Jump to content Jump to content

Monzie83

Members
  • Content Count

    300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Monzie83

  1. On 7/1/2021 at 8:39 PM, ChicagoSeminole said:

    Honestly not sure why people expect clean racing in a 5 lap race with 20 cars. You are racing against people that don't have basic racing rule knowledge, attention span, time, skill, or interest for a 25% race. Its like dumping billions of dollars$$ from a helicopter over a large city, and trusting people to distribute the money fairly.

    5 laps is a silly format to expect "clean sim racing" except for the small percentage of people that can drive against say 100 ai or higher, and even then its hard to drive clean when people are going three wide at narrow tracks like Austria because they can't waste a lap behind the slow car that is swerving left to right and holding everyone up. 

    Not sure why you want an S or A rating either, its impossible to find a lobby on 25%.  Losing a S rating for 6 races doesn't seem like a big deal.  Think of "S" as absolutely perfect and A a "excellent" and then your first 2 points don't really matter. The rating doesn't drop so fast in 25% IIRC so it is already scaled like you are suggesting. 

    I gave up trying to find a lobby in 25% ranked with more than 2 people, but I still like to check it when I turn the game on and its always empty, and if I do find a couple of guys, they are voting to race at Austria, Italy, Belgium or one of the dumb short tracks over and over, so it gets repetitive. 

    Incorporating a safety ranking into a unranked lobby would be better for online racing. There are plenty of clean drivers in unranked. (But they are usually too fast to race against!) 

    A ranked system with An 18 minute quali session that uses F1s current quali rules would prevent people that are 10 seconds off the pace from competing in the race. (Williams was almost DQ from a race a few years ago).  

    I understand where you’re coming from, but I also feel some of your thoughts are likely governed by the existing deficient system, rather than what it could/ should be, and in some cases, actually prove my point. Allow me to explain;

    - I don’t think it’s too much to expect safe 5 lap races if you are a safe racer and you have confidence you’ll be matched up with similarly safe racers. If the safety rating doesn’t assess your proficiency properly, then you are certain to matched up incorrectly - even if you both have S safety ratings for example. This is where the current system falls down.
    - I do agree with your sentiment (that a S grade should indicate a very high safety proficiency and A a high safety proficiency and so on), but it in practice it’s not working because of the volatility, the grade itself is not a good indicator of your actual 
    safety proficiency, given how easy it is to move between grades.
    - Currently, it is possible to get fairly safe 5 lap races (even with 15 or so racers), but these, imo, are only found in majority grade S lobbies. But even then because it is so easy to get to an S or A grade there are invariably a large number of drivers with those grades that race unsafely - I have seen too many stupid incidents/ blatant ramming/ not pulling out of unachievable moves etc. For me, those kind of incidents should be really minimal in the majority S grade lobbies but it’s not - my own personal feeling is those lobbies are really operating at more of a A/B safety level given the amount and nature of incidents.
    - if the reliability of the grade can be improved I think the experience will be more tuned to the level you’re at, which is why posed my two main suggestions. I think by doing this the safety grading system does become more reliable over time, and then when the session allocation algorithm does it’s thing you’ll have more confidence you are racing against those with similar safety ability to your own - what you then do with where you are, is of course, up to you. 

    - Your comment about “3 wide in Austria” is valid, I fully agree with you about drivers making too many defending moves, especially in the braking zone - it’s not punished at all and needs to be addressed somehow. 

    - I agree with you on the 25% races -  I’m on PS and have given up trying to find 25% races. Having a S or A grade (as I normally have) is a definite disadvantage because you will naturally get fewer people wanting to do a 25% race as it is (probably as it takes more time). By having an A or S grade, you’re taking a narrower slice of an already narrow pool of racers and I’m not sure what can be done about that. Perhaps improving the reliability of the grading system will also increase the numbers of drivers wanting to participate in 25% races because you have more confidence you’ll be matched up with similarly safe drivers rather than risk investing a lot of time into a race only to be bumped off by a kamikaze driver on the last lap?

    - Regarding unranked lobbies, that’s not my experience, but may well be true as I haven’t played them in a while. For me they were like the wild-west when I tried them out, and I didn’t like the idea of collisions being off which most lobbies seem to be. I do like your idea of incorporating a safety rating into unranked lobbies somehow  but not sure how it could work in practice. I also guess that is part of the draw for those people in them - there’s no repercussions, and that’s probably why they have more participants?

    🖖🏽

  2. 59 minutes ago, KNT2011 said:

    I'm very unsure if track limits should be included in the safety rating, though of course should still be punished in race. 

    Generally, given the way track limits are handled in game, I don't think it connects with 'safe' racing. 

    Must admit, I was in two minds about this myself. Which is why I included a small % drop for doing so and a limit of 3 before the % starts amping up - fully take your point though.

    Also just realised one thing I missed was “rejoining the track in a unsafe manner”.

    What do you think about the rest of it?

  3. The Safety rating system - It’s OK but not great. I probably have way too much time on my hands, and I’ve no doubt missed the 2021 boat with my timing for CM to incorporate any of this, but I definitely think there’s scope for improvement in future releases, and so am getting this on the record.

    I would love to hear your views on the below before making a proper suggestion post.

    As a generally “safe” racer (with a S or A safety rating), my view is the higher safety grades should be much harder to achieve, and you should be offered more protection when you get there. Too many times you’re matched up against “S grade” racers who don’t race safely.

    For example I had a 100% S rating, in a race I got hit, I hit someone else and I got a penalty. I lost a whopping 80% off my safety rating for that. The next race I got a few track limit warnings (3 I think but no penalty) and I’m back down to an A. It then took 6 races to get back up. That’s mad and better balance is needed.

    I understand that any system like this is tricky to get 100% right in all situations because of the variables involved.

    My main points suggested are;

    1) First up, everyone should start from a F grade and have to really grind to get to a move up the scale to a S grade (this should be the “goal”), something like 75+ clean races to do so. Currently, it’s way too easy to gain and drop levels - often it takes only a handful of races. This way consistently bad drivers do not accidentally make it into the higher grades, as we know does happen. Also, chances are you’ve (hopefully) got much better car control/ race craft the more races you do (accidents do happen of course and kamikaze drivers don’t care about consistent safe racing…).

    2) Then, to compliment this, there should be a sliding scale that works both ways; i.e. it takes fewer races to move up grades, the further up the grading you go. And vice versa - it takes fewer races to move down grades the lower down you go in the grading. If you need to spend ages to move through one level so be it - this would help weed out the consistently bad racers, and give some protection if you’re a generally safe driver that has “worked” to get into the better grades or are involved in those one-off bad situations like my experience above. The safety grading system will be more reliable.
     

    Yes, some people will take advantage of the downward leniency when they’re in the upper grades, but my view is if you’ve had to really grind to get a decent rating, you’re less likely to take the mickey and just want to race cleanly, or by that time it would have just been “conditioned” out of you.

    I have outlined my proposal in the attached picture. Using a base % for a clean or bad race (in my case 7%), you can then uplift the result of a clean or bad race at  varying rates based on the driver safety grade. Once factored in, for example, it would take someone approx 50 clean races to get to a 100% C from a 0% F, and take 36 races to go the other way (with per incident penalties on top, so it’ll be less than 36 in reality). It would take approx 25 clean races from a 100% C to a 100% S, and 39 races to go the other way (again with per incident penalties on top, so it would be less than 39 in practice). It provides a better balance - a couple of bad races with really major incidents would demote you from a 100% S grade, which at the upper range is more unlikely because you and everyone around you generally races safer.

    The “per incident” penalty % stated (which also use the same negative uplift per grade) are up for debate and could use refining, but you get the gist. I’m not advocating that track limits be included in safety rating (although I’m not opposed to a small % drop for them as I suggest) - my main two points above are my major concern and the main point behind this post.

    I also appreciate things do happen and some of these penalties may be handed out unfairly, but those who are incentivised by working toward a better grade and access to lobbies with cleaner racers will just suck it up and get on with it (and sit at the back if to avoid incidents if they have to).

    I generally race 5 laps (and that’s what the above is based on), but the base could be tweaked for 25% race instances - say 14%, reducing the 0% F to 100% S to 38 races, with the per incident penalties remaining the same.

    I think the above would encourage better general behaviour on track, help “condition” and incentivise drivers to race more safely (if they’re receptive to it), and sort the safe from the unsafe drivers more efficiently over time.

    What do you think? I’m genuinely looking for viewpoints, and happy to explain my thinking in more detail if you have questions.

    All the best,

    Monzie 🖖🏽

     

    E27EDB3D-A831-443B-A223-4D57CBAF99DB.png

    • Agree 1
  4. 20 hours ago, Jobling1983 said:

    I’m finding that if you purposely have a slow start, let people take each other out, then work through the carnage 🤣

     

    20 hours ago, Shark2Racing said:

    Is that the way it is meant to be played ????

    many skilled players doing it that way - but is that racing ??

    due to this I ended my qualification laps in the pits just to qualify last …..

    But is this the way MP should work ?

    It should never work like this, but in the lower safety grades (B and below), this is my strategy, and it works. I will gladly sacrifice my skill rating to get out of the B grade because it’s a real gamble there. In Grade A and S, you can have a go at qualy and race as best you can and be OK. When I am a B grade my only goal is to get back up to S, since the racers are usually fairer, leave space and have better control of the car. Even A grade can be a bit of a gamble sometimes.

    My main issue is, it’s way too easy to drop from a S back to A and B grade, particularly if someone hits you and then you smash someone else, track limits etc. The worst is on the straights, people can ram you from the side even if you leave plenty of room - the won’t get penalties and your race is ruined. Even though you don’t hit anyone else this still takes massive safety rating away from you. This has happened to me many times.

    As a generally safe racer, my view is the higher grades should be way harder to achieve and you should be offered more protection when you get there. For example I had a 100% S rating, got hit, I hit someone else and I got a penalty. I lost a whopping 80% off my safety rating for that. The next race I got a few track limit warnings (I think 3 - eating up the other 20%), and I’m back down to an A. It then took 5 races to get back up. Mental.

    Im putting together a post to suggest some improvements. Will post a link here once up.

    • Agree 1
  5. 48 minutes ago, Milanc1105 said:

    update: it happens in the middle of races now. Not just in between quali and race start. Does codemasters even read this ****?

    They do, but it is always best to submit a bug report (template below).

    What you report - mid race crash (although resulting in the same PS error), is happening at a different time than reported by multiple users before, so the cause may be slightly different.

    Worth stating the report code (looks like DKHA-CVKH-HVBA-HBEG) once starting the game up again in your bug report as the devs can look at the issue in more detail. 

     

    • Agree 1
  6. 20 minutes ago, KNT2011 said:

    This whole area of the game on Ps4 has been bugged since release, it's not likely to be a priority to fix now. Even the colours are wrong still, we're talking a year into the cycle. 

    I have no idea if they're supposed to show in ranked MP or not? Usually they don't, a couple of times I've seen them on my suit only, so I assume that was a glitch. 

    I don't see why they wouldn't as they at least add some detail to the suits but alas, no idea. 

    They should show when customising a character, as that could be for career or MyTeam etc. and I believe that's as designed, but as you noted even that is inconsistent, sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't. 

    Let's hope it's working properly for 2021. 

    Seems like inconsistent behaviour is normal - wanted to make sure it wasn’t only me.

    As you say, hopefully it will be sorted in 2021.

    • Agree 1
  7. Recently (after patch 1.18 was released I think), I noticed my character having my car sponsors appearing on my race suit, helmet, gloves etc. when customising the character, and I don’t think they appeared before that.

    I play a lot of ranked MP - sometimes when on the podium, these sponsors on my suit are shown, other times not.

    Have I got a bug? If you’re on PS4 what are your experiences of this?

  8. 3 hours ago, PJTierney said:

    I believe not answering at all can lower your acclaim, but it's worth it just to hear Claire get all passive-aggressive 😄 

    Indeed, and she has no-one to blame - asking such loaded questions and all… 😎

     

    12 hours ago, morpheus47 said:

    Hmm i assumed they always have a positive effect so acclaim affected can have a negative effect? like department answers i know how they work.

    Yep - I doubt acclaim only goes one way.

  9. On 6/18/2021 at 1:27 AM, TrippulG said:

    I mean, I'm happy to write an email or two to whoever, but I don't know that I'm the person who should be spearheading something like this. Has anyone looked into or thought about starting some sort of online petition (e.g. change.org) that gamers could get behind?

    I looked into doing a change.org petition a while ago (before I got my PS) - the process of creating one is simple.

    At that time, without really knowing who to target it didn’t make sense to do it - I felt it was better to continue to push for more understanding of the SDK process and get that out there.

    Rather than a petition Fanatec and Microsoft separately, it is possible on change.org to do a joint petition to them both - “enable additional inputs and rev light functionality of Fanatec wheels on Xbox” or something like that.

    I know these petitions have an end date, but it wasn’t clear how far we can extend that for to get as many signatures as possible - the Fanatec Xbox user base is small (the main reason I think why nothing has been done) and because of this we’ll need time to get every signature possible to stand a chance.

    So someone will need to post the link to as many forums as possible (Codemaster - F1 and Dirt rally, Fanatec, Microsoft, ACC, other effected games forums where there might be affected users), it will also need to be copied into as many existing posts on the topic as possible on those forums - whoever does this runs the risk of spamming and getting accounts frozen. I’ve got to be honest here, I did this with my posts on my findings about the SDK process on CM F1, Fanatec and MS forums and the engagement rate is fairly low and slow.

    Off the back of the petition, I don’t know what effort might be required.

    If somebody is willing to pick this up that would be good and I’ll gladly support and promote it, even though I am on PS now.

    Having said that, it sounds as if something is happening and it might be worth trying to clarify what is going on with Fanatec and giving some time to see where they are, before starting a petition. 

  10. 5 hours ago, Kpi10Baras said:

    Hello guys. 

    I've also been told about MS limitations. 

    In my opinion, all is in MS hands...

    20210618_183537.jpg

    @Kpi10Baras - thank you for sharing, interesting stuff.

    This is progress in itself - before they used to tell us Microsoft limits inputs, i.e. it couldn’t be achieved… Logitech G923 changed all that… but also the knowledge in the community that Logitech developed the software to do it has changed the game, and means Fanatec can’t hide behind crappy reasoning.

    In my mind, that’s pretty much conclusive proof Fanatec didn’t want to do anything before - hard to believe it wasn’t possible and now all of a sudden there’s 2 options including a MS recommended method? It’s quite likely the “non-recommended” method (whatever that means - probably MS unapproved) has always been available.

    Interesting they say “have to and want to” follow the recommended method, but then mention Logitech using a non-recommended method. So they admit another option is available - so clearly they don’t “have to” follow the recommended option…

    You can probably guess I have little faith in Fanatec and that response sounds like they’re trying to buy time and taking the “option” to make more excuses further along the line - they will probably now hide behind the “complexities of the developing Microsoft recommended method” excuse… 😂

    If the option of a non-recommended method is there, I can’t see why they don’t take it because it would be 100% in their control and quicker to market. If they go for the MS recommended option it will probably be more headaches - because surely the MS recommended option would include an approval for something from them in there.

    If my understanding of what LogiUK said earlier is correct, and you can code additional inputs directly between the game and the device - this is surely the better option as it also bypasses any issues arising from platform code changes that MS makes, if the recommended option includes some code which might need to use the platform in some way (likely). Fanatec will probably have to then update their code and get it approved every time MS code is changed.

    Perhaps my understanding of the situation is not correct and I’m wrong - would love to be corrected if anyone knows better.

    Will be interesting to see what the situation is in a few month’s time.

    Keep pressing Fanatec people! 🖖🏽

  11. Hi there,

    I play a lot of multiplayer - it would be great if the spectator menu settings can be saved and automatically when a session ends and loaded the next time when spectating.

    Currently you have to adjust them every time.

    Hopefully this can be addressed in the 2021 game.

    All the best.

  12. On 11/29/2020 at 6:38 PM, _vickolous_ said:

    Make the cars so Neutral can't be selected unless you're not moving at all. I've had a few instances where I've been downshifting aggressively for a tight corner and go into neutral.

    I agree, although I will say sometimes I’ve stuck it in N and shifting back up into 1 (with a bit of gas) does give extra rotation, which is helpful.

    But if not realistic, it should be removed. 

  13. 11 hours ago, TrippulG said:

    While all this information is interesting to speculate about, I think at the end of the day, the question that really matters is: who do we need to contact to voice our concerns, and how do we go about doing so in the most effective manner possible? 

    @TrippulG I understand your frustration.

    Believe me when I say I’ve fought for a solid 6 months with all those potentially at fault (no doubt you’ll seen my numerous posts on the Fanatec, Microsoft and CodeMaster forums, as well as direct communications with Fanatec and Microsoft). I spent money to buy ACC for the guy I sold my G923 to so I could provide video proof to Fanatec extra inputs could be achieved because they didn’t believe me. Others have been fighting this for years.

    I’m not sure how long the issue has effected you and what avenues you’ve tried - what I’ve quickly found was the lack of understanding on this subject in the consumer base makes us collectively toothless - this grey area is being exploited by those culpable, as we can’t target the right parties with the right questions and requests.

    We can scream at them all till we’re blue in the face (as we have done), but that has got us nowhere so far and they will continue to fob us off with semi-plausible answers for how they’re not responsible and we just get nowhere because we can’t counter the people at fault - this lack of knowledge is why they’ve been able to get away with it for ages. 

    You're welcome to join the effort to try to get this resolved without this information, but you’ll be doing what so many others before you have done without it: get nowhere fast and feel frustrated.

    In my mind this is getting this information and putting it out there is the highest priority - because we don’t know who is supposed to do what, so we don’t know who to target. Because then, even as individuals, we can nullify their excuses because we are coming at them from a place of knowledge.

    Full disclosure, this issue doesn’t even effect me anymore as I’m now on PS (a mate gifted me his PS4 as he’s on PS5), but I don’t understand why it couldn’t be achieved and feel sure I’ve been lied to (as I’m sure many do) - as such I want to help get a resolution.

    The other thing I’ve noticed is the community needs someone to get behind as we’re all operating independently. While I am less motivated to “lead the charge” as I once was and have been doing for the reasons above, I still keep an eye on it and contribute where I can.

    One of the next steps could be some kind of petition to Microsoft (which if they are to blame as Fanatec say, Fanatec should lead this but won’t) - I know a large part of the community will back it.

    Although if my last comment on this thread is true, maybe it’s Fanatec we need to petition… And that’s the point - we just don’t know who to target.

    Without this information, we aren’t having an effect as individuals, but collectively we might be able to achieve something - is this something you can pick up?

  14. 4 hours ago, LogiUK said:

    The game developers have to integrate our code into their game, which is the same as the way things already happen on PlayStation.

    @LogiUK Interesting - thank you.

    I think I understand now -  the standard Xbox SDK (“Legacy Force Feedback”) covers all the standard inputs, and the additional input mapping only exists between the game and the device as it were - the additional inputs do not need to exist (and therefore do not need to be mapped or created) between the device and console as they’re not required there and core functionality (d-pad, enter, back, options buttons etc) are already covered by the standard SDK. The additional inputs are simply “passed through” the console to the game.

    I guess then Microsoft have no input/ dominion over that as it’s between the peripheral maker and game dev - interesting then Fanatec are saying the issue is with Microsoft limitations 🤔

    Does anyone else read this differently?

    • Agree 1
  15. 12 hours ago, Ultra3142 said:

    I see we now have a 1.19 patch available to hopefully address the issue 🙂:

    https://www.formula1game.com/2020/news/f1-2020-patch-notes

     

    Seems to have done the trick for me, which is good.

    46 minutes ago, KNT2011 said:

    I hope so. Visiting 19 has been an experience but I did not miss that handling with the turning circle of a freighter. 

    I also noticed my FFB was much lighter, seems to have resolved itself after restarting the PS and game, but will monitor. I’m using fanatec gear, not sure if any other wheel brands are effected.

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1
  16. 52 minutes ago, LogiUK said:

    Anything new is classed as "vendor-defined" so it has to be defined by the peripheral maker, with an SDK then provided to the game developer so they know how to talk to the additional features.  We provide a Trueforce SDK to developers for each platform (PC, Xbox and PlayStation) that they use to talk to the G923.

    @LogiUK - Thank you for your comment.

    Sorry to be a pain - please bear with me as I’m trying to understand and I have some more questions.

    If I understand your comment correctly, it is up the the peripheral maker to define (and make the software for) the additional inputs they want on the Xbox side, as Microsoft do not have additional inputs pre-defined in the Xbox code.

    Fair enough - do Microsoft provide guidelines/ instructions about how a peripheral maker should go about doing that (depending on the types of inputs required) and leave them to it, or is it some kind of collaborative process to develop that software together - I’m guessing the former?

    I guess then, that once that software is created, there’s a process for Microsoft to OK this software. If not OK’d there’s a bit of revision to the software/ back and forth between the peripheral maker and Microsoft etc etc.

    So once OK’d, do Microsoft implement that code onto the Xbox platform, or does the wheel maker put this software into the wheel firmware - I’m guessing it’s the latter?

    Fully understand once the SDK is created and approved, it needs to be given to the game developer so that can incorporate it into the game to support the device.

    I really appreciate your inputs on this (as I’m sure others do also)!

    • Agree 1
  17. @LogiUK - thank you for that.

    Are you able to elaborate on these Microsoft limitations a 3rd party peripheral maker faces?

    You spoke on another post about the standard SDK (“Legacy Force Feedback”) being adhered to control the standard inputs and anything above that needing to be developed by the peripheral maker (I assume this is the “limitation”); do Microsoft provide guidance on how to acheive additional inputs this within a set construct that they define or is it a collaborative process between the peripheral maker and Microsoft? I.e. are the inputs above that of a standard controller already defined on the Microsoft side and the peripheral maker develops their software to “talk” with that, or does the peripheral maker also need to develop these “additional inputs” to sit on the Xbox platform (possibly in collaboration with Microsoft)?

    Any insight you can provide is greatly appreciated.

    • Agree 1
  18. 4 hours ago, PJTierney said:

    Interesting stuff; I don't have any further information.

    I guess we need to wait and see but it sounds like something might be in the works?

    Fingers crossed 🤞🏽 

    It just feels like the lack of general understanding about this in the consumer base has played into Fanatec and a Microsoft’s hands, and means we can’t ask the right questions - it’s probably where they want us while they figure things out, but is certainly bad from a customer relations point of view.

    While the information we have found and presented has moved the conversation on a bit, it appears it has moved it into a bit of a no-mans land;

    - If Microsoft are hesitant to open up their limitations, then we could direct our issues to them. Fine. If this was the case all along, I’m surprised Fanatec didn’t organise something earlier for the effected users to get behind to spur Microsoft into action, and they should still do this if Microsoft are being the issue.

    - If no limitations exist, then why are Fanatec trying to get Microsft to open up whatever it is? In that situation, surely Microsoft provide some kind of construct/ guidance for those wanting to go above standard inputs? Fanatec have the tools and the guidance, so they just need to get on with it? Maybe there isn’t any guidance and that why they need to work together. Ultimately, it’s the Fanatec product that needs to work on the Microsoft platform, so I’m sure Microsoft have some rules for that they would communicate. If they don’t, and each integration needs to developed separately, well… I don’t see how that is sensible from security etc from Microsoft’s point of view…

    - Maybe there is a hard limit, and the clever devs at Logitech figured a way around it? Unlikely.

    - Maybe there is a hard limit on the Microsoft side and they opened it up for Logitech alone, due to some commercial agreement/ payoff between them, but then that doesn’t make long-term commercial sense for Microsoft as better general 3rd party support = more potential console sales… I can see why Logitech would want this, but can’t believe Microsoft would permanently go with this unless they got paid - even then, really? It’s Microsoft, they’re not exactly strapped for cash - so maybe the agreement is for Logitech have some exclusivity on this for a time, and it’s only a matter of time before it’s opened up for other 3rd party peripheral makers, and that’s what Fanatec are waiting for. If it is simple as some kind of commercial agreement/ payoff that Fanatec could access now, perhaps Fanatec don’t want to do it as the price is too high and the Xbox user base is too small - they might be waiting for Microsoft to see sense… although we know they’re not exactly broke given all the new products recently released…

    The last point is now where my thoughts on the situation is at, but who knows - we just end up scratching around for information and taking shots in the dark with our conspiracy theories because nobody wants to come out with what the situation actually is.

    Hopeful something can be achieved, but I’m not holding my breath…

    We just need to keep pushing and something will come of it 🖖🏽

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1
×
×
  • Create New...