Is a patch coming for NR2003 or not?

I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keep hoping that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... Marc -- **************************************************************************** Marc Collins [email hidden] Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? ****************************************************************************

In article <kTfwa.1841$[email hidden]>, Marc Collins <[email hidden]> writes >I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keep hoping >that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... > Don't let the b*st*rds get you down. Or should that be: Don't let the b*st*rd AI get you. :) Any tracks that you'd recommend for offline racing, or are the AI still just plain sh*te? Actually, my new neighbour has GP3, so I thought I'd bung mine back on my system so I could whip his butt as a 'Welcome to the neighbourhood!' kind of thing. Anyway, I know its not the same kind of racing, but I'll give Geoff Crammond his dues here, his AI programming ain't too bad. They still get predictable and do some bone-head moves now and again, as if you're not there, but I love it when they make a complete pants of a corner or drive into each other whilst dicing, something I've hardly ever seen a PAPY NASCAR AI driver doing, except when there's a spin ahead and they drive into each other as if they're blind. -- 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 -21.77

I would imagine a patch should be coming out sometime soon but I wouldn't count on the AI being any better. "Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <kTfwa.1841$[email hidden]>, Marc Collins > <[email hidden]> writes > >I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keephoping

Quoted text (24 lines)

> >that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... > > > > Don't let the b*st*rds get you down. Or should that be: > > Don't let the b*st*rd AI get you. :) > > Any tracks that you'd recommend for offline racing, or are the AI still > just plain sh*te? > > Actually, my new neighbour has GP3, so I thought I'd bung mine back on > my system so I could whip his butt as a 'Welcome to the neighbourhood!' > kind of thing. Anyway, I know its not the same kind of racing, but I'll > give Geoff Crammond his dues here, his AI programming ain't too bad. > They still get predictable and do some bone-head moves now and again, as > if you're not there, but I love it when they make a complete pants of a > corner or drive into each other whilst dicing, something I've hardly > ever seen a PAPY NASCAR AI driver doing, except when there's a spin > ahead and they drive into each other as if they're blind. > -- > 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 -21.77

On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:01:04 +0100, Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote: >if you're not there, but I love it when they make a complete pants of a >corner or drive into each other whilst dicing, something I've hardly >ever seen a PAPY NASCAR AI driver doing, except when there's a spin >ahead and they drive into each other as if they're blind. If Papy's AI started making contact with each other and the player cars I could already imagine the horrible feedback. "WTF, Jeff Gordon dove inside me at Turn 3 at Bristol and spun me around, what horrible AI!!" Jason

On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:26:26 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:01:04 +0100, Peter Ives ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>if you're not there, but I love it when they make a complete pants of a >>corner or drive into each other whilst dicing, something I've hardly >>ever seen a PAPY NASCAR AI driver doing, except when there's a spin >>ahead and they drive into each other as if they're blind. > >If Papy's AI started making contact with each other and the player >cars I could already imagine the horrible feedback. "WTF, Jeff Gordon >dove inside me at Turn 3 at Bristol and spun me around, what horrible >AI!!" >

At some tracks it's bad at others it's real good,just a few minutes ago I was running Richmond, was getting ready to check up fom going 4 into the corner when Jeff green "seemed" to see me closing fast under him, jumped left and took out Rusty and Dave Blaney. Had another one where the were definatly doing a little rubbin' for position then lost it in the corner and collected 10 cars in the mess (got me about 12 spots since I had time to hit the grass and avoid the spin)

Why? Because they've been like this, more or less, since NR4? Marc "Mike Grandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BFgwa.159$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (35 lines)

> I would imagine a patch should be coming out sometime soon but I wouldn't > count on the AI being any better. > > "Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <kTfwa.1841$[email hidden]>, Marc Collins > > <[email hidden]> writes > > >I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keep > hoping > > >that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... > > > > > > > Don't let the b*st*rds get you down. Or should that be: > > > > Don't let the b*st*rd AI get you. :) > > > > Any tracks that you'd recommend for offline racing, or are the AI still > > just plain sh*te? > > > > Actually, my new neighbour has GP3, so I thought I'd bung mine back on > > my system so I could whip his butt as a 'Welcome to the neighbourhood!' > > kind of thing. Anyway, I know its not the same kind of racing, but I'll > > give Geoff Crammond his dues here, his AI programming ain't too bad. > > They still get predictable and do some bone-head moves now and again, as > > if you're not there, but I love it when they make a complete pants of a > > corner or drive into each other whilst dicing, something I've hardly > > ever seen a PAPY NASCAR AI driver doing, except when there's a spin > > ahead and they drive into each other as if they're blind. > > -- > > 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 -21.77 > >

"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6rjwa.2405$[email hidden]... > Why? Because they've been like this, more or less, since NR4? Precisely. It's obviously not too easy to get a full grid to act like humans. Set your expectation level at "videogame" (because that's what it is) and you'll be less disappointed. Regards, Mark Davison V8 Thunder OVAL Deputy Admin Car #69 http://www.v8thunder.com

Umm the problem is that the AI are a bunch of wreckers... to the human. They will stick their nose under you and then drive right through you and spin you around at just about every track. They don't seem to do it to each other though... Brian Oster On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:26:26 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:01:04 +0100, Peter Ives ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>if you're not there, but I love it when they make a complete pants of a >>corner or drive into each other whilst dicing, something I've hardly >>ever seen a PAPY NASCAR AI driver doing, except when there's a spin >>ahead and they drive into each other as if they're blind. > >If Papy's AI started making contact with each other and the player >cars I could already imagine the horrible feedback. "WTF, Jeff Gordon >dove inside me at Turn 3 at Bristol and spun me around, what horrible >AI!!" > >Jason

In article <[email hidden]>, Brian Oster <bgoster@swbell**nosmap**.net> writes >Umm the problem is that the AI are a bunch of wreckers... to the >human. They will stick their nose under you and then drive right >through you and spin you around at just about every track. They don't >seem to do it to each other though... >Which means that the AI routines aren't very forgiving. It seems as though the algorithms, once they've given the green light for an overtaking move, don't applying any recalculations to temper that move. I think imho that the reason the AI don't seem to have problems with each other is because of 3 things: 1) the AI driving doesn't fluctuate as much as the human driver resulting in fewer green light calculations for overtaking. 2) When a green light calculation has happened for the AI car behind, because all AI calculations are happening 40 to 50 times a second, the AI car in front reacts to this overtaking move almost spontaneously, so avoiding a collision. 3) Not enough fuzzy logic is in there to make things variable enough allowing for AI miscalculations.

