Racing Legends - PPU compatibility?

Many thanks for the update, Greg.

I understand the hestitation - no use going out a limb if the technology
doesn't take off. However, I understand that the PPU has good buy-in from
some of the big names in gaming.

I'm happy to see that it has been thought about.

Cheers,
Tim



"Gregor Veble" > wrote in message
...
> Hello,
>
> there's been some comments by Chris and me in the latest AutoSimSport
> issue. Basically it is felt a PPU would be a great addition, as that is
> precisely what would be needed to move things that bit forward, but only
> if it allowed for custom programming solutions and would have good market
> penetration. So far it's a bit wait and see.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Gregor
>
> eppy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Unfortunatly, there isn't too much discussion in other forums about the
>> progress in Racing Legends. Does anyone know if the developers have taken
>> advantage of the delay in their work by utilising new technologies such
>> as hardware Physics Processing Units? This would surely aid their goal of
>> a truly component based physics model for their cars?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>

I think "Mythbusters" needs to have a go at this one,

Bruce.

"Gregor Veble" > wrote in message
...

> So far it's a bit wait and see.
>

I strongly suggest that if you have not already you download this months
AutoSimSport and read the article about PPU's in which there is comment from
many Simracing developers on the subject.

www.autosimsport.com

Jon.


"eppy" > wrote in message
k...
> Many thanks for the update, Greg.
>
> I understand the hestitation - no use going out a limb if the technology
> doesn't take off. However, I understand that the PPU has good buy-in from
> some of the big names in gaming.
>
> I'm happy to see that it has been thought about.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
>
>
>
> "Gregor Veble" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hello,
> >
> > there's been some comments by Chris and me in the latest AutoSimSport
> > issue. Basically it is felt a PPU would be a great addition, as that is
> > precisely what would be needed to move things that bit forward, but only
> > if it allowed for custom programming solutions and would have good
market
> > penetration. So far it's a bit wait and see.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > -Gregor
> >
> > eppy wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Unfortunatly, there isn't too much discussion in other forums about the
> >> progress in Racing Legends. Does anyone know if the developers have
taken
> >> advantage of the delay in their work by utilising new technologies such
> >> as hardware Physics Processing Units? This would surely aid their goal
of
> >> a truly component based physics model for their cars?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

In article . com>,
says...
>
> I don't understand people who state as absolute fact that they
> have not made any progress or that they are trying to con us all.

The Wests put themselves in that position. They announced the game at
LEAST four years ago, and we're all still waiting around to see
something more tangible than a few 3D models. Further, activity on their
website is restricted to the forums where racing anarchists have even
lost interest in talking about RL, and instead are talking about other
racing games. Where are the Wests? Probably out looking for a
replacement for their cat...

John Simmons wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
> >
> > I don't understand people who state as absolute fact that they
> > have not made any progress or that they are trying to con us all.
>
> The Wests put themselves in that position. They announced the game at

> LEAST four years ago, and we're all still waiting around to see
> something more tangible than a few 3D models. Further, activity on
their
> website is restricted to the forums where racing anarchists have even

> lost interest in talking about RL, and instead are talking about
other
> racing games. Where are the Wests? Probably out looking for a
> replacement for their cat...


.....and so it begins

Nothing like a good flamewar. Should I just question your parentage
now and get it over with?

All that turning left has made you dizzy methinks

All the best,
Ash

--
http://www.siroccoracing.com <-- heavily out of date, but i'm still
working on it honest.

"Takes time"?
"TAKES TIME"?!!!
Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it!

All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your theory
it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate!

Gimme a break.

Bruce.

"Ashley McConnell" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Like anything worth doing, RL takes time.
>

I knew I shouldn't have started this thread - even though I did ask a
polite, innocent question. To be fair, I recieved a polite answer from
Gregor, and followed his link to the very interesting Sim Racing magazine
article on PPUs.

Unfortunatly, the signal to noise ratio is now decreasing at an alarming
rate.

Tim


"Bruce Kennewell" > wrote in message
...
> "Takes time"?
> "TAKES TIME"?!!!
> Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it!
>
> All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your theory
> it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate!
>
> Gimme a break.
>
> Bruce.
>
> "Ashley McConnell" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Like anything worth doing, RL takes time.
>>
>
>

Anything that annoys the prat Kennewell gets my support. 3 Years idiot get
your facts right.

"Bruce Kennewell" > wrote in message
...
> "Takes time"?
> "TAKES TIME"?!!!
> Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it!
>
> All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your theory
> it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate!
>
> Gimme a break.
>
> Bruce.
>
> "Ashley McConnell" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Like anything worth doing, RL takes time.
>>
>
>

On Wed, 4 May 2005 18:09:13 +0000 (UTC), "." > wrote:

>Anything that annoys the prat Kennewell gets my support. 3 Years idiot get
>your facts right.

Well, didn't they spent 5 years before that on WSC?

Cheers!


Remco


>"Bruce Kennewell" > wrote in message
...
>> "Takes time"?
>> "TAKES TIME"?!!!
>> Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it!
>>
>> All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your theory
>> it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate!
>>
>> Gimme a break.

"Bruce Kennewell" wrote:

> "Takes time"?
> "TAKES TIME"?!!!
> Four bloody years for a simulation and still nothing to show for it!
>
> All I can add is that if it ever sees the light of day, to use your theory
> it'll be the greatest thing since Moses parted the Red Sea, mate!

Indy 500 beginning 1990
Indycar Racing end 1993
Grand Prix Legends end 1998

F1GP end 1992
GP2 mid 1996
GP3 mid 1999

It takes several man years to do something remotely ground breaking, if
there aren't many men it takes several years!

I am pretty sure there is something to show for it, however, the sim
community aren't suitably patient to be shown any teasers. We've scared all
the development teams off into private beta test groups where it probably is
all happening and I really don't blame them, too many cycles are wasted
responding to claims of flawed business models and how it should be done.

This isn't just true of sim racing but endemic of computer game communities
in general, demanding demos be released because they have been waiting
months etc. It is not surprising the developers huddle with their private
groups behind their NDAs until they are ready to go public with the finished
article.

It would be great if the Wests felt they could give an alpha version to RAS
to get some positive feedback, but why face the hassle...

Cheers
Tony