RE: GP3 - where are the posts

Yes it's all gone very quiet hasn't it? The best hope we all have for a July 28th release is that this date has been promoted just about everywhere, including Autosport magazine in big letters on a competition page. Such marketing will attract the more casual sim racer, who most likely won't be using this newsgroup to keep in touch with the current situation. To these people a date is a date and if they see a launch day published, that's the one they'll all pick to go to EB, Game, Virgin, HMV or wherever. The long and short of all this is that, having so blatently promoted July 28th as European launch day, Hasbro/Microprose are going to have massive amounts of egg on their face if they fail to meet the deadline. You can bet that, if the game isn't yet finished, there are some bleary eyed guys and gals in that development team. This has to be everyone's best reassurance that the date will be honoured. But then I seem to remember kids in EB with tears in their eyes because Donkey Kong or whatever failed to make it on time as promised and publicised. At the end of the day, a sim with this potential doesn't come along every year, so we may just have to be patient. As a bit of preventive medicine, I'm currently spending a good deal of available sim time developing my racing technique (or lack thereof) in GPL - this game's so deep that I can immerse myself in it if there are any GP3 delays. Just think though. After all this hype what if it all turned out to be less than the total package we all expect? Surely not...

Chris Wright wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Yes it's all gone very quiet hasn't it? > > The best hope we all have for a July 28th release is that this date has been > promoted just about everywhere, including Autosport magazine in big letters > on a competition page. > > Such marketing will attract the more casual sim racer, who most likely won't > be using this newsgroup to keep in touch with the current situation. To > these people a date is a date and if they see a launch day published, that's > the one they'll all pick to go to EB, Game, Virgin, HMV or wherever. > > The long and short of all this is that, having so blatently promoted July > 28th as European launch day, Hasbro/Microprose are going to have massive > amounts of egg on their face if they fail to meet the deadline. > > You can bet that, if the game isn't yet finished, there are some bleary eyed > guys and gals in that development team. >

Been years since a game was released that was actually finished............

Quoted text (15 lines)

> This has to be everyone's best reassurance that the date will be honoured. > But then I seem to remember kids in EB with tears in their eyes because > Donkey Kong or whatever failed to make it on time as promised and > publicised. > > At the end of the day, a sim with this potential doesn't come along every > year, so we may just have to be patient. > > As a bit of preventive medicine, I'm currently spending a good deal of > available sim time developing my racing technique (or lack thereof) in GPL - > this game's so deep that I can immerse myself in it if there are any GP3 > delays. > > Just think though. After all this hype what if it all turned out to be less > than the total package we all expect? Surely not...

You can bet some will be dissappointed, not me tho +) lol wings belong on aeroplanes Martyn_D

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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > Chris Wright wrote: > > > Yes it's all gone very quiet hasn't it? > > > > The best hope we all have for a July 28th release is that this date has

been > > promoted just about everywhere, including Autosport magazine in bigletters > > on a competition page. > > > > Such marketing will attract the more casual sim racer, who most likelywon't > > be using this newsgroup to keep in touch with the current situation. To > > these people a date is a date and if they see a launch day published,that's > > the one they'll all pick to go to EB, Game, Virgin, HMV or wherever. > > > > The long and short of all this is that, having so blatently promotedJuly > > 28th as European launch day, Hasbro/Microprose are going to have massive > > amounts of egg on their face if they fail to meet the deadline. > > > > You can bet that, if the game isn't yet finished, there are some blearyeyed > > guys and gals in that development team. > > > > Been years since a game was released that was actuallyfinished............ > > > This has to be everyone's best reassurance that the date will behonoured. > > But then I seem to remember kids in EB with tears in their eyes because > > Donkey Kong or whatever failed to make it on time as promised and > > publicised. > > > > At the end of the day, a sim with this potential doesn't come alongevery > > year, so we may just have to be patient. > > > > As a bit of preventive medicine, I'm currently spending a good deal of > > available sim time developing my racing technique (or lack thereof) inGPL - > > this game's so deep that I can immerse myself in it if there are any GP3 > > delays. > > > > Just think though. After all this hype what if it all turned out to beless

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > than the total package we all expect? Surely not... > > You can bet some will be dissappointed, not me tho +) lol wings belong on > aeroplanes > > Martyn_D > >

At least when they put wings on an aeroplane they are constrained only by the laws of physics and good engineering principle. The wings we see on cars are defined by formula. They are about the WORST possible way to employ wings on a land vehicle. They know this, that's why they define the formula in the manner they do. There's an old engineering saying, "If it looks right, it is." The implied corallary is, of course, if it looks wrong. . . it is. Today's cars look wrong, at least to this engineer/physicist. Let me start a design path that uses wings in an optimal manner. Only then do I think we will be able to tell if wings belong on a car. I'll say this though, for purely sporting purposes wings on a car serve no purpose whatsoever.

Kevin, What do you mean? Umm...surely they create downforce in order for the car to stick to the road? Ash | | I'll say this though, for purely sporting purposes wings on a car serve no | purpose whatsoever. | |

Well, obviously only Kevin can explain what he means. I'd speulate , however, that he is saying that, from the point of view of creating a good sporting event that is appealing to the spectators and challenging to the drivers, wings are a bad thing. If so, I would agree. I think that, in F1 anyway, the emphasis has moved too far to toward the engineer and too far away from the driver. John Ashley McConnell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8l155i$ck4$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Kevin, > What do you mean? Umm...surely they create downforce in order > for the car to stick to the road? > > Ash > | > | I'll say this though, for purely sporting purposes wings on a car serve

no > | purpose whatsoever. > | > | > >

When the grooved tyres were brought in it certainly seemed that it would have been more sensible to reduce the size of the wings instead; who knows, with the reduction in "dirty air" behind the car, maybe we'd have people o v e r t a k i n g. The only reason I can see for retaining the wings is to allow more space for advertisements, the raison d'�tre of Formula One. -- Tony Whitley (Hoping my broken MSFF is returned before GP3). John Fryatt <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8l1904$68v$[email hidden]... > Well, obviously only Kevin can explain what he means. I'd speulate , > however, that he is saying that, from the point of view of creating a good > sporting event that is appealing to the spectators and challenging to the > drivers, wings are a bad thing. If so, I would agree. I think that, in F1 > anyway, the emphasis has moved too far to toward the engineer and too far > away from the driver. > > > | > > | I'll say this though, for purely sporting purposes wings on a car serve > no > > | purpose whatsoever. > > | > > | > >

"John Fryatt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8l1904$68v$[email hidden]... > Well, obviously only Kevin can explain what he means. I'd speulate , > however, that he is saying that, from the point of view of creating a good > sporting event that is appealing to the spectators and challenging to the > drivers, wings are a bad thing. Well, I don't know that I'd necessarily say a bad thing, but certainly entirely unnecessary. One thing they do that can be considered bad is allowing much higher speeds at the most dangerous part of the racetrack, the corners. It's a paradox, but racing would actually be much safer with LESS cornering grip. To support this argument I'd note that fewer fatalities happen in the rain than in the dry. A lot MORE accidents, but fewer fatalities. Grooving the tires is a lousy way to achieve lower cornering speeds. Ripping the wings off works great. If so, I would agree. I think that, in F1 > anyway, the emphasis has moved too far to toward the engineer and too far > away from the driver. Here I'd actually disagree with you. The rise of the driver in F1 is a fairly recent phenomenon. F1 was always an engineering first form of racing. It's raison d'etre was the ultimate machine. We don't have that anymore. Now it's a star based, soak the fan for money, media event. As an engineer I look at F1 and see sterility. The cars are so rigidly defined by the rules that the "designer" is reduced to diddling with minor details in order to garner some 1/10 of 1% advantage. It is far LESS of an engineer's formula as a result. It's engineering for the brain dead, anal retentive fussbudget. The Tyrrell six wheeler may have been no great success but at least they were allowed to apply creativity to an engineering problem and stick their necks out to see if their solution worked! That sort of thing can't be allowed today. If one competitor were allowed a new idea that actually gave them a distinct advantage over the others it would be bad for the sport, i.e. *The Gate.* Money talks, the lawyers have taken control of the 'show.' Here's my solution. Seperate the driver's championship and the manufacturer's championship. The driver's championship would be run with a spec chassis, spec motor, and spec tires. All of these would be defined on a cost/benifit basis in order to keep the overall cost of operation low. So low that the upper middle class could, at least in theory, finance their own championship team out of pocket. NO WINGS. Basically I'm talking a beefed up, de-aeroed Formula Mazda here. F1 would be a manufacturer's championship only. The rules would be fairly simple. Your car can only be so big. It has to have these driver safety items. It has to breath through this little tube. That's IT! Ok, I've stuck my neck out. Let the chopping begin.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > John > > Ashley McConnell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8l155i$ck4$[email hidden]... > > Kevin, > > What do you mean? Umm...surely they create downforce in

order > > for the car to stick to the road? > > > > Ash > > | > > | I'll say this though, for purely sporting purposes wings on a carserve

Quoted text (8 lines)

> no > > | purpose whatsoever. > > | > > | > > > > > >

I always thought the main reason for the regulations was to keep the cars from becoming TOO fast. If you let it to the teams and engineers, with NO restrictions at all, then we would soon have cars racing around the tracks with 450 kph topspeeds and ridiculous cornering speeds. And pilots getting killed every month or so. Remember: even with more restrictions every year, the cars still make a progress of several seconds per year! What would it be like WITHOUT restrictions???? Therefore, I can see the need for somekind of regulation. JoH

"Jo Helsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> I always thought the main reason for the regulations was to keep the > cars from becoming TOO fast. If you let it to the teams and engineers, > with NO restrictions at all, then we would soon have cars racing > around the tracks with 450 kph topspeeds and ridiculous cornering > speeds. And pilots getting killed every month or so. > > Remember: even with more restrictions every year, the cars still make > a progress of several seconds per year! What would it be like WITHOUT > restrictions???? > > Therefore, I can see the need for somekind of regulation. > > JoH > >

You will note that one of the provisions that I suggest has no other purpose than to limit the ultimate power producable by the motor. It does this while imposing absolutely no limits as to the type or design of combustion motor, and can be adapted to many types of non combustion motors as well. It functions cheaply, easily, and can be changed at will at the cost of only a couple of bucks.