No one has replied to my earlier message about the AI ignoring incidents in
practice mode...it's like they only slow down based on a yellow flag, not on
what they are "seeing." Sorry, but after having this same issue since N3,
it sucks.
The next issue has also been around since N3...that is, the AI aren't based
on some realistically driveable model for each track. If you set them to
100%, at some tracks they are unbeatable (uncatchable) and at others
relatively easy to beat.
I downloaded Bob Stanley's set-ups. I have no end of respect for Bob and
his generous contributions to our community. I have used his set-ups for N4
and NR2002 extensively. Of course, he was also involved in testing and
developing NR2003. Fire up Michigan and after quite a while manage a
37.661, which puts me 37th in the field. I am not an alien, but I have been
around the block a few times and with a great set-up I should be able to at
least make the bottom of the top third of the field at an easy track like
Michigan. So I decide to go check out Bob's set-up notes, which always list
his best time: 37.660.
Within 10 minutes I was within 1/1000th of a second of the set-up guru's
best time, yet it is only good for 37th place???
Without labouring over this with details from many tracks, suffice it to say
that, once again, you cannot set all the tracks to 100% AI and enjoy a
realistic season. If Bob Stanley's best set-up for track A yields a 43rd
place and for track B a 15th and for track C a 1st, there is something
wrong. They are all ovals and Bob knows more than 99.9% of NR2003
purchasers out there about set-ups and can drive better than at least 98% of
them. It's the same old problem--the AI at 100% are too fast at most
tracks, but it is the inconsistency that is the major problem. If you could
set them to some value and then know that they would be consistently
competent (as a group), who would care what that value was? Instead of
fixing the problem, we get adaptive AI and auto-adjusting AI...neither of
which supplies a "realistic" simulation. Either the player car has a major
problem or the AI speed and intelligence is a major problem.
Oh yeah, did I also mention that I am annoyed that another N4 bug/feature is
still present: the non-existent full field option. Instead, if you go to a
track that inexplicably can't handle the full field, it sets the number of
cars to that track's upper limit (39, for example). Then, unless you
manually reset the field, you will get only 39 cars at every track from then
on. Very annoying.
The new physics are great, but after paying full price for another update,
even if it is the sentimental last one, it is aggravating to be reminded of
oversights from the days of N3 that are still not addressed.
Marc
--
****************************************************************************
Marc Collins
[email hidden]
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
****************************************************************************
Is NR2003 AI speed consistent across tracks?
Marc Collins argued that, as in earlier Papyrus NASCAR titles, NR2003's AI at a fixed strength was much easier to beat at some tracks than others, using Bob Stanley's setups and lap times as evidence. Beta tester Jay Taylor explained that the AI was balanced using months of race and qualifying data, while others suggested auto AI, better setups or pointed to the per-track AI ini modifiers. The long argument ended with neither side persuaded.
Automated summary.
Marc....
I don't know if the AI slider was ever supposed to be set a one
setting....and have that be universally correct (compared to something, I'm
not sure what) for all tracks. To me, if its a "slider"....its meant to be
"moved." Seems like sort of a common sense thingy.....LOL. Since I don't
run in "season mode" I guess it would be frustrating if you are not allowed
to alter the AI settings for each track/race. Is that true?
Alternately, when I want to race against the AI at a track that I am fairly
competent at.....I try to find a "slider" setting that has the top of the
field running at or near what the real WC cars run (top of their field) at
the same track (taking into consideration any variables in
weather....depending on what data you are using for the real WC speeds/lap
times). Of course, this requires keeping a log of these settings for each
track....if you want to repeat a race at any time in the future. Not too
difficult.
I don't think the adaptive AI was meant for us hardcore simmers. Do you?
I can't comment on the AI "ignoring incidents on track" in practice
sessions....haven't run any yet. However, if that is universal to all
tracks, my guess is there's a setting out of whack in the "papy_ai.ini"
file....someone is sure to find it and post a correction (like JJ
Johnston....or someone with similar skills in hacking/improving Papy's AI
performance).
I don't think using Bob Stanley's setups as a "benchmark" of what the AI
"should" be running....is a reasonable proposition. While Bob's setups are
excellent, indeed.....they are not meant to be AI benchmarking
devices....are they? If you use one of Bob's setups and you are running at
lap speeds equivalent to the real WC drivers....then find a suitable AI
slider setting that matches up....and bingo....problem over! And by the
way, if you only took 10 minutes to be as fast as Bob's notes say he
is....then I would guess there's a lot more speed left in that
setup.....with further adjustments. You shouldn't have even warmed your
tires practically....in 10 minutes. Perhaps you were "fudging" a little bit
in your time statement? Or, maybe trying to impress us a little bit?
To explain the "inexplicably"....some WC tracks don't have enough pit stalls
for 42 cars.....so the field gets reduced to the number of pit stalls it
does have. That used to be a lot of WC tracks....now its just a few.
Having to manually reset to "full field, 42 cars" doesn't seem like such a
bummer.......to me at least.
Calling NR2003 "another update" is being a little unrealistic....IMHO. And,
I think its unfair to those people at Papyrus (who were not around when N3,
or N4 were produced) who worked very hard (again, IMHO) on getting as much
of the "goodies" packed into NR2003 as they did (and some cools stuff we'd
not even been asking for) because it was the "last" of the Papy NASCAR sims!
Fortunately, I think most of them will view your post, as I did.......as
being from a little too anal of a "POV"......I don't think they'll lose any
sleep over your being aggravated at their work.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here.....just trying to balance the scales
a little bit.....for the newbies to this sim racing community who might have
mistakenly read your post and thought it contained anything of merit. It
doesn't.
Regards,
Tom
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Fem1a.6759$[email hidden]...
> No one has replied to my earlier message about the AI ignoring incidentsin
> practice mode...it's like they only slow down based on a yellow flag, noton
> what they are "seeing." Sorry, but after having this same issue since N3,
> it sucks.
>
> The next issue has also been around since N3...that is, the AI aren'tbased
> on some realistically driveable model for each track. If you set them to
> 100%, at some tracks they are unbeatable (uncatchable) and at others
> relatively easy to beat.
>
> I downloaded Bob Stanley's set-ups. I have no end of respect for Bob and
> his generous contributions to our community. I have used his set-ups forN4
> and NR2002 extensively. Of course, he was also involved in testing and
> developing NR2003. Fire up Michigan and after quite a while manage a
> 37.661, which puts me 37th in the field. I am not an alien, but I havebeen
> around the block a few times and with a great set-up I should be able toat
> least make the bottom of the top third of the field at an easy track like
> Michigan. So I decide to go check out Bob's set-up notes, which alwayslist
> his best time: 37.660.
>
> Within 10 minutes I was within 1/1000th of a second of the set-up guru's
> best time, yet it is only good for 37th place???
>
> Without labouring over this with details from many tracks, suffice it tosay
> that, once again, you cannot set all the tracks to 100% AI and enjoy a
> realistic season. If Bob Stanley's best set-up for track A yields a 43rd
> place and for track B a 15th and for track C a 1st, there is something
> wrong. They are all ovals and Bob knows more than 99.9% of NR2003
> purchasers out there about set-ups and can drive better than at least 98%of
> them. It's the same old problem--the AI at 100% are too fast at most
> tracks, but it is the inconsistency that is the major problem. If youcould
> set them to some value and then know that they would be consistently
> competent (as a group), who would care what that value was? Instead of
> fixing the problem, we get adaptive AI and auto-adjusting AI...neither of
> which supplies a "realistic" simulation. Either the player car has amajor
> problem or the AI speed and intelligence is a major problem.
>
> Oh yeah, did I also mention that I am annoyed that another N4 bug/featureis
> still present: the non-existent full field option. Instead, if you go toa
> track that inexplicably can't handle the full field, it sets the number of
> cars to that track's upper limit (39, for example). Then, unless you
> manually reset the field, you will get only 39 cars at every track fromthen
> on. Very annoying.
>
> The new physics are great, but after paying full price for another update,
> even if it is the sentimental last one, it is aggravating to be remindedof
> oversights from the days of N3 that are still not addressed.
>
> Marc
>
> --
>****************************************************************************
> Marc Collins
> [email hidden]
>
> Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> to take effect. Reboot now?
>****************************************************************************
>
>
>
not sure but wouldn't the auto setting on AI address this problem?
"Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:IMn1a.46058$[email hidden]...
> Marc....
>
> I don't know if the AI slider was ever supposed to be set a one
> setting....and have that be universally correct (compared to something,I'm
> not sure what) for all tracks. To me, if its a "slider"....its meant tobe
> "moved." Seems like sort of a common sense thingy.....LOL. Since Idon't
> run in "season mode" I guess it would be frustrating if you are notallowed
> to alter the AI settings for each track/race. Is that true?
>
> Alternately, when I want to race against the AI at a track that I amfairly
are
> excellent, indeed.....they are not meant to be AI benchmarking
> devices....are they? If you use one of Bob's setups and you are runningat
> lap speeds equivalent to the real WC drivers....then find a suitable AI
> slider setting that matches up....and bingo....problem over! And by the
> way, if you only took 10 minutes to be as fast as Bob's notes say he
> is....then I would guess there's a lot more speed left in that
> setup.....with further adjustments. You shouldn't have even warmed your
> tires practically....in 10 minutes. Perhaps you were "fudging" a littlebit
> in your time statement? Or, maybe trying to impress us a little bit?
>
> To explain the "inexplicably"....some WC tracks don't have enough pitstalls
> for 42 cars.....so the field gets reduced to the number of pit stalls it
> does have. That used to be a lot of WC tracks....now its just a few.
> Having to manually reset to "full field, 42 cars" doesn't seem like such a
> bummer.......to me at least.
>
> Calling NR2003 "another update" is being a little unrealistic....IMHO.And,
> I think its unfair to those people at Papyrus (who were not around whenN3,
> or N4 were produced) who worked very hard (again, IMHO) on getting as much
> of the "goodies" packed into NR2003 as they did (and some cools stuff we'd
> not even been asking for) because it was the "last" of the Papy NASCARsims!
> Fortunately, I think most of them will view your post, as I did.......as
> being from a little too anal of a "POV"......I don't think they'll loseany
> sleep over your being aggravated at their work.
>
> I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here.....just trying to balance thescales
> a little bit.....for the newbies to this sim racing community who mighthave
not
> on
> > what they are "seeing." Sorry, but after having this same issue sinceN3,
> > it sucks.
> >
> > The next issue has also been around since N3...that is, the AI aren't
> based
> > on some realistically driveable model for each track. If you set themto
> > 100%, at some tracks they are unbeatable (uncatchable) and at others
> > relatively easy to beat.
> >
> > I downloaded Bob Stanley's set-ups. I have no end of respect for Boband
> > his generous contributions to our community. I have used his set-upsfor
like
43rd
> > place and for track B a 15th and for track C a 1st, there is something
> > wrong. They are all ovals and Bob knows more than 99.9% of NR2003
> > purchasers out there about set-ups and can drive better than at least98%
of
> > which supplies a "realistic" simulation. Either the player car has a
> major
> > problem or the AI speed and intelligence is a major problem.
> >
> > Oh yeah, did I also mention that I am annoyed that another N4bug/feature
> is
> > still present: the non-existent full field option. Instead, if you goto
> a
> > track that inexplicably can't handle the full field, it sets the numberof
> > cars to that track's upper limit (39, for example). Then, unless you
> > manually reset the field, you will get only 39 cars at every track from
> then
> > on. Very annoying.
> >
> > The new physics are great, but after paying full price for anotherupdate,
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Quoted text (19 lines)
> competent at.....I try to find a "slider" setting that has the top of the > field running at or near what the real WC cars run (top of their field) at > the same track (taking into consideration any variables in > weather....depending on what data you are using for the real WC speeds/lap > times). Of course, this requires keeping a log of these settings for each > track....if you want to repeat a race at any time in the future. Not too > difficult. > > I don't think the adaptive AI was meant for us hardcore simmers. Do you? > > I can't comment on the AI "ignoring incidents on track" in practice > sessions....haven't run any yet. However, if that is universal to all > tracks, my guess is there's a setting out of whack in the "papy_ai.ini" > file....someone is sure to find it and post a correction (like JJ > Johnston....or someone with similar skills in hacking/improving Papy's AI > performance). > > I don't think using Bob Stanley's setups as a "benchmark" of what the AI > "should" be running....is a reasonable proposition. While Bob's setupsQuoted text (14 lines)
> mistakenly read your post and thought it contained anything of merit. It > doesn't. > > Regards, > > Tom > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Fem1a.6759$[email hidden]... > > No one has replied to my earlier message about the AI ignoring incidents > in > > practice mode...it's like they only slow down based on a yellow flag,Quoted text (8 lines)
> N4 > > and NR2002 extensively. Of course, he was also involved in testing and > > developing NR2003. Fire up Michigan and after quite a while manage a > > 37.661, which puts me 37th in the field. I am not an alien, but I have > been > > around the block a few times and with a great set-up I should be able to > at > > least make the bottom of the top third of the field at an easy trackQuoted text (11 lines)
> > Michigan. So I decide to go check out Bob's set-up notes, which always > list > > his best time: 37.660. > > > > Within 10 minutes I was within 1/1000th of a second of the set-up guru's > > best time, yet it is only good for 37th place??? > > > > Without labouring over this with details from many tracks, suffice it to > say > > that, once again, you cannot set all the tracks to 100% AI and enjoy a > > realistic season. If Bob Stanley's best set-up for track A yields aQuoted text (7 lines)
> of > > them. It's the same old problem--the AI at 100% are too fast at most > > tracks, but it is the inconsistency that is the major problem. If you > could > > set them to some value and then know that they would be consistently > > competent (as a group), who would care what that value was? Instead of > > fixing the problem, we get adaptive AI and auto-adjusting AI...neitherQuoted text (9 lines)
> > even if it is the sentimental last one, it is aggravating to be reminded > of > > oversights from the days of N3 that are still not addressed. > > > > 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? > > >Once again Tom, you are an ass. Your message was quite reasonable and
respectful until you couldn't stop yourself from saying my message contained
nothing of merit.
If you are not annoyed by bugs and oversights that were pointed out 3
versions ago, so be it. Shut the *&%# up about Sears Point/Infineon
accuracy, then, too, to be consistent, since the vast majority wouldn't
notice and could care less.
The point is that 100% AI *DOES NOT* represent true WC speeds. And how
closely it represents them varies dramatically from one track to the next.
So great orb of wisdom, tell us what someone--a newbie or old timers like
us--should set their AI to if they want the "realistic" experience that this
title is striving to provide. Looking forward to your reply.
Marc
"Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:IMn1a.46058$[email hidden]...
> Marc....
>
> I don't know if the AI slider was ever supposed to be set a one
> setting....and have that be universally correct (compared to something,I'm
> not sure what) for all tracks. To me, if its a "slider"....its meant tobe
> "moved." Seems like sort of a common sense thingy.....LOL. Since Idon't
> run in "season mode" I guess it would be frustrating if you are notallowed
> to alter the AI settings for each track/race. Is that true?
>
> Alternately, when I want to race against the AI at a track that I amfairly
are
> excellent, indeed.....they are not meant to be AI benchmarking
> devices....are they? If you use one of Bob's setups and you are runningat
> lap speeds equivalent to the real WC drivers....then find a suitable AI
> slider setting that matches up....and bingo....problem over! And by the
> way, if you only took 10 minutes to be as fast as Bob's notes say he
> is....then I would guess there's a lot more speed left in that
> setup.....with further adjustments. You shouldn't have even warmed your
> tires practically....in 10 minutes. Perhaps you were "fudging" a littlebit
> in your time statement? Or, maybe trying to impress us a little bit?
>
> To explain the "inexplicably"....some WC tracks don't have enough pitstalls
> for 42 cars.....so the field gets reduced to the number of pit stalls it
> does have. That used to be a lot of WC tracks....now its just a few.
> Having to manually reset to "full field, 42 cars" doesn't seem like such a
> bummer.......to me at least.
>
> Calling NR2003 "another update" is being a little unrealistic....IMHO.And,
> I think its unfair to those people at Papyrus (who were not around whenN3,
> or N4 were produced) who worked very hard (again, IMHO) on getting as much
> of the "goodies" packed into NR2003 as they did (and some cools stuff we'd
> not even been asking for) because it was the "last" of the Papy NASCARsims!
> Fortunately, I think most of them will view your post, as I did.......as
> being from a little too anal of a "POV"......I don't think they'll loseany
> sleep over your being aggravated at their work.
>
> I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here.....just trying to balance thescales
> a little bit.....for the newbies to this sim racing community who mighthave
not
> on
> > what they are "seeing." Sorry, but after having this same issue sinceN3,
> > it sucks.
> >
> > The next issue has also been around since N3...that is, the AI aren't
> based
> > on some realistically driveable model for each track. If you set themto
> > 100%, at some tracks they are unbeatable (uncatchable) and at others
> > relatively easy to beat.
> >
> > I downloaded Bob Stanley's set-ups. I have no end of respect for Boband
> > his generous contributions to our community. I have used his set-upsfor
like
43rd
> > place and for track B a 15th and for track C a 1st, there is something
> > wrong. They are all ovals and Bob knows more than 99.9% of NR2003
> > purchasers out there about set-ups and can drive better than at least98%
of
> > which supplies a "realistic" simulation. Either the player car has a
> major
> > problem or the AI speed and intelligence is a major problem.
> >
> > Oh yeah, did I also mention that I am annoyed that another N4bug/feature
> is
> > still present: the non-existent full field option. Instead, if you goto
> a
> > track that inexplicably can't handle the full field, it sets the numberof
> > cars to that track's upper limit (39, for example). Then, unless you
> > manually reset the field, you will get only 39 cars at every track from
> then
> > on. Very annoying.
> >
> > The new physics are great, but after paying full price for anotherupdate,
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Quoted text (19 lines)
> competent at.....I try to find a "slider" setting that has the top of the > field running at or near what the real WC cars run (top of their field) at > the same track (taking into consideration any variables in > weather....depending on what data you are using for the real WC speeds/lap > times). Of course, this requires keeping a log of these settings for each > track....if you want to repeat a race at any time in the future. Not too > difficult. > > I don't think the adaptive AI was meant for us hardcore simmers. Do you? > > I can't comment on the AI "ignoring incidents on track" in practice > sessions....haven't run any yet. However, if that is universal to all > tracks, my guess is there's a setting out of whack in the "papy_ai.ini" > file....someone is sure to find it and post a correction (like JJ > Johnston....or someone with similar skills in hacking/improving Papy's AI > performance). > > I don't think using Bob Stanley's setups as a "benchmark" of what the AI > "should" be running....is a reasonable proposition. While Bob's setupsQuoted text (14 lines)
> mistakenly read your post and thought it contained anything of merit. It > doesn't. > > Regards, > > Tom > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Fem1a.6759$[email hidden]... > > No one has replied to my earlier message about the AI ignoring incidents > in > > practice mode...it's like they only slow down based on a yellow flag,Quoted text (8 lines)
> N4 > > and NR2002 extensively. Of course, he was also involved in testing and > > developing NR2003. Fire up Michigan and after quite a while manage a > > 37.661, which puts me 37th in the field. I am not an alien, but I have > been > > around the block a few times and with a great set-up I should be able to > at > > least make the bottom of the top third of the field at an easy trackQuoted text (11 lines)
> > Michigan. So I decide to go check out Bob's set-up notes, which always > list > > his best time: 37.660. > > > > Within 10 minutes I was within 1/1000th of a second of the set-up guru's > > best time, yet it is only good for 37th place??? > > > > Without labouring over this with details from many tracks, suffice it to > say > > that, once again, you cannot set all the tracks to 100% AI and enjoy a > > realistic season. If Bob Stanley's best set-up for track A yields aQuoted text (7 lines)
> of > > them. It's the same old problem--the AI at 100% are too fast at most > > tracks, but it is the inconsistency that is the major problem. If you > could > > set them to some value and then know that they would be consistently > > competent (as a group), who would care what that value was? Instead of > > fixing the problem, we get adaptive AI and auto-adjusting AI...neitherQuoted text (9 lines)
> > even if it is the sentimental last one, it is aggravating to be reminded > of > > oversights from the days of N3 that are still not addressed. > > > > 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? > > >Actually manualy setting the AI to 100% gives you very consistant results.
While tuning the settings in NR2003 myself and most of the beta team did
numerous runs at all the tracks and generated tons on data on fast and
average lap times. This was what was used to set the AI's speeds. I know
myself personally I've been able to get top 10 qual positions at almost
every track, and can definately qual in the top 20 everywhere. Poles are
few and far between, as they should be. Also notice the AI's qual speeds
can vary some from race to race, this is because of the drivers stats being
"rerolled" everytime you enter the track. One of the biggest factors is
the car set you use. The default one that comes with NR2003 is decent and
should give you good results, however the full set at the pitwagon site will
probably give you slightly more even and realistic results.
The goal of setting the 100% difficulty was to make it a real challenge for
even the best sim racers to qualify and race upfront. While nothing is
perfect, I feel that from all the feedback we got thru testing we are pretty
damn close this time around. The only two tracks that might be a little to
fast are the roadcourses. Admittedly the AI at these two tracks might be a
touch faster on average then compared to the rest of the tracks. Keep in
mind that ever person that drives NR2003 also has good and bad tracks.
Personally I struggle to run in the top 20 at Homestead, but I know others
can run in the top 10 there consistantly, so in that case it's just me being
off there.
Jay Taylor
Does Bob have setups for NR2003 up already? Where ?
Larry
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Fem1a.6759$[email hidden]...
> No one has replied to my earlier message about the AI ignoring incidentsin
> practice mode...it's like they only slow down based on a yellow flag, noton
> what they are "seeing." Sorry, but after having this same issue since N3,
> it sucks.
>
> The next issue has also been around since N3...that is, the AI aren'tbased
> on some realistically driveable model for each track. If you set them to
> 100%, at some tracks they are unbeatable (uncatchable) and at others
> relatively easy to beat.
>
> I downloaded Bob Stanley's set-ups. I have no end of respect for Bob and
> his generous contributions to our community. I have used his set-ups forN4
> and NR2002 extensively. Of course, he was also involved in testing and
> developing NR2003. Fire up Michigan and after quite a while manage a
> 37.661, which puts me 37th in the field. I am not an alien, but I havebeen
> around the block a few times and with a great set-up I should be able toat
> least make the bottom of the top third of the field at an easy track like
> Michigan. So I decide to go check out Bob's set-up notes, which alwayslist
> his best time: 37.660.
>
> Within 10 minutes I was within 1/1000th of a second of the set-up guru's
> best time, yet it is only good for 37th place???
>
> Without labouring over this with details from many tracks, suffice it tosay
> that, once again, you cannot set all the tracks to 100% AI and enjoy a
> realistic season. If Bob Stanley's best set-up for track A yields a 43rd
> place and for track B a 15th and for track C a 1st, there is something
> wrong. They are all ovals and Bob knows more than 99.9% of NR2003
> purchasers out there about set-ups and can drive better than at least 98%of
> them. It's the same old problem--the AI at 100% are too fast at most
> tracks, but it is the inconsistency that is the major problem. If youcould
> set them to some value and then know that they would be consistently
> competent (as a group), who would care what that value was? Instead of
> fixing the problem, we get adaptive AI and auto-adjusting AI...neither of
> which supplies a "realistic" simulation. Either the player car has amajor
> problem or the AI speed and intelligence is a major problem.
>
> Oh yeah, did I also mention that I am annoyed that another N4 bug/featureis
> still present: the non-existent full field option. Instead, if you go toa
> track that inexplicably can't handle the full field, it sets the number of
> cars to that track's upper limit (39, for example). Then, unless you
> manually reset the field, you will get only 39 cars at every track fromthen
> on. Very annoying.
>
> The new physics are great, but after paying full price for another update,
> even if it is the sentimental last one, it is aggravating to be remindedof
> oversights from the days of N3 that are still not addressed.
>
> Marc
>
> --
>****************************************************************************
> Marc Collins
> [email hidden]
>
> Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> to take effect. Reboot now?
>****************************************************************************
>
>
>
He posted them at the teamlightspeed forum under the setups topic:
http://www.sportplanet.com/team-lightspeed/board/
--
Joe M.
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aow1a.15269$[email hidden]...
> Does Bob have setups for NR2003 up already? Where ?
>
> Larry
>
> "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:Fem1a.6759$[email hidden]...
> > No one has replied to my earlier message about the AI ignoring incidents
> in
> > practice mode...it's like they only slow down based on a yellow flag,
not
> on
> > what they are "seeing." Sorry, but after having this same issue since
N3,
> > it sucks.
> >
> > The next issue has also been around since N3...that is, the AI aren't
> based
> > on some realistically driveable model for each track. If you set them
to
> > 100%, at some tracks they are unbeatable (uncatchable) and at others
> > relatively easy to beat.
> >
> > I downloaded Bob Stanley's set-ups. I have no end of respect for Bob
and
> > his generous contributions to our community. I have used his set-ups
for
> N4
> > and NR2002 extensively. Of course, he was also involved in testing and
> > developing NR2003. Fire up Michigan and after quite a while manage a
> > 37.661, which puts me 37th in the field. I am not an alien, but I have
> been
> > around the block a few times and with a great set-up I should be able to
> at
> > least make the bottom of the top third of the field at an easy track
like
> > Michigan. So I decide to go check out Bob's set-up notes, which always
> list
> > his best time: 37.660.
> >
> > Within 10 minutes I was within 1/1000th of a second of the set-up guru's
> > best time, yet it is only good for 37th place???
> >
> > Without labouring over this with details from many tracks, suffice it to
> say
> > that, once again, you cannot set all the tracks to 100% AI and enjoy a
> > realistic season. If Bob Stanley's best set-up for track A yields a
43rd
> > place and for track B a 15th and for track C a 1st, there is something
> > wrong. They are all ovals and Bob knows more than 99.9% of NR2003
> > purchasers out there about set-ups and can drive better than at least
98%
> of
> > them. It's the same old problem--the AI at 100% are too fast at most
> > tracks, but it is the inconsistency that is the major problem. If you
> could
> > set them to some value and then know that they would be consistently
> > competent (as a group), who would care what that value was? Instead of
> > fixing the problem, we get adaptive AI and auto-adjusting AI...neither
of
> > which supplies a "realistic" simulation. Either the player car has a
> major
> > problem or the AI speed and intelligence is a major problem.
> >
> > Oh yeah, did I also mention that I am annoyed that another N4
bug/feature
> is
> > still present: the non-existent full field option. Instead, if you go
to
> a
> > track that inexplicably can't handle the full field, it sets the number
of
> > cars to that track's upper limit (39, for example). Then, unless you
> > manually reset the field, you will get only 39 cars at every track from
> then
> > on. Very annoying.
> >
> > The new physics are great, but after paying full price for another
update,
> > even if it is the sentimental last one, it is aggravating to be reminded
> of
> > oversights from the days of N3 that are still not addressed.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> > --
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> > Marc Collins
> > [email hidden]
> >
> > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> > to take effect. Reboot now?
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Well, not to be argumentive, but so far I've ran jasper setup at MIS, fast setup at lowes, and I can win at MIS (or finish high with the fixed) and i get waxed at lowes.
But I do agree with you that it probably should be a bit uneven for most drivers.
--
Tim White
www.intracmotorsports.com
"Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:z_v1a.2792$[email hidden]...
Actually manualy setting the AI to 100% gives you very consistant results.
While tuning the settings in NR2003 myself and most of the beta team did
numerous runs at all the tracks and generated tons on data on fast and
average lap times. This was what was used to set the AI's speeds. I know
myself personally I've been able to get top 10 qual positions at almost
every track, and can definately qual in the top 20 everywhere. Poles are
few and far between, as they should be. Also notice the AI's qual speeds
can vary some from race to race, this is because of the drivers stats being
"rerolled" everytime you enter the track. One of the biggest factors is
the car set you use. The default one that comes with NR2003 is decent and
should give you good results, however the full set at the pitwagon site will
probably give you slightly more even and realistic results.
The goal of setting the 100% difficulty was to make it a real challenge for
even the best sim racers to qualify and race upfront. While nothing is
perfect, I feel that from all the feedback we got thru testing we are pretty
damn close this time around. The only two tracks that might be a little to
fast are the roadcourses. Admittedly the AI at these two tracks might be a
touch faster on average then compared to the rest of the tracks. Keep in
mind that ever person that drives NR2003 also has good and bad tracks.
Personally I struggle to run in the top 20 at Homestead, but I know others
can run in the top 10 there consistantly, so in that case it's just me being
off there.
Jay Taylor
Well, Bob's (and I realise he is not the benchmark of all set-ups, but let's
also admit they are damned good compared to everything else that's out there
or that comes with the game) set-up at California usually yields a top 2 in
practice, while his Michigan set-up usually relegates one to 43rd, to pick
two tracks that are probably the most similar. Sorry, but I can't believe
Bob (or me for that matter) is super competent and competitive at
California, but can't figure out Michigan worth a damn.
I agree that we all have our better and worse tracks, but I would love to
see set-ups posted that the creator can accomplish what you have suggested:
top 10 at each track with AI set at 100%. Then, if I can't do it, it is my
driving skills (or lack thereof) that are holding me back, not maladjusted
AI. I have been waiting since N3 for this. Bob has told me directly that
his set-ups for N4 and NR2002 will not accomplish this, because he just
tweaks them for his own best performance. He said the AI speeds in N4 and
NR2002 are inconsistent, etc. just as I outlined in this post. I was hoping
NR2003 would be better. Jay, is it?
Do you have set-ups that you can do top 10 in practice at all tracks? Or
just a few like California/Michigan, Atlanta/Texas, Daytona/Tally, etc.
would prove the point.
Bob's set-ups yield the following (typically) out of interest:
California - 2nd
Michigan - 43rd
Atlanta - 10th
Texas - 18th
Infineon - 14th
Watkins Glen - 43rd
Bristol - 5th
Rockingham - 1st
Darlington - 3rd
Homestead - 15th
Martinsville - 38th
I sincerely hope that you are correct and that it is just a matter of time
before the best set-ups are developed. It just hasn't happened yet after
the same assumption in N4 and NR2002, so I wasn't too optimistic. But I
would love to proven wrong!
Marc
"Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:z_v1a.2792$[email hidden]...
being
> "rerolled" everytime you enter the track. One of the biggest factors is
> the car set you use. The default one that comes with NR2003 is decent and
> should give you good results, however the full set at the pitwagon sitewill
> probably give you slightly more even and realistic results.
>
> The goal of setting the 100% difficulty was to make it a real challengefor
> even the best sim racers to qualify and race upfront. While nothing is
> perfect, I feel that from all the feedback we got thru testing we arepretty
> damn close this time around. The only two tracks that might be a littleto
> fast are the roadcourses. Admittedly the AI at these two tracks might bea
> touch faster on average then compared to the rest of the tracks. Keep in
> mind that ever person that drives NR2003 also has good and bad tracks.
> Personally I struggle to run in the top 20 at Homestead, but I know others
> can run in the top 10 there consistantly, so in that case it's just mebeing
> off there.
>
>
> Jay Taylor
>
>
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Actually manualy setting the AI to 100% gives you very consistant results. > While tuning the settings in NR2003 myself and most of the beta team did > numerous runs at all the tracks and generated tons on data on fast and > average lap times. This was what was used to set the AI's speeds. I know > myself personally I've been able to get top 10 qual positions at almost > every track, and can definately qual in the top 20 everywhere. Poles are > few and far between, as they should be. Also notice the AI's qual speeds > can vary some from race to race, this is because of the drivers statsI can run top 10 at most of the tracks, and top 20 at all the others besides
the road course ( which I'm just not real strong at). However physically
being able to do it, doesn't mean I can every time. The AI vary some from
race to race so while I might be a very strong top 10 or better car one
time, I'll be struggling to get near the top 10 the next race even with the
same conditions. As for their practice speeds, I never used those as a
gauge, only their actual race and qual speeds. I personally like this
aspect so I never can count on exactly what to expect from the AI, and that
each race is different and new. As for my setups, yes I developed a bunch
while doing lines for the AI, and general game tuning. However I can't say
they'll work for everyone.
The fast setups in general should get you in the top 20 atleast pretty much
everywhere. I also don't think matching your fastest lap against the AI's
fastest lap is good for alot besides qualifiying. It really matters more
over the course of a full tire run. Some tracks I give up some speed to out
last the AI, others I get beat a little on tire wear but am faster for 20
laps. I dont have having exactly the way I want it yet, but I'm getting
close.
Regarding the AI speeds and real life speeds.. The AI in NR2003 were set to
run about what we felt was physically possible for the human player to run.
Balancing them to real life speeds would be pointless if the player doesn't
match up. While it would be nice to nail real life cup speeds perfectly, it
was always the main goal to capture the track characteristics, and
experience first. Some tracks are close to RL speeds some are not, but
hopefully the experience will be close everywhere.
Jay Taylor
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:AoB1a.29246$[email hidden]...
> Well, Bob's (and I realise he is not the benchmark of all set-ups, butlet's
> also admit they are damned good compared to everything else that's outthere
> or that comes with the game) set-up at California usually yields a top 2in
suggested:
> top 10 at each track with AI set at 100%. Then, if I can't do it, it ismy
> driving skills (or lack thereof) that are holding me back, not maladjusted
> AI. I have been waiting since N3 for this. Bob has told me directly that
> his set-ups for N4 and NR2002 will not accomplish this, because he just
> tweaks them for his own best performance. He said the AI speeds in N4 and
> NR2002 are inconsistent, etc. just as I outlined in this post. I washoping
results.
> > While tuning the settings in NR2003 myself and most of the beta team did
> > numerous runs at all the tracks and generated tons on data on fast and
> > average lap times. This was what was used to set the AI's speeds. Iknow
> > myself personally I've been able to get top 10 qual positions at almost
> > every track, and can definately qual in the top 20 everywhere. Polesare
> > few and far between, as they should be. Also notice the AI's qualspeeds
> > can vary some from race to race, this is because of the drivers stats
> being
> > "rerolled" everytime you enter the track. One of the biggest factorsis
> > the car set you use. The default one that comes with NR2003 is decentand
be
> a
> > touch faster on average then compared to the rest of the tracks. Keepin
> > mind that ever person that drives NR2003 also has good and bad tracks.
> > Personally I struggle to run in the top 20 at Homestead, but I knowothers
Quoted text (7 lines)
> practice, while his Michigan set-up usually relegates one to 43rd, to pick > two tracks that are probably the most similar. Sorry, but I can't believe > Bob (or me for that matter) is super competent and competitive at > California, but can't figure out Michigan worth a damn. > > I agree that we all have our better and worse tracks, but I would love to > see set-ups posted that the creator can accomplish what you haveQuoted text (37 lines)
> NR2003 would be better. Jay, is it? > > Do you have set-ups that you can do top 10 in practice at all tracks? Or > just a few like California/Michigan, Atlanta/Texas, Daytona/Tally, etc. > would prove the point. > > Bob's set-ups yield the following (typically) out of interest: > > California - 2nd > Michigan - 43rd > > Atlanta - 10th > Texas - 18th > > Infineon - 14th > Watkins Glen - 43rd > > Bristol - 5th > > Rockingham - 1st > > Darlington - 3rd > > Homestead - 15th > > Martinsville - 38th > > I sincerely hope that you are correct and that it is just a matter of time > before the best set-ups are developed. It just hasn't happened yet after > the same assumption in N4 and NR2002, so I wasn't too optimistic. But I > would love to proven wrong! > > Marc > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:z_v1a.2792$[email hidden]... > > Actually manualy setting the AI to 100% gives you very consistantQuoted text (12 lines)
> > should give you good results, however the full set at the pitwagon site > will > > probably give you slightly more even and realistic results. > > > > The goal of setting the 100% difficulty was to make it a real challenge > for > > even the best sim racers to qualify and race upfront. While nothing is > > perfect, I feel that from all the feedback we got thru testing we are > pretty > > damn close this time around. The only two tracks that might be a little > to > > fast are the roadcourses. Admittedly the AI at these two tracks mightQuoted text (10 lines)
> > can run in the top 10 there consistantly, so in that case it's just me > being > > off there. > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > >I agree that the AI speeds need to be pegged to human players first and the
real WC speeds a distant second.
I think you will find consistent reports that certain tracks are "easy" to
beat the AI and others are incredibly difficult.
Just as a favour, since the files are so small, could you post your
California and Michigan race set-up that you can do top-10's with? These
tracks are the most similar yet have the most divergent AI in my experience,
with the California AI being slower than they should be and the Michigan
being faster. This will be your chance to show Bob up real good :)
If a number of us can see that with the right set-up the AI is similarly
difficult to beat at these two tracks, the issue can be put to rest.
Thanks,
Marc
"Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:QQB1a.199$[email hidden]...
> I can run top 10 at most of the tracks, and top 20 at all the othersbesides
> the road course ( which I'm just not real strong at). However physically
> being able to do it, doesn't mean I can every time. The AI vary some from
> race to race so while I might be a very strong top 10 or better car one
> time, I'll be struggling to get near the top 10 the next race even withthe
> same conditions. As for their practice speeds, I never used those as a
> gauge, only their actual race and qual speeds. I personally like this
> aspect so I never can count on exactly what to expect from the AI, andthat
> each race is different and new. As for my setups, yes I developed abunch
> while doing lines for the AI, and general game tuning. However I can't say
> they'll work for everyone.
> The fast setups in general should get you in the top 20 atleast prettymuch
> everywhere. I also don't think matching your fastest lap against the AI's
> fastest lap is good for alot besides qualifiying. It really matters more
> over the course of a full tire run. Some tracks I give up some speed toout
> last the AI, others I get beat a little on tire wear but am faster for 20
> laps. I dont have having exactly the way I want it yet, but I'm getting
> close.
>
> Regarding the AI speeds and real life speeds.. The AI in NR2003 were setto
> run about what we felt was physically possible for the human player torun.
> Balancing them to real life speeds would be pointless if the playerdoesn't
> match up. While it would be nice to nail real life cup speeds perfectly,it
pick
> > two tracks that are probably the most similar. Sorry, but I can'tbelieve
> > Bob (or me for that matter) is super competent and competitive at
> > California, but can't figure out Michigan worth a damn.
> >
> > I agree that we all have our better and worse tracks, but I would loveto
> > see set-ups posted that the creator can accomplish what you have
> suggested:
> > top 10 at each track with AI set at 100%. Then, if I can't do it, it is
> my
> > driving skills (or lack thereof) that are holding me back, notmaladjusted
> > AI. I have been waiting since N3 for this. Bob has told me directlythat
> > his set-ups for N4 and NR2002 will not accomplish this, because he just
> > tweaks them for his own best performance. He said the AI speeds in N4and
> > NR2002 are inconsistent, etc. just as I outlined in this post. I was
> hoping
> > NR2003 would be better. Jay, is it?
> >
> > Do you have set-ups that you can do top 10 in practice at all tracks?Or
time
> > before the best set-ups are developed. It just hasn't happened yetafter
did
> > > numerous runs at all the tracks and generated tons on data on fast and
> > > average lap times. This was what was used to set the AI's speeds. I
> know
> > > myself personally I've been able to get top 10 qual positions atalmost
site
> > will
> > > probably give you slightly more even and realistic results.
> > >
> > > The goal of setting the 100% difficulty was to make it a realchallenge
> > for
> > > even the best sim racers to qualify and race upfront. While nothingis
> > > perfect, I feel that from all the feedback we got thru testing we are
> > pretty
> > > damn close this time around. The only two tracks that might be alittle
Quoted text (17 lines)
> was always the main goal to capture the track characteristics, and > experience first. Some tracks are close to RL speeds some are not, but > hopefully the experience will be close everywhere. > > Jay Taylor > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:AoB1a.29246$[email hidden]... > > Well, Bob's (and I realise he is not the benchmark of all set-ups, but > let's > > also admit they are damned good compared to everything else that's out > there > > or that comes with the game) set-up at California usually yields a top 2 > in > > practice, while his Michigan set-up usually relegates one to 43rd, toQuoted text (25 lines)
> > just a few like California/Michigan, Atlanta/Texas, Daytona/Tally, etc. > > would prove the point. > > > > Bob's set-ups yield the following (typically) out of interest: > > > > California - 2nd > > Michigan - 43rd > > > > Atlanta - 10th > > Texas - 18th > > > > Infineon - 14th > > Watkins Glen - 43rd > > > > Bristol - 5th > > > > Rockingham - 1st > > > > Darlington - 3rd > > > > Homestead - 15th > > > > Martinsville - 38th > > > > I sincerely hope that you are correct and that it is just a matter ofQuoted text (10 lines)
> > the same assumption in N4 and NR2002, so I wasn't too optimistic. But I > > would love to proven wrong! > > > > Marc > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:z_v1a.2792$[email hidden]... > > > Actually manualy setting the AI to 100% gives you very consistant > results. > > > While tuning the settings in NR2003 myself and most of the beta teamQuoted text (11 lines)
> > > every track, and can definately qual in the top 20 everywhere. Poles > are > > > few and far between, as they should be. Also notice the AI's qual > speeds > > > can vary some from race to race, this is because of the drivers stats > > being > > > "rerolled" everytime you enter the track. One of the biggest factors > is > > > the car set you use. The default one that comes with NR2003 is decent > and > > > should give you good results, however the full set at the pitwagonQuoted text (21 lines)
> > to > > > fast are the roadcourses. Admittedly the AI at these two tracks might > be > > a > > > touch faster on average then compared to the rest of the tracks. Keep > in > > > mind that ever person that drives NR2003 also has good and bad tracks. > > > Personally I struggle to run in the top 20 at Homestead, but I know > others > > > can run in the top 10 there consistantly, so in that case it's just me > > being > > > off there. > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks!
Larry
"Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
incidents
and
> > > developing NR2003. Fire up Michigan and after quite a while manage a
> > > 37.661, which puts me 37th in the field. I am not an alien, but Ihave
> > been
> > > around the block a few times and with a great set-up I should be ableto
> > at
> > > least make the bottom of the top third of the field at an easy track
> like
> > > Michigan. So I decide to go check out Bob's set-up notes, whichalways
> > list
> > > his best time: 37.660.
> > >
> > > Within 10 minutes I was within 1/1000th of a second of the set-upguru's
> > > best time, yet it is only good for 37th place???
> > >
> > > Without labouring over this with details from many tracks, suffice itto
of
number
> of
> > > cars to that track's upper limit (39, for example). Then, unless you
> > > manually reset the field, you will get only 39 cars at every trackfrom
> > then
> > > on. Very annoying.
> > >
> > > The new physics are great, but after paying full price for another
> update,
> > > even if it is the sentimental last one, it is aggravating to bereminded
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
Quoted text (17 lines)
> He posted them at the teamlightspeed forum under the setups topic: > > http://www.sportplanet.com/team-lightspeed/board/ > > -- > Joe M. > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:aow1a.15269$[email hidden]... > > Does Bob have setups for NR2003 up already? Where ? > > > > Larry > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Fem1a.6759$[email hidden]... > > > No one has replied to my earlier message about the AI ignoringQuoted text (21 lines)
> > in > > > practice mode...it's like they only slow down based on a yellow flag, > not > > on > > > what they are "seeing." Sorry, but after having this same issue since > N3, > > > it sucks. > > > > > > The next issue has also been around since N3...that is, the AI aren't > > based > > > on some realistically driveable model for each track. If you set them > to > > > 100%, at some tracks they are unbeatable (uncatchable) and at others > > > relatively easy to beat. > > > > > > I downloaded Bob Stanley's set-ups. I have no end of respect for Bob > and > > > his generous contributions to our community. I have used his set-ups > for > > N4 > > > and NR2002 extensively. Of course, he was also involved in testingQuoted text (14 lines)
> > say > > > that, once again, you cannot set all the tracks to 100% AI and enjoy a > > > realistic season. If Bob Stanley's best set-up for track A yields a > 43rd > > > place and for track B a 15th and for track C a 1st, there is something > > > wrong. They are all ovals and Bob knows more than 99.9% of NR2003 > > > purchasers out there about set-ups and can drive better than at least > 98% > > of > > > them. It's the same old problem--the AI at 100% are too fast at most > > > tracks, but it is the inconsistency that is the major problem. If you > > could > > > set them to some value and then know that they would be consistently > > > competent (as a group), who would care what that value was? InsteadQuoted text (13 lines)
> > > fixing the problem, we get adaptive AI and auto-adjusting AI...neither > of > > > which supplies a "realistic" simulation. Either the player car has a > > major > > > problem or the AI speed and intelligence is a major problem. > > > > > > Oh yeah, did I also mention that I am annoyed that another N4 > bug/feature > > is > > > still present: the non-existent full field option. Instead, if you go > to > > a > > > track that inexplicably can't handle the full field, it sets theQuoted text (9 lines)
> > of > > > oversights from the days of N3 that are still not addressed. > > > > > > 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? > > > > > >Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Marc...
As I stated, I wasn't trying to be a smart ass......but your post doesn't
contain anything of merit, IMHO.....and that statement was made for the
newbies only. I'm pretty confident all of the experienced sim drivers would
realize your post was of no merit.
By "no merit"....I'm again, not trying to be a smart ass....honest. What I
mean by that is it contains false premises. IMHO, you are trying to compare
targets that have "moving bullseyes"....and that is just a waste of
time...usually. And, requiring that the Papy production team develop an AI
code that has the AI running at all 26 WC tracks....at (or near) their
real-life race speeds....when the game option AI Strength slider is set to a
global value of 100%.....is just ridiculous. It shows you don't really
understand the AI coding.....or how the sim actually operates. Again, this
adds a "no merit" value to your post. You are also assuming the AI performs
equally at all sessions of a race....and it doesn't. It never has...even
from the N3 days.
If you want to obtain a "realistic experience" racing against the AI
cars......then you must do some work on your own. Its easy to do....it just
takes time to do it. Most of us, who regularly race against the AI (I do
this regularly...by adding AI cars to fill out online races with just a few
friends in the race)....have been doing this since the N3 days. The process
is something like this:
1. Go to NASCAR.com or a varying number of other resources and find out
what the real-world qual or race times/speeds were at a given track....in
2002 (for the entire field....front to back). As WC races are run this
year.....you should log that same data and this will allow you to update
your data to real-world WC, 2003 speeds/times at each track. Also, record
the weather conditions as best you can (ambient temp.....range too.....if it
varied for the entire event/qual period).
2. Once you have this data for a track....let's say, Daytona (spring
race...and a different set for the fall race would then be required).....you
can go to the Daytona NR2003 track and create a race session with the same
or equivalent weather conditions....and the AI slider set at 100%. Let the
field qualify (ignore practice sessions speeds/lap times). Now...compare
those results to the real-life data from the same track.
3. Make adjustments to the AI slider (up or down as needed) until the field
is qualifying at or near the same lap times/speeds "spread" as the real-life
data. Once you get this set...then check the race speeds/lap times
too...make sure those are also in line with the real-life data. If that is
okay, record your AI slider setting for that track. What ever it
is....that's what it needs to be (at a given weather setting) for the AI to
be performing at or near "realistic experience" levels. You will find this
will almost never be exactly 100% at any track....at least it wasn't for
NR2002.
Now...you have a "baseline" bullseye.....by which you can compare your own
driving skills/setup.......depending on your goals. If you want to finish
in the top 10 consistently....then adjust the AI slider from your baseline
value....until you can....if that's what you want to do! There's many other
things you can do......but nothing is of merit until you establish a
baseline for the AI that has a fixed bullseye. This is the only way I know
to do it.......compare everything to real-world WC driver performance.
In recalling these AI slider values for NR2002.....I know that it was about
only 95% for Sears Point (though the track config was slightly different
from the Papy track to the real track).....and it was around 112% for
Talladega. Those two tracks had the biggest variation....if I recall
correctly....from the 100% settings. I would expect NR2003 to have less of
a "spread" from 100%...for many reasons too numerous to mention here.
Once again, I'm sorry you took offense to my terminology.....it wasn't meant
to be a personal attack or anything like that. I apologize to you....and
will try to choose my words more carefully in these posts.
Regards,
Tom
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:zZv1a.191$[email hidden]...
> Once again Tom, you are an ass. Your message was quite reasonable and
> respectful until you couldn't stop yourself from saying my messagecontained
this
the
> > field running at or near what the real WC cars run (top of their field)at
> > the same track (taking into consideration any variables in
> > weather....depending on what data you are using for the real WCspeeds/lap
> > times). Of course, this requires keeping a log of these settings foreach
> > track....if you want to repeat a race at any time in the future. Nottoo
> > difficult.
> >
> > I don't think the adaptive AI was meant for us hardcore simmers. Doyou?
> >
> > I can't comment on the AI "ignoring incidents on track" in practice
> > sessions....haven't run any yet. However, if that is universal to all
> > tracks, my guess is there's a setting out of whack in the "papy_ai.ini"
> > file....someone is sure to find it and post a correction (like JJ
> > Johnston....or someone with similar skills in hacking/improving Papy'sAI
a
much
> > of the "goodies" packed into NR2003 as they did (and some cools stuffwe'd
It
incidents
and
> > > developing NR2003. Fire up Michigan and after quite a while manage a
> > > 37.661, which puts me 37th in the field. I am not an alien, but Ihave
> > been
> > > around the block a few times and with a great set-up I should be ableto
> > at
> > > least make the bottom of the top third of the field at an easy track
> like
> > > Michigan. So I decide to go check out Bob's set-up notes, whichalways
> > list
> > > his best time: 37.660.
> > >
> > > Within 10 minutes I was within 1/1000th of a second of the set-upguru's
> > > best time, yet it is only good for 37th place???
> > >
> > > Without labouring over this with details from many tracks, suffice itto
of
number
> of
> > > cars to that track's upper limit (39, for example). Then, unless you
> > > manually reset the field, you will get only 39 cars at every trackfrom
> > then
> > > on. Very annoying.
> > >
> > > The new physics are great, but after paying full price for another
> update,
> > > even if it is the sentimental last one, it is aggravating to bereminded
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
Quoted text (11 lines)
> nothing of merit. > > If you are not annoyed by bugs and oversights that were pointed out 3 > versions ago, so be it. Shut the *&%# up about Sears Point/Infineon > accuracy, then, too, to be consistent, since the vast majority wouldn't > notice and could care less. > > The point is that 100% AI *DOES NOT* represent true WC speeds. And how > closely it represents them varies dramatically from one track to the next. > So great orb of wisdom, tell us what someone--a newbie or old timers like > us--should set their AI to if they want the "realistic" experience thatQuoted text (23 lines)
> title is striving to provide. Looking forward to your reply. > > Marc > > > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:IMn1a.46058$[email hidden]... > > Marc.... > > > > I don't know if the AI slider was ever supposed to be set a one > > setting....and have that be universally correct (compared to something, > I'm > > not sure what) for all tracks. To me, if its a "slider"....its meant to > be > > "moved." Seems like sort of a common sense thingy.....LOL. Since I > don't > > run in "season mode" I guess it would be frustrating if you are not > allowed > > to alter the AI settings for each track/race. Is that true? > > > > Alternately, when I want to race against the AI at a track that I am > fairly > > competent at.....I try to find a "slider" setting that has the top ofQuoted text (22 lines)
> > performance). > > > > I don't think using Bob Stanley's setups as a "benchmark" of what the AI > > "should" be running....is a reasonable proposition. While Bob's setups > are > > excellent, indeed.....they are not meant to be AI benchmarking > > devices....are they? If you use one of Bob's setups and you are running > at > > lap speeds equivalent to the real WC drivers....then find a suitable AI > > slider setting that matches up....and bingo....problem over! And by the > > way, if you only took 10 minutes to be as fast as Bob's notes say he > > is....then I would guess there's a lot more speed left in that > > setup.....with further adjustments. You shouldn't have even warmed your > > tires practically....in 10 minutes. Perhaps you were "fudging" a little > bit > > in your time statement? Or, maybe trying to impress us a little bit? > > > > To explain the "inexplicably"....some WC tracks don't have enough pit > stalls > > for 42 cars.....so the field gets reduced to the number of pit stalls it > > does have. That used to be a lot of WC tracks....now its just a few. > > Having to manually reset to "full field, 42 cars" doesn't seem like suchQuoted text (7 lines)
> > bummer.......to me at least. > > > > Calling NR2003 "another update" is being a little unrealistic....IMHO. > And, > > I think its unfair to those people at Papyrus (who were not around when > N3, > > or N4 were produced) who worked very hard (again, IMHO) on getting asQuoted text (12 lines)
> > not even been asking for) because it was the "last" of the Papy NASCAR > sims! > > Fortunately, I think most of them will view your post, as I did.......as > > being from a little too anal of a "POV"......I don't think they'll lose > any > > sleep over your being aggravated at their work. > > > > I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here.....just trying to balance the > scales > > a little bit.....for the newbies to this sim racing community who might > have > > mistakenly read your post and thought it contained anything of merit.Quoted text (11 lines)
> > doesn't. > > > > Regards, > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Fem1a.6759$[email hidden]... > > > No one has replied to my earlier message about the AI ignoringQuoted text (21 lines)
> > in > > > practice mode...it's like they only slow down based on a yellow flag, > not > > on > > > what they are "seeing." Sorry, but after having this same issue since > N3, > > > it sucks. > > > > > > The next issue has also been around since N3...that is, the AI aren't > > based > > > on some realistically driveable model for each track. If you set them > to > > > 100%, at some tracks they are unbeatable (uncatchable) and at others > > > relatively easy to beat. > > > > > > I downloaded Bob Stanley's set-ups. I have no end of respect for Bob > and > > > his generous contributions to our community. I have used his set-ups > for > > N4 > > > and NR2002 extensively. Of course, he was also involved in testingQuoted text (14 lines)
> > say > > > that, once again, you cannot set all the tracks to 100% AI and enjoy a > > > realistic season. If Bob Stanley's best set-up for track A yields a > 43rd > > > place and for track B a 15th and for track C a 1st, there is something > > > wrong. They are all ovals and Bob knows more than 99.9% of NR2003 > > > purchasers out there about set-ups and can drive better than at least > 98% > > of > > > them. It's the same old problem--the AI at 100% are too fast at most > > > tracks, but it is the inconsistency that is the major problem. If you > > could > > > set them to some value and then know that they would be consistently > > > competent (as a group), who would care what that value was? InsteadQuoted text (13 lines)
> > > fixing the problem, we get adaptive AI and auto-adjusting AI...neither > of > > > which supplies a "realistic" simulation. Either the player car has a > > major > > > problem or the AI speed and intelligence is a major problem. > > > > > > Oh yeah, did I also mention that I am annoyed that another N4 > bug/feature > > is > > > still present: the non-existent full field option. Instead, if you go > to > > a > > > track that inexplicably can't handle the full field, it sets theQuoted text (9 lines)
> > of > > > oversights from the days of N3 that are still not addressed. > > > > > > 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? > > > > > >Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a detailed research
project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a championship
season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother and just play online.
Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive like they should have
been forced to complete a few races offline and actually finish higher than
43rd before being allowed online.
When the average experienced user can take the fast set-up at California and
Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the skill level is the
same), the game will have been designed properly (at least for those two
tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 and the other you
have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something is seriously wrong.
Marc
"Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:crV1a.66855$[email hidden]...
> Marc...
>
> As I stated, I wasn't trying to be a smart ass......but your post doesn't
> contain anything of merit, IMHO.....and that statement was made for the
> newbies only. I'm pretty confident all of the experienced sim driverswould
> realize your post was of no merit.
>
> By "no merit"....I'm again, not trying to be a smart ass....honest. WhatI
> mean by that is it contains false premises. IMHO, you are trying tocompare
> targets that have "moving bullseyes"....and that is just a waste of
> time...usually. And, requiring that the Papy production team develop anAI
> code that has the AI running at all 26 WC tracks....at (or near) their
> real-life race speeds....when the game option AI Strength slider is set toa
> global value of 100%.....is just ridiculous. It shows you don't really
> understand the AI coding.....or how the sim actually operates. Again,this
> adds a "no merit" value to your post. You are also assuming the AIperforms
> equally at all sessions of a race....and it doesn't. It never has...even
> from the N3 days.
>
> If you want to obtain a "realistic experience" racing against the AI
> cars......then you must do some work on your own. Its easy to do....itjust
> takes time to do it. Most of us, who regularly race against the AI (I do
> this regularly...by adding AI cars to fill out online races with just afew
> friends in the race)....have been doing this since the N3 days. Theprocess
it
> varied for the entire event/qual period).
>
> 2. Once you have this data for a track....let's say, Daytona (spring
> race...and a different set for the fall race would then berequired).....you
> can go to the Daytona NR2003 track and create a race session with the same
> or equivalent weather conditions....and the AI slider set at 100%. Letthe
> field qualify (ignore practice sessions speeds/lap times). Now...compare
> those results to the real-life data from the same track.
>
> 3. Make adjustments to the AI slider (up or down as needed) until thefield
> is qualifying at or near the same lap times/speeds "spread" as thereal-life
> data. Once you get this set...then check the race speeds/lap times
> too...make sure those are also in line with the real-life data. If thatis
> okay, record your AI slider setting for that track. What ever it
> is....that's what it needs to be (at a given weather setting) for the AIto
> be performing at or near "realistic experience" levels. You will findthis
other
> things you can do......but nothing is of merit until you establish a
> baseline for the AI that has a fixed bullseye. This is the only way Iknow
> to do it.......compare everything to real-world WC driver performance.
>
> In recalling these AI slider values for NR2002.....I know that it wasabout
> only 95% for Sears Point (though the track config was slightly different
> from the Papy track to the real track).....and it was around 112% for
> Talladega. Those two tracks had the biggest variation....if I recall
> correctly....from the 100% settings. I would expect NR2003 to have lessof
> a "spread" from 100%...for many reasons too numerous to mention here.
>
> Once again, I'm sorry you took offense to my terminology.....it wasn'tmeant
next.
> > So great orb of wisdom, tell us what someone--a newbie or old timerslike
something,
> > I'm
> > > not sure what) for all tracks. To me, if its a "slider"....its meantto
field)
"papy_ai.ini"
> > > file....someone is sure to find it and post a correction (like JJ
> > > Johnston....or someone with similar skills in hacking/improving Papy's
> AI
> > > performance).
> > >
> > > I don't think using Bob Stanley's setups as a "benchmark" of what theAI
> > > "should" be running....is a reasonable proposition. While Bob'ssetups
> > are
> > > excellent, indeed.....they are not meant to be AI benchmarking
> > > devices....are they? If you use one of Bob's setups and you arerunning
> > at
> > > lap speeds equivalent to the real WC drivers....then find a suitableAI
> > > slider setting that matches up....and bingo....problem over! And bythe
> > > way, if you only took 10 minutes to be as fast as Bob's notes say he
> > > is....then I would guess there's a lot more speed left in that
> > > setup.....with further adjustments. You shouldn't have even warmedyour
> > > tires practically....in 10 minutes. Perhaps you were "fudging" alittle
> > bit
> > > in your time statement? Or, maybe trying to impress us a little bit?
> > >
> > > To explain the "inexplicably"....some WC tracks don't have enough pit
> > stalls
> > > for 42 cars.....so the field gets reduced to the number of pit stallsit
> > > does have. That used to be a lot of WC tracks....now its just a few.
> > > Having to manually reset to "full field, 42 cars" doesn't seem likesuch
> a
> > > bummer.......to me at least.
> > >
> > > Calling NR2003 "another update" is being a little unrealistic....IMHO.
> > And,
> > > I think its unfair to those people at Papyrus (who were not aroundwhen
did.......as
> > > being from a little too anal of a "POV"......I don't think they'lllose
> > any
> > > sleep over your being aggravated at their work.
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here.....just trying to balance the
> > scales
> > > a little bit.....for the newbies to this sim racing community whomight
flag,
> > not
> > > on
> > > > what they are "seeing." Sorry, but after having this same issuesince
> > N3,
> > > > it sucks.
> > > >
> > > > The next issue has also been around since N3...that is, the AIaren't
> > > based
> > > > on some realistically driveable model for each track. If you setthem
> > to
> > > > 100%, at some tracks they are unbeatable (uncatchable) and at others
> > > > relatively easy to beat.
> > > >
> > > > I downloaded Bob Stanley's set-ups. I have no end of respect forBob
> > and
> > > > his generous contributions to our community. I have used hisset-ups
> > for
> > > N4
> > > > and NR2002 extensively. Of course, he was also involved in testing
> and
> > > > developing NR2003. Fire up Michigan and after quite a while managea
> > > > 37.661, which puts me 37th in the field. I am not an alien, but I
> have
> > > been
> > > > around the block a few times and with a great set-up I should beable
it
> to
> > > say
> > > > that, once again, you cannot set all the tracks to 100% AI and enjoya
> > > > realistic season. If Bob Stanley's best set-up for track A yields a
> > 43rd
> > > > place and for track B a 15th and for track C a 1st, there issomething
> > > > wrong. They are all ovals and Bob knows more than 99.9% of NR2003
> > > > purchasers out there about set-ups and can drive better than atleast
> > 98%
> > > of
> > > > them. It's the same old problem--the AI at 100% are too fast atmost
> > > > tracks, but it is the inconsistency that is the major problem. Ifyou
> > > could
> > > > set them to some value and then know that they would be consistently
> > > > competent (as a group), who would care what that value was? Instead
> of
> > > > fixing the problem, we get adaptive AI and auto-adjustingAI...neither
> > of
> > > > which supplies a "realistic" simulation. Either the player car hasa
go
> > to
> > > a
> > > > track that inexplicably can't handle the full field, it sets the
> number
> > of
> > > > cars to that track's upper limit (39, for example). Then, unlessyou
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
Quoted text (8 lines)
> is something like this: > > 1. Go to NASCAR.com or a varying number of other resources and find out > what the real-world qual or race times/speeds were at a given track....in > 2002 (for the entire field....front to back). As WC races are run this > year.....you should log that same data and this will allow you to update > your data to real-world WC, 2003 speeds/times at each track. Also, record > the weather conditions as best you can (ambient temp.....range too.....ifQuoted text (7 lines)
> will almost never be exactly 100% at any track....at least it wasn't for > NR2002. > > Now...you have a "baseline" bullseye.....by which you can compare your own > driving skills/setup.......depending on your goals. If you want to finish > in the top 10 consistently....then adjust the AI slider from your baseline > value....until you can....if that's what you want to do! There's manyQuoted text (23 lines)
> to be a personal attack or anything like that. I apologize to you....and > will try to choose my words more carefully in these posts. > > Regards, > > Tom > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:zZv1a.191$[email hidden]... > > Once again Tom, you are an ass. Your message was quite reasonable and > > respectful until you couldn't stop yourself from saying my message > contained > > nothing of merit. > > > > If you are not annoyed by bugs and oversights that were pointed out 3 > > versions ago, so be it. Shut the *&%# up about Sears Point/Infineon > > accuracy, then, too, to be consistent, since the vast majority wouldn't > > notice and could care less. > > > > The point is that 100% AI *DOES NOT* represent true WC speeds. And how > > closely it represents them varies dramatically from one track to theQuoted text (13 lines)
> > us--should set their AI to if they want the "realistic" experience that > this > > title is striving to provide. Looking forward to your reply. > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:IMn1a.46058$[email hidden]... > > > Marc.... > > > > > > I don't know if the AI slider was ever supposed to be set a one > > > setting....and have that be universally correct (compared toQuoted text (12 lines)
> > be > > > "moved." Seems like sort of a common sense thingy.....LOL. Since I > > don't > > > run in "season mode" I guess it would be frustrating if you are not > > allowed > > > to alter the AI settings for each track/race. Is that true? > > > > > > Alternately, when I want to race against the AI at a track that I am > > fairly > > > competent at.....I try to find a "slider" setting that has the top of > the > > > field running at or near what the real WC cars run (top of theirQuoted text (16 lines)
> at > > > the same track (taking into consideration any variables in > > > weather....depending on what data you are using for the real WC > speeds/lap > > > times). Of course, this requires keeping a log of these settings for > each > > > track....if you want to repeat a race at any time in the future. Not > too > > > difficult. > > > > > > I don't think the adaptive AI was meant for us hardcore simmers. Do > you? > > > > > > I can't comment on the AI "ignoring incidents on track" in practice > > > sessions....haven't run any yet. However, if that is universal to all > > > tracks, my guess is there's a setting out of whack in theQuoted text (8 lines)
> > N3, > > > or N4 were produced) who worked very hard (again, IMHO) on getting as > much > > > of the "goodies" packed into NR2003 as they did (and some cools stuff > we'd > > > not even been asking for) because it was the "last" of the Papy NASCAR > > sims! > > > Fortunately, I think most of them will view your post, as IQuoted text (17 lines)
> > have > > > mistakenly read your post and thought it contained anything of merit. > It > > > doesn't. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:Fem1a.6759$[email hidden]... > > > > No one has replied to my earlier message about the AI ignoring > incidents > > > in > > > > practice mode...it's like they only slow down based on a yellowQuoted text (14 lines)
> to > > > at > > > > least make the bottom of the top third of the field at an easy track > > like > > > > Michigan. So I decide to go check out Bob's set-up notes, which > always > > > list > > > > his best time: 37.660. > > > > > > > > Within 10 minutes I was within 1/1000th of a second of the set-up > guru's > > > > best time, yet it is only good for 37th place??? > > > > > > > > Without labouring over this with details from many tracks, sufficeQuoted text (7 lines)
> > > major > > > > problem or the AI speed and intelligence is a major problem. > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, did I also mention that I am annoyed that another N4 > > bug/feature > > > is > > > > still present: the non-existent full field option. Instead, if youQuoted text (19 lines)
> > > > manually reset the field, you will get only 39 cars at every track > from > > > then > > > > on. Very annoying. > > > > > > > > The new physics are great, but after paying full price for another > > update, > > > > even if it is the sentimental last one, it is aggravating to be > reminded > > > of > > > > oversights from the days of N3 that are still not addressed. > > > > > > > > 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 (9 lines)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Marc Collins wrote:
[serious snippage]
California.ini
-----------------
[ai track]
ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; acceleration grip efficiency
ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; braking grip efficiency
ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 = more fuel consumed
ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 = more grip
ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 = more drag, which is
slower
Michigan.ini
-----------------
[ai track]
ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; acceleration grip efficiency
ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; braking grip efficiency
ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 = more fuel consumed
ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 = more grip
ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 = more drag, which is
slower
The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I suppose
means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners). For the
others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (and why the
hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? From trial
and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when you do-
and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better than before).
John DiFool
--
============================================
Reach heaven far too high
============================================
Quoted text (15 lines)
> So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a detailed research > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a championship > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother and just play online. > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive like they should have > been forced to complete a few races offline and actually finish higher than > 43rd before being allowed online. > > When the average experienced user can take the fast set-up at California and > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the skill level is the > same), the game will have been designed properly (at least for those two > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 and the other you > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something is seriously wrong. > > Marc >These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come up with the
"balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunately has been seriously
imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003.
The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me that something like
this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't my cup of tea to
start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise and twist my brain
to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural set-up, I get really
annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (as measured by how
well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI at that track) is as
much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race.
Marc
"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Marc Collins wrote:
>
> > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a detailedresearch
> > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a championship
> > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother and just playonline.
> > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive like they shouldhave
> > been forced to complete a few races offline and actually finish higherthan
> > 43rd before being allowed online.
> >
> > When the average experienced user can take the fast set-up at Californiaand
> > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the skill level isthe
> > same), the game will have been designed properly (at least for those two
> > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 and the other you
> > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something is seriouslywrong.
efficiency
> ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; braking grip efficiency
> ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 = more fuelconsumed
> ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 = more grip
> ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 = more drag, whichis
> slower
>
> Michigan.ini
> -----------------
> [ai track]
> ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; acceleration gripefficiency
> ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; braking grip efficiency
> ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 = more fuelconsumed
> ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 = more grip
> ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 = more drag, whichis
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > > > Marc > > > > [serious snippage] > > California.ini > ----------------- > [ai track] > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; acceleration gripQuoted text (17 lines)
> slower > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I suppose > means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners). For the > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (and why the > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? From trial > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when you do- > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better than before). > > John DiFool > > -- > ============================================ > Reach heaven far too high > ============================================ > >Over looked?
If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play balancing NR2003
I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the settings don't work
perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. However they are
certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'm sorry if you feel
otherwise.
The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team felt the tracks were
balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by "Voodoo settings" but I
dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, or bat wings being
involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G>
Jay Taylor
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]...
> These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come up with the
> "balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunately has beenseriously
> imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003.
>
> The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me that somethinglike
> this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't my cup of tea to
> start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise and twist my brain
> to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural set-up, I getreally
> annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (as measured by how
> well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI at that track) isas
California
> and
> > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the skill levelis
> the
> > > same), the game will have been designed properly (at least for thosetwo
> > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 and the otheryou
efficiency
> > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 = more fuel
> consumed
> > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 = more grip
> > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 = more drag,which
efficiency
> > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 = more fuel
> consumed
> > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 = more grip
> > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 = more drag,which
Quoted text (21 lines)
> much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race. > > Marc > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a detailed > research > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a championship > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother and just play > online. > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive like they should > have > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and actually finish higher > than > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fast set-up atQuoted text (14 lines)
> > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something is seriously > wrong. > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > California.ini > > ----------------- > > [ai track] > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; acceleration grip > efficiency > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; braking gripQuoted text (9 lines)
> is > > slower > > > > Michigan.ini > > ----------------- > > [ai track] > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; acceleration grip > efficiency > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; braking gripQuoted text (20 lines)
> is > > slower > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I suppose > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners). For the > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (and why the > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? From trial > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when you do- > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better than before). > > > > John DiFool > > > > -- > > ============================================ > > Reach heaven far too high > > ============================================ > > > > > >What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the layman would
ask why would that vary from on track to the next? Same goes for
ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip, varying from
track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for this?
I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were poured into the
effort. But I think I explained why the result is less than satisfactory.
And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soon as you or
someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan and one for
California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer to hit the top 10
in each with approximately the same effort...since that would be realistic
and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus.
If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode with the AI
at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track (except the
'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California, then
something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game or the set-up
and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-up since you
are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly purchaser/user.
As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach your two set-ups
and we'll see what results.
Thanks,
Marc
"Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]...
> Over looked?
> If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play balancingNR2003
> I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the settings don't work
> perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. However they are
> certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'm sorry if youfeel
> otherwise.
> The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team felt the trackswere
> balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by "Voodoo settings" butI
brain
> > to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural set-up, I get
> really
> > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (as measured byhow
should
> > have
> > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and actually finishhigher
Quoted text (19 lines)
> dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, or bat wings being > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > Jay Taylor > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]... > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come up with the > > "balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunately has been > seriously > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me that something > like > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't my cup of tea to > > start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise and twist myQuoted text (17 lines)
> > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI at that track) is > as > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race. > > > > Marc > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a detailed > > research > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a championship > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother and just play > > online. > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive like theyQuoted text (70 lines)
> > than > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fast set-up at > California > > and > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the skill level > is > > the > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly (at least for those > two > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 and the other > you > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something is seriously > > wrong. > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > California.ini > > > ----------------- > > > [ai track] > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; acceleration grip > > efficiency > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; braking grip > efficiency > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 = more fuel > > consumed > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 = more grip > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 = more drag, > which > > is > > > slower > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > ----------------- > > > [ai track] > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; acceleration grip > > efficiency > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; braking grip > efficiency > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 = more fuel > > consumed > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 = more grip > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 = more drag, > which > > is > > > slower > > > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I suppose > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners). For the > > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (and why the > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? From trial > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when you do- > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better than before). > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > -- > > > ============================================ > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > >First of all if you want to match up verse the AI in practice you better
load a qual setup not a race, as through out testing you would always see a
few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were more in race trim.
Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactly what they will
run for the race.
As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason is simple. The AI do
not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If they did you might
be able to run with a dozen cars max on the fastest of systems. So they
have a somewhat simplifed physics model to keep CPU overhead reasonable.
Therefore after you have lines run for a track that work the way you want
them to, and dont have any choke points that mess up the AI, you use these
values to fine tune the AI to get them to drive the track as close to the
way the typical player would. These are crucial in smoothing out the AI,
and keeping them in line with the player. If everything was equal physics
wise, and the AI had the same knowledge the player does about getting around
the track then these values wouldn't be needed. However until someone finds
away to do all this and make it run well on a normal system, you have to
make adjustments, and try to dial things in with what you have to work with.
Jay Taylor
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]...
> What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the layman would
> ask why would that vary from on track to the next? Same goes for
> ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip, varying from
> track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for this?
>
> I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were poured intothe
set-ups
but
> I
> > dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, or bat wingsbeing
to
is
play
level
> > is
> > > the
> > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly (at least forthose
> > two
> > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 and theother
> > you
> > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something isseriously
before).
Quoted text (15 lines)
> effort. But I think I explained why the result is less than satisfactory. > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soon as you or > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan and one for > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer to hit the top 10 > in each with approximately the same effort...since that would be realistic > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus. > > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode with the AI > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track (except the > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California, then > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game or the set-up > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-up since you > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly purchaser/user. > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach your twoQuoted text (20 lines)
> and we'll see what results. > > Thanks, > > Marc > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]... > > Over looked? > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play balancing > NR2003 > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the settings don't work > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. However they are > > certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'm sorry if you > feel > > otherwise. > > The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team felt the tracks > were > > balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by "Voodoo settings"Quoted text (17 lines)
> > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]... > > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come up with the > > > "balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunately has been > > seriously > > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me that something > > like > > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't my cup of teaQuoted text (7 lines)
> > > start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise and twist my > brain > > > to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural set-up, I get > > really > > > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (as measured by > how > > > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI at that track)Quoted text (14 lines)
> > as > > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race. > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a detailed > > > research > > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a championship > > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother and justQuoted text (13 lines)
> > > online. > > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive like they > should > > > have > > > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and actually finish > higher > > > than > > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fast set-up at > > California > > > and > > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the skillQuoted text (43 lines)
> > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > > > California.ini > > > > ----------------- > > > > [ai track] > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; acceleration grip > > > efficiency > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; braking grip > > efficiency > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 = more fuel > > > consumed > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 = more grip > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 = more drag, > > which > > > is > > > > slower > > > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > > ----------------- > > > > [ai track] > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; acceleration grip > > > efficiency > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; braking grip > > efficiency > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 = more fuel > > > consumed > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 = more grip > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 = more drag, > > which > > > is > > > > slower > > > > > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I suppose > > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners). For the > > > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (and why the > > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? From trial > > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when you do- > > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better thanQuoted text (15 lines)
> > > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ============================================ > > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Marc Collins"I get really annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or
GPLrank has a sister site for N2k2, I would assume they also have or
plan for the same with N2k3. Instant benchmark.
dave henrie
Quoted text (8 lines)
> competence (as measured by how well I do against the only benchmark > available--the AI at that track) is as much of a crap shoot as > surviving an online pick-up race. > > Marc > > >Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where there mouth is
by ponying up a couple of set-ups.
Marc
"Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Veg2a.3869$[email hidden]...
> First of all if you want to match up verse the AI in practice you better
> load a qual setup not a race, as through out testing you would always seea
> few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were more in race trim.
> Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactly what they will
> run for the race.
>
> As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason is simple. The AIdo
around
> the track then these values wouldn't be needed. However until someonefinds
> away to do all this and make it run well on a normal system, you have to
> make adjustments, and try to dial things in with what you have to workwith.
would
satisfactory.
> > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soon as you or
> > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan and one for
> > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer to hit the top10
> > in each with approximately the same effort...since that would berealistic
> > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus.
> >
> > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode with theAI
> > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track (except the
> > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California, then
> > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game or theset-up
> > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-up sinceyou
you
> > feel
> > > otherwise.
> > > The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team felt thetracks
something
> > > like
> > > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't my cup of tea
> to
> > > > start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise and twist my
> > brain
> > > > to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural set-up, Iget
> > > really
> > > > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (as measuredby
> > how
> > > > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI at thattrack)
championship
grip
> > > > efficiency
> > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; braking grip
> > > efficiency
> > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 = morefuel
> > > > consumed
> > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 = moregrip
> > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 = moredrag,
grip
> > > > efficiency
> > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; braking grip
> > > efficiency
> > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 = morefuel
> > > > consumed
> > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 = moregrip
> > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 = moredrag,
> > > which
> > > > is
> > > > > slower
> > > > >
> > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I suppose
> > > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners). Forthe
Quoted text (9 lines)
> not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If they did you might > be able to run with a dozen cars max on the fastest of systems. So they > have a somewhat simplifed physics model to keep CPU overhead reasonable. > Therefore after you have lines run for a track that work the way you want > them to, and dont have any choke points that mess up the AI, you use these > values to fine tune the AI to get them to drive the track as close to the > way the typical player would. These are crucial in smoothing out the AI, > and keeping them in line with the player. If everything was equal physics > wise, and the AI had the same knowledge the player does about gettingQuoted text (9 lines)
> > Jay Taylor > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]... > > What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the laymanQuoted text (7 lines)
> > ask why would that vary from on track to the next? Same goes for > > ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip, varying from > > track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for this? > > > > I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were poured into > the > > effort. But I think I explained why the result is less thanQuoted text (19 lines)
> > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly purchaser/user. > > > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach your two > set-ups > > and we'll see what results. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]... > > > Over looked? > > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play balancing > > NR2003 > > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the settings don't work > > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. However they are > > > certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'm sorry ifQuoted text (21 lines)
> > were > > > balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by "Voodoo settings" > but > > I > > > dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, or bat wings > being > > > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]... > > > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come up with the > > > > "balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunately has been > > > seriously > > > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me thatQuoted text (14 lines)
> is > > > as > > > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race. > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a detailed > > > > research > > > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--aQuoted text (37 lines)
> > > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother and just > play > > > > online. > > > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive like they > > should > > > > have > > > > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and actually finish > > higher > > > > than > > > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fast set-up at > > > California > > > > and > > > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the skill > level > > > is > > > > the > > > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly (at least for > those > > > two > > > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 and the > other > > > you > > > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something is > seriously > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > > > > > California.ini > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; accelerationQuoted text (8 lines)
> > > which > > > > is > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; accelerationQuoted text (22 lines)
> > > > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (and why the > > > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? From trial > > > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when you do- > > > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better than > before). > > > > > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So this all comes down to looking for setups?
To be honest I really dont feel like just tossing out setups, after the
amount of time I've put into them. I'm not saying their are anything
special, but they work great for me. I happen to run in a highly
competitive open setup league, and so I guess I tend not to want to just
give them. Agree with it or not, this is my main reasoning. Beyond that I
really dont feel any need to "prove" anything. I'll discuss the AI, and do
my best to explain what I can. If you dont agree with me, thats your right
I'm just trying to offer what I know. Its seems so far that I've tried my
best to answer your questions, and all we are down to is you asking for my
setups. So save the "put your money where your mouth is" crap for someone
else.
Jay
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Sl_2a.32947$[email hidden]...
see
> a
> > few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were more in racetrim.
> > Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactly what theywill
> > run for the race.
> >
> > As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason is simple. TheAI
> do
> > not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If they did youmight
> > be able to run with a dozen cars max on the fastest of systems. So they
> > have a somewhat simplifed physics model to keep CPU overhead reasonable.
> > Therefore after you have lines run for a track that work the way youwant
> > them to, and dont have any choke points that mess up the AI, you usethese
> > values to fine tune the AI to get them to drive the track as close tothe
> > way the typical player would. These are crucial in smoothing out theAI,
> > and keeping them in line with the player. If everything was equalphysics
from
> > > track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for this?
> > >
> > > I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were pouredinto
> > the
> > > effort. But I think I explained why the result is less than
> satisfactory.
> > > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soon as you or
> > > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan and one for
> > > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer to hit thetop
> 10
> > > in each with approximately the same effort...since that would be
> realistic
> > > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus.
> > >
> > > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode withthe
> AI
> > > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track (exceptthe
> > > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California, then
> > > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game or the
> set-up
> > > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-up since
> you
> > > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowlypurchaser/user.
work
settings"
the
tea
> > to
> > > > > start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise and twistmy
detailed
> > > > > research
> > > > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a
> championship
> > > > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother andjust
> > play
> > > > > online.
> > > > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive likethey
> > > should
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and actuallyfinish
the
> > > > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? Fromtrial
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where there mouth is > by ponying up a couple of set-ups. > > Marc > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Veg2a.3869$[email hidden]... > > First of all if you want to match up verse the AI in practice you better > > load a qual setup not a race, as through out testing you would alwaysQuoted text (19 lines)
> > wise, and the AI had the same knowledge the player does about getting > around > > the track then these values wouldn't be needed. However until someone > finds > > away to do all this and make it run well on a normal system, you have to > > make adjustments, and try to dial things in with what you have to work > with. > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]... > > > What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the layman > would > > > ask why would that vary from on track to the next? Same goes for > > > ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip, varyingQuoted text (16 lines)
> > > > > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach your two > > set-ups > > > and we'll see what results. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]... > > > > Over looked? > > > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play balancing > > > NR2003 > > > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the settings don'tQuoted text (9 lines)
> > > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. However they are > > > > certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'm sorry if > you > > > feel > > > > otherwise. > > > > The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team felt the > tracks > > > were > > > > balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by "VoodooQuoted text (14 lines)
> > but > > > I > > > > dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, or bat wings > > being > > > > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]... > > > > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come up withQuoted text (8 lines)
> > > > > "balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunately has been > > > > seriously > > > > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > > > > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me that > something > > > > like > > > > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't my cup ofQuoted text (21 lines)
> > > brain > > > > > to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural set-up, I > get > > > > really > > > > > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (as measured > by > > > how > > > > > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI at that > track) > > is > > > > as > > > > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race. > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do aQuoted text (68 lines)
> > > higher > > > > > than > > > > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fast set-up at > > > > California > > > > > and > > > > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the skill > > level > > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly (at least for > > those > > > > two > > > > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 and the > > other > > > > you > > > > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something is > > seriously > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > > > > > > > California.ini > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; acceleration > grip > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; braking grip > > > > efficiency > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 = more > fuel > > > > > consumed > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 = more > grip > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 = more > drag, > > > > which > > > > > is > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; acceleration > grip > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; braking grip > > > > efficiency > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 = more > fuel > > > > > consumed > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 = more > grip > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 = more > drag, > > > > which > > > > > is > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I suppose > > > > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners). For > the > > > > > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (and whyQuoted text (22 lines)
> > > > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when you do- > > > > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better than > > before). > > > > > > > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Sl_2a.32947$[email hidden]...
> Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where there mouth is
> by ponying up a couple of set-ups.
>
> Marc
>
Why don't you just turn on the Auto AI like was suggested earlier? Isn't
this specifically what it's for?
db
Well first off Jay this is a public newsgroup, so I am addressing my request
to everyone. I said from the outset that if it simply that Bob Stanley
doesn't know how to set-up a car for NR2003 and others do have set-ups that
you can run competitively at Michigan and California, then so be it.
However, you claimed you can run more or less equally well against the AI at
these two tracks--as everyone should be able to if the gameplay was tweaked
properly. Let's be honest, they are probably the two easiest tracks and
they are so similar that you cannot argue that there is some special trick
or skill required at one that isn't required at the other.
I have never found set-ups in N4, NR2002 or so far in NR2003 that permit
this. Bob Stanley has publicly stated that the AI speeds are unrealistic
(this was in the past referring to N4 and NR2002) at these two tracks and
that he doesn't even bother trying to adjust his set-up to duel with them at
100%--he just sets it up to be the best it can to the best of his ability.
It appears to me that NR2003 is exactly the same in this regard, but you
deny that. I am sincerely deferring to your expertise and experience, but
in the absence of any evidence, I am asking you to contribute just two
set-ups, for the two easiest tracks.
If you don't want to provide that, I understand, especially if you are in a
league. But perhaps you could find ANY set-up wiz out there who has a
set-up that works equally well at Michigan and California against 100% AI.
I haven't been able to find one, but I am sure you will know more than me.
ANY person's set-ups that work equally well at these two tracks will prove
you are right and I am wrong.
Thanks,
Marc
"Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:tJ_2a.1637$[email hidden]...
I
> really dont feel any need to "prove" anything. I'll discuss the AI, anddo
is
better
they
> > > have a somewhat simplifed physics model to keep CPU overheadreasonable.
to
or
> > > > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan and onefor
since
balancing
> > > > NR2003
> > > > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the settings don't
> work
> > > > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. However theyare
> > > > > certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'm sorryif
wings
been
twist
> my
> > > > brain
> > > > > > to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural set-up,I
> > get
> > > > > really
> > > > > > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (asmeasured
at
> > > > > California
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since theskill
> > > level
> > > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly (at leastfor
> > > those
> > > > > two
> > > > > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 andthe
suppose
> > > > > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners).For
> > the
> > > > > > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (and why
> the
> > > > > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? From
> trial
> > > > > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when youdo-
Quoted text (7 lines)
> So this all comes down to looking for setups? > > To be honest I really dont feel like just tossing out setups, after the > amount of time I've put into them. I'm not saying their are anything > special, but they work great for me. I happen to run in a highly > competitive open setup league, and so I guess I tend not to want to just > give them. Agree with it or not, this is my main reasoning. Beyond thatQuoted text (12 lines)
> my best to explain what I can. If you dont agree with me, thats your right > I'm just trying to offer what I know. Its seems so far that I've tried my > best to answer your questions, and all we are down to is you asking for my > setups. So save the "put your money where your mouth is" crap for someone > else. > > > Jay > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Sl_2a.32947$[email hidden]... > > Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where there mouthQuoted text (7 lines)
> > by ponying up a couple of set-ups. > > > > Marc > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Veg2a.3869$[email hidden]... > > > First of all if you want to match up verse the AI in practice youQuoted text (15 lines)
> > > load a qual setup not a race, as through out testing you would always > see > > a > > > few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were more in race > trim. > > > Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactly what they > will > > > run for the race. > > > > > > As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason is simple. The > AI > > do > > > not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If they did you > might > > > be able to run with a dozen cars max on the fastest of systems. SoQuoted text (15 lines)
> > > Therefore after you have lines run for a track that work the way you > want > > > them to, and dont have any choke points that mess up the AI, you use > these > > > values to fine tune the AI to get them to drive the track as close to > the > > > way the typical player would. These are crucial in smoothing out the > AI, > > > and keeping them in line with the player. If everything was equal > physics > > > wise, and the AI had the same knowledge the player does about getting > > around > > > the track then these values wouldn't be needed. However until someone > > finds > > > away to do all this and make it run well on a normal system, you haveQuoted text (23 lines)
> > > make adjustments, and try to dial things in with what you have to work > > with. > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]... > > > > What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the layman > > would > > > > ask why would that vary from on track to the next? Same goes for > > > > ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip, varying > from > > > > track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for this? > > > > > > > > I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were poured > into > > > the > > > > effort. But I think I explained why the result is less than > > satisfactory. > > > > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soon as youQuoted text (16 lines)
> > > > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer to hit the > top > > 10 > > > > in each with approximately the same effort...since that would be > > realistic > > > > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus. > > > > > > > > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode with > the > > AI > > > > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track (except > the > > > > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California, then > > > > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game or the > > set-up > > > > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-upQuoted text (17 lines)
> > you > > > > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly > purchaser/user. > > > > > > > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach your two > > > set-ups > > > > and we'll see what results. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]... > > > > > Over looked? > > > > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went into playQuoted text (11 lines)
> > you > > > > feel > > > > > otherwise. > > > > > The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team felt the > > tracks > > > > were > > > > > balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by "Voodoo > settings" > > > but > > > > I > > > > > dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, or batQuoted text (13 lines)
> > > being > > > > > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]... > > > > > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come up with > the > > > > > > "balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunately hasQuoted text (10 lines)
> > > > > seriously > > > > > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > > > > > > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me that > > something > > > > > like > > > > > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't my cup of > tea > > > to > > > > > > start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise andQuoted text (35 lines)
> > by > > > > how > > > > > > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI at that > > track) > > > is > > > > > as > > > > > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race. > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a > detailed > > > > > > research > > > > > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a > > championship > > > > > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother and > just > > > play > > > > > > online. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive like > they > > > > should > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and actually > finish > > > > higher > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fast set-upQuoted text (50 lines)
> > > other > > > > > you > > > > > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something is > > > seriously > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > California.ini > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; acceleration > > grip > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; braking grip > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 = more > > fuel > > > > > > consumed > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 = more > > grip > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 = more > > drag, > > > > > which > > > > > > is > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; acceleration > > grip > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; braking grip > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 = more > > fuel > > > > > > consumed > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 = more > > grip > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 = more > > drag, > > > > > which > > > > > > is > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which IQuoted text (23 lines)
> > > > > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better than > > > before). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You have completely missed the point if that is your serious suggestion.
Using the Auto AI is the opposite of running a realistic/accurate simulated
season.
Marc
"Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Qc%2a.973027$[email hidden]...
>
> "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:Sl_2a.32947$[email hidden]...
> > Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where there mouthis
Quoted text (12 lines)
> > by ponying up a couple of set-ups. > > > > Marc > > > > Why don't you just turn on the Auto AI like was suggested earlier? Isn't > this specifically what it's for? > > > db > >Well, I think you are trying to make your point based on a false assumption.
That being that you are equally adept at Michigan as you are at California
(and that you should be at all the other tracks.) I'm not saying you are
wrong, but you can't seriously expect me to believe that you have gotten
every bit of speed possible out of the car at *both* Michigan and California
in less than a week. Especially when you are driving setups made for someone
else. Regardless of how similar each track might seem, they all are
different and some people happen to be better at some tracks than others.
You don't know how good Bob is at either of these tracks compared to the
rest of the beta testers or the racing public in general. You also don't
know at what stage of the beta testing that Bob made each of the setups and
how long he spent optimizing each of them after the last of the many physics
changes. There are just way too many unknowns to take this seriously.
Especially when there is a solution you could implement yourself.
How is using the Auto AI the opposite of running what you deem to be a
realistic/accurate simulated season? Why don't you just set the
AutoAIStrength value for each track in your playrecs.ini to what you feel
the AI strength should be, then run your season on Auto?
db
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:VQi3a.1090$[email hidden]...
> You have completely missed the point if that is your serious suggestion.
> Using the Auto AI is the opposite of running a realistic/accuratesimulated
Quoted text (13 lines)
> season. > > Marc > > > Why don't you just turn on the Auto AI like was suggested earlier? Isn't > > this specifically what it's for? > > > > > > db > > > > > >Marc, 90% of oval racing is about setups. 90% of road racing is the driver.
If you can't beat the AI at 100% at Michigan, it should tell you that you
need to spend more time making/learning setups. You need to get in there
and learn how to do it yourself.
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]...
> What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the layman would
> ask why would that vary from on track to the next? Same goes for
> ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip, varying from
> track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for this?
>
> I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were poured intothe
set-ups
but
> I
> > dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, or bat wingsbeing
to
is
play
level
> > is
> > > the
> > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly (at least forthose
> > two
> > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 and theother
> > you
> > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something isseriously
before).
Quoted text (15 lines)
> effort. But I think I explained why the result is less than satisfactory. > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soon as you or > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan and one for > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer to hit the top 10 > in each with approximately the same effort...since that would be realistic > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus. > > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode with the AI > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track (except the > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California, then > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game or the set-up > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-up since you > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly purchaser/user. > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach your twoQuoted text (20 lines)
> and we'll see what results. > > Thanks, > > Marc > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]... > > Over looked? > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play balancing > NR2003 > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the settings don't work > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. However they are > > certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'm sorry if you > feel > > otherwise. > > The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team felt the tracks > were > > balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by "Voodoo settings"Quoted text (17 lines)
> > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]... > > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come up with the > > > "balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunately has been > > seriously > > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me that something > > like > > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't my cup of teaQuoted text (7 lines)
> > > start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise and twist my > brain > > > to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural set-up, I get > > really > > > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (as measured by > how > > > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI at that track)Quoted text (14 lines)
> > as > > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race. > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a detailed > > > research > > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a championship > > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother and justQuoted text (13 lines)
> > > online. > > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive like they > should > > > have > > > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and actually finish > higher > > > than > > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fast set-up at > > California > > > and > > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the skillQuoted text (43 lines)
> > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > > > California.ini > > > > ----------------- > > > > [ai track] > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; acceleration grip > > > efficiency > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; braking grip > > efficiency > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 = more fuel > > > consumed > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 = more grip > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 = more drag, > > which > > > is > > > > slower > > > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > > ----------------- > > > > [ai track] > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; acceleration grip > > > efficiency > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; braking grip > > efficiency > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 = more fuel > > > consumed > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 = more grip > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 = more drag, > > which > > > is > > > > slower > > > > > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I suppose > > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners). For the > > > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (and why the > > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? From trial > > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when you do- > > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better thanQuoted text (15 lines)
> > > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ============================================ > > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I can BEAT the AI at 102% at Michigan. Havn't worked at Cali. Just get in
there and work on your setups.
BTW, this is from starting at the back of the field in a 20 car race.
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:FPi3a.1089$[email hidden]...
> Well first off Jay this is a public newsgroup, so I am addressing myrequest
> to everyone. I said from the outset that if it simply that Bob Stanley
> doesn't know how to set-up a car for NR2003 and others do have set-upsthat
> you can run competitively at Michigan and California, then so be it.
> However, you claimed you can run more or less equally well against the AIat
> these two tracks--as everyone should be able to if the gameplay wastweaked
at
a
that
> I
> > really dont feel any need to "prove" anything. I'll discuss the AI, and
> do
> > my best to explain what I can. If you dont agree with me, thats yourright
> > I'm just trying to offer what I know. Its seems so far that I've triedmy
> > best to answer your questions, and all we are down to is you asking formy
> > setups. So save the "put your money where your mouth is" crap forsomeone
mouth
always
> > see
> > > a
> > > > few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were more in race
> > trim.
> > > > Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactly whatthey
> > will
> > > > run for the race.
> > > >
> > > > As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason is simple.The
to
> > the
> > > > way the typical player would. These are crucial in smoothing outthe
> > AI,
> > > > and keeping them in line with the player. If everything was equal
> > physics
> > > > wise, and the AI had the same knowledge the player does aboutgetting
> > > around
> > > > the track then these values wouldn't be needed. However untilsomeone
> > > finds
> > > > away to do all this and make it run well on a normal system, youhave
> to
> > > > make adjustments, and try to dial things in with what you have towork
layman
> > > would
> > > > > ask why would that vary from on track to the next? Same goes for
> > > > > ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip,varying
you
> or
> > > > > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan and one
> for
> > > > > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer to hitthe
with
> > the
> > > AI
> > > > > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track(except
> > the
> > > > > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California,then
two
don't
with
of
set-up,
acceleration
> > > grip
> > > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; brakinggrip
> > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 =more
> > > fuel
> > > > > > > consumed
> > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 =more
> > > grip
> > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 =more
acceleration
> > > grip
> > > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; brakinggrip
> > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 =more
> > > fuel
> > > > > > > consumed
> > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 =more
> > > grip
> > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 =more
why
Quoted text (8 lines)
> properly. Let's be honest, they are probably the two easiest tracks and > they are so similar that you cannot argue that there is some special trick > or skill required at one that isn't required at the other. > > I have never found set-ups in N4, NR2002 or so far in NR2003 that permit > this. Bob Stanley has publicly stated that the AI speeds are unrealistic > (this was in the past referring to N4 and NR2002) at these two tracks and > that he doesn't even bother trying to adjust his set-up to duel with themQuoted text (7 lines)
> 100%--he just sets it up to be the best it can to the best of his ability. > It appears to me that NR2003 is exactly the same in this regard, but you > deny that. I am sincerely deferring to your expertise and experience, but > in the absence of any evidence, I am asking you to contribute just two > set-ups, for the two easiest tracks. > > If you don't want to provide that, I understand, especially if you are inQuoted text (21 lines)
> league. But perhaps you could find ANY set-up wiz out there who has a > set-up that works equally well at Michigan and California against 100% AI. > I haven't been able to find one, but I am sure you will know more than me. > ANY person's set-ups that work equally well at these two tracks will prove > you are right and I am wrong. > > Thanks, > > Marc > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tJ_2a.1637$[email hidden]... > > So this all comes down to looking for setups? > > > > To be honest I really dont feel like just tossing out setups, after the > > amount of time I've put into them. I'm not saying their are anything > > special, but they work great for me. I happen to run in a highly > > competitive open setup league, and so I guess I tend not to want to just > > give them. Agree with it or not, this is my main reasoning. BeyondQuoted text (8 lines)
> > else. > > > > > > Jay > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Sl_2a.32947$[email hidden]... > > > Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where thereQuoted text (10 lines)
> is > > > by ponying up a couple of set-ups. > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:Veg2a.3869$[email hidden]... > > > > First of all if you want to match up verse the AI in practice you > better > > > > load a qual setup not a race, as through out testing you wouldQuoted text (13 lines)
> > AI > > > do > > > > not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If they did you > > might > > > > be able to run with a dozen cars max on the fastest of systems. So > they > > > > have a somewhat simplifed physics model to keep CPU overhead > reasonable. > > > > Therefore after you have lines run for a track that work the way you > > want > > > > them to, and dont have any choke points that mess up the AI, you use > > these > > > > values to fine tune the AI to get them to drive the track as closeQuoted text (10 lines)
> > > with. > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]... > > > > > What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...theQuoted text (9 lines)
> > from > > > > > track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for this? > > > > > > > > > > I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were poured > > into > > > > the > > > > > effort. But I think I explained why the result is less than > > > satisfactory. > > > > > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soon asQuoted text (7 lines)
> > top > > > 10 > > > > > in each with approximately the same effort...since that would be > > > realistic > > > > > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus. > > > > > > > > > > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice modeQuoted text (9 lines)
> > > > > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game or the > > > set-up > > > > > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-up > since > > > you > > > > > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly > > purchaser/user. > > > > > > > > > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach yourQuoted text (15 lines)
> > > > set-ups > > > > > and we'll see what results. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]... > > > > > > Over looked? > > > > > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play > balancing > > > > > NR2003 > > > > > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the settingsQuoted text (28 lines)
> > work > > > > > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. However they > are > > > > > > certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'm sorry > if > > > you > > > > > feel > > > > > > otherwise. > > > > > > The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team felt the > > > tracks > > > > > were > > > > > > balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by "Voodoo > > settings" > > > > but > > > > > I > > > > > > dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, or bat > wings > > > > being > > > > > > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come upQuoted text (10 lines)
> > the > > > > > > > "balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunately has > been > > > > > > seriously > > > > > > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me that > > > something > > > > > > like > > > > > > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't my cupQuoted text (7 lines)
> > tea > > > > to > > > > > > > start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise and > twist > > my > > > > > brain > > > > > > > to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnaturalQuoted text (69 lines)
> I > > > get > > > > > > really > > > > > > > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (as > measured > > > by > > > > > how > > > > > > > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI at that > > > track) > > > > is > > > > > > as > > > > > > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a > > detailed > > > > > > > research > > > > > > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a > > > championship > > > > > > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother and > > just > > > > play > > > > > > > online. > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive like > > they > > > > > should > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and actually > > finish > > > > > higher > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fast set-up > at > > > > > > California > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the > skill > > > > level > > > > > > is > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly (at least > for > > > > those > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 and > the > > > > other > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something is > > > > seriously > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > California.ini > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ;Quoted text (9 lines)
> > > drag, > > > > > > which > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ;Quoted text (11 lines)
> > > drag, > > > > > > which > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I > suppose > > > > > > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners). > For > > > the > > > > > > > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (andQuoted text (30 lines)
> > the > > > > > > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? From > > trial > > > > > > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when you > do- > > > > > > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better than > > > > before). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >What I am asking is whether you find the AI at Calif. and Michigan at 100%
similarly difficult. They should be. Try it out and let us know. I'll bet
you can run circles around the AI at California if you have a set-up and
skills to beat them easily at 102% at Michigan. Without belabouring the
point again, each track shouldn't be a gamble as to whether the AI are
smart, stupid or somewhere in between. They should be similarly fast
(hopefully related as closely as possible to real world speeds) at all
tracks. They aren't, in my experience.
Marc
"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> I can BEAT the AI at 102% at Michigan. Havn't worked at Cali. Just getin
AI
> at
> > these two tracks--as everyone should be able to if the gameplay was
> tweaked
> > properly. Let's be honest, they are probably the two easiest tracks and
> > they are so similar that you cannot argue that there is some specialtrick
> > or skill required at one that isn't required at the other.
> >
> > I have never found set-ups in N4, NR2002 or so far in NR2003 that permit
> > this. Bob Stanley has publicly stated that the AI speeds areunrealistic
> > (this was in the past referring to N4 and NR2002) at these two tracksand
> > that he doesn't even bother trying to adjust his set-up to duel withthem
> at
> > 100%--he just sets it up to be the best it can to the best of hisability.
> > It appears to me that NR2003 is exactly the same in this regard, but you
> > deny that. I am sincerely deferring to your expertise and experience,but
> > in the absence of any evidence, I am asking you to contribute just two
> > set-ups, for the two easiest tracks.
> >
> > If you don't want to provide that, I understand, especially if you arein
> a
> > league. But perhaps you could find ANY set-up wiz out there who has a
> > set-up that works equally well at Michigan and California against 100%AI.
> > I haven't been able to find one, but I am sure you will know more thanme.
> > ANY person's set-ups that work equally well at these two tracks willprove
the
> > > amount of time I've put into them. I'm not saying their are anything
> > > special, but they work great for me. I happen to run in a highly
> > > competitive open setup league, and so I guess I tend not to want tojust
> > > give them. Agree with it or not, this is my main reasoning. Beyond
> that
> > I
> > > really dont feel any need to "prove" anything. I'll discuss the AI,and
> > do
> > > my best to explain what I can. If you dont agree with me, thats your
> right
> > > I'm just trying to offer what I know. Its seems so far that I'vetried
> my
> > > best to answer your questions, and all we are down to is you askingfor
race
you
> > > might
> > > > > be able to run with a dozen cars max on the fastest of systems.So
> > they
> > > > > have a somewhat simplifed physics model to keep CPU overhead
> > reasonable.
> > > > > Therefore after you have lines run for a track that work the wayyou
> > > want
> > > > > them to, and dont have any choke points that mess up the AI, youuse
for
> > > > > > ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip,
> varying
> > > from
> > > > > > track to track of course, why would you need a modifier forthis?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears werepoured
one
the
they
> > are
> > > > > > > certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'msorry
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > > feel
> > > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > > > > The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team feltthe
has
cup
that
and
> > > just
> > > > > play
> > > > > > > > online.
> > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drivelike
set-up
least
> > for
> > > > > those
> > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3and
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, somethingis
From
> > > trial
> > > > > > > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits whenyou
> > do-
> > > > > > > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems betterthan
Quoted text (14 lines)
> there and work on your setups. > > BTW, this is from starting at the back of the field in a 20 car race. > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:FPi3a.1089$[email hidden]... > > Well first off Jay this is a public newsgroup, so I am addressing my > request > > to everyone. I said from the outset that if it simply that Bob Stanley > > doesn't know how to set-up a car for NR2003 and others do have set-ups > that > > you can run competitively at Michigan and California, then so be it. > > However, you claimed you can run more or less equally well against theQuoted text (13 lines)
> > you are right and I am wrong. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:tJ_2a.1637$[email hidden]... > > > So this all comes down to looking for setups? > > > > > > To be honest I really dont feel like just tossing out setups, afterQuoted text (26 lines)
> my > > > setups. So save the "put your money where your mouth is" crap for > someone > > > else. > > > > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:Sl_2a.32947$[email hidden]... > > > > Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where there > mouth > > is > > > > by ponying up a couple of set-ups. > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:Veg2a.3869$[email hidden]... > > > > > First of all if you want to match up verse the AI in practice you > > better > > > > > load a qual setup not a race, as through out testing you would > always > > > see > > > > a > > > > > few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were more inQuoted text (11 lines)
> > > trim. > > > > > Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactly what > they > > > will > > > > > run for the race. > > > > > > > > > > As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason is simple. > The > > > AI > > > > do > > > > > not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If they didQuoted text (33 lines)
> > > these > > > > > values to fine tune the AI to get them to drive the track as close > to > > > the > > > > > way the typical player would. These are crucial in smoothing out > the > > > AI, > > > > > and keeping them in line with the player. If everything was equal > > > physics > > > > > wise, and the AI had the same knowledge the player does about > getting > > > > around > > > > > the track then these values wouldn't be needed. However until > someone > > > > finds > > > > > away to do all this and make it run well on a normal system, you > have > > to > > > > > make adjustments, and try to dial things in with what you have to > work > > > > with. > > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]... > > > > > > What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the > layman > > > > would > > > > > > ask why would that vary from on track to the next? Same goesQuoted text (8 lines)
> > > into > > > > > the > > > > > > effort. But I think I explained why the result is less than > > > > satisfactory. > > > > > > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soon as > you > > or > > > > > > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan andQuoted text (19 lines)
> > for > > > > > > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer to hit > the > > > top > > > > 10 > > > > > > in each with approximately the same effort...since that would be > > > > realistic > > > > > > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode > with > > > the > > > > AI > > > > > > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track > (except > > > the > > > > > > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California, > then > > > > > > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game orQuoted text (27 lines)
> > > > set-up > > > > > > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-up > > since > > > > you > > > > > > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly > > > purchaser/user. > > > > > > > > > > > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach your > two > > > > > set-ups > > > > > > and we'll see what results. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > Over looked? > > > > > > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play > > balancing > > > > > > NR2003 > > > > > > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the settings > don't > > > work > > > > > > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. HoweverQuoted text (22 lines)
> > > > tracks > > > > > > were > > > > > > > balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by "Voodoo > > > settings" > > > > > but > > > > > > I > > > > > > > dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, or bat > > wings > > > > > being > > > > > > > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come up > with > > > the > > > > > > > > "balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunatelyQuoted text (8 lines)
> > been > > > > > > > seriously > > > > > > > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me that > > > > something > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't myQuoted text (17 lines)
> of > > > tea > > > > > to > > > > > > > > start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise and > > twist > > > my > > > > > > brain > > > > > > > > to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural > set-up, > > I > > > > get > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (as > > measured > > > > by > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI atQuoted text (18 lines)
> > > > track) > > > > > is > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a > > > detailed > > > > > > > > research > > > > > > > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a > > > > championship > > > > > > > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't botherQuoted text (10 lines)
> > > they > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and actually > > > finish > > > > > > higher > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fastQuoted text (9 lines)
> > at > > > > > > > California > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the > > skill > > > > > level > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly (atQuoted text (65 lines)
> > > > > seriously > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > California.ini > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; > acceleration > > > > grip > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; braking > grip > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 = > more > > > > fuel > > > > > > > > consumed > > > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 = > more > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 = > more > > > > drag, > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; > acceleration > > > > grip > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; braking > grip > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 = > more > > > > fuel > > > > > > > > consumed > > > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 = > more > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 = > more > > > > drag, > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I > > suppose > > > > > > > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners). > > For > > > > the > > > > > > > > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (and > why > > > the > > > > > > > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track?Quoted text (26 lines)
> > > > > before). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >See my reply above. I am taking about Bob Stanley's set-ups, not my skill
level--which is more than adequate and exceeds that of about 95% of the
purchasers of this title. Perhaps you should read the whole thread. This
is a discussion of the realism levels of the speed of the AI, not a plea for
help with my set-ups or driving/racing skills--I don't need that (at least
any more than we all need to improve constantly over time).
Marc
"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Marc, 90% of oval racing is about setups. 90% of road racing is thedriver.
would
satisfactory.
> > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soon as you or
> > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan and one for
> > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer to hit the top10
> > in each with approximately the same effort...since that would berealistic
> > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus.
> >
> > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode with theAI
> > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track (except the
> > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California, then
> > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game or theset-up
> > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-up sinceyou
you
> > feel
> > > otherwise.
> > > The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team felt thetracks
something
> > > like
> > > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't my cup of tea
> to
> > > > start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise and twist my
> > brain
> > > > to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural set-up, Iget
> > > really
> > > > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (as measuredby
> > how
> > > > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI at thattrack)
championship
grip
> > > > efficiency
> > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; braking grip
> > > efficiency
> > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0 = morefuel
> > > > consumed
> > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0 = moregrip
> > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0 = moredrag,
grip
> > > > efficiency
> > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; braking grip
> > > efficiency
> > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0 = morefuel
> > > > consumed
> > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0 = moregrip
> > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0 = moredrag,
> > > which
> > > > is
> > > > > slower
> > > > >
> > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I suppose
> > > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the corners). Forthe
Quoted text (8 lines)
> If you can't beat the AI at 100% at Michigan, it should tell you that you > need to spend more time making/learning setups. You need to get in there > and learn how to do it yourself. > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]... > > What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the laymanQuoted text (7 lines)
> > ask why would that vary from on track to the next? Same goes for > > ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip, varying from > > track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for this? > > > > I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were poured into > the > > effort. But I think I explained why the result is less thanQuoted text (19 lines)
> > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly purchaser/user. > > > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach your two > set-ups > > and we'll see what results. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]... > > > Over looked? > > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play balancing > > NR2003 > > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the settings don't work > > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. However they are > > > certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'm sorry ifQuoted text (21 lines)
> > were > > > balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by "Voodoo settings" > but > > I > > > dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, or bat wings > being > > > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]... > > > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come up with the > > > > "balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunately has been > > > seriously > > > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me thatQuoted text (14 lines)
> is > > > as > > > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race. > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to do a detailed > > > > research > > > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--aQuoted text (37 lines)
> > > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother and just > play > > > > online. > > > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive like they > > should > > > > have > > > > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and actually finish > > higher > > > > than > > > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fast set-up at > > > California > > > > and > > > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since the skill > level > > > is > > > > the > > > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly (at least for > those > > > two > > > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 and the > other > > > you > > > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something is > seriously > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > > > > > California.ini > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; accelerationQuoted text (8 lines)
> > > which > > > > is > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; accelerationQuoted text (22 lines)
> > > > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI (and why the > > > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? From trial > > > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when you do- > > > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better than > before). > > > > > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Marc,
Here is exactly what I'm saying. Rightnow I can get a top 5 finish against
the AI at both of these tracks ( provided I stay out of trouble during the
race). I find both tracks to be challenging, and the AI to be very similar
in speeds to me thru the corners and down the straights. There are months
worth of play balancing efforts in NR2003, and I honestly feel it to be in
the best shape or all recent papy sims in that area. IS it 100% perfect?
No, and realistically thats damn near impossible. Everyone drives a little
different, likes different things in their setups, and has different
controler setups.
I am not saying Bob's setups are bad or he doesn't know what he's doing,
matter of fact just the oppisite. Bob Stanely is one of the best, especially
for building setups that work for a wide range of people. That still
doesn't mean his setups are going to perfectly fit your driving style.
Perhaps I'm not even with my speeds from Cali to Mich, but it seemed in line
with the data I got from the beta team.
Jay
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:eDt3a.35697$[email hidden]...
> What I am asking is whether you find the AI at Calif. and Michigan at 100%
> similarly difficult. They should be. Try it out and let us know. I'llbet
Stanley
and
> > > they are so similar that you cannot argue that there is some special
> trick
> > > or skill required at one that isn't required at the other.
> > >
> > > I have never found set-ups in N4, NR2002 or so far in NR2003 thatpermit
you
anything
> > > > special, but they work great for me. I happen to run in a highly
> > > > competitive open setup league, and so I guess I tend not to want to
> just
> > > > give them. Agree with it or not, this is my main reasoning.Beyond
you
simple.
close
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > way the typical player would. These are crucial in smoothingout
> > the
> > > > AI,
> > > > > > and keeping them in line with the player. If everything wasequal
to
as
> > you
> > > or
> > > > > > > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan and
> one
> > > for
> > > > > > > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer tohit
> > the
> > > > top
> > > > > 10
> > > > > > > in each with approximately the same effort...since that wouldbe
California,
> > then
> > > > > > > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game or
> the
> > > > > set-up
> > > > > > > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is theset-up
> > > since
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly
> > > > purchaser/user.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attachyour
bat
up
that
and
a
actually
the
braking
> > grip
> > > > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > 1.0=
> > more
> > > > > fuel
> > > > > > > > > consumed
> > > > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > 1.0=
> > more
> > > > > grip
> > > > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > 1.0=
braking
> > grip
> > > > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > 1.0=
> > more
> > > > > fuel
> > > > > > > > > consumed
> > > > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > 1.0=
> > more
> > > > > grip
> > > > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > 1.0=
corners).
> > > For
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI(and
Quoted text (23 lines)
> you can run circles around the AI at California if you have a set-up and > skills to beat them easily at 102% at Michigan. Without belabouring the > point again, each track shouldn't be a gamble as to whether the AI are > smart, stupid or somewhere in between. They should be similarly fast > (hopefully related as closely as possible to real world speeds) at all > tracks. They aren't, in my experience. > > Marc > > "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I can BEAT the AI at 102% at Michigan. Havn't worked at Cali. Just get > in > > there and work on your setups. > > > > BTW, this is from starting at the back of the field in a 20 car race. > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:FPi3a.1089$[email hidden]... > > > Well first off Jay this is a public newsgroup, so I am addressing my > > request > > > to everyone. I said from the outset that if it simply that BobQuoted text (9 lines)
> > > doesn't know how to set-up a car for NR2003 and others do have set-ups > > that > > > you can run competitively at Michigan and California, then so be it. > > > However, you claimed you can run more or less equally well against the > AI > > at > > > these two tracks--as everyone should be able to if the gameplay was > > tweaked > > > properly. Let's be honest, they are probably the two easiest tracksQuoted text (10 lines)
> > > this. Bob Stanley has publicly stated that the AI speeds are > unrealistic > > > (this was in the past referring to N4 and NR2002) at these two tracks > and > > > that he doesn't even bother trying to adjust his set-up to duel with > them > > at > > > 100%--he just sets it up to be the best it can to the best of his > ability. > > > It appears to me that NR2003 is exactly the same in this regard, butQuoted text (30 lines)
> > > deny that. I am sincerely deferring to your expertise and experience, > but > > > in the absence of any evidence, I am asking you to contribute just two > > > set-ups, for the two easiest tracks. > > > > > > If you don't want to provide that, I understand, especially if you are > in > > a > > > league. But perhaps you could find ANY set-up wiz out there who has a > > > set-up that works equally well at Michigan and California against 100% > AI. > > > I haven't been able to find one, but I am sure you will know more than > me. > > > ANY person's set-ups that work equally well at these two tracks will > prove > > > you are right and I am wrong. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:tJ_2a.1637$[email hidden]... > > > > So this all comes down to looking for setups? > > > > > > > > To be honest I really dont feel like just tossing out setups, after > the > > > > amount of time I've put into them. I'm not saying their areQuoted text (32 lines)
> > that > > > I > > > > really dont feel any need to "prove" anything. I'll discuss the AI, > and > > > do > > > > my best to explain what I can. If you dont agree with me, thats your > > right > > > > I'm just trying to offer what I know. Its seems so far that I've > tried > > my > > > > best to answer your questions, and all we are down to is you asking > for > > my > > > > setups. So save the "put your money where your mouth is" crap for > > someone > > > > else. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:Sl_2a.32947$[email hidden]... > > > > > Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where there > > mouth > > > is > > > > > by ponying up a couple of set-ups. > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:Veg2a.3869$[email hidden]... > > > > > > First of all if you want to match up verse the AI in practiceQuoted text (14 lines)
> > > better > > > > > > load a qual setup not a race, as through out testing you would > > always > > > > see > > > > > a > > > > > > few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were more in > race > > > > trim. > > > > > > Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactly what > > they > > > > will > > > > > > run for the race. > > > > > > > > > > > > As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason isQuoted text (18 lines)
> > The > > > > AI > > > > > do > > > > > > not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If they did > you > > > > might > > > > > > be able to run with a dozen cars max on the fastest of systems. > So > > > they > > > > > > have a somewhat simplifed physics model to keep CPU overhead > > > reasonable. > > > > > > Therefore after you have lines run for a track that work the way > you > > > > want > > > > > > them to, and dont have any choke points that mess up the AI, you > use > > > > these > > > > > > values to fine tune the AI to get them to drive the track asQuoted text (11 lines)
> > > > physics > > > > > > wise, and the AI had the same knowledge the player does about > > getting > > > > > around > > > > > > the track then these values wouldn't be needed. However until > > someone > > > > > finds > > > > > > away to do all this and make it run well on a normal system, you > > have > > > to > > > > > > make adjustments, and try to dial things in with what you haveQuoted text (28 lines)
> > work > > > > > with. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the > > layman > > > > > would > > > > > > > ask why would that vary from on track to the next? Same goes > for > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip, > > varying > > > > from > > > > > > > track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for > this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were > poured > > > > into > > > > > > the > > > > > > > effort. But I think I explained why the result is less than > > > > > satisfactory. > > > > > > > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soonQuoted text (11 lines)
> > > > > realistic > > > > > > > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode > > with > > > > the > > > > > AI > > > > > > > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track > > (except > > > > the > > > > > > > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track ofQuoted text (36 lines)
> > two > > > > > > set-ups > > > > > > > and we'll see what results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > Over looked? > > > > > > > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play > > > balancing > > > > > > > NR2003 > > > > > > > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the settings > > don't > > > > work > > > > > > > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. However > they > > > are > > > > > > > > certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'm > sorry > > > if > > > > > you > > > > > > > feel > > > > > > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team felt > the > > > > > tracks > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by "Voodoo > > > > settings" > > > > > > but > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, orQuoted text (12 lines)
> > > wings > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to comeQuoted text (9 lines)
> > with > > > > the > > > > > > > > > "balanced" playability at each track, which unfortunately > has > > > been > > > > > > > > seriously > > > > > > > > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys meQuoted text (8 lines)
> > > > > something > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't my > cup > > of > > > > tea > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > start with, but if I have to go to a track and practiseQuoted text (27 lines)
> > > twist > > > > my > > > > > > > brain > > > > > > > > > to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural > > set-up, > > > I > > > > > get > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence (as > > > measured > > > > > by > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI at > that > > > > > track) > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up race. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to doQuoted text (15 lines)
> > > > detailed > > > > > > > > > research > > > > > > > > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the game--a > > > > > championship > > > > > > > > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't bother > and > > > > just > > > > > > play > > > > > > > > > online. > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online drive > like > > > > they > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > been forced to complete a few races offline andQuoted text (11 lines)
> > > > finish > > > > > > > higher > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fast > set-up > > > at > > > > > > > > California > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (sinceQuoted text (32 lines)
> > > skill > > > > > > level > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly (at > least > > > for > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the top 3 > and > > > the > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, something > is > > > > > > seriously > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > California.ini > > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; > > acceleration > > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ;Quoted text (14 lines)
> > more > > > > > drag, > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; > > acceleration > > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ;Quoted text (9 lines)
> > more > > > > > drag, > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (which I > > > suppose > > > > > > > > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of theQuoted text (38 lines)
> > why > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? > From > > > > trial > > > > > > > > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits when > you > > > do- > > > > > > > > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems better > than > > > > > > before). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hello Jay: How many times do you have to read the same thing before you get
it? Bob includes his own best lap times with his set-ups--that's all I am
referring to, or have been referring to from the first post of this thread.
This has zero to do with my driving style, skill level, or anyone else's for
that matter.
One last time: if you can take your race set-up for each track and
consistently achieve similar top 5 lap times at both tracks with AI at 100%
in Practise Mode, then you are the man. Bob can't. I can't. And until
you, I haven't met anyone else who can or seen set-ups that claim they can
(most set-ups contain an indication of the best time achieved by the
author).
Perhaps most of the set-up gurus are lousy drivers and you combine the skill
of a set-up artist and a great driver? I can't say because no one has seen
your set-ups.
I assume you are telling the truth because you have no reason whatsoever not
to. However, my point still stands that unless a significant percentage of
users find the AI at those two tracks similarly difficult, the gameplay
isn't as balanced as it should be. Unfortunately, due to problems with the
AI in past versions, the majority of users don't even bother trying and just
resort to online racing against humans or just fiddle at one track or
another (usually one of super speedways) without trying to do a whole
season.
Marc
"Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:%tx3a.3044$[email hidden]...
> Marc,
> Here is exactly what I'm saying. Rightnow I can get a top 5 finishagainst
> the AI at both of these tracks ( provided I stay out of trouble during the
> race). I find both tracks to be challenging, and the AI to be verysimilar
> in speeds to me thru the corners and down the straights. There are months
> worth of play balancing efforts in NR2003, and I honestly feel it to be in
> the best shape or all recent papy sims in that area. IS it 100% perfect?
> No, and realistically thats damn near impossible. Everyone drives alittle
> different, likes different things in their setups, and has different
> controler setups.
> I am not saying Bob's setups are bad or he doesn't know what he's doing,
> matter of fact just the oppisite. Bob Stanely is one of the best,especially
> for building setups that work for a wide range of people. That still
> doesn't mean his setups are going to perfectly fit your driving style.
> Perhaps I'm not even with my speeds from Cali to Mich, but it seemed inline
100%
get
set-ups
> > > that
> > > > you can run competitively at Michigan and California, then so be it.
> > > > However, you claimed you can run more or less equally well againstthe
tracks
experience,
> > but
> > > > in the absence of any evidence, I am asking you to contribute justtwo
> > > > set-ups, for the two easiest tracks.
> > > >
> > > > If you don't want to provide that, I understand, especially if youare
> > in
> > > a
> > > > league. But perhaps you could find ANY set-up wiz out there who hasa
> > > > set-up that works equally well at Michigan and California against100%
> > AI.
> > > > I haven't been able to find one, but I am sure you will know morethan
after
> > the
> > > > > amount of time I've put into them. I'm not saying their are
> anything
> > > > > special, but they work great for me. I happen to run in a highly
> > > > > competitive open setup league, and so I guess I tend not to wantto
> > just
> > > > > give them. Agree with it or not, this is my main reasoning.
> Beyond
> > > that
> > > > I
> > > > > really dont feel any need to "prove" anything. I'll discuss theAI,
> > and
> > > > do
> > > > > my best to explain what I can. If you dont agree with me, thatsyour
> > > right
> > > > > I'm just trying to offer what I know. Its seems so far that I've
> > tried
> > > my
> > > > > best to answer your questions, and all we are down to is youasking
there
would
what
did
> > you
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > be able to run with a dozen cars max on the fastest ofsystems.
> > So
> > > > they
> > > > > > > have a somewhat simplifed physics model to keep CPU overhead
> > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > Therefore after you have lines run for a track that work theway
> > you
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > them to, and dont have any choke points that mess up the AI,you
you
goes
and
would
> be
> > > > > > realistic
> > > > > > > > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practicemode
or
settings
> > > don't
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible.However
felt
> > the
> > > > > > tracks
> > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by"Voodoo
message
> > > > > > > > > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]...
> > > > > > > > > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks to come
> up
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > "balanced" playability at each track, whichunfortunately
my
(as
> > > > measured
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AIat
> > that
> > > > > > track)
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-uprace.
do
> a
> > > > > detailed
> > > > > > > > > > research
> > > > > > > > > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of thegame--a
> > > > > > championship
> > > > > > > > > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don'tbother
> > and
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > play
> > > > > > > > > > online.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing onlinedrive
3
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3,something
1.0
> =
> > > more
> > > > > > fuel
> > > > > > > > > > consumed
> > > > > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; >1.0
> =
> > > more
> > > > > > grip
> > > > > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; >1.0
1.0
> =
> > > more
> > > > > > fuel
> > > > > > > > > > consumed
> > > > > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; >1.0
> =
> > > more
> > > > > > grip
> > > > > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; >1.0
I
when
> > you
> > > > do-
> > > > > > > > > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seemsbetter
Quoted text (9 lines)
> with the data I got from the beta team. > > > Jay > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:eDt3a.35697$[email hidden]... > > What I am asking is whether you find the AI at Calif. and Michigan atQuoted text (14 lines)
> > similarly difficult. They should be. Try it out and let us know. I'll > bet > > you can run circles around the AI at California if you have a set-up and > > skills to beat them easily at 102% at Michigan. Without belabouring the > > point again, each track shouldn't be a gamble as to whether the AI are > > smart, stupid or somewhere in between. They should be similarly fast > > (hopefully related as closely as possible to real world speeds) at all > > tracks. They aren't, in my experience. > > > > Marc > > > > "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > I can BEAT the AI at 102% at Michigan. Havn't worked at Cali. JustQuoted text (13 lines)
> > in > > > there and work on your setups. > > > > > > BTW, this is from starting at the back of the field in a 20 car race. > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:FPi3a.1089$[email hidden]... > > > > Well first off Jay this is a public newsgroup, so I am addressing my > > > request > > > > to everyone. I said from the outset that if it simply that Bob > Stanley > > > > doesn't know how to set-up a car for NR2003 and others do haveQuoted text (15 lines)
> > AI > > > at > > > > these two tracks--as everyone should be able to if the gameplay was > > > tweaked > > > > properly. Let's be honest, they are probably the two easiest tracks > and > > > > they are so similar that you cannot argue that there is some special > > trick > > > > or skill required at one that isn't required at the other. > > > > > > > > I have never found set-ups in N4, NR2002 or so far in NR2003 that > permit > > > > this. Bob Stanley has publicly stated that the AI speeds are > > unrealistic > > > > (this was in the past referring to N4 and NR2002) at these twoQuoted text (9 lines)
> > and > > > > that he doesn't even bother trying to adjust his set-up to duel with > > them > > > at > > > > 100%--he just sets it up to be the best it can to the best of his > > ability. > > > > It appears to me that NR2003 is exactly the same in this regard, but > you > > > > deny that. I am sincerely deferring to your expertise andQuoted text (16 lines)
> > me. > > > > ANY person's set-ups that work equally well at these two tracks will > > prove > > > > you are right and I am wrong. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:tJ_2a.1637$[email hidden]... > > > > > So this all comes down to looking for setups? > > > > > > > > > > To be honest I really dont feel like just tossing out setups,Quoted text (12 lines)
> > for > > > my > > > > > setups. So save the "put your money where your mouth is" crap for > > > someone > > > > > else. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:Sl_2a.32947$[email hidden]... > > > > > > Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money whereQuoted text (12 lines)
> > > mouth > > > > is > > > > > > by ponying up a couple of set-ups. > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:Veg2a.3869$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > First of all if you want to match up verse the AI in practice > you > > > > better > > > > > > > load a qual setup not a race, as through out testing youQuoted text (7 lines)
> > > always > > > > > see > > > > > > a > > > > > > > few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were more in > > race > > > > > trim. > > > > > > > Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactlyQuoted text (10 lines)
> > > they > > > > > will > > > > > > > run for the race. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason is > simple. > > > The > > > > > AI > > > > > > do > > > > > > > not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If theyQuoted text (20 lines)
> > use > > > > > these > > > > > > > values to fine tune the AI to get them to drive the track as > close > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > > way the typical player would. These are crucial in smoothing > out > > > the > > > > > AI, > > > > > > > and keeping them in line with the player. If everything was > equal > > > > > physics > > > > > > > wise, and the AI had the same knowledge the player does about > > > getting > > > > > > around > > > > > > > the track then these values wouldn't be needed. However until > > > someone > > > > > > finds > > > > > > > away to do all this and make it run well on a normal system,Quoted text (18 lines)
> > > have > > > > to > > > > > > > make adjustments, and try to dial things in with what you have > to > > > work > > > > > > with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > What I mean by Voodoo is things like ai_accel_modifier...the > > > layman > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > ask why would that vary from on track to the next? SameQuoted text (18 lines)
> > for > > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certain grip, > > > varying > > > > > from > > > > > > > > track to track of course, why would you need a modifier for > > this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tears were > > poured > > > > > into > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > effort. But I think I explained why the result is less than > > > > > > satisfactory. > > > > > > > > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever as soon > as > > > you > > > > or > > > > > > > > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for MichiganQuoted text (8 lines)
> > one > > > > for > > > > > > > > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racer to > hit > > > the > > > > > top > > > > > > 10 > > > > > > > > in each with approximately the same effort...since thatQuoted text (10 lines)
> > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > AI > > > > > > > > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track > > > (except > > > > > the > > > > > > > > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of > California, > > > then > > > > > > > > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the gameQuoted text (27 lines)
> > the > > > > > > set-up > > > > > > > > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the > set-up > > > > since > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly > > > > > purchaser/user. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach > your > > > two > > > > > > > set-ups > > > > > > > > and we'll see what results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > Over looked? > > > > > > > > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went into play > > > > balancing > > > > > > > > NR2003 > > > > > > > > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps theQuoted text (9 lines)
> > they > > > > are > > > > > > > > > certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing. I'm > > sorry > > > > if > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > feel > > > > > > > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > > The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta teamQuoted text (15 lines)
> > > > > settings" > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads, or > bat > > > > wings > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote inQuoted text (10 lines)
> > has > > > > been > > > > > > > > > seriously > > > > > > > > > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoys me > that > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn'tQuoted text (15 lines)
> > cup > > > of > > > > > tea > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > start with, but if I have to go to a track and practise > and > > > > twist > > > > > my > > > > > > > > brain > > > > > > > > > > to drive a car that has a twisted to the side unnatural > > > set-up, > > > > I > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competenceQuoted text (9 lines)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing toQuoted text (28 lines)
> > like > > > > > they > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and > actually > > > > > finish > > > > > > > > higher > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take the fast > > set-up > > > > at > > > > > > > > > California > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results (since > the > > > > skill > > > > > > > level > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly (at > > least > > > > for > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in the topQuoted text (21 lines)
> > is > > > > > > > seriously > > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > California.ini > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; > > > acceleration > > > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; > braking > > > grip > > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; >Quoted text (19 lines)
> = > > > more > > > > > > drag, > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; > > > acceleration > > > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; > braking > > > grip > > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; >Quoted text (8 lines)
> = > > > more > > > > > > drag, > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifier (whichQuoted text (13 lines)
> > > > suppose > > > > > > > > > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the > corners). > > > > For > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > others there are small advantages for the Michigan AI > (and > > > why > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track to track? > > From > > > > > trial > > > > > > > > > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pitsQuoted text (31 lines)
> > than > > > > > > > before). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I'm saying I can run top 5 in the race session. Practice times are not
accurate for comparing your race setup verse the AI. I thought I had
mentioned that before. The only thing I worry about is how I match up in
qual and race. When I set qual times, I took the qual data I had from
myself, and the runs the beta testers gave me, and found a rough average,
and tried to set that to fall out somewhere around 10-15th place in qual. I
did this because no matter how much time I or the beta time works on a track
prior to release, once thousands of people get working on it, the speeds
will go up some. So my goal was for there to be some real challenge to
getting a pole. Hopefully We got this pretty consistent amoung all the
tracks, but I'm sure some will be slightly eaiser or harder, but still
close.
So far you only mention speeds compared to the AI in practice session, have
you actually run any race sessions with the AI at these tracks? I assume
your using the default car set? I can only comment on game balance when
talking about the default opponent stats ( or the car set at the pitwagon,
which I did the stats for an know it works with NR2003 as intended). My
suggestion is instead of focusing on numbers on paper, and practice session
exports, go in and do some races with the AI at both tracks and then tell me
how different the AI's balance is at both.
Jay
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:BTy3a.7372$[email hidden]...
> Hello Jay: How many times do you have to read the same thing before youget
> it? Bob includes his own best lap times with his set-ups--that's all I am
> referring to, or have been referring to from the first post of thisthread.
> This has zero to do with my driving style, skill level, or anyone else'sfor
> that matter.
>
> One last time: if you can take your race set-up for each track and
> consistently achieve similar top 5 lap times at both tracks with AI at100%
> in Practise Mode, then you are the man. Bob can't. I can't. And until
> you, I haven't met anyone else who can or seen set-ups that claim they can
> (most set-ups contain an indication of the best time achieved by the
> author).
>
> Perhaps most of the set-up gurus are lousy drivers and you combine theskill
> of a set-up artist and a great driver? I can't say because no one hasseen
> your set-ups.
>
> I assume you are telling the truth because you have no reason whatsoevernot
> to. However, my point still stands that unless a significant percentageof
> users find the AI at those two tracks similarly difficult, the gameplay
> isn't as balanced as it should be. Unfortunately, due to problems withthe
> AI in past versions, the majority of users don't even bother trying andjust
the
> > race). I find both tracks to be challenging, and the AI to be very
> similar
> > in speeds to me thru the corners and down the straights. There aremonths
> > worth of play balancing efforts in NR2003, and I honestly feel it to bein
> > the best shape or all recent papy sims in that area. IS it 100%perfect?
I'll
> > bet
> > > you can run circles around the AI at California if you have a set-upand
> > > skills to beat them easily at 102% at Michigan. Without belabouringthe
race.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > > > news:FPi3a.1089$[email hidden]...
> > > > > Well first off Jay this is a public newsgroup, so I am addressingmy
it.
> > > > > However, you claimed you can run more or less equally well against
> the
> > > AI
> > > > at
> > > > > these two tracks--as everyone should be able to if the gameplaywas
> > > > tweaked
> > > > > properly. Let's be honest, they are probably the two easiesttracks
> > and
> > > > > they are so similar that you cannot argue that there is somespecial
with
> > > them
> > > > at
> > > > > 100%--he just sets it up to be the best it can to the best of his
> > > ability.
> > > > > It appears to me that NR2003 is exactly the same in this regard,but
has
will
highly
I've
for
practice
in
smoothing
about
> > > > getting
> > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > the track then these values wouldn't be needed. Howeveruntil
have
ai_accel_modifier...the
> > > > layman
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > ask why would that vary from on track to the next? Same
> goes
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier...if the track surface has a certaingrip,
> > > > varying
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > track to track of course, why would you need a modifierfor
> > > this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have no doubt that many, many hours, sweat and tearswere
> > > poured
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > effort. But I think I explained why the result is lessthan
> > > > > > > satisfactory.
> > > > > > > > > And I will eat my hat and shut up about this forever assoon
to
track
> > > > (except
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of
> > California,
> > > > then
> > > > > > > > > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either thegame
play
I'm
or
come
me
practise
> > and
> > > > > twist
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > brain
> > > > > > > > > > > to drive a car that has a twisted to the sideunnatural
fast
> > > set-up
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > California
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Michigan and achieve roughly the same results(since
> > the
> > > > > skill
> > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > same), the game will have been designed properly(at
> > > least
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tracks). When one track is easy to place in thetop
(which
AI
> > (and
> > > > why
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > hey should fuel use be a variable from track totrack?
Quoted text (13 lines)
> resort to online racing against humans or just fiddle at one track or > another (usually one of super speedways) without trying to do a whole > season. > > Marc > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%tx3a.3044$[email hidden]... > > Marc, > > Here is exactly what I'm saying. Rightnow I can get a top 5 finish > against > > the AI at both of these tracks ( provided I stay out of trouble duringQuoted text (22 lines)
> > No, and realistically thats damn near impossible. Everyone drives a > little > > different, likes different things in their setups, and has different > > controler setups. > > I am not saying Bob's setups are bad or he doesn't know what he's doing, > > matter of fact just the oppisite. Bob Stanely is one of the best, > especially > > for building setups that work for a wide range of people. That still > > doesn't mean his setups are going to perfectly fit your driving style. > > Perhaps I'm not even with my speeds from Cali to Mich, but it seemed in > line > > with the data I got from the beta team. > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:eDt3a.35697$[email hidden]... > > > What I am asking is whether you find the AI at Calif. and Michigan at > 100% > > > similarly difficult. They should be. Try it out and let us know.Quoted text (15 lines)
> > > point again, each track shouldn't be a gamble as to whether the AI are > > > smart, stupid or somewhere in between. They should be similarly fast > > > (hopefully related as closely as possible to real world speeds) at all > > > tracks. They aren't, in my experience. > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > I can BEAT the AI at 102% at Michigan. Havn't worked at Cali. Just > get > > > in > > > > there and work on your setups. > > > > > > > > BTW, this is from starting at the back of the field in a 20 carQuoted text (7 lines)
> > > > request > > > > > to everyone. I said from the outset that if it simply that Bob > > Stanley > > > > > doesn't know how to set-up a car for NR2003 and others do have > set-ups > > > > that > > > > > you can run competitively at Michigan and California, then so beQuoted text (11 lines)
> > > trick > > > > > or skill required at one that isn't required at the other. > > > > > > > > > > I have never found set-ups in N4, NR2002 or so far in NR2003 that > > permit > > > > > this. Bob Stanley has publicly stated that the AI speeds are > > > unrealistic > > > > > (this was in the past referring to N4 and NR2002) at these two > tracks > > > and > > > > > that he doesn't even bother trying to adjust his set-up to duelQuoted text (13 lines)
> > you > > > > > deny that. I am sincerely deferring to your expertise and > experience, > > > but > > > > > in the absence of any evidence, I am asking you to contribute just > two > > > > > set-ups, for the two easiest tracks. > > > > > > > > > > If you don't want to provide that, I understand, especially if you > are > > > in > > > > a > > > > > league. But perhaps you could find ANY set-up wiz out there whoQuoted text (8 lines)
> a > > > > > set-up that works equally well at Michigan and California against > 100% > > > AI. > > > > > I haven't been able to find one, but I am sure you will know more > than > > > me. > > > > > ANY person's set-ups that work equally well at these two tracksQuoted text (19 lines)
> > > prove > > > > > you are right and I am wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:tJ_2a.1637$[email hidden]... > > > > > > So this all comes down to looking for setups? > > > > > > > > > > > > To be honest I really dont feel like just tossing out setups, > after > > > the > > > > > > amount of time I've put into them. I'm not saying their are > > anything > > > > > > special, but they work great for me. I happen to run in aQuoted text (15 lines)
> > > > > > competitive open setup league, and so I guess I tend not to want > to > > > just > > > > > > give them. Agree with it or not, this is my main reasoning. > > Beyond > > > > that > > > > > I > > > > > > really dont feel any need to "prove" anything. I'll discuss the > AI, > > > and > > > > > do > > > > > > my best to explain what I can. If you dont agree with me, thats > your > > > > right > > > > > > I'm just trying to offer what I know. Its seems so far thatQuoted text (7 lines)
> > > tried > > > > my > > > > > > best to answer your questions, and all we are down to is you > asking > > > for > > > > my > > > > > > setups. So save the "put your money where your mouth is" crapQuoted text (19 lines)
> > > > someone > > > > > > else. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:Sl_2a.32947$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > Oh well, I guess no one is willing to put their money where > there > > > > mouth > > > > > is > > > > > > > by ponying up a couple of set-ups. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:Veg2a.3869$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > First of all if you want to match up verse the AI inQuoted text (8 lines)
> > you > > > > > better > > > > > > > > load a qual setup not a race, as through out testing you > would > > > > always > > > > > > see > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > few AI doing more or less qual runs, while others were moreQuoted text (36 lines)
> > > race > > > > > > trim. > > > > > > > > Practice is just that, you wont find a hard line on exactly > what > > > > they > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > run for the race. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for ai_grip_modifier, and other settings the reason is > > simple. > > > > The > > > > > > AI > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > not run on exactly the same physics the player does. If they > did > > > you > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > be able to run with a dozen cars max on the fastest of > systems. > > > So > > > > > they > > > > > > > > have a somewhat simplifed physics model to keep CPU overhead > > > > > reasonable. > > > > > > > > Therefore after you have lines run for a track that work the > way > > > you > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > them to, and dont have any choke points that mess up the AI, > you > > > use > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > values to fine tune the AI to get them to drive the track as > > close > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > way the typical player would. These are crucial inQuoted text (7 lines)
> > out > > > > the > > > > > > AI, > > > > > > > > and keeping them in line with the player. If everything was > > equal > > > > > > physics > > > > > > > > wise, and the AI had the same knowledge the player doesQuoted text (7 lines)
> > > > someone > > > > > > > finds > > > > > > > > away to do all this and make it run well on a normal system, > you > > > > have > > > > > to > > > > > > > > make adjustments, and try to dial things in with what youQuoted text (12 lines)
> > to > > > > work > > > > > > > with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > What I mean by Voodoo is things likeQuoted text (8 lines)
> > as > > > > you > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > someone else provides two "fast" set-ups, one for Michigan > and > > > one > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > California, that permit an experienced user/driver/racerQuoted text (16 lines)
> > hit > > > > the > > > > > > top > > > > > > > 10 > > > > > > > > > in each with approximately the same effort...since that > would > > be > > > > > > > realistic > > > > > > > > > and also demonstrate balanced gameplay as a bonus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice > mode > > > > with > > > > > > the > > > > > > > AI > > > > > > > > > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at everyQuoted text (25 lines)
> or > > > the > > > > > > > set-up > > > > > > > > > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the > > set-up > > > > > since > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly > > > > > > purchaser/user. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I asked in the other part of this thread, please attach > > your > > > > two > > > > > > > > set-ups > > > > > > > > > and we'll see what results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > news:wKa2a.3765$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > Over looked? > > > > > > > > > > If you had any idea the amount of time that went intoQuoted text (11 lines)
> > > > > balancing > > > > > > > > > NR2003 > > > > > > > > > > I doubt you'd say it was over looked. Perhaps the > settings > > > > don't > > > > > > work > > > > > > > > > > perfectly for everyone, I'll agree thats possible. > However > > > they > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > certainly close, and should provide enjoyable racing.Quoted text (16 lines)
> > > sorry > > > > > if > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > feel > > > > > > > > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > The effort was certainly put into it, and the beta team > felt > > > the > > > > > > > tracks > > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > balanced pretty well. I'm not sure what you mean by > "Voodoo > > > > > > settings" > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > dont remember the use of shaman totems, shrunken heads,Quoted text (14 lines)
> > bat > > > > > wings > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > involved in the balancing of NR2003 <G> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in > message > > > > > > > > > > news:Gsa2a.358$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > These are the "voodoo" settings that Papy tweaks toQuoted text (11 lines)
> > up > > > > with > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > "balanced" playability at each track, which > unfortunately > > > has > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > > seriously > > > > > > > > > > > imbalanced in N3, N4, NR2002 and now, finally, NR2003. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rest of the sim is so damned good that it annoysQuoted text (10 lines)
> > that > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > this is overlooked year after year. Oval racing isn't > my > > > cup > > > > of > > > > > > tea > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > start with, but if I have to go to a track andQuoted text (53 lines)
> > > > set-up, > > > > > I > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > > annoyed when my sense of accomplishment or competence > (as > > > > > measured > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > well I do against the only benchmark available--the AI > at > > > that > > > > > > > track) > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > much of a crap shoot as surviving an online pick-up > race. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc Collins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I rest my case...each and every user needing to > do > > a > > > > > > detailed > > > > > > > > > > > research > > > > > > > > > > > > > project just to enjoy the main premise of the > game--a > > > > > > > championship > > > > > > > > > > > > > season--is ridiculous. No wonder so many don't > bother > > > and > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > play > > > > > > > > > > > online. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, 90% of the people playing online > drive > > > like > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > been forced to complete a few races offline and > > actually > > > > > > finish > > > > > > > > > higher > > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > > 43rd before being allowed online. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the average experienced user can take theQuoted text (79 lines)
> 3 > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to struggle to make it to the bottom 3, > something > > > is > > > > > > > > seriously > > > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [serious snippage] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > California.ini > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.00 ; > > > > acceleration > > > > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.90 ; > > braking > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.98 ; > > 1.0 > > = > > > > more > > > > > > > fuel > > > > > > > > > > > consumed > > > > > > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.05 ; > > 1.0 > > = > > > > more > > > > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.08 ; > > 1.0 > > = > > > > more > > > > > > > drag, > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michigan.ini > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > [ai track] > > > > > > > > > > > > ai_accel_modifier = 1.20 ; > > > > acceleration > > > > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > > > > ai_decel_modifier = 0.88 ; > > braking > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > > efficiency > > > > > > > > > > > > ai_fuel_use = 0.96 ; > > 1.0 > > = > > > > more > > > > > > > fuel > > > > > > > > > > > consumed > > > > > > > > > > > > ai_grip_modifier = 1.06 ; > > 1.0 > > = > > > > more > > > > > > > grip > > > > > > > > > > > > ai_drag_modifier = 1.04 ; > > 1.0 > > = > > > > more > > > > > > > drag, > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The biggest difference is in the accel modifierQuoted text (7 lines)
> I > > > > > suppose > > > > > > > > > > > > means less slippage when accelerating out of the > > corners). > > > > > For > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > others there are small advantages for the MichiganQuoted text (41 lines)
> > > From > > > > > > trial > > > > > > > > > > > > and error I found that .93 will ensure the AI pits > when > > > you > > > > > do- > > > > > > > > > > > > and I will note that fuel mileage for _me_ seems > better > > > than > > > > > > > > before). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John DiFool > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > Reach heaven far too high > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Marc, you are making some pretty sweeping assumptions about Bob Stanley and
his setups. Why don't you talk to him about his setups? I think if you asked
Bob, first thing he would say is that his setups are *not* specifically the
fastest ones possible. The way I understand it, his goals are generally to
get a good driving car that gets good tire wear over a long run. So to quote
his listed speeds as a watermark for best laps isn't necessarily proper.
Take his setups and run full fuel runs and then see what your right side
tire wear is. If it is even, then it is probably a decent setup for you, if
not, then it's probably not a good setup for you to use as a benchmark. But
either way, I wouldn't use his setups as a benchmark for speeds in the first
10 laps. So, if you get even tire wear with both his Michigan and California
setups, then run a 50 lap race at both tracks against 100% AI and see if you
get similar results. Oh yeah, I assume you are running at 70*, clear, no
wind, without any draft. Those are the conditions for his listed times.
I think you also missed Jay's point about the AI not necessarily running
race type laps during practice. Which is why he makes his point that he
gauges his performance against the AI in a race, not in practice.
db
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:BTy3a.7372$[email hidden]...
> Hello Jay: How many times do you have to read the same thing before youget
> it? Bob includes his own best lap times with his set-ups--that's all I am
> referring to, or have been referring to from the first post of thisthread.
> This has zero to do with my driving style, skill level, or anyone else'sfor
> that matter.
>
> One last time: if you can take your race set-up for each track and
> consistently achieve similar top 5 lap times at both tracks with AI at100%
> in Practise Mode, then you are the man. Bob can't. I can't. And until
> you, I haven't met anyone else who can or seen set-ups that claim they can
> (most set-ups contain an indication of the best time achieved by the
> author).
>
> Perhaps most of the set-up gurus are lousy drivers and you combine theskill
> of a set-up artist and a great driver? I can't say because no one hasseen
> your set-ups.
>
> I assume you are telling the truth because you have no reason whatsoevernot
> to. However, my point still stands that unless a significant percentageof
> users find the AI at those two tracks similarly difficult, the gameplay
> isn't as balanced as it should be. Unfortunately, due to problems withthe
> AI in past versions, the majority of users don't even bother trying andjust
> resort to online racing against humans or just fiddle at one track or
> another (usually one of super speedways) without trying to do a whole
> season.
>
> Marc
I agree Bob's set-ups are meant to be balanced...so should the AI be.
The set-ups and AI perform roughly the same in Practise or races, so that is
a null point.
What is your experience with AI at 100%?
Marc
"Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:XNF3a.207471$[email hidden]...
> Marc, you are making some pretty sweeping assumptions about Bob Stanleyand
> his setups. Why don't you talk to him about his setups? I think if youasked
> Bob, first thing he would say is that his setups are *not* specificallythe
> fastest ones possible. The way I understand it, his goals are generally to
> get a good driving car that gets good tire wear over a long run. So toquote
> his listed speeds as a watermark for best laps isn't necessarily proper.
> Take his setups and run full fuel runs and then see what your right side
> tire wear is. If it is even, then it is probably a decent setup for you,if
> not, then it's probably not a good setup for you to use as a benchmark.But
> either way, I wouldn't use his setups as a benchmark for speeds in thefirst
> 10 laps. So, if you get even tire wear with both his Michigan andCalifornia
> setups, then run a 50 lap race at both tracks against 100% AI and see ifyou
am
can
Quoted text (16 lines)
> get similar results. Oh yeah, I assume you are running at 70*, clear, no > wind, without any draft. Those are the conditions for his listed times. > > I think you also missed Jay's point about the AI not necessarily running > race type laps during practice. Which is why he makes his point that he > gauges his performance against the AI in a race, not in practice. > > > db > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:BTy3a.7372$[email hidden]... > > Hello Jay: How many times do you have to read the same thing before you > get > > it? Bob includes his own best lap times with his set-ups--that's all IQuoted text (11 lines)
> > referring to, or have been referring to from the first post of this > thread. > > This has zero to do with my driving style, skill level, or anyone else's > for > > that matter. > > > > One last time: if you can take your race set-up for each track and > > consistently achieve similar top 5 lap times at both tracks with AI at > 100% > > in Practise Mode, then you are the man. Bob can't. I can't. And until > > you, I haven't met anyone else who can or seen set-ups that claim theyQuoted text (26 lines)
> > (most set-ups contain an indication of the best time achieved by the > > author). > > > > Perhaps most of the set-up gurus are lousy drivers and you combine the > skill > > of a set-up artist and a great driver? I can't say because no one has > seen > > your set-ups. > > > > I assume you are telling the truth because you have no reason whatsoever > not > > to. However, my point still stands that unless a significant percentage > of > > users find the AI at those two tracks similarly difficult, the gameplay > > isn't as balanced as it should be. Unfortunately, due to problems with > the > > AI in past versions, the majority of users don't even bother trying and > just > > resort to online racing against humans or just fiddle at one track or > > another (usually one of super speedways) without trying to do a whole > > season. > > > > Marc > > >And if you had read the thread, you would see that I have talked to Bob
about his set-ups. I am not looking for super fast set-ups. I am trying to
gauge the relative speed of the AI, which I thought would be obvious from
the subject line of the thread, but apparently not.
Marc
"Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:XNF3a.207471$[email hidden]...
> Marc, you are making some pretty sweeping assumptions about Bob Stanleyand
> his setups. Why don't you talk to him about his setups? I think if youasked
> Bob, first thing he would say is that his setups are *not* specificallythe
> fastest ones possible. The way I understand it, his goals are generally to
> get a good driving car that gets good tire wear over a long run. So toquote
> his listed speeds as a watermark for best laps isn't necessarily proper.
> Take his setups and run full fuel runs and then see what your right side
> tire wear is. If it is even, then it is probably a decent setup for you,if
> not, then it's probably not a good setup for you to use as a benchmark.But
> either way, I wouldn't use his setups as a benchmark for speeds in thefirst
> 10 laps. So, if you get even tire wear with both his Michigan andCalifornia
> setups, then run a 50 lap race at both tracks against 100% AI and see ifyou
am
can
Quoted text (16 lines)
> get similar results. Oh yeah, I assume you are running at 70*, clear, no > wind, without any draft. Those are the conditions for his listed times. > > I think you also missed Jay's point about the AI not necessarily running > race type laps during practice. Which is why he makes his point that he > gauges his performance against the AI in a race, not in practice. > > > db > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:BTy3a.7372$[email hidden]... > > Hello Jay: How many times do you have to read the same thing before you > get > > it? Bob includes his own best lap times with his set-ups--that's all IQuoted text (11 lines)
> > referring to, or have been referring to from the first post of this > thread. > > This has zero to do with my driving style, skill level, or anyone else's > for > > that matter. > > > > One last time: if you can take your race set-up for each track and > > consistently achieve similar top 5 lap times at both tracks with AI at > 100% > > in Practise Mode, then you are the man. Bob can't. I can't. And until > > you, I haven't met anyone else who can or seen set-ups that claim theyQuoted text (26 lines)
> > (most set-ups contain an indication of the best time achieved by the > > author). > > > > Perhaps most of the set-up gurus are lousy drivers and you combine the > skill > > of a set-up artist and a great driver? I can't say because no one has > seen > > your set-ups. > > > > I assume you are telling the truth because you have no reason whatsoever > not > > to. However, my point still stands that unless a significant percentage > of > > users find the AI at those two tracks similarly difficult, the gameplay > > isn't as balanced as it should be. Unfortunately, due to problems with > the > > AI in past versions, the majority of users don't even bother trying and > just > > resort to online racing against humans or just fiddle at one track or > > another (usually one of super speedways) without trying to do a whole > > season. > > > > Marc > > >Well, I just loaded up Michigan for the first time. Skipped practice (I
figured I'd run it enough in the demo, heheh) and ran a 50 lap race with
Bob's setup against 100% AI. The weather was 70*, clear, no wind. I started
at the back of a 43 car field like I always do. I ran around at the back of
the pack for the first few laps letting the tires warm up and getting the
feel of the setup. Then I started picking off the AI one by one. I did all
of my passing on the inside. By the halfway point, I was up to 27th. I
finished the race in 16th. It was more difficult for me to pass in the
closing laps because I had developed a pretty severe push. Even so, every
lap that I didn't have to deal with traffic, I was gaining on the leader.
But then, that doesn't mean that much with the draft and all. I think If I
ran a setup that suited me more, I might have been able to challenge for the
win.
Then I loaded up California (for the first time also) and did the exact same
thing. The main problem I had with California is that the AI would slow down
too much in the corners (most significantly T1-T2). This caused me to have
to check up and lose my momentum all too often. I had a much more difficult
time passing and then keeping them behind me while I was trying to set up
the next car than I did at Michigan. I ended up actually making most of my
passes on the outside of T1-T2. Because of this, I only made my way up to
29th by the end of the race. The setup gave me more even tire wear though. I
only ended up with a moderate push mid corner.
I am pretty surprised because I never remember Bob's setups being anything
but loose, loose and more loose, heheh. I did notice that I had a pretty
severe aero loose condition off the corners at California. But Bob likes a
lot more rear split than I do. I didn't have any problem with this at
Michigan. But that might have been because of the push
I guess none of this really makes any difference though. Since you are the
one with the complaint, what really matters is how *you* do against the AI
in races. Care to give any feedback?
db
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:qxO3a.264$[email hidden]...
> I agree Bob's set-ups are meant to be balanced...so should the AI be.
>
> The set-ups and AI perform roughly the same in Practise or races, so thatis
> a null point.
>
> What is your experience with AI at 100%?
>
> Marc
Well, I read this thread, but don't remember you saying anything about
talking with Bob about his NR03 setups. So, what did he have to say about
them? Did he tell you that he couldn't compete against the AI at 100% at
Michigan? I highly doubt it because I did half way decent with his setup and
I'm sure he would do *much* better than I did.
Even though you aren't looking for "super fast" setups, you do need setups
that are consistent for *you* in order to make the judgment that the AI are
messed up. You haven't given any info on how Bob's setups work for you, so
how is anyone supposed to judge your conclusions?
Even so, what exactly is your goal with this thread? Are you just venting
your frustrations? Are you looking for better setups? Are you looking for a
solution to your problem?
I mean, for the sake of argument, lets just say that Papyrus completely
stuffed up the AI speeds from track to track. What do you expect to happen
now? You have been told that the AI have been balanced to the best of their
ability. So, do you expect that Papyrus should have somehow balanced every
track for every single player with every setup? Or maybe you just expected
them to custom tailor the AI to your speed at all the tracks using Bob
Stanley's setups? But then, what happens when you improve at one track more
than another or Bob releases a better setup? Do you expect them to come to
your house and rebalance your AI for you? I'm afraid if you want the AI
custom tailored to your performance at each and every track, then you are
going to have to tweak them yourself just like everyone else. ...and all of
your tweaks will probably end up slightly different than anyone else's.
db
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:azO3a.270$[email hidden]...
> And if you had read the thread, you would see that I have talked to Bob
> about his set-ups. I am not looking for super fast set-ups. I am tryingto
> gauge the relative speed of the AI, which I thought would be obvious from
> the subject line of the thread, but apparently not.
>
> Marc
>
That is helpful feedback--exactly what I was looking for.
Marc
"Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:LjY3a.4456390$[email hidden]...
> Well, I just loaded up Michigan for the first time. Skipped practice (I
> figured I'd run it enough in the demo, heheh) and ran a 50 lap race with
> Bob's setup against 100% AI. The weather was 70*, clear, no wind. Istarted
> at the back of a 43 car field like I always do. I ran around at the backof
the
> win.
>
> Then I loaded up California (for the first time also) and did the exactsame
> thing. The main problem I had with California is that the AI would slowdown
> too much in the corners (most significantly T1-T2). This caused me to have
> to check up and lose my momentum all too often. I had a much moredifficult
> time passing and then keeping them behind me while I was trying to set up
> the next car than I did at Michigan. I ended up actually making most of my
> passes on the outside of T1-T2. Because of this, I only made my way up to
> 29th by the end of the race. The setup gave me more even tire wear though.I
that
Quoted text (8 lines)
> the pack for the first few laps letting the tires warm up and getting the > feel of the setup. Then I started picking off the AI one by one. I did all > of my passing on the inside. By the halfway point, I was up to 27th. I > finished the race in 16th. It was more difficult for me to pass in the > closing laps because I had developed a pretty severe push. Even so, every > lap that I didn't have to deal with traffic, I was gaining on the leader. > But then, that doesn't mean that much with the draft and all. I think If I > ran a setup that suited me more, I might have been able to challenge forQuoted text (22 lines)
> only ended up with a moderate push mid corner. > > I am pretty surprised because I never remember Bob's setups being anything > but loose, loose and more loose, heheh. I did notice that I had a pretty > severe aero loose condition off the corners at California. But Bob likes a > lot more rear split than I do. I didn't have any problem with this at > Michigan. But that might have been because of the push > > I guess none of this really makes any difference though. Since you are the > one with the complaint, what really matters is how *you* do against the AI > in races. Care to give any feedback? > > > db > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:qxO3a.264$[email hidden]... > > I agree Bob's set-ups are meant to be balanced...so should the AI be. > > > > The set-ups and AI perform roughly the same in Practise or races, soQuoted text (9 lines)
> is > > a null point. > > > > What is your experience with AI at 100%? > > > > Marc > > >In NR2002 and N4, Bob's set-ups couldn't compete with the AI at 100% at
about a third of the tracks. Bob puts his best lap time for that set-up in
his set-up notes so it doesn't take too much to figure out whether it can
compete once you know the AI lap times. My sense was that Bob's set-ups
were well balanced and some of the few that actually were calibrated with a
full run in mind. Most are just hot lap set-ups.
He told me that he ignored the AI speeds and just developed the best set-up
he could, mostly for online purposes. He said the AI speeds weren't
realistic or consistent, so the only option was to ignore them. This whole
thread started as an observation that it didn't look like things had changed
for the better in NR2003.
Bob's best time for his Michigan set-up is 37.660. Within 10 minutes I did
a 37.661 (close enough for me) (and also my first 10 minutes with the new
physics, etc.in NR2003). The AI can blow that away without even trying. At
California, the situation is the opposite.
Other issues are the AI slowing in corners at certain tracks--your other
post suggests this also has not been fixed at California.
Some tracks like Rockingham were just way out of whack. Haven't spent any
time there yet in NR2003.
Atlanta and Texas are another pair that have been out of whack in the past.
I would love to hear your experiences there.
Marc
"Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:XCY3a.256623$[email hidden]...
> Well, I read this thread, but don't remember you saying anything about
> talking with Bob about his NR03 setups. So, what did he have to say about
> them? Did he tell you that he couldn't compete against the AI at 100% at
> Michigan? I highly doubt it because I did half way decent with his setupand
> I'm sure he would do *much* better than I did.
>
> Even though you aren't looking for "super fast" setups, you do need setups
> that are consistent for *you* in order to make the judgment that the AIare
> messed up. You haven't given any info on how Bob's setups work for you, so
> how is anyone supposed to judge your conclusions?
>
> Even so, what exactly is your goal with this thread? Are you just venting
> your frustrations? Are you looking for better setups? Are you looking fora
> solution to your problem?
>
> I mean, for the sake of argument, lets just say that Papyrus completely
> stuffed up the AI speeds from track to track. What do you expect to happen
> now? You have been told that the AI have been balanced to the best oftheir
> ability. So, do you expect that Papyrus should have somehow balanced every
> track for every single player with every setup? Or maybe you just expected
> them to custom tailor the AI to your speed at all the tracks using Bob
> Stanley's setups? But then, what happens when you improve at one trackmore
> than another or Bob releases a better setup? Do you expect them to come to
> your house and rebalance your AI for you? I'm afraid if you want the AI
> custom tailored to your performance at each and every track, then you are
> going to have to tweak them yourself just like everyone else. ...and allof
trying
> to
> > gauge the relative speed of the AI, which I thought would be obviousfrom
Quoted text (10 lines)
> your tweaks will probably end up slightly different than anyone else's. > > > db > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:azO3a.270$[email hidden]... > > And if you had read the thread, you would see that I have talked to Bob > > about his set-ups. I am not looking for super fast set-ups. I amQuoted text (8 lines)
> > > the subject line of the thread, but apparently not. > > > > Marc > > > > >I completely agree with your assessment of the past AI balance issues. But
you have to remember that Bob's Setups for NR02 were made during the beta
and never updated, so they were kinda rough and inconsistent themselves. So
I say that if you are basing your judgments of NR03 on his current NR03
setups, make sure that you realize that they were made during the Beta and
they may be a little rough and inconsistent too. Hopefully he will have more
time to put into fine tuning each one as time goes by. But even if he
doesn't, they are usually a good place for most people to start from none
the less.
I think you are comparing Bob's no-draft times with the AI times in practice
(which have a draft). In the one race I ran at Michigan, my best lap time
was 37.362. I'm guessing that a good blap from a fast driver/setup in a
perfect draft would probably be 37.000 or below.
Another thing to note is that just because the AI can post a fast practice
lap, that doesn't mean that they will be that fast throughout an entire fuel
run. So I feel it's better to judge them based on at least a full fuel run
race rather than their practice times.
The slow downs at California do concern me a little, but it is *nothing*
compared to the very inconsistent lines that were used for N4/NR02. In NR03
they run a smooth line, they are just a little slow in places for the way I
like to drive California. Whereas in N4/NR02, the AI are very jerky in their
speeds which causes too much damage to my nose, heheh.
The only other track I've had time to drive is a little bit at Daytona.
Usually I go week by week following the real WC schedule. At least until
they start repeating tracks. So I don't have much experience yet either.
...and of course, most of my time is spent working on other things than the
original tracks ;).
db
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Qt_3a.497$[email hidden]...
> In NR2002 and N4, Bob's set-ups couldn't compete with the AI at 100% at
> about a third of the tracks. Bob puts his best lap time for that set-upin
> his set-up notes so it doesn't take too much to figure out whether it can
> compete once you know the AI lap times. My sense was that Bob's set-ups
> were well balanced and some of the few that actually were calibrated witha
> full run in mind. Most are just hot lap set-ups.
>
> He told me that he ignored the AI speeds and just developed the bestset-up
> he could, mostly for online purposes. He said the AI speeds weren't
> realistic or consistent, so the only option was to ignore them. Thiswhole
> thread started as an observation that it didn't look like things hadchanged
> for the better in NR2003.
>
> Bob's best time for his Michigan set-up is 37.660. Within 10 minutes Idid
> a 37.661 (close enough for me) (and also my first 10 minutes with the new
> physics, etc.in NR2003). The AI can blow that away without even trying.At
past.
> I would love to hear your experiences there.
>
> Marc
>
Quoted text (9 lines)
> California, the situation is the opposite. > > Other issues are the AI slowing in corners at certain tracks--your other > post suggests this also has not been fixed at California. > > Some tracks like Rockingham were just way out of whack. Haven't spent any > time there yet in NR2003. > > Atlanta and Texas are another pair that have been out of whack in theDave,
When you say they are a little slow for you in the corners at Cali, is this
all the time? Does it happen if they are single file, or is it mostly
noticable when they are 2+ wide racing?
Jay Taylor
"Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Xb%3a.4464030$[email hidden]...
> I completely agree with your assessment of the past AI balance issues. But
> you have to remember that Bob's Setups for NR02 were made during the beta
> and never updated, so they were kinda rough and inconsistent themselves.So
> I say that if you are basing your judgments of NR03 on his current NR03
> setups, make sure that you realize that they were made during the Beta and
> they may be a little rough and inconsistent too. Hopefully he will havemore
> time to put into fine tuning each one as time goes by. But even if he
> doesn't, they are usually a good place for most people to start from none
> the less.
>
> I think you are comparing Bob's no-draft times with the AI times inpractice
> (which have a draft). In the one race I ran at Michigan, my best lap time
> was 37.362. I'm guessing that a good blap from a fast driver/setup in a
> perfect draft would probably be 37.000 or below.
>
> Another thing to note is that just because the AI can post a fast practice
> lap, that doesn't mean that they will be that fast throughout an entirefuel
> run. So I feel it's better to judge them based on at least a full fuel run
> race rather than their practice times.
>
> The slow downs at California do concern me a little, but it is *nothing*
> compared to the very inconsistent lines that were used for N4/NR02. InNR03
> they run a smooth line, they are just a little slow in places for the wayI
> like to drive California. Whereas in N4/NR02, the AI are very jerky intheir
> speeds which causes too much damage to my nose, heheh.
>
> The only other track I've had time to drive is a little bit at Daytona.
> Usually I go week by week following the real WC schedule. At least until
> they start repeating tracks. So I don't have much experience yet either.
> ...and of course, most of my time is spent working on other things thanthe
can
> > compete once you know the AI lap times. My sense was that Bob's set-ups
> > were well balanced and some of the few that actually were calibratedwith
new
any
Quoted text (11 lines)
> original tracks ;). > > > db > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Qt_3a.497$[email hidden]... > > In NR2002 and N4, Bob's set-ups couldn't compete with the AI at 100% at > > about a third of the tracks. Bob puts his best lap time for that set-up > in > > his set-up notes so it doesn't take too much to figure out whether itQuoted text (15 lines)
> a > > full run in mind. Most are just hot lap set-ups. > > > > He told me that he ignored the AI speeds and just developed the best > set-up > > he could, mostly for online purposes. He said the AI speeds weren't > > realistic or consistent, so the only option was to ignore them. This > whole > > thread started as an observation that it didn't look like things had > changed > > for the better in NR2003. > > > > Bob's best time for his Michigan set-up is 37.660. Within 10 minutes I > did > > a 37.661 (close enough for me) (and also my first 10 minutes with theQuoted text (8 lines)
> > physics, etc.in NR2003). The AI can blow that away without even trying. > At > > California, the situation is the opposite. > > > > Other issues are the AI slowing in corners at certain tracks--your other > > post suggests this also has not been fixed at California. > > > > Some tracks like Rockingham were just way out of whack. Haven't spentQuoted text (11 lines)
> > time there yet in NR2003. > > > > Atlanta and Texas are another pair that have been out of whack in the > past. > > I would love to hear your experiences there. > > > > Marc > > > > >"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]>...
> If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode with the AI
> at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track (except the
> 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California, then
> something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game or the set-up
> and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-up since you
> are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly purchaser/user.
But... but... but... Doesn't GPL use an auto AI speed adjuster? I
don't recall ever seeing a slider in there. The faster you go the
faster the AI goes, yet you dismiss the suggestion for N2003?
Or did I miss a patch. In which case I stand humbly corrected.
Back to topic, I know that superficially Cali and Mich are similar
circuits, I found them different drives in N2002. And I'll repeat
what Mr Pabst said in that if you ran within a 1000th of Stanley's
best time with his own setup within 10 mins (and not having run the
game previously IIRC) then something is off. There must be *loads*
more time in that car. Others have mentioned that the Stanley setups
may have been worked on in the beta stage and that sounds *more* than
likely to me. Perhaps Michigan's configuration within N2003 has
changed a fair bit since Bob released his setups and California
hasn't, therefore the setup is competitive at one place and not
another.
The getting to Bob's fastest time within 10 minutes of gameplay is
what rings alarm bells for this reader.
Regards,
Mark
That's a good question there Jay. It's really hard to tell, because they are
almost never single file! ;) But I can tell you that the minrace.lp slows
early in the corner a little more than normal and the maxrace.lp is pretty
slow through the middle. What I seem to remember most is cutting inside an
outer car that slows down, only to get stuck behind a slowing inside car.
Then eventually the outside line gets back going and rockets past down the
backstretch. When I get caught up behind a slow inside car, I usually lose
my momentum and don't get a good enough run off 2 and spend the rest of the
lap catching back up, heheh. I think I'd have to run with them a lot more to
do a detailed analysis. Probably just a lot more practice would help too ;).
The draft at both these tracks really overshadows the underlying performance
though.
db
"Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:HD14a.1076$[email hidden]...
> Dave,
> When you say they are a little slow for you in the corners at Cali, isthis
> all the time? Does it happen if they are single file, or is it mostly
> noticable when they are 2+ wide racing?
>
> Jay Taylor
I turned off the auto adjusting AI on GPL years ago :) It is in one of the
.ini files or you could do it through the GPL AI Tweaker (you'll notice my
name in the credits as a helper on that one). Yes, I would dismiss the
suggestion in any racing game. I would prefer properly calibrated AI. If I
am so good that I can beat the AI, then, good, I will win the race. If not,
I keep practising. I have no desire to keep practising just so that I can
always be one step behind the AI...which can excel to super-human speeds if
necessary. That isn't my idea of fun in a racing game any more than it was
in Space Invaders in 1980.
Why should it be so difficult for someone to match Bob's best lap times? He
will admit he's not an alien racer. I am not a newbie by a long shot,
either. I would be embarrassed if I couldn't get a decent time fairly
quickly at the easiest track in the sim after YEARS of sim racing. As I
said somewhere else, I can beat the AI at 100% at every original track in
GPL...to me that should be a hell of a lot harder than keeping up with the
AI at a few ovals.
Marc
"Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<Lpf2a.30455$[email hidden]>...
>
> > If I can't do a single top-10 lap at Michigan in practice mode with theAI
> > at 100% when I can beat the AI at 100% in GPL at every track (except the
> > 'Ring) and easily do top 5's at the sister track of California, then
> > something is wrong...and it ain't me. It's either the game or theset-up
> > and I am more than willing to believe you that it is the set-up sinceyou
Quoted text (26 lines)
> > are intimately involved with the title and I am a lowly purchaser/user. > > But... but... but... Doesn't GPL use an auto AI speed adjuster? I > don't recall ever seeing a slider in there. The faster you go the > faster the AI goes, yet you dismiss the suggestion for N2003? > > Or did I miss a patch. In which case I stand humbly corrected. > > Back to topic, I know that superficially Cali and Mich are similar > circuits, I found them different drives in N2002. And I'll repeat > what Mr Pabst said in that if you ran within a 1000th of Stanley's > best time with his own setup within 10 mins (and not having run the > game previously IIRC) then something is off. There must be *loads* > more time in that car. Others have mentioned that the Stanley setups > may have been worked on in the beta stage and that sounds *more* than > likely to me. Perhaps Michigan's configuration within N2003 has > changed a fair bit since Bob released his setups and California > hasn't, therefore the setup is competitive at one place and not > another. > > The getting to Bob's fastest time within 10 minutes of gameplay is > what rings alarm bells for this reader. > > Regards, > > Mark"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<3Zd4a.1458$[email hidden]>...
I may not have your level of experience, but I've been simming years,
too. Got my first T2 while I was playing the original NASCAR Racing.
I know when I first downloaded the ASCAR Rockingham UK track I was
struggling to get 37s laps, now I do consistent mid-high 35s in race
conditions having worn my own groove into the tarmac and played with
the setup a bit. Can't stop it getting a *severe* push about 18 laps
into a run, though... I digress. There's no reason to expect that
you won't run competitively given a bit of time, but to essentially
match Bob's best time within 10 minutes of driving the sim, with a
setup that will be geared towards his driving style? I am *not*
saying that you didn't do it, I am saying that the game may have
fundamentally changed since that setup was completed. Have you tried
a bit of tinkering yourself? There must be a load more speed in the
car - I'd be stunned if you've reached your ultimate speed in 10
minutes.
Even with years of experience, each iteration of these sims gets a bit
closer to reality and we have to make adjustments ourselves.
I've probably put in about an hour with the michigan "official" demo
and find I'm just about getting the hang of the "feel" of this new
sim.
Regards,
Mark
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Why should it be so difficult for someone to match Bob's best lap times? He > will admit he's not an alien racer. I am not a newbie by a long shot, > either. I would be embarrassed if I couldn't get a decent time fairly > quickly at the easiest track in the sim after YEARS of sim racing. As I > said somewhere else, I can beat the AI at 100% at every original track in > GPL...to me that should be a hell of a lot harder than keeping up with the > AI at a few ovals.In article <[email hidden]>, Mark
<[email hidden]> writes
<snip>
I have always found that decent setups, no matter who's driving style
they are geared towards, have allowed me to drive faster laps straight
away. As yet I haven't got hold of NR2003, being in the UK, so I cannot
give a definitive response though I doubt very much whether this has
changed much. Therefore, why does it seem implausible that Marc is
capable of matching Bob's time after just 10 minutes?
In my view, a good setup will help a good driver go quicker.
And to further test my theory I am going to d/l some fast setups for
NR2002 which, as yet, I'm still using the default fast setups. :)
--
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
Quoted text (12 lines)
>"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<3Zd >4a.1458$[email hidden]>... > >> Why should it be so difficult for someone to match Bob's best lap times? >He >> will admit he's not an alien racer. I am not a newbie by a long shot, >> either. I would be embarrassed if I couldn't get a decent time fairly >> quickly at the easiest track in the sim after YEARS of sim racing. As I >> said somewhere else, I can beat the AI at 100% at every original track in >> GPL...to me that should be a hell of a lot harder than keeping up with the >> AI at a few ovals. >Quoted text (10 lines)
> There's no reason to expect that >you won't run competitively given a bit of time, but to essentially >match Bob's best time within 10 minutes of driving the sim, with a >setup that will be geared towards his driving style? I am *not* >saying that you didn't do it, I am saying that the game may have >fundamentally changed since that setup was completed. Have you tried >a bit of tinkering yourself? There must be a load more speed in the >car - I'd be stunned if you've reached your ultimate speed in 10 >minutes. >You are correct Peter, but once again I will reiterate that this isn't about
Bob's set-ups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take the fast set-ups in the game if you want. Can you do equally well at
California and Michigan? At Texas and Atlanta? You should be able to.
The fact that Bob's Rockingham set-up gives a top 2 and his Michigan a
bottom 2 is just an example of the problems with AI calibration in my
opinion. This was a known and widespread problem in past versions. Jay
says it is fixed in 2003. I just haven't seen any evidence of it myself.
And rather than blather on about my own skills or set-ups I am using Bon
Stanley's as an illustration because he was a beta tester, he knows more
about setting up a NR2003 car than 99.5% of us and his set-ups are readily
available for someone to take them and prove me wrong.
So for no one has, but I have a lot of unrelated suggestions that aren't
helping to prove wrong my original point (which I honestly hope is proven
completely wrong!!!!!!!!!!)
Thanks,
Marc
"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>, Mark
> <[email hidden]> writes
> >"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<3Zd
> >4a.1458$[email hidden]>...
> >
> >> Why should it be so difficult for someone to match Bob's best laptimes?
> >He
> >> will admit he's not an alien racer. I am not a newbie by a long shot,
> >> either. I would be embarrassed if I couldn't get a decent time fairly
> >> quickly at the easiest track in the sim after YEARS of sim racing. AsI
> >> said somewhere else, I can beat the AI at 100% at every original trackin
> >> GPL...to me that should be a hell of a lot harder than keeping up withthe
Quoted text (31 lines)
> >> AI at a few ovals. > > > > <snip> > > > There's no reason to expect that > >you won't run competitively given a bit of time, but to essentially > >match Bob's best time within 10 minutes of driving the sim, with a > >setup that will be geared towards his driving style? I am *not* > >saying that you didn't do it, I am saying that the game may have > >fundamentally changed since that setup was completed. Have you tried > >a bit of tinkering yourself? There must be a load more speed in the > >car - I'd be stunned if you've reached your ultimate speed in 10 > >minutes. > > > I have always found that decent setups, no matter who's driving style > they are geared towards, have allowed me to drive faster laps straight > away. As yet I haven't got hold of NR2003, being in the UK, so I cannot > give a definitive response though I doubt very much whether this has > changed much. Therefore, why does it seem implausible that Marc is > capable of matching Bob's time after just 10 minutes? > > In my view, a good setup will help a good driver go quicker. > > And to further test my theory I am going to d/l some fast setups for > NR2002 which, as yet, I'm still using the default fast setups. :) > -- > 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 -21.77In article <r0z4a.3555$[email hidden]>, Marc Collins
<[email hidden]> writes
>You are correct Peter, but once again I will reiterate that this isn't about
>Bob's set-ups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Take the fast set-ups in the game if you want. Can you do equally well at
>California and Michigan? At Texas and Atlanta? You should be able to.
>
Funnily enough, after downloading some random race setups for n2k2,
created by different people, I was actually running at about the same
laptimes as with the default fast setups after 5 minutes or so (My
fastest laps being +/- 1/10th of a second compared to my previous
fastest). Not sure what that says about my previous statement about a
good driver going faster with any good setup. I was expecting to have
been quicker than before at all tracks I got them for. Maybe I'm just
becoming a bit crap these days. I bet if I went back to joys... Nah!!
Though I've yet to get hold of NR2003 I too would expect to be
competitive at all tracks, let alone those that are similar. I think
your best bet for a definitive answer is going to be to get hold of some
more setups, do a bit of tweaking yourself, or wait until some fastlaps
start to appear on the net, like has been said previously. It would
seem that you're unlikely to get any corroboration of your findings at
this stage. Who knows, maybe others have also noticed this, but are not
quite as sure of their own abilities as you are and so are not prepared
to stick their necks out. When's it out over here in the UK again? :)
<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
Quoted text (13 lines)
>The fact that Bob's Rockingham set-up gives a top 2 and his Michigan a >bottom 2 is just an example of the problems with AI calibration in my >opinion. This was a known and widespread problem in past versions. Jay >says it is fixed in 2003. I just haven't seen any evidence of it myself. >And rather than blather on about my own skills or set-ups I am using Bon >Stanley's as an illustration because he was a beta tester, he knows more >about setting up a NR2003 car than 99.5% of us and his set-ups are readily >available for someone to take them and prove me wrong. > >So for no one has, but I have a lot of unrelated suggestions that aren't >helping to prove wrong my original point (which I honestly hope is proven >completely wrong!!!!!!!!!!) >Quoted text (22 lines)
>> >> > There's no reason to expect that >> >you won't run competitively given a bit of time, but to essentially >> >match Bob's best time within 10 minutes of driving the sim, with a >> >setup that will be geared towards his driving style? I am *not* >> >saying that you didn't do it, I am saying that the game may have >> >fundamentally changed since that setup was completed. Have you tried >> >a bit of tinkering yourself? There must be a load more speed in the >> >car - I'd be stunned if you've reached your ultimate speed in 10 >> >minutes. >> > >> I have always found that decent setups, no matter who's driving style >> they are geared towards, have allowed me to drive faster laps straight >> away. As yet I haven't got hold of NR2003, being in the UK, so I cannot >> give a definitive response though I doubt very much whether this has >> changed much. Therefore, why does it seem implausible that Marc is >> capable of matching Bob's time after just 10 minutes? >> >> In my view, a good setup will help a good driver go quicker. >> >> And to further test my theory I am going to d/l some fast setups for >> NR2002 which, as yet, I'm still using the default fast setups. :)You keep saying that his Michigan setup gives bottom 2 time. Well, If he's
doing that time without a draft, I'm guessing he's capable of 37.0s (or
better) in a good draft. How does that time stack up against the AI?
You keep quoting Bob's times listed in his setups. But AFAIK, Bob isn't the
one with the problem, you are. So why don't you base your arguments off of
your own race results? I haven't seen anything that you've written that
supports your underlying argument. Unless your argument happens to be that
you can't Hot Lap with the AI equally at every track...
db
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:r0z4a.3555$[email hidden]...
> You are correct Peter, but once again I will reiterate that this isn'tabout
shot,
> > >> either. I would be embarrassed if I couldn't get a decent timefairly
> > >> quickly at the easiest track in the sim after YEARS of sim racing.As
> I
> > >> said somewhere else, I can beat the AI at 100% at every originaltrack
> in
> > >> GPL...to me that should be a hell of a lot harder than keeping upwith
Quoted text (35 lines)
> Bob's set-ups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Take the fast set-ups in the game if you want. Can you do equally well at > California and Michigan? At Texas and Atlanta? You should be able to. > > The fact that Bob's Rockingham set-up gives a top 2 and his Michigan a > bottom 2 is just an example of the problems with AI calibration in my > opinion. This was a known and widespread problem in past versions. Jay > says it is fixed in 2003. I just haven't seen any evidence of it myself. > And rather than blather on about my own skills or set-ups I am using Bon > Stanley's as an illustration because he was a beta tester, he knows more > about setting up a NR2003 car than 99.5% of us and his set-ups are readily > available for someone to take them and prove me wrong. > > So for no one has, but I have a lot of unrelated suggestions that aren't > helping to prove wrong my original point (which I honestly hope is proven > completely wrong!!!!!!!!!!) > > Thanks, > > Marc > > > > "Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <[email hidden]>, Mark > > <[email hidden]> writes > > >"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<3Zd > > >4a.1458$[email hidden]>... > > > > > >> Why should it be so difficult for someone to match Bob's best lap > times? > > >He > > >> will admit he's not an alien racer. I am not a newbie by a longQuoted text (34 lines)
> the > > >> AI at a few ovals. > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > There's no reason to expect that > > >you won't run competitively given a bit of time, but to essentially > > >match Bob's best time within 10 minutes of driving the sim, with a > > >setup that will be geared towards his driving style? I am *not* > > >saying that you didn't do it, I am saying that the game may have > > >fundamentally changed since that setup was completed. Have you tried > > >a bit of tinkering yourself? There must be a load more speed in the > > >car - I'd be stunned if you've reached your ultimate speed in 10 > > >minutes. > > > > > I have always found that decent setups, no matter who's driving style > > they are geared towards, have allowed me to drive faster laps straight > > away. As yet I haven't got hold of NR2003, being in the UK, so I cannot > > give a definitive response though I doubt very much whether this has > > changed much. Therefore, why does it seem implausible that Marc is > > capable of matching Bob's time after just 10 minutes? > > > > In my view, a good setup will help a good driver go quicker. > > > > And to further test my theory I am going to d/l some fast setups for > > NR2002 which, as yet, I'm still using the default fast setups. :) > > -- > > 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 > >As I said, use the fast set-ups from the game, use your own set-ups, who
cares? The results are the same. That is, two ostensibly similar tracks
have AI that are quite different in speed. Draft is irrelevant, the results
are the same in practise or race. We are not talking testing alone on the
track--all normal modes have a full field of cars to potentially draft with.
And I always use a full field.
Marc
"Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:tME4a.4575728$[email hidden]...
> You keep saying that his Michigan setup gives bottom 2 time. Well, If he's
> doing that time without a draft, I'm guessing he's capable of 37.0s (or
> better) in a good draft. How does that time stack up against the AI?
>
> You keep quoting Bob's times listed in his setups. But AFAIK, Bob isn'tthe
at
> > California and Michigan? At Texas and Atlanta? You should be able to.
> >
> > The fact that Bob's Rockingham set-up gives a top 2 and his Michigan a
> > bottom 2 is just an example of the problems with AI calibration in my
> > opinion. This was a known and widespread problem in past versions. Jay
> > says it is fixed in 2003. I just haven't seen any evidence of itmyself.
> > And rather than blather on about my own skills or set-ups I am using Bon
> > Stanley's as an illustration because he was a beta tester, he knows more
> > about setting up a NR2003 car than 99.5% of us and his set-ups arereadily
> > available for someone to take them and prove me wrong.
> >
> > So for no one has, but I have a lot of unrelated suggestions that aren't
> > helping to prove wrong my original point (which I honestly hope isproven
cannot
Quoted text (16 lines)
> one with the problem, you are. So why don't you base your arguments off of > your own race results? I haven't seen anything that you've written that > supports your underlying argument. Unless your argument happens to be that > you can't Hot Lap with the AI equally at every track... > > > db > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:r0z4a.3555$[email hidden]... > > You are correct Peter, but once again I will reiterate that this isn't > about > > Bob's set-ups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > Take the fast set-ups in the game if you want. Can you do equally wellQuoted text (49 lines)
> > completely wrong!!!!!!!!!!) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > "Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > In article <[email hidden]>, Mark > > > <[email hidden]> writes > > > >"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<3Zd > > > >4a.1458$[email hidden]>... > > > > > > > >> Why should it be so difficult for someone to match Bob's best lap > > times? > > > >He > > > >> will admit he's not an alien racer. I am not a newbie by a long > shot, > > > >> either. I would be embarrassed if I couldn't get a decent time > fairly > > > >> quickly at the easiest track in the sim after YEARS of sim racing. > As > > I > > > >> said somewhere else, I can beat the AI at 100% at every original > track > > in > > > >> GPL...to me that should be a hell of a lot harder than keeping up > with > > the > > > >> AI at a few ovals. > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > There's no reason to expect that > > > >you won't run competitively given a bit of time, but to essentially > > > >match Bob's best time within 10 minutes of driving the sim, with a > > > >setup that will be geared towards his driving style? I am *not* > > > >saying that you didn't do it, I am saying that the game may have > > > >fundamentally changed since that setup was completed. Have you tried > > > >a bit of tinkering yourself? There must be a load more speed in the > > > >car - I'd be stunned if you've reached your ultimate speed in 10 > > > >minutes. > > > > > > > I have always found that decent setups, no matter who's driving style > > > they are geared towards, have allowed me to drive faster laps straight > > > away. As yet I haven't got hold of NR2003, being in the UK, so IQuoted text (17 lines)
> > > give a definitive response though I doubt very much whether this has > > > changed much. Therefore, why does it seem implausible that Marc is > > > capable of matching Bob's time after just 10 minutes? > > > > > > In my view, a good setup will help a good driver go quicker. > > > > > > And to further test my theory I am going to d/l some fast setups for > > > NR2002 which, as yet, I'm still using the default fast setups. :) > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > >Results? What results? I don't remember you giving any race results...
Wait, you were quoting Bob's listed times as a baseline and using that as
the foundation of your position. From what I understand, his listed times
are all @ 70*, Clear, No Wind, No Draft. You have to at least run the AI
under similar conditions to even make the argument that the AI Hot Lap
inconsistently from track to track (as compared to Bob's times). But that's
not what I would consider a complete analysis of the AI speeds.
Who knows, you may be 100% correct. But you haven't given any info that
would make me draw the same conclusion that you have. You seem to think
Michigan is overly tough. Go run a 50 lap race there and give a report. IMO,
to honestly judge the AI, you need to run a full fuel run race against them.
Hotlapping against them really doesn't give a full representation of the AI
throughout an entire run.
db
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:E8V4a.6558$[email hidden]...
> As I said, use the fast set-ups from the game, use your own set-ups, who
> cares? The results are the same. That is, two ostensibly similar tracks
> have AI that are quite different in speed. Draft is irrelevant, theresults
> are the same in practise or race. We are not talking testing alone on the
> track--all normal modes have a full field of cars to potentially draftwith.
he's
> > doing that time without a draft, I'm guessing he's capable of 37.0s (or
> > better) in a good draft. How does that time stack up against the AI?
> >
> > You keep quoting Bob's times listed in his setups. But AFAIK, Bob isn't
> the
> > one with the problem, you are. So why don't you base your arguments offof
> > your own race results? I haven't seen anything that you've written that
> > supports your underlying argument. Unless your argument happens to bethat
well
> at
> > > California and Michigan? At Texas and Atlanta? You should be ableto.
> > >
> > > The fact that Bob's Rockingham set-up gives a top 2 and his Michigan a
> > > bottom 2 is just an example of the problems with AI calibration in my
> > > opinion. This was a known and widespread problem in past versions.Jay
> > > says it is fixed in 2003. I just haven't seen any evidence of it
> myself.
> > > And rather than blather on about my own skills or set-ups I am usingBon
> > > Stanley's as an illustration because he was a beta tester, he knowsmore
> > > about setting up a NR2003 car than 99.5% of us and his set-ups are
> readily
> > > available for someone to take them and prove me wrong.
> > >
> > > So for no one has, but I have a lot of unrelated suggestions thataren't
news:<3Zd
racing.
tried
> > > > >a bit of tinkering yourself? There must be a load more speed inthe
> > > > >car - I'd be stunned if you've reached your ultimate speed in 10
> > > > >minutes.
> > > > >
> > > > I have always found that decent setups, no matter who's drivingstyle
> > > > they are geared towards, have allowed me to drive faster lapsstraight
Quoted text (7 lines)
> And I always use a full field. > > Marc > > "Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tME4a.4575728$[email hidden]... > > You keep saying that his Michigan setup gives bottom 2 time. Well, IfQuoted text (13 lines)
> > you can't Hot Lap with the AI equally at every track... > > > > > > db > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:r0z4a.3555$[email hidden]... > > > You are correct Peter, but once again I will reiterate that this isn't > > about > > > Bob's set-ups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > > > Take the fast set-ups in the game if you want. Can you do equallyQuoted text (15 lines)
> > > helping to prove wrong my original point (which I honestly hope is > proven > > > completely wrong!!!!!!!!!!) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > "Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > In article <[email hidden]>, Mark > > > > <[email hidden]> writes > > > > >"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in messageQuoted text (10 lines)
> > > > >4a.1458$[email hidden]>... > > > > > > > > > >> Why should it be so difficult for someone to match Bob's best lap > > > times? > > > > >He > > > > >> will admit he's not an alien racer. I am not a newbie by a long > > shot, > > > > >> either. I would be embarrassed if I couldn't get a decent time > > fairly > > > > >> quickly at the easiest track in the sim after YEARS of simQuoted text (19 lines)
> > As > > > I > > > > >> said somewhere else, I can beat the AI at 100% at every original > > track > > > in > > > > >> GPL...to me that should be a hell of a lot harder than keeping up > > with > > > the > > > > >> AI at a few ovals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > There's no reason to expect that > > > > >you won't run competitively given a bit of time, but to essentially > > > > >match Bob's best time within 10 minutes of driving the sim, with a > > > > >setup that will be geared towards his driving style? I am *not* > > > > >saying that you didn't do it, I am saying that the game may have > > > > >fundamentally changed since that setup was completed. Have youQuoted text (21 lines)
> > > > away. As yet I haven't got hold of NR2003, being in the UK, so I > cannot > > > > give a definitive response though I doubt very much whether this has > > > > changed much. Therefore, why does it seem implausible that Marc is > > > > capable of matching Bob's time after just 10 minutes? > > > > > > > > In my view, a good setup will help a good driver go quicker. > > > > > > > > And to further test my theory I am going to d/l some fast setups for > > > > NR2002 which, as yet, I'm still using the default fast setups. :) > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >Why should the AI be able to hot lap any better than the human player?
You keep dwelling on particular points in my posts and ignoring the main
point (the subject line of the thread). My experience so far is that with
Bob's set-ups, with the fast set-ups, in practice, in a race, regardless,
the same results occur: certain tracks AI at 100% are very, very tough while
at a sister track they are not. This seems unrealistically so to me. I am
waiting for someone to provide some set-ups or some replays or just some
hard factual feedback to suggest I am wonky.
Why don't you just tell us what your experience is in this regard? With
details please...
Also, here is a quote from another old hat here in another post about wacky
AI speeds at the SS tracks posted a short while ago:
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
As I have been noting all along, this isn't a new issue. The AI has always
been imbalanced in the past versions and it would be a surprise if it were
NOT imbalanced in this version. Not the other way around. Although I hope
it is the first time they have got it right.
Marc
"Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:gJV4a.1289609$[email hidden]...
that's
> not what I would consider a complete analysis of the AI speeds.
>
> Who knows, you may be 100% correct. But you haven't given any info that
> would make me draw the same conclusion that you have. You seem to think
> Michigan is overly tough. Go run a 50 lap race there and give a report.IMO,
> to honestly judge the AI, you need to run a full fuel run race againstthem.
> Hotlapping against them really doesn't give a full representation of theAI
tracks
> > have AI that are quite different in speed. Draft is irrelevant, the
> results
> > are the same in practise or race. We are not talking testing alone onthe
(or
> > > better) in a good draft. How does that time stack up against the AI?
> > >
> > > You keep quoting Bob's times listed in his setups. But AFAIK, Bobisn't
> > the
> > > one with the problem, you are. So why don't you base your argumentsoff
> of
> > > your own race results? I haven't seen anything that you've writtenthat
isn't
a
> > > > bottom 2 is just an example of the problems with AI calibration inmy
message
lap
> > > > times?
> > > > > >He
> > > > > >> will admit he's not an alien racer. I am not a newbie by along
original
> > > track
> > > > in
> > > > > >> GPL...to me that should be a hell of a lot harder than keepingup
essentially
> > > > > >match Bob's best time within 10 minutes of driving the sim, witha
has
> > > > > changed much. Therefore, why does it seem implausible that Marcis
> > > > > capable of matching Bob's time after just 10 minutes?
> > > > >
> > > > > In my view, a good setup will help a good driver go quicker.
> > > > >
> > > > > And to further test my theory I am going to d/l some fast setupsfor
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Results? What results? I don't remember you giving any race results... > > Wait, you were quoting Bob's listed times as a baseline and using that as > the foundation of your position. From what I understand, his listed times > are all @ 70*, Clear, No Wind, No Draft. You have to at least run the AI > under similar conditions to even make the argument that the AI Hot Lap > inconsistently from track to track (as compared to Bob's times). ButQuoted text (10 lines)
> throughout an entire run. > > > db > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:E8V4a.6558$[email hidden]... > > As I said, use the fast set-ups from the game, use your own set-ups, who > > cares? The results are the same. That is, two ostensibly similarQuoted text (11 lines)
> > track--all normal modes have a full field of cars to potentially draft > with. > > And I always use a full field. > > > > Marc > > > > "Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:tME4a.4575728$[email hidden]... > > > You keep saying that his Michigan setup gives bottom 2 time. Well, If > he's > > > doing that time without a draft, I'm guessing he's capable of 37.0sQuoted text (11 lines)
> > > supports your underlying argument. Unless your argument happens to be > that > > > you can't Hot Lap with the AI equally at every track... > > > > > > > > > db > > > > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:r0z4a.3555$[email hidden]... > > > > You are correct Peter, but once again I will reiterate that thisQuoted text (10 lines)
> > > about > > > > Bob's set-ups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > > > > > Take the fast set-ups in the game if you want. Can you do equally > well > > at > > > > California and Michigan? At Texas and Atlanta? You should be able > to. > > > > > > > > The fact that Bob's Rockingham set-up gives a top 2 and his MichiganQuoted text (25 lines)
> > > > opinion. This was a known and widespread problem in past versions. > Jay > > > > says it is fixed in 2003. I just haven't seen any evidence of it > > myself. > > > > And rather than blather on about my own skills or set-ups I am using > Bon > > > > Stanley's as an illustration because he was a beta tester, he knows > more > > > > about setting up a NR2003 car than 99.5% of us and his set-ups are > > readily > > > > available for someone to take them and prove me wrong. > > > > > > > > So for no one has, but I have a lot of unrelated suggestions that > aren't > > > > helping to prove wrong my original point (which I honestly hope is > > proven > > > > completely wrong!!!!!!!!!!) > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote inQuoted text (8 lines)
> > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > In article <[email hidden]>, Mark > > > > > <[email hidden]> writes > > > > > >"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:<3Zd > > > > > >4a.1458$[email hidden]>... > > > > > > > > > > > >> Why should it be so difficult for someone to match Bob's bestQuoted text (8 lines)
> > > shot, > > > > > >> either. I would be embarrassed if I couldn't get a decent time > > > fairly > > > > > >> quickly at the easiest track in the sim after YEARS of sim > racing. > > > As > > > > I > > > > > >> said somewhere else, I can beat the AI at 100% at everyQuoted text (9 lines)
> > > with > > > > the > > > > > >> AI at a few ovals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > There's no reason to expect that > > > > > >you won't run competitively given a bit of time, but toQuoted text (16 lines)
> > > > > >setup that will be geared towards his driving style? I am *not* > > > > > >saying that you didn't do it, I am saying that the game may have > > > > > >fundamentally changed since that setup was completed. Have you > tried > > > > > >a bit of tinkering yourself? There must be a load more speed in > the > > > > > >car - I'd be stunned if you've reached your ultimate speed in 10 > > > > > >minutes. > > > > > > > > > > > I have always found that decent setups, no matter who's driving > style > > > > > they are geared towards, have allowed me to drive faster laps > straight > > > > > away. As yet I haven't got hold of NR2003, being in the UK, so I > > cannot > > > > > give a definitive response though I doubt very much whether thisQuoted text (14 lines)
> > > > > NR2002 which, as yet, I'm still using the default fast setups. :) > > > > > -- > > > > > Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) > > > > > Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email > > > > > If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) > > > > > GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:wyY4a.2836$[email hidden]...
> Why should the AI be able to hot lap any better than the human player?
Well, they shouldn't. But I haven't had any experience with them having
significantly faster blaps than me yet. Using Michigan (a track you seem to
have a problem with) My fastest race lap is now 37.132 from my second race
there (still using Bob's setup). I think the fastest AI lap in that race
was 37.0. But even so, do you consider a blap as the most important factor
to judge the AI by? I certainly don't...
> You keep dwelling on particular points in my posts and ignoring the main
> point (the subject line of the thread). My experience so far is that with
> Bob's set-ups, with the fast set-ups, in practice, in a race, regardless,
> the same results occur: certain tracks AI at 100% are very, very toughwhile
> at a sister track they are not. This seems unrealistically so to me. Iam
> waiting for someone to provide some set-ups or some replays or just some
> hard factual feedback to suggest I am wonky.
>
> Why don't you just tell us what your experience is in this regard? With
> details please...
Wait just a minute there...
If I recall correctly, I'm the *ONLY* person in this thread that has given a
race analysis. *Including* you. Since you are the one that claims there is a
dramatic problem, why don't you pick a track that you think is way too fast,
run a race and then report the results?
> As I have been noting all along, this isn't a new issue. The AI hasalways
> been imbalanced in the past versions and it would be a surprise if it were
> NOT imbalanced in this version. Not the other way around. Although Ihope
> it is the first time they have got it right.
>
> Marc
Like I said earlier, I agree that the AI has had *many* issues in past
releases. But I have seen *nothing* in NR03 that approaches the problems of
the past. I think you have simply made up your mind to find a fault and are
doing everything possible not to contradict your predetermined conclusion.
Marc,
Its really pointless for me to add more, you have an firm opinion on how to
judge the AI's balance in the game, and their consistancy from track to
track. Unfortunately the game was balanced completly using race or qual
session data, which is different then the methode you insist on. We can
continue to disagree on what difference this makes, but I've stated over and
over, that you really need to generate data from races with the AI. Compare
their speeds in the draft to yours, compare their speed leading the draft to
yours, and compare their corner and straight speeds for both conditions.
You also need to look at their speeds over a full tire/fuel run, and how
they match up with the players on average. This was how the track by track
balancing was done. Qual speeds are different because you just get data
from the beta team on what kind of qual speeds they are running for each
track, and then adjust the AI's qual modifier until you get them to average
around the point your looking for.
I havn't seen you give any feedback of you verse the AI in any races, just
your hot laps compared to their practice sessions. If you've given some,
and I missed it I apologize. I'm just figuring your interaction with the
AI is mainly to compare fast laps, which really isn't the focus of the AI in
NR2003. IN the end your fast laps( or maybe just Bobs posted laps) are
inconsistant verse the AI ( in practice) at Cali and Mich. Its very
possible there is a slight difference in difficulty which gets skewed even
further when you just look at their practice data, and you dont take into
account how many different driving styles people have.
I do not claim by any means that the AI are perfect, but I do feel they are
much more evenly balanced then they have been in previous efforts.
At this point all I can do is agree to disagree with you.
Jay Taylor
Marc Collins wrote:
Seeing how 90+ percent of us run it only online, it's unlikely we have,
or ever will, notice any such discrepencies in the AI. Just lighten up
& enjoy. See you online.
--
Fester
Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Why should the AI be able to hot lap any better than the human player? > > You keep dwelling on particular points in my posts and ignoring the main > point (the subject line of the thread). My experience so far is that with > Bob's set-ups, with the fast set-ups, in practice, in a race, regardless, > the same results occur: certain tracks AI at 100% are very, very tough while > at a sister track they are not. This seems unrealistically so to me. I am > waiting for someone to provide some set-ups or some replays or just some > hard factual feedback to suggest I am wonky.I already made the point that thanks to wonky AI in the past most people
have migrated to online only. It doesn't help answer the question or solve
any problems.
Marc
"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Marc Collins wrote:
> > Why should the AI be able to hot lap any better than the human player?
> >
> > You keep dwelling on particular points in my posts and ignoring the main
> > point (the subject line of the thread). My experience so far is thatwith
> > Bob's set-ups, with the fast set-ups, in practice, in a race,regardless,
> > the same results occur: certain tracks AI at 100% are very, very toughwhile
> > at a sister track they are not. This seems unrealistically so to me. Iam
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > waiting for someone to provide some set-ups or some replays or just some > > hard factual feedback to suggest I am wonky. > > > Seeing how 90+ percent of us run it only online, it's unlikely we have, > or ever will, notice any such discrepencies in the AI. Just lighten up > & enjoy. See you online. > > > -- > > Fester > > Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy. >Jay:
For argument's sake let's say I agree with you 100%. Can you then tell me
why Practise Mode is so different? Why wouldn't Papy program practise mode
so the cars are doing the same things they do in a race, since if you are
playing the game properly, you try to practise first to ensure you are good
enough to not cause mayhem in a "real" race? Or, practise until you are
fast enough it is worth racing (assuming driving around 400 laps in 43rd
isn't anyone's idea of fun).
Instead, they ignore incidents on the track and pile drive through other
cars or the human player (as though they were waiting for a yellow flag so
they could see what was in front of them) and according to what you are
saying, have access to some draft effect or grip or speed that they don't
during the race or that the human player doesn't have...?? What would be
the point of this?
It is my belief that the problem in the first paragraph was "solved" with
the adaptive AI and Auto AI. I have no idea what the design issue is in the
second paragraph, but it was there in N3, N4 and NR2002. Needless to say, I
wasn't impressed when I saw it again in NR2003.
Marc
PS, you say "I haven't seen you give any feedback of you verse the AI in any
races, just your hot laps compared to their practice sessions." If you read
even just the message you were replying to you will see that I am not
talking about just practise mode any longer. I noticed the problem there
first when I originated the thread, but subsequently confirmed that in my
experience the trend is the same in races. Of course you are correct that
lots and lots of testing would need to be done to corroborate this, which is
impossible for any one person with an outside life, hence my talking about
it here and attempting to get more opinions and experience. Instead, Uncle
Fester seems to have said what I already suspected...
"Jay Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:6P%4a.624$[email hidden]...
> Marc,
> Its really pointless for me to add more, you have an firm opinion on howto
> judge the AI's balance in the game, and their consistancy from track to
> track. Unfortunately the game was balanced completly using race or qual
> session data, which is different then the methode you insist on. We can
> continue to disagree on what difference this makes, but I've stated overand
> over, that you really need to generate data from races with the AI.Compare
> their speeds in the draft to yours, compare their speed leading the draftto
> yours, and compare their corner and straight speeds for both conditions.
> You also need to look at their speeds over a full tire/fuel run, and how
> they match up with the players on average. This was how the track bytrack
> balancing was done. Qual speeds are different because you just get data
> from the beta team on what kind of qual speeds they are running for each
> track, and then adjust the AI's qual modifier until you get them toaverage
> around the point your looking for.
>
> I havn't seen you give any feedback of you verse the AI in any races, just
> your hot laps compared to their practice sessions. If you've given some,
> and I missed it I apologize. I'm just figuring your interaction with the
> AI is mainly to compare fast laps, which really isn't the focus of the AIin
> NR2003. IN the end your fast laps( or maybe just Bobs posted laps) are
> inconsistant verse the AI ( in practice) at Cali and Mich. Its very
> possible there is a slight difference in difficulty which gets skewed even
> further when you just look at their practice data, and you dont take into
> account how many different driving styles people have.
> I do not claim by any means that the AI are perfect, but I do feel theyare
> much more evenly balanced then they have been in previous efforts.
> At this point all I can do is agree to disagree with you.
>
> Jay Taylor
>
>
There is much more to racing than simply getting one clean lap in a good
draft. Negotiating traffic, managing tire wear and (if you use cautions or
run long enough races for pit stops) strategy/tactics all play a major role
in a race. So to make a broad statement about the AI based on best practice
laps isn't necessarily proper. It's the same thing in real life, the guys
who post the best practice times don't necessarily do the best in the race.
You mentioned race mode in your last message, but I still don't recall any
race info. At what tracks do you find the AI too difficult to race and which
to easy? What are your race results at these tracks?
db
"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:tx55a.7039$[email hidden]...
> Jay:
>
> For argument's sake let's say I agree with you 100%. Can you then tell me
> why Practise Mode is so different? Why wouldn't Papy program practisemode
> so the cars are doing the same things they do in a race, since if you are
> playing the game properly, you try to practise first to ensure you aregood
the
> second paragraph, but it was there in N3, N4 and NR2002. Needless to say,I
> wasn't impressed when I saw it again in NR2003.
>
> Marc
>
> PS, you say "I haven't seen you give any feedback of you verse the AI inany
> races, just your hot laps compared to their practice sessions." If youread
> even just the message you were replying to you will see that I am not
> talking about just practise mode any longer. I noticed the problem there
> first when I originated the thread, but subsequently confirmed that in my
> experience the trend is the same in races. Of course you are correct that
> lots and lots of testing would need to be done to corroborate this, whichis
> impossible for any one person with an outside life, hence my talking about
> it here and attempting to get more opinions and experience. Instead,Uncle
> Fester seems to have said what I already suspected...
Quoted text (13 lines)
> enough to not cause mayhem in a "real" race? Or, practise until you are > fast enough it is worth racing (assuming driving around 400 laps in 43rd > isn't anyone's idea of fun). > > Instead, they ignore incidents on the track and pile drive through other > cars or the human player (as though they were waiting for a yellow flag so > they could see what was in front of them) and according to what you are > saying, have access to some draft effect or grip or speed that they don't > during the race or that the human player doesn't have...?? What would be > the point of this? > > It is my belief that the problem in the first paragraph was "solved" with > the adaptive AI and Auto AI. I have no idea what the design issue is inAll those things are there in Practise mode, too, assuming you practise to
be better in a race (which I do--I never hot lap), so can you answer my
question?
Also, you should look at the later thread "N2003 Tona/Dega" by Jason Moyer
for some interesting follow-up to the issues here.
Marc
"Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:J1v5a.528892$[email hidden]...
> There is much more to racing than simply getting one clean lap in a good
> draft. Negotiating traffic, managing tire wear and (if you use cautions or
> run long enough races for pit stops) strategy/tactics all play a majorrole
> in a race. So to make a broad statement about the AI based on bestpractice
> laps isn't necessarily proper. It's the same thing in real life, the guys
> who post the best practice times don't necessarily do the best in therace.
>
> You mentioned race mode in your last message, but I still don't recall any
> race info. At what tracks do you find the AI too difficult to race andwhich
me
> > why Practise Mode is so different? Why wouldn't Papy program practise
> mode
> > so the cars are doing the same things they do in a race, since if youare
so
> > they could see what was in front of them) and according to what you are
> > saying, have access to some draft effect or grip or speed that theydon't
> > during the race or that the human player doesn't have...?? What wouldbe
> > the point of this?
> >
> > It is my belief that the problem in the first paragraph was "solved"with
> > the adaptive AI and Auto AI. I have no idea what the design issue is in
> the
> > second paragraph, but it was there in N3, N4 and NR2002. Needless tosay,
there
> > first when I originated the thread, but subsequently confirmed that inmy
> > experience the trend is the same in races. Of course you are correctthat
> > lots and lots of testing would need to be done to corroborate this,which
> is
> > impossible for any one person with an outside life, hence my talkingabout
> > it here and attempting to get more opinions and experience. Instead,
> Uncle
> > Fester seems to have said what I already suspected...
>
>
>
