Castrol Honda Superbike Review up at Digital Sportspage

http://www.digitalsports.com/pc2/hondasuperbike/review.html Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

>http://www.digitalsports.com/pc2/hondasuperbike/review.html IOnteresting review. One question - did you try it on a slower system, to see what the frame-rates would be like a more typical computer? I found the demo somewhat slow on my P200/3Dfx, and I was wondering if they accomplished much performance tuning between the release of the demo and the full game. Joe

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>[link lost in import] >IOnteresting review. One question - did you try it on a slower system, >to see what the frame-rates would be like a more typical computer? I >found the demo somewhat slow on my P200/3Dfx, and I was wondering if >they accomplished much performance tuning between the release of the >demo and the full game.

Sorry, but I only have a P300 configured for ***. You can turn on and off detail levels in the full game so it should be able to help you tune for frame rate. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

>IOnteresting review. One question - did you try it on a slower system, >to see what the frame-rates would be like a more typical computer? I >found the demo somewhat slow on my P200/3Dfx, and I was wondering if >they accomplished much performance tuning between the release of the >demo and the full game. I have it on my P200MMX w/ a Stealth S200 3d card installed. For some reason I couldn't get the demo to work at all, so I can't compare the two. There are three main detail settings to adjust the speed of the game: resolution, # of colors, and a generic detail level (low, med, high). With the settings at 800X600, high color, and medium detail I can get a pretty good framerate that won't make me seasick. BTW, I would strongly reccomend using a stering wheel or other analog device for this game. I tried it with my Gamepad Pro and anytime you turn, the whole view leans so quickly that you will soon be reaching for the dramamine(sp?). It was strange at first riding a sportbike with a steering wheel, but it helps out a lot. -Matt Matthew Kraus Also a Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

Certainly the part about the game having only "fantasy tracks" instead of the real road courses is enough to take this game out of consideration for me. Too bad -- from a technical standpoint this was a step in the right direction for a realistic m/c sim. -- Doug Gordon (Remove "nospam." from e-mail address) >http://www.digitalsports.com/pc2/hondasuperbike/review.html >Randy >Randy Magruder >Contributing Reviewer >Digital Sportspage >http://www.digitalsports.com

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Just some info from a former rider and part time racer. I haven't tried the >title yet but from your review it sounds like you are saying the "on bike" >view tilts the world for you as your bike leans. I see several people >comment that this can make them dizzy. It would. When you are really riding >a bike into corners you tilt the bike and your body...but keep your head >level to the ground. This is one of the first rules of racing. Take a look >at a race on TV sometime. Notice how the driver hangs way off....knee >touching the ground but head tilted upward to stay level with the ground. If >the driver allowed his head to tilt back and forth he would develop vertigo >and that's a big no no when racing a two-wheeler.

Interesting point. The feedback may be very subtle and 'seat of the pants', but in some ways that's why sim makers have to overdo the non-tactile cues. In car sims, this is mostly done with tire squeal sounds that give you a sense of getting close to the edge. Since you can't 'feel' the slip, they've got to subsitute something with audio/video (and/or force feedback when appropriate). So although it might not be 100% realistic, it HAS to be there or you are deprived of the ability to ride the edge of the envelope and get the resulting rush from being there. Yeah, but imagine if you're just hauling down the straight and not cornering at all, but you drift over onto the fringe (I don't mean plowing into mud, but the 'fringe' if you know what I mean), you don't suddenly expect your speed to plummet faster than you could brake! Have you seen the video clip at the Laguna Seca web site? I'm pretty sure its a motorcycle from the apparent tilt and windshield angles. Its doing a 1:09 lap, which is in the CART time frame. As far as cornering and braking, I guess I have to say that while I understand the basic sense of two wheels versus four wheels, you're also talking about a LOT less weight. The brakes and contact patches of the tires are relative to the weight of the car as its being thrust in a linear direction, and they act to oppose that. The bike, it would seem, would corner as well or better than a car assuming that the tire grip and braking force was in the right proportion to the extremely low weight of rider and bike, relative to the incredibly heavier regular cars. Randy Randy Magruder Contributing Reviewer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Just some info from a former rider and part time racer. I haven't tried the >title yet but from your review it sounds like you are saying the "on bike" >view tilts the world for you as your bike leans. I see several people >comment that this can make them dizzy. It would. When you are really riding >a bike into corners you tilt the bike and your body...but keep your head >level to the ground. This is one of the first rules of racing. Take a look >at a race on TV sometime. Notice how the driver hangs way off....knee >touching the ground but head tilted upward to stay level with the ground. If >the driver allowed his head to tilt back and forth he would develop vertigo >and that's a big no no when racing a two-wheeler.

DUH! Real computer bike racers tilt their head from side to side when the screen tilts in Castrol Honda! My wife always asks me "What the h*ll are you doing???" when she sees my head go boinky-boink from side to side. :-)

Quoted text (7 lines)

> http://www.digitalsports.com/pc2/hondasuperbike/review.html > Randy > Randy Magruder > Contributing Reviewer > Digital Sportspage > http://www.digitalsports.com

I'd just like to add my 2 cents here, since I have the game and have been riding cycles in some form or another since I was 12. "Unfortunately, there are no rear-view mirrors, but there is a look-back key that will show you the action from behind." - This is actually very true to life. Superbikes don't have any mirrors in order to be more aerodynamic. Looking back is really how riders check for the competition. "I felt that the driver movements were a little too stepped, making them look more like robots on bikes than real people. A few more frames of animation to smooth out driver motion would have been better." - Definitely. The aniamations never seem to lean the rider over enough. I want to see knees scraping pavement. "I want the tires to squeal, I want the vehicle to shake, I want to be forced to make small corrections to the controls...Your speed at maximum tilt determines your turning radius. Too fast and you go in a wider circle. Too slow and youre not at the limit. There is no real squeal or other effect to let you know youre cornering at the limit. You simply quietly go in a wider radius and often dont realize it until your bike goes off the outside edge of the track." - I agree with you on the lack of adrenaline rush, for some reason the sense of speed isn't fully there. As far as tire squeal, cycle tires don't do this when cornering, unless you're dumping the bike. Bikes corner very differently than cars. The way you can tell if you're taking a corner too fast is when you begin to "drift" to the outside. This can be countered by letting off the gas, and braking will stand you back up to vertical. I thought this aspect of superbikes was realistically represented by the game, but not fully (read on). "...I dont accept the whole slowdown philosophy of putting a tire off the track. This tends to keep you from being as aggressive as you should be around the track..." - In reality, if you put a tire off the track on a bike, even into mild gravel, at high speed you're going to dump it. I think the programmers chose to instead simulate the rider braking when off the track as opposed to simply crashing the bike altogether in order to same the user overwhealming frustration. Again, these are not cars, and if a bike goes off-road, the rider will immediately slow down by his own choosing, or go rolling across the dirt. "Further, brakes dont lock up in the game, nor do you get any indication that youre braking other than a reduction of speed. So the potential terror of last-second braking is completely lost." - The potential terror of last-second braking is overshooting the curve. You don't want to be able to lock the wheels, because again, on a bike, this is a very bad idea. This is very much like real superbikes. You brought up a lot good points in your review, but I just feel like you're expecting superbikes to act too much like cars. The two have some very different characteristics, and I think that Castrol Honda Superbikes does a good job in SOME of these areas in representing real superbike racing. I'd probably give this game a score around 75, although I really want it to be beter than that. -Matt

order to be more aerodynamic. Sounds good...but since there's no such thing as peripheral vision in a computer monitor, a mirror wouldn't have been a huge compromise. My point is that in real life you can 'feel' the big losing traction and you don't have this on a PC. That's one good reason for adding sound effects. They are your 'limit' indicators. What if you're going in a straight line and you just drift slightly over the fringe of a track (where there's no curb, just rougher pavement)? There is a tunnel in the game with a paved fringe, but if you put a tire on it, no matter whether you are cornering or not, your speed dumps. There's just no way I buy that. I expect control to go away, not sudden speed drops. The terror is more of losing the bike, no? I'd rather fear the bike spilling me than fear the 'boring slowdown' approach used in the game. You have a valid point. I do respect the differences between the two. However, in watching how unstable the bikes on TV got when the rider did something wrong, I felt like some magic was missing from the game. There is a 'feel' to the real thing you'll never get into a PC simulation, so you have to exaggerate other visual and audio cues to make up for the lack of senses. This principle holds true whether it is a car, a motorcycle, a bicycle or an airplane. The idea that there was sticky tape off the roads and no warning when you were at the limit made it rather difficult to 'feel' the bike. That was the gist of my criticism. Thanks for the feedback! Randy

hey man! ive raced bikes and "driven my car " on the track (after a race day) and a car is way faster than a bike, unfortunately, the absolute bike lap record at Laguna Seca is a 1:25 i think , by Kevin Schwantz in a 500 cc GP machine and as you pointed out , a CART car is around 1:07 for the lap record. It all boils downt to *** on the road, and it depends on the track itself, if its tight , the car will decimate the bike, on a wide open track , then its a lot closer. it also depends which classes you compare :) Cheers Robert T Wilson

>> This is actually very true to life. Superbikes don't have any mirrors in >order to be more aerodynamic. >>Looking back is really how riders check for the competition. >Sounds good...but since there's no such thing as peripheral vision in a >computer monitor, a mirror wouldn't have been a huge compromise. What would be really cool to see implemented would be a glace right/left similar to the way you could check recievers at the line of scrimmage in Madden98. Adding more animation to the riders may have helped this. In the game I can tell when I'm starting to drift in time to correct it without any audio cues. What would help for determining how far you are "trying" to turn is more rider animation as far the lean of the bike goes. Then you could visually tell just how far leaned over you are. Agreed. I have yet to try it with full realism settings turned on, so maybe that would help? I think the slowdown would be better accepted if it were combined with a loss of control, and possibly loss of the bike completely. I'm just guessing, but I think the developers figured this was the best way to keep beginners from getting too frustrated with learning the game. -Matt

>My point is that in real life you can 'feel' the big losing traction and you >don't have this on a PC. That's one good reason for adding sound effects. >They are your 'limit' indicators. I strongly agree with this point. Sim designers have to include features to allow for the fact that computers don't convey things like "feel" and perihperal vision (not yet anyway!). Joe

Not really. Each rider is different. Kevin Schwantz always kept his head inline with his body, and won a lot of titles before retiring. -- Regards, Ian Firth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Diversions Software - Game Development - http://www.divsoft.com Home of Prairie Dog Hunt PRO '97 - DS Sporting Clays

>hey man! >ive raced bikes and "driven my car " Me too. Wrong, in the 'real' world. A very, very fast car may just be able to keep up with a modern run-of-the-mill sports bike costing one tenth of the price, but usually not. Example: Standard 1998 Fireblade with 130kg rider is well over 520 bhp per ton. (And an R1 is probably pushing more like 600 bhp per ton, even in standard trim.) Standard 1998 Ferrari 355 with 130kg driver is 225 bhp per ton. (And yes, I've spent plenty of time driving the vehicles listed above.) Bike wins, no contest. And the bike is a fraction of the price, which leaves you plenty of money for tune-up kits. I put a full-race pipe, race bodywork, re-jet, Dyno, Ohlins suspension, etc., etc. on mine for what one minor service on a F355 would cost. The last 3 mag reviews over here in the UK that have pitched top road-going sports cars against modern sports bikes have seen the bikes dominate ALL the time at EVERY circuit. In the wet, the cars dominate, though. New Porsche 911 is 0-100 mph in 11 seconds. Blade and R1 are about 5.1 seconds. Nuff said. Just my two pennies. Steve P.

How do you explain lap records around circuits such as donington where the f1 cars are considerably faster than a 500gp motorcycle? From what I've read cars can corner considerably faster than a bike ever will.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>hey man! >>ive raced bikes and "driven my car " >Me too. >>on the track (after a race day) and a car is way faster than a bike, >Wrong, in the 'real' world. >A very, very fast car may just be able to keep up with a modern >run-of-the-mill sports bike costing one tenth of the price, but usually

not.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Example: >Standard 1998 Fireblade with 130kg rider is well over 520 bhp per ton. >(And an R1 is probably pushing more like 600 bhp per ton, even in standard >trim.) >Standard 1998 Ferrari 355 with 130kg driver is 225 bhp per ton. >(And yes, I've spent plenty of time driving the vehicles listed above.) >Bike wins, no contest. And the bike is a fraction of the price, which

leaves >you plenty of money for tune-up kits. I put a full-race pipe, race bodywork, >re-jet, Dyno, Ohlins suspension, etc., etc. on mine for what one minor >service on a F355 would cost. >The last 3 mag reviews over here in the UK that have pitched top road-going >sports cars against modern sports bikes have seen the bikes dominate ALL the

Quoted text (9 lines)

>time at EVERY circuit. In the wet, the cars dominate, though. >New Porsche 911 is 0-100 mph in 11 seconds. >Blade and R1 are about 5.1 seconds. Nuff said. >Just my two pennies. >Steve P.

Hi MotoX, Errr, what is a R1? If you're that 130 kg driver, you not only spent a lot of time driving :-) Remco

Hi Steve P., There is a bit of right here but a bit of wrong as well. A "road" bike is always quicker than a "road" car because of it's low weight and high power. When it comes to cornering then car has the edge.... you can get a car (that is a sports car) around a corner quicker than a bike. Though, the raw speed of a "road" bike is still way too much for a car (that is practically any car bar Porche 911 Turbo). When it comes to "racing" bikes and "Racing" cars then cars are much quicker.... again it depends on what you define a "car". F1 cars are about 10-20 seconds a lap quicker than the GP bikes. The reason for this is mainly the amazing downforce that F1 cars generate, not the mention the "sticky" huge tires and a weght to power ratio on par wit any GP bike. The bereaking distances and cornering speeds is where race cars (F1 in particular) shine. Top speed and acceleration of a GP bige and an F1 car are roughly the same. Therefore, it just depends on what "cars" you compare to "bikes". The more dowforce the car generates the more things whing in the "cars" favour. Though, Steve... you are very wrong about one thing, the 0-100mph for Porche 911 Turbo. It is 7 seconds flat... check up on it, the time you're staing is the 1/4 mile time... though the terminal speed at the end of the quater is around 200Kmh (125Mph). On a subject of P11 Turbo, that is probably the only "road" car that will beat a bike (though only marginaly) because of it's raw power, 4-wheel-drive (ie. traction and grip ans stability), huge tires (grip and traction again), best bkares in the business (breaking) and it has decent downforce as the speeds increase. Regards, David Mocnay ps. I was interested in the "bike vs car" question about a year ago, so I did my research :-)

Quoted text (38 lines)

>>hey man! >>ive raced bikes and "driven my car " >Me too. >>on the track (after a race day) and a car is way faster than a bike, >Wrong, in the 'real' world. >A very, very fast car may just be able to keep up with a modern >run-of-the-mill sports bike costing one tenth of the price, but usually not. >Example: >Standard 1998 Fireblade with 130kg rider is well over 520 bhp per ton. >(And an R1 is probably pushing more like 600 bhp per ton, even in standard >trim.) >Standard 1998 Ferrari 355 with 130kg driver is 225 bhp per ton. >(And yes, I've spent plenty of time driving the vehicles listed above.) >Bike wins, no contest. And the bike is a fraction of the price, which leaves >you plenty of money for tune-up kits. I put a full-race pipe, race bodywork, >re-jet, Dyno, Ohlins suspension, etc., etc. on mine for what one minor >service on a F355 would cost. >The last 3 mag reviews over here in the UK that have pitched top road-going >sports cars against modern sports bikes have seen the bikes dominate ALL the >time at EVERY circuit. In the wet, the cars dominate, though. >New Porsche 911 is 0-100 mph in 11 seconds. >Blade and R1 are about 5.1 seconds. Nuff said. >Just my two pennies. >Steve P.

Huge difference between F1 and a street legal Ferarri. An Indy car or F1 car will stay ahead of even a GP bike on most circuits. It all depends on weight and traction. -- Regards, Ian Firth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Diversions Software - Game Development - http://www.divsoft.com Home of Prairie Dog Hunt PRO '97 - DS Sporting Clays

Yamaha R1, sequel to the YZF1000 and FZR1000. -- Regards, Ian Firth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Diversions Software - Game Development - http://www.divsoft.com Home of Prairie Dog Hunt PRO '97 - DS Sporting Clays

> It all depends on weight and traction. And downforce... Throw aerodynamics into the equation and bikes lose out big time. Trips

The catch is in the later turning forces each can generate. While the bike will crush any normal (e.g. not pure race) car in a straight line, the car will return the favor when it gets twisty. Ben

Quoted text (34 lines)

> >Wrong, in the 'real' world. > >A very, very fast car may just be able to keep up with a modern > >run-of-the-mill sports bike costing one tenth of the price, but usually not. > >Example: > >Standard 1998 Fireblade with 130kg rider is well over 520 bhp per ton. > >(And an R1 is probably pushing more like 600 bhp per ton, even in standard > >trim.) > >Standard 1998 Ferrari 355 with 130kg driver is 225 bhp per ton. > >(And yes, I've spent plenty of time driving the vehicles listed above.) > >Bike wins, no contest. And the bike is a fraction of the price, which leaves > >you plenty of money for tune-up kits. I put a full-race pipe, race bodywork, > >re-jet, Dyno, Ohlins suspension, etc., etc. on mine for what one minor > >service on a F355 would cost. > >The last 3 mag reviews over here in the UK that have pitched top road-going > >sports cars against modern sports bikes have seen the bikes dominate ALL the > >time at EVERY circuit. In the wet, the cars dominate, though. > >New Porsche 911 is 0-100 mph in 11 seconds. > >Blade and R1 are about 5.1 seconds. Nuff said. > >Just my two pennies. > >Steve P. > The catch is in the later turning forces each can generate. While the bike > will crush any normal (e.g. not pure race) car in a straight line, the

car will > return the favor when it gets twisty. > Ben Cars win when it comes to slowing down. More *** on the ground and locking the front tires will only lead to flatspots, not falling over. Jer ('73 Corvette with autocrossing setup / Ducati 916)

Like I said in my post: In the 'real' world.... Sure, an out and out sports car (F1, GTR, etc.) will corner and out-lap a bike. But, like I said in my post, most people can afford a modern sports bike at 7-10K here in the UK, but not 100K to 1Million for a race spec sports car. Or even 100K for an F355... Steve. >How do you explain lap records around circuits such as donington where the >f1 cars are considerably faster than a 500gp motorcycle? >From what I've read cars can corner considerably faster than a bike ever >will.