AI Automation Challenge - SA-GT 1975 - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > AI Automation Challenge - SA-GT 1975

Duuk: Sep 4, 2006; Victorious, he returned to us, claiming that he had slain the drought where even Orlanth could not. The god-talkers were not sure what to make of this.

Liquid Communism posted:

Yeah, it bugs me a bit. We lose out on a lot of variety by there being bodies that are legitimately the best.

It doesn't stop me from entering slow, terrible things out of sheer amusement value, though.

I don't suppose there's much anyone could do about that really, Mr Chips included

Based on my own experience (and without having seen the rear engine cars the beta should bring) I would guess that variety won't be a problem in Touring and Open. There's a best body in both I'm sure but Touring cars are slow enough that a good suspension tuning and a bit of luck can make up for most of it. And Open is the "go wild and build something nutty" class so I think there'll be a bunch of cool cats entering things that look good first and go fast after that.

As far as Sportsman goes I think the top six spots will be taken up by that one body with a three point eight litre vee six NA carb engine and slightly different headlights. In the end though, the man with the best suspension setup will win and that's alright in my book. It's unfortunate that (again, based on my limited testing) eight to ten seconds behind that body are like four different body types in more or less the same time bracket but them's the breaks. Also, beta cars might bring new and interesting horizons.

Duuk fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Sep 11, 2015

# ? Sep 11, 2015 23:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 3, 2024 03:19

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

Duuk posted:

Thank you for the thorough write-up, I think I've got a reasonably good grip on it now.

Is the baseline point of the system something you'd be willing to discuss?

What I'm getting at ties into the example of injection/carbs I brought earlier, but let's get a bit more specific. My current Tourer offering is fuel injected with an engine reliability of 32 and overall 60. It runs the Ring in around 8:48 and uses a grand total of 22 Quality Points. There are a couple of negative QP in Body but nowhere else. The total price is precisely 47 cents below the limit price.

Now, the reliability model suggests that if I want the car to stay "on par" reliability wise, I need to have 3.33 QP in each category on average in addition to the basic 30/60 targets. Considering the price, this would require some changes in the technology used and seems to lean rather in favour of carbs (which will both allow and require more money spent on QP). I could save money on other things of course, the idea is that I would have to lean towards a narrower range of cheaper technologies in order to save money for generic quality points. What I'm a bit worried about is that at the end this may funnel the most successful designs towards one set of features. Basically, lead to less variety among the competitors. Which would be a shame, I think.

I am guessing the system more or less expects you to not reach the targets every time and a good enough lap time might make up for making GBS threads out cylinders every couple of races. It's a game of risk. It'd just suck if you had to have those QP to be able to compete - considering the complexity of the simulation you've built I don't think you'd let that be the case but I just figured I'd throw out the thought below.

There could be a small dead spot in the middle of the quality point scale, allowing people to choose whether to go for the reliability bonus and inherent positive effect of the QPs or spend the money elsewhere - presumably on funky more expensive technologies. Alternately, the bonus could be smaller but start at zero qp, since the game itself uses zero as the baseline.

Alternately, if you're not susceptible to suggestion, could you please provide a baseline in-game reliability number with 0 QP in all categories that would put you on par with the 30/60 + 3.33QP baseline?

The problem with giving you guys a baseline reliability is that on the engine side of the calculation, it is totally dependent on engine tuning - it's very easy to design an engine that uses the maximum allowable QPs (in any of the three classes), yet still end up with a 0.0 reliability rating (and somehow not explode on the dyno). How far you tune your engine, and what systems and QP values you put into it is basically the gist of this challenge and totally up to you which direction you take. Understand that just because your engine comes in a bit below the target reliability doesn't mean it's condemned to explode on the first lap - you might make it through the entire series without so much as a single problem.

Something else I should point out is that the Touring class was deliberately designed to be fairly restrictive. My intention with the Touring class was it would push everyone towards broadly similar cars, and that it would then become a measure of who was willing to sacrifice reliability for speed. It's also why the other classes exist with much more permissive rule sets, so that if one part of the challenge doesn't interest you, there are others that might.

As for one body being better than the others, I am hopeful that this latest update will address this issue at least partially. There were a couple of forum posts from them that seemed to indicate they were cleaning up a lot of bugs and strange behaviour in the lap time simulations, especially regarding suspension tuning.

MrChips fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Sep 11, 2015

# ? Sep 11, 2015 23:40

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

question: how do you get a steel chassis/steel bodied car with an all alloy 1200cc turbo engine under 700kg? Even with no interior and no safety, it's still over 830kg.

e- disregard, read that wrong. 700kg is the minimum weight. Still, struggling to get much more than 10-20 liters of spare fuel capacity.

Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Sep 12, 2015

# ? Sep 12, 2015 01:05

Duuk: Sep 4, 2006; Victorious, he returned to us, claiming that he had slain the drought where even Orlanth could not. The god-talkers were not sure what to make of this.

MrChips posted:

The problem with giving you guys a baseline reliability is that on the engine side of the calculation, it is totally dependent on engine tuning - it's very easy to design an engine that uses the maximum allowable QPs (in any of the three classes), yet still end up with a 0.0 reliability rating (and somehow not explode on the dyno). How far you tune your engine, and what systems and QP values you put into it is basically the gist of this challenge and totally up to you which direction you take. Understand that just because your engine comes in a bit below the target reliability doesn't mean it's condemned to explode on the first lap - you might make it through the entire series without so much as a single problem.

Something else I should point out is that the Touring class was deliberately designed to be fairly restrictive. My intention with the Touring class was it would push everyone towards broadly similar cars, and that it would then become a measure of who was willing to sacrifice reliability for speed. It's also why the other classes exist with much more permissive rule sets, so that if one part of the challenge doesn't interest you, there are others that might.

As for one body being better than the others, I am hopeful that this latest update will address this issue at least partially. There were a couple of forum posts from them that seemed to indicate they were cleaning up a lot of bugs and strange behaviour in the lap time simulations, especially regarding suspension tuning.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We already have a baseline reliability - a value of 30.0 in game. What I was asking was the added or subtracted effect on that from the QP. Just a general understanding of how much difference in reliability there is with an engine with 30.0+0QP in all categories and an engine with 30.0+3,33QP in all categories.

For example, say 30.0+3,33QP put through your formulae gives you an in-sim figure of 100%.
Would the 30.0+0QP engine come in at 95% of that? 85%? 30%?

I'm not trying to build an engine with 0QP in all categories, I am just trying to gauge the general magnitude of the effect QPs will have on reliability. This would presumably be something that a real racing team could test on a stand. If I am going to make the decision to sacrifice speed for reliability, I should have some inkling of how much reliability I will gain by doing so.

I specifically referred to the Touring class because I'm not planning to enter Sportsman at this time and Open being without a budget limit, you can use all your QP without having to make technology decisions based on that. But since it came up, the QP reliability system is exactly as restrictive in Sportsman, is it not? The amount of money you can free up by using simple technologies to add QPs is, if anything, even greater. And based on the few cars I have tested, carb engines are already just as quick or even faster thanks to extra QP being in afforded in other categories so you're not sacrificing speed, just variety.

Not trying to bust your balls here, just worried there's going to be a lot of the same thing going around in circles.

Linedance posted:

question: how do you get a steel chassis/steel bodied car with an all alloy 1200cc turbo engine under 700kg? Even with no interior and no safety, it's still over 830kg.

e- disregard, read that wrong. 700kg is the minimum weight. Still, struggling to get much more than 10-20 liters of spare fuel capacity.

Test different body types - they vary a lot in not only weight but also other parameters like aero efficiency etc.

Duuk fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Sep 12, 2015

# ? Sep 12, 2015 10:36

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

Duuk posted:

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We already have a baseline reliability - a value of 30.0 in game. What I was asking was the added or subtracted effect on that from the QP. Just a general understanding of how much difference in reliability there is with an engine with 30.0+0QP in all categories and an engine with 30.0+3,33QP in all categories.

For example, say 30.0+3,33QP put through your formulae gives you an in-sim figure of 100%.
Would the 30.0+0QP engine come in at 95% of that? 85%? 30%?

I'm not trying to build an engine with 0QP in all categories, I am just trying to gauge the general magnitude of the effect QPs will have on reliability. This would presumably be something that a real racing team could test on a stand. If I am going to make the decision to sacrifice speed for reliability, I should have some inkling of how much reliability I will gain by doing so.

