first FIRST Racing screenshots

You can take a look at them here: http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and the grass textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen graphics but got 2003 era ones instead. When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass textures i have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the asphalt looks like a grey texture with random black dots.

I dont get it, why would you expect things that are "wizzing" past you in a game, be photo realistic? is it because you have the dreams of a supercomputer in the basement to run the damn thing? Maybe you have won the lottery? FYI, drawing the individual hairs on the goddamn crowd will do nothing but waste money... Plus, WinBlows aint ever going to have the processing HP needed... not on Wintel architecture... Bob Loblaw enlightened us with:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> You can take a look at them here: > http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots > > Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and > the grass textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen > graphics but got 2003 era ones instead. > > When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass > textures i have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the > asphalt looks like a grey texture with random black dots.

I should have added, at some point you might as well buy a racecar and go do it in real life... as apposed to 3k in computer shit, every year, you might have a nice real racecar & setup, after about 3 years... PlowBoy enlightened us with:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> I dont get it, why would you expect things that are "wizzing" past > you in a game, be photo realistic? is it because you have the dreams > of a supercomputer in the basement to run the damn thing? Maybe you > have won the lottery? FYI, drawing the individual hairs on the > goddamn crowd will do nothing but waste money... > > Plus, WinBlows aint ever going to have the processing HP needed... not on > Wintel architecture... > > > Bob Loblaw enlightened us with: >> You can take a look at them here: >> http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots >> >> Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and >> the grass textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen >> graphics but got 2003 era ones instead. >> >> When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass >> textures i have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the >> asphalt looks like a grey texture with random black dots.

PlowBoy wrote:

Quoted text (30 lines)

> I should have added, at some point you might as well buy a racecar and go do > it in real life... as apposed to 3k in computer shit, every year, you might > have a nice real racecar & setup, after about 3 years... > > > > PlowBoy enlightened us with: >> I dont get it, why would you expect things that are "wizzing" past >> you in a game, be photo realistic? is it because you have the dreams >> of a supercomputer in the basement to run the damn thing? Maybe you >> have won the lottery? FYI, drawing the individual hairs on the >> goddamn crowd will do nothing but waste money... >> >> Plus, WinBlows aint ever going to have the processing HP needed... not on >> Wintel architecture... >> >> >> Bob Loblaw enlightened us with: >>> You can take a look at them here: >>> http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots >>> >>> Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and >>> the grass textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen >>> graphics but got 2003 era ones instead. >>> >>> When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass >>> textures i have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the >>> asphalt looks like a grey texture with random black dots. > >

Never post here, but man that was funny!! Mike mls67

Bob Loblaw wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> You can take a look at them here: > http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots > > Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and the grass > textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen graphics but got > 2003 era ones instead. > > When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass textures i > have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the asphalt looks like a > grey texture with random black dots. > >

Ok, I just took a look at them and disagree. Some of those shots look pretty good IMHO. Let the games begin!!! oh and btw, I could care less about all the crap that's been going on with First Racing. If the games good, I'll buy it. Simple as that. Mike mls67

"Bob Loblaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ve0Jf.16578$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> You can take a look at them here: > http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots > > Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and the > grass textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen graphics > but got 2003 era ones instead. > > When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass textures i > have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the asphalt looks like > a grey texture with random black dots. > >

Did you click on the thumbnails ? ;) Is Bob Loblaw your name real ? If so, do people call you Blob ? Sorry in advance. I'm a dick !

Now that's funny :) -Larry "redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:43f4a28e$0$19693$[email hidden]... > Did you click on the thumbnails ? ;) > Is Bob Loblaw your name real ? If so, do people call you Blob ? > > Sorry in advance. I'm a dick ! >

I don't there is going to be "a game to buy" per se. My understanding is that iRacing is more of an online service/league that has members. The concept of individual racing and non member drivers and leagues I don;t think is part of their plans. "mike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ih1Jf.7$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Bob Loblaw wrote: >> You can take a look at them here: >> http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots >> >> Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and the >> grass textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen >> graphics but got 2003 era ones instead. >> >> When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass textures i >> have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the asphalt looks >> like a grey texture with random black dots. > Ok, I just took a look at them and disagree. Some of those shots look > pretty good IMHO. Let the games begin!!! oh and btw, I could care less > about all the crap that's been going on with First Racing. If the games > good, I'll buy it. Simple as that. > > > Mike > mls67

schooner wrote:

Quoted text (28 lines)

> I don't there is going to be "a game to buy" per se. My understanding is > that iRacing is more of an online service/league that has members. The > concept of individual racing and non member drivers and leagues I don;t > think is part of their plans. > > "mike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ih1Jf.7$[email hidden]... >> Bob Loblaw wrote: >>> You can take a look at them here: >>> http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots >>> >>> Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and the >>> grass textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen >>> graphics but got 2003 era ones instead. >>> >>> When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass textures i >>> have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the asphalt looks >>> like a grey texture with random black dots. >> Ok, I just took a look at them and disagree. Some of those shots look >> pretty good IMHO. Let the games begin!!! oh and btw, I could care less >> about all the crap that's been going on with First Racing. If the games >> good, I'll buy it. Simple as that. >> >> >> Mike >> mls67 > >

I think I remember reading that somewhere. It will be interesting to see how this works out. Thanks for the info. Mike mls67

Well, I must admit to harbouring a smidgeon of anticipation about this one. Unfortunately, the shots would attest to little more than a slightly warmed over N2003 engine (and we know how little it loved the polys). They may impress some with their gadgets, but for me the circuits are less impressive than those in GTR/GTL, graphically; the cockpits pale into insignificance by comparison, and I would hazard a bet that the physics engine uses spline based environment contact logic making the whole experience less involving that what we have become accustomed to. In short, I'm disappointed.

How you come to a conclusion based on screenshots of alpha code shows that you either are very smart and in the know or you *think* youre very smart and not in the know. Sometimes known by the more popular term, *bullshit*... "Ludwig" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Well, I must admit to harbouring a smidgeon of anticipation about this > one. > > Unfortunately, the shots would attest to little more than a slightly > warmed over N2003 engine (and we know how little it loved the polys). > > They may impress some with their gadgets, but for me the circuits are > less impressive than those in GTR/GTL, graphically; the cockpits pale > into insignificance by comparison, and I would hazard a bet that the > physics engine uses spline based environment contact logic making the > whole experience less involving that what we have become accustomed to. > > > > In short, I'm disappointed. > >

Ludwig wrote: > Well, I must admit to harbouring a smidgeon of anticipation about this > one. > > Unfortunately, the shots would attest to little more than a slightly > warmed over N2003 engine (and we know how little it loved the polys). How do you get that out of those pictures? > would hazard a bet that the > physics engine uses spline based environment contact logic making the > whole experience less involving that what we have become accustomed to. Would you consider this this 'fact' or 'speculation'? > whole experience less involving that what we have become accustomed to. What's this mean? Accustome to what? > In short, I'm disappointed. Have you been able to test this yet? Niles

Ludwig wrote: > Well, I must admit to harbouring a smidgeon of anticipation about this > one. > Unfortunately, the shots would attest to little more than a slightly > warmed over N2003 engine (and we know how little it loved the polys). 'How do you get that out of those pictures? ' I used my ocular senses to focus on the images presented to me. I see the same DX 8.1 lighting, look and ambience I saw in N2003, with mildly warmed over textures. It's a particular skill, this 'looking at an image' thing, a skill that I have mastered. > would hazard a bet that the > physics engine uses spline based environment contact logic making the > whole experience less involving that what we have become accustomed to. 'Would you consider this this 'fact' or 'speculation'? ' Dear darling Niles. Please attempt to cogitate on the phrase 'hazard a bet'. You may then be enlightened as to its place in your endearing little dichotomy, so harshly imposed. ' > whole experience less involving that what we have become accustomed to. What's this mean? Accustome to what?' Sorry Niley, you've became incoherent. 'Have you been able to test this yet? ' Ohh... well, give me a minute........ Yes, after a thorough self analysis, I'm most categorically disappointed.

> When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass textures i > have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the asphalt looks like > a grey texture with random black dots. Well I'm not expecting photorealism but I agree those shots look bland. Textures are very low res and it looks like it using Direct X 6 judging by the lighting.

Not to mention it's a web graphic at what, 80k ? Like taking Nature Photo's with a 1MP camera :) -Larry "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pA5Jf.29286$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> How you come to a conclusion based on screenshots of alpha code shows that > you either are very smart and in the know or you *think* youre very smart > and not in the know. Sometimes known by the more popular term, > *bullshit*... > > "Ludwig" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Well, I must admit to harbouring a smidgeon of anticipation about this >> one. >> >> Unfortunately, the shots would attest to little more than a slightly >> warmed over N2003 engine (and we know how little it loved the polys). >> >> They may impress some with their gadgets, but for me the circuits are >> less impressive than those in GTR/GTL, graphically; the cockpits pale >> into insignificance by comparison, and I would hazard a bet that the >> physics engine uses spline based environment contact logic making the >> whole experience less involving that what we have become accustomed to. >> >> >> >> In short, I'm disappointed. >> >> > >

Indeed Larry, Have you also considered the possibility that jpeg artifacting, in this instance, serves to de-emphasise the patent mundanity of the original images? Those among us who have researched the original source will encounter the same last generation presentation. In your defense, it is possible that the fellows hocking this banality chose to weaken their shopfront with excessive JPG compression. I do have to admit to having some doubt about the veracity of such a choice though.

So you are a iRacing beta tester? > > 'Have you been able to test this yet? ' > > Ohh... well, give me a minute........ Yes, after a thorough self > analysis, I'm most categorically disappointed. > -- Niles Anders FLOG Online Games SIM Racing Servers and Game Servers http://flog.com

A serious question... Do you write while referring to an electronic dictionary or something? Because I need one to read it :) -Larry "Ludwig" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Indeed Larry, > > Have you also considered the possibility that jpeg artifacting, in this > instance, serves to de-emphasise the patent mundanity of the original > images? > > Those among us who have researched the original source will encounter > the same last generation presentation. In your defense, it is possible > that the fellows hocking this banality chose to weaken their shopfront > with excessive JPG compression. I do have to admit to having some doubt > about the veracity of such a choice though. >

Hello Laurence. In the forgoing posts I have employed a language known as English. Ineptitude is gathering an unfortunate ubiquity; the zeitgeist, seemingly.

"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass >> textures i have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the >> asphalt looks like a grey texture with random black dots. > > Well I'm not expecting photorealism but I agree those shots look > bland. Textures are very low res and it looks like it using Direct X 6 > judging by the lighting. > > >

I cannot address this issue without bias, which may become clearer in the coming months. But I think you all are getting wrapped up in the fact that this still 'looks' like a Papyrus sim. Why shouldn't it? They have a style that is unique and simply because they are graduating to a new product, we somehow arrive at the conclusion that they should present something that is totally different. I am not looking at the textures, or the version of DX they are using, I'm seeing VIR and Lime Rock 'as they really are.' No more of this corner being wrong or that part of the track being too wide..or those bumps not being there. Regardless of how they sell the product and or which audience they target, this stands to be a huge step forward. I have been critical of the Papyrus morph to First and then iRacing. I don't have a plan at this point to purchase their next release, as of now, but this should certainly be opening up some eyes.

Looks pretty good to me... On image #8 (Stafford raceway), you can see the cracks on the track and the moss growing. Trees look nice too. Seems like modified, late models and the Barber Dodge series will be modeled this time. Short track sweetness. Bob Loblaw wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> You can take a look at them here: > http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots > > Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and the grass > textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen graphics but got > 2003 era ones instead. > > When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass textures i > have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the asphalt looks like a > grey texture with random black dots. > >

Bob Loblaw wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> You can take a look at them here: > http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots > > Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and the grass > textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen graphics but got > 2003 era ones instead. > > When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass textures i > have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the asphalt looks like a > grey texture with random black dots. > >

You do realize their attorneys are already drawing up legal papers claiming ownership to your PC for providing a link to a website that contains images of their work. -- Scott B. Husted http://www.Husted.cc

Moss growing on a race track!!! How often is that track used? "Cowboy Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:oJ9Jf.4135$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Looks pretty good to me... > On image #8 (Stafford raceway), you can see the cracks on the track and > the moss growing. > > Trees look nice too. Seems like modified, late models and the Barber Dodge > series will be modeled this time. Short track sweetness. > > > Bob Loblaw wrote: >> You can take a look at them here: >> http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots >> >> Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and the >> grass textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen >> graphics but got 2003 era ones instead. >> >> When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass textures i >> have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the asphalt looks >> like a grey texture with random black dots.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote > I cannot address this issue without bias, which may become clearer in > the coming months. But I think you all are getting wrapped up in the fact > that this still 'looks' like a Papyrus sim. Why shouldn't it? They have > a > style that is unique and simply because they are graduating to a new > product, we somehow arrive at the conclusion that they should present > something that is totally different.

I have to agree with you Dave here. I dpn't see what's the fuss all about. Graphics are pretty much up to the Papyrus standards, they probably still use those contracted Russians. I always liked the palette they used. Some say bland, I say natural. The artistic quality standards have always been up high at Papy. They might not be processor-pusher, but tend to follow an singular artistic direction (GPL, N3, NR2003, etc...). Why is that bad? Anyway, since when have we've been judging a Papyrus.. (errr) iRacing sim on its look? This isn't comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.* > I am not looking at the textures, or the version of DX they are using, > I'm seeing VIR and Lime Rock 'as they really are.' No more of this corner > being wrong or that part of the track being too wide..or those bumps not > being there. Regardless of how they sell the product and or which > audience > they target, this stands to be a huge step forward. Accuracy = quality, whatever texture you're using. The corner is there, it's accurate, it feels good, and the physics feel good.. Quantity and looks doesn't necessary mean quality. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

>"Ludwig" <[email hidden]> wrote > I used my ocular senses to focus on the images presented to me. Subjectivity, the mother of all lies. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Trust me. You need the dictionary. -Larry "Ludwig" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hello Laurence. In the forgoing posts I have employed a language known > as English. > > Ineptitude is gathering an unfortunate ubiquity; the zeitgeist, > seemingly. >

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

Quoted text (31 lines)

> "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > >>> When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass >>> textures i have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the >>> asphalt looks like a grey texture with random black dots. >> >> Well I'm not expecting photorealism but I agree those shots look >> bland. Textures are very low res and it looks like it using Direct X 6 >> judging by the lighting. >> >> >> > > I cannot address this issue without bias, which may become clearer in > the coming months. But I think you all are getting wrapped up in the fact > that this still 'looks' like a Papyrus sim. Why shouldn't it? They have > a > style that is unique and simply because they are graduating to a new > product, we somehow arrive at the conclusion that they should present > something that is totally different. > I am not looking at the textures, or the version of DX they are using, > I'm seeing VIR and Lime Rock 'as they really are.' No more of this corner > being wrong or that part of the track being too wide..or those bumps not > being there. Regardless of how they sell the product and or which > audience > they target, this stands to be a huge step forward. > > I have been critical of the Papyrus morph to First and then iRacing. I > don't have a plan at this point to purchase their next release, as of now, > but this should certainly be opening up some eyes.

Tell you this much; if I just spent a bunch of money laser-scanning all those tracks and vehicles to gain product-differentiating accuracy, my eyes would not only be open, they be tightly focused on how to protect that property. iRacing's mechanism for doing that has been speculated on, but remains to be seen. But you can be pretty darned sure that data is not going to be easily grabbed and ported into competing products. These guys are making a big investment to roll out a new business model for the racing sim space, and from a purely business perspective, I like what I'm seeing so far. It IS counter to what most folks have become accustomed to (and other competitors are using), so there's been a lot of teeth-gnashing over it. But however it shakes out, it's just another product in the space; if they don't give you more than their competitors (both professional and hobbyist-modders), they won't be able to succeed in charging more, either in up-front cost or ongoing fees. Simple as that. I'd frankly be happy to see something that would have me itching to cough up more dough instead of wondering whether yet another measly $40 would have been better spent on beer... ;-) SB

Everyone is getting worked up about this sim. I can tell you right now it is not going to sell. It features Modifieds. I love Modifieds. They are the most exciting form of short track stock car racing you can see, and on big tracks, they put Cup cars to shame. Richie Evans, Charlie Jarzombek, and Bobby Allison all drove Modifieds. It's NASCAR's oldest division. And... the bastard red-haired step child of NASCAR, limited to maybe a dozen tracks along the East Coast. A niche product if there ever was one. I know ole John Henry is a bit of a homer, and Mods are big in clam chowder states. But I doubt they will fly anywhere else. But I guess that's what the Late Model is for, or course that is a New England Late Model and not the ABC type cars run in the rest of the country, but niche market is what this game is about. I feel that an online game, like the blending of Motor City Online and NR2K3, would actually be a great thing. I know many of us race the same people all the time, and there are the Papy rankings, but perhaps they are going with an almost race series type of scheme. That would be cool. I guess what NROS was supposed to have been. But we shall see in the next few months. btgoss

>"BTGoss" <[email hidden]> wrote > Everyone is getting worked up about this sim. I can tell you right now it > is not going to sell. > It features Modifieds. It "features". Yep. And other stuff too. At least we have real cars, not a random generic sports/open-wheeler car like in rF. There's something to associate yourself to behind the wheel. I mean we can't deny that there's a huge market for that, well huge in terms of simracing sales. The Ratbag games were pretty good in sales and had their dedicated fanboys. Look at the track list, there isn't much tracks that are suited for modified cars. There's a reason for that, they will offer much more series, car types, and track types than just Modified. > I feel that an online game, like the blending of Motor City Online and > NR2K3, would actually be a great thing. I know many of us race the same > people all the time, and there are the Papy rankings, but perhaps they are > going with an almost race series type of scheme. That would be cool. I > guess what NROS was supposed to have been. Hawaii was an utopia. So did the NROS to a point. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

BTGoss wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Everyone is getting worked up about this sim. I can tell you right now > it is not going to sell. > It features Modifieds. I love Modifieds. They are the most exciting form > of short track stock car racing you can see, and on big tracks, they put > Cup cars to shame. Richie Evans, Charlie Jarzombek, and Bobby Allison > all drove Modifieds. It's NASCAR's oldest division. And... the bastard > red-haired step child of NASCAR, limited to maybe a dozen tracks along > the East Coast. A niche product if there ever was one. I know ole John > Henry is a bit of a homer, and Mods are big in clam chowder states. But > I doubt they will fly anywhere else. But I guess that's what the Late > Model is for, or course that is a New England Late Model and not the ABC > type cars run in the rest of the country, but niche market is what this > game is about. > I feel that an online game, like the blending of Motor City Online and > NR2K3, would actually be a great thing. I know many of us race the same > people all the time, and there are the Papy rankings, but perhaps they > are going with an almost race series type of scheme. That would be cool. > I guess what NROS was supposed to have been. > But we shall see in the next few months. > btgoss

I grew up in upstate NY going to Shangri-La (Tioga County - which is now shut down) and Chemung. I grew up watching the Bodines, Richie, Maynard Troyer, George Kent, Jerry Cook, Jarzombek, Jimmy Spencer, etc. Its awesome racing - it still doesn't justify the means of their community treatment that I've seen. -- Scott B. Husted http://www.Husted.cc

How do you feel about "pay-to-play" with that sim? I understand the plan for this 'group' (avoided expletives) is to setup this sim to be a pay-to-play-online game. Good or not...... I dispise the methods used by this 'group' (well known agressive tactics and threats of lawsuits, etc.) I dispise the concept of pay-to-play But good luck with your decision - keep us updated on your experiences with it. ==--== "mike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ih1Jf.7$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Bob Loblaw wrote: >> You can take a look at them here: >> http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots >> >> Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and the >> grass textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen >> graphics but got 2003 era ones instead. >> >> When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass textures i >> have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the asphalt looks >> like a grey texture with random black dots. > Ok, I just took a look at them and disagree. Some of those shots look > pretty good IMHO. Let the games begin!!! oh and btw, I could care less > about all the crap that's been going on with First Racing. If the games > good, I'll buy it. Simple as that. > > > Mike > mls67

Pay to Play has advantages. For one, it keeps _some_ of the riff-raff out. There were many, including myself, that were devestated when NROS shut down. All I can say is keep watching the web site. -Larry "==--==" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NUKJf.40016$B94.37074@pd7tw3no...

Quoted text (37 lines)

> How do you feel about "pay-to-play" with that sim? > > I understand the plan for this 'group' (avoided expletives) is to setup > this sim to be a pay-to-play-online game. > Good or not...... > I dispise the methods used by this 'group' (well known agressive tactics > and threats of lawsuits, etc.) > I dispise the concept of pay-to-play > > But good luck with your decision - keep us updated on your experiences > with it. > > ==--== > > "mike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ih1Jf.7$[email hidden]... >> Bob Loblaw wrote: >>> You can take a look at them here: >>> http://www.bhmotorsports.com/FIRST/screenshots >>> >>> Graphically, i'm rather unimpressed. The car models are bland, and the >>> grass textures are simply fake looking. I was hoping for next gen >>> graphics but got 2003 era ones instead. >>> >>> When are we going to see photo realistic graphics? Most grass textures i >>> have seen so far look nothing like real grass. Even the asphalt looks >>> like a grey texture with random black dots. >> Ok, I just took a look at them and disagree. Some of those shots look >> pretty good IMHO. Let the games begin!!! oh and btw, I could care less >> about all the crap that's been going on with First Racing. If the games >> good, I'll buy it. Simple as that. >> >> >> Mike >> mls67 > >

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZMcJf.43194$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> >"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote >> I cannot address this issue without bias, which may become clearer in >> the coming months. But I think you all are getting wrapped up in the >> fact >> that this still 'looks' like a Papyrus sim. Why shouldn't it? They have >> a >> style that is unique and simply because they are graduating to a new >> product, we somehow arrive at the conclusion that they should present >> something that is totally different. > > > > I have to agree with you Dave here. I dpn't see what's the fuss all > about. Graphics are pretty much up to the Papyrus standards, they probably > still use those contracted Russians. I always liked the palette they > used. Some say bland, I say natural. The artistic quality standards have > always been up high at Papy. They might not be processor-pusher, but tend > to follow an singular artistic direction (GPL, N3, NR2003, etc...). Why > is that bad? > > > Anyway, since when have we've been judging a Papyrus.. (errr) iRacing sim > on its look?

Well they didn't get the physics right in GPL or N2003, so what do we do? -- David G Fisher

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:i4xJf.47326$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >"BTGoss" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Everyone is getting worked up about this sim. I can tell you right now it >> is not going to sell. >> It features Modifieds. > > > It "features". Yep. And other stuff too. At least we have real cars, > not a random generic sports/open-wheeler car like in rF.

Not true. rFactor has Skip Barber trainers and F3 open wheelers. Soon it will contain NASCAR cars. Unless virtual paint is what matters to you most (you can download realistic skins in 30 seconds btw). Didn't you say in another post that we shouldn't judge a sim by what it looks like? -- David G Fisher

>> Anyway, since when have we've been judging a Papyrus.. (errr) iRacing sim >> on its look? > > Well they didn't get the physics right in GPL or N2003, so what do we do? The graphics and physics might not have been too flash in previous Papyrus efforts but it's all the little things that they do so well. Certainly better than anyone else.

Quoted text (13 lines)

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote >> >"BTGoss" <[email hidden]> wrote >>> Everyone is getting worked up about this sim. I can tell you right now >>> it is not going to sell. >>> It features Modifieds. >> >> >> It "features". Yep. And other stuff too. At least we have real cars, >> not a random generic sports/open-wheeler car like in rF. > > rFactor has Skip Barber trainers and F3 open wheelers. Soon it will > contain NASCAR cars.

That's illegal to start with. None of them have been consented by those bodies. rF when you buy it, is completely generic and has no licensing. Let's not start with tracks. > Unless virtual paint is what matters to you most (you can download > realistic skins in 30 seconds btw). Didn't you say in another post that we > shouldn't judge a sim by what it looks like? I wonder whom I'm going to trust in terms of honesty of physics when I'm behind my wheel. A bunch of dedicated person doing this in their free time, or David Kaemmer.. hmm cmon David. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Anyway, since when have we've been judging a Papyrus.. (errr) iRacing sim >> on its look? > > Well they didn't get the physics right in GPL or N2003, so what do we do? Nobody will ever get the physics "right". You better start racing in real-life if you want that. GTL hasn't. rF hasn't. It's all about whom is the most trustworthily close to it. And at their respective release, GPL and NR2003 were. So did Nascar Racing 1. All Papy sims. We've never judged Papy sims by their graphics, they aren't FPS shooters pushing your hardware to the max with advanced graphic features, never were, never will. At the core of racing sims, is the physics. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:At7Kf.3015$%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote >> "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote >>> >"BTGoss" <[email hidden]> wrote >>>> Everyone is getting worked up about this sim. I can tell you right now >>>> it is not going to sell. >>>> It features Modifieds. >>> >>> >>> It "features". Yep. And other stuff too. At least we have real cars, >>> not a random generic sports/open-wheeler car like in rF. >> >> rFactor has Skip Barber trainers and F3 open wheelers. Soon it will >> contain NASCAR cars. > > > That's illegal to start with. None of them have been consented by those > bodies. rF when you buy it, is completely generic and has no licensing. > Let's not start with tracks.

Don't care if they consent. The cars in rFactor are realistic. They don't consent because ISI doesn't want to take money out of your pocket and put it in someone else's who doesn't give a shit about you. Screw 'em. I don't know about you, but one sim developer paying money to a track or race organization for a virtual paint job doesn't make the experience more realistic. I'm at the point in my life where I detest commercials. I'm constantly bombarded by them, and I do everything I can to avoid them (remote never leaves my hands whever I watch TV---I hit a pre-set on the radio the second a commercial comes on). I have no desire to take money out of my bank account and give it to (via sim developer) NASCAR, Skip Barber, or some track owner so I can have the privilege of seeing their partner's advertisements. Love ISI's way of doing things.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> Unless virtual paint is what matters to you most (you can download >> realistic skins in 30 seconds btw). Didn't you say in another post that >> we shouldn't judge a sim by what it looks like? > > > I wonder whom I'm going to trust in terms of honesty of physics when I'm > behind my wheel. A bunch of dedicated person doing this in their free > time, or David Kaemmer.. hmm cmon David.

As you know, five minutes after playing it, I didn't think he was even close with GPL (got ripped for that here), and he admitted a few years later that he himself stopped playing it because it was so off. Earnhardt said the PWF trucks felt like the NASCAR cars, which means Papy was way off on those too. There's a *big* difference between the cars and the trucks in N2003. Not sure where all this trust comes from. He modeled *two* types of cars over a period of five years, and how accurate were they? He's certainly very good, but it's silly to put him above the guys at ISI. To be honest, I doubt there will be any real difference in the physics between the two. Multiplayer, graphics, and content are what will grab me. rFactor has tremendous content both now and in the near future. iRacing will have to match it, and I don't see how they are going to pay F1, F3, and NASCAR (to name a few) enough money to do so. -- David G Fisher

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aw7Kf.3016$%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote >>> Anyway, since when have we've been judging a Papyrus.. (errr) iRacing >>> sim on its look? >> >> Well they didn't get the physics right in GPL or N2003, so what do we do? > > > > Nobody will ever get the physics "right". You better start racing in > real-life if you want that. GTL hasn't. rF hasn't. It's all about whom > is the most trustworthily close to it. And at their respective release, > GPL and NR2003 were. So did Nascar Racing 1. All Papy sims. We've never > judged Papy sims by their graphics, they aren't FPS shooters pushing your > hardware to the max with advanced graphic features, never were, never > will. At the core of racing sims, is the physics.

GPL was way off. Kaemmer admitted this a few years ago. N2003, according to guys like Earnhardt (who should know) was way off. He said the trucks (made by a mod team) were how his NASCAR car handled. There's a very big difference bvetween the trucks and the cars in N2003. -- David G Fisher

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > GPL was way off. Kaemmer admitted this a few years ago. Cmon David it was 1998. Do you remember the games back in 1998? It was the reference, way ahead of every sim for the next couple of years. Some will say half a decade it took before it was caught. Was it flawed? Yep. So will the next sim released by any developpers. Well, the one-a-year developpers who take the chance because nobody wants to do sims anymore. GTL is flawed. So does rF. Again it's all about taking them in context of their release. Kaemmer couldn't have done anything more with GPL back then. There wasn't anything he could had done to add realism at the expense of computer time. Geeze people were running it with Pentium 100's!. It was there, time existed and it past away. > N2003, according to guys like Earnhardt (who should know) was way off. Well, according to him it was also the closest thing (and still is). Again was it flawed? Yep. If you want the real deal, do the real deal. What sim does he still races on? Yep you know which one. Physics is still the #1 thing in racing sims. Everything else comes second. And Papyrus has always been at the top of everything physics-wise. All the time, since Indy 500. They were all flawed, WE KNOW THAT DAVID. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > Don't care if they consent. The cars in rFactor are realistic. And you know this because... ? All I'm hearing is several tyre flaws, dodgy physics and lots of questionable features when adapted for longer runs. <snip some sort of anti-commercialism thing> What they do is still borderline illegal. Nascar could easily sue everybody here for such stuff. Or the Daytona International Speedway. etc... > As you know, five minutes after playing it, I didn't think he was even > close with GPL (got ripped for that here), and he admitted a few years > later that he himself stopped playing it because it was so off. Yeah... a decade after David stands up to everybody and finally shouts "I WAS RIPPED OFF!". Ooookay. > Ernhardt said the PWF trucks felt like the NASCAR cars, which means Papy > was way off on those too. There's a *big* difference between the cars and > the trucks in N2003. Not sure where all this trust comes from. He modeled > *two* types of cars over a period of five years, and how accurate were > they? Yet they were more advanced at the release than any other developper even wished could create. > rFactor has tremendous content So where's the people racing it? Or else are you accepting the fact that simracing is basically a thing of the past and nobody does it anymore except a few hardcore freaks like us? > iRacing will have to match it, I wonder what makes you think that iRacing will be worse than rF in any aspect. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

David G Fisher wrote: > GPL was way off. Kaemmer admitted this a few years ago. Yeah, and Pong didn't model spin on the ball. Waaaaah! I want my quarters back! > N2003, according to guys like Earnhardt (who should know) was way off. He > said the trucks (made by a mod team) were how his NASCAR car handled. > There's a very big difference bvetween the trucks and the cars in N2003. It was good enough for him to play it in his free time even though he was being paid by the competition. Maybe if he had opened his yap BEFORE it came out, he could have helped make it more accurate. Don McCorkle

> I wonder what makes you think that iRacing will be worse than rF in any > aspect. Well, it doesn't take a sim genious to realise that the N2003 physics are a fair way short of other modern sims such as GTL, RBR etc. iRacing will need to completely revamp the physics from N2003 if they wish to compete (at least in terms of physics realism.) I think what others are trying to say is that nothing appears to have changed in the graphics department so it's unlikely that the physics will be a quantum leap either. I've got faith in Kaemmer & Co though so I'm not ruling anything out but at this stage it appears unlikely that I'll be whisked away from the sims I'm currently enjoying.

>Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote >> I wonder what makes you think that iRacing will be worse than rF in any >> aspect. > > Well, it doesn't take a sim genious to realise that the N2003 physics are > a fair way short of other modern sims such as GTL, RBR etc. And in what way do you think iRacing wouldn't be able to up that challenge? Also, how far necessary is the need for a physics revamp, if not only to patch the problematics that are in NR2003? We're not talking about Geoff Crammond here, but the guys at iR. They've done it in the past, a couple of times already. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5H9Kf.3064$%[email hidden]... > >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > Kaemmer couldn't have done anything more with GPL back then. There wasn't > anything he could had done to add realism at the expense of computer time. > Geeze people were running it with Pentium 100's!. It was there, time > existed and it past away. He could of added more grip. Problem was, so many chose to think like you are now, and have blind faith that it was accurate. They didn't think it was the best Kaemmer could do, they actually INSISTED it was accurate, at least partially because it was made by Kaemmer. >> N2003, according to guys like Earnhardt (who should know) was way off. > > > Well, according to him it was also the closest thing (and still is). No, he says the trucks are the closest thing. >Again was it flawed? Yep. If you want the real deal, do the real deal. >What sim does he still races on? Yep you know which one. Not many other choices, are there? Will be soon though. > Physics is still the #1 thing in racing sims. Everything else comes > second. And Papyrus has always been at the top of everything physics-wise. > All the time, since Indy 500. They were all flawed, WE KNOW THAT DAVID. Major mistakes were made. -- David G Fisher

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RM9Kf.3068$%[email hidden]... > >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Yeah... a decade after David stands up to everybody and finally shouts "I > WAS RIPPED OFF!". Ooookay. NEVER said I was ripped off. Just that I was right back in '98. Don't understand how they didn't see the same thing. All they had to do was imagine how those GPL cars would handle in the rain, which the real life cars were able to do pretty well. If they watched some old video footage, and then compared it to in game video, they should of seen the obvious lack of grip.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> Ernhardt said the PWF trucks felt like the NASCAR cars, which means Papy >> was way off on those too. There's a *big* difference between the cars and >> the trucks in N2003. Not sure where all this trust comes from. He modeled >> *two* types of cars over a period of five years, and how accurate were >> they? > > Yet they were more advanced at the release than any other developper even > wished could create.

In 2003, no they weren't. They were just wrong. Trucks and cup cars handle much different. >> rFactor has tremendous content > > So where's the people racing it? Or else are you accepting the fact that > simracing is basically a thing of the past and nobody does it anymore > except a few hardcore freaks like us? Consoles are taking over, but where are your facts that no one is racing it? The rFactor lobby doesn't prove anything. Actually, the numbers are steadily growing there, and when the NASCAR mod(s) are copmpleted, all the n2003 drivers will switch over. >> iRacing will have to match it, > > I wonder what makes you think that iRacing will be worse than rF in any > aspect. What makes you think it will be better?? Other than continued blind faith? I actually think the graphics will be close, and the physics will be virtually identical. The only thing I wonder about is if they will make a big improvement in their net code. rFactor's is almost flawless for me. Makes N2003's seem unplayable in comparision. Just a reminder....were you one of those who said that ISI would never make good net code? :-) -- David G Fisher

[email hidden] (David G Fisher) wrote: > He could of added more grip. I think the lack of grip was key to GPL's success (here rather than commercially). The fact you could easily lose the back end *but* easily catch it again once you'd gained experience, meant that we had a fairly forgiving visual equivalent of the seat of the pants feel we'd have in real life. In more modern, high grip sims I struggle much more with the edge of the grip envelope. Whichever way you look at it though, the fact we're still debating an eight year old sim is probably GPL's greatest achievement. Andrew McP

What is up with the design of BH Motorsports? Is it intentionally bad or is it simply a perk? My screen resolution is 1600x1200, and I can't view an entire page on the screen at once. So I have to view a screen shot, scroll down, click the next button, view the shot, scroll down, click the next button.... What a pain in the ass. I imagine it's to cram as much advertising onto the page as possible, but thanks to firefox and adblock it's not displayed with to start.

Ya really have to wonder about BHMS. The ads/design is bad nuff but I just saw they gave LFS sim of the year 2005... Maybe that choice had something to do with advertising because in my mind nothing came close to rFactor. GTL gave it a shot but came up short IMO and LFS may be the distant 3rd but very far distant. Not to take anything away from Scawan and Co. Mitch <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> What is up with the design of BH Motorsports? Is it intentionally bad > or is it simply a perk? My screen resolution is 1600x1200, and I can't > view an entire page on the screen at once. So I have to view a screen > shot, scroll down, click the next button, view the shot, scroll down, > click the next button.... What a pain in the ass. I imagine it's to > cram as much advertising onto the page as possible, but thanks to > firefox and adblock it's not displayed with to start. >

And they advertise those damned Smileys. If your users install them, better bet your SpyBot S&D ready. -Larry "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2ERKf.51099$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Ya really have to wonder about BHMS. The ads/design is bad nuff but I > just saw they gave LFS sim of the year 2005... > > Maybe that choice had something to do with advertising because in my mind > nothing came close to rFactor. GTL gave it a shot but came up short IMO > and LFS may be the distant 3rd but very far distant. Not to take anything > away from Scawan and Co. > > Mitch > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> What is up with the design of BH Motorsports? Is it intentionally bad >> or is it simply a perk? My screen resolution is 1600x1200, and I can't >> view an entire page on the screen at once. So I have to view a screen >> shot, scroll down, click the next button, view the shot, scroll down, >> click the next button.... What a pain in the ass. I imagine it's to >> cram as much advertising onto the page as possible, but thanks to >> firefox and adblock it's not displayed with to start. >> > >

lmao no one in the english speaking world speaks like that..lmao.. what a wanker "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JakJf.184700$oG.21806@dukeread02...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Trust me. You need the dictionary. > > -Larry > > "Ludwig" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Hello Laurence. In the forgoing posts I have employed a language known >> as English. >> >> Ineptitude is gathering an unfortunate ubiquity; the zeitgeist, >> seemingly. >> > >

>>> Ernhardt said the PWF trucks felt like the NASCAR cars, which means Papy >>> was way off on those too. There's a *big* difference between the cars >>> and Ya your right... the physics for all mods are not even close. The trucks are closer, but still way off. Its funny how many think if they can drive a sim car they can race a real a car... its a whole new ball game when your sitting behing the wheel of a real car. > The rFactor lobby doesn't prove anything. Actually, the numbers are > steadily growing there, and when the NASCAR mod(s) are copmpleted, all the > n2003 drivers will switch over. How can you speak for all NR2003 driver? You can't. I race with two leagues who wanted to switch over to rFactor. We all bought the game and after two weeks of testing its sitting right next to NSR. oh wait.. they both use the same engine..no wonder. > big improvement in their net code. rFactor's is almost flawless for me. rFators net code is FAR from flawless.. They have a long road ahead of them before they knock NR2003 off the block. Hell, NSR has more online racers then rfactor. Even DTR2 has a growing community.. so it sorta looks like the NR2003 gamers are not only racing NR2003, but going back to the grass roots and playing old games like DTR, Nascar Heat ( which has tons of mods ) and even NR2002 is even starting to pick up speed. The only gamers who will switch over to rfactor are the ones who can't get their hands on nr2003 and maybe the NSR gamers. AS for iracings pay to play.. look at all the other games that tried and failed. Why does iracing think they will be any different. Screw them. They gave us a good game to play and gave the community tools to mod the game then turn around and stabe us in the back. Screw them. Every time I see that iracing cts truck it makes me sick. They even stole earnhardts logo....Only one person can fit that image with hands rasied and finger in the air and its not iracing unless its the middle finger then I guess they can use it. so.. SCREW THEM >:(

