Nascar Simulation New Video at EA

Wow, your so dang eloquent... so I couldnt say it better, so Rfactor and
GTR & this EA version of nascar, are same dang things? Wow. GTR demo I
have tried was OK, I liked the Rfactor better, I think, but is not a fair
test ya know.

cant be all bad then, unless EA does to LSI? what Sierra and corp did to
papy Id guess...


Jan Verschueren enlightened us with:
> "Plowboy2" wrote...
>> There is a movie on OLR, where Joe L, interviewed James Hawkins
>> (producer)...
>>
>> Anywho in the interview JH stated that a major chunk of this
>> sim's (whatever) is based in the F1 tittled games...
>>
>> SO me never having even tried the F1 stuff from EA, I want to
>> know, is that bad, or good?
>
> It's good and bad.
>
> If the racing series in question is well implemented, the ISI physics
> engine or development thereof will yield a richer and "more natural"
> driving experience than anything Papyrus have ever done.
>
> However, unless they have really fixed some issues this time around
> (and, seeing as a lot of annoying stuff that was in F1 2k1 is still
> in GTR and rFactor, I'm not holding my breath), a lot of users will
> have some degree of difficulty and will possibly need to manually
> edit files to get their controller setup "just so" as to be able to
> fully enjoy the greater detail offered by the engine.
>
> And, again: unless spectacular advancements have been made, the multi
> will be:
>
> - not as robust and straightforward as with Papyrus titles.
> - require a lot of bandwidth on the part of the host and a
> stable, low ping connection on the part of the player.
> - still not look quite right, even under ideal conditions(*).
>
> I don't want to sound as if I'm dismissing it outright, because I'm
> not. I truly honestly want the simracing genre to advance and be
> successfull and I will give the demo a fair shot at convincing me EA
> NASCAR Simracing is the next step forward. However, to do that
> certain things will have to be fixed with regard to preceding titles,
> otherwise there will be fairly little point in owning the latest
> version.
> Jan.
> =---
> (*)Rem.: ok, this is highly subjective and if everthing else worked I
> could live with it, but I have this problem with F1
> 2k2/F1C/GTR/rFactor multiplayer where it appears to me as if the
> other cars in my field of view are objects being moved along a
> similar trajectory to mine, rather than cars being driven by the
> other players. Even when conditions are perfect, i.e. a monster
> machine/connect as a host and all players geographically close to it
> with less than 30ms pings. On the other hand, when in GPL/NR2003 cars
> jitter or warp a little
> (it's very rare to see a truly terrible connect nowadays), I don't
> get this same level of estrangement than in the ISI sims.

Bruce Kennewell wrote:
> Why do these releases (previews) have to be accompanied by "exciting"
> music??!
> Far better to simply incorporate the real-life sounds, IMO.

I totally agree. But they will sell more units to asswipes if the
include **** musik


--
"For instance I can't think of the last time I actually paid for a copy
of Windows." -- James Calivar

"Jan Verschueren" > wrote in message
...
> "Phillip Malphrus, Jr" wrote...
> > yeah
>
> Nothing wrong with Papy collision code per se, as it was designed for and
> works fairly well in a low ping environment (i.e. LAN multiplayer).
>
> Online was tagged on to GPL at a late stage and, apparently, only slightly
> improved for the NR200x iterations. As pings rise (and you turn on more
cars
> in NR200x) the design flaw of having each player calculate collisions
> locally (i.e. clientside) rears its ugly head, as the time needed to
> exchance info between the players leads to ever more erroneous values
being
> put into the simulation. This creates the infamous and always unexpected
> online "explosion", even though a contact may, at first, appear minor.
>
> Jan.
> =---



Blaming it on ping is incorrect. I've seen it exist in any net numbers
you can think of, high or low. As I've asked before; how come Heat's code
didn't do this then, if it's net/ping related ?

"Jan Verschueren" > wrote in message
...
> "Plowboy2" wrote...
> > There is a movie on OLR, where Joe L, interviewed James Hawkins
> > (producer)...
> >
> > Anywho in the interview JH stated that a major chunk of this
> > sim's (whatever) is based in the F1 tittled games...
> >
> > SO me never having even tried the F1 stuff from EA, I want to
> > know, is that bad, or good?
>
> It's good and bad.
>
> If the racing series in question is well implemented, the ISI physics
engine
> or development thereof will yield a richer and "more natural" driving
> experience than anything Papyrus have ever done.
>
> However, unless they have really fixed some issues this time around (and,
> seeing as a lot of annoying stuff that was in F1 2k1 is still in GTR and
> rFactor, I'm not holding my breath), a lot of users will have some degree
of
> difficulty and will possibly need to manually edit files to get their
> controller setup "just so" as to be able to fully enjoy the greater detail
> offered by the engine.
>
> And, again: unless spectacular advancements have been made, the multi will
> be:
>
> - not as robust and straightforward as with Papyrus titles.
> - require a lot of bandwidth on the part of the host and a
> stable, low ping connection on the part of the player.
> - still not look quite right, even under ideal conditions(*).
>
> I don't want to sound as if I'm dismissing it outright, because I'm not. I
> truly honestly want the simracing genre to advance and be successfull and
I
> will give the demo a fair shot at convincing me EA NASCAR Simracing is the
> next step forward. However, to do that certain things will have to be
fixed
> with regard to preceding titles, otherwise there will be fairly little
point
> in owning the latest version.
>
> Jan.
> =---
> (*)Rem.: ok, this is highly subjective and if everthing else worked I
could
> live with it, but I have this problem with F1 2k2/F1C/GTR/rFactor
> multiplayer where it appears to me as if the other cars in my field of
view
> are objects being moved along a similar trajectory to mine, rather than
cars
> being driven by the other players. Even when conditions are perfect, i.e.
a
> monster machine/connect as a host and all players geographically close to
it
> with less than 30ms pings.
> On the other hand, when in GPL/NR2003 cars jitter or warp a little (it's
> very rare to see a truly terrible connect nowadays), I don't get this same
> level of estrangement than in the ISI sims.



Excellent points.

"Plowboy2" > wrote in message
newsEeFd.21441$Wo.3306@lakeread08...
> Wow, your so dang eloquent... so I couldnt say it better, so Rfactor and
> GTR & this EA version of nascar, are same dang things? Wow. GTR demo I
> have tried was OK, I liked the Rfactor better, I think, but is not a fair
> test ya know.

rFactor uses ISI's latest game engine (gMotor2). GTR uses the previous game
engine. The rFactor demo does not actually contain the final physics and
graphics either, but is for testing the multiplayer component. If you like
the demo now, it only will be better when the full version is released.
--
David G Fisher

"Jan Verschueren" > wrote in message
...
> =---
> (*)Rem.: ok, this is highly subjective and if everthing else worked I
could
> live with it, but I have this problem with F1 2k2/F1C/GTR/rFactor
> multiplayer where it appears to me as if the other cars in my field of
view
> are objects being moved along a similar trajectory to mine, rather than
cars
> being driven by the other players. Even when conditions are perfect, i.e.
a
> monster machine/connect as a host and all players geographically close to
it
> with less than 30ms pings.
> On the other hand, when in GPL/NR2003 cars jitter or warp a little (it's
> very rare to see a truly terrible connect nowadays), I don't get this same
> level of estrangement than in the ISI sims.

I understand you have two different experiences with the two sims, but it
could it be due to your internet connection? You consistently have a rough
connection to our RASCAR server (blinking in and out). If it's just our
server you have trouble with when racing online, then I have no idea why you
see what you do with the ISI games.
--
David G Fisher

"JP" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jan Verschueren" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Phillip Malphrus, Jr" wrote...
> > > yeah
> >
> > Nothing wrong with Papy collision code per se, as it was designed for
and
> > works fairly well in a low ping environment (i.e. LAN multiplayer).
> >
> > Online was tagged on to GPL at a late stage and, apparently, only
slightly
> > improved for the NR200x iterations. As pings rise (and you turn on more
> cars
> > in NR200x) the design flaw of having each player calculate collisions
> > locally (i.e. clientside) rears its ugly head, as the time needed to
> > exchance info between the players leads to ever more erroneous values
> being
> > put into the simulation. This creates the infamous and always unexpected
> > online "explosion", even though a contact may, at first, appear minor.
> >
> > Jan.
> > =---
>
>
>
> Blaming it on ping is incorrect. I've seen it exist in any net numbers
> you can think of, high or low. As I've asked before; how come Heat's code
> didn't do this then, if it's net/ping related ?

Heat definitely did do it at times; I raced Heat a lot back in the day and
seeing cars somersaulting through the air from warp-driven collisions was
far from unheard of. That said, when you had a good connections you could
lean on each other and rub doors till your mirrors fell off. Great fun
emulating the BTCC door bashers with the DTM mod. One thing Heat did (and
so does rFactor) is turn off collisions when latency passes a certain
point - Heat evened turned them into ghost cars. I've gone right through
guys in rFactor who had lousy connections without ever leaving a mark. Papy
apparently didn't like the idea of heavy prediction code so much and
preferred to stick closer to the raw data they were getting, resulting in
the infamous jittering opponents. You don't want to get anywhere near them
for fear of The Bomb... ;-)

But all this speculation about the new EA product is pretty pointless.
Doesn't look so hot from that video, but no matter; we'll all know if it
sucks or not in a week or so.

SB

"Steve Blankenship" > wrote in message
...
> "JP" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jan Verschueren" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Phillip Malphrus, Jr" wrote...
> > > > yeah
> > >
> > > Nothing wrong with Papy collision code per se, as it was designed for
> and
> > > works fairly well in a low ping environment (i.e. LAN multiplayer).
> > >
> > > Online was tagged on to GPL at a late stage and, apparently, only
> slightly
> > > improved for the NR200x iterations. As pings rise (and you turn on
more
> > cars
> > > in NR200x) the design flaw of having each player calculate collisions
> > > locally (i.e. clientside) rears its ugly head, as the time needed to
> > > exchance info between the players leads to ever more erroneous values
> > being
> > > put into the simulation. This creates the infamous and always
unexpected
> > > online "explosion", even though a contact may, at first, appear minor.
> > >
> > > Jan.
> > > =---
> >
> >
> >
> > Blaming it on ping is incorrect. I've seen it exist in any net
numbers
> > you can think of, high or low. As I've asked before; how come Heat's
code
> > didn't do this then, if it's net/ping related ?
>
> Heat definitely did do it at times; I raced Heat a lot back in the day and
> seeing cars somersaulting through the air from warp-driven collisions was
> far from unheard of. That said, when you had a good connections you could
> lean on each other and rub doors till your mirrors fell off. Great fun
> emulating the BTCC door bashers with the DTM mod. One thing Heat did (and
> so does rFactor) is turn off collisions when latency passes a certain
> point - Heat evened turned them into ghost cars. I've gone right through
> guys in rFactor who had lousy connections without ever leaving a mark.
Papy
> apparently didn't like the idea of heavy prediction code so much and
> preferred to stick closer to the raw data they were getting, resulting in
> the infamous jittering opponents. You don't want to get anywhere near
them
> for fear of The Bomb... ;-)
>
> But all this speculation about the new EA product is pretty pointless.
> Doesn't look so hot from that video, but no matter; we'll all know if it
> sucks or not in a week or so.
>
> SB



<shrug> I raced Heat online like crazy too. Never once saw a Papy-like
rocket launch, fwiw.

You would think Ryan Newman would be leading the pack in this picture, since
he is racing a Cup car against Craftsman Trucks...

http://img47.exs.cx/img47/9886/image21at.jpg



"Braddo" > wrote in message
...
> Just received this in email
>
> http://www.easports.com/games/nascar.../exclusive.jsp
>
>
>

"Jan Verschueren" > wrote in message
...
> "JP" wrote...
> > <snip>
> > Blaming it on ping is incorrect.
>
> Ping is not directly the cause, no, the trouble is the way GPL/NR200x
> servers compensate for it, but not for the position errors this system
> causes when collisions are calculated.
>
> > I've seen it exist in any net numbers you can think
> > of, high or low.
>
> It works pretty well if the combined ping of the players is under 40ms.
E.g.
> back in the days when I was one of the first group of people on broadband
> where I live and my ping to Norway was 23ms, I could race my buddy Asgeir
on
> the server at the university (his ping < 10ms) without taking online
issues
> into account. Once we went one and a half laps around Monaco side by side,
> banging wheels Villeneuve vs Arnoux style (and those sissies had a lot of
> run off ;-)) as we went along without GPL getting really out of shape.
>
> Anything much higher (say 70ms and above) and things deteriorate rapidly.
>
> Also, in NR200x you are able to turn on more cars to view than the
bandwidth
> between you and the server allows. In GPL terms, NR200x bandwidth allows
you
> to view 6 cars and, while stationary, you will only see this amount. Once
> you start moving and prediction kicks in you can see up to 42 cars if your
> config allows, but this has to be at the cost of update rate. Which is to
> say, position info on any opponent car will arrive only once every 3
> communications with the server (for 18 opponents in view) and, even if
your
> combined ping is very low for internet standards nowadays, say 60ms, the
> effective update rate between two players may be as bad as 6 times that,
or
> 360ms.
>
> > As I've asked before; how come Heat's code
> > didn't do this then, if it's net/ping related ?
>
> It's because of the way GPL/NR200x compensates for latency and then
> calculates collisions client side, for both clients.
>
> A GPL/NR200x server collects data about the player's position and compares
> the amount of time which has passed in the client's race with the amount
of
> time it knows the race has been underway. It uses this data to sent out
info
> to the clients on their opponents in such a way that the information will
be
> current when it arrives at the client PC, assuming latency is the same
both
> ways AND constant. Because all data has to pass sequentially from the
> server, this means that, relative to the server and eachother all players
> are at a different point in the timeline with regard to the start of the
> race, i.e. each player's game reality is slightly different to all the
> others.
>
> Say a collisions starts at one players end... his game calculates his
car's
> reaction to the collision and send it to the server. This info is then
> passed on to the other game where either seperate collision is in progress
> or an accident hasn't occured yet. It sends back the local cars reaction
to
> this time delayed, coming from another version of reality information and
> the whole mess keeps feeding back and forth until it spirals out of
control
> because the two games were too far out of sync due to their relative
> latencies (compounded by the update rate in NR200x games) when the
accident
> started. It's similar to the ball bearing bouncing on the marble plate in
> the explanation why the simulation update frequency plays such a big part
in
> how accurate its results are.
>
> Anyhow, ISI and the people behind LFS use a different system (as yet
> unexplained to me), so nudges between cars remain just that, nudges. It's
> pretty obvious the trade off is more data being passed between the
> participants, but otherwise I'm not aware of the merits/flaws/workings of
> this system.
>
> Jan.
> =---


Exactly. Anyway, my point is that folks have a tendency to blame it on
everything but what it is, which is Papy's code.