Proposed International OLR Rules discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duke
  • 22 comments
  • 832 views
Duke

Duke

Keep 'em separated
Staff Emeritus
Messages
24,344
United States
Midlantic Area
Messages
GTP_Duke
I took a big liberty and changed the title of iForceV8's thread because I wholeheartedly agree with eggmann's comment about keeping the threads cleaner. Sorry about that.

Let's discuss rules and regulations here, and anybody, feel free to take the lead on the discussion.
 
IforceV8
super mod powers-i miss them here... :bowdown: :cheers:
Click to expand...
I try not to use them for stuff like that very much.
 
Just to kick off and start the ball rolling.
Duke, no critism aimed in your direction mate, I though in general the fresh ideas you brought to this one were original and inovative. But a couple of things I personally think could be droped in the next one is...

One.. The back-up run rule. I understood the thinking behind this and to a degree empathised. But to my mind in a BC you should get one submital only, and it's up to the driver to decide wether it's clean enough to pass. after all a board not only has a team, but support personel to call on, they could surely help if its a close call. If it's so close no-ones sure.. then take the risk of submitting it or find a cleaner one and sleep easy.

Secondly. (on a similar theme) I don't believe any team member should ask the BC admins to varify a run before it's submitted, (to my knowledge it happened once in this one). Appart from the boss having enough to do on the admin side, I think it's bad practice for a BC... drivers have team mates to help check runs, and if it becomes the norm in future BC's it negates any risk factor. If a very close call is given the thumbs up by the admins, then they know there's a good chance that run is safe and in the bag. I think it should be more of a "Pays ya money and take your chances" type scenario. and if it's adopted as the norm, everyone will be doing it and asside from giving the admins a huge headache, the competition risk factor will become a little stale imho.
 
I agree with both point over there.

One more point. Maybe Duke you can change the title of that tread again. Something like ''International OLR rules'' may be good, i think if we start working on something like that, it should be for more than one BC.

And if we realy start doing that, we should go point by point, it will be a more effective work. ;)
 
1.Yes

2.What if the team only has one NTSC driver or one PAL driver and needs a review?
 
2.What if the team only has one NTSC driver or one PAL driver and needs a review?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that at this level people can make a reasonably good call on thier own, but if not i'm sure that they could find a trusted non BC participant to help look at thier run. I totally agree that drivers should not burden BC admins (or ask other teams) to review replays. but at the end of the day, "if in doubt then throw it out" motto should apply to close call runs. Another idea would be to have an external review commitee set up to be used for such instances.

Got a couple of quick things that i think should be looked at for future BC's.

* People should NOT be able to post total times before the proper results are put up by the admins. It really got on my goat to see guys posting times and some even going as far as making thier own results table before the admins had a chance to put up the official times. This should be discouraged for future BC's imho. Shows a bit of disrespect to the admins, and ruins a certain amount of excitement for people who actually like to see the results in full. If people feel the need to get in a few hours early because they just can't wait, then sector 2 discussions might be able to be looked at in race threads.

* Totally agree with Tone about scrapping the use of 'back-up' runs in an event such as this.

* I too enjoy it when people give a bit a smack talk to other teams and drivers. But BC's seem to bring out the worst in some people and it not only reflects badly on them but also thier team. Some idiots surfaced in BC5 and it might be a good idea to lay down some simple 'code of conduct' guidelines. I'm not one for being a dictator, but i also don't enjoy having to dodge dummies every time someone gets a call they don't agree with. Most of us are adults, but some seem to forget that thier actions can indeed affect the fun factor for the majority of others who come here to race and have a good time. Encouraging people to put thier egos away is the go, but if that fails then steps need to be taken to shut them the hell up. A warning system with penalties attached for repeat offenders perhaps? Just my opinion :sly:

thats all for now :)
 
* Backup runs - I agree; this rule was a good idea that caused more problems than it solved. It would be better if it was scrapped.

* Pre-verification - I also agree. Although iforce raises a valid point, I think the OLR commmunity is large enough that the technical issue can be worked around by the drivers/managers themselves.

* Pre-posting of results - I also agree with Rypien. It does rather dilute the impact to have partial results dribbling out after the deadline. Perhaps we can come up with a different deadline that is more equally convenient (or inconvenient) for everybody. But with a worldwide community that may not be possible, and some people may just have to live with a little impatience. ;)
 
I'm not sure why I didn't think of this a month ago, but waht about this for the "on track" definition for road courses:

Road Courses: All paved areas within and including concrete curbs, rumble strips, cobblestone or painted borders, are deemed 'track' except as defined above. Where there is no physical edge marker, the inside painted line shall define the edge of the intended course. Where paving extends beyond the marker indicating the edge of the intended course, the allowable edge of track shall be defined as follows:
  • Paved areas beyond the outside of a physical edge marker are not considered 'track'.

  • Paved areas beyond the outside of a painted edge line that are narrower than the width of the car shall be considered 'track'. The car may proceed beyond the painted edge line provided 2 wheels stay on the paving at all times.

  • Paved areas beyond the outside of a painted edge line that are wider than the width of the car are not considered 'track'. The car must maintain two wheels on or inside the painted edge line at all times.

  • For paved areas marked out by diagonal stripes, the track-side line shall be considered the edge of the intended course.

  • Other paved areas beyond the edge marker of the intended course shall be considered 'track' only when specifically deemed allowable in the Scenario rules.

This allows some use of the runoff areas for overrun, without opening up the track to gimmick routes where there is a large quantity of excess paving that can be exploited to make a trick shortcut.
 
Duke
I'm not sure why I didn't think of this a month ago, but waht about this for the "on track" definition for road courses:

Road Courses: All paved areas within and including concrete curbs, rumble strips, cobblestone or painted borders, are deemed 'track' except as defined above. Where there is no physical edge marker, the inside painted line shall define the edge of the intended course. Where paving extends beyond the marker indicating the edge of the intended course, the allowable edge of track shall be defined as follows:
  • Paved areas beyond the outside of a physical edge marker are not considered 'track'.
  • Paved areas beyond the outside of a painted edge line that are narrower than the width of the car shall be considered 'track'. The car may proceed beyond the painted edge line provided 2 wheels stay on the paving at all times.
Click to expand...


  • The immediate problem I would see with this is that certain areas (say before the first tunnel at Deep Forest) are going to be on-track with some cars, and off-track with others.

    I have liked the rule you applied to fix the problem on the open tracks. I've spent time on the web searching for some official rules to see how they could weigh-in on this subject. Finally, I came upon a useful definition from the NASA-CCR:

    CCR
    25.6 Off-course Excursions
    The competitor is required to follow the marked course during competition and shall not gain an advantage by an off-course excursion. An off-course excursion is defined as leaving the marked course with all four wheels
    Click to expand...

    I like this definition. Basically, I take it to mean one wheel needs to touch the marked course, and I take the marked course to refer to the track that is outlined by the two white or yellow lines. It does NOT include rumble strips. But because only one tire needs to keep in touch with these white lines, it will still prevent most outrageous use of track; and a rule that solely on the track defined by its clearly striped markers eliminates any future discussion about what consists a curb.

    And such a definition would also definitely shorten the workload for this thread:

    https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71208
 
I'm with you, but everybody seemed adamant that rumble strips be included and others were really after anything paved. If we can get a sea change going among the community, then all the better. To me the intended course is the most important thing. To others, the absolute fastest time that can be made legal is more important.

Yes I realize that the definition varies with the width of the car, but it's still something easily verifiable - if all the wheels are on the paving, then the inside wheels better be touching line.
 
Well, I think perhaps when people consider this in the light of making an easily understandable and verifiable ruleset, this rule, that has its basis in reality, would really, really deal with just about any problem regarding on or off track, for any type of circuit, yet since you need only one wheel touching the line, you'll still get fast times.

I mean, look at it again:

25.6 Off-course Excursions
The competitor is required to follow the marked course during competition and shall not gain an advantage by an off-course excursion. An off-course excursion is defined as leaving the marked course with all four wheels

That's it. It's gonna be very interesting to see if we can find examples of some kind of off-track that this doesn't cover.
 
I didn't mean to say I disagreed with your version of the rule - I'm 100% for it. I agree - for clarity and ease of enforcement, the line rule is better. It's just getting everybody else to agree to it that may prove difficult.

The question is the rumble strips or other track edging. OLR tradition has emphatically said that the rumble strips are part of the track... though they are (almost?) always outside the line. Trying to accomodate that tradition is what prompted me to write my version.
 
No, I understood that you agree with me. ;) I'm just trying to estimate whether others will have many reasons to not agree as well. I think this option just makes too much sense not to use it.
 
Way I'm reading it is, Rumble strips are not classed as part of the track.. BUT.. as long as you have one wheel inside (or in contact) with the white or yellow lines that defines the track limit, the run would be valid. Is that right?

Just as personal feedback to the suggestion.
I guess it would remove any vague areas in the rules for road courses. Although most race formula I follow in real life normaly consider the Rumble strips as part of the course, but I have to plead ignorance I don't know of the NASA-CCR.

