Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
Robin do you code at all?
I spend my life at uni doing software, and hopefully my future career.
The fact is, thing's are made to requirement... usually limited by cost.
It's not a case of 'I can't code that, it's too complicated' ... it's a case of 'To code that is going to cost a lot of time, do we really need it?'
If I was a publisher of a racing game, I'd be telling the developer to make a game that I could Sell Millions and millions of copies of. I as a developer would want to keep my costs as low as possible, while being able to sell millions of copies.
If I produced a wildly realistic simulation, that cost a lot of time (money) to produce, but appealed to a small market... my publisher would be upset and I would go bankrupt.
It's like having a boating sim, and simulating the water perfectly... You could do it spot on, but it wouldn't be worth it as most players wouldn't care.
Your example of flight sims isn't really valid either... The physics behind the flight sims probably haven't changed much... it's just the graphics have improved greatly over time and new 'features' and gameplay have been bolted on.
No, I don't code.
I'm not arguing about coding though.
Forza 2 took more coding than any driving sim before it, did it sell? Yes.
Games as a whole are more advanced these days, so must take more coding, unless someone has invented a magical way to avoid manual coding? So the chances are, they're going to continue to take more coding, more space and more time to make.
Using technology from Formula One which is already developed would mean that it doesn't have to developed from scratch, which surely means it could be used to create a game quicker?
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
maybe, but that wouldn't be realistic.
console controls are too generic to use for a proper sim, like i said a company would need to produce a package consisting of all the equipment, it would be quite expensive.
with flight sims people make the software, like magenta make the software to display flight computers then its up to the individual to buy and make the simulation controls and environment
people buy real used cockpits and wire monitors where the screens would be and use magenta to output to them.
this is the only feasible way it would happen
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
Just having a controller which you could hold up and use like a steering wheel would totally revolutionalise racing games.
No it wouldn't... It'd give a completely unreleastic control sensation... they'd also be no force feedback for it.
Plus those wheels existed years ago for PC and were shit... 
Same with the software, the hardware could be developed easily! Just the price would be steap / market isn't there!
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
Plus those wheels existed years ago for PC and were shit...
A lot of things from years ago are better now.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
Forza 2 took more coding than any driving sim before it, did it sell? Yes.
Games as a whole are more advanced these days, so must take more coding, unless someone has invented a magical way to avoid manual coding? So the chances are, they're going to continue to take more coding, more space and more time to make.
Using technology from Formula One which is already developed would mean that it doesn't have to developed from scratch, which surely means it could be used to create a game quicker?
I'd imagine the MAJORITY of the coding on Forza 2 was to do with the graphics... The gameplay... and the least was probably to do with the physics. Once again Forza is not ultra realistic because they were unable to do it... but because they chose to for their market!
Your doing comparison's to F1 technology... in the same way a F1 car has variable valve timing and normal cars inherit... etc...
This is completely not what the situation is with computer games.
Robin, A F1 team is more likely to use a pre made 'engine' by a company, and then improve upon it to make their simulation... than a games company buying the F1 team's EXTREMELY expensive simulation software and ripping bits out.
It's like me going to NASA and buying huge chunks of their space shuttle simulation stuff, just to make a Space game on my PC.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
Plus those wheels existed years ago for PC and were shit...
A lot of things from years ago are better now.
this is drifting well off topic.
To create a realistic driving experience, the wheel - at the very least, would need force feedback. (Wheels can be bought these days common place, fairly cheaply with force feedback!).
Now your talking about a 'wireless' wheel you just hold infront of you and turn... it'd basically be this
And although 'you could have a laugh' with it... it'd offer very little in the terms of realism and I doubt you could drive a 100% realistic simulation with ^^.
[Edited on 29-11-2007 by Paul_J]
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
Your doing comparison's to F1 technology... in the same way a F1 car has variable valve timing and normal cars inherit... etc...
This is completely not what the situation is with computer games.
Yes, now, but why not in the future?
I see no reason that SOME of the technology used to create an accurate simulation couldn't be used in a fun game on a format which is available for home use.
I'm sure the company looking for investments aren't expecting to rip it straight off (that's the key point BTW) and stick it in a green box on Tesco's shelves, I imagine they're looking to use specific parts of the simulator to improve car games in the future.
I agree there's probably not as big a market for a 100% perfect sim as there is for an arcadey type game, but that doesn't mean games can't be MORE realistic than they are now.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
Your doing comparison's to F1 technology... in the same way a F1 car has variable valve timing and normal cars inherit... etc...
This is completely not what the situation is with computer games.
Yes, now, but why not in the future?
I see no reason that SOME of the technology used to create an accurate simulation couldn't be used in a fun game on a format which is available for home use.
I'm sure the company looking for investments aren't expecting to rip it straight off (that's the key point BTW) and stick it in a green box on Tesco's shelves, I imagine they're looking to use specific parts of the simulator to improve car games in the future.
I agree there's probably not as big a market for a 100% perfect sim as there is for an arcadey type game, but that doesn't mean games can't be MORE realistic than they are now.
Ok. I agree - it's possible, a developer may be interested in using some of the features from a F1 sim (providing they are portable to their game engine and fit around the rest of their simulation) - but I'd A ) imagine adjusting it to fit would be probably as costly as developing it themselves in the first place and B ) for the F1 team to make their money back on the technology, they'd have to charge a fortune for it. Thus it not being worth a company to buy, as they could develop it themselves cheaper (not needing the whole bells and whistles), plus refer to A - geting this technology from another sim to fit in with what they've already coded.
Ok... so the F1 team may sell it at a reasonable price - not wishing to cover the costs they incurred during development (creating the best sim in the world) ... fair enough... but how's Cosmo's dad make his money back?
The problem is not the software, not the hardware... it's the people.
People in the mass market scale, don't enjoy playing 100% realistic games, as they're generally hard and have a steep learning curve. By the sim being 100% realistic, the quickest in the game would require the skill of a real racing driver. That's cool, but not everyone is a real racing driver, or could come close... thus bye bye mass market.
If the mass market eventually did come round to the idea of having the best realistic simulation in the world, then it'd be cheaper for a developer to develop this from scratch.
For example, If I wanted to make a 'quite realistic space game' ... If I bought code off of NASA's simulations that I'm sure are 100% realistic, it'd cost Billions! or alternatively I could code it myself.
Physics in games, is generally just implementing equations that already exist, Physics calculations, maths mechanics, vectors, etc.
If you can explain how a ball will bounce in the real world using physics / maths... you can put that same sum easily into software.
The hard part is getting the graphics right and getting it to animate pricisely - for example the ball as it hits the ground getting squashed slightly / bending shape etc.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
Oh yeh, and incase you didn't know.
There are companies that develop game engine's / complete with physics and graphics that other developers can use to develop their games in.
But they are made with that in mind and are reasonably priced, so that it saves another developer the hassle / resources of coding it.
The difference between that an the F1 example is that, The F1 software will be developed for a very precise use... and as such will be very expensive.
By releasing this to games companies after, they could either A ) release it 'affordable' and get some money back (I have no issue with this!  )
or B ) try to make their money back / profit ... which would price it out of the market. / make it cheaper to code from scratch (as it'd be precise for requirement of game)
Now A ) is fine 
Apart from this whole thread is about Cosmo's Dad investing in this company.
Assuming Cosmo's dad wants to MAKE money... A is not a good thing for him.
Robin did you forget the whole point of this post?
[Edited on 29-11-2007 by Paul_J]
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
Yep
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
well this went well 
I think you both went well off topic only to come back somewhat to what I said at the beginning
I think the money is firstly going to be made back via the use in whole situations...so use in F1 and other motorsports, where it would be charged at huge costs simply because it would be a complete package.
Now reading the investor pack, more revenue streams will be developed along the way by all the technology partners (as mentioned they are talking with a games developer already, aswell as a large hardware/games developer) working together to create new, or atleast improving current, technologies that will be needed for this project. This could include the game software itself being used to add more realism into actual game play (not specifically the input source), but also new game inputs, visualization systems, etc. etc. that could have a huge range of applications.
Anyway, I dont think my Dad is going to invest as not really a market he specialises in...or is even interested in. He more sent it me to see if I could see something that he would miss that could be a huge opportunity - which it didnt really to me, although would be an interesting development to be part of personally.
|
|
