F1RS ??

Hi all, I know I have seen the answer to this question, but can't remember where. Where can I get the patch which makes the slowdown on the grass etc. less exaggerated?? Thanks for your time. Mike \\ ---- Automotive Page - [link lost in import: /;//] \\ ------ Homepage - http://www.lt.pcsa.net.au ------ // \\ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= //

I think you got this wrong: there ain't never been a particular patch for this problem, but there is a new 1.09 patch you should install. I didn't have much time for testing, but I think that I noticed an improved frame rate. I can't tell you anything about the grass issue. Why don't you just stay on the track? ;)) Nick

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I think you got this wrong: there ain't never been a particular patch for >this problem, but there is a new 1.09 patch you should install. I didn't >have much time for testing, but I think that I noticed an improved frame >rate. I can't tell you anything about the grass issue. Why don't you just >stay on the track? ;)) >Nick

The 1.09 patch does fix the "grass slowdown" problem. The car still slows dows on the grass but it isn't anywhere as drastic as it used to be. David Mocnay

> The 1.09 patch does fix the "grass slowdown" problem. The car still slows dows > on the grass but it isn't anywhere as drastic as it used to be. > David Mocnay I haven't noticed any improvement of the slowdown since I switched to 1.9. Also there is no mention of this in the readme file as a fix. The game still has a tendency to crash in the menus every once in awhile still as well. There is definately still a problem with 100% compatability with Voodoo 2 cards. later Sean

Huh that's strange. I've never experienced a crash on my system running a Monster II. I do notice an improvement while driving on grass. Are yo sure your running ver 1.09 ? >> The 1.09 patch does fix the "grass slowdown" problem. The car still slows dows

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> on the grass but it isn't anywhere as drastic as it used to be. >> David Mocnay >I haven't noticed any improvement of the slowdown since I switched to >1.9. Also there is no mention of this in the readme file as a fix. The >game still has a tendency to crash in the menus every once in awhile >still as well. There is definately still a problem with 100% >compatability with Voodoo 2 cards. >later >Sean

I haven't crashed once with F1RS and the Voodoo2. Did you do a full install? Because if you didn't - then the menus are loading more from CD-Rom, and if your CD-Rom drive has hardware problems, or you have bad drivers, then this can be causing the crashes during the menu. Marc. -------- To replay via e-mail, remove "spam." from the beginning of my e-mail address (Tyring to avoid junk mail)

>Huh that's strange. I've never experienced a crash on my system running a >Monster II. I do notice an improvement while driving on grass. Are yo sure >your running ver 1.09 ? I've never had it crash while using my Monster 2, but I also agree that I don't think 1.09 did anything to the grass slowdown. I still barely touch the grass, the tire not even completely off the track and, boom! I'm jamming into 1st gear desperately trying to get out of the green molasses while the whole field passes me by ......I've seen many F1 drivers get a wheel in the grass for a split second and not slow down, I don't know why Ubisoft insists on having the car act like it hits a damn brick wall when you get a blade of grass on your tire. Craig Marcho

snip > I've never had it crash while using my Monster 2, but I also agree that I > don't think 1.09 did anything to the grass slowdown. I still barely touch > the grass, the tire not even completely off the track and, boom! I'm jamming > into 1st gear desperately trying to get out of the green molasses while the > whole field passes me by ...... I only tried it in Time Attack, maybe it's different in Race mode??? Anyway, there is a BIG difference with V1.09 driving on the grass... l8er ronny -- Toys'R'Us '99: "So, would you like a hand gun with that action figure, kiddo?" |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

I agree. After playing with it a bit I still have the green grass from hell problem. For me it ruins the sim since even at the easy level I just can't do very well. Maybe I'm just a lousy driver. Vamp

>I've never had it crash while using my Monster 2, but I also agree that I >don't think 1.09 did anything to the grass slowdown. I still barely touch >the grass, the tire not even completely off the track and, boom! I'm jamming >into 1st gear desperately trying to get out of the green molasses while the >whole field passes me by ...... The grass still slows you down in F1RS, but not even near as much as before. In pre-1.09 you couldn't even hit a wall if you drove out of the track at full speed, if there was ten meters of grass between the track and the wall. Now you remain your high speed for much longer time as before. I would say that pre-1.09 the grass slowed you down as much as sand in F1RS, there was no difference between the stickiness of the two. Now there is a big difference IMHO. First of all I don't agree with that you hit a brick wall if you just touch the grass with one tire, in fact that didn't happen in pre-1.09 either. It was when you entered the grass with at least two tires for more than a second or so, then it really mattered a lot. Second, did you see how Hakkinen lost pole position in Imola time race only because one of his tires barely touched the grass on the final straight? He was well before Coulthart's time before that, but slowed down considerably because of the incident. Judging by that incident, if Ubisoft or any company for that matter wanted to make their off-track racing as realistic as possible, they should make it so that when you touch the grass, your car starts rumbling a lot and messes up your steering, thus slowing you down considerably. That's what seemed to happen to Hakkinen when he barely touched the grass.

<snip> % First of all I don't agree with that you hit a brick wall if you just % touch the grass with one tire, in fact that didn't happen in pre-1.09 % either. It was when you entered the grass with at least two tires for % more than a second or so, then it really mattered a lot. My sticky grass must be more sticky than yours. There are plenty of places that I have big time slowdowns, when I only have partial tires on the grass. The times, it really seems to show up is when I am riding up on the curbs exiting a turn that leads to a long straight. While most of the tire is still on the curbing, if part of the tires are "over" the grass (more than likely not really touching it), the car goes into an immediate slowdown. % Second, did you see how Hakkinen lost pole position in Imola time race % only because one of his tires barely touched the grass on the final % straight? He was well before Coulthart's time before that, but slowed % down considerably because of the incident. Who/what slowed him down? I would hazard to guess that Hakkinen slowed himself down. When one gets on the grass the best thing to do is lift and gently steer back onto the track. The grass (if one is only just touching it) isn't going to slow you down, in fact (unless it's really tall grass), it will actually speed you up. This is because you loose grip. % Judging by that incident, if Ubisoft or any company for that matter % wanted to make their off-track racing as realistic as possible, they % should make it so that when you touch the grass, your car starts % rumbling a lot and messes up your steering, thus slowing you down % considerably. That's what seemed to happen to Hakkinen when he barely % touched the grass. Again, judging by one particular incident, which may in fact have been a driver reaction and not a result of "sticky grass", I would hope that Ubisoft and any other company throughly investigate the phsyics before they make such a rash programming choice. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Please explain how losing grip speeds you up? Trips

Trips wrote >> The grass (if one is only just >> touching it) isn't going to slow you down, in fact (unless it's really >> tall grass), it will actually speed you up. This is because you loose >> grip. >Please explain how losing grip speeds you up? Simple, I think. Well, I'm not a big techy here, but that is what I learned (thanks to Burnout, even if I don't like it I learned alot about setups and motors). More grip = less HP Less grip = More HP In Burnout, you go slower (well it's over-done but you understand the point) if you do Burnout stages, since you have better grip and less Horsepower. I think this is all because of friction. I have one of those racing books by Ascari (well 2 books, 1 on racing preparation and 1 on racing physics, awesome 1960's photos (well it was done in 1968) ), so I'll check the real equation about it. There is mass involved, air friction, aerodynamics, grass traction, track traction, tire performance, etc, etc, etc... But I know there is a torque in this, and at a relative speed you will start having more grip on grass than asphalt. There is a coefficient (sp?) of friction there involved a lot in the calculation. Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-) Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. Member of the r.a.s. Ego-maniac club Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking) Excuse me for being provocative (I'm dumb speaking) --"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."--

% > % > The grass (if one is only just % > touching it) isn't going to slow you down, in fact (unless it's really % > tall grass), it will actually speed you up. This is because you loose % > grip. % Please explain how losing grip speeds you up? Believe it or not, even traveling on the tarmac at 200+ mph there is friction involved (yep that's the grip). Now if the car suddenly finds its way on a non-grip surface (ice, water, and to some extent grass), the friction is gone and the car will speed up. However, there are some down sides to no grip. Control is certainly one of them, but from a certain point the car will actually lose speed, since it can't get grip. What doesn't seem to happen in F1RS, is the initial loss of control and increased speed when running on grass. What comes into play almost immediately is the fact that the car can't gain/maintain speed that is based on grip. So in a sense, UbiSoft has it half right. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Mmm. I think you're right to a point - stick a set of skinny tyres on an F1 car and it will have a faster straight line speed due to reduced friction. But when that friction is reduced simply by going on to a slippery surface it will just cause wheel spin and thus slow you down. Although the momentum that a F1 car has at 200mph is enough to make it slow down slowly. What I find in F1RS is that I get a tyre on the grass and immediately go into a spin, which I guess is what should happen. Annoying though. GP2 was more forgiving. Jem

I'm have to reply to this common misconception. touching the grass at 200mph (or whatever speed) will not "speed you up". It is not physically possible, unless some force is applied to increase the speed, it cannot happen (ie. staying on the throttle would provide such a force, but even then you will speed up less than you would if you had stayed on the pavement due to the reduced friction coefficient of the tires on the grass relative to the pavement). Don't get mixed up - more friction is good between the tires and road (rolling resistance, however, is detrimental to speed), but air friction produces the majority of drag at any speed over approx 30mph. To return to the elementary laws of physics, a body in motion stayes in motion unless acted upon by a force. So, a car would continue in a straight line at a constant speed forever were it not for the external forces of surface friction (simple rolling resistance, steering input, acceleration through throttle application, etc.), air friction (drag), and other inherent forces. a car WILL NOT ACCELERATE SIMPLY BY CHANGING THE SURFACE FROM ASPHALT TO GRASS, even though the silly anouncers (some even former drivers) continue to spout this "fact". It defies all laws of physics as I've learned them, and I've had more physics courses than I care to remember. Now, I think that the perception of increased speed from the***pit is due to the reduced control experienced when changing from a high friction surface (asphalt) to a low friction surface (grass). A driver equates loss of control to "going too fast", ie. when going through a tires on asphalt was not equal to the centripetal force pushing the car on the grass, friction is reduced, hence control is reduced, hence, perhaps to some???, a perception of increased speed (ie. all-hell-breaking-loose ->ie. increased speed). This is just my personal attempt to explain why SOME drivers claim that the speed increases on grass. I GUARANTEE YOU, measure the speed of the car before it leaves the pavement and continue monitoring while on the grass - the speed won't increase unless the driver has complete control of the situation and keeps the car in a straight line with the throttle applied, and then the increase in inferior to that which could occur on the higher friction surface of the asphalt. You see, we race on asphalt because it provides a high coefficient of friction between the tire and the road, hence quicker acceleration, turning response, braking, etc. Take a car travelling 200mph, remove ALL friction, and it will not accelerate nor decelerate, but rather maintain that exact speed and direction, forever. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of physics will see that the statement of a car accelerating "on the grass" is an utterly false statement. That's all, sorry for boring you, but this should be cleared up Paul

Quoted text (25 lines)

> % > > % > The grass (if one is only just > % > touching it) isn't going to slow you down, in fact (unless it's really > % > tall grass), it will actually speed you up. This is because you loose > % > grip. > % Please explain how losing grip speeds you up? > Believe it or not, even traveling on the tarmac at 200+ mph there is > friction involved (yep that's the grip). Now if the car suddenly finds > its way on a non-grip surface (ice, water, and to some extent grass), > the friction is gone and the car will speed up. However, there are some > down sides to no grip. Control is certainly one of them, but from a > certain point the car will actually lose speed, since it can't get grip. > What doesn't seem to happen in F1RS, is the initial loss of control and > increased speed when running on grass. What comes into play almost > immediately is the fact that the car can't gain/maintain speed that is > based on grip. So in a sense, UbiSoft has it half right. > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Fri, 08 May 1998 02:24:22 GMT, Paul Godfrey

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I'm have to reply to this common misconception. touching the grass at >200mph (or whatever speed) will not "speed you up". It is not physically >possible, unless some force is applied to increase the speed, it cannot >happen (ie. staying on the throttle would provide such a force, but even >then you will speed up less than you would if you had stayed on the >pavement due to the reduced friction coefficient of the tires on the >grass relative to the pavement).

Thank goodness! Somebody was thinking here. Actually, there is NO change in 'friction' when there's a switch from tarmac to pavement. There is a significant change in _rolling resistance_ but not friction. Why? Friction opposes motion, by it's definition. Alas, the universe is a quirky place. Where the tyre (tire) contacts the tarmac, there is no friction. Why? There's no motion! The speed is zero at the point of contact- trust me on this, it's zero- if it weren't, it would spin. Yeah, we can bicker for days about the edge of the contact patch having a different speed, but the truth of it is that there is no motion between the tyre and the tarmac parallel to the direction of motion. The only thing friction does is oppose the spinning tyre, not the car speed. This is why it's easier to pull something on wheels than a flat box with a *** bottom. In fact, the centre/center of the hub/wheel is traveling at the speed of the car, and the top is double, but that's why the tops of the tyres wear out faster than the bottoms (groan!) Anyway, since there's no motion in that direction, there's no way the speed can change at all. In a perfect vacuum, that would be the case. If you put the car, from tarmac to ice, you'd notice no difference. The rolling resistance might change- OK, I never quite understood dynamics, I majored in semiconductors- but there's neither a change in any force, nor any change in (nonexistant) friction. Ergo, no change in speed. Jeff

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Fri, 08 May 1998 02:24:22 GMT, Paul Godfrey > >I'm have to reply to this common misconception. touching the grass at > >200mph (or whatever speed) will not "speed you up". It is not physically > >possible, unless some force is applied to increase the speed, it cannot > >happen (ie. staying on the throttle would provide such a force, but even > >then you will speed up less than you would if you had stayed on the > >pavement due to the reduced friction coefficient of the tires on the > >grass relative to the pavement). > Thank goodness! Somebody was thinking here. Actually, there is > NO change in 'friction' when there's a switch from tarmac to pavement. > There is a significant change in _rolling resistance_ but not > friction. Why? Friction opposes motion, by it's definition.

Pretty good explanation in the part I snipped, but if there were "NO change in 'friction' when there's a switch from tarmac to pavement", then a car on the grass would accelerate from a standing start as fast as a car on pavement. I can assume we all agree that is not true. We rely on friction between the *** and the pavement to propel the car forward, not rolling resistance. I do understand where you are coming from, though - the idea just needs some adjustment/refinement. Paul

On Fri, 08 May 1998 15:23:50 GMT, Paul Godfrey

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> On Fri, 08 May 1998 02:24:22 GMT, Paul Godfrey >Pretty good explanation in the part I snipped, but if there were "NO >change in 'friction' when there's a switch from tarmac to pavement", >then a car on the grass would accelerate from a standing start as fast >as a car on pavement. I can assume we all agree that is not true. We >rely on friction between the *** and the pavement to propel the car >forward, not rolling resistance. I do understand where you are coming >from, though - the idea just needs some adjustment/refinement. >Paul

Err, it's not the same thing. There is no change in friction because, initially, there is no wheelspin. Accelerating on grass is 'slower' than tarmac, since the grass provides less friction to prevent wheelspin. In that, you're completely correct, and knowing me, I didn't explain that correctly. Initially, this thread revolved around speeding up when hopping from tarmac to grass; for that, my explanation is more or less valid. I hope :) Jeff

Quoted text (39 lines)

> On Fri, 08 May 1998 02:24:22 GMT, Paul Godfrey > >I'm have to reply to this common misconception. touching the grass at > >200mph (or whatever speed) will not "speed you up". It is not physically > >possible, unless some force is applied to increase the speed, it cannot > >happen (ie. staying on the throttle would provide such a force, but even > >then you will speed up less than you would if you had stayed on the > >pavement due to the reduced friction coefficient of the tires on the > >grass relative to the pavement). > Thank goodness! Somebody was thinking here. Actually, there is > NO change in 'friction' when there's a switch from tarmac to pavement. > There is a significant change in _rolling resistance_ but not > friction. Why? Friction opposes motion, by it's definition. > Alas, the universe is a quirky place. Where the tyre (tire) > contacts the tarmac, there is no friction. Why? There's no motion! The > speed is zero at the point of contact- trust me on this, it's zero- if > it weren't, it would spin. Yeah, we can bicker for days about the edge > of the contact patch having a different speed, but the truth of it is > that there is no motion between the tyre and the tarmac parallel to > the direction of motion. The only thing friction does is oppose the > spinning tyre, not the car speed. This is why it's easier to pull > something on wheels than a flat box with a *** bottom. > In fact, the centre/center of the hub/wheel is traveling at > the speed of the car, and the top is double, but that's why the tops > of the tyres wear out faster than the bottoms (groan!) > Anyway, since there's no motion in that direction, there's no > way the speed can change at all. In a perfect vacuum, that would be > the case. If you put the car, from tarmac to ice, you'd notice no > difference. The rolling resistance might change- OK, I never quite > understood dynamics, I majored in semiconductors- but there's neither > a change in any force, nor any change in (nonexistant) friction. Ergo, > no change in speed. > Jeff

How on earth does a simple case of static friction Vs dynamic friction get so overly sophisticated to the point of complete confusion?