I specifically referred to the Touring class because I'm not planning to enter Sportsman at this time and Open being without a budget limit, you can use all your QP without having to make technology decisions based on that. But since it came up, the QP reliability system is exactly as restrictive in Sportsman, is it not? The amount of money you can free up by using simple technologies to add QPs is, if anything, even greater. And based on the few cars I have tested, carb engines are already just as quick or even faster thanks to extra QP being in afforded in other categories so you're not sacrificing speed, just variety.

Not trying to bust your balls here, just worried there's going to be a lot of the same thing going around in circles.

Sorry I didn't adequetely answer your question before. This is probably what you're looking for:

In Touring class, an engine with 30 reliability and 0 QPs will have a final reliability score of 11.5 or so, while an engine with 30 reliability and 6 QPs in all categories will be 44.8 or so; cooling capacity has an effect too, so this is with a 1:1 cooling ratio. I didn't do a Sportsman or Open test, but I would guess that the ranges would likely be somewhat larger in those classes on account of their higher average QP values. Having said that, the increased cost and QP limits will give entrants in those classes much more flexibility to trade off speed, reliability, cost and efficiency.

MrChips fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Sep 12, 2015

# ? Sep 12, 2015 11:47

Top Hats Monthly: Jun 22, 2011; People are people so why should it be, that you and I should get along so awfully blink blink recall STOP IT YOU POSH LITTLE SHIT

When were we supposed to have the update again?

# ? Sep 12, 2015 23:44

Duuk: Sep 4, 2006; Victorious, he returned to us, claiming that he had slain the drought where even Orlanth could not. The god-talkers were not sure what to make of this.

MrChips posted:

Sorry I didn't adequetely answer your question before. This is probably what you're looking for:

In Touring class, an engine with 30 reliability and 0 QPs will have a final reliability score of 11.5 or so, while an engine with 30 reliability and 6 QPs in all categories will be 44.8 or so; cooling capacity has an effect too, so this is with a 1:1 cooling ratio. I didn't do a Sportsman or Open test, but I would guess that the ranges would likely be somewhat larger in those classes on account of their higher average QP values. Having said that, the increased cost and QP limits will give entrants in those classes much more flexibility to trade off speed, reliability, cost and efficiency.

Thank you, that answers it.

# ? Sep 13, 2015 15:22

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

MrChips posted:

It's been delayed a few days; middle of this week is what they're targeting.

ahh I thought we were getting V6 turbos in August

# ? Sep 13, 2015 22:42

Riso: Oct 11, 2008; by merry exmarx

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

# ? Sep 14, 2015 06:19

Top Hats Monthly: Jun 22, 2011; People are people so why should it be, that you and I should get along so awfully blink blink recall STOP IT YOU POSH LITTLE SHIT

The update is out :coal:

# ? Sep 18, 2015 18:21

Militant Lesbian: Oct 3, 2002

MrChips posted:

Beta report:

+Saving seems to work properly

-Custom test tracks don't

Also, the increase in cooling requirements and some changes to suspension calculations means you're probably going to have to start from scratch in the new version.

Welp.

Might as well push the tourney back further then.

I may do a short writeup at some point on the cars I'm binning, the whats and whys and hows. Depending how this works out after testing is fixed.

# ? Sep 19, 2015 09:28

Riso: Oct 11, 2008; by merry exmarx

Meh, call me when the update is in stable, not open beta.

# ? Sep 19, 2015 10:02

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

It sounds like the first update to the beta will fix the test track bug; should be going live in a day or two.

Also it sounds like the official release of this version will be in a week or two, depending on how many bugs are uncovered in the beta. After that, we should get a second release a month or so later primarily aimed at rebalancing and fixing a lot of the exploits in-game (such as the automatic locker differential).

# ? Sep 19, 2015 17:14

Top Hats Monthly: Jun 22, 2011; People are people so why should it be, that you and I should get along so awfully blink blink recall STOP IT YOU POSH LITTLE SHIT

They made a difference between AWD and 4x4!

# ? Sep 19, 2015 20:57

Duckaerobics: Jul 22, 2007; Lipstick Apathy

Something in the past couple weeks broke for me and I can't get the game to run. I think it's a direct3d error, but I haven't figured it out. Hopefully I can get things working in time to make a submission.

# ? Sep 20, 2015 22:12

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

Beta update: they're on their 5th revision now and (it seems) everything is working pretty good. I am going to tweak the rules a bit (to define where rear-engine cars are allowed), and hopefully in a week or so we can resume the challenge!

