GT5 Latest News & Discussion

[Griffith500]

I've certainly seen 60's era F1 pictures taken at the Flugplatz and Brünnchen (albeit not that many of the latter). And yet I don't recall any of them looking like this:

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn156/Trusevich/CapeRing.jpg

And that's not even the direction that causes the most "air." In fact, considering how light and powerful F1 cars were even then, I imagine they would have to have been going quite slow indeed if the Flugplatz or Brünnchen, in their prime, was laid out in a similar way topographically to Cape Ring without causing that.

It's well known and well documented that Quiddelbacher Höhe required caution and a lift of the throttle. The reason you don't see air like that is because of the damage it would have caused to the cars as much as it is because it's not as severe a change in gradient; if you know anything about Lotus cars of that time, you'd understand why. Plus, Quiddelbacher Höhe wasn't the worst - there used to be a jump right on the apex of the right-hander after Mutkurve, for instance, and another on the run up Kesselchen, and at least one on the return straight.

Again, it's not the point. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face, add realistic consequences to the game and the jump becomes authentic.

 

[avens]

I've certainly seen 60's era F1 pictures taken at the Flugplatz and Brünnchen (albeit not that many of the latter). And yet I don't recall any of them looking like this:

And that's not even the direction that causes the most "air." In fact, considering how light and powerful F1 cars were even then, I imagine they would have to have been going quite slow indeed if the Flugplatz or Brünnchen, in their prime, was laid out in a similar way topographically to Cape Ring without causing that.

I've seen this

As I said, the jump is not far off from reality. Physics are.

 

[A_Higher_Place]

I've seen this

As I said, the jump is not far off from reality. Physics are.

On another note. I miss that Viper from GT2

 

[PAPPACLART]

Only example of a car I could find at the mountain at Cadwell Park, not quite as impressive as the bikes but still cool and I think what looks like 4 wheels off. Not sure what car that is, but something with more power and speed leading up to the jump would get more air. I am sure there are more out there.

 

[RACECAR]

Exactly why is there a big deal being made over a fictional circuit with an "Unrealistic" jump? I like to drive on it because its so strange and out the ordinary, nothing like the others. Comes off more as a fun track instead of something serious. Sure there is no doubt that no Natural Terrain Road Course with sanctioned races have jumps like that, but so what? As far as I can work out, no one running a series has used the track so clearly its quite avoidable if you are looking for Circuits that could be plausible.

 

[Tornado]

The reason you don't see air like that is because of the damage it would have caused to the cars as much as it is because it's not as severe a change in gradient

Which has been my point since the start. Cape Ring is extreme to the point of ridiculousness. It's all well and good that there are examples of tracks in the past where cars come off the ground. Are there any examples as blatant as Cape Ring?

I've seen this

Don't see the relevance of the CLR flip at Le Mans in 1999 to this. Nor the one that happened at Road Atlanta to the 911 GT1 (?) the previous year.

 

[avens]

Only example of a car I could find at the mountain at Cadwell Park, not quite as impressive as the bikes but still cool and I think what looks like 4 wheels off. Not sure what car that is, but something with more power and speed leading up to the jump would get more air. I am sure there are more out there.

That happens about every 2 current f1 races.

Don't see the relevance of the CLR flip at Le Mans in 1999 to this. Nor the one that happened at Road Atlanta to the 911 GT1 the previous year.

Point is there are jumps like that in real life, and worse.

 

[Tornado]

Point is there are jumps like that in real life, and worse.

Those weren't jumps.

 

[A_Higher_Place]

Point is there are jumps like that in real life, and worse.

That car didn't flip off a jump though :s. There was no "jump" involved. Just poor downforce, high speeds, and an unexpected bump. Doesn't make a strong example in my opinion.

 

[analog]

I've certainly seen 60's era F1 pictures taken at the Flugplatz and Brünnchen (albeit not that many of the latter). And yet I don't recall any of them looking like this:that.

No, more like this but then again, they knew not too push it beyond a certain speed in real life.

The jumps some perform in rallying do look more like it though.

 

[Griffith500]

Which has been my point since the start. Cape Ring is extreme to the point of ridiculousness. It's all well and good that there are examples of tracks in the past where cars come off the ground. Are there any examples as blatant as Cape Ring?

Why is that even an issue? It's a fantasy track, no-one said it wasn't blatantly silly. That's it's charm - and challenge, were there consequences for getting it wrong. There's still Mineshaft, whilst not a closed-circuit tarmac'd course for namby-pambying around in your highly-strung priss-mobiles, it's still "realistic".

Don't see the relevance of the CLR flip at Le Mans in 1999 to this. Nor the one that happened at Road Atlanta to the 911 GT1 (?) the previous year.

The gradient change, plus gusty wind, caused the "ground effect" of the front diffusers to "fail to operate" in both cases. The same reasons that saw the Nordschleife "emasculated" (as people like to say) in the 1970s. Downforce had already stopped the cars from taking off in some places, except where that downforce failed - the same was true at Le Mans (you used to have to slow down for the right-hand kink at the end of the Hunaudières, because it was right on the crest of a hill, before they removed it - speed turns bump into jump.)

 

[avens]

was the very first example that was on google, but any major elevation change difference will do. And it is still valid, as Griffith explained.

The ring is full of them, people just don't take it full throttle. Even current tracks feature them (monaco, bathurst) and some in highways are ridiculous.
Those were a lot more common in unused tracks and in old layouts though. Google is your friend.

 

[ZohsixGT5]

After reading back 3 pages I still can't figure out why you guys are arguing over a jump at a fake track.

 

[patriotzero]

http://andriasang.com/con22g/yamauchi_china_joy/

 

[analog]

was the very first example that was on google, but any major elevation change difference will do. And it is still valid, as Griffith explained.

But that famous Le Mans Mercedes flip-incident was not caused by the track but by flawed aerodynamic/downforce issues of the car itself.

 

[Tornado]

Why is that even an issue? It's a fantasy track, no-one said it wasn't blatantly silly. That's it's charm - and challenge, were there consequences for getting it wrong. There's still Mineshaft, whilst not a closed-circuit tarmac'd course for namby-pambying around in your highly-strung priss-mobiles, it's still "realistic".

And if you don't like the charm, or don't think it actually exists, or that it detracts from the track's design? What then? Still "elitist"?

The gradient change, plus gusty wind, caused the "ground effect" of the front diffusers to "fail to operate" in both cases. The same reasons that saw the Nordschleife "immasculated" (as people like to say) in the 1970s. Downforce had already stopped the cars from taking off in some places, except where that downforce failed - the same was true at Le Mans (you used to have to slow down for the right-hand kink at the end of the Hunaudières, because it was right on the crest of a hill, before they removed it - speed turns bump into jump.)

I'm very much aware of what caused the flips. Poor aerodynamics pretty much just threw those cars straight up when air got underneath them. That doesn't make those sections at Le Mans and Road Atlanta jumps, nor does it make them comparable to the Nuburgring as it was in the 1960s, so I still don't see the relevance.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Jumps do happen even on a smaller scale track, like this :

This Ferrari "hops" over bumps

or this big air for a small car, almost like flying

 

[ZohsixGT5]

http://andriasang.com/con22g/yamauchi_china_joy/

So Kaz visits the Shanghai circuit tomorrow, interesting.

 

[PAPPACLART]

That happens about every 2 current f1 races.



Point is there are jumps like that in real life, and worse.

I do not doubt, I am not against the notion that cars get air on a regular basis

 

[Samus]

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no need for that jump to be there in Cape Ring. It's not caused by the natural landscape, it's not a natural occurrence they've accurately modelled, it's something PD adding in purposely for show and I see no positives for it in a game that is meant to take itself seriously. What's the point of advertising physics that match the real world when you have race tracks which don't conform to real world?

 

[patriotzero]

So Kaz visits the Shanghai circuit tomorrow, interesting.

You mean Shangai coming back to GT?
Wow Spec 3 update gonna be BIG.

 

[gamerdog6482]

You mean Shangai coming back to GT?
Wow Spec 3 update gonna be BIG.

It's assumptions like these that make people rant. Read the article, it has nothing to do with Shagging circuit, Spec 3.0 or even GT5 at all.

 

[Griffith500]

After reading back 3 pages I still can't figure out why you guys are arguing over a jump at a fake track.

We were trying to ascertain why Cape Ring is "awful" and, hence, a waste of PD's time in some people's eyes. The crux was that it isn't a "realistic" circuit, because of the jump.
The argument, then, is that the jump itself isn't "unrealistic", and a fantasy track shouldn't have to live up to real-world health and safety regulations. We have official F1 tracks in the game already that do that just fine.

And if you don't like the charm, or don't think it actually exists? What then? Still "elitist"?

No, but that's not how the argument was being presented. It was a matter-of-fact statement: this is not realistic, with the implication that as a result it should not be in the game. Which is false on both levels. Personal preference is fine, obviously, but it should never work one-way.

I'm very much aware of what caused the flips. Poor aerodynamics pretty much just threw those cars straight up when air got underneath them. That doesn't make those sections at Le Mans and Road Atlanta jumps, so I still don't see the relevance.

"Poor aerodynamics", though, means that any car jumps if it goes fast enough.
It was the angle of attack as the car reached the crest that caused the diffusers to flow in a different manner, stop producing downforce and then allow the free stream free access to the smooth underbelly and then threw the cars straight up - wouldn't have happened on level ground.
The section I mentioned at Le Mans was a jump, except that no-one jumped it because they'd have ended up in the trees - so they slowed down. That doesn't happen now, mostly because the hill has gone, but mild downforce allowed them to go quicker over it for a while.

The relevance is that real world circuits have always had jumps. Some of them were deliberate. Not all of them were intended to give air that could potentially damage a car, but some of them evolved to that stage. Thus, jumps are not "unrealistic" - even stupidly large ones like the Mineshaft.

EDIT: The "simple fact of the matter" is that there's no need for a game like GT5. Yet we've all played it, and some of us clearly take it far too seriously.

 

[another_jakhole]

It's assumptions like these that make people rant. Read the article, it has nothing to do with Shagging circuit, Spec 3.0 or even GT5 at all.

patriotzero's signature
''EXPECT PERFECTION''


lol smh

 

[ZohsixGT5]

It's assumptions like these that make people rant. Read the article, it has nothing to do with Shagging circuit, Spec 3.0 or even GT5 at all.

You said what I was too lazy to.

@ Shagging Circuit. I'd like to find myself at a race there.

 

[Samus]

No real world circuit track has had a jump like Cape Ring. As for your last statement you're just getting silly now. Most people play GT5 because it's a fairly realistic car racing game with realistic physics and realistic representations of real world circuits etc. It's all about realism, which is why a track like Cape Ring and the other tracks with jumps doesn't fit.

 

[Tornado]

"Poor aerodynamics", though, means that any car jumps if it goes fast enough.

No it doesn't. There were some specific flaws with the CLR's design (aerodynamics, suspension) that did not effect any of the other cars that raced there that weekend, or the year before (when the 911 GT1 raced). It didn't even happen to the other closed cockpit cars that raced there in 1999. And yet it happened to the CLR twice in that one weekend.

It simply is not an example of what avens is presenting it as. Those cars were not coming off the ground 20 feet in the air like at Cape Ring because the respective tracks were launching them any more than Anthony Davidson's crash in the TS030 this year was a result of it being launched.

 

[analog]

Shagging circuit

A Freudian slip, mother of all typos or a joke?

 

[ZohsixGT5]

My guess, autocorrect?

 

[Samus]

Exactly. There is a huge difference between a car getting airborne via aerodynamic lift and being physically launched by an inclined plane.