Quoted text (18 lines)

>On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:26:26 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) >wrote: > >>On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:01:04 +0100, Peter Ives >><[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>>if you're not there, but I love it when they make a complete pants of a >>>corner or drive into each other whilst dicing, something I've hardly >>>ever seen a PAPY NASCAR AI driver doing, except when there's a spin >>>ahead and they drive into each other as if they're blind. >> >>If Papy's AI started making contact with each other and the player >>cars I could already imagine the horrible feedback. "WTF, Jeff Gordon >>dove inside me at Turn 3 at Bristol and spun me around, what horrible >>AI!!" >> >>Jason >

-- 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 -21.77

They don't appear to know where the humans are, or more precisely how big the human cars are. The problem I have had, which sounds like it is the same one you guys are talking about, is that when they try to pass you in the braking zone they miscalculate the distance required, catch the corner of your bumper with the corner of their bumper, and spin you. If they hit you straight on it usually isn't that big a deal, it's when they try the dive bomb pass that the trouble starts. I have had some success fixing this by changing parameters in the track.ini file. Again, this assumes that you are talking about the same AI problem that I am, which occurs primarily at road courses and short tracks. So far the best results I get are by changing the following parameters as shown (in the [ ai_track ] section): ai_drafting_distance = 1.6 ai_dlongpad_scale = 1000 ai_dlat_pad = 1.4 These values are for Watkins Glen and may still need tweaking for other tracks. Basically the idea is to force them to keep a little bit more distance from you (ai_drafting_distance and ai_dlat_pad) and to force them to decide earlier in the braking zone whether or not they want to try a passing move (ai_dlongpad_scale). This is all trial-and-error of course, so your mileage may vary. I would really like to hear from other people whether these values work for them or not. "Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (49 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, Brian Oster > <bgoster@swbell**nosmap**.net> writes > >Umm the problem is that the AI are a bunch of wreckers... to the > >human. They will stick their nose under you and then drive right > >through you and spin you around at just about every track. They don't > >seem to do it to each other though... > > > Which means that the AI routines aren't very forgiving. It seems as > though the algorithms, once they've given the green light for an > overtaking move, don't applying any recalculations to temper that move. > > I think imho that the reason the AI don't seem to have problems with > each other is because of 3 things: > > 1) the AI driving doesn't fluctuate as much as the human driver > resulting in fewer green light calculations for overtaking. > > 2) When a green light calculation has happened for the AI car behind, > because all AI calculations are happening 40 to 50 times a second, the > AI car in front reacts to this overtaking move almost spontaneously, so > avoiding a collision. > > 3) Not enough fuzzy logic is in there to make things variable enough > allowing for AI miscalculations. > > >On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:26:26 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) > >wrote: > > > >>On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:01:04 +0100, Peter Ives > >><[email hidden]> wrote: > >> > >>>if you're not there, but I love it when they make a complete pants of a > >>>corner or drive into each other whilst dicing, something I've hardly > >>>ever seen a PAPY NASCAR AI driver doing, except when there's a spin > >>>ahead and they drive into each other as if they're blind. > >> > >>If Papy's AI started making contact with each other and the player > >>cars I could already imagine the horrible feedback. "WTF, Jeff Gordon > >>dove inside me at Turn 3 at Bristol and spun me around, what horrible > >>AI!!" > >> > >>Jason > > > > -- > 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 -21.77

In article <b9uoa2$nslc6$[email hidden]>, Haqsau <[email hidden]> writes >They don't appear to know where the humans are, or more precisely how big >the human cars are. The problem I have had, which sounds like it is the >same one you guys are talking about, is that when they try to pass you in >the braking zone they miscalculate the distance required, catch the corner >of your bumper with the corner of their bumper, and spin you. If that was the case then I think you'd also find the AI cars doing the same to each other because they are unable to calculate how big the car is. This just doesn't seem to happen. >If they hit >you straight on it usually isn't that big a deal, it's when they try the >dive bomb pass that the trouble starts. But I believe the dive bomb pass comes from the initial green light calculation for the AI based upon the speed of the human driver. I believe this miscalculation of the distance required is because human drivers don't brake evenly, unlike the AI drivers. When a green light calculation is made to pass a slower braking AI driver it works fine because AI braking is generally very even and therefore the calculation will be a 'good choice' on most occasions. Because human drivers don't brake so evenly, what appears as an initial green light passing opportunity soon becomes a non-passing opportunity, but because the green light for an overtaking manoeuvre has been given (based upon even braking) it appears to go ahead anyway. No recalculation is made to determine whether to change the AI drivers mind which, like I said, against the other AI drivers is fine because in most cases no further calculation would be necessary. If the AI driver is slow at the start of the braking zone then they're going to be slow all the way through. No problem. Human drivers just aren't like that.

Quoted text (19 lines)

>I have had some success fixing this >by changing parameters in the track.ini file. Again, this assumes that you >are talking about the same AI problem that I am, which occurs primarily at >road courses and short tracks. So far the best results I get are by >changing the following parameters as shown (in the [ ai_track ] section): > >ai_drafting_distance = 1.6 >ai_dlongpad_scale = 1000 >ai_dlat_pad = 1.4 > >These values are for Watkins Glen and may still need tweaking for other >tracks. Basically the idea is to force them to keep a little bit more >distance from you (ai_drafting_distance and ai_dlat_pad) and to force them >to decide earlier in the braking zone whether or not they want to try a >passing move (ai_dlongpad_scale). This is all trial-and-error of course, so >your mileage may vary. I would really like to hear from other people >whether these values work for them or not. > >

Maybe I'm wrong, but if they are further back then all that is going to do is reduce the number of green light overtaking opportunities, because the actual overtaking algorithm won't allow this now that you are just that little bit further ahead. Unless you start braking a little bit harder or earlier than you were before, that is. If that is the case then I would expect that you're going to find fewer overtaking manoeuvres in general, both against human and AI drivers.

Quoted text (29 lines)

> >"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in >message >news:[email hidden]... >> In article <[email hidden]>, Brian Oster >> <bgoster@swbell**nosmap**.net> writes >> >Umm the problem is that the AI are a bunch of wreckers... to the >> >human. They will stick their nose under you and then drive right >> >through you and spin you around at just about every track. They don't >> >seem to do it to each other though... >> > >> Which means that the AI routines aren't very forgiving. It seems as >> though the algorithms, once they've given the green light for an >> overtaking move, don't applying any recalculations to temper that move. >> >> I think imho that the reason the AI don't seem to have problems with >> each other is because of 3 things: >> >> 1) the AI driving doesn't fluctuate as much as the human driver >> resulting in fewer green light calculations for overtaking. >> >> 2) When a green light calculation has happened for the AI car behind, >> because all AI calculations are happening 40 to 50 times a second, the >> AI car in front reacts to this overtaking move almost spontaneously, so >> avoiding a collision. >> >> 3) Not enough fuzzy logic is in there to make things variable enough >> allowing for AI miscalculations. >>

-- 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 -21.77

"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > If that was the case then I think you'd also find the AI cars doing the > same to each other because they are unable to calculate how big the car > is. This just doesn't seem to happen. > Yes, but as you point out further down (snipped, sorry), the AI are more predictable so they don't need as much padding between each other as you do between an AI and a human.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Maybe I'm wrong, but if they are further back then all that is going to > do is reduce the number of green light overtaking opportunities, because > the actual overtaking algorithm won't allow this now that you are just > that little bit further ahead. Unless you start braking a little bit > harder or earlier than you were before, that is. > > If that is the case then I would expect that you're going to find fewer > overtaking manoeuvres in general, both against human and AI drivers. >

Didn't seem to work that way. Somewhat fewer perhaps because they were no longer attempting foolish passes, but they were still making passes, just doing it more cleanly.

