GT5 Quick Tune: ***VERSION 3.1***

The only upgrade I think would be nice is a way to put in current weight. But that would really complicated as you would have to change a lot of the math already in use.
 
oopssorryy
The only upgrade I think would be nice is a way to put in current weight. But that would really complicated as you would have to change a lot of the math already in use.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not just the math, it's the lack of additional information required to convert that weight into something useful. If I had weight, weight distribution, and motion ratios for every car in the game I could put together a mathematically perfect spring rate formula in virtually no time at all. One out of three just isn't enough to go on, unfortunately. Even if you looked up weight distribution online you still wouldn't have enough info. It really sucks.

On a side note, I'm thinking of making the rear toe dependent on power-to-weight ratio instead of just horsepower. What do you guys think? Anybody have a better idea?
 
I think the default spring rates give you the weight distribution. If default front and rear springs are the same the car is 50/50 (Mazda RX-8 for example). If you plugged in a few other known examples I'm sure you could come up with an equation. The relationship might not be linear but it would be a start. From there you can use a vehicle weight input field to assign proper spring rates.

BTW, I work with Adobe Flex/AIR/Flash. I just found out they have tools for building Android and iPad/iPhone apps. Any chance we could colaborate on an app? I have some ideas bouncing around in my head but I'd need help with equations and such. Since you are offering this spreadsheet for free, the app would probably duplicate functionality as a "free app" and then We'd add things like the ability to save cars and tunings in a pay version.
 
I think chuyler1 is on the right path for the spring rates. Lets just say that after weight reduction, the weight distribution stays stock. It would then have to take the overall weight, weight distribution, and power to get the correct spring rates. Would there be a way to incorporate that into the quick tune? It could work on the difference between stock spring rates font and rear on it's stock weight.... I don't know I'm just bouncing around ideas here.
 
chuyler1
I think the default spring rates give you the weight distribution. If default front and rear springs are the same the car is 50/50 (Mazda RX-8 for example). If you plugged in a few other known examples I'm sure you could come up with an equation. The relationship might not be linear but it would be a start. From there you can use a vehicle weight input field to assign proper spring rates.
Click to expand...

Actually, I can find no direct correlation between the default springs and weight distribution. For example, the MKIV Supra is around 53/47 but the front spring rate is roughly double that of the rear. On the other hand the McLaren F1 is around 42/58 but has the same exact spring rate front and rear. That is just too large a varience to derive any sort of useful assumptions.

BTW, I work with Adobe Flex/AIR/Flash. I just found out they have tools for building Android and iPad/iPhone apps. Any chance we could colaborate on an app? I have some ideas bouncing around in my head but I'd need help with equations and such. Since you are offering this spreadsheet for free, the app would probably duplicate functionality as a "free app" and then We'd add things like the ability to save cars and tunings in a pay version.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting. I'm at work now, I'll PM you later.
 
I have done some testing with the Quick tune sheet for which i am trying to give you some feedback.

Test Protocol:
  • I have separated the suspension tune level in three categories
    1. Ride Height (-2-10)
    2. Spring Rate (0-10)
    3. Dampers Level (0-5)
  • I have used Avid Racing Garage to check how the tunes where parametrized
  • I am also on going to check this for other Garages like LDP or RKM (in progress but it takes a lot of time)

So, the main idea is to evaluate the sheet in front of Tuners results in order to analyze if some rules can be identified.
I am still missing samples to conclude but i am going to provide you some of my preliminary analysis.

Parameters:
  1. Camber
    This parameter works very well.
    The Camber level is able to retrieve the tuners setting by using values between 1,9 and 2,6.
    I have found on some tunes 1,4 or 3,2 but these are rare exceptions.
    Adjustements may be necessary to the rear (assuming Camber Level is set so as to find Front camber of the Tuner) in the magnitude of -0,2/+0,2 which is very good.

  2. Fine tune
    This parameter works also very well.
    When the initial balance is changed by the tuner, the magnitude of 0-10 is able to retrieve the tuner result in 90% of the cases.
    Parameter range like -2/+12 would have helped sometimes but that's not often.
    Final adjustement are in +0.2/-0,5 on the rear (assuming Front spring rate is identical to tuner one)
    Some cars are out of this metric like the Toyota Supra but i think that it's because Motion Ratio of the spring is different on the front as explained by budious in another thread and Motion Ratio is not part of your formula.

    Besides this, the Fine Tune has also an impact on the 'Torque Split'.
    That's where i was in trouble all the time with tuners setup.
    Finally I have removed the formula and entered tuned Torque split values by hand because it was not working like this on the different setup and Garages i have compared to.

  3. Brake Bias
    I have not compared a lot this parameter.
    My remark is that a 'Brake Strength' is missing because often you are able to retrieve the Brake Balance but you need to change the values together in order to adapt the strength.

  4. Suspension / Ride Height
    This part is very difficult to analyze at this stage.
    First of all, there are two categories of cars depending on the ride height adjustement range when installing fully customizable suspension:
    1. something like -10 / +15
    2. something like -20 / +40
    On the First category, Tuners are ending with parameters like 3-4 on ride height and 4-5 on Spring level (Mazda Furaï, Lexus IS-F).
    On the second category for Race cars the final Tuners set-up is between 6 and 8 on the Ride Height while the Springs Level is around 2-1,5 points under this value so 4 to 5,5.
    I think that 6 on Ride Height matched 4,5 on Springs for Racing Hard Tires.

    It's difficult to go further at this stage, i need more samples.
    The only thing i have really noticed is that if the ride height adjustement range is reduced, things are different.

  5. Dampers
    That's the point where i think the values are far from what tuners are doing.
    There are general rules i have identified that are broken on rare exceptions by tuners in their final result:
    1. Front/Rear difference is -1/+1 on any parameters (Ext., Comp., ARB)
    2. Dampers Ext. >= Dampers Comp.

    It seems like you used the values to balance the car depending on it's Drive Train.
    Nevertheless, based on my observations concerning initial setup and tuner final result, i am now thinking that the 'Stock' value is already balanced regardess of the car configuration (absolute values are not known).
    If you look at Land Rover Range Stormer Concept, the default values for Dampers and ARB are 6 and 4 respectively for a car of 2500 kg.
    So, my best idea is that the Dampering Level should propose only adjustements +x/-y on the 'Stock' setting

    I have summarized your absolute values in a table (hopefully no error):
    GT5QuickDampersSetting.jpg

    There is often a gap of 2 or 3 between front and rear values.
    Generally, ARB values are very low for high settings (3 or 4).
    My general rule is now to start from 'FR' setup (according to selected Damper Level for this particular car) and to adjust around this.

  6. Toe
    I have difficulties to analyze this parameter.
    • Front toe is usually negative in the magnitude of -0.15 to 0.00.
    • Rear toe is never tuned as high as it is proposed by the sheet, the magnitude is generally +0.10 to +0.35 even if negative Rear toe can be found on AWD car tunes.

That's all at this point.
I may add information concerning Ride Height/Suspension if i can find some consistent information. Anyway, the combination works well by itself.

Hoping to have helped you with this feedback.
 
Last edited:
That's excellent feedback, very helpful. When I get home from work tonight I'll try to go into more detail about why I chose certain formulas and parameters, as well as my thoughts on potential improvements.
 
Last edited:
From the original post:

"Q: I used this on X car and it was 0.287 seconds slower on the Nur. This is stupid. Your stupid and your breath stinks. I am the best tuner.

A: I'm sure you're correct on all counts."

Easily the funniest thing I've seen on GTPlanet...lol.
 
Johnnypenso
From the original post:

"Q: I used this on X car and it was 0.287 seconds slower on the Nur. This is stupid. Your stupid and your breath stinks. I am the best tuner.

A: I'm sure you're correct on all counts."

Easily the funniest thing I've seen on GTPlanet...lol.
Click to expand...

Don't be so inaccurate, it could confuse.
Here's the original post: click
There's a :rolleyes: and it's called rolleyes.
 
I've been working on my own spreadsheet calc, this thread is greatly helpful in improving what I've got and I'm working on a few ideas for formulas that may help yours, I'll Post up when I work em out.
 
I think it's a good start, with some fine tuning it would be fine. The one thing that I found odd, was it never added front toe angle. Well this is what I got with the GT5 QT Beta with the Ford GT LM Spec II Race Car. First run a 1:43.324, Second run my tune 1:41.488 ( -1.836 ). These runs were done on a self made track. I'll be more than happy to test your beta.
 
Zuel
The one thing that I found odd, was it never added front toe angle.
Click to expand...

The original version did. As I stated earlier in the thread, I did hours of testing with various front toe angles on various cars and failed to find any consistent improvement over zero toe. More often than not it just ruined the steering without reducing understeer, so I removed it until I could create I formula I felt really worked. So far I haven't found such a formula, but honestly I've haven't worked in it in over a month.

Concerning VelociRaptor's post, his main boggle seemed to revolve around my damper formulas. Now, in the absence of the type of information that a real world racer or suspension manufacturer would use to choose damper valving (or spring rates or anything else, really) I choose to use a combination of logical assumptions and visual mental exercises. Obviously these assumptions may or may not be true, I just try to think like a PD employee and use Occam's Razor to smooth over the gaps.

Logical Assumption 1: Motion ratios are modeled in GT5, which I believe is true for reasons I've listed previously. Therefore, we can never be sure of the actual wheel rates even though know the spring rates.

Logical Assumption 2: Working off of #1, the best guess we can make is that the stock wheel rates are somewhat proportional to weight distribution. Obviously this is flawed assumption, but you have to have some sort of reference point for any of this to get even close to working. By extrapolating our base spring rates from the stock rates we have the best chance of maintaining this balance.

Logical Assumption 3: Damper values are fixed. Can't prove it, just seems like the simplest explanation. However, I believe that the extension damping is much stronger than the compression damping exactly as it would be on most real adjustable shock absorbers. Therefore I don't see a need to additionally compensate for this by using more extension than compression.

Now the mental exercise part. For damper compression values, what I did is visualize a car suspended a few feet off the ground which is then dropped onto a flat surface. If #2 is correct, then there is no need for different compression values front and rear, as all springs will compress at the roughly the same rate. Easy peasy.

For the extension settings, what I visualized was a car sitting on top a trap door. Pretend the car is mounted in such a way that it doesn't fall, but that the wheels droop when the door opens. Again working off #2, the wheels on the heavier end of the car will droop fastest because should have a proportionally higher wheel rate. Time for more assumptions!

Assumed weight distributions by drivetrain:

FF: 62/38
FAWD: 56/44
FR: 50/50
MR/MAWD: 44/56
RR/RAWD: 38/62

If you look at the extension formulas you'll see these weight distribution numbers are translated directly into the formula. In order for the wheels to all drop at roughly the same speed we would want the extension strength to be proportional to the wheel rate which is hopefully proportional to the weight distribution. So that's what I've done. The whole thing is pretty abstract, which is why you probably won't find other tuners coming to the same conclusions.

Okay, that's a lot of assumptions and it probably doesn't work at all like I think, but if anybody has a system that doesn't consist of 100% trial and error I'm all ears.
 
Can you send me a copy of the first tuning unit? I'll PM my email.
 
Would it be possible to use the real weight distribution instead of the estimates? I'v found weight distribution quite easy to find for most cars.
 
I've used the spreadsheet on several of my cars and noticed a marked improvement in my lap times and overall confidence in the car. So many thanks for this.

Would you give permission for an Android app version of your spreadsheet to be made?
 
elginge
Would you give permission for an Android app version of your spreadsheet to be made?
Click to expand...

Possibly. I'm becoming less and less satisfied with it's current configuration, however. I'd say it's not quite app worthy yet, and to be honest, I've sort of stopped working on it. As soon as LA Noire drops I'll probably quit GT5 altogether.

tuga703
Would it be possible to use the real weight distribution instead of the estimates? I've found weight distribution quite easy to find for most cars.
Click to expand...

It's possible, but I'm trying to keep it as streamlined as possible and I think the benefits would be minimal. You can do it yourself with a calculator, though. For example, if you have a car that has 56/44 weight distribution and a base damper value of 7:

Front ext: 56 / 50 * 7 = 7.84 -> round to 8
Rear ext: 44 / 50 * 7 = 6.16 -> round to 6

I think in maybe 90% of cases you'll end up with the same values as with my estimates.

Zuel
I sent you a e-mail with my test results.
Click to expand...

You sure?
 
It didn't go through let me see if I saved my report and I'll post it here.
 
JTM MOTOR SPORTS
​

Here are the results of the test comparing the GT5 Quick Tune setup to mine. I conducted the test on Felix Cliff Race Way. It’s a track that I mad using the GT5 Track Builder, it one of 150 track I’ve done so far. So I really don’t know the track very well. For me it was the perfect decision to hold the test there. FCRW is 2.29 miles long, longest straight 0.60, 22 turns with variations of positive and negative camber, Elevation Change 135.2ft. I ran 5 warm up laps to get the tires warm then ran 5 hot laps to get the best times.

Test Car 1

Nissan Yellow Hat GT-R / 518hp / 1100kg / Tires Race Mediums

GT5QT Time/ 1:30.456

My Tune Time/ 1:26.131 (-4.325)

Test Car 2

Ferrari F10 / 726hp / 560kg / Tires Race Mediums

GT5QT Time / 1:10.123

My Tune Time / 1:03.756 (-6.367)

Test Car 3

Nissan Fair Lady Z (Z34) ’08 / 505hp / 1239kg / Tires Sport Mediums

GT5QT Time / 1:44.856

My Tune Time / 1:40.173 (-4.683)

GT5QT will be a strong base for tuning with added formulas, Coilovers /Damper Static Mass = weight divided by Pounds Pre Square Inch times pounds time weight. For a better shock and damper calculator and the return of the front toe formula with an added turn formula to improve straight line stability going and coming out of turn. A tire density formula will improve camber calculation. The Coilovers / Damper Static Mass formula will improve the GT5 QT Shock and Damper calculations a great deal due to the different caritas shocks and dampers have due to the weight of a car. Shock Engineers and Race Car Design Engineers will weigh or know the weight of a car to get the shocks build formula. The bases of the formula are shock body mass, valve form, valve number, oil weight, nitrogen volume and spring weight. Once they have the formula they’ll be able to build or design a reliable Coil over System to handle the behavior of the cars weight while on the track.


Turn entry and exit will improve with the return of the front toe formula with a turn formula added. With the current formula the cars became very unstable under heavy braking as well trail braking. Driving to apex the front tires would over load before hitting the apex then catch at the apex, over time the tires got over heated. With the tire density formula added to the camber calculations you’ll see a better camber set due to the tire density improving the toe formula as well. You really wouldn’t see a big improvement with sport tires of any range due to the way they grip and fall off. Though with race tires it will give a good starting point for a camber and toe set. The turn formula will help improve the toe and camber due to the turn degree. For example let take the Nurburgring it’s has 172 turn ranging from hairpin to sweeping turns, the turn could be gauged from 1 to 10 pending on the complexity. The turn calculations will give the toe and camber calculators a base number to calculate the number to set the toe and camber angles. From there the person (s) can fine tune the set pending on driving style and if they are using a wheel not. I believe that the GT5 Quick Tune 65% from being complete, with a little more work and testing it should be complete soon.
 
Last edited:
That's a very interesting write up, but most of the suggestions you're talking about are well outside the scope of the game. I mean, damper static mass and tire density? Seriously? How would you even begin to write a formula for these kinds of things? I doubt PD even incorporated this stuff into the physics engine, and even if they did it's all very well hidden. I really need suggestions that are actually implementable. If you'd be willing to supply some formulas of your own creation I'd look at testing them and integrating them into the sheet, because what you're asking for is really beyond my capability.
 
I'm really not sure how the math would be worked. Though the calculations I suggested may or may be with in the scope of the game. But as we all know when soft tires are installed and the setup changed a little greater times fall. But we wont know until we test.
 
I may have figured out a math formula for the suggestions I stated in my report. Let me do some research to make sure this will work.
 
I think it can been done. Right now we know the the tire act the same, no matter what car you driving. The heavier the car the tire warm up and ware faster viscera for lighter cars as I found on road courses and circuits in the game. Tires also wear very well and more even if you have the car balanced on self made courses. The challenging area will be the weight area. I really don't know if the coil-over act the same or differ from car to car. Only way to find out is through testing and need more test drivers with a range of driving skills to get a lot more input. I already said I would help lets see if anyone else will. it would be nice to have some real nice DS3 drivers as well.
 
Now that the Network is back up I can see how the GT5QT sets hold up to the on-line tracks. I'm still out of town testing at Summit Point in Wv, but with the weather I'm off track.
 
Hello, would it be possible to host this on google docs? In it's current form it will not open on my iPad (as mentioned above - encryption).

Or perhaps I we could make a version purely outside of excel, in PHP so anyone with a web browser can acess it.


Looking forward to giving this a shot but my ps3 and pc share a tv :(
 
Even if you put it on Google Docs you won't be able to use it. You cannot change cells with the current version of their spreadsheet app on the iPad. I've tried :(
 
It works fine, if you have "Numbers" installed :)

I find this fairly useful now that I am tinkering more with setups. I get this spreadsheet to set a start point and then with other guides and so-forth, I make alterations. But alas, what I find useful for my driving style, others may not.

Thanks for the work on it, too bad you will be leaving for LA Noire and won't keep developing it as I think it could be extremely good, and not just for GT5 but possibly future GT releases. Maybe hand it to someone else willing to continue the work on it at the time you stop so they can continue to develop it?
 
Ok. So if I take a setup from one of my favorite cars (one that I am very fast in compared to people raced against online) and reverse engineer the setup to the factory stock setup as purchased, then built formulas in a spreadsheet to take the stock setup and convert it to my fast setup, wouldn't I have accomplished what you are trying to do?

And then, would those formulas work for any car? It seems to me that you are trying to apply the same numerics to all cars. Will this really work?

Without being able to input actual performance characteristics of the stock setup (is the stock set up loose in, tight out, pushing throughout, etc), how could you possibly determine what setup would work?

Having a few more input boxes to describe the handling, then using known suspension characteristics, you could output changes to correct the deficiencies.

Even then, considering that the best tuners here in GTPlanet are only garnering 75% approval for their setups, car handling is such a personnal preference, I doubt any output would satisfy most.
 
Oppositelock has very kindly agreed to me creating an android app using the calculations from his QuickTune spreadsheet.

I've created a thread for this app as I don't want issues with this app to be cluttering the thread for the spreadsheet. You can find the thread here

All feedback (good and bad) is welcome.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

S
Suspension Tuning Woes
Replies
3
Views
2K
Scorpius90
S
andrevr
Suspension edit for the TCL BMW 2002
Replies
4
Views
802
tennisbiki
T
S
Natural frequency in 1.49
Replies
1
Views
3K
gti_sdn
gti_sdn
778racing
BMW M4 2018 gt4
Replies
0
Views
402
778racing
778racing
gti_sdn
Suspension tuning Lever ratio
2
Replies
35
Views
15K
hookedonturbo
hookedonturbo

Latest Posts

Back