N4 with GPL phsyics?
GraDee
something.
The latest thing I've been hearing is that N will have GPL's physics engine,
or that it's physics will be based on GPL.
Now The original thing I heard was that it would have a game engine based on
GPL. I presumed that meant that how the gamE is structured would be based on
GPL. Thats fair enough.
But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the game engine
confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can't see
that working.
As I said, I'm not too up to date on NASCAR sims really but I was gonna
consider making N4 my first try at the series. This is sorta putting doubts
in my mind.
TIA!
TRUSRS85
The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine.
A CART sim would have been easier though. argh.
Alpha Omega
>The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine.
>A CART sim would have been easier though. argh.
I'm still surprised that Papyrus haven't continued with their CART
series and have instead chosen to focus on Nascar. Did they ever give
a reason for this?
I haven't seen a decent CART game in years. It's long overdue.
Alpha Omega
E-Mail: alpha...@dial.pipex.com
ICQ: 70300233
Dave Henrie
F1 cars of '67. The engine that allows all the different motions and
feedbacks and general overall feel of GPL will be modified to suit 3500
pound stock cars. Modern WC cars have quite a-bit of Aero-effects which
are lacking in GPL so that will have to be included. Basically what we
are getting...(HOPEFULLY!) is a sim that brings plenty of the REALISM of
GPL to the bullrings of Nascar. This does not mean we will have
fendered cars that swap ends with the touch of the brakes but a sim that
will model each wheel independantly, that tracks weight transfer etc.
All the things that make GPL so good and hopefully with the drivability
of modern racing cars.
dave henrie
GraDee wrote:
>
> Ok, so I'm not too up to date with the NASCAR series but I have to ask
> something.
>
> The latest thing I've been hearing is that N will have GPL's physics engine,
> or that it's physics will be based on GPL.
>
> Now The original thing I heard was that it would have a game engine based on
> GPL. I presumed that meant that how the gamE is structured would be based on
> GPL. Thats fair enough.
>
> But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the game engine
> confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can't see
> that working.
>
> As I said, I'm not too up to date on NASCAR sims really but I was gonna
> consider making N4 my first try at the series. This is sorta putting doubts
> in my mind.
>
> TIA!
ymenard
> But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the game
engine
> confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can't see
> that working.
The majority of us know about it since a long time ago. Which is why many
bitched about the exclusion of the new Papyrus game engine in N3. Almost
everybody understand that Papyrus is using the new game engine for their
next title. It doesn't mean at all "GPL with a roof". Those two type of
racecars are totally different and that's for good. It's how great the new
game engine is. It's still years ahead of everything else and Im sure
people here would want ANYTHING with the new game engine. Any type of
racing simulation. ANY!
As for the principal buyers of a Papyrus racing game (the mass market, as
some of us would say), they don't even know what is a game engine! :)
--
-- François Ménard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.WeRace.net
-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.
David L. Cook
"Dave Henrie" <hen...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38FB5B1D...@home.com...
Pete
menus very similiar to GPL in fact the setup options look very good.
The physics model is a toned down version of GPL although I declined
to try a beta version it appeared that they have made some improvements
in the physics but some of the old bugs are still here.
You can expect improved FF and it may be better than GPL's. I
just hope they take the graphics and physics up a notch or two in the final
release from what I have seen.
Pete
"GraDee" <gra...@esatclear.nospam.ie> wrote in message
news:8dfh57$ndo$1...@fraggle.esatclear.ie...
> Ok, so I'm not too up to date with the NASCAR series but I have to ask
> something.
>
> The latest thing I've been hearing is that N will have GPL's physics
engine,
> or that it's physics will be based on GPL.
>
> Now The original thing I heard was that it would have a game engine based
on
> GPL. I presumed that meant that how the gamE is structured would be based
on
> GPL. Thats fair enough.
>
> But I have to ask, are people just getting the whole idea of the game
engine
> confused or are they gonna use GPL physics as a base for N4? I can't see
> that working.
>
Martyn Danby
Md
Morgan VW©
does not mean or imply transferring GPL's physics over to stock cars. I think a
lot of people are confusing that for some reason. Sort of like id moving from
the old Doom engine to the newer Quake engine a few years ago.
--
-----------------------------------
Morgan Vincent Wooten
mailto:morg...@earthlink.net
http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/
-----------------------------------
Morgan VW©
Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance of a new
CART sim anytime soon.
--
-----------------------------------
Morgan Vincent Wooten
mailto:morg...@earthlink.net
http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/
-----------------------------------
Alpha Omega <alpha...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:smkmfsgb7lpe7ocnd...@4ax.com...
Tony Kelley
I would hope so since a Winston Cup car would handle nothing like a 67 GP
car
TK
Dave Henrie
Papyrus announces a new racing sim based on an advanced computer
model of car physics. In interviews, David K states:
(paraphrasing mode engaged)
We didn't program a series of fake events, like having the nose dip
for no other reason than the brake pedal is depressed. We programed it
so that when we enter the proper set of numbers the car is simulated in
100's of calculations. We could enter the numbers for your very own car
and if you drove it, it would feel like you were driving a street
sedan. Or we could put in the numbers for just about any kind of racing
car. So that we can use this basic engine for many different sims. You
just have to have the proper calculations for whatever vehicle you want
to simulate.
(paraphrazing mode off)
So kinda like SCGT, when you input the PROPER array of numbers, the
sim responds in very different ways. So a 1967 F1 car would not even
remotely respond and feel like a 2000 Winston Cup Car.
dave henrie
ymenard
> <<The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine>>
>
> I would hope so since a Winston Cup car would handle nothing like a 67 GP
> car
Looks like we have somebody who doesn't understand the concept of game
engines. You see Tony you are been misled with terms here... Game
developers have what we call "game engines". To make it short, it's the
main part of the game where everything else is attached to it. It is the
most important part of any type of games. Sound, gameplay, menus, AI, etc..
it's all far or closely related to the game engine.
For racing simulators, it is -the- essential point to create a successful
and serious racing simulator. Few companies have a quality game engine.
Some titles on the market have great ones, but fail to attach the correct
things to it (per example the 3d model structure for track accuracy, bad AI
or simply faulty physics). The opposite can be true, where everything else
attached is great but the core of the game is lacking. Note that Im talking
about racing simulators, and on purpose excluding arcade-type racing games.
It's a little different, since the external attachments are a little more
important, and the game engine a little less (even if still essential).
To get back to N4, Papyrus has with GPL created a completely new game
engine. Since IndyCar Racing 1 (Papyrus second title back in the early
90's) they have used the same core game engine that was patched with time.
Somehow for a very complicated reason (err... reasons) that would be too
long in this thread to talk about, they have never developed a new one until
GPL. It took to David Kaemmer's team many many years to develop it, and
they decided that the first racing simulation using it would be GPL. It
could had been any other title, but it was GPL, modeling cars that are
extremely difficult to drive.
In no way should you think or being thought that N4 will be "GPL with a
roof". People saying "it's an altered GPL engine" use misleading words.
The term "GPL engine" is simply to difference it to every other Papyrus
title on the market, since at the moment it's unique. Don't make any
relation between GPL the game and GPL the game engine. The game engine is
amazing and incredible (like the game also) and years ahead of anything
else. Of course it's been altered so that stockcars are modeled, but some
people misled and make people think that N4 will be an dumbed down game to
N3-quality, since GPL is very difficult to the mass market.
What they will do with N4 is to take the incredible "GPL" game engine and
model Stockcars inside the game engine instead of 1967 F1's. That's all.
Fear nothing. It will be more complex that's for sure, but it's not because
of GPL. It's because the game engine is the best on the market. I try on
r.a.s. to call the game engine the "new one" instead of "GPL engine" since
some confusion still exist it seems.
Tim Wheatley
can't we race at short beach?
nuzareth?
labuma sicka?
do we need all this?
can we not edit the name? edit the billboards?
for god sake it's the sim that counts, not the sticker saying 'cart' that
sticks on the box.
"Morgan VWŠ" <fu...@spamblokt.not> wrote in message
news:c2MK4.37638$y4.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Tim Wheatley
I would *hope* that if n4 is difficult, then papy release it difficult with
maybe a couple of training modes or some kind of physics help, but i
personally wouldn't mind it being tough, after all, gpl 'was' :o))
"ymenard" <yves....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:FqPK4.35937$2D6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Tim Wheatley
smelling bull excretion.
er... of course they will durrrrr! ;o)
"Martyn Danby" <0nce...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38FB74CB...@home.com...
> U DECLINED?!!!! WTF Y?
>
> Md
>
> Pete wrote:
> >
> > From what I have seen with the upcoming N4 release, they are using
> > menus very similiar to GPL in fact the setup options look very good.
> > The physics model is a toned down version of GPL although I declined
> > to try a beta version it appeared that they have made some improvements
> > in the physics but some of the old bugs are still here.
> > You can expect improved FF and it may be better than GPL's. I
> > just hope they take the graphics and physics up a notch or two in the
final
> > release from what I have seen.
> >
> > Pete
> >
Tony StewartNo20
>amazing and incredible (like the game also) and years ahead of anything
>else. Of course it's been altered so that stockcars are modeled, but some
>people misled and make people think that N4 will be an dumbed down game to
>N3-quality, since GPL is very difficult to the mass market.
We will never know why papy is so great.
:)
Skeeter
use their new physics engine for sometime to come.They said that to
model a different car all they would have to do is input all its
variables---grip of the tire compounds,vehicle weight,COG,wheel
base,track,roll bars,etc.Then you have to remember that they modeled
the suspension geometry of the GPL cars and will now have to add the
Nascar suspension geometry to the mix.Plus they are gonna add a much
more extensive aerodynamic model since thats alot of what Nascar is
about.
I believe that Nascar4 will be pretty easy to drive just due to the
fact that the oval I converted from N2 to GPL is easy as shit.GPL is a
bitch because of the tracks that are modeled.Since theres no"seat of
the pants feel" one has a hard time coping with the rear end kicking
out as the cars crest hills that turn and the like.What I would love
from papyrus is a better way of implementing the "feel" of the cars
and Im hoping that it can be done.I think that one way to give a
better sense of speed is to use a better wind noise so its more
noticeable.I recently downloaded Mauritz Lindquitzts(sorry:))
soundpack that has a transmission noise added with the wind noise.It
really does give a better sense of speed and I felt I had more
control.
I know with all my heart that the diehard Papy fans will scream"Papy
the Gods that they are did the best thats humanly possible so just
take it as it is"but after hearing it I wonder how much more can be
done with just sound.The edge of traction for the tires can be
improved immenslly I feel.I wanna know how hard I am using my tires
and the simple skid sound GPL has doesnt give me this feedback.
Later
ymenard
> I believe that Nascar4 will be pretty easy to drive just due to the
> fact that the oval I converted from N2 to GPL is easy as shit.
But you are comparing two totally different racing types. N4 will be as
hard to be the best as GPL is. It's so different that you can't simply say
something like that.
Of course in the nature of Stockcars compared to 1967 Formula One cars, it's
more easy to be fast. Note that if everybody becomes fast, then fast is
simply the "average". Online, everybody is much closer to others compared
to GPL (in terms of relative distance, which whatever it's a long or short
track doesn't make a difference). It's not hard to be fast. It's hard to
be consistently fast. To do laps within 1/10th of a second for ten laps in
a row. It's even harder to be consistently FASTER than others, since
everybody is near the same times.
The gap is simply shorter between the slowest and the fastest, but in no way
everybody will do hotlaps easily in N4. After all, if I check people who
both race GPL and N3, I don't see them leading all laps + getting the pole
in N3 (I included). So it's not easier to be the fastest, just easier to be
fast. The gap is smaller, and that creates close racing and more passing as
we all know. Oh and punting ;)
Nascar Racing 4 will probably make that gap a little bigger, since in the
nature of the new game engine by Papyrus the physics will be more realistic
to the true nature of racing a car.
Vintook
quite a bit. The first time I ran the converted Tally track in GPL the sense
of speed was tremendous! I could turn the sound all the way off and still
feel I was screaming at 200mph down the track. I don't really get that in N3
no matter what sounds I could add to it. N3 at tally is like driving on an
icerink, GPL at tally is how I would imagine it to really be, scary as hell
and a little bumpy. I can't wait to see N4 at Tally, it should blow me away!
Vintook
"Skeeter" <Da...@gilanet.com> wrote in message
news:38fbd39d...@news.gilanet.com...
> Yes,your post was the way I took it.Papyrus stated that they would
> use their new physics engine for sometime to come.They said that to
> model a different car all they would have to do is input all its
> variables---grip of the tire compounds,vehicle weight,COG,wheel
> base,track,roll bars,etc.Then you have to remember that they modeled
> the suspension geometry of the GPL cars and will now have to add the
> Nascar suspension geometry to the mix.Plus they are gonna add a much
> more extensive aerodynamic model since thats alot of what Nascar is
> about.
>
> I believe that Nascar4 will be pretty easy to drive just due to the
Skeeter
They could call it FART RACING:)
Seriuosly though I think that Papyrus should try marketing a some new
racing series
New tracks
Make believe drivers
New rules
Names like "Papyrus Openwheeled Racing Series"
"Papyrus Stock Car Championship Racing"
They should also concentrate on making the sims as super realistic as
possible as us nuts like it(and Papy for that matter)but not release
it with the total realism physics model.Sim installs with a fairly
realistic physics model but not the full realism setting.Then give a
check box to install full realism setting for true hardcore racing
experience.
johnjnelson
NASCAR hands out it's license right and left, so whenever you look around there's
a Nascar sim you can buy (Nascar 2,3, Nascar Revolution). CART, which is being
completely stomped by Nascar when it comes to TV ratings and popularity, makes it
difficult for sim makers to obtain a license, and thus makes impossible creation
of the Cart product we're most likely to buy.
Are the CART marketing people total morons or what?
Skeeter
wrote:
>"Skeeter" <Da...@gilanet.com> wrote
>> I believe that Nascar4 will be pretty easy to drive just due to the
>> fact that the oval I converted from N2 to GPL is easy as shit.
>
>
>But you are comparing two totally different racing types. N4 will be as
>hard to be the best as GPL is. It's so different that you can't simply say
>something like that.
One of the great reasons that papy sims are realistic to me is that
they allow ones true talent to shine.If GPL were easy to drive then
everyone would be lapping the same times but instead you practice for
a year and your still seconds off from the fast guys.You then wonder
to yourself why these guys are so fast and you realize that the same
things happens to real race car drivers.Schumacher seems seconds
faster then alot of the other F1 drivers.I totally agree with your
statement that it will still be hard to go extremely fast but N4 will
even out the times...hopefully.
>
>Of course in the nature of Stockcars compared to 1967 Formula One cars, it's
>more easy to be fast. Note that if everybody becomes fast, then fast is
>simply the "average". Online, everybody is much closer to others compared
>to GPL (in terms of relative distance, which whatever it's a long or short
>track doesn't make a difference). It's not hard to be fast. It's hard to
>be consistently fast. To do laps within 1/10th of a second for ten laps in
>a row. It's even harder to be consistently FASTER than others, since
>everybody is near the same times.
>
>The gap is simply shorter between the slowest and the fastest, but in no way
>everybody will do hotlaps easily in N4. After all, if I check people who
>both race GPL and N3, I don't see them leading all laps + getting the pole
>in N3 (I included). So it's not easier to be the fastest, just easier to be
>fast. The gap is smaller, and that creates close racing and more passing as
>we all know. Oh and punting ;)
>
>Nascar Racing 4 will probably make that gap a little bigger, since in the
>nature of the new game engine by Papyrus the physics will be more realistic
>to the true nature of racing a car.
Yes it will allow the people who enter turns correctly,use the least
amount of steering lock for the turns and know how to get the power
down to excell just that little bit faster and hence show there
skill:)
Stephen Ferguson
ymenard <yves....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:FqPK4.35937$2D6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Tony Kelley" <tke...@admiral.cc> wrote
> > <<The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine>>
> >
> > I would hope so since a Winston Cup car would handle nothing like a 67
GP
> > car
>
>
> Looks like we have somebody who doesn't understand the concept of game
> engines.
Patronising...
> What they will do with N4 is to take the incredible "GPL" game engine and
> model Stockcars inside the game engine instead of 1967 F1's. That's all.
> Fear nothing. It will be more complex that's for sure, but it's not
because
> of GPL. It's because the game engine is the best on the market. I try on
> r.a.s. to call the game engine the "new one" instead of "GPL engine" since
> some confusion still exist it seems.
>
>
And I suspect that Papyrus is tweaking the hell out of their "magic" GPL
engine. They are throwing in lookup tables, fudge factors, "oops, that
doesn't drive right" corrections. A rigid-body dynamics simulation is not
the be-all and end-all of capturing the behaviour of a racing car. Don't
believe the original hype that we heard when GPL was previewed, that the
core engine can model any car you can think of. GPL is a fine simulation,
and it amazes me that a 20 DOF model can run at 288Hz on a P166 (slash the
graphics and it will), but it is not without flaws. The rigid bodies are,
by their very nature, too rigid. Some crazy things happen at high yaw
angles. I think Tony is actually much closer to the truth than you give him
credit for; the "engine" needs an overhaul to be able to model the bahaviour
of a stock car, with big, gummy tires and truckloads of aero problems.
Stephen
Buck Futter
(probably correctly) that they can make more money churning out Nascar
sim after Nascar sim (or more accurately, releasing the same Nascar
sim over and over again).
Blight
Gregor Veble
>
> A rigid-body dynamics simulation is not
> the be-all and end-all of capturing the behaviour of a racing car.
True, the true cars do flex a little and this is a problem that race car
engineers try to minimize. The next generation of racing sims should
include body flex in order to increase realism, but since true racecars
are designed to have this all but excluded, adding this to a sim doesn't
bring as much as it complicates the description.
> Don't
> believe the original hype that we heard when GPL was previewed, that the
> core engine can model any car you can think of.
With some additions to it (like proper wing simulation, which is not all
that hard to add), it can, especially if you understand how it works.
