rec.autos.simulators

"Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

> What I am asking is whether you find the AI at Calif. and Michigan at 100%
> similarly difficult.  They should be.  Try it out and let us know.  I'll
bet
> you can run circles around the AI at California if you have a set-up and
> skills to beat them easily at 102% at Michigan.  Without belabouring the
> point again, each track shouldn't be a gamble as to whether the AI are
> smart, stupid or somewhere in between.  They should be similarly fast
> (hopefully related as closely as possible to real world speeds) at all
> tracks.  They aren't, in my experience.

> Marc

> "Bill Bollinger" <teambricky...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
> news:v4sht7jem1a241@corp.supernews.com...
> > I can BEAT the AI at 102% at Michigan.  Havn't worked at Cali.  Just get
> in
> > there and work on your setups.

> > BTW, this is from starting at the back of the field in a 20 car race.

> > "Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:FPi3a.1089$bU6.146636@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > Well first off Jay this is a public newsgroup, so I am addressing my
> > request
> > > to everyone.  I said from the outset that if it simply that Bob
Stanley
> > > doesn't know how to set-up a car for NR2003 and others do have set-ups
> > that
> > > you can run competitively at Michigan and California, then so be it.
> > > However, you claimed you can run more or less equally well against the
> AI
> > at
> > > these two tracks--as everyone should be able to if the gameplay was
> > tweaked
> > > properly.  Let's be honest, they are probably the two easiest tracks
and
> > > they are so similar that you cannot argue that there is some special
> trick
> > > or skill required at one that isn't required at the other.

> > > I have never found set-ups in N4, NR2002 or so far in NR2003 that
permit
> > > this.  Bob Stanley has publicly stated that the AI speeds are
> unrealistic
> > > (this was in the past referring to N4 and NR2002) at these two tracks
> and
> > > that he doesn't even bother trying to adjust his set-up to duel with
> them
> > at
> > > 100%--he just sets it up to be the best it can to the best of his
> ability.
> > > It appears to me that NR2003 is exactly the same in this regard, but
you
> > > deny that.  I am sincerely deferring to your expertise and experience,
> but
> > > in the absence of any evidence, I am asking you to contribute just two
> > > set-ups, for the two easiest tracks.

> > > If you don't want to provide that, I understand, especially if you are
> in
> > a
> > > league.  But perhaps you could find ANY set-up wiz out there who has a
> > > set-up that works equally well at Michigan and California against 100%
> AI.
> > > I haven't been able to find one, but I am sure you will know more than
> me.
> > > ANY person's set-ups that work equally well at these two tracks will
> prove
> > > you are right and I am wrong.

> > > Thanks,

> > > Marc

> > > "Jay Taylor" <jma...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:tJ_2a.1637$8s5.1000@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > So this all comes down to looking for setups?

> > > > To be honest I really dont feel like just tossing out setups, after
> the
> > > > amount of time I've put into them.  I'm not saying their are
anything
> > > > special, but they work great for me.  I happen to run in a highly
> > > > competitive open setup league, and so I guess I tend not to want to
> just
> > > > give them.  Agree with it or not, this is my main reasoning.
Beyond
> > that
> > > I
> > > > really dont feel any need to "prove" anything.  I'll discuss the AI,
> and
> > > do
> > > > my best to explain what I can. If you dont agree with me, thats your
> > right
> > > > I'm just trying to offer what I know.  Its seems so far that I've
> tried
> > my
> > > > best to answer your questions, and all we are down to is you asking
> for
> > my
> > > > setups.  So save the "put your money where your mouth is" crap for
> > someone
> > > > else.

> > > > Jay

> > > > "Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:Sl_2a.32947$Ww1.800055@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where there
> > mouth
> > > is
> > > > > by ponying up a couple of set-ups.

> > > > > Marc

> > > > > "Jay Taylor" <jma...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Veg2a.3869$dl.1715@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > First of all if you want to match up verse the AI in practice
you
> > > better
> > > > > > load  a qual setup not a race, as through out testing you would
> > always
> > > > see
> > > > > a
> > > > > > few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were more in
> race
> > > > trim.
> > > > > > Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactly what
> > they
> > > > will
> > > > > > run for the race.

> > > > > > As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason is
simple.
> > The
> > > > AI
> > > > > do
> > > > > > not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If they did
> you
> > > > might
> > > > > > be able to run with a dozen cars max on the fastest of systems.
> So
> > > they
> > > > > > have a somewhat simplifed physics model to keep CPU overhead
> > > reasonable.
> > > > > > Therefore after you have lines run for a track that work the way
> you
> > > > want
> > > > > > them to, and dont have any choke points that mess up the AI, you
> use
> > > > these
> > > > > > values to fine tune the AI to get them to drive the track as
close
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > way the typical player would.  These are  crucial in smoothing
out
> > the
> > > > AI,
> > > > > > and keeping them in line with the player.  If everything was
equal
> > > > physics
> > > > > > wise, and the AI had the same knowledge the player does about
> > getting
> > > > > around
> > > > > > the track then these values wouldn't be needed.  However until
> > someone
> > > > > finds
> > > > > > away to do all this and make it run well on a normal system, you
> > have
> > > to
> > > > > > make adjustments, and try to dial things in with what you have
to
> > work
> > > > > with.

> > > > > > Jay Taylor

> > > > > > "Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:Lpf2a.30455$ns3.436218@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > > > What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the
> > layman
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > ask why would that vary from on track to the next?  Same goes
> for
> > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip,
> > varying
> > > > from
> > > > > > > track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for
> this?

> > > > > > > I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were
> poured
> > > > into
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > effort.  But I think I explained why the result is less than
> > > > > satisfactory.
> > > > > > > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soon
as
> > you
> > > or
> > > > > > > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan and
> one
> > > for
> > > > > > > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer to
hit
> > the
> > > > top
> > > > > 10
> > > > > > > in each with approximately the same effort...since that would
be
> > > > > realistic
> > > > > > > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus.

> > > > > > > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > AI
> > > > > > > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track
> > (except
> > > > the
> > > > > > > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of
California,
> > then
> > > > > > > something is wrong...and it ain't me.  It's either the game or
> the
> > > > > set-up
> > > > > > > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the
set-up
> > > since
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly
> > > > purchaser/user.

> > > > > > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach
your
> > two
> > > > > > set-ups
> > > > > > > and we'll see what results.

> > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > Marc

> > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <jma...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:wKa2a.3765$Ly6.1187@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > > > Over looked?
> > > > > > > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play
> > > balancing
> > > > > > > NR2003
> > > > > > > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked.  Perhaps the settings
> > don't
> > > > work
> > > > > > > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible.  However
> they
> > > are
> > > > > > > > certainly close, and should provide

"Jay Taylor" <jma...@prodigy.net> wrote in message

> Marc,
> Here is exactly what I'm saying.  Rightnow I can get a top 5 finish
against
> the AI at both of these tracks ( provided I stay out of trouble during the
> race).  I find both tracks to be challenging, and the AI to be very
similar
> in speeds to me thru the corners and down the straights.  There are months
> worth of play balancing efforts in NR2003, and I honestly feel it to be in
> the best shape or all recent papy sims in that area.  IS it 100% perfect?
> No, and realistically thats damn near impossible.  Everyone drives a
little
> different, likes different things in their setups, and has different
> controler setups.
> I am not saying Bob's setups are bad or he doesn't know what he's doing,
> matter of fact just the oppisite. Bob Stanely is one of the best,
especially
> for building setups that work for a wide range of people.  That still
> doesn't mean his setups are going to perfectly fit your driving style.
> Perhaps I'm not even with my speeds from Cali to Mich, but it seemed in
line
> with the data I got from the beta team.

> Jay

> "Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:eDt3a.35697$Ww1.990971@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > What I am asking is whether you find the AI at Calif. and Michigan at
100%
> > similarly difficult.  They should be.  Try it out and let us know.  I'll
> bet
> > you can run circles around the AI at California if you have a set-up and
> > skills to beat them easily at 102% at Michigan.  Without belabouring the
> > point again, each track shouldn't be a gamble as to whether the AI are
> > smart, stupid or somewhere in between.  They should be similarly fast
> > (hopefully related as closely as possible to real world speeds) at all
> > tracks.  They aren't, in my experience.

> > Marc

> > "Bill Bollinger" <teambricky...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
> > news:v4sht7jem1a241@corp.supernews.com...
> > > I can BEAT the AI at 102% at Michigan.  Havn't worked at Cali.  Just
get
> > in
> > > there and work on your setups.

> > > BTW, this is from starting at the back of the field in a 20 car race.

> > > "Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:FPi3a.1089$bU6.146636@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > Well first off Jay this is a public newsgroup, so I am addressing my
> > > request
> > > > to everyone.  I said from the outset that if it simply that Bob
> Stanley
> > > > doesn't know how to set-up a car for NR2003 and others do have
set-ups
> > > that
> > > > you can run competitively at Michigan and California, then so be it.
> > > > However, you claimed you can run more or less equally well against
the
> > AI
> > > at
> > > > these two tracks--as everyone should be able to if the gameplay was
> > > tweaked
> > > > properly.  Let's be honest, they are probably the two easiest tracks
> and
> > > > they are so similar that you cannot argue that there is some special
> > trick
> > > > or skill required at one that isn't required at the other.

> > > > I have never found set-ups in N4, NR2002 or so far in NR2003 that
> permit
> > > > this.  Bob Stanley has publicly stated that the AI speeds are
> > unrealistic
> > > > (this was in the past referring to N4 and NR2002) at these two
tracks
> > and
> > > > that he doesn't even bother trying to adjust his set-up to duel with
> > them
> > > at
> > > > 100%--he just sets it up to be the best it can to the best of his
> > ability.
> > > > It appears to me that NR2003 is exactly the same in this regard, but
> you
> > > > deny that.  I am sincerely deferring to your expertise and
experience,
> > but
> > > > in the absence of any evidence, I am asking you to contribute just
two
> > > > set-ups, for the two easiest tracks.

> > > > If you don't want to provide that, I understand, especially if you
are
> > in
> > > a
> > > > league.  But perhaps you could find ANY set-up wiz out there who has
a
> > > > set-up that works equally well at Michigan and California against
100%
> > AI.
> > > > I haven't been able to find one, but I am sure you will know more
than
> > me.
> > > > ANY person's set-ups that work equally well at these two tracks will
> > prove
> > > > you are right and I am wrong.

> > > > Thanks,

> > > > Marc

> > > > "Jay Taylor" <jma...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:tJ_2a.1637$8s5.1000@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > So this all comes down to looking for setups?

> > > > > To be honest I really dont feel like just tossing out setups,
after
> > the
> > > > > amount of time I've put into them.  I'm not saying their are
> anything
> > > > > special, but they work great for me.  I happen to run in a highly
> > > > > competitive open setup league, and so I guess I tend not to want
to
> > just
> > > > > give them.  Agree with it or not, this is my main reasoning.
> Beyond
> > > that
> > > > I
> > > > > really dont feel any need to "prove" anything.  I'll discuss the
AI,
> > and
> > > > do
> > > > > my best to explain what I can. If you dont agree with me, thats
your
> > > right
> > > > > I'm just trying to offer what I know.  Its seems so far that I've
> > tried
> > > my
> > > > > best to answer your questions, and all we are down to is you
asking
> > for
> > > my
> > > > > setups.  So save the "put your money where your mouth is" crap for
> > > someone
> > > > > else.

> > > > > Jay

> > > > > "Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Sl_2a.32947$Ww1.800055@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > > Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where
there
> > > mouth
> > > > is
> > > > > > by ponying up a couple of set-ups.

> > > > > > Marc

> > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <jma...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:Veg2a.3869$dl.1715@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > > First of all if you want to match up verse the AI in practice
> you
> > > > better
> > > > > > > load  a qual setup not a race, as through out testing you
would
> > > always
> > > > > see
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were more in
> > race
> > > > > trim.
> > > > > > > Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactly
what
> > > they
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > run for the race.

