rec.autos.simulators

by **Race15** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:03:18

I didn't race with RASCAR last year, and only a couple of races this year. I
can tell you this though, I hate the FAST setup in N2003. I don't think I have
heard anyone mention this as a cause for all the yellows, especially on
restarts.

What about trying a race with the easy setup? I know its infinately slower,
but its also more stable. And with all the cars on the track, wouldn't the
racing be a little better? Don't know, just a suggestion.

Myself, I wouldn't want to use it on a superspeedway, because it just seems so
slow, (on the other hand that may be the perfect place to try it) but again,
just a thought.

Mike

by **grub** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:54:20

If you want a professional opinion, I will offer one up free of charge. Any
process change, will induce variation that may or maynot be expected.
Conpound that with many process changes, and you could really induce
variation in the game that could be totally unpredictable. One way to
mitigate this is to praeto out the top changes being considering in order of
importance, inplement one change (or factor) and judge the inpact on the
race. Since OFAT (one factor at a time) is really not the preferred way of
problem solving, it is still commonly used in the racing industry. You may,
over time find out which factor is significant and then you can implement it
and then throw out the other factors (or proposed rules) so that you dont
make the racing experience more trouble than its worth. Nobody likes a bunch
of rules and they have a justifiable reason. Change for the sake of change
pisses everybody off and change with the hopes of inpacting the outcome
usually fall short without a true logical and practical scienctific
approach.
As I recall, last year about this time, when everyone was screaming
rules, and Eldred had to take a break, we managed to make it through it. We
are half way through the racing season, and we are all adjusting and
attempting to improving our driving and finishes. I would chaulk this whole
mess of events as common variation in the process, do absolutely nothing,
and see if the driving improves. My guess is that the racing improves
without any added process changes.
Do you have to stomach to wait and see? Stay tuned to next weeks episode
of : As the RASCAR Churns.

grub

> > "Brian Oster" wrote...
> > > > <snip>
> > > This is actually a pretty cool idea. Maybe 3 podium
> > > finishers and 3 top qualifiers... really mix things
> > > up.

> > No way... one of the major problems, IMO, is having faster drivers
forced to
> > come up through the field and trying to make gains when it's the easiest
and
> > most dangerous, i.e. on or shortly after restarts.

> The whole point is to make them do what they normally don't have to
> do - live in the back for a few laps, and give someone else a chance
> to win. In IGPS, we had a couple of times where the previous weeks
> winner started in the back and still won the race.

by **Larr** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:47:36

Here we go again...

Disabling Yellows is NOT the answer.

Yellows, especially in long races that require pit stops, are a major part
of pit strategy and a major part of racing in general.

-Larry

> A good idea, John.

> Becoming a good racer at first sight appears to be very easy - it's by
> almost 100% a purely mental effort. All you have to do is, before the
race,
> focus your mind on 'I must avoid any accident' rather than the 'I want to
> pass I want to pass I want to pass' that seems to reverberate through the
> heads of many average online racers.

> However, making that simple switch seems to be impossible for many. A race
> stewart may help them focus on the right issues.

> Another good way of educating drivers is to disable yellows. Yellows
reward
> bad driving, as in addition to helping the very few innocent victims of
> accidents (in most accidents, even those who consider themselves victims
> could have helped avoid them) keep the consequences in terms of losing
time
> moderate, they prevent all those who cause accidents from losing all
chances
> of finishing anywhere but near-to-last.

> I know, many are worried about losing 'the strategic component' yellows
> introduce. But IMHO it would be a lot more 'strategic' to learn to drive a
> race without accidents, to know when to be fast and when not to, to avoid
> accidents and other dangers, and to stay clean and fast throughout the
race.

> Anyway, good luck with that race stewart scheme John!

> Achim

> > I have no ideas how to improve the quality of racing or everyone's
> > level of awareness on the track beyond the following, and I don't
> > like the idea. Beyond imposing artificial 9and stupid) rules about
> > when you can/can't pass, or going to single-file restarts, this is
> > the only thing I can think of, and it admittedly sucks (especially
> > for the guy I'm about to describe).

> > A race steward - someone that sits and watches the race without
> > racing, and that awards a one-lap penalty to anyone that wrecks or
> > spins on a restart (maybe even a lap for every car that is involved
> > as well), and that black flags anyone for chatting beyond the auto-
> > chat keys. The race steward's word will be final.

> > I think that might prompt people into driving better, especially on
> > restarts. We're not racing for points, so something else has to be
> > done to jerk people back into line.

> > I don't like the idea because that means someone isn't going to be
> > able to race. However, if the restarts don't improve radically, I
> > will fill in as the race stward for the first few races, and because
> > I'll be babysitting instead of racing, I can almost guarantee I'll be
> > in a bad mood.

> > If you guys don't want me to consider this action any further, the
> > restarts had better start improving. I haven't ironed out all the
> > details, but if I feel the need to implement this, I will.

by **Larr** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:53:35

We also have a larger mixture of varying skill drivers this year. Last year
we were fortunate to have mainly higher-echelon drivers running. This year
there are drivers of all skill levels. Mixing drivers of different skill
levels can't help but create a larger incident rate.

In short, IT AIN'T THAT BAD folks. What we are seeing is what RASCAR was
actually supposed to be. A mixture of racing talents trying to have a good
time on Saturday afternoon. In a way, it has achieved what it was after.

We shouldn't let the tail wag the dog or let a few particularly noisy
incidents invoke unwanted changes.

And, I hate to say this, but I think it _might_ be time to go back to
realistic damage (except for road courses). I don't think moderate damage
is helping this situation. We may see a few more random break-downs, and
they***me off as much as the next guy, but it might just be time to go
back to accepting that.

And like Jan said, we ALL screw-da-pooch every now and then.

Larry

by **Larr** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:53:56

Not really.

-Larry

> On the other hand, it would put more pressure on those who cause the
> accidents as the consequences are even more severe. This could cause a
> learning effect.

> Achim

> ...
> > Plus it really penalizes the guy that gets punted, not necessarily the
> > guy who is at fault.

by **Larr** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:59:59

Agreed... However the major issue with Random Damage prompted us to go to
moderate damage. It seems to have cut way back on the SIM taking people's
valves and ***'s away for no reason. Still happens, but not nearly as
much as it used to.

-Larry

by **Larr** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:02:35

I'm afraid I have to agree with Ed here, thus my earlier recomendation we
just eat the Random Damage and go back to Realistic.

I'm sure I'll get knocked out of races because of it, but I just can't help
but feel things were overall better before the switch.

And that's HARD for me to say because I was a big pro-ponent of the move to
moderate damage.

But, we don't have the same group we had last year. It's grown, and the
skill levels vary considerably now.

-Larry

by **Larr** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:04:40

To be honest, I like the points idea too...

I think the biggest roadblock to that has been the fact that not everyone
can attend every single race. I've missed only two this year, one to a down
internet connection and one to a underestimated home project. I suspect the
only realistic answer to this is "Oh, well", and everyone will miss races so
it will probably balance out anyway :)

Larry

by **Larr** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:08:54

For those of us who have been racing 7+ years, the easy setup would probably
kill us :)

-Larry

by **Joachim Trens** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:11:51

Really?

Achim

> Not really.

> -Larry

> > On the other hand, it would put more pressure on those who cause the
> > accidents as the consequences are even more severe. This could cause a
> > learning effect.

by **Joachim Trens** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:35:48

IMHO yellows as they occur in RASCAR most of the time have little in common
with the tactical factor they pose in real Nascar races, because they occur
so often that you can pretty much do whatever you want in terms of pit
'strategy' - the next yellow will occur so soon that whatever mistake you
make, can be ironed out in no time at all. It doesn't matter much anymore
how you use them, or how the others use them, because there are so many of
them.

But I was only suggesting this as a way to make drivers who have accidents
pay a larger penalty for these accidents, to help motivate them to focus
more on avoiding accidents. And knowing the majority of RASCARs drivers, I
think for this purpose, it would work.

I personally feel, btw, that real strategy is in running a full distance
race without any yellows, with realistic damage, without driving aids,
without getting involved in any accidents, but to finish in the top 5
against quality opponents. During such a race I need, and see, strategy to
my hearts content :-)

Achim

by **Joachim Trens** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:34:58

I usually blame myself for any mechanical failure, but have been wondering
at times whether Papy was trying to have a random factor on purpose, as
you've got a certain amount of 'random' failures in real racing as well.

Achim

by **Brian Oste** » Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:30:51

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:48:21 +0200, "Ed Solheim"

>[Now before some smart ass reply come's up... Use your head dammit! Of

My whole point was *use your head dammit*. I don't need a rule to
tell me that dive bombing under 3 guys at Martinsville on a Restart is
a bad idea and you can probably count the number of times on John's
good fingers the times I have passed someone when a caution comes out
because I am using my head. But if other people can't figure out how
to drive then maybe rules might help...

Having said that, the only people that have to agree on a rule-set are
you, John, Eldred and anybody else that donates their time to make
RASCAR happen. Obviously we will all live by them, I just don't like
artificial *on the track* rules.

Brian

by **Mar** » Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:01:14

> > >I think I should mention that I'm getting tired of trying. I was
> > >willing to help admin this because the only issues we had was keeping
> > >the roster up to date, and posting replays and results.

> > No, we were joking with you because your post didn't contain anything. In
> > other words, the rules you were trying to post never showed up...

> Oh... :-} (sheepish grin)

> Here's the link I omitted:

> http://www.paddedwall.org/rascar2003

Cool.

Mind if I "massage" sections of that to fit V8 Thunder?

Regards,

Mark

by **McWho** » Thu, 31 Jul 2003 01:03:34

My 20th would have been four years ago

Sean

rec.autos.simulators

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing

RASCAR: Quality of Racing