Is camber fixed? Discuss it here.

[OdeFinn]

@Johnnypenso, @Stotty, okey, not news.
What about topic, is camber working? Does wheel turn needed less on camber?
Our messages are now just picking side stories, not answering main question.
Difference on camber driving on 1.14 and 1.15 is almost nothing, 0-camber has bigger difference between those versions, it's slipping more realistic than it was.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Johnnypenso, @Stotty, okey, not news.
What about topic, is camber working? Does wheel turn needed less on camber?
Our messages are now just picking side stories, not answering main question.
Difference on camber driving on 1.14 and 1.15 is almost nothing, 0-camber has bigger difference between those versions, it's slipping more realistic than it was.

You can measure the effectiveness of camber any way you like, but for the purposes of this thread, I think we can only go by one measure and that's lap times. It is the only really objective measure.

 

[Highlandor]

You can measure the effectiveness of camber any way you like, but for the purposes of this thread, I think we can only go by one measure and that's lap times. It is the only really objective measure.

I don't understand the purpose of this thread when there's already a thread/test in place for camber.

If you're going to use a single aspect as data for 'evidence' i.e. lap times, you'll have the same issues of validity that's been highlighted in the other thread.

The same principles of validating the data will be in process, and the same way of recording them i.e.motec data can be utilised, not just for results but validation too, so why create something that's already elsewhere, why not contribute to what's currently in place?

 

[Vegard]

There are too many unknowns to be absolutely certain of anything when it comes to camber.

Is castor angle modeled in the physics engine?
Is geometry dynamics properly modeled in the physics engine?
Is tyre deformation a factor at all?

Going by what the community have discovered through testing, camber dynamics might be functioning.
Praianos way of looking at it as an "extra rebound setting" might just be camber counteracting the positive camber that results from decompression of the suspension.
Is this a 'one model for all suspension designs' deal or does it vary from car to car?
In my experience it's a general 'fudge factor' as the effects are pretty much consistent across the selection of cars.

Judging by the stock geometry on race cars I'd say castor is modeled, or at least they've set up the cars thinking it is.

Tyre deformation is the big 'no show' in the model.
If it was present I think we might see better lateral grip using camber. As it is now we're getting some benefits from camber (counteracting positive camber during suspension extension), but the big hole in the model, the lack of tyre deformation, is causing lateral grip to be highest with 0 degrees of camber.

 

[LeoStrop]

I don't understand the purpose of this thread when there's already a thread/test in place for camber.

If you're going to use a single aspect as data for 'evidence' i.e. lap times, you'll have the same issues of validity that's been highlighted in the other thread.

The same principles of validating the data will be in process, and the same way of recording them i.e.motec data can be utilised, not just for results but validation too, so why create something that's already elsewhere, why not contribute to what's currently in place?

👍

I agree, with the "test" thread, there is no use for this discussion that leads to nowhere, some say that camber does not work because they don't achieve the fastest times, that is not always true.

And the reason of the camber experiment thread, is not for proving that the camber is working, but to understand how it is working and its affects on the handling, therefore we can tune our car and get the most of the game. Now we have the motec i2 that can provide precise information to seal this discussion.

It's easy to say this and that, difficult is doing some true testing and contribute to the experiment.

 

[OdeFinn]

Tyre deformation is the big 'no show' in the model.
If it was present I think we might see better lateral grip using camber. As it is now we're getting some benefits from camber (counteracting positive camber during suspension extension), but the big hole in the model, the lack of tyre deformation, is causing lateral grip to be highest with 0 degrees of camber.

Running test on Motegi shows at using camber you get better lateral cornering grip.
Otherwise wheel turning amounts should go opposite way, and with 0-camber you should be able to drive thru corner with less turning steering wheel, but test shows opposite, you need to turn nearly 40% more on 0-camber, coz lack of lateral sideways grip on camberless tune.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't understand the purpose of this thread when there's already a thread/test in place for camber.

If you're going to use a single aspect as data for 'evidence' i.e. lap times, you'll have the same issues of validity that's been highlighted in the other thread.

The same principles of validating the data will be in process, and the same way of recording them i.e.motec data can be utilised, not just for results but validation too, so why create something that's already elsewhere, why not contribute to what's currently in place?

I usually do the Undocumented Changes thread and anytime someone mentions a change in physics, I usually create another thread, separate from the UC thread, to keep it from being dominated by one topic. This thread is about specific changes from one update, not whether camber is working overall in the game although obviously, there is much overlap. If the mods think this is too much of a duplicate thread I'm sure they'll lock it.

As I said before, in real life, camber is dramatically effective in terms of tire wear and lap times/lateral g's. If it was working in the game the effectiveness of it would be without question and blatantly obvious. Racecars typically run 2-4 degrees of camber, so try that out in the game, post a setup with that much camber, then someone can run it with zero camber and see what the result is. The fact that we're testing setups and measuring equal or minute differences in lap times, tells me it's not working as it should, and any differences with and without camber in terms of grip and laptimes are either placebo or just in the FFB "feel" or something similar. Maybe tire wear is affected as you suggest but if you want to prove that post up some test results. Continuously saying you know it's true so you don't have to prove anything is what most of the camber proponents have been saying for a year and it's not very effective at convincing anyone other than those that already have their minds made up, like Jack Napier et. al. Even if tire wear is affected, it's affect applies only to a select few people who run races long enough that tire wear is an issue, which isn't the vast majority of racers in GT6.

 

[Highlandor]

I usually do the Undocumented Changes thread and anytime someone mentions a change in physics, I usually create another thread, separate from the UC thread, to keep it from being dominated by one topic. This thread is about specific changes from one update, not whether camber is working overall in the game although obviously, there is much overlap. If the mods think this is too much of a duplicate thread I'm sure they'll lock it.

As I said before, in real life, camber is dramatically effective in terms of tire wear and lap times/lateral g's. If it was working in the game the effectiveness of it would be without question and blatantly obvious. Racecars typically run 2-4 degrees of camber, so try that out in the game, post a setup with that much camber, then someone can run it with zero camber and see what the result is. The fact that we're testing setups and measuring equal or minute differences in lap times, tells me it's not working as it should, and any differences with and without camber in terms of grip and laptimes are either placebo or just in the FFB "feel" or something similar. Maybe tire wear is affected as you suggest but if you want to prove that post up some test results. Continuously saying you know it's true so you don't have to prove anything is what most of the camber proponents have been saying for a year and it's not very effective at convincing anyone other than those that already have their minds made up, like Jack Napier et. al. Even if tire wear is affected, it's affect applies only to a select few people who run races long enough that tire wear is an issue, which isn't the vast majority of racers in GT6.

Kudos for the undocumented changes threads you do 👍

The camber test already in place is only at stage 2, I don't see that putting up data/results prematurely is going to help, only confuse or ignite unhelpful situations.

I think more than a 'few' people use/have tyre wear in races, maybe only a few have it on the faster/fastest settings, but most of the series I've looked at in the online racing series do have tyre wear on, admittedly though, that's probably only 15-20 threads - at a rough estimation.

How much individual aspects of a setup, or driving style affect this, I have no data, only experience of 'tyre wear' online racing for 4 years with a huge diversity of drivers, cars, and car/race specs. From that, there is no doubt that for some, tyre wear is an issue. Mainly this would be for those who are still 100% on/off throttle and brake with higher PP cars on lower grip tyres, so you are right that in this respect it is a minority, but it's still something that I feel needs to be considered it does have an impact for some.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I don't understand the purpose of this thread when there's already a thread/test in place for camber.

If you're going to use a single aspect as data for 'evidence' i.e. lap times, you'll have the same issues of validity that's been highlighted in the other thread.

The same principles of validating the data will be in process, and the same way of recording them i.e.motec data can be utilised, not just for results but validation too, so why create something that's already elsewhere, why not contribute to what's currently in place?

I agree with @Johnnypenso about having both threads. The thread that @DolHaus has openend is for HIS testing and anyone who wants to join him and help. This tread is more general, have there been changes. I am sure that he does not enjoy people coming into HIS testing thread and pushing their own theories or simply contributing by pointing out how invalid his test might be. I know that I would not enjoy that in my thread.

So this thread is for all of the egos and theories, including yours, Mr. I only tune for online, no ballast, no abs, no crazy ride heights, etc. This thread is open for everyone to demand that their theories are correct, say that they did testing, but post no actual data. This thread is far more fun.

On that note, I did some testing last night with the DS3. I chose the Corvette ZR1 (C6) '09 because it is a good FR drive car that has the typical PD programmed understeer. I tuned it in game version 1.15, then unloaded the last updates. I felt no difference in 1.13, 1.14 and 1.15 and saw no lap time difference. So I guess, so far, I am signing up for the group that @praiano63 is in. I am not sure if that is the group who believes that the world is flat or round?

I will be testing over the holiday using the G27.

 

[Highlandor]

So this thread is for all of the egos

Perfect for you then 👍



So this means you'll stop making ridiculous posts suggesting methods to invalidate test data on a thread designed to give clarity through valid data?

 

[Motor City Hami]

So this means you'll stop making ridiculous posts suggesting methods to invalidate test data on a thread designed to give clarity through valid data?

No that is the role that you chose in the other thread. Just point out all of the things that could go wrong rather than actually helping to test drive or tune or cut data into charts.

 

[Highlandor]

No that is the role that you chose in the other thread. Just point out all of the things that could go wrong rather than actually helping to test drive or tune or cut data into charts.

Er...no.. Maybe when you finally understand ethics in testing and what constitutes valid test data you'll realize it's the other way round

Probably best you stay on this thread 👍

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Wow, what a testosterone filled, epeen swinging thread. I did a good amount of testing last night but I'll keep my findings to myself rather than have my findings/opinions shot down by the over-inflated egos in this thread. You know, if some of you could get past your own egos and look at things from a subjective point of view, you might just be surprised at what you are able to learn....just saying. We all have the same common goal in this game, its a damn shame we all can't work together to achieve it without all the egos getting in the way. Happy Holidays and good luck with your quest here.

 

[Vegard]

you need to turn nearly 40% more on 0-camber, coz lack of lateral sideways grip on camberless tune.

If caster is functional that's to be expected no?
If you add camber you hit the "sweet spot" with less steering angle because of the camber by caster.

 

[LVracerGT]

Why is everyone bringing toe into a camber conversation? While they both can make the car handle better or worse, toe has a completely different effect on the car from camber. I have absolutely no idea why people are bringing caster in as well, there's not even an adjustment for it in GT6. Just curious if some people providing input to this thread even know how the different adjustments should* change the way the car handles. If you don't know how rear toe affects the car when turning in, then why are you touching it during camber testing?

BTW for those who are unaware of how camber works, negative camber is used to obtain the largest contact patch from the tire as the suspension compresses from cornering loads. This not only creates more grip, but evens tire wear as well. As stated before, there's no tire pressure or temperature data GT6 gives us to conduct proper testing. But running small amounts of camber from 0 should* provide extra grip at whatever end of the car you make the change on, in (GT6) theory.

Whatever the toe is set to, keep it the same during camber testing, otherwise you're just contaminating the results. If people do want to run some toe during testing, keep it at -.10 front and .20 rear. Those are realistic toe settings from when I worked at Skip Barber.

I'll most likely be online tonight with a friend, I'll do some testing and report back with what I came up with.

 

[Lionheart2113]

Wow, what a testosterone filled, epeen swinging thread. I did a good amount of testing last night but I'll keep my findings to myself rather than have my findings/opinions shot down by the over-inflated egos in this thread. You know, if some of you could get past your own egos and look at things from a subjective point of view, you might just be surprised at what you are able to learn....just saying. We all have the same common goal in this game, its a damn shame we all can't work together to achieve it without all the egos getting in the way. Happy Holidays and good luck with your quest here.

I'd like to hear what results you came up with. No negativity from my end!👍

 

[Stotty]

Whatever the toe is set to, keep it the same during camber testing, otherwise you're just contaminating the results. If people do want to run some toe during testing, keep it at -.10 front and .20 rear.

Good original post 👍

Just snipping the piece above...

Regarding toe... IME, 0.00 f & r works best in GT6 unless you need to fix a major handling issue.

If you use +ve rear toe toe to control entry understeer, you get the negative effect of exit understeer (just when you don't want it). Better to use a click or 2 of LSD decel to keep the rear in check on entry, and manage the exit oversteer with LSD accel.

The LSD is such a powerful tuning tool in GT6 (as it was in GT5, but the cars had much more understeer in GT5) ... if you set ride height and toe to neutral to begin with (even ride, zero toe), you can get a very good balance on the vast majority of car by just minutely adjusting LSD accel/decel

 

[Johnnypenso]

Why is everyone bringing toe into a camber conversation? While they both can make the car handle better or worse, toe has a completely different effect on the car from camber. I have absolutely no idea why people are bringing caster in as well, there's not even an adjustment for it in GT6. Just curious if some people providing input to this thread even know how the different adjustments should* change the way the car handles. If you don't know how rear toe affects the car when turning in, then why are you touching it during camber testing?

BTW for those who are unaware of how camber works, negative camber is used to obtain the largest contact patch from the tire as the suspension compresses from cornering loads. This not only creates more grip, but evens tire wear as well. As stated before, there's no tire pressure or temperature data GT6 gives us to conduct proper testing. But running small amounts of camber from 0 should* provide extra grip at whatever end of the car you make the change on, in (GT6) theory.

Whatever the toe is set to, keep it the same during camber testing, otherwise you're just contaminating the results. If people do want to run some toe during testing, keep it at -.10 front and .20 rear. Those are realistic toe settings from when I worked at Skip Barber.

I'll most likely be online tonight with a friend, I'll do some testing and report back with what I came up with.

Good original post 👍

Just snipping the piece above...

Regarding toe... IME, 0.00 f & r works best in GT6 unless you need to fix a major handling issue.

If you use +ve rear toe toe to control entry understeer, you get the negative effect of exit understeer (just when you don't want it). Better to use a click or 2 of LSD decel to keep the rear in check on entry, and manage the exit oversteer with LSD accel.

The LSD is such a powerful tuning tool in GT6 (as it was in GT5, but the cars had much more understeer in GT5) ... if you set ride height and toe to neutral to begin with (even ride, zero toe), you can get a very good balance on the vast majority of car by just minutely adjusting LSD accel/decel

It's not up to me, you can test however you want to, but my suggestion would be to follow Stotty's advice and just zero out the toe altogether. The less parameters you have affecting the test the better IMO.

 

[Fanapryde]

^^
Exactly what I have been doing the last weeks. Only zero out toe and much better laptimes than with standard toe...
Not much (or no) difference in topspeed on the Nordschleife straight though....

 

[OdeFinn]

If caster is functional that's to be expected no?
If you add camber you hit the "sweet spot" with less steering angle because of the camber by caster.

Highly unlikely suspension model is without static caster value, maybe not right or perfect value but some, guessing at it can be photographed on photo mode.
"Sweet spot", not sure what you mean with this? Stable camber during cornering with minimal changes from road bumps and weight transfer perhaps?
Tunable caster is not most important on simulation game, not saying it being worthless, if game have some static value per car it goes on "ok" for game. Caster on double A suspension arms and McPherson are working differently, this should also noted, and where is our tunable Ackerman values, by changing different length arms to steering?
Like to have information where car weight is, not just weight distribution on front and rear, we're on 3D game and like to know how low or high my mass center point is. But hey just a game, leaves something for testers/players to find.

People are comfortable to speak LSD values as a "clicks", same on ARB, camber and toe might be measured on values from outer space, probably coming on later to match real values, marks of this can be assumed how they changed default suspension settings on several cars.
Still changing these "CLICKS" on camber and toe values goes effect on hand by hand how it supposed to go on real physics model. Range where it is usable is thing to search, as noted many times there is no obsolete values for camber in game NOR in real life. Although there can be tuners who have obsession to tune car on some range, and they build whole car to be working on their desired camber range. Normally this is made for supporting drivers driving style, some drivers fly thru corner with minimal G-forces, just by hitting on prefect line always, and they don't need much support from camber to do this, then there is drivers who just aggressively push their car against tires and they need camber for doing this.
Kimi Räikkönen is good example for driver who just cruises on prefect line with minimal g-forces, saves a lot tires, but need different setup for doing this.

Maybe those alien tunes can just prove camber working on their wicked front high rear low tuning, this type setup makes more dynamic camber to front and less to rear. Way what camber tuners use to get stable rotation to car, not by swinging on high springs.

 

[Vegard]

Highly unlikely suspension model is without static caster value, maybe not right or perfect value but some, guessing at it can be photographed on photo mode.

I'm talking about caster induced camber when steering. Your observation may indicate that this is modeled.

If you take any car and steer from left to right while stationary you can see the front rise and dip.
In my opinion that too is evidence of caster being modeled.

"Sweet spot", not sure what you mean with this? Stable camber during cornering with minimal changes from road bumps and weight transfer perhaps?

Sweet spot being the optimal camber angle for maximum grip.

 

[OdeFinn]

I'm talking about caster induced camber when steering. Your observation may indicate that this is modeled.

If you take any car and steer from left to right while stationary you can see the front rise and dip.
In my opinion that too is evidence of caster being modeled.


Sweet spot being the optimal camber angle for maximum grip.

Nose dip, yes, glad at you have also noted it. Forget to mention it earlier. One small prove for caster being there.

..for maximum grip during cornering.
Yes, mainly those things what I assumed you meaning.

 

[LVracerGT]

Didn't have time to do any testing last night, anybody else? I'll be jumping on again tonight so I should be able to test tonight.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Didn't have time to do any testing last night, anybody else? I'll be jumping on again tonight so I should be able to test tonight.

This seems to be more the, "I like to talk about camber" thread, rather than the, "I can prove it works and here are my tunes that show it works" thread

 

[LVracerGT]

This seems to be more the, "I like to talk about camber" thread, rather than the, "I can prove it works and here are my tunes that show it works" thread

You know what I just realized? You're not on my PSN friends list. That shouldn't be Maybe we could test together later if you're on?

 

[Stotty]

Changing these "CLICKS" on camber and toe values goes effect on hand by hand how it supposed to go on real physics model. Range where it is usable is thing to search, as noted many times there is no obsolete values for camber in game NOR in real life.

Other settings have a range of adjustments that gives a range of outcomes. However, any value above 0 is obsolete for camber as any value above 0 reduces the absolute available grip, therefore there's no range of adjustment.

Perhaps grip would increase with camber if PD allowed a positive range adjustment (as in earlier version of the game)

Maybe those alien tunes can just prove camber working on their wicked front high rear low tuning, this type setup makes more dynamic camber to front and less to rear. Way what camber tuners use to get stable rotation to car, not by swinging on high springs.

You're grasping at straws... High front/low rear is irrelevant... camber has the same negative effect on grip whatever the ride height differential.

Assuming GT6 suspension works like real suspension is madness - how do you possibly think elements like static and dynamic camber, or caster are modeled correctly when something as basic as ride height works incorrectly?

 

[Highlandor]

Assuming GT6 suspension works like real suspension is madness.....

So is thinking that what works for the fastest guys in the game is best for everyone, including those who use 'X' and [] with 100% throttle & brake, with all cars, especially high PP and low(er) grip tyres

 

[Stotty]

So is thinking that what works for the fastest guys in the game is best for everyone, including those who use 'X' and [] with 100% throttle & brake, with all cars, especially high PP and low(er) grip tyres

How exactly does reducing grip help people using 'X' & '[]'?

 

[Highlandor]

How exactly does reducing grip help people using 'X' & '[]'?

OH MY GOD - have you really just asked that!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?




Try googling something called "traction", you obviously not heard of it!!!!!

To even ask that question is ludicrous..

You talk so much about making a car more 'loose', those who use 100% throttle and brake will struggle with
grip/traction, especially with high(er) PP cars and low(er) grip tyres. Making a car more 'loose' will always only
compound their problems.

So the last thing you want to do is to REDUCE the grip even more, you will always have to do the opposite..

 

[OdeFinn]

Other settings have a range of adjustments that gives a range of outcomes. However, any value above 0 is obsolete for camber as any value above 0 reduces the absolute available grip, therefore there's no range of adjustment.

And so does it on real life too.

You're grasping at straws... High front/low rear is irrelevant... camber has the same negative effect on grip whatever the ride height differential.

Assuming GT6 suspension works like real suspension is madness - how do you possibly think elements like static and dynamic camber, or caster are modeled correctly when something as basic as ride height works incorrectly?

This part of your post seems pretty empty, game keeps static camber stable on all heights, and from higher height there is more dynamic camber on cornering.
In real life rising car height or lowering you have to make changes to your suspension to keep your camber values, but we are on game where these adjustments come automatically when you alter car height.
When you get this you understand why high front low rear works on those tunes.