Measuring track "flow"

[Kevin Knorpp]

Ressource moved here:

https://sites.google.com/site/rfactor2navigator/track-navigator

 

[Ian Franssen]

funny subject Kevin Just wondering, do you feel the Flowfactor calculations add up with your own feel of "flow" on a track?

 

[Kevin Knorpp]

No offense but don't understand. What is funny? Assuming your question is sincere, the answer is "yes" since the g-force threshold I am using is based on direct observation of real-time telemetry data while AI is driving track. If you ate genuinely interested I can elaborate, but if you think what I am doing is silly, then I'd prefer to keep the details of my methodology to myself and let the results speak for themselves based on whether people use the resource.

Edit - FYI OP has been edited.

 

[Rhys Gardiner]

No offense but don't understand. What is funny?

I've noticed from reading a lot of posts from non-native english speakers (and some native speakers) that "funny" is often used to mean "good" or "interesting". I'm sure Ian meant no offense.

 

[Ian Franssen]

It is indeed what Rhys said I ment it in a way that I never thought of it before, and for that reason an interesting look/approuch on it, in Dutch we actually say "wat grappig", which is the dutch translation of that's funny. So indeed just bad english from my side, which I picked up from movies. I thought that my smiley was enough to make clear that I didn't meant it in a bad way

 

[Andrew Ford]

why don't you just drive ovals? I know they're not as interesting with lack of turns but you would have good flow?

 

[Kevin Knorpp]

It is indeed what Rhys said I ment it in a way that I never thought of it before, and for that reason an interesting look/approuch on it, in Dutch we actually say "wat grappig", which is the dutch translation of that's funny. So indeed just bad english from my side, which I picked up from movies. I thought that my smiley was enough to make clear that I didn't meant it in a bad way

No worries and thanks for explanation. Let me know if you have additional questions. It is very interesting when I add a track because before I complete the calculations I try to predict just based on my perception/feel where it is going to fall relative to the other tracks I have already calculated and is almost exactly where I expect it is going to be and also my predictions are getting better also because I know a track with many chicanes, for example, is going to have a lower FlowFactor than another track that has a similar number of turns per km but more high speed turns.

 

[Kevin Knorpp]

why don't you just drive ovals? I know they're not as interesting with lack of turns but you would have good flow?

Absolutely , Nazareth is next on my list and it will have excellent flow without question. Most of the time I want more variety but on occasion when I race an oval I usually have a lot of fun.

 

[Andrew Ford]

Absolutely , Nazareth is next on my list and it will have excellent flow without question. Most of the time I want more variety but on occasion when I race an oval I usually have a lot of fun.

personally I love f1. it's no coincidence that i'm better on tracks which aren't stop start hard braking zones. i actually like late braking but i'm not great on corner exits.
love spa, hungaroring, catalunya, malaysia, china, hockenheim..actually, that's a lot of the f1 tracks. when i compare them to monaco, there is no contest.

 

[Kevin Knorpp]

Yep. I love all those tracks, especially with historic f1 except Monaco which is suicide with historic f1 so I opt for the f2