TCV1 Discussion Thread

[nomis3613]

Also how does no limits on ABS sound to everyone? ABS: 1 is by far the quickest setting, but for those who don't mind sacrificing 10 points for a car that works without ABS, this would be an ideal chance to get those ABS: 0 tunes some exposure.

Sounds great.

Sorry if this has been discussed earlier, but if it's old skool style, how about class restrictions based on power and weight (instead of PP)?

 

[VTiRoj]

Sounds great.

Sorry if this has been discussed earlier, but if it's old skool style, how about class restrictions based on power and weight (instead of PP)?

Already done it. 👍

 

[Highlandor]

Of course. So you give 10 points to lap time, 10 to improvement over stock, 20 to handling and handling feel, 10 to driver enjoyment and whatever else you can think of that should be in the scoring sheet. Lap times will be 10-15% of the overall score.

Why not set a half decent online "race distance" - then compare the consistency of the lap times and how much they differ between best and worst (obviously, not taking into accoun crashes and spins)..?? Or first and last lap(s)..??

That way, doesn't matter if you use a cheat car or not, tyre wear will still bite you in the ass if you're not careful.

Set it to 15 miles minimum (even that is a bit mickey mouse) - 20 miles would be better, do the "test" in a online race (something you can do with 1 person) and away you go.

Be careful with power and weight only regs, some cars will benefit more than others through aero packages, especially if ran at max aero. Maybe put a cap or limit on amount of aero that can be used??

What are the regulations anyway - read this thread a few times and totally confused??

I understand production car(s), but er....what limits are there and what are the test track(s) going to be??

Thanks...

 

[XDesperado67]

@Highlandor VTiRoj is finalizing the rules for an introductory version of this currently. Testers will be able to use any tracks they want when testing the entries as it isn't about building the fastest car for a specific track but about who does the best job of taking a stock car and making it into a faster, easier more fun to drive car. While speed will play a small part in the final results many other factors will be much more important.

 

[Highlandor]

Cool, no worries, thanks for clarifying that....

Just a little bit worried though, say for instance some one does a car for smooth tracks, then the tester tests it on a bumpy track, that car (potentially) is a little flawed.

Someone else comes along with similiar car, the tester tests it on the "kind" of track it was designed to be run on, then it'll "feel" so much better than the car being used on the "wrong" (if you could call it that) track.

Don't mean to sound an ass (that's a first for me I guess), but certain tracks have tuning qwerks about them, Cape Ring is one that stands out a mile, especiallly online.

Most setups for that are going to be quite different for some of the other tracks, say Tsukuba.

I feel having some control over some of the test variables (for consistency and fairness) will help validate this competition, but as always, just my opinion....

Thanks for your reply...

H

 

[VTiRoj]

Why not set a half decent online "race distance" - then compare the consistency of the lap times and how much they differ between best and worst (obviously, not taking into accoun crashes and spins)..?? Or first and last lap(s)..??

That way, doesn't matter if you use a cheat car or not, tyre wear will still bite you in the ass if you're not careful.

Set it to 15 miles minimum (even that is a bit mickey mouse) - 20 miles would be better, do the "test" in a online race (something you can do with 1 person) and away you go.

The thing is about online shootouts is that it over-complicates the entire process. You have to make sure every tester can build every car and said testers can play online in the first place. I know there's a few people who have issues with staying online. When someone can figure out a reliable system, or PD actually fixes the online physics, then online race distance tests can actually be done smoothly.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea, but there's no practical way of doing it yet.

Be careful with power and weight only regs, some cars will benefit more than others through aero packages, especially if ran at max aero. Maybe put a cap or limit on amount of aero that can be used??

Good point. An aero cap is a good idea, especially now that I realise the R390 can actually sneak in under the current regs. Even though the aim of TCv1 is to prioritize improvement over stock above lap times, it's still worth making sure none of the cheese cars can sneak in. I'll add that in. 👍

What are the regulations anyway - read this thread a few times and totally confused??

I understand production car(s), but er....what limits are there and what are the test track(s) going to be??

This is just the discussion thread, the actual shootout with all the regs will be posted after everything is finalised. 👍

Track choices are up to the testers. No one/two-track wonders here. You'll have to make a good all-rounder to get consistent results from all the testers.

Thanks...

You too!

Edit: Damn it stop having conversations while I'm replying to old posts!

Cool, no worries, thanks for clarifying that....

Just a little bit worried though, say for instance some one does a car for smooth tracks, then the tester tests it on a bumpy track, that car (potentially) is a little flawed.

Someone else comes along with similiar car, the tester tests it on the "kind" of track it was designed to be run on, then it'll "feel" so much better than the car being used on the "wrong" (if you could call it that) track.

Don't mean to sound an ass (that's a first for me I guess), but certain tracks have tuning qwerks about them, Cape Ring is one that stands out a mile, especiallly online.

Most setups for that are going to be quite different for some of the other tracks, say Tsukuba.

I feel having some control over some of the test variables (for consistency and fairness) will help validate this competition, but as always, just my opinion....

Thanks for your reply...

H

I'll add something about certain tracks like you mentioned. There's definitely a few tracks that I'd rather not be used because they're too quirky. 👍

 

[Highlandor]

Put RJ's favourite track (Cape Ring) in there, he'll love that

(OK - waiting to see how long before RJ sends me hatemail or letterbomb)....



I agree with your points for the Online test being very awkward, but, to be honest, I don't think "everyone" would go for this anyway, it'd probably be only a small group so there'd be less to organise.

With smaller numbers and the ability to duplicate cars & meet up in online lobbys through room numbers, I think something would be feasible - but that's just me being an ass (as per usual) and sticking my nose in.

I understand where you're coming from, I just felt it'd be good for some of the guys on here to experience something completely different and there's already some good online tuners here anyway.

It'd be cool to meet up with some other guys, chill out and try some cars/tunes. I'm kinda up to my neck in stuff to do and series to organise, otherwise I'd volunteer some kind of online test (if anyone was interested that is).

I dunno, if there's anyone out there who is, then shout - but I guess that's kinda hijacking this thread / competition a bit isn't it??

(oooooops ) - don't mean to, it's just that so much seems to be offline, but there's so much cool stuff going on online, bit of a shame really....

Good luck anyway Roj... 👍

 

[VTiRoj]

Put RJ's favourite track (Cape Ring) in there, he'll love that

(OK - waiting to see how long before RJ sends me hatemail or letterbomb)....

I actually like Cape Ring, but the jump really serves no purpose aside from cool replays and if you nosedive off it you'll invalidate your time.

I agree with your points for the Online test being very awkward, but, to be honest, I don't think "everyone" would go for this anyway, it'd probably be only a small group so there'd be less to organise.

With smaller numbers and the ability to duplicate cars & meet up in online lobbys through room numbers, I think something would be feasible - but that's just me being an ass (as per usual) and sticking my nose in.

There's usually a good 15-20 tuners in every shootout and I don't think this one will be any different, especially as it's introducing something that's hasn't been done yet. Hopefully it'll encourage some of the newer guys to enter too.

I understand where you're coming from, I just felt it'd be good for some of the guys on here to experience something completely different and there's already some good online tuners here anyway.

It'd be cool to meet up with some other guys, chill out and try some cars/tunes. I'm kinda up to my neck in stuff to do and series to organise, otherwise I'd volunteer some kind of online test (if anyone was interested that is).

I think there would be a lot of interest in an online-based shootout if there was enough time allotted for tuners to dupe their cars to the testers and so on. I think the current issue is that a lot of shootouts take no longer than 3-4 weeks. An online shootout would probably need that much time just to send cars out, so you'd have to organise something like this where you run the event over a long period of time.

I dunno, if there's anyone out there who is, then shout - but I guess that's kinda hijacking this thread / competition a bit isn't it??

(oooooops ) - don't mean to, it's just that so much seems to be offline, but there's so much cool stuff going on online, bit of a shame really....

Good luck anyway Roj... 👍

Well this is a discussion thread. After the actual shootout gets posted then this thread will be abandoned. Make use of it while you can I guess.

 

[nomis3613]

I have a couple of suggestions to make life easier for the testers (quite a few fell by the wayside in the Japanese Shootout). Firstly, if we're comparing against default settings, then tuners could put 2 versions of the car on share: one with default settings and the other properly tuned (unless Kaz wants to fix the tuning sheet bug with shared cars in time for this comp?!). Saves testers messing around with settings to do the baseline runs.

The other idea is putting a limit on the number of cars in each group. It might encourage more testers to get involved if they are guaranteed that their workload doesn't suddenly explode to 25 cars when everyone signs up. I suggest 6 cars per group (of course, masochistic testers can sign up to test as many groups as they like!).

 

[Highlandor]

I can't see any problem with an online event if tunes / setups are posted, then people can buy the car and dial in the setup themselves, there's so much crazy money to be earnt so easily on Seasonal events it'd be easy to buy the car(s).

If it was a used car, then it can be duped, I got over 3500+ cars on 7 ID's, I stockpile most useful used cars, not a problem to send one, or many.

But, I understand if that's deemed to much hassle, so won't make a fuss about it being rejected - no worrres...

One other thing, I recently changed from a pad to a G27, I've noticed how useless my pad setups are on the G27, spennding much time having to change them.

This is my point with these competitions - looking at previous competitions, why on earth is no-one quoting whether setup was done on pad or wheel AND (if so) what steering sensitivity was used.

I know guys who race with minimum (-2) and others who race maximum (+7) sensitivty. Someome who tunes a car one of them and (hyperthetically) creates a perfect setup, gives it to the other guy it'll be useless. Not because of the setup, but the sensitivity.

When someone enters a car / setup, they need to quote what sensitivty they used so they guys doing the testing can run the same sensitivty and test the car on equal settings.

Someone setting up a car using -2, gives it to a guy using +7 it'll oversteer like crazy, vica versa, it'd understeer like crazy. Even differences between wheel and pad can make or break a setup.

Compare a setup for someone who brakes and accelerates aggressively, to someone who trail brakes and feathers the thottle is pointless - no setup can cater for both, they are fundamentally different.

I think there should be more "user" data / info displayed - if only to keep things "fair" and equal...and I guess, "politically correct" - which is a first for me

 

[VTiRoj]

I have a couple of suggestions to make life easier for the testers (quite a few fell by the wayside in the Japanese Shootout). Firstly, if we're comparing against default settings, then tuners could put 2 versions of the car on share: one with default settings and the other properly tuned (unless Kaz wants to fix the tuning sheet bug with shared cars in time for this comp?!). Saves testers messing around with settings to do the baseline runs.

The only things that need to be made default are the LSD, transmission and suspension settings. So a tester could just switch to set B, press default for those 3 settings, do testing, then switch back to set A to test the tuned settings. I think that would actually take less time than going back to the tuner's profile to borrow the other car anyway.

With that said, I have no objections to putting 2 versions on share. 👍

The other idea is putting a limit on the number of cars in each group. It might encourage more testers to get involved if they are guaranteed that their workload doesn't suddenly explode to 25 cars when everyone signs up. I suggest 6 cars per group (of course, masochistic testers can sign up to test as many groups as they like!).

What I've done so far is limited tuners to just 1 car and if one division starts getting too big, I wont accept any more entries until the other division becomes equal with it. So it may become that division 1 has 11 cars and division 2 has 10.

I can't see any problem with an online event if tunes / setups are posted, then people can buy the car and dial in the setup themselves, there's so much crazy money to be earnt so easily on Seasonal events it'd be easy to buy the car(s).

If it was a used car, then it can be duped, I got over 3500+ cars on 7 ID's, I stockpile most useful used cars, not a problem to send one, or many.

But, I understand if that's deemed to much hassle, so won't make a fuss about it being rejected - no worrres...

I don't see any problems either, it just adds a lot of time to the shootout. Perhaps when everyone is comfortable with this format, we can try an online shootout to see how it goes.

I think there should be more "user" data / info displayed - if only to keep things "fair" and equal...and I guess, "politically correct" - which is a first for me

That is a point actually. I think some people do specify what controller type they used, but never the sensitivity settings. I think most people keep it at 0 so they assume others do too. It wouldn't be asking too much to ask everyone to add that information to their garage posts I think.

 

[nomis3613]

The only things that need to be made default are the LSD, transmission and suspension settings. So a tester could just switch to set B, press default for those 3 settings, do testing, then switch back to set A to test the tuned settings. I think that would actually take less time than going back to the tuner's profile to borrow the other car anyway.

Cool, yeah you're way is much better 👍

I think some people do specify what controller type they used, but never the sensitivity settings.

Case in point: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=246965&page=61 (the whole page)

Since Highlandor showed me how sensitivity difference it can make, I can't believe that most tuners don't even mention it in their garages. Crazy! These days I think of it like the steering rack ratio and consider it (and ABS) a part of the tune. </rant>

 

[Highlandor]

Yep, exacta-mundo people.

One guy running his controller on minimum, another on maximum - no chance in hell will 1 setup ever be able to account for that.

Plus, that's not even taking into account driving styles. I tend to generalise for this:

Style a) "Planted" - stereotypically aggressive throttle and brake, not much trail braking or feathering of the throttle (if any).

Style b) "Loose" - stereotypically LESS aggressive, generally trail braking and feathering of the throttle is always used.

I find this a quick and easy way of "generalizing" a driving style, even if 2 guys are running the same steering sensitivity settings, a setup won't work if it's the opposite driving style to what he uses.

Give the "loose" guy a "planted" setup - he'll hate it, most likely understeer.
Give a "planted" guy a "loose" setup - he'll hate that, most likely oversteer.

This is what being a good tuner is all about - you are not providing a tune / setup for YOUR way of playing, driving or YOUR settings.

Being a good tuner means you can not only "sort the car out" to whatever regulations are set (PP points, track, tyres, race distance etc etc etc), but you can also IDENTIFY the needs and wants of the guys using the setup and MODIFY the setup to meet the different needs of the drivers i.e. steering sensitivity and driving style differences.

Creating a setup for one set of regulations is useless as the diversity of driving styles and sensitivity settings are so high.

Which is why, I rarely quote exact setups, it's pointless, or when I do, I go "middle of the road" and try and find smething general and balanced to suit as many as possible, rather than being specific which will probably be only good for me.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Being a good tuner means you can not only "sort the car out" to whatever regulations are set (PP points, track, tyres, race distance etc etc etc), but you can also IDENTIFY the needs and wants of the guys using the setup and MODIFY the setup to meet the different needs of the drivers i.e. steering sensitivity and driving style differences.

I 100% agree. I am very open to helping people adjust my tunes to make them work better for them. I get PMs all the time from people and work with their feedback and offer suggestions.

I was thinking about mixing that into a tuning competition. Maybe pair a driver with a tuner. Kinda like a crew chief would work with a driver's feedback. Drive car stock, get feedback. Drive car with initial tune, get feedback. Drive car two more times with feedback. Score on fastest lap and/or most improved lap time.

 

[Highlandor]

I was thinking about mixing that into a tuning competition.

I think there are issues highlighted that has taken this too far from RJ's original "idea / brief".

I think most of the points raised on this page could be taken into another competition and leave RJ's original idea as it was. Otherwise, it's basically something completely different from what he was proposing.

If you want to get together to bounce some ideas around then let me know. I got 2 weeks break from organising race series etc - after that, I'm gonna be snowed under again.

If you feel like maybe coming up with something - an ultimate tuners series / competition, where it's really pushing the tuners, gimme a shout amigo...

👍

If not, no worries, no offence taken.