Guess the real question is... how would the average BC competitor feel about adopting it ?, might be a little bit of a learning curve. By now, most are trained in thier mind to instinctively let 2 wheels go on the rumble strip during a quick lap and have a feel from the incar view if it's legal or not. With this they would have to double check that one wheel was left inside the track, (not that's any bother.. just a bit of a sea change).

I suppose if it was addopted there's no reason on earth why we couldn't make it work. After all the GT community aren't part of the FIA or Nascar .. it makes it's own rules that suit the playing of the game and varifications of runs.

The only objection I'd throw up is that the majority of GT Racers practice, Enter OLR's and qualify for BC teams under the current general track rules, and I think the BC races should reflect as close as possible the arena where they honed thier skills.
 
Tony Randall
Way I'm reading it is, Rumble strips are not classed as part of the track.. BUT.. as long as you have one wheel inside (or in contact) with the white or yellow lines that defines the track limit, the run would be valid. Is that right?
Click to expand...

Just as personal feedback to the suggestion.
I guess it would remove any vague areas in the rules for road courses. Although most race formula I follow in real life normaly consider the Rumble strips as part of the course, but I have to plead ignorance I don't know of the NASA-CCR.
Click to expand...

Can you give some examples of those race formula?

Guess the real question is... how would the average BC competitor feel about adopting it ?, might be a little bit of a learning curve. By now, most are trained in thier mind to instinctively let 2 wheels go on the rumble strip during a quick lap and have a feel from the incar view if it's legal or not. With this they would have to double check that one wheel was left inside the track, (not that's any bother.. just a bit of a sea change).
Click to expand...

I guess there is a learning curve in terms of driving. But in my by now fairly extensive experience with OLR, the problem BC drivers have is not with driving, but with reading ... And in that sense, the learning curve becomes almost non-existent. This simple rule can be translated in a few languages, and that's that. It cuts out piles and piles of complicated rules we'd have to set up to accomodate all GT4s new tracks.

I suppose if it was addopted there's no reason on earth why we couldn't make it work. After all the GT community aren't part of the FIA or Nascar .. it makes it's own rules that suit the playing of the game and varifications of runs.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And the sooner it would happen in GT4's lifespan, the better. We still have a good few years to go, after all, before GT5, and it is likely that the new rules suit GT5 better also.

The only objection I'd throw up is that the majority of GT Racers practice, Enter OLR's and qualify for BC teams under the current general track rules, and I think the BC races should reflect as close as possible the arena where they honed thier skills.
Click to expand...

We could try it the other way around - by making this new ruleset as accessible and easy to read as possible, and maybe even translate it, it could be adopted outside the BC.
 
Arwin
But in my by now fairly extensive experience with OLR, the problem BC drivers have is not with driving, but with reading
Click to expand...
:D:D:D That's very true.

Arwin
Can you give some examples of those race formula?
Click to expand...
Well Arwin if you are asking me for examples I think I must be guilty of the above offence, I must have missread or missunderstood you're meaning mate. I'm not sure if in the small print of such formulas weather rumble strips are deemed part of the track or not.. But I know in F1 and Toca the drivers use them all the time, and don't worry about wether one wheel or two are on or off it.. the only time it's penalised is if a place is gained cutting through cicanes and such. As I'm sure you know. If I've missunderstood just put me down as an idiot, no need to produce a four page rule siteing it ;).

Like you say, theres no reason not to use it outside any future BC in forums all over.. I think it might take a while to become universal though.. remember many have been usuing the standard two wheels on track rule since way back when, and many are set in thier ways. But even if it don't it would still work good in a BC, as it does cut down on the Bull Sht factor.
 
One problem I have with this rule is that the white and yellow painted lines in GT aren't always in place to mark the course. I think moreso they're in the game as decoration, to make the tracks look more authentic.

Besides that I'd rather drive with two wheels on track or rumble strips as we always have - not only because it's always been that way, but because it's funner for me to drive that way.
 
eggmann
One problem I have with this rule is that the white and yellow painted lines in GT aren't always in place to mark the course. I think moreso they're in the game as decoration, to make the tracks look more authentic.
Click to expand...

Can you give me an example of a non-rally course?

Besides that I'd rather drive with two wheels on track or rumble strips as we always have - not only because it's always been that way, but because it's funner for me to drive that way.
Click to expand...

Well you can drive whatever way you like, and I'm sure everyone has their own preferences, but for the sake of clarity, would you consider such rules as this? I promise you, the racing won't look uglier for it. Maybe just try it a few laps here and there?
 
Arwin
Can you give me an example of a non-rally course?
Click to expand...

Sorry it took me so long to reply. I've been driving New York for the past week, and that's one. I'll post more tracks that fit this as I drive on them (which could take months.)

11/18 - Also Deep Forest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Back