Consolemasters ruin another title (F1 2010)?

[Pulverizer 1]

Edit: Lol, watch the end of Part 2 of that video and you'll see an example of the supposed fake AI.

Nope. That's from qualifying, and it's not what the fake cars issue is about at all. CM has confirmed that the qualifying times of AI are fake due technical reasons:

Practice & Qualifying AI

In practice & qualifying (P&Q) there are two fundamental issues which have meant that we had to make some implementation decisions for the AI in F1 2010. These two issues are our jump-to-sector feature and the fast-forward feature that is available on the car monitor in the garage.

The jump-to-sector feature necessarily simulates teleporting a car instantly to a position while the fast-forward feature allows the player to speed up time. The latter prevents us from simulating the actual AI travelling around the track 100% of the time as we cannot accurately simulate 24 cars where we have accelerated the passage of time by as much as a factor of 30. An F1 car can move at over 200mph. With 30 times speedup, we cannot simulate car physics at 6000+mph without losing some fidelity. F1 cars obviously cannot move this fast. We therefore implemented a system whereby the AI times in such circumstances are calculated based on a ‘football management†style simulation model. Using this model all of the race factors, such as the car, driver, weather, tyres, engine, track conditions, traffic are all taken into account and a lap time is produced. These generated times are well considered and guided by a huge amount of data; they are not randomly generated. Nevertheless they remain simulated approximations using this model.

For P&Q sessions we spent a long time experimenting with flipping back and forth between this simulated system and actual AI physical timing, as the fast-forward is engaged and disengaged, but it lead to the potential for subtle exploits which we were not comfortable with. Therefore all AI times in these P&Q sessions use this simulation method.

[[frl]myke 14]

This is BS. I remember that F1 98 on PS1 from Psygnosis had a skiptime function during the qualifying and the AI timings were also calculated but they remained logical and believable.

It is the same as have be seen with another game that CM f***ed up: todays version can not catch up with games that were developed 10+ years ago.

I followed the release of F1 2010 pretty interested and i even was thinking about to get a PS3 just for this Game (could have got the PC version aswell but this would have needed a big screen) but hey, after reading about the bugs and fakes, i prefer playing F1 98 on my PS1.

[Zipper5 74]

That "explanation" is definitely bullshit. It makes it out to be that the point of the teleporting is due to the engine limitations. Why is it specific to the qualifying sections? Hell, why is something like that an engine limitation of an engine originally designed to be for racing games? :confused:

It sounds far too fishy...

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Even if it's not BS it means CM simply CHOSE THE WRONG F**KIN ENGINE FOR A F1 SIM.

End of story. No sim, no money from us F1 sim fans. Simple.

And to bring a F1 pilot along and giving him money to lie to us is the biggest crap i've seen in years.

[dayglow 2]

Why does it sound fishy? They explain their reasoning, you can agree with it or not, but why would they lie about it? For me its reasonable as I have experienced the qualifying weirdness with accretion in Simbin games. I think that says something when a highly regarded driving sim developer has a game with these very issues because their AI does physical laps that get distorted by accerated time.

But whatever, I'll enjoy the game for what it is, a driving game with a good balance between arcade and sim behavior, with rich visuals, challenging AI to race against and a interesting career mode that you can rise through the ranks if the teams as you improve.

It may have some bugs, but nothing glaring or show stopping. Personally i think if people were as critical if BI as they are of CM this forum would be full of hate towards Arma and all of it's quirks. Thankfully it isn't, and I enjoy playing both games.

[Zipper5 74]

People seem to forget just how critical people are and have been towards BIS. They don't get off easy either. Given your join date I'd have thought you'd know that the most, having seen OFP's, ArmA's and Arma 2's releases, but I guess I'm mistaken.

But to compare BIS to CM is just wrong. BIS have a great reputation of showing tremendous dedication to their products post-release, and create very special things as a result. Plus, they are in contact with the community all the time, even Marek and Ondrej. There is zero competition in terms of the passion each has for their games.

People are critical of CM, particularly here due to them doing it to the OFP name on top of this, because they lie to their customers, they cut support very quickly leaving games still riddled with issues, and they can't accomplish things with their games that other companies have with much smaller budgets and dev teams 9 years ago.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Zipper5

[dayglow 2]

I have been here pretty much from the begining and have seen the rediciously stupid flamewars between OFP and Ghost Recon for example. Myself, I enjoyed both games.

I never bought DR because of the limitations, but I don't blame CM for making a cross platform game with all their limitations. If I was a game dev, I'd make a game for as many markets as I could as well. I'm disapointed that DR wasn't better as I'd love to play another serious mil-sim. I'm hopeful that RR will defy all predictions and is fun to play, but whatever.

My experience with CM has been the original OFP and some of their racing games. Dirt and Dirt 2 have been great fun. Personally i don't give a rats ass if CM uses the OFP name, it has zero effect on BI producing their great games.

Personally I hope for more successful games because that means more good titles to play and competition to stimulate innovation. I think there is anti-CM vibe in this forum and it makes me chuckle, that is all.

[Zipper5 74]

Of course there's going to be an anti-Codemasters vibe on here after Dragon Rising. What else were you expecting? Many fans of the original OFP won't just welcome a game that completely goes against the reputation the original worked hard for, including myself.

But as I've said before, that's only a small aspect of my disliking of CM. It's much more an issue of morality than of the ruining of a brand's reputation. It simply came to my attention because both issues came wrapped in one package. I won't bother repeating myself again...

Before you look into buying RR, I recommend you consult this before-hand, especially if you didn't get DR because of its limitations.

[GoOB 0]

Personally I hope for more successful games because that means more good titles to play and competition to stimulate innovation. I think there is anti-CM vibe in this forum and it makes me chuckle, that is all.

I usually do not "quote for truth", but in this instance I have to take the opportunity to do so. QFT, DayGlow.

I played F1 2010 at a mates house today and I actually really liked it, much how I enjoyed DIRT 2. I admit that Codemasters have let themselves slip in more ways than one, but they still do manage to produce good titles. DIRT 2 and F1 2010 are both good examples of this. Just because they are not simulations does not mean that they lack merit... They may not be interesting to many in these forums, but that does not detract from the fact that they are generally decent games.

The fact that Codemasters have let go of more simulation oriented games (like the first iterations of Colin McRae rally, TOCA series etc.) is more the blame of the market... And really, so is their lack of post-release updates - The trend is evident in almost every single company out there, and it is likely to continue. The wider the market for computer games grow, the greater the extent of capital invested... The greater the drive for increased profits will become. And with a drive for profit, one can expect a diminishing amount of post-release maintenance. Because sadly, many games companies do not understand that there can be great value in treating their games, and thusly their customers with respect and dignity by striving to maintain both the game, and the relations the customers have with the products of the company, and by extension of that, the company itself.

[Zipper5 74]

I recognize it's not a simulator. What I find hard to accept is the possibility that it lacks conventional AI entirely, fakes lap times, and has many bugs that will probably not get fixed given their current reputation in that field. The sales of F1 2010 have passed those of HALO: Reach, so I doubt they see any need for change, or any need to implement long-term support for the game. They probably view it best to get on with F1 2011. :rolleyes:

[jblackrupert 14]

A couple months from now everyone will know the pre-scripted patterns of the other faked cars, making the singleplayer an utterly dull and predictable experience.

There's one way. There will be zero longevity to the game.

Play a few rounds of GRID and the scripted car behaviour is blatantly obvious.

[Pulverizer 1]

I recognize it's not a simulator. What I find hard to accept is the possibility that it lacks conventional AI entirely, fakes lap times, and has many bugs that will probably not get fixed given their current reputation in that field. The sales of F1 2010 have passed those of HALO: Reach, so I doubt they see any need for change, or any need to implement long-term support for the game. They probably view it best to get on with F1 2011. :rolleyes:

What if it was perfect in every way and you simply couldn't come up with anything at all to complain about it. Would that make you happy? Would you buy it? :rolleyes:

[Zipper5 74]

I wouldn't have cared at all about the game, would have just let it come and go, and I wouldn't have bought it. I decided to stop buying CM products after what they did with DR.

[Flash Thunder 10]

What if it was perfect in every way and you simply couldn't come up with anything at all to complain about it. Would that make you happy? Would you buy it? :rolleyes:

anything with the CM name on it now gets an auto fail rating.

Rated

F

for Failure

;)

[jblackrupert 14]

What if it was perfect in every way and you simply couldn't come up with anything at all to complain about it. Would that make you happy? Would you buy it? :rolleyes:

Nope. Won't give conmasters another penny for anything.

[icebreakr 3107]

Coddies prepared a PR, ehmm well an answer to the player accusations :)

http://community.codemasters.com/forum/f1-2010-game-1316/433396-ai-issues-response.html

[4 IN 1 0]

What if it was perfect in every way and you simply couldn't come up with anything at all to complain about it. Would that make you happy? Would you buy it? :rolleyes:

Why would I ever needed/bothered to? Go get GT5, thats all you need:p

[Pulverizer 1]

GT5 hasn't even been released yet, not to mention it's a PS3 exclusive. I don't support pre-industrial era primitive gaming devices that hold back the evolution of video games.

[4 IN 1 0]

GT5 hasn't even been released yet, not to mention it's a PS3 exclusive. I don't support pre-industrial era primitive gaming devices that hold back the evolution of video games.

My sister happens to have a PS3 which she used it as "a blu-ray player that can play games on it" most of the time:p therefore I still cannot be bother with this "F1" game, besides the greatest F1 era had gone for a good 15 years, that reason alone is enought for me not to buy the game.

Edited October 3, 2010 by 4 IN 1

[von_paulus 0]

u0BBTXpeGQs

FPDR Edited October 3, 2010 by Von_Paulus

[mrcash2009 0]

I have to say I was keeping my eye on this, I have Richard burns Rally and nothing has come close in terms of simulation/physics. Granted this is different sport area but I was really hoping they would nail the simulator side of it.

Anyway, I started to watch the forums as it rolled out and pretty swiftly I saw the reality of it and realised it wasn't ever going to be how I would have thought, so I will leave it be.

One thing very early on that got me suspicious was the fact that Black Hole Motorsports haven't even bothered to list it, and that for anyone into race sims is a telling sign:

http://www.bhmotorsports.com/sim

[dayglow 2]

u0BBTXpeGQs

FPDR

It's on their known bug list being an issue with how the AI resets onto the track after they crash off.

Still I find it interesting how people really look for AI holes in this title when they are present in every racing game, hell every game with an AI simply because it is still not possible to model human behavior in a convincing fashion on a computer.

I especially love the comments from people saying that the AI is fake here and will go back to racing rFactor/GTR2/Race 07, or whatever, yet have no problem with the AI glitches in those games? If the same effort is made in those games you will be able to expose all sorts of AI problems. Hell those games have waypoint files for the tracks so the AI knows how to drive around them, does that mean their AI is fake?

My point is simply that people are really trying to put down F1 2010 by showing how the AI is 'faked' when it is faked in every game ever made since that is what AI is. Have people shown glitches and issues with the AI? Absolutely. Do these things need to be fixed? Of course.

As I said earlier, does the design decisions made by CM around their game effect my enjoyment of it? For me it doesn't. I've come from being an avid Simbin racing fan that has dealt with the frustration of their AI glitches and spent many hours tweaking .ini files and downloading mods to get around them. I accept that at this stage in computer gaming AI is still very artificial and will not approach a human level of interaction.

[Pulverizer 1]

If the player can use flashbacks to correct their mistakes, it's only fair that the AI is allowed some too :p

That's probably just a glitch in the replay though. The cars would've crashed if it happened in real time.

One thing very early on that got me suspicious was the fact that Black Hole Motorsports haven't even bothered to list it, and that for anyone into race sims is a telling sign:

http://www.bhmotorsports.com/sim

Yes, it must be really difficult to make on that list, seeing how it's populated by such hardcore racing sims as SEGA Rally, CMR, Dirt, GRID, Tough Trucks and FlatOut.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Pulverizer

[celery 8]

Still I find it interesting how people really look for AI holes in this title when they are present in every racing game, hell every game with an AI simply because it is still not possible to model human behavior in a convincing fashion on a computer.

A 10 year old F1 game (Grand Prix 3) surpasses F1 2010 in nearly every aspect. Even the first Grand Prix from 1992 has more believable AI. There's something to think about.

[Zipper5 74]

A 10 year old OFP surpasses the current state of Red River in many aspects. Something else to think about.

Seems Codemasters are quite content with being extremely behind the times. :rolleyes: