stock tires not true-to-life?

[Bottoz]

Mitch, do you have the link to their ZR1 test?

 

[Scaff]

Humor was used, and predictable actions resulted!

Comparing staff (on any site bar those for Neo-Nazis) to Nazis does have predictable results and let me assure you its never seen as humour.

Now an end to that (and that does mean do not comment on it) and back on topic.



This kind of testing is a much better bet that lap times, as the single incidences are easy to test and subject to far fewer variables.

Looking at the track figures I would guess that the lat g figures are peak?

The biggest problem as far as lat-g figures go in GT5 is that the data logger is horrible for pulling out accurate figures as the scale on it is practically unmarked and given that ideally you would like to look at figures to two places of decimal its not accurate enough in my view.

As this shows its fine for looking at trends, but a bit rubbish for the detail and numbers.




However if we can pick a corner with a known radius and get the peak cornering speed then the lat-g can be calculated from that quite accurately.

 

[MOTORTRENDmitch]

Mitch, do you have the link to their ZR1 test?

I could go grab it for you, one second.

This has no lateral G test though, so let me look for another.


Laguna Seca Lap time


Finally found a Lateral G test..

 

[McClarenDesign]

If you want true to life- go to your local track.
If you want to be entertained- play GT5.

Seems simple to me, but I'm an idiot.

 

[Bottoz]

If you want true to life- go to your local track.
If you want to be entertained- play GT5.

Seems simple to me, but I'm an idiot.

Totally agree... this idiot was at the track all last weekend (see sig for video).

*edit* Cool Mitch... I'll try and look at those videos when I get home.

 

[MOTORTRENDmitch]

If you want true to life- go to your local track.
If you want to be entertained- play GT5.

Seems simple to me, but I'm an idiot.

Haha, couldn't have said it better myself..

 

[ROYALEFATALE]

the problem isn't the tires it's the lack of any real speed sensation, look at your speedo when you're spinning out i guarantee it's at least 50 or so which is highway speed in real life, but since there's no sense of how fast the car is going it's hard to get a good comparison to their real life counterparts.

 

[Scaff]

If you want true to life- go to your local track.
If you want to be entertained- play GT5.

Seems simple to me, but I'm an idiot.

True, but plenty of the members here have track time and an interest in seeing what is well recreated and what issues exists.

Then those that don't have track time can use the information to simulate (as much as is possible) what its like to be on the track.

the problem isn't the tires it's the lack of any real speed sensation, look at your speedo when you're spinning out i guarantee it's at least 50 or so which is highway speed in real life, but since there's no sense of how fast the car is going it's hard to get a good comparison to their real life counterparts.

Its actually both.

GT5 does have a poor sense of speed (but then a lot of tracks do also remove a lot of the sense of speed), however to say the tyres don't have problems is very wide of the mark.

The tyre modelling is arguably the single weakest area of the GT5 physics engine and has a number of issues, many of which testing of this nature has previously highlighted.

 

[McClarenDesign]

If you want a realistic sim, get a job in F1.

 

[MSTER232]

If you want a realistic sim, get a job in F1.

Interestingly, I want to be an F1 Driver .

 

[Scaff]

If you want a realistic sim, get a job in F1.

Define realistic and define sim.

I'd also love to know why you think its OK to spam the thread simply because it doesn't interest you.

Either contribute in a meaningful way or don't post, but the continued noise designed to start an argument will end.

 

[cuco33]

While not perfect... here is your refrence point. The Motor Trend's Best Drivers Car 2011.

Stock cars, around Laguna Seca with Randy Pobst. Use the GT-R, LFA, 458, Vette, Evora, SLS and R8. If your times are better than what Randy did, then you more than likely need to back the tires in GT5 down a notch or two to mimic the real life counterparts.

That's assuming Laguna Seca is modeled perfectly in GT5, and that car's parameters (especially the assumed ones we don't know about) are correct, and that the physics engine in GT5 is spot on (and you can even go another level by stating what game mode as the physics is different). In other words, LOTS of assumptions to equate lap times, and then you'd be 'dumbing down' the tire selection assuming GT5 does it 100% right across the board JUST to get the same lap time. Quite frankly, way too many variables...


I did a Laguna Seca, like for like, comparison in a RWD SRT8 Challenger, specs were the exact same in both GT5 and FM4, all realistic settings (ABS in GT5 set to 1 only, sim steering in FM4, no assists in both games). Ran a bunch of lap times on the game's default tires and then ran a bunch more lap times using the stickiest tires, so RS in GT5 and racing slicks in FM4 (did not change wheel's diameter nor width, just tire compound on stock wheel size). The lap times I got were a good 4 seconds or more difference in like for like and FM4 using racing slicks was harder, more realistic feeling, harder to regain control from a mishap, and had slower lap times (taking my absolute best lap times) than even GT5 using default SH tires. Yes, FM4 on race slicks was slower, harder, and more realistic feeling than GT5 on default SH tires! The most obvious difference in the 2 tracks was the main straight (not the only difference but most obvious). In GT5 I could hammer full throttle through the last 1st gear turn all the way to turn 1 without issue. Didn't matter where I took the line, full throttle and the car was pretty much stable and planted without issue. In FM4, just after the overpass, there is a nasty dip in the road which throws the car completely off balance if going full throttle or taking the not optimal line and making bigger steering adjustments. I had to let go of the throttle slightly and make very minor adjustments to the wheel, otherwise the car's weight would go bonkers and I'd be in the dirt in a heartbeat. BTW, I used my Fanatec CSR wheel + CSR Elite pedals, same settings, in both games.
Which one is right? No clue, I never drove this car, nor have I ever raced on Laguna Seca. If I were trying to match real world lap times, I would have to decide which game does it more realistic in terms of physics and car parameters & performance, as well as more realistically modeled track. It would be better to compare telemetry of real life vs in game.

 

[Bottoz]

I think Scaff is having a bad day.

Perhaps you could send PMs to those you feel are being argumentative. Instead of pubicly chastising and appearing as power hungry dictator, you could send the offending party messages behind the scenes. They'll be more receptive to your input, and you'll look more like a human. Win Win!

Interesting cuco33. I'd like to pick up an XBOX and test out similar cars and tracks. It's true that GT5s Laguna is different from FM4s Laguna. Could you take a 458 or a Z06 in FM4 and attempt to get the exact Motor Trend times? Then report back with the tires it took? That'd be cool!

 

[MOTORTRENDmitch]

Define realistic and define sim.

I'd also love to know why you think its OK to spam the thread simply because it doesn't interest you.

Either contribute in a meaningful way or don't post, but the continued noise designed to start an argument will end.

Realistic: Of or relating to the representation of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are



Simulation: Made in resemblance of or as a substitute for another. See Synonyms at artificial

 

[Scaff]

I think Scaff is having a bad day.

Perhaps you could send PMs to those you feel are being argumentative. Instead of pubicly chastising and appearing as power hungry dictator, you could send the offending party messages behind the scenes. They'll be more receptive to your input, and you'll look more like a human. Win Win!

I think you should refrain from commenting on moderation actions, because the next time you do will result in a two day vacation from GT Planet.

You have no idea of the moderation policies or tools here at GT Planet, you have no idea of the past conversations the staff may or may not have had with the member in question, and as such are in no position to get involved in how the situation is dealt with. Had I taken it to a PM it would have resulted in a formal infraction being issued against the member in question (based on past discussions), and would have put them a third of the way to a ban. So if I take your advice I will be sure to let the member in question know to thank you for intervening. A post in thread deals with the situation without that step needing to be taken, something you are not in a position to know and therefore not in a position to comment on.

I've tried to be polite with you and to be blunt its had no effect, so I will simply cite this part of the AUP....

You will, if asked by a representative of the forums, cease posting any content.

..because if you comment on the moderation actions of any member of staff here again, or attempt to intervene or undermine them you will be taken a holiday from the site.

Quite frankly I don't care how you believe I come across, what I care about is that the AUP is followed and the site runs smoothly and right now you seem to be heading on a path to undermine both of those aims.

Not a wise direction at all.

Read this take it on board and do not try and be smart in regard to your reply, because one is not required and will not be looked upon favourably.

 

[McClarenDesign]

Define realistic and define sim.

I'd also love to know why you think its OK to spam the thread simply because it doesn't interest you.

Either contribute in a meaningful way or don't post, but the continued noise designed to start an argument will end.

This is what I was referring to.

My intent wasn't to spam, just to point out that "realistic" expectations vary from person to person. For realism, the above F1 sim would be the way to go. Obviously not everyone can afford said simulator, so instead we go with GT5. GT5 isn't going to be nearly as realistic, but for the money, it's a bargain.

I understand being disappointed with the games shortcomings, but to expect F1 quality from a $60 game (approx.) and a $500 (approx.) console is, in my opinion, unrealistic.

 

[Scaff]

Realistic: Of or relating to the representation of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are



Simulation: Made in resemblance of or as a substitute for another. See Synonyms at artificial

Both of which could be applied to a whole range of titles, many of which would not even be commonly accepted as sims. PGR4 as an example meets both of those to a degree.

This is what I was referring to.

My intent wasn't to spam, just to point out that "realistic" expectations vary from person to person. For realism, the above F1 sim would be the way to go. Obviously not everyone can afford said simulator, so instead we go with GT5. GT5 isn't going to be nearly as realistic, but for the money, it's a bargain.

I understand being disappointed with the games shortcomings, but to expect F1 quality from a $60 game (approx.) and a $500 (approx.) console is, in my opinion, unrealistic.

Very true, but I don't see the issue with this as no one in this thread (and this is certainly true of myself) would consider GT5 even remotely close. Hell F1 teams would still rather take a car to the track, the only reason they don't is the strict limits on testing. The simulators are good, but still not good enough.

All realistic simulators sit on a sliding scale and I see no harm in discussing and investigating the rough position various titles sit on that scale. Doing so does mean anyone 'thinks' GT5 (or any other title) is the paragon of accuracy, but neither does it mean the conversation is not worth having, which seems to be what you are driving at.

 

[McClarenDesign]

All realistic simulators sit on a sliding scale and I see no harm in discussing and investigating the rough position various titles sit on that scale. Doing so does mean anyone 'thinks' GT5 (or any other title) is the paragon of accuracy, but neither does it mean the conversation is not worth having, which seems to be what you are driving at.

Agreed. My initial frustration was that I thought the thread was recently covered here, and figured we'd get the same arguments all over again. My intention wasn't to spark/stoke any fires.

Please accept my apologies.

 

[Scaff]

Agreed. My initial frustration was that I thought the thread was recently covered here, and figured we'd get the same arguments all over again. My intention wasn't to spark/stoke any fires.

Please accept my apologies.

No problem at all.

 

[Pupik]

And you reacted appropriately per the comment. Hey, maybe I'm German?

Hey, maybe I'm Jewish. If you think the Nazi comments don't go over well with Scaff, they are defiantly sure to get on my Hebrew National. That's the line. If you're going to overtake us, be clean about it.

Oh yeah, just a game. These guys at PD didn't test 1000+ actual cars with 10 types of tires for obvious reasons.

 

[iamjajo]

just a small observation.
here's an example

I just bought a new corvette ZR1, And it came with Sport/Hard tires.

turned TCS off (I presume it doesn't have any anyway )
... and have you tried driving a Zr1, TCS off, on S/H ?

Terrible.

So my conclusion, is that either Chevrolet does not care for it's customers,
or that in GT5, newly bought cars just don't wear the actual tires they use in real life.

it's a shame, really. I don't like stuffing all of my cars with R3. but rather, the tires it really uses in real life.

That car drives just fine for me on SH tires.

 

[Bottoz]

Hey, maybe I'm Jewish. If you think the Nazi comments don't go over well with Scaff, they are defiantly sure to get on my Hebrew National. That's the line...

To clear the air, I didn't call anyone a Nazi. All I did was say 'yes sir'. But, it's ironic that I might get banned for only telling the truth.

 

[Denilson]

Keep flexing your mod power over a little jab.

Anyways... what I said was...

I don't have the time to do extensive testing, but the Motor Trend data has corner entry MPH, Lateral G, Braking G and total lap time. Someone could use that data, and use GT5s lap analyzer to get similar statistics. If one were to recreate total lap time and match up the Gs, I'd say that the tire choice between game and real life would be close.

It's not perfect (wind resistance, barometric pressure, temp, fuel load), but it could be close.

How about this?

I've uploaded a spreadsheet with the recommended tires to Google Docs:

GT5 Stock Tire Recommendations


*************

In an effort to figure out what is going on with GT5's tire models and which tires should go on which cars, I decided to do some skidpad testing. I used the 2010 Camaro SS and the Corvette ZR1, since I'm familiar with those cars and actual data is readily available.

We don't have an actual 200' skidpad to calculate lateral g force with in GT5, but what we do have is a g "meter" and a datalog. For the values I came up with, I created a delineated scale and taped it under the HUD g-force bar graph, and also used a scale against the datalog graph during replays as verification. The measurements were taken on the widest part of the TGTT, by turning a continuous steady-speed circle after warming the tires. Lateral g force was recorded up to the point where the car started to skid and could no longer hold the established circle. I also ran laps "on the edge" to verify the numbers, and repeated all the tests twice. (Note that I rounded the numbers to the nearest .05, due to my screen resolution).

My setup is a racing simulator chassis with a G25 wheel, and a Sony 50" HDTV. I ran each test with no aids and a manual tranny in "bumper" cam. (I hate that inaccurate view name ).

First up was the Camaro, with comfort hard (CH) tires. I performed the test on each tire type, trying to be as consistent as possible. I only tested comfort and sport tires; once I got to the racing compounds the grip started getting ridiculous, and was beyond what I wanted to test with this setup.

Here are the numbers (Notice that each softer tire compound increases lateral acceleration by approximately .05g):

CH - .85
CM - .90
CS - .95
SH - 1.00
SM - 1.10
SS - 1.15

The real-life Camaro SS scores a 0.87 on R&T's skidpad test. So it would appear that CM tires would be closest to stock for the Camaro, based on lateral acceleration. (I'm going to the next higher number, just because ).

Now for the 'vette numbers:

CH - .85
CM - .90
CS - .95
SH - 1.05
SM - 1.10
SS - 1.15

Virtually identical as far as the lateral acceleration numbers for each tire type. The real-life ZR1 scores a 1.10 on R&T's skidpad, so it would appear that SM tires would be the best stock equivalents for it.

Note: Just for reference, RH lateral g values were around 1.25, and RS were around 1.35 with the ZR1.

Here's where it starts getting weird. The real-life Camaro comes equipped with Pirelli P Zero tires, and the ZR1 comes with Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 ZP tires. According to TireRack.com data sheets, both of these tires have identical speed rating (186+mph), tread wear (220), and traction rating (AA).

The only thing I can come up with to explain the unexpected test numbers is that the size of the contact patch is not figured into GT5's tire equations. In other words, to duplicate accurate lateral acceleration numbers for the ZR1, you have to use a softer tire compound to make up for the larger contact patch on the real-life car. (The 'vette has considerably more rubber on the road than the Camaro, especially in the rear).

So far it looks like each car would have to be tested independently to come up with the best GT5 tire type to simulate real life. I plan on doing some more as time permits, but it will be a slow process. First up will probably be one of the Ferrari's that come with the Pirelli P Zero's (599 I think?), so that we have a side-by-side comparison.

Thoughts?

*************

For those that are late to the party and want a quick summary:

My testing so far has revealed that the 9 tire types (CH, CM, CS, SH, SM, SS, RH, RM, RS) in GT5 form what appears to be a simple grip multiplier, with each tire type adding approximately .06g of lateral grip. The only thing that changes is where the scale starts for various cars. (i.e. for the ZR1, CH = .85g and for the '71 Cuda, CH = .80g). It also appears that the width of the tire is not being considered in the grip equations; for any specific tire type, the '02 Mini Cooper has the same amount of lateral grip as the '09 Corvette ZR1! And as softer tires are equipped, the amount of grip increases equally for both cars.

The implications of this are that in order to get close to IRL grip performance (based on lateral acceleration anyway), you have to equip different cars with different tires. As an example, just throwing sport mediums on all performance sports cars means nothing. One car may need CM tires to reproduce IRL performance numbers, while a very similar car may require SH tires.

Here are my "recommendations" for the cars I've tested so far (take it for what it's worth and do with it what will you will ).

Edit: See link at top

 

[Bottoz]

Ah yes I remember that thread. Lots of valuable information!

 

[Exorcet]

Denilson's quote is the thread I was talking about. I think that's a decent way of picking tires in GT5.

The comparison with MT's lap telemetry data would probably be better if we could compare it, but from my experience with GT's lap analyzer, there is no reliable way to compare the data. If you used the analyzer on a constant radius turn, you would just be using the max lateral grip, which is the same as the method outlined above.

 

[Bottoz]

Denilson's quote is the thread I was talking about. I think that's a decent way of picking tires in GT5.

The comparison with MT's lap telemetry data would probably be better if we could compare it, but from my experience with GT's lap analyzer, there is no reliable way to compare the data. If you used the analyzer on a constant radius turn, you would just be using the max lateral grip, which is the same as the method outlined above.

Yep/Agreed... I just took the time and ran some Laguna Seca laps. FWIW, I came within 1/2 a second of Randy's times in the GT-R on Comfort Soft. If GT5's data analyzer had graphs/numbers on the lateral and braking Gs, it would be a better tool.

 

[Denilson]

Yep/Agreed... I just took the time and ran some Laguna Seca laps. FWIW, I came within 1/2 a second of Randy's times in the GT-R on Comfort Soft. If GT5's data analyzer had graphs/numbers on the lateral and braking Gs, it would be a better tool.

Try to do it "The Dr Watson" way..

For those of you who don't know who he is, he's the PURE groups programmer. Deals with our site, forum and helps out with really good tests for cars to get them on par prior to a championship among other things.

What he did when he wanted to be as accurate as possible, was to transfer (in this case, he was testing tyre wear) the screen, and somehow (don't ask me how ) enlarged the screen on his stationary computer screen, enlarged the picture, and started to cound pixles. It seems to be really accurate.
Kind of the same thing as calan_cvc tryed to do in the quote I posted. But he just put a small tape in line with the g-force meter. Same principle, but not as exact.

 

[phil_75]

For the 3rd time. IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT IT IS AS CLOSE AS WE CAN GET.

Totally agree!

It might not be perfect but at least you know then that you are driving a car that is as close to real world in terms of time!

And all these people that think that because they drive cars on GT5 with no ABS on Comfort mediums are better drivers than those that use ABS and Racing tyres you are mistaken.

You are only better with no ABS on Comfort mediums on GT5! (Think about it....!)

www.fastestlaps.com Great site for getting cars as close to reality as possible in terms of time.

 

[Dodzzz]

I think many of GT5 users expect too much from this game..
With over 1000 cars, I don't think Gran Turismo will ever be an accurate simulator ever. It's more like a simulator of car behaviour in general.. and I think it will always be like that.
Unless PD wants to cut down the number of cars greatly and then focus on the true and accurate realism of each of the cars. (maybe we can only expect about 50 cars)

 

[Scaff]

To clear the air, I didn't call anyone a Nazi. All I did was say 'yes sir'. But, it's ironic that I might get banned for only telling the truth.

He's a member of staff - he knows exactly what you said as the staff can see deleted posts.

That you did it in German when referring to moderation has only one implication, I mean do you honestly believe you are the first down this route?

You have also been told not to continue this particular discussion and the penalty for failing to do so has been made quite clear. Something I would strongly recommend you think about during your two day time out.

You are not being banned for telling the truth (which you are still using an edited version of), you are getting a temp ban for repeatedly failing to follow the AUP and more worryingly for refusing to acknowledge that and undermining the staff on a regular basis.

See you in two days with what I hope is a significantly improved attitude.