- 10,276
- Sacramento CA
- cnd01
I have liked the FB page. I am part of the group. I do not have a skype.
The Rolex Sports Car Series /Help Plan Season 2!/
- Thread starter polarbear345
- 3,021 comments
- 78,641 views
I have liked the FB page. I am part of the group. I do not have a skype.
- 10,276
- Sacramento CA
- cnd01
Could the people involved in the crash just say crash on chat in game? It would have to be a crash if the people involved were to pause the game themselves and type it in. If they do then they need to sit where they end up stopping and wait for someone else in the race to pause and vouch for them. Either that or have a steward watching the race. Heck if participation is low then James can drive the pace car if he promises not to crash himself or anyone else
james6653
(Banned)
- 3,734
- MI
- GTP_James_USCC
- killer sg1
cnd01Could the people involved in the crash just say crash on chat in game? It would have to be a crash if the people involved were to pause the game themselves and type it in. If they do then they need to sit where they end up stopping and wait for someone else in the race to pause and vouch for them. Either that or have a steward watching the race. Heck if participation is low then James can drive the pace car if he promises not to crash himself or anyone else
I might do that
- 3,506
- Essex
- CWM_StormPacer
Or the person could say "Help"... 
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
Tested today with the group c cars, the jag is about a second slower than everything else. 980kg 520hp or increase the weight a bit on the others is needed for it to be competitive. The R92 and Sauber seem pretty even, 787B a little slower in my hands. Haven't tried the Minolta yet, but anthony had decent times with it, so it's on pace also.
- 3,506
- Essex
- CWM_StormPacer
I'd test out the Minolta, but given I've tuned it all the way up it isn't going to be a good idea. The car is a beauty, though. What track did you test on Seth?
- 9,387
- Pittsburgh
- polarbear345
I think that 60-70 mph would be a appropriate sped. For the caution calling, whoever is involved has already stopped probably, so when they're in the gravel just type in caution. Yesterday there was talk of a "quickly" caution. I don't think that'll work, it would just take more typing, so I guess it could... But I think we should just have one caution procedure. Stewards can talk after the race in either a chat room (voice or text or Skype) but we won't talk during races, or type about penalties. (we haven't had to give any out, let's try to keep it that way!)
- 468
- Argentina
- unrealanthony
I keep thinking that all of this (caution, stewards chatting, ...) is too complicate!!, the only way, I think, is a guy who be a ¨pace car¨, but we don´t have someone who can drive a ¨pace car¨, so, when I play with my friends, when there is a crash, who go at first place slow down and make of ¨pace car¨, single file until the start line and then go again. I´m agree with cnd01, could the people involved type ¨crash¨ to alert the other drivers. For me, this has sense if the crash involved 3 or more cars!!
- 3,506
- Essex
- CWM_StormPacer
If we do have a bigger car selection, we'd have to consider the amount of people that might end up joining, especially if we do teams. If you decide to have 6 DPs and 8 GTs, AND decide on two-man teams, the max you're going to get is 28 drivers, and 14 different cars. lobby is only going to have 16 max. However, if you had 6 DPs and 8 GTs, without teams, then you'll have a max of 14 drivers and 14 different cars, leaving 2 spots to pace cars/stewards.
- 3,506
- Essex
- CWM_StormPacer
That's actually an idea, you know. Maybe not for here though, I like how things run here, but that's definitely an idea to keep in mind.
You could do a class DP quali and race first, which could be a standing start sprint race with a mandatory one-stopper. Then after the DP, the GTs follow same setup for quali and race. The whole mandatory one-stop thing is taken from MrMel's ITCC, so credit for that brainwave goes to him.
As for having a divide, rather than have the top 6 DP and 8 GT, have the field divided by who finished where per team. For example:
Chevy A got 5th and Chevy B got 2nd in the class race, so since Chevy B was higher, he/she would progress to endurance race 1, with Chevy A would be placed in endurance race 2.
This way, you're still using the same number of cars and still retaining a balance of different cars. And each endurance race may have different winners. This way, the sprint race can act as a rivalry or a strategy for the team members.
You could do a class DP quali and race first, which could be a standing start sprint race with a mandatory one-stopper. Then after the DP, the GTs follow same setup for quali and race. The whole mandatory one-stop thing is taken from MrMel's ITCC, so credit for that brainwave goes to him.
As for having a divide, rather than have the top 6 DP and 8 GT, have the field divided by who finished where per team. For example:
Chevy A got 5th and Chevy B got 2nd in the class race, so since Chevy B was higher, he/she would progress to endurance race 1, with Chevy A would be placed in endurance race 2.
This way, you're still using the same number of cars and still retaining a balance of different cars. And each endurance race may have different winners. This way, the sprint race can act as a rivalry or a strategy for the team members.
Last edited:
- 10,276
- Sacramento CA
- cnd01
That might work but what if say Chevy A finished first. Chevy B finished second. Say the highest finishing Mazda was in 9th. It would be in endurance race 1 while the second place overall car would be in race 2. So the races might be unbalanced in performance. Of course this is all assuming we have an abundance of participants. If the performance levels seem unbalanced then we regulate during the season just like Grand-Am. We could add weight to a certain car or take it away from another. We could use success ballast as a last resort.
On another note, I did some testing with the actual dp specs on the group c cars. The jag is about 1 second off. The sauber, r89c, r92cp, are within 2/10ths of a second of each other. The 787b and minolta are about 3/10ths behind those 3. I haven't had a chance to test the GT class cars yet.
- 3,506
- Essex
- CWM_StormPacer
That is a worry in any championship, I mean, look at this season; one-two Audi finishes for the most part of the season, and both the drivers are tied on points with one race to go. Sometimes that just cannot be helped, unless you do something about the cars that don't make them as dominating. You can say that about anything, one driver being good enough to come first while the other comes last, both drivers in a team jostling between each other getting mid position.
There's a reason why I said an air of strategy can be implimented with this. The first and second race, so no to punish those that DO have dominating drivers on one team, would have to be yielding the same points, or else public outcry here we come. You could deliberately finish in a lower position to your teammate, despite knowing you're better just to get into race 2 and maximise the points earned for yourself and the team, if you have each Race boast the same points. Why go into Race 1 knowing you'll be fourth if Race 2 looks more promising? If the quali and sprint race count for half of the total points with the race counting as the other, you could go balls out in Quali and get pole, deliberately finish under your teammate if there's more balance in other teams in the sprint, and go on to win race 2.
However, it could kill the team with the least productive drivers/car, but again that's down to something that can't be helped without upgrading the car, if it needs it.
There's a reason why I said an air of strategy can be implimented with this. The first and second race, so no to punish those that DO have dominating drivers on one team, would have to be yielding the same points, or else public outcry here we come. You could deliberately finish in a lower position to your teammate, despite knowing you're better just to get into race 2 and maximise the points earned for yourself and the team, if you have each Race boast the same points. Why go into Race 1 knowing you'll be fourth if Race 2 looks more promising? If the quali and sprint race count for half of the total points with the race counting as the other, you could go balls out in Quali and get pole, deliberately finish under your teammate if there's more balance in other teams in the sprint, and go on to win race 2.
However, it could kill the team with the least productive drivers/car, but again that's down to something that can't be helped without upgrading the car, if it needs it.
Last edited:
ITCC_Andrew
(Banned)
- 18,532
- Kitchener
The real Rolex series runs one race. I, for one, think we should keep that simplicity in this series.
- 3,506
- Essex
- CWM_StormPacer
Same here, I did say that this was an idea to consider elsewhere.
- 10,276
- Sacramento CA
- cnd01
We don't have to use all of the cars I listed. I also think it should stay at 1 race. I would love to have an over attendance problem. The two race format is entirely hypothetical if we get too many entries. I like the two entry per model car limit. We might need to have a speed check on the new entries if we start getting a lot. That will weed out all of the back markers who can't drive. I myself fall into that category somewhat often
- 9,387
- Pittsburgh
- polarbear345
MrMelancholy15
+1!
There won't be two races. (for now) and if there are two races, it will be with two separate groups. A.k.a two divisions, but we don't have to worry about it.
And for all this having 14 cars talk, we won't. There will be 3 group c cars selected for the DP class. (6 drivers). That means there will be a opening for a car in gt! The logic behind the decision is in the real series, GT out numbers DP by a great amount (if we made it super real, there would be about 5 DP cars, but 3 teams is easier. Also I think there are 3 main DP cars, so it fits.) The new GT car is up for discussion. I'm thinking either the rx8, or m3. (I know about the RUF, but it seems that there are too many options and the rx8 and m3 are directly represented in the real series)
For season two we are going for a more realistic Rolex experience. That means that the cautions will be used, and overall we want the cars to be more equal, ill make a video soon going into more detail if it's needed.
- 10,276
- Sacramento CA
- cnd01
Amen brother
- 3,506
- Essex
- CWM_StormPacer
Well the M3 that would actually be relatively competitive would be the CSL or the GTR. The RX-8 is a Premium car though, so it kinda fits better with both the real Rolex Series and the GT5 one (all-premium GT cars).
ITCC_Andrew
(Banned)
- 18,532
- Kitchener
Skype chat? +1 for us recording a chat with damu, storm, you and me?
- 9,387
- Pittsburgh
- polarbear345
Tez_SP17
I say we give the rx8 a shot (it's pretty popular on the real grid) if that doesn't work, m3 (sticking to the premium plan)
- 3,506
- Essex
- CWM_StormPacer
The M3 coupé '07? I'm steering clear of that car thanks.
- 9,387
- Pittsburgh
- polarbear345
Tez_SP17
Too many bad experiences in ALMS?
- 3,506
- Essex
- CWM_StormPacer
Ask Mel... he could tell you.
ITCC_Andrew
(Banned)
- 18,532
- Kitchener
So, maybe the M3 is a bit heavy. It's great!... but heavy.
Similar threads
