SURVERY: Which is better; IRC2 or GP2

Here are the criteria for judging these two games: (Please send your comments to me via email and I will post this survey as soon as enough responses are received). 1. Driving Model/Realisticness of Driving the cars: 2. Graphics & Details: 3. Sound: 4. Computer Cars/ AI: 5. Car Setups: 6. The Circuits: 7. Others: . . (your comments here) . . . Thank-You. NOTE: As soon as I receive enough responses I will be posting the results in this newsgroups. Enjoy and Happy Racing.

GP2 is much more fun to drive. Damage model in ICR2 would have to be better. You can loose a wing in GP2 and hardly notice any difference. If you did the same in ICR2 you'd be all over the place. GP2 wins here too but it's noticibly slower than ICR2. A fast machine would come in handy :) GP2 again. You dont hear the other cars though like you do with ICR2. Some say this is more realistic since you probably cant hear other cars anyway. You can hear other cars when your in the pits though. GP2. At least they really do try to avoid you. I can really get away from cars in ICR2 but in GP2 there's nearly always someone on my bum. Oh the preasure :) I havn't really played with this much so I wont comment. I love the GP2 circuits, except for Monaco. The only circuit I really like in ICR2 is Mid-Ohio. The ovals dont thrill me much. Tony

You realise the fighting and arguments you are about to cause in our quiet peaceful little group...? :) I think I'll give this one a miss thanks.....! Cheers! John _________________________________ __ _____| |_____ __ ________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |________ \ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | / > :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | < / :|__|::|____/ * Sim Racing News * \____|::|__| \ /______:/ \::/ http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \::/ \._____\ http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~harmon/simnews

Quoted text (95 lines)

> >GP2 has the rather unrealistic "go three seconds > >slower in a race despite using the same setup and fuel load" thing > >which makes race length testing a complete waste of time. > I think you are referring to how in qualifying one can do much better > than with an exact setup/fuel-load in a race. It is arguable whether > or not that is "realistic", because in a real qual, you'd probably do > the available things to the engine for short-term gains that you > probably wouldn't do in for the race where you want endurance. > >ICR2's graphics are faster and the detail on the cars is less blocky, > >although the trackside scenery is of a similar standard to GP2, > >although it must be said that there is less of it. If I could run the > >same level of detail on both games GP2 would probably just win here, > >but I can't and so ICR2 is better for me. Smoke slows the game down > >too much on GP2. Would have been nice to have an opaque smoke option. > I thought we could eliminate smoke? Oh well. I can't race in SVGA, but > I can say that I like GP2's VGA better than ICR2's VGA. I have only a > 486dx4, but I find that in VGA with framerate set to 14, it works > great. I hate the slo-mo ***we get in any sort of traffic tho. I > would love to spring for a pentium 200, but I can't lay down $3000 (or > more) just to play a game. I hope dedicated machines like the > Playstation eventually have the same sim-depth to their racing games > as P.C. sim/games. They only cost $200! I think that sort of path is > the future for gamers. > >>3. Sound > >Tricky. GP2's engine sounds more realistic, but ICR2 has the engine > >sounds made by the other cars which is nice. I think I prefer ICR2 > >here. > But what can a racer really hear when in the***pit? That is a > question I have. > >>4. Computer Cars/ AI > >No contest ! GP2 has far and away the best AI seen on any driving sim. > >I've lost count of the the times I've been rammed off the track on a > >straight (!!) by an ICR2 computer car which is running on rails. > I agree. There are some bonehead GP2 drivers too, but in general, they > seem to have a perfect balance between agressiveness and > conservativism. ICR2 AI guys often seem oblivious. > >>5. Car Setups > >Again GP2. The car responds predictably to setup changes and there is > >less "voodoo" about it. The explanation in the manual is very good, > >and the performance data graphs are very useful indeed. > Well put. I agree. But then, is the "voodoo" more realistic? All I > know is that after 10 months of it, I am tired of the voodoo, I never > really did find a good correlation between what I expected a change to > do and what it did. > >>6. The Circuits > >GP2's circuits seems to be more true to life than those in ICR2 due to > >the things like bumpiness and kerbs which aren't in ICR2. Other than > >that it's very much down to personal taste. I quite like the ovals in > >ICR2, but some of the street circuits are very frustrating - just one > >wheel out of place and *bang* ! > Agree. > >>7. Others: . . (your comments here) . . . > >I'm glad GP2 was late ! It gave me a chance to really play ICR2 > >properly and enjoy what is a really good game despite the bugs. I > >liked GP2 when it came out, then I hated it when I discovered that > >your ca'rs speed during races is "fixed". I've gone back to it now > >because the actual races are fantastic. > Ya, they are... problem is, they are so realistic that they can often > be rather like real F1 races- a little uneventful. How many times have > you been doing well, say in the first 6 places, but there wan't > another car in sight? That is realistic, alright. I can't fault Geoff > on that. Maybe I should fault the FIA! > >This is GP2's big plus point > >and is what I believe makes it just that bit better than ICR2. Can't > >wait for ICR3 though ! > I just hope Sierra has nothing to do with it. > I too certainly don't want to give the impression I think ICR2 is > crap- it isn't at all, it is simply... well, old! 10 months is a long > time for software, and I'd say that with it's sound and driving model > and track depiction it is a generation back now. I sure hope the > creators of the ICR series continue- they have something that with > some tuning could definitely out do the present GP2. > Good post.

