Ride Height Glitch Returns in GT6

[332i]

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 was actually even at that point in tuning.

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.

Ok...well, im sorry you really dont care. You want to know about ride height and it effects (as do I), but you seem more concerned with me quoting the wrong post by mistake and even though I addressed what you want to learn...but like I said, quoted the wrong post. You had a lot of posts ITT, I must have clicked the wrong reply. My mistake I guess. I also pondered the ride height issue and it's affects in my post, because I am curious as well. Just shared my experience on what ride height has done for me and that I want to know more. Shouldn't have mentioned it apparently. The less info the better, right? Good luck figuring it out. Guess I'll ponder it with someone else and learn. I'll make sure to not quote you again or add my experiences in the tuning forum again. I don't expect you to care about that either, though. Just like you don't care why ride height does what it does as said.

Geez.

 

[killerjimbag]

Wow! Can someone please close this.

 

[Lionheart2113]

I don't think it needs to be closed. Just don't need the drama. I agree with @Motor City Hami in regards to not caring if there is any real world relation with these settings. At the end of the day, it is a video game! The real driving simulator?!?! I don't think so, that is my opinion, and I have my reasons. This game is riddled with flaws when it comes to real world physics, so I'm not concerned with the "why" but more so in the "what". If I lower the rear it does "X" if I raise the rear it does "Y". When I tune a car I go through every setting up/down and see what it does because I don't trust the game.
Like @MrGrado stated earlier, if there is proof to be displayed, then that would be great. And I believe that is what we are all looking for.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Ok...well, im sorry you really dont care. You want to know about ride height and it effects (as do I), but you seem more concerned with me quoting the wrong post by mistake and even though I addressed what you want to learn...but like I said, quoted the wrong post. You had a lot of posts ITT, I must have clicked the wrong reply. My mistake I guess. I also pondered the ride height issue and it's affects in my post, because I am curious as well. Just shared my experience on what ride height has done for me and that I want to know more. Shouldn't have mentioned it apparently. The less info the better, right? Good luck figuring it out. Guess I'll ponder it with someone else and learn. I'll make sure to not quote you again or add my experiences in the tuning forum again. I don't expect you to care about that either, though. Just like you don't care why ride height does what it does as said.

Geez.

Sorry that you got your panties into a twist over me stating my opinion. You can talk real world theories all you want, I'm just not interested in that part of the discussion. I think you are being a slight bit over sensitive. It's not like I attacked you. I just clarified what my original post was about and stated my opinion about the game. I got no beef with you.

 

[bread82]

An update - caster angle in GT6 (not adjustable - except IMO through rake)?

Above in post #140 Ride Height Glitch Returns in GT6

I showed some pictures of camber changing with steering. IRL this would be due to caster and kingpin axis inclination. We don't know these parameters in GT6, other than (if you agree with my expt above), knowing that camber increases with steering angle and that rake can affect how this happens.

However I recently found an equation online http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1248235 for the relationship of camber gain, caster and steering angle. It is:

camber gain = caster angle * (sin steering angle)

Note that when I use this, a negative camber gain gives a negative caster angle. Positive caster is what is generally used on cars to give more neg camber when steering, so there should probably be a minus sign in the equation i.e.

camber gain = - caster angle * (sin steering angle)

Now, with my photos above, taking the level ride height case for simplicity 0 static camber, I have neg cambers of -4.51 and -5.05 deg. For simplicity, lets just use -5 deg. I've not yet measured full lock angle on the Silvia, but I'd imagine it's ~ 45 deg (these assumptions don't affect the end caster number much - easily checkable in Excel etc)

rearranging to make caster the subject:

caster angle = - (camber gain/(sin steering angle)

caster angle = -( -5 deg / sin (45 deg))

caster angle = -( -5 deg * 0.7) = 7.07 degrees

Now, people may well be asking
i) How do you know this is correct?
ii) What about kingpin axis inclination?
iii) Even if this is true, what does it mean for GT6 tuning?

i) I don't for sure, as I didn't code GT6, but.
http://forums.nicoclub.com/s13-caster-adjustment-t506755.html IRL 7 deg caster stock... close enough.

ii) I don't know if KPI is modelled in GT6. But a guy called SiNiST3R who I believe has some history at GTP has (on other sites) mentioned things about preset caster in the game. There is mention on other sites of caster but not KPI as far as I know. So maybe KPI is not modelled?! I don't know. Just to be clear, I am not taking any sides in what seems to be a feud. I'll happily read everyone's theories and try to make my own mind up. I'm sure many of the regs here will know where to look if interested as I have seen some GTP user names on other sites too.

iii) Well what it means is that, presumably some cars gain more camber when steering than others (as not all cars have the same inbuilt caster). *IF* my method is correct it would allow someone to estimate caster by using GIMP to take camber angles when steering like I did. Then you could estimate camber gain at various different steering angles.

Depending on how you like to use camber this might help you choose initial camber settings. I have recently tried running forward rake to reduce the caster and thus gain less camber, since I think the outside front wheel is often cambered too much on very tight corners (lots of steering lock, lots of camber gain) and washes out. So I'm adding a little static camber to begin with, but trying to gain less. On shallow turn tracks with long sweepers the effect will presumably be less, but on Autumn ring, GT arena, perhaps Eiger, where you have to use more steering lock (or handbrake!) it might make a difference. I still need to test this properly.

My gut feeling is that the ride height bug gives good turn in with reverse rake due to extra caster. Perhaps there is another way? It would be interesting to see what the pros and cons are of each.

And PD, if you ever read this, if caster is indeed in your game, please give us an adjustment slider for it in an update!

Cheers,

Bread

 

[killerjimbag]

An update - caster angle in GT6 (not adjustable - except IMO through rake)?

Above in post #140 Ride Height Glitch Returns in GT6

I showed some pictures of camber changing with steering. IRL this would be due to caster and kingpin axis inclination. We don't know these parameters in GT6, other than (if you agree with my expt above), knowing that camber increases with steering angle and that rake can affect how this happens.

However I recently found an equation online http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1248235 for the relationship of camber gain, caster and steering angle. It is:

camber gain = caster angle * (sin steering angle)

Note that when I use this, a negative camber gain gives a negative caster angle. Positive caster is what is generally used on cars to give more neg camber when steering, so there should probably be a minus sign in the equation i.e.

camber gain = - caster angle * (sin steering angle)

Now, with my photos above, taking the level ride height case for simplicity 0 static camber, I have neg cambers of -4.51 and -5.05 deg. For simplicity, lets just use -5 deg. I've not yet measured full lock angle on the Silvia, but I'd imagine it's ~ 45 deg (these assumptions don't affect the end caster number much - easily checkable in Excel etc)

rearranging to make caster the subject:

caster angle = - (camber gain/(sin steering angle)

caster angle = -( -5 deg / sin (45 deg))

caster angle = -( -5 deg * 0.7) = 7.07 degrees

Now, people may well be asking
i) How do you know this is correct?
ii) What about kingpin axis inclination?
iii) Even if this is true, what does it mean for GT6 tuning?

i) I don't for sure, as I didn't code GT6, but.
http://forums.nicoclub.com/s13-caster-adjustment-t506755.html IRL 7 deg caster stock... close enough.

ii) I don't know if KPI is modelled in GT6. But a guy called SiNiST3R who I believe has some history at GTP has (on other sites) mentioned things about preset caster in the game. There is mention on other sites of caster but not KPI as far as I know. So maybe KPI is not modelled?! I don't know. Just to be clear, I am not taking any sides in what seems to be a feud. I'll happily read everyone's theories and try to make my own mind up. I'm sure many of the regs here will know where to look if interested as I have seen some GTP user names on other sites too.

iii) Well what it means is that, presumably some cars gain more camber when steering than others (as not all cars have the same inbuilt caster). *IF* my method is correct it would allow someone to estimate caster by using GIMP to take camber angles when steering like I did. Then you could estimate camber gain at various different steering angles.

Depending on how you like to use camber this might help you choose initial camber settings. I have recently tried running forward rake to reduce the caster and thus gain less camber, since I think the outside front wheel is often cambered too much on very tight corners (lots of steering lock, lots of camber gain) and washes out. So I'm adding a little static camber to begin with, but trying to gain less. On shallow turn tracks with long sweepers the effect will presumably be less, but on Autumn ring, GT arena, perhaps Eiger, where you have to use more steering lock (or handbrake!) it might make a difference. I still need to test this properly.

My gut feeling is that the ride height bug gives good turn in with reverse rake due to extra caster. Perhaps there is another way? It would be interesting to see what the pros and cons are of each.

And PD, if you ever read this, if caster is indeed in your game, please give us an adjustment slider for it in an update!

Cheers,

Bread

Uhm I thought this was dead,but since its back up,I stated the same thing in the camber thread when the game came out. Nothing new.

 

[whitepanther65]

I have found that indeed in gt6 raising the front ride height causes a sharper turn in corner entry. I'm not sure it's a glitch, though. One reason could be a modification of the caster angle, as suggested by bread82. I think there's another possibility. For under/oversteer, the roll resistance is given not only by suspensions stiffness, but also by the relationship betwwen the center of gravity and the roll center. It could well be, imo, that you raise the front ride height but at the same time you reduce the distance between front roll center and center of gravity. Then, oversteer insues.