Performance Point system fails because of...

[Sander 001]

In this case, the math problem itself is determined by common sense. Solving a math problem that is not helpful or useful (in this case a formula that does not actually help rank the cars in GT5 in a way that allows them to be matched fairly), is a waste of time, no matter how well you solve it.

This has started with you attempting to shoot down my suggestion that PP is a system used to rank a car's "race-track potential" (call it what you will, everyone knows what I'm referring to) so that it can be matched with other, different, cars of equal "race-track potential" and allow closely matched racing with a broad spectrum of vehicles on the tracks within the game, and as such if the PP does not accurately reflect a car's "race-track potential", then its value is limited.

Please, just tell me what you think all of these algebraic equations (which btw are not half as complex as you are implying) are for, then.

After all these posts, it should be at least somewhat clearer.
You use the word potential, and that's exactly correct. Just remember that there are many things that can enhance or impede potential. A race track is only part of that potential, and you have to realize that this potential is constantly varying and shifting with each moment the car is on track.
Where common sense comes into play is if you have the ability to maximize that potential or not. No matter how good a PP system is, it will not replace your own good sense.

 

[Sander 001]

Toyota 7 Race Car '70 - 732PP
Chaparral 2J Race Car '70 - 648PP

2J is faster than the Toyota around the track by seconds.

Factors PP system takes into account:
- Power
- Weight
- Downforce

Factors PP system doesn't take into account:
- Grip (tyre width)
- Weight distribution
- Tires
- Aspiration (n/a, turbo. supercharger)
- Drive (AWD, RWD, FF, FR, MR, RR)

Feel free to correct me.

Corrections:
-PP takes downforce into account only via wing angle.
-it takes aspiration into account as it measures torque.
-grip: the PP system does take it into account as it either measures tire size or track width. This one's not as obvious but it's there. I often race my FT86(a sports compact) and LFA in 500+pp races- similar power, the FT86 is much lighter yet they're close in PP. In practice, the LFA definitely does have a mechanical grip advantage even though it weighs some 200kg more(ballast added on the 86).

It's pretty strange that out of the 1,000+ cars in GT5, you happen to select one of only 2 cars that the PP system bypasses.

 

[Tornado]

I think it takes drive into account: IRL Rear wheel drive is faster than 4WD because 4WD weighs more, meaning power-to-weight is lower.

AWD is banned from many racing series because this usually isn't true in all but the most extreme examples.

 

[dani_corvette]

I think it takes drive into account: IRL Rear wheel drive is faster than 4WD because 4WD weighs more, meaning power-to-weight is lower. If PP didn't take drive into account then a 4WD and *R drive car with the same power/weight would have the same PP, but the 4WD would have the additional advantage of a better power delivery system (i.e. 4WD would always be better than anything else). However, in practice 4WD is pretty much always worse for PP than the equivalent *R car. So, I think they modify PP for drive train, adding a handicapper to 4WD cars, and this handicap is actually a little too big.

N.B. This is my experience from driving everything I thought would be competitive at 400pp - the numbers may change at higher PPs.

I can tell you that this does not happen at higher PP levels. I find myself racing many times with my friends in the 550-600 PP range, and I'm sick of bringing my RWD cars such as 'Vettes, Vipers, SLRs, etc, and having my ass burned by their 4x4 R8s, Murciélagos or GT-Rs. And that's with exactly the same PPs. Once they choose a RWD car, I usually take the win easily, so I guess it's not a driver problem. What happens is that no matter how bad their racing line may be ( not always, but sometimes they missbrake and go very wide), they can always rocket out of the turns flooring the throttle, while I have to be patient and smooth with the throttle, so I always trail them on the straights. The slipstream helps, but more times than not, it's not enough, and in the next turn the same story goes on again.
Fortunately, the Nürburgring is a great exception, since the continuous curves are favorable towards RWD cars, and kill 4x4s due to their massive understeer

 

[kilttraeger]

Umm FR cars are actually underperform in this game. A Dodge Viper ACR, GTB florano, SLR, Vettes are discriminately harder for my bob to drive whereas LP670, LP640 and the like produce better lap times (general) than any of these on the same "ring" gp track

Bob loves AWD cars; you should not compare his abilities to that of humans.

As for the overall AWD vs RWD debate: It must be balanced, because both sides claim (dis-)advantages to either train drive

 

[sinbad]

After all these posts, it should be at least somewhat clearer.
You use the word potential, and that's exactly correct. Just remember that there are many things that can enhance or impede potential. A race track is only part of that potential, and you have to realize that this potential is constantly varying and shifting with each moment the car is on track.
Where common sense comes into play is if you have the ability to maximize that potential or not. No matter how good a PP system is, it will not replace your own good sense.

Potential is indeed the correct word, I don't think the weather or tyre wear plays a part that helps skinny tyred old 2wd cars win against 4wd modern cars that are already several seconds per lap faster in the dry though, do you?

It's not about winning or losing, it's about the system being useful, or not. I'm not complaining because I don't know how to pick the fastest car at 500pp anymore than you are defending it because you know the secret best cars at every pp tier.

All anyone really wants is for it to be improved so that these numerous glaringly obvious differences in actual laptime amongst cars at pretty much any given PP are reduced. If that means PP per circuit then fine, or PP per tyre type, or a simple addition of a tyre width or age factor, or an AI driver doing a test lap to rate it, I don't care.

As it is I know that in general if I take a really old upgraded car at any given PP, it would be far slower than a modern one with fewer or no mods. The older one will burn up its skinny tyres faster and be far trickier to drive. No matter how you want to try to sugar-coat it, that means it doesn't work very well.

 

[Yev]

Corrections:
-PP takes downforce into account only via wing angle.
-it takes aspiration into account as it measures torque.
-grip: the PP system does take it into account as it either measures tire size or track width. This one's not as obvious but it's there. I often race my FT86(a sports compact) and LFA in 500+pp races- similar power, the FT86 is much lighter yet they're close in PP. In practice, the LFA definitely does have a mechanical grip advantage even though it weighs some 200kg more(ballast added on the 86).

It's pretty strange that out of the 1,000+ cars in GT5, you happen to select one of only 2 cars that the PP system bypasses.

True, only via wing angle.
That's why 2J has such low PP rating.

 

[Nismo34]

And you should not say it is balanced when i clearly gave a detailed example on how it isn't, considering that the driver is at the same level on the same track etc..

With the server down and noting else to do, Im off to nurburgring GP/ Again to see if the PP System Is actually accurate between the 2 drive types...

 

[kilttraeger]

And you should not say it is balanced when i clearly gave a detailed example on how it isn't, considering that the driver is at the same level on the same track etc..

Dear Sir,

my humble apologies for daring to come to a different conclusion.

Probably I was rather misled by dani_corvette's statement..:

Fortunately, the Nürburgring is a great exception, since the continuous curves are favorable towards RWD cars, and kill 4x4s due to their massive understeer

In addition, in my experience in online races with road cars within the 480 - 550 PP bracket, I have real close battles with my M3 CSL against other FR, MR and AWD cars - it seems this comes down to the driver's abilities.

If I recall correctly, each Bob has to familiarise himself with either form of drive train; differences in expierence in either drivetrain may materialize in different performances.

Last but not least, I stand by my hypothesis that Bobs 'love' (aka have the least problems) with AWD cars.

Either way, I'm looking forward to any productive outcome of this thread.

 

[Neterin]

Definitively, the PP system measures something else than peak power, weight, peak torque and aerodynamics' angle.

Here is the proof:

Suzuki SWIFT Sport '05 (untouched from the premium dealership)
Power: 121PS@7000RPM
Torque: 143Nm@5000RPM
Weight: 1060Kg
Redline starts at 7000RPM.
Rev limiter kicks off at 7500RPM.
PP: 350

Suzuki Swift Sport '07 (untouched from the premium dealership)
Power: 121PS@7000RPM
Torque: 143Nm@5000RPM
Weight: 1060Kg
Redline starts at 7000RPM.
Rev limiter kicks off at 7500RPM.
PP: 346

Both cars have the same length, width, height and engine displacement.

 

[Nismo34]

And the results are in-
Both cars were limited to 600pp
Both were run on racing softs.
Lap times were run at Nurburgring GP/F
3 laps each.

Viper ACR:
Lap 1) 2:03.847
Lap 2) 2:02.422
Lap 3) 2:02.629

70's Challenger R/T (premium dealer)
Lap 1) 2:03.546
Lap 2) 2:02.937
Lap 3) 2:02.691

Pretty close. In addition to those 2 cars, I also ran 3 more, also limited to 600pp, racing softs, 3 laps Nurburgring GP/F.

Audi R10:
Lap 1) 2:00.372
Lap 2) 2:00.754
Lap 3) 2:00.707

Zonda R:
Lap 1) 2:02.196
Lap 2) 2:01.035
Lap 3) 2:00.875 (Invalid due to slight corner cut)

NASCAR:
Lap 1) 2:03.230
Lap 2) 2:02.187
Lap 3) 2:01.912

Previous results are above.

New results here:
Lamborghini Murcielago LP670-4 SV:
Lap 1)2:03.709
Lap 2)1:58.001
Lap 3)1:58.720

Nissan Skyline R34:
Lap 1)2:02.056
Lap 2)2:00.881
Lap 3)2:00.592
Not bad considering they both under steered like boats.

 

[Sander 001]

Potential is indeed the correct word, I don't think the weather or tyre wear plays a part that helps skinny tyred old 2wd cars win against 4wd modern cars that are already several seconds per lap faster in the dry though, do you?

It's not about winning or losing, it's about the system being useful, or not. I'm not complaining because I don't know how to pick the fastest car at 500pp anymore than you are defending it because you know the secret best cars at every pp tier.

All anyone really wants is for it to be improved so that these numerous glaringly obvious differences in actual laptime amongst cars at pretty much any given PP are reduced. If that means PP per circuit then fine, or PP per tyre type, or a simple addition of a tyre width or age factor, or an AI driver doing a test lap to rate it, I don't care.

As it is I know that in general if I take a really old upgraded car at any given PP, it would be far slower than a modern one with fewer or no mods. The older one will burn up its skinny tyres faster and be far trickier to drive. No matter how you want to try to sugar-coat it, that means it doesn't work very well.

I've lost races with my 4WD Lambo against 2WD skinny tire cars. But I've also won plenty of races with my 1954 Gullwing, which has skinny tires because PP does take into account mechanical grip so it makes up for it with lower weight and more HP. There's a time and place for everything and PP demonstrates that. You have to use your good sense to figure out what that time and place is; the PP won't do the thinking for you.

 

[WolfpackS2k]

PP does not work for one simple reason...you can't upgrade the brakes! Putting everything else aside, without the ability upgrade brakes you can't compare old cars to new cars very well. The old cars will be outbraked every time.

I still can't get over how glaring an omission of brake modification is for a racing game, ugh!

 

[Exorcet]

While the terrible brake modelling is unfortunate, it doesn't have any effect on how good PP is.

 

[SavageEvil]

PP does not work for one simple reason...you can't upgrade the brakes! Putting everything else aside, without the ability upgrade brakes you can't compare old cars to new cars very well. The old cars will be outbraked every time.

I still can't get over how glaring an omission of brake modification is for a racing game, ugh!

You might want to check that statement, brake kits do not make your car stop faster, it just combats brake fade(degradation). If PD was going to add brake fade, they would also have to add brake fluid overheating as well. Brake systems are quite detailed and they are more than just larger discs and multi piston calipers, also includes master cylinder and type spec fluid. GT5 makes it simple since they have not catered for brake fade as yet to just keep it simple. GT5 gives all cars disc brakes and a braking controller so you can get better braking control out of even the most horrible braking cars. A little research would have let you know why you don't see the topic being debated on here, it has been done and we have all come to the conclusion why. If in time PD add brake fade then I will welcome brake upgrades, but it might be pointless considering once everyone is using the best kit, we'll be right back to square one.

While the terrible brake modelling is unfortunate, it doesn't have any effect on how good PP is.

It's actually the brake settings that are wrong in a globalized way. If you turn them down to 3 Front and 2 Rear would mimic most road cars' factory brake setting. It works quite well when you figured out what they were trying to address in the first place, but I wished that they set all the cars to stock performance settings that way out of the box you get that factory handling. Most cars driven at below the limit pace won't be affected much, it's when you push it that the 50/50 setting for brake balance throws things on it's ear. But we have ways, just wished PD would actually send an update to address it for all cars.

 

[hightyme]

I'm a fan of the PP system as an online regulator. I like the variety in choice when entering a room, that I can choose either one in my garage that's right on the pp range, or use an overpowered, light 7 speed; detuned a little, like the Amuse S2000 for example. I do feel no matter what the choice, the grid is pretty much on par in terms of cars. Redgardless, this game always, always comes down to the driving.
(Tires should also effect PP)

 

[Jbbubba]

Hmmm...impressed that such a simple topic could be broken down into so much detail like this! Just want to say a few things:

1. I saw you had a list of factors PP does and does not account for (new to these types of forums, so I don't know how to quote yet). I am curious, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was those characteristics of a car specifically that affected the PP? It seems to me like the drivetrain would have a big impact on it, because RWD cars certainly have more acceleration than AWD cars do, while the handling is debatable depending on the driver...

2. I disagree with your idea that stock cars tuned up cannot compete with racecars that are tuned down to the identical PP. I like to drive my Murcielago SuperVeloce, and I've bought every upgrade available for it. I can easily compete with many other racecars (including the S2000). Are you taking driver ability/nonability into account here? Because if you do, the good rule-of-thumb that the PP system represents is virtually void, because on the track ability and tuning ability and preferences (as far as I know) can greatly change the way any given car drives for one person. And if you don't, well then you can never really account for all the variables in this equation.

 

[chuyler1]

To answer item 1, I'm really not sure if drivetrain is factored in. In my 450pp rooms the AWD cars usually run slower so there could be some base-line pp correction for 4wd. The only exception I've found is the Dodge Ram, which has significantly more straight line speed at 450pp than any other truck. In any case, it would be too hard to separate baseline engine performance from drivetrain performance in a given car. You just have to try out different cars to see what works best.

With regards to item 2, it really depends on the track. There is a separate thread discussing how to balance downforce with power. Every tick of downforce subtracts power from your car when you race with the pp system. On a tight course like Autumn ring where power isn't as important as handling a race car will have the advantage because it can add front downforce. However, on any track with a decent straight, street cars with very little downforce can pull away from race cars that are using too much downforce.

When the performance points are low enough, and downforce is set to minimum, race cars can still have an advantage over street cars. Their engines are tuned for high rpm power and have ideal power curves. Your Murcielago technically is a street car...but it is a super car designed with the same technology used in race cars. It doesn't surprise me that you can keep pace with race cars. Trying to keep up using a daily-driver type street car and you'll have more trouble.

 

[Jbbubba]

Ah ok, so what your trying to say is something like a fully tuned Skyline for instance doesnt have the capacity to outperform a racecar like the ARTA NSX tuned down to identical PP levels? That I could easily see where PP is flawed (believe me, I've tried to race racecars in a Skyline, doesnt work out the way I intend it to )

 

[chuyler1]

Yes. The power curve on the Skyline is probably well rounded with moderate power across a wide band while the power curve for the ARTA NSX will have massive peak horsepower at redline with an overall higher redline.

 

[VQuick]

That's how Forza 3 does it. The end result is not much better.

Part of the problem is that the PI system wasn't applied consistently. There is no reason that an awd 3600lb/420hp car should be outrun on a straight by another awd car that can, at best be tuned for either high 3600lb-range/350hp or 3900lbs/380hp. They should not have the same rating, yet it happens all too often in FM3.

 

[Sander 001]

Hmmm...impressed that such a simple topic could be broken down into so much detail like this! Just want to say a few things:

1. I saw you had a list of factors PP does and does not account for (new to these types of forums, so I don't know how to quote yet). I am curious, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was those characteristics of a car specifically that affected the PP? It seems to me like the drivetrain would have a big impact on it, because RWD cars certainly have more acceleration than AWD cars do, while the handling is debatable depending on the driver...

2. I disagree with your idea that stock cars tuned up cannot compete with racecars that are tuned down to the identical PP. I like to drive my Murcielago SuperVeloce, and I've bought every upgrade available for it. I can easily compete with many other racecars (including the S2000). Are you taking driver ability/nonability into account here? Because if you do, the good rule-of-thumb that the PP system represents is virtually void, because on the track ability and tuning ability and preferences (as far as I know) can greatly change the way any given car drives for one person. And if you don't, well then you can never really account for all the variables in this equation.

4WD cars have significantly more driveline friction and mass. This is more noticeable at lower PP.

To add to what Chuyler says, also remember a fully tuned Skyline still only has semi-racing parts like clutch, flywheel etc. Racing cars are also able to usually have better weight distributions too.

But race cars are often at a disadvantage because they have downforce that takes away PP from other areas. Even the minimum downforce setting still takes away a significant amount of PP. At lower PP's, let's say 520 perhaps, you can pretty much guarantee that a road NSX will beat an ARTA NSX on almost every single track.

 

[FishHunters]

Perfect example: Fireblade at about 557PP and 148HP vs. Saleen 7 at 562PP and 548HP. Tell me who's going to win that race?!

 

[Nismo34]

Perfect example: Fireblade at about 557PP and 148HP vs. Saleen 7 at 562PP and 548HP. Tell me who's going to win that race?!

Depends on the track. Short, tight, twisty, the Fireblade stands a chance, long, wide, fast, the Saleen will win.

 

[hightyme]

Perfect example: Fireblade at about 557PP and 148HP vs. Saleen 7 at 562PP and 548HP. Tell me who's going to win that race?!

& what do they weigh?

Tires, transmisson & suspension are a big part in being fast on a track. The PP system isn't perfect, but it's close. Having a well set tranny&susp. will get you up front

 

[chuyler1]

Although a proper suspension setup can make a car faster, I don't think it is enough to overcome the inherent "skinny tire syndrome" I experience. Case in point, take a Premium Camaro and race it against a Cougar. Tune both for 500pp. The Cougar generally gives you good straight line speed, but when both vehicles are on the same tires, the Cougar simply doesn't have any grip. You can experiment with whacky suspension setups to get the car to rotate abnormally, but you have to drive on edge to keep up with the Camaro which carves turns effortlessly. Maybe it is weight distribution, maybe its some other factor.

But generally speaking, your statement is correct. A good tranny and suspension setup for a given track will put you at the front on any track that has a good combination of turns and straights. However, making passes during the race requires straight line speed. Some cars just don't have it. You can keep pace with the draft but you'll never take the lead without a mistake by the other driver or a dirty move on your part.

 

[plate88]

For the most part I feel the PP system is fair. There are a few car and track combinations that lend themselves to having advantages/disadvantages. Like the PDI Racing Kart(mine has 512pp, top speed 87mph), haha. Almost raced it last night in a 500pp room just the heck of it. Thats an extreme example, but a glaring one. Fail:tdown:

 

[Smoothherb]

Only thing that angers me are people who set the pp to 584 or strange numbers like this, only because there perfect setup match it.
I think that this is a try to get a advantage and I avoid this rooms.

We only need some more Filters like Years or Roadcars and the PP system should work just fine.

Oh I forgot the tyres! This is a must ad.

 

[chuyler1]

Sure, if we added more filters the pp system would be perfectly fair.
* Min/Max Year
* Combining power and/or weight restrictions with pp
* road cars vs street cars
* max downforce for front and rear

However, you can't say it is fair if these restrictions are required just to make it fair.

The other day I hosted a same-make/model lobby where all drivers had to run the Lancia Delta from the premium dealer and add mods to get it to 450pp. Some chose one mod over another. For example, some decided to use a midrpm turbo instead of a highrpm turbo. Once we got on the track, it was obvioius some cars were quicker than others in a straight line. Some were quicker than others in the turns. There was a huge variety of speeds within this very restricted race and obviously driver skill played a part too.

My point basically is, performance points will not create a fair "driver's" race. PP gets cars within a 3-5 second window for lap times. To close that gap, you need to improve your tune, select more appropriate parts, fiddle with ballast/power reduction, or simply pick a different car.