Sounds cool! Here is the Iracing link
http://www.iracing.com/news.htm
Goodbye LOTRO and WOW!
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Notable threadFlame wariRacing subscription pricing announced and debated
Posters discussed iRacing's newly announced pricing of about $13 a month on a yearly plan, with extra cars and tracks costing $15 to $25. iRacing's Tim Wheatley answered questions, saying the base content would cover a first season and that launch was planned for spring. Opinions split between those who found the price reasonable compared to other hobbies and sceptics like Backspace who attacked the cost and the $20 trial, leading to insults; the later posts drifted into GPL tyre grip and sensing speed in sims.
With Tim Wheatley (iRacing)
Automated summary.
http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=309713
As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited
content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost
$15 to $25.
Pat Dotson
UltraForce Simulations LLC
http://www.ultraforcesim.com
Hm, that's about 10 Euros I guess, that might just tip me over to give
it a try for a year if I don't need a CC in order to make my payment.
Cheers, uwe
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Seems reasonable! Can't wait to try it out!
Quoted text (9 lines)
> http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=309713 > > As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited > content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost > $15 to $25. > > Pat Dotson > UltraForce Simulations LLC > http://www.ultraforcesim.comOn Jan 23, 11:47 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
Do we know what the limited content is for that $13/month. To be
honest, I am just interested in "my" local racing, (Modifieds, Late
Models, and maybe Legend cars) with the two tracks in CT. Is this part
of the limited content? Or do we get one road and one oval series?
I have to say at $13 a month, even paying up front, I am in... When
we thought it might be $40 a month, well that was just crazy talk... I
am glad they are going for more people at a lower cost. I hope it
works.
btgoss
Quoted text (8 lines)
> http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=309713 > > As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited > content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost > $15 to $25. > > Pat Dotson > UltraForce Simulations LLChttp://www.ultraforcesim.comNo mention of when in 2008 ? Steve P
On Jan 23, 10:47 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
Hi Pat,
That 'limited content' will include everything you need to be able to
race your first seasons though. :)
Tim Wheatley
Quoted text (8 lines)
> http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=309713 > > As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited > content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost > $15 to $25. > > Pat Dotson > UltraForce Simulations LLChttp://www.ultraforcesim.comTim Wheatley wrote:
> Hi Pat,
>
> That 'limited content' will include everything you need to be able to
> race your first seasons though. :)
>
> Tim Wheatley
Great news, just waiting to hear of the discount scheme for middle aged
racers and above :)
Cheers
Tony
Tim,
I'm infering from the press release that the vehicles will be
Solstices for road courses and legend cars for ovals. How many
different tracks will be included for the base price? In real life
lots of people run full seasons at only one track. Can we expect the
seasons to include more than one track? Or, will there be only one
oval and one road course for the base price?
Pat
On Jan 25, 1:35 pm, Tim Wheatley <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (17 lines)
> On Jan 23, 10:47 pm, [email hidden] wrote: > > >http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=309713 > > > As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited > > content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost > > $15 to $25. > > > Pat Dotson > > UltraForce Simulations LLChttp://www.ultraforcesim.com > > Hi Pat, > > That 'limited content' will include everything you need to be able to > race your first seasons though. :) > > Tim WheatleyOn Jan 25, 1:31 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
Pat,
Unfortunately I can't say which cars and tracks are out when, but I
can tell you to expect more than one track - that one's for sure!
Tracks often have more than one configuration also and you get all the
configurations. For example there is one track known as an oval
primarily that has the oval layout and three roadcourse layouts and
you'd get all of them as a single track.
Hope that helps.
Tim
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Tim, > > I'm infering from the press release that the vehicles will be > Solstices for road courses and legend cars for ovals. How many > different tracks will be included for the base price? In real life > lots of people run full seasons at only one track. Can we expect the > seasons to include more than one track? Or, will there be only one > oval and one road course for the base price? > > Pat
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
More info here http://tinyurl.com/3bp282
and
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3bp282
Quoted text (9 lines)
> http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=309713 > > As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited > content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost > $15 to $25. > > Pat Dotson > UltraForce Simulations LLC > http://www.ultraforcesim.comQuentin Queerbottom wrote:
Probably more informative than the original...
There is a ton of rubbish being written about iRacing.
If the pricing is too steep they won't reach the required volumes for
viability. It is simple economics but the sim racing world has been
doing its own thing developing add ons with no recourse to licensing or
copyright for years since the big developers disappeared that there is
an expectation that anything more than a one off $20 dollar outlay for
several years entertainment is a rip off.
iRacing is a wake up call and those who don't recall dial up bills for
racing online and products with a short shelf life as bigger and better
products from major developers came along don't seem to get it.
Having a major developer with the financial acumen to develop the
product and the foresight to move sim racing out of its little nerdy
niche is a major opportunity IMHO.
iRacing need to be commercially viable to push sim racing along just
like the Boston Red Sox needed to be commercially viable to take on and
beat the Yankees. It is not about John Henry simply pumping money in
because he is a fellow sim enthusiast just as he is a Red Sox fan, it is
about getting the infrastructure in place for sustainability and future
growth. This seems to be beyond the sim racing for free attitude
prevailing on RSC.
Given the track record I believe they will get the sums right but it is
a whole different model from existing titles, which is proving hard for
many to get their heads around.
Cheers
Tony
Quoted text (10 lines)
> >> As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited >> content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost >> $15 to $25. >> >> Pat Dotson >> UltraForce Simulations LLC >> http://www.ultraforcesim.com > > More info hereTony R wrote:
Boo the Redsox!
Booo Iracing LOL
And it's not the money it's the way DK and JH acted that has everyone
hating them!
Quoted text (45 lines)
> Quentin Queerbottom wrote: >> >>> As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited >>> content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost >>> $15 to $25. >>> >>> Pat Dotson >>> UltraForce Simulations LLC >>> http://www.ultraforcesim.com >> >> More info here > > Probably more informative than the original... > > There is a ton of rubbish being written about iRacing. > > If the pricing is too steep they won't reach the required volumes for > viability. It is simple economics but the sim racing world has been > doing its own thing developing add ons with no recourse to licensing or > copyright for years since the big developers disappeared that there is > an expectation that anything more than a one off $20 dollar outlay for > several years entertainment is a rip off. > > iRacing is a wake up call and those who don't recall dial up bills for > racing online and products with a short shelf life as bigger and better > products from major developers came along don't seem to get it. > > Having a major developer with the financial acumen to develop the > product and the foresight to move sim racing out of its little nerdy > niche is a major opportunity IMHO. > > iRacing need to be commercially viable to push sim racing along just > like the Boston Red Sox needed to be commercially viable to take on and > beat the Yankees. It is not about John Henry simply pumping money in > because he is a fellow sim enthusiast just as he is a Red Sox fan, it is > about getting the infrastructure in place for sustainability and future > growth. This seems to be beyond the sim racing for free attitude > prevailing on RSC. > > Given the track record I believe they will get the sums right but it is > a whole different model from existing titles, which is proving hard for > many to get their heads around. > > Cheers > TonyShoues wrote:
> Boo the Redsox!
> Booo Iracing LOL
> And it's not the money it's the way DK and JH acted that has everyone
> hating them!
Nah, the sim community hates everyone. iRacing for behaving like a
business, the West brothers and Stefan Casillo for not behaving like a
business, Simbin for ripping them off with selling new titles instead of
patching the existing ones, ISI for taking sim racers hard earned cash
and then delaying the release, LFS developers for the worlds longest
alpha, Geoff Crammond for slowing the world down and so on...
Tony R:
It's just the (nature of) Internet... : ). -- Mario Petrinovich
Quoted text (12 lines)
> Shoues: >> Boo the Redsox! >> Booo Iracing LOL >> And it's not the money it's the way DK and JH acted that has everyone >> hating them! > > Nah, the sim community hates everyone. iRacing for behaving like a > business, the West brothers and Stefan Casillo for not behaving like a > business, Simbin for ripping them off with selling new titles instead of > patching the existing ones, ISI for taking sim racers hard earned cash and > then delaying the release, LFS developers for the worlds longest alpha, > Geoff Crammond for slowing the world down and so on...Tony R:
It's just the (nature of) Internet... : ). -- Mario Petrinovich
To Tim Wheatley,
OK great.... we now know the subscription pricing but not a
word about a time frame for when the product will be available. I am
sure you are aware of the other oval sim due out very soon and it
would seem to make sense to give the public a general time frame of
when your product will be available. Not looking for an exact date but
maybe just a statement like 3rd quarter of this year or something to
that effect.
Or perhaps even a statement saying the timeframe for release
is impossible to predict would be better than saying nothing about it
at all. Steve Paradise
On Jan 28, 9:17 am, sparadise <[email hidden]> wrote:
Hi Steve,
http://iracing.com/news_051207.htm
"Bringing a start-up to launch is always a challenge, but a satisfying
one," Gardner said. "I'm pleased to be part of a great team, and I
look forward to working with my colleagues on what promises to be a
very successful launch this spring."
Hope that helps,
Tim
Quoted text (12 lines)
> To Tim Wheatley, > > OK great.... we now know the subscription pricing but not a > word about a time frame for when the product will be available. I am > sure you are aware of the other oval sim due out very soon and it > would seem to make sense to give the public a general time frame of > when your product will be available. Not looking for an exact date but > maybe just a statement like 3rd quarter of this year or something to > that effect. > Or perhaps even a statement saying the timeframe for release > is impossible to predict would be better than saying nothing about it > at all. Steve ParadiseAnd everyone said NROS would fail. It didn't. It was thriving.
And, btw.... NROS monthly fee was more expensive.
Sierra is what failed.
