<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tech Stuff &#8211; Physic Engine Rates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.virtualr.net/tech-stuff-physic-engine-rates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.virtualr.net/tech-stuff-physic-engine-rates/</link>
	<description>100% Sim Racing News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:26:30 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dora9</title>
		<link>http://www.virtualr.net/tech-stuff-physic-engine-rates/comment-page-1/#comment-12760</link>
		<dc:creator>dora9</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.virtualr.net/?p=1587#comment-12760</guid>
		<description>I would like to see how high the AI physics rates when compared to the player&#039;s. ISI engine always has weakness in that point IMO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like to see how high the AI physics rates when compared to the player&#8217;s. ISI engine always has weakness in that point IMO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hornet</title>
		<link>http://www.virtualr.net/tech-stuff-physic-engine-rates/comment-page-1/#comment-12751</link>
		<dc:creator>hornet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:20:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.virtualr.net/?p=1587#comment-12751</guid>
		<description>- agree with dw. Stating that forza2 has a &quot;faster&quot; physics engine is pure nonsense as it implies that it&#039;s faster at doing the same job.
(oh, and seeing as they both run at 360Hz, the statement is rubbish to begin with :smile: )</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>- agree with dw. Stating that forza2 has a &#8220;faster&#8221; physics engine is pure nonsense as it implies that it&#8217;s faster at doing the same job.<br />
(oh, and seeing as they both run at 360Hz, the statement is rubbish to begin with :smile: )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DW</title>
		<link>http://www.virtualr.net/tech-stuff-physic-engine-rates/comment-page-1/#comment-12750</link>
		<dc:creator>DW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:40:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.virtualr.net/?p=1587#comment-12750</guid>
		<description>&quot;there is no data on Gran Turismo or the Simbin titles&quot;
As you suggested, Simbin titles run at 400 Hz, same as rFactor.

It is interesting that most sims, even the latest have adopted similar frequencies.  Of course, this is only one element of the physics engine and doesn&#039;t tell you how complex the calculations are in each cycle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;there is no data on Gran Turismo or the Simbin titles&#8221;<br />
As you suggested, Simbin titles run at 400 Hz, same as rFactor.</p>
<p>It is interesting that most sims, even the latest have adopted similar frequencies.  Of course, this is only one element of the physics engine and doesn&#8217;t tell you how complex the calculations are in each cycle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: scca1981</title>
		<link>http://www.virtualr.net/tech-stuff-physic-engine-rates/comment-page-1/#comment-12747</link>
		<dc:creator>scca1981</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:10:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.virtualr.net/?p=1587#comment-12747</guid>
		<description>interesting</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>interesting</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
