Driving style is far more important than a setup.
4 laps is an eternity at AS5, just under 12 minutes. The only thing that changed was the driver.
Last edited by Forbin, .
That's easy: quit your job.
Practice more.
Last edited by Forbin, .
Don't be so dramatic. Nothing is being "flushed away."
You still have your set and, presumably, it will still suit you just fine. There is no reason someone else being able to download your set should change that.
---
The part about all this that leaves me incredulous is people used to share sets like crazy. It was considered courteous to send someone a set when asked. Assuming the set the requester had been using was absolute rubbish and the new one suited their driving style, it had the added benefit of providing closer racing. Everyone wins in that case.
Last edited by Forbin, .
Encryption isn't magic. You need to decrypt the data to use it. Encrypted data is practically indistinguishable from garbage.
Among a variety of other factors, that's how CoRe won the GT2 class in the 2008 MoE 24HR @ AS5 ahead of Mercury, arguably the GT2 class favorite for that race. They were faster, but we had a smooth setup and, most importantly, smooth drivers who could eke out those few extra laps from the tyres and maintain good pace.
Another, very fast but less smooth driver on the same team with the same setup popped a tire 4 laps before the smoother drivers would have pit.
Regarding teams tending towards a similar strategy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithms
Last edited by Forbin, .
I'm sure we can both agree that's a massive oversimplification, to the point of absurdity.
+/- 10kN/m on a spring isn't going to have nearly the same effect on lap times as +/- 1 degree of wing angle, and the latter is much easier to optimize, particularly on an oval. The former is much more nebulous and subjective.
Do you not think everyone will tend towards the same, optimal strategies over time anyway? Even without having the same setup, teams tend to watch what the winning teams do and attempt to emulate them.
Last edited by Forbin, .
I stand corrected.
Evidence? Even if they did gain an advantage, was it enough to finish ahead of the person/people from which the setup was taken?
You already have the exact same car, just not necessarily the same settings. That's the beauty of sim racing. No (or at least very limited) unfair advantages from funds disparity resulting in objectively superior equipment (e.g. more power).
Even coming from someone who spent hours upon hours making setups over the years, I think you're tremendously overstating the importance of a good setup. It can help, but it's no replacement for good driving/racing skills.
People did, constantly, many years ago. It seems the culture has changed.
Last edited by Forbin, .
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand cryptography.
"Long" is subjective. All known encryption methods can be broken given sufficient time and processing power. As CPU power increases and time to crack decreases, we just move on to the next harder method (md5 was tremendously ubiquitous, then it was cracked and SHA was adopted in its place).
The reason we do not immediately adopt tremendously complex methods is all encryption and decryption requires CPU time. So, you don't want it to be too fast (too easy to crack), but you also don't want it to be too slow (too impractical).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
I just don't see the big deal. Setups are often very personal. There is no guarantee one created by a particular driver will suit another driver's style, so it's possible a setup-stealer is just shooting them self in the foot.
Do people really think they gain that much of an advantage from having exclusive, secret setups?
(Side note: This is much the same argument against fixed setups. The fixed setup is likely to favor one particular driver over another, with no recourse for the driver the setup does not suit.)
Last edited by Forbin, .
I've given out my setup ahead of a league race, one I worked quite hard on and was quite possibly the best I had ever created. My primary competitor used it, in addition to many others.
I still won, but in addition to that, I got a close race that was a lot of fun. What's your problem?
Last edited by Forbin, .
You may already know or it will probably will come up in your research, but just in case:
The red and cyan lenses have different focal lengths which are not compensated for with plain paper style anaglyph glasses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A ... asses_for_red-cyan_method
Last edited by Forbin, .
I must have held my breath the whole race, and then lol'ed at those two. MotoGP at its best.
It sounds like you prefer iRacing's "safety first" mantra, so why don't you stick with that?
That's an effect of short, public races. League races are generally longer and don't see that with nearly the same frequency for reasons Gutholz stated: public races are generally very short and the penalty for crashing on lap 1 T1 is erased as soon as the next race starts. In a league, crashing people out on T1 repeatedly will get you kicked out of the league.
Not so. There are typically two long straights both before and after the chicane, so slowing down to safe speeds for it costs you a ton of time.
LFS's chicanes are just really poorly designed.
Who made you race marshal? People are going to do whatever they can to get an advantage. That is what racing is about, not trundling about making sure you don't crash. The racing line is merely the fastest line. It is not restricted by your notions of what a "proper" racing line is.
If you're 13s per lap slower than someone, that's not your setup slowing you down. It's you. A good setup suited to your driving style should be worth 2 or 3 seconds per lap, tops.
By virtue of being a sim and not real life, you don't have the real-life constraint of money. Everything you do in real life racing takes a huge amount of money.
During a motorbike club racing weekend, I spend ~$600 USD between entry fees, fuel, and wear items. If I crash, that number skyrockets.
Setup restrictions in real life are merely a way of reducing this cost, because spending the time to develop a setup costs real money, and whomever has the most money has the most time to develop a setup. Likewise with limitations on testing.
Not so in a sim. It's merely down to who has the most free time, which as already stated, benefits those who have the most regardless of whether you restrict setups or not. This is because it is impossible to restrict testing. Restrictions on testing have been show to benefit those are most experienced anyway. I'm sure the same is true for setup restrictions: experienced drivers know how to drive around the limitations of a particular setup, while others struggle. A custom setup would allow a less experienced driver to have a car that masks some of their deficiencies.
Last edited by Forbin, .
Both your points have been discussed and debated to death.
Suggested improvements log [READ before making a new thread]
General features:
+ Fixed / server side forced setups: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=38038
Damage and malfunction:
+ Wheel-to-wheel crash physics (open-wheelers)
+ Engines can stall
+ Parts that fall off when crashing
+ Tire damage from debris
+ Oil spills
+ Engine heat and damage:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=2163
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=1886
+ Perforation of fuel tanks during crashes
+ Tyres blow during crashes
+ Simulate undertray / diffuser damage
+ Broken mirrors: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=19992
+ Clutch overheating
... Brake overheating
... Brake temperature and wear
---
Long story short, fast drivers will always be faster than you, regardless of how much you try to artificially level the playing field. Merely by virtue of being a sim, it's already about as purely level as possible.
If another driver's advantage is largely based upon the amount of free time available to them, restricting setups just means they'll have that much more time to practice rather than developing a setup.
The only way you're going to get better racing is by practicing and getting better and faster.
Suggested improvements log [READ before making a new thread]
General features:
+ Fixed / server side forced setups: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=38038
Damage and malfunction:
+ Wheel-to-wheel crash physics (open-wheelers)
+ Engines can stall
+ Parts that fall off when crashing
+ Tire damage from debris
+ Oil spills
+ Engine heat and damage:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=2163
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=1886
+ Perforation of fuel tanks during crashes
+ Tyres blow during crashes
+ Simulate undertray / diffuser damage
+ Broken mirrors: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=19992
+ Clutch overheating
... Brake overheating
... Brake temperature and wear
---
Long story short, fast drivers will always be faster than you, regardless of how much you try to artificially level the playing field. Merely by virtue of being a sim, it's already about as purely level as possible.
If another driver's advantage is largely based upon the amount of free time available to them, restricting setups just means they'll have that much more time to practice rather than developing a setup.
The only way you're going to get better racing is by practicing and getting better and faster.
Last edited by Forbin, .
We had a perfect example of this on the CoRe Racing GT2 Team for the 2008 MoE 24HR @ AS5. We had one driver who didn't seem to understand the concept of smooth. They turned some really fast laps, but chewed up the tires badly as a result. ~4 laps before our top smooth drivers would have pit, they popped a tire and cost us all the time they gained and then some.
I played WT for a bit, but got tired of the usual F2P pay/grind-wall unlock junk.
I recently subbed to Aces High 2, a much older and graphically dated game with much better physics (sound familiar?
), larger-scale battles, and a persistent war zone (no instancing as in WT). There is only one flight model, rather than WT's arcade and sim.
There are some planes you need to "unlock" with Perk points, but they're the truly dominant planes and rarely seen. The reason is simple: it takes a while to get a sufficient quantity of Perk points to spend on a Perk plane/vehicle/boat, and if you make it back to base, you get them back. If you get shot down, you lose the Perk points you spent.
There are a number of planes of similar variety to WT, with some models having more variants and others having fewer. There are also a number of ground vehicles (tanks, anti-aircraft, personnel) and boats (patrol and amphibious). Some maps include a carrier group that has a limited number of planes that can take off from the carrier, but which can bombard a coastal base from the water.
I recently subbed to Aces High 2, a much older and graphically dated game with much better physics (sound familiar?
), larger-scale battles, and a persistent war zone (no instancing as in WT). There is only one flight model, rather than WT's arcade and sim.There are some planes you need to "unlock" with Perk points, but they're the truly dominant planes and rarely seen. The reason is simple: it takes a while to get a sufficient quantity of Perk points to spend on a Perk plane/vehicle/boat, and if you make it back to base, you get them back. If you get shot down, you lose the Perk points you spent.
There are a number of planes of similar variety to WT, with some models having more variants and others having fewer. There are also a number of ground vehicles (tanks, anti-aircraft, personnel) and boats (patrol and amphibious). Some maps include a carrier group that has a limited number of planes that can take off from the carrier, but which can bombard a coastal base from the water.
No, it's not okay, but it also doesn't have the same history of centuries of oppression behind it that other slurs do. Likewise, someone calling you a slur doesn't make it okay for you to call them one.
To be fair, you could probably do the same thing in a 250hp FOX at Lime Rock with LFS physics, except the tires would really start to overheat and lose grip after half a lap.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG