- 101
Ah, how I have missed the discussions in these forums 
GT4 WRS Week 76 : "Snake in the Valley"
- Thread starter Tedehur
- 236 comments
- 16,506 views
- 7,719
The thing is, PAL got off easy in Mission 34, apparently NTSC have to find an extra 5 seconds or something
What a relief.
Kent: Does NTCS have some aids-less tests? Most (except that slalom, I guess) in PAL have nasty aids interfering. I could get at least half a second faster on some longer tests if they were aids-free...
Sphinx
Staff Emeritus
- 6,724
- England
- GTP_Sphinx
Ah, how I have missed the discussions in these forums
Yeah we've missed you too Amir
BTW, that's a nice old sig you have there mate
- 2,276
- AngelCreator
- AngelCreator
I got some new T's today, it took a bit because lately I have been
sucked into TDU, anyways here are my times.
T1-32:472(have seen .3xx)
T2-1:03:747(have seen .63x)
sucked into TDU, anyways here are my times.
T1-32:472(have seen .3xx)
T2-1:03:747(have seen .63x)
- 3,105
- GTP_MisterWeary
- 101
32:105 1:02:207
Enjoying this. Always did like this track 👍
Enjoying this. Always did like this track 👍
- 101
32:105 1:02:207
I forgot to mention that these times were on PAL. It's just practice, practice, practice. lol 👍
I forgot to mention that these times were on PAL. It's just practice, practice, practice. lol 👍
They are different holl01 you are correct.
But I will mention that he is running at 60 fps while you are running at 50 fps, giving more time in between 'inputs' on your behalf for the 'steering' input to go farther.
It would be easier for him to be smoother, but you have the advantage on any 'hairpins' if you are using a DFP because of this 'difference' of time between inputs.
I also have both versions and after testing some rally events and tar combo's in the past I can say again that the difference is thereI will try this combo also tonight to throw in my 2 cents regarding this event also
Is it because you are NTSC NA that you dont want to believe that on certain combo's your version literally has it on a plate against PAL racers
You say no-one knows if its true! ...... even after people with both versions have posted on a few occasions to tell you that it does exist
One thing I would like to add to this.
Your 'inputs' when you run a lap in a different session (even lap to lap) are not identical so even if you do this Mr. P - you cannot say that PAL is faster or NTSC is faster.
The only way you can say one is faster than the other, is if you go by what the engine is made of.
See my point above.
Everyone knows, the more experience you get on a track no matter what version you use you are going to be 'better'.
So even this 'test' as you put it actually proves nothing.
What if you're driving style is more suited to one version than the other?
Like I said above, mechanically (that is software implemented) the only thing we can say for sure is the timing mechanics because of FPS. And that's what they sample the inputs at.
Which is the only 'true' difference we can say.
And that would support what I said above.
My two cents.
Because of PAL's more time between inputs of steering, it would have the advantage timewise in a hairpin, because they do not have to swing the wheel as fast on those corners.
NTSC can be smoother, because the inputs happen more often.
This could explain the difference between the two driver's times because holl01 might be 'driving' a certain way and maybe the ORECA likes to be smoother.
This could VERY well explain why in this situation the time splits are VERY different.
But in general, I would say unless the car likes to be 'smooth' like stated above, I would say PAL has the advantage.
This combo (and maybe some others) NTSC would.
This might be a sign that Polyphony Digital is making improvements in the engine towards becoming true SIM. Because reality one would 'want to be smooth' and not slide/skip around the tires.
If anything, I think that this maybe a good sign of things to come for GT5 down the line. (Although, if this is the way things are going, I'm going to say in the future NTSC will be faster than PAL because of this.)
And for more differences.
Even though I know that the PAL 50 fps has more time in between inputs, and NTSC has more....
I remember holl01 stating that he could not produce the times of some of his license times he did with a DS2 with the DFP.
Take S4 for example.
I am sitting at a 2'06.560 which was done with a DFP over a year ago. Later, he did his 2'06.2xx with a DS2.
This is my point here.
