(05-15-2020, 08:30 AM)checkpoint10 Wrote: @samsepi0l The course map is really helpful - thanks for finding it! The only part that I'm not sure about on the map is the right turn onto Woodbridge. Based on video, the course actually goes onto Woodbridge proper (instead of along the edge as per the map), and then makes a crossover onto Jefferson Ave. However, there seems to be no good video I've found of that transition to Jefferson.
Did you watch the f1 video I put on my google drive? There are some really good pictures. I know sometimes it's hard to imagine the track when you are looking at a regular map.
(05-15-2020, 06:08 PM)samsepi0l Wrote: Did you watch the f1 video I put on my google drive? There are some really good pictures. I know sometimes it's hard to imagine the track when you are looking at a regular map.
Thanks for reminding me - I had a problem downloading it earlier but just tried again and it worked. Really great video quality there. The Woodbridge/Jefferson transition is still hard to see because that is the place where they always switched cameras.
But from squinting at the aerial photo, I believe I can see where the transition happened (see attached). I think a portion of the concrete "island" was removed for the race and then redone, based on the slight color difference there from the surrounding concrete. Also, on Woodbridge itself, there seems to be a line that separates some badly degraded asphalt from better condition asphalt, and that line matches nicely with where the edge of the track should've been. On videos you can just sense a little bump there which you would expect from crossing from one road to another.
(05-15-2020, 06:08 PM)samsepi0l Wrote: Did you watch the f1 video I put on my google drive? There are some really good pictures. I know sometimes it's hard to imagine the track when you are looking at a regular map.
Thanks for reminding me - I had a problem downloading it earlier but just tried again and it worked. Really great video quality there. The Woodbridge/Jefferson transition is still hard to see because that is the place where they always switched cameras.
But from squinting at the aerial photo, I believe I can see where the transition happened (see attached). I think a portion of the concrete "island" was removed for the race and then redone, based on the slight color difference there from the surrounding concrete. Also, on Woodbridge itself, there seems to be a line that separates some badly degraded asphalt from better condition asphalt, and that line matches nicely with where the edge of the track should've been. On videos you can just sense a little bump there which you would expect from crossing from one road to another.
I actually looked at this in google maps "street" view and compared with a bobby-rahal in-car-cam. I think you're absolutely right. Too bad google-maps is not more useful for this particular track. I looked at the 'historic aerials' site- and they have a 1999 photo, and the last one before that was I think 1976. Nothing really useful. The 99 photo was too distorted in my opinion anyways.
I was reviewing the Stig's Detroit 1991 in SGE and SFE and I think it could be a good basis for the track. The overall shape is not far off from the real thing, and the main issues are the track being too wide and the corner radii are too large. But these should not be too difficult to fix with an accurate track map overlay.
Useful thing I learned today - you can use Google Earth Pro to find the elevation at any point. Using that tool I was able to figure out that the uphill section has a 15' rise, followed by a very slight 5' rise in the following section, and then near the convention center it's a 20' drop. There are some smaller rises and dips throughout and I am thinking of including those as well. I know we talked about not having bumps per se, but I am hoping some slight elevation changes might give the track some character.
(05-26-2020, 09:59 AM)checkpoint10 Wrote: Useful thing I learned today - you can use Google Earth Pro to find the elevation at any point.
I thought, this is already commonly known.
I don't know if Google uses raw satellite data for the elevation model, or if they do some post-processing too or use high-resolution data. In the first case, I wouldn't rely too much on it. It could be quite good in an open, hilly area (like Laguna Seca), but a dense city with high buildings can cause errors, if it's not corrected or if it has low resolution.
(05-26-2020, 09:59 AM)checkpoint10 Wrote: Useful thing I learned today - you can use Google Earth Pro to find the elevation at any point.
I thought, this is already commonly known.
I don't know if Google uses raw satellite data for the elevation model, or if they do some post-processing too or use high-resolution data. In the first case, I wouldn't rely too much on it. It could be quite good in an open, hilly area (like Laguna Seca), but a dense city with high buildings can cause errors, if it's not corrected or if it has low resolution.
That is a good point, I think I would correlate what I see in the elevation data with actually looking at the street view and race videos.
