*Real* GPL at Coys

[Many apologies if there are any inaccuracies in the following - I'm working entirely from memory here]. Not _quite_ on topic but any GPL fans who were not at Coy Historic festival, Silverstone this weekend missed a real treat. Some magnificent racing and some authentic cars from the era. I've probably forgotten half of the GPL relevant stuff but, to a GPL fanatics the highlights would perhaps be: 1) Seeing (and hearing) a '67 BRM in full flight with the engine roaring. (Alas it wasn't the beloved H16 - there was a 67 H16 on display). Incidentally - I noticed that the V16 BRM has a slightly offset steering wheel - which the H16 in GPL doesn't. 2) Seeing an ex-Jim Clark Lotus 48 F2 fighting with the big boys in the Pre 72 GP and Tasman race. It came in an extremely creditable fourth running against guys with wings, slicks and twice the engine size. Beautiful car and brilliant drive. I got a good view of it in the garage before the race and it really was a thing of beauty. It was unbelievably nimble round the corners of the complex. (Now there's a section that would make '67 silverstone incredibly difficult). 3) GPL being played on a widescreen TV in one of the pit garages with the driver sat in an actual Lotus***pit - not sure what lotus it was but it looked pretty much like "the real thing" (Lotus 49) to me. I didn't get a chance to show off my "skills" - don't think I'd have fitted into the***pit easily anyway - being quite tall and broad - but it was great to see. [I couldn't help wincing watching someone drive Monza - you KNOW when someone is a good couple of seconds past their braking point]. 4) Jacky Ickx (did I spell that right) driving round on one of the demo laps - alas he didn't race. 5) Bright orange ex-Dan Gurney Mclaren was raced. (and it was a really weird looking beast big wings slick tyres). 6) Also a lovely ex JYS BRM H16 was on display. I think it was the '67 model but I'm not sure. I presume there were some other people on this group about for that weekend so they can catch me on anything I've missed or got wrong. It was a great great weekend. There was also a huge presence from the upcoming Microsoft game "Spirit of Speed" which looks like it might be a real winner. It was, of course, hard to judge how "sim" it was... but a few things that could be told: They're pretty damn serious about marketting it - they'd sponsored the pre-war sports car race and all the cars were carrying "spirit of speed" stickers. The screen shots which were played on the big diamond screens all weekend looked pretty beautiful - to me it looks like it'll be a better looking game than GPL is. Obviously, hard to judge the physics of the thing but it's a good sign that in a short interview on Silverstone TV the guy did mention that the physics had to be extremely detailed "to deal with the banking at brooklands for example". Tracks mentionned included Brooklands and Avis and one other I didn't quite catch - sounded like montreux (but I'm not familiar with the 30s tracks so I don't know). They also said that if it was successful then it would be a series with 50s cars a probable next release - release date October. I'm looking forward to it. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

On 2 Aug 1999 11:42:29 GMT, Monthlery (spelling?) -- * rrevved at mindspring dot com

Hi Richard Yes I was there too. Brilliant. I wonder if it was me you were watching driving a bit of GPL. I asked the guy to change from Silverstone to Monza and did a few laps. Unfortunately he left the autoshift on which made for very slow laps (1m40 or so). I too will be interested to try the new Microprose games, but they'll have to be amazing to beat GPL. I'd like to try Brooklands though. Tim Leighton

: Hi Richard : Yes I was there too. Brilliant. I wonder if it was me you were watching : driving a bit of GPL. I asked the guy to change from Silverstone to Monza : and did a few laps. Unfortunately he left the autoshift on which made for : very slow laps (1m40 or so). I too will be interested to try the new : Microprose games, but they'll have to be amazing to beat GPL. I'd like to : try Brooklands though. : Tim Leighton Guy I saw driving was going round Monza - wore a floppy brown felt hat. But they seemed to leave it on Monza for a while - I guess because it's much easier so I saw a few people drive that course. Looked fun - did you find what the chassis they were using was? -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Richard, I just received an e-mail from a good friend (in Wales) who also attended Coys. He said that the "Spirit of Speed" display also impressed him no end. Apparently the physics in the finished game will (quote) "make for a far easier driving experience than GPL" (unquote). (I don't know how much truth there is in this statement, which is purported to come from a Hasbro rep at Coys.)

Quoted text (68 lines)

> [Many apologies if there are any inaccuracies in the following - I'm > working entirely from memory here]. > Not _quite_ on topic but any GPL fans who were not at Coy Historic > festival, Silverstone this weekend missed a real treat. Some > magnificent racing and some authentic cars from the era. I've probably > forgotten half of the GPL relevant stuff but, to a GPL fanatics the > highlights would perhaps be: > 1) Seeing (and hearing) a '67 BRM in full flight with the engine > roaring. (Alas it wasn't the beloved H16 - there was a 67 H16 on > display). Incidentally - I noticed that the V16 BRM has a slightly > offset steering wheel - which the H16 in GPL doesn't. > 2) Seeing an ex-Jim Clark Lotus 48 F2 fighting with the big boys in > the Pre 72 GP and Tasman race. It came in an extremely creditable > fourth running against guys with wings, slicks and twice the engine > size. Beautiful car and brilliant drive. I got a good view of it in > the garage before the race and it really was a thing of beauty. It was > unbelievably nimble round the corners of the complex. (Now there's a > section that would make '67 silverstone incredibly difficult). > 3) GPL being played on a widescreen TV in one of the pit garages with > the driver sat in an actual Lotus***pit - not sure what lotus it was > but it looked pretty much like "the real thing" (Lotus 49) to me. I > didn't get a chance to show off my "skills" - don't think I'd have > fitted into the***pit easily anyway - being quite tall and broad - but > it was great to see. [I couldn't help wincing watching someone drive > Monza - you KNOW when someone is a good couple of seconds past their > braking point]. > 4) Jacky Ickx (did I spell that right) driving round on one of the > demo laps - alas he didn't race. > 5) Bright orange ex-Dan Gurney Mclaren was raced. (and it was a > really weird looking beast big wings slick tyres). > 6) Also a lovely ex JYS BRM H16 was on display. I think it was the > '67 model but I'm not sure. > I presume there were some other people on this group about for that > weekend so they can catch me on anything I've missed or got wrong. It > was a great great weekend. > There was also a huge presence from the upcoming Microsoft game > "Spirit of Speed" which looks like it might be a real winner. It was, > of course, hard to judge how "sim" it was... but a few things that > could be told: > They're pretty damn serious about marketting it - they'd sponsored the > pre-war sports car race and all the cars were carrying "spirit of speed" > stickers. The screen shots which were played on the big diamond screens > all weekend looked pretty beautiful - to me it looks like it'll be a > better looking game than GPL is. Obviously, hard to judge the physics > of the thing but it's a good sign that in a short interview on > Silverstone TV the guy did mention that the physics had to be extremely > detailed "to deal with the banking at brooklands for example". Tracks > mentionned included Brooklands and Avis and one other I didn't quite > catch - sounded like montreux (but I'm not familiar with the 30s tracks > so I don't know). They also said that if it was successful then it > would be a series with 50s cars a probable next release - release date > October. I'm looking forward to it. > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

uh-oh..... you no doubt know that, in reality, these cars were and absolute *** to drive (adjusting ignition timing on the fly and stuff). A friend of mine (national FF-2000 driver) drove one (1934 Bugatti I think.. I'll ask) for a commercial and they had to use video postprocessing to make it look like he was moving at racing speed. His comment "there was so much involved in just driving the thing I hardly got a chance to see where I was going..." So we're talking a sim content like TOCA2 at best?? -Where is simracing going if even Papy can't seem to better themselves (re: Nascar 3)?? Are we reduced to hoping Geoff can bring home the goods (fat chance IMO)?? Jan. ------ >Richard, I just received an e-mail from a good friend (in Wales) who also ><snip>

Yes, SOS looked good when I saw it at E3, but I do think they're aiming it at a bit broader market than GPL. I found the car, an Auto-Union, much easier to drive than a GPL car. I will buy it though, and I hope someone converts GPL's Nurburgring so we can re-create*** Seaman's famous victory just before the war:-) - Michael

: Yes, SOS looked good when I saw it at E3, but I do think they're aiming : it at a bit broader market than GPL. I found the car, an Auto-Union, much : easier to drive than a GPL car. Well, perhaps I'm a bit unique but I do believe that it's problems with GPL's physics model which make it so difficult to drive - specifically I think there's something peculiar about the way they have calculated tyre grip when the tyres are at an angle and also the assumption about a totally rigid chassis. My feeling was pretty much confirmed (to my mind) by what I saw at Coys. In the hands of drivers who I'm sure are extremely competent but are nonetheless mainly gentleman amateurs with extremely limited test time * the cars looked much more controllable than GPL cars. Can you imagine in a GPL style car being able to overtake round the outside of Luffield even at "taking it easy" pace - and these guys weren't taking it _that_ easy. In short, I don't believe it's a bad thing that "Spirit of Speed" will be easier than GPL - it may still be more "realistic" and it may not. Let's wait and see. Oh, if anyone's interested, I timed the Ex Jim Clark F2 Lotus 48 (this has the 1.5L engine) at 1.53 round modern silverstone (which must surely be much tougher and slower in those cars than the 67 Silverstone). * This is not meant to sound disrespectful - the racers were extremely good - but many of them were on that track for the first time in cars they don't race often. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

I'm just hoping that there is a goodly degree of the same types of physics as we experience in GPL, Jan, and that the whole kit-kaboodle isn't toned down to the level of an "arcade". If the era to be depicted is the mid-to-late 1930s then advance/retard, pumping of lubricant and pressurizing of fuel tank, outside mecahnical brake on rear wheels etc. should not be part of the sim. What you are thinking of sounds more like the mid-to-late 1920s.......when the Bugattis were at their peak. Is this the period that they are representing, or is it the 1930s? > uh-oh..... you no doubt know that, in reality, these cars were and absolute > *** to drive (adjusting ignition timing on the fly and stuff). A friend of > mine (national FF-2000 driver) drove one (1934 Bugatti I think.. I'll ask) > for a commercial and they had to use video postprocessing to make it look > like he was moving at racing speed. His comment "there was so much involved > in just driving the thing I hardly got a chance to see where I was going..."

Quoted text (9 lines)

> So we're talking a sim content like TOCA2 at best?? -Where is simracing > going if even Papy can't seem to better themselves (re: Nascar 3)?? Are we > reduced to hoping Geoff can bring home the goods (fat chance IMO)?? > Jan. > ------ > >Richard, I just received an e-mail from a good friend (in Wales) who also > ><snip>

This is an interesting topic. I must say I have examined a lot of footage of '66/'67 F1 cars and they seem to behave pretty much more like they do in GPL than at Coy's. An accessible example is the overhead footage of '66 GP races in the film 'Grand Prix'. You can clearly see cars are sliding and spinning in an out of control manner as a result of too much or too little power application. Also similar events are apparent in the Watkins Glen and Nurburgring sequences in 'Nine Days in Summer'. So what accounts for the tractability of the cars at Coy's and the obvious difficulties in driving GPL? It may indeed be that the physics model is imperfect but I think there are simpler explanations, particularly bearing in mind that once mastered (and not driven by the sim-meisters like Woeger who clearly have special skills), GPL produces VERY similar lap times to those turned in the actual '67 season.This implies to me an uncannily accurate model. The tyres at Coy's all felt very sticky to me, at least as sticky as the slicks on the 71 Brabham. I wonder who makes these tyres today and what compound they are using. A 1500cc F2 is fast but lacks the brute unsuitability of 400bhp in a half-ton package. Most of the F1 cars at Coy's had wings (there were no 3 litre mid 60s F1 cars racing ) and the more powerful cars were driven by people like Duncan Dayton or Martin Stretton who are effectively professional racing drivers. Also they weren't going flat out and who can blame them (two thirds of the drivers who started the '67 F1 season died at the wheel of a car). The current Lap Record for F3000 at Silverstone is 1m41.xx and the F3 LR is 1m43.xx (Grand Prix circuit) whereas Duncan Dayton's average racing lap in the BT33 was about 1m50, and Simon Hadfield in the Lotus 48 was 1m56 or so, on the slightly easier and faster Historic circuit (no Abbey chicane). I bet Jim Clark would have driven race laps around 1m35 in a '67 Lotus 49. I think the real reason why GPL is so hard to drive has more to do with the deficiencies of PC controllers and their difference from real cars. The real masters of sim racing do not spin and come off all the time, and if you watch, say, Rick Prydden racing it is a truly awesome sight the speed he carries round corners and the car control he has. Moreover he not only turns world class hotlaps but can race hard off the racing line. So talent and practice can compensate for the lack of realistic physical feedback. I predict that the less talented of us will find GPL easier to drive with Force Feedback (despite its shortcomings) whereas the real experts will be quicker without. Anyway I have had more fun with the 'difficult' GPL than with any other sim, so I hope that other similarly challenging sims emerge in the future. I imagine that a GPL style 50s sim would be even more difficult because of the skinny tyres. I would also have to get a huge wood rimmed steering wheel to make it feel halfway authentic. I would be interested to hear others' opinions on these matters. Tim Leighton > : Yes, SOS looked good when I saw it at E3, but I do think they're aiming > : it at a bit broader market than GPL. I found the car, an Auto-Union, much

Quoted text (31 lines)

> : easier to drive than a GPL car. > Well, perhaps I'm a bit unique but I do believe that it's problems > with GPL's physics model which make it so difficult to drive - > specifically I think there's something peculiar about the way they have > calculated tyre grip when the tyres are at an angle and also the > assumption about a totally rigid chassis. My feeling was pretty > much confirmed (to my mind) by what I saw at Coys. In the hands of > drivers who I'm sure are extremely competent but are nonetheless mainly > gentleman amateurs with extremely limited test time * the cars looked > much more controllable than GPL cars. Can you imagine in a GPL style > car being able to overtake round the outside of Luffield even at > "taking it easy" pace - and these guys weren't taking it _that_ easy. > In short, I don't believe it's a bad thing that "Spirit of Speed" will > be easier than GPL - it may still be more "realistic" and it may not. > Let's wait and see. > Oh, if anyone's interested, I timed the Ex Jim Clark F2 Lotus 48 > (this has the 1.5L engine) at 1.53 round modern silverstone (which must > surely be much tougher and slower in those cars than the 67 Silverstone). > * This is not meant to sound disrespectful - the racers were extremely > good - but many of them were on that track for the first time in cars > they don't race often. > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Quoted text (8 lines)

> [SNIPPED] > Anyway I have had more fun with the 'difficult' GPL than with any other sim, > so I hope that other similarly challenging sims emerge in the future. I > imagine that a GPL style 50s sim would be even more difficult because of the > skinny tyres. I would also have to get a huge wood rimmed steering wheel to > make it feel halfway authentic. > I would be interested to hear others' opinions on these matters.

I wonder what our experiences would have been when starting with GPL if it had had the version 1.1 setups right from the start. Certainly they feel *really* easy to drive for me now compared to the way they were before, but that could be because I've already "done my time" going through the learning phase. I guess '30s cars will be even heavier and slower to stop than the '67 cars, which is probably the thing that beginners find most difficult - it's not easy to judge the distance to the next corner without stereo 3D vision, and the earlier you have to brake the harder it is to get it right. Also with heavier cars there will probably be even more weight transfer, which again means you need to be aware of the effects this produces - again difficult for beginners if modelled correctly. I guess if the physics model is simplified this in itself will make it easier to master the game, as the cars will be more predictable, but it doesn't necessarily mean it will be more fun to play! I really liked the feel of the Colin McRae Rally cars, but once I'd been hooked on GPL, going back to CMR the car felt really "dead" - it was easy to predict oversteer and understeer because it didn't take into account the bouncing on the springs, etc etc. - you just brake the right amount before each corner and then accelerate through the turn. Maybe these two things are mutually exclusive - if you can get straight into the game right from the off then it will probably bore you after a few months, and if it poses a true challenge it will probably be very frustrating at the start. Personally I'd rather have a challenging physics model with good "gameplay" - ie. training modes and lots of help with learning the technique (and AI cars that will wait for you while you're learning!).

: This is an interesting topic. I must say I have examined a lot of footage of : '66/'67 F1 cars and they seem to behave pretty much more like they do in GPL : than at Coy's. An accessible example is the overhead footage of '66 GP races : in the film 'Grand Prix'. You can clearly see cars are sliding and spinning : in an out of control manner as a result of too much or too little power : application. I thought that where this _was_ the case in Grand Prix it was due to either (a) selective editing or (b) the footage actually not being from the race but from the later added in sequences. : Also similar events are apparent in the Watkins Glen and : Nurburgring sequences in 'Nine Days in Summer'. I got the opposite impression from Nine days in summer. To me, in the majority of those shots the cars were neat and tidy. : So what accounts for the tractability of the cars at Coy's and the obvious : difficulties in driving GPL? It may indeed be that the physics model is : imperfect but I think there are simpler explanations, particularly bearing : in mind that once mastered (and not driven by the sim-meisters like Woeger : who clearly have special skills), GPL produces VERY similar lap times to : those turned in the actual '67 season.This implies to me an uncannily : accurate model. Perhaps. The lap times are not _that_ comparable with the '67 season and where they are comparable they are often comparable with different cars. (Especially at the start of the season races where the real '67 drivers did not have 3L cars) when you take this into account the similarity is not that remarkable. : The tyres at Coy's all felt very sticky to me, at least as sticky as the : slicks on the 71 Brabham. I wonder who makes these tyres today and what : compound they are using. (Grin) Glad to know I wasn't the only fan going around feeling the tyres. They felt quite tough by modern standards though, even the slicks were not as gummy as modern touring car tyres. : A 1500cc F2 is fast but lacks the brute unsuitability of 400bhp in a : half-ton package. Most of the F1 cars at Coy's had wings (there were no 3 : litre mid 60s F1 cars racing ) and the more powerful cars were driven by : people like Duncan Dayton or Martin Stretton who are effectively : professional racing drivers. I'm pretty sure there that 67 BRM in the pre-72 race was a 3L. There were also two 68 season BRMs. I wish I had the program here with me to confirm this. : Also they weren't going flat out and who can : blame them (two thirds of the drivers who started the '67 F1 season died at : the wheel of a car). The current Lap Record for F3000 at Silverstone is : 1m41.xx and the F3 LR is 1m43.xx (Grand Prix circuit) whereas Duncan : Dayton's average racing lap in the BT33 was about 1m50, and Simon Hadfield : in the Lotus 48 was 1m56 or so, on the slightly easier and faster Historic : circuit (no Abbey chicane). I bet Jim Clark would have driven race laps : around 1m35 in a '67 Lotus 49. I bet he wouldn't. In the 49 being just a below 1:30 was a reasonable time for the old style silverstone where every corner was just a kink. The whole circuit has been slowed down a lot since then. The modern course is not just _slightly_ harder - it's a lot harder. Imagine trying to thread your way through Becketts or negotiate the complex without flying off in GPL? How much slower are brooklands and luffield than the old single kink that was there. To me, Hadfields times in the low 1:50s (I timed a lap at 1:53 - and remember, that was through "traffic") were indicative of someone who's really moving and not too far off the limit. : Anyway I have had more fun with the 'difficult' GPL than with any other sim, : so I hope that other similarly challenging sims emerge in the future. I : imagine that a GPL style 50s sim would be even more difficult because of the : skinny tyres. I would also have to get a huge wood rimmed steering wheel to : make it feel halfway authentic. Heh... well, like you, I've had more fun with GPL than with other sims. I'm just convinced that I could have even more fun with a sim where it was easier to stay "on track" and therefore you could concentrate on "racing" rather than merely desperately*** on. I also think that there's a tendancy in this group to assume that -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

: I guess '30s cars will be even heavier and slower to stop than the '67 : cars, which is probably the thing that beginners find most difficult - : it's not easy to judge the distance to the next corner without stereo 3D : vision, and the earlier you have to brake the harder it is to get it : right. On the other hand, the 30s cars will be slower to start with so there'll be less wheel spin and "getting the power on" problems. : Also with heavier cars there will probably be even more weight transfer, : which again means you need to be aware of the effects this produces - : again difficult for beginners if modelled correctly. The thing that looks horrible to me is that parallelogram thing that the pre-war cars do with their wheels. If they model that then the weight transfer is going to be just plain *** anyway even if the car is relatively light. (For those who don't know what I'm talking about, a lot of the pre-war cars have their wheels set up so the whole wheel "tilts" but the wheels tilt together so that the wheels going round a right hand corner would lean over but remain parallel. Does anyone know why they did this? It seems damn stupid to me but everyone did it. Was there a good reason? : I guess if the physics model is simplified this in itself will make it : easier to master the game, as the cars will be more predictable, but it : doesn't necessarily mean it will be more fun to play! I think that even if you take a complex physics model you can abstract it and make a simpler game which the lead-footed amongst us can enjoy. Adding optional traction control, anti-lock brakes, spin correction etc etc which still allow you to remain reasonably competitive would definitely increase the saleability without at all damaging the realism (because the purist can turn them off). : Maybe these two things are mutually exclusive - if you can get straight : into the game right from the off then it will probably bore you after a : few months, and if it poses a true challenge it will probably be very : frustrating at the start. Hmm... I'm not so sure... I'd love to see a sim where you could get in and from day one put laps in and not be all over the damn place but you could also get that GPL feeling of gradually getting better and better. IMHO it's just plain foolish that in GPL the ordinary mortal can't "win" an offline race on the easiest level without six months of practice (and _I_ can't even win then). I don't see how it would have made GPL a worse game to put in some newbie levels where the computer cars are slower and more circumspect. I would certainly imagine that this is the approach that Microprose/Hasbro will take. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Quite right, sorry But it's interesting to note that none of these finished in the top ten. I wasn't there on Sunday. Did they all retire or perhaps they were more of a handful to drive. Tim L

TL wrote I bet Jim Clark would have driven race laps around 1m35 in a '67 Lotus 49. time for the old style silverstone where every corner was just a kink. Clark's pole time in 67 was 1m25.3. The lap distance hasn't changed much (2.97 miles vs. 3.14 miles). I reckon the old Maggotts-Becketts-Chapel must have taken quite a bit more time than the new version. I agree that the new complex must take a lot more time than old Woodcote and I guess that it takes a bit longer now to get out of the Vale and round Club. But having seen Duncan Dayton qualify on Saturday in 1m42.xx in his BT33 I still maintain Clark would have been quite a bit faster than that. But it's all guesswork :)

>: Yes, SOS looked good when I saw it at E3, but I do think they're aiming >: it at a bit broader market than GPL. I found the car, an Auto-Union, much >: easier to drive than a GPL car. i still have not been able to find a single mention or website for Spirit of Speed. you?

