- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
1.09 update physics changes....
- Thread starter feydrautha
- 407 comments
- 25,076 views
332i
(Banned)
- 855
- Morocco
- yadeegson
Camber is affecting braking distance. I've been dialing an Evo IV in without ABS, whilst testing FFB clipping after the 1.09 update. Turn your ABS off and you will see that they lock easier. In a straight line on flat ground, that is. You can feel it on various other situations, but it also helps in others, which should be as such.
- 12,639
- paracuru
- praiano63
OK. i will let you deal with your inferiority complex and stay with my point of view. Anybody can do the test and have his own conclusion. I´m out of all this blablabla. Pizza time.
I´m just a fake tuner of fake cars.
332i
(Banned)
- 855
- Morocco
- yadeegson
Nice. With all due respect right back at him, eh?
praiano63
Hm, that doesnt match up, praiano. With all do respect, you're contradicting yourself. Less grip = lower lock up threshold, obviously, correct? You sure you're hitting the brakes on the dot every time?
Use your data logger. No need for markers that you may or may not be hitting on the dot. Use a ds3 and the square button as a brake, so you're not modulating the peddle differently as you lay into the peddle by mistake, too. That's a nice, definitive way for you to inform us. Most accurate way by far. If you are not on the same line to the T, your test is innacurate. It's a physics based game. Everything has to be replicated to do isolation test like this. There cannot be variables.
Also, leave it in the gear you began to initially decelerate with.
Just a suggestion.
Last edited:
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
Oh, so now that I don't agree with you, I have an inferiority complex? Way to insult me just because I don't agree with your findings. Lets get something straight right now. I only said what I did ("I'm sure everyone will agree with you because of who you are and I'm nobody") because it is true. You have been around a lot longer and have done a lot more for the tuning community....me, not so much, just the little guy....I was just making a comparison. No inferiority complex at all, just stating the facts. Furthermore, I have the utmost respect for you but one thing you need to understand, not everything you say is gold and not everyone is going to agree with you (as in my case), no matter who you are and how big your garage is. Just because you state something does not make it etched in stone, you are not the end all, be all here. Other people are going to see things differently and come to their own conclusions and you need to respect that and not resort to name calling/insults. Frankly Laurent, I'm a bit surprised at this, I thought you were a better person than to go insulting people. Guess I was wrong.
- 451
Expanding on due respect, you're in a great position to put this debate to rest - or at least provide some tangible evidence to back up the theory.
You commented in the RTRacing thread and from what I read, have raced against some of the fastest on GTP (genuine respect). Not sure about time zones but the tune looks to have been posted before the update I believe. It has been approved by @praiano63, at least in part I'm sure he'll clarify, and no one has come along since to challenge the zero camber tune posted by @Weider.
Post up your cambered version of the Lotus and let all those interested compare both set ups.
My personal belief is the debate won't move forward but at least you'll be one of the first 'camber is totally fixed' exponents to back up the seemingly endless theorising we have to suffer in this forum with something gamers can actually make a clear comparison.
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
- 451
@jules283 It's similar for me and I'm sure the majority of GT6 players. I'm reasonably consistent at Tsukuba and Trial Mountain but slow in comparison to many of the guys round here.
I used a nicely balanced car, S2000 on comfort softs, to try to gauge how camber worked since the update. With everything stock and the adjustable suspension left on stock settings, I struggled to beat zero camber with the default camber values. Eventually going 0:007 (honest) quicker with camber after six laps of running marginally behind the zero cambered ghost I'd set after two laps.
I thought the high rear toe value might be the over powering factor and reduced it to 0.10, keeping the front 0.0. With this setting it's easy to induce oversteer when hitting the gas too hard and early but also quite easy to find a nice line through the corners. I found by adding camber to the rear I could feel better traction and was able to stomp on the gas earlier without sliding the car. I am just mystified how I can feel better grip but not see it translated in lap times.
I used .5 increments, front and rear with the maximum difference in front to rear camber bias of 2 more than front. Can't recall how many laps I did, but the variation in best lap times was near enough a tenth, gradually improving with each change. A couple of the camber settings produced more consistency over the 5 to 6 Laps I gave each setting.
I took a little break and thought I had a eureka moment when returning to test 0 | 2.0, I thought I'd found three tenths out of the blue. So I put zero camber back onto the tune and was within 0:050 on the first lap. I quit at that point having discovered taking my eyes off the screen for a few minutes was far more effective than camber.
I used a nicely balanced car, S2000 on comfort softs, to try to gauge how camber worked since the update. With everything stock and the adjustable suspension left on stock settings, I struggled to beat zero camber with the default camber values. Eventually going 0:007 (honest) quicker with camber after six laps of running marginally behind the zero cambered ghost I'd set after two laps.
I thought the high rear toe value might be the over powering factor and reduced it to 0.10, keeping the front 0.0. With this setting it's easy to induce oversteer when hitting the gas too hard and early but also quite easy to find a nice line through the corners. I found by adding camber to the rear I could feel better traction and was able to stomp on the gas earlier without sliding the car. I am just mystified how I can feel better grip but not see it translated in lap times.
I used .5 increments, front and rear with the maximum difference in front to rear camber bias of 2 more than front. Can't recall how many laps I did, but the variation in best lap times was near enough a tenth, gradually improving with each change. A couple of the camber settings produced more consistency over the 5 to 6 Laps I gave each setting.
I took a little break and thought I had a eureka moment when returning to test 0 | 2.0, I thought I'd found three tenths out of the blue. So I put zero camber back onto the tune and was within 0:050 on the first lap. I quit at that point having discovered taking my eyes off the screen for a few minutes was far more effective than camber.
- 12,639
- paracuru
- praiano63
Sorry, you´re right. When i had tested it a few days ago with a racing car 600pp /racing hard last day, i didn´t find any difference in braking distance. Now i´ve tested it agin after the job and yes, there is a difference in braking distanceWow, now you are resorting to calling me a liar.Yes, I did do the test and my results were different from yours. That's two insults now Praiano....losing much respect for you.
2 cars with a racing car 600pp/ camber 10.0 /racing hard
5 cars with a 550pp road car / camber 10.0 /sport hard
You´re not a liar and i´m a stupid guy...... but all the rest about what i think about 1.09 camber is still good for me.
Sorry i don´t understand this technical things even more in english. I´m just a kind fisherman, i don´t have any car in the real life but i understand how in work in the game only.
Don´t worry with the wheel inputs, they are very good and precise with a G27. You can fel a lot more thing than a controller.
Sorry again cargo.
- 252
- UK
- jules283
Yeah!
I went progressively faster as I moved from 0/0 to 0.5/0.5 to 1/1 to 2/2 . I ended with a lap on 2/2 which was 0.500 second faster.
Then I revisited my baseline 0/0 settings and I went quickest of all !!!
The car felt very different as I added camber ,with less movement within its tyres. This makes sense to me as a cambered tyre is pre-stressed and some of the total available deformation is used,even standing still. Y'know , with the outer sidewall pulled tight already. It felt like having added low profile tyres. And so the driving style needs to be more precise, to ride that narrower band of movement in the hope of exploiting any additional grip available.
Anyway, let's hope there are some amongst us who can test more accurately than I could!
332i
(Banned)
- 855
- Morocco
- yadeegson
I don't mind giving out a tune here and there, but that is one I keep to myself and a buddy of mine. Sorry, mang. We've been working on a little series and I would like to hang on to that one for now. I can be seen using it, obviously. You're welcome to watch some night that I'm on and in one of the lotus rooms. If I'm not winning, I'm in the top two or three, so something is working right. At least, I would so say, considering guys like weider, argo, etc.
I don't need to back up the theory. If it doesn't work for some people or you do think it works, I don't know what to tell you. I have posted many times in the camber and physics threads. My posts can be checked out.
I could care less about saying that I usually do fairly well. I'm just using it to make my point.
Last edited:
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
Mmmm, this is difficult matter to elaborate
ABS in GT6 do not work like ABS should, it's still a brake assist, the brake assist comes with extra stability not found when not using any. Even ABS 1 braking with techniques used on ABS 0 will still be different than with ABS 0. If I was given a controller and secretly ABS 1 was on, I will know straight away usually on the 1st braking action even when I used ABS 0 braking routines ( second nature ). There's more likely less chatter ( grip loss, push ) on the front wheels, subtly more stable, the rear will stay more planted even when trail braking deep into the apex when ABS used. It does mask a bit when looking for subtle changes, this is one of the reason when I tune/test, most of the time I would be more tolerable/less likely to understeer, it may produce more understeer when driven with ABS 1 ( depend also on driving style ), but I may not encounter it with ABS 0.On the other hand, ABS 1 allows better consistency for testing, not many drivers in GT6 can drive consistent times, lap after lap without ABS. I would suggest to test on oval like Twin Ring Motegi to avoid this ABS issue, also preferably use car with power and grip that will only require lift off of the throttle on the tighter turns ( also no aero, so we are testing purely mechanical grip, some cars have built in aero like the 458 and F430 Scud )
- 414
- Victoria, B.C.
- skypilotrv4
I already have a good car for this test, the Shelby Daytona. I had developed a camberless tune after trying Mr P's tune for that car which I didn't like. So I made my own tune and had a lot of fun with it.
This camberless tune doesn't work very well anymore with 1.09. So, I built another tune using 2.5 front camber, and 0.8 rear. I used +0.18 toe rear and -0.08 on the front. I run brakes at 7/9, and LSD at 7/18/25 for the camber affecting the rear traction on decal. This setup worked OK, but not quite as solid feeling as the zero camber tune which is published under Team Viejo in the directory. That is, until 1.09 came out.
Today, after reading all these posts I went to Silverstone GP and tested for two hours. I first tried the old Praiano tune but massive oversteer and multiple spinouts became too discouraging so I abandoned it. My new cambered tune runs no ballast like the "P" tune and that may have something to do with the "Bad Boy" behaviour with zero camber.
On to the moderate camber tune which works OK for me in races. I used race medium tires because the car is a race car and should show any differences with better or worse lap times. I worked and worked on getting my lap times down to the bare minimum and the best I got was 1:57, most laps being 1:58 and a bit.
I then switched to the 1.09 default suspension page and ran that as-is except for brakes at 7/10. The cambers are F=1.5 and R=3.5 which is totally weird for a stick axle car (I think). How do you add camber to a solid axle??
The Toe is F -0.50 and R +1.00 degree. I'm assuming that this means toe-in on the front and toe-out on the rear. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I also ran the LSD settings from my own tune of 7/18/25
Dampers all set at 4/4, 4/4
Roll Bars 3/3
Both tunes ran the 605 HP/ 604PP
Transmission gears 3.478,2628,2061,1652,1367, ran in both tunes
Final 2550
Down force of 350/600 on both tunes
Ok so how did the car run.... well, pretty darn good, although it felt like a M/R with lots of understeer, but it went around corners and put out some pretty good repeatable laps; 1:58 was the best and lots of 1:59's
While I was writing this up, I went back into my tune pages to check on the figures and found that I had been running race soft tires on the 1.09 tune?!?!? Hell and Damnation! I guess that pretty much screws up this comparo. It's still interesting though, and here are some more discoveries.
I went back to my own tune and started playing with TOE as per PitStopRacer had recommended, and I added ridiculous amounts of negative toe to the front wheels, like one degree, still running 2.5 degrees of camber. It didn't make hardly any difference!?!?!? Then I added a whole bunch of positive toe to the front, and it didn't really make much difference?!?!?
I added a bunch of positive toe to the rear and it didn't hardly make any difference, maybe a bit slower chasing my ghost. I never ran less than 1:58 and never more than 2:00
I wish that I could sum all this research up neat and tidy and say something with certainty, but I cannot. I'm really sorry that I missed noticing the race soft tires on the 1.09 tune but I will give it a shot tomorrow with the correct tires.
Here is my own tune for the Daytona 604PP, HP 605, 1043 kg, No ballast and 50/50 weight distribution
Suspension;
ride ht= 90/90
springs=14.98/11.49
dampers 4/4
extension 4/4
Roll Bars 2/3
Toe -0.08/+0.18
Brakes 7/9
Downforce 350/600
LSD 7/18/25
Gears as above
Throttle must be feathered bit in first and second during cornering with this tune, but I like to be able to blip the throttle with the wheel turned and get a shot of instant rotation if needed in sharp turns and hairpins. This is a fun car to race and it sounds good too!
This camberless tune doesn't work very well anymore with 1.09. So, I built another tune using 2.5 front camber, and 0.8 rear. I used +0.18 toe rear and -0.08 on the front. I run brakes at 7/9, and LSD at 7/18/25 for the camber affecting the rear traction on decal. This setup worked OK, but not quite as solid feeling as the zero camber tune which is published under Team Viejo in the directory. That is, until 1.09 came out.
Today, after reading all these posts I went to Silverstone GP and tested for two hours. I first tried the old Praiano tune but massive oversteer and multiple spinouts became too discouraging so I abandoned it. My new cambered tune runs no ballast like the "P" tune and that may have something to do with the "Bad Boy" behaviour with zero camber.
On to the moderate camber tune which works OK for me in races. I used race medium tires because the car is a race car and should show any differences with better or worse lap times. I worked and worked on getting my lap times down to the bare minimum and the best I got was 1:57, most laps being 1:58 and a bit.
I then switched to the 1.09 default suspension page and ran that as-is except for brakes at 7/10. The cambers are F=1.5 and R=3.5 which is totally weird for a stick axle car (I think). How do you add camber to a solid axle??
The Toe is F -0.50 and R +1.00 degree. I'm assuming that this means toe-in on the front and toe-out on the rear. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I also ran the LSD settings from my own tune of 7/18/25
Dampers all set at 4/4, 4/4
Roll Bars 3/3
Both tunes ran the 605 HP/ 604PP
Transmission gears 3.478,2628,2061,1652,1367, ran in both tunes
Final 2550
Down force of 350/600 on both tunes
Ok so how did the car run.... well, pretty darn good, although it felt like a M/R with lots of understeer, but it went around corners and put out some pretty good repeatable laps; 1:58 was the best and lots of 1:59's
While I was writing this up, I went back into my tune pages to check on the figures and found that I had been running race soft tires on the 1.09 tune?!?!? Hell and Damnation! I guess that pretty much screws up this comparo. It's still interesting though, and here are some more discoveries.
I went back to my own tune and started playing with TOE as per PitStopRacer had recommended, and I added ridiculous amounts of negative toe to the front wheels, like one degree, still running 2.5 degrees of camber. It didn't make hardly any difference!?!?!? Then I added a whole bunch of positive toe to the front, and it didn't really make much difference?!?!?
I added a bunch of positive toe to the rear and it didn't hardly make any difference, maybe a bit slower chasing my ghost. I never ran less than 1:58 and never more than 2:00
I wish that I could sum all this research up neat and tidy and say something with certainty, but I cannot. I'm really sorry that I missed noticing the race soft tires on the 1.09 tune but I will give it a shot tomorrow with the correct tires.
Here is my own tune for the Daytona 604PP, HP 605, 1043 kg, No ballast and 50/50 weight distribution
Suspension;
ride ht= 90/90
springs=14.98/11.49
dampers 4/4
extension 4/4
Roll Bars 2/3
Toe -0.08/+0.18
Brakes 7/9
Downforce 350/600
LSD 7/18/25
Gears as above
Throttle must be feathered bit in first and second during cornering with this tune, but I like to be able to blip the throttle with the wheel turned and get a shot of instant rotation if needed in sharp turns and hairpins. This is a fun car to race and it sounds good too!
Last edited by a moderator:
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
Is it the Pozzy Camaro ? The real car has custom suspension :
It should at least able to reach 2.0 camber front and rear.
This is Guldstrand recommends on Pozzi Racing site on 1st gen Camaro just for reference, not sure if applicable to the Pozzi Camaro 2nd gen F body in GT6, but worth a try, see if there's any good result
Negative toe in GT6 is toe out, positive value is toe in. The Pozzi Camaro has 18 inch wheel stock, for 1/8" toe either in or out, that would be about roughly 0.25 / -0.25 toe value in GT6. Just approximation from my experience making replicas. The toe out would suit better for the front wheel, the rear - try toe in first.
These are similar to my usual toe and camber setup
It should at least able to reach 2.0 camber front and rear.
This is Guldstrand recommends on Pozzi Racing site on 1st gen Camaro just for reference, not sure if applicable to the Pozzi Camaro 2nd gen F body in GT6, but worth a try, see if there's any good result
Negative toe in GT6 is toe out, positive value is toe in. The Pozzi Camaro has 18 inch wheel stock, for 1/8" toe either in or out, that would be about roughly 0.25 / -0.25 toe value in GT6. Just approximation from my experience making replicas. The toe out would suit better for the front wheel, the rear - try toe in first.
These are similar to my usual toe and camber setup
Pardon me for not reading whole thread, I mean no disrespect, it is very long.
Camber/toe generally address issues, rather than finding you magic "grip", they find you lost "grip".
Actually let's completely reaarrange that word "grip" so highly regarded around here, and change it to balance.
Much more useful to a driver, unless you really enjoy launching into curves just hoping for the best out the other side?
Grip is a factor of balance, not the other way around.
Pure mechanical grip probably one of the scariest things to find in a high power vehicle, can catch you, launch you and kill you before you blink.
Knock the edge off it a bit.
(Don't take that as some invitation to just start winding the scariness out of the rear end, it is a more general statement than that, no link whatsoever).
Some of the most finely balanced cars in the game get continually rubbished on this site.
From what I have read here and there, you are probably the closest so far Jules.
You're hunting a handy healing property of camber.
You have some very key words in that post of yours.
Your concept a little twisted, but heading on right path.
Will help you find this other issue.
How did you do it?
Got out there, drove the car, scoped some lines, generally used your own head.
Well done man, your getting there...
Perhaps think
"lowest common denominator"
Camber/toe generally address issues, rather than finding you magic "grip", they find you lost "grip".
Actually let's completely reaarrange that word "grip" so highly regarded around here, and change it to balance.
Much more useful to a driver, unless you really enjoy launching into curves just hoping for the best out the other side?
Grip is a factor of balance, not the other way around.
Pure mechanical grip probably one of the scariest things to find in a high power vehicle, can catch you, launch you and kill you before you blink.
Knock the edge off it a bit.
(Don't take that as some invitation to just start winding the scariness out of the rear end, it is a more general statement than that, no link whatsoever).
Some of the most finely balanced cars in the game get continually rubbished on this site.
From what I have read here and there, you are probably the closest so far Jules.
You're hunting a handy healing property of camber.
You have some very key words in that post of yours.
Your concept a little twisted, but heading on right path.
Will help you find this other issue.
How did you do it?
Got out there, drove the car, scoped some lines, generally used your own head.
Well done man, your getting there...
Perhaps think
"lowest common denominator"
Last edited:
- 4,018
- New Jersey
- crash27wwjd
For what it's worth, I have a hard time being consistent with this car but ran a little brief test this morning using a heavy Chevelle at Big Willow. Lower or zero camber was always faster, but the car felt better and had more grip? at 0.0/0.5??? The long sweeping turns, I could keep the car down easier on the line and had better exit if I could get the throttle right, using a DS3 it is hard to do lap after lap. Fastest time and best feel is 0.0(f)0.4(r)........Going to try another car at different car now. Tires were SS.
I should also mention that I tried the default camber of 0.5 / 1.5......horrendous results. The more rear camber in this car the worse in was. Front better at 0.0 but could go up to 0.5 and be close to the ghost (0.100-0.200 secs). Might have an affect on lighter and heavy cars differently????
I should also mention that I tried the default camber of 0.5 / 1.5......horrendous results. The more rear camber in this car the worse in was. Front better at 0.0 but could go up to 0.5 and be close to the ghost (0.100-0.200 secs). Might have an affect on lighter and heavy cars differently????
Last edited:
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
Willow has a lot of camber to the turns so it is logical that it would suit a lower camber setting
I am going to build a camber test mule car soon and then I could do with some help testing if anyone is keen?
- 4,018
- New Jersey
- crash27wwjd
- 1,125
- Hannover
- KING__OF__SKULLS
Hello, i have a few questions for the tuners out there:
Do you think the new physics (especially tire physics) is detailed enough to affect the handling of cars by using different rim sizes?
Since the sidewall height changes through the different rim sizes, does it affect the amount of camber to use?
Since the sidewall height changes through the different rim sizes, does it affect the amount of camber to use?
And does the tire width affects the use of camber?
Wider tire have a greater contact patch, therefore a higher camber could be used?
Wider tire have a greater contact patch, therefore a higher camber could be used?
Last edited:
I don't even think of that King of Skulls, no numbers, just drive car, assess its behaviour, find some sort of stability I enjoy, or can at least live with, then dial it in.
Did I hit the exact numbers?
I don't know either, but next time I'm at that track I might dare to try fiddle those numbers a little or I might just be too impatient to get out on the track, who knows...
The main thing is, I am able to make enjoyable cars to drive.
Are my cars fastest?
Wouldn't have a clue.
I'm too busy barreling down Conrod to think numbers, hurts my head...
Did I hit the exact numbers?
I don't know either, but next time I'm at that track I might dare to try fiddle those numbers a little or I might just be too impatient to get out on the track, who knows...
The main thing is, I am able to make enjoyable cars to drive.
Are my cars fastest?
Wouldn't have a clue.
I'm too busy barreling down Conrod to think numbers, hurts my head...
- 4,018
- New Jersey
- crash27wwjd
IROC-Z, 500pp sports hard tires at Rome. From past seasonal, camber at 1.6/0.9. 5 laps and off previous best by .3, 1.19.03 the previous best. 0.0/0.0 and 1.19.05, faster but not as stable through certain corners. 0.0/05 and rear was not happy. Back to 1.6/0.9, again better on some corners, not so much on others. Setting to 0.7/0.4 and car felt consistent through more of the track, 1.18.383, followed by more laps in the 1.18.5 area. Back to 0.0 f and r, not as fast, back to 1.19.0......several corners seem to be the biggest difference, braking better at 0.0 tho. More tests needed
Tune here
Tune here
Last edited:
- 3,849
- London, Ontario
- voodoovaj
This is what I know, when I was running in SNAIL (which meant no tuning), going up +1 in rim size did not disqualify a car (in other words, the GAME allowed the upgrade). Go up +2 and the game no longer allows it. It may have a slight performance affect.
I have tried them back to back and I can't say one is better than the other. What should happen is that a lower profile provides slightly more lateral grip, while a higher profile gives extra damping. I've haven't been able to prove this with the data logger though. I suspect the effect is just too subtle. Keep in mind that lowering the sidewall height is SUPPOSED to be accompanied by a wider footprint but you can easily see that the tire width remains unchanged.
I suspect that the feature was intended to have more of an affect on the car, but that's been lost in the shuffle (so far).
That's the thing voodoo, do they model suspension systems?
try a dc2 v dc5, if you could be bothered chasing things that fine
Do they model tyre wear patterns?
Do they model...
etc..
etc...
Time to leave the office voodoo, come driving with me, great fun.
Front of my box says,
"Real driving simulator"
loaded up in the poor ol' ps3,
ps3 served its tour of duty, time to retire with honours.
The numbers this game must be forcing it to crunch must be phenomenal. The smoke ffs...
I'm gonna set a fire extinguisher up next to mine, think it's bout to throw a rod any minute now, come flying out through my head, scared...
Wait, just had a brilliant idea,
I'm gonna transverse mount my ps3 in front of my rig, under a DOHC VTEC lid.
Fire extinguisher in foot well,
see ya's!
try a dc2 v dc5, if you could be bothered chasing things that fine
Do they model tyre wear patterns?
Do they model...
etc..
etc...
Time to leave the office voodoo, come driving with me, great fun.
Front of my box says,
"Real driving simulator"
loaded up in the poor ol' ps3,
ps3 served its tour of duty, time to retire with honours.
The numbers this game must be forcing it to crunch must be phenomenal. The smoke ffs...
I'm gonna set a fire extinguisher up next to mine, think it's bout to throw a rod any minute now, come flying out through my head, scared...
Wait, just had a brilliant idea,
I'm gonna transverse mount my ps3 in front of my rig, under a DOHC VTEC lid.
Fire extinguisher in foot well,
see ya's!
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
Best comment yet!
We are over thinking it people. There is no way that PD has programmed as much as this community can think of. Want evidence... why would so many cars come with default settings of 1.5/3.5 camber and -50/+100 toe and dampers at 3/3 and ARBs at 3/3 and LSD at 10/40/20 and etc.. etc. ? Let's do some laps and report back. I moved this to there and either something or nothing happened.
