|
Bad news guys; I had to fight with the simulation model most of last night (since the last challenge all the LUA files changed and made the model flip the gently caress out), and I couldn't run the test. I will have it up sometime tomorrow though, fear not! In the meantime, I do have everyone's Scrutineering Reports ready (I got that much running at least), expect those shortly. mekilljoydammit posted:I think the "you must be this fast to be competitve" line for the prototypes is at least in the 1:56s anyway with the new tires. I'm still optimizing to try to shave time. More like mid to high 1:55s right now; the Scorcher can reach that pretty easily with about 800 horsepower, and the CRTs need about 900 to match.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
MrChips posted:More like mid to high 1:55s right now; the Scorcher can reach that pretty easily with about 800 horsepower, and the CRTs need about 900 to match. I'm trying to preserve a little mystery about where I am, man!  Seriously, for whatever reason I can't get the Scorcher to work as well as the CRT-89B even though my engine package fits easily. Dunno why, may have to sit and iterate the living poo poo out of things. And maybe EMS might have to trade some missiles or something for a Scorcher or two (lol).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Ugh. Started messing with the Scorcher and I think something's wrong - the spec line has a 365 rear tire but I can't get more than a 335 (and we're not supposed to tinker with the body right?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:Ugh. Started messing with the Scorcher and I think something's wrong - the spec line has a 365 rear tire but I can't get more than a 335 (and we're not supposed to tinker with the body right?) Do you have the updated Challenge Pack? I had to make a change to the Scorcher just for that reason, and somehow it didn't get included in the original pack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Do you have the updated Challenge Pack? I had to make a change to the Scorcher just for that reason, and somehow it didn't get included in the original pack. I just redownloaded it today... no dice. I'll worry about it more if I'm off pace with the 89B.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Well managed to get some newer designs uploaded. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of this round of testing, I am by no means finished tinkering
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Hm. Is there a maximum front/rear stagger as long as it stays under the total width limit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:Hm. Is there a maximum front/rear stagger as long as it stays under the total width limit? There is no maximum stagger, provided the widest tire doesn't exceed 30 millimetres beyond square. For example, if your car can run 255 millimetre tires front and rear, the largest tire you can run is 285 millimetres; the other tire can be whatever you want it to be, as long as the total tire section isn't exceeded. In that case, anything under 225 millimetres is just fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Hey, I didn't get a scrutineering report for my group b entry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
MrChips posted:There is no maximum stagger, provided the widest tire doesn't exceed 30 millimetres beyond square. Woo, another few stopwatch clicks! I'm seriously wondering how long I can keep finding time from tweaks - I haven't even changed by B and C concepts since I first came up with them but I shave about a quarter second every time I sit down to tinker. This can't be sustainable indefinitely...
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
OK, after quite a bit more fighting, and inputting all the cars I've received so far, I can finally give you the results from the first test round! The simulation model is only a little broken right now; that will be fixed for the next round I suspect. Check your Dropbox folders for detailed testing reports and any new Scrutineering reports; if anyone would like some help with their design, fire me an email and I will pass along some suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
And with that out of the way, some lore of my own:Auto und Motor-Sport, 16 januar 1990 posted:
For any new players who are interested, my Group A and C entries (as well as the stillborn Group B entry) from last year are now available as customer cars. They will need work to be able to run in SASC-90, but they are fundamentally sound as it is, and they were extremely competitive then. Let me know if you'd like to try your hand at this! MrChips fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
I was expecting my entries to be pretty competitive but drat
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Oops. My tires were waaaay too wide. When I used the calculation tools they were probably set to a different class and I didn't notice. Time to say goodbye to the good lap time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Hm, second or third place team in every class. Not a bad start, but clear I've got my work cut out for me. I'm also surprised the prototype did as well as it did, relatively. MrChips, do you mind if I talk about them as surplus'd CMW chassis from last season? *edit* I keep saying dickish things, sorry, edited. *additional edit* Is the laptime vs temperature graph right? The crossover point is much higher than I'd expect. One way or another definitely have to change some things in pit strategy, but I made some major suspension tweaks so I'll wait for the next test. mekilljoydammit fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Autosport Weekly posted:I had a chance to run into Gérard Duchesne of Equipe Mardre Sports at the first preseason test to ask him how the French team was doing compared to expectations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:I was expecting my entries to be pretty competitive but drat  Also, I haven't gotten an email
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Hum, looking at the pit strategy tool - what're the default settings? I'm getting an idea but want to do the math to see if it's viable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Dropped a revision into dropbox. Is that where we put them, or should I email you?quote:The first test day proved to be a real disappointment for the Russian entry. The team was bewildered to see that other teams opted for considerably narrower tires - it was only after their entry set a blistering lap time that they found out a clerical error resulted in the engineering team being unaware of FIA regulations regarding the width of tires.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Wow. Dead last in both of my entry classes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Plenty of time for tuning before the season starts though! It's easier with a lap time target for reference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:Hm, second or third place team in every class. Not a bad start, but clear I've got my work cut out for me. I'm also surprised the prototype did as well as it did, relatively. MrChips, do you mind if I talk about them as surplus'd CMW chassis from last season? Well, in my headcanon the CRT-90 is the latest, flashiest chassis made by CRT with the intent on selling it to big teams and manufacturers, while the CRT-89B was the old version kept around and updated for the small privateer teams. As for the graphs, the temperature reported on it is track surface temperature, not air temperature. mekilljoydammit posted:Hum, looking at the pit strategy tool - what're the default settings? I'm getting an idea but want to do the math to see if it's viable. The default setting is to change from dry tires to intermediates at 30% moisture, inters to full wet at 75%, and swap from hard to soft tires at 30 degrees Celsius. Also, a 5% fuel reserve. Zeppelin Insanity posted:Dropped a revision into dropbox. Is that where we put them, or should I email you? By Dropbox, please; I get notifications by email, RSS and also from the app whenever anyone adds or changes something, so it makes things super easy to keep track of from my end. It also saves us both a step communicating via email. Danny Glands posted:Wow. Dead last in both of my entry classes. Lots of time to get your entry up to snuff; once again, I would be happy to provide guidance if you like!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
My take on the CRT-89B is sort of like the LMP900/P1 hybrid cars. Old monocoques sort of passed around and updated with aerodynamics and stuff, but still fundamentally the older cars. Anyway, just fluff, not too important. Thinking of which, may have to try something drastic - I'm getting reaaaaaaaally close to the limits of development potential for all my combinations and I don't like it - I'm at the point of chasing hundredths on the test track. Doing the same chassis and same engine family for everything has limitations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
OK, Test 2 Results are here! Some of the classes are looking to be extremely tight so far... Triple A, I am going to get your cars up and running for the next test, I promise! I haven't even had a chance to revise my own entries yet, I've been so busy unfucking the simulation model. Anyone who has asked for guidance on their entries, I will be sending along my tips and suggestions some time tomorrow, don't worry!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
So I've started work on a Scorcher chassis, and the spec sheet says 365mm rears, but... uh... The game doesn't let me make them that large. What could cause that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
I've uploaded my SASC-90 cars to replaces last years, did they come through ok MrChips?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
God loving drat it now I have to go make my cars faster!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
I have a question about the brakes. Do we need to provide them with airflow for cooling, or does that not matter? One of my entries has no airflow, and another does, yet both seem to do fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Well, my GrA entry wasn't legal, if that helps ease your stress a bit. And yeah, I'm open to any advice whatsoever on how much brake cooling to use. Additionally, I kinda wish there were some conditional statements to use on strategy (though I understand how complicated that could make things) At least for the test, I keep running into the issue where one of my entries is pulled in for a tire change to hard tires the next lap after a pit for fuel and tires. Probably won't be an issue, but it makes me chuckle a bit. Actually, looking at that, something a little weird with the pit stop scheduling is going on. Look at the tire life column on my C car. Also, if you had any input on the PC car that would be appreciated... barring a new engine family I think I've hit the development plateau. mekilljoydammit fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Sep 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:So I've started work on a Scorcher chassis, and the spec sheet says 365mm rears, but... uh... The game doesn't let me make them that large. What could cause that? That was my fault...somehow there was an errant trim file riding along with the Scorcher template that prevented the tires from being as wide as possible. I have updated the Scorcher template to fix this; it's updated in both the Challenge Pack, and also here too: Updated Scorcher Template Make sure you're using +15 Quality Points on the Tires tab as well. I've also taken the opportunity to give the Scorcher even wider in the rear, up to 395mm from 365, and also with a bit more rear offset as well.  slothrop posted:I've uploaded my SASC-90 cars to replaces last years, did they come through ok MrChips? Yes, I have them now...somehow I missed this in the chaos of the last couple days! They will be running in the next test. Dance Officer posted:I have a question about the brakes. Do we need to provide them with airflow for