Is camber fixed? Discuss it here.

[MatskiMonk]

Just out of curiosity, if the purpose of camber is to keep the contact patch of the tyre as large as possible, and it's considered that GT doesn't replicate tyre deformation... how are you sure that the camber calculations themselves aren't working fine, and it's the tyre model that isn't taking into account the size and position of the contact patch, and what it does to side wall deflection and temperature related grip?

 

[super_gt]

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.

Here is the result:

Twin Ring Motegi Oval
RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
No AIDS,No ABS,Real grip,no oil change.
Sports hard tires front and rear.
First two corners fifth gear lifting ONLY, no brakes at all
Second two corners brake fourth gear

Camber front 0.5 rear 1.7
Toe front -0.01 rear -0.02
Everything else Stock
I did 10 laps with this setup
Best lap time: 39.590 seconds

Camber front 0.0 rear 0.0
Toe front 0.00 rear 0.00
Everything else Stock
I beat your setup best time in my second lap
This is 6th lap: 39.398 seconds

This test is made offline with DFGT steering wheel

 

[MatskiMonk]

Would be interesting to see the motec data for each, In terms of metres covered during the lap that is a small difference.

 

[super_gt]

Would be interesting to see the motec data for each, In terms of metres covered during the lap that is a small difference.

I did not recorded replays,and if the average speed is about 200km/h the difference would be 11 meters(it is not that small)

 

[Lionheart2113]

Just out of curiosity, if the purpose of camber is to keep the contact patch of the tyre as large as possible, and it's considered that GT doesn't replicate tyre deformation... how are you sure that the camber calculations themselves aren't working fine, and it's the tyre model that isn't taking into account the size and position of the contact patch, and what it does to side wall deflection and temperature related grip?

I've thought for awhile that there could be wrong in the formula used in the calculation. A decimal in the wrong place or that they have a negative value in the code when it should have been positive or vice versa??? Just my opinion though....probably miles off!

 

[MatskiMonk]

I did not recorded replays,and if the average speed is about 200km/h the difference would be 11 meters(it is not that small)

I guesstimated it was 12m, out of 2413m... = about 0.5% ?

Too many variables in my opinion.

 

[OdeFinn]

@super_gt not sure how much difference is shown on oval, but try on some normal track. Oval track is not best test place for it, so soft for oval compressions.
I tested it bit on Tsukuba, to check handling, and Nordschleife for higher speeds, 7.37 on Nordschleife on first run, noABS offline sh.
As looking on tuning perspective there should be little harder suspension, but whole test idea was prove simple logic what game has.

 

[nickg07]

I believe in camber. It might not work 100% the same as real life but some camber seems to increase car stability for me. Too much upsets it and none is worse for grip.

Sometimes your tests might find it slower due to the pronounced effect of the LSD in GT6. I.e the LSD settings can really provide some rotation on slip, maybe the camber or too much camber stops the lsd kicking in due to less slip and thus can appear not to work, when really it is.

The problem is the over pronounced LSD effect at rotating the rear end?

 

[LVracerGT]

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.

Interesting. I wonder if there's a difference between online and offline? My test was done in a private lobby, tire wear set to off, track grip set to real and slipstream set to real (no other cars were on track during my testing, I was the only person in the lobby.) I definitely felt handling changes and saw reduced lap times.

 

[OdeFinn]

@super_gt tested CTR on online, similar room settings as you, only difference was ARB 2 on both ends, with camber laptimes were stable 39.3 - 39.5 and without camber times were 39.5 - 39.7, with camber there was no problems to push on corners, or braking in, but without camber there was problems to keep rear stable on corners and on braking.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@super_gt tested CTR on online, similar room settings as you, only difference was ARB 2 on both ends, with camber laptimes were stable 39.3 - 39.5 and without camber times were 39.5 - 39.7, with camber there was no problems to push on corners, or braking in, but without camber there was problems to keep rear stable on corners and on braking.

