GPL65 Mod is GPL2 Please fix GPL

I just love the racing in the new GPL65 mod . I hope that the tech guys will see fit to uipdate the tire models in gpl.exe so that we can enjoy the sim even more? After racing nose to tail with many guys in the 65's, I don't want to go back to the 67s. thanks.

"No Spam" wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I just love the racing in the new GPL65 mod . I hope > that the tech guys will see fit to uipdate the tire > models in gpl.exe so that we can enjoy the sim even > more? After racing nose to tail with many guys in > the 65's, I don't want to go back to the 67s. > > thanks.

I agree, they should update the '67 season as well. Papyrus is history (on top of that, Dave Keammer as much as admitted the tyre model in GPL is bunk) and GPLRank is just a number; I'm willing to start over if that means I can have "'65 style" feel for the car and near 400bhp. <g> Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:45Rrc.124390$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "No Spam" wrote... > > I just love the racing in the new GPL65 mod . I hope > > that the tech guys will see fit to uipdate the tire > > models in gpl.exe so that we can enjoy the sim even > > more? After racing nose to tail with many guys in > > the 65's, I don't want to go back to the 67s. > > > > thanks. > > I agree, they should update the '67 season as well. Papyrus is history

(on > top of that, Dave Keammer as much as admitted the tyre model in GPL isbunk) > and GPLRank is just a number; I'm willing to start over if that meansI can > have "'65 style" feel for the car and near 400bhp. <g> There are 66 & 69 mods coming out fairly soon, either or both should fulfil the basic criteria of "like '65 but faster". I'd like to see an updated '67 mod but hopefully one of the above will do the job. Malc.

>"No Spam" <[email hidden]> wrote > I just love the racing in the new GPL65 mod . I hope that the > tech guys will see fit to uipdate the tire models in gpl.exe so that > we can enjoy the sim even more? After racing nose to tail with many > guys in the 65's, I don't want to go back to the 67s. But that would piss off the joystick-using alien with a low-ride modified setup that did his record lap 4 years ago! <G> -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

ymenard wrote: >>we can enjoy the sim even more? After racing nose to tail with many >>guys in the 65's, I don't want to go back to the 67s. > But that would piss off the joystick-using alien with a low-ride modified > setup that did his record lap 4 years ago! <G> That's not the problem. The problem is that all hotlaps were set from a common base, namely original GPL 67. To have parity/equality (aka fair comparison) everyone should then install this mod and start all over again, which isn't gonna happen for all kinds of reasons; and having some drivers on Rank using the mod and some without, wouldn't work either. Better to start a separate 'early-68' or 'Fixed 67' type Rank. Regards, Rudy -------------------- GPLRank: -22

"Malc" wrote... > > <snip> > There are 66 & 69 mods coming out fairly soon, either or > both should fulfil the basic criteria of "like '65 but > faster". It's not about going faster, it's about having a "proper" '67 season. > I'd like to see an updated '67 mod but hopefully one of > the above will do the job. Don't get me wrong, I'll probably like the other seasons too, it's just I think it's silly to update "everything but". Especially seeing as '67 wouldn't take a lot of graphics editing. Jan. =---

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> But that would piss off the joystick-using alien with a low-ride modified >> setup that did his record lap 4 years ago! <G> > >That's not the problem. The problem is that all hotlaps were set from a >common base, namely original GPL 67. To have parity/equality (aka fair >comparison) everyone should then install this mod and start all over >again, which isn't gonna happen for all kinds of reasons; and having >some drivers on Rank using the mod and some without, wouldn't work either. >Better to start a separate 'early-68' or 'Fixed 67' type Rank. >

Considering the ease of 'cheating' in GPLRank, and the fact that some run the engine swapper while others don't, I think that's a non-argument. We *already* aren't sure what each reported laptime is run with... Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Screamers League IICC League GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71 Hist. +82.34 MoH:na N2k3 rank:in progress Slayer Spektera lvl 72 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro US East

That tire model is plain crap. Feels like you have drag cars slick tires on the car. Monkey can drive GPL65. 400kg 220HP and you can't make back end slide. My BMW with 1200kg, 192HP and built understeer has looser back end. "No Spam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I just love the racing in the new GPL65 mod . I hope that the > tech guys will see fit to uipdate the tire models in gpl.exe so that > we can enjoy the sim even more? After racing nose to tail with many > guys in the 65's, I don't want to go back to the 67s. > > thanks.

EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >> But that would piss off the joystick-using alien with a low-ridemodified

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> setup that did his record lap 4 years ago! <G> > > > >That's not the problem. The problem is that all hotlaps were set from a > >common base, namely original GPL 67. To have parity/equality (aka fair > >comparison) everyone should then install this mod and start all over > >again, which isn't gonna happen for all kinds of reasons; and having > >some drivers on Rank using the mod and some without, wouldn't work

either. > >Better to start a separate 'early-68' or 'Fixed 67' type Rank. > > > > Considering the ease of 'cheating' in GPLRank, and the fact that some runthe > engine swapper while others don't, I think that's a non-argument. We*already*

Quoted text (14 lines)

> aren't sure what each reported laptime is run with... > > Eldred > -- > http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > Screamers League > IICC League > GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 > Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71 > Hist. +82.34 MoH:na > N2k3 rank:in progress > Slayer Spektera lvl 72 assassin > Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro > US East

No kidding. Besides the arrogance; "Hey, I know you masses that still play gpl want a better 67 product, but I don't want my precious hotlap record, cough, invalidated, even though I haven't touched gpl in years ! "

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mIYrc.124814$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Malc" wrote... > > > <snip> > > There are 66 & 69 mods coming out fairly soon, either or > > both should fulfil the basic criteria of "like '65 but > > faster". > > It's not about going faster, it's about having a "proper" '67 season. > > > I'd like to see an updated '67 mod but hopefully one of > > the above will do the job. > > Don't get me wrong, I'll probably like the other seasons too, it's

just I > think it's silly to update "everything but". Especially seeing as '67 > wouldn't take a lot of graphics editing. I feel the same way, but neither of us are in a position to decide what comes next or how silly it is, all we can do is make the request or just do it ourselves ;-) There are plenty of arguments for & against a modified '67 season, there are no arguments against doing any other season so the mods are just playing safe I guess. Malc.

"Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Fb3sc.6383$[email hidden]... > There are plenty of arguments for & against a modified '67 season, there > are no arguments against doing any other season so the mods are just > playing safe I guess. > > Malc. Until the recent info about a potential release of a post-67 season, I thought the best reason was that you could make all the mods you wanted that were pre-67 so there would be no question of being able to go faster than 67 speeds. I mean what good does anything post-67 do anyway since aero is not modelled, didnt they have aero 68 and on? IMO, a patched 67 with more grip(or different grip), would jsut be a mess. I've also noticed that *most* of the people complaining are not aliens as well, in fact most arent even close. In fact, the only rational responses seem to be from people with reasonable negative ranks..

"Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zz3sc.52611$[email hidden]... > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Fb3sc.6383$[email hidden]... > > There are plenty of arguments for & against a modified '67 season,there

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > are no arguments against doing any other season so the mods are just > > playing safe I guess. > > > > Malc. > > > Until the recent info about a potential release of a post-67 season, I > thought the best reason was that you could make all the mods you

wanted that > were pre-67 so there would be no question of being able to go fasterthan 67 > speeds. I mean what good does anything post-67 do anyway since aerois not > modelled, didnt they have aero 68 and on? Yeah personally I reckon the '69 mod will kill '67 pick-up racing on vroc stone dead, but iGOR should solve that problem. That's what it was designed to do afer all. > IMO, a patched 67 with more grip(or different grip), would jsut be amess. > I've also noticed that *most* of the people complaining are not aliensas > well, in fact most arent even close. In fact, the only rationalresponses > seem to be from people with reasonable negative ranks.. You must bear in mind that the people who regularly update their ranks & practice a lot are in it for the racing. There are many, many more people in the gpl community who are in it for it's historical accuracy (such as it is) and try to make it as realistic as possible. That's where the discussions on what to mod, why & how come from, and they are usually the people that actually do the mods. You can't really do aero in a gpl mod, all you can do is increase grip & drag to 'simulate' it as well as possible with the gpl engine. The end result is unlikely to please the historians, but will probably please the hotlappers & racers more. The historians have got everything pre-67 to play with, and we all have '67 ;-) Papy chose '67 for a reason. It was a good year ;-) Malc.

>"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote > > But that would piss off the joystick-using alien with a low-ridemodified > > setup that did his record lap 4 years ago! <G> > > That's not the problem. The problem is that all hotlaps were set from a > common base, namely original GPL 67. Who cares about GPLRank hotlapping anymore? That's so 2001. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

"w i z" wrote... > That tire model is plain crap. Feels like you have drag cars > slick tires on the car. Monkey can drive GPL65. 400kg 220HP > and you can't make back end slide. My BMW with 1200kg, 192HP > and built understeer has looser back end. Your mount does rev. >11k and you are not using a default setup, right? -'cuz, they spin "fine" on my machine using '65 setups. Jan./getting seriously distanced in the '65 mod at the moment. =---

On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:07:42 +0200, "w i z" <[email hidden]> wrote: >That tire model is plain crap. Feels like you have drag cars slick tires on >the car. Monkey can drive GPL65. 400kg 220HP and you can't make back end >slide. My BMW with 1200kg, 192HP and built understeer has looser back end. >Put a decent set of gears in your car and you'll have no problem whatsoever . Sliding is the beauty of the 65s. Every corner is a drift.

On Sun, 23 May 2004 15:38:07 GMT, "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >"Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:Fb3sc.6383$[email hidden]... >IMO, a patched 67 with more grip(or different grip), would jsut be a mess. >I've also noticed that *most* of the people complaining are not aliens as >well, in fact most arent even close. In fact, the only rational responses >seem to be from people with reasonable negative ranks.. >

Why would this be a mess? Who knows how the current records were set? My only issue is that it was stated that the current 67 tire model really IS a mess and it could be made more "accurate" ala the 65 model. That makes a heck of a lot more sense than having a tire model that really isn't correct. If memory serves me it was stated that the GPL cars were much harder to drive than the actual ones. I'm no alien and I'm having a hard time believing the times I see guys qualifying and running in the 65 class . So what is a rational response? The existing tire model is perfect and therefore the current 67 gpl.exe represents the ultimate simulation of 1967 GP cars? If that's the case fine I'll shut up but I don't get that feeling from reading posts.

"No Spam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > My only issue is that it was stated that the current 67 tire model > really IS a mess and it could be made more "accurate" ala the 65 > model. Apparently it can't, or at least not in the way that the '65 mod was done. The problem with the original '67 gpl cars is apparently to do with low speed slip angle. Basically as I understand it the grip is there, but it feels like it's sliding on ice because the tyres slide quite a bit before losing grip. This is okay at high speed but at low speed the amount of sliding should be much less and in gpl it's the same at all speeds. I'm no expert, this is just my understanding of the 'problem'. In the '65 cars the amount of sliding (slip angle) has been 'optimised' (reduced presumably) so it feels right at low speed, and in a '65 car you don't have enough power at the top end to notice that this is now less than optimum. So in effect the tyre model with the '65 cars is a better compromise that with the original physics, but only as a result of having a less powerful car. With the '67 cars apparently this 'fix' would only move the problem from low speed to high speed (ie most of the time) and this is the reason why a '67 mod isn't coming as quickly as '66 (less powerful) or imo more importantly '69, where high speed behaviour can be masked as 'downforce' although in reality I believe it will just be a small increase in grip and more drag. Like I said though, I'm no expert, I just drive the cars & know what I like ;-) Malc.

w i z wrote: > That tire model is plain crap. Feels like you have drag cars slick tires on > the car. Monkey can drive GPL65. 400kg 220HP and you can't make back end > slide. My BMW with 1200kg, 192HP and built understeer has looser back end. You can't make a 65s back end slide? Better send me your setup then, I want it to set a new world record ;) I've had some huuuuuge rear-end slides in GPL 65, and often I even manage to get it back. (Of course, I guess two years of GPL 67 under me belt does help as well..) As for monkeys, better not tell my brother then - I wanted to show him the 65 mod (he has driven some occasional 67) to see how a 'beginner' would handle it, and although he did manage to do better in these cars, he still managed to lose the car on several occasions as well ;) Regards, Rudy -------------------- GPLRank: -22

ymenard wrote: >>That's not the problem. The problem is that all hotlaps were set from a >>common base, namely original GPL 67. > Who cares about GPLRank hotlapping anymore? That's so 2001. In 2001, I hadn't even started to install GPL... Had to buy a (blergh) Repentium first ;) Regards, Rudy -------------------- GPLRank: -22

"No Spam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I just love the racing in the new GPL65 mod . I hope that the > tech guys will see fit to uipdate the tire models in gpl.exe so that > we can enjoy the sim even more? After racing nose to tail with many > guys in the 65's, I don't want to go back to the 67s. > > thanks. As a guy who has never really been able to invest the effort to be a top driver in GPL (no time for online, tend to pick up GPL every few months and work my way back up to being able to challenge for AI-race wins) I think the GPL65 mod is great. At first it felt too easy. I was so used to every lap in GPL being a white knuckle affair, battling the car, wondering if this was finally the lap where I would throw away my lead by screwing my braking, that I expected it to always be so damn difficult. But after a while, the appeal of these new cars grew. I could actually feel how they were working, and they felt right. I'm still no faster, relative to the very tightly-packed AI, but I'm having a lot more fun racing. I especially like that I can make a small error, maybe lose the corner or drop a place, but I can gather it back up and start working away at the guy ahead again. Great fun. A big thumbs up from a semi-casual, but nevertheless dedicated GPLer. Stephen

