What's left to sim?

When will sim go from polygons/surface to solid modling?

Probably when we all going to be able to buy a home PC not running copper
cpu.

EL


"ymenard" > wrote in message
...
> >"John DiFool" > wrote
> >I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather,
> > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or
> > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff
> > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented),
> > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will
> > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of
> > intended...]
>
>
>
> The whole simracing world is slowly closing the gap between their physics
> and graphical engine. The transition is long, and it'll take a while.
> Around 10 years (makes sense). Someday everything on screen, will be a
real
> entity and not be a bunch of polygons together, with a hidden set of
> parameters for the physics engine to take in consideration.
>
> The oil a car will let on the track, will run down it if it's banked. A
> fence will be a fence, not just a transparent polygon with a texture on
it.
> It'll be deformable. Same goes for any part of a car. They will become
> more and more complex.
>
>
> The only thing I hate of the whole thing, is the lack of cooperation, or
> open-standardness between companies. Heck, FIVE years ago a company like
> Motorsims created the most incredible tracks I've ever seen. Not even
today
> companies have devoted that much attention to them. All that work is
> wasted. Developpers spend TONS of money recreated existing tracks. How
> many ****ing version of Laguna exist? Now if Laguna Seca would create
their
> own perfect model and sell it to companies, it would always be perfect.
Or
> perhaps a company that would sell track information to other developpers.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- François Ménard <ymenard>
> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
> Corporation - helping America into the New World...
>
>

Steve Smith wrote:

> Papy...gone.

But http://first-racing.net/ is not! Word is that these guys (Kaemmer
and other ex-pappy dudes) are working on a Champcar sim, essentially
ICR3.

-Greg

Byron Forbes wrote:
>
> Not that it's to do with the guts of sims themselves, but the next big
> step for me will be when you have a headset like the Track-IR but the
> headset will have 3D sound in the ears and a pair of small monitors over
> each eye - now that will be total immersion for all computer games! The
> peripheral vision problem will be a thing of the past!

I'd love to see it, but I wonder if anyone's dealt with the depth of
field (visual focus) issues yet, or if they can be dealt with...

Charlie

"ymenard" > wrote in message >. ..
> "David G Fisher" > wrote
> > I think rFactor will improve a lot on those four.
>
> Hmmm, tracks can't be "improved" over REAL sims when they are fantasy
> tracks. They can't even match up to Motorsims' tracks back 5 years ago or
> what Papy does in terms of polygonal smoothness anyway. And considering
> it's semi-serious nature (similar to LFS), the physics are bound to be
> degraded.

Hmmm, not sure I follow here, Frank. What is it about rFactor's
fantasy test track that makes you think the potential for quality
recreations of real facilities is in doubt? In terms of PC sims, the
graphics, IMNSHO, are a marked step up from anything else I've seen.
Certainly makes the Papy efforts look almost 2 years out of date...
Dynamic time-of-day effects are stunning and really add to the
immersion factor. Far better than, say, Papy's perma-dusk "night"
races.

I would also ask where you get the idea that this is "semi-serious"?
Papy had a fantastic run of form and were for their day unbeatable.
Nothing felt as convincing to drive for me. Until now.

RBR and rFactor give me the sort of grin I haven't experienced since
GPL first came out all those years ago...

The king is dead, etc.

"Steve Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Bernie Ecclestone?
>

Too easy - just a random answer generator!


> "John DiFool" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I mean issues like tires, drafting, variable weather,
> > better FF and AI, etc., and not new types of cars or
> > series necessarily. In other words what kinds of stuff
> > still bears to be improved upon (or even invented),
> > and what has been pretty much optimized? What will
> > we see 5-10 years down the road? [Pun kind of
> > intended...]
> >
> > When I watch a NASCAR telecast I get the impression
> > that a lot more is going on than there is in either of our
> > NASCAR titles, as teams feverishly try to tweak the car
> > back to optimum during a race. [Not that you'll get a
> > lot of this technical info from the announcers, just a
> > bunch of stuff like "Gordon is tight in the middle of the
> > turn, loose on exit"...].
> >
> > John DiFool
> >
>
>

"Charlie" > wrote in message
...
> Byron Forbes wrote:
> >
> > Not that it's to do with the guts of sims themselves, but the next
big
> > step for me will be when you have a headset like the Track-IR but the
> > headset will have 3D sound in the ears and a pair of small monitors over
> > each eye - now that will be total immersion for all computer games!
The
> > peripheral vision problem will be a thing of the past!
>
> I'd love to see it, but I wonder if anyone's dealt with the depth of
> field (visual focus) issues yet, or if they can be dealt with...
>
> Charlie

'corse they can!

In article >,
says...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:10:48 -0000, Peter
> > wrote:
> >That watchamacallit to do with being able to emulate the bumps on the
> >road. Yeah, I forget the name and I'm pressed for time to look it up.
> ><BG> Unfortunately, we'll need sims that run at 1000fps I'd guess.
>
> High frequency bumps? BTW, the fps don't matter when you're talking
> physics...
>
> Cheers!
>
> Remco
>
>
Eh? Are you saying that simulating high frequency bumps is nothing to
do with physics? They certainly would be in my world coz they're going
to affect how the car behaves. And I thought hfb could not be reproduced
in an effective enough way because, in the time it takes to jump from 1
frame to the next, the car would have travelled too far along the track
in order to allow for hfb's to be simulated correctly. Hence more fps
required.
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

Peter > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> says...
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:10:48 -0000, Peter
>> > wrote:
>> >That watchamacallit to do with being able to emulate the bumps on the
>> >road. Yeah, I forget the name and I'm pressed for time to look it
>> >up. <BG> Unfortunately, we'll need sims that run at 1000fps I'd
>> >guess.
>>
>> High frequency bumps? BTW, the fps don't matter when you're talking
>> physics...
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Remco
>>
>>
> Eh? Are you saying that simulating high frequency bumps is nothing to
> do with physics? They certainly would be in my world coz they're going
> to affect how the car behaves. And I thought hfb could not be
> reproduced in an effective enough way because, in the time it takes to
> jump from 1 frame to the next, the car would have travelled too far
> along the track in order to allow for hfb's to be simulated correctly.
> Hence more fps required.

He said that simulating HFB has nothing to do with fps. FPS reflects how
often the image is drawn on the screen. When the time to draw the next
frame arrives, renderer takes the current state from the physics engine
(which may either operate on higher frequency or use continuous model, or
combination of both).

Alex.

>"Mark" > wrote
> Hmmm, not sure I follow here, Frank. What is it about rFactor's
> fantasy test track that makes you think the potential for quality
> recreations of real facilities is in doubt?


I just think it's much more easy to create a fantasy track in terms of # of
details than to recreate meticulously a real track. You spent lots less
time with data gathering compared to the track designing, so your efforts
can be moved towards more 3d modeling and 2d artistery. Like time-of-day
dynamics like you told. But heck like I told lots of times, 5 years ago
with Motorsims you had complete facilities modeling highly detailed by some
companies. Those tracks had everything, on *and* off the track. Road
access, parkings, you name it, it was there. By today's standards the 2d
renderings aren't up to par but still...


> Far better than, say, Papy's perma-dusk "night" races.

Hey they at least gave us a rainbow from time to time at Dover <g>






--
-- François Ménard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

In article . 52>,
says...
> Peter > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:10:48 -0000, Peter
> >> > wrote:
> >> >That watchamacallit to do with being able to emulate the bumps on the
> >> >road. Yeah, I forget the name and I'm pressed for time to look it
> >> >up. <BG> Unfortunately, we'll need sims that run at 1000fps I'd
> >> >guess.
> >>
> >> High frequency bumps? BTW, the fps don't matter when you're talking
> >> physics...
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >>
> >> Remco
> >>
> >>
> > Eh? Are you saying that simulating high frequency bumps is nothing to
> > do with physics? They certainly would be in my world coz they're going
> > to affect how the car behaves. And I thought hfb could not be
> > reproduced in an effective enough way because, in the time it takes to
> > jump from 1 frame to the next, the car would have travelled too far
> > along the track in order to allow for hfb's to be simulated correctly.
> > Hence more fps required.
>
> He said that simulating HFB has nothing to do with fps. FPS reflects how
> often the image is drawn on the screen. When the time to draw the next
> frame arrives, renderer takes the current state from the physics engine
> (which may either operate on higher frequency or use continuous model, or
> combination of both).
>
> Alex.
>
Cheers to those who put me straight. So are HFB's being simulated in
some sims? I remembered an old discussion here on ras which, after some
google groups research, may have been to do with GPL and some time ago,
that said that pc's weren't fast enough to simulate them. Has that
changed now?
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email