I must add that I've found the A.I to be very aggressive at Monaco. (Apologies for not knowing every corners correct name...I know them all, just not sure of their order).
They will attempt a run up the inside of the first corner, if that fails they will follow and even try to squeeze through going up the hill and into the fast(ish) left hander before Casino square.
In fact, looking back over the many races I've done at Monaco, I can only think of one, maybe two, corners where they DON'T attack and try to pass...the many times they have ended up with them t- boning me or turning across me.
The corner they rarely attacked at being the left hander after the tunnel chicane and before the swimming pool left-right.
They also seemed cautious taking the penultimate hairpin corner (Rascasse), perhaps because of the cramped nature of the exit?
Sounds like Alonso is still driving the first race of season 1, no upgrades added, terrible on the straights version of the McLaren while you have developed the car through upgrades and are noticing significant improvements.
Surely if he were in the same, better version, of the McLaren, and that's assuming R&D is shared between drivers, he'd be qualifying further up?
It seems, to me, that it is one of two things;
1) R&D upgrades aren't shared between teammates and so he's stuck in the pre-upgrade car.
2) He is actually performing well/normally, relative to his equipment, and you are exceeding expectations and over performing by some margin.
Unfortunately, speeddemon, it seems that releasing broken or unfinished games is the industry norm these days.
I play, amongst other games, The Division, BF4, Star Wars BF, and all were released in various states... ranging from totally broken, to bug ridden, to severely lacking content, and everything in between.
It is getting to the point where it is the exception for a game to be released in a finished and ready state.
No patches, no excuses, no dissatisfied customers...it simply doesn't happen as much as it should and probably could, if not for unrealistic schedules and greedy developers.
I often wonder whether these yearly franchises, games like FIFA, F1 , CoD etc...can ever improve beyond the superficial when they have so little room to breathe and experiment.
Codemasters would have started on this year's game as soon as the last game was released, I'd imagine.
They would have left a skeleton staff on 2016 while the majority of their talented team were put on 2017.
This ends up giving those who had just bought 2016 when it was released a sub par post release experience, and those who eventually bought 2017 (namely us) a game that has only had a year to try and rework or reimagine, and then we get the skeleton staff to respond to bugs just like the year before...and the cycle continues.
I'm not saying this is necessarily how it works, but I suspect it is.
Take the pressure off, allow Codemasters at least 2 years to redesign any flaws, upgrade their game engine, allow plenty of play testing, and eventually release something that is;
A) Finished Bug free C) Up to-date
Unfortunately, as we all probably know instinctively, it simply won't happen that way.
The yearly release is a great cash grab, offering what amounts in a lot of cases to the same game every year for the same money and earning a small fortune.
I mean, classic cars aside, you could argue that without livery updates this is f12016.
Yes, the cars look different...a bit.
But is there enough different, I mean really different, that makes it necessary to have yearly updates?
I'd much rather have a game that releases livery updates every year as paid DLC and keeps the core game the same, so that we have consistency.... similar to I-Racing.
I accept it would be easy on p.c but less so on console.