130 replies to this topic

[John Woods]

An hypothesis based on experience is there is a point when a virtual racer realizes they are driving a computer, not a virtual racecar.  This is a prerequisite to "virtual instant karma awareness," which is recognition of their true relation to virtual reality is as the primary mover. Driving a virtual racecar, rather than driving a computer, requires sublimation of objective awareness in order to validate pretending to not be the first cause. That is, pretending to react to virtual reality as the primary mover in the same way a person reacts to actual reality.
This may be important to users interested in bettering their lap times and driving skills. A few years of personal experience reveling in the thrill of running with AI Jim Clark and Dan Gurney was one day slapped into objective reality while cresting the hill just before the bridge at Aremberg on Nurburgring. It was a transcendental existential flash of insight that over the next few weeks led to going from around maybe plus-8 to maybe minus-15. (Sorry, it's been awhile since I checked). This rapid drop is very apparent by analyzing my GPLRank improvement graph.
Does anyone else find a correlation between Plato's guys in a cave and virtual AI racing? It seems they are very close to identical. Perhaps a critical distinction is that while in Plato's cave there is no capacity to manipulate the shadows on the walls, only the opportunity to interpret them, while, when driving a computer/virtual racecar, (slamming light off silicon rocks in a virtual cave), the user causes the shadows to occur. Plato's cave is an apriori universe; that is, first there is cause, (external light bouncing off walls), then there is effect, (the viewer's internal perception and conception of that light). Is online only different when there are other prime movers nearby?
When virtual racing AI the user's inputs cause the virtual reality display to change. So users might be reacting to their own inputs in a feedback loop that perception and conception may place 180-degrees out of sync, as users unaware of their true circumstance, (because they have sublimated it), may react to virtual reality the same way they react to actual reality. But the real world is actually objectively there and there is external cause, whereas the virtual world is not actually objectively there, the user is the cause, (given the online caveat), and changes in virtual reality are the effect. Is the virtual world aposteriori, unlike Plato's cave, as the effect of conception is the cause of perception?
Has anyone else thought about this, or care, or have any opinion?

Edited by John Woods, Mar 11 2010 - 07:18 AM.

[simmer]

Wowie    I think?

[Burnsy865]

If I'm enjoying something, I tend not to analyze it in case I spoil it. Interesting piece though.

[miklkit]

Comparing cavemen to ai?  Well, they both are kind of crude.  When I'm racing it's real.  When I crash I flinch and duck just like when I crashed in real life.  Get all disoriented, then start thinking about how to repair it....    I've seen people in NASCAR after a wreck when the hood gets bent up so they can't see, lean forward closer to the monitor and try to see over it.......

[Roadrunner]

There are a few things we need to clear up here. First, we are not "Virtual Racers". We are Racers. We are as real as the real cars we wish we were driving. Second, although we are driving virtual racecars on virtual tracks in a virtual environment, we are not driving our computers. I'm afraid I fail to understand why you made that particular statement, as it seems pointless.
Thirdly, when I react to, say, a sudden loss of grip at speed and I'm using "body english" as I fight to regain control and continue on without losing too much time, I'm not at all pretending, as you suggest I am. My reactions are very real, as are my facial expressions and my use of colorful language.
However, I never become so absorbed or immersed into the virtual environment that I forget I can hit the pause button because I need to scratch my balls.

[sky]

hm, you're referring to plato's republic, the cave to be precise, right? (linkage to a comprehensive read, i.e. the full monty, the cave is book 7). to me they seem to be the similar, if not the same, in a way. the shadows, as well as the the virtual race is an 'illusion', albeit in our case a rather good one pretty close to reality. it is not the real thing, it is only a picture, a silhouette of reality. though we have an advantage over the cave dwellers, in such a way that we can actually influence what we see, whereas, i think, the prisoners in the cave could not interact but only witness and had to or more like did draw their conclusions from what they thought they saw. oh and that aside we KNOW that what we are seeing is not the real reality, but merely an image of the same.
so well, where does that leave us? i have not had an epiphany while driving or a moment of supreme clarity (i think i'm not even capable of that in any form, shape or colour - too much parallel processing going on), so i would say, i am still very well aware of the fact it is not 'the real thing'. but that doesn't keep me from outburst or using colourful language. also i keep moving my body when driving, the cringe brace position when you know you're gonna hit something. in the same way i get all tense when i play an fps game in a cave in my darkened room at night, with creepy noises coming out of the surround system. i am very well aware that i don't need to duck and cover or even turn my head into the corner as i'm giving it a bootful, but i do. it's instinctive. in the same way i moved my head to the side and slid down the seat when some owl decided to go divebombing towards me and eventually hitting the topleft corner of my windscreen - i know nothing will happen to me (twin layer windscreen with foil in between layers), but yet the reflex is to move out of harms way. an instinct that nightowl was obviously missing. otherwise we wouldn't have met.

anyway cutting it short. i don't think i've reached the level of immersion you have described. i might have reached it with other games though - at an earlier stage. but not gpl. hm maybe that's why i can't get a bloody negative rank?  

[Paddy the Irishman]

Here was I, thinking that I was very low down the order in a bunch of 'techies' and now I find that I am even lower down the order in a conclave of philosophers

Edited by Paddy the Irishman, Mar 12 2010 - 02:42 AM.

[John Woods]

Quote

Quoting Roadrunner:

We are Racers. We are as real as the real cars we wish we were driving. Second, although we are driving virtual racecars on virtual tracks in a virtual environment, we are not driving our computers.

No argument about online racing being real. No argument about user/drivers being real. But, wishing to be driving a real car makes the point that we are instead pushing our CPUs with high performance racing accessories, such as graphic cards, sound cards, memory chips, (not big carbs or trick cam profiles), and driving math co-processors on a trajectory determined as much or more by calculus as by our tire size or setups. Some drive AMD, some drive Pentium, some ATI, some nVidia. We are not driving Loti, Ferrari, BRM, Brabham or Eagle; we are enjoying some the world's greatest works of art, technically far superior to oils, clay, or marble, in a media and venue that historic masters could not imagine.

Edited by John Woods, Mar 12 2010 - 09:52 AM.

[Paddy the Irishman]

John Woods, on Mar 12 2010 - 09:35 AM, said:

Quote

Quoting Roadrunner:

We are Racers. We are as real as the real cars we wish we were driving. Second, although we are driving virtual racecars on virtual tracks in a virtual environment, we are not driving our computers.

Qouting John Wood

No argument about online racing being real. No argument about user/drivers being real. But, wishing to be driving a real car makes the point that we are instead pushing our CPUs with high performance racing accessories, such as graphic cards, sound cards, memory chips, (not big carbs or trick cam profiles), and driving math co-processors on a trajectory determined as much or more by calculus as by our tire size or setups. Some drive AMD, some drive Pentium, some ATI, some nVidia. We are not driving Loti, Ferrari, BRM, Brabham or Eagle; we are enjoying some the world's greatest works of art, technically far superior to oils, clay, or marble, in a media and venue that historic masters could not imagine.

Now we HAVE a philosopher who, I presume is also a techie - I especially like the description of a 'work of art'.  Thank you John

[John Woods]

You're welcome, Paddy. Thank you.

[grego]

quote But the real world is actually objectively there and there is external cause, whereas the virtual world is not actually objectively there, the user is the cause, (given the online caveat), and changes in virtual reality are the effect. Is the virtual world aposteriori, unlike Plato's cave, as the effect of conception is the cause of perception? end quote.

While I can greatly appreciate where you are heading with this, both old Tantric Bhuddist texts AND now any scientist that emerges itself into quantum physics will disagree with you on just about every level.
Platos cave with its assumption of "virtual world" versus "real world " is kinda obselete.

Now we are dealing with Quantum realms, where objects can paradoxically be in two places at the same time.
There, on a subatomic level, objects can not only be in two places at the same time but also travel into two different direction at the same time.


where are we heading with all this ?
I don't know but if i think about it too long i get a head ache

[John Woods]

Sorry about your head, Grego

I was really trying to make some points about driving in GPL that might help others and/or find out if others had a similar insight that made them better drivers, as it happened to me because of this insight. So my effort was not to head too far off into fringes of reality but rather to stay within a practicable range of experience, where I think maybe Plato's analogy remains valid. Also, I don't know much about either Bhuddist texts or what theory is in fashion, but I would trust ancient texts maybe a little more, (it seems all science does is prove itself previously in error). Could you explain how within the context of driving they prove Plato, (or my hypothesis), is wrong? Or, taking my preference for practicable utility, how Tantric Bhuddism can help drivers lower their lap times? (Just having fun here, okay).

[sky]

don't you just love quantum physics? i can't say i understand them anywhere near more than a basic level. but i love reading about them. the mindboggling ideas of spin 0.5, 2 etc.. that on it's own is enough, heisenberg's uncertainty principle that you just mentioned - delicous (anyone thinking wat dat be? or gtfo.. just read 'a brief history of t
time', it's written in laymen's terms and actually quite a good read - not affiliated with the author, amazon or any publisher)


but still. oh my. what i just thought about, john. i'm not sure, but has it occurred to you that, as we are driving a virtual thing in a virtual environment but followed by precise mathematic abstractions of reality, rules, that we may make these work to our advantage? i mean i have always had this idea of writing a program that drives a track in any car just with the knowledge of what comes next on the track. so an ideal lap sort of, all the parameters are in check, the car will do the optimum lap. something a human never could. i mean perfect everywhere, using every bit of the abstracted physics to it's full advantage, sliding the car or whatever has to be done to get the lap in. and i would really like to know what laptimes would theoretically be possible staying just on the tarmac, not even the slightest touching of the grass or curb. and then compare that to the alien world records. i wonder how small the actual gap really is.
realizing that while driving around in our virtual world, that could be an epiphany sort of - it might even make you go faster. i know i could never do that. "it's just a game"

ok beer time

[grego]

John Woods, on Mar 12 2010 - 05:07 PM, said:

Sorry about your head, Grego

I was really trying to make some points about driving in GPL that might help others and/or find out if others had a similar insight that made them better drivers, as it happened to me because of this insight. So my effort was not to head too far off into fringes of reality but rather to stay within a practicable range of experience, where I think maybe Plato's analogy remains valid. Also, I don't know much about either Bhuddist texts or what theory is in fashion, but I would trust ancient texts maybe a little more, (it seems all science does is prove itself previously in error). Could you explain how within the context of driving they prove Plato, (or my hypothesis), is wrong? Or, taking my preference for practicable utility, how Tantric Bhuddism can help drivers lower their lap times? (Just having fun here, okay).

He He , no worries here buddy, all a bit for a laugh.
Of course i also intend to go more with the tantric texts but found it intresting that the latest "scientific fad", quantum mechanics, seems to come full turn in the history and agree with what
some "turned on" Mahhasidhas new sever thousand years ago.

But back to gpl.

Reading your opening text with interest (and a smerk on my dial) and understanding you epiphany, I cannot actually see how it will help me with my laptimes.
Maybe i missed something and you could elaborate a bit more please.
cheers
grego

[John Woods]

Now, Grego, I think maybe you are fishing a bit to see what I might bite on. Or whether I myself might have bitten off a little too much. How can I imagine what you missed?.
There is no anticipation or really totally mind blowing flash of cosmic insight involved. The first insight was to transcend the idea of driving a car and start thinking about what is really happening, which is driving a computer. This was a flash of insight that did indeed occur when cresting the ridge on Nurburgring, and I remember it very distinctly. It instantly changed how I looked at everything. Since then, my assumption has been that creating a pretense of driving a Lotus or Ferrari interferes with the real experience, as any witness can confirm, which is we are driving computers. This brought me to drastically changing my driver view, all my setups, and how I thought about what I am doing when driving. As I recall, this was a pretty rapid and linear progression coincident with major drops in laptimes on all tracks. So I don't know for sure which of these changes were more the cause of what I consider getting way better much faster than before. An interest in finding out is part of the reason for opening this discussion.

Edited by John Woods, Mar 12 2010 - 07:39 PM.

[grego]

John Woods, on Mar 12 2010 - 07:36 PM, said:

Now, Grego, I think maybe you are fishing a bit to see what I might bite on. Or whether I myself might have bitten off a little too much. How can I imagine what you missed?.
There is no anticipation or really totally mind blowing flash of cosmic insight involved. The first insight was to transcend the idea of driving a car and start thinking about what is really happening, which is driving a computer. This was a flash of insight that did indeed occur when cresting the ridge on Nurburgring, and I remember it very distinctly. It instantly changed how I looked at everything. Since then, my assumption has been that creating a pretense of driving a Lotus or Ferrari interferes with the real experience, as any witness can confirm, which is we are driving computers. This brought me to drastically changing my driver view, all my setups, and how I thought about what I am doing when driving. As I recall, this was a pretty rapid and linear progression coincident with major drops in laptimes on all tracks. So I don't know for sure which of these changes were more the cause of what I consider getting way better much faster than before. An interest in finding out is part of the reason for opening this discussion.

Nope, John, no mirrors, not trappdoors, no trick questions.
While understanding exactly what you say, eg : """ This brought me to drastically changing my driver view, all my setups""""" So, how did you actually changed a driver setup, and a driver view ???
Heck , anything that makes me go from positive to negative is welcome.
Actually i'd go as far as pretending i was driving a sausage or a banana if this helps me out of my current drivings style which really "BLOWS"
Eg. in Watglen, 65 mode my best laptime with the fer512 is 1.11: 45 thats is about 3 lightyears away from the lap record of about 55 seconds......................

[John Woods]

Well, well, very good question, Grego. Thank you. Sorry, I am surprized in a way because you get right to it. Thank you.
First, I submit that all variables, from MS game controller, core.ini FFB settings, FOVed setting, GPLSA driver head variables, on through the GPL Options screens to the car setups menu are "virtual car setup variables" that directly effect perception, and consequently how the user determines what inputs to apply to change the display as intended. Also, the real driver's seating postion and distance to the display are setup variables.
Second, using GEM+v1.4.31 selecting "rollbar view" and using CarCamEdit.exe I modify rollbar view to present a display view as if the virtual driver's POV is the real driver's POV. So the virtual camera projecting driver view seems where my head is when I am sitting in the race console. This way, I am not mentally translating what an imaginary driver shown on the display is supposedly seeing into what I am actually seeing, which is a monitor. I want the monitor to look like a window of what I would actually be focusing on if I were really sitting in a race car. Using default driver view, I found I was focusing on an area of the monitor that was about 3-inches by 5-inches in the center of the screen. So at first all I wanted to do was enlarge that area. Then I found that moving POV front and back seems to effect car setup, so it is possible to tune it in just like any other variable.
Third, doing this creates an entirely unique race console. No one else's setups, and none from before, will work as they did. It requires starting over. I now rely on what BrunoB has taught me. ("New simple evolutionary setup method," available at www.bhmotorsports.com/developer/3040. However, I don't think any of this should necessarily be considered a recipe for anyone else. Its just what I've done.

Early on aliens convinced me I would never come close to their level of performance, and I was never so dedicated to that aspect of enjoying GPL. I consider myself a "Touring Driver" that is also pretty fast, very steady, but not really fast like the fifteen or so percent of all GPLers who can beat my best lap times on original tracks. It was always too much fun to just cruise around on the latest tracks and a few standards and go negative by coincidence of perseverance. I haven't ran the '65 mod, I don't know how it compares with my 1:05.xx at Glen67, but I would not look to me for coaching.

Edited by John Woods, Mar 14 2010 - 09:12 AM.

[sky]

grego, on Mar 12 2010 - 07:50 PM, said:

Heck , anything that makes me go from positive to negative is welcome.
Actually i'd go as far as pretending i was driving a sausage or a banana if this helps me out of my current drivings style which really "BLOWS"
Eg. in Watglen, 65 mode my best laptime with the fer512 is 1.11: 45 thats is about 3 lightyears away from the lap record of about 55 seconds......................

unless i'm utterly mistaken your watkins time of 1:11 is actually pretty good, not stellar, but then again i am only at 1:11 dead in the 65 fez either. oh and the world record for a 65 at the glen (ferrari) is at 1:08.137 with the bench being 1:09.587. don't know where you got the 55 sec thing. even in the '69s the fastest laptime is just under 1 minute at 59.x seconds in the brabham, all others are at 1:0x minute(s)

never compare the '67 times with a '65 car - unless you're talking targa
that aside i find the '65s to be quite a tough bench to go negative.

[grego]

sky, on Mar 12 2010 - 09:50 PM, said:

grego, on Mar 12 2010 - 07:50 PM, said:

Heck , anything that makes me go from positive to negative is welcome.
Actually i'd go as far as pretending i was driving a sausage or a banana if this helps me out of my current drivings style which really "BLOWS"
Eg. in Watglen, 65 mode my best laptime with the fer512 is 1.11: 45 thats is about 3 lightyears away from the lap record of about 55 seconds......................

unless i'm utterly mistaken your watkins time of 1:11 is actually pretty good, not stellar, but then again i am only at 1:11 dead in the 65 fez either. oh and the world record for a 65 at the glen (ferrari) is at 1:08.137 with the bench being 1:09.587. don't know where you got the 55 sec thing. even in the '69s the fastest laptime is just under 1 minute at 59.x seconds in the brabham, all others are at 1:0x minute(s)

never compare the '67 times with a '65 car - unless you're talking targa
that aside i find the '65s to be quite a tough bench to go negative.

There ye go, Sky, I am managing to confuse facts again.
So, as i press green buttons from gem into gpl, then it shows me the loverly pic of the (even more loverly) lotus and a header: """"" 1965 world champs etc.....""""
pressing more green buttons get me onto the watglen track and there , top left, is a big banner with the circuit and it says US Grand prix
Watkins Glen circuit
Track record 55.52 seconds

Now only I realise that maybe Surtees might have made the track record in something completely different rather than with a 1965 F1......................He might have done it on a flying sausage................
Silly me
Nevertheless, thanks for putting me straight, again.
Now i don't have to feel like a complete turd for being 16 seconds slower than Surtees.

[grego]

Gotcha John.
Yes , I can see that sitting "inside the car" feeling might improve things a lot.
It's not something i have yet approached, maybe later.
For me the important thing seems to be the concentration factor. The better the concentration , the more i seem to get "absorbed by the simulation", then i really drive the car.
I heard that some players actually have a proper mock up of a car and darken the room, put a helmet on and gloves etc etc.
While i never can see myself doing that, i can completely relate to what they are trying to achieve: 100% Simulation !

cheers