Page 248 of 418 FirstFirst ... 148198238246247248249250258298348 ... LastLast
Results 2,471 to 2,480 of 4172

Thread: The OT thread V1

  1. #2471
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    704
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    mmmmmmm ... lots to unpack there. let start here, trailbraking.

    trail braking is a big term that everyone thinks they know what it means, but really don't understand what it is. to truly do it well, it is a amazing to feel, to do it poorly, it fucks everything up. its not just a technique or skill, its a whole methodology for building and driving a car fast.

    standard car setup:

    you set the car up to be pretty neutral, and when you enter a corner, you brake, lift off the petal at the same time as your turning in. then once the nose is in, you add power as the rear wheels load up, and power out. pretty typical thing.

    trailbrake setup:

    you set up the car to under-steer. pretty significantly. then when you enter a corner, you brake, and then lift off the brake much slower, and replace that with your turn in steering. because the nose of the car is loaded, you get a lot more turn in power, and the nose goes into the apex. then, you go for the power, and since the car is rear traction biased (steady state understeer), you have more grip with the drive wheels, and thus can add more power sooner. you can tell this is happening when you get an understeer drift. the wheel feels vague, and thats is because you are sliding the front wheels in basically a 4 wheel drift. so, you gain compared to the standard more neutral setup both in that your braking slightly later, but your also on the power sooner, and with more through out the corner.

    its an amazing feeling when you get it right. and its a rhythm of the car thing. because the dampers, the springs and your inputs all have to be synchronized. stiffer springs will make the nose of the car unload faster etc etc.

    to get it right, esp on a aftermarket stiff suspension in a light car ... its tough.


    basically what you are trying to do is get turn-in grip for free, and then you apply that extra grip to the rear wheels to use them to put more power down sooner.

    when it goes wrong through, you have big problems. if you hold the brake too long, you will push. and if you let off too fast you will push. there is also a theory problem, as in this is on an ideal corner. and even in autocross that itsn't found that commonly, and in road racing, with folks flying around all around you, and so much happening, and the unplanned responses you have to have, its tricky to pull off.

    now, to put a bound on my skill, in autocross or time trial with a stock suspension car, i can maybe pull this off ~50% of the time. one of the reasons i love the ND is the rhythm of that car, stock, is just fantastic and natural for this kind of thing.

    in a road racing situation 0% of the time (too much other shit to manage). and on stiffer aftermarket suspensions like my MR2 or hot lapping my spec car, maybe 25-30% of the time.

    so it becomes a balancing act, if there is a good chance or even fair money or worse chance that you are not going to be able to trail brake it properly, you will want to sit it up more neutral. but then when you trail brake it properly, you will likely have too much turn-in and not that much more rear grip.

    so, in practice what you do is you make it up as you go along. anyway ... thats trail braking theory. lots of folks think they know what a trail brake means, but thats what its actually for. its also why braking is actually, the most difficult and hardest part about driving a car fast.


    as for being fast in the wet? and my toss it in and see what happens on the way out style .... i think that just has more to do with willingness to go past the limit, and skill at pulling it back in. and i think this comes from ice racing. because you are always past the limit when you are on ice, no matter what. and ice is slow, so you actually can feel and understand and correct for everything that is happening, and you can learn how to recover and what the right things to do are in a safe way, so that way when you are on pavement and things are happening way faster, you still understand what is happening and what to do about it to recover it. there is a point at which newton is in the driver seat, not you, but that point is farther away than almost anyone who sticks to dry pavement performance driving thinks it is.

    rain is, somewhere in between dry pavement and ice. so im pretty used to what will happen and thus have confidence in my ability to recover the car, and thus can throw it in faster than lots of folks. i dont think its a specific technique, so much as a skill set learned.
    Basically every 911.

    It's what made the GT3 so enthralling to drive fast. And so dangerous. The GT4 and the GT3 always gave me near identical lap times. The GT3, you got out sweating and swearing with stains in your underwear. In the dry. In the wet, trying to get a fast time out of it was basically like walking a tightrope over a shark tank. Your fastest times only ever came at the end of the day once you'd worked out how to maximize the trailbrake. Unless you crashed earlier in the day trying to find the limit....

    The GT4 you could jump in and spank out your fastest lap in the first couple of sessions. So forgiving and very transparent.

    And in a way, that shows why some people LOVE GT3's. It has that soul you were all talking about earlier in the thread. It can't be unlocked in a session, or a day, or even a year. The GT4 is easier to drive fast and for that a lot of people like it. But it's also the one-dimensional side to it that a lot of people can find a bit boring or anodyne. Especially if they have spent any time trying to unlock a 911.
    Dear boy, I work at Planet Eclipse, don't you know..

  2. #2472
    Insider new ion?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTheWookie View Post
    Blade Runner 2049 is really good. It's one of the very few movies I've actually seen more than once in the theaters.
    Maybe because I've only ever seen the final (or whatever the last, apparently 'definitive') version, I didn't understand it.

    It could be due to me being in the wrong mood/environment, idk. I need to rewatch. I really want to like and understand it and am super excited for 2049... Good to hear it's good.

  3. #2473
    Quote Originally Posted by fullofpaint View Post
    If I remember right isn't that kind of a big point of contention between Ridley and Harrison? Scoot says he is, Ford says he isn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTheWookie View Post
    I don't get why Scott is so adamant about that anyway, it just messes up all the themes of the original.
    yeah riddly kept trying to put more into the movie to prove that deckart is a replicant. in each "directors cut" version there is more and more evidence that deckart is a replicant, until in the "final cut" version its pretty much proven that deckart is a replicant.

    however, the entire movie loses every meaning it had, and every purpose, if deckart is a replicant. the whole film is about what is life, is artificial life life? what if we could create life? what is a life? and if everyone is a replicant, then none of those theme's exist. it might see edgy in that junior high film way, OMG deckart is a REPILICANT THE WHOLE TIME! .... but it actually ruins everything good about the movie.

    i love riddly scott's films, and he almost always plays with this notion of creation of life, and what exactly that entails ... but he's dead wrong on the deckart topic.

    the short story the movie is based on, is about a human blade runner, and they make it explicitly clear that he is human.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #2474
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Wood View Post
    Basically every 911.

    It's what made the GT3 so enthralling to drive fast. And so dangerous. The GT4 and the GT3 always gave me near identical lap times. The GT3, you got out sweating and swearing with stains in your underwear. In the dry. In the wet, trying to get a fast time out of it was basically like walking a tightrope over a shark tank. Your fastest times only ever came at the end of the day once you'd worked out how to maximize the trailbrake. Unless you crashed earlier in the day trying to find the limit....

    The GT4 you could jump in and spank out your fastest lap in the first couple of sessions. So forgiving and very transparent.

    And in a way, that shows why some people LOVE GT3's. It has that soul you were all talking about earlier in the thread. It can't be unlocked in a session, or a day, or even a year. The GT4 is easier to drive fast and for that a lot of people like it. But it's also the one-dimensional side to it that a lot of people can find a bit boring or anodyne. Especially if they have spent any time trying to unlock a 911.
    thats because a 911 is pretty understeer biased due to the weight distribution. folks mistake the crazy powerslides and tail happy antics as oversteer bias, but really, its just a manifestation of when you overcome the oversteer bias, the tail kicks out really fast. almost a snap oversteer type characteristic. 911 transitions from understeer to oversteer rapidly, which scares everyone.

    i seem to drive only FRs at this point. nice and calm ... like an AP1 s2000! haha
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  5. #2475
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    the short story the movie is based on, is about a human blade runner, and they make it explicitly clear that he is human.
    The internal questions he had of what was human, looking at himself, and defining himself really is what made it a good story.

    I did want to see more details from the book, and I am looking forward to BR:2049.

    Lots of PKD sci-fi out there at the moment. Man in the high castle, Electric Dreams, Blade Runner 2049. Curious to see what is next. Reading Snowcrash and re-reading Ringworld because those are starting up soon also.

    Small bonus: My HS friend Tony Parker did a set of graphic novels on DADOES - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01E0IR7G2...ng=UTF8&btkr=1
    Last edited by pbjosh; 10-13-2017 at 11:42 AM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #2476
    Insider new ion?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    1,296
    By short story, you guys mean "short novel" right? Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is the basis, is it not?

  7. #2477
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    By short story, you guys mean "short novel" right? Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is the basis, is it not?
    Yep.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #2478
    Quote Originally Posted by new ion? View Post
    Maybe because I've only ever seen the final (or whatever the last, apparently 'definitive') version, I didn't understand it.

    It could be due to me being in the wrong mood/environment, idk. I need to rewatch. I really want to like and understand it and am super excited for 2049... Good to hear it's good.
    FWIW, I didn't particularly enjoy the original, but really loved the new one.

    Scott should let Dennis Villanueve direct an Alien film. Also, if you like him as a director you gotta check out his Sundance film, Incendies. Super messed up but a terrific film.

  9. #2479
    Insider AndrewTheWookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Central Coast, CA
    Posts
    374
    Villeneuve's next project is Dune, so I'm pretty fucking pumped for that as well.
    I don't know, fly casual

  10. #2480
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    yeah riddly kept trying to put more into the movie to prove that deckart is a replicant. in each "directors cut" version there is more and more evidence that deckart is a replicant, until in the "final cut" version its pretty much proven that deckart is a replicant.

    however, the entire movie loses every meaning it had, and every purpose, if deckart is a replicant. the whole film is about what is life, is artificial life life? what if we could create life? what is a life? and if everyone is a replicant, then none of those theme's exist. it might see edgy in that junior high film way, OMG deckart is a REPILICANT THE WHOLE TIME! .... but it actually ruins everything good about the movie.

    i love riddly scott's films, and he almost always plays with this notion of creation of life, and what exactly that entails ... but he's dead wrong on the deckart topic.

    the short story the movie is based on, is about a human blade runner, and they make it explicitly clear that he is human.
    You really need to understand the premise of the short story and movie. 1st, they are 2 different mediums. Since Philip K. Dick did not write the movie, nor script, nor direct the movie. So you can not have any interpretations of the nouvelle/short story, to the movie.

    The idea of the movie is, what makes a human a human. You are correct about that, that RIDLEY Scott does have themes of life & death in a lot of his movies. But Scott, upon reading the reasons that he stated on the subsequent releases (the director's cut, Final cut, etc), that the studio forced certain cuts, cuts were made for whatever reasons tbat Scott did not like with HIS movie. That is the key, HIS MOVIE.

    Now within the movie, Scott had blurred the lines between the theme, that is the key. In the original, it always blurred the line, always posed the question, was he a replicant? Through the actions of the replicants, and Deckard, what defined a human defined a replicant. They are born, they live, act and react, have experiences and they die. The only difference is that their date, for a replicant death is written down, while humans do not. That is the trick, not stating what is life, but how do you, the viewer define life it. What are the keys to prove that you life is deserving? In some regardless, the 'skin jobs' even met their god, their creator, even bettering what man has achieved.

    So no, the movie is not cut and dry. It is not a engineering question of right or wrong, works or doesn't; it is philosophy of tbe very things that define what is humans.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •