Most sim racers suck!!

Boy I'm asking for it now. Take you car go 60 mph down the highway and see points on the road that you want to hit. Now take your wife and do this. You'll find out both of you can do it. Now go into F1RS, GPL, N2 Sim ect. You try it and you can do it but it isn't as easy as your passenger car. Your wife can't do it well at all and might just spin out of control. Now wouldn't you think the sim should be at least as easy to drive as your passenger car? You would think an actual racing car would be able to dance on the spot you picked compared to a Ford Escort. Esp. a F1 race car, these things are unbelievably sticky. Well I'm hear to wake you guys up and state that your sim is only simming a more sloppily handled car than it's real life counterpart. Don't tell me I'm looking for an arcade racer because those cars drive on slick 50 and are criminal in my book. I'm here just to remind you guys that your not simulating the real world. We need better handling vehicles in these sims, I think they make it so hard just so only a select few can drive them properly making it somewhat representative of the top racers in the real world. What these companies get is a lot of turned off would be racers. If a sim was so damned good wouldn't you think Gordon could just sit down on N2 and dominate? We'll he bangs off the wall until he learned how to adjust to a more unforgiving sim. Last ex. Buddy gets a birthday gift to drive around C***te Speedway in a Nascar. He gets up to 150 mph and still felt confident. He comes over and races it on N2 and is out of control bigtime. I then give him my adjusted arcade mode version and then he's stating this is more like it. Why do I even write this I watched a F1 race fire up F1RS and I'm telling you these cars in the game are not even close to the way a F1 car really handles. Over and out. QBM

"...sim racers suck..." Try Gran Turismo... it's by far the best sim out there. Of course it's not the same as getting into your car and actually driving it, but damn... IT'S A GAME... so quit ***ing about it and just have fun. Marcus

Yes, but at 60mph in a street legal car, it's easy to lose contorl. If you can make sharp sudden turns you might wreck big time. In a NASCAR, Championship Car, or F1, you can make sudden moves at 100+mph. In a normal car, at 100+ mph, you don't even think of making a move. Also, if you take a high preformance car, it has around 300h.p and Goodyears. If you take a NASCAR, it has 700h.p and bias-ply tires. And lets not forget they have spoliers. So there's a big difference. If you want a "realistic" sim, make one yourself or pay $400 or so to drive 3 laps at the Richard Petty driving experience. Otherwise, QUIT COMPLAINING! Racer X Veteran Sim Racer Victory Lane- http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/1423/

>Boy I'm asking for it now. Indeed! Sounds about right so far.. I disagree, sometimes it seems the sim car is more rigid and can do things it shouldn't like defy physics and turn sharply regardless of slip angles, inertia, centrifugal force etc Other aspects are - dodgy intel hardware, joystick ports that skip a beat because some other part of the system is working overtime. Delays between input processing and the visual/auditory feedback. I hear screamer2 is pretty good ;-) As far as I can tell each sim has its own physics world and if you can adapt and even exploit it you will be able to get very fast laptimes. Is it reflective of real driving skill probably not. But on the other hand many of a real drivers skills are used - things like identifying a corner and breaking it down to the 3 parts (turnin, apex, exit), coordination, reflexes, anticipation, sensitivity and consistancy etc So really I'd expect that those who are fast in simland would also be better than average in a real car. However I do agree that in many cases sims are harder than they should be - its too easy to make mistakes. GPL seems quite good but the frustration factor seems to get to me. Its very much like playing golf - those glorious shots keeping you coming back, for GPL its that near perfect lap, except in my case there's not enough of them. More likely its because he learned how to survive without all his usual senses. Heres why I say that - computer sims can't give you the proper feedback so you have to draw on experience instead. Perhaps the arcade mode removes a need to adapt to a car that has realistic levels of grip minus the real world feedback/sensations. ie it has plenty of grip and you have to be pretty wild to exceed the adhesion limit? I don't drive F1 cars so I couldn't possibly comment ;-) but I expect you're probably right.. In summary I'd say sim developers are developing more sophisticated physics engines and are closer to simulating real race cars, but haven't yet figured out a satisfactory way of compensating for the loss of real world sensations. In the meantime they're getting harder to drive, however Force Feedback is probably a step in the right direction. David.

Let me put it this way. It is just a game. >Boy I'm asking for it now. >Take you car go 60 mph down the highway and see points on the road that you >want to hit. Now take your wife and do this. You'll find out both of you can >do it. >Now go into F1RS, GPL, N2 Sim ect. You try it and you can do it but it isn't

Quoted text (15 lines)

>as easy as your passenger car. Your wife can't do it well at all and might >just spin out of control. >Now wouldn't you think the sim should be at least as easy to drive as your >passenger car? You would think an actual racing car would be able to dance >on the spot you picked compared to a Ford Escort. Esp. a F1 race car, these >things are unbelievably sticky. >Well I'm hear to wake you guys up and state that your sim is only simming a >more sloppily handled car than it's real life counterpart. >Don't tell me I'm looking for an arcade racer because those cars drive on >slick 50 and are criminal in my book. >I'm here just to remind you guys that your not simulating the real world.

We >need better handling vehicles in these sims, I think they make it so hard >just so only a select few can drive them properly making it somewhat >representative of the top racers in the real world. What these companies get >is a lot of turned off would be racers. >If a sim was so damned good wouldn't you think Gordon could just sit down on

Quoted text (15 lines)

>N2 and dominate? We'll he bangs off the wall until he learned how to adjust >to a more unforgiving sim. >Last ex. Buddy gets a birthday gift to drive around C***te Speedway in a >Nascar. He gets up to 150 mph and still felt confident. He comes over and >races it on N2 and is out of control bigtime. I then give him my adjusted >arcade mode version and then he's stating this is more like it. >Why do I even write this I watched a F1 race fire up F1RS and I'm telling >you these cars in the game are not even close to the way a F1 car really >handles. >Over and out. >QBM

>If a sim was so damned good wouldn't you think Gordon could just sit down on >N2 and dominate? We'll he bangs off the wall until he learned how to adjust >to a more unforgiving sim . Hmmmm you never went on the NROS. I can tell you that Dale Earneardt Jr, when he races against us, is pretty ***, and kick the arse of 99.9% of us (hehe not me !). Hmmm it's still 150mph vs. the 183mph laps I can do in average. GO take nascar2 and cruise at 150mph. Very easy. VERY. Yes, but this is F1RS. With the limitation of today's PC, it is not always possible to simulate the complete reality (since it wouldn't virtual anymore). But tell me that somebody who can do sub- 1:10secs lap for 105 laps (full GP) at Watkins Glen in GPLegends isn't a good driver. But like you said "most" SimRacers suck. Most, yes. If you are on the NROS, you would know that some driver don't sucks, and actually are real drivers in real life. Just yesterday I went to a karting race, and got the pole, led all laps and won over drivers who did karting for more than 10years. It was my second time only. Just think that the racing simulators try to simulate reality, but finally they come soo different from the reality that they are unique. Heck somebody who can master GPLegends or Nascar2 (like some top10 drivers on the NROS) are some great drivers. They could stink in real life, since Nascar2 has it"s unique way of driving. It's a new form of racing, like dirt racing, Rallying, karting, etc... It is not because Nascar2 is selling under the game section that it is a game. Go tell this on the NROS. You will get flamed more than me around 1 year ago on r.a.s. <g>. It is a different form of racing than real-life-Nascar, and if you master it you are really a good driver. - Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-) - Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. - Member of the r.a.s. Ego-maniac club - Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) - Excuse me for being provocative (I'm dumb speaking) - "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."--

NB: PLANK ALERT!!! PLANK ALERT!!! PLANK ALERT!!! Most *serious* sims are trying to simulate real racing cars. Do you think a real racing car is as easy to drive as an ordinary car? Too hard? sounds to me like maybe, you are not very good at racing sims? BTW, I'm no expert, and I find all serious sims hard to drive, (at first?) but with lots of practice, lots of time, and lots of effort, they *can* be mastered, and you *can* achieve reasonable times. Maybe not the *best* times, but certainly reasonable times.... Maybe you just haven't practiced enough? This one sentence says a lot about you........ Gee its been nice talking with you..... 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

Are you Don Wilshe in disguise??

Quoted text (43 lines)

> Boy I'm asking for it now. > Take you car go 60 mph down the highway and see points on the road that you > want to hit. Now take your wife and do this. You'll find out both of you can > do it. > Now go into F1RS, GPL, N2 Sim ect. You try it and you can do it but it isn't > as easy as your passenger car. Your wife can't do it well at all and might > just spin out of control. > Now wouldn't you think the sim should be at least as easy to drive as your > passenger car? You would think an actual racing car would be able to dance > on the spot you picked compared to a Ford Escort. Esp. a F1 race car, these > things are unbelievably sticky. > Well I'm hear to wake you guys up and state that your sim is only simming a > more sloppily handled car than it's real life counterpart. > Don't tell me I'm looking for an arcade racer because those cars drive on > slick 50 and are criminal in my book. > I'm here just to remind you guys that your not simulating the real world. We > need better handling vehicles in these sims, I think they make it so hard > just so only a select few can drive them properly making it somewhat > representative of the top racers in the real world. What these companies get > is a lot of turned off would be racers. > If a sim was so damned good wouldn't you think Gordon could just sit down on > N2 and dominate? We'll he bangs off the wall until he learned how to adjust > to a more unforgiving sim. > Last ex. Buddy gets a birthday gift to drive around C***te Speedway in a > Nascar. He gets up to 150 mph and still felt confident. He comes over and > races it on N2 and is out of control bigtime. I then give him my adjusted > arcade mode version and then he's stating this is more like it. > Why do I even write this I watched a F1 race fire up F1RS and I'm telling > you these cars in the game are not even close to the way a F1 car really > handles. > Over and out. > QBM

Well, your right! Its a game! As for the rest of you, I don't think I could run in the top 10 in an actual Winston Cup race. Don't get me wrong, I would love to try. As it is right now, I would be black flagged because I could not keep up. Hey, with practice and a lot of experience, them maybe I could keep up. As for right now N2 is the closest thing I am ever going to get to Stock Car racing. And, I love every minute I can race with N2. Oh, and by the way, I can win races in N2. How can that be with a sim that is so hard to drive? I'll give ya one on the fact that I can't drive ICR2 fast on any road courses. I think it has something to do with the fact that I hate to slow down. Also, my timing stinks when braking. I would have the same problems with my own car if I didn't use the brakes. Time for a review! Lets review some of the differences of the actual thing and the sim. First, the actual thing: Sight: 180+ depends on your own vision. Turn your head you see things that pertain to the car and the race to the left and right. Smell: Engine, smoke. Hearing: Engine, Com-link, general sound made in and out of the car. Taste: racing grime! Touch: Actual g-forces, vibrations, bumps, loose and push sensations. Next the Sim: Sight: Don't know exactly, but it is not dependent on my own eye sight. In fact if I turn my head. I see pictures of my wife and son, a book case, doors, manuals, phones, and a computer! Smell: Whatever my wife uses to clean with. Closest thing I smell, that would be even at a track, is an occasional whiff of electrical contact cleaner. Hearing: Engine, Tires, Com-link (on N2), the phone, my son crying (8Mths old), My wife asking to get a bottle, and the fan on the computer. Taste: The coke I am drinking and the sandwich. Touch: Okay, to get the actual feel of the back-end of my sim car rear tires loosing traction, the back end of my computer chair will have to "Kick out" on its own. No vibrations! (Unless you have a vibrating chair). To finish this up! I guess a lot of people have a hard time translating the actual thing to a sim due to the lack of key information you use while driving a car. TF "Anyone can drive fast, driving fast in traffic is a different story!"

> Why do I even write this I watched a F1 race fire up F1RS and I'm telling > you these cars in the game are not even close to the way a F1 car really > handles. You're judging sims based on your "experience" watching racing on TV? LOL. Trips

If you saw the F1 Grand Prix in Montreal on Sunday you'll realise that the best drivers in the world find Formula 1 cars hard to drive (loads of spins and crashes but great to watch though). Breaking down from 180mph into a hairpin while trying to take the corner faster than anyone else in the world is tricky. On most sims you can drive round at 30mph without the slightest risk of spinning - but you'll get some poor lap times. I saw quite a few Ford Fiestas (different but not too different to the road car) spin at Brands Hatch the other day, so don't fool yourself than pushing any car with a half decent top speed to its limits around race track hairpin is easy - you've just never done it on a public road unless you posted your mail from hospital or jail. If you want a sim that's really easy try Virtual Karts and when your really bored (after about five minutes) try a real sim.

Quoted text (90 lines)

> >Boy I'm asking for it now. > Indeed! > >Take you car go 60 mph down the highway and see points on the road that you > >want to hit. Now take your wife and do this. You'll find out both of you can > >do it. > >Now go into F1RS, GPL, N2 Sim ect. You try it and you can do it but it isn't > >as easy as your passenger car. Your wife can't do it well at all and might > >just spin out of control. > Sounds about right so far.. > >Now wouldn't you think the sim should be at least as easy to drive as your > >passenger car? You would think an actual racing car would be able to dance > >on the spot you picked compared to a Ford Escort. Esp. a F1 race car, these > >things are unbelievably sticky. > >Well I'm hear to wake you guys up and state that your sim is only simming a > >more sloppily handled car than it's real life counterpart. > I disagree, sometimes it seems the sim car is more rigid and can do things it > shouldn't like defy physics and turn sharply regardless of slip angles, inertia, > centrifugal force etc > Other aspects are - dodgy intel hardware, joystick ports that skip a beat > because some other part of the system is working overtime. Delays between input > processing and the visual/auditory feedback. > >Don't tell me I'm looking for an arcade racer because those cars drive on > >slick 50 and are criminal in my book. > I hear screamer2 is pretty good ;-) > >I'm here just to remind you guys that your not simulating the real world. We > >need better handling vehicles in these sims, I think they make it so hard > >just so only a select few can drive them properly making it somewhat > >representative of the top racers in the real world. What these companies get > >is a lot of turned off would be racers. > As far as I can tell each sim has its own physics world and if you can adapt and > even exploit it you will be able to get very fast laptimes. Is it reflective of > real driving skill probably not. But on the other hand many of a real drivers > skills are used - things like identifying a corner and breaking it down to the > 3 parts (turnin, apex, exit), coordination, reflexes, anticipation, sensitivity > and consistancy etc > So really I'd expect that those who are fast in simland would also be better > than average in a real car. However I do agree that in many cases sims are > harder than they should be - its too easy to make mistakes. > GPL seems quite good but the frustration factor seems to get to me. Its very > much like playing golf - those glorious shots keeping you coming back, for GPL > its that near perfect lap, except in my case there's not enough of them. > >If a sim was so damned good wouldn't you think Gordon could just sit down on > >N2 and dominate? We'll he bangs off the wall until he learned how to adjust > >to a more unforgiving sim. > More likely its because he learned how to survive without all his usual senses. > Heres why I say that - computer sims can't give you the proper feedback so you > have to draw on experience instead. > >Last ex. Buddy gets a birthday gift to drive around C***te Speedway in a > >Nascar. He gets up to 150 mph and still felt confident. He comes over and > >races it on N2 and is out of control bigtime. I then give him my adjusted > >arcade mode version and then he's stating this is more like it. > Perhaps the arcade mode removes a need to adapt to a car that has realistic > levels of grip minus the real world feedback/sensations. ie it has plenty of > grip and you have to be pretty wild to exceed the adhesion limit? > >Why do I even write this I watched a F1 race fire up F1RS and I'm telling > >you these cars in the game are not even close to the way a F1 car really > >handles. > I don't drive F1 cars so I couldn't possibly comment ;-) but I expect you're > probably right.. > >Over and out. > In summary I'd say sim developers are developing more sophisticated physics > engines and are closer to simulating real race cars, but haven't yet figured out > a satisfactory way of compensating for the loss of real world sensations. > In the meantime they're getting harder to drive, however Force Feedback is > probably a step in the right direction. > David.

> Over and out. Yep....most definitely! -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

When simulating a real car in a PC there are some things which are very hard to simulate and which really help you in real life driving. First the g-forces, which I guess you wont feel at 60 mph, but when driving a real race car, you feel the race car's every movement (if it has a good setup, that is :o)). In front of the PC, you wont feel a thing, thus making the sim harder to drive than the real thing. A good help is tyre squelling, though. Second, the way the steering stabilizes at high speeds on the straights. In a real race car it is very easy to drive fast on a straight, you can often let go of the wheel and the front tyres will actually want to stay straight. How do we simulate this, perhaps with force feedback in the near future, but until then this is very hard to simulate, thus making the sim harder to drive than the real thing. GP2 solved it with a reduce steering with increasing speed, which actually worked quite well. Third, which only is true for your street car - lock to lock steering. I guess you can turn your wheel several times before your front tyres has come to their maximum turning point. This makes it very easy to drive with great precision. A real race car dont have this low gearing on the steering. For a F1 car you get at most 180 degrees of turning from straight forward to full left, or to put it in another way - at most 360 degrees lock to lock. If we can get 270 degrees on our wheels in front of the PC, we are happy :o). Personally I think it's a good thing the sims are harder to drive than the real thing, cause it makes for some great practice for the real thing. I know a lot of sim racers who has started to drive in sims, got very good at it, then tried real racing and was immidiately very fast. If you refuse to put down 10 hours a week practicing, then all sims has an arcade mode, where the physics engine is much more simple and you can have brake help, throttle help and gearing help, and still have lots of fun in the game. /Christer, want the physics to be as realistic as possible, knowing that this will make the sim harder than the real thing, and loving it :o) PS. Dont forget to read my responses below. DS. > Boy I'm asking for it now. No, you have a right to state what ever you want, at least in the world I want to live :o). No surprise to me :o). Some wifes do it better than their men, but that's another thread :o). The reason for this phenomena is actually two reasons. Your street car has probably twice the lock to lock as a race car, which of course makes it easier to drive straight. In a real car it gets harder to turn the wheels the faster you go and the wheels wants to stay centered, this i more noticeable in a race car, since you have no servo in a real race car. Unfortenately we have servos in our sims, the worst kind actually, since we dont get any feedback at all, except for the spring tension in the wheel unit. I could say that I write this to wake you up, but I wont, cause I have no clue on what's right or wrong, perhaps there isn't any :o). Then it's the arcade racers that are too easy :o). I dont know about that. GP2 has sold in over a million copies, and I'm guessing N2 is somewhere up there too. I cant really say much about N2, hasn't driven it yet, well, the demo and according to me it was too forgiving :o). But going from a real racing car to a simulator is very hard, becuase suddenly you dont feel the car anymore and you have to struggle to keep it straight on the straights. It actually takes a very long time for a real race car driver to be fast in simulators, thus getting used to not feeling the car with his body and struggeling on the straights. Actually F1RS is a little more arcadic than for example GP2, and definitely GPL. I believe F1RS to have a more simple physics engine being their first try on a racing simulator, and mainly because I dont feel that the car behaves as I see the real F1 cars behave on the telly :o). GP2 did a much better job at that, IMO. And GPL is just unbelievable. I've just recently read a post at NROS NG about a real racing car instructor who often drives those historic racing cars and he says GPL is spot on :o))). Does this mean you wont read the replies :o)? /Christer, never knows if I add to discussions or just confuse them even more :o)

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Well, your right! Its a game!..... Time for a review! Lets review some of the > differences of the actual thing and the sim. > First, the actual thing: > Sight: 180+ depends on your own vision. Turn your head you see things > that pertain to the car and the race > to the left and right. > Smell: Engine, smoke. > Hearing: Engine, Com-link, general sound made in and out of the car. > Taste: racing grime! > Touch: Actual g-forces, vibrations, bumps, loose and push sensations.

Most importantly FEAR...that's right fear...Sims will never be like the real thing because when you're *** the binders coming into a hairpin after a 180mph straight in a sim the thought of overshooting , crashing and getting killed never enters your mind. ( even though there are usually gravel pits that lesson the likleyhood of serious injury but you get my point ) Visit the RXspeed7 site at ... http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/7177/

> > Why do I even write this I watched a F1 race fire up F1RS and I'm telling > > you these cars in the game are not even close to the way a F1 car really > > handles. Well Duuuh !!! If Sim F1 cars actually handled like REAL F1 cars then 90% of us wouldn't be able to keep up with the AI cars any more than I could jump in a REAL F1 car and keep pace with even the slowest REAL driver...and since NONE of us here in RAS have ever driven a REAL F1 ( in a race )car how the hell do we know how they REALLY handle ??? Certainly NOT by watching TV !!! Hey... I love sim racing as much as anyone here but some of you take this stuff way too seriously in regards to how REAL these SIMS are supposed to be. JMO, Visit the RXspeed7 site at ... http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/7177/

After reading all the good responses by most. Some where trying to demean my driving ability which can not be determined by what I write. What's the point is a good place to continue. Many people stated these two points: 1. It's hard to simulate real driving because the limitations of the hardware in terms of senses given the racer compared to the real thing. (Understand) 2. That companies are doing their best, and getting better. (Understand) Before I go on let me state I can run around N2 in sim mode fairly well. But I also have a lot of time invested in it. I still find from time to time that I can just go through spurts where I just drive completely insane, which would never happen for real. No matter how well I drive the replays over a race look scary.... On both points above however I feel N2 Arcade mode (driving model), Toca, and MTM 2 have captured the feel of driving very well. We do lose some senses from the real thing but the game needs to then be forgiving instead of penalizing us for not being able to get these lost senses, heat, wind, g's, these aren't necessarily important though to making an accurate handling model. I think a real good handling model has been accomplished in the three games listed above. So I feel both points have already been done and can be handled. Toca I feel does a superb job at giving us extra input that we don't get it many many racing games. The wheel hopping feel and sound of it is wonderful, the griping and sliding sounds are very accurate, whipping into a near 180 degree turn if pushing to hard makes a wonderful feel, sound and then resulting in a very realistic abrupt stop, the bumps on the course, the leaning off the car in turns again make it feel like what I experience in a real car cornering heavily. These things do give us added sense to make us be able to react much more accordingly to how we would for real. So with code you can make some great visuals to simulate what it would be like Toca and MTM 2 have many great examples of this. I want to talk about N2 Arcade mode to clear some things up. First it's to easy to state "This says a lot about you" and leave it at that. What I'm talking about here is the feel for the car as you drive it around, yeah the lap times are to fast compared to the real track and yes you can't hold the throttle wide open on some tracks compared to the real thing. This is simply because they programmed it for the "So called sim mode" and added better handling, speed ect. to arcade mode afterwards without adjusting the tracks to represent real life times ect. So I'm not discussing lap times in arcade mode as being realistic, to clear this up. I'm talking about the feel of the car to the pavement. The car feels much heavier and I'm sorry but it' much more like a real car feeling, passenger or racing. I've had normal passenger cars, a Nissan ZX twin turbo and a 67' Chevelle drag car. The closest thing I had to a race car was the Nissan and it by far outperformed any other car in terms of handling. I do expect a real race car to even be able to out handle the Nissan by a wide margin. So yes I get disappointed when many sims make the race cars handle poorly. Now I didn't just try these things out and 5 minutes later came up with this. This is after years of driving these things. Using N2 Arcade mode as an example again I can state that by racing network races under this mode simply makes a much more realistic looking race. I don't care how good you are or think you are you do things that you would never do in the "sim " mode. In the arcade mode you never find yourself in those cockamamie situations, why? Because you can feel the car much better and would have to do something intentional to really put the car in peril. As in the sim mode you don't have to do much of anything to get the car all messed up. Now watching replays of network races you would find arcade mode races look much much more like the real thing. In fact you would hardly ever (if ever) see a real race look like the "Sim" mode race replay. The Sim replay would be known as the AA500 and all drivers would be banned from every driving in that state again I would bet! But with N2 if you try to run network arcade races I can tell you this much without heavily modifying the blaps and rels and each AI drivers skills ratings you won't get a good race at all Papyrus has this all screwed up, most likely because they didn't spend 15 minutes with this part, after 40 hours or so adjusting I finally got it racing a great race. Leave out AI though and your set to go. In single player mode if I recall could at least make a halfway decent race as the cpu racers adjust to your speed. But the whole game needs readjusted to make arcade mode great racing against the AI. So so some may be turned off by that. Not really the point as much as the way the car feels ion the pavement in arcade mode. I can only state what I see and don't try to piss anybody off. I put people behind the wheel to see their reactions and they like the feel of the Arcade mode as compared to the sim mode. They don't like the steep curve and when they are good they still don't like the overall feel. I've setup many many people with N2 with my adjusted settings because they want it badly. A few forget how to get into an arcade race properly and find themselves racing sim unkowningly. I later race with them and I find they've been racing sim, they complain about the handling they;ve been experiencing, I put it back over to the adjusted arcade mode and they fall in love again. They then go on to race the game much more often. I'm sorry but I see this all the time and if I didn't I would even post here. They need an arcade mode racing on NRO's so the rest of us can race a safer, funner and tighter race. Arcade mode races are much much safer (wreck free) and the whole pack is so tight it's like the real thing you can race lap after lap side by side other humans. This is a very risky practice in sim mode racing. Hum on tv they don't seem scared at all racing next to on another. You can have the whole group finish within mere seconds of one another, I thinks it's a beautiful thing. I can't get these results when I put a network race in sim mode. Thus it losses a lot of thrill for all involved. I often wonder if arcade mode was the real mode for N2 how things would be perceived. I feel the hard-liners would accept and defend that as the real thing since this is what they were given and stated as being real. One thing I do know is that there would be more people racing the game both on and off line. Hard-liners are more willing to adjust because they are so devoted, where as commoners expect things to be as they believe they are (sometimes right or wrong) and won't settle for anything less. honestly I feel most of what I talk about here falls right into these last statements. You look at N2 sales it's done wonderful but that doesn't nesscessarily mean a lot of people are downright satisfied. Many people have computers and love Nascar racing, they see it buy it and try it and never become very good at it and shelve it for the most part or struggle with it. I'm confident this is very common. I also know people that have raced at my place went out bought the game and then complained about their system not performing like mine (handling). I go over it again with them, give them the patch and they thank me give me a twenty for taking the time going to their place ect and everyone is happy, they don't get this out of the box. Now Toca & F1RS. How's come I can race Toca without ever racing the track once without running off it? In F1RS even after I know the track very well it's hard to do this? Somebody here has a better handling system so it's not that it can't be done. Before Toca I almost reserved my multiplayer racing experience to only oval tracks where you can get a great tight race with other competitors. But Toca has blown me away on how people that never have driven it before can after a few laps race competitively, even better than N2 arcade. Why? Because the car acts like what they have come to know by driving their respective cars. By now driving is second nature to us but many sims make us feel like were driving spaceships. Toca gives a wonderful feel for the track and car. I also feel that MTM 2 has a very natural driving feel as to the way the suspension and big tires would feel racing a pickup. I had one of those by the way, not quite so big though. So many people can jump right in there and race a good race beaus many have gone baha'n before. I could just imagine MTM2 tracks with F1RS's handling model. It would be pure work and frustration to make just 1 lap. Could we call this that off road Sierra title that did so well SODA? Now many companies are deep into getting more complex with the physics. Is this gonna really make a better handling car? Or is it gonna make it even more difficult to race. From what I hear it's the later. Well I'm not so sure that's a good thing first it takes more processing power which means good for Intel which means bad for us. But most importantly there are legions of would be racers that just don't have fun with these so called simulators because they simply can't relate well to what they have come to know. I believe after reading a poster's response that these sims make great test beds for practicing for the real thing. It's always better to practice harder than the real thing. Boy after racing F1RS for a while I bet it would be a welcome change to be able to jump into the real thing and run it for a while. (Of course there would be some adjusting). But lets say you were a F1 Racer already I bet they feel much more at home and comfortable inside the real Mccoy. But the point I think isn't about using a sim as practice for the real thing for the majority of us. So we don't need it harder than the real thing. Make it as real as you can but make it inviting for people to ... read more »

After reading your rather lengthy ;) post I find that I agree with many of your points but I think the bigger problem with sim's is due to the very poor setup's included with most of them, N2 being one of the worst offenders. I can understand why this is done but I think they (papy in this case) need to realize the majority of us (myself included) don't want to spend hours & hours coming up with a decent setup which will allow us to be competitive and relatively sane on the track. Now I might be mistaken but, seems to me most real racing teams hire people to take care of setting up the car, If I wanted to be a crew chief I'd buy Nascar Crew Chiefing 2 :) Once you have a good setup IMO it is not really much of a problem to race in "sim" mode, but getting the setup is another story. I know many will say you can just download setups, but having downloaded most of the available setups I find many if not most of them tweaked simply for the fastest lap possible with no consideration for stability and/or # of laps the setups will last. Many are a reasonable starting point but again were still back to hours of tweaking and testing to getting a race usable setup that will allow you race much as you see on TV ie: side by side. The one's who live and breath sim racing may not find this to be drawback, but I suspect the vast majority simply want to race and the game should provide for this without resorting to an arcade mode. Another consequence of this is that it makes it hard for good racers to find people to race with on NROS. Even though I consider myself to be decent racer I'm not sure Id want to race on TEN simply because either I'd be in race's where I'd be getting continually wrecked (those who haven't found decent setups), be non-competitive or wreck somebody else and have to listen to them whine about it. Setup's are the key, you don't really need the arcade mode if (big if) you have the key. ;) Well getting rather lengthy here myself so I'll leave it at that for now. Smokin_D, *Its hard to race like a Ferrari, driving a Yugo* After reading all the good responses by most. Some where trying to demean my driving ability which can not be determined by what I write. What's the point is a good place to continue. Many people stated these two points: QBM

Smokin D stated: Another consequence of this is that it makes it hard for good racers to find people to race with on NROS. Even though I consider myself to be decent racer I'm not sure Id want to race on TEN simply because either I'd be in race's where I'd be getting continually wrecked (those who haven't found decent setups), be non-competitive or wreck somebody else and have to listen to them whine about it. Setup's are the key, you don't really need the arcade mode if (big if) you have the key. ;) R: The points you make about Ten are right on the point. In sim mode racing Nascar on a network makes way to many variables available that can lead to a bad race or experience. Their is nothing a racer want less then a wreck filled mess or a feeling they simply can't compete. In arcade mode (wish they never used that word I really do) the races I've been involved with (100's to 1000's) are so much more satisfying for everyone in the group. At least for beginner to good sim racers, expert sim racers will sit on their perch and be to proud to come race with us. Being lonely missing out on all the fun they would be. :( The paradox of Papy's Arcade Mode is that it has better handling than Common SIM mode games and True Arcade Racing. So if it were Arcade mode than by what we have come to know about arcade racers it should handle worse than Sim Mode, many times much worse. But it doesn't in fact it goes the opposite direction, so I volunteer dropping the bad name Papy gave it and come up with something else, maybe Magna Traction like those AFX cars we ran on the slots. To whomever please never get me confused with a guy that likes Arcade racers. I hate them so badly you would be shocked at how pissed I get when I try them out from time to time. I leave the place cussing. Latest victim Indy 500 at Sea World last year. That thing was so bad I can't even think straight even now trying to describe it. Ahhhh. My wife will tell you how bent out of shape I was after that, damn near ruined the day. Funny thing after I wrote my last post on this I seen at OP3DFX there is a game called Super Toca Racing coming out. In that they talk about exactly what I was babbling about today that 98% of people that try sim racers don't want to go back to them. They want a realistic as possible game with good handling that is fun for everyone. Very coincidental. QBM

It seems that the Arcade/Sim button would be the answer to this dilemma of which you speak. But the companies can't use it. The problem with it is that Sim racers don't want to see the word "Arcade" on the box and Arcade lovers don't want to see "Sim". The sims I've driven use amateur classification and "helps" to soften the blow for beginners. This is a good neutral marketing solution that also helps get one racing. I guess the real answer is forums like this one. Join in, ask a few questions, check out your options, go to the software store. If you are referring to GPL as a game with "more complex physics", I, for one, see it as just the beginning of the whole shebang and am thankful that someone cares enough to produce this type of game. I certainly hope that everyone gets what they are looking for, but not at the expense of losing hard racing simulations. -- mark "A lot of people think racing is about going fast. But it's not. It's about going just slow enough to stay on the track." F1RS - http://www.nmia.com/~chaser/car/results.htm Remove us here and there to mail me. After reading all the good responses by most. Some where trying to demean my driving ability which can not be determined by what I write. What's the point is a good place to continue. Many people stated these two points: 1. It's hard to simulate real driving because the limitations of the hardware in terms of senses given the racer compared to the real thing. (Understand) 2. That companies are doing their best, and getting better. (Understand)

> maybe Magna Traction like those AFX cars we ran on the slots. ...or G-Plus! =) -- (please change antispam to worldnet.att when replying) Sim Racing News - http://www.simnews.com The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com * No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *

Yep. It seems there needs to be a third category nowadays I guess thats' the one I really like. Games that fall into are then: Off the top of my head... N2 Arcade Mode MTM 2 Toca Motoracer Seems GT on PSX would... What they have in common is good (more understood) handling model that may exaggerate reality a bit, but not always. They are more lenient on damage even though it is still there. They are always easier to learn, often times very playable from the first lap. They are more competitive (in general) in a multiplayer environment for the reasons stated above plus you can usually mess up once and recover to stay competitive. These games usually have light setup adjustments even though this really doesn't matter it's the handling of the vehicle that counts, so none or a gob of adjustments could work. They ultimately allow good bumper to bumper racing that is simply fun without being corny. That is why I like them, they aren't braindead like arcade racers and their not so difficult (to a point I believe as being unrealistic many times) as sim racers. So I think they do fit in nicely in their own place. I guess we need to come up with a name for that catertgory of racer since there is a vast difference between this and the two old standards Sim and Arcade and their becoming more prevalent. I also feel once understood people will be able to use this word so we can get a quicker explanation of new racing products. No more paragraphs stating it's like and arcade but different but not quite a sim, that goes on for a while trying to find it's niche. What it end up being is what this category is. It really does need a name. QBM It seems that the Arcade/Sim button would be the answer to this dilemma of which you speak. But the companies can't use it. The problem with it is that Sim racers don't want to see the word "Arcade" on the box and Arcade lovers don't want to see "Sim". The sims I've driven use amateur classification and "helps" to soften the blow for beginners. This is a good neutral marketing solution that also helps get one racing.

> N2 Arcade mode (driving model), = > Toca, and MTM 2 None of these are sims? (N2 in arcade mode is *not* a sim!) So what are you talking about? Perhaps this thread should be renamed "All arcade racers suck! (because they are not good enough for sims)" 8-) Correct, TOCA (good though it *is*) is just a racing *GAME*, not a racing sim. If this is what you want, buy Screamer Rally or Motorhead, they are both excellent *arcade* racing games, where you do not have to worry about driving into other cars, damage or set-ups, etc, etc, which it appears to me is what you are asking for? N2, F1GP2, F1RS, ICR2 are all SIMULATORS, not Arcade racing games......GET IT? Simple, because TOCA is arcade, and F1RS is a sim, and you obviously do not like sims (cos they are a bit harder to handle?), but you obviously like arcade racers, (cos they are a bit easier to handle?) I really don't see why you are even having this discussion? All you keep talking about is arcade this, and arcade that, why don't you just stick to arcade and forget sims? 8-) BTW, I'm *not* knocking arcade racing gmaes, I love them almost as much as I love sims, and I've got loads myself (TOCA, Screamer 2, Motorhead, Motoracer, etc) just seems a bit of a pointless thread to me? 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

Quoted text (11 lines)

>If you saw the F1 Grand Prix in Montreal on Sunday you'll realise that the best >drivers in the world find Formula 1 cars hard to drive (loads of spins and crashes >but great to watch though). Breaking down from 180mph into a hairpin while trying to >take the corner faster than anyone else in the world is tricky. On most sims you can >drive round at 30mph without the slightest risk of spinning - but you'll get some >poor lap times. I saw quite a few Ford Fiestas (different but not too different to >the road car) spin at Brands Hatch the other day, so don't fool yourself than >pushing any car with a half decent top speed to its limits around race track hairpin >is easy - you've just never done it on a public road unless you posted your mail >from hospital or jail. If you want a sim that's really easy try Virtual Karts and >when your really bored (after about five minutes) try a real sim.

What you say is true, and I do much prefer sims to arcade games as well. If you are going to go for lap records you should be punished (crash, spin off) when you push to hard. I was more thinking that todays sims it seems to easy to make a little mistake that causes a crash/spin. Plenty of times I've just turned the wheel a fraction more/less than I meant/should - end of race. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favour of the push towards realism its just that I'd like to see some improvements in feedback and a help system that doesn't make it so easy to drive but can still help us mere mortals enjoy the realistic handling. David

Quoted text (11 lines)

> What you say is true, and I do much prefer sims to arcade games as well. > If you are going to go for lap records you should be punished (crash, spin off) > when you push to hard. I was more thinking that todays sims it seems to easy to > make a little mistake that causes a crash/spin. Plenty of times I've just turned > the wheel a fraction more/less than I meant/should - end of race. > Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favour of the push towards realism > its just that I'd like to see some improvements in feedback and a help system > that doesn't make it so easy to drive but can still help us mere mortals enjoy > the realistic handling.

I agree. More realistic handling gives the game more longevity since there is more of a challenge. However there's a fine balance between making the game appealing and ***ive enough to be successful with the mass market, and creating a very esoteric simulation that will appeal to only *** simmers. In my (limited) view Codemasters have got the balance just about spot on with TOCA. It's not a full blown sim, yet gives enough realism to be absorbing and challenging. -- UK.

ABOUT DIFFICULTY OF SIMS: R: I agree that this is the point many sim racers take. But I can state from trying both ways that many things you say above aren't neccessarily true in multiplayer racing. I'm gonna use Nascar 2 Arcade again as my ex.. Even though it is much easier to drive for all the there still are better drivers and average drivers. Instead of .5's a lap faster it may be reduced to .1 or thereabouts. Sim racers dropping down to arcade will by the most part be better than those never racing sim and only race arcade. But eveybody can from time to time win in the arcade mode. An average sim racers almost never has a shot at winning against real good sim racers. I know from experience overall better quality multiplayer are possible in N2 Arcade mode due simply to better handling. See NRO only has sim mode available, I would like to see arcade mode added in. I'm an average to good sim racer and I've practiced my arse off and I've hit the wall it seems. I can't keep putting in unreasonable hours to get much better, my bad I know. On top of this arcade mode races are closer and with less wrecks yours or others, two ingrediants I like in all racing games. So I would like to race on Ten in this mode so I can be competitive and fun. There are more people I believe would appreciate this mode if they know, "IF THEY KNOW" another big ingrediant. Also others may try it out and be pleasantly surprised they like it as well. I'm certain the big dogs would never like it no matter what. It's not surprising that some of the response here is that they like it harder even if it's harder than real life. This is a bit odd, but I can understand. I'm not here to to tell people what mode they should race in. I just feel many sim games handling models are harder than their real life counterparts, and it's not impossible to do becuase of harware limitations. R: A few of you guys are now bringing up 60's cars. I was mainly talking about F1m, Nascar and Toca cars of taoday that handle much better. I'm certain the 60's F1 cars were harder to drive but would also state that a feeling would be obtained after a few laps, sorta like pitching stock cars on a dirt track that we would be able to adjust to. How many hours do real race drivers spend a week actually driving their race cars around the track? I know from friends in local stock cars they only race when it's race time. So how can they do it. NO PRACTICE and just race and race well. It's points like this that strenghten my position I feel. Everyone should be able to drive the track to an acceptable level but again the creame will still rise to the top, we haven't reduced this to tic-tac-toe. R: They sell into the high numbers becasue there are a lot of fans. I know a lot of people that don't drive them much at all due to their difficulty level. Yet they still own it. NRO is a good example of how many play it I would say multiply it's members by five and that would probably give you a good number on how many are still actually driving the game regualrly. (BIG IF) But I expect people that have mastered the game will end up on NRO why not spend the extra cash since you've spent so much time on the game already. Even though I haven't tried it Grand Trasimo sounds familiar with TOCA in terms of control. Now this game has sold millions or on it's way I bet more average folk drive this game than N2 or any sim since they can get behind the wheel and drive it based on lessons they've learned from driving. I want better handling so we can get more people invovled on the pc end and have larger leagues. But going from a real racing car to R: My point exactly even the pro's struggle. You keep comming back to things we can't feel. Then they should put things in the game to give us more feedback or write routines that assume we would be doing proper things if the feedback were there to correct us (not typical lame aids). Toca somehow gives the driver a good feeling of how the car is handling without feeling g's ect. When the car's weight shifts the car visably looks as as it shifted, this is I'll I need and seems very natural to me. But I still think if we did have all the same input as the real thing the sims would still be very difficult, simply becuase it is programmed harder than the real thing. I'm not bringing GPL in this and feel it could be very representative for the time. Here's one: since everybody feels GPL is very accurate due to it's physics then does that mean N2, F1RS ect are not very realisitic since they have a lesser physics enginge. And on top of that GPL is simulating an older model racer with less handling compared to todays racers. So that really throws off N2, F1RS ect. even more since they are vehicles with better handling and the best physics engines we have right now are only able to represent cars over 30 years old. So with this being true for example than it concedes those sims are not realistic at all. I'm assuming eveyone believes todays cars handle much better the old F1's. So what's easier to drive around the track GPL or F1RS? If it's GPL than I rest my point that games like F1RS are way to hard compared ot the real thing. Then I'll go on to state that YOU CAN program variables into a game natural or not that would make it easier for a player to race a vehicle around the track without feeling phony. Today's F1 cars should be easier to drive in general as compared to 60's F1 cars. Meant I've written a lot and that time and it was time to go. :) I'm into civil arguments about this. Understood your point clearly. QBM

I'm sorry but I dissagree I believe the handling mode of N2 is closer to the way a stock car handles. All the rest of the compnents are still there, damage, yellows, setups ect. The only dif between sim and arcade N2 is the handling of the car. Well I beat you to it and named it sim racers suck! Better luck next time. :) Why becasue you say so? Tturn damage model to high and then you wouldn't want to bump other as much. I feel the game is very representative of da real thing. R: Sir what I want is more involment by more people so we can get more money invovled. The sims I believe are artifically tougher because of handling on ly handling. The biggest ingrediant to please would be racers. I want NRO to add Arcade mode. I'm certain it wouldn't go over huge right now becuase they do nothing to promote it meaning people that own N2 that would like to drive arcade mode have no clue as to how and what is NRO. If they had this model to start with people would have then known than shown up ready to race. These are the things I want so you won't have to tell me. I already know. I don't mind setting up a car or damage yellows ect. I want my setup to be able to obtain better handling than what they are currently offering. Good stock setups are important though to have a good base of racers that don't want to mess with this time consuming part of it. First True ARCADE RACERS=TYPICAL RACERS FOUND AT AN ARCADE. These are the poorest handling models ever devised. Dollar easters are all they are representing racing on ice. I don't want this in fact I'd like to put concrete shoes on the develpers and throw them overboard. See I'm not your typical braindead argument to just summarize me up as a idiot that is to lazy to try. I've put in big hours on these things like you. I just don't bowl over easy and accept what they are delivering as gosspil. I don't hate the sims I just think they are much harder than need be. Please try reading all my posts they all hit different areas. Please read my points in all the posts if you can't see where I'm comming from then you need comprehension lessons. You might not agree and that's fine but it's not about just race arcade games and shut up. Why are you feeling offended by this? I felt most of your points were pointless. But I still love you! QBM

R: My point exactly. Grand Prix courses will always be inherantly diffiuclt becuase no matter if the car had super stickim your always gonna push the corners to it's limits, creating difficulty. But yep even taking them at half speed can be tricky. I don't buy that being realisitc, at least not yet. Thanks Dave. QBM

>I agree. More realistic handling gives the game more longevity since there is

Quoted text (10 lines)

>more of a challenge. However there's a fine balance between making the game >appealing and ***ive enough to be successful with the mass market, and >creating a very esoteric simulation that will appeal to only *** >simmers. In my (limited) view Codemasters have got the balance just about >spot on with TOCA. It's not a full blown sim, yet gives enough realism >to be absorbing and challenging. >-- >UK.

R: Andrew when your right your right. I'm a ***y American and can appreciate what Toca represents. It's a balance of both for the better of all and other games that obtain this balance or near is MTM 2 and N2 Arcade Mode. MTM 2 being the least, it does capture the handling model well but the other areas are suffering. But they hit the balance with the handling. N2 losses nothing in the arcade mode to drop in from a sim just adds more traction that I feel is debatable as being more real or not to sim mode. Motoracer is also in this group but on the MTM 2 side of things barely making the grade. What make's Toca not a full blown sim? Damage model on high still might be a little to forgiving. Setups aren't needed to be realistic since they already have the actual cars from the actual series there adjusted and ready to go. Other than that it offers many things other so called sims don't. Much more realistic feedback than all the current buyable sims. Leaning, bumps, wheel hopping ect. that gives you input so you can adjust properly and naturally. I also feel about your first statement "More realistic handling gives the game more longevity since there is more of a challenge." that this is true because you have to practice much more to race competitively in the sim model. Making it seem more intriguing to those willing to go through the vigorous. I've found though racing either way (sim/arcade) in a multiplayer environment both are challenging to the hilt and never grow old.The bottom line is that a lot of frustration is reduced racing the arcade model and many times the results are more intriguing and tight for the whole group. More people want to be involved with the arcade model because they can't spend the time leering and tweaking, BUT THEY CAN'T. QBM

Quoted text (10 lines)

> See NRO only has sim mode available, I would like to see arcade mode added > in. I'm an average to good sim racer and I've practiced my arse off and I've > hit the wall it seems. I can't keep putting in unreasonable hours to get > much better, my bad I know. On top of this arcade mode races are closer and > with less wrecks yours or others, two ingrediants I like in all racing > games. So I would like to race on Ten in this mode so I can be competitive > and fun. There are more people I believe would appreciate this mode if they > know, "IF THEY KNOW" another big ingrediant. > QBM

Without any actual facts to back up what I'm saying, let me make some guesses. Cars with "Magna-Traction" can change direction much quicker than "Sim-Mode" Prediction-code hates it when you change directions or speeds quickly. Papyrus may have attempted to use Arcade mode while in the beta stages. It may have been so much worse than sim-mode that they choose to shelve the idea. Yes it allows the driver more control of his car, but it may cause the system less control of the other cars...net effect, more "warping", more wrecking, more arguments. On IPX however.. I agree with you 100%. mykey

% >> N2 Arcade mode (driving model), = % >> Toca, and MTM 2 % > % >None of these are sims? (N2 in arcade mode is *not* a sim!) % >So what are you talking about? % I'm sorry but I dissagree I believe the handling mode of N2 is closer to the % way a stock car handles. All the rest of the compnents are still there, % damage, yellows, setups ect. The only dif between sim and arcade N2 is the % handling of the car. I think the arcade mode makes the car handle more the way one would assume a real Winston Cup car handles when driven by a Pro. That's why they are Pro's, they make it look easy. <snip> -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

MC: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R: Now this could be, so lets assume your right for this argument. I've taken this into account many times as you say above. Then by being a game is it better to release a product where the majority of average racers can feel like pro's? Or where again only a few people can ever be pro's racing it? Not really gonna answer this one but it's a viable question that I assume they ponder when creating a game. I'm assuming the sales dept. want's the one where average player can race great. Also I want to reiterate then the Pro's (Jeff Gordon) should be able to pickup the game and without much adjusting can run great around the track. That didn't happen. Also even though magna-traction N2 is easier to drive it doesn't make it where you don't have to be a good driver, there is still a lot of room for being a better driver you just won't get hug lap gaps between great and average like you do in sim. Maybe .1 to .2 tenths per lap. QBM

That's an arrogant line, Peter. All people are not good enough at most things. Why shouldn't we persue the pastimes we enjoy, huh? I bet you're a better racer than me, but I bet I'm better than something than you. So don't say I suck because I enjoy TOCA. Anyway what counts as a sim and who is the authority to say. It's a linguistic issue and not wheteher or not you can do this circuit in this or that time. TOCA seems real enough to me. The cars are the 1997 ones in phenomenal detail. The tracks are realistic. The noises are great. But there's no dirt on the floor and the engine is immortal. So who gives a flying f***? But it's hard, oh so very hard, to get your lap times into the top ten times on http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/street/sc32/toca/. So it's still a challenge. I like F1RS and GP2 but in terms of audio-visual simulation TOCA leaves them both on the grid. You play and rave about whatever 'sim' you choose and I'll respect you right to do so.

Quoted text (53 lines)

> > N2 Arcade mode (driving model), = > > Toca, and MTM 2 > None of these are sims? (N2 in arcade mode is *not* a sim!) > So what are you talking about? > Perhaps this thread should be renamed "All arcade racers suck! (because > they are not good enough for sims)" > 8-) > > Toca I feel does a superb job at = > > giving us extra input that we don't get it many many racing games. > Correct, TOCA (good though it *is*) is just a racing *GAME*, not a > racing sim. > > Arcade mode races are much much safer = > > (wreck free) and the whole pack is so tight it's like the real thing > > you = > > can race lap after lap side by side other humans. This is a very > > risky = > > practice in sim mode racing. > If this is what you want, buy Screamer Rally or Motorhead, they are both > excellent *arcade* racing games, where you do not have to worry about > driving into other cars, damage or set-ups, etc, etc, which it appears > to me is what you are asking for? N2, F1GP2, F1RS, ICR2 are all > SIMULATORS, not Arcade racing games......GET IT? > > Now Toca & F1RS. How's come I can race Toca without ever racing the = > > track once without running off it? In F1RS even after I know the > > track = > > very well it's hard to do this? > Simple, because TOCA is arcade, and F1RS is a sim, and you obviously do > not like sims (cos they are a bit harder to handle?), but you obviously > like arcade racers, (cos they are a bit easier to handle?) > I really don't see why you are even having this discussion? > All you keep talking about is arcade this, and arcade that, why don't > you just stick to arcade and forget sims? > 8-) > BTW, I'm *not* knocking arcade racing gmaes, I love them almost as much > as I love sims, and I've got loads myself (TOCA, Screamer 2, Motorhead, > Motoracer, etc) just seems a bit of a pointless thread to me? > 8-) > *Peter* 8-) > (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

Damage model. Is there a damage model on TOCA?

Quoted text (94 lines)

> >> N2 Arcade mode (driving model), = > >> Toca, and MTM 2 > >None of these are sims? (N2 in arcade mode is *not* a sim!) > >So what are you talking about? > I'm sorry but I dissagree I believe the handling mode of N2 is closer to the > way a stock car handles. All the rest of the compnents are still there, > damage, yellows, setups ect. The only dif between sim and arcade N2 is the > handling of the car. > >Perhaps this thread should be renamed "All arcade racers suck! (because > >they are not good enough for sims)" > Well I beat you to it and named it sim racers suck! Better luck next time. > :) > >> Toca I feel does a superb job at = > >> giving us extra input that we don't get it many many racing games. > >Correct, TOCA (good though it *is*) is just a racing *GAME*, not a > >racing sim. > Why becasue you say so? Tturn damage model to high and then you wouldn't > want to bump other as much. I feel the game is very representative of da > real thing. > >> Arcade mode races are much much safer = > >> (wreck free) and the whole pack is so tight it's like the real thing > >> you = > >> can race lap after lap side by side other humans. This is a very > >> risky = > >> practice in sim mode racing. > >If this is what you want, buy Screamer Rally or Motorhead, they are both > >excellent *arcade* racing games, where you do not have to worry about > R: > Sir what I want is more involment by more people so we can get more money > invovled. The sims I believe are artifically tougher because of handling on > ly handling. The biggest ingrediant to please would be racers. > I want NRO to add Arcade mode. I'm certain it wouldn't go over huge right > now becuase they do nothing to promote it meaning people that own N2 that > would like to drive arcade mode have no clue as to how and what is NRO. If > they had this model to start with people would have then known than shown up > ready to race. > These are the things I want so you won't have to tell me. I already know. > >driving into other cars, damage or set-ups, etc, etc, which it appears > >to me is what you are asking for? N2, F1GP2, F1RS, ICR2 are all > >SIMULATORS, not Arcade racing games......GET IT? > I don't mind setting up a car or damage yellows ect. I want my setup to be > able to obtain better handling than what they are currently offering. Good > stock setups are important though to have a good base of racers that don't > want to mess with this time consuming part of it. > >> Now Toca & F1RS. How's come I can race Toca without ever racing the = > >> track once without running off it? In F1RS even after I know the > >> track = > >> very well it's hard to do this? > >Simple, because TOCA is arcade, and F1RS is a sim, and you obviously do > >not like sims (cos they are a bit harder to handle?), but you obviously > >like arcade racers, (cos they are a bit easier to handle?) > First True ARCADE RACERS=TYPICAL RACERS FOUND AT AN ARCADE. These are the > poorest handling models ever devised. Dollar easters are all they are > representing racing on ice. > I don't want this in fact I'd like to put concrete shoes on the develpers > and throw them overboard. > See I'm not your typical braindead argument to just summarize me up as a > idiot that is to lazy to try. I've put in big hours on these things like > you. I just don't bowl over easy and accept what they are delivering as > gosspil. I don't hate the sims I just think they are much harder than need > be. Please try reading all my posts they all hit different areas. > >I really don't see why you are even having this discussion? > >All you keep talking about is arcade this, and arcade that, why don't > >you just stick to arcade and forget sims? > Please read my points in all the posts if you can't see where I'm comming > from then you need comprehension lessons. You might not agree and that's > fine but it's not about just race arcade games and shut up. Why are you > feeling offended by this? > I felt most of your points were pointless. But I still love you! > QBM

Hi, Yeah, I was, but I couldn't remember that you were the originator and was too lazy to look. I disagree with you about set ups though. They p*** me off because I want to race. I see the program as the mecanics as well as the physics, track etc. Rickard Rydell doesn't set up his own gear ratios though I accept he's part of the decision as to what they should be. But he's a pro on a real car and I'm an ***ed hobbyist who just wants a bit of fun racing. Tyres though? Yeah I can accept them as acceptable setup. Actually it's it the setup not the difficulty of what some call real sims that I don't like. It does take longer to get to grips with the harder games but I can live with that. Why do some people object to seeing Arcade Mode on a sim? What does it matter? I've never played N2 - it's hard to find in the UK. Anyone know where? PJ

Quoted text (40 lines)

> >I've been pushing TOCA like hell to do Brands Hatch sub-40 seconds and most > laps I > >spin (I'm just 27 hundredths off) - this is correct for the game play - > it's got > >to be a challenge. When I first got the game I found the cars really hard > to > >control and got really pissed off with it (I guess this was how the orginal > author > >of this thread felt). Now I think TOCA is the best 'sim' on the market. > R: > Hi Paul. I am the originator of the thread. You must not have been around at > the beginning. I think Toca is a masterpiece of handling and gives excellent > feedback to the driver. No other sim has this good of handling in their > natural state. I believe N2 Arcade mode is close, though no one seems to > have discovered this other than a group of us in Akron, Ohio. > I've seen rookies become good after only 2 or three laps it's very intuitive > to what people are accustomed to how they feel a car should handle. I hope > Codemasters doesn't mess with the model much. I don't mind setups these ones > are nice to have: > Gears > Tires > Engine Power > Weight Distribution. > Having just these makes it easy for many to comprehend, giving one a lot of > personal adjustments. > The best I can teach a person road courses on N2 arcade mode was about > twenty minutes of practice for them to learn the course, this is with > somebody who already understood the handling model. The handling model takes > about a half hour to become efficient. Like always on road courses it could > take forever to have a perfect lap. Now Atlanta a person with their head > screwed on properly can learn Arcade mode in about 2 to 4 laps to become > satisfied. > QBM

Hi BH or R or QBM (now I am confused) I ought to explain that as a relative newby to this group I was unaware that TOCA wasn't considered as a sim. Now I'm not unaware, just amazed. Because you're later posts showed you to be pro-TOCA I hadn't thought of you as the originator because that post seemed anti-sims. Tell you what, though, I don't like all this snobbery. The word arcade has taken on a deprecatory meaning and it's almost as if you ought to get off ras if you can't master GPL. Each to his own, and no one is any better than anyone else black, white, tall, short, male, female, less or greater than 40 seconds at Brands Hatch...... PJ

Quoted text (40 lines)

> >I've been pushing TOCA like hell to do Brands Hatch sub-40 seconds and most > laps I > >spin (I'm just 27 hundredths off) - this is correct for the game play - > it's got > >to be a challenge. When I first got the game I found the cars really hard > to > >control and got really pissed off with it (I guess this was how the orginal > author > >of this thread felt). Now I think TOCA is the best 'sim' on the market. > R: > Hi Paul. I am the originator of the thread. You must not have been around at > the beginning. I think Toca is a masterpiece of handling and gives excellent > feedback to the driver. No other sim has this good of handling in their > natural state. I believe N2 Arcade mode is close, though no one seems to > have discovered this other than a group of us in Akron, Ohio. > I've seen rookies become good after only 2 or three laps it's very intuitive > to what people are accustomed to how they feel a car should handle. I hope > Codemasters doesn't mess with the model much. I don't mind setups these ones > are nice to have: > Gears > Tires > Engine Power > Weight Distribution. > Having just these makes it easy for many to comprehend, giving one a lot of > personal adjustments. > The best I can teach a person road courses on N2 arcade mode was about > twenty minutes of practice for them to learn the course, this is with > somebody who already understood the handling model. The handling model takes > about a half hour to become efficient. Like always on road courses it could > take forever to have a perfect lap. Now Atlanta a person with their head > screwed on properly can learn Arcade mode in about 2 to 4 laps to become > satisfied. > QBM

Quoted text (15 lines)

> That's an arrogant line, Peter. All people are not good enough at most > things. Why shouldn't we persue the pastimes we enjoy, huh? I bet you're a > better racer than me, but I bet I'm better than something than you. So don't > say I suck because I enjoy TOCA. > Anyway what counts as a sim and who is the authority to say. It's a > linguistic issue and not wheteher or not you can do this circuit in this or > that time. TOCA seems real enough to me. The cars are the 1997 ones in > phenomenal detail. The tracks are realistic. The noises are great. But > there's no dirt on the floor and the engine is immortal. So who gives a > flying f***? But it's hard, oh so very hard, to get your lap times into the > top ten times on http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/street/sc32/toca/. So it's > still a challenge. I like F1RS and GP2 but in terms of audio-visual > simulation TOCA leaves them both on the grid. > You play and rave about whatever 'sim' you choose and I'll respect you right > to do so.

Paul, There's a lot of snobbery towards so-called "arcade" type games. The line seems to be increasingly blurred between the 2 modes anyway. To me Toca is as real as it gets in terms of car handling and gives a very immersive experience, but there are still some aspects of it which are not very realistic. I wouldn't label it "arcade", but then again I wouldn't say it's a total simulator. -- UK.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> I've been pushing TOCA like hell to do Brands Hatch sub-40 seconds and most laps I > spin (I'm just 27 hundredths off) - this is correct for the game play - it's got > to be a challenge. When I first got the game I found the cars really hard to > control and got really pissed off with it (I guess this was how the orginal author > of this thread felt). Now I think TOCA is the best 'sim' on the market. I love > that you don't have to muck with car set-ups - I just want to race and I don't > give a monkeys about suspension height or taking wings off. Also I love that it's > not a tacky arcade offering like the Sega stuff. Yeah, Andrew, I reckon > Codemasters have the balance exactly right. Real Touring Cars are often vulnerable > to the smallest bit of damage which can put them out of the race (like at > Donnington) and the gravel traps can put them out for good. You can win races in > the sim with considerable amouts of bodywork damage and strangely no other > problems (even after rolling). But it's also true that cars in the real thing > often touch eachother regularly with slight damage and go on to do well. Remember > Brands Hatch when Thompson went full on into Reid's side at Paddock to barge him > out of the way and they finished 2nd and 3rd respectively. The other really fun > 'sims' are Europress/Magnetic Fields' RAC Rally Championship and International > Rally Championship. These two have similar 'flaws' to TOCA but are are great fun > and a challenge to play.

I'm totally in agreement with you about TOCA - it is the most ***ive 'sim' I've played so far. It's strange that Codemasters went to the trouble of adding damage zones to the car but didn't allow this to affect car performance. The detail is incredible - even individual headlights can be smashed. I'm certain that faults such as transmission failure, suspension damage etc would really round off the game nicely. What I'm looking for now is a great rally sim along the lines of TOCA. Colling McRae has to be a winner when it comes out, but I wonder if that will have the same appeal as TOCA, bearing in mind that you are simply racing against the clock ? What's the general opinion on the rally sims mentioned above ? How do they stack up against TOCA on handling, graphics, sound, AI etc. -- UK.

>Damage model. Is there a damage model on TOCA? R: Yes I believe three settings I could be wrong and only two. QBM

Richard Dawson says: "You gave the number 3 answer" To me Toca is as real as it gets in terms of car handling and gives Richard Dawson says" You gave the number 1 answer" but there are still some aspects of it Richard Dawson says "You gave me the number two answer" Now on to fast money.... QBM

Many people don't consider Taco a sim. I guess because it's actually easy to learn (hard to master). They want it to seem so complicated as they think it must be because their hero's must be gods when they race the real thing. I'm guessing... I think Toca is a sim with great handling. I don't care if it's sim or arcade I want the great handling. QBM

> I was unaware that > TOCA wasn't considered as a sim. Depends who you ask? From a strictly purist point of view, it is *NOT* a sim, as there is no accurately modelled damage or set-up options. From a purely racing point of view, it is a damn fine physical simulation of Touring Car racing, the car dynamics are great, and the cars appear to handle great based on the real thing? RAS does actually stand for rec.autos.simulators, NB:- note the word *SIMULATORS* However, I personally, do not mind people discussing *any* racing games or sims on RAS, (and I'm sure many others do not mind either).However, it is *primarily* for the discussion of sims. I do not think this is snobbery, as I too own many arcade type racing games as well as sims, but I do try not to discuss the arcade racing games here, there are other more appropriate newsgroups to do that in? It's purely a matter of netiquette, eg:- discussing appropriate topics in appropriate groups. 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >Most of the programs talked about in this newsgroups are *sims* not > >*arcade* games, and IMHO most people would prefer SIMS to be a bit > >harder rather than a bit easier to drive, as this gives longevity to > the > >program and provides more of a challenge, GPL being a prime example? > I'm sorry but I want a sim to first be as real as possible (easy/med > or > hard). This making it harder than the real thing doesn't make any > sense

I *didn't* say I wanted the sim to be harder than the real thing, please read my post properly? I said I think most people (on RAS) would prefer a sim to be harder rather than easier. By that I mean in comparison to the real thing, eg:- F1 racing, and most other types of racing are supposed to be very hard (to get consistently fast times), And I want the sim to reflect that. Whereas arcade racing games are not necessarily as hard, cos they are generally aimed at a mass market, and need to be *easier* to a certain extent so that the public can jump in and start racing straight away? Whereas, sims are generally a more specialised product? and the fact that they have set-ups, qualifying, practice sessions, etc, means they are by nature a more complicated and generally time consuming product. Have you never seen an F1 car spin? or the wheels spin? Theres nothing wrong with the grip levels in F1RS? I assume you mean there is too much wheelspin? you can alter this by many means: 1) Use an analogue controller rather than a digital one. 2) Be gentle when using your controller, eg:- floor it and you will wheelspin, just as you would in a *real* car. 3) Change the set-up to reduce wheelspin, eg:- by setting higher lower gear ratios. What!!!! no way at all is that correct. I have had F1RS since it was released just before Christmas 1997, and I've had the GPL demo since a couple of days after it was released. I have probably driven around, maybe 120 hours in F1RS? and probably around 80 hours in GPL? No way is there better tracion in GPL, one of the great challenges is to complete a fast lap without losing it cos there is so *LITTLE* grip in GPL. If F1RS is set-up correct it has loads of traction, (or it simulates traction anyway) as it should. I think perhaps you do not have a good set-up for F1RS? I don't think you have to practice *forever* either? I do think to become good at driving sims you do need to put in the time. But once you have learnt the basic techniques you can then just get on with the driving. A good example is GP2. I have had this sim since it came out (about two years ago?) and have put in *many* hundreds of hours, and now think I am quite good, *not* the best by any means, but quite good nether the less. I have not driven GP2 for a month or so, mainly cos I was spending most of my time driving GPL! Then I decide to give GP2 a go, I pick the Montreal track, cos the Canadian GP was the next one, and after *only* a couple of laps I beat my all time fastest lap record? I did not have to put in endless hours, cos I've already done the hard work over the last two years or so, I can now just start up the sim, and drive. I think this equates to what I just said about GP2 above. Most racing drivers *have* put in many hundreds of hours learning their trade, honing their skills, practising their techniques, and after a while you are a good driver. Now they do not need to put in the hundreds of hours, they can just maybe do a few laps every now and again. F1 drivers *DO* spend some time, testing, practising, developing the cars, etc. Once again it is *not* hundreds of hours, cos they are already great drivers, but they still need *some* practice? Yes it would, but there is *always* a compromise between an out and out sim, which most people are gonna find too hard to drive, or an easier driving model, generally accepted as being arcade. Ideally all driving games/sims should have *both* options, eg:- all the damage & set-up options and harder driving levels (eg:- semi-pro, pro, ace, etc) for those that want them, and all the driving aids that make driving easier (eg:- driver help aids like auto braking or auto gear changing, no damage or set-up options, easier driving levels) for those that want them. 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

> That's an arrogant line, Peter. All people are not good enough at most > things. Why shouldn't we persue the pastimes we enjoy, huh? I bet > you're a > better racer than me, but I bet I'm better than something than you. > So don't > say I suck because I enjoy TOCA. I wasn' talking to you, I was replying to a post by QBM. However to reply to your points: I am not a particulally good sim racer, I am ok, but certainly not one of the best by any means. If you enjoy TOCA thats fine by me, I also enjoy TOCA, However, IMHO it is *not* a sim, mainly because it does not accurately model damage or have any set-up options of any kind. This may not be the opinion of others? The guy I was responding to was basically saying he wasn't good enough at the sim, so could they not release an *easier* version which would appeal to more people? IMHO, sims are by there very nature more complicated and more time consuming than *arcade* type racing games. I have nothing against arcade type racing games, and indeed own many myself. but if you buy a sim (especially if you have owned other sims) why then start complaining that its too hard? I agree, absolutely, TOCA is a great game, thats why I also own it, and drive it often. I'm not so sure it leaves F1RS for dead graphically? (certainly GP2 yes) but hey, you are entitled to your opinion. 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> There's a lot of snobbery towards so-called "arcade" type games. > The line seems to be increasingly blurred between the 2 modes > anyway. To me Toca is as real as it gets in terms of car handling and > gives > a very immersive experience, but there are still some aspects of it > which are not very realistic. I wouldn't label it "arcade", but then > again > I wouldn't say it's a total simulator.

Thats exactly what I wanted to say! Now why didn't *I* think of that? 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

PETE QBM PETE: R: Pete you said it again in the first two sentences. I guess you don't really mean it but your saying you want a sim to be harder in comparison to the real thing. R: There is nothing easy about a typical arcade game (garbage btw). Most of them are impossible because they race on ice skates and bouncing off walss in many are unavoidable. This makes them garbage. I agree arcade games are terrible I'm talking about the third catergory Realistic driving games, not your typical arcade or your typical sim. I want a realistic handling one. Toca has all of this as does N2 arcade and can be jumped right into. Setups will take a lttle time to tweak them a tad better. Toca is lacking user defined setups as each car is setup differently. No I have never seen that. I'm only gonna be two 2 weeks old the week after next. Have you ever seen them go around corners at fabulous speed becuase of mega grip caused by unheard of downforce? I don't get this feeling in F1rS at all of having good traction. Have you seen F1 cars pivot back and forth laterally down straights becasue they are handling beasts? The spins you are talking about are becuase of over acceleration, these are not the types of handling probems I'm discussing. Take F1RS and try pivoting down the straights harshly they can't handle it not even close. Nope don't mean that. I bet it takes you two hours to watch 60 minutes. :) Check. Check. Check. This could be. Honestly could you link me to a real good example of a setup that is real sticky. I want to see what your definition is and at the same time might find a new appreciation. I can understand this. Jeff Gordaon has through the years. But how about the locals. They just went from home to race conditions, quite a lot of them not even knowing for sure they could do it. Granted they aren't great at first and do get better each race. But when they first start out your typical racer doesn't look absurd like one does getting to know his lastest greatest sim. They look respectible. I've seen pro's race multiplayer Nascar and have races that look hurrendous compared to just average drivers at a local speedway. I still say something is missing here. How did they become great drivers? If sims are truethful to be real then they had to spend 100 hours on a track somewhere right? Agree with options. Make them easy to figure out. QBM

Nope. Listen to what you says makes a sim. Damage and setups and not said here but understood over various post, "A difficult handling model to make it challangeing so we can come back forever". I say the most important first ingrediant by far, second to noe, the big kahuna, the word, the one, the king of reasons, "THE HANDLING MODEL". If the handling model isn't very close to the real thing it doesn't matter how much setup options you have, it doesn't matter about if a fly on the windshield can cause damage these things are secondary. If you can't get a true feeling for a car that is realistic the other stuff is meaningless to a person that wants to drive a realistic game. Now having your two secondary reasons adds to depth and challange. But just making a car hard to drive and simmers assuing that's correct becasue the real pro's have to be doing something that is so unbelievably hard that it's nearly impossible for mortal commoners like us to really drive well is stretching it a lot. Just because somebody can make a good solid handling model that at least can be driven by average people doesn't mean an average person is gonna be the top dog. And another point here. Even though I hate arcade racers simmers talk about arcade racers only like pretty graphics. But then I read all this stuff about how beautiful F1RS is by simmers. Toca isn't a big looker but to me that is very secondary to the handling the game dishes out as well as the limited damage and setups the game has. QBM

I'm gonna make a big point HERE!!!!!!!! Ok Pete your what I consider the typical sim driver with the typical views. Now you state, I Quote; "cars appear to handle great based on the real thing?" Pleae everybody read the quote again. How many feel this is true? I do for one. Pete two and Paul most likely for three. What is this so important here? If this is true then I do know the feeling of how a vehicle should handle (I figured I did but stay with me)... F1RS and Nascar 2 sim I can say the cars handle like shit compared to the toca cars. Now in reality I feel Toca cars cannot out handle F1 cars but can outhandle Nascars, but Nascars are setup for a different style of racing. In their own right will handle extremely well for what they do. So HOW's come these games have nowhere near the handling and forgivness of Toca, if Toca is accurate? My answer is becuse they are not accurate, they are way to touchy plain and simple. If Toca is close to right then these other ex.'s a far from right. I can't think of another topic that can be more on topic. Than defining what a realistic sim really is. QBM

I've never driven a touring car and I've never driven an F1 either and neither I guess have most of the contributors to this news group. Basically they both cost a fortune and no team is going to let anyone who hasn't excelled at the junior and lower formulas have a go at either. Real touring cars are nothing like their road equivalents, and we all know why. A Lotus Esprit road car would s*** all over a Renault Laguna road car, but would be lapped several times over by the Nescaf Blend 37/Williams/Renault version. At least touring cars look like there road equivalents, the Williams F1 is nothing like a road car beyond having 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine, and couldn't get anywhere near being licensed for road use. So what do we know? What do the drivers say about TOCA or F1RS? (How much are they paid to say it?. See http://www.codemasters.com/ for the answer but here are 2 excerpts: Frank Biela: " I like the game a lot, it's extremely realistic. The circuits are like the originals and the reactions of the car are extremely similar to the real thing - when the car spins it looks like a real race car." (note the 2 uses of "extremely" here) Anthony Reid: " This is the most accurate driving game that I've played. The game has good detail, the graphics are excellent, the grandstands, track furniture, and elevation of the track are excellent. The game is tremendous fun." (note the use of "most accurate" here.) What do the drivers say about F1RS - I don't know, do you? I'd love to know. I gather that touring cars drive much more like road cars. And I also gather that F1s are b***** impossible to drive, so perhaps F1RS has erred on the side of easiness, because I can drive them (though not well) and I'm a clutz. My point in all these rambles is that both are probably good simulations and TOCA is not an arcade game, nope, no-way, uh-huh - it's a simulation. Perhaps it's just that real touring cars are easier to drive than F1s, though it's hard to drive either well. PJ

Quoted text (40 lines)

> >From a purely racing point of view, it is a damn fine physical > >simulation of Touring Car racing, the car dynamics are great, and the > >cars appear to handle great based on the real thing? > I'm gonna make a big point HERE!!!!!!!! > Ok Pete your what I consider the typical sim driver with the typical views. > Now you state, I Quote; "cars appear to handle great based on the real > thing?" > Pleae everybody read the quote again. > How many feel this is true? > I do for one. Pete two and Paul most likely for three. > What is this so important here? > If this is true then I do know the feeling of how a vehicle should handle (I > figured I did but stay with me)... > F1RS and Nascar 2 sim I can say the cars handle like shit compared to the > toca cars. Now in reality I feel Toca cars cannot out handle F1 cars but can > outhandle Nascars, but Nascars are setup for a different style of racing. In > their own right will handle extremely well for what they do. > So HOW's come these games have nowhere near the handling and forgivness of > Toca, if Toca is accurate? My answer is becuse they are not accurate, they > are way to touchy plain and simple. > If Toca is close to right then these other ex.'s a far from right. > >It's purely a matter of netiquette, eg:- discussing appropriate topics > >in appropriate groups. > I can't think of another topic that can be more on topic. Than defining what > a realistic sim really is. > QBM

Peter, I was tired and overreacting! What is IMHO? TOCA is a sim. It doesn't simulate car damage but that doesn't mean its not a simulation. In your book this is a crucial deficiency. I'd prefer car damage but I still say it's a sim. It doesn't simulate car setups, personally I'm glad of that - you hate it - well? This is a 17" computer screen - if you want reality, forget it - you'd need VR and one of those things that move on hydralic slits (now that would that be fun!). What is important is that what it does show is an attempt at an excerpt of reality. TOCA does this, there's nothing in TOCA that you can say, "No that's all wrong!". You can point to issues they've missed but what's there is good, in fact I think it's the best. The BTCC drivers think TOCA is "extremely realistic" - see the Codemasters site. What I meant by "audio-visual" was the feel of the game. You feel you're going fast. I get this from F1RS but not as much (and yeah GP2 is a non-starter in this department). In F1RS, when you slow to take a sharp bend the car feels nearly stationary, in TOCA it doesn't, in fact there's a scary feeling like you get when you have a near miss in a road car. This is the white knuckle bit and TOCA have simulated it ever so well. I'm thinking now, "How is this achieved?". Maybe it's something to do with the relative size of the car to the track. It seems big in TOCA, maybe this makes you feel closer to the road. I dunno I'm guessing. What do you think? Reality is a hard thing to model, you've got to think about more than what you can directly see and enumerate. Ask a painter. Photo-realism doesn't always capture feel. Impressionist painters tried to get the feel of an event by dispensing with irrelevant details and concentrating on the light, the mood. TOCA seems to do a similar trick, and I don't know why it works, but you really do feel you're going fast - they have simulated speed better than any other game. F1RS goes for the photo reality and that's okay (in fact very nice). GP2 is graphically ancient - a good attempt for it's day but it's old now (I'll be flamed to hell for that). GPL looks the goods but I've only got the demo and haven't managed to keep the program up for more than a minute. TOCA is an impressionist masterpiece to F1RS's old master. Sega rally and the arcade brigade are cartoons - jokes - like Tom and Jerry. How can anyone compare TOCA with these? PJ

Quoted text (46 lines)

> > That's an arrogant line, Peter. All people are not good enough at > most > > things. Why shouldn't we persue the pastimes we enjoy, huh? I bet > > you're a > > better racer than me, but I bet I'm better than something than you. > > So don't > > say I suck because I enjoy TOCA. > I wasn' talking to you, I was replying to a post by QBM. However to > reply to your points: > I am not a particulally good sim racer, I am ok, but certainly not one > of the best by any means. If you enjoy TOCA thats fine by me, I also > enjoy TOCA, However, IMHO it is *not* a sim, mainly because it does not > accurately model damage or have any set-up options of any kind. > This may not be the opinion of others? The guy I was responding to was > basically saying he wasn't good enough at the sim, so could they not > release an *easier* version which would appeal to more people? > IMHO, sims are by there very nature more complicated and more time > consuming than *arcade* type racing games. I have nothing against > arcade type racing games, and indeed own many myself. but if you buy a > sim (especially if you have owned other sims) why then start > complaining that its too hard? > > TOCA seems real enough to me. The cars are the 1997 ones in > > phenomenal detail. The tracks are realistic. The noises are great. > > But > > there's no dirt on the floor and the engine is immortal. So who gives > > a > > flying f***? But it's hard, oh so very hard, to get your lap times > > into the > > top ten times on http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/street/sc32/toca/. So > > it's > > still a challenge. I like F1RS and GP2 but in terms of audio-visual > > simulation TOCA leaves them both on the grid. > I agree, absolutely, TOCA is a great game, thats why I also own it, and > drive it often. I'm not so sure it leaves F1RS for dead graphically? > (certainly GP2 yes) but hey, you are entitled to your opinion. > 8-) > *Peter* 8-) > (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

> > I was unaware that > > TOCA wasn't considered as a sim. > Depends who you ask? From a strictly purist point of view, it is *NOT* a > sim, as there is no accurately modelled damage or set-up options. Ok GP2 is considered to be a sim, but I don't believe that the damage is accurately modelled. It's possible to have heavy contact with other cars and get away with no damage at all. Is this realistic? So does this mean that GP2 is not a sim by your definition ? As for setup options, the cars in TOCA are already setup for optimum race performance. What do you need to change? Isn't that what is important in a simulation ? The essence of a sim is to recreate as accurately as possible a real driving experience. TOCA does that very well. Define a simulator then. I know this discussion has come up before, and I don't recall seeing a clear cut answer then. Maybe because there isn't a definite answer. If anyone can come up with criteria then do so. The so-called sims that I've played have compromises. Does this make them any less a sim? I think the games discussed so far are right on topic. If you don't agree, then you don't have to contribute to the discussion. -- Andrew Fielden. UK.

> I'm talking about the third catergory Realistic driving games, not > your typical arcade or your typical sim. I want a realistic handling one. That is the main point, and for me, what I'm looking for in a sim? I don't necessarily want endless setup options. I want a car that is as close as possible to how the real thing handles. I don't want to be able to get in the car and win instantly. Where's the challenge in that? You don't need to complicate the game with many setup options to qualify the game as a real 'sim' experience. Learning to drive the car well and learn the tracks is enough. As in most things, you can't please everybody though. -- Andrew Fielden. UK.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >From a purely racing point of view, it is a damn fine physical > >simulation of Touring Car racing, the car dynamics are great, and the > >cars appear to handle great based on the real thing? > I'm gonna make a big point HERE!!!!!!!! > Ok Pete your what I consider the typical sim driver with the typical views. > Now you state, I Quote; "cars appear to handle great based on the real > thing?" > Pleae everybody read the quote again. > How many feel this is true?

Absolutely. To me that means the game *is* a simulator of driving a Touring car. Sounds familiar... Maybe there is no such thing as a driving simulator (until now - GPL) and this group shouldn't have existed at all :) -- Andrew Fielden. UK.

> What is IMHO? In My Humble Opinion. It is a true simulation of driving a Touring Car, but damage simulation is a crucial aspect of a race simulation. For an accurate race experience would you accept that damage needs to be modelled accurately? Then again GP2 doesn't model damage accurately, but it's still called a sim. -- Andrew Fielden. UK.

It may not be a sim by the sim purists but the demo is a helluva lota fun ! I only have the demo but it appears it doesn't all the garage adjustments that N2/GP2 have ? Tim >> > I was unaware that >> > TOCA wasn't considered as a sim. >> Depends who you ask? From a strictly purist point of view, it is *NOT* a >> sim, as there is no accurately modelled damage or set-up options.

>But just making a car hard to drive and >simmers assuing that's correct becasue the real pro's have to be doing >something that is so unbelievably hard that it's nearly impossible for >mortal commoners like us to really drive well is stretching it a lot. I don't think so. You could probably drive an F1 car around Monaco, and after quite a few laps could turn laps that were not embarrasing, but if you think you could remotely approach what Senna and Schumacher do around there then you are _massively_ deluding yourself. There have been plenty examples of talented amateur racers driving F1 cars as part of a magazine article, and in one such article one of these amateur racers was eventually 10 seconds slower than Shinji Nakano around Barcelona. That is TEN SECONDS slower, and slower than Shinji Nakano. What the Pros are doing is not impossible, but is comparable to what the "pro's" are doing in GP2 - if you can install GP2 and run a 1:19 around Jerez within the first hour then I prostrate myself at your feet in awe. Cheers! John

> It is a true simulation of driving a Touring Car, but damage simulation is > a crucial aspect of a race simulation. For an accurate race experience would > you accept that damage needs to be modelled accurately? I agree that TOCA gives an accurate simulation of driving a Touring Car. But I think that damage simulation while highly desireable is not crucial. Codemasters have simulated some aspects, the very important ones, of driving a Touring Car, but have not simulated others. So it is still a simulation. Hopefully, there will be a TOCA 2 and hopefully an accurate damage model will be included in that. PJ

up before, and Lets define simulation then - here is Websters dictionary definition: "1. imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing. 2. the act or process of pretending; feigning. 3. an assumption or imitation of a particular appearance or form; counterfeit; sham. 4. Psychiatry. a conscious attempt to feign some mental or physical disorder to escape punishment or to gain a desired objective. 5. the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, esp. a computer program designed for the purpose." I think definition 5 is the one we should be looking at. But it doesn't really help does it? PJ

> Peter, I was tired and overreacting! Take a break, and get some rest.... 8-) "In My Humble Opinion" Nope, not so, never, is not...... Want a bet...... 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

> It may not be a sim by the sim purists but the demo is a helluva > lota fun ! The *full* game is even better.... 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

> Ok GP2 is considered to be a sim, but I don't believe that the > damage is accurately modelled. It's possible to have heavy contact > with other cars and get away with no damage at all. Is this > realistic? So does this mean that GP2 is not a sim by your > definition ? I've *NEVER* come across this feature? whenver I have a *heavy* crash (often) the car is always damaged. If you have experienced the opposite then that is a flaw or bug in the sim. It was certainly not *designed* to do that? IMHO GP2 and most other sims *do* have a reasonably accurate damage model. It may well be possible in certain circumstances to suffer no damage in a heavy collision as you state, but they are not deliberately designed in that fashion. IMHO, a simulation should allow the driver to alter the cars set-up. There is no need to use them if you don't want to? But they should be available, as is the case in real life. *EVERY* racing car driver has an imput into the cars set-up, some have more input than others, but they *all* have some imput at one point or another. Different drivers prefer different set-ups, so how can the cars be set-up for optimum performance for *every* different driver? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you are trying to say, the cars have a default set-up that shouldn't need to be altered. But that does not simulate the real thing, all the drivers do not use the same default set-up? Half the fun of sims is tweaking those set-ups (in my case, and I'm sure in many others too). Like I said before, if you don't want to mess with the set-ups then you don't have to, but if it ain't got em to start with, it ain't a sim (IMHO) 8-) Yes, from a purely racing point of view, the car dynamics should be accurate, and in TOCA they are, but to accurately recreate a real driving experience you must include damage & set-ups surely, As you would have in a real driving experience (certainly in a real *racing* driving experience anyway?) I don't really think I'm qualified to make a definitive statement about what is, or is not a sim? I'm only a sim fan, not a programmer, designer, producer, or any other kind of sim expert, I'm just giving my *opinion* here, That doesn't mean its the majority view, or the correct view, but it is *my* view. All computer based simulation are compromises cos they cannot *physically* accurately simulate the real thing. We are only looking at a small screen, there is no sensation of speed, no peripheral vision, etc, etc. You are always limited to the computer graphics, sounds & controls avialable at the time the product is produced. However, to define my opinion of a sim, I would say a sim *ideally* needs to meet as near as possible the following criteria: (not necessarily in this order?) 1) To accurately model car dynamics. eg:- the car should behave in a way expected for the type of racing car that is simulated, so a rally car should have different attributes to an F1 car, etc. 2) To accurately model real world physical dynamics. eg:- the racing environment should behave in a way expected for that type of environment, so if a car hits a solid object it should not drive through it, but bounce off it, and low gravity options are not simulating the real thing? and you should be able to drive the cars anywhere that is open to it, even off the road/circuit. 3) To accurately model sounds. eg:- the car and environment should sound like the real thing. 4) To accurately model graphics. eg:- the car and environment should look like the real thing, I therefore think outerspace tracks, or underworld tunnel tracks, or futuristic looking cars are not simulating the real thing? 5) To accurately model racing views. eg:- a simulator *must* have an in-car or***pit view, as all real drivers have this view, as well as the other optional external views. 6) To accurately model real world weather. eg:- real races do not always take place during the day in bright sunny conditions? 7) To accurately model car set-ups. eg:- all real drivers have the option to change the characteristics of the car via set-ups, therefore car set-ups *must* be included in a sim. 8) To accurately model physical damage to the cars (and other objects?). eg:- damage to the cars should reflect the object that was hit, and the speed the car was travelling at impact, and the resulting damage should reflect in the cars performance. I'm sure people will be quick to add many more attributes that a good sim should have? But this is my basic list. If you look at the list there is probably no sim available at the moment that adequately meets my criteria, although some come close? For example, GPL, IMHO, does not meet the "accurately model real world physical dynamics", because when you hit a hay bale, the car treats it as a solid object, but in real life the car would drive through it? (although its pretty good in most other areas - Yes I know there are no set-ups, but its only a demo!) In GP2, there is no weather options? TOCA has no damage or set-up options? (same as Motoracer?) RAC rally does not allow "off road" driving, so fails the "accurately model real world physical dynamics" criteria? F1RS comes pretty close? and Nascar2 is pretty good too? The list is endless, we could go on forever..... Or, if I don't agree, I *can* still contribute to the discussion? its called free speech. 8-) *Peter* 8-) (also UK) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

> >I said I think most people (on RAS) would prefer a sim to be harder > >rather than easier. By that I mean in comparison to the real thing, > eg:- > >F1 racing, and most other types of racing are supposed to be very > hard > >(to get consistently fast times), And I want the sim to reflect that. > Pete you said it again in the first two sentences. I guess you don't > really > mean it but your saying you want a sim to be harder in comparison to > the > real thing. Sorry, I'm obviously not making my point clearly? I mean I want sims to be a long term challenge compared to the comparitively easier arcade type games, which generally offer only short term enjoyment (for me anyway?) And I am comparing that to the fact that generally driving a real *racing* car is harder than driving a real *normal* car. I am *NOT* saying I want sims to be harder than driving a *real* racing car. I hope that makes it clearer? Wow! we agree on something, lets stop there before we agree on something else? 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 5. the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one > system through > the use of another system, esp. a computer program designed for the > purpose." > I think definition 5 is the one we should be looking at. But it > doesn't really > help does it?

I think it helps a lot? All we need to know now is what are the behaviour or characteristics of motor racing? fx: many posts with long lists will now follow..... 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

TOCA and F1RS are the only sims I'm playing at the moment. They're both great but I wouldn't say F1RS is harder to drive than TOCA. It's easier to spin a Touring Car (because it's got a higher centre of gravity and does cling to the track) but is more forgiving if you leave the racing line. That's about right.

Quoted text (34 lines)

> > >I said I think most people (on RAS) would prefer a sim to be harder > > >rather than easier. By that I mean in comparison to the real thing, > > eg:- > > >F1 racing, and most other types of racing are supposed to be very > > hard > > >(to get consistently fast times), And I want the sim to reflect > that. > > Pete you said it again in the first two sentences. I guess you don't > > really > > mean it but your saying you want a sim to be harder in comparison to > > the > > real thing. > Sorry, I'm obviously not making my point clearly? I mean I want sims to > be a long term challenge compared to the comparitively easier arcade > type games, which generally offer only short term enjoyment (for me > anyway?) > And I am comparing that to the fact that generally driving a real > *racing* car is harder than driving a real *normal* car. > I am *NOT* saying I want sims to be harder than driving a *real* racing > car. I hope that makes it clearer? > > Agree with options. > Wow! we agree on something, lets stop there before we agree on > something else? > 8-) > *Peter* 8-) > (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

Peter, Okay, you're right that both real Tourings Cars and real F1 cars are constantly having setups altered both during the race and during the racing season. In both formulas, teams are constantly coming up with innovations that put them ahead of where they were in the last race. That's why the TC independants seem to do relatively well at the beginning of the year and then fall off so much during it - they have last year's car and are not privy to the works cars' innovations. (btw: TOCA ought to have independants in). No current simulator can match this, and none ever will be able to. Here's why. The engines, for a start, are constantly being improved. The chasses are put through wind tunnels and computer simulations to reduce drag. New devices like turbo-charging, ABS etc are invented and introduced (and then most of them banned) during the season. How can a simulation take this into account? The only way I can see is to have new program models and physics engines released every week. And even then that's not something the gamer can influence. Which ends up rather like leaving it to the team mechanics and works. Unless of course you could feed back to the programming team - but remember programmers hate users :-) So the set up model is limited to the most basic factors, take some wing off here, change tyre compound (oh dear, they want grooves in the tyres now) etc. So lets face it, this is not reality. This is sim world. You can't simulate everything - you have to choose. You like setups, I find them a boring distraction (except tyres and just maybe wings, but gear ratios? - give me a break!!). Under the hood is a program, mucking with setups is like trying to work out the underlying code. Why don't you just ask UbiSoft to give you the source code and save yourself the effort. I WANT TO RACE. I want the feel of excitment as you plunge down the hill at Paddock and the excileration when you know you took the corner well and can flatten her out into the straight faster than the time before when you ended in the gravel. Does Schmacher or Rydell ever touch a spanner? - I doubt it! :-) BUT I WANT IT TO FEEL REAL. That's why I don't like GP2 as much as F1RS or TOCA - it just doesn't feel as real. (btw: My brother in law has driven a BMW round Thruxton and reckons TOCA is spot on.) By the by, we both agree that a sim should model damage. The sims should not only have it but it should look good too. TOCA's damage looks good but it doesn't affect performance - they've got to fix that. F1RS affects performance but you can't see it. On the other hand I just drove my F1RS Ferrari flat out into the bridge at Silverstone and only burst my front right tyre. Maybe the damage model's not so hot. In reality I'd be lucky to be alive and my car would be a complete write off. Remember most damage in F1 and BTCC is the end of the race! When the drivers limp into the pits for other than fuel or tyre wear you seldom see them again. If TOCA ain't a sim, F1RS ain't either and GP2 doesn't come close. Can't speak for GPL - looks great but my demo hangs up before I can get a feel. (btw: GP2 has the worst user-interface I have ever encountered and I have used a lot of programs.) PJ Peter Gagg wrote:

Quoted text (147 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Andrew > Fielden) wrote: > > Ok GP2 is considered to be a sim, but I don't believe that the > > damage is accurately modelled. It's possible to have heavy contact > > with other cars and get away with no damage at all. Is this > > realistic? So does this mean that GP2 is not a sim by your > > definition ? > I've *NEVER* come across this feature? whenver I have a *heavy* crash > (often) the car is always damaged. If you have experienced the opposite > then that is a flaw or bug in the sim. It was certainly not *designed* > to do that? > IMHO GP2 and most other sims *do* have a reasonably accurate damage > model. It may well be possible in certain circumstances to suffer no > damage in a heavy collision as you state, but they are not deliberately > designed in that fashion. > > As for setup options, the cars in TOCA are already setup for optimum > > race performance. What do you need to change? > IMHO, a simulation should allow the driver to alter the cars set-up. > There is no need to use them if you don't want to? But they should be > available, as is the case in real life. *EVERY* racing car driver has > an imput into the cars set-up, some have more input than others, but > they *all* have some imput at one point or another. > Different drivers prefer different set-ups, so how can the cars be > set-up for optimum performance for *every* different driver? > Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you are trying to say, the cars > have a default set-up that shouldn't need to be altered. But that does > not simulate the real thing, all the drivers do not use the same > default set-up? Half the fun of sims is tweaking those set-ups (in my > case, and I'm sure in many others too). > Like I said before, if you don't want to mess with the set-ups then you > don't have to, but if it ain't got em to start with, it ain't a sim > (IMHO) > 8-) > > > From a purely racing point of view, it is a damn fine physical > > > simulation of Touring Car racing, the car dynamics are great, and > > > the > > > cars appear to handle great based on the real thing? > > Isn't that what is important in a simulation ? The essence of a sim > > is to recreate as accurately as possible a real driving experience. > > TOCA does that very well. > Yes, from a purely racing point of view, the car dynamics should be > accurate, and in TOCA they are, but to accurately recreate a real > driving experience you must include damage & set-ups surely, As you > would have in a real driving experience (certainly in a real *racing* > driving experience anyway?) > > Define a simulator then. I know this discussion has come up before, > > and > > I don't recall seeing a clear cut answer then. Maybe because there > > isn't a definite answer. If anyone can come up with criteria then do > > so. > > The so-called sims that I've played have compromises. Does this make > > them any less a sim? > I don't really think I'm qualified to make a definitive statement about > what is, or is not a sim? I'm only a sim fan, not a programmer, > designer, producer, or any other kind of sim expert, I'm just giving my > *opinion* here, That doesn't mean its the majority view, or the correct > view, but it is *my* view. > All computer based simulation are compromises cos they cannot > *physically* accurately simulate the real thing. We are only looking at > a small screen, there is no sensation of speed, no peripheral vision, > etc, etc. You are always limited to the computer graphics, sounds & > controls avialable at the time the product is produced. > However, to define my opinion of a sim, I would say a sim *ideally* > needs to meet as near as possible the following criteria: (not > necessarily in this order?) > 1) To accurately model car dynamics. eg:- the car should behave in a > way expected for the type of racing car that is simulated, so a rally > car should have different attributes to an F1 car, etc. > 2) To accurately model real world physical dynamics. eg:- the racing > environment should behave in a way expected for that type of > environment, so if a car hits a solid object it should not drive > through it, but bounce off it, and low gravity options are not > simulating the real thing? and you should be able to drive the cars > anywhere that is open to it, even off the road/circuit. > 3) To accurately model sounds. eg:- the car and environment should > sound like the real thing. > 4) To accurately model graphics. eg:- the car and environment should > look like the real thing, I therefore think outerspace tracks, or > underworld tunnel tracks, or futuristic looking cars are not simulating > the real thing? > 5) To accurately model racing views. eg:- a simulator *must* have an > in-car or cockpit view, as all real drivers have this view, as well as > the other optional external views. > 6) To accurately model real world weather. eg:- real races do not > always take place during the day in bright sunny conditions? > 7) To accurately model car set-ups. eg:- all real drivers have the > option to change the characteristics of the car via set-ups, therefore > car set-ups *must* be included in a sim. > 8) To accurately model physical damage to the cars (and other > objects?). eg:- damage to the cars should reflect the object that was > hit, and the speed the car was travelling at impact, and the resulting > damage should reflect in the cars performance. > I'm sure people will be quick to add many more attributes that a good > sim should have? But this is my basic list. If you look at the list > there is probably no sim available at the moment that adequately meets > my criteria, although some come close? > For example, GPL, IMHO, does not meet the "accurately model real world > physical dynamics", because when you hit a hay bale, the car treats it > as a solid object, but in real life the car would drive through it? > (although its pretty good in most other areas - Yes I know there are no > set-ups, but its only a demo!) > In GP2, there is no weather options? TOCA has no damage or set-up > options? (same as Motoracer?) RAC rally does not allow "off road" > driving, so fails the "accurately model real world physical dynamics" > criteria? > F1RS comes pretty close? and Nascar2 is pretty good too? > The list is endless, we could go on forever..... > > I think the games discussed so far are right on topic. If you don't > > agree, then you don't have to contribute to the discussion. > Or, if I don't agree, I *can* still contribute to the discussion? its > called free speech. > 8-) > *Peter* 8-) (also UK) > (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

Yeah, Peter, these are good definitions of what a sim could and perhaps should model. The definition is not only what they simulate it's also how well they do it. Perhaps you could give marks on how well each sim achieves these aims. You should also give weight to how important each is. By multiplying the weight with the score you get a rating - call it the Gagg-Jones index. :-) This way you can numerically evaluate the quality of the sim - if it does get a certain score say 1500 you can say it's not a worthy sim. If it falls below say 1000 you can say it's arcade. I've added two other criteria below. I've had a go and this is only my preliminary opinion, to see if the idea will run. RRC = RAC Rally Championship SR = Sega Rally Peter's % score Importance Importance x score Criterion F1RS GP2 TOCA RRC SR F1RS GP2 TOCA RRC SR 1) 50 50 60 40 5 10 500 500 600 400 50 2) 50 30 50 35 5 6 300 180 300 210 30 3) 70 80 80 60 20 3 210 240 240 180 60 4) 50 30 40 50 10 3 150 90 120 150 30 5) 100 100 100 100 0 2 200 200 200 200 0 6) 100 0 100 100 0 2 200 0 200 200 0 7) 50 60 0 20 0 1 50 60 0 20 0 8) 40 50 10 40 0 2 80 100 20 80 0 9) 80 80 70 n/a n/a 3 240 240 210 - - 10) 50 30 60 60 1 3 150 90 180 180 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gagg-Jones :-) 2080 1700 2070 1720 173 9) The AI of the other cars (where appropriate) should be of good quality. 10) The sim should provide an imersive "feeling" of speed and danger. This is a combination of graphics quality and relative perspectives of extra-car objects. You should feel like your racing and forget your operating a computer. Does GP2 have a weather model? NB. About point 8) the car should also look like it's damaged as well as act like it. Driving around with your front wheel missing doesn't count. Point 2) should include the surface you're driving on - does it show the bumps on the road the way they are in reality. PJ

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Ok GP2 is considered to be a sim, but I don't believe that the > > damage is accurately modelled. It's possible to have heavy contact > > with other cars and get away with no damage at all. Is this > > realistic? So does this mean that GP2 is not a sim by your > > definition ? > I've *NEVER* come across this feature? whenver I have a *heavy* crash > (often) the car is always damaged. If you have experienced the opposite > then that is a flaw or bug in the sim. It was certainly not *designed* > to do that?

Peter try this - at the approach to a turn just hit the rear of the car in front. Quite often this will result in the other car being shunted off the track, but your car has absolutely no damage. This is what I'd call quite a forceful collision, which in real life would most likely result in at least a nose cone breakage. Also, it's possible for other cars to run over your wheels and inflict no damage whatsoever. Not too realistic. So if we apply your previous statement about relevant posts in this ng only pertaining to SIMULATORS, then there would be no posts at all. BTW I agree with all your criteria, except maybe setup options are not so important to me. Personal choice. Fair enough, but you seemed to be indicating that certain games could not be discussed because they didn't fit into your idea of a simulator. If we precluded all the "semi-sims" then we'd have a pretty boring ng here. Well maybe the odd flame war livens it up a bit :) -- Andrew Fielden. UK.

**snipped** (lots of far too technical stuff, designed to show that arcade games are as good as sims?) 8-) Agreed.... Agreed.... Good point.... Also agreed.... Sorted, we now have *THE* definitive criteria for what makes a sim (maybe?) 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

> but you seemed to be indicating that certain games could not > be discussed because they didn't fit into your idea of a simulator. If > we precluded all the "semi-sims" then we'd have a pretty boring ng > here. > Well maybe the odd flame war livens it up a bit :) Well thats *not* what I meant? Who am I to say what people can talk about!!!! 8-) The original posts in this thread were from someone who was not happy with his sim, and seemed to me to be saying that he would prefer it if the program had more arcade type attributes? The thread has contunued from there, and now threatens to take over the whole world (NOT). 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

Quoted text (44 lines)

> Now a simulation is a game that is trying to model a real type of > car on > real race tracks.What this brings to the experience is enormous!!!!We > also > get the rush of high speed turns in sims as in arcade games but now > we need > the ability to execute it without losing it and slamming into the > wall. This > edge of control adds considerably to the experience IMO.When I first > got the > GPL demo,my heart would race every time I entered turn four and this > is what > I crave!!!Sims requiere that we practice the turn ins-corner > speeds-and exits > to be able to race a good lap.Sims also model the handling > characteristics of > the car and all the headaches that it WILL bring.Then the tracks > themselves > are modeled after the real life tracks with all their annoying > nusiances(like > the way that half of turn8 in GPL slopes down and out preventing you > from > executing with speed).The fact that you have to drive as smoothly as > possible > to prevent excess tire wear--the way the handling changes as the fuel > load > diminishes--the need for an excellent setup--and all the other > variables are > what simulations bring to the user.All this realism is what turns > many people > away from a sim and its very understandable.But if given the > chance,it can be > so much more rewarding and enjoyable then an arcade racer.You see,its > the > being on the edge that makes sims shine.Executing a particulary hard > turn at > the maximum speed it allows you to take it is a blast.Add another car > on the > edge of control,racing you door to door knowing full well that he/she > is > having as hard a time as you keeping it on track,and its freakin > awesome!!!!!All the practice pays off once you start to get the rush > that a > dangerous pass or aweome lap will give.

Amen brother, spread the word..... 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Peter try this - at the approach to a turn just hit the rear of the > car in > front. Quite often this will result in the other car being shunted > off the track, but your car has absolutely no damage. This is what > I'd call quite a forceful collision, which in real life would most > likely result in at least a nose cone breakage. > Also, it's possible for other cars to run over your wheels and > inflict no damage whatsoever. Not too realistic.

Hmmm, but I have to ask the question, why would you *want* to do this? How often do you actually see this happening? I'm sure it does happen as you say, but surely the object is to race against other cars without hitting them? This may well be a bug in the program cos you are not supposed to deliberately hit the rear of the car in front. All I can say is that generally when I crash, it results in damage of some sort, but I do not deliberately try to crash? *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

>Sorted, we now have *THE* definitive criteria for what makes a sim >(maybe?) Nope. It's a sim when "human body damage" is modelled. I.e. if you die, you couldn't play the game anymore. Only then players will approach driving as in RL. I doubt this will included in any game... Remco

>Ok GP2 is considered to be a sim, but I don't believe that the >damage is accurately modelled. It's possible to have heavy contact >with other cars and get away with no damage at all. Is this >realistic? So does this mean that GP2 is not a sim by your >definition ? IMHO a game can be considered a simulation when it is apparent the creators of it have at least TRIED to simulate what would happen in real life in different situations. So by using that definition, GP2 is a simulation, because it has a damage model, as real life has it too. Whether that damage simulation is poor is whole another discussion. OTOH then we have something like NFS1 and TOCA. They haven't even tried to simulate damage model, so at least in that aspect they are not simulations.

>>Sorted, we now have *THE* definitive criteria for what makes a sim >>(maybe?) >Nope. It's a sim when "human body damage" is modelled. I.e. if you >die, you couldn't play the game anymore. Only then players will >approach driving as in RL. Very cute, but actually no. The point of simulations, for example those they use in the army or airline companies, is that you can simulate real flights a) cheaply b) safely. Apparently even in those flight simulations you can still try again even if you crash the plane. But they still model the crashes too.

> Very cute, but actually no. The point of simulations, for example > those they use in the army or airline companies, is that you can > simulate real flights a) cheaply b) safely. > Apparently even in those flight simulations you can still try again > even if you crash the plane. But they still model the crashes too. Spot on, they are *simulators*, if you want the real thing, then do the real thing. But most of us can't (be real racing drivers example) thats why we use simulators. 8-) *Peter* 8-) (NB: remove asterix to e-mail)

% At least touring cars look like there road equivalents, the Williams F1 is % nothing like a road car beyond having 4 wheels and an internal combustion % engine, and couldn't get anywhere near being licensed for road use. So what do % we know? What do the drivers say about TOCA or F1RS? (How much are they paid to % say it?. See http://www.codemasters.com/ for the answer but here are 2 % excerpts: I am sorry, but I just gotta do it. I hope you all understand.... % Frank Biela: " I like the game a lot, it's extremely realistic. ^^^^^ [speaks for itself] % The circuits are % like the originals and the reactions of the car are % extremely similar to the ^^^^^^^^ [similar, but not simulates] % real thing - when the car spins it looks like a real race car." ^^^^^ [looks, but not acts] % (note the 2 uses % of "extremely" here) % Anthony Reid: " This is the most accurate driving game that I've played. The ^^^^^^^^^^^^ % game has good detail, the graphics are excellent, the grandstands, track ^^^^^ [there's that word again] % furniture, and elevation of the track are excellent. The game is tremendous [yet again] ^^^^ % fun." (note the use of "most accurate" here.) What Anthony points out as excellent is mostly "eye-candy", in other words it "looks" great. I think that once again we are on the cusp of what a simulation is or should be. Should the simulation simulate the real physics of racing (Grand Prix Legends) or should it simulate the "feel" of racing (Toca)? That's how I see the difference in NASCAR2 between "arcde" (the feel of racing) and non-arcade (the simulation of the physics of racing). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

<snip> % Isn't that what is important in a simulation ? The essence of a sim % is to recreate as accurately as possible a real driving experience. % TOCA does that very well. This is the essence of "one" type of simulation, the "driving experience". Another type of simulation is the "actual physics" of driving. There can be a big difference between the two. Or there can actually be a melding of the two. Does Toca "really" simulate physics or just the feel. (To be honest, I don't think that any entertainment sim has approached the latter for force until GPL). <snip> -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

% Spot on, they are *simulators*, if you want the real thing, then do the % real thing. % But most of us can't (be real racing drivers example) thats why we use % simulators. STOP! HALT! This just in! It has come to the realization of the Unsenet gods that the newsgroup rec.autos.simulators has been for years now discussing things that aren't really simulators. After great deliberation and thorough investigation and much scientific examination, it was decided that the subjects of discussion in r.a.s. where in reality only facsimiles. Henceforth this newsgroup will be known as rec.autos.facsimiles and all discussion of simulations must cease! All violators of this decree shall face the wrath of Le Chicken! -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>>Sorted, we now have *THE* definitive criteria for what makes a sim >>>(maybe?) >>Nope. It's a sim when "human body damage" is modelled. I.e. if you >>die, you couldn't play the game anymore. Only then players will >>approach driving as in RL. >Very cute, but actually no. The point of simulations, for example >those they use in the army or airline companies, is that you can >simulate real flights a) cheaply b) safely. >Apparently even in those flight simulations you can still try again >even if you crash the plane. But they still model the crashes too.

True. But these simulators are controlled. You WILL be penalized if you don't behave as in RL. (via a note in your dossier) This is NOT the case in computer games. There you can***up, and get away with it. Remco.

Even though it's made a turn towards defining a sim the post was really attacking the legitimacy of the handling model of how a race car really is to what a typical sim actual gives you in return. I concede the cars handle much looser, wilder and overall harder than their real life counterparts. Not conceding either as easy but even driving many sims at a reduced rate of speed these games are still difficult for many where as I feel their real life counterparts are much more controllable. It wasn't about what makes a sim or not. But is the feeling really right in these things? Toca being the most realistic (less GPL) to how it portrays the real feel of driving. IMO But it's been good either way. QBM

Nobody stated that in Toca if you drive crazily and aggressively run into other drivers you are warned then disqualified so this does limit crazy attempts at passes. And you can change the level of damage in the options where you don't have to be so crazy to get warned. These will tame your aggressive driving a bit. QBM

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Peter try this - at the approach to a turn just hit the rear of the > > car in > > front. Quite often this will result in the other car being shunted > > off the track, but your car has absolutely no damage. This is what > > I'd call quite a forceful collision, which in real life would most > > likely result in at least a nose cone breakage. > > Also, it's possible for other cars to run over your wheels and > > inflict no damage whatsoever. Not too realistic. > Hmmm, but I have to ask the question, why would you *want* to do this? > How often do you actually see this happening? I'm sure it does happen > as you say, but surely the object is to race against other cars without > hitting them? This may well be a bug in the program cos you are not > supposed to deliberately hit the rear of the car in front.

No you wouldn't want to do that. But let's face it, we're not all talented enough to prevent it sometimes <g>. So I guess the damage model is a bit forgiving to allow for these little shunts. In other words this isn't a bug, just a compromise built into the game to increase your enjoyment of it. -- Andrew Fielden. UK.

How many months has this thread been going on now? -- ICQ # 5905329

Who's fooling who? All racing "sims" are "games". The point where they cease to be games is when they become useful for some other objective (like military flight sims or weather models). Right now they are just programs we play for enjoyment. When they lose that they become like work and that's when I get off. Even though these games (GPL included) provide a reasonable approximation to driving a racing car, they make no higher statement - they are no more important to Western culture that Doom or Mine Sweeper.

Quoted text (43 lines)

> % At least touring cars look like there road equivalents, the Williams F1 is > % nothing like a road car beyond having 4 wheels and an internal combustion > % engine, and couldn't get anywhere near being licensed for road use. So what do > % we know? What do the drivers say about TOCA or F1RS? (How much are they paid to > % say it?. See http://www.codemasters.com/ for the answer but here are 2 > % excerpts: > I am sorry, but I just gotta do it. I hope you all understand.... > % Frank Biela: " I like the game a lot, it's extremely realistic. > ^^^^^ [speaks for itself] > % The circuits are > % like the originals and the reactions of the car are > % extremely similar to the > ^^^^^^^^ [similar, but not simulates] > % real thing - when the car spins it looks like a real race car." > ^^^^^ [looks, but not acts] > % (note the 2 uses > % of "extremely" here) > % Anthony Reid: " This is the most accurate driving game that I've played. The > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > % game has good detail, the graphics are excellent, the grandstands, track > ^^^^^ [there's that word again] > % furniture, and elevation of the track are excellent. The game is tremendous > [yet again] ^^^^ > % fun." (note the use of "most accurate" here.) > What Anthony points out as excellent is mostly "eye-candy", in other > words it "looks" great. > I think that once again we are on the cusp of what a simulation is or > should be. Should the simulation simulate the real physics of racing > (Grand Prix Legends) or should it simulate the "feel" of racing (Toca)? > That's how I see the difference in NASCAR2 between "arcde" (the feel of > racing) and non-arcade (the simulation of the physics of racing). > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Your definition of a "game" is incorrect. Games are useful. Without games you would not have developed as a child. There are more basic social skills learned by toddlers and small children through games and play than you would ever comprehend. Games are also useful for the military: ever heard the term "wargames"? What do you think the various branches of the armed forces play wargames for? To *LEARN*. There are many other groups that employ "games" as part of their learning and training.....fire brigades, police, ambulance, emergency services, airlines (flight simulators)....the list is quite extensive. Just because some activity serves a clearly defined useful purpose does not necessarily make it an unenjoyable chore! By the same token, just because something is labeled as a "game" or "hobby" doesn't mean that it won't serve a useful purpose. > Who's fooling who? All racing "sims" are "games". The point where they cease to be > games is when they become useful for some other objective (like military flight sims > or weather models). R -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

Actually don't be fooled! War is a game, it's just a more lethal sport than racing. As a matter of fact life is a game, please don't be fooled... Checkers is a game and chess is a game. . . But they are worlds apart. % Who's fooling who? All racing "sims" are "games". The point where they cease to be % games is when they become useful for some other objective (like military flight sims % or weather models). Right now they are just programs we play for enjoyment. When they % lose that they become like work and that's when I get off. Even though these games % (GPL included) provide a reasonable approximation to driving a racing car, they make % no higher statement - they are no more important to Western culture that Doom or Mine % Sweeper. % > % At least touring cars look like there road equivalents, the Williams F1 is % > % nothing like a road car beyond having 4 wheels and an internal combustion % > % engine, and couldn't get anywhere near being licensed for road use. So what do % > % we know? What do the drivers say about TOCA or F1RS? (How much are they paid to % > % say it?. See http://www.codemasters.com/ for the answer but here are 2 % > % excerpts: % > % > I am sorry, but I just gotta do it. I hope you all understand.... % > % > % Frank Biela: " I like the game a lot, it's extremely realistic. % > ^^^^^ [speaks for itself] % > % The circuits are % > % like the originals and the reactions of the car are % > % extremely similar to the % > ^^^^^^^^ [similar, but not simulates] % > % real thing - when the car spins it looks like a real race car." % > ^^^^^ [looks, but not acts] % > % (note the 2 uses % > % of "extremely" here) % > % > % Anthony Reid: " This is the most accurate driving game that I've played. The % > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ % > % game has good detail, the graphics are excellent, the grandstands, track % > ^^^^^ [there's that word again] % > % furniture, and elevation of the track are excellent. The game is tremendous % > [yet again] ^^^^ % > % fun." (note the use of "most accurate" here.) % > % > What Anthony points out as excellent is mostly "eye-candy", in other % > words it "looks" great. % > % > I think that once again we are on the cusp of what a simulation is or % > should be. Should the simulation simulate the real physics of racing % > (Grand Prix Legends) or should it simulate the "feel" of racing (Toca)? % > % > That's how I see the difference in NASCAR2 between "arcde" (the feel of % > racing) and non-arcade (the simulation of the physics of racing). % > % > -- % > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* % > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. % > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> Who's fooling who? All racing "sims" are "games". Oh, OK. I guess you are the expert. You are saying that using a high-fidelity military flight simulator wouldn't be fun? If I had one of my own, you wouldn't be able to pull me out of it. The same would go for a driving simulator along the lines of Silicon Motor Speedway. It does, in fact, take a lot of work to drive GPL. Racing N2 on-line on TEN is probably even more work - are you ready to quit now? If don't watch it, I may start using equations to make my point :) I maintain that years of experience with ICR2, GP2, N2, GPL, and others, makes me faster when I do get on a racing course. Not Villenueve-fast, not Andretti-fast, hell, not even Matsushita-fast. But, definitely faster than the average person with no sim or real racing experience. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports

I'm not sure I agree that war or life are games. (Funny old game, life - it turns out not to be a game at all). Websters has lots of definitions of "game", into which neither war nor life seem to fit. These ones seem relevant: 1. an amu***t or pastime: children's games. 3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amu***t or for that of spectators. 8. anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules: the game of diplomacy. (So no nearer in the search for the meaning of life, then?) I think they're very similar, it's just that chess is far more complex. My badly made point was in response to you invalidating BTCC drivers praise of TOCA because they described it as a game. I was rebuffing that by pointing out that GPL, F1RS and GP2 are also games which Websters definition 3 substantiates......Motor sport itself fits nicely into that definition as well, so if a motor sport simulation is not a game it is simulating motor sport very well. Great song, great band.

Ok, I back off! > If don't watch it, I may start using > equations to make my point :) Ooh-er! point taken. I back right off :)

> Your definition of a "game" is incorrect. Games are useful. Without > games you would not have developed as a child. Ok, you're right here. With my social skills I can never have played them - did I offend you? - I didn't intend it. And you're right here, too. Fair go. We agree sims are games then. And they may be useful if you're actually involved in real motor sport. And it does not invalidate TOCA to describe it as a game, nor does it mean it's not a sim. And I would go on playing them if my hard disk hadn't had a head crash. But not if they stopped being fun.

"Fun" is the important word, Paul! Even hard work can be fun, if the person doing the work does so because they really like it. And, "no", you certainly didn't offend me in the least. I just tend to sometimes write in a rather terse manner....years of being used to writing reports where only the factual stuff was considered important. My apologies for giving you the wrong impression. > With my social skills I can never have played them - did I offend you? - I didn't intend > it. > And I would go on playing them if my hard disk hadn't had a head > crash. But not if they stopped being fun. -- Regards, Bruce. ---------- The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:- http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

% > Actually don't be fooled! War is a game, it's just a more lethal sport % > than racing. As a matter of fact life is a game, please don't be % > fooled... While the actual "player pieces" in the game of war probably don't think it's a game. It is a game with extreme high stakes none the less. We have at least two players engaged in a competition with "rules of engagement". This sounds alot like the following definition: "A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other "War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade." Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822), English poet. Queen Mab, pt. 4. Those whose livelihood it is to "conduct" war are the real game players. The fact that war is usually conducted for "just causes" does not mean it is not a game. It's a game, just a deadly one. While life itself may not be a "game", most "players" treat it as such. % I'm not sure I agree that war or life are games. (Funny old game, life - it turns out not % to be a game at all). Websters has lots of definitions of "game", into which neither war % nor life seem to fit. These ones seem relevant: % 1. an amu***t or pastime: children's games. % 3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more % persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amu***t or for that % of spectators. % 8. anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules: the % game of diplomacy. % (So no nearer in the search for the meaning of life, then?) % > Checkers is a game and chess is a game. . . But they are worlds apart. % I think they're very similar, it's just that chess is far more complex. My badly made point % was in response to you invalidating BTCC drivers praise of TOCA because they described it % as a game. I was rebuffing that by pointing out that GPL, F1RS and GP2 are also games which % Websters definition 3 substantiates......Motor sport itself fits nicely into that % definition as well, so if a motor sport simulation is not a game it is simulating motor % sport very well. And I guess I really should have put in a few ";-)" or "<G>", because I posted the repsonse with a *large* amount of tongue in cheek. I just thought it ironic and quite whimsical that while your quotes were in an attempt to defend the "reality" of the "sim", the quotes themselves left open just the opposite possibility. % > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. % Great song, great band. On that we wholeheartedly agree! :-) -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=