GPL 1.1.....I give up!!!!

I have spent alot of time trying to get a setup that works with the new ride height regulations and I am officially giving up on it. Im almost a a half second to a second off my bests at every track (aside from the ring....there setup doesnt matter for me i still crash 2 times per lap). Is it just me or is it really that hard to change from "low rider" setups to non "low rider" setups? Id really appreciate some opinions here cause im at my wits end with this. I know everyone will tell me to just break down and d/l setups from the net but to me setting up the car is half the fun and im actually quite good at it when im not "thrown a curve" so to speak. I just want to know im not the only one struggling with this. Chris

I think that it's logical that you are slower with a 2.5" ride height, compared to the 1" height of GPL 1.0. Only half a second slower than your fast lap made with 1.0 is normal I think? I have broken all my records since the 1.1 patch, but I'm sure that's because of my improved driving. I'll install 1.0 again to see what times I'll drive with 1.0 now. Andre

No, it's actually easier to drive. I'm faster nearly everywhere, but then again, I'm not that fast in absolute terms. I think you're not going the other way enough... try pushing up the ride height past the 3.5" mark. Jan. ------ >I have spent alot of time trying to get a setup that works with the new ride ><Snip>

as a previous low rider I have to say Im faster with the new ride hight. You can find very good hints on setup basics at: http://website.lineone.net/~richardn Jo Lueg

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I have spent alot of time trying to get a setup that works with the new ride > height regulations and I am officially giving up on it. Im almost a a half > second to a second off my bests at every track (aside from the ring....there > setup doesnt matter for me i still crash 2 times per lap). Is it just me or is > it really that hard to change from "low rider" setups to non "low rider" > setups? Id really appreciate some opinions here cause im at my wits end with > this. > I know everyone will tell me to just break down and d/l setups from the net but > to me setting up the car is half the fun and im actually quite good at it when > im not "thrown a curve" so to speak. I just want to know im not the only one > struggling with this. > Chris

-- Neosid Pemetzrieder GmbH & Co. KG Joachim Lueg-Althoff

The ride height increase only added stability and consistency for me. I lap now as fast as I did before. If you find it very hard to go from low ride height to higher height, I think you should seriously go through your driving technique and see if there is something there that makes you slower with high ride heights... Performancewise, the higher ride height means little or nothing at all, IMHO! Drive smoothly! That might not make you any quicker, but it will make you a hell of a lot more consistent! And I have heard some claim that the 1.1 is in fact easier to drive than 1.0... Only rumours, though... But they did change the physics model. ---Asgeir---

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I have spent alot of time trying to get a setup that works with the new ride > height regulations and I am officially giving up on it. Im almost a a half > second to a second off my bests at every track (aside from the ring....there > setup doesnt matter for me i still crash 2 times per lap). Is it just me or is > it really that hard to change from "low rider" setups to non "low rider" > setups? Id really appreciate some opinions here cause im at my wits end with > this. > I know everyone will tell me to just break down and d/l setups from the net but > to me setting up the car is half the fun and im actually quite good at it when > im not "thrown a curve" so to speak. I just want to know im not the only one > struggling with this. > Chris

(snip) Is that so? I know they improved the default setups to make it easier for novices. But they changed the physics, too? Regards, Kurt

Quoted text (10 lines)

> (snip) > >And I have heard some claim that the 1.1 is in fact easier to drive than > 1.0... > >Only rumours, though... But they did change the physics model. > >---Asgeir--- > Is that so? I know they improved the default setups to make it easier for > novices. But they changed the physics, too?

Apparently there were a couple of small changes - it's all there in the readme that came with the patch. The main one I remember is that the tyre behaviour was slightly changed to make it more realistic. Personally I find 1.1 to be much nicer to drive - whether that's due to the new setups or the physics changes, I'm not sure. I believe it is also a little bit slower, but that would be explained by the new minimum ride height of 2.5". Personally I'm all for realism - if it's slower, then that's because version 1.0 was unrealistic when the ride height was set so low. I certainly feel as if I now go faster when driving more smoothly, so that suggests that it is in fact more realistic. Since the car is now more controllable, I can concentrate on getting the line right and honing my technique at a particular circuit. As far as racing is concerned, my *average* laptime with 1.1 is much quicker than my average with 1.0, even if I can't quite get the hotlaps I used to!

(Snip)>> >The main one I remember is that the tyre behaviour was slightly changed >to make it more realistic. You're right. I forgot about that. (another snip) I agree with all of your observations here, but with me, it's a bit difficult to quantify. I have succeeded in breaking some past PB times, but I couldn't tell you whether it's a result of the patch, the addition of force feedback, or the fact that I'm continuing to refine Alisons Ferari set-ups and trying to apply them to the Eagle. Something I find interesting is I set a few personal best laps at some of the more "technical" tracks like Mosport and Zaandvort with Alison's Ferrari within a few days after she released her set-ups (without FF and before 1.1) Try as I may, I haven't been able to beat those since -- not even with the Eagle or Lotus. So, class, what can we learn from this. Not much, I guess, except that GPL is endlessly challenging and fascinating. Regards, Kurt

I've learned that a strong rebound wreaks havoc with a high suspension -- makes sense because of the higher center of gravity. With 1.0 my Eagle had a 2/3 (front) and 2/4 (rear) dampers/rebound. Now with 1.0 I've moved to 2/2 2/2 or 2/2 2/3. Seems to help with control. I wouldn't worry about 1/2 second though. Isn't that close enough? Then again, I don't hot lap. Jason.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I have spent alot of time trying to get a setup that works with the new ride > height regulations and I am officially giving up on it. Im almost a a half > second to a second off my bests at every track (aside from the ring....there > setup doesnt matter for me i still crash 2 times per lap). Is it just me or is > it really that hard to change from "low rider" setups to non "low rider" > setups? Id really appreciate some opinions here cause im at my wits end with > this. > I know everyone will tell me to just break down and d/l setups from the net but > to me setting up the car is half the fun and im actually quite good at it when > im not "thrown a curve" so to speak. I just want to know im not the only one > struggling with this. > Chris

-------- Jason Monds "My other car is a Ferrari" http://members.home.net/gpl.mondsj/gpl - For my combined gas/brake setups (Please remove 'no extra spork' when replying)

The timing in 1.1 is messed up...hence the frame rate anomalies and slo mo effect that almost everyone is reporting--your lap times will not be comparable to 1.0...could be a bit faster or slower depending on what's happening with your system. This is very frustrating. I sure feel like I am driving better and faster with 1.1., but my lap times are off a bit too...about the same % as the frame rate change I am suspecting (3-5%). Marc.

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:42:14 -0400, "Kurt Steinbock" >I agree with all of your observations here, but with me, it's a bit >difficult to quantify. I have succeeded in breaking some past PB times, but >I couldn't tell you whether it's a result of the patch, the addition of >force feedback, or the fact that I'm continuing to refine Alisons Ferari >set-ups and trying to apply them to the Eagle. Probably the change of FF versus none is the biggest you're experiencing. Try 1.1 without the FF and see how you compare (although it seems like once you try FF, like GPL itself, it's hard to go back :). "But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

I always raced at 2.50 and 2.75, so 1.1 didn't do anything bad to my driving style. I will say, however, that after reading Alison's section on ride height, I started using 4.00 and 4.50 heights on my setups and find that I'm just as fast as before. I've done 1:29.5x at Monza in a Brabham with these heights, which is just as quick as previously. -Chris- ---Two wheels are better ---Proud owner of a 1998 ZX-9R Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

I think they improved the setups for novices and 'more experienced' drivers. That is if you want to win races - and to win, first you have to finish. The cars in 1.1 are less prone to snap out and put you in the banking. Oh no, not the PHYSICS! They didn't change the PHYSICS did they! How could they! Err... yes, how could they? Wellllll, perhaps the first releases physics could actually be improved <gasp!>. Not perhaps in terms of fidelity - the algorithms - calculation chains, whatever, but in terms of tweaking parameters to reflect the performance of an actual 67 car. Papyrus has documented the changes and they are all described as making the game more 'realistic', personally I see no reason to disbelieve them. People seem to be getting carried away with the words 'physics model'. Any car driving simulation, be it an 'arcade racer' or a 'hardcode simulation' models physics. That is, they all have a physics model. None of them, not even GPL, can come close to emulating what actually happens in the real world. Even the philosopical domain of 'physics' itself struggles to cover-up the flaws in our understyaning of the real world. A product like GPL can be proud of the fidelity of the engine, the accuracy of the subsequent models and the sense of realism the combination releases in the end user - the sim racer. It is not real, not even close to real - but it is good enough in it's own right to be 90% of the fun for probably <1% of the price of racing for real. While I'm meandering the corridors of sim racing phylosophy, I'd like to rave a little about VROC and online GPL racing. To anyone who has shared a race with me first let me apologise - I make quite frequent mistakes and there must be quite a number of people out there that have shared my mistakes with me to their detriment. So, sorry. But, despite the 50% of races that end in 'technical' no-finishes (disco's/etc), it's a blast out there and generally a pleasure to be racing with you all. To anyone thinkng of having a go. Jump in - you will make mistakes but even the best racing drivers make mistakes. To BS who was apparently 5 seconds faster than me at Zandy, but accused me of blocking - learn to pass. If your 5s a lap faster, it really shouldn't be a problem.... -- Suck The Goat

(snip) >> But they changed the physics, too? >Oh no, not the PHYSICS! They didn't change the PHYSICS did they! How >could they! Hi, Piers/Goat -- I think you read more into my question than I intended to be there. My question wasn't "how COULD they?" but rather "Is that so?" I simply didn't recall. I've gone back and reread the entire 1.1 read me. That, plus your lecture, have set me perfectly straight. Thanks Kurt

Don't give up! The first weeks I raced with 1.1 I also couldn't get my times. But after knowing how to race with the 'Highriders' I was able to race a 3.17.. in Spa instead of a 3.18.. (anyone laughing??:)))) with the Eagle (What else????) Cheers Dirk Schlomo4 schrieb: -- --------------------------------------------- http://www.simracing.de http://members.tripod.de/dmu

See the low rider setups start the car out low so when they hit the bump ***s it isn't TOO harsh. At a high ride height like 4 inches you will never hit the bump ***s so you don't have to worry about snap anything. At 2.5 the suspension reaches the bump ***s and bump stops at a higher speed so the change is greater and the car is greatly unsettled. You can either raise the bump ***s so the transition is smoother or raise the car up to 4 inches or so. Mr. B

writes: I'm not laughing - my best was a 3:33 with a Ferarri, 3:36 with an Eagle... Eldred __ Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea... remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Hi Eldred, I notice you've still not improved a lot :>} Good, my pb at spa still is above 3.30 too!! See you on the track some time (are ou racing yourself too or are you only hosting?) Jan.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> writes: > >Don't give up! > >The first weeks I raced with 1.1 I also couldn't get my times. But after > >knowing how to race with the 'Highriders' I was able to race a 3.17.. > >in Spa instead of a 3.18.. (anyone laughing??:)))) with the Eagle (What > >else????) > I'm not laughing - my best was a 3:33 with a Ferarri, 3:36 with an Eagle... > Eldred > __ > Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea... > remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

I waited all evening for you Jan.... tomorrow perhaps? You wanted some Monza lessons I believe... <G> Andre