Track Limit Abuse by most Top 10 Drivers

[Skiddy]

Wow, some of the members here just don't get analogies. So so sad.. Oh well...

 

[Factor41]

Wow, some of the members here just don't get analogies. So so sad.. Oh well...

You were holding up the AI as an example of how to drive a circuit. If you've ever followed one around a medium speed corner when they've got to the apex and inexplicably slammed on the brakes, you'd know that they're not a shining example of anything related to car control! I wouldn't use them as a guide to racing line or braking points, and I certainly wouldn't use them as a guide to the track limits.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

If you've ever followed one around a medium speed corner when they've got to the apex and inexplicably slammed on the brakes, you'd know that they're not a shining example of anything related to car control

But in this game all AI is not created equal!
Many of the challenges there is always the rabbit or two that show a much more aggressive nature and running a MUCH FASTER faster pace than the other 18 or so AI drivers you face.

Still not to the faster human levels but easily good enough and fast enough to be programmed to drive to the track limits by any competent programmer or code writer if the devs chose to do so.

 

[baldgye]

But in this game all AI is not created equal!
Many of the challenges there is always the rabbit or two that show a much more aggressive nature and running a MUCH FASTER faster pace than the other 18 or so AI drivers you face.

Still not to the faster human levels but easily good enough and fast enough to be programmed to drive to the track limits by any competent programmer or code writer if the devs chose to do so.

...which the dev's have chosen not to do, since GT was first created 20 odd years ago...

 

[Skiddy]

You were holding up the AI as an example of how to drive a circuit. If you've ever followed one around a medium speed corner when they've got to the apex and inexplicably slammed on the brakes, you'd know that they're not a shining example of anything related to car control! I wouldn't use them as a guide to racing line or braking points, and I certainly wouldn't use them as a guide to the track limits.

Yeah, you only confirmed by my earlier post. Who, on Earth, said anything about brake points? What does that have to do with track limits?

Track limits are lines you are not supposed to cross when driving. AI can see them, probably by a boundary map applied to each of the tracks, or something like that. The AI can see it, the designer can see it, drivers do not see them. Get the point?

 

[baldgye]

AI can see them, probably by a boundary map applied to each of the tracks, or something like that.

Unless you know what that 'boundary map' is, for every track, you have literally no evidence to back up this unfounded idea that the AI have anything to do with the defined track limits which go unpunished.

For all anyone knows this 'boundary map' could be a meter wide track randomly around the tracks. I sure as hell know the 'best' line into T1 at Nurb GP isn't a tight inside line that the AI all take.

 

[Mr616]

Yeah, you only confirmed by my earlier post. Who, on Earth, said anything about brake points? What does that have to do with track limits?

Track limits are lines you are not supposed to cross when driving. AI can see them, probably by a boundary map applied to each of the tracks, or something like that. The AI can see it, the designer can see it, drivers do not see them. Get the point?

I'll leave you spinning in this merry go round of a thread but I'll leave you with these three thoughts of mine.

The game limits are created by PD. there are no penalties on the top 10 laps, therefore they are legal.

If PD tighten up those limits fine. Until then, either use the fastest line permitted by the game or stop complaining about the people who do.

If you are using the AI to hold a candle to in one instance because you deem that fair, then the AI should be used for other on track behaviour, but that doesn't fit your argument so you disregard it. There's a trend here I believe.

 

[Senna52]

I find it rather funny that some of the posters in here who are calling zzz a cheater are also present in the threads about nerfing your own sr/dr to get easier races.

 

[Skiddy]

Unless you know what that 'boundary map' is, for every track, you have literally no evidence to back up this unfounded idea that the AI have anything to do with the defined track limits which go unpunished.

For all anyone knows this 'boundary map' could be a meter wide track randomly around the tracks. I sure as hell know the 'best' line into T1 at Nurb GP isn't a tight inside line that the AI all take.

How would you tell to the AI car where to drive, or where not to drive? How do you give the AI that information? Why would PD restrict the AI to, as you say, one meter wide track? Where would be the logic in that? Why wouldn't they allow the AI to cut corners if it's OK to do so?
Probably because it's not OK. The boundary limit, the one the AI sees, is drawn so that the cutting zone is prohibited, and yet unpunished for the player, because of a bug the PD didn't get to yet, so it makes it an exploit.

 

[Obelisk]

because of a bug the PD didn't get to yet, so it makes it an exploit.

Or the AI is meant to be slow and stupid so the 7 year olds can beat them?

 

[Famine]

The boundary limit, the one the AI sees, is drawn so that the cutting zone is prohibited, and yet unpunished for the player, because of a bug the PD didn't get to yet, so it makes it an exploit.

There's no evidence for this. There's 20 years of evidence for what PD considers the track limits, which is grass/gravel:

We've got about 20 years of very strong evidence for what PD's rules are. They vary a little and there are areas where the rules are different, but the undercurrent for all licence, mission and coffee break disqualifications and all invalidated laps across all Gran Turismo games are:

* Collision*
* All four wheels in the grass/gravel

On almost all occasions throughout all of the GT games, all lines, kerbs and concrete have been valid driving surfaces, and a driver can place two wheels beyond even those without hearing Yello's "Oh Yeah", or getting a red lap. In some games a third wheel has been too much, while some require a fourth. In some corners - and I think Nurburgring GP/F and GP/D's Turn 4 exit has previously been among them, in GT5 - the track limit is closer to the white line/kerb you'd expect, although you won't necessarily know that until you've gone too far.


*Although this has been exploitable right back to GT1's Licence Tests, as the game does not register some types of collisions as collisions, allowing wallriding. It clearly should, but doesn't necessarily always do so, putting wallriding in a slightly different category than exploration of track limits

GT Sport appears to follow the same rules, so either it's a bug for the last 20 years that PD hasn't got to fixing yet, or it's a design decision.

 

[Scaff]

How would you tell to the AI car where to drive, or where not to drive? How do you give the AI that information? Why would PD restrict the AI to, as you say, one meter wide track? Where would be the logic in that? Why wouldn't they allow the AI to cut corners if it's OK to do so?
Probably because it's not OK. The boundary limit, the one the AI sees, is drawn so that the cutting zone is prohibited, and yet unpunished for the player, because of a bug the PD didn't get to yet, so it makes it an exploit.

AI in any GT title is about the worse tool you can use as to what is and isn't a good way around a track.

They don't need to maximise the track in the same way we do to put in a certain lap time as PD has chosen to given them rubber-band abilities to perform well outside the capabilities of the car they are in.

 

[Skiddy]

I'll leave you spinning in this merry go round of a thread but I'll leave you with these three thoughts of mine.

The game limits are created by PD. there are no penalties on the top 10 laps, therefore they are legal.

If PD tighten up those limits fine. Until then, either use the fastest line permitted by the game or stop complaining about the people who do.

If you are using the AI to hold a candle to in one instance because you deem that fair, then the AI should be used for other on track behaviour, but that doesn't fit your argument so you disregard it. There's a trend here I believe.

I didn't say they are illegal.
I'm not complaining (since I'm not the top 10 contender ).
I'm stating that zzz's lap in my opinion is not clean.

It is perfectly all right to use AI in context I have done, since the topic we were discussing involves track limits, and not the speed of the AI, the breaking points of the AI, the general AI behavior around other drivers, etc... Just the track limits.
That is why I stated that some members don't get analogies, they let irrelevant details cloud the big picture.

 

[Obelisk]

It is perfectly all right to use AI in context I have done, since the topic we were discussing involves track limits, and not the speed of the AI, the breaking points of the AI, the general AI behavior around other drivers, etc... Just the track limits.

They don't need to maximise the track in the same way we do to put in a certain lap time as PD has chosen to given them rubber-band abilities to perform well outside the capabilities of the car they are in.

Read bolded.

 

[Skiddy]

AI in any GT title is about the worse tool you can use as to what is and isn't a good way around a track.

They don't need to maximise the track in the same way we do to put in a certain lap time as PD has chosen to given them rubber-band abilities to perform well outside the capabilities of the car they are in.

And there is another one who fails to see the crucial detail. Who said anything about the AI and lap times? Who gives a damn about rubber banding? Capabilities of the car? What are you talking about?

 

[baldgye]

And there is another one who fails to see the crucial detail. Who said anything about the AI and lap times? Who gives a damn about rubber banding? Capabilities of the car? What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

The AI follow a very basic and mostly bad/wrong racing line.
They have no concept of track limits because they don’t need too...

Why are you going on and on about something that’s not only wrong and irrelevant but something you clearly have no knowledge of, either how it works in reality or how it was programmed...

 

[Scaff]

And there is another one who fails to see the crucial detail. Who said anything about the AI and lap times? Who gives a damn about rubber banding? Capabilities of the car? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about why the line the AI follows around the track is irrelevant to its performance around a lap, and not an indicator of track limits.

The AI could stick to the very centre of the track and still put in whatever laptime and performance PD wanted it to.

As such your claim, for which you have zero evidence, unravels further.

So what I'm talking about is quite clear, so maybe the attitude isn't actually required.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Track limits are lines you are not supposed to cross when driving. AI can see them, probably by a boundary map applied to each of the tracks, or something like that. The AI can see it, the designer can see it, drivers do not see them. Get the point

I do not want to get sucked back into this conversation as it seems futile to try to reasonably discuss any concept that varies at all with a lot of the people in this thread.

But what Skiddy is saying makes sense from a concept point about track limits, maybe even about PD'S intents on the limits. Hell maybe it is just the broken penalty system but because of the history of GT in the past that is ruled to be ludicrous to be even a possibility.

But what has been brought up is a reasonable point to be part of a discussion about track limits but rather than reasonably evaluate such concept the poster is crucified for bringing up a point that does not fit with the consensus that the current track limits is what PD wants and you are treated as being an inferior gamer if you cannot adapt.

I agree that PD could easily make the AI run any line they wanted the AI to run within and on whatever was on the screen of your tv. They could let the AI driving a GR4 car run the same speeds as if they were in a GR1 car and the only difference would be to how they wrote or entered the code.

AI could easily be coded to where not even the aliens could win a race if the devs chose this is what they wanted to do.

So bringing up a suggestion or even question as to why the lines the AI run within the game are different or possibly the limits the game intends to be the out of bounds limits than what the track limits that allow completely leaving the circuit is legal is not is not not a topic that is far fetched or does not deserve serious legitimate debate or discussion. But that does not happen here.

Everything from PD as far as instructional videos, AI behavior and track limits apparently imposed on that AI by the devs does indicate the limits that gamers are using although legal to use do not match anywhere near close to anything you see where PD is controlling the racing line or cars on screen.

Their are two sides to every discussion and viewpoints and opinions from individual to individual can vary greatly but just because someones has a different viewpoint does not mean they are wrong just because you say so or believe so.

The only documented racing lines SHOWN IN USE BY PD in any official capacity including the limits of game controlled cars actually support the tighter track limits as being correct in theory.

The lines available by users show no penalty so from being legal within the game are also correct.

So regardless of which side of the line in the sand you find yourself on you are not wrong and have something within the game that backs your position to an extent.

 

[Skiddy]

The AI follow a very basic and mostly bad/wrong racing line.
They have no concept of track limits because they don’t need too...

And where does this racing line comes from? Yeah, I've seen the AI race on Maggiore, they are all over the place, there is no single line they follow.

I'm talking about why the line the AI follows around the track is irrelevant to its performance around a lap, and not an indicator of track limits.

The AI could stick to the very centre of the track and still put in whatever laptime and performance PD wanted it to.

Did you even see the AI race on Maggiore? Try the campaign, FR event in the Amateur events I think. Drive something underpowered so you can spend some time around the AI. Then tell me what you think about that very center of the track idea.

 

[Obelisk]

I'm going to respectfully withdraw from this discussion. I'm seeing several people experiencing the backfire effect and don't want to be in the crossfire when someone eventually melts down.

Peace out.

 

[Psycho Turtle]

So most of the times when you see a Top 10 replay. The most shocking thing is the abuse of track limits.

Check this below video of a 2:02 lap at Maggiore last night by a guy. He is blatantly cutting corners,i mean totally cutting corners.

This is a big issue in the game and needs to be fixed. I hope PD fixes this coz its unfair on people who don't know you can abuse a track like this.

Nothing against you mate rather games fault for not detecting it. Just posting an example

Holy crap, I had no idea you could cut corners like that. That will make me about 1 second faster per lap.

 

[zzz_pt]

Holy crap, I had no idea you could cut corners like that. That will make me about 1 second faster per lap.

More 0.2 if you nail it. Good luck.

Edit: unless you first sector is slower than 32:250. In that case, it might give you more time.

 

[Skiddy]

Why are you going on and on about something that’s not only wrong and irrelevant but something you clearly have no knowledge of, either how it works in reality or how it was programmed...

And you on the other hand work for PD, I assume.

 

[LordDrift]

You're using AI to try to prove your point? Seriously?

Someone quoted The fast and furious earlier. It's pretty much a free for all after that.

 

[baldgye]

And you on the other hand work for PD, I assume.

No, I just have experience with ‘racing’ against the AI in GT games and aren’t making huge leaps of logic to try and make some nonsensical point

 

[kilesa4568]

I'm going to respectfully withdraw from this discussion. I'm seeing several people experiencing the backfire effect and don't want to be in the crossfire when someone eventually melts down.

Peace out.

Don't you want to see what else can be scraped from the bottom of the barrel to support opinion? I'm sure there's something left in there to push another 10 pages out of this thread.👍

Perhaps this thread could complete a holy trinity of things you don't discuss down the pub. Politics, religion and PD's track limits.

(I thought the AI twist to the story was hilarious until I realised they were being serious. Sadly, a non starter but an entertaining concept.)

 

[Psycho Turtle]

More 0.2 if you nail it. Good luck.

Edit: unless you first sector is slower than 32:250. In that case, it might give you more time.

.2 x 5 = 1 second

 

[Factor41]

Yeah, you only confirmed by my earlier post. Who, on Earth, said anything about brake points? What does that have to do with track limits?

Track limits are lines you are not supposed to cross when driving. AI can see them, probably by a boundary map applied to each of the tracks, or something like that. The AI can see it, the designer can see it, drivers do not see them. Get the point?

The point being, the AI are not an accurate way of determining ANYTHING about GT Sport. When they pile into the barriers at Dragon Trail, it's not because they have a profound understanding of track limits!

 

[kilesa4568]

That will make me about 1 second faster per lap.

.2 x 5 = 1 second

I hate math.

 

[Tornado]

But what Skiddy is saying makes sense from a concept point about track limits, maybe even about PD'S intents on the limits.

Presumably as much sense as saying that PD's fairly consistent two decade design philosophy for track boundary design is invalidated as a basis to form a hypothesis for intent because they made some narrated videos.