F1 2001 - Monza asphalt

Anyone else got light brown (gravel looking) asphalt at monza? I'm also a bit disappointed with the gradients at Silverstone. Since when was the run down to bridge corner ever so slightly uphill? :-/ Kev

"Kevin Clark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Anyone else got light brown (gravel looking) asphalt at monza? > > I'm also a bit disappointed with the gradients at Silverstone. Since > when was the run down to bridge corner ever so slightly uphill? :-/ And Stow corner have 15deg's of camber, and Priory corner be over the brow of a hill, the tracks are full of errors that make you wonder if they've actually visited the tracks. Surely any developer worth it's weight in horse shit would compare their track with an in car lap from the TV? Or is that too much like hard work? Pity really - because it's actually quite good. Doug

> Anyone else got light brown (gravel looking) asphalt at monza? Yes - not good at all. Monza has dark gray asphalt. > I'm also a bit disappointed with the gradients at Silverstone. Since > when was the run down to bridge corner ever so slightly uphill? :-/ I'm a bit disappointed with the F1 2001 tracks in general, especially compared to GPL tracks. The gradients and cambers are not only wrong in some places, but seem to be very crudely represented, almost as though there aren't enough polygons allocated to the track beds. - Michael

Out of interest, how do you check the accuracy of the GPL tracks? Iain "MP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Anyone else got light brown (gravel looking) asphalt at monza? > > Yes - not good at all. Monza has dark gray asphalt. > > > I'm also a bit disappointed with the gradients at Silverstone. Since > > when was the run down to bridge corner ever so slightly uphill? :-/ > > I'm a bit disappointed with the F1 2001 tracks in general, especially > compared to GPL tracks. > > The gradients and cambers are not only wrong in some places, but seem to > be very crudely represented, almost as though there aren't enough > polygons allocated to the track beds. > > - Michael

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:59:47 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Out of interest, how do you check the accuracy of the GPL tracks? >Iain Just like the modern tracks, photos and films. And papy had blueprints of 10 of the 11 tracks. (The Ring was the missing one). Andre

Interesting isn't it, as a criticism of F1 2001 is that the developers used video and photos!!! hmmm..... Iain "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:59:47 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Out of interest, how do you check the accuracy of the GPL tracks? > >Iain > > Just like the modern tracks, photos and films. > And papy had blueprints of 10 of the 11 tracks. > (The Ring was the missing one). > > Andre

In article <Fs%y7.3733$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Out of interest, how do you check the accuracy of the GPL tracks? > Iain A lot of them you can still go there and drive the original roads, although they are usually wider and junctions are altered. e.g. Nurburgring, Spa, Rouen Papyrus made extensive visits to get the tracks right. But the main thing I mentioned in my previous post was that they seem to have a better feel for what makes the experience of driving the race track. Scenery to the sides of the track is important for atmosphere, but the most important things to get right are: - track map, corner radii etc. - gradients - camber ( banking or crowning ) - kerbs (curbs for you in the US!) - armco/track barrier In my view, F1 2001 falls well short of the quality threshold in many of these areas. - MichaelJP

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 07:21:47 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Interesting isn't it, as a criticism of F1 2001 is that the developers used >video and photos!!! hmmm..... >Iain One more thing: I know (from a chat with cassidy and kaemmer) they also visited the Ring. I don't know if they visited the other existing tracks, but because they didn't have a blueprint of the Ring, a visit was a good idea :) And I can tell you - I spent 3 days on the Ring in real life - Papy's version comes damn close. Andre

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 07:21:47 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Interesting isn't it, as a criticism of F1 2001 is that the developers used >video and photos!!! hmmm..... >Iain I missed that one, but obviously they didn't look good enough then :) (ps don't forget I also mentioned the blueprints) Andre

> In my view, F1 2001 falls well short of the quality threshold in many of > these areas. Compared to GPL? Come on guy's. F1 2001 was made for the mass market. There is no comparison. When you compare F1 2001 to the "other" modern F1 sims, it's about as good as it gets.

In article <3Rgz7.1343$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > In my view, F1 2001 falls well short of the quality threshold in many of > > these areas. > > Compared to GPL? Come on guy's. F1 2001 was made for the mass market. There > is no comparison. When you compare F1 2001 to the "other" modern F1 sims, > it's about as good as it gets. There's no excuse for not meeting quality standards. Mass market products have a much bigger production budget than niche products like GPL, so if anything they should be higher standard. If you want an example, look at the amazing quality of the graphics, track models and textures in Gran Turismo 3, you don't get much more mass market than that! - Michael

MP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <3Rgz7.1343$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > > In my view, F1 2001 falls well short of the quality threshold in manyof > > > these areas. > > > > Compared to GPL? Come on guy's. F1 2001 was made for the mass market.There > > is no comparison. When you compare F1 2001 to the "other" modern F1sims,

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > it's about as good as it gets. > > There's no excuse for not meeting quality standards. Mass market > products have a much bigger production budget than niche products like > GPL, so if anything they should be higher standard. > > If you want an example, look at the amazing quality of the graphics, > track models and textures in Gran Turismo 3, you don't get much more > mass market than that! > > - Michael >

I hear they used GPS to get the right elevations and corner radii for the Trial Mountain course... :-) Stephen

"MP" <MP@ > If you want an example, look at the amazing quality of the graphics, > track models and textures in Gran Turismo 3, you don't get much more > mass market than that! > > - Michael > Well lets see....wasn't GT 3 originally called GT 2000? Didn't it get delayed, delayed, delayed? Quality costs time. Btw...how much does GT3 cost compared to F12k+1? dave henrie

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TzBz7.23625$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "MP" <MP@ > > If you want an example, look at the amazing quality of the graphics, > > track models and textures in Gran Turismo 3, you don't get much more > > mass market than that! > > > > - Michael > > > Well lets see....wasn't GT 3 originally called GT 2000? Didn't it get > delayed, delayed, delayed? Quality costs time. Btw...how much does GT3 > cost compared to F12k+1?

Bout the same. �30 Doug

Most new PS2 games are running $44 US dollars to $54. F12k001 is $29. (how many quid is that?) dave henrie "Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message Quality costs time. Btw...how much does GT3

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > cost compared to F12k+1? > > Bout the same. �30 > > Doug > > >

In article <3bce9fd8$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > I hear they used GPS to get the right elevations and corner radii for the > Trial Mountain course... :-) Even their fantasy tracks look more real than most racing games real ones! - Michael

says... :-) Even their fantasy tracks look more real than most racing games real ones! - Michael