Xtreme Gaming Network

Show Posts - killagorilla

Show Posts

* Messages | Topics | Attachments

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - killagorilla

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 14
I'll just keep it simple... get in the car and be fast!
Simple? :o
I've been trying to achieve that last bit for decades. :-[ :P
Err...didn't you just win the last 3 races  ;)

I will disagree with Killa on this one.

The goal of the seasons are not to determine who the fastest driver is. We know who that is from past experience. Without any ballast/restrictor  or any other artificial manipulations of the races it would become quite repetitive after a few seasons. (It is already season 28!! )

But with adjustments to the individual drivers we all get to battle different drivers each season and work around the rules to achieve the best results we can. For example I had some very good battles with Jamie this past season, probably for the first season ever.

I would say we go like the Thursday season. Start with a set of rules and then to keep things spicy, change them mid-race or just after qualification.  ;D
I don't know who would be the fastest in the Escort...guess Phil, Matthew and kcender would be favourites.
The way I'm experiencing this there are differences in performance among us based on the type of cars we are racing...so the people I'm racing have changed between the series at least to some extent. I can only talk for myself and for me it is ok if I don't win races if I'm not competitive.
The other thing I would bring up is that we're just doing a series which was highly manipulated even though some of the cars were quite close in performance...so why not just have a season without it for a change?

Damn damn damn Killa's argument has several glaring holes in it, but I can't get it down in words.
More fool me.
Somebody save me.

 :) Mate, I'd be happy to discuss this and if you point out flaws in my logic I've got no problem to admit that I screwed it.
There are a few comments here, but nothing really gets to the point I'm making. Of course I've chosen a simple model, but, again, in principle I'm still convinced it is working as I've described it. The effect I pointed out may not be easy to make out in a real season as there are just a lot of unpredictable things happening in a race. However, that doesn't change the fact that the playing field is not level.
I personally would prefer a ballast/restrictor penalty system based on the standing in the championship and I know a real series where this has been done in the past.
That is fair in respect of that it affects everyone the same way. If you're at the very top the air gets thinner and you have to try harder to defend your position and if the standings are changing because of that someone else is affected by this exactly the same way. That increases competition, produces a tighter field and makes it less likely to get us a boring season where the outcome is predictable after the 2nd or 3rd race.
So, again, I'm not against a penalty system and compression, I would just hope it's being applied evenly.


Yeah, like I said the Brabham, Lotus & Ferrari are all pretty close, in my hands.
I think it will come down to driving style compatibility that will decide the quickest for any individual, opening the door for all cars.
(except possibly the smaller capacity Lotus 33 & McLaren M2B)
That's good info as it helps to narrow down the number of cars to spend some time on trying to work out a good setup. Doing that on all of them would be pretty time consuming.
There are pretty important bits and pieces hanging out at the back end of them just protected by a bit of steel tubing, if at all. I'd hope that the tussle and nudges during races are not causing too many issues with engine failures on top of ending up in the grass with these things.
Looking forward doing that test race with them.

Yeah, bugger it. I'll just keep it simple and not handicap anyone.
Thanks mate  :)

It's heavily leaning towards the old F1's and it seems at least some know them very well. No idea about these '67 F1's and sorry about being a bit lazy maybe, but is there a consensus on which one is the fastest?
Think Ferrari is usually pretty good...so maybe that's the one to go for hoping that reliability is not modelled ;)
IMHO, the BT24 is the quickest but not the easiest to drive.
The 312 & 49 are not far off.
The Eagle, Honda & BRM have good top end but are cumbersome.
The rest are the opposite, nimble but lacking a bit of top end.

Side note, I'd like to see Pau 67 & Deutschlandring on the schedule. ;)
Thanks mate  :)
I've done just 2 or 3 laps in a few of them just on default last night. Got my best time in the Ferrari, but it was a very borderline ride...tricky oversteering. The Brabham (guess that's the BT24 - not sure) was 2nd, but got me a more controlled ride...I think the Honda was 3rd.
However, without working on the setup these numbers are probably useless.
They are fun and pretty fast as well. I believe the Escort would get us a lot more close racing in a series, but the old F1's are more fun imo...hotlapping at least.

I have considered that those at the bottom end of a tier may be disadvantaged, but I don't think it will be a huge difference. The difference between 25 and 50% restrictor is a fraction of a second.

