Going back to controller

[Pigems]

I’m a leaner as well.

 

[KiepeYai]

Ds4 - I don't lean, but when i miss my braking point and i'm about to hit someone's rear i press the floor with my foot really hard

 

[jwaaa17]

i'm leaning back forth with my ds4 sometimes i just have to laugh at myself. it's probably even worse since i use the motion control

 

[Groundfish]

I’ve only hit the chicane of doom once this week but there’s been a few times where I was really close where I dodged with my head

 

[Deadpool]

Sorry got tied up for a bit, but I'm back. And it appears you don't understand what "false claim" means.

False claim #1 & #2: "apart from the last few feet." You can see a few feet behind you in chase cam, and much more than a few feet in the radar. You admitted this to be a false claim, then claimed it didn't really matter that you made the false claim.

"few feet" "you can see a few feet"

Wow..... seriously??? We both literally said "few feet". So you yet again repeated what I said, yet claimed it means something else. And I never admitted it was a false claim, I clarified that the few feet was in regards to the visual. We then expanded on radar which gives a little further back.

False claim #1 destroyed. Lets move on to #2. Wait..... where is #2? Looks like you skipped right to 3. Very well.

False claim #3: "you can't detect a dive bomber until it's too late." False because it's subjective. I can detect dive bombers using chase cam. Do it all the time.

You failed at context again. Context that I have gone over and above to clarify for you on numerous occasions. So this is a disingenuous "false claim" on your part. If you go back and read the comment on detecting a dive bomber you will see I was specifically referring to the ones lunging from so far back that you can't see them on radar.

Stop lying. Own your mistakes.

False claim #4 & #5: again, more than a few feet visible in the radar. I said 2-3 car lengths. You said 2 at most, which means I have made an accurate claim. "Completely blind to what's behind you." Not true. I can see a few feet, and much more than a few feet using the radar. This means I am not completely blind to what's behind me. Perhaps our definitions of "completely blind" differ? Not sure how that could be, but perhaps.

Nothing here was a false claim.

Please stop lying. As I've had to spoon feed you over and over and over, the "completely blind" was in regards to visibility beyond radar. I've literally clarified this for you NUMEROUS times. You have repeatedly shown incompetence with reading comprehension and have further proven it here.

Let me say it again since you keep missing the point. Beyond the radar, you are BLIND unless you use look back. The entire discussion hinges on that, that's the context your missing.

Oh and heres a fun fact. I watched a few of your youtube videos and found you CONSTANTLY use the look back button when cars are further back than the radar shows. This just shows how disingenuous you have been. "why do you need to look that far" , hypocrisy. You clearly don't practice what you preach.

So False claim #4 and #5, also not false claims.

Never said it was. I acknowledged that the mirror is better. This is bordering on what a straw man is, that thing you like to talk about so much. Straw man is not necessarily taking something out of context as you claimed, it's actually arguing against a position that was never made.

You're arguing for it says differently. This all comes from your inability to understand the basic concept of the discussion. Which is visibility without removing forward vision. For some odd reason you feel the need to continuously reiterate the ability to use the lookback button. My stating that it isn't a substitute for a mirror was directly in context within the subject matter. So not even remotely a straw man, but nice try.

I never stated a straw man is taking something out of context. So you just effectively made another straw man lol. Again you failed at reading comprehension.

Here's that thing you claim you didn't say. I too can see divebombers coming from car lengths back. Remember when you acknowledged that the radar shows 2 car lengths? I could say "I'm constantly avoiding dive bombers because I use radar and can see them coming from car lengths back, something you can do from any view" and I'd be 100% correct.

I actually never claimed to not have said that. But congrats again at failing at reading comprehension.

But you did just commit ANOTHER straw man. Because that wasn't the argument being made. The statement you are quoting, which I clarified for you lonnngggg ago was in regards to dive bombers who are beyond radar.

this part is just a misunderstanding I suppose. I am saying that the front bumper is the point whose exact location you are trying to determine. You can see the rear of the car ahead, so you know how far it is. When I'm claiming that any point of the car is a reference point, I am saying that it's in reference to the front bumper of my own car, not to the rear of the car I'm following. I can see the car ahead, so the only thing I don't know is where the bumper is...so I use a reference point to determine that.

This is a misunderstanding. I think it's a misunderstanding on the functionality of reference points.

If you look at the images I posted you can visually see what I'm describing. With reference points, the point of using them is to gauge distance between the front bumper of your car and the rear bumper of the car ahead. With chase cam you lose visibility of the rear bumper of the leading car a few feet before you would in cockpit which gives you near full visibility up until contact. With chase cam there is a distance that is "blind" relative to cockpit.

Heres the problem. If your reference point is say the roof of the car and the rear bumper of the car ahead, you lose visibility of the rear bumper very early and instead would need to switch to a new reference point, say the roof of the other car. You now have shifting reference points trying to fill the blind spot. With cockpit/hood/ we don't have this issue, our reference points stay the same. It allows you to get closer more consistently and with less guess work.

Another point is distance. Here's an example, you and I are helping a friend park into a tight space. One of us get's to sit in the car. The other has to be in equal relative distance to chase cam. We all know who has the greater likelihood of getting closer without touching. One of us has a much closer visual perspective to gauge distance. The point where you lose your optimal reference points is sooner than the individual in the car, in essence you reach a "guessing" zone sooner. We all hit that point regardless of view, even in the real world, theres always a "guessing" zone, they just arrive at different points.

I'm trying to figure out the same thing. What's your point? This all started by you tagging me and saying chase cam renders you completely blind to the front and rear. I said it does not. You expanded and said much of what I've captioned above....several false claims. I pointed out they were false...and here we are. I never said any view was superior to the other, I was simply disagreeing that you are "completely blind" and that you can only see "a few feet" behind you.

You completely missed the point. I would literally correct you on something and you then would respond by trying to say the exact same thing, but as if it was your own original thought. It was weird.

No, no false claims. Just you taking things out of context and misunderstanding, things I've clarified multiple times. When you fail at those, many things can appear to be false, when in reality it was simply your failure to understand.

