* * * GT6 QUICK TUNE * * * TUNISMO APP NOW AVAILABLE FOR iOS!

[oppositelock]

That's a good question. When I get home from work tonight I'll do a breakdown on each setting, and explain why I did what I did.

 

[psball]

Great work.

Just a question...I got a driving force wheel, but not sure if it works on PS3...is there any "attachement" (lack the correct word) to make it plug on PS3? I think it only has the piece for ps1/2...not sure where it is on my garage lol

any advice is welcome

this is probably not the right forum for this question, but I'd say that it won't work on ps3 unless it's a USB connection. Unless you can convert it somehow? but once you get it to USB, it should recognize in the game, unless the model is not supported. maybe you could search some other forums on the subject of wheels?

 

[FlyinHawaiian77]

You can go into the game settings under wheels. If yours is listed then it should work. I still have my driving force pro. I know that one works with the game.

 

[oppositelock]

I think the balance setting isn't working properly. When I enter 3 for corner entry and exit balance to encourage oversteer, the quicktune instead adjusts the settings for understeer in some categories (Front ride height raised, rear ride height lowered, front toe angle reduced, rear toe angle reduced) while others are adjusted for oversteer (front springs softened, rear springs stiffened). I don't consider myself an expert on suspension tuning, but unless Polyphony's descriptions for these categories are incorrect, I don't see how the above changes to the ride height and toe angle would encourage oversteer. I've also tried inverting the roll resistance setting, but that does not seem to have any affect at all on ride height and toe angle.

Ok, let's start with ride height. I've had other people question how QT deals with it, and it does seem sort of counter-intuitive and possibly contradictory to reality. I'm one of those people who rolls their eyes when someone starts declaring everything in GT "backwards", so I was actually pretty hesitant to do it this way, but in the end I found a pretty simple test to demonstrate to myself conclusively that a nose-down attitude increases understeer and/or decreases oversteer and that a nose-up attitude reduces understeer and/or increases oversteer:

For this test, let's use an NSX Type R. I've got mine tuned to 527 PP on sport softs, with a level 3 Quick Tune and balance set at 0/0. Take it out to Deep Forest and hurl it into the first corner, taking note of the how it drives with perfectly level ride height. It should feel fairly well balanced, neutral on entry with a touch of oversteer on exit if you overcook it. Now raise the front ride height up to maximum, drop the rear to minimum and take the corner the same way you did last time. Chances are it's going to spin and put you backwards into the wall. Now lower the front to minimum, raise the rear to maximum and repeat. You should now find it damn near impossible to break the rear end loose, even if you manhandle it. The difference is pretty dramatic.

Moving on to toe. I don't feel this works contradictory to anything I've read, or to reality. Adding toe-in or decreasing toe-out on either axle enhances the stability of that end of the car makes it more reluctant to change direction. Decreasing toe-in or adding toe-out decreases stability and makes that end more eager to change direction. When you enter a positive entry value, both the front and rear tires toe outwards to promote turn-in, with the exception of the rear tires of RWD cars. The exit function works the same way, except it effects the rear tires only. It's kind of hard to detect cause-and-effect with front toe, but rear toe is very apparent, so you can test this yourself.

I hope that clarifies everything. Let me know if you have any other questions.

 

[Rhombohedron]

That clarifies the decision on ride height, but you misunderstood me on the toe angle. When I tell quicktune to induce oversteer, it gives me a negative toe angle (when it was previously positive or closer to zero), opposite to what you've stated above.

Furthermore, the test you described for ride height could have potentially been caused by the suspension bottoming out due to the severely low ride height on the affected side. This would cause the lower end to lose traction sooner than the higher end, which would be counter-intuitive to how this would normally affect the balance of the car when the suspension is not bottomed out.

 

[oppositelock]

Negative toe is toe out. Toe out = oversteer. There's no contradiction.

 

[Rhombohedron]

Negative toe is toe out. Toe out = oversteer. There's no contradiction.

Oops! Nevermind, I was just getting my positive and negative signs mixed up. Still, I think the test you described could have been affected by some other factor, with the suspension bottoming out being one possibility.

 

[oppositelock]

I'll retry the test with more height on the low end, see if anything changes.

