It looks like you’re new here. To join in the discussion, click the register link below to get started.


First AnswerThird Anniversary100 CommentsName Dropper10 CommentsFirst CommentFirst AnniversarySecond Anniversary
Welcome to the Codemasters Forums! Be sure to check the FAQ and Forum Rules before you get started.

Coffer Pit Crew


Last Active
  • Re: So since the teammate issue isn't getting fixed...

    Jobajub said:
    Am I missing something here, but why can't the non player driver at McLaren, which is where this issue seems to be most prevalent, not simply receive a small boost, that accounts for a few hundredths or whatever, in line with expected player upgrades?
    Because they have to train them or some crap. I dunno dude, you'd think they could just increase the top speed or something but I guess it's not that simple.
    That's how racing AIs work. If you, for instance, have Automobilista and look through some of its config files, you'll see that you can actually manually re-enable the process of getting the AI to learn the "ideal" (for it) line on each track, and that's pretty much how every competent racing AI is developed right now (hence why it always feels as static and unrealistic as it is and why the AIs almost never really exploit their individual car advantages as much as they should in areas other than the engine). Problem is, Jenny's comment proves that their individual implementation is absolutely mindblowingly bad if they really do have to redo the process for absolutely every combination imaginable, INCLUDING the upgrades, and in fact, it doesn't even hold water when you consider that the downforce and chassis upgrades are accounted for just fine. Like, if you were to bring the McLaren's Honda engine in line with something like the Mercedes, why the bloody hell would it lead to any deficiencies? It's no different from testing a car that's in between the Red Bull and Force India.

    This is either a bullshit copout because they just want to get this development cycle out of the way and want to use something that might "sound" reasonable, or they need to fire whoever did the AI code. Whatever the case, this is not acceptable by modern standards and CM absolutely need to be held accountable for this - even accounting for the fact that the yearly releases absolutely hurt how much they can test this stuff out (and the ones that require large periods of time to get right like this one are the first to suffer), this wouldn't be an issue if they got the code right in the first place, which, for the third year in a row, they haven't.
    Post edited by Coffer on
  • Re: How did a F2002 mod from AC end up in F1 2017?

    Ho3n3r said:
    Coffer said:
    Only to be proven true later on in the thread.
    Yep, I stand corrected. My bad. Scummy of them to do that, and I'm not sold on their excuse to simply use it as a "reference" either. I said in another thread that I felt they had too many artists employed relative to the number of actual programmers given their slow rate of fixing and implementing just about anything over the years, but now I'm not even convinced that's the case anymore. Clear-cut case of lazy incompetence.
  • Re: Was it the right decision to give Max Verstappen a penalty after overtaking Kimi in the US GP

    This has nothing to do with the game, mind you. The correct answer is still yes though, as there is a significant difference between track extending within the limits set by the stewards and cutting a corner to gain a position in a situation where there was otherwise no space to overtake. Not only is there no inconsistency whatsoever, but the only other remotely applicable case in the entire race was that of Sainz, who backed out and did not overtake the car in front when he performed a similar corner cut.

    In fact, the drivers were informed of the situation regarding the track limits during the weekend and everyone went on to respect them... except for Verstappen in qualifying, who was actually warned before the race. Simply put, he should've known better.

    Unfortunately, because of the absolute mania surrounding the "show" that the sport somehow has to offer, a lot of otherwise knowledgeable figures have lost their minds, with Rosberg even being stupid enough to say that Raikkonen turned in on Verstappen, which was not the case. It's giving F1 a very bad image by catering to those with little knowledge of, and respect for, actual skillful racing within the boundaries set by the rules and primarily by the stewards. Little surprise, then, that it was Red Bull who voted to make the stewarding more lenient this year, which, after last year, is nothing short of lunatic malevolence.

    Turn on strict corner cutting rules and try doing what Verstappen did. If you're within the correct boundaries, you'll be fine. If you cut while only gaining a minor advantage, at worst you'll get a warning. But if you try to overtake, you'll rightly get told to give the position back, and since it was too late for Verstappen to do that, he was given a post-race penalty. It should be an open and shut case and frankly, it boggles my mind that some people think this is not the case. It doesn't even take much skill to know what the difference is and why inconsistency does not come into play here.
  • Re: Working on 1.10 patch 24/7

    Where would we be without idiots who have no idea how companies run...

    Just wait. It's not difficult, is it? Be glad this isn't Dirt 4, which is all but abandoned in a decrepit state now thanks to F1 2017.
    Post edited by Coffer on
  • Re: Nothing Wrong with Slower Medium TC, so keep it!

    but if you are interested to customize your own driver you have to play "ranked online mode".
    The rest sounds good, but what's the point of this? You're not going to see or care about your own driver anywhere near as much online as you are offline. If anything this is definitely one of those things that needs to be taken offline, with online perhaps focusing more on fictional liveries, specific car handling traits beyond what one can get through setups and the like.