"I was simply disagreeing that you are "completely blind" and that you can only see "a few feet" behind you"

This is definitive proof of your failure at reading comprehension. The discussion, which I have clarified for you numerous times, was in regards to visibility WITHOUT USE THE LOOKBACK. And that outside of the limited function of the radar, leaves you blind.

You claim that everything further than the radar isn't important. Yet all of your youtube videos say otherwise as they show you constantly using the look back button when cars are outside of radar. So your claims that anything further back isn't useful has been shown to be false and hypocrisy on your part.



And to add to the fervor. Back to the "practice/theory" bit regarding "distractions". There is a multi million dollar industry catering to every form of high level motorsport, hell even privateer teams, dedicated to reducing distractions and improving focus. This is not theory, it is fact. This fact was proven last week when Kimi rear ended his teammate. The team needed him to change a setting on his wheel and in that split second of looking away from the track he ended his race. Simple fact is it's a bad habit.

So your claim that the look back button isn't distracting is in direct contradiction to reality.

 

[Winnie847]

Sorry got tied up for a bit, but I'm back. And it appears you don't understand what "false claim" means.



"few feet" "you can see a few feet"

Wow..... seriously??? We both literally said "few feet". So you yet again repeated what I said, yet claimed it means something else. And I never admitted it was a false claim, I clarified that the few feet was in regards to the visual. We then expanded on radar which gives a little further back.

False claim #1 destroyed. Lets move on to #2. Wait..... where is #2? Looks like you skipped right to 3. Very well.





You failed at context again. Context that I have gone over and above to clarify for you on numerous occasions. So this is a disingenuous "false claim" on your part. If you go back and read the comment on detecting a dive bomber you will see I was specifically referring to the ones lunging from so far back that you can't see them on radar.

Stop lying. Own your mistakes.





Nothing here was a false claim.

Please stop lying. As I've had to spoon feed you over and over and over, the "completely blind" was in regards to visibility beyond radar. I've literally clarified this for you NUMEROUS times. You have repeatedly shown incompetence with reading comprehension and have further proven it here.

Let me say it again since you keep missing the point. Beyond the radar, you are BLIND unless you use look back. The entire discussion hinges on that, that's the context your missing.

Oh and heres a fun fact. I watched a few of your youtube videos and found you CONSTANTLY use the look back button when cars are further back than the radar shows. This just shows how disingenuous you have been. "why do you need to look that far" , hypocrisy. You clearly don't practice what you preach.

So False claim #4 and #5, also not false claims.





You're arguing for it says differently. This all comes from your inability to understand the basic concept of the discussion. Which is visibility without removing forward vision. For some odd reason you feel the need to continuously reiterate the ability to use the lookback button. My stating that it isn't a substitute for a mirror was directly in context within the subject matter. So not even remotely a straw man, but nice try.

I never stated a straw man is taking something out of context. So you just effectively made another straw man lol. Again you failed at reading comprehension.





I actually never claimed to not have said that. But congrats again at failing at reading comprehension.

But you did just commit ANOTHER straw man. Because that wasn't the argument being made. The statement you are quoting, which I clarified for you lonnngggg ago was in regards to dive bombers who are beyond radar.





This is a misunderstanding. I think it's a misunderstanding on the functionality of reference points.

If you look at the images I posted you can visually see what I'm describing. With reference points, the point of using them is to gauge distance between the front bumper of your car and the rear bumper of the car ahead. With chase cam you lose visibility of the rear bumper of the leading car a few feet before you would in cockpit which gives you near full visibility up until contact. With chase cam there is a distance that is "blind" relative to cockpit.

Heres the problem. If your reference point is say the roof of the car and the rear bumper of the car ahead, you lose visibility of the rear bumper very early and instead would need to switch to a new reference point, say the roof of the other car. You now have shifting reference points trying to fill the blind spot. With cockpit/hood/ we don't have this issue, our reference points stay the same. It allows you to get closer more consistently and with less guess work.

Another point is distance. Here's an example, you and I are helping a friend park into a tight space. One of us get's to sit in the car. The other has to be in equal relative distance to chase cam. We all know who has the greater likelihood of getting closer without touching. One of us has a much closer visual perspective to gauge distance. The point where you lose your optimal reference points is sooner than the individual in the car, in essence you reach a "guessing" zone sooner. We all hit that point regardless of view, even in the real world, theres always a "guessing" zone, they just arrive at different points.





You completely missed the point. I would literally correct you on something and you then would respond by trying to say the exact same thing, but as if it was your own original thought. It was weird.

No, no false claims. Just you taking things out of context and misunderstanding, things I've clarified multiple times. When you fail at those, many things can appear to be false, when in reality it was simply your failure to understand.

"I was simply disagreeing that you are "completely blind" and that you can only see "a few feet" behind you"

This is definitive proof of your failure at reading comprehension. The discussion, which I have clarified for you numerous times, was in regards to visibility WITHOUT USE THE LOOKBACK. And that outside of the limited function of the radar, leaves you blind.

You claim that everything further than the radar isn't important. Yet all of your youtube videos say otherwise as they show you constantly using the look back button when cars are outside of radar. So your claims that anything further back isn't useful has been shown to be false and hypocrisy on your part.



And to add to the fervor. Back to the "practice/theory" bit regarding "distractions". There is a multi million dollar industry catering to every form of high level motorsport, hell even privateer teams, dedicated to reducing distractions and improving focus. This is not theory, it is fact. This fact was proven last week when Kimi rear ended his teammate. The team needed him to change a setting on his wheel and in that split second of looking away from the track he ended his race. Simple fact is it's a bad habit.

So your claim that the look back button isn't distracting is in direct contradiction to reality.

Dude you’re ridiculous. Weeks later, really? What a great look on you! And now you’re off on tangents about my use of look back. It seems that now you’re modifying your claim to say that chase cam renders you blind, only if you don’t use the one function that prevents you from being blind and is widely used by pretty much all players. Yeah, makes a ton of sense, lmao. And when I mentioned not needing to use look back for people outside of my radar range, I wasn’t taking that stance I was taking a hypothetical position...YOUR position and proposing your logic against you. Perhaps you should read it back for proper CONTEXT.

The facts remain the same. You said it renders you completely blind. You didn’t include the caveat about not using look back until later. You didn’t mention removing front visibility by using look back until later, and that’s a subjective claim anyway, a preference if you will. I don’t use look back when I’m close to the apex and should be looking ahead, but using it well before the apex informs me of other drivers’ positions and let’s me know if I need to rely on the radar, protect the inside etc..

Keep performing all the mental gymnastics you need in order to maintain your ego. I can’t be bothered with “context” contained outside of the comments I am directly involved in or tagged in. Again, I can only respond to what you’ve said to me, and many of those claims are false or subjective, rendering them false. And you certainly did imply that taking something out of context was a straw man, I don’t care to go back and re-read all of your backpedaling dribble. And the more you talk about reading comprehension and toss insults into your self-obsessed rants, the less anyone will want to engage with you. You’re reaching so deep, just to avoid admitting you made some incorrect claims, and it wreaks of narcissism. You didn’t admit your claim about the radar was false, but the content of your post did that for you. A few feet is different than 2 car lengths, an amount you later acknowledged.

Also, I have since confirmed that 3 cars can fit in the radar behind mine. So even your revision of 2 car lengths is a false claim that you had more than one opportunity to correct.

You simply don’t get it, so just piss off now ok?

 

[Deadpool]

No.. It's you who doesn't get it. It's really quite pathetic actually.

Dude you’re ridiculous. Weeks later, really? What a great look on you! And now you’re off on tangents about my use of look back. It seems that now you’re modifying your claim to say that chase cam renders you blind, only if you don’t use the one function that prevents you from being blind and is widely used by pretty much all players. Yeah, makes a ton of sense, lmao. And when I mentioned not needing to use look back for people outside of my radar range, I wasn’t taking that stance I was taking a hypothetical position...YOUR position and proposing your logic against you. Perhaps you should read it back for proper CONTEXT.

Yes, weeks later. Some of us have busy lives. "what a great look on you!" What are you 12? Seriously grow up, it's bad enough you have the reading skills of a child let alone the cry baby whining "whaaaaa he took too long to respond to me, I'm super important I demand instant responses because im a child"

Tangents about look back? That's not a tangent, it was part of the discussion. You really love to just make things up dont you. Here lets review the facts, since youve failed miserably yet again.

"It's great for side visuals, but really blinds you to the front/rear in races."

That's what I said from the start. And when you read it in context of the entire message youll see it was in regards to visibility without the look back. I've been consistent from the start.

"You proved my point in your second sentence. Your need to click a lookback button means that you are completely blind UNLESS you click that button, which in turn removes your focus as to whats in front of you."

My next post I made it very clear for you. So the claim you just made proves yet again you have ZERO reading comprehension. "It seems that now you’re modifying your claim to say that chase cam renders you blind, only if you don’t use the one function that prevents you from being blind and is widely used by pretty much all players."

So wait, I'm modifying my claim now........ when I said the same thing weeks ago. Wow you really are daft.


"Which begs the question, why are you looking in your mirror at cars who aren't close enough to you? Doesn't it cause you to lose focus? Shouldn't racing drivers be looking ahead and not at the cars behind them? Again, this goes both ways. I lose no more focus using the lookback button than you do actually looking in your mirror."

How on earth is this using my position/logic against me??? In order for this to apply to me, I would have needed to say that a driver should be 100% focused on the front and ignore the rear. But all of my statements have been the opposite of that and keeoing awareness of both. The difference is with cockpit we can simultaneously see ahead and behind. So yes you do lose more focus looking back as you completely move all forward visuals, but cockpit doesnt as they can use peripheral vision to keep tabs on what's behind them while still keeping forward visibility.

This yet again shows your failure to read.

I suggest you take your own advice and go back and read it properly. You got your panties in a twist because someone pointed out the disadvantages of your precious view. You even admitted that the divebombers who come from further back than radar will show, which is really common for the egregious dive bombers, you have less time to react. This is because you've probably already turned in and are threshold braking as they suddenly appear on radar at a high rate of speed. With mirrors you would have seen their intentions in advance and reacted sooner. That's the meat and potatoes of the discussion.

That is the benefit of mirrors. Why you feel the need to try and minimize that advantage is odd. Especially when I've openly acknowledged, even in the original post, that cockpit/bumper/hood suffer from side visibility. I am jealous of the side visibility you have. But for me I stick with cockpit as i like the immersion/realism and I chose front/rear visibility over side. The best would be triple screen or VR gaining side visibility and full use of mirrors and greater depth perception.

Your mistake was that you misunderstood that statement to claim that it's the same as your attempts to minimize the advantage of the mirror because of radar and look back. The key difference is I didn't offer a workaround for lack of side visibility in cockpit, it's a disadvantage and thats that. You went the other route and tried to attack the notion that the mirror really is an advantage by way of workarounds. You made a false equivalency.

The facts remain the same. You said it renders you completely blind. You didn’t include the caveat about not using look back until later. You didn’t mention removing front visibility by using look back until later, and that’s a subjective claim anyway, a preference if you will. I don’t use look back when I’m close to the apex and should be looking ahead, but using it well before the apex informs me of other drivers’ positions and let’s me know if I need to rely on the radar, protect the inside etc..

I posted the caveat in the next post. So yes I didn't include it in perfect clarity for you until the following post. And yet you wouldn't accept that and move on with your life. You dug your heals in instead. "What a great look on you! "

So this is pretty disingenuous.

Keep performing all the mental gymnastics you need in order to maintain your ego. I can’t be bothered with “context” contained outside of the comments I am directly involved in or tagged in. Again, I can only respond to what you’ve said to me, and many of those claims are false or subjective, rendering them false. And you certainly did imply that taking something out of context was a straw man, I don’t care to go back and re-read all of your backpedaling dribble. And the more you talk about reading comprehension and toss insults into your self-obsessed rants, the less anyone will want to engage with you. You’re reaching so deep, just to avoid admitting you made some incorrect claims, and it wreaks of narcissism. You didn’t admit your claim about the radar was false, but the content of your post did that for you. A few feet is different than 2 car lengths, an amount you later acknowledged.

Mental gymnastics? I guess basic reading comprehension is gymnastics for your mind.

You can't be bothered with context???? You are not going to get far in life if you choose to ignore context. I even clarified the context you missed and you still chose to ignore it. I've literally been scolding you on context for maybe 10 posts already. At some point a rationale mind accepts that they misunderstood the context and moves on. Not you though, youre a special kind of child.

Where did I imply that taking something out of context was a straw man? Making stuff up again I see, thats what happens when you don't read properly.

Lol "backpedaling dribble" at what point did i backpeddle? Oh right never.

Where was my claim about the radar false? I just went back and checked, I never claimed that radar only shows a few feet. I clearly stated that the few feet is in regards to the view/visual, not radar. I didn't mention the distance of 2 car lengths until you stated it as 2-3. Up until that point I never made a claim regarding how far back the radar works. YOU imagined that because you failed.....yet again..... at reading comprehension. It's becoming a trend with you. The only time I brought up measurements in regards to radar was when you stated it was 2-3 car lengths and I responded that it's more like 2. So stop with the lies.

And if you keep failing at context and reading comprehension, "the less anyone will want to engage with you". But I love that im the one reaching deep by having to correct you on your false claims. The content is there and proves you wrong.

The claims of narcissism are also amusing. Are we not both engaging in this tit for tat? Bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

Also, I have since confirmed that 3 cars can fit in the radar behind mine. So even your revision of 2 car lengths is a false claim that you had more than one opportunity to correct.

You simply don’t get it, so just piss off now ok?

Not 3 cars lengthwise, bunched up sure but not in a row. I've tested it as well.

You really don't get it. You might want to piss off before you dig your whole deeper. You're out of your element. I love how you tried to talk about distractions as "theory" that doesn't work in practice as well. Over and over you showed your ignorance. Or your claims of all the fallacies I used, yet when challenged on that point you failed to even deliver apart from trying to claim a "borderline" straw man and instead proving your own inadequacies again.

Honestly my mistake was engaging you in your red herrings and straw men arguements. You completely shifted the conversation into a spiral of nonsense. I've repeatedly called you out on specific claims youve made, and youve conveniently chosen to ignore those blunders of yours.

Heres a life tip for you. When having a discussion, if your not positive on what someone meant, ask for clarification. When you jump in and start accusing people of "false" claims you make yourself look like a fool.

 

[fisheye]

^^^Wreckfest is free this month^^^

 

[Deadpool]

^^^Wreckfest is free this month^^^

And graphics boost for anyone with a PS5

 

[Groundfish]

As a cockpit user I experienced the following last night.
I entered c race and started last in the A plus A room. There’s was 2 top 20 NA players up front along with several of the usual suspects.
I was not expecting this as I mistakenly thought my SR was below 99, AND I was partaking in adult beverages.
My speed was fine, I started on medium tires.
I was able to stay out quite long which placed me in 2nd towards the end of my stint.
I don’t have great pace there, and the hot shoes exited the pits behind me and next lap they were catching into turn 1. They were behind into turn 2 and rather than race me the first guy just rammed me deep into the runoff immediately.
Another 2 cars passed as a result. Going into the hairpin I was fivebombed and struck again, BUT, since I’m in cockpit in a car with excellent mirrorS, I saw and adjusted and went defensive into the next tight section just before getting rammed again into the runoff.
I was defending fairly, they just straight smashed me.
Had I not been using cockpit view I am certain I would have gotten taken out even worse by these guys racing as if their life depends on getting past me RIGHT NOW.
I got mad and did some things I shouldn’t have and I’m sorry.
Since having mirrors gives an analog continuous viewpoint of the racers behind me I always see. I can read them, and adjust my line choice before their attempt to overtake even occurs.
I’m complaining about their strategy to take the 2 seconds ram by and continue, yes, but the real point is in a view with good mirror it slows down my race mentally.
I didn’t race gr1 much at Spa because I dislike bumper and roof has no mirror. I can use look back fine, but it gives only a digital snapshot of my opponent behind. It doesn’t show the movement, only a momentary glimpse of position and after being used to mirror I find look back to be less effective.
Luckily I found the Peugeot which has a usable cockpit view, and as a bonus it doesn’t understeer like a dump truck.
I’ve noticed streams where guys use look back a lot.
They make it work, but imo a mirror would lessen the load on the racers cpu (brain) while giving more information at the same time.
So, for me personally I think the best would be triple screens but in lieu of that for me a mirror is an absolute necessity.

 

[Winnie847]

I haven't got the energy to properly quote all these things that you said, but here's a tag @Deadpool

"It's great for side visuals, but really blinds you to the front/rear in races."

your first tag to me. if you meant something other than exactly what you said, perhaps you should have said something other than what you said. this is easy stuff.

"Apart from those few feet you are completely blind to what's going on behind you."

you also said that. if you are talking about what's behind you, then you are implying that the radar shows only "a few feet." You said this to me, it's all here for anyone to see.

"I'm constantly avoiding dive bombers because I use mirrors and can see them coming from car lengths back, something you cannot do with chase cam."

another thing you said....that I cannot see divebombers coming from "car lengths back" yet we've established that radar covers 3 car lengths and that I use that to avoid divebombs. So clearly it's something I can do with chase cam even without using the lookback.

"Your need to click a lookback button means that you are completely blind UNLESS you click that button"

So, you admit, that if I use the lookback button I'm not completely blind. Again, in your original tag to me, you said nothing about not using the lookback. You simply said chase cam renders you blind. If you need to include the caveat of not using the lookback, it kinda makes your point moot because that's a function available to everyone and it can be used effectively.

"And I wasn’t claiming that I can avoid dive bombs because of the mirror and that you cannot"

this was your claim one post after saying that I cannot avoid them from car lengths back using chase cam. And I'm daft?

"In theory, some of what you're saying about removing your focus is true. But I'm here telling you that in practice it's not. Maybe if you were to try using chase cam you'd lose your focus by hitting the lookback button, because you're not used to it. But me and many others who are used to it, don't seem to have any issue. No focus lost. A split second is enough to see where cars are and we make it through the corners just fine. I could say the same thing about you looking at the mirror, causing you to lose your focus, but I didn't say that because I know better than that. You are used to using the mirror, and I am not. I would probably lose focus when I first tried to use the mirror, but later I would get good at it, the same way you'd get good at chase cam if you tried. But if I were to use that angle, I easily could....if someone is close enough to me that I need to worry about them going for a move, they will likely be in my radar. If they aren't, why would I be looking back at them? Which begs the question, why are you looking in your mirror at cars who aren't close enough to you? Doesn't it cause you to lose focus? Shouldn't racing drivers be looking ahead and not at the cars behind them? Again, this goes both ways. I lose no more focus using the lookback button than you do actually looking in your mirror."

this was my comment to you, where was hypothetically putting myself in your position, using your logic about "losing focus" by using lookback. I was trying to say that you're also losing focus by using the mirror, but apparently this whole paragraph went over your head. I wasn't actually taking the stance that I can't use lookback for cars that are further away than radar, I was explaining how if I used your logic I could argue against your own point of losing focus. You sure are a thick one aren't you chief?

"Ok maybe radar is more than a few feet"

oh yeah, here's where you admit your claim was wrong and then later you say you weren't wrong and also that you didn't admit it.

"And you can't see 2-3 cars lengthwise on radar. 2 at best"

more nonsense from you about the same false claim that you still can't admit is false

"you took words out of context and spun them. That's a straw man."

this is where you said that taking things out of context is a straw man. I'm not making this stuff up.

you're flailing and it's funny to watch. but go ahead with your bad self, keep flapping.

 

[Groundfish]

The big thing to me is, having played online a lot, what I see is clean driving cones from strict penalties/big tire wear races.
Less strict penalties means dirty racing.

Controller appears to have no effect on this.
Thing is in a daily C if you use a different pit strategy than whatever is popular, it seems etiquette is ram by immediately, like, that’s just how it is. IMO it’s an arcade etiquette, that.
If I’m fairly ahead, you, since you are behind , should be able to easily fairly overtake if you are on better tires...IF you know how to race...
In daily C with the current system and current arcade etiquette on display the behavior is like a pack of dingos happening upon an injured wildebeest.
It’s not the controller at all, just the pen system.
Controller players/wheel users are equally clean/dirty according to the pen system.

 

[Deadpool]

I haven't got the energy to properly quote all these things that you said, but here's a tag

"It's great for side visuals, but really blinds you to the front/rear in races."

your first tag to me. if you meant something other than exactly what you said, perhaps you should have said something other than what you said. this is easy stuff.

In the follow up post I clarified it for you. Come on man this is easy stuff. I gave you the full context in that post. Try to keep up.

"Apart from those few feet you are completely blind to what's going on behind you."

you also said that. if you are talking about what's behind you, then you are implying that the radar shows only "a few feet." You said this to me, it's all here for anyone to see.

See here's your mistake. You keep reading further into things than they are stated. Was I vague in that specific quote? Yes. But if you read it in context of the entire post youll see I'm not talking about radar. You inferred your own assumptions into the text. These are your mistakes not mine. You know what they say about making assumptions......

"I'm constantly avoiding dive bombers because I use mirrors and can see them coming from car lengths back, something you cannot do with chase cam."

another thing you said....that I cannot see divebombers coming from "car lengths back" yet we've established that radar covers 3 car lengths and that I use that to avoid divebombs. So clearly it's something I can do with chase cam even without using the lookback.

Go back and read the convo, I clarified for you that my ENTIRE POINT is about visibility without using radar or look back. I made that very clear from you as soon as it was obvious to everyone here, that you read too far into it and got your panties in a twist. You keep missing the very basic and fundamental point that was established early on. I've been very consistent on this.

"Your need to click a lookback button means that you are completely blind UNLESS you click that button"

So, you admit, that if I use the lookback button I'm not completely blind. Again, in your original tag to me, you said nothing about not using the lookback. You simply said chase cam renders you blind. If you need to include the caveat of not using the lookback, it kinda makes your point moot because that's a function available to everyone and it can be used effectively.

Quit with this bogus narrative you are trying to spin. My entire point, which i made very very clear is that the discussion I was having was in regards to visibility without radar/lookback.

Honestly, how have you still failed to grasp this.

"And I wasn’t claiming that I can avoid dive bombs because of the mirror and that you cannot"

this was your claim one post after saying that I cannot avoid them from car lengths back using chase cam. And I'm daft?

No the post after established that I was referring to the extreme divebombers. Because lets be honest there are too types. Theres the guys who lunge really late but radar can be fine with, and then theres the bad ones who plan to use you as brakes. And yes the initial post was vague, but assumed incorrectly that you would be able to grasp the difference.

"In theory, some of what you're saying about removing your focus is true. But I'm here telling you that in practice it's not. Maybe if you were to try using chase cam you'd lose your focus by hitting the lookback button, because you're not used to it. But me and many others who are used to it, don't seem to have any issue. No focus lost. A split second is enough to see where cars are and we make it through the corners just fine. I could say the same thing about you looking at the mirror, causing you to lose your focus, but I didn't say that because I know better than that. You are used to using the mirror, and I am not. I would probably lose focus when I first tried to use the mirror, but later I would get good at it, the same way you'd get good at chase cam if you tried. But if I were to use that angle, I easily could....if someone is close enough to me that I need to worry about them going for a move, they will likely be in my radar. If they aren't, why would I be looking back at them? Which begs the question, why are you looking in your mirror at cars who aren't close enough to you? Doesn't it cause you to lose focus? Shouldn't racing drivers be looking ahead and not at the cars behind them? Again, this goes both ways. I lose no more focus using the lookback button than you do actually looking in your mirror."

this was my comment to you, where was hypothetically putting myself in your position, using your logic about "losing focus" by using lookback. I was trying to say that you're also losing focus by using the mirror, but apparently this whole paragraph went over your head. I wasn't actually taking the stance that I can't use lookback for cars that are further away than radar, I was explaining how if I used your logic I could argue against your own point of losing focus. You sure are a thick one aren't you chief?

Wow. Yep you perfectly demonstrated how you missed the entire point. Prior to that post I had already established that the discussion was in regards to visibility without radar/lookback. This has been a trend. So your attempt here is to say that my claims of focus are bogus due to my looking at a mirror. Newsflash I don't need to look away from the car in front of me to see what's happening in my mirrors. It's called peripheral vision. It's something we use in real life too. That very simple point completely unravels your bogus narrative.

Chief, you really soiled the bed on that one.

"Ok maybe radar is more than a few feet"

oh yeah, here's where you admit your claim was wrong and then later you say you weren't wrong and also that you didn't admit it.

Ehhhh I was responding to you. Prior to that post I never made a claim regarding radar in regards to a measured distance. It was a quick response to your insertion of measurement and me simply agreeing with you. But find me stating distance prior to that. You cant.

"And you can't see 2-3 cars lengthwise on radar. 2 at best"

more nonsense from you about the same false claim that you still can't admit is false

I still hold that it's 2 lengths realistically end to end. Not a false claim. If you want we can get 4 cars on track and line them all up end to end to see if the leader can see all of them. Maybe the tip of the last one but def not 3.

"you took words out of context and spun them. That's a straw man."

this is where you said that taking things out of context is a straw man. I'm not making this stuff up.

Wow. I said "out of context AND SPUN THEM" the key word there is spun them to create a strawman. The strawman wasn't taking it out of context on it's own, it was the spinning of it into a false narrative.

Wow..... how on earth did you manage that one "chief"

you're flailing and it's funny to watch. but go ahead with your bad self, keep flapping.

It's amazing how you like to cherry pick. Your inability to grasp basic sentence structure is awe inspiring.


I added this in a edit which you missed.

In regards to your claims that I tried to minimize side visibility equal to your minimizing mirrors.

You even admitted that the divebombers who come from further back than radar will show, which is really common for the egregious dive bombers, you have less time to react. This is because you've probably already turned in and are threshold braking as they suddenly appear on radar at a high rate of speed. With mirrors you would have seen their intentions in advance and reacted sooner. That's the meat and potatoes of the discussion.

That is the benefit of mirrors. Why you feel the need to try and minimize that advantage is odd. Especially when I've openly acknowledged, even in the original post, that cockpit/bumper/hood suffer from side visibility. I am jealous of the side visibility you have. But for me I stick with cockpit as i like the immersion/realism and I chose front/rear visibility over side. The best would be triple screen or VR gaining side visibility and full use of mirrors and greater depth perception.

Your mistake was that you misunderstood that statement to claim that it's the same as your attempts to minimize the advantage of the mirror because of radar and look back. The key difference is I didn't offer a workaround for lack of side visibility in cockpit, it's a disadvantage and thats that. You went the other route and tried to attack the notion that the mirror really is an advantage by way of workarounds. You made a false equivalency.

 

[Winnie847]

In the follow up post I clarified it for you. Come on man this is easy stuff. I gave you the full context in that post. Try to keep up.



See here's your mistake. You keep reading further into things than they are stated. Was I vague in that specific quote? Yes. But if you read it in context of the entire post youll see I'm not talking about radar. You inferred your own assumptions into the text. These are your mistakes not mine. You know what they say about making assumptions......



Go back and read the convo, I clarified for you that my ENTIRE POINT is about visibility without using radar or look back. I made that very clear from you as soon as it was obvious to everyone here, that you read too far into it and got your panties in a twist. You keep missing the very basic and fundamental point that was established early on. I've been very consistent on this.



Quit with this bogus narrative you are trying to spin. My entire point, which i made very very clear is that the discussion I was having was in regards to visibility without radar/lookback.

Honestly, how have you still failed to grasp this.



No the post after established that I was referring to the extreme divebombers. Because lets be honest there are too types. Theres the guys who lunge really late but radar can be fine with, and then theres the bad ones who plan to use you as brakes. And yes the initial post was vague, but assumed incorrectly that you would be able to grasp the difference.



Wow. Yep you perfectly demonstrated how you missed the entire point. Prior to that post I had already established that the discussion was in regards to visibility without radar/lookback. This has been a trend. So your attempt here is to say that my claims of focus are bogus due to my looking at a mirror. Newsflash I don't need to look away from the car in front of me to see what's happening in my mirrors. It's called peripheral vision. It's something we use in real life too. That very simple point completely unravels your bogus narrative.

Chief, you really soiled the bed on that one.



Ehhhh I was responding to you. Prior to that post I never made a claim regarding radar in regards to a measured distance. It was a quick response to your insertion of measurement and me simply agreeing with you. But find me stating distance prior to that. You cant.



I still hold that it's 2 lengths realistically end to end. Not a false claim. If you want we can get 4 cars on track and line them all up end to end to see if the leader can see all of them. Maybe the tip of the last one but def not 3.



Wow. I said "out of context AND SPUN THEM" the key word there is spun them to create a strawman. The strawman wasn't taking it out of context on it's own, it was the spinning of it into a false narrative.

Wow..... how on earth did you manage that one "chief"



It's amazing how you like to cherry pick. Your inability to grasp basic sentence structure is awe inspiring.


I added this in a edit which you missed.

In regards to your claims that I tried to minimize side visibility equal to your minimizing mirrors.

You even admitted that the divebombers who come from further back than radar will show, which is really common for the egregious dive bombers, you have less time to react. This is because you've probably already turned in and are threshold braking as they suddenly appear on radar at a high rate of speed. With mirrors you would have seen their intentions in advance and reacted sooner. That's the meat and potatoes of the discussion.

That is the benefit of mirrors. Why you feel the need to try and minimize that advantage is odd. Especially when I've openly acknowledged, even in the original post, that cockpit/bumper/hood suffer from side visibility. I am jealous of the side visibility you have. But for me I stick with cockpit as i like the immersion/realism and I chose front/rear visibility over side. The best would be triple screen or VR gaining side visibility and full use of mirrors and greater depth perception.

Your mistake was that you misunderstood that statement to claim that it's the same as your attempts to minimize the advantage of the mirror because of radar and look back. The key difference is I didn't offer a workaround for lack of side visibility in cockpit, it's a disadvantage and thats that. You went the other route and tried to attack the notion that the mirror really is an advantage by way of workarounds. You made a false equivalency.

sigh...

not once have I denied that you later tried to amend your claims by adding caveats about lookback or anything else you've since added or changed since your first comment directed at me.

the point I'm making, and have made several times, is that I was initially responding to the claims directed at me in the messages that I'm tagged in. You say it renders you completely blind....I disagree, and only later did you say that you meant "without using lookback" which is a ridiculous thing to say because everyone who doesn't have a mirror uses lookback. What is the point of even saying you're blind to something that you aren't really blind to in practice? Why make a point whose entire validity relies on conditions that never actually exist in practice? In reality, people use lookback and radar. I could care less if somebody else thinks I'm losing focus by using lookback because that's completely subjective...it's still a function that is available and compensates for the lack of mirror (a word I'm sure you'll call out later), and its use makes your initial claim to me a false one. Using lookback AND radar, you are not blind using chase cam. I have not "minimized the advantage" of mirrors. I clearly stated a mirror is better....but there's that straw man you love so much, again. I've simply stated you aren't blinded by using chase cam because there are other tools at your disposal like radar and lookback...features that you yourself are not only minimizing but completely excluding which is the only way your point makes any sense. Sure, if I pretend these things don't exist, then you make a ton of sense. But here in reality, you're wrong.

I don't really care what you said after the fact. My point remains, I respond to what you say to me, and several of those things are false.

Chase cam does not leave you blind. Radar is more than a few feet, it's 3 car lengths behind. And a straw man is not taking things out of context and spinning them. It's arguing against a position that hasn't been taken. The difference is subtle and I understand subtlety isn't your strong point, but it's a difference nonetheless.

edit: when you said "apart from those few feet, you are completely blind to what's behind you" apparently you were talking about the few feet you can see in chase cam without using radar or lookback. But that takes us back to one of my exact points....why make a blanket statement like that and only later follow it up with "oh I meant without using radar or look back." Doesn't make any sense. On one hand you say using lookback removes your focus, but that doesn't change the fact that I can use it to gain information about what's behind me, making your claim about being completely blind a false one. If you don't accept that obvious failure in your logic, then I can use the radar, which covers more than a few feet...thus again making your claim about being blind a false one. I don't have to press anything to use radar and I can use my peripherals the same as you do with the mirror. Do you really just have this hard of a time admitting you made a false or misleading claim? If you want to add context later or correct yourself by clarifying what you meant, that's fine, but let's not pretend you didn't say something to me that was demonstrably false. Again, this is not me minimizing the advantages of the mirror which you've inaccurately claimed, this is just me saying that chase cam doesn't render you completely blind and there are two different ways to illustrate your wrongness here.

2nd edit: “Outside of the few feet you can see in chase cam and radar you are blind to what is going on behind you UNLESS you click the lookback button.”

yet another example of you claiming you can only see a few feet behind you with radar. It’s almost like you make so many false claims that you just forget that you made them and later deny they exist even though the record states you did. You might want to get that checked out buddy.

 

[RacingGrandpa]

The big thing to me is, having played online a lot, what I see is clean driving cones from strict penalties/big tire wear races.
Less strict penalties means dirty racing.

Controller appears to have no effect on this.
Thing is in a daily C if you use a different pit strategy than whatever is popular, it seems etiquette is ram by immediately, like, that’s just how it is. IMO it’s an arcade etiquette, that.
If I’m fairly ahead, you, since you are behind , should be able to easily fairly overtake if you are on better tires...IF you know how to race...
In daily C with the current system and current arcade etiquette on display the behavior is like a pack of dingos happening upon an injured wildebeest.
It’s not the controller at all, just the pen system.
Controller players/wheel users are equally clean/dirty according to the pen system.

I am racing in EMEA and I see stuff different. Not necessarily because it's in EMEA but because we are different.
I get the best racing when pens are relaxed. Sure there are dirry races among, but even with strict penalties the dirty drivers are dirty.
The vast majority of incidents I see is either lag or lack of race craft or missed braking points.
When penalties are strict everyone is so afraid of close racing that we are mostly just in a train around the track. Sure, there's the occasional overtake but it's when someone makes a mistake.
No one takes a chance, no one pushes hard to create a mistake.
It becomes a procession.snd that's pretty boring in my book.

Maybe it's because we grew up on different kinds of racing, touring car racing across Europe has always been a contact sport. You don't hit people on purpose but you go close and you race right. If pens are strict then that goes out the window


@Deadpool and @Winnie847
We are more or less just skipping over your posts now, since you are in a personal argument. You should settle in pm or on the track

 

[Groundfish]

@Deadpool and @Winnie847
We are more or less just skipping over your posts now, since you are in a personal argument. You should settle in pm or on the track

 

[Groundfish]

Maybe it's because we grew up on different kinds of racing, touring car racing across Europe has always been a contact sport. You don't hit people on purpose but you go close and you race right. If pens are strict then that goes out the window

I’m agreeable that rubbing is racing, but in GTS online there’s no fear, nothing to fear. I can punt a car into the sand, my cars undamaged and I don’t lose time.

In real racing there’s fear, and expense which prevents things.
In gts I can be going 120mph in a sweeper and a guy dives at 140 over the grass hits me off my line, passes and we keep racing.

So to me, the only thing that could prevent this is strict penalties.
If the game physics don’t prevent it AND there’s no penalty for it then it becomes standard gameplay.
I personally don’t like that. I’m not against some jostle in a hairpin or minor door to door or even light tap front and rear LIGHT tap.
I’m not against that, that’s racing, but it seems like when they allow this in GTS it becomes too arcade too mariokart ish.
That’s why I like strict penalties.
If there were strict penalties to both parties then the game would be more fair imo.
Currently it can’t be taken seriously imo. Over the last several weeks in non FIA races I’m getting rammed in 8 out of 10 races, I’m at mid A 99.
Imo that’s not fun it’s pointless.

Also I would like to extend positive thoughts to your family etc after hearing what you said before about Covid.

 

[RacingGrandpa]

I’m agreeable that rubbing is racing, but in GTS online there’s no fear, nothing to fear. I can punt a car into the sand, my cars undamaged and I don’t lose time.

In real racing there’s fear, and expense which prevents things.
In gts I can be going 120mph in a sweeper and a guy dives at 140 over the grass hits me off my line, passes and we keep racing.

So to me, the only thing that could prevent this is strict penalties.
If the game physics don’t prevent it AND there’s no penalty for it then it becomes standard gameplay.
I personally don’t like that. I’m not against some jostle in a hairpin or minor door to door or even light tap front and rear LIGHT tap.
I’m not against that, that’s racing, but it seems like when they allow this in GTS it becomes too arcade too mariokart ish.
That’s why I like strict penalties.
If there were strict penalties to both parties then the game would be more fair imo.
Currently it can’t be taken seriously imo. Over the last several weeks in non FIA races I’m getting rammed in 8 out of 10 races, I’m at mid A 99.
Imo that’s not fun it’s pointless.

Also I would like to extend positive thoughts to your family etc after hearing what you said before about Covid.

Thank you.

I don't know if it's a mentality thing or it's just that we race on different times. Most of my races are clean

 

[DefNotJake]

Yup. I switched back to controller, but only for GT. Though, I still use my G29 for rFactor 2 and AC on my PC.


I might be better with a wheel, but going through the hassle of setting my wheel up to play GT, just stops making it feel like Gran Turismo to me. The strongest point of GT to me has always been its ability to immerse you in the experience of driving a car, while still being very 'pick-up and play'. I also don't play Sport mode anymore, so that also takes away another reason of using a wheel.

 

[fastone371]

Yup. I switched back to controller, but only for GT. Though, I still use my G29 for rFactor 2 and AC on my PC.


I might be better with a wheel, but going through the hassle of setting my wheel up to play GT, just stops making it feel like Gran Turismo to me. The strongest point of GT to me has always been its ability to immerse you in the experience of driving a car, while still being very 'pick-up and play'. I also don't play Sport mode anymore, so that also takes away another reason of using a wheel.

It seems to me if you are not using a wheel that the game is not immersive at all. When I use the DS4 it is simply playing a random video game which is only driving because thats the video that shows up on the screen in front of you. At least when I use my wheel I am partaking in the same actions in which we use for driving a real car.

 

[Junkman55]

It seems to me if you are not using a wheel that the game is not immersive at all. When I use the DS4 it is simply playing a random video game which is only driving because thats the video that shows up on the screen in front of you. At least when I use my wheel I am partaking in the same actions in which we use for driving a real car.

Let’s go a little further and say if you want to drive with a DS4 it’s just a game and when you drive with a wheel it’s Sim Racing.

 

[kilesa4568]

Let’s go a little further and say if you want to drive with a DS4 it’s just a game and when you drive with a wheel it’s Sim Racing.

Erm...GTS is a sim (simulated) racing game whatever controller you use.

 

[DefNotJake]

Let’s go a little further and say if you want to drive with a DS4 it’s just a game and when you drive with a wheel it’s Sim Racing.

*implying that I have a problem with it being called a game*

Erm...GTS is a sim (simulated) racing game whatever controller you use.

Let's go a little farther and say GT is an arcade game no matter if you use controller or wheel.

 

[NAXEHT]

Let’s go a little further and say if you want to drive with a DS4 it’s just a game and when you drive with a wheel it’s Sim Racing.

lol, do you really have to keep beating this dead horse?

 

[RacingGrandpa]

lol, do you really have to keep beating this dead horse?

 

[Darla Starch]

lol, do you really have to keep beating this dead horse?

Not until we all take the game as seriously as they do.

 

[Junkman55]

Unfortunately I did not explain my reply more clearly when I was responding to fastone371 using the word “immersive” to explain the difference between between using a wheel or a DS4 when driving in GTS. I like to use Simulate when using a wheel.

 

[RacingGrandpa]

Can we all agree that level of immersion is individual and depending on different things?
Junkman-55 needs a wheel to feel immersion as others. Someone might claim that without a helmet, nomex suit and HANS system you can not feel immersion. Someone might even need a real race car?

It's really silly when you put it like this.

 

[Timm Sheehan]

Can we all agree that level of immersion is individual and depending on different things?
Junkman-55 needs a wheel to feel immersion as others. Someone might claim that without a helmet, nomex suit and HANS system you can not feel immersion. Someone might even need a real race car?

It's really silly when you put it like this.

I was going to go for full immersion because I feel it is the only way to become a GTS/GT7 Simulator Racer . . . . .

Ran into a small snag . . . . .

Wanted to buy a small car, gut it and install all of the wheel & pedal controls . . . . . once the wife found out I wanted to put it in the living room she gave me a whopping NO WAY IN HELL . I measured and think a Fiat Punto or Panda would have fit.

I looked up buying a proper helmet, a properly decorated firesuit and a HANs harness. . . . . once the wife found out she was more open to the idea as long as the cost was below $100 USD. Otherwise another longer NOOOOOOPE .

I guess I will continue to sit here on my couch on my rearend using my DS4 dreaming of true simulator immersion .

Gamer for now. Enjoy your racing!

 

[Junkman55]

Can we all agree that level of immersion is individual and depending on different things?
Junkman-55 needs a wheel to feel immersion as others. Someone might claim that without a helmet, nomex suit and HANS system you can not feel immersion. Someone might even need a real race car?

It's really silly when you put it like this.

Let’s go with the “silly” immersion the game makers trying to make us feel that we are in the game , with sight and sound. When we move around in the game they give us a controller we use our fingers to walk around with fake legs and fake hands to pick up things. When a racing games is a game you are using the same controller that any immersion game on the market is using to control a race car with your fingers.

GTS becomes a racing simulator is when a FFB wheel setup is the controller and better the wheel ( more you spend ) the more immersion . GTS is both a game and a racing simulator it can be separated it by the controller we choose and the money we spend at the time of use .