Appropriate N-Tires for Different Types of Cars to Simulate Real Life Control?

[Ezz777]

If you think that this semantics argument is dealing with the heart of the issue between Kent and I, I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Yet again, the cycle continues. The heart of the issue between you and Kent seemed to others (ie me) as your interpretation of his pictures as "evidence". You interpreted this as him posting the pictures as "proof" because of the way YOU interpreted the word evidence. Now if that's not semantics, prey tell what it is. You then told him they didn't prove anything, ie that he was wrong. Hence or otherwise, we are now here quibbling about it.

Evidence is something that can be used to prove something.
Proof is something that can be used to prove something.

Again, your attempts at definitive explanations have let you down. I will give you the first line, that "Evidence is something that can be used to prove something." Although perhaps wording it as "something that can be used to support your case" would have been more accurate. If only you had appreciated this aspect to the word in the first place, you perhaps wouldn't have jumped down his throat (sorry - i just love the phrase, read it as told him he was wrong if it helps ) in the first place.

The second line however, highlights the difference. Proof is somethings that PROVES something.

I guess we are back to this again, maybe you missed it the first time, but proof is a subset of evidence. There shouldn't be any interpretation required to differentiate between the two. If someone says something is proof, it should be assumed, as you say, that it is irrefutable. If it is evidence, one should assume that it is indicative. Back to the issue at hand. Kent was trying to say that the images of the tires were "indicative" of PD trying to approximate real life equivalents. Hence he said they were EVIDENCE.

I think we have just about gone full circle now. Wanna go again?

 

[Kent]

I have to step in at this point and say...

Hey everyone,

Chill out.

No more worries about the old, let's concentrate on the new.

That is, if there is anything new to discuss.

My views no N tires are already here so with that I leave you all to do as you will.
However, should I have to come back in a "moderator" position rather than a "member" position I will be disappointed and saddened by the result- a closure of this thread.

Sorry if that was too "wordy" for you but the point remains the same.

Chill out!!!

 

[Ezz777]

yeah, but i used smilies ;-) !!!

 

[Wolfe]

Yet again, the cycle continues. The heart of the issue between you and Kent seemed to others (ie me) as your interpretation of his pictures as "evidence". You interpreted this as him posting the pictures as "proof" because of the way YOU interpreted the word evidence. Now if that's not semantics, prey tell what it is. You then told him they didn't prove anything, ie that he was wrong. Hence or otherwise, we are now here quibbling about it.

This discussion, in summary:

Kent: Look! The S tires look like the track tires in this picture!
Wolfe2x7: You think pictures of tires determine how a videogame tire should behave...?
Kent: No, but they are indicative of PD's intentions, as far as their grip is concerned...
Wolfe2x7: Oops, I'm sorry; I was wrong, and you were right. The S tires do indeed look like the track tires, and the descriptions at the bottom contrast with the names of the tires, interestingly enough...
Ezz777: WTF? There is a clear distinction between evidence and proof...whatchu talk about, Willis?!
(semantics)

Thus, the distinction between proof and evidence has nothing to do with my claim that Kent was wrong.

Again, your attempts at definitive explanations have let you down. I will give you the first line, that "Evidence is something that can be used to prove something." Although perhaps wording it as "something that can be used to support your case" would have been more accurate. If only you had appreciated this aspect to the word in the first place, you perhaps wouldn't have jumped down his throat in the first place.

The second line however, highlights the difference. Proof is somethings that PROVES something.

I guess we are back to this again, maybe you missed it the first time, but proof is a subset of evidence. There shouldn't be any interpretation required to differentiate between the two. If someone says something is proof, it should be assumed, as you say, that it is irrefutable. If it is evidence, one should assume that it is indicative. Back to the issue at hand. Kent was trying to say that the images of the tires were "indicative" of PD trying to approximate real life equivalents. Hence he said they were EVIDENCE.

I think we have just about gone full circle now. Wanna go again?

As I explained above, all of this has nothing to do with Kent and I. From your latest post here, I am now certain that your persistence on this issue has arisen from the perceived notion that I wouldn't have jumped on Kent if I "truly" understood the difference between evidence and proof.

If Kent had said "Comparing the picture of the S tire in the tuning screen with the tire on this Mine's Skyline is indicative of the S tires being track tires."

I would have said "Pictures of what tires look like are indicative of their performance, now...?"

Here's the low-down: I understand the difference, but I feel that the difference is small. And it would not have mattered how Kent worded his S-tire theory; I would have still made the dumb mistake of typing before thinking, and I would have disputed the use of pictures to make a claim about videogame tires. I have already apologized for this mistake. Now you and I have gone on and on about the definitions of evidence and proof, yet the only relevance this argument has is within itself. If you were fighting for a greater cause than that, then I'm sorry, but you've wasted your time...

I have to step in at this point and say...

Hey everyone,

Chill out.

No more worries about the old, let's concentrate on the new.

That is, if there is anything new to discuss.

My views no N tires are already here so with that I leave you all to do as you will.
However, should I have to come back in a "moderator" position rather than a "member" position I will be disappointed and saddened by the result- a closure of this thread.

Sorry if that was too "wordy" for you but the point remains the same.

Chill out!!!

A wise suggestion, but I think we're close to finishing this up. As of yet, we've kept it civil, as well... 👍

I think this post here should clear some things up, anyway...

 

[Ezz777]

Sorry all, this is just too fun.

Thus, the distinction between proof and evidence has nothing to do with my claim that Kent was wrong.
...

And

Pictures of what tires look like are evidence now...?

As you said (and again, well Franced), IF you would have said "Pictures of what tires look like are indicative of their performance, now...?" Then this wouldn't have started.

BUT you DID use the evidence bit, hence it appeared as if you weren't fully appreciative of the distinction between proof and evidence in the context of this discussion, hence this extended and enjoyable discussion on semantics etc.

And, no greater cause, just fun!!!

 

[DuckRacer]

Okay people, this thread is about N-tires, not evidence vs. proof. If you two want to continue your discussion, take it to the PM's. I don't want Kent closing this thread down.

 

[Wolfe]

As you said (and again, well Franced), IF you would have said "Pictures of what tires look like are indicative of their performance, now...?" Then this wouldn't have started.

BUT you DID use the evidence bit, hence it appeared as if you weren't fully appreciative of the distinction between proof and evidence in the context of this discussion, hence this extended and enjoyable discussion on semantics etc.

And, no greater cause, just fun!!!

I think we've finally reached an understanding, including the idea of how and why we went through this.

Anyway, to get back on topic as suggested by Kent and Duck; as I mentioned earlier, I've just recently noticed that the N tires' names are very misleading. The N1 tires, despite the "economy" moniker, are described as though they were performance tires with only a small consideration for comfort and tread life, like perhaps an all-season performance tire, or something you would find on a BMW or Lexus. The N2 tires are even more performance-oriented, and were designed with only a slight consideration for comfort (despite the name "comfort" ); these are more along the lines of a Porsche or Ferrari's tires, or pretty much any mass-produced sports car. N3 tires would most likely be street-legal competition tires, with their primary goal being grip, grip, and more grip; thus, the name "road" is hardly an accurate description.

In conclusion, most cars should be equipped with N1's, sportscars should be equipped with N2's, and N3's should be chosen if you want an aftermarket track tire that would still be street legal if it were real.

 

[Kent]

Anyway, to get back on topic as suggested by Kent and Duck; as I mentioned earlier, I've just recently noticed that the N tires' names are very misleading. The N1 tires, despite the "economy" moniker, are described as though they were performance tires with only a small consideration for comfort and tread life, like perhaps an all-season performance tire, or something you would find on a BMW or Lexus. The N2 tires are even more performance-oriented, and were designed with only a slight consideration for comfort (despite the name "comfort" ); these are more along the lines of a Porsche or Ferrari's tires, or pretty much any mass-produced sports car. N3 tires would most likely be street-legal competition tires, with their primary goal being grip, grip, and more grip; thus, the name "road" is hardly an accurate description.

In conclusion, most cars should be equipped with N1's, sportscars should be equipped with N2's, and N3's should be chosen if you want an aftermarket track tire that would still be street legal if it were real.

Atleast things are back on subject. 👍

However, I disagree with your statement.

I don't think all cars belong on N tires.
In fact, I don't even think some street cars of the highest levels should be on N tires.

I may have said this before throughout this thread but...
A Corvette, Tuscan, or Elise are the kinds of cars I would expect to see on N3 and no less.
Below them would be stuff like the ITR, Celica, etc etc.
Below that would be all the little economy cars I never even bother driving... (Daihatsu STORIA CX 2WD '98- FF 59hp).

Coming in at the sports tire level you would find the sometimes legal tuner cars, extreme sports cars, and of course, the super cars.
High end tuners fill this range out well but others like the VW Nardo and Jag XJ220 also fall into this area (IMO).

Once you go beyond that everything gets on racing tires because everything is a racecar.

It's almost like saying, "all the tires are sim tires" and N tires represent daily drivers, S tires represent high-end motorsport equipment, and R tires are for professional levle racing.

Remember that we have to make a spectrum of tires for everything in this... Starting N1 tires on a Lex or BMW would be like ignoring every car that wasn't already badass.

I mean really... Do you think BMWs come with tires remotely similar to what is on my Toyota Camry/ Little Bro's Corolla?
No, I'm sure that BMWs start on something like "40 series" tires and work down toward 30 or maybe less.
(my camry comes stock with 70s!!! Do you have any idea how big that side wall is? )

Point is, there is a whole world of bad tires out there. Most normal cars use them and many of the cars in this game come with those tires in real life.

BMWs do not come with tires like what you find on a Honda Oddessy.

Of course, this is all just my opinion.
Good day to you all and thank you for reading my thoughts.

 

[DuckRacer]

Very well said, Kent, but I have to disagree with this part:

Coming in at the sports tire level you would find the sometimes legal tuner cars, extreme sports cars, and of course, the super cars.

If you look at the photo of the Saleen S7 near the beginning of this thread, look at the tires. Then look at the DOT tire photos around it. The S7 clearly uses a tire similar to the N3 tires in GT4. And if the S7, a powerful supercar, uses something like N3's in real life, then we have every reason to believe that the Ford GT or a RUF or other supercar uses N3 tires. I believe high end sports cars like the Z06 or M3 also use N3's, normal sports cars like the Mustang GT or Hyundai Tiburon use N2's and N1's are the average long lasting cheap tires you get for $50.

 

[Kent]

I think this creates something of a situational paradox.

Refferences to Tuner Cars and Super Cars have been made here, both with real photos of tires and game tires to compare them with.

I would have to say this is a perfect example of why we can not simply judge what the most accurate simulation tires are for each car.

Don't forget that most cars get new tires for track days (often nothing like their daily driver tires).

Take all of that for what you will.

One more thing though.

We need to remember that some cars do not come with OE tires representitive of their intended use.
Saleens are made to be sold on the American car market and so they must carry street legal tires.

However, if Saleen was in the position of a company like Amuse, we would probably see tires like the Amuse Supra's on the Saleen as well.

So... Quite the paradox we have indeed.
Saleens in real life with nasty looking N tires and (below) A Mine's R34 with so little tread that S tires from the game look just like them.

I don't know what to say.

 

[Wolfe]

I guess I should have been more diligent in explaining that the statements I made were based upon what PD had in mind when creating the various classifications for tires.

Similar to when I jumped the gun on you, Kent, I believe you may have done the same in return. If you read the descriptions at the bottom of the screen for each of the N tires, you will find that the assumed level of performance is higher than the "economy," "comfort" and "road" names imply.

I would agree that the spectrum is not wide enough for the various kinds of cars PD has recreated in this game, but that's just the way it is.

 

[Kent]

I don't think I've jumped the gun here simply because I've taken the time to read the statements given with each tire's menu screen.

However, I suppose that doesn't change the fact that we agree to the idea that PD has been bad about tire types and whatnot.

The key to all of this is not necessarily deciding what tires represent what- it is deciding if we believe any tires in the game can accurately portray the real world of sports car racing.

Maybe we need to go with another view of the game.

Rather than testing the game for R/L accuracy, maybe we should race with a suspension of dis-belief?

That could be all we need...
Or on the other hand, that might be just what tons and tons of gtp'ers don't want.

 

[Gabkicks]

but thats kinda hard when the games called "the real driving simulator"

 

[Uncle Harry]

Appropriate N-Tires for Different Types of Cars to Simulate Real Life Control?
A. Nobody in there right mind would take a high performance car to a race track and put cheap tires on it (N1). However PD lets us do it?
B.Real life control is different between day to day driving (N1 are fine) to race track driving. (N1 fail badly).
C.In real life you can "feel" the tires are reaching the limits before you exceed them and thus you back off. In GT4 the "feeling" is only apparrant after the limit is reached and that is usually too late to back off to prevent massive understeer.
D.The original qusetion asked "about real life control" and not producing "real life lap times"
E. N3 seems to give real life control but we probably are getting a wrong opinion due to the fact that in game we are going twice as fast as to real life.
F. When driving at similar speeds to real life road driving N1 seem to be a good representation of how a tire acts.
G. The biggest problem is that it is hard to impart the same sense of speed and force in a video game to that experienced in real life.

 

[niky]

I'd still stake my life on N3's. N1's lose their grip at speeds (on the track) way below what I've seen in RL cars of the same type and weight.

As for control, it's a very difficult question to answer, as a lot of cars feel very different on N-tires from S-tires. Can you believe that you can swing the rear-end of a Mini around on S-tires and NOT on N-tires (or not easily, at least). I'm going to be able to do more testing next month, maybe, as we're doing a track session (hopefully) with a couple of cars, including a 1980's Lancer GSR.

Dynamic questions aside, whether the tires simulate RL control, I hate to say this... but "it depends".

 

[Wolfe]

I don't think I've jumped the gun here simply because I've taken the time to read the statements given with each tire's menu screen.

In that case, no, you didn't jump the gun.

Anyway, when it comes to how the tires actually behave, as opposed to what they're supposed to be, I agree with niky. The N's, particularly the N1's, are just too low-grip. The S tires have too much grip, yet behave in a more natural manner than the N's.

Let me put it this way, and I'm going to be blunt:
If you're looking for the type of tire that will provide realistic grip and realistic control, and make your car behave exactly the way it should...you're just playing the wrong game. Polyphony Digital may have called it "the real driving simulator," but it's really not. It's hard for tires to behave realistically when the game's physics aren't even capable of convincing realism, and that's what's happening here, with this thread.

I'll leave it at that for now, but if anyone here wants to see a long, detailed explanation for this opinion of mine, Scaff and I had a wonderful discussion about it here.

 

[Ezz777]

. Polyphony Digital may have called it "the real driving simulator," but it's really not.

Ah hah!!! More semantics!!! Woo hoo!!! It is real, and it is a driving simulator. 👍 👍

Ok, so its friday arvo, lunch at pub, silly sense of humour... you know how it is

 

[orubasarot]

...

 

[Kent]

I'm not sure what to say at this point.

Either you like the game or not.

I see lots of concern over the way cars "should" act and think to myself, "have we ever driven these cars?"

I also think to myself, "if we did get our realism, wouldn't that mean lap times would go up dramatically since none of us are professional racecar drivers?"

Of course, none of that matters to me in all honesty.
Nor does the "lacking physics engine."

For me the fact of the matter is, I have been a legal driver in R/L for almost 10 years now. That doesn't make me an authority but it does give me some good sense about cars... My good sense tells me that GT4 does a fine job.

Just a matter or opinion I suppose.
In any case, I'm out... Later.

 

[zondahelmet]

I personally think even N2s are still too gripy...

i agree

i can lap the ring with most cars with N2 tires faster than their real-life times, i went back and drove a 96 RX7 Type RZ with N1 tires on the Ring last night and that seemed very realistic 👍

 

[luftrofl]

i agree

i can lap the ring with most cars with N2 tires faster than their real-life times, i went back and drove a 96 RX7 Type RZ with N1 tires on the Ring last night and that seemed very realistic 👍

I think that's a pretty common occurance, as I remember seeing a video related to this. On the TV show "Top Gear" Gran Turismo 4 was tested against real life times at Laguna Seca. The car was the Honda NSX, and the show host(Jeremy Clarkson) got a significantly better time in GT4 than in real life.

I watched it on Google Video, but I can't find it anymore.

 

[DuckRacer]

I think that's a pretty common occurance, as I remember seeing a video related to this. On the TV show "Top Gear" Gran Turismo 4 was tested against real life times at Laguna Seca. The car was the Honda NSX, and the show host(Jeremy Clarkson) got a significantly better time in GT4 than in real life.

I watched it on Google Video, but I can't find it anymore.

It could be that the lack of the fear factor made his time faster.

And I can't believe this thread is still alive.

 

[luftrofl]

It could be that the lack of the fear factor made his time faster.

I think he was also saying that in the hands of a better driver it could get a better time.

 

[Wolfe]

I think he was also saying that in the hands of a better driver it could get a better time.

Indeed. Clarkson's a good driver, but he's no professional racecar driver, and he knows it.

 

[Ermac26]

IMHO, it's all trial and error...just try the 3 N tires that work best for a specific car

 

[Niels]

And I can't believe this thread is still alive.

Thats because new members are adviced to search first

For GT4's tyres, I havent really tried to experiment with tyres while racing. I'll try some N1's soon.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

I think Tyre specs in GT4 are unrealistic all together. Sure, right now N1 may seem like tha most realistic tyre, but just wait until someone gets really used to racing on them, and gets a whole lot better times around a track than possible IRL, then the N1 are also unrealistic!
And I think tyres have way too much grip in GT4. Well, not the gravel or ice tyres, wich have too little grip instead. Especially the ice compound.
But even the N tyres provide too much lateral grip. On the other hand, they produce very little grip during braking, wich is also unrealistic. I hope this changes for GT5.

 

[niky]

Gravel tires have approximately the right grip... (that's from driving on loose gravel, where you can spin the tires with very little throttle and at very low speeds.) ...it's the feedback factors that make the game different from the real thing.

N2s are the most realistic tire choice according to lateral acceleration and grip. I've tried this myself on the Gymkhana skidpad, and Scaff has done exhaustive testing to confirm this. That's why all the license tests involving road cars involve N2s.

If you're saying that N1's have too much grip because you can achieve lateral loads in excess of what car magazine statistics say the car can get, remember that car magazines test for sustained lateral loads and not peak lateral loads. Just because you can hit near 1g laterally for half a second doesn't mean that the car's skidpad rating is automatically 0.96 g. It has to be maintained.

Lap times will never match real life because of the fear factor. If people can get N1 lap times equal to real life lap times with the same car and track, it doesn't mean that N1s are the most realistic. It just means that they can push harder than they would in real life.

All reviewers who've tried the GT4-vs-RL thing have indicated that the fear factor played a major part in their relatively poor performance in real-life versus GT. Overcook it in GT and you reset. Overcook it in real life and you're out a car, an arm or a leg, or, if you're unlucky, a kidney or a brain.

N2s seem to give realistic car control and feedback, BUT, as there's no real sense of speed in the game, many people (including myself) resort to N3s to simulate the "feeling" of realistic driving.

And I'm with Duck... I thought we'd sewn this sucker up.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Well did you actually have rally tyres when driving on gravel? A serious Pirelli gravel tyre has quite a lot of grip, in fact surprisingly much, and the abscense of feel for the road (you feel the bumps but not the surface) when driving on gravel in GT4 is just so wrong. I´m not saying that the rallying in GT4 is too hard because of the lack of grip, it´s not, I´m just saying that the grip levels on gravel are too small compared to RL.

For the rest, I can sort of agree - I mainly run on N2 tyres myself - but I still feel that most tyres provide too much grip in one way or another. I would very much like a more "erratic" feel for the cars, thus kind of simulating fear.
There are few good cars to use for this "feeling", mainly the TVR Speed 12, and most of all the Auto Union. Minimize downforce, loose all driveraids and slap R1 tyres on and take it to Nürburgring. Equally fun, hard and frightening!

 

[Wolfe]

All reviewers who've tried the GT4-vs-RL thing have indicated that the fear factor played a major part in their relatively poor performance in real-life versus GT. Overcook it in GT and you reset. Overcook it in real life and you're out a car, an arm or a leg, or, if you're unlucky, a kidney or a brain.

There is a way to somewhat reduce this problem -- take a long track like the Nurburgring (or decide to do many laps of a smaller track). Start over every single time you put even one wheel off the pavement.

You'll be plenty afraid to make a mistake, especially for playing a videogame.

Well did you actually have rally tyres when driving on gravel? A serious Pirelli gravel tyre has quite a lot of grip, in fact surprisingly much, and the abscense of feel for the road (you feel the bumps but not the surface) when driving on gravel in GT4 is just so wrong. I´m not saying that the rallying in GT4 is too hard because of the lack of grip, it´s not, I´m just saying that the grip levels on gravel are too small compared to RL.

GT4's rally physics in general are just wrong. The series has never really known what it's doing with non-pavement surfaces, anyway (that's why Swiss Alps is so freaking wide -- GT4 is the first one that even kinda knows what it's doing, so new courses like the Grand Canyon can be smaller).