Something Geoff Forgot, But EA Didn't

Can you guess what it is yet?

What a perfectly shaped rear........................wing that Arrows has.

uhhhhhhh, better than sex..........formula one that is......

GC didn't forget anything. What he saw as pure BS (women standing in front of car) he put into the game itself. EA can put all the women they want in the game but the fact the game sucks shows you where they went wrong. I'd rather be missing the women and having a awesome sim then seeing women and playing an arcade game.



Beta tester for;
Descent 3, C & C Generals, Independance War 2, Starfleet Command 2,
Settlers IV, Tzar, Allegiance, Starfleet Command,
MAX 2, Defiance

LoL! :D

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

For those who like their screen shots big...

F1 2002 isn't arcade!!!!!!
In fact everybody is telling me its better than GP4... But i have to test GP4 myself (havent done it yet)

you have to admit though F1 2002 has better steering wheels

people may not like the way F1 2002 handles but it is definately not arcade, the physics enigine is much more complex than Gp4 and there are much, much more setup options, as well as that without any driving aids F1 2002 is a lot more difficult than gp4 where its almost impossible to spin the car unless you take to much kurb or get on the throttle to early. havring said all of that i've pre-ordered gp4 and probably won't buy F1 2002

The reason the cars in GP4 seem to have so much is grip, is because the default setups are dialed in for INSANE amounts of understeer.

Try this setup. No dampers of any kind, no packers, ARB @ 2000/200, springs @ 1200/900, and front wing +3 to rear wing. If you disable the traction control, you will have a rear that slides out from under you again when you drive bad.

Just floor it out of the corner and you have a nice spin...

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

someone posted about f12002 and the fact it is so hard to control without spinning off.

someone else pointed out its how you set up the car, and posted one of his setups,

the said 1st person duely went away and tried this setup, and came back very apologetic and humble, he said that never had he realised that he did'nt have a clue as how to setup a f1 car using realistic data.

this is mainly why people slag off f12002






LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

Thats the thing with the Grand Prix games. The default setups are for real newbies who find it hard enough to stay on the track with all the aids, without having to cope with a loose rear.

You are right about the setups for example try Nascar racing 2002 season the default setups are easy to drive but slow and when you setup your car to go faster it is sliding thru the corners and is much hrder to drive!

gp4 where its almost impossible to spin the car unless you take to much kurb or get on the throttle to early

...anything else? I think you'll find that's pretty much the only way to spin a real life GP car. F1 2002's physics engine is no where near as complex as Gp4's. EA's physics engine is good, but Gp4's has a lot more depth to it, if you dig deep (with setup...etc).

Like Morbid said if you set the car up to your liking, you uncover the real simulation the Gp4 is.




HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS

as far as the physics engine's complexity F1 2001 and 2002 are only second to GPL, that doesn't mean the handlings realistic of course, they still have to have all of the right settings etc.. in place. When I was saying about losing the car I was refering to the way you can absolutely throw the car into corners insanely without getting ragged at all, i've tried those settings Morbid suggested and it does make the car a bit more happy to step out and makes driving much more fun which suggests that it is the fault of the default setups making the car so easy to drive. One thing i've noticed which suggests the physics have too much grip (although it could be because the default setups have too much downforce) is the fact that you can go flat out through Eau Rouge in heavy rain.

In GP4? Really? I doubt it. It was possible in GP3 because Eau Rouge was just plain wrong, but I cannot believe eau rouge flat out in rain is possible in gp4



'I reserve the right to contradict myself' - Richey Edwards, 1994.

believe me, I did it quite easily with the default setup although as I said the default setup may have too much downforce to make handling easier for newbies.

I'm sure if in real life Schumacher dumped tons of downforce on both wings he could take Eau Rouge flat in the wet.

If you set your car up to suit the circuit as a whole, Eau Rouge becomes a whole lot trickier. The gradient change can catch you out quite easily.




HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS

Im not mocking GPL here, but I think Half Life syndrome has set in.

One day a game will beat GPL's physics, and it will take a brave man to say that, just like with Half Life's gameplay. Its quite hard to compare really because the 60's cars were bouncy on the suspension, where modern F1 cars are a lot stiffer, so therefore handle a lot differently. GPL does have very fine physics, but so does GP4. I personally can't think of a way to compare them unless we can put modern cars into GPL, and 60's cars into GP4 all with realistic data. Doing that could give some very interesting results.