Whenever I look at Cyanide's profiles and compare climbs from different years, there are some large differences, which makes me think just how accurate are these gradients. I know when somebody designs a stage they can get things right. For example looking at the Tour Down Under and a climb like Checker Hill in the 2014 route it has an average gradient of 6.1% and a maximum of 7.6%. In an earlier route from 2011 it had an average 5.5% and a maximum of 11.9%, which is a big difference in its maximum gradient!
I did some independent research on the internet and saw there is just one way up this climb and its maximum depending where you look is between 14-16%.
So where do Cyanide get their data from, as these differences are quite huge.
The data and route is ok, but it all depends on the stage. So it doesn't follow the exact route as PCM works on a 1:10 scale, which mostly keeps gradients intact, but causes issues, so things like switchbacks are hard to do, it's all quite relative, making the game acurate is almost impossible, the hill I live on is deadly steep, in the game it's 3%, about 6% lower than real life.
Ok I understand this, but if this is the case why are there differences between the figures given on Checker Hill between the PCM2011 and PCM2013 games? We're talking about the same climb or have Cyanide changed the scaling since then?
It really depends on who makes the stage. Some stagemakers opt for lower percentages because the game plays better that way, although it may be inaccurate.
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar!
