Unbelievable results

1141517192032

Comments

  • GT47LMGT47LM Posts: 395 ✭✭✭

    First for me. Mine is 696 while his is 936. Not only is mine lighter but also has 3 more points in tuning and still lost
  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭✭✭
    GT47LM said:

    First for me. Mine is 696 while his is 936. Not only is mine lighter but also has 3 more points in tuning and still lost
    Rain event?
  • REALAISREALAIS Posts: 427 ✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    GT47LM said:

    First for me. Mine is 696 while his is 936. Not only is mine lighter but also has 3 more points in tuning and still lost
    Rain event?
    You can zoom in on photo. Dry asphalt
  • GT47LMGT47LM Posts: 395 ✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    GT47LM said:

    First for me. Mine is 696 while his is 936. Not only is mine lighter but also has 3 more points in tuning and still lost
    Rain event?
    No rain. Otherwise I would have been more "understanding" knowing the physics of this game
  • SSVSSV Posts: 79 ✭✭✭
    Apologies to whoever it was that I fed a win to. Please don’t put me in the ‘bad smurfers’ thread...

  • REALAISREALAIS Posts: 427 ✭✭✭


    So everything is as it should be.
    3.3/3.3/2.3
    Vs
    3.2/3.3/3.1
  • REALAISREALAIS Posts: 427 ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019


    And here it gets interesting. 
    Same both cars from previous post.
    Seems that extra Handling gives better MRA to brake.

    3.3/3.3/2.3
    Vs
    3.2/3.3/3.1

    Won by better MRA
  • dpx37dpx37 Posts: 12
    This result is just "out of this world" (maybe on the Moon this will be possible).

    And reason is "better off the line acceleration". :D>:)

    C'mon Hutch... can you make this game just a LITTLE more realistic.
    (or maybe in wet dirt - mud standard tires are really superior... on the Moon).
  • RWareRWare Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭✭✭
    By 11 seconds as well!!!
  • bantel_catbantel_cat Posts: 944 ✭✭✭✭✭
    SSV said:
    Apologies to whoever it was that I fed a win to. Please don’t put me in the ‘bad smurfers’ thread...

    The clue is in the name.
    The Citroen has a hidden 'Traction' bonus giving it Furai like grippiness
  • OzzmanOzzman Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019
    Apparently there's HIGH ground clearance and EVEN HIGHER. But, you know, it's internal policy which car has the latter.


  • REALAISREALAIS Posts: 427 ✭✭✭
    G class always had that in game since I am playing.
  • gonongonon Posts: 14
    I'm a bit lost


  • AndreasSimmerAndreasSimmer Posts: 1,152 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019
    Lets hope this is fake... Turn off sound, nsfw!


  • MrpiratepeteMrpiratepete Posts: 713 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Lets hope this is fake... Turn off sound, nsfw!


    At least the "How to" part is missing. :)
  • MrpiratepeteMrpiratepete Posts: 713 ✭✭✭✭✭

    🤷‍♂️.
  • Hutch_TimHutch_Tim Posts: 637 admin
    I haven't checked in on this thread for a while, it's definitely time to pick this up again.

    Quick recap of the biggest known issues:
    1) Upgrading the engine upgrades traction, nobody expects it or likes it.
    2) Results of x-y mph races (e.g. 0-150, 75-125) are sometimes clearly wrong, especially if one or both cars can't hit the top speed
    3) RWD/Perf cars sometimes slow down to maintain traction on dry asphalt (so the very fastest RWD/Perf don't even hit their 0-60 times, and also due to (1) sometimes a car with a more upgraded engine will win on a slalom because of this)
    4) Sometimes a heavier car wins in off-road conditions

    As I talked about a while back, just turning off engine-upgrades-traction would change the optimal tunes on a very large number of cars, so would be extremely disruptive. Seems like it's better to fix the biggest bugs first, then take a big look at engine/traction and the general situation of tuning and how we should handle that. Items (2) and (3) are first up for being fixed.

    Now for some highlights out of the above.

    People in general are being surprised by the MRA on the 2009 Renault Sport Megane Trophy, but I don't see anything in the car corrections thread on it. Is that real-life benchmarking data is hard to find?

    🤔    

    That looks like a correction is needed!

    HeissRod said:
    Based on other reports of results with the Elmiraj, I begin to wonder if ABS is not enabled.  @Hutch_Robin?
    Interesting theory - I double-checked though, and it does appear to be enabled.

    mikes said:
    Lol  😆 

    This is a case of fine-tuning the traction. Right now, on mud, RWD/Standard Tires for some reason has very slightly more traction than 4WD/Performance tires. I can see that mud is the only surface where that is the case - everywhere else 4WD/Perf wins. We should be consistent on this and have RWD/Std less traction on mud as well, so I'll make a note of that.

    Absolutely love getting beat 🤦🏾‍♂️

    Another traction-tuning situation - FWD/Standard has higher traction than RWD/Perf on every surface except ice, for some reason. That should definitely get corrected.

    These are becoming more frequent


    I'm not certain what you mean by "these". I expect this one is engine-upgrades-traction having a bigger effect than usual due to the hill - if you slow down a little on the hill you can lose a lot of time.

    The other more common thing I see here is that Handling/weight is more important than people expect in snow/ice. There's a realistic part here I don't think we're going to change. Having a faster 0-60 time on asphalt is never going to translate into as big an advantage in heavy off-road conditions where your traction is limited. Being heavier will be a big disadvantage as you have to brake earlier for corners to maintain traction.


    REALAIS said:


    And here it gets interesting. 
    Same both cars from previous post.
    Seems that extra Handling gives better MRA to brake.

    3.3/3.3/2.3
    Vs
    3.2/3.3/3.1

    Won by better MRA
    This looks a lot like a physics-frame/rounding issue. Physics is simulated in 0.03s intervals, so my guess is something like this happens:
    10.00s into the race: 996 SS is at 59.99 mph, still needs to accelerate; 897 SS is at 59.95mph, still needs to accelerate
    10.03s into the race: 996 SS is at 60.04 mph, can to start braking; 897 SS is at 60.00mph, can start braking.

    In the frame at which they start braking, the 996 is going slightly faster, so takes one extra frame to slow to a halt.

    I asked about whether we could simulate the physics with finer granularity. The problem is that it currently takes about 2 days to simulate the races of every car on every track at every upgrade (to generate the database that results are then drawn from). If we simulated at 0.01s intervals, it would take 6 days! Perhaps that doesn't sound so bad, but in practice when we make a physics change that necessitates re-simulating the races, it usually takes a few iterations of checking results and making tweaks, so this wouldn't be practical.

    The fix here would be I guess either somehow kill exotic tunes (as these are where it's most likely to show up), and/or implement some kind of rules-based forcing of results that 'should' go a certain way, although I fear that's a can of worms all on its own.
  • MrpiratepeteMrpiratepete Posts: 713 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wait WHAT?
  • MSteeLMSteeL Posts: 1,009 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elmiraj has fake stats, as cars with lower grip go faster in corners.
  • evilprofesseurevilprofesseur Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hutch_Tim said:
    These are becoming more frequent


    I'm not certain what you mean by "these". I expect this one is engine-upgrades-traction having a bigger effect than usual due to the hill - if you slow down a little on the hill you can lose a lot of time.

    The other more common thing I see here is that Handling/weight is more important than people expect in snow/ice. There's a realistic part here I don't think we're going to change. Having a faster 0-60 time on asphalt is never going to translate into as big an advantage in heavy off-road conditions where your traction is limited. Being heavier will be a big disadvantage as you have to brake earlier for corners to maintain traction.

    sorry, wasn't quite clear here. by 'these' I meant the wrong card being displayed. Even taking the hill on the twisty road into consideration I find it hard to believe that a 969 vs 699 would have a 10s difference
  • REALAISREALAIS Posts: 427 ✭✭✭



    REALAIS said:


    And here it gets interesting. 
    Same both cars from previous post.
    Seems that extra Handling gives better MRA to brake.

    3.3/3.3/2.3
    Vs
    3.2/3.3/3.1

    Won by better MRA
    This looks a lot like a physics-frame/rounding issue. Physics is simulated in 0.03s intervals, so my guess is something like this happens:
    10.00s into the race: 996 SS is at 59.99 mph, still needs to accelerate; 897 SS is at 59.95mph, still needs to accelerate
    10.03s into the race: 996 SS is at 60.04 mph, can to start braking; 897 SS is at 60.00mph, can start braking.

    In the frame at which they start braking, the 996 is going slightly faster, so takes one extra frame to slow to a halt.

    I asked about whether we could simulate the physics with finer granularity. The problem is that it currently takes about 2 days to simulate the races of every car on every track at every upgrade (to generate the database that results are then drawn from). If we simulated at 0.01s intervals, it would take 6 days! Perhaps that doesn't sound so bad, but in practice when we make a physics change that necessitates re-simulating the races, it usually takes a few iterations of checking results and making tweaks, so this wouldn't be practical.

    The fix here would be I guess either somehow kill exotic tunes (as these are where it's most likely to show up), and/or implement some kind of rules-based forcing of results that 'should' go a certain way, although I fear that's a can of worms all on its own.
    KT forum has multiple posts about this.

    And that is not only about exotic tunes

    3*maxed SS Trailblazers are losing to 1*.

    2/1/1 is losing to 1/1/1
    3/3/2 is losing to 2/3/3
  • 43MK443MK4 Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Hutch_Tim regarding that Megane Trophy, Tim if you haven’t seen any corrections or complains on this forum about it, it means we are happy about the way it is.
    so no we don’t want you to nerf it and release some other French beast making all Meganes useless.
  • NinjaDesignzNinjaDesignz Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Another wtf
    Btw, the Nissan has better mra. It just slows down way too much even though it has better handling 
  • TGPDTGPD Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Another wtf
    Btw, the Nissan has better mra. It just slows down way too much even though it has better handling 
    as you can see, having the greatest f1 driver's name stickered onto your car does gives it extra bhp
  • evilprofesseurevilprofesseur Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Blue2moro said:
    Turning off engine upgrades traction should come with an ability to change tunes for free within the game. After an amnesty period this option should then be removed.
    That's the most sensible solution
Sign In or Register to comment.