FITT - Federation of International Tuners and Test-Drivers

[brian wolf]

Does anyone know which tracks would likely benefit from camber? The only one I can think of where I've seen race cars running big camber is Bathurst.
I say this because I think that much like real life, camber will be beneficial in some situations but not others. Its not supposed to be a fix-all, just useful in certain scenarios for adjusting the balance and potential of a car. My thought is that from what I've experienced so far, it allows you to make a stiffer high speed setup function better on occasional tight twisty sections.
Take Grand Valley as an example, 2/3rds of that track is high speed, high load corners where a more stable, stiff car is faster. If you set up this way then you will struggle to get optimum performance in the slower, tighter bits. Conversely if you run a softer setup you will gain performance in the tighter sections but lose speed in the fast bits. Standard gain vs. loss that you have to balance in every tune, right? Maybe by using camber you could improve the low speed handling of a stiff car and have to make less sacrifices to get the best lap time perhaps? It might only be a tenth or something, but every little helps.
I'm not claiming that this is true by any means, just trying to find some answers really

I`ve done testing at Streets of Willow. In a Delta Integrale, 5 laps with camber, 5 laps without, 5 laps with.......etc.I could only match the ghost time with camber. So i`d say that track definately possibly benefits having camber.

edit: took my head out of my 🤬! It was nearly stock setup, SM tyres 300ish bhp, only settings I changed on the FC suspension was zeroed all toe and added 1.2 camber front and rear. With these settings camber definitely made it faster.

 

[DolHaus]

I`ve done testing at Streets of Willow. In a Delta Integrale, 5 laps with camber, 5 laps without, 5 laps with.......etc.I could only match the ghost time with camber. So i`d say that track definately possibly benefits having camber.

edit: took my head out of my 🤬! It was nearly stock setup, SM tyres 300ish bhp, only settings I changed on the FC suspension was zeroed all toe and added 1.2 camber front and rear. With these settings camber definitely made it faster.

Excellent work 👍

Willow Springs did cross my mind, would certainly be easier to test than Bathurst.

 

[Otaliema]

@Ronald6 with your David vs Goliath idea have you tested the cars out at the pp level and are they close? I found in the sti evo challenge that if a car was x.xxx faster stock it kept that advantage tuned. Other wise I think this a great idea.

@praiano63 solid idea get some good answers on the camber vs 0/0 setups see what the gains and losses Are in the setups. How would we address the three tire groups? Thee groups? Or use one tire group and do three challenges?

 

[brian wolf]

@Ronald6 with your David vs Goliath idea have you tested the cars out at the pp level and are they close? I found in the sti evo challenge that if a car was x.xxx faster stock it kept that advantage tuned. Other wise I think this a great idea.

@praiano63 solid idea get some good answers on the camber vs 0/0 setups see what the gains and losses Are in the setups. How would we address the three tire groups? Thee groups? Or use one tire group and do three challenges?

@praiano63 As well as tyre groups there is also rim sizes? Any ideas whether these will affect camber and how we could incorporate this?

 

[Ronald6]

@Otaliema : I did several laps with each car at a couple of PP levels on both tracks. The Caterham (I thought I said this before) was faster on Autumn Ring and the Jag' was faster at HSR.

 

[Otaliema]

@Otaliema : I did several laps with each car at a couple of PP levels on both tracks. The Caterham (I thought I said this before) was faster on Autumn Ring and the Jag' was faster at HSR.

You did but the difference was 0.700 ish seconds that much time is hard to make up in a tune 0.250 can be done, but with both cars getting tuned well the jag would come out on top each time

@brian wolf rim size does affect camber values bigger rims can handle higher camber, less tire flex I found this on the C7 at least

 

[brian wolf]

@Otaliema : I did several laps with each car at a couple of PP levels on both tracks. The Caterham (I thought I said this before) was faster on Autumn Ring and the Jag' was faster at HSR.

I like the idea. But Autumn Ring again? That would be 3 challenges running!

You did but the difference was 0.700 ish seconds that much time is hard to make up in a tune 0.250 can be done, but with both cars getting tuned well the jag would come out on top each time

@brian wolf rim size does affect camber values bigger rims can handle higher camber, less tire flex I found this on the C7 at least

I hear what your saying about the time difference between the 7 and the Jag. But thats only 1 persons outcome. @Ronald6 maybe a longer test is needed? In the end maybe the only way of knowing for sure is to run the challenge? Different driving styles and all that?👍

I hoped that rim size would make a difference! I never saw it mentioned in Camber Theory tho?

 

[DolHaus]

@praiano63 As well as tyre groups there is also rim sizes? Any ideas whether these will affect camber and how we could incorporate this?

I have a feeling something has changed there, the standard size rim feels sort of softer than before, I've not tested it yet but I plan to in the next few days

 

[Lionheart2113]

@praiano63 As well as tyre groups there is also rim sizes? Any ideas whether these will affect camber and how we could incorporate this?

Rim size shouldn't matter in the camber geometry because the center of the rim is in the same location. Now if the tires changed size, the it would be a dramatic change on the angle/pitch trapezoid. But since the rims are bigger, and "if" the tires remain the same, it could effect handling, as @DolHaus mentioned, the "thicker" tire feels softer, so it would probably come down to feel on the smaller sidewalls.

And I'll throw my vote in...if it really counts...for the camber challenge. If memory serves, @praiano63 said that a good camber testing track is high speed ring. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DolHaus]

Rim size shouldn't matter in the camber geometry because the center of the rim is in the same location. Now if the tires changed size, the it would be a dramatic change on the angle/pitch trapezoid. But since the rims are bigger, and "if" the tires remain the same, it could effect handling, as @DolHaus mentioned, the "thicker" tire feels softer, so it would probably come down to feel on the smaller sidewalls.

And I'll throw my vote in...if it really counts...for the camber challenge. If memory serves, @praiano63 said that a good camber testing track is high speed ring. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There was a slight difference pre-update before in the amount of sidewall flex, it wasn't particularly noticeable in terms of handling or grip but it did show up on the data logger. I wonder if the flex has been amplified in the update?

 

[Ronald6]

@brian wolf : too much of the fall season for you? I'll test Cote d'Azure when I get home.

I might run 50 laps in each car at 562pp (I think that's right) to get a good average lap time "stock." I can use the split time as a handicap.

Longer test is needed? Do you mean my pre event testing or the week long period test drivers have to review the tunes?

 

[brian wolf]

@brian wolf : too much of the fall season for you? I'll test Cote d'Azure when I get home.

I might run 50 laps in each car at 562pp (I think that's right) to get a good average lap time "stock." I can use the split time as a handicap.

Longer test is needed? Do you mean my pre event testing or the week long period test drivers have to review the tunes?

I like Autumn Ring! And I want it to stay that way! Cote d`azur would be awesome if it fits well into the challenge!👍 I`ve been caning a Nascar round there for giggles recently
50 laps would be good to get a good average time, that is what I ment by a longer test. But 2 weeks would be better for testers too! It took me about 18hrs to test street racers last time out.(15 tunes, 2 tracks, half hour per tune per track and 3hrs to build 15 cars)

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I have been using Silverstone GP for tuning replica with camber back in pre 1.09. It's an excellent track, even 0.1/0.2 camber change can be felt I've recently asked @danbojte to test the latest replica ( RJN NISMO 370Z GT4 ), and the tune that was built and tested in 1.08 also works on 1.09. The car has high camber similar to real life setup. I tuned and tested mainly at Silverstone GP in 1.08, a track that specifically aimed to replicate the real life lap time at around 2:14s on SS GT6 tire ( hard slick IRL ) My R8 LMS Ultra Phoenix also only needs little tweaks on ARB, toe and rear spring ( higher lowest value in 1.09 ) with high camber for 1.09 to work, the tune was built back in 1.06 and again, I also tested the R8 LMS extensively at Silverstone GP for benchmark to real life record there.

 

[praiano63]

Rim size shouldn't matter in the camber geometry because the center of the rim is in the same location. Now if the tires changed size, the it would be a dramatic change on the angle/pitch trapezoid. But since the rims are bigger, and "if" the tires remain the same, it could effect handling, as @DolHaus mentioned, the "thicker" tire feels softer, so it would probably come down to feel on the smaller sidewalls.

And I'll throw my vote in...if it really counts...for the camber challenge. If memory serves, @praiano63 said that a good camber testing track is high speed ring. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In my opinion rim size don´t have any effect in GT6, just visual. PD have too much problem to figure simple physics to work on angle/pitch trapezoid or sidewalls.... in my opinion.
For the track we have to think about the testers. An easy small track, under 1:30 minute, with fast, medium and high speed turns, change of directions.....

 

[Lionheart2113]

Circuito di Roma, Grand Valley Speedway, or High Speed Ring?

 

[DolHaus]

In my opinion rim size don´t have any effect in GT6, just visual. PD have too much problem to figure simple physics to work on angle/pitch trapezoid or sidewalls.... in my opinion.
For the track we have to think about the testers. An easy small track, under 1:30 minute, with fast, medium and high speed turns, change of directions.....

Which simple physics do they have wrong so far?
I'm testing the rim size today hopefully to see if there is any difference on the data logger

 

[praiano63]

Which simple physics do they have wrong so far?
I'm testing the rim size today hopefully to see if there is any difference on the data logger

About Physics?

Wrong ?? Ride height !!
More or less: camber, TOE,ARB & brakes.
OK: springs, dampers.

To compare rims with data logger you have to repeat exactly the same conditions. Impossible 100% , only with a bspec mode perhaps.

 

[Otaliema]

A oval track wound be a good place to check rim size use driving line. Daytona would probably be the best place.

As for a test track for the camber theory GV, brands hatch, London, big willow, cape ring inner I think.

 

[DolHaus]

About Physics?

Wrong ?? Ride height !!
More or less: camber, TOE,ARB & brakes.
OK: springs, dampers.

To compare rims with data logger you have to repeat exactly the same conditions. Impossible 100% , only with a bspec mode perhaps.

From a simple physics perspective, ride height is functioning as it should (raise front = move centre of gravity towards rear).
Real world physics are way more complicated and would require exact data about height, roll axis, specific material density, leverage points, leverage strength etc. etc. on every car to make an accurate physics model. For a game with 1000+ cars, that's both difficult and hugely expensive to implement, its not as simple as people seem to think it is.

I'm not looking for a specific performance improvement with the rims, i'm just trying to see if the same pattern was there as before. As long as the laps are within a few hundredths of a second of each other and following roughly the same line I should be able to see what I'm looking for. I did this pre update and got noticeable results so I should be able to do it again.
I agree that to find actual performance gains using the tyre flex you would need a super consistent B spec driver but I'm only looking for a certain pattern within the data to see if is still there.

 

[praiano63]

Others PC driving simulator with very smaller budget are doing very well with the physics and with a lot more parameters to deal with. I don´t see why PD can´t make the things work in the right way.
Anyway. I´m tired with tuning in this game. I´m going to relax and have fun online with friend. This is th best thing we have with GT

 

[Otaliema]

Others PC driving simulator with very smaller budget are doing very well with the physics and with a lot more parameters to deal with. I don´t see why PD can´t make the things work in the right way.
Anyway. I´m tired with tuning in this game. I´m going to relax and have fun online with friend. This is th best thing we have with GT

I agree that the tuning needs a total overhaul it hasn't really changed in 15 years, I know the old adage if not broke don't fix it, but at this point it's pretty broken. All the components are there in the physics engine already just a matter of providing the GUI for the player

 

[DolHaus]

The level of detail available in tuning is directly proportionate to the amount and variety of cars. If you have something that works equally for 1200 cars then it is about as right as it can be, if you make it more complicated then you have to make sure it works equally across all those cars again.
All I'm saying really is that you can make a garage of 250 cars a lot more accurate and true than a garage of 1200. More complicated physics modelling needs more accurate data, more accurate data takes more time to collect and apply, this means that each car takes longer to research and model.

One of GT's selling points has always been sheer variety of cars, a decision needs to be made about the future and whether variety or pure simulation will be the true aim of the project. You can't really have both and make money, its always a balance of quantity vs. quality.

 

[Otaliema]

@DolHaus true enough but also if look at it, the data is already present in the physics engine with the suspension geometry for handling. The proof is in the data logger they have the game handling each wheel independently it just a matter of putting it in the GUI for the player

 

[DolHaus]

@DolHaus true enough but also if look at it, the data is already present in the physics engine with the suspension geometry for handling. The proof is in the data logger they have the game handling each wheel independently it just a matter of putting it in the GUI for the player

Its not so much the suspension that's the problem (although it does play a small part) its the car body modelling that causes the ride height issue. The suspension is doing what it should in terms of adjusting ride height, its how it works the physics as a result of those changes that causes the issue.

 

[Otaliema]

Its not so much the suspension that's the problem (although it does play a small part) its the car body modelling that causes the ride height issue. The suspension is doing what it should in terms of adjusting ride height, its how it works the physics as a result of those changes that causes the issue.

Hmm hadn't thought it that way. Well what ever is causing the issue it's not working to real world phsyics in a driving sim. It's working more like a arcade style game. Thakfully it's in the grand schecme of things a small problem imo. I think one they "fix" it just flipping the RH will bring the tunes back in line. not like with this camber update.

 

[DolHaus]

Hmm hadn't thought it that way. Well what ever is causing the issue it's not working to real world phsyics in a driving sim. It's working more like a arcade style game. Thakfully it's in the grand schecme of things a small problem imo. I think one they "fix" it just flipping the RH will bring the tunes back in line. not like with this camber update.

Copied from the 1.09 update thread :-

That pretty much sums up tuning in GT6, its not real life but more of an impression of it.
It uses real life influences to define the physics but not everything is/can be accounted for. Once you discover which physics theory they are using you can then tune to suit it. There is always method to it, they didn't just throw a bunch of numbers into a hat and make a game, they chose the most appropriate and dominant physics and translated them into a virtual world.
Accurate real life physics are complicated and way beyond the scope of a gaming console, to my knowledge there is no such thing as a perfect physics model, even the ones they use to design spacecraft have a margin of error.

Its not a problem as you said, we know how to use it to our advantage at least. Judging by the camber update though, when it does happen it almost certainly won't be as simple as flipping the values. It seems PD aren't a fan of simply making the broken things sort of work, more likely they are to build a whole new thing that won't break. I applaud them for that personally but I can understand the associated frustrations.

 

[Otaliema]

@DolHaus I would think it's just a broken translation formula that's causing the issue. repair that and the problem is in theory solved. but as with anything complex change one thing and 10 others change, so they have prolly already tried the simple formula correction and it broke something else worse
But in anycase with GT5 being finsished we shoudl see more updates to GT6 to repair the issues and add content so might be good to not push too much on this one right away with new tunes. just get the popular cars done and your favorites.

 

[DolHaus]

@DolHaus I would think it's just a broken translation formula that's causing the issue. repair that and the problem is in theory solved. but as with anything complex change one thing and 10 others change, so they have prolly already tried the simple formula correction and it broke something else worse
But in anycase with GT5 being finsished we shoudl see more updates to GT6 to repair the issues and add content so might be good to not push too much on this one right away with new tunes. just get the popular cars done and your favorites.

The version of ride height physics theory they have used is working near enough perfectly. This is how it is designed to function.
The real life version is much more complicated and affects way more influencing factors than just ride height alone. They could just flip the equation to fix the surface issue but that would be inaccurate and potentially make things more ridiculous and less realistic.
I don't even know if it would be worth fixing for GT6, if they were changing that aspect of modelling in GT7 then they might be able to port it over but it would depend on how big of an effect those changes made to the overall programming.

Think of it like cleaning an air sensor that is buried in a hard to reach spot in a tight engine bay. The sensor itself is causing a slight reduction in performance and efficiency but no major issues overall.
Fixing this problem is a small job in essence, you simply unscrew the sensor and give it a wipe down, job done. Unfortunately in order to reach this stage you first have to remove a bunch of other important and difficult parts to reach the offending sensor. Even once you've got to it and performed the simple fix, you still won't know if it has done the job until you put every other important part back on and give it a thorough test.
Its a lot of effort to go through to fix something that wasn't really a problem in the first place and there is always the future chance of the car starting to run badly because while trying to fix a small problem you accidentally cause a different and larger one.

 

[chappelle]

Hello to all,

Can someone take my setting for a ride please and let me know what I'm doing wrong!

I would appreciate any help, guidance, advice on setting up my Nascars as I'm really struggling. I absolutely fell in love with tuning cars in GT5 especially tuning and racing Nascars. GT6 is different and since the update I've lost HP and Handling.

I've been working hard to get a solid setup for all my Nascars which I will list with setups I'm presently using. I never have had a suspension that could handle speed in corners comfortably, I pretty much have to be perfect or I'm spinning out ... as such I haven't been able to do much of any racing as I cant hold my line or stop spinning out in the turns and I like to race in clean rooms.

I certainly wont give up but don't feel like I'm making any progress whatsoever. I usually can figure out how to get a car to get up to 206mph by end of backstretch but the people I want to race with are running 208 - 210 so if I lose draft bye bye, hilarious, but seriously makes it hard to enjoy the racing when your fighting your car ... again any and all help will be much appreciated!


2011 Brian Vickers / / 2013 Jeff Gordon
Suspension / Brakes / Suspension / Brakes
78 66 / 1 1 / 60 59 / 1 1
23.50 20.50 / 22 21
2 2 / 3 2
2 2 / 3 2
7 7 / 5 5
0.0 0.0 / 0.0 0.0
0.20 0.00 / -0.20 -0.30

Transmission / Transmission
Max Speed 242 / Max Speed 162
1. 1.433 / 1. 2.171
2. 0.970 / 2. 1.522
3. 0.740 / 3. 1.154
4. 0.687 / 4. 0.977
Final Gear 5.000 / Final Gear 3.368

LSD Body / LSD Body
60/60/20 200 400 / 60/60/20 200 400

Everyone take care and continue to be blessed
Chap
ARMY OF 1 / BE ALL YOU CAN BE

 

[Voodoovaj]

When is the next event planned?