Rally Trophy - are the physics right?

I'm driving this thing in ditches and stuff and the car never flips over on its side or roof, whats up with that? Perhaps the game defaults to Arcade mode?

"Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm driving this thing in ditches and stuff and the car never flips over > on its side or roof, whats up with that? Perhaps the game defaults to > Arcade mode? Don't diss RT ;-) This game is pure class . If you can't roll the car, you ain't going fast enough ! Mini's are pretty sturdy little beasts, anyhow. Seriously, the physics feel just about right to me. As close as can be expected, I guess. I suspect this game will be a nice off-road companion to GPL if the multiplayer works. The demo is fantastic.

Not entirely as, IMO, the car tends to *want* to end up on it's wheels, but there is a lot more going on than mere arcade (e.g. it's possible to use road undulations to your advantage), but the feel is almost spot on. More so than in any other rally game to date. Most importantly the cars actions and reactions are consistent and predictable within the world of the sim. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "Destroy" wrote... > I'm driving this thing in ditches and stuff and the car never > flips over on its side or roof, whats up with that? Perhaps > the game defaults to Arcade mode?

"Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm driving this thing in ditches and stuff and the car never flips over > on its side or roof, whats up with that? Perhaps the game defaults to > Arcade mode? I flipped it once.

Car's centre of gravity is very misplaced.... *way* too low and too far back.. -- ed_ "Life begins @ 7,000 rpm!" Destroy <[email hidden]> skrev i news:[email hidden]... > I'm driving this thing in ditches and stuff and the car never flips over > on its side or roof, whats up with that? Perhaps the game defaults to > Arcade mode? >

I said before that I love this demo and the physics seem excellent, but to be honest, I don't see how the physics are that much better than RC2000. Feels very similiar to me in many ways. Also, some are saying the center of gravity is too low and the car is too hard to roll in the RT demo. RC2000 was supposedly too easy. I don't think everyone will EVER agree on what "feels" right in this sim or any other. -- David G Fisher "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Not entirely as, IMO, the car tends to *want* to end up on it's wheels, but > there is a lot more going on than mere arcade (e.g. it's possible to use > road undulations to your advantage), but the feel is almost spot on. More so > than in any other rally game to date. Most importantly the cars actions and > reactions are consistent and predictable within the world of the sim. > > Jan. > =--- > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > "Destroy" wrote... > > I'm driving this thing in ditches and stuff and the car never > > flips over on its side or roof, whats up with that? Perhaps > > the game defaults to Arcade mode? > >

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 04:09:56 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I said before that I love this demo and the physics seem excellent, but to >be honest, I don't see how the physics are that much better than RC2000. >Feels very similiar to me in many ways. > >Also, some are saying the center of gravity is too low and the car is too >hard to roll in the RT demo. RC2000 was supposedly too easy. I don't think >everyone will EVER agree on what "feels" right in this sim or any other.

after months of people (including yourself) mentioning RC2000 in a good (but not brilliant) light, i picked up a budget release and installed it. My memories of the demo on my previous celeron 400 machine weren't favourable. running on my duron 800, it is vastly improved. the long stages that felt so tedious before are now much more challenging and realistic and the narrow roads are a joy. it *is* difficult, but I think it certainly is the best rally title i've played. I am hoping that rally trophy is good although I haven't seen the demo yet. as for your points about the center of gravity, etc. Isn't that more a comment on the mini than on the game? :) Regards all, istoff "Its easy to get lost in thought if you don't go there often" - Me, 1993

I have always thought that RC2000 had a better feel than the acclaimed Rally Masters Ash <istoff> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... | On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 04:09:56 GMT, "David G Fisher" | <[email hidden]> wrote: | | >I said before that I love this demo and the physics seem excellent, butto | >be honest, I don't see how the physics are that much better than RC2000. | >Feels very similiar to me in many ways. | > | >Also, some are saying the center of gravity is too low and the car is too | >hard to roll in the RT demo. RC2000 was supposedly too easy. I don'tthink

Quoted text (22 lines)

| >everyone will EVER agree on what "feels" right in this sim or any other. | | after months of people (including yourself) mentioning RC2000 in a | good (but not brilliant) light, i picked up a budget release and | installed it. My memories of the demo on my previous celeron 400 | machine weren't favourable. | | running on my duron 800, it is vastly improved. the long stages that | felt so tedious before are now much more challenging and realistic and | the narrow roads are a joy. it *is* difficult, but I think it | certainly is the best rally title i've played. I am hoping that rally | trophy is good although I haven't seen the demo yet. | | as for your points about the center of gravity, etc. Isn't that more | a comment on the mini than on the game? :) | | | Regards all, | istoff | | "Its easy to get lost in thought | if you don't go there often" - Me, 1993

> I have always thought that RC2000 had a better feel than the acclaimedRally > Masters > I've driven them all and also this demo of Rally Trophy. I've also done some real rallying. I don't know why, but I find the "feel" and "realism" best in Colin McRae, either 1 or 2. I wonder why very few share this opinion? J.T.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:51:46 -0000, "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I have always thought that RC2000 had a better feel than the acclaimed Rally >Masters > >Ash The turning point of Rc2000 was weird, like it was turning around an axis in the middle of the car. And the car felt too light (and yes, the mini in RT feels too heavy :) That said, I still love Rc2000 and I never liked Rally Masters :) Rally Extreme is worse than RC2000 in every way by the way, so don't waste your money on that one. Andre

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:17:10 +0200, "J.T." <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I've driven them all and also this demo of Rally Trophy. I've also done some >real rallying. I don't know why, but I find the "feel" and "realism" best in >Colin McRae, either 1 or 2. > >I wonder why very few share this opinion? > >J.T.

Because CMR2 sucks? :) Andre

"David G Fisher" wrote... > I said before that I love this demo and the physics seem excellent, > but to be honest, I don't see how the physics are that much better > than RC2000. Feels very similiar to me in many ways. It does feel similar, but I can push harder in RT without things going pear shaped. It takes a lot less effort to stay immersed. I don't have any real problem with how the car in RC2000 handles (yes, still got it installed), but I have to mind accept where the limit is instead of "feeling" myself approaching it. > Also, some are saying the center of gravity is too low and the car > is too hard to roll in the RT demo. RC2000 was supposedly too easy. > I don't think everyone will EVER agree on what "feels" right in this > sim or any other. True, although IMNSHO the "roll resistance" is pretty much spot on in RT. It's just once it's started tumbling it seems to bias the movements so the car lands on its wheels. Very weird sensation, totally different from doing the same in say GP3 or GPL. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:17:10 +0200, "J.T." <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> I have always thought that RC2000 had a better feel than the acclaimed >Rally >> Masters >> > >I've driven them all and also this demo of Rally Trophy. I've also done some >real rallying. I don't know why, but I find the "feel" and "realism" best in >Colin McRae, either 1 or 2. > >I wonder why very few share this opinion?

I agree on CMR1..but CMR2 is far to unrealistic...If u have done some real rallying, you must admit that... get over a jump at 130 km/h in real life...the car "hangs" in the air for several meters...in CMR2 the car is down in 1 sec....unrealistic (my opinion) -- Med venlig hilsen / Best regards Thore Sorensen - DK-2700 Bronshoj

> I agree on CMR1..but CMR2 is far to unrealistic...If u have done some > real rallying, you must admit that... get over a jump at 130 km/h in > real life...the car "hangs" in the air for several meters...in CMR2 the > car is down in 1 sec....unrealistic (my opinion) > Agree. Also it is too easy to handle. In CMR2 you can keep the pedal down almost the whole stage and left foot brake your way through. And you get good times doing that. Not realistic. What I like in CMR is the feel and view when sitting inside the car. Also there is a certain right feeling how the curves are coming on your face. And the four wheel physics work quite well. J.T.

I managed to get off course just after "warning rocks" and hit the large rock with the left front wheel. The car went airborne and did 3 or 4 clockwise rolls before landing on it roof. Seemed like a reasonable response to me. :-) Ken Destroy wrote: > I'm driving this thing in ditches and stuff and the car never flips over > on its side or roof, whats up with that? Perhaps the game defaults to > Arcade mode?

"J.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9roofh$qk5$[email hidden]... > Agree. Also it is too easy to handle. In CMR2 you can keep the pedal down > almost the whole stage and left foot brake your way through. And you get > good times doing that. Not realistic. So same as Rally Trophy (demo) then? Why is this demo praised so much? There is already a GPL mentality going on here. Is it just that it is "old" cars? The demo, although good, also has a lot of Arcade feeling in it. Especially the mini driving through ditches no problem, taking hardly any damage smashing into what ever at high speed, and I didn't realize they had heads up displays back then. What is it with those annoying graphics telling me to go left or right, and text messages to tell me something is going wrong with the car, after slamming it into a rock for ten minutes? The codriver sucks too, and is annoying like hell. I think it needs some improvements if it is to become GPL of rallying. Joakim

> So same as Rally Trophy (demo) then? Why is this demo praised so much?There > is already a GPL mentality going on here. Is it just that it is "old"cars? > The demo, although good, also has a lot of Arcade feeling in it.Especially > the mini driving through ditches no problem, taking hardly any damage > smashing into what ever at high speed, and I didn't realize they had heads > up displays back then. What is it with those annoying graphics telling meto > go left or right, and text messages to tell me something is going wrongwith > the car, after slamming it into a rock for ten minutes? The codriver sucks > too, and is annoying like hell. I think it needs some improvements if itis > to become GPL of rallying. > Yep. To me, Rally Trophy seems to be just another nice try. But then again, I'm still waiting for a *real* rally simulation. Haven't seen it yet :(

well said. "Joakim Lauridsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9rove2$vsums$[email hidden]... > > So same as Rally Trophy (demo) then? Why is this demo praised so much?There > is already a GPL mentality going on here. Is it just that it is "old"cars? > The demo, although good, also has a lot of Arcade feeling in it.Especially > the mini driving through ditches no problem, taking hardly any damage > smashing into what ever at high speed, and I didn't realize they had heads > up displays back then. What is it with those annoying graphics telling meto > go left or right, and text messages to tell me something is going wrongwith > the car, after slamming it into a rock for ten minutes? The codriver sucks > too, and is annoying like hell. I think it needs some improvements if itis > to become GPL of rallying. > > Joakim > >

RC2K? Am I the only one that thinks some people here are on crack? RC2K has good parameters of how the car reacts to different inputs, but doesnt really feel like it has much of a physics model. It just pivots and drifts. Pretty lame IMO. RM has much better physics... And RT has the best physics engine for a rally sim Thanks, Alex Ashley McConnell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9rohqc$4bs$[email hidden]... > I have always thought that RC2000 had a better feel than the acclaimedRally > Masters > > Ash > > <istoff> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]... > | On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 04:09:56 GMT, "David G Fisher" > | <[email hidden]> wrote: > | > | >I said before that I love this demo and the physics seem excellent, but > to > | >be honest, I don't see how the physics are that much better thanRC2000. > | >Feels very similiar to me in many ways. > | > > | >Also, some are saying the center of gravity is too low and the car istoo > | >hard to roll in the RT demo. RC2000 was supposedly too easy. I don't > think > | >everyone will EVER agree on what "feels" right in this sim or anyother.

Quoted text (23 lines)

> | > | after months of people (including yourself) mentioning RC2000 in a > | good (but not brilliant) light, i picked up a budget release and > | installed it. My memories of the demo on my previous celeron 400 > | machine weren't favourable. > | > | running on my duron 800, it is vastly improved. the long stages that > | felt so tedious before are now much more challenging and realistic and > | the narrow roads are a joy. it *is* difficult, but I think it > | certainly is the best rally title i've played. I am hoping that rally > | trophy is good although I haven't seen the demo yet. > | > | as for your points about the center of gravity, etc. Isn't that more > | a comment on the mini than on the game? :) > | > | > | Regards all, > | istoff > | > | "Its easy to get lost in thought > | if you don't go there often" - Me, 1993 > >

"Joakim Lauridsen" wrote... > <snip> > So same as Rally Trophy (demo) then? It's possible to exploit the inevitable fact that you're not driving a real car, and therefore not having to suffer the mechanical and fysical consequences of your control actions, in any sim. I.e. any sim can be turned into "an arcade romp" by treating it as one. > Why is this demo praised so much? I don't know. I guess probably because it's good, fun and doesn't suffer from hardware incompatibilities. > There is already a GPL mentality going on here. Is it just that it is"old" cars? This so called "GPL mentality" doesn't exist. I'm sure those who posted favourably about the demo, like myself, genuinely like it. That I and others also still enjoy GPL doesn't enter the equation. As simracers and RAS regulars *we* comment on all new releases we're fortunate enough to be able to play. "The GPL brigade" doesn't always unanymously praise or lament a certain title unless the game in question is exceptional in either direction. There is however no denying the era and style of the cars are similar, as well as the way it communicates to the player. It's therefore no surprise that those who like GPL will get on with and like RT fairly easily. I like to interpret this as being in the game's favour rather than against it. > The demo, although good, also has a lot of Arcade feeling in it. > Especially the mini driving through ditches no problem, They're hardly ditches... more like deep, gentle sloping ruts. Besides, you're supposed to hang a front wheel over them, not purposely drive through them. > taking hardly any damage smashing into what ever at high speed, Cars are too forgiving and too strong for my liking too. However, the car's response within the RT universe is consistent and predictable, allowing me to use what I perceive as realistic techniques to go fast and that's what matters. > and I didn't realize they had heads up displays back then. What is > it with those annoying graphics telling me to go left or right, and > text messages to tell me something is going wrong with the car, after > slamming it into a rock for ten minutes? If we can indeed not turn those off, that would be annoying. Then again, lots of other demos don't allow full customization of the interface either, so that's nothing anyone reviewing the demo should hold against it. > The codriver sucks too, and is annoying like hell. He's much more positive when you don't hit stuff along the way. <g> While not entirely realistic, the co-driver is almost never the owner of the car and as a rule never comments on performance in the stage, I found his comments quite amusing. > I think it needs some improvements if it is to become > GPL of rallying. You're the first to use that particular expression in any RT thread I've read. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

Maybe I am swayed by the fact that I SWEAR I recognise one of the stages from the Ulster rally, where I stood that year :) I am going to install both tonight and try them out, I am pretty sure that RM isnt that hot either tho, and its stages are a little unrealistic IMO compared to RC2k Ash "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:80XD7.1635$[email hidden]... | RC2K? Am I the only one that thinks some people here are on crack? RC2Khas | good parameters of how the car reacts to different inputs, but doesntreally | feel like it has much of a physics model. It just pivots and drifts.Pretty

Quoted text (21 lines)

| lame IMO. RM has much better physics... | | | And RT has the best physics engine for a rally sim | | Thanks, | Alex | Ashley McConnell <[email hidden]> wrote in message | news:9rohqc$4bs$[email hidden]... | > I have always thought that RC2000 had a better feel than the acclaimed | Rally | > Masters | > | > Ash | > | > <istoff> wrote in message | news:[email hidden]... | > | On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 04:09:56 GMT, "David G Fisher" | > | <[email hidden]> wrote: | > | | > | >I said before that I love this demo and the physics seem excellent,

but

Quoted text (36 lines)

| > to | > | >be honest, I don't see how the physics are that much better than | RC2000. | > | >Feels very similiar to me in many ways. | > | > | > | >Also, some are saying the center of gravity is too low and the car is | too | > | >hard to roll in the RT demo. RC2000 was supposedly too easy. I don't | > think | > | >everyone will EVER agree on what "feels" right in this sim or any | other. | > | | > | after months of people (including yourself) mentioning RC2000 in a | > | good (but not brilliant) light, i picked up a budget release and | > | installed it. My memories of the demo on my previous celeron 400 | > | machine weren't favourable. | > | | > | running on my duron 800, it is vastly improved. the long stages that | > | felt so tedious before are now much more challenging and realistic and | > | the narrow roads are a joy. it *is* difficult, but I think it | > | certainly is the best rally title i've played. I am hoping that rally | > | trophy is good although I haven't seen the demo yet. | > | | > | as for your points about the center of gravity, etc. Isn't that more | > | a comment on the mini than on the game? :) | > | | > | | > | Regards all, | > | istoff | > | | > | "Its easy to get lost in thought | > | if you don't go there often" - Me, 1993 | > | > | |

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It's possible to exploit the inevitable fact that you're not driving areal > car, and therefore not having to suffer the mechanical and fysical > consequences of your control actions, in any sim. I.e. any sim can beturned > into "an arcade romp" by treating it as one. Could that argument not also be turned around? > > There is already a GPL mentality going on here. Is it just that it is > "old" cars? > This so called "GPL mentality" doesn't exist. I'm sure those who posted > favourably about the demo, like myself, genuinely like it. That I andothers > also still enjoy GPL doesn't enter the equation. As simracers and RAS > regulars *we* comment on all new releases we're fortunate enough to beable

Quoted text (7 lines)

> to play. "The GPL brigade" doesn't always unanymously praise or lament a > certain title unless the game in question is exceptional in either > direction. > There is however no denying the era and style of the cars are similar, as > well as the way it communicates to the player. It's therefore no surprise > that those who like GPL will get on with and like RT fairly easily. I like > to interpret this as being in the game's favour rather than against it.

I myself is a GPL'er and I love it. But I still think some people go overboard in there praise, and are blind to its weaknesses. And I feel there is some of the same going on with Rally Trophy. The reason for that I can only guess. But I think it has something to do with hte fact that the producers/creators have been very active in here, and I think that teh historic part plays in a great deal too. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is a bad game/demo, I just think it gets a little too much credit in here, from a comunity that more often that not criticies the smallest detail in anything that is not GPL related. And I think there are a lot of little things to criticise in the RT demo. it is only a demo, and so it can improve a hole lot. It�s just the inconsistensy I think there is, and would like to point out. > > The demo, although good, also has a lot of Arcade feeling in it. > > Especially the mini driving through ditches no problem, > They're hardly ditches... more like deep, gentle sloping ruts. Besides, > you're supposed to hang a front wheel over them, not purposely drivethrough > them. maybe so, but I can still lose the car and go straight through it with very little effect to the car. Not what I would expect from a realism perspective. > Cars are too forgiving and too strong for my liking too. However, thecar's > response within the RT universe is consistent and predictable, allowing me > to use what I perceive as realistic techniques to go fast and that's what > matters. Well, I just think it also matters that you are punished for going over the limit too much. > If we can indeed not turn those off, that would be annoying. Then again, > lots of other demos don't allow full customization of the interfaceeither, > so that's nothing anyone reviewing the demo should hold against it. I tend too agree, but if they try and market this toowards the hardcore simlovers, maybe they should have made that possible. They help give the overall impression of a mostly arcade game. > > > The codriver sucks too, and is annoying like hell. > He's much more positive when you don't hit stuff along the way. <g> He's more positive maybe, but he's still not very helpfull. I need distances too. > > While not entirely realistic, the co-driver is almost never the owner ofthe > car and as a rule never comments on performance in the stage, I found his > comments quite amusing. Me too at first. But they very quickly became anoying. That ofcourse is just a question of personal preference and driving ability :-) > > I think it needs some improvements if it is to become > > GPL of rallying. > You're the first to use that particular expression in any RT thread I've > read. Well I think it has been mentioned quite alot. Mayve not those exact word, but GPL on gravel have, and I think the genral expectation was something to that effect before the demo. The Demo did not deliver that IMO, but that somehow have failed to disapoint most of you. I just wonder why? Let me state for the record. I am not out to critisise RT or judge it by the demo, I was just commeting on the lack of criticism that almost all new games get in here, since I was somewhat disapointed by the lack of realism. Joakim > > Jan. > =--- > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > >

Could that argument not also be turned around? I myself is a GPL'er and I love it. But I still think some people go overboard in there praise, and are blind to its weaknesses. And I feel there is some of the same going on with Rally Trophy. The reason for that I can only guess. But I think it has something to do with hte fact that the producers/creators have been very active in here, and I think that teh historic part plays in a great deal too. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is a bad game/demo, I just think it gets a little too much credit in here, from a comunity that more often that not criticies the smallest detail in anything that is not GPL related. And I think there are a lot of little things to criticise in the RT demo. it is only a demo, and so it can improve a hole lot. It?s just the inconsistensy I think there is, and would like to point out. maybe so, but I can still lose the car and go straight through it with very little effect to the car. Not what I would expect from a realism perspective. Well, I just think it also matters that you are punished for going over the limit too much. I tend too agree, but if they try and market this toowards the *** simlovers, maybe they should have made that possible. They help give the overall impression of a mostly arcade game. He's more positive maybe, but he's still not very helpfull. I need distances too. Me too at first. But they very quickly became anoying. That ofcourse is just a question of personal preference and driving ability :-) Well I think it has been mentioned quite alot. Mayve not those exact word, but GPL on gravel have, and I think the genral expectation was something to that effect before the demo. The Demo did not deliver that IMO, but that somehow have failed to disapoint most of you. I just wonder why? Let me state for the record. I am not out to critisise RT or judge it by the demo, I was just commeting on the lack of criticism that almost all new games get in here, since I was somewhat disapointed by the lack of realism. Joakim

It could be that the c of g is just right. It could be they got it wrong in just the mini in the demo. It could be that the mini is an indication that they have set it low in all the cars in the game to make it a little easier (which some people are assuming). I have no idea. :-) David G Fisher <istoff> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 04:09:56 GMT, "David G Fisher" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > as for your points about the center of gravity, etc. Isn't that more > a comment on the mini than on the game? :) > > > Regards all, > istoff > > "Its easy to get lost in thought > if you don't go there often" - Me, 1993

"Joakim Lauridsen" wrote... > <snip> > Could that argument not also be turned around? Not entirely. There's no amount of nurturing by the player that can turn something like Stunt GP into a sim. There's also no getting around the arcade build-up of having to "earn" cars and tracks in some games. I.e. it's possible for the player to pull a game, which threads the line between sim and arcade for the sake of perceived playability, over to the sim side of things by concious effort, but it can only go so far. > <snip> > I myself is a GPL'er and I love it. But I still think some > people go overboard in there praise, and are blind to its > weaknesses. Ah... the magic words: "some people". > And I feel there is some of the same going on with Rally > Trophy. The reason for that I can only guess. But I think > it has something to do with hte fact that the producers/ > creators have been very active in here, and I think that > teh historic part plays in a great deal too. Yes, it helps when a developer communicates and, more importantly, "levels" with *us*. It's much easier to come to terms and "forgive" a design decision when it's presented up front and defended with reasonable argument. Unlike a certain contender in the Nascar sim field I might add... if I was bitter, which I am.<g> The historic/nostalgia part does play a major role I think. Anyone who's interested in motor *sport* (as opposed to those into brand name cult through the vehicle of motor racing) is going to be dissapointed by most of the comtemporary/big bucks offerings. - With the notable exception of Moto GP... is there any limit to this guy Rossi? - Even I, who was too young to be able to appreciate this era when it actually happened, find it somehow "purer" / more worthy. > Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is a bad game/demo, I > just think it gets a little too much credit in here, from a > comunity that more often that not criticies the smallest detail > in anything that is not GPL related. There's nothing detail about a title/demo failing to deliver even the remotest sense of "being there" for the majority of posters. It's not like people here don't try to get into things... *we* are the worst bunch of tweakers and fiddlers to ever disgrace the face of the earth. If it's not there it's not there, sadly. > And I think there are a lot of little things to criticise in > the RT demo. it is only a demo, and so it can improve a hole > lot. It's just the inconsistensy I think there is, and would > like to point out. What inconsistency? A game either succeeds in immersing the player or it doesn't. Everything else is secondary. Those for whom the game pushes the right buttons will comment favourably, those for whom it doesn't, won't. There is fairly little gray area here... the game may have all the licencing, flashy graphics, great framerate or whatever in the world: if it doesn't succeed in grabbing the player he/she won't like it (and, usually, be verbal about it).

Quoted text (8 lines)

> <snip> > maybe so, but I can still lose the car and go straight through > it with very little effect to the car. Not what I would expect > from a realism perspective. > <snip> > Well, I just think it also matters that you are punished for > going over the limit too much.

Agreed, but on the other hand Bugbear and Ilari never claimed the opposite. From what I've read they aimed to produce a game which both the general gamer and the simracing enthousiast could enjoy and, IMO and from what I've seen so far, they've succeeded admirably. > <snip> > I tend too agree, but if they try and market this toowards > the hardcore simlovers, maybe they should have made that > possible. They help give the overall impression of a mostly > arcade game. You have a point there. Personally, though I'm not even looking at these items. I'm not even really listening to the co-driver. I'm *driving* at the limit of my ability... there's no time for distractions. > He's more positive maybe, but he's still not very helpfull. > I need distances too. Pace notes are a sore point in most rally sims. The obvious solution of incorporating "recce's" and allowing people to compile their own notes has obviously not sunk in (and would be out of place in the general context of RT, IMO). > <snip> > Me too at first. But they very quickly became anoying. That of > course is just a question of personal preference and driving > ability :-) Exactly... I found myself doing stuff on purpose to sample the entire spectrum of his sarcasm. Too bad he responded to driving the stage like a granny by stating "finish". <g> > <snip> > Well I think it has been mentioned quite alot. Mayve not those > exact word, but GPL on gravel have, and I think the general > expectation was something to that effect before the demo. Not the impression I got, sorry. > The Demo did not deliver that IMO, but that somehow have failed > to disapoint most of you. I just wonder why? Wait a minute... you agree there are shortcomings in GPL, so why would we "want" GPL on gravel? -The aim must be to experience "the next level" in simracing, IMO. > Let me state for the record. I am not out to critisise RT or > judge it by the demo, I was just commenting on the lack of > criticism that almost all new games get in here, since I > was somewhat disapointed by the lack of realism. I see what you're getting at. However, I think it's easier to accept a game where unrealistic events still produce a reasonable result as opposed to one where a reasonable input triggers an unrealistically bad result. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yes, it helps when a developer communicates and, more importantly,"levels" > with *us*. It's much easier to come to terms and "forgive" a designdecision > when it's presented up front and defended with reasonable argument. I agree, that when I here the reasoning behind a descision, it is easiert ounderstand and maybe forgive. I have not been following that part very closely, but I had the impression that it would be more relasitic, than I preceived from the demo. > > And I think there are a lot of little things to criticise in > > the RT demo. it is only a demo, and so it can improve a hole > > lot. It's just the inconsistensy I think there is, and would > > like to point out. > > What inconsistency? That if it is a modern day game and we have heard nothing from the developers, every little detail that is not up to par, will be critisised in a way that makes you think hte gaem is unplayable. I am 99% sure, that has this been a modern day Rally Sim, and made by EA, people would have been jumping on eachother to say hao bad the physics are.That it is wrong going through a ditch at 90mph in a mini and take no damage and contionue as you had been on the road all a long. That when you drive up a hill and role, sometime you don�t end up the right way, and if you ram front in to a big rock at 120mph you probably don't drive away from that with just a bent hood and cracked windscreen. Further more I think every little detail, such as both the windscreen and side window alway crack together would be pounded out for everyone to hear a long with a warning not to buy this game straight away and wait for the word on the release. Well thats my theory anyway. :-) > Agreed, but on the other hand Bugbear and Ilari never claimed theopposite. > From what I've read they aimed to produce a game which both the general > gamer and the simracing enthousiast could enjoy and, IMO and from whatI've > seen so far, they've succeeded admirably. obviously, since the regulars in here praises it. But as I say, I think it somehow have more to do with the facts that it is historic and the developers have been writing in here, than the quality of realism, that this bunch seems to value more than others might. I could be wrong ofcourse. Maybe I was just a little disapointed. I will not be rushing out and buying this one. I'll wait for a verdict on the final release. It's just that now I'm not sure I trust the opinion of this bunch as we disagree on the demo so much. (one some points any way) > You have a point there. Personally, though I'm not even looking at these > items. I'm not even really listening to the co-driver. I'm *driving* atthe > limit of my ability... there's no time for distractions. Well by the amount of sticj GP3 got from its "sky messages" one would expect RT to receive some to. But maybe not on the grounds of the demo, but I think a lot of people will be disapointed if the cannot turn them off in the release. But offcourse, I shouldn't make my descison from the demo. But again, I wa a littel suprised not to see it mentioned at all as a concern. > > The Demo did not deliver that IMO, but that somehow have failed > > to disapoint most of you. I just wonder why? > > Wait a minute... you agree there are shortcomings in GPL, so why would we > "want" GPL on gravel? -The aim must be to experience "the next level" in > simracing, IMO. because GPL is gennerally concidered the most realistic physics wise? GPL is not perfect by any means, but it is the best we have at the moment. I think that is not just my opinion. And do we realy need another arcade rally game? ok so it's historic cars, but will the none simmer care about that? > I see what you're getting at. However, I think it's easier to accept agame > where unrealistic events still produce a reasonable result as opposed toone > where a reasonable input triggers an unrealistically bad result. I agree, but if it is a question of appealing to different groups, I still think it�s often not a good idea to sit between two chairs, because no one will be entirely happy. The best way would be to let the player decide the level of relism him self, so the arcade gamer who doesn�t want to use the brakes and be able to cut throug the ditch and not damgage the car too much driving into rocks can do that, and the simmer who wants to feel the steering go away when he cuts a tire just runing on the road, and flip the car if hecatches the ditch wrong, can get that too. Joakim

There's no doubt about it. This is an older group, and some of these guys are re-creating their childhood/early adulthood memories of auto racing. They often don't like modern racing (especially F1), and they are biased against modern F1 sims. Also, when a developer pokes their head in here (usually temporarily since it's inevitably bitten off), people here feel like their vast knowledge is being tapped, and they give that sim some slack. If it turns out their advice hasn't been taken, then it's attack time. -- David G Fisher "Joakim Lauridsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9rtoqp$viti8$[email hidden]... > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > What inconsistency? > > That if it is a modern day game and we have heard nothing from the > developers, every little detail that is not up to par, will be critisised in > a way that makes you think hte gaem is unplayable. I am 99% sure, that has > this been a modern day Rally Sim, and made by EA, people would have been > jumping on eachother to say hao bad the physics are.That it is wrong going > through a ditch at 90mph in a mini and take no damage and contionue as you > had been on the road all a long. That when you drive up a hill and role, > sometime you don�t end up the right way, and if you ram front in to a big > rock at 120mph you probably don't drive away from that with just a bent hood > and cracked windscreen. Further more I think every little detail, such as > both the windscreen and side window alway crack together would be pounded > out for everyone to hear a long with a warning not to buy this game straight > away and wait for the word on the release. > > Well thats my theory anyway. :-) > > > Agreed, but on the other hand Bugbear and Ilari never claimed the > opposite. > > From what I've read they aimed to produce a game which both the general > > gamer and the simracing enthousiast could enjoy and, IMO and from what > I've > > seen so far, they've succeeded admirably. > > obviously, since the regulars in here praises it. But as I say, I think it > somehow have more to do with the facts that it is historic and the > developers have been writing in here, than the quality of realism, that this > bunch seems to value more than others might. I could be wrong ofcourse. > Maybe I was just a little disapointed. I will not be rushing out and buying > this one. I'll wait for a verdict on the final release. It's just that now > I'm not sure I trust the opinion of this bunch as we disagree on the demo so > much. (one some points any way) >

IMHO, RT doesn't seem to have 'physics' in the sense that it calculates the state of mathematical system 'car' based on mathematical and physics formulae as accurately as GPL and N4 do. To me, it feels like it rather uses the 'if...then' approach, in which case a car will also do more or less what it's supposed to do under specific circumstances, it just doesn't do it as realistically as a system calculating the state of the system using accurate formulae. I.e., it'll do something, but its more of a prefabricated routine, and approximation, than a mathematically and physically accurate reaction to outer influence. It's still good fun, though :-) Achim "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm driving this thing in ditches and stuff and the car never flips over > on its side or roof, whats up with that? Perhaps the game defaults to > Arcade mode? >

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> IMHO, RT doesn't seem to have 'physics' in the sense that it calculates the > state of mathematical system 'car' based on mathematical and physics > formulae as accurately as GPL and N4 do. > > To me, it feels like it rather uses the 'if...then' approach, in which case > a car will also do more or less what it's supposed to do under specific > circumstances, it just doesn't do it as realistically as a system > calculating the state of the system using accurate formulae. I.e., it'll do > something, but its more of a prefabricated routine, and approximation, than > a mathematically and physically accurate reaction to outer influence. > > It's still good fun, though :-)

Indeed, but I'm getting terrible framerate on my Cel566@850,128,V5 system :( Isn't Crammond's GP series also built on such physics model you are describing here ? Have anyone played RT extensively and then loaded GPL right afterwards ? One word, flat :) -- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > There's no doubt about it. This is an older group, and some of these guys > are re-creating their childhood/early adulthood memories of auto racing. WOW! I didn't know I was trying to recreate my own childhood version of Pole Position. Freud would worship you, DGF. > They often don't like modern racing (especially F1), and they are biased > against modern F1 sims. False. Just the fact that most of the people that praise GPL also praise N4 or F12001 or multiple other titles kinda makes that above statement completely false. Or the whole hype about WSC. How can YOU define that? -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Hi Olaf, > Isn't Crammond's GP series also built on such physics > model you are describing here ? Yes it is. Sorry for the late reply. Achim

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I see what you're getting at. However, I think it's easier to accept agame > where unrealistic events still produce a reasonable result as opposed toone > where a reasonable input triggers an unrealistically bad result. > > Jan. Well... it's about damn time you started seeing GPL for what it is. -- "Racing! - Science for the action minded." mark

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4GZE7.25026$[email hidden]... > > Or the whole hype about WSC. How can YOU define that? I remember reading someone claiming, that if it was not possible to race 1967 F1 cars, he didn't care for it. :o) I think what most people in here are after is ultra relism. Thats why they praise titles like GPL and Nascar 4 and that is also why I didn't understand the praise for Rally Trophy Demo. But I'll just wait for the descision on the final release. What I hear so far is that it is a lot better than the demo realism wise, but still very arcadish for having to unlock cars and tracks! Not very Sim like is it? Joakim

On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:14:39 -0000, "Joakim Lauridsen" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:4GZE7.25026$[email hidden]... >> >> Or the whole hype about WSC. How can YOU define that? > >I remember reading someone claiming, that if it was not possible to race >1967 F1 cars, he didn't care for it. :o) >I think what most people in here are after is ultra relism. Thats why they >praise titles like GPL and Nascar 4 and that is also why I didn't understand >the praise for Rally Trophy Demo. But I'll just wait for the descision on >the final release. What I hear so far is that it is a lot better than the >demo realism wise, but still very arcadish for having to unlock cars and >tracks! Not very Sim like is it?

Not very sim like, but in a strange way I like the idea of having to score a set target first before you can drive the faster cars.. it gave me something to aim for in RC2000 :) Also the way you can earn bonus cars like the pacecar and Arrows three-seater when you finish the trainingschool properly works very nice. Andre > >Joakim > >

On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 15:07:38 GMT, [email hidden] (Andre Warringa) wrote: >Also the way you can earn bonus cars like the pacecar and Arrows >three-seater when you finish the trainingschool properly works very >nice. ^^^^^ Talking about F1 2001 here ofcourse :) Andre

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Andre > >> >>Joakim >> >> >

"Joakim Lauridsen" <[email hidden]> writes: > What I hear so far is that it is a lot better than the > demo realism wise, but still very arcadish for having to unlock cars and > tracks! Not very Sim like is it? you think jumping straight into the top series, without running in the lower series first is more realistic? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 gitaren er en sjingke