In article <ba17ci$oeb69$[email hidden]>, Haqsau <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (21 lines)

> >"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in >message >news:[email hidden]... >> >> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but if they are further back then all that is going to >> do is reduce the number of green light overtaking opportunities, because >> the actual overtaking algorithm won't allow this now that you are just >> that little bit further ahead. Unless you start braking a little bit >> harder or earlier than you were before, that is. >> >> If that is the case then I would expect that you're going to find fewer >> overtaking manoeuvres in general, both against human and AI drivers. >> > >Didn't seem to work that way. Somewhat fewer perhaps because they were >no >longer attempting foolish passes, but they were still making passes, just >doing it more cleanly. >

That's good to hear. Possibly because that extra distance has minimised just too many green light overtaking calculations, and now only gives the green light when the human driver properly leaves the door open whilst, at the same time, giving the human driver a chance to see it coming. Hopefully this won't make the AI too predictable when defending the corner. Also, because the AI don't seem to make too many mistakes when braking for corners, does it still allow for passes between just the AI drivers? -- 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 -21.77

I haven't really watched them carefully enough. Maybe I will do some more testing over the weekend, save the replay, and see what they do. In the meantime though I would encourage you to try this. You can always back up the track.ini first so that you can correct it if you are not satisfied. The reason I would like other people to try it is that it is possible that the changes I have made are only relevant to my particular driving style. It may or may not work for someone else. I would really like to get some feedback from other people on whether these changes work for them or not. "Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wXbX9CA$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > That's good to hear. Possibly because that extra distance has minimised > just too many green light overtaking calculations, and now only gives > the green light when the human driver properly leaves the door open > whilst, at the same time, giving the human driver a chance to see it > coming. Hopefully this won't make the AI too predictable when defending > the corner. Also, because the AI don't seem to make too many mistakes > when braking for corners, does it still allow for passes between just > the AI drivers? > -- > 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 -21.77

OK, I am not sure what's going on here... Here are the original WG values from the track.ini ai_drafting_distance = 1.15 ; car lengths behind while racing ai_panic_decel = 4.5 ; G's of extra deceleration inducing panic ai_dlongpad_scale = 1.8 ; scales padding in braking zones (smaller = more scaling) ai_dlat_pad = 0.8 You have increased the distance between cars while racing from 1.15 to 1.6--that makes sense given the problem we are trying to address. You have changed the dlongpad_sclae from 1.8 to 1000, which dramatically lessens the scaling re: padding in braking zones. OK, what the hell does that mean? What is "scale padding"? I know what a braking zone is. I think I know what padding would refer to. But what exactly this value does if you go up or down from the default is a mystery to me at this point. The fact that you have changed the value by a factor of 500 and it hasn't "blown up" the AI suggests it doesn't do much. Lastly, you have increased dlat_pad from .8 to 1.4. Presumably the pad part refers to padding again, but what is the dlat referring to here? I may be mistaken, but dlong and dlat are distance latitude and distance longitude. So would this value be attempting to pad more distance between the sides of the cars so the AI don't turn into the human so carelessly in corners? This may be a hopeless venture, but if the AI can finally have some "I," the game will be worth playing offline. I actually doubt it is possible for two reasons: i) it hasn't happened in the previous umpteen versions and ii) Papy and the testers would have figured it out by now--this isn't a first-time out rush job. Marc "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b9uoa2$nslc6$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> They don't appear to know where the humans are, or more precisely how big > the human cars are. The problem I have had, which sounds like it is the > same one you guys are talking about, is that when they try to pass you in > the braking zone they miscalculate the distance required, catch the corner > of your bumper with the corner of their bumper, and spin you. If they hit > you straight on it usually isn't that big a deal, it's when they try the > dive bomb pass that the trouble starts. I have had some success fixing

this > by changing parameters in the track.ini file. Again, this assumes thatyou

Quoted text (13 lines)

> are talking about the same AI problem that I am, which occurs primarily at > road courses and short tracks. So far the best results I get are by > changing the following parameters as shown (in the [ ai_track ] section): > > ai_drafting_distance = 1.6 > ai_dlongpad_scale = 1000 > ai_dlat_pad = 1.4 > > These values are for Watkins Glen and may still need tweaking for other > tracks. Basically the idea is to force them to keep a little bit more > distance from you (ai_drafting_distance and ai_dlat_pad) and to force them > to decide earlier in the braking zone whether or not they want to try a > passing move (ai_dlongpad_scale). This is all trial-and-error of course,

so

Quoted text (39 lines)

> your mileage may vary. I would really like to hear from other people > whether these values work for them or not. > > > > "Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <[email hidden]>, Brian Oster > > <bgoster@swbell**nosmap**.net> writes > > >Umm the problem is that the AI are a bunch of wreckers... to the > > >human. They will stick their nose under you and then drive right > > >through you and spin you around at just about every track. They don't > > >seem to do it to each other though... > > > > > Which means that the AI routines aren't very forgiving. It seems as > > though the algorithms, once they've given the green light for an > > overtaking move, don't applying any recalculations to temper that move. > > > > I think imho that the reason the AI don't seem to have problems with > > each other is because of 3 things: > > > > 1) the AI driving doesn't fluctuate as much as the human driver > > resulting in fewer green light calculations for overtaking. > > > > 2) When a green light calculation has happened for the AI car behind, > > because all AI calculations are happening 40 to 50 times a second, the > > AI car in front reacts to this overtaking move almost spontaneously, so > > avoiding a collision. > > > > 3) Not enough fuzzy logic is in there to make things variable enough > > allowing for AI miscalculations. > > > > >On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:26:26 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) > > >wrote: > > > > > >>On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:01:04 +0100, Peter Ives > > >><[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> > > >>>if you're not there, but I love it when they make a complete pants of

a

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > >>>corner or drive into each other whilst dicing, something I've hardly > > >>>ever seen a PAPY NASCAR AI driver doing, except when there's a spin > > >>>ahead and they drive into each other as if they're blind. > > >> > > >>If Papy's AI started making contact with each other and the player > > >>cars I could already imagine the horrible feedback. "WTF, Jeff Gordon > > >>dove inside me at Turn 3 at Bristol and spun me around, what horrible > > >>AI!!" > > >> > > >>Jason > > > > > > > -- > > 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 -21.77 > >

