What's wrong with TT?

  • Thread starter KurtisGSXR
  • 19 comments
  • 3,420 views
K

KurtisGSXR

120
I've had TT for a few weeks, and I am loving it.

But, as with GT, there are a few things which I feel they've missed.

During pro handling mode, there are a few bikes which I can crack open out of a corner while leant over and they'll spin up, but they'll track straight and not step out.

Another pro handling fault is the braking balance. For some reason, using the front brake alone does not slow the bike as much as using both. I'm not the quickest rider in the world, but I run happily towards the front in the intermediate group on trackdays, and even I know that there's little use of the rear brake for speed reduction on the way into a corner. Only for mid-corner correction and wheelie stopping.

One big flaw is that I haven't yet seen any bike which has correctly working suspension. Over bumps everythiing seems okay, but I've not seen any bike which dips and squats under braking and acceleration yet. This is more apparent on supermotos than other types of bike. The nose should dive to the floor when you hit the anchors, yet it stays still. It's the same with the rear squatting under acceleration, it just doesn't seem to happen.

On the flip side to this, I'm very happy with the feel of bikes in fast corners, and the way the bike reacts during direction changes under acceleration and braking, it does feel a bit like the front is diving, or the rear squatting, it just doesn't look like it.

I throw the debate open to the floor, what say you?
 
im not a rider, but, ive heard bikes should oversteer on the throttle, not understeer.

uring pro handling mode, there are a few bikes which I can crack open out of a corner while leant over and they'll spin up, but they'll track straight and not step out.
Click to expand...

whenever i get the read tyre spinning up the engine either bogs down or the bike picks itself up then falls on the others side. i try not to spin the rear tyre because when i do i dont feel ive enough controll over it to do it correctly.

id like deep forest, trial mountain, and nordschliefe repaved. nordschliefe seems to have speed bump sized bumps if you watch the replay. the front suspesion compressers fully and instintly then is suddenly back in its normal travel range for 150+mph range.
 
I know everyone says Namcos MotoGP4 for the PS2 is arcadey, but it is in some ways more realistic than TT. Graphically it is no where near, but the physics involved are actually quite good. Im a 125GP racer and in the game it actually feels like riding a 125GP bike in some ways. They way it slides and squirms is almost identical to what I get in real life, the speeds are more realistic. How far the bikes lean over too. In TT there is too much restriction. The bikes dont lean over far enough unless you hit a dip in the ground etc. The traction control and anti wheelie stuff too. In real life Ive ridden 600 inline 4s and they are lively little things. Even the GP125 will wheelie at will in 1st gear, even in 2nd or 3rd gear out of corners the front will pick up enough for it to give a shake or so.
I like MotoGP still as it has competent(ish) oponents and lots of them. The big GP bikes slide more like real (well compared to TT) The way you can lose the front under brakes is just like real apart from in GP it will slide for a short while to warn you (you dont get that warning in real life lol!)

The way the bikes move too seems more life like. The suspension dives at the front under braking and the rear will compress and the opposite under acceleration etc. Its strange, but I actually think MotoGP4 is more realistic and this is from a real racers point of view.

The riders dont tuck there toes away when going around corners. The bikes dont lean over enough and the acceleration just seems too err.. subdued lol! Rear brakes are over effective, I sometimes wonder if they got any racers to actually put any input into the game??

http://www.lerepairedesmotards.com/img/actu/2005/troy-corser-suzuki.jpg

Look at this pic of Troy Corser and notice just how far the bike is over. I tend to ignore the riding postition and look at the brake levers, handlebars and how far they are from the ground. In TT it is nowhere near like this. Slick racing tyres in game show no visible corner speed advantage over treaded road tyres.
 
One thing I have trouble with is that you lean backwards to improve acceleration rather than forwards. I would have thought you'd lean forwards to stop the front coming up, but it seems it only gives you full power when you lean backwards. Does anyone have any explanations for why it might be done like this in game? Is it just plain wrong or is there some sense to it?
 
In theory, if you're leaning forward there's less weight on the drive wheel so it would have a tendency to spin thus giving you less acceleration.

That's just theoretical though, not sure why they put it in the game.
 
Leaning forwards is generally better. Any decent bike tire when warm and on a dry surface will more happily flip you onto the moon when you give it a fistful, rather than spin up when upright.

All I can think of in the game's sense is that by intentionally pulling a wheelie, maybe you are disengaging the game's anti-wheelie algorithm which seems to stunt the acceleration. So by pulling it up a bit, you get the full belt of it.

The acceleration of the big machines from low speed is disappointing. A current R1, gixxer thou' or blade and such will flip over if you give it a burst in 1st and maybe 2nd if you aren't ready, but if you balance the throttle, and keep it planted, the sheer violence of a modern superbike accelerating is astonishing. I've been on a 2002 GSXR1000, and that alone, when full throttled was so fast you struggled to breathe.

I'd much rather have everything the bike has to give but have to control the front pawing the air out of slow corners.
 
yer you hav to sit over the front to keep the front down. Watch the start of any bike race and they will do this, even 125s!
 
kidafrika
In theory, if you're leaning forward there's less weight on the drive wheel so it would have a tendency to spin thus giving you less acceleration.

That's just theoretical though, not sure why they put it in the game.
Click to expand...

As has already been pointed out, whiel what you say is sort of right, the level of rearward load transfer under acceleration on a bike is quite massive. One of the last things it needs is more weight transfered to the rear, rather a little more over the front to help control the front wheel.

Doesn't matter how much grip your rear wheel has, if a second later you are sat on the road with a bike on your head.

Those after a more authentic 'ride' on the PS2 might want to check out TT Superbikes.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=80242

While still not perfect and not as good looking as TT, its does have a good physics engine and the full Isle of Man TT track.

Go have a look and feel free to dicuss it further in the linked thread (i.e. not in here).

Regards

Scaff
 
I was only expressing the theory that may have been applied in the game.

I completely agree that the last thing you want to do on any bit in real life is to lean back while accelerating. That is, unless you want to aim your headlight at the trees.

BTW, I was disappointed that TT has the Nurburg Ring and not the Isle of Man. How can you have a game called TT without the Isle of Man?
 
Don't get me wrong: the game is fun... but...

Zero suspension: it doesn't model what suspension does - so it's only 70% accurate

Hardly any sense of weight: a 280kg bike feels way too similar to a 180kg bike - so it's only 50% accurate

The heavy-class bikes (900cc and above) steer and handle like pigs, while the littlies (250cc and below, feel too sweet) – so it's only 40% accurate

And engine vibration: they're all dead smooth! Sorry, this game is only 30% accurate.

And the engine power curves are all smoothed out (knock off a few points, and you don't get any sense of what the brakes really feel like under pressure, and over bumps, knock off a few more points...)

Let's face it kids, at best this game is about 20% as good as the real thing. No better. That's it.

Sorry to tell you this, but that's it. 20%. Max.

Sorry. I'm exaggerating. It's not that good.

Go experience the real thing, then report back in...
 
Ive been playing a mate's copy recent & this is could be GT for bikes in that, as Ozmac has pointed out large differences between bike categories in terms of rideability.

Took a 1100 Suzuki out on Cisco 80s thinking the quickest way to learn how to lean would be here w/ something of a rocket, plunge in to the speed so to speak.
Embarrasment prevailed for the first couple of laps, the big bikes really have to be weilded into the line & anything too sharp or offish & its goodbye legs !
Got it down to 1'18" but by this time i was convinced i did'nt like the game.

Only tasting the game but before i fully made up my mind i took some racemodded 125 out for a lap of the Nurb. Yep, a huge difference, the smaller bikes react more sharply to steering input so the ring was taken flatout on this occasion w/ no offs whatsoever & plenty of time to find perfect clinging lines.

