Gran Turismo Tuning Guide 2.0 for iOS Released!

[daveyules]

My iOS tuning guide just became available for sale last night!

Check it out here: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gran-turismo-tuning-guide/id377719135

It's got some cool new features, like the ability to store your tunes so you can carry them around in your pocket! It also calculates pretty much every tunable value (except transmission, but thats coming soon!) and it includes my original guide content.

I hope those with iPhones like it! For everyone else... get ready for the web version.

Cheers

 

[AssassinTuner]

Could you post a set up Tuned by it please.

 

[daveyules]

Definitely. Please provide a car name, drivetrain, tire type, weight, weight distribution, min/max spring values, and downforce.

I can plug that in and give you a result.

Cheers

 

[AssassinTuner]

Definitely. Please provide a car name, drivetrain, tire type, weight, weight distribution, min/max spring values, and downforce.

I can plug that in and give you a result.

Cheers

Bought & Repaired

M3 500-PP TEST Car

Base Car
BMW M3 '04
Available at: UCD

Important!
(Repair Engine/Chassis)

Parts

Body/Chassis
Weight Reduction: Stage 2
Window Weight Reduction; Yes
Carbon Hood: No
Chassis Reinforcement: Yes

Engine
Computer: Tuned ECU
Engine Tuning: Stage 3

Intake System
Intake manifold: Sports
Air Filter: Racing

Exhaust
Exhaust Manifold: Sports
Catalytic Converter: Sports
Exhaust: Titanium Racing

Transmission
Fully Customizable Transmission

Drivetrain
Clutch: Twin-Plate
Flywheel: Semi-Racing
Carbon Drive Shaft: Yes
Differential: Adjustable LSD

Suspension
Fully Customizable Suspension

Tires
RS

385hp & 1394kg @ 500pp

SETTINGS

Power Limiter
79.3%

Ballast
Amount
44kg
Position
0

 

[daveyules]

I'm going to assume the car has 50:50 distribution.

Brakes: 4 - 3

Ride Height: 0 - 0
Spring Rate: 10.5 - 10.5
Damper Ext.: 6 - 6
Damper Com.: 3 - 3
Anti-Roll: 3 - 3
Camber: 1.8 - 1.8
Toe: 0 - 0

Initial Torque: 5
Acceleration: 21
Deceleration: 5

Cheers

 

[AssassinTuner]

I'm going to assume the car has 50:50 distribution.

Brakes: 4 - 3

Ride Height: 0 - 0
Spring Rate: 10.5 - 10.5
Damper Ext.: 6 - 6
Damper Com.: 3 - 3
Anti-Roll: 3 - 3
Camber: 1.8 - 1.8
Toe: 0 - 0

Initial Torque: 5
Acceleration: 21
Deceleration: 5

Cheers

Yup 50/50 but doesn't have an equal amount of suspension leverage.

I'll check it, looks too equal f/r for an offset amount of suspension leverage. Your calculations need to take that into account.

A good example of this is the DC5 Honda Integra. From looking at the tuning screen it would appear as if the front has a much softer spring rate compared to the rear. The value up front is much lower. This is not the case. The front has a 1 to 1 leverage, while the rear is closer to 1 to 0.45.

If you were to balance the springs as your doing it would be offset according to weight distribution. The ITR is 61/39 and weighs 999kg. With your calculations the spring rate will look like 10.98/7.02 (maybe not exact Figures but the offset will be close) you would think this would have a balanced spring rate, but far from it. The Wheel rate would look like this

61/39
999kg
609.39kg / 389.61kg
10.98kg/mm / 7.02kg/mm Spring Rate
1:1 / 1:0.45 Suspension Correction factor

Wheel Rate = 10.98kg/mm / 3.27kg/mm. As you can see the front in this case is an extremely high amount stiffer then the rear.

If looking at it in lb/in it would be

613.56lb/in / 182.72lb/in

As you can see it's MUCH too soft in the rear for the wheel rate to be balanced, although don't be fooled by a FF lapping tracks better with a softer rear then front, it's not the same when your intent is to balance them

If you don't factor in the suspension leverage. It's not going to work as you think it does.

In the case of the M3, The rear spring rate IMO is too much stiffer than the front for example.

Cheers!

 

[daveyules]

I hear what you're saying. My calculator simply takes whatever concrete data GT5 provides and works with that. If it was proven that GT5 takes into account all these different variables, or we could even see the values, I would definitely implement them in my calculator. Here's to hoping it'll show up in the next update...

Cheers

 

[AssassinTuner]

I hear what you're saying. My calculator simply takes whatever concrete data GT5 provides and works with that. If it was proven that GT5 takes into account all these different variables, or we could even see the values, I would definitely implement them in my calculator. Here's to hoping it'll show up in the next update...

Cheers

It certainly does (thank goodness) basically what you've done is ignore the correction factor because you haven't figured out how to calculate it. Your app did little to help the car, essentially off balancing the springs instead of balancing them. The rest was not very different from default settings except the Camber really. Not worth any money, and personally insulting to charge for it. Its like selling Blue Prints to build a time machine.

You can dispute the game uses the correction factor, I can prove it's factored in. It's plain as day on the ITR DC5 100% Try and explain the spring rates otherwise.....

Its been like this since GT4 at least.

Look at the M3 for example. It has 50/50 weight but doesn't have equal spring rates f/r . It's actually clear on most cars, a few of them use multilink front/rear and double wishbone front /rear these are the cases where the correction factor will be equal front to rear at times.

If you need help figuring out how to calculate it off the in game data I can help. I've calculated 2 ways to do it, one long and complicated but precise the other is short and will only calculate the difference in correction factor not the complete value.

I'll also mention it is not the wheel rate that balances the springs. It's the spring frequency. You need the wheel rate to calculate the frequency though that is even more complicated to calculate.

Cheers!

 

[daveyules]

Basically what you've done is ignore the correction factor because you haven't figured out how to calculate it.

Not quite. I actually ignored this because there is no concrete data regarding suspension design values. Once GT5 displays this data for us to work with, I will surely implement it into my calculator.

Your app did little to help the car, essentially off balancing the springs instead of balancing them. The rest was not very different from default settings except the Camber really. Not worth any money, and personally insulting to charge for it. Its like selling Blue Prints to build a time machine.

I think you should start this paragraph with, "In my opinion...", because in my opinion, my calculation provides a neutral setup. Otherwise, your comments are rather malicious.

Look at the M3 for example. It has 50/50 weight but doesn't have equal spring rates f/r.

I imagine you're speaking of the default suspension values when you purchase the custom suspension? Those values didn't provide the neutral balance I was looking for.

If you need help figuring out how to calculate it off the in game data I can help. I've calculated 2 ways to do it, one long and complicated but precise the other is short and will only calculate the difference in correction factor not the complete value.

I appreciate the offer, however I do make a point to avoid working with people that are susceptible to malicious outbursts.

I'll also mention it is not the wheel rate that balances the springs. It's the spring frequency. You need the wheel rate to calculate the frequency though that is even more complicated to calculate.

With Gran Turismo 5 running its physics engine on a PS3; the number of calculations that are taking place (and the number of variables that are used) must be immense. Once they provide us with concrete physics data regarding any one of these, I will be extremely happy to work them into my calculations. This is why I continually update my calculator algorithms...

Cheers

 

[AssassinTuner]

Not quite. I actually ignored this because there is no concrete data regarding suspension design values.

There is concrete data that proves this, it seems you simply ignore it or were unaware, but I informing you it can be proven. I've given an example you can test, and can Prove it specifically using the ITR DC5 if you don't know how to do the test. Let's do it....

I challenge you to dispute the evidence if you have the stones to make the analysis with me.

Not to do so would indicate no interest in improving.

Once GT5 displays this data for us to work with, I will surely implement it into my calculator.

It doesn't need for it to be displayed for it to be in place and have an impact, that would be as ignorant as believing weight distribution was not factored in until they displayed the split. Also this could be said about 90% of the physics.

I think you should start this paragraph with, "In my opinion...", because in my opinion, my calculation provides a neutral setup. Otherwise, your comments are rather malicious.

No, because it is NOT my opinion that the suspension leverage is factored in, it's FACT. I have disassembled the coding for GT4/GTPSP and in the coding the suspension leverage for each car is coded in anybody who has done extensive work hybridizing cars in GT4 or GTPSP and broke down the coding can confirm. It's fun to use the Formula GT's suspension leverage on the NSX Type R, makes it even nastier. Then you toss in the F GT Engine, & it's quite a blast.

If you think for 1second it was in GT4 but not GT5 that's laughable.

I imagine you're speaking of the default suspension values when you purchase the custom suspension? Those values didn't provide the neutral balance I was looking for.

So you think what your doing is balancing them, but your not once you take into account the CRUCIAL leverage factor. Without that your calculations are wrong. (not trying to be rude) but your trying to sell an app that is flawed to a Board that knows better...

I appreciate the offer, however I do make a point to avoid working with people that are susceptible to malicious outbursts.

Don't mean to sound nasty or appears as malicious. I'm keeping it real in the hopes your skin is thick enough to deal with a little criticism over a product your trying to sell to us.

It's unfortunate that you refuse help.

With Gran Turismo 5 running its physics engine on a PS3; the number of calculations that are taking place (and the number of variables that are used) must be immense. Once they provide us with concrete physics data regarding any one of these, I will be extremely happy to work them into my calculations. This is why I continually update my calculator algorithms...

Cheers

Again unfortunate you need things spelled out for you to consider them. I don't see your app improving at all with a closed mind like that.

Since you got locked minded on me I will only prove it and won't give you the formulas I've written to get them as you don't want them.

Here you can see for yourself it's clear as day, just open your eyes and mind to reality.

The Integra DC5 uses Mac Struts up front and a double wishbone in the rear. Fact.

Anybody who knows about tuning cars and has worked on Spring Rates can tell you this.

Mac Struts are ALWAYS 1 to 1 (disclaimer for any potential oddity)

Double Wishbone are most often at least 0.50 even at times 0.40, usually around 0.45.

This is the ITR FACTUALLY based of IRL specs.

This means whatever is in front IS the front wheel rate, and if we devide the rear value by between 2 to 2.5 the wheel rate should relatively be the same. The value should balance out with the Front giving us equal wheel rates with an offset weight & offset suspension leverage.

The DC5 IRL has a wheel rate of 240ft-lb/in in the front & a wheel rate of 180 to 240ft-lb (progressive springs) in the rear. Might be a lil stiffer, this is from what I know about the ITR off the top of my head, might be closer to 246ft-lb/in f/r....

Compare that to in the Game.....

Might want to look into it
FACTS!

 

[daveyules]

I think I should have started this conversation with the point that my calculator, a feature in my app, provides to me tuning settings that I personally feel offer optimal balance. And judging by my sales, there are many people out there (worldwide and on this forum) who also appreciate the way I do this.

However, if you feel that the way you tune your cars works better for you, that is awesome. Please go ahead and continue tuning your cars the way you wish to. In fact, please develop your own calculator for the iPhone. I am desperate for competition on the app store.

Anyway, I can't help but feel like I've wasted way too much of my time responding to this thread, as from the start this discussion had nothing to do with how my calculator results actually feel, more than that you think they are wrong, useless, or aren't taking certain (assumed) variables into account.

This is my last response.

 

[AssassinTuner]

I think I should have started this conversation with the point that my calculator, a feature in my app, provides to me tuning settings that I personally feel offer optimal balance. And judging by my sales, there are many people out there (worldwide and on this forum) who also appreciate the way I do this.

However, if you feel that the way you tune your cars works better for you, that is awesome. Please go ahead and continue tuning your cars the way you wish to. In fact, please develop your own calculator for the iPhone. I am desperate for competition on the app store.

Anyway, I can't help but feel like I've wasted way too much of my time responding to this thread, as from the start this discussion had nothing to do with how my calculator results actually feel, more than that you think they are wrong, useless, or aren't taking certain (assumed) variables into account.

This is my last response.

Based off the results then (after spending countless hours tuning the M3) I respectfully disagree with how your collator works, and the results were worse than default, and not far off aside from camber. This helped but only because default is at 0, I can blindly do better.

Sales are not an indicator it works, just an indicator that the price is low enough to take a chance. Serious let downs come after.

BTW I do have a calculator, I make enough money without peddling it through an app, if I were to release it, it would be for fee. I built it for myself though, It goes beyond your generic calculations, and is far too complex for release.

I offer help to improve it, you dispute what it accounts for then dismiss the Facts I present.

I offer the calculations, even if accepted it's on you to implement them or not. You COULD of learned from them, instead of just closing your mind. Your original position was your app does not account for suspension leverage because YOU THOUGHT it couldn't be proven. When I prove it you dismiss it....

BECAUSE your asking us to give you money for it, and USING GTPlanet to market your product, your product MUST be scrutinized heavily, tested deeply, and compared to the FREE options already available. There is already an app for android, and while I disagree with many of the calculations, it's at least doing an all-round better job. It's also FREE!

I hate to see good members of GTP get ripped off (for how ever small an amount) because nobody was willing to test out your app. I tested it out & IMO it failed.

I don't sugar coat things, I'm straight, and I am by NO MEANS the voice of the board.

The facts I presented are facts. FACT, suspension leverage is simulated in GT5, the FACT your calculations don't account for leverage is by your own admittance, The FACT your not "balancing" the suspension as you think you are is FACTUAL so long as you don't account for the suspension leverage. Those are the Facts, You don't want my OPINION of it...

Peace!

 

[JackWilson]

I paid for the first version on daveyules app a while back and was happy with what I got. And I would probably buy the new version if I didnt spill boiling hot coffee over my Ipod touch.

Anyway if your app is so good Assassin why don't you sell it, you say you only use it for yourself and your tunes (i'm guessing) but then you share your tunes on here so whats the harm.. I think you are taking this way too seriously.

Peace!

 

[AssassinTuner]

I paid for the first version on daveyules app a while back and was happy with what I got. And I would probably buy the new version if I didnt spill boiling hot coffee over my Ipod touch.

Anyway if your app is so good Assassin why don't you sell it, you say you only use it for yourself and your tunes (i'm guessing) but then you share your tunes on here so whats the harm.. I think you are taking this way too seriously.

Peace!

Im glad you approve of the results it gave you and that you were satisfied.

I dispute only what's it's been said to do, & how it's been said to do it. I've provided facts proving it. If the settings feel good to you that's besides the point I'm making.

As I said I am in NO WAY the voice of the board. If you approve, give it your stamp as you have.

I'm NOT trying to sell my calculator it's not under scrutiny. I would release it but it requires a knowledge base most do not have. Maybe if I simplify it I would, but I'm not asking for cash. If I were to release it though, I'm positive it would be heavily scrutinized

The fact of the matter is, it DEOS NOT work the way he believes it does, I've proven this. FACT, the results he gave me Do Not balance the M3 springs, they throw it off balance, this is evident, provable, and not the result he claimed his calculator provides.

Fact, if he's asking for money it SHOULD be scrutinized, this is not the app store, this is GTP... I would question if he's gotten permission to use GTP to market his product...

More people should put it to the test, I suggest people do, before blindly tossing away their cash. Had I bough the app expecting it would provide balanced springs, I would be disappointed with that M3 1:1 set up. His calculations were easily broken up. Just look at My ITR example, I bet you his app would give out spring rates just like that...

Am I wrong for being critical? No.

I tested it first and based off the results Offered help to make it actually do what he wants it to do that it currently fails to do. He refused, dismissed the facts, and back tracked after it being proven.

You are free to disagree, as I am. Freedom is nice!

