Sim Racing can never be sucessful.....

Lets face it.. .who can drive a GPL car straight out of the box?? Myabe 1% of the population. Translate that to an F1 car, who could drive an F1 sim that was TOTALLY realistc.?? This is what we want., but I feel will never get.. Why?? Because the mass market can't use it. Software developers are in the business of making money.. that is IT... So, they won't go making sims for a VERY neche (is that how you spell it?) market that won't sell, and won't make money. Grand Prix Legends I feel is the last TRUE sim we may ever see from mass software houses. It was a financial failure and won't be repeated again. BUT.. it may be possible to produce true sims by sim enthusiasts. I feel this is the ONLY way we will ever see another GPL. Just my 2 cents, but I think it makes a lot of sense :-) James Pickard, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA

What's wrong with a game that has a slider somewhere that goes from 0% arcade realism to 100% GPL realism? This is why GPL failed at the boxoffice, no options to turn things down. People just get frustrated and give up. As you go down on the slider, you get more grip with the tires. You get a magical force that helps prevent the car from spinning. Centrifugal force is turned down. Stuff like that. You might want to hide it in an ini file. Because alot of people are just going to set it to 100% as soon as they see it. And then get frustrated and give up. GPL is ahead of it's time, but we will see more quality sims like this, and even better. Better graphics, modelling of different road conditions, weather, time of day ( light conditions ). GPL is the best we've seen but there is still a long way to go. glen

"James Pickard" wrote again. GPL is a very realistic simulator of the 1967 F1 season. It was a financial failure for the same reason; not because it is so realistic, but because in sports, 1967 is ancient history. If EA tried to sell Madden Football 1967 or World Cup Soccer 1967 they would be financial failures also, even with all of EA's mass marketing dollars. Plus, the 1967 season was probably the most difficult season ever, in terms of the cars as well as the competition. A realistic simulator doesn't necesarily mean it must be extremely difficult, but a 1967 F1 sim is going to be much more difficult to master than a 2000 NASCAR sim assuming the physics are equal in realism. I believe Dirt Track Racing has a realistic physics engine, but Saturday night dirt track racing at the local track is easier to master than the F1 circuit. The most realistic rally sim that could possibly be made is going to be far easier to drive than GPL, even a modern F1 sim would be easier to drive than GPL. But F1 roadcourse racing is the most demanding driving in the world; so no matter how well it's done it still isn't going to be attractive to everyone. The best selling "sim" series of all time is NASCAR 1,2,3. The thing that most people (maybe even Papyrus) don't realize is that it sells mostly because of one track, Talladega. I know about 12 people locally who own one or more of the NASCAR products, and all but 3 of them have never even tried to race any of the other tracks. No matter how realistic the physics engine is, Talladega is going to be easy to drive. Give us GPL level physics, throw in an "arcade" mode that can be driven with a keyboard, and Papyrus has another top seller, and the rest of us have a hyper realistic sim based on a modern form of racing.

Ermmmm I disagree whole-heartedly. There IS a mass market for realistic driving sims (F1 and otherwise), it's just that the doe-heads in marketing (ALL OF THEM in the F1 arena) seem to think that putting a full page adverti***t in a magazine that caters to the 14-20 yr old "flavour of the month" market will suffice in selling a game. This just isn't the case with simulations. They (the marketing doe-heads), seem content to ignore the very market that is growing at the largest rate, is MORE cash ready to purchased the equipment/game, is an instant "loyal client" upon satisfaction, and has the longest "shelf-life" participants..... the market OLDER than 20 yrs old. Don't blame anyone else but the marketing guys that have screwed it up for the game company, the avid end-users, and the programmers that WANT to make the games. I don't blame the "suits" for not wanting to make another "realistic" Sim based on the "box-office" failures of the past (GPL being perhaps the biggest). The "suits" are going to look at the numbers from GPL, and think that the market doesn't want a realistic sim... but the numbers are tainted because the marketing idiots didn't know their target market and squandered the money on useless advertising that had no impact on the QuakeIII fanatics. They should take a page out of the Flight Sims Marketers on how it's done properly, and successfully... My 2 cents that I hand out in frustration.... Cheers, Shumi [link lost in import]

>Lets face it.. .who can drive a GPL car straight out of the box?? Myabe >1% of the population. True ... but even more importantly, who has the time to learn to drive it really well, even if they ARE interested in doing so? Cut your 1% down to 0.1%. The obvious solution, to me, is to program a good physics engine like GPL and include accessibility OPTIONS. Arcade drivers absolutely love driving games that "feel" realistic (i.e., feel like the real street-cars they drive) and features like GPL's 3d accidents. With a high-grip arcade mode and a bit of marketing GPL could have easily sold half a million copies. What would that have done for sim racers? First there would be a larger community, because SOME of those arcade racers would advance to the more sophisticated areas of the game. And, of course, there would be a MUCH bigger chance of other GPL-type-engine games being released. Look at what Sierra does with the successful Nascar engine - how would all you *** simmers feel like seeing a couple GPL expansion-packs/conversions a year? Joe McGinn _________________________ GA-Sports Writer http://www.ga-sports.com/

>You might want to hide it in an ini file. Good post, Glen, except for this bit. Remember the point is to make the game accesible, so the last thing you want is to hide these features in an INI file. GPL does have some such features (not enough, but some) but they were hidden, and the casual gamer (and casual reviewer) probably never knew about the. Joe McGinn _________________________ GA-Sports Writer http://www.ga-sports.com/

I disagree completely, but we will soon know which of us is right. EA is in fact working on a 50s/60s version of Need for Speed. I'm betting it will be a big success. Any takers? Joe McGinn _________________________ GA-Sports Writer http://www.ga-sports.com/

James: I certainly hope you're wrong about the game companies staying away from producing sims like GPL. When I bought this game (10 months ago for CAN$35), I was literally floored by the quality of this sim. I'm still amazed that no one - and I have bought N2, NL, and Sports Car GT - has even come close to GPL. N2. NL, and SCGT collect dust on my shelf: They feel like pong games compared to GPL. Ancient history. As Glen wrote in his post: "GPL is the best we've seen...". Yeah, it's hard. Yeah, it takes 3 hours to complete a full GP race. And yeah, I'll never, ever win without AI tweaks. But the competion and "realism" of the sim is so good, I feel like I'm there. Arcade has it's place, but after a while, it gets boring as hell. Yeah, the 14-year-olds want instant gratification so they're always gonna buy RC Racer or some such muck. I think there is a market for sims like GPL - and it's really gonna be a company that wants to push the boundry that'll produce it. What about Trans Am Racing '68-'72? Isn't that game a "real sim" that's gonna be hard to play? But EA is apparently going ahead with it anyway (albeit 9 months late). Peter Blackmore CANADA

(snip) GP2 had this sort of scalabilty and it was a success though I'm sure there were other factors involved too. I do think if there were to be a grip patch in a sim there should be a corresponding reduction in engine output. This would give players a positive reason to drive the more slippery cars. GPL goes part of the way to implementing this in the Basic trainer and Advanced trainer with the reduced power but it seems they also reduced the available grip. I think a gutless but grippy F3 car would have made a better trainer. Higher (or even F1 equal) grip with less power would also make setup abilty less of a factor which i think would be a positive at a learner level so as not to overwhelm the new player who is challenged enough just getting 'round the track. David

(snip) Those sim enthusiasts would also have to be pretty good programmers too. The only way I can see this working is something along the lines of the historic flight sims such as Air Warrior, Warbirds, Fighter Ace plus the new ones coming out. That business model allows for a continually upgraded product though some are slower than others) in return for a monthly or hourly based usage fee. That way the sim is constantly generating revenue to pay for its ongoing evolution. Of course the flight sims generally don't have to worry too much about licensing issues like the car sims do. Also there is probably a lot of resistance to the idea of pay-for-play but I think thats the way we'll get a better GPL (GPL2 maybe?) David

"Joe62" wrote That's a completely different thing. People have seen and driven (some still drive) these classic sports cars. If anything going with older cars will add value to the product since most of us will never get the chance to drive them, but we think it would be cool to pretend in a game. Just like historic flight sims generally do well, it is because you could have and in many cases still can fly the old planes. But in a racing sim the public doesn't buy it because they are curious about the cars (we can't go out and buy them), they purchase racing sims because of interest in the sport. The sport is what we see on TV, and the history channel doesn't count.

>You might want to hide it in an ini file. Because alot of people are just >going to set it to 100% as soon as they see it. And then get frustrated and >give up. Do this and I'm sure many of us would complain that why should we have to tweak around with INI files just to increase the realism? Just as I agree it's not entirely fair to make a sim as complicated as GPL without any means of decreasing the difficulty, I also feel that *** racers have just as much right to enjoy the game out of the box. Just my two ten pieces worth. :-) Absolutely! Can you think of a system which can run GPL with all the details and cars switched on without even the slightest drop in frame rate? I can't. Not unless you have 4000 or more to spend on a new 1000MHz PC's! Definitely! GPL could be GREATLY improved on. Perhaps sim developers would do well by asking US what we think should be included in their sims? Ken, - Remove 'nospamallowed' from my email address to reply. - ICQ #53954494

I disagree, and my confidence remains in Papyrus because of one single man: Dave Kaemmer - the guy's an absolute genius and the man's possessed when it comes to the physics..... I bet his next sim will need an exorcist before you can use it. :-) Mike.

Bang on. All GPL needed was a good arcade mode with slider adjustable AI--where have we seen that before?? I, for one, would immediately set the AI to 100% and put all the realism options to "real"--therefore giving me exactly what I already have. But I also have always realised that I (and most of the rest of us here on r.a.s.) don't fit the profile of the average game purchaser out there. We (and Papy) need their purchases to fuel more research and development -- god knows our contribution won't result in another GPL anytime soon. Marc. > >Lets face it.. .who can drive a GPL car straight out of the box?? Myabe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >1% of the population. > True ... but even more importantly, who has the time to learn to drive > it really well, even if they ARE interested in doing so? Cut your 1% > down to 0.1%. > >This is what we want., but I feel will never get.. Why?? Because the

mass

Quoted text (21 lines)

> >market can't use it. > The obvious solution, to me, is to program a good physics engine like > GPL and include accessibility OPTIONS. Arcade drivers absolutely love > driving games that "feel" realistic (i.e., feel like the real > street-cars they drive) and features like GPL's 3d accidents. With a > high-grip arcade mode and a bit of marketing GPL could have easily > sold half a million copies. > What would that have done for sim racers? First there would be a > larger community, because SOME of those arcade racers would advance to > the more sophisticated areas of the game. And, of course, there would > be a MUCH bigger chance of other GPL-type-engine games being released. > Look at what Sierra does with the successful Nascar engine - how would > all you *** simmers feel like seeing a couple GPL > expansion-packs/conversions a year? > Joe McGinn > _________________________ > GA-Sports Writer > http://www.ga-sports.com/

Subject: Re: Sim Racing can never be sucessful..... Date: Sat, 27 November 1999 02:44 PM What about Trans Am Racing '68-'72? Isn't that game a "real sim" that's gonna be hard to play? But EA is apparently going ahead with it anyway (albeit 9 months late) Where did you hear that? JM

Browsing the Web - maybe it was the company's site - I saw a release date of Jan-2000. Was this real, or just wishful thinking? PB

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Subject: Re: Sim Racing can never be sucessful..... > Date: Sat, 27 November 1999 02:44 PM What about Trans Am Racing '68-'72? Isn't > that game a "real sim" that's > gonna be hard to play? But EA is apparently going ahead with it anyway > (albeit 9 months late) > Where did you hear that? > JM

Trans Am Racing '68-'72 is Dead, it's not coming out. But a Modern day Trans-am Sim is a different story. ;)

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Browsing the Web - maybe it was the company's site - I saw a release date > of Jan-2000. Was this real, or just wishful thinking? > PB > > Subject: Re: Sim Racing can never be sucessful..... > > Date: Sat, 27 November 1999 02:44 PM What about Trans Am Racing '68-'72? Isn't > > that game a "real sim" that's > > gonna be hard to play? But EA is apparently going ahead with it anyway > > (albeit 9 months late) > > Where did you hear that? > > JM

I would feel much better if Papy found a new publisher or they publish their own software. I have no faith in Sierra.

>GPL is a very realistic simulator of the 1967 F1 season. It was a >financial failure for the same reason; not because it is so realistic, >but because in sports, 1967 is ancient history. If EA tried to sell >Madden Football 1967 or World Cup Soccer 1967 they would be financial >failures also, even with all of EA's mass marketing dollars. I have no idea if this is true or not, but I sure hope you're mistaken. I find it hard to believe that most racing fans (at least F1 fans) don't have an interest in racing on the great tracks of the 60's against the legends like Jim Clark, Graham Hill, Jack Brabham, Dan Gurney .... You mention that basing a sports game on the past wouldn't sell. I think this depends on the sport. A basketball game based on the fifties would definitely bomb (who wants to see a bunch of slow white guys shooting set shots). However, baseball games with great teams of the past (the '27 Yankees with Ruth and Gehrig, the '55 Dodgers with Duke Snider, Jackie Robinson et. al.) playing in the great old parks like Ebbetts Field, have done well. I think that racing is more like baseball in that there is an emotional tie to the past (my apologies to our European friends who probably don't know much about the culture of baseball in the U.S.). This explains all the interest in vintage race meets and people's love of old cars. Also, WWII flight combat sims have done well because there is something romantic about the era, as well as the actual challenge of flying a piston driven plane (you have to understand energy and can't just fire up the afterburner to get out of a jam). Now the average gamma probably doesn't give a rat's ass about either realistic driving models or the romance of the era. I think that this same average gamma would not have endured a steep learning curve on any ultra-realistic racing sim, regardless of the era. I do think that there are enough true racing fans who really love vintage racing to support titles like GPL, but I think that the game was just too hard for the vast majority of them. Not having adjustable realism settings was just plain nuts from a sales stand point. Dave Ewing

>Now the average gamma ^^^^^^^^ Oops. I accidentally changed all the "gamers" to "gamma" by hitting the wrong button in Outlook Express's spellcheck! What a moron. Dave Ewing

And what makes you assume that all gamers are racing fans? That's the thing here... GPL is for the *** racing simulation market and that's where it was targeted. Im almost sure btw that most of the normal racing fans have no idea who those drivers are. GPL was destined to doom for the mass-market, but it did well to the real target it was going to. You guys still think that Mr. Gamer would buy GPL ??? His 30minute attention span simply does not care. Like it doesn't care for many other types of ***. -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Seen yes, but drive? EA markets games to a modtly young audience. I bet less than 1% of NFS buyers will have driven any of the cars in the game. Exactly like GPL. I disagree. They purchase games that are fun. For the vast majority of gamers, I believe GPL fails that test. Joe McGinn _________________________ GA-Sports Writer http://www.ga-sports.com/

"Joe62" wrote You still don't get it. A large percentage of game players have voted with their money to the fact that they think simulating is fun, even simulating activities as mundane as flying a 747. The more realistic, the better. People enjoy simulating activities they are interested in. MS Flight Simulator has been a top 10 product for 15 years. Arcade flying games have come and gone, but only the true sims have stood the test of time. The reason "Test Drive" games sell so well is that people think they are buying a sim, and they will be able to simulate driving a luxury sports car they could never afford. The number one selling Playstation game all-time is a driving simulator, Gran Tourismo. It sold as much as all the NFS games combined, even though it is somewhat "more difficult". The problem with GPL is that it simulates something that only a very small percentage of people are interested in. Of that small group, an even smaller number happen to have a high end PC and a steering wheel mounted on their desk. Do you really think that a 1967 F1 game would have sold well if only they had based it on the NFS engine? EA tried that with a NASCAR sim, it didn't go over too well. NASCAR fans demanded realism, do you believe F1 fans are less demanding?

"Niche". -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

What's with everything thinking that harder is realistic? Jump into your car and drive around the block. Was it realistic? Was it hard? So where do the two meet? How come people dismiss driving games that aren't hard as being unrealistic. Viper can not be called a sim because of the fake tracks. But the physics model is pretty damn close to a modern day car. The car wasn't very hard to drive. Maybe hard to drive at the limit, but anything is hard to drive at the limit, thus the name "limit". While up in Canada, I watched a few Goodyear workers drive around in an F1 car. It was an attempt to get Goodyear as a sponsor for the team. The guys made it around the track just fine. Normal Joe's off the street driving a F1 car. They kept it on the track and the only difficulty they had was in the shifting department. It is so lovely hearing an F1 car go to the rev limiter and stay on it. They broke a couple (cough 3 cough) gearboxes but they seemed to drive it alright. SOOOO the possibility for future realistic sims is there. People just have to rethink what the definition of a sim really is. That's my main point. JBlack

It has no where NEAR the learning curve of GPL. I disagree. I certainly don't expect NFS or Test Drive to be a serious simulation. The GPL engine with some arcade options would be MUCH more fun than the NFS engine. I think that's the point you are missing - most people buy computer games for FUN. And because of the ridiculously high learning curve that's something most people will never experience in GPL. (I'm not one of those people, BTW, I love GPL - I just think it's a shame that it as so unaccessible, and thus so unsuccessful). That had little do to with realism. Nascar Evolution was utterly flawed, even as an arcade game. As a result it was no fun, got terrible reviews, and no one wanted to buy it. In any case, it will be interesting to watch the new "old time" NFS edition. I'm still betting it will do very well, despite modeling cars almost none of the market has driven, and despite a very unrealistic driving model. Joe McGinn _________________________ GA-Sports Writer http://www.ga-sports.com/

Any idea what it will be called, or when it looks to be released? Ken, - Remove 'nospamallowed' from my email address to reply. - ICQ #53954494

> >I disagree completely, but we will soon know which of us is right. EA > >is in fact working on a 50s/60s version of Need for Speed. I'm betting > >it will be a big success. Any takers? > Any idea what it will be called, or when it looks to be released? NFS: Motor City Q4 1999........or whenever its ready. Most of the PC *** mags have featured a preview already. Looks great IMO. DMaer

:>MS Flight Simulator has been a top 10 product for 15 years. : It has no where NEAR the learning curve of GPL. And even the "hard" flight sims are nowhere near as difficult as GPL. Every prop sim I have flown which claimed to model prop torque, wind effects etc. etc. was a walk in the park compared to GPL. Stephen

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > I have no idea if this is true or not, but I sure hope you're mistaken. I > > find it hard to believe that most racing fans (at least F1 fans) don't > have > > an interest in racing on the great tracks of the 60's against the legends > > like Jim Clark, Graham Hill, Jack Brabham, Dan Gurney .... > And what makes you assume that all gamers are racing fans?

And what makes you assume that I assume that all gamers are racing fans? ;-) I'm not sure what you mean by a "normal racing fan". Somebody who has been watching nothing but NASCAR? In that case, you're right. But I would think that even the casual F1 fan has heard of Jim Clark. Agreed. I have no idea. Given that later in my post I wrote ... "Now the average gamer probably doesn't give a rat's ass about either realistic driving models or the romance of the era. I think that this same average gamer would not have endured a steep learning curve on any ultra-realistic racing sim, regardless of the era." ... I, of course, agree with you. Dave Ewing -- ***************************************************** David A. Ewing *****************************************************

The other night I was watching the FIA repeats on Speedvision.(finally a way to get through winter! God Bless you Speedvision) every 5 minutes there was a commercial for Test Drive 6. When Speedvision premiered Grand Prix last year, all Sierra had to do was show the movie intro for the sim and I guarentee you the Grand Prix fans would have scooped that title up. Of course I'm not sure how many would keep it after spinning off a dozen times in the first lap. dave henrie

Quoted text (62 lines)

> Ermmmm > I disagree whole-heartedly. > There IS a mass market for realistic driving sims (F1 and otherwise), it's > just that the doe-heads in marketing (ALL OF THEM in the F1 arena) seem to > think that putting a full page adverti***t in a magazine that caters to > the 14-20 yr old "flavour of the month" market will suffice in selling a > game. This just isn't the case with simulations. They (the marketing > doe-heads), seem content to ignore the very market that is growing at the > largest rate, is MORE cash ready to purchased the equipment/game, is an > instant "loyal client" upon satisfaction, and has the longest "shelf-life" > participants..... the market OLDER than 20 yrs old. > Don't blame anyone else but the marketing guys that have screwed it up for > the game company, the avid end-users, and the programmers that WANT to make > the games. I don't blame the "suits" for not wanting to make another > "realistic" Sim based on the "box-office" failures of the past (GPL being > perhaps the biggest). > The "suits" are going to look at the numbers from GPL, and think that the > market doesn't want a realistic sim... but the numbers are tainted because > the marketing idiots didn't know their target market and squandered the > money on useless advertising that had no impact on the QuakeIII fanatics. > They should take a page out of the Flight Sims Marketers on how it's done > properly, and successfully... > My 2 cents that I hand out in frustration.... > Cheers, > Shumi > [link lost in import] > > Lets face it.. .who can drive a GPL car straight out of the box?? Myabe > > 1% of the population. > > Translate that to an F1 car, who could drive an F1 sim that was TOTALLY > > realistc.?? > > This is what we want., but I feel will never get.. Why?? Because the mass > > market can't use it. > > Software developers are in the business of making money.. that is IT... > > So, they won't go making sims for a VERY neche (is that how you spell it?) > > market that won't sell, and won't make money. > > Grand Prix Legends I feel is the last TRUE sim we may ever see from mass > > software houses. It was a financial failure and won't be repeated again. > > BUT.. it may be possible to produce true sims by sim enthusiasts. I feel > > this is the ONLY way we will ever see another GPL. > > Just my 2 cents, but I think it makes a lot of sense :-) > > James Pickard, > > Melbourne, > > AUSTRALIA

Peter, This is the 1st that I've heard that EA is actually going ahead with TAR 68-72. Where did you see this ? Joel Willstein

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > >I disagree completely, but we will soon know which of us is right. EA > > >is in fact working on a 50s/60s version of Need for Speed. I'm betting > > >it will be a big success. Any takers? > > Any idea what it will be called, or when it looks to be released? > NFS: Motor City Q4 1999........or whenever its ready. > Most of the PC *** mags have featured a preview already. > Looks great IMO.

But the question still begs : What's she like to drive???

Falcon 4? longbow 2? (and even the older Tornado and falcon 3) -- Robert S?derberg If replying by mail,remove the word INGENSPAM from the adress.

We already have a great Modern day Trans-Am series in SCGT when you download the 3.0 service pack. Joel Willstein

Exactly. Everyone needs to make a living but as is all too often the case, Papy seems to have sold their sole to the devil, Sierra. Marty

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I would feel much better if Papy found a new publisher or they publish > their own software. I have no faith in Sierra. > > I disagree, and my confidence remains in Papyrus because of one single man: > > Dave Kaemmer - the guy's an absolute genius and the man's possessed when it > > comes to the physics..... I bet his next sim will need an exorcist before > > you can use it. :-) > > Mike.

Sold their sole? Don't tell me they're doing a fishing sim. :-) -- Peter Ives

> >Exactly. Everyone needs to make a living but as is all too often the case, Papy > >seems to have sold their sole to the devil, Sierra. > Sold their sole? Don't tell me they're doing a fishing sim. :-) > -- > Peter Ives Can you imagine the arguments we'd get in then?? ....dream mode engaged..... I'm telling ya, I have driven the chris craft bassmaster 2000 and NO WAY does this sim fathfully model the lift and drag properties of that tin boat. ... -- not to be rude but anyone who chooses the CC B2k probably still thinks catch and release is a solution to homeless overcrowding. -- oh yeah well your mother smells fish eggss.. ....dream mode disengaged..... dave henrie

>> Sold their sole? Don't tell me they're doing a fishing sim. :-) >> -- >> Peter Ives > Can you imagine the arguments we'd get in then?? >....dream mode engaged..... Then of course the websites would begin to pop up where you could download different lures.... ~daxe -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Thats interesting. In the flight sim genre, didn't Air Warrior and Warbirds(two of the first "realistic flight model" sims) begin life as projects by a small group of flight sim enthusiasts? And Thrustmaster...it too was a project of a few flight simmrs in Oregon. So you "may" be right. I will say the immense strides SCGT has taken since it was released have been 95% private initiatives. dave henrie

Quoted text (8 lines)

> The other night I was watching the FIA repeats on Speedvision.(finally >a way to get through winter! God Bless you Speedvision) >every 5 minutes there was a commercial for Test Drive 6. > When Speedvision premiered Grand Prix last year, all Sierra had to do >was show the movie intro for the sim and I guarentee you the Grand Prix >fans would have scooped that title up. Of course I'm not sure how many >would keep it after spinning off a dozen times in the first lap. >dave henrie

So why is it that WE can see such perfect marketing connections, but the people who get PAID to do it can't...? Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Sold their sole? Don't tell me they're doing a fishing sim. :-) > > -- > > Peter Ives > Can you imagine the arguments we'd get in then?? > ....dream mode engaged..... > I'm telling ya, I have driven the chris craft bassmaster 2000 > and NO WAY does this sim fathfully model the lift and drag properties > of that tin boat. ... > --

Hilarious :-)