GPGSL Rules and Regulations Discussion Thread

I don't mind that there are a few teams at the top that dominate
the series, they have worked hard to get to that position and they
deserve to be there.

What I would like to see is the teams at the back (Yes, MAC Racing)
to be able to challenge for points on a regular basis. I'm not saying
we should be going for wins, but to be able to challenge for 6th or 7th
regularly and not just be circulating at the back.

Take last race for example, MAC Racing come in 7th and 8th and
for me as team owner it was as exciting as if we had actually won
the race. It would be good to give the teams a bit of excitement on
a regular basis.

Sorry for the rant, thats just my 2 cents.

---

Retro Liveries on the SMD-ZG02![www.grandprixgames.org]
Retro Renders 2.0 on the SMD-ZG02LN![www.grandprixgames.org]

brunoboi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We shouldn't all get carried away
> because Ed was dominant in one race, he didn't
> even get pole position lol!!

It's not just about that race. For example, this season I've won 5 races and no-one else has won more than one.

By the way, going back to the discussion on the last page, I support one lap qualifying.

---

X (@ed24f1)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2012 06:49AM by SchueyFan.

We have some great ideas flowing here and that shows the passion we have for this series But, I think we have to be very careful here. We have a very successful series here and we should be tweaking the rules not making too many wholesale changes that could destroy all the hard work we have all put into this series.

I think the driver cap is an excellent idea and along with the engine cap it will stop anyone running away in the tables. One lap qualifying and unpredictable weather will mix up the grid. Much more than this and we risk ruining what we have.



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

My suggestions:
- reduce the crash rate, because now this is simply unrealistic... I do AI races in GP4. There is very good and interesting races with Ai crash rate set to 1! If we want to compensate this, we should use on all tracks 512 minimum and 2048 maximum performance variety (magic data setting).
- the tyre wear now isnt good. We should reduce it, if we want to run classic F1 race, when someone come to the pit later, he getting faster because of the less fuel. Or we should increase the tyre wear to be like nowadays with the pirelli. But the standard way in Gp4 not good, if you pit later, you will always get disadvantage.
- one pit stop per race would be optimal because of the bugs of GP4.

(sorry for posting again, but no one say comment to this suggestions)

If by AI crash rate, you mean AI error rate then reducing to 1 will just produce very boring races. The lowest error rate we use is 10 for Suzuka where we had a lot of offs in one race especially at the first corner. The following season we used 0 AI errors, unfortunately this produced a very boring procession of a race and was changed to 10 for the following season. In hindsight AI errors should have been reduced for the last race at Imola, as we had done earlier with Paul Ricard.

As for tyre wear, maybe we can increase this to help the late stoppers. Maybe Ed can give us an idea how to go about this. In the mean time I can do a few tests with a circuit we have already used.

I would support one stop races as this has effected my team more than others



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

I'd be in favour of one-lap qualifying, as it might help to mix the grid up a little. Plus, it's pot luck who goes out last and they'll probably have the advantage. Obviously, this wouldn't be ideal for testing.

With one stops, is there the danger that someone might not stop? If not, then it might be a good idea to implement it into the series.

Another thought I just had was to vote in 3 tracks that would have a testers' feature race, so maybe each tester gets two votes on which track they'd have the most preference toward. Of course, the top 3 tracks would be selected and spaced out in the calendar as much as possible.

---

GPGSL: S6 - TafuroGP Tester (14th) /// S7 - ART Tester (6th) /// S8 - Demon Driver (13th) /// S9 - Demon/Snake Driver (13th) /// S10 - Snake Driver (???) ///]
"My ambition is handicapped by laziness" - Charles Bukowski

I'm no real fan of one-lap qualifyings in general. I've hated it in formula one and so I will here. But I also see the advantage of it for the series. It has the potential to mix things up a bit. Maybe we can introduce it for one season on a test base, with the option to get rid of it again after the season if it doesn't work out like we all hoped.

But I must say, I'm a fan of the one-stop idea. Not only because it would solve the problem with the one-stoppers, but even more because it's one stop less I'll have to make^^ Especially in this season I've lost many places in the pits...over and over again. So sure, I might be too involved for a neutral comment, but I'm really into this idea.


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

Oh definitely John, if any of the changes do work out, we will change them back again.

With the one lap qualifying, the running order would be edited before every race to be a reverse order of the last race. The first race of season 8 would have to be a reverse order of the last race of season 7.



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

> With the one lap qualifying, the running order
> would be edited before every race to be a reverse
> order of the last race. The first race of season 8
> would have to be a reverse order of the last race
> of season 7.


Thats a crap idea that totally screws over the small teams. Random is way better, if anything it should be the front runners that go out first.

---

Retro Liveries on the SMD-ZG02![www.grandprixgames.org]
Retro Renders 2.0 on the SMD-ZG02LN![www.grandprixgames.org]

Stoopid schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh definitely John, if any of the changes do work
> out, we will change them back again.

I hope you mean don't here, cause otherwise your post would sound pretty sarcastic and wouldn't make much sense.


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

You know if the front runners went out first and got dry weather and then your MACS went out in the wet you would still cry foul! Why can't you be a little more constructive than shouting thats crap?!!!!!!

I'm trying to come up with ideas for everyone. I've got my GPGSLRS hat on in here, not my AMR one! Makes me wonder if I shouldn't just pull my team out and leave all this crap behind!



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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 01:25AM by Stoopid.

It'd certainly make things easier for me mate Come on MPR deserve a title at some point, even if its just for having the prettiest cars.

I have to agree with Stu's earlier point that we have to be very careful not to totally upset the balance of what we have here.

On every decision we are likely to have people unhappy. It's just like real F1 in that sense. Someone will always feel hard done by. That is why any decisions need to be well thought out and discussed. We don't need rules being rushed in that will push people away from our series.

Also can I just say I highly commend Ed's earlier comment here. A very decent offer from him. A true GPGSL champion

---

Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions

Stoopid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why can't you be a
> little more constructive than shouting thats
> crap?!!!!!!


Because it is crap mate. The only fair way to do one lap qualiy is randomly.

Maybe something like putting every drivers name in a hat and pulling them out and that would be the order for qualifying that week.

I know that is extra work each round but I would be happy to put my hand up to do it.

It would also be an extra event that teams could look forward to each round which could also generate more role playing comments.

---

Retro Liveries on the SMD-ZG02![www.grandprixgames.org]
Retro Renders 2.0 on the SMD-ZG02LN![www.grandprixgames.org]

I haven't done one-lap qualifying in GP4 for a while, but is there any evidence that going out first or last is actually any advantage? If you look at the current qualifying sessions, those out first often set the best lap times that aren't matched throughout the session.

Maybe we could just rotate the order, so at Round 1, Team X goes out first, then second next round and so on. Obviously the number of rounds doesn't match the number of teams, but at least everyone would get a go at going first and last.

If you want to do it randomly, you can get random number generators online that would probably be the fastest way to do it.

Stoopid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If by AI crash rate, you mean AI error rate then
> reducing to 1 will just produce very boring races.
> The lowest error rate we use is 10 for Suzuka
> where we had a lot of offs in one race especially
> at the first corner. The following season we used
> 0 AI errors, unfortunately this produced a very
> boring procession of a race and was changed to 10
> for the following season. In hindsight AI errors
> should have been reduced for the last race at
> Imola, as we had done earlier with Paul Ricard.
>
> As for tyre wear, maybe we can increase this to
> help the late stoppers. Maybe Ed can give us an
> idea how to go about this. In the mean time I can
> do a few tests with a circuit we have already
> used.

I agree with that comment about AI errors, we need to have them on to add some more variables to the race. Because each track is different, and each version of each track is also different (such as different CC-lines), it's very hard to find the perfect number.

I've never experimented with tyre wear in the magic data, so I can't really help on that.

---

X (@ed24f1)

I haven't posted here mainly because I don't have neither new ideas nor a strong opinion on the ones that are being discussed right now, but I think I speak for many of us when I ask you to mantain this thread with a calm tone. Otherwise change the title to "GPGSL Rules and Regulations Argument Thread".

Thanks



Stats: 139 Starts / 7 Wins / 9 Poles / 5 Fastest laps

That's not about to happen.
Later in the season the GPGSL will discuss the suggestions made here, and look at how, if workable, any changes can be implemented, and only if any of the changes do not impact on the current viability of the series and increase the workload on those who do it all.
Everyone has to keep in mind that it is only due to the dedicated GPGSL team members that this series exists. The last thing I want to see is series becoming a minefield of editing files prior to each event. Guys like Stu do far too much as it is.

---

[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central

I know its not a suggestion or perhaps something that can be changed but I was a tad dissapointed when I found out that once all the perf values and magic data had been factored in the race runs the same every time on GP4. I suppose it is something that I should have known, or that everybody else did, but it took a tiny bit of the magic away for me knowing that the race was pretty much pre-determined to only ever finish one way. But then I don't know what ability GP4 has of dealing with random events and the such-like.

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

Quote
SchueyFan
I haven't done one-lap qualifying in GP4 for a while, but is there any evidence that going out first or last is actually any advantage? If you look at the current qualifying sessions, those out first often set the best lap times that aren't matched throughout the session.

[s14.directupload.net]#

I've tested this in a short time and have done 4 qualifyings in Melbourne, Australia. Settings:
Rain possibility: 0
One-Lap Qualifying
Damage: 100%
Grip: 100%
possible tech-failures: everything
Cars: everyone the same stats: 900BHP, 3000 failure-rate
Drivers: everyone the same stats: 18000 Ability, 500 Variable
Starting grid:
1: Tomas Enge
2: Heinz-Harald Frentzen
3: Alex Yoong
4: Fernando Alonso
5: Pedro de la Rosa
6: Eddie Irvine
7: Kimi Räikkönen
8: Nick Heidfeld
9: Enrique Bernoldi
10: Jos Verstappen
11: Jean Alesi
12: Jarno Trulli
13: Jacques Villeneuve
14: Olivier Panis
15: Jenson Button
16: Giancarlo Fisichella
17: Juan Pablo Montoya
18: Ralf Schumacher
19: David Coulthard
20: Mika Häkkinen
21: Rubens Barrichello
22: Michael Schumacher

The results are linked above in a short excel-sheet (as a picture). The results look totally random, sometimes one car of the same team drives to the front, the other one right at the back (Q2, Team Prost with Frentzen and Enge). I've made a points-system, the first one gets 22 Points, the second one 21, and so on.
I let you decide, how you use this information, but without weather-changes the qualifying is completely random for the same vehicle-strengths.
Greetings
Silverman

Nice job mate. That is very useful information.

---

Retro Liveries on the SMD-ZG02![www.grandprixgames.org]
Retro Renders 2.0 on the SMD-ZG02LN![www.grandprixgames.org]

I do not think the GPGSL should go to one stop races. Imagine how boring races at Monaco could get!

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