Re: F12000

My F1 2000 has a big wall there...maybe youre blind perhaps? "Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:Jr935.1807$%[email hidden]... > Iain, > > you're totally right in saying my comments on every curb in the game being > wrong is absolute crap. > It was a bad argument but mainly because I haven't played the game sinceit > just after the release (just like I said in my original posting). I just > couldn't remember exactly and was worried I might confuse some badmodelling > in MGPRS2 with F12000's. But I do know that there really were too many > inaccuracies, take for example the last corner at Canada today, in reallife > you run really close to the barrier. While if I remember correctly inF12000 > there's grass, and that's really one of the many places where I feel EAhas

Quoted text (15 lines)

> been inaccurate. And if the AI had been very good that would not have been > the worst thing, but I considered the AI to be very bad. > I, personally, don't see why he reacted so strongly on an IMHO rather weak > posting from me. > > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:h5935.2351$[email hidden]... > > > This is just absolute crap! > > I'm beginning to agree with Greg about this being all BS. Before I had > some > > sympathy with views from those who have driven the tracks, but not any > more. > > It's like a bandwagon, an idea that some people have latched onto. The > > accuracy in F12K is no less perfect than any other sim and a hell of a

lot > > better than most. > > I doubt very much if most people would know if a track was well modelled > or > > not. I have driven Silverstone many times, and I had no problem withthe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > accuracy of the track. However, others - who had never been to > Silverstone - > > had. Where does that leave us? > > > That I do entirely agree with. Why Eau Rouge is so bad I don't know. > > > > Nobody who has an interest in racing sims would ever criticise GC. He

is > a > > master. I have lived with his sims from 'Revs' onwards. How many ofthose > > contributing to RAS remember that? GP and GP2 (along with GPL) havegiven > > me more pleasure on my PC over the last few years than anything else - I > > have lived and breathed those sims for years. > > What is very annoying about some of the posts on this NG, is that it is > > assumed that GP3 will blow the socks off everything else (includingF12K).

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > As I am a sim racer I sincerely hope that those aspirations become > reality. > > I want it to be true as well! > > But, GP3 is not here yet and there is no point in slagging off some > pefectly > > good software on the basis that GP3 might beat the socks of it. It's all > > conjecture at this point. F12K is here now, and for all its

shortcomings

Quoted text (10 lines)

> is > > a damn good attempt at modern F1 and gives me, and lots of other > discerning > > sim racers, a lot of pleasure. > > Iain > > > > > > > >

Harjan Brand wrote;

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >the dutch F3000 driver Christijan Albers just drove the Canada track with >F12000. His face told me that my latest assumption of the driving technique >needed in real F1 was wrong. His only comment was: this thing is very pointy >(moveable, steerhappy). You don't actually drive that F12000 car, you play a >reaction game through from corner to corner. >If Albers thinks it isn't realistic, I don't think you should assume it is. >

His comments remind me of the default setup, both garage and controller menu. I like a soft front, soft brake ratio, and all the way low controller sensitivity with speed sensitivity only on 4%. Also, I have to knock off the bump stops to less than the ride height. In other words, the default of just about everything in this sim sucks. I edited the level of detail files to show the car and tire details at a greater distance because on my PII 400 V2 I was getting up to 60 fps for the replays! Downloaded some car gfx and now they look stunning, best of any sim. No more ripe tomato Ferrari. No more blocky tires. I race with gfx high/max 800x600, 7AI, 8 cars display, NO MIRRORS. FPS 20-35 after the first lap. I lower the wings for the A1 Ring and on the few sweeping turns it feels almost like GPL, and I have to drive those turns with that style. Stunning. This gorgeous sim has taken over my life. I like the AI, my favorite of any sim. In fact, I've not booted any other game since getting F1 2000. However, I'm no F3000 driver and I certainly never won a GPL Grand Prix Championship, I've only broken 1:07 at the Glen a few times. So your high talent level may put you "out of the race". I race F1 2000 with AI at 90 to 95%, and short races. Love it. Yeah, Fisechella tapped me, but I got him the day before, so I can't blame him. I didn't wreck, but he got by me. It's not a problem with short races. Full length, you might not be allowed to finish, I don't know. You don't like the Insert key cockpit view? That's because it's a bummer. Edit it! Here's mine, in Season00\vehicles\Prost\G15gpxa.veh : eyepoint=(0.592,-0.115) // (0.520,-0.070) y pos is up, z neg is forw Now it's perfect. You don't like the Home key cockpits? I just go to \save\Tom\cams.cfg : Here's your tutorial: [CONFIG] Name="tutorial view" // z,y,x: pos forward, pos down. pos left -0.0838 is center. Position=(0.0,-0.065,-0.0838) // third is tilt with 3.9 being upright. Orientation=(0.0,0.0,3.9) FOV=(10.0,7.5) // zoom. use 4/3 ratio. Lag=(0.2,0.06) // first is vert lag, second is horizontal lag. Thrills. Radius=(0.0875) // fisheye is pos Seems like hardcore sims suck out of the box: AOE, FCG, EAW, GPL, F12K. I thought GP3 was going to model slicks. Tom

Harjin, You really are a self opinionated dick....shut up! Harjan Brand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%0735.1754$%[email hidden]... > Greg, > > the dutch F3000 driver Christijan Albers just drove the Canada track with > F12000. His face told me that my latest assumption of the drivingtechnique > needed in real F1 was wrong. His only comment was: this thing is verypointy > (moveable, steerhappy). You don't actually drive that F12000 car, you playa > reaction game through from corner to corner. > If Albers thinks it isn't realistic, I don't think you should assume itis. > > >

I'm running the game with the paths and quite a few updates (car textures etc. etc.) on a PIII-600 with a Asus V3800 TNT2. I,m really pleased with it !!!!!!!!!!!! installed the other day F1 World grand prix (Eidos ?), and this is really HORRIBLE !!!!!!!!!! Of course, i'm waiting for GP3.........

of course with paths i mean patches. "news.talkline.nl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ij93t$s47$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I'm running the game with the paths and quite a few > updates (car textures etc. etc.) on a PIII-600 with > a Asus V3800 TNT2. > > I,m really pleased with it !!!!!!!!!!!! > installed the other day F1 World grand prix (Eidos ?), and this is really > HORRIBLE !!!!!!!!!! > Of course, i'm waiting for GP3......... > >

> Could somebody tell me whether F12000 really improved that much with theall > those patches. The AIs have improved quite a bit, but they're still way too agressive. The Game is still unplayably slow (about 10 fps and stuttering because of constant texture loading) on my Celeron 566 / Voodoo3 / 256 mb System as soon as I start a race with more than 2 AI drivers though. Testing it on a Athlon 800 / GeForce / 256 mb ram it didn't improve much. The Graphics are ugly in low resolutions, but look great in high res and full texture detail - but I don't think a machine exists that can run it smoothly. The Physics can be tweaked by editing the ini files. The standard settings are ridiculous and aimed at the arcade market, but you can tweak the physics up to a level where they can be called very realistic, even impressive... IMO of course. If you want the edited settings I can send them to you via e-mail. The cockpit view is horrible and I simply can't identify with driving "rollbar" or "arcade view". Everything seems to have a totally wrong perspective, I think this is caused by the ISI guys assumption that a f1 driver's head is only 5 cm wide ;-). The tracks are inaccurate and unbalanced. The sounds are (in theory) excellent samples but strangely enough don't sound anything like a f1 car. I guess a bad sound system ruins it all. To make it short, EA's F12k still has serious problems in that order: 1. Frame Rate / Graphics 2. Track Accuracy / Perspective 3. AI / 4. Lack of features (telemetry etc.) I would advise you to wait for GP3 (released early september), but if you want to do something while waiting and you don't mind spending money for a beta version of future f1-games by EA than you could get F1-2000, appy the latest patch and the physics tweaks and hotlap around some of the circuits. But if you want to hear my honest opionion: I don't think you'll like it. Any comparison to GP3 was only marketing bla by EA. In reality, they aren't even in the same league, and they had to release the game unfinished not to be squashed by the superior product. The sad thing is that their policy was successfull :-( cheers, Alex

"Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Yh135.1718$%[email hidden]... (snip) > To get through the time waiting for GP3 I'm now thinking of buying F12000, > but only if the AI has improved significantly . The track modelling Iwould > have to live with, but I just can't stand bad AI. > >For me the AI is still an inhibiting factor to my enjoyment of this sim even with the latest patches. Even at 100% they are still poor. Others here have little or no problem with the AI. My best explaination for this difference is that your driving style needs to be be compatible with the AI's style otherwise you'll spend a lot of time cursing the programmers for making the AI so rigid in its behaviour. Best bet is to go back to your friends computer and try a fully patched up version. BTW CPU power makes a significant difference in the drivability of F1-2000. I went from a Cel 433 to a P3-733 and now the much better framerate allows a smoother drive. I can now correct the small errors before they turn into large ones. David

Harjin, You really are a self opinionated***....shut up!

of course with paths i mean patches.

Could somebody tell me whether F12000 really improved that much with the all those patches. I borrowed it from a friend the moment it came out and played it for about half a week and really hated it. The track modelling and AI were just so bad. I had my doubts over the physics as well, the driving just seemed too much of a reaction game. I always had that same feeling with MGPRS2 but now after really studying some onboard footage I feel the grooved tires and the brakes have changed F1 driving more than I realized. These guys are not driving through corners any more, they just slam the brakes really late, turn the wheel a bit keep the revs constantly low (around 11 ,000 rpm), put the car straight and then hit the throttle. They just don't drive through the corners. So if GP3 is realistic we can be sure we'll have the same kind of driving, a kind of driving I don't like. To get through the time waiting for GP3 I'm now thinking of buying F12000, but only if the AI has improved significantly . The track modelling I would have to live with, but I just can't stand bad AI.

Thank you Alex and David for your responses, the AI is really important for me since I don't get the same thrill from doing hotlapping. So I guess I'll have to wait until the GP3 release. Someone mentioned it could be a June release in the UK, if that's right I'll either try to order it online in the UK. "Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8iiapb$4r26g$[email hidden]... > > > Could somebody tell me whether F12000 really improved that much with the > all > > those patches. > > The AIs have improved quite a bit, but they're still way too agressive.The > Game is still unplayably slow (about 10 fps and stuttering because of > constant texture loading) on my Celeron 566 / Voodoo3 / 256 mb System as > soon as I start a race with more than 2 AI drivers though. Testing it on a > Athlon 800 / GeForce / 256 mb ram it didn't improve much. The Graphicsare > ugly in low resolutions, but look great in high res and full texture > detail - but I don't think a machine exists that can run it smoothly. > > The Physics can be tweaked by editing the ini files. The standard settings > are ridiculous and aimed at the arcade market, but you can tweak thephysics

Quoted text (11 lines)

> up to a level where they can be called very realistic, even impressive... > IMO of course. If you want the edited settings I can send them to you via > e-mail. > > The cockpit view is horrible and I simply can't identify with driving > "rollbar" or "arcade view". Everything seems to have a totally wrong > perspective, I think this is caused by the ISI guys assumption that a f1 > driver's head is only 5 cm wide ;-). > > The tracks are inaccurate and unbalanced. The sounds are (in theory) > excellent samples but strangely enough don't sound anything like a f1

car.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I guess a bad sound system ruins it all. > > To make it short, EA's F12k still has serious problems in that order: > > 1. Frame Rate / Graphics > 2. Track Accuracy / Perspective > 3. AI / > 4. Lack of features (telemetry etc.) > > I would advise you to wait for GP3 (released early september), but if you > want to do something while waiting and you don't mind spending money for

a > beta version of future f1-games by EA than you could get F1-2000, appy the > latest patch and the physics tweaks and hotlap around some of thecircuits. > But if you want to hear my honest opionion: I don't think you'll like it. > > Any comparison to GP3 was only marketing bla by EA. In reality, theyaren't > even in the same league, and they had to release the game unfinished notto > be squashed by the superior product. The sad thing is that their policywas

Quoted text (7 lines)

> successfull :-( > > > cheers, > Alex > >

"David Erb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7L135.6327$[email hidden]... > For me the AI is still an inhibiting factor to my enjoyment of this simeven > with the latest patches. Even at 100% they are still poor. Others herehave > little or no problem with the AI. My best explaination for this difference > is that your driving style needs to be be compatible with the AI's style "Compatable"?!?! IMHO you just need to be patient and not make stupid mistakes. Also, the AI may crash into you a little, but it happens in real life too. F1 2000 is way better than you make it out to be. > otherwise you'll spend a lot of time cursing the programmers for makingthe > AI so rigid in its behaviour. Best bet is to go back to your friends > computer and try a fully patched up version. > > BTW CPU power makes a significant difference in the drivability ofF1-2000. > I went from a Cel 433 to a P3-733 and now the much better framerate allowsa > smoother drive. I can now correct the small errors before they turn into > large ones. Correct, IMHO you need a fast CPU to get the most of this game. -- [email hidden]

"Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Yh135.1718$%[email hidden]... > Could somebody tell me whether F12000 really improved that much with theall > those patches. I borrowed it from a friend the moment it came out andplayed > it for about half a week and really hated it. The track modelling and AI > were just so bad. I had my doubts over the physics as well, the drivingjust Bad track modeling and AI, right... Check... Whatever. OK, exactly what part of what track is modeled wrong in your opinion? I simply do not bleieve this BS anymore. As for AI, you just have to be patient and not make stupid arcade type mistakes. I never had a AI problem. > seemed too much of a reaction game. I always had that same feeling with > MGPRS2 but now after really studying some onboard footage I feel thegrooved > tires and the brakes have changed F1 driving more than I realized. These > guys are not driving through corners any more, they just slam the brakes > really late, turn the wheel a bit keep the revs constantly low (around 11 > ,000 rpm), put the car straight and then hit the throttle. They just don't > drive through the corners. So if GP3 is realistic we can be sure we'llhave > the same kind of driving, a kind of driving I don't like. What proof do you have that F1 2000 is not realistic? Or that GP3 will be more realistic? Heck, what proof do you have that GP3 will be a better F1 game than F1 2000? After all it is modeling the '98 season and the tracks have changed since then. How will you know that those track models will be right. Oh wait... I guess it has to be right simply because it is GP3. -- [email hidden] > To get through the time waiting for GP3 I'm now thinking of buying F12000, > but only if the AI has improved significantly . The track modelling I would > have to live with, but I just can't stand bad AI. > > >

> Heck, what proof do you have that GP3 will be a better F1 game than F12000 Geoff Crammond.... Oh boy... how much we will enjoy slapping these foolish remarks of yours around your ears when GP3 is out, ghehe...

I'll tell what part of what track isn't correctly modelled, about every curb stone found at about every track. Especially at places where those curb stones are important in real life. One good example is the first corner at Brasil and the last corner at Imola. The curbstones at the chicanes at Monza aren't correct either. The Eau Rouge corner is one big joke, I've driven at Spa in real life and I can tell you that part doesn't resemble the real part one bit. The AI is just plain stupid, I was far quicker and even if I waited for them there was no racing possible, they were over aggresive. And what the hell are you talking about when telling me not to make stupid arcade type mistakes? I wasn't aware you were there in my room, please stay away. No, really, what kind of response is this suppose to be. I race the GPL AI all the time, won the Grand Prix championship and so I do think I can race a well programmed AI. Oh and the last part of your response shows even better that you didn't even try to understand my posting. If you would have read it then you would have seen that I've come to the conclusion that the kind of driving that is needed in F1200 is the kind of driving that is needed in modern F1 racing. But no, you just start some GP3 lover bashing. You need proof from me to show GP3 is better? I can't give you that, but you could try GP and then GP2. Maybe that'll show you that GC makes 'quite' good games. It's no proof but it's the same thing as hearing the BMW is going to build a racing engine. We will not know whether it will be any good until it's in the car, but the fact that it is made by BMW does give an indication it will be something special. GC is a perfectionist, and perfectionism is far too expensive for EA.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Bad track modeling and AI, right... Check... > > Whatever. > > OK, exactly what part of what track is modeled wrong in your opinion? > I simply do not bleieve this BS anymore. > > As for AI, you just have to be patient and not make stupid arcade type > mistakes. I never had a AI problem. > > > seemed too much of a reaction game. I always had that same feeling with > > MGPRS2 but now after really studying some onboard footage I feel the > grooved > > tires and the brakes have changed F1 driving more than I realized. These > > guys are not driving through corners any more, they just slam the brakes > > really late, turn the wheel a bit keep the revs constantly low (around

11 > > ,000 rpm), put the car straight and then hit the throttle. They justdon't

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > drive through the corners. So if GP3 is realistic we can be sure we'll > have > > the same kind of driving, a kind of driving I don't like. > > What proof do you have that F1 2000 is not realistic? Or that GP3 will > be more realistic? Heck, what proof do you have that GP3 will be a > better F1 game than F1 2000? After all it is modeling the '98 season > and the tracks have changed since then. How will you know that those > track models will be right. Oh wait... I guess it has to be right simply > because it is GP3. > > > -- > > [email hidden] > > > > > To get through the time waiting for GP3 I'm now thinking of buying

F12000,

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > but only if the AI has improved significantly . The track modelling I > would > > have to live with, but I just can't stand bad AI. > > > > > > > >

Greg, the dutch F3000 driver Christijan Albers just drove the Canada track with F12000. His face told me that my latest assumption of the driving technique needed in real F1 was wrong. His only comment was: this thing is very pointy (moveable, steerhappy). You don't actually drive that F12000 car, you play a reaction game through from corner to corner. If Albers thinks it isn't realistic, I don't think you should assume it is.

> I'll tell what part of what track isn't correctly modelled, about everycurb > stone found at about every track.This is just absolute crap! I'm beginning to agree with Greg about this being all BS. Before I had some sympathy with views from those who have driven the tracks, but not any more. It's like a bandwagon, an idea that some people have latched onto. The accuracy in F12K is no less perfect than any other sim and a hell of a lot better than most. I doubt very much if most people would know if a track was well modelled or not. I have driven Silverstone many times, and I had no problem with the accuracy of the track. However, others - who had never been to Silverstone - had. Where does that leave us? > The Eau Rouge corner is one big joke >That I do entirely agree with. Why Eau Rouge is so bad I don't know. > You need proof from me to show GP3 is better? I can't give you that, butyou > could try GP and then GP2. Maybe that'll show you that GC makes 'quite'good > games.Nobody who has an interest in racing sims would ever criticise GC. He is a master. I have lived with his sims from 'Revs' onwards. How many of those contributing to RAS remember that? GP and GP2 (along with GPL) have given me more pleasure on my PC over the last few years than anything else - I have lived and breathed those sims for years. What is very annoying about some of the posts on this NG, is that it is assumed that GP3 will blow the socks off everything else (including F12K). As I am a sim racer I sincerely hope that those aspirations become reality. I want it to be true as well! But, GP3 is not here yet and there is no point in slagging off some pefectly good software on the basis that GP3 might beat the socks of it. It's all conjecture at this point. F12K is here now, and for all its shortcomings is a damn good attempt at modern F1 and gives me, and lots of other discerning sim racers, a lot of pleasure. Iain

Thank you, always like such well constructed critics, but since I'm a bit stupid could you clarify it even a bit more. Your self opinionated dick. "Jeremy Woodward" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ij5p6$num$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Harjin, > > You really are a self opinionated dick....shut up! > Harjan Brand <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%0735.1754$%[email hidden]... > > Greg, > > > > the dutch F3000 driver Christijan Albers just drove the Canada track

with > > F12000. His face told me that my latest assumption of the driving > technique > > needed in real F1 was wrong. His only comment was: this thing is very > pointy > > (moveable, steerhappy). You don't actually drive that F12000 car, youplay

Quoted text (9 lines)

> a > > reaction game through from corner to corner. > > If Albers thinks it isn't realistic, I don't think you should assume it > is. > > > > > > > >

Iain, you're totally right in saying my comments on every curb in the game being wrong is absolute crap. It was a bad argument but mainly because I haven't played the game since it just after the release (just like I said in my original posting). I just couldn't remember exactly and was worried I might confuse some bad modelling in MGPRS2 with F12000's. But I do know that there really were too many inaccuracies, take for example the last corner at Canada today, in real life you run really close to the barrier. While if I remember correctly in F12000 there's grass, and that's really one of the many places where I feel EA has been inaccurate. And if the AI had been very good that would not have been the worst thing, but I considered the AI to be very bad. I, personally, don't see why he reacted so strongly on an IMHO rather weak posting from me. "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:h5935.2351$[email hidden]... > This is just absolute crap! > I'm beginning to agree with Greg about this being all BS. Before I hadsome > sympathy with views from those who have driven the tracks, but not anymore. > It's like a bandwagon, an idea that some people have latched onto. The > accuracy in F12K is no less perfect than any other sim and a hell of a lot > better than most. > I doubt very much if most people would know if a track was well modelledor > not. I have driven Silverstone many times, and I had no problem with the > accuracy of the track. However, others - who had never been toSilverstone - > had. Where does that leave us? > That I do entirely agree with. Why Eau Rouge is so bad I don't know. > > Nobody who has an interest in racing sims would ever criticise GC. He isa

Quoted text (7 lines)

> master. I have lived with his sims from 'Revs' onwards. How many of those > contributing to RAS remember that? GP and GP2 (along with GPL) have given > me more pleasure on my PC over the last few years than anything else - I > have lived and breathed those sims for years. > What is very annoying about some of the posts on this NG, is that it is > assumed that GP3 will blow the socks off everything else (including F12K). > As I am a sim racer I sincerely hope that those aspirations become

reality. > I want it to be true as well! > But, GP3 is not here yet and there is no point in slagging off somepefectly > good software on the basis that GP3 might beat the socks of it. It's all > conjecture at this point. F12K is here now, and for all its shortcomingsis > a damn good attempt at modern F1 and gives me, and lots of otherdiscerning > sim racers, a lot of pleasure. > Iain > > >

"Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%0735.1754$%[email hidden]... > Greg, > > the dutch F3000 driver Christijan Albers just drove the Canada track with > F12000. His face told me that my latest assumption of the drivingtechnique > needed in real F1 was wrong. His only comment was: this thing is verypointy > (moveable, steerhappy). You don't actually drive that F12000 car, you playa > reaction game through from corner to corner. > If Albers thinks it isn't realistic, I don't think you should assume itis. For the record, I never said it (F1 2000) was absolutely perfect and absolutely realistic. In fact my whole argument is that there is no way the inaccuracies in F1 2000 dismiss it as the premier modern F1 PC racing game. Some of you people make F1 2000 sound like the Psygnosis sim or something. Or official F1. No way... After all, a real race car driver is never going to be thrilled with the PC game part of the hobby. He has the real thing and nothing else comes close. -- [email hidden]

"Sjon Stigter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8iiqem$mf3$[email hidden]... > > Heck, what proof do you have that GP3 will be a better F1 game than F1 > 2000 > > Geoff Crammond.... That is it? Oh boy. > Oh boy... how much we will enjoy slapping these foolish remarks of yours > around your ears when GP3 is out, ghehe... We will see. If he has that bogus framerate management scheme (which was used in World Circuit and GP2) going on in GP3 you can forget it. Also the physics in GP2 is nowhere near what it is in F1 2000. This is expected since F1 2000 is newer though. -- [email hidden]

"Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vk635.1753$%[email hidden]... > I'll tell what part of what track isn't correctly modelled, about everycurb > stone found at about every track. Especially at places where those curb > stones are important in real life. One good example is the first corner at Sure thing. > Brasil and the last corner at Imola. The curbstones at the chicanes atMonza > aren't correct either. The Eau Rouge corner is one big joke, I've drivenat > Spa in real life and I can tell you that part doesn't resemble the realpart > one bit. > > The AI is just plain stupid, I was far quicker and even if I waited forthem > there was no racing possible, they were over aggresive. And what the hell Huh. I wonder how it is that I can go through the entire race with no problems then. > are you talking about when telling me not to make stupid arcade type > mistakes? I wasn't aware you were there in my room, please stay away. No, > really, what kind of response is this suppose to be. I race the GPL AI all > the time, won the Grand Prix championship and so I do think I can race a > well programmed AI. Well then you shouldn't have any problems huh :-) > Oh and the last part of your response shows even better that you didn'teven > try to understand my posting. If you would have read it then you wouldhave Sure I did. > seen that I've come to the conclusion that the kind of driving that is > needed in F1200 is the kind of driving that is needed in modern F1 racing. > But no, you just start some GP3 lover bashing. I just do not think it is wise to claim that some product which is not even released is better than F1 2000. F1 2000 is here now and with all of it's warts is a supurb modern F1 racing game for the PC. > You need proof from me to show GP3 is better? I can't give you that, butyou > could try GP and then GP2. Maybe that'll show you that GC makes 'quite'good I played World Curcuit, GP2, Indy 500, ICR, ICR2 and F1RS to death. F1 2000 is head and shoulders above all of them. > games. It's no proof but it's the same thing as hearing the BMW is goingto > build a racing engine. We will not know whether it will be any good until Yeah Williams is doing great with the Beemer... > it's in the car, but the fact that it is made by BMW does give anindication > it will be something special. > > GC is a perfectionist, and perfectionism is far too expensive for EA. Okey dokey... I guess that about covers it. thanks. -- [email hidden]

In the last turn at monaco there is supposed to be a rumble strip on the left.. the drivers use this to get a good exit onto the S/F straight... It isn't there in F1 2000. I bet it will be there in GP3 though!!! ;o)

>The AIs have improved quite a bit, but they're still way too agressive. Agreed. They still do some horrible things.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>The Game is still unplayably slow (about 10 fps and stuttering because >of constant texture loading) on my Celeron 566 / Voodoo3 / 256 mb System >as soon as I start a race with more than 2 AI drivers though. Testing it >on a Athlon 800 / GeForce / 256 mb ram it didn't improve much. The >Graphics are ugly in low resolutions, but look great in high res and >full texture detail - but I don't think a machine exists that can run it >smoothly.

On my Athlon 600/GeForce 1 DDR/128MB/98% resources free before running it after fresh boot-up/using LeadTek GeForce 2 drivers/1.06+noCD/AGP aperature 64MB size/11 other cars drawn- all others present/no mirrors/no pit details/other cars high detail/all other settings maximum/permanent swap file and all the others suggested stuff in "Windows 98 Annoyances"/ system I get perfectly smooth frame rates for testing and pretty much so for everything else but races and even there, it is usually pretty smooth aside from some problems at the start on some courses (more when a bunch of cars crash a the start, which seems to cause a lot more slowdown of the system) but still almost always driveable even then and sometimes even borderline smooth. For reference, with AGP 1X (2X can be unstable), I get about 4520 rating with 3DMark2000.

[email hidden] (Harjan Brand) wrote in <%0735.1754$%[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Greg, > >the dutch F3000 driver Christijan Albers just drove the Canada track >with F12000. His face told me that my latest assumption of the driving >technique needed in real F1 was wrong. His only comment was: this thing >is very pointy (moveable, steerhappy). You don't actually drive that >F12000 car, you play a reaction game through from corner to corner. >If Albers thinks it isn't realistic, I don't think you should assume it >is. > >

I wonder how time they let him spend, if any, with calibration of controller settings and car configurations. That could make a huge difference.

hi alexander did you try to do the formation lap BEFORE EACH race I found it did wonders when starting the race ( the framerate is still slow at the start but it lets you maintain your lead till the field fans out ) pls do email me your ini settings I am keen to try how much it changes things BTW did you load your setting at blackhole sports website ? They do have quite a selection of utilities etc there for F1 2000 Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8iiapb$4r26g$[email hidden]... > > > Could somebody tell me whether F12000 really improved that much with the > all > > those patches. > > The AIs have improved quite a bit, but they're still way too agressive.The > Game is still unplayably slow (about 10 fps and stuttering because of > constant texture loading) on my Celeron 566 / Voodoo3 / 256 mb System as > soon as I start a race with more than 2 AI drivers though. Testing it on a > Athlon 800 / GeForce / 256 mb ram it didn't improve much. The Graphicsare > ugly in low resolutions, but look great in high res and full texture > detail - but I don't think a machine exists that can run it smoothly. > > The Physics can be tweaked by editing the ini files. The standard settings > are ridiculous and aimed at the arcade market, but you can tweak thephysics

Quoted text (11 lines)

> up to a level where they can be called very realistic, even impressive... > IMO of course. If you want the edited settings I can send them to you via > e-mail. > > The cockpit view is horrible and I simply can't identify with driving > "rollbar" or "arcade view". Everything seems to have a totally wrong > perspective, I think this is caused by the ISI guys assumption that a f1 > driver's head is only 5 cm wide ;-). > > The tracks are inaccurate and unbalanced. The sounds are (in theory) > excellent samples but strangely enough don't sound anything like a f1

car.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I guess a bad sound system ruins it all. > > To make it short, EA's F12k still has serious problems in that order: > > 1. Frame Rate / Graphics > 2. Track Accuracy / Perspective > 3. AI / > 4. Lack of features (telemetry etc.) > > I would advise you to wait for GP3 (released early september), but if you > want to do something while waiting and you don't mind spending money for

a > beta version of future f1-games by EA than you could get F1-2000, appy the > latest patch and the physics tweaks and hotlap around some of thecircuits. > But if you want to hear my honest opionion: I don't think you'll like it. > > Any comparison to GP3 was only marketing bla by EA. In reality, theyaren't > even in the same league, and they had to release the game unfinished notto > be squashed by the superior product. The sad thing is that their policywas

Quoted text (7 lines)

> successfull :-( > > > cheers, > Alex > >

Well Greg, my intentions for the posting were not to comparer GP3 to F12000. The things just is that I can't stand the waiting for GP3 and all the positive news on F12000 I heard lately made me curious again. So I wanted to know how much effect the patch had on the game. You're totally right when you say that people are hyping GP3, but hey it's a legend. I found you reacted a bit strong on my posting, but apparently all the F12000 hatred and GP3 love has made you guys a bit tense. I'll get F12000 tomorrow, patch the hell out of it (could you tell me what to get) and I'll give it another shot.

"Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in > These > guys are not driving through corners any more, they just slam the brakes > really late, turn the wheel a bit keep the revs constantly low (around 11 > ,000 rpm), put the car straight and then hit the throttle. Unfortunately you can easily go at race speeds by trailbraking into the corners a little and powersliding, lap after lap after lap after lap without even thinking loosing the car. So if you want to have a simulator that models how F1 "drive and race"... I think you can easily extrapolate. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote > I honestly can't see where you guys are blasting this track. Do you want me to start Rod? You see I live near the track, I went to the GP a good portion of the 90's, I raced there. I know each and every inch of the track and F1 2000 has one of the worst modeling ever. The only one worse is the Ubisoft version (MGPRS2 has it improved over F1RS but not by much). I am -very- picky about Montreal, so I could list you an incredible number of problems with the Montreal track in F12k. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Jeremy Woodward" <[email hidden]> wrote > You really are a self opinionated dick....shut up! Standard "When out of remarks, flame" Usenet troll. At least I can appreciate some merits of F12k, even if severally flawed when taken as a serious racing simulator. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Yep. All of those winers are nuts. --

So does the AI in GPL. -- Nos

In article <Jr935.1807$%[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > But I do know that there really were too many > inaccuracies, take for example the last corner at Canada today, in real life > you run really close to the barrier. While if I remember correctly in F12000 > there's grass, and that's really one of the many places where I feel EA has > been inaccurate. I honestly can't see where you guys are blasting this track. Last small chicane (that I assume you're talking about) I run really close to the barrier too. I've just played Schumi's lap where he hits the wall on qualifying (?) about 10 times, and I *still* can't see where people are complaining about the track accuracy on this track. I can judge where his breaking points are, his turnin points and which gear he is in based solely on running around 300 laps using F1-2000. The only thing I can't judge very well from Schumi's lap is the elevation, but the view out of his cam is undistinguishable to *me*. The barrier advertisement is exactly the same, as well as the gaudy green colour of paint about 12" wide before that barrier, no grass (?). Cheers, Rod.

"Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:B7d35.2124$%[email hidden]... > Well Greg, my intentions for the posting were not to comparer GP3 toF12000. > The things just is that I can't stand the waiting for GP3 and all the > positive news on F12000 I heard lately made me curious again. So I wantedto > know how much effect the patch had on the game. For me the patch made little difference. For others, it improved the AI quite a bit and they are now pretty happy. > You're totally right when you say that people are hyping GP3, but hey it'sa > legend. I'm sorry, but World Circuit and GP2 are legends. GP3 is vaporware at this moment :-) > I found you reacted a bit strong on my posting, but apparently all the > F12000 hatred and GP3 love has made you guys a bit tense. I'll get F12000 No that isn't it. It is the fact that people are claiming the game totally sucks. IMHO there is no basis for that type of statement. Hate or love for GP3 or F1 2000 has nothing to do with it. > tomorrow, patch the hell out of it (could you tell me what to get) andI'll > give it another shot. I am just using the unofficial official 1.06 patch from the developers of the game. -- [email hidden]

Yeah ok. Go for it... -- [email hidden] "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wdg35.86823$[email hidden]... > "Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I honestly can't see where you guys are blasting this track. > > Do you want me to start Rod? You see I live near the track, I went to the > GP a good portion of the 90's, I raced there. I know each and every inch of > the track and F1 2000 has one of the worst modeling ever. The only one > worse is the Ubisoft version (MGPRS2 has it improved over F1RS but not by > much). I am -very- picky about Montreal, so I could list you an incredible > number of problems with the Montreal track in F12k. > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

I am confident that those guys are full of crap :-) -- [email hidden] "Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MPG.13c917cbd030bebe9896dc@news-server... > In article <Jr935.1807$%[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > > But I do know that there really were too many > > inaccuracies, take for example the last corner at Canada today, in real life > > you run really close to the barrier. While if I remember correctly in F12000 > > there's grass, and that's really one of the many places where I feel EA has > > been inaccurate. > > I honestly can't see where you guys are blasting this track. Last small > chicane (that I assume you're talking about) I run really close to the > barrier too. > > I've just played Schumi's lap where he hits the wall on qualifying (?) > about 10 times, and I *still* can't see where people are complaining > about the track accuracy on this track. I can judge where his breaking > points are, his turnin points and which gear he is in based solely on > running around 300 laps using F1-2000. The only thing I can't judge very > well from Schumi's lap is the elevation, but the view out of his cam is > undistinguishable to *me*. > > The barrier advertisement is exactly the same, as well as the gaudy green > colour of paint about 12" wide before that barrier, no grass (?). > > Cheers, > Rod.

In article <wdg35.86823$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > "Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I honestly can't see where you guys are blasting this track. > > Do you want me to start Rod? Sure, go ahead. List them all. I can't dispute any of them, all I have to go on (which is probably more than most) is 95% of a lap from the top of Schui's car, and nothing is noticeably in error. Cheers, Rod.

> > take for example the last corner at Canada today, in real life > > you run really close to the barrier. While if I remember correctly inF12000 > > there's grass, and that's really one of the many places where I feel EAhas > > been inaccurate. >No! If you look closely enough, it is green painted concrete just as in real life. There is a subtle difference in the colour further along where the grass starts. Also, you'll notice that if you drive along next to the wall the control of the car changes when reaching the grass. This confirms the accuracy of the modelling by having the new green painted concrete at the wall on the last corner. Iain

OT I know, but I was under the impression that the Canadian GP circuit was only used one a year, for the F1's. What else races there? Book. ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wdg35.86823$[email hidden]... > "Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I honestly can't see where you guys are blasting this track. > > Do you want me to start Rod? You see I live near the track, I went tothe > GP a good portion of the 90's, I raced there. I know each and every inchof > the track and F1 2000 has one of the worst modeling ever. The only one > worse is the Ubisoft version (MGPRS2 has it improved over F1RS but not by > much). I am -very- picky about Montreal, so I could list you anincredible

Quoted text (9 lines)

> number of problems with the Montreal track in F12k. > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't

realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gdu35.3530$[email hidden]... > If you look closely enough, it is green painted concrete just as in real > life. There is a subtle difference in the colour further along where the > grass starts. Also, you'll notice that if you drive along next to the wall > the control of the car changes when reaching the grass. This confirms the > accuracy of the modelling by having the new green painted concrete at the > wall on the last corner. Yep. All of those winers are nuts. -- [email hidden]

On 19 Jun 2000 18:27:08 -0400, [email hidden] (x) thus spoke: > Agreed. They still do some horrible things. So does the AI in GPL. -- Nos

Careful, Greg -- first we agree on one thing, then another, and before you know it we'll be finding something to agree about on IRL/CART issues! ;-) -- JB In article <pIL35.3833$[email hidden]>, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote: > <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:8io0ag$a5n$[email hidden]... > > I don't necessarily buy this -- I have friends who are darned good > > drivers in real life who cannot even control the car in NFS3, for > > example, due to the missing physical inputs and sensations. Doesthat > > mean that they are bad drivers, or just bad SIM drivers? > > Bad sim drivers. > > > I also have friends who drive real Sprint Cars who tell me that DTRis > > VERY realistic, and I am faster than them in that sim. Does thatmean > > I'm a better driver than they are, or that I'm just a better SIMdriver? > > Better sim driver. > > > There IS a difference between a simulation and real-worldexperiences, > > and although a sim can serve as a good trainer for the real world,real- > > world experiences do NOT serve as a good trainer for a sim. > > > > I do see your point, but I do not think it makes any kind ofdefinitive

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > statement about F12000. > > This is why I think there is a difference in RL and PC racing sim > drivers. There have been RL drivers here (or so they say) that > have really hammered some sims. I usually dismiss the more > outrageous claims for the very reasons you said here. > > -- > > [email hidden] > >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <LTN35.96075$[email hidden]>, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: > "Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Frank, I don't disagree that track is modeled poorly, but > > you raced there! I thought the only races held on the circuit > > were F1 races, at least thats what the announcers kept saying. > > Pete, the track is a public road 364 days per year. And you do understand, of course, that the public road looks considerably different on race day than it does the other 364 days out of the year? > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don'trealise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Then you must have noticed how many aids he had one!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:%0735.1754$%[email hidden]... > Greg, > > the dutch F3000 driver Christijan Albers just drove the Canada track with > F12000. His face told me that my latest assumption of the drivingtechnique > needed in real F1 was wrong. His only comment was: this thing is verypointy > (moveable, steerhappy). You don't actually drive that F12000 car, you playa > reaction game through from corner to corner. > If Albers thinks it isn't realistic, I don't think you should assume itis. > > >

I don't necessarily buy this -- I have friends who are darned good drivers in real life who cannot even control the car in NFS3, for example, due to the missing physical inputs and sensations. Does that mean that they are bad drivers, or just bad SIM drivers? I also have friends who drive real Sprint Cars who tell me that DTR is VERY realistic, and I am faster than them in that sim. Does that mean I'm a better driver than they are, or that I'm just a better SIM driver? There IS a difference between a simulation and real-world experiences, and although a sim can serve as a good trainer for the real world, real- world experiences do NOT serve as a good trainer for a sim. I do see your point, but I do not think it makes any kind of definitive statement about F12000. -- JB In article <%0735.1754$%[email hidden]>, "Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Greg, > > the dutch F3000 driver Christijan Albers just drove the Canada trackwith > F12000. His face told me that my latest assumption of the drivingtechnique > needed in real F1 was wrong. His only comment was: this thing is verypointy > (moveable, steerhappy). You don't actually drive that F12000 car, youplay a > reaction game through from corner to corner. > If Albers thinks it isn't realistic, I don't think you should assumeit is. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <gdu35.3530$[email hidden]>, "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>> take for example the last corner at Canada today, in real life >>> you run really close to the barrier. While if I remember correctly in >>>F12000 there's grass, and that's really one of the many places where I feel EA >>>has been inaccurate. >> >No! >If you look closely enough, it is green painted concrete just as in real >life. There is a subtle difference in the colour further along where the >grass starts.

Seconded. I run that line all the time. Too bad the AI drivers don't run as wide as the real ones, or you or I, on this last turn. The game does let you get away with really running over the preceeding curb (yes, more than the real drivers).

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:13:32 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >Do you want me to start Rod? You see I live near the track, I went to the >GP a good portion of the 90's, I raced there. I know each and every inch of >the track and F1 2000 has one of the worst modeling ever. The only one >worse is the Ubisoft version (MGPRS2 has it improved over F1RS but not by >much). I am -very- picky about Montreal, so I could list you an incredible >number of problems with the Montreal track in F12k.

You know what...I could care less if there is a stone or two on a curb out of place that makes a track inaccurate in your opinion. But then, all anyone has ever gotten from you is a bunch of lip service saying absolutely nothing at all. If you want to prove your point, go out get some screen shots, then photograph "each and every inch of the track" and then using arrows to point out the one inch variations on the track, make comparison artwork and post them to one of the many free hosting websites on the net so we who don't give a fuck about you assinine bullshit opinions without proof can look at the comparisons and say..."Oh yeah...the idiot could be right." Until you do that, your opinion will generally go in one ear and out the other of those of us who are having fun with F1 2000. Oh...by the way Francois...any opinion on the F1 track at Indy? L. Sobkoviak, sick and tire of the above quoted wacko and really hope this riles his ass but good.

I don't necessarily buy this -- I have friends who are darned good drivers in real life who cannot even control the car in NFS3, for example, due to the missing physical inputs and sensations. Does that mean that they are bad drivers, or just bad SIM drivers? I also have friends who drive real Sprint Cars who tell me that DTR is VERY realistic, and I am faster than them in that sim. Does that mean I'm a better driver than they are, or that I'm just a better SIM driver? There IS a difference between a simulation and real-world experiences, and although a sim can serve as a good trainer for the real world, real- world experiences do NOT serve as a good trainer for a sim. I do see your point, but I do not think it makes any kind of definitive statement about F12000. -- JB Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8io0ag$a5n$[email hidden]... > I don't necessarily buy this -- I have friends who are darned good > drivers in real life who cannot even control the car in NFS3, for > example, due to the missing physical inputs and sensations. Does that > mean that they are bad drivers, or just bad SIM drivers? Bad sim drivers. > I also have friends who drive real Sprint Cars who tell me that DTR is > VERY realistic, and I am faster than them in that sim. Does that mean > I'm a better driver than they are, or that I'm just a better SIM driver? Better sim driver. > There IS a difference between a simulation and real-world experiences, > and although a sim can serve as a good trainer for the real world, real- > world experiences do NOT serve as a good trainer for a sim. > > I do see your point, but I do not think it makes any kind of definitive > statement about F12000. This is why I think there is a difference in RL and PC racing sim drivers. There have been RL drivers here (or so they say) that have really hammered some sims. I usually dismiss the more outrageous claims for the very reasons you said here. -- [email hidden]

Frank, I don't disagree that track is modeled poorly, but you raced there! I thought the only races held on the circuit were F1 races, at least thats what the announcers kept saying. Pete "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wdg35.86823$[email hidden]... > "Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I honestly can't see where you guys are blasting this track. > > Do you want me to start Rod? You see I live near the track, I went tothe > GP a good portion of the 90's, I raced there. I know each and every inchof > the track and F1 2000 has one of the worst modeling ever. The only one > worse is the Ubisoft version (MGPRS2 has it improved over F1RS but not by > much). I am -very- picky about Montreal, so I could list you anincredible

Quoted text (9 lines)

> number of problems with the Montreal track in F12k. > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't

realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

"Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote > Frank, I don't disagree that track is modeled poorly, but > you raced there! I thought the only races held on the circuit > were F1 races, at least thats what the announcers kept saying. Pete, the track is a public road 364 days per year. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"L.R.S." <[email hidden]> wrote > ..."Oh yeah...the idiot could > be right." Which is why I won't waste time doing it. I know it's totally wrong, but I have chosen to not waste time upon the beleivers who were manipulated into thinking the modeling is very good. > Oh...by the way Francois...any opinion on the F1 track at > Indy? No, as I have never been to this track. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. .

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:03:29 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

><[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8io0ag$a5n$[email hidden]... >> I don't necessarily buy this -- I have friends who are darned good >> drivers in real life who cannot even control the car in NFS3, for >> example, due to the missing physical inputs and sensations. Does that >> mean that they are bad drivers, or just bad SIM drivers? > >Bad sim drivers. > >> I also have friends who drive real Sprint Cars who tell me that DTR is >> VERY realistic, and I am faster than them in that sim. Does that mean >> I'm a better driver than they are, or that I'm just a better SIM driver? > >Better sim driver. > >> There IS a difference between a simulation and real-world experiences, >> and although a sim can serve as a good trainer for the real world, real- >> world experiences do NOT serve as a good trainer for a sim. >> >> I do see your point, but I do not think it makes any kind of definitive >> statement about F12000. > >This is why I think there is a difference in RL and PC racing sim >drivers. There have been RL drivers here (or so they say) that >have really hammered some sims. I usually dismiss the more >outrageous claims for the very reasons you said here.

So now we also all agree that it is not an absolute requirement for a sim to be 1000% accurate to reality in all aspects? Otherwise we wouldn't dismiss the occasional hammering by RL drivers, not? JoH

"Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote > Manipulated? I just know I'll never have a point against you people, that's all. Even if I know I have the truth about the Montreal track. You just go "hey I have compared a low frame and low resolution MPG with the actual game and it's incredibly realistic". I just go "well I was there, I raced on the track, I walked the track, I roller-bladed on the track, I went on the track with my bicycle, I know each and every inch of the track, and it's far from realistic". But you'll go "show me proof!" while I go "It's a waste of time, I just know it's incredibly poor". Some people then would flame me for having no proof, yet they don't have much on their side. At the end, the whole discussion has some truth behind, and the truth is that with all the tools the FIA gives them, they should had modeled the track perfectly, which is not. I'm still wondering where is the little downhill bump after turn 3, or the positive banking going into the hairpin (about 3degrees of banking), or the little bump on the inside of the kink before the Senna chicane, or the track width of the last stretch, or the distance between the track and the armco at some places, or the <insert thousand of other things that I know are badly modeled>. Trusting my words aren't enough I guess? -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Frank, I realise that. I have been around it myself but I was shocked when you said you had raced it! Pete "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LTN35.96075$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Frank, I don't disagree that track is modeled poorly, but > > you raced there! I thought the only races held on the circuit > > were F1 races, at least thats what the announcers kept saying. > > > Pete, the track is a public road 364 days per year. > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't

realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ioke9$qqj$[email hidden]... > Careful, Greg -- first we agree on one thing, then another, and before > you know it we'll be finding something to agree about on IRL/CART > issues! > > ;-) Not likely... I was pretty serious about how I feel TG totally screwed openwheel racing in america by kicking CART out of the 500. I checked the IRL race this weekend to see what the crowd looked like. One corner bleacher in Detroit looked like it had more people than were at the IRL race. -- [email hidden]

> or the positive banking going into the hairpin (about 3degrees ofbanking), or the > little bump on the inside of the kink before the Senna chicane >3 degrees! Sheesh. I'm going to take my copy back to the store tomorrow! .... on the other hand, I think I'll just go and enjoy myself a bit more by running on a seriously imperfect Montreal track. Iain

"Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote > >> To me, that is an acceptable modelling of this track. To the majority > >> of people after watching his fast lap and doing laps of their own I > >> would assume it would be acceptable modelling How do you know? Have you polled a group of people? Any serious data you can give us? If not, then you are like me, I have to trust your words like you have to trust mine. You compare your lap to a low-quality MPG and some TV footage, while I compare the track to all the experience I have there. Like some people who live near Spa can say about the track, or the people who live near Monaco. I think we both are now searching for 2 different points. Yes the track might be "average" for the casual gamer who simply want to do some laps around a circuit and not care much about the track camber exiting the Senna curve (one thing that is not modeled correctly per example). But some of us DO care, especially on a newsgroup devoted to racing simulations, thus recreating real-life situation via virtual reality. > Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Firstly, I doubt you can confirm any > information that the FIA provided to ISI. I know the information they gave to other company who did a F1 simulation (I think everybody knows that company). I can assume the situation easily. The game was pushed by EA so they could have it on the shelves when the F1 season started as we all know. I also speculated about the game engine and it's potential, and speculated on how good the 3d modelers are at ISI. > We don't know limits like > budget and time contraints, gameplay balance or pandering to the > overwhelming minority who would not notice a 3 degree camber. There do > seem to be glaring omissions on a few corners on very few tracks, bummer. > Hardly enough to base a personal vendetta over when someone puts F1-2000 > in the header of a message. Or proclaim that the game is 'pure shit'. I never said it was pure shit. In fact I retracted many statements and I can see how some people appreciate the title. I don't like the feeling of the game engine and it's physics modeling, but I can see how it can please simracers. I just wish it was more "brake/downshift/turn/accelerate" like modern F1 cars behave compared to the software who makes us "brake/turn&brake/turn&accelerate/accelerate". Anybody who was at the hairpin in Montreal or the Senna curve this weekend during the first 2 days (excluding the race since it rained) knew that they don't accelerate but keep low-revs into the apex, and still keep low-revs until they reach a point where the front-wheels won't induce any sideway slip, then accelerate. It's not like that in F1 2000. > > I'm still wondering where is the little downhill bump after turn 3 > Which to most would be largely insignificant. It's very important! It gives the whole flow to the corner and the next two (heading into the curving stretch). How can you say a corner is less important than others? The downhill + banking creates an incredible sensation of acceleration when you are exiting the apex. > I suspect the only > way to translate the look of the hairpin would be to over-exaggerate it, The old Papyrus game engine modeled oval banking very well on the stretches (most of them have small banking on the stretches). The new one is even better, per example the camber at Watkins Glen is very small in degrees yet you can easily feel it. And be sure than when you are racing the track in Montreal, you do feel the banking, especially when you want to do a correct approach to your braking zone. > There are 2 bumps where I was bottoming out on due to my setup between > the start finish line and the first left hander, that in the footage, > Schumi's carcam did seem to show (but not as obviously) It's there in real-life, I know what you are talking about. It just shows that your MPG footage gives your false information, since it's reall there ;) > > or the track width of the last stretch > If this is indeed correct, then I would agree, poor ommission. But I > guess it depends on how much it's out by. It's from my calculations about 15% too wide, it's incredibly narrow, especially on the first part before it straighten up. > Shouldn't be hitting the armco anyways ;) True ;-P > > Trusting my words aren't enough I guess? > Going on your track record of over-exaggerating everything, no - not > really. And going on your track records of saying that X thing isn't important while Y is in a racing simulator? Everything to my eyes is important, and the technology should push them the most possible. I did not expect accuracy 5years back, but now with the tools they have, I do, especially in racing simulations. We aren't talking about arcade games here, but racing simulations! Something that simulates real-racing, in every aspect of it, including the track modeling, the car shapes (ex: gp3), sound, overall feeling, color palette (ex: F12k), etc... I'm mad when it's not correctly done, but I accept it, unless somebody in this NG devoted to virtual reality racing simulation and the accuracy of them says it's good, even for the masses. > I just hope that GP3 does it right for you, cos I don't want to go > through this same shit all over again. I'm anxious to see GP3's track accuracy, but don't expect me to post anything about it unless the subject is brought often in the NG. I think we all saw the incredible ammount of people since F1 2000 is released complaining about the tracks. It goes back to C:PR the last time we had such discussions about the tracks, since most of the software reach a level of accuracy acceptable for the mass. I do think that even for the mass F1 2000 is a laugh. This is a good thread when taken seriously, it shows we have a long way to go and some incredible dilemnas to have by both the customer who wants realism (you know, the "hardcore" racing simulation fan") and also by the gaming companies who have to deal with all the business situation. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

<[email hidden]> wrote > And you do understand, of course, that the public road looks > considerably different on race day than it does the other 364 days out > of the year? What's your point? Have you even been to the track and understood how the public road is there? Mmm, you would be surprised how similar it is. Cmon John, I'm most of the time at short distance from the track, so I know what I'm talking about. Nobody goes on those roads since they lead to nothing at the expectiono of 10% to the Casino, and there is many forms of racing during the early hours of the night. It's mostly the same, same everything at the expection of the fences, grandstands and such other things. That I get the information since Im there all 3 days since years, and also there during the construction period. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

In article <yVN35.96085$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Which is why I won't waste time doing it. I know it's totally wrong, but I > have chosen to not waste time upon the beleivers who were manipulated into > thinking the modeling is very good. Manipulated? I'm comparing a lap that I do in F1-2000 to a fast lap of Schumi downloaded from an independent site. I don't work for EA and I can only make the assumption that the person who runs this site does not modify the fast laps to match that of F1-2000! As yet, (at least to my knowledge) an EA rep hasn't visited my home with tools of torture to convince me that the modelling of Canada feels real. I used independent judgement of around 300 laps of the circuit in F1-2000 and a video capture of a flying lap of Schumi. Hence, I haven't been manipulated. His braking points, turning points, gear change points are almost identical to mine. I've even crashed into the barrier on the last chicane exactly the same way Schumi did! Show 1 second of film of his lap and I could tell you exactly where on the circuit he is based solely from doing laps within F1-2000. To me, that is an acceptable modelling of this track. To the majority of people after watching his fast lap and doing laps of their own I would assume it would be acceptable modelling, to the most anal about us, there's probably a rumble strip that isn't even on the racing line that's been heniously left out and has completely ruined the whole racing experience on this track. Cheers, Rod.

thus spoke: I wasn't reading this group at that time so missed it. Sorry. -- Nos

thus spoke: Sacrilege!!! -- Nos

In article <moR35.120716$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Manipulated? > > I just know I'll never have a point against you people, that's all. Even if > I know I have the truth about the Montreal track. You just go "hey I have > compared a low frame and low resolution MPG with the actual game and it's > incredibly realistic".

Absolutely unbelievable! Here is what I said: >> To me, that is an acceptable modelling of this track. To the majority >> of people after watching his fast lap and doing laps of their own I >> would assume it would be acceptable modelling How did my line go from *acceptable modelling* to incredibly realistic!??!? I did not even elude that it's incredibly realistic. In fact, I'd suspect that any impartial reader would likely translate that as saying that it's *not* incredibly realistic, but portrays the feel of the track very well. Before watching the footage, I used the same gears, same braking points, same turn in points, rode the rumble strips at the same points and even crashed the same way Schumi did on the video footage. I was shocked after I d/l'ed the footage. Based on that, most would conclude that it models the track *very well*. I guess the game is targeted at people who *do not* rollerblade around F1 tracks. > But you'll go "show me proof!" while I go "It's a waste of > time, I just know it's incredibly poor". I've never said such a thing! You said something along the lines of 'Do you want me to start Rod?' I said, 'Sure, go ahead. List them all'. You volunteered the information, then shut up. Did I then bother to follow up and ask you for the information? Nope. Would I have waited a few more days and then asked? Nope. > At the end, the whole discussion has some truth behind, and the truth is > that with all the tools the FIA gives them, they should had modeled the > track perfectly, which is not. Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Firstly, I doubt you can confirm any information that the FIA provided to ISI. We don't know limits like budget and time contraints, gameplay balance or pandering to the overwhelming minority who would not notice a 3 degree camber. There do seem to be glaring omissions on a few corners on very few tracks, bummer. Hardly enough to base a personal vendetta over when someone puts F1-2000 in the header of a message. Or proclaim that the game is 'pure shit'. > I'm still wondering where is the little downhill bump after turn 3 Which to most would be largely insignificant. > or the positive banking going into the hairpin (about 3degrees of banking) Would be damn hard to translate into your average 15" PC monitor. 3 degrees on a display would be a matter of a few pixels! The mpg footage expanded to full screen does not show an obvious camber (now that you told me, I'm in two minds whether I can see a *very* slight camber). Stands to reason that it would look the same out of a full screen mpg as it would on a sim using the same viewing technology. I suspect the only way to translate the look of the hairpin would be to over-exaggerate it, but then you don't know if it's actually modelled from a physics perspective. > or the little bump on the inside of the kink before the Senna chicane, Again, reasonably insignificant. There are 2 bumps where I was bottoming out on due to my setup between the start finish line and the first left hander, that in the footage, Schumi's carcam did seem to show (but not as obviously). Could I see them? No, but the physics engine told me they were there. Are they really there? No idea! Canvas a few thousand F1 fans who haven't rollerbladed on the track, would they know they were there? I'd wager the majority would say no. Possibly it's a limitation of the graphics engine? > or the track width of the last stretch If this is indeed correct, then I would agree, poor ommission. But I guess it depends on how much it's out by. > or the distance between the track and the armco at some places Shouldn't be hitting the armco anyways ;) > Trusting my words aren't enough I guess? Going on your track record of over-exaggerating everything, no - not really. Are you in a better position to judge the track? Most certainly! I just hope that GP3 does it right for you, cos I don't want to go through this same shit all over again. (copy already reserved, and will probably one of the first in the world to be able to legally purchase a copy over the counter) ;) Cheers, Rod.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:24:52 GMT Nos <[email hidden]> wrote: % On 19 Jun 2000 18:27:08 -0400, [email hidden] (x) thus spoke: % > Agreed. They still do some horrible things. % So does the AI in GPL. Gee, the f12k gang get real pissed when people compare the failings of f12k based on their impressions of GPL. I sure hope you are being sarcastic. <G> I don't necessarily weigh the merits of a sim against another sim. I take a look at the package as a whole and judge from that. My views of f12k are based on evaluating it as a whole package and not by comparing it to any other sim. Same goes for GPL. I will however compare the whole package based on what I know is possible in other products (not just sims). When all of this was said and done, f12k came out too short in too many areas to be of interest to me. The fact that I am not drooling to have a "current season" F1 sim may have some factor in this opinion. Basically I am looking and drooling for the best overall packaged auto racing sim I can get my hands on. Todate that happens to be another package other than f12k. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote > Yes, I understand that. I do care to a point, but the nature of software > development these days does not lead to spending too long getting the > modelling of tracks, cars, etc. I want as realistic a track as possible > as well, but will settle for a comprimise, knowing that without it, the > title may never made it to the shelf. I could have said that a couple of years back, but the game engines today are enough sophisiticated (especially when given the correct information when you are an officially licensed FIA title) so that the accuracy is pushed the best possible. I don't feel that they did the best possible with it. But as you'll agree the title was rushed out to the market, and it's a shame. > (I don't see you round the flight- > sim group, so you're spared the pain of title after title being axed > recently). I lurk in most of the csibg.* and I feel sorry for you guys there ;( Well we had the same thing in the start of 1999 here also (1999 was a poor year for racing sims). I can see the similitude between both group, but there is some incredible difference in the market. There is less serious racing sims than there is serious flight sims. I felt the shelves were oversaturated in the flight sim community, even if there is a bigger market. How many WW2 flight sims we need? ;) There will always be developers who will choose to create serious titles, even with all those dumbed-down gamers with short attention span. The MTV Generation, you know... > But you don't know the level of info ISI recieved. Normally officially-licensed FIA titles have access to an incredible ammount of data, including accurate track maps and blueprints. Most of the game developers (even the ones with small budget like Motorsims I think per example) have send people to the tracks. It doesn't cost that much actually, since I remember one company that engaged people who lived near the track so they would (and only do that) go at the tracks and shoot video/take pictures. You don't need to send somebody all around the world for that I say ;) I mean let's say you are the 3d modeler and you have to decide the track width at a corner. If you choose X width (while the real is Y) than it would take the same time if you had the correct data to apply it with the Y width. It doesn't take much more time, as you will study real information instead of bad information. > I do agree that trailbraking does seem excessive. But it doesn't detract > from my enjoyment anyway. I've done some very minor racing in a 1970 XWGT > a few years ago, and you certainly want to do the majority of your > braking (with what's left of your brakes) in a straight line. ;) That's one of the reason I was letdown by F12k. Let's take per example GP2. It's not the best physics model, but Geoff tweaked the game in it's own way so it could model the real sensation of having all the power of a F1. With all aids off, you really need to brake, turn then accelerate, like real F1 are today. It's very hard like in real life to powerslide exiting the corners. While in F1 2k, I'm accelerating even before the apex sometimes, which in real-life would send me off the track in a second. I would expect in other titles to have an important trailbrake effect, but not in a modern F1. > But I > don't think the software forces you to brake and accelerate while > turning? I almost always spin when I accelerate too hard in a low gear > out of a corner if I'm not careful. No but you are faster in F12k when trailbraking and reaccelerating while still turning. You are not faster in real-life when you do that, since you will spin. Even Schumacher can't reach the level that we do in F1 2000, and he is the best person to push his braking zone the closest to the apex and reaccelerate the fastest after the apex. We aren't better driver than him, no? ;-) > > It's very important! It gives the whole flow to the corner and the nexttwo

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > (heading into the curving stretch). How can you say a corner is less > > important than others? The downhill + banking creates an incredible > > sensation of acceleration when you are exiting the apex. > > I feel it's unimportant in a sim of today as I don't think the sensation > you describe above would translate well to a video monitor. I suspect > when the developers that be can create a device that portrays 'seat of > the pants' racing (I remember reading about a device that can send > signals to the brain to simulate external forces on the body), then the > feel that you describe would be an important inclusion in the sim I was > using.

I was never talking about the racing feeling in virtual reality. It's a totally different subject and not related to the corner. It is as important as any other corner on the track, especially since the corner has a great sensation when modeled correctly. You race GPL? Let me tell you that the game engine gives you an incredible sensation. Go at the Nurburgring, and floor the gas into Hocheichen. If you don't remember the corner, it's just at the start of the lap, after the Hatzenbach corners and before the jump at Flugplatz. Or the left/right going downhill at the end of your lap at Kyalami. <snip good points> -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:41:35 GMT, "Michael E. Carver" [email hidden] thus spoke: >Gee, the f12k gang get real pissed when people compare the failings of >f12k based on their impressions of GPL. I sure hope you are being >sarcastic. <G> Nope. :-) I've never seen anyone complain about the fact that GPL cars will run you off the road, but it's always something that is nit-picked about F1 2000. Comaprisons are good, it puts things into proper perspective. -- Nos

> Gee, the f12k gang get real pissed when people compare the failings of > f12k based on their impressions of GPL. I sure hope you are being > sarcastic. <G> >Not sure what you're getting at here Michael. It is simply a statement of fact about the AI in GPL. It is also worth stating that fact vecause the impression given in RAS is that GPL is perfect, and there is no chance of anything ever reaching its greatness. GPL is a wonderful piece of software which has given me a lot of fun over the last couple of years, but it is not perfect, and neither is F12K. > The fact that I am not drooling to have a "current season" F1 sim may havesome factor in this opinion. It's not a question of being the 'current season' F1 sim, it's a matter of being the (currently) best MODERN F1 sim. Iain

"Nos" <[email hidden]> wrote > I've never seen anyone complain about the fact that GPL cars will run > you off the road Mmm, there has been multiple times this happened in the course of r.a.s.'s history. Why do you think Papyrus patched the Monza AI ? Because people complained about the poor AI decision into the Parabolica. What about the whole Surtees thingy? Geeze -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

In article <gHX35.106065$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> To me, that is an acceptable modelling of this track. To the majority > >> of people after watching his fast lap and doing laps of their own I > >> would assume it would be acceptable modelling > How do you know? Have you polled a group of people? Any serious data you can > give us? If not, then you are like me, I have to trust your words like you > have to trust mine.

Approximately 20 fellow sim racers that I know personally or from work feel the same way, they couldn't tell the difference. In fact, some were downright impressed, so several went out and bought the title. That's why I put 'assume'. (Benny Hill jokes aside) > But some of us DO care, especially on a newsgroup devoted to racing > simulations, thus recreating real-life situation via virtual reality. Yes, I understand that. I do care to a point, but the nature of software development these days does not lead to spending too long getting the modelling of tracks, cars, etc. I want as realistic a track as possible as well, but will settle for a comprimise, knowing that without it, the title may never made it to the shelf. (I don't see you round the flight- sim group, so you're spared the pain of title after title being axed recently). > I know the information they gave to other company who did a F1 simulation (I > think everybody knows that company). I can assume the situation easily. > The game was pushed by EA so they could have it on the shelves when the F1 > season started as we all know. I also speculated about the game engine and > it's potential, and speculated on how good the 3d modelers are at ISI. But you don't know the level of info ISI recieved. I don't think anyone would argue that EA put a firm release date based on the start of the F1 season. I'd wager that it would take an equal amount of time to model a track to 80% accuracy as it would to model the last 20% Considering the 'unofficial' aftermarket support that ISI has shown this title, they're to be commended and as far as I'm concerned, don't deserve to be called lazy, uncommitted or incompetent. > I never said it was pure shit. My apologies, same thread, different author. > I just wish it was more "brake/downshift/turn/accelerate" like > modern F1 cars behave compared to the software who makes us > "brake/turn&brake/turn&accelerate/accelerate". I do agree that trailbraking does seem excessive. But it doesn't detract from my enjoyment anyway. I've done some very minor racing in a 1970 XWGT a few years ago, and you certainly want to do the majority of your braking (with what's left of your brakes) in a straight line. ;) But I don't think the software forces you to brake and accelerate while turning? I almost always spin when I accelerate too hard in a low gear out of a corner if I'm not careful.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> > I'm still wondering where is the little downhill bump after turn 3 >> Which to most would be largely insignificant. > It's very important! It gives the whole flow to the corner and the next two > (heading into the curving stretch). How can you say a corner is less > important than others? The downhill + banking creates an incredible > sensation of acceleration when you are exiting the apex.

I feel it's unimportant in a sim of today as I don't think the sensation you describe above would translate well to a video monitor. I suspect when the developers that be can create a device that portrays 'seat of the pants' racing (I remember reading about a device that can send signals to the brain to simulate external forces on the body), then the feel that you describe would be an important inclusion in the sim I was using. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see every rock in its place, every blade of grass modelled to exact spec and every rumble strip modelled exactly as its real life counterpart, but simming is about comprimise. I'm willing to forgo a number of realism comprimises for a piece of software that I paid $Aus 69.95 for. I'll apply those same comprimises when I'm whizzing around the track in GP3, just as I'll apply the same comprimises as I'm jumping into my WSC car. Bottom line, these are mass produced games that try to appeal to as many potential buyers as possible. F1-2000's release date was undoubtedly pushed by EA. GP3, to a point considering we've heard the 'it'll be in GP4 released at Christmas'. WSC seems to be the GPL of modern sports cars, coded out of art and passion, rather than commercial gain. Cheers, Rod.

"Michael E. Carver" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zu445.8834$[email hidden]... > When all of this was said and done, f12k came out too short in too many > areas to be of interest to me. The fact that I am not drooling to have > a "current season" F1 sim may have some factor in this opinion. Yep, I know where you are coming from. Kind of like myself not drooling over a f1 sim set in the late 60's. but I did buy the game had some fun and eventually sold it on ebay. -- [email hidden] > Basically I am looking and drooling for the best overall packaged auto > racing sim I can get my hands on. Todate that happens to be another > package other than f12k. > > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:54:35 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Mmm, there has been multiple times this happened in the course of r.a.s.'s >history. Why do you think Papyrus patched the Monza AI ? Because people >complained about the poor AI decision into the Parabolica. What about the >whole Surtees thingy? Geeze I wasn't reading this group at that time so missed it. Sorry. -- Nos

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:03:44 GMT, Rod Prince <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Perhaps F1-2001 (if it ever hits the shelves) will cater to those who >already enjoy the sim, and those who it dissapointed due to a few >ommissions. If the track accuracy wasn't improved in the next title, then >I too would be dissapointed. > >Cheers, >Rod.

EA's method is fix a little bit at a time in each version so that we keep buying, but we are never completely satisfied with any version. If we got a perfect version then we would have no reason to buy their next version. That's the way it seems in their other sports series anyway. Bit of a conspiracy theory, but hey, conspiracy theories are fun. :-) -- Nos

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:30:00 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Yep, I know where you are coming from. Kind of like myself not >drooling over a f1 sim set in the late 60's. but I did buy the game >had some fun and eventually sold it on ebay. Sacrilege!!! -- Nos

"Nos" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:54:35 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> > thus spoke: > > > >Mmm, there has been multiple times this happened in the course ofr.a.s.'s > >history. Why do you think Papyrus patched the Monza AI ? Because people > >complained about the poor AI decision into the Parabolica. What aboutthe > >whole Surtees thingy? Geeze > > I wasn't reading this group at that time so missed it. Sorry. Time to pull out the "p" word isn't it? Or have you gone soft too :-) -- [email hidden] > > -- > Nos

ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vNX35.106093$[email hidden]... > Im there all 3 days since years, and also there during the construction > period. Well next year could you please ask them to play F1-2000 (2001?) some more and get the track more accurate? ; ) While I admit the game has its flaws (what game doesn't?) I'm *really* enjoying running it alongside the real season - my GF is getting sick of me 'driving' the sofa round the track whenever an in-car view comes on TV. bod

"Nos" <[email hidden]> wrote > I wasn't reading this group at that time so missed it. Sorry. No problem :) To catch you on the problem, there was an incredible bad AI line that was fixed in one of the patch at Monza. Basically some problems with the *.lp files when doing any sort of passing into that corner (when it jumps form race.lp to some other that I can't remember AFAIK). They fixed it. Hence the problem with Surtees. The driver in GPL has a tendency to plow into others, creating some myth around this driver in GPL. He's the cause of all crashes, it seems ;) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Nos) writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>Gee, the f12k gang get real pissed when people compare the failings of >>f12k based on their impressions of GPL. I sure hope you are being >>sarcastic. <G> > >Nope. :-) >I've never seen anyone complain about the fact that GPL cars will run >you off the road, but it's always something that is nit-picked about >F1 2000. Comaprisons are good, it puts things into proper perspective. >

Sure, we did - don't you remember everyone's kind(NOT!) words for Surtees and Rindt? Those two play bumper-cars... They'd fit RIGHT in on VROC... :) Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +85.99 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:22:00 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Time to pull out the "p" word isn't it? Or have you gone soft >too :-) Well considering I don't use a Voodoo card now and most people here finally saw the light I just don't think it would be appropriate. But, just for old times sakes. You're a pussy ymenard! ;-) -- Nos

On 22 Jun 2000 01:50:49 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) thus spoke: >Sure, we did - don't you remember everyone's kind(NOT!) words for Surtees and >Rindt? Those two play bumper-cars... They'd fit RIGHT in on VROC... :) > >Eldred Nah, I did a big move just after I got GPL when it first came out so sold it along with my wheel etc. Just got back into racing sims in the last month or so. -- Nos

In article <cl745.125562$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... <snip points in which we nearly meet in the middle> > You race GPL? Let me tell you that the game engine gives you an incredible > sensation. Go at the Nurburgring, and floor the gas into Hocheichen. If > you don't remember the corner, it's just at the start of the lap, after the > Hatzenbach corners and before the jump at Flugplatz. Or the left/right > going downhill at the end of your lap at Kyalami. It's been awhile. I either don't have the time to devote to it or I'm just not good enough to race consistently enough for it to be enjoyable. I can see what you're trying to imply, and to a point I do agree with you. GPL spoils every other sim that I own. If I play N3 after GPL, I esc before the end of the first lap. F1-2000 is a step in the right direction, and it is a title that I could play after turning a few laps in GPL without feeling dissapointed. Perhaps F1-2001 (if it ever hits the shelves) will cater to those who already enjoy the sim, and those who it dissapointed due to a few ommissions. If the track accuracy wasn't improved in the next title, then I too would be dissapointed. Cheers, Rod.

[email hidden] (x) wrote in <[email hidden]>: >>The AIs have improved quite a bit, but they're still way too agressive. > > Agreed. They still do some horrible things. > Addendum: I altered the AI file in the 1.06 patch and made the drivers leave an extra meter or two of space and lowered the closing velocity by a meter and the other parameter there by the same and now the AI don't attempt to drive straight through me as much (before it seemed like they were programmed to destroy, attempting to drive through me even on one straight while going like slugs and holding me up on the next once they had gotten past me). Too early to tell if things are fine now but it looks at least somewhat promising.

Hey! I tried the same move that Villeneuve made towards the end of the race at Casino. I braked late, didn't stop in time and took another car out. I would have said that this was a very realistic simulator, apart from the fact that it wasn't raining in F1-2000! How bad of EA not to realise that it would rain heavily during the second half of the race....... Steve

On 23 Jun 2000 13:02:50 -0400, [email hidden] (x) thus spoke:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Addendum: I altered the AI file in the 1.06 patch and made the drivers >leave an extra meter or two of space and lowered the closing velocity by a >meter and the other parameter there by the same and now the AI don't >attempt to drive straight through me as much (before it seemed like they >were programmed to destroy, attempting to drive through me even on one >straight while going like slugs and holding me up on the next once they had >gotten past me). Too early to tell if things are fine now but it looks at >least somewhat promising. >

Could you post your hack somewhere when you are finished with it? -- Nos

>Could you post your hack somewhere when you are finished with it? >-- >Nos It's not exactly a hack (and while things are better they are not as better as I had hoped). I haven't really done anything (in fact, you might alrady know about this). Anyway, go to "F1 2000/Save/ai_pen.ini" file and adjust the numbers for "closing_vel","safe_dist" and maybe "minimum_vel". Play around with the values. I'm not at all sure what seems best yet.

In article <fY945.126979$[email hidden]>, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: > history. Why do you think Papyrus patched the Monza AI ? They did? Which patch was this? I still have the panic-braking traction turned up in my AI files from when I was running 1.0. Can I safely go back to the defaults without getting Surtees-up-the- butt ;)? TIA, Kendt Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On 25 Jun 2000 13:09:16 -0400, [email hidden] (x) thus spoke: >It's not exactly a hack (and while things are better they are not as better >as I had hoped). I haven't really done anything (in fact, you might alrady >know about this). Anyway, go to "F1 2000/Save/ai_pen.ini" file and adjust >the numbers for "closing_vel","safe_dist" and maybe "minimum_vel". Play >around with the values. I'm not at all sure what seems best yet. OK, thx. I'll do that then. -- Nos

OK, thx. I'll do that then. -- Nos