GTP_WRS (GT5) Week 125 : Dream Machine - From The Original
- Thread starter MadMax
- 146 comments
- 9,218 views
), but gained 0.2s at the line.
- 602
- Auburn, CA
- GTP_RaceRyder
Thanks Daniel, have pic posted now. Hope its allowed, have great splits with this run. Tried over and over to stay on other side of line but times were awful.
36.633
34.771
36.633
34.771
- 4,757
- Wpg / Canada
- Allibubba99
It's official. I am done with this TT Good luck to all the last minute runners tomorrow
Al
Al
- 215
- Germany, NRW
- GTP_whiskyecho96
Some improvement with a Praiano tune.
37.480
35.936
37.480
35.936
- 4,181
- Finland
- GTP_MadMax
Question, outside of tunnel at beginning of bridge, white line and paved track beyond is part of track or out of bounds?
The picture above is ok , clean.
Race Specifics
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
I was going to say, I hope that was ok because I am always on the outside of that white line at the very beginning going into turn one. It seems to help with that whole corner entering from the outside like that. I see others entering from the middle of the track on that corner. Just wondering if it offers any speed advantages as I have tried it and it seems to offer me slower times going thru there like that.
Also, what is a good speed for going thru that last tunnel. I seem to have problems there holding speed plus keeping it right up against that curb. Would it be faster as a double apex? Any advice on this section would be appreciated.
Also, what is a good speed for going thru that last tunnel. I seem to have problems there holding speed plus keeping it right up against that curb. Would it be faster as a double apex? Any advice on this section would be appreciated.
- 2,029
- England
- GTP_Insatiable
- InsatiableFiend
It is slower as a double apex in my opinion, holding a tight line is better as you need to stay right (not much past middle of track) to get the first part of the difficult S bend correct. Hold 86-89 in third.
36.151
34.291
Realising at long last that sector one works well with first gear at the hairpin. I am ridiculously slow at working out sectors!
Maybe a tenth left, maybe not.
Blargh. Started getting 36.0 but I've lost the mojo now. Never mind. Could've got into the mid to low 3s with another few days :'(
Submitted!
36.151
34.291
Realising at long last that sector one works well with first gear at the hairpin. I am ridiculously slow at working out sectors!
Maybe a tenth left, maybe not.
Blargh. Started getting 36.0 but I've lost the mojo now. Never mind. Could've got into the mid to low 3s with another few days :'(
Submitted!
Last edited:
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
EDIT: NVM, just seen your other answer. Thanks again.
EDIT 2: I have another, kinda general question. I have a 46" TV and normally sit about 10 feet from it. Yesturday, I rolled my Playseat, I have it on wheels, to about 3 feet from the TV. It seemed a bit awkward at first, but I gradually got used to it. My question is, what is the optimum distance you should be sitting from a 46" TV? Should I continue to get comfortable sitting close like that or does it not really matter? Thanks.
Last edited:
- 1,492
- Tucson,AZ,USA
- Windy_1238
TV Size
TV size and viewing distance are related. Changing both aspects always change the TV size in your eyes.
Ok. Here is the example.
Some rules.
1) Viewing distance – Too near, pixelation. Too far, loss of detail.
2) TV size – Too large, pixelation, Too small, loss of detail.
3) Material resolution – Too low, pixelation, Too high, motion sickness. (Haha we'll talk about it some other time.)
4) All changes in the above factors, must take into account that you always eliminate pixelation first, and then maximising detail at the `optimum’ distance.
So in my guide, assuming 1080p capable TV:
40-inch diagonal TV – 720 material – 8 feet (optimum pixelation/detail threshold)
1) Buy a larger TV (50 inch) without changing the other factors means you run risk of poorer picture quality due to increased pixelation. Using the above rules, you can sit further (10 feet) or increase the resolution to 1080 to counter this.
2) Increasing the resolution of the material to 1080 does not cause any pixelation, but you may lose the extra detail it affords. In effect, the 720 and 1080 material are indistinguishable at this distance to most viewers, all things kept the same. The new optimum distance should now be about 5 feet. Conversely, watching poor resolution material means that you have to sit further away to avoid pixelation.
3) Changing viewing distance has similar effect as changing the TV size. If I sit too near to the TV, I would need smaller TV to counter its effect or watch higher resolution material.
So that’s it for now. I have included a table relating viewing distance, size of TV and material resolution below for 1080p widescreen TV sets. The highlighted ones means they also enjoy a 30 degree viewing angle.
TV Size 576 resolution 720 1080
32-inch 8' feet 6' 4'
37-inch 10' 7' 4.5'
40-inch 10.5' 8' 5'
42-inch 11' 8' 5.5'
46-inch 12' 9' 6'
50-inch 13' 10' 6.5'
55-inch 15' 11.5' 7.5'
65-inch 17' 13' 8.5'
* The above is the minimum sitting distance from a 1080p TV
TV size and viewing distance are related. Changing both aspects always change the TV size in your eyes.
Ok. Here is the example.
Some rules.
1) Viewing distance – Too near, pixelation. Too far, loss of detail.
2) TV size – Too large, pixelation, Too small, loss of detail.
3) Material resolution – Too low, pixelation, Too high, motion sickness. (Haha we'll talk about it some other time.)
4) All changes in the above factors, must take into account that you always eliminate pixelation first, and then maximising detail at the `optimum’ distance.
So in my guide, assuming 1080p capable TV:
40-inch diagonal TV – 720 material – 8 feet (optimum pixelation/detail threshold)
1) Buy a larger TV (50 inch) without changing the other factors means you run risk of poorer picture quality due to increased pixelation. Using the above rules, you can sit further (10 feet) or increase the resolution to 1080 to counter this.
2) Increasing the resolution of the material to 1080 does not cause any pixelation, but you may lose the extra detail it affords. In effect, the 720 and 1080 material are indistinguishable at this distance to most viewers, all things kept the same. The new optimum distance should now be about 5 feet. Conversely, watching poor resolution material means that you have to sit further away to avoid pixelation.
3) Changing viewing distance has similar effect as changing the TV size. If I sit too near to the TV, I would need smaller TV to counter its effect or watch higher resolution material.
So that’s it for now. I have included a table relating viewing distance, size of TV and material resolution below for 1080p widescreen TV sets. The highlighted ones means they also enjoy a 30 degree viewing angle.
TV Size 576 resolution 720 1080
32-inch 8' feet 6' 4'
37-inch 10' 7' 4.5'
40-inch 10.5' 8' 5'
42-inch 11' 8' 5.5'
46-inch 12' 9' 6'
50-inch 13' 10' 6.5'
55-inch 15' 11.5' 7.5'
65-inch 17' 13' 8.5'
* The above is the minimum sitting distance from a 1080p TV
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
Thanks for that detailed explanation Gayle. I will roll my Playseat to your suggested distance and play from there for awhile and see what happens. I always felt like I was sitting too far away so we'll give this a go. I should have mentioned, mine is a 46" Flat screen with 1080p capabilities. Thanks again Gayle, appreciate the advice.
- 580
- Bristol
- GTP_gmmatthew
After 471 miles of this TT, I'm calling it a week and submitting. I don't think I'd be able to improve by more than a few hundredths anyway. I'm predicting a neutral handicap result.
Won't be submitting.
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
Great run Mathew. 👍 And to think I'm going on 3,000 miles today.
