安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Correct on both counts, CBR JGWRR, plus it appears that I mis-remembered the actual value of the ERS formula cars at Tondela B! (It's actually 0.095 seconds per lap). And yes, once you re-run the calculations using the actual fuel deltas across a full race length (assuming no refueling), the fuel weight penalty becomes so large that, like you said, the High mode ends up being the fastest option!
I should have verified that fuel delta before running the numbers! D'oh!
The car fuel efficiency will factor into the fuel time cost number. The 1.35 fuel burn used in my example was based on a chassis that had above-average fuel economy. I think the normal value for Overtake mode is 1.40 fuel per lap. So if the chassis' fuel efficiency is good, there's less fuel required to do a full stint, which means a smaller fuel time penalty per lap.
From what I can tell, changing the tire compound or driving mode to result in a faster lap won't really change the amount of fuel being burned that lap, because all of the fuel values are normalized on a per-lap basis. However, the driver modes have similar time costs associated with them. And, since all 5 options are available by default and the difference between Back-Up and Attack is just as large as the difference between Low and Overtake, you can make up significant time by using the highest driver modes.
It's an interesting thought though, and if the fuel burn numbers weren't normalized per lap, running a higher driver mode to cover more distance on a pre-determined fuel tank makes sense. It's the old saying of "Go fast, but don't use fuel!"
(Funnily enough, this is actually what happens with the Practice Knowledge levels since that is based on the total distance traveled for both cars; if you want your knowledge to unlock faster, have them drive around in Attack / Overtake!)
Yes, Endurance is a much more complicated beast, especially when the hybrid systems are involved. My Montpellier pit crew were not good at all during the first season, so I scheduled the absolute minimum number of pit stops and leaned on that hybrid mode to get my drivers to the magic 20% drive time mark!
Cheers, guys!
Also, I have not written about the high mode; so far, I have only covered low and overtake. Testing more thoroughly would necessitate re-running the starter Phoenix oval scenario with high and medium engine modes, and also at a different track just to ensure that the data is not being corrupted by the differences that running on an oval *should* feature. Personally, based on the fuel usage/lap ratio derived in the WMC data I have listed above, I do not believe that fuel usage is being calculated like this, which in theory greatly simplifies the maths, as unlike real racing which does need to calculate on a per-track layout basis, a simple, general one size fits all calculation can be made.
Another note on the WMC fuel usage data recorded is the above is listed for a single driver and therefore also a single car, and is also gained from the quick race mode, which gives 3 variables that need to be checked before anyone relies on them for a career mode use, as I would also expect on principle the fuel usage figure to vary between drivers and definitely between engines and teams. (lap count is from a 2016 career mode save)
-------
I must say, I can't help but feel a little disappointed if it is indeed modelled as simplistically as the data suggests... I understand why a simpler model would be used, but I'd feel compelled to model the more complex situation, in nothing else as a counter to someone micromanaging their engine modes to be on low while braking and cornering and then onto high/overtake for the straights; and given the AI behaviour, I have to assume such a technique works, because the AI does that, and really, it should not work that way.
"All time costs are in seconds per lap." < Is a lie. Much like the scalars, they get converted into performance reductions, and it ends up being roughly half a second per TimeCost point despite my tests being on two of the longest circuits; Doha A and Dubai A. Something I will test soon is if this lap time delta is indeed smaller on a short lap ie Phoenix A. In any case, since my own tests have revealed a disprecency between TimeCost and time lost, here's my own stint calcuations...
<MaxEngineModeTimeCost>2.0</MaxEngineModeTimeCost> = 1.0 second difference between super overtake and low. <TimeCostPerLapOfFuel>0.1</TimeCostPerLapOfFuel> = 0.05 second delta per lap of fuel. And the formula I have estimated for fuel burn is 0.75 + (BurnRate * 0.25). However this is before factoring in chassis fuel efficiency.
If we assume an average chassis, its 1.375 laps for overtake, 1.1 for high, and 0.95 for medium. Lastly, I'm using 20 lap stints, as I feel that's more in line with an average stint length in long SS/GT races. Also note that the average fuel load for an entire stint is half that of the starting fuel load;
Overtake: 27.5 laps starting fuel, 13.75 laps average = 0.6875 seconds per lap. 0.8 performance = 0.2 seconds per lap. Combined delta of 0.8875 seconds.
High: 22 laps starting, 11 laps average = 0.55 seconds per lap. 0.5 performance = 0.5 seconds per lap. Combined delta 1.05 seconds.
Medium: 19 laps starting, 9.5 laps average = 0.475 seconds per lap. 0.2 performance = 0.8 seconds per lap. Combined delta 1.275 seconds.
Over the course of 20 laps, overtake 'loses' 17.75 seconds, high 21 seconds, medium 25.5 seconds. So, my advice, assuming that your engine has the reliability, is to overfuel and run overtake in the first stint, but only refuel enough to run in high for the second stint on, as otherwise you lose more time refuelling (3.85 seconds in this scenario) than you gain back.
And in no refuelling leagues, you'll probably want to take the maximum permitted fuel allowance, again assuming you don't have reliability concerns. Stick to high/medium mode in this scenario, as overtake burns too much fuel.
This raises some new questions, though, as some of the test data implies that what the game is telling us--particularly the fuel delta per lap on the Setup -> Fuel Options screen--is not reliable.
After CBR JGWRR's post that presented the actual fuel deltas for 2016 WMC, that got me thinking that there is a scalar value that's being applied on top of the SingleSeater <TimeCostPerLapOfFuel>0.1</TimeCostPerLapOfFuel> value to get the track-specific value.
Doha A -- 0.139 -- 139%
Yokohama A -- 0.124 -- 124%
Beijing B -- 0.092 -- 92%
Tondela A -- 0.122 -- 122%
Black Sea A -- 0.117 -- 117%
Munich A -- 0.122 -- 122%
Cape Town A -- 0.091 -- 91%
Guildford A -- 0.137 -- 137%
Milan A -- 0.147 -- 147%
Ardennes A -- 0.143 -- 143%
Phoenix C -- 0.107 -- 107%
Vancouver A -- 0.134 -- 134%
Singapore A -- 0.104 -- 104%
Sydney A -- 0.143 -- 143%
Rio de Janeiro A -- 0.138 -- 138%
Dubai A -- 0.161 -- 161%
I also ran the Endurance fuel deltas on these same tracks, Long Races, to verify if that scalar value is a constant across the different car types. For Endurance, the Time Cost per lap of fuel is <TimeCostPerLapOfFuel>0.04</TimeCostPerLapOfFuel>
Doha A -- 0.056 -- 140%
Yokohama A -- 0.050 -- 125%
Beijing B -- 0.037 -- 93%
Tondela A -- 0.049 -- 123%
Black Sea A -- 0.047 -- 118%
Munich A -- 0.049 -- 123%
Cape Town A -- 0.036 -- 90%
Guildford A -- 0.055 -- 138%
Milan A -- 0.059 -- 148%
Ardennes A -- 0.057 -- 143%
Phoenix C -- 0.043 -- 108%
Vancouver A -- 0.054 -- 135%
Singapore A -- 0.042 -- 105%
Sydney A -- 0.057 -- 143%
Rio de Janeiro A -- 0.055 -- 138%
Dubai A -- 0.065 -- 163%
So, within +/- 1% (Dubai being the exception at +2%), the scalar value being added to the base fuel delta is a unique, constant value per track.
Unfortunately, these calculations are assuming that the effect of the fuel load is constant across the stint. That's not the real case. The fuel load time effect is variable from the start to the end of the stint. This is where an integral would be used to sum the total effect of the fuel load across the entire fuel stint. Thankfully, we can discretize that integral on a per-lap basis by using the fuel delta per lap, assuming it is accurate.
EDIT: Formatting (again)
Now come this season that I changed my fuel strategy and went for the exact amount of fuel I need plus just one or two laps more for overtaking and most of the times just in the first stint. To make story short... I won both team and driver championship. My car still is the 5th in the grid, I'm using the same pilots, so whatever part I developed this season didn't really gave me a huge boost by themselves and I do think that loading just the right amount of fuel in a normal race is way better than overfueling unless you already have a superior car.
In fact the only situation I saw overfueling to set engine to Overtake all the time is in short stints (~10 laps) when it's raining, like dry > inter > wet > inter > dry. In those kinda of races overfueling in the shorter stints does seens to be supreme and I beat the AI easily even with my second car.
Ah, I'm using Fire Mod, but I don't think this impact to much.
By the way, this season I'm already starting with a much better car both from design and some very risky parts I developed last season but didn't used so I expect to win again but who knows.
From this thread, while I've not been keeping track of numbers - as useful as it is, because of personal issues (in an alternate universe, a me exists who, unlike me, did not quit at university, carried on doing his degree in Motorsport Engineering, and graduated, and could well be doing this for real, not for a game; and doing all the numbers properly feels like being smacked by the person I could have been, which is not pleasant...) I don't like doing it - I have swapped back to running a overtake first few laps, then high, then fuel save on medium strategy that I started with originally before the Phoenix test, and it does seem to work better; with Steinmann, it is easy wins, Rossini not quite as easy but still pretty much a given, and Van Dort are currently 3rd in the championship, despite both drivers having a non-points finish. (albeit only 3 races in, and on short race length, unlike Rossini/Steinmann)
I'm still not sure which is best, though.
WE NEED YOU!!! uhahuauhauhauhauha
Anyway, from that season on I already have a competitive enough car, still not the best, but close, and the game became a walk in the park. Some races the AI top teams (especially Ferrari) is able to hand me my ass finishing ~20secs ahead, but they can't do that consistently and not only I won more races but also was more stable in my positions, rarely ever finishing below 6 (the AI does much more mistakes). The best strategy to me seens to be exact fuel + 5% and engine to Push the whole time. The only variants: first stint (races start) same things plus +1 lap of fuel and overtake the whole fist two laps; the other one: very short stints (>10 laps) overfuel and Overtake.
Apart from that the right amount of fuel for Push seens the way to go since it's not that much more fuel than Normal and is way less fuel than Overtake. Also worth noting that when I was overfueling and overtaking I have both race mechanichs with Engine Expert traits, and I kept them now for my Push strategy, so I don't know how it would work without those mechanichs or on longer races (I in Formula 1 shortest races). Maybe in the endurance series that wont work, dunno. I will just build the top car than change to a Endurance team to have a different experience.
Mind, if he had done so, there would be non-disclosure agreements and data protection policies and the risk of losing his job and so on, so you wouldn't get any information out of him anyway.
----
Well, the difference would be that sooner or later you'd have to conserve the engine; short/medium/long just changes the scaling properties, so in principle, that wouldn't change.
I'll do low and super O now for the sake of completion:
Low: 17.5 laps starting, 8.75 laps average, 0.4375 seconds + 1 second performance loss = 1.4375 seconds per lap.
Super O: 30 laps starting, 15 laps average, 0.75 seconds per lap with no performance loss. To summarise, here's the delta for each engine mode over 20 laps, relative to a theorhetical car that goes full speed but doesn't need fuel;
Super O: 15 seconds (30 laps fuel)
Overtake: 17.75 seconds (27.5 laps fuel)
High: 21 seconds (22 laps fuel)
Medium: 25.5 seconds (19 laps fuel)
Low: 28.75 seconds (17.5 laps fuel)
However, it's important to also consider tyre life, refuelling time (0.7 seconds per lap), the race start (where higher fuel strategies struggle), and engine durability (low is a viable option at the start of the season). This makes the player really think about what strategy is going to work best for each race.
Also, because the game makes no sense at all, the TimeCost test I did at the Phoenix oval ended up with a larger delta relative to the road courses; +1.653 with an added TimeCost of 2 points, compared to +0.955 at Doha and +0.944 at Dubai.
Indeed, the oval tends to exaggerate performance disparity in general, as the spread in the WMC field was relatively large, especially for a lap that's less than 40 seconds.
Ain't that the truth! :D
Thanks for the analysis, Jay. Appreciated as always.