N2003 Tona/Dega

Is there a reason the cars can hit 210mph on these 2 tracks? I finally sat down to do some racing somewhere besides WG/SP and was wondering why the car didn't turn with full lock... Can't speak for anyone else and I'm not normally a nitpicker when it comes to details like laptimes and speeds but I don't see how "increased realism" results in being able to drive 15mph faster than the real cars. Jason

I'm not sure why anybody thinks NR 2003 is more realistic. Okay the tire model and suspension model have been improved in some way based on real data, but it has been said several times by the guy from Jasper that the cars in NR 2003 have more grip and more HP than the real cars do. In other words it's a very realistic model of a race car that doesn't exist right now. "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Is there a reason the cars can hit 210mph on these 2 tracks? > > I finally sat down to do some racing somewhere besides WG/SP and was > wondering why the car didn't turn with full lock... Can't speak for > anyone else and I'm not normally a nitpicker when it comes to details > like laptimes and speeds but I don't see how "increased realism" > results in being able to drive 15mph faster than the real cars. > > Jason

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:16:12 -0500, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I'm not sure why anybody thinks NR 2003 is more realistic. Okay the tire >model and suspension model have been improved in some way based on real >data, but it has been said several times by the guy from Jasper that the >cars in NR 2003 have more grip and more HP than the real cars do. In other >words it's a very realistic model of a race car that doesn't exist right >now. Ah, that would also explain why the AI's laps at the Glen are 2 seconds faster than the current track record. =) Pity N2002's damage model was never patched, I'd have no reason really to run the new one. Jason

Actually I have never seen him say the cars have more grip than the "real" cars do. Just more grip than 2k2 which was too low. The same goes for HP. If you aren't running it, you are missing out. There is simply not a better simulation of racing available, perfect nope, but better than 2k2. Chad "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b2uerq$1etggb$[email hidden]... > I'm not sure why anybody thinks NR 2003 is more realistic. Okay the tire > model and suspension model have been improved in some way based on real > data, but it has been said several times by the guy from Jasper that the > cars in NR 2003 have more grip and more HP than the real cars do. Inother

Quoted text (17 lines)

> words it's a very realistic model of a race car that doesn't exist right > now. > > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Is there a reason the cars can hit 210mph on these 2 tracks? > > > > I finally sat down to do some racing somewhere besides WG/SP and was > > wondering why the car didn't turn with full lock... Can't speak for > > anyone else and I'm not normally a nitpicker when it comes to details > > like laptimes and speeds but I don't see how "increased realism" > > results in being able to drive 15mph faster than the real cars. > > > > Jason > >

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:32:28 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) wrote: >Ah, that would also explain why the AI's laps at the Glen are 2 >seconds faster than the current track record. =) Played with the AI a bit, seems like 97% keeps the speeds more in line with real life at Daytona and the Glen (may have to bump up their qual ability a bit at the plate tracks but haven't tested enough yet). The AI is still fiendish at 97%, and I'm realizing now that one of the big improvements, at least at Daytona, is that they'll fight and block to keep the low line. Jason

How big was the pack you were in? Online or offline? Using a hotlap set-up or one that would actually last a whole race? Haven't seen 210 yet myself, but I spend as little time as possible at the SS tracks. In terms of turning, I can only assume that you didn't notice that the default steering ratio on the big tracks is the slowest in the game (32). I crank mine down to 22 for the SS, 18 for everything else except the road courses which need an even tighter ratio. The car itself is more responsive to steering input on the banked turns than it was in NR2002 and back. Marc "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Is there a reason the cars can hit 210mph on these 2 tracks? > > I finally sat down to do some racing somewhere besides WG/SP and was > wondering why the car didn't turn with full lock... Can't speak for > anyone else and I'm not normally a nitpicker when it comes to details > like laptimes and speeds but I don't see how "increased realism" > results in being able to drive 15mph faster than the real cars. > > Jason

Jason, stupid question from me, but are you sure it wasn't arcade mode? Because I can't seem to get to 210 even in a 4 car pack. Achim "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Is there a reason the cars can hit 210mph on these 2 tracks?

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:03:00 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Jason, stupid question from me, but are you sure it wasn't arcade mode? >Because I can't seem to get to 210 even in a 4 car pack. It was vs 100% AI with 'realistic' weather set (the temperature was in the low 60's and it was overcast). I'd imagine that race times in multiplayer are a bit slower. That said qualifying speeds over 190 in any weather conditions are a bit excessive compared to what the real cars do with plates. Not a huge deal, but it does seem like once the car gets over 195 -200 it starts to push really badly no matter how much you loosen it up - I've run no front bar, full rear bar, full track bar, full rear weight, full negative wedge, and lowered both front shocks until I was almost scraping, and the car still wants to drift high racing the AI at 100% strength. I'm probably going to just continue running at 97% since the AI is still great at the plate tracks (have to nudge the brakes a bit while drafting which is realistic and the new AI does a great job of blocking the low line even in the middle and rear of the pack). 97% AI also puts the times at Watkins Glen into the low 1:12 range which is a bit closer to reality as well (record is 1:11.9 IIRC). I ran some more at Daytona in N2002 and I was seriously amazed at how close the laptimes/speeds were to real life. I would have assumed that speeds would have stayed the same there in N2003 with the restrictor plates and extra drag but I guess the added HP overcomes that. I'm very happy with other tracks I've tried so far, FWIW. Would just like to see the HP with restrictor plates toned down ever so slightly. Jason

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:09:08 -0500, "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote: >In terms of turning, I can only assume that you didn't notice that the >default steering ratio on the big tracks is the slowest in the game (32). Yeah. I noticed that, but what I mean is that the car simply won't turn - you end up with a nice long trail of skidmarks from your outside tires as the car skids happily into the fence. I've looseened the car up as much as is humanly possible and it still does this at the speeds the AI races at 100%. As I mentioned earlier, real life laps in a draft are around 47 seconds, in N2003 the qualifying laps are in the low 46's even on a clear sunny day. After going back to N2002 I really wish I could pump the "aero push/loose" effect back up to the levels in the N2003 demo (and the non plate tracks) and lower the restricted engines output by a tiny bit (and/or add some drag). I'm assuming online from what I've seen that the cars don't travel fast enough in a draft to generate laps in excess of 200mph. I believe the times I've seen quoted for the fast setup were in the mid 45's. Against 100% AI I've pulled 44.0's. Anyway, I think a lot of the pushiness that people are attributing to setups and "aero push" is actually the result of the excessive speeds the cars are carrying into the turns. This observation extends only to the plate tracks (altho I fear the speeds people are doing at Atlanta/Michigan/California). In the previews for the sim, the Jasper engineer indicated that the extra torque/horsepower would not result in an increase in top speeds because of the added downforce/drag, but it seems that's not the case at all. Jason

Hi Jason, the low 60's will probably add a bit, but I could also imagine that other parameters like the 'rotating air' effect can come into play and have differently noticeable effects on different tracks. As for the AI, since making it is an almost completely new task for each new track, I find it easy to imagine that the AI, as it has always been, is a little more in line with real-life speeds on some tracks than on others. And when the AI gives us a good draft, the player car will probably follow into exaggerated speeds to an extent. I only need to look at the speeds my wife's little grasshopper car reaches on the highway when she gets a good draft <g> Achim

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:08:02 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: > And >when the AI gives us a good draft, the player car will probably follow into >exaggerated speeds to an extent. No doubt, I just find it weird that qualifying speeds are higher than the real life race speeds to begin with... Jason

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:03:00 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Jason, stupid question from me, but are you sure it wasn't arcade mode? >Because I can't seem to get to 210 even in a 4 car pack. Ok here are concrete examples, with my settings from a 10 lap sprint: Simulation/Realistic Damage/1x Tire Wear Realistic Weather - 55F cloudy wind 8mph N Pole Time/Speed - 46.125/195.122mph Fastest Race Lap/Speed - 44.067/204.235mph Jason

Which Q-speeds do the real guys achieve? Achim "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > No doubt, I just find it weird that qualifying speeds are higher > than the real life race speeds to begin with...

Was that you or the AI? The fastest _I_ get in Q is around 50s. Hence, the AI may be unrealistically fast at 100%, and in the race they may pull you with them in their draft, but the player car physics seem to be in line with the real thing. Achim "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > Simulation/Realistic Damage/1x Tire Wear > Realistic Weather - 55F cloudy wind 8mph N > > Pole Time/Speed - 46.125/195.122mph > Fastest Race Lap/Speed - 44.067/204.235mph

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:35:07 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Which Q-speeds do the real guys achieve? Here are pole times/speeds since the aero rules were changed in 2001: 2003-500 - Jeff Green - 48.230/186.606 2002-400 - Kevin Harvick - 48.910/185.041 2002-500 - Jimmie Johnson - 48.431/185.831 2001-400 - Sterling Marlin - 48.972/183.778 2001-500 - Bill Elliott - 49.029/183.565 One thing I'm curious about in N2003, is whether it models the extra wind resistance the cars have at the SS tracks because of the aero package they implemented in 2001. Anyway, sim vs real speeds wouldn't be a big deal to me except that it fundamentally alters the way you have to drive the tracks during a race. Above 200mph it's impossible to hold the low line in a turn without lifting. Jason

