Highway Robbery: Olbuck Strikes Again!

Dan Olbuck has done much to trash the passion for realism that countless others have fanned since the late 20th century in sims like GPL and NASCAR Racing 2003. He has "created" three N2003 tracks--Riverside, Bridgehampton, and Lime Rock; two of which bear no resemblance whatsoever to the real thing. I've already commented on his version of Bridgehampton (which has the main straight running downhill instead of uphill) and a preliminary version of Lime Rock (which looks about as much like the famous track in NW Connecticut as Bullrun, Papy's famously fantastic road circuit). His version of Riverside seems to be a retexturing of the track that I helped Papy design for NASCAR Legends, albeit ringed with Hollywood-ish mountains that make it look more like it's set in Shangri-La. Now he's released two "new" versions of Lime Rock, which seem to be loosely based on the painstaking research done by Brent Adams for two GPL tracks: Brent's dead accurate renditions of the real-world venues (with and without the bus-stop chicane), and the so-called "Mountain Circuit," planned in the Fifties but never built, which would have extended the track to almost 3 miles. Olbuck proclaimed he never bothered to look at Lou Magyar's brilliant recreation of Bridgehampton (which was two years in the making thanks to Lou's obsessive committment to realism) because he, Olbuck, didn't want to merely "clone" someone else's work. Or so he said. This time, he's shamelessly "borrowed" Adams' research for the Mountain Circuit (down to copying elements like Hine Hairpin and Smith's Straight--named after some of us beta testers--and even Beagle's Nest, the name of Brent's dog!). Needless to say, Adams isn't even mentioned in the readme. Don't be fooled! There is nothing realistic about these tracks. Everybody gushes over how fabulous they are...probably because the grip levels are absurdly high, so you look like a hero (actually, I think he inadvertantly reversed the OWR and PTA values), but they aren't anywhere close to the truth as I know it...and I've had extensive RW experience at all three tracks. Olbuck has a knack for making fantasy tracks that exhibit exemplary levels of craftsmanship...and hugely enjoyable driveability...but they are much more "arcade" than "simulation." Let the flames begin! --Steve

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sgbXc.172247$[email hidden]... > Dan Olbuck has done much to trash the passion for realism that countless > others have fanned since the late 20th century in sims like GPL and NASCAR > Racing 2003. He has "created" three N2003 tracks--Riverside,Bridgehampton, > and Lime Rock; two of which bear no resemblance whatsoever to the real > thing. I've already commented on his version of Bridgehampton (which has > the main straight running downhill instead of uphill) and a preliminary > version of Lime Rock (which looks about as much like the famous track inNW > Connecticut as Bullrun, Papy's famously fantastic road circuit). His > version of Riverside seems to be a retexturing of the track that I helped > Papy design for NASCAR Legends, albeit ringed with Hollywood-ish mountains > that make it look more like it's set in Shangri-La. > > Now he's released two "new" versions of Lime Rock, which seem to beloosely > based on the painstaking research done by Brent Adams for two GPL tracks: > Brent's dead accurate renditions of the real-world venues (with andwithout > the bus-stop chicane), and the so-called "Mountain Circuit," planned inthe > Fifties but never built, which would have extended the track to almost 3 > miles. Olbuck proclaimed he never bothered to look at Lou Magyar's > brilliant recreation of Bridgehampton (which was two years in the making > thanks to Lou's obsessive committment to realism) because he, Olbuck,didn't

Quoted text (11 lines)

> want to merely "clone" someone else's work. > > Or so he said. > > This time, he's shamelessly "borrowed" Adams' research for the Mountain > Circuit (down to copying elements like Hine Hairpin and Smith's > Straight--named after some of us beta testers--and even Beagle's Nest, the > name of Brent's dog!). Needless to say, Adams isn't even mentioned in the > readme. > > Don't be fooled! There is nothing realistic about these tracks.

Everybody > gushes over how fabulous they are...probably because the grip levels are > absurdly high, so you look like a hero (actually, I think he inadvertantly > reversed the OWR and PTA values), but they aren't anywhere close to the > truth as I know it...and I've had extensive RW experience at all three > tracks. Olbuck has a knack for making fantasy tracks that exhibitexemplary

Quoted text (8 lines)

> levels of craftsmanship...and hugely enjoyable driveability...but they are > much more "arcade" than "simulation." > > Let the flames begin! > > --Steve > >

Sort of off topic, but one thing that has hurt my love of racing sims lately has been that tracks I've gone to in RL in racing sims just aren't right at all. Watkins Glen in N2003 is pretty good, but the rumble strips are completely wrong, same thing with Pocono. And if this is true, the guy should burn in hell for all eternity. ...or something along those lines.

Steve Smith wrote: > Don't be fooled!��There�is�nothing�realistic�about�these�tracks. I don't see anyone else making these tracks. Have to use what we got. If you have a problem with the realism, maybe you should take up track making. Not sure what the purpose of your post is. Sounds more like a personal issue with Dan. If you don't like his tracks, then don't use them. Simple. Your post makes you come off like a whinny school girl. -- Anthony Brooks

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:44:56 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >Don't be fooled! There is nothing realistic about these tracks. Everybody >gushes over how fabulous they are...probably because the grip levels are >absurdly high, so you look like a hero (actually, I think he inadvertantly >reversed the OWR and PTA values), but they aren't anywhere close to the >truth as I know it...and I've had extensive RW experience at all three >tracks. Olbuck has a knack for making fantasy tracks that exhibit exemplary >levels of craftsmanship...and hugely enjoyable driveability...but they are >much more "arcade" than "simulation." > >Let the flames begin! > >--Steve >

Hmm TA grip on the mountain track is 1.06 asphalt, 1.09 concrete, and someone on the Pits was claiming that typical grip on a TA track is "absurdly low". Different universes I guess... John DiFool

I was wrong. The default LIMEROCK_MT track.ini has the OWR values: 1.60/1.50 for asphalt/concrete. Following the readme instructions substitutes the correct PTA values: 1.06/1.09. "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:44:56 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > >Don't be fooled! There is nothing realistic about these tracks.Everybody > >gushes over how fabulous they are...probably because the grip levels are > >absurdly high, so you look like a hero (actually, I think heinadvertantly > >reversed the OWR and PTA values), but they aren't anywhere close to the > >truth as I know it...and I've had extensive RW experience at all three > >tracks. Olbuck has a knack for making fantasy tracks that exhibitexemplary > >levels of craftsmanship...and hugely enjoyable driveability...but theyare

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >much more "arcade" than "simulation." > > > >Let the flames begin! > > > >--Steve > > > > Hmm TA grip on the mountain track is 1.06 asphalt, 1.09 concrete, and > someone on the Pits was claiming that typical grip on a TA track is > "absurdly low". Different universes I guess... > > John DiFool > >

Anthony Brooks <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve Smith wrote: > > > Don't be fooled! There is nothing realistic about these tracks. > > I don't see anyone else making these tracks. Have to use what we got. Ifyou > have a problem with the realism, maybe you should take up track making. > Not sure what the purpose of your post is. Sounds more like a personalissue > with Dan. If you don't like his tracks, then don't use them. Simple. Your > post makes you come off like a whinny school girl. > -- > Anthony Brooks Yep. Besides posting to a place that the other guy doesn't frequent, interesting.

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sgbXc.172247$[email hidden]... > Let the flames begin! Steve: I like you and respect you, but as others have said, at least go to The Pits' forum where the creator hangs out to offer constructive criticism. I share your pain, as there's a distinct lack of a good Mid-Ohio. Besides, his Lime Rock is certainly better than either of our releases! ;-) -jde

A "whinny" schoolgirl? What...she's got a face like a horse....is that what you mean? Bruce. "Anthony Brooks" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Your post makes you come off like a whinny school girl.

Thx, Bruce. I was too bashful to mention this. "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:412ec4ca$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> A "whinny" schoolgirl? > What...she's got a face like a horse....is that what you mean? > > Bruce. > > "Anthony Brooks" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Your post makes you come off like a whinny school girl. > >

Thx, Bruce. I was too bashful to mention this.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> A "whinny" schoolgirl? > What...she's got a face like a horse....is that what you mean? > Bruce. > > Your post makes you come off like a whinny school girl.

Steve Smith wrote: > Thx, Bruce.��I�was�too�bashful�to�mention�this. Still sound like a punk to me. -- Anthony Brooks

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > A "whinny" schoolgirl? > What...she's got a face like a horse....is that what you mean? > I think you got a good idea what I meant, but let me correct it......... whiner whining whiney whines whined You get the point yet? -- Anthony Brooks

Anthony: whinny school girl ???? Do you really think that Steve pointing out that some cat is ripping off other peoples work and repackaging it as his own is "whining??" . Personally i find it disgraceful that the perpatrator didn't even have the courtesy to ask to use someone elses intelecual property and before "CONVERTING IT". Alot of people put a huge amount of time (and money) into making those tracks for GPL and something like this just marginalizes their efforts. Makes people think twice about even being involved in another project, whether it be GPL, Nascar or whatever. As for the "Mountain Circuit", Steve earned the right to make his statement. It was soley his idea to create it and he personally spent hours digging through archives; personally meeting with the the original LRP builders and current track historian to get enough information about the original plans for the MC to allow it to be created for GPL. Fraud is Fraud. Nothing personal about it . Is pointing it out "whining ?"........ I hope not. -- Brent Adams LimeRock Park for GPL, LRP for GPL, Mountain Circuit of GPL, Paramount Ranch for GPL!!!!!! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bored?? ... visit my website http://limerock.racesimcentral.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Anthony Brooks <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve Smith wrote: > > > Don't be fooled! There is nothing realistic about these tracks. > > I don't see anyone else making these tracks. Have to use what we got. If you > have a problem with the realism, maybe you should take up track making. > Not sure what the purpose of your post is. Sounds more like a personal issue > with Dan. If you don't like his tracks, then don't use them. Simple. Your > post makes you come off like a whinny school girl. > -- > Anthony Brooks

Anthony Brooks <[email hidden]> wrote in news:10iuvlcjt2b7659 @corp.supernews.com:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > I think you got a good idea what I meant, but let me correct it......... > whiner > whining > whiney > whines > whined > You get the point yet?

No but I'm gonna have a hangover tomorrow....... dave henrie

Brent rocks! Anthony sucks! "Brent Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KQPXc.2216$[email hidden]... > Anthony: > > whinny school girl ???? Do you really think that Steve pointing out that > some cat is ripping off other peoples work and repackaging it as his ownis > "whining??" . Personally i find it disgraceful that the perpatrator didn't > even have the courtesy to ask to use someone elses intelecual property and > before "CONVERTING IT". Alot of people put a huge amount of time (andmoney) > into making those tracks for GPL and something like this just marginalizes > their efforts. Makes people think twice about even being involved inanother > project, whether it be GPL, Nascar or whatever. > > As for the "Mountain Circuit", Steve earned the right to make hisstatement. > It was soley his idea to create it and he personally spent hours digging > through archives; personally meeting with the the original LRP buildersand

Quoted text (8 lines)

> current track historian to get enough information about the original plans > for the MC to allow it to be created for GPL. > > Fraud is Fraud. Nothing personal about it . Is pointing it out "whining > ?"........ I hope not. > -- > Brent Adams > LimeRock Park for GPL, LRP for GPL, Mountain Circuit of GPL, Paramount

Ranch

Quoted text (19 lines)

> for GPL!!!!!! > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Bored?? ... visit my website > http://limerock.racesimcentral.com > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Anthony Brooks <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Steve Smith wrote: > > > > > Don't be fooled! There is nothing realistic about these tracks. > > > > I don't see anyone else making these tracks. Have to use what we got. If > you > > have a problem with the realism, maybe you should take up track making. > > Not sure what the purpose of your post is. Sounds more like a personal > issue > > with Dan. If you don't like his tracks, then don't use them. Simple.

Your > > post makes you come off like a whinny school girl. > > -- > > Anthony Brooks > >

Oh, I "got the point" the first time, Anthony. I'm not totally bereft of the ability to interpret what you meant. I just can't abide grammatical laziness when, in this day and age, checking spelling doesn't even require one to expend energy in reaching for a dictionary. And I really just wanted to put the boot in, anyway; your castigation of Mr. Smith was ridiculously over-the-top. Cheery-bye! Bruce. "Anthony Brooks" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > A "whinny" schoolgirl? > > What...she's got a face like a horse....is that what you mean? > > > > I think you got a good idea what I meant, but let me correct it......... > whiner > whining > whiney > whines > whined > You get the point yet? > -- > Anthony Brooks

Mr. Kennewell rocks! Mr. Brooks sucks! "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4130724b$[email hidden]... > Oh, I "got the point" the first time, Anthony. I'm not totally bereft ofthe > ability to interpret what you meant. > > I just can't abide grammatical laziness when, in this day and age,checking > spelling doesn't even require one to expend energy in reaching for a > dictionary. > > And I really just wanted to put the boot in, anyway; your castigation ofMr.

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Smith was ridiculously over-the-top. > > Cheery-bye! > Bruce. > > "Anthony Brooks" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > > A "whinny" schoolgirl? > > > What...she's got a face like a horse....is that what you mean? > > > > > > > I think you got a good idea what I meant, but let me correct it......... > > whiner > > whining > > whiney > > whines > > whined > > You get the point yet? > > -- > > Anthony Brooks > >

In article <rJ5Yc.49541$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Mr. Kennewell rocks! Mr. Brooks sucks! > That would be : Mr. Kennewell rock's! Mr. Brooks' suck's! Get you're shit straight; man. Their are apostrophie's for a reason! MRSisson (This took me ten or so minutes to fabricate. It's hard work being illiterate.) -- LOAD "GPL",8,1 RUN

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:54:18 +1000, Bruce Kennewell wrote: > I just can't abide grammatical laziness when, in this day and age, checking > spelling doesn't even require one to expend energy in reaching for a > dictionary. Well Bruce, you'd be amazed at the number of people still top-posting and full quoting when trimming down the OP only requires a few mouse clicks or key strokes. As Einstein said: "The universe and human stupidity are infinite, and I'm not so sure about the former." This might hold for human laziness, too ;-) Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Their are? How about..."Get your shit straight, man. There are apostrophe's for a reason!" ? (Doesn't your day just turn to crap when you're correcting someone but end up making yourself look like an illiterate dork?) bk "Michael R Sisson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MPG.1b9aba8ec8cdccb9989680@nntp... > In article <rJ5Yc.49541$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > Get you're shit straight; man. Their are apostrophie's for a reason! >

"Brent Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KQPXc.2216$[email hidden]... > Anthony: > > whinny school girl ???? Do you really think that Steve pointing out that > some cat is ripping off other peoples work and repackaging it as his ownis > "whining??" . Personally i find it disgraceful that the perpatrator didn't > even have the courtesy to ask to use someone elses intelecual property and > before "CONVERTING IT". Alot of people put a huge amount of time (andmoney) > into making those tracks for GPL and something like this just marginalizes > their efforts. Makes people think twice about even being involved inanother > project, whether it be GPL, Nascar or whatever. > > As for the "Mountain Circuit", Steve earned the right to make hisstatement. > It was soley his idea to create it and he personally spent hours digging > through archives; personally meeting with the the original LRP buildersand > current track historian to get enough information about the original plans > for the MC to allow it to be created for GPL. > > Fraud is Fraud. Nothing personal about it . Is pointing it out "whining > ?"........ I hope not. > -- Just about everyone who uses the term "whiner" is a complete wanka! Maybe it's some sort of club protocol?

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:4131c168$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Their are? > How about..."Get your shit straight, man. There are apostrophe's for a > reason!" ? > > (Doesn't your day just turn to crap when you're correcting someone but > end up making yourself look like an illiterate dork?) > > bk

Does it turn to crap when you completely miss the deliberate irony of a post? Shit- were you being ironic too? ;-) John

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Michael R Sisson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:MPG.1b9aba8ec8cdccb9989680@nntp... >> In article <rJ5Yc.49541$[email hidden]>, >> [email hidden] says... > >> Get you're shit straight; man. Their are apostrophie's for a reason! >> > >

Does it turn to ***when you completely miss the deliberate irony of a post? Shit- were you being ironic too? ;-) John >> Get you're shit straight; man. Their are apostrophie's for a reason!

Appropriately named "[email hidden]" whined: >Dan Olbuck has done much to trash the passion for realism that countless >others have fanned since the late 20th century in sims like GPL and NASCAR >Racing 2003. <snip> Right. Let's actually see how much of this previously posted schei�e is correct. You have slammed Dan Olbuck's work in quite a few posts now, and stated how the realism "bear(s) no resemblance whatsoever" and "but they are much more "arcade" than "simulation." and "I hope he hasn't quit his day job". Yet I have not once seen you make a public offer to help Mr. Olbuck get them up to speed, but plenty of public bashing. Your attitude mirrors your description of his tracks. Is there some specific reason you feel obliged to mount such an ongoing and personal vendetta against Mr. Olbuck? Because it certainly sounds like its personal, not to mention spiteful, especially since there are a whole host of incomplete and poorly built tracks out there that you've not made a comment on. It also speaks VOLUMES that you would stoop to ridiculously immature comments like "Anthony sucks!" and "Mr. Brooks sucks!" Yeah, real professional. And you were an editor? You now stoop to calling people names for pointing out that you should have a bit more respect for people than to openly slam them on a public forum? Strange that you haven't posted on topics at The Pits directly relating to the track. Why is that, eh? Why did you find it necessary to vomit your opinion to a public newsgroup, but not bother to even make one suggestion to the author about the original track you complained about, which was built...ohhhh...December, 2003? Class act. Alternatively, you could build it yourself, but I've not seen any of that, either. You claim you are not helping Mr. Olbuck because of some trumped-up idea that he's too snobby to accept any help (or something like that, I've not quite figured out what your argument is). That's low class, considering you don't even know the guy. If you actually perused the forums that Mr. Olbuck hangs out on, you'd see he's quite happily accepted help from others, and has asked for it. Let's just go ahead and investigate this, shall we? So Mr. Olbuck thinks he knows what is best and can't be bothered to get any input from anyone? December, 2003: http://www.tptcc.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1829 Yep. This sounds like someone who is too good to take input. Strange. I don't see your name on that thread. Nor this one: http://www.tptcc.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1963 Wow. Many chances for input there, Steve...and not a one made. Oh, but you've made about as many slams on Mr. Olbuck's work, though... -------------------------------------------- You also made some completely clueless comments about tracks, which makes me wonder that you actually know what you're talking about. 1) "he wild boys at PWF have released an alleged "beta" version of Riverside...only there's nothing beta about it. It's close to perfect, missing only the wonderful (and dead accurate) off-course sandstorms of Dave Noonan's earlier conversion" (Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators Date: 2004-03-20 10:45:29 PST) This reproduction is a direct copy of David Noonan's conversion. Then you comment "PWF's Riverside is one of the finest roadies to date". Uhhhh...yeah. Only the finest of copies of David Noonan's conversion? ----------------------------------------------- 2) "Not even close. Mr. Olbuck's Riverside looks no more like the real Riverside than his Lime Rock bore any resemblance to that circuit." Really? That's rather strange. Of people who HAVE driven on Lime Rock, we've had other people state quite the opposite...in fact, they thought it was quite good (but did need some fixes). Let's also go into Riverside here. Here some comments by people who HAVE been to the track: "Thank you for your work, it is as accurate as I remember it!" "Having grown up in Riverside, Mr. Olbuck's update brings back some fond memories to me, much more so than any previous version." "Well done, Dan. I'm particularly impressed that this was done by someone who lives on the other side of the country. I would have expected a Southern California native to have offered the best rendition of my home track!" "Other than the already mentioned rise between 6 and 8 I can't really think of anything that is questionable." So you are the only one of 5 people who have been to Riverside who has that opinion. Some may not have driven it, but it sounds to me it looks a lot more like Riverside than the "perfect" copy-job that you tout. ---------------------------------------------- 3) "His version of Riverside seems to be a retexturing of the track that I helped Papy design for NASCAR Legends" This is the most hilarious statement of all. Anyone with just a few laps at this track can see that it is VERY different from the David Noonan/Papyrus conversion (including the PWF copy). And...you don't need to take MY word for it, here's a link to David Noonan's 3doEdit. http://www.theuspits.com/sims/files/3DOed.zip Go ahead. Open up ALL the tracks (David's conversion, the PWF version, and Dan's version and see which one(s) look the same. Incidentally, Dan has used satellite photography, topo maps and SpeedTV footage (when available) to create these tracks. While it's not a perfect means of putting a track together, it's also not going to make something that "bear(s) no resemblance whatsoever" to the original. With constructive input, it could be even better. However, I've not seen anything constructive from your camp, and doubt I will, as you seem to be incensed at badmouthing other people's work rather than contributing. The next time you feel like bashing someone, first try to actually use some FACTS, your argument may hold up better that way... --------------------separate note to Brent Adams-------------------- Brent, what Dan did was pull the trackmap from BAPOM to do work on the mountain version of the track. I don't think he realized that you had "ad-libbed" that part of the track, and merely took the layout as an original that you had found somewhere. I have mentioned to Dan it would be good idea to include your name in the readme since you specially built that version, and it will be included in the updated releases at The Pits. Cheers! �� Jan Kohl �� ::: computer security consultant ::: the pits - http://www.theuspits.com castle graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com

Nope. I was being sarcastic and facetious. bk "JM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Shit- were you being ironic too? >

C'mon Jan, Your passionate opposition to realism and integrity is as unseemly as it is confused. You counter my strongest argument as an aside to a third party at the very bottom of your rambling list of particulars: "What Dan did was pull the trackmap from BAPOM to do work on the mountain version of the track. I don't think he realized that you had "ad-libbed" that part of the track, and merely took the layout as an original that you had found somewhere." Brent didn't "ad-lib" that part of the track; he did his homework. It's obvious from the placement of stuff like the creek (which isn't in the trackmap) that Olbuck copied the more than that, particularly since he got the elevations more or less correct (the elevations had previously escaped Olbuck's abilities, Bridgehampton being the most conspicuous example). As Olbuck said of his version of Bridgehampton, "This track was not built from a GPL conversion... I don't have GPL... The [track] is scratch-built every foot (or meter) of the way... " Clearly, he didn't build the Mountain Circuit from scratch, and it sure looks like he got a copy of GPL since his earlier post. As to my toungue-in-cheek comment, "Brent rocks! Anthony sucks!" I refer you to Bruce Kennewell's earlier riposte in this thread, "I was being sarcastic and facetious." Lighten up...and stop defending highway robbers. --Steve Smith "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rVsYc.728$[email hidden]... > Appropriately named "[email hidden]" whined: > > >Dan Olbuck has done much to trash the passion for realism that countless > >others have fanned since the late 20th century in sims like GPL andNASCAR > >Racing 2003. > > <snip> > > Right. Let's actually see how much of this previously posted schei�e iscorrect. > > You have slammed Dan Olbuck's work in quite a few posts now, and statedhow the realism "bear(s) no resemblance whatsoever" and > "but they are much more "arcade" than "simulation." and "I hope he hasn'tquit his day job". Yet I have not once seen you make > a public offer to help Mr. Olbuck get them up to speed, but plenty ofpublic bashing. Your attitude mirrors your description of > his tracks. Is there some specific reason you feel obliged to mount suchan ongoing and personal vendetta against Mr. Olbuck? > Because it certainly sounds like its personal, not to mention spiteful,especially since there are a whole host of incomplete > and poorly built tracks out there that you've not made a comment on. Italso speaks VOLUMES that you would stoop to > ridiculously immature comments like "Anthony sucks!" and "Mr. Brookssucks!" Yeah, real professional. And you were an editor? > You now stoop to calling people names for pointing out that you shouldhave a bit more respect for people than to openly slam > them on a public forum? Strange that you haven't posted on topics at ThePits directly relating to the track. Why is that, eh? > Why did you find it necessary to vomit your opinion to a public newsgroup,but not bother to even make one suggestion to the > author about the original track you complained about, which wasbuilt...ohhhh...December, 2003? > > Class act. > > Alternatively, you could build it yourself, but I've not seen any of that,either. > > You claim you are not helping Mr. Olbuck because of some trumped-up ideathat he's too snobby to accept any help (or something > like that, I've not quite figured out what your argument is). That's lowclass, considering you don't even know the guy. If > you actually perused the forums that Mr. Olbuck hangs out on, you'd seehe's quite happily accepted help from others, and has > asked for it. Let's just go ahead and investigate this, shall we? > > So Mr. Olbuck thinks he knows what is best and can't be bothered to getany input from anyone? > > December, 2003: http://www.tptcc.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1829 > > Yep. This sounds like someone who is too good to take input. Strange. Idon't see your name on that thread. > > Nor this one: > http://www.tptcc.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1963 > > Wow. Many chances for input there, Steve...and not a one made. Oh, butyou've made about as many slams on Mr. Olbuck's work, > though... > -------------------------------------------- > You also made some completely clueless comments about tracks, which makesme wonder that you actually know what you're talking > about. > > 1) "he wild boys at PWF have released an alleged "beta" version ofRiverside...only there's nothing beta about it. It's close > to perfect, missing only the wonderful (and dead accurate) off-coursesandstorms of Dave Noonan's earlier conversion" > (Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators Date: 2004-03-20 10:45:29 PST) > > This reproduction is a direct copy of David Noonan's conversion. Thenyou comment "PWF's Riverside is one of the finest > roadies to date". Uhhhh...yeah. Only the finest of copies of DavidNoonan's conversion? > > ----------------------------------------------- > 2) "Not even close. Mr. Olbuck's Riverside looks no more like the realRiverside than his Lime Rock bore any resemblance to > that circuit." > > Really? That's rather strange. Of people who HAVE driven on LimeRock, we've had other people state quite the > opposite...in fact, they thought it was quite good (but did need somefixes). Let's also go into Riverside here. Here some > comments by people who HAVE been to the track: > > "Thank you for your work, it is as accurate as I remember it!" > > "Having grown up in Riverside, Mr. Olbuck's update brings back somefond memories to me, much more so than any previous > version." > > "Well done, Dan. I'm particularly impressed that this was done bysomeone who lives on the other side of the country. I would > have expected a Southern California native to have offered the bestrendition of my home track!" > > "Other than the already mentioned rise between 6 and 8 I can't reallythink of anything that is questionable." > > So you are the only one of 5 people who have been to Riverside who hasthat opinion. Some may not have driven it, but it sounds > to me it looks a lot more like Riverside than the "perfect" copy-job thatyou tout. > > ---------------------------------------------- > 3) "His version of Riverside seems to be a retexturing of the track that Ihelped Papy design for NASCAR Legends" > > This is the most hilarious statement of all. Anyone with just a few lapsat this track can see that it is VERY different from > the David Noonan/Papyrus conversion (including the PWF copy). And...youdon't need to take MY word for it, here's a link to > David Noonan's 3doEdit. > http://www.theuspits.com/sims/files/3DOed.zip > > Go ahead. Open up ALL the tracks (David's conversion, the PWF version,and Dan's version and see which one(s) look the same. > > Incidentally, Dan has used satellite photography, topo maps and SpeedTVfootage (when available) to create these tracks. While > it's not a perfect means of putting a track together, it's also not goingto make something that "bear(s) no resemblance > whatsoever" to the original. With constructive input, it could be evenbetter. However, I've not seen anything constructive > from your camp, and doubt I will, as you seem to be incensed atbadmouthing other people's work rather than contributing. > > The next time you feel like bashing someone, first try to actually usesome FACTS, your argument may hold up better that way... > > > --------------------separate note to Brent Adams-------------------- > Brent, what Dan did was pull the trackmap from BAPOM to do work on themountain version of the track. I don't think he realized > that you had "ad-libbed" that part of the track, and merely took thelayout as an original that you had found somewhere. I have > mentioned to Dan it would be good idea to include your name in the readmesince you specially built that version, and it will be

Quoted text (11 lines)

> included in the updated releases at The Pits. > > Cheers! > > �� Jan Kohl �� > ::: computer security consultant ::: > the pits - http://www.theuspits.com > castle graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > > >

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sgbXc.172247$[email hidden]... > Dan Olbuck has done much to trash the passion for realism that countless > others have fanned since the late 20th century in sims like GPL and NASCAR > Racing 2003. On that note, why aren't you complaining about the SPEED GT Viper Comp Coupe having been fancied as a Trans-Am racer by PWF for no other reason than to shut up Mopar fans? If we're that concerned about realism within NR2003... You're approaching West status with that hyperbolic blurb. ;-) Once again, at least make an effort to be constructive on The Pits' forum. Attacking here, where the creator doesn't post, comes off as petty. -jde

"J.D. Ellis" wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:sgbXc.172247$[email hidden]... > > Dan Olbuck has done much to trash the passion for realism that countless > > others have fanned since the late 20th century in sims like GPL and NASCAR > > Racing 2003. > > On that note, why aren't you complaining about the SPEED GT Viper Comp Coupe > having been fancied as a Trans-Am racer by PWF for no other reason than to > shut up Mopar fans? If we're that concerned about realism within NR2003... > > You're approaching West status with that hyperbolic blurb. ;-) > > Once again, at least make an effort to be constructive on The Pits' forum. > Attacking here, where the creator doesn't post, comes off as petty.

Bit late for that now JD, if Steve had done what other people have done when they suspected "foul play" and contacted us directly, this could all have been sorted out in some fashion, by taking it public like this, everyone's running for the trenches, I know I am and no prizes for guessing who I'm siding with You'd think a man with Steve's experience and background would have handled the situation better, but instead he acted like some 12 year old from the Sierra forums, certainly seems like he was more interested in a public execution of Dan than getting credit and recognition where it's due I honestly don't know why I bother anymore, but then again I hardly do, I think I'll buy Dan a virtual beer, afaik he's a decent bloke and I honestly don't think he deserves this, I may be proven wrong, but I doubt it Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

J.D., Because I pre-date the Cretacious Period, I'm not familiar with much that happened after the invention of the wheel. The mag wheel, that is. For all I know, the Spa in GTR is nothing like the Spa that was on TV last weekend (altho I'm told the chicane is different), but I know that I like it, even tho I do know what the demo embodies what might be termed "voodoo" physics. (I"m told this issue has been addressed.) I *do* know what Bridgehampton looks like from the cockpit of a race car. And Lime Rock and Riverside. I don't know every road course that has been developed for N2003 as intimately as I know those three, but I have driven race cars at a couple dozen venues that have been released for GPL (among those--from best-known to least--Marlboro, Laguna Seca, VIR, Sebring, Mid-Ohio, Willow Springs, Louden when it was Bryar Motorsport Park, Mosport, the infield circuit at Hockenheim, Solitude, the Nordschleife, and Indianapolis in a solar-powered car in the 1990 GM Sunrayce). But I have only only volunteered to help with--and comment on the realism of--the three tracks I know best: Bridgehampton, Lime Rock, and Riverside. (Until somebody wants to recreate the old road circuit at Thompson, Connecticut.) --Steve "J.D. Ellis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tBMYc.2267$[email hidden]... > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:sgbXc.172247$[email hidden]... > > Dan Olbuck has done much to trash the passion for realism that countless > > others have fanned since the late 20th century in sims like GPL andNASCAR > > Racing 2003. > > On that note, why aren't you complaining about the SPEED GT Viper CompCoupe > having been fancied as a Trans-Am racer by PWF for no other reason than to > shut up Mopar fans? If we're that concerned about realism withinNR2003...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > You're approaching West status with that hyperbolic blurb. ;-) > > Once again, at least make an effort to be constructive on The Pits' forum. > Attacking here, where the creator doesn't post, comes off as petty. > > -jde > > >

> Your passionate opposition to realism and integrity is as unseemly as it is confused. ROTFL!!! That's classic! You've just pulled the chair legs (multiple times) out from someone you know nothing about (and know nothing about editing, as well) and say *I* am opposing integrity! LOL! That is truely being a legend in your own mind...we'll get to the realism here in a minute. Confused? I think I'll be able to show who is truely confused here... > You counter my strongest argument as an aside to a third party at the very > bottom of your rambling list of particulars: Come on, no sidestepping here, you missed a whole page of comments and questions. Let's hear why you can't tell an exact copy of David Noonan's track from an original work. Or why others disagree with your view of "realism". Or why you decided to blather on rec.autos.simulators instead of going to the horses mouth. Or why you chose to disrespect someone instead of offering to help. Or why you chose only one author to slam for whatever unknown reason. And, the comment of Dan copying a track was only the LAST item in your long line of disparaging remarks, and a very recent one, so don't change the subject. Answer the questions above first, since those are the ones you started with. > Brent didn't "ad-lib" that part of the track; he did his homework. Depends on your meaning for ad-lib. What *I* meant was that Brent didn't find an old layout of the original mountain course somewhere, he built it as he thought it might have looked. Which means that Dan's version was obviously built from his idea, not built upon a long-lost map that Brent found somewhere. > the elevations had previously escaped Olbuck's abilities Really. Strange that others don't agree with that. But then again, they haven't agreed with much that you've said. > As Olbuck said of his version of Bridgehampton, "This track was not built > from a GPL conversion... I don't have GPL... The [track] is scratch-built > every foot (or meter) of the way... " Clearly, he didn't build the Mountain > Circuit from scratch Is that so? Shall we bet on that? Are you prepared to back up your clueless insinuations? http://www.theuspits.com/pics/lime_mc_gpl_n2003.gif Know what this is? It's an extract of vertical track maps from a GPL mountain circuit from Brent Adams (dark red) with a vert map of the N2003 mountain circuit from Dan Olbuck (light green). Since I doubt you'll be able to figure out what I'm getting at, it's the fact that you can easily tell that these two circuits are drastically different. Yes, while they are modeled on the same track, they are so far removed that it would be ridiculous to state that one was built from the other one...if the author had done so, it would have been a strange undertaking, as they would have made more work to make the circuits different than if they had built it from scratch to begin with. Again, another example of you not knowing anything that you're talking about. > Lighten up...and stop defending highway robbers. Then stop being a bonehead. You've only come upon this argument as your latest, and have not even explained yourself on any other ones. Even if Dan's work WAS truly as horrendous as you say, you still haven't explained why you didn't help instead of holler. You still haven't explained how your ludicrous examples of how horrible it was were attained, when others (who have been there) have a completely different opinion. Finally, you haven't even proved your final point (which I just disproved) that it was a complete copy of Brent's GPL track. As long as you feel the need to come in here and mouth off at some author's hard work with bad manners, insults, and lousy information, I'll be more than happy to show up and shoot holes in your inane comments. Cheers! �� Jan Kohl �� ::: computer security consultant ::: the pits - http://www.theuspits.com castle graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com

Jan Kohl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rVsYc.728$[email hidden]... > Appropriately named "[email hidden]" whined: > > >Dan Olbuck has done much to trash the passion for realism that countless > >others have fanned since the late 20th century in sims like GPL andNASCAR > >Racing 2003. > Jan: The above I can't comment on as my "world" still revolves around GPL ... lol . I don't own a copy of N2003 and cannot drive any of the Tracks coming under fire here. So I HAVE NO OPINION at this time. read on ............ .> SNIP< >David Noonan's 3doEdit. > http://www.theuspits.com/sims/files/3DOed.zip > > Go ahead. Open up ALL the tracks (David's conversion, the PWF version,and Dan's version and see which one(s) look the same. > > Incidentally, Dan has used satellite photography, topo maps and SpeedTVfootage (when available) to create these tracks. While > it's not a perfect means of putting a track together, it's also not goingto make something that "bear(s) no resemblance > whatsoever" to the original. With constructive input, it could be evenbetter. However, I've not seen anything constructive > from your camp, and doubt I will, as you seem to be incensed atbadmouthing other people's work rather than contributing. > > The next time you feel like bashing someone, first try to actually usesome FACTS, your argument may hold up better that way... Good advice. I opened said N2003 Mountain Circuit and our GPL version to have look in 3doed (nice tool BTW, thanks Dave N.!!! , I use it ALOT .) . A few things come to mind ... As Steve points out in a following post ... " It's obvious from the placement of stuff like the creek (which isn't in the trackmap) ..... " , I find that ( with the help of some photo editing tools ) I can overlay the N2003 track onto the GPL version and the CREEK, Vail's Bend , Beagles nest, Klee Kurve and the Hine Hairpin match up EXACTLY. The radius of beagles nest is however a little tighter, and (ironically.. LOL) Smith's Straight is differs slightly in geometry. One could say that these just represent errors in converting a GPL track to N2003 using a converter supplied by Noonan. It's well documented that his conversions require some cleanup before they are N2003 ready. Just an observation for thought, not an accusation ........ mainly due to Dan's association with Noonan on other N2003 tracks. On a quick look thru the mips, I've also noticed that trees expressly created for Lime/MC for GPL by the genius Jim Barnse (aka Dunkie Dunkoid) make an appearance in at least the N2003 LimeMC. Trees16.mip and trees_group24.mip etc...... "LIME/LRP/MC for GPL" are unique in the fact that Jim personally created (by Hand) virtually ever mip used. Any exceptions (which are few) are noted on our official website or the readme's. Quite an achievement to be proud of considering how easy it is to be tempted to just use "readily available" graphics. The N2003 version seems to be a mix of SportsCar GT, NXXX and "whatever" graphics. The track section names of the N2003 LimeMC version also seem to be rather (read: exactly ) similar; which is curious since the corners were named after the people who participated in the GPL project. Since the MC was never finished we needed corner names ....... the obvious choice was to recognize those who participated. I think Steve is entitled to voice his opinion based on his involvement with "real world" motorsports and also with Papy during the GPL development days. Remember, we were all still drooling over pre-release articles in magazines when the likes of Steve ( and ALi H. of course!! ) were fighting with Papy to get it right for OUR benefit. On a personal note, Steve's trashed me and the rest of the "Lime/LRP/MC/Paramount Ranch" gang on numerous occasions ( LOL !!! ). One quickly realizes that his "criticisms" are not self-indulgent, but are made to "raise the bar" , so to speak. I guarantee he's as passionate (and dedicated to) these PAPY sims as we are. Now, I'm not here to defend anyone, or to trash anyone for that matter. I am however, always concerned that the "Lime/LRP/MC/Paramount Ranch" development crew get all the credit they deserve. During the early development stages of "Lime for GPL", we had someone take a beta , changed some graphics , rewrote the readme file stating he was the sole creator .... distribute the track to a league he was driving with for a special league night race ... and never revealed to his driving mates that it was simply not his work. Only problem was one of the drivers in his league was also one of our beta testers,who, just days before had received the same beta track from us. Well ,you can see were this is going ... . Everyone involved in a track project, as you well know, can invest a huge amount of time during the course of a project. As such, they deserve every little crumb of credit that is due them. This is still a pretty "HIP" community of dedicated "CATS" we're involved with here. Cheers! Brent Adams "Lime/LRP/MC/Paramount Ranch" for GPL > --------------------separate note to Brent Adams-------------------- > Brent, what Dan did was pull the trackmap from BAPOM to do work on themountain version of the track. I don't think he realized > that you had "ad-libbed" that part of the track, and merely took thelayout as an original that you had found somewhere. I have > mentioned to Dan it would be good idea to include your name in the readmesince you specially built that version, and it will be

Quoted text (11 lines)

> included in the updated releases at The Pits. > > Cheers! > > �� Jan Kohl �� > ::: computer security consultant ::: > the pits - http://www.theuspits.com > castle graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > > >

'Supp, Goy? Coupla questions: A couple of months ago you were offering me a job as a columnist, and now when I express an opinion and expose a fraud, you're parading thru town with a pitchfork, demanding my head. Sour grapes? You excoriate me for expressing my views in public, but then disseminate my private emails to you all over town? Hypocracy? This is beginning to feel like a hatchet job: I've criticized a member of The Pits' clique, so you guys are circling the wagons. Cronyism? A couple of track devlopers have complained that unless they kow-tow to a bunch of self-aggrandizing egotists, their work is ignored. Are they right? --Steve "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > "J.D. Ellis" wrote: > > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:sgbXc.172247$[email hidden]... > > > Dan Olbuck has done much to trash the passion for realism that

countless > > > others have fanned since the late 20th century in sims like GPL andNASCAR > > > Racing 2003. > > > > On that note, why aren't you complaining about the SPEED GT Viper CompCoupe > > having been fancied as a Trans-Am racer by PWF for no other reason thanto > > shut up Mopar fans? If we're that concerned about realism withinNR2003... > > > > You're approaching West status with that hyperbolic blurb. ;-) > > > > Once again, at least make an effort to be constructive on The Pits'forum.

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > Attacking here, where the creator doesn't post, comes off as petty. > > Bit late for that now JD, if Steve had done what other people have done > when they suspected "foul play" and contacted us directly, this could > all have been sorted out in some fashion, by taking it public like this, > everyone's running for the trenches, I know I am and no prizes for > guessing who I'm siding with > > You'd think a man with Steve's experience and background would have > handled the situation better, but instead he acted like some 12 year old > from the Sierra forums, certainly seems like he was more interested in a > public execution of Dan than getting credit and recognition where it's > due > > I honestly don't know why I bother anymore, but then again I hardly do, > I think I'll buy Dan a virtual beer, afaik he's a decent bloke and I > honestly don't think he deserves this, I may be proven wrong, but I > doubt it > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

Brent Adams <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZVSYc.2578$[email hidden]... > > Jan Kohl <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:rVsYc.728$[email hidden]... > > Appropriately named "[email hidden]" whined: > > > > >Dan Olbuck has done much to trash the passion for realism thatcountless

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > >others have fanned since the late 20th century in sims like GPL and > NASCAR > > >Racing 2003. > > > > > Jan: > The above I can't comment on as my "world" still revolves around GPL ...

lol

Quoted text (17 lines)

> . I don't own a copy of N2003 and cannot drive any of the Tracks coming > under fire here. So I HAVE NO OPINION at this time. > > read on ............ > > > .> SNIP< > > >David Noonan's 3doEdit. > > http://www.theuspits.com/sims/files/3DOed.zip > > > > Go ahead. Open up ALL the tracks (David's conversion, the PWF version, > and Dan's version and see which one(s) look the same. > > > > Incidentally, Dan has used satellite photography, topo maps and SpeedTV > footage (when available) to create these tracks. While > > it's not a perfect means of putting a track together, it's also not

going

Quoted text (14 lines)

> to make something that "bear(s) no resemblance > > whatsoever" to the original. With constructive input, it could be even > better. However, I've not seen anything constructive > > from your camp, and doubt I will, as you seem to be incensed at > badmouthing other people's work rather than contributing. > > > > The next time you feel like bashing someone, first try to actually use > some FACTS, your argument may hold up better that way... > > > > > Good advice. I opened said N2003 Mountain Circuit and our GPL version to > have look in 3doed (nice tool BTW, thanks Dave N.!!! , I use it ALOT .) .

A

Quoted text (7 lines)

> few things come to mind ... > > As Steve points out in a following post ... " It's obvious from the > placement of stuff like the creek (which isn't in the > trackmap) ..... " , I find that ( with the help of some photo editing > tools ) I can overlay the N2003 track onto the GPL version and > the CREEK, Vail's Bend , Beagles nest, Klee Kurve and the Hine Hairpin

match

Quoted text (15 lines)

> up EXACTLY. The radius of beagles nest is however a little tighter, and > (ironically.. LOL) Smith's Straight is differs slightly in geometry. One > could say that these just represent errors in converting a GPL track to > N2003 using a converter supplied by Noonan. It's well documented that his > conversions require some cleanup before they are N2003 ready. Just an > observation for thought, not an accusation ........ mainly due to Dan's > association with Noonan on other N2003 tracks. > > > On a quick look thru the mips, I've also noticed that trees expressly > created for Lime/MC for GPL by the genius Jim Barnse (aka Dunkie Dunkoid) > make an appearance in at least the N2003 LimeMC. Trees16.mip and > trees_group24.mip etc...... > > "LIME/LRP/MC for GPL" are unique in the fact that Jim personally created

(by

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Hand) virtually ever mip used. Any exceptions (which are few) are noted on > our official website or the readme's. Quite an achievement to be proud of > considering how easy it is to be tempted to just use "readily available" > graphics. The N2003 version seems to be a mix of SportsCar GT, NXXX and > "whatever" graphics. > > The track section names of the N2003 LimeMC version also seem to be rather > (read: exactly ) similar; which is curious since the corners were named > after the people who participated in the GPL project. Since the MC was

never > finished we needed corner names ....... the obvious choice was torecognize > those who participated. > > I think Steve is entitled to voice his opinion based on his involvementwith

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "real world" motorsports and also with Papy during the GPL development > days. Remember, we were all still drooling over pre-release articles in > magazines when the likes of Steve ( and ALi H. of course!! ) were fighting > with Papy to get it right for OUR benefit. > > On a personal note, Steve's trashed me and the rest of the > "Lime/LRP/MC/Paramount Ranch" gang on numerous occasions ( LOL !!! ). One > quickly realizes that his "criticisms" are not self-indulgent, but are

made > to "raise the bar" , so to speak. I guarantee he's as passionate (and > dedicated to) these PAPY sims as we are. > > Now, I'm not here to defend anyone, or to trash anyone for that matter. Iam > however, always concerned that the "Lime/LRP/MC/Paramount Ranch"development > crew get all the credit they deserve. > > During the early development stages of "Lime for GPL", we had someonetake > a beta , changed some graphics , rewrote the readme file stating he wasthe > sole creator .... distribute the track to a league he was driving with fora

Quoted text (22 lines)

> special league night race ... and never revealed to his driving mates that > it was simply not his work. Only problem was one of the drivers in his > league was also one of our beta testers,who, just days before had received > the same beta track from us. Well ,you can see were this is going ... . > > Everyone involved in a track project, as you well know, can invest a huge > amount of time during the course of a project. As such, they deserve every > little crumb of credit that is due them. This is still a pretty "HIP" > community of dedicated "CATS" we're involved with here. > > Cheers! > > Brent Adams > "Lime/LRP/MC/Paramount Ranch" for GPL > > > > --------------------separate note to Brent Adams-------------------- > > Brent, what Dan did was pull the trackmap from BAPOM to do work on the > mountain version of the track. I don't think he realized > > that you had "ad-libbed" that part of the track, and merely took the > layout as an original that you had found somewhere. I have > > mentioned to Dan it would be good idea to include your name in the

readme

Quoted text (9 lines)

> since you specially built that version, and it will be > > included in the updated releases at The Pits. > > > > Cheers! > > > > �� Jan Kohl �� > > ::: computer security consultant ::: > > the pits - http://www.theuspits.com > > castle graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com

If he's so "dedicated to raising the bar", why didn't he post his tirade on the pits too, instead of only here ? Ras cronyism perhaps, eh Steve ?

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:EgMYc.50029$[email hidden]... accusations > "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:rVsYc.728$[email hidden]... denials To which I enquire, has any third party track maker legally registered a track as their intelectual property to date? If not, would it be possible?

Steve, if your intent with this thread was to try to resolve an issue, you seem to have missed the mark quite a bit. When Goy commented that you were acting childish, instead of just taking aim back at Goy, you chose to launch a character attack on everyone at the Pits, thus making Goy's point that much stronger, and soliciting a response from me, so here we go. First, I suggest you step away from the keyboard for a while as I can almost see the foam frothing from your mouth as you type. If you know anything at all about Jan Kohl, you know that he has a very low tolerance for piracy or theft. If you had simply raised the question of the legitimacy of Dan's work, you would have found Jan and other people at the Pits willing to help provide the proof that either Dan's work was original, Dan's work was a copy, or Dan's work was somewhere in between. You would have then found that Jan and others at the Pits would be willing to take any action necessary to resolve any conflicts that were found (in fact we had one member of the Pits dropped over an issue of piracy just this year and I was one of the people who helped prove the claim was accurate). You started off in one single post claiming that Dan's work is nowhere near accurate and claiming his work is a copy of the very accurate GPL versions. In one single post you didn't say that Dan's work looked suspicious, you flatly claimed his work was stolen. In one single post you even insinuate that this has been an ongoing trend for Dan. In one single post, the very first post in this thread, you launched nothing less than a witch hunt. In the very first sentence you said, "Dan Olbuck has done much to trash the passion for realism that countless others have fanned since the late 20th century in sims like GPL and NASCAR Racing 2003." You didn't offer any chance for debate. You didn't leave any room for possibly being wrong in your perceptions. You just marched out onto the public stage, pointed a finger squarely at Dan Olbuck and accused him of theft and ruining realism in the sim racing world. It looks to me like you've unfortunately dug yourself into such a deep whole now that there isn't any way to really get out clean. If Dan's work can be shown to be his own then you've committed libel at best (even if it can't be tried in court, you haven't raised questions, you've made blatant accusations, a former editor should know better). Even if Dan's work can be shown to be copied from Brent's work, you've managed to launch a character assassination of everyone at the Pits. If things continue on this current path, it's just a matter of time before someone decides to start kicking the dirt in on top of you and the truth is, I don't want to see that, regardless of how many of my friends you've assaulted in this one thread. Instead of using your skills in communication to help a friend resolve a potential issue, you chose to use your skills to start a war. Instead of escalating this even further, would you possibly consider that there is a way of working with Dan, Jan and others at the Pits to get to the bottom of this and find out the truth (which you should have some clue about now that you've seen Jan's most recent post with attached pictures). You can either back it off a few notches and start an actual dialogue like a mature adult, or you can continue to foam at the mouth and spit vile curses at anyone who disagrees with you. I also see where Brent has decided to "not accuse" Dave Noonan of being involved, yet he was very willing to insinuate that Dave could have been involved. May I suggest that you drop that train of thought unless you have some actual proof. I don't expect you'll find any since there isn't any, so just drop it before you make things even worse. Don't get me wrong Brent, you seem to be a level-headed guy and I understand your feelings and concern that someone might have stolen your hard work. Unfortunately Mr. Smith has turned a question of someone's honesty into a full on character assassination and then expanded it to a witch hunt of everyone at the Pits. I honestly don't know what the real point of Steve's original post was since there was absolutely nothing in it aimed at getting to the bottom of a possible conflict, but to merely attack someone. I know most of the rest of his posts have been little more than lashing out at anyone who made him aware that he'd cornered himself. Steve, you can lash out at me too if that's what you feel you need to do. Just remember that if your actual goal was to help a friend get credit for his work, that this is not the way to go about it. You could also turn down the heat Steve. Stop throwing insults after insults and try to help your friend Brent get to the bottom of things. I can tell you that Dan and Jan have proof that your tracks were not converted and modified. I understand that Dan used a map that took a lot of research to build and that issue will be resolved if you're willing. I understand that you've found some mip files that were used and that too can be resolved if you're willing. If you haven't worked with sandbox, then you likely don't understand how much easier it is to build a quality track if you have good resources and information, which you were unknowingly able to provide. If Dan had known that the resources he used needed to have credit given, he would have done so and I'm sure he's still willing to do so (in spite of the full on attack that Steve decided to throw at him). This leaves one other problem. Steve, you've bad mouthed every single person at the Pits now. I personally don't appreciate being called a crony, and much less do I appreciate being called a self-aggrandizing egotist, especially by someone who doesn't even know me and appears to have a bit of an excessive ego himself. I had no intention of getting involved in this discussion until you decided to implicate me by default with your rant about everyone at the Pits. It looks like you may need to eat a little crow and apologize to some people, especially Dan, Jan, and Goy. I'm willing to let your comments about me and others at the Pits slide, although I can't speak for the rest of the guys there. However, you've gone way overboard in bad mouthing Dan and I strongly suspect he's not going to be willing to have any kind of real discussion with you or Brent until some public apologies are made. So there it is. You can go on the attack yet again or you can try to repair the damage you've done. This choice is yours. My choice was to post a message in which I spoke candidly instead of posting the kind of extremely sarcastic message that your great use of the English language might inspire. I did not try to avoid offending you, as your statements and actions have left no room for me to speak to how you've acted without having to use some questionable comments. So why don't you make things right then get with Brent, sit down calmly, and discuss what exact issues you have. Then one or both of you contact Dan and Jan and work them out, keeping in mind that your perception of what is going on may not be the actual truth, especially with regard to the idea that the track itself was copied.

Steve: I've never doubted your motorsports pedrigee, just questioned your methods instead of your ideas. ;-) -jde

As Gen. Corman said of Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, my methods have become...unsound. "J.D. Ellis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CWpZc.427$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Steve: > > I've never doubted your motorsports pedrigee, just questioned your methods > instead of your ideas. ;-) > > -jde > > > >

Wow, Scott....... you said it very well. I've only resubscribed to RAS recently because of an email I received from Mr. Smith re: infineon long. And to be honest, his name didn't ring a bell (short term memory is a terrible thing to lose). But, its all come back to me now as to his credentials. And I must say, this thread has really been amazing. Although there does appear to be some questions raised in one of the replies in this convoluted thread, this is still NOT the place to discuss it. If someone had issues with the track, it should have been brought to the attention of Mr. Olbuck, not shot out here. I'm not a fan of roadies, except the trucks do well on them. I am a fan of Lime Rock MC for GPL..... my brab does quite well there and its lots of fun. Actually, my truck does well too, in 2k3, now that I've figured out I needed to change from the OWR track.ini, and adjust the grip and ai levels to my liking (and skill). What I find amusing is that the 2k3 version is purportedly stated to be inaccurate...... and the GPL version to be extremely accurate....... and the 2k3 version is accused of being a rip-off of the GPL version. Now..... that just doesn't make sense. Whatever....... I've got both... and they're both fun to drive. And the GPL community needs to lighten up because they've (unfortunately) been passed by a community that really doesn't care (unfortunately) about piracy issues. We've fought that battle since N4. these new kids don't care....... and GPL and N3 and NL etc are just ancient history to them. How many posts on boards do you see where someone says "I've been playing this game forever..... since N4." They do not understand nor appreciate the older philosophies, nor do most sites now support it. And to a point, I agree. These older games are hard to come by now. Now, as to "stealing" and converting someone else's work....... that may be a different story. But, outside of the blatant PWF ripoffs, its often hard to tell if someone used a track or just borrowed a mip. Most 2k3 tracks borrow a lot of mips ..... grandstands, crowds, trees, etc. Its getting hard to keep what is orig. as orig.