I know it sounds daft, but I would really love to see the current season's F1 drivers race each other in karts - just once!
I mean, if they were ever to organise something like that, maybe as a charity event, I'd certainly pay-per-view to see it.
Plenty of thrills and spills, and no more "yeah well, he always wins 'cos he's got the best car", talk.
I mean, if they were ever to organise something like that, maybe as a charity event, I'd certainly pay-per-view to see it.
Plenty of thrills and spills, and no more "yeah well, he always wins 'cos he's got the best car", talk.
Last edited by dungbeetle, .
Yeah.
In a way, I guess that's what they're trying to achieve. Keep the technological development in check, so it's mostly down to driver skill.
But that's what I meant when I said I thought Formula 1 was self defeating.
What's the point of having all this technological innovation and design, if they're gonna strangle it with the rules anyway?
Do you want a manufacturer's technology race, so we can see who can produce the quickest car, or do you want drivers in equal machinery, so we can see who's the best driver?
Make your minds up, FIA!
I think, in a way, F1 is self defeating.
It's supposed to represent the pinnacle of motor racing technology and innovation.
The manufacturers constantly struggle to come up with new and better technologies to make their cars go faster.
The problem is, they're too good at it, and so the 'Formula' is there specifically to restrict what they're allowed to do. Maybe for safety reasons (cars are too fast for the tracks) or maybe to make sure no one gets too far ahead and trounces everyone else (boring racing) - who knows, maybe a bit of both.
For example, manufacturers could easily make their cars much lighter and could provide them with much more downforce, both enabling them to go much faster - but they're not allowed to.
So then it becomes a question of what they can do within the rules, as the rules gradually become more and more restrictive.
This leaves manufacturers with a very small window in which to work, which naturally results in cars that are all very similar in performance.
So, is it any wonder that there's not much overtaking going on, save for mechanical failure or driver error?
It's supposed to represent the pinnacle of motor racing technology and innovation.
The manufacturers constantly struggle to come up with new and better technologies to make their cars go faster.
The problem is, they're too good at it, and so the 'Formula' is there specifically to restrict what they're allowed to do. Maybe for safety reasons (cars are too fast for the tracks) or maybe to make sure no one gets too far ahead and trounces everyone else (boring racing) - who knows, maybe a bit of both.
For example, manufacturers could easily make their cars much lighter and could provide them with much more downforce, both enabling them to go much faster - but they're not allowed to.
So then it becomes a question of what they can do within the rules, as the rules gradually become more and more restrictive.
This leaves manufacturers with a very small window in which to work, which naturally results in cars that are all very similar in performance.
So, is it any wonder that there's not much overtaking going on, save for mechanical failure or driver error?
Last edited by dungbeetle, .
"- The driver may adjust the front wing flaps from the cockpit twice a lap by an angle of a maximum 6 degrees."
Oh, for goodness sake!
Oh, for goodness sake!
The FIA don't seem to have thought much about all the possible implications of the rules they have introduced here.
As it stands, the Q3 fuel rule encourages low speed returns to the pits and endangers drivers in the process.
Irrespective of the team and/or the driver(s) you happen to support, the result this morning was that certain drivers will not take their correct places on the grid tomorrow. Whether it was because their qualifying run was blocked or because they drove too slowly on the racing line, the problem was precipitated by the Q3 fuel rule.
Yes, it's disappointing that the McLarens have lost places and that Nick Heidfeld and Fernando Alonso lost the opportunity to qualify unimpaired, but more than that, a potential rear end shunt with a closing speed in excess of 100mph doesn't even bear thinking about.
It's a disaster waiting to happen and the FIA need to come up with a solution before Bahrain IMHO.
As it stands, the Q3 fuel rule encourages low speed returns to the pits and endangers drivers in the process.
Irrespective of the team and/or the driver(s) you happen to support, the result this morning was that certain drivers will not take their correct places on the grid tomorrow. Whether it was because their qualifying run was blocked or because they drove too slowly on the racing line, the problem was precipitated by the Q3 fuel rule.
Yes, it's disappointing that the McLarens have lost places and that Nick Heidfeld and Fernando Alonso lost the opportunity to qualify unimpaired, but more than that, a potential rear end shunt with a closing speed in excess of 100mph doesn't even bear thinking about.
It's a disaster waiting to happen and the FIA need to come up with a solution before Bahrain IMHO.
I can't remember how old I am, but I do remember having a 'nasty fall' the other day ...
... oh dear, that's not good is it?
... oh dear, that's not good is it?
Exciting racing, good camera work and excellent commentary.
Nice one!
Nice one!
Very good point.
At least in theory with the current system it's worth running the remaining races to see if someone else can catch up on points.
Not too sure about this:
"The F1 chief executive thinks the current system, ... often encourages title contenders to settle for lower places."
These guys are all fiercely competitive and it seems to me that if they can't get a win, then they at least want to beat the guy in front.
Take Kovalainen for example. I don't think he was climbing all over the back of Alonso in Melbourne just to get an extra point in the first race of the season. He just plain wanted to beat him, in spite of the fact that he'd already kissed second place goodbye because of the pace car. (Which, incidentally, all went extremely well until he hit the pit lane limiter button by mistake along the top straight just after overtaking Alonso - Doh! :doh:).
And no one took any prisoners in turn one either, did they? They weren't exactly testing the water first now they no longer have traction control.
Given the chance, these guys would go hell-for-leather the whole race if they could. It's only fuel and tyre restrictions that stop them.
Yes, strategically they might settle for lower points but I don't think it's in their nature to settle for lower places.
If they see a tailpipe in front, they wanna chase it.
"The F1 chief executive thinks the current system, ... often encourages title contenders to settle for lower places."
These guys are all fiercely competitive and it seems to me that if they can't get a win, then they at least want to beat the guy in front.
Take Kovalainen for example. I don't think he was climbing all over the back of Alonso in Melbourne just to get an extra point in the first race of the season. He just plain wanted to beat him, in spite of the fact that he'd already kissed second place goodbye because of the pace car. (Which, incidentally, all went extremely well until he hit the pit lane limiter button by mistake along the top straight just after overtaking Alonso - Doh! :doh:
).And no one took any prisoners in turn one either, did they? They weren't exactly testing the water first now they no longer have traction control.
Given the chance, these guys would go hell-for-leather the whole race if they could. It's only fuel and tyre restrictions that stop them.
Yes, strategically they might settle for lower points but I don't think it's in their nature to settle for lower places.
If they see a tailpipe in front, they wanna chase it.
LOL
[announcer] "... and now, as we go live to the driver's lounge ..."
"Hey, my two pair beats your three of a kind - gimme the trophy!"
Good point.
Maybe in the same way; by numbers of finishing positions?
e.g. Three 2nds and two 3rds beats two 2nds and three 3rds.
Hehe.
Hey, you don't just retire from a 'job' like that. It's made him a seriously wealthy man.
He's not daft. He'll be there 'till he falls off his pearch.
Agreed it wouldn't make sense to change for this season. Maybe he's thinking about next season.
How does the old points system differ?
Mr E's ideas for driver championship points
From News On F1 here:
http://newsonf1.net/2008/news/ ... dical_points_shakeup.html
Mar.16 (GMM) Bernie Ecclestone wants to push through a radical shake-up of the formula one points system for drivers.
The F1 chief executive thinks the current system, where drivers collect points depending on their race positions, does not properly reward winning and often encourages title contenders to settle for lower places.
"It is my intention to push this idea through in the coming weeks," Ecclestone, 77, confirmed to the Daily Mail.
His idea is to retain the current points system for the constructors' championship, but crown the driver who wins the most races in a season.
If two drivers are tied on wins, the champion will be the one with the most second places, according to Bernie's plan.
"Right now there are not enough overtaking manoeuvres in the sport because drivers are happy not to take risks and claim second place because it is only two points less than winning the race," he said.
Ecclestone is confident that his plan can be introduced.
"Well, I am the president of the F1 commission," he pointed out to the British newspaper.
http://newsonf1.net/2008/news/ ... dical_points_shakeup.html
Mar.16 (GMM) Bernie Ecclestone wants to push through a radical shake-up of the formula one points system for drivers.
The F1 chief executive thinks the current system, where drivers collect points depending on their race positions, does not properly reward winning and often encourages title contenders to settle for lower places.
"It is my intention to push this idea through in the coming weeks," Ecclestone, 77, confirmed to the Daily Mail.
His idea is to retain the current points system for the constructors' championship, but crown the driver who wins the most races in a season.
If two drivers are tied on wins, the champion will be the one with the most second places, according to Bernie's plan.
"Right now there are not enough overtaking manoeuvres in the sport because drivers are happy not to take risks and claim second place because it is only two points less than winning the race," he said.
Ecclestone is confident that his plan can be introduced.
"Well, I am the president of the F1 commission," he pointed out to the British newspaper.
No TC makes it so much more exciting - lots of twitchy cornering on the limit. Great stuff. Hammy seemed to be enjoying himself.
Can't wait to see how they cope in the race tomorrow while jockeying for position as well!
Also looking forward to the starts now without launch control.
Love the changes.
F1 just got real again.
Can't wait to see how they cope in the race tomorrow while jockeying for position as well!
Also looking forward to the starts now without launch control.
Love the changes.
F1 just got real again.
Well, I was over on the Virtual RC Racing forums many moons ago and the folks there were discussing the development of online multiplayer facilities for VRC. I think one poster mentioned how good online racing was on something called "LFS". Other folks agreed, but said that would be a while off yet for VRC, as LFS's online mode was probably one of the best there is.
Hmm, me thought, wonder what this "LFS" is all about then, and off I went to Google.
When I got to the LFS front page and hit a few links to find out more, I remember thinking, 'Wow, is this for real?'
I installed the demo. It went without a hitch.
I tried the demo offline with a gamepad (no wheel back then
) ... Hey, this looks good. It feels kinda 'real' and runs smooth too, even on my piddly machine.
Then I hit Multiplayer and zap! - a stream of active demo servers poured in faster than I could read them!
So I decide to find out more ...
Wanna run your own server? Go ahead, a few clicks and your up and running.
Wanna paint your car? No problemo - all skinnable Sunshine!
So how many people actually play this then? Off I go to LFSWorld. Woah! This is serious stuff. All the records, stats etc., EVERYTHING is here.
So what about the forums? Blimey, there's people from everywhere here! And just look at all the leagues and events.
And would Sir care to view a recent STCC event video? Yeah, go on then ... Ho-leeee Cow!
But hang on. It says here that this is only at Alpha stage!?
You gotta be kidding me, right?
Ah, just a minute though. Calm down. If I want to open up all the cars and all the tracks apparently I have to buy an "S2 Licence". I see. I thought so. Here's the kick. Brace yourself ... [clicks on link] ...... :jawdrop:
Hmm, me thought, wonder what this "LFS" is all about then, and off I went to Google.
When I got to the LFS front page and hit a few links to find out more, I remember thinking, 'Wow, is this for real?'
I installed the demo. It went without a hitch.
I tried the demo offline with a gamepad (no wheel back then
) ... Hey, this looks good. It feels kinda 'real' and runs smooth too, even on my piddly machine.Then I hit Multiplayer and zap! - a stream of active demo servers poured in faster than I could read them!
So I decide to find out more ...
Wanna run your own server? Go ahead, a few clicks and your up and running.
Wanna paint your car? No problemo - all skinnable Sunshine!
So how many people actually play this then? Off I go to LFSWorld. Woah! This is serious stuff. All the records, stats etc., EVERYTHING is here.
So what about the forums? Blimey, there's people from everywhere here! And just look at all the leagues and events.
And would Sir care to view a recent STCC event video? Yeah, go on then ... Ho-leeee Cow!
But hang on. It says here that this is only at Alpha stage!?
You gotta be kidding me, right?
Ah, just a minute though. Calm down. If I want to open up all the cars and all the tracks apparently I have to buy an "S2 Licence". I see. I thought so. Here's the kick. Brace yourself ... [clicks on link] ...... :jawdrop:
Hi guys
(danowat, I hope you don't mind if I ask a quick question here - I'll try not to pull things too far off topic!)
I was wondering how the two setups danowat describes in his OP would be expected to perform with LFS.
I won't bore you all with my tech. specs, but basically the only problem I seem to have with LFS is slowdown to around 15-20fps at the start of a race with a full grid - and especially off-line with bots. From what I've read on the forums here, this problem is not uncommon.
So my question is, how do youi think the two setups danowat describes would fair in this situation?
(danowat, I hope you don't mind if I ask a quick question here - I'll try not to pull things too far off topic!
)I was wondering how the two setups danowat describes in his OP would be expected to perform with LFS.
I won't bore you all with my tech. specs
, but basically the only problem I seem to have with LFS is slowdown to around 15-20fps at the start of a race with a full grid - and especially off-line with bots. From what I've read on the forums here, this problem is not uncommon.So my question is, how do youi think the two setups danowat describes would fair in this situation?
Many thanks for the replies guys.
Much appreciated.
Cheers
/d
Patch X33
I'm getting AIs that occasionally run out of fuel and burn out their clutches, but before I report anything here, I need to know how the whole pitstop/refuelling/resetting thing works in case it's my fault!
OK
When it's me and several bots racing together (as opposed to testing with just the bots running on their own):
1. Is there a way to force the AI cars to start with a certain amount of fuel before a race?
2. Is the amount of fuel the AI starts with influenced in any way by the amount of fuel I start with, and in particular, when I select that the AI should use the same setup as me?
3. Presumably I can only force one pitstop on the AI - any others would be down to them as and when they see fit?
4. When choosing a fuel/pitstop strategy, will all the bots have the same strategy, or might they vary at all? (They all seem to pit on the same lap at the moment).
5. If I allow resets, are the bots supposed to reset themselves when, for example, they burn their clutches out?
Any advice gratefully received.
Cheers
/d
I'm getting AIs that occasionally run out of fuel and burn out their clutches, but before I report anything here, I need to know how the whole pitstop/refuelling/resetting thing works in case it's my fault!
OK
When it's me and several bots racing together (as opposed to testing with just the bots running on their own):
1. Is there a way to force the AI cars to start with a certain amount of fuel before a race?
2. Is the amount of fuel the AI starts with influenced in any way by the amount of fuel I start with, and in particular, when I select that the AI should use the same setup as me?
3. Presumably I can only force one pitstop on the AI - any others would be down to them as and when they see fit?
4. When choosing a fuel/pitstop strategy, will all the bots have the same strategy, or might they vary at all? (They all seem to pit on the same lap at the moment).
5. If I allow resets, are the bots supposed to reset themselves when, for example, they burn their clutches out?
Any advice gratefully received.
Cheers
/d
Last edited by dungbeetle, .
Perhaps the answer lies in incorporating the various evolutionary changes and enhancements into server side options, like we already have for forced cockpit view. That way, the devs only have to produce one product, and that product has enough flexibility to suit all tastes.
Keep the various options in the game and let the players themselves decide how hard-core or casual they want it.
So, what is it in particular that you don't find fun any more, Fordman.
Sounds to me that it's prolly more than just the clutch thing, no?
Sounds to me that it's prolly more than just the clutch thing, no?
+1 for notes and folders
EDIT: Oh, and how 'bout a 'reset to default setup' button, for when you need to start from scratch and forgot to create a new file? Doh :doh:
EDIT: Oh, and how 'bout a 'reset to default setup' button, for when you need to start from scratch and forgot to create a new file? Doh :doh:
Last edited by dungbeetle, .
Reason : Just thought of another one!
Aah, OK. Thanks for the replies guys.
I think the first thing I'll check is V-sync.
It sounds like that could be the culprit.
Cheers
/d
I think the first thing I'll check is V-sync.
It sounds like that could be the culprit.
Cheers
/d
Well, you know, sometimes LFS is so good you just gotta let it out before you burst!
Plus, judging by the number of beales' posts to date, it looks like he still might be on his voyage of discovery with LFS.
Aaah yes, I remember when ..... oops - sorry... nearly went off on one myself then ...
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG