rec.autos.simulators

Eric responded saying that there was no way possible to verify the
laps as no setup data was saved within the replay, and no version
number is recorded.

I was fearing the worst possible ramifications in the hotlapping
competitions....would we see a return of the cheaters...just like
cheaters had ruined most GP2 hotlap comps with slo-mo driving....would
the same happen with the gpl hotlaps comps because of ppl running 2
versions of gpl. One for low-rider hotlapping, one for "realisitc"
on-line racing...

But GPLDump is to the rescue!!!

With GPLDump u can compare 2 laps...and more importantly, the dynamic
ride height from 2 different replays. And there is a significant
difference in the graphs :)))

So cheaters...beware...we can tell who's been *** and nice ;)

To papyrus, I am very disappointed in your inability to provide hotlap
verifiers. Hotlapping is an important part of sim racing. (Even if
it's a little arcade).

You gotta wonder when these developers will start listening properly
to their prospective audiences...

Maybe I should apply for the tester job? I seem to pick up more bugs
than them...

Ian Lake

/\ Inventor of the low-rider, and happy to see the new ride height /\

An excellent point. I'll see if I can add that to the future features list
of GPaL, as well.

Jack Rambo

www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

You asked:
"A tool is required for hotlappers and hotlap board administrators,
that reports the version of gpl, or the setups static ride heights
from the replay, otherwise hotlap boards will become a farce.  Is
there any plans for this kind of tool?"

As a direct response:
"I'm not sure that one could be made that would be of any real benefit
to anyone.  You could still load an old replay from version 1.0.0.0
and clip out a fast lap in version 1.1.0.3.  In this case even though
the lap was done in an earlier version, the replay would be from
1.1.0.3.  I don't think the replay has any setup information saved in
it.  Like the potential use of hex edited setups, I think you're just
going to have to rely on the integrity of the drivers to submit valid
1.1.0.3 hot laps."

That's not to say a replay validator couldn't be made, just that one
with the criteria you gave (i.e. one that checks the replay for a
version number or checks the car's static ride height) didn't seem
like it would work on first inspection.

Eric

Now look what you have done Ian, another month before we get our hands
on GPaL!

MikeT.

--

   22:51  on  06/09/99
   From sunny Herne Bay, Kent.UK.
   mailable also at

   remove NO-SPAM to mail me.

At the time I wrote the email to you, I didn't know GPLDump would be
useful. Thus the only thing to tell the difference in hotlaps, that I
could think of, where the static ride height of a setup or a version
number, if they where saved in the replay. As you indicated they
aren't.

Maybe I should have asked weather there was anything else in the
replay that might indicate static ride height, and i'm sorry I didn't
ask that, as you may have suggested dynamic ride height on prompting.

At that time, you didn't indicated that there wasn't a way possible to
verify hotlaps, and that we "have to rely on the integrity of the
drivers to submit valid 1.1.0.3 hot laps".

I still believe this is a very poor stance to take on such an issue.
For many years now there has always been discussions on the need for
hotlap verifyers to stop cheaters, yet it still seemed that the
developers
failed to listen....

Certainly not your fault Eric. It's a design issue that should be
sorted out when developing a sim, that certain data should be retained
in a replay that will verify a hotlap. And that a verify will be
supplied when
the sim is shipped.

The only tools available today, are those freely developed, and thus
only available months after the sim is released, Hof2Lap for GP2, and
now GPLDump for gpl. They are in no means perfect, and even the
GP2 verifier only just got support for detecting slo-mo drivers.

As you have indicated a replay validator could be viable using the
car's dynamic ride height (as I have found using GPLDump last night).
Does this mean we will recieve such a tool with the patch or soon
after?

I'm not sure if it's required because GPL Dump does a competent job
letting us see who is trying to cheat. It would still be handy if
there was a tool that verified a lap simply and easily, instead of
having to
compare graphs.

The last question I have is to ask weather future papy sims will
contain a hotlap verifyer?

I'm also sorry if it sounded like I was attacking papy or you in my
previous post, it was not intended to be taken that way. I just want
the software developers to listen to ppl's requirements.

Your doing a great job at papy, and papy is the only developer that
listens well to their audience, it's just sad when they overlook some
obvious issues.

Thanks,
Ian Lake

I don't know of any sim that contains such a thing, and indeed I
remember when the old IVGA developed such a thing there were howls of
protest over people's setups being stolen. A part of the checking
process the verifier must obviously check for illegal setup settings,
and therefore must be able to read the setup used - that is perhaps
not what everyone wants.

That's the practicality, then too there is the small issue of reality
- as a percentage of total sales how many hotlappers do you think
there are? And how many hotlappers are there who care about such a
thing? Why detract from other parts of the sim by spending time on a
verifier when it addresses <1% of the people who bought the game?

I woud agree that my own feelings on hotlapping are perhaps a touch
harsh since I see it as an artificial and meaningless benchmark (if it
is a benchmark at all) since it tends towards benchmarking who spends
most time with the sim rather than who is really the best driver.
However, when I did do some hotlapping on CompuServe SPRTSIMS the main
thing I enjoyed was the trust - you submitted a lap and it was
accepted. If you put rules and verifiers it then becomes a competition
of who can find the best loophole in the rules or method of cheating
the rules - as happened with many IVGA laps, people trying to cheat
the checking system simply because it was there.

Cheers!
John

  If a replay was imported from 1.0 to 1.1 and then clipped or not,
would the lower ride height indeed be detectable in 1.1. I know setups
will auto adjust to 2.5 ride height and wonder if the 1.1 replays might
display this 2.5 ride height for a setup that was 1.0 ride height?

I doubt that, since the replay file stores the values as they were
when the 'live' racing was going on. When you take a clip from a
replay file, it doesn't calculate all the graphics and values for
each frame again, it just modifies the headers to tell this replay
starts here and includes that many frames (AFAIK).

 -Juha

--

By 'adequate' I mean that the implementation is good enough so that
cheaters won't bother. The replay file doesn't need to be RSA
encrypted and signed with a digital signature, just a few bytes telling:
1) the version of the program that saved the replay
2) if the replay was originally generated with this version or not

Well, you might argue that cheaters will bother anyway. Maybe,
but I doubt it, and it'll keep 99% of them away.

The idea of the implementation is simplicity. It shouldn't detract
from other parts of the game. It's 20 lines of code. Trivial to
implement, easy to test. The verifier itself could even be made
by the hotlap community. The information just needs to be in the
replay file. When looking at the problem from this perspective
it kind of feels strange why there should be so much resistance
for a solution like this.

----------------

Ok, with that out of the way we can get into arguing about
opinions. The reason why usenet was invented anyway ;)

If Sergei Bubka (famous WR pole-vaulter) makes a new WR just
because he practiced harder than anyone else (which he probably
does), do you consider his effort as a meaningless benchmark
for others? Just because he pratices more doesn't mean his
result isn't commendable. Other people might practice a lifetime
and never achieve the same result. The reason he practices
much in the first place is probably because he knows he's an
excellent pole-vaulter.

Same goes for hotlapping. The people who drive those fast laps
are all good race drivers. We challenge ourselves and our
'competitors' for the toughest trophy, the no. 1 position.
It requires a will to practice and a will to beat records.
And it requires skill. It's not simply 'drive around
Silverstone for 1000 hours and you'll be unbeatable'.
Also if someone does practice for 1000 hours and does
as good as the guy who only bothered to pratice for
1 hour I consider both of them equally good drivers.
Put them head to head in a race and they will both
battle for gold, and in the end that's all that matters.

-----------------

And since I'm in a typing mood I'll include a special bonus,
free of charge, just for today, where i'll try to explain
for non-hotlapping GPLers why this cheat protection would
be nice.

Imagine GPL 1.1 online servers would allow GPL 1.0 clients
to connect to them, with lowrider setups. Would you want
to race around in your ultra-realistic 2.5" ride height
when others would be whizzing past in their 1.0 low-riders
and claim victory and that they were driving 'legally'.

Then we might just as well all race online with the
1.0 version and forget 1.1. Or do we have the people
just trust each other not to use 1.0? Put 'Only 1.1
GPL players here' in out VROC message and cross our
fingers that the hothead cheaters will keep out?

Regards,
  Casper

IMO, if you need a special setup to be the fastest, you're not really
the fastest :o).

/Christer

Im not sure it goes this way...

The client/server side of the GPL replay system is much more complex than
that.  Per example, I remember seeing different wheel and suspension effects
between the same replay I had, but with a different *.TRK.

In those two replays (one had some weird stuff on the backstretch of a
track), you saw the GPL car act different on the same replay in terms of
suspension.  So from what I speculate... (the GPLDump helps here also)

1) The replay contains essential data.  I guess two ways to be done (data
position each 1/36th or transfer position for each 1/36th of a second).  Not
sure but the second is the correct one.

2) The client side of the replay system calculated the suspension movement,
engine torque, chassis torque, etc..  from the data it has from the server
and also the track data.  Some little change like the banking of a track.dat
(not a big change, just adding banking on a oval track or a bump on a
straight) will make the replay still compatible.

Of course I might be totally wrong here.  But I guess and hope it uses the
way I did, since it means less Hard Disk and a much better compression of
the replays, at the expense of more Processor power (client has to do much
more tasks).  It's the same analogy as a .WAV file compared to a .MP3.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- May the Downforce be with you...

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The original poster's worry was, that for example the ride height
would alter if someone saved a GPL 1.0 replay with GPL 1.1.

It most likely is like you said, that the replay file contains the
'essential' data only and then the fancy stuff like suspension
movement is calculated based on that data. Ride height is part
of that essential data and the car's movement would change in the
replay if you added a small bump into the middle of a straight
in the .trk file, since it says in the replay file, that at this
position of the track there should be X amount of ride height.

 -Juha

--