- 8,642
- London
- GTP_Stotty
Ride Height Glitch Returns in GT6
- Thread starter Motor City Hami
- 186 comments
- 25,646 views
- 52
- United Kingdom
- Damo-The-Don-420
Couldnt tell you what my top speed was , this was found and tested at suzuka east back stretch was getting 161mph before ride height adjustment after was 167-169 , tested over 30 laps with normal ride height and then 30 with the front high back low
hope this helps
hope this helps
- 291
- Oxfordshire
- Bread_45
That's interesting. I mucked around with RH and aero on SSRX with the N24 GTR once. I can't remember what I saw with top speeds, but one thing I do recall is that with high-ish downforce settings (held constant), altering front and rear RH made a difference in over and understeer. This curiously worked the "correct" way, so a high front made steering more vague and the car understeered, high rear made it very loose. I'm not sure if this will work on any car, or whether you need aero parts of some type on a car to provoke this effect (does the N24 have a default flat floor modelled?!). The handling effect was clearly visible to me on the banked corners and also snaking from side to side on the straights.
If RH aerodynamically affects handling correctly, but mechanically it is the wrong way around... could make for some "interesting" transitions from high to low speed handling!
I will try to get some outside wheel pics done but am away from my PS3 for a few days so it might be next week.
Cheers,
Bread
- 451
I did some top speed tests on Route X early in the game. I didn't find rake to make much/any difference to straight line speed on street cars but once I fitted flat floors or used race cars with flat floor fitted as standard, the difference was quite marked.
It concurred with above, high front/low rear was fastest, then low front/high rear a little quicker than level ride height. The caveat was, of course, fitting flat floors reduced straight line speed so much it was pointless fitting them.
This was back in ver 1.1 or 1.2 so things may have changed.
It concurred with above, high front/low rear was fastest, then low front/high rear a little quicker than level ride height. The caveat was, of course, fitting flat floors reduced straight line speed so much it was pointless fitting them.
This was back in ver 1.1 or 1.2 so things may have changed.
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
- 451
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
Are you running a rear wing?
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
- 1,485
- Hampshire
- Lionheart2113
That's odd. I'm running flat floor, no wing and it stays on the ground. But I only have 5 between my ride heights.
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
Interesting. I've had a wing on from the start and I've never managed to keep the front wheels on the ground going over the rise. Would you mind taking the wing off and seeing if it makes a difference?
- 472
- France
- poumpoumk
Thank you all for this thread !!
I was trying to do my first tune last weekend and the ride height began to drive me crazy ! So with a nose up, the car has more oversteer (the PD definition is the opposite...)
I was wondering if when we play with the ride height, we modify the spring parameter. It could explain why with a nose up (softer spring ?) the car has more oversteer ?
Good job @bread82, I really would like to know if this is just visual or if the game physics manage it like real camber. Even if it's the case, I don't think it is enough for all the oversteer we get. I drove this car all weekend and I tried a lot of things, even camber with high parameters but I've never had a lot of oversteer like I have when I play with ride height.
I was trying to do my first tune last weekend and the ride height began to drive me crazy ! So with a nose up, the car has more oversteer (the PD definition is the opposite...)
I was wondering if when we play with the ride height, we modify the spring parameter. It could explain why with a nose up (softer spring ?) the car has more oversteer ?
Good job @bread82, I really would like to know if this is just visual or if the game physics manage it like real camber. Even if it's the case, I don't think it is enough for all the oversteer we get. I drove this car all weekend and I tried a lot of things, even camber with high parameters but I've never had a lot of oversteer like I have when I play with ride height.
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Is it a Red Bull car. It gives you wings. Lol
- 8,642
- London
- GTP_Stotty
We went through this discussion in GT5, and people tried to find convoluted reasons why this wasn't an error in the physics engine, but was some weird combination of aero effect and suspension settings. It was an hilarious discussion as the reasons became more and more obtuse 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those of you still trying to figure out why PD designed the game such that:
lower front ride height = more understeer
lower rear ride height = more oversteer
Which seems contrary to most people's understanding of suspension tuning.
I suggest you read this article written by Mike Kojima (a respected suspension and race car engineer who is experienced in setting up many cars including formula drift cars): http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArtic...in-the-Geometry-Part-One-The-Roll-Center.aspx
Read it carefully and multiple times (I had to read it 5+ times before I could fully wrap my head around the concept. I've read all his other articles and this one was by far the most difficult to grasp). Pay particular attention to the concept of "geometric anti-roll". Then you will understand that there is NO ride height glitch and that the game is designed correctly (albeit the ingame description is incorrect).
TL
R version:
Increased weight transfer due to higher front/rear ride height is negligible.
What is important is the increased geometric anti-roll as a result of reduced ride height:
lower ride height = shorter roll couple = more geometric anti-roll = more weight transfer = reduced grip
higher ride height = longer roll couple = less geometric anti-roll = less weight transfer = more grip
lower front ride height = more understeer
lower rear ride height = more oversteer
Which seems contrary to most people's understanding of suspension tuning.
I suggest you read this article written by Mike Kojima (a respected suspension and race car engineer who is experienced in setting up many cars including formula drift cars): http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArtic...in-the-Geometry-Part-One-The-Roll-Center.aspx
Read it carefully and multiple times (I had to read it 5+ times before I could fully wrap my head around the concept. I've read all his other articles and this one was by far the most difficult to grasp). Pay particular attention to the concept of "geometric anti-roll". Then you will understand that there is NO ride height glitch and that the game is designed correctly (albeit the ingame description is incorrect).
TL
R version:Increased weight transfer due to higher front/rear ride height is negligible.
What is important is the increased geometric anti-roll as a result of reduced ride height:
lower ride height = shorter roll couple = more geometric anti-roll = more weight transfer = reduced grip
higher ride height = longer roll couple = less geometric anti-roll = less weight transfer = more grip
Last edited:
TorqueWrench
(Banned)
- 210
- United States
- tqwrench21
Good point bringing geometric weight transfer into the discussion.
Tottal weight transfer consist of geometric WT, and elastic WT, when manimuplating the 2 that the total consist of, don't forget the tottal is still key
I say this because on the surface it appears as though your saying lowering ride height increases weight transfer, it does not. It increases elastic WT vs geometric WT when the two form the Tottal WT. Raising ride height still increase tottal weight transfer that is split into elastic WT and geometric WT.
Its important to note that the geometric WT is much decided by suspension geometry and thus will vary from car to car.
Tottal weight transfer consist of geometric WT, and elastic WT, when manimuplating the 2 that the total consist of, don't forget the tottal is still key
I say this because on the surface it appears as though your saying lowering ride height increases weight transfer, it does not. It increases elastic WT vs geometric WT when the two form the Tottal WT. Raising ride height still increase tottal weight transfer that is split into elastic WT and geometric WT.
Its important to note that the geometric WT is much decided by suspension geometry and thus will vary from car to car.
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
These are the most relevant words in that entire post. How can we believe that PD programmed the function correctly but completely missed on the in-game description? Would seem really, really easy to change the in-game description in any of the many mini-updates. Instead, we got a physics adjustment with update 1.09 that really didn't change much.
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
It is weird that the description says the opposite, you'd think someone would have noticed by now
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
- 12,637
- paracuru
- praiano63
This is just incroyable....On another note, I think I was just duped into responding to Jack?That was the guy's first post on GTP.
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
Maradona has really let himself goThis is just incroyable....
On another note, I think I was just duped into responding to Jack?
TorqueWrench
(Banned)
- 210
- United States
- tqwrench21
What happened to the topic?
What does a fat beer drinking slob named Jack have to do with the ride height debate
What does a fat beer drinking slob named Jack have to do with the ride height debate
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
Is there really any debate left? Raise the front, lower the rear and most cars turn better. All the rest is just people trying to sound smart about real world tuning and how PD could have programmed it this way purposefully (yet wrote the opposite in the in-game description).
Last edited:
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
The glitch is in the matrix I only used it for visual purpose and on some cars, the effect actually fit right in - Lexus ISF ( road car ), ISF CCSR and one of the Mustang are few of good example, so PD must have known about it 
I only used it for visual purpose and on some cars, the effect actually fit right in - Lexus ISF ( road car ), ISF CCSR and one of the Mustang are few of good example, so PD must have known about it
TorqueWrench
(Banned)
- 210
- United States
- tqwrench21
The glitch is in the matrix
I always start visually setting my ride height, and use the spring dampers and suspension settings to make the new ride height work. If I change ride height, my springs dampers and suspension settings need to be adjusted for the new ride height.
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
This is what I also do since I am on 1.09, camber values, ARB, and damper stiffness often needs adjustments when raising or lowering the car, especially if rake is involved
- 156
- United Kingdom
This.
Forza, Gran Turismo, iRacing, they all claim to be realistic simulations yet they all feel completely different, and respond to tuning completely differently.
Sometimes you have to just accept the quirks of a sim's physics model rather than go mad trying to understand it!
Until some good evidence is provided, there will be debate. Even then, there still will be debate.
332i
(Banned)
- 855
- Morocco
- yadeegson
Ok, so we no it generates a fair amount of lift. The past couple cars that I setup, I did one click down in the rear. So say...70/69 as an example. I got more rear traction. So, I wonder if PD has the rear wrong as well, and lowering the rear below the 70/70 midpoint of the chassis creates a vacuum? When it should really be the other way around? With a lower nose and higher rear, a greater vacuum should be in effect. There is a larger opening to draw air from out under the chassis.
Another thing I just thought of...I wonder if effect of raising the nose and higher top speed makes the car more aerodynamic with PDs friction modelling. Raising the nose of a car would essentially allow the air the pass over the top of it easier, but as you've shown...air gets under and creates lift. Which is right...but, just not all of it I guess. IRL, raising the noise to decrease drag off the windshield and such would be far outweighed by negatives of lift, which doesn't seem to be the case. A normal road creates gnerally has a small amount of lift up front at high speed. So..you would think that even if the rotation helps at high in gt6 from raising the nose, the lift should also decrease traction through high speed corners and that doesn't seem to be the case. I like attempting to decipher this stuff haha.
BTW, the 97T becomes 1mph faster with the nose up to any extent in relation to the rear. That's it. Must be a difference in fluid dynamic modelling or response between road cars and race cars.
Last edited:
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
The post that you quoted had nothing to do with ride height. There was a question specifically about flat floors. When I added flat floors, my car flew, nose high at the end of the tunnel straight on Trial Mountain. Before adding flat floors, the car did not fly there. The ride height of that car actually only ended up a small amount higher in the front. https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/motor-city-tunes-gt6.291066/page-16#post-9871069
I really don't care why ride height works the way it does. I just need to know what it does when I move the setting one way or the other.
