FITT - Moving on to GT6!

  • Thread starter DigitalBaka
  • 2,044 comments
  • 195,917 views
Johnnypenso
Crap, look how many time I misspelled FITT...lol...sorry fellas...typing too fast.

About the "training" issue, I assume if someone come's to you guys and says, "Hey guys I want to do a shootout and I have a few questions and need some help can you give me a hand?"...that you'll answer his questions and help him out. Correct? Well that's kind of what I was referring to. How about changing the word "training" to "guidance"?

As you mentioned Desperado, everyone has to vote on this, but you guys really need to determine who and what you want this to be. If you just want to put up some links to old shootouts and new shootouts and kind of be the cheerleader for shootouts, that's cool if that's what you want. But if you want to be a leader in this, if you want the FITT name to mean something when it's attached to a competition then you have to take it a step further and have a rather limited set of guidelines, which will qualify for FITT sponsorship.

Of course you can't fully control what anyone does during a shootout, but if anyone carrying the FITT logo must consult with the FITTCCC first before starting the contest and bounce some ideas back and forth and then submit a draft of their contest to the FITTCCC, then you'll pretty much know ahead of time what you're getting and you won't need to worry about sanctions and withdrawing sponsorship. It's kind of like dating hot chicks. Great to look at, great on your arm when you go to the club or walk down the street, but it usually comes at a cost...they need a lot of attention. The more you want FITT to stand for, the more cred you want with the name, the more attention to detail you must pay.

I can think of a number of reasons why you would not want to support an event.

1. A really poorly written, gramatically weak OP. How much would it suck to have a FITT sanctioned event and have a Mod step in and shoot the guy in the face because he cant speel, his sucks grammar, and he dont right good.

2. Poor contest paramaters involving things like way too many cars/tuners/test drivers in too short a time and nothing on share.

3. Overly complicated and difficult to understand testing procedures. "Testing for car A needs to be done Tuesday and Wednesday of this week only and results submitted Thursday morning by 6 am EST. Testing for car B...".

4. A poorly laid out OP. To me a standard contest layout is a key in promoting the FITT organization and standardizing the look and feel of a shootout. Poorly laid out anything, contest or post, is difficult to read and follow. I know I would not want my name associated with anything that wasn't well written and professional looking. Headers, bold underlined type, paragraphs, point form lists as needed...etc.

5. Someone who is known to be cantankerous, obtuse, and difficult to work with, who doesn't take feedback well and flames and trolls on the boards.

6. You guys have been around this for a while so you have a good idea of what might work and what might not. I'd want anyone desiring a FITT sponsorship to cooperate in guaging interest in contests you may think have limited interest. For example, someone comes along and says, "I'd like to have a contest with the FGT on Comfort Hard tires. We'll do Sarthe and Tsukuba and Daytona Oval all with one single tune".

Who knows, maybe it'll fly. Maybe not. There isn't a lot of interest in the FGT to begin with and on CS tires it'll be near impossible to control so you may get no interest at all. Such a person coming to me at FITT I'd say, "Let's do an interest check and see who might be interested". Perhaps you could have the PM's of many of the active tuners that regularly participate in shootouts and send them off a message and see what comes back.

What I would not want, is to just sanction any event that comes along, because a series of sanctioned events that don't work and may never get off the ground because of lack of interest, sullies the name of FITT. I think you have to be choosy or discriminating. Someone could still run such a contest, you just might not want your name associated with it.

That's it that's all...
Click to expand...
You definitely found more reasons then me, but I do agree, I believe on all points, assuming I didn't miss something.

This was more along my idea of what FITT would do.
I have no intentions of telling anyone what they can or can't do, but what we can do is say "sorry, that's not good enough for the FITT banner".

It may not be an issue that even crops up a single time, but you never know what tomorrow will bring, and we should prepare it ahead of time for what may occur along with what we know will occur.

While I'm at it, if not done already, the right to remove the FITT banner from an event for any reasons deemed necessary to keep a good reputation for the FITT name. An example would be if a host allows their thread completely derailed, bickering and flaming, moderation by site administration over actions preventable by event host, deadlines extended beyond reason, just some potential happenings that can greatly lower the interest and enjoyment (quality) of any event.
I guess basically what I'm saying is, if I'm going to put my name into something, it has to have some form of standard, and with my name as part of FITT, I feel associated with anything sponsored by FITT.
I don't feel I'm very demanding in these terms, but if a situation would ever arise, I don't want my name associated with garbage in any way, I'm sure most if not all of us can agree on that.
 
