FITT - Federation of International Tuners and Test-Drivers

[Burned_Rubber]

@demonchilde it's good to see you back

 

[Pete05]

@demonchilde it's good to see you back

I agree.
@demonchilde didn't you take a few wins or podiums in previous FITT comps? It'd be good to see you join in all the fun again.

 

[demonchilde]

Nonono, no wins. I really only dabbled in FITT a little bit, right before my job/life forced a long break. I was merely an evil,good looking ornament on the FITT tree here, lol.
I had my garages and tuned a ton of cars in the early days of gt6. I learned how to tune from watching MCH and Praiano tune way back in gt5, and then here. Anything I know game wise is pretty much due to the fact those 2 helped me understand the physics.
I posted here in this thread, because all the main people I know/cared about are right here.

 

[DaBomm4]

Nonono, no wins. I really only dabbled in FITT a little bit, right before my job/life forced a long break. I was merely an evil,good looking ornament on the FITT tree here, lol.
I had my garages and tuned a ton of cars in the early days of gt6. I learned how to tune from watching MCH and Praiano tune way back in gt5, and then here. Anything I know game wise is pretty much due to the fact those 2 helped me understand the physics.
I posted here in this thread, because all the main people I know/cared about are right here.

Well, your presence was definitely missed, and glad you found some time to come back. 👍

 

[Motor City Hami]

Nonono, no wins. I really only dabbled in FITT a little bit, right before my job/life forced a long break. I was merely an evil,good looking ornament on the FITT tree here, lol.
I had my garages and tuned a ton of cars in the early days of gt6. I learned how to tune from watching MCH and Praiano tune way back in gt5, and then here. Anything I know game wise is pretty much due to the fact those 2 helped me understand the physics.
I posted here in this thread, because all the main people I know/cared about are right here.

I learned to tune by testing things and by directly competing with @praiano, @CSLACR and RJ in FITT competitions. When they beat me, I would drive their car head to head against mine and look for differences. Then I would tweak my tune to see if I could make it faster than theirs.

 

[demonchilde]

You know what would be very helpful, not only to just me, but to the tuning community as a whole, would be a game patch guide. I cluld put something together all nice-nice, but would need help getting the information. Heres an example of what I was thinking; (all info is example, and made up)

Patch 1.1 - added effect to camber, where before it was almost nonexistent.
-
Patch 1.2 - MR drivetrain was made easier to handle. Simple lsd and weight transfers can effectively make all manageable.
- the distence driven to show engine wear for overhauling has been raised to over 1,000km now.
-
Patch 1.3 - made most vision cars unsellable even if you bought it (instead of won)
- braking effects have been intensified on MR and FR cars. A perfect 5/5 would now be equivalent to a 7/7.

Something along those lines. So say, I could pick a tune made 5 months ago, in the database, and check to see what I possibly might want to alter on it for todayy current racing.
See where I was heading?
Any ideas?

 

[Pete05]

You know what would be very helpful, not only to just me, but to the tuning community as a whole, would be a game patch guide. I cluld put something together all nice-nice, but would need help getting the information. Heres an example of what I was thinking; (all info is example, and made up)

Patch 1.1 - added effect to camber, where before it was almost nonexistent.
-
Patch 1.2 - MR drivetrain was made easier to handle. Simple lsd and weight transfers can effectively make all manageable.
- the distence driven to show engine wear for overhauling has been raised to over 1,000km now.
-
Patch 1.3 - made most vision cars unsellable even if you bought it (instead of won)
- braking effects have been intensified on MR and FR cars. A perfect 5/5 would now be equivalent to a 7/7.

Something along those lines. So say, I could pick a tune made 5 months ago, in the database, and check to see what I possibly might want to alter on it for todayy current racing.
See where I was heading?
Any ideas?

That's an excellent idea & would be really beneficial to those unaware of all the changes that have occurred to the physics model.
I made tunes in collaboration with @shaunm80 over a year ago now & although some have survived the physics updates, other haven't fared so well.
I know the default suspension settings have changed too.
What used to be zero camber & 0.20 rear toe are now 1.5 degrees of rear camber in company with 0.60 toe on all cars I've applied the FC suspension to. Weird huh.

 

[demonchilde]

I learned to tune by testing things and by directly competing with @praiano, @CSLACR and RJ in FITT competitions. When they beat me, I would drive their car head to head against mine and look for differences. Then I would tweak my tune to see if I could make it faster than theirs.

I used to ( back in late gt5), pick one of your tunes for whatever seasonal I was doing at the time, and use it as a base line in offline tuning. I would pick a similar car (weight/power/drive) and race it watching times and performance same track, ect. THEN, after a few months, I learned to see WHY you changed certain settings for whatever reasons, and kept notes. Praiano had similar, but slightly different in some areas, paths, and I really liked his high HP tuning he did. Between the 2, I began to see the a+b=c's of the physics....... and then gt6 happened and we started all over, lol.

 

[DolHaus]

I learned to tune by testing things and by directly competing with @praiano, @CSLACR and RJ in FITT competitions. When they beat me, I would drive their car head to head against mine and look for differences. Then I would tweak my tune to see if I could make it faster than theirs.

Same for me, I learned my trade trying to hunt down yourself and @praiano63. I would take the cars apart and try to find where the gains were being found, I never aimed to emulate the techniques but instead to find out the logic behind them and then develop the ideas further.

You know what would be very helpful, not only to just me, but to the tuning community as a whole, would be a game patch guide. I cluld put something together all nice-nice, but would need help getting the information. Heres an example of what I was thinking; (all info is example, and made up)

Patch 1.1 - added effect to camber, where before it was almost nonexistent.
-
Patch 1.2 - MR drivetrain was made easier to handle. Simple lsd and weight transfers can effectively make all manageable.
- the distence driven to show engine wear for overhauling has been raised to over 1,000km now.
-
Patch 1.3 - made most vision cars unsellable even if you bought it (instead of won)
- braking effects have been intensified on MR and FR cars. A perfect 5/5 would now be equivalent to a 7/7.

Something along those lines. So say, I could pick a tune made 5 months ago, in the database, and check to see what I possibly might want to alter on it for todayy current racing.
See where I was heading?
Any ideas?

I'm not sure the changes are really that important to know ahead of time, they won't teach you anything useful that you won't learn in a test drive. Nothing important to tuning has changed since 1.09 and the importance of those changes is debatable at best (camber was changed but not improved in a practical sense, it still resulted in traction loss)

 

[demonchilde]

Looking at the big picture though, not individual maybe, but a lot has changed since, say, March. And although those who tune a lot could simply test drive and work it out, those who just started or only dabble a bit wouldn't know where to begin.
And as far as theorys go, what some people think is 'slight maybe, if that' could be bible to another tuner. I wouldn't mind getting short one sentence ideas from patchs past to present from theorys to proven facts.
I would simply put a "(theory)" at the end of the ones that havent been proven OR discredited yet.
I like simple, appliable directions, able to be understood by both tuning experts and beginners as well.
Maybe this is too hard of an idea, maybe its not, thats what I am trying to figure out.

 

[DolHaus]

Looking at the big picture though, not individual maybe, but a lot has changed since, say, March. And although those who tune a lot could simply test drive and work it out, those who just started or only dabble a bit wouldn't know where to begin.
And as far as theorys go, what some people think is 'slight maybe, if that' could be bible to another tuner. I wouldn't mind getting short one sentence ideas from patchs past to present from theorys to proven facts.
I would simply put a "(theory)" at the end of the ones that havent been proven OR discredited yet.
I like simple, appliable directions, able to be understood by both tuning experts and beginners as well.
Maybe this is too hard of an idea, maybe its not, thats what I am trying to figure out.

Please give an example, I'm not sure what you mean?

 

[demonchilde]

Please give an example, I'm not sure what you mean?

Well, thats kinda the question I am asking, lol. Because I've been gone so long, I couldn't give good examples, HOWEVER;
pick an old tune, older the better, and detune it. I mean, ask yourself, "ok, this car that I drove perfectly 9 months ago, drives bad now because _________ changed in ______ patch. And this part could work better now because of ______ patch." And, "ok, this car, was absolutely untamable 7 months ago, but since they changed ________ and made ________ more effective, I bet I could get good times with it now"
Like that. But again, as I kinda Dalorian/88mph'd here from way back then, I personally don't know what patchs did what. Does that explain it? Again, maybe its a good thought, maybe its not, still trying to figure it out.

 

[DolHaus]

Well, thats kinda the question I am asking, lol. Because I've been gone so long, I couldn't give good examples, HOWEVER;
pick an old tune, older the better, and detune it. I mean, ask yourself, "ok, this car that I drove perfectly 9 months ago, drives bad now because _________ changed in ______ patch. And this part could work better now because of ______ patch." And, "ok, this car, was absolutely untamable 7 months ago, but since they changed ________ and made ________ more effective, I bet I could get good times with it now"
Like that. But again, as I kinda Dalorian/88mph'd here from way back then, I personally don't know what patchs did what. Does that explain it? Again, maybe its a good thought, maybe its not, still trying to figure it out.

When you go back to something and it doesn't feel the same its rarely the fault of the physics



1.03 (Jan) -
MR handling "improved" (all cars changed from 0.20 rear toe to 0.60 as stock)

1.09 (June) -
The dynamics of the car on surfaces with cornerstones and bumps have been improved
The effect of the tyre geometry has been changed (mainly for the “Camber Angle” option)
The handling of some rear heavy cars has been improved


That's all in terms of physics updates, nothing has changed dramatically since launch really. Toe seemed to work the same before and after 1.03, camber still failed to improve grip after 1.09. The physics updates have been vague at best in terms of effect, nothing you can pin down and say "they changed X by Y amount"

 

[demonchilde]

Is that really all it is man?
Maybe it wasn't such a good idea, at least for right now anyways. But the core of my idea I still believe is needed. If thats all its been so far, so be it, but we should make/keep a 'simple' list as time goes by.
Sort of like a history book for how GT changed things for better or worse.
And whats this word " retired " I see in your signature?

 

[Otaliema]

Is that really all it is man?
Maybe it wasn't such a good idea, at least for right now anyways. But the core of my idea I still believe is needed. If thats all its been so far, so be it, but we should make/keep a 'simple' list as time goes by.
Sort of like a history book for how GT changed things for better or worse.
And whats this word " retired " I see in your signature?

I think the most significant changes in the game so far have been the rebalance of FR cars that came around 1.03 making them slower and "stabilization " of MR cars in the game

 

[MrGrado]

There's more but it will be a can of worms to figure out what changes were in what update when it is not specifically stated by PD. Top speeds were effected in one update: this was easy to confirm, but other changes in other updates cant be verified. There is a thread with all the update changes in it already.

 

[DolHaus]

Is that really all it is man?
Maybe it wasn't such a good idea, at least for right now anyways. But the core of my idea I still believe is needed. If thats all its been so far, so be it, but we should make/keep a 'simple' list as time goes by.
Sort of like a history book for how GT changed things for better or worse.
And whats this word " retired " I see in your signature?

As is stated above by @MrGrado there are already confirmed/unannounced change logs for every update, they're not archived anywhere but easy enough to track down with the search function. It would be a nice idea if the updates were black and white but the information available is patchy at best and the changes are often subtle making them hard to identify. Not saying you can't archive the GTP logs if you want but I fear that there would be little to gain by doing so
The core process of tuning remains unchanged from launch: Evaluate - Modify - Compare. All of the data needed to make educated decisions on what to modify can be found in the various guides 👍


(retired = no longer building cars for my garages )

 

[demonchilde]

Completely agree.
Again, with it being as long as it was that I was gone, I wasn't exactly sure just HOW MUCH they changed the programming.
I wish they would update or change the wording on each functions descriptions, to translate into layman's terms both novice and expert levels would understand. Like, instead of describing what something physically does, describing how it effects the drive instead.
And not "how it's supposed to effect the drive", but how it actually currently effects the drive. That would help a ton to newer tuners.
And speaking of that, why did you stop tuning for your garage? I have tested your tunes in the past, I don't consider you stopping tuning as very beneficial, lol. You have an understanding that a lot of people don't have, would be a shame to let it go to waste.
Anyway, thanks for helping me work through if I was going to spend time and effort on that idea.

 

[DolHaus]

Completely agree.
Again, with it being as long as it was that I was gone, I wasn't exactly sure just HOW MUCH they changed the programming.
I wish they would update or change the wording on each functions descriptions, to translate into layman's terms both novice and expert levels would understand. Like, instead of describing what something physically does, describing how it effects the drive instead.
And not "how it's supposed to effect the drive", but how it actually currently effects the drive. That would help a ton to newer tuners.
And speaking of that, why did you stop tuning for your garage? I have tested your tunes in the past, I don't consider you stopping tuning as very beneficial, lol. You have an understanding that a lot of people don't have, would be a shame to let it go to waste.
Anyway, thanks for helping me work through if I was going to spend time and effort on that idea.

The in game part descriptions are actually fairly accurate with the exception of ride height which is backwards in terms of oversteer/understeer in relation to rake.
However, it is impossible to write an accurate all encompassing guide to what you should adjust to make a car "better" because problems and solutions are never a case of just tweaking one thing and there is no such thing as right.

eg.

Lets say we've got a typical FR car that is understeering on entry and try to list the potential causes:
(not in order of importance)

Front/Rear brake imbalance
Front brakes too high
Front brakes too low
Front/Rear ride height imbalance
Front ride height too low
Rear ride height too high
Front/Rear spring rate imbalance
Front spring rates too high
Front spring rates too low
Front/Rear compression/extension imbalance
Front compression/extension imbalance
Rear compression/extension imbalance
Front damper compression too high
Front damper compression too low
Rear damper extension too high
Rear damper extension too low
Front/Rear ARB imbalance
(not listing all of the variables of front/rear toe/camber)
Long gearing causing differential to lock
LSD Initial too high
LSD Decel too high
Torque spike at certain RPM causing differential to lock/unlock
Too much rear aero
Too little front aero
Too much weight on the front axle
Too little weight on the front axle
Driver error


The entry understeer could be caused by any one of the problems above or by multiple problems simultaneously, without driving the car and analysing which of the solutions would be applicable it is all but impossible to advise the correct path. We then get into the issue of by addressing one problem you may have caused another. Everything is connected, no singular setting entirely controls the resulting reaction.
To sum it up I'd describe it as trying to tell a guy on top of a pole how to balance on a windy day, you can use some logic to get the general stuff right but without experiencing the moment and feeling the forces at play it is impossible to know what to do.

I've not stopped tuning, I just don't do public tunes any more as I don't have the time, mostly just FITT builds

 

[Pete05]

The in game part descriptions are actually fairly accurate with the exception of ride height which is backwards in terms of oversteer/understeer in relation to rake.
However, it is impossible to write an accurate all encompassing guide to what you should adjust to make a car "better" because problems and solutions are never a case of just tweaking one thing and there is no such thing as right.

eg.

Lets say we've got a typical FR car that is understeering on entry and try to list the potential causes:
(not in order of importance)

Front/Rear brake imbalance
Front brakes too high
Front brakes too low
Front/Rear ride height imbalance
Front ride height too low
Rear ride height too high
Front/Rear spring rate imbalance
Front spring rates too high
Front spring rates too low
Front/Rear compression/extension imbalance
Front compression/extension imbalance
Rear compression/extension imbalance
Front damper compression too high
Front damper compression too low
Rear damper extension too high
Rear damper extension too low
Front/Rear ARB imbalance
(not listing all of the variables of front/rear toe/camber)
Long gearing causing differential to lock
LSD Initial too high
LSD Decel too high
Torque spike at certain RPM causing differential to lock/unlock
Too much rear aero
Too little front aero
Too much weight on the front axle
Too little weight on the front axle
Driver error


The entry understeer could be caused by any one of the problems above or by multiple problems simultaneously, without driving the car and analysing which of the solutions would be applicable it is all but impossible to advise the correct path. We then get into the issue of by addressing one problem you may have caused another. Everything is connected, no singular setting entirely controls the resulting reaction.
To sum it up I'd describe it as trying to tell a guy on top of a pole how to balance on a windy day, you can use some logic to get the general stuff right but without experiencing the moment and feeling the forces at play it is impossible to know what to do.

I've not stopped tuning, I just don't do public tunes any more as I don't have the time, mostly just FITT builds

I agree, especially about that damn ride height issue.
I also agree about the cure for understeer list of possible causes. One thing I've learnt over the years as a keen student of Motorsport in general is, you have to work through the list in a methodical way trying one thing at a time, keeping acurate records of the changes: better, worse, same?and only then can you move onto the next item on the list.
It all comes back to the old saying "It's better to come 2nd and understand why than it is to win & not know why."

 

[DolHaus]

I agree, especially about that damn ride height issue.
I also agree about the cure for understeer list of possible causes. One thing I've learnt over the years as a keen student of Motorsport in general is, you have to work through the list in a methodical way trying one thing at a time, keeping acurate records of the changes: better, worse, same?and only then can you move onto the next item on the list.
It all comes back to the old saying "It's better to come 2nd and understand why than it is to win & not know why."

Its a weird and seemingly easy to fix issue but at least its usable, the weirdest thing is that the in game blurb says that it should work the other way around

 

[Pete05]

Its a weird and seemingly easy to fix issue but at least its usable, the weirdest thing is that the in game blurb says that it should work the other way around

I've had this discussion elsewhere before & it seems to be such an ingrained problem that after 22 game updates it must require close to a total rebuild to remedy.
Sort of disappointing after the hype generated pre-release about the totally new suspension model and all it was hoped to be.
Anyway as you say, we know how to deal with it now so once you've learnt how to dance with the devil, you won't get your toes crushed.

 

[MrGrado]

There's no ride height issue.

 

[Otaliema]

These are not the droids you are looking for.

Technically the Ride height works correctly in that the weight transfers cause increase or decrease rotation of the car. It's that raising the rear end in real life makes the car over steer, while in the in the game is causes understeer. That could be due to who knows how many things. maybe they got the code crossed in the rare matrix and Kaz just hasn't allowed a full debug of that part of the code..

 

[MrGrado]

Well it's an opinion, one without evidence to support it.

 

[Pete05]

So all the hundreds of tunes made by various different tuners, with lower rear ride height than front ride height are just lucky dip are they?
I call that all the evidence you'll ever need that PD got it wrong.

 

[demonchilde]

Oh, don't start an argument over something I brought up, please, lol.
That is one of those things I was actually talking about like 7 posts up or so;

"as far as theorys go, what some people think is 'slight maybe, if that' could be bible to another tuner"

Like for another example, people felt just as strong about camber issues 8 months ago, and many a heated debate spawned from it.
I get what your saying. It may not be as bad as it once was, but it could be improved greatly, I think we could all agree.

Edit: also, understand my standpoint I reside from: I do not care really about what I personally understand. What my ideas stem from is not targeting tuners who already understand the physics (or whatever lol), my target is and has always been those just starting out tuning for themselves, or those who haven't started at all, getting them interested in doing so. In many cases, people get discouraged easily when things that don't make sense occur.

 

[Pete05]

Oh, don't start an argument over something I brought up, please, lol.
That is one of those things I was actually talking about like 7 posts up or so;

"as far as theorys go, what some people think is 'slight maybe, if that' could be bible to another tuner"

Like for another example, people felt just as strong about camber issues 8 months ago, and many a heated debate spawned from it.
I get what your saying. It may not be as bad as it once was, but it could be improved greatly, I think we could all agree.

Edit: also, understand my standpoint I reside from: I do not care really about what I personally understand. What my ideas stem from is not targeting tuners who already understand the physics (or whatever lol), my target is and has always been those just starting out tuning for themselves, or those who haven't started at all, getting them interested in doing so. In many cases, people get discouraged easily when things that don't make sense occur.

It's ok. The last thing I'm looking for is an argument. I have better things to do with my time.
Prior to my hosting a FITT comp, the only tuning is ever done in over 15 years of playing GT was to gear ratios & wing levels. I'd made previous attempts when GT6 came out but on learning about the various faults PD decided to bless us with, put my ambitions in the 'too hard basket'. If I was looking for better performance from a given car, I'd consult those that proven results and go away satisfied that was the tune that suited me best.

 

[DolHaus]

I suppose it depends on your overall aim when tuning, I focus on raw pace and competitive ability so to me camber is broken because when applied it generally increases lap time and takes me further from my goals. However, this is not to say that camber doesn't do anything, it definitely does something and can have a profound effect on a cars handling characteristics, for someone who builds cars for a specific driving experience rather than to be competitive this could be an important aspect.

Everything in the game is based loosely on real life physics, learn to comprehend those principals and all the parts fit into place. You don't need to know all the sums and science to the letter, just a rudimentary understanding of what should be happening when you get on the brakes or turn the car into a corner or what ever. Forget choosing one tuners theory over another, assemble your own understanding through research and experiment, nothing anyone can tell you will give better results

 

[ddsuperdee]

Hello, someone have a setup of 240rs rally car '85 of Nissan???