Is camber fixed? Discuss it here.

[Imari]

Not upset that you are disagreeing with me, but more pissed at the fact that I took the time yesterday to do this as a contribution only to have you say it means nothing.

The point of testing is not to confirm what you already know. The point of testing is to see what happens. Sometimes nothing happens, or your data is inconclusive, or it simply raises more questions.

This doesn't mean it was a waste of time. But it does sometimes mean that you can't jump to conclusions straight away.

Personally, your numbers don't say to me that camber works in the way that one would expect in real life. They do say that it does something, and that there are potentially weird interactions going on between the front and rear camber.

==========

While we're talking about lap testing, how large of an effect do people find tyre heat to have on lap times? Testing at Motegi oval the other night I found that my fastest laps were always lap 2 or 3. Lap 1 was presumably too cold, and after lap 3 the outside front would start glowing through the turns. I ended up having to do a bunch of short runs instead of a few long ones.

This seems relevant as long, hard corners are the ones where camber should be most effective, and if that effect is swamped by whatever the tyre heat is at that particular point then you'd never see it.

 

[photonrider]

So, in other words, I just wasted my time.

No. To be specific - you did not.
Mitch - sometimes when we're after the truth we also need to disprove stuff as well as prove it. The info you provided is much grist for the mill - JP honing in on the anomalies and patterns we're looking for in trying to pin down the effects of camber is a result of that.
Is camber cosmetic? Not merely visual, (or even aural - track-aligned tires should sound different, and the FFB from whatever rig is also 'sensually' cosmetic) but cold hard figures that prove camber affects the lap-time data output of the vehicle itself.
Basically - can camber make us go faster?

We know ASM does, right?

Like Kieth said - when you share your information prepare to have it examined, dissected, questioned and maybe even approved.

Your enthusiasm is contagious - but lighten up and let's approach this the way the game should be played - to be enjoyed first.

So - thanks for all the input! It is welcome.

Hope you recover full strength soon! And a Merry Christmas to you.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Ok, for those that did not seem to read my entire original post:

"First, let me say that when PD announced some updates ago that they fixed the camber issue, I was one of the few people who believed that it was indeed fixed...to an extent. I still believe that. I did loads of testing back then to come to my conclusion, I did not just take PD's word that it was fixed. With this most recent update in regards to camber further being tweaked, I have not felt any difference compared to the update where they fixed it, everything feels and works the same as it did after that update, in my opinion."

"After the "camber" update, if you will, I tested 3 cars of each drivetrain of various power levels. I cannot begin to tell you how thorough I was in my testing after that update. I feel that I left no stone unturned in coming to my conclusion."


My test here was not so much for this recent update as it was more to bring some numbers to the table as it relates to camber as a whole. I did not have to go through all this to prove anything to myself as I already believed camber was fixed in that update a while ago. In regards to this last update and claims that camber was further tweaked, I don't believe that to be the case. Every car I drove since this last update showed no signs of any changes. So again, my original post had more to do with the original camber update, which again, I tested thoroughly to come to my conclusion. Seems some people only glaze over what I write and only pick out what they want in order to tell me I'm wrong.

Again, I don't have an issue with people disagreeing with me, but please read thoroughly what I post before jumping on me.

One more thing. I could give a rats ass about real life. That's not what I'm trying to convey here. I am only stating about what works in the game, regardless of how its supposed to work in the real world. I never brought real world tuning into this discussion, so I'm not sure why some of you guys did. So yea, now that you guys have made me feel like a dumbass and completely irrelevant, I'll be on my way now.

 

[Rotorist]

I did see your lap times. If you throw out the 3.0 and 4.0 camber results you get this:

• 0.0/0.0 1'24.435 BASE TIME
• 2.0/0.0 1'24.415
• 0.0/2.0 1'24.132 Fastest time with rear camber
• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229
• 1.0/1.0 1'24.313
• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214 Fastest time with front camber
• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233

IMO these lap times are so close together as to be almost identical but....

Your two fastest times have 0.0 camber on one end.
You gain 2/10ths by adding 1.0 to the front only. You gain 2/10ths by adding 1.0 to the rear only. So logically if you add it to both ends you should see at least the same 2/10ths gain, if not more. Instead, you are 1/10th slower. In effect, adding 1.0 camber to either end, when the other end already has 1.0 made you slower.
I'm not an automotive engineer, but if camber is working as it should, I don't see how this can be the case. IMO these results are inconclusive.

