- 3,264
- Salt Lake City,
So not too far off. 1400hp is a bit less, but the unrealistic thing is the acceleration imo.
GT6 Screenshots / Videos
- Thread starter BkS
- 10,029 comments
- 1,393,627 views
- 4,605
- United States
- carracerptp
- 249
- USA
- mcalva98
- 111
Haha sorry, I know! But I'm taught to always prove my claims (and certainly with stuff that is possible to calculate), so it's there in case anyone wants to re-calculate/validate it. But yeah, it's possible to read the bold parts and skip the rest, I guess.
(by the way, it's 3.36 am here now, the forum has kept me up all night for the last few days now with all the leaked info 
)Huh? Lol
GTP_Ingram
Premium
- 1,916
- London
- GTP_Ingram
- NowtDaft
- 1,535
- Tarragona,Spain
- FOXIOL
Check this whole video, close to the end shows the standard sound from inside and outside as well as with a modified exhaust.
Of course is to show how far PD is from the real thing...sadly.
- 4,741
- Bogota,Colombia
- GTP_ARP93
So delightfully nerdy <3
As I see it, the sense of speed has improved but the sound is absurdly offensive. I cannot believe how someone at PD thinks that sounds even remotely close to the real thing.
I do hope the media gives as much flak as possible to PD for the sounds again. This is just plain laziness 👎.
- 40,816
And those cars like the Viper wouldn't necessarily gain another 60 mph in speed just because they were given more room. If you put 500 horsepower into a Caterham 7, it would reach its top speed probably within half a mile, but it still wouldn't be awful much faster flat out than one with 250 horsepower no matter how much straight road you had.
Plugging in the Viper's cd (but leaving the frontal area alone) actually raises the required horsepower up to nearly 1800 using that formula. The car used there has a considerably slipperier shape than the 2013 Viper.
- 111
It is actually also possible to calculate how much road length is needed, but I won't bother with that.
With twice the power in the same car, the top speed is 1.26 as high ( = (2)^(1/3)).
It's actually even more at 1994 hp or so. I'm using the same formula, but with numbers from the actual road car (read the italic part of this post to see why it's more accurate than the calculation from that website, as indeed the car from that example is much slippier than the 2013 Viper).
So 1994 hp for 300 mph and 2215 hp for 310 mph -> 200 hp for only 10 mph of extra top speed, This is actually pretty logical, as driving at that speed is like driving through a super dense, high-viscosity substance.
Last edited:
- 166
- Buffalo, New York
- joenick2379
Nine Inch Nails in the replay!
- 98
- Rio de Janeiro
- KamatsuKyoto
- KamatsuKyoto
- 826
- O. Lawdy
TheeFrogmanlego
(Banned)
- 1,546
- Downey
- frogmanlego
Yes but that formula falls under empirical rule. The z score is pretty huge. Google it.
Plus your calculating theoretical top speed with wind drag added in. GT6 may simulate wind drag accurately but it may not simulate Drag limited speed * in a game this would be a simple threshold that would varie from car to car. Meaning that no matter how much HP the car would have the wind resistance would be to strong for it to go any faster.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Best driver I've seen in a GT6 video yet!! He was so smooth I thought it was you at first @carracerptp
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
One point on the Viper video:
With a 8+liter max tuned engine going 250+MPH, shouldn't you be able to actually see the needle on the gas gauge sweep across the face?
Having ridden in a similar idea car, that is one thing I remember, that you could sit and watch the gas gauge move at full acceleration...
With a 8+liter max tuned engine going 250+MPH, shouldn't you be able to actually see the needle on the gas gauge sweep across the face?
Having ridden in a similar idea car, that is one thing I remember, that you could sit and watch the gas gauge move at full acceleration...
- 40,816
And here I just took you (in a discussion about the top speed of a Viper) repeatedly saying that it isn't unreasonable for a Viper to 300 mph with 1400 horsepower if given the room provided by the Route X track to mean that you were saying that given enough room a Viper could go 300 mph with 1400 horsepower. Silly me and my assumptions.
- 531
- United States
This time just before it's even released.
- 3,264
- Salt Lake City,
Didn't read my following posts I see. Just selectively read and replied to one comment. They dont teach aerodynamics in school btw but I guess youre the expert on it?
You must have misunderstood. Its quite easy to do that when you do nothing but try to find fault in others. According to you and your internet logic, it would take over 2000hp to hit that speed. Too bad gt doesn't follow that logic. But looking at real world examples, 1400hp Vipers are doing around 250mph in a standing mile. Knowing GT is a little exaggerated its not unreasonable. Obviously factors like drag aren't exact, but then again nothing in GT is. Point is real life is close to GT, not exact but the theoritcal what if isn't totally fictional.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
The game doesn't take in to consideration the high air friction that occurs, how tires are affected by such high speeds and the wear rate and heat that is created from running at such velocities.
I'm an aero student so it's my priority to know about Aero or I don't find work so I'd say these two have reason to take issue with what you've said.
- 111
Huh? The 'drag limited speed' you're talking about is exactly what I'm calculating. In practice, there are only two factors that limit the top speed: rolling resistance and aerodynamic/wind resistance. Rolling resistance is very negligible compared to the latter, so I've let that out of the equation. That leaves the wind resistance.
As a car moves faster, the air molecules will hit the front of the car harder, resisting it to go faster. In the meanwhile, because the car moves at a higher speed, it has covered more distance, meaning it has occured more air molecules as well. That's why the aerodynamic drag is dependent on the vehicle speed to the second power, because of the double 'resisting' effect. But that's forces exclusively. We're talking about power here, which is force times speed and therefore the needed power will be dependent on the speed to the third power. 'The simple threshold that varies from car to car' that you mention would be discribed with this formula.
As for the equation being empirical and therefore imprecise, I have to disagree with you because of two reasons.
Firstly, it is widely taught in engineering schools, so it must not be totally inaccurate. But the main reason is that the C_d coefficient is a dimensionless coefficient. The sole purpose of this type of parameter is to be able to scale the outcome when all other parameters are the same, save for one. The one parameter that's changed is of course the power to calculate a new top speed.
In this case, the car shape and surrounding is exactly the same (of course). That's the thing, the C_d value is a scaling factor, measured and explicitely tailored to this drag formula and therefore the formula is by definition exact (there is no standard deviation). The fact that it is measured (and not composed from theory) is that it is taking everything from real life into account and therefore is perfectly representative of the real world. Of course, this particular C_d value therefore only fits the exact car (2013 Viper) under the exact same real-life conditions (air density). And because it's the same car, the C_d value can be reverse-engineered from the real-world figures whilst at the same time knowing that it's true because those real-world power and top speed figures are true (well, unless Dodge/SRT is lying to us
).Of course, the conditions are not always exact due to changing airflow due to random wind gusts, but the formula is a very usable one, as GT6 presumably doesn't simulate random wind.
Last edited:
- 40,816
Well, seth, I'm sure then that you'll have no trouble at all explaining the "true" meaning behind these statements that you made:
Because by all rights they don't mean anything BUT the exact opposite of what you're now saying they meant.
I love it. You once again got over your head talking about a topic you know next to nothing about, but the detailed rebuttals to your statements using known mathematical formulas (including one you agreed with when it was used wrong, because then it suited you) are dismissed as "you and your internet logic".
Similar threads