 

[nomis3613]

Hi AssassinTuner,
Daveyules has put a lot of effort into the app, you could be less harsh in how you present your feedback...

Anyways,

If you need help figuring out how to calculate it (suspension motion ratios) off the in game data I can help. I've calculated 2 ways to do it, one long and complicated but precise the other is short and will only calculate the difference in correction factor not the complete value.

I'll also mention it is not the wheel rate that balances the springs. It's the spring frequency. You need the wheel rate to calculate the frequency though that is even more complicated to calculate.

I have disassembled the coding for GT4/GTPSP and in the coding the suspension leverage for each car is coded in anybody who has done extensive work hybridizing cars in GT4 or GTPSP and broke down the coding can confirm. It's fun to use the Formula GT's suspension leverage on the NSX Type R, makes it even nastier. Then you toss in the F GT Engine, & it's quite a blast.

Sounds like to have some great info on how the physics modelling works in GT5. I don't think anyone's posted info on this for GT5, would be great if you could share it please?

 

[vrajdeber]

Purchased!

 

[vrajdeber]

Please make an iPad version as well.

 

[AssassinTuner]

Hi AssassinTuner,
Daveyules has put a lot of effort into the app, you could be less harsh in how you present your feedback...

Anyways,

Sounds like to have some great info on how the physics modelling works in GT5. I don't think anyone's posted info on this for GT5, would be great if you could share it please?

As you can see I offered help, but it was dismissed as unproven because the correction factor values are not displayed. Apparently unless PD displays the data somehow they are not taken into account.

It seems I'm not the only one aware of the role of suspension leverage, but nobody seems to factor it into they're calculations.
It would seem unless they figure it out on there own, it's dismissed.

I'll give up an easy way to get what you need. We will use the ITR again. This method will get us the difference in correction. So that when stiffening the front or rear, we know exactly how much to adjust the other side to keep them balanced.

I checked in game and default settings for the spring rates are 4.4/6.1.

So if we raise the front to let's say 7.0 how much do we need to raise the front to keep the balance?

What you do is take the high value and divide it by the low value.

6.1 Divided by 4.4 = 1.38636364

So we have to multiply our 7.0 front by 1.38636364 to get the spring rate for the rear.

7.0 x 1.38636364 = 9.7

So if we raised our front from 4.4 to 7.0 we have to raise our rear from 6.1 to 9.7 to keep the set balanced.

Our balanced set becomes

7.0/9.7

This will only get the difference in correction factor f/r but in cases where the car has Mac Struts we get the exact data.

I don't think I could of made it any easier. This method also will not reveal maximum stiffness though, the other method will.

Cheers!

 

[rd012]

Daveyules, awaiting your next update. Current vers help me a lot to tune and win both offline and online. And yes please make an iPad vers. Cheers.

 

[Nobu34]

I'm going to assume the car has 50:50 distribution.

Brakes: 4 - 3

Ride Height: 0 - 0
Spring Rate: 10.5 - 10.5
Damper Ext.: 6 - 6
Damper Com.: 3 - 3
Anti-Roll: 3 - 3
Camber: 1.8 - 1.8
Toe: 0 - 0

Initial Torque: 5
Acceleration: 21
Deceleration: 5

Cheers

isn't it a rule of thumb. that naturally you always want more compression than extension? i came across a couple auto cross forums awhile back and they mentioned the same thing. " to always have more compression then extension".

 

[Perti78]

Why the spring rates are always in 0 on the app?

 

[Motor City Hami]

isn't it a rule of thumb. that naturally you always want more compression than extension? i came across a couple auto cross forums awhile back and they mentioned the same thing. " to always have more compression then extension".

I have always heard the opposite. Every racing shock that I have used has softer compression and harder extension.

 

[Nobu34]

I have always heard the opposite. Every racing shock that I have used has softer compression and harder extension.

hmmm interesting. i went back to the description on gt5. from what gt5 is saying . you are correct. glad you pitched in your 2 cents. i wonder what was the reason for them saying to use more compression. eh seeing that gt5 knows what they are doing. ill take their word for it.