No problem to push on corners or braking in, yet lap times were the same or at most a couple tenths faster. The verbal description belies the results on the track. Also, if camber is working properly, wouldn't adding camber negatively affect braking not help it?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Maybe with the rear suspension lifted/extend during hard braking, the camber reduced With zero, that would lead to positive camber. The same goes with the front wheel, more negative camber under braking / compression, and less under heavy acceleration.

 

[Greycap]

For everyone thinking GT6 got camber wrong and zero degrees producing good results is simply stupid, think about this for a while.

Do we know if we're setting "setup values" or "live values"? I don't, and I doubt anyone else does.

Taking LFS as an example, everyone thinking it's a bad simulator raise your hand. OK, no hands up, I thought as much. So we can continue here with a couple of examples. All from setups made by myself, the aim being in getting nicely even tyre temperatures and of course making the car fast.

FXO Turbo - a front engined FWD road car, front camber set to -0.4 / 0.0, rear camber set to -1.6 / -1.2, actual values front -1.55 / -1.25, rear -1.55 / -1.25
RB4 GT - a Celica GT-Four clone, front camber set to -0.5 / -0.5, rear camber set to 0.0 / 0.0, actual values front -1.61 / -1.65, rear -0.95 / -1.00
FZ50 GTR - a rear engined GT500 class car, front camber set to 0.0 / 0.0, rear camber set to -0.5 / -0.5, actual values front -1.59 / -1.64, rear -1.41 / -1.45
Formula BMW - well, a Formula BMW, front camber set to +1.4 / +1.6, rear camber set to +0.2 / +0.5, actual values front -2.40 / -2.23, rear -2.65 / -2.38

The first reaction is WHAT THE 🤬 positive camber on the BMW? Yes, positive camber. It turns to negative (and into a pretty large value at that) as the suspension geometry is taken into account. Also notice several zeroes and otherwise very low values in the other cars that still transform into fully sensible amounts of camber when the car is actually sitting on the ground. For the most of the time the "setup values" have very little to do with the "live values" and the change can be to any direction, by pretty much any amount.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

GT6 has symmetrical camber and toe system, unlike IRL, where each side value can vary even with the most diligent and careful alignment. Camber changes during driving in GT6 definitely shown visually and presumably simulated within physics engine as well. I think the best approach when adding camber is to aim for close to zero camber during the most extreme suspension geometry changes ( braking, entry and mid corner ) on the inner or outside wheel or both if possible.
Adding toe out on the front wheel may also help with negative camber on the inner wheel during cornering - slight toe out with camber on the front often used in my replica ( real car alignment ). Some toe in at the front may also help with stabilizing the car on turn in, and throttle lift off, but it affects mid corner grip.

The stickier the tires and the stiffer the springs, higher camber is possible, not sure if it will absolutely be quicker against zero camber ( same tire and springs )

 

[Imari]

For everyone thinking GT6 got camber wrong and zero degrees producing good results is simply stupid, think about this for a while.

Wow. Way to call everyone stupid who has done testing and seen results that don't give a significant difference between zero and moderate camber levels.

Even better, you've called them all stupid and yet not provided any evidence to support your chest-thumpingly voiced "argument". Well done.

You've simply assumed that GT has got it right, based on what? Your experience with another game? Is this supposed to convince anyone?

For the most of the time the "setup values" have very little to do with the "live values" and the change can be to any direction, by pretty much any amount.

Except that games with setup values (AC does this as well, and iRacing you set by clicks) give you live values to measure from. That's how real cars are set up, you load up the car with fuel and driver weight in the appropriate spots, twiddle the bolts underneath and then measure on the actual wheel.

The assumption has to be that if a game gives you only one value, that it's the live value. If they only give you the setup value and no live value, there's no correspondence to reality, and your camber could be literally anything.

The fact that the visual camber in game seems to correspond pretty well with the camber in the settings would tend to support the idea that you're actually setting live camber. Set zero camber and go look at the wheels in game. If you're right, they should be anything except vertical when the car is stationary on a flat plane.

 

[Motor City Hami]

How much camber do we think Kaz is running here, on his real life car?

Maybe 3.0 to 3.5 in the rear? Around 3.0 in the front? How can anyone say that camber is fixed in GT6 then quote how well their tunes work with 0.5 to 1.5 degrees of camber? If I showed up on the grid at Mid-Ohio with less than 1.0 degrees of camber on my Miata, I would be laughed off the grid. I would also wear out my set of tires in six on track sessions vs. 18 sessions with proper camber.

I have just finished 3 hours of data capture. I need to spend another hour cutting the data into useful visuals. Some interesting in-game findings are emerging.

 

[Imari]

How much camber do we think Kaz is running here, on his real life car?

That's the one that they made a fuss about using GT to tune the suspension, yeah?

The '13 Schulze GTR comes with 3.5F/2.9R degrees, which seems like a reasonable amount for a racing car to have.

Personally, I quite like this car as a test bed for further testing. We know that data from the '13 N24 was included in GT6, so the behaviour of this car should (as far as possible) accurately represent the data PD had available.

When I'm less drunk I may do some more testing with this one. It does help that I think that the '13 Schulze is one of the better handling stock cars I've tried in the game.

 

[Motor City Hami]

That's the one that they made a fuss about using GT to tune the suspension, yeah?

The '13 Schulze GTR comes with 3.5F/2.9R degrees, which seems like a reasonable amount for a racing car to have.

Personally, I quite like this car as a test bed for further testing. We know that data from the '13 N24 was included in GT6, so the behaviour of this car should (as far as possible) accurately represent the data PD had available.

When I'm less drunk I may do some more testing with this one. It does help that I think that the '13 Schulze is one of the better handling stock cars I've tried in the game.

I guessed pretty closely.

Great idea to use this car for testing. I will make this my next test car as well.

 

[Johnnypenso]

For everyone thinking GT6 got camber wrong and zero degrees producing good results is simply stupid, think about this for a while.

Do we know if we're setting "setup values" or "live values"? I don't, and I doubt anyone else does.

Taking LFS as an example, everyone thinking it's a bad simulator raise your hand. OK, no hands up, I thought as much. So we can continue here with a couple of examples. All from setups made by myself, the aim being in getting nicely even tyre temperatures and of course making the car fast.

FXO Turbo - a front engined FWD road car, front camber set to -0.4 / 0.0, rear camber set to -1.6 / -1.2, actual values front -1.55 / -1.25, rear -1.55 / -1.25
RB4 GT - a Celica GT-Four clone, front camber set to -0.5 / -0.5, rear camber set to 0.0 / 0.0, actual values front -1.61 / -1.65, rear -0.95 / -1.00
FZ50 GTR - a rear engined GT500 class car, front camber set to 0.0 / 0.0, rear camber set to -0.5 / -0.5, actual values front -1.59 / -1.64, rear -1.41 / -1.45
Formula BMW - well, a Formula BMW, front camber set to +1.4 / +1.6, rear camber set to +0.2 / +0.5, actual values front -2.40 / -2.23, rear -2.65 / -2.38

The first reaction is WHAT THE 🤬 positive camber on the BMW? Yes, positive camber. It turns to negative (and into a pretty large value at that) as the suspension geometry is taken into account. Also notice several zeroes and otherwise very low values in the other cars that still transform into fully sensible amounts of camber when the car is actually sitting on the ground. For the most of the time the "setup values" have very little to do with the "live values" and the change can be to any direction, by pretty much any amount.

Edit your first paragraph and delete the word "stupid". There's no need for that in here.

 

[OdeFinn]

No problem to push on corners or braking in, yet lap times were the same or at most a couple tenths faster. The verbal description belies the results on the track. Also, if camber is working properly, wouldn't adding camber negatively affect braking not help it?

Maybe with the rear suspension lifted/extend during hard braking, the camber reduced With zero, that would lead to positive camber. The same goes with the front wheel, more negative camber under braking / compression, and less under heavy acceleration.

Camber=toe in
Camber+toe in=more toe in
Camber+toe out=no toe
Those are opposite forces what can eliminate overall toe value when used one way, or it can "multiply" toe on other way.