In fact ime going to have another few laps of the ring in lightweight bikes as this provides sheer inspiration for tackling N tyre & highspeed attacks of same in GT4!!!!!
 
KurtisGSXR
Another pro handling fault is the braking balance. For some reason, using the front brake alone does not slow the bike as much as using both.
Click to expand...
Simple physics. Two contact patches exhibiting breaking point friction on a surface will naturally slow a bike down faster than one.
..even I know that there's little use of the rear brake for speed reduction on the way into a corner. Only for mid-corner correction and wheelie stopping.
Click to expand...
Depends on your riding style. For instance, I tend to dive deep into bends on my Nurburgring runs using both brakes; of course, you have to play it tactically if you want to maintain a good exit speed.
I've not seen any bike which dips and squats under braking and acceleration yet.
Click to expand...
The effect is there. I know this because I feather my brakes a lot entering gradual bends and the bike does indeed dip and fall -- at least on the bike I use. The Presto R1 8HR.

Uncreated
 
If you're braking as hard as you can, there shouldn't be a rear contact patch.

Occasionally in bike races there are slo-mo replays where you can see the bike on the way into the corner with the rear wheel skipping into the air over bumps.

This is why the front brake on a bike is (usually) two huge four piston calipers and two dinner plate sized discs, while the rear is a tiny single disc and a single piston sliding caliper at best.

I know in TT it does need to be used, all I'm saying is that it's strange that if the game is translating my thumb-through-the-pad braking to everything the front brake has, there shouldn't be any decelerative effect from the rear, other than locking it up.

I agree on the dipping, I can feel it a little, as I said, but I can't see it. On 1st person view, it seems to dip, but not squat, and the steering speeds up with the geometry change under braking. All I'm confused at is why in GT the cars exhibit weight transfer, and in TT the suspension moves over bumps, but doesn't experience enough weight transfer.
 
Kurtis is right. Like I said im a bike racer myself and I never use the back brake. The rear wheel is skimming the road rather than pushing into it. There is no doubt that the rear brake does something, but it is very minor and offers no extra braking force. Look at John Hopkins who rides MotoGP, he says the back brake should be painted red and marked "For emergency use only!". I don't know anyone in British 125GP that uses the back brake either.

Valentino%20Rossi%20Stoppie.jpg


This is a good exaple and the rider is no sloath himself!

Marco%20Melandri%20Stoppie.jpg


And to show he aint the only one. Now ask yourself what the rear brake would do in such a situation. OK the wheel isn't always off the ground like that, but its close to that and only just touching the ground. In which case it would lock up very easy.
 
Well from the reviews it seems they transferred a lot of the tracks and physics feel (including the bad stuff) to TT, hence no isle of man, the dodgy understeer, the weird braking etc. Some people would call it a cash in, some a worthy first attempt, I just hope that the next time they make a sequel they concentrate on the actual bikes rather than just "porting" over the Gran Turismo game.
 
JJonth
There is no doubt that the rear brake does something, but it is very minor and offers no extra braking force.
Click to expand...

On one hand you say the effect is "very minor." In the next breath you say using the rear brake offers "no extra braking force." Some one minute and none the next -- which is it?

Yes, I agree that under hard front braking the back wheel may become less relevant of a braking factor, but even that is dependent on technique. For instance, in Sportbiking: The Real World by Gary Jaehne, one technique he points out for maximizing stopping power with both brakes is to lightly and briefly apply rear brake before pulling in the front. The resultant effect is the chassis sits slightly during back braking, allowing for more of a "bite" by the front wheel, lessening the chance of the back wheel going airborne. The result is more stopping power.

The actions of most professional motorcycle racers, that is, the tendency to use the front brake entirely is clearly not the best way to use one's brakes. The best braking involves intelligent application of both brakes, as Jaehne points out in his book. I've heard at least one story of a professional racer who insisted on injecting air into his rear brake line to prevent him from using it during a race. As noble as that sounds, it's idiotic.

As a matter of fact, and perhaps controversy, I'd hazard to say that if your back wheel ever leaves the ground during braking, you're not braking nearly as effectively as you could. Certainly an accomplished racer can ascertain his bike's ability to slow down using one brake, but that philosophy shouldn't apply to everyone because it isn't the ideal philosophy. Professional isn't necessarily as professional does.

But, my point was to demonstrate that the stopping power of two brakes are clearly better than one. Back to the physics. Unless I read him wrong, Kurtis seemed to make the incredulous statement that front braking power in the game doesn't slow the bike down as much as using both. Yes, of course it wouldn't. That's why your average pet can sprint faster than your average human being; there's twice the propelling "bandwidth" in four legs rather than two. Wouldn't it make sense there'd be twice the stopping bandwidth in two brakes over one, ignoring the variable of an skybound rear wheel?

Uncreated
 
michaeldenham
One thing I have trouble with is that you lean backwards to improve acceleration rather than forwards. I would have thought you'd lean forwards to stop the front coming up, but it seems it only gives you full power when you lean backwards. Does anyone have any explanations for why it might be done like this in game? Is it just plain wrong or is there some sense to it?
Click to expand...

This game separates leaning (tuck) from weight shift. You can be tucked and shift your weight over the rear. Compare controls to say, TT Superbikes, where the left stick moves your weight and when forward, assumes you're tucked. In Tourist Trophy, tucking is a separate button, and the left stick can still move your weight rearward without sitting up. I'm not saying you're wrong that you want as much weight forward as you can get to keep the front end down, but I'm just pointing out that weight shift is not leaning forward or sitting up in Tourist Trophy. And there are bikes in the game that won't take a rearward weight shift under power. You can balance the weight on the rear wheel and just barely carry the front for max accel, but if it comes up too far, you've lost time.
 
What I meant was the rear brake is best used for other applications, it won't really stop the bike any quicker, but for keeping the front wheel down its better than shutting off the throttle. I did try using the rear brake towards the end of last season, but found it had no real effect on a 125GP bike. I had the thought that a rear wheel spinning at 128mph will continue to try and spin when you start braking using only the front as a 2 stroke has very little ammounts of engine braking. The momentum of the wheel should be trying to push you along and increase your stoppping distance due to it still wanting to spin with nothing but your front brake trying to slow it down. I thought I should use the back brake to take that momentum out of the wheel as it should make it feel more stable and give me more stopping power. As I said it had no real effect as the wheels weigh next to nothing (its a 3.5 inch wide rim which weighs like 2kg). Bigger bikes have much more compression and massive ammounts of engine braking which in my mind gets rid of any need for using the rear brake as a brake.

I was on the new Yamaha YZF R6 today and under heavy braking even with a slipper clutch the rear wheel would be spinning slower than the front going down the gearbox and as soon as you touch the rear brake the tyre would start to chatter.

In theory yes not using the rear brake should be a massive disadvantage, but with bike racing its all in your head. If you are happy with how the bike works then thats one of the most important things and you will be able to ride around some minor setup issues, its very different to racing cars. With a bike you could have the best Setup HRC factory GP racer, but if you aren't happy with it or it isn't giving the feedback you like then you are gonna ride like a bag of crap. Nicky Hayden couldn't live without a rear brake whereas John Hopkins will never touch the thing, but they are both very fast riders and in qualifying sessions next to no difference between the two with Hopkins putting it on pole at Assen the other week.
 
Unforgiven,

I totally agree. If both wheels are in good contact with the ground then using both will slow you better than just one.

What I was trying to explain was if you are riding as fast as you or the bike possibly can, as in TT you often are, then the rear tyre contact patch (if the game is to be physically accurate) will have very little resultant perpendicular force upon it. The massive weight transfer under braking will unload the rear wheel to the point when any force on the pedal will provide more braking force than the tyre can cope with and it will lock up. This effect of lacking grip can be seen without using the rear brake. The engine braking alone can cause the rear wheel to skid slightly under full front braking.

JJonth's images show the extreme of this when a gap is visible.

Use of the rear brake does happen on track, I do use it on track days, but only to kill any wheelies. Many racers use the rear brake to adjust speed in corners under full lean when the weaker rear brake can be used more gently. Supermoto and some track riders use it to partially lock the wheel under braking to 'back it in'. This is the preserve of exceptionally good riders to do it properly though.

My incredulous statement about the game, was a challenge to it's accuracy, as using all the front brake in the game seems to leave enough weight over the rear for it to have a noticable effect. If you're using all the front on a short sharp grippy sportsbike, the rear becomes superfluous. If engine braking alone can lock it, what's the point of using more brakes?
 
All good theory, however, I'd hazard you don't ride in real life and almost certainly not on tracks attempting 100% of your ability. The racers on here are telling you that the rear brake is used for stability and adjustments mid-corner, not to add to the braking effort, yet you put forward obvious theory (two contact patches = braking better than one) like you know better. You are obviously a quick TT game racer, but it is a game, as an armchair racer don't tell a real racer that they aren't braking properly until you have experienced it. Who are you to say "The actions of most professional motorcycle racers, that is, the tendency to use the front brake entirely is clearly not the best way to use one's brakes. "
The Uncreated
On one hand you say the effect is "very minor." In the next breath you say using the rear brake offers "no extra braking force." Some one minute and none the next -- which is it?

Yes, I agree that under hard front braking the back wheel may become less relevant of a braking factor, but even that is dependent on technique. For instance, in Sportbiking: The Real World by Gary Jaehne, one technique he points out for maximizing stopping power with both brakes is to lightly and briefly apply rear brake before pulling in the front. The resultant effect is the chassis sits slightly during back braking, allowing for more of a "bite" by the front wheel, lessening the chance of the back wheel going airborne. The result is more stopping power.

The actions of most professional motorcycle racers, that is, the tendency to use the front brake entirely is clearly not the best way to use one's brakes. The best braking involves intelligent application of both brakes, as Jaehne points out in his book. I've heard at least one story of a professional racer who insisted on injecting air into his rear brake line to prevent him from using it during a race. As noble as that sounds, it's idiotic.

As a matter of fact, and perhaps controversy, I'd hazard to say that if your back wheel ever leaves the ground during braking, you're not braking nearly as effectively as you could. Certainly an accomplished racer can ascertain his bike's ability to slow down using one brake, but that philosophy shouldn't apply to everyone because it isn't the ideal philosophy. Professional isn't necessarily as professional does.

But, my point was to demonstrate that the stopping power of two brakes are clearly better than one. Back to the physics. Unless I read him wrong, Kurtis seemed to make the incredulous statement that front braking power in the game doesn't slow the bike down as much as using both. Yes, of course it wouldn't. That's why your average pet can sprint faster than your average human being; there's twice the propelling "bandwidth" in four legs rather than two. Wouldn't it make sense there'd be twice the stopping bandwidth in two brakes over one, ignoring the variable of an skybound rear wheel?

Uncreated
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

J
Spinning on rear wheels accelerating out of corners after apex
Replies
2
Views
2K
snailburner
snailburner
SkylineObsession
Skyline GT-R acceleration squatting
Replies
2
Views
2K
bigmull
bigmull
bigmull
The Doc’s Classic Car Tunes:Lamborghini Miura
Replies
3
Views
4K
bigmull
bigmull
EduardoGT7
Struggling with Tight Turns in GT7: What Am I Doing Wrong? (NEW PLAYER)
Replies
18
Views
2K
timekiller001
T
lbpomg95
Camber and Damping - Not Making Much Difference?
Replies
0
Views
1K
lbpomg95
lbpomg95

Latest Posts

Back