-Larry
"Tony R" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:0KMmj.29916$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (45 lines)
> Quentin Queerbottom wrote: >> >>> As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited >>> content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost >>> $15 to $25. >>> >>> Pat Dotson >>> UltraForce Simulations LLC >>> http://www.ultraforcesim.com >> >> More info here > > Probably more informative than the original... > > There is a ton of rubbish being written about iRacing. > > If the pricing is too steep they won't reach the required volumes for > viability. It is simple economics but the sim racing world has been doing > its own thing developing add ons with no recourse to licensing or > copyright for years since the big developers disappeared that there is an > expectation that anything more than a one off $20 dollar outlay for > several years entertainment is a rip off. > > iRacing is a wake up call and those who don't recall dial up bills for > racing online and products with a short shelf life as bigger and better > products from major developers came along don't seem to get it. > > Having a major developer with the financial acumen to develop the product > and the foresight to move sim racing out of its little nerdy niche is a > major opportunity IMHO. > > iRacing need to be commercially viable to push sim racing along just like > the Boston Red Sox needed to be commercially viable to take on and beat > the Yankees. It is not about John Henry simply pumping money in because he > is a fellow sim enthusiast just as he is a Red Sox fan, it is about > getting the infrastructure in place for sustainability and future growth. > This seems to be beyond the sim racing for free attitude prevailing on > RSC. > > Given the track record I believe they will get the sums right but it is a > whole different model from existing titles, which is proving hard for many > to get their heads around. > > Cheers > TonyAh..... BULLSHIT!
I hate it when someone skims a few forums and thinks they know what they are
talking about.
"Shoues" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:cSXmj.3401$[email hidden]...
> Boo the Redsox!
> Booo Iracing LOL
> And it's not the money it's the way DK and JH acted that has everyone
> hating them!
Hehe. That last one is pretty good :)
-Larry
"Tony R" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:5L4nj.34348$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (13 lines)
> Shoues wrote: > >> Boo the Redsox! >> Booo Iracing LOL >> And it's not the money it's the way DK and JH acted that has everyone >> hating them! > > Nah, the sim community hates everyone. iRacing for behaving like a > business, the West brothers and Stefan Casillo for not behaving like a > business, Simbin for ripping them off with selling new titles instead of > patching the existing ones, ISI for taking sim racers hard earned cash and > then delaying the release, LFS developers for the worlds longest alpha, > Geoff Crammond for slowing the world down and so on...I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back in 1999 racing
GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute. Them were the days. ;)
Hawaii - The buster of budgets for quite some time :)
-Larry
"Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back in 1999 racing
> GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute. Them were the days. ;)
Tim Wheatley wrote:
> I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back in 1999 racing
> GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute. Them were the days. ;)
A mis-spent youth in the forests of Rouen as I recall... :)
On Jan 28, 4:16 pm, Tony R <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> Tim Wheatley wrote:
> > I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back in 1999 racing
> > GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute. Them were the days. ;)
>
> A mis-spent youth in the forests of Rouen as I recall... :)
That was my first good league race. Kyalami I was sooo bad. ;) I
recall you were pretty damned fast!
Tim Wheatley wrote:
Ah for those formative days of GPL, it didn't take long for seemingly
everyone else to become faster!
Quoted text (9 lines)
> On Jan 28, 4:16 pm, Tony R <[email hidden]> > wrote: >> Tim Wheatley wrote: >>> I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back in 1999 racing >>> GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute. Them were the days. ;) >> A mis-spent youth in the forests of Rouen as I recall... :) > > That was my first good league race. Kyalami I was sooo bad. ;) I > recall you were pretty damned fast!On Jan 27, 2:15 pm, Tony R <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> Nah, the sim community hates everyone. iRacing for behaving like a
> business, the West brothers and Stefan Casillo for not behaving like a
> business, Simbin for ripping them off with selling new titles instead of
> patching the existing ones, ISI for taking sim racers hard earned cash
> and then delaying the release, LFS developers for the worlds longest
> alpha, Geoff Crammond for slowing the world down and so on...
This should be part of the r.a.s. FAQ! Anyway I'm in charge of all
things official here :)
A little hint to iRacing : When you publically start talking about
subscription price and all, it would be also informative to start
talking about your sim and it's features. A weekly blog, each week
just add a video, a couple of in-car screenshots, gameplay, etc...
and start talking about the real reasons why you are promoting it as
the end-of-it-all sim. True physics talk, not PR bullshit, everything
about gameplay, the game engine, multiplayer, tracks, cars, etc... Or
else people start speculating and it's not good publicity.
It's time you start promoting your sim.
-- ymenard
-- official
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
On Jan 27, 2:15 pm, Tony R <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> Nah, the sim community hates everyone. iRacing for behaving like a
> business, the West brothers and Stefan Casillo for not behaving like a
> business, Simbin for ripping them off with selling new titles instead of
> patching the existing ones, ISI for taking sim racers hard earned cash
> and then delaying the release, LFS developers for the worlds longest
> alpha, Geoff Crammond for slowing the world down and so on...
This should be part of the r.a.s. FAQ! Anyway I'm in charge of all
things official here :)
A little hint to iRacing : When you publically start talking about
subscription price and all, it would be also informative to start
talking about your sim and it's features. A weekly blog, each week
just add a video, a couple of in-car screenshots, gameplay, etc...
and start talking about the real reasons why you are promoting it as
the end-of-it-all sim. True physics talk, not PR bullshit, everything
about gameplay, the game engine, multiplayer, tracks, cars, etc... Or
else people start speculating and it's not good publicity.
It's time you start promoting your sim.
========
I wouldn't believe a word of it anyway. They said all that was necessary:
try it and see for yourself. $20 for the 1st month.
[email hidden] wrote:
It may be still too early to start the marketing campaign proper, I
reckon the pricing announcement was in response to the journo spouting
off at it being less than $500, since which $500 has been the talk of
the forums. It doesn't take long before these things become gospel...
It may be too soon to reveal the commercially confident detail of how
this is all going to work.
Cheers
Tony
Quoted text (10 lines)
> A little hint to iRacing : When you publically start talking about > subscription price and all, it would be also informative to start > talking about your sim and it's features. A weekly blog, each week > just add a video, a couple of in-car screenshots, gameplay, etc... > and start talking about the real reasons why you are promoting it as > the end-of-it-all sim. True physics talk, not PR bullshit, everything > about gameplay, the game engine, multiplayer, tracks, cars, etc... Or > else people start speculating and it's not good publicity. > > It's time you start promoting your sim.Tim Wheatley wrote:
I seem to remember I did pretty well at Rouen as well. And looking it
up, it seems I actually won! Even better than I remember :)
http://www.ukgpl.com/ukgpl/seasons/1/standings.html
Those were the days :)
--
am
Quoted text (9 lines)
> On Jan 28, 4:16 pm, Tony R <[email hidden]> > wrote: >> Tim Wheatley wrote: >>> I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back in 1999 racing >>> GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute. Them were the days. ;) >> A mis-spent youth in the forests of Rouen as I recall... :) > > That was my first good league race. Kyalami I was sooo bad. ;) I > recall you were pretty damned fast!Arne Martin Guettler wrote:
Arne Martin! another name from the past. Actually Tim and I were
discussing a race before UKGPL was a twinkle in anyone's eye :)
Quoted text (17 lines)
> Tim Wheatley wrote: >> On Jan 28, 4:16 pm, Tony R <[email hidden]> >> wrote: >>> Tim Wheatley wrote: >>>> I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back in 1999 racing >>>> GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute. Them were the days. ;) >>> A mis-spent youth in the forests of Rouen as I recall... :) >> >> That was my first good league race. Kyalami I was sooo bad. ;) I >> recall you were pretty damned fast! > > > I seem to remember I did pretty well at Rouen as well. And looking it > up, it seems I actually won! Even better than I remember :) > http://www.ukgpl.com/ukgpl/seasons/1/standings.html > > Those were the days :)Tony R wrote:
Ah, thought it was the 99 season you talked about, since you mentioned
it was in 1999 :) The twinkle couldn't have been too far off if it was
1999 :)
--
am
Quoted text (21 lines)
> Arne Martin Guettler wrote: >> Tim Wheatley wrote: >>> On Jan 28, 4:16 pm, Tony R <[email hidden]> >>> wrote: >>>> Tim Wheatley wrote: >>>>> I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back in 1999 racing >>>>> GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute. Them were the days. ;) >>>> A mis-spent youth in the forests of Rouen as I recall... :) >>> >>> That was my first good league race. Kyalami I was sooo bad. ;) I >>> recall you were pretty damned fast! >> >> >> I seem to remember I did pretty well at Rouen as well. And looking it >> up, it seems I actually won! Even better than I remember :) >> http://www.ukgpl.com/ukgpl/seasons/1/standings.html >> >> Those were the days :) > > Arne Martin! another name from the past. Actually Tim and I were > discussing a race before UKGPL was a twinkle in anyone's eye :)> As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited
> content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost
> $15 to $25.
This translates in to a $500+ plus racing game over a few years. It
even more expensive when I factor in the cost of a divorce after
my wife finds out I've spent over $500 for a single racing game.
Jeff Reid wrote:
I would tot up the cost of wheels & pedals and graphics cards & cpus
over the last few years for racing sims. However, SHMBO might Google
it... :)
Still dead cheap compared to other hobbies and entertainment though. As
shocking as it might seem a family outing to two baseball games wouldn't
leave you with much change from your $500...
My last visit to the cinema cost me 2 months iRacing subscriptions! Just
for me and the wife, 2 drinks and popcorn.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>> As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited >> content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost >> $15 to $25. > > This translates in to a $500+ plus racing game over a few years. It > even more expensive when I factor in the cost of a divorce after > my wife finds out I've spent over $500 for a single racing game.[email hidden] wrote:
Screw them. They expect me to pay $20.00 just for a 30 day demo? I have
to pay $20.00 to find out if it is worth paying a monthly fee or not?
Don't think so.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=309713 > > As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited > content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost > $15 to $25. > > Pat Dotson > UltraForce Simulations LLC > http://www.ultraforcesim.comTim Wheatley wrote:
Gee, sounds just like LFS except the cars have real names. Except LFS I
don't have to pay a monthly fee.