> GPL is a fine simulation,
> and it amazes me that a 20 DOF model can run at 288Hz on a P166 (slash the
> graphics and it will), but it is not without flaws. The rigid bodies are,
> by their very nature, too rigid.
Agreed, see above.
> Some crazy things happen at high yaw
> angles.
I thought you made sense up to this very point. You seem to have a very
poor understanding of what a rigid body model means and what it can
describe. The fact is that only a true rigid body simulation can capture
the true behaviour of a car or any other rigid body at high pitch, yaw
and roll angles. See for example H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics
(Addison-Wesley) for a good description of what rigid body mechanics is.
> I think Tony is actually much closer to the truth than you give him
> credit for; the "engine" needs an overhaul to be able to model the bahaviour
> of a stock car, with big, gummy tires and truckloads of aero problems.
>
> Stephen
That's the difference. The engine does not need an overhaul (perhaps
only minor additions like the forces wings produce on the car (lift and
drag)), just the parameters and data that enter the simulation need to
be adjusted so that they match the real car (stickier tyres, more mass
and inertia, more drag and negative lift when making a transition from
GPL to Nascar, for example). That's also the beauty of a true physics
engine. The closer the weight, tyre and aerodynamics parameters are to a
real car the better the simulation will correspond to it. Any fudging
would only spoil this relationship.
To think of an analogy, for example you want to use your computer to
solve a problem, let's say invert a 6x6 matrix. Yes, computers can be
used for things other than games. You write a program (an 'engine') to
invert this matrix by using an algorithm that is used for general
matrices, only that you seet the parameter of the dimension of the
matrix to 6, problem solved.
It happens that after a while you need to invert some 20x20 matrices. Do
you write the program again? No, you just specify a different parameter
(20 for the dimension of the matrix) to the same program ('engine'),
problem solved again.
The sim engines are a bit more complex, but the principle still applies.
-Gregor
Stephen Ferguson
Gregor Veble <gregor...@uni-mb.si> wrote in message
news:38FC2416...@uni-mb.si...
> Stephen Ferguson wrote:
>
> > Don't
> > believe the original hype that we heard when GPL was previewed, that the
> > core engine can model any car you can think of.
>
> With some additions to it (like proper wing simulation, which is not all
> that hard to add), it can, especially if you understand how it works.
>
Depends on the level of realism. I should first say that I went to the
opposite extreme to ymenard in my response, only because we constantly hear
what a perfect simulation GPL is. Overall I am very impressed with GPL, but
I imagine a lot will have to be added to it to start modeling NASCAR or
CART. Many months ago the subject of aero came up, and some of us said it
would be perfectly adequate to have a simple lookup-table based aero model
that then applies the appropriate downforce and drag to the rigid connection
point where the wings meet the chassis. Others (the purists perhaps, or the
zealots) started huffing and puffing and claiming that nothing less than a
full CFD analysis (running in real time, on a PC!) would be worthy of
inclusion in the GPL model. Actually, you and I agree; I just found
ymenard's response to the other fellow a little patronising.
> > GPL is a fine simulation,
> > and it amazes me that a 20 DOF model can run at 288Hz on a P166 (slash
the
> > graphics and it will), but it is not without flaws. The rigid bodies
are,
> > by their very nature, too rigid.
>
> Agreed, see above.
>
> > Some crazy things happen at high yaw
> > angles.
>
> I thought you made sense up to this very point. You seem to have a very
> poor understanding of what a rigid body model means and what it can
> describe. The fact is that only a true rigid body simulation can capture
> the true behaviour of a car or any other rigid body at high pitch, yaw
> and roll angles. See for example H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics
> (Addison-Wesley) for a good description of what rigid body mechanics is.
Trust me, I have a decent understanding of it. I have dabbled with most of
the commercial rigid body packages, although most of my work now is modeling
the non-linear behaviour of human soft tissues. My point here was mostly
anecdotal, and based on observations of others (Richard Clegg perhaps) that
strange things start to happen when the car spins too far, which should not
happen with a properly functioning rigid body simulation. Of course you're
right that such a model is the best way to tackle the complex behaviour of a
car that is seriously out of shape. In the end, I think the conclusion was
that some of the goofy behaviour was due to graphics slowdown caused by all
that thick rubber smoke in the air. Again, just a little exaggeration on my
part.
> > I think Tony is actually much closer to the truth than you give him
> > credit for; the "engine" needs an overhaul to be able to model the
bahaviour
> > of a stock car, with big, gummy tires and truckloads of aero problems.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> That's the difference. The engine does not need an overhaul (perhaps
> only minor additions like the forces wings produce on the car (lift and
> drag)), just the parameters and data that enter the simulation need to
> be adjusted so that they match the real car (stickier tyres, more mass
> and inertia, more drag and negative lift when making a transition from
> GPL to Nascar, for example). That's also the beauty of a true physics
> engine. The closer the weight, tyre and aerodynamics parameters are to a
> real car the better the simulation will correspond to it. Any fudging
> would only spoil this relationship.
But I think alot of these parameters are indeed fudge factors, depending on
the level that they have gone with their aero and tire model, specifically.
Getting the basic rigid body physics right (so the car rotates if you blip
the throttle in mid-air) is pretty easy. Making a decent aero and tire
model is much more difficult, because these are non-linear phenomena, and
there are no "perfect" mathematical relationships to govern them. Aero and
tire behaviour will always contain a certain amount of empirical data, and
the flow over a more modern car shape (especially F1) is much more complex
to simulate than the flow over, say, a 1968 F1 car with rudimentary wings.
Likewise, the transitional behaviour of a modern slick is a much more
problem to model than the older tires. I equate the addition of empirical
data with adding a fudge factor. As soon as you have to add some sort of
rule based input, then you are "tuning" your simulation to produce something
resembling the real bahaviour, rather than relying solely on well-defined
mathematical relationships, such as the more basic rigid body motions of the
chassis, suspension, engine rotating mass etc. The aero model, for example,
might be defined by a set of drag and lift equations, but at the end of the
day it will need a lookup table for lift and drag coefficients based on
angle of attack and yaw at the least. Temperature? Humidity? Traffic?
More "fudge factors".
Stephen
Gregor Veble
>
>
> Depends on the level of realism. I should first say that I went to the
> opposite extreme to ymenard in my response, only because we constantly hear
> what a perfect simulation GPL is. Overall I am very impressed with GPL, but
> I imagine a lot will have to be added to it to start modeling NASCAR or
> CART. Many months ago the subject of aero came up, and some of us said it
> would be perfectly adequate to have a simple lookup-table based aero model
> that then applies the appropriate downforce and drag to the rigid connection
> point where the wings meet the chassis. Others (the purists perhaps, or the
> zealots) started huffing and puffing and claiming that nothing less than a
> full CFD analysis (running in real time, on a PC!) would be worthy of
> inclusion in the GPL model. Actually, you and I agree; I just found
> ymenard's response to the other fellow a little patronising.
>
Now I see your point more clearly. The people wanting a full CFD model
do not know what they are asking for. I agree with your approach to
aero, the full real time CFD model is far, far beyond the reach of the
top 1GHz home processors we use today, and the results of both
approaches would not be distinguished by us mere mortals, at least not
in the normal regimes which matter the most.
>
> Trust me, I have a decent understanding of it. I have dabbled with most of
> the commercial rigid body packages, although most of my work now is modeling
> the non-linear behaviour of human soft tissues. My point here was mostly
> anecdotal, and based on observations of others (Richard Clegg perhaps) that
> strange things start to happen when the car spins too far, which should not
> happen with a properly functioning rigid body simulation. Of course you're
> right that such a model is the best way to tackle the complex behaviour of a
> car that is seriously out of shape. In the end, I think the conclusion was
> that some of the goofy behaviour was due to graphics slowdown caused by all
> that thick rubber smoke in the air. Again, just a little exaggeration on my
> part.
>
First of all, this is not a problem of the rigid body dynamics
situation, but with modelling the forces on the tyres. Second of all, I
don't think it is wrong at all.
I think that what most people complained about was the fact that of you
went into a corner, developed a yaw and then tried to correct it by
dialing in some opposite lock, the spin would start to develop further.
If this is not what was the issue, then the following explanation can be
skipped.
This is actually the correct behaviour and is in some sense simmilar to
the post-stall regime and aileron reversal with aeroplanes. It happens
when the front tires are way past their optimal slip angles, and two
effects contribute to it.
The first is the fact that while in the regime of small slip angles the
lateral force increases with the slip angle, but after the optimal slip
angle is reached (where the lateral force is the highest) the lateral
force starts slightly decreasing with slip angle. Once you overcook it
you are by default in this second regime. You need to decrease the force
on the fronts in order to stop the spin. If you decrease the steering
lock (and hence the slip angle), the grip on the fronts does not
initially decrease but actually increase, because you are in this
'reversal' regime. Only after you reached below the optimal slip angle
by dialing in further opposite lock and actually found yourself back in
the normal regime (where the lateral force increases with the slip
angle) does the opposite lock start doing it purpose of actually
decreasing the lateral force on the fronts. Sometimes, there is simply
not sufficient opposite lock possible, and even when there is, the
transition time the front tyres spend in the regime of increased lateral
force before reaching the normal regime can produce enough momenum
impulse and hence yaw rate that the recovery is impossible.
The second effect to consider is more complicated and may actually
contribute more. Let us assume that most of the cornering force comes
from the outside wheels (this is true for the cars in GPL which have a
relatively high ceter of gravity). In order to stop a spin we need to
produce a torque on the car that opposes the direction of the spin. Let
us also assume that the lateral force on the tyre does not depend too
much upon its orientation, which is also true at high slip (yaw) angles
for the tyres of the time. These are all plausible simplifications and
may be argued, but it is easiest to show the idea with them. Anyone who
has ever worked in science will know this kind of approach.
Let us assume a right hand turn. With no lock the situation looking from
above on the front wheels looks like this:
Picture 1:
_ _
| | F | |
| |----> | |
|_| |_| ^
\ / \
\ / \
\ / \
\ / \ velocity vector
O c.g.
Let us consider this a balanced situation, so that the torques produced
by all wheels (including rears) are 0 and the car maintains a slip
(towards the up-left direction) if no steering corrections are applied.
The force on the outside wheel is for the sake of simplicity considered
negligible. Consider now the case when the driver tries to recover by
dialing some opposite lock:
Picture 2 (okay, so the lines are not perpendicular, imagine them to be)
:
^
F /
/\ /
\ \/
\ \
\/
\
\
\
O c.g.
As the force becomes closer to perpendicular to the vector between the
center of gravity (c.g.) while the magnitude of the force stays roughly
the same, the torque actually increases so the net torque of all tyres
is not 0 anymore but actually contributes to the direction of the spin.
Only if the magnitude of the force diminishes enough to cancel this
effect (the tyre gets back into the normal slip angle regime) does the
opposite lock help, otherwise it can actually cause harm and you would
be better of dialing in some further lock INTO the spin.
>
> But I think alot of these parameters are indeed fudge factors, depending on
> the level that they have gone with their aero and tire model, specifically.
> Getting the basic rigid body physics right (so the car rotates if you blip
> the throttle in mid-air) is pretty easy. Making a decent aero and tire
> model is much more difficult, because these are non-linear phenomena, and
> there are no "perfect" mathematical relationships to govern them. Aero and
> tire behaviour will always contain a certain amount of empirical data, and
> the flow over a more modern car shape (especially F1) is much more complex
> to simulate than the flow over, say, a 1968 F1 car with rudimentary wings.
> Likewise, the transitional behaviour of a modern slick is a much more
> problem to model than the older tires. I equate the addition of empirical
> data with adding a fudge factor. As soon as you have to add some sort of
> rule based input, then you are "tuning" your simulation to produce something
> resembling the real bahaviour, rather than relying solely on well-defined
> mathematical relationships, such as the more basic rigid body motions of the
> chassis, suspension, engine rotating mass etc. The aero model, for example,
> might be defined by a set of drag and lift equations, but at the end of the
> day it will need a lookup table for lift and drag coefficients based on
> angle of attack and yaw at the least. Temperature? Humidity? Traffic?
> More "fudge factors".
A physics model by any other name would still be a physics model. When
doing physics you always have to have in mind that what you are doing is
just an approximation, it can never be totally exact. The boundary
between exact and approximation can be hard to determine sometimes.
But there is a difference between fudging it and approximating
something. Approximating means deviating from reality for the sake of
simplicity, but at the same time knowing in what ways you are deviating
and therefore when the deviations will be noticable. Fudging it means
making something work without knowing how. There is a huge difference in
both approaches.
Tyre and aero model always involve a bit of fudging, true. But there are
a few properites that these models have to obbey so that they still at
least do not contradict reality, the main one being that the energy can
only be lost by the forces produced if no power is applied.
-Gregor
Mark Gums
Dave Henrie <hen...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38FBB342...@home.com...
> Lets go back a couple of years. The year is now 1998.
> Papyrus announces a new racing sim based on an advanced computer
> model of car physics. In interviews, David K states:
Ok, now, let's really go back to 1998.
Did anybody think to save all those screenshots
and the little trailer movie that Papy put out when they
had the GPL-engined Nascar '3' up and running?
I did. I will put it together into something web-based.
Yes, they HAVE had it in development that long. They
were originally shooting to make it N3, but, it had
way too steep system and operator requirements.
So instead they released what we have had as N3,
and put it on the back burner, continuing to tweak
it up till it's big showing at E3. That's why it's coming
out now; the systems have caught up, and I think,
they have made it a little easier for the operator.
Later. -Mark
EldredP
<Docj...@concentric.net> writes:
>Let's see if I've got this right.
>NASCAR hands out it's license right and left, so whenever you look around
>there's
>a Nascar sim you can buy (Nascar 2,3, Nascar Revolution). CART, which is
>being
>completely stomped by Nascar when it comes to TV ratings and popularity,
>makes it
>difficult for sim makers to obtain a license, and thus makes impossible
>creation
>of the Cart product we're most likely to buy.
>
>Are the CART marketing people total morons or what?
>
Yep, that sounds about right...<sigh>
Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Chris Bloom
sims are paying the electricity bill over at Papyrus these
days. I'm sure NASCAR 4 will have the accesibility of previous
NASCAR sims so not to scare away the masses, I'm also certain
that the Sim will be tougher and more realistic than any NASCAR
sim before it to keep the hardcore simmers happy.
I have no doubt Papy have learnt from GPL in this regard.
Chris
In article <kFPK4.14122$jk1.2...@nnrp4.clara.net>, "Tim
Wheatley" <honda...@SPAM.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>VERY well explained.
>
>I would *hope* that if n4 is difficult, then papy release it
difficult with
>maybe a couple of training modes or some kind of physics help,
but i
>personally wouldn't mind it being tough, after all,
gpl 'was' :o))
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Michael E. Carver
% Dave Matson (Papy "Project Director") said in The Pit Stop board over in the
% Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance of a new
% CART sim anytime soon.
They had one, but I think it expires this year. They sat on it and
didn't do anything. The profit wasn't there. I think they needed to
concentrate on NASCAR to recoup the revenue loss of GPL.
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
mca...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Michael E. Carver
% From what I have seen with the upcoming N4 release, they are using
% menus very similiar to GPL in fact the setup options look very good.
% The physics model is a toned down version of GPL although I declined
% to try a beta version it appeared that they have made some improvements
% in the physics but some of the old bugs are still here.
Are the physics really toned down? Or are they tuned to fit the
dynamics of a Winston Cup Car..... I would think the latter is more to
the point.
% You can expect improved FF and it may be better than GPL's. I
% just hope they take the graphics and physics up a notch or two in the final
% release from what I have seen.
GraDee
> sticks on the box.
Well to *us* thats true. We love our true sims and so on, we hear about them
for ages. As long as they don't encode it too heavily nobody has a problem.
The main matter is though that RS2 kinda bombed because it hadn't an FIA
licence.
It sold mostly to followers of F1RS and sim racers but to the average Joe.
When you see boxes lined up with the name "Official Formula 1 Simulator" by
Eidos or similar games, the yellow and blue boxed CD of RS2 paled in
comparison. WE all know which was the better but to people just looking in
the store and seeing both for the first time (which I bet a large percentage
of people do, which we often forget), OF1R just looked like the one to get.
Thats their problem I bet.
GraDee
I understand this, but lke I said, I don't kep too up to date with the
NASCAR (or Papy) series too much.
>Which is why many
> bitched about the exclusion of the new Papyrus game engine in N3. Almost
> everybody understand that Papyrus is using the new game engine for their
> next title. It doesn't mean at all "GPL with a roof". Those two type of
> racecars are totally different and that's for good. It's how great the
new
> game engine is. It's still years ahead of everything else and Im sure
> people here would want ANYTHING with the new game engine. Any type of
> racing simulation. ANY!
Thats fair enough. I think its jsut the basic thing to peole are geting
mixed up about what an engine is, which is what confsed me when I read all
the stuff. I was kinda led to believe that the phsics would be based on GPL.
While it would be great to get realism close to GPL, I don't know if having
the basic phsyics of a WC car, a 1967 GP car was the best of ideas.
Anyhoo....... As a short-time followr of the real-NASCARS (hey, have to
watch something, Eurpsport quit showing the CART races), do these lads race
totally on ovals?
Morgan VW©
license, but that they simply didn't have plans for a future CART sim. Maybe
they can get the license? Anyway, having no plans is worse than an inability to
get the license. It means they don't even care. With the competition from EA
Sports and now Hasbro, Sierra probably won't allow anything except constant
NASCAR. I'm a NASCAR fan myself, but even I'd like to see an updated CART or F1
sim.
--
-----------------------------------
Morgan Vincent Wooten
mailto:morg...@earthlink.net
http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/
-----------------------------------
Morgan VW© <fu...@spamblokt.not> wrote in message
news:c2MK4.37638$y4.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Dave Matson (Papy "Project Director") said in The Pit Stop board over in the
> Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance of a
new
> CART sim anytime soon.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Morgan Vincent Wooten
> mailto:morg...@earthlink.net
> http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/
> -----------------------------------
>
> Alpha Omega <alpha...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:smkmfsgb7lpe7ocnd...@4ax.com...
Morgan VW©
this stuff.
--
-----------------------------------
Morgan Vincent Wooten
mailto:morg...@earthlink.net
http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/
-----------------------------------
ymenard <yves....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:FqPK4.35937$2D6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Tony Kelley" <tke...@admiral.cc> wrote
> > <<The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine>>
> >
> > I would hope so since a Winston Cup car would handle nothing like a 67 GP
> > car
>
>
> Looks like we have somebody who doesn't understand the concept of game
> relation between GPL the game and GPL the game engine. The game engine is
> amazing and incredible (like the game also) and years ahead of anything
> else. Of course it's been altered so that stockcars are modeled, but some
> people misled and make people think that N4 will be an dumbed down game to
> N3-quality, since GPL is very difficult to the mass market.
>
> What they will do with N4 is to take the incredible "GPL" game engine and
> model Stockcars inside the game engine instead of 1967 F1's. That's all.
> Fear nothing. It will be more complex that's for sure, but it's not because
> of GPL. It's because the game engine is the best on the market. I try on
> r.a.s. to call the game engine the "new one" instead of "GPL engine" since
> some confusion still exist it seems.
>
>
>
>
ymenard
> From the articles posted in RAS I get the feeling that NASCAR
> sims are paying the electricity bill over at Papyrus these
> days. I'm sure NASCAR 4 will have the accesibility of previous
> NASCAR sims so not to scare away the masses, I'm also certain
> that the Sim will be tougher and more realistic than any NASCAR
> sim before it to keep the hardcore simmers happy.
Of course!! Look at how deep the gameplay is in the NASCAR series from
Papyrus. You have so many parameters you can adjust that in no-way will the
mass market for the title (the average gamer) feel it's too difficult like
GPL was. But of course, GPL was not market for those people.
Pete
had passed out to a few friends and I decided to pass on it. But
then again leaks used to be common hopefully they have listened
to my warnings. I have received a few emails from Papy people
but the arrogance some of them exibit makes me doubt it.
Pete
Matthew V. Jessick
Gregor Veble wrote:
> To think of an analogy, for example you want to use your computer to
> solve a problem, let's say invert a 6x6 matrix. Yes, computers can be
> used for things other than games. You write a program (an 'engine') to
> invert this matrix by using an algorithm that is used for general
> matrices, only that you seet the parameter of the dimension of the
> matrix to 6, problem solved.
It's good analogy, but a bad example ;)
By coincidence, I spent several hours this afternoon implementing
an algorithm to invert a 10x10 matrix for a game.
It was built for exactly the specific problem at hand, in order
to take advantage of all the zeros common in some of the
matrices of various of our equations of motion. Eventually, we will optimize it
much more by sucking the life out of every common factor we can find, ;)
and precalculating (or low rate recalculating) any parts for which that is
appropriate. It is specifically for use with one type of suspension that we
deal with. We will repeat this task for other suspension types later, as required.
>
> It happens that after a while you need to invert some 20x20 matrices. Do
> you write the program again? No, you just specify a different parameter
> (20 for the dimension of the matrix) to the same program ('engine'),
> problem solved again.
>
> The sim engines are a bit more complex, but the principle still applies.
>
This algorithm replaces a general routine that was used until it's
slowness got too annoying. This is the algorithmic equivalent
of designing an ASIC (Application Specifric Integrated Circuit)
Having said all that, I actually agree with the basic premise.
I was part of the team that revised a completely general
trajectory optimization program (OTIS 3) for new uses by NASA
a few years back. I'd love to use OTIS on race car simulations,
it would rock. It would be a fun challenge to implement everything in an
input file. It could _almost_ be done, I think ;)
As you suggested, we tended to use that tool for everything.
Once you have a general hammer, every problem starts
looking like a nail! ;) However, if I was using it day in and day out for a
particular problem, rather than staring at my screen for long periods of time,
I'd consider ripping out 100,000 lines of general code and specializing
the equations of motion for the particular problem
(the tool is designed to allow that.)
I'd advocate using general algorithms to save engineering time up front, and
specialized tools once you change over to turning the crank.
If the speed improvements are worth revalidating the specialized code.
And in games, they still often are.
--
Matthew V. Jessick Motorsims
mjes...@motorsims.com http://www.moto1.net
Vehicle Dynamics Engineer (972)910-8866, Fax: (972)910-8216
Pete
were complaining about problems with F12k, they are minor compared
to the early betas. How about 8fps on a 800mhz system! The later betas
were much better but now that they were drivable and had a ton of setup
options ala GPL they didn't exibit any huge improvement in physics. And
as I have stated some of the old "Papy" type setup bugs ie. springs set to
100% are still there! I'm sure that some things will be tweaked and worked
on from what I saw as the beta was from a few months ago.
It will be another evolution not revolution. There will be some new
quirks and surprises.
Pete
"Michael E. Carver" <mca...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Qi%K4.361$RQ1....@nntp3.onemain.com...
Matthew V. Jessick
Gregor Veble wrote:
> Now I see your point more clearly. The people wanting a full CFD model
> do not know what they are asking for. I agree with your approach to
> aero, the full real time CFD model is far, far beyond the reach of the
> top 1GHz home processors we use today, and the results of both
> approaches would not be distinguished by us mere mortals, at least not
> in the normal regimes which matter the most.
>
Definitly. In aerospace, the aero guys take the results of their CFD runs
and build us tables for use in real time and engineering analysis simulations.
We can't model all the detail they can, and the aero guys can't run exactly
all the test cases we want anyway. 10 other programs want their time and
their computers time. The guys over in the flight sim group have a real
phobia of "Tables". Which amuses me because the last airplane program
I worked on _added_ 400 more table look ups during the time I worked
with the simulation to model how the wings flapped ;)
We ran that sim in real time on a Power PC chip, BTW. ;)
The aero worked fine, but the brakes still locked up badly (wrongly)
on occasion, even at 1000 Hz. The sim ran twice as fast off the ground
as on the ground. (Cars are hard ;)
--
Matthew V. Jessick Motorsims
mjes...@motorsims.com http://www.motorsims.com
Gregor Veble
>
> By coincidence, I spent several hours this afternoon implementing
> an algorithm to invert a 10x10 matrix for a game.
> It was built for exactly the specific problem at hand, in order
> to take advantage of all the zeros common in some of the
> matrices of various of our equations of motion. Eventually, we will optimize it
> much more by sucking the life out of every common factor we can find, ;)
> and precalculating (or low rate recalculating) any parts for which that is
> appropriate. It is specifically for use with one type of suspension that we
> deal with. We will repeat this task for other suspension types later, as required.
>
I know the problem you are dealing with, I am trying to build a
realistic simulation of vehicles myself (but I am just starting). I just
wonder how on earth you got to a 10x10 matrix ;) ? I am implementing a
multiple link suspension, and the dimension is always 6x6 (the number of
degrees of freedom). Or are you actually going into modelling the
inertial properties of tyre (its mass and accelerations)? I thought of
doing it myself, but then realized that the time steps are so small that
when playing it would barely be noticable, but could cause stability
problems in calculations. I would like to hear more about your approach.
We can take this discussion to e-mail if you prefer.
>
> As you suggested, we tended to use that tool for everything.
> Once you have a general hammer, every problem starts
> looking like a nail! ;) However, if I was using it day in and day out for a
> particular problem, rather than staring at my screen for long periods of time,
> I'd consider ripping out 100,000 lines of general code and specializing
> the equations of motion for the particular problem
> (the tool is designed to allow that.)
>
> I'd advocate using general algorithms to save engineering time up front, and
> specialized tools once you change over to turning the crank.
> If the speed improvements are worth revalidating the specialized code.
> And in games, they still often are.
>
I agree. In games this is really an issue. Do you use old tested code
for the sake of stability and low cost of the program (not numerical
stability), or do you optimize every part to make it run fast but more
susceptible to bugs and running over the budget? It's hard to tell, but
at the times that favour fast development cycles, the first option seems
more appropriate, even though it has its downfalls.
-Gregor
P.S.: You have no idea what a drooling factor you started for me by
mentioning that you are using matrices for calculating the suspension (I
thik I know what this is about). Will this already be used in the
Trans-Am sim? I think you should start to create more hype about it with
the sim fans.
TRUSRS85
>Dave Matson (Papy "Project Director") said in The Pit Stop board over in the
>Sierra forums that they can't secure a CART license. Hence, no chance of a
>new
>CART sim anytime soon.
>
>
He never said anything about the CART liscence.
I check those boards every day for any news on a new CART sim.
Cliff Roman
TRUSRS85 <trus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000419133252...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
EldredP
<alpha...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>>The N4 engine will be based on a heavily altered GPL engine.
>>A CART sim would have been easier though. argh.
>
>I'm still surprised that Papyrus haven't continued with their CART
>series and have instead chosen to focus on Nascar. Did they ever give
>a reason for this?
$$$$$...
Nascar sells. Although I'd like a CART sim too, I can't say that I blame them.
Besides, the split between CART and the IRL turned MANY people off to indycar
racing...
Francois Dubuc
the US has to watch the CART races with a 1 hour delay while I'm
watching it live in Canada... Can't believe they sometimes
interrupted race coverage to show guess what... GOLF!!! That's too
much to take... If I was a US citizen, I'd move out to Canada... <G>
Frank
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 04:20:59 -0400, Buck Futter
<unho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Nascar is much more popular than CART in the US. I guess Papy reasons
>(probably correctly) that they can make more money churning out Nascar
>sim after Nascar sim (or more accurately, releasing the same Nascar
>sim over and over again).
>
>Blight
Francois Dubuc,
fdu...@hotmail.com
Simulator Cyberworld,
http://www.simracing.com/simcyberworld/
Francois Dubuc
CART nuts have left the company, and the people that remain are more
thrilled by NASCAR than anything else... Anyone else remembers
reading something like this?
Frank
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:00:03 GMT, "Morgan VW©" <fu...@spamblokt.not>
wrote:
>Dave emailed and pointed out that he never actually said they couldn't get the
>license, but that they simply didn't have plans for a future CART sim. Maybe
>they can get the license? Anyway, having no plans is worse than an inability to
>get the license. It means they don't even care. With the competition from EA
>Sports and now Hasbro, Sierra probably won't allow anything except constant
>NASCAR. I'm a NASCAR fan myself, but even I'd like to see an updated CART or F1
>sim.
Dave Henrie
Francois Dubuc wrote:
>
> I remember seeing a post from someone at papy stating that most of the
> CART nuts have left the company, and the people that remain are more
> thrilled by NASCAR than anything else... Anyone else remembers
> reading something like this?
>
> Frank
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:00:03 GMT, "Morgan VWŠ" <fu...@spamblokt.not>
lbaum
<38fe5708...@news.videotron.ca>:
>You're right about that... Can't believe my friend Brian who lives in
>the US has to watch the CART races with a 1 hour delay while I'm
>watching it live in Canada... Can't believe they sometimes
>interrupted race coverage to show guess what... GOLF!!! That's too
>much to take... If I was a US citizen, I'd move out to Canada... <G>
>
>Frank
Oooh, oooh, d'you know what else? Sometimes when they, you know, the US,
like when they show the Olympics, they actually interrupt their coverage to
show the Olympics! yeah. I mean like not often. But sometimes they do.
Really, I'm not kidding. I actually once saw a bobsled go down the track.
Well, like part of the way, before they went to commercial.... And oh! A
skier. Yeah. I once saw a skier on the screen. I did. Like for 15 seconds.
But he was there. And he was skiing. But I think he started trying to sell
me chapstick or something. so maybe it was just another commecial. but at
least he was skiing. like some sporting, you know? not some story of how
this 100th place downhill skier from the Congo stubbed his toe in the
second grade and got like inspired to do incredible things and how....
Of course we all know who to blame for this.... CANADA!
Yes, yes, you and your insidious alpha-gamma-delta-epsilon.... RAYS!
Aim them at us you do. But strong are we with the force. Mind what we have
learned. Pay you will soon!
Francois Dubuc
Ok I have to change my story here... the last CART race wasn't shown
live in Canada, only here in Quebec... Glad I'm not a Canadian
either!
Frank