I think you are severely underestimating the limitations in a pc simulation compared to real life. I would guess that 90% of the "extra" difficulty in GPL (compared to a real car) comes from the pc limitations and not from the physics model (which _don't_ mean that I'm in any way certain that the GPL physics is perfect, or even close to). Think about limitations like: 1/ Screen resolution: Anyone with eye sight comparable to the 1024x768 or whatever you use with GPL wouldn't be allowed to get a drivers licence to begin with in real life. Racing?? Forget it. 2/ Field of view: It's a lot easier to feel where the car is on the road with the normal 180+ degrees field of view. Then think about driving beside another car through a fast corner with the pc sim tunnel vision :-) Estimating the speed of the car is also much harder without the peripheral vision. 3/ Screen update rate: Even a steady 36 Hz frame rate is noticeably worse than real life. There is a reason real flight simulators use 60 Hz or more. With a less than a 1GHz pc, you probably have variations in frame rate also which doesn't make it easier. 4/ Delay: What you see on the pc monitor is old information compared to your control inputs. I don't know the figures for GPL, but I very much doubt it is less than one or two frames, which means something around 50 ms. Doesn't sound much, but is noticable. Variations in delay ain't any good either. 5/ Control resolution and stability: A standard pc game controller combined with a cheap wheel is so lousy I get somewhat agitated just thinking about it. (I hope I finally got a setup that is acceptable now, using a pdpi digital game controller together with a wheel with the standard potentiometer replaced with something that costs more than two cents to manufacture. Note that this still is far from the resolution in real life since it is now limited by the 8 bit A/D converter in the pdpi card.) 6/ Missing information: Most importantly the forces on the controls and on the drivers body. (The former might be partly fixed by force feedback, but I haven't tried it. FF is very hard to get right though, e.g. the delays from command to force is a large problem.) I think its hard to overestimate the importance of the forces on the drivers body in making the driver feel what the car is doing. Driving a car really fast is like balancing on a tightrope, you can't do that very well with visual inputs only. There are also lots of small things missing like the pitch variations in the tire skid sounds. 7/ Whatever I forgot about, I'm sure there is more. All these limitations makes it _a_lot_ harder to drive in a simulation compared to in real life. But you can adopt to much of it, thats why the experts are able to get real life lap times in GPL. I guess that for an experienced real life driver learning to drive fast in GPL (or any pc sim) is like for a hockey player trying to play without his ears, with only one eye and a way to flexible stick. It can be done, but it ain't easy. _ Mats Lofkvist

Quoted text (33 lines)

> : Yes, SOS looked good when I saw it at E3, but I do think they're aiming > : it at a bit broader market than GPL. I found the car, an Auto-Union, much > : easier to drive than a GPL car. > Well, perhaps I'm a bit unique but I do believe that it's problems > with GPL's physics model which make it so difficult to drive - > specifically I think there's something peculiar about the way they have > calculated tyre grip when the tyres are at an angle and also the > assumption about a totally rigid chassis. My feeling was pretty > much confirmed (to my mind) by what I saw at Coys. In the hands of > drivers who I'm sure are extremely competent but are nonetheless mainly > gentleman amateurs with extremely limited test time * the cars looked > much more controllable than GPL cars. Can you imagine in a GPL style > car being able to overtake round the outside of Luffield even at > "taking it easy" pace - and these guys weren't taking it _that_ easy. > In short, I don't believe it's a bad thing that "Spirit of Speed" will > be easier than GPL - it may still be more "realistic" and it may not. > Let's wait and see. > Oh, if anyone's interested, I timed the Ex Jim Clark F2 Lotus 48 > (this has the 1.5L engine) at 1.53 round modern silverstone (which must > surely be much tougher and slower in those cars than the 67 Silverstone). > * This is not meant to sound disrespectful - the racers were extremely > good - but many of them were on that track for the first time in cars > they don't race often. > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

> I think you are severely underestimating the limitations in a pc simulation > compared to real life. > [SNIP] > 7/ Whatever I forgot about, I'm sure there is more. You forgot to mention the lack of stereo 3D - it's like driving with only one eye. [ I'll be installing the new Wicked3D banshee drivers tonight, so I'll soon find out whether it makes as much difference as I think it will! ] Still, the experts show that with enough practice it's possible to overcome these problems, since GPL has one big advantage over real life - it's much harder to kill yourself playing it!

Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the 1930s did not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!! I recommend to you the dual-pack video covering the Mercedes "Silver Arrows" (never referred to by that name by the factory, or the motoring press of the day, I might add) for some fascinating footage of the F1 cars of that era.

Quoted text (54 lines)

> : I guess '30s cars will be even heavier and slower to stop than the '67 > : cars, which is probably the thing that beginners find most difficult - > : it's not easy to judge the distance to the next corner without stereo 3D > : vision, and the earlier you have to brake the harder it is to get it > : right. > On the other hand, the 30s cars will be slower to start with so > there'll be less wheel spin and "getting the power on" problems. > : Also with heavier cars there will probably be even more weight transfer, > : which again means you need to be aware of the effects this produces - > : again difficult for beginners if modelled correctly. > The thing that looks horrible to me is that parallelogram thing that > the pre-war cars do with their wheels. If they model that then the > weight transfer is going to be just plain *** anyway even if the car > is relatively light. (For those who don't know what I'm talking about, > a lot of the pre-war cars have their wheels set up so the whole wheel > "tilts" but the wheels tilt together so that the wheels going round a > right hand corner would lean over but remain parallel. Does anyone know > why they did this? It seems damn stupid to me but everyone did it. > Was there a good reason? > : I guess if the physics model is simplified this in itself will make it > : easier to master the game, as the cars will be more predictable, but it > : doesn't necessarily mean it will be more fun to play! > I think that even if you take a complex physics model you can > abstract it and make a simpler game which the lead-footed amongst us can > enjoy. Adding optional traction control, anti-lock brakes, spin > correction etc etc which still allow you to remain reasonably > competitive would definitely increase the saleability without at all > damaging the realism (because the purist can turn them off). > : Maybe these two things are mutually exclusive - if you can get straight > : into the game right from the off then it will probably bore you after a > : few months, and if it poses a true challenge it will probably be very > : frustrating at the start. > Hmm... I'm not so sure... I'd love to see a sim where you could get > in and from day one put laps in and not be all over the damn place but > you could also get that GPL feeling of gradually getting better and > better. IMHO it's just plain foolish that in GPL the ordinary mortal > can't "win" an offline race on the easiest level without six months of > practice (and _I_ can't even win then). I don't see how it would have > made GPL a worse game to put in some newbie levels where the computer > cars are slower and more circumspect. I would certainly imagine that > this is the approach that Microprose/Hasbro will take. > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:39:10 +1000, And they were VERY fast. I think everyone is going to be in for a shock if the upcoming sim is a realistic one.. :) -- * rrevved at mindspring dot com

: I think you are severely underestimating the limitations in a pc simulation : compared to real life. : I would guess that 90% of the "extra" difficulty in GPL (compared to : a real car) comes from the pc limitations and not from the physics model : (which _don't_ mean that I'm in any way certain that the GPL physics : is perfect, or even close to). : Think about limitations like: : 1/ Screen resolution: Anyone with eye sight comparable to the 1024x768 : or whatever you use with GPL wouldn't be allowed to get a drivers : licence to begin with in real life. Racing?? Forget it. Sure there's a lot of problems with this - it's not just screen resolution but field of focus. I can look at the screen and the car park outside my window is kind of fuzzy - if I focus instead on the number plate of a car outside, I can read that and the screen is kind of fuzzy - you're never going to be able to simulate this with a 2d screen - but how useful is it in driving fast - I'm not sure. I don't believe that it would make things that much easier. : 3/ Screen update rate: Even a steady 36 Hz frame rate is noticeably : worse than real life. There is a reason real flight simulators : use 60 Hz or more. With a less than a 1GHz pc, you probably : have variations in frame rate also which doesn't make it easier. This I don't believe - TV is around about 30Hz and nobody complains that their TV looks jerky. When a framerate of 30 fps looks jerky it's inevitably because that 30 fps was an average and at some point it dropped way below that. : 4/ Delay: What you see on the pc monitor is old information compared : to your control inputs. I don't know the figures for GPL, but I : very much doubt it is less than one or two frames, which means : something around 50 ms. Doesn't sound much, but is noticable. : Variations in delay ain't any good either. I'm not convinced by this... I think the info is getting from controller to screen faster than 50ms but I'm prepared to be convinced by that. : 5/ Control resolution and stability: A standard pc game controller : combined with a cheap wheel is so lousy I get somewhat agitated : just thinking about it. (I hope I finally got a setup that is : acceptable now, using a pdpi digital game controller together : with a wheel with the standard potentiometer replaced with : something that costs more than two cents to manufacture. Note : that this still is far from the resolution in real life since : it is now limited by the 8 bit A/D converter in the pdpi card.) I think that most modern digital wheels have sufficient control resolution and stability. I may be wrong. : 6/ Missing information: Most importantly the forces on the controls : and on the drivers body. (The former might be partly fixed by : force feedback, but I haven't tried it. FF is very hard to get : right though, e.g. the delays from command to force is a large : problem.) I think its hard to overestimate the importance of the : forces on the drivers body in making the driver feel what the car : is doing. Driving a car really fast is like balancing on a tightrope, : you can't do that very well with visual inputs only. This is the thing that is hard to judge I guess. Maybe a few years down the road when we have force-feedback lotus***pits to sit in we'll be in a better position to comment :-)

: Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the 1930s did : not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!! : I recommend to you the dual-pack video covering the Mercedes "Silver Arrows" : (never referred to by that name by the factory, or the motoring press of the : day, I might add) for some fascinating footage of the F1 cars of that era. Sorry - didn't mean to imply that they would not - just that the 30s cars I've seen race are typically heavier and less powerful than the 60s equivalents. They're also noticeably slower. Should have _less_ wheelspin surely - even on those ultra skinny tyres. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Yes, but not much. The racecars of the early 30s, according to the 750kg-Formula, had a maximum weight of 750kg. Mercedes needed to remove the white paint of their new cars at their very first race in 1934 because they've been slightly too heavy. So, a 1967 Honda or BRM F1 with filled tanks was as heavy as a 1930 car with nearly empty tanks. Earlier 1920s race cars like the big truck-like supercharged 300hp Mercedes SSK or Bentley Blower, were strong, fast, very heavy, expensive and very hard to drive. And dangerous, of course. So the 750kg-Formula was introduced to force car makers to produce Bugatti-like small and light vehicles with presumably less power. The rule-makers just could not imagine the progess that was made by race car engineers in terms of power and light weight. Ouch! As engines, everything was permitted in the 750kg-Formula until AFAIK 1938, when size limitations were introduced (maximum 3 litre with supercharger, 4.5 normally aspirated). This led finally to 6 litre supercharged V12 or V16 monsters with over 500 hp (Auto Union) up to 646 hp of the latest Mercedes (AFAIK W125 in 1937?). Until the turbo era of the 1980s, F1 cars had less power than the 1930s cars. Even with a limit of 3 litre, the supercharged Mercedes engine produced 480 hp. F1 did not beat this before the 1970s Ferrari 12cyl. The early 1950s Alfa Romeo, which were more or less pre-war models as the same rules still were in effect, came close though. Nowadays, Top *** or Top Fuel dragster engines are the closest thing to the giant supercharged methanol burning engines of the 1930s. The modern high revving 3 litre F1 engines with no low or mid range power are completely different - these nervous little things can even stall if the driver is not hard enough on the gas while starting. The 1930s cars reached over 300 kph in races easily. During world record attempts, over 430 kph were done with special streamline-designed cars based on the GP cars. As typical underpowered road car or lower-spec race car of that time is concerend, yes. But not the Grand Prix dinosaurs which were made in Germany (and Italy or France) during that time. The drivers needed accelerator pedals with extra long travel in order to control the power and especially strong mid range torque of those big supercharged engines. Wheel spin was almost inevitable, tyre wear was a big problem: In the museum at the Nrburgring, there is a diagram showing the tyre wear vs. the lap times, recorded by Mercedes. In hill climb races (equipped with truck like double rear wheels) and accelerating world record attempts, the mid engined Auto Union cars designed by Ferdinand Porsche had much more grip than the front engine Mercedes. -- Matthias Flatt

<snippage of much useful, interesting and historic data on 30s GP cars> Well, I stand corrected - thanks Matthais. I think my impression had been gained by two things - 30's sports cars - which are visibly much slower off the line than the 60s ones and the fact that some 30s sports cars were used pretty much as is as GP cars (they just took the mudguards off apparently). -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:39:10 +1000, > >Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the 1930s did > >not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!! > >I recommend to you the dual-pack video covering the Mercedes "Silver Arrows" > >(never referred to by that name by the factory, or the motoring press of the > >day, I might add) for some fascinating footage of the F1 cars of that era. > And they were VERY fast. I think everyone is going to be in > for a shock if the upcoming sim is a realistic one.. :)

They certainly were fast in a straight line, round the corners though they were much slower. You see them in pictures cornering sitting on a flat seat without even any sides on the***pit for lateral restraint. That implies very low levels of lateral G. Controlling the wheelspin was I think the main problem for the drivers. - Michael

DON'T DO IT! Richard, for your own good, do not - I repeat DO NOT - start the "30 fps is all the eye can distinguish" discussion again. I know you're not saying this, but it's dangerously close. :) Really, this is a topic that leads to regular RAS flamefests every six months or so. And the side that claims that framerates above 30 fps are overkill always loses. <Obi Wan> "This is not a discussion you want to have." </Obi Wan> -- Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

>Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the 1930s did >not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!! Some not-so-dry numbers to back this up: Auto Union V 16 1934 model: 4.4l, 295hp at 4500 rpm type B 1935 model: 5.0l, 375hp at 4800 rpm type C 1936/37: 6.0l, 520hp at 5000 rpm Our GPL cars have less power at double rpms. Just imagine the torque. :) And the cars weren't slow either: Carraciola set the world record in 1938 with a 5.4l Mercedes with 600hp: 423.7 km/h (that's over 260 mph). And we thought GPL cars were scary... :) -- Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

That and the fact that any running example of a 1930's Silver Arrow or Auto Union is worth upwards from two million dollars US, as if anyone would sell one<g>. I had the good fortune to see Fangio run some demonstration laps of the Long Beach course before the '76 Grand Prix in one of the pre-war Mercedes, at one point making the uphill right hander from Pine Ave. onto Ocean Blvd, he had the car in a beautiful 4 wheel drift, engine screamin' with this big ol' ear to ear grin on his face. In the right hands, these cars were very fast. don [|]-(_)-[|]

Quoted text (14 lines)

>It is the tyre question that keeps them slow these days. Many are now >unavailable from manufacturers. >Mark >> : Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the 1930s >did >> : not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!! >> : I recommend to you the dual-pack video covering the Mercedes "Silver >Arrows" >> : (never referred to by that name by the factory, or the motoring press

of

Quoted text (14 lines)

>the >> : day, I might add) for some fascinating footage of the F1 cars of that >era. >> Sorry - didn't mean to imply that they would not - just that the 30s >> cars I've seen race are typically heavier and less powerful than the 60s >> equivalents. They're also noticeably slower. Should have _less_ >> wheelspin surely - even on those ultra skinny tyres. >> -- >> Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving >> Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. >> www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Heavier, yes, but the power put out by both those cars at their zenith (1939) was very high indeed. Make no mistake....driving these things was not for the faint-hearted and if the physics are being toned down somewhat in the sim then that's fine by me! :o) > : Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the 1930s did > : not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!! > : I recommend to you the dual-pack video covering the Mercedes "Silver Arrows" > : (never referred to by that name by the factory, or the motoring press of the > : day, I might add) for some fascinating footage of the F1 cars of that era.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Sorry - didn't mean to imply that they would not - just that the 30s > cars I've seen race are typically heavier and less powerful than the 60s > equivalents. They're also noticeably slower. Should have _less_ > wheelspin surely - even on those ultra skinny tyres. > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Thanks, Wolfgang, for popping up the stats. > >Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the 1930s did

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!! > Some not-so-dry numbers to back this up: > Auto Union V 16 1934 model: 4.4l, 295hp at 4500 rpm > type B 1935 model: 5.0l, 375hp at 4800 rpm > type C 1936/37: 6.0l, 520hp at 5000 rpm > Our GPL cars have less power at double rpms. Just imagine the torque. > :) > And the cars weren't slow either: Carraciola set the world record in > 1938 with a 5.4l Mercedes with 600hp: 423.7 km/h (that's over 260 > mph). And we thought GPL cars were scary... :) > -- > Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

cancellation warned.

Actually, video and cinema frame rate is precisely 24 frames a sec, not "around 30" Ross Wolfgang Preiss a crit dans le message

Quoted text (22 lines)

>>: 3/ Screen update rate: Even a steady 36 Hz frame rate is noticeably >>: worse than real life. There is a reason real flight simulators >>: use 60 Hz or more. With a less than a 1GHz pc, you probably >>: have variations in frame rate also which doesn't make it easier. >> This I don't believe - TV is around about 30Hz and nobody complains >>that their TV looks jerky. When a framerate of 30 fps looks jerky it's >>inevitably because that 30 fps was an average and at some point it >>dropped way below that. >DON'T DO IT! Richard, for your own good, do not - I repeat DO NOT - >start the "30 fps is all the eye can distinguish" discussion again. I >know you're not saying this, but it's dangerously close. :) >Really, this is a topic that leads to regular RAS flamefests every six >months or so. And the side that claims that framerates above 30 fps >are overkill always loses. ><Obi Wan> "This is not a discussion you want to have." </Obi Wan> >-- >Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

cancellation warned.

It is the tyre question that keeps them slow these days. Many are now unavailable from manufacturers. Mark > : Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the 1930s did > : not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!! > : I recommend to you the dual-pack video covering the Mercedes "Silver Arrows" > : (never referred to by that name by the factory, or the motoring press of the > : day, I might add) for some fascinating footage of the F1 cars of that era.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Sorry - didn't mean to imply that they would not - just that the 30s > cars I've seen race are typically heavier and less powerful than the 60s > equivalents. They're also noticeably slower. Should have _less_ > wheelspin surely - even on those ultra skinny tyres. > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 18:10:14 GMT, Thank you.. ;) -- * rrevved at mindspring dot com

>It is the tyre question that keeps them slow these days. Many are now >unavailable from manufacturers. >Mark Tyres are available from manufacturers, in some cases 'off the shelf', sometimes custom made. They use more modern materials, and are better than the ones used in the thirties. However, the tyre shredding monster Auto Union and Mercedes Benz cars needed exceptional drivers to handle them. The Auto Union was a notorious pig to drive, and only hero's like Rosemeyer and Nuvolari could tame them. No wonder that these cars are never given their head today, despite tyre developments. Steve

: DON'T DO IT! Richard, for your own good, do not - I repeat DO NOT - : start the "30 fps is all the eye can distinguish" discussion again. I : know you're not saying this, but it's dangerously close. :) : Really, this is a topic that leads to regular RAS flamefests every six : months or so. And the side that claims that framerates above 30 fps : are overkill always loses. : <Obi Wan> "This is not a discussion you want to have." </Obi Wan> These are not the framerates we're looking for. Go about your business. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 00:20:55 +0200, "Ross MacGregor" >Actually, video and cinema frame rate is precisely 24 frames a sec, not >"around 30" Nobody said cinema. Cinema = 24 fps Video NTSC = 29.97 fps (~30) Video PAL = 25 fps Where video does things in fields to complicate things. Thus Video frame rates are actually doubled, but flicker a bit depending on the phosphor used in the monitor. Cinema is great, but is sure is jerky when you see some panning! Ah well, we've seen these discussions before. Around 120Hz the discussion ends for all people I guess. Although probably many will still prefer 130Hz over 120Hz ;-) But he's very right about the jerkyness coming into play when the frequency is *not stable*. It's more irritating to see a 30Hz picture move every now & then to 25Hz than to look at a stable 15Hz picture. Just watch cartoons... Ruud

Quoted text (31 lines)

>Ross >Wolfgang Preiss a crit dans le message >>>: 3/ Screen update rate: Even a steady 36 Hz frame rate is noticeably >>>: worse than real life. There is a reason real flight simulators >>>: use 60 Hz or more. With a less than a 1GHz pc, you probably >>>: have variations in frame rate also which doesn't make it easier. >>> This I don't believe - TV is around about 30Hz and nobody complains >>>that their TV looks jerky. When a framerate of 30 fps looks jerky it's >>>inevitably because that 30 fps was an average and at some point it >>>dropped way below that. >>DON'T DO IT! Richard, for your own good, do not - I repeat DO NOT - >>start the "30 fps is all the eye can distinguish" discussion again. I >>know you're not saying this, but it's dangerously close. :) >>Really, this is a topic that leads to regular RAS flamefests every six >>months or so. And the side that claims that framerates above 30 fps >>are overkill always loses. >><Obi Wan> "This is not a discussion you want to have." </Obi Wan> >>-- >>Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome. >cancellation >warned.

Ruud van Gaal MarketGraph / MachTech: http://www.marketgraph.nl Art: http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery

Mark, I believe at least one of the European manufacturers (Dunlop, maybe?) does produce a small run of various "vintage" tyre sizes and compounds. I have no idea of the details, however.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> It is the tyre question that keeps them slow these days. Many are now > unavailable from manufacturers. > Mark > > : Richard, if you thought that the Auto Unions and Mercedes' of the

1930s > did > > : not spin their wheels on take-off.....think again!! > > : I recommend to you the dual-pack video covering the Mercedes "Silver > Arrows" > > : (never referred to by that name by the factory, or the motoring press of

Quoted text (14 lines)

> the > > : day, I might add) for some fascinating footage of the F1 cars of that > era. > > Sorry - didn't mean to imply that they would not - just that the 30s > > cars I've seen race are typically heavier and less powerful than the 60s > > equivalents. They're also noticeably slower. Should have _less_ > > wheelspin surely - even on those ultra skinny tyres. > > -- > > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > > Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. > > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Yes all that is true except hz as in screen refresh has nothing to do with FPS, you can have 36 FPS in GPL with 80hz refresh rate, whitch is stable enough. Anything under seems very flickery to me and hurts your eyes after a while. Ross

Quoted text (61 lines)

>On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 00:20:55 +0200, "Ross MacGregor" >>Actually, video and cinema frame rate is precisely 24 frames a sec, not >>"around 30" >Nobody said cinema. >Cinema = 24 fps >Video NTSC = 29.97 fps (~30) >Video PAL = 25 fps >Where video does things in fields to complicate things. Thus Video >frame rates are actually doubled, but flicker a bit depending on the >phosphor used in the monitor. >Cinema is great, but is sure is jerky when you see some panning! >Ah well, we've seen these discussions before. >Around 120Hz the discussion ends for all people I guess. Although >probably many will still prefer 130Hz over 120Hz ;-) >But he's very right about the jerkyness coming into play when the >frequency is *not stable*. It's more irritating to see a 30Hz picture >move every now & then to 25Hz than to look at a stable 15Hz picture. >Just watch cartoons... >Ruud >>Ross >>Wolfgang Preiss a crit dans le message >>>>: 3/ Screen update rate: Even a steady 36 Hz frame rate is noticeably >>>>: worse than real life. There is a reason real flight simulators >>>>: use 60 Hz or more. With a less than a 1GHz pc, you probably >>>>: have variations in frame rate also which doesn't make it easier. >>>> This I don't believe - TV is around about 30Hz and nobody complains >>>>that their TV looks jerky. When a framerate of 30 fps looks jerky it's >>>>inevitably because that 30 fps was an average and at some point it >>>>dropped way below that. >>>DON'T DO IT! Richard, for your own good, do not - I repeat DO NOT - >>>start the "30 fps is all the eye can distinguish" discussion again. I >>>know you're not saying this, but it's dangerously close. :) >>>Really, this is a topic that leads to regular RAS flamefests every six >>>months or so. And the side that claims that framerates above 30 fps >>>are overkill always loses. >>><Obi Wan> "This is not a discussion you want to have." </Obi Wan> >>>-- >>>Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome. >>cancellation >>warned. >Ruud van Gaal >MarketGraph / MachTech: http://www.marketgraph.nl >Art: http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery

Tires of any size are produced again for the classic car scene. Most are ***y expensive. Jens On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:28:32 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" >Mark, I believe at least one of the European manufacturers (Dunlop, maybe?) >does produce a small run of various "vintage" tyre sizes and compounds. I >have no idea of the details, however. <snip> --------------------------------------------- Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address