Quoted text (12 lines)
> Pat, > > Unfortunately I can't say which cars and tracks are out when, but I > can tell you to expect more than one track - that one's for sure! > Tracks often have more than one configuration also and you get all the > configurations. For example there is one track known as an oval > primarily that has the oval layout and three roadcourse layouts and > you'd get all of them as a single track. > > Hope that helps. > > TimTony R wrote:
Big talk that amounts to nothing because we don't even know if this game
is any good or not yet. For all I know it could be crap and not worth
even $1.00 per month.
Quoted text (33 lines)
> Probably more informative than the original... > > There is a ton of rubbish being written about iRacing. > > If the pricing is too steep they won't reach the required volumes for > viability. It is simple economics but the sim racing world has been > doing its own thing developing add ons with no recourse to licensing or > copyright for years since the big developers disappeared that there is > an expectation that anything more than a one off $20 dollar outlay for > several years entertainment is a rip off. > > iRacing is a wake up call and those who don't recall dial up bills for > racing online and products with a short shelf life as bigger and better > products from major developers came along don't seem to get it. > > Having a major developer with the financial acumen to develop the > product and the foresight to move sim racing out of its little nerdy > niche is a major opportunity IMHO. > > iRacing need to be commercially viable to push sim racing along just > like the Boston Red Sox needed to be commercially viable to take on and > beat the Yankees. It is not about John Henry simply pumping money in > because he is a fellow sim enthusiast just as he is a Red Sox fan, it is > about getting the infrastructure in place for sustainability and future > growth. This seems to be beyond the sim racing for free attitude > prevailing on RSC. > > Given the track record I believe they will get the sums right but it is > a whole different model from existing titles, which is proving hard for > many to get their heads around. > > Cheers > Tony[email hidden] wrote:
Agreed. I don't even want to race an 'effing Solstice.
Quoted text (18 lines)
> This should be part of the r.a.s. FAQ! Anyway I'm in charge of all > things official here :) > > > > A little hint to iRacing : When you publically start talking about > subscription price and all, it would be also informative to start > talking about your sim and it's features. A weekly blog, each week > just add a video, a couple of in-car screenshots, gameplay, etc... > and start talking about the real reasons why you are promoting it as > the end-of-it-all sim. True physics talk, not PR bullshit, everything > about gameplay, the game engine, multiplayer, tracks, cars, etc... Or > else people start speculating and it's not good publicity. > > It's time you start promoting your sim. > > -- ymenard > -- officialMikeWhy wrote:
> I wouldn't believe a word of it anyway. They said all that was
> necessary: try it and see for yourself. $20 for the 1st month.
>
>
I'm not playing that sucker game. If they stood behind their product
they would have a free 5 day trial or something like that. Only an idiot
would pay $20.00 for a demo.
Tim Wheatley wrote:
> I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back in 1999 racing
> GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute. Them were the days. ;)
Wow! What a sucker. And I suppose you're another one of those dorks that
thinks GPL was realistic?
Tony R wrote:
> My last visit to the cinema cost me 2 months iRacing subscriptions! Just
> for me and the wife, 2 drinks and popcorn.
That's your fault for agreeing to pay their highway robbery prices on
the food and drinks. I sneak my food and drinks in and have never been
caught.
I wonder why this bloke's name is "Backspace"? How about you realise
you've made a mistake and then delete yourself!? <Deliberate crudeness on>
(for probable communication necessity) - "Backspace" - get it? hehehe hahaha
hohoho. <Deliberate crudeness off>.
"Backspace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:waXnj.24804$4w.24259@pd7urf2no...
> Tim Wheatley wrote:
>> I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back in 1999 racing
>> GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute. Them were the days. ;)
>
> Wow! What a sucker. And I suppose you're another one of those dorks that
> thinks GPL was realistic?
"Backspace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:T0Xnj.24792$4w.13670@pd7urf2no...
It will be worth $20/month to be in a place where there's no possibility
of you showing up FFS! LOL.
I smell a DK Plot! :)
Quoted text (14 lines)
> [email hidden] wrote: >> http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=309713 >> >> As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited >> content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost >> $15 to $25. >> >> Pat Dotson >> UltraForce Simulations LLC >> http://www.ultraforcesim.com > > Screw them. They expect me to pay $20.00 just for a 30 day demo? I have to > pay $20.00 to find out if it is worth paying a monthly fee or not? Don't > think so.Byron Forbes wrote:
> It will be worth $20/month to be in a place where there's no possibility
> of you showing up FFS! LOL.
>
> I smell a DK Plot! :)
>
>
Stop waving your pink hanky in the air like anyone cares, fop.
So, you expect it to be released and then never be updated ?
"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ebTnj.17075$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)
>> As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited >> content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost >> $15 to $25. > > This translates in to a $500+ plus racing game over a few years. It > even more expensive when I factor in the cost of a divorce after > my wife finds out I've spent over $500 for a single racing game. > > >> So, you expect it to be released and then never be updated ?
The monthly fee pays for it's constant development.
That's kinda the point I was making. I was being sarcastic :)
-Larry
"Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>> So, you expect it to be released and then never be updated ?
>
> The monthly fee pays for it's constant development.
Don't worry, as soon as his mommy realizes he is wacking off on his
computer instead of doing his homework he will crawl back under his
rock... me, i'll just kill filter him and his BS.
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:05:49 +1100, "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I wonder why this bloke's name is "Backspace"? How about you realise
>you've made a mistake and then delete yourself!? <Deliberate crudeness on>
>(for probable communication necessity) - "Backspace" - get it? hehehe hahaha
>hohoho. <Deliberate crudeness off>.
Larry (The Real One - For Now....) wrote:
> That's kinda the point I was making. I was being sarcastic :)
> -Larry
I got you Larry. I think Tim is winding up into full marketing mode, too
big an opportunity to miss :)
Anyway back on topic if the wife complains about the cost of iRacing I
will refer her to the cost of maintaining her hair. Given my folically
challenged status I must have saved more than enough to justify my
measly hobby...
> "Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>> So, you expect it to be released and then never be updated ?
>>
>> The monthly fee pays for it's constant development.
>
> Anyway back on topic if the wife complains about the cost of iRacing I
> will refer her to the cost of maintaining her hair. Given my folically
> challenged status I must have saved more than enough to justify my
> measly hobby...
...and I always imagined you with long flowing blond locks... perhaps
on a beach somewhere? ;)
Quoted text (7 lines)
>> Anyway back on topic if the wife complains about the cost of iRacing I >> will refer her to the cost of maintaining her hair. Given my folically >> challenged status I must have saved more than enough to justify my >> measly hobby... > > ...and I always imagined you with long flowing blond locks... perhaps > on a beach somewhere? ;)
"Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>> So, you expect it to be released and then never be updated ?
>
> The monthly fee pays for it's constant development.
Lets do a few comparisons to what we have become accustomed to and what
may now be.
Accustomed to -
Patching and searching for patches
new mod installs and finding
new track installs and finding
mismatches online
and basic mass confusion and headache, especially for the budding rookies.
iRacing may delete all of the above (apart from installs which will be
greatly dependent upon choices). I don't know of any time in the history of
sim racing that getting down to the driving/sport has been as effortless as
it may now become - that's what we'll be paying for and I believe it will be
WELL worth it! :)
Brings back memories of the very early days of GPL - 11 tracks, 1
Lotus and lets go racing! :) But even that had teething problems getting
online races happening.
Pardon my ignorance and laziness to search the iRacing site - what is
the situation with weather implementation?
I agree this concept should put an end to the problems of making
certain you have the correct software, and something I hadn't seen
mentioned previously in this thread, it should also help to keep
cheating down (I would imagine it is hard to cheat on a MMO, but since
I haven't really played one since Motor City or the City of Heroes
beta I don't know.)
The most important question for me right now, is what sort of hardware
am I going to need to play this sim?
Right now I have an older P4 3.4, it is the extreme with hyper-
threading, but only single core, and it is on an AGP mobo, with
9800pro. Am I going to be wanting for more power to play this sim? I
really haven't been playing any racing sims in some time, I had lost
interest, but this is really a very interesting sim in my opinion. I
would just love a hint as to where I should be headed in building a
new computer, or would a video card update work fine with this sim?
Can we get some hints on that?
btgoss
"btgoss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
The norm is that a current and new computer at the best bang for the
buck price will be enough to run the latest software - that is pretty
typical of most past Papy stuff. And if it's anything like past papy stuff
then there will be many ways to dumb it down so that it will give a decent
experience on older machines - how old is anyones guess. Same old story - ya
gotta pay ta play! And for perspective - compare the time and money to
actually doing real life racing and the deal normally looks VERY good! :)
Quoted text (21 lines)
>I agree this concept should put an end to the problems of making > certain you have the correct software, and something I hadn't seen > mentioned previously in this thread, it should also help to keep > cheating down (I would imagine it is hard to cheat on a MMO, but since > I haven't really played one since Motor City or the City of Heroes > beta I don't know.) > > The most important question for me right now, is what sort of hardware > am I going to need to play this sim? > Right now I have an older P4 3.4, it is the extreme with hyper- > threading, but only single core, and it is on an AGP mobo, with > 9800pro. Am I going to be wanting for more power to play this sim? I > really haven't been playing any racing sims in some time, I had lost > interest, but this is really a very interesting sim in my opinion. I > would just love a hint as to where I should be headed in building a > new computer, or would a video card update work fine with this sim? > Can we get some hints on that? > > btgoss > >I just wish someone could explain iRacing to me because the maker certainly
has not in the last year.
<clear Low>
Rush
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)
> http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=309713 > > As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited > content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost > $15 to $25. > > Pat Dotson > UltraForce Simulations LLC > http://www.ultraforcesim.com"Tim Wheatley" wrote...
> I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back
> in 1999 racing GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute.
> Them were the days. ;)
It wasn't as much fun for those of us on cable having all these 56k'ers
warping all over the place untill they learned to slow their modems down.
;-p
Jan.
=---
"Backspace" wrote...
>> Tim Wheatley wrote:
>> <snip>
> Wow! What a sucker. And I suppose you're another one of those dorks that
> thinks GPL was realistic?
There was nothing wrong with GPL in itself. It's mods prove the basic engine
was less flawed then NR2003's, actually. Obviously, at the time (we're
talking a decade ago, remember), a lack of knowledge about the era coupled
with a lack of familiarity with physics engines of this level of
sophistication by the testers conspired to make the GPL'67 implementation
laughable by today's standards in terms of realism. However, it's still
pretty good. Eg.: if you run a very tall 1st gear in GP mode and have to get
the car moving again a couple times, you will break the clutch eventually,
so a lot of attention to detail went into it.
However much you may mock it, GPL was a quantum leap at the time and set the
benchmark for everything which followed.
Jan.
=---
Jan - Don't waste your time responding with an intelligent post to
that idiot.
Quoted text (16 lines)
>On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:50:36 +0100, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >There was nothing wrong with GPL in itself. It's mods prove the basic engine >was less flawed then NR2003's, actually. Obviously, at the time (we're >talking a decade ago, remember), a lack of knowledge about the era coupled >with a lack of familiarity with physics engines of this level of >sophistication by the testers conspired to make the GPL'67 implementation >laughable by today's standards in terms of realism. However, it's still >pretty good. Eg.: if you run a very tall 1st gear in GP mode and have to get >the car moving again a couple times, you will break the clutch eventually, >so a lot of attention to detail went into it. > >However much you may mock it, GPL was a quantum leap at the time and set the >benchmark for everything which followed. > >Jan. >=---BINGO!!!
You have no idea how many times I tried to tell people on TEN. Do NOT set
your modem for 56k speeds! All it does it re-train half the data it tries
to send/receive and cause warp.
I manually set my modem to connect at only 19,200 and I never had warp
issues on TEN.
I finally got 128K ISDN and it was the greatest online racing connection
I've seen, even now days. It was a beauty. I think it was even more stable
than my current 15mbit connection, though I don't really have issues these
days either.
-Larry
"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:evGpj.43923$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (13 lines)
> "Tim Wheatley" wrote... >> I remember well my $600 phone bill and that was back >> in 1999 racing GPL over a 56k dial-up paid per-minute. >> Them were the days. ;) > > It wasn't as much fun for those of us on cable having all these 56k'ers > warping all over the place untill they learned to slow their modems down. > ;-p > > Jan. > =--- > >Larry (The Real One - For Now....) wrote:
> though I don't really have issues these days either.
Larry (The Real One - For Now....) doesn't have issues? :)
Only when certain jackasses hijack everyone's screen names and posts spam
with them :)
-Larry
"Tony R" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:nPMpj.45913$[email hidden]...
> Larry (The Real One - For Now....) wrote:
>
>> though I don't really have issues these days either.
>
> Larry (The Real One - For Now....) doesn't have issues? :)
On Jan 30, 6:12 am, "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> It will be worth $20/month to be in a place where there's no possibility
> of you showing up FFS! LOL.
>
> I smell a DK Plot! :)
I'm going to shell out my $20 a month to run into the back of you
repeatedly while you ignore the blue flags. :)
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
On Jan 30, 6:12 am, "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> It will be worth $20/month to be in a place where there's no possibility
> of you showing up FFS! LOL.
>
> I smell a DK Plot! :)
I'm going to shell out my $20 a month to run into the back of you
repeatedly while you ignore the blue flags. :)
Might be true! I'm thinking of joining up with that "Old n slow" team!
:)
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:47:56 -0800 (PST), [email hidden]
wrote:
What's the initial outlay for the product?
I'll seemingly go against the grain to say that it's not a product
that I'm terribly excited about given the price structure. I don't
race that much online so I guess that's likely a factor.
Cheers,
Rod.
Quoted text (9 lines)
>http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=309713 > >As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited >content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost >$15 to $25. > >Pat Dotson >UltraForce Simulations LLC >http://www.ultraforcesim.comJan Verschueren wrote:
Don't try to BS me. Ask Jackie Stewart what he thinks of GPL for the
real facts.
Quoted text (17 lines)
> There was nothing wrong with GPL in itself. It's mods prove the basic engine > was less flawed then NR2003's, actually. Obviously, at the time (we're > talking a decade ago, remember), a lack of knowledge about the era coupled > with a lack of familiarity with physics engines of this level of > sophistication by the testers conspired to make the GPL'67 implementation > laughable by today's standards in terms of realism. However, it's still > pretty good. Eg.: if you run a very tall 1st gear in GP mode and have to get > the car moving again a couple times, you will break the clutch eventually, > so a lot of attention to detail went into it. > > However much you may mock it, GPL was a quantum leap at the time and set the > benchmark for everything which followed. > > Jan. > =--- > >
"Backspace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:RYWqj.4507$Ly.1139@pd7urf1no...
They wear dresses you know! He's a stupid kilty bastard! And he's
senile!
Quoted text (20 lines)
> Jan Verschueren wrote: > >> There was nothing wrong with GPL in itself. It's mods prove the basic >> engine was less flawed then NR2003's, actually. Obviously, at the time >> (we're talking a decade ago, remember), a lack of knowledge about the era >> coupled with a lack of familiarity with physics engines of this level of >> sophistication by the testers conspired to make the GPL'67 implementation >> laughable by today's standards in terms of realism. However, it's still >> pretty good. Eg.: if you run a very tall 1st gear in GP mode and have to >> get the car moving again a couple times, you will break the clutch >> eventually, so a lot of attention to detail went into it. >> >> However much you may mock it, GPL was a quantum leap at the time and set >> the benchmark for everything which followed. >> >> Jan. >> =--- > > Don't try to BS me. Ask Jackie Stewart what he thinks of GPL for the real > facts."Backspace" wrote...
>> <snip>
> Don't try to BS me. Ask Jackie Stewart what he thinks of GPL
> for the real facts.
I wouldn't dream of BS'ing you. Jackie Stewart indeed didn't like GPL '67
when he tried it. People who're used to driving real racecars are missing a
lot of sensory input the first time they drive a simulated one. It takes
time for the brain to learn to translate the cues from the game into the
sensations necessary to drive a car on the edge. I've talked about this at
lenght with several drivers and they reported adaptation times of two weeks
or more, using the sim for at least an hour every day.
You also need to view the implementation as seperate from the engine. GPL'67
is indeed far from perfect and a bit slippy (total grip is about ok, but the
slip angle curve is all wrong), but the GPLEA people managed to use the same
physics engine with some data from Dunlop someone dug up and came up with a
much more believable virtual tyre for the '65 and '66 mod.
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:28:48 +0100, Jan Verschueren wrote:
His dislike may have been influenced by the fact that he tried it using
a gamepad and not a decent set of wheel and pedals as I seem to recall,
so all kinds of driving aids would have influenced the experience.
Cheers, uwe
Quoted text (7 lines)
> "Backspace" wrote... >>> <snip> >> Don't try to BS me. Ask Jackie Stewart what he thinks of GPL >> for the real facts. > > I wouldn't dream of BS'ing you. Jackie Stewart indeed didn't like GPL '67 > when he tried it. People who're used to driving real racecars are missing aHey Tim, how about scoring me a couple iRacing.com decals for my black
911 race car (in white)..
8-)
GP
Quoted text (17 lines)
>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:35:35 -0800 (PST), Tim Wheatley <[email hidden]> wrote: >On Jan 23, 10:47 pm, [email hidden] wrote: >> http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=309713 >> >> As little as $13 a month for a year subscription. That's with limited >> content, though. Additional cars will cost $15 and tracks will cost >> $15 to $25. >> >> Pat Dotson >> UltraForce Simulations LLChttp://www.ultraforcesim.com > >Hi Pat, > >That 'limited content' will include everything you need to be able to >race your first seasons though. :) > >Tim WheatleyI raced NR2003 for 2-1/2 years - at least 2 nights a week, maybe 2
hours per session. If iRacing can rebuild the community, and allow me
to do the type of racing I enjoy, then the monthly fee isn't a big
issue. I will miss the Sierra Nascar community, and God knows, the
price was right (I paid $4.99 for the game and recently sold it for
$85.00).
I will do the $20 thing one time and see what happens. If there is
that kind of money in racing sims over the long haul, then there will
be competitors soon enough.
I just ordered the new Arca Sim...will iRacing be issuing $55
rebates for people who decide they don't like the Arca Sim and want to
become iRacing subscribers ?
Just kidding Steve P
Jan Verschueren wrote:
I tried the '79 mod and it still felt like driving on ice. Doesn't
matter as the game was a complete mess on my widescreen monitor and
8800GT. Time to move on to better games like GTR2, LFS, rfactor and let
GPL rest in peace.
Quoted text (16 lines)
> > I wouldn't dream of BS'ing you. Jackie Stewart indeed didn't like GPL '67 > when he tried it. People who're used to driving real racecars are missing a > lot of sensory input the first time they drive a simulated one. It takes > time for the brain to learn to translate the cues from the game into the > sensations necessary to drive a car on the edge. I've talked about this at > lenght with several drivers and they reported adaptation times of two weeks > or more, using the sim for at least an hour every day. > > You also need to view the implementation as seperate from the engine. GPL'67 > is indeed far from perfect and a bit slippy (total grip is about ok, but the > slip angle curve is all wrong), but the GPLEA people managed to use the same > physics engine with some data from Dunlop someone dug up and came up with a > much more believable virtual tyre for the '65 and '66 mod. > >Uwe Sch�rkamp wrote:
> His dislike may have been influenced by the fact that he tried it using
> a gamepad and not a decent set of wheel and pedals as I seem to recall,
> so all kinds of driving aids would have influenced the experience.
>
> Cheers, uwe
Or maybe he disliked it because it really is completely unrealistic.
rFactor has some of the same cars as used in GPL and they don't drive
the same as GPL at all. You telling me GPL is more realisitc than
rFactor? I highly doubt that.
Byron Forbes wrote:
> They wear dresses you know! He's a stupid kilty bastard! And he's
> senile!
This coming from an Aussie git where they actually think Vegemite is
better than Marmite? Bollocks!
"Backspace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Iswwj.74492$Ly.20250@pd7urf1no...
Too slow and not worth the wait.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Byron Forbes wrote: > >> They wear dresses you know! He's a stupid kilty bastard! And he's >> senile! > > This coming from an Aussie git where they actually think Vegemite is > better than Marmite? Bollocks!Hey Tim, never mind. I scored a bunch of them from a friend. Do you
know who is manning the "Info" email at iRacing? He/she would do well
to at least acknowledge emails sent, at least with some sort of BS
auto-reply. Maybe if I get a NASCAR email address they would give a
crap?
Thanks
GP
>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:15:10 -0500, GaryR <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Hey Tim, how about scoring me a couple iRacing.com decals for my black
>911 race car (in white)..
>8-)
>
>GP
Byron Forbes wrote:
> Too slow and not worth the wait.
>
>
I was on holidays, sorry.
On Feb 25, 10:45 am, GaryR <[email hidden]> wrote:
[email hidden] should be getting replied to. I am not sure
[email hidden] exists? I used to monitor contact@ myself, not sure
who has the job now I don't do it.
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Hey Tim, never mind. I scored a bunch of them from a friend. Do you > know who is manning the "Info" email atiRacing? He/she would do well > to at least acknowledge emails sent, at least with some sort of BS > auto-reply. Maybe if I get a NASCAR email address they would give a > crap? > > Thanks > GPSorry, my mistake and you are correct. It's [email hidden] that
never replies. There are a bunch of us that race with PCA and NASA
that are curious about leagues and when this will all be starting.
Thanks
GP
>On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:56:03 -0800 (PST), Tim Wheatley <[email hidden]> wrote:
>[email hidden] should be getting replied to. I am not sure
>[email hidden] exists? I used to monitor contact@ myself, not sure
>who has the job now I don't do it.
> I wouldn't dream of BS'ing you. Jackie Stewart indeed didn't like GPL '67 when he tried it. People who're used to
> driving real racecars are missing a lot of sensory input the first time they drive a simulated one.
This is true with any sim, and it wasn't just Jackie Stewart. One of the
issues affecting GPL sales was that most real racers didn't consider any
sim to be realistic because of the lack of feel, and the face that GPL wasn't
about current cars (1999) at the time of release. NR2003 had more acceptance
from real racers when it was released, but I think most of this is due to the
fact that it's a newer younger generation of drivers that have spent more
time with computer gaming in general.
Still I'm not sure what percentage of USA club and pro racers are going to
take any "game" as a serious simulation because of the lack of sensory input.
Racing sims might be good tools for learning tracks, but few real race
drivers are going to be concerned about optimizing lap times on a racing game,
especially if it takes advantages of physics quirks in the game that differ
from real life.
> This is true with any sim, and it wasn't just Jackie Stewart. One of the
> issues affecting GPL sales was that most real racers didn't consider any
> sim to be realistic because of the lack of feel, and the face that GPL wasn't
> about current cars (1999) at the time of release.
I left out the fact that many current racing game players at the time (1999)
thought GPL was too difficult.
On Feb 26, 8:47 am, GaryR <[email hidden]> wrote:
The person who answers has been out on assignment, or at least he is
at the moment... I know there are no decals right now for anyone
though.
What is it you're wanting to know about leagues?
Quoted text (11 lines)
> Sorry, my mistake and you are correct. It's [email hidden] that > never replies. There are a bunch of us that race with PCA and NASA > that are curious about leagues and when this will all be starting. > > Thanks > GP > > >On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:56:03 -0800 (PST), Tim Wheatley <[email hidden]> wrote: > >[email hidden] should be getting replied to. I am not sure > >[email hidden] exists? I used to monitor contact@ myself, not sure > >who has the job now I don't do it.On Feb 27, 1:54 am, "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Indeed. I'd been racing sims since 'the first' - but I uninstalled GPL
the first day I ran it and didn't re-install for two months. For
someone with no experience of simulations to say something is no big
surprise, I hated it before I put the effort in. The brain needs to be
trained to fill in those sensory gaps.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > This is true with any sim, and it wasn't just Jackie Stewart. One of the > > issues affecting GPL sales was that most real racers didn't consider any > > sim to be realistic because of the lack of feel, and the face that GPL wasn't > > about current cars (1999) at the time of release. > > I left out the fact that many current racing game players at the time (1999) > thought GPL was too difficult.On Feb 27, 12:41 am, "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> NR2003 had more acceptance
> from real racers when it was released, but I think most of this is due to the
> fact that it's a newer younger generation of drivers that have spent more
> time with computer gaming in general.
I think it had more to do with the physics being more believable than
GPL's, but YMMV.
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:19:15 -0800 (PST), Tim Wheatley <[email hidden]> wrote:
>The person who answers has been out on assignment, or at least he is
>at the moment... I know there are no decals right now for anyone
>though.
>
>What is it you're wanting to know about leagues?
As for the decals, I guess I just know the right people.. have em in
hand. Hopefully I won't get sued for advertising for iRacing for free.
8-)
How they will be set up, when they will start, can they be formed
independantly, what time zone will they be centered around, and then
all the little details.. 8-)
On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, GaryR <[email hidden]> wrote:
Unfortunately I don't know if the devs know exactly when on any of
that. But unlike previous sims this is a progressive development
process, things being added after time.... When that time is? I don't
know. :( As for how leagues will work, nobody can give you that info
yet.
Time zones for the service and sim are your time zone, everything is
converted so you don't need to worry about it.
Quoted text (14 lines)
> >On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:19:15 -0800 (PST),TimWheatley<[email hidden]> wrote: > >The person who answers has been out on assignment, or at least he is > >at the moment... I know there are no decals right now for anyone > >though. > > >What is it you're wanting to know about leagues? > > As for the decals, I guess I just know the right people.. have em in > hand. Hopefully I won't get sued for advertising for iRacing for free. > 8-) > > How they will be set up, when they will start, can they be formed > independantly, what time zone will they be centered around, and then > all the little details.. 8-)
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
On Feb 27, 12:41 am, "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> NR2003 had more acceptance
I> think it had more to do with the physics being more believable than
>GPL's, but YMMV.
I thought that N2K3 used GPL's engine though?
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:54:03 -0800, Jeff Reid wrote:
I think one of the problems with GPL at the time of release was that it
ran at about 8fps on most computers. First time I tried the demo I was
disappointed - it was like a slide show. After I've upgraded my computer
(some time later) and tried again and it was great.
I found was that GPL was not difficult (IMHO) as long as you were driving
it as a real car. One just needed to have realistic expectation - you
don't jump in and go fast in those cars. I hope that no one expects to
get into a real '67 car and start matching times of F1 drivers right
away ;)
Alex.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>> This is true with any sim, and it wasn't just Jackie Stewart. One of >> the issues affecting GPL sales was that most real racers didn't >> consider any sim to be realistic because of the lack of feel, and the >> face that GPL wasn't about current cars (1999) at the time of release. > > I left out the fact that many current racing game players at the time > (1999) thought GPL was too difficult.
"alexti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Ghsxj.11949$w94.6820@pd7urf2no...
Let's not forget where this entire conversation springs from - a person
who sees how pitifully his skills and times stack up against the best and so
to lessen the blow to his ego he does the poor tradesman blaming his tools
routine! :) If there's anything wrong with GPL, it aint much.
Quoted text (23 lines)
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:54:03 -0800, Jeff Reid wrote: > >>> This is true with any sim, and it wasn't just Jackie Stewart. One of >>> the issues affecting GPL sales was that most real racers didn't >>> consider any sim to be realistic because of the lack of feel, and the >>> face that GPL wasn't about current cars (1999) at the time of release. >> >> I left out the fact that many current racing game players at the time >> (1999) thought GPL was too difficult. > > I think one of the problems with GPL at the time of release was that it > ran at about 8fps on most computers. First time I tried the demo I was > disappointed - it was like a slide show. After I've upgraded my computer > (some time later) and tried again and it was great. > > I found was that GPL was not difficult (IMHO) as long as you were driving > it as a real car. One just needed to have realistic expectation - you > don't jump in and go fast in those cars. I hope that no one expects to > get into a real '67 car and start matching times of F1 drivers right > away ;) > > Alex. >Byron Forbes wrote:
> Let's not forget where this entire conversation springs from - a person
> who sees how pitifully his skills and times stack up against the best and so
> to lessen the blow to his ego he does the poor tradesman blaming his tools
> routine! :) If there's anything wrong with GPL, it aint much.
I must admit my recollection of GPL was that it blew everything away at
the time. Like no other sim before or after in relation to the sims of
the time.
I was in the middle of an F1RS offline championship when the GPL demo
was released and ended up pounding around Watkins Glen on my own in a
Lotus pretty much thereafter until the full release. I did end up
getting a Hercules Thriller graphics card just for GPL!!
Cheers
Tony
"jason moyer" wrote..
> I think it had more to do with the physics being more believable
> than GPL's, but YMMV.
Several attempts at using NR2003's engine to simulate other, road racing,
series have shown that it's fundamentally flawed. The right front tyre is
hardcoded to heat up/wear more regardless of how it's being treated/loaded
by the particular circuit, making a "real life correct" setup/driving
philosophy in NR2003 on ovals unfeasable (i.e. leading to exploits being
quicker). We can only blame Sierra's beta testers for not putting enough
stress on their right front tyres in their driving at the time.
I truly object to involving real life racers in racing simulation
development without them having a very sound and well documented background
in this field. Otherwise they are simply not capable of grasping the
subtleties of the interface in question and lead to exaggerated effects
being incorperated into the game.
Jan.
=---
"Tony R"wrote...
To use an acronym popular with the youths of today: QFT (Quoted For Truth).
> I was in the middle of an F1RS offline championship when the
> GPL demo was released and ended up pounding around
> Watkins Glen on my own in a Lotus pretty much thereafter
> until the full release. I did end up getting a Hercules Thriller
> graphics card just for GPL!!
Pretty much the same, however, I did go out an buy a new PC the afternoon
after the demo was released (played it at somthing like 11fps 'till 5 in the
morning) and an Australian in my offline GP2 league got hold of the beta so
I pounded the Ferrari around a strip of tarmac hanging in mid-air,
representing the Nurburgring untill the release.
Jan.
=---
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Byron Forbes wrote: >> Let's not forget where this entire conversation springs from - a >> person who sees how pitifully his skills and times stack up >> against the best and so to lessen the blow to his ego he does >> the poor tradesman blaming his tools routine! :) If there's >> anything wrong with GPL, it aint much. > > I must admit my recollection of GPL was that it blew everything > away at the time. Like no other sim before or after in relation to > the sims of the time.
"alexti" wrote..
Very true, but, judging by your history, you might get to drive one of these
things, getting told by the owner you've got nothing to prove and should
just enjoy the expierence, agreeing with him, then going out and making him
shit his pants as he stands on pitwall watching you driving the wheels off
his precious ride.
Us mere mortals would indeed simply pootle around.
Jan.
=---
Quoted text (11 lines)
> I think one of the problems with GPL at the time of release was > that it ran at about 8fps on most computers. First time I tried > the demo I was disappointed - it was like a slide show. After > I've upgraded my computer (some time later) and tried again > and it was great. > > I found was that GPL was not difficult (IMHO) as long as you > were driving it as a real car. One just needed to have realistic > expectation - you don't jump in and go fast in those cars. I > hope that no one expects to get into a real '67 car and start > matching times of F1 drivers right away ;)On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:09:07 +0100, Jan Verschueren wrote:
He-he. I didn't say that going fast in those cars after 7 years of
practise would be unrealistic expectation ;)
Quoted text (17 lines)
> "alexti" wrote.. >> I think one of the problems with GPL at the time of release was that it >> ran at about 8fps on most computers. First time I tried the demo I was >> disappointed - it was like a slide show. After I've upgraded my >> computer (some time later) and tried again and it was great. >> >> I found was that GPL was not difficult (IMHO) as long as you were >> driving it as a real car. One just needed to have realistic >> expectation - you don't jump in and go fast in those cars. I hope that >> no one expects to get into a real '67 car and start matching times of >> F1 drivers right away ;) > > Very true, but, judging by your history, you might get to drive one of > these things, getting told by the owner you've got nothing to prove and > should just enjoy the expierence, agreeing with him, then going out and > making him shit his pants as he stands on pitwall watching you driving > the wheels off his precious ride.Tim Wheatley wrote:
>
> Indeed. I'd been racing sims since 'the first' - but I uninstalled GPL
> the first day I ran it and didn't re-install for two months. For
> someone with no experience of simulations to say something is no big
> surprise, I hated it before I put the effort in. The brain needs to be
> trained to fill in those sensory gaps.
But my contention is that it is not realistic, it's just difficult. Just
like many flight sims are harder to fly than the real thing the same is
true of RL versus some racing sims and GPL is the worst of the lot when
it comes to difficulty versus reality. It *was* a good and *challenging*
game but lets not kid ourselves and pretend that harder = more real. It
just ain't true.
alexti wrote:
> I found was that GPL was not difficult (IMHO) as long as you were driving
> it as a real car. One just needed to have realistic expectation - you
> don't jump in and go fast in those cars. I hope that no one expects to
> get into a real '67 car and start matching times of F1 drivers right
> away ;)
How can one drive it like areal car when there is no feeling as to how
fast you are going? That's the big issue with most noobs to racing sims.
They immediately floor it and go too fast in the corners but you can't
blame them when there is no sensation of real speed in the games.
On Feb 29, 2:10 am, Backspace <[email hidden]> wrote:
> alexti wrote:
> How can one drive it like areal car when there is no feeling as to how
> fast you are going? That's the big issue with most noobs to racing sims.
> They immediately floor it and go too fast in the corners but you can't
> blame them when there is no sensation of real speed in the games.
What? You've never driven GPL have you?
Bob Simpson
> lets not kid ourselves and pretend that harder = more real.
You're going to upset a lot of LFS fanboys with statements like that.
On Feb 28, 8:42 pm, "Jan Verschueren"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
> The right front tyre is
> hardcoded to heat up/wear more regardless of how it's being treated/loaded
> by the particular circuit, making a "real life correct" setup/driving
> philosophy in NR2003 on ovals unfeasable (i.e. leading to exploits being
> quicker).
IIRC, that's actually a bug that's related specifically to the PTA
physics slot (which, AFAIK, is what GTP uses too). I don't believe
I've experienced that phenomenon in the cup/bgn/cts physics, but it's
been awhile since I've driven n2003.
On Feb 28, 12:34 am, "Duffer" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I thought that N2K3 used GPL's engine though?
At its core, yes. The netcode, physics model, and renderer are all
significantly different than GPL's tho.
As someone else pointed out (Jan?) it is apparently possible to work
around the slow-speed grip problems that were in GPL out of the box,
at least based on the GPL65 mod.
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:10:52 +0000, Backspace wrote:
You know, when most noobs get into the kart they do exactly the same - go
too fast and end up in the tyres :) Sensation of speed in sims (or at
least in good sims) is very close to real life (meaning that it's very
bad in both cases). What makes sims harder is lack of sense of how much
grip you have. But unlike real life, the surface in sims provides
constant grip, so as soon as you get used to it, it becomes much less of
an issue.
Quoted text (12 lines)
> alexti wrote: > >> I found was that GPL was not difficult (IMHO) as long as you were >> driving it as a real car. One just needed to have realistic expectation >> - you don't jump in and go fast in those cars. I hope that no one >> expects to get into a real '67 car and start matching times of F1 >> drivers right away ;) > > How can one drive it like areal car when there is no feeling as to how > fast you are going? That's the big issue with most noobs to racing sims. > They immediately floor it and go too fast in the corners but you can't > blame them when there is no sensation of real speed in the games."Backspace" wrote...
> <snip>
> How can one drive it like areal car when there is no feeling
> as to how fast you are going? That's the big issue with most
> noobs to racing sims. They immediately floor it and go too
> fast in the corners but you can't blame them when there is
> no sensation of real speed in the games.
I take it you haven't driven the Isle of Man course or Dundrod (or any of
the dozens of tracks for GPL that'll scare the pants off you), have you?
I mean, I've been doing this since September 1998 and, even though I know
"it's just a game" (lol), I still have to overcome real fear to push myself
in the sim.
I can appreciate noobs not taking things seriously and bouncing off walls,
but then again if one's not willing to apply himself, every "game" boils
down to that. I can play Company of Heroes and not care if my soldiers live
or die, or I can play it properly and get more out of the experience. See
what I mean?
Jan.
=---
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:07:34 +0100, Jan Verschueren wrote:
I can relate to it very well. My classic case is when overtaking on the
downhill run before going up towards the left hander with The Tree on the
right - I always think: am I going to make it or not?
Quoted text (7 lines)
> I take it you haven't driven the Isle of Man course or Dundrod (or any > of the dozens of tracks for GPL that'll scare the pants off you), have > you? > > I mean, I've been doing this since September 1998 and, even though I > know "it's just a game" (lol), I still have to overcome real fear to > push myself in the sim.Jeff Reid wrote:
>
> You're going to upset a lot of LFS fanboys with statements like that.
>
>
>
I have LFS and don't get why you say that. The cars in LFS are actually
easier to drive than the ones in rFactor. There is nothing difficult
about driving a car.
Bob Simpson wrote:
> What? You've never driven GPL have you?
>
> Bob Simpson
I've owned it since the day it was released. Actually, have bought two
copies over the years. Stop making shit up about people you don't know,
Bart.
alexti wrote:
GPL has no grip on any surface.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> You know, when most noobs get into the kart they do exactly the same - go > too fast and end up in the tyres :) Sensation of speed in sims (or at > least in good sims) is very close to real life (meaning that it's very > bad in both cases). What makes sims harder is lack of sense of how much > grip you have. But unlike real life, the surface in sims provides > constant grip, so as soon as you get used to it, it becomes much less of > an issue. > >Jan Verschueren wrote:
COH is a boring kiddy RTS game and I can't stand it. That's why I don't
care if they live or die.
Quoted text (17 lines)
> I take it you haven't driven the Isle of Man course or Dundrod (or any of > the dozens of tracks for GPL that'll scare the pants off you), have you? > > I mean, I've been doing this since September 1998 and, even though I know > "it's just a game" (lol), I still have to overcome real fear to push myself > in the sim. > > I can appreciate noobs not taking things seriously and bouncing off walls, > but then again if one's not willing to apply himself, every "game" boils > down to that. I can play Company of Heroes and not care if my soldiers live > or die, or I can play it properly and get more out of the experience. See > what I mean? > > Jan. > =--- > >>>> More realistic ... doesn't mean harder...
>> You're going to upset a lot of LFS fanboys with statements like that.
> I have LFS and don't get why you say that.
Note the reference to LFS fanboys. Where else but at a LFS forum would
you find a thread titled:
Join the "We're glad LFS is harder and more realistic now" club
Jeff Reid wrote:
>
> Join the "We're glad LFS is harder and more realistic now" club
Well, I agree with the more realistic part but not the harder part. GPL
is far harder and far less realistic because of it.
>> Join the "We're glad LFS is harder and more realistic now" club
> Well, I agree with the more realistic part but not the harder part. GPL is far harder and far less realistic because
> of it.
Which was my point about the LFS fanboys.
----- Original Message -----
"Backspace" wrote...
>> <snip>
> COH is a boring kiddy RTS game and I can't stand it.
> That's why I don't care if they live or die.
That's my point: CoH is neither a true single player RTS, nor in any way
simplistic enough
to be called a "kiddy game". Just like with GPL, you're just shutting
yourself off from experiencing what's on offer because you don't want to
face your own weaknesses.
Jan.
