as far as serious simracing was concerned.
Hammer
Thanks. Saw you mention it before and already bookmarked & checked it out
for when I'm ready to try and get into a league. ;)
Hammer
Your league? I'm honored. ;-) I won't be a hot head at all in that
situation, in fact, the exact opposite. After awhile if I got really good
and was running up front or possibly even challenging for a win, then I'd
possibly get a little more upset if someone pulled a bonehead move. I know
how good these sim league guys are, though, so that's a -long- way away for
me right now. In the beginning I just wanna run clean and be a good field
filler while I get much needed experience. Hopefully, over time I can build
up a good rep with a little respect and then when my talent increases, start
taking a few more chances & racing harder. Overall though, I want to have
fun and will never take it that seriously unless there are too many Robby
Gordons who start really getting on my nerves. ;-)
Hammer
I agree totally except for one thing. I always thought it was EA who outbid
Papy for the rights and forced the price up because they were determined to
lock up the franchise. You saying it was the other way around and NASCAR
jacked it up?
SimRacer
If you have the time, I guess letting the pros do the work is one verifiable
bonus.
So by "internal", you mean that the USB cable comes from your computer and
goes right to the wheel? That's ok if you have front USB ports I guess. Mine
are in the back, and with my setup, I disconnect 1 Cat5 cable and can remove
the wheel alone, leaving everything else (USB box, pedals) connected to each
other, the computer, and is out of the way. May not be as clean I guess, but
functions well, and personally doesn't bother me as to its appearance. The
"Cat5 to USB box" is on a shelf under my desktop and cannot be seen. The
only thing you see of my setup is the Cat5 cable to the wheel that I keep
tucked under my monitor's front panel when the wheel is off-desk.
I personally didn't have the time to wait since I had committed to running
in a league for 16 weeks and had forgotten about my WinXP Pro/wierd
mobo/"twitch" problem until about 2 weeks before the league fired up...and
needed a fix ASAP as I refuse to use that LWFF paperweight in the bottom of
my office closet ever again. lol That was the worst wheel I've ever used. I
liked my trusty Thrusty T2 much better before it died, twice.
SimDriver
I think NASCAR probably raised the stakes a little knowing how popular sim
racing was.
Papy is a much smaller company than EA and just couldn't compete in a
bidding war.
I think Sierra's acquisition of Papy several years ago helped them survive a
little longer.
Hammer
July 24, 2004
By Gord Goble
Papyrus' Grand Prix Legends is still considered to be one of the finest
racing games of all time.
When Papyrus Racing Games released its final installment in the storied
NASCAR Racing series in February of 2003 and was then officially shut down
by publisher Vivendi Universal in May of this year, one of the most
remarkable tales in all of computer gaming was seemingly brought to a
disappointing and premature standstill. Rarely in this flighty, roller
coaster industry has a single developer so mightily impacted its chosen
genre. That Papyrus managed to survive for 17 years--an incredible stretch
for a comparatively small design studio in a business increasingly dominated
by heavily staffed juggernauts--was an amazing feat in itself. But mere
survival wasn't the only plan in the Papyrus books. Changing the face of PC
racing was its ongoing goal, and it was something the Boston-based company
did very well throughout its entire run. Indeed, to say that the last decade
and a half of computer driving would have suffered had Papyrus not been at
the wheel is a serious understatement.
Fortunately, the standard-setting Papyrus racing concept is not as dead as
some might think. In fact, as of this writing, founder and driving force
David Kaemmer had just emerged from discussions with VU wherein he
successfully recovered the rights to Papyrus' venerated racing simulation
technology. If all goes as it should, that technology will resurface in the
not- so-distant future within a different framework and under a different
name. This is great news for fans of the ultra-authentic Papyrus style, and
certainly worthy of the closer examination that we'll give it later in the
article. In the interim, let's explore just what it was about this
Massachusetts studio that propelled it from its relatively humble beginnings
into arguably the most respected computer racing game designer in the world.
Buckle up.
Born to Race
It was the mid-1980s and the home-based computer game business was still
very much in its infancy. Hard drives had recently arrived on the scene,
text-based adventures were commonplace, and PCs had only begun to hit the
mainstream. Twenty-four-year-old David Kaemmer and his business partner Omar
Khudari were fresh from a stint at an educational software company where
together they wrote an instructional graphic adventure game for the Apple II
system entitled "The McGraw-Hill Mathematics Solving Courseware," a product
Kaemmer maintains was considerably livelier than its rather dry name might
indicate. But recently, Kaemmer and Khudari found themselves deeply involved
in something infinitely more interesting--something that held their mutual
attention far more than a mere mathematics edutainment title.
Indianapolis 500 box
Born and raised in Indiana, just an hour's drive from the storied
Indianapolis racetrack, Kaemmer was drawn to the sport of auto racing at a
very young age. His love of fast cars was almost obsessive, equaled in his
teens only by an infatuation for the binary world of early arcade video
games. Suffice it to say, Kaemmer lost more than his fair share of cash into
one of the most notorious quarter-gobblers of the day, Atari's Pole
Position. It was only natural then that as home computers began to filter
into mainstream America, Kaemmer was an early convert. "I was probably one
of the first people in west central Indiana to buy a Radio Shack TRS-80
Model I computer. My favorite program for the TRS-80 was 'Flight Simulator'
from subLogic. I always wanted to figure out how to make a program that
could draw a 3D image like that." When Kaemmer left McGraw-Hill in his early
twenties, his two passions had already begun to overlap and integrate.
By 1987, with the McGraw-Hill game already behind them and firmly convinced
the rudimentary action-oriented auto racing gaming scene of the time could
use a heavy dose of authenticity, Kaemmer and Khudari formed Papyrus Design
Group. On a conservative, realistic level, Papyrus operated primarily as a
contract programming services company. Candidly, however, Kaemmer wasn't shy
about his idealistic goal: to build the first truly authentic PC racing
simulation. As Kaemmer now firmly maintains, only half-jokingly, "My partner
Omar humored me by letting me write racing sims."
Indianapolis 500 splash screen
Yet there was little doubt in Kaemmer's mind where this whole thing was
heading. He certainly had a plan. "It seemed to me at the time that the fan
base for an arcade oval track game would be just about zero. How could Pole
Position at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway be any fun? And with my interest
in Flight Simulator, I thought it would be neat to make a flight simulator
on a race track, with a 3D out-of-the-cockpit view and real physics. I
started learning more about real racing and the physics of racecars, and I
was hooked. Just as Flight Simulator let you climb into a Cessna and see
what it was like to be a private pilot, I wanted to make a program that
would show someone, as much as possible, what it was like to drive a
racecar."
One of the very first publishers the Kaemmer/Khudari tandem approached was
Electronic Arts, a young but promising San Francisco-based company that just
happened to be looking for a talented young team to design an Indy 500-based
PC game. As Kaemmer says, "The planets were aligned, and we found ourselves
with a development contract." We should all be so lucky.
Two years later, the personal computer seminal auto racing simulation was
complete. In Indianapolis 500: The Simulation, Papyrus had taken a real
departure from the arcade-type action racers that dominated the young
marketplace. In direct contrast to prevailing wisdom that a good auto racing
game should be as wild and wacky as possible, Indy 500 was one of the very
first games based on real-world telemetry. In fairness, Britain's own racing
guru Geoff Crammond had developed and released a game for the Commodore 64
system way back in 1986. Revs, as it was named, delivered a semirealistic
account of life behind the wheel of an F3 open-wheeled car, and it certainly
found a fan base in Crammond's home country, but not so much here in North
America. We'll discuss Crammond's other efforts later in this article.
Behind the wheel
In any case, Indy 500 is generally and justifiably regarded as the PC's
first true auto racing simulation. The game offered a single circuit
(Indianapolis, of course) and slightly underwhelming graphics, even for the
time. Nevertheless, Indy 500 did something that nothing else could: It made
you believe you were really driving an open-wheeled racecar.
One of the true keys to a good simulation is its portrayal of the
relationship between the four contact patches and the pavement, and
Kaemmer's brainchild had it, in spades. When you took an Indy 500 turn at
speed, you felt the car trying to break free from the road surface and
struggle to maintain its grip. When you entered or exited a corner too
quickly, you'd face the same sort of hardships of a real-life driver. In
short, the game forced you to adopt a proper racing line and a believable
throttle-to-brake interaction from the time you took the green flag until
you hit the checkered several hours later.
Sky cam
And if your car didn't feel right for one reason or another, you could head
to the game's garage facility to enact modifications. Tires, shocks,
wings--they were all adjustable. Indy 500 was an arduous and thoroughly
convincing experience that demanded complete concentration and ultimately
appealed to fans of hardcore authenticity. Total units sold to date:
200,000. Not bad for a game designed in such comparatively primitive
circumstances.
Even more importantly, Indy 500 was to form the nucleus for every Papyrus
game to follow. Kaemmer and company had come upon a clever formula in its
watershed product that would be substantially revitalized and rebuilt over
the next fifteen years to meet the demand of an increasingly sophisticated
audience and to satiate Papyrus' desire for perfection. But in all truth,
this initial effort was an excellent example of getting it right the first
time.
Pit Stop
But what about the money? Did Papyrus immediately strike it rich? Not
exactly. According to Kaemmer, "The original Indy 500 was done on a budget
of about $90,000--absurd by today's standards. EA gave us an advance against
royalties, and we contributed some money of our own. I did Indy 500 by
myself for about a year, then Rich Garcia, the first person we hired, worked
with me for the last six months. The 2D game artwork was done at EA, by one
guy, the sound effects and music were done by another guy at EA--and that
was about it. EA wanted us to port the game to the Amiga (computer system),
since sales were better in Europe on the Amiga, so I did that by myself in
another eight months for another $30,000 or so. The Amiga sales helped get
us to the break-even point."
IndyCar box art
Papyrus would not release another game until 1993, four years after Indy 500
first went to market. It was a generally prosperous but not an entirely
thrilling period for the young company. They were busy performing contract
programming and computer consulting work while piecing together the finances
and personnel for its next big project, a game that would eventually be
known as IndyCar Racing. It was also a time when Geoff Crammond made a
notable reappearance, unveiling (in 1992) one of the great auto racing sims
of the decade, the now-revered World Circuit: The Grand Prix Racing
Simulation. The stunning World Circuit quickly proved Papyrus was not alone
as a competent PC race sim builder. Keying on the rarified environment of
Formula 1, the game authentically covered the world of open-wheeled racing
as it was known throughout Europe and much of the world, and in virtually
every aspect it surpassed the now-antiquated Indy 500.
Though the official governing body of Formula 1 racing frowned on the use of
its name in something as trivial as a video game, World Circuit was clearly
F1 all the way--from its 16 real-world tracks to its stunning vehicle power
to weight ratios and its glorious scenery (particularly in locales such as
the upscale seaside resort principality of Monaco). The game was much
bigger, much more comprehensive, infinitely prettier and far more refined
than Papyrus' only product to date.
Says Kaemmer, "I remember when we were working on IndyCar, and we were all
proud of ourselves because we had real-time, perspective-correct texture
mapping, and we saw a demo of World Circuit, Geoff Crammond's original F1
game, and got very worried. He was doing texturing on the road surface,
which we were not--for frame rate purposes--and his game looked really good.
So we went ahead and textured the road surface, too, and it turned out the
frame rate hit wasn't as bad as we had thought."
IndyCar action
The encore to Indy 500 arrived, finally, one year after the Crammond
milestone. Still a DOS-based affair (Microsoft's Windows was now into
version 3.0, but it remained unfriendly to high-end gaming), and once again
rendered in what at the time was considered low resolution (blocky 320x200),
IndyCar nevertheless showed that Papyrus was in this racing thing for keeps.
For starters, it was an officially licensed product. While Kaemmer is the
first to admit that a license doesn't automatically make a good game great,
he does acknowledge an IndyCar game without an IndyCar license would have
been a far less effective and believable product. With the licensing in
place, Papyrus was able to use real track names and designs. It
strategically positioned authentic sponsor names and logos throughout the
courses and on each authentically rendered automobile, thereby exponentially
increasing the "wow" factor.
In IndyCar, published by Virgin rather than EA, Papyrus upped the stakes
considerably from Indy 500, delivering such notable perks as multiple
TV-type replays, a markedly enhanced garage and setup routine, and breakaway
parts that flew hither and thither following serious instances of contact.
Indeed, one of the "hidden" joys of any Papyrus game is reverse track
driving, wherein the player attempts to create the most cataclysmic head-on
multicar pileup. And certainly breakaway parts only added to the fun.
Nonetheless, Kaemmer remembers the potential victim count being quite a bit
higher in Indy 500, where "The strategy was to lie in wait on the front
straight, which was lined on both sides with a concrete barrier, and leave
no place for the hapless opponents to go. We would quite often get everyone
but four or five in one giant wreck. I may have gotten everyone once..."
The game shipped with eight tracks in total, and seven more in an add-on
expansion pack. The final piece of the puzzle--Indianapolis itself--was
added as a separate add-on pack after the proper licensing was secured.
IndyCar Racing would ultimately sell in the neighborhood of 300,000 units
worldwide, a definite step up from 1989's maiden effort and a real feather
in the cap. Still, it wasn't the earth-shattering total for which Papyrus
had wishfully longed. That pleasure would be reserved for the following
year, 1994, when Papyrus trumped just about everyone.
Stretching the Lead
When Papyrus made the jump from open-wheeled cars to closed cockpit,
closed-wheel "stock" cars, it did so with a bang that was felt throughout
the industry. In 1994, NASCAR Racing simply blew away the competition,
eventually selling in excess of 1,000,000 units and proving that perhaps
this ultrarealistic racing concept wasn't a niche market after all.
The original NASCAR Racing box
What made NASCAR Racing such a megahit? The subject matter, certainly. With
his latest entry in the simulation stakes, Papyrus tapped into an
unexpectedly huge and ardent NASCAR fan base. Who knew NASCAR was so
popular? Who knew that fans of the sport would also be so much more amenable
to playing a computer game than supporters of other brands of auto racing?
Who knew there was such interest in what some press pundits perceived to be
"boring" oval racing? Maybe Papyrus knew.
Still not taking advantage of primitive graphics acceleration (3D cards were
more a rumor than fact), NASCAR Racing nevertheless impressed with its
beauty. Though a low-resolution version was certainly available, which, at
320x200, matched the now seemingly chunky and heavily pixeled images of
IndyCar Racing, it was the high-resolution 640x480 version that really
turned heads. Suddenly, automobiles looked like automobiles rather than
rolling boxes. Players could actually discern sponsor logos and lettering
from a distance. At the time, this was nothing short of incredible,
particularly considering the game keyed on sophisticated physics modeling
that so heavily commandeered the power of the CPU.
In practice, NASCAR racing vehicles veritably lumbered in comparison to the
nimble, overpowered rockets of IndyCar. Clearly they were capable of some
very high speeds, but their acceleration was comparatively sluglike and
their cornering was, well...an adventure. But that was precisely the way it
was in the real world. And much like real-life NASCAR racing, there was
something oh so appealing about driving and watching cars that outwardly
looked like the family wagon but battled door-to-door at insane velocities.
In the pack
Much to its credit, NASCAR Racing also tapped deeply into the art of
drafting. In real racing, drivers often attempt to position their cars
directly behind the car in front of them, just inches off the rear bumper.
Here in this small pocket of dead air, they can actually back off the
accelerator a wee bit yet keep pace as the car in front essentially "drags"
them along. Accordingly, they're able to conserve fuel and place less stress
on mechanical parts. But there's one other great benefit to drafting. If you
time it just right, you can accelerate full bore into that dead air pocket,
then swing out at the last possible moment for a pass. If everything goes as
it should, you'll carry a few extra miles per hour--enough to complete a
successful pass. In NASCAR, where both the vehicles and the dead air pockets
behind them are so large, drafting plays a very important role indeed. For
that very reason, you'll usually see long "trains" of cars pulling each
other around the track. If a driver makes the mistake of falling out of that
train, there's a very good chance he won't be able to slot back in until he
has dropped to the end of it. In NASCAR Racing, Papyrus expertly modeled the
element of drafting, and in the process really added something to the
sport's virtual representation.
And then there was the sound. Never had a racing game sounded quite like
this. IndyCar had introduced the Doppler effect into PC racing, and that
trend would continue throughout each successive game. But here in NASCAR,
Doppler mixed with the expertly sampled and crafted low-pitched rumble of a
NASCAR engine and the haunting reverberation of an arsenal of motors winding
their way around the track. It was an awesome and somewhat eerie sonic
landscape.
Leading at Charlotte
Expert drivers and those willing to take the tremendous time and effort--and
it was taxing--to fully indoctrinate themselves into the Papyrus style,
drank in the NASCAR Racing challenge. Furthermore, rookies were once again
able to take advantage of a now-standard array of driver's aids such as
auto-braking and auto-shifting. However, like most Papyrus products, the
game did not feature a distinct "easy" mode. It was also rightfully hyped
for its challenge and authenticity, and therefore ignored by many new
drivers and those who preferred a less stressful "arcade"-type experience.
Still, sales figures for NASCAR Racing were impressive by any standard. With
over 1,000,000 units shipped worldwide, the game proved that Kaemmer's
philosophy had finally caught on in the mainstream. In fact, it may also
have single-handedly spurred the manufacture and sales of driving wheel and
pedal systems, which suddenly seemed to be popping out everywhere and often
prominently sported the "NASCAR" name or logo in its advertising. Though
many of the game's best drivers (and, if truth be told, most members of the
Papyrus development team) actually preferred the venerable combination of
joystick and keyboard, wheels and pedals looked cool and really added to the
sensation of piloting a real car. Whether Papyrus' incredibly complex
physics model actually responded better to a purpose-built driving system
better than it did to a tight, high-end stick is still a point of
contention.
Mechanical Dilemma
The only real downside to NASCAR Racing? Players absolutely needed the
latest and greatest computers in order to experience a definitive visual and
functional spectacle. Anything less than a top-of-the-line 486-66 processor
and the texture-mapped 640x480 high-res version of NASCAR would crawl,
particularly in instances of heavy traffic, or God forbid, a multiple car
pileup. Furthermore, the high-res version of the game shipped only on
compact disc, thus compelling race fans nationwide to purchase a newfangled
CD-ROM gadget if they wanted to see the game at its best. Indeed, many
critics and gamers took Papyrus to task for concocting a product that so
precariously rode the top of the technology wave and undoubtedly compelled
hundreds of PC owners countrywide to upgrade their machines.
IndyCar II box
Nevertheless, riding the monstrous critical and financial success of the
original NASCAR, Papyrus was now able to pump out its games at a faster clip
and call even more of its own shots. IndyCar Racing II arrived one year
later in 1995 and immediately proved that Papyrus wasn't going to rest
comfortably on its throne. With the IndyCar sequel, Kaemmer and his growing
team improved substantially on the first IndyCar and transferred much of
what it had learned from its first NASCAR effort to an open-wheeled format.
The game was definitely more difficult--and therefore rewarding--than the
original, with far more complex car models and a much greater sense of
danger.
In IndyCar II, Papyrus showed just how intricate and versatile its
open-wheeled games could be. No longer could drivers use the same approach
on Michigan as they did on Talladega, lest they experience one of a variety
of serious repercussions. Now, the degree of banking, or lack thereof, at
any given point on the track mightily impacted the handling. And if you
swung down low to the relatively empty and certainly flatter apron to enact
one of the carte blanche passing maneuvers that seemed so easy in the
original IndyCar, your car would likely react violently to the change in
orientation and careen back up to the wall or spin completely out. While
much of this new physics sophistication was already on display in NASCAR
Racing, IndyCar Racing II simply featured faster and more nimble cars and
was therefore a pure joy to drive.
A crowded field
Yet the game was greeted with less than fantastic sales figures (180,000
units to date). There were a couple of key reasons behind the disappointing
numbers. For starters, IndyCar II was once more plagued by the very same
game quality versus computer capability issue that beset NASCAR Racing, and
it is what would ultimately dog Papyrus through the next few years. Yet
again, Papyrus was riding that knife-edge of technology.
IndyCar Racing II landed at a time when computer speeds were escalating at a
sharp pace and just as the term "3D graphic acceleration" was beginning to
infiltrate the market. The 3D add-on cards were in those final months and
years of complete confusion before gaining acceptance and finding uniform
standards. In the end, Papyrus elected to support its publisher's own
Rendition 3D standard, knowing that few of its customers even owned the
necessary equipment to take advantage of it, but fully unaware that the
standard would be as short lived as it was. Moreover, the initial retail
release of IndyCar II sported no graphic acceleration support at all; that
support would come through a downloadable patch. Looking back, it's easy to
see why many of the Papyrus faithful were befuddled at the situation, as
they didn't really know whether or not they should spring for a 3D card.
Tons of cars on-screen
Kaemmer remembers the circumstances well. "I don't know if we were the first
[racing game to adopt 3D], but we certainly were out on the bleeding edge.
The Rendition card was our favorite in those days, since it had a 4-bit
texture format that worked perfectly for our racetrack environments. We
could have high-resolution textures with a fairly small amount of texture
RAM. It looked great, and was less filling. Everyone had their own API
(protocol for communicating with graphics hardware). The APIs were changing
all the time, and DirectX was nothing more than a promise."
However, once IndyCar II's "Rendition" patch was downloaded and installed on
a machine running a Rendition chipset-based graphics accelerator card, the
results were quite simply stunning. This was the first taste of accelerated
graphics many race fans had ever witnessed, and it was an impressive
spectacle. Suddenly, the pixel-strewn world of prior Papyrus games--even the
"high-resolution" 640x480 NASCAR Racing--seemed rudimentary in comparison.
Cars looked rounded and smooth, the track surfaces gritty but not blocky,
and the peripheral world (in particular the gorgeous sky and trackside
scenery of courses such as Elkhart Lake) rich and lustrous. Yet even if you
were lucky enough to have a Rendition card, an Internet connection to
download the patch, and a machine capable of running the game smoothly, only
a sprinkling of the courses were able to take advantage of the technology.
That would later change when the game was rereleased with complete Rendition
support more than a year later as "CART Racing." But more on that in a
moment.
Yet timing is often the most important element of all, and in many ways,
IndyCar II missed its mark. Kaemmer acknowledges that IndyCar II, unlike
earlier Papyrus games, didn't exactly strike when the iron was hot. "[The
original] IndyCar Racing was the natural follow-on to Indy 500, and as luck
would have it, we shipped it at the perfect time--Nigel Mansell, just
crowned World Driving Champion, had left Formula 1 to drive in Indy cars in
1993, so there was a lot of interest from around the world in Indy car
racing--and it sold pretty well, even overseas. But we followed it up with
NASCAR Racing, which sold several times as many units. Shortly thereafter,
the CART/IRL split occurred, which pretty well defused any growing interest
here or abroad (in what was formerly known as IndyCar)."
With comparatively sluggish IndyCar II sales figures and a slow
disintegration of the real-life league, Papyrus' new parent company, Sierra,
had little interest in revisiting this particular brand of auto racing in
the future. Thusly, IndyCar Racing II--renamed CART Racing after the
now-infamous CART/IRL disagreement--would be Papyrus' parting nod to
modern-day, open-wheeled automotive competition.
NASCAR Racing 2 followed in 1996. Riding the coattails of the original, it
sold quickly right out of the chute and continued racking up big numbers for
several years. Today it remains as the second highest-selling Papyrus game
of all time at 800,000 units worldwide.
NASCAR 2 was an upgraded sequel in every aspect but its physics engine. Yes,
there were modeling tweaks and new perks to better exemplify the power under
the hood and the subtle nuances of each track, but the nucleus of the
physics engine that had been so true to Papyrus for so long, remained
essentially unchanged. That didn't matter to the Papyrus masses, which
embraced such innovative amenities as completely redesigned interfaces,
upgraded garage facilities, and a talking crew chief/spotter. The latter in
particular was a wonderful idea that aided immeasurably during instances of
tight traffic. Papyrus even went so far as to add a substantially simplified
"arcade" mode, thus going against its previous philosophy of designing games
only for the hardcore simulation crowd.
NASCAR 2 added some polish to the series.
By now, Kaemmer's crew was a well-oiled machine. Rumors abounded that
real-life drivers used Papyrus products to brush up on their techniques for
tracks with which they were not overly familiar. To many virtual racers,
Papyrus had become the final word in realism.
In 1997, it released the NASCAR Grand National Series Expansion Pack, an
add-on for NASCAR Racing 2 that featured 10 new official tracks, two fantasy
courses, and several new drivers and cars, but no serious, anticipated
upgrades such as 3D acceleration support or pit crew animations. That was OK
with most Papyrus fans, as they rightly felt NASCAR 2 was already pretty
darn good. But some were now questioning just when the next big
technological quantum leap would occur.
They wouldn't wait long.
A Daring Move
Quietly, the rumor mill had been churning. Papyrus was allegedly hunkered
down, hard at work on a game that would change the way we all race. It was
purported to be a historical open-wheeled simulation, turning back the clock
to a time before advanced ground effects, when cars were positively
treacherous and drivers either heroic or flat-out crazy. If NASCAR Racing
had been a breakthrough, the word was the next game would be a revolution.
And it would have to be. Geoff Crammond's team had already released the
long-awaited sequel to 1992's superb World Circuit, Grand Prix II, which
quickly soared to the top of the charts in 1996 as perhaps the finest
open-wheeled sim ever devised. The game featured stupendous textured
graphics, the genre's first fully rendered rear mirror views, astoundingly
"human" artificial intelligence drivers, an excellent depiction of
wheelspin, and cars that could rise up into the air and flip upside down. It
looked and played wonderfully.
Even Microsoft jumped into the competition with 1997's overly ambitious CART
Precision Racing, a flawed and buggy, but promising title that in some ways
wasn't in the same league as the genre's heavy hitters; however, it sported
some likable elements and it did go to show how quickly the field was
opening up. As it turned out, CPR needed CPR and was ultimately a one-shot
deal. Not to be outdone, Ubisoft let loose with a volley of its own in
1998's F1 Racing Simulation, a game that didn't get nearly the attention
that it deserved on this side of the Atlantic.
One of the very first racing sims to fully support 3D graphic accelerator
cards, F1 Racing Simulation visually toyed with everything that had come
before. The environmental effects were particularly impressive, especially
the variable weather, animated clouds, and mesmerizing depiction of lens
flare. The car models were both accurate and responsive, and the AI was
plausibly reactive to given situations. Even by today's standards, the game
looked great and drove magnificently.
Grand Prix Legends box art
In the fall of 1998, Papyrus Design Group, through Sierra Sports, released
Grand Prix Legends, and armchair racers the world over awaited the critical
response. And soon it came. "Stunning," said one. "Amazing," said another.
"World Class" raved one headline, while another claimed, "A new era of
historical sports sims may be dawning."
And indeed, GPL may well have been Papyrus' finest hour. The experience of
driving a Grand Prix Legends car was unlike anything that had preceded it,
and for good reason. With its latest and arguably greatest game to date,
Dave Kaemmer, Randy Cassidy, et al., had completely scrapped the respected
but aging Papyrus physics engine and rebuilt it piece by piece, from the
virtual ground up. They coupled it with heretofore-unseen levels of AI,
intricate graphics, typically bloodcurdling Papyrus crash effects, and a
compelling sense of history that focused on a highly interesting era.
But it was that physics model, constructed not only to truly replicate the
four independent contact points of a real racecar, but also to demonstrate
the squirrelly handling characteristics of a too-fast-for-its-own-good,
mid-60s land rocket, which became the game's main claim to fame.
Essentially, Papyrus had removed whatever safety net existed in its prior
titles. Kaemmer himself said at the time that, "Driving a 1967 GP car is
more difficult than driving just about anything else, and the simulation is
more difficult than driving a real car...many people think that it feels
like driving on ice."
The TV style replays looked great.
One problem--the game was simply too difficult for the majority of players.
As much as Papyrus prided itself on building games appealing almost
exclusively to drivers willing to spend hours and days just learning how to
come to grips with a dazzling, but incredibly challenging, physics model, in
GPL it may have gone a bit too far.
One by one, each media review that bestowed GPL with its deserved accolades
and high score also lamented that only the supremely skilled could ever hope
to get a handle on the latest Papyrus beast. This alone was enough to
convince many would-be candidates that the newest Papyrus effort was simply
too tough. Worse still, the game once again floated just above the
technology of the day. Reports of incapacitating frame rates abounded. In
the end, the combination of treacherous gameplay, sometimes glacial frame
rates, and esoteric subject matter severely impacted the sales figures of a
product that was deserving of a better fate. Total sales to date are
200,000, though many of those came only after patches and user enhancements
helped make it more of a reasonable proposition.
Kaemmer explains, "We focused on the Rendition and 3Dfx chips for Grand Prix
Legends because they were the best at the time, along with a software
renderer, and shipped GPL at the absolute worst time possible for 3D
hardware support. All the drivers were buggy and our software renderer was
fairly slow, since we had moved to 16-bit color to best exploit the graphics
hardware. I'm pretty sure that no one who bought GPL was able to see the
hardware-accelerated version without first having to find and download new
video drivers. Maybe we were the first racing game producer to fall off the
3D bandwagon and break a leg."
Here's a crash waiting to happen.
"I think the main reasons that GPL didn't rack up big sales figures are that
it didn't run well on most buyers' machines (due to the 3D hardware
problem), it apparently wasn't a concept that got people excited, and it was
incredibly difficult to play, in that order. One of the engineers at
Papyrus, Grant Reeve, wrote a Direct3D renderer for GPL a couple of years
ago in his spare time, and quite a few people since have dusted off GPL and
discovered what a gem it still is with hardware-accelerated graphics. Word
of mouth counts for a lot in this business, and no one will recommend a game
to his friends if it doesn't run well on his machine. Unfortunately, the
second problem--people weren't jazzed by the concept--needed word of mouth
recommendations to overcome. Talk to anyone who has given GPL a fair chance
and they will praise it glowingly as being an experience quite beyond mere
gaming. It is auto racing, and auto racing is an incredibly exciting sport
for the participants, especially back in 1967. The spectators are seeing
just a small part of it."
"Unfortunately, we had to change the design of GPL in order to ship it on
time, and instead of starting in the equivalent of a Formula Ford,
graduating to Formula 2, and only then to a Formula 1 car, we allowed people
to jump right in to the F1 car with no training time. It was like putting a
novice skier at the top of an iced-over double black diamond and saying,
"Have fun!" Needless to say, many people didn't. My regrets are that we
didn't postpone shipping until the 3D hardware market settled down a bit and
until we had finished the experience ladder design, but I'm pleased that we
made it possible to drive on those classic racetracks in some beautiful and
exciting racecars."
Even menu screens had a lot of flair.
Nevertheless, Grand Prix Legends was--and quite likely still is--the
ultimate in extreme realism. Its fan base remains one of the most devoted of
any game from that era, and its long list of updates and patches have kept
it current with today's hottest hardware. Still, its comparatively and
unexpectedly poor showing did not sit well with Sierra, the company that
owned Papyrus and published its products. Kaemmer, an admittedly fanatical
realism devotee, remembers, "We had spent quite a bit of money on its
development and, of course, you'd like to make that money back. The
management hierarchy above us never really understood what we were trying to
do, and we didn't see eye to eye on the reasons for GPL's failure. Actually,
GPL went on to do fairly decently in Europe over the long run, so it really
wasn't all that bad, but the long run is a difficult view to take for a
public company and we had already been branded as 'a bunch of purists'--out
of step with the marketplace. After GPL, it was a real uphill battle even to
do a NASCAR game using the GPL simulation engine. Everyone was afraid that
if a five-year-old couldn't drive it, nobody would buy it."
Hence, the next three Papyrus products were not cut from the GPL cloth.
Seeing the light of day in 1998 was NASCAR Legends, a game most notable for
its take on a NASCAR era sandwiched between the grassroots "stock car"
stance of its formative years and the full-blown, purpose-built racecars of
today. It was a sport fueled by the muscle cars of pre-gas crisis Detroit
and filled with big names such as Richard Petty and Cale Yarborough. With a
whole flock of "new" antiques roaming the typical allotment of NASCAR
tracks, fans were somewhat satiated.
But when NASCAR Racing 1999 Edition materialized in 1999 and NASCAR Racing 3
appeared in 2000, the series clearly began to show its age. For those in the
know, it looked like a classic tug of war between publisher and developer.
On the Papyrus side was a team of designers certain they could successfully
moderate the undeniably impressive GPL engine to a huge, but now somewhat
disillusioned, NASCAR audience. They believed that a NASCAR game built on
that physics engine, but with various drivers' aids and other "dumbing down"
techniques, would appeal to a wide range of drivers. Meanwhile, Sierra
worried that instilling the hardcore realism of GPL into NASCAR would be an
undeniably erroneous move. The result was stagnation in the only operational
Papyrus series.
Victory Lane
Papyrus' impressive physics engine from GPL gave the NASCAR series a big
boost.
But with 2001's landmark NASCAR Racing 4, Papyrus was given the green light
to bring in its GPL engine. The tide would then change, and not a moment too
soon for those who had listened to rumors for three years about each new
NASCAR being a truly new and revamped NASCAR.
Kaemmer admits, "It was definitely a balancing act. What finally turned the
thinking around was that we got an internal demo going that showed what a
Winston Cup car would be like in the sim, and it was pretty cool and easier
to drive than GPL's F1 cars. The physics engine will do whatever the numbers
say should happen. We've actually done cars similar to modern F1 cars, which
are a handful but unbelievably quick, as well as 5000 hp Top Fuel dragsters,
which are absolutely insane. It turns out that 1967 Grand Prix cars were
very tricky to drive in real life--the drivers complained at the time that
they were too skittish and had too much power for their meager grip. The
designers were starting to look at four-wheel drive as a solution, and then
some genius realized he could stick downforce generating wings on the cars,
and things got much better. So we maybe blew it by choosing 1967 (for GPL).
I've always felt that the driver aids are an impediment to learning, which
is what a sim is all about. What we really should have been doing is putting
people in lower-powered cars. But to sell to the mass market, we needed the
brand recognition of the "Big Cars," so of course with no driver aids they
are tricky."
NASCAR 4 may have been the pinnacle of that series.
In NASCAR 4, Papyrus utilized everything it had learned previously and
injected it into a game focusing on North America's most popular racing
genre. To say it clicked is an understatement. NASCAR 4 cars sported active
four-way suspension that reacted both visually and practically to weight
transfers. The game featured source-sensitive lighting, real-time shadows,
and stunning collision effects that sometimes tossed vehicles into the air,
end over end. And because it took full advantage of 3D acceleration, the
pixeled appearance of prior NASCARs was gone and frame rate hassles were no
longer the issue they once were.
From a physics standpoint, NASCAR 4 confirmed that Papyrus could do
precisely what it said it could do with the GPL engine. To quote Kaemmer,
"It was definitely a vindication of the physics engine when Nascar 4 was so
well received." In simple terms, NASCAR 4 could be anything you wanted it to
be. Indeed, if all drivers' aids were used and alternate modes explored, it
was the most approachable NASCAR to date. But if you wanted to hike up the
difficulty and experience terrifying authenticity, you could do that too.
You could even race with 40 of your best friends or enemies via the
Internet, though the game's online frame rate proved to be erratic at best.
Spectacular and realistic crashes were possible.
NASCAR 4 also further blurred the line between virtual and actual racing.
"Real feedback started when we got Kevin Harvick and Dale Earnhardt, Jr. to
beta-test NASCAR 4," says Kaemmer. "They loved it right off the bat, and
were able to give us quite a bit of useful feedback about the feel of the
cars and the realism of the tracks. Kevin Harvick told us a story about the
first time he raced at Dover. He had never been to the track in real life,
but had been beta-testing NASCAR 4 for a couple of months and had driven
hundreds of laps around the virtual Dover. He said he hadn't driven more
than two laps around the real track before he had a huge wide grin behind
his helmet because he felt he just knew the track. It was as if he had been
there before. He then proceeded to put his car on a pole."
NASCAR Racing 2002 Season followed in 2002 and then came NASCAR Racing 2003
Season. Both featured several minor enhancements, the latter being
particularly noteworthy for its heightened difficulty and adaptive AI
drivers. Papyrus (and its loyal followers) knew going in that NASCAR 2003
would be the series' swan song, and neither could have asked for a finer
farewell. Certainly the game gave the good folks at Electronic Arts
something to mull over for its own NASCAR series, now in its fourth year and
striving to reach the same level of believability and authenticity.
Tons of tracks were available as well.
Looking back, Kaemmer is justifiably proud of the Papyrus' heritage and in
particular of sticking to his guns when things got tough. But how was it
that this comparatively small studio was able to stay at the forefront of
the realism curve for so many years, bowing only slightly when push came to
shove? "I think the fact that we started with Indy 500, which really put us
on the simulation path, had a lot to do with it. I ended up with a fanatical
devotion to realism, which rubbed off on quite a few of our employees
through the years. We never spent a lot of time thinking about what would
make a fun game--only what would make the experience more like driving a
real racecar. I think most of our competitors through the years were always
worried about how difficult it was, and would sacrifice the realism,
figuring that if it was difficult, it wasn't fun."
"To me, that's nonsense. How many people would play golf if it were a piece
of cake to hit par? It would be mini-golf. OK, maybe a lot of people would
play it, but they'd get bored pretty quickly, and they wouldn't spend much
time on it. How many people play a lot of mini-golf? Anything that is truly
fun in a lasting way in life takes time to learn--playing the piano, playing
baseball, sailing, you name it. People don't devote themselves to simple
things for long periods of time. Our software always seemed to be able to
hold people's interest for a long time, since it takes skill, and the
exercise of that skill is a tremendous rush, just like the real thing."
Post-Race Ruminations
And now, Papyrus is no more, along with Vivendi Universal components Sierra
and Impressions Games. Why? Clearly Vivendi felt it needed to undertake a
little general housecleaning. But in the specific case of Papyrus, there was
quite likely more to the story. Kaemmer has some strong feelings in this
regard. "I think there were a number of factors that led to Papyrus'
closure. Chief among them is that interest in simulations, a category
somewhat different than most games, hasn't grown at the same rate as
interest in games in general. Simulations are more difficult to market,
since the fundamental enjoyment you get out of them is learning a difficult
skill. People buying a toy--which is how people think of computer "games"--
apparently don't expect or want to master a difficult skill."
Dave Kaemmer at Watkins Glen with the checkered flag.
"The computer game business is really becoming a toy business, especially
with the popularity of console gaming. That's not the right market for a
simulation. To revisit the golf analogy, it's like trying to sell real golf
clubs at a mini-golf pavilion. Certainly you would sell some, but too many
of the people coming through to play mini-golf aren't interested in real
golf--it's too difficult and time consuming. That's what's happening to
simulations, I think. The game industry is saying, 'Look, people aren't
buying very many of these golf clubs--can we make a cheaper bag? Plastic
instead of leather? Can you make it easier to play golf? It's too hard, plus
people have to walk too far.'"
"The real problem is that we're reaching the wrong customers. If Papyrus
were to have dumbed down the experience in order to make a console game,
they would have had no competitive advantage. There are a zillion driving
"games" out there and many of them look really nice since the console
budgets allow for a lot of flash. But none of them are true driving
simulators, despite what they say. They don't need to be. They are being
sold by the licenses. What Papyrus did that really nobody else did was make
true simulations--you can really find out what racing is like with a Papyrus
simulation. If you can do well in GPL or NR2003, you know how to drive a car
at the limit."
Victory lane at Skip Barber Racing school.
"For auto racing simulations there has always been a disconnection between
the experience as a participant, which is what we were providing, and the
experience as a spectator, which is what has always been used to sell the
game. Auto racing is far more exciting for the participant than for the
spectator, but people who haven't participated in it don't realize that.
They are more interested in the soap opera that is professional racing, in
the personalities of the drivers, and the paint schemes on the cars. That's
why we've always had to rely on big licenses: NASCAR, IndyCar, F1, Porsche,
Ferrari, and so on. Unfortunately, those licenses are getting more and more
costly, and now it is absolutely necessary to be making console games to be
able to afford the licenses. EA bought an exclusive license to NASCAR on all
platforms, so they will be the sole NASCAR game producer for the next few
years. And now that VUG can no longer sell Papyrus' NASCAR simulations, they
decided to shutter Papyrus."
In fact, Kaemmer had already left the Papyrus stable before the doors had
officially closed, after it "became apparent that there would be nothing in
our future other than NASCAR sims." Although he maintains the NASCAR series
was not in itself a problem, he also says it represented a very small slice
of the overall racing experience--which was a much bigger pie that he wanted
to more fully explore.
And that's just what the future holds. Along with right-hand man Steve
Myers, Kaemmer has recently become associated with a very powerful ally:
John Henry, principal owner of his hometown Boston Red Sox. Henry himself is
a longtime ardent supporter and proponent of Papyrus, and together the two
have founded FIRST-Racing.net, LLC and acquired the rights to Papyrus'
simulation technology from Vivendi. The goal? To deliver an all-encompassing
racing experience that incorporates everything from real-world track
experience to online virtual competition.
"We actually see our new company as being in the racing and driving
business, more than the game business. We are putting together a global Web
site that will be a central place for anyone interested in racing and
driving--from beginners, who need some initial instruction in a racing
school, up to professional race drivers who would like the opportunity to
get track time at a low cost. In addition to providing a simulator and
training, we will be sanctioning online race series at all levels--from 140
hp Formula Fords up to 800 hp champ cars, with everything in between--and in
many types of cars, including formula, sports car, stock car, even off-road
cars. Racing is a very expensive sport, so not many people get a chance to
participate. We would like to change that, to allow more people to really
learn about racing and to experience some of the thrill. In addition, we
want to open up the data formats so that our members can build virtual
racecars of all types and tracks as well."
In the interim, the ex-boss of Papyrus has spent a good portion of the last
two years revitalizing and recuperating from a 17-year overextended work
schedule. He's also honed his real-life racing skills in the Skip Barber
Formula Dodge Series, where he has managed more than his fair share of wins.
It somehow doesn't seem surprising that Kaemmer has just recently built a
kit car--a Caterham Super Seven.
In 1987, the Berlin Wall stood tall, Homer Simpson was an unknown, and home
computers were quirky curiosities based on the even quirkier MS-DOS
operating system. Yet 1987 was also the year in which David Kaemmer began a
long multidecade journey that would shape and then reshape the virtual
racing world.
That journey has not ended.
TimW
I've been into the unit and done pots plenty of times. But for the
major upgrade, I'm just sending it back to the pro's once the season
winds down for the winter.
>Also, I checked out your site. Looks good, looks like a fair number of guys
>run there. Also seems you run concurrent to the schedules of NASCAR, so I
>don't have much chance at it for this year it seems. Lemme practice some
>over the "winter" and see if y'all will have any openings in February, after
>I've gotten back into the groove of the sim and the tracks again.
I haven't ran much lately myself. My pots are out of whack, and I just
haven't had the drive to send the unit off yet. I know once I box it
up and ship it off I'll get the urge to drive, and won't have anything
but my kid's Momo (how the hell do ppl drive with those).
TimW
Hammer
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
> I haven't ran much lately myself. My pots are out of whack, and I just
> haven't had the drive to send the unit off yet. I know once I box it
> up and ship it off I'll get the urge to drive, and won't have anything
> but my kid's Momo (how the hell do ppl drive with those).
Since you ask, I use a Momo. I've always liked the feel of the thicker and
smaller wheel, even on my large heavy late model mopar. I think the one
problem and reason I may have needed the low-speed steering boost aid for
pitting was the smaller wheel and shorter turning radius. I'll see if I
still need it, I haven't practiced without it since the beginning years ago.
Still, this wheel is 4 years old, never gets taken down & has a ton of use,
and works perfectly.
But what the hell are "pots" and what wheel is it exactly you guys are
raving about? Maybe I'll upgrade.
Hammer
"Hammer" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message news:...
I meant early model mopar.
I have another question. What's the difference with the BR tracks? Is that
the 3 wide AI enhancement and/or where the computer opponents run the high
line instead of always diving down?
Hammer
"Hammer" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message news:...
>
> "TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
> news:to2ui21hjavo7umfj...@4ax.com...
>> I haven't ran much lately myself. My pots are out of whack, and I just
>> haven't had the drive to send the unit off yet. I know once I box it
>> up and ship it off I'll get the urge to drive, and won't have anything
>> but my kid's Momo (how the hell do ppl drive with those).
>
> Since you ask, I use a Momo. I've always liked the feel of the thicker and
> smaller wheel, even on my large heavy late model mopar. I think the one
> problem and reason I may have needed the low-speed steering boost aid for
> pitting was the smaller wheel and shorter turning radius. I'll see if I
> still need it, I haven't practiced without it since the beginning years
> ago. Still, this wheel is 4 years old, never gets taken down & has a ton
> of use, and works perfectly.
>
> But what the hell are "pots" and what wheel is it exactly you guys are
> raving about? Maybe I'll upgrade.
[WARNING] ***Sim Talk***
I am such a 'tard sometimes. Didn't realize that low-speed steering aid was
affecting me entering/exiting the pits and on-track as well. The feel is so
much better with it off. I can be much more aggressive coming out of pit
road & onto the track and the set & bite in the corners easier to find.
DOH!!! I think I had trouble pitting in the beginning because back then my
linearity was set really low, now it's cake. Thanks for advising I dump it,
Sim.
BTW, Callaway is great! Can't believe I never drove these type short tracks
before. Had no idea they were so much fun and excellent practice/experience.
'preciate it. ;-)
SimRacer
Uhhh, scratch all that SimDriver. The Cat5 goes from pedal to USB box, then
that connects to both the wheel and computer. I agree, an internal "upgrade"
would be much cleaner. Mine works fine, but has more "outside the box" than
I had remembered from my last time with it.
I do have it setup so that it isn't that visible, and I can "just"
disconnect the wheel leaving everything else in place and out of the way,
but my description above from last night was WAY off base....LOL! I'll wait
until I'm looking at something before trying to describe it anymore. :-)
SimRacer
>
> "TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
> news:to2ui21hjavo7umfj...@4ax.com...
> > I haven't ran much lately myself. My pots are out of whack, and I just
> > haven't had the drive to send the unit off yet. I know once I box it
> > up and ship it off I'll get the urge to drive, and won't have anything
> > but my kid's Momo (how the hell do ppl drive with those).
>
> Since you ask, I use a Momo. I've always liked the feel of the thicker and
> smaller wheel, even on my large heavy late model mopar. I think the one
> problem and reason I may have needed the low-speed steering boost aid for
> pitting was the smaller wheel and shorter turning radius. I'll see if I
> still need it, I haven't practiced without it since the beginning years
ago.
> Still, this wheel is 4 years old, never gets taken down & has a ton of
use,
> and works perfectly.
Is that a force feedback wheel? A lot of us self-proclaimed purists just
don't like them. I have a Wingman Formula Force in the closet, used it about
6 months, and decided to spend the money on a Thomas. Personally, I don't
think that "today's" force feedback is "real" enough - or wasn't back when I
tried it. It felt awefully phoney to me. Much like that old sit-down arcade
game called "Hard Drivin'". Some guys love it, swear by it, wouldn't race
without it. I'm not one of those guys.
As for the actual steering wheel, I like the larger "actual size" wheel that
we get on the TSWs for stock car racing sims. If I were into F1 or other
pointy cars, maybe the smaller wheel would seem to fit the racing style a
little better, I dunno. It's alll personal preference honestly, drive what
you like is what I say. For me, I went from an ok driver, with the
occasional win and off and on top 5s to winning several league titles once I
switched to my non-FF Thomas Enterprises wheel. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe
not.
>
> But what the hell are "pots" and what wheel is it exactly you guys are
> raving about? Maybe I'll upgrade.
>
>
Potentiometers. They're the actual devices that rotate behind the wheel and
pedals that transpose your physical inputs into the electrical signals
required by the computer to know what you're doing with the wheel and
pedals, and sending those signals to the sim as steering, gas and brake
changes in real time. There is one "pot" for each input except gear changes
and clutch (IIRC), there's usually 3: steering, gas, and brake. They're a
consumable, in that they wear out over time since they're mechanical in
nature.
SimRacer
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
Yes, and apparently Dave's in-house upgrades are all put inside the box,
without the external box like I have. Mine works fine, great actually, but
is 3 pieces now instead of 2. I did enjoy ripping her apart, doing the
transplant, putting it all back together and seeing it work flawlessly again
tho. And I can rest easy knowing that I can replace the pots myself, and
them too still work great. That was my first time doing that alone...
As an aside, I see that the Thomas' have come out with their TSW3 line now.
Haven't seen what the big differences are yet, but will keep an eyeball on
them. You know us racers and our habit of using cubic dollar budgets to go
faster...lol Nah, my ugly old TSW2 is hanging in there just fine...
>
> >Also, I checked out your site. Looks good, looks like a fair number of
guys
> >run there. Also seems you run concurrent to the schedules of NASCAR, so I
> >don't have much chance at it for this year it seems. Lemme practice some
> >over the "winter" and see if y'all will have any openings in February,
after
> >I've gotten back into the groove of the sim and the tracks again.
>
> I haven't ran much lately myself. My pots are out of whack, and I just
> haven't had the drive to send the unit off yet. I know once I box it
> up and ship it off I'll get the urge to drive, and won't have anything
> but my kid's Momo (how the hell do ppl drive with those).
>
lol You got me man. As I said in a couple other replies, I have a LWFF
hibernating in a closet bottom around here somewhere. It was even one of the
lucky ones (didn't have a bent steering shaft from the factory) but I never
could get into using it. Didn't ever feel "right" in my hands, and to this
day I think it negatively affected my lap times and overall on-track
performance. The ONLY thing I dug about it was the paddle shifters, which
was trivial really and is why I didn't stick with it.
> TimW
>
> www.nasscar.com
Hammer
Yeah, it's a force feedback, although the only time you feel any real
vibration is on crashes. It has a good strong centering spring and 6 buttons
+ 2 side paddles & shifter, so it appealed to me when I was first looking
for a wheel. I've never bothered to really talk to anyone and get into it,
but I have come to wonder how important the right wheel might be. I've never
seen a real stock car use this small a wheel, but some seem to be slightly
thicker and more padded than others, so I still dunno the real differences
and exactly what effects they may have.
> As for the actual steering wheel, I like the larger "actual size" wheel
> that
> we get on the TSWs for stock car racing sims. If I were into F1 or other
> pointy cars, maybe the smaller wheel would seem to fit the racing style a
> little better, I dunno. It's alll personal preference honestly, drive what
> you like is what I say. For me, I went from an ok driver, with the
> occasional win and off and on top 5s to winning several league titles once
> I
> switched to my non-FF Thomas Enterprises wheel. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe
> not.
Interesting. I haven't shopped for one in quite some time, but I'll keep
that in mind. ;-)
>> But what the hell are "pots" and what wheel is it exactly you guys are
>> raving about? Maybe I'll upgrade.
>
> Potentiometers. They're the actual devices that rotate behind the wheel
> and
> pedals that transpose your physical inputs into the electrical signals
> required by the computer to know what you're doing with the wheel and
> pedals, and sending those signals to the sim as steering, gas and brake
> changes in real time. There is one "pot" for each input except gear
> changes
> and clutch (IIRC), there's usually 3: steering, gas, and brake. They're a
> consumable, in that they wear out over time since they're mechanical in
> nature.
Got'cha. I don't know what the hell this has, but mechanically it's held up
well with no upkeep. I do have to constantly check my USB connection and
pedal inputs because they don't always register correctly. Just have to
unplug the USB for a few seconds and then plug it in again and it's usually
good for a couple days.
BTW My apologies to you and SimDriver. I've gotten you two mixed up at
least a couple times because I wasn't paying close enough attention. If/when
you catch me doing that, just give me a good *thwack* across the side of the
head. ;-)
SimRacer
All the software and extra buttons and paddle shifters (ala F1 style) are
neat features of those wheels, I will concede. But the smoothness and
overall accuracy of my plain old non-FF wheel has made me a fan of that
style of wheel, likely forever.
"Real stock car wheels" are as personal a choice as are the seats and
helmets, etc. Typically though, I *think* they range from 13" to 15" in
diameter generally. And I've heard of drivers moving up and down in size
depending on the tracks they're at, at the time.
>
> > As for the actual steering wheel, I like the larger "actual size" wheel
> > that
> > we get on the TSWs for stock car racing sims. If I were into F1 or other
> > pointy cars, maybe the smaller wheel would seem to fit the racing style
a
> > little better, I dunno. It's alll personal preference honestly, drive
what
> > you like is what I say. For me, I went from an ok driver, with the
> > occasional win and off and on top 5s to winning several league titles
once
> > I
> > switched to my non-FF Thomas Enterprises wheel. Coincidence? Maybe.
Maybe
> > not.
>
> Interesting. I haven't shopped for one in quite some time, but I'll keep
> that in mind. ;-)
The larger diameter wheel just seems to fit my style and oval racing in
general, better to me than do those smaller F1/CART style wheels like the
Momos and Formula wheels from Logitech. Thomas "also" offers such wheels,
with real Momo steering wheels on-board too. The don't just cater to us
stock car oval types.
>
> >> But what the hell are "pots" and what wheel is it exactly you guys are
> >> raving about? Maybe I'll upgrade.
> >
> > Potentiometers. They're the actual devices that rotate behind the wheel
> > and
> > pedals that transpose your physical inputs into the electrical signals
> > required by the computer to know what you're doing with the wheel and
> > pedals, and sending those signals to the sim as steering, gas and brake
> > changes in real time. There is one "pot" for each input except gear
> > changes
> > and clutch (IIRC), there's usually 3: steering, gas, and brake. They're
a
> > consumable, in that they wear out over time since they're mechanical in
> > nature.
>
> Got'cha. I don't know what the hell this has, but mechanically it's held
up
> well with no upkeep. I do have to constantly check my USB connection and
> pedal inputs because they don't always register correctly. Just have to
> unplug the USB for a few seconds and then plug it in again and it's
usually
> good for a couple days.
Unless it is some new really high tech digital something or another, you
have "pots" in your stuff too. But you have to remember that hard core
simmers race once to many times a week, and practice many hours above that.
They will wear theirs out faster than the casual racer, who may never wear
his or hers out at all.
>
> BTW My apologies to you and SimDriver. I've gotten you two mixed up at
> least a couple times because I wasn't paying close enough attention.
If/when
> you catch me doing that, just give me a good *thwack* across the side of
the
> head. ;-)
>
NP. If SimDriver was a jerk (and is not as best I can tell) I'd worry about
it. Otherwise, I'm ok with it. If I see a reply to him that I think is for
me, I'll jump in. Besides, this time next year I may have morphed into my
2nd internet handle ever, something based on late model racing....lol. Maybe
even LateModelRacer. ;-) We'll see. I've been SimRacer for a while though,
at least 6 years going back to my time on RAS (rec.autos.simulaters) IIRC.
>
TimW
>
>"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
>news:to2ui21hjavo7umfj...@4ax.com...
>> I haven't ran much lately myself. My pots are out of whack, and I just
>> haven't had the drive to send the unit off yet. I know once I box it
>> up and ship it off I'll get the urge to drive, and won't have anything
>> but my kid's Momo (how the hell do ppl drive with those).
>
>Since you ask, I use a Momo. I've always liked the feel of the thicker and
>smaller wheel, even on my large heavy late model mopar. I think the one
>problem and reason I may have needed the low-speed steering boost aid for
>pitting was the smaller wheel and shorter turning radius. I'll see if I
>still need it, I haven't practiced without it since the beginning years ago.
>Still, this wheel is 4 years old, never gets taken down & has a ton of use,
>and works perfectly.
I need the larger wheel myself. It makes cornering so much easier IMO.
>But what the hell are "pots" and what wheel is it exactly you guys are
>raving about? Maybe I'll upgrade.
The "pots" we are referring to are potentiometers, and wheel is the
TSW2 made by Thomas Super Wheel (http://www.thomas-superwheel.com/).
It has a lifetime warranty, and beside the ECCI, is the best wheel on
the market. It's made of rugged, durable materials, and other than
pots, it'll last a good long time.
TimW
TimW
<nOspaM@simracer68@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Is that a force feedback wheel? A lot of us self-proclaimed purists just
>don't like them. I have a Wingman Formula Force in the closet, used it about
>6 months, and decided to spend the money on a Thomas. Personally, I don't
>think that "today's" force feedback is "real" enough - or wasn't back when I
>tried it. It felt awefully phoney to me. Much like that old sit-down arcade
>game called "Hard Drivin'". Some guys love it, swear by it, wouldn't race
>without it. I'm not one of those guys.
OMG.....Hard Drivin....did I dump some quarters into that game!! LOL!
You gotta admit, for an arcade game, that had a great physics engine.
TimW
Hammer
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
Thanks for the info. Looks like I may have found my next wheel. :)
TimW
The problem with Talladega and Daytona is the high line doesn't work
in the sim as it does in real life. Don't ask me how they did it, but
they modified the track so the high line has more grip, or the low
line has less. Anyway, it's an effort to even the 2 lanes out so in
the sim it isn't a follow the leader parade using only the low lane.
They also have versions out for other tracks. But the plate tracks are
the most popular.
TimW
Hammer
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
Yeah, I was downloading some last night but wasn't sure what to expect/look
for. Thanks for the explanation. I run high often, but the sim plate races
work easiest for me to run low AMAP and block (opponent strength at 95-97
%). That is until I noticed recently a 3 wide AI upgrade which I haven't
tried. I've assumed it also may do or have incorporated what you've
described above.
SimRacer
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
I do admit it, it was one of the first real-like driving games that got me
into simming later on. I've seen a few of those on eBay but was worried
about what the wife might say to having such a huge clump of stuff in a
corner (a lot of modern sim cockpits pale to its size IMO)...and also
worried that shipping may cost as much as the game...lol But it did have
what I would say is very similar force feedback in it that a lot of today's
FF wheels do. In that game, it was ok. But in a sim, where you've got to
fight it lap after lap from green to checkers? I'll pass. I'll take the
"perfect tension" found in a Thomas and live happily ever after.
I used to say when I'd see celeb's houses on Rich & Famous - where they had
arcade games and pinball machines in their homes - that I'd love to one day
have a Hard Drivin game in my own home. I may still, if there are any out
there sill working and reasonably priced...one day, maybe. lol Provided I
can rig it to work on slugs or just hit a reset button.
When was that a big arcade game, mid-late 80s? Had to be, I was married by
1990 and didn't frequent too many arcades after that. I bought a computer,
then later got a Thrustmaster wheel, and the rest as they say, is history.
> TimW
>
> www.nasscar.com
SimRacer
"TimW" <t...@NOSPAMnasscar.com> wrote in message
Beyond even that - tho all of the above is correct IMO - I only changed pots
since Thomas said those pots that originally came with the TSW2 Cup were not
the best suited to use with USB. That they were meant for game port
connections to computer. So I got the USB kit, replacement pots, and went
ahead and upgraded my pedal covers to sport pads, replacing the basic rubber
pads it came with. Outside of pots going bad, or one of the cats going mad
and chewing through a cable, I can't see ever wearing out the wheel. They're
built Chevy tough. LOL!
Tom Duwe
>
>
> Beyond even that - tho all of the above is correct IMO - I only changed pots
> since Thomas said those pots that originally came with the TSW2 Cup were not
> the best suited to use with USB. That they were meant for game port
> connections to computer. So I got the USB kit, replacement pots, and went
> ahead and upgraded my pedal covers to sport pads, replacing the basic rubber
> pads it came with. Outside of pots going bad, or one of the cats going mad
> and chewing through a cable, I can't see ever wearing out the wheel. They're
> built Chevy tough. LOL!
Pssssst, Sim...you got a half of a tennis ball under yer brake pedal??!!
;->
--
Tom in Bristol
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
TimW
It's a matter of personal preference. The FF is kinds neat if you're
playing a F1 sim or something. It's cool to feel the curbing as clip
them. But for me and the Nascar sim, it only slows me down. And being
fast is the name of game, right?
>I used to say when I'd see celeb's houses on Rich & Famous - where they had
>arcade games and pinball machines in their homes - that I'd love to one day
>have a Hard Drivin game in my own home. I may still, if there are any out
>there sill working and reasonably priced...one day, maybe. lol Provided I
>can rig it to work on slugs or just hit a reset button.
The rich and famous should have one of these for about 20 grand:
http://www.virtualgt.com/experience_vgt.html
>When was that a big arcade game, mid-late 80s? Had to be, I was married by
>1990 and didn't frequent too many arcades after that. I bought a computer,
>then later got a Thrustmaster wheel, and the rest as they say, is history.
I remember it being late 80's to early 90's as well. I remember a
couple kids walking up behind me when I playing it and asking if I was
a professional race driver. LOL! They must have been impressed the way
I was sawing the wheel and hanging the back end out in the turns.
TimW
SimRacer
"Tom Duwe" <tom...@bvunet.net> wrote in message
news:11610290...@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> "SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:YdPYg.8178$gL....@southeast.rr.com...
> >
> >
> > Beyond even that - tho all of the above is correct IMO - I only changed
pots
> > since Thomas said those pots that originally came with the TSW2 Cup were
not
> > the best suited to use with USB. That they were meant for game port
> > connections to computer. So I got the USB kit, replacement pots, and
went
> > ahead and upgraded my pedal covers to sport pads, replacing the basic
rubber
> > pads it came with. Outside of pots going bad, or one of the cats going
mad
> > and chewing through a cable, I can't see ever wearing out the wheel.
They're
> > built Chevy tough. LOL!
>
> Pssssst, Sim...you got a half of a tennis ball under yer brake pedal??!!
>
> ;->
lol Nope. I have what we used to call a "hackey sack" (sp?) under it. The
leather sort. Hasn't ruptured and works ok. I have heard of a lot of guys
that do that very half-tennis ball thing though, and swear by it. I tried
it, and it was a tad too stiff. The hack & sack thing gives just enough
resistence for my taste and was small enough to gerry-rig in there with
little fuss.