Edit: I tried again using 100/145 and 145/100 instead of 70/145 and 145/70. The extra 30mm should eliminate any potential bottoming out in a smooth corner, and 100mm is only 25mm lower than the stock suspension. The results are essentially the same, just slightly less extreme due to less height differential.

If you have a better way to test this hypothesis, I'm all ears.

 

[Rhombohedron]

I'll retry the test with more height on the low end, see if anything changes.

Edit: I tried again using 100/145 and 145/100 instead of 70/145 and 145/70. The extra 30mm should eliminate any potential bottoming out in a smooth corner, and 100mm is only 25mm lower than the stock suspension. The results are essentially the same, just slightly less extreme due to less height differential.

If you have a better way to test this hypothesis, I'm all ears.

I don't, and now I'm curious as to why that would be the case. I typically don't use the ride height to adjust the balance of the car anyway, and the possibility of GT6's model being incorrect on this aspect makes me cautious to adjust the balance of the car in this way at all.

Edit: It would be nice if Polyphony had better telemetry. I'm concerned that instead of shifting the overall grip from one end of the car to the other, the game is merely reducing the grip of one end without affecting the other, thus negatively affecting the car's overall grip. This would be easy to test with some way to accurately measure the car's skidpad performance...

 

[oppositelock]

I agree, it's baffling. My not-so-good theory is that the physics engine interprets increased ride height the same way it interprets softer suspension, in that both effectively result in increased body roll. Ergo, having a low front ride height with a high rear has approximately the same effect as having hard front springs with soft rear springs. Who knows. I can't say that PD gives us great tools to work with.

 

[JT Fox]

Thanks for a great tool.

I'll try it out on the Honda S2000 '06 and let you know how I get on.

Cheers JTF.

 

[JT Fox]

Well, that was interesting.

Couldn't drive the car at all after inputting the numbers from QT. Figured it must be me and my driving style.

Set the car back to standard apart from the LSD which I then worked on using Motor City Hami's guide.

With the LSD now set independently I set the suspension to level 3 and entered the QT values excluding LSD.

The result now is an outstanding drive with one exception. The car didn't want to strengthen up after the corner, set the exist balance to -1, updated the car and did some more laps. Problem solved.

The QT numbers for LSD are, 13/36/17. My LSD testing produced the following, 10/8/16.

The major difference been the ACCEL number.

In summary I will be setting LSD outside of QT but using QT for the suspension, wheel alignment, brake balance and the fine tuning.

Thanks again for QT I will be using it on all my cars going forward.

Cheers JTF

 

[oppositelock]

This is great info, thanks. I'll do some experimenting with the LSD and see if I can improve it. There is an LSD strength adjustment which you can use, but it won't go lower than 30 on rear acceleration, maybe I can do something about that. Alternately, you could try substituting the front LSD setting for the rear. In this case it would be something like 6/18/8, or 5/15/7 if you drop from level 2 to 1.

 

[psball]

I wonder if something is wrong with the physics of the game? It doesn't make sense to me that such high-end cars as Nissan or Audi would handle so badly from the factory (default settings). In real life no one would pay that much money for a car that handles so badly. And secondly, I think that it's ridiculous that it requires so much tedious tuning to correct the factory default settings just to get a car around a track like High Speed Ring?

 

[Pichon617]

GREAT DAM TOOL BRO THANKS ALOT

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

 

[oppositelock]

I wonder if something is wrong with the physics of the game? It doesn't make sense to me that such high-end cars as Nissan or Audi would handle so badly from the factory (default settings). In real life no one would pay that much money for a car that handles so badly. And secondly, I think that it's ridiculous that it requires so much tedious tuning to correct the factory default settings just to get a car around a track like High Speed Ring?

GT has never been a perfect simulation, and probably never will be. It's analogous to comparing a painting to a photograph. Even if they keep improving the physics engine, I don't think PD models the cars very accurately. One only needs to look at weight distribution to see that they often pull these numbers out of a hat. Considering they can't even get factory alignment settings right, I imagine things like suspension geometry are crudely approximated or just completely ignored. And those types things are ridiculously simple to model compared to tire deformation, for example. The end result is that on some cars you get a combination of errors that results in something virtually undrivable.

In other QT news, I'll be posting up v4.1 shortly for testing. I've made some revisions to the LSD and I'd like to get some user feedback before updating the original post. I'm also going to set the default camber to 0.0, given the apparent consensus that camber doesn't work as it should. If anyone has any other suggestions and/or issues, now is a good time to bring them up.

 

[psball]

Thanks man! If it weren't for people like you, I'd probably give up playing this game! You are a god-send man! I'm really glad that you are doing what you are doing, but it's a shame that someone even has to go through all that work just to make some cars drivable! But, I'm a happy to try out v.4.1 & give any feedback that I can. Camber does seem to be different in GT6. I like how it worked in GT5. I usually set everything to level 2.0 and it worked great for me. In GT6 it's anyone's guess?

 

[oppositelock]

* * * VERSION 4.1 BETA * * *

http://www.mediafire.com/download/o3ed8t0s8t8wh1a/GT6QUICKTUNE-v4.1.xls


Due to JT Fox's suggestion, I've revised the rear LSD calculations. The lower settings are now more "open" overall, particularly acceleration sensitivity. This should help reduce the propensity for snap oversteer on corner exit with RWD cars. Also, the entry balance function now has more influence over front and rear deceleration sensitivity.

Default camber is now 0.0 degrees. The calculations are exactly the same, so if you feel camber works for you then you can still use this feature just like before.

To make the sheet easier for new people, user entry fields are now colored light blue in order to better distinguish them from protected cells.


Let me know if this works better for you guys. Thanks.


Edit: 1.04 may have fixed the camber bug.

Double Edit: Well, maybe not.

 

[Pichon617]

Thanks for the update bro

 

[oppositelock]

No problem.

 

[granthagen05]

This tool has been very helpful on tuning the cars i have been racing. The quick tune works good for rally tuning as well! Thank you for your contributions!

 

[oppositelock]

So, I've decided to jazz up the thread (and shamelessly bump myself) by occasionally posting up some of my own Quick Tunes. Nothing super fancy, just some random cars that I really enjoy driving, and I hope you will too.

Lamborghini Countach 25th Anniversary '88 - 182,000

Oil Change - 250
Tires: Sports Soft - 10,000
Height-Adjustable, Fully Customizable Suspension - 20,000
Racing Brakes - 10,000
Fully Customizable Dog-Clutch Transmission - 20,000
Twin-Plate Clutch Kit - 3,500
Fully Customizable Mechanical Limited Slip Differential - 7,500
Engine: Stage 1 - 5,000
Sports Computer - 2,000
Intake Tuning - 5,000
Semi-Racing Exhaust - 7,500
Isometric Exhaust Manifold - 3,500
Catalytic Converter: Sports - 2,000
Weight Reduction: Stage 1 - 5,000

Total Investment - 283,250


PP: 569
637 HP @ 7700 RPM
467 LB-FT @ 5700 RPM
1,355 KG
2.12 KG/HP
Weight Distribution: 43/57


Quick Tune Settings (v4.1):

Suspension Level: 3
Corner Entry Balance: 0
Corner Exit Balance: 0
Base Camber Angle: 0.0
LSD Strength: 2
Spread: 100.0%
Scale: 100.0%


Ride Height: 93 / 93
Spring Rate: 9.63 / 15.64
Dampers (Compression): 7 / 7
Dampers (Extension): 6 / 8
Anti-Roll Bars: 5 / 3
Camber Angle: 0.0 / 0.0
Toe Angle: 0.07 / 0.36
Brake Balance: 7 / 3


Transmission Instructions:

Set Final Gear to 5.500
Set Max Speed to 137 MPH (220 KPH)

1st Gear: 2.623
2nd Gear: 1.764
3rd Gear: 1.299
4th Gear: 1.000
5th Gear: 0.795
Final Gear: 3.200


Initial Torque: - / 14
Acceleration Sensitivity: - / 24
Braking Sensitivity: - / 20


ABS 1, all other aids off.


I'm posting this one first because I think it's quite possibly the best handling road car in my garage. Stop laughing, I'm totally serious. This thing reminds me of the dancing hippopotamus ballerinas from Fantasia. The trick is to drive it like you would a really good AWD car. It's got a tiny bit of push, but as long as you're careful not to overshoot your braking zone, it's basically point-and-shoot. And unless you're ham-fisted getting on the throttle, those big fat rear tires will hook up like a top fuel dragster and simply rocket you out of the corner. So easy, yet so fun.


Back on topic, how is v4.1 working for you guys? Any problems with the 1.04 patch physics?

 

[psball]

I think that's great! Thanks! I should give you a list of the cars that I'm having trouble tuning????

 

[psball]

Back on topic, how is v4.1 working for you guys? Any problems with the 1.04 patch physics?

I've only tried on a couple of tunes so far, but it doesn't seem to make a difference good or bad on some cars and on some it did make a difference. So far I like the previous version better. But, I need to experiment more and come back with some specifics.

 

[psball]

I should give you a list of the cars that I'm having trouble tuning????

Like the Lamborghini Murcielago LP 640 Chrome Line & Diablo GT '98. Also the Gran Turismo Ford GT LM II Test Car & Citroen Road Car & the Pagani Zonda Huayra (15th Anniversary Edition) '13 to name a few.

 

[oppositelock]

Of those five, I've only tuned the Diablo and Huayra. The problem with the Pagani is that it's got so much damn power it's always going to be a handful no matter what you do. Also, I don't remember the Lamborghini handling that poorly, what sort of issues are you having?

Keep experimenting with the LSD. You may need to use a higher setting than you used to with 4.0.

 

[psball]

Maybe I need to go back & try the 4.1 with the Diablo and see if it makes a difference. I haven't messed with it for a while. I just remember it being impossible to drive; all over the place; spinning out, etc.

You're right with experimentation! I did try a few higher level settings, which worked fine. I usually set LSD to level 1 with 4.0, so actually 4.1 would give me more range!

 

[RPM13]

Thanks B, very nice piece of work!

 

[psball]

It works pretty good for me too! So far for me, it's the only Lambo that is tamable to drive.

 

[oppositelock]

​

Lamborghini Diablo GT2 '98 - 300,000 (Gift Car: 0)

Oil Change - 250
Tires: Racing Hard - 17,500 (These may have come stock, I can't remember)
Height-Adjustable, Fully Customizable Suspension - 20,000
Racing Brakes - 10,000
Fully Customizable Dog-Clutch Transmission - 20,000
Fully Customizable Mechanical Limited Slip Differential - 7,500
Intake Tuning - 5,000
Isometric Exhaust Manifold - 3,500
Catalytic Converter: Sports - 2,000
Weight Reduction: Stage 1 - 5,000

Total Investment - 390,750 (Gift Car: 90,750)


PP: 595
727 HP @ 7700 RPM
523 LB-FT @ 5700 RPM
1,361 KG
1.87 KG/HP
Weight Distribution: 42/58


Quick Tune Settings (v4.1):

Suspension Level: 3
Corner Entry Balance: 0
Corner Exit Balance: -2
Base Camber Angle: 0.0
LSD Strength: 3
Spread: 100.0%
Scale: 100.0%


Ride Height: 59 / 62
Spring Rate: 19.25 / 28.32
Dampers (Compression): 7 / 7
Dampers (Extension): 6 / 8
Anti-Roll Bars: 6 / 2
Camber Angle: 0.0 / 0.0
Toe Angle: 0.09 / 0.59
Brake Balance: 7 / 3


Transmission Instructions:

Set Final Gear to 5.500
Set Max Speed to 149 MPH (240 KPH)

1st Gear: 2.593
2nd Gear: 1.749
3rd Gear: 1.294
4th Gear: 1.000
5th Gear: 0.799
Final Gear: 3.760


Initial Torque: - / 20
Acceleration Sensitivity: - / 33
Braking Sensitivity: - / 30


Downforce: 80 / 150


ABS 1, all other aids off.


I haven't driven this beast in quite a while, and it's more unruly than I remembered. I ended up making a couple adjustments to my old tune. I normally use level 4 suspensions on race cars, but I found I was losing control over bumpy sections of Bathurst and the Nordschleife, so I dropped it down to level 3. For a super smooth track like Silverstone you may want try going back up to 4. She still demands respect, but I think I managed to file down her claws a little bit. Or should that be horns? I'm terrible with metaphors.