belini melbourne gp4 2 gp32k

just uploaded melbourne, requires generic jams v1.1




gp4 2 gp32k melbourne

http://www.belini.fsnet.co.uk

excuse me mr belini
may I play your tracks with gp3 1.13?

great work ,

superb

@mancio1977

does belini's magny cours 03 track
work properly for you on gp3 1.13?

the kerbing and some ads are missing
and i have all the files including the gen jams
where they should be.

Melboure 2004 does not work either
it just crashes, i think because the
track file is too big for gpxpatch (196kb)
i think it is.

Let us know.

Thanks.

belini tracks are for gp32k, gabriele converted magny 2003 to gp3 but I don't know where this can be downloaded from, melbourne maybe useable for gp3 but most of the objects will need to be removed and gp3 magic data inserted.




melbourne 1999 - 2004


work in progress
(hockenheim 1999 - 2003)


http://www.belini.fsnet.co.uk

Great work, paul, thank you very much !!!
Is there a limit for dat.files in GP3-2000, is it possible to make tracks like
old Spa or Nordschleife of Nürburgring ???
I am looking forward for your Hockenheim tracks !!
Happy racing from germany !!!

For v1.13 there's a limit of something about 7.5km (including pitlane lenght)
Dunno about gp3-2000

See ya

I was under the strong impression that it was a bit shy of about 8200 meters, both for GP3 and GP3-2k, and that you could not make longer tracks for GP3-2k than GP3, but merely have more "track commands".

the track limit is around 8km for all gpx versions, I think the only reason
the dats have a larger capacity is to accomodate the extra objects in
gp32k.

one of the reasons melbourne is so large is the amount of complex
objects about 7 or 8 bridges and 17 stands, remove these and it may work
in gp3.




melbourne 1999 - 2004


work in progress
(hockenheim 1999 - 2003)


http://www.belini.fsnet.co.uk

However, as the track configurations appear to be quite about the same, whatever would be the point in going through all that in order to have a much less accurate looking track as the result?

the gp4 tracks are the closest you're going to get to the real thing, they may
look almost identical in an editor to the gp3 tracks, but it's the subtleties
that make them feel so special to drive.

if you don't fancy removing some objects you could try buying gp3 2000, it
was always a better product than gp3 and is far closer to gp4 than people
realise.


http://www.belini.fsnet.co.uk

1.GP3-2000 was never sold by retailers in my half of the world. GP3-2000 is not now, and never was, at all easy to obtain in the Americas. I tried buying a copy from Europe on e-Bay, but was stiffed by one of the many uscrupulous "sellers" doing "business" there.
2.GP3-2000 is quite difficult to edit and has very few carsets available in comparison with GP3, and is therefore basically only good for recent racing seasons. If that's only what interests you, then it's quite justifiable to call it a better "product".
3.GP4's highly praised (although hardly impeccably accurate) tracks are nearly identical in configuration with GP3's and GP3-2000's unjustly much maligned original tracks, and the GP3 addon modified versions of most of these circuits are, frankly, mostly considerably more accurate then the GP4 tracks, anyway, rather obviously so in terms of most graphics and kerb size and placement, for a pair of examples.

hmm... forgot about the americas, though I do have a couple of friends in the
states that run gp32k.

once you take gp4 tracks apart it becomes obvious that they're special, I can
assure you they are very different with no 2 sectors the same, gp3/gp32k
original tracks are plain in comparison.

I don't understand why you think gp32k is hard to edit, it isn't.

the gp4 tracks aren't 100% but are very near, the gp3 tracks were great
when the game was originally released and a lot of people have contributed
greatly to enhancing the sim, but how you can say that they (and I include
myself too) can compete with gps modelled tracks is baffling.

the kerbs are just one of the great things about the gp4 tracks, not only
does gp4 have track width/banking commands in every sector but also kerb
profiles in most cases these are accurate and it's the only thing I can't
reproduce 100% due to the kerb command restriction in gp32k of 32.

hockenheim has one kerb missing in gp4 because they forgot to model it
(it's in the dat), and there's 3 at suzuka that are slightly too small, but
that's all I've found wrong so far, in most cases gp3/gp32k kerbs are too
wide.

