So again, it's all about stop looking for lame excuses and adapt your product to nowdays because it's no longer 1997.
this.
can't even take GT seriously anymore, it's 2012 and they don't even have a basic livery editor
So again, it's all about stop looking for lame excuses and adapt your product to nowdays because it's no longer 1997.
Google images "body kit", and tell me how many are made for racing. 99% of them are for ricers, with only a few actually providing an aerodynamic advantage.
Try looking for the good ones. Google "race car".
Most of those parts aren't proven to be better for your car before hand, because running them on a windtunnel costs an absurd lot and even a simulation is expensive. That's why they are ricer for the most part.
Looking at this thread is like watching mightcarmods all over again. Great youtube channel that demystifies lots of silly mods and they have a very good taste in cars.
Doesn't matter. There can be kits that do improve performance (And some of them happen to exist). That is all that matters. Why would the kits in GT have to be useless from a performance standpoint?
Are you really that dumb i mean its not forza dude its gt the most i think they should have is sponsor ships and forza has an amazing livery system but forza is a wreck and gt making a livery system would ruin the point of Gran Turismo... So i wont be seeing you pn gt6 haha
Things that shouldn't be too far of a reach in GT6: (1)..FULL COLOR SPECTRUM(do away with "buying colors or attaining colors"). (2)Put EVERY RACE CAR or RACE "edition" of a car EVER MADE(this is a racing game-no more vans!!). (3).CONSTANT DLC CARS!...as a car comes out or even a car on SEMA and well pay 1.00 for supercar(koeinsegg/ssc/gumpert/lamborhini). 50 cents for a sports car(92'viper/2013 viper/stingray concept)...and modern sedans and hatchbacks should be free dlc!..or 25.cents(ford focus/dodge dart/chevy cobalt). (4)EVERY AVAILABLE CUSTOMIZATION FOR ANY CAR!
I WILL NOT BUY GT6 without a well-developed livery editor.
Yes, or they use a model that doesn't exhibit such numerical divergence, or a parameterisation that doesn't rely on absolute ground velocity somehow. I don't think the string or brush models have this limitation, but of course they're not satisfactory models in and of themselves.
Basically, it's a part of tyre simulation that needs to be "fixed", and will be in time, if it isn't in some cases already. Sims are still evolving, there is still so much they don't do correctly, or at all.
xXNissanDriftXxREALLY? By a xbox and get forza or something. you should just make your own design
A livery editor would really add to racing leagues as well, everyone designing and racing their own cars, imagine that!
REALLY? By a xbox and get forza or something. you should just make your own design
Flamebait is not needed at all (nor for that matter is double posting and your abuse of basic English grammar - both of which you need to address given that you agreed to the AUP when you joined) so plesae cut it out.REALLY? By a xbox and get forza or something. you should just make your own design
In a nutshell GT's tyre physics are very, very basic and require a significant amount of work, how to approach that is what is being discussed.
LOLWUT
...
In a nutshell GT's tyre physics are very, very basic and require a significant amount of work, how to approach that is what is being discussed.
In future if your not sure what is being explained please ask without the use of text speak (see the AUP once again) and we would be more than happy to explain.
Pacejka models and the MF are mainly based around slip angles rather than slip ratios/percentages are they not?Pacejka-like models are the industry standard; it doesn't matter that GT5 doesn't include certain adjustments here and there, they're practically all based on look-up tables for tangential wheel speed divided by ground speed ("slip ratio") for longitudinal grip. I.e. they all share the same divergence.
Fingers crossed for the sim side of things, I certainly know that its moved on in the tyre industry.This is the "parameterisation issue", given the Pacejka model was developed not for the sim industry, but for the tyre industry where, presumably, zero speed isn't a very interesting "problem". Things have probably changed in both industries in the last ten years, so it'll be interesting to see what comes of the next generation of sims.
True, but the brush model has its own issues, as while it does deal with low-speed more effectively its generally a lot less accurate overall. so its a trade off for the smaller devs, who as you say will struggle to get hard data to work with. The LFS dev team have I believe said pretty much that in the past.To date, I think only a few independent sims have strayed away from purely empirical adjustment factors and into physical modeling (e.g. "brush", as in LFS) - perhaps empirical data is hard to "come by" for smaller developers.
From what I can gather its a mixture of the two, they used MF for the higher speed work, but then used empirical data to 'correct' the lower speed issues. Working with Pirreli to gather a wider range of data that would normally be collected, particularly in regard to lower speed and drifting conditions. The advantage of working with a single tyre manufacturer is that you can actually get this info, the disadvantage of course is that you only have data for that manufacturer. Which is great if the car comes with OEM tyres from them, and wrong (in a right way if you get what I mean) if it doesn't.Interestingly, Forza is supposed to use a non-Pacejka model, but I think it's still empirically-based.
I have to be honest and say I think we still have quite a way to go until home machines (be it PC or not) are going to be able to accurately run a physical tyre model in real time for multiple tyres on multiple cars, damn complex stuff inflated rubber.The reason physical models are the holy grail, for me, is that you can include infinite variability and the tyre should behave correctly, assuming the model is accurate over the range allowable in the game.
That kind of customisation is prohibitive for empirical models, since you need to have all that data to hand, or "interpolate" between similar tyres and ignore potential differences that actually matter in real life; those differences that would theoretically just fall out of a physical model. Note that both iRacing and LFS are working towards physical models, despite the former having access to practically all the empirical data that can be measured (the fact that much of the important stuff can't be reliably measured might be the driving force.)
I'm actually disappointed in GT5, after all the years of waiting. This is all they can give us? horns? seriously? 6 wheels to pick from? having to earn paint just to paint your car and wheels? premium and standard cars, seriously? Only some cars can do race modification?
....
Pacejka models and the MF are mainly based around slip angles rather than slip ratios/percentages are they not?
Slip percentage alone is relatively straightforward to handle in its base form, which is why its odd that GT still has issues in that area. I do however 100% agree that divergence is the issue in regard to low-speed values within the MF and that accounts for a lot of GT's low speed tyre issues.
Fingers crossed for the sim side of things, I certainly know that its moved on in the tyre industry.
True, but the brush model has its own issues, as while it does deal with low-speed more effectively its generally a lot less accurate overall. so its a trade off for the smaller devs, who as you say will struggle to get hard data to work with. The LFS dev team have I believe said pretty much that in the past.
From what I can gather its a mixture of the two, they used MF for the higher speed work, but then used empirical data to 'correct' the lower speed issues. Working with Pirreli to gather a wider range of data that would normally be collected, particularly in regard to lower speed and drifting conditions. The advantage of working with a single tyre manufacturer is that you can actually get this info, the disadvantage of course is that you only have data for that manufacturer. Which is great if the car comes with OEM tyres from them, and wrong (in a right way if you get what I mean) if it doesn't.
I have to be honest and say I think we still have quite a way to go until home machines (be it PC or not) are going to be able to accurately run a physical tyre model in real time for multiple tyres on multiple cars, damn complex stuff inflated rubber.
One interesting thing I did not in regard to empirical data that the T10 team did make was that when they used to get data from a range of manufacturer they found that almost none of them actually measured the exact same data, the conditions, range and even type of data varied to quite a degree, making a true empirical based model for a range of manufacturers almost impossible, which is why they went with a single one and could be why iRacing is going down the route of a physical model.