> > > > > > > As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason is
> simple.
> > > The
> > > > > AI
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If they
did
> > you
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > be able to run with a dozen cars max on the fastest of
systems.
> > So
> > > > they
> > > > > > > have a somewhat simplifed physics model to keep CPU overhead
> > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > Therefore after you have lines run for a track that work the
way
> > you
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > them to, and dont have any choke points that mess up the AI,
you
> > use
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > values to fine tune the AI to get them to drive the track as
> close
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > way the typical player would.  These are  crucial in smoothing
> out
> > > the
> > > > > AI,
> > > > > > > and keeping them in line with the player.  If everything was
> equal
> > > > > physics
> > > > > > > wise, and the AI had the same knowledge the player does about
> > > getting
> > > > > > around
> > > > > > > the track then these values wouldn't be needed.  However until
> > > someone
> > > > > > finds
> > > > > > > away to do all this and make it run well on a normal system,
you
> > > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > > make adjustments, and try to dial things in with what you have
> to
> > > work
> > > > > > with.

> > > > > > > Jay Taylor

> > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:Lpf2a.30455$ns3.436218@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > > > > What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the
> > > layman
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > ask why would that vary from on track to the next?  Same
goes
> > for
> > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip,
> > > varying
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for
> > this?

> > > > > > > > I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were
> > poured
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > the

"Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

> Hello Jay: How many times do you have to read the same thing before you
get
> it?  Bob includes his own best lap times with his set-ups--that's all I am
> referring to, or have been referring to from the first post of this
thread.
> This has zero to do with my driving style, skill level, or anyone else's
for
> that matter.

> One last time: if you can take your race set-up for each track and
> consistently achieve similar top 5 lap times at both tracks with AI at
100%
> in Practise Mode, then you are the man.  Bob can't.  I can't.  And until
> you, I haven't met anyone else who can or seen set-ups that claim they can
> (most set-ups contain an indication of the best time achieved by the
> author).

> Perhaps most of the set-up gurus are lousy drivers and you combine the
skill
> of a set-up artist and a great driver?  I can't say because no one has
seen
> your set-ups.

> I assume you are telling the truth because you have no reason whatsoever
not
> to.  However, my point still stands that unless a significant percentage
of
> users find the AI at those two tracks similarly difficult, the gameplay
> isn't as balanced as it should be.  Unfortunately, due to problems with
the
> AI in past versions, the majority of users don't even bother trying and
just
> resort to online racing against humans or just fiddle at one track or
> another (usually one of super speedways) without trying to do a whole
> season.

> Marc

> "Jay Taylor" <jma...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:%tx3a.3044$sg7.2165@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> > Marc,
> > Here is exactly what I'm saying.  Rightnow I can get a top 5 finish
> against
> > the AI at both of these tracks ( provided I stay out of trouble during
the
> > race).  I find both tracks to be challenging, and the AI to be very
> similar
> > in speeds to me thru the corners and down the straights.  There are
months
> > worth of play balancing efforts in NR2003, and I honestly feel it to be
in
> > the best shape or all recent papy sims in that area.  IS it 100%
perfect?
> > No, and realistically thats damn near impossible.  Everyone drives a
> little
> > different, likes different things in their setups, and has different
> > controler setups.
> > I am not saying Bob's setups are bad or he doesn't know what he's doing,
> > matter of fact just the oppisite. Bob Stanely is one of the best,
> especially
> > for building setups that work for a wide range of people.  That still
> > doesn't mean his setups are going to perfectly fit your driving style.
> > Perhaps I'm not even with my speeds from Cali to Mich, but it seemed in
> line
> > with the data I got from the beta team.

