N4: Rockingham Speeds

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. -- **************************************************************************** Marc Collins [email hidden] Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? ****************************************************************************

We run the AI at 97-98% at Rockingham We ran Phoenix at 101% I'd say someone in Boston likes mile ovals and hates the flat tracks :) The AI at the rock does slow down quite a bit though They drop off over a second and half in just 30+ laps or so So I'd work on a long run setup and you'll do okay But not at 100% Tim White INTRAC Motorsports www.birds-i-view.com/intrac Marc Collins <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9J3F7.34091$[email hidden]... > 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 thistrack? > 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 1.0levels, > 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 trackthat > can compete with the AI at 100%. I can't do better than 43rd out of 43 ina

Quoted text (8 lines)

> practise session. I would love to see what I am doing wrong. > > Thanks, > > Marc. > > -- >

**************************************************************************** > Marc Collins > [email hidden] > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > to take effect. Reboot now? >**************************************************************************** > > >

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" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

>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. "Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> 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" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >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 strangelywe > >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 thistrack? > >I sure don't. And I have no problem running with the AI at 100% in GPLat > >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 1.0levels, > >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 trackthat > >can compete with the AI at 100%. I can't do better than 43rd out of 43in a

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >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 Marc Collins <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xunG7.21827$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (42 lines)

> 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. > > "Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > >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 inthe

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > >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 > >

So in other words, the AI speeds at the tracks are wonky, just like in N1, 2 and 3. I would like to be able to assess my skills by comparing myself to the AI, but obviously that is not possible. I can go to Homestead and be 1st after the first 8 laps I have ever driven there, while driving 2000 (well, maybe not that many) laps at Rockingham and never get better than 43rd. For me, it ruins the offline experience. I don't mind tweaking the AI (I did with N3), but what do you base the tweaking on? I can't just slow them down to my speed, or else I'll never have an incentive to improve. I don't want them to be artificially fast, as there is no fun in a hopeless contest. What do you do other than have volunteer users who are experts scour every track and do thousands of hours of testing and then come up with recommendations for AI parameters that are realistic? N5 will be out by then. Marc. "Tim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VuwG7.120383$%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 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

Quoted text (18 lines)

> 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 > > > Marc Collins <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:xunG7.21827$[email hidden]... > > 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 isso,

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > why wouldn't Papy have fixed it in the second patch?? > > > > Marc. > > > > "Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > 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" > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >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 ofstrangely > > 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% inGPL > > at > > > >all of the original tracks (save the 'Ring) or at some other N4tracks.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > > > > >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 of43

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > 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 Record these times for each track Run an offline race with the AI, equal to one full fuel run, with no yellows (just exit on the first lap and let the race finish) watching the live replay for the leaders Check the lap times and note their hotlaps and their dropoff Adjust the AI strength until you reach something relative to Bobs hotlaps on fresh tires As for how fast or how much they dropoff, keep in mind Papy added some realism based on real life tracks, ie. they will drop off faster at a track like Rockingham versus say a Texas Keep in mind lapped traffic and the wrecks may affect theyre dropoff in speed so make an eductaed guess on what to use You should come up with an appropriate AI strength for each track that rivals Bobs' hotlap times You can use Points Calulator by Robert Rathbone to score the results for you since changing the AI during a championship run in N4 is a bitch While this will take some time this will be about as accurate a comparison as youll get Its a shame Papy couldnt find time to do this, one full time person could do it in a few days Good luck -- Tim White INTRAC Motorsports www.birds-i-view.com/intrac Marc Collins <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DKEG7.23422$[email hidden]... > So in other words, the AI speeds at the tracks are wonky, just like in N1, 2 > and 3. I would like to be able to assess my skills by comparing myself to > the AI, but obviously that is not possible. I can go to Homestead and be > 1st after the first 8 laps I have ever driven there, while driving 2000 > (well, maybe not that many) laps at Rockingham and never get better than > 43rd. > > For me, it ruins the offline experience. I don't mind tweaking the AI (I > did with N3), but what do you base the tweaking on? I can't just slow them > down to my speed, or else I'll never have an incentive to improve. I don't > want them to be artificially fast, as there is no fun in a hopeless contest. > What do you do other than have volunteer users who are experts scour every > track and do thousands of hours of testing and then come up with > recommendations for AI parameters that are realistic? N5 will be out by > then. > > Marc. >

On Fri, 09 Nov 2001 21:16:12 GMT, "Tim" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>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

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 "Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Fri, 09 Nov 2001 21:16:12 GMT, "Tim" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >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

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >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 find that if you tighten the car, it will eat the tires even faster. Gerald Brian Oster <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> 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.

Well the problem I was having was the RR tire was going away fast and with an all ready loose setup I couldn't get out of turn 2 and 4 without spinning the car. The RF does tend to go a lot faster, but at least I can get on the gas coming out of the turns. Brian On 13 Nov 2001 05:40:50 -0800, [email hidden] (Gerald Moore) wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>I find that if you tighten the car, it will eat the tires even faster. > >Gerald > > >Brian Oster <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > >> 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

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:43:54 -0500, "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>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 >

Initially it is very hard to keep up with top 10-20 AI cars but if you tweak the setup for a longer run, at the end of 40 or 50 laps, your lap times should be significantly better than the AI. Brian Oster