Congrats, you have disguised that fact extremely well.
LOL, I was clearly attacking your argument, not making a personal attack.
Here's a hypothetical example of a personal attack for the sake of comparison:
"It beats me how someone as thick as you who doesn't have the first clue how to construct and defend a decent argument could make it through school let alone get into University. I worry for the future"
Can you see the difference between that and what I said earlier ?
cheers
Col
Agreed!
We have the Tyre Physics Progress report, we know the devs position on releasing information and on the dev process. There's not much else to say on that topic. At the same time, an interesting side debate has developed, so why not pursue that instead.
Straw man argument:
You can't find a good way to attack the opposing view in an debate so you set up a 'straw man' - a similar/related but different (and much weaker) argument, present it as the same argument, and then attack that instead.
You attempted to present this discussion as a "Valid LFS critic vs the fanboys" argument when it was not.
(it is a very common tactic here, and always a sign of a weak argument).
+1
I'm not bothered about VWS either, or tracks for that matter.
A decent update to the physics makes all cars new cars.
Any update to physics of the track surface - marbles, wet weather etc. would make all tracks new tracks.
Thats where the value is IMO
True but irrelevant - a very obvious 'straw man'.
I wasn't even considering that your argument is in any way a criticism of or challenge to LFS.
What this current discussion is about is whether 'driving skills' developed in a sim can help with real world driving.
For my part, you could replace LFS with GPL, iRacing, rFactor etc. and the points are still valid and the argument still stands.
LOL
(BTW, you really need to go and work on your use of metaphor - you're just not getting it together at the moment.)
Your LFS laps would provide knowledge that is true.
However, they would also help to develop the fine motor control in your right foot (and left foot for that matter), thereby improving your DRIVING SKILLS.
Over time, driving LFS (or similar), the percentage of your brain used to control your feet for the kind of movements used in DRIVING would be increased (improving precision and reaction). You would also develop your repertoire of applicable muscle memories.
These things definately come under the heading 'driving skills'. They can be improved using LFS and they are fully transferable to real world racing and road driving.
Reading the discussion so far, the anecdotal (and some factual) evidence points to them being correct and you being wrong!
So you need to bring some evidence to the table.
Personally, I've had a few 'LFS moments' while driving myself, A couple of times I have hit unexpected ice and immediately gone into LFS mode, instinctively correcting the slide and regaining control. When that has happened it gives me strong and clear recollection of the game. It has twice saved me from badly kerbing my car.
It is a shame that it feels more like LFS when on ice... but I reckon that's because that is the only time I get near the limit driving on public roads.
Nobody is suggesting that LFS will turn you into a great driver, but there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that some of the skills learned in the game are transferable to real driving (race or road).
Col
proving your ignorance again TVE
ig⋅no⋅rant
1.lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.uninformed; unaware.
4.due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
=======================
Choosing to ignore might be foolish, but it would be an informed choice, and therefore not ignorance.
And it sounds like WHINING every time you repeat the same old same old.
Get it into your ignorant(yes we've proven that) skull, repeatedly asking (more like demanding in your case: "how can you justify" etc.) for details of content that's in development and that may not make it to public release is FUTILE.
Scawen learned his lesson and has told us that information like this will not be announced. He has also stated that they won't change the way they work.
So repeating a variation on any of the following is pointless whining:
"Tell us what's coming or I'll leave"
"Tell us what's coming or you're rubbish" (what you've just said)
"Change the way you work or you're rubbish"
"Change the way you work or others will leave"
"Do what I say or LFS will die"
"Hire more programmers or I'll whine even more and throw my toys out of the pram"
This is just a selection.
If you repeat a version of one of these, or something similar, here, then you deserve to be called "Whining Bitch".
If you defend others who do, then IMO, you are a tool.
cheers
Col
Last edited by col, .
true up to the point where you add 'demands' to the list. demands have no place in constructive criticism.
Unfortunately, the whiners here seem to make a lot of demands.
It might be foolhardy (although it's not what is happening here anyway anyway), but it's not ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge.
Here is an example sentence with the correct usage of the word:
"The Very Ends assertion that constant repetition of the same demands is equivalent to constructive criticism highlights his ignorance."
It's not the right way of doing what exactly ?
And in what way is it ignorant ?
Last edited by col, .
No he wasn't, he was arguing with me.
I posted a criticism of people (no names mentioned) whining about the development process. He took it personally and chose to defend whining thereby starting an argument. His riposte contained no worthwhile reasoning or logic, just a whole heap more whining.
My subsequent 'attack' was inevitable.
ON TOPIC:
I'm really looking forward to the new update. When it comes, I might even get my PC upgraded so it has enough grunt to play online again
Neither is eating potatoes.. so what.
there is no such thing as 'negative constructive critism'.
constructive criticism is inherently positive - you point out a problem but in a 'constructive' way that offers solutions. That's not whats going on here.
Its not questioning the development, it's whining. If the questions being asked have been asked AND ANSWERED many times before, then repeating them is whining and nagging - which is whats been going on here.
If you want to associate yourself with the whiners and try to defend them then more fool you.
Feck me, you really are a tool.
Those complaints have been repeated so many times they are meaningless, and you don't think it sounds like whining. FFS
There you go again - proving me right, making my argument even stronger.
Damn, you are relentless.
I wont call you a whining bitch without backing it up with some evidence and a decent argument.
If you can do the same then go for it. Until then,
If you call me fanboy then I am allowed to call you anything I damn well like with no basis in reality whatsoever.
whining bitches
Scawen learned LONG ago that if he posted dev updates regularly, then the whining bitches would pick up on every detail complaining, whining and hating.
Even worse, any little item he mentioned in an update that didn't make it to the release or was changed in some way would be blown out of proportion and complained bitterly about endlessly here on the forum by the same whining complaining idiots.
For a while he tried to explain the reasoning behind his decisions expecting an adult and respectful response from the community - no chance of that here though, just a frenzy of negativity.
As a result, what we get these days is an announcement when there is something to announce. Not an update every month, an update when there is something finished.
Occasionally there are mistakes - an announcement gets made prematurely. When that happens, the idiot whiners go into overdrive - as with the Scirocco - What this does is to re-enforce the current silent development approach.
If it wasn't for all the moronic whining tw*ts, there might still be a more open dev process like there was back in the early days of LFS
Reading the last few pages, what surprises me the most is how many people there are that joined years ago, yet still don't get it.
Even worse, any little item he mentioned in an update that didn't make it to the release or was changed in some way would be blown out of proportion and complained bitterly about endlessly here on the forum by the same whining complaining idiots.
For a while he tried to explain the reasoning behind his decisions expecting an adult and respectful response from the community - no chance of that here though, just a frenzy of negativity.
As a result, what we get these days is an announcement when there is something to announce. Not an update every month, an update when there is something finished.
Occasionally there are mistakes - an announcement gets made prematurely. When that happens, the idiot whiners go into overdrive - as with the Scirocco - What this does is to re-enforce the current silent development approach.
If it wasn't for all the moronic whining tw*ts, there might still be a more open dev process like there was back in the early days of LFS
Reading the last few pages, what surprises me the most is how many people there are that joined years ago, yet still don't get it.
If the reference points are used by the AI to triangulate its position and allow it to monitor its rotation and position with respect to an internal track map, then that would work. (but in that case, you are giving the AI a simplified form of vision - just one that needs to be constructed per track).
On the other hand, if the reference points are just used for "start braking now", "start turning now", then the whole system will fall apart in all but the simplest of environments.
You (ie your conscious mind) will focus on points of reference, but you don't control the car with your conscious mind - its not fast or coordinated enough.
If I created a special hypothetical visor for you that only allowed you to see what your conscious mind was focused on, you would not be able to drive.
It has been discovered that skilled sportsmen cannot function at anything like their usual ability if they think about the details of what they are doing.
That's because your conscious mind (that thinks in points of reference)
just can't do it.
Part of the reason that focusing your conscious on things like braking and turn-in points works is because it gives your conscious mind something to do while the subconscious part gets on with the real driving.
There are specific physical parts of your brain dedicated to things like processing shadows caused by light from above. If you take away natural visual cues of this sort, people (and animals) become confused. A few single points won't be enough to fix this.
In your hypothetical room even with the points, a human would soon become very disoriented.
I know we don't see in points.
I just pulled my copy of 'Visual and Auditory Perception' by Gerald M. Murch, and searched in vain for the chapter about how we see in points.
We see symultaneously in different ways, e.g different parts of the eye distinguish colour and contrast. We see to have a very acute ability to percieve contour and edges.
At a higher level we are very good at separating a scene into distinct objects, and use a veriety of processes to do this.
Its all very complicated - but points have NOTHING to do with it.
Thats just nonsense. how can there be grass below, blue above and yet no horizon?!
No, not in my mind. I would use every trick in the book to make the AI SEEM more human if it was my project.
But going by your ealier posts suggesting that any extra knowledge thats not available to the player is cheating, these points are cheating in your mind.
I guess you must have changed your mind?
Going by what seemed to be your initial restrictions, a point that has been placed by the designer or programmer specifically to aid the AI would not fit with the goal of only using input available to a human driver, and therefor be cheating.
Maybe you didn't get it so clearly then?
There is no such thing as 'second nature' in a computer program.
It seems to me that to get closer to something that might work, you have to stop thinking so much like a human, and more like an AI
You are a computer program - you have no sense of good or bad, success or failure, you have no motivation or desire.------------------------
For these to be simulated, your creator must provide you with various metrics by which to assess the validity of your output!
You need some way for your AI to store and match (e,g, recognise) patterns.
these patterns might be the relationships between position velocity, rotation, the relative position of any reference points in the environment, input to throttle, input to brake, input to steering, expected reaction, success, failure.. etc etc.
In addition, you will still need your internal track map combined with an internal ideal racing line.
Also using the same or similar pattern matching, a separate sub process to adapt to other cars being in the environment.
This might be one way to build in the desired ability to adapt.
It would also make it fairly trivial to use existing human replays as training data.
Interestingly, there would be so much to process that you will have to split it all up over time giving something like the delayed reactions of a human.
Neural nets don't get used much in game AI (maybe they do now, I'm a bit out of date), but for the sort of thing you're attempting, they would be a good place to start researching.
Fuzzy logic would be another good thing to research
I really think its a shame that you're not interested in persuing visual processing. If I had the time, thats where the interesting stuff is.
even if it takes lots of cpu, there's nothing to stop you uisng a separate PC just for the AI with a web cam for input and cobling together output to a virtual controller device.
It would be very cool if you could get it to drive different sims !
Col
blackbird04217 has stated that he wants to build an AI that has only the same inputs available as a human. anything else would be cheating.
IMO for this rule to be followed, any system of synthetic markers placed by the developer would be a 'cheat'.
personally, I would do as you suggest, using all available data on track and other cars that is available from the game engine. However, that is not what this project is about!
And FWIW, your eyes don't reference things by points at all. One of the problems of dealing with this kind of AI project is that what people consciously think they are doing and considering, and what information is actually being subconsciously processed are two completely different things.
Col
For a human, reference points change, they are just a guide.
If your AI is to drive by references, you need to develop some sort of system that allows it to update reference points. e.g. discard old ones and create new ones. For this, you need to give it vision!.
IMO to create an AI that doesn't 'cheat' you'll need some sort of visual processing system.
No. an AI that can start from scratch will be MUCH more difficult than one that is given a close approximation as a starting point.
One non trivial issue with starting from scratch is that searching a solution domain for an optimum can be very difficult.
When 'searching' for an optimum line, you can think of the solution domain as a landscape. Searching in a simple way e.g. "is the new line 'better' (higher) than the old one" will rarely result in finding the optimum. This is because in the landscape there are many local 'hills', so naively following 'is it better', just ends up with you stuck at the summit of one of these, rather than on the peak of Everest (the optimum line).
If you start somewhere in the foothills of everest, you can use more basic methods to find route to the summit.
Starting randomly somewhere on earth is going to be a tougher challenge.
cheers
Col
That sounds a little smug!
I'm also interested - as someone who has programmed AI (rather than just thought about it)
It is very interesting to me reading this thread, that you seem to be sure that the computer has an advantage (it cheats) over a human, in that its possible for the computer to react more quickly.
Secondly, your insistence that all that is required is a small set of triggers or markers seems naive.
A human has a brain that has the innate ability to do the equivalent of complex calculus almost instantly, combining multiple conflicting inputs and processing massive amounts of data. Desktop computers can't compete with this in real time.
To create an AI that doesn't 'cheat', in the sense that it has only the same inputs as a human, you would need to process visual input from the screen memory. That in itself is a very complex and difficult task.
On the other hand, if its valid to 'cheat' enough for this not to be needed, why not go all the way and include data from the track map, tyres etc., and allow the AI to react fast. (IMO, this is the only sensible way forward.)
...........................
I reckon that by using a few markers (like your cones) and a simple dynamic internal racing line, you might get to the stage where your AI can drive around the track.
Getting to the stage where it can keep the car at or near the limit will be a completely different level of complexity.
If you are going to build in a 'poor reaction' or some sort of 'random' quality into the AI, you will most likely just end up with oscillation and loss of control, or very poor times with no ability to stay on the limit.
It has been mentioned in the thread that, while humans don't have instant reactions, we have the ability to predict whats going to happen. THIS IS EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT.
If your AI is not going to cheat, and it is to have its reaction speed limited, you will have to write some AMAZING code to compete with a human brains ability predict the future by super snazzy human brain calculus power!
I really hope that you can do this, however, from reading the thread, it seems to me that before going any further, you need to do some simple experiments with a very basic 2d model (like a mariokart type of thing), just to get an idea of what the real problems are.
I'm worried that you might be seriously underestimating how difficult this type of problem really is !
good luck
Col
Sorry, back Off Topic again :(
Oh dear :doh: that argument has probably harmed the 'anti-piracy' cause more than any other single thing.
If you want an analogy that is accurate and involves a Ferrari it would be something like this:
What if you got a visit from an amazing scientist who travelled back in time from the future and gave you a cool machine that can replicate objects (just like in star trek).
So you use your machine to scan and replicate a Ferrari that you see parked in the street - without damaging the original in any way. Nothing bad in that, right?
And there's the problem - many folks would say that there ISN'T anything wrong with that !
The real argument against using unlicensed software has to be realistic and robust before it has a chance to change the minds of the ignorant and unintelligent (unfortunately, it's probably too subtle for most of their tiny little brains).
Calling the end user of un-licenced software a 'pirate' is also just ridiculous. The pirates are the guys down the market selling copied stuff, and the ones with websites full of free downloads that generate revenue through advertising - they are taking money out of the pockets of the developers.
What folks like Shadowww need to consider is that people like him who (claim) that they wouldn't pay so the developers are losing nothing, are boosting the advertising revenue for these true pirates by frequenting their sites. In turn, the pirates supply others who WOULD buy the original games if they weren't available from pirates. In that way he IS depriving honest developers of money for their work.
It is not the same as stealing a car, but it is depriving honest developers, and it does harm the industry.
If what you say is true, it must make you very happy, because it implies that with a little luck YOU will be F1 world champion !
congratulations!
Yes. They're basically the same thing. The only (subtle) difference is in the cause of the condition. Psychopath is a bit more hereditary/genetic influence, sociopath is a bit more environmental.
The result is the same behaviour, so for the purposes of this discussion, they are interchangeable.
Sorry for any confusion.
That is disturbing.
Poor Straw man argument from you again.
Just because these deaths don't affect me in the same way that they affect the families doesn't mean that I shouldn't feel empathy for the families.
In fact not to do so is a sign of a sociopath (as I've already said).
So you think that someone who has an emotional reaction to footage of the deaths of others needs to see a psychiatrist?
If you can watch the deaths of others without an emotional reaction, then it is you who nees help, and fast.
psy·cho·path
n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
see that last bit "without empathy".
You are displaying that trait, and defending it as though it is the norm.
In fact, you seem to be saying that empathy is wrong and should be avoided.
Thats a worry.
"tributes of deaths"
hmm seems like the way you think is becoming more and more clear.
A should be a celebration. A celebration of a persons life and achievements. This can be entertaining in many ways and still be respectful.
But "tributes of deaths", that seems like a sick and twisted idea to me.
A celebration of the deaths of people ?
No, I would never find that entertaining, that is a horrible idea.
I guess that's where you and me differ ?
=======================================
trib⋅ute
–noun 1. a gift, testimonial, compliment, or the like, given as due or in acknowledgment of gratitude or esteem.
So that's basically where people say how great someone was and maybe tell anecdotes etc. there was a very entertaining program recently about Jim Clark which was full of entertaining tributes to the man from various important figures from the racing world - it was highly entertaining.
Last edited by col, .
didn't you read my post?
I said MANY, not ALL.
Please stop misrepresenting me.
FWIW, if a hollywood movie uses footage of real death. or events that caused real death, then its hard to justify. I would label films with that sort of content to have questionable taste.
Most of the ones I've seen like that are dodgy jingoistic propaganda anyway.
F&*k me, there you go putting words in my mouth AGAIN.
Where the hell did I say anything about Waltz with Bashir, Savior, and Saving Private Ryan ?
Wow, you don't even understand the meaning of a simple word like 'entertain'
Why do I even bother.
entertain:
1. to hold the attention of pleasantly or agreeably; divert; amuse.
So If you watch a serious, thought provoking film and come out saying, "that was a great film", then you have been entertained (your attention has been held agreeably).
It seems like you think it has to be comedy or in some way lightweight before its entertainment???
No it isn't
That is a weak and inappropriate analogy
go look up a definition of 'entertain'.
If you watch a tribute, and it grips you, and you are emotionally moved by it then you have been entertained.
well, that proves that you don't know the full meaning of the word
What you seem to be saying is that if a person expresses any sympathy or empathy for another person (e.g. family/friend of deceased), then they are 'so far up their own backside...'.
I guess that makes you a sociopath, and that you look down on and ridicule anyone who is not a sociopath like you?
It is still distasteful and unnecessary (therefor disrespectful).
There you go again. You think that asking people to respect the families of the deceased is bullshit ?
You truly are inhumane.
Except it is morally questionable.
And your argument against that seems to be made up mostly of statements suggesting that respecting the feelings of others is wrong.
So you're argument (simplified) is : Morality sucks, so these videos are a good thing.
Do you see the problem there?
Your argument is a logical fallacy.
you're trying to use the refusal to accept the need for morality to defend the morality of something.
No-one is going to stop you watching the videos, just don't pretend that they are educational or that they are not offensive and disrespectful.
There is no death or gore in Schindlers list or any war movies, only simulated death and gore. And in the context of this discussion, that is a crucial distinction.
Of course, there is also the fact that many war films have questionable morals. Many glorify war and glorify death. Others were made for propaganda and to help persuade young impressionable men to enlist.
==========================================
Those things may be true, but its impossible to know if they are from watching a video clip.
You need scientific analysis of crash debris. measurements , materials analysis from the walls, road, debris...
You would also need detailed information from the autopsy and doctors reports.
All these things would be necessary to know if what you just said is true or not - You get NONE of that information from a video clip.
This is an absurd statement.
You need detailed technical data (both medical and mechanical) to know how the crash caused his death.
What you are basically saying is that we don't need technical information because we have other knowledge that has been obtained by using (the same) technical information that you say we don't need...
I detect a sparkling intellect at work!
(that's sarcasm BTW in case you don't realise)
(If it was possible to get enough info from a video replay of a crash, then the commentators and viewers etc at the time would have known immediately after the crash, not only that Senna had died, but exactly what had caused his death. I was watching it live on TV. Until news came in from the medical centre, all we knew was that there had been a serious crash.)
that's like saying.
Films are not entertainament, its called a film.
or
Documentaries are not entertainament, its called a documentary.
...
If people are entertained, its entertainment.
The OP is clearly trying to present a tribute (misguided IMO) that also entertains people. This is clear from his posts explaining that he didn't want to use a narrative dialog.
Anyway, why the hell can't a tribute be entertaining ?
I've seen plenty of respectful tasteful tributes that are highly entertaining.
In your opinion maybe. lol. fortunately I don't rate your opinion.
Last edited by col, .
LOL of course not, what a pathetic attempt to twist my words.
But anyone who broadcasts it or posts it without a valid reason in a respectful context is guilty of being offensive to family, friends and probably some fans of Sennas.
As to your other point, what a load of crap that is.
Without detailed statistics and technical information, there is no way of really learning anything about the relative levels of safety in motorsports. You're not going to learn anything from these films that you don't already know. So they are redundant in every way other than as a form of shallow distasteful entertainment.
write some letters. explain what you are trying to do.
If you can get an interview with someone, make a short film with one interview about one driver. If you are talented and clever, you could make that way more powerful and 'real' than any compilation of fatal crashes. At the end you could dedicate it to all drivers that have been killed.
Sounds like you either have not much imagination, or not much talent ?
Film making is not just about patching clips together and editing. That's the easy bit. (but then, If you are a student of film, you know that already)
If you do films in the style of existing sensationalist films that use horrific footage to entertain people, then so what, it doesn't make your stuff any more or less ethically sound.
which is more artistically satisfying to you? : make one person really think and change their views, or entertain and titilate thousands without really changing anything?
Its easy to make someone cry, but not to make someone think.
which is exactly my point -- people go to youtube for cheap thrills and shallow entertainment.
If you are giving them 'what they want' with fatal crash footage, that is disrespectful to the dead drivers and offensive particularly to their relatives.
yes
I doubt it as well. On the other hand, a talented film maker with a passion for motor racing and a real understanding of ideas like respect and sensitivity could produce something more moving and with much more lasting impact.
Horses for courses
If you have the attention span of a goldfish.
Personally, I think subjects with the gravity of this one demand more respect. And you should have more respect for your audience.
If you produce a film with words, and its good, people will watch.
The reason most stuff on youtube isnt like that is because it is DIFFICULT to do well, not because it isn't powerful or worthwhile.
If you think 'History Channel ripoffs' are no good, do it better!, back yourself rather than chickening out with a bunch of excuses.
sorry boss, didn't know there were special rules.
and when you look back at this in a years time, you will likely think the same thing - amazing indeed.
oh, and please fix your above post where you have attributed a quote from Blueflame to me.
The 'oscars' context/analogy was presented by the OP not by me, and is appropriate.
So what you're saying is that these 'tributes' clean up and sanitize the reality to make it more palatable for the intended audience so that the true horror doesn't get in the way of their entertainment ?
Maybe you don't realize that that makes them worse. It removes any sliver of justification that there might have been for showing them.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG