rec.autos.simulators

by **Txl** » Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:00:00

Hello,

The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it.

But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and
made more fair.

What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as
10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more to
win at the ring than in Monza.

So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would be
the calculation.

If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540 seconds
and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then instead of
making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a
percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth around
88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats 86
and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97).

Discussion opened

by **Colin Harri** » Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:00:00

Why not leave it up to the guy who took the time to make it? No one puts a
gun to anyone's head and forces them to join....

--
Colin Harris
ColinHarris in N3/NL & VROC
Remove "your knickers" to reply

> Hello,

> The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it.

> But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and
> made more fair.

> What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as
> 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more
to
> win at the ring than in Monza.

> So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would be
> the calculation.

> If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540
seconds
> and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then instead
of
> making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a
> percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth
around
> 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats 86
> and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97).

> Discussion opened

by **Ace** » Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:00:00

NO NO NO NO NO!!!
and NO again!!!

Have you read the GPLRank FAQ? It explains there exactly why the system is
as it is. Why do people think the Nurburgring is so ***y *different*? So
what if it's a long lap? There is plenty of time to be made up there( by
some), because it takes a while to learn, and until you know the circuit,
it'll be difficult to go quickly. Come to think of it though, it's difficult
to be quick anywhere if you don't know the track, the 'Ring just takes
longer to learn.
Once you start doing good laps at the 'ring, you'll find that squeezing out
an extra second there can be just as hard, if not harder than Monza, because
the whole lap is very intense. Secondly, it's also easier to *loose* time at
the Nurburgring, because there are *so* many places to get it wrong (and in
a big way).
I sincerely hope GPLRank stays the way it is, which is the most logical and
sensible way to do it.
IMHO, people should spend less time complaining, and spend that time working
on their lap-times. Discussion closed.
--
-Ace-

> Hello,

> The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it.

> But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and
> made more fair.

> What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as
> 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more
to
> win at the ring than in Monza.

> So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would be
> the calculation.

> If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540
seconds
> and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then instead
of
> making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a
> percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth
around
> 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats 86
> and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97).

> Discussion opened

by **Dan Kap** » Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:00:00

Colin,

I imagine the creators LIKE hearing suggestions from users about how the
program could be made better in thier eyes. It was, after all, written for
everyone's enjoyment.

Some food for thought....When you open your own software company and tell
your users who make suggestions: "I didn't put a gun to your head...", don't
make any long-term plans.

> Why not leave it up to the guy who took the time to make it? No one puts a
> gun to anyone's head and forces them to join....

> --
> Colin Harris
> ColinHarris in N3/NL & VROC
> Remove "your knickers" to reply

> > Hello,

> > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it.

> > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and
> > made more fair.

> > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza
as
> > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more
> to
> > win at the ring than in Monza.

> > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would
be
> > the calculation.

> > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540
> seconds
> > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then
instead
> of
> > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a
> > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth
> around
> > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats
86
> > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97).

> > Discussion opened

by **Colin Harri** » Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:00:00

It's there plainly for all to see in the FAQ. I have to agree with Ace
earlier in the thread. Uwe did this out of pleasure. Not a penny did he make
on it, and we should surely just accept how he designed it on such an issue.
In an earlier thread I actually suggested a change, before someone says
anything, but not something as fundamental as the setup of the rating. To
me, someone saying that Uwe should have done to the very heart of the Rank
in a different way smacks of ungratitude.
Critics, much like eunuchs, can watch it, but can't do it.

I have no plans to open a software company.

--
Colin Harris
ColinHarris in N3/NL & VROC
Remove "your knickers" to reply

> Colin,

> I imagine the creators LIKE hearing suggestions from users about how
the
> program could be made better in thier eyes. It was, after all, written
for
> everyone's enjoyment.

> Some food for thought....When you open your own software company and tell
> your users who make suggestions: "I didn't put a gun to your head...",
don't
> make any long-term plans.

> > Why not leave it up to the guy who took the time to make it? No one puts
a
> > gun to anyone's head and forces them to join....

> > --
> > Colin Harris
> > ColinHarris in N3/NL & VROC
> > Remove "your knickers" to reply

- Show quoted text -

by **Jan Verschuere** » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00

Well said Ace... seconded.

Jan.
=---

by **Phil Le** » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00

I agree as well.

Cheers

Phil

--
F1 GPL Handicap: +66.44 secs
F2 GPL Handicap: +159.57 secs

St Eldred's Cup: -4.01 secs

http://www.youpies.co.uk

by **rik anthra** » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00

Nope.
I worked my ASS off getting my ring time down.....and my handicap.
You have the same opportunity.
This discussion is now ended.
Rik

> Hello,

> The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it.

> But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and
> made more fair.

> What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as
> 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more
to
> win at the ring than in Monza.

> So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would be
> the calculation.

> If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540
seconds
> and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then instead
of
> making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a
> percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth
around
> 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats 86
> and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97).

> Discussion opened

by **Michael Youn** » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00

It's not an altogether bad idea, although I disagree with the original
premise. Percent of lap-time is meaningful when comparing against another
driver's times. I'm OK with the handicap system as it stands; I just want
another column to glare at when I compare my laptimes one-on-one against
another driver.

A yardstick is a yardstick. I'm OK with having my --- ummmh--- inseam
measuring what it measures. Some swear that girth counts more, for whatever
that's worth. For me, the doing is what matters, and as they say, inseam is
secondary to effectiveness. My game shines best when counting finishes in GP
length events. Everything else is just practice; hot-lapping an empty track
doesn't cut it for me, if you get my drift.

Michael.

> Nope.
> I worked my ASS off getting my ring time down.....and my handicap.
> You have the same opportunity.
> This discussion is now ended.
> Rik

> > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza
as
> > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more
> to
> > win at the ring than in Monza.

by **Txl** » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00

In the lastweeks I remember seeing a long post here about "are the GPL
people intolerant", well i think I've just woken up some of the best
specimen here.

Let me put this straight.

1) I am not complaining, just expressing my point of vue, is that allowed ?
2) I have the feeling that you can improve and already very good product so
I think I can HELP Uwe
3) On a more logical considertation the only flaw I see in the GPL rank as
it is now is that it is more a NURBURG+SPA rank that a GLOBAL GPL rank,
don"t bother about watkins glen, even if you lose 3 secs here make them up
elsewhere, that's not the way it's supposed to be.

I think GPL rank should be the OVERALL way of ranking us, not a SPECIFIC way
on long tracks.

On the other hand it forces people to play the Ring which was mostly ignored
before by users, but maybe making the 2 classifications would be acceptable.

I am ready to get flamed, no need to send me mails saying "NO WAY, I WORKED
HARD AT THE RING . JUST DO THE SAME . DISCUSSION CLOSED", that sounds
childlish to me.

by **Piotr O.** » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00

I agree percentage system would be more fair......

Gpl rank -44,45
Richie ( Piotr O. )

Icq 7510765
http://gpl.pulse.pdi.net
http://oj.gad.pl

by **Txl** » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00

If you love the rign so much for its difference than why don't you measure
your best timle in monza.....on 6 laps instead on 1, you would have to be
concentrated for about the the same time as for a ring lap...

But I see your point, I am just expressing an IDEA

> NO NO NO NO NO!!!
> and NO again!!!

> Have you read the GPLRank FAQ? It explains there exactly why the system is
> as it is. Why do people think the Nurburgring is so ***y *different*? So
> what if it's a long lap? There is plenty of time to be made up there( by
> some), because it takes a while to learn, and until you know the circuit,
> it'll be difficult to go quickly. Come to think of it though, it's
difficult
> to be quick anywhere if you don't know the track, the 'Ring just takes
> longer to learn.
> Once you start doing good laps at the 'ring, you'll find that squeezing
out
> an extra second there can be just as hard, if not harder than Monza,
because
> the whole lap is very intense. Secondly, it's also easier to *loose* time
at
> the Nurburgring, because there are *so* many places to get it wrong (and
in
> a big way).
> I sincerely hope GPLRank stays the way it is, which is the most logical
and
> sensible way to do it.
> IMHO, people should spend less time complaining, and spend that time
working
> on their lap-times. Discussion closed.
> --
> -Ace-

> > Hello,

> > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it.

> > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and
> > made more fair.

> > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza
as
> > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more
> to
> > win at the ring than in Monza.

> > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would
be
> > the calculation.

> > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540
> seconds
> > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then
instead
> of
> > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a
> > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth
> around
> > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats
86
> > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97).

> > Discussion opened

by **Jim Dombrowsk** » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00

>considertation the only flaw I see in the GPL rank as
>it is now is that it is more a NURBURG+SPA rank that a GLOBAL GPL

rank,.....

Why don't you just start your own GPL rank and only include the tracks your
good at? You want to discredit the ring and spa because you don't do well
there. Admit it. I'm sure you wouldn't be saying this stuff if you had spent
the time others have at those tracks.
What if there was a simple 3/4 mile oval in the circuit? Would you think
that should be treated equally to the Ring as well? Your half second
advantage there should be equal to someone else's 5 or 10 second lead at the
Ring or Spa?
I suggested before that GPL rank would allow users to just select or
unselect the tracks they want or don't want in the handicap calculations.
Also be able to get the handicaps only under certain chassis. That way I
can eliminate all the Monza lovin Lotus drivers and you can see how you
would stand if the Ring and Spa weren't included. But that would just be for
dreaming. In the big picture , every mile of all tracks need to be included
equally to see the overall abilities of the driver.
These were just suggestions however and not complaints about anything
about GPL rank. I'm happy with what it is. I wouldn't dare say it has flaws
just because it doesn't suit my tastes or complain about something that I
didn't have to pay for. Something someone else put together on their own
time and is basicly a gift to the GPL community. That would be the
definition of childish.

Jim D.

by **Txl** » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00

ok, sorry for even thinking that I could have a reasonable discussion here,
I won't do it again, I promise.....

Hey guys, do you know that somebody is talking about PIRATE games in earlier
posts, it's BAAAAAAAAAD

> >considertation the only flaw I see in the GPL rank as
> >it is now is that it is more a NURBURG+SPA rank that a GLOBAL GPL
> rank,.....

> >I am ready to get flamed, no need to send me mails saying "NO WAY, I
WORKED
> >HARD AT THE RING . JUST DO THE SAME . DISCUSSION CLOSED", that sounds
> >childlish to me.

> Why don't you just start your own GPL rank and only include the tracks
your
> good at? You want to discredit the ring and spa because you don't do well
> there. Admit it. I'm sure you wouldn't be saying this stuff if you had
spent
> the time others have at those tracks.
> What if there was a simple 3/4 mile oval in the circuit? Would you
think
> that should be treated equally to the Ring as well? Your half second
> advantage there should be equal to someone else's 5 or 10 second lead at
the
> Ring or Spa?
> I suggested before that GPL rank would allow users to just select or
> unselect the tracks they want or don't want in the handicap calculations.
> Also be able to get the handicaps only under certain chassis. That way I
> can eliminate all the Monza lovin Lotus drivers and you can see how you
> would stand if the Ring and Spa weren't included. But that would just be
for
> dreaming. In the big picture , every mile of all tracks need to be
included
> equally to see the overall abilities of the driver.
> These were just suggestions however and not complaints about anything
> about GPL rank. I'm happy with what it is. I wouldn't dare say it has
flaws
> just because it doesn't suit my tastes or complain about something that I
> didn't have to pay for. Something someone else put together on their own
> time and is basicly a gift to the GPL community. That would be the
> definition of childish.

> Jim D.

by **Jim Dombrowsk** » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00

>Hey guys, do you know that somebody is talking about PIRATE games in
earlier
>posts, it's BAAAAAAAAAD

Cool, Can you do keel hulling in it?

Jim D.

rec.autos.simulators

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION