rec.autos.simulators

I know everyone will tell me to just break down and d/l setups from the net but
to me setting up the car is half the fun and im actually quite good at it when
im not "thrown a curve" so to speak.  I just want to know im not the only one
struggling with this.

Chris

Andre

Jan.
------

Jo Lueg

Joachim Lueg-Althoff

If you find it very hard to go from low ride height to higher height, I think you
should seriously go through your driving technique and see if there is something
there that makes you slower with high ride heights...

Performancewise, the higher ride height means little or nothing at all, IMHO!

Drive smoothly! That might not make you any quicker, but it will make you a hell of
a lot more consistent!

And I have heard some claim that the 1.1 is in fact easier to drive than 1.0...
Only rumours, though... But they did change the physics model.

---Asgeir---

(snip)

Is that so?  I know they improved the default setups to make it easier for
novices.  But they changed the physics, too?

Regards,

Kurt

The main one I remember is that the tyre behaviour was slightly changed
to make it more realistic.

Personally I find 1.1 to be much nicer to drive - whether that's due to
the new setups or the physics changes, I'm not sure.

I believe it is also a little bit slower, but that would be explained by
the new minimum ride height of 2.5".

Personally I'm all for realism - if it's slower, then that's because
version 1.0 was unrealistic when the ride height was set so low.

I certainly feel as if I now go faster when driving more smoothly, so
that suggests that it is in fact more realistic.

Since the car is now more controllable, I can concentrate on getting the
line right and honing my technique at a particular circuit.

As far as racing is concerned, my *average* laptime with 1.1 is much
quicker than my average with 1.0, even if I can't quite get the hotlaps
I used to!

(another snip)

I agree with all of your observations here, but with me, it's a bit
difficult to quantify.  I have succeeded in breaking some past PB times, but
I couldn't tell you whether it's a result of the patch, the addition of
force feedback, or the fact that I'm continuing to refine Alisons Ferari
set-ups and trying to apply them to the Eagle.

Something I find interesting is I set a few personal best laps at some of
the more "technical" tracks like Mosport and Zaandvort with Alison's Ferrari
within a few days after she released her set-ups (without FF and before 1.1)
Try as I may, I haven't been able to beat those since -- not even with the
Eagle or Lotus.

So, class, what can we learn from this.  Not much, I guess, except that GPL
is endlessly challenging and fascinating.

Regards,

Kurt

Jason.

Marc.

"But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was
nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into
a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

I always raced at 2.50 and 2.75, so 1.1 didn't do anything bad
to my driving style.  I will say, however, that after reading
Alison's section on ride height, I started using 4.00 and 4.50
heights on my setups and find that I'm just as fast as before.
I've done 1:29.5x at Monza in a Brabham with these heights,
which is just as quick as previously.

-Chris-

---Two wheels are better
---Proud owner of a 1998 ZX-9R

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

I think they improved the setups for novices and 'more experienced'
drivers. That is if you want to win races - and to win, first you have
to finish. The cars in 1.1 are less prone to snap out and put you in the
banking.

Oh no, not the PHYSICS! They didn't change the PHYSICS did they! How
could they!

Err... yes, how could they?

Wellllll, perhaps the first releases physics could actually be improved
<gasp!>. Not perhaps in terms of fidelity - the algorithms - calculation
chains, whatever, but in terms of tweaking parameters to reflect the
performance of an actual 67 car. Papyrus has documented the changes and
they are all described as making the game more 'realistic', personally I
see no reason to disbelieve them.

People seem to be getting carried away with the words 'physics model'.
Any car driving simulation, be it an 'arcade racer' or a 'hardcode
simulation' models physics. That is, they all have a physics model. None
of them, not even GPL, can come close to emulating what actually
happens in the real world. Even the philosopical domain of 'physics'
itself struggles to cover-up the flaws in our understyaning of the real
world.

A product like GPL can be proud of the fidelity of the engine, the
accuracy of the subsequent models and the sense of realism the
combination releases in the end user - the sim racer. It is not real,
not even close to real - but it is good enough in it's own right to be
90% of the fun for probably <1% of the price of racing for real.

While I'm meandering the corridors of sim racing phylosophy, I'd like to
rave a little about VROC and online GPL racing. To anyone who has shared
a race with me first let me apologise - I make quite frequent mistakes
and there must be quite a number of people out there that have shared my
mistakes with me to their detriment. So, sorry.

But, despite the 50% of races that end in 'technical' no-finishes
(disco's/etc), it's a blast out there and generally a pleasure to be
racing with you all.

To anyone thinkng of having a go. Jump in - you will make mistakes but
even the best racing drivers make mistakes.

To BS who was apparently 5 seconds faster than me at Zandy, but accused
me of blocking - learn to pass. If your 5s a lap faster, it really
shouldn't be a problem....

--
Suck The Goat

I think you read more into my question than I intended to be there.  My
question wasn't "how COULD they?" but rather "Is that so?"  I simply didn't
recall.  I've gone back and reread the entire 1.1 read me.  That, plus your
lecture, have set me perfectly straight.

Thanks

Kurt

Schlomo4 schrieb:

--

---------------------------------------------
http://www.simracing.de
http://members.tripod.de/dmu