The ASMF Canon Council Topic

In honour of our fallen comrade. Archive of all previous canon series across all disciplines.
User avatar
TomWazzleshaw
Posts: 14370
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 04:42
Location: Curva do lel
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by TomWazzleshaw »

In honour of the historic performance he put in infront of his countrymen and women in Alt-76 in the home-built Kojima, I hereby propose that Fuji Speedway be renamed Hasemi Speedway forever more
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

Normal32 wrote:
novitopoli wrote:A compromise should be found here - while a bulk of RL teams wouldn't be bad, I agree with TCBY in that at least those teams which have built/are building an established presence in the PES/AF3/AF4 ladder should be represented. I mean, it's our canon.


Which is why I added Kamaha and Theodore on the entry list.

I saw this at the time but forgot to address it.

Theodore has no interest in the Super Formula series as a standalone team. However, an arrangement similar to what Theodore has with Prema will be allowed should any driver in Theodore's junior programme (Takahashi, Casciaro, Lorandi, Mortano and other future possibilities) gain a seat in the Super Formula series.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7184
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Klon »

Whilst I think Wizzie is parodying the Laudaring decision, I do still want to mention my disagreement with that proposal.

In serious track decisions, I wish to present the current list of changes to real-life tracks:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
I would be appreciative of feedback and additions.
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

Klon wrote:Whilst I think Wizzie is parodying the Laudaring decision, I do still want to mention my disagreement with that proposal.

In serious track decisions, I wish to present the current list of changes to real-life tracks:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
I would be appreciative of feedback and additions.

I'll also voice my opposition to the Fuji proposal, just to get that out of the way.

I feel slightly uncomfortable about some of the divergences from reality with some of these tracks (the Kyalami one mostly), but I'm guessing they're accounting for choices of venues and layouts in the past when the canon was less focused on authenticity, so I'm probably not in much of a position to say anything.

What I'm most curious about is Hockenheim. I've noticed it on the calendar for Pilot8's Dodge Viper Cup, but I have noticed also that it hasn't been used much in recent years and was kind of wondering why. Just curious, I guess.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
Nuppiz
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 5922
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 12:10
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Nuppiz »

Simtek wrote:
Klon wrote:Whilst I think Wizzie is parodying the Laudaring decision, I do still want to mention my disagreement with that proposal.

In serious track decisions, I wish to present the current list of changes to real-life tracks:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
I would be appreciative of feedback and additions.

I'll also voice my opposition to the Fuji proposal, just to get that out of the way.

I feel slightly uncomfortable about some of the divergences from reality with some of these tracks (the Kyalami one mostly), but I'm guessing they're accounting for choices of venues and layouts in the past when the canon was less focused on authenticity, so I'm probably not in much of a position to say anything.

What I'm most curious about is Hockenheim. I've noticed it on the calendar for Pilot8's Dodge Viper Cup, but I have noticed also that it hasn't been used much in recent years and was kind of wondering why. Just curious, I guess.

I also voice my opposition to any and all track renamings due to unexpected canon deaths. The Lauda case is particularly dubious, given that he wasn't yet such a legend in the mid-70s. As someone already pointed out, the track wasn't renamed after Rindt in 1970, either. Furthermore, any renaming proposal should've been discussed in a larger group rather than a sudden declaration by one series owner.

As for the track situation, it's such mostly due to the widespread use of GP2, which in many cases is severely outdated when it comes to available circuits, while at the same time more recent simulators have newer tracks/layouts to choose from.
Eurosport broadcast for the 1990 Mexican GP prequalifying:
"The Life, it looked very lifeless yet again... in fact Bruno did one, slow lap"
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

Nuppiz wrote:I also voice my opposition to any and all track renamings due to unexpected canon deaths. The Lauda case is particularly dubious, given that he wasn't yet such a legend in the mid-70s. As someone already pointed out, the track wasn't renamed after Rindt in 1970, either. Furthermore, any renaming proposal should've been discussed in a larger group rather than a sudden declaration by one series owner.

I think what's most jarring about it is that Rindt had an involvement in the design of the Spielberg track. He "only" got a corner named after him when he died. I'd expect a similar arrangement (say, renaming Hella Licht) for Lauda.

Actually, I'd like to table the proposal of undoing the Spielberg renaming and instead have Hella Licht or another corner renamed after Lauda. I'll even change back all the Laudaring references on the Wiki myself if it goes through.