Malc wrote:

Quoted text (37 lines)

> "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:45Rrc.124390$[email hidden]... > >>"No Spam" wrote... >> >>>I just love the racing in the new GPL65 mod . I hope >>>that the tech guys will see fit to uipdate the tire >>>models in gpl.exe so that we can enjoy the sim even >>>more? After racing nose to tail with many guys in >>>the 65's, I don't want to go back to the 67s. >>> >>>thanks. >> >>I agree, they should update the '67 season as well. Papyrus is history > > (on > >>top of that, Dave Keammer as much as admitted the tyre model in GPL is > > bunk) > >>and GPLRank is just a number; I'm willing to start over if that means > > I can > >>have "'65 style" feel for the car and near 400bhp. <g> > > > There are 66 & 69 mods coming out fairly soon, either or both should > fulfil the basic criteria of "like '65 but faster". > > I'd like to see an updated '67 mod but hopefully one of the above will > do the job. > > Malc. > >

'66 and '69 are being considered along with several other seasons. They are by no means definite and won't be out anytime soon.

"Kevin Clark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c8srge$lmh$[email hidden]... > Malc wrote: > > There are 66 & 69 mods coming out fairly soon, either or both should > > fulfil the basic criteria of "like '65 but faster". > '66 and '69 are being considered along with several other seasons.They > are by no means definite and won't be out anytime soon. Well 'fairly' is relative I guess, it took two years for the '65 mod so hopefully less time than that ;-) Malc.

I agree 200%. Marc "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:45Rrc.124390$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "No Spam" wrote... > > I just love the racing in the new GPL65 mod . I hope > > that the tech guys will see fit to uipdate the tire > > models in gpl.exe so that we can enjoy the sim even > > more? After racing nose to tail with many guys in > > the 65's, I don't want to go back to the 67s. > > > > thanks. > > I agree, they should update the '67 season as well. Papyrus is history (on > top of that, Dave Keammer as much as admitted the tyre model in GPL is

bunk) > and GPLRank is just a number; I'm willing to start over if that means Ican > have "'65 style" feel for the car and near 400bhp. <g> > > Jan. > =--- > >

I agree 200% (again). :) Marc "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mIYrc.124814$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> "Malc" wrote... > > > <snip> > > There are 66 & 69 mods coming out fairly soon, either or > > both should fulfil the basic criteria of "like '65 but > > faster". > > It's not about going faster, it's about having a "proper" '67 season. > > > I'd like to see an updated '67 mod but hopefully one of > > the above will do the job. > > Don't get me wrong, I'll probably like the other seasons too, it's just I > think it's silly to update "everything but". Especially seeing as '67 > wouldn't take a lot of graphics editing. > > Jan. > =--- > >

How hard is it to have a second "Fixed 67 Rank" as you suggested? Not very in my estimation and a lot less bother than all of us using an inferior '67 simulation. Marc "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c8pf44$m6e$[email hidden]... > ymenard wrote: > >>we can enjoy the sim even more? After racing nose to tail with many > >>guys in the 65's, I don't want to go back to the 67s. > > > But that would piss off the joystick-using alien with a low-ridemodified

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > setup that did his record lap 4 years ago! <G> > > That's not the problem. The problem is that all hotlaps were set from a > common base, namely original GPL 67. To have parity/equality (aka fair > comparison) everyone should then install this mod and start all over > again, which isn't gonna happen for all kinds of reasons; and having > some drivers on Rank using the mod and some without, wouldn't work either. > Better to start a separate 'early-68' or 'Fixed 67' type Rank. > > Regards, Rudy > -------------------- > GPLRank: -22

Is this true? Can someone involved with the '65 mod comment on this? If so, I take back my incredulous requests to hurry up and release a modified '67 .exe (which I have been led to believe already exists). Marc "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:nCasc.6489$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (39 lines)

> "No Spam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > My only issue is that it was stated that the current 67 tire model > > really IS a mess and it could be made more "accurate" ala the 65 > > model. > > Apparently it can't, or at least not in the way that the '65 mod was > done. > > The problem with the original '67 gpl cars is apparently to do with low > speed slip angle. Basically as I understand it the grip is there, but it > feels like it's sliding on ice because the tyres slide quite a bit > before losing grip. This is okay at high speed but at low speed the > amount of sliding should be much less and in gpl it's the same at all > speeds. I'm no expert, this is just my understanding of the 'problem'. > > In the '65 cars the amount of sliding (slip angle) has been 'optimised' > (reduced presumably) so it feels right at low speed, and in a '65 car > you don't have enough power at the top end to notice that this is now > less than optimum. > > So in effect the tyre model with the '65 cars is a better compromise > that with the original physics, but only as a result of having a less > powerful car. > > With the '67 cars apparently this 'fix' would only move the problem from > low speed to high speed (ie most of the time) and this is the reason why > a '67 mod isn't coming as quickly as '66 (less powerful) or imo more > importantly '69, where high speed behaviour can be masked as 'downforce' > although in reality I believe it will just be a small increase in grip > and more drag. > > Like I said though, I'm no expert, I just drive the cars & know what I > like ;-) > > Malc. > >

"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GM8tc.30949$[email hidden]... > Is this true? Can someone involved with the '65 mod comment on this?If > so, I take back my incredulous requests to hurry up and release amodified > '67 .exe (which I have been led to believe already exists). This subject has been discussed a few times on RSC, why don't you take a look for yourself? If I understood the (complex) problem correctly, then yes, it's correct. There's also the small matter of the wishes of the modders themselves. If they don't want to do it, it won't happen no matter how many people ask for it. Malc.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:nCasc.6489$[email hidden]... > > "No Spam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > My only issue is that it was stated that the current 67 tire model > > > really IS a mess and it could be made more "accurate" ala the 65 > > > model. > > > > Apparently it can't, or at least not in the way that the '65 mod was > > done. > > > > The problem with the original '67 gpl cars is apparently to do with

low > > speed slip angle. Basically as I understand it the grip is there,but it > > feels like it's sliding on ice because the tyres slide quite a bit > > before losing grip. This is okay at high speed but at low speed the > > amount of sliding should be much less and in gpl it's the same atall > > speeds. I'm no expert, this is just my understanding of the'problem'. > > > > In the '65 cars the amount of sliding (slip angle) has been'optimised' > > (reduced presumably) so it feels right at low speed, and in a '65car > > you don't have enough power at the top end to notice that this isnow > > less than optimum. > > > > So in effect the tyre model with the '65 cars is a better compromise > > that with the original physics, but only as a result of having aless > > powerful car. > > > > With the '67 cars apparently this 'fix' would only move the problemfrom > > low speed to high speed (ie most of the time) and this is the reasonwhy > > a '67 mod isn't coming as quickly as '66 (less powerful) or imo more > > importantly '69, where high speed behaviour can be masked as'downforce' > > although in reality I believe it will just be a small increase ingrip > > and more drag. > > > > Like I said though, I'm no expert, I just drive the cars & know whatI

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > like ;-) > > > > Malc. > > > > > >

Malc <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iL9tc.7800$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:GM8tc.30949$[email hidden]... > > Is this true? Can someone involved with the '65 mod comment on this? > If > > so, I take back my incredulous requests to hurry up and release a > modified > > '67 .exe (which I have been led to believe already exists). > > This subject has been discussed a few times on RSC, why don't you take a > look for yourself? If I understood the (complex) problem correctly, then > yes, it's correct. > > There's also the small matter of the wishes of the modders themselves. > If they don't want to do it, it won't happen no matter how many people > ask for it. > > Malc.

Hmmm.......I remember reading on rsc that the 67 exe HAS already been fixed, changed, whatever you want to call it. Iirc, one of the 65 modders said he had tried it. The above sounds more to me like looking for excuses, more than legitimate reasons, especially since its already been done. > > > > > > > > > > > >

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Z4atc.39$[email hidden]... > > Malc <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:iL9tc.7800$[email hidden]... > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:GM8tc.30949$[email hidden]... > > > Is this true? Can someone involved with the '65 mod comment onthis? > > If > > > so, I take back my incredulous requests to hurry up and release a > > modified > > > '67 .exe (which I have been led to believe already exists). > > > > This subject has been discussed a few times on RSC, why don't youtake a > > look for yourself? If I understood the (complex) problem correctly,then > > yes, it's correct. > > > > There's also the small matter of the wishes of the moddersthemselves. > > If they don't want to do it, it won't happen no matter how manypeople

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > ask for it. > > > > Malc. > > > > Hmmm.......I remember reading on rsc that the 67 exe HAS already

been > fixed, changed, whatever you want to call it. Iirc, one of the 65modders > said he had tried it. > > The above sounds more to me like looking for excuses, more thanlegitimate > reasons, especially since its already been done. Yes, the person that said it had been done was apparently wrong about it being 'fixed', although a modified '67 exe has apparently been created, along with several other 'test' exe's that are not planned for release any time soon such as a Caterham7 mod (physics only, no carset) to test front-engined physics. 'Modified' and 'fixed' are not the same thing I guess. I'd settle for 'modified', but I guess the modders don't feel the same way. Malc.

Malc <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:guatc.7815$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (50 lines)

> "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Z4atc.39$[email hidden]... > > > > Malc <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:iL9tc.7800$[email hidden]... > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:GM8tc.30949$[email hidden]... > > > > Is this true? Can someone involved with the '65 mod comment on > this? > > > If > > > > so, I take back my incredulous requests to hurry up and release a > > > modified > > > > '67 .exe (which I have been led to believe already exists). > > > > > > This subject has been discussed a few times on RSC, why don't you > take a > > > look for yourself? If I understood the (complex) problem correctly, > then > > > yes, it's correct. > > > > > > There's also the small matter of the wishes of the modders > themselves. > > > If they don't want to do it, it won't happen no matter how many > people > > > ask for it. > > > > > > Malc. > > > > > > > > Hmmm.......I remember reading on rsc that the 67 exe HAS already > been > > fixed, changed, whatever you want to call it. Iirc, one of the 65 > modders > > said he had tried it. > > > > The above sounds more to me like looking for excuses, more than > legitimate > > reasons, especially since its already been done. > > Yes, the person that said it had been done was apparently wrong about it > being 'fixed', although a modified '67 exe has apparently been created, > along with several other 'test' exe's that are not planned for release > any time soon such as a Caterham7 mod (physics only, no carset) to test > front-engined physics. > > 'Modified' and 'fixed' are not the same thing I guess. I'd settle for > 'modified', but I guess the modders don't feel the same way. > > Malc.

Hmm.....interesting, I guess. > >

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c9426u$ftc$[email hidden]... > Malc wrote: > > 'Modified' and 'fixed' are not the same thing I guess. I'd settlefor > > 'modified', but I guess the modders don't feel the same way. > > Well, rightly so I think. What good would it be to release it whenit's > only been half-fixed (half the parameters verified & tested ok, andthe > other half sheer guesswork), as a kind of semi-beta alpha? We'd all > complain ourselves silly after a few weeks. (It'd probably crash and > cause all kinds of problems, too.) > > Better to wait a bit more and do it right, or at least as right as canbe... Well obviously Ruud, otherwise what's the point? I didn't say it wasn't polished, I have no idea. It just doesn't do what we all thought it did ie fixing the tyre model flaw. It just modifies the settings & moves the problem somewhere else. Malc.

Malc wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>> Hmmm.......I remember reading on rsc that the 67 exe HAS already > > been > >>fixed, changed, whatever you want to call it. Iirc, one of the 65 > > modders > >>said he had tried it. >> >> The above sounds more to me like looking for excuses, more than > > legitimate > >>reasons, especially since its already been done. > > > Yes, the person that said it had been done was apparently wrong about it > being 'fixed', although a modified '67 exe has apparently been created, > along with several other 'test' exe's that are not planned for release > any time soon such as a Caterham7 mod (physics only, no carset) to test > front-engined physics.

Yes there are numerous exe's available to the testers. I've driven '37, '55, '66, '68, '69 and '03 but they are all extremely rudimentary. Now the guys in the know know how to make them they are getting quicker at producing different sets and options within sets to tryout. The idea is that we can discuss and try out seasons to see which are the most entertaining to drive and which seasons will be the most entertaining to produce. On the other stuff about grip, the 65 cars have exactly the same overall grip as the 67s. The main difference is that the 65s have pretty much the same tyre width front and back so the cars have similar grip allround. The 67s have big fat tyres at the back so consequently the relative grip at the front is less than in the 65s. So, the cars 'feel' like they understeer more. In fact there isn't a lot in it because you have to take into account that you're approaching corners at much higher speed in a heavier car with a power excess to the rear wheels.

Malc wrote: >> Hmmm.......I remember reading on rsc that the 67 exe HAS already > 'Modified' and 'fixed' are not the same thing I guess. I'd settle for > 'modified', but I guess the modders don't feel the same way. Well, rightly so I think. What good would it be to release it when it's only been half-fixed (half the parameters verified & tested ok, and the other half sheer guesswork), as a kind of semi-beta alpha? We'd all complain ourselves silly after a few weeks. (It'd probably crash and cause all kinds of problems, too.) Better to wait a bit more and do it right, or at least as right as can be... Regards, Rudy -------------------- GPLRank: -22

Kevin Clark <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c94cjn$moa$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (44 lines)

> Malc wrote: > > >> Hmmm.......I remember reading on rsc that the 67 exe HAS already > > > > been > > > >>fixed, changed, whatever you want to call it. Iirc, one of the 65 > > > > modders > > > >>said he had tried it. > >> > >> The above sounds more to me like looking for excuses, more than > > > > legitimate > > > >>reasons, especially since its already been done. > > > > > > Yes, the person that said it had been done was apparently wrong about it > > being 'fixed', although a modified '67 exe has apparently been created, > > along with several other 'test' exe's that are not planned for release > > any time soon such as a Caterham7 mod (physics only, no carset) to test > > front-engined physics. > > Yes there are numerous exe's available to the testers. I've driven '37, > '55, '66, '68, '69 and '03 but they are all extremely rudimentary. Now > the guys in the know know how to make them they are getting quicker at > producing different sets and options within sets to tryout. > > The idea is that we can discuss and try out seasons to see which are the > most entertaining to drive and which seasons will be the most > entertaining to produce. > > On the other stuff about grip, the 65 cars have exactly the same overall > grip as the 67s. > > The main difference is that the 65s have pretty much the same tyre width > front and back so the cars have similar grip allround. The 67s have big > fat tyres at the back so consequently the relative grip at the front is > less than in the 65s. So, the cars 'feel' like they understeer more. In > fact there isn't a lot in it because you have to take into account that > you're approaching corners at much higher speed in a heavier car with a > power excess to the rear wheels.

The grip at the front of the 67 is less because of the physics flaw in the code, not a higher speed or whatever. >

Can anyone explain exactly what the flaw in the 67 tyre model is? I've heard it mentioned a few times but have never seen a detailed description of what the problem is. Mark "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c966sa$ep6$[email hidden]... > Malc wrote: > > > It just doesn't do what we all thought it did ie fixing the tyre modelflaw. It just modifies

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > the settings & moves the problem somewhere else. > > Well, in the 67s it possibly would, in the 65s it doesn't. > Or, the characteristics/parameters of these cars are such that it's not > a real problem there. At least much less than in the 67s. > > Question is however, if the flaw can ever be really 'fixed' (that is, > applicable in all situations) without access to the source codes. And, > you'd have to be a good coder supported by an ace 'realism inspection'

team! > > Regards, Rudy > -------------------- > GPLRank: -22

Malc wrote: > It just doesn't do what we all thought it did ie fixing the tyre model flaw. It just modifies > the settings & moves the problem somewhere else. Well, in the 67s it possibly would, in the 65s it doesn't. Or, the characteristics/parameters of these cars are such that it's not a real problem there. At least much less than in the 67s. Question is however, if the flaw can ever be really 'fixed' (that is, applicable in all situations) without access to the source codes. And, you'd have to be a good coder supported by an ace 'realism inspection' team! Regards, Rudy -------------------- GPLRank: -22

"Mark Stone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LBBtc.2$[email hidden]... > Can anyone explain exactly what the flaw in the 67 tyre model is? I'veheard > it mentioned a few times but have never seen a detailed description ofwhat > the problem is. As you corner the tyrewall & tread blocks deflect, making the tyre contact patch 'crab' slightly as it rolls forwards. This effect is more pronounced as speed increases (the contact patch is rotating more quickly) so the faster you go the greater the 'crabbing'. The tyre has not gone beyond it's limit of static grip at this point, and the stiffer the tyre carcas the less this crabbing effect is felt. Basically the end result is that you get a bit of a warning before you exceed the limit of static grip. In gpl the amount of actual grip is okay at all speeds, but the crabbing effect (slip-angle) is constant at all speeds (it's just a number, not a formula, or possibly the formula is not complex enough) so although it feels okay at speed, when you are going slowly it feels like the tyres are deflecting too much. If the above is correct, the effect of reducing the slip-angle to correct the low-speed problem would be to make the car much harder to catch at high speeds (ie most of the time). The tyres wouldn't give as much warning before they let go. As far as fixing it is concerned I guess anything is possible with enough experience & time, but it's one thing to change a value, it's another problem entirely to replace the value with a formula to increase the value with speed. The gpl tyre model (the set of parameters & formulas that determine how the tyre behaves under varying conditions) is simpler than say NR2003, but in the majority of cases it's good enough. Rubber is very complicated to model accurately and even in real life tyre design is a bit of a black art ;-) I'm probably wrong about the detail points, but the basic effect is that at low speed the car drifts just as much as at high speed. Malc. > > "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:c966sa$ep6$[email hidden]... > > Malc wrote: > > > > > It just doesn't do what we all thought it did ie fixing the tyremodel > flaw. It just modifies > > > the settings & moves the problem somewhere else. > > > > Well, in the 67s it possibly would, in the 65s it doesn't. > > Or, the characteristics/parameters of these cars are such that it'snot > > a real problem there. At least much less than in the 67s. > > > > Question is however, if the flaw can ever be really 'fixed' (thatis, > > applicable in all situations) without access to the source codes.And, > > you'd have to be a good coder supported by an ace 'realisminspection'

Quoted text (7 lines)

> team! > > > > Regards, Rudy > > -------------------- > > GPLRank: -22 > >

Thanks for the explanation Malc. It makes sense that there should be an increase in apparent tyre stiffness with increasing speed - something along the lines of the "stress stiffening" phenomenon that is important in the design of rotating equipment. It would be interesting to know how significant an effect this actually is on real tyres, i.e. is the lack of it in GPL really a deficiency? It seems some people are clearly able to discern its absence (interesting to know how they are able to get to that position) but for most of us I'd reckon the model is convincing enough. I don't know much about tyre/rubber modelling but your 'black art' comment seems about right - there can't be too many technical fields in which "Magic" is taken as an accepted label for a formula! Mark "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:40b72833$0$1046$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (75 lines)

> "Mark Stone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:LBBtc.2$[email hidden]... > > Can anyone explain exactly what the flaw in the 67 tyre model is? I've > heard > > it mentioned a few times but have never seen a detailed description of > what > > the problem is. > > As you corner the tyrewall & tread blocks deflect, making the tyre > contact patch 'crab' slightly as it rolls forwards. This effect is more > pronounced as speed increases (the contact patch is rotating more > quickly) so the faster you go the greater the 'crabbing'. The tyre has > not gone beyond it's limit of static grip at this point, and the stiffer > the tyre carcas the less this crabbing effect is felt. Basically the end > result is that you get a bit of a warning before you exceed the limit of > static grip. > > In gpl the amount of actual grip is okay at all speeds, but the crabbing > effect (slip-angle) is constant at all speeds (it's just a number, not a > formula, or possibly the formula is not complex enough) so although it > feels okay at speed, when you are going slowly it feels like the tyres > are deflecting too much. > > If the above is correct, the effect of reducing the slip-angle to > correct the low-speed problem would be to make the car much harder to > catch at high speeds (ie most of the time). The tyres wouldn't give as > much warning before they let go. > > As far as fixing it is concerned I guess anything is possible with > enough experience & time, but it's one thing to change a value, it's > another problem entirely to replace the value with a formula to increase > the value with speed. The gpl tyre model (the set of parameters & > formulas that determine how the tyre behaves under varying conditions) > is simpler than say NR2003, but in the majority of cases it's good > enough. Rubber is very complicated to model accurately and even in real > life tyre design is a bit of a black art ;-) > > I'm probably wrong about the detail points, but the basic effect is that > at low speed the car drifts just as much as at high speed. > > Malc. > > > > > > > > "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:c966sa$ep6$[email hidden]... > > > Malc wrote: > > > > > > > It just doesn't do what we all thought it did ie fixing the tyre > model > > flaw. It just modifies > > > > the settings & moves the problem somewhere else. > > > > > > Well, in the 67s it possibly would, in the 65s it doesn't. > > > Or, the characteristics/parameters of these cars are such that it's > not > > > a real problem there. At least much less than in the 67s. > > > > > > Question is however, if the flaw can ever be really 'fixed' (that > is, > > > applicable in all situations) without access to the source codes. > And, > > > you'd have to be a good coder supported by an ace 'realism > inspection' > > team! > > > > > > Regards, Rudy > > > -------------------- > > > GPLRank: -22 > > > > > >

Mark Stone <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TK_tc.68$wk7.15@newsfe2-win... > Thanks for the explanation Malc. It makes sense that there should be an > increase in apparent tyre stiffness with increasing speed - somethingalong > the lines of the "stress stiffening" phenomenon that is important in the > design of rotating equipment. It would be interesting to know how > significant an effect this actually is on real tyres, i.e. is the lack ofit > in GPL really a deficiency? It seems some people are clearly able todiscern > its absence (interesting to know how they are able to get to thatposition) > but for most of us I'd reckon the model is convincing enough. I don't know > much about tyre/rubber modelling but your 'black art' comment seems about > right - there can't be too many technical fields in which "Magic" is taken > as an accepted label for a formula! > > Mark The next time the front end of your car wallows back and forth at slow speed, unlike any real car anywhere, you've seen it. This was a "trademark" of Papy sims until N4.