The kerbs can't be edited in GP4, can they?
Compare them with videos, oboard and otherwise, of F1 circuits. Quite a number of GP4 kerbs, particularly Malaysia and Brazil overall and, say, Belgium at the outside of the BusStop, are too narrow.
Neither can the location of the graphics in GP4 be edited, so that while GP4 track graphics addons can change the adverts at a track, they can't place them in the proper places. Nor can they remove, add, or reposition any objects at all.
I'm also a little surprised that GP3 track graphics modders have hardly ever (you're probably the only exception, with your 2001 graphics pack, that comes to mind) bothered to make new textures for the GP4 track kerbs, seemingly just assuming that the original GP4 kerbs' appearance is beyond reproach, when a look at some close-up photographs will show this not to be the case.

The original GP3 kerbs were almost all a bit too narrow. I do admit that GP3 addon track makers have had a strong tendency to make their tracks' kerbs rather too wide, (which is something which I have complained about in the past).

As far as track configuration goes, track bumps and miniscule camber differences aside, as an example, aren't your GP3-2k Magny-Cours and Melbourne tracks nearly identical to the better modified GP3 versions?

Many racing games in the past have claimed to have gone to extreme lengths to model their tracks correctly. Invoking the near sacred term GPS seems to impress many people mightily and stifles many dissenting views regarding such claims. Just how accurate is the best such data supposed to be? Inches, feet, yards, more? If GPS data is allegedly so incredibly accurate why is it that, to this day, it is still mooted as to just how high the world's highest mountain is, and, indeed, whether it may possibly be K4 rather than Everest? Personally, I'd much rather trust the evidence of my own eyes in comparing game tracks with videos and photographs of real tracks. (As an aside, your GP3-2k Interlagos track strikes me as being a bit too short and also a little too narrow. Is it possible that either you scaled it just a tiny bit incorrectly, or perhaps such is the case with the original GP4 track?)

"I don't understand why you think gp32k is hard to edit, it isn't."
It depends on what you're comparing it to. Compared to GP4, it's a breeze, however, there aren't any nearly, all-in-one, one easy click editors for GP3-2k like GP3Edit or even GP3Master for GP3, are there? Even carsets must be a whole lot more difficult to make for GP3-2k than GP3, else why would there be so far fewer of them, and why, to this day, would even a couple of the very few past F1 seasons' GP3-2k carsets still not have had menu arts made for them?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the kerbs.

interlagos and gps:
the first thing I check is the length when creating tracks and the first thing
that struck me about the gp4 tracks was the width, but when you look at the
track from the tv view they look good, then there's all the data for
width/banking, why bother to hire a company to gps the tracks if the results
aren't more accurate than just rebuilding the gp3 tracks for gp4 especially as
it's a cpu killer for both gp3 and even gp4.

I've stopped counting the number of times my eyes (or should I say camera
angles) have deceived me when checking race footage, even when creating the gp4
conversions many times I've thought that they'd got things completely wrong
only to find that they're correct after studying video more closely.

editing:
gpxpatch season set option has removed the need for a lot of patching, as I've
always made my own carsets they're always available for gpxpatch to load.
when testing the tracks I have all season versions in different slots, makes it very
quick to check things in different seasons.

as for editors there's carset creator 2000, jam editor, cockpit editor, car editor,
track editor, sound editor, tyre wear editor, art tool (for menu's) and the gp4/3
physics editors work too, more than enough for most peoples needs.

editing gp4 is difficult, lol2k has done some great work but it's still a long
way off and it's all way too complicated for me. there's some fantastic cars
but as you really only tend to see the rear wing it wasn't enough to keep
my interest in gp4 as I wanted to make tracks again.