ORCA General Discussion

  • Thread starter BrandonW77
  • 790 comments
  • 30,070 views
Anyway. Has anyone driven much since v1.04? I did some brake bias testing last night, I've been racing the LCC Rocket every week and had been running a F3 R7 brake bias after this setup was suggested to me to reduce understeer, however I noticed no difference in the car. I jumped in it last night and whenever I would touch the brakes the back end would come around. I put it at 10/10 (which is what all cars supposedly ran at before the update regardless of settings) and it would lock up (running ABS 0) under about 30-40% braking. Dialed it back to 3/3 and now it feels like it did before the update, handles great and doesn't lock up even under heavy braking.

I didn't notice as much difference in the BMW GT but haven't driven it much since the update. I've also noticed fairly substantial differences in the tire model and physics in general. Anyone else experience these differences?
 
On an online room the brake balance now works - I can confirm, if it didn't, then there would be no way I'd be having ABS off for this weeks race. I'm running a 4/6 bias for what it's worth though I appreciate that will probably be nothing like what you would use with a wheel.

EDIT: What times are you getting?
 
I was thinking that when I was dialing the brakes in, my setup probably wouldn't work on a controller and vice versa. I tried 4/5 and 4/6 but the back was too loose for me and still had a bit of lockup. 3/3 feels perfect for my wheel. Best lap was a 1:15.997 but I can probably shave another half second off that.
 
I was thinking that when I was dialing the brakes in, my setup probably wouldn't work on a controller and vice versa. I tried 4/5 and 4/6 but the back was too loose for me and still had a bit of lockup. 3/3 feels perfect for my wheel. Best lap was a 1:15.997 but I can probably shave another half second off that.

I thought I was going to be miles off you this week but I'm managing mid 15's at the moment. I might finally get you this week :P.
 
I haven't put the GT6 disc into the PS3 since our failed attempt at the Daytona race. The longer I stay away the harder it is to come back. That combined with becoming more out of practice every day, makes it even easier to stay away.

I'd like to stay with GT6, but with most of the people I race with having gone away; the motivation just isn't there. I was hoping the BMWs at Daytona was going to shock my enthusiasm back up a bit, but of course GT only further succeeded in disappointing. If something comes together I'll certainly try my best to be a part.

For what it's worth, I never noticed the brake bias issues previously reported. I often run a much different bias than some others, so perhaps that may be why. I know that when I had tested the BMW at Daytona I noticed a difference in various bias settings. When I had made a change, it was apparent.
 
I thought I was going to be miles off you this week but I'm managing mid 15's at the moment. I might finally get you this week :P.

It took me 45 minutes just to get the car feeling like it did before the update, and then the track started getting dark and I was slow. We reset the time to daylight and once I squeezed off a sub-16 I called it a day. If I can get comfortable with the car again 14's might be possible.


@Marcus Garvey, brake bias never changed for me when online (it worked in some offline modes) and most reports on here say it didn't work online according to tests. I know when I got online after the update there was absolutely no doubt that the car I've been racing for the last 4 weeks was a completely different beast. Now when I adjust the bias there is a major difference in the car, more than I ever experienced in GT5. If you ever dust off the game again give a go and see if there's a difference. I never noticed major differences in GT5 when adjust the brakes but there are certainly differences now. Pre-1.04 the brakes on the Rocket (with no ABS) would only lock up with 95-100% braking and at very slow speeds (at high speeds it wouldn't lock up at all) even with the bias at 10/10. Post-1.04 I was locking them up with the bias at 5/5 and 4/5.
 
Didn't notice any difference to the physics with the 1.04 update. I presume I'm just incredibly inept at noticing things like this as it seems everyone else reports massive changes; whereas my lap times always stay consistent and I never feel like anythings different.

Brake balance certainly didn't work online before 1.04 though, I did lots of testing with many cars and brake balance only made a difference on offline mode. I wonder if camber is fixed now? I should really check that one out.
 
I think a lot of the changes would be hard to notice without a wheel. But they're one of the more substantial changes I've noticed in either game.

Reports indicate camber has changed but still isn't right. I've never touched it though so I wouldn't know.
 
I always felt that the brake adjustment in GT5 was actually fairly drastic. Over time my bias separation grew smaller and smaller. The Lotus 111R RM was probably one of the more significant cases that I recall; where the car was largely undriveable in stock form but became manageable when the rear braking force was reduced.

I haven't driven the new update, but I found a difference in the BMW at Daytona when I had tested it for the race. On my initial testing I was experiencing rear lockup in 3 turns that were upsetting the car. Once again dropping the rear calmed the car down and resulted in what I consider a significant time benefit, as well as more driveability especially as the tyres wear in. I also experienced the same testing the Lotus 111R RM on GT6. I'm usually quite sensitive to small variances, and perhaps that may be responsible for my unique perspective on the topic.

As a glimpse into my opinions on the popular consensus amongst the teenage tuners.....For the record, in GT5 when everyone was going all nuts about the camber and more specifically ride height adjustments being backwards; I disagreed there too. I attributed a lot of those reports to people making uninformed suspension changes and the resulting effects not being what they desired. I recall specifically about folks complaining that in certain circumstances raising the front ride height resulted in reduced understeer and many people making blanket statements about how a lower front ride height and higher rear should produce less understeer. What they didn't understand is what the changes they made truly affected. It's about tyre loading. A lower front will produce more loading on the fronts often providing more turn in response, and of course further unloading the rears causing the car to experience less understeer....at entry only. That part is important. Now, as you progress further into the turn and the car has taken a set, this car with a lower front ride height will still be loading the fronts greater than the same car with a higher front height. By mid-turn, most of us(if you are using nearly all of the available tyre grip and getting the most from the car) will be facing increasing understeer as the fronts begin to overload sooner with the lower front height. It's all a compromise. Typically, lowering the front will produce better turn in response and earlier loading, but as a byproduct also earlier overloading and mid-late corner understeer. The same car with a relatively higher front height will have less turn in response, but better mid corner behaviour and harder to overdrive upon exit. You know how on most cars, even a FWD, once the car takes a set after turn in it will typically tighten the exit radius as you roll on the throttle. Even lower power RWDs where rear tyre spin on the rear axle isn't contributing to further turning the car on exit, you will notice more front grip as you apply the throttle(unless you are already way over the limit, or way under it). Lower front height produces more weight over the front wheels.....simple as that. More weight means lower peak grip, and lower peak grip on the front axle usually means slower lap times. What feels right and what is actually fast are often not the same thing.

Little of that ever concerned me personally, as I tend to drive with tuning prohibited, but I thought it funny to watch the discussions nonetheless.
 
Though I don't have any real life experience, I do have some experience with highly-adjustable mid-range hobby-grade RC vehicles I used to mess around with.

For ride height, lowering the front did help turn-in, but it also helped when the car was never capable of actually putting enough weight on the front tires. This is particularly the case in lifted RC trucks. Under-steer like a brick, and never grip. By lowering the front you could actually get to a nice balance, like you said.

Camber is hugely affected by suspension, geometry, and tire sidewall. I can't think of one series that doesn't run some degree of camber up front (minus drag racing). When the car leans into a corner, it's going to want to use the outside edge. The goal of camber is to try to use the entire tire. No Car/tire/physics will change this.

According to Gran Turismo, 0 degrees camber equals maximum grip. Unless the car is so top-heavy that it's nearly rolling over, which suggests to me that the camber in Gran Turismo is not being calculated correctly. Potentially they are measuring forces loading onto the tire from the inside edge first when it comes to normal cornering. Only when you're really rolling (when I say rolling, I mean really rolling over) will it's function offset the angle so it actually starts affecting the angle the tires hits the road. Sorry if I don't quite explain myself well.

In short, there is no excuse for camber at 0 being faster. I would expect camber at 4 degrees would be obviously too much for most cars, but to say that anything past 0 will only slow you down makes no sense.


My other theory is they got positive and negative backward.
 
Lower front height produces more weight over the front wheels.....simple as that. More weight means lower peak grip, and lower peak grip on the front axle usually means slower lap times. What feels right and what is actually fast are often not the same thing.

Why would a reduced front ride height put more 'weight' over the front axle?

'weight' = M*g = M*9.81, unless you are counting the lower front end to be closer to the earths core and therefore more under the influence of the earths gravitational pull then a lower front will not encounter any more 'weight'.

Similarly, 'peak grip' (at least in one degree of freedom) can be calculated by friction coefficients of two bodies multiplied by a force (mass in this case) in the axis we are measuring;

Fmax = Mu (COF) * Fnominal

So weight over the axle of the wheels is beneficial in terms of overall traction.
 
Why would a reduced front ride height put more 'weight' over the front axle?

At static, it won't. Adjusting ride height will only affect crossweights when measured on the scales by jacking one corner or the other. In fact, raising the ride height increases the pressure on a given wheel at static. Very rarely are cars static on the track, unless you stopped, of course. Think of a table where you want all of the legs an equal length. If one leg is shorter than the others the table will have less weight carried on that one leg compared to the others. Now, when you tip that table(like a car does in a turn) so the short leg is on the ground the table now leans toward that side. No, the total weight of the table hasn't changed, but the load or weight on each individual leg has and now the short leg has more weight on it and the leg opposite it now has less weight.

'weight' = M*g = M*9.81, unless you are counting the lower front end to be closer to the earths core and therefore more under the influence of the earths gravitational pull then a lower front will not encounter any more 'weight'.
An entertaining thought, but no the proximity to the core isn't in play here.

Similarly, 'peak grip' (at least in one degree of freedom) can be calculated by friction coefficients of two bodies multiplied by a force (mass in this case) in the axis we are measuring;

Fmax = Mu (COF) * Fnominal

So weight over the axle of the wheels is beneficial in terms of overall traction.

That assumes the level of traction increases linearly with loading. It doesn't. If that were true a 2000kg car would have higher peak grip(assuming the same tyre size, spring rates, etc) than a 1000kg car. That isn't true either. Yes, a tyre does gain grip with increased load, up to a point. This point is different for every tyre and the point where traction falls off is dependant upon many factors. As the load increases at some point the sidewall will begin to distort and lose traction. Increased load also produces increased temperatures. Every tyre has an ideal temperature range, and as the temperatures increase beyond this range the compound gets greasy and loses grip. The more loading on the tyre the sooner this happens in a turn. There is a lot going on and I could type up a book on it, but those are a few factors.

If you want another good one, all ride heights equal, crossweights equal, and f/r disribution equal; putting a stiffer spring rate on one corner(of the same height as the other 3) will result in a proportionately increased load at the surface on that one tyre during a turn.

Again, think of the feeling as you pick up the throttle for corner exit and the front begins to develop more grip. This is occuring because the acceleration of the car is transferring weight off of the front axle(reducing the weight/load on that axle) and onto the rear axle. There is only so much traction available(think friction circle) and as you pick up the throttle for corner exit you are taking load off of the front axle, thus freeing up more available grip. This only applies if you are driving near the limit. If you aren't getting anywhere near the limits of adhesion in cornering, then this transferring of weight around isn't going to have a great effect. Much as adjusting the brake bias isn't going to change much if you aren't nearing the traction limit under braking.
 
Last edited:
Very rarely are cars static on the track, unless you stopped, of course.

The term you are after is inertia then? Not weight?

If that were true a 2000kg car would have higher peak grip(assuming the same tyre size, spring rates, etc) than a 1000kg car.

Yes, it absolutely would, in the 1 degree of freedom we are referring to here. Under 4 degrees of freedom - as in going around a racetrack on the ground and not flying, then again their would be inertia calculations to be considered.

This is occuring because the acceleration of the car is transferring weight off of the front axle(reducing the weight/load on that axle) and onto the rear axle.

No, the weight is static, other than perhaps engine fluids and the driver moving about. This is, again, a matter of a tendency to retain momentum.

I see where you're coming from from the most part. I'm just not sure I'm convinced PD has bothered with a particularly accurate model of, well, anything ... and in that regard I don't personally read anything into dynamics. I'm still of the train of thought anything done on a computer should be treated as a game and left as such!

Nice hearing your two pence on the matter though. Thanks 👍.
 
Explain wheelies then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

Inertia.

If wheelies were caused by weight then the engine/gearbox/everything else of mass would shift to the back of the car under acceleration. They remain static (clearly, we can see this because they don't physically move), the force applied in axis X (going forward in this case) causes the inertia shift that lifts the front.
 
Some knowledge being dropped in here. All I know is the right pedal makes me go, the left one makes me stop and if I turn the round thing I go in different directions. :sly:
 
If a car doesn't move weight while driving then I wonder why the top set up guys even bother with spring weights.

Cars indeed move weight. Inertia is the described physics that moves it. However this physic combined with suspension does indeed load different corners with more weight.

Weight movement is very relevant the COG on a car. Once a cars COG is found setting it up is easy money. Using levers aka suspension arms.

Anyway. I know enough to know I am not a pro set up guy. LoL

Let's make this simple. What compresses a spring? /conversation.
 
Last edited:
So if the weight on the tyres(vertical load/force applied at the contact patch) is always static, then what is going on here?

[Image of 3 wheeling car]

Sure looks like there is a lot less weight on that RR than any of the others.
 
Last edited:
If a car doesn't move weight while driving then I wonder why the top set up guys even bother with spring weights.

You're confusing the term weight with a scalar force of momentum being additive to the force already created by mass on one corner of the car. Weight on all four corners of the car retains identical in all conditions as is consistent with weight = mass * gravity, which on earth is 9.81 Newtons, and 9,81 m/s^2 under the circumstances of acceleration.
 
So if the weight on the tyres(vertical load/force applied at the contact patch) is always static, then what is going on here?
img_5684.jpg


Sure looks like there is a lot less weight on that RR than any of the others.

The weight on all for corners is still identical, what this picture illustrates is the forward momentum (lets call it axis X) resisting the positive force from turning in axis Y. the mass is constant, the lean is not caused by mass - it is caused by the force in the Y axis.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

Inertia.

If wheelies were caused by weight then the engine/gearbox/everything else of mass would shift to the back of the car under acceleration. They remain static (clearly, we can see this because they don't physically move), the force applied in axis X (going forward in this case) causes the inertia shift that lifts the front.
mass is inertia. read your link.
 
mass is inertia. read your link.

Mass is a factor in inertia calculation much as is distance away from a fulcrum is a factor in the calculation of torque (force*distance). Weight refers to mass*gravity, inertia calculations are not reliant on gravity.
 
Which is still force acting upon the mass of sprung weight. Not sure where you are going with this.

Yes, we all agree it compresses more because there is a force acting upon it. Where am I going with this? The fact the front springs would compress more under braking is because it's not weight, it's inertia force. So when the same braking car comes to a complete stop the springs decompress - because the inertia force has been removed and they are then only under the force of the weight of the car. Is that theoretical scenario making me easier to follow?
 
Yes, we all agree it compresses more because there is a force acting upon it. Where am I going with this? The fact the front springs would compress more under braking is because it's not weight, it's inertia force. So when the same braking car comes to a complete stop the springs decompress - because the inertia force has been removed and they are then only under the force of the weight of the car. Is that theoretical scenario making me easier to follow?

And while the front springs are compressed under braking, is there more weight/load on the tyre contact patch at the surface than when the car is sitting static in grid?
 
Back