GT Mode / Arcade mode proportion

[TheWizard]

Well, we can apply the same logic to this, too, then: 7 people like it just fine. Which, with the 12 people that want more Arcade races, makes 19 people wanting more Arcade races or being fine, which clearly wins against the 6 people wanting more GT races.

I don't think votes in different parts of the poll are additive.

The Wizard.

 

[MinorShunt]

I used to think that more sim mode was desireable, but I have recently changed my mind on this, so I voted more arcade for 2 reasons.

1. This is selfish, but I don't have a lot of time to race anymore. To flesh out a killer setup takes more time than I have, and given that this is a weekly series, time is always short. I would rather drive.

2. I am not convinced GT4's take on setups is logical. Many times it seems that a good setup (for me) has no rhyme or reason, and I just stumble across some stupid setting that happens to work. This drives me up a wall! I want it to make sense.

I did enjoy GT mode event at LeSarthe. (even if I forgot to submit. ) I only had time to run 2 cars, the Chapparal 2J and a Fiat Spyder, but it was fun tuning the 2J.
I also enjoyed the NOS race at Seoul and the one at GV east with the 3.2l Audi's and VW's, so I guess some sim mode is good, and mixes it up from time to time. But 50/50 is probably too much sim for me at this juncture.

 

[SHigSpeed]

Well, we can apply the same logic to this, too, then: 7 people like it just fine. Which, with the 12 people that want more Arcade races, makes 19 people wanting more Arcade races or being fine, which clearly wins against the 6 people wanting more GT races.

I don't think votes in different parts of the poll are additive.

The Wizard.

Damn! Busted... Hoping that I could razzle dazzle some "oh, yeah, good point...".

Oh well, I tried.


I do subscribe to a lot of what Minor said though. Tuning is time consuming and not necessarily intuitive. I REALLY enjoyed la Sarthe as well, and of course LOVED the R32s at GV.

The one arcade mode that sticks in my head as painful is the Alfa at Hong Kong. The balance on that car SUCKED for my driving style. If all arcade mode races were like this week, I wouldn't necessarily mind as much.

Oh well, let the chips fall where they will.

Drive on!

-SHig

 

[TheWizard]

Damn! Busted... Hoping that I could razzle dazzle some "oh, yeah, good point...".

Oh well, I tried.

Sorry, SHig
I didn't mean to bust your plan for world domination

But, yeah. I agree with what MinorShunt said. I don't have enough time to run the races, as it is. And tuning just adds another thing I have to take care of. Fortunately, most cars in GT Mode are well balanced in their stock form, most of the time. So the work that really needs to be done is very little. But I could never figure out how to really take advantage of the settings. I think they are really random and just do not reflect enough on my times getting better (or worse, for that matter).

I just can't be bothered trying to set up a car, if then I can't see any difference in how well it handles/performs.

Just as an example, I was doing some hotlaps in LfS and I thought I reached my limits on this track-car combination, after weeks worth of laps put into it. Then I read something in the forum about using Locked Differential instead of Clutch-pack, and I immediately shaved one full second out of my previous best, at-the-limits time. And that was with the rest of the setup being untouched and stock.

Now, with GT4, at best, I can gain 0.1-0.2 seconds, by randomly playing with the setup. And yet again, I don't know if that comes from the setup itself or from a lucky lap that was randomly better than the previous one.

I just can't see setups doing anything for me, in GT Mode...

The Wizard.

 

[SHigSpeed]

Sorry, SHig
I didn't mean to bust your plan for world domination

SNIP!

I just can't see setups doing anything for me, in GT Mode...

The Wizard.

So are you saying that you DO see setups doing something for others, and you don't like the extra disadvantage, or are you saying setups in general are for the most part a placebo effect?

If it's the latter, then you shouldn't really have any issue with any GT mode event, right? Just stick with the defaults and drive.

I know I'm not going to change any minds here, but I appreciate the discussion. I do disagree that it's random, but I wholeheartedly agree that the effect is subtle.

I personally like to put my DS2 under my pillow at night in the hopes that the tuning fairy shows up (and I DON'T mean Dan in a tutu!).

-SHig

 

[Tedehur]

As Matteo pointed out, it's pretty hard to draw conclusions from the poll by adding results.
Should I post more arcade races, satisfying 12 racers and disappointing the remaining 15 (9+6) ?
Or post more GT races, satisfying 6 racers and disappointing the remaining 21 (12+9) ?
Or else keep a 50/50 ratio, satisfying 9 racers and disappointing the remaining 18 (12+6) ?
If I add up votes in that way, I'll disappoint the majority whatever I do.

Instead of making a strict 50/50 as I did over the past 2 months, I'll pay less attention to the GT/Arcade ratio and do it the way I feel it better.

 

[TheWizard]

So are you saying that you DO see setups doing something for others, and you don't like the extra disadvantage, or are you saying setups in general are for the most part a placebo effect?

The placebo effect. That's exactly what I meant.

And, as you pointed out, I guess I shouldn't care much about Arcade Mode and GT Mode, then. I don't know. Arcade Mode just seems easier: pick the track, the car, +20% here, -10% there, RSS there, xxx km/h there, No TCS, No AMS, Ok, drive. No oil changes, no parts to add, no parts to subtract, no gear ratios to adjust, no engine wear. Other advantages are mentioned throughout this thread: posting the times in the database, levelling the playing field, quick and easy.

To me, settings are just something extra that do not produce enough results with respect to the amount of time you have to spend on them.

Their efficiency is really low. If, in Thermodynamics, efficiency is given by the ratio of the energy output to energy input (more or less, without going into too much detail), then, on a similar note, the efficiency of setting up a vehicle should be given by the ratio between time decrease output and time spent into setting up the vehicle.

If I have to spend three hours figuring out the setup to only gain an extra tenth or so, while in three hours of racing I could probably gain a second or so, then you can see that settings are just useless. They don't give you back enough to justify spending that much time into them.

I am not trying to change your mind either, I just like the discussion - as you said. If you can let me see the light - and by this I mean let me see how to actually figure out if a decreased lap time just came from the fact I spent 15 minutes fooling with suspension stiffness rather than from the occasional miracle lap - then, I'll change my mind. I am open minded - I never rule out all the options until I have tried them all.

Like I said, in LfS, in a matter of thirty minutes or so I beat my time by a second. The same time that took me a month to achieve. And that was by adjusting one setting. So, I don't think that was a miracle lap. It can't be, not after one month of laps on that combo.

How do I tell the settings are doing anything in GT4?

One time, just for the heck of it, since I was tired of not seeing any difference from one setup to another, I tried lowering a car completely and then raising it as high as it would go. No change whatsoever in the lap time. Now, how is that possible? Sure such an extreme change would have to reflect something on the lap time? Or on the handling?

What am I missing here?

The Wizard.

 

[SHigSpeed]

Well, I can tell you for SURE that if you raise the ride height all the way, you get more body roll and maybe slightly duller turning, however it makes a HUGE difference in braking (better) and handling bumps (as long as you have the shocks tuned right, not too stiff in bound, stiffer in rebound).

For example, at la Sarthe, I ran my Mazda at max height, soft bump, stiffer rebound, staggered bars, softer front springs, and ALL of those made a noticeable difference in my experience.

Anyway, as long as I get at least 33% GT, I'll be happy. As Cyril said, he'll call races to make him happy, which means good handling cars on appropriate tracks and that's all I can ask for.

Give me the opportunity to tweak and optimize and I'll happier, at a loss for time and burdened with oil changes, buying parts, etc., but happier.

-SHig

 

[MinorShunt]

Personally I think the setups in GT4 are dumbed down from GT2 and 3. In those versions of GT, there was a clear cause and effect to everything you did with a setup. Especially in GT2, you could really make a car driveable or undriveable in a hurry with setup.
The only clear argument against this opinion, is the week that Zikwik came up with a setup that was clearly superior. To be honest I was flabbergasted at the difference his setup made. I had never experienced that amount of difference in my laptimes because of a setup in GT4.

Like Shig said, the stock setup usually works pretty good, and the gains made by fiddling are usually minimal. I usually just dump the aids and diff, set the tranny and go. BUT......my problem is that I can't leave well enough alone. So I find that I am continually tinkering here and there throughout a race week, and never really settle on a single setup. I even go as far as to have multiple versions of the car with 3 saved setups for each car, with (the F1 race at R246 comes to mind) as many as nine different setups for an event!

In the end it all comes down to feel for me. If the car responds the way I want it to, I will be fast in it. So like fasj, some of my setups are kinda weird, and no one else may want to use it, but it fits me, and that is what counts.

 

[Tyre King]

Ay Up lads and lasses!

Only Me!

Nice discussion, and I agree with The Wiz, that the time gained from spending a couple of hours tuning a setup is disproportionately small.
That is of course for the guys with the skill to drive 90% of the cars in the game well, no matter how it handles

For me, however.......

During the first two-three hours of a GT mode combo, I generally find in the range of 4-20 seconds depending on the track length.
Most of that, probably 75%, is from me getting the car's handling to something near how I like it, the rest is obviously the fact that I am learning the combo.

However, over the next few days, the time gained is more split 50/50 setup/learning curve.
And is not usually as drastic a gain.

I voted for keeping the status-quo, would prefer more GT, but recognise the fact that more people race an arcade combo than most GT mode combo's.

So in all fairness I had to vote the way I did.

We must keep the best of the worlds GT4 racers coming here to race!

Viva La WRS!

Neil

 

[Small_Fryz]

In regards to settings in GT4, its almost impossible to fine tune the car, however i belive once you understand what each part does and how they work together maybe you can improve your times. But i dont think it makes a big difference unless you hit the magic "perfect setup". I was playing GTL and i adjusted the rear and front ARB and springs by a small amount and i found a major change. GT4's changes are not big enough for you to know if what you did made it worse or better.

If you knew what made it worse or better you could fine tune it, doesnt matter if it makes no sense to "real world". I find only a few tings in GT4 actually make any sorta difference.

 

[TheWizard]

GT4's changes are not big enough for you to know if what you did made it worse or better.

If you knew what made it worse or better you could fine tune it

My point exactly 👍

The Wizard.