1.09 update physics changes....
- Thread starter feydrautha
- 407 comments
- 25,080 views
332i
(Banned)
- 855
- Morocco
- yadeegson
The only thing that is going to slow you down in your setup in a straightline more than aero is 0 camber and toe in/out. More friction = more drag. Note that even switching to a harder tire yields a couple more mph, unless you are drag limiting yourself with aero and weight already.
There was also a change to the physics to slow top speeds on all FR cars. Unrealistic top speeds. Not sure if it was all of the FRs.
Edit - Looks like dolhaus and I replied simultaneously haha
- 66
- Chicago
- MAXXSTER77
I agree the speeds were unrealistic. We only use FR cars.
332i
(Banned)
- 855
- Morocco
- yadeegson
- 2,623
- Pompey
- CyKosis1973
Go check out this application chart from HKS. Pick a car from the list, any car (I'm currently looking at an Impreza, Accord, CR-Z, Chaser and an Altezza), click on the button in the details column and scroll down until you reach the 'Test vehicle information' table. As I read it, the Standard value is the 'before' and the Test data is the 'after'. In each of the examples I have open above, the cars have more rear camber than the front. Quite often by the time HKS have finished with them they have more front camber, but you would perhaps expect that. It's not really in manufacturers interests to have their cars acting all flighty and tail happy. Dead customers don't tend to buy new cars
As always, I'm happy to be corrected on any of my assertions...
{Cy}
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
- 414
- Victoria, B.C.
- skypilotrv4
Thanks for the input guys, I really appreciate it. I agree that the simple addition of camber to an existing "tune for no camber" can indeed be improved upon. That said, I added caster/camber plates to my COBRA MUSTANG (see avatar) and was amply rewarded in better times on the track with 2.5 neg camber up front, no other changes. With a stick axle, rear camber change is quite difficult and that was never done on my car. For high speed rallying, I would reduce the camber and increase the caster for better tracking and less cornering focus. So, I see no reason why having the tire tread flat on the ground while cornering would not show any improvement in cornering. The NSX-R LM Road Car is available in the Honda section of the New Car Dealerships, which is the car under question here.
BTW, I am a very consistent driver with my total times being exactly the same for 3 races which of course include passing the 11 cars to win. My fastest lap time at Suzuka with this car was with no camber at 2:00 flat, but consistently 2:02. My best lap time with any camber was 2:03, but usually 2:04 or 2:05
I never mentioned feel in previous post. I drive with a G-27 wheel setup in a homemade console. My PS3 runs a 52 inch Plasma TV. The feel with camber was looser and greasier than with zero camber, which felt comfortably loose but solid in predictability. Understeer, a feature of all M/R cars was present with all setups, but more prevalent with camber than without. Camber on the rear at 1 degree was very slow having to feather the throttle considerably until totally straightened out after each corner. That was with tweaked LSD settings from the Arrakis stock tune. The reason the LSD need to be adjusted with camber was decreased traction on the drive wheels.
Once again, camber is not working!?!?!
Thanks for listening, Mustangxr
Hmmmm, Maybe! I still like your NSX-R tune and it works best with no camber??? Figure that one out. It feels great at Suzuka "A Spec" online!
I'm gonna fire up my Cobra Daytona, which is my only tune published (Team Viejo) and do some experiments with test drives with/without camber and check the results. I will report back here on this thread
Cheers, Mustangxr
Last edited by a moderator:
- 15,972
- Devon UK
- johnboy-1975-
Awwww my head hurts.
feydrautha
Premium
- 604
- Georgia
- fydrautha
- 414
- Victoria, B.C.
- skypilotrv4
Well, racing in the 'A Spec" online races at Suzuka you are limited to Sport Soft.
feydrautha
Premium
- 604
- Georgia
- fydrautha
- 414
- Victoria, B.C.
- skypilotrv4
Thorin Caine,
After reading your post a few times, I realized we are indeed talking about the same car so I will borrow your settings and give it a try.
I have been doing some testing with the Shelby Daytona and so I have to revise my earlier surmise that camber still does not work. I guess I could now say, that it does, sort of?
I took my trusty Shelby to Suzuka and left it with my own tune and zero camber. I ran a few laps until I got comfortable while transitioning from the NSX-R proto. LM road car on SS to the Shelby Daytona with RS.
I was able to comfortably pull a 1:55.3 lap with zero camber.
I then changed the camber to the new default but did not change the toe settings: Front 1.5 Rear 3.5 (weird?)
Out of 9 laps, the best lap was 1:55.4, 3 laps were throwaways with squirelly behaviour and the slowest clean lap was 1:56.3. With the LSD set for Zero camber, first gear had to be pedalled very carefully with the Rear 3.5 camber setting.
I then changed the suspension to the default page with everything except brakes default.
I ran a 1:56 flat
I decided to tune camber to what I thought it should/could be and changed it to Front 2.5 and Rear 0.8
I then pulled my fastest lap of the day of 1:54 flat!!
I guess that says it all!
Cheers from Mustangxr
You might have to accept that you produced a really good tune!! Ha!
Last edited by a moderator:
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
Uh, that sounds familiar.Oh yea, that is the same thing I've been trying to tell people.
And @DolHaus
Please be more specific. What needs to change from 0.0 camber tunes? I will not be able to download 1.09 until Sunday. Just curious what settings seem to be most linked to the camber change?
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
So far I'm noticing a trend between tyre compound and most effective amount of camber - higher grip tyre = more camber
Comfort tyres seem to work best within 1 degree of 1.0 (0.0 -2.0)
Sports tyres seem to work best within 1 degree of 2.0 (1.0 - 3.0)
Not played with racing tyres yet but I would guess within 1 degree of 3.0
Appears to amplify body roll/weight transfer a bit, the car can be a little sensitive if not stiffened up properly. It does seem to remove some of the understeer associated with stiffer setups though.
Lower ride height (shorter suspension travel) seems to be quite key as well.
These are my observations so far, there's a few other changes to the physics that have affected some of my cars (FRs are now slower and rear weight bias cars are different somehow but I can't quite place why) so its hard to tell what is going on until I build a new car from the ground up to work with it.
- 414
- Victoria, B.C.
- skypilotrv4
Motor City,
I'll throw in a couple of cents worth here too. The new default suspension settings seem to favour a lot of rear camber, like 3.5 degrees, coupled with a lot of positive toe, like .60 degrees. Having tried that combo on my daytona, the rear toe seems to modulate the ridiculous effect of all that rear camber. Read my above posts on running the shelby in different configurations.
Cheers, Mustangxr
- 864
- NorCal
- oppositelock27
Factory alignments do indeed often run more camber rear for understeer purposes. My Focus came with 0.7 degrees in front and 1.4 degrees in rear, for example, so 0.5/1.5 is fairly realistic for a stock road car. However, from what I've noticed most road race and autocross alignments tend to run more camber in front, depending on the car. Having 1.5/3.5 on almost every race car seems kind of goofy to me.
Regarding toe, I used to have a PDF file with hundreds of real world factory alignment settings. If I remember correctly, the most extreme rear toe setting I found was an AMG CL55 with an ideal setting of 0.85, and a maximum allowed of over 1 degree. In that context, I don't feel 0.60 is particularly excessive for a high powered RWD car. On the other had, it would be excessive on something like a FWD econobox, which would benefit from a rear toe much closer to zero. Also, no, I don't feel like the in-game toe description is wrong.
Last edited:
Perhaps Japan -or countries where you drive left- use this as a general factory setup, I'm in Europe and every car I checked since doesn't run rear camber (or camber at all for that matter). Most were FF cars, therefore already prone to understeer, might explain why they didn't have rear camber.Go check out this application chart from HKS. Pick a car from the list, any car (I'm currently looking at an Impreza, Accord, CR-Z, Chaser and an Altezza), click on the button in the details column and scroll down until you reach the 'Test vehicle information' table. As I read it, the Standard value is the 'before' and the Test data is the 'after'. In each of the examples I have open above, the cars have more rear camber than the front. Quite often by the time HKS have finished with them they have more front camber, but you would perhaps expect that. It's not really in manufacturers interests to have their cars acting all flighty and tail happy. Dead customers don't tend to buy new cars
As always, I'm happy to be corrected on any of my assertions...
{Cy}
Interesting, too, the table/link seems to indicate:
-that extension (=rebound) should be set much higher than compression, as it says in GT6
-that front dampers settings should be higher than rear dampers.
-ride height is taken near the wheels, and could therefore be misleading or off in the game
I wonder if these apply with the "new physics", or if they really ever applied to GT6...
This car: http://www.hks-power.co.jp/en/product_db/hipermax/db/13116 does have more front camber in "Test Data".
The way I read it, test data = what the engineers tested the model at = pre-sale = before.
standard value = setup on cars out of the factory = ready for sale = after.
I might be wrong, but you usually don't put the after above the before.
certainly so!
http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/f1-grand-prix/red-bull-scared-for-drivers-lives-1.1127156
ETA found a cool link: http://www.peugeot-sport.com/ressource/document/308/4c4eef7329297.pdf
Peugeot 207 RC Rallye, page 2 is tarmac setting, page 3 is gravel.
HAUTEUR DE CAISSE = ride height
CARROSSAGE = camber
They run 2°20' which is -2.33° on the front no camber on the rear on tarmac. 30' which is -.5° front 0 rear on gravel.
PINCE = toe
no toe front or rear anywhere
CHASSE = caster
BARRE ANTI ROULIS = Anti Roll Bars
They use none on the front at gravel rallies!
PRESSION à froid = tire cold pressure (in bars; 1 bar is ~13psi)
PIGNONS = gears
Divide the second number by the first to get gear ratios, 1st=46/13=3.538 ; 2nd=28/12=2.333 ; 3rd=26/15=1.733 ; 4th=23/16=1.4375 ; 5th=21/17=1.235 ; 6th=23/21=1.095 ; Reverse=45/13=3.308
DIFFERENTIEL = final gear ratio =51/13=3.923
not even partly?
pre-1.09 I was putting negative toe on the rear to help with stability, in GT6 description says the opposite (rear toe-in=improved stability).
Last edited:
- 174
- S. Jersey
- colinh0501
Do you still have this PDF, i like to make replica tunes and that would be incredibly helpful.
- 864
- NorCal
- oppositelock27
I'm not sure how having the rear tires pointing outwards would enhance stability, even in theory, and I don't recall any threads here about toe being "backwards" as with ride height and other settings. I've had pretty good results using slight rear toe-out to enhance rotation in understeer prone cars and added toe-in to tame loose RWD cars, and have even baked that experience into my Quick Tune formulas which seem to work for most people. I think the general consensus on GTP leans in the same direction.
Sorry, it was on an old computer and I can't remember where I found it online. If you have iTunes and are dedicated enough to part with $5, I did find an app though:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/quickspecs-wheel-alignment/id621551654?mt=8
- 2,623
- Pompey
- CyKosis1973
A lot of the camber values on that site are really tiny, 0.3-0.5 degrees is almost imperceptible. The only cars I really notice it on are those that would appear to have a degree or two of camber, or where the flanks and wheel arches of the car provide you with a decent visual contrast. Someone mentioned the Smart car earlier, I saw a post somewhere else last night that suggested (-)0.2-0.3 front and (-)2.3-2.5 rear!! Probably understandable though, for a RR car with the wheelbase of a shopping trolley
I've almost always setup my dampers like this, in my simple mind it makes the most sense. There have been cases where I've inverted dampers, for troublesome cars. Unfortunately, I've never been able to figure out a way to translate their settings to GT5/6, what with us only having a simple 1-10 scale in the game.
Don't even start me on ride height. The only thing I think I can say about it, is that I don't think PD think it's broken..!!
I think we're saying the same thing, certainly regarding the Standard value. I believe that's what it comes out of the factory with, but I think the Test data is what HKS set it to for their purposes. I don't know though, it could just be some weird translation, maybe someone who can read Japanese can visit the original site and tell us one way or the other
{Cy}
- 92
- Australia
- Adam-aw11
A big test for me will the be HKS CT230R in the game.
Its DEFAULT setup always had 3.0 degrees front and 1.0 degrees rear camber, and that was the lower limit of camber, you couldn't adjust it to zero camber, and it always under-steered so badly as though it had 3.0 degrees POSITIVE camber on the front.
I havn't downloaded the update yet, but when I do I'll test this car.
Surely a default setup for a "Tuner car" like this should be such that the camber will help it, not just cause extreme understeer, especially when you can't set the camber to zero with that car.
Its DEFAULT setup always had 3.0 degrees front and 1.0 degrees rear camber, and that was the lower limit of camber, you couldn't adjust it to zero camber, and it always under-steered so badly as though it had 3.0 degrees POSITIVE camber on the front.
I havn't downloaded the update yet, but when I do I'll test this car.
Surely a default setup for a "Tuner car" like this should be such that the camber will help it, not just cause extreme understeer, especially when you can't set the camber to zero with that car.
- 8,642
- London
- GTP_Stotty
Spot on with regard to road cars... they run more camber on the rear to minimise the risk of lift-off oversteer and make cars more understeery at the limit... for example, my 996 runs no front camber and 1.5* rear camber.
Track cars would be the other way around... they tend to run a lot of front camber and little rear camber, so 1.0/3.5 as seen on some cars post 1.09 is not realistic and is likely a way for them to compensate for issues in the physics engine.
Toe generally compliments camber... road cars generally run no front toe and a small amount of positive rear toe... again, for example, my 996 runs 0 front toe and 0.20 positive rear toe.
I haven't had chance to test many cars yet, but the Lexus in the NUrburgring TT handling is rubbish on it's stock settings... loads of understeer and almost impossible to get the car to rotate in to the corner.
- 1,337
- England
- woodski427
A lot of the camber values on that site are really tiny, 0.3-0.5 degrees is almost imperceptible. The only cars I really notice it on are those that would appear to have a degree or two of camber, or where the flanks and wheel arches of the car provide you with a decent visual contrast. Someone mentioned the Smart car earlier, I saw a post somewhere else last night that suggested (-)0.2-0.3 front and (-)2.3-2.5 rear!! Probably understandable though, for a RR car with the wheelbase of a shopping trolley
Significant rear camber is clearly visible on most modern Euro and Japanese FWD boxes that I see on the road.
My understanding, as Cy hinted at, the manufacturers' setups of FWD cars are more about controlling the brake-off and lift-off snap oversteer under emergency / stupidity situations rather than inducing a general understeer. I don't know how old you are, but you may remember the infamous Peugeot 205 GTI or less known Rover/MG Montego had this 'feature'. I can personally vouch for the surprise handling of the MG Montego
Doh!: @Stotty beat me to it
- 8,642
- London
- GTP_Stotty
I don't know how old you are, but you may remember the infamous Peugeot 205 GTI or less known Rover/MG Montego had this 'feature'. I can personally vouch for the surprise handling of the MG Montego
Doh!: @Stotty beat me to it
The 205 is probably the most famed of that period, but most of the 80's/90's hot hatches had plenty of lift off oversteer. In 1988/89, myself and my group of friends owned the following cars between us - 205GTi 1.9 & 1.6, Escort RS Turbo, Escort XR3i, Orion 1.6i Ghia, Golf mk2 GTi 16v, Renault R5 Turbo.
All of them would rotate off the throttle to some degree. But the 205 was vicious, and you needed to know what you were doing to drive one quickly - even a small lift when the car was loaded would get the tail swinging!
The only car I remember that wouldn't do this was an Astra GSi.
I think the main cause was Torsion beam rear suspension and the challenges of controlling toe and camber under load inherent with this type of suspension set up.
- 2,232
- Lincolnshire
- PleaseD1e
Knowing what car manufacturers do is all well and good, but that doesn't translate to the game. Manufacturers make their handling on the safe side (understeer), but we are looking for the happy medium between understeer/oversteer, the perfect balance for racing, not nipping to the shops. It's also quite likely that PD have got the physics all wrong, their track record suggests that this could well be the case.
What we really need is some in-game testing to ascertain what works and what doesn't. That's the only way that we'll find out what we need to do in GT6 to build a good handling car.
It's also quite likely that PD have got the physics all wrong, their track record suggests that this could well be the case.What we really need is some in-game testing to ascertain what works and what doesn't. That's the only way that we'll find out what we need to do in GT6 to build a good handling car.
Idk lol, common sense? put your toes in and bend upfront, then do the same with your toes out, what's more stable? toe-out obviously... why would toe-out in the front help with stability and toe-in in the rear too, makes no sense to me. Toe out on both does, no?
Anyone up to split?
I think you missed the part where I theorized UK, Japan and all left-driving countries have different values or way of thinking than right-driving countries, because my eyes are not playing tricks on me, NO European car I've looked at since yesterday (I live in France) has more negative rear camber. In fact I have not seen one car with rear camber...Significant rear camber is clearly visible on most modern Euro and Japanese FWD boxes that I see on the road.
My understanding, as Cy hinted at, the manufacturers' setups of FWD cars are more about controlling the brake-off and lift-off snap oversteer under emergency / stupidity situations rather than inducing a general understeer. I don't know how old you are, but you may remember the infamous Peugeot 205 GTI or less known Rover/MG Montego had this 'feature'. I can personally vouch for the surprise handling of the MG Montego
Doh!: @Stotty beat me to it
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
Try your toe theory wearing ski's. I understand your thinking and you are right to a degree but its about the direction of travel of each wheel rather than the vertical stability.
The intersecting lines of thrust mean that with toe in the rear of the car is opposing itself during rotation and forward motion.
With toe out you can get the same cancelling effect in a straight line but during rotation when the rear tyre is loaded it can cause instability due to the direction the wheel wants to travel.
The intersecting lines of thrust mean that with toe in the rear of the car is opposing itself during rotation and forward motion.
With toe out you can get the same cancelling effect in a straight line but during rotation when the rear tyre is loaded it can cause instability due to the direction the wheel wants to travel.
- 392
- NL
- Morphisorius
I believe the Nismo GT3 car is a great showcase of the new physics model. Before, the default settings (which include camber 3.5 front 2.9 rear) were absolutely terrible. Understeer to the extreme.
Now, these very same settings drive very nicely! It feels amazingly planted and balanced, able to over rotate into a corner if you wish it, and very grippy under acceleration out of corners, without compromising the rotation as it used to do.
Now, these very same settings drive very nicely! It feels amazingly planted and balanced, able to over rotate into a corner if you wish it, and very grippy under acceleration out of corners, without compromising the rotation as it used to do.