cooling, or does that not matter? One of my entries has no airflow, and another does, yet both seem to do fine. Unless the rules state you have to have brake cooling, there's nothing saying you need it. If you run larger brake rotors, there typically isn't much of a need for brake cooling under this ruleset, unless your car is enormously heavy. mekilljoydammit posted:Additionally, I kinda wish there were some conditional statements to use on strategy (though I understand how complicated that could make things) At least for the test, I keep running into the issue where one of my entries is pulled in for a tire change to hard tires the next lap after a pit for fuel and tires. Probably won't be an issue, but it makes me chuckle a bit. Yeah, funny things happen when the crossover temperature is on the low side in this model (I haven't updated anyone's pit strategies yet - those only go active at the mock race stage, unless I am asked specifically to start it for someone). As for the Prototype, well, there really isn't much in it past that point...for you or anyone else for that matter. I haven't honestly had a look at it too closely, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
NBD, I actually found some stuff on the prototype this morning anyway. May still try the updated Scorcher. For whatever reason my engine family is performing weirdly in prototypes... I wasn't able to get the CRT90 to within half a second of the CRT89B. I'll not worry about the pit tire changeover yet then either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Triple A, I am going to get your cars up and running for the next test, I promise! I haven't even had a chance to revise my own entries yet, I've been so busy unfucking the simulation model. You know, you could actually use them to illustrate suspension tuning and how to get more speed out of them if you so desire. That said, it's understandable that you're a busy man. Helsingin Sanomat, January 18th 1990 posted:
Tl;dr, I have issues with the game running and this is my in-universe excuse for not finding time to develop the cars I already made for the previous competition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That was my fault...somehow there was an errant trim file riding along with the Scorcher template that prevented the tires from being as wide as possible. I have updated the Scorcher template to fix this; it's updated in both the Challenge Pack, and also here too: I don't know why, but none of the .rars you've posted have worked for me, only the .zips.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
OK, I will fix it when I get home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Not sure if you fixed it or it's just a different computer working for some reason, but got it to work. At least for me, I got it to a couple hundredths under the CRT, but looking at the tire data from your docs, I'm pretty sure the Scorcher I built would burn the tires off a lot quicker than the CRT. Subtleties!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
I'm in a bit of a pinch. I'd love to play but busy selling the house and making up time at work from all the crap involved with selling the house... Does my Group C car from last season fit in any way shape or form to the current spec (I highly doubt it).
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:I'm in a bit of a pinch. I'd love to play but busy selling the house and making up time at work from all the crap involved with selling the house... The pace has increased but it mostly boils down to better tires, and allowed wider tires for most things - at the weight of your car from last season, you could go up to 305 wide tires (or equivalent total width up to 335 wide in the rear) and they're +5 quality. There's also 10 more QP on chassis to allow power steering. VH being based in Elkhart Lake doesn't mean you're local to around there does it? As a Wisconsin dweller, just curious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:I'm in a bit of a pinch. I'd love to play but busy selling the house and making up time at work from all the crap involved with selling the house... You can definitely make it work; you will get substantially wider tires based on the weight of your entry (as well as the ability to stagger over/under the maximum value, as long as the total tire section front and rear don't exceed a calculated value), which is one of the two big changes in the 1990 rules, the other being the drop in engine cooling requirements. In the 1989 series, the engine needed full cooling or more for maximum reliability; in this series, as long as you provide half of the engine's cooling requirements, that's good enough. The net result of this is that most of the classes have picked up 30-50 kilometres per hour of additional straight-line speed, in addition to better cornering/acceleration from the tires. Additionally, as mekilljoydammit said, there is a slight increase in chassis Production Units to allow for power steering (which is a good driveability boost in a heavily tired Group C car), and also the switch to 95 AKI fuel is good for a fair bit more power over the old rules, especially for turbo motors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Haha, glad i caught this one in time. Now to make something worthy of wearing KRG orange again. EDIT : First attempt at group A needs work, it's theoretically fast and neutral but the driver has not said a word since he stepped out after the first lap. 210kw in a 750kg FWD box may be a bit much. (My first attempt at a racecar that actually managed a 0 drivability rating) Kafouille fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
Test #3 is in the books, and it wasn't without some casualties: Also, the Prototype category is heart-stoppingly close right now, it seems...should be exciting going forward  As of today, there are 10 days left to get your entries in - I would love to see some more Prototypes join the field, especially if someone takes the plunge with the first Scorcher entry!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 00:10
|
|