Message-ID: <366F446C.A5ACE60D@uswest.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 20:47:56 -0700
From: John Moore <jmoore5@uswest.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
Subject: Re: Damage Realism in GPL/N3
References: <366eefc0.19613471@news.dial.pipex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.225.39.129
X-Trace: 9 Dec 1998 21:46:51 +0600, 207.225.39.129
Lines: 61
X-Report: Report abuse to abuse@uswest.net.
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!digex!btnet-peer!btnet!newsfeed.corridex.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.uswest.net!news1.uswest.net!207.225.39.129
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.autos.simulators:62870

I agree to a point, but for the most part it's ok. If I go over a curb
really hard it will knock the supsension out of whack, but I would like
some panel damage ala Viper.
JM

JG_6 wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> The one thing that bugs me about GPL, is the total lack of realism
> when it comes to the damage model...
>
> What I mean is, nothing else is canned, but the damage, since day one
> of sims I guess, has been. In GPL I expect, with realistic damage, to
> be able to bend the suspension up, if I were to hit the wall at 45degs
> at 20mph. These care weren't that strong were they??
>
> Here we are with the pinnacle of computer racing sims. and the damage
> modelling seems as advanced as ICR1. Was it Coulthard at Adelaide who
> crashed a Williams in the pit entry? Do this in GPL with realistic
> damage and you may not even get a flat, heck people cheat at the
> Lesmos at 180Mph.
>
> Does anyone agree here? GPL's physics engine is awesome, every aspect
> is modelled, tiny bit too much brake, the wheel locks, but only if XYZ
> conditions are also true. I am no expert on this, but from all I have
> read it is VERY realistic. However, when the car comes into contact
> with anything, it's back to some very simple maths equations, and only
> 3 or 4 canned "types".
>
> To me, and this is where I'll state me opinion, this does matter...
> Maybe it doesn't for many, but I would like to know. I get the idea
> having no visual clue that you have a flat is a pain, but I see it
> more deeply as: why can't we knock the toe in, squash the front tyres
> in toward the car body, like ICR2, but with greater calculation of how
> far/bad that suspension gets crushed in. Have the wheel go all
> wibbly-wobbly, then maybe drop off at a certain time later.
>
> I appreciate with body damage, that in GPL it's hard to model crumple
> zones. These things were pretty solid wern't they? I don't know really
> so I won't go on, but this is very important I feel for N3.
>
> Clips with the wall in N2 can have really dodgy impact sounds but F9
> reveals nothing is damaged. A slightly lesser impact and you may be
> surprised to hear the spotter start "looks like..." In N3, with NROS
> and general online racing, I think it's really going to be necessary
> for N3 to show us a damage model that allows as much simulation as the
> car itself. Every little scrape will need to have an impact on the
> body of a stocker, and this should play as much a part of a car's
> speed in a race, as the calculations with the tyres and the road..
>
> Thanks for listening,
>
> Jon.Guest
> @dial.pipex.com
>
> Visit the CCG NASCAR2 AI Project @
> -:http://www.simproject.com/ccg/