Until it's compressed it is practically 0 toe to car what's traveling on level(toe is wrong term on here, traveling angle might be right), when tire contact patch gets bigger on heavy body roll it starts affect slightly negative, but only slightly. Most of time tire travels +/- 0 toe.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Maybe with the rear suspension lifted/extend during hard braking, the camber reduced With zero, that would lead to positive camber. The same goes with the front wheel, more negative camber under braking / compression, and less under heavy acceleration.

Nvm, I see the experts have arrived. Good thing I forgot to hit the "reply" button.

 

[super_gt]

Tsukuba Circuit
RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
No AIDS,No ABS,Real grip,no oil change.
Sports hard tires front and rear.

Camber front 0.5 rear 1.7
Toe front -0.01 rear -0.02
Standart brakes set to front 10 rear 10
Everything else Stock
I did 15 laps with this setup
Best lap time: 1:01.016

Camber front 0.0 rear 0.0
Toe front 0.00 rear 0.00
Standart brakes set to front 10 rear 10
Everything else Stock
I did 15 laps with this setup
Best lap time: 1:00.983

This test is made offline with DFGT steering wheel

 

[Greycap]

Wow. Way to call everyone stupid who has done testing and seen results that don't give a significant difference between zero and moderate camber levels.

Even better, you've called them all stupid and yet not provided any evidence to support your chest-thumpingly voiced "argument". Well done.

Edit your first paragraph and delete the word "stupid". There's no need for that in here.

Is it my English (which isn't native as you may want to note) or is it the way you guys interpreted that, I don't know, but to my knowledge I didn't call anyone stupid or at least try to do it. Let's reword a bit.

So instead of "For everyone thinking GT6 got camber wrong and zero degrees producing good results is simply stupid"

I'll try "This is addressed to all of those who think GT6 got camber wrong as it's stupid that zero degrees produces good results"

and proceed from there. That was the original intention - the stupid thing being that zero degrees produces good results. And honestly speaking, it is stupid because it certainly shouldn't happen but it does. Now, it might well be that GT6 indeed got it wrong but my opinion is as valid as everyone else's until someone comes and confirms it. Because we really don't know. Just like we don't know if spring stiffness is for the actual spring which may be located Lord knows where in the suspension system with leverage playing havoc with the actual effect or if the stiffness is measured at the wheel hub.

 

[Lionheart2113]

Tsukuba Circuit
RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
No AIDS,No ABS,Real grip,no oil change.
Sports hard tires front and rear.

Camber front 0.5 rear 1.7
Toe front -0.01 rear -0.02
Standart brakes set to front 10 rear 10
Everything else Stock
I did 15 laps with this setup
Best lap time: 1:01.016

View attachment 282865
View attachment 282904

Camber front 0.0 rear 0.0
Toe front 0.00 rear 0.00
Standart brakes set to front 10 rear 10
Everything else Stock
I did 15 laps with this setup
Best lap time: 1:00.983

View attachment 282870
View attachment 282905

This test is made offline with DFGT steering wheel

So not much in it? Great job testing and posting. (Pretty high brake settings!) I know I speak for most when I say, thank you to all who have put in the time and posting your results. Just 1 question...Any reason for the different TOE settings, or did I miss something that you might have previously mentioned?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Is it my English (which isn't native as you may want to note) or is it the way you guys interpreted that, I don't know, but to my knowledge I didn't call anyone stupid or at least try to do it. Let's reword a bit.

So instead of "For everyone thinking GT6 got camber wrong and zero degrees producing good results is simply stupid"

I'll try "This is addressed to all of those who think GT6 got camber wrong as it's stupid that zero degrees produces good results"

and proceed from there. That was the original intention - the stupid thing being that zero degrees produces good results. And honestly speaking, it is stupid because it certainly shouldn't happen but it does. Now, it might well be that GT6 indeed got it wrong but my opinion is as valid as everyone else's until someone comes and confirms it. Because we really don't know. Just like we don't know if spring stiffness is for the actual spring which may be located Lord knows where in the suspension system with leverage playing havoc with the actual effect or if the stiffness is measured at the wheel hub.

I just want you to edit the post in question. No harm done.

 

[Imari]

Is it my English (which isn't native as you may want to note)

Being a non-native speaker isn't an excuse for being a dick. If you weren't trying to be a dick, that's fine, but that's how it came across.

You did call people stupid, whether that was your intention or not. If you want to know why, it's because most people will read that sentence as:

For everyone thinking GT6 got camber wrong and zero degrees producing good results is simply stupid, think about this for a while.

"For everyone thinking" and "is simply stupid" are treated as two halves of a split phrase. I can see what you were trying to do by using "is simply stupid" to modify "zero degrees producing good results", but no native speaker would use "simply" in that phrase. They would use "simply" to emphasise calling someone else stupid though, so the natural assumption is that of two (or probably more) possible readings of that sentence that was the one intended, as it makes the most sense.

Here endeth the English lesson.

the stupid thing being that zero degrees produces good results. And honestly speaking, it is stupid because it certainly shouldn't happen but it does. Now, it might well be that GT6 indeed got it wrong but my opinion is as valid as everyone else's until someone comes and confirms it.

Maybe this is the non-native speaker effect again, but I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.

On one hand, it sounds like you're acknowledging that GT6 produces good results on zero camber, and that that isn't right.

On the other hand, you seem like you're pushing your theory that camber in GT6 works fine and that it's just a mislabeled version of "setup" camber.

Did you read the bit in my post addressing this? I'll quote it to you again if you like:

Except that games with setup values (AC does this as well, and iRacing you set by clicks) give you live values to measure from. That's how real cars are set up, you load up the car with fuel and driver weight in the appropriate spots, twiddle the bolts underneath and then measure on the actual wheel.

The assumption has to be that if a game gives you only one value, that it's the live value. If they only give you the setup value and no live value, there's no correspondence to reality, and your camber could be literally anything.

The fact that the visual camber in game seems to correspond pretty well with the camber in the settings would tend to support the idea that you're actually setting live camber. Set zero camber and go look at the wheels in game. If you're right, they should be anything except vertical when the car is stationary on a flat plane.

How do you justify your explanation when the graphic representation of camber appears to be identical to the setup camber value? There would be no reason for the graphics system not to use the live camber value, it would have to be calculated for the physics system either way.

The far simpler explanation is that the anomalous results are actual anomalies, and that the camber system in GT6 does not work in the same way that real camber does.

 

[super_gt]

So not much in it? Great job testing and posting. (Pretty high brake settings!) I know I speak for most when I say, thank you to all who have put in the time and posting your results. Just 1 question...Any reason for the different TOE settings, or did I miss something that you might have previously mentioned?

👍

I was testing this setup:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/is-camber-fixed-discuss-it-here.321270/page-7#post-10344374

 

[Johnnypenso]

Tsukuba Circuit
RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
No AIDS,No ABS,Real grip,no oil change.
Sports hard tires front and rear.

Camber front 0.5 rear 1.7
Toe front -0.01 rear -0.02
Standart brakes set to front 10 rear 10
Everything else Stock
I did 15 laps with this setup
Best lap time: 1:01.016

View attachment 282865
View attachment 282904

Camber front 0.0 rear 0.0
Toe front 0.00 rear 0.00
Standart brakes set to front 10 rear 10
Everything else Stock
I did 15 laps with this setup
Best lap time: 1:00.983

View attachment 282870
View attachment 282905

This test is made offline with DFGT steering wheel

Thank you for the extensive testing:tup: How do we/you explain what appears to be higher minimum corner speed with camber, yet lower top speed on the straights and similar lap times. Were you able to get on the throttle that split second sooner without camber? Can you shed some light on this?

 

[super_gt]

Thank you for the extensive testing:tup: How do we/you explain what appears to be higher minimum corner speed with camber, yet lower top speed on the straights and similar lap times. Were you able to get on the throttle that split second sooner without camber? Can you shed some light on this?

Thank you Johnny
The setup with 0 camber was more tail happy in mid corner but there was less wheel spin on the corner exit.

 

[OdeFinn]

Thank you Johnny
The setup with 0 camber was more tail happy in mid corner but there was less wheel spin on the corner exit.

But if you open throttle gently with camber you could start acceleration earlier.