- 5,489
- mid west USA
- Otaliema
FITT - Federation of International Tuners and Test-Drivers
- Thread starter DigitalBaka
- 2,660 comments
- 166,127 views
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
Since it's clueless, maybe we just let the overdogs stay in, but if you choose one, this may happen to your entry?
Half way through testing we all vote on one car to be crushed and the tuner with the most votes must start over with a different car.
Half way through testing we all vote on one car to be crushed and the tuner with the most votes must start over with a different car.
Last edited:
- 4,079
- Brooklyn, Wi
- krenkme
I've been trying to set up a shootout for a 300pp challenge, but ...explanation coming
I love these cars, and the price would be very small for the testers! Sounds great 👍
... I have been working a lot to save money to buy a house...again... So not sure when/if I can compete
. We close in mid May, and a lot of packing and moving and such needs to be done. But I will for sure keep an eye on this, to see if I can compete (heartbroken for sure!!!!!!!!!!). Talk again soon
- 5,489
- mid west USA
- Otaliema
I feel ya we close at the end of the month. So I know what you're prepping for it sucks for sure but at least it won't an annual thing.have been working a lot to save money to buy a house...again... So not sure when/if I can compete
Edit auto guess incorrect corrections ugg
Last edited:
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
One of the things we always searched for in GT5 was the "perfect" balance of lap time and drivers choice in shootouts.
So I present my new scoring method/theory.
For example, in this current layout I'm using for Mid-Field, it's a single point between all competitors, and the value is spaced so the DC has a reasonably strong effect.
If you wanted DC to have a greater influence, raise the numbers, example:
1: 50
2: 49
3: 48
This would roughly double the influence of DC rating.
Another way,
1: 50
2: 48
3: 46
This is the same as my currently used method, except it allows the Event Host to add specific increments, for example, after the podium points could start dropping by 1 instead of 2, etc
4: 45
5: 44
etc.
For a DC(Driver's Choice) shootout, one could even use 100.
1: 100
2: 99
3: 98
4: 97
In this method, being multiplied by DC score would make DC incredibly important to a good score, potentially more vital than a good lap.
For example, someone with the 15th slowest ride(86 points) could score 10.0 on DC, and beat #1 if they scored 8.5 or lower in DC.
The TieBreaker can also be changed as seen fit. I wanted to boost DC value in the Mid-Field shootout, so I went with DC first.
Is that easy to understand, or did I fudge it up?
So I present my new scoring method/theory.
Now, you can change the DC value in this method, by simply changing the point numbers.
For example, in this current layout I'm using for Mid-Field, it's a single point between all competitors, and the value is spaced so the DC has a reasonably strong effect.
If you wanted DC to have a greater influence, raise the numbers, example:
1: 50
2: 49
3: 48
This would roughly double the influence of DC rating.
Another way,
1: 50
2: 48
3: 46
This is the same as my currently used method, except it allows the Event Host to add specific increments, for example, after the podium points could start dropping by 1 instead of 2, etc
4: 45
5: 44
etc.
For a DC(Driver's Choice) shootout, one could even use 100.
1: 100
2: 99
3: 98
4: 97
In this method, being multiplied by DC score would make DC incredibly important to a good score, potentially more vital than a good lap.
For example, someone with the 15th slowest ride(86 points) could score 10.0 on DC, and beat #1 if they scored 8.5 or lower in DC.
The TieBreaker can also be changed as seen fit. I wanted to boost DC value in the Mid-Field shootout, so I went with DC first.
Is that easy to understand, or did I fudge it up?
- 171
- Queensland
- Climaxic_Teddy
I could make some sort of formula that could determine the importance of DC/avg lap times, and this could be influenced for certain comps to make tuners have to think about whether or not they need speed or control, and where the perfect balance may lie.
Would that work?
Would that work?
- 1,370
- Laval, Canada
- OutbackV6
Hey cars I can drive, I'm 1000% for it, I just love those little bugs
.
- 4,015
- New Jersey
- crash27wwjd
- 1,370
- Laval, Canada
- OutbackV6
Yeah, but I don't know how many people will want to work on these, I mean some of them are barely faster then a go-Kart
.
- 5,489
- mid west USA
- Otaliema
The fact they are low powered makes them harder. To tune and drive. One little mistake that costs you say 0.010 seconds in. Ferrari will cost you nearly 0.500 seconds in a midget.Yeah, but I don't know how many people will want to work on these, I mean some of them are barely faster then a go-Kart
Indeed too stable and you lose too loose and you lose. Even more so than in high powered hyper cars."If you build it, they will come."Although these cars don't seem as appealing as a high-powered sports car, pinning them against each other makes a more difficult challenge.
- 1,370
- Laval, Canada
- OutbackV6
I have been building them"If you build it, they will come."
, I've got 8 in my garage 
, I can tell you that after more than 1 year I've had 2 responses .Totally agree with you, on the schwimmwagen I'm playing with, using the standard way of tuning the transmission will leave you out in the dust, even at these low speeds, it's so important to pay attention to where the power band is with these. Everything is under the microscope, even the driving, if you miss your out of curve exit going to a hill you will lose so much time crawling it up.
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
We've had a few try before, can't hurt to try again. 👍
- 171
- Queensland
- Climaxic_Teddy
- 171
- Queensland
- Climaxic_Teddy
Ok, in response to my original post about formulae devoted to determining the importance of DC versus Lap times, I have created/used/modified a mathematical "thing" that can do just that.
I decided to use Matrices (plural of Matrix) as the way of doing this. Matrices are basically groups of numbers that only work as a group, and are great when working with multiple sets of numbers that must all work together. In this case we only have 2 sets of numbers: DC, and Avg lap times. This Matrix can be shown as (DC Avg Lap time)(2 separate numbers). Here is an example: If I had a DC of 7 and a lap time of 1:07.000, or 67 seconds (always convert to seconds), the resulting Matrix will look like this (7 67). We can do this with any set of DC, Avg Lap time, values. Now, every Matrix works by keeping the numbers separate during operations, but we can treat this Matrix as if it were a
Vector (Vectors are numerical representations of Values with both direction, and magnitude) to calculate overall values within the Matrix.
Vectors come in 2 forms: Polar, and Component. Polar are shown like this: (Magnitude, Direction). Magnitude is a number, and Direction is an angle between the X and Y axis (usually), but there can also be a Z axis where needed, but we dont need that). Polar form works by showing how far from the middle of cartesian plane (X = 0, and Y = 0), and at what angle. Component form is shown like this: (X, Y), where X is the X value, and Y is the Y value of a point on a cartesian plane.
We will treat the Matrix as if it is a Vector in component form, where DC = X, and Avg Lap time = Y: (X,Y) = (DC, Avg Lap time), and we will use our previous example: (7, 67). We can find the overall magnitude of the Vector by partially converting it to Polar form. This is how it looks: Magnitude = Square-root-of(X^2 + Y^2), (^2 means squared), where X = DC, and Y = Avg Lap time. Magnitude = Square-root-of(7^2 + 67^2), which equals 67.364... . This is the overall magnitude of the Vector/Matrix: Distance from the middle of the cartesian plane in terms of X an Y.
Now, we can use this to compare other sets of numbers as well, by doing the same with all of the other sets of values. I did however run into a problem with how Avg Lap times affected the outcome of the magnitude, because a slower time would give a bigger number on the Y plane. So, I thought up a form of inverting the times so that the slower time created a lower number, and the lower time: A greater number. This done by using the time distance between one set of values and the leader. We take whatever this number is and double it. The we subtract it from the original time. This means that a slower time will be the same distance from the leader as before, but will end up with a smaller value in the Y plane. Eg: If one time is 67 seconds, and another is 70, the slower one will have 6 subtracted from it ((70 - 67)*2 = 6), and its new time will be 64, which will make its value the same magnitude when compared to 67, but will now work in the right direction. This should be done with all sets of values being compared. Now with this we use Matrices, and Vectors from before to find its magnitude (only when there is also a DC value), and we compare the 2.
I have done this for our last FITT tuning competition to find the placing overall of The Duel class participants that achieved the podium.
GVE R Lap Time Podium
1 Tuner #4 1:10.922 +0.000
2 Tuner #10 1:10.938 +0.016
3 Tuner #7 1:11.045 +0.123
4 Tuner #9 1:11.154 +0.232
5 Tuner #3 1:11.173 +0.251
Drivers Choice Podium
1 Tuner #4 8.8
2 Tuner #7 8.7
3 Tuner #3 8.6
4 Tuner #9 8.6
5 Tuner #6 8.6
Matrices (with inverted Avg Lap times)
Tuner #4 (8.78, 70.922)
Tuner #10 (8.43, 70.906)
Tuner #7 (8.73, 70.799)
Tuner #9 (8.63, 70.69)
Tuner #3 (8.63, 70.671)
Tuner #6 (8.59, 70.639)
Overall placing (magnitude of Matrices)
1 Tuner #4 71.465...
2 Tuner #10 71.405...
3 Tuner #7 71.335...
4 Tuner #9 71.323...
5 Tuner #3 71.195...
6 Tuner #6 71.159...
If this seems not right, the reason is simple: In this scenario, Avg Lap time has a much larger effect than DC, and thus it would be better to aim for a fast time rather than a good DC score. Look at Tuner #10: The tune isnt even in the DC podium, but it is second in the Avg Lap times by only a small margin, thus the DC score had only a small impact on the overall score. If one wished to even out the impact of Avg Lap time compared to DC, you could divide the Avg Lap times by 10, and thus make it less about Avg Lap time and more about DC, but only by a little bit. P.S dividing by 10 to even out DC and Avg Lap times may only work for this instance, Avg Lap time is very close to (DC-1)*10. In other cases it may be more complicated.
This way of finding overall winners by using Matrices and Vectors can be influenced by Multiply/Dividing the DC/Avg Lap times by a given number. This could be used in certain comps to make it more about DC, or more about Avg Lap time, or a simple all around event, where neither value has a larger effect.
This is all I can think to do, and I believe I have covered everything. If ANYONE does not understand something: please tell me, and I will elaborate. Also, in any upcoming FITT events that plan on using this system: please inform me so I can help with organisation.
Sound good?
I decided to use Matrices (plural of Matrix) as the way of doing this. Matrices are basically groups of numbers that only work as a group, and are great when working with multiple sets of numbers that must all work together. In this case we only have 2 sets of numbers: DC, and Avg lap times. This Matrix can be shown as (DC Avg Lap time)(2 separate numbers). Here is an example: If I had a DC of 7 and a lap time of 1:07.000, or 67 seconds (always convert to seconds), the resulting Matrix will look like this (7 67). We can do this with any set of DC, Avg Lap time, values. Now, every Matrix works by keeping the numbers separate during operations, but we can treat this Matrix as if it were a
Vector (Vectors are numerical representations of Values with both direction, and magnitude) to calculate overall values within the Matrix.
Vectors come in 2 forms: Polar, and Component. Polar are shown like this: (Magnitude, Direction). Magnitude is a number, and Direction is an angle between the X and Y axis (usually), but there can also be a Z axis where needed, but we dont need that). Polar form works by showing how far from the middle of cartesian plane (X = 0, and Y = 0), and at what angle. Component form is shown like this: (X, Y), where X is the X value, and Y is the Y value of a point on a cartesian plane.
We will treat the Matrix as if it is a Vector in component form, where DC = X, and Avg Lap time = Y: (X,Y) = (DC, Avg Lap time), and we will use our previous example: (7, 67). We can find the overall magnitude of the Vector by partially converting it to Polar form. This is how it looks: Magnitude = Square-root-of(X^2 + Y^2), (^2 means squared), where X = DC, and Y = Avg Lap time. Magnitude = Square-root-of(7^2 + 67^2), which equals 67.364... . This is the overall magnitude of the Vector/Matrix: Distance from the middle of the cartesian plane in terms of X an Y.
Now, we can use this to compare other sets of numbers as well, by doing the same with all of the other sets of values. I did however run into a problem with how Avg Lap times affected the outcome of the magnitude, because a slower time would give a bigger number on the Y plane. So, I thought up a form of inverting the times so that the slower time created a lower number, and the lower time: A greater number. This done by using the time distance between one set of values and the leader. We take whatever this number is and double it. The we subtract it from the original time. This means that a slower time will be the same distance from the leader as before, but will end up with a smaller value in the Y plane. Eg: If one time is 67 seconds, and another is 70, the slower one will have 6 subtracted from it ((70 - 67)*2 = 6), and its new time will be 64, which will make its value the same magnitude when compared to 67, but will now work in the right direction. This should be done with all sets of values being compared. Now with this we use Matrices, and Vectors from before to find its magnitude (only when there is also a DC value), and we compare the 2.
I have done this for our last FITT tuning competition to find the placing overall of The Duel class participants that achieved the podium.
GVE R Lap Time Podium
1 Tuner #4 1:10.922 +0.000
2 Tuner #10 1:10.938 +0.016
3 Tuner #7 1:11.045 +0.123
4 Tuner #9 1:11.154 +0.232
5 Tuner #3 1:11.173 +0.251
Drivers Choice Podium
1 Tuner #4 8.8
2 Tuner #7 8.7
3 Tuner #3 8.6
4 Tuner #9 8.6
5 Tuner #6 8.6
Matrices (with inverted Avg Lap times)
Tuner #4 (8.78, 70.922)
Tuner #10 (8.43, 70.906)
Tuner #7 (8.73, 70.799)
Tuner #9 (8.63, 70.69)
Tuner #3 (8.63, 70.671)
Tuner #6 (8.59, 70.639)
Overall placing (magnitude of Matrices)
1 Tuner #4 71.465...
2 Tuner #10 71.405...
3 Tuner #7 71.335...
4 Tuner #9 71.323...
5 Tuner #3 71.195...
6 Tuner #6 71.159...
If this seems not right, the reason is simple: In this scenario, Avg Lap time has a much larger effect than DC, and thus it would be better to aim for a fast time rather than a good DC score. Look at Tuner #10: The tune isnt even in the DC podium, but it is second in the Avg Lap times by only a small margin, thus the DC score had only a small impact on the overall score. If one wished to even out the impact of Avg Lap time compared to DC, you could divide the Avg Lap times by 10, and thus make it less about Avg Lap time and more about DC, but only by a little bit. P.S dividing by 10 to even out DC and Avg Lap times may only work for this instance, Avg Lap time is very close to (DC-1)*10. In other cases it may be more complicated.
This way of finding overall winners by using Matrices and Vectors can be influenced by Multiply/Dividing the DC/Avg Lap times by a given number. This could be used in certain comps to make it more about DC, or more about Avg Lap time, or a simple all around event, where neither value has a larger effect.
This is all I can think to do, and I believe I have covered everything. If ANYONE does not understand something: please tell me, and I will elaborate. Also, in any upcoming FITT events that plan on using this system: please inform me so I can help with organisation.
Sound good?
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
FITT Old and New
Tuner picks a pair. Lap times are averaged between the two cars.
Front Drive Hatch Backs - Old 400 PP and New 450 PP on Comfort Soft Tires
Fiat 500 F '65 and 500 1.2 8V Lounge SS '08
Ford Focus ST170 '03 and ST '13
Honda Civic 1500 3 door 25i '83 and Civic Type R (EP) '04
Honda CRX SiR '90 and CR-Z @ '10
Mini Cooper 1.3i '98 and Cooper S '11
Peugeot 206 S16 '99 and 207 GTi '07
VW Golf I Gti '76 and Golf Gti '05
Clueless Rule: PP is TBD
Honda Life Step Van '72 and Odyssey '03
Honda Insight '99 and Insight LS '09
Toyota Prius G (j) '02 and Prius G '09
Performance Class - Old 450 PP Comfort Soft and New 550 PP Sport Soft
BMW 507 '57 and Z8 '01
BMW 2002 Turbo '73 and M3 Coupe '07
Ferarri 512 BB '76 and 458 Italia '09
Mercedes-Benz 300 SL '54 and SLS AMG '10
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
Dibs on the Ferrari's that already won!
- 171
- Queensland
- Climaxic_Teddy
You might need to read it a few times, and just look at the parts that make sense (the parts with the numbers). If that doesnt work I will see what I can do.I'm pretty good at Math, very bad at technical talk.
Can you dumb the words down?
I am totally taking the CRX Sir '90
- 1,337
- Wisconsin
- DaBomm4
- DaBomm16
Dibs on the Ferrari's that already won!
Go for it guys, I already chose my weapon of choice!
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
Dibs on the Ferrari's that already won!
Well, that obviously needs to change. I know that I entered your competition, but I didn't really look that far down the car list. I only tested the GT-Rs.
FITT Old and New
Tuner picks a pair. Lap times are averaged between the two cars.
Front Drive Hatch Backs - Old 400 PP and New 450 PP on Comfort Soft Tires
Fiat 500 F '65 and 500 1.2 8V Lounge SS '08
Ford Focus ST170 '03 and ST '13
Honda Civic 1500 3 door 25i '83 and Civic Type R (EP) '04
Honda CRX SiR '90 and CR-Z @ '10
Mini Cooper 1.3i '98 and Cooper S '11
Peugeot 206 S16 '99 and 207 GTi '07
VW Golf I Gti '76 and Golf Gti '05
Clueless Rule: PP is TBD
Honda Life Step Van '72 and Odyssey '03
Honda Insight '99 and Insight LS '09
Toyota Prius G (j) '02 and Prius G '09
Performance Class - Old 450 PP Comfort Soft and New 550 PP Sport Soft
BMW 507 '57 and Z8 '01
BMW 2002 Turbo '73 and M3 Coupe '07
Ferarri 365 GTB4 '71 and 599 '06
JaguarE-TYPE Coupe '61 and XKR-S '11
Mercedes-Benz 300 SL '54 and SLS AMG '10
Pete05
Premium
- 7,080
- Melbourne, Australia
Any idea on venues?
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
Pete05
Premium
- 7,080
- Melbourne, Australia
I'm a huge fan of real world circuits and was thinking full length Red Bull Ring but it might be hard to police going off course between the last 2 corners. I took a car for a flex there a few days ago and, surprisingly, didn't get pinged for putting all four wheels the incorrect side of the white line and onto the extra tarmac to the left. To me that should be disqualification no ifs or buts.
- 156
- United States
I've seen mentioned in the past I think in FITT discussions that Autumn ring reverse or SSR5 can be good for testing as can cape ring south and cape ring perifiery are good too but I understand some people dislike them. All have some great places to catch out understeer and oversteer with some elevation changes as well.
Pete05
Premium
- 7,080
- Melbourne, Australia
Good old AutumnRing reverse brings back memories of battles I used to have with a mate on GT2.
It might be possible to take those first two turns flat but don't forget about the turn 3 left hander. Once that's permanently locked into the brain, you then have to work out threshold braking whilst you navigate turns 1 & 2.
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
Edited:
FITT Old and New
Tuner picks a pair. Lap times are averaged between the two cars.
Front Drive Hatch Backs - Old 400 PP and New 450 PP on Comfort Soft Tires
Fiat 500 F '65 and 500 1.2 8V Lounge SS '08
Ford Focus ST170 '03 and ST '13
Honda Civic 1500 3 door 25i '83 and Civic Type R (EP) '04
Honda CRX SiR '90 and CR-Z @ '10
Mini Cooper 1.3i '98 and Cooper S '11
Peugeot 206 S16 '99 and 207 GTi '07
VW Golf I Gti '76 and Golf Gti '05
Clueless Rule: PP is TBD
Honda Life Step Van '72 and Odyssey '03
Honda Insight '99 and Insight LS '09
Toyota Prius G (j) '02 and Prius G '09
Performance Class - Old 475 PP Comfort Soft and New 550 PP Sport Soft
BMW 507 '57 and Z8 '01
BMW 2002 Turbo '73 and M3 Coupe '07
Ferarri 365 GTB4 '71 and 599 '06
JaguarE-TYPE Coupe '61 and XKR-S '11
Mercedes-Benz 300 SL '54 and SLS AMG '10
Mercedes-Benz 190 E 2.5 - 16 Evolution II '91 and C63 AMG '08
I am currently testing out some of the more odd cars against the ones that I think will be the leader group. For example, the Honda Insight LS '09 can only reach 435 PP even with oil change. And, both Prius cannot achieve the PP levels.
FITT Old and New
Tuner picks a pair. Lap times are averaged between the two cars.
Front Drive Hatch Backs - Old 400 PP and New 450 PP on Comfort Soft Tires
Fiat 500 F '65 and 500 1.2 8V Lounge SS '08
Ford Focus ST170 '03 and ST '13
Honda Civic 1500 3 door 25i '83 and Civic Type R (EP) '04
Honda CRX SiR '90 and CR-Z @ '10
Mini Cooper 1.3i '98 and Cooper S '11
Peugeot 206 S16 '99 and 207 GTi '07
VW Golf I Gti '76 and Golf Gti '05
Clueless Rule: PP is TBD
Honda Life Step Van '72 and Odyssey '03
Honda Insight '99 and Insight LS '09
Toyota Prius G (j) '02 and Prius G '09
Performance Class - Old 475 PP Comfort Soft and New 550 PP Sport Soft
BMW 507 '57 and Z8 '01
BMW 2002 Turbo '73 and M3 Coupe '07
Ferarri 365 GTB4 '71 and 599 '06
JaguarE-TYPE Coupe '61 and XKR-S '11
Mercedes-Benz 300 SL '54 and SLS AMG '10
Mercedes-Benz 190 E 2.5 - 16 Evolution II '91 and C63 AMG '08
I am currently testing out some of the more odd cars against the ones that I think will be the leader group. For example, the Honda Insight LS '09 can only reach 435 PP even with oil change. And, both Prius cannot achieve the PP levels.
Last edited:
- 10,456
- United States
- WrecklessAbandon
Not really sure what you mean here, I just saw a pair of Ferrari's that would have manhandled the competition. Bringing the 599 dud in place of the 458 is a great choice I think.
Latest Posts
-
-
-
Gran Turismo 7 Livery Editor - General Discussion Thread- Latest: Street Racer 77
-
-
