rFactor tracks

ymenard wrote:

> That's why I dislike the "its cruder therefore worse" whole thingy going on
> with rFactor. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to add all these things, but
> is all the meticulous effort trully necessary when the basis is already well
> enough?

When the interactions between the car and the road surface are based on
the same polygons rendered by the graphics engine, it does matter how
detailed the tracks are. We aren't dealing with GPL or N2003 where a
track can be graphically simple and still drive well because the
underlying surface being used by the physics engine has more detail.
In most sims (ISI, RBR, etc) the detail isn't merely superficial.

>"jason moyer" > wrote
> When the interactions between the car and the road surface are based on
> the same polygons rendered by the graphics engine, it does matter how
> detailed the tracks are. We aren't dealing with GPL or N2003 where a
> track can be graphically simple and still drive well because the
> underlying surface being used by the physics engine has more detail.
> In most sims (ISI, RBR, etc) the detail isn't merely superficial.


Immersion factor is surely important, but in the end all that truly counts,
is how the track is raced. It's all about straights and corners, how the
track modeling is done. Isn't it the reason why we do this? Racing a
track, we don't race the buildings, the scenery or the grandstands (I surely
hope not!!!!).


Everything else is icing on the cake, beautiful icing though!







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

"jason moyer" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> ymenard wrote:
>
>> That's why I dislike the "its cruder therefore worse" whole thingy going
>> on
>> with rFactor. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to add all these things,
>> but
>> is all the meticulous effort trully necessary when the basis is already
>> well
>> enough?
>
> When the interactions between the car and the road surface are based on
> the same polygons rendered by the graphics engine, it does matter how
> detailed the tracks are. We aren't dealing with GPL or N2003 where a
> track can be graphically simple and still drive well because the
> underlying surface being used by the physics engine has more detail.
> In most sims (ISI, RBR, etc) the detail isn't merely superficial.

exactly
in rF the underlying structure also dictates the look. the specular
lighting is govenerd by the length of the polys and how many there are in
track width. if you don't get the spacing correct, the light reflecting off
the track will tend to "flash" as you're driving. done bad enough, it gets
quite noticable and distracting.

earlier games, due to the power of pc's and graphics cards, had to mindful
of the number of polys in the track construction,so they tended to use less.
rF when compared to f1c, can use a lot more polys for a track, in that way,
getting bumps or more elevation changes along a track section then you could
previously.

so yes you can bring a conversion into the game, it'll look acceptable,
mainly from other isi/ea games. but when porting over from others like papy
based games, it gets harder to get them to look good. they may drive well,
but I like my tracks to look good as well.

I've seen JP's conversion of gpl Adelaide circuit into n2k3, by madcowie.
it doesn't look to bad. but to convert that over to rF, graphically, it
will look totally out of place, and it would take an extreme amount of time
for someone with the talent to make it look good.

cheers

steve

"Steve Whitty" > wrote in message
...
> Byron,
> as I said, I'm not going to continue to debate this. we have differing
> views on the situation. lets just agree to disagree. and no, I'm not
> conceding your points. just useless to take it any further.
>
>

I don't think we do have differing views at all - i think you simply
jumped the gun and took words to mean something they simply did not mean.

I am glad to have been the spark to help you get all that off your chest
however! LOL

ymenard wrote:

> Immersion factor is surely important, but in the end all that truly counts,
> is how the track is raced.

I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with you. Immersion is why,
I'd imagine, most of us became interested in sims in the first place.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:45:33 -0500, Dave Henrie
> wrote:

>We shouldn't even be able to have the
>shape of a track

I've seen this said before and it isn't true. The shape of a piece of
bitumen is not protected by any legal principle that I'm aware of, It
certainly isn't copyright. And if it were, would that extend to all
racetracks? What about those that are public road most of the time?
Would it extend to the whole layout or would it protect individual
parts? Could a track owner sue because someone builds a new track
with a corner that is the same radius as one on an existing track? Or
a straight that is the same length as an existing one?

As to the name of a circuit, if the name is unique to the track, it
could be a trademark but a lot of tracks are named for their location,
eg, Albert Park in Melbourne, Phillip Island, those are all
localities, you can't trademark a name like that,

It's possible for someone to CLAIM that they have some form of legal
right, it doesn't necessarily follow that they do.

If anyone remembers Ubisoft's Monaco Grand Prix 2, that was made
without any form of licencing at all and they used the track layouts
quite happily, some tracks had different names but the layouts were as
accurate as any sim.

Peter > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:45:33 -0500, Dave Henrie
> > wrote:
>
>>We shouldn't even be able to have the
>>shape of a track
>
> I've seen this said before and it isn't true. The shape of a piece of
> bitumen is not protected by any legal principle that I'm aware of, It
> certainly isn't copyright. And if it were, would that extend to all
> racetracks? What about those that are public road most of the time?
> Would it extend to the whole layout or would it protect individual
> parts? Could a track owner sue because someone builds a new track
> with a corner that is the same radius as one on an existing track? Or
> a straight that is the same length as an existing one?
>
> As to the name of a circuit, if the name is unique to the track, it
> could be a trademark but a lot of tracks are named for their location,
> eg, Albert Park in Melbourne, Phillip Island, those are all
> localities, you can't trademark a name like that,
>
> It's possible for someone to CLAIM that they have some form of legal
> right, it doesn't necessarily follow that they do.
>
> If anyone remembers Ubisoft's Monaco Grand Prix 2, that was made
> without any form of licencing at all and they used the track layouts
> quite happily, some tracks had different names but the layouts were as
> accurate as any sim.
>
>

My knowledge of this area only comes from how Papyrus went after The
Uspits.com after they crafted Volusia raceway. it had zero licensed
graphics, but since it obviously was the Daytona layout, Papyrus went after
the Pits with nasty Lawyers with Cease and Desist Court orders. There was
a fully built Daytona for ICR/N2/N99 but we didn't see it til AFTER the
SEGA copyright expired. Dats alls I knows.
dave henrie

>"Peter" > wrote
> I've seen this said before and it isn't true. The shape of a piece of
> bitumen is not protected by any legal principle that I'm aware of, It
> certainly isn't copyright. And if it were, would that extend to all
> racetracks? What about those that are public road most of the time?
> Would it extend to the whole layout or would it protect individual
> parts? Could a track owner sue because someone builds a new track
> with a corner that is the same radius as one on an existing track? Or
> a straight that is the same length as an existing one?


There is a certain point where it becomes more than just similar and starts
being something that promotes exactitude or its purpose is to replicate the
layout to the point where you can evade licensing the original version.
That's where copyright laws applies, it's a VERY large grey band. I suggest
you start checking the internet for past cases, not about the simracing
community but related issues about copyrighting and licensing.


> As to the name of a circuit, if the name is unique to the track, it
> could be a trademark but a lot of tracks are named for their location,
> eg, Albert Park in Melbourne, Phillip Island, those are all
> localities, you can't trademark a name like that,

The law has made this case often the opposite of what you have said.

> If anyone remembers Ubisoft's Monaco Grand Prix 2, that was made
> without any form of licencing at all and they used the track layouts
> quite happily, some tracks had different names but the layouts were as
> accurate as any sim.


No, they used a license from this Monaco association which gave them access
legally to all the tracks.





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

"Dave Henrie" > wrote in message
. 97.136...
>
> My knowledge of this area only comes from how Papyrus went after The
> Uspits.com after they crafted Volusia raceway. it had zero licensed
> graphics, but since it obviously was the Daytona layout, Papyrus went
> after
> the Pits with nasty Lawyers with Cease and Desist Court orders. There
> was
> a fully built Daytona for ICR/N2/N99 but we didn't see it til AFTER the
> SEGA copyright expired. Dats alls I knows.
> dave henrie

Probably one of the problems there is the relative location - U.S. Pits
too accessible to Papy. Maybe we need some deals between continents if
something like this happens - make the *******s work at least! Different
laws in different countries = huge headache for them.