I'm not assuming anything. I was just saying it was reused and not all new
like was claimed, which it is not. The fact they can drop old files into a
"all new engine" makes me think it is not so "all new". Heck they could
have at least cleaned up the files. Looks like they never did anything
other than saying "ya just grab this file and use that as is"

Again I couldn't care less who makes the sim, Papy, EA, or my dog.

Its funny how you can point out an issue like this and all of a sudden the
replies are "but but but Papy did it too!" Does that make EA marketing it
as all new ok?

Too many people jumping on both bandwagons for my liking. State the truth
and pick the best sim available.

"Bill Bollinger" > wrote in message
...
> Or like N2003 was to N4. Isn't physics math based anyways? If it
> accurate, why change it? Or are we ASSUMING it isn't accurate? Or are we
> ASSUMING it isn't accurate because EA made it and Papy didn't? Or are we
> ASSUMING it isn't accurate because EA made it 2 years ago and most simmers
> purchased N2003 vs. Thunder 03? Bottom line is if it is right, it is
> right.
>
> Bill Bollinger
> www.gsxn.com
>
>
> "JP" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Schooner" > wrote in message
>> news:s6lTd.15925$9a3.2091@edtnps91...
>>> I agree there is no value in reinventing the heel, but I think the point
>> is
>>> this was made out to be "all new" not "partly new with some old code
>>> that
>> we
>>> had kicking around mixed in". They seem to be pushing it being all new
>>> as
>>> they know many had issues with previous titles.
>>
>>
>> Kind of, no, actually, exactly, like when N3 was released
>>
>>
>
>