GT5Calc 2.3b

[CyKosis1973]

Grabbed this today, I'll give it a try on some new cars I'm looking at, and some I've already had a crack at.

Before testing the figures, I'd suggest moving the Exit button, somewhere there aren't any other buttons. During my first 10 mins of looking at this, I've accidentally hit Exit twice because it's next to the Stiffness option and crucially the Calculate button.

I'll report back once I've been able to apply it properly...

{Cy}

 

[N99GT]

oooo this looks rather good! think i might fire up my lapplop and give it a ago, let see if it can find a good tunr for my SV and my RS6!
:fingerscrossed:!

 

[Xr3CaRstI]

It would be cool for this stuff to be programed into an IPhone app.

 

[Schadenfreude13]

Finally tried this out on the Gallardo LP 560-4.

At original weight, I'd have to the say the settings were damn near perfect. The car still had the overall feel of the stock version (fairly neutral with a bit of understeer tendency), but with added stiffness which gave it the additional stability and traction I was looking for, especially after increasing horsepower. I used the following values:

Weight: 1410kg
Wheelbase: 2560mm (From Lambo website)
Speed: 75mph
Front Weight %: 43 (From Lambo website)
Front DF: 0
Rear DF: 15
Stiffness: 23

I then did a weight reduction I, window weight reduction, and carbon fiber hood.
New Weight: 1282kg

I left the other values the same. I applied the new values to the suspension, and it felt quite close to the way it did at the heavier weight, but I noticed the car now seemed a bit light in the front, and seemed to have a more drastic front-to-back weight transfer. After playing with the weight distribution value, and just plain experimenting with the front spring rate/dampers, I took off the FC suspension, and realised the 'off' feel was still there, so I chalked it up to weight reduction. It actually makes me wonder if there's some sort of glitch in weight reduction, or if PD just has some goofy models...

Anyhow, I tested extensively at Grand Valley. Initial lap times with the stock suspension were in the 2:00.xxx range, after using your calculator (at 1410kg) they were in the 1:59.xxx range, and post weight reduction, 1:58.xxx's.

Good stuff. Thanks for coming up with a great tool!

 

[Litzner]

Finally tried this out on the Gallardo LP 560-4.

At original weight, I'd have to the say the settings were damn near perfect. The car still had the overall feel of the stock version (fairly neutral with a bit of understeer tendency), but with added stiffness which gave it the additional stability and traction I was looking for, especially after increasing horsepower. I used the following values:

Weight: 1410kg
Wheelbase: 2560mm (From Lambo website)
Speed: 75mph
Front Weight %: 43 (From Lambo website)
Front DF: 0
Rear DF: 15
Stiffness: 23

I then did a weight reduction I, window weight reduction, and carbon fiber hood.
New Weight: 1282kg

I left the other values the same. I applied the new values to the suspension, and it felt quite close to the way it did at the heavier weight, but I noticed the car now seemed a bit light in the front, and seemed to have a more drastic front-to-back weight transfer. After playing with the weight distribution value, and just plain experimenting with the front spring rate/dampers, I took off the FC suspension, and realised the 'off' feel was still there, so I chalked it up to weight reduction. It actually makes me wonder if there's some sort of glitch in weight reduction, or if PD just has some goofy models...

Anyhow, I tested extensively at Grand Valley. Initial lap times with the stock suspension were in the 2:00.xxx range, after using your calculator (at 1410kg) they were in the 1:59.xxx range, and post weight reduction, 1:58.xxx's.

Good stuff. Thanks for coming up with a great tool!

Yes, I have found some cars become WAY off from the original weight distribution when weight reductions are done. Some so much that the car becomes almost un-tunable. The Shelby GT350 was one of those cars to me, I have to adjust the weight distribution to 75% front in the calc to get a setup that had a chance of keeping the rear end under it after all the weight reductions I did.

 

[VINCE__]

Dumb question. After extraction to desktop what program is needed to run the .exe file? I am at work right now and it might be work filters stopping me. I assumed MS Office would pick it up.

 

[budious]

Dumb question. After extraction to desktop what program is needed to run the .exe file? I am at work right now and it might be work filters stopping me. I assumed MS Office would pick it up.

Your work is smart then as they probably don't want users installing random executables from around the Internet and loading the computers up with viruses... it probably requires Administrator privileges to be installed unless it can be run without installation, I haven't tested it myself.

 

[Litzner]

Dumb question. After extraction to desktop what program is needed to run the .exe file? I am at work right now and it might be work filters stopping me. I assumed MS Office would pick it up.

The program does not require installation, but it does require .Net Framework 4 be installed. .Net 4

 

[VINCE__]

The program does not require installation, but it does require .Net Framework 4 be installed. .Net 4

Thanks Litzner, I figured it was the .net issue and I doubt my employer has that version. But I do at home!! Come on 7 am.

 

[pixel_geist]

great program, I'm using it to tune my Zondas.

but there is no front distribution! (is that for weight distribution? if so what do you recommend? 50%?)

here's what I get. any ideas?

there's NO front spring, and the rear is WAY out of range.

edit, NVM, guess i gotta wiki every car I want to tune to get the weight distributions.

 

[Litzner]

great program, I'm using it to tune my Zondas.

but there is no front distribution! (is that for weight distribution? if so what do you recommend? 50%?)

here's what I get. any ideas?

there's NO front spring, and the rear is WAY out of range.

edit, NVM, guess i gotta wiki every car I want to tune to get the weight distributions.

Yeah, with 0 front distribution that would be the results. Zonda's are MR cars, so I would try 47 for front weight distribution if you cannot find it online.

Also, do not forget to plug in Aero numbers of the car has any.

 

[pixel_geist]

Yeah, with 0 front distribution that would be the results. Zonda's are MR cars, so I would try 47 for front weight distribution if you cannot find it online.

Also, do not forget to plug in Aero numbers of the car has any.

yup, I forgot about the aero.

the zonda website says that most if not all the zondas are 45/55 or near 50/50 on the weight.

Any best guess for a random stock aero number, because I can't fit spoilers on this zonda.

I'm guessing 30 front 70 rear?! does that sound right?

 

[No_OBsT33R]

I think the layout is great, it looks awesome. They are very generic settings that come out based on only wheelbase, weight, & weight distribution (and Top Speed?). I think it's great for beginners to get a starting point. More importantly I think it can be much better if it takes a few more variables of the cars into the calculation (wheel rate, rolling radius, amount of weight transfer and lateral weight transfer, etc) great start to a possible Newb quick fix.

 

[Litzner]

yup, I forgot about the aero.

the zonda website says that most if not all the zondas are 45/55 or near 50/50 on the weight.

Any best guess for a random stock aero number, because I can't fit spoilers on this zonda.

I'm guessing 30 front 70 rear?! does that sound right?

If the settings are not adjustable, it is probably not very high at all, maybe 15F 20R max from my experience. Most cars without the ability to adjust are actually 0 0, even if you think they would have at least a little.

 

[Litzner]

I think the layout is great, it looks awesome. They are very generic settings that come out based on only wheelbase, weight, & weight distribution (and Top Speed?). I think it's great for beginners to get a starting point. More importantly I think it can be much better if it takes a few more variables of the cars into the calculation (wheel rate, rolling radius, amount of weight transfer and lateral weight transfer, etc) great start to a possible Newb quick fix.

Not top speed, but the speed you will be negotiating most of your corners at. For road courses, I find 60-80 to be the most common setting I use, maybe 100 if it is a race car. Ovals are easy, the speed you go through the corner at.

 

[No_OBsT33R]

Not top speed, but the speed you will be negotiating most of your corners at. For road courses, I find 60-80 to be the most common setting I use, maybe 100 if it is a race car. Ovals are easy, the speed you go through the corner at.

Ahh, I C.

So your using the speed to calculate G's? I find the speed adjuster to be the primary flaw, it softens the spring rate as speed increases, why is that?

Yaw, wheel track + wheel rates will greatly improve the ARB function. Vehicle height & amount of drop will improve The spring rate/dampeners. Engine position should be accounted for with the weight distribution/drive wheels no need for its own input.

Those are just some quick stuff to help make it better. I really like the look and feel of the app, great job. We just need more inputs for the calculations to make them more refined.

 

[Litzner]

Ahh, I C.

So your using the speed to calculate G's? I find the speed adjuster to be the primary flaw, it softens the spring rate as speed increases, why is that?

Yaw, wheel track + wheel rates will greatly improve the ARB function. Vehicle height & amount of drop will improve The spring rate/dampeners. Engine position should be accounted for with the weight distribution/drive wheels no need for its own input.

Those are just some quick stuff to help make it better. I really like the look and feel of the app, great job. We just need more inputs for the calculations to make them more refined.

Speed effects how much aero down force is applied to the car, and how quickly the rear wheel's oscillation finishes, not the over all stiffness of the car. The faster you go, the slower you will need the rear suspension oscillation to finish in order to keep it finishing at roughly the same time as the front.

 

[No_OBsT33R]

Speed effects how much aero down force is applied to the car, and how quickly the rear wheel's oscillation finishes, not the over all stiffness of the car. The faster you go, the slower you will need the rear suspension oscillation to finish in order to keep it finishing at roughly the same time as the front.

Your calcs through speed are wrong in that case. Faster speed generating DF does not require one to soften the spring rate. It would seem you forget DF is only generated at speed. Softening the springs will increase the oscillation and work against containing or reducing it.

If you want to control wheel oscillation, You need consider the wheel rate (way more important), stiffening the spring rate will slow the oscillation more Than downforce (DF only increases with speed but is reduced as you slow down). Using DF to control wheel oscillation while softening the the spring rate will have the exact opposite of your intended effect.

By softening the springs you only increase the oscillation rate... DF will only begin to address the oscillation (that your making worse with a softer spring rate, effectively canceling out any benefits of DF in containing wheel oscillation) at speed, but the softer you make the spring rate the more DF you will need.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, but with the limited inputs for it's calculations, it's overly generic and attempts to do to much with too little. I could match or surpass the effectiveness of the results just winging it looking at the specs for the car.

It can be quite a bit more accurate , & less generic.

This is where we can work at making it better.

 

[Litzner]

Your calcs through speed are wrong in that case. Faster speed generating DF does not require one to soften the spring rate. It would seem you forget DF is only generated at speed. Softening the springs will increase the oscillation and work against containing or reducing it.

If you want to control wheel oscillation, You need consider the wheel rate (way more important), stiffening the spring rate will slow the oscillation more Than downforce (DF only increases with speed but is reduced as you slow down). Using DF to control wheel oscillation while softening the the spring rate will have the exact opposite of your intended effect.

By softening the springs you only increase the oscillation rate... DF will only begin to address the oscillation (that your making worse with a softer spring rate, effectively canceling out any benefits of DF in containing wheel oscillation) at speed, but the softer you make the spring rate the more DF you will need.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, but with the limited inputs for it's calculations, it's overly generic and attempts to do to much with too little. I could match or surpass the effectiveness of the results just winging it looking at the specs for the car.

It can be quite a bit more accurate , & less generic.

This is where we can work at making it better.

I know, but you are not understanding what it is doing, and yes speed will increase the spring rates if you have any aero down-force assigned to the car. It is working correctly.

 

[No_OBsT33R]

I know, but you are not understanding what it is doing, and yes speed will increase the spring rates if you have any aero down-force assigned to the car. It is working correctly.

Ohh I understand

You need to see its working but only at speed though, you're basically using DF as a fix for spring oscillation but by decreasing the spring rate at the same time, you're increasing the need for DF where you don't get it as much (the corners). I suspect the rate of the impact of you're DF calculation is higher then the rate of your spring rate reduction calculation so your seeing it working, however the negative impact from lower rate of spring rate reduction is being overshadowed by the higher rate of increased DF.

So basically the benefits of increasing DF are hiding the negative impact from softening the springs at the same time.

This is as far as cornering goes, the calculations are great if the track was a long straight with no corners.

With your calculations your hurting cornering performance in favor of straight line stability. This is fine as tuning is about balance, it's just with your calculations you hurting cornering performance more then you have to.

As your average track speed increases, the impact from the DF will naturally be higher, it's more important for us to tune for cornering ability then anything else as the benefits of high speed performance in most cases are negligible to benefits of increased cornering performance, unless the come at too high a cost of straight line performance.

It's give and take, but we always try to take the least amount possible from one side to benefit the other, that's where the calculation (IMHO) falls short. I feel it's impacting cornering performance negatively when it doesn't have to. It's as simple as this, you're calculations are only as good as the information going into them, how many variables they account for, and how many assumptions are made. While the info going in is accurate, there is far too little info used and way too many assumptions are used.

 

[Litzner]

GT5Calc 2.2b has be uploaded for people to check out.

- Added the ability to save your calculated setups to a text file
This should make it very easy for people to post this settings online
- Fixed a couple tab index errors, I think I almost have them all worked out now

The saving of text files couple probably use some testing, let me know if you run into any serious issues.

I am hoping to be able to also load the saved results from the text files back into the program to edit later. I will be working on getting this done correctly.

 

[Litzner]

So basically the benefits of increasing DF are hiding the negative impact from softening the springs at the same time.

The slight softening of the rear spring with increased speed is not a negative, like I said before it is meant equalize the oscillation of front and rear suspension at stated speed.

 

[No_OBsT33R]

The slight softening of the rear spring with increased speed is not a negative, like I said before it is meant equalize the oscillation of front and rear suspension at stated speed.

It's actually increasing weight transfer in the corners, hurting cornering ability for negligible benefits while going straight at speed.

 

[Litzner]

It's actually increasing weight transfer in the corners, hurting cornering ability for negligible benefits while going straight at speed.

The benefits are for cornering... not for going straight.

 

[Litzner]

Apparently a error has crept up with the saving process....

A updated version will be ready soon.
---------------------------------------------------

Update is posted, the new version is uploaded. Sorry for the mix up, I somehow screwed it up right before I built it for release.

 

[No_OBsT33R]

The benefits are for cornering... not for going straight.

What your calculations and explanations of why say otherwise.

Higher DF with softer springs = higher straight-line speed stability. This combo reduces cornering ability by increasing weight transfer in the corner & increasing outside tire load.

How do you justify so many calculation factors biased on so few variables? You can touch on some of the ways to improve the app (that has the potential to be one of the best tuning tools for GT) working with the community, or defend an obviously flawed generic settings generator.

 

[Litzner]

What your calculations and explanations of why say otherwise.

Higher DF with softer springs = higher straight-line speed stability. This combo reduces cornering ability by increasing weight transfer in the corner & increasing outside tire load.

How do you justify so many calculation factors biased on so few variables? You can touch on some of the ways to improve the app (that has the potential to be one of the best tuning tools for GT) working with the community, or defend an obviously flawed generic settings generator.

Never mind, I am done explaining it too you, and if you do not care for it, feel free not to use it.

 

[No_OBsT33R]

Never mind, I am done explaining it too you, and if you do not care for it, feel free not to use it.

?? I like the idea of the app, but there is no explaining away calculations biased on generalized assumptions. I've been trying to help. If you think it's acting differently then I see it working then I question your app altogether, it's nothing more then a few simple calculations off weight distribution, wheelbase and motion ratios. Not enough variables that are specific to the car for it to be anything more then generic.

I'm done explaining how you can make it better, I'll simply surpass it with a simple excel spreadsheet.

 

[Litzner]

I was wondering if there is enough interest in GT5Calc to warrant me porting it to Android. I just ordered a Asus EEE Pad Transformer, and it should be here early next week, so now that I have a platform to test it on I am seriously considering porting it if enough people would want it.

 

[Basilea]

Not everyone has Android Most people, that are interested have the possibility to look it up on a computer, don't you think so?

Just tested with some cars again and compared to tunes here on GTP it gives opposite settings... so it's probably better to drive a car with stock settings...