- 3,251
- United Kingdom
Unicorn lap and and just non stop racing at brands last week.From B to high A. That’s a monster progress in such a little time!
You make a lot of DR fast as the lower player beating high A+ guys
Unicorn lap and and just non stop racing at brands last week.From B to high A. That’s a monster progress in such a little time!
9 Lexus +30
10 Aston M. +7
11 Peugeot 0
17 Genesis Partner
------------------
12 Alfa R. 0
13 Honda -1
14 Lambo -1.5
15 Ferrari -10.5
I'll openly admit I've never liked the partner brands getting a free pass to the finals and thus will be pretty biased on this, but Genesis getting in from as low as P17 in the standings is just embarrassing.Manufacturer standings as of Round 5, before any disqualifications:
View attachment 1357523
Cutline (standings wise, top 9 appears to be locked in; Aston Martin gets back into the cutline after the DQ wave while Ferrari collapsed again and both Peugeot and Alfa tied):
Code:9 Lexus +30 10 Aston M. +7 11 Peugeot 0 17 Genesis Partner ------------------ 12 Alfa R. 0 13 Honda -1 14 Lambo -1.5 15 Ferrari -10.5
I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. There was a brief window after the first round of the recent BoP updates where the Renault was the meta. I remember Omega made a video of the best Gr.3 cars and he ranked it at the top. Then it got nerfed in the BoP changes just before the Manu Cup began. I hope you had fun trying a different car, anyways.Well @Moose78 this was quite an experience to pick a somewhat non meta car, however I don't think I'll be doing it again as I don't have the pace to beat the meta at the level where I'm at , so for upcoming seasons I'll be into the most popular brands.
I did 10 laps in FP earlier this morning. No signs of rain. Looks like we are in for a sunny afternoon sprint.(I'm unable to check atm) Anyone get any rain so far during free practice? If it's not in FP, does it never come at all?
Glad about the dry part, but could have done with some more strat.I can't believe there is a dry, 12 lap race with RH 1x and fuel 1x at Fuji. This race just screams for rain; but, a lame Daily C it is. Thanks, Kaz you chowderhead.
This driver tried to dive bomb at turn 1 way pass the yellow lines is where the invisible wall is. I wasn't up to speed because of serving a bs 2 sec penalty but I was already at the braking zone thought I gave him enough space because I figured he was coming in too fast and would over shoot the turn but he ended up going in deep. Bounces off the invisible wall into me and I get the penalty. Subaru driver then sideswipe me into the wall for thinking it was my fault. I really don't know about this game anymore.
That’s a good mix cars this year. Good to see some surprise entry’s (Chevy, Audi, Lexus, Aston and Peugeot)Manufacturer standings as of Round 5, before any disqualifications:
View attachment 1357523
Cutline (standings wise, top 9 appears to be locked in; Aston Martin gets back into the cutline after the DQ wave while Ferrari collapsed again and both Peugeot and Alfa tied):
Code:9 Lexus +30 10 Aston M. +7 11 Peugeot 0 17 Genesis Partner ------------------ 12 Alfa R. 0 13 Honda -1 14 Lambo -1.5 15 Ferrari -10.5
They were never a partner during the life of FIAGTC/GTWS.Are Nissan no longer a partner?
Decent year-to-year turnover. Ignoring the free pass partners:Manufacturer standings as of Round 5, before any disqualifications:
View attachment 1357523
Cutline (standings wise, top 9 appears to be locked in; Aston Martin gets back into the cutline after the DQ wave while Ferrari collapsed again and both Peugeot and Alfa tied):
Code:9 Lexus +30 10 Aston M. +7 11 Peugeot 0 17 Genesis Partner ------------------ 12 Alfa R. 0 13 Honda -1 14 Lambo -1.5 15 Ferrari -10.5
Rain is still a possibility even if it does not show up during practice. It has happened in past.If it's not in FP, does it never come at all?
If it's truly random there's still hope.Rain is still a possibility even if it does not show up during practice. It has happened in past.
There's a big difference between how iRacing and GT7 actually model and enforce crashing and driving standards though.I don't want to sound mean, but I've been reading some post race comments about why bother putting in all this time if I get crashed out, or heavy damage is stupid etc. and while I emphasize, I find GT7 let's you get away with it easy. Let me explain.
I know this is not an iRacing forum, but I am going to compare it to iRacing's crash physics and even real life as examples. Yes heavy damage sucks, even if you're just out there minding your own business and get caught in someone else's problem. However, GT7 still let's you drive, albeit at a reduced rate of speed until you come into the pits and fix the damage. In IRacing, arguably a more realistic platform, if you replicate some of the damages in GT7 in IRacing, you're towing yourself in the pits. That's say 1-2 minutes lost. Not to mention that in IRacing some of the required and optional damage time can equate to an hour, as opposed to several seconds in GT7. Is your race ruined regardless, yes and it sucks, but it could be worse. And you're paying a lot more for content in iRacing than you do in GT7.
Now let's go to the pro side. How do you think some of these teams feel when they spent not only hours, but thousands of dollars in investments just to get wiped on lap 1/2 and get taken out. I'm sure they're more frustrated. Perfect example look at the Stenhouse/Busch incident last week, in an exhibition all star race of all things.
I'm not being mean or judgement, just trying to add perspective. You fall down get your butt up and go again!
Unless I'm misunderstanding, I would say iRacing is more inclined to keep people playing.. because if they're playing, they're paying. It's a subscription based game (on top of content costs) and if people are miffed for whatever reason and quit playing, that sub expires, they stop paying and buying content, and that money stream is gone.I don't really think you can compare apples and oranges on these things.
The fundamental gameplay choices follow very different ethos.
One is designed to keep you racing at all costs the other is designed to say "you bend it, you buy it and suck it up"
It's not even about deformable physics or energy displacement, inertia transfer or even momentum.
Is the way GT does it fit for purpose for competitions...I don't think so personally but for a lot of reasons they chose this way with FIA support. My guess is this is one of those realism over game play things.
Quite honestly, I don't agree. They aren't a large company and the revenue is more about sustainability than massive profit taking.Unless I'm misunderstanding, I would say iRacing is more inclined to keep people playing.. because if they're playing, they're paying. It's a subscription based game (on top of content costs) and if people are miffed for whatever reason and quit playing, that sub expires, they stop paying and buying content, and that money stream is gone.
That's what I mean though, on paper they're inclined to keep people playing because they pay.. but in practice they don't, because that's not what the game or community are standing for - and instead standards and expectations are shaped around the game itself.Quite honestly, I don't agree. They aren't a large company and the revenue is more about sustainability than massive profit taking.
They also aren't shy with banning people even well known people.
Conflating revenue and gameplay ethos is a bit of a stretch for me.
The upshot is one company wants to make a game representative of real motorsports the other one wants to make a game balanced around inclusivity and market size (accessibility)
iRacing and ACC (PC) are niche compared to GT or even Forza let alone Mario kart.
The objectives of the games are all very different to suit their own purposes.
2p
I think we are saying and agreeing the same thing using different words 🤣That's what I mean though, on paper they're inclined to keep people playing because they pay.. but in practice they don't, because that's not what the game or community are standing for - and instead standards and expectations are shaped around the game itself.
I don't think there's any relation between payment model and gameplay, I thought thats what you were saying!