Please be generous with your praise, and cautious with criticism. Be considerate with the feelings of others;
it will be appreciated. Treat others just as you would want them to treat you.


First there are your rules, my post is mindful of them.

You want to make comment at RSC on me but seeing as I'm banned from RSC (ha, for expressing an opinion based on fact!) now I will answer here.

Firstly the reason I never got to release my mods that I worked so long on is the same reason as the 4 Mods that are out - the physics weren't right and not worthy to give rubbish out to the public and declare it as a Simulation. My Can Am carset would have been finished given another couple of months but my life circumstances changed beyond my control and I lost all my work which was on CD or you would have been driving 37's and Can Am's today.

You have no idea how many .exe's I went through although some of the people around me can atest to as I sent many out for evaluation. You can never know how many track builders I have helped in my years with GPL either.

I was deeply involved with the 65 mod and can but assure you that Hotlappers steered that mod away from the few real life racers that were helping out. We just gave up. What you drive today is not as good as what was on the plate at stages and I am a bit miffed about it. You say that there was real racers on the other mod teams, I know and have had correspondense with them on the subject and am aware that they were shouted down by the Hotlappers.

I'm truly sad for this, GPL is the 'most responsive to a drivers inputs' game/sim/whatever around and deserves the best real life physics around.

Tell you what, I'll make you an offer, you can test my current physics and if they arent' already more realistic than what you got now I'll withdraw forever from this sim.


"What counts a great deal in life is what we do for others." - Dale Carnegie
- Be mindful that critism is beneficial more often than praise.

Looking at your profile at RSC, it says "registered" where it might say "banned" if that was the case. Why do you think that you're banned?

I think we'd like to know your critisisms of the physics, other than the simple "they're shite". What do you mean by "diabolical to drive"? That they're too easy or too hard? Did you drive all of the 66 mod cars?

I have no opinion about the true realism as I've never been in a race car.

You are not banned here and I asked in that PM you responded to, if you wanted me to reset your password here if you'd forgotten it but you've decided to register a new name.......

I am not saying you haven't helped trackmakers as I have spoken to some and also heard comments from others too.

Nobody is saying you can't have an opinion but there are different ways of expressing it and saying that the mods are "rubbish" is just not a very mature or clever way to express them. You say that your above post is mindful of the Board Guidelines as quoted by you but you need to reread your post again I'd say.


I'd gladly test your physics and give you my comments but if you were to then quit GPL if I weren't to feel it wasn't as good as what is out there already, I'd say you'd be pretty silly. Why would you quit on just my opinion? I am but one voice amongst many. I'd expect you to stand up for your convictions.



Saying that something is shite is not giving criticism, it's just churlish.

Firstly Keith, were did I say a mod was rubbish? I said the physics was shite but also gave kudo's to the other work. Its changed in the last few years, the seriousness levels are up and the sense of humours have gone.

You also forget that this 'community' is international, people express different things in different ways and saying something is shite (without the e on the end) is a very common Australian expression.

Oh I was banned Bob but seems to be clear this morning.

I have also had 2 posts dissapear probably because they weren't what people wanted to hear even though they were light humour.

Anyway, I'll display some of my own physics work later today.

I'm still in the dark as to *why* you think the mod physics are sh*t Mark. From what I gather, you seem to think they've been made too tricky to drive, but I guess we all know that compared to 66, old 67 GPL was even *more* tricky to handle.

I would like to see a replay of your physics against the current (66) one - if that matches up yearwise, that is. (Comparing it to old 67 wouldn't do much good since that's, well, nice but outdated.)

But I'd also like to hear *why* you think the physics aren't up to snuff, in some detail. (Uh, and backed up by some evidence, preferably. )

Improving low-speed slip angles and introducing high-speed lift, which are among the most-often mentioned improvements of the mods, were done for good technical reasons imho. But controllability was also improved - the BT19 in the 66 mod in handling terms is much more like what Jack Brabham described ('easy to drift and had no vices', which was definitely not how I'd describe the Brabham in original old 67 GPL).

Regards, Rudy
(GPLRank: -34)

Indeed Rudy, I never said the 66 physics were worse than 67.

I think that one person in particular has a lot to answer for saying how dangerous etc. '67 race cars were to drive. Journo's, always looking for sensationalism.

Not to take away how dangerous the era was of course, 150 mph within inches of lamposts, haybales etc. isn't a recipe for safety, but that was the conditions overall, not the cars handling themselves.

Anyway, i'll gather my evidence over the next few days, depending on my time schedule.

If you want '66 physics specifically it would take me a few days to find the time to do them, at the moment I have '77 and '67. Doesn't matter, inherently cars behave in a similar fashion up until ground effects. (Now I'm sure that statement will be misinterpreted, lol!)

I would say (if I may say so) that discussion here moves into the right direction.

IMO it is not wrong to criticize things - but it all depends on HOW we do it. Doing constructive critics is definitely a good things and helps improving things (as things can for sure be always improved). But being just (!) negative does not help. And that was my point in the other thread at RSC. Given, I did not say it that clear but I always trust in people that they get the message. Well, who cares.

And by the way, I am neither a hotlapper nor is my name Fernando. Nor do I care what somebody has done or given to the community if he behaves - in international terms - "bad". And also by the way, the 66mod is not the holy grail for me. In fact, I spend much more time (although I rarely have time) in the 65mod.

To summarize: Thanks Rudy for insisting on asking and also thanks Mark for your last post. Once again I am convinced that THIS sort of discussion can help all of us (the other one at RSC not).

Regards,
Ferdinand

Right here:



----------------------------------------------



You obviously did not read the Board Guidelines thoroughly:


If you are arguing the point it's because you do realize that it may not be acceptable to say it so liberally in other parts of the world and may cause offense. C'mon Mark, you're just using that sort of language to stir it up.


.

I'm one of the beta testers who feel guilty to make the 66mod more challenging then the ones like Arturo which wanted more easy to control cars.

Those guys which wanted more easy to control cars have been backed up by some other, older ones which had some background info about how other cars in that time felt and behaved. So more or less authentic and to a certain degree realistic.

I have been not racing a real race car or even the chance to drive an open wheeler. All my experience is only from Simracing. And I must admit that I find the original physics still challenging even if not very realistic.

The problem for me why it's so hard to create realistic physics is that it's hard to find real data how the cars act.
I have watched a lot of movies/clips from those races. According to most movies and photos the cars seemed easy to drive. So I was a long time thinking that the physics should be reflecting this.

But then I noticed that we have been watching aliens. Dan, Clark, Rindt etc.
You might wonder why I think they are aliens.
I have a background as a drummer and there's a difference between a pro and an average drummer. As a pro you see the guy playing drums and it looks easy. But it's only easy because of thousands of hours training. If you are only average it will never look so easy and worse it even don't feel easy.

Same must be applied to any Sim and to any real sport. To move a car fast and easy you need a lot of experience.
Studying some replays with more attention to small details you can see how they have been struggling to keep the car so smooth. Even in this movie you can see it a bit: https://forum.racesimcentral.com/showthread.php?t=318102

Or if you watch current F1, which is boring, but without TC you see how hard it is to control those cars which have a lot of downforce. And they are still able to spin the cars.

That's why I changed my mind and think that the 66mod maybe even a little bit to easy but I had no problems with the physics how they are because it was a compromise.
Maybe with more time they would have been better but when is better good enough? The team could have spent months more and I'm sure that the physics would have been better/different but for all ?

I know and have faith that the next mod will still advance in terms of physics. Who would have thought that lifting would be possible. Or draft ?

Maybe the effects are to hard for some or to easy for some others but the main problem is still the same. It's 'only' a simulation and cars are the worst to simulate. There's a great movie clip from Brian Beckman (https://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=314874) and the clip itself: https://download.microsoft.com/download/9/b...Physics_ch9.mp3

I'm still lucky that I hadn't to much influence on the physics
And for the default setups which are not easy, we are working on a V1.1 where there are easier default setups inlcuded. No physics changes however.

I've just looked and posted at RSC.



Hmmm and yet you were able to carry on responding by posting over there. I thought when someone was banned, one couldn't use the same moniker to post. (Sarcasm being the greatest form of wit.) Still don't see anything inferring you are banned over there.

I'm not sure where all this has stemmed from, but I have to say from a purely scientific point of view the mod physics have been done quite badly - purely because they fatally let the question of "do I like it" get into the equation. Its all very well putting slipstream and body lift in, among other things - but again, I'm not convinced a true understanding of these phenomena is really there for people to start tinkering with them.

On the other hand, nobody wants to see the effort gone into graphics, menus and other research go to waste on a mod that is no fun to drive, and/or doesn't feel sufficiently different to drive.

That's true, William, a pure academic excercise this is not. However, as I said before, it was never intended to be as such;

and secondly, no matter how scientifically you'd treat the matter, it would *always* be a "best approximation", no more - since this is a computer sim and not real life. Countless variables would never be able to be fully simulated. So a reasoned best guess is all it'll ever be.

That said, even though "do I like it" does come into play, every player to take that into account will also be able to take realism into account - having possession of a human brain and reasoning. Most GPL players also take "is it realistic" into account. Very, very little of them would probably be willing to sacrifice realism for 'likeable' physics outright. Slight compromises might be made, but that's part of the 'best approximation' scenario. "If it's more realistic, then make it harder" will *also* come into play.

Considering the amount of years that fine-tuning and best-approximating the GPL physics has taken, and that several people who did have some experience with real racing cars also had to give their go-ahead to the mods (if John King, Expat, Stu Bartosiak or SteveC would've all opposed their physics, I don't think they'd have been released at all), I guess it's fairly safe to say that despite a lack of purely scientific approach - which, as said, could basically never be fully accomplished anyway - given the amount of collective human reasoning and fault-correcting, the current outcome particularly in the 66 mod will in all likelihood still be a fairly close approximation of the physics in real life. (There, how's *that* for a sentence )

Regards, Rudy
(GPLRank: -34)

Keith I'm not sure why you have now posted at least 3 times about banning. I posted, went and made a coffee, came back, refreched the page, Stu, Skingley and you had replied. I wanted to reply to you and the message prompt came up "your IP address is blah blah...". I closed IE, reopened and the same. I opened Youhide.com (proxy server) and opened RSC thru there. I sent an e mail to the Admin asking and saw later the email bounced "can not contact IP... blah blah". The next morning after Bob said there was no problem that he could see, I checked and indeed was logged in.

I'm not making any deal about it and I don't know why you are, I was merely explaining why I responded to you here.

