Hey Everyone!
I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game shots...looks
pretty nice!
Check it out!
Papyrus releases NR2003 preview video
A new NASCAR Racing 2003 video on Papyrus's site showed sun flare, animated pit crews, jumbotrons and dynamic shadows. David G Fisher scoffed that such features had been done elsewhere, while Schooner defended incremental updates. John Pancoast listed what he really wanted: better drafting, damage, collisions and multiple racing lines, and bandwidth's role in damage and flips was argued.
Automated summary.
"Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Hey Everyone!
>
> I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game shots...looks
> pretty nice!
>
> Check it out!
Other then the the multiple animated pit crews I don't see much difference then the 2002 version.
The outward appearance of the way the car moves don't reveal much change in the physics.
I hope I'm wrong. I was viewing the high res version.
"Jon T" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:wrsS9.6445$[email hidden]...
>
> "Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > Hey Everyone!
> >
> > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in gameshots...looks
> > pretty nice!
> >
> > Check it out!
>
>
> Other then the the multiple animated pit crews I don't see much differencethen the 2002 version.
> The outward appearance of the way the car moves don't reveal much changein the physics.
> I hope I'm wrong. I was viewing the high res version.
>
>
I noticed:
1) Sun Flare Effect (Sunset and Daylight...The sunset in your face effect
was quite nice, I thought...)
2) Animated JumboTron Screens in the Infiield
3) Backlit Tach at night
4) Better looking infield-side lights at night
5) Pit signs waving over every stall while pitting (that's gonna be
interesting...) with a "war wagon" at each stall (didn't notice any animated
crew members...)
6) You only see about 3/4 of the rear view mirror in the cockpit view
But, your main point holds true. The cars still don't look like they are
"carving" their way around the track. They still have a "shape riding on
top of a texture" look to them.
JCB
I too, was viewing the hi-rez version...
"Jon T" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<wrsS9.6445$[email hidden]>...
> Other then the the multiple animated pit crews I don't see much difference then the 2002 version.
> The outward appearance of the way the car moves don't reveal much change in the physics.
> I hope I'm wrong. I was viewing the high res version.
I'm at work so can't view this yet, but one thing, IMO, that was *not*
wrong with N2K2 was the way the cars looked on the track. Any physics
changes required were pretty subtle AFAIK and I would have thought
watching a replay would give no indication of how this aspect has
changed at all. Picky little replay faults from N2K2 that could do
with fixing to make for an even more convincing viewing experience
would be shadows of cars being cast onto walls rather than through
walls and onto the ground behind (most noticable at Sears and Pocono,
if momory serves) and shadows from trackside objects - bridges,
fencing, etc - being cast onto cars.
Does anyone know if the sun is gonna set on the 600?
Regards,
Mark
"Jay Beckman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:fgtS9.96489$[email hidden]...
difference
Done years ago in other sims.
> 2) Animated JumboTron Screens in the Infiield
Done years ago in other sims.
Dirt build up on windshield and <gasp> more than one car shape were done
years ago in other sims.
Can't wait for this one. Groundbreaking stuff.
David G Fisher
> 3) Backlit Tach at night
> 4) Better looking infield-side lights at night
> 5) Pit signs waving over every stall while pitting (that's gonna be
> interesting...) with a "war wagon" at each stall (didn't notice anyanimated
Quoted text (16 lines)
> > "Jon T" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:wrsS9.6445$[email hidden]... > > > > "Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Hey Everyone! > > > > > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game > shots...looks > > > pretty nice! > > > > > > Check it out! > > > > > > Other then the the multiple animated pit crews I don't see muchQuoted text (11 lines)
> then the 2002 version. > > The outward appearance of the way the car moves don't reveal much change > in the physics. > > I hope I'm wrong. I was viewing the high res version. > > > > > > I noticed: > > 1) Sun Flare Effect (Sunset and Daylight...The sunset in your face effect > was quite nice, I thought...)Quoted text (12 lines)
> crew members...) > 6) You only see about 3/4 of the rear view mirror in the cockpit view > > But, your main point holds true. The cars still don't look like they are > "carving" their way around the track. They still have a "shape riding on > top of a texture" look to them. > > JCB > > I too, was viewing the hi-rez version... > >It is a minor upgrade to 2002. Don't expect mind numbing changes. I would
sooner see a few small changes then a total redo that ruins it. I give papy
credit for doing these small updates. It always too easy in software to try
and shoot for the moon and fall short.
These are many of the same comments we had when NR2002 was getting set to
come out, it was only an update and no one would buy it. In the end it
turned out to be a great update. not 100% perfect but a step forward.
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
change
effect
are
> > "carving" their way around the track. They still have a "shape ridingon
Quoted text (22 lines)
> > "Jay Beckman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:fgtS9.96489$[email hidden]... > > > > "Jon T" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:wrsS9.6445$[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Hey Everyone! > > > > > > > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game > > shots...looks > > > > pretty nice! > > > > > > > > Check it out! > > > > > > > > > Other then the the multiple animated pit crews I don't see much > difference > > then the 2002 version. > > > The outward appearance of the way the car moves don't reveal muchQuoted text (8 lines)
> > in the physics. > > > I hope I'm wrong. I was viewing the high res version. > > > > > > > > > > I noticed: > > > > 1) Sun Flare Effect (Sunset and Daylight...The sunset in your faceQuoted text (26 lines)
> > was quite nice, I thought...) > > Done years ago in other sims. > > > 2) Animated JumboTron Screens in the Infiield > > Done years ago in other sims. > > Dirt build up on windshield and <gasp> more than one car shape were done > years ago in other sims. > > Can't wait for this one. Groundbreaking stuff. > > David G Fisher > > > > > 3) Backlit Tach at night > > 4) Better looking infield-side lights at night > > 5) Pit signs waving over every stall while pitting (that's gonna be > > interesting...) with a "war wagon" at each stall (didn't notice any > animated > > crew members...) > > 6) You only see about 3/4 of the rear view mirror in the cockpit view > > > > But, your main point holds true. The cars still don't look like theyQuoted text (9 lines)
> > top of a texture" look to them. > > > > JCB > > > > I too, was viewing the hi-rez version... > > > > > >
David G Fisher wrote:
>
Geez Dave, guess it's not "GPL" you're allergic to, it's "Papy" :-)
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
>> 2) Animated JumboTron Screens in the Infiield
The only problem with the jumbotron being animated is that it's
canned animation instead of what's actually happening on the track at
the time. I hope there's an option for turning off the jumbotron
animation.
> Can't wait for this one. Groundbreaking stuff.
I'm not expecting ground-breaking stuff, but I am expecting to at
least see improvements in what we already have. The only thing they
put in (visible from the movie) that I wanted was the pitboards over
the wall for all cars.
I want to see all-session enforcement of pit road speeds and pit
entry/exit rules and a different way to handle wall-riders (flatten
tires, damage sheet metal, affect aero, as well as acceptable speed
reduction due to friction), and a way to remove restrictor plates and
pit road speed limits.
Of course, we won't know for sure what they put in until it's
released. I think all of these things could be handled in a patch,
but I don't see too much likelihgood that we'll see more than one or
*maybe* two offical patches to the game, and they probably won't do
much more than fix bugs.
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
I heard that the position of the sun will change during the race, and
that dynamic shadows will be cast from trackside objects (and other
cars on the track).
Quoted text (15 lines)
> "Jon T" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<wrsS9.6445$[email hidden]>... > > I'm at work so can't view this yet, but one thing, IMO, that was *not* > wrong with N2K2 was the way the cars looked on the track. Any physics > changes required were pretty subtle AFAIK and I would have thought > watching a replay would give no indication of how this aspect has > changed at all. Picky little replay faults from N2K2 that could do > with fixing to make for an even more convincing viewing experience > would be shadows of cars being cast onto walls rather than through > walls and onto the ground behind (most noticable at Sears and Pocono, > if momory serves) and shadows from trackside objects - bridges, > fencing, etc - being cast onto cars. > > Does anyone know if the sun is gonna set on the 600? >I think one of the reasons they went with smaller changes is because of the
patching/support issues. IMHO Papy wants to make sure they put a good solid
title for the hard core sim crowd, and not be too worried about the mass
market flashy stuff. Papy has rarely disappointed us, maybe not as big of
steps as we want but usually forward.
"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (31 lines)
> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > >> 2) Animated JumboTron Screens in the Infiield > > The only problem with the jumbotron being animated is that it's > canned animation instead of what's actually happening on the track at > the time. I hope there's an option for turning off the jumbotron > animation. > > > > Can't wait for this one. Groundbreaking stuff. > > > I'm not expecting ground-breaking stuff, but I am expecting to at > least see improvements in what we already have. The only thing they > put in (visible from the movie) that I wanted was the pitboards over > the wall for all cars. > > I want to see all-session enforcement of pit road speeds and pit > entry/exit rules and a different way to handle wall-riders (flatten > tires, damage sheet metal, affect aero, as well as acceptable speed > reduction due to friction), and a way to remove restrictor plates and > pit road speed limits. > > Of course, we won't know for sure what they put in until it's > released. I think all of these things could be handled in a patch, > but I don't see too much likelihgood that we'll see more than one or > *maybe* two offical patches to the game, and they probably won't do > much more than fix bugs. > With it's poor drafting model, worse damage model than N1, loss of server
boss functions, STILL lack of two raceable lines on most tracks, etc. I'd
have to say N2k wasn't a step forward. Still a fun sim, but...........
As far as N2003, if the above isn't addressed a LOT, it might not be a
step forward either, except in eye candy(big deal).
John
"Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:uEzS9.237519$[email hidden]...
> It is a minor upgrade to 2002. Don't expect mind numbing changes. Iwould
> sooner see a few small changes then a total redo that ruins it. I givepapy
> credit for doing these small updates. It always too easy in software totry
Quoted text (79 lines)
> and shoot for the moon and fall short. > These are many of the same comments we had when NR2002 was getting set to > come out, it was only an update and no one would buy it. In the end it > turned out to be a great update. not 100% perfect but a step forward. > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Jay Beckman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:fgtS9.96489$[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Jon T" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:wrsS9.6445$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > "Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Hey Everyone! > > > > > > > > > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game > > > shots...looks > > > > > pretty nice! > > > > > > > > > > Check it out! > > > > > > > > > > > > Other then the the multiple animated pit crews I don't see much > > difference > > > then the 2002 version. > > > > The outward appearance of the way the car moves don't reveal much > change > > > in the physics. > > > > I hope I'm wrong. I was viewing the high res version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I noticed: > > > > > > 1) Sun Flare Effect (Sunset and Daylight...The sunset in your face > effect > > > was quite nice, I thought...) > > > > Done years ago in other sims. > > > > > 2) Animated JumboTron Screens in the Infiield > > > > Done years ago in other sims. > > > > Dirt build up on windshield and <gasp> more than one car shape were done > > years ago in other sims. > > > > Can't wait for this one. Groundbreaking stuff. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > 3) Backlit Tach at night > > > 4) Better looking infield-side lights at night > > > 5) Pit signs waving over every stall while pitting (that's gonna be > > > interesting...) with a "war wagon" at each stall (didn't notice any > > animated > > > crew members...) > > > 6) You only see about 3/4 of the rear view mirror in the cockpit view > > > > > > But, your main point holds true. The cars still don't look like they > are > > > "carving" their way around the track. They still have a "shape riding > on > > > top of a texture" look to them. > > > > > > JCB > > > > > > I too, was viewing the hi-rez version... > > > > > > > > > > > >
: I heard that the position of the sun will change during the race, and
: that dynamic shadows will be cast from trackside objects (and other
: cars on the track).
All very nice - but will they have weather that can change? I've not seen
the weather stay at 70 degrees for 3 hours before
Doug
Overall it may not be perfect but it's the best we have along with GPL.
As lacking as it is, it could be much worse, just ask EA.
"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> With it's poor drafting model, worse damage model than N1, loss ofserver
to
done
view
> > > >
> > > > But, your main point holds true. The cars still don't look likethey
> > are
> > > > "carving" their way around the track. They still have a "shaperiding
Quoted text (19 lines)
> boss functions, STILL lack of two raceable lines on most tracks, etc. I'd > have to say N2k wasn't a step forward. Still a fun sim, but........... > > As far as N2003, if the above isn't addressed a LOT, it might not be a > step forward either, except in eye candy(big deal). > > John > > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:uEzS9.237519$[email hidden]... > > It is a minor upgrade to 2002. Don't expect mind numbing changes. I > would > > sooner see a few small changes then a total redo that ruins it. I give > papy > > credit for doing these small updates. It always too easy in software to > try > > and shoot for the moon and fall short. > > These are many of the same comments we had when NR2002 was getting setQuoted text (46 lines)
> > come out, it was only an update and no one would buy it. In the end it > > turned out to be a great update. not 100% perfect but a step forward. > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Jay Beckman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:fgtS9.96489$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > "Jon T" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:wrsS9.6445$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > "Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Hey Everyone! > > > > > > > > > > > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game > > > > shots...looks > > > > > > pretty nice! > > > > > > > > > > > > Check it out! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other then the the multiple animated pit crews I don't see much > > > difference > > > > then the 2002 version. > > > > > The outward appearance of the way the car moves don't reveal much > > change > > > > in the physics. > > > > > I hope I'm wrong. I was viewing the high res version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I noticed: > > > > > > > > 1) Sun Flare Effect (Sunset and Daylight...The sunset in your face > > effect > > > > was quite nice, I thought...) > > > > > > Done years ago in other sims. > > > > > > > 2) Animated JumboTron Screens in the Infiield > > > > > > Done years ago in other sims. > > > > > > Dirt build up on windshield and <gasp> more than one car shape wereQuoted text (15 lines)
> > > years ago in other sims. > > > > > > Can't wait for this one. Groundbreaking stuff. > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Backlit Tach at night > > > > 4) Better looking infield-side lights at night > > > > 5) Pit signs waving over every stall while pitting (that's gonna be > > > > interesting...) with a "war wagon" at each stall (didn't notice any > > > animated > > > > crew members...) > > > > 6) You only see about 3/4 of the rear view mirror in the cockpitQuoted text (14 lines)
> > on > > > > top of a texture" look to them. > > > > > > > > JCB > > > > > > > > I too, was viewing the hi-rez version... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's true, but that's part of the "problem"; it's the only choice we
have. I'm a big believer in choices <g> Have to admit, sometimes it's
amazing though, how Papy's competitors keep missing the ball. Not like
it's a secret what's needed, how to do things.
Though I agree with Dave; a lot of the stuff proposed for N2003 has been
done years ago, even by EA.
John
"Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:OWBS9.237555$[email hidden]...
I'd
give
> > papy
> > > credit for doing these small updates. It always too easy in softwareto
> > try
> > > and shoot for the moon and fall short.
> > > These are many of the same comments we had when NR2002 was getting set
> to
> > > come out, it was only an update and no one would buy it. In the endit
much
be
> > > > > interesting...) with a "war wagon" at each stall (didn't noticeany
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Overall it may not be perfect but it's the best we have along with GPL. > As lacking as it is, it could be much worse, just ask EA. > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > With it's poor drafting model, worse damage model than N1, loss of > server > > boss functions, STILL lack of two raceable lines on most tracks, etc.Quoted text (13 lines)
> > have to say N2k wasn't a step forward. Still a fun sim, but........... > > > > As far as N2003, if the above isn't addressed a LOT, it might not be a > > step forward either, except in eye candy(big deal). > > > > John > > > > > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:uEzS9.237519$[email hidden]... > > > It is a minor upgrade to 2002. Don't expect mind numbing changes. I > > would > > > sooner see a few small changes then a total redo that ruins it. IQuoted text (26 lines)
> > > turned out to be a great update. not 100% perfect but a step forward. > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > "Jay Beckman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:fgtS9.96489$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > "Jon T" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:wrsS9.6445$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > Hey Everyone! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game > > > > > shots...looks > > > > > > > pretty nice! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Check it out! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other then the the multiple animated pit crews I don't see much > > > > difference > > > > > then the 2002 version. > > > > > > The outward appearance of the way the car moves don't revealQuoted text (31 lines)
> > > change > > > > > in the physics. > > > > > > I hope I'm wrong. I was viewing the high res version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I noticed: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Sun Flare Effect (Sunset and Daylight...The sunset in your face > > > effect > > > > > was quite nice, I thought...) > > > > > > > > Done years ago in other sims. > > > > > > > > > 2) Animated JumboTron Screens in the Infiield > > > > > > > > Done years ago in other sims. > > > > > > > > Dirt build up on windshield and <gasp> more than one car shape were > done > > > > years ago in other sims. > > > > > > > > Can't wait for this one. Groundbreaking stuff. > > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Backlit Tach at night > > > > > 4) Better looking infield-side lights at night > > > > > 5) Pit signs waving over every stall while pitting (that's gonnaQuoted text (26 lines)
> > > > animated > > > > > crew members...) > > > > > 6) You only see about 3/4 of the rear view mirror in the cockpit > view > > > > > > > > > > But, your main point holds true. The cars still don't look like > they > > > are > > > > > "carving" their way around the track. They still have a "shape > riding > > > on > > > > > top of a texture" look to them. > > > > > > > > > > JCB > > > > > > > > > > I too, was viewing the hi-rez version... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I agree as well. AS I have said many times the sim market is just too small
a niche. Publishers try to give some of what we want but need to do the
splashy stuff to get enough sales. IF the market was big enough Racing
Legends would be a reality not a dream but as is no one will put enough
money behind such a product as the payoff is too small.
"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
but...........
> > >
> > > As far as N2003, if the above isn't addressed a LOT, it might not bea
I
> > > would
> > > > sooner see a few small changes then a total redo that ruins it. I
> give
> > > papy
> > > > credit for doing these small updates. It always too easy insoftware
> to
> > > try
> > > > and shoot for the moon and fall short.
> > > > These are many of the same comments we had when NR2002 was gettingset
> > to
> > > > come out, it was only an update and no one would buy it. In the end
> it
> > > > turned out to be a great update. not 100% perfect but a stepforward.
much
face
were
Quoted text (22 lines)
> That's true, but that's part of the "problem"; it's the only choice we > have. I'm a big believer in choices <g> Have to admit, sometimes it's > amazing though, how Papy's competitors keep missing the ball. Not like > it's a secret what's needed, how to do things. > Though I agree with Dave; a lot of the stuff proposed for N2003 has been > done years ago, even by EA. > > John > > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:OWBS9.237555$[email hidden]... > > Overall it may not be perfect but it's the best we have along with GPL. > > As lacking as it is, it could be much worse, just ask EA. > > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > With it's poor drafting model, worse damage model than N1, loss of > > server > > > boss functions, STILL lack of two raceable lines on most tracks, etc. > I'd > > > have to say N2k wasn't a step forward. Still a fun sim,Quoted text (8 lines)
> > > step forward either, except in eye candy(big deal). > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:uEzS9.237519$[email hidden]... > > > > It is a minor upgrade to 2002. Don't expect mind numbing changes.Quoted text (22 lines)
> > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Beckman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:fgtS9.96489$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jon T" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:wrsS9.6445$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > Hey Everyone! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game > > > > > > shots...looks > > > > > > > > pretty nice! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Check it out! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other then the the multiple animated pit crews I don't seeQuoted text (13 lines)
> > > > > difference > > > > > > then the 2002 version. > > > > > > > The outward appearance of the way the car moves don't reveal > much > > > > change > > > > > > in the physics. > > > > > > > I hope I'm wrong. I was viewing the high res version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I noticed: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Sun Flare Effect (Sunset and Daylight...The sunset in yourQuoted text (10 lines)
> > > > effect > > > > > > was quite nice, I thought...) > > > > > > > > > > Done years ago in other sims. > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Animated JumboTron Screens in the Infiield > > > > > > > > > > Done years ago in other sims. > > > > > > > > > > Dirt build up on windshield and <gasp> more than one car shapeQuoted text (43 lines)
> > done > > > > > years ago in other sims. > > > > > > > > > > Can't wait for this one. Groundbreaking stuff. > > > > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Backlit Tach at night > > > > > > 4) Better looking infield-side lights at night > > > > > > 5) Pit signs waving over every stall while pitting (that's gonna > be > > > > > > interesting...) with a "war wagon" at each stall (didn't notice > any > > > > > animated > > > > > > crew members...) > > > > > > 6) You only see about 3/4 of the rear view mirror in the cockpit > > view > > > > > > > > > > > > But, your main point holds true. The cars still don't look like > > they > > > > are > > > > > > "carving" their way around the track. They still have a "shape > > riding > > > > on > > > > > > top of a texture" look to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > JCB > > > > > > > > > > > > I too, was viewing the hi-rez version... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yes, temp and wind will change and the flags will move differently depending on wind direction.
--
Steve
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel"
"Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:avepfe$f2flp$[email hidden]...
>
>
>
> All very nice - but will they have weather that can change? I've not seen
> the weather stay at 70 degrees for 3 hours before
>
> Doug
>
>
Deja Vu anyone? To me, especially compared to the way cars move in F1 2001/2
and the way the AI cars move in GPL/NASCAR1-2002, N2003 looks far better
compared. It may not be perfect, but then again it doesnt need a complete
rework, like almost any other game, its sucsessor is more than often a
graphical/small gameplay updates and seeing it had a MAJOR overhaul going
into N4 then a major enough one in N2002 what more do you want?
Luke
-=87=-
"Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Hey Everyone! > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game shots...looks > pretty nice! > > Check it out! > >
"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> With it's poor drafting model, worse damage model than N1, loss ofserver
> boss functions, STILL lack of two raceable lines on most tracks, etc. I'd
> have to say N2k wasn't a step forward. Still a fun sim, but...........
>
> As far as N2003, if the above isn't addressed a LOT, it might not be a
> step forward either, except in eye candy(big deal).
>
Just out of curiosity.....how much programming time, and cpu time would it
take to model a dynamic track surface.......this is basically what everyone
is asking when they ask for two raceable lines. you have to model variable
banking within the same turn, variable grip across the racing surface, and
numerous other things I'm probably forgetting to mention. As far as drafting
goes, NASCAR WC cars ARE a poor drafting model. All you hear week in, and
week out for 36 races is "My car was REAL tight in traffic" "With this aero
package we have, you just cant pass" Yet when they give us that in a "game"
(or sim) we cry cause we cant lap the fields any more, let alone pass the
guy in front of us. I agree 02 was far from perfect, (I actually liked
driving N4 better. )but its still far and away the best simulation of a NWC
series on the market. I'll be in line to buy 03 when it hits the shelves as
well. Until someone comes up with something better, I'll race it, and be
glad we have something better than EA's NASCAR XXXX.
Just remember no matter how accurate it is, you'll never feel g forces on
your office chair, so you'll never know for sure just how accurate it really
is.
TK
"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
>
> David G Fisher wrote:
> >
>
> Geez Dave, guess it's not "GPL" you're allergic to, it's "Papy" :-)
:-)
GPL is fine, it's some of it's fans I'm allergic to.
I only missed one RASCAR race, so I certainly appreciate N2002. As John and
John have pointed out, it has some fairly serious weak points that I doubt
are going to be addressed.
Things like a weak damage model and cars flipping over when bumped at 20 mph
need to be fixed.
David G Fisher
Agreed - the closer they get, the less they have to do. But since Papy
folks themselves have claimed it's the biggest physics model update since
the jump to GPL, I'd be quite interested in getting my paws on this one even
with NO other changes.
SB
"Luke Phillips" <(NOSPM)[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:VMDS9.11586$[email hidden]...
> Deja Vu anyone? To me, especially compared to the way cars move in F12001/2
shots...looks
Quoted text (15 lines)
> and the way the AI cars move in GPL/NASCAR1-2002, N2003 looks far better > compared. It may not be perfect, but then again it doesnt need a complete > rework, like almost any other game, its sucsessor is more than often a > graphical/small gameplay updates and seeing it had a MAJOR overhaul going > into N4 then a major enough one in N2002 what more do you want? > > Luke > -=87=- > > > "Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Hey Everyone! > > > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in gameQuoted text (7 lines)
> > pretty nice! > > > > Check it out! > > > > > >In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
>
> Things like a weak damage model and cars flipping over when bumped at 20 mph
> need to be fixed.
The flipping at 20mph a problem with the physics model - the problem
there is with collision detection when combined with online
connection stability. Think about how hard it is to get flipped in
an offline race under the same circumstances - almost impossible
comes to mind.
Yes I think it relates to the online code. Although it appears to be a
20mph crash I am not sure if all the velocity data is transferred and thus
it seems to assume any collision is bad.
"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] says...
> >
> > Things like a weak damage model and cars flipping over when bumped at 20mph
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > need to be fixed. > > The flipping at 20mph a problem with the physics model - the problem > there is with collision detection when combined with online > connection stability. Think about how hard it is to get flipped in > an offline race under the same circumstances - almost impossible > comes to mind.Well, the one and only thing I really cared about improving at Tally--those
damned too-often repeating pattern tar strips--still seem to be in there :(
Marc
"Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Hey Everyone! > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game shots...looks > pretty nice! > > Check it out! > >Just my opinion but I don't think that is the issue. If you think about it,
in real life the problem with getting the outside line to work is mostly
just getting the marbles off of it. AFAIK no current sim models marbles
anyway, even statically. IOW the grip is the same all the way across the
track. That should be ideal for allowing multiple lines. Also I don't
think the banking varies across the track width IRL either. Again, all it
takes IRL is to clean off the marbles and get the outside to be as grippy as
the inside, and it should work. The problem with NR 2002, I don't know
exactly what it is, but I think it is one or more of the following:
- Physics still not quite right, particularly tire model.
- People don't know how to drive the outside line (not directed at you
specifically, but maybe it is more difficult than people realize. For
example I noticed most real life drivers when running outside still enter
and exit along the middle line).
- On speedways people won't run with you on the outside line, and if you are
out of the draft you are out of the race.
- The outside line only works on speedways IRL so it shouldn't be expected
to work on short tracks.
"Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:niFS9.21627$[email hidden]...
>
> Just out of curiosity.....how much programming time, and cpu time wouldit
> take to model a dynamic track surface.......this is basically whateveryone
> is asking when they ask for two raceable lines. you have to model variable
> banking within the same turn, variable grip across the racing surface, and
> numerous other things I'm probably forgetting to mention.
- People don't know how to drive the outside line (not directed at you
specifically, but maybe it is more difficult than people realize. For
example I noticed most real life drivers when running outside still enter
and exit along the middle line).
- On speedways people won't run with you on the outside line, and if you are
out of the draft you are out of the race.
Couldn't agree more. We had this issue in our league for a while and now we
run 2 wide all the time. Just takes learning how to do it and having a few
cars to help in that line.
"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:avfpvs$f3d54$[email hidden]...
> Just my opinion but I don't think that is the issue. If you think aboutit,
> in real life the problem with getting the outside line to work is mostly
> just getting the marbles off of it. AFAIK no current sim models marbles
> anyway, even statically. IOW the grip is the same all the way across the
> track. That should be ideal for allowing multiple lines. Also I don't
> think the banking varies across the track width IRL either. Again, all it
> takes IRL is to clean off the marbles and get the outside to be as grippyas
are
variable
> > banking within the same turn, variable grip across the racing surface,and
> > numerous other things I'm probably forgetting to mention.
>
>
Quoted text (9 lines)
> the inside, and it should work. The problem with NR 2002, I don't know > exactly what it is, but I think it is one or more of the following: > > - Physics still not quite right, particularly tire model. > - People don't know how to drive the outside line (not directed at you > specifically, but maybe it is more difficult than people realize. For > example I noticed most real life drivers when running outside still enter > and exit along the middle line). > - On speedways people won't run with you on the outside line, and if youQuoted text (14 lines)
> out of the draft you are out of the race. > - The outside line only works on speedways IRL so it shouldn't be expected > to work on short tracks. > > > > "Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:niFS9.21627$[email hidden]... > > > > Just out of curiosity.....how much programming time, and cpu time would > it > > take to model a dynamic track surface.......this is basically what > everyone > > is asking when they ask for two raceable lines. you have to modelShoot, I see flips quite often at Martinsville in offline races. A pileup
in a turn I see the car that gets flipped by a 20mph contact is usually just
the player's car, the AI cars don't seem to have as many of those low speed
flips if my memory serves.
-Tim
"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] says...
> >
> > Things like a weak damage model and cars flipping over when bumped at 20mph
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > need to be fixed. > > The flipping at 20mph a problem with the physics model - the problem > there is with collision detection when combined with online > connection stability. Think about how hard it is to get flipped in > an offline race under the same circumstances - almost impossible > comes to mind.Well I seen the 28 car flip up on pit wall in a slow speed crash one year at
Martinsville in Winston Cup event. Doesn't take that much to get them to
flip if they hit right, but I agree the Papy model is a bit off. Just more
reason not to be hitting each other.
"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Shoot, I see flips quite often at Martinsville in offline races. A pileup
> in a turn I see the car that gets flipped by a 20mph contact is usuallyjust
> the player's car, the AI cars don't seem to have as many of those lowspeed
20
Quoted text (10 lines)
> flips if my memory serves. > > -Tim > > "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <[email hidden]>, > > [email hidden] says... > > > > > > Things like a weak damage model and cars flipping over when bumped atQuoted text (10 lines)
> mph > > > need to be fixed. > > > > The flipping at 20mph a problem with the physics model - the problem > > there is with collision detection when combined with online > > connection stability. Think about how hard it is to get flipped in > > an offline race under the same circumstances - almost impossible > > comes to mind. > >It would have been nice to see a bit more variety of features such as spins,
collisions, short tracks, road coarses, etc.
Also, I sure hope they fix the AI to have only lead lap cars at the front of
the pack after a restart near the end of the race. A yellow with 10 laps to
go for example, all lapped cars are supposed to go to the end of the line in
single file restarts. IMO, that is the most annoying oversight with the NR
series.
-Tim
"Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Hey Everyone! > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game shots...looks > pretty nice! > > Check it out! > >"Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<niFS9.21627$[email hidden]>...
Two lines can't be to difficult; Heat and even Nascar
Revolution(four years ago), had it.....as well as actual racing.
As far as the drafting model, you're missing the point completely.
It's to strong, not to weak, as you think I'm implying.
John
Quoted text (32 lines)
> "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > With it's poor drafting model, worse damage model than N1, loss of > server > > boss functions, STILL lack of two raceable lines on most tracks, etc. I'd > > have to say N2k wasn't a step forward. Still a fun sim, but........... > > > > As far as N2003, if the above isn't addressed a LOT, it might not be a > > step forward either, except in eye candy(big deal). > > > > > Just out of curiosity.....how much programming time, and cpu time would it > take to model a dynamic track surface.......this is basically what everyone > is asking when they ask for two raceable lines. you have to model variable > banking within the same turn, variable grip across the racing surface, and > numerous other things I'm probably forgetting to mention. As far as drafting > goes, NASCAR WC cars ARE a poor drafting model. All you hear week in, and > week out for 36 races is "My car was REAL tight in traffic" "With this aero > package we have, you just cant pass" Yet when they give us that in a "game" > (or sim) we cry cause we cant lap the fields any more, let alone pass the > guy in front of us. I agree 02 was far from perfect, (I actually liked > driving N4 better. )but its still far and away the best simulation of a NWC > series on the market. I'll be in line to buy 03 when it hits the shelves as > well. Until someone comes up with something better, I'll race it, and be > glad we have something better than EA's NASCAR XXXX. > > Just remember no matter how accurate it is, you'll never feel g forces on > your office chair, so you'll never know for sure just how accurate it really > is. > > TK>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Things like a weak damage model and cars flipping over when bumped at 20mph
> need to be fixed.
Papyrus can't invent more bandwidth. It's all about that. More bandwidth
would mean a more relaxed prediction code, meaning a more realistic damage
model, closer to the offline racing.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
It'll work on the SS's with help, but not anywhere else where it should,
which is also most of the other tracks irl. Personally, I think it's poor
track representation too.
Other sims, especially Heat, had better(the best imo), track
representations than any Nx title.
John
"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:avfpvs$f3d54$[email hidden]...
> Just my opinion but I don't think that is the issue. If you think aboutit,
> in real life the problem with getting the outside line to work is mostly
> just getting the marbles off of it. AFAIK no current sim models marbles
> anyway, even statically. IOW the grip is the same all the way across the
> track. That should be ideal for allowing multiple lines. Also I don't
> think the banking varies across the track width IRL either. Again, all it
> takes IRL is to clean off the marbles and get the outside to be as grippyas
are
variable
> > banking within the same turn, variable grip across the racing surface,and
> > numerous other things I'm probably forgetting to mention.
>
>
Quoted text (9 lines)
> the inside, and it should work. The problem with NR 2002, I don't know > exactly what it is, but I think it is one or more of the following: > > - Physics still not quite right, particularly tire model. > - People don't know how to drive the outside line (not directed at you > specifically, but maybe it is more difficult than people realize. For > example I noticed most real life drivers when running outside still enter > and exit along the middle line). > - On speedways people won't run with you on the outside line, and if youQuoted text (14 lines)
> out of the draft you are out of the race. > - The outside line only works on speedways IRL so it shouldn't be expected > to work on short tracks. > > > > "Tony Kelley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:niFS9.21627$[email hidden]... > > > > Just out of curiosity.....how much programming time, and cpu time would > it > > take to model a dynamic track surface.......this is basically what > everyone > > is asking when they ask for two raceable lines. you have to model More importantly, will the weather changes affect car handling/performance
?
John
"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:avf08v$f1sjr$[email hidden]...
> Yes, temp and wind will change and the flags will move differentlydepending on wind direction.
news:avepfe$f2flp$[email hidden]...
> >
> >
> >
> > All very nice - but will they have weather that can change? I've notseen
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > -- > > Steve > > > "You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel" > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in messageQuoted text (7 lines)
> > the weather stay at 70 degrees for 3 hours before > > > > Doug > > > > > > Since you asked<g> I want a better drafting model, a better damage model,
a better online collision code, server boss commands back, better track
representation, multiple line racing at those track irl that allow it
commonly(most of them).
That's enough for now <g>
John
"Luke Phillips" <(NOSPM)[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:VMDS9.11586$[email hidden]...
> Deja Vu anyone? To me, especially compared to the way cars move in F12001/2
shots...looks
Quoted text (15 lines)
> and the way the AI cars move in GPL/NASCAR1-2002, N2003 looks far better > compared. It may not be perfect, but then again it doesnt need a complete > rework, like almost any other game, its sucsessor is more than often a > graphical/small gameplay updates and seeing it had a MAJOR overhaul going > into N4 then a major enough one in N2002 what more do you want? > > Luke > -=87=- > > > "Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Hey Everyone! > > > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in gameQuoted text (7 lines)
> > pretty nice! > > > > Check it out! > > > > > >
"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> More importantly, will the weather changes affect carhandling/performance
> ?
>
> John
>
Thats what I was suggesting - a setting sun may be lovely - and wind may
make a flag flap - but frankly I dont care - if the car handling doesnt
change to match
Doug
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:lzLS9.1607$[email hidden]...
The damage model now is worse than it was in the past; when there was less
bandwidth. It's all about it's GPL heritage, in the current sims.
John
Quoted text (9 lines)
> >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Things like a weak damage model and cars flipping over when bumped at 20 > mph > > need to be fixed. > > > Papyrus can't invent more bandwidth. It's all about that. More bandwidth > would mean a more relaxed prediction code, meaning a more realistic damage > model, closer to the offline racing.
"Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:fOLS9.3237$xE1.494513@stones...
Agreed.
John
>
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > More importantly, will the weather changes affect car > handling/performance > > ? > > > > John > > > > Thats what I was suggesting - a setting sun may be lovely - and wind may > make a flag flap - but frankly I dont care - if the car handling doesnt > change to match > > Doug
"Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Agreed - the closer they get, the less they have to do. But since Papy
> folks themselves have claimed it's the biggest physics model update since
> the jump to GPL, I'd be quite interested in getting my paws on this oneeven
> with NO other changes.
>
> SB
Hey Steve! Have You(thread hijack in progress) ever messed with the
CART beta mod for F1 2k2? http://www.m4driving.sm/wheel2wheel/
I can get the cars to go fast, but I can't keep the front tires from
cooking in only about 6 or 7 laps on flat ovals. The outside right front
starts going off after 5 or 6 laps and I loose a little time, shortly
thereafter the inside front cooks and I can't hold ANY line.
I'm gonna have to find a setup guru if they get their league off the
ground next month.
dave henrie
complete
> > rework, like almost any other game, its sucsessor is more than often a
> > graphical/small gameplay updates and seeing it had a MAJOR overhaulgoing
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/02
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > "Luke Phillips" <(NOSPM)[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:VMDS9.11586$[email hidden]... > > Deja Vu anyone? To me, especially compared to the way cars move in F1 > 2001/2 > > and the way the AI cars move in GPL/NASCAR1-2002, N2003 looks far better > > compared. It may not be perfect, but then again it doesnt need aQuoted text (21 lines)
> > into N4 then a major enough one in N2002 what more do you want? > > > > Luke > > -=87=- > > > > > > "Jeff Leonard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Hey Everyone! > > > > > > I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game > shots...looks > > > pretty nice! > > > > > > Check it out! > > > > > > > > > > > >Bandwidth has nothing to do with the POS we have now (Damage Model).
Flipping cars, still able to race, screwed up drafting, damaged cars going
too fast etc... Bandwidth isn't the problem.
BTW, nothing holding them back on increasing the badwidth requirement ALA
BF1942. Last I checked there were a LOT of people playing high speed online
games. All are excuses as to what needs to be fixed or where the real
problems are located.
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:lzLS9.1607$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (24 lines)
> >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Things like a weak damage model and cars flipping over when bumped at 20 > mph > > need to be fixed. > > > Papyrus can't invent more bandwidth. It's all about that. More bandwidth > would mean a more relaxed prediction code, meaning a more realistic damage > model, closer to the offline racing. > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > >Howdy Dave. Didn't even know it existed, so no. But thanks for the link;
hope they get further than we did with the Heat version! ;-) But you (and
the mod makers) might look at the mod's .tbc files, and compare the rolling
and frictional heat values they're using. SBDT dropped them significantly
for the GTR mod, and I'd guess ovals would eat tires in a hurry - esp. the
right fronts. They sure get toasty in GPL, though wear's not an issue
there. My oval setups usually end up with softer springs on the right front
and left rear to try to keep the right front as cool as possible.
Good luck!
SB
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:7YMS9.476188$pN3.51885@sccrnsc03...
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Hey Steve! Have You(thread hijack in progress) ever messed with the > CART beta mod for F1 2k2? http://www.m4driving.sm/wheel2wheel/ > I can get the cars to go fast, but I can't keep the front tires from > cooking in only about 6 or 7 laps on flat ovals. The outside right front > starts going off after 5 or 6 laps and I loose a little time, shortly > thereafter the inside front cooks and I can't hold ANY line. > I'm gonna have to find a setup guru if they get their league off the > ground next month. > dave henrie
"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Since you asked<g> I want a better drafting model, a better damagemodel,
Are you sure?? :o)
C'mon tell us what you really want.
Steve
Quoted text (7 lines)
> a better online collision code, server boss commands back, better track > representation, multiple line racing at those track irl that allow it > commonly(most of them). > > That's enough for now <g> > > John>"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote
> More importantly, will the weather changes affect carhandling/performance
Papy said yes, that's the whole point of it :)
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
>"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote
> The damage model now is worse than it was in the past; when there wasless
> bandwidth. It's all about it's GPL heritage, in the current sims.
Well, previous titles had less "hard" calculations to do for it's prediction
code. I mean, you didn't need to handle the whole Z-axis.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
>"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Bandwidth has nothing to do with the POS we have now (Damage Model).
> Flipping cars, still able to race, screwed up drafting, damaged cars going
> too fast etc... Bandwidth isn't the problem.
Oh the old debate ;) I say it is. That's why you could theorically have
a perfect prediction code if you had all the bandwidth available in the
world. That would mean, having _no_ prediction code. It's because of the
prediction code (a direct resultant of the lack of bandwidth) that numbers
get crunched by overlapping masses.
> BTW, nothing holding them back on increasing the badwidth requirement ALA
> BF1942. Last I checked there were a LOT of people playing high speedonline
> games. All are excuses as to what needs to be fixed or where the real
> problems are located.
Hmmmm there is. Just check the core.ini
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Howdy Dave. Didn't even know it existed, so no. But thanks for the link;
> hope they get further than we did with the Heat version! ;-) But you (and
> the mod makers) might look at the mod's .tbc files, and compare therolling
> and frictional heat values they're using. SBDT dropped them significantly
> for the GTR mod, and I'd guess ovals would eat tires in a hurry - esp. the
> right fronts. They sure get toasty in GPL, though wear's not an issue
> there. My oval setups usually end up with softer springs on the rightfront
> and left rear to try to keep the right front as cool as possible.
>
> Good luck!
Thankyou for that info. I just swapped out the CART mod #'s for
friction heat with the GTR setting. That tripled the tire life. In fact
the tire probably would have lasted longer, if heat was the only factor. I
kept a steady test pace until the tire WEAR became a factor. That was with
a default setup, probably with some real testing we could easily get close
to 50 laps if the driver didn't push too hard...
I fired off an email to the league bosses. Hopefully we can make a
change...as it is....10 laps on a short oval and your race is just about
done.
Thanks again Steve...How many times have I said that over the past couple
of years? :)
dave henrie
>
> SB
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/02
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:5yPS9.2482$[email hidden]...
> >"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > More importantly, will the weather changes affect car
> handling/performance
>
>
> Papy said yes, that's the whole point of it :)
Ok thanks. Sounds great !
John
>
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:YyPS9.2485$[email hidden]...
prediction
> code. I mean, you didn't need to handle the whole Z-axis.
>
>
Yeah, I know. I just have a very hard time accepting that(bandwidth) as a
reason. Cars shouldn't go faster when they're damaged, don't know how
that's tied into bandwidth.
Same with the Saturn rocket acts; hard time believing that is to hard to
fix, and is related to bandwidth.
Bumping, etc. is part of stock car racing, or at least it used to be. But
in terms of contact, you have to race these sims like they're open wheel
cars.
That's a major flaw.
John
Quoted text (8 lines)
> >"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote > > The damage model now is worse than it was in the past; when there was > less > > bandwidth. It's all about it's GPL heritage, in the current sims. > > > > Well, previous titles had less "hard" calculations to do for it'sOn Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:20:51 -0700, John Pancoast wrote:
> That's true, but that's part of the "problem"; it's the only choice we
> have. I'm a big believer in choices <g>
Obviously, judging by this header found in your post:
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
at least you're virus compatible with 90% of the others. Good
choice! ;-)
On topic: I think one of the big "advantages" of the n2kx
series is its decent online play (the best we have in any
racing sim at the moment, if it wasn't for the sierra lock-in
and a decent VROC clone with more filtering options).
If Papy decides to make n2k3 more "moddable" than the earlier
releases, we might have an interesting product.
Cheers,
uwe
--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:5yPS9.2482$[email hidden]...
> >"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > More importantly, will the weather changes affect car
> handling/performance
>
>
> Papy said yes, that's the whole point of it :)
So they are going to have weather (sort of---the easy kind to simulate---no
rain) in one of their sims now?
Done years ago in other sims.
David G Fisher
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 01:33:15 -0500, "ymenard"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
So, you're saying there are no problems with more bandwidth? Hmm, that
means I could send the data via a box of DVDs....an hell of a
bandwidth! <g>
It's not the bandwidth, it's the latency.
Remco
Quoted text (11 lines)
>>"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Bandwidth has nothing to do with the POS we have now (Damage Model). >> Flipping cars, still able to race, screwed up drafting, damaged cars going >> too fast etc... Bandwidth isn't the problem. > > >Oh the old debate ;) I say it is. That's why you could theorically have >a perfect prediction code if you had all the bandwidth available in the >world. That would mean, having _no_ prediction code. It's because of the >prediction code (a direct resultant of the lack of bandwidth) that numbers >get crunched by overlapping masses.Quoted text (9 lines)
> >> BTW, nothing holding them back on increasing the badwidth requirement ALA >> BF1942. Last I checked there were a LOT of people playing high speed >online >> games. All are excuses as to what needs to be fixed or where the real >> problems are located. > > >Hmmmm there is. Just check the core.ini
"David G Fisher" said:
>
> So they are going to have weather (sort of---the easy kind tosimulate---no
> rain) in one of their sims now?
>
> Done years ago in other sims.
So was good multiplayer code that actually worked Dave! :-)
I still remember racing N1 against 20 others - online - in 1996!
(eat that EA et al.!)
:-)
--
ed_
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
simulate---no
> rain) in one of their sims now?
>
> Done years ago in other sims.
>
> David G Fisher
>
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5yPS9.2482$[email hidden]... > > >"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > More importantly, will the weather changes affect car > > handling/performance > > > > > > Papy said yes, that's the whole point of it :) > > So they are going to have weather (sort of---the easy kind to"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> So they are going to have weather (sort of---the easy kind tosimulate---no
> rain) in one of their sims now?
Does Winston cup race in the rain?
Default send sortcut seems to be close to CTRL-V
:-)
"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> It would have been nice to see a bit more variety of features such asspins,
> collisions, short tracks, road coarses, etc.
>
What do you mean with more variety of spins?
"Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
I was trying to annoy ymenard. :-)
David G Fisher
Quoted text (19 lines)
> > "David G Fisher" said: > > > > So they are going to have weather (sort of---the easy kind to > simulate---no > > rain) in one of their sims now? > > > > Done years ago in other sims. > > > So was good multiplayer code that actually worked Dave! :-) > > I still remember racing N1 against 20 others - online - in 1996! > (eat that EA et al.!) > > :-) > > -- > ed_In article <avh2p7$f3gcn$[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
They have rain tires and accomodations for windshield wipers when
racing at the Glen...
Quoted text (7 lines)
> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > So they are going to have weather (sort of---the easy kind to > simulate---no > > rain) in one of their sims now? > > Does Winston cup race in the rain?Quoted text (8 lines)
> > If Papy decides to make n2k3 more "moddable" than the earlier > releases, we might have an interesting product. > > Cheers, > > uwe > Why thank you. Never had a virus related problem in 15 years :)
John
"Uwe hoover Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (29 lines)
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:20:51 -0700, John Pancoast wrote: > > That's true, but that's part of the "problem"; it's the only choice we > > have. I'm a big believer in choices <g> > > Obviously, judging by this header found in your post: > > > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 > > at least you're virus compatible with 90% of the others. Good > choice! ;-) > > On topic: I think one of the big "advantages" of the n2kx > series is its decent online play (the best we have in any > racing sim at the moment, if it wasn't for the sierra lock-in > and a decent VROC clone with more filtering options). > > If Papy decides to make n2k3 more "moddable" than the earlier > releases, we might have an interesting product. > > Cheers, > > uwe > > > -- > mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) > Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ > Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) > GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61You didn't race them online. But I understand what you mean. Funny how we
have actually gone backwards since the inception of Hawai. Unfortunate. :(
"Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (21 lines)
> > "David G Fisher" said: > > > > So they are going to have weather (sort of---the easy kind to > simulate---no > > rain) in one of their sims now? > > > > Done years ago in other sims. > > > So was good multiplayer code that actually worked Dave! :-) > > I still remember racing N1 against 20 others - online - in 1996! > (eat that EA et al.!) > > :-) > > -- > ed_ > >Supposedly, N4 and N2k2 are just as modifyable as GPL, so I see no reason
why N2k3 shouldn't be. It's just up to the community that knows how to do
it, to do it. :)
"Uwe hoover Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (29 lines)
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:20:51 -0700, John Pancoast wrote: > > That's true, but that's part of the "problem"; it's the only choice we > > have. I'm a big believer in choices <g> > > Obviously, judging by this header found in your post: > > > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 > > at least you're virus compatible with 90% of the others. Good > choice! ;-) > > On topic: I think one of the big "advantages" of the n2kx > series is its decent online play (the best we have in any > racing sim at the moment, if it wasn't for the sierra lock-in > and a decent VROC clone with more filtering options). > > If Papy decides to make n2k3 more "moddable" than the earlier > releases, we might have an interesting product. > > Cheers, > > uwe > > > -- > mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) > Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ > Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) > GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
> So they are going to have weather (sort of---the easy kind tosimulate---no
> rain) in one of their sims now?
? Yes, there will be such thing (if you mean weather that is not "rain")
<G>
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
NP, Dave -
I had a look at the F1 & GTR files after posting that and the wear rate has
been reduced for the GTR's as well, particularly for the medium and hard
compounds. Doug appears to have used lower frictional heat numbers to keep
tire scrub from cooking the rubber, along with higher rolling heat values to
get the needed operating temps for grip. Interesting to see how much more
degradation ISI had built into the fronts vs. the rears for the F1's. Push
and get... PUSH.
The different tire compounds would be a critical item for CART mod
developers to exploit, with different tire sets for ovals, superspeedways
and road courses. Kind of like in the real world... ;-)
SB
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:iRPS9.677309$QZ.102160@sccrnsc02...
>
> "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > Howdy Dave. Didn't even know it existed, so no. But thanks for thelink;
> > hope they get further than we did with the Heat version! ;-) But you(and
> > the mod makers) might look at the mod's .tbc files, and compare the
> rolling
> > and frictional heat values they're using. SBDT dropped themsignificantly
> > for the GTR mod, and I'd guess ovals would eat tires in a hurry - esp.the
I
> kept a steady test pace until the tire WEAR became a factor. That waswith
> a default setup, probably with some real testing we could easily getclose
> to 50 laps if the driver didn't push too hard...
> I fired off an email to the league bosses. Hopefully we can make a
> change...as it is....10 laps on a short oval and your race is just about
> done.
> Thanks again Steve...How many times have I said that over the pastcouple
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > right fronts. They sure get toasty in GPL, though wear's not an issue > > there. My oval setups usually end up with softer springs on the right > front > > and left rear to try to keep the right front as cool as possible. > > > > Good luck! > > > Thankyou for that info. I just swapped out the CART mod #'s for > friction heat with the GTR setting. That tripled the tire life. In fact > the tire probably would have lasted longer, if heat was the only factor.Quoted text (14 lines)
> of years? :) > dave henrie > > > > > SB > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/02 > >In article <[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher"
<[email hidden]> writes:
>Dirt build up on windshield and <gasp> more than one car shape were done
>years ago in other sims.
Dirt buildup was done before? Which sim?
Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank:-0.381
N2002 Rank:+17.59
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Talking about the video. Just showed side by side racing on speedways and a
run through the pits. Would have been nice to see some variety of
situations like spins/crashes, short tracks, etc.
-Tim
"Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:avh371$f9q2l$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > It would have been nice to see a bit more variety of features such as > spins, > > collisions, short tracks, road coarses, etc. > > > > What do you mean with more variety of spins? > >"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Talking about the video. Just showed side by side racing on speedways anda
> run through the pits. Would have been nice to see some variety of
> situations like spins/crashes, short tracks, etc.
>
> -Tim
>
Ok :-)
Yeah, and what it showed was AI racing anyway, imo.
John
"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Talking about the video. Just showed side by side racing on speedways anda
Quoted text (20 lines)
> run through the pits. Would have been nice to see some variety of > situations like spins/crashes, short tracks, etc. > > -Tim > > "Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:avh371$f9q2l$[email hidden]... > > > > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > It would have been nice to see a bit more variety of features such as > > spins, > > > collisions, short tracks, road coarses, etc. > > > > > > > What do you mean with more variety of spins? > > > > > >On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:44:56 -0500, "Jeff Leonard"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game shots...looks
>pretty nice!
Looks great. Love the shot of the cars cresting the bump in the
tunnel turn about midway through the clip. Having an even more
accurate rendition of Pocono than the one we have now justifies most
of the $50 I'll be plopping down the day it comes out.
Jason
I can put two cable drivers on a T1 and the cars still flip at Martinsville.
--
Tim White
www.intracmotorsports.com
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pBPS9.2487$[email hidden]...
>"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Bandwidth has nothing to do with the POS we have now (Damage Model).
> Flipping cars, still able to race, screwed up drafting, damaged cars going
> too fast etc... Bandwidth isn't the problem.
Oh the old debate ;) I say it is. That's why you could theorically have
a perfect prediction code if you had all the bandwidth available in the
world. That would mean, having _no_ prediction code. It's because of the
prediction code (a direct resultant of the lack of bandwidth) that numbers
get crunched by overlapping masses.
Not to mention racing on a LAN, the same thing happens. Blows Frank's
theory!
"Tim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:eN6T9.40504$[email hidden]...
I can put two cable drivers on a T1 and the cars still flip at Martinsville.
--
Tim White
www.intracmotorsports.com
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:pBPS9.2487$[email hidden]...
>"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Bandwidth has nothing to do with the POS we have now (Damage Model).
> Flipping cars, still able to race, screwed up drafting, damaged cars
going
> too fast etc... Bandwidth isn't the problem.
Oh the old debate ;) I say it is. That's why you could theorically
have
a perfect prediction code if you had all the bandwidth available in the
world. That would mean, having _no_ prediction code. It's because of the
prediction code (a direct resultant of the lack of bandwidth) that numbers
get crunched by overlapping masses.
>"TDRacin�" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Not to mention racing on a LAN, the same thing happens. Blows Frank's
> theory!
I never said it would be perfect. I said it would at least go towards what
we have against the offline AI. It's 10x times better.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:44:56 -0500, "Jeff Leonard"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in gameshots...looks
You're kidding, right?
David G Fisher
Quoted text (8 lines)
> >pretty nice! > > Looks great. Love the shot of the cars cresting the bump in the > tunnel turn about midway through the clip. Having an even more > accurate rendition of Pocono than the one we have now justifies most > of the $50 I'll be plopping down the day it comes out. > > Jason"You're kidding, right?"
I'll assume this will be the start of the "I'm not paying $50 for a patch"
thread that we had when NR2002 came out and we all bought and liked.
I will be buying it the first day out as well. The $50 cost will be more
than worth the value I will get from it in the many years ahead. If all it
has are improved track models I would buy it as well.
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (22 lines)
> > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:44:56 -0500, "Jeff Leonard" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >I stopped by Papy.com and they have a new video with in game > shots...looks > > >pretty nice! > > > > Looks great. Love the shot of the cars cresting the bump in the > > tunnel turn about midway through the clip. Having an even more > > accurate rendition of Pocono than the one we have now justifies most > > of the $50 I'll be plopping down the day it comes out. > > > > Jason > > You're kidding, right? > > David G Fisher > >On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:15:53 -0400, "Schooner" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
$50 for a game I'll spend at least 100 hours playing is a good deal
IMHO.
Pocono being my home track and favorite oval (well, actually Nazareth
and the old Reading Fairgrounds that got torn down in 1980 are
technically my home tracks) I would happily pay a large sum of money
for any improvements to the already highly accurate Papyrus model of
it. My singular complaint with any Papyrus track model has been a
lack of the mid-range sized bumps such as the tunnel at Pocono.. The
length/width and major elevation changes have been pretty good since
GPL, and while I certainly wouldn't want the overexaggerated polygon
death traps that ISI has modelled into Priory at Silverstone among
other tracks, I am looking forward to having the more subtle and
track-character defining bumps modelled in more detail. I want to go
through turn 2 at Pocono and literally crap my pants as the car crests
the tunnel. I'm actually partway done with construction of my
homemade sim commode in anticipation of N2003, just need to finish
adding the Penske Ford livery to the bowl (*cough*).
BTW, I have the utmost respect for David, but I have to question the
opinion of anyone who thought Cart Precision Racing was a good buy.
=)
Jason
Quoted text (7 lines)
>"You're kidding, right?" > >I'll assume this will be the start of the "I'm not paying $50 for a patch" >thread that we had when NR2002 came out and we all bought and liked. >I will be buying it the first day out as well. The $50 cost will be more >than worth the value I will get from it in the many years ahead. If all it >has are improved track models I would buy it as well.On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 01:33:56 -0500, "David G Fisher"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>You're kidding, right?
Yes, ha ha. Haha ha ha. Ha haha ha. Ha ha haha. I crack myself up.
Jason
"Jason Moyer" wrote:
> $50 for a game I'll spend at least 100 hours playing is a good deal
> IMHO.
Agreed!
I predict alot of wothers will make the switch too... once the Papy-server
are gone from NR2002.... And with servers gone - drivers will go too...
Could you [critical] guys imagine going back to N4 now?
Thats the samer story with N2003... once you see it's improvements - I'll
bet ya a buck you wouldnt return to NR2002 for 5 minutes....
--
ed_
----------------------------------------------------------------------
$10 says Petter Solberg wins the 2003 WRC.
"Ed Solheim" <edwins[ REMOVE ]@[ THIS ].no> wrote in message
news:eRfT9.8761$[email hidden]...
I'm gonna be one who waits for a sale. I've got too many Nascar sims
gathering dust.
Oh and about Peta....with Subaru developing a new car, don't count on his
winning. Colin in a Citroen or the other two World Champs at PoohJoe.
dave henrie
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/02
Quoted text (18 lines)
> > "Jason Moyer" wrote: > > > $50 for a game I'll spend at least 100 hours playing is a good deal > > IMHO. > > Agreed! > > I predict alot of wothers will make the switch too... once the Papy-server > are gone from NR2002.... And with servers gone - drivers will go too... > > Could you [critical] guys imagine going back to N4 now? > > Thats the samer story with N2003... once you see it's improvements - I'll > bet ya a buck you wouldnt return to NR2002 for 5 minutes.... > > -- > ed_
"Dave Henrie" said:
> Oh and about Peta....with Subaru developing a new car, don't count onhis
> winning. Colin in a Citroen or the other two World Champs at PoohJoe.
OH! Have some faith innit Dave! :-)
--
ed_
-----------------------------------------------------
*$20* says Petter Solberg wins the 2003 WRC. :-)
"Dave Henrie" said:
OH! Have some faith innit Dave! :-)
--
ed_
-----------------------------------------------------
*$20* says Petter Solberg wins the 2003 WRC. :-)
"Ed Solheim" <edwins[ REMOVE ]@[ THIS ].no> wrote in message
news:eRfT9.8761$[email hidden]...
You guys didn't read jason's post. He said that almost the entire $50 would
be worth paying just for an updated pocono track.
One updated track.
I'm the last person to complain about paying for a sim. The price of the
games themselves are incredibly cheap cosidering how much time we use them
and enjoyment we get out of them.
David G Fisher
Quoted text (21 lines)
> > "Jason Moyer" wrote: > > > $50 for a game I'll spend at least 100 hours playing is a good deal > > IMHO. > > Agreed! > > I predict alot of wothers will make the switch too... once the Papy-server > are gone from NR2002.... And with servers gone - drivers will go too... > > Could you [critical] guys imagine going back to N4 now? > > Thats the samer story with N2003... once you see it's improvements - I'll > bet ya a buck you wouldnt return to NR2002 for 5 minutes.... > > -- > ed_ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > $10 says Petter Solberg wins the 2003 WRC.On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:34:19 -0500, "David G Fisher"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>You guys didn't read jason's post. He said that almost the entire $50 would
>be worth paying just for an updated pocono track.
>
>One updated track.
Dave I look at it this way. I spent $50 on Nascar Thunder and played
it for less than 4 hours before it became a coaster. $50 for
something that is simply Nascar 2002 with a more accurate Pocono
wouldn't be a bad deal.
Jason
rofl
--
Tim White
www.intracmotorsports.com
"Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DRcT9.238296$[email hidden]...
I'll assume this will be the start of the "I'm not paying $50 for a patch"
thread that we had when ...
That is a good point. I think that with N2003 it will required greater
system resources. More money to upgrade your sytem just to run it. The
real money when it comes to sim racing. Price of the game is chicken feed.
"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:34:19 -0500, "David G Fisher"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >You guys didn't read jason's post. He said that almost the entire $50would
Quoted text (10 lines)
> >be worth paying just for an updated pocono track. > > > >One updated track. > > Dave I look at it this way. I spent $50 on Nascar Thunder and played > it for less than 4 hours before it became a coaster. $50 for > something that is simply Nascar 2002 with a more accurate Pocono > wouldn't be a bad deal. > > JasonYou're also not sitting in the back seat when driving, ie, you can see
more of the track; hence, you only get 3/4 of the rear view mirror.
Jay Beckman wrote:
--
Jason Monds theCLAPPER in Kali
http://www.proracingclub.com - Pro Racing Club! (GPL)
http://www.scprc.com - Stock Car Pro Racing Club (NR2002)
(Remove 'no extra spork' when replying)
