Gran Turismo 7 Physics

[Firestone]

Present and wrong, if you honestly think that it's accurately represented in GT then I honestly don't know what to say.

Explain

Again my milage is very, very different in that regard, it may be down to running ACC on PC, but GT isn't similar in that regard at all, even more so with regard to the effect brake balance has between the two and the resulting liberties you can take in GT.

I have ACC on PC also to which I can test, but I highly doubt there will be a difference between it and PS5 as they reworked all the PS4 fault.

I don't know what to say about the brake balance. A 50% is equivalent to a setting of 0 in GT. The car swings with unloading of the brakes while cornering. Going on to a 70% peak with the Huracan is matching a -4 to -5 on GT. The car no longer swings. I don't know what the resulting liberties you speak of. GT is just as punishing as ACC with sloppy driving. The biggest difference is that GT's brakes bite harder under full load. However, the fact that the cars react the same under acceleration, steering, torque, gear selection etc is enough.
One thing to note under practice sessions or time trials, GT is under full fuel loads and ACC defaults with about 30% fuel on board is probably why you are feeling different drivability. GT defaults setup feels similar to the ACC aggressive presets.

 

[synon]

Then turn off what Kunos are quite clear are canned effects in AC!

That way it's driven just by the physics, oh and I could introduce you to some real world rumble strips that are far from docile in feel.

Quite the opposite, power steering masks the drop off of self-aligning torque, hell it masks most steering feedback, particularly electric-assisted systems. Try tracking a race-spec car, with rose-jointed suspension, slicks, and zero power-assisted steering.

BTW, this is what the Gough-plot for self-aligning torque drop-off looks like, and I've encountered it in numerous road cars. Steering weight (SAT) is 20% of its max at peak cornering grip (6 degrees of slip) in this example. It's a rapid and sudden drop-off in steering weight, and either your PAS is killing the feel of it (unlikely it would be able to remove all of it) or you're backing off before you get to it, anything else and you're working with different physics to the rest of the world.

View attachment 1203555

The SAT in the Gough plot isn't steering weight, as can be seen from the fact that SAT in the plot goes negative above around 7 degrees of slip angle.

 

[Scaff]

Explain

I already have, it's most clearly reflected in how lift-off oversteer isn't well-modelled in the title. If I get time tonight I'm going to give GT7 a go with a Clio V6, as that should demonstrate both lift-off oversteer and power-on understeer, and it is a car I have real-world experience with both in.

I have ACC on PC also to which I can test, but I highly doubt there will be a difference between it and PS5 as they reworked all the PS4 fault.

I don't know what to say about the brake balance. A 50% is equivalent to a setting of 0 in GT. The car swings with unloading of the brakes while cornering. Going on to a 70% peak with the Huracan is matching a -4 to -5 on GT. The car no longer swings. I don't know what the resulting liberties you speak of. GT is just as punishing as ACC with sloppy driving. The biggest difference is that GT's brakes bite harder under full load. However, the fact that the cars react the same under acceleration, steering, torque, gear selection etc is enough.
One thing to note under practice sessions or time trials, GT is under full fuel loads and ACC defaults with about 30% fuel on board is probably why you are feeling different drivability. GT defaults setup feels similar to the ACC aggressive presets.

So just to be clear you are saying that you are setting brake bias to an overall higher rear brake force (in comparison to the front) in GT.

The SAT in the Gough plot isn't steering weight, as can be seen from the fact that SAT in the plot goes negative above around 7 degrees of slip angle.

SAT is self-aligning torque, which is a significant (often the most significant) factor in steering weight!

It's literally the tyre's contact patch resisting being deformed as steering angle is applied and wanting to return to its initial shape, that torque is directly transferred to the steering wheel as an increase in weight. That it can go to zero or negative doesn't disprove it's impact on steering weight, well unless you think a steering wheel can only go in one direction.

 

[CodeRedR51]

They really don't.

Examples please.

 

[CinnamonOD]

They really don't.

Modern GT4 and GT3 cars are still not most modern-day race cars and the set-up of PAS in a dedicated racecar is not the same as a road car (ditto traction control and ABS)

It’s harder to find a current race cars that do not have power steering vs those that do

Personally I only know that Indycars don’t have that feature

Funny that you’re mentioning GT3 not having the best power steering sets, like then how is it as accessible as it is currently?

 

[Beezer215]

GT3 cars have up to 12nm of torque on the steering wheel during a race. Put your wheel in a sim up to 12nm and you'll realize that no production road car comes close. CSL DD bases don't even go to 12nm as well as many wheel bases out there. You'll have to get into top tier DD wheel bases just to get that much to start with. I have a DD2, I rarely run around 12nm for just nightly races. Sometimes I average around 8nm and that's still a pretty good strong feel.

 

[Scaff]

Explain

I've just run a number of cars in GT7 to look at this, let's start with the Clio V6, which I confess I forgot was a Phase 1, a result, as I spent a lot of time with those. I managed the product launch training in the UK for the car and drove prototypes, pre-prod, final road cars, and the Trophy race car. In the case of the road-legal variants that was on road, proving ground, and track. GT7 even has one of the tracks I drove them at, Brands Hatch.

The V6 is ideal as in reality it contains both the characteristics I mentioned, they have bucket loads of on-throttle understeer and a reputation for severe lift-off oversteer, both of these were tamed to a degree with the phase 2, but never removed. They are akin to an old-school 911.

This is what Evo magazine said in regard to the phase 2...

"Above 60mph or so, if your commitment starts to waver mid-corner you become instantly aware there's a sting in that absurdly broad tail. When momentum starts to overtake you, things happen pretty sharply. In the split-second it takes to register with your brain, your palms already need a wipe on your thigh and you know you've only got one chance to gather things up. This isn't a car to take liberties with through high-speed corners."

...now keep in mind that's the Phase 2 that they describe as...

"The changes worked. The V6 was still worrying in the wet, but far less so than before and in the dry it was now a proper little performance car"

...the Phase 1 had a rightful reputation for "for spikiness on the limit".

Now some of these issues were down to suspension set-up, but most was down to the massive lump of engine and gearbox in its backside and the absurdly short wheelbase, as such load transfer was critical, making it the ideal test.

So how does this murder beast fair in GT7, does it bring these memories flooding back to me, does Evo's description of even the Phase 2 match what we have?

Does it ****!

It's not even close, what we have is a car that is neutral to mild oversteer on the throttle and in which you can be cornering at well over 60mph, totally shut the throttle and you get barely any oversteer, and certainly not the rapid end-swapping terror that I've experienced first hand. what oversteer you do get is both slow and clearly communicated, and as a result, you can take a ludicrous amount of time to correct it, not that much correction is even needed.

I also ran some of the FWD road cars I have experience with (mainly RenaultSport models and the ITR DC2), none of which come close to the level of lift-off-oversteer they should, with most instead simply reducing understeer instead. Oh and that's before I get started on how wrong FWD race cars are, which is another story of 'still not close to correct.

To be blunt load transfer in GT still requires significant improvement.


However, let's now list the areas GT's FFB still doesn't bother with/get right.

• The daft rattle/shake during the onset of understeer is still present and wrong (and no before anyone tries to claim - it's not tyre hop/skip - as it occurs before any SAT-driven reduction in steering weight).
• SAT driven steering weight drop off isn't even close to enough, but at least GT finally does it
• Race spec cars don't have any FFB from the road/track surface, in reality, most tracks are not that smooth and stiffly sprung/damped cars (add in rose-jointed suspension to boot), particularly those with stiff sidewalls, very low-profile tyres will follow camber, tarmac patching, and other imperfections quite easily, and you will most certainly feel that in the steering. Hell if my I30n will do it in N mode a race-spec car will 100% be doing it.
• Wheel deflection from crests and compressions are still not felt in GT7, cresting Paddock Hill bend at Brands Hatch is a great example of this, you should feel the change in weight as each of the front tyres crosses the crest, and it should be very clear (it is in reality).

Now ACC gets all of the above right, and just to be sure I also fired up RF2 (which despite it's many, non-physics based issues remains just about the sim benchmark for FFB) and it also gets them right, even better than ACC, and both are a noticeable step about GT7.

It’s harder to find a current race cars that do not have power steering vs those that do

Personally I only know that Indycars don’t have that feature

Top-flight race series do not form the basis of the majority of racing done worldwide, not even close, the vast majority of racing is done at a grassroots and national level and the majority of the cars sitting in this area don't run PAS, take the Radical SR3, Caterham Academy, or Formula Ford (in fact most Formula spec cars), none of them run cars with PAS.

Funny that you’re mentioning GT3 not having the best power steering sets, like then how is it as accessible as it is currently?

I didn't say that at all, I said they are set-up in a manner different to road cars, oddly enough because the demands are very different between the two.

 

[Firestone]

I've just run a number of cars in GT7 to look at this, let's start with the Clio V6, which I confess I forgot was a Phase 1, a result, as I spent a lot of time with those. I managed the product launch training in the UK for the car and drove prototypes, pre-prod, final road cars, and the Trophy race car. In the case of the road-legal variants that was on road, proving ground, and track. GT7 even has one of the tracks I drove them at, Brands Hatch.

The V6 is ideal as in reality it contains both the characteristics I mentioned, they have bucket loads of on-throttle understeer and a reputation for severe lift-off oversteer, both of these were tamed to a degree with the phase 2, but never removed. They are akin to an old-school 911.

This is what Evo magazine said in regard to the phase 2...

"Above 60mph or so, if your commitment starts to waver mid-corner you become instantly aware there's a sting in that absurdly broad tail. When momentum starts to overtake you, things happen pretty sharply. In the split-second it takes to register with your brain, your palms already need a wipe on your thigh and you know you've only got one chance to gather things up. This isn't a car to take liberties with through high-speed corners."

...now keep in mind that's the Phase 2 that they describe as...

"The changes worked. The V6 was still worrying in the wet, but far less so than before and in the dry it was now a proper little performance car"

...the Phase 1 had a rightful reputation for "for spikiness on the limit".

Now some of these issues were down to suspension set-up, but most was down to the massive lump of engine and gearbox in its backside and the absurdly short wheelbase, as such load transfer was critical, making it the ideal test.

So how does this murder beast fair in GT7, does it bring these memories flooding back to me, does Evo's description of even the Phase 2 match what we have?

Does it ****!

It's not even close, what we have is a car that is neutral to mild oversteer on the throttle and in which you can be cornering at well over 60mph, totally shut the throttle and you get barely any oversteer, and certainly not the rapid end-swapping terror that I've experienced first hand. what oversteer you do get is both slow and clearly communicated, and as a result, you can take a ludicrous amount of time to correct it, not that much correction is even needed.

I also ran some of the FWD road cars I have experience with (mainly RenaultSport models and the ITR DC2), none of which come close to the level of lift-off-oversteer they should, with most instead simply reducing understeer instead. Oh and that's before I get started on how wrong FWD race cars are, which is another story of 'still not close to correct.

To be blunt load transfer in GT still requires significant improvement.


However, let's now list the areas GT's FFB still doesn't bother with/get right.

• The daft rattle/shake during the onset of understeer is still present and wrong (and no before anyone tries to claim - it's not tyre hop/skip - as it occurs before any SAT-driven reduction in steering weight).
• SAT driven steering weight drop off isn't even close to enough, but at least GT finally does it
• Race spec cars don't have any FFB from the road/track surface, in reality, most tracks are not that smooth and stiffly sprung/damped cars (add in rose-jointed suspension to boot), particularly those with stiff sidewalls, very low-profile tyres will follow camber, tarmac patching, and other imperfections quite easily, and you will most certainly feel that in the steering. Hell if my I30n will do it in N mode a race-spec car will 100% be doing it.
• Wheel deflection from crests and compressions are still not felt in GT7, cresting Paddock Hill bend at Brands Hatch is a great example of this, you should feel the change in weight as each of the front tyres crosses the crest, and it should be very clear (it is in reality).

Now ACC gets all of the above right, and just to be sure I also fired up RF2 (which despite it's many, non-physics based issues remains just about the sim benchmark for FFB) and it also gets them right, even better than ACC, and both are a noticeable step about GT7.

Ok, fair assessment. Hopefully further updates see these improvements. My assessment of the Evo X has been positive, so certain drive trains and cars still need work it seems. Guess it would make sense as GT is trying to wear too many hats at once.

The daft rattle/shake during the onset of understeer is still present and wrong (and no before anyone tries to claim - it's not tyre hop/skip - as it occurs before any SAT-driven reduction in steering weight).

Are you certain about this? The vibrations are accompanied with reduction of torque as the rattle occurs. When I autox, it's a completely familiar feeling when I go right on the limit of the tires. I can't conclude if it is incorrect.

Wheel deflection from crests and compressions are still not felt in GT7, cresting Paddock Hill bend at Brands Hatch is a great example of this, you should feel the change in weight as each of the front tyres crosses the crest, and it should be very clear (it is in reality).

I went over Paddock Hill bend in ACC and GT. I didn't notice any heavy effect in ACC while going through the corner. Wheel unloads very similar to GT, albeit slightly more aggressive, but it wasn't as you described. Could be the G27 wheel with ACC compatibility is terrible. But there isn't any argument with ACC road feel being far superior. Again, I was using the Huracan GT3 and baseline driving characteristics are similar between games physics wise.

So just to be clear you are saying that you are setting brake bias to an overall higher rear brake force (in comparison to the front) in GT.

I'm setting the brake biases equal to each other. ACC defaults the car to 60% in the front and maxes out at 70%. A negative value in GT indicates that the brake bias is in the front. A 60% in ACC is roughly a -3 or -4 in GT. A 70% is a -5 in GT. 50% in ACC is equivalent to a setting of 0 in GT, which is logical in that it means evenly distributed brake force between front and rear. A 50% bias in ACC, unstabilizes the car under quick release of load while cornering. Does the same in GT. Front bias mitigates this effect the same way between both games.

 

[Scaff]

Ok, fair assessment. Hopefully further updates see these improvements. My assessment of the Evo X has been positive, so certain drive trains and cars still need work it seems. Guess it would make sense as GT is trying to wear too many hats at once.

It's more likely that certain drivetrains and cars, particularly those with longer wheelbases, will mask this issue much more than others. Load transfer isn;t something that should need tweaking on a car by car or drivetrain by drivetrain basis. It's a fundamental of the physics engine and as such needs to be right at that level.

A good comparison is that old sims used to have issues with the use of pajeski tyre curves for grip, the issue being they simply don't work at lower speeds or a standstill, effectively telling the physics engine the tires had close to zero (or zero) grip. This could lead to odd situations in which a stationary car could simply start sliding around. However the location of the car, it's weight and a few other factors also affected this, a light car on a near flat surface wouldn't rarly move, but a heavier car on a banked area would start going for a walk. The fix for this was better tyre models, fixing the fundementals, not playing around with the cars it was more evident in.

Are you certain about this? The vibrations are accompanied with reduction of torque as the rattle occurs. When I autox, it's a completely familiar feeling when I go right on the limit of the tires. I can't conclude if it is incorrect.

100% certain about this, it's occurring too early, using the gough-plot from my earlier post, it's happening around 3 to 4 degrees of slip, it should be at 7 degree plus.

I went over Paddock Hill bend in ACC and GT. I didn't notice any heavy effect in ACC while going through the corner. Wheel unloads very similar to GT, albeit slightly more aggressive, but it wasn't as you described. Could be the G27 wheel with ACC compatibility is terrible. But there isn't any argument with ACC road feel being far superior. Again, I was using the Huracan GT3 and baseline driving characteristics are similar between games physics wise.

I run a T300, so it might be that, the G27 could well be losing it in the slack you get with the cogs.

I did run one of the combos I was using (Brands Hatch & 911 GT3) in a few other titles as well, namely AMS2, RaceRoom, and AC, in the case of the crest at Paddock Hill and how understeer is communicated they all line up, with only GT7 being the outlier.

I'm setting the brake biases equal to each other. ACC defaults the car to 60% in the front and maxes out at 70%. A negative value in GT indicates that the brake bias is in the front. A 60% in ACC is roughly a -3 or -4 in GT. A 70% is a -5 in GT. 50% in ACC is equivalent to a setting of 0 in GT, which is logical in that it means evenly distributed brake force between front and rear. A 50% bias in ACC, unstabilizes the car under quick release of load while cornering. Does the same in GT. Front bias mitigates this effect the same way between both games.

How are you getting that 0 in GT is 50/50, I've not played around with Brake Bias in GT for a few updates, but historically a great deal of debate has existed as to exactly what 0 in GT was for Brake Bias. Need to revisit this one, what I can say is that in any title a brake bias of 50/50 should have a clearly negative impact on your stopping theoretical distance, and an even bigger impact on your actual stopping distance, as its a recipe for swapping ends even in a straight line. The number of cars running 50/50 brake bias in the real world can be counted on the fingers of a snake.

 

[FerrariF40]

The "FFB" is a joke to society

 

[synon]

SAT is self-aligning torque, which is a significant (often the most significant) factor in steering weight!

You said it was steering weight, not that it was a factor.

 

[Scaff]

You said it was steering weight, not that it was a factor.

I was simplifying it that's all, are you seriously attempting to argue a non-point just to try and muddy the waters?

It doesn't change the validity of the point being made one iota, something I clearly stated and you ignored, so by all means, if you want to run the numbers to translate SAT at the tyre into the final torque felt via the steering for the car in question, then, by all means, run the numbers.

The floor is all yours.

 

[Firestone]

It's more likely that certain drivetrains and cars, particularly those with longer wheelbases, will mask this issue much more than others. Load transfer isn;t something that should need tweaking on a car by car or drivetrain by drivetrain basis. It's a fundamental of the physics engine and as such needs to be right at that level.

Cars like the Miata drive fine in the game. It has to be how they model the car in the game and where they decide to place the weight distribution loads in the car. Certain MR cars can kill you in the game. The Clio can be a special case. When did you last test the car? Tire technology has greatly improved since the early 2000s also. I've driven my car worn out rear Michelin PSS and it was tail happy compared with brand new PS4S which feel as if they have unlimited grip.

100% certain about this, it's occurring too early, using the gough-plot from my earlier post, it's happening around 3 to 4 degrees of slip, it should be at 7 degree plus.

I never recall it happening that late. It tends to happen fairly early. I don't think we can account a single graph to care for the whole. There are so many variable at play within many different cars, taking into account many different suspension geometry, and many different tire compounds, side wall rigidities, normal forces from the tires etc.

How are you getting that 0 in GT is 50/50, I've not played around with Brake Bias in GT for a few updates, but historically a great deal of debate has existed as to exactly what 0 in GT was for Brake Bias. Need to revisit this one, what I can say is that in any title a brake bias of 50/50 should have a clearly negative impact on your stopping theoretical distance, and an even bigger impact on your actual stopping distance, as its a recipe for swapping ends even in a straight line. The number of cars running 50/50 brake bias in the real world can be counted on the fingers of a snake.

I was comparing it to the responses that I received with the car in ACC compared to GT. They are comparable. I don't know if this is the case for every car. I guess a 0 value can also represent the car's stock bias setup. The Evo X has a roughly 60/40 bias iirc. Getting brake distribution mod in the game, the default 0 feels like the stock 60/40 while adjusting the setting front to rear just deviates from that 60/40 whichever way. The 0 value for the Huracan unsettles the car quite a bit.

 

[Scaff]

Cars like the Miata drive fine in the game.

Which is not even remotely compariable to a Clio V6? One is a 1,400+kg RR car with 60% of it's static load over the rear (notice that's a more agressive rear weight share than most 911's), the other is a 1,100kg FR car with almost perfect 50.50 static weight distribution. As a simplification (note to a certain someone - it's a simplification) they both transfered 30% of load forward under braking that results in a difference of 252kgs vs 165kgs, near 100 kilos more!

They are not compariable, and illustrates the point I've made.

It has to be how they model the car in the game and where they decide to place the weight distribution loads in the car. Certain MR cars can kill you in the game. The Clio can be a special case. When did you last test the car? Tire technology has greatly improved since the early 2000s also. I've driven my car worn out rear Michelin PSS and it was tail happy compared with brand new PS4S which feel as if they have unlimited grip.

A few years before lock-down, and tyre technology hasn't resolved lift-off oversteer, quite the opposite, as tyres have got grippier, it now occurs at higher speeds! What is used to resolve it is a combination of suspension set-up and ESC systems. My wife has a rear engined, rear wheel drive car that will not step into oversteer no matter what you do, mainly because its front track is significantly narrower than it's rear, its weight distribution is contained at 55/45 and it has absurdly agressive ESC that you can't switch off.

Nor does it explain the sheer number of performance based FWD cars that will happily lift off oversteer, even on brand new rubber, in a manner that GT7 simply doesn't replicate.

I never recall it happening that late. It tends to happen fairly early.

I've taught it, it doesn't. You don't get tyre skip before you reach peak tyre grip.

I don't think we can account a single graph to care for the whole. There are so many variable at play within many different cars, taking into account many different suspension geometry, and many different tire compounds, side wall rigidities, normal forces from the tires etc.

Where the graph will vary is how much lateral force will be generated, how sharply it will rise and fall, and where peak slip sits (and at what slip angle it is).

So yes the graph can be used as a model for what we are discussing, what does differ (again a simplification) is that road base tyres will tend to have a more gradual build and fall off with a narrower peak, while slicks will tend to have a steeper rise and fall, with a wider peak.

I was comparing it to the responses that I received with the car in ACC compared to GT. They are comparable. I don't know if this is the case for every car. I guess a 0 value can also represent the car's stock bias setup.

The Evo X has a roughly 60/40 bias iirc. Getting brake distribution mod in the game, the default 0 feels like the stock 60/40 while adjusting the setting front to rear just deviates from that 60/40 whichever way. The 0 value for the Huracan unsettles the car quite a bit.

So its still not known in GT7 exactly how it works.

 

[OldandSlow]

Adding to what Scaff said, modern performance cars have limits that are way too high to explore on the street. Especially with the sticky UHP tires and vast amounts of horsepower that are available nowadays.

Most people will never experience lift-throttle oversteer on a FWD car, especially on the street.

 

[dabz343]

A good friend of mine shared this helpful vid with me years ago when I was scratching my head over GTS physics.

Jump to 42:37 for the simplified recap, but the rest of the video gives a nice deconstruction of all the forces involved.

 

[Firestone]

Which is not even remotely compariable to a Clio V6? One is a 1,400+kg RR car with 60% of it's static load over the rear (notice that's a more agressive rear weight share than most 911's), the other is a 1,100kg FR car with almost perfect 50.50 static weight distribution. As a simplification (note to a certain someone - it's a simplification) they both transfered 30% of load forward under braking that results in a difference of 252kgs vs 165kgs, near 100 kilos more!

They are not compariable, and illustrates the point I've made.

I think your original claim was that longer wheelbase cars get masked with the physics engine compared to shorter wheelbase cars. But cars like the Miata drive fine. My point is the issue can be with the Clio itself and not the physics engine. The MR2 has a short wheel base, with 57% rear weight and has violent lift off characteristics. An example of one car can't conclude the whole batch. I don't own the Clio in the game and wont be able to buy to test it since it is in the used car dealership and only pops up occasionally.

A few years before lock-down, and tyre technology hasn't resolved lift-off oversteer, quite the opposite, as tyres have got grippier, it now occurs at higher speeds! What is used to resolve it is a combination of suspension set-up and ESC systems. My wife has a rear engined, rear wheel drive car that will not step into oversteer no matter what you do, mainly because its front track is significantly narrower than it's rear, its weight distribution is contained at 55/45 and it has absurdly agressive ESC that you can't switch off.

Ok fair enough, but see above regarding the MR2 as it can be more car dependent than game engine dependent.

Regarding tire tech, I was trying to get at tech behind transverse movement at the contact patch for newer tires may be better at mitigating lower speed loss of traction as static friction can be still available at the contact patch. I've driven with all seasons and PS4S and all seasons will break traction all day vs the most technically advanced summer tire which has grip forever at lower speeds.

Nor does it explain the sheer number of performance based FWD cars that will happily lift off oversteer, even on brand new rubber, in a manner that GT7 simply doesn't replicate.

can you name some? To what degree are you looking at? I'm looking at telemetry of cars going on to lift off oversteer on youtube and they are getting on the brakes, pitching the car into the turn and letting off to a slide in which this characteristic is there in GT. Or I see examples of forced oversteer which you can certainly do in the game.

I've taught it, it doesn't. You don't get tyre skip before you reach peak tyre grip.

I don't see this happening in GT. You could be dealing with a wheel programming issue if anything. Nowhere do I feel tire skip when under grip in the wheel. I feel it when I'm on the edge of grip or start scrubbing.

Where the graph will vary is how much lateral force will be generated, how sharply it will rise and fall, and where peak slip sits (and at what slip angle it is).

So yes the graph can be used as a model for what we are discussing, what does differ (again a simplification) is that road base tyres will tend to have a more gradual build and fall off with a narrower peak, while slicks will tend to have a steeper rise and fall, with a wider peak.

If tires are variable in that regard, then wouldn't the slip angles vary also to where you start falling off? Isn't the slip angle the resultant of the transverse grip, so if you reduce the transverse grip while still having good lateral grip, you get a reduction of the slip angle? So where you start to feel the effects of the feedback hop is going to very. The graph is just an example of one sample. So we can't say at what degree to expect the effects of the rattle.

So its still not known in GT7 exactly how it works.

I think it is safe to say then, that a 0 setting is neutral to whatever baseline that is established and you are just adjusting these values to adjust brake bias force. The values may live within the game code, but the UI is presented in this way, but functions as it should.

 

[Scaff]

I think your original claim was that longer wheelbase cars get masked with the physics engine compared to shorter wheelbase cars. But cars like the Miata drive fine. My point is the issue can be with the Clio itself and not the physics engine. The MR2 has a short wheel base, with 57% rear weight and has violent lift off characteristics. An example of one car can't conclude the whole batch. I don't own the Clio in the game and wont be able to buy to test it since it is in the used car dealership and only pops up occasionally.

I've literally just explained why, but I guess this thread is simply headed in the direction it always does, that GT can seemingly do no wrong, regardless of the evidence.

I'm done with this nonsense, keep your echo chamber.

 

[Firestone]

I've literally just explained why, but I guess this thread is simply headed in the direction it always does, that GT can seemingly do no wrong, regardless of the evidence.

I'm done with this nonsense, keep your echo chamber.

Sigh..

It's more likely that certain drivetrains and cars, particularly those with longer wheelbases, will mask this issue much more than others. Load transfer isn;t something that should need tweaking on a car by car or drivetrain by drivetrain basis. It's a fundamental of the physics engine and as such needs to be right at that level.

The comment I had about accuracy was based on my Evo.

Your first premises is implying that longer wheel bases mask the issue with the accuracy of drivability compared to short wheelbase with the example of the Clio V6, hence why the MR2 was brought up which has an even shorter wheelbase in direct comparison. Your implication was that the base physics engine calculation is messed up in this regard as base calculations should carry the flaw to every car. If this was the case, then similar conditions to the Clio V6 should be experienced with the MR2, which it isn't which can only mean these drivability issues is car dependent; however they calculate the physics or even set up base values on the cars. And again, the Clio is one short wheel base example, and there are not many short RR in the game. The longer wheel base MR cars have oversteer effect of which you would expect from an MR car. So which is more logical to conclude; a sample size of the majority having accurate characteristic being representative or a one off having inaccurate characteristics being representative?

GT can seemingly do no wrong. I'm done with this nonsense, keep your echo chamber.

No one is even saying this, everyone knows the game isn't perfect; debates and refutes to claims should be allowed. I've agreed with some of your premises, and I'm strictly disagreeing with certain things because some arguments jump to conclusions well before weighing in a lot of important details.

 

[NickGuy]

I havent played the game since like april, but i reinstalled today and took some cars around watkins glen and man the physics feel soooo much better than back then!

 

[synon]

I was simplifying it that's all, are you seriously attempting to argue a non-point just to try and muddy the waters?

That's a pretty large simplification, but OK lol.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Most people will never experience lift-throttle oversteer on a FWD car, especially on the street.

They're not pushing hard enough then. 😆

Still waiting for a list of modern racecars with no power assisted steering.

 

[OldandSlow]

They're not pushing hard enough then. 😆

Still waiting for a list of modern racecars with no power assisted steering.

Depending on location, there can be too many cars and not enough road to wring them out. Not to mention the immense amount of potholes and road construction. That tire and wheel insurance gets a workout in many places.

I can't think of a modern race car without power steering.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I'd just like to bump this and say how much I am enjoying the most recent physics changes. Doing a bunch of laps tonight in various cars and they all just feel so alive. Much easier to tell what the car is doing and they can be tossed around without just completely losing control. The '23 Z which was damn near impossible to drive when the game released is now an absolute riot. And when the rear steps out I no longer panic because its easily corrected. I just hope they don't deviate too far from this in future updates...

 

[Firestone]

Steering loads under acceleration and braking are more noticeable now. High powered cars, you can feel the load lighten under hard acceleration and under braking, the weight in the wheel increases. FFB overall feels more detailed with the G27.

 

[Yard_Sale]

Steering loads under acceleration and braking are more noticeable now. High powered cars, you can feel the load lighten under hard acceleration and under braking, the weight in the wheel increases. FFB overall feels more detailed with the G27.

My sentiments exactly. More nuance. More “buildup torque” in high-load corners. More self-aligning torque.

Surprised more people aren’t noticing 🤷🏼‍♂️

 

[ScottPuss20]

I'd just like to bump this and say how much I am enjoying the most recent physics changes. Doing a bunch of laps tonight in various cars and they all just feel so alive. Much easier to tell what the car is doing and they can be tossed around without just completely losing control. The '23 Z which was damn near impossible to drive when the game released is now an absolute riot. And when the rear steps out I no longer panic because its easily corrected. I just hope they don't deviate too far from this in future updates...

Wow I have to try it again if this is the case. Speaking of wow, the BMW M2 is the best FR car I've ever driven and I honestly feel as though this game has captured it brilliantly. You can feel the trick electronic differential working and it's an incredible feeling.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I'd just like to bump this and say how much I am enjoying the most recent physics changes. Doing a bunch of laps tonight in various cars and they all just feel so alive. Much easier to tell what the car is doing and they can be tossed around without just completely losing control. The '23 Z which was damn near impossible to drive when the game released is now an absolute riot. And when the rear steps out I no longer panic because its easily corrected. I just hope they don't deviate too far from this in future updates...

I'd like to add that, as much as I am enjoying the current physics in the game, they're still nowhere near real life. And I'm not talking about the car handling specifically. I'm saying as an overall package.

Right now I am doing some testing to make a GT4 class online league where the cars will be tuned to match the real life lap times for GT4 cars. At Road Atlanta this means tuning them into the 350-360hp range. With a good setup and a good lap, you could run a time that is right in the top 5 qualifying places for the last Michelin Pilot Cup race there in September. BUT, take this same car to Laguna Seca and its 4 seconds slower than real life. This I do not understand.

 

[TNumbers1946]

This is a random thing I’ve only really paid attention to now but why is it the tires only get dirty when all 4 tires touch the grass? Been watching the top qualifying times for some races this week and it amazes me how much you can get away with it when irl your tires would be screwed.

 

[danardif1]

Depending on location, there can be too many cars and not enough road to wring them out. Not to mention the immense amount of potholes and road construction. That tire and wheel insurance gets a workout in many places.

I can't think of a modern race car without power steering.

The current Indycar doesn't have it as far as I'm aware, but it's practically universal otherwise...