The way I look at it, any product has to be developed within a budget
of $X. For a simulation, this means that they can choose to spend it on
people with excellent programming, math, and physics knowledge, or they
can spend more heavily on graphic artists, etc. There is always a
balancing act in how the money is spent.
Whenever I start up a "sim" and am immediately greeted with a super-
glitzy user interface, the warning bells start to go off. All these 3D-
look controls with twirling, animated actions and ker-chunck, ker-chunk
sounds may be de rigeur on an arcade console, but they tell me
something about how the development budget was spent. All too often,
when I finally get into the "sim" part of the game, I realize where
they must have spent the most -- and it wasn't on the simulation part
of the product!
GPL is a good example of what I expect to see in a hard-core
simulation. Simple, minimalist 2D setup screens; no fancy animated
intros; to-the-point options and settings. Even the scenery and special
effects are minimal -- who has time to look at the scenery and shadows
when you're trying to drive a hot lap?? And when you get into the
simulation itself, you realize where they spent their budget: on the
math, physics, and efficient software implementation. When you think
about what this game is doing -- in real-time -- it is very, very
impressive.
OTOH, the emphasis in what I've seen so far from companies like EA
Sports sends my expectations in a different direction. I have not
played SBK2000 for very long yet, but so far it seems like they spent a
lot more time on the UI and graphic glitz than on the simulation. I
hope that F1 2000 does not also follow this trend (but I suspect it
will).
BTW, this is not to say that a game can't be produced that has all of
the special effects AND is a great simulation. It's just that this
would require a correspondingly larger budget.
Doug Gordon
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
: GPL is a good example of what I expect to see in a hard-core
: simulation. Simple, minimalist 2D setup screens; no fancy animated
: intros; to-the-point options and settings. Even the scenery and special
: effects are minimal -- who has time to look at the scenery and shadows
: when you're trying to drive a hot lap??
Anyone who wants a braking point more accurate than "some time
after the green blob but before the white square". One of the things
that frustrates me about the GPL graphics are that they are relatively
primative for a driving game and therefore it's hard to pick brake
points due to the lack of trackside markers. Even GP2 was better since
it had some markers actually by corners. So, yes, I'd pay more money
for GPL with better scenery because its featurelessness makes it more
difficult than it needs to be.
--
Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/
Well I do not think during the 60s many tracks had braking markers. Some
did and they are in the game. I am not a Papy lover, but I do think they
did get this reasonably right in the game.
Dave
My Dad, who was involved in F1 during the 60s and early 70s, took one look
at GPL and his first comments (apart from remarks about my driving) were
"where are the distance markers?" apart from Rouen, and Spa, in places, none
of the tracks feature enough useful markers in GPL, yet they definetly did
exist at the majority of tracks (according to my old man, who actually raced
at Silverstone many times, among other places). Notice there are distance
markers at Spa before the Masta kink, and on the run up to la source. Very
useful, so why not implement them at other circuits?
<snipped>
Quoted text (10 lines)
>Well I do not think during the 60s many tracks had braking markers. Some >did and they are in the game. I am not a Papy lover, but I do think they >did get this reasonably right in the game. >Dave >> Anyone who wants a braking point more accurate than "some time >> after the green blob but before the white square". One of the things >> that frustrates me about the GPL graphics are that they are relatively >> primative...It looks like F1 2000 gives us just that =)
...Colin
Now there's a patch we could use! The GPL Brake Marker Patch. People
are adding graphics to gpl all the time, so it obviously wouldn't be
to difficult for someone that knew what they were doing. I'm
unfortunately not one of those people. Any takers ?
--
Don Scurlock
Vancouver,B.C.
Quoted text (25 lines)
>My Dad, who was involved in F1 during the 60s and early 70s, took >one look at GPL and his first comments (apart from remarks about my >driving) were "where are the distance markers?" apart from Rouen, >and Spa, in places, none of the tracks feature enough useful markers >in GPL, yet they definetly did exist at the majority of tracks >(according to my old man, who actually raced at Silverstone many >times, among other places). Notice there are distance markers at Spa >before the Masta kink, and on the run up to la source. Very useful, >so why not implement them at other circuits? >>Well I do not think during the 60s many tracks had braking markers. >> Some did and they are in the game. I am not a Papy lover, but I >>do think they did get this reasonably right in the game. >>Dave >>> Anyone who wants a braking point more accurate than "some time >>> after the green blob but before the white square". One of the >>> things that frustrates me about the GPL graphics are that they >>> are relatively primative... ><snipped>
Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8atmvf$18k$[email hidden]...
Richard,
I've struggled with F1-2000 and then went back to GPL and oh man what a
revelation that is! The gfx in f1-2000 may be better but i'll predict that
this GAME simply isn't the big fish it promised to be. The graphic detail in
GPL is just good, not too much not too few either. I think the problem of
finding your braking point is not because of the graphics but because you're
not familiar enough with the track.
The original poster on this thread is right about his opinions: The emphasis
in f1-2k is on action/graphic detail not on accuracy/modelling, I'm sorry
but I think all our hopes have to be focussed on GP3 and WSC if you're
looking for a sim that is!
J.
> --
> Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
> Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
> Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
> UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/
Quoted text (17 lines)
> Doug Gordon <[email hidden]> wrote: > > : GPL is a good example of what I expect to see in a hard-core > : simulation. Simple, minimalist 2D setup screens; no fancy animated > : intros; to-the-point options and settings. Even the scenery and special > : effects are minimal -- who has time to look at the scenery and shadows > : when you're trying to drive a hot lap?? > > Anyone who wants a braking point more accurate than "some time > after the green blob but before the white square". One of the things > that frustrates me about the GPL graphics are that they are relatively > primative for a driving game and therefore it's hard to pick brake > points due to the lack of trackside markers. Even GP2 was better since > it had some markers actually by corners. So, yes, I'd pay more money > for GPL with better scenery because its featurelessness makes it more > difficult than it needs to be. >In article <01bf8ffe$8accb580$20d4fc3f@packardbell>, "David"
<[email hidden]> writes:
Which is a drag, unless you have a FAST system. On many systems, you need to
turn down the graphics details to get a good frame rate. When you do that, you
lose some of your brake markers(trees, bushes, wall graphic, whatever)...
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.
