rec.autos.simulators

by **Mitch_** » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:43:24

First off this isn't a Papy bashing post. That company did more for
Simracing than any other period, and I for one do appreciate what they've
done that has given me many many thousands of hours of enjoyment (all the
way back to Indy 500 and every single title since).

That being said I wonder why or what prevented Papy from giving us a more
accurate experience. As I sit and watch the Michigan race I clearly see
that Papy's efforts have a weakness that they NEVER over came. Each
successive title improved (or hid) the weakness but it has always been their
since N1. The BR tracks again seem to just "hide" the issue not overcome
it.

My question (more for fun than anything) is what do you all think this
inherent weakness is and why do you think Papy was never able to solve it?

Mitch

by **Schoone** » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:18:14

What do you mean by the BR tracks "hiding" the issue?

Up until the latest aero and tire rules in NASCAR there was no 2-3 wide
racing at most tracks, only recent changes have improved this. Remember
NR2003 is based on what they were trying to model from at least 2002.

by JP » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:55:50

lol, huh ? 2-3 wide racing has been at Michigan since it was built.
Nothing to do with new aero or tire rules.

by JP » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:11:56

1. Weakness is Papy tracks have always been one groove(or line, or
whatever term you want) tracks. Don't know why exactly. Track modeling
hasn't been the best in terms of relationship to actual track, but its more
involved than just that I think.

2. Who knows. Didn't want to or maybe see the need to change maybe.

- Show quoted text -

by **Pez** » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:20:18

variable track grip. talent of drivers.

those are the 2 biggies, if you could *** up parts of the track, have
marbles form elsewhere, have track grip alter constantly then youd get more
'lines' opening up.

my concern with GTR is that it will be harder to pass people due to the
variable track grip option theyre going to have. itll be just like in real
life, impossible to pass in most places because it gets dirty offline.

pez

by **Mitch_** » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:35:05

You may be on to something Pez. A dynamic groove/grooves may have been the
main contributor. The key is, we as drivers need to be able to identify the
change and till this point we haven't had the level of detail needed to
identify the change. Very well could be hardware related then, no?

Mitch

by **Haqsa** » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:43:08

I think more downforce would allow people to run the outside groove.
Downforce is proportional to speed squared, so the more you have, the more
important it becomes to keep your speed up, thus making the outside line
preferable. Then increase the drag so that the increased downforce doesn't
allow unrealistic speeds overall. That is essentially what Papy did from
NR2002 to NR2003, and it did improve things, but it appears they didn't go
quite far enough. I know they were working with one of the teams but it is
likely that team didn't want to show the other teams how good they thought
they were, so they probably dumbed down the data they gave Papy.

by JP » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:10:32

I don't think the team, Jasper Motorsports, had anything to hide from any
of the others.......they're a backmarkers backmarker, always have been.

Its safe to say, not many other teams are concerned with how good they
are.

> I think more downforce would allow people to run the outside groove.
> Downforce is proportional to speed squared, so the more you have, the more
> important it becomes to keep your speed up, thus making the outside line
> preferable. Then increase the drag so that the increased downforce
doesn't
> allow unrealistic speeds overall. That is essentially what Papy did from
> NR2002 to NR2003, and it did improve things, but it appears they didn't go
> quite far enough. I know they were working with one of the teams but it
is
> likely that team didn't want to show the other teams how good they thought
> they were, so they probably dumbed down the data they gave Papy.

> > First off this isn't a Papy bashing post. That company did more for
> > Simracing than any other period, and I for one do appreciate what
they've
> > done that has given me many many thousands of hours of enjoyment (all
the
> > way back to Indy 500 and every single title since).

> > That being said I wonder why or what prevented Papy from giving us a
more
> > accurate experience. As I sit and watch the Michigan race I clearly see
> > that Papy's efforts have a weakness that they NEVER over came. Each
> > successive title improved (or hid) the weakness but it has always been
> their
> > since N1. The BR tracks again seem to just "hide" the issue not
overcome
> > it.

> > My question (more for fun than anything) is what do you all think this
> > inherent weakness is and why do you think Papy was never able to solve
it?

> > Mitch

by JP » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:11:32

Not reall

Not really. Take Michigan, Rock, whatever. Real race, they can run the
same as they do later in the race. iow, they're not waiting for a groove to
be laid down.

by EL » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:12:42

Did a race yesterday at Michigan and was 2 and 3 wide all race. Must be your
drivers.

EL

by **Peter Ive** » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:11:36

Because we would have been able to kick the AI's butt, big time. The
Papy AI has no means by which it is capable of running more than one
line. What's the point of putting in multiple lines when the only
driver using those lines is going to be you, whilst all the AI drivers
use the same line as each other.
--
Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington)
Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email
If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :)
GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -25.01

by **Pez** » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:27:15

variable track grip. talent of drivers.

those are the 2 biggies, if you could *** up parts of the track, have
marbles form elsewhere, have track grip alter constantly then youd get more
'lines' opening up.

my concern with GTR is that it will be harder to pass people due to the
variable track grip option theyre going to have. itll be just like in real
life, impossible to pass in most places because it gets dirty offline.

pez

by **J.D. Elli** » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:02:34

>What's the point of putting in multiple lines when the only
> driver using those lines is going to be you, whilst all the AI drivers
> use the same line as each other.

Online racing, no?

-jde

by **Haqsa** » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:17:12

Perhaps, but the crew chief involved made the statement that he did not give
Papy the exact data.

by **Mike Beaucham** » Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:52:22

Why are you concerned that GTR is going to be more realistic?

--
Mike Beauchamp
http://www.racesimcentral.net/ - custom electro-theremins and stuff.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/ - mike's personal site.

> variable track grip. talent of drivers.

> those are the 2 biggies, if you could *** up parts of the track, have
> marbles form elsewhere, have track grip alter constantly then youd get
more
> 'lines' opening up.

> my concern with GTR is that it will be harder to pass people due to the
> variable track grip option theyre going to have. itll be just like in real
> life, impossible to pass in most places because it gets dirty offline.

> pez

> > First off this isn't a Papy bashing post. That company did more for
> > Simracing than any other period, and I for one do appreciate what
they've
> > done that has given me many many thousands of hours of enjoyment (all
the
> > way back to Indy 500 and every single title since).

> > That being said I wonder why or what prevented Papy from giving us a
more
> > accurate experience. As I sit and watch the Michigan race I clearly see
> > that Papy's efforts have a weakness that they NEVER over came. Each
> > successive title improved (or hid) the weakness but it has always been
> their
> > since N1. The BR tracks again seem to just "hide" the issue not
overcome
> > it.

> > My question (more for fun than anything) is what do you all think this
> > inherent weakness is and why do you think Papy was never able to solve
it?

> > Mitch

rec.autos.simulators

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?

Why can't we race 3-4 wide at Mich?