Me neither, but these binary-damaged AI go a bit further and will
actually run *into* ya if you've just made a clean pass. I expect them
to behave (more or less at least) like humans, not rolling chicanes
which move toward you like you weren't there.
Well I can't say I got better as a driver even after I did win several
offline races at Silverstone. The problem is they don't *learn* either:
still all dive toward that one spot like bees on a honeypot in Copse
Corner, making accidents almost inevitable - unless you want to lose
several more places (I usually drop from 1st to 5th or 8th after the
first corner since I rarely dare pass there anymore) or get a perfect
start (a rare occasion for most os us mortals).
It's VERY blind drunk. If they CAN (programmatically) "see you pass" and
not react to it. They DO react correctly to the very same passing
manoeuvre in Chapel Corner and let you by if you are in front, but if
you do the very same thing (correctly) at the start they'll just run
into you. That's just not the way it's supposed to be, that's dumb
programming. If they (the programmers) can get it right in several
corners, there's no real excuse to get it wrong in others.
I don't expect the AI to move over if I'm coming in from behind, but I
don't expect them to run into me when I've passed either.
Well, since I've hyped the AI to run sub-negative times and usually
still win by some margin once I've passed them (PB is 1:28.2), I would
say it's more their kamikaze driving style into Copse that's at fault
here. Their reacting correctly at Chapel (and sometimes Abbey and
Woodcote) proves that the programmers were just plain slacking in
designing the AI on part of this track.
Yes, that's what I'd say afterwards, too. Finally... oh, pure bliss!
I've never used them either. But I'd like to see what happens to *your*
car if you take Abbey just a tad too tight and run part of your left
front wheel over the kerbs. These things are *** - in real life,
they'd be utterly dangerous.
I've got no problem with both fast and slow tracks myself (well..
Mexico's Esses being the exception - yuck), have won against F1 AI on
all of them and am negative on all, but I still think the AI programming
on some tracks is severely lacking in common sense. Since I'm mainly an
offline driver, the Silverstone AI often spoils much of the fun because
they tend to drive like nutters.
Sure, after the start I can wait a few corners, but since J. Clark
nearly always pulls off a perfect start (another AI fault, imho) he's
usually far away once I get past those frontline backmarkers and have to
take crazy risks in the first corners to stay fairly close. I'm not a
kamikaze-type driver, so that's not my idea of fun - I don't think the
real F1 aces drove like kamikazes either.
AI should behave like drivers who want to stay alive or at least finish
the race and on most parts of Silverstone, they don't. And in this case
I blame sloppy AI programming - after all, they did get it right in most
other places.
Regards, Rudy
(GPLRank -21)
...with the significant difference that it's not unheard of for more
than half the field to get past the first corner at Silverstone. ;-)
--
Above address *is* valid - but snip spamtrap to get me to *read*!
Support the world's oldest motorsport venue!
http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html
My objection to the AI that shipped with the game was not that it was dumb.
It seemed about as smart as yer average club racer. But definitely not as
smart as the guys whose names were on the sides of the cars: Clark, Hill,
Gurney, Hulme, Brabham, Surtees, Rindt, et alia.
> >>not taking notice at all that you've just passed them, bumping into you
and
> >>punting you off at every opportunity. And apart from Chapel turning
> >>onto Hangar Straight, were they WILL let you by if you have a good pass,
> >>they usually drive like blind drunks.
> > I think the term "aggressive" comes to mind here. AI is certainly not as
> > courteous as online.
> Yep, in this case it's more like they drive like zombies on acid. Read:
> dumb programming.
> > I'm not looking for opponents to pull over for me and worship the ground
I
> > drive on.
> Me neither, but these binary-damaged AI go a bit further and will
> actually run *into* ya if you've just made a clean pass. I expect them
> to behave (more or less at least) like humans, not rolling chicanes
> which move toward you like you weren't there.
> > I say respectable because that is the type of challenge I prefer. The
harder
> > it is the better you get as a driver.
> Well I can't say I got better as a driver even after I did win several
> offline races at Silverstone. The problem is they don't *learn* either:
> still all dive toward that one spot like bees on a honeypot in Copse
> Corner, making accidents almost inevitable - unless you want to lose
> several more places (I usually drop from 1st to 5th or 8th after the
> first corner since I rarely dare pass there anymore) or get a perfect
> start (a rare occasion for most os us mortals).
> > It's not blind drunk ...its challenging. ..the way it should be.
> It's VERY blind drunk. If they CAN (programmatically) "see you pass" and
> not react to it. They DO react correctly to the very same passing
> manoeuvre in Chapel Corner and let you by if you are in front, but if
> you do the very same thing (correctly) at the start they'll just run
> into you. That's just not the way it's supposed to be, that's dumb
> programming. If they (the programmers) can get it right in several
> corners, there's no real excuse to get it wrong in others.
> I don't expect the AI to move over if I'm coming in from behind, but I
> don't expect them to run into me when I've passed either.
> > I find the late brakes AI displays is telling you to stay the hell out
of
> > the way slow poke!
> Well, since I've hyped the AI to run sub-negative times and usually
> still win by some margin once I've passed them (PB is 1:28.2), I would
> say it's more their kamikaze driving style into Copse that's at fault
> here. Their reacting correctly at Chapel (and sometimes Abbey and
> Woodcote) proves that the programmers were just plain slacking in
> designing the AI on part of this track.
> >>If I could give the Silverstone AI's designer at Papy an enormous and
> >>painful kick in the rear, I'd do it with utter joy. I'm not kidding.
> > *sigh*
> Yes, that's what I'd say afterwards, too. Finally... oh, pure bliss!
> >>one slight touch and you fly into the scenery at 120 mph; wonder if they
> >>were like that in real life.
> > Funny, I dont have this problem...and I use no aids.
> I've never used them either. But I'd like to see what happens to *your*
> car if you take Abbey just a tad too tight and run part of your left
> front wheel over the kerbs. These things are *** - in real life,
> they'd be utterly dangerous.
> >>>Does it get any better? ;-)
> >>Yes - at Zandvoort ;)
> > I myself, do not like sharp curves and hairpins. It seems too taxing on
the
> > car and the driver to have to constantly
> > accelerate from a practical standstill all the time. Progressive corners
are
> > nice as they seem to just catapult the g's out of the turns.
> > Silver does that for me...as does Monza.
> I've got no problem with both fast and slow tracks myself (well..
> Mexico's Esses being the exception - yuck), have won against F1 AI on
> all of them and am negative on all, but I still think the AI programming
> on some tracks is severely lacking in common sense. Since I'm mainly an
> offline driver, the Silverstone AI often spoils much of the fun because
> they tend to drive like nutters.
> Sure, after the start I can wait a few corners, but since J. Clark
> nearly always pulls off a perfect start (another AI fault, imho) he's
> usually far away once I get past those frontline backmarkers and have to
> take crazy risks in the first corners to stay fairly close. I'm not a
> kamikaze-type driver, so that's not my idea of fun - I don't think the
> real F1 aces drove like kamikazes either.
> AI should behave like drivers who want to stay alive or at least finish
> the race and on most parts of Silverstone, they don't. And in this case
> I blame sloppy AI programming - after all, they did get it right in most
> other places.
> Regards, Rudy
> (GPLRank -21)
> > Absolutely. Silverstone is right up there with Monza as an online
> > delight!
> ...with the significant difference that it's not unheard of for more
> than half the field to get past the first corner at Silverstone. ;-)
> --
> Above address *is* valid - but snip spamtrap to get me to *read*!
> Support the world's oldest motorsport venue!
> http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html
It was mentioned in FWD, but after a while I couldn't say I noticed them
stalking me at my weak points. (On the other hand, GPL usually gives you
plenty of sweaty palms already!)
Other funny thing: the Ferrari isn't mentioned in the manual due to
licensing issues. But there is a HUGE big Ferrari on the cover of the
box and the manuals! ;)
And another funny thing I noticed recently: the Lotus seems to have
really whopping big wide rear tyres compared to, say, the Cooper or
Ferrari, which are about as wide as their front ***s. It also seems
to have more rear-end grip - wonder if these tyre differences were there
in real life, too.
(And did Jack B. ever get to drive the betas?)
Hmm, I'd say it was as smart as most club racers in most places, but a
lot dumber in others, and indeed certainly not up to Clark standards,
but that would've been a bit much to expect. Nevertheless, even yer
average club racer would usually not steer right into you after you've
just put your car almost completely in front of them.
It's my pet hate in GPL. I've never, never understood why they didn't
implement a simple "if the AI car gets closer than 5 inches to yours,
have him steer away from your car, and/or possibly back off slightly."
That's what a real life driver would mostly do, and it doesn't seem all
that difficult to develop - after all, the AI doesn't contend with
accurate physics anyway. That said, there are corners (like Chapel or
Hugenholtz hairpin) where the AI will correctly let you by if you make a
good pass. (Which makes it all the more sad that after a few races in
NR2002 I sadly noticed that the AI basically still had the same problems
on road courses!)
Regards, Rudy
(GPLRank -21)
BTW I like Silverstone; it's the second track I managed to go negative.
(I also like women who tell me how good looking I am.) And if I could
learn how to take all the corners in GPL as well as I take the second
turn at Silverstone, I'd be an Alien. T1 is still a challenge for me.
Jim
No RW F1 pilot ever drove the beta. I tried to hook Papy up with Gurney,
with whom I've been friends since the Sixties, but Papy was diffident (to
put it mildly) and Dan begged off, saying he never was any good at
simulations. His son Alex drives sims, but by the time I found out about
that, the game was shrink-wrapped.
Papy could have made the AI more responsive...but only at the expense of CPU
cycles, and they were reluctant to borrow from the first-person driving
experience to improve the AI's etiquette. Besides, they knew the best GPL
could get would be online.
As to tires, unlike today, when the only difference among them is the shape
of the shoulder (and some wear-specific compound secrets), in '67 there was
enormous difference between the teams' choices, and yes, the Lotus really
did have huge rear tires compared to the others (in part to take advantage
of a greater rear-weight bias). The contact patch area is fully modeled in
the physics, AFAIK.
> > Of all the features from the original "design document" that *didn't*
make
> > it into GPL, the one I regret the most was "smart" AI. No, not the
infamous
> > "hype" scaling (where the AI just kept getting faster every time you
reeled
> > off a lucky lap), I mean AI that got better and better the more laps
they
> > did. The scariest was when they'd follow you for several laps and
analyze
> > where you were weakest (i.e., slowest), then put a move on you the next
lap.
> Hey yes, that's what I've (more subconsciously than otherwise) been
> wondering about as well.
> It was mentioned in FWD, but after a while I couldn't say I noticed them
> stalking me at my weak points. (On the other hand, GPL usually gives you
> plenty of sweaty palms already!)
> Other funny thing: the Ferrari isn't mentioned in the manual due to
> licensing issues. But there is a HUGE big Ferrari on the cover of the
> box and the manuals! ;)
> And another funny thing I noticed recently: the Lotus seems to have
> really whopping big wide rear tyres compared to, say, the Cooper or
> Ferrari, which are about as wide as their front ***s. It also seems
> to have more rear-end grip - wonder if these tyre differences were there
> in real life, too.
> (And did Jack B. ever get to drive the betas?)
> > My objection to the AI that shipped with the game was not that it was
dumb.
> > It seemed about as smart as yer average club racer. But definitely not
as
> > smart as the guys whose names were on the sides of the cars: Clark,
Hill,
> > Gurney, Hulme, Brabham, Surtees, Rindt, et alia.
> Hmm, I'd say it was as smart as most club racers in most places, but a
> lot dumber in others, and indeed certainly not up to Clark standards,
> but that would've been a bit much to expect. Nevertheless, even yer
> average club racer would usually not steer right into you after you've
> just put your car almost completely in front of them.
> It's my pet hate in GPL. I've never, never understood why they didn't
> implement a simple "if the AI car gets closer than 5 inches to yours,
> have him steer away from your car, and/or possibly back off slightly."
> That's what a real life driver would mostly do, and it doesn't seem all
> that difficult to develop - after all, the AI doesn't contend with
> accurate physics anyway. That said, there are corners (like Chapel or
> Hugenholtz hairpin) where the AI will correctly let you by if you make a
> good pass. (Which makes it all the more sad that after a few races in
> NR2002 I sadly noticed that the AI basically still had the same problems
> on road courses!)
> Regards, Rudy
> (GPLRank -21)
Too bad though, would've been nice. A GPL Eagle track test by Dan Gurney
would still be somewhat of a non plus ultra.
A few weeks ago it was noticed that Emerson Fittipaldi had been doing
some GPL'ing in the evening (in a Hyperstim I think), and in the morning
came back to do some more! (The ultimate racing junkie, perhaps? I
mean, doing GPL after being F1 World Champion seems kinda Iggy Pop, who
can't stop rockin' either! :)
The only other RW F1 pilot of the era that has been confirmed to drive
GPL was Surtees, afaik.
That said, I wonder how much car characteristics in GPL were there in
real life that real life F1 racers could confirm - was the Eagle indeed
pretty good in fast sweeps, the Lotus and Ferrari great midrange
accelerators, the BRM a tank but fairly easy, the Brabham light and
pretty twitchy...
Ok, from a tech point of view I can understand that. (Nevertheless, it
still seems a bit 'off' when the AI reacts one way (the right way) in
one corner and then completely different in others.)
It seems so. In my experience, the Brab and Ferrari, which have pretty
slim rear tyres (tires ;) seem rather 'slidey' in the rear end, while
the Lotus seems to stick it's rear end to the track (until it breaks
loose, at which time it reacts relatively snappy), and accelerates
accordingly.
Regards, Rudy
(GPLRank -21)
--
See ya in the pits,
Dean
I have a terrible memory. In fact my memory's so bad I can't remember how
long it's been since I've forgotten anything.
> No RW F1 pilot ever drove the beta. I tried to hook Papy up with Gurney,
> with whom I've been friends since the Sixties, but Papy was diffident (to
> put it mildly) and Dan begged off, saying he never was any good at
> simulations. His son Alex drives sims, but by the time I found out about
> that, the game was shrink-wrapped.
> Papy could have made the AI more responsive...but only at the expense of
CPU
> cycles, and they were reluctant to borrow from the first-person driving
> experience to improve the AI's etiquette. Besides, they knew the best GPL
> could get would be online.
> As to tires, unlike today, when the only difference among them is the
shape
> of the shoulder (and some wear-specific compound secrets), in '67 there
was
> enormous difference between the teams' choices, and yes, the Lotus really
> did have huge rear tires compared to the others (in part to take advantage
> of a greater rear-weight bias). The contact patch area is fully modeled
in
> the physics, AFAIK.
> > > Of all the features from the original "design document" that *didn't*
> make
> > > it into GPL, the one I regret the most was "smart" AI. No, not the
> infamous
> > > "hype" scaling (where the AI just kept getting faster every time you
> reeled
> > > off a lucky lap), I mean AI that got better and better the more laps
> they
> > > did. The scariest was when they'd follow you for several laps and
> analyze
> > > where you were weakest (i.e., slowest), then put a move on you the
next
> lap.
> > Hey yes, that's what I've (more subconsciously than otherwise) been
> > wondering about as well.
> > It was mentioned in FWD, but after a while I couldn't say I noticed them
> > stalking me at my weak points. (On the other hand, GPL usually gives you
> > plenty of sweaty palms already!)
> > Other funny thing: the Ferrari isn't mentioned in the manual due to
> > licensing issues. But there is a HUGE big Ferrari on the cover of the
> > box and the manuals! ;)
> > And another funny thing I noticed recently: the Lotus seems to have
> > really whopping big wide rear tyres compared to, say, the Cooper or
> > Ferrari, which are about as wide as their front ***s. It also seems
> > to have more rear-end grip - wonder if these tyre differences were there
> > in real life, too.
> > (And did Jack B. ever get to drive the betas?)
> > > My objection to the AI that shipped with the game was not that it was
> dumb.
> > > It seemed about as smart as yer average club racer. But definitely
not
> as
> > > smart as the guys whose names were on the sides of the cars: Clark,
> Hill,
> > > Gurney, Hulme, Brabham, Surtees, Rindt, et alia.
> > Hmm, I'd say it was as smart as most club racers in most places, but a
> > lot dumber in others, and indeed certainly not up to Clark standards,
> > but that would've been a bit much to expect. Nevertheless, even yer
> > average club racer would usually not steer right into you after you've
> > just put your car almost completely in front of them.
> > It's my pet hate in GPL. I've never, never understood why they didn't
> > implement a simple "if the AI car gets closer than 5 inches to yours,
> > have him steer away from your car, and/or possibly back off slightly."
> > That's what a real life driver would mostly do, and it doesn't seem all
> > that difficult to develop - after all, the AI doesn't contend with
> > accurate physics anyway. That said, there are corners (like Chapel or
> > Hugenholtz hairpin) where the AI will correctly let you by if you make a
> > good pass. (Which makes it all the more sad that after a few races in
> > NR2002 I sadly noticed that the AI basically still had the same problems
> > on road courses!)
> > Regards, Rudy
> > (GPLRank -21)
> > I included Ferrari in the original copy for the strategy guide, but
every
> > word written abt. Ferrari had to be vetted by Ferrari, and as the copy
was
> > overdue at the printer's, Papy took the easy way out and simply deleted
> > every reference to car.
> Hmmm... Then I take it the Ferrari cover picture had already been agreed
> upon? Otherwise, it's still a bit of a mystery, isn't it ;)
> > No RW F1 pilot ever drove the beta. I tried to hook Papy up with
Gurney,
> > with whom I've been friends since the Sixties, but Papy was diffident
(to
> > put it mildly) and Dan begged off, saying he never was any good at
> > simulations.
> Too bad though, would've been nice. A GPL Eagle track test by Dan Gurney
> would still be somewhat of a non plus ultra.
> A few weeks ago it was noticed that Emerson Fittipaldi had been doing
> some GPL'ing in the evening (in a Hyperstim I think), and in the morning
> came back to do some more! (The ultimate racing junkie, perhaps? I
> mean, doing GPL after being F1 World Champion seems kinda Iggy Pop, who
> can't stop rockin' either! :)
> The only other RW F1 pilot of the era that has been confirmed to drive
> GPL was Surtees, afaik.
> That said, I wonder how much car characteristics in GPL were there in
> real life that real life F1 racers could confirm - was the Eagle indeed
> pretty good in fast sweeps, the Lotus and Ferrari great midrange
> accelerators, the BRM a tank but fairly easy, the Brabham light and
> pretty twitchy...
> > Papy could have made the AI more responsive...but only at the expense of
CPU
> > cycles, and they were reluctant to borrow from the first-person driving
> > experience to improve the AI's etiquette. Besides, they knew the best
GPL
> > could get would be online.
> Ok, from a tech point of view I can understand that. (Nevertheless, it
> still seems a bit 'off' when the AI reacts one way (the right way) in
> one corner and then completely different in others.)
> > enormous difference between the teams' choices, and yes, the Lotus
really
> > did have huge rear tires compared to the others (in part to take
advantage
> > of a greater rear-weight bias). The contact patch area is fully modeled
in
> > the physics, AFAIK.
> It seems so. In my experience, the Brab and Ferrari, which have pretty
> slim rear tyres (tires ;) seem rather 'slidey' in the rear end, while
> the Lotus seems to stick it's rear end to the track (until it breaks
> loose, at which time it reacts relatively snappy), and accelerates
> accordingly.
> Regards, Rudy
> (GPLRank -21)
Unless Carroll Shelby's around. Then, it doesn't work for Ferrari.
Ferrari's just mad because an American whooped their ass at LeMans, not
once, but MANY times.
LOL
> BTW I like Silverstone; it's the second track I managed to go negative.
> (I also like women who tell me how good looking I am.) And if I could
> learn how to take all the corners in GPL as well as I take the second
> turn at Silverstone, I'd be an Alien. T1 is still a challenge for me.
> Jim
> >No undrivable slippery sections...nice sweeping curves with short, but
quick
> >straights. An all around fun track to drive...and the AI is respectable
too.
> >I can almost feel the wind. I'm thinking of placing a fan in front of me
> >while I drive. Force Feed back and the feel of circulating air .. and
GPL.
> >Does it get any better? ;-)
> > This whole thread has been very enjoyable to read. Thanks, group!
> > Thanks, Rich, for getting it started.
> > BTW I like Silverstone; it's the second track I managed to go negative.
> > (I also like women who tell me how good looking I am.) And if I could
> > learn how to take all the corners in GPL as well as I take the second
> > turn at Silverstone, I'd be an Alien. T1 is still a challenge for me.
> > Jim
> > >No undrivable slippery sections...nice sweeping curves with short, but
> quick
> > >straights. An all around fun track to drive...and the AI is respectable
> too.
> > >I can almost feel the wind. I'm thinking of placing a fan in front of
me
> > >while I drive. Force Feed back and the feel of circulating air .. and
> GPL.
> > >Does it get any better? ;-)
Regards, Rudy
(GPLRank -21)