GP3 roll on

Todays race shows once again what rain can bring to a F1 race. It's clear that the vision on the screenshots is a bit too good, but still.

I read somewhere a few days ago that a few f1 drivers have been used in beta testing the wet weather conditions and they commented that the cars "felt right". The reviewer himself found the car pretty difficult in the slippery conditions . Before we start complaining let's remember that we all love GPL because it offers us realism and challenge above all other sims to date so we should expect a wet GP3 drive to be difficult . On another point Verstappen certainly deserved the "man of the match" award yesterday Andrew Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was > "too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for alot

Quoted text (13 lines)

> of people. > Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in > response to this. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Harjan Brand <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:6S835.1762$%[email hidden]... > > Todays race shows once again what rain can bring to a F1 race. It's

clear > > that the vision on the screenshots is a bit too good, but still. > > > > > >

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

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:38 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Dead right, Jo! :-) > > Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-) > > Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue > applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to > those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the > aspects that THEY detest as well. > > So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually > POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out > in 10 races out of 16.

Tell Jos you can't overtake in the wet! Stephen > Hail Crammond! ;-) > > JoH > >

There have been some complaints from the beta testers annd producers about this as well in GP3. The Arrows drivers tested the game in sayed it was accurate and that the grip level in wet weather was just a bit too high even. With all the usual help options available I don't think it will be a problem to just keep it the way it is. I sure hope it. "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was > "too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for alot

Quoted text (13 lines)

> of people. > Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in > response to this. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Harjan Brand <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:6S835.1762$%[email hidden]... > > Todays race shows once again what rain can bring to a F1 race. It's

clear > > that the vision on the screenshots is a bit too good, but still. > > > > > >

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:09:12 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was >"too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for a lot >of people. >Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in >response to this. Only natural. NOBODY would drive 2 hours with zero visibility behind another car "just for fun". Give the real guys the choice and they won't do it I'm sure! JoH

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:38 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Dead right, Jo! :-) Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-) Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the aspects that THEY detest as well. So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out in 10 races out of 16. Hail Crammond! ;-) JoH

Tell that to the people from Holland. Don't you ever get this mixed up again! ;-p Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws 394e3779$[email hidden]... > > Tell Jos you can't overtake in the wet! >

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:09:29 +0200, "Stephen Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> >Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:38 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >Dead right, Jo! :-) >> >> Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-) >> >> Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue >> applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to >> those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the >> aspects that THEY detest as well. >> >> So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually >> POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out >> in 10 races out of 16. > > >Tell Jos you can't overtake in the wet!

I wasn't specifically referring to rain conditions on this one. Actually, the rain seemed to "reanimate" overtaking in Montreal! Longer brake distances and "guts" coming into the picture? BEFORE the rain started, there was little hope to see an overtaking move. Remember: if you see, say, 10 overtaking moves in one race, it could be only 4-5 different cars involved. This means that a typical car can drive 5 races without actually winning or losing positions on the track. Translate this accurately to a game, and you fall asleep.(at least *I* would) :-) We have practice mode to drive without overtaking. JoH

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:46:56 GMT, "Tim Vanhee" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Tell that to the people from Holland. >Don't you ever get this mixed up again! ;-p We could tell his girlfriend, though (wife?). The one who learned him to drive those cars <G> JoH

"Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote > There have been some complaints from the beta testers annd producers about > this as well in GP3. Well duh! What to those testers expect when racing on a wet surface with a Formula 1 ? They should had made GP3 open-testing ;) -- -- 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.

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote > we are doing nothing more than > playing a game and games are meant to be FUN! Well that's just your opinion Bruce. Some people consider the virtual reality of racing simulation a form itself of racing, distinct and unique. We are racing and racing is meant to be FUN!. -- -- 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.

Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was "too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for a lot of people. Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in response to this. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Harjan Brand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6S835.1762$%[email hidden]... > Todays race shows once again what rain can bring to a F1 race. It's clear > that the vision on the screenshots is a bit too good, but still. > >

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Agreed, I just hoped Geoff would again break new ground and move >simulation/realism up a notch above GPL with GP3 while maintaining his sims >legendary playability and accessibility. I'd at least expected him to do >proper flags /stop and go penalties and the ability to drive into the pits >yourself. We still haven't seen or tried the full game yet. But really, it's impossible to please everyone. Even if the rain experience is utterly mindblowingly incredible, many people here will rather talk about the lack of this or that. Oh well... >Seems to me like he didn't even listen to the criticisms leveled at GP2 and >just implemented what _he_ would have liked to have implemented with GP2 in >the first place (the weather). I'm sure some will call that vision, I call >it pigheadedness/laziness. What about artistic signature. For some reason it gives me a warm feeling inside (I'm getting poetic here :-) ) He does it his way and won't compromise just because "The Market" demands it. Really a shame for those who have other ideas, but I'm lucky enough to agree with his approach. You still have GPL, so don't dare to complain!!!! JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>I've yet to see a sim that made you fullfill sponsorship duties and work out >for 4 hours a day. For my money even the most realistic sims focus on the >fun part of the job. > >I cannot fathom why simracing developers would want to make virtual racing >"better than the real thing"(tm), as the fun about racing is not the racing >(I don't think Jaques Villeneuve enjoyed his dices with Baricello, Hakkinen >and Coulthard at all), it's about driving these fantastically powerfull and >fast cars at the limit.

So why the hell are they complaining about things like the lack of grip and resulting lack of overtaking possibilities all the time (with a certain JV adding far more than his $0.02 BTW)? Have I been hallucinating or something? JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

I don't really agree with you Bruce, why not make it ultra realistic for those who have fun from that difficulty. And use the aid functions to make it more fun for you and the others that share yor opinion. "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:394e0204$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (35 lines)

> If what you state is indeed Geoff's philosophy then I'm all for it. After > all, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that we are doing nothing more than > playing a game and games are meant to be FUN! > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:38 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Dead right, Jo! :-) > > > > Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-) > > > > Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue > > applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to > > those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the > > aspects that THEY detest as well. > > > > So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually > > POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out > > in 10 races out of 16. > > > > Hail Crammond! ;-) > > > > JoH > > > > > >

I used to agree with the Crammond philsophy, now I don't anymore. My eyes were opened by GPL and (only recently) MGPRS2. Maybe simracers have evolved while Crammond hasn't? Jan. =--- Jo Helsen wrote...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> <snip> > Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-) > > Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue > applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to > those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the > aspects that THEY detest as well. > > So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually > POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out > in 10 races out of 16. > > Hail Crammond! ;-) > > JoH > >

I think I'd rather trade a little bit of reality for the same amount of enjoyment when it comes to grip levels. GP1 was really difficult in that area and I dreaded the moment when the random generator produced a wet race! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Harjan Brand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:J1k35.2205$%[email hidden]... > There have been some complaints from the beta testers annd producers about > this as well in GP3. The Arrows drivers tested the game in sayed it was > accurate and that the grip level in wet weather was just a bit too high > even. > With all the usual help options available I don't think it will be a problem > to just keep it the way it is. I sure hope it. > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was > > "too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for a > lot > > of people. > > Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in > > response to this. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Harjan Brand <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:6S835.1762$%[email hidden]... > > > Todays race shows once again what rain can bring to a F1 race. It's > clear > > > that the vision on the screenshots is a bit too good, but still. > > > > > > > > > > > >

Dead right, Jo! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:09:12 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Harjan, one of the complaints made about GP1 wet-weather was that it was > >"too difficult", which apparently took away a lot of the enjoyment for a lot > >of people. > >Maybe the wet conditions portrayed in GP3 will be somewhat toned down in > >response to this. > > Only natural. NOBODY would drive 2 hours with zero visibility behind > another car "just for fun". Give the real guys the choice and they > won't do it I'm sure! > > JoH

[email hidden] (Jo Helsen) writes:

Quoted text (32 lines)

> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:43:04 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote > >> we are doing nothing more than > >> playing a game and games are meant to be FUN! > > > >Well that's just your opinion Bruce. Some people consider the virtual > >reality of racing simulation a form itself of racing, distinct and unique. > >We are racing and racing is meant to be FUN!. > > Here we go again... History repeats itself, and on usenet it is > super-accelerated history :-) > > I think we have to get rid of some of the more "absurd" levels of > attention to "realism". Especially when it comes to stubbornly > simulating some of the more annoying aspects. > > As you say, the reality of racing sims is more and more becoming a > reality on its own. Let us then take this *CHANCE* to do what the > real-world counterparts would do if they actually COULD. That is, > eliminating factors that falsify the competition. Such as: luck, > unforseeable circumstances, money being a too important factor, > regulations that turn out wrong, politics etc..etc.. That way we only > keep those things that add to the pure racing experience. > > Isn't that what we are all longing for? > > IMO we would be stupid to miss this chance. Simracing technologically > gives us the opportunity to create the ideal,fair and exciting racing > experience. Let's take it! We aren't hampered by real-world > obstructions like money, politics, chance and history.

Isn't money, politics, chance and history the reason why we don't race ICR3/CART racing 2 based on the GPL engine by Papyrus right now ? :) -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:43:04 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote >> we are doing nothing more than >> playing a game and games are meant to be FUN! > >Well that's just your opinion Bruce. Some people consider the virtual >reality of racing simulation a form itself of racing, distinct and unique. >We are racing and racing is meant to be FUN!.

Here we go again... History repeats itself, and on usenet it is super-accelerated history :-) I think we have to get rid of some of the more "absurd" levels of attention to "realism". Especially when it comes to stubbornly simulating some of the more annoying aspects. As you say, the reality of racing sims is more and more becoming a reality on its own. Let us then take this *CHANCE* to do what the real-world counterparts would do if they actually COULD. That is, eliminating factors that falsify the competition. Such as: luck, unforseeable circumstances, money being a too important factor, regulations that turn out wrong, politics etc..etc.. That way we only keep those things that add to the pure racing experience. Isn't that what we are all longing for? IMO we would be stupid to miss this chance. Simracing technologically gives us the opportunity to create the ideal,fair and exciting racing experience. Let's take it! We aren't hampered by real-world obstructions like money, politics, chance and history. I imagine a time when simracers will wonder why their earliest ancestors were unable to break loose from imperfect reality and refused to exploit the possibilities of the new technology. JoH

Beware: casual gamer opinion. The problem with the driving helps, is that if I play with these, I feel like a wimp! And don't have so much fun. When I play with the *full realism* options in the game (even if they are not very realistic), I feel a little more like Mika Hakkinen (even if Gaston Mazzacane would be closer to truth... <g>). But if the game is too difficult to drive then, I won't have so much fun either. It's all a matter of balance and _driveability_. Just my *deux centimes* (two cents in France) Cyrille Harjan Brand <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : xAx35.2647$%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I don't really agree with you Bruce, why not make it ultra realistic for > those who have fun from that difficulty. And use the aid functions to make > it more fun for you and the others that share yor opinion. > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:394e0204$[email hidden]... > > If what you state is indeed Geoff's philosophy then I'm all for it.

After > > all, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that we are doing nothing morethan

Quoted text (35 lines)

> > playing a game and games are meant to be FUN! > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:38 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >Dead right, Jo! :-) > > > > > > Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-) > > > > > > Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue > > > applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to > > > those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the > > > aspects that THEY detest as well. > > > > > > So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually > > > POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out > > > in 10 races out of 16. > > > > > > Hail Crammond! ;-) > > > > > > JoH > > > > > > > > > > > >

If what you state is indeed Geoff's philosophy then I'm all for it. After all, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that we are doing nothing more than playing a game and games are meant to be FUN! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:38 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Dead right, Jo! :-) > > Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-) > > Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue > applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to > those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the > aspects that THEY detest as well. > > So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually > POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out > in 10 races out of 16. > > Hail Crammond! ;-) > > JoH > >

On 20 Jun 2000 11:21:11 +0200, [email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) wrote: >Isn't money, politics, chance and history the reason why we don't race >ICR3/CART racing 2 based on the GPL engine by Papyrus right now ? > >:) :-) I say: "power the racers!" Instead of "power to board xxx" ;-) JoH

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:28:41 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I used to agree with the Crammond philsophy, now I don't anymore. My eyes >were opened by GPL and (only recently) MGPRS2. > >Maybe simracers have evolved while Crammond hasn't? Remember: "evolution" does not necessarilly imply "progress". We're talking about random mutations here which do not need advantages to procreate, just the absense of disadvantages. The most hardcore of hardcore simpopulation doesn't have a chance to compete with the normal hardcore simpopulation, hehehehe.. At least as long as the environment doesn't change too much (= as long as the typical sim-environment doesn't shift towards GPL-style ultrarealism) ;-) JoH

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:16:36 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Oh, give us a break, Francois! Are you really trying to tell me that you >don't consider a computer game to be a "game"? What's the problem....can't >face the fact that those you know might think you're a bit of a wanker for >playing computer games at your age? Don't worry about it, mate. >(And if Max Mosely says that F1 drivers aren't meant to be out there having >fun then I guess motor-racing isn't meant to be fun at all.) >-- >Regards, >Bruce Kennewell, >Canberra, Australia. >---------------------------

They are meant to be out there to make money for Tobacco companies. Didn't you know that yet, Bruce. At your age? :-) At least we have sims that are smart enough to strip off any "unwanted" features of real racing. JoH

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote > Oh, give us a break, Francois! Are you really trying to tell me that you > don't consider a computer game to be a "game"? It depends if you consider real racing a "game" also. If so, then upon your semantics I'll have to agree. > What's the problem....can't > face the fact that those you know might think you're a bit of a wanker for > playing computer games at your age? No, in fact most of them find it amusing (in the correct way) that I spend time on that. They consider it a natural from knowing my past experience and my current love for the sport. > (And if Max Mosely says that F1 drivers aren't meant to be out therehaving > fun then I guess motor-racing isn't meant to be fun at all.) Those guys are having fun in real life. It's non-sense to think they aren't having fun racing in F1. It's their job, and their job is fun. -- -- 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.

Agreed, I just hoped Geoff would again break new ground and move simulation/realism up a notch above GPL with GP3 while maintaining his sims legendary playability and accessibility. I'd at least expected him to do proper flags /stop and go penalties and the ability to drive into the pits yourself. Seems to me like he didn't even listen to the criticisms leveled at GP2 and just implemented what _he_ would have liked to have implemented with GP2 in the first place (the weather). I'm sure some will call that vision, I call it pigheadedness/laziness. Jan. =--- Jo Helsen wrote...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> <snip> > Remember: "evolution" does not necessarilly imply "progress". We're > talking about random mutations here which do not need advantages to > procreate, just the absense of disadvantages. > > The most hardcore of hardcore simpopulation doesn't have a chance to > compete with the normal hardcore simpopulation, hehehehe.. At least as > long as the environment doesn't change too much (= as long as the > typical sim-environment doesn't shift towards GPL-style ultrarealism) > > ;-) > > JoH > >

I've yet to see a sim that made you fullfill sponsorship duties and work out for 4 hours a day. For my money even the most realistic sims focus on the fun part of the job. I cannot fathom why simracing developers would want to make virtual racing "better than the real thing"(tm), as the fun about racing is not the racing (I don't think Jaques Villeneuve enjoyed his dices with Baricello, Hakkinen and Coulthard at all), it's about driving these fantastically powerfull and fast cars at the limit. Still *all* developers fudge their sims to keep the racing closer and more "exciting". Jan. =--- PS.: Note to West brothers: don't do it guys, please, while you still can. Just keep it fair and square. My hopes are riding on you!! Jo Helsen wrote... > <snip> > At least we have sims that are smart enough to strip off any > "unwanted" features of real racing. > > JoH >

Jo Helsen wrote... > <snip> > So why the hell are they complaining about things like the lack > of grip and resulting lack of overtaking possibilities all the > time (with a certain JV adding far more than his $0.02 BTW)? > Have I been hallucinating or something? You have been missing something for sure. Ask any one of them how they picture an ideal race and they'll say "Leading from start to finish without being challenged.", _no_ exception. The reason they bitch about not being able to pass is that, on todays circuits, someone in an inferior car can hold them up and force them to drive slower than they possibly could for a while (or worse: a top runners teammate in a equal or better car can block them for an entire race). Do I need to recall the Villeneuve -Barichello - Hakkinen example? By extension... if those are the realities of contemporary F1, I want those simulated, end of story. Jan. =---

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (TRUSRS85) writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>Isn't money, politics, chance and history the reason why we don't race >>ICR3/CART racing 2 based on the GPL engine by Papyrus right now ? >> >>:) > >We need a new CART sim damn it!!!!! >

I don't think it will happen soon... :( 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.

>Isn't money, politics, chance and history the reason why we don't race >ICR3/CART racing 2 based on the GPL engine by Papyrus right now ? > >:) We need a new CART sim damn it!!!!!

Like I said, some will call it vision. Maybe he's right by taking the relatively safe route of gunning for top F1 sim, rather than top sim tout court, I don't know. The way I see it, I'm setting myself up for a pleasant surprise (if the game turns out to be WAY better than prelimenary reports would have me believe). You my friend, a running head first for a big dissapointment, IMO. There are some very good reasons why the bulk of serious simracers have turned their attentions away from GP2... again: as far as I can see, these issues have not been addressed. Just to set the record straight... I not arguing people shouldn't buy/play GP3 (I might do so myself), I'm urging people not to buy it because "it's by Crammond and therefore it is the best". Jan. =--- Bruce Kennewell wrote...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I call it doing what HE wants to do with HIS creation and those who don't > like it can take it or leave it. > I think musicians and artists also follow this trend. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > <snip>

Simracing is no "GAME" and you know it Bruce (or maybe you don't... otherwise you'd be on VROC ;-)). Jan. =--- Bruce Kennewell wrote... > If those (processional races) are the realities of modern F1, no effing > wonder it is as boring as watching paint dry and no WAY do I want thatcrap

Quoted text (7 lines)

> in a "GAME"! > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > ---------------------------

<snip>

Not necessarily, Jan. You of all people should appreciate that one man's meat is another man's poison. Because you don't like his work doesn't mean that others shouldn't and vice versa. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:J0y35.63276$[email hidden]... > I used to agree with the Crammond philsophy, now I don't anymore. My eyes > were opened by GPL and (only recently) MGPRS2. > > Maybe simracers have evolved while Crammond hasn't? > > Jan. > =--- > Jo Helsen wrote... > > <snip> > > Better Dead Right than Dead In The Wet, hehe ;-) > > > > Just to broaden the topic a bit: I'm sure Crammond will continue > > applying his philosophy. That is: realism, but giving priority to > > those aspects of realism that real drivers enjoy, and toning down the > > aspects that THEY detest as well. > > > > So: at least SOME visibility in rain conditions, overtaking actually > > POSSIBLE (contrary to reality), no situations where your car drops out > > in 10 races out of 16. > > > > Hail Crammond! ;-) > > > > JoH > > > > > >

Oh, give us a break, Francois! Are you really trying to tell me that you don't consider a computer game to be a "game"? What's the problem....can't face the fact that those you know might think you're a bit of a wanker for playing computer games at your age? Don't worry about it, mate. (And if Max Mosely says that F1 drivers aren't meant to be out there having fun then I guess motor-racing isn't meant to be fun at all.) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Itw35.110050$[email hidden]... > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote > > we are doing nothing more than > > playing a game and games are meant to be FUN! > > Well that's just your opinion Bruce. Some people consider the virtual > reality of racing simulation a form itself of racing, distinct and unique. > We are racing and racing is meant to be FUN!. > > > > > -- > -- 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 22:02:24 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Like I said, some will call it vision. Maybe he's right by taking the >relatively safe route of gunning for top F1 sim, rather than top sim tout >court, I don't know. You make it sound as if he's mostly bothered about how well GP3 is going to sell? That his primary goal is maximizing sales by compromising his own preferences? You are seriously wrong here. GC stands 100% behind the approach he takes in his sims. He even explicitly stated it in an interview. This is how HE wants it, this is how he thinks a "perfect sim" needs to be approached no doubt.I seriously doubt he even WANTS to take GPL as the ultimate example And if he would like to please (typical) customers, he would release a 2000 sim with different carshapes, different cockpits and "online driving" on the box (even if it would suck big time) >The way I see it, I'm setting myself up for a pleasant surprise (if the game >turns out to be WAY better than prelimenary reports would have me believe). >You my friend, a running head first for a big dissapointment, IMO. You have no idea what my or Bruce's expectations are. You only know for sure that they are definitely not the same as yours :-) >There are some very good reasons why the bulk of serious simracers have >turned their attentions away from GP2... again: as far as I can see, these >issues have not been addressed. We haven't played GP3 yet. I can see that you missed, and will miss, online play (at least for GP3). Next, the physics model in GP2 became outdated. That was no reason to consider it as not sophisticated enough for the serious simmer since at the time it was by far the most _advanced_. GP3 will be better. (but I admit that I can't see Crammond making a sim where you spend the first WEEKS sliding around) So it is not the sim in itself, but TIME (graphics,sound...) and the arrival of GPL which have attracted the hardcore crowd. But! The weather effects will presumably be unequalled. Force feedback will be included after all and is linked to the physics engine(which at least SOUNDS decent).... Aren't those good reasons, even for hardcore, to buy GP3? >Just to set the record straight... I not arguing people shouldn't buy/play >GP3 (I might do so myself), I'm urging people not to buy it because "it's by >Crammond and therefore it is the best". It might just be the best for THEM. They loved what he did with F1GP and GP2. So I would expect them to love GP3 if it is an improvement along the same lines. Obviously, THAT alone is not going to please you personally. JoH

We need a new CART sim damn it!!!!!

I call it doing what HE wants to do with HIS creation and those who don't like it can take it or leave it. I think musicians and artists also follow this trend. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KFN35.78554$[email hidden]... > Agreed, I just hoped Geoff would again break new ground and move > simulation/realism up a notch above GPL with GP3 while maintaining his sims > legendary playability and accessibility. I'd at least expected him to do > proper flags /stop and go penalties and the ability to drive into the pits > yourself. > > Seems to me like he didn't even listen to the criticisms leveled at GP2 and > just implemented what _he_ would have liked to have implemented with GP2 in > the first place (the weather). I'm sure some will call that vision, I call > it pigheadedness/laziness. > > Jan. > =--- > Jo Helsen wrote... > > <snip> > > Remember: "evolution" does not necessarilly imply "progress". We're > > talking about random mutations here which do not need advantages to > > procreate, just the absense of disadvantages. > > > > The most hardcore of hardcore simpopulation doesn't have a chance to > > compete with the normal hardcore simpopulation, hehehehe.. At least as > > long as the environment doesn't change too much (= as long as the > > typical sim-environment doesn't shift towards GPL-style ultrarealism) > > > > ;-) > > > > JoH > > > > > >

If those (processional races) are the realities of modern F1, no effing wonder it is as boring as watching paint dry and no WAY do I want that crap in a "GAME"! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NbR35.82398$[email hidden]... > Jo Helsen wrote... > > <snip> > > So why the hell are they complaining about things like the lack > > of grip and resulting lack of overtaking possibilities all the > > time (with a certain JV adding far more than his $0.02 BTW)? > > Have I been hallucinating or something? > > You have been missing something for sure. > > Ask any one of them how they picture an ideal race and they'll say "Leading > from start to finish without being challenged.", _no_ exception. The reason > they bitch about not being able to pass is that, on todays circuits, someone > in an inferior car can hold them up and force them to drive slower than they > possibly could for a while (or worse: a top runners teammate in a equal or > better car can block them for an entire race). Do I need to recall the > Villeneuve -Barichello - Hakkinen example? > > By extension... if those are the realities of contemporary F1, I want those > simulated, end of story. > > Jan. > =--- > >

Is there an echo in here? ;-) A double post by the old master? -Surely not! Jan. =--- Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I call it doing what HE wants to do with HIS creation and those who don't > like it can take it or leave it. > I think musicians and artists also follow this trend. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > <snip>

I'm finding that you and I think the same way, Bruce. This scares me somehow... :-) Stephen Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Tried VROC....not my thing. > I use computer games for entertainment, thus my acceptance of off-line > racing. > > Ergo, they're all "games" to me. > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YTR35.83112$[email hidden]... > > Simracing is no "GAME" and you know it Bruce (or maybe you don't... > > otherwise you'd be on VROC ;-)). > > > > Jan. > > =--- > > Bruce Kennewell wrote... > > > If those (processional races) are the realities of modern F1, no

effing

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > wonder it is as boring as watching paint dry and no WAY do I want that > > crap > > > in a "GAME"! > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Bruce Kennewell, > > > Canberra, Australia. > > > --------------------------- > > <snip> > > > > > >

No, I'm NOT heading for a disappointment because my expectations, and requirements, are LOWER than yours. See Jan, all I am looking forward to is essentially GP2 with higher-rez graphics. I loved GP2 to death and, until GPL came along, it was my most-played racing sim. Therefore all I want for Christmas is an updated GP2. I think MY expectations are going to be met 100%!! :-) (Note: Upper-case words imply emphasis, not shouting). -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:QRR35.83082$[email hidden]... > Like I said, some will call it vision. Maybe he's right by taking the > relatively safe route of gunning for top F1 sim, rather than top sim tout > court, I don't know. > > The way I see it, I'm setting myself up for a pleasant surprise (if the game > turns out to be WAY better than prelimenary reports would have me believe). > You my friend, a running head first for a big dissapointment, IMO. > > There are some very good reasons why the bulk of serious simracers have > turned their attentions away from GP2... again: as far as I can see, these > issues have not been addressed. > > Just to set the record straight... I not arguing people shouldn't buy/play > GP3 (I might do so myself), I'm urging people not to buy it because "it's by > Crammond and therefore it is the best". > > Jan. > =--- > Bruce Kennewell wrote... > > I call it doing what HE wants to do with HIS creation and those who don't > > like it can take it or leave it. > > I think musicians and artists also follow this trend. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > <snip> > >

Tried VROC....not my thing. I use computer games for entertainment, thus my acceptance of off-line racing. Ergo, they're all "games" to me. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YTR35.83112$[email hidden]... > Simracing is no "GAME" and you know it Bruce (or maybe you don't... > otherwise you'd be on VROC ;-)). > > Jan. > =--- > Bruce Kennewell wrote... > > If those (processional races) are the realities of modern F1, no effing > > wonder it is as boring as watching paint dry and no WAY do I want that > crap > > in a "GAME"! > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > <snip> > >

LOL!! Don't be afraid, Stephen. We probably both think the same way on this as somebody else.......the scary part is not knowing who THEY are! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3951bcf6$[email hidden]... > I'm finding that you and I think the same way, Bruce. This scares me > somehow... :-) > > Stephen > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Tried VROC....not my thing. > > I use computer games for entertainment, thus my acceptance of off-line > > racing. > > > > Ergo, they're all "games" to me. > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:YTR35.83112$[email hidden]... > > > Simracing is no "GAME" and you know it Bruce (or maybe you don't... > > > otherwise you'd be on VROC ;-)). > > > > > > Jan. > > > =--- > > > Bruce Kennewell wrote... > > > > If those (processional races) are the realities of modern F1, no > effing > > > > wonder it is as boring as watching paint dry and no WAY do I want that > > > crap > > > > in a "GAME"! > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > Bruce Kennewell, > > > > Canberra, Australia. > > > > --------------------------- > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > >

Hmmm I remember John Cleland reviewing the original TOCA game from Codemasters some years ago. He commented on how realistic that one was <G> MS -- > I read somewhere a few days ago that a few f1 drivers have been used in beta > testing the wet weather conditions and they commented that the cars "felt > right". The reviewer himself found the car pretty difficult in the slippery > conditions .

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:48:01 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>No, I'm NOT heading for a disappointment because my expectations, and >requirements, are LOWER than yours. >See Jan, all I am looking forward to is essentially GP2 with higher-rez >graphics. I loved GP2 to death and, until GPL came along, it was my >most-played racing sim. Therefore all I want for Christmas is an updated >GP2. > >I think MY expectations are going to be met 100%!! :-) >

And you are not on your own either Bruce. There are loads of us who all still enjoy GP2. There are 6 of us who still play every Tuesday evening, on one computer, and take turns in multiplayer mode. We've been running our own championship since the game was released, and along with a few tins of beer and silly talk, we have a great evening. All we want is the same game with better grafix and better AI, and that will surely be accomplished. CAN'T WAIT !!! Cheers.....Ken

Exactly, Ken! Which is why different people have differing needs and perhaps ours, with respect to GP3, are the simplest. I think that I (and maybe Crammond) adopt the philosophy that if it ain't broke you don't fix it.....and there wasn't very much that needed fixing with GP2, in my view. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Ken Barrow <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:48:01 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >No, I'm NOT heading for a disappointment because my expectations, and > >requirements, are LOWER than yours. > >See Jan, all I am looking forward to is essentially GP2 with higher-rez > >graphics. I loved GP2 to death and, until GPL came along, it was my > >most-played racing sim. Therefore all I want for Christmas is an updated > >GP2. > > > >I think MY expectations are going to be met 100%!! :-) > > > And you are not on your own either Bruce. There are loads of us who > all still enjoy GP2. There are 6 of us who still play every Tuesday > evening, on one computer, and take turns in multiplayer mode. We've > been running our own championship since the game was released, and > along with a few tins of beer and silly talk, we have a great > evening. > All we want is the same game with better grafix and better AI, > and that will surely be accomplished. > CAN'T WAIT !!! > > > Cheers.....Ken > >