Physics Flaw

[bullet360]

I'm confused by what you are trying to say. It is spelt plume by the way but what do you mean you by that? Do you mean his tyres smoke up just by turning in slightly?

Sorry for my grammatical mistakes, ipod touch, i do my best without "editing" cause it shows up as multiple posts with the same comments on, the same thread, well not rate away he gets steering lock but after about turning it 180 degrees left or right, he just begins to get understeer

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Sorry for my grammatical mistakes, ipod touch, i do my best without "editing" cause it shows up as multiple posts with the same comments on, the same thread, well not rate away he gets steering lock but after about turning it 180 degrees left or right, he just begins to get understeer

I don't find that, maybe he is just carrying too much speed?

 

[peter_vod69]

No.
Racing soft -> Racing hard = change of compound
Racing soft -> Comfort hard = change of compound + a lot smaller contact area

So it's not just a change of compound.

GT5 doesn't treat it that way.

 

[Griffith500]

GT5 doesn't treat it that way.

Indeed. What does change are things like optimal slip angle and wet-weather performance. This is quite an interesting phenomenon, though.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Since F1 cars uses only racing tires IRL then there is no data to go by to know how these car would drive with street tires. Since PD has no real data to go on there is no doubt the physics is wrong unless they just happen to get lucky.

 

[mykem]

Still, you should know that an F1 car produces nearly 80% of its grip from aerodynamics. When you say low aero setup, if you look closely it's still far more than any GT race car can manage, except for the Group C cars...

I did a quick test using downforce that's slightly higher than default value (@ 130/180) with both CH and RH compounds and than comparing the same tires using the least possible downforce value (50/100). The test was at Tsukuba with all aids OFF (including ABS with the brake sensitivity set to 5/3).

With the high downforce setup, the difference was less than a second- 48.9s' (RH) to 49.5s' (CH).

With low downforce, the difference was closer to 1.5 seconds- 49.8s' (RH) to 51.2s' (CH).

While the tire physics isn't meticulous, you can sense the fundamentals are relatively accurate.

 

[robbo6]

It wouldn't "rip itself to shreds" and if you thought about the way a tyre works you'd know why.

I'm not suggesting it's equivalent to anything, merely that it IS a harder compound.

"rip itself to shreds" is using a lot of artistic "dramatic" license. The tyre wouldn't even last to get to the first corner to get it up to 5gs (which it wouldn't do anyway because it would have insufficient lateral grip to get anywahere near 5g...the car would just slide off the track) 600+hp in that tyre would shred it under hard acceleration though. It most certainly would not act the way it does in GT5. Taking the name literally the tyres are the equivalent of the lowest speed rated tyres. So they are NOT designed for high speed or high G useage.

PD SHOULD have renamed all the tyres for the F1 cars then, to remove the misunderstanding of putting a road tyre compound on an F1 car....this is pretty shoddy programming as it wouldn't have taken long to do and would have stopped a lot of confusion.

 

[peter_vod69]

Well is it dramatic license or artistic license?

Yes PD screwed that bit of the game up, but for the fiftieth time, THE TYRE TYPES ARE A VAGUE REFERENCE TO THE COMPOUND ONLY! NOT SPEED RATINGS, SIDEWALL CONSTRUCTION, PROFILE, DIAMETER, WIDTH, TREAD PATTERN, BRAND, SHOP YOU BOUGHT IT FROM, WHAT YOUR FRIEND WITH THE 180SX THINKS OF THEM ETC ETC

 

[robbo6]

well is it dramatic license or artistic license?

Yes pd screwed that bit of the game up, but for the fiftieth time, the tyre types are a vague reference to the compound only! Not speed ratings, sidewall construction, profile, diameter, width, tread pattern, brand, shop you bought it from, what your friend with the 180sx thinks of them etc etc

(hmmm didn't know which one to use and didn't realise till now (thank you internet) that both terms mean the same thing...so just imagine that it's a double emphasis then ok?)

then why didn't pd make that more clear, maybe they should have employed you to do that and have it like this in the game then??

 

[peter_vod69]

THEY DID IT SO ANGRY NERDS COULD PISS AND MOAN ABOUT IT ON THE INTERNET FOR HOURS INSTEAD OF PLAYING THE GAME.

Along with a host of other things.

 

[robbo6]

hehehe....oh the irony someone BITCHING and MOANING online about people bitching and moaning online...who's the bigger nerd here?

 

[peter_vod69]

hehehe....oh the irony someone BITCHING and MOANING online about people bitching and moaning online...who's the bigger nerd here?

You.

 

[robbo6]

You.

LOL!!👍

 

[robbo6]

oh and this what the games itself says about comfort tyres.

"general purpose tyres, equipped as standard on most road cars"

So that to me implies it's not just a compound. Whether or not that's how the game "uses" it is largely irrelevant. It's misleading and confusing.

It just highlights that PD havn't put as much thought into the tyre physics and tyre choice as they should have.

 

[peter_vod69]

You should write an angry email to them highlighting your indignation.

 

[BradKinder]

People, stop taking the generic labels and "prices" of the tire options so seriously.

Every car gets 11 different tire options. There isn't a perfect way to describe the system GT5 has, you just get that many computer simulation tire options for each and every car. Turn on tire wear, turn off SRF, and try them for yourself.

That all of your tire options in an F1 car are similar isn't surprising.

 

[Griffith500]

My eyes.

The different tyre types have more subtlety to their behaviours than simple "grip levels". Maybe this is more apparent with a wheel and no aids, I don't know. Try the Sports Hard tyres in the rain; compare with Comfort Softs. (Naturally, anyone attempting this comparison without setting the grip reduction level to "real" needn't bother commenting - we have threads for that already.)

My experience shows the Comforts can be pushed "harder" in the dry; i.e. they like a little more slip for maximum grip, possibly representing more tyre-wall flex - although I'm not saying that's being strictly "simulated" in any way, just accounted for in the slip curves, if that's what they're using.

 

[shirakawaa]

What comfort soft tires lack, among other things (in addition for example to a generally more accurate and realistic physics model), in GT5 is the grip increase in their last moments of life due to the contact patch increasing in area as tire consumption progresses. Caveat: performance summer tires (comfort softs?) in RL usually have shallower grooves than "touring"-oriented ones (or wet and winter tires).

 

[Griffith500]

Exactly, the difficulty for road tyres is in replicating the vast range of characteristics from bog-standard, high-profile, floppy economy tyres on normal passenger cars, through the big run-flats on higher-end vehicles up to the stiff, sturdy, low-profile and somewhat stickier tyres offered on performance cars.

All of these come with different tread patterns, depth and stability, rubber compounds, aspect ratios, sidewall stiffness, belt stability etc. which must somehow be accounted for with three or four "tyres" in-game.

I'm not sure how I'd tackle that myself, but you can imagine any system accounting for all of that is going to need some serious testing.

 

[shirakawaa]

Part of those parameters in GT is in car specifications. That is, among hidden (to the user) car data such as suspension type, wheelbase, etc, there also are variables for tire data.

This means that the tires that can be purchased in the parts shop (as of now not only there) in GT5 only include a portion of the tire data that GT5 uses for each car. Personally I find this to be a really bad simplification. Ideally (at least in my mind) there should be a real "tire shop" with all sorts of compounds, sizes, types, allowed loads, etc - maybe limited in choice for each car - like in online tire shopping websites (like http://www.tirerack.com/ for example). The only problem, however, apart user interface complexity (big software houses like PD unfortunately strive to keep it easy enough so that even elementary schoolers are able to figure out what they're doing), would be the testing needed and the programming of all the differences between each possible tire.

But in my opinion tires need to be completely separated elements from car specifications.

 

[Griffith500]

Ah, that makes a lot of sense.

In an ideal world you would be able to browse a wide range of real tyres to put on the car. Of course, some of the compromises the manufacturers make with their tyres might be inconsequential in a game, so they may get a certain reputation either way.

That's a difficult one to solve.

 

[shirakawaa]

They could use fantasy names. They're already using one for some cars (notably the 100cc Kart) and rims: PDI (Polyphony Digital Inc.). In the end, as long as performance and the underlying physics/model are correct and they get rid of the current ugly and poor system, it doesn't matter much, at least for parts that don't use immediately recognizable graphics or patterns.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I think they should just reduce the range of tyres to what can usually be put on the road / race car. However this comfort hard tyres on the F1 car is definately a physics / tyre model flaw as once you put the downforce up, the tyres can't handle it. Also the Nurburgring GP lap I did shows that driving a F1 car on Comfort Hards can't put heat into the rear tyres. This is why I think it gives such good traction as the blue tyre symbol shows there is not enough spinning or load on the rear tyres that are enough to cause wear or heat for the tyres. I think an F1 car has enough power to do that .