I don't know, i play F1GP since it was born, and it was almost as fun as ICR2 despite the car setup, wich was much more detailed in ICR2, but with GP2 I think will have to wait for ICR4 or 5 to get up to this level. IRC2 smell's like NASCAR a lot.

Having never driven either an F1 car or Indycar I don't really know how realistic the driving models are but I think the probably GP2 has the better driving model. The patched driving model on ICR2 is fun to drive though :) ICR2 scores well here though, because it's driving model is consistent. GP2 has the rather unrealistic "go three seconds slower in a race despite using the same setup and fuel load" thing which makes race length testing a complete waste of time. I find it easier to do a consistent speed in ICR2 than in GP2. GP2 is very unforgiving of small errors (just like the real thing I suppose). ICR2's graphics are faster and the detail on the cars is less blocky, although the trackside scenery is of a similar standard to GP2, although it must be said that there is less of it. If I could run the same level of detail on both games GP2 would probably just win here, but I can't and so ICR2 is better for me. Smoke slows the game down too much on GP2. Would have been nice to have an opaque smoke option. Tricky. GP2's engine sounds more realistic, but ICR2 has the engine sounds made by the other cars which is nice. I think I prefer ICR2 here. No contest ! GP2 has far and away the best AI seen on any driving sim. I've lost count of the the times I've been rammed off the track on a straight (!!) by an ICR2 computer car which is running on rails. Again GP2. The car responds predictably to setup changes and there is less "voodoo" about it. The explanation in the manual is very good, and the performance data graphs are very useful indeed. GP2's circuits seems to be more true to life than those in ICR2 due to the things like bumpiness and kerbs which aren't in ICR2. Other than that it's very much down to personal taste. I quite like the ovals in ICR2, but some of the street circuits are very frustrating - just one wheel out of place and *bang* ! I'm glad GP2 was late ! It gave me a chance to really play ICR2 properly and enjoy what is a really good game despite the bugs. I liked GP2 when it came out, then I hated it when I discovered that your ca'rs speed during races is "fixed". I've gone back to it now because the actual races are fantastic. This is GP2's big plus point and is what I believe makes it just that bit better than ICR2. Can't wait for ICR3 though ! *************************************************************************** * Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so... * Glenn Davies * ***************************************************************************

>GP2 has the rather unrealistic "go three seconds >slower in a race despite using the same setup and fuel load" thing >which makes race length testing a complete waste of time. I think you are referring to how in qualifying one can do much better than with an exact setup/fuel-load in a race. It is arguable whether or not that is "realistic", because in a real qual, you'd probably do the available things to the engine for short-term gains that you probably wouldn't do in for the race where you want endurance. I thought we could eliminate smoke? Oh well. I can't race in SVGA, but I can say that I like GP2's VGA better than ICR2's VGA. I have only a 486dx4, but I find that in VGA with framerate set to 14, it works great. I hate the slo-mo ***we get in any sort of traffic tho. I would love to spring for a pentium 200, but I can't lay down $3000 (or more) just to play a game. I hope dedicated machines like the Playstation eventually have the same sim-depth to their racing games as P.C. sim/games. They only cost $200! I think that sort of path is the future for gamers. But what can a racer really hear when in the***pit? That is a question I have. I agree. There are some bonehead GP2 drivers too, but in general, they seem to have a perfect balance between agressiveness and conservativism. ICR2 AI guys often seem oblivious. Well put. I agree. But then, is the "voodoo" more realistic? All I know is that after 10 months of it, I am tired of the voodoo, I never really did find a good correlation between what I expected a change to do and what it did. Agree. Ya, they are... problem is, they are so realistic that they can often be rather like real F1 races- a little uneventful. How many times have you been doing well, say in the first 6 places, but there wan't another car in sight? That is realistic, alright. I can't fault Geoff on that. Maybe I should fault the FIA! I just hope Sierra has nothing to do with it. I too certainly don't want to give the impression I think ICR2 is crap- it isn't at all, it is simply... well, old! 10 months is a long time for software, and I'd say that with it's sound and driving model and track depiction it is a generation back now. I sure hope the creators of the ICR series continue- they have something that with some tuning could definitely out do the present GP2. Good post.

<big snip> Yes it does. But I think a lot of that is down to the look of the game more than anything else. The driving models in ICR2 and Nascar are very different. The Nascar cars behave like I would expect such a big car to behave. The ICR2 cars have a completely different feel to them, although the distinction between the two has been blurred by the ICR2 patch which, in my opinion, made the cars more fun to drive but maybe somewhat less realistic. *************************************************************************** * Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so... * Glenn Davies * ***************************************************************************

<much snipping throughout> That is probably so, but I believe the majority of the difference in lap times in real F1 is due to setup changes made to make the car more driveable but slower, rather nervous but quicker as is required in qualifying. ICR2 does this properly and does not add in the "fake" slowdown that GP2 does. That really annoyed me when I first came across it and it was two weeks before I touched the game again. BTW, I am using my qualifying setups in the races and so far have had no problems with tyre wear. Is anyone else doing this ? Yes, but I find it a useful indicator of whether the cars ahead are making mistakes or if there is a big problem just up ahead so I leave it on. It doesn't cause too much difficulty unless I am spinning the car ! Still, it would have been nice to have opaque smoke for a bit of a speed increase. You and me both ! Recently Damon Hill said he was defeaned at the start of the race by the sound of the other cars engines. I'm sure that it is possible to hear the other cars at least when they're up close. Anyone noticed how backmarkers will move over for you most of the time, but if they're in a battle with another car you have to be very careful where you overtake ? Or is this my imagination :) Good point, but I'd rather have that than the other cars being too slow and easy to pass as in the first game. *************************************************************************** * Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so... * Glenn Davies * ***************************************************************************

Quoted text (100 lines)

