killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Funny you said that Rams. Treed
Ride Height Glitch Returns in GT6
- Thread starter Motor City Hami
- 186 comments
- 25,753 views
- 42
- Out of this world
This is my first time on the forums and my first comment, all I'd like to say is this. I was hoping to find a little help with tuning as I don't have the first clue. Sadly what I find is what seems like two kids bickering! 
- 451
You'll get loads of advice if you ask, lots of people happy to help. Just be aware, players are still learning due to flaws in the game.
You must have got immense joy from yesterday's result.
- 42
- Out of this world
Thanks, I keep a look out for cars that I'm interested in then I can ask for advice, it's just knowing who to ask at times. I really understand the difficulties of getting used to the game, I was just managing to with GT5 and then this came out
Definitely enjoyed yesterdays result, but that Gerrard kids a bit crap. who misses a pen? haha
- 451
Thanks, I keep a look out for cars that I'm interested in then I can ask for advice, it's just knowing who to ask at times. I really understand the difficulties of getting used to the game, I was just managing to with GT5 and then this came out
Definitely enjoyed yesterdays result, but that Gerrard kids a bit crap. who misses a pen? haha
Have a read through the Motor City Tunes thread, it's has a highly informative tuning guide and is the only one with a basis on how tuning works in GT6. Others tend to be taken from real world techniques and/or previous versions of GT.
The general tuning thread in the stickies at top of thread is a useful quick reference guide. It doesn't cover all the bases on damper tuning and ride height but otherwise it's another really good resource.
It'll be trial and error finding tunes you really like, since people have different styles of driving. What's perfect for one player is a nightmare for another.
I would have to agree, but to some degree PD must be trying to incorporate roll center into the model, just really poorly. I dont think its a coincidence, but just a poorly implemented addition to the handling model. Anyways, hopefully PD sorts this out sooner than later, but im not holding my breath.
- 42
- Out of this world
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Actually no bickering, just some comments. All good. Yes read Hami's guide. Very interesting read.This is my first time on the forums and my first comment, all I'd like to say is this. I was hoping to find a little help with tuning as I don't have the first clue. Sadly what I find is what seems like two kids bickering!
- 42
- Out of this world
Actually no bickering, just some comments. All good. Yes read Hami's guide. Very interesting read.
Hope I didn't offend, killerjimbag, just my way of breaking the ice. Looks like doing a lot of homework to get up to speed on the whole tuning malarky
- 1,460
- England
Welcome to the madhouseThis is my first time on the forums and my first comment, all I'd like to say is this. I was hoping to find a little help with tuning as I don't have the first clue. Sadly what I find is what seems like two kids bickering!
Whilst many things in GT work as they should be expected to, there are a few things that seem a little odd, to say the least.
These exceptions tend to inspire deep and convoluted theory exchanges here at GTPlanet, you'll soon get used to what's what.
Hami's guide is a seriously good resource and pretty definitive, but the general tuning guide is an excellent place to start.
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
This is my first time on the forums and my first comment, all I'd like to say is this. I was hoping to find a little help with tuning as I don't have the first clue. Sadly what I find is what seems like two kids bickering!
My tuning guide is in my signature below. Feel free to ask questions in my garage. Welcome to GTPlanet.
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
I know I keep mentioning real life physics but the game has a similar set of rules applied to it, it has its own version of gravity/motion/weight etc. programmed into it and if we can discover which theories are represented regarding certain settings then we can work out how to use them.
Its not like PD just threw a bunch of numbers at a computer and somehow made a racing game, there will be pre-set equations running to define how a car performs. Most likely they've based their physics and modelling on basic Newtonian physics as to give an accurate and constant set of parameters for the model to work within. If we can isolate which particular equation is being used in this instance then we can better understand how to apply it.
Its just the same as any other tuning parameter in the game, its not 100% accurate but it is a representation of real world theoretical physics in action.
Its not like PD just threw a bunch of numbers at a computer and somehow made a racing game, there will be pre-set equations running to define how a car performs. Most likely they've based their physics and modelling on basic Newtonian physics as to give an accurate and constant set of parameters for the model to work within. If we can isolate which particular equation is being used in this instance then we can better understand how to apply it.
Its just the same as any other tuning parameter in the game, its not 100% accurate but it is a representation of real world theoretical physics in action.
- 1,804
- Pennsylvania
- dayofwar2009
- PSN#2 Roob_OG
A lot of times it's knowing who's advice to take hahaThanks, I keep a look out for cars that I'm interested in then I can ask for advice, it's just knowing who to ask at times. I really understand the difficulties of getting used to the game, I was just managing to with GT5 and then this came out
Definitely enjoyed yesterdays result, but that Gerrard kids a bit crap. who misses a pen? haha
a lot of people post incorrect thing very frequently.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Without actually seeing the code and what they did to model the physics of the game, it's going to be awfully hard to figure out what they did or did not do, I daresay impossible. It's doubly hard without a skidpad, telemetry, or even the Test Track Data from GT5. At best we can shoot arrows in the dark and hope we hit the mark.
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
The answer is a few pages back, simple physics involving Centre of Gravity and the Principal of Moments. That is all that is going on here, no witch craft or PD/Kaz trying to screw us over again, just a simple interpretation of high school physics by a game physics engine
- 42
- Out of this world
Thank you to all for the advice and the links to the guides, I'll be following them with great interest and hopefully may even see you all in a room from time to time (That's if you go in them).
- 905
- Bournemouth
- glenn_cullen
Anybody know if this has been fixed for 1.09? All the talk has been about the camber issue
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
I have just got done doing a few tests on this earlier this morning and so far from what I have seen, nothing has changed....still the same.
- 905
- Bournemouth
- glenn_cullen
I guess 1.09 won't be the end of physics tweaks then
- 2,623
- Pompey
- CyKosis1973
Hopefully you'll understand why I can't bring myself to hit the 'Like' button
Thanks for testing though...
{Cy}
- 291
- Oxfordshire
- Bread_45
Hi All,
A long while ago I wrote in this thread about rake appearing to affect the amount of camber you get at full steering lock. This afternoon (v1.09) I carried out the following test and here are the pictures.
S13 Q's Silvia, FC susp, camber and toe all 0, otherwise stock.
Set RH (F/R): 135/135, 155/75. 75/155
In each case I stopped the car, and moved steering to full lock. I used the replay camera to zoom in on the inside front wheel, moving in the external view mode as much as possible before entering the camera view mode, since moving then can change the alignment of the camera, and I wanted it to stay vertical. I moved from the view showing some wheel rim until the rim just disappeared behind the tyre, so I am hopefully focussing cleanly on the outside edge of the tyre.
GIMP was used to draw the green lines and measure the angle in degrees.
Front high 155/75: 5.79 deg
Level 135/135: 4.51 deg
Front low 75/155: 3.29 deg
I'm aware that this method may have possible errors, aligning the camera by eye. Looking at the light under the car it's clear that I wasn't always at the same height or zoom. If anyone else could prove/disprove me I'd be happy.
I also know that even if this is correct it doesn't necessarily mean the physics follow the visual representation.
EDIT: Outside camber pics below
So in summary, it looks like, for full lock, the max possible RH variations on this car could be varying camber by ~2.5 degrees. That's quite a bit! It is admittedly an extreme case, but even 1 degree difference in more sensible situations should be noticeable.
Something I would like to do but will struggle to find the time: get out my DFGT and take pictures like this for smaller steering increments, then plot a wheel angle vs camber graph. It should be possible to deduce what the caster is in this situation.
Also I don't know what happens when you do this test with static camber in the settings. My first thought is that it should add, so with 3 deg static front camber, the 6 deg outside front should become a massive 9 deg. But a lot of this depends on how PD have programmed things, and even whether the visual model is relevant to the physics underneath.
Even if we knew what the ideal camber angle was for a corner, with a lot of rake and soft springs (meaning the rake can change a lot upon the car transferring weight).... it would seem to be a nightmare working out what is actually best as the camber will be changing throughout the corner - you will likely not hit the "best" camber through much of the turn!
I echo @Motor City Hami 's calls for tyre temp profiles!
For anyone that is still reading, this is how I now set my front camber in GT6: The camber gain upon steering seems generous, and I think it is often too much, regardless of rake. You could easily gain 3 or 4 degrees through steering, and if your car is stiff and hasn't rolled much, or you are on low grip tyres which don't generate much cornering force and therefore not much body roll, you probably will want a low static camber. For default suspension settings (ARB and dampers set to 1 and default spring rates, zero toe and default RH), on CH tyres I honestly didn't feel that any front camber helped. On SS tyres I was up to using ~1.5 or 2 degrees, but many people would stiffen the suspension at this point so I was probably getting over-the-top body roll. A stiffer setup would presumably need less camber.
Also, since you gain a lot of camber with full lock, for tight turn tracks you will need even less camber since you'll be adding plenty with the steering. For high speed gentle cornered tracks, you won't be using as much steering lock so you might want to add a bit of camber.
I have noticed if you use too much front camber you'll have an increase in steering response but lack mid corner grip. I'm proposing that at the start of the turn the camber is spot on and the nose slices in eagerly.... but as you complete the turn in this will then become mid-turn understeer as you've now got too much camber.
A long while ago I wrote in this thread about rake appearing to affect the amount of camber you get at full steering lock. This afternoon (v1.09) I carried out the following test and here are the pictures.
S13 Q's Silvia, FC susp, camber and toe all 0, otherwise stock.
Set RH (F/R): 135/135, 155/75. 75/155
In each case I stopped the car, and moved steering to full lock. I used the replay camera to zoom in on the inside front wheel, moving in the external view mode as much as possible before entering the camera view mode, since moving then can change the alignment of the camera, and I wanted it to stay vertical. I moved from the view showing some wheel rim until the rim just disappeared behind the tyre, so I am hopefully focussing cleanly on the outside edge of the tyre.
GIMP was used to draw the green lines and measure the angle in degrees.
Front high 155/75: 5.79 deg
Level 135/135: 4.51 deg
Front low 75/155: 3.29 deg
I'm aware that this method may have possible errors, aligning the camera by eye. Looking at the light under the car it's clear that I wasn't always at the same height or zoom. If anyone else could prove/disprove me I'd be happy.
I also know that even if this is correct it doesn't necessarily mean the physics follow the visual representation.
EDIT: Outside camber pics below
So in summary, it looks like, for full lock, the max possible RH variations on this car could be varying camber by ~2.5 degrees. That's quite a bit! It is admittedly an extreme case, but even 1 degree difference in more sensible situations should be noticeable.
Something I would like to do but will struggle to find the time: get out my DFGT and take pictures like this for smaller steering increments, then plot a wheel angle vs camber graph. It should be possible to deduce what the caster is in this situation.
Also I don't know what happens when you do this test with static camber in the settings. My first thought is that it should add, so with 3 deg static front camber, the 6 deg outside front should become a massive 9 deg. But a lot of this depends on how PD have programmed things, and even whether the visual model is relevant to the physics underneath.
Even if we knew what the ideal camber angle was for a corner, with a lot of rake and soft springs (meaning the rake can change a lot upon the car transferring weight).... it would seem to be a nightmare working out what is actually best as the camber will be changing throughout the corner - you will likely not hit the "best" camber through much of the turn!
I echo @Motor City Hami 's calls for tyre temp profiles!
For anyone that is still reading, this is how I now set my front camber in GT6: The camber gain upon steering seems generous, and I think it is often too much, regardless of rake. You could easily gain 3 or 4 degrees through steering, and if your car is stiff and hasn't rolled much, or you are on low grip tyres which don't generate much cornering force and therefore not much body roll, you probably will want a low static camber. For default suspension settings (ARB and dampers set to 1 and default spring rates, zero toe and default RH), on CH tyres I honestly didn't feel that any front camber helped. On SS tyres I was up to using ~1.5 or 2 degrees, but many people would stiffen the suspension at this point so I was probably getting over-the-top body roll. A stiffer setup would presumably need less camber.
Also, since you gain a lot of camber with full lock, for tight turn tracks you will need even less camber since you'll be adding plenty with the steering. For high speed gentle cornered tracks, you won't be using as much steering lock so you might want to add a bit of camber.
I have noticed if you use too much front camber you'll have an increase in steering response but lack mid corner grip. I'm proposing that at the start of the turn the camber is spot on and the nose slices in eagerly.... but as you complete the turn in this will then become mid-turn understeer as you've now got too much camber.
Last edited:
- 291
- Oxfordshire
- Bread_45
@DolHaus
"Confirms my thoughts about reduced ride height giving less active camber gain"
Do you think this accounts for the "backwards" RH observations? In the camber theory thread I posted that I thought more front camber makes the nose turn in quicker, then understeer mid corner, since the camber gain upon steering eventually becomes too much after initial turn in. If my pics above are correct then this might happen even more, so with reverse rake (low rear) the initial turn in is brilliant. I've not tuned RH in ages so I'm not sure if reverse rake shows understeer at mid-late corner... I think I remember this being the case but it's been several months.
Perhaps the turn in effect of the caster/camber outweighs any "proper" RH effect from roll centres etc. If only PD gave us more telemetry and let us adjust caster!
"Confirms my thoughts about reduced ride height giving less active camber gain"
Do you think this accounts for the "backwards" RH observations? In the camber theory thread I posted that I thought more front camber makes the nose turn in quicker, then understeer mid corner, since the camber gain upon steering eventually becomes too much after initial turn in. If my pics above are correct then this might happen even more, so with reverse rake (low rear) the initial turn in is brilliant. I've not tuned RH in ages so I'm not sure if reverse rake shows understeer at mid-late corner... I think I remember this being the case but it's been several months.
Perhaps the turn in effect of the caster/camber outweighs any "proper" RH effect from roll centres etc. If only PD gave us more telemetry and let us adjust caster!
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
I'd be interested in seeing the effect on the outside wheel under the same test conditions as that is the important one.
I'm still fairly sure that the main ride height effect is just a case of moving the centre of gravity and not dependent on its effects on active camber gain. The centre of gravity is a much more dominant aspect of the physics compared to altering the contact patch, I'd expect the effects to be more varied if they were based on camber change. This said, it could lead to some interesting camber setups to cope with the massively different amounts of variance between the front and rear end as a result of using the ride height tricks.
- 903
- Tasmania
- RobUrabus
What you're seeing is correct.
as you change the ride-height and put more or less rake on the car you are inducing Caster. (the angle between the centre of the hub and the top of the strut.)
Caster angle influences "Dynamic Camber"
More caster gives more camber angle when you turn the wheels
Knowing the caster angle of each car (even if it's not adjustable) would help to know how much static camber to put on.
But I'd like to see your shots on the outside wheel, that's the important one
as you change the ride-height and put more or less rake on the car you are inducing Caster. (the angle between the centre of the hub and the top of the strut.)
Caster angle influences "Dynamic Camber"
More caster gives more camber angle when you turn the wheels
Knowing the caster angle of each car (even if it's not adjustable) would help to know how much static camber to put on.
But I'd like to see your shots on the outside wheel, that's the important one
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
What you're seeing is correct.
as you change the ride-height and put more or less rake on the car you are inducing Caster. (the angle between the centre of the hub and the top of the strut.)
Caster angle influences "Dynamic Camber"
More caster gives more camber angle when you turn the wheels
Knowing the caster angle of each car (even if it's not adjustable) would help to know how much static camber to put on.
But I'd like to see your shots on the outside wheel, that's the important one[/quote
Not this again.Camber is broken,yes you can make adjustments to camber,not to caster,therefor it does not exist.
- 52
- United Kingdom
- Damo-The-Don-420
Ive tested little on f/r differences on ride height , although i can say enough to agree its mostly 100% backward in terms of effect , but what i have noticed is any car that gets front adjustable ride height can be squeezed for a little more mph in back straights by raising the front almost as high as possible, only seems to be worth 6mph at the most
Sorry for lack of on topic contribution i will come back and post my findings once ive tested into this ride height issue a bit more
Keep up the good work fellas
Sorry for lack of on topic contribution i will come back and post my findings once ive tested into this ride height issue a bit more
Keep up the good work fellas
- 8,642
- London
- GTP_Stotty
Did you have the rear as low as possible too?
What was the gain as a percentage?
In GT5 (before it got patched), a high front low rear gave top speed gains as well as reducing understeer... the bigger the difference, the bigger the speed gain.
- 52
- United Kingdom
- Damo-The-Don-420
