IRacing, Safety Rating and fear factor

While reading one of the many Iracing forum rants about the unfairness of it all (that incident points get handed out to the innocent as well as the guilty) one poster remarked that IRacing had managed to introduce a sense of fear into virtual racing. The more I thought about it the more this idea rings true. We tend to think of incident points as something that are doled out by stewards and we expect a determination of guilt or responsibility in that awarding. In IRacings case the Incident points act more like an abstraction of the real life consequences of an action. Physics doesn't judge; if you run into another car (or another car into you) both the innocent and the guilty suffer damage and so it goes with IPs. In real life racing you see far less incident than you see in a typical online race since an accident, regardless of fault, has expensive consequences. IRacings IPs appear to be an attempt to introduce some of that cautious fear into the online world. Obviously the IP system isn't exactly analogous to real life. For one thing it is introduced gradually whereas physics is always the same. As far as I can tell the gradual intro is a training scheme to break online racers from the years of bad habits we have formed from consequence free contests.Rookies are affected least since decent Safety Rating (which is derived from IPs) is relatively easy to maintain at the rookie level. At D level, where I am at present, the penalties are stronger. As a rookie I could get away with a 6 IP race without losing SR. At D a 4 IP race can negatively affect my SR. From forum posts by the C level players they are under even stricter rules. I'd have to assume that the A & B levels (when IRacing gets there) will have it even worse. SR is also a form of abstract fear. Do badly enough at a high level and you may not be able to play with the toys you've bought. Want to drive a Radical in races' Better maintain that B level or high SR C level. Fall back enough and you lose access to your toys. If you can't drive safe enough to compete with the big boys then you can suffer a monetary loss too since you have laid out real cash to buy that Radical and now you can't use it. Interesting concept. As they say in IRacing it is not for everyone. It will be interesting to see what sort of virtual racer winds up in the higher levels. A lot of the fast but only marginally in control boys will find themselves stuck at lower levels, no doubt frustrated and blaming the system for their troubles. Frankly the thought of getting away from the stuff-it-in crowd is all the incentive I need to progress Dave

"DavErb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (56 lines)

> While reading one of the many Iracing forum rants about the unfairness of > it > all (that incident points get handed out to the innocent as well as the > guilty) one poster remarked that IRacing had managed to introduce a sense > of > fear into virtual racing. > > The more I thought about it the more this idea rings true. We tend to > think > of incident points as something that are doled out by stewards and we > expect > a determination of guilt or responsibility in that awarding. In IRacings > case the Incident points act more like an abstraction of the real life > consequences of an action. Physics doesn't judge; if you run into another > car (or another car into you) both the innocent and the guilty suffer > damage and so it goes with IPs. In real life racing you see far less > incident than you see in a typical online race since an accident, > regardless > of fault, has expensive consequences. IRacings IPs appear to be an attempt > to introduce some of that cautious fear into the online world. > > Obviously the IP system isn't exactly analogous to real life. For one > thing > it is introduced gradually whereas physics is always the same. As far as I > can tell the gradual intro is a training scheme to break online racers > from the years of bad habits we have formed from consequence free > contests.Rookies are affected least > since decent Safety Rating (which is derived from IPs) is relatively easy > to > maintain at the rookie level. At D level, where I am at present, the > penalties are stronger. As a rookie I could get away with a 6 IP race > without losing SR. At D a 4 IP race can negatively affect my SR. From > forum > posts by the C level players they are under even stricter rules. I'd have > to > assume that the A & B levels (when IRacing gets there) will have it even > worse. > > SR is also a form of abstract fear. Do badly enough at a high level and > you > may not be able to play with the toys you've bought. Want to drive a > Radical > in races' Better maintain that B level or high SR C level. Fall back > enough and you lose access to your toys. If you can't drive safe enough to > compete with the big boys then you can suffer a monetary loss too since > you have laid out real cash to buy that Radical and now you can't use it. > > Interesting concept. As they say in IRacing it is not for everyone. It > will be interesting to see what sort of virtual racer winds up in the > higher levels. A lot of the fast but only marginally in control boys will > find themselves stuck at lower levels, no doubt frustrated and blaming the > system for their troubles. Frankly the thought of getting away from the > stuff-it-in crowd is all the incentive I need to progress > > Dave >

I agree. I think the system is something that needs to be there and I pretty much like it the way it is, despite most of the incidents I get involved in being created by other cars. This is because I know that I can repair my rating easily, whilst the win or crash merchants will find themselves going backwards. RobP

[email hidden] (DavErb) wrote: > Frankly the thought of getting away from the stuff-it-in > crowd is all the incentive I need to progress The fear/SR argument is indeed a good one. Part of my problem though is that I don't want to be afraid when I relax after work. :-) Andrew McP

"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> [email hidden] (DavErb) wrote: > >> Frankly the thought of getting away from the stuff-it-in >> crowd is all the incentive I need to progress > > The fear/SR argument is indeed a good one. Part of my problem though is > that I don't want to be afraid when I relax after work. :-) > > Andrew McP

At least iR puts some adrenaline into the racing. An adrenaline rush being one of, if no the biggest attractions of real life racing. If you want to relax, try flower arranging.

"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> [email hidden] (DavErb) wrote: > >> Frankly the thought of getting away from the stuff-it-in >> crowd is all the incentive I need to progress > > The fear/SR argument is indeed a good one. Part of my problem though is > that I don't want to be afraid when I relax after work. :-) > > Andrew McP

I'm pretty relaxed during a race, that is unless I'm overtaking. I guess this is because I limit myself as to how much I push the car during the race - I leave the edge testing for private practice. Despite being slow (I am a little faster now, so I guess I'm improving slowly), I'm getting pretty regular top 5 positions. iRacing has taught me one thing, and that is whilst speed is nice to have, consistency is far more valuable. Yet again, in another race yesterday there was a super fast racer that came up large in my mirrors, so I let him by. Two corners later he came off at the Barrel at Laguna. Again he started to loom larger in my mirror and again, he came off. The chap above was a lot faster than me, but just couldn't put it together consistently and as a result came in behind me. RobP

> Yet again, in another race yesterday there was a super fast racer that came up large in my mirrors, so I let him by. > Two corners later he came off at the Barrel at Laguna. Again he started to loom larger in my mirror and again, he came > off. > > The chap above was a lot faster than me, but just couldn't put it together consistently and as a result came in behind > me. But that chap may end up learning track and car combinations quicker. One of the advantages of a racing game, is that learning the limits for a track and car combination is faster than real life, beacue you can exceed the limits, off track, even crash, but then reset and continue. Although this is something that should be done in practice instead of a race.

It outght to be fairly easy to build a system where the most rudimentary info was considered, like, position on road, speed relative to average speed at the point, if brakes are used heavily the moments before a crash, relative velocity vector comparison, etc etc... I have a few easily implemented ideas on how to weigh these factors into a SR points system where aggressive reckless drivers would do much worse than the cautious and respectful driver... In a way, iRacing think that the careful driving is a common responsibility amongst racers, and this needs to be accepted and adapted by each and every racer. This model has many things for it, but I still think that a slightly more finely-grained points system would be fairer... -A- On 24.08.2008 20:10, * DavErb wrote:

Quoted text (54 lines)

> While reading one of the many Iracing forum rants about the unfairness > of it > all (that incident points get handed out to the innocent as well as the > guilty) one poster remarked that IRacing had managed to introduce a > sense of > fear into virtual racing. > > The more I thought about it the more this idea rings true. We tend to think > of incident points as something that are doled out by stewards and we > expect > a determination of guilt or responsibility in that awarding. In IRacings > case the Incident points act more like an abstraction of the real life > consequences of an action. Physics doesn't judge; if you run into another > car (or another car into you) both the innocent and the guilty suffer > damage and so it goes with IPs. In real life racing you see far less > incident than you see in a typical online race since an accident, > regardless > of fault, has expensive consequences. IRacings IPs appear to be an attempt > to introduce some of that cautious fear into the online world. > > Obviously the IP system isn't exactly analogous to real life. For one thing > it is introduced gradually whereas physics is always the same. As far as I > can tell the gradual intro is a training scheme to break online racers > from the years of bad habits we have formed from consequence free > contests.Rookies are affected least > since decent Safety Rating (which is derived from IPs) is relatively > easy to > maintain at the rookie level. At D level, where I am at present, the > penalties are stronger. As a rookie I could get away with a 6 IP race > without losing SR. At D a 4 IP race can negatively affect my SR. From forum > posts by the C level players they are under even stricter rules. I'd > have to > assume that the A & B levels (when IRacing gets there) will have it even > worse. > > SR is also a form of abstract fear. Do badly enough at a high level and you > may not be able to play with the toys you've bought. Want to drive a > Radical > in races' Better maintain that B level or high SR C level. Fall back > enough and you lose access to your toys. If you can't drive safe enough > to compete with the big boys then you can suffer a monetary loss too > since you have laid out real cash to buy that Radical and now you can't > use it. > > Interesting concept. As they say in IRacing it is not for everyone. It > will be interesting to see what sort of virtual racer winds up in the > higher levels. A lot of the fast but only marginally in control boys > will find themselves stuck at lower levels, no doubt frustrated and > blaming the system for their troubles. Frankly the thought of getting > away from the stuff-it-in crowd is all the incentive I need to progress > > Dave > >

On Aug 25, 8:57 am, Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> wrote: > It outght to be fairly easy to build a system where the most rudimentary > info was considered, like, position on road, speed relative to average > speed at the point, if brakes are used heavily the moments before a > crash, relative velocity vector comparison, etc etc... It actually wouldn't be easy at all, because people would learn the system and use it to their advantage. Only a human can decide fault. There's some fine tuning to do, but I think the SR works very well.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> It outght to be fairly easy to build a system where the most rudimentary >> info was considered, like, position on road, speed relative to average >> speed at the point, if brakes are used heavily the moments before a >> crash, relative velocity vector comparison, etc etc... >It actually wouldn't be easy at all, because people would learn the >system and use it to their advantage. Only a human can decide fault.

The current system is already doing that, it decides that both drivers are at fault every time. There is no reason that the SR system couldn't assign fault a portion of the time, even it it's not always fair, since any reasonable attempt to assign blame by a computer would be more fair than the current one.

This post is not entirely without merit :) -Larry "DavErb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (57 lines)

> While reading one of the many Iracing forum rants about the unfairness of > it > all (that incident points get handed out to the innocent as well as the > guilty) one poster remarked that IRacing had managed to introduce a sense > of > fear into virtual racing. > > The more I thought about it the more this idea rings true. We tend to > think > of incident points as something that are doled out by stewards and we > expect > a determination of guilt or responsibility in that awarding. In IRacings > case the Incident points act more like an abstraction of the real life > consequences of an action. Physics doesn't judge; if you run into another > car (or another car into you) both the innocent and the guilty suffer > damage and so it goes with IPs. In real life racing you see far less > incident than you see in a typical online race since an accident, > regardless > of fault, has expensive consequences. IRacings IPs appear to be an attempt > to introduce some of that cautious fear into the online world. > > Obviously the IP system isn't exactly analogous to real life. For one > thing > it is introduced gradually whereas physics is always the same. As far as I > can tell the gradual intro is a training scheme to break online racers > from the years of bad habits we have formed from consequence free > contests.Rookies are affected least > since decent Safety Rating (which is derived from IPs) is relatively easy > to > maintain at the rookie level. At D level, where I am at present, the > penalties are stronger. As a rookie I could get away with a 6 IP race > without losing SR. At D a 4 IP race can negatively affect my SR. From > forum > posts by the C level players they are under even stricter rules. I'd have > to > assume that the A & B levels (when IRacing gets there) will have it even > worse. > > SR is also a form of abstract fear. Do badly enough at a high level and > you > may not be able to play with the toys you've bought. Want to drive a > Radical > in races' Better maintain that B level or high SR C level. Fall back > enough and you lose access to your toys. If you can't drive safe enough to > compete with the big boys then you can suffer a monetary loss too since > you have laid out real cash to buy that Radical and now you can't use it. > > Interesting concept. As they say in IRacing it is not for everyone. It > will be interesting to see what sort of virtual racer winds up in the > higher levels. A lot of the fast but only marginally in control boys will > find themselves stuck at lower levels, no doubt frustrated and blaming the > system for their troubles. Frankly the thought of getting away from the > stuff-it-in crowd is all the incentive I need to progress > > Dave > >

I've come to accept the fact that Alien = 8 seconds faster, regardless of track or car. It is what it is :) They have 8 seconds worth of brain matter I simply appear to not have. That's for RC's. On Ovals, I can run with the best of them. Most of the time. I'm still a bit rough at flat tracks, always have been. -Larry "Rob P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LDtsk.23409$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (30 lines)

> "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> [email hidden] (DavErb) wrote: >> >>> Frankly the thought of getting away from the stuff-it-in >>> crowd is all the incentive I need to progress >> >> The fear/SR argument is indeed a good one. Part of my problem though is >> that I don't want to be afraid when I relax after work. :-) >> >> Andrew McP > > I'm pretty relaxed during a race, that is unless I'm overtaking. I guess > this is because I limit myself as to how much I push the car during the > race - I leave the edge testing for private practice. > > Despite being slow (I am a little faster now, so I guess I'm improving > slowly), I'm getting pretty regular top 5 positions. iRacing has taught me > one thing, and that is whilst speed is nice to have, consistency is far > more valuable. > > Yet again, in another race yesterday there was a super fast racer that > came up large in my mirrors, so I let him by. Two corners later he came > off at the Barrel at Laguna. Again he started to loom larger in my mirror > and again, he came off. > > The chap above was a lot faster than me, but just couldn't put it together > consistently and as a result came in behind me. > > RobP

dfg.myass@aol (David Fisher's Left Testicle) wrote: > If you want to relax, try flower arranging. The problem with iRacing (for me) is that while there are 'relaxing' practice servers for the current week's track, there's never anybody on them... well, hardly anyone, and never enough slow enough to allow me to drive in traffic without the SR axe hovering over your head. Maybe that's a good thing, because you never get that kind of situation in real life racing. But I'm not a real life racer and never will be. So I currently find myself wanting access to iRacing's superb simulation code, but not the overly serious side of the racing and the sometimes rather elitist community. Which tells me, basically, that I'm just not an iRacing person, no matter how much I might want to be. That's a shame, because no other sim offers the same kind of kick I get from driving the Skip Barber. Their code is definitely the best, even at this early stage in the game. Andrew McP

"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> dfg.myass@aol (David Fisher's Left Testicle) wrote: > >> If you want to relax, try flower arranging. > > The problem with iRacing (for me) is that while there are 'relaxing' > practice servers for the current week's track, there's never anybody on > them... well, hardly anyone, and never enough slow enough to allow me to > drive in traffic without the SR axe hovering over your head. > > Maybe that's a good thing, because you never get that kind of situation > in real life racing. But I'm not a real life racer and never will be. So > I currently find myself wanting access to iRacing's superb simulation > code, but not the overly serious side of the racing and the sometimes > rather elitist community. > > Which tells me, basically, that I'm just not an iRacing person, no matter > how much I might want to be. That's a shame, because no other sim offers > the same kind of kick I get from driving the Skip Barber. Their code is > definitely the best, even at this early stage in the game. > > Andrew McP

I'm coming around to that way of thinking too. I mean, I want it, but I don't want to pay for it any more, basically.

Full ack "Rob P" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:LDtsk.23409$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (30 lines)

> "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> [email hidden] (DavErb) wrote: >> >>> Frankly the thought of getting away from the stuff-it-in >>> crowd is all the incentive I need to progress >> >> The fear/SR argument is indeed a good one. Part of my problem though is >> that I don't want to be afraid when I relax after work. :-) >> >> Andrew McP > > I'm pretty relaxed during a race, that is unless I'm overtaking. I guess > this is because I limit myself as to how much I push the car during the > race - I leave the edge testing for private practice. > > Despite being slow (I am a little faster now, so I guess I'm improving > slowly), I'm getting pretty regular top 5 positions. iRacing has taught me > one thing, and that is whilst speed is nice to have, consistency is far > more valuable. > > Yet again, in another race yesterday there was a super fast racer that > came up large in my mirrors, so I let him by. Two corners later he came > off at the Barrel at Laguna. Again he started to loom larger in my mirror > and again, he came off. > > The chap above was a lot faster than me, but just couldn't put it together > consistently and as a result came in behind me. > > RobP

In article <373b71f2-9b7d-48e4-bb88- [email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Aug 25, 8:57ï¿œam, Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> wrote: > > It outght to be fairly easy to build a system where the most rudimentary > > info was considered, like, position on road, speed relative to average > > speed at the point, if brakes are used heavily the moments before a > > crash, relative velocity vector comparison, etc etc... > > It actually wouldn't be easy at all, because people would learn the > system and use it to their advantage. Only a human can decide fault. >

Run that by me again. What advantage is there in crashing? -- Pete Ives Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

"Tim Wheatley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... On Aug 25, 8:57 am, Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> It outght to be fairly easy to build a system where the most rudimentary >> info was considered, like, position on road, speed relative to average >> speed at the point, if brakes are used heavily the moments before a >> crash, relative velocity vector comparison, etc etc... >It actually wouldn't be easy at all, because people would learn the >system and use it to their advantage. Only a human can decide fault. >There's some fine tuning to do, but I think the SR works very well.

I don't know why people whine about it. It's the same for everyone, so unless you are really unlucky, your good driving will see your rating go up. If you're a crap driver, then you're stuffed. Very realistic really!

"jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:y_Ask.8918$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

>>> It outght to be fairly easy to build a system where the most rudimentary >>> info was considered, like, position on road, speed relative to average >>> speed at the point, if brakes are used heavily the moments before a >>> crash, relative velocity vector comparison, etc etc... > >>It actually wouldn't be easy at all, because people would learn the >>system and use it to their advantage. Only a human can decide fault. > > The current system is already doing that, it decides that both drivers are > at fault every time. There is no reason that the SR system couldn't assign > fault a portion of the time, even it it's not always fair, since any > reasonable > attempt to assign blame by a computer would be more fair than the current > one. >

Under the current system, good drivers advance and poor ones don't. So what's the problem?

> Under the current system, good drivers advance and poor ones don't. So > what's the problem? Depends what you mean by poor. People who can't keep a car on the track will have trouble advancing, that's all. That's actually the only time SR matters. Car to car contact happens little enough that within a 12 week period, EVERYBODY should be able to counteract those penalties.

> Under the current system, good drivers advance and poor ones don't. So what's the problem? Although unlikely, a group of players could decide to intentionally have incidents with a targeted single player. The group would be distributing the incident points between themselves, but the targeted player would be getting all the incident points. Eventually a moderator could investigate and stop this. Since I don't rent iRacing, I don't know, but I would guess that most of the poor driver incidents are going off track as opposed to accidents. Also the standard for a "poor" driver apparently will increase quite a bit in order to race in class A.

On Aug 26, 6:15 pm, "jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Under the current system, good drivers advance and poor ones don't. So what's the problem? > > Although unlikely, a group of players could decide to intentionally have > incidents with a targeted single player. The group would be distributing > the incident points between themselves, but the targeted player would be > getting all the incident points. Eventually a moderator could investigate > and stop this. > > Since I don't rentiRacing, I don't know, but I would guess that most of > the poor driver incidents are going off track as opposed to accidents. > > Also the standard for a "poor" driver apparently will increase quite a bit > in order to race in class A.

That might be pretty difficult. Although, like you say, possible. They'd have to match his selection of what to race, match his iRating and manage to be on track with him and hit him, while making it look like they didn't intend to to avoid protest... Pretty tough. Yes, most incidents are caused by off track. With regards to the "rental" thing, have you read the EULA on any other titles installed on your PC? ;) Reads very similar, you'll find. Not sure what you mean in the last sentence, please expand? Thanks, Tim.

> ....................................................................With regards to the > "rental" thing, have you read the EULA on any other titles installed > on your PC? ;) Reads very similar, you'll find. But with virtually all of the titles installed on my PC, I can continue to play them after the publisher goes out of business - although perhaps only in an offline single-player mode. I'm afraid this is not possible with iRacing. I think that is what people mean when they talk about "renting" iRacing.

On Aug 27, 1:17 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > ....................................................................With regards to the > > "rental" thing, have you read the EULA on any other titles installed > > on your PC? ;) Reads very similar, you'll find. > > But with virtually all of the titles installed on my PC, I can > continue to play them after the publisher goes out of business - > although perhaps only in an offline single-player mode.  I'm afraid > this is not possible withiRacing.  I think that is what people mean > when they talk about "renting"iRacing.

Not legally. Most, if not all EULA's state that they are allowing you to use their software in the manner they say - and they have the right to change what they say at any time. Sure, nobody that I can recall has actually done it, but the EULA (depending on what a judge says, as always) could allow them to pull the plug quite easily. I guess i just accepted this type of thing better, I played EVE-Online for years and it's a similar type of development, launch, payment and EULA.

> Yes, most incidents are caused by off track. > With regards to the "rental" thing, have you read the EULA > on any other titles installed on your PC? Off-topic - EULA's are almost worthless in most states of the USA, and completely worthless in the remaining states. In the USA, a contract requires a witness or a signature.

On Aug 27, 5:12 pm, "jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Yes, most incidents are caused by off track. > > With regards to the "rental" thing, have you read the EULA > > on any other titles installed on your PC? > > Off-topic - EULA's are almost worthless in most states of the USA, > and completely worthless in the remaining states. In the USA, > a contract requires a witness or a signature.

Banks, the guys who handle the most money, accept an X in a text field. Bank of America account creation requires nothing more than that to be legally obligated.

Yeah, I know: A bunch of the sim racing guys are exploiters, and would figure out how to maintain their silly driving style with the least impact on their SR. However, I think this is one of the huge challenges of online racing: If rFactor had a good way of evaluating an accident automatically, and it could be enforced with flags, open online racing would appear very, very differently. If I wanted one single aspect of rFactor improved, it'd be the automatic marshalling of races in a predictable and fair way. I don't think it'd be very hard to do this, but the developpers need to know that there is a need for it. Maybe this is a task for the plug-in developpers to take on... It'd be very interesting to put together a server-side plug-in that takes into account aspects of general importance: - Velocity vectors, relative speeds and direction (is the driver behind trying to avoid the car in front? - Braking patterns/behaviour just prior to the event (Is the car in front trying to stop his car from rotating?) - Braking points based on statistics and comparison of actual braking to statistics - Comparison of "stastic line" and "actual line" It is not too tough to put together all this into a package, with the possibilty adjust settings by way of a ini-file (so that you can create setups for open racing, league racing etc etc)... -A- On 25.08.2008 16:36, * Tim Wheatley wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Aug 25, 8:57 am, Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> wrote: >> It outght to be fairly easy to build a system where the most rudimentary >> info was considered, like, position on road, speed relative to average >> speed at the point, if brakes are used heavily the moments before a >> crash, relative velocity vector comparison, etc etc... > > It actually wouldn't be easy at all, because people would learn the > system and use it to their advantage. Only a human can decide fault. > > There's some fine tuning to do, but I think the SR works very well.

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:g95qv0$pfa$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Yeah, I know: A bunch of the sim racing guys are exploiters, and would > figure out how to maintain their silly driving style with the least impact > on their SR. > > However, I think this is one of the huge challenges of online racing: If > rFactor had a good way of evaluating an accident automatically, and it > could be enforced with flags, open online racing would appear very, very > differently. > > If I wanted one single aspect of rFactor improved, it'd be the automatic > marshalling of races in a predictable and fair way. I don't think it'd be > very hard to do this, but the developpers need to know that there is a > need for it. > > Maybe this is a task for the plug-in developpers to take on... It'd be > very interesting to put together a server-side plug-in that takes into > account aspects of general importance:

If you think implementing this sort of stuff is easy then you're kidding yourself. > - Velocity vectors, relative speeds and direction (is the driver behind > trying to avoid the car in front? What if he (the trailing car) was hit by a car from behind himself. What if the idiot in front hits the brakes for no known reason? > - Braking patterns/behaviour just prior to the event (Is the car in front > trying to stop his car from rotating?) What? > - Braking points based on statistics and comparison of actual braking to > statistics Just rubbish. > - Comparison of "stastic line" and "actual line" > What? > It is not too tough to put together all this into a package, with the > possibilty adjust settings by way of a ini-file (so that you can create > setups for open racing, league racing etc etc)... > Yeah sure - it's all so simple. It's a wonder you haven't spent a half hour or so doing it yourself! And the other thing here is that I'd rather have the cpu power dedicated to a better sim than all this stuff. All you need is a well run league - the only way to sim race properly. Everything else is just fun.

A sour reply needs a sour answer. On 28.08.2008 12:41, * Byron Forbes wrote: > > If you think implementing this sort of stuff is easy then you're > kidding yourself. If you compare this chore with the chores of making hundreds of tracks, the hundreds of cars like the online community have done with rFactor: Yes, I would indeed say this sort of stuff is easy. > >> - Velocity vectors, relative speeds and direction (is the driver behind >> trying to avoid the car in front? > > What if he (the trailing car) was hit by a car from behind himself. What > if the idiot in front hits the brakes for no known reason? The velocity vector pattern and the braking pattern can uncover such a situation. If the idiot in front hits his brakes, it would show when comparing his "statistical" brake pattern with his discreet braking pattern, and responsibility can be dished out accordingly. > >> - Braking patterns/behaviour just prior to the event (Is the car in front >> trying to stop his car from rotating?) > > What? Is monitoring braking patterns to determine degree of guilt a tough thing to grasp for you? What is incomprehensible in that? > >> - Braking points based on statistics and comparison of actual braking to >> statistics > > Just rubbish. A well formulated argument, my friend. I see it all clear now, thanks to your wit, your rhetoric skills and your genuine insight. > >> - Comparison of "stastic line" and "actual line" >> > > What? Typo there, I meant "statistic line" in comparison to "actual line".

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> It is not too tough to put together all this into a package, with the >> possibilty adjust settings by way of a ini-file (so that you can create >> setups for open racing, league racing etc etc)... >> > > Yeah sure - it's all so simple. It's a wonder you haven't spent a half > hour or so doing it yourself!

So you think a half an hour project defines what I describe as an "easy" chore? Where did I say that? I am so glad I don't have to work with people like you; infinately impatient, pessimistic, pointing out problems instead of pointing out possibilities. I am sure you've never had one single good idea, but you're one heck of a problems shooter. I know your kind. You may think I'm labelling you, but I'm sorry: You display all the symptoms of that label. Who can blame me for stating the obvious. > > And the other thing here is that I'd rather have the cpu power dedicated > to a better sim than all this stuff. All you need is a well run league - the > only way to sim race properly. Everything else is just fun. > So you think CPU is maxed out on the dedicated servers? lol. Your point about a well run league is fair, however. But I'm in a situation where I'm not able to put in the time to do league racing, and more importantly; not able to commit myself to it. I believe there are many just like myself out there; thus making my point about a solution in the racing incident responsibility department valid. --A--

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:g98ahi$8up$[email hidden]... >A sour reply needs a sour answer. > Lighten up sweety.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On 28.08.2008 12:41, * Byron Forbes wrote: >> >> If you think implementing this sort of stuff is easy then you're >> kidding yourself. > > If you compare this chore with the chores of making hundreds of tracks, > the hundreds of cars like the online community have done with rFactor: > Yes, I would indeed say this sort of stuff is easy. >

Well lets see.

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> >>> - Velocity vectors, relative speeds and direction (is the driver behind >>> trying to avoid the car in front? >> >> What if he (the trailing car) was hit by a car from behind himself. >> What if the idiot in front hits the brakes for no known reason? > > The velocity vector pattern and the braking pattern can uncover such a > situation. If the idiot in front hits his brakes, it would show when > comparing his "statistical" brake pattern with his discreet braking > pattern, and responsibility can be dished out accordingly. >

And if the "idiot" is maybe not an idiot and he is braking earlier for any number of reasons like an incident ahead for example?

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> >>> - Braking patterns/behaviour just prior to the event (Is the car in >>> front trying to stop his car from rotating?) >> >> What? > > Is monitoring braking patterns to determine degree of guilt a tough thing > to grasp for you? What is incomprehensible in that? >

What if his tyres go off, he has a puncture, some sort of damage, (depending on the sim there could be oil/water down etc). Again, there can be a zillion reasons for someone to brake in a manner different to previous laps.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> >>> - Braking points based on statistics and comparison of actual braking >>> to statistics >> >> Just rubbish. > > A well formulated argument, my friend. I see it all clear now, thanks to > your wit, your rhetoric skills and your genuine insight. >

See above - again, there can be a zillion reasons for inconsistency here.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> >>> - Comparison of "stastic line" and "actual line" >>> >> >> What? > > Typo there, I meant "statistic line" in comparison to "actual line". >

And again, there can be a zillion reasons to alter ones line. >> >>> It is not too tough to put together all this into a package, with the >>> possibilty adjust settings by way of a ini-file (so that you can create >>> setups for open racing, league racing etc etc)... >>> I can just see someone who has spent countless hours over the course of a season being dudded by a scenario that this "easy to put together" software has hopelessly misinterpreted. I wouldn't go near a league with that sort of stuff in a million years.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> >> Yeah sure - it's all so simple. It's a wonder you haven't spent a >> half hour or so doing it yourself! > > So you think a half an hour project defines what I describe as an "easy" > chore? Where did I say that? I am so glad I don't have to work with people > like you; infinately impatient, pessimistic, pointing out problems instead > of pointing out possibilities. >

Ok then, lets forge ahead oblivious to the horrendous problems! Lets start a little software company called "Fuck the bugs you stinking mongrels!" > I am sure you've never had one single good idea, but you're one heck of a > problems shooter. I know your kind. You may think I'm labelling you, but > I'm sorry: You display all the symptoms of that label. Who can blame me > for stating the obvious. > To bad you refuse to regognise the obvious when it comes to the horrendous problems with what you propose.

Quoted text (14 lines)

>> >> And the other thing here is that I'd rather have the cpu power >> dedicated to a better sim than all this stuff. All you need is a well run >> league - the only way to sim race properly. Everything else is just fun. >> > So you think CPU is maxed out on the dedicated servers? lol. > > Your point about a well run league is fair, however. But I'm in a > situation where I'm not able to put in the time to do league racing, and > more importantly; not able to commit myself to it. I believe there are > many just like myself out there; thus making my point about a solution in > the racing incident responsibility department valid. > > --A--

Well quite frankly, if you're not running in a league and you're simply doing pickups then who really cares - iRacing should offer you more than enough with their methods.