| Author |
Topic: TRACK COST Scale (by IBK) |
61 replies
|
|
|
- I create a scale to see How Expensive are the 60 tracks of GPRO
...so calculate the scale with this Data & parameters:
-Driver Skills: CON=200, TAL=150, EXP=175 +50% Clear Track Risk.
-Level of Parts 6. (all)
-Scale (0,1,2,3,4) like usual.
-I Put the Scale Number first (in 0,00 form) and then a point, the Number of the tracks and the track
- Its Easy Now to see How Expensive is the Season.!!!
...just we add the 17 values of scale and have a Total Number to Compare.!!!
TRACK COST SCALE
1,95 .1 A1-Ring
1,45 .2 Adelaide
0,64 .3 Ahvenisto
1,93 .4 Anderstorp
1,32 .5 Austin
3,03 .6 Avus
1,75 .7 Baku City
3,37 .8 Barcelona
0,84 .9 Brands Hatch
1,72 .10 Brasilia
1,30 .11 Bremgarten
2,00 .12 Brno
3,27 .13 Bucharest Ring
3,49 .14 Buenos Aires
2,23 .15 Estoril
2,22 .16 Fiorano
1,48 .17 Fuji
1,36 .18 Grobnik
2,26 .19 Hockenheim
3,76 .20 Hungaroring
2,54 .21 Imola
3,65 .22 Indianapolis
3,07 .23 Indianapolis Oval
3,01 .24 Interlagos
3,38 .25 Irungattukottai
0,73 .26 Istanbul
3,31 .27 Jerez
0,00 .28 Jyllands-Ringen
1,40 .29 Kaunas
2,15 .30 Kyalami
1,76 .31 Laguna Seca
2,19 .32 Magny Cours
1,87 .33 Melbourne
0,58 .34 Mexico City
1,92 .35 Monte Carlo
2,40 .36 Montreal
2,50 .37 Monza
1,26 .38 Mugello
2,33 .39 New Delhi
2,35 .40 Nurburgring
1,82 .41 Oesterreichring
2,54 .42 Paul Ricard
1,13 .43 Portimao
2,31 .44 Poznan
2,96 .45 Rafaela Oval
2,71 .46 Sakhir
2,27 .47 Sepang
1,43 .48 Serres
3,26 .49 Shanghai
2,00 .50 Silverstone
1,42 .51 Singapore
2,42 .52 Slovakiaring
1,56 .53 Sochi
2,67 .54 Spa
1,36 .55 Suzuka
1,83 .56 Valencia
1,29 .57 Yas Marina
1,82 .58 Yeongam
4,00 .59 Zandvoort
1,13 .60 Zolder
The scale from Chip to Expensive
0,00 .28 Jyllands-Ringen
0,58 .34 Mexico City
0,64 .3 Ahvenisto
0,73 .26 Istanbul
0,84 .9 Brands Hatch
1,13 .43 Portimao
1,13 .60 Zolder
1,26 .38 Mugello
1,29 .57 Yas Marina
1,30 .11 Bremgarten
1,32 .5 Austin
1,36 .55 Suzuka
1,36 .18 Grobnik
1,40 .29 Kaunas
1,42 .51 Singapore
1,43 .48 Serres
1,45 .2 Adelaide
1,48 .17 Fuji
1,56 .53 Sochi
1,72 .10 Brasilia
1,75 .7 Baku City
1,76 .31 Laguna Seca
1,82 .41 Oesterreichring
1,82 .58 Yeongam
1,83 .56 Valencia
1,87 .33 Melbourne
1,92 .35 Monte Carlo
1,93 .4 Anderstorp
1,95 .1 A1-Ring
2,00 .50 Silverstone
2,00 .12 Brno
2,15 .30 Kyalami
2,19 .32 Magny Cours
2,22 .16 Fiorano
2,23 .15 Estoril
2,26 .19 Hockenheim
2,27 .47 Sepang
2,31 .44 Poznan
2,33 .39 New Delhi
2,35 .40 Nurburgring
2,40 .36 Montreal
2,42 .52 Slovakiaring
2,50 .37 Monza
2,54 .42 Paul Ricard
2,54 .21 Imola
2,67 .54 Spa
2,71 .46 Sakhir
2,96 .45 Rafaela Oval
3,01 .24 Interlagos
3,03 .6 Avus
3,07 .23 Indianapolis Oval
3,26 .49 Shanghai
3,27 .13 Bucharest Ring
3,31 .27 Jerez
3,37 .8 Barcelona
3,38 .25 Irungattukottai
3,49 .14 Buenos Aires
3,65 .22 Indianapolis
3,76 .20 Hungaroring
4,00 .59 Zandvoort
...I Hope to Help the Statistics Lovers.!!!
- Good Day from Beautiful Sithonia/Chalkidiki/Greece.!!!
|
|
|
|
|
#2 posted Feb 5th 2017, 12:17:37
|
Quote
|
|
ouu it is nice to see sorted tracks by their costs ;) I think I make a screen out of that and save it to my gpro file ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 posted Feb 5th 2017, 13:15:55
|
Quote
|
|
|
|
How can Jylands Ringen be zero? Or as this, as you say, a scale so therefore that is the cheapest and the one at 4.00 most expensive?
|
|
|
|
Mighty curious about the logic behind these numbers....
2,00 .50 Silverstone
2,00 .12 Brno
That one is easy, equal wear on both tracks i presume.
Would this mean Zandvoort has double wear compared to Brno and Silverstone?
But if so, what does the 0,00 at Jyllands indicate? No wear? :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 posted Feb 6th 2017, 12:54:52
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ February 6th 2017,12:44:09 ) Would this mean Zandvoort has double wear compared to Brno and Silverstone?
No.
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ February 6th 2017,12:44:09 ) But if so, what does the 0,00 at Jyllands indicate? No wear? :D
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 posted Feb 6th 2017, 13:04:59
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ February 6th 2017,12:44:09 ) Mighty curious about the logic behind these numbers....
2,00 .50 Silverstone
2,00 .12 Brno
That one is easy, equal wear on both tracks i presume.
4,00 .59 Zandvoort
Would this mean Zandvoort has double wear compared to Brno and Silverstone?
But if so, what does the 0,00 at Jyllands indicate? No wear? :D
I agree those number without any explanation are a bit... vague.
I assume 0-4 is an arbitrary scale where he just took the cheapest track and defined it as 0 instead of giving it the correct fraction of the most expensive track.
This means maybe 0 is half the cost of 4 (or 30%, or 70%, we don't know) and 2 is in the middle between 0 and 4.
Also, twice the cost does not mean twice the wear. Wear on the engine is more expensive than wear on the sidepods, because the engine is more expensive.
This is just my interpretation, it may be wrong. I agree some clarification is needed otherwise the numbers are of no use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 posted Feb 6th 2017, 13:12:02
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ February 6th 2017,12:54:52 ) Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ February 6th 2017,12:44:09 )
Would this mean Zandvoort has double wear compared to Brno and Silverstone?
No.
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ February 6th 2017,12:44:09 )
But if so, what does the 0,00 at Jyllands indicate? No wear? :D
No.
I know, merely trying to spark the addition of some extra information by means of a few rhetorical questions :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 posted Feb 6th 2017, 13:20:45
|
Quote
|
|
there are no rhetorical questions for Jukka, anyway he will find an answer
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Jasper Coosemans @ February 6th 2017,13:04:59 ) I agree those number without any explanation are a bit... vague.
And vague they shall remain :)
Quote ( Jasper Coosemans @ February 6th 2017,13:04:59 ) I agree some clarification is needed otherwise the numbers are of no use.
If they are correct (I've not checked for accuracy), then they give a comparison of track cost compared to each other without giving anything too exact. While it could be argued that it goes against the "detailed information rule", I think it's vague enough (if it is even accurate).
More clear clarification would probably be really pushing things beyond the "detailed information" rule, so not permitted on the forums.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the vagueness was intended though, but at least it keeps the thread open :D
|
|
|
|
|
I would doubt the cost difference between let's say Rafaela Oval and Zandvoort are that different for reasons I won't go into on here, and they go between 2.96 and 4.00 on this scale.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ February 6th 2017,13:22:24 ) Quote ( Jasper Coosemans @ February 6th 2017,13:04:59 )
I agree those number without any explanation are a bit... vague.
And vague they shall remain :)
Quote ( Jasper Coosemans @ February 6th 2017,13:04:59 )
I agree some clarification is needed otherwise the numbers are of no use.
If they are correct (I've not checked for accuracy), then they give a comparison of track cost compared to each other without giving anything too exact. While it could be argued that it goes against the "detailed information rule", I think it's vague enough (if it is even accurate).
More clear clarification would probably be really pushing things beyond the "detailed information" rule, so not permitted on the forums.
Without clarification, the numbers are misleading at best. Perhaps it's better off being deleted altogether.
Whether the numbers are correct or not, in any case we can state that a 0 on the scale cannot mean 0 cost in reality. This means that on this scale, 2 does not equal half the cost of 4.
This in turn means that the OP's claim that we can "add up tracks to see how expensive the season is" is simply wrong because Jyllands+Zandvoort (0+4) will NOT give the same cost as Silverstone+Brno (2+2).
Therefore the numbers are misleading, and the guiding text in the OP is plain wrong. If clarification is not permitted (which I understand), the numbers are less useful than they are claimed to be in the OP. This does have the merit of ranking all tracks on an unknown wear scale, but which is useful. But if the topic lives on, at least the OP should be edited to remove the faulty claims.
|
|
|
|
|
***Detailed information removed***
|
|
|
|
I think we could have got away with this being vague before, now it's probably going to be deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the efforts and extra explanation Ioannis!
Fear the info might get deleted, as Richard pointed out already: it might be a little too detailed for the public forums, but i'm sure you've helped some people with it :)
|
|
|
|
...all that are Just my Personal Opinion (are not so Valuable Top Secret data...)
|
|
|
|
I don't think this data breaks any rules - people who use tools, team data, their own data, already have an idea of which tracks are expensive (which ones to push on, or cruise etc.) Basically the most important part of this is actually in his first post, where he gives an approximate comparison of cost.
On top of that, this data is specific to his driver + car, others will get different results.
And finally, different strategies will change the use of this data (e.g. testing, downgrading etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
But surely this breaks the find out by yourself rule?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Richard Carter @ February 6th 2017,14:25:59 ) But surely this breaks the find out by yourself rule?
Actually 9.1....
• No revealing detailed information about the game
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Richard Carter @ February 6th 2017,14:26:42 ) Quote ( Richard Carter @ February 6th 2017,14:25:59 )
But surely this breaks the find out by yourself rule?
Actually 9.1....
• No revealing detailed information about the game
Yep, you're right - forgot about that.
So it is probably against game rules, even though imo the numerical values of cost is quite pointless. The comparisons are much more important (gives you an idea of what kind of wear to expect on each track).
Also, I feel like people are forgetting that to get the ideal data one has to race with the same lvl of car parts + same stat driver on each track. From op's post I gather he has been collecting this data as he progresses normally, so the data is most definitely not 100% correct.
|
|
|
|
I'd rather not close a thread unless absolutely needed so if people can stick to the forum rules, then that would be appreciated.
So, Richard, please don't double post when an edit is perfectly suitable and appropriate :)
Oh, and everyone, no revealing detailed information about the game. As mentioned, opening post is vague enough, but going in to exact values and such like is certainly too far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, now we're talking. :) Thanks Ioannis. Your scale makes sense to me now. After giving it a thought, it turns out "2+2=4" is incorrect like I thought but... "2+2=4+0" is correct. You just need to keep an equal amount of tracks on both sides of the equation for it to work. My bad. :)
There is still a problem with car levels (if I have all parts L6, but only the engine L5, this will have a different cost impact on different tracks, so the tracks will rank differently) but it is still a very good indication. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Sorry Kevin.!!!
...but why don't remove only the 60 Values
and live the rest explanations.?
...if you can do that Now are Perfect.-
|
|
|
|
- I ll try again to give an Explanation (after Kevin delete)
- the Scale has the next logical:
1. I Calculate first the Cost in Real Millions all the tracks with the parameters that I sad.
2. So we have the 60 values (that Kevin Delete ...and Right).
3. I took the first (the chip) and the last (the most expensive) and Name it as, 0 & 4 the limits of the Scale.
4. All the 58 others are simple between 0&4 analogical (pure Mathematics)
I Calculate the Costs with the skills of a good common Driver, and the Car parts on level 6,
...but this is not problem on the scale, because any Skill and any level Parts we ll use, the Scale Analogical remain the same.!!!
...to have an little Idea, every Unit on the scale (0-1-2-3-4) is more expensive about 1,5-2,0 millions.
I Hope to not disturb Rules & Kevin with those Explanations.!!!
- Good Morning from Beautiful Sithonia/Chalikidiki/Greece.!!!
|
|
|
|
Seasons Expencive (scale IBK)
Season 57 =33,5
Season 56 =35,0
...if someone has time can find and the others seasons.-
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Ioannis Kalogirou @ February 5th 2017,11:58:12 ) 2,54 .42 Paul Ricard
2,54 .21 Imola
2,67 .54 Spa
2,71 .46 Sakhir
2,96 .45 Rafaela Oval
3,01 .24 Interlagos
3,03 .6 Avus
3,07 .23 Indianapolis Oval
3,26 .49 Shanghai
3,27 .13 Bucharest Ring
3,31 .27 Jerez
3,37 .8 Barcelona
3,38 .25 Irungattukottai
3,49 .14 Buenos Aires
3,65 .22 Indianapolis
3,76 .20 Hungaroring
4,00 .59 Zandvoort
There you go, Stefan. Save you messing about with trying to get the most expensive calendar next season :)
|
|
|
|
|
Come on Kevin - don't half arse it - you haven't put in a test track!
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ February 7th 2017,18:54:04 )
There you go, Stefan. Save you messing about with trying to get the most expensive calendar next season :)
Sorry, but not quite correct - Argentina, Spain and United States would have two tracks each. This is the corrected calendar :)
Quote ( Ioannis Kalogirou @ February 5th 2017,11:58:12 ) 2,40 .36 Montreal
2,42 .52 Slovakiaring
2,50 .37 Monza
2,54 .42 Paul Ricard
2,54 .21 Imola
2,67 .54 Spa
2,71 .46 Sakhir
3,01 .24 Interlagos
3,03 .6 Avus
3,26 .49 Shanghai
3,27 .13 Bucharest Ring
3,37 .8 Barcelona
3,38 .25 Irungattukottai
3,49 .14 Buenos Aires
3,65 .22 Indianapolis
3,76 .20 Hungaroring
4,00 .59 Zandvoort
And still interesting that I have slightly different data about all that... :-P
EDIT: As I have a soft spot for statistics, I calculated the sum for the most expensive calendar that is possible (at the moment) and also for the cheapest as well. Most expensive is at 52.0, cheapest at 18.64 - by looking just at these numbers, the average would be at 35.32. Of course we should calculate it in a proper way - the average cost of a track is at 2.095, therefore one season would be at 35.615 - not that far off from the first average.
My conclusion: Every calendar with a cost lower than 35 I will consider as cheap :P
|
|
|
|
Hold it, IBK never used the word cheap!
A season with a cost of 35 is an average expensive season. Average in GPRO terms, where seasons are always expensive. ;)
|
|
|
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
