Hi i am someone who has bought every pcm game since it started and have become more a career player so sim most of the races. I have not bought pcm11 as there did not seem any change in the management aspect of the game. Wondering now that many people have played the game if anyone has noticed any improvments, differences in the detailed sim this year.
knowing that its different/better in any way will probably make me buy this years game
The normal simulation does not consider the stage profile, therefore only the stage length does play a role when you simulate.
In the detailed simulation you should get more real results (closer to real life).
You can only use the detailed simulation for races your team does participate in.
It is easier to win a sprint stage with the normal simulation and it is faster.
I use my season planner and therefore I don't have to set up the roster, so I don't even go into the pre-race menu but just simulate the whole day.
I once wrote a short tutorial about the detailed situation, but I am to lazy to search it. Use the forum search if you want to know what you can do in the detailed simulation.
Lachi wrote:
The normal simulation does not consider the stage profile, therefore only the stage length does play a role when you simulate.
In the detailed simulation you should get more real results (closer to real life).
Please explain if you please, I simulate about 80% of my teams races (quick sim) and if only lenght mattrsd, how come my sprinters win flat stages, my puncheurs win hills, my best cobblers win the north classics and my mointain men win mountain stages? Or in other words come closest to win, since i dont win them all...
The race type and length does matter, but not the profile. I did not mention the race type because I though that would be obvious. Maybe you confused race type with profile. The profile is the "side view" of the stage, so you see mountains and stuff.
Example of a profile:
Simulation example with mountain stages:
- Stage 1 as in the profile above
- Stage 2 has 115 km and 1 mountain at km 50. The stage ends in a flat sprint
If you use the fast simulation, both stages are won by Contador followed by the other mountain goats.
If you use the detailed simulation, the 2nd race will end in a bunch sprint and the mountain specialist will not gain time.
Edited by Lachi on 16-09-2011 18:32
Lachi wrote:
The race type and length does matter, but not the profile. I did not mention the race type because I though that would be obvious. Maybe you confused race type with profile. The profile is the "side view" of the stage, so you see mountains and stuff.
Example of a profile:
Simulation example with mountain stages:
- Stage 1 has 150 km and 7 mountains. The stage ends on top of the Alpe-d’Huez
- Stage 2 has 155 km and 1 mountain at km 50. The stage ends in a flat sprint
If you use the fast simulation, both stages are won by Contador followed by the other mountain goats.
If you use the detailed simulation, the 2nd race will end in a bunch sprint and the mountain specialist will not gain time.
'
Ahh, English not among my first 3 languages, but now I u8nderstand the difference between race type /eg flat, hilly or mountain) and profile, wich is where the stage rise and fall.
Still got a question, there is a stage in TDF that have a mountain in middle and flat both sides, this got a mountain type on icon, but almost always end in sprint winner, unless breaks win, in quick sim this is. This never happen in mountain stages that ends in steep climbs, this made me think profile was part of the quick sim.