> > Jay

> > "Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:eDt3a.35697$Ww1.990971@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > What I am asking is whether you find the AI at Calif. and Michigan at
> 100%
> > > similarly difficult.  They should be.  Try it out and let us know.
I'll
> > bet
> > > you can run circles around the AI at California if you have a set-up
and
> > > skills to beat them easily at 102% at Michigan.  Without belabouring
the
> > > point again, each track shouldn't be a gamble as to whether the AI are
> > > smart, stupid or somewhere in between.  They should be similarly fast
> > > (hopefully related as closely as possible to real world speeds) at all
> > > tracks.  They aren't, in my experience.

> > > Marc

> > > "Bill Bollinger" <teambricky...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
> > > news:v4sht7jem1a241@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > I can BEAT the AI at 102% at Michigan.  Havn't worked at Cali.  Just
> get
> > > in
> > > > there and work on your setups.

> > > > BTW, this is from starting at the back of the field in a 20 car
race.

> > > > "Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:FPi3a.1089$bU6.146636@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > Well first off Jay this is a public newsgroup, so I am addressing
my
> > > > request
> > > > > to everyone.  I said from the outset that if it simply that Bob
> > Stanley
> > > > > doesn't know how to set-up a car for NR2003 and others do have
> set-ups
> > > > that
> > > > > you can run competitively at Michigan and California, then so be
it.
> > > > > However, you claimed you can run more or less equally well against
> the
> > > AI
> > > > at
> > > > > these two tracks--as everyone should be able to if the gameplay
was
> > > > tweaked
> > > > > properly.  Let's be honest, they are probably the two easiest
tracks
> > and
> > > > > they are so similar that you cannot argue that there is some
special
> > > trick
> > > > > or skill required at one that isn't required at the other.

> > > > > I have never found set-ups in N4, NR2002 or so far in NR2003 that
> > permit
> > > > > this.  Bob Stanley has publicly stated that the AI speeds are
> > > unrealistic
> > > > > (this was in the past referring to N4 and NR2002) at these two
> tracks
> > > and
> > > > > that he doesn't even bother trying to adjust his set-up to duel
with
> > > them
> > > > at
> > > > > 100%--he just sets it up to be the best it can to the best of his
> > > ability.
> > > > > It appears to me that NR2003 is exactly the same in this regard,
but
> > you
> > > > > deny that.  I am sincerely deferring to your expertise and
> experience,
> > > but
> > > > > in the absence of any evidence, I am asking you to contribute just
> two
> > > > > set-ups, for the two easiest tracks.

> > > > > If you don't want to provide that, I understand, especially if you
> are
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > league.  But perhaps you could find ANY set-up wiz out there who
has
> a
> > > > > set-up that works equally well at Michigan and California against
> 100%
> > > AI.
> > > > > I haven't been able to find one, but I am sure you will know more
> than
> > > me.
> > > > > ANY person's set-ups that work equally well at these two tracks
will
> > > prove
> > > > > you are right and I am wrong.

> > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > Marc

> > > > > "Jay Taylor" <jma...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:tJ_2a.1637$8s5.1000@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > So this all comes down to looking for setups?

> > > > > > To be honest I really dont feel like just tossing out setups,
> after
> > > the
> > > > > > amount of time I've put into them.  I'm not saying their are
> > anything
> > > > > > special, but they work great for me.  I happen to run in a
highly
> > > > > > competitive open setup league, and so I guess I tend not to want
> to
> > > just
> > > > > > give them.  Agree with it or not, this is my main reasoning.
> > Beyond
> > > > that
> > > > > I
> > > > > > really dont feel any need to "prove" anything.  I'll discuss the
> AI,
> > > and
> > > > > do
> > > > > > my best to explain what I can. If you dont agree with me, thats
> your
> > > > right
> > > > > > I'm just trying to offer what I know.  Its seems so far that
I've
> > > tried
> > > > my
> > > > > > best to answer your questions, and all we are down to is you
> asking
> > > for
> > > > my
> > > > > > setups.  So save the "put your money where your mouth is" crap
for
> > > > someone
> > > > > > else.

> > > > > > Jay

> > > > > > "Marc Collins" <marc_coll...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:Sl_2a.32947$Ww1.800055@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > > > Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where
> there
> > > > mouth
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > by ponying up a couple of set-ups.

> > > > > > > Marc

> > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <jma...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:Veg2a.3869$dl.1715@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > > > First of all if you want to match up verse the AI in
practice
> > you
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > > load  a qual setup not a race, as through out testing you
> would
> > > > always
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were more
in
> > > race
> > > > > > trim.
> > > > > > > > Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactly
> what
> > > > they
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > run for the race.

> > > > > > > > As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason is
> > simple.
> > > > The
> > > > > > AI
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If they
> did

> Marc, you are making some pretty sweeping assumptions about Bob Stanley
and
> his setups. Why don't you talk to him about his setups? I think if you
asked
> Bob, first thing he would say is that his setups are *not* specifically
the
> fastest ones possible. The way I understand it, his goals are generally to
> get a good driving car that gets good tire wear over a long run. So to
quote
> his listed speeds as a watermark for best laps isn't necessarily proper.
> Take his setups and run full fuel runs and then see what your right side
> tire wear is. If it is even, then it is probably a decent setup for you,
if
> not, then it's probably not a good setup for you to use as a benchmark.
But
> either way, I wouldn't use his setups as a benchmark for speeds in the
first
> 10 laps. So, if you get even tire wear with both his Michigan and
California
> setups, then run a 50 lap race at both tracks against 100% AI and see if
you
> get similar results. Oh yeah, I assume you are running at 70*, clear, no
> wind, without any draft. Those are the conditions for his listed times.

> I think you also missed Jay's point about the AI not necessarily running
> race type laps during practice. Which is why he makes his point that he
> gauges his performance against the AI in a race, not in practice.

> db

> > Hello Jay: How many times do you have to read the same thing before you
> get
> > it?  Bob includes his own best lap times with his set-ups--that's all I
am
> > referring to, or have been referring to from the first post of this
> thread.
> > This has zero to do with my driving style, skill level, or anyone else's
> for
> > that matter.

> > One last time: if you can take your race set-up for each track and
> > consistently achieve similar top 5 lap times at both tracks with AI at
> 100%
> > in Practise Mode, then you are the man.  Bob can't.  I can't.  And until
> > you, I haven't met anyone else who can or seen set-ups that claim they
can
> > (most set-ups contain an indication of the best time achieved by the
> > author).

> > Perhaps most of the set-up gurus are lousy drivers and you combine the
> skill
> > of a set-up artist and a great driver?  I can't say because no one has
> seen
> > your set-ups.

> > I assume you are telling the truth because you have no reason whatsoever
> not
> > to.  However, my point still stands that unless a significant percentage
> of
> > users find the AI at those two tracks similarly difficult, the gameplay
> > isn't as balanced as it should be.  Unfortunately, due to problems with
> the
> > AI in past versions, the majority of users don't even bother trying and
> just
> > resort to online racing against humans or just fiddle at one track or
> > another (usually one of super speedways) without trying to do a whole
> > season.

> > Marc

> Marc, you are making some pretty sweeping assumptions about Bob Stanley
and
> his setups. Why don't you talk to him about his setups? I think if you
asked
> Bob, first thing he would say is that his setups are *not* specifically
the
> fastest ones possible. The way I understand it, his goals are generally to
> get a good driving car that gets good tire wear over a long run. So to
quote
> his listed speeds as a watermark for best laps isn't necessarily proper.
> Take his setups and run full fuel runs and then see what your right side
> tire wear is. If it is even, then it is probably a decent setup for you,
if
> not, then it's probably not a good setup for you to use as a benchmark.
But
> either way, I wouldn't use his setups as a benchmark for speeds in the
first
> 10 laps. So, if you get even tire wear with both his Michigan and
California
> setups, then run a 50 lap race at both tracks against 100% AI and see if
you
> get similar results. Oh yeah, I assume you are running at 70*, clear, no
> wind, without any draft. Those are the conditions for his listed times.

> I think you also missed Jay's point about the AI not necessarily running
> race type laps during practice. Which is why he makes his point that he
> gauges his performance against the AI in a race, not in practice.

> db

> > Hello Jay: How many times do you have to read the same thing before you
> get
> > it?  Bob includes his own best lap times with his set-ups--that's all I
am
> > referring to, or have been referring to from the first post of this
> thread.
> > This has zero to do with my driving style, skill level, or anyone else's
> for
> > that matter.

> > One last time: if you can take your race set-up for each track and
> > consistently achieve similar top 5 lap times at both tracks with AI at
> 100%
> > in Practise Mode, then you are the man.  Bob can't.  I can't.  And until
> > you, I haven't met anyone else who can or seen set-ups that claim they
can
> > (most set-ups contain an indication of the best time achieved by the
> > author).

> > Perhaps most of the set-up gurus are lousy drivers and you combine the
> skill
> > of a set-up artist and a great driver?  I can't say because no one has
> seen
> > your set-ups.

> > I assume you are telling the truth because you have no reason whatsoever
> not
> > to.  However, my point still stands that unless a significant percentage
> of
> > users find the AI at those two tracks similarly difficult, the gameplay
> > isn't as balanced as it should be.  Unfortunately, due to problems with
> the
> > AI in past versions, the majority of users don't even bother trying and
> just
> > resort to online racing against humans or just fiddle at one track or
> > another (usually one of super speedways) without trying to do a whole
> > season.

> > Marc

> Well, I just loaded up Michigan for the first time. Skipped practice (I
> figured I'd run it enough in the demo, heheh) and ran a 50 lap race with
> Bob's setup against 100% AI. The weather was 70*, clear, no wind. I
started
> at the back of a 43 car field like I always do. I ran around at the back
of
> the pack for the first few laps letting the tires warm up and getting the
> feel of the setup. Then I started picking off the AI one by one. I did all
> of my passing on the inside. By the halfway point, I was up to 27th. I
> finished the race in 16th. It was more difficult for me to pass in the
> closing laps because I had developed a pretty severe push. Even so, every
> lap that I didn't have to deal with traffic, I was gaining on the leader.
> But then, that doesn't mean that much with the draft and all. I think If I
> ran a setup that suited me more, I might have been able to challenge for
the
> win.

> Then I loaded up California (for the first time also) and did the exact
same
> thing. The main problem I had with California is that the AI would slow
down
> too much in the corners (most significantly T1-T2). This caused me to have
> to check up and lose my momentum all too often. I had a much more
difficult
> time passing and then keeping them behind me while I was trying to set up
> the next car than I did at Michigan. I ended up actually making most of my
> passes on the outside of T1-T2. Because of this, I only made my way up to
> 29th by the end of the race. The setup gave me more even tire wear though.
I
> only ended up with a moderate push mid corner.

> I am pretty surprised because I never remember Bob's setups being anything
> but loose, loose and more loose, heheh. I did notice that I had a pretty
> severe aero loose condition off the corners at California. But Bob likes a
> lot more rear split than I do. I didn't have any problem with this at
> Michigan. But that might have been because of the push

> I guess none of this really makes any difference though. Since you are the
> one with the complaint, what really matters is how *you* do against the AI
> in races. Care to give any feedback?

> db

> > I agree Bob's set-ups are meant to be balanced...so should the AI be.

> > The set-ups and AI perform roughly the same in Practise or races, so
that
> is
> > a null point.

> > What is your experience with AI at 100%?

> > Marc

> Well, I read this thread, but don't remember you saying anything about
> talking with Bob about his NR03 setups. So, what did he have to say about
> them? Did he tell you that he couldn't compete against the AI at 100% at
> Michigan? I highly doubt it because I did half way decent with his setup
and
> I'm sure he would do *much* better than I did.

> Even though you aren't looking for "super fast" setups, you do need setups
> that are consistent for *you* in order to make the judgment that the AI
are
> messed up. You haven't given any info on how Bob's setups work for you, so
> how is anyone supposed to judge your conclusions?

> Even so, what exactly is your goal with this thread? Are you just venting
> your frustrations? Are you looking for better setups? Are you looking for
a
> solution to your problem?

> I mean, for the sake of argument, lets just say that Papyrus completely
> stuffed up the AI speeds from track to track. What do you expect to happen
> now? You have been told that the AI have been balanced to the best of
their
> ability. So, do you expect that Papyrus should have somehow balanced every
> track for every single player with every setup? Or maybe you just expected
> them to custom tailor the AI to your speed at all the tracks using Bob
> Stanley's setups? But then, what happens when you improve at one track
more
> than another or Bob releases a better setup? Do you expect them to come to
> your house and rebalance your AI for you? I'm afraid if you want the AI
> custom tailored to your performance at each and every track, then you are
> going to have to tweak them yourself just like everyone else. ...and all
of
> your tweaks will probably end up slightly different than anyone else's.

> db

> > And if you had read the thread, you would see that I have talked to Bob
> > about his set-ups.  I am not looking for super fast set-ups.  I am
trying
> to
> > gauge the relative speed of the AI, which I thought would be obvious
from

> > the subject line of the thread, but apparently not.

> > Marc

> I completely agree with your assessment of the past AI balance issues. But
> you have to remember that Bob's Setups for NR02 were made during the beta
> and never updated, so they were kinda rough and inconsistent themselves.
So
> I say that if you are basing your judgments of NR03 on his current NR03
> setups, make sure that you realize that they were made during the Beta and
> they may be a little rough and inconsistent too. Hopefully he will have
more
> time to put into fine tuning each one as time goes by. But even if he
> doesn't, they are usually a good place for most people to start from none
> the less.

> I think you are comparing Bob's no-draft times with the AI times in
practice
> (which have a draft). In the one race I ran at Michigan, my best lap time
> was 37.362. I'm guessing that a good blap from a fast driver/setup in a
> perfect draft would probably be 37.000 or below.

> Another thing to note is that just because the AI can post a fast practice
> lap, that doesn't mean that they will be that fast throughout an entire
fuel
> run. So I feel it's better to judge them based on at least a full fuel run
> race rather than their practice times.

> The slow downs at California do concern me a little, but it is *nothing*
> compared to the very inconsistent lines that were used for N4/NR02.  In
NR03
> they run a smooth line, they are just a little slow in places for the way
I
> like to drive California. Whereas in N4/NR02, the AI are very jerky in
their
> speeds which causes too much damage to my nose, heheh.

> The only other track I've had time to drive is a little bit at Daytona.
> Usually I go week by week following the real WC schedule. At least until
> they start repeating tracks. So I don't have much experience yet either.
> ...and of course, most of my time is spent working on other things than
the
> original tracks ;).

> db

> > In NR2002 and N4, Bob's set-ups couldn't compete with the AI at 100% at
> > about a third of the tracks.  Bob puts his best lap time for that set-up
> in
> > his set-up notes so it doesn't take too much to figure out whether it
can
> > compete once you know the AI lap times.  My sense was that Bob's set-ups
> > were well balanced and some of the few that actually were calibrated
with
> a
> > full run in mind.  Most are just hot lap set-ups.

> > He told me that he ignored the AI speeds and just developed the best
> set-up
> > he could, mostly for online purposes.  He said the AI speeds weren't
> > realistic or consistent, so the only option was to ignore them.  This
> whole
> > thread started as an observation that it didn't look like things had
> changed
> > for the better in NR2003.

> > Bob's best time for his Michigan set-up is 37.660.  Within 10 minutes I
> did
> > a 37.661 (close enough for me) (and also my first 10 minutes with the
new
> > physics, etc.in NR2003).  The AI can blow that away without even trying.
> At
> > California, the situation is the opposite.

> > Other issues are the AI slowing in corners at certain tracks--your other
> > post suggests this also has not been fixed at California.

> > Some tracks like Rockingham were just way out of whack.  Haven't spent
any
> > time there yet in NR2003.

> > Atlanta and Texas are another pair that have been out of whack in the
> past.
> > I would love to hear your experiences there.

> > Marc

> If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode with the AI
> at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track (except the
> 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California, then
> something is wrong...and it ain't me.  It's either the game or the set-up
> and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-up since you
> are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly purchaser/user.