GPGSL Season 6 Complete!

Great graphics, with flags!!!


One Racing driver and team manager
GPGSL-3: champion in 2007/2013/2014!
GPGSL-4: testdrivers champion in Season 11!

Practise started good, too bad we dropped back some spots as the session went on..

---

Well guys, my CSM and GP4 still doesn't run properly. GP4 crashes everytime after 15-20 minutes (thanks god I safed the sessions every 10 minutes or so. But after that CSM doesn't restore anymore and I need to fully remove GP4, GPX and CSM and install it again to make it work again. That is, I had to do this complete process 2 times for the FP (and another 2 times for the Qualy) and was so much annoyed but that yesterday night that I forgot to check if the old or new layout shall be used for Hockenheim and simply took the S5 trackpack version which is old layout.

As far as I see it, it's only Glen who complained so far. So I leave it up to the GPGSL government to decide how to go on. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience, but as I said it wasn't by purpose.


GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)

Just stick to the old track, the new track is boring and we don't have that much high speed tracks on the calendar.

---

My Grand Prix 4 Files
I'm a total dick. How many people can say that?

shep34 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JohnMaverick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Stoopid schrieb:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > @John - Shouldn't it be the new Hockenheim
> > track?
> >
> > Erm, was it? I simply took the track from the
> S5
> > trackpack to be honest. Does that mean now I'll
> > have to re-run FP and Qualy (which is already
> run
> > at least)?
>
> I am pretty sure I asked this question last week,
> whether it was gonna be the long or short version.
> Don't think it ever got an official answer.....
> because had I been sure of a long Hockenheim, the
> boost really would have come into
> consideration....

+1

yep the votes went automticaly to the new version unless specified differently in persons vote ,thus votes were interpreted for New Hockenhei.

---

GPGSL career;
Current team: Team ShadowSubaru, Previous teams: MPR, Minardi
starts:100 Wins: 12, Podiums: 34, Fastest Laps: 14, poles: 12 Points: 708
winner of Belgian GP (s1), Australian GP (s1), Canadian GP (S1), Brazilian GP(s4, s5), Hungarian GP(s3), Italian GP(s3), French GP (s5,s7), Monaco GP (s4) and USA GP

shep34 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JohnMaverick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Stoopid schrieb:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > @John - Shouldn't it be the new Hockenheim
> > track?
> >
> > Erm, was it? I simply took the track from the
> S5
> > trackpack to be honest. Does that mean now I'll
> > have to re-run FP and Qualy (which is already
> run
> > at least)?
>
> I am pretty sure I asked this question last week,
> whether it was gonna be the long or short version.
> Don't think it ever got an official answer.....
> because had I been sure of a long Hockenheim, the
> boost really would have come into
> consideration....


You did and I answered that it is the new layout, so I was surprised to see the old one. I've based my team's boost strategy on the new layout.

I have a new version set up for GPGSL, let me know and I can give you a download link for it.



5 x WCC - S5, S6, S7, S8, S10 | 4 x WDC - S5 Nick van der Voort ; S6, S7, S8 Ed Greenhalgh | 2 x WTC - S6 Stuart Ingers; S8 Andrei Sevastian

Well i think for me, the version won't make much difference, i am just slow, not blaming on the car of course, that has some boost attached to it, but i am just slow recently... really disappointed with that, guess i wasted that boost! dammit...

_________________________________________________

For a list of EVERY download for GP4, look here: [docs.google.com]

shep34 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am pretty sure I asked this question last week,
> whether it was gonna be the long or short version.
> Don't think it ever got an official answer.....
> because had I been sure of a long Hockenheim, the
> boost really would have come into
> consideration....

I do remember seeing the post answered as well, saying it was the new track.

---

X (@ed24f1)

Well, my bad then. I already explained why it happened and I'm sorry. With this stupid CSM not running it's additionally annoying to re-run the session. But okay, it's the way it is.

Stu, could you then please send me the track asap? I'll try to re-run the FP tonight, if CSM lets me anyhow.

I'll interchange the new coverage with the old one on the previous page and give a marker when it's done.

Sorry again.


GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)

If you want to save running qualifying again, you can just use the grid from the old track for a race on the new track.

Just create a performance file with numbers of 220000, 210000, 200000 etc. for 1st, 2nd, 3rd respectively to dictate the grid. Also remove the variance number .

---

X (@ed24f1)

Lol, sorry Ed but that this then is more than an artificial construct and won't satisfy anybody who is complaining now. Either one or the other...but one session on one layout and the race on another? Sounds funny but not very effective.

However, if you guys are fine with it, I'll spare a qualifying coverage, that is I'll post another FP coverage, then run the race-driver qualifying in accelerated mode and make a normal race coverage then.


GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)

So, if I read that last post correctly, free practice will be rerun? What a load of bollocks! Why not just run qualifying and the race on the new circuit? Sorry if I misunderstood, but it just seems stupid to post a session officially and then go back and change it for a different one.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless I'm very much mistaken... I am very much mistaken!

True! Let free practice be as it is.. Run qualy and race with full coverage! No offence, but testers is a training session.. No official points/championship..

Race and qualy is more important!

Race starts: 141 | Points: 886 | Podiums: 35 | Race wins: 10
 

 
Follow me on: Twitter | Instagram | Facebook

In my opinion, just leave it on the old track.

I know some people will complain about the boost usage (or their lack of) - but the fact is that two sessions of the three have already been run on the old track.

John has taken quite a lot of time out of his schedule to do this race weekend, and it would be unfair for him to have to re-run both of those sessions for the sake of changing it to the new Hockenheim track.

---

The old hockenheim has a very high failure rate, the new layout is much lower. I based my team boost on this information. If I had known it was to be the old version I probably wouldn't have applied. I'm out at the moment so I upload the track later mate.

I would leave the fp as is, but then again I did finish 2nd



5 x WCC - S5, S6, S7, S8, S10 | 4 x WDC - S5 Nick van der Voort ; S6, S7, S8 Ed Greenhalgh | 2 x WTC - S6 Stuart Ingers; S8 Andrei Sevastian

Actually Dean is right,

especially with this CSM bug it's a heck of an effort to get the sessions run and consequently I would appreciate not to have to re-run the FP at least. I know some people, especially the ones that ended in the back of the field, will not be fine with this, but that's rather a usual phenomenon. On the other hand, a quick gaze at the boost table under the perfs compared with the FP results shows that the influence of used boosts wasn't really massive. I mean...look at VSM. +7 boost and still only in the midfield (and I can tell you that it wasn't much better in the qualifying either). We all know that a boost is no guarantee for a good result and that GP4 is rather stubborn when it comes to the perfs.

However, I'll wait for Stu to send me the new layout track and will then re-run qualifying and run the race. The race coverage might be online some time tonight, but that depends on when I get the track from Stu.


Oh...just to tell you a funny thing: Those people who complained so far (that is Glen, Norbert, Ed and Stu) were those who would have profited most from the old layout with Ed in pole, Glen in 3rd and Norbert in 4th after the qualifying and Stu being 2nd in FP


GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)

My complaint is not about the track, but as usual about the boosts...I'm sorry but there just seems very little point in teams boosts. Infect, my cars actually seem to go backwards when we use boosts.

GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards

as was mentioned, if we've run two of the sessions already, surely its better to carry on with the flow?

i haven't read all the posts, but from the lesser of two evils perspective, and damage limitation...

surely its more unfair to swipe an already published result, than it would be to those guys who have used team boosts and now retract them? or those wanting to use them, but didn't.

they wont LOSE their boosts, they would be in this race. those who didn't use them, have them for another.

its going to benefit some and annoy others.

go for the one with damage limitation.


on a side note, what about having a half points race at the end of the year at the unused track in question?


Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2011 09:35PM by danm.

Just keep the old track and post the qualy you have, for those annoyed and complaining about boosts...

If i remember well the last race everybody complained about teamboosts which didnt work and that the boostsrule should get out of the rulebook.
And suddenly now everybody is crying because they MIGHT have lost a teamboost? :p

Anyway, i DO understand everyones point of view.. Where the hell is Mell? Oops, I mean Mal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If in doubt, Flat out."