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:00:32 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Was that you or the AI? The fastest _I_ get in Q is around 50s. Hm, I just loaded the game up and ran 2 Q attempts with realistic weather enabled and 1 with 70/clear/nowind:. This is using the 'qualify' setup and not the 'fast' setup that you'd be using in a fixed online race. Session 1: Weather - 49F Cloudy Wind NE 9mph Pole Time/Speed - 45.952/195.857 Human Time/Speed - 13th - 46.224/194.704 Session 2: Weather - 64F Cloudy Wind NE 16mph Pole Time/Speed - 46.269/194.515 Human Time/Speed - 9th - 46.461/193.711 Session 3: Weather - 70F Clear No Wind Pole Time/Speed - 47.290/190.315 Human Time/Speed - 4th - 47.676/188.774 I can't find info on the weather from the 10th when qualifying happened this year (it was scheduled for the 9th but rained out), but I believe it was cold and overcast. Jason

Strange, you're 3 to 4 seconds faster than me. Could it be that I'm trying Dega and you're trying Tona? :-) I'll check this tomorrow, right now I'm too tired and need to go to sleep. Cya tomorrow. Achim

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:23:17 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Strange, you're 3 to 4 seconds faster than me. Could it be that I'm trying >Dega and you're trying Tona? :-) Doh. =) Jason

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:32:28 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) > wrote: > > >Ah, that would also explain why the AI's laps at the Glen are 2 > >seconds faster than the current track record. =) > > Played with the AI a bit, seems like 97% keeps the speeds more in line > with real life at Daytona and the Glen (may have to bump up their qual > ability a bit at the plate tracks but haven't tested enough yet). The > AI is still fiendish at 97%, and I'm realizing now that one of the big > improvements, at least at Daytona, is that they'll fight and block to > keep the low line. > > Jason

I noticed you said in another post that you are finding it hard to keep the low line at Daytona due to the high corner speeds. I said in another thread that if people are finding this a problem it must be controller related. I posted a replay here http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ of part of a race against the AI at 101% at 70 degrees where I drove the low, high, and middle line a bit after moving up to first with the fast setup with no problem. That's why I thought it had to be controller related if drivers I knew were excellent were finding the fast setup to push so bad. Pete S. from here at ras couldn't duplicate what he saw in the replay but then on Sat. in the chat room before the (almost) RASCAR race he said he switched out the pots in his wheel and found that 100k pots worked the best and he didn't find the fast setup to push anymore. 50k and 250k didn't feel good to him. What type of pots do you have in your wheel? I posted a second replay today with some laps from a race against the AI at 105% with the fast setup at 60 degrees where I move from 43rd to 35th over 4 laps, and then move to the high line and middle line for a few laps to show how the fast setup is still stable at those speeds on any line. The replay is called DaytFast105. The fast setup is still good against the AI at that level and as you can see there is no push at all even though I'm entering the turns at 200mph in a pack, 199 on the outside line, and exiting T4 at 198. No problem at all holding the low line even at the increased corner speeds. I really think that people who are good drivers and are still having trouble with the fast setup seeming to push are doing so because of the type of pots they have in their wheel. Maybe Pete will read this and add his thoughts. David G Fisher

Great stuff David. Do you have any replays of info. about your experiences at Michigan and California using the default fast set-up? If the AI is at 100%, where can you place in practise in a full field? Do you find the AI harder or easier at one or the other of these two tracks? I find the AI can be matched or beaten fairly easily at Tally at 100% with the fast set-up. You obviously find the same. Wondering what your thoughts are (or what replays will show) at Mich. and Calif. Thanks, Marc "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:32:28 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) > > wrote: > > > > >Ah, that would also explain why the AI's laps at the Glen are 2 > > >seconds faster than the current track record. =) > > > > Played with the AI a bit, seems like 97% keeps the speeds more in line > > with real life at Daytona and the Glen (may have to bump up their qual > > ability a bit at the plate tracks but haven't tested enough yet). The > > AI is still fiendish at 97%, and I'm realizing now that one of the big > > improvements, at least at Daytona, is that they'll fight and block to > > keep the low line. > > > > Jason > > I noticed you said in another post that you are finding it hard to keep

the > low line at > Daytona due to the high corner speeds. I said in another thread that if > people are finding this a problem it must be controller related. I posteda > replay here http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ of part of a raceagainst > the AI at 101% at 70 degrees where I drove the low, high, and middle linea > bit after moving up to first with the fast setup with no problem. That'swhy

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I thought it had to be > controller related if drivers I knew were excellent were finding the fast > setup to push so bad. Pete S. from here at ras couldn't duplicate what he > saw in the replay > but > then on Sat. in the chat room before the (almost) RASCAR race he said he > switched out the pots in his wheel and found that 100k pots worked the

best > and he didn't find the fast setup to push anymore. 50k and 250k didn'tfeel > good to him. > > What type of pots do you have in your wheel? > > I posted a second replay today with some laps from a race against the AIat > 105% with the fast setup at 60 degrees where I move > from 43rd to 35th over 4 laps, and then move to the high line and middle > line for a few laps to show how the fast setup is still stable at those > speeds on any line. The replay is called DaytFast105. The fast setup is > still good > against the AI at that level and as you can see there is no push at alleven > though I'm entering the turns at 200mph in a pack, 199 on the outsideline, > and exiting T4 at 198. No problem at all > holding the low line even at the increased corner speeds. > > I really think that people who are good drivers and are still havingtrouble > with the fast setup seeming to push are doing so because of the type ofpots

Quoted text (9 lines)

> they have in their wheel. Maybe Pete will read this and add his thoughts. > > David G Fisher > > > > > >

lol - I'm getting old :-) Achim "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:23:17 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Strange, you're 3 to 4 seconds faster than me. Could it be that I'mtrying > >Dega and you're trying Tona? :-) > > Doh. =) > > Jason

lol - I'm getting old :-) Achim > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:23:17 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" > >Strange, you're 3 to 4 seconds faster than me. Could it be that I'm trying > >Dega and you're trying Tona? :-) > Doh. =) > Jason

Yeah, the track files have been modied :) Under normal circumstances, you'll never see anywhere near 210. Larry "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Is there a reason the cars can hit 210mph on these 2 tracks? > > I finally sat down to do some racing somewhere besides WG/SP and was > wondering why the car didn't turn with full lock... Can't speak for > anyone else and I'm not normally a nitpicker when it comes to details > like laptimes and speeds but I don't see how "increased realism" > results in being able to drive 15mph faster than the real cars. > > Jason

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:44:33 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yeah, the track files have been modied :) > >Under normal circumstances, you'll never see anywhere near 210. Hm, 50 degrees and cloudy I have no problems getting close to 210 in the draft, and pulling average speeds of 195+ by myself. I mean, c'mon, even at 70 degrees clear no wind the qualifying speeds are faster than the race speeds in real life. That's fucked up. Jason

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:44:33 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yeah, the track files have been modied :) > >Under normal circumstances, you'll never see anywhere near 210. Hm, check out these replays. Both were taken with "realistic weather" turned on (believe temperatures were around 50 and it was cloudy - approximately the same weather that was had during qualifying this year). AI is set to 100%. Here's a 194mph qual lap where I lost a ton of time sliding into turn 1. The AI took the pole at 196.4mph: http://firebrand11.stargate.net/N2003/DaytonaQual.rpy Here's me after dropping 20 spots on the second lap (after drifting high in turns 3/4 while trying to keep my speed over 200), attempting to take turn 1 at 205mph. Is this a controller problem? I would guess no since I'm using full lock and the right front tire is unable to grip the track anymore, but I honestly have no idea: http://firebrand11.stargate.net/N2003/Daytona205.rpy Notice the lead cars hold their line perfectly without dipping below 200mph, after just completing a 203-204mph lap (on their second lap - I quit after clipping that replay but I'm guessing the third lap was a scorcher). Jason

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:44:33 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Yeah, the track files have been modied :) > > > >Under normal circumstances, you'll never see anywhere near 210. > > Hm, 50 degrees and cloudy I have no problems getting close to 210 in > the draft, and pulling average speeds of 195+ by myself. > > I mean, c'mon, even at 70 degrees clear no wind the qualifying speeds > are faster than the race speeds in real life. That's fucked up. > > Jason

Hmmmm - I just gave it a try with cloudy, 50 degrees and no wind, with the AI at 100%. I Q'ed 6th with a 46.2 (pole was 45.9), which mirrors your earlier post in similar conditions. In the race the most I saw was 206, with the AI hitting a high of 204. No 210's in sight. You have a tailwind pushing your bunch to hit those speeds, maybe? SB Way faster than real life though, you're correct. Bit of a surprise how much that's the case in NR2003.

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:09:38 -0500, "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Hmmmm - I just gave it a try with cloudy, 50 degrees and no wind, with the >AI at 100%. I Q'ed 6th with a 46.2 (pole was 45.9), which mirrors your >earlier post in similar conditions. In the race the most I saw was 206, >with the AI hitting a high of 204. No 210's in sight. You have a tailwind >pushing your bunch to hit those speeds, maybe? I'm guessing that's the case. I've seen 210's twice and I believe in both cases the temperature was in the low 40's with cloud cover and a strong wind (the replay I posted in the other part of the thread with realistic weather was 42F and cloudy, dunno wind speed). If I can replicate what I saw earlier I'll post a replay. At present I've managed about the same (205-207). >Way faster than real life though, you're correct. Bit of a surprise how >much that's the case in NR2003. It's weird. I went back to N2002 for a bit and while the cars may be a bit light on torque the top speeds are pretty spot on at the plate tracks. There's also more grip at Tona/Dega from what I can tell in N2002 (which can be seen in the track.inis if you compare side to side). My current compromise is running 110 degrees clear no wind. 90 and 100 degrees puts the qual times around 48.0 but the race speeds tend to creep into the 45's. 110F the cars qual around 185mph/48.5sec and race in the high 46's with top speeds in the low 190's. The AI is still pretty tough at those speeds, I've managed to win a 10 lap race starting in 9th but only after several pass attempts for the lead where no one would draft with me. Interestingly, now that I feel like I have control over the car, I'm noticing really cool AI behavior like the car behind me sometimes tucking its nose in and following me low or high if I make a quick line change. More aggressive drivers seem to really fight you for the low line too, I spent a good 3 laps trying to push John Andretti out of my way because he was hugging the yellow line out of turn 2 and all the way down the backstretch. Jason

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:44:33 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Yeah, the track files have been modied :) > > > >Under normal circumstances, you'll never see anywhere near 210. > > Hm, check out these replays. Both were taken with "realistic weather" > turned on (believe temperatures were around 50 and it was cloudy - > approximately the same weather that was had during qualifying this > year). AI is set to 100%. Here's a 194mph qual lap where I lost a > ton of time sliding into turn 1. The AI took the pole at 196.4mph: > > http://firebrand11.stargate.net/N2003/DaytonaQual.rpy > > Here's me after dropping 20 spots on the second lap (after drifting > high in turns 3/4 while trying to keep my speed over 200), attempting > to take turn 1 at 205mph. Is this a controller problem? I would > guess no since I'm using full lock and the right front tire is unable > to grip the track anymore, but I honestly have no idea: > > http://firebrand11.stargate.net/N2003/Daytona205.rpy > > Notice the lead cars hold their line perfectly without dipping below > 200mph, after just completing a 203-204mph lap (on their second lap - > I quit after clipping that replay but I'm guessing the third lap was a > scorcher). > > Jason

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ Check the replay "Dayt50Degrees". I set it at 50 degrees and cloudy with no wind and started 43rd. The main problem was finding a place to pass back there. Later I qualified 16th and just ran a normal race within the pack and carefully picked my spots to pass. You can enter the turn at 205, stay at 203 on the low line and exit T4 at 203 (lap 13) if you do it right. My fastest lap was a 44.013 and most laps were in the low 44's. You didn't respond to my other post in this thread so I don't know if you even read my suggestion that it may be a controller issue. Either that, or I guess it just takes some non-NASCAR guy like me who drives sims of "carbon fiber computer-assisted tubs with wings" instead of cars that were "still cars" from '67. :-p David G Fisher

I ran some practice laps at Michigan at 70 and no wind and AI at 100%. Fastest was a 37.619 http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ which put me at the bottom of the field. I didn't race with them so I don't know how that would go, but in practice I certainly wasn't having the same success I had at Daytona. I think you're right about the 100% setting not being uniform across all tracks. I'll try Talladega later tonight. David G FIsher "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mzW4a.6614$[email hidden]... > Great stuff David. Do you have any replays of info. about yourexperiences > at Michigan and California using the default fast set-up? If the AI is at > 100%, where can you place in practise in a full field? Do you find the AI > harder or easier at one or the other of these two tracks? I find the AIcan

Quoted text (33 lines)

> be matched or beaten fairly easily at Tally at 100% with the fast set-up. > You obviously find the same. Wondering what your thoughts are (or what > replays will show) at Mich. and Calif. > > Thanks, > > Marc > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:32:28 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Ah, that would also explain why the AI's laps at the Glen are 2 > > > >seconds faster than the current track record. =) > > > > > > Played with the AI a bit, seems like 97% keeps the speeds more in line > > > with real life at Daytona and the Glen (may have to bump up their qual > > > ability a bit at the plate tracks but haven't tested enough yet). The > > > AI is still fiendish at 97%, and I'm realizing now that one of the big > > > improvements, at least at Daytona, is that they'll fight and block to > > > keep the low line. > > > > > > Jason > > > > I noticed you said in another post that you are finding it hard to keep > the > > low line at > > Daytona due to the high corner speeds. I said in another thread that if > > people are finding this a problem it must be controller related. I

posted > a > > replay here http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ of part of a race > against > > the AI at 101% at 70 degrees where I drove the low, high, and middleline > a > > bit after moving up to first with the fast setup with no problem. That's > why > > I thought it had to be > > controller related if drivers I knew were excellent were finding thefast > > setup to push so bad. Pete S. from here at ras couldn't duplicate whathe

Quoted text (30 lines)

> > saw in the replay > > but > > then on Sat. in the chat room before the (almost) RASCAR race he said he > > switched out the pots in his wheel and found that 100k pots worked the > best > > and he didn't find the fast setup to push anymore. 50k and 250k didn't > feel > > good to him. > > > > What type of pots do you have in your wheel? > > > > I posted a second replay today with some laps from a race against the AI > at > > 105% with the fast setup at 60 degrees where I move > > from 43rd to 35th over 4 laps, and then move to the high line and middle > > line for a few laps to show how the fast setup is still stable at those > > speeds on any line. The replay is called DaytFast105. The fast setup is > > still good > > against the AI at that level and as you can see there is no push at all > even > > though I'm entering the turns at 200mph in a pack, 199 on the outside > line, > > and exiting T4 at 198. No problem at all > > holding the low line even at the increased corner speeds. > > > > I really think that people who are good drivers and are still having > trouble > > with the fast setup seeming to push are doing so because of the type of > pots > > they have in their wheel. Maybe Pete will read this and add his

thoughts.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:38:14 -0500, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ Check the replay "Dayt50Degrees". I >set it at 50 degrees and cloudy with no wind and started 43rd. The main >problem was finding a place to pass back there. Later I qualified 16th and >just ran a normal race within the pack and carefully picked my spots to >pass. I'll take a look at it. >You didn't respond to my other post in this thread so I don't know if you >even read my suggestion that it may be a controller issue. Either that, or I >guess it just takes some non-NASCAR guy like me who drives sims of "carbon >fiber computer-assisted tubs with wings" instead of cars that were "still >cars" from '67. :-p =p As far as controller issues go, I have no idea what sort of pots I'm using, it's a fairly new Sidewinder Pro set to fully linear. I did try messing with the steering ratio a bit in the garage to see if speeding it up some might help but I had the same problem. My guess at this point (still grabbing that replay) is that I'm doing something wrong on turn entry. I do still hope something is (or can be) done about the ridiculous speeds at the plate tracks, altho I'm also sure my complaints are a minority view. I do wonder what Manuel Deskalos was talking about when he said that top speeds wouldn't change despite the horsepower, because I'm not seeing this extra drag he referred to. Jason

Glad I am not the only one experiencing this. Although some claim it is just a "feature" of the Practise Mode...??? Marc "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I ran some practice laps at Michigan at 70 and no wind and AI at 100%. > Fastest was a 37.619 http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ which put me at > the bottom of the field. I didn't race with them so I don't know how that > would go, but in practice I certainly wasn't having the same success I had > at Daytona. > > I think you're right about the 100% setting not being uniform across all > tracks. I'll try Talladega later tonight. > > David G FIsher > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:mzW4a.6614$[email hidden]... > > Great stuff David. Do you have any replays of info. about your > experiences > > at Michigan and California using the default fast set-up? If the AI is

at > > 100%, where can you place in practise in a full field? Do you find theAI > > harder or easier at one or the other of these two tracks? I find the AI > can > > be matched or beaten fairly easily at Tally at 100% with the fastset-up.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > You obviously find the same. Wondering what your thoughts are (or what > > replays will show) at Mich. and Calif. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marc > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:32:28 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >Ah, that would also explain why the AI's laps at the Glen are 2 > > > > >seconds faster than the current track record. =) > > > > > > > > Played with the AI a bit, seems like 97% keeps the speeds more in

line > > > > with real life at Daytona and the Glen (may have to bump up theirqual > > > > ability a bit at the plate tracks but haven't tested enough yet).The > > > > AI is still fiendish at 97%, and I'm realizing now that one of thebig > > > > improvements, at least at Daytona, is that they'll fight and blockto > > > > keep the low line. > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > I noticed you said in another post that you are finding it hard tokeep > > the > > > low line at > > > Daytona due to the high corner speeds. I said in another thread thatif

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > people are finding this a problem it must be controller related. I > posted > > a > > > replay here http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ of part of a race > > against > > > the AI at 101% at 70 degrees where I drove the low, high, and middle > line > > a > > > bit after moving up to first with the fast setup with no problem.

That's

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > why > > > I thought it had to be > > > controller related if drivers I knew were excellent were finding the > fast > > > setup to push so bad. Pete S. from here at ras couldn't duplicate what > he > > > saw in the replay > > > but > > > then on Sat. in the chat room before the (almost) RASCAR race he said

he

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > switched out the pots in his wheel and found that 100k pots worked the > > best > > > and he didn't find the fast setup to push anymore. 50k and 250k didn't > > feel > > > good to him. > > > > > > What type of pots do you have in your wheel? > > > > > > I posted a second replay today with some laps from a race against the

AI > > at > > > 105% with the fast setup at 60 degrees where I move > > > from 43rd to 35th over 4 laps, and then move to the high line andmiddle > > > line for a few laps to show how the fast setup is still stable atthose > > > speeds on any line. The replay is called DaytFast105. The fast setupis > > > still good > > > against the AI at that level and as you can see there is no push atall

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > even > > > though I'm entering the turns at 200mph in a pack, 199 on the outside > > line, > > > and exiting T4 at 198. No problem at all > > > holding the low line even at the increased corner speeds. > > > > > > I really think that people who are good drivers and are still having > > trouble > > > with the fast setup seeming to push are doing so because of the type

of

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > pots > > > they have in their wheel. Maybe Pete will read this and add his > thoughts. > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

And actually if you could, try California and compare to Mich. Marc "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I ran some practice laps at Michigan at 70 and no wind and AI at 100%. > Fastest was a 37.619 http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ which put me at > the bottom of the field. I didn't race with them so I don't know how that > would go, but in practice I certainly wasn't having the same success I had > at Daytona. > > I think you're right about the 100% setting not being uniform across all > tracks. I'll try Talladega later tonight. > > David G FIsher > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:mzW4a.6614$[email hidden]... > > Great stuff David. Do you have any replays of info. about your > experiences > > at Michigan and California using the default fast set-up? If the AI is

at > > 100%, where can you place in practise in a full field? Do you find theAI > > harder or easier at one or the other of these two tracks? I find the AI > can > > be matched or beaten fairly easily at Tally at 100% with the fastset-up.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > You obviously find the same. Wondering what your thoughts are (or what > > replays will show) at Mich. and Calif. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marc > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:32:28 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >Ah, that would also explain why the AI's laps at the Glen are 2 > > > > >seconds faster than the current track record. =) > > > > > > > > Played with the AI a bit, seems like 97% keeps the speeds more in

line > > > > with real life at Daytona and the Glen (may have to bump up theirqual > > > > ability a bit at the plate tracks but haven't tested enough yet).The > > > > AI is still fiendish at 97%, and I'm realizing now that one of thebig > > > > improvements, at least at Daytona, is that they'll fight and blockto > > > > keep the low line. > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > I noticed you said in another post that you are finding it hard tokeep > > the > > > low line at > > > Daytona due to the high corner speeds. I said in another thread thatif

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > people are finding this a problem it must be controller related. I > posted > > a > > > replay here http://mywebpages.comcast.net/davegf/ of part of a race > > against > > > the AI at 101% at 70 degrees where I drove the low, high, and middle > line > > a > > > bit after moving up to first with the fast setup with no problem.

That's

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > why > > > I thought it had to be > > > controller related if drivers I knew were excellent were finding the > fast > > > setup to push so bad. Pete S. from here at ras couldn't duplicate what > he > > > saw in the replay > > > but > > > then on Sat. in the chat room before the (almost) RASCAR race he said

he

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > switched out the pots in his wheel and found that 100k pots worked the > > best > > > and he didn't find the fast setup to push anymore. 50k and 250k didn't > > feel > > > good to him. > > > > > > What type of pots do you have in your wheel? > > > > > > I posted a second replay today with some laps from a race against the

AI > > at > > > 105% with the fast setup at 60 degrees where I move > > > from 43rd to 35th over 4 laps, and then move to the high line andmiddle > > > line for a few laps to show how the fast setup is still stable atthose > > > speeds on any line. The replay is called DaytFast105. The fast setupis > > > still good > > > against the AI at that level and as you can see there is no push atall

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > even > > > though I'm entering the turns at 200mph in a pack, 199 on the outside > > line, > > > and exiting T4 at 198. No problem at all > > > holding the low line even at the increased corner speeds. > > > > > > I really think that people who are good drivers and are still having > > trouble > > > with the fast setup seeming to push are doing so because of the type

of

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > pots > > > they have in their wheel. Maybe Pete will read this and add his > thoughts. > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5Vr5a.7162$[email hidden]... > Glad I am not the only one experiencing this. Although some claim it is > just a "feature" of the Practise Mode...??? That misses the point. People asked where you placed in a decent length race with AI at 100% at California and Michiugan. If you ran farily equally well in a race then it would just be that practise/qually speeds are off and that the AI have, indeed, been tuned as far as possible to be fairly consistent *in race trim* at a given percentage level - which is what the beta tester who had input into the discussion implied. Regards, Mark Davison http://www.markdavison.clara.net/OVAL/ "No more rhymes, now. I mean it!" "Anybody wanna peanut?"

Interesting. I've never seen anything near 200mph yet. Online OR offline. Something is not right here. Larry "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:44:33 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Yeah, the track files have been modied :) > > > >Under normal circumstances, you'll never see anywhere near 210. > > Hm, 50 degrees and cloudy I have no problems getting close to 210 in > the draft, and pulling average speeds of 195+ by myself. > > I mean, c'mon, even at 70 degrees clear no wind the qualifying speeds > are faster than the race speeds in real life. That's fucked up. > > Jason

Interesting update: I am testing a Radeon 9700 in my system. So I swap out the GeForce 4 128 MB 8xAGP Ti4200 card and swap in the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128 MB card and touch absolutely nothing else. The fps in the game is almost identical (although the Radeon allows some AA to be turned on without a fps hit, so it looks a wee bit better). All of a sudden I am consistently about 10th at Michigan instead of 43rd. Same Bob Stanley set-up, same wheel, same me, same everything except the video adapter. Hmmmmm...I smell a clock/timing bug of some sort. Marc Mark Davison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5Vr5a.7162$[email hidden]... > > Glad I am not the only one experiencing this. Although some claim it is > > just a "feature" of the Practise Mode...??? > > That misses the point. People asked where you placed in a decent length > race with AI at 100% at California and Michiugan. > > If you ran farily equally well in a race then it would just be that > practise/qually speeds are off and that the AI have, indeed, been tuned as > far as possible to be fairly consistent *in race trim* at a given

percentage

Quoted text (11 lines)

> level - which is what the beta tester who had input into the discussion > implied. > > Regards, > > Mark Davison > http://www.markdavison.clara.net/OVAL/ > "No more rhymes, now. I mean it!" > "Anybody wanna peanut?" > >

Understand; these are top speeds, not average. But even going by laptimes, the in-game times are substantially quicker than the real ones. I first noticed it in the demo at Michigan when I easily went under the real track record, and it's held true in the full release. Not a big drag on gameplay for sure; but it does detract from the realism, and is thus a surprise coming from Papy. Jason is right that the cars are more of a handful entering a corner at 205 vs. 195. They should be! While I don't seem to be plagued by the giant push he's talking about, I do lift for an instant entering the banking at Daytona in traffic to keep the nose down low when I'm at 200+. No trouble in clean air, even if I've got a car behind giving me an aero push to high speeds. Seemed OK to me, but then I'm a roadie and am used to lifting for corners... ;-) SB "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cZB5a.50863$[email hidden]... > Interesting. I've never seen anything near 200mph yet. Online ORoffline.

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > Something is not right here. > > Larry > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:44:33 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Yeah, the track files have been modied :) > > > > > >Under normal circumstances, you'll never see anywhere near 210. > > > > Hm, 50 degrees and cloudy I have no problems getting close to 210 in > > the draft, and pulling average speeds of 195+ by myself. > > > > I mean, c'mon, even at 70 degrees clear no wind the qualifying speeds > > are faster than the race speeds in real life. That's fucked up. > > > > Jason > >

Clock/timing bug has always been there. :-( Pete "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LDD5a.8542$[email hidden]... > Interesting update: I am testing a Radeon 9700 in my system. So I swapout > the GeForce 4 128 MB 8xAGP Ti4200 card and swap in the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro > 128 MB card and touch absolutely nothing else. The fps in the game is > almost identical (although the Radeon allows some AA to be turned onwithout > a fps hit, so it looks a wee bit better). All of a sudden I amconsistently > about 10th at Michigan instead of 43rd. Same Bob Stanley set-up, same > wheel, same me, same everything except the video adapter. Hmmmmm...Ismell > a clock/timing bug of some sort. > > Marc

"Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rsG5a.6579$[email hidden]... > Clock/timing bug has always been there. :-( I'm unaware of this. What does this mean for online racing? Regards, Mark Davison http://www.markdavison.clara.net/OVAL/ "No more rhymes, now. I mean it!" "Anybody wanna peanut?"

Pete wrote: > > Clock/timing bug has always been there. :-( > > Pete Now, why did I know you'd respond to this post Pete ? :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--

I guess after arguing about it for years some people are finally noticing. I could give my long answer but......... :-) Pete "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > > Pete wrote: > > > > Clock/timing bug has always been there. :-( > > > > Pete > > Now, why did I know you'd respond to this post Pete ? :-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" > --Groucho Marx--

Pete wrote: > > I guess after arguing about it for years some people are finally > noticing. > I could give my long answer but......... :-) I bet you have it on a notepad.txt file somewhere so you can just cut'n paste :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--

Sorry Pete--I have been around here a long time, but am unaware of your long answer or that you have been noticing this for a while...could you elaborate just a bit or give me the notepad version! Thanks, Marc "Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:plM5a.9276$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (29 lines)

> I guess after arguing about it for years some people are finally > noticing. > I could give my long answer but......... :-) > > Pete > > "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Pete wrote: > > > > > > Clock/timing bug has always been there. :-( > > > > > > Pete > > > > Now, why did I know you'd respond to this post Pete ? :-) > > > > > > Beers and cheers > > (uncle) Goy > > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > > > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" > > --Groucho Marx-- > >

Marc, I will email it to you. I will have to redo it. But I go back to day one with their sims and the timing issues. Pete "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xPN5a.6830$[email hidden]... > Sorry Pete--I have been around here a long time, but am unaware of yourlong > answer or that you have been noticing this for a while...could youelaborate > just a bit or give me the notepad version! > > Thanks, > > Marc

Funny you mention this. I was playing around with fps and found I get the fastest laps when my fps is at or above 57fps. Is that related to the physics engine or am I imagining it? Mitch "Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kSQ5a.6990$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Marc, I will email it to you. I will have to redo it. But I go back to > day > one with their sims and the timing issues. > > Pete > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:xPN5a.6830$[email hidden]... > > Sorry Pete--I have been around here a long time, but am unaware of your > long > > answer or that you have been noticing this for a while...could you > elaborate > > just a bit or give me the notepad version! > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marc > > >

> >Funny you mention this. I was playing around with fps and found I get the >fastest laps when my fps is at or above 57fps. Is that related to the >physics engine or am I imagining it? > >Mitch Well, your controller inputs are faster the more FPS you get... ----------------------------------------- Dan Belcher Webmaster, http://simcrash.fameflame.dk