UKGPL Season 21 (2011) Specs - Goodwood (Circuit) - May 13

[Hristo Itchov]

6 retired on that lap, not 7. And I've not checked whether all 6 retired at the same moment and by the same cause. Considering 17 took the green flag, that's only about 1/3rd of all drivers... I don't see a reason for a rerun. Also, what has the Monza race to do with race 1 and why should it be voided?

Not sure where you got your numbers H. 15 drivers started at Goodwood. Nigel retired at 07:50 after his engine blew. Vos retired at 10:47 on lap 7 after he blew his top leaving thirteen runners. Seven of the remaining runners then disconnected simultaneously at around 12:02. That left 6 runners. That means that more then 50% of the remaining field were involuntarily disconnected.

The options open under the rules were to take the result at the point of disconnect or Red Flag the event. Since Monza was not the reverse Spec race (for obvious reasons) I fully support Billy's decision to hold a new event. If you are cross at losing the win, I'm spitting feathers at losing my best ever finish. I also wasted two hours fully modding the event!

GPL Replay Analyser export - shows both the number of starters and the retirements lap by lap. 6 retired in a single lap.

Lap 8:
Paul Whitfield 65 overtakes Billy Nobrakes.
Paul Whitfield 65 overtakes Axel Cookie.
Paul Whitfield 65 overtakes Fulvio Policardi_65.
Paul Whitfield 65 overtakes Steve Bird65.
Paul Whitfield 65 overtakes Jason Blito.
Paul Whitfield 65 overtakes Göran Jonsson65.
Paul Whitfield 65 is in position 6 at the end of the lap.
Geoff Heard65 overtakes Billy Nobrakes.
Geoff Heard65 overtakes Axel Cookie.
Geoff Heard65 overtakes Fulvio Policardi_65.
Geoff Heard65 overtakes Steve Bird65.
Geoff Heard65 overtakes Jason Blito.
Geoff Heard65 overtakes Göran Jonsson65.
Geoff Heard65 is in position 5 at the end of the lap.
Ronnie Peterson overtakes Göran Jonsson65.
Ronnie Peterson is in position 4 at the end of the lap.
Göran Jonsson65 retires the BrabhamBT7.
Billy Nobrakes retires the BrabhamBT7.
Steve Bird65 retires the Honda.
Jason Blito retires the Honda.
Axel Cookie retires the BrabhamBT7.
Fulvio Policardi_65 retires the BrabhamBT7.

and

RACE RESULTS (After 13 laps)

Pos No Driver                          Team     Nat Laps   Race Time       Diff
 1  12 Hristo Itchov65                 Brab BT7 JPN   13  17m49.934s            
 2   1 65 evilclive                    Brab BT7 GBR   13  17m57.673s    07.739s
 3  10 Sam Blood                       Brab BT7 GBR   13  18m24.759s    34.825s
 4  15 Ronnie Peterson                 Brab BT7 ITA   13  18m29.586s    39.652s
 5  18 Paul Whitfield 65               Honda    GBR   12  18m09.175s   1 lap(s)
 6  17 Geoff Heard65                   Brab BT7 AUS   12  18m09.271s   1 lap(s)
 7  14 Göran Jonsson65                 Brab BT7 SWE    7  10m00.019s   6 lap(s)
 8  21 Jason Blito                     Honda    GBR    7  10m02.307s   6 lap(s)
 9  11 Steve Bird65                    Honda    GBR    7  10m03.905s   6 lap(s)
10   2 Fulvio Policardi_65             Brab BT7 ITA    7  10m06.009s   6 lap(s)
11   6 Axel Cookie                     Brab BT7 GER    7  10m12.155s   6 lap(s)
12   7 Billy Nobrakes                  Brab BT7 GBR    7  10m32.744s   6 lap(s)
13   8 Vlad Vosblod                    Brab BT7 GBR    6   9m22.441s   7 lap(s)
14   5 Skymole 2173 -m65               Brab BT7 JPN    6  10m09.919s   7 lap(s)
15   9 nigel smith65                   Honda    GBR    4   5m46.692s   9 lap(s)
16  22 Ray Cattini65                   Brab BT7 ITA    0 DidNotStart  13 lap(s)
17   4 Bernie65 Darwin                 Brab BT7 GBR    0 DidNotStart  13 lap(s)
18  19 2 UKGPL_T7                      Brab BT7 ITA    0 DidNotStart  13 lap(s) \

Not to mention you're looking at it wrongly. You shouldn't take the percentage of retirements vs. the number of running drivers at that moment, but the total number of participants, otherwise it makes no sense at all. If we go along with what you said, in the same sense we can have 2 running near the end and if 1 of them retires, consider it 50% and ask for a rerun...   But anyway, 17 started according to my RA export, not 13.

[s2173]

Is mouse treated the same way as a wheel/joystick by GPL or as a keyboard? Because with keyboard you can't turn off throttle and brake aids, even if they're unchecked in the options, and that makes controlling the car a lot more limited.

Treats it like regular joystick, no aids forced.

Anyway, I don't see why you have to go negative with keyboard/mouse before you get a wheel.

Just for the heck of it!  I dont have the space, the money, the conditions and im no proffesional gamer, have a whole lot more stuff to do, books, work, paintings, pets, family, cigarets, and the mouse is freaking comfortable! And im the only mouse driver around here... 

Wheel requires a different driving style, different habits, so you'll basically start from scratch, regardless how quick you become with a mouse. I used to drive with a joystick before and it didn't help much once I switched to a wheel.

See? And i haven't even driven a car in my life...

[Ronniepeterson]

Ray and Ronnie are one and the same Hristo so seventeen starters but like you I think thats more than enough.

Oh and Sky, get a wheel, they are cheaper than a good mouse and most certainly not the sign of a professional gamer but someone who wants to control gpl cars.

[BadBlood]

I know what the RA says but in a situation where the server has lost count it is hardly impeccable. I can assure you Bernie wasn't there and Ray is Ronnie so there were 15 starters. Skymole also disconnected on lap 7 so there were 7 lost. The rules actually say 'in the event of a mass disconnection'. I would say that 7 out of 13 remaining meets that criteria. The 50% rule only applies to lap 1 and allows for red flagging the race there and then.

[maddog]

And im the only mouse driver around here... 

I suppose there is a certain logic, to a mouse operating driver, having a computer generated name.  One should also consider the RAM factor.

[vosblod]

I don't want to wade in but LOL. At the end of the day the Division Mod has to make a decision and I fully support Bill. Whatever you do in a situation like this won't please everyone, especially those that slogged it out to the end and were expecting their just desserts.

However just to clear things up the 'guidelines', and I say guidelines, have this;

Red Flag Situations
A race will be red flagged by the moderator only if at least half the drivers are disconnected from the server during lap one due to network problems. This may mean the race will have to be rescheduled due to time factors. Start line crashes will not be red flagged, no matter how many cars are involved.
In the event of a mass disconnection or other server problem the moderator may, at their discretion:
reconstruct the result based on the replay, if available;
declare the race to be red flagged at the end of the preceding lap and take the final results from that lap; or
declare the race null and void and arrange for it to be run again.

I would say red flagging does not imply the race is immediately stopped on the spot. It's a mute point anyway unless you consider a red flag situation to be separate entity from a mass disconnection, and if you do the whole 50% issue goes out of the window.
Also the reference to lap one is onerous; I believe it should apply to the whole race - if it was only lap one the additional wording above re reconstruction would not be necessary, as there would be no preceding lap. The intent was to use this guideline in any situation of a mass disco.

Now we can split hairs (there were 15 starters, DNS' can't count, especially as one was already driving under a different name) and 6 were dropped at 12m02s out of 12 who were running at that time. I agree, whether Sky disco'd or not, he can't be a part of a 'mass' as that implies it was at the same time. There is nothing that actually says 'half the drivers WHO started' it just says half the drivers, and perhaps that needs clarifying, but this is a hopefully rare occurrence. I also agree that we can't be ridiculous about it and have 1 driver out of 2 left dropping and calling for a re-run, common sense should apply. I think we need to follow the spirit of the guideline using the good faith in which it was written.

So, with a guideline that maybe needs some attention in hindsight, it becomes the responsibility of the moderator to intepret the situation. Bill was in a difficult situation, good on him for at least ensuring we got some racing rather then cancelling a second event, and he has had to make a difficult call here. As so many fell down at that the same moment I personally think giving everyone a second chance is the right one.

[BadBlood]

Just to be clear. Sky literally disappears from the server replay at 12:03

The reason he does not appear in H's selection of the report is that he was still on lap 7 at that point.

[vosblod]

Just to be clear. Sky literally disappears from the server replay at 12:03
The reason he does not appear in H's selection of the report is that he was still on lap 7 at that point.

Ahh OK that makes 7 then

[Hristo Itchov]

I know what the RA says but in a situation where the server has lost count it is hardly impeccable. I can assure you Bernie wasn't there and Ray is Ronnie so there were 15 starters. Skymole also disconnected on lap 7 so there were 7 lost. The rules actually say 'in the event of a mass disconnection'. I would say that 7 out of 13 remaining meets that criteria. The 50% rule only applies to lap 1 and allows for red flagging the race there and then.

Now let's wait a minute - even if Bernie didn't start he obviously must've run in qualifying, otherwise his name wouldn't be shown in the results. Do the rules specify that we only count those who actually made the start? And what's with insisting there were 7 (seven) retirements when it was obviously 6 (six) ?!?!?! Are you people just trying to justify a rerun or what...   And I WILL butt in, because it's unreasonable what's happening here...

Just to be clear. Sky literally disappears from the server replay at 12:03
The reason he does not appear in H's selection of the report is that he was still on lap 7 at that point.

Ahh OK that makes 7 then

Bollocks... it doesn't matter what lap someone is on, the RA posts ALL retirements counting the lead lap. You may be 20 laps down, you'll still show up as retired on the same lap as all others who did it at that time. In this case it's the 8 lap since the start of the race for the leading car.

And lastly, even if you enforce the re-run, why do we have to re-run race 2 as well? Why did we bother racing Monza at all if this was going to happen? I don't like this constant change of mind and rushed decisions. Sure, you had to decide on the spot whether to run race 2 or not, and you decided that it's going to be a Monza non-spec race. We did it. It ran fine. Why rerun it? And BTW, what if 5 people dropped in the first race. What if 4 dropped? If it's not just about percentage, where do you draw the line? I find it very uncertain and ambiguous...

[vosblod]

even if Bernie didn't start he obviously must've run in qualifying, otherwise his name wouldn't be shown in the results.

No he might have joined the server and left...

Bollocks... it doesn't matter what lap someone is on, the RA posts ALL retirements counting the lead lap. You may be 20 laps down, you'll still show up as retired on the same lap as all others who did it at that time. In this case it's the 8 lap since the start of the race for the leading car.

Sorry mate Sky disco'd at the same point as everyone else.

I won't comment on re-running race 2. I came in to post the rules as Chief Mod and that is it. It's Billy's division and he calls the shots.

[blito]

As Vos said in his post, Billy had to make the call on what to do and that's not an easy thing. Whatever he chose to do would have pleased some and upset others. Having read everyone's posts so far I think I would have made a different decision but I dare say I would still be getting flak for it!
A more important issue here is the increasing number of problems that we need to track down to their source issues!

[Cookie]

A more important issue here is the increasing number of problems that we need to track down to their source issues!

I subscribe!
Think we need all our concentration to solve this!

Axel

[BadBlood]

The difficulty with this is that you need to be tracking the traffic at the point at which the disco occurs. We certainly cannot do this on T7 as it does not belong to us and I don't have a spare packet analyzer hanging around. They are about £40K for a good one. UDP which GPL uses (User Datagram Protocol) is inherently insecure and TCP/IP traffic on the internet is not guaranteed. If we were running on a LAN I could almost guarantee that we would not have disco's.

All we can do is analyze, after the fact, any disco's we have had. I, for instance, almost never disco, but have done so twice at Adelaide, which is not thought to be dodgy. That points, perhaps, to the latency of the indivisual users connection and thus their own sensitivity to fluctuating conditions affecting the server. The internet, as a shared medium, is not entirely ideal for online connections unless error correction is built in. UDP expressly does NOT have that.

I will start looking at the last few races that we have had mass discos simultaneously and see if I can find a pattern.

[blito]

I understand all that Paul, and agree about the difficulty of tracking individual errors.
Just one question, have we noticed more problems on any given server?

[BadBlood]

Why I will start looking...