TCv4 debrief thread.

  • Thread starter PF
  • 40 comments
  • 3,631 views
PF

PF

737
TCv4 debrief thread.

This thread is not for criticising judges, cars, tuners; nor is it for mine>yours because x>y comments. Part of the reason I made this thread is that the TCv5 thread is already cluttered. I'd like this thread to help with the planning and organisation for TCv5, so any posts not directly related to this should go in the comments thread.

Post here what you liked or didn’t like about TCv4. I think this will be useful to those (like myself) who’ve never participated in one before. I’ll start:

Good:
Wide entry requirements therefore a good range of cars. Cars with lower hp and better tuning beat higher hp cars consistently.
Organisation was excellent

Bad:
Nothing much really. I felt bad marking down cars that had obv been tuned for a different track to the one I tested on, but as RJ (I think) pointed out, one could argue that cars should be tuned for a variety of tracks.

More comments when I get time. Feel free to copy/paste things from the comments thread if they are relevant and useful.
 
I'll have a go.

Good: Definitely participation. I wasn't expecting much but all you guys basically came out and showed me that GT4 isn't dead yet even with GT5:P Out. Organization as well, it was good to see that at least one of us had everything worked out. We went over time a little bit but it's to be expected.

Bad: I didn't like the judging criteria myself, I found i to ambiguous (my Physics teacher loves that word) for my liking. Also I think we should have the judging criteria before we start tuning, we were only really told that our cars need to work on all tracks. I mean when we get an assignment we don't do it to the best of our abilities then bring it back, hand it up and then get the criteria, we need to check our car against what the judges will be testing it on.

Yeah I think that will do from me.
 
Bad: No points were awarded for bad arsery and style.:lol:
There should be a judging criteria "improvement over default settings".
 
Paulie
Bad: No points were awarded for bad arsery and style.:lol:
There should be a judging criteria "improvement over default settings".
Click to expand...

^ I think this should be the MAIN criteria for judging in TCv5..,
 
Yes but the default settings are so horribly murdered at stock on some cars that a five year old with a hammer can improve them reasonably.
 
To adress the issue of multiple tracks.

I never docked points because a car wouldn't handle or shift to my liking at Grand Valley in particular. If car's tranny was too short at Grand Valley, for instance, i would always say "well they're too short for this track, but might be good at a shorter track. I personally would dock points if i felt the tranny was limiting a car's output, or if i didn't like the way it shifted & drove (like that 6-speed in the Red Devil). There's a difference. It's unfair to just say "well this car revs out by the end of the straight, therefore i'm docking points". The same car might feel perfect at Apricot Hill, for instance.

Also, if a car wouldn't handle to my liking at GV, if i felt there was another situation it would do better, i would factor that in. But usually (for instance), if a car understeers excessively in slow corners at GV, it's gonna understeer at any other track. The rules stated we should choose a track with a variety of corners (fast and slow) and since GV is featured in all GT games to date, this seemed like a good choice.

Anyways, even tho i personally only drove at one track, I always tried to think of potentials for other tracks as well.

hope this helps
 
Last edited:
Most people used GVS for their testing; I went off on my own a bit and used Fuji 90's. I figured it would show off the cars' abilities at more than one venue. Whether said track was the best idea, I'm not sure. However, it worked well enough for this.

As for the competition itself, I didn't enter, so I cant say anything there. However, I do have one minor complaint with the judging criteria: Cornering Prowess and Cornering Attitude are really too similar to make much distinction. For the most part, I just awarded the same score in both areas, and I pretty much said the same thing im both categories for both.

Overall, it was/is (I'm not quite done yet) a lot of fun judging, and I hope to enter/judge TCv5.
 
Good: Variety of rides, level of competition.

Bad: Constantly searching for judges. I have to say though, in the scoring....one of the cornering categories should be swapped for a lap improvement score like VTC was or a pure speed category like TCv3.
 
Nice work people, keep the ideas coming.

@Camry: yeah participation was quite impressive, and after tuning and scoring 23 of the mongrels, I've gotta say the standard of entries was remarkably high.

@Paulie: I think this is largely covered by the 'improvement' judging category.

@Mafs: Am really unsure about judging. I think it worked well and I agree that the results are an accurate representation of the best cars. There was no bias and I think we all did a good job (though I never put up comments for FWD ... sorry). However, an impartial judicial system, codified through law, is essential for the operation of even the smallest community. The wreck of the Batavia and the history of the Bligh mutineers are extreme examples of this. I'm still really unsure of my opinion on this, beyond suggesting that judging criteria are spelled out more precisely.

@ty: excellent point about the categories re cornering, should be reduced to one.

Overall this was/is an incredibly well organised event considering the difficulties posed by judging people with different timezones/languages/tuning styles etc. The organisers (particularly RJ) should be congratulated for this. (I would post another bunch of flowers for RJ but it would seem a bit 'ginger beer', to borrow a phrase from the Patron Saint Clarkson).
 
It did go without a hitch somewhat :). I wish I could have helped as I was moving and without a ps2, All judge's did will and I have to take my hat off to the people that took time out of there busy life's to do this. May the next one go even better:tup:
 
Although I should apologize for delaying the eventual result, most of it was really out of my control. The other part was making sure all the cars got the track time they deserved, and the fact that getting my thoughts about things down on paper (however electronic it may be) isn't my strong suit.

I don't know, you guys tell me; how good were my reviews, feedback-wise?
 
how good were my reviews, feedback-wise?
Click to expand...

You and Parnelli did an awesome job. I couldn't do that well for three reasons:
1: I'm simply not competent and educated enough to properly understand the tunes.
2: Not enough time to put a decent amount of laps on the cars. Or to write up decent reviews.
3: My insistence on racing all cars in the one block to get a proper comparison. It's ridiculously difficult to compare 13 things at once.
 
Although I never submitted my scores on the cars (primarily this was a time issue for me) I tested a number of them, and must say that the cars which I did test (which came low overall) felt fantastic around the twisty tracks.
I also did my testing across my main circuit (Twin Ring East) and a couple of laps at the 'Ring, which I think removed a lot of the problems of "This car isn't tuned for this track"

If I have one complaint, it's that the judging criteria was really hard to understand, even as a judge and not a tuner. Maybe this could be cleared up next time.

Overall, the participation level was very good, and it's just a shame I didn't get to test every single one of the cars, because I'm sure they would've all been brilliant
 
PF
You and Parnelli did an awesome job. I couldn't do that well for three reasons:
1: I'm simply not competent and educated enough to properly understand the tunes.
2: Not enough time to put a decent amount of laps on the cars. Or to write up decent reviews.
3: My insistence on racing all cars in the one block to get a proper comparison. It's ridiculously difficult to compare 13 things at once.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback on the feedback. :lol:

Although I can say the same for myself on your first point; I know a little bit about what's going to happen if something's set the way it is, but I'm not sure why everything works together the way it does. (If that makes any sense whatsoever.)
 
Last edited:
Okay, so far...

good:
broad entry requirements
organisation
participation

bad:
broad judging criteria (several mentions)
cornering attitude/prowess shd be conflated

I think if we get a decent set of judging criteria and shake up the scoring system these should be the only organisational changes, unless we want to set a hp limit.

Can I edit in a poll after making a thread? Would like to see who wants a dedicated track and who doesn't
 
PF
I beg to differ Camry. I'd argue that this falls under admin/etc and should be in here rather than the cluttered TCv5 thread. This one is so far (thankfully) less messy than the other.

OT, I would probably agree with you Camry, but need more times to conrffirm
Click to expand...

Yeah I see where your coming from fair enough. The TCv5 thread is equivalent to a bunch of blokes shouting at each other over some drinks with not much actually being accomplished. In fact that reminds me of a lot of conversations I have lol.
 
Sorry MinoltaMan89, but we really don't care about your opinion on something posted 5 days ago that has nothing to do with the actual topic.:lol:
 
Sorry Rotary Junkie, but we really don't care about your opinion on something posted 5 hours ago that has nothing to do with the actual topic.
Click to expand...

Sorry, had to do it.

This thread was intended to distill the floodwater of the TCv5 thread into something consumable. Kurei recently complained/mentioned that one of his suggestions had been swallowed so I think it's largely up to me as loudmouth wanker and you as organiser to get these suggestions into some sort of order.

Could you perhaps edit that post RJ into what you think are the main three/four sticking points re this. I'll start:

* I reckon the dedicated-track faction (inc me) have been smashed, end of argument.
* Improvement>base is a consensus but no popular solution has appeared re judging.
* Drivetrain classification (and N3s) has remained relatively popular
* the hp limit debate seems split, prob falls in favour of no-hp-limit argument.

Help me here RJ. While I realise the need and usefulness of continuous activity on the other thread, those who are serious about organising/judging/competing should not have to wade through 100+ posts to find 20 good ones.
 
Last edited:
In defence of what RJ did, this MinoltaMaggot has been trolling the forums since day 1 PF, and I hope the moderators are taking note of his stupid comments in nearly every thread he's posted into. :grumpy:

Now I took note of what Kurei said, and he felt that it's going to be basically a 'best car round' contest which he wasn't that fond of. He wants quirkyness involved and so do I to a point. But I don't think we want it being a case of Copen's and Beat's (for quirkyness sake) vs GT-R's, Evo's and that because it's not going to be fair if you look at the quirky one more than the good allround car. We all had a broad spectrum of cars to choose from in TCv4, from pickups to wagons, coupes, sedans, the lot.

Don't get me wrong, if for some reason in TCv5, someone grabbed the Ginetta G4 and made that handle perfectly, it would get all the ticks because it's quirky and we know it's a quick car when tuned, regardless of age. But it does boil down to how the car matches the judge, will the judge like it, does it handle decently for the judge, is it quick enough against the competition, etc.

As for improvement>base, it should go back to Vintage Tuner Cup ways. Run the car stock, then find the car's improved time and based on the parts fitted, give it a good or bad score for that category.
 
I don't think any of us ever behaved in the way this guy does, take a look at threads from the SRC, to the 400m thread, to Red-Line, to CoreySkyline's garage, to this one Leo, all he does is pop smart-ass comments in for no reason, especially when they're not needed or wanted.

I'm interested in what PF has to think about my TCv5 suggestions from last night, as we don't want to deal with this troll.
 
@mafs: I wonder if we shouldn't hae a classificatrion for outright best time/tune at a dedicated track (eg Tsukuba as Paulie suggested somewhere) on S3s with no other restrictions. This would keep the rev-heads entertained and divert some of the overpowered monsters from the other divisions, while the rest wo9rk on the more 'quirky' (to use your phrase) cars. It would also blow the categories out to 5, unless N3 was dropped.

An unrelated idea to make it different would be to link a drivetrain class to a used-car showroom. The obvious way (to me) would be 4WD@late 90s, FF@mid 90s, FR@80s. Cars like the R34 could prove to be a problem, but it appeals to me because it should encourage people to look through the garages and try cars they may not have considered if they had the full range to choose from.
 
Hmmm. I see what you mean and where you're going too. With only 4 entrants in N3, I don't think it's too popular even though there was interest so let's hypothetically swap for an unlimited for an idea, this is how we start getting different things happening.

To get the best lap times you need to get the same car and find out how well each person tunes the same car to get the best lap and the differences in lap times.

But a Tuner Cup defines how well you tune the car and how well the car really drives overall and giving it the ability to drive fast in any drivers hand, not just how fast you can drive it and each judge might be different in their circuit driving skill.
I know someone like stidriver would wipe the floor with times compared to someone like drifting24/7 for example (sorry mate, first name to come to mind. :P). Sort of like getting a D1 WRS driver as one judge and a D3 WRS driver as another, the lap times are going to vary greatly. But if you build a car that allows the D1 & D3 drivers to post similar times then you've sort of done your job as a tuner because you've built something that's allowed everyone to become fast. :)

And then you have the added variable of not every car being a good base to start on for an ultimate lap sprinter which narrows the field, and reduces the number of quirky cars that come out.

The VTC Race Car category was good. R2 tyres, any car pre-1980. We could do something similar but for say the 90's used lots. :)
 
mafia_boy
I don't think any of us ever behaved in the way this guy does, take a look at threads from the SRC, to the 400m thread, to Red-Line, to CoreySkyline's garage, to this one Leo, all he does is pop smart-ass comments in for no reason, especially when they're not needed or wanted.

I'm interested in what PF has to think about my TCv5 suggestions from last night, as we don't want to deal with this troll.
Click to expand...

and how exactly does that differ from your aussie hoonage?💡:lol:
 
Greatly. I don't post junk in my own threads (or in yours for that matter! :P) and most of my comments are needed and/or helpful (doing all the TCv4 scoring for example!!). ;)

Hurry up and release another car already at MFT, it's been 3 weeks now. :P What happened to this 1 car a week policy?? :dopey:
 

Latest Posts

Back