I was trying to say that the argument "but the data is out-of-date after a year/month/whatever, so you're not racing an accurate track to its real-world counterpart...therefore: surveyed is better" (totally paraphrased as you can imagine) is a bogus argument. I think the cost argument is totally valid, though--if, in fact, a track-maker is actually going to re-sample (by either laser-scanning or surveying) every few years. If not, how much of a difference in cost is there, really? Wouldn't the difference just be the cost in equipment? You still have to pay people to survey, who still have to work on a clear track, and still have to buy the rights from the owner, and still have to translate the captured data into something the game engine can use. I'm don't think I'm following you at all on this post, Tim. I assume by "both tracks" you mean Malaysia and Estoril (per your quote of my earlier post). I'm not seeing the "only questioning one" bit at all, though. Do you mean that one is laser-scanned and the other is surveyed? Also, I'm not 'hoping' that any track enters stasis--I just hope that the digital reconstruction of the track is accurate to its time of capture, and there's as little room as possible for putting in "features" (i.e. bumps and whatnot) that's based on someone's guesswork rather than data--at least for real-world tracks where one can actually go and take measurements, fantasy and historic tracks, obviously, notwithstanding. Fantastic! Can't wait to see it!
Feels to me you two are arguing different things. "Better" is a notoriously ill-defined concept. "Better" as in "more accurate", no. "Better" as in more economical, yeah. The resolution/precision/accuracy or whatever you want to call it of laser scanning is not of much use if the track changes over the winter, some tarmac sections settle, the ground slightly changes or there's actual reprofiling or repaving of the surface. So in a way it's pointless to even go there, (assuming perfect accuracy) it's what the track looked like at a very particular point in time. Taking the broader view that's not that useful when you update tracks bi-annually to include slight changes like changed marshal posts, signage, new pit stall design or whatnot for keeping up to date for say league racing. iRacing outright took the position of not updating their tracks with anything but scan data, so any changes means they have to go out and re-scan. If a curb were changed slightly they can't just "guess" that correction into their sim. Especially with smaller changes like these that approach actually hinders keeping a track up to date.
This is exactly the sort of argument I'm saying is bogus. The accuracy of the measurements do matter as a snapshot of that track at that particular moment in time. Based on what you're saying, if laser-scanning was around back then, and someone went out and scanned Spa and Monza back in 1967, then those aren't "accurate" versions of those tracks, because the track has totally changed. I'm saying, well, yes, compared to where the track is now...but...does it really matter? I say 'no' because I want to race on that particular version of that track. I'm saying if we had a laser-scanned version of those tracks back then, I'd rather race on those than what we have right now (based off the data that is currently available)--simply because the data is more likely to be reliable--regardless of whether or not I'd ever be able to travel back in time to race on it for real. Just knowing it is much more likely to come from real-world data is more desirable than the alternative. Take ISI's version of Monaco for example. It's a lot of fun, but its inaccuracies have already been pretty well proven on these forums (i.e. the ramp before Tabac, I believe). I don't believe anyone who would say they'd rather not run a laser-scanned version.
LOL. Where and how have they been "well proven"? LOL. There is a ramp in the movie Grand Prix. Is that the "well proven" part?
Here: http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/7382-The-ramp-at-Tabac-isn-t-right?highlight=monaco+ramp Thanks for the negative rep, though!
Those videos don't show a damn thing. LOL. The video I posted at least does show the exact area in question. Wow, you're going to have to try again.
Oh come on and read my whole post before calling the argument bogus. That's pretty childish. Given today's technology back then, it would probably have been an accurate version of what it was at the time, which however is of no use whatsoever if we want to run a modern Spa. You know, that was the whole point of the paragraph that followed the bit you ripped out of context. Laser-scanning only gives you a singular state from a very specific point in time, which is great when you want to run today's state of the track but will be of little use if you want to run the updated configuration, with the added curbing or the relaid tarmac. The accuracy of laser-scanning is even less useful when you want it because of the bumps, which can change for an additional number of mostly environmental reasons.
Ok, now I'm starting to believe that people just want to argue for the sake of argument . Tim even acknowledges in that thread that there is probably 'some' sort of issue with the track. Whether it's the ramp or the steps themselves he didn't say--either way, they're both aspects of the track that are important (the steps being so for 'landmarking').
Yes, I originally chose to use only that which I quoted to be just an example. I got carried away with the rest of my argument saying "you" instead of "someone who makes only that argument" (I am/was at work, so I was trying to keep the post as brief as possible while still making my point). So, no, not childish; just a simple rushed mistake. Please, guys, everyone, we're starting to get a bit bent out of shape, here. Let's stick to arguing the issue and not start with berating behavior or giving 'anyone' negative reputation points because you just simply disagree and can't find a better way to argue the topic at hand.
I dont argue with you, I didnt give you negative points, if you interpret above thread as proof for innacuracies go ahead, on the other hand I dont, simple as that and I said IMO.
Apology accepted. Arguing against arguments nobody in the vicinity actually made can quickly lead to a strawman fallacy, just saying.
If you've driven the track in real life, it becomes really obvious what's "right" and what's not. That's something I just didn't understand for a long time because I had never driven on a race track. If you haven't driven there, you're absolutely right...you wouldn't know. And if you're a racer, a track is a track is a track, and you just want to get around it as fast as possible. Fantasy tracks are always fun too... I got a very fast ride in one of their E92 M3's, and it was very smooth. Then again, a stock M3 (and my rental car) has a relatively soft suspension compared to a race car...maybe ask me about those bumps again after I get out of a stiff single seater. I wonder how long it will take to acquire these legendary bumps, though? When was the repave prior to 2008? I have no idea about the repave history but it looked pretty good in 1981: I loaded up build 125 and cruised around LRP in the Skippy a little bit. It looks great! The track is as smooth as I remember it, and those stepped curbs are as nasty as I remember them too. Oh yeah, and being able to drive around the entire grounds and check out the paddock, fueling station, autocross course, and all that was EXCELLENT. I tried to cross the bailey bridge to leave the track, but fell right through... For some reason I can't find any of the photos I took at Lime Rock Park...and there were a lot
