Training For the Bavarian Rallye

[Junny]

On a lighter note I've read mention of people running times on the BRC shakedown tracks. Have these been posted anywhere, I'm blind?

[Daffyflyer]

I apologize to Der Bayer for making him now have to check my cars twice, but also appreciate his willingness to do so!

Agreed! I'd also like to point out that the only reason we have a test track feature at all, and the only reason our handling and performance calculations are as good as they are is thanks to the tireless work that Der Bayer has done for which we've only been able to compensate him a little bit.

[Jakgoe]

Indeed! Der Bayer's contributions to the game and his willingness to run the BRC by himself are amazing!

[Daffyflyer]

Anyhow, I'll leave you guys to it, I just wanted to point out that Der Bayer is kinda awesome.

[Jakgoe]

Anyhow, I'll leave you guys to it, I just wanted to point out that Der Bayer is kinda awesome.

I second that!

[Killrob]

Seriously? My two short posts questioning the nature of the change in rules is ignorant whining and destroying the fun of interacting with the community?

Your two little posts: definitely not! Situations like these, honestly yes. That is why I said it, while I didn't want to point out you specifically as any major cause of the problem. Seems like it did come across that way, for which I apologize, that was framed wrongly by me. It was just a small piece of the puzzle. All the points you made were absolutely valid and reasonable, while not very constructive in that they didn't consider the dilemma as much as they could (should?) have. The amount of posts or the length of you being here has nothing to do with it, although I do understand why you bring it up.

Killrob,

Jakgoe, let's handle this via PM instead.

[Der Bayer]

Anyhow, I'll leave you guys to it, I just wanted to point out that Der Bayer is kinda awesome.

Thanks for the kind words. The motivation is coming back a little bit.

[conan]

On a lighter note I've read mention of people running times on the BRC shakedown tracks. Have these been posted anywhere, I'm blind?

Aye, its been posted in the official thread, at the end of the first post.

[Der Bayer]

"Shakedown" was the name of the first BRC test challenge. Tracks can be found at the end of the second post in this thread.

[conan]

Oh I screwed up. Thanks Der_Bayer!.

[Junny]

Aah awesome, thanks.. i saw that a few times but foolishly thought it was something else. Tuning my entry around these tracks probably would have been helpful, however the Volvo fears no challenge.... besides itself.

Edit: i'm awesome at posting at the top of the page

[strop]

I'm writing this comment as somebody who is affiliated with (but not in) Jakgoe's team, and was privy to the aero bug/exploit, but had not reported it and was content to wait until it might be addressed in a later build as it seemed to be a known issue, hence some of the comments in some of the recent posts are directed at myself.

You just spotted a weak point of the game and are using it to get faster lap-times instead of reporting it to the developers. I can't see any kind of sportmanship in that!
You should think about what your "advanced techniques" would be like in real life...

This is a partially fair comment in that the current calculations of aero are buggy, but that issue goes both ways: we're attempting to respond to a known shortcoming of the current system in which resizing and repositioning aero fixtures is not accurately reflected in effective aero calculations (try resizing any wing or lip in the current build and you'll find that no matter how large or small the fixture is, it doesn't change the area, but resizing and repositioning vents does!) Furthermore, I would accept that placing one fixture inside/overlapping etc. another fixture to increase 'effective aero area' is considered an exploit, one that I acknowledge using to explore the limitations of the current version of this game (see reference to the test track times, on which note if somebody were to rule that those times should be taken down because they were done as an exploit I would not object).

I would stress to qualify that this may have been done secretly, but one should not accuse any party here of willful dishonesty (Der Bayer's final judgement reflects this line of thinking, but I'm concerned about some of the responses from other users), as prior to Der Bayer's announcement there was no mention of any of this in the rules, therefore we would have been at liberty to use whatever measure available to us. To draw a real life parallel, this is not dissimilar to the 'flexi-wing' aero F1 controversy that Red Bull found itself in some years ago that drew a mid-season clarification from the FIA that there would be limitations to the amount of flex any wing should have, and numerous other such controversies that arise, no surprise, from 'liberal interpretations' of the rules. There are always a lot of complaints, but ultimately, there isn't an absolutely correct answer on what should be done, and we ought to trust and respect that the ruling made by the admin/stewards is in the interests of fair competition. (In this case, if not, then once other teams cottoned onto the aero thing, we'd all be spending hours fixing a million wings to each car and it'd all become a bit of a drudge, not to mention that recalculating the test phase takes so much longer...)

Thus I won't make any specific comment or suggestion on the ruling here, because I accept that what is said by a tournament host/admin is final, but given the notice and that the ruling was made during the open competition period, would request an extension of the deadline so we can re-evaluate our approach.

---

Personally Der Bayer, any decision you made here, given the circumstances, would have drawn a strong response, so I wouldn't want you to beat yourself up about it. You're doing what needs to be done in the interest of fair competition and I respect that. Edit: however perhaps some conflict resolution skills for several of the parties involved would have made things a fair bit smoother

[Der Bayer]

If I ever sounded a bit like I wanted to accuse people for cheating, I want to apologise. It's difficult to discuss such a delicate problem not in your native language. I don't want to penalise people because I don't like them, it's not a personal problem I have with some of you (I don't have a problem with anyone), I don't want to ruin the work you put into your cars (and I'm really sorry for those who lost hours of work). But I think you can understand that almost 40 other people would feel a bit "betrayed" (and basically their efforts would be worthless) now that they know of that exploit. And don't even imagine how big the insults from the community etc. would have become after the end of the challenge if they found out why there was a car 20 seconds faster per stage. I do think it is better to adjust the rules (again, not to penalise certain people, but to keep the challenge fair for everyone) at a point where things still can be fixed. It is not good to change the rules during a running competition, of course. But I didn't know about the exploit at the beginning and had to do something. The whole challenge would have been skewed, imbalanced, unfair. And seeing the amount of work which still lies in front of me, I would have lost the motivation and fun while preparing the results, knowing that they don't make much sense.

I'm totally fine with extending the deadline until Sunday evening to give the affected people time for their re-submit, that's a good idea.

[strop]

I wouldn't dream of being able to deal with this in any other than my native tongue (English), so you have my sympathies! I understand the balance of motivations behind your decisions, but I'm glad that you reiterated them in a single post, as I feel this goes a long way to achieving true resolution so that the competition can resume as clearly as possible.

Thanks for extending the deadline to Sunday. It seems my team was far from the only one affected so most likely many of us would be thankful.

[8bs]

I think, if certain technical aspect was overlooked, obviously was unintentional.

In future challenges, probably things will be more accurate, and even so one thing or two could be missed...and so what??

I think that most of us, chose just one wing or 2.

A certain minority, including me, chose to use more, and if that makes a great difference between times and almost makes a class of their own, to eliminate that, i agree, with the new rules, with no offense to myself, just fair play.

Let's not take all this discussion too serious, we are here just to have some fun, and we are using Der Bayer's good will and time.
And the same thing applies for other members that have began new rallyes with their own rules.

Now let's wait for the results, and the winner pay's a round of drinks to all!

Der Bayer, thanks!

Automation, thanks!

Cheers.