Further more you still haven't shown me where I called a mod rubbish. I indeed said my own physics were rubbish.

At RSC and here all you have done is bag me, is there some comment you would like to make about the topic - the physics?

You see Bernd, you cover a few points that is whats wrong about all of this. You had a group of Guys thinking/guessing and countering each other as to what physics are correct - who won? The ones with the biggest mouths. As Pirinzo says, the fatal point arrives when the Director of physics says "do you like it?" Thats the point where the physics go down the drain, either they are real based on fact or they are not. (within the the limited scope of being unable to have varibles).

Its not very hard to prove the 66 physics aren't correct, just go to youtube and look at any race car losing it/spinning in the rain. Same. Does anyone think that cars are so knife edged to drive? Do you really think you can't overstep the line by some margin without dying, lol. I can't believe how much evidence there is on film and video etc. from the 30's through to now to demonstrate that cars can actually go quite sideways and the only punishment is time wasted and damaged tyres. Race cars are generally easy to drive, thats the way they are designed and what they are designed to do. Fast laps are accomplished by smooth driving and keeping momentum - again facts that are widely available.

I don't see that Hotlappers have anything to worry about either, some of their laps are quite commendable and real physics will still see them at the top I'm sure. Its just that the rest of the feild will also be enjoying themselves because real race cars are quite easy to drive at 8/10ths.

I am just so frustrated with all of this, why would a race car be built to behave badly? Can't some of you see the logic? Why would someone build a race car to be driven for 2 hours with the potential to die at every corner? Its a drivers nitemare to have a unpredictable car.

There are so many people out there who would like to have an enjoyable realistic sim and they just can't manage these IMO, unrealistic physics so I want to give them decent drivable real physics, as real race cars are.

And finally, real physics are quite easy to do, all you need is some basics - lap times at various differing tracks. Then you need to calculate grip, acceleration and top speed - when you have the combo right, the lap times fall into place at the varying tracks - if you have too fast a lap time at a tight twisty track you know you have too much grip etc. Then it simply comes down to a knowledge base of experienced people in regard to feel and well known real life physics etc.

There has been a problem with the .exe's in relation to getting control over the physics it was thought as I thought and others thought, that the tyre model was where the answer lay and who could count the number of hours Richard, Gene, Steffen, Christopher, myself and others I can't remember off the top of my head and unfortunately the result still hasnt arrived. The best yet is these radial tyre feeling 66's that still have no realistic grip past that knife edge - you know what I mean, like driving on ice.

1 week ago in frustration from the 69 mod, (4 flat radial tyres) I started up my own physics work again. I sat and pondered for a couple of days why all of us and so many man hours couldn't get the result and then an idea struck me that we may have all this time been looking from the wrong angle. So I re-read all 440 posts at a private egroup to get me back up to speed, got some of my old tools and made 2 hacks of a standard '67 1.202 .exe and couldnt believe it, the first time it worked! Can you imagine how I felt! How many hours I have modded .exe's and so many hours by others, so many diferent tyre combo's and I make just 2 hacks and suddenly have the best physics I have driven! There is some fine tuning to be done for sure.

The only question is now what to do about it. I want to release a corrected '67 .exe. I am open to ideas how to go about it. Not that I truly care any more, but theres no risk to the Rank and WR's (that should only be accepted from lap times during an IGOR race so as the .exe is verified and thats the way it is in real life anyway) because the real physics are slower as was top speed so quite easy to spot if a replay is offered to Rank.

I doubt that GEM would be up for it, although Paul is a great Guy, I think the screaming from the loud crowd would weigh him down.

Probably best just release an .exe and people can just put it into there GPL folder and run it from there for their personal use and race their freinds online through GPL software, how does that sound?

Another item, the last post in the thread at RSC suggests anyone can do this, you just don't understand what I have found, 6 or so values changed to get a better result in comparison to the hundreds maybe even thousands in the wrong area. And it's not an ego thing, I just got lucky and my good luck will bring many a smile to peoples faces.

FWIW, I am back doing this because I will build a mod for my own race cars I am building, I see this as a great promotional and training vehicle for this pupose and thats the main reason I need absolute real physics.

I can't edit for some reason Bob and having trouble quoting too.

By the way, have a look at I-Racing for the incar film https://www.iracing.com/ some nice ideas of what cars actually do sometimes.

Oh, theres one other big problem in GPL as to why you will never have real physics;

Most every corner in GPL has camber to mask the crap original physics, most corners have increasing grip as you enter (camber gain), grip as you drive through and decreasing grip as you exit (camber loss).

Also, track legnths aren't true - If I had 2 x 100 meter track sections, 1 that went down for 500 meters and the next comes back up for 500 meters, GPL still only registers this as a 200 meter length so for example, Nurburgring isnt the length you see because of all the ups and downs. The way I check track length is to put incorrect AI cars in the track, start a race and time them for a lap because they stay at a constant speed on the centerline.

The only true way you can get real simulation is to redo all the tracks without camber (except true life camber of course) with adjusted physics to suit and to true length. (I ain't doing it) Do you remember I was doing the '37 tracks without camber? Thats the reason but couldnt get a grasp of the correct physics then, the 'flat tracks' would have given you a truer sim - probably not too late for this idea for the 37's.

You see, it's all these little things I know that help.

Er, am I the only one who can't make sense of this?

Hehe !
This has taken me some time too but it's simple.

It's a triangle and if you take the way to travel as C it should be 500m sq + 100m sq = travel way sq. This would mean that the real way a car had to travel would be ca. 509.9 m where GPL would calculate only the movement horizontal.

Here we go again, so now you have continued your drivel over here.

Firstly, you keep mentioning " real physics ". Why do you think you know how real physics should be ?

You have never driven a 60's F1 car, you have probably never driven any formula car. You are not a mechanical engineer. You are forming all your assumptions from your fantasy world that you live in.

Secondly, if you intend posting a patched exe of 67 you should ask the gpl community in a poll at RSC and maybe here if they want 67 ruined forever by you.

If you intend to post a patched exe of any existing mod then don't.

There is only one exe available for each mod ( 69 exception ) and that is how it should stay unless the authors of those mods agree to change them.
Gpl's online community would be killed by your hacks but somehow I believe this is your intention, to damage gpl and its community.

If you wish to post your interpretation of physics then make your own mod with a carset and environment just as the mods team do. And leave other people's work alone .



paul

This belies a poor understanding of trigonometry Mark. A fairly steep rise on a race circuit, especially over a distance of 100 meters would be 5%. That's a rise of 5 meters over 100 meters. The hypoteneus (actual road length) would be the squuare root of the squares of the two sides or (the square root of 10,000+25) = 100.1 m. That 10 centimeter difference could be made up or lost by a very slight deviation from the line taken around the course.

If the entire Nurburgring went up at 5% half the way and then down 5% the half (obviously not the case), that would make it 22,864m rather than 22,836m long - a difference of 0.1% in distance or 0.6 seconds over 8 minutes. Are you trying to say that this is significant?

A strong opinion from someone who was not involved in the process in the least. Both sides were equally vocal with a fair number stuck in the middle. In fact, I got very frustrated with the process and stepped away from it for several months, so I was very quiet then!

Your assumption that all drivers with real racing experience sided against the "hotlappers" is quite wrong as well given that Stuart (sbart_UK) has recent competitive Formula Ford experience and his thoughts mirrored mine.

I have been fortunate lately to talk to many of the heavy hitters in the sim world and real racing world that I know have true racing experience. None are nearly as arrogant as you. You act as if you are the only one who could possibly know what a car should feel like and how it should react and your opinion should be the only one that counts. Funny how the real programmers and racers never put up that front. I think that's very telling.

Instead of just being negative and trying to turn the GPL experience into an rFactor experience by dividing everyone and being a dick, why not spend all this energy on your own mod and stop bashing the hell out of everyone else's work. Let the masses decide who is right and who is wrong in their own minds. If you know you are right, you should be confident enough in yourself not to carry on this way and just get on with your own stuff. Screaming, "look at me, I am right!" with absolutely nothing to back it up over and over just shows insecurity. The proof is in the pudding.

1/ Well, your not a Moderator here and I was quite enjoying conversation with the others here, so firstly Keith please veiw Mr Skingleys "drivel" remark.

2/3/ Umm I'm a little bored to tell you actually because you won't believe it anyway - besides my racing and rallying (throw bike motocross and some club day circuit laps in as well) I am a Mechanical Engineer (wow you have mud on your face now), If you really think it's required I can show you my degree. My resume includes suspension development for GM and Nissan. One of my specialties/hobbys on the side was Weber carby tuning, for which I was constantly sought and ended up at Calder Raceway often seting up mostly a variety of club race cars of which I drove many. Never driven a 60's F1 car (who has?) but driven 2 F5000's in testing, RT4 Ralts and a few FF's. I had a hillclimb special open wheeler running a Nissan L20 2.4 with 240hp on conventinal tyres which I also ran on open club days at Calder. Later shifted to Brisbane and started a Jap engine import business fitting all sorts of wild Jap motors (many FJ20 Nissans) to various vehicles and setting them up mostly for rallying, some for circuit use - mostly club stuff. The kids soaked up the cash and I got sick of cars so I sold out to my Partner and started a natural terrain Vintage MX club, much safer and I think it cast me about 2000 bucks a year for a whole heap of fun. Did that for 8 years, stopped, moved to China and now am building real race cars, a prototype road car and doing some suspension development for a major Chinese company as part of my engine supply deal. There satisfied? - Highly unlikely.

Now you will post your short resume to be fair, yes?

4/ A '67 .exe will ruin GPL forever? I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Firstly, IGOR will only allow what .exe the server has, so no problem there, it's already known that the Papy 67 physics are faster in top speed than real life so a truer .exe will be slower so no Rank or WR's will be at risk.

I have to ask the GPL community at RSC and MAYBE here? LMAO, what RSC is now the rightful owners of GPL and here is what? Tell Bob what you really think then take your size 6 out of your mouth, LMAO!!


5/ And your going to stop me how? And don't shout, it's rude.

6/ Online community is protected by IGOR, I think thats the 3rd time I've said it, your still not reading my post's are you. I think theres quite a number of people around who understand my true intentions, why don't you run a poll Paul? Not here of course

7/ I have to follow others rules? I thought I was the one living in a Commie place, LMAO!

Go have a good sleep Paul, GPL isn't life - And I promise I will never again respond to you.

100% correctomoondo.

Bernd and Bob, sorry I may not have been clear, Nurb is the best example, Bob it has heaps of dips and crests etc, the extra distance for these Vs a flat road distance isn't accounted for in GPL.

Since I'm interested in this, I will run some wrong AI around it to compare.

Yes unlikely.
you are so well known for exaggeration and bullsh#t that I would need more proof than just your word.



If your concoction was slower at all tracks there would not be such a problem.
But as you do not have a viable beta test program and would do most of the testing yourself you cannot be sure it would be slower at all tracks.
The mods team have produced a 67 exe already, but after asking the community if they wanted it, it was decided not to release it because of objections from some quarters.
This was done out of respect to the whole community and not focused on the wants of an individual.



The Mirror Zone is a valuable asset to the sim racing and gpl community, but RSC has a far bigger membership.
Which is why I said that a poll should also be posted at RSC.




IGOR DOES NOT have a working client authentification. In fact it has been completely removed from the latest IGOR because it did not work.

This is why a patched 67 or whatever would kill the online community and why we have not posted one already.



paul

I do remember reading somewhere that your 37s couldn't cope with crowned camber and that therefore 2 tracks that were going to have it were made flat instead.........



I take his word for it. I take your word on what you have done.


You said it should be posted at RSC and maybe here. RSC may have a bigger membership but caters for sims we don't. Any active GPL user will be registered here to get most of the new addons and at least half of the available tracks for GPL ( if not just about 90% of the later releases anyway) (Thanks Bill )


Oh? Does this mean that different mods can race each other then? What (if any) is the benefit of iGOR over VROC then?


I do remember the poll about adding slipstream where the ayes had won the vote but the vocal minority (ie the posters) got their way and it is not going to be incorporated into the 65s.


Agreed.

<sigh> Ahhhh Mark, Mark, Mark. You are such a quandary. What to do with you. You come back to the community and you start giving us stuff but then you start your usual routine and start causing chaos again.

If only you weren't so stubborn and just accept that you did insult people, unintentionally I hope, and just move on to your more constructive self. I offered you a private forum where you could invite trusted people to test your physics. You have not replied to that offer or just ignored it. I would hope you just overlooked it w/o realizing. Seeing as there is this problem with iGOR I really would appreciate it if you didn't post a public exe and you would accept my offer of the private forum where, hopefully, we could get it incorporated into the new system so that GEM could make the exe up for the user. This method would also be just so much easier for the end user.

Well personally, firstly I am glad that the discussion can continue here; apart from Mark's (and Skingley's) rather vocal attitude, I saw no reason to shut it down at RSC outright without giving due warning.


After looking at Mark's replays I think I have a better idea of what he means though. Some comments,


1) From what I can see, it seems to me that Mark has a point in discussing 'how realistic' the physics are. Discussing them in itself is not a bad thing, it may lead to further improvements later on. (As long as it's about those, and not about how ***'d up other people's efforts or comments might be... )

2) It seems to me that Mark's physics mainly make throttle response and rear-wheel slides more mellow. In other words, from the outside I'd say his cars have more grip on the rear end, are easier to catch, and breakaway point for a rear-end slide is more gradual.

3) From that, I'd say that both Mark and the 66 Mod people, though going down different paths, in their separate ways still have several things in common in developing the old 67 physics.
Compared to 67, the 66 mod does have a somewhat more mellow throttle response and more controllable slide response too. This is partly offset by high-speed aero lift decreasing grip, but the overall effect of increased 'controllability' and 'slidability' does seem similar. Im Mark's mod though, the effect seems MUCH more pronounced and rear-end grip seems MUCH higher.

4) Following from that, the question is: is that actually realistic?
Despite Mark's accounts of his racing backgrounds I'm not convinced (yet) - after all, several members of the mod team have real racing experience too, though none of us has driven an actual 60's F1 car.
But I guess we've all seen the videos of some 60's cars driving and sliding, and I distinctly remember J. Surtees spinning out after hammering on the throttle too fast coming out of the last turn at Watkins. That doesn't seem to support Mark's opinion about the cars spinning out too easily after stomping on the loud pedal.

My personal *impression* of Mark's first test versions seem to me that they respond more like a seventies Formula car, with several years of additional development and much grippier tyres/chassis. In GPL, otoh, we're trying to approximate a wingless sixties formula car, with correspondingly little levels of grip and tyre / chassis development.

5) Mark's (perceived as by me, that is) conclusions about the mod still not giving enough rear-end traction are, as of yet, an opinion of only one person - even if Mark does have racing experience of his own. So I'd like to know, any other members in or outside of the mod group or with real racing experience in pushing Formula cars supporting his theories in part or in full?
Or, is there any hard *proof* that GPL in its latest 66 incarnation still isn't grippy enough at the rear end?

Regards, Rudy
(GPLRank: -34)

PS. Oh, and I agree with Keith about testing new 67.exes in a private forum first - seems like a pretty good solution for the time being.

Completely different topic. What mark has been speaking about directly thus far, at least as far as I took the meaning, was of the discussions involving driving physics inside the beta forum, of which he did not have access.

As far as the draft goes, most voted before the debate got going and many of the good questions were raised. Many said they would change their vote if they could. A majority though? I have no idea. Regardless, that's a different discussion I think.

Well, at least my confused mind keeps you on your toes.

So there you go folks, the answer as I already knew and of course nothing from Mr Skingley re; resume. I have to prove who I am but the front man of 3 mods doesn't.

Of course folks you can check Chinese Law at your local Embassy or on the internet - no one can work in this country without a Degree specific to the field you are in. I build cars and therefore I must have the appropriate Degree to obtain a working 'Z' Visa and Expert's Certificate - Its the law, check it out.

2 members around here have seen private pictures of 1 of my prototype cars. I can upload a public picture of an older prototype spec sports racer WIP because it was decided not to continue with it although I will use the design later next year, my other cars rights that are currently WIP, are owned by other companys so I can't publicly display them as they will be sold under their names and 'Made In China' isn't a tag they want associated with them (don't blame them!).

Be warned Folks, if you have GPL on your system and you want to make a change, please check in with the RSC-MIB first. Whats that *John Smith*, you changed a line in your .ini? And you didn't file this change at our office? Cuff him Boys!

By the way (and I don't honestly know), I have seen at RSC people telling others to download the Demo and use one of the mods over the top circumventing the need to actually purchase GPL - as I state, I don't know, but is there a case here that this may be in breach of both law and morally wrong or is the Demo 'freeware' now?

1/ Hey Rudy, its really nice to be able to discuss. Yeah i'm rude and arrogant, I have a very confident and happy life and when I shut the computer down nothing has changed.

2 and 4/ Well I like to think its more true to what I have experienced in driving and I don't think theres a real drama verifying it with the countless hours of video available now. Most importantly, theres a lot more 'feel' both from the front and rear for what they are doing/maybe going to do, the car is steerable with the throttle but and most importantly, the grip after the grips peak point tapers down in a curve relevant to speed and load - again, similar to real life - GPL up to date drops off like a cliff and your gone man! The throttle response hasn't changed, you stand on it and in many cases your going to rotate 360 degrees and quite quickly too, thats why I left the spins in, so you can see its not arcade, the difference is now you have chance to get off or feather the throttle and with required steering input, save it, albeit with a time punishment of course. I uploaded that file "mistake 1", you have no idea the joy that gave me when that happened. Don't worry Mate, you can't just stand on it. - I'll post a replay today to prove that point. By the way, that last corner at Wat is notorious, its quite downhill there into a dip, (not so well shown in Papy's version) and if you get on the throttle there a little early at the same time you get max suspension compression then unloading, you will rotate quite quickly.

People in race cars are slow for too reasons, 1 of course is your too slow, but 2 is because your too fast - my biggest problem. I'm forever running in too deep under brakes and getting out of line under power (sideways), its a huge problem on tracks that stems from my mostly rallying background. But I like it even though its slow, up until now you can't drive like this in GPL, that side of the equation is missing. I have sat next to Greg Stewart in his home while he ran 26's at Monza, do you know he drives in thin socks and uses the ends of his toes to get the sensitivity required? Needed because he knows, I know and you Guys know what's on the other side of the peak grip point in GPL, ice.

3/ No the grip isn't increased, you can slide a 66 car better than before but its from better feel earlier leading up to peak grip allowing you to make a determination sooner and the actual peak feels to have been 'flattened' (for a better word), not because of better feel/grip curve after peak grip.

5/ This is the sad part in my mind, in the short time these discussions have been going on I have 3 GPL drivers Groups asking to test the physics. Mostly they are older ex racers looking for what I am talking about. Its sad they won't go public, they know the consequences. But then again I'm very happy that I may be able to help them out.

This is interesting Rudy...
My personal *impression* of Mark's first test versions seem to me that they respond more like a seventies Formula car, with several years of additional development and much grippier tyres/chassis. In GPL, otoh, we're trying to approximate a wingless sixties formula car, with correspondingly little levels of grip and tyre / chassis development.

Firstly I hope you understand that the '77 replay is umm, well seventies!

I'm not sure what you mean by little grip, a car goes around a corner at a certain speed - thats the grip its got. if a real car in 67 went around a certain corner at 50mph and I have a sim car that goes around the same sim corner at 50 mph then what's your point? If I had a sim car that went around the same sim corner at 60mph then your comment would be valid.

Suspension? Undeveloped? They were running and building mid engined cars since 1959, the best race engineers in the World. The knowledge of anything like roll centers, caster gain, camber gain, chassis rigidity, - a long list etc. was well under control - you yourself quote Jack Brabham about the BT19's handling. Again, watch some film and keep an open mind when reading about them, remember, sensationalism sells books.

Would you trust the word of a top racing driver from the day? His name is Vic Elford, I won't pretend he's my close freind but we did have some contact some years ago with multiple emails - not GPL related. I'll ask him for some time, I think I know how to swing it. I'm sure he knows a little about 67 sports cars too, lol.

Hell it was 2002 when I was chatting to him, time flies! I hope his lungs have held up! (notorious chain smoker).
https://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?threadid=46864

Oh Fella's, I'm in heaven, what a driving experience, have a look.

That mistake I included was only 1 of 3 times at that corner, the other 2 I rotated, lol. Notice the speed loss.

I think I'm going to have to buy a decent wheel with split axis too and I think I'm going to have to give some others a try.

So, riddle me this:

Should a 1960's F1 car be easier or more difficult to drive off of a corner (meaning throttle input and timing isn't as crucial) as a current, lower tiered, less powerful Formula car, such as a Formula Mazda, Formula Ford, or Skip Barber car?

My thinking is it would be much more difficult as the tires, while wider in the late 60's, didn't have the same levels of grip and used harder compounds, and they had more power. Plus there was no down force and the suspensions probably weren't as advanced as todays lower tiered cars.

Would you agree?

It seems some people are forgetting about the march of technology. Shocks, for instance. The shaft seals used then required a lot of friction to seal properly. That friction was very noticeable. I've taken apart some 60s suspensions, both American and European, and their spring philosophy was wrong. The spring rate was too soft and they used too much preload. You wouldn't believe the improvement when modern components are installed.

Firstly Steve, I don't know what you do for a living but your writing is superb. You can outwrite me with one hand tied behind your back. You are intelligent and very convincing in your writing and I can imagine how it is that you swayed things your way in the mod group. thats truely a compliment. Seriously short of time but will respond Sat or Sunday.

Didnt you read my short resume? You know, the part about suspension? Other than your last sentance, your post is.... well I tell you what, have a serious read again of what you have written and repost or edit the fatally flawed parts.

Do you remember lever shocks? They had their issues, but seal friction wasn't one of them. When low friction seals became available in the early 70s it was news around here. Jack Brabham's mechanic has been quoted as saying that when the cars bottomed out they cranked more preload into the springs. Check out Flop's realistic setups. The only way to get them around a track is to raise the ride height (more preload). The last high friction shocks I had to deal with came on a 1975 Husqvarna 360 CR. They were Girling gas shocks originally designed for cars. The springs were too soft and had too much preload also. I had to go out and buy modern shocks & springs right away. Much better.

https://www.qvmx.com/html/qvmx_profile.html

I can't begin to tell you how many 60's and 70's Koni's, Girlings, Ceriani's, CZ etc suspensions I have restored/rebuilt/modified over the 6 years I was President.

The comparisons of iGOR and VROC have been debated ad infenitum over at RSC. My view is they both should remain available. The one main advantage of iGOR is that it can call up mod exe's. VROC only calls up gpl.exe so if you want to race with mod physics on VROC you must manually change exe names or use the GEM VROC button, which basically renames the exe's for you.

Thanks for the clarification Murray.

In early mod groups from memory, a few tried to get hold of the VROC source code.

I was actually looking in depth at the 66 mod physics when the quake hit (wow, maybe the Mod Gods really are! Did you throw an Earthquake at me Paul? Now come on, own up.) and for you to throw the word concoction at me is just simply incredible.

If you like I'll teach you Guys how to measure/estimate a roll center instead of using 2 of Papys '67's and 1 of your own for all of the cars. Do you even understand why a rear roll center is generally placed higher than a front RC even though for so many cars you have used a flat roll centerline (same RC front and rear)? Not realistic, nor ar some of the other values I see. You should be more careful with your words, you know - Those who live in a glass house shouldn't throw stones etc....

Who said I didnt have a beta test team by the way? I do, in fact chosen because of their racing experience.

I really wanted to stay out of this discussion but I can't hold my tongue any longer.

Mark, I normally take people as they come and accept their little character defects. I don't really know you and in person you may come across totally differently. I wasn't around in the early days before you disappeared to China but since you returned the underlying tone of virtually every subject you have posted on is Mark Beckman knows best.

Mark Beckman knows how to do AI best, Mark Beckman knows how to make tracks best, Mark Beckman knows how to do physics best. It comes across that you somehow feel upset that GPL has actually progressed in your absence and that shouldn't of happened because you are the only one who knows how to do it properly. Now you might not mean for it to sound like that but that is how it comes across.

There are many dedicated people in the GPL mod teams and yes compromises were made in producing the 66 physics but at the end of the day it is a game and the 66 cars are enjoyable to drive.

Not wanting to sound critical but your Can-Am cars pale in to insignificance when you see the work now going on with car models in the various WIP mods and those already released. That’s not to say your Can-Ams weren't ground breaking at the time, just now things have moved on so far.

Like many others I'd be more than interested to try out any 67 physics you come up with but one of the greatest assets of the GPL community is the co-operation of those involved in modding, which has prevented it descending in to the chaos that is rFactor. This is especially important because of the lack of a physics check for online racing or rank time submissions.

BTW I'm Ken from RSC

OK, like Ken, I've been watching this thread (and the RSC original that spawned it) silently but with great interest.

I was a 66 Beta tester, though not able to devote nearly as much time as I would have liked (young family and all that goes with it).

However, I was around when one interim physics version in particular was being tested. Can't remember the version number, but I do vividly recall how it drove. Its problem was that it appeared to have no grip limit, or at least one that was so high as to be inaccessible when over-driving the cars. In particular, it was possible to hammer the throttle coming out of corners with no ill effect whatsoever. Absolutely impossible to unstick the rear end. The ensuing debate about that version got very heated indeed and that was when all the 'hot lapper' stuff came into the frame. Got very nasty and negative for a while.

Some points about that scenario:
- It seemed obvious that physics version had a big problem. Are we seriously saying that only drivers that have real world racing experience could make that sort of judgement in that particular case? Seems more than a stretch to me.
- It was testing to the limit that revealed the problem in that particular case, rather then driving the cars well within their limits. But doesn't that raise an important point about testing physics? In order to get the full picture, we need to test the cars and see how they behave over the full range - both well within the limits (the slower to average driver's view) and near/over the limit (the fast to 'alien' driver's view). We also need to bring the entire range of driver skill to bear when testing - from slower through average to alien.

Frankly, I find some of this 'hot lapper' nonsense that gets thrown around on the forums bizarre. As Steve points out, the very fastest drivers tend to be very good racers too. Consider Greger Huttu and Greg Stewart - both up there in the top ranks of so-called 'hot lapping' but also well known for being fantastic, successful racers. All that work on technique pays off in the end - it means they can drive a little inside their limits when racing and be very consistent. Racing well is more about attitude and consideration for other drivers than where you sit in the speed spectrum, unless your goal is to win at any cost.

John.

Just popped back because I felt I was a bit remiss at not conveying my concern for Mark and the local inhabitants of the quake hit area he currently resides in. The TV picture on the news look horrendous.

This discussion is probably the last thing on your mind right now. I hope the after shocks are easing up by now and people can start to feel less vunerable. Of course nothing we can say or do will make the situation for those who have lost friends and family any easier.

Ken,

Wrong -

Because I disagree to use an AI generator doesn't make my AI the best, I never said they were and I still will argue that doing them by hand will get a more realistic result - REGARDLESS of WHO does them!

My tracks aren't the best, they have great FPS and I am proud to have been able to help a lot, and I mean a LOT of people - anonymously in most cases and I don't see anywhere where I have complained about anyones tracks except to say bad FPS's at some tracks give me headaches and that ducks in ponds was overkill - maybe Nigels Rasteriser will cure that side of things the WIP car builders had better hope so, 10 - 12 FPS at start at Monaco is a joke for some of the WIP carsets I have.

Well, we will soon see about the physics wont we ;-)

I put this down to just another character attack and no true disscussion around the poor and unrealistic physics, join the (rather large) club.

No problem Ken, glad to see some can distinguish real life from a driving sim - some.

1/ Ok, so I only partly blame you then.

2/ From your description, throw in the rubbish bin, I doubt real racers would want it either, maybe it just raised some boiling points from previous .exe's that forced some opinions - at a guess.

3/ 100% wrong. There is only 1 real car physics, it either is a (reasonable) simulation or it isn't - not an averaged out physics to suit a broad range of players. You do not have the right to call it a simulation when you admit to this. You have a broad based gamers challenge, nothing else. You and others quite openly admit that this is what happened in the Mod group yet still push that its realistic - 1 physics tuned to suit 50 people.

4/ Yeah right, I've watched WR's/Hotlappers replays - stand on the brakes with your left foot (what 47% bias?) and control the anticipated spin through the corner by pumping the throttle with your right foot creating wheelspin, thats your idea of how a 60's GP car was controlled is it? Don't get me wrong, I respect anyone who's good at anything, but lets sort the facts of a driving simulation out here.
Take this comparison for consideration .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbU4GZkt7ig...feature=related or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMEqOGejlrw...feature=related

5/ I want to beat other people, that why its called racing. And everytime I hit the track i want to be faster, more consistant or both. But I also want to drive as realistic an experience related to 60's racing cars as I can, and you haven't offered it - edge of the seat stuff, fun game but no sim cigar.


Ok, Iv'e been bashed enough and taken on each question, now I have a question for the 1966 Mod Team..

Your all so proud of the often mentioned "aerodynamic lift at speed" enablement in the Mod, so answer me this VERY SIMPLE question...

If in true life aerodynamic lift creates understeer (and thats commonly available knowlege) and the 66 Mod Team knew it - why did the 66 Mod Team incorrectly and puposely model it 'opposite to real life' to produce more lift at the rear of the car to induce high speed oversteer??


I can't believe the word "concoction" was thrown at me, LMFAO!
"The term "concoction" is sometimes loosely used metaphorically in order to describe a cocktail or a motley assembly of things, persons or ideas"

I have done an experiment at Senzapatria. I drove a 67 Cooper off the launching ramp at full speed, keeping the rpms steady so engine torque didn't rotate the car. It flew flat and would have cleared the ridge except for "wind shear".

Next I took a 66 Cooper and did the same thing. It assumed a decidedly nose high attitude all the way into the ground. This is not a hypothesis or theory, but an observed fact. Anyone else should be able to repeat this test. Isn't this how it's supposed to behave?

Um, Mark, since that's not quite how I remembered its behaviour, I did a simple test and took the 66 Cooper around Monza. If I went into the corners too fast and steer in far too hard, it understeered right out in Curva Grande and Ascari, both pure high-speed corners. (See attached replays)

Now, it depends on how you take the corners of course, if I suddenly back off the throttle mid-corner it's also possible to induce oversteer, but in a steady-state situation as described above, the test didn't support your conclusion (yet . It understeered rather than oversteered. And this was using a slightly modified SteveCloyd setup with a 45/85/1 diff, so it's not like I use particularly understeery setups, either.

But in general, I would say that the 66 mod at speed does reduce rear-end grip at the back at high speeds, but it also does so at the front. In other words, the introduced aero lift seems to reduce high-speed grip *overall*, both front and back.
I also noticed like Miklkit that the 66 cars tend to land rear-end-first more than 67, but this could also be due to a different weight distribution.

Regards, Rudy
(GPLRank: -34)