normally I catch submission mistakes like that and change them to the correct track before verification, obviously this one fell through the cracks somehow.

There are a variety of maps and mods on the repository that provide the community with quality content to enjoy, but honestly the amount of content in the base game is enough to maintain the leaderboards for as it is.

For the moment trying to keep up with current official content as well as adding some of the content from future updates is plenty of work for the mods/verifiers on here and I think offers a good amount of variety for runners without cluttering the board.

Old runs will be archived before the next batch get verified, thank you for letting me know.

For YoloMenace001: As of the moment, you can only officially downgrade to the last DX9 version(v0.4.06), the last DX10 version(v0.14.5), and the last 32 bit version(v0.23.5.1) through Steam. There doesn't seem to be any demand to speedrun these 3 official versions of the game over the current version, so there's also seemingly no need for making these into their own separate categories either.

Also please see my response on the other thread if you haven't yet.

It's not prudent to need to verify for several separate versions of the game for each instance of the AI acting differently or if something changes, as it wouldn't just be two or three groups especially when considering the game changing going forward. It opens a Pandora's box of intricacies and issues to verify around that even implemented at its best would only clutter the leaderboards even more then they are now, all for something that only a very limited amount of people even seem to care about.

It was verified simply because in the newest version of the game, the AI now acts this way even at 30FPS or higher. In the update prior to v0.26, the behavior demonstrated in your submissions was only able to be replicated by limiting the FPS to sub 20s. Which I felt as though limiting the framerate to nearly unplayable rates becoming the new meta for WR AI runs wasn't something that current and future runners would find agreeable.

But as far as Police Patrol itself is concerned, I had to go back to check for myself after the discussion we had about this exact issue a month or so ago, and discovered the AI behavior as it is now. In a perfect world it'd remain consistent across updates obviously, but since BeamNG is still in Alpha constantly undergoing major changes such alterations are expected to continue happening. Entire scenarios including Police Patrol fundamentally change at times making standing WR runs impossible and are archived to preserve the outdated runs.

Given the current circumstances with AI behavior it may happen again soon, but we'll see what changes the updates bring.

Using LiveSplit from when "GO!" first appears to when the last checkpoint disappears, after the early start by around 120ms and the delay at the end which should have been at 1:26:700ms about, I ended up with about 1:26:580ms as the final approximate time.

Sorry about that, it's been corrected.

Destroy the Moonhawk did have some curbing added between the entrances/exits to the gas station with the East Coast redesign. But more importantly, it seems that the AI is always turning left to leave the gas station now rather than left/right depending on where the player is. It also seems to leave from the gas station more consistently without spinning out at times like how it used to. It takes a lot of the variability out of the runs, which would make the other runs currently listed obsolete.

So noting those changes to that scenario, all of the old runs for Destroy The Moonhawk prior to v0.18.4(current version) are going to be removed.

EDIT: Also, I'm currently working through some of the older AI dependent runs to see if they're able to be done or not in the current version of the game. Delivery Truck Takedown, for one, has had the old runs removed since the truck AI does not seem to care if the player gets in front of it anymore.

As long as the scenario ends in success, then I think it should count. If losing the mixing barrel in the future causes the scenario to fail, then the runs where that happens will be removed.

But until such a thing happens, I don't see a problem with it.

The current build of the game seems to have some issues with the AI in the scenarios that include it, so you're correct that some of the runs aren't the same as they were before. Behavior such as starting early, starting late, choosing sub-optimal pathing, etc that affect the overall consistency of speed-running these scenarios. It also affects how we verify some AI runs, as they'll be rejected if the AI behaves in such a way as previously stated. Some of the scenarios, such as Bank Robbery, the speedrunning still seemed to be competitive. Of course, for the scenario mentioned prior, this doesn't seem to be the case.

The version of the game where this behavior seemed to start was v0.17 after some major traffic AI overhauls, and has persisted through the hotfixes of v0.17/v0.18 as well until the current version(v0.18.4.1 as of 2/22/20). I had hoped that these behaviors would be fixed, but it's been awhile and it seems like we'll have to amend the leaderboards.

A solution to this would be to remove any of the AI-dependent scenario runs that were ran before these versions and keep a close eye on future AI behaviors in case they either revert to previous behavior or otherwise change in upcoming versions of the game.

Let me know below if you have any questions or concerns, since those changes to the leaderboard won't be immediate.

I just added the missing tracks, didn't even notice they added some after the Utah remaster. Thanks for letting me know!

I checked it out, and they removed the last two checkpoints in the run along with some minor changes made to the surface of the road in places that seemed to make it a bit more predictable. But other than that, the course wasn't altered too much off of the previous version, which makes me lean more on the side of keeping the current runs for Downhill Rally. That's just my opinion, however.

If you count the current 1st place run and where they crossed the 41st checkpoint at 3:29, there's about a 10 second or so improvement with those last two checkpoints gone. IMO It seems like the other changes to the road surface would help to improve times by keeping consecutive runs more consistent.

Interesting, I'll check it out when I get the chance and rerun it. Some of the other runs that take place in Utah might potentially be axed as well if they've been touched/altered by the redesign.

Now, considering that this may shorten the run significantly, would anybody be opposed to leaving up the old runs since they'll only be knocked further down the list by any new runs? Most were sort of made obsolete before this current redesign, but remained up since most of the changes in previous BeamNG versions over the years only helped to lower the times for new runs rather than raise them.

On one hand, they'd be neat to leave in for seeing the history/changes of that particular scenario. On the other hand, it's no longer going to be accurate to what the scenario is like in the current versions of BeamNG going forward.

Being able to tell if a vehicle has been modified or not in the first place when verifying runs was one of my main qualms when deciding if the time-trial leaderboards should allow all of the non-default vanilla BeamNG modifications or not. It'd be easiest for consistent future runs if only default BeamNG cars are to be used, but it's impossible to moderate properly in a way that's 100% fair for the runners.

There's a lot to check for when making sure if a vehicle that's used for a run is unmodified from the default vehicles BeamNG allows you to choose from, and it'd be impossible to tell if there's been fine tuning/adjustments done from run to run. The only thing possible to moderate when verifying runs is if a vehicle has been "visibly" been extensively modified from default vehicle, in a way that's easy to tell through the video submission.

Then, if that were the way future runs were verified, you'd have to question where the line is drawn between fine-tuning vs extensive modification and where to allow some potential "blurred" lines. It makes for a lot of extra hassle verifying runs and still isn't entirely fair to future runners since some modifications are going to slip through the cracks.

I'm only commenting to show that this isn't an easy decision to make, and allowing BeamNG default car modifications/fine tuning would likely be the most fair option going forward. Anybody else with other considerations to make about this please feel free to respond.

The AI has been acting a little strange since a couple of updates ago. I noticed some runs where the AI either doesn't respond/react appropriately to player location, gets stuck before it's been scripted to start moving in the scenario, or has other such pathing issues that "break" certain scenarios for running.

For scenarios where that sort of thing occurs, I don't feel right verifying it since it's too difficult to reproduce the same sort of glitched behavior for other players in subsequent runs.

For that trick, I just had it in low range and dumped the clutch. As long as it's increasing in throttle and making boost, it should have enough power to launch optimally. At least, it did the last time I checked.

I won't speak for the other moderators, but I'm alright with customized vehicles as long as they only use the provided in-game vanilla modifications for that specific vehicle. Mods introduce a degree of customizability/variation that I believe would prove hard to keep it fair from run to run.

IMO allowing mods or adding a modding category is just an absolute Pandora's Box of variations that we'd have to keep in mind when verifying runs, to keep it fair for everyone.

Prior to this discussion, I've made the vanilla setup on one of my old runs known so it could be replicated by someone wishing to attempt the run with the same exact vehicle setup. But that system and others like it if implemented are going to be based in honesty at the end of the day. Since who's to say that the setup a runner provided is even the one they used for the speedrun?

Whoever else wants to weigh in feel free to do so.

The AI has been behaving strangely since the newest update(v0.17-v0.17.1) of BeamNG when they added traffic AI. It seems AI in the scenarios will try any available path without prioritizing correctly based on the location of the player. So as of currently, the AI makes the current WR or anywhere near it for Corridor unobtainable.

Related to this, I've been hesitant to both remove/add any new runs that heavily rely on this broken AI behavior in case the devs end up fixing it in the next update. Since it does seems to be broken for nearly every scenario like this in the game's current state. I've rejected runs for other scenarios where the AI doesn't behave at all like how the scenario designer intended, by either reversing at the start towards the player or becoming stuck before the scripting triggers the AI to even begin moving.

If anyone has other input to give on this, let me know below.

From what I'm able to tell, Crest Road has stopped appearing in-game as an option for a time trial, and since has been pruned from the "Italy - Time Trials" category.

I verified my game cache with both Steam and the in-menu file verifier when I noticed it was no longer appearing, and everything seemed to be in order. I also unzipped the Italy level itself to see if it was still mentioned in there anywhere along with the rest of the time trials and didn't have any luck in finding it.

If this was in error, let me know. Also let a mod know if any other time trials or scenarios have undergone major changes and we'll adjust accordingly if old runs become obsolete.

It would be nice if a mod could clarify this, considering how much variety is possible for running Time Trials with custom setups even without the use of any game mods.

Should it be so that if you do a run with a custom setup of a vehicle you simply disclose in the video what changes have been made so that the run may be attempted by another person if they choose to do so? If part changes are allowed, should other tuning changes(if somehow altered from original) also be represented in the video itself or perhaps shown with a screenshot of what you've done that's linked to in the video's description?

It does raise a lot of questions on how runs for Time Trials should be submitted, since if only BeamNG original vehicle configs are allowed, someone could potentially make their own mod-less configuration that's otherwise visually identical to the original, but has had improvements made with other parts/tuning.