"rallen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WwmLf.14745$p13.10684@trnddc08... > > Ya your right... the physics for all mods are not even close. The trucks > are closer, but still way off. Its funny how many think if they can drive > a sim car they can race a real a car... its a whole new ball game when > your sitting behing the wheel of a real car. And youre obviously the EXPERT eh? <VBG> In your own mind perhaps. > > How can you speak for all NR2003 driver? You can't. I race with two > leagues who wanted to switch over to rFactor. We all bought the game and > after two weeks of testing its sitting right next to NSR. oh wait.. they > both use the same engine..no wonder. Gee, 2 weeks eh? Based on the knowledge you displayed in this post Im amazed you ever even got it running in that time frame. And anyone with a clue knows NSR and rFactor DONT use the same "game engine". Can you make yourself look any more foolish? Ill hazzard a guess that yes you can and soon will.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > rFators net code is FAR from flawless.. They have a long road ahead of > them before they knock NR2003 off the block. Hell, NSR has more online > racers then rfactor. Even DTR2 has a growing community.. so it sorta looks > like the NR2003 gamers are not only racing NR2003, but going back to the > grass roots and playing old games like DTR, Nascar Heat ( which has tons > of mods ) and even NR2002 is even starting to pick up speed. The only > gamers who will switch over to rfactor are the ones who can't get their > hands on nr2003 and maybe the NSR gamers.

Yea obviously you can amke yourself look even more foolish.... DTR, Heat, LOLOLOL....... rFactor netcode (while not perfect) is FAR superior than anything Papy ever released. Next time youre shooting into orbit from a rub think about what Im saying...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > AS for iracings pay to play.. look at all the other games that tried and > failed. Why does iracing think they will be any different. Screw them. > They gave us a good game to play and gave the community tools to mod the > game then turn around and stabe us in the back. Screw them. Every time I > see that iracing cts truck it makes me sick. They even stole earnhardts > logo....Only one person can fit that image with hands rasied and finger in > the air and its not iracing unless its the middle finger then I guess they > can use it. so.. SCREW THEM >:(

NOT every pay to play game has been a failure. Some lasted years (Warbirds) and some didnt. Its about the quality of the content.... If you want to run NR2003 fine but don't try and validate your poor choices with bullshit... Now that youve made yourself look the fool maybe you would like to reload, or at the very least form a decent argument before posting next time K.... Mitch

Consider yourself utterly admonished by Mitch young Sir!

rallen wrote: > lmao no one in the english speaking world speaks like that..lmao.. what a > wanker If I could be so audacious as to advocate a contrary position such that all well mannered English speaking individuals converse in such a manner when frequenting one's local hostelry...er..nope yer right...

rallen wrote: > lmao no one in the english speaking world speaks like that..lmao.. what a > wanker Thanks for your contribution Mr Rallen. You may stay a while. I assume you're offering your critique from afar and thus, please accept my hearty praise for your efforts.

Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Ya really have to wonder about BHMS. The ads/design is bad nuff but I just > saw they gave LFS sim of the year 2005... > > Maybe that choice had something to do with advertising because in my mind > nothing came close to rFactor. GTL gave it a shot but came up short IMO and > LFS may be the distant 3rd but very far distant. Not to take anything away > from Scawan and Co. > > Mitch

Umm...you do realize the results of their awards are based solely on USER VOTES,right?Not everyone is of the opinion that rFactor is the "be all to end all" sim...including me.

Not to mention the wall hurts a bit more... -Larry "rallen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WwmLf.14745$p13.10684@trnddc08... > > Ya your right... the physics for all mods are not even close. The trucks > are closer, but still way off. Its funny how many think if they can drive > a sim car they can race a real a car... its a whole new ball game when > your sitting behing the wheel of a real car.

We'll re-visit this post in about 6 months I think. Should be fun :) -Larry "rallen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WwmLf.14745$p13.10684@trnddc08...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > AS for iracings pay to play.. look at all the other games that tried and > failed. Why does iracing think they will be any different. Screw them. > They gave us a good game to play and gave the community tools to mod the > game then turn around and stabe us in the back. Screw them. Every time I > see that iracing cts truck it makes me sick. They even stole earnhardts > logo....Only one person can fit that image with hands rasied and finger in > the air and its not iracing unless its the middle finger then I guess they > can use it. so.. SCREW THEM >:( > > > >

I didnt realize that, thanks for the clarification. Shows who the user base at BHMS is nowadays though. I don't think rF is the "be all end all sim" (at least I hope not) but compared to LFS it is, imo. When I can race competitively using a mouse it's hard to consider LFS as any kind of serious simulation. Again, not taking anything away from what Scawan and co have done, which is (along with ISI) quite amazing for such small dev teams... Mitch "Raybee1970" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VOpLf.21043$[email hidden]... > Umm...you do realize the results of their awards are based solely on USER > VOTES,right?Not everyone is of the opinion that rFactor is the "be all to > end all" sim...including me.

>"Ludwig" <[email hidden]> wrote > Thanks for your contribution Mr Rallen. You may stay a while. I assume > you're offering your critique from afar and thus, please accept my > hearty praise for your efforts. ....and then 'Lil Jon screams "WHAT?"