=---
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:40:38 +0000, Backspace wrote:
Simple calculation of deceleration based on the speed and time required
to stop demonstrates that GPL cars have 1.1-1.25 friction coefficient on
the asphalt. That is less than modern racing slicks, but considerably
more than a regular tyres.
Quoted text (13 lines)
> alexti wrote: > >> You know, when most noobs get into the kart they do exactly the same - >> go too fast and end up in the tyres :) Sensation of speed in sims (or >> at least in good sims) is very close to real life (meaning that it's >> very bad in both cases). What makes sims harder is lack of sense of how >> much grip you have. But unlike real life, the surface in sims provides >> constant grip, so as soon as you get used to it, it becomes much less >> of an issue. >> >> >> > GPL has no grip on any surface.> GPL has no grip on any surface.
I think it's more of an issue of underestimation of speed. In GPL, it just
doesn't seem like the cars are going as fast as their speedo's indicate.
The tracks in GPL don't really have any signifcant detail on their surface,
so there's little in the way of visual feedback.
Note I created a seperate GPL thread.
On 1 Mar, 03:01, jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
I think its something to do with the transmission, not just that the
front right is hardcoded to heat up, its that the live rear axle and
its nascar based differential exert a force on the chassis, which
results in the right front taking more force than the left, or
something like that.
pez
Quoted text (13 lines)
> On Feb 28, 8:42 pm, "Jan Verschueren" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > The right front tyre is > > hardcoded to heat up/wear more regardless of how it's being treated/loaded > > by the particular circuit, making a "real life correct" setup/driving > > philosophy in NR2003 on ovals unfeasable (i.e. leading to exploits being > > quicker). > > IIRC, that's actually a bug that's related specifically to the PTA > physics slot (which, AFAIK, is what GTP uses too). I don't believe > I've experienced that phenomenon in the cup/bgn/cts physics, but it's > been awhile since I've driven n2003.I disagree; I would say that the sensation of speed actually *is* one of
the aspects of racing that may be simulated properly.
What kind of sensory input do you have when out on the RL track? You see
things passing by, you hear your engine sings, you see your rev meter,
you feel the rumble. Of those, I'd choose rev meter and "engine sings"
any day, and both of those can be simulated properly, given a decent
sound system.
You read your speed with your ears, and you use your eyes to place the
car on the track, you use your eyes. Loads and loads of drivers out
there have no feel, or perception of speed whatsoever, and this stems
from a lack of sensitivity in their ears. I always said that a truly
great racing driver must also have a musical sense...
A novice driver with no fear for his life would go too fast in RL too,
because the skill to read speed comes with practice, practice, practice.
Judging speed is one of the key factors of becoming a racing driver, and
it is the key to race simulations well, too.
However, what you *can't* feel is the minute changes of grip, the
details of the racing surface, the tyre response and changes. FFB has
improved this in the front axis area, but this is still the main problem
and shortcoming of a sim. My main gripe right now is the ability to read
what takes place at the rear end of my cars.
All this comes from reading the Gs you pull, and this can never be
simulated per se; we'll have to wait for that back-of-your-skull
connector to simulate that.
--A--
On 29.02.2008 08:10, * Backspace wrote:
Quoted text (12 lines)
> alexti wrote: > >> I found was that GPL was not difficult (IMHO) as long as you were >> driving it as a real car. One just needed to have realistic >> expectation - you don't jump in and go fast in those cars. I hope that >> no one expects to get into a real '67 car and start matching times of >> F1 drivers right away ;) > > How can one drive it like areal car when there is no feeling as to how > fast you are going? That's the big issue with most noobs to racing sims. > They immediately floor it and go too fast in the corners but you can't > blame them when there is no sensation of real speed in the games.
"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:fr5i16$nun$[email hidden]...
Wouldn't a simple way be to have some G-meters on the dashboard? Like what the
rev meter does for speed?
And in the sound department, the sqeal of a slipping tire can help to assess
(loss of) grip. I used to turn the relative volume for sqealing up for this
reason in GPx.
Bart
Quoted text (28 lines)
>I disagree; I would say that the sensation of speed actually *is* one of the >aspects of racing that may be simulated properly. > > What kind of sensory input do you have when out on the RL track? You see > things passing by, you hear your engine sings, you see your rev meter, you > feel the rumble. Of those, I'd choose rev meter and "engine sings" any day, > and both of those can be simulated properly, given a decent sound system. > > You read your speed with your ears, and you use your eyes to place the car > on the track, you use your eyes. Loads and loads of drivers out there have > no feel, or perception of speed whatsoever, and this stems from a lack of > sensitivity in their ears. I always said that a truly great racing driver > must also have a musical sense... > > A novice driver with no fear for his life would go too fast in RL too, > because the skill to read speed comes with practice, practice, practice. > Judging speed is one of the key factors of becoming a racing driver, and it > is the key to race simulations well, too. > > However, what you *can't* feel is the minute changes of grip, the details of > the racing surface, the tyre response and changes. FFB has improved this in > the front axis area, but this is still the main problem and shortcoming of a > sim. My main gripe right now is the ability to read what takes place at the > rear end of my cars. > > All this comes from reading the Gs you pull, and this can never be simulated > per se; we'll have to wait for that back-of-your-skull connector to simulate > that.Bart Westra wrote:
In my view for a sim to work you have to "feel" it. For me this is
primarily graphically. FFB adds to immersion rather than giving really
useful feedback what the car is doing. Once tuned in to the graphics the
seat of the pants feel comes to play by how the car rotates. It takes
time though which is why most novices can't get any sensation of a car
moving underneath them.
The audio adds to the sensation of speed but again for me this is
primarily graphically fed. That "woah" feeling as you go that bit faster
through a corner. Bumps help to add to the speed sensation.
It needs to be feeling too fast to look at g-force meters in my view...
Cheers
Tony
Quoted text (15 lines)
>> However, what you *can't* feel is the minute changes of grip, the details of >> the racing surface, the tyre response and changes. FFB has improved this in >> the front axis area, but this is still the main problem and shortcoming of a >> sim. My main gripe right now is the ability to read what takes place at the >> rear end of my cars. >> >> All this comes from reading the Gs you pull, and this can never be simulated >> per se; we'll have to wait for that back-of-your-skull connector to simulate >> that. > > Wouldn't a simple way be to have some G-meters on the dashboard? Like what the > rev meter does for speed? > And in the sound department, the sqeal of a slipping tire can help to assess > (loss of) grip. I used to turn the relative volume for sqealing up for this > reason in GPx.On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:05:41 +0100, Asgeir Nesoen wrote:
I wonder how well you can really judge the speed by the sound. It seems
to work well at low speeds, but at high speeds it's much more difficult.
Human ear apparently has logarithmic sensitivity to the frequency, but
the speed depends on revs linearly. For example, there's about 1000
difference between C# and D in 11th octave. That's about 6%. Considering
that good musician can likely tell about half of variation, that 3%. At
300km/h it's 9km/h. Not too bad, but probably not good enough for driving
at the top level. And that's assuming that one is in perfect environment
for listening. Driving sim without sound is kind of strange, I felt
uncomfortable without it, but I could go at practically the same speed as
with the sound.
In a sense, I'm not sure that feeling the speed is even important. It's
not like it's written at every corner at what speed it should be taken. I
think it's more of a judgement of the rate of change of the angle of your
viewpoint in comparison to the curvature of the turn. It sounds kind of
weird, but one can drive the track he has never seen quite fast and in
this case knowing one's speed doesn't help one much.
And in real live you don't even know how much traction will be in the
coming corner (and by the time you arrive there it may be too late) - it
mostly comes from experience in recognising what you see (probably it's
more applicable to rallying than to track racing, where the traction
rarely changes dramatically).
>
> All this comes from reading the Gs you pull, and this can never be
> simulated per se; we'll have to wait for that back-of-your-skull
> connector to simulate that.I wonder how much one feels G directly and how much through the pressure
on the body parts. The latter can probably simulated relatively easily -
it's not necessary to have 1:1 pressure scale.
Quoted text (14 lines)
> I disagree; I would say that the sensation of speed actually *is* one of > the aspects of racing that may be simulated properly. > > What kind of sensory input do you have when out on the RL track? You see > things passing by, you hear your engine sings, you see your rev meter, > you feel the rumble. Of those, I'd choose rev meter and "engine sings" > any day, and both of those can be simulated properly, given a decent > sound system. > > You read your speed with your ears, and you use your eyes to place the > car on the track, you use your eyes. Loads and loads of drivers out > there have no feel, or perception of speed whatsoever, and this stems > from a lack of sensitivity in their ears. I always said that a truly > great racing driver must also have a musical sense...Quoted text (10 lines)
> A novice driver with no fear for his life would go too fast in RL too, > because the skill to read speed comes with practice, practice, practice. > Judging speed is one of the key factors of becoming a racing driver, and > it is the key to race simulations well, too. > > However, what you *can't* feel is the minute changes of grip, the > details of the racing surface, the tyre response and changes. FFB has > improved this in the front axis area, but this is still the main problem > and shortcoming of a sim. My main gripe right now is the ability to read > what takes place at the rear end of my cars.Well, I disagree on a number of points, but I'll start with a field of
which I know a lot, namely recognizing minute changes in pitch.
I play several instruments, and I'd say I would be able to "hear", or
"regocnize" a change of a 20th of a seminote, or 10 times more sensitive
than you presume. If you're trained (piano tuners, organ tuners) or with
"perfect pitch" sense, you'll be able to recognize maybe a change of a
50th of a seminote.
You would, in a race care hear the "rate of change" in pitch more than
"aboslute pitch", and a normally musical ear will draw massive info from
a changing engine "tone". You would not translate pitch to speed, but
you'd translate rate of change to speed.
It is difficult to describe engine noise as frequency, since you hear
overtones of the base frequency. An engine with 12000 revs/min equals a
base frequency of 200hz, 20 hz lower than the "little a" of 220 hz. This
area is by far the most sensitive area of an ear, and we would have the
most resolution in this area. Our ears are most sensitive in the
"speech" frequencies.
If you make these assumptions, you'd come up with a hugely effective
instrument for speed reading. If you don't go faster with sound than
without, you need to practice your ear. One way to do this is to stick a
piece of carton over your in-car rev meter, so that the only input in
the speed dept would be the sound, and you would HAVE to use your ear.
With practice you will be able to judge your speed accurately to 1 or 2
km/h, and this would be a perfect tool for racing. You would not be able
to say "I'm now running down the straight at 301km/h", but you would be
able to say "I'm now running at 3kmh slower than my target speed at this
point". Again, not an absolute reading of speed, but a very good
relative reading of your speed.
And you're right: Grip is changing all the time, and this is where a
real car would give you heaps of info, but the sim gives you very
little. This is probably why it is hard to push very hard on a sim car,
because you only get sound from tires, and no G-pull, no vibration. In
real life you would also get much more info from the tyre screech than
in a sim, since the sound will accurately describe what happens with a tyre.
---A---
On 12.03.2008 05:12, * alexti wrote:
Quoted text (56 lines)
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:05:41 +0100, Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > >> I disagree; I would say that the sensation of speed actually *is* one of >> the aspects of racing that may be simulated properly. >> >> What kind of sensory input do you have when out on the RL track? You see >> things passing by, you hear your engine sings, you see your rev meter, >> you feel the rumble. Of those, I'd choose rev meter and "engine sings" >> any day, and both of those can be simulated properly, given a decent >> sound system. >> >> You read your speed with your ears, and you use your eyes to place the >> car on the track, you use your eyes. Loads and loads of drivers out >> there have no feel, or perception of speed whatsoever, and this stems >> from a lack of sensitivity in their ears. I always said that a truly >> great racing driver must also have a musical sense... > I wonder how well you can really judge the speed by the sound. It seems > to work well at low speeds, but at high speeds it's much more difficult. > Human ear apparently has logarithmic sensitivity to the frequency, but > the speed depends on revs linearly. For example, there's about 1000 > difference between C# and D in 11th octave. That's about 6%. Considering > that good musician can likely tell about half of variation, that 3%. At > 300km/h it's 9km/h. Not too bad, but probably not good enough for driving > at the top level. And that's assuming that one is in perfect environment > for listening. Driving sim without sound is kind of strange, I felt > uncomfortable without it, but I could go at practically the same speed as > with the sound. > > In a sense, I'm not sure that feeling the speed is even important. It's > not like it's written at every corner at what speed it should be taken. I > think it's more of a judgement of the rate of change of the angle of your > viewpoint in comparison to the curvature of the turn. It sounds kind of > weird, but one can drive the track he has never seen quite fast and in > this case knowing one's speed doesn't help one much. > >> A novice driver with no fear for his life would go too fast in RL too, >> because the skill to read speed comes with practice, practice, practice. >> Judging speed is one of the key factors of becoming a racing driver, and >> it is the key to race simulations well, too. >> >> However, what you *can't* feel is the minute changes of grip, the >> details of the racing surface, the tyre response and changes. FFB has >> improved this in the front axis area, but this is still the main problem >> and shortcoming of a sim. My main gripe right now is the ability to read >> what takes place at the rear end of my cars. > And in real live you don't even know how much traction will be in the > coming corner (and by the time you arrive there it may be too late) - it > mostly comes from experience in recognising what you see (probably it's > more applicable to rallying than to track racing, where the traction > rarely changes dramatically). >> All this comes from reading the Gs you pull, and this can never be >> simulated per se; we'll have to wait for that back-of-your-skull >> connector to simulate that. > I wonder how much one feels G directly and how much through the pressure > on the body parts. The latter can probably simulated relatively easily - > it's not necessary to have 1:1 pressure scale.On Mar 12, 12:12 am, alexti <[email hidden]> wrote:
I would guess that for race driving the vast majority of G-force
sensing occurs through tactile pressure on the driver's body, and very
little of the 'inner-ear' acceleration sensing comes into play. I
believe I've read studies to that effect, but can't site them off the
top of my head.
You can test it yourself next time you are driving your street car.
Pay attention to how much you feel small changes in lateral G's on
your body. I can feel changes in body sensations well below where I
think my inner sense of balance comes into play.
In fact, though, it's not always 'seat-of-the-pants' feedback that you
are getting. At low G's you actually get more sensation in your back
as your upper body is pulled sideways. In my experience I don't start
feeling much sensation in the seat until reaching higher G's. This
concept is integrated into the response curves of my GS-3 motion seat.
Pat Dotson
UltraForce Simulations LLC
http://www.ultraforcesim.com
Quoted text (9 lines)
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:05:41 +0100, Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > > > All this comes from reading the Gs you pull, and this can never be > > simulated per se; we'll have to wait for that back-of-your-skull > > connector to simulate that. > > I wonder how much one feels G directly and how much through the pressure > on the body parts. The latter can probably simulated relatively easily - > it's not necessary to have 1:1 pressure scale.New news..
http://www.iracing.com/news.htm
Quoted text (15 lines)
>On 14 Feb 2008 20:03:25 +0100, Uwe Sch�rkamp <[email hidden]> wrote: >On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:28:48 +0100, Jan Verschueren wrote: >> "Backspace" wrote... >>>> <snip> >>> Don't try to BS me. Ask Jackie Stewart what he thinks of GPL >>> for the real facts. >> >> I wouldn't dream of BS'ing you. Jackie Stewart indeed didn't like GPL '67 >> when he tried it. People who're used to driving real racecars are missing a > >His dislike may have been influenced by the fact that he tried it using >a gamepad and not a decent set of wheel and pedals as I seem to recall, >so all kinds of driving aids would have influenced the experience. > >Cheers, uweOn Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:43:59 +0100, Asgeir Nesoen wrote:
Oops, now I see a fatal flaw in my argument. Of course, being
scientifically minded I've optimistically assumed that the engine revving
at 18000 makes 18000 rotations per second = 18 kHz, but simple reality
check confirms that automotive technology is still in the stone age :) I
agree with your estimate of ear sensitivity at 200Hz range. In fact, it's
probably even easier to tell the difference because of 2x and 4x waves.
That's very unlike 18kHz range where overtones are out of the range.
Yes and no. In the sims you usually have a lot of information about the
grip if you've already run through that spot before (or typically just
run on the same surface), but in the real car you have to guess amount of
traction purely from the visuals. Of course, you get much more info when
you actually get there, but by that time it may be too late. That
probably makes most people to leave much healthier margin of error when
driving the real car.
> This is probably why it is hard to push very hard on a sim car,
> because you only get sound from tires, and no G-pull, no vibration. In
> real life you would also get much more info from the tyre screech than
> in a sim, since the sound will accurately describe what happens with a
> tyre.I wonder if you can hear tyre screech in something like F1 car. That
engine must be making a lot of noise...
Quoted text (20 lines)
> Well, I disagree on a number of points, but I'll start with a field of > which I know a lot, namely recognizing minute changes in pitch. > > I play several instruments, and I'd say I would be able to "hear", or > "regocnize" a change of a 20th of a seminote, or 10 times more sensitive > than you presume. If you're trained (piano tuners, organ tuners) or with > "perfect pitch" sense, you'll be able to recognize maybe a change of a > 50th of a seminote. > > You would, in a race care hear the "rate of change" in pitch more than > "aboslute pitch", and a normally musical ear will draw massive info from > a changing engine "tone". You would not translate pitch to speed, but > you'd translate rate of change to speed. > > It is difficult to describe engine noise as frequency, since you hear > overtones of the base frequency. An engine with 12000 revs/min equals a > base frequency of 200hz, 20 hz lower than the "little a" of 220 hz. This > area is by far the most sensitive area of an ear, and we would have the > most resolution in this area. Our ears are most sensitive in the > "speech" frequencies.Quoted text (17 lines)
> > If you make these assumptions, you'd come up with a hugely effective > instrument for speed reading. If you don't go faster with sound than > without, you need to practice your ear. One way to do this is to stick a > piece of carton over your in-car rev meter, so that the only input in > the speed dept would be the sound, and you would HAVE to use your ear. > > With practice you will be able to judge your speed accurately to 1 or 2 > km/h, and this would be a perfect tool for racing. You would not be able > to say "I'm now running down the straight at 301km/h", but you would be > able to say "I'm now running at 3kmh slower than my target speed at this > point". Again, not an absolute reading of speed, but a very good > relative reading of your speed. > > And you're right: Grip is changing all the time, and this is where a > real car would give you heaps of info, but the sim gives you very > little.On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:12:36 -0700, pdotson wrote:
I'm not certain how to filer out inner sense of balance. Normally, those
two kind of perception seems to be tightly integrated.
> In fact, though, it's not always 'seat-of-the-pants' feedback that you
> are getting. At low G's you actually get more sensation in your back as
> your upper body is pulled sideways.You're certainly right about that as far as street cars are concerned.
This would come from the extra tension on your muscles. Not sure about
the racing cars where you're strapped in tightly - there you would have
to rely on the pressure, but you can probably still feel G's through
tension in the neck muscles.
Quoted text (21 lines)
> On Mar 12, 12:12 am, alexti <[email hidden]> wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:05:41 +0100, Asgeir Nesoen wrote: >> >> > All this comes from reading the Gs you pull, and this can never be >> > simulated per se; we'll have to wait for that back-of-your-skull >> > connector to simulate that. >> >> I wonder how much one feels G directly and how much through the >> pressure on the body parts. The latter can probably simulated >> relatively easily - it's not necessary to have 1:1 pressure scale. > > > I would guess that for race driving the vast majority of G-force sensing > occurs through tactile pressure on the driver's body, and very little of > the 'inner-ear' acceleration sensing comes into play. I believe I've > read studies to that effect, but can't site them off the top of my head. > > You can test it yourself next time you are driving your street car. Pay > attention to how much you feel small changes in lateral G's on your > body. I can feel changes in body sensations well below where I think my > inner sense of balance comes into play.OK, so we know it will cost money.. when the heck can I start!!!
GP