With the DS2, he could just hold the PAD and it would 'turn' the wheel fast, and on NTSC it would not go as fast. (because of less time between inputs) Before you say "Yeah, but they go the same distance over a second of time", think about a curve. These points in the input could be 'spikes' referring to PAL, and a more 'fine' curve on NTSC. Think about that.
This could explain why PAL DS2's on certain tracks dominate yet my wheel time of 2'06.560 on an NTSC version which can be smoother (combined with my hand speed on the wheel for the hairpins) is by far the fastest wheel time there.
(Those are #1 and #2 times in world for S4.)
Pink_the_Floyd
(Banned)
- 4,041
T1: 33.123
T2: 1'04.947
First 9 laps, quite much understeer so I screwed off TCS which gave massive increased control and acceleration, perfect gear setup is 320 km/h 👍
PAL/DFP/D2
T2: 1'04.947
First 9 laps, quite much understeer so I screwed off TCS which gave massive increased control and acceleration, perfect gear setup is 320 km/h 👍
PAL/DFP/D2
- 913
I'm using 320, it's inbetween the two reccomendations
.I'll have another go at this ASAP.
Assuming all things equal. Let's look at it like this:
If you are going the same speed down a straightaway on a PAL and NTSC version.
Let's assume there is a 'perfect' place to brake and turn.
Assume a time of 5.00 seconds from the line to this 'point'.
Now, at the full second mark they both have an input, so it's equal there.
The next input for PAL would take place at 5.020 seconds and NTSC approximately 5.016 seconds.
By strictly numbers, you would assume NTSC has the advantage here because of an input taken faster.
This can be taken both ways. If you have an INSANE reaction time on NTSC, you could take advantage of this. However, if you are not as quick, you would be better off on PAL because you have .004 seconds more time to get the wheel to the same position (or farther).
On the average, people are 'closer' to the middle range than the upper on reaction time, so in reality generally speaking PAL would have the advantage here.
So from this data being examined here I can conclude the following.
In general, PAL would be faster for the average racer. If it was someone like me or another person it 'may' be a different story. Since I have not played PAL ever, I cannot give you any more than the facts stated above. (Because I do not know how fast my reaction time really is.)
You also have to remember because of the different input rates on the systems, the 'braking force' and 'acceleration values' are different for both versions so in fact they can never be compared equally.
Add a 'mod chip' to a PAL version to play an NTSC version and you could add some complexity to the situation because of 'added overhead' in terms of 'data tranform' or 'instructions executed' by the PS2.
Therefore, you cannot get a fair comparison there either.
You never will unless you 'know' you're exact reaction time (which will vary day to day) and the exact internals of both engine implementations.
The only thing we can really assume is 'generally speaking' terms. And in general, most people do not have the 'best reaction' time, and therefore in 'general' I state that PAL would be faster.
But, like I was saying in my post above, there could be situations in which NTSC could have an advantage.
Think about that before arguing this point any further, because I have thought about these things.
And if there are more situations like this and what I've stated about the 'facts', it maybe a wise decision to split PAL and NTSC ranks. And this is a reason why it 'should be atleast considered.'
If you are going the same speed down a straightaway on a PAL and NTSC version.
Let's assume there is a 'perfect' place to brake and turn.
Assume a time of 5.00 seconds from the line to this 'point'.
Now, at the full second mark they both have an input, so it's equal there.
The next input for PAL would take place at 5.020 seconds and NTSC approximately 5.016 seconds.
By strictly numbers, you would assume NTSC has the advantage here because of an input taken faster.
This can be taken both ways. If you have an INSANE reaction time on NTSC, you could take advantage of this. However, if you are not as quick, you would be better off on PAL because you have .004 seconds more time to get the wheel to the same position (or farther).
On the average, people are 'closer' to the middle range than the upper on reaction time, so in reality generally speaking PAL would have the advantage here.
So from this data being examined here I can conclude the following.
In general, PAL would be faster for the average racer. If it was someone like me or another person it 'may' be a different story. Since I have not played PAL ever, I cannot give you any more than the facts stated above. (Because I do not know how fast my reaction time really is.)
You also have to remember because of the different input rates on the systems, the 'braking force' and 'acceleration values' are different for both versions so in fact they can never be compared equally.
Add a 'mod chip' to a PAL version to play an NTSC version and you could add some complexity to the situation because of 'added overhead' in terms of 'data tranform' or 'instructions executed' by the PS2.
Therefore, you cannot get a fair comparison there either.
You never will unless you 'know' you're exact reaction time (which will vary day to day) and the exact internals of both engine implementations.
The only thing we can really assume is 'generally speaking' terms. And in general, most people do not have the 'best reaction' time, and therefore in 'general' I state that PAL would be faster.
But, like I was saying in my post above, there could be situations in which NTSC could have an advantage.
Think about that before arguing this point any further, because I have thought about these things.
And if there are more situations like this and what I've stated about the 'facts', it maybe a wise decision to split PAL and NTSC ranks. And this is a reason why it 'should be atleast considered.'
βen;2444091
No, because the second PAL input comes at 5.040 in that situation and NTSC at 5.033.
Now the difference is .007.
Next inputs at 5.060 and 5.050. Now the difference is .01 - that is a hundredth of a second.
Next is at 5.080 and .5066 - difference of .014.
They are not equal Ben. And that's just the first 4 inputs.
By the time you have 50 inputs taken from PAL in 1 second, you have 60 inputs taken in the same time period on NTSC.
50 inputs from PAL = 1 second.
50 inputs on NTSC = .833 seconds (approximately).
Yes, by the time PAL hits it's 50th input, NTSC hit's it's 60th one.
For every 5 inputs PAL takes NTSC takes 6.
They are by no means even close to equal.
Because of this difference, PAL has to have 'larger values' of deceleration and acceleration from an input position. Same goes for steering. Because it does not have as many inputs as NTSC.
Whether you believe it or not, I believe this is the reason 'stock cars' in GT3 were definitely faster on PAL.
However, when you started adding downforce and other 'handling' parts NTSC seemed to close that gap.
Both versions sample 'input' each time a frame is drawn.
So, PAL has the advantage of being able to 'move farther' between each frame than NTSC does.
It should also be known that the 'load on the CPU' for PAL is lower than NTSC because it does not have to draw as many frames as NTSC does per second.
It's just common sense.
And it's even quite possible that the PAL version could have slightly better acceleration than NTSC because of this, because when an engine is 'stuck in it's crap powerband' NTSC's inputs would have more time in there where PAL would have less.
5 times in a crap powerband * accel value < 6 times in a crap powerband.
Which means although the time it spends in the band maybe equal, on the average PAL will have a higher 'power band value' per input because it has less inputs in the 'crap' powerband.
When PAL has it's 6th input and NTSC has it's 7th, the 6th input on PAL is in the 'good powerband' and NTSC is in 'good powerband' on it's 7th.
Simple math.
1 / 6 = .166
1 / 7 = .142857
Now, assuming both cars are making 350 lb ft of torque in every RPM it climbs during those inputs except the last one being 380 lb ft.
Let's say the car goes up 420 RPM during that period. (a common value between 6 and 7)
6 * 350 + 380 / 7 = 354.2857(PAL)
7 * 350 + 380 / 8 = 353.75 (NTSC)
Simple math shows PAL has an acceleration advantage as well.
If these numbers are for 6500 - 6920 RPMs....
The difference in average horsepower would go from .662 at 6500 RPMS to .705 at 6920 RPMS.
I'm figuring in 'engine' and 'mathematical' technical advantages.
As as you know when you are talking about times that 'should be within tenths and hundredths' you will see that PAL has the advantage here.
There is no use 'bickering' about opinions because the facts are the facts.
Technical advantage is with PAL, end of story.
I need help. If this is posted somewhere else, sorry, couldn't find it and this seems to be the most active thread. Bought a Maxdrive, saved my replay to it no problem (except determining which replay i really wanted to save, think I got the right one). Took Maxdrive and software to PC. Installed software, or so I thought. When I look in the the Maxdrive I see the file but the icon is not the blue one with "MD" on it. I can manually tell it to open with the the MD program and the icon changes but nothing happens when I start the MD program. Any clues?
I would like to add this.
Take a 'power drop' instead though.
6 * 350 + 320 / 7 = 345.714
7 * 350 + 320 / 8 = 346.25
If accelerating, NTSC has advantage, But.... where it would make the most difference on a large spike, you would shift anyway, so PAL does not have to worry about a big advantage here from NTSC.
And also, we know when you are braking 'the auto clutch' is engaged, so PAL would have a braking advantage from this point of view.
(NTSC a slight advantage in the other formula)
Just because engine power versus engine braking - more power means less engine braking.
Generally, engine powerbands climb from lower rpms to higher ones with a drop off late. If it's a big dropoff, you would shift before redline.
In practicality and 'general powerbands' PAL has advantage.
And think about 'turbo cars' with extreme lag. NTSC suffers much here. And the cars that have 'long shifting'.
In a car where it takes 'forever' to shift, how many more 'frames' is that this NTSC car has to 'deal' with no power being delivered to the wheels?
The point is this. Yes, they will get to the same point in the same time (1.000 second) but when talking about 'averages' on the accel/decel values and steering input, they are vastly different.
In general use PAL has an advantage that is pretty big. One single thing is not that great, the difference is in all those little things added up.
The only thing that is guaranteed equal? Straightline constant speed on a straightaway. (And because of rev limiters even this is not really guaranteed.)
If you assume a constant speed of 200 mph (or the KM/H equiv) for a section of 1 mile on the track, yes, NTSC and PAL should have the same split for that section. (That is if somehow you can keep it at 200 mph exactly without bumping a limiter) If every speed was 'constant' throughout, and straightline - then they would be equal because a constant speed does not change it's 'distance' sampled in different intervals.
The difference in PAL vs. NTSC comes in the 'average' of the data I showed you above, in which PAL could distinctly hit a sector ahead of NTSC quite easily. Say a sector of 32.1 on NTSC was hit on PAL at 31.961 or something to that effect. (It's just an example)
And yes Sphinx, PAL runs at 50fps.
Take a 'power drop' instead though.
6 * 350 + 320 / 7 = 345.714
7 * 350 + 320 / 8 = 346.25
If accelerating, NTSC has advantage, But.... where it would make the most difference on a large spike, you would shift anyway, so PAL does not have to worry about a big advantage here from NTSC.
And also, we know when you are braking 'the auto clutch' is engaged, so PAL would have a braking advantage from this point of view.
(NTSC a slight advantage in the other formula)
Just because engine power versus engine braking - more power means less engine braking.
Generally, engine powerbands climb from lower rpms to higher ones with a drop off late. If it's a big dropoff, you would shift before redline.
In practicality and 'general powerbands' PAL has advantage.
And think about 'turbo cars' with extreme lag. NTSC suffers much here. And the cars that have 'long shifting'.
In a car where it takes 'forever' to shift, how many more 'frames' is that this NTSC car has to 'deal' with no power being delivered to the wheels?
The point is this. Yes, they will get to the same point in the same time (1.000 second) but when talking about 'averages' on the accel/decel values and steering input, they are vastly different.
In general use PAL has an advantage that is pretty big. One single thing is not that great, the difference is in all those little things added up.
The only thing that is guaranteed equal? Straightline constant speed on a straightaway. (And because of rev limiters even this is not really guaranteed.)
If you assume a constant speed of 200 mph (or the KM/H equiv) for a section of 1 mile on the track, yes, NTSC and PAL should have the same split for that section. (That is if somehow you can keep it at 200 mph exactly without bumping a limiter) If every speed was 'constant' throughout, and straightline - then they would be equal because a constant speed does not change it's 'distance' sampled in different intervals.
The difference in PAL vs. NTSC comes in the 'average' of the data I showed you above, in which PAL could distinctly hit a sector ahead of NTSC quite easily. Say a sector of 32.1 on NTSC was hit on PAL at 31.961 or something to that effect. (It's just an example)
And yes Sphinx, PAL runs at 50fps.
Pink_the_Floyd
(Banned)
- 4,041
Any good strategies on how to take the left combo corners after T1?
I go flat-out through the first left, followed by braking heavily into low 3rd but this seems not right. If I do it wrong, the understeer is too much to cope with. Any tips?
I go flat-out through the first left, followed by braking heavily into low 3rd but this seems not right. If I do it wrong, the understeer is too much to cope with. Any tips?
BTW....
Since we have no idea how to interpret 'most of the GT4 files', but someone obviously figured out the GT3 format....
*IF* someone could find out 'where the sampling data starts' in a GT3 replay file and how big each 'sample is', I could write a program to 'stretch' PAL data to 60 fps and 'shrink' NTSC data samplings down to 50fps. (It's not that hard. I've written a StretchBlt implementation for bitmap data in C++)
The algorithm for stretching is simple.
I do not need to know what 'each sample' means, just how big each one is, and how to determine how many samples there are, and where in the file it starts.
If I could do this, it would better show visually what I'm trying to say.
Yes it would play 'alot closer' to what was done on the other version, but I guarantee almost that it will not be correct.
Since we have no idea how to interpret 'most of the GT4 files', but someone obviously figured out the GT3 format....
*IF* someone could find out 'where the sampling data starts' in a GT3 replay file and how big each 'sample is', I could write a program to 'stretch' PAL data to 60 fps and 'shrink' NTSC data samplings down to 50fps. (It's not that hard. I've written a StretchBlt implementation for bitmap data in C++)
The algorithm for stretching is simple.
Code:
pseudo code
WidthRatio = destWidth / srcWidth
HeightRatio = destHeight / srcHeight
if (destHeight > srcHeight)
{
AddedLines = Floor(HeightRatio) - 1
HeightPortionRatio = DecimalPartOf(HeightRatio)
CurrentHeightPortion = 0.0000
for every scanline
{
if (destWidth > srcWidth)
{
AddedPixels = Floor(WidthRatio) - 1
PortionRatio = DecimalPartOf(WidthRatio)
CurrentPortion = 0.0000
for every pixel in line
{
Write Source Pixel To Destination
if (Added Pixels Is Not 0)
{
Write Source Pixel 'Added Pixel' times
}
Add PortionRatio to CurrentPortion
if (CurrentPortion >= 1)
{
Write Source Pixel
CurrentPortion -= 1
}
}
}
else if (destWidth < srcWidth)
{
PortionRatio = WidthRatio
CurrentPortion = 0.0000
Write Source Pixel
CurrentPortion += PortionRatio
for every pixel in line that's not the 1st
{
CurrentPortion += PortionRatio
if (CurrentPortion > 1)
{
Write Source Pixel
CurrentPortion -= 1
}
}
}
else
{
// dest width is same as src, just copy all pixels
for every pixel in line
{
Write Source Pixel
}
}
}
if (AddedLines Is Not 0)
{
// do the same for each line, similar to each pixel on each line
}
CurrentHeightPortion += HeightPortionRation
if (CurrentHeightPortion > 1=)
{
// add a line and subtract 1 from CurrentHeightPortion
}
}
else if (destHeight < srcHeight)
{
// figure out from previous code what to do
}
else
{
// dest height is same as src height, figure that out
}I do not need to know what 'each sample' means, just how big each one is, and how to determine how many samples there are, and where in the file it starts.
If I could do this, it would better show visually what I'm trying to say.
Yes it would play 'alot closer' to what was done on the other version, but I guarantee almost that it will not be correct.
- 7,719
I'm leaning towards Jerry's reason. Though I don't know WHAT makes the Oreca faster, he proved that it gets a faster speed down the main straight - which is long enough to rule out any handling-problems, since the turn before can be taken flat-out. (Sorry for double-spaces, my keyboard is kinda weird today. Old OmniKey, what should I expect?)
