If only you were a PGR F1 driver with such a rocketship under your bottom...Gzehoo wrote:OK, don't count me. I didn't expect many traffic jams on the road during vacations comeback and I'm not able to do my race today...
What's going on Twitter?
If only you were a PGR F1 driver with such a rocketship under your bottom...Gzehoo wrote:OK, don't count me. I didn't expect many traffic jams on the road during vacations comeback and I'm not able to do my race today...
I eel sorry or your misortune.Buka wrote:I did send files, but didn't type "f" in email address.
Hard decision on our part as you might not have not gained as much time as XYY, who was running with 50kg less and was sent BOP as well. As far as driving in clean air is concerned, I feel that your assumption, 0.1s per 10kg, is realistic but we also need to consider if the whole race was comparable to the others.Lorenzo wrote:I got DSQ for 6% od fuel consumption instead of 5% which, assuming that every 10kgs give an additional 0,1 to the laptime, couldn't give me more than 2 seconds... pretty frustrating one.
This is the part that convinces me most, honestly. It's not your job to measure my potential gain for sure. I just felt a bit disappointed by what I found in regulations which are very general and provide the same penalty for every kind of settings mismatch. I wonder what would happen if it was 4% or 91kg just anything that is rather detrimental to performance. I remembered I've read something about penalizing according to the gravity of infringement, but unluckily it didn't refer to game settings. It's quite discuraging to end up with nothing after such a good race.RudyOosterndijk wrote:We also try not to hand out time penalties at our discretion - just to make up for the assumed gain in time, and to put you in the position where we think you would have ended up.
Now that is just cruelRudyOosterndijk wrote:I eel sorry or your misortune.Buka wrote:I did send files, but didn't type "f" in email address.
Wanted to say the same thing, just ucking brutalputtz wrote:Now that is just cruelRudyOosterndijk wrote:I eel sorry or your misortune.Buka wrote:I did send files, but didn't type "f" in email address.
That seems likely and from my personal point of view I would not completely disagree as I have already indicated.Lorenzo wrote:There are so many variables that it's almost impossible to really measure what can be beneficial and what cannot. [...] But we're talking about only 0,6-1 seconds difference per stint, which really doesn't matter much and surely even the AI's run through the first turn has more significant impact on their performance than this.
There used to be fixed (time) penalties for so-called driving infringements like leaving the track and bouncing off walls. But we experienced that the one-size-fits-all approach was often inappropriate. So we went with the current phrasing, which basically means that the degree of any time penalty (3, 5 or 10 seconds) remains at our discretion (but orients on the "gravity of the infringement"). Again, I generally do not like the concept of discretion but I think that for driving infringements this solution is better than what we had.Lorenzo wrote:I just felt a bit disappointed by what I found in regulations which are very general and provide the same penalty for every kind of settings mismatch.
That's a good and difficult question. Let's suppose you are running 100 kg in qualifying. Why qualifying? Because it allows you to rule out most side-effects on AI cars etc. Then what would be the answer to the following questions?Lorenzo wrote:I wonder what would happen if it was 4% or 91kg just anything that is rather detrimental to performance. I remembered I've read something about penalizing according to the gravity of infringement, but unluckily it didn't refer to game settings.
Nothing but 3 points for qualifying.Lorenzo wrote:It's quite discuraging to end up with nothing after such a good race.
What a bummer to read this tweet after being so proud with 29.2 time in practicePGRF1
@PGRF1
MAS QF - Our bet for pole position would be a 28.6. Do you agree? Or can you go even faster?
Don't worry, your practice time would convert into a place high up the grid. It's just that with the right approach, there are still some tenths to find. You will certainly qualify well below your personal average (13.85).Buka wrote:What a bummer to read this tweet after being so proud with 29.2 time in practicePGRF1
@PGRF1
MAS QF - Our bet for pole position would be a 28.6. Do you agree? Or can you go even faster?
Q was worseMszostus wrote:Buka this only training time, anyway this only Q counts race.
You might want to send it then! Honestly, there is nothing in my inbox.Buka wrote:Q was worseMszostus wrote:Buka this only training time, anyway this only Q counts race.
Just to conclude that topic. This part of your post left me wondering how come you are finding find so many things within a subject that has always been so clear not only to me but surely to the all players of Polish GR community at least. Ever since I can remember we always had that very simple rule that worked brilliantly that if the settings you use work against you (slow you down in any way), you're only voluntarily punishing yourself, therefore no other penalty is given - and those who anyway finished behind him also cannot blame him for that. Also, the 3rd questions is quite surprising to me - years of experience show that there's linear (at least locally) correlation between additional fuel mass and lap times which is also fairly intuitive. I'm not saying that to pressurise you though, just to share my view.RudyOosterndijk wrote:That's a good and difficult question. Let's suppose you are running 100 kg in qualifying. Why qualifying? Because it allows you to rule out most side-effects on AI cars etc. Then what would be the answer to the following questions?
1) In general: Are potentially disadvantageous circumstances outside the rules to be accepted (without further penalty) although advantageous circumstances are not?
2) Are the circumstances still comparable for all drivers?
3) Are 100 kg (directly/indirectly) detrimental to your performance (at 90 kg)?
4) Is no other driver disadvantaged (in absolute/relative terms) for using the correct settings?
Or you just randomly define a narrow margin of error (e.g. 90 kg +10 kg), claiming that differences in performance are negligible within.
3 points are bether than 0 fur sure, but QF is another story, I was talking about the race. There are no chances for any big points in Malaysian QF though, I did only two fairly decent laps but not even close to what I could expect. I wasn't really in mood for racing, but it was like 10 minutes to deadline, so I had to .RudyOosterndijk wrote:Nothing but 3 points for qualifying.
Not funny.RudyOosterndijk wrote:You might want to send it then! Honestly, there is nothing in my inbox.
Mszostus wrote:I sent my sava day earlier (Tuesday). Please looking email.
29.29
Sorry, I didn't mean to be funny. But both of your mails must have gone missing between all the important stuff about blue pills and luscious girls in my neighborhood.Buka wrote:Not funny.RudyOosterndijk wrote:You might want to send it then! Honestly, there is nothing in my inbox.