rec.autos.simulators

> Marc Collins

> Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> to take effect. Reboot now?

>Well...there is so much to talk about post-patch N4 that I have decided to
>just sigh and address a couple of issues...one here and now.

>The Rockingham AI were sped up after the first patch--sort of strangely we
>thought.  Well, it wasn't "fixed" with the second patch.  Does ANYONE out
>there have a set-up or the skills to run with the AI at 100% at this track?
>I sure don't.  And I have no problem running with the AI at 100% in GPL at
>all of the original tracks (save the 'Ring) or at some other N4 tracks.

>I know I can simply reduce the grip levels of the AI back to the 1.0 levels,
>but why?  Am I that bad a driver or did Papy totally **** this track up?  If
>it is the latter, I cannot believe it wouldn't have been addressed in the
>second patch.

>So please...post (or point to) your replays and set-ups for this track that
>can compete with the AI at 100%.  I can't do better than 43rd out of 43 in a
>practise session.  I would love to see what I am doing wrong.

>Thanks,

>Marc.

> Do what I do.  Edit the track.ini file to make the track more
> "realistic".  I play on 98% and some tracks (like Las Vegas) I can lap
> the field twice in a 50% race while at others (like The Rock) I
> qualify 35th or worse and can barely keep up.  Other tracks like
> Atlanta seem to be about right.  If I raced at 100% I am sure I would
> be abolutely blown away by the AI.  I have downloaded and tried/edited
> quite a few setups for The Rock, and while some of them will let you
> turn a pretty good lap time they are only good for about 10 laps.

> For Vegas, I lowerd the wind resistance and increased the grip for the
> AI cars so that I have to work to get a top 10.

> I have not altered the AI for The Rock yet, but after seeing that the
> best lap times of the Cup cars this weekend was significantly lower
> then the AI in N4 I don't think I would have a problem with it.

> The only tracks I have really felt a need to alter so far have been
> Las Vegas and Sears Point.  I reduced my tire wear at Sears Point
> significantly and slowed the AI slightly.

> Sears point is the only track I feel like I am "cheating" on.  I don't
> think it would be "cheating" to slow the AI at The Rock.

> On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 23:57:43 -0500, "Marc Collins"

> >Well...there is so much to talk about post-patch N4 that I have decided
to
> >just sigh and address a couple of issues...one here and now.

> >The Rockingham AI were sped up after the first patch--sort of strangely
we
> >thought.  Well, it wasn't "fixed" with the second patch.  Does ANYONE out
> >there have a set-up or the skills to run with the AI at 100% at this
track?
> >I sure don't.  And I have no problem running with the AI at 100% in GPL
at
> >all of the original tracks (save the 'Ring) or at some other N4 tracks.

> >I know I can simply reduce the grip levels of the AI back to the 1.0
levels,
> >but why?  Am I that bad a driver or did Papy totally **** this track up?
If
> >it is the latter, I cannot believe it wouldn't have been addressed in the
> >second patch.

> >So please...post (or point to) your replays and set-ups for this track
that
> >can compete with the AI at 100%.  I can't do better than 43rd out of 43
in a
> >practise session.  I would love to see what I am doing wrong.

> >Thanks,

> >Marc.

> Brian Oster

> Both of you (Brian and Tim) seem to be suggesting that the AI are
> wonky--which was introduced with the patch.  Before the patch, they seemed
> to be on-par with the relative AI speeds at other tracks?  If this is so,
> why wouldn't Papy have fixed it in the second patch??

> Marc.

> > Do what I do.  Edit the track.ini file to make the track more
> > "realistic".  I play on 98% and some tracks (like Las Vegas) I can lap
> > the field twice in a 50% race while at others (like The Rock) I
> > qualify 35th or worse and can barely keep up.  Other tracks like
> > Atlanta seem to be about right.  If I raced at 100% I am sure I would
> > be abolutely blown away by the AI.  I have downloaded and tried/edited
> > quite a few setups for The Rock, and while some of them will let you
> > turn a pretty good lap time they are only good for about 10 laps.

> > For Vegas, I lowerd the wind resistance and increased the grip for the
> > AI cars so that I have to work to get a top 10.

> > I have not altered the AI for The Rock yet, but after seeing that the
> > best lap times of the Cup cars this weekend was significantly lower
> > then the AI in N4 I don't think I would have a problem with it.

> > The only tracks I have really felt a need to alter so far have been
> > Las Vegas and Sears Point.  I reduced my tire wear at Sears Point
> > significantly and slowed the AI slightly.

> > Sears point is the only track I feel like I am "cheating" on.  I don't
> > think it would be "cheating" to slow the AI at The Rock.

> > On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 23:57:43 -0500, "Marc Collins"

> > >Well...there is so much to talk about post-patch N4 that I have decided
> to
> > >just sigh and address a couple of issues...one here and now.

> > >The Rockingham AI were sped up after the first patch--sort of strangely
> we
> > >thought.  Well, it wasn't "fixed" with the second patch.  Does ANYONE
out
> > >there have a set-up or the skills to run with the AI at 100% at this
> track?
> > >I sure don't.  And I have no problem running with the AI at 100% in GPL
> at
> > >all of the original tracks (save the 'Ring) or at some other N4 tracks.

> > >I know I can simply reduce the grip levels of the AI back to the 1.0
> levels,
> > >but why?  Am I that bad a driver or did Papy totally **** this track
up?
> If
> > >it is the latter, I cannot believe it wouldn't have been addressed in
the
> > >second patch.

> > >So please...post (or point to) your replays and set-ups for this track
> that
> > >can compete with the AI at 100%.  I can't do better than 43rd out of 43
> in a
> > >practise session.  I would love to see what I am doing wrong.

> > >Thanks,

> > >Marc.

> > Brian Oster

> Not so at all Marc

> While they race a lot better their times are way off when comparing tracks
> which makes me wonder who tested, or how much testing was done.

> At Rockingham, at 100%, the leaders qualify at 23.2s, on fresh tires they
> run 23.8s
> They do drop off around 1.5 seconds after 35+ laps or so, and a decent
setup
> can keep up at that point but your already 10+ seconds behind

> To be fair to average drivers, we had to run it at 95%
> At Phoenix we ran 101% and I waxed them, won by the same margin at 95% at
> Rock, admittedly I am a tick better at flat tracks but not by much
> Daytona we run at 103% which seems normal
> We'll be testing Homestead this week but I am betting we run at least 100%
> For us, I'm trying real hard to avoid altering the tracks

> Tim White
> INTRAC Motorsports
> www.birds-i-view.com/intrac

> > Both of you (Brian and Tim) seem to be suggesting that the AI are
> > wonky--which was introduced with the patch.  Before the patch, they
seemed
> > to be on-par with the relative AI speeds at other tracks?  If this is
so,
> > why wouldn't Papy have fixed it in the second patch??

> > Marc.

> > > Do what I do.  Edit the track.ini file to make the track more
> > > "realistic".  I play on 98% and some tracks (like Las Vegas) I can lap
> > > the field twice in a 50% race while at others (like The Rock) I
> > > qualify 35th or worse and can barely keep up.  Other tracks like
> > > Atlanta seem to be about right.  If I raced at 100% I am sure I would
> > > be abolutely blown away by the AI.  I have downloaded and tried/edited
> > > quite a few setups for The Rock, and while some of them will let you
> > > turn a pretty good lap time they are only good for about 10 laps.

> > > For Vegas, I lowerd the wind resistance and increased the grip for the
> > > AI cars so that I have to work to get a top 10.

> > > I have not altered the AI for The Rock yet, but after seeing that the
> > > best lap times of the Cup cars this weekend was significantly lower
> > > then the AI in N4 I don't think I would have a problem with it.

> > > The only tracks I have really felt a need to alter so far have been
> > > Las Vegas and Sears Point.  I reduced my tire wear at Sears Point
> > > significantly and slowed the AI slightly.

> > > Sears point is the only track I feel like I am "cheating" on.  I don't
> > > think it would be "cheating" to slow the AI at The Rock.

> > > On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 23:57:43 -0500, "Marc Collins"

> > > >Well...there is so much to talk about post-patch N4 that I have
decided
> > to
> > > >just sigh and address a couple of issues...one here and now.

> > > >The Rockingham AI were sped up after the first patch--sort of
strangely
> > we
> > > >thought.  Well, it wasn't "fixed" with the second patch.  Does ANYONE
> out
> > > >there have a set-up or the skills to run with the AI at 100% at this
> > track?
> > > >I sure don't.  And I have no problem running with the AI at 100% in
GPL
> > at
> > > >all of the original tracks (save the 'Ring) or at some other N4
tracks.

> > > >I know I can simply reduce the grip levels of the AI back to the 1.0
> > levels,
> > > >but why?  Am I that bad a driver or did Papy totally **** this track
> up?
> > If
> > > >it is the latter, I cannot believe it wouldn't have been addressed in
> the
> > > >second patch.

> > > >So please...post (or point to) your replays and set-ups for this
track
> > that
> > > >can compete with the AI at 100%.  I can't do better than 43rd out of
43
> > in a
> > > >practise session.  I would love to see what I am doing wrong.

> > > >Thanks,

> > > >Marc.

> > > Brian Oster

> >Marc

> >I wont recommend any changing of files, only using the AI %
> >But heres one thing you can do...

> >Team-Lightspeed has a decent setup for each track and theyre fairly
> >consistent
> >In his notes Bob Stanley has listed a hotlap time for that setup
> >While those times are not realistic for long runs (most of these setups
are
> >not setup for it) they give you an accurate comparion for a fastlap in
> >online competition

> I get almost all my setups from Team-Lighspeed/Bob Stanley.  Like Marc
> said they are not really the best setups for long runs.  They tend to
> be very loose and unforgiving, requiring you to run your lap next to
> perfect.  When you do you get can get an excellent lap time.  The
> Rockingham setup will eat up your tires after about 10-20 laps.  What
> I do is use them as a starting point to create a setup that is better
> for longer runs.  Usually I just tighten them up a bit with shock
> settings, wedge and trackbar.  You will have slower initial lap times,
> but over a 50-100 lap run it will hold up pretty good.

> Brian Oster

> I get almost all my setups from Team-Lighspeed/Bob Stanley.  Like Marc
> said they are not really the best setups for long runs.  They tend to
> be very loose and unforgiving, requiring you to run your lap next to
> perfect.  When you do you get can get an excellent lap time.  The
> Rockingham setup will eat up your tires after about 10-20 laps.  What
> I do is use them as a starting point to create a setup that is better
> for longer runs.  Usually I just tighten them up a bit with shock
> settings, wedge and trackbar.  You will have slower initial lap times,
> but over a 50-100 lap run it will hold up pretty good.

>I find that if you tighten the car, it will eat the tires even faster.

>Gerald

>> I get almost all my setups from Team-Lighspeed/Bob Stanley.  Like Marc
>> said they are not really the best setups for long runs.  They tend to
>> be very loose and unforgiving, requiring you to run your lap next to
>> perfect.  When you do you get can get an excellent lap time.  The
>> Rockingham setup will eat up your tires after about 10-20 laps.  What
>> I do is use them as a starting point to create a setup that is better
>> for longer runs.  Usually I just tighten them up a bit with shock
>> settings, wedge and trackbar.  You will have slower initial lap times,
>> but over a 50-100 lap run it will hold up pretty good.

>The problem is that even Bob's Rock set-up can't come close to the AI
>speeds.  At another track, you can run up front with his set-up.

>No one has a set-up that will compete with the AI at the Rock that I am
>aware of--and the point of this post was to have someone come forward if
>they've got one...or to confirm that Papy screwed up on this one.

>Marc