Respect Sierra/Papyrus?!?
Frank Koenig
abandoning the GPL engine in this way, they have given up on advancing the
state of the art in sim racing. Even if they had put out a sim that was the
equal of GPL in terms of physics, graphics, etc., it would have been the
best ever implementation of REALISM in the Nascar world.
It was stated in an interview on AGN a few months back that the GPL engine
was written to be transferrable to any type of motor sim. When I heard that
I had hopes that there would be a bunch of racing titles by others that
perhaps would be based on the GPL engine. It could have been like the
Doom/Quake engine which was licensed to many other software firms and there
were a bunch of other implementations of the same first person shooter
technology.
But now that the authors of the engine themselves have been unable to make
it work for Nascar and are giving up, the hopes that EA or others with the
official licenses for their type of racing will use the excellent physics of
the GPL engine are gone. If the authors of the engine can't make it work,
nobody else is going to take a risk on the GPL licensing fees AND additional
R&D dollars to pick up where Papy left off and make it work. They'll just
take the easy way out and make an arcadish game.
By giving in to what appears to be pressure from Sierra, Papyrus has done
the greatest dis-service to the sim racing community. They have created the
perception that advancing the state of the art is commercially unfeasable.
Forevermore, GPL with its lackluster sales will be percieved by game
producers as a testament to what happens when you try to push the state of
the art in realism.
The last hope we who seek realism most of all have is Geoff Crammond and
GP3. At least he had the foresight years ago to retain the rights to GP2 so
that he and only he would make the decision as to when to release the game.
Do you think Geoff would have allowed Microprose or anyone else to have
forced him to release the game instead of spending six additional months on
perfecting crashes and spins? The game may not have had everything in it
that he would have liked, but at least he never compromised on something as
fundamental as the physics engine! So what if the hardware to run it at it's
full potential wasn't even on the drawing boards at the time of it's
release. It was VERY playable at its first release and it still was capable
of growing in graphic detail as the hardware grew more powerful. I hope that
GP3 will be a tremendous commercial sucess and that Geoff's business model
of retaining full control and being the sole judge of when a game is worthy
of release and what will go in it will be validated. If having to deal with
slipped dates is the tradeoff for this kind of dedication to quality
simulations, then I say its far better than what Papy/Sierra has done.
Respect Papyrus? After what they have done to the future of racing sims with
this abandonment of the GPL Engine in the face of its greatest opportunity
to show the world that the state of the art realism in GPL can be
commercially sucessful, I can only say thanks for nothing.
john moore
decisions of disconnected suits. I would love to hear the real deal from someone
at papy!
Is this decision a technical issue of not being able to use the GPL engine?
Will N2000 be as cutting edge as GPL?
If the answer to these is yes then we have nothing to worry about. On the other
hand if (imo) if they do not let the cat out of the bag soon they could be
considered to be hiding something, scary.
JM
David G Fisher
Frank Koenig <nospam...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:92691846...@news.remarQ.com...
>They have created the
> perception that advancing the state of the art is commercially unfeasable.
> Forevermore, GPL with its lackluster sales will be percieved by game
> producers as a testament to what happens when you try to push the state of
> the art in realism.
>
> The last hope we who seek realism most of all have is Geoff Crammond and
> GP3.
Not the last at all. Don't be surprised if Rally Championship is the best
sim to date, and sets new, very high, standards in many areas.
David G Fisher
Tel
wrote:
>You need to seperate Papyrus from Sierra. Papy cannot be held liable for the
>decisions of disconnected suits. I would love to hear the real deal from someone
>at papy!
You want to hear the real deal? It doesn't take a genious to figure
out that you can only produce anything as long as there's constant
flow of cash - to pay you, your co-workers, invest in
software/hardware etc.
To produce a title like GPL is certainly a honorable deed but alone it
also will never generate enough to keep the business running, much
less make any profit this way. Mind you, they are professionals who
wants to make those things for a living and not only to please a
handful of hardcore fans...
Therefore, as long as they don't have something ready that will really
sell, no matter how simple it is, we won't see any game using the GPL
engine and/or historical cars again...
--Tel
ymenard
> Not the last at all. Don't be surprised if Rally Championship is the best
> sim to date, and sets new, very high, standards in many areas.
But it's vaporware David. Cmon. The only thing we saw was a video that
didn't showed anything "incredible". No physic presentation, anything...
It's as vaporware as N3.
--
-- François Ménard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- May the Downforce be with you...
"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."
dolle...@my-dejanews.com
"Frank Koenig" <nospam...@lvcm.com> wrote:
> Are we to continue to respect Papyrus and Sierra when it is obvious
that by
the
> state of the art in sim racing. Even if they had put out a sim that
was the
> equal of GPL in terms of physics, graphics, etc., it would have been
the
> best ever implementation of REALISM
So after screwing the realism in Red Baron II Sierra are now going to
screw the racing sims as well........ that is indeed sad news.
Dolle Dolf
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Chris Schletter
based off the GPL engine is still live and well...perhaps that bodes well
for CART2/3/2000/whatever. :)
Frank Koenig <nospam...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:92691846...@news.remarQ.com...
> Are we to continue to respect Papyrus and Sierra when it is obvious that
by
> abandoning the GPL engine in this way, they have given up on advancing the
> state of the art in sim racing. Even if they had put out a sim that was
the
> equal of GPL in terms of physics, graphics, etc., it would have been the
> best ever implementation of REALISM in the Nascar world.
>
> It was stated in an interview on AGN a few months back that the GPL engine
> was written to be transferrable to any type of motor sim. When I heard
that
> I had hopes that there would be a bunch of racing titles by others that
> perhaps would be based on the GPL engine. It could have been like the
> Doom/Quake engine which was licensed to many other software firms and
there
> were a bunch of other implementations of the same first person shooter
> technology.
>
> But now that the authors of the engine themselves have been unable to make
> it work for Nascar and are giving up, the hopes that EA or others with the
> official licenses for their type of racing will use the excellent physics
of
> the GPL engine are gone. If the authors of the engine can't make it work,
> nobody else is going to take a risk on the GPL licensing fees AND
additional
> R&D dollars to pick up where Papy left off and make it work. They'll just
> take the easy way out and make an arcadish game.
>
> By giving in to what appears to be pressure from Sierra, Papyrus has done
> the greatest dis-service to the sim racing community. They have created
the
> perception that advancing the state of the art is commercially unfeasable.
> Forevermore, GPL with its lackluster sales will be percieved by game
> producers as a testament to what happens when you try to push the state of
> the art in realism.
>
> The last hope we who seek realism most of all have is Geoff Crammond and
Schlomo4
NASCAR fans will buy ANYTHING with the NASCAR logo on it. My experiance is
they dont really care what it is or who makes it or even (if its a game) how
hard it is to play. Ive actually heard alot of complaints from the non
simracing community (ie die hard NASCAR fans) that NasRev was totally un
realistic (though i can see why) and that they preferred the tougher but more
realistic N2/N99. I dont know if it will still hold true but if they dont know
how hard GPL is then they might not know how hard N3 with the same physics
would be. They will jst run out and buy it cause it says NASCAR on it.
Of course im kind of just speculating here. Nobody except Papy knows wht N3
will be like for sure. But i suppose this applys no matter what happens.
Nascar fans buy Nascar stuff...
Just had to get that out of my system.
Chris
Ian Greenwood
>
>You want to hear the real deal? It doesn't take a genious to figure
>out that you can only produce anything as long as there's constant
>flow of cash - to pay you, your co-workers, invest in
>software/hardware etc.
>To produce a title like GPL is certainly a honorable deed but alone it
>also will never generate enough to keep the business running, much
>less make any profit this way. Mind you, they are professionals who
>wants to make those things for a living and not only to please a
>handful of hardcore fans...
>Therefore, as long as they don't have something ready that will really
>sell, no matter how simple it is, we won't see any game using the GPL
>engine and/or historical cars again...
>
>--Tel
There again, Sierra/Papy have sunk a HUGE sum of money in the
development of the GPL engine these last few years. I am sure that
they (the suits) will want to see a further return from it, apart from
GPL. The sales of GPL have in general been disappointing in the UK as
far as i can gauge.
I hope that the marginal revenue accruing from sales of a 'proper'
Nascar sim will outweigh the marginal costs of tweaking/developing the
GPL engine for it (and that Sierra can see this and act accordingly).
It is not clear though if N3 will supersede or compete with N2000. If
it supersedes, surely the game engine can be dumbed down for a mass
market whilst retaining an 'ultimate challenge' mode.
Additionally, the 'realistic sim ' segment of the overall market for a
Nascar simulator although small, is undoubtedly important (not to
mention vocal), and carries with it a lot of prestige for any
publisher that leads it (as Papy currently does).
I waited for GPL for a long time, and was not disappointed with the
result. It was and is the biggest advancement in race sims since
GP1/World Circuit was in it's day all those years ago.
It has set the new standard, and I would be very loath to spend my
hard-earned on anything that does not now approach those standards
(and certainly not on an N2 hangover as N2000 seems to be)
Just my thoughts
Ian
Erik Frechette
and let us simmers have at barely keeping the car on the road. I love GPL
and will keep racing long after N2000 is on the store shelves. It's a shame
sim-racers do not appear to be as dedicated to realism as flight-sim jocks.
--
Erik Frechette
The Pits Performance Team
www.theuspits.com/owheel/gpl/gpl.html
gord...@hotmail.com
Te...@NOSPAMbigfoot.de (Tel) wrote:
> You want to hear the real deal? It doesn't take a genious to figure
> out that you can only produce anything as long as there's constant
> flow of cash - to pay you, your co-workers, invest in
> software/hardware etc.
You're right that it is a matter of economics. In fact, I wonder what
financial incentive there is for them to really work hard and release
the alleged "V1.1 patch". After all, GPL was pretty much bug-free for
the main features that it was supposed to support. Internet racing was
a last-minute add-on. I suspect that the large majority of people who
have bought GPL never race multiplayer and have never heard of VROC or
the RAS community. Where is Sierra's incentive? After all, nobody makes
any money off of VROC and other player-hosted Internet racing. Unless a
patch fixes a serious problem or adds features that will sell more
games, why should they do it?
On the other hand, someone might see a big market for multiplayer
racing that must be hosted by centralized servers that you have to pay
hourly rates to access. There are already some efforts along these
lines (the American Motorcyclist Assoc. is funding a company that's
developing a subscription-style motorcycle racing game), and we can
probably expect more. Will the sequel to GPL be a multiplayer game that
someone can make money from?
-- Doug Gordon
ymenard
> From what I've seen so far I think Francois may need some salt and
> pepper on those words in a few weeks, since Rally99 looks to be
> shaping up very well indeed. It all comes down to each person's
> definition of a sim and what you expect from it, but I doubt Rally99
> will disappoint overall.
Hey if it's realistic, well good for them and good for us. Im in need for a
serious and realistic Rally racing simulator. I would pay a hundred bucks
for such a thing. I also doubt that Rally 99 will dissapoint, even if it's
near the quality of CMR (I liked CMR for the pure fun of racing the stages,
even if unrealistically (sp?)).
No demo, movie not showing any physics, and PR stuff. It all looks great,
but I want to see how it performs before I spend my money. Because it's my
own money I worked for... I want to be informed. And I want a solid
multiplayer online racing, yes 1 after the other, with a delay of 30seconds
;) I want also to hit a tree _hard_ going at 45mph, and end my weekend.
> About time we had a good Rally sim. I seem to be alone in thinking
> Colin McRae rally was unentertaining pants, missing the challenges
> specific to rallying.
Well I agree with that, but it's still was a great step from the other rally
titles on the market.
Alison Hine
mca...@teleport.com wrote:
>Until of late we have been a rather small "gaming" consumer (race
>simheads). Now with the flood of "car" games and sims on the market, I
>think our ranks will swell. I don't think the flight sim junkies (err
>excuse me "jockies"), just grew up overnight.
I hope the racing sim ranks do swell!
>One other thing to consider.... the better the simulation the large the
>hardware demand. Until you get the critter hooked on the softer stuff,
>they won't be ready to spring for the hardware they need to feed their
>hardcore jones.
And just think about what it would take to run a GPL-based NASCAR sim
properly. It takes a 350 mhz machine or better and a state of the art
video card to run GPL well with all graphics on and a full field of 20
cars.
What would it take to run a full NASCAR field of 43 cars? A 700 mhz
machine? How many of us have a Pentium IX/700 lying around?
Maybe Papy and Sierra are doing the smart thing by pushing the GPL-based
NASCAR sim back awhile.
Alison
From: NOSPAMea...@maximumspeed.com
Reply-To: NOSPAMea...@maximumspeed.com
Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me.
http://eaglewoman.maximumspeed.com
Philster
>
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 00:45:57 GMT, "Michael E. Carver"
> mca...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> >Until of late we have been a rather small "gaming" consumer (race
> >simheads). Now with the flood of "car" games and sims on the market, I
> >think our ranks will swell. I don't think the flight sim junkies (err
> >excuse me "jockies"), just grew up overnight.
>
> I hope the racing sim ranks do swell!
>
> >One other thing to consider.... the better the simulation the large the
> >hardware demand. Until you get the critter hooked on the softer stuff,
> >they won't be ready to spring for the hardware they need to feed their
> >hardcore jones.
>
> And just think about what it would take to run a GPL-based NASCAR sim
> properly. It takes a 350 mhz machine or better and a state of the art
> video card to run GPL well with all graphics on and a full field of 20
> cars.
>
> What would it take to run a full NASCAR field of 43 cars? A 700 mhz
> machine? How many of us have a Pentium IX/700 lying around?
>
> Maybe Papy and Sierra are doing the smart thing by pushing the GPL-based
> NASCAR sim back awhile.
>
> Alison
>
Well said, Alison... We may be getting a better Nascar game in a year or
two. After all, they will have more time to work on it.
Philster
John Courtney
> machine? How many of us have a Pentium IX/700 lying around?
>
> Maybe Papy and Sierra are doing the smart thing by pushing the GPL-based
> NASCAR sim back awhile.
I feel better about the whole thing after reading the Operation Sports
article on Monday. The way I look at it now, we'll hopefully be getting
a fairly good NASCAR sim in the fall (that will hopefully run well on our
current systems) and if things go keep going "on track" we'll have a
great NASCAR sim in a couple of years. I wouldn't mind getting a good
CART sim too, CART has a great strategic element that I like, pit
strategy is extremely important just about every race.
Later,
John
'John' Joao Silva
You aren't alone on that opinion of CMR, it's just that there haven't been
any decent rally sims since Euroexpress' original Rally Championship, and
the bar for rally sims is so low (International Rally Champ, Sega Rally,
VRally etc) that rally sim fans jump on anything that is even close to decent,
I think this is what happened with CMR.
I don't mean to put down CMR too much, I had a good bit of fun with it, since
it was fun in its own arcadish way despite a weird physics model and short
stages, I'm just hoping that one of these days we will have a rally sim with
realistic physics that will raise the bar for this subgenre of racing sims,
hopefully Rally99 will set this standard the way GPL did for open-wheel sims
(and GP2 before it). We can only hope it lives up to the promises.
Seeyas on the track.
--John (Joao) Silva
In article <37424cba...@news.demon.co.uk>,
John Wallace <jo...@nospam.runrun.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>From what I've seen so far I think Francois may need some salt and
>pepper on those words in a few weeks, since Rally99 looks to be
>shaping up very well indeed. It all comes down to each person's
>definition of a sim and what you expect from it, but I doubt Rally99
>will disappoint overall.
>
>About time we had a good Rally sim. I seem to be alone in thinking
>Colin McRae rally was unentertaining pants, missing the challenges
>specific to rallying.
>
>Cheers!
>John
Michael E. Carver
% Amen brother! Give the arcaders their run-and-gun, never-brake excitement
% and let us simmers have at barely keeping the car on the road. I love GPL
% and will keep racing long after N2000 is on the store shelves. It's a shame
% sim-racers do not appear to be as dedicated to realism as flight-sim jocks.
Until of late we have been a rather small "gaming" consumer (race
simheads). Now with the flood of "car" games and sims on the market, I
think our ranks will swell. I don't think the flight sim junkies (err
excuse me "jockies"), just grew up overnight.
One other thing to consider.... the better the simulation the large the
hardware demand. Until you get the critter hooked on the softer stuff,
they won't be ready to spring for the hardware they need to feed their
hardcore jones.
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
mca...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Anssi Lehtinen
Te...@NOSPAMbigfoot.de (Tel) wrote:
> You want to hear the real deal? It doesn't take a genious to figure
> out that you can only produce anything as long as there's constant
> flow of cash - to pay you, your co-workers, invest in
> software/hardware etc.
> To produce a title like GPL is certainly a honorable deed but alone it
> also will never generate enough to keep the business running, much
> less make any profit this way. Mind you, they are professionals who
> wants to make those things for a living and not only to please a
> handful of hardcore fans...
All true.
> Therefore, as long as they don't have something ready that will really
> sell, no matter how simple it is, we won't see any game using the GPL
> engine and/or historical cars again...
What I fail to understand is why using the GPL engine would be detrimental
to sales. NASCAR (to the extent I played it) was by no means "easier"
because of its physics modeling, but because those cars _are_ easier to
drive than the ones in GPL.
I might pick up N3 when it comes out, but certainly not if it features
some dumbed down crap arcade modeling compared to GPL.
--
Anssi Lehtinen
David G Fisher
David G Fisher
ymenard <yves....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:UHP%2.10312$0L6....@news21.bellglobal.com...
John Wallace
<dd...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Just remember what I said. :-o
From what I've seen so far I think Francois may need some salt and
David Ewing
> My dream sim would be the GPL engine in a Prototype sim from the late 60's
> early 70's.... 917's, P3's etc. OR a Can-Am sim......
Mid to late 60's Can-Am sim (66 to 68 with Jim Hall and the Chaparral) would be
my dream sim. Unfortunately, this would be even a smaller niche market than
1967 F1.
Dave Ewing
David L. Cook
multiplayer for RC?
--D.Cook
David G Fisher wrote:
> Just remember what I said. :-o
>
> David G Fisher
>
> ymenard <yves....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:UHP%2.10312$0L6....@news21.bellglobal.com...
> > David G Fisher <dd...@prodigy.net> wrote
David G Fisher
coming weeks. There was a report at one of the Rally 99 sites that a demo
was to be available in time for E3 but it didn't happen. Hopefully soon.
David G Fisher
David L. Cook <dlc...@flexbon.com> wrote in message
news:3741A190...@flexbon.com...
Ronald Stoehr
snip
>
> And just think about what it would take to run a GPL-based NASCAR sim
> properly. It takes a 350 mhz machine or better and a state of the art
> video card to run GPL well with all graphics on and a full field of 20
> cars.
>
> machine? How many of us have a Pentium IX/700 lying around?
Remembering how long I ran N2 with only 4 cars visible ahead and 2 behind
me (before the Rendition card arrived), I'm not convinced completely that
performance is the real problem. If it's not the graphics (how much better
looking are the cars in N3 supposed to be?), would they really use the
100% physics calculations for all AI cars? It's not done in GPL, as you
can guess by looking at them sometimes slide around the track.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory, doesn't it?
<suit mode on>
"We can't scare the kids with those physics, but find a good reason for
those realism nuts at ras!"
<suit mode off>
l8er
ronny
--
How to get rid of censorship in German game releases
<http://www.gamesmania.com/german/maniac/freedom/freedom.htm>
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
David L. Cook
is in view while driving a Nascar simulation is the cockpit and that is
stationary. I think the hardware comment is just a story to buy more time so
Sierra can use the Papy crew to punch out another N2.
One thing is positive - At least we know we'll get FF and A3D when N3 is
finally released...
David L. Cook
Michael E. Carver
% I tend to agree with you here. Another thing to consider is that most of what
% is in view while driving a Nascar simulation is the cockpit and that is
% stationary. I think the hardware comment is just a story to buy more time so
% Sierra can use the Papy crew to punch out another N2.
Remember, even if you don't see the cars, they still require CPU cycles
to run their AI.
% Ronald Stoehr wrote:
% > Remembering how long I ran N2 with only 4 cars visible ahead and 2 behind
% > me (before the Rendition card arrived), I'm not convinced completely that
% > performance is the real problem. If it's not the graphics (how much better
% > looking are the cars in N3 supposed to be?), would they really use the
% > 100% physics calculations for all AI cars? It's not done in GPL, as you
% > can guess by looking at them sometimes slide around the track.
% >
% > Sounds like a conspiracy theory, doesn't it?
% >
% > <suit mode on>
% > "We can't scare the kids with those physics, but find a good reason for
% > those realism nuts at ras!"
% > <suit mode off>
Mark Gums
David L. Cook wrote in message <37432556...@flexbon.com>...
>I tend to agree with you here. Another thing to consider is that most of
what
>is in view while driving a Nascar simulation is the cockpit and that is
>stationary. I think the hardware comment is just a story to buy more time
so
>Sierra can use the Papy crew to punch out another N2.
Umm, I think you're close. The people at what's left of papyrus just can't
meet Sierra's we-got-to-get-it-out-NOW deadline, so, they're forced to do
something quick to meet the demands of the lame parent company.
Papyrus as some of us older crowd knew it disappeared when Sierra
bought them. The "papyrus" titles are the ONLY thing I've bought from that
lousy company in MANY years. And anybody who pre-orders from them
is a total fool. They always release to the stores first. Sierra has ALWAYS
been dollars first, quality second.
>One thing is positive - At least we know we'll get FF and A3D when N3 is
>finally released...
Umm. how 'bout IF? I'm not waiting on it so much anymore...
Later. -Mark Gums
Woodie 83
>I tend to agree with you here. Another thing to consider is that most of
>what
>is in view while driving a Nascar simulation is the cockpit and that is
>stationary. I think the hardware comment is just a story to buy more time so
>Sierra can use the Papy crew to punch out another N2.
I disagree, the hardware requirement sounds quite reasonable to me. As Alison
has already pointed out, it takes a PII 350 and SLI'ed V2s to run GPL at
reasonable graphics settings. The amount of AI cars makes a big difference.
Take the same physics engine and add in:
Aerodynamics calculations
More graphics on the cars
Twice the number of AI cars
Spotter speech
Heads up display
Pace car and Yellows
Force Feedback - probably the biggest hit
I'm willing to bet that a PIII 600 would need most of the graphics turned off
to run at 20 FPS. If they came out with that, everyone would be crying about
that. These guys just can't win. (In this forum, at least)
Don McCorkle
Libertarian Motorsports
Hena Hakkanen
John Courtney wrote in message ...
>> What would it take to run a full NASCAR field of 43 cars? A 700 mhz
>> machine? How many of us have a Pentium IX/700 lying around?
>>
>> NASCAR sim back awhile.
>
>I feel better about the whole thing after reading the Operation Sports
>article on Monday. The way I look at it now, we'll hopefully be getting
>a fairly good NASCAR sim in the fall (that will hopefully run well on our
>current systems) and if things go keep going "on track" we'll have a
>great NASCAR sim in a couple of years. I wouldn't mind getting a good
>CART sim too, CART has a great strategic element that I like, pit
>strategy is extremely important just about every race.
Yup. Now that they've decided to sit on N3, Papy should do a CART sim using
GPL engine. After all, fields in CART are much smaller than in nascar.
Just my $.02
Hena
Mike Buckley
<wood...@aol.com> writes
>I disagree, the hardware requirement sounds quite reasonable to me. As Alison
>has already pointed out, it takes a PII 350 and SLI'ed V2s to run GPL at
>reasonable graphics settings. The amount of AI cars makes a big difference.
>Take the same physics engine and add in:
>
>Aerodynamics calculations
>More graphics on the cars
>Twice the number of AI cars
>Spotter speech
>Heads up display
>Pace car and Yellows
>Force Feedback - probably the biggest hit
>
Um, interesting point on the FF there, wonder what effect the 1.1 GPL
patch will have on fps - anyone know?
--
Mike Buckley
Cotswold Pig Development Co Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)1472 371591 Fax: +44 (0)1472 371208
E-Mail: Mike.B...@cotspig.co.uk, miken...@toastyhamster.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.toastyhamster.freeserve.co.uk
EldredP
>>
>>Aerodynamics calculations
>>More graphics on the cars
>>Twice the number of AI cars
>>Spotter speech
>>Heads up display
>>Pace car and Yellows
>>Force Feedback - probably the biggest hit
>>
>
>Um, interesting point on the FF there, wonder what effect the 1.1 GPL
>patch will have on fps - anyone know?
>--
Don't care - I can't afford it... :)
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the cyber-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Pat Dotson
>
> Um, interesting point on the FF there, wonder what effect the 1.1 GPL
> patch will have on fps - anyone know?
My estimate is that it's about 5-10%. It's going
to depend on your system and what type of wheel
you have, though. I'm using a K6-2 333 and a Force RS.
--
Pat Dotson
IMPACT Motorsports
http://www.impactmotorsports.com/pd.html
Kirk Lane
That, and a $30 Rendition 4MB video card, GPL in 640X480 35+ fps 100% of the
time
--
Kirk Lane
sna...@geocities.com
ICQ: 28171652
Woodie 83 wrote in message <19990519231147...@ngol05.aol.com>...
>In article <37432556...@flexbon.com>,
>"David L. Cook" <dlc...@flexbon.com> writes:
>
>>I tend to agree with you here. Another thing to consider is that most of
>>what
>>is in view while driving a Nascar simulation is the cockpit and that is
>>stationary. I think the hardware comment is just a story to buy more time
so
>>Sierra can use the Papy crew to punch out another N2.
>
>I disagree, the hardware requirement sounds quite reasonable to me. As
Alison
>has already pointed out, it takes a PII 350 and SLI'ed V2s to run GPL at
>reasonable graphics settings. The amount of AI cars makes a big
difference.
>Take the same physics engine and add in:
>
>Aerodynamics calculations
>More graphics on the cars
>Twice the number of AI cars
>Spotter speech
>Heads up display
>Pace car and Yellows
>Force Feedback - probably the biggest hit
>
EldredP
>So after screwing the realism in Red Baron II Sierra are now going to
>screw the racing sims as well........ that is indeed sad news.
>
>Dolle Dolf
>>
>
How bad was RB II compared to RB I? Just curious...
David Karr
reason, no other):
Is that estimate (5-10%) up or down?
--David
Pat Dotson <pdo...@cwix.com> wrote in message
news:374460...@cwix.com...
Pat Dotson
>
> Um, a question from one who doesn't have FF, and deosn't plan to ($$$
> reason, no other):
>
> Is that estimate (5-10%) up or down?
Down of course.
Scott Velez
Of course, you CAN turn it off, if that 5-10% is a problem.
Scott
In article <7i3i81$grs$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, ds...@earthlink.net
says...
> Um, a question from one who doesn't have FF, and deosn't plan to ($$$
> reason, no other):
>
> Is that estimate (5-10%) up or down?
>
> --David
>
> Pat Dotson <pdo...@cwix.com> wrote in message
> news:374460...@cwix.com...
> > Mike Buckley wrote:
> > >
> > > Um, interesting point on the FF there, wonder what effect the 1.1 GPL
> > > patch will have on fps - anyone know?
> >
> > My estimate is that it's about 5-10%. It's going
> > to depend on your system and what type of wheel
> > you have, though. I'm using a K6-2 333 and a Force RS.
> >
dolle...@my-dejanews.com
eld...@aol.comSPAM-OFF (EldredP) wrote:
> In article <7hpdg5$jes$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dolle...@my-dejanews.com
writes:
>
> >So after screwing the realism in Red Baron II Sierra are now going to
> >screw the racing sims as well........ that is indeed sad news.
> >
> >Dolle Dolf
> >>
> >
>
> How bad was RB II compared to RB I? Just curious...
>
> __
already obsolete when it arrived, not a lot to set it apart from Wings
of Glory of late 1995. The problems with RBII/3d are with the flight
modelling. They were promising the "most realistic flight model ever"
blah di blah and the flight model was plain awful on release. It then
went through several rehashes, and was never fixed. Hackers have tried,
succesfully to a certain extent, to change the flight models. However
when certain deficiencies were corrected, most notably speed bleed in
turns (with the Sierra flight model you could turn and turn forever
without the plane losing speed or alt) the AI cannot fly the planes and
crash. The campaign is almost the same as the one in RBI. Unfortunately
RBII does not have a flight recorder. The saving grace of the game is
the plethora of third party patches, and the dynamic campaign, or more
precisely, a dynamic "little world" where other squadrons, friend and
foe, go about their business. It is kind of cool to send an extra
patrol out on a mission as a squadron commander, finish your own
mission and then go over to find that patrol still performing their
duties. The damage model after the latest patch was also excellent.
Historical inaccuracies have been corrected by third party patchers
(Sierra did a lousy job there, living aces were reported as dead,
victory tallies were wrong), plane colours have been corrected, there
are a few damage models to choose from, there is a "squadron manager"
which lets you type after combat reports and the like, and now there
are people improving the graphics. I have not tried those yet, as I
seriously overate on RBII/3d, and the original third party improvements
to the flight model were abolished as the AI cannot fly the patched FM
planes. What really pissed me off about RBII/3d is the Sierra
statements continually contradicting themselves. When it came out 3d
acceleration had already become the norm in games, but according to
Sierra the game engine was too old to be able to implement 3d
acceleration. Of course 6 months down the road (and 2 FM rehashes
later) and complaint after complaint the decision was made to give 3d
accelaration in a patch, and then Sierra went on thumping their chest
about giving the simmers a "free 3d patch". As multiplayer had been
screwed up with the initial release that was also in the "free patch"
so more self congratulatory shoulder patting. When it appeared that the
FM in that particular patch was as bad as it had been, and mmp was
still porked, another "free patch" was unleashed upon the simming
hordes, and more self-back patting from Sierra. Of course the icing
was the release of the 3d boxed version which was the same as the mmp
patched RBII. RBII owners could get that for free, with a refund upon
sending the RBII CD. I actually got my money 4 months later.
Dolle Dolf
>
> Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the cyber-sea...
> remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---