back to GPL

Hi; I just decided to load GPL into my computer after about three year layoff. It's fun with a faster system -- and enjoy the new tracks that have been made for it. Are there any websites that are up to date for GPL? For instance; ............ the 1965 MOD I keep hearing about? ................ new cars and years? ............... anything new that has made this remarkable sim even better? Your assistance will be appreciated. Doug

>............ the 1965 MOD I keep hearing about? http://55and65.speedgeezers.com/gpl65/ Personnaly I would avoid IGOR when you install though and keep GEM+ 1.4 on your system, GEM2 is better in everything but manipulating your track list. >................ new cars and years? There's a '69 mod promised "soon" >............... anything new that has made this remarkable sim even > better? A good league: http://users.hfx.eastlink.ca/~mackaypenny/gplreg.html

Take a look at the RaceSimCentral Forums at their GPL section: http://forum.rscnet.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36 A 69 mod is in the works, hopefully released for christmas. The 65 mod is wonderful and I drive Clermont-Ferand in a BT11 loving every minute of it! GPLEA have done wonderful new cars. Just search for GPLEA cars and you'll find it. Welcome back to the best sim there is, still! /andreas -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Thanks for the info fellas. Much obliged to you for the links. And ---- I must agree ------ GPL is STILL the best there is in this regard. I find I am constantly amazed at just how realistically these cars react under stress, and how the dynamics are indeed modeled darn near "spot-on". It's great feeling that "RUSH" again!!!!!!!!! Doug On 02 Dec 2005 00:17:20 +0100, Andreas Davour <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >Take a look at the RaceSimCentral Forums at their GPL section: >http://forum.rscnet.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36 > >A 69 mod is in the works, hopefully released for christmas. The 65 mod >is wonderful and I drive Clermont-Ferand in a BT11 loving every minute >of it! > >GPLEA have done wonderful new cars. Just search for GPLEA cars and >you'll find it. > >Welcome back to the best sim there is, still! > >/andreas

[email hidden] wrote: > Hi; > I just decided to load GPL into my computer after about three year layoff. > Doug GPLEA has updated their cars. http://gplea.rscsites.org/ Lots of tracks at http://trackdb.d2g.com/ http://www.gplpp.com/ A little of everything http://fredfaster.m4driving.it/gpladdons/ An AWESOME sound overlay program http://www.gplso.co.uk/ Wanna race? Join http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/iicc/ 1967 cars. We've got Solitude this weekend. -Greg

Quoted text (7 lines)

> And ---- I must agree ------ GPL is STILL the best there > is in this regard. I find I am constantly amazed at just how > realistically these cars react under stress, and how the dynamics are > indeed modeled darn near "spot-on". > > It's great feeling that "RUSH" again!!!!!!!!! >

I don't want to start a war, but you really should try GTR (the final is even better than the demo). For me, it's replaced GPL because the physics are so much better. One big result is that the cars respond sensitively and predictably to setup changes. By comparison GPL cars seem numb and quirky, particularly the Lotus. For one example, I was losing the rear end at Donington on the left handers. I softened the RR shock two clicks in bump (both fast and slow bump and out of something like 16 total available) and solved the problem. The other thing is this. In GPL I reached a certain place and didn't really know how to get faster. My best laps seemed to be a series of gambles at most corners, and a string of lucky wins. The cars responded to unrealistically fast steering movements, and I can see why some people go faster with a joystick. I can clearly see where I need to improve in GTR to progress. My "new PB" laps are usually at the end of a string of decreasing lap times. The PBs often look a bit slow compared to other laps, and I can clearly see where I could be faster. Jerk the wheel in GTR, and you'll lose either the front or the back. A joystick would be ludicrous. Bottom line is that my rush now comes from GTR. I've tried going back to GPL and get no rush, just frustration at the quirky behavior. If you just like the GPL cars, or race online, that's a different matter.

>Bottom line is that my rush now comes from GTR. I've > tried going back to GPL and get no rush, just frustration at the quirky > behavior. > > If you just like the GPL cars, or race online, that's a > different matter. Glad I'm not the only one. I've always been a big GPL fan but if I go back and play it now, it's just undrivable. It feels so quirky and convoluted that it doesn't seem to resemble driving a car much at all. It's kind of like when GPL came out and then I went back and tried to play Crammond's GP2.

"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >Bottom line is that my rush now comes from GTR. I've > > tried going back to GPL and get no rush, just frustration at the quirky > > behavior. > > > > If you just like the GPL cars, or race online, that's a > > different matter. > > Glad I'm not the only one. I've always been a big GPL fan but if I go back > and play it now, it's just undrivable. It feels so quirky and convoluted > that it doesn't seem to resemble driving a car much at all. It's kind of > like when GPL came out and then I went back and tried to play Crammond's > GP2.

Quirky and convoluted should be what sixties cars feel like compared to the modern cars in GTR. Drive what you feel most enjoyed by. For me GTR feels like driving a tank, and I can't even get the eyecandy since my computer is to slow. /andreas -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Sorry to be contradictory, but that statement is a generalisation and is nowhere near correct in most cases. The cars were neither quirky nor convoluted, especially when compared to the later turbos and the ground-effect designs. In 1999, a year after GPL was released, an Australian historic-car racer tried GPL when it was being demo'd at Eastern Creek and Wakefield park. This chap had raced in the Tasman Cup series in the 1960's - when the engines used were 2.5 litre as opposed to the F1's 3.0 litre - and he owned a Repco Brabham BT24, which his wife used to also drive on occasion. According to him, the behaviour of the cars in GPL was way too twitchy; "too nervous" were his exact words. He said that any one of us present could, after becoming accustomed to the car, drive the BT24 at reasonable speeds and not have to put up with the handling as portrayed in GPL. Even at eight to nine tenths, the cars were stable and that it was only when really pushed to their limits that they displayed any uncomfortable behaviour....as any racing machine would. BK "Andreas Davour" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Quirky and convoluted should be what sixties cars feel like compared to > the modern cars in GTR. >

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> writes: > Sorry to be contradictory, but that statement is a generalisation and is > nowhere near correct in most cases. > The cars were neither quirky nor convoluted, especially when compared to the > later turbos and the ground-effect designs. Hey, no problem. If you have better sources than me, quote ahead!

Quoted text (8 lines)

> In 1999, a year after GPL was released, an Australian historic-car racer > tried GPL when it was being demo'd at Eastern Creek and Wakefield park. > This chap had raced in the Tasman Cup series in the 1960's - when the > engines used were 2.5 litre as opposed to the F1's 3.0 litre - and he owned > a Repco Brabham BT24, which his wife used to also drive on occasion. > > According to him, the behaviour of the cars in GPL was way too twitchy; "too > nervous" were his exact words.

Ok. Interesting merits! I would love to own a BT24 or a BT11. :) I usually think many sims where you drive modern cars feel like driving a tank, and for me GPL feels much more like the powerful car that it is I'm driving. Then again, maybe it is more realistic for it to feel like a tank. I have never driven a real racecar. I wonder if GPL could be made to feel like it "should" by changing the setup and/or the force feedback settings? /andreas -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

"Quirky and convoluted should be what sixties cars feel like compared to the modern cars in GTR. " I agree that 60s GP cars shouldn't turn or stop like recent GT cars. That's not my problem. It's responses to control inputs (like yanking the steering or slamming on the brakes) and to setup changes that I find unrealistic. "I wonder if GPL could be made to feel like it "should" by changing the setup and/or the force feedback settings? " As I said. one place where the GPL physics clearly show their weakness is the response to setup changes, which is numb, and/or weird. In a long GPL career, I've tried many, many different setups. So, my answer is no. "Drive what you feel most enjoyed by. For me GTR feels like driving a tank" I agree with the first sentence :-). But the 550 in GTR is damn near as twitchy under acceleration as a GPL car. And, at the edge, every car in GTR is a challenge. The tires stick better to a point, but, past that point...

"Bob" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Quirky and convoluted should be what sixties cars feel like compared > to > the modern cars in GTR. " > > I agree that 60s GP cars shouldn't turn or stop like recent GT cars. > That's not my problem. It's responses to control inputs (like yanking > the steering or slamming on the brakes) and to setup changes that I > find unrealistic.

Well, I don't know much about real cars so maybe you're right. Sometimes I just get the impression that the behaviour is criticized for what it isn't trying to do. Maybe I misunderstood you there.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "I wonder if GPL could be made to feel like it "should" by changing the > setup and/or the force feedback settings? " > > As I said. one place where the GPL physics clearly show their weakness > is the response to setup changes, which is numb, and/or weird. In a > long GPL career, I've tried many, many different setups. So, my answer > is no.

I agree that setups are really weird. I know that some guys do setups I can drive and some don't. I don't understand what's going on at all. Now I use a few basic setup parameters and use them on all tracks, just like many drivers did back then.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Drive what you feel most enjoyed by. For me GTR feels like driving a > tank" > > I agree with the first sentence :-). But the 550 in GTR is damn near > as twitchy under acceleration as a GPL car. And, at the edge, every > car in GTR is a challenge. The tires stick better to a point, but, > past that point...

Live on the edge! :) I'm looking forward to rFactor myself, not that I think I'll tire of GPL soon. /andreas -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

>As I said. one place where the GPL physics clearly show their weakness >is the response to setup changes, which is numb, and/or weird. The chassis would be much less rigid and the tires offered much less grip, and spring/damper changes would be much less presise then today, so fine setup changes would have much less effect then today. So maybe the vagueries of the 1st generation Papy physics engine match the vagueries of 60's chassis dynamics....? ;)

The whole setup was "softer" than the cars of only five years later, let alone the chassis made of composites of today. One glaring anomaly of the original setups was the ground clearance and even the updated version - which was introduced after several of us brought this discrepancy to light with Papyrus - allowed for the cars to sit much lower to the ground than in real life. BK "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> The chassis would be much less rigid and the tires offered much less > grip, and spring/damper changes would be much less presise then today, > so fine setup changes would have much less effect then today. > > So maybe the vagueries of the 1st generation Papy physics engine match > the vagueries of 60's chassis dynamics....? ;) >

"The chassis would be much less rigid and the tires offered much less grip, and spring/damper changes would be much less presise then today, so fine setup changes would have much less effect then today." "The whole setup was "softer" than the cars of only five years later, let alone the chassis made of composites of today. " To clarify: My claim is that, even allowing for 1967 GP technology, response to setup changes is unrealistic, due to weaknesses in the then revolutionary GPL physics model. It's particularly noticeable in the Lotus, whose response to different setups can only be called weird. " One glaring anomaly of the original setups was the ground clearance and even the updated version - which was introduced after several of us brought this discrepancy to light with Papyrus - allowed for the cars to sit much lower to the ground than in real life.' Yep. Try that in GTR and the handling goes because the tires are unloaded over the bumps. You even start to lose a little speed from scraping the bottom.