rec.autos.simulators

by **madd..** » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:49:09

Lest we forget that the programmers developing this stuff are not
necessarily the most 'l33t' code bandits on the planet. There's bound
to be bugs, unless someone decides to write the entire thing in
assembler with innumerable debug runs throughout the process. ::)

> Interesting suggestion...

> It would certainly go a long way to explain why the NH patch is
taking so
> long. But it is worrisome if this is best AI all those great and
> experienced brains at Papy and MGI can come up with.

> I fiddled with the AI a bit in NL (to improve the Daytona port). I
know it
> is very complicated.

> Marc.

> > I doubt it slipped through the cracks...

> > I think the real issue is that developers are having a hard time
> developing
> > AI for a detailed 3D simulation. GPL was good, but couldn't even
drive
> > ovals.

> > SCGT certainly had it's problems, and NH did as well.

> > I think there are some AI issues that need to be worked out, and we
will
> > continue to see this since it is proving difficult for the
programmers.
> You
> > guys act as if this is all really easy stuff, but AI can be very
> > complicated, so it's not a BUG I don't think, it's incomplete,
because it
> > had to ship someday.

> > > Any ideas how it (and problems at many other tracks) slipped
through the
> > > testing cracks?

> > > Marc.

> > > > It is a problem that is definately known about by Papy.

> > > > > The problems running a full field race at this track are so
> plentiful
> > > and
> > > > > absurd it's not even worth listing them here.

> > > > > My apologies to the NH crew. I said Papy would never release
a
> NASCAR
> > > > title
> > > > > with ludicrous, obviously untested or far from ready to
release AI.
> I
> > > was
> > > > > wrong.

> > > > > And Martinsville may be the worst example (I don't know as I
have
> only
> > > > tried
> > > > > a few tracks), but I haven't seen any track yet that has
> > release-quality
> > > > AI.

> > > > > Marc.

> > > > > --

************************************************************************
****

> > > > > Marc Collins

> > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> > > > > to take effect. Reboot now?

************************************************************************
****

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Jag** » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:08:37

On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:55:02 -0600, "Cliff Roman"

Well, if MGI would get the Heat patch out it might just be the best
around. I ran N4 and Heat back to back and I like the look and feel of
Heat better. Just my opinion.
--
Jagg

by **Brad Coo** » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:11:08

Let me get this straight.....This newsgroup should be just for praising
N4? Ok then , all complaints about poor AI, restriced Drivers view , slow
frame rates and copy protection that makes it hard to run on more than just
a few systems should be directed at Papy.If that is the case, you should
rename this group "rec.praiseonly.N4"
I don't see where Mark is constantly bashing N4 , in fact all of his
previous posts have talked about flaws of NH. I think he has hit it square
on the nose. Both of these titles have problems. It just seems some people
find it impossible to believe that Papy could ever not be top dog in
simulators. Seems that MGI and Papy both have good simulators. Getting
anyone to agree with that is the problem.

Brad Coon

by **Marc Collin** » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:59:07

Exactly--I don't remember any such problems with GPL out of the box. That
was the most impressive piece of testing and "finishdness" I can remember.
Lots has been added and improved since, but it did what said it would do on
the outside of the box back in '98.

Marc.

> > I am just a bit shocked that Papy would release something this "early"
in
> the
> > development process.

> Where do you see such "early" things in Nascar Racing 4? It's probably
the
> MOST completed software I have ever seen. The amount of gameplay and
> features is amazingly high. But hey, any software will have it's small
> problems and N4 isn't an exception. I don't know why you are shocked,
> Papyrus isn't God-like and everybody accepts some problems with shipping
> software. Like any other developer in the industry. Just remember GPL,
N1,
> Icr2,N2,N3 out of the box.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- May the Downforce be with you...
> -- http://www.ymenard.com/
> -- People think it must be fun to be a genius, but they don't realise how
> hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

by **Marc Collin** » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:59:08

The AI act like no one else is on the track during practise at EVERY track
on my copy of N4. As soon as a cautionary incident occurs, however minor,
you end up with a catastrophe of the entire field in a huge pile (OK, that's
a little exaggerated, but it's close to that). Yours doesn't do this?

Marc.

> > Any ideas how it (and problems at many other tracks) slipped through the
> > testing cracks?

> There isn't any major AI problems at other tracks, just at Martinsville.
As
> I would say, "shit happens". The fact that the AI is the most advanced in
> any racing sim _ever_ is enough to compensate the AI problem at
> Martinsville.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- May the Downforce be with you...
> -- http://www.ymenard.com/
> -- People think it must be fun to be a genius, but they don't realise how
> hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

by **Marc Collin** » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:59:47

Why?

Marc.

> > I did not believe I would see the day that something
> > this rough would come from Papy.

