FF tunes don't make any sense

[VTiRoj]

I don't see what the problem is.

When GT5 was first released, I saw what the problem was. Real life tuning didn't work in GT5. This seems a bit wrong in a simulation game, does it not?

A year later, I don't see what the problem is anymore. A lot of people have gotten over the problem and are comfortable with GT5's tuning. It feels like people are just making threads like this for the sake of complaining.

 

[XDesperado67]

Just wanted to put my two cents in here for what its worth. Don't claim to be a great tuner on here but I do enjoy trying to get the best performance out of the cars in game. Likewise my knowledge of real world tuning for handling is quite limited. I think someone already mentioned it but feel it should be stressed that this is a game. Many of the things in this game a great but it takes license with some cars and their performance, for whatever reasons, and at times things don't match the real world at all. Accepting that this is a game and then doing what you can to maximize the in game performance should help your enjoyment. If things that apply in the real world don't work in the game don't let it ruin your enjoyment, just accept those differences then move on to the things that do work. For me its like complaining that my weapons in a shooter carry more ammunition in their clips than a real world weapon would, certain things are done to make the game more accessible and enjoyable for most people.

We keep seeing this discussion about suspension in GT5 being backwards or not working properly. My question is backwards or not working correctly compared to what? Compared to the real life knowledge of cars and tuning some here have? Perhaps. Compared to other games?

It would be great if everything worked exactly in game the same as it does in real life but I don't think the vast majority of us could either afford it or get full enjoyment out of it. I remember a few years ago getting a NASCAR game for my computer. It had highly detailed suspension and aerodynamic tuning in it. I quickly grew frustrated by the game because I couldn't drive the cars without crashing every hundred yards and was completely overwhelmed by the level of adjusting/setting up the cars that was provided. PD has given us a chance to fine tune the cars in game to better suit our desires but has avoided overwhelming us with way to much detail in the possible settings.

Just my thoughts and sorry to ramble on.

As Harvey Wallbanger always says...
Drive hard and have fun!

 

[Rotary Junkie]

That ruins the game for me. There are plenty of other good racing games that get it right. I don't need the song and dance of the GT circus if there isn't an attempt and making The tuning close to accurate.

Well then.

Bye.



More seriously though, I've actually had success using real-world numbers on quite a few cars. '69 Camaro? Found the stiffest aftermarket spring rates I could, converted to kg/mm, entered it in the most recent shootout, had the fastest not-a-Lambo, and fastest out of 3 Camaros, not to mention using the wrong parts for maximizing performance at a given PP level.

And at the same time, some time after discovering the way FWD liked to be tuned in GT4, I tried it in other games. Namely rFactor and LFS.

The result was exactly the same. Slightly tighter on entry, better on exit.

 

[JackWilson]

Just wanted to put my two cents in here for what its worth. Don't claim to be a great tuner on here but I do enjoy trying to get the best performance out of the cars in game. Likewise my knowledge of real world tuning for handling is quite limited. I think someone already mentioned it but feel it should be stressed that this is a game. Many of the things in this game a great but it takes license with some cars and their performance, for whatever reasons, and at times things don't match the real world at all. Accepting that this is a game and then doing what you can to maximize the in game performance should help your enjoyment.

The thing is, they designed the game so that real world knowledge does appy, I have read the manual that comes with the collectors edition and everything in there applies to real world tuning. In the book it tells you how to cure understeer and oversteer, which applies to real world tuning, but when you actually come to do it in game it does not work how they designed it too. So that is the problem.

But like many tunas in the community I have learned to accept it and it does not cause me problems or get on my nerves. I just want to try to help people understand that the settings are backwords. Whether its a game or not.

Thanks

Jack

Edit:
For me GT5 is the best racing game on the PS3, so I choose to play it.
If you have an xbox you play forza, if you have a decent Computer you play L4S or rFactor.

Case Closed!

 

[EDK]

Edit: Again, @EDK: I see those and I wonder why they've gone that route instead of less front anti-roll, more front spring, less rear spring, more rear anti-roll, etc. I think I'll pick that car up and give it a go, I'm no alien but I reckon I can beat those tunes with enough work. Might still need to go slightly nose-high due to limits of our available spring rates but...

I built one of the tunes from scratch, and the ARB in particular, I can tell you that going the opposite route had an undesirable effect. Namely, it added understeer that I didn't want.

Spring rate, I went softer due to the light car and its tendency to launch off of rumbles with higher spring rates.

These are the events specifics.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=239839

And these are the results.

http://wrs.gtplanet.net/GT5/results/49/


See if you can build something faster.

Of course, it ultimately comes back to personal preference and what you can handle, so it might be that our tunes would not work for you, and vice versa.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I accept that it isn't right, but I don't accept that it's completely wrong.

I know ride height is all kinds of screwy with its effects on handling and that spring rate can get very confusing very quickly if you go straight to extremes, but I've had too many cases where stiffening the rear did cut down on understeer, or stiffening the front caused it, or softening the front reduced understeer/created oversteer to lay a blanket statement saying it's completely backwards down.

Edit: @EDK: I absolutely cannot outdrive you guys but I'm in the process of acquiring the car and will see what I can do with it. Would be interesting to have you give whatever I come up with (if I can come up with something that I feel is indeed faster) a shot though.

Edit 2: Then again, Fuji... That ride height... Yeah, I can see where it'd help. Still gonna try.

Edit 3: Also, from what I've seen from max/min ride height, it is very similar to the "toe glitches" of GT5P in that it invariably increases acceleration and top speed.

 

[EDK]

Edit 3: Also, from what I've seen from max/min ride height, it is very similar to the "toe glitches" of GT5P in that it invariably increases acceleration and top speed.

I tested that part, and with the car bone stock, it would go 1 MPH faster with min rear ride height than it would with any other RH.

If that RH affected handling in a negative way, there's no way you could make up for that across the lap with that sort of straightline speed advantage.

My test was with the car at a complete stop with back wheels at edge of grass in last turn at Fuji. Automatic transmission to avoid shift variables, WOT all the way down the front straight and into the sand on the far end, top speed achieved just before hitting the sand.

 

[XDesperado67]

I built one of the tunes from scratch, and the ARB in particular, I can tell you that going the opposite route had an undesirable effect. Namely, it added understeer that I didn't want.

Spring rate, I went softer due to the light car and its tendency to launch off of rumbles with higher spring rates.

These are the events specifics.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=239839

And these are the results.

http://wrs.gtplanet.net/GT5/results/49/


See if you can build something faster.

Of course, it ultimately comes back to personal preference and what you can handle, so it might be that our tunes would not work for you, and vice versa.

Just my thoughts on the tunes, you say higher spring rates will launch you off the rumbles. You might try using higher spring rates but reducing the dampers. I might not be right in my understanding here but what I gather about the dampers is that they limit the travel available to the suspension. If that is correct then the problem isn't with the spring rates being to stiff as that determines how fast they react to changes in the road surface and attitude of the car, but that they aren't being given the freedom they need to move and react to those changes. Several of us have been working on a Fiat 500 in another thread here and the issue came up about getting bump steer or loss of control over the curbs at London with the higher spring rates that we wanted to use. After using lower damper settings the problem was resolved as the suspension could travel appropriately and absorb those bumps. At least one of the benefits of having a higher spring rate is that they are working harder to keep the tires on the road surface where they can do their work. Also with ARBs you should be trying to minimize both tire lift and body twist.

The "perfect" tune for any car will have the whole suspension working at maximum potential as a unit, not overloading any one part of it.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I tested that part, and with the car bone stock, it would go 1 MPH faster with min rear ride height than it would with any other RH.

If that RH affected handling in a negative way, there's no way you could make up for that across the lap with that sort of straightline speed advantage.

My test was with the car at a complete stop with back wheels at edge of grass in last turn at Fuji. Automatic transmission to avoid shift variables, WOT all the way down the front straight and into the sand on the far end, top speed achieved just before hitting the sand.

See but there's where you're not quite right.

I just did a similar test using everything eclipsee posted as settings on a 0 mile TZ2 with oil change, 172hp.

+15/-35 ride height (best possible for top speed) did the full mile at SSRX in 35.406s.

-35/-35 took 35.541 seconds. The change is much more noticeable at higher speeds than from a dead stop... And Fuji is a rather high-speed track. At the 1/4 mile mark, the difference between max/min and min/min was only 0.014s, at the 1km mark it was 0.059s.

Past about 100mph, the max/min setup very literally flies past min/min (up until which point the two are roughly equal)... Fuji doesn't have you running at low speeds all that often all things considered.

 

[SolidSnake7735]

Well... like it's been said. It's a GAME.

Also, soft rear suspension on FF's might cause oversteer because a lack of rigidity means a lack of traction so the tires will slip and slide with ease. But that's not always the case because for there to be a lack of rigidity on one side of the car there has to be an excess of it in the other side... It's all about balance. I get the most traction and fastest lap times with a balanced setup after hours of test-driving. They might not be the easiest cars to drive because of the uncanny suspension and/or LSD setups but that all requires adjusting to the setup and finding how to make the most of it.

my two cents

As for ride height.. that depends on the car's drivetrain and the intended use of the car. I rarely set a lower rear suspension because it induces understeer except in the case of FF's where I feel it allows the arse to be better planted and follow the lead of the front tires better... But other FF's with a longer wheelbase such as Integras and Accords I would set the front lower than the rear because of the wheelbase and the same ideology not applying.

 

[JackWilson]

Well... like it's been said. It's a GAME.

The thing is, they designed the game so that real world knowledge does appy. And it does to an extent, but some things do not.
And I dont think anyone is disagreeing that this is a game , I wish people would stop saying that because its irrelevent we are talking about whats happening in the game so obviously we know its a game.

Also, soft rear suspension on FF's might cause oversteer because a lack of rigidity means a lack of traction so the tires will slip and slide with ease.

What might happen with a stiff rear suspension then?

The nose-high speed increase could be accurate.... Maybe.... I know a nose low ride height creates downforce, which does cause drag... Hmmmm

Take an FF car install Race suspension, take it for a drive, it will have understeer, then gradually increase the rear spring rate by increments of 0.5, I think you'll find that the understeer is increased.

Also take a RWD car that oversteers, eg Caterham Fireblade and reduce the oversteer by lowering the rear, it doesnt happen it just makes it worse, you have to set the rear higher by 10-15mm to reduce the oversteer.

 

[chuyler1]

TRY TURNING ABS OFF

I have always driven with ABS=1 until recently. I turned it off and discovered even FF cars will oversteer braking into corners and will lock up the rears like you see in BTC races.

If you think about how ABS works it makes sense. First, your rear tires will start to lock up so ABS will activate to prevent them from slipping. This puts more braking stress on your front tires because they have more weight and more grip. As you turn in while trail braking, your inside tire will start to slip as weight is transferred off it. This puts even more braking stress on your outside front tire. By the time you reach mid corner, you've built up so much heat in that outside front that it gives out even before you start to apply throttle for the exit of the turn.

 

[Greyout]

The nose-high speed increase could be accurate.... Maybe.... I know a nose low ride height creates downforce, which does cause drag... Hmmmm

Well... like it's been said. It's a GAME.

Also, soft rear suspension on FF's might cause oversteer because a lack of rigidity means a lack of traction so the tires will slip and slide with ease.

That's just not really how it works

 

[CodeRedR51]

That's just not really how it works

Haven't you already been warned about double posting?

The "perfect" tune for any car will have the whole suspension working at maximum potential as a unit, not overloading any one part of it.

👍

 

[JackWilson]

That's just not really how it works

I know, but we can only try to come up with ideas on how it works, even though it doesnt make sence.

PS. I'd watch you double posts, just edit the previous one.

Haven't you already been warned about double posting?

Whats with the silly smiley face?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Whats with the silly smiley face?

He earned it.

 

[JackWilson]

He earned it.

Fair enough.

 

[CyKosis1973]

When GT5 was first released, I saw what the problem was. Real life tuning didn't work in GT5. This seems a bit wrong in a simulation game, does it not?

A year later, I don't see what the problem is anymore. A lot of people have gotten over the problem and are comfortable with GT5's tuning. It feels like people are just making threads like this for the sake of complaining.

Exactly. I spent a few months trying to get various real world things to work in the game. None of it did. I know GT5 is billed as a 'simulator', but let's be honest, it's not. I work with simulators and synthetic environments for a living, GT5 would not pass a factory acceptance test.

All that being said, the GT series is the reason I bought a PS2 and PS3, so don't think I don't get a lot of enjoyment from the game...

{Cy}

 

[Greyout]

Sorry, I'm on a iPad, I can't quote more then one person at a time. I'll be more careful.

I guess Ill just spend an afternoon adjusting each variable to one extreme then another to try and figure out which variables make sense, and which do not.

 

[shirakawaa]

I'm not much into other people's tunes, but on FF cars, since the front is heavier, shouldn't, on a balanced tuning, have harder springs than the rear as well? That's the case for most FF cars in the real world.

Anyway, I wish there was a way to tell the spring natural frequency for both axles in GT5. That depends on the car weight and weight distribution. It would be a more natural and accurate way for spring rate tuning. Try reading here:

http://www.optimumg.com/OptimumGWebSite/Documents/TechTips/Springs&Dampers_Tech_Tip_1.pdf
http://www.optimumg.com/OptimumGWebSite/Documents/TechTips/Springs&Dampers_Tech_Tip_2.pdf

And also, but not directly related:
http://www.optimumg.com/OptimumGWebSite/Documents/TechTips/Springs&Dampers_Tech_Tip_3.pdf
http://www.optimumg.com/OptimumGWebSite/Documents/TechTips/Springs&Dampers_Tech_Tip_4.pdf
http://www.optimumg.com/OptimumGWebSite/Documents/TechTips/Springs&Dampers_Tech_Tip_5.pdf
http://www.optimumg.com/OptimumGWebSite/Documents/TechTips/Springs&Dampers_Tech_Tip_6.pdf

(from http://www.optimumg.com/OptimumGWebSite/Others/TechTips.html)

 

[Greyout]

Street cars, yes, stiffer front springs are normal, even on RWD cars, for safety and comfort.

Real life FWD race cars usually have rear springs and sway bars that are MUCH stiffer. Many remove the front sway bar completely

 

[Scaff]

I'm not much into other people's tunes, but on FF cars, since the front is heavier, shouldn't, on a balanced tuning, have harder springs than the rear as well? That's the case for most FF cars in the real world.

As a starting point yes that would be correct (as initial spring rates should be in line with static weight distribution), the problem I found was that if you then reduce the front spring rates (or increase the rear) it didn't reduce understeer as would be expected.

Many of the things in this game a great but it takes license with some cars and their performance, for whatever reasons, and at times things don't match the real world at all. Accepting that this is a game and then doing what you can to maximize the in game performance should help your enjoyment. If things that apply in the real world don't work in the game don't let it ruin your enjoyment, just accept those differences then move on to the things that do work. For me its like complaining that my weapons in a shooter carry more ammunition in their clips than a real world weapon would, certain things are done to make the game more accessible and enjoyable for most people.

I don't agree at all.

We are not talking about a minor error in specification here, such as the weight of some cars being wrong (which would be a close match to the clip size in a gun being out) but what appears to be fundamental issues with the tuning of cars. That would be like fitting an RDS to a gun in a shooter and finding it actually works like a silencer.

Now while it may not be an issue for yourself (these things are of course personal), for me its been a deal breaker, particularly after not being able to change gear ratios for months after launch. I also would not agree that it makes GT5 more accessible at all. Exactly how does tuning being out do that? If it was simplified then I could understand that, but acting at times counter to the real world and the explanations on screen in the actual GT5 tuning screens; how can that be more accessible?

We keep seeing this discussion about suspension in GT5 being backwards or not working properly. My question is backwards or not working correctly compared to what? Compared to the real life knowledge of cars and tuning some here have? Perhaps. Compared to other games?

Both.

I can't recall another title on any platform (be it hard core sim or even arcade racer that allows tuning) that doesn't attempt to mirror how tuning works in reality. They may simply it yes, but not act counter to it.

Add in the fact that every other GT has aimed for tuning to mirror reality as much as possible and I don't see this as a valid defence at all.

It would be great if everything worked exactly in game the same as it does in real life but I don't think the vast majority of us could either afford it or get full enjoyment out of it.

Why?

Again I just do not see the logic in this at all, particularly in regard to being able to afford it? Richard Burns Rally back on the PS2 had the most insanely detailed LSD settings, cost the same as every other PS2 game.

I remember a few years ago getting a NASCAR game for my computer. It had highly detailed suspension and aerodynamic tuning in it. I quickly grew frustrated by the game because I couldn't drive the cars without crashing every hundred yards and was completely overwhelmed by the level of adjusting/setting up the cars that was provided. PD has given us a chance to fine tune the cars in game to better suit our desires but has avoided overwhelming us with way to much detail in the possible settings.

That sounds far more like an issue with the physics model than with the tuning, and certainly don't see it as a valid defence again. If a title has tuning, be it simplified or complex, I don't see any valid reason for it not to at least mirror what happens in reality; particularly if it features real cars and aims to produce a realistic handling model.



Scaff

 

[Rotary Junkie]

As a starting point yes that would be correct (as initial spring rates should be in line with static weight distribution), the problem I found was that if you then reduce the front spring rates (or increase the rear) it didn't reduce understeer as would be expected.

And yet I see cases where it does work properly all too often to consider it entirely backwards.

Is it anything resembling right at all times? No. Have I gotten reasonably expected results from certain setups? Definitely.

I don't agree at all.

Now while it may not be an issue for yourself (these things are of course personal), for me its been a deal breaker, particularly after not being able to change gear ratios for months after launch. I also would not agree that it makes GT5 more accessible at all. Exactly how does tuning being out do that? If it was simplified then I could understand that, but acting at times counter to the real world and the explanations on screen in the actual GT5 tuning screens; how can that be more accessible?

This, I agree with.

I can't recall another title on any platform (be it hard core sim or even arcade racer that allows tuning) that doesn't attempt to mirror how tuning works in reality. They may simply it yes, but not act counter to it.

I feel as though GT5 does attempt to mirror reality, but somewhere along the line it fails in a fairly large number of cases.

Add in the fact that every other GT has aimed for tuning to mirror reality as much as possible and I don't see this as a valid defence at all.

Only as much as GT5 has.

See: My earlier post about GT4 FWDs in particular.

That sounds far more like an issue with the physics model than with the tuning, and certainly don't see it as a valid defence again. If a title has tuning, be it simplified or complex, I don't see any valid reason for it not to at least mirror what happens in reality; particularly as it does feature real cars and aim to produce a realistic handling model.

I agree, but only to a point.

Any, any game is not exempt from things not acting as they "happen in reality". The PC sims? Back when I ran them I used to confuse the hell out of myself wondering why certain changes wouldn't do what nearly everything you'll ever read will say they would. Softer rear springs reduce oversteer, RITE? Stronger LSD settings cause understeer and greater traction (on accel), RITE?

Except, wait, what's that? Oh, you mean they don't always do that? Oh.

Point being that nothing in tuning, be it real-life or in any game, is completely black and white. I found a bit of interesting reading a while back... Stating that while, yes, understeer is generally increased by stiffer front springs, reduced by softer front springs, or the reverse for rear springs (and same for oversteer), steady-staye under/oversteer is usually cured by the opposite one would think.

And from what I've seen, that's exactly how it goes in GT5. Is it perfect? Far, far from it. But I'll continue to have fun tuning cars to do what I want them to because it's still the best I've found at it.

 

[chuyler1]

Try turning off ABS...seriously. Try it. The day I did that, I found a new love for FF cars in this game.

I think the biggest problem is that the ABS, even on 1 is so strong that it prevents the rear tires from warming up, and therefore messes with all the suspension settings.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Tried it, noticed it, went back to running ABS:1 most of the time because I'm still consistently quicker with it on.

No doubt that it's too good at being what it says on the box, but hey.

 

[shirakawaa]

Remember that with the ABS off you have to set up a brake distribution that makes sense, by the way.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Obviously.

No no, I want to spin when I hit the brakes. Wait...

 

[Greyout]

Except, wait, what's that? Oh, you mean they don't always do that? Oh.

I'm sorry, but some things really are that simple. If you double the spring rate and match the dampers on the rear of ANY real car, (FF, FR, MR, RR, AWD, doesn't matter) and leave the front the same, the car will very noticably oversteer more / understeer less.

All the other variables do work together, but simply changing that one item should make a very noticable and predictable change.... even when the maximum spring tension on a "race" suspension is only 15kg/mm....

But, fine, GT5 does it different... "play the game" you say. I could go along with that, IF everything else didn't have to work together! Stiff rear spring makes oversteer? Fine, so what about the anti-roll bar? Anti-roll bars allow you to stiffen one end of a car in roll without stiffening the car in pitch, or over bumps. Great for bumpy tracks.... well now those have to be backwards to line up with the GT5 physics too! Stiffen up the axle thats loosing traction, thats the GT5 way right? But some have reported they work normally?

Ok, well then what about ballast? You increase the weight in the front or the rear, you should be causing that end to lose traction first around a corner? Well, wait a minute, how does that common sense fit with the altered GT5 world?

yes, games can differ from reality. Every sim does. But this is taking a core focus of the game, MODIFYING CARS, and turning it into a confusing mess.

Using your FPS analogy, this is like headshots causing less damage then a shot in the foot. This is like being able to shoot through a steel wall but not a bush.

I'm not leaving only because I hope there is an update coming one day.

 

[EDK]

By posting in here, I never intended to get into a philosophical debate as to whether or not the tuning physics of the game are correct. I think there's enough documentation on the subject, and this thread in and of itself suggests there IS a problem. It's just that we can't all agree on exactly what the problem IS.

I'll continue to make tunes that suit my needs, making the car both manageable and quick in the setting I'm driving it. While knowing that my approach is not going to be anything like it would have been in a prior GT game, or in a real life setting.

 

[Scaff]

And yet I see cases where it does work properly all too often to consider it entirely backwards.

Is it anything resembling right at all times? No. Have I gotten reasonably expected results from certain setups? Definitely.

I don't agree at all.

Just to be clear that we are on the same page with regard to this, I'm talking about setting an initial spring balance based on weight distribution and then changing only the spring rate at a single end and not touching any other value.

Even with stepping through the values slowly I've personally not come across anything consistent enough for me not to believe that a problem exists with GT5's tuning.

I feel as though GT5 does attempt to mirror reality, but somewhere along the line it fails in a fairly large number of cases.

In my opinion its claiming to mirror reality, but is falling down enough times to fail to meet that goal.

Only as much as GT5 has.

See: My earlier post about GT4 FWDs in particular.

My own experience differs, you know how much time I spent tuning in GT4 (and previous titles) and it had nothing close to the number of issues I keep coming across in GT5.

The only way I can effectively tune in GT5 is to throw real world theory out the window and start from scratch, and for me that's a deal breaker.

I agree, but only to a point.

Any, any game is not exempt from things not acting as they "happen in reality". The PC sims? Back when I ran them I used to confuse the hell out of myself wondering why certain changes wouldn't do what nearly everything you'll ever read will say they would. Softer rear springs reduce oversteer, RITE? Stronger LSD settings cause understeer and greater traction (on accel), RITE?

Except, wait, what's that? Oh, you mean they don't always do that? Oh.

Point being that nothing in tuning, be it real-life or in any game, is completely black and white. I found a bit of interesting reading a while back... Stating that while, yes, understeer is generally increased by stiffer front springs, reduced by softer front springs, or the reverse for rear springs (and same for oversteer), steady-staye under/oversteer is usually cured by the opposite one would think.

And from what I've seen, that's exactly how it goes in GT5. Is it perfect? Far, far from it. But I'll continue to have fun tuning cars to do what I want them to because it's still the best I've found at it.

The problem I have with this is that you are taking what are very uncommon exceptions and using them to validate what I see as significant problems with GT5 tuning acting in a very inconsistent manner.

The general rules and traits of real-world tuning exist because they are just that, the traits that will happen the majority of the time. When you change X in Y direction then Z happens, and it happens in my experience the vast majority of the time in reality. GT5 unfortunately doesn't mirror that, and for me its moved further away from that in comparison to GT4 and a lot of other titles around.

I actually quite surprised at myself, that its taken this long to voice these concerns, but the main area I was looking forward to in GT5 was tuning (just as it was for GT4). Once again I invested a considerable amount of my time in doing so, but to be quite blunt about it, the lack of consistency with what I know works in the real world frustrated me to such a degree I find it hard to explain.

That GT5 is not 100% accurate is no surprise to me, I never expected it to be, what did surprise me is how inconsistent it is in regard to real world theory.


Scaff