Kinda makes me think that I'm not really as good of a driver as my D3 Gold ranking would dictate after having to put in all those miles just to get my time. Maybe I'm really more of a D4 or D5 driver because of all the miles it takes me to achieve my times. Kinda makes me feel like I'm cheating because of all the miles I put in when others only have to put in a lot less to achieve their times. Maybe miles should be put into the equation for the WRS in GT6. The great ones would still be ranked high, but then people like me who have too much time on their hands would be ranked where they should be. Seems fair to me and it would be fair for the others who actually have a life and can only put in a limited amount of time in.EDIT: @doodle: You put the time in, you should really submit. I don't really understand why you would post times then not submit.
- 343
- United States
- gtp_gman1647
GTP_CargoRatGreat run Mathew. 👍 And to think I'm going on 3,000 miles today.
EDIT: @doodle: You put the time in, you should really submit. I don't really understand why you would post times then not submit.
I'm pretty sure you aren't D5 or D4! You're much faster than me! You do run significantly longer than I do, but at the end of the day, it's your final lap time, not your time put in that is considered. Your efforts certainly show in your times, so keep it up 👍!
I do think it would be interesting to see (maybe through a poll) what correlation there may between division, lap time, and time spent on track. It's probably here in the forum somewhere.
Good luck all!
- 17,334
- Seattle
- GTP_Gravitron
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
That's what I'm saying. I think that I am at an unfair advantage with all the time that I am able to spend doing these TT's while others only get to spend not even close to the time that I am. I guarantee you that I wouldn't be D3 Gold right now if I didn't spend all the time that I do on these TT's. That's all I'm saying. I really don't think its fair to the others who have lesser time to spend on these TT's and I really think the Divisions are skewed because of that. Just my opinion and something I was thinking about today after reading over some other threads.
- 1,492
- Tucson,AZ,USA
- Windy_1238
The Old Saying is "Practice Makes Perfect"! Most athletes train lots of hours to achieve greatness.
- 3,094
- USA
- ItsAllAboutWins
If you think you're at an unfair advantage then limit yourself
say you did 3k miles this week? Do 2500 next week. Call that your cut off. At 2500 miles save your replay and write your time down. If you have the extra time to do 3k then keep running but don't count it. Then the next week run 2k miles and do the same thing except go to 2500 instead of 3k. Do that until you are at a mileage you feel is a fair advantage. I bet you'll be surprised at the times you can throw down like that.
I don't think it's an unfair advantage that you have more free time than someone else. It's about doing the best you can and bettering yourself. If it takes you 3k miles to do the best you can, then it takes 3k miles.
For me, it's hit or miss. Some days I can't drive worth crap. Missing braking points, apex's, and falling behind my ghost. Then the next day I can come in and absolutely smash it
On the days I can't do crap, I just put it up and go do something else. No sense in wearing myself out and trying to force myself to improve.
- 5,068
- Glasgow
- GTP_iainoflo
I'm the same, I get days where it takes me an hour to catch my ghost from the day before that took me 10 mins to set. Sometimes I can get a fast lap in that amount of time, other days it takes me 2 hours trying to catch my ghost and then better it.
I find that instead of giving up after an hour, if I persevere I will soon see the time dropping off because the repetition helps.
I honestly don't think that time spent is equal to division placement at all. The is no definitive answer across the WRS about time spent and how high up the ladder they are. It's a fallacy and shouldn't be a basis of determining your ability. Some people are just really fast after 10 minutes, but others in the same division need 1+ hrs to get to the same times.
- 5,068
- Glasgow
- GTP_iainoflo
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
I'm also done. Submitted with last splits posted. After almost 3,000 miles on this combo, I'll put in the average 6-7 hours in on this next one and we'll see where I end up. Guarantee you it won't be close to where I have been finishing....and that is my whole point.
Maybe I was a bit harsh/wrong about the Divisions being skewed by time spent playing. What I meant was they are skewed when it comes to people like me who has endless hours to put into these TT's.
Maybe I was a bit harsh/wrong about the Divisions being skewed by time spent playing. What I meant was they are skewed when it comes to people like me who has endless hours to put into these TT's.
- 5,068
- Glasgow
- GTP_iainoflo
