TCV1 Discussion Thread

[Leonidae@MFT]

200bhp? We'd be playing bingo and getting pensions by the time lap would be finished..

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Indeed, I'd call those limits a bit too extreme.

But then, if we're going to make it a proper Tuner Challenge, they shouldn't be strictly necessary. If someone wants to run a Caterham in RWD, they can go right ahead. 900hp Aventador in AWD? Sure. But judges would be looking at improvement over default settings rather than how fast a car is versus the other entries... So if you've got the fastest car by default but didn't manage to make it much better, you're not going to benefit from having a fast car. At the same time, if you've got a car that's nearly undrivable in stock form but you've made it amazing, you'll get big points.

 

[CyKosis1973]

Sorry folks, I wasn't suggesting that 200bhp should be the limit, it was just a arbitrary number I typed. My point was merely to restrict cars based on power, weight and drivetrain, rather than PP...

{Cy}

 

[Motor City Hami]

When I read this thread, my first thought, "take a chance... enter the Yellow Bird."

 

[XDesperado67]

Okay there have been a number of ideas floated out here, how about we start getting down to brass tacs and figuring out exactly what the setup is going to be.

From reading through it looks like there is a lot of support for setting up divisions based on drive layout.

So have the following main divisions.
FF
FR (which would include MR and RR)
4WD

Then it looks like people are leaning towards running a HP and Weight restriction for this first event instead of a PP limit.

How does 345HP maximum sound?
This allows a very large selection of cars offering a good variety of engine tuning options, even if we severely limit the use of the power limiter, while providing some fairly fast cars.

For weight I don't see why we need a different minimum for each class but how does FF=850kg, FR=900KG, and 4WD=950kg sound if we do use different minimum weights.
Again these weights allow for a larger selection of base cars without necessarily having to resort to huge amounts of ballast. Also these weights with the HP I proposed should make for some fairly good performing cars.

Last thing would be what cars to exclude. From reading earlier posts it looks like Race cars (and yes Rally cars are considered race cars) RM cars and Concept cars would be excluded (might consider a 4th division just for them:idea while tuner cars would be allowed.
Something to think about would be allowing concept cars on a case by case bases determined by if the car actually entered production in a form that is fairly close to the concept car, so for example the Audi Pikes Peak would be allowed as it entered production and was sold as the Q7 I believe, while the Cadillac Cien would not be allowed as it never entered production in any form.

Looking forward to hearing peoples thoughts on these ideas and moving this along towards actually starting the event.

 

[CyKosis1973]

👍👍 from me xDee...

{Cy}

 

[VTiRoj]

I think if you're going to ban one concept, then all of them should be banned. There are a lot of cases where the concept version of certain cars are much faster than the production version and going through each concept car one by one is going to suck a bit of fun out of the contest. For example: Audi Le Mans vs. Audi R8, Toyota FT-86 vs Toyota GT86, Honda NSX-R Concept vs. Honda NSX-R, etc.

Of course, you could always have a concepts-only division.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I think the only concepts we should allow would be those that entered production pretty much exactly as they're shown in "concept" form.

Mazdaspeed6/Mazdaspeed Atenza for example; the "concept" IS the production car.

 

[VTiRoj]

Or that, yeah.

Would cars like the NSX-R Concept be allowed then? Or just cars that don't have a production model in-game like the MS6?

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Or that, yeah.

Would cars like the NSX-R Concept be allowed then? Or just cars that don't have a production model in-game like the MS6?

I'd go for the latter.

Then again... I can't remember anything other than the MS6 that is concept-only form but very, very close to the production vehicle.

 

[XDesperado67]

I'd go for the latter.

Then again... I can't remember anything other than the MS6 that is concept-only form but very, very close to the production vehicle.

Not positive but think the Audi Pikes Peak is very close to the Q7 allthough I'm pretty sure it can be tuned well beyond what any sane person would do to a Q7.

Correction the Q7 offered the same 4.2L FSI engine as was in the Pikes Peak. Also another reason to love Audi's engineers and hate their marketing people...
Q7 V12 TDI (2008-)

The engine was based on the diesel technology from Audi R10 TDI race car, but with larger displacement. The engine was rated at 500 PS (370 kW; 490 hp) and 1,000 N·m (740 lb·ft), making it the only twelve-cylinder diesel engine used in any passenger car. It has 0–100 km/h acceleration of 5.5 seconds. The Q7 V12 TDI according to Audi is the best handling Q7 due to a revised suspension, tires and brakes. Audi claims the Q7 V12 TDI can handle a lateral inclination of over .9 g's on a 300-foot (91 m) skid-pad. [14]

The concept vehicle originally appeared at the 2006 Paris Motor Show.

Originally, Audi announced to build a version for the US market using diesel engines jointly developed with Volkswagen and Mercedes under the label "Bluetec". [15] Audi was later reported to not be bringing the Q7 V12 TDI to the US market.

 

[DigitalBaka]

After some thinking, I don't believe we need restrictions other than the drivetrain division. As has been said it is not a competition against others primarily but to see who can improve a car, any car, the most.

If you wanted restrictions maybe go with max tuning versus removable only or something. Bringing PP or HP and weight into it just makes this exactly like the other events where everyone is out to find the best car for the numbers.

 

[VTiRoj]

That's why you balance the points system and give extra praise to people who actually improve a car's handling characteristics and not those who picked the cheese car just to get the best lap times.

 

[XDesperado67]

That's why you balance the points system and give extra praise to people who actually improve a car's handling characteristics and not those who picked the cheese car just to get the best lap times.

Pikes Peak "Bergmeister" taking on the sports cars at Laguna Seca or SSR "Spooky" chasing the pack of S2000s and Miatas at Autumn Ring!

Any chance we'll be getting this rolling in the near future?

 

[VTiRoj]

Pikes Peak "Bergmeister" taking on the sports cars at Laguna Seca or SSR "Spooky" chasing the pack of S2000s and Miatas at Autumn Ring!

Any chance we'll be getting this rolling in the near future?

Exactly. TCv1 encourages cars like Spooky, where the improvement over stock is massive. 👍

After we've settled all the details, yes. Are we having a mini-TCv1 or are we just going straight for the big one? We still need to decide how points are allocated, what divisions we're going for and if we're going for the dual-physics thing.

 

[XDesperado67]

Looks like we're pretty well set with having 3 main divisions based on drivetrain.

Why don't we make this first one (for GT5) just one type of drivetrain so that A) we can work out any kinks in the system without dealing with huge quantities of entries in multiple divisions, B) it will give those of us new to this format a feel for how it works while again limiting the number of cars needing tuned and tested, C) it will accomplish A and B in a more timely manner than running a full up one would.

As for scoring, since apparently test drivers will be free to test on the track/s of their choice lap times become largely irrelevant. So perhaps you award say 1/4 of total points for the cars based on their improved speed over stock. Award say 1/2 total points for improved handling over stock. And 1/4 total points based on the intangibles like how enjoyable it is to drive, looks, uniqueness etc.

Have say 20 total points available with the test driver using their own discretion on how to break any potential ties, then listing the cars from 1st to last. The 1st to last rankings for all test drivers would be used to determine overall placement in the event by using the average rankings for all test drivers.

Just an idea...go ahead and shoot it full of holes now.

 

[VTiRoj]

Lap times can be scored. Lets say that Praiano takes his judging of the RWD division to Grand Valley Speedway. He can give the fastest car 10 points, then the second fastest gets 9, then for every 2 seconds slower, he can deduct another point. If it was a shorter track like Trial Mountain, you can make it 1 second per point and at super short tracks like Autumn Ring Mini, 0.5 seconds per point.

2:00 - 10 pts
2:01 - 9 pts
2:02 - 9 pts
2:03 - 8 pts
2:04 - 8 pts
2:05 - 7 pts
etc
etc
2:15 - 2 pts

Scoring is going to be out of 50 or 100, giving 10 or 20 points to each category (lap time, improvement over stock, etc).

 

[XDesperado67]

Lap times can be scored. Lets say that Praiano takes his judging of the RWD division to Grand Valley Speedway. He can give the fastest car 10 points, then the second fastest gets 9, then for every 2 seconds slower, he can deduct another point. If it was a shorter track like Trial Mountain, you can make it 1 second per point and at super short tracks like Autumn Ring Mini, 0.5 seconds per point.

2:00 - 10 pts
2:01 - 9 pts
2:02 - 9 pts
2:03 - 8 pts
2:04 - 8 pts
2:05 - 7 pts
etc
etc
2:15 - 2 pts

Scoring is going to be out of 50 or 100, giving 10 or 20 points to each category (lap time, improvement over stock, etc).

Okay but this means your going to want to keep the percentage of the total points based on lap times fairly low because otherwise it becomes a case of just using the fastest available car/s. Look at what happened in my Tons of Fun. Yes the cars in the final round were very good tunes but the lap times are what got most of them there and played a big part in determining final winner. If we go with just a drivetrain as the only restriction then everyone will be fielding Vipers, ZR1s, Enzo's and the like for a RWD division to get those lap time points if it is to big a part of the overall score. Keeping its importance down will help encourage people to find other cars that may be slower but have possibilities elsewhere. A Maxi 5 Turbo won't be nearly as fast but if the scoring is done right a killer tune for it might get it the win.

 

[VTiRoj]

Of course. So you give 10 points to lap time, 10 to improvement over stock, 20 to handling and handling feel, 10 to driver enjoyment and whatever else you can think of that should be in the scoring sheet. Lap times will be 10-15% of the overall score.

 

[Onboy123]

Sounds like fun, but I have no real contribution here, though just saying…

WHEN IZ TCV1/MINI-TCV1 HERE?!?! I iz anticipating itz arrival very much already!

 

[XDesperado67]

Sounds like fun, but I have no real contribution here, though just saying…

WHEN IZ TCV1/MINI-TCV1 HERE?!?! I iz anticipating itz arrival very much already!

It's here whenever we can all decide exactly what its going to be apparently...

I've just been throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks!

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Well I'm sorta thinking about doing up the "Mini".

For it, two ways we can go if we want to keep it from making testers want to gouge their eyes out:

1. One class. Tire restriction (S3), no drivetrain restriction, has to be production based and street-legal.

2. Split that into two tire restrictions under the same rules with one extra; a given tuner can only enter one class or the other.

Thoughts?

 

[VTiRoj]

#2 for sure. It makes more sense for the purpose of the contest, that is to introduce the concept of this competition to anyone who wasn't fortunate enough to be a part of the GT4 tuning scene when it was alive.

 

[nomis3613]

This TCV sounds like a great idea to me. I'm very keen on joining the mini-TCV version to test the waters.

fastest car 10 points, then the second fastest gets 9, then for every 2 seconds slower, he can deduct another point.

Roj, I really like your idea of scoring based on seconds behind pole, it's a lot fairer than losing an extra point just because the test driver nailed a lap 0.003 seconds faster in the other car.

Power limiter needs to be decided. On one hand, allowing it means a greater range of cars entered. On the other hand, if the theme for TCV1 is "old skool", that means no power limiter.

 

[VTiRoj]

Ba-bump.

As far as power limiting and ballast goes, 5% on the power limiter seems fair. Ballast I think shouldn't have any restriction in place. We never put a restriction on it in GT4 and adding 200kg to a normal car will only make it worse anyway, but some cars do need a lot of ballast to aid with grip (My Little Yellowbird: Oversteer Is Magic).

 

[sean10mm]

I really like the sound of this. My recommendation is offline all the way because it removes a lot of potential technical difficulties and general nuisances.

I also like not just being scored 90% on lap times because I'm somehow a big dummy about picking the fastest base car for an event.

 

[VTiRoj]

VTiRoj casts Revive on Thread.
Thread is revived!
VTiRoj casts Post Reply on Thread.

It's been a month so I think it's time to get the Mini-TCv1 started. I'll volunteer myself as the organizer and get started on a post.

VTiRoj awaits response from Thread.

 

[XDesperado67]

I can't drive 55!

Let's git er dun.👍👍

 

[krenkme]

I'm an idiot.
.
.
.
.system is thinking
.
.
.
.
You're Valkyrie is dying.
.
.
.
.
I'm in (even though I'm not sure how this works.)

 

[VTiRoj]

Don't worry, I'll answer any questions you have.

Also how does no limits on ABS sound to everyone? ABS: 1 is by far the quickest setting, but for those who don't mind sacrificing 10 points for a car that works without ABS, this would be an ideal chance to get those ABS: 0 tunes some exposure.