I'm pretty sure dlong and dlat stand for "distance longitudinal" and "distance lateral" respectively, but I'm not sure if that is considered in reference to a vehicle axis system or a track axis system. Anyway, as long as you keep your car pointed in the right direction that would be approximately the same thing. I started on the assumption that you would want to increase the distance between the cars to prevent hitting, so I tried increasing ai_dlat_pad and decreasing ai_dlongpad_scale, as the comments seem to suggest. Doesn't work. The only effect I got for decreasing ai_dlongpad_scale was that it made the AI driver wait until later in the braking zone before trying to go by me. That actually increased the incidences, because it meant he was still trying to get by me at turn-in. So I looked at a few other tracks and found that some used a very high value, and tried that just to see if it made a difference, rather than spending all night trying to tweak it by minute amounts. It seemed to work well, so I left it that way. Might still need some fine tuning, that's one of the reasons I would like to get other people to try it. Anyway it seemed that the most effective way to make sure the AI don't rearend you in the braking zone is to make sure they are a little farther behind when you get there, i.e. increase ai_drafting_distance. Then to make sure they don't hit you when they try to go around you need to increase ai_dlat_pad. Finally it seems like increasing ai_dlongpad_scale stops the last minute suicidal dive bomb passes. Again, I can't swear this is going to work for everybody, but we'll never know unless we get some people to try it and tell us how it went <big hint>. "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:O5yxa.5799$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> OK, I am not sure what's going on here... > > Here are the original WG values from the track.ini > > ai_drafting_distance = 1.15 ; car lengths behind while > racing > ai_panic_decel = 4.5 ; G's of extra

deceleration > inducing panic > ai_dlongpad_scale = 1.8 ; scales padding inbraking

Quoted text (10 lines)

> zones (smaller = more scaling) > ai_dlat_pad = 0.8 > > You have increased the distance between cars while racing from 1.15 to > 1.6--that makes sense given the problem we are trying to address. > > You have changed the dlongpad_sclae from 1.8 to 1000, which dramatically > lessens the scaling re: padding in braking zones. OK, what the hell does > that mean? What is "scale padding"? I know what a braking zone is. I > think I know what padding would refer to. But what exactly this value

does > if you go up or down from the default is a mystery to me at this point.The > fact that you have changed the value by a factor of 500 and it hasn't"blown > up" the AI suggests it doesn't do much. > > Lastly, you have increased dlat_pad from .8 to 1.4. Presumably the padpart > refers to padding again, but what is the dlat referring to here? I may be > mistaken, but dlong and dlat are distance latitude and distance longitude. > So would this value be attempting to pad more distance between the sidesof > the cars so the AI don't turn into the human so carelessly in corners? > > This may be a hopeless venture, but if the AI can finally have some "I,"the > game will be worth playing offline. I actually doubt it is possible fortwo > reasons: i) it hasn't happened in the previous umpteen versions and ii)Papy > and the testers would have figured it out by now--this isn't a first-time > out rush job. > > Marc >

Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > Actually, my new neighbour has GP3, so I thought I'd bung mine back on > my system so I could whip his butt as a 'Welcome to the neighbourhood!' > kind of thing. Anyway, I know its not the same kind of racing, but I'll > give Geoff Crammond his dues here, his AI programming ain't too bad. I just fired up Austria after the GP today and had a *long* hard chuckle at the AI. Still they all move to the outside of the track at the start, meaning I start at the back and am still P6 out of turn 1. The guy in P5 moved to the inside of the track at turn 2, to defend his line, or so I thought. I was about to give the AI some credit for doing that, when he swerved back to the outside right across my nose... The only thing they did get right is DC being unable to drive and spinning off.

"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<kTfwa.1841$[email hidden]>... > I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keep hoping > that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... > > Marc To be fair, NR2003 was NR2002 v1.1, so I guess NR2004 would have been the NR2003 patch if it was going to be released.

In article <[email hidden]>, Nick <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (14 lines)

>Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in >message news:<[email hidden] >o.uk>... >> Actually, my new neighbour has GP3, so I thought I'd bung mine back on >> my system so I could whip his butt as a 'Welcome to the neighbourhood!' >> kind of thing. Anyway, I know its not the same kind of racing, but I'll >> give Geoff Crammond his dues here, his AI programming ain't too bad. > >I just fired up Austria after the GP today and had a *long* hard >chuckle at the AI. > >Still they all move to the outside of the track at the start, meaning >I start at the back and am still P6 out of turn 1. >

Yeah, I just tried A1 and it does seem to be prone to that, though not always. Bet you couldn't do that everytime, or even at all on the other tracks. You also didn't mention the level you had it set to. I suspect it was rookie which is meant to be easy. ;-) >The guy in P5 moved to the inside of the track at turn 2, to defend >his line, or so I thought. I was about to give the AI some credit for >doing that, when he swerved back to the outside right across my >nose... >What's wrong with that? Were you expecting him to just let you get a good run at him around the outside? If you're not alongside him then he'll want to get the best line through the corner. The failure I've found is that somethimes they stick to the inside so much when defending the corner that they'll slow down too much causing you to have to either brake harder than usual, or take a wider line, just to avoid going into the back of the AI car. >The only thing they did get right is DC being unable to drive and >spinning off. Now that's uncannily accurate. However, did you check to see how he got up and running again? You'd have noticed how they don't do the pivot on the central axis thing in order to get pointed in the right direction. The AI actually seem to use the same laws of physics as the human driver. Ok then. Of the sims that you have experienced lately or still play, which one(s) would you say rate the highest for AI behaviour that looks most human-like? -- 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 -21.77

I must be the only person on the face of the earth who doesn't have a problem with the ai.....(ducking).... Mike

I don't either, I'd rather race the AI than be involved in the online mayhem they call races. Phil "Race1530" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I must be the only person on the face of the earth who doesn't have aproblem > with the ai.....(ducking).... > > Mike

Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, Nick > <[email hidden]> writes > >Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in > >message news:<[email hidden] > >o.uk>... > >> Actually, my new neighbour has GP3, so I thought I'd bung mine back on > >> my system so I could whip his butt as a 'Welcome to the neighbourhood!' > >> kind of thing. Anyway, I know its not the same kind of racing, but I'll > >> give Geoff Crammond his dues here, his AI programming ain't too bad. > > > >I just fired up Austria after the GP today and had a *long* hard > >chuckle at the AI. > > > >Still they all move to the outside of the track at the start, meaning > >I start at the back and am still P6 out of turn 1. > > > Yeah, I just tried A1 and it does seem to be prone to that, though not > always. Bet you couldn't do that everytime, or even at all on the other > tracks. You also didn't mention the level you had it set to. I suspect > it was rookie which is meant to be easy. ;-)

No, it was Pro, and no, you can't do it at Monaco, but you can do it everywhere else.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >The guy in P5 moved to the inside of the track at turn 2, to defend > >his line, or so I thought. I was about to give the AI some credit for > >doing that, when he swerved back to the outside right across my > >nose... > > > What's wrong with that? Were you expecting him to just let you get a > good run at him around the outside? If you're not alongside him then > he'll want to get the best line through the corner. The failure I've > found is that somethimes they stick to the inside so much when defending > the corner that they'll slow down too much causing you to have to either > brake harder than usual, or take a wider line, just to avoid going into > the back of the AI car.

Well, when he swerved back across, he removed my front wing and his rear wing. That was the problem. There is absolutely no chance of going around the outside of T2 at Austria, so I was about to give it full credit for realising this and defending the line.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >The only thing they did get right is DC being unable to drive and > >spinning off. > > Now that's uncannily accurate. However, did you check to see how he got > up and running again? You'd have noticed how they don't do the pivot on > the central axis thing in order to get pointed in the right direction. > The AI actually seem to use the same laws of physics as the human > driver.

To be fair, that is correct. > Ok then. Of the sims that you have experienced lately or still play, > which one(s) would you say rate the highest for AI behaviour that looks > most human-like? Gran Turismo! Er, sorry, bad joke. That's a good question. The only game I can play with the AI and not think about the bad things they are doing is GPL. Okay, you occasionally get rear-ended, but on the whole it's pretty damn good. Nascar Racing 2003 has some good 'AI vs AI' AI, so the races look amazing by themselves, but as soon as I try to race with them, it falls apart. Stick your nose underneath someone, and they seem to be so keen to give you room that they end up wrecking themselves (on ovals). As mentioned already in this post, the rear-ending is a bigger issue than before on road courses as well. The LFS AI is pretty good for emulating the touring car style of racing, even if it is a complete hog with more than a few cars.

No one has confirmed any knowledge of a patch that is being worked on... Marc "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kTfwa.1841$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keep hoping > that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... > > Marc > > -- >

**************************************************************************** > Marc Collins > [email hidden] > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > to take effect. Reboot now? >**************************************************************************** > >

In article <[email hidden]>, Nick <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (30 lines)

>Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in >message news:<[email hidden]. >uk>... >> In article <[email hidden]>, Nick >> <[email hidden]> writes >> >Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in >> >message news:<[email hidden] >e.c >> >o.uk>... >> >> Actually, my new neighbour has GP3, so I thought I'd bung mine back >on >> >> my system so I could whip his butt as a 'Welcome to the >neighbourhood!' >> >> kind of thing. Anyway, I know its not the same kind of racing, but I'll >> >> give Geoff Crammond his dues here, his AI programming ain't too bad. >> > >> >I just fired up Austria after the GP today and had a *long* hard >> >chuckle at the AI. >> > >> >Still they all move to the outside of the track at the start, meaning >> >I start at the back and am still P6 out of turn 1. >> > >> Yeah, I just tried A1 and it does seem to be prone to that, though not >> always. Bet you couldn't do that everytime, or even at all on the other >> tracks. You also didn't mention the level you had it set to. I suspect >> it was rookie which is meant to be easy. ;-) > >No, it was Pro, and no, you can't do it at Monaco, but you can do it >everywhere else. >

And get up to P6? I doubt that very much. Maybe you can gain a few places this way, but certainly not overtake 2/3rds of the field. Before posting my original follow-up I did test this out several times over and A1 was the weakest, but on the other tracks often cars would be 3 wide not allowing for this kind of thing. Is this with the patch btw? Perhaps they improved things with the patch.

Quoted text (18 lines)

>> >The guy in P5 moved to the inside of the track at turn 2, to defend >> >his line, or so I thought. I was about to give the AI some credit for >> >doing that, when he swerved back to the outside right across my >> >nose... >> > >> What's wrong with that? Were you expecting him to just let you get a >> good run at him around the outside? If you're not alongside him then >> he'll want to get the best line through the corner. The failure I've >> found is that somethimes they stick to the inside so much when defending >> the corner that they'll slow down too much causing you to have to either >> brake harder than usual, or take a wider line, just to avoid going into >> the back of the AI car. > >Well, when he swerved back across, he removed my front wing and his >rear wing. That was the problem. There is absolutely no chance of >going around the outside of T2 at Austria, so I was about to give it >full credit for realising this and defending the line. >

Well I must have done about 100+ starts in the past couple of weeks and not once have I had my front wing removed by this kind of behaviour. Perhaps you were just unlucky. Yeah, sometimes they get things wrong during the starts and drive as if you're not there (especially when they move sideways and tap wheels), but the more you understand how to avoid this, the less this happens. What I've noticed is that, when you're alongside an AI car they seem to have strict rules as to which part of the track they think is theirs and which part is yours. As long as you stick to your part of the track they keep away. As a result, I have very few side on collisions.

Quoted text (19 lines)

>> >The only thing they did get right is DC being unable to drive and >> >spinning off. >> >> Now that's uncannily accurate. However, did you check to see how he got >> up and running again? You'd have noticed how they don't do the pivot on >> the central axis thing in order to get pointed in the right direction. >> The AI actually seem to use the same laws of physics as the human >> driver. > >To be fair, that is correct. > >> Ok then. Of the sims that you have experienced lately or still play, >> which one(s) would you say rate the highest for AI behaviour that looks >> most human-like? > >Gran Turismo! Er, sorry, bad joke. That's a good question. The only >game I can play with the AI and not think about the bad things they >are doing is GPL. Okay, you occasionally get rear-ended, but on the >whole it's pretty damn good.

Now why did I suspect you liked GPL? Funnily, when I was talking about the decent GP3 AI, it was in comparison to GPL (as well as N2k2/3) that I had in mind. I must have driven hundreds, if not thousands, of hours against the GPL AI and, too be honest, it disappoints me. They slide from left to right (not steer), their overtaking is poor, never making most of the draft. They actually bleed off speed when overtaking as they move out because they get too close. Do they ever defend the corner? (Sorry its been a few weeks since I last played it, but I don't think they do much). Mind you, they often don't have to, relying on their superior braking abilities. They are extremely predictable. I watched an AI race - and 2 cars in particular - at Rouen once. The following car was at least a second quicker a lap, but every lap he would get off line when approaching one of the least likely corners to overtake on, when he was way too far back to even stand a chance of making a pass. As a consequence he would lose at least a second through that corner to the car in front who was taking the corner normally, having to make it up over the course of the lap, by which time, when he got to the same corner he would make the same mistake again. He never got into a decent overtaking situation throughout the whole race. The reason you never run into an AI car is because their crash avoidance is so extreme. Try this: At Monza as you run down towards the fast sweeping left hander (Ascari I believe) just after the bridge and before Parabolica. If you are overtaking an AI car on the left as you get towards the bridge and are about 2/3rds of a length past it the car, start moving over to the right side of the track into his line. He will back up so much to avoid any contact as to drop back by some 2 or 3 seconds. If he was any good he would have seen you moving across, dropped back slightly and then got in your slipstream through Ascari ready for a pass on the straight, but because he wants to avoid any kind of contact he backs off completely. I won't bother to mention the dodgy physics. This is not to say I don't enjoy GPL, otherwise why would I have spent so long on it, but its AI is deeply flawed. > Nascar Racing 2003 has some good 'AI vs >AI' AI, so the races look amazing by themselves, but as soon as I try >to race with them, it falls apart. Stick your nose underneath someone, >and they seem to be so keen to give you room that they end up wrecking >themselves (on ovals). Mmm, sounds familiar to another Papyrus product. > As mentioned already in this post, the >rear-ending is a bigger issue than before on road courses as well. The >LFS AI is pretty good for emulating the touring car style of racing, >even if it is a complete hog with more than a few cars. Yeah, haven't raced it for a while, but I do recall its bully-boy driving style. -- 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 -21.77

In article <[email hidden]>, Nick <[email hidden]> writes <snip>

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >> >The guy in P5 moved to the inside of the track at turn 2, to defend >> >his line, or so I thought. I was about to give the AI some credit for >> >doing that, when he swerved back to the outside right across my >> >nose... >> > >> What's wrong with that? Were you expecting him to just let you get a >> good run at him around the outside? If you're not alongside him then >> he'll want to get the best line through the corner. The failure I've >> found is that somethimes they stick to the inside so much when defending >> the corner that they'll slow down too much causing you to have to either >> brake harder than usual, or take a wider line, just to avoid going into >> the back of the AI car. > >Well, when he swerved back across, he removed my front wing and his >rear wing. That was the problem. There is absolutely no chance of >going around the outside of T2 at Austria, so I was about to give it >full credit for realising this and defending the line. >

Sorry about a 2nd follow-up, but I've just read this again and it does make me wonder. Knowing how difficult it is to damage the cars, how would his tapping his tail across your front wing have removed both his rear and your front? More likely his wheel would have made contact with your wing first in that case. Long before his rear wing. It seems to me that, this being a very heavy braking area where cars have to brake from 170+mph down to 40mph, it is more likely that he moved across in front of you and you rear-ended him at speed because he had started to brake and you hadn't. Am I right or am I right? :) Unless you have some kind of damage editor. If so, can you tell me which one as I really dislike the heavy beating these cars seem to be able to take. <snip> -- 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 -21.77

i can confirm that ive spoken to a guy who was part of the original beta crew who is currently testing the new patch. but anything more im going to have to deny. pez "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a1bya.3924$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> No one has confirmed any knowledge of a patch that is being worked on... > > Marc > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:kTfwa.1841$[email hidden]... > > I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keep

hoping

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... > > > > Marc > > > > -- > > >

****************************************************************************

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Marc Collins > > [email hidden] > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > > to take effect. Reboot now? > > >

**************************************************************************** > > > > > >

Yes there will be a patch and no I am not a tester. "Alex 'pez' Porazinski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:babp6u$5i$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> i can confirm that ive spoken to a guy who was part of the original beta > crew who is currently testing the new patch. > > but anything more im going to have to deny. > > pez > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a1bya.3924$[email hidden]... > > No one has confirmed any knowledge of a patch that is being worked on... > > > > Marc > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:kTfwa.1841$[email hidden]... > > > I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keep > hoping > > > that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > -- > > > > > >

****************************************************************************

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > Marc Collins > > > [email hidden] > > > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > > > to take effect. Reboot now? > > > > > >

**************************************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > >

Yes there will be a patch and no I am not a tester.

Quoted text (24 lines)

> i can confirm that ive spoken to a guy who was part of the original beta > crew who is currently testing the new patch. > but anything more im going to have to deny. > pez > > No one has confirmed any knowledge of a patch that is being worked on... > > Marc > > > I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keep > hoping > > > that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... > > > Marc > > > --

**************************************************************************** > > > Marc Collins > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > > > to take effect. Reboot now? ****************************************************************************

I'm sure there are many patches for many games that are being worked on right now. Don't worry. "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a1bya.3924$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> No one has confirmed any knowledge of a patch that is being worked on... > > Marc > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:kTfwa.1841$[email hidden]... > > I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keep

hoping

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... > > > > Marc > > > > -- > > >

****************************************************************************

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Marc Collins > > [email hidden] > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > > to take effect. Reboot now? > > >

**************************************************************************** > > > > > >

Thanks for answering the original question! Marc "Alex 'pez' Porazinski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:babp6u$5i$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> i can confirm that ive spoken to a guy who was part of the original beta > crew who is currently testing the new patch. > > but anything more im going to have to deny. > > pez > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a1bya.3924$[email hidden]... > > No one has confirmed any knowledge of a patch that is being worked on... > > > > Marc > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:kTfwa.1841$[email hidden]... > > > I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keep > hoping > > > that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > -- > > > > > >

****************************************************************************

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > Marc Collins > > > [email hidden] > > > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > > > to take effect. Reboot now? > > > > > >

**************************************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > >

Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > And get up to P6? I doubt that very much. Maybe you can gain a few > places this way, but certainly not overtake 2/3rds of the field. Before > posting my original follow-up I did test this out several times over and > A1 was the weakest, but on the other tracks often cars would be 3 wide > not allowing for this kind of thing. Is this with the patch btw? > Perhaps they improved things with the patch. Yes I was in P6. And yes they were on Pro. And yes I can do it on almost all the tracks. And yes I have been able to do it since Formula One Grand Prix on my Amiga. And yes it was with the patch. > Well I must have done about 100+ starts in the past couple of weeks and > not once have I had my front wing removed by this kind of behaviour. > Perhaps you were just unlucky. Mebbe. > Yeah, sometimes they get things wrong > during the starts and drive as if you're not there (especially when they > move sideways and tap wheels), but the more you understand how to avoid > this, the less this happens. That's learning how to drive the AI. It should be the other way around. > Sorry about a 2nd follow-up [No problem, I pasted it here], but I've just > read this again and it does > make me wonder. Knowing how difficult it is to damage the cars, how > would his tapping his tail across your front wing have removed both his > rear and your front? More likely his wheel would have made contact with > your wing first in that case. Long before his rear wing. Maybe his wheel did hit me first, but his wheel stayed on and his rear wing came off. It doesn't really matter, coz you can lap just as quickly with no wings ;-) > It seems to me that, this being a very heavy braking area where cars > have to brake from 170+mph down to 40mph, it is more likely that he > moved across in front of you and you rear-ended him at speed because he > had started to brake and you hadn't. Am I right or am I right? :) You are wrong. We weren't in the braking zone, we were approaching it. He moved to the right, then swerved back across, way before the braking zone. Believe me, as an experienced sim racer, I know when I rear-end someone :-D > Now why did I suspect you liked GPL? Funnily, when I was talking about > the decent GP3 AI, it was in comparison to GPL (as well as N2k2/3) that > I had in mind. Okay, we just aren't gonna get along :-), but I'll give my side of the discussion anyway... > They slide from left to right > (not steer) <UNFUNNY COMMENT: How about from right to left?> Yes, that's true, but that's not really an AI thing. I think getting the cars around the track with a CC line is just plain maths, making them do it cleverly is AI. So that comes down to the maths part. > their overtaking is poor, never making most of the draft. Jeez, you play Nascar a lot, don't you? <GRIN> BTW it's called slipstreaming in real racing. The 'draft' only comes into play at Monza, Spa or Le Mans. Try some twisty tracks and you'll realise that overtaking is all about getting the power down early out of the turns, not being able to follow other people. > I won't bother to mention the dodgy physics. Wh?!?! Gak! Splowf!? Gggh! And you play GP4? Three wheels on my Minardi, new lap record... > Mmm, sounds familiar to another Papyrus product. You know, I specifically put that in there in contrast to GPL. Unless you mean Nascar 4, or something. <Damn, 2 unfunny comments in one post. I must spend too much time in r.a.s...> --- Having thought about it more, I think actually the reason why I don't recall any major problems with the GPL AI is because most of my concentration is in driving my own car, looking at my marks, only peripherally checking what the other cars are doing. When I drive GP4, because it's so far removed in the physics department, I can literally drive one-handed, looking around at other cars, waving to my mum in the stands etc, so there is just more time to check out what the AI is doing. Maybe that has something to do with it. By the way, I personally think GP4 is the worst Geoff Crammond F1 game. GP2 is the one I played the most, probably because GP3 took longer than ever, but I had the most fun in the wet in GP3 - despite the tyre model seemingly coded like this: class Tyre { bool grip; }; <Ruud, have you tried this in racer? It might be the tyre model holy grail...> <Aww, crap. That's 3 unfunny comments...> However, GP3 wasn't that much of a step up from GP2 (the protracted development meant that when it was released, everything else on the market looked twice as good). When I got GP4 I was gutted. Absolutely gutted. In the words of Doug Ellison (I think) from the West Racing forums, 'Geoff, what HAVE you done?'. Regards,

In article <[email hidden]>, Nick <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in >message news:<[email hidden] >o.uk>... >> And get up to P6? I doubt that very much. Maybe you can gain a few >> places this way, but certainly not overtake 2/3rds of the field. Before >> posting my original follow-up I did test this out several times over and >> A1 was the weakest, but on the other tracks often cars would be 3 wide >> not allowing for this kind of thing. Is this with the patch btw? >> Perhaps they improved things with the patch. > >Yes I was in P6. And yes they were on Pro. And yes I can do it on >almost all the tracks. And yes I have been able to do it since Formula >One Grand Prix on my Amiga. And yes it was with the patch.

Wow, you must be really good at this game. I'm not too shabby myself, but just can't seem to match this. Do you mean that you can get up to P6 without ramming half the cars out of the way?

Quoted text (15 lines)

>> Well I must have done about 100+ starts in the past couple of weeks and >> not once have I had my front wing removed by this kind of behaviour. >> Perhaps you were just unlucky. > >Mebbe. > >> Yeah, sometimes they get things wrong >> during the starts and drive as if you're not there (especially when they >> move sideways and tap wheels), but the more you understand how to >avoid >> this, the less this happens. > >That's learning how to drive the AI. It should be the other way >around. >

Partially, though you appear to have snipped the important bit about sticking to your part of the track when alongside an AI driver. Now I would have thought this would be common sense in real-life driving as well, but moreso here because you just can't see the AI drivers to either side of you and so you have to learn to stick to your part of the track. This works the same with GPL. However, with GPL if you accidentally move over to their side of the track their crash avoidance routines come into play and so accidents are more rare. So its not just about learning to drive the AI its about learning to drive safer.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> Sorry about a 2nd follow-up [No problem, I pasted it here], but I've just >> read this again and it does >> make me wonder. Knowing how difficult it is to damage the cars, how >> would his tapping his tail across your front wing have removed both his >> rear and your front? More likely his wheel would have made contact with >> your wing first in that case. Long before his rear wing. > >Maybe his wheel did hit me first, but his wheel stayed on and his rear >wing came off. It doesn't really matter, coz you can lap just as >quickly with no wings ;-) >

Irrelevant. We are discussing the AI's merits not the game as a whole.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> It seems to me that, this being a very heavy braking area where cars >> have to brake from 170+mph down to 40mph, it is more likely that he >> moved across in front of you and you rear-ended him at speed because >he >> had started to brake and you hadn't. Am I right or am I right? :) > >You are wrong. We weren't in the braking zone, we were approaching it. >He moved to the right, then swerved back across, way before the >braking zone. Believe me, as an experienced sim racer, I know when I >rear-end someone :-D >

But its almost impossible to lose a wing with GP3 without some serious collision velocity. You know that, c'mon? Someone driving across my line in GP3 won't damage my car unless I get airborn.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Now why did I suspect you liked GPL? Funnily, when I was talking about >> the decent GP3 AI, it was in comparison to GPL (as well as N2k2/3) that >> I had in mind. > >Okay, we just aren't gonna get along :-), but I'll give my side of the >discussion anyway... >

Get along? We just have different viewpoints, that's all.

Quoted text (17 lines)

>> They slide from left to right >> (not steer) > ><UNFUNNY COMMENT: How about from right to left?> > >Yes, that's true, but that's not really an AI thing. I think getting >the cars around the track with a CC line is just plain maths, making >them do it cleverly is AI. So that comes down to the maths part. > >> their overtaking is poor, never making most of the draft. > >Jeez, you play Nascar a lot, don't you? <GRIN> BTW it's called >slipstreaming in real racing. The 'draft' only comes into play at >Monza, Spa or Le Mans. Try some twisty tracks and you'll realise that >overtaking is all about getting the power down early out of the turns, >not being able to follow other people. >

Did you read the whole of my previous post. You know, the part where I mentioned about have done over a thousand hours against the GPL AI? Believe me, as you should be able to realise from my sig., I've spent a whole lot more hours on GPL than I have playing NASCAR. >> I won't bother to mention the dodgy physics. > >Wh?!?! Gak! Splowf!? Gggh! And you play GP4? Three wheels on my >Minardi, new lap record... > No, I play GP3. And once again we are talking about the AI dodgy physics not the game physics.

Quoted text (17 lines)

>> Mmm, sounds familiar to another Papyrus product. > >You know, I specifically put that in there in contrast to GPL. Unless >you mean Nascar 4, or something. <Damn, 2 unfunny comments in one >post. I must spend too much time in r.a.s...> > >--- > >Having thought about it more, I think actually the reason why I don't >recall any major problems with the GPL AI is because most of my >concentration is in driving my own car, looking at my marks, only >peripherally checking what the other cars are doing. When I drive GP4, >because it's so far removed in the physics department, I can literally >drive one-handed, looking around at other cars, waving to my mum in >the stands etc, so there is just more time to check out what the AI is >doing. Maybe that has something to do with it. >

Trust me, when I was doing a whole lot of GPL driving with a joystick I could do pretty much the same and that is why I have had time to study the flaws in its AI. >By the way, I personally think GP4 is the worst Geoff Crammond F1 >game. GP2 is the one I played the most, probably because GP3 took >longer than ever, but I had the most fun in the wet in GP3 - despite >the tyre model seemingly coded like this: > Perhaps GP4 is terrible. Never played it. I'm talking about GP3 AI, so why start talking about all this other stuff?

Quoted text (9 lines)

>class Tyre >{ > bool grip; >}; > ><Ruud, have you tried this in racer? It might be the tyre model holy >grail...> ><Aww, crap. That's 3 unfunny comments...> >

Yeah that's 3 irrelevant comments, too. :) >However, GP3 wasn't that much of a step up from GP2 (the protracted >development meant that when it was released, everything else on the >market looked twice as good). When I got GP4 I was gutted. Absolutely >gutted. In the words of Doug Ellison (I think) from the West Racing >forums, 'Geoff, what HAVE you done?'. > Whatever. Let's be straight here. I was refering specifically to GP3 AI not to the game in general. If you dislike the game overall then that's just fine with me. I never said it was the bee's-knees. I was specifically talking about the AI behaviour. >Regards, Note my sig. below. It may tell you something. ;-) -- 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 -21.77

Please do me a favor and tell Papy to turn off that "ideal racing line" while in multiplayer. (Perhaps the administrator could be give a toggle feature). All of our league races turn into "Follow the line" instead of "Drive the Track".....very boring and unrealistic. Mr. B "Chad Rogers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2Pdya.384594$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Yes there will be a patch and no I am not a tester. > > "Alex 'pez' Porazinski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:babp6u$5i$[email hidden]... > > i can confirm that ive spoken to a guy who was part of the original beta > > crew who is currently testing the new patch. > > > > but anything more im going to have to deny. > > > > pez > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:a1bya.3924$[email hidden]... > > > No one has confirmed any knowledge of a patch that is being worked

on...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:kTfwa.1841$[email hidden]... > > > > I want to know if I should relegate this to online use only or keep > > hoping > > > > that reasonable AI may be coming soon.... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > >

****************************************************************************

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > Marc Collins > > > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > > > > to take effect. Reboot now? > > > > > > > > > >

****************************************************************************

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > Wow, you must be really good at this game. I'm not too shabby myself, > but just can't seem to match this. Do you mean that you can get up to > P6 without ramming half the cars out of the way? Yes. > >That's learning how to drive the AI. It should be the other way > >around. > > > Partially, though you appear to have snipped the important bit about > sticking to your part of the track when alongside an AI driver. That's common sense. Everybody does that. I thought you were being condescending. > But its almost impossible to lose a wing with GP3 without some serious > collision velocity. You know that, c'mon? Someone driving across my > line in GP3 won't damage my car unless I get airborn. Now we seem to be getting somewhere. I was actually talking about GP4, not GP3 ;-) Try GP4 out, you'll realise that it really is a backwards step. By the way, I never noticed cars swerving around in front of me in GP3 before the braking zone, but it's clear to see in GP4. And also, after checking it out more, they DON'T obey the rules of physics any more than in GPL (this is GP4 I'm talking about). > Perhaps GP4 is terrible. Never played it. I'm talking about GP3 AI, so > why start talking about all this other stuff? I have always been talking about GP4. Yes it is terrible. The reason why we can't agree is that we are talking about different games ;-) You originally said 'give Geoff Crammond his dues here, his AI programming ain't too bad.', which wasn't GPx specific, so I was giving a counter-example in GP4.

"MrB" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:QqEya.926909$F1.114819@sccrnsc04:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Please do me a favor and tell Papy to turn off that "ideal racing > line" while in multiplayer. (Perhaps the administrator could be give a > toggle feature). All of our league races turn into "Follow the line" > instead of "Drive the Track".....very boring and unrealistic. > > Mr. B > >

Doesn't the host control that? It should be toggle-able in the race setup.(been too long away from Papy online, so I'm not 100% on that issue) dave henrie

In article <[email hidden]>, Nick <[email hidden]> writes <snipped> >You originally said 'give Geoff Crammond his dues here, his AI >programming ain't too bad.', which wasn't GPx specific, so I was >giving a counter-example in GP4. Oh well, fare enough. And man, did I think you were just exaggerating things about GP3 just to make a point. :) Anyways, I did mention GP3 right at the start when refering to my neighbour, guess you must have missed it: >Actually, my new neighbour has GP3, so I thought I'd bung mine back on >my system so I could whip his butt as a 'Welcome to the neighbourhood!' >kind of thing. In fact, he now has a copy of GP4, though his system is so slow (PII 350) that it struggles to run it. Frankly, I think I need to advise him to start spending that money more wisely - like on a computer upgrade. Guess I won't be bothering to ask him to let me try GP4 out on mine, either. :) -- 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 -21.77

Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >You originally said 'give Geoff Crammond his dues here, his AI > >programming ain't too bad.', which wasn't GPx specific, so I was > >giving a counter-example in GP4. > > Oh well, fare enough. And man, did I think you were just exaggerating > things about GP3 just to make a point. :) Anyways, I did mention GP3 > right at the start when refering to my neighbour, guess you must have > missed it:

Yeah, I guess I did ;-)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >Actually, my new neighbour has GP3, so I thought I'd bung mine back on > >my system so I could whip his butt as a 'Welcome to the neighbourhood!' > >kind of thing. > > In fact, he now has a copy of GP4, though his system is so slow (PII > 350) that it struggles to run it. Frankly, I think I need to advise him > to start spending that money more wisely - like on a computer upgrade. > Guess I won't be bothering to ask him to let me try GP4 out on mine, > either. :)

If you ever get bored of GP3, try GP4 for a few days and you'll be hooked on GP3 again...

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> "MrB" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:QqEya.926909$F1.114819@sccrnsc04: > > > Please do me a favor and tell Papy to turn off that "ideal racing > > line" while in multiplayer. (Perhaps the administrator could be give a > > toggle feature). All of our league races turn into "Follow the line" > > instead of "Drive the Track".....very boring and unrealistic. > > > > Mr. B > > > > > Doesn't the host control that? It should be toggle-able in the race > setup.(been too long away from Papy online, so I'm not 100% on that issue) > dave henrie >

Nope, not controllable by the host.

In article <[email hidden]>, John Simmons <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Doesn't the host control that? It should be toggle-able in the race >> setup.(been too long away from Papy online, so I'm not 100% on that issue) >> dave henrie >> > >Nope, not controllable by the host. >

Even if it were controllable by the host, it wouldn't change our races. I have the ideal line in use when I run on Saturdays...<g> I can't see where to turn in well enough otherwise. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:-1.950 MonsterRank: +305.145 N2002 Rank:+17.59 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.