@CSLACR while I agree with wanting to maintain a certain standard for F.I.T.T. events, there is a potential problem. How without involving the site moderators do we enforce those standards and make someone remove the F.I.T.T. banner or get in compliance with our standards?
Really I think the best we can do is try and encourage Event Sponsors to setup and run an event in accordance with what we deem to be F.I.T.T. standards. If someone gets to out of line the site moderators will step in and we need to be prepared to make it clear that those issues are not a reflection of F.I.T.T. and our standards. However we are in no position to impose sanctions on anyone and unfortunately we may at some point need to take the high road of basically ignoring a situation rather than get involved in a potential flame war.
 
XDesperado67
@CSLACR while I agree with wanting to maintain a certain standard for F.I.T.T. events, there is a potential problem. How without involving the site moderators do we enforce those standards and make someone remove the F.I.T.T. banner or get in compliance with our standards?
Really I think the best we can do is try and encourage Event Sponsors to setup and run an event in accordance with what we deem to be F.I.T.T. standards. If someone gets to out of line the site moderators will step in and we need to be prepared to make it clear that those issues are not a reflection of F.I.T.T. and our standards. However we are in no position to impose sanctions on anyone and unfortunately we may at some point need to take the high road of basically ignoring a situation rather than get involved in a potential flame war.
Click to expand...
A fair point, but I think at said situation there would be a potential flame war no matter.

It's really up to everyone as far as I'm concerned, I don't think it's a situation that will come up, just saying worst case scenario is all.
 
Yeah, there's not much you can do in that situation. Your real control is not to get involved with people who have proven records of being cantankerous and disagreeable to begin with. It's also in only sanctioning well written, well thought out, detailed, completely ready to roll, Shootout proposals. How well organized someone is, how complete their proposal is, will tell you a lot about who is involved and how serious they are.

If a Shootout does get out of hand, there's nothing you can do about the logo of course, in the original post, but you can post every day for example, on the thread in question, saying it's no longer a FITT sanctioned event. It only becomes a flame war if both parties respond, if only one is popping off, then it's not a flame war, it's just a clown talking to himself. It'll take self control on your part, and will set a good example if such a thing ever occurs, that you'll take the high road.
 
Okay I just moved TOSS' Touge Tuner Shootout (500PP/SH) to the current events list.

Reminder to all tuners who want in on this event TimberW has set a tuner signup deadline of 9 October so let him know as soon as possible that your in on this one. Also this is the first shootout that all the tunes will undergo their testing online so look at this as a chance to prove your stuff is good for the online racers as well as the offline crowd!:gtpflag:

DigitalBaka here is your warning order that your up next in the schedule so make sure you have your event organized and ready to go.

On that note I would like to make a personal observation. While we are still fairly new with running these events and trying new things out, we need to make sure that we have a solid plan in place for all aspects of our events. As one military leader once stated no plan survives contact with the enemy, that being said proper and realistic planning beforehand will make running events smoother and the number and severity of problems/issues the Event Sponsor has to deal with smaller. I myself made a number of mistakes and ended up adjusting things during the FF shootout so please don't feel I'm targeting anyone personally with this next, but offering a critique of issues I spotted in the current events.
For the Rally event a clearer outline of what the tuning restrictions were to be from the start would have been useful. Same goes on the testing side where a better outline of how the testing was to be accomplished would have helped smooth things for both tuners and testers. Last we all need to beware of getting overly ambitious with our testing, keeping in mind available time and event deadlines.
If testing is to be fairly involved then plan an extended testing deadline, for a very straightforward time trial/hot lap of a single short track then less time need be scheduled for the testing. The issues I just raised were all addressed and handled in a very competent manner so props to C-ZETA for that.
For the Touge shootout just starting we have seen,and dealt with in a fairly timely and very decisive fashion, the need for Event Sponsors to insure they have a clear listing of what cars are eligible for an event. Good prior planning will prevent future Event Sponsors from dealing with this issue in the future. Don't feel bad as I made the same mistake in the FF shootout and had to scramble trying to get definitive rulings made after the shootout had already started. Having this issue crop up twice now in the space of 5 events let's try and insure going forward that it doesn't happen again. These events are meant to be fun but they are also competitions and a lot of us will be likely to push the limits looking for that edge to try and win. Nothing wrong with good hard competition but as Event Sponsors we need to do our best to insure as level a playing field for all involved as possible. The second issue also now dealt with is a new one. If you plan to use a custom track make sure its ready before the start of the event. Last issue is planning for the various types of support you may want for an event. While it may not have a direct impact on the event it will make it run smoother and seem better organized if arrangements for any special support are already in place when the event starts. Again I dealt with this issue in the FF shootout and ended up drafting someone to help with things. (thanks again Onboy:tup:👍) Reserving the first few posts isn't necessarily all that needs to occur. You want help officiating some part of an event arrange it while planning it, same for a scorekeeper, and a graphics specialist.
There are no standards for how to set up and run events but if we all keep these sorts of things in mind while planning our events we can help make them run smoother and look more organized and professional. I'll be looking at these things and taking them into the planning for my next event. I'm sure I'll find new ways to make mistakes and I'm sure someone will point them out to me when I do. However as long as I don't repeat past mistakes then I'm moving in the right direction.
Over all our events, both those that have been completed, and the current ones have been fun and successful. Let's all put a little effort into making future ones even better.:cheers:
 
I was going to quote the post above, but that's not necessary. No offense to Timber, but that's pretty much what I've been trying to say the last couple of weeks. There needs to be consultation with FITT well before a contest hits the dance floor, to iron out potential bugs. It's working itself out, the types of problems that have arisen so far in the Touge Shootout, with changes to varous things, could easily have been avoided with a little foresight and planning. Reading through some of the thread, it seems more like a work in progress, rather than something that was ready to hit the ground running, looking polished and professional.

I think the difficulties have been well handled so far, but good planning can avoid all of that quite easily.
 
I do agree, and it's not a "you must submit here before, blah blah blah" type thing, just if we all share our exact plans, whether in here or via PM, we always have ideas for improvement that one person can't always cover.

In my simple tuning gains thread where I plan to log the gains of just suspension tuning I missed a couple things, it happens, and the easy way to avoid that for shootouts is ask around with your ideas.

Not that anyone has to, but it will almost always make it easier for the host as well.

Speaking of ideas, I know it can look dumb at times, but Desperado, it got tricky mid post staying on the correct line reading, I find spaces (hitting enter) here and there help greatly with ease of reading, especially on long posts, probably because we can't make proper paragraphs.
 
@CSLACR try typing that all out on a cell phone touch screen like I did.:crazy::D

Thanks for the input though and I'll try and keep it in mind for future long winded rants.👍👍
 
XDesperado67
@CSLACR try typing that all out on a cell phone touch screen like I did.:crazy::D

Thanks for the input though and I'll try and keep it in mind for future long winded rants.👍👍
Click to expand...
:lol: I wouldn't even consider it, my fingers and cell phones never got along well.
 
I think this is a good place to ask. At the moment, the Touge Shootout have about 14 tunes to be tested with a two week window for the test drivers. What method would you suggest to ensure that all the tunes get a fair review, or would it be better to pick the top tier cars? Thanks FITT committee!
 
TimberW
I think this is a good place to ask. At the moment, the Touge Shootout have about 14 tunes to be tested with a two week window for the test drivers. What method would you suggest to ensure that all the tunes get a fair review, or would it be better to pick the top tier cars? Thanks FITT committee!
Click to expand...
Not sure what your asking. I thought you said test drivers were to test all cars. Then the top 2 cars from the test drivers average times would go to the finals along with the cars and tuners who post the best 2 times.
Did I somehow get that wrong?
 
XDesperado67
Not sure what your asking. I thought you said test drivers were to test all cars. Then the top 2 cars from the test drivers average times would go to the finals along with the cars and tuners who post the best 2 times.
Did I somehow get that wrong?
Click to expand...

You got that right. That's still the same. And the track is still the same.

The question is how to manage the 14 tunes fairly with a 2 week window for the test drivers.

eg. limiting a number of laps for each car? Or will it be all up to the test driver to manage the tunes fairly.

Edit: I guess it doesn't matter if it's the best overall time right? Just as long as they clock in all the times.
 
Last edited:
TimberW
You got that right. That's still the same. And the track is still the same.

The question is how to manage the 14 tunes fairly with a 2 week window for the test drivers.

eg. limiting a number of laps for each car? Or will it be all up to the test driver to manage the tunes fairly.

Edit: I guess it doesn't matter if it's the best overall time right? Just as long as they clock in all the times.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have this in the shootout post, but I might post a rubish tune do to the lack on testing I will get ( home by Friday? Spec 2, and well I'm not very good) so if you need me to pull out to free up time I can.
 
TimberW
You got that right. That's still the same. And the track is still the same.

The question is how to manage the 14 tunes fairly with a 2 week window for the test drivers.

eg. limiting a number of laps for each car? Or will it be all up to the test driver to manage the tunes fairly.

Edit: I guess it doesn't matter if it's the best overall time right? Just as long as they clock in all the times.
Click to expand...

So far it has been left to the test drivers discretion how much time they spend with each car and exactly how many laps they put in.
So far its worked fairly well.

That said you or another ES in a future event could certainly dictate certain testing procedures such as only 10 laps per car or a minimum of 5 clean laps etc.

Just make sure if you institute such measures that not only do you announce the change in the shootout thread, but that you also update the OP accordingly.👍👍
 
XDesperado67
So far it has been left to the test drivers discretion how much time they spend with each car and exactly how many laps they put in.
So far its worked fairly well.

That said you or another ES in a future event could certainly dictate certain testing procedures such as only 10 laps per car or a minimum of 5 clean laps etc.

Just make sure if you institute such measures that not only do you announce the change in the shootout thread, but that you also update the OP accordingly.👍👍
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yes, there are a few unexpected things. For one I didn't expect to have that many tuners sign up. In the future, I'll definetly have some limits on the sign ups. I know very well about changing rules on the fly, and that doesn't go down very well usually, especially when the event is already running.

I won't change any more things unless absolutely necessary. Thanks for your feedback thus far. I also didn't realise that it's the first time the tuners are 'encouraged' to tune for online use. I didn't know that the bulk of the Tuning Community tunes for offline. So that's quite interesting find for me.
 
TimberW
Thanks. Yes, there are a few unexpected things. For one I didn't expect to have that many tuners sign up. In the future, I'll definetly have some limits on the sign ups. I know very well about changing rules on the fly, and that doesn't go down very well usually, especially when the event is already running.

I won't change any more things unless absolutely necessary. Thanks for your feedback thus far. I also didn't realise that it's the first time the tuners are 'encouraged' to tune for online use. I didn't know that the bulk of the Tuning Community tunes for offline. So that's quite interesting find for me.
Click to expand...

It's not so much that the tuning community does more for offline than online its that because of logistics for shootouts to this point its been more convenient to run them exclusively as offline events.

Other than the Rally shootout C-ZETA just completed they have been time trial type events with the goal to have the car making the best hotlap average.

To aid in testing the cars were placed on share and borrowed cars for whatever reason can not be used online so there was no way to do online testing or have an online race.

You've presented us with a new challenge with the goal to create a tune that can compete in a specific type of online race. This changes some strategies and will impact both the way cars are tuned and the way the shootout is run.

As with anything new there are bound to be unforeseen issues that need to be addressed. So far you have done a good job of dealing with those issues.

As for the number of entries that is an issue we have been discussing various strategies to deal with. Yes simply limiting the number of entries is one option. Other ways have also been brought up and will be tested in future events. The same can be said in regards to finding adequate numbers of test drivers willing to complete testing of all entries and post their results in a timely manner.

We are all fairly new at this and still working out the kinks as it were, finding what works well and what doesn't work at all. So far we have had a lot of fun and some of us have learned valuable things that help us improve our tuning and driving skills.

Taking on new challenges such as your shootout presents us helps make the game more enjoyable and improves the community here at GTPlanet. Thanks for setting this up.:cheers:
 
TimberW
Thanks. Yes, there are a few unexpected things. For one I didn't expect to have that many tuners sign up. In the future, I'll definetly have some limits on the sign ups. I know very well about changing rules on the fly, and that doesn't go down very well usually, especially when the event is already running.

I won't change any more things unless absolutely necessary. Thanks for your feedback thus far. I also didn't realise that it's the first time the tuners are 'encouraged' to tune for online use. I didn't know that the bulk of the Tuning Community tunes for offline. So that's quite interesting find for me.
Click to expand...
To further what Desperado said, shared cars can't go online, which means testers have to build or be given every car.

So having forgotten that, I'm posting it also in the thread, untradables that people don't have will likely be an issue for online testing.
 
Not trying to be a d-bag or anything but I wrote this a few pages back and it looks pretty psychic at this point....again...sorry Timber but you've ended up as the guinea pig.

Once again, I would strongly suggest that someone design a standardized format/layout for tuning competitions. When someone opens up a FITT sanctioned event, they should all look very similar in layout. I can and have walked into Tim Horton's donut shops for example, from coast to coast in Canada, and they all look basically the same. You'd never walk into a Timmy's in Alberta and think it was McDonalds.

FIIT events should be the same. The details can be different of course, but the basic rules and guidelines should be the same. The headers, what's bolded or italicized, the print type etc should all be standardized. The cool logo you guys designed should be prominent in the first post of every shootout, that is a must.

You only need do this once, and then the Organizers can copy and paste it over to their own thread and make changes as necessary.

It's also important, if you truly want to be a "sanctioning" body, that the layout for the contest be sent to a FIITCCC member and subject to revision and approval, before the contest ever sees the light of day. This is as opposed to someone posting a contest and then FIIT having to step in and say, "Oh sorry, you can't do this, or change that rule etc." That looks very unprofessional. Contests should hit the ground running, not be a work in progress.
 
I was thinking of an event but I dont know if id be able to set it up properly. Im not that great at technical stuff.

My idea is a RWD shootout, and im thinking maybe 2 categories Roadcar / Racecar.

Tracks, PP limits etc to be decided.

Thoughts ? Suggestions ? etc
 
bigberry
I was thinking of an event but I dont know if id be able to set it up properly. Im not that great at technical stuff.

My idea is a RWD shootout, and im thinking maybe 2 categories Roadcar / Racecar.

Tracks, PP limits etc to be decided.

Thoughts ? Suggestions ? etc
Click to expand...
So your thinking of having the tuners tune 2 different cars?

Your decision on PP will determine what cars are available or you could declare a type of car i.e. sports, 2 door coupe, 4 door sedan etc.

Another thing is it to be strictly performance based i.e. who has the fastest lap time or do you want to include other factors.
 
I was thinking of giving people the choice of 1 or the other or both. Maybe both would make it more interesting ?

PP limit I think , many of the best RWD are coupes and it takes the debate out of it eg is this legal, no thats a saloon etc the K.I.S.S principle

I was thinking laptime, other methods would be a review or ? laptime seems the fairest way.

Ive no idea what pp limit racecars should be at so I need to research that.
 
bigberry
I was thinking of giving people the choice of 1 or the other or both. Maybe both would make it more interesting ?

PP limit I think , many of the best RWD are coupes and it takes the debate out of it eg is this legal, no thats a saloon etc the K.I.S.S principle

I was thinking laptime, other methods would be a review or ? laptime seems the fairest way.

Ive no idea what pp limit racecars should be at so I need to research that.
Click to expand...
Here's an idea for you to research. We have the RM cars and Spec II may have more. Also there are a number of cars that have both a road version and a race (including rally or other special type drift, touge etc.) version.
Make a list of all such cars with their PP range for both road and race versions. The tuners would have to tune both the road version (non RM) and the race version. You provide the list of possible choices and limit number of tuners to number of available car combinations or maybe 2 tuners per car combo. 1st to sign up gets first choice of cars.
Your PP limit for each type (road and race) would be a number that all the cars could reach so some cars would be out altogether like the Cappuccino since its PP would be way to low to match up with most of the cars.
 
Your idea sounds more reasonable than mine although how many are RWD .

How about this:

All tuners entered are automatically testers also.

Testers can remain only testers.
 
XDesperado67
Here's an idea for you to research. We have the RM cars and Spec II may have more. Also there are a number of cars that have both a road version and a race (including rally or other special type drift, touge etc.) version.
Make a list of all such cars with their PP range for both road and race versions. The tuners would have to tune both the road version (non RM) and the race version. You provide the list of possible choices and limit number of tuners to number of available car combinations or maybe 2 tuners per car combo. 1st to sign up gets first choice of cars.
Your PP limit for each type (road and race) would be a number that all the cars could reach so some cars would be out altogether like the Cappuccino since its PP would be way to low to match up with most of the cars.
Click to expand...

That sounds like fun. If the screenshots I've seen are any indication, there could be a few new RM's available with Spec 2 and this would be a great way to get the jump on tuning the new RM's. In my opinion, the RM's are one of the most underutilized aspects of the game and this would help bring them into focus with a wealth of excellent tunes to go along with them.

What might make the challenge interesting is to have the cars run on two different tracks, RM on one, non-RM on the other. Different tuning requirements, different gearing possibly, could make it a little more challenging for both tuners and drivers.

Another suggestion might be to run the cars at different PP levels, perhaps not a lot, maybe 10 or 20 pp difference between the two, with the race car being the higher of the two preferably. To make them equal would probably mean lowering the RM pp level, which would take the cars further away from their max potential, requiring less tuning ability and less precision. You'll want the cars near their max pp I would think.
 

Latest Posts

Back