> Well you have a short memory.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- May the Downforce be with you...
> -- http://www.ymenard.com/
> -- People think it must be fun to be a genius, but they don't realise how
> hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

by **Marc Collin** » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:03:19

Thanks for having a brain, Brad. I like both HN and N4 generally. My
biggest problem with NH was that it was obviously released far before its
time. The basic guts of it are pretty impressive. Unfortunately,
remembering GPL, I blabbered my head off about how Papy would never release
N4 in a state that you couldn't have a simple race at a track without being
treated like a pinball. Hopefully it is just Martinsville and some switch
they forgot to put on during practise mode, but even still--how did that get
past basic testing?

Marc.

> > How many negative posts about N4 does this make Mark? Are you on a
> mission?
> > Notify Papy about the problems or don't bother with the sim and go back
to
> > playing Heat.

> Let me get this straight.....This newsgroup should be just for
praising
> N4? Ok then , all complaints about poor AI, restriced Drivers view , slow
> frame rates and copy protection that makes it hard to run on more than
just
> a few systems should be directed at Papy.If that is the case, you should
> rename this group "rec.praiseonly.N4"
> I don't see where Mark is constantly bashing N4 , in fact all of his
> previous posts have talked about flaws of NH. I think he has hit it square
> on the nose. Both of these titles have problems. It just seems some people
> find it impossible to believe that Papy could ever not be top dog in
> simulators. Seems that MGI and Papy both have good simulators. Getting
> anyone to agree with that is the problem.

> Brad Coon

by **Cliff Roma** » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:31:25

Driver Restricted View? The***pit View is realistic, if you do not want
to use it, they added in other views that you can use.

How can you complain about a view when the game company added it in because
it is realistic?

I can see your game review now..
"Even though there are many views in N4, I am going to mark them down
because they also added in a realistic view. I know that I do not have to
use it, but just it being there is worth a mark down in points."

> > How many negative posts about N4 does this make Mark? Are you on a
> mission?
> > Notify Papy about the problems or don't bother with the sim and go back
to
> > playing Heat.

> Let me get this straight.....This newsgroup should be just for
praising
> N4? Ok then , all complaints about poor AI, restriced Drivers view , slow

by **Marc Collin** » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:11:19

The point that several of us are making isn't that complicated, Cliff. Even
though the view on your screen in***pit view may be exactly what you would
see sitting in a WC car parked at the track, it doesn't translate to the
best view to use in a computer simulation. Try steering around cars in the
pits on a curved pit lane...I don't want to drive like an *** ploughing
into other cars on pit lane because I can't tilt my head a few degrees to
look around the A pillar. Having an option to turn my head almost 90
degrees--and only that amount--is a bit helpful, but is very disorienting if
you are turning at the same time. That is not realistic. No WC driver has
that situation in the real car in the real race. Interestingly, we don't
have to either. By the way, you won't find a bigger proponent of in-car
***pit view sim. racing than me. I have never used anything but. It
doesn't mean what we have in N4 is safe (for clean racing), useful, or
optimal.

Marc.

> Driver Restricted View? The***pit View is realistic, if you do not want
> to use it, they added in other views that you can use.

> How can you complain about a view when the game company added it in
because
> it is realistic?

> I can see your game review now..
> "Even though there are many views in N4, I am going to mark them down
> because they also added in a realistic view. I know that I do not have to
> use it, but just it being there is worth a mark down in points."

> > > How many negative posts about N4 does this make Mark? Are you on a
> > mission?
> > > Notify Papy about the problems or don't bother with the sim and go
back
> to
> > > playing Heat.

> > Let me get this straight.....This newsgroup should be just for
> praising
> > N4? Ok then , all complaints about poor AI, restriced Drivers view ,
slow

by **Kyle Langsto** » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 05:24:05

I guess that may be a problem for some people, I but haven't raced the

AI since the NROS was launched and I don't have any plans to race the
AI in the future. I'm strictly into the multiplayer racing. No
matter how much time and testing they put into the AI, they will never
be able to make them act and react like a human driver.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:46:42 GMT, "Marc Collins"

>The problems running a full field race at this track are so plentiful and
>absurd it's not even worth listing them here.

>My apologies to the NH crew. I said Papy would never release a NASCAR title
>with ludicrous, obviously untested or far from ready to release AI. I was
>wrong.

>And Martinsville may be the worst example (I don't know as I have only tried
>a few tracks), but I haven't seen any track yet that has release-quality AI.

>Marc.

Kyle Langston
__________________

by **ymenar** » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 06:20:33

> Exactly--I don't remember any such problems with GPL out of the box.

LMAO it needed two patches, beta unsupported fixes and tons of third-party
stuff to make it how it is presently.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.ymenard.com/
-- People think it must be fun to be a genius, but they don't realise how
hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

by **Larr** » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:59:03

Frank,

I agree 100%

Yes, there are a few issues. I'm currently being bit by the
hosting/dual-NIC bug and I can't run a dedicated server, but N4 is by far
the most polished simulator I've seen out of the box yet.

And I've got about 20 of them sitting on the shelf...

-Larry

> > I am just a bit shocked that Papy would release something this "early"
in
> the
> > development process.

> Where do you see such "early" things in Nascar Racing 4? It's probably
the
> MOST completed software I have ever seen. The amount of gameplay and
> features is amazingly high. But hey, any software will have it's small
> problems and N4 isn't an exception. I don't know why you are shocked,
> Papyrus isn't God-like and everybody accepts some problems with shipping
> software. Like any other developer in the industry. Just remember GPL,
N1,
> Icr2,N2,N3 out of the box.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- May the Downforce be with you...
> -- http://www.ymenard.com/
> -- People think it must be fun to be a genius, but they don't realise how
> hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

by **Larr** » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:01:07

Are we even SURE that there IS a second NH patch coming?

Viper Racing got exactly one patch. There never were any add-on packs. And
this was a top-notch simulator!

Same development team is doing Nascar Heat.

I think it's more the publisher they use, not the development team,
though...

-Larry

> Interesting suggestion...

> It would certainly go a long way to explain why the NH patch is taking so
> long. But it is worrisome if this is best AI all those great and
> experienced brains at Papy and MGI can come up with.

> I fiddled with the AI a bit in NL (to improve the Daytona port). I know
it
> is very complicated.

> Marc.

> > I doubt it slipped through the cracks...

> > I think the real issue is that developers are having a hard time
> developing
> > AI for a detailed 3D simulation. GPL was good, but couldn't even drive
> > ovals.

> > SCGT certainly had it's problems, and NH did as well.

> > I think there are some AI issues that need to be worked out, and we will
> > continue to see this since it is proving difficult for the programmers.
> You
> > guys act as if this is all really easy stuff, but AI can be very
> > complicated, so it's not a BUG I don't think, it's incomplete, because
it
> > had to ship someday.

> > > Any ideas how it (and problems at many other tracks) slipped through
the
> > > testing cracks?

> > > Marc.

> > > > It is a problem that is definately known about by Papy.

> > > > > The problems running a full field race at this track are so
> plentiful
> > > and
> > > > > absurd it's not even worth listing them here.

> > > > > My apologies to the NH crew. I said Papy would never release a
> NASCAR
> > > > title
> > > > > with ludicrous, obviously untested or far from ready to release
AI.
> I
> > > was
> > > > > wrong.

> > > > > And Martinsville may be the worst example (I don't know as I have
> only
> > > > tried
> > > > > a few tracks), but I haven't seen any track yet that has
> > release-quality
> > > > AI.

> > > > > Marc.

> > > > > --

****************************************************************************

> > > > > Marc Collins

> > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> > > > > to take effect. Reboot now?

****************************************************************************

- Show quoted text -

by **Vintoo** » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:49:07

I would have to agree with Marc about GPL (not N4 cause he whines too much
about it). When GPL was released I would say it was pretty much bug free.
Granted there's been allot of add-ons for it and a patch but just running
the game originally was great. I believe the only thing the patch really did
was add FF, otherwise it didn't really do too much. GPL was the most perfect
racing simulation right out of the box.

Vintook

> > Exactly--I don't remember any such problems with GPL out of the box.

> LMAO it needed two patches, beta unsupported fixes and tons of third-party
> stuff to make it how it is presently.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- May the Downforce be with you...
> -- http://www.ymenard.com/
> -- People think it must be fun to be a genius, but they don't realise how
> hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

by **Todd Sorense** » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:09:44

Mine sure does. It's pretty funny actually, watching these cars pile into
the heap, one after another, after another.......

> The AI act like no one else is on the track during practise at EVERY track
> on my copy of N4. As soon as a cautionary incident occurs, however minor,
> you end up with a catastrophe of the entire field in a huge pile (OK,
that's
> a little exaggerated, but it's close to that). Yours doesn't do this?

> Marc.

> > > Any ideas how it (and problems at many other tracks) slipped through
the
> > > testing cracks?

> > There isn't any major AI problems at other tracks, just at Martinsville.
> As
> > I would say, "shit happens". The fact that the AI is the most advanced
in
> > any racing sim _ever_ is enough to compensate the AI problem at
> > Martinsville.

> > --
> > -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> > -- May the Downforce be with you...
> > -- http://www.ymenard.com/
> > -- People think it must be fun to be a genius, but they don't realise
how
> > hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

rec.autos.simulators

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?

I guess Papy forgot to test Martinsville?