The advantage of broad tiers as opposed to setting restrictor individually is that you still let the fastest guys be the fastest, instead of slowing them down even more. You chuck 50% restrictor on everyone, and the fastest guys will still be the fastest.

The main thing that people want here is close racing, according to my own survey results and experience. Open wheelers generally result in spread out fields.
I wanna try to explain it hopefully a bit better and use a series with the Escort as an example.
There will be two things affected by this restrictor: lap times and the outcome of a race/overall standings. The latter is important to me and I would want that it somehow reflects my performance and skills. That's why I try to find some time during the week and prepare for a race. If it's just about close competition I could scrap that and try to have a battle at the very end of the field. It depends on where you are in the field how this restrictor affects you.
So, let's say we've got a field of 24 and they are are all 0.1s apart based on skill without manipulations. That means in the first qualy the guy on pole will be 2.4s faster than the guy qualifying last. I think it may be a bit more, but it's easy to calc so let's stick with it. So you say 25% slows you down by a fraction of a second...I make it 0.5 to show you what I mean.
If I was the 8th fastest just based on my driving skills it would be still my goal to beat the guy in front of my on 7th and if the guy on 6th makes a mistake I may even end up  on 6th in a race without manipulation, which would be the first one.
Ok, let's make it easy and assume we are all finishing as per our driving skills or qualy result.
My goal does not change. I would still want to beat the guy on 7 just in the next race. However, now we're throwing in a 3-tier restrictor and that means there is a good chance that a slower guy, let's pick the guy who finished the first race on 12th position, will be between me and the guy on 7 just because he's now 0.5s faster with a smaller restrictor.
The way I think a compression of a field should work is giving me a little advantage to help me to beat the guy on 7 next time.
This 3-tier restrictor is doing exactly the opposite, it makes it harder for me to stay close to the guy in the overall standings...and what's even worse, it's doing it systematically because this process would repeat every 2nd race. The system is rigged against me and instead of hoping that I might end up on 7 at the end of the season I would be busy enough with trying to defend my 8th position because every 2nd race there would be a number of slower guys just in front of me.
I don't think these numbers are unrealistic, so let's stick to them and see how this system would affect the top 3 drivers.
It's very easy, the battle among them would not be affected at all because they are always on the same restrictor. All three of them would benefit as the guy on 4 would get a slower guy thrown between himself and the top 3. That means the 3 fastest guys would pull away in the championship more as they would without restrictor.
That principle works with other numbers as well.
This system is clearly unfair in my eyes, it doesn't provide a level playing field and therefore I'd like to ask you to reconsider this. If it's too hard you can always scrap it and we just go without these manipulations...that would still be way better.

It will compress the field, but I doubt it would get us closer racing and has good potential to be unfair for the guys which are generally at the bottom end of a tier.
The difference in performance between the last one in tier one and the fastest in tier 2 will most likely be significantly overcompensated by a 25% restrictor instead of closing a gap.
In the end we are all racing the guys, which are close to us in performance. It can be frustrating if your standing in the series doesn't reflect performance and gets too much messed around with. Again this won't affect Matthew, kcender or Phil...they will be doing their thing at the top end of the field. I doubt guys in lower tiers will be able to get close to them.
Let's say in a field of 24 the guy on 8 is 0.2s faster than the guy on 9 based on his natural speed with no or the same restrictor. In a race the guy on 9 the round before will perform better just because of a 25% lower restrictor. So the guy on 8 will battle with the guy on 10 or 11 the next round. This will repeat itself and guys at the interfaces will swap positions during the series. So in short, I think 3 tiers are not enough...and seem to be a random manipulation which distorts the outcome of a series around the edges of tier1/2 and tier 2/3. Imo a gradually applied restrictor is a lot better...or nothing at all.
I may be crap the next season as these old cars don't suit me very well, but looking at past performance there are chances that I can hang around on position 8 in a field of 24. However, I'd still say the same if I was 9th or 10th fastest without manipulation and finished the series better than someone who is actually faster.
Seems like this is set, but as you encourage feedback you're getting mine here :-)

It's heavily leaning towards the old F1's and it seems at least some know them very well. No idea about these '67 F1's and sorry about being a bit lazy maybe, but is there a consensus on which one is the fastest?
Think Ferrari is usually pretty good...so maybe that's the one to go for hoping that reliability is not modelled ;)

Assetto Corsa Competizione / Re: ACC News
« on: April 19, 2019, 11:58:12 AM »
A central bezel would be annoying, to understate it. :-\
Would be like a modern f1 lol

But sound better.

My debate at the moment is whether to get 3 x 32 inch or one 55 inch tv.

The biggest problem with triples larger than 27" is you need a dedicated monitor stand as a lot of the cockpit monitor stands aren't designed for screens that size.

If you get custom made stands anyway, go for 3x43" 4k philips monitors.   
The monitor is big, IPS panel, and if you have the ~2.7m or so space you need for 3 of them side-by-side, you'll have the most incredible setup anyone around here has seen! ;)

In all seriousness;
I'd never use a TV for monitor, they're often prone to picture problems that aren't present in monitors.   3 of proper 27" monitors (1920x1200 not the "full HD" versions) I think are the best choice, and you should be able to find mounts for those, they aren't such a rare setup I reckon.   Plus the resolution isn't outlandish video-card wise either.   (going triple 4k would be somewhat demanding)

But then if you're not concerned about the height, the above curved one is a very nice choice, too, for racing.
I'm with you Bird. Just had a look at these 43' screens and was surprised they're not not more expensive (thought it would be at least $1000 per screen for a bottom end one).
The advantage with 27" screens is you can get them at the right height as they fit between steering wheel and motor/steering wheel base...and again that gets you pretty much 180deg FOV when using the right angles (I work these things out in Autocad).
Larger screens (30-34") are causing some issues as there's a good chance that the centre screen clashes with the wheel base (consider extension steering column).
However, 43" are tricky as well. They should clear the wheel base, but, depending on your rig design, can clash with it's structure. This is just based on panel size, setting the outer edges at 180deg FOV and adopting an angle of 90deg between all screens and line of sight. I'm fussy about this...for me just the panel size determines the exact location of each screen relative to my eyes. 43" screens would be 850mm away from them and clash with the structure of my (and likely many other's) rig(s).
The interesting thing is, I wouldn't see more and nothing would be bigger compared to 27" being closer to me. The limiting factor with screens is FOV. Games don't provide more than 180deg. Our natural FOV is approx. 210deg. That means large screens have only one advantage, which is they, being further away from you, get you easier access/egress to/from your rig. That would be different if games supported let's say 210deg...then large screens really get you something.
I find 1k 27" @ 540mm a pretty decent/nice resolution and 5760/1080 gets you good frame rates with a good graphics card. 3x 4k 43" screens with a good response time and matching computer power (if that's possible at all) would still cost you some serious money...might be worth looking at other things before getting into this...dd wheel, good set of pedals or motion.
Here some in my eyes good explanations by Avenga: https://www.isrtv.com/forums/topic/20970-ideal-screen-size-for-triple-monitors/

I did like the 3 short races of the past season, helps avoid the total disaster nights.
Yep, me too.

It wasn't an easy choice going for the Mustang considering the lap times I was doing, but it turned out to be the right one...at least when looking at the results.
So the trick was keeping the Fiats for as long as possible behind you so it's possible to get them back on the long straight.
Quite a few brave/kamikaze passes by Freezer on the outside, which actually worked out ok...apart from just one were I just needed respective part of the track because of the speed I was going...yeah, that was just a bit too much, Freezer.
So it was fun :-) Cheers Wally for putting this together.

Assetto Corsa Competizione / Re: ACC News
« on: April 16, 2019, 05:21:38 PM »
A central bezel would be annoying, to understate it. :-\
Bezels in the centre would drive me nuts ;-)

Assetto Corsa Competizione / Re: ACC News
« on: April 16, 2019, 05:18:57 PM »
Have you guys seen the sexy curved monitors they're using for the ACC e-sports competition?

I really like the immersion I'm getting when racing side by side and actually see the car next to me just the way I would see it in a real race. I wasn't 100% sure whether my recent change from triple 24" flat screen setup to triple 27" curved ones it's actually worth it, but after using it for a while now I find it is. So these guys are at a distance of 540mm from my eyes and I get physically 180deg FOV.
However, maybe these ultra wide monitors are a good compromise if you want to play ACC...not cheap though.

Assetto Corsa Competizione / Re: ACC News
« on: April 15, 2019, 07:34:16 PM »
They haven't said yes and they haven't said no. UE4 doesn’t support it natively.

EDIT: Typo mistake. Meant to say DOESN’T SUPPORT. Aaahhh!!!
I see...that confused me. Still don't understand the reason why they went for it then. The way I see it triple support is just one of the basics you gotta get sorted without a fuss...no excuses.

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 14