About the C:PR deal... Hehe remember the GPS system

Hohohihih LOL I know this post is a bomb ready to explode... But since we are talking about the C:PR "semi-crap" title, anyone remember the hype about the GPS system that they "supposedly" had to model the track at the inch of details ?? Another marketing act from Microsoft that we all fall in the trap for. Cleveland is just a riot, there is no right-kink in the last turn at Surfer's Paradise, what about that Long Beach frontstraight (lol), fake Rio configuration, Vancouver turn 1 chicane, etc.... Oh and what about the Beta CD that were "maybe" sent to the first 150 people ? Finally it was on about 15websites, and it was everything but not the first 150 people who got the CD-Rom. And the list goes on and on and on (still with the new tracks and fun hotlapping it's a "to-buy" product, but Im targeting this post at people who are trying to tell that TRI and Microsoft did good only good things, etc..) . We all know it was at the release a flawed product, that the patch helped a little but it is still flawed, that high-speed cornering is unrealistic, the AI is poor, there is a limit of speed on oval tracks, and finally they all hide the 3dfx patch since the beginning before somebody found a way to "turn the option On", since they all wanted us to use D3D from them instead. I never said the other SimRacing are better or worse, just saying the _Facts_. - 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."--

Quoted text (16 lines)

>Hohohihih LOL >I know this post is a bomb ready to explode... >But since we are talking about the C:PR "semi-crap" title, anyone remember >the hype about the GPS system that they "supposedly" had to model the track >at the inch of details ?? >Another marketing act from Microsoft that we all fall in the trap for. >Cleveland is just a riot, there is no right-kink in the last turn at >Surfer's Paradise, what about that Long Beach frontstraight (lol), fake Rio >configuration, Vancouver turn 1 chicane, etc.... >Oh and what about the Beta CD that were "maybe" sent to the first 150 people >? Finally it was on about 15websites, and it was everything but not the >first 150 people who got the CD-Rom.

My flatmate and myself were both on that, it was not a beta-program at all, but a "gold copy" program, where by the first X people would recieve a gold cd (regardless of their location), and when actual box copies became avaliable, these were sent too. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "everything but not the first 150 people" or "maybe". Some people who were signed up for the gold p[rogram were late in receiving their CD's, but i don't recall any message on the gold cd ng that people didn't receive their CD's at all. The pre-patched version was an appaling piece of code, granted. Z.

>Im targeting this post at people who are trying to tell that TRI and >Microsoft did good only good things, etc..) . Hmmm, could I be one of them? You are exaggerating like the others. Surprise, surprise. You usually seem pretty fair in your posts so I'll give my view on CPR to you and hopefully say it for the final time. I've done this before but unfortunately people pick and choose what they want to hear and distort for the sake of creating bullshit. Sounds kind of like real life, huh? It has great graphics, sound, menus, garage options, and better internet play than any other free service I've seen except for the improvements that came with MTM2 (extremely inportant to me since I'd prefer to spend 90% of my time racing on-line). Tremendous sense of speed (a rush). The most "challenging" sim, for me, to be fast in. Other sims seem easy to me due to the challenge provided by CPR. Nothing too controversial yet? Right? I judge the driving model to be the best (not perfect) of any current open wheel (remember that), modern day sim. I DON'T claim to know EXACTLY how a modern day Champ car feels while driving at 220mph (and no one else here really knows either), but I do have at least as good a guess as most on r.a.s. Regarding the driving model. I have an excellent example of why I know for a fact many here never gave CPR a good test. I must of heard a hundred times on r.a.s. that the cars were impossible to keep in a straight line because of the poor steering and drive model. Meanwhile, I worked the setups and steering settings and my cars could literally sit inches from the wall (at 200+mph) along the entire straightaways of tracks like Miami, Michigan, Fontana, etc. Either I'm lying or the complainers are just plain wrong regarding the sims performance. We both can't be right. Since I can supply a replay to prove I can do this....... If they are wrong about that, then it's likely they are wrong about other aspects of the drive model. Also, the track editor is a powerful tool that some people have used to make excellent new tracks. What I don't like about it is the AI is poor on ovals, yet decent on road and street courses, the driving model could of been improved, (braking is one area) as ANY sims driving model could be improved. It's too hard for most people to find a good setup. Nothing new, or ridiculous, or controversial at all from me in the above, it just gets lost in the typical r.a.s, high school, arguement style of debate. All sims I've tried so far have had their good and bad points, and that's why I divide my sim time among a small group of them (F1RS, CPR, MTM2, and GPL). Dave DmndDave

[snipped] What kind of system do you run CPR on? In all honesty I think this may also have something to do with peoples opinions of the game.

You're definitely right in bringing this up. I have a P5-200MMX and a Voodoo1. When the game was released almost a year ago, it was too resource heavy for a lot of people's computers and the complaints then were valid. Now though, it seems that most people, at least here, have upgraded and I I doubt the system requirements are much of an issue (but I sure could be wrong). Dave DmndDave >[snipped] >What kind of system do you run CPR on? In all honesty I think this may also have >something to do with peoples opinions of the game.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Regarding the driving model. I have an excellent example of why I know for a > fact many here never gave CPR a good test. I must of heard a hundred times > on r.a.s. that the cars were impossible to keep in a straight line because > of the poor steering and drive model. Meanwhile, I worked the setups and > steering settings and my cars could literally sit inches from the wall (at > 200+mph) along the entire straightaways of tracks like Miami, Michigan, > Fontana, etc. Either I'm lying or the complainers are just plain wrong > regarding the sims performance. We both can't be right

No. You can both be right. The problem with the steering in CPR is more related to system setup problems than to the car setup. Originally, the game came with a 5% null zone in the joystick setup that was not configurable. I think this may be where most of the steering problem reports came from. The joystick support of DX5/6 is weak in general, and doesn't the user enough options when it comes to setup of controllers. It probably comes down to MS rushing to market and not doing enough testing. The fact that people who had steering problems (me included) were brushed off by Lester and others provides little motivation to try and get the thing working. There are too many other sims out there. So which revision of CPR has the most accurate driving model? Different revisions have behaved quite differently. -- Pat Dotson IMPACT Motorsports

In other words, the driving model is the best once we carefully exclude most of the major competing products? ---Jim

I will too. Please continue reading below! <SNIP> Right. Nothing too controversial, except for "great graphics" and "tremendous sense of speed". Now who is exaggerating? These 2 statements have been the cause of much of the "controversial" debate regarding CPR from the get go. What system and 3D card are you running it on, and at what resolution and detail settings? And most importantly, What are the frame rates you achieve at those settings? For me personally, and for many other sim racers, it takes frame rates approaching 30 per second to achieve that sense of speed. On my CPR recommended P166, 32mb, Voodoo graphics card setup, I cannot maintain anything above 20fps at 640X480 with***pit on and any opponents on the track. Depending on the track it sometimes stutters to 10fps or worse. Hardly speedy, and definitely killing any suspension of belief that I am going 200+mph. This includes turning off sky, smoke, hills, and off track details, etc, which then takes away from the possibilty of any great graphics. I can get better performance at 320X200(which of course is software mode and does not take advantage of my Voodoo card), but why would I want to do that? The original Papyrus Indycar came out in 1993 at that resolution, and in my opinion looks better than CPR's 320X200 low res mode.[Side note: All my drivers for Direct X and my v3DFX card are up to date and working properly, so its not just my machine and configuration. Just take a look at The Apex CPR benchmarks page([link lost in import] and you will see similar configurations running at similarly dissappointing frame rates. Other games like F1RS, POD, Motoracer, Need for Speed IISE, Quake/Quake2, all run fine on this same setup] However, Papyrus Rendition Indycar 2(CART Racing) runs at a consistent 30fps at 640x480 with full details, and a full field of cars, on all the tracks, on my same setup(which also includes an Intergraph Intense 3D100 Rendition card). In fact, Indycar 2 runs above 25fps on my lowly P100, 32mb, Rendition card machine with the same amount of detail. Now that game provides me a sense of speed and great graphics. I know am in getting into personal tastes and preferences here, but I have seen and played CPR on a PII400 with Canopus Pure 3D II, and it did provide a smooth experience with full details, BUT I really feel that Rendition Indycar 2 at full detail looks much better than CPR at full detail - no matter how high end the machine. I don't know what it is specifically, but CPR looks more abstract and cartoony to me, and Indycar II seems more crisp and realistic. That's just me though. I guess I would agree that you can get some sense of speed with CPR, but only if you have the highest of high end machines, and that is surely not what is stated on the box. The internet multiplayer is fun, the sound is good, menus are fine, garage options are good, BUT remember there are no tire temp readings. AI is still overall bad. On some ovals I have been able to lap the whole field at Professional level settings, and this is in a short race. Not very realistic or challenging, and I am not that good,as those that have played me on the Zone can attest. And while on road courses the AI is a little better, I have many replays of ridiculous stuff the computer controlled cars have done that have either caused the race I was running to be unable to continue, or at the very least spoiled the fun. Now these are all replays where I as a driver have had nothing to do with it, no question of "Did I cause this?". The CPR box states "Compete against CART cars controlled by exacting artificial intelligence". That's a pretty bold statement for a product so lacking(even after the patch). The track editor is a powerful tool in technically knowledgeable, talented, charitable hands. In fact, it is the only reason I still own and play CPR. But not because of my own use of the editor. I can't come close, nor do I have the time. However, we have been given some great tracks by some great individuals who will never see any part of the $49.99 I spent on CPR. I'm glad they released it, but that was really a no-brainer on MS/TRI's part, especially since by the time it was released they were no longer plans for a 2nd version or continued patches, track packs, etc. Yeah, there is alot of non-factual, biased, rude debate in r.a.s, but r.a.s is typically one of the more informative, and mature of the newgroups that I frequent. There are lots of people in r.a.s that can provide intelligent, fair, fact based information even if they are on one side of the fence or the other. You just have to weed out the "This Game SUX" type stuff. Its worse in most of the other *** newsgroups. Anyway, thanks for the friendly debate. CPR had so much potential, and so much hype, and so much press, and so many problems, and so many broken promises - that is why it brings out so much strong opinion. Don Chapman

> snip > Anyway, thanks for the friendly debate. CPR had so much potential, and so > much hype, and so much press, and so many problems, and so many broken > promises - that is why it brings out so much strong opinion. Here be the perfect review of CPR!

"On my CPR recommended P166, 32mb, Voodoo graphics card setup, I cannot maintain anything above 20fps at 640X480" Hey guess what buddy, GPL and future sims wont get you 30fps on that system. Time to upgrade huh? Oh and gamers should know when they say what is the recommended system they really mean a system twice as fast, jeez anyone who's been around games knows that. Hey GP2 recommended a P90 LOL! Really go look at the box. Thing needs like a PII 400 to get 30fps. "I have seen and played CPR on a PII400 with Canopus Pure 3D II, and it did provide a smooth experience with full details" Using the Glide patch I get 35-45fps with no cokcpit with full detail at 640x480 on a P200mmx oc 225Mhz and a voodoo1. So what my system is compariable to a PII 400? I dont think so. On my friends PII 233 and a voodoo2 he got almost 100fps. Arthur s t e a l t h r a c i n g http://www.***sys.com/stealthracing.html

I didn't have any trouble with the steering in either the pre or post patch version. It just took some experimenting. With my T2, I use a 2% null zone now, but the fixed 5% in the pre patch version was fine for me too. I found steering settings and setups which enabled perfect, straight line driving. Like I said, I can ride inches from the walls at the ovals with no problem whatsoever. Better default settings for setups and steering could of been provided. The only real major in the two driving models that I remember was the lowered grip settings. More control of the steering settings was provided with the slider controls with the patch. Some people feel the downforce grip is too low now, but I remember the general consensus here at r.a.s. was that there was too much grip in the initial release. Blasting around Elkhart, it feels pretty good too me. I can push up to the limit, and still maintain control with the feedback I get from the car. Rookie grip is the same as the pre patch release, so you can judge for yourself. Dave DmndDave >No. You can both be right.

>Right. Nothing too controversial, except for "great graphics" and >"tremendous sense of speed". Now who is exaggerating? These 2 statements >have been the cause of much of the "controversial" debate regarding CPR from >the get go. What system and 3D card are you running it on, and at what >resolution and detail settings? And most importantly, What are the frame >rates you achieve at those settings? For me personally, and for many other >sim racers, it takes frame rates approaching 30 per second to achieve that >sense of speed. I have a P200mmx with a Monster Voodoo1. I use full graphics detail, except ***pit at some tracks. My frame rates are usually at least 25 and up to 50 or so depending on the track (Clevelend higher, Australia lower). Frame rates are no more a problem for me as they are on F1RS. There may be a few hiccups depending on the situation, but it's not as bad as the first corner slowdown in F1RS. Even CPR's worst critics admit that the sense of speed in CPR is one of it's best features. Graphics are a matter of personal taste, but it is fairly easy to measure the power of a graphics engine. The one used for CPR by TRI was, at the time, leading edge, and the upgrade of it (Photex2) which was used to make MTM2 is as good as it gets in driving games. Again, it is a matter of taste, but most game sites, and reviewers, have rated these two games graphics as the best around. For me, internet play is as important as anything else. I love to race online, and no other open wheeled sim offered anything close to what CPR did. I agree on the ovals, the cars are too slow. The road and street course AI seemed pretty good too me, not great, but decent. F1RS is supposed to have good AI, but I seem to get slammed from behind or from the side more often than I care to remember. I have yet to see a sim where the AI is very impressive, but I suspect that each year this will be improved in the new sims. The editor is the exact same tool as TRI used to make CPR. They also released the editor for MTM2 (Photex2, an upgrade of the CPR graphics engine). It was always in the plans to be released with both games. TRI released the editor with their first game for MS (MTM). Yes, there are a lot of guys who know quite a bit about sims, but you have to understand that most of the time, believe it or not, I hold my tongue when I hear the senseless remarks. I hadn't posted much of anything CPR related for a few months. I also am the last person to be bothered by much of anything, but when I see new readers, or polite people asking for some help, and they get the same dumb remarks from the same 10 guys, I feel that I should try and help the person who requested it. Then the flames start. It's an old and tired routine. Emotion gets high in here for some reason, and it tends to cloud the subject matter. I see it with every sim (F1RS, CPR, GPL, GP2, etc.). It also has a lot of fans, maybe not here at r.a.s., but remember r.a.s. is such a tiny fraction of the auto sim/game community that it really is only relevant to it's small group of readers and that is good enough. I tend to find the best in the top sims available, and while I recognize their flaws and don't forget them, I don't dwell on the negative otherwise I miss out on some excellent features of a sim. I take sim racing and developement as seriously as anyone, but I also want to have a little fun too. If every sim had to measure up to all of my ideal standards for me to buy it, I wouldn't own even one. Thanks to you too. Dave DmndDave >Don Chapman

Thanks for your reply. I also think part of the problem was that it was another game in a long list that seemed to require more CPU than it perhaps should have required. (bloatware that TRI doesn't have an exlusive on) Beauty is subjective of course, I just happen to agree with some others who didn't find CPR all that good looking (particularly the gravel traps). But it also seemed the only way to get a sustainable frame rate was to reduce draw distance to a very short distance almost like motoracer. In general I'd tend to agree, but of course there are exceptions.

>Oh and what about the Beta CD that were "maybe" sent to the first 150 people >? Finally it was on about 15websites, and it was everything but not the >first 150 people who got the CD-Rom. >And the list goes on and on and on Well speaking for myself alone, I got the Gold CD and the final boxed version from MS fine. Admittedly they should have made it a beta program and we'd have fixed the worst of the problems before it saw light of day but they didn't. I used to think CPR was fine but I loaded it back up the other day and promptly removed it when I remembered just what I didn't like about it. M