NR2003 AI : Track.ini malipulation

OK what was the final consensus on changing the track ini to stop offline AI drivers rearending all the time? I've searched this forum and others, I know it has to do with the ai_dlongpad_scale and ai_dlat_pad values but some threads say you increase it to stop getting rear ended and others say you decrease it. What was the end consensus to stop the AI from being so rammy? Thanks Rudeboy

> OK what was the final consensus on changing the track ini to stop offlineAI > drivers rearending all the time? > > I've searched this forum and others, I know it has to do with the > ai_dlongpad_scale and ai_dlat_pad values but some threads say you increase > it to stop getting rear ended and others say you decrease it. What wasthe > end consensus to stop the AI from being so rammy? I've tried upping the drafting distance a smidge (.3-.5) at several tracks, and I like the difference so far. For one, it seems easier to follow the AI around the track without getting smacked from behind should I brake a little early. Plus, I don't have the AI shoving their noses down low every single pseudo-chance they get. They're still close enough to pounce when I make a real mistake (iow not just sliding up a tiny bit) or am a bit slow coming off a turn. It also keeps them from tripping over each other and ending up three wide at bad times or in bad places. Just a cleaner race overall. Alan

I've seen this a bit late, I didn't realise there were any INI tweaks to allow for a better racing experience. I was getting quite annoyed with AI drivers ruining my offline races needlessly. Alan, can you provide some more information on the changes you have made to allow better racing. Is it just the drafting distance that needs chagning? The changes your describe sound ideal. On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 04:38:59 GMT, "Alan Le" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

>> OK what was the final consensus on changing the track ini to stop offline >AI >> drivers rearending all the time? >> >> I've searched this forum and others, I know it has to do with the >> ai_dlongpad_scale and ai_dlat_pad values but some threads say you increase >> it to stop getting rear ended and others say you decrease it. What was >the >> end consensus to stop the AI from being so rammy? > >I've tried upping the drafting distance a smidge (.3-.5) at several tracks, >and I like the difference so far. For one, it seems easier to follow the AI >around the track without getting smacked from behind should I brake a little >early. Plus, I don't have the AI shoving their noses down low every single >pseudo-chance they get. They're still close enough to pounce when I make a >real mistake (iow not just sliding up a tiny bit) or am a bit slow coming >off a turn. It also keeps them from tripping over each other and ending up >three wide at bad times or in bad places. Just a cleaner race overall. > >Alan >

Here are the tweaks I just found on the RSC forum. ai_drafting_distance = 1.6 ai_dlongpad_scale = 1000 ai_dlat_pad = 1.2 I'll try them out tonight and report back. Also all the old posts say go to www.THEGREENFLAG.com but it's no longer around. Is there a new site or is he gone? "Samiad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> I've seen this a bit late, I didn't realise there were any INI tweaks > to allow for a better racing experience. I was getting quite annoyed > with AI drivers ruining my offline races needlessly. > > Alan, can you provide some more information on the changes you have > made to allow better racing. Is it just the drafting distance that > needs chagning? The changes your describe sound ideal. > > On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 04:38:59 GMT, "Alan Le" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> OK what was the final consensus on changing the track ini to stop

offline > >AI > >> drivers rearending all the time? > >> > >> I've searched this forum and others, I know it has to do with the > >> ai_dlongpad_scale and ai_dlat_pad values but some threads say youincrease > >> it to stop getting rear ended and others say you decrease it. What was > >the > >> end consensus to stop the AI from being so rammy? > > > >I've tried upping the drafting distance a smidge (.3-.5) at severaltracks, > >and I like the difference so far. For one, it seems easier to follow theAI > >around the track without getting smacked from behind should I brake alittle > >early. Plus, I don't have the AI shoving their noses down low everysingle > >pseudo-chance they get. They're still close enough to pounce when I makea > >real mistake (iow not just sliding up a tiny bit) or am a bit slow coming > >off a turn. It also keeps them from tripping over each other and endingup > >three wide at bad times or in bad places. Just a cleaner race overall. > > > >Alan > > >

> I've seen this a bit late, I didn't realise there were any INI tweaks > to allow for a better racing experience. I was getting quite annoyed > with AI drivers ruining my offline races needlessly. Indeed. When running in a tight line, the AI would often try to go low if I let up a little. Problem was that the opening usually isn't even a car wide! Now, they're not close enough to get there right away, giving me time to either close it off or drift up high while also allowing the AI to realize it's not a good idea (if I continue just a bit off the line). > Alan, can you provide some more information on the changes you have > made to allow better racing. Is it just the drafting distance that > needs chagning? The changes your describe sound ideal. In the ini, I've only adjusted ai_drafting_distance, and so far it has worked. As I'm going through the championship season, I just increase the value by .3 or .5 depending on how bad I think the AI is (.5 being for really bad AI). Also, I dropped all driver ratings by 10, low and high, for every single car and upped the overall AI strength from 90% to 95%. That was done first with no success, so I don't know whether or not it's really necessary. Plus, I'm better now at following the AI around the track thanks to setup and ability improvements. If you find yourself getting nailed or dive bombed in braking zones due to braking a lot earlier than the AI, dlongpad might help. The description sounds like lowering it would result in the AI spreading out in braking zones. I'm thinking dlat changes how close the AI gets when side by side. To be honest though, I've never tried either. I might try dlat at tracks where the AI likes to squeeze the outside car against the wall. It's a PITA when you've got a limited FOV while on the outside down a straight with just a few inches of room on either side. Maybe I just suck. :) Alan

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:17:46 GMT, "Alan Le" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> I've seen this a bit late, I didn't realise there were any INI tweaks >> to allow for a better racing experience. I was getting quite annoyed >> with AI drivers ruining my offline races needlessly. > >Indeed. When running in a tight line, the AI would often try to go low if I >let up a little. Problem was that the opening usually isn't even a car >wide! Now, they're not close enough to get there right away, giving me time >to either close it off or drift up high while also allowing the AI to >realize it's not a good idea (if I continue just a bit off the line).

Yea, I had the same result. Unless I stuck to the very lowest of the low line, the AI would nudge me into a spin, seemingly on purpose. Very vindictive AI!

Samiad <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > Yea, I had the same result. Unless I stuck to the very lowest of the > low line, the AI would nudge me into a spin, seemingly on purpose. > Very vindictive AI! > Hmmm that sounds like the AI Jan & Goy always came up with in the old offline TPTCC leagues at the Pits... dave henrie

"Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4x91c.674921$ts4.40849@pd7tw3no...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Here are the tweaks I just found on the RSC forum. > > ai_drafting_distance = 1.6 > ai_dlongpad_scale = 1000 > ai_dlat_pad = 1.2 > > I'll try them out tonight and report back.

Stephan Jay Gould running up to the Simpson's house yelling excitedly : "I have the results! I have the results!" Lisa : "What are they?" SJG: "Inconclusive." Lisa: "Why were you running?" SJG : "I have to use your bathroom." Anyway, inconclusive. Seemed better but hard to tell. I was running at LasVegas last night. Appeared better than at the Rock but might be due to the nature of the track and not the track.ini changes. Or maybe the Placebo effect. First corner still a fifty-fifty thing getting out alive but strung out fairly quickly and not really any incidents after the first couple of laps. Rudeboy

In article <gQt1c.657510$JQ1.334770@pd7tw1no>, Rudeboy <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (25 lines)

> >"Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:4x91c.674921$ts4.40849@pd7tw3no... >> Here are the tweaks I just found on the RSC forum. >> >> ai_drafting_distance = 1.6 >> ai_dlongpad_scale = 1000 >> ai_dlat_pad = 1.2 >> >> I'll try them out tonight and report back. > >Stephan Jay Gould running up to the Simpson's house yelling excitedly : "I >have the results! I have the results!" >Lisa : "What are they?" >SJG: "Inconclusive." >Lisa: "Why were you running?" >SJG : "I have to use your bathroom." > >Anyway, inconclusive. Seemed better but hard to tell. I was running at >LasVegas last night. Appeared better than at the Rock but might be due to >the nature of the track and not the track.ini changes. Or maybe the Placebo >effect. First corner still a fifty-fifty thing getting out alive but strung >out fairly quickly and not really any incidents after the first couple of >laps. >

Isn't Las Vegas one of the tracks where this is less of a problem? I can't recall having too many incidents there. Maybe I'm getting mixed up, but is this a short track? I would have thought somewhere like Rockingham would be an ideal track to test at. -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -25.01

> Isn't Las Vegas one of the tracks where this is less of a problem? I > can't recall having too many incidents there. Maybe I'm getting mixed > up, but is this a short track? I would have thought somewhere like > Rockingham would be an ideal track to test at. Ya I know. I was just so traumatized by being run over at the Rock I didn't want to go back ;-) But I ran at I-70 last night and it seemed to be a bit better. Again might just be placebo. Will continue testing.

In article <DdU0c.19055$[email hidden]>, Alan Le <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (21 lines)

>> OK what was the final consensus on changing the track ini to stop offline >AI >> drivers rearending all the time? >> >> I've searched this forum and others, I know it has to do with the >> ai_dlongpad_scale and ai_dlat_pad values but some threads say you >increase >> it to stop getting rear ended and others say you decrease it. What was >the >> end consensus to stop the AI from being so rammy? > >I've tried upping the drafting distance a smidge (.3-.5) at several tracks, >and I like the difference so far. For one, it seems easier to follow the AI >around the track without getting smacked from behind should I brake a little >early. Plus, I don't have the AI shoving their noses down low every single >pseudo-chance they get. They're still close enough to pounce when I make >a >real mistake (iow not just sliding up a tiny bit) or am a bit slow coming >off a turn. It also keeps them from tripping over each other and ending up >three wide at bad times or in bad places. Just a cleaner race overall. >

My main concern about the ai_drafting_distance (and AI settings in general) is why it has been set at certain tracks to the settings that it has, seeing as it causes such problems to the human driver? The answer that I believe is that these settings were not really about the human driver, per se, but more about the AI themselves. Start messing too much with making these settings more suitable for the human driver and I'm sure you'll end up with AI that doesn't overtake anyone else, apart from you when you make a mistake. Has anyone checked this to confirm that it doesn't happen. I just adjusted the drafting distance, as a test, at Bristol to 1.6. A bit extreme I know. But it meant that as soon as the leader caught up with the first backmarker he just got stuck behind him for the next 30+ laps, after which time I gave up watching. -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -25.01

Quoted text (8 lines)

> My main concern about the ai_drafting_distance (and AI settings in > general) is why it has been set at certain tracks to the settings that > it has, seeing as it causes such problems to the human driver? The > answer that I believe is that these settings were not really about the > human driver, per se, but more about the AI themselves. Start messing > too much with making these settings more suitable for the human driver > and I'm sure you'll end up with AI that doesn't overtake anyone else, > apart from you when you make a mistake.

I've never set it really high, but AI passing does seem to diminish as the drafting distance goes up. It also seems very track dependent. I've been finding an increase of .3 works at most tracks for me. It's a good starting point at least. > Has anyone checked this to confirm that it doesn't happen. I just > adjusted the drafting distance, as a test, at Bristol to 1.6. A bit > extreme I know. But it meant that as soon as the leader caught up with > the first backmarker he just got stuck behind him for the next 30+ laps, > after which time I gave up watching. I ran Bristol a few days ago, and I set it to 1.45. That was probably on the high side, but the AI was still right there with a lot of good, clean racing. There wasn't constant passing, but it was definitely happening. Plus, the passing attempts I did see looked more "normal." IOW, the AI wasn't constantly jumping out to try passes that obviously weren't going to work. There were still plenty of times where I just sat behind slower cars simply because they were duking it out and using up the track. Alan

In article <_iV1c.6193$[email hidden]>, Alan Le <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (28 lines)

>> My main concern about the ai_drafting_distance (and AI settings in >> general) is why it has been set at certain tracks to the settings that >> it has, seeing as it causes such problems to the human driver? The >> answer that I believe is that these settings were not really about the >> human driver, per se, but more about the AI themselves. Start messing >> too much with making these settings more suitable for the human driver >> and I'm sure you'll end up with AI that doesn't overtake anyone else, >> apart from you when you make a mistake. > >I've never set it really high, but AI passing does seem to diminish as the >drafting distance goes up. It also seems very track dependent. I've been >finding an increase of .3 works at most tracks for me. It's a good starting >point at least. > >> Has anyone checked this to confirm that it doesn't happen. I just >> adjusted the drafting distance, as a test, at Bristol to 1.6. A bit >> extreme I know. But it meant that as soon as the leader caught up with >> the first backmarker he just got stuck behind him for the next 30+ laps, >> after which time I gave up watching. > >I ran Bristol a few days ago, and I set it to 1.45. That was probably on >the high side, but the AI was still right there with a lot of good, clean >racing. There wasn't constant passing, but it was definitely happening. >Plus, the passing attempts I did see looked more "normal." IOW, the AI >wasn't constantly jumping out to try passes that obviously weren't going to >work. There were still plenty of times where I just sat behind slower cars >simply because they were duking it out and using up the track. >

Ok, that doesn't sound too bad. Now, if the AI would just be more prone to the odd mistake and things could get really interesting. I noticed a setting in the file 'papy_ai.ini', which is labelled 'driver consistency' and is set to 0.95. Plus there are other driver consistency related settings in there. Anyone know more about them? What I was hoping, obviously, was that they affect how more likely drivers are to make a mistake. I tried setting the 'driver consistency' rating to 0.25 to see if the drivers were going to be all over the place but, although there appeared to initially be a small flurry of early slip ups at Bristol, it wasn't long before all cars were sticking to the racing line without error. PS: Any chance someone could send me the original Mark Martin .car file. I foolishly made a small change whilst looking at it in notepad and saved the damned thing. Only realised what a big mistake that was when I scrolled further down the file to discover that the file wasn't just plain text. :( Now MM don't want to race anymore. See my sig for how to email me. -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -25.01

In article <wpd3SDAo1MSAFwO$@pgives.ALL_STRESSfreeserve.co.uk>, Peter Ives <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (30 lines)

>In article <_iV1c.6193$[email hidden]>, Alan Le ><[email hidden]> writes >>> My main concern about the ai_drafting_distance (and AI settings in >>> general) is why it has been set at certain tracks to the settings that >>> it has, seeing as it causes such problems to the human driver? The >>> answer that I believe is that these settings were not really about the >>> human driver, per se, but more about the AI themselves. Start messing >>> too much with making these settings more suitable for the human driver >>> and I'm sure you'll end up with AI that doesn't overtake anyone else, >>> apart from you when you make a mistake. >> >>I've never set it really high, but AI passing does seem to diminish as the >>drafting distance goes up. It also seems very track dependent. I've been >>finding an increase of .3 works at most tracks for me. It's a good starting >>point at least. >> >>> Has anyone checked this to confirm that it doesn't happen. I just >>> adjusted the drafting distance, as a test, at Bristol to 1.6. A bit >>> extreme I know. But it meant that as soon as the leader caught up with >>> the first backmarker he just got stuck behind him for the next 30+ laps, >>> after which time I gave up watching. >> >>I ran Bristol a few days ago, and I set it to 1.45. That was probably on >>the high side, but the AI was still right there with a lot of good, clean >>racing. There wasn't constant passing, but it was definitely happening. >>Plus, the passing attempts I did see looked more "normal." IOW, the AI >>wasn't constantly jumping out to try passes that obviously weren't going to >>work. There were still plenty of times where I just sat behind slower cars >>simply because they were duking it out and using up the track. >>

As a follow-up, I re-adjusted Bristol to 1.45 and had a good 175 lap race, finishing 9th, without any incidents. I may even try adjusting it a bit lower, like yourself, as I didn't see that much in the way of AI overtaking. Perhaps that's normal for Bristol. Being from over the pond I don't get to see that much NASCAR so can't be too sure. -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -25.01

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 15:26:07 +0000, Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote: > >As a follow-up, I re-adjusted Bristol to 1.45 and had a good 175 lap >race, finishing 9th, without any incidents. I may even try adjusting it >a bit lower, like yourself, as I didn't see that much in the way of AI >overtaking. Perhaps that's normal for Bristol. Being from over the >pond I don't get to see that much NASCAR so can't be too sure. This is sort of the horns of a dilemma: on an oval where you aren't braking all that hard or long, closer drafting distances make sense to encourage passing. But on a road track, esp. one with a lot of long straights combined with slow hairpins (Le Mans), and, if you set draft distance too high they won't pass: too low and they rear- end you braking for the hairpins. John DiFool