Solution for 22 players online racing on the internet!

I bet all future racing sims will have the following multiplayer feature "Ghost Multiplayer". I'm from Sweden and I have a friend, Ian Lake, in Australia who is as fast as me in GP2, perhaps even faster. We both have well over 500 hours of offline racing without any helps whatsoever in GP2. The thing is that we would love to race each other online. We tried several times with F1RS, but the pings are always above 600 ms, so we have never succeded. Now I have an idea where 2000 ms would be sufficient to race online over the internet. The specifications are; multiplayer, 22 players, pings below 3000 ms, and on the internet. The solution are; Turn off collision detection, so our cars can drive through each other (ghosts), much like the ghostlapping in F1RS. This is necessary, since my simulator gets Ian's position with up to 1.5 seconds delay, which makes it impossible to outbrake him without he turning in to me, cause he cant know I'm there.. The drawing of the other opponents cars in your simulator is very fluid, because they are a kind of AI cars, which are controlled by input from all your opponents around the globe. Whenever my simulator gets a package from the internet telling where an opponents car was when the package was sent, my simulator extrapolates where the car should be now and modifies the AI car's position to match the extrapolation as closely as possible. I suggest that when my car gets close enough to a car infront of me, that car isn't drawn in my simulation until I get passed it, or it pulls away again. This to avoid the blurr of 22 cars in the first corner. When the race is over you get some statistics about the race, such as every drivers fastest lap, and you can save this statistics. Every driver also gets to save their fastest lap, to be used for verification. The laps are saved as driver inputs, with car setup, BHP, grip, tyre compound, etc, everything needed so the laps can be resimulated, which they are when viewed in your simulator. The saved laps data can also be viewed in a window, to check that the driver has used correct settings. This is important, because it makes cheating impossible. Perhaps we will get this already in GP Legends :o))). /Christer Andersson, would love to race 21 players at the same time on the internet, even if I drive through them, or over, as I prefer to look upon it :o)

The following ideas are already being used right now actually. Ubi Soft has them with their online version of POD. The things you would see are kind of comical though. Your opponent would seem to fly off the track and crash, and then appear farther up the track doing just fine. The computer's AI would attempt to determine where the car was headed between receiving packets but it just didn't work too well when you reached turns and the more difficult sections of the tracks. It wasn't perfect, the software was full of bugs, but it certainly was better than what you are experiencing right now. I would think Ubi Soft would like to set up a similiar online site for F1, and would be able to rather easily since F1 and POD are built on the same engine, but if I remember correctly, they were unable to get the permission to do so. It's a shame they can't do the same thing Microsoft has with the Game Zone. I race people from all over the world and usually don't have any problem with lag. Much of the time you don't see any significant lag at all. Turn off collision Whenever my simulator gets a

> The following ideas are already being used right now actually. Ubi Soft has > them with their online version of POD. The things you would see are kind of > comical though. Your opponent would seem to fly off the track and crash, and > then appear farther up the track doing just fine. This phenomena is found in F1RS too, and I think it could be avoided if every sent packet from one computer to another had a time stamp included. Then your simulation could just ignore old packets. If you look at the training option in F1RS where you have an AI car driving in front of you showing the line. This AI car stops if I go off the track, your opponents cars in a multiplayer race could act in a similar way. /Christer

Here's a future scenario. it's 22 player racing time :o) and it's 02:00 GMT and all 22 players are on the same chat channel on a Kali server. Drivers from places all over the world is present :o). The name of the game gets decided and everyone starts GP3 :o) and connects to the game. First there is a 30 minutes qualifying session, 6 laps each. Why, you ask :o). Well, in the simulator there is a parameter which the host sets. This parameter tells how much time there is between the start of each grid position. It ranges from 0 seconds to whatever you want and say we set it to 0.5 seconds. Then after the start of the pole sitter, the runner up gets to wait 0.5 seconds before his start lights is turned off, and so on. So the driver on grid pos 22, starts 11 seconds after the pole sitter. Now the qualifying is important. You would at least want to be among the five first. The qualifying is done as the race, with a lot of ghosts :o). The drivers in the pit view the results as the other drivers goes out and set lap times. You have currently sat the fastest time and it's a screamer, and you know the other drivers are wondering, what wonder setup you have found this time. Qual is over and you kept your pole. The host enters race mode where all drivers have a little time to load race setup and see how much rain is coming down, if any :o). Everyone has pressed their OK button and we get to the grid. 22 engines reving, you only hear the ones around you of course :o). Some racing occurences that could develop during this race is with the ones you're equally fast, shifting position all the time, perhaps you're faster on the straights and he in the corners. Could perhaps go under the definition of fierce racing :o). Three times per lap you get information on how far you have to the driver in front and behind, to watch if you gain or loose. The qualification laps could be used as the driving line in the simulation of the other cars in your simulation, thus you could see if their racing line is different from yours. These racing lines could be automatically exchanged between the computers between the qual session and race session. I think we could enjoy this kind of racing until we get an internet where we can dedicate bandwidth. Then we set collision detection on again :o). /Christer

> I think we could enjoy this kind of racing until we get an internet > where we can dedicate bandwidth. Then we set collision detection on > again :o). Bandwidth isn't the issue. Latency is the issue. A properly designed multi player simulation doesn't need to pass enough information to create a bandwidth problem. Trips

Christer Andersson wrote Already done. NROS. Get on the NROS, http://www.awpss.com/ You will understand that it takes big buck$ to make a stable racing experience on the Internet. It's much more than _plain&boring_ Hotlap racing against people. Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard on NROS> Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ May the downforce be with you and Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-) - Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. - Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) - Excuse me for being provocative (I'm dumb speaking)

> Christer Andersson wrote > >Here's a future scenario. it's 22 player racing time :o) > Already done. NROS. If you promise that I, here from Sweden, can race my friend Ian Lake in Australia, without any added monthly or/and hourly fee, I will agree with you. Now I've visited www.nros.com and have read things I previously only have theories about. As I suspected I need a "valid credit card". They recommend me to race on the "best arena for your connection strength and speed", probably never at the same arena as my friend Ian Lake. I understand computer technology, and that's enough for me to see a solution where big bucks are not needed. I have raced other people a lot in F1RS over the internet. F1RS is not really suited for this but it's bareable. Unfotenately, I haven't raced Ian yet, so that's why I'm bringing this up. Also my solution makes it possible for sim racing developers to develop internet online racing sims, with which you can race online out of the box. Perhaps when N3 is released and the ABS is only a memory from the time of N2, perhaps then I get onto NROS :o). It's a bit more expensive than my current online racing in F1RS, though. One very big advantage of ghost multiplayers is that when you***up it will never be because of another driver. It will always be your own fault, since you cant take anyone out. I think the tension will be there during racing. Imaging how it would feel if you started to gain on that special driver, who won every race so far, and you're now straight behind him, trying to keep your line corner after corner. This is not racing for weak nerves. He can not just concentrate on getting fast out of corners to keep you behind. He must be fast in, fast through and fast out, or you will eventually pass him :o). He's now under a tremendeus pressure and will sooner or later make his first mistake, cause you're really pushing him towards his limits. That first mistake will shake him into making the rest during that race, probably ending up third or even worse. I think we have to try this kind of racing before we say it's not fun :o). If the next version of IP will support dedicated bandwidth, it will be just as good as playing modem to modem. Of course this dedicated bandwidth you have to pay for, but you wont need it for normal surfing. You need it for example for IP-telephony and real time multiplayer games. /Christer Andersson,

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > I think we could enjoy this kind of racing until we get an internet > > where we can dedicate bandwidth. Then we set collision detection on > > again :o). > Bandwidth isn't the issue. Latency is the issue. A properly designed > multi player simulation doesn't need to pass enough information to > create a bandwidth problem.

I know bandwidth isn't the issue :o), but dedicated bandwidth is. With dedicated bandwidth you get connected with the other computer as if it was a modem connection, thus the limiting factor for latency is the speed of electrons in the communications channel, which is close to the speed of light. This actually gives a latency of 125 ms to a place on the other side of the globe. /Christer

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Bandwidth isn't the issue. Latency is the issue. A properly designed > > multi player simulation doesn't need to pass enough information to > > create a bandwidth problem. > I know bandwidth isn't the issue :o), but dedicated bandwidth > is. With dedicated bandwidth you get connected with the other > computer as if it was a modem connection, thus the limiting factor > for latency is the speed of electrons in the communications channel, > which is close to the speed of light. This actually gives a latency > of 125 ms to a place on the other side of the globe.

You're unlikely to get anywhere near the speed of light on an actual multi-hop communications link. Even in a circuit switched system (like a phone call), you have delays at every MUX/DMUX and repeater. In a packet-switched system with dedicated bandwidth and source-based or private-circuit routing, each router along the way has to read the header of the packet, and send it to the next hop on the path. This takes a lot longer than it would take an electric signal to pass the 19" width of the router. :-) But, the real killer is on long links, repeaters are needed every few miles. Before you're looking at 125 halfway around the world, you'll need to wait for undersea fiber technology to improve such that fewer repeaters are needed. In 1992 I toured "Global Link", an AT&T undersea fiber ship; on the rout, I learned that repeaters are needed every 5 miles and each of those repeaters is very slow compared to the light in the fiber. Have some hope though, when the technology is available, the long distance data carriers will be falling all over themselves to lay it, as they'll be able to pump more data through each fiber, as the repeaters are the limiting factor for them as well as us sim-racers. As an example, it happens that I can get to MIT (Cambridge, MA) in under 10ms from home (New Hampshire), but that's because MediaOne (cable modem) and MIT directly peer and it's less than 50 miles. I'm still almost 100ms from TEN, and that's mostly a 60ms chicago to palo-alto link in bbnplanet's net. I'm 125ms from demon.co.uk (85ms in a teleglobe link, presumably undersea fiber). The closest site I can identify in Australia is 139.130.249.226 (Fddi0-0.pad-core1.Sydney.telstra.net), which is 15 hops and about 340ms away, with the net as a whole behaving well. 250ms of that is in a single link in att's net, probably an undersea fiber link with loads of repeaters: (traceroute excerpt-showing the high latency link) 13 199.37.127.246 86.871 ms 91.281 ms 104.850 ms 14 205.174.74.186 364.844 ms 342.721 ms 348.590 ms Sorry to be the bearer of bad news... ---Jim

Worth noting that the speed of light in a fibre optic cable is something like half that which you get in a vaccuum - so a theortical maximum of say 100,000 miles per second or 100 miles per millisecond looking at it in ping terms ;-). [don't quote me on the above figure! I heard it a while back and it stuck in my mind but offhand, I can't provide any evidence to back it up. It may or may not take into account the delays caused by repeaters] Cheers, Richard

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:00:13 +0100, Christer Andersson >If you promise that I, here from Sweden, can race my friend Ian Lake in >Australia, without any added monthly or/and hourly fee, I will agree >with you. If you want to race with someone in Australia then I suspect that your suggestion is probably the only practical one as things currently stand. You also need that credit card to be registered at a US address, so for now non-Americans need to get an acocunt via an intermediary :( To be honest, I can't really see many sim developers taking up your ideas. It would be good for 'driving games' but frankly, I think it involves too many compromises to make it attractive for racing simulator developers. The Papy/TEN/NROS model is the one that is likely to be adopted by any developer that wants to seriously develop online racing. But it is *so* much better than the online experience you get with F1RS! <g> BTW - whilst N2 doesn't really model locking the wheels during braking, it's a moot point at the ovals. The brakes on a NASCAR don't have anything like the same performance characteristics of an F1 car and I don't recall ever seeing a NASCAR driver lock the brakes in a normal oval racing situation. I hope that N3 does model locked wheels for the road courses though. Since it will have the same underlying engine as GPL - and GPL most certainly will model locked wheels - it would seem a fairly safe bet ;-) IMHO, that would be missing one of the main things that makes *racing* so special - how to make a clean pass on another driver without wrecking one or both of you. I would very quickly lose interest in any online experience that wasn't really any different to racing against 'ghosts'. On NROS I'm catching the car infront but I'm not a great deal quicker than him. I get the better exit from a corner but not enough to get fully alongside into the next turn. So I have to back off and give him the line. Next time I do slightly better and do get alongside. But I have to get off the gas in the next corner to avoid sliding up into him. As a result we exit the corner side by side. This continues for several laps - with my pulse rate soaring with each lap - until I finally manage to get fully ahead and can take the next corner on the racing line. If there is no risk of wrecking then I simply drive through his car and take the racing line into the first corner. Pass completed immediately, but where's the feel that I'm *racing* the other guy? Driving fast is a very small element of being a good racing driver - and that's what I'm interested in ATM. I've already had very similar experiences in F1RS when the two PCs have become out of synch - it looks like you are just behind the other car but on his PC he's either several seconds in front or behind. Once I realise that this is the situation it loses most of the fun for me. I know that I can drive right through his car and a significant proportion of the challenge has disappeared :( Sorry for disagreeing with you on this one, Christer. It's an original - and useful - idea but I can't help thinking that it is only of any use where 'proper' online racing is not possible. Now that I know that it is practical to race against 19 other guys on NROS, I'm not interested in anything less ;-) Cheers, Richard

Quoted text (58 lines)

> > > Bandwidth isn't the issue. Latency is the issue. A properly designed > > > multi player simulation doesn't need to pass enough information to > > > create a bandwidth problem. > > I know bandwidth isn't the issue :o), but dedicated bandwidth > > is. With dedicated bandwidth you get connected with the other > > computer as if it was a modem connection, thus the limiting factor > > for latency is the speed of electrons in the communications channel, > > which is close to the speed of light. This actually gives a latency > > of 125 ms to a place on the other side of the globe. > You're unlikely to get anywhere near the speed of light on an actual > multi-hop communications link. > Even in a circuit switched system (like a phone call), you have delays > at every MUX/DMUX and repeater. > In a packet-switched system with dedicated bandwidth and source-based > or private-circuit routing, each router along the way has to read the > header of the packet, and send it to the next hop on the path. This > takes a lot longer than it would take an electric signal to pass the > 19" width of the router. :-) > But, the real killer is on long links, repeaters are needed every few > miles. Before you're looking at 125 halfway around the world, you'll > need to wait for undersea fiber technology to improve such that fewer > repeaters are needed. In 1992 I toured "Global Link", an AT&T undersea > fiber ship; on the rout, I learned that repeaters are needed every 5 > miles and each of those repeaters is very slow compared to the light > in the fiber. > Have some hope though, when the technology is available, the long > distance data carriers will be falling all over themselves to lay it, > as they'll be able to pump more data through each fiber, as the > repeaters are the limiting factor for them as well as us sim-racers. > As an example, it happens that I can get to MIT (Cambridge, MA) in > under 10ms from home (New Hampshire), but that's because MediaOne > (cable modem) and MIT directly peer and it's less than 50 miles. > I'm still almost 100ms from TEN, and that's mostly a 60ms chicago to > palo-alto link in bbnplanet's net. I'm 125ms from demon.co.uk (85ms in > a teleglobe link, presumably undersea fiber). > The closest site I can identify in Australia is 139.130.249.226 > (Fddi0-0.pad-core1.Sydney.telstra.net), which is 15 hops and about > 340ms away, with the net as a whole behaving well. > 250ms of that is in a single link in att's net, probably an undersea > fiber link with loads of repeaters: > (traceroute excerpt-showing the high latency link) > 13 199.37.127.246 86.871 ms 91.281 ms 104.850 ms > 14 205.174.74.186 364.844 ms 342.721 ms 348.590 ms > Sorry to be the bearer of bad news... > ---Jim

Great thread this. Have wondered about this often. I thought when I calculated it it came out to about 43ms from one side of the world to the other. I'm obviously very rusty. Used 3 X 10 to the 8th power and 12,000 miles. Anyway Jim, while we're on the subject, can fibre cables transmit very high frequency EMR? From memory, higher freq EMR travels at higher speeds than normal light. Or was it lower freq? :) (Very rusty, hehehe) -- We are the Hosh! You will be assimilated! Lower your defences and surrender! Your technological and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Your culture will be adapted to service us. Resistance is futile. Have a nice &*($ing day!

Quoted text (13 lines)

> One very big advantage of ghost multiplayers is that when you***up > it will never be because of another driver. It will always be your own > fault, since you cant take anyone out. I think the tension will be there > during racing. Imaging how it would feel if you started to gain on that > special driver, who won every race so far, and you're now straight > behind him, trying to keep your line corner after corner. This is not > racing for weak nerves. He can not just concentrate on getting fast out > of corners to keep you behind. He must be fast in, fast through and fast > out, or you will eventually pass him :o). He's now under a tremendeus > pressure and will sooner or later make his first mistake, cause you're > really pushing him towards his limits. That first mistake will shake him > into making the rest during that race, probably ending up third or even > worse.

This is a good idea you have. Now my 2 cents A good system would be one where if the packet does not get through in time that this players car is then controlled by the local AI. Of course, going from packets to AI is easy enough but going the other way is the problem. If this gap could be bridged smoothly then we would truely have something. Perhaps when the packets start to "show up" again the AI continues to speed up or slow down to align itself with where the packet is telling it to be. Come to think of it, what I'm saying is that the AI is always running and works in unison with the incoming packets. Ok, job offers? Ubisoft? Papy? Microprose? Can anyone hear me, hehehehehehehe? From the brief reading I've done on Papy's LP files this would fit with their sims quite nicely. -- We are the Hosh! You will be assimilated! Lower your defences and surrender! Your technological and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Your culture will be adapted to service us. Resistance is futile. Have a nice &*($ing day!

Quoted text (19 lines)

> IMHO, that would be missing one of the main things that makes *racing* so > special - how to make a clean pass on another driver without wrecking one > or both of you. I would very quickly lose interest in any online > experience that wasn't really any different to racing against 'ghosts'. > On NROS I'm catching the car infront but I'm not a great deal quicker > than him. I get the better exit from a corner but not enough to get fully > alongside into the next turn. So I have to back off and give him the > line. Next time I do slightly better and do get alongside. But I have to > get off the gas in the next corner to avoid sliding up into him. As a > result we exit the corner side by side. This continues for several laps - > with my pulse rate soaring with each lap - until I finally manage to get > fully ahead and can take the next corner on the racing line. > If there is no risk of wrecking then I simply drive through his car and > take the racing line into the first corner. Pass completed immediately, > but where's the feel that I'm *racing* the other guy? Driving fast is a > very small element of being a good racing driver - and that's what I'm > interested in ATM.

Fully agree. Apart from my idea posted in this thread, even just to have the lap times (in bright red say) of the other online players would be enough, whilst everyone just races against their local AI. I don't like the ghost feature of F1RS either. It puts me right off driving when I'm inside another car :) -- We are the Hosh! You will be assimilated! Lower your defences and surrender! Your technological and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Your culture will be adapted to service us. Resistance is futile. Have a nice &*($ing day!

> Fully agree. Apart from my idea posted in this thread, even just to > have the lap times (in bright red say) of the other online players would > be enough, whilst everyone just races against their local AI. I don't > like the ghost feature of F1RS either. It puts me right off driving when > I'm inside another car :) Dont like the overlapping feature either. I would prefer if the ghost cars only gets drawn when their not overlapping my own car. /Christer

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > Bandwidth isn't the issue. Latency is the issue. A properly designed > > > multi player simulation doesn't need to pass enough information to > > > create a bandwidth problem. > > I know bandwidth isn't the issue :o), but dedicated bandwidth > > is. With dedicated bandwidth you get connected with the other > > computer as if it was a modem connection, thus the limiting factor > > for latency is the speed of electrons in the communications channel, > > which is close to the speed of light. This actually gives a latency > > of 125 ms to a place on the other side of the globe. > You're unlikely to get anywhere near the speed of light on an actual > multi-hop communications link.

Cant we say within the tenth power is close :o)? Perhaps I use the wrong term when I say dedicated. What I mean is that when you connect to another internet user in this new IP and you want dedicated bandwidth, you get prerouted, thus there is no routing in the routers after we are connected. Much like a telephone call. Haven't you heard :o). In a laboratory somewhere here on earth they've recently managed to move the attributes of a photon from one place to another in no time at all, like instantly :o). 0 ms, 0 ns, 0 piko seconds, nada seconds :o). No lag at all. As I heard it, it counter proofs one of Einsteins theories. Are these ping time or only from you to them? You cant discourage a true optimist :o). /Christer

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Even in a circuit switched system (like a phone call), you have delays > > at every MUX/DMUX and repeater. > > In a packet-switched system with dedicated bandwidth and source-based > > or private-circuit routing, each router along the way has to read the > > header of the packet, and send it to the next hop on the path. This > > takes a lot longer than it would take an electric signal to pass the > > 19" width of the router. :-) > Perhaps I use the wrong term when I say dedicated. What I mean is > that when you connect to another internet user in this new IP and > you want dedicated bandwidth, you get prerouted, thus there is no > routing in the routers after we are connected. Much like a telephone > call.

A telephone call is circuit switched. Even in a telephone call, there is some level of routing going on. (Phone service to my office is by multiple T1 lines from our long distance carrier and from other offices, 24 voices lines are multiplexed (essentially a trivial form of routing) onto a single T1 and DMUX'd at the other office or at our LD carrier, in which case they are MUX'd back onto the backbone of our LD carrier and DMUX'd again in the local city. These operations are easy and relatively fast, but there is no physical copper line that directly connects me to my called party. :-) Each of these steps takes a finite, non-zero time. I believe what you're referring to was electron spin pairs, not photons. (The theory is that every electron has another electron with opposite spin. If you can "flip" one electron, it's "mate" must also flip. By given one electron to you and its mate to your pal, you could in theory communicate by flipping your electron and having the mate flip. There's some question of whether the resulting communications link is actually faster than light.) I don't recall the final conclusion, but I feel certain that if it were possible to use this for faster-than-C communication without paying anyone for the privelege, there would have been a bigger announcement. :-) These are the output of traceroute, which I believe to be uni-directional, but I don't know. (Might be in the man pages; is certainly in the source code.) ---Jim

Nah, I often lie. This statement is a lie ;-) I agree that it is the only way to allow everyone to race against everyone else, but IMHO it isn't worth it. Fine for sprints, but what about longer races? A chance to have a little rest occasionally - and know how to make use of it - is just as much a part of being a top racing driver. My experience on TEN leads me to believe otherwise. There are very few drivers who can pass successfully. Most are over aggressive and cause wrecks as often as not. These drivers tend to do well in pick-up races but will find that they quickly get obliterated in serious leagues. Other drivers tend to be over cautious and whilst they often finish in the top 5 will rarely win - I'm in this category ;-). A very small band of truely gifted drivers can pass safely without losing much time and these are the guys who will rightly be competing for the highest honours in NROS. Fast drivers often do not make great racing drivers - there are lots of facets to being a good racer, speed is only one of them. And if you didn't drive it exactly the same your car would suddenly be a few 100 metres further ahead or behind. Even if it won't cause a crash it won't feel anything like racing :( Maybe, maybe not. I can't say what others would enjoy. All I can say is that having had the opportunity to race 19 other guys on TEN any form of 'ghost' type racing holds no interest for me. You really need to try TEN to realise what you are missing ;-) Cheers, Richard

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >I believe driving fast is everything of being a good racing driver. > >Passing slower racers is a skill that the fast racer learns sooner or later, > >and with the amount of track time you can get in a simulator, I would guess a > >sim racer could learn it sooner :o). > My experience on TEN leads me to believe otherwise. There are very few > drivers who can pass successfully. Most are over aggressive and cause > wrecks as often as not. These drivers tend to do well in pick-up races > but will find that they quickly get obliterated in serious leagues. Other > drivers tend to be over cautious and whilst they often finish in the top > 5 will rarely win - I'm in this category ;-). A very small band of truely > gifted drivers can pass safely without losing much time and these are the > guys who will rightly be competing for the highest honours in NROS.

Do you really think it will take you more than a year before you start winning races? A year isn't very long. I know you're fast Richard, very fast :o). In my book you're one of the fastest no helps sim racers in the world, and without being fast you can never win a race. I dont think passing skills is a more important gift than the gift of being fast, not even equally important :o). You make it sound as if it's a disadvantage to be fast :o), then you're at a disadvantage, Richard :o). There will be no sudden jumps of any meters here and there! When there is no data from the other computer the clone in your simulator just drives as the prerecorded offline lap (have a much better algorithm for this, but this will do for now :o) ). As soon as new data is received the clone slows down or speeds up to get in sync. The implementation of this solution is so incredibly simple to do, if you already have normal network play in you simulator. It would be so very, very simple for Ubisoft to put it in F1RS2. They already have multiplayer and collision detection cant be that hard to turn off :o). Any form is a lot of forms :o). Perhaps I'll see you on a track in NASCAR3, cause I wont like to loose my skills in braking without ABS :o). /Christer

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:21:14 +0100, Christer Andersson >Do you really think it will take you more than a year before you start winning >races? I already win races <g> Just not as many as some drivers. What's this, the start of the RW fan club? <vbg> Seriously, being fast, especially over a single lap, *IS* only one element. In longer races, tyre and fuel management are at least as important as being fast - and on TEN that's where I am more likely to win races. But having preserved your tyres, you've still got to pass the guys in front cleanly. He, he. No it's not a disadvantage - if the other factors are the same then the faster driver will win. But that's often not the case. Niki Lauda was never a particularly 'fast' driver (for instance he didn't qualify higher than 3rd throughout his championship winning '84 season!) but he knew how to win races. You keep on about this, but it ain't so <g> I learned a lot about how to improve my braking when I started racing N2. Cheers, Richard

> Well, Christer, I'm an Aussie but I don't use the ghosts in F1RS > because they just put me off too much. I agree with you. I think a better solution would be not to draw the other car when you're inside it. I'm all with you on this one, but if you want passing and collisions between 22 players, then AI working in conjuction with incoming packets is very hard to implement. My solution is just one step up from offline racing and it's really very simple to implement. I drive without helps and aids when I drive racing simulators and I've been doing that for about 10 hours a week the last 15 months. ***ed??? Me??? Probably :o). Who am I to judge what is a sport and what is not :o). I outlap the original Ace AI cars in GP2 with up to 5 seconds and the expert AI cars in F1RS dont stand chance either :o). The ghost multiplayer function would enhance offline racing a great deal for me. It's just a step on the way, but I would love that step :o). I have done some thinking on having collision detection on, with pings upto 3000 ms, but I believe the developers of racing sims can figure out this themselfes :o). I cant seem to let the problem go, though. /Christer

>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:21:14 +0100, Christer Andersson >>Do you really think it will take you more than a year before you start winning >>races? >I already win races <g> Just not as many as some drivers. I just took this from the Official (well, semi-official ;-) ) TEN statistics on the NROS. Charlie Mone: 662 races, 434 wins Mike Grandy: 802 races, 404 wins ymenard (me): 310 races, 31 wins Richard: I don't remember your screename, but I raced against you I think. Charlie and Mike (with the addition of Nim Cross and many other drivers) are the best you can find, they are born with a wheel in their hand. It's a gift from God ;-) . Heck I have a 10% win/race ration, Charlie has a 65% one. There is a difference ! And I consider myself an above-average driver ! All this to say you can find the best and the worst drivers, but for me I wouldn't be surprised to see some virtual drivers be good in real racing, some people like Andrew White are very succesfull in real racing. Oh yeah btw Dale Earnheardt Jr races on TEN, and Charlie and Mike are better than him easily ! Heh a RW fan club ;-) I'm sure you would have members. Your joy of life is very welcome into the NROS community, and England comedy is always funnier to me and American one ! I agree you are a great driver. Being fast helps it sure, even more on the NROS, as you can bet 5$ (3 ??) that there is going to be a midpack wreck during the first 3laps. But somehow there is consistence that is a big role in winning... Some drivers like David Sparks and Alex Koziol are master in this. Yes indeed 10-4. ABS braking is not really affective in NASCAR (except maybe road tracks and Martinsville). So you learn to control your brakes in a other way. You learn to brake smooth, consistent, to get the 0.1 sec's you need to be with the bests. Heh can I be the first official member of your fan club Richard ;-) ?? Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-) Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) Excuse me for being provocative (I'm dumb speaking) --"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."--

>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:21:14 +0100, Christer Andersson >>Do you really think it will take you more than a year before you start winning >>races? >I already win races <g> Just not as many as some drivers. I just took this from the Official (well, semi-official ;-) ) TEN statistics on the NROS. Charlie Mone: 662 races, 434 wins Mike Grandy: 802 races, 404 wins ymenard (me): 310 races, 31 wins Richard: I don't remember your screename, but I raced against you I think. Charlie and Mike (with the addition of Nim Cross and many other drivers) are the best you can find, they are born with a wheel in their hand. It's a gift from God ;-) . Heck I have a 10% win/race ration, Charlie has a 65% one. There is a difference ! And I consider myself an above-average driver ! All this to say you can find the best and the worst drivers, but for me I wouldn't be surprised to see some virtual drivers be good in real racing, some people like Andrew White are very successful in real racing. Oh yeah btw Dale Earnheardt Jr races on TEN, and Charlie and Mike are better than him easily ! Heh a RW fan club ;-) I'm sure you would have members. Your joy of life is very welcome into the NROS community, and England comedy is always funnier to me and American one ! I agree you are a great driver. Being fast helps it sure, even more on the NROS, as you can bet 5$ (3 ??) that there is going to be a midpack wreck during the first 3laps. But somehow there is consistence that is a big role in winning... Some drivers like David Sparks and Alex Koziol are master in this. Yes indeed 10-4. ABS braking is not really affective in NASCAR (except maybe road tracks and Martinsville). So you learn to control your brakes in a other way. You learn to brake smooth, consistent, to get the 0.1 sec's you need to be with the bests. Heh can I be the first official member of your fan club Richard ;-) ?? Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Sponsored by http://www.awpss.com/ Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-) Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) Excuse me for being provocative (I'm dumb speaking) --"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."--

> Perhaps you're not :o), but I bet the Australians are, and all others around > the world who would like to race globally. Well, Christer, I'm an Aussie but I don't use the ghosts in F1RS because they just put me off too much. I admit that I have not tried it much for this reason. Still, I think there are better solutions that would allow other cars and collisions. The best is obviously instant pings but AI that works in conjunction with incoming packets is the most obvious for now.

> I have done some thinking on having collision detection on, with pings upto 3000 > ms, but I believe the developers of racing sims can figure out this themselfes > :o). I cant seem to let the problem go, though. > /Christer Actually, I posted some of our conversation on this NG over at the GPL Apex site http://gpl.gamestats.com/ under the heading "Multyplay". I was asking the GPL rep from Papy about this subject. You may wish to have a look. I never got a definative answer and I may raise the issue with Mike again soon.

I haven't had the pleasure of racing against Charlie or Mike yet. I've seen Charlie practicing when I'm on but I think Mike must race rather later than I tend to be on. I still remember when I first came up against Nim, Pekka, Jure, etc. though. I couldn't believe just how fast they are! But knowing what is possible is one of the keys to getting that fast. I think I could now give them a bit of a race at some tracks now, especially with fixed setups, but I don't think I'll ever match Jure's 125mph qualifying run at the Glen <g> A lot of the requirements are the same , particularly in terms of 'race craft' But a RL driver must also have excellent physical abilities and lots of guts. Both those rather exclude me <g> At my better tracks I can usually qualify in the first couple of rows and, yes, it does help. But there are other tracks where I will take a provisional and just concentrate on avoiding those early wrecks. My two races last night showed the two sides of this - a short race at Atlanta where I took pole and led all the laps and a 15% at Sears where I took a prov, had some great close racing for the first 4 laps but ended up winning by nearly a lap with all but one other guy crashing out ;-) You're scaring me now <g> Start fan clubs for Nim, Mike, Charlie etc first. I'm way down the pecking order <g> Cheers, Richard