You could have 2 GT2 cars behind you racing and one GT1 car, but you've probably been racing with those GT2 cars at least long enough to notice what they look like and what they dont look like, so chances are if a car that doesnt look like the ones you've been racing with and a great big 'BLUE FLAG' message is sitting in the middle of your screen then you might wanna consider allowing it to overtake you whenever it can. You'll have GT2 cars lapping GT2 cars too, colour coding isnt really something you need, what you need is to know who your racing with and some common sense on the track and you'll be fine.
I gather teams cant run a GT1 class and a GT2 class car, so there wont be 2 cars that look near identical with completely different characteristics, and really you should be fully aware of who your racing against before the season starts, I still think colour trims round the car to distinguish them might make things easier, but thats for others to decide on, South City should be the only track where cars could sneak up on you due to often limited scope, but maps and 'blue flag' messages should be used by everyone.
For the class identification surely it needs to be something highly visable that isnt going to blend in with a teams natural livery, if you put the white & red GT1 ident on last seasons Ocrana skin it would just blend right in, when (apparently) it needs to be clearly visable from some distance away.
At least something like the attached would be very easy to spot on any car, and the 2 colours per class means teams shouldnt have schemes that blend with both colours (if they do, they should maybe rethink their choices
) so they'd use the one that was most visable and not the one that fitted in nicely with their skin colours.
I also think the rear edge of rear wing, or the whole underside of it, is also a great place to use this colour and it doesnt completely destroy the original look of a skin and the underside in particular is pretty easy to see from a distance back, as are wing mirror colours, and i think these small thing could do with being distinguishable with set colours because typically your (MoE's) chosen spot for slapping these marks of identification can be quite vulgar on some schemes (yes, i know your incoming argument) and trim colouring can usually be done without destroying a design while making it extremely visable for the rear view mirror.
2 colours per class makes more sense than 1, because that chosen colour could blend in too much with a teams natural scheme.
Better use of block colours in places less intrusive but still very noticable so they're spotted from some distance away. The use of text to clarify GT1 and GT2 shouldnt be needed after 10min in the car with others, but i guess theres no harm in it being there if its considered important to have it.
At least something like the attached would be very easy to spot on any car, and the 2 colours per class means teams shouldnt have schemes that blend with both colours (if they do, they should maybe rethink their choices
) so they'd use the one that was most visable and not the one that fitted in nicely with their skin colours.I also think the rear edge of rear wing, or the whole underside of it, is also a great place to use this colour and it doesnt completely destroy the original look of a skin and the underside in particular is pretty easy to see from a distance back, as are wing mirror colours, and i think these small thing could do with being distinguishable with set colours because typically your (MoE's) chosen spot for slapping these marks of identification can be quite vulgar on some schemes (yes, i know your incoming argument) and trim colouring can usually be done without destroying a design while making it extremely visable for the rear view mirror.
2 colours per class makes more sense than 1, because that chosen colour could blend in too much with a teams natural scheme.
Better use of block colours in places less intrusive but still very noticable so they're spotted from some distance away. The use of text to clarify GT1 and GT2 shouldnt be needed after 10min in the car with others, but i guess theres no harm in it being there if its considered important to have it.
If needed i'd put myself forward as a backup for server admin, i think on server #3 provided there isnt wasnt any conflict of interest considered there then i dont see why i couldnt offer to be the 4th Admin, 3 main then myself being available if need-be in the 3rd server where there is the least likelyhood for any 'conflict of interest' claims on any judgements made in there.
I might be doing round 1 myself so cant guarantee my role for that race, but from there onwards if need be then I should be able to, though obviously if non-participating members are willing to make up the numbers that'd be better for all concerned.
Im assuming at least one Fusion member will be present in the admin role at all times?
I might be doing round 1 myself so cant guarantee my role for that race, but from there onwards if need be then I should be able to, though obviously if non-participating members are willing to make up the numbers that'd be better for all concerned.
Im assuming at least one Fusion member will be present in the admin role at all times?
LOL
5th October 2006, 22:54
Cant say your not committed to answering any questions asked no matter how long ago they were asked!
Havent actually made use of the SDK for quite some time
, did our teams update for xmas and never got round to updating the SDK powered scripts (though i still plan to) but that should come in handy when i figure out what it might have been that I needed to do what i was asking about 
Cheers.
Hmm, thats quite cool, i'd never have thought that they'd get away with being able to do that, not in an against the rules way, but in a driver safety and physically being able to do it kinda way. Shame the video is a bit choppy for footage rather than whole laps or something, but nice eitherway.
ooookay, maybe its just me, but exactly what was the point of this test run??
i thought the idea of it was to iron out the issues with the tracker, however i noticed when i got home around midnight that night the screwed up results from the first test-run were still on the tracker and assumed nobody turned up. Instead it seems it was just a 'lets all qualify for the sake of it' session so no offense but im kinda glad i didnt came back early for it because
"here will be a Test Run this weekend. To ensure the problem with the LFS Tracker has been fixed."
certainly doesnt appear to have been the case.
i thought the idea of it was to iron out the issues with the tracker, however i noticed when i got home around midnight that night the screwed up results from the first test-run were still on the tracker and assumed nobody turned up. Instead it seems it was just a 'lets all qualify for the sake of it' session so no offense but im kinda glad i didnt came back early for it because
"here will be a Test Run this weekend. To ensure the problem with the LFS Tracker has been fixed."
certainly doesnt appear to have been the case.
But if the worst you could score was 130pts for coming last, and anyone disconnecting or leaving of their own accord scored half that (65pts) why would you??
You wouldnt need to yank the network cable to fake disconnection, you'd get half points whatever the problem. Thing is, if you can score twice as many points just by carrying on and finishing the race, not only would get get double the disconnection points but you may make a few more if anyone else is unfortunate enough to lose connection.
If you genuinely lose connection you dont get zero, you get half the worse possible score.
So the unlucky people as well as the quitters would neither get zero or the points they could get if they finished, however they would get something which is more than they'd currently get.
I just think it'll take one disconnection from one of the top teams and they'll instantly be out of the series and probably have a slim chance of being top 5 let alone being #1 and most likely because of a disconnection rather than someone deciding to quit the race.
Personally i feel giving out half the worst points that could be scored from that server is going to be minor enough that its not unfair on people in lower divisions who could have been in the next server up scoring more points, its minor enough that it doesnt kill a teams chances of finishing in an accurate position to their performance and yet its significant enough to be a good reason not to volunterily leave midway through the race because 130pts for your teams cause is far better than 65, likewise for 66/33 though in the 3rd server its pretty insignificant (2/1), but if your a 3rd server team then every point will count because those are the margins your dealing with.
It punishes quiters harshly, but for the unfortunate disconnections it doesnt kick them firmly in the knackers like a 0 does.
You wouldnt need to yank the network cable to fake disconnection, you'd get half points whatever the problem. Thing is, if you can score twice as many points just by carrying on and finishing the race, not only would get get double the disconnection points but you may make a few more if anyone else is unfortunate enough to lose connection.
If you genuinely lose connection you dont get zero, you get half the worse possible score.
So the unlucky people as well as the quitters would neither get zero or the points they could get if they finished, however they would get something which is more than they'd currently get.
I just think it'll take one disconnection from one of the top teams and they'll instantly be out of the series and probably have a slim chance of being top 5 let alone being #1 and most likely because of a disconnection rather than someone deciding to quit the race.
Personally i feel giving out half the worst points that could be scored from that server is going to be minor enough that its not unfair on people in lower divisions who could have been in the next server up scoring more points, its minor enough that it doesnt kill a teams chances of finishing in an accurate position to their performance and yet its significant enough to be a good reason not to volunterily leave midway through the race because 130pts for your teams cause is far better than 65, likewise for 66/33 though in the 3rd server its pretty insignificant (2/1), but if your a 3rd server team then every point will count because those are the margins your dealing with.
It punishes quiters harshly, but for the unfortunate disconnections it doesnt kick them firmly in the knackers like a 0 does.
As you dont make it clear what 'of course it should' is in reference, ive no idea what your commenting on.
Kaw, if you want to use LFSTweak, you have my permission!
Good look getting into the server though
Kaw, if you want to use LFSTweak, you have my permission!
Good look getting into the server though
Bump-Drafting should be outlawed, IMO at least, its just not racing and while it may be used in Nascar or similar, really it just doesnt happen, its not pleasent to watch and seeing it being abused to me is disappointing, but how do you enforce it?
2 wheels off the race track is racing, few series would punish for pushing the car in such a manner, however consistantly putting all 4 wheels on the grass and showing no real intention to do otherwise should result in punishment.
Disconnections, as i just mentioned in the scoring thread, maybe 50% of last place points should be awarded, its a deterrent to people deciding to leave during the race because they'd get half the points (or less) they would get if they stayed put, and anyone unlucky enough to be disconnected receives a minor consolation that doesnt punish the teams scoring too heavily.
Also agree completely with the comments about overtaking, both drivers should drive with caution, however the attacking driver is the one making the move, and it should be his responsibility to do so cleanly, obviously if the defending driver acts unfairly/unsportingly resulting in an incident then obviously its the defending drivers responsibility, they cant use this rule as an excuse to act unfairly and blame the attacker for not keeping it clean.
Last one, Submitting a complaint, i think that when a complaint is lodged against a driver, they should have the right to be informed of this and the opportunity to put their side of the story across. Agree that it should be kept out of public discussion, however i dont feel it is fair to be under review and have no right to defend yourself when the circumstances require it. If you view the incident, and consider it to be nonsense then you dont need to call the other driver in, however if your considering punishment the other party should have the ability to pass comment too.
I say this because if you pass an incident off as being no more than a racing accident/incident and the same thing happens again, with the other party feeling differently to how you felt about being on the receiving end of the same thing, then for one person to request punishment for something you've passed as being part and parcel of racing, it doesnt strike me as being fair. Nothing to do with payback, just different peoples interpretations and experience of an incident, each party should have a voice.
2 wheels off the race track is racing, few series would punish for pushing the car in such a manner, however consistantly putting all 4 wheels on the grass and showing no real intention to do otherwise should result in punishment.
Disconnections, as i just mentioned in the scoring thread, maybe 50% of last place points should be awarded, its a deterrent to people deciding to leave during the race because they'd get half the points (or less) they would get if they stayed put, and anyone unlucky enough to be disconnected receives a minor consolation that doesnt punish the teams scoring too heavily.
Also agree completely with the comments about overtaking, both drivers should drive with caution, however the attacking driver is the one making the move, and it should be his responsibility to do so cleanly, obviously if the defending driver acts unfairly/unsportingly resulting in an incident then obviously its the defending drivers responsibility, they cant use this rule as an excuse to act unfairly and blame the attacker for not keeping it clean.
Last one, Submitting a complaint, i think that when a complaint is lodged against a driver, they should have the right to be informed of this and the opportunity to put their side of the story across. Agree that it should be kept out of public discussion, however i dont feel it is fair to be under review and have no right to defend yourself when the circumstances require it. If you view the incident, and consider it to be nonsense then you dont need to call the other driver in, however if your considering punishment the other party should have the ability to pass comment too.
I say this because if you pass an incident off as being no more than a racing accident/incident and the same thing happens again, with the other party feeling differently to how you felt about being on the receiving end of the same thing, then for one person to request punishment for something you've passed as being part and parcel of racing, it doesnt strike me as being fair. Nothing to do with payback, just different peoples interpretations and experience of an incident, each party should have a voice.
Only thing i dont think is right is Svr1 last and Svr2 first getting the same points, it should be +2 for every place, no bonuses.
Im not a big fan of Bonus points unless they're fairly insignificant (as they are in the suggested scoring) so i have no arguements with that, however i still dont like the idea of the winner getting an extra 2 pts (+4) over 2nd, every position should be worth the same amount, why should there be an extra incentive for the win? Its a position just like every other IMO and if your not willing to challenge for an extra position and the resulting points then theres something not quite right there, and i hardly imagine an extra 2pts is going to be the dealbreaker that the cautious people say f*ck it im going for that extra 2pts!!!
Also, it might be an unpopular comment, im not entirely fond of the idea, but non-finishers, do they get 0pts? Cos really one non-finish thats totally out of your hands and you've got one hell of a problem clawing yourself back to more suitable surroundings. Whatever your teams 'level' scoring zero instead of the more likely amount is going to be an increadably heavy punishment for something out of your hands, and whether your fighting for top 5, mid-table or not last, to effectively lose half a race worth of points (2 drivers, 1 disco = half) is going to have a huge impact.
I dont think people who cant be arsed finishing a race deserve to ever take part in another round, let alone not score points, so i can appreciate there should be a reason not to say f*ck it and leave the server instead of completeing the race, however at the same time the punishment for losing connection is quite heavy.
Maybe they could receive half the points for last in that server, ie 65/33/1 so while you still lose out a lot, it isnt as heavy a penalty as it would be, and the people who decide to leave of their own doing also get significantly less points than they would if they carried on with the race.
Im only thinking in terms of what would happen if a driver did unfortunately disconnect and the best interest of close racing both in the servers and in the standings.
Im not a big fan of Bonus points unless they're fairly insignificant (as they are in the suggested scoring) so i have no arguements with that, however i still dont like the idea of the winner getting an extra 2 pts (+4) over 2nd, every position should be worth the same amount, why should there be an extra incentive for the win? Its a position just like every other IMO and if your not willing to challenge for an extra position and the resulting points then theres something not quite right there, and i hardly imagine an extra 2pts is going to be the dealbreaker that the cautious people say f*ck it im going for that extra 2pts!!!
Also, it might be an unpopular comment, im not entirely fond of the idea, but non-finishers, do they get 0pts? Cos really one non-finish thats totally out of your hands and you've got one hell of a problem clawing yourself back to more suitable surroundings. Whatever your teams 'level' scoring zero instead of the more likely amount is going to be an increadably heavy punishment for something out of your hands, and whether your fighting for top 5, mid-table or not last, to effectively lose half a race worth of points (2 drivers, 1 disco = half) is going to have a huge impact.
I dont think people who cant be arsed finishing a race deserve to ever take part in another round, let alone not score points, so i can appreciate there should be a reason not to say f*ck it and leave the server instead of completeing the race, however at the same time the punishment for losing connection is quite heavy.
Maybe they could receive half the points for last in that server, ie 65/33/1 so while you still lose out a lot, it isnt as heavy a penalty as it would be, and the people who decide to leave of their own doing also get significantly less points than they would if they carried on with the race.
Im only thinking in terms of what would happen if a driver did unfortunately disconnect and the best interest of close racing both in the servers and in the standings.
IMO no team with less than 6 drivers should be allowed in this series, you need to be able to commit 4 people to each round and if you cant even start the season with 4 then it really isnt a good sign is it.
Noooooo, not the bloody 50 laps rule yet again!??
Why cant we just have X minutes of racing rounded to the nearest 5th lap??
If its 48 laps round it up to 50 etc, it just doesnt make sense having 50 laps at every single track when last season we had a 40min opening race and round 6 (GTR one) was about 2hr 10min which is just barmy IMO.
IMO 75min should be reasonable, means everything should be finished within 2hrs of the start of the event provided there arent big server/lag issues etc
hmm, todays top tip, hit the 'post' button, dont go to bed and then wake up to find it hasnt been posted
Why cant we just have X minutes of racing rounded to the nearest 5th lap??
If its 48 laps round it up to 50 etc, it just doesnt make sense having 50 laps at every single track when last season we had a 40min opening race and round 6 (GTR one) was about 2hr 10min which is just barmy IMO.
IMO 75min should be reasonable, means everything should be finished within 2hrs of the start of the event provided there arent big server/lag issues etc
hmm, todays top tip, hit the 'post' button, dont go to bed and then wake up to find it hasnt been posted
i'll try and join in with this, however its awfully short notice to get any sort of numbers to attend, but i guess if all you need is a test run for the tracker it doesnt matter too much how it goes.
If im here then i'll pester a couple of others to pop in for a bit too.
Any news of what car/track combo? I might need to practice to be within 2-5sec of 2nd to last place
If im here then i'll pester a couple of others to pop in for a bit too.
Any news of what car/track combo? I might need to practice to be within 2-5sec of 2nd to last place
I also wanted to add what i see Mr Pio has added, can we also introduce a 90% race distance rule in order to score, for disconnections as well as people deciding they cant be arsed taking part and instead of parking the car in the pitlane and then crossing the line when the race is over just so they can score points.
Either you take part or go home!
Also theres still a few things that are vague in the rules, things like the cutting, its all good and well saying no cutting to save time, but exactly what is your definition of cutting? touching a blade of grass, all 4 wheels off the track intentionally, is it to be applied to repetitive cutting or every single time its done???
These sort of things need to be put down in black and white, giving no room for individual interpretation which ends up with differing opinions on what is and isnt acceptable.
Yellow flags & no overtaking isnt going to be an easy one to rule on either, its described a little grey to start with, and then you also have the issue of irratic appearances of the yellow warning and the fact that most people see it as just a driving aid to warn you of whats coming up, screw slowing down and observing the caution, its little more than a 'hazard ahead' warning and its going to be pretty tough to curb peoples typical reaction to these messages.
Either you take part or go home!
Also theres still a few things that are vague in the rules, things like the cutting, its all good and well saying no cutting to save time, but exactly what is your definition of cutting? touching a blade of grass, all 4 wheels off the track intentionally, is it to be applied to repetitive cutting or every single time its done???
These sort of things need to be put down in black and white, giving no room for individual interpretation which ends up with differing opinions on what is and isnt acceptable.
Yellow flags & no overtaking isnt going to be an easy one to rule on either, its described a little grey to start with, and then you also have the issue of irratic appearances of the yellow warning and the fact that most people see it as just a driving aid to warn you of whats coming up, screw slowing down and observing the caution, its little more than a 'hazard ahead' warning and its going to be pretty tough to curb peoples typical reaction to these messages.
I MSN'd Arrow about this the other week, the original idea of having multiple race rounds and endurance rounds seems to have vanished in favour of the previous 1 race for 100min which is pretty much a done race after the opening 30min.
Still, hopefully it will be entertaining eitherway.
Still, hopefully it will be entertaining eitherway.
Fact of the matter is that its got nothing to do with being able to drive it, its got to do with the fact that theres absolutely no balance between the 2 packs of cars, it might as well be XRG and UF1
If you dont want to be forced into driving a specific car, then stop bloody whining about the fact that people are suggesting that a more EQUAL alternative is found, rather than whining about the fact that the car you clearly seem to favour happens to have a rather unfair 0.6sec advantage over the alternative.
If the combo stayed as originally suggested then it WOULD have been a 99% XRG race, so much for whining about forcing people into one specific car.
Why cant people see past their own selfish wants and see something that actually benefits the racing?? Is it too much to ask to actually think about reasons why something is changed?
You werent the only one, not sure if i said so in here or on our team forum that its a sucky combo.
BL1R is cool, more of a fan of the Original, its like the F1 season not visiting Monaco, V8s not going to Bathurst, and Nascar not (boring the hell out of most race fans
) having Daytona. BL1 is LFS through and through.But BL1R sounds good, and while someone mentioned it'd need rules for the chicane at the end of the lap, i dunno about that, its racing you both need to use common sense, but whenever ive raced there with a large number of racers i've still rarely seen let alone been involved in such an incident. Common sense and race awareness is all thats needed.
I think Club is just a little too dull, theres only really 3 corners to the track and they're seperated by flat out stretches so there isnt much of a challenge. BL is just more demanding with a good mix of corners in there.
Make this the last race of the season, stop filling slots when people drop out until you hit 45 teams, its only 3 teams that need to drop out, and stick to 30 per server for the entire season.
We've already seen 2 teams pull out IIRC, and considering we have a while till the season starts i'd be willing to bet that we'll lose another 4 of the 45 teams already entered and approved.
I also agree its not fair to refuse people the opportunity to race because of an oversight in planning, just stop replacing teams that quit until its at 45, you dont have to fill every slot just because you can.
We've already seen 2 teams pull out IIRC, and considering we have a while till the season starts i'd be willing to bet that we'll lose another 4 of the 45 teams already entered and approved.
I also agree its not fair to refuse people the opportunity to race because of an oversight in planning, just stop replacing teams that quit until its at 45, you dont have to fill every slot just because you can.
Hello people, I am ZWR *pretending* to be PaulC2K, tis true!
We say UF1000 season starts today, YAY!!!!
Any ZWR members saying otherwise are imposters!!
We say UF1000 season starts today, YAY!!!!
Any ZWR members saying otherwise are imposters!!
I really dont get the fascination of forcing people to drive a slower car round there. Whatever car you have the best chance of doing well should be the car you race, If they'll supposedly even themselves out over a race then whats the problem? people will pick what they prefer surely.
Qualifying has no reflection on tyre wear and doesnt show consistancy only the result of 1 lap. The XRG will always rule that race, so the XRG will easily dominate the top end of the qualifying meaning the few (forced) XFG's in the top race get to race with a ton of XRGs and the remaining XFGs that could have done well in the race where *supposedly* its balanced out but they cant cos they're in the lower server.
And as for doing it based on both drivers, wtf would we want to do that for?
Surely the best race should be had by the best 30 (or whatever) drivers not the best 15+ combined scores and hauling drivers with a not so hauling teammate get dragged down because some people thing forcing their teammate to drive the slower car is a genius idea??
Switch the tracks for the love of god, put it onto a track where its fair without telling people what to drive.
GTR's at Blackwood is a bit tight for 17 cars in MoE let alone 30 or whatever the new limit is, they would be better suited to a larger track like KY GP Long or an Aston track where they're slightly spread out but will still see plenty of action instead of needing to be lapping a backmarker every other corner.
Qualifying has no reflection on tyre wear and doesnt show consistancy only the result of 1 lap. The XRG will always rule that race, so the XRG will easily dominate the top end of the qualifying meaning the few (forced) XFG's in the top race get to race with a ton of XRGs and the remaining XFGs that could have done well in the race where *supposedly* its balanced out but they cant cos they're in the lower server.
And as for doing it based on both drivers, wtf would we want to do that for?
Surely the best race should be had by the best 30 (or whatever) drivers not the best 15+ combined scores and hauling drivers with a not so hauling teammate get dragged down because some people thing forcing their teammate to drive the slower car is a genius idea??
Switch the tracks for the love of god, put it onto a track where its fair without telling people what to drive.
GTR's at Blackwood is a bit tight for 17 cars in MoE let alone 30 or whatever the new limit is, they would be better suited to a larger track like KY GP Long or an Aston track where they're slightly spread out but will still see plenty of action instead of needing to be lapping a backmarker every other corner.
of course it can, dont be a numpty 
Everyone drives the car they're fastest in, thats the most equal way of doing it if this track is kept.
Forcing teams to put one driver in each car means 45 equals in XRG and 45 equals in XFG, and they'll overlap in somewhere along the way.
Its like having one driver do XRG and the other doing XRG+50kg penalty, your forcing one of the 2 drivers to be slower than they could be, how does that become fair, just because your screwing 44 other teams drivers doesnt make it fair.
Its backwards logic, penalising teams that can (and would) field 2 XRG's to fix the fact that this track is crap for these 2 cars.
Everyone drives the car they're fastest in, thats the most equal way of doing it if this track is kept.
Forcing teams to put one driver in each car means 45 equals in XRG and 45 equals in XFG, and they'll overlap in somewhere along the way.
Its like having one driver do XRG and the other doing XRG+50kg penalty, your forcing one of the 2 drivers to be slower than they could be, how does that become fair, just because your screwing 44 other teams drivers doesnt make it fair.
Its backwards logic, penalising teams that can (and would) field 2 XRG's to fix the fact that this track is crap for these 2 cars.
As I said to Mr Jones and the Bagbag kid last night:
Why punish a teammate and make them drive the XRG?
Its just mean and spiteful
If you force 50/50 (or 2 of the 3 for the 3-car races like TBO) then sure it means mixed fields, but it means the XFG driver is guaranteed shit results. As much as i'd rather have this as an XFG only round or a more suitable track, I think it should be left as it is, forcing people to drive a crap car is stupid, you might as well do it with all rounds, FOX and UF1, FO8 and LX4.... force half the drivers to drive something they cannot be competitive with for the sake of satisfying the needs of a few people who want to force people into driving a slower car than the other half of the field, we might as well make it 2 class racing, have 1 car running GT1 the other GT2... its stupid.
You have 2 drivers, let them pick what car suits them from the list of allowed cars, why penalise one driver because the track chosen wasnt very clever and is so bias towards one car that 95% of the field is running it.
THAT is the problem, if anything should be looked at its the venue not balancing or forcing people into crap slower cars. You'd have to be one hell of a quick driver to get the XFG into a decent race finishing position (ie top 15) but if they can do that with the XFG then surely they'd kick lumps out of everyone else in XRG, so why cant they be in the XRG and have competitive racing? I thought that was one of the cool things about having 90 drivers racing as equals, penalising half of them so they're effectively half a sec slower per lap isnt what i'd call being an equal to the other half.
Why punish a teammate and make them drive the XRG?
Its just mean and spiteful
If you force 50/50 (or 2 of the 3 for the 3-car races like TBO) then sure it means mixed fields, but it means the XFG driver is guaranteed shit results. As much as i'd rather have this as an XFG only round or a more suitable track, I think it should be left as it is, forcing people to drive a crap car is stupid, you might as well do it with all rounds, FOX and UF1, FO8 and LX4.... force half the drivers to drive something they cannot be competitive with for the sake of satisfying the needs of a few people who want to force people into driving a slower car than the other half of the field, we might as well make it 2 class racing, have 1 car running GT1 the other GT2... its stupid.
You have 2 drivers, let them pick what car suits them from the list of allowed cars, why penalise one driver because the track chosen wasnt very clever and is so bias towards one car that 95% of the field is running it.
THAT is the problem, if anything should be looked at its the venue not balancing or forcing people into crap slower cars. You'd have to be one hell of a quick driver to get the XFG into a decent race finishing position (ie top 15) but if they can do that with the XFG then surely they'd kick lumps out of everyone else in XRG, so why cant they be in the XRG and have competitive racing? I thought that was one of the cool things about having 90 drivers racing as equals, penalising half of them so they're effectively half a sec slower per lap isnt what i'd call being an equal to the other half.
I'd still argue that regardless of the time they can do the XRG is still considerably faster in a straight line, and for that reason alone it makes it so simple to overtake the XFG, theres no skill or technique required and its undefendable unless you cheat by weaving round like a loser.
The XFG has to do something in order to get past the XRG, and the passing will only take place in the infield section of this track which assumes that the XFG is able to close the gap the XRG has created by being considerably faster on the boringly long straight, which is 90% of the oval, (it basically misses out 1 corner http://www.mercuryracingteam.c ... p?venue=KY&config=KY1) and the HLVC times for these 2 cars are:
XFG: 56.960
XRG: 54.960
So basically the XRG has about 1.5sec gain (being generous to counter any loss/gain in accelerating and braking between the 2 cars) in a straight line section of the track over the XFG! If you can re-coup that in the rest of the track then as soon as the in-field is finished you've lost them all over again.
An XFG in a field of XRG's stands no chance, you'd be passed by 1 or 2 if they were close enough (ie 1.5sec behind you!!) but you'd never get past them by the end of the infield section, so you couldnt start that lap the same way you did the previous lap, meaning you have no chance of expecting to gain on them in future laps if what they make in the straight is more than you make in the infield.
In comparison to a track like Blackwood where in a race the XRG is still the faster car despite being slower on the hotlap (its gain down the straights and careful defensive driving helps it) you have a scrap between those 2 cars there, your not relying on someone to make a big enough mistake that you can gain a place from them, you want to be racing with them.
Its like holding the race at SO2 (sprint 1) and expecting the XRG's to be able to put up a fight against the XFG's, its an unfair fight and expecting anything different is just stupid. It doesnt make it a wrong decision to have a race there, it just makes it pointless to offer an uncompetitive car, and that was the whole point of this thread.
Personally i'd rather the multiple car rounds were balanced, whether thats done by a form of car balancing with weight & power restrictions or its done by using tracks that allow the cars to race fairly and evenly without arguements over unfair penalties (balancing) being put on a car.
It wouldnt bother me if it stayed as originally planned and everyone ran the XRG, though i'd prefer it XFG only or balanced. But that its being explored as a posibilty to level it out and make it more interesting, more open minded than saying 'take it or leave it' on an issue which doesnt penalise anyone leaving it how it is but actually makes the racing more interesting.
The XFG has to do something in order to get past the XRG, and the passing will only take place in the infield section of this track which assumes that the XFG is able to close the gap the XRG has created by being considerably faster on the boringly long straight, which is 90% of the oval, (it basically misses out 1 corner http://www.mercuryracingteam.c ... p?venue=KY&config=KY1) and the HLVC times for these 2 cars are:
XFG: 56.960
XRG: 54.960
So basically the XRG has about 1.5sec gain (being generous to counter any loss/gain in accelerating and braking between the 2 cars) in a straight line section of the track over the XFG! If you can re-coup that in the rest of the track then as soon as the in-field is finished you've lost them all over again.
An XFG in a field of XRG's stands no chance, you'd be passed by 1 or 2 if they were close enough (ie 1.5sec behind you!!) but you'd never get past them by the end of the infield section, so you couldnt start that lap the same way you did the previous lap, meaning you have no chance of expecting to gain on them in future laps if what they make in the straight is more than you make in the infield.
In comparison to a track like Blackwood where in a race the XRG is still the faster car despite being slower on the hotlap (its gain down the straights and careful defensive driving helps it) you have a scrap between those 2 cars there, your not relying on someone to make a big enough mistake that you can gain a place from them, you want to be racing with them.
Its like holding the race at SO2 (sprint 1) and expecting the XRG's to be able to put up a fight against the XFG's, its an unfair fight and expecting anything different is just stupid. It doesnt make it a wrong decision to have a race there, it just makes it pointless to offer an uncompetitive car, and that was the whole point of this thread.
Personally i'd rather the multiple car rounds were balanced, whether thats done by a form of car balancing with weight & power restrictions or its done by using tracks that allow the cars to race fairly and evenly without arguements over unfair penalties (balancing) being put on a car.
It wouldnt bother me if it stayed as originally planned and everyone ran the XRG, though i'd prefer it XFG only or balanced. But
that its being explored as a posibilty to level it out and make it more interesting, more open minded than saying 'take it or leave it' on an issue which doesnt penalise anyone leaving it how it is but actually makes the racing more interesting.Did you read past the first line??
I think you'll find that in the very first paragraph while saying that i didnt like the RWD cars and if i had it my way we'd never touch one, i ACTUALLY said that if thats the combo decided then its tough luck and you pick the car you want to pick, like it or lump it.
The same message was put into Paragraphs 5 and 6 (at least once) and i also talk about ALL the rounds too, not just one, because *I* took the time to check what i was commenting on and look at alternative tracks which could have been used just for this round which would certainly allow both cars to be used competitively without one being 0.6sec faster than the other (BL1, FE2 & WE1R were the 3 i was going to suggest but cut it from the post in the end because theres nothing wrong with running this race as it is, but its not an car vs car track, 1 car is forced upon you)
Take the time to read the last paragraph and let it sink in, then comment.
I think you'll find that in the very first paragraph while saying that i didnt like the RWD cars and if i had it my way we'd never touch one, i ACTUALLY said that if thats the combo decided then its tough luck and you pick the car you want to pick, like it or lump it.
The same message was put into Paragraphs 5 and 6 (at least once) and i also talk about ALL the rounds too, not just one, because *I* took the time to check what i was commenting on and look at alternative tracks which could have been used just for this round which would certainly allow both cars to be used competitively without one being 0.6sec faster than the other (BL1, FE2 & WE1R were the 3 i was going to suggest but cut it from the post in the end because theres nothing wrong with running this race as it is, but its not an car vs car track, 1 car is forced upon you)
Take the time to read the last paragraph and let it sink in, then comment.
I cant drive RWD cars all that well (translated means i suck even more in RWD than FWD) so i'd rather there was no RWD cars in the series full stop, but IMO if you say the round is XFG/XRG then its the the drivers to make the decision of what to use. I can understand the arguement that it would basically lead to 1 car being used by everyone anyway, but thats how things are really.
I like the idea of 1 driver in one car and one in the other, however that kinda means 45 people are disadvantaged/handycapped which doesnt seem right either.
Personally i think the biggest problem is the fact that little thought is put into the combo, would it not make more sense to pick a decent track where the two cars are competitive together rather than conveniently picking one you want to drive at, im not arsed if you say its not been picked cos you happen to have the HLVC at the track in both cars, but surely there are better tracks where these 2 cars can race and let the driver be the most significant factor rather than the chosen car.
I said it a while back that there didnt seem to be any reasoning for some tracks, and XFG/XRG at Ky2 is a perfect example of a bad partnership.
IMO a track like KY2 (either dir) will always favour the XRG because it has a huge ass straight where the XRG is considerably faster and could easily beat the XFG round there even if they were 0.2sec faster IMO, its just easier to keep a XFG behind you in an XRG if you hold decent lines, and in the event that they do manage a move in a couple of corners time you've got a straight that lasts for about 30 seconds in which to line them up and wait to make the move at the end of the straight, and your back to square 1. How do you do it the other way around?? You cant defend against straight line speed unless the other person is n00b and passes early and you can get into the slipstream and pass them back under braking.
Im not fussed whether things change or stay like this, but i do think there wasnt any real thought into the tracks picked as i said ages ago when everyone was throwing out what they wanted to see. Some of them just feel like they were pulled out of a hat. The dont feel like they were picked intentionally to create some interesting battles between drivers in different cars, its like a track thats popular has been decided and then find a car combo and thats it. Its still going to provide great racing having everyone in the same car, but it effectively means half the car option round arent optional because theres a significantly faster car there and you'd be mad to pick the other/s.
Keep it as it is or change it, the racing will still be good, but there wont be the car battles that the glance at the schedule suggests there could be on the 5 races where there are multiple cars available. If that mix is important then they need to be balanced, if its not then leave it as it is, there was no attempt to balance things last year and it wasnt a concern.
I like the idea of 1 driver in one car and one in the other, however that kinda means 45 people are disadvantaged/handycapped which doesnt seem right either.
Personally i think the biggest problem is the fact that little thought is put into the combo, would it not make more sense to pick a decent track where the two cars are competitive together rather than conveniently picking one you want to drive at, im not arsed if you say its not been picked cos you happen to have the HLVC at the track in both cars, but surely there are better tracks where these 2 cars can race and let the driver be the most significant factor rather than the chosen car.
I said it a while back that there didnt seem to be any reasoning for some tracks, and XFG/XRG at Ky2 is a perfect example of a bad partnership.
IMO a track like KY2 (either dir) will always favour the XRG because it has a huge ass straight where the XRG is considerably faster and could easily beat the XFG round there even if they were 0.2sec faster IMO, its just easier to keep a XFG behind you in an XRG if you hold decent lines, and in the event that they do manage a move in a couple of corners time you've got a straight that lasts for about 30 seconds in which to line them up and wait to make the move at the end of the straight, and your back to square 1. How do you do it the other way around?? You cant defend against straight line speed unless the other person is n00b and passes early and you can get into the slipstream and pass them back under braking.
Im not fussed whether things change or stay like this, but i do think there wasnt any real thought into the tracks picked as i said ages ago when everyone was throwing out what they wanted to see. Some of them just feel like they were pulled out of a hat. The dont feel like they were picked intentionally to create some interesting battles between drivers in different cars, its like a track thats popular has been decided and then find a car combo and thats it. Its still going to provide great racing having everyone in the same car, but it effectively means half the car option round arent optional because theres a significantly faster car there and you'd be mad to pick the other/s.
Keep it as it is or change it, the racing will still be good, but there wont be the car battles that the glance at the schedule suggests there could be on the 5 races where there are multiple cars available. If that mix is important then they need to be balanced, if its not then leave it as it is, there was no attempt to balance things last year and it wasnt a concern.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG