Should Tiburon be embarrassed?

Steve Blankenship wrote:
....
> Fair enough Achim

NSR errs a tad on the side of 'user friendliness' for my personal liking as
well, but as you've outlined, the settings are there, it just takes someone to
use them.

That said, what I was getting at at was that I am under the impression that NSR,
on top of having the highly detailed suspension and chassis model plus the
configurability of ISI sims, has a tire deformation model that seems to be as
sophisticated as that of N2k3.

If I'm right, NSR combines two assets which previously had been strictly
separated, which makes it a pretty interesting simulation in the physics department.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but I think in the best interest of the
simming community, NSR should not be discarded lightheartedly. It might have
hidden potential which deserves to be discovered, and used.

Achim

"Steve Blankenship" > wrote in message
...
>
>So they've tilted it a little in the easy fun direction, which means
>there's hard fun to be had in it. Guess I'm more of a hard fun guy.
>
> SB

Jeez, I really should proofread before I send this junk! Meant to say
"there's LESS hard fun to be had in it ".

Better now...

"Joachim Trensz" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Blankenship wrote:
> ...
> > Fair enough Achim
>
> Indeed, NSR errs a tad on the side of 'user friendliness' for my personal
liking
> as well. However, as you've outlined, the settings are there, it only
takes
> someone to use them.
>
> What I was getting at was a lot more simple, though. I think you'll have
noticed
> that as well, but I am under the impression that NSR combines Papy's
excellent
> tire deformation model with ISI's highly sophisticated suspension (and
> transmission, as you outlined) model, plus the configurability ISI sims
have
> always had.
>
> I.e., NSR is a hybrid of a new class, combining the previously strictly
> separated highlights from two worlds.
>
> In its default state, NSR may not meet the expectations of hardcore
simmers, but
> if the above is true, it is a respectable simulation with interesting
potential.
>
> I don't like excessive copy protection either (although I don't have a
prob with
> it on my machine), but NSR may be a little gem in the physics and modding
> department and should be given a very close look before discarding it
> lightheartedly.
>
> Achim

Dunno. I've never had a look at the guts of Papy's tire model, and the TBC
files in NSR look just about like they did in prior iterations with the ISI
engine. Don't have any old NT files handy for comparing values, but they
have the same inputs as rFactor save for multiple slipcurves, which the old
model could do anyway. So all I can say about the tire model v. Papy's is
that it's too forgiving and the car feels really dead as a result of it.
That was actually the first thing I noticed about it after driving it right
after NR2003; the Papy car just feels so much more lively while the NSR car
just feels very damped and dull.

Unlike some, I have no issue with copy protection or with EA or Tiburon for
making the game the way they see fit, and generally ignore all the marketing
hype anyway. But it escapes me how any end user can say this thing advances
the genre over NR2003 in any way whatsoever. Did some online racing with it
last night, and it was an all around poorer experience in my view. A
matchmaking service that can't even compete with the old version of VROC for
functionality, and even more warping than I see in NR2003 - this with 100%
broadband users. The shallower learning curve and the fact that you can
bang into each other without much effect will no doubt please some, but not
moi. And that turbo draft...

I bought NSR yesterday just to muck around with it and see what could be
made of it, but unlike some others, the more time I've spent with it to date
the less I think of it. That may change, but I have to say I'm thoroughly
unimpressed so far. Hope I run across something to change that.

SB

Steve Blankenship wrote:
....
> ...I've never had a look at the guts of Papy's tire model

Well, of course it isn't Papy's tire deformation model, but it feels like it.

The forgiving stuff you're dissatisfied with is a very forgiving slip curve, and
that's something that's easily cured in the config files by altering a few
numbers in the slip curves (well, a few - it's 10 minutes of typing).

But the basic thing is, it feels like a pretty good tire _deformation_ model,
and that is something really complex to program for all I know. So, having that
in is quite something.

Achim

"Joachim Trensz" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Blankenship wrote:
> ...
> > ...I've never had a look at the guts of Papy's tire model
>
> Well, of course it isn't Papy's tire deformation model, but it feels like
it.
>
> The forgiving stuff you're dissatisfied with is a very forgiving slip
curve, and
> that's something that's easily cured in the config files by altering a few
> numbers in the slip curves (well, a few - it's 10 minutes of typing).
>
> But the basic thing is, it feels like a pretty good tire _deformation_
model,
> and that is something really complex to program for all I know. So, having
that
> in is quite something.
>
> Achim

Gotcha; just meant it didn't feel like Papy's tire model to me. I actually
graphed and tweaked the slipcurves in the demo and messed with the dropoff
function to create a less forgiving tire, which in concert with power-side
locking of the rear diff did make the cars more edgy and rewarding to drive.
But with all the talk about the demo physics being an old build and not
representative of the final build I just thought I'd wait and see what the
final looked like. Not all that much different. Wish I'd saved some of the
demo physics files to compare values! As delivered, the thing that came to
mind was that it felt about like Nascar Heat in terms of feedback. I'll
have to reinstall that one for comparison though, as Heat hasn't been
installed in a while... ;-)

But yeah, it is the same basic tire model as other recent ISI products (and
the previous Nascar Thunder games), which is to say it's a complex and
well-thought-out one. The game does have a solid physics engine under it,
so there's no reason it couldn't deliver a GTR-level driving experience with
the right variables in there. But since everyone's files have to match for
online playing, the fix would pretty much have to occur at the company level
and I have trouble seeing that happen. I think they're aiming elsewhere.

SB

Steve Blankenship wrote:

> "Joachim Trensz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve Blankenship wrote:
>> ...
>> > ...I've never had a look at the guts of Papy's tire model
>>
>> Well, of course it isn't Papy's tire deformation model, but it feels like
> it.
>>
>> The forgiving stuff you're dissatisfied with is a very forgiving slip
> curve, and
>> that's something that's easily cured in the config files by altering a
>> few numbers in the slip curves (well, a few - it's 10 minutes of typing).
>>
>> But the basic thing is, it feels like a pretty good tire _deformation_
> model,
>> and that is something really complex to program for all I know. So,
>> having
> that
>> in is quite something.
>>
>> Achim
>
> Gotcha; just meant it didn't feel like Papy's tire model to me. I
> actually graphed and tweaked the slipcurves in the demo and messed with
> the dropoff function to create a less forgiving tire, which in concert
> with power-side locking of the rear diff did make the cars more edgy and
> rewarding to drive. But with all the talk about the demo physics being an
> old build and not representative of the final build I just thought I'd
> wait and see what the
> final looked like. Not all that much different. Wish I'd saved some of
> the
> demo physics files to compare values! As delivered, the thing that came
> to
> mind was that it felt about like Nascar Heat in terms of feedback. I'll
> have to reinstall that one for comparison though, as Heat hasn't been
> installed in a while... ;-)
>
> But yeah, it is the same basic tire model as other recent ISI products
> (and the previous Nascar Thunder games), which is to say it's a complex
> and
> well-thought-out one. The game does have a solid physics engine under it,
> so there's no reason it couldn't deliver a GTR-level driving experience
> with
> the right variables in there. But since everyone's files have to match
> for online playing, the fix would pretty much have to occur at the company
> level
> and I have trouble seeing that happen. I think they're aiming elsewhere.
>
> SB

Im still in absolute disbelief in the poor reception to GTR. The demo2
really sets the standard high yet still almost nothing from this group, a
SIMULATION newsgroup. Half the people that come here need to go back to
their arcade roots and leave the sims to the men

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

"Mitch_A" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Im still in absolute disbelief in the poor reception to GTR. The demo2
> really sets the standard high yet still almost nothing from this group, a
> SIMULATION newsgroup. Half the people that come here need to go back to
> their arcade roots and leave the sims to the men
>
> Mitch

That'll probably change when it hits worldwide release; as it is the buzz is
sort of trickling out rather than hitting all at once. The original leaked
press release did make quite a splash here.

But to be honest, some of it has to do with the buggy and problematic nature
of that generation of ISI engine. Took me tons of tweaking to get the
bloody thing to run halfway decent on my box, which runs all non-ISI sims
(and even rFactor) just fine. And now NSR is looking like another
tweak-fest. The first thing I noticed before even running it was that I had
to tweak the 3D config util to get all my video resolutions, just as with
the demo.

I have sympathy for the developers though, it's a ton of work to put one of
these games together, even one that uses middleware to get there, ala GTR
and NSR. I think the difference between those two says all you need to know
about the developer's focus and intent.

SB

"Joachim Trensz" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Blankenship wrote:
> ...
> > ...I've never had a look at the guts of Papy's tire model
>
> Well, of course it isn't Papy's tire deformation model, but it feels like
it.
>
> The forgiving stuff you're dissatisfied with is a very forgiving slip
curve, and
> that's something that's easily cured in the config files by altering a few
> numbers in the slip curves (well, a few - it's 10 minutes of typing).
>
> But the basic thing is, it feels like a pretty good tire _deformation_
model,
> and that is something really complex to program for all I know. So, having
that
> in is quite something.
>
> Achim

Just had to have another look. ;-)

FWIW, I had some old data in Excel to compare to the current stuff, and the
as-shipped NSR lateral slipcurve is considerably less forgiving than the
curves in rFactor, or any previous ISI sim or mod I had numbers for,
including the original GTR2002. Can't read the current GTR data, but as for
the overly forgiving slidey nature of NSR, it's coming from elsewhere in the
tire model. I mucked with the latpeak and longpeak numbers in the demo to
tweak it as that appears to affect the sliprange where peak force occurs.
And the range in NSR is considerably wider than rFactor for those variables.
Need to poke around in there some more. Interesting stuff...

SB

Steve Blankenship wrote:
....
> Just had to have another look. ;-)
>
> FWIW, I had some old data in Excel to compare to the current stuff, and the
> as-shipped NSR lateral slipcurve is considerably less forgiving than the
> curves in rFactor, or any previous ISI sim or mod I had numbers for,
> including the original GTR2002. Can't read the current GTR data, but as for
> the overly forgiving slidey nature of NSR, it's coming from elsewhere in the
> tire model. I mucked with the latpeak and longpeak numbers in the demo to
> tweak it as that appears to affect the sliprange where peak force occurs.
> And the range in NSR is considerably wider than rFactor for those variables.
> Need to poke around in there some more. Interesting stuff...

Yep, but a slipcurve cannot be seen isolated from the other tire parameters. If
I wanted to mod the _tires_ for less forgiving slides in NSR, I'd mod the slip
curve.

Achim

Joachim Trensz wrote:
....
> Yep, but a slipcurve cannot be seen isolated from the other tire
> parameters. If I wanted to mod the _tires_ for less forgiving slides in
> NSR, I'd mod the slip curve.

I forgot to add that the slipcurves probably interact, and Lat curve probably
cannot be looked at alone.

Achim