> > >GP2 has the rather unrealistic "go three seconds > > >slower in a race despite using the same setup and fuel load" thing > > >which makes race length testing a complete waste of time. > > I think you are referring to how in qualifying one can do much better > > than with an exact setup/fuel-load in a race. It is arguable whether > > or not that is "realistic", because in a real qual, you'd probably do > > the available things to the engine for short-term gains that you > > probably wouldn't do in for the race where you want endurance. > > >ICR2's graphics are faster and the detail on the cars is less blocky, > > >although the trackside scenery is of a similar standard to GP2, > > >although it must be said that there is less of it. If I could run the > > >same level of detail on both games GP2 would probably just win here, > > >but I can't and so ICR2 is better for me. Smoke slows the game down > > >too much on GP2. Would have been nice to have an opaque smoke option. > > I thought we could eliminate smoke? Oh well. I can't race in SVGA, but > > I can say that I like GP2's VGA better than ICR2's VGA. I have only a > > 486dx4, but I find that in VGA with framerate set to 14, it works > > great. I hate the slo-mo ***we get in any sort of traffic tho. I > > would love to spring for a pentium 200, but I can't lay down $3000 (or > > more) just to play a game. I hope dedicated machines like the > > Playstation eventually have the same sim-depth to their racing games > > as P.C. sim/games. They only cost $200! I think that sort of path is > > the future for gamers. > > >>3. Sound > > >Tricky. GP2's engine sounds more realistic, but ICR2 has the engine > > >sounds made by the other cars which is nice. I think I prefer ICR2 > > >here. > > But what can a racer really hear when in the***pit? That is a > > question I have. > > >>4. Computer Cars/ AI > > >No contest ! GP2 has far and away the best AI seen on any driving sim. > > >I've lost count of the the times I've been rammed off the track on a > > >straight (!!) by an ICR2 computer car which is running on rails. > > I agree. There are some bonehead GP2 drivers too, but in general, they > > seem to have a perfect balance between agressiveness and > > conservativism. ICR2 AI guys often seem oblivious. > > >>5. Car Setups > > >Again GP2. The car responds predictably to setup changes and there is > > >less "voodoo" about it. The explanation in the manual is very good, > > >and the performance data graphs are very useful indeed. > > Well put. I agree. But then, is the "voodoo" more realistic? All I > > know is that after 10 months of it, I am tired of the voodoo, I never > > really did find a good correlation between what I expected a change to > > do and what it did. > > >>6. The Circuits > > >GP2's circuits seems to be more true to life than those in ICR2 due to > > >the things like bumpiness and kerbs which aren't in ICR2. Other than > > >that it's very much down to personal taste. I quite like the ovals in > > >ICR2, but some of the street circuits are very frustrating - just one > > >wheel out of place and *bang* ! > > Agree. > > >>7. Others: . . (your comments here) . . . > > >I'm glad GP2 was late ! It gave me a chance to really play ICR2 > > >properly and enjoy what is a really good game despite the bugs. I > > >liked GP2 when it came out, then I hated it when I discovered that > > >your ca'rs speed during races is "fixed". I've gone back to it now > > >because the actual races are fantastic. > > Ya, they are... problem is, they are so realistic that they can often > > be rather like real F1 races- a little uneventful. How many times have > > you been doing well, say in the first 6 places, but there wan't > > another car in sight? That is realistic, alright. I can't fault Geoff > > on that. Maybe I should fault the FIA! > > >This is GP2's big plus point > > >and is what I believe makes it just that bit better than ICR2. Can't > > >wait for ICR3 though ! > > I just hope Sierra has nothing to do with it. > > I too certainly don't want to give the impression I think ICR2 is > > crap- it isn't at all, it is simply... well, old! 10 months is a long > > time for software, and I'd say that with it's sound and driving model > > and track depiction it is a generation back now. I sure hope the > > creators of the ICR series continue- they have something that with > > some tuning could definitely out do the present GP2. > > Good post. > I don't know, i play F1GP since it was born, and it was almost as fun as > ICR2 despite the car setup, wich was much more detailed in ICR2, but > with GP2 I think will have to wait for ICR4 or 5 to get up to this > level. IRC2 smell's like NASCAR a lot.

True!! Gp2 is a more realistic race sim.. Well done Microprose.!!

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >Here are the criteria for judging these two games: > >(Please send your comments to me via email and I will > >post this survey as soon as enough responses are received). > You realise the fighting and arguments you are about to cause in our > quiet peaceful little group...? :) > I think I'll give this one a miss thanks.....! > Cheers! > John > _________________________________ > __ _____| |_____ __ > ________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |________ > \ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | / > > :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | < > / :|__|::|____/ * Sim Racing News * \____|::|__| \ > /______:/ \::/ http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \::/ \._____\ > http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~harmon/simnews

Gp2 is the best........!!!!!!!!!!!!!1