# ? Sep 24, 2015 20:26

wargames: Mar 16, 2008; official yospos cat censor

Well I am not back to my old time, but I am close enough with the new cooling requirements to make me happy. Top speed is garbage now, but I am content with my numbers.

# ? Sep 25, 2015 01:32

extreme_accordion: Apr 9, 2009

Duuk posted:

Welp.

Might as well push the tourney back further then.

I may do a short writeup at some point on the cars I'm binning, the whats and whys and hows. Depending how this works out after testing is fixed.

I'm curious to know where you ended up.
Depending on how things go and the rules get re-written I am more than willing to share my fun little toy as well.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 01:42

Riso: Oct 11, 2008; by merry exmarx

Good news, the update is now live!

# ? Oct 1, 2015 14:54

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

Riso posted:

Good news, the update is now live!

Looks like meat's back on the menu, boys!

Updated, final rules:

Submissions open tomorrow and will run until 11PM Pacific Time on Tuesday, October 20th (0600 GMT Wednesday, October 21st).

MrChips fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Oct 3, 2015

# ? Oct 1, 2015 20:21

Riso: Oct 11, 2008; by merry exmarx

Bad news, I lost 8 seconds on my cars!

Those doubled cooling reqs really do a number on the aero!

Riso fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Oct 3, 2015

# ? Oct 3, 2015 21:57

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

Alright, I'll throw down first with what I've got going.

CMW R1200T - Touring Class

1199cc turbocharged, carburated 16V DOHC L4
170+ bhp at 7700 RPM
120+ lb-ft at 7300 RPM
700 kg race weight
0-100 km/h in 8.2s
207 km/h top speed
$6638

CMW R-Coupe - Sportsman Class

5600cc naturally-aspirated, carburated 8V OHV V8
400+ bhp at 5700 RPM
350+ lb-ft at 5000 RPM
901 kg race weight
0-100 km/h in 6.5s
249 km/h top speed
$12747

# ? Oct 5, 2015 03:24

Riso: Oct 11, 2008; by merry exmarx

Originally I was thinking about bringing the RM SE75 for Sportsman:

but I found myself unable to bring a suboptimal car because I want to try and win.
Nurburg Ring: under 8:34.

Gentlemen, meet the RM GT75:

Or as most people will see it:

I am going to keep most of the stats under wraps for now but it is RWD, has a Galvanised Steel Monocoque with Fibre Glass Panels, Double Wishbone Suspensions and weighs 940 kg.

It does The Ring under 8:30.

This is probably going to be my Touring entry. The RM SHX 1.2 Turbo.

A true FR; I'll probably try and design a new turbo engine for the car now that there's a v6 turbo option.

It does The Ring under 9:00.

Riso fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Oct 6, 2015

# ? Oct 6, 2015 12:17

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

Clean-sheeted the R1200T's engine and went a little crazy with suspension tuning last night.

The R1200T-2 is now a member of the Under-9 Club, with more to give potentially. :getin:

# ? Oct 8, 2015 20:11

extreme_accordion: Apr 9, 2009

Hey I'm not working till 9 on a Friday! I'm getting after this tonight!

# ? Oct 10, 2015 00:17

wargames: Mar 16, 2008; official yospos cat censor

Here is my touring car its a small turbo fr car that does green hell under 9 mins and get some good mpg

I worked on my touring car a bunch and is one of the best things I've made in this game and does green hell under 8:20.

My open car is OP as poo poo and needs a nerf.

# ? Oct 12, 2015 00:23

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

I got your entry wargames; you need to choose which two cars you want me to use.

# ? Oct 14, 2015 20:21

wargames: Mar 16, 2008; official yospos cat censor

MrChips posted:

I got your entry wargames; you need to choose which two cars you want me to use.

sportsmen and open, touring is funny but not competitive only green hell in 8:53.

wargames fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Oct 15, 2015

# ? Oct 15, 2015 07:19

Riso: Oct 11, 2008; by merry exmarx

MrChips posted:

I got your entry wargames; you need to choose which two cars you want me to use.

How many entries do you have so far?

# ? Oct 15, 2015 10:36

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

Riso posted:

How many entries do you have so far?

Just wargames, sadly.

# ? Oct 15, 2015 20:16

Riso: Oct 11, 2008; by merry exmarx

MrChips posted:

Just wargames, sadly.

I was afraid of that. The thread has barely any activity too.

At this point, might it be better in Games?

# ? Oct 15, 2015 20:21

Duuk: Sep 4, 2006; Victorious, he returned to us, claiming that he had slain the drought where even Orlanth could not. The god-talkers were not sure what to make of this.

MrChips posted:

Just wargames, sadly.

I would think most people are still working on their stuff. There may have been some loss of interest with the delays and starting over I suppose.

I know I was pissed when the beta ruined my old Open entry. Beyond recovery or rebuilding. Now it looks like I might as well do Sportsman, because suddenly the loving wedge has become a strong contender in Open, too. Personally, I feel like it would have been more exciting if the Lotus body wasn't in the mix at all - it's just so absurdly effective.

Another reason people may not have been posting is because they don't want to give away their precious engineering secrets. I know that's why I haven't posted anything. I mean, I'm sure there's stuff out there faster than mine, but still. The Howlers will tour the Ring in zebra suits until the weekend.

I can tell you this - I will be bringing two cars.

This won't be one of them.

# ? Oct 15, 2015 20:42

Riso: Oct 11, 2008; by merry exmarx

Duuk posted:

This won't be one of them.

Except it is um..

beautiful.

# ? Oct 15, 2015 20:51

Militant Lesbian: Oct 3, 2002

Duuk posted:

suddenly the loving wedge has become a strong contender in Open, too. Personally, I feel like it would have been more exciting if the Lotus body wasn't in the mix at all - it's just so absurdly effective.

Except it isn't?

You can't fit a max-size engine in it without serious compromises; I've tried and tried to get it to be faster than some of my other designs, but it still lags a good 40 HP behind and several seconds slower around the 'ring.

e:

This is a good 6 seconds faster around the ring than my Lotus body attempt, has a more reliable V8 making more power than the Lotus's hugely undersquare V6 (only way to reach max displacement for OHC sportsman in that body I could find) and is nearly 100kg lighter to boot.

Militant Lesbian fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Oct 16, 2015

# ? Oct 15, 2015 23:58

Duuk: Sep 4, 2006; Victorious, he returned to us, claiming that he had slain the drought where even Orlanth could not. The god-talkers were not sure what to make of this.

HotCanadianChick posted:

Except it isn't?

You can't fit a max-size engine in it without serious compromises; I've tried and tried to get it to be faster than some of my other designs, but it still lags a good 40 HP behind and several seconds slower around the 'ring.

e: This is a good 6 seconds faster around the ring than my Lotus body attempt, has a more reliable V8 making more power than the Lotus's hugely undersquare V6 (only way to reach max displacement for OHC sportsman in that body I could find) and is nearly 100kg lighter to boot.

I decided yesterday I would do Touring and Open, so I can talk Sportsman freely I suppose.

You can fit a 4 (plus) litre flathead v8 into the Lotus body, racing exhaust and everything. It's not obvious, I only realised it once I put some more time into the body to compare vs my Open entry. The result goes around the ring in 4:07 in my latest attempt. With a 3,8 V6 it did 4:11. Keep in mind I haven't put that much time into it.

My previous Sportsman did 8:15ish in the old version and thereabouts in the new. It was a different shape of the same body you are using (the aero brickness turned out to be too much for my purposes).

If you have made that thing to go 8:01, I applaud you.

# ? Oct 16, 2015 07:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 3, 2024 03:19

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

I was working on one but when I went back the the save didn't exist, so I was back to square one (would have been anyway, because I didn't get how your chosen body shape affected weight). And then on top of that I'm moving this month so realistically I won't be able to pick this up again until November. I still want to do at least one though!

# ? Oct 16, 2015 13:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > AI Automation Challenge - SA-GT 1975

«‹›3 »

Liquid Communism posted:

Duuk posted:

MrChips posted:

Linedance posted:

Duuk posted:

MrChips posted:

Top Hats Monthly posted:

MrChips posted:

Top Hats Monthly posted:

MrChips posted:

Duuk posted:

Riso posted:

MrChips posted:

MrChips posted:

Riso posted:

MrChips posted:

MrChips posted:

Duuk posted:

Duuk posted:

HotCanadianChick posted: