[Bruce]

I was thinking of having a run tonight, until I watched the footage! That is fast.

[grat]

I really like what he did, but for realism we should be quite a bit lower than that. Look at Di Grassi's mirrors: the camera is quite a bit too high, so that the mirrors show (us) only the sidepods! Indeed, from any picture I can get, we should have our eyes lined up with the mirrors an the top of the 90° turned wheel.

Actually the way Luca did that is pretty nuts in a way to make sure the lens was at eye level. He put a gopro covering one of his eyes so the lens height matches his eyeline. The reason why the mirrors dont line up correctly is simply because the camera is attached outside his helmet and so the lens is a fair way ahead of his eyes. This means the angle from camera lens to mirror will be steeper and so it wont match what he sees in mirrors even though the height matches near perfectly.

Good point, Marty, but that only explains why the point-of-view does not seem right, but not that it is instead right. Indeed, notice that the mirrors are fundamentally in line (longitudinal of car) with wheel/dashboard/little glassy windshield. Thus the effect you described of seeing the mirrors at an angle different from real life point-of-view, also implies that we see those other elements at the same angle.

I agree with you that this has no effect on far objects, but my point was that close objects are seen at an angle, and therefore visibility is larger than in real life, where the elements in front of the driver appear "higher" and cut more of the visibility.

I hope I managed to explain what I mean.

[Bacchulum]

Here are my 3 base setups, if anyone wants them.

[Wally]

I was thinking of having a run tonight, until I watched the footage! That is fast.

It's an adrenalin rush! Makes you nice and awake... like 14 cups of coffee.

[marty]

Good point, Marty, but that only explains why the point-of-view does not seem right, but not that it is instead right. Indeed, notice that the mirrors are fundamentally in line (longitudinal of car) with wheel/dashboard/little glassy windshield. Thus the effect you described of seeing the mirrors at an angle different from real life point-of-view, also implies that we see those other elements at the same angle.

I agree with you that this has no effect on far objects, but my point was that close objects are seen at an angle, and therefore visibility is larger than in real life, where the elements in front of the driver appear "higher" and cut more of the visibility.

I hope I managed to explain what I mean.

The only thing he really can get spot on is the lens height to show his eyeline and sitting position. I remember there was a discussion about this and he mentioned himself he did all he could to match his eyeline. This meant he was driving with a camera blocking 1 eye completly and partially the other which not many others would be stupid enough to try in such a car.

Had he raised the camera above his eyeline then it would have been much easier to drive but would also not show his actual POV very well which was his main purpose of those videos so I suspect he got that bit pretty spot on.

What I meant regarding mirrors is the reflection doesnt match his pov as the lens is maybe 5 to 10cm ahead of his eyes and being quite close this will make the reflection shown in the mirror at a sharper angle and so looking down more then it really is. The actual mirrors and all other objects vertically will be close to how he sees them its just the reflection will be off as the lens is closer to the mirror then his eyes.

This doesnt mean the camera should be lower to match his real seating pov. Just that the reflection cant match what he sees due to the different refractive angles of the lens and eyes relative to the mirror.

It will also slightly distort the image as the camera is a little closer to the objects in the cockpit, also the gopro has a fisheye lens distorting things even more. Its never going to be a perfect indicator of what the driver sees but his main aim was to simply show his seating position and how he sees things trying to match this as close as possible height wise in the car compared to his own view.

Here are my 3 base setups, if anyone wants them.

Thanks and seeing I havent even done a lap in these I will give your base sets a run tonight. 

[grat]

The only thing he really can get spot on is the lens height to show his eyeline and sitting position. I remember there was a discussion about this and he mentioned himself he did all he could to match his eyeline. This meant he was driving with a camera blocking 1 eye completly and partially the other which not many others would be stupid enough to try in such a car.

Had he raised the camera above his eyeline then it would have been much easier to drive but would also not show his actual POV very well which was his main purpose of those videos so I suspect he got that bit pretty spot on.

What I meant regarding mirrors is the reflection doesnt match his pov as the lens is maybe 5 to 10cm ahead of his eyes and being quite close this will make the reflection shown in the mirror at a sharper angle and so looking down more then it really is. The actual mirrors and all other objects vertically will be close to how he sees them its just the reflection will be off as the lens is closer to the mirror then his eyes.

This doesnt mean the camera should be lower to match his real seating pov. Just that the reflection cant match what he sees due to the different refractive angles of the lens and eyes relative to the mirror.

It will also slightly distort the image as the camera is a little closer to the objects in the cockpit, also the gopro has a fisheye lens distorting things even more. Its never going to be a perfect indicator of what the driver sees but his main aim was to simply show his seating position and how he sees things trying to match this as close as possible height wise in the car compared to his own view.

I know he did that. I remember. But you raised an important point with those 5-10cm which I am trying to get through. What I am saying is a basic trigonometric property. You want to know what you can see above an obstacle in front of you (the dash/wheel). If you look from further behind, then you see less, as the obstacle covers a greater share of your viewing angle. If you look from further ahead, then you see more, as the obstacle covers a smaller share of your viewing angle. This is the usual FOV effect: if you look out of the window from the back of your room, you can see no road outside. But if you get closer to the window, the road appears. Thus, even if the vertical positioning is correct, the impression we get about how much of the nose of the car, front wheel, and road just in front of the car, is not correct, because the obstacle (dash) would in reality cover a greater share of the viewing angle.

I made a sketch to clarify what I mean. Sorry for my crappy drawings...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtjurnp4v4vspah/WP_20150922_002.jpg?dl=0

[Wally]

Server is UP.

[Will]

Can I get the password?

[Wally]

Can I get the password?

PM sent.

[Matthew111]

Heres the set I ran tonight

[Phil.8]

cheers

[Wally]

Here are the RACE RESULTS AND CHARTS

Race 1 (High DF)
Pole: Grat, 1:51:524
1. Grat
2. Bacchulum
3. Wally

Race 2 (Med DF)
Pole: Will, 1:50:241
1. Chris
2. Freezer
3. Joe

Race 3 (Low DF)
Pole: Will, 1:50:120
1. Matthew
2. Grat
3. Will

Interestingly, when I average the consistency of everyone in each race (lower is better), I get:
High DF: 0.67
Med DF: 1.53
Low DF: 3.08

So each lower downforce package gets about twice as hard to put in consistent laps. To avoid frustration, I'll run the High Downforce package consistently everywhere. Running a single package everywhere means you can get familiar with a single car.

So now, refine your season 9 car poll if you want, and tomorrow night I'll finalise the season 9 details.

[Joe]

Really enjoyed this car, and like this track too; I remember I got my first ever pole here in the LaFerarri/P1 trial race, but that was without the chicane on the long straight.

Race 1 I made a massive error though. Had an awesome couple of laps with lots of side by side action with Bacculum and got on his inside down the long straight, but not used to being on that side of the track plus the restricted view in these cars I tried to take the chicane way before the actual chicane 

[Wally]

Race 1 was great, with the HDF. I had a nice race with Bacchulum, chasing him most of the race but unable to pass, to get a nice 3rd.

In race 2, MDF, I fiddled with the setup - just arbitrarily took a bit of wing off without consideration to the balance, and thinking the fronts were locking up too soon, I shifted the brake bias a little rearwards. The payback for my tinkering? A sh*t car that spun way too easily. That race was just an exercise in frustration.

For race 3, I left the LDF stock, but it was still hard work, having to be very careful on the throttle to avoid skipping the rear out. A bit of fatigue or loss of concentration was probably starting to kick in too.

But overall, I really like the car. It's not too planted, and lively and sharp. Bring it on!

[christopheraser]

These cars are great fun. Still don't feel quite as connected to the road as the rf2 version. However I've had more time with that car, so probably just looking for better ffb settings.

Race 1 was fun. I struggled to get the car going as well as other guys and a slight loose at the start of the first lap netted me damage and last position. Made some gains, but wasn't able to catch up to the pack.

Race 2, the medium df setting worked for me straight out of the box. Second on the grid without even trying. Got an ok start and held position. Passed Will into the fast right a few laps later and held onto the lead. I think Mr Frost would have got lead off me given a few more laps.

I could smell dinner cooking during race 2 so decided to skip race 3.

As for downforce, it would be nice if we could select it independently. However failing that I think taking an educated guess based on the track and forcing us all to run that config is the way to go. I could be wrong, but I think they only run high downforce at Monaco. I also dislike the idea of running multiple configurations at the same race. My missus thinks I race too much anyway, don't make it so I need to make two sets per event!