He also wrote that after tuning and testing more, his final best time was having camber 0.6/2.2, so read again.

 

[Imari]

He also wrote that after tuning and testing more, his final best time was having camber 0.6/2.2, so read again.

Which was realistically no different to his time for 0.0/2.0, and probably experimentally indistinguishable from 1.0/0.0, 0.0/1.0, and 2.0/2.0 as well. That was why I asked the question about how consistent his results are.

Interestingly, if you plot the results in three dimensions and throw away the 3.0 and 4.0 results, there's more or less a flat surface if you ignore the 1.0/0.0 point.

If you plot everything, there *could* be a viable surface out of it, but there's really not enough data to be sure. There's a few points that if you jiggle them one way the whole lot could fall together quite nicely, and jiggle them the other way and the whole thing turns into random noise. And a few points that, if ignored, change the shape of the whole thing significantly.

Grab a random online 3d plotter and try it for yourself if you like. Front and rear camber on the x and y, time on z. You can see that there's possibly something there, but there's just not enough points in critical places to be sure.

CargoRatt has done good work. But he's done it (by his own admission) knowing what the answer was already. Other people looking at it without his perspective are possibly going to see different things, and that's good. More work is going to need to be done either way, and the more ideas that people can have at this point the better.

The worst thing to do is to become fixated on an idea and work on "proving" that idea, instead of simply testing and letting the data take you where it will.

 

[Tornado]

I never brought real world tuning into this discussion, so I'm not sure why some of you guys did.

Because the language you've repeatedly used until your ultimate clarification otherwise in this post ("fixed", "working") directly implies it without further explanation. Fixed and working compared to what standard? What other standard should we even be using? That camber now does *something* instead of just slow the car down like it always used to in GT6?



Similarly:

So yea, now that you guys have made me feel like a dumbass and completely irrelevant, I'll be on my way now.

So, in other words, I just wasted my time. Next time I'll just leave it up to you and the rest of the elite people around here to contribute their findings since mine don't mean anything

What's the deal with the massive overreaction to the most softball scrutiny? No one took issue with your testing parameters. No one questioned the validity of your data. You were thanked repeatedly for doing the test, and lauded for how you performed it. You've been assured that the data you collected was valuable. No one even questioned your subjective feelings regarding car behavior. Even the people wondering aloud why you felt what you did never questioned that you did feel what you did. People have only been questioning your conclusion that camber is working when your objective double blind findings show a weird inconsistency in lap time improvement that should be present if it was truly working, especially when you talk about the improved feel you were having. They even used your data and observations to draw their own conclusions and questions rather than dismiss it for something someone else presented, so where does acting like you were dismissed out of hand by the "elite" even come from? Hell, at the very least your data could provide a baseline for future testing in comparison, especially if PD claims to "fix" it again in another patch.

I see the peanut gallery is still around, so perhaps one of them can explain why any peer review is such a bad thing in this context?

 

[super_gt]

Twin Ring Motegi Oval
Honda S2000'06

No oil change,no AIDS no ABS
Stock except toe angle front 0.00 rear 0.00
Front comfort soft rear comfort soft tires
All corners in 6th gear

Camber front 0.0 rear 0.0
45.204 seconds

Camber front 2.0 rear 0.0
45.258 seconds

I did 20 laps with each setup.
This test is made offline with DFGT steering wheel.

 

[Pierce89]

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.

You know he doesn't understand you right?

 

[Pierce89]

Those would work in real life too, if there wasn't air resistance. And lift caused by it.
And if driver could see thru engine hood.

No... Simply no.This is pure bs. Sorry to be rude, but you're posting outright lies there and its clear you have NO UNDERSTANDING OF VEHICLE DYNAMICS AT ALL.

Complete and utter bs.

 

[nasanu]

Personally, your numbers don't say to me that camber works in the way that one would expect in real life.

As far as I can see nobody has bothered testing real life values, possibly because in the history of GT games nobody has ever used realistic values for camber. F1 cars use 2-4 degrees of camber on the front (redbull where wanting to use up to 5 but tyre regs stopped them), touring cars (which is basically what most cars in GT6 are) start at 4 and go up from there always using a lot more than formula cars due to their design nature.

We all still see 2 degrees as being a lot and this tells me that either GT6 tuners have no clue or GT6 is still broken. One or more of those options MUST be correct if you take the view that while GT6 != reality then its broken.

 

[MrGrado]

As far as I can see nobody has bothered testing real life values, possibly because in the history of GT games nobody has ever used realistic values for camber. F1 cars use 2-4 degrees of camber on the front (redbull where wanting to use up to 5 but tyre regs stopped them), touring cars (which is basically what most cars in GT6 are) start at 4 and go up from there always using a lot more than formula cars due to their design nature.

We all still see 2 degrees as being a lot and this tells me that either GT6 tuners have no clue or GT6 is still broken. One or more of those options MUST be correct if you take the view that while GT6 != reality then its broken.

Never seen any evidence of what a certain RL race car uses for camber. Just visually, I have seen some successful touring cars use very low camber (which means the slower cars with more camber may have set theirs too high).

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Not all cars benefit from high camber IRL, there are many variables, from suspension design ( strut, multi link, live axle etc ), tire ( semi slick, slick, or economy tire ), drivetrain layout ( RR like Porsche like high camber at the rear on sticky tires - from back in the days of torsion bar to springs ). There's a sweet spot for every setup and I like the way the cars drive with real life camber setup on GT6.

I don't worry too much about camber in GT6, even now with high camber as IRL, my replicas are still having higher grip around corners than the real car and can post quicker lap times with similar to real life pace driving. If the camber supposed to have more grip, then the tires would be way more grippy than they should I may have to lower tire another level, from CS to CM, SH to CS, SS to SM ( on GT4 cars ), and CH on Ferrari 512BB to ... Those GT3 cars would need SS instead of RH tire

For reference, RUF CTR Yellowbird replica that I built have CM tire with camber setup used on 930 Turbo ( Porsche base alignment ) and it doesn't have any lack of grip around corners. I'm researching/consulting with 930 Turbo owners about good camber base value for street tires ( Bridgstone RE71 ) and Bilstein RSR + Eibach Springs combo. ( it has over 500PS and weighs around 1100kg )

 

[Imari]

As far as I can see nobody has bothered testing real life values, possibly because in the history of GT games nobody has ever used realistic values for camber. F1 cars use 2-4 degrees of camber on the front (redbull where wanting to use up to 5 but tyre regs stopped them), touring cars (which is basically what most cars in GT6 are) start at 4 and go up from there always using a lot more than formula cars due to their design nature.

We all still see 2 degrees as being a lot and this tells me that either GT6 tuners have no clue or GT6 is still broken. One or more of those options MUST be correct if you take the view that while GT6 != reality then its broken.

CargoRatt's testing includes values from 0 to 4 degrees. That strikes me as a range that includes reasonable values for most cars. There are cars that run more, like V8 Supercars, but most will probably be in the 0-4 range, especially road cars.

I'm yet to see data that convinces me that camber in GT6 works in a way similar to reality. Some people seem to like it and accept it, but there's a difference between that and the system being a reasonable attempt at recreating what happens on a real car.

I don't worry too much about camber in GT6...

And that's why it's not right.

You're (as far as I can tell) going for the right feel to the cars, which is commendable and fun to drive. But if camber doesn't really matter, then it means that the system controlling camber isn't right. It may not matter to you, if you have other tools to be able to get the feel that you want.

It does matter to those who want to be able to tune a car as they would in real life, either because they have real world tuning experience that they want to draw on, or because they want to learn in game so that they can then apply that to the real world, or whatever other reasons they may have.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

CargoRatt's testing includes values from 0 to 4 degrees. That strikes me as a range that includes reasonable values for most cars. There are cars that run more, like V8 Supercars, but most will probably be in the 0-4 range, especially road cars.

I'm yet to see data that convinces me that camber in GT6 works in a way similar to reality. Some people seem to like it and accept it, but there's a difference between that and the system being a reasonable attempt at recreating what happens on a real car.



And that's why it's not right.

You're (as far as I can tell) going for the right feel to the cars, which is commendable and fun to drive. But if camber doesn't really matter, then it means that the system controlling camber isn't right. It may not matter to you, if you have other tools to be able to get the feel that you want.

It does matter to those who want to be able to tune a car as they would in real life, either because they have real world tuning experience that they want to draw on, or because they want to learn in game so that they can then apply that to the real world, or whatever other reasons they may have.

Did you read the later part ? I didn't worried too much because as it is now, even with high camber, some of my replicas are having more grip than they should around corner. I think it's the tire model fault If you think I built replicas based on feel alone, you are wrong, I tried my best to get the most accurate data and use lap time as reference, and I even try to replicate the pace of driving when testing them. The HKS CZ200S for example, the car should have something between SH and SM, it needs traction of SM and lateral grip of SH ( the car has camber ) If you look at the video of the run, I have more freedom to choose my line at Tsukuba due to this and the 1st turn entry can be easily corrected when I overshoot my miliseconds.

My replicas are not really fun to drive, they are raw, no compromise setup ( camber, ride height, LSD ), try my Ferrari 512BB replica on CH ( correct tire for the period ), and it won't be fun for casual GT6 driver.

I have slight suspicion that PD has the effect of camber reversed, something wrong with their formula application. Lower value to zero should have less grip than higher camber The current higher camber grip should be the peak of the valley and the valley is too steep. This is why most of my replica had to use SS to replicate RL racing hard slick.

 

[OdeFinn]

No... Simply no.This is pure bs. Sorry to be rude, but you're posting outright lies there and its clear you have NO UNDERSTANDING OF VEHICLE DYNAMICS AT ALL.

Complete and utter bs.

Real comprehensive comment.

After this I have right to expect education from you, I will pass that education forward to my old teachers and educate them too.

Waiting for your lessons what is right and what is wrong. Please include explanations why something works way it works.

 

[super_gt]

I think it's the tire model fault

And I think the same

 

[TDZdave]

I have done more then 25,000km testing around the Nurburgring N24 layout since update 1.07 or maybe as late as 1.09, somewhere around there, and the cars I've used are,

Audi team pheonix R8,
BMW Z4 GT3
Mercedes SLS GT3
Nissan GTR GT3 (not so much)
Corvette Z06 LM
All at Core's N24 regulations, on racing sort tires,

My findings are that in camber in the range of 1.5-2.2 front and rear gives more neutral grip to the car, (NOTE: Not more grip! Neutral grip!)
This allows the car to 4 wheel powerslide or 4 wheel drift through the corner thus minimizing the horrid oversteer you get with racing soft tires and some cars,
NOTE: The cars were tuned to get as close to a 4 wheel slide as possible to the best of my tuning abilities with camber at 0.0 all round or 0.0/0.2 depending on what car)
However I found that the tires were only good for approximately 35-40kms with tire wear on real, this means I can leave pit lane and do a scorching hot lap time immediately, but as the circuit is around 25km in length by the time you got deep into the second lap which would be the credited flying lap some gremlins came in,

40km into the stint which is around Foxhole on the second lap for the avid Nurb enthusiasts, I found some inconsistencies with the tires, I found when the tires wore to the 8/7 area that the tires would give hints of locking brakes which would progressively get worse throughout the remainder of the lap, to the point where it would lock the front tires and without due care would have you in the barrier, even with there being enough tire left to do a third and even 4th lap with some cars, the inconsistencies with locking brakes made camber redundant, as without camber you can adjust your driving and know what to expect as the vehicle dynamics remain the same until you get the tire wear down to where there should be inconsistencies,

In short, what I'm saying is that possibly without tire wear on in sprint races with racing soft tires camber may work well, but with tire wear on, the anomalies it throws out just doesn't seem plausible to use it,

However, due to the silly season that is this time of year I have yet to do an extensive test on this current update

 

[OdeFinn]

Well if camber is not working I just have to wonder effect what higher camber on my
Skyline tune has when camber values are changed to: 1.2 / 1.2 and toe -0.02 / 0.00, or camber 1.8 / 1.8 and toe -0.03 / -0.01

In fact I know reason.. but so many not.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/o-d-engineering-dusty-garage.321014/#post-10302475

Before people say at those are not good sets for it, had to say, yes I know, that's just there to show idea, idea of what they are forgetting when they start putting camber on their cars.
That skyline bottoms on Motegi corners constantly and therefore whole setup should rebuild for such corner compressions.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I have done more then 25,000km testing around the Nurburgring N24 layout since update 1.07 or maybe as late as 1.09, somewhere around there, and the cars I've used are,

Audi team pheonix R8,
BMW Z4 GT3
Mercedes SLS GT3
Nissan GTR GT3 (not so much)
Corvette Z06 LM
All at Core's N24 regulations, on racing sort tires,

My findings are that in camber in the range of 1.5-2.2 front and rear gives more neutral grip to the car, (NOTE: Not more grip! Neutral grip!)
This allows the car to 4 wheel powerslide or 4 wheel drift through the corner thus minimizing the horrid oversteer you get with racing soft tires and some cars,
NOTE: The cars were tuned to get as close to a 4 wheel slide as possible to the best of my tuning abilities with camber at 0.0 all round or 0.0/0.2 depending on what car)
However I found that the tires were only good for approximately 35-40kms with tire wear on real, this means I can leave pit lane and do a scorching hot lap time immediately, but as the circuit is around 25km in length by the time you got deep into the second lap which would be the credited flying lap some gremlins came in,

40km into the stint which is around Foxhole on the second lap for the avid Nurb enthusiasts, I found some inconsistencies with the tires, I found when the tires wore to the 8/7 area that the tires would give hints of locking brakes which would progressively get worse throughout the remainder of the lap, to the point where it would lock the front tires and without due care would have you in the barrier, even with there being enough tire left to do a third and even 4th lap with some cars, the inconsistencies with locking brakes made camber redundant, as without camber you can adjust your driving and know what to expect as the vehicle dynamics remain the same until you get the tire wear down to where there should be inconsistencies,

In short, what I'm saying is that possibly without tire wear on in sprint races with racing soft tires camber may work well, but with tire wear on, the anomalies it throws out just doesn't seem plausible to use it,

However, due to the silly season that is this time of year I have yet to do an extensive test on this current update

Can you clarify because it seems to me you're saying two different things there?.

Real comprehensive comment.

After this I have right to expect education from you, I will pass that education forward to my old teachers and educate them too.

Waiting for your lessons what is right and what is wrong. Please include explanations why something works way it works.

Ignore him, he's an obvious troll looking to flamebait you.

 

[Kurei]

Something that's been on my mind lately, if I may stray off-topic for just a second...
If we know Camber is 'fubar', then just how deep is the rabbit hole ?

What about toe ?, damper/shock effectiveness ?, Anti-roll bars ?. I've seen talk that GT's Center of Gravity is off (stoppie cars), but is camber the only suspension-thing that's messed up ?, or is there more we have/haven't discovered yet ?

Then going beyond suspension, what about things like boost-development ? - I can watch the gauge go to full-boost at about the same rate despite which turbo-stage (and there for boost-pressure) is used, as if turbo-lag wasn't there or even factored (except for those few cars where its just exaggerated to pointless levels).
It affects the power & torque curve, and to an extent how the vehicle delivers the power (peaky vs. broad powerbands), but I can also hear spool build for seconds after the gauge 'pegs out', until it reaches it's 'peak' and levels off, then gets drowned-out by wind/tire noise.

Should I just stop worrying about and wait for P.CARS to release ?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Something that's been on my mind lately, if I may stray off-topic for just a second...
If we know Camber is 'fubar', then just how deep is the rabbit hole ?

What about toe ?, damper/shock effectiveness ?, Anti-roll bars ?. I've seen talk that GT's Center of Gravity is off (stoppie cars), but is camber the only suspension-thing that's messed up ?, or is there more we have/haven't discovered yet ?

Then going beyond suspension, what about things like boost-development ? - I can watch the gauge go to full-boost at about the same rate despite which turbo-stage (and there for boost-pressure) is used, as if turbo-lag wasn't there or even factored (except for those few cars where its just exaggerated to pointless levels).
It affects the power & torque curve, and to an extent how the vehicle delivers the power (peaky vs. broad powerbands), but I can also hear spool build for seconds after the gauge 'pegs out', until it reaches it's 'peak' and levels off, then gets drowned-out by wind/tire noise.

Should I just stop worrying about and wait for P.CARS to release ?

Turbo is tricky complex system to be simulated. Even on Assetto Corsa, there's one car that I saw has wrong boost level and most of the specs will need further accuracy check, it seems to take data from wikipedia - it's the new gift

 

[Johnnypenso]

Something that's been on my mind lately, if I may stray off-topic for just a second

If we know Camber is 'fubar', then just how deep is the rabbit hole ?

What about toe ?, damper/shock effectiveness ?, Anti-roll bars ?. I've seen talk that GT's Center of Gravity is off (stoppie cars), but is camber the only suspension-thing that's messed up ?, or is there more we have/haven't discovered yet ?

Then going beyond suspension, what about things like boost-development ? - I can watch the gauge go to full-boost at about the same rate despite which turbo-stage (and there for boost-pressure) is used, as if turbo-lag wasn't there or even factored (except for those few cars where its just exaggerated to pointless levels).
It affects the power & torque curve, and to an extent how the vehicle delivers the power (peaky vs. broad powerbands), but I can also hear spool build for seconds after the gauge 'pegs out', until it reaches it's 'peak' and levels off, then gets drowned-out by wind/tire noise.

Should I just stop worrying about and wait for P.CARS to release ?

To the last part, yes
To the first part, yes, I believe the rabbit hole is very deep and it would be worthwhile to try and figure out whether all the tuning parameters work as they should, but let's just stick to camber in this thread:tup:👍

 

[TDZdave]

Can you clarify because it seems to me you're saying two different things there?.

Because I kinda am, I get the sensation that camber does work, but its not the most compliant option to take if tire and fuel degradation is on in the lobby, if it is off then I would assume it would be fine,

 

[LeoStrop]

I posted this test on "The Great Camber Experiment" thread, and i thought it would be interesting for someone here as well. I did it yesterday, after the update(or hotfix). This test will be repeated online with tire wear.

Notice: I am not trying to prove that camber works as in RL, because it doesn't, i am trying to understand and see what are the benefits of camber in GT6, for me, and share my findings here because it may be someone's interest. And the next time i tune my car, i can have something as a base.
You can analyse the data and take your own conclusion.

Hello guys, after my tests at Silverstone International, i could see that the track was not ideal for me, as i don't have too much experience there, so the driver variables were affecting the tests.

So i decide to go back to High Speed Ring, i found the track very good for this type of testing, since it's easy to maintain a certain pace.

So here it's:

Date: 25/12/2014 (after the update)
Car: BMW 135i coupé '07
PP : 500
Tires: Sport Hard
Track: High Speed Ring
Laps: 9
Camber sets(equal front and rear): 0.0 , 0.6* , 1.0 , 1.5 , 2.0
Controller: DS3 , "X" for accel, "[]" for brakes, "L2, R2" for gears and D-pad for steering.

Edit: Arcade Mode , Grip: Real

Camber @ 0.0:








*Camber @ 0.6:

Someone forgot to save the data of this one..

Best Lap: 1:13.075


Camber @ 1.0:







Camber 1.5:







Camber 2.0:








Comparison of all sets:








I have the tune used for the test, and all the data if anyone want's to do a deeper analysis. I found the Results very linear, i could possibly post a better time with camber @ 2.0, you can see that it had the best eclectic time, that is because it was harder to do a perfect lap, since you had to run on the groove the whole time.

 

[super_gt]

For those of you who think that camber in GT6 is working properly here's another test but in Live for Speed

Car XR GT (the car has little understeer in mid corner with the stock camber)

Blackwood GP Track

No AIDS,no ABS(PRO)
Stock(stock settings)

Camber front 0.0 rear 0.0 (this is the stock camber setting)
Lap time:1:38.61

Camber front 3.5 rear 0.0
Lap time:1:38.35

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

This :

I agree. I think this is a much better way to collect and perform a good analysis on the lap times. Using the eclectic times should paint a better picture of where the camber is helping or hindering the car's performance. It does help reduce the impact on the results which are due to the inconsistencies of us humans.

Oh, @DolHaus I have a confession to make. I was only using the standard version of this software and was actually analysing the graphs rather that relying on just a data sheet (I think you get a better picture of what is happening if you can actually see the picture.) I also suffer from man disease and tend not to use instruction manuals too much, so I don't even know if this was in the standard version. But I have the PRO version now so it's all good.

And speaking of which....


I booted up Motec when I got back in from work and checked the Track layout and the time data sheet. Here are the corresponding sectors. I have also noted the camber settings which were fastest through each sector, the time differences between the 1st - 2nd fastest setting and 1st'last

Track Sectors----Camber @ ---- Diff. from 2nd ---- fastest-slowest

1: Start - Turn 1 ---- 2.0/2.0 ---- 0.076s ---- 0.143s

2: Turn 1 ---- 2.0/2.0 ---- 0.006s ---- 0.009s

3: Straight 1-2 ---- 1.0/1.0 ---- 0.001s ---- 0.003s

4: Turn 2 ---- 2/0/2.0 ---- 0.050s ---- 0.165s

5: Straight 2-3 ---- 1.0/1.0 - 1.5 1.5 ---- 0.004s ---- 0.017s

6: Turn 3 ---- 1.5/1.5 ---- 0.026s ---- 0.068s

7: Turn 4 ---- 1.5/1.5 ---- 0.015s ---- 0.042s

8: Straight 4-5 ---- 1.5/1.5 ---- 0.041s ---- 0.076s

9: Turn 5 ---- 2.0/2.0 ---- 0.027s ---- 0.209s

10: Straight 5 - Finish ---- 2.0/2.0 ---- 0.029 s ---- 0.096s

Banked corners (and sectors effected by banking): Start-turn 1, Turn 1, Turn 2, Straight 2-3, Straight 4-5, Turn 5 and Straight 5-Finish.

Flat corners (and sectors un-effected by banking): Turn 3 and Turn 4

So what do we learn from that data?
From the data of @LeoStrop's Eclectic Lap-time, we can clearly see that camber set at 2.0/2.0 was the big winner in all of the banked turns 1, 2 & 5 as well as the main straight and approach to turn 1 (as these are heavily influenced by the exit of the banked Turn 5 and the banked approach to Turn 1.

But as expected on the two flat corners Turns 3 & 4, a lower camber setting was quicker. With both of these achieved with 1.5/1.5. You can also see that this setting was faster in sector 8 (Straight 4-5) This is due to this not really being a straight. After the tunnel there is a right hand bend towards Turn 5 (Yes, I know you all know this, but you never know who reads these.), this bend has a camber change at the apex as the banking starts and you do record a reasonable amount of Lateral G's here too. Also was quicker in Straight 2-3 (Tied with 1.0/1.0).

For the remaining two sectors Straight 1-2 and Straight 2-3 the 1.0/1.0 setting was recording the best sector times although not by much ( Tied with 1.5/1.5 in Straight 2-3) Again these sectors are also effected a little by the tracks banking.

The really obvious thing from the table is that at no point was 0.0/0.0 the fastest camber setting. Although being fair it was real close to getting it's name on the board, only missing out by a mere thousandth in sector 3 (Straight 1-2).

Sorry guys. I was just going to post my answer to Hami's suggestions and get the track sector info but I couldn't help doing a little analysis of my own. Hope you don't mind. And sorry too for not using any crayons (That one's mostly for @Lionheart2113, I know how much you like them), I am having issues with my laptop's office programme and haven't got round to fixing it yet.

Hope I didn't miss anything! (I didn't do any difference % calculations as I thought that would just be too much. (And I wanted to leave some of the maths just in case someone got upset...Yes, I mean you @TurnLeft)

Have a good day everyone, I've really got to go to sleep now, that's hour 23 just ticked by.

Edit: I need to get that office programme fixed...Why does this thing not allow multiple spaces

 

[Stotty]

It had been my intention to spend a full day doing some proper testing for this thread as I'm now back from trips tp see family over Christmas and my wife's at her mothers so I have a few days to myself .

However, I only needed a couple of hours this morning.

Car: BMW M3 CSL
New car from dealers, no oil change, no chassis strengthening. Fitted fully customisable suspension and LSD, rest stock. Toe set to f 0.00, r 0.00 and LSD to 10 20 5.

The CSL has a good balance, being reasonably neutral for a FR once the toe and LSD decel is removed. It has some typical FR understeer if you push the front too hard, but tucks in nicely if you ease the gas and it's never edgy or snappy. Left it on SH tyres as with 20 LSD accel it has almost perfect traction and this pretty much removes the variable of exit oversteer from the test.

Track: Suzuka East
Other than missing a big stop in to a tight corner, Suzi East is a great test venue - a long trail brake from high speed to test stability, continuous changes of direction and a long final corner. Plus it's short, so you can run lots of laps in a reasonable amount of time, and I know it well.

Test:
Plan was to run a long warm up session, then 10 laps each at f 0.00 r 0.00, and 0.5 increments f, r, f & r up to 2.0*. Each run against the fastest ghost I'd managed to run to that point, logging fastest lap and range of lap times for each session.

Ran 30 warm up laps, then 10 laps at 0.00 f & r and then 10 at 0.5* camber f, 0* r.

At 0 f & r I ran 10 laps within 0.2s of each other. With 0.5* f camber, my fastest lap was within 0.05s of 0 camber, but the spread of times increased to 0.5s.

The car is immediately less responsive and has more mid corner push. Although this can be managed, it takes longer to re-gain grip when the throttle is eased - longer to wait for the front to get back on line means longer to wait to get back on the throttle, so a small mistake becomes a big time loss. Even a small amount of camber magnifies little errors that could more easily be managed with a more responsive car.

I ran 0.5* f & r too, but this just compounded the problem... ultimate lap time didn't change much (0.08s vs 0/0), but the spread got wider still.

This is with a forgiving car.

When I set it up in TT mode (edgy, aggressive rotation, very narrow limit of lateral grip and more LSD accel) this simply aggravated the issue.

Initially, the car felt nicer to drive with a bit of camber - less edgy and a wider grip limit. But it becomes much harder to use small weight transfers (via throttle or brakes) to control what you want the car to do as it's responses become slower.

Not going to waste anymore time on this - off to run some Seasonal TT laps

 

[Rotorist]

Great work by Thorin Cain and Stotty! I thank you for the time you invested in exploration of camber effect in GT6. It is profound that camber changes car handling in GT6. I saw that in LM55 in Laguna Seca. I went for some quick laps there and I saw that even only a bit of change in camber -the other settings unchanged- greatly affects handling. I had only ABS=1 and with my DFP. I sure made a big change in laptime too, almost 1 sec faster, as i was able to push earlier once apex was passed and braking a bit later too.

 

[Z1-AV69]

The car is immediately less responsive and has more mid corner push. Although this can be managed, it takes longer to re-gain grip when the throttle is eased - longer to wait for the front to get back on line means longer to wait to get back on the throttle, so a small mistake becomes a big time loss. Even a small amount of camber magnifies little errors that could more easily be managed with a more responsive car.

Initially, the car felt nicer to drive with a bit of camber - less edgy and a wider grip limit. But it becomes much harder to use small weight transfers (via throttle or brakes) to control what you want the car to do as it's responses become slower.

I had similar impressions when I ran a few laps at Nurb GP in a 550 McLaren MP4-12C sport mediums today while waiting for the lobby to fill. With 0.5 0.5 camber I actually gained both time and "driving comfort" through the Mercedes-Arena. I could be earlier on throttle in the first left hander. But I lost that 1-2 tenth again in slow corners where load changes. With camber the car takes more time to move from loading one side/wheel to the other. It's more noticeable in chicanes or tight left/right or right/left, but it is noticeable in 180° too. In the end my best laptime with 0.0 0.0 was 0.011 quicker than with 0.5 0.5, which is basically the same. I'll stay with 0.0 all around because I want that nimbleness.

But in the end all that testing is mood. It's racing. True is what is quickest, period. So what are the guys at the top of the Seasonal TTs doing? Zero or not?

 

[OdeFinn]

Just for non believers; go and buy RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87, install full custom suspension and revert shock absorbers and ARB back to 1 as on default, then do next changes and test.
Front Camber 0.5 (same as default)
Front TOE -0.01
Rear Camber 1.7
Rear TOE -0.02

After any test infos I can open my mouth and explain why, this is kind of bug or feature, more like feature, I know reason, I understand why.