 |
 canis
Name: canis fortunatus
Age: 40
Town:
Skill: Very bad
 Supporter
|
Team name: [02] Bangor Racing
Team division: Division 4.13
Team livery:
 |
Date posted: Thursday 29 July 2010 10:17
Message status:
New message
Message count: 233
Quote message
|
|
When sorting by tyre wear, the list is alphabetical. Which isn't useful.
e.g: Average, Awful, Bad, Excellent, Good, Okay, Very Bad, Very Good.
|
|
AnimalRacing
Name: Tom Bagley
Age: 27
Town: London
Skill: Superb
Supporter
|
Team name: Animal Racing
Team division: Division 2.4
Team livery:
 |
Date posted: Thursday 29 July 2010 10:53
Message status:
New message
Message count: 1733
Quote message
|
|
| True, at least they are still grouped together though, thats the most important thing. |
|
|
 canis
Name: canis fortunatus
Age: 40
Town:
Skill: Very bad
Supporter
|
Team name: [02] Bangor Racing
Team division: Division 4.13
Team livery:
|
Date posted: Friday 30 July 2010 14:50
Message status:
New message
Message count: 233
Quote message
|
|
Huh? What an absurd notion.
Justify the statement. Exactly *how* is that the most important thing? Exactly *how* is grouping them alphabetically (to all useful practices, a random order) in any way shape or form useful to man or beast???
|
|
 darkstar
Name: Pete C
Age: 24
Town: manchester
Skill: Awful
Supporter
|
Team name: Dark Racing
Team division: Division 4.9
Team livery:
 |
Date posted: Friday 30 July 2010 21:56
Message status:
New message
Message count: 25
Quote message
|
|
| in theory putting the tyre wear in that order is fine.. assuming you do one stint of say 15 laps but with multiple drivers , stints and order settings, that ordering becomes redundant and you end up sorting the laps in order. |
|
|
 canis
Name: canis fortunatus
Age: 40
Town:
Skill: Very bad
Supporter
|
Team name: [02] Bangor Racing
Team division: Division 4.13
Team livery:
|
Date posted: Saturday 31 July 2010 01:29
Message status:
New message
Message count: 233
Quote message
|
|
Okay then. Obviously the alphabetical position of whatever name we call them is an entirely accurate way display tyre wear rates. Everybody knows tyres wear more or less because of the names we call them! I can see now why it's all my own fault ...
I really can't understand why this is being so defended. Am i the only one who can see how perfectly wrong this is? *boggle* |
|
| >
You have to be logged in to post a reply |
|
|
|
|
|