And yeah, I figured that the GP2 situation might have factored into things (especially with Mexico City and Singapore), it was just the Kyalami and Hockenheim situations that struck me as a bit odd.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7184
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Klon »

Let's get some responses going:

Hockenheim was suggested by yours truly. It was the first track ARWS ever raced on, therefore I can see the FIA being petty and denying it a FIA grade as a petty act of revenge. This would explain why no FIA series is bothering with it. No FIA series + no AR series = no series at all = little income. A facility as big as the Hockenheimring does not survive on track days alone. Therefore I suggested a bankruptcy.

Kyalami is the result of IPC using the old layout. I have absolutely no investment in that, so if the majority says "shan't", then that can be changed quickly.

Nuppiz pointed out the GP2-based issue of old circuits, although Monza is a case of aerond's indulgences because a current Monza is available, so it is your decision whether to let him do this. Admittedly, though, the same would apply to Imola if a current one was available for GP2, because I do not like the current Imola layout.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Given the ongoing discussion concerning the canonicity of certain alterations to existing ASMF circuits, and in light of the time limitations associated with this month, I'll extend the discussion/proposal deadline to October 28th, 2017.

As for the proposed circuit deviations, given the prominence of GP2 as a simulation in the ASMF, I do feel that circuit canonicity should accommodate for GP2's limitations as much as possible. With that said, I do agree with Nuppiz and Simtek regarding the Laudaring question; whilst certainly well-intentioned, it does raise certain inconsistencies which may prove to be problematic down the line. In turn, Simtek's suggestion of a renamed corner in light of Lauda's premature demise seems to be a convenient substitute.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
novitopoli
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 987
Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 16:56

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by novitopoli »

I'd back Simtek's suggestion. As for Monza, I would recommend a "double-layout" solution even if it isn't completely realistic - after all, I'm pretty sure some of the other series (Italian F4) use the current layout.

By the way, some of the layouts used in SAF4 aren't the current ones either, owing to the fact finding South American tracks on GP2 pretty much means scraping the bottom of the barrel.
sw3ishida wrote:Jolyon Palmer brought us closer as a couple, for which I am grateful.


Ataxia wrote:
Londoner wrote:Something I've thought about - what happens to our canon should we have a worldwide recession or some other outside event?

We'll be fine. It's Canon, non Kodak.
User avatar
Pinkd56
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 727
Joined: 06 Aug 2015, 14:38
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Pinkd56 »

To add another thing to the track naming debate - there's a chance that Gilles Villeneuve won't die in '82 - therefore it would be odd for the Montreal circuit to be named for him. What do we do if he survives (or just doesn't perform to the level that he should)?
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by DemocalypseNow »

Pinkd56 wrote: What do we do if he survives (or just doesn't perform to the level that he should)?

I plan to make sure that doesn't happen.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

Pinkd56 wrote:To add another thing to the track naming debate - there's a chance that Gilles Villeneuve won't die in '82 - therefore it would be odd for the Montreal circuit to be named for him. What do we do if he survives (or just doesn't perform to the level that he should)?

As I recall, Senna's death is scripted to happen in 1994 regardless of in-game events. Villeneuve's was another earth-shattering event in motorsport (if not to anywhere the same extent as Senna), so there's a chance we could see that as well.

It'll be ages before we get that far anyway, so we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
Ataxia
Not Important
Posts: 6860
Joined: 23 Jun 2010, 12:47
Location: Sneed's Feed & Seed (formerly Chuck's)
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Ataxia »

Here's something I want to table: an alternate European Le Mans Series within canon for 2020. Here are some anticipated FAQs as to why I want to do this:

Q: Who on earth cares about ELMS?
A: Well, granted, nobody really does. It won't be a massive factor in the scheme of things, other than adding colour to the sportscar side of everything.

Q: But you're already ditching AR2.0 because you don't have time, why are you bothering with this?
A: Because it's literally just six races. SIX.

Q: Okay, granted. How is this going to be different?
A: Well, here's the thing. Everyone has to follow the real-life ELMS regulations on driver classifications, and so it's much more nuanced than ramming three platinums into the same car. Hell, you don't even NEED three drivers - if you're smart you can do a great job with two.

Scrambling between each other for the best bronze/silver drivers will be key.

Q: How will this tie in with everything?
A: Well, there's bound to be some cross-over with FIA Endurance Challenge and GT Super Series. Furthermore, F3/4 drivers without homes can step into alt-ELMS nicely. Of course, I don't want to cram the series full of F4 "overspill", but that's where the bronze regulations come in...

Q: Cool, I can get on board with that. Where do I sign up?
A: Hold your horses, matey-boy. I'll determine some definite teams which should be involved in each class (LMP2/3/GTE) and then tender further additions. These will be the more well-known real-world entries, and then you can add your own when they're all taken.

Any other questions, hit me up.
Mitch Hedberg wrote:I want to be a race car passenger: just a guy who bugs the driver. Say man, can I turn on the radio? You should slow down. Why do we gotta keep going in circles? Man, you really like Tide...
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

*Post stating opposition to ELMS proposal purely to incite controversy*

Nah, I think it's fine. I look forward to seeing it.

Re: The Oesterreichring proposal, to avoid any further red tape, I'm putting forward the Hella Licht chicane to be renamed after Niki Lauda (or rather, the new chicane installed for 1977 at the former site of Vost-Hugel to be named "Lauda").
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Alright, we've quite a bit of ground to cover. As a reminder, no further proposals or discussion will be taken into consideration until the voting process concludes.

1. Proposal for an age range of 14-20 to be imposed across all F4 series, unless exempted otherwise.

2. Proposal for drivers under the age of 21, with experience in higher categories, to be permitted to participate in F4-level competitions at the discretion of the relevant series organizer.

3. Proposal for an automated Super Formula championship to supplant the now-defunct AutoReject Nippon, to be managed by Normal32.

4. Proposal to reverse the renaming of the Osterreichring/Red Bull Ring to the Laudaring, with the Hella Licht chicane to be renamed in memorial of Niki Lauda, instead.

5. Proposal for an ELMS series to be sanctioned as canon from 2020 onwards, to be managed by Ataxia.

Given that Klon's list largely outlines the existing, de facto state of circumstances surrounding certain circuits in canon, it necessarily constitutes a conditional source of canonicity, subject to change via future council rulings. Due to the absence of concrete proposals on the matter, the resolution of the questions and concerns raised over the status of Kyalami, Monza, and Hockenheim will be deferred to the succeeding discussion/proposal cycle.

I'll start off the vote:

1. No

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

1. No

2. Abstain (this already effectively exists in practice)

3. Yes

4. Abstain

5. Yes
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
novitopoli
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 987
Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 16:56

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by novitopoli »

1. No

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes
sw3ishida wrote:Jolyon Palmer brought us closer as a couple, for which I am grateful.


Ataxia wrote:
Londoner wrote:Something I've thought about - what happens to our canon should we have a worldwide recession or some other outside event?

We'll be fine. It's Canon, non Kodak.
User avatar
Nuppiz
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 5922
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 12:10
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Nuppiz »

1. Yes (with exceptions allowed for "gentleman drivers")
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
Eurosport broadcast for the 1990 Mexican GP prequalifying:
"The Life, it looked very lifeless yet again... in fact Bruno did one, slow lap"
User avatar
TomWazzleshaw
Posts: 14370
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 04:42
Location: Curva do lel
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by TomWazzleshaw »

1. Yes (with the exception that Nuppiz provided above)
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
User avatar
tommykl
Posts: 7062
Joined: 07 Apr 2010, 17:10
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by tommykl »

1. No
2. Yes
3. Abstain
4. Yes
5. Yes
kevinbotz wrote:Cantonese is a completely nonsensical f*cking alien language masquerading as some grossly bastardised form of Chinese

Gonzo wrote:Wasn't there some sort of communisim in the East part of Germany?
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

No specified age range shall be imposed for F4 level series. Drivers under the age of 21 with experience in higher categories will be permitted to participate in F4 level championships at the discretion of the relevant series organizer. The renaming of the Osterreichring/Red Bull Ring to the Laudaring, in commemoration of the late Niki Lauda, has been reversed, with the Hella Licht chicane to be renamed after Lauda instead.

Super Formula and the European Le Mans Series have both been successfully ratified as officially sanctioned ASMF series.

In light of the academic commitments that will likely be faced by a considerable proportion of the userbase, myself included, in the upcoming months, the new discussion/proposal window shall be extended to 22nd December, 2017.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7184
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Klon »

I would like to remind people of the fact that the track list still needs debate.

Furthermore, I hereby announce my intention to request permission to take over the running of AutoReject 2.0. I plan on making it focus on the financial side much more than most feeder series.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Given the absence of any new proposals since December, and the impending chaos of the February/March exam period, this present window shall be formally extended to 17 March, 2018.

Regarding the track list, I'd like to propose the elimination of the pre-1987 layout for Kyalami for use in the present-day, with said layout retained exclusively for historical series operating within the relevant time period. Additionally, I'd like to table a discussion regarding the present status of the Bus Stop chicane, with a view of eventually establishing a consensus on a single canonical layout.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
Salamander
Posts: 9570
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 20:59
Location: trapped on some prison island

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Salamander »

On the subject of the Bus Stop chicane, is there really a need to define one specific layout? I mean, if we look at, say, Paul Ricard, the chicane down the Mistral straight has like, what, 7 different possible layouts? Who's to say we couldn't have 2 or 3 possible layouts available for the Bus Stop?

As for Kyalami, I think at the time nobody was really using that track, so I went ahead and used the old layout for IPC as that was the only one available for NR2003. If it's more convenient for people now to use the new layout, I don't see any reason not to, though to be consistent the track re-modelling would have to take place after the 2018 IPC rounds there. Would that create a conflict with anyone who used the new layout in a historical series? Otherwise, I think modern era should be fine.
Sebastian Vettel wrote:If I was good at losing I wouldn't be in Formula 1.
Everything's great.
I'm not surprised about anything.
User avatar
pasta_maldonado
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6429
Joined: 22 Apr 2012, 16:49
Location: Greater London. Sort of.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by pasta_maldonado »

Salamander wrote:On the subject of the Bus Stop chicane, is there really a need to define one specific layout? I mean, if we look at, say, Paul Ricard, the chicane down the Mistral straight has like, what, 7 different possible layouts? Who's to say we couldn't have 2 or 3 possible layouts available for the Bus Stop?

I can't see why everybody else doesn't see it this way :vergne:
Klon wrote:more liek Nick Ass-idy amirite?
User avatar
Nuppiz
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 5922
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 12:10
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Nuppiz »

Wow, nothing in nine months...

I completely missed the election window as I was on holiday at the time, and since then I've constantly procrastinated doing anything about the matter. That, combined with the general inactivity of the council, calls for a complete overhaul of the decision-making process.

Klon has proposed that the council should remain, but with a semi-permanent memberbase of unelected officials picked from the most trusted people involved in the PMMF. I see no reason to disagree with this proposal. Considering that it took me almost five months just to write this post, my time as the "puppet master" who hosts the elections is over.

Further details about how things will go on from here will be published after I've discussed the matter with Klon and other future members of the next council.
Eurosport broadcast for the 1990 Mexican GP prequalifying:
"The Life, it looked very lifeless yet again... in fact Bruno did one, slow lap"
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Well, I've been dragging my feet on this for far too long.

Pursuant to the agreements in principle already made concerning the future of the ASMF, the new Council shall be constituted of six members on a semi-permanent basis; i.e. each member's tenure shall last indefinitely, until said member resigns, or is otherwise indisposed by unforeseen circumstances.

This present iteration of the Council shall consist of the following users:

Aerond (AutoReject)
Wizzie (Independent)
RealRacingRoots (Independent)
Klon (FIA)
tommykl (Historical)
kevinbotz (Neutral)

From this period onward, proposals will be assessed and voted upon individually, rather than in a collective bloc as was the case in the past, in order to facilitate and expedite the decision-making process. Owing to the new numerical composition of the Council, a successful ratification will now demand at least four votes. The existing body of ASMF regulations already ratified will remain in force.

This Council is now open for debate.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7184
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

Klon's 2018 Proposal #1: Time

Post by Klon »

Alright, mentlegen, let's get this show underway.

New rule proposal: no thread for the upcoming season (starting with 2021) of any canon series may be opened before all active series classified as current have at least finished 66% (read: two thirds) of their calendar.

You ask why should we do that? Well, it is simple, there are a number of reasons for doing it:

a) It would give lagging series like Rolex GT time to finally fit into canon time scale properly.

b) It would help users that have bet on the wrong horse series-wise to rescue their drivers without causing massive time paradoxes or illogical behaviour by their characters.

c) By actually banning opening threads and not just banning starting seasons, we can prevent some stillbirths (like, I must admit, my continuation of FIA PC) by allowing the users to see how their RL and their time constraints develop until it is actually go time for the series.

d) ... I actually don't have a d) right now, but with only three points my argument felt naked.

Please note that I don't want to force all series into lockstep time-wise, as I think it is best for the forum if everyone can run things at their own time (within certain limits), but it's no good if all series are spread out by over a year.

Obviously one weakness of this idea is that we would need to develop an actual system to see whether a series is considered dead or not in order to avoid delaying everyone because one guy can't get going.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

After a few discussions on the IRC concerning some of the more intractable potential issues with the current proposal, I'd like to jump-start a conversation regarding possible compromises and alternatives.

By far the most salient concern identified was the role of lagging series in a fixed ASMF time-frame. Considering that ASMF activity in general is wholly contingent upon the availability of spare time, a quantity, in turn, entirely dependent on exogenous factors that are largely unforeseeable and uncontrollable, it was generally agreed between myself, and the Council members that I'd discussed the issue with, that enforcing a hard threshold on the progression of a series was both practically impossible, and against the spirit of the ASMF.

At the same time, defining a hard, ASMF-wide, 66% completion threshold as a condition for season progression may unduly, and unnecessarily, frustrate series which may otherwise have been able to progress without much disruption, particularly in cases where:

1. At the time of season completion, the series owner in question possesses a sufficient reserve of spare time to make progress, that he/she may not have in the future.

2. The series in question shares very little, or non-existent, ties with series that are lagging behind at the time of season completion.

As such, I'd like to offer the possibility of assessing the viability of season progression for series on a case-by-case basis; as an example, ARWS, or F1, could be allowed to proceed if a non-associated series, such as Leon Supercopa, is lagging behind. In turn, interrelated series, where driver movement between series is either inevitable, such as F1 and F2, or at the very least plausible, such as ARWS/F1/Indy, may a more delicate arrangement, or an outright delay.

On a separate note, I'd like to encourage all Council members to actively participate in the discourse for both this proposal, as well as all future proposals. The pluralistic construction of this Council allows for the inclusion of a variety of perspectives and experiences in the consideration of a proposal, such that the risks of regulatory blowback from potential oversight is mitigated.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
RealRacingRoots
Posts: 1941
Joined: 21 Oct 2011, 06:25
Location: Green Hill, Montana
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by RealRacingRoots »

The main feeling that I get from the present proposal is that it makes something which is suppose to be a fun hobby in one's spare time into something of a burden. And while it is understandable to get most to all series running at similar rates of progress for the sake of driver and storyline development to being cyclical like it was previously in the ASMF and should be seen as an eventual goal to realign the present day goings on, achieving that should be a long term goal rather than the immediate fix to what feels like a rather arbitrary problem in the moment.

Is it a ambition worth bringing up, a wanting to get all the present day runnings going at a similar pace and time? Sure. Are there actual problems that it does cause right now? Some; general long term plans for development of teams, drivers and storylines have historically and will continue to get muddled as there are some series that are already seeing to the end of 2020, while others at the half way mark of 2019 or even farther behind than that for various reasons. We should be reminding people in the moment to not make crass decisions regarding those things simply because a series is lagging behind, there could still be full intention to keep going regardless of outside perception. It's just that life happens, and we shouldn't be punishing those for when life comes calling for them. Could there be some redundancy in place in case they can't continue what they were doing but there's still value to the product they were giving us however? Absolutely.

In a way, it's something we kinda should've seen coming since a lot of us have been here for quite the while now right? A lot of us have effectively grown up with this place as one of our hobbies, and the value of our time en masse exponentially increases as we get older. The rate in which the PMMF as a whole evolved was never going to be sustainable with it just being us, as we're growing older every day, and the relatively slow trickle of new users to replace those that called it a day you know? But that's still fine, it's just that we should be focusing on making the most of what we have while still keeping an eye on how we can be improving things for the mid and long term: like say finding sustainable means to get everything in the present time running in a credible order.

The goal of the council shouldn't be to completely change the way the game works unless it's fully certain it needs to change. Right now, the idea of a hard cap and holding pattern for those that rushed ahead doesn't seem like the way to go; especially when there are issues presently facing some major series that the council can directly deal with. The goal of the council at its basic level should be to help resolve issues, provide better means of participation, and help to grow series through the gameplay and storyline elements they employ so that they can become the romanticized ideal racing championships that we all imagine they could be. Ultimately getting everything back to running on the same page is at the very end of that romanticized ideal, and we aren't even close to taking the leap of faith to get there.
The Truth Shall set you free. (no theme music plays)
Tomáš.......Ttaaaaaaaattaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
.
Watch this if you want to learn about what Canada is really like.
.
GT Super Series
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7184
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

KLON'S 2018 PROPOSAL #2: F4

Post by Klon »

After kevinbotz and RealRacingRoots made their highly convincing cases, I'd like to withdraw the proposal. Whilst I think I had the right idea in mind, it's clearly not practical for a number of reasons. As there are other things I would like to discuss before the year is over, I'd suggest we move on to my next suggestion.

We should officially end the Formula 4 experiment

Designed to be a testing ground for new users, the F4 experiment is a total failure. Few, if any, of the users that have started a F4 series have moved on to other projects and it has only caused an issue where we have more DECs than seats in continuously running serieses and a non-logical ladder system (F4 at the continental level means F3 at intercontinental level, means F2 at a global level means F1 at a universal level!?); not even mentioning copious issues regarding RL Formula 4 and its effect on RL drivers.

Therefore I propose that all current F4 series are either promoted to F3 series or removed from the FIA ladder and added to other ladders.

F3 Asia, F3 South America and F3 North America make more sense from a logical progression point with non-simulated national series providing RL and fictional drivers. Anglo-Irish and Italian F3, assuming they continue (optimistic assumption) also make sense as a) Europe is big enough motorsport-wise to handle multiple F3 series and b) our European F3 is an ailing patient with inconsistent running.

Outside of adding some BHP to the cars (or in-character justifying the lower BHP output with hydrogen engines) and changing a number, the series owner wouldn't have to make any change so I hope we can count on their cooperation.

As far as new users running series are concerned we can either use the 18MDMF as testing ground or permit them to run non-F4 small ASMF series that can be removed from the canon with little effort.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Agreed. F4 was certainly briefly effective in stimulating ASMF activity, but, without undermining the efforts of the respective F4 series owners, it's largely feeding into a grossly undersized pool at this point. A general elevation of existing F4 series to the F3 level does seem like a broadly sensible decision, particularly when considering the additional flexibility at the F3 strata with respect to alumni destinations; the only concern I presently have pertains to the competitive standing of the extant continental F3 series relative to the proposed regional and national F3 series.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
CaptainGetz12
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 1848
Joined: 06 Mar 2013, 03:19
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: KLON'S 2018 PROPOSAL #2: F4

Post by CaptainGetz12 »

Klon wrote:After kevinbotz and RealRacingRoots made their highly convincing cases, I'd like to withdraw the proposal. Whilst I think I had the right idea in mind, it's clearly not practical for a number of reasons. As there are other things I would like to discuss before the year is over, I'd suggest we move on to my next suggestion.

We should officially end the Formula 4 experiment

Designed to be a testing ground for new users, the F4 experiment is a total failure. Few, if any, of the users that have started a F4 series have moved on to other projects and it has only caused an issue where we have more DECs than seats in continuously running serieses and a non-logical ladder system (F4 at the continental level means F3 at intercontinental level, means F2 at a global level means F1 at a universal level!?); not even mentioning copious issues regarding RL Formula 4 and its effect on RL drivers.

Therefore I propose that all current F4 series are either promoted to F3 series or removed from the FIA ladder and added to other ladders.

F3 Asia, F3 South America and F3 North America make more sense from a logical progression point with non-simulated national series providing RL and fictional drivers. Anglo-Irish and Italian F3, assuming they continue (optimistic assumption) also make sense as a) Europe is big enough motorsport-wise to handle multiple F3 series and b) our European F3 is an ailing patient with inconsistent running.

Outside of adding some BHP to the cars (or in-character justifying the lower BHP output with hydrogen engines) and changing a number, the series owner wouldn't have to make any change so I hope we can count on their cooperation.

As far as new users running series are concerned we can either use the 18MDMF as testing ground or permit them to run non-F4 small ASMF series that can be removed from the canon with little effort.


As the runner of North American Formula 4 I would be interested in forming an Formula 3 series, or the case of the US it could be Pro Mazda, USF2000, or Formula SCCA. Without Star Mazda we are missing a significant portion of the "Road to Indy" ladder. I thought about making NAF4 on par with Pro Mazda, but if no one else wishes to make a series for it I can switch to a Pro Mazda format should F4 be discouraged from here on.

If there are any GP2 mods that have any of those series any help would be appreciated. I may also pick up RFactor 1 if a mod is available there too that fits the format.
Klon wrote:What did poor André do to you for him to be insulted like that?
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re:

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

CaptainGetz12 wrote:As the runner of North American Formula 4 I would be interested in forming an Formula 3 series, or the case of the US it could be Pro Mazda, USF2000, or Formula SCCA. Without Star Mazda we are missing a significant portion of the "Road to Indy" ladder. I thought about making NAF4 on par with Pro Mazda, but if no one else wishes to make a series for it I can switch to a Pro Mazda format should F4 be discouraged from here on.

If there are any GP2 mods that have any of those series any help would be appreciated. I may also pick up RFactor 1 if a mod is available there too that fits the format.

Pro Mazda's already sort of up and running if you want to run it. I was going to quicksim it anyway at the end of 2020, just as I've done before with F3 Americas.

Entry list here. You may want to check in with everybody, though, I think quite a few of the people there haven't been active lately (remember Panthera? :deletraz:)

AIF4 is happening by the way, but it will be quicksimmed. And If F4 gets canned, there won't be a 2021 season. F3 Americas (or might that be F2 Americas in the future?) will also happen, but I'll also offer it to anybody who wants to run it.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
CaptainGetz12
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 1848
Joined: 06 Mar 2013, 03:19
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by CaptainGetz12 »

Simtek wrote:
CaptainGetz12 wrote:As the runner of North American Formula 4 I would be interested in forming an Formula 3 series, or the case of the US it could be Pro Mazda, USF2000, or Formula SCCA. Without Star Mazda we are missing a significant portion of the "Road to Indy" ladder. I thought about making NAF4 on par with Pro Mazda, but if no one else wishes to make a series for it I can switch to a Pro Mazda format should F4 be discouraged from here on.

If there are any GP2 mods that have any of those series any help would be appreciated. I may also pick up RFactor 1 if a mod is available there too that fits the format.

Pro Mazda's already sort of up and running if you want to run it. I was going to quicksim it anyway at the end of 2020, just as I've done before with F3 Americas.

Entry list here. You may want to check in with everybody, though, I think quite a few of the people there haven't been active lately (remember Panthera? :deletraz:)

AIF4 is happening by the way, but it will be quicksimmed. And If F4 gets canned, there won't be a 2021 season. F3 Americas (or might that be F2 Americas in the future?) will also happen, but I'll also offer it to anybody who wants to run it.


The next couple of weeks I will not be at home, so any changes to series will be on hold until early January.

Do you actually have a mod for Pro Mazda, or is it just a quick sim? If the latter I will likely change it so I can actually run it on GP2.
Klon wrote:What did poor André do to you for him to be insulted like that?
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: Re:

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

CaptainGetz12 wrote:Do you actually have a mod for Pro Mazda, or is it just a quick sim? If the latter I will likely change it so I can actually run it on GP2.

It was going to be a GP2 quicksim job, but with a 20-car entry list, so something like rFactor would probably be better if you want to do it 'properly' (either that or you could expand the entry list :)).

And I literally have nothing. It would essentially have been the F4 cars with different drivers and tracks, which is what I did for the last season of F3 Americas.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
CaptainGetz12
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 1848
Joined: 06 Mar 2013, 03:19
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by CaptainGetz12 »

Simtek wrote:
CaptainGetz12 wrote:Do you actually have a mod for Pro Mazda, or is it just a quick sim? If the latter I will likely change it so I can actually run it on GP2.

It was going to be a GP2 quicksim job, but with a 20-car entry list, so something like rFactor would probably be better if you want to do it 'properly' (either that or you could expand the entry list :)).

And I literally have nothing. It would essentially have been the F4 cars with different drivers and tracks, which is what I did for the last season of F3 Americas.


I'll look into RFactor, see what I can find.
Klon wrote:What did poor André do to you for him to be insulted like that?
User avatar
RealRacingRoots
Posts: 1941
Joined: 21 Oct 2011, 06:25
Location: Green Hill, Montana
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by RealRacingRoots »

To call the vetting process that was done via F4 series a failure is a disservice to those that ran the series themselves. Getz, Novi, Simtek and TCBY have all done good jobs in proving they can be reliable hands in terms of series management after they were left to their own devices after their first year. Now does that mean they were flawless in general? Not necessarily, there's always stuff that can be learned to improve game mechanics for the series that they run, and ones that others run, and some of the other council members should bring them up if they have concerns relating to them. Now would be a good time for them to speak up.

The main thing from my observations of the series is that I felt that the in-season development mechanics felt rather one-dimensional. With GP2 having a relative lack of variables to mess around with, one has to be a bit more creative to get the most out of what one has to work with. In that circumstance, Aerond has done a great job making the most of it for ARWS. Even though the issue that he's caused regarding how the signing of Terry Hawkin must be addressed right away, before their pre-season gets under way.

Going with just driver development via testing didn't feel like it really added a whole lot to the *game* with the way it was used, with it either expanding a driver's advantage if they were op already or steaming the bleeding without any real benefit if a driver was only bad in qualifying. I would like to recommend other ideas be looked at for game mechanics for future single-make series that are run in GP2 or otherwise, such as having what changes from testing be development in setup knowledge (with options having both practical advantages and disadvantages), or having simple part choices for teams to decide for at the beginning of the year, like different engines, tires, etc. Another idea worth exploring would be a experience and level up system for drivers if driver development is still intended to be the main game mechanic.

It is also would be worth noting at this time how the structure of series in the ASMF has developed now that we've had a couple years of F4 under our belts. General perception after the the few seasons that were run is that F4 is probably a step too low for series to be run in general in ASMF, although if someone discreetly wants to run a F4 series they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. But just because the series in question won't be actively run after this season shouldn't fully eliminate them in canon. F4 series, unless they continue being run, should be seen as mention-only for the future so that the CV or drivers entering the fold has a bit more potential depth. Overall, the two steps below the main game is a good benchmark for open wheel series in the future. Depending on the top series is, one series per rung should be acceptable, with the primary exception being F1 where multiple F3 series should work as well, resulting in:

F3 a + F3 b or more -> F2 -> F1
AR 2.0 -> 3.5 -> WS
Pro Mazda (if it's even necessary) -> Indy Lights -> IndyCar

The only other series that could be looked at as a necessity in the short to medium term outside of open wheelers would be a feeder to GTSS.

If anyone has questions regarding the current proposal or need help finding mods and resources for games don't be afraid to ask.
The Truth Shall set you free. (no theme music plays)
Tomáš.......Ttaaaaaaaattaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
.
Watch this if you want to learn about what Canada is really like.
.
GT Super Series
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

After considering the issue in slightly more depth, and following some discussions with other Council members, I'd quite like to emphasise the importance of minimising disruption to the existing F4 operations, should this restructuring ultimately proceed ahead. As aforementioned, the issues presently facing F4 have very little, if anything, to do with how the series are being run, and everything to do with the considerable upheavals that have virtually incapacitated F3 in the past year; if at all possible, I'd strongly prefer to keep the existing F4 efforts as intact as possible in any prospective transition.

Perhaps we could consider a more diverse, more regionally fragmented composition of the F3 landscape, broadly in line with how F4 is presently geographically distributed. In doing so, we could potentially bolster the resilience of F3 in general, through distributing the burden across several F3 series.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
CaptainGetz12
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 1848
Joined: 06 Mar 2013, 03:19
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by CaptainGetz12 »

RealRacingRoots wrote:To call the vetting process that was done via F4 series a failure is a disservice to those that ran the series themselves. Getz, Novi, Simtek and TCBY have all done good jobs in proving they can be reliable hands in terms of series management after they were left to their own devices after their first year. Now does that mean they were flawless in general? Not necessarily, there's always stuff that can be learned to improve game mechanics for the series that they run, and ones that others run, and some of the other council members should bring them up if they have concerns relating to them. Now would be a good time for them to speak up.

The main thing from my observations of the series is that I felt that the in-season development mechanics felt rather one-dimensional. With GP2 having a relative lack of variables to mess around with, one has to be a bit more creative to get the most out of what one has to work with. In that circumstance, Aerond has done a great job making the most of it for ARWS. Even though the issue that he's caused regarding how the signing of Terry Hawkin must be addressed right away, before their pre-season gets under way.

Going with just driver development via testing didn't feel like it really added a whole lot to the *game* with the way it was used, with it either expanding a driver's advantage if they were op already or steaming the bleeding without any real benefit if a driver was only bad in qualifying. I would like to recommend other ideas be looked at for game mechanics for future single-make series that are run in GP2 or otherwise, such as having what changes from testing be development in setup knowledge (with options having both practical advantages and disadvantages), or having simple part choices for teams to decide for at the beginning of the year, like different engines, tires, etc. Another idea worth exploring would be a experience and level up system for drivers if driver development is still intended to be the main game mechanic.

It is also would be worth noting at this time how the structure of series in the ASMF has developed now that we've had a couple years of F4 under our belts. General perception after the the few seasons that were run is that F4 is probably a step too low for series to be run in general in ASMF, although if someone discreetly wants to run a F4 series they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. But just because the series in question won't be actively run after this season shouldn't fully eliminate them in canon. F4 series, unless they continue being run, should be seen as mention-only for the future so that the CV or drivers entering the fold has a bit more potential depth. Overall, the two steps below the main game is a good benchmark for open wheel series in the future. Depending on the top series is, one series per rung should be acceptable, with the primary exception being F1 where multiple F3 series should work as well, resulting in:

F3 a + F3 b or more -> F2 -> F1
AR 2.0 -> 3.5 -> WS
Pro Mazda (if it's even necessary) -> Indy Lights -> IndyCar

The only other series that could be looked at as a necessity in the short to medium term outside of open wheelers would be a feeder to GTSS.

If anyone has questions regarding the current proposal or need help finding mods and resources for games don't be afraid to ask.


In the respect to grand prix 2 being one-dimensional, it is partly my fault, though I would be interested in trying Formula 4 in RFactor, though I have not seen any mods of F4 aside from a partly-done Formula Tautuus mod (any help finding one, if it exists, would be appreciated)

Based on the discussion, should established F4 series runners move on to F3 to bring up a more established F3 tier?

I can test F4 with a small series if need be,, though I am rather lost on how to edit cars in RFactor, if any help can be provided. I thought about an F4 Caribbean league in the off-season for 3-4 race weekends.
Klon wrote